Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2011-12-07TOWN OF TIBURON Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Council Tiburon Town Hall December 7, 2011 1.505 Tiburon. Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 7:30 p.m. Closed Session - 7:00 p.m. AGENDA TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION - (7:00 p.m.) Section 54956.9(c) Decision whether to initiate litigation - One Claim CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Collins, Councilmember O'Donnell, Vice Mayor Fraser, Mayor Slavitz ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this time. Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future Town Council meeting agenda. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes. INTRODUCTION OF NEW TOWN EMPLOYEE • Police Officer, Jill Cingolani CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Town Council unless a request is made by a member of the Town Council, public or staff to remove an item for separate discussion and consideration. If you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item, please seek recognition by the Mayor and do so at this time. 1. Town Council Minutes -Adopt Minutes of November 16, 2011 Meeting (Town. Clerk Crane Iacopi) 2. Town Council Minutes - Request to amend August 31, 2011 Minutes (Councilmember Fredericks/Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 3. Annual Appointments List - Adopt Annual List of Appointments made by Town Council in 2011 pursuant to state law (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) .4. Easements at 5 and 9 Main Street - Consider adoption of resolutions abandoning portions of easements and releasing restrictions on property located at 5 and 9 Main Street pursuant to a recorded agreement between the Town and the Abrams and Zelinsky Family associated with the Ferry Access Improvement Project (Director of Community Development Anderson) 5. Storm Drain Cleaning Project - Recommendation to accept the 2011 Storm Drain Cleaning Project and authorize the filing of the Notice of Completion for the work (Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen) ACTION ITEM - SWEARING IN AND REORGANIZATION OF TOWN COUNCIL 1. Recognition of Outgoing Mayor -The Council will bid farewell to Mayor Slavitz. 2. Oath of Office - The Town Clerk will administer the oath of office to appointed Council members Richard Collins and Frank Doyle and they will take their seats at the dais. 3. Election of Mayor - Vice Mayor Fraser will take the Chair to receive nominations for the Office of Mayor and conduct the election. 4. Election of Vice Mayor - The Mayor-elect will conduct the election of Vice Mayor. 5. Town Council Comments - The Council may share any additional comments at this time. TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digest - November 18, 2011 • Town Council Weekly Digest - November 25, 2011 • Town Council Weekly Digest - December 2, 2011 ADJOURNMENT - Please note: The December 21, 2011 re§dar meeting will be cancelled; Town Hall will be closed from December 23, 2011 through Jantrary2, 2012. GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435- 7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing at the public counter located at Tiburon Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall (1501 Tiburon Boulevard) during normal business hours prior to the Council meeting. In addition, agendas, minutes and staff reports are posted on the Town's website, www.ci.tiburon.ca.us. Any documents produced by the Town and distributed to a majority of the Town Council regarding any item on this agenda, including agenda-related documents produced by the Town after distribution of the agenda packet 72 hours in advance of the Council meeting, will be available for public inspection at Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon CA 94920. Closed session and privileged documents are not subject to these requirements. Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the meeting. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above address. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s). TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda, it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items appearing on the Town Council agenda. 1 t Mickey Rooney tells Senate he's victim of elder abuse By Alex Brandon, AP Mickey Rooney was angry and emotional as he asked a Senate committee in Washington on Wednesday to crack down on elder abuse. The go-year-old Rooney told the Senate Special Committee on Aging that he was abused by a family member who took control of his life, and described feeling "scared, disappointed, yes, and angry-it He did not name the family member, but Rooney has a restraining order keeping his stepson, Chris Aber, away from him until an April 5 court hearing, reports AP. "You can't believe that it's happening to you," Rooney said. "You feel overwhelmed." Shouting from the witness table, Rooney said, "I'm asking you to stop this elderly abuse. I mean to stop it. Now. Not tomorrow, not next month, but now!" Ann Oldenburg Rooney has accused Aber in court filings of withholding food and medicine and meddling in his personal finances. "Chris is verbally abusive toward Mickey," the court ailing states. "He yells and screams at Mickey. He threatens, intimidates, bullies, and harasses Mickey. He is effectively a prisoner in his own home." Aber has denied the claims. "For years I suffered silently. I didn't want to tell anybody. I couldn't muster the courage, and you have to have courage," Rooney said Wednesday. "I needed help and I knew I needed it. Even when I tried to speak up, I was told to shut up and be quiet." Rooney's eighth and current wife, Jan Chamberlin, is the mother of Aber. Long Beach 8:01 am I A Long Beach woman who worked as a caretaker for an elderly woman whom she swindled out of millions of dollars was sentenced to four years in state prison Friday. Li Ching Liu was convicted earlier this month of elder abuse via forgery and fraud after she stole the life savings of the 74-year-old stroke victim for whom she provided in-home care, Liu also faced a special circumstance charge of stealing more than $1 million, but the jury that convicted her did not find her guilty of the allegation based on the lack of a paper trail to prove it. Prosecutors contend, however, that Liu stole more than $4 million from the victim. Long Beach Superior Court Judge Arthur Jean handed down the maximum four-year sentence begrudgingly, stating that Liu was lucky to be sentenced to just four years. Had the jury been able to convict her of the enhancement, she would have faced a much steeper sentence. Liu turned herself in to police in 2010, two years after police issued a warrant for her arrest. She spent that time evading police at large The PT reported that Long Beach Police Department Detective Stacey Holdredge said the case is one she will likely never forget due to how "egregious" Liu's crimes were. The victim, who had amassed a small fortune through wise investments and business decisions, hired Liu in 2002 after suffering a stroke that left her in need of 24-hour care, the detective reportedly said. Over the next six years, Liu emptied the victim's bank accounts by writing checks and depositing them in 63 different accounts at six different banks. Upon being hired, Liu soon began to isolate the victim, who had been very social with extended family and friends, keeping her out of contact with her loved ones and the team of financial professionals the woman had previously employed, Holdredge reportedly said. Liu even forced the elderly woman to sell a valuable strip mall she owned in Westminster, the PT reported. She used neglect and physical abuse to get the victim to comply, sometimes even withholding food from the victim. Holdredge told the PT that Liu laundered more than $4 million before the banks noticed the suspicious activity and contacted the authorities. She used the money to satisfy a gambling problem as well as purchase large amounts of jewelry, a Porsche SUV, a home for Liu and her boyfriend in Temple City, a BMW for Liu's son and college tuition at USC. Both Liu's boyfriend and son were arrested when the warrants were initially served and had already been tried and convicted of financial elder abuse. The victim died before Liu's trial began, according to the PT. - C-C. ~ CALL TO ORDER TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES Mayor Slavitz c e regu ar g of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesda , November 16, 2011, i Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, Cali ia. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Slavitz Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Administrative Services Bigall, Director of Community Development Anderson, Planning Manager Watrous, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen, Police Captain Hutton, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi Prior to the regular meeting, the Council met to conduct interviews, at 7:00 p.m., as follows: INTERVIEWS (Planning Commission Vacancy - one pending vacancy) • Rick Waterman, 36 Southridge West • Patrick McNerney, 1691 Mar West • Kam Shadan, 38 Reed Ranch Road ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. PRESENTATIONS • Sanitary District No. 5 Update - Board Vice President Catharine Benediktsson Vice President Benediktsson gave the report. She said that the district was in the midst of 12 million dollar main plant rehabilitation and that the board had gone to bond to fund the project. Plant Manager Lynch detailed the components of the rehabilitation and how it would improve the process with new, more efficient equipment. Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page I r~R,~Fr In response to questions from Collins and O'Donnell, Ms. Benediktsson said that the project would be paid off through residential and commercial rate increases previously adopted by the district. Collins asked if a sinking fund had been established to deal with ongoing capital improvements over the next 20 years. Lynch said that it had, but that in reality it was only good for about five years. Ms. Benediktsson said that the construction was estimated to begin in August of 2012 and run for 12 months. Councilmember O'Donnell noted that this was during the upcoming America's Cup. Benediktsson thanked Councilmember O'Donnell for noting this and said the district would be mindful of it in their planning. Manager Lynch said that the district was accelerating the construction schedule but that most of the work was being done on equipment inside the building and that there would be very little equipment on the street. Council thanked the district representatives for their report. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of November 2, 2011 Regular Meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) Councilmember Fredericks said that she had submitted some changes to the Town Clerk. MOTION: To adopt minutes, as amended. Moved: Collins, seconded by Fraser Vote: AYES: Unanimous ACTION ITEMS 1. 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 - Item continued without discussion from November 2, 2011 Planning Manager Watrous gave an update and overview, as detailed in the written staff report. He recommended that if the Council found Alternative 6 to be acceptable that certain actions should be taken or, the Council could ask for more detailed plans and new story poles and continue the meeting to a date certain. Applicant Ariel Rabin gave a brief presentation. He said that the project had been refined five times and that at the August 31 meeting, Council had given direction that it sought more refinements, thereby resulting in Alternative 6. Rabin said that in this alternative, home size had Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page 2 been reduced and houses had been moved around on the lots, resulting in submerged, nearly invisible structures. He said that a total of 8,000 square feet of above ground square footage had been removed from the plan. Mr. Rabin said that a typical submerged home in the Alta Robles development would average 4,200 square feet above grade, and that overall the project would preserve 76% of the land as open space. He noted that this would be the lowest density project in the town's history. Clay Clement, attorney representing the Rabin family, said that the family had gone to extraordinary efforts to comply with the General Plan and that the application (Alternative 6) should be approved with no further density reduction. He said that staff had recommended first reading of an ordinance to set the density of the project in its report. Mr. Clement said that he agreed with this recommendation and noted that the Council could then come back and review the particular [house] designs so that they would know the project would be constructed properly. He also recommended that the Residential Use Areas (RUAs) shown on the plans be approved as is; he said that the Council could prohibit residences being built in the RUAs but that it should not limit landscaping features, and the like, at this stage of the process which would best be left to the Design Review Board. Architect Kao reviewed the revised plans (Alternative 6) and highlighted the reductions in mass, bulk and height to some of the proposed structures. He showed some photos of the Acacia Drive area where homes are three and four stories above grade; he compared the Rabin proposal with this type of development and showed how much less intrusive visually it would be. Kao also said that the secondary ridges had been mapped, along with plant species, since the last meeting. He said that CSW Stuber-Stroh had double-checked their work where minor boundary adjustments had been made. During this part of the presentation, Mr. Kao took comments and answered questions from Council. Councilmember Fredericks said she couldn't figure out what the changes meant in totality. She said she would like to see story poles for the revised structures. She also expressed concerns about structures in the RUA and asked whether state law would allow the town to regulate placement of secondary dwelling units in the RUAs. Planning Manager Watrous said that part of the precise development process was to determine what could go in those areas. Fredericks asked if there was a possibility that direction could be given to place secondary dwelling units in the least constrained part of the lot. Watrous said that state law prohibited this but that the Council could say whether the structure was attached or detached, and to place it over here or over there. He said there was no blanket statement that allowed the Council to say, for instance, "don't place it on a ridge," without a blanket prohibition. Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page 3 Councilmember Fredericks asked whether the building footprints included garages. Planning Manager Watrous said that they did. She also asked which lots would have (RUAs) located on the ridgelines. Planning Manager said that while it was difficult to tell precisely from the provided map, it appeared that Lots 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 did. Mayor Slavitz noted that at the last meeting, the Council had asked the applicant to place the proposed houses in the white areas of the lots. He asked if Lot 8 in Alternative 6 complied with this direction. Planning Manager Watrous said that in general, the intrusions [of the relocated Lot 8 house] were into the oak areas but not in protected areas (such as wetlands) or sensitive species (such as grassland) areas, on the site. He said that the Town wanted to protect the oak woodlands but that these trees had not been identified as a threatened or endangered species; also, that a mitigation measure was in place to plant replacement trees. Mayor Slavitz asked if any homes on the other lots intruded into the woodlands [as a result of the latest changes]. Watrous said that Lots 5 and 6 came into the trees; Lots 9 and 13 did so slightly, as did Lots 2 and 3. Councilmember Collins asked about the issues raised in a late mail letter from Botanist Eva Buxton. Planning Manager Watrous said that the applicant had answered the questions raised in her letter at the last meeting. He also said that some of the information in her letter was incorrect. Director Anderson said it was his understanding that the biological surveys referenced by Mrs. Buxton identified additional sensitive species in open space areas outside of RUAs. Councilmember Collins said he wanted the RUAs staked so he could see where they were; he also expressed concern about how the revised plan would affect the tree removal list and proposed that a new list be developed reflecting Alternative 6. Collins agreed with Councilmember Fredericks that it would be best to address the RUA issue before moving forward. Mayor Slavitz concurred, as did Vice Mayor Fraser. Councilmember O'Donnell said he was ready to move forward with Alternate 6. In fact, he said he had been ready to approve Alternative 5, however, he said that some of the changes in Alternative 6 made for an even better project. Mayor Slavitz re-opened the public hearing for comment on Alternative 6. • Julian G, Redwood High student, asked if any new roads would have to be built over the property. (Watrous said that one new private roadway would come off Paradise Drive, however, no roads would cross the Tiburon ridge or lesser ridges). • Doug Currens, Hacienda Drive, said that the Rabins kept meeting the bar set by the Council and that he had seen very few architects who could do what Mr. Kao was doing; Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page 4 he recommended moving the process along as quickly as possible; he said that he would be proud to claim this project as a neighbor. • Sandra Swanson, Seafirth Estates, said that the applicant did not show the visual impacts of the project on the 30 homes in Seafirth; she said that the relocated homes could result in more tree loss and asked for specific data on this; noted that maximum density did not represent entitlement, and that on such a highly constrained site the maximum density could not be justified. • Joannie Pratt, Reed Ranch Road, said that the Rabin project was a striking model of environmental sensitivity and would be unique in the town, county and state. Ms. Pratt said that a majority of the neighbors and local people supported the plan which exceeded most if not all of the Council and Town's guidelines; she said that this compliance should be rewarded and that to delay the project further called into question the integrity and efficacy of government. • Norm Traeger, neighbor contiguous with the Rabin property, said he did not want to look at the Acacia/Gilmartin Drive-type houses, and asked the Council not to drive this development out the door for all the wrong reasons. He referenced other project approvals in the County that far exceeded the square footage of the Rabin project; he said the Council had done its diligence in saving the endangered and sensitive species and asked the Council to "just give us neighbors a shot" by approving the project. • Randy Greenberg, Norman Way, asked the Council not to take the next steps until new story poles were erected to see where the houses had been moved and their impacts on views, etc. She also asked for tree loss data. She said that Lot 13 still loomed at the edge of the property; she said that stepped down or not, 7,000 square feet was still a massive house size and that these houses would not be hidden, rather, they would comprise a "glowing hillside" at night. • Varda Rabin, applicant, said that being "invisible" was not a Town requirement; • Tyler Brown, Redwood High student, said that the beautiful homes in Kao's plan added aesthetic value and would be interesting to look at. • Dr. Maurice Zucker, Paradise Drive, said he had followed some of the proceedings and was impressed by the accountability and oversight of the Council; he commended the Council but asked when "enough was enough"; said that the bar was being raised continually and asked what was the intention of that, conscious or unconscious [he noted that he was a psychiatrist]. • Phil Richardson, Greenwood Beach Road, said he was struck by the question of density; he asked what had happened in the Town that only 14 homes were being considered on 52 acres while just over the ridge, there were approximately 250 on the same acreage. • Attorney Clay Clements said that the family needed to know, one way or another, if 14 units was a "go" before anymore money was spent on the project. Mayor Slavitz closed the public hearing. Staff recommended that the Council consider holding first reading of the prezoning ordinance and then deal with the RUA and other issues during the precise development plan discussion. Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page 5 Councilmember Fredericks said that it felt like giving a tentative approval for 14 units through prezoning would paint the Council into a corner if they want to reduce the number of homes later. She said that she was not prepared to make those decisions without more information. She said that she would like to see residential use areas moved off the ridges, especially on lots contiguous to open spaces, or require any secondary uses to be moved away from those areas, or reduce the height of improvements or locate them on the least sensitive part of the area. However, she said that she was encouraged by the progress made in Alternative 6. Fredericks said that the applicant had not counted square footage as the Town reports it, so she would like to see what the total square footage [of the houses] was as counted by the Town. She said that it might be necessary to reduce the square footage of the homes on Lot Nos. 5 and 6 to 4,500 square feet or increase the contiguity of the open space for those lots in order to be compatible as viewed from the Middle Ridge area. She noted that the houses in the Seafirth, Norman, Acacia and Hacienda neighborhoods were all smaller than what it proposed, but she added that the sensitivity of the applicant's designs might make larger square footages possible. In addition, Fredericks said it would be useful to have more information on how the changes (in Alternative 6) would impact grading and traffic. She noted that projects approved by the County should not be used as a precedent for approval of this project. Fredericks said that she grappled with the idea that the lots would be sold over time and the original designs would be lost; she noted that history had shown that it was possible to change a precise development plan. Vice Mayor Fraser also acknowledged the responsiveness of the applicants to the Council's suggestions. He said that process was very encouraging; he said that new story poles were a good idea and that it was important to "get the language right" for the RUAs in any approval to avoid having secondary buildings on the ridge. He said that the road to Lot Nos. 9, 10 and 11 seemed to be on the spine of a secondary ridge and asked whether someone could address that issue. Fraser said that architect Kao had done a spectacular job in the home designs, while considering all aspects of the property and the environment. He also said that Mr. Kao had paid attention to the Council's advice regarding mass and bulk. He wondered if the Council moved forward with the prezoning whether it was setting themselves up for a problem or backing themselves into a corner. Councilmember Collins said that it would be more costly to the applicant to design homes based on the prezoning ordinance than if the Council was first able to look at the story poles for the revised lots (in Alternative 6). He said he would like to see the RUAs staked and be able to analyze the impacts on trees from the homes that had been moved in Alternative 6. Collins complimented the applicant on the beautiful home designs and reduced roof heights, and that the story poles will help the Council evaluate the changes. He said that he still had questions about Lot No. 13, and even though it had been reduced he wondered whether it would still be a looming presence and whether there might be an alternative possible. He said that the applicant had come a long way. Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page 6 Councilmember O'Donnell said that he had liked the project for a long time and had been ready to approve it prior to Alternative 5. But he said that reducing the size and footprints of the particular homes in this alternative [6] also worked very well.. He complimented the applicant on the environmental sensitivity and beauty of the project, as well as the respect shown to the Town's General Plan and process. O'Donnell agreed that it was important to find out more about the specifics of the RUAs, but said that it could be done during the design review process. He asked the Council not to hold up the applicants any further on this issue. O'Donnell also agreed with Councilmember Fredericks that it would be useful to understand how the square footage of the houses was counted since the. Town guidelines do not count underground [below-grade] square footage in the floor area. O'Donnell said that the remarkable architecture and design of the project was a double-edged sword in considering neighborhood compatibility. He said that he believed the Rabins would do everything in their power to keep these beautiful standards. He said that the specific changes made in Alternative 6 were excellent, including pulling homes off the ridgelines, splitting Lots 5 and 6, and a particularly excellent design for Lot S. He said that he can support the application for Alternative 61 but still needed language to tie in the house designs, defining floor area and how the RUAs will be handled. Mayor Slavitz agreed that the application was improved in Alternative 6 but he said that in the 30 years since approval of the Acacia Drive neighborhood, the Town had adopted a new General Plan and had learned a lot in the process. He said that Alta Robles was located in an environmentally sensitive area and some of the land could not be developed. He said that it was important to "do it right" and at the same time acknowledged that the applicants had made great headway. Slavitz said that the RUA issue was important; that it would not snake sense for the Council to prohibit houses being built on the ridge and then allow a patio, fence or pool in that area. He said it was important to send a clear message to the Design Review Board on this issue, but this should be defined by the Council. Mayor Slavitz said that the Rabins were asking for a commitment to approve 14 lots too soon; that Lot Nos. 8 and 13 were sticking points last time and that the Council did not want to send the message that 14 units were acceptable, if there is a need to reduce units later. He said that the goal of the hearing tonight was to see if the latest alternative was worth considering and putting up story poles [for further review]. He said that it was worth seeing more detailed plans. He said that he liked the smaller house sizes on Lot Nos. 5, 6 and 12, which were more along the lines of what the Planning Commission had recommended, but the homes on Lots 5 and 6 might still need to be smaller, per the Commission's recommendations. Councilmember Collins agreed that it would be difficult to approve anything until the new lot lines were staked. He said he still thought some of the homes might be too large. He asked staff to clarify the next steps for the Council. Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page 7 Director of Community Development Anderson said that the first reading of the prezoning ordinance committed the Council to nothing. He said that the.prezoning action applied only to the SODA property and that the actual density of the project would be determined in the Precise Development Plan approval. He said that the Planning Commission had recommended adoption of the prezoning ordinance which would set the maximum density at .4 units per acre (8 lots), with no further subdivision permitted. He said that the applicant's proposed seven units on the SODA property would equate to a maximum density of .34 units per acre; he recommended that the Council approve that figure for first reading in order to move forward. Councilmember Fredericks asked what the value of prezoning was at this juncture. Mayor Slavitz said that not passing first reading of the ordinance would only delay the process two weeks; he again stated that he did not want to send the wrong message. Vice Mayor Fraser said that the applicant had shown earnestness and responsiveness and that adoption of the prezoning ordinance would send a cooperative signal to the applicant and not obligate the Town Council. Fraser said that he and Councilmember O'Donnell were serving on the Planning Commission during the first presentation of the project. He said that each step taken by the applicant had been progressive and that he would not be uncomfortable with adoption of the prezoning ordinance at this juncture. Councilmember Collins noted that the ordinance included Lot Nos. 9, 10, 11, 121 13, 14 and 8 on the Soda property and did not pertain to the "upper reaches" of the project. However, he said that he did not understand the practical effect to the applicant of approving the prezoning tonight. Town Attorney Danforth said that passing first reading of the prezoning ordinance did not obligate the Council to adopt the ordinance in its current form. She also explained that there was enough flexibility in the ordinance that if the Council so desired, it could lower the number of units in the Precise Development Plan even after adopting the prezoning ordinance. She said that no one was proposing that the Council adopt a precise development plan tonight. Councilmember Collins asked if changes were made to the prezoning ordinance after first reading, would a new public hearing be required. Staff said that the ordinance could be amended after first reading, and would not take effect until 30 days after adoption [second reading]. Staff reiterated that the ordinance only set forth a maximum density on the property, not a specific number of units. Attorney Clement agreed with staff s assessment. He said that the applicant wanted to know, by way of Council passing first reading of the prezoning ordinance, that a maximum of 14 units was not "impossible"-and if it was, to let the applicant know tonight. Vice Mayor Fraser said that it appeared the sides were getting "hung up" on a number. He said that acting on the prezoning ordinance was not the same thing as saying the number of units was okay. Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page 8 Attorney Clement said that the applicant was not "taking it as a commitment" but that the Council's reluctance to take a step that didn't bind it to anything made his clients nervous. Mayor Slavitz responded that the reverse was true for the Council. . Daniel Rabin said that acting on the ordinance would send a message that "you are working with us" to reach a conclusion; that it was an act of good faith to move the process forward. He said that not adopting first reading of the ordinance was "worrisome". Town Attorney Danforth said that the ordinance was limited and would not draw lot lines nor promise a number of lots; she said that it set an "up to" maximum number, not a minimum. She repeated there were no irrevocable commitments in the ordinance. Councilmember Fredericks commented that establishing a maximum density was often used to "beat us [the Council] over the head that we're not giving applicants what they're entitled to." She said she did not have enough specific information to consider the prezoning ordinance. Councilmember O'Donnell stated that there was more than enough specific information presented; he said that the only thing not specific was the staking of the new RUAs. He said that the Council had been rigorous in its requests and that it was now important to send a message of cooperation to the applicant that the parties would continue to work together to resolve any differences. Vice Mayor Fraser agreed, and said that passing first reading of the prezoning ordinance and approving a maximum density did not guarantee a number of units. Councilmember Fredericks said that she wanted to see more specific outcomes, for instance, to see whether moving Lot Nos. 5 and 6 met the Town goal to create more open space between those lots and also to see the effects of the changes to Lot 13. She said there would probably be a positive outcome of this review but there was no saving of time in approving the prezoning ordinance tonight. Councilmember O'Donnell gave examples of the kind of changes made by the applicants, for instance, reducing the height of the home on Lot 6 from 24 feet to 16 feet, as well as the square footage; he said these revisions changed the visibility of the homes dramatically. O'Donnell commented that this meeting may have been a waste of time for the applicant. Mayor Slavitz said that the goal of the meeting had been for the applicant to come back with a new conceptual design and see what the Council thought. He said the Council had agreed that the applicant was moving in the right direction. He said to the applicant, "you're pretty much there and we want to see the story poles." But he also said that he did not understand the rush to introduce the prezoning ordinance. Daniel Rabin said that it would shorten the process for the family, and save additional time and expense. Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page 9 Councilmember Fredericks made a motion, which was seconded by Councilmember Collins, to adopt Staff recommendation No. 2 (in the staff report) asking the applicant to do certain things and continuing the item to a date certain. This motion passed,. with Councilmember O'Donnell voting against it. The specific actions requested of the applicant were: --new story poles for revised lots only --staking of the RUAs for revised lots only --new list of trees set for removal as a result of the latest revisions --larger scale drawings to make lot lines and RUA limits more legible The Rabins and their attorney said that they needed to know tonight whether they might be allowed to have 14 lots on 52 acres, and said that they might go in a different direction f the Council did not introduce and pass first reading of the prezoning ordinance. They also said they were simply tired of making changes, then being asked to make more, with no guarantee of an approval. They said the costs to the family were emotional as well as financial. Councilmember Collins reminded the applicants that the Council had shown good faith moving forward with their application, with all the lots intact, after the Planning Commission wanted to reduce the number of lots by four. He said the Council had asked the Rabins to "see what they could do" to address the Council's concerns; he praised them for being responsive to Council's comments, suggestions and direction to date. MOTION: To read the prezoning ordinance by title only. Moved: Fraser, seconded by O'Donnell Councilmember Collins asked if a paragraph could be added to create an understanding that the approval was not approval of a number of units. Town Attorney Danforth said that it could be noted in the record and also could be included in the findings. Director Anderson noted that the language in Section 2 of the ordinance would state that a maximum density would not exceed 0.34 dwelling units per acre. Vote: AYES: Collins, Fraser, O'Donnell, Slavitz NOES: Fredericks Mayor Slavitz read, "An ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Prezoning Unincorporated Territory (Soda Property) in the Paradise Drive Portion of the Tiburon Planning Area - Assessor Parcel Number 039-301-01." MOTION: To pass first reading of ordinance, as amended. Vote: AYES: Collins, Fraser, O'Donnell NOES: Fredericks, Slavitz Due to the impending holidays, Council continued the matter to January 18, 2012. Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page 10 2. CalPERS Side Funds - Consider recommendation to retire both the Local Safety and Miscellaneous Employee's Side Funds (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) Director Bigall gave the report. She explained that in 2003, Ca1PERS required all employers with less than 100 employees to be placed into risk pools. She said that the Town had no option to decline participation in the risk pools, and on June 30, 2003, the Town was placed into the Miscellaneous 2% @ 55 plan pool and the Local Safety 3% @ 55 plan pool. Bigall said that upon being placed in the respective pools, Ca1PERS no longer calculated the Town's individual unfunded actuarial liability. On June 30, 2003, she said the Town's unfunded actuarial liability for each plan was replaced with a debt to the pool referred to as a Side Fund Liability. Bigall said the Side Fund Liabilities are amortized over a specified number of years determined by Ca1PERS. The Side Fund Liabilities are credited each year with CalPERS' investment return assumption of 7.75%. The Director said that essentially, the Town is financing its Side Fund Liabilities through Ca1PERS at an interest rate of 7.75%. After recently closing the books on the fiscal year, Bigall said, Staff met with the Town's Finance subcommittee and recommended paying off this liability from unallocated reserves. The money would then be reapplied to the General Fund reserves. Bigall said this recommendation was also consistent with the MCCMC Pension Reform Committee's recommendation for towns and cities to pay off or refinance these liabilities. Director Bigall noted that some other cities had gone to bond or borrowed money to pay off the side funds. Mayor Slavitz asked why the Town had not done this sooner. Director Bigall said this had been considered by the Town in 2003, however, since the Town was receiving a more favorable interest rate at that time, no action was taken. Councilmember O'Donnell, the Town's representative to the MCCMC Pension Reform committee, gave some historical background and perspective on this and other CAIPERS' actions. Council raised other questions as to how the action might affect the general fund reserves and whether the saved interest should be placed in a fund to be used toward future unfunded retirement liabilities. The Town Manager said that these and other policy questions could be discussed in more detail by the Council. In any event, she said that paying off this liability was a money-saving opportunity for the Town. MOTION: To pay off the Side Funds as recommended. Moved: Collins, seconded by O'Donnell Vote: AYES: Unanimous Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page 11 TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS None. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT None. WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digest -November 4, 2011 • Town Council Weekly Digest -November 11, 2011 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Slavitz adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page 12 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 Town Council Meeting December 7, 2011 Agenda Item: Request by Town Councilmember to Amend Previously Adopted Minutes At the November 16 meeting, Councilmember Fredericks made a motion to amend the draft minutes of the Council's November 2nd meeting as set forth in her email to the Town Clerk earlier on the 16th. The Council passed the motion and adopted the minutes as amended on the Consent Calendar.. Upon further review, the Town Clerk discovered that the amendments described in Councilmember Fredericks' November 16th email were for the August 31, 2011 Town Council minutes, an excerpt of which was included in the November 16 packet as an exhibit to the Alta Robles staff report. Councilmember Fredericks has verified that her intention had been to amend the August 31" minutes. Under Robert's Rules of Order (9th edition, 1990), the Council may amend previously adopted minutes by motion. Under the present circumstances, the Council may approve the motion by majority vote. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council make the following motions as part of adopting the December 7 Consent Calendar: 1. Move to amend the draft minutes of the November 16 meeting (on tonight's Consent Calendar) to reflect that the Consent Calendar was adopted, as originally included in the Council packet; 2. Conduct a discussion, if necessary of the proposed amendments to the August 31, 2011 Town Council minutes (pull the item from Consent Calendar); 3. Move to adopt the August 31, 2011 Town Council minutes, as amended by Councilmember Fredericks. *Source: Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, Yh Edition (Scott Foresman, 1990) TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 Exhibits: 1) Email from Councilmember Fredericks with proposed amendments to the August 31, 2011 Town Council Minutes 2) Adopted Minutes of the August 31, 2011 Town Council Meeting 3) Draft Minutes of the August 31, 2011 Town Council Meeting, with proposed amendments to pages 11 and 14 Prepared By: Diane Crane Iacopi, Town Clerk Page 1 of 2 Diane Crane lacopi From: AFredericks [alice@alicefredericks.net] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 2:36 PM To: Diane Crane lacopi Subject: RE: Minor Minutes Clarifications Lets agendize with apologies. One phrase did not reflect what I said, and the other was not understandable. Alice Fredericks Council Member Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 askalicenow@usa.net 415-789-5166 From: Diane Crane lacopi [mailto:DCrane@ci.tiburon.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 201110:07 AM To: Councilmember Alice Fredericks Subject: RE: Minor Minutes Clarifications Hi, actually, I thought you were talking about the November 2 minutes that were on consent last night. But now I see you were talking about the August 31 minutes. In order to amend the August 31 minutes, which have already been adopted, you would have to bring it to the Council to amend a previously adopted item which would require a majority vote to reconsider... let me know if you wish to take this action. Thanks, DCI . . _ From: AFredericks [mailto:alice@alicefredericks.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 20116:18 PM To: Diane Crane lacopi Subject: Minor Minutes Clarifications Ex 6 Minutes Aug 31 Pg 11 Parag 3;line 3 ...and secondary dwellings... pg 14 parag 1, line 3: or place it so that it looks like.... Alice Fredericks Council Member Town of Tiburon 11/29/2011 Page 2 of 2 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 askalicenow@usa.net 415-789-5166 11/29/2011 TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Slavitz called the special meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, August 31, 2011, in 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, Planning Manager Watrous, Recording Secretary Harper ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 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 (Planning Manager Watrous) - item continued from August 3, 2011 • Irving and Varda Rabin, Owners and Applicants • Address: 3825 Paradise Drive • Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-13 and 039-301-01 Planning Manager Watrous summarized the key elements of the project, stating on August 3, 2011, the Town Council held a public hearing on the request for precise development plan, prezoning, and EIR for a 14-unit residential project (Alta Robles Precise Development Plan). At that meeting, the Council heard public testimony, closed the public hearing and adopted a Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project. Before deliberating merits on the project, the Town Council asked for additional information and continued the hearing which eventually was rescheduled from September 7 to tonight. The Council requested the following additional information on the project: Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page I • A larger version of the site constraints map. He noted there have been questions raised with regard to the clarity of the map and currency of information received on the vegetation on the site; • Revised language that would better ensure that future homes constructed on the site would closely resemble the conceptual house designs prepared by the applicant. The applicant's attorney has prepared draft language that would better tie conceptual house designs of the proj ect included in the staff report. This is similar to what was recommended by the Planning Commission in its resolution and does include several text changes. Councilmember Collins has also expressed some additional potential text changes, as well; • Analysis of the secondary impacts of the project resulting from landslide repairs, retaining walls and drainage improvements. Much of his was discussed in the Draft and Final EIR. The Planning Commission discussed the potential for a retaining wall along Paradise Drive that would result from site distance analysis of the intersection of the access road in Paradise Drive and prescribed an additional traffic study be prepared to determine whether future retaining walls would be needed at that location for adequate site visibility; • Revised project maps clearly showing the setbacks of the proposed home locations and Residential Use Areas (RUAs) from the ridgelines on the site. The environmental constraints map shows these areas on the site but not their precise setbacks. During the Planning Commission's review, they were more concerned with Lots 8, 9 and 10 where ridgelines run directly through the lots, but the ridgelines run as well as through the proposed house locations for lots 3 and 12 and residential use areas for Lots 11 and 14. The General Plan does not require or recommend any setbacks from significant ridgelines other than the Tiburon Ridge but has a policy that includes factors to be considered in reviewing development near ridgelines, and the Council may wish to establish a specific numerical setback for future house locations and/or RUA's for these lots that are close to the ridgelines on the site; • Clarification of the role of the trees on the Sorokko property in screening the house on the proposed Lot 13. This property includes a large grove of eucalyptus trees that provide a backdrop to Lot 13, and the future house would become more visually prominent against the bay when viewed from homes on Acacia Drive; • A more thorough analysis of the environmental site constraints of the proposed Lot 8. As indicated by the constraints map, Lot 8 contains live plant species, coast live oak, and is bordered by a wetlands area. Ridgeline 6 also passes through the center of the proposed house and RUA. There appears to be some potential to move the RUA slightly to the west to place a future home within the wetlands setback on the west side of the ridgeline without interfering with the wetlands to the west and below the house site. During its review on April 13, 2011 meeting, the Planning Commission utilized a "menu" of possible project revisions to try to create project revisions that would increase the project's consistency with the General Plan. The Commission used this checklist to create a series of revisions that would do the following: Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 2 1. Lot 8 would be eliminated due to its location on Significant Ridgeline 6 and its proximity to serpentine bunchgrass and Marin Flax plant habitat. 2. Lot 9 would be eliminated due to its location on Significant Ridgeline 5. 3. Lot 10 would be eliminated due to its location on Significant Ridgeline 5. 4. Lot 13 would be eliminated due to its visual massiveness when viewed from Paradise Drive, the Seafirth Estates area, and Acacia Drive, consistent with the direction of General Plan Policies LU-13 and OSC-12. 5. The residential use areas for Lots 5 & 6 would be reduced in size to minimize impacts on serpentine bunchgrass habitat, consistent with the direction of General Plan Policy OSC-26, which states that "to the maximum extent feasible, and as required by federal and state laws, development and construction shall not affect special status species or special communities." 6. The maximum allowable floor area for Lots 5 and 6 would be reduced to 4,500 square feet, with an additional 600 square feet for garage space, to increase compatibility with the size of homes in the surrounding neighborhoods, consistent with the direction of General Plan Policy LU-13 and to reduce visual impacts identified in the EIR. The maximum building height for these homes shall be limited to 16 feet to lessen the visual massiveness of these homes when viewed from nearby public open space, consistent with Mitigation Measure 5.8-1. The Commission did not find it warranted to reduce the applicant-proposed floor area or height of homes on Lots 2, 3 or 7, and found the relocated Lot 4 location, size and height acceptable. 7. The maximum allowable floor area for Lot 12 would be reduced to 6,000 square feet, with an additional 600 square feet for garage space, to increase compatibility with the size of homes in the surrounding neighborhoods, consistent with the direction of General Plan Policy LU-13. 8. 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, to increase the protection of sensitive plant habitat, consistent with the direction of General Plan Policy OSC-26. Mr. Watrous stated the Council may wish to use the project revisions recommended by the Planning Commission as a starting point for its discussions on the merits of the project. Staff has edited this into a checklist form which was attached as Exhibit 1 and may provide a useful tool with which to build a consensus on a final project design. Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Continue deliberations on the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan and prezoning, utilizing the Planning Commission's recommendations as a starting point for reaching consensus on a final project design; 2. If substantial project design changes are required, direct the applicant to make the required changes to the project and continue the application to a date certain; Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 3 3. If appropriate, direct staff to return with a density-specific prezoning ordinance as well as resolutions conditionally approving a Precise Development Plan, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program, and making any necessary CEQA findings of fact and findings of overriding considerations consistent with the contemplated project approval. Mayor Slavitz stated as indicated in the staff report, Ridges 5 and 6 run though Lots 12 to a lesser extent and to a greater extent, through Lot 3. He asked why these lots were not removed by the Planning Commission even though they are located on the ridge. Mr. Watrous explained that the Planning Commission felt that for Lot 12, the house location is just barely into the actual ridgeline. For Lot 3, they felt that perhaps since that lot was so far up the ridgeline to a point where it was surrounded by trees, it was hard to distinguish that as being visually prominent on that ridgeline. Mayor Slavitz asked if the Planning Commission suggested a certain setback from these ridges. Mr. Watrous stated they did not. They opted to remove Lots 8, 9 and 10 completely so as to avoid conflict with the ridgelines rather than try to set a specific standard or setback from the ridgelines. Councilmember Fredericks asked if the purpose of setting ridgeline setbacks during this procedure would be to provide an opportunity to move instead of eliminate lots or proposed houses that are on the ridge. Mr. Watrous stated that General Plan Policy OSC-12 is-to set back development from ridgelines and gives a series of characteristics to try and determine not necessarily how close something could be but how important protection was for that particular part of a ridgeline. It is up to the Council to determine whether protection needs to happen as a result of those individual factors, or in some fashion, whether the designated line on the map is being protected. He noted that the lines were established after a fair amount of thorough analysis, much of it from the bay where these ridges are more pronounced. Councilmember Fredericks questioned the consequences of redesigning in this manner, and cited the uncertainty of resultant impacts. She felt the maps are somewhat helpful, but there are things that cannot be seen on maps because colors blend into each other, and she was puzzled by the invitation to redesign the Planning Commission's conditions of approval and the site map. Mr. Watrous explained that there are some opportunities for possibly moving some of the lots around. Lots 9 and 10 have fewer environmental constraints in their immediate vicinity than others. Some may not have as much area, but this is why the increased level of detail in the larger constraints map was provided. He did not think it was the Council's job to redesign any changes, but if the Council thinks the Commission's approach of eliminating as a way to address the setback issue goes too far, it is possible to give direction to the applicant to determine opportunities that would accomplish some goals with higher importance, or in terms of moving a house slightly to achieve protection in some areas than others. Councilmember Fredericks stated the larger map was helpful; however, because some of the areas have more than one biotic constraint, it is often hard to tell what one is looking at. If lots, houses, and RUAs get moved around, she asked to be able to see materials in order to determine consequences at a subsequent meeting. Mr. Watrous said if the Council is asking for additional redesign of lots, he thinks it would be reasonable to request more detailed maps that would have clearer information as Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 4 to where those specific site constraints are. Mayor Slavitz referred to lots 9 and 10 and asked if the Planning Commission investigated revising them to remove them from the ridge. Mr. Watrous replied no. In using the checklist, at least 3 of the 5 Planning Commissioners felt it was more of an inappropriate location as designed. Rather than move things around, they felt that because the ridgeline went right through them, they would stick with complete protection to be consistent with the General Plan. Councilmember O'Donnell asked whether the Planning Commission also went through the checklist or a modified checklist. Mr. Watrous said Exhibit 2 to the staff report is the checklist the Planning Commission used, and this was prepared when staff had not yet received Alternative 5. The Commission reviewed it further, made specific changes which are identified on Exhibit 1, and he said this might be useful for the Council in deliberating and achieving consensus. Vice Mayor Fraser said the Council received a note from Judith Thompson regarding the trail easement incorporated in part of the plan and access to it from Hacienda Drive. As he read the letter and looked at the diagram, it was not clear how this was going to play out and he asked if staff could discuss the access point, whether private property is involved here and whether this will be an issue as laid out in the plan submitted by the applicant, if the Council went forward as designed. Town Attorney Danforth responded, stating the Town obtained a pedestrian easement from 117 Hacienda Drive up to 139 Hacienda Drive in settling the litigation with the Wayne family. At that time, Council and staff understood that Hacienda Drive veered out of the area covered by the Wayne easement onto property owned by Ms. Thompson and her partner. A small portion of the paved area also traverses the property of another neighbor. Many years ago, the paved road was reconstructed outside of the original easement. Ms. Danforth said she discussed this with Ms. Thompson and spoke with her again today to assure her that the Town knows it still must resolve the connection between the actual of-record easement that goes up Hacienda Drive with the trail head presumed to be at 139 Hacienda Drive. There are a variety of ways this could be done. They want to arrive at a solution to everyone's mutual satisfaction. Possibly, the trail head might be shifted which might satisfy the situation, or construct a walkway around the private area. No one is planning to put a public trail on Ms. Thompson's property without her permission. Councilmember Collins asked how changes made in the proposed plan affected any physical impacts identified in the approved EIR. Ms. Danforth said the answer depended on the extent to which the certified document described the impacts that would be reasonably expected to flow from the project as amended. She noted that the EIR evaluated all 14 lots, the document is quite comprehensive and examines a wide range of alternatives. Once changes are identified, the Town would have to evaluate any impacts to determine whether further environmental study is required. Mayor Slavitz noted that the Council closed public comment at the last meeting and the purpose of this meeting is for the Council to evaluate the merits of the proj ect and come to a determination. He Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 5 asked for Council comments. Councilmember Fredericks said that as has been pointed out, this is a site with 18 landslides, 2 ridgelines and significant prime open space resources including protected species. She said the Council's job is to find a balance between the preservation of prime open space as defined in the General Plan and reasonable residential use. Prime open space is a resource for which the whole is really bigger than the sum of the parts. In chopping away at it, a list is not being diminished, but rather habitat and other things the Town is directed to consider when looking at development. It is ridgelines, streams, riparian corridors, flood prone areas, steep slopes, views, trees. She said this site is so constrained that if these characteristics of prime open space were a mandate to be protected, it would be very difficult to develop this site at all. However, it is not a mandate, but a balancing act. One of the significant characteristics of prime open space is the ridgelines. OSC-12 gives a list of characteristics of ridgelines when considering land owners' desires for residential purposes, but why these ridgelines are really important is because over decades, the community has defined what Tiburon is. What is important is the visual identity of Tiburon, and this is why the desire to preserve this identity is memorialized in the.General Plan. Councilmember Fredericks stated neighborhood compatibility is another issue discussed extensively. The project would set a new standard in home sizes not compatible with surrounding neighborhoods, and some were approved on parcels with different characteristics, under different conditions, and some by different jurisdictions. However, the 26 acre Tiburon Glen project applied for 8 lots and got 3 lots. This is an example of how other things balance the homeowner's desire to use land to the maximum density. It is not something always achieved, especially in parcels that are enormously constrained. She said there are tradeoffs for everything, especially when dealing with a constrained piece of land. When one tries to control the visual impacts, one ends up grading and digging to bury the floor area. When one wants to keep people and the home site safe by extensive landslide repair, habitat is disrupted. If there are fewer houses, fewer cisterns are needed which means less grading and less landslide repair, and less area used by the landowner. She stated that a good example which has not been discussed is when a house on a site is reduced and the proposed house is two-story to one-story, you possible produce a bigger footprint. She hopes this can be mitigated in some way by orienting the house so that the smallest fagade is towards the middle ridge open space, which can be discussed in conditions of approval. The Planning Commission made changes to the plans to achieve greater consistency with the Town's General Plan and she personally thinks the Commission struck a reasonable balance. There are significant unavoidable impacts no matter what is done with this piece of land and the Town has been encouraged to think that the house design as a benefit overrides that. She felt it may, but there is some uncertainty as to where it will end up, which could affect open space characteristics. She thinks the Commission allowed reasonable residential use of the land if developed as conditioned. She asked that after this discussion, if there are substantial changes, the Council be provided with the additional information they might need to make an informed decision. She noted that the floor area was to be calculated as described in zoning laws, but in fact, the applicant's representative indicated Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 6 at a prior meeting that the floor area presented in the plans were calculated to include all square footage. She asked that this be reflected in a condition of approval. There was also a letter commenting about a concern with digging holes for houses below grade and then letting them sit until the lots were actually developed. She would like more information about these impacts prior to approval. Vice Mayor Fraser echoed Councilmember Frederick's comments. He recognized the applicant, staff and the Planning Commission for the breadth and depth of information provided to the community as extremely extensive and beneficial. He also thanked the applicant for providing access to the site. He said he has walked the site three different times and found it beneficial to learn each time more about the siting of the various homes and what may or may not be possible. He thinks the Commission addressed the key issues which deal with ridges, landslides, visual impacts, size and mass of the various homes proposed, protected species, natural resources, and preservation of open space. Even though the Planning Commission did what he thinks is a good job, when he looks at what is proposed today, he suggested there may be an alternative way to look at the plans. What concerns him the most was the fact there are several properties which cross the spine of a ridge. He would be troubled if a home were ever to be built on the spine of a ridge. Vice Mayor Fraser offered a suggestion to consider a setback from the ridgelines. In developing the General Plan, the Town clearly set out guidelines that directed to stay away from developing across ridges. He suggested that the house sizes might need to be smaller if moved away from the ridges. The plan today has extremely large houses and one could argue they are not compatible with the neighborhood, as well as an argument for what has been done to the west on Acacia Drive or to the south on Gilmartin Drive where there are homes of significant size. More important to him is utilization of the space that is available, and he could not support building on the spine of a ridge. However, houses could be built if moved away from the spine, but should not encroach into areas with protected species. He said that protected species are things that will never return if their natural habitat erodes, and while it may change the overall plan as presented by the applicant, it may be for the better. He stated there is a balance between what the General Plan and the community has asked the Council to carry forward. Councilmember Collins commended staff and the applicant for their work on the project and presentation. He believes this is a tough site to build on for reasons of constraints as stated and said he thinks the Planning Commission got it right-they required that this plan comply with the General Plan and zoning ordinance. He thinks there is a way for the developer to return with something that will take the homes off the ridge; otherwise, he could not support such a project. He would recommend that the architect and owner look at the things the Commission did and see what can be done to address those issues. Maybe all of the lots could be saved, possibly by proposing smaller homes. He also stated the home sizes are a problem for him, and while there are one or two homes in the area larger, they were built after the General Plan was adopted. He noted the proposed homes would be gigantic in compari son to those on Seafirth, Hacienda, Norman Estates and Acacia, which he described. He believes that a 4,000 to 5,000 square foot home is a large enough house and suggested hearing further Council comments. Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 7 Councilmember O'Donnell echoed Council comments, stated the presentation of the project was fantastic, and he respects the effort and work that went into the project. He also thinks the Commission did some good things in their work and knows their job is a difficult one. However, he also disagrees with some things. He said he generally agrees with the Commission and staff's recommendations in January to reduce the home sizes and mix them up; and not have every home over 7,000 square feet. He thinks the project presents an extremely environmentally-friendly project design. He thinks the applicant has put together an environmentally-friendly proposal of sod/live roofs, substantial earthwork for square footage, minimal impacts, allowing 75% of the overall land to remain as private and public open space, dedicating a public trail to the Town, and also the agreement to tie the home designs to the application. Councilmember O'Donnell voiced interest in the economic considerations that must go into projects, which he feels must be considered. He disagrees with what Mr. Hurd mentioned before about larger homes and more property taxes, but said a project of his size will bring an enormous amount of revenue to the town in building and impact fees. He also empathizes with the applicant when making a substantial investment in the infrastructure to ensure they can pencil out the project. When lots begin to be eliminated, it becomes a difficult situation, and he empathizes with those economic points. He thinks there is a big benefit to the Town to have common interests with the property owner who resides on the land regarding protecting the site. He would not say which homes should be reduced or moved, which requires a level of expertise and review, but would support a recommendation of making certain numbers for the square footage maintained at a certain level, e.g., a few homes in the 4,000-4,500 square foot range, a few at 7,000 and a few at 6,000 square feet as a way of reducing impacts. He felt in general that this is a fair and balanced application and believes it is a project that will work well for the Town and for those who love and respect open space. Mayor Slavitz echoed comments about the applicant, staff, and especially the work of the architect. He said the problem for him is that the Town has spent a lot of time and energy developing the General Plan. He said that beautiful design is not a reason for exceptions from the General Plan. It is a document that reflects the sentiments of the Town, and one of the key features is not building on the ridges. The Commission did the right thing by removing these houses on the ridge. It sounds like the Council wants to go further, as some houses still remain on the ridge. He thinks it is an interesting suggestion to give the applicant an opportunity to see if they can be redesigned to not be on the ridge at all. The Council should follow the General Plan, will continue to ask applicants to follow it, and not following it because the homes are beautiful is not fair. He said that the Town cannot let one developer build on ridgelines but not another. Mayor Slavitz noted that the site at 52 acres is incredibly constrained. Every space on the map that is not constrained is proposed to be built on. He acknowledged the economic viability of the designed project which has created conflicts with the General Plan. The Planning Commission did a great job in striking a balance and not being overly punitive, as there were lots they could have removed and } house sizes reduced for consistency with the General Plan. He was open to letting the applicant return and design homes that stay off the ridgeline and to be reflected in the final design drawings. Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 8 Councilmember Fredericks asked to address the issue of asking for a redesign, stating one of the pitfalls of this is that houses are moved around and the Council will deal with another set of impacts. The applicant has spent more money, time, and the Council will have to decide how important the stands of Western Flax, the Serpentine Grass or Tiburon Buckwheat are. The way she saw the balance was accepting some ridgeline impacts in order to avoid some other important impacts. Perhaps there is a redesign, but if the Council asks for this, it should keep in mind that it can be costly and the applicant is being put in a position where he is unsure of what is going to be acceptable. Mayor Slavitz clarified, stating that his intention was not to say to move the houses off of the ridgeline and into protected species. These houses have to stay in the white areas on the constraints map that do not indicate any environmental constraints. The houses could be made smaller and moved off the ridgeline, but not moved into the protected areas. Councilmember Fredericks stated one of the things suggested was that Lot 8 could be moved off the ridge. Perhaps it can, but it is between two habitats of Western Flax, and there are wetlands. If they start dredging that up, she was not sure how that would affect the Flax. It is a very complicated site to deal with and she is loathed to have the applicant start over. She would want the Council to consider what the burden on the applicant might be. Mayor Slavitz agrees with Councilmember Fredericks regarding Lot 8. Lots 9 and 10 have a lot of white space and the advantage of taking it away and also building smaller houses, is that it completely removes the impact from the ridge. He said to him, it is going further than the Planning Commission and requiring them to build off the ridge. Councilmember Collins asked if the applicant could indicate as to whether they were amenable to a redesign. He was also loathe to sending the applicant away and not address the various possibilities. Mayor Slavitz asked staff if it was reasonable for the Council to provide its thoughts about the different lots and possibilities and ask that the applicant consider these and return. Town Manager Curran suggested getting an initial read from the applicant as to whether there is interest or whether this is possible. She agreed that attempting to redesign things on the spot is not possible, but the applicant might be able to determine what possibilities exist and which do not with what the Council is proposing. Vice Mayor Fraser questioned what is it that the Council would like the applicant to achieve. There has been some different dialogue and he believes that building on the spine of the ridge is problematic. Quite possibly there is another area that has not been considered for building or another parcel that might be available for building, but he did not believe it was the Council's job to redesign, but rather to follow the guidelines of the General Plan and the applicant return with a plan that works. Councilmember Fredericks said some of this discussion is predicated on the assumption that the Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 9 white areas are areas that have no constraints. Mr. Watrous said they are not constrained in any significant environmental manner, in that they do not have landslides, sensitive plant species, or other substantial vegetation around them. Councilmember Fredericks said, therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that if a house can be moved off the ridge within the white space, it will most likely avoid constraints. Mr. Watrous noted that for Lot 8 he was not sure how the wetlands setback was arrived at and whether intruding into that setback would necessarily affect a wetland. If there is an area of oak woodlands, that is not necessarily a sensitive plant species but depending on the amount of encroachment into it, an encroachment could be considered more sensitive. He suggested that if the Council is looking for direction to the applicant as to which houses are being considered for redesign, some of the other lots have, to some extent, RUAs or houses on the ridgeline, but the Commission only chose to eliminate Lots 8, 9, 10 and 13 at this point. However, direction could be to look at redesigning those 4 lots and/or possibly go further to take all home sites off the stretches of the entire ridgeline. He thinks there needs to be some consensus to identify which lots to redesign. Mayor Slavitz requested the applicant speak as to comments surrounding redesign. Attorney Riley Hurd stated they would very much like to hear the ideas in regards to the particular lots. After hearing this, they would be better able to decide whether this is something they can or cannot undertake. Councilmembers discussed their individual preferences relating to revisions, as follows: Councilmember O'Donnell: Maintain all 13 lots and constrain a few. Homes on Lots 13 and 14 should be reduced to 4,500 square feet. He did not see visual impacts with the removal of eucalyptus trees. He supported two smaller homes with clustering. He said that Lots 11 & 12 were fine. He asked to reduce floor area to 6,000 square feet for Lots 9 and 10 and possibly be 100 feet away from the ridgeline. The home for Lot 4 should be reduced to 4,000 square feet. He asked to reduce the size of the home on Lot 8 to 4,500 square feet and work on siting it to have the least impact and ensure it maintains balance with the overall design. The applicant's requested house sizes for Lots 5 and 6 was OK. Councilmember Collins: Install story poles for the redesigned lots. The home on Lot 14 should be 4,500 square feet. Consider relocated Lot 13 by tucking it below Lot 12 and bending it further north where the entry road comes in. The home on Lot 13 should be 4,500 square feet. Put Lots 9 and 10 on each side of the road and realign the road, maintain the homes at 6,000 square feet with a 100 foot setback from the ridge. Reduce the homes on Lots 11 and 12 to 6,000 square feet. The homes on Lots 5 and 6 feel like a continuous home and should be made more narrow, spread apart and moved toward the Tiburon ridge. He could not support Lot 8 being located on the ridge, but if moved, the home should be 4,000 to 4,500 square feet. Reduce floor area for homes on Lots 2, 3 and 7 to 4,500 square feet. He added that the FAR maximum should include subsurface areas and basement, and asked that grading not occur until house plans are approved and landslide repairs occur. Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 10 Mayor Slavitz: He preferred not to indicate specificity for floor areas. The homes for Lots 9, 10 and 12 should be reconfigured and made smaller. He supported the suggestion for reduced floor areas for the homes on Lots 9 and 10 and locating them on either side of the ridge. Lots 8 and 3 sit on Ridge 6, and he questioned how Lot 8 could be built. He supported spreading out and reducing the floor areas of Lots 5 and 6 which would make them not look like one house, as well as moving them off the ridge. Vice Mayor Fraser: Echoed the Mayor's comments and was opposed to building on the ridge. It would be helpful to provide the applicant with direction about any setback from the ridgeline saying that he was unsure whether a 50 foot or 100 foot setback was appropriate. Encourage the applicant to consider smaller house sizes. He concurred with comments regarding Lots 3 and 8, but he was not opposed to removal of Lot 8 if the applicant could find a way to build a home and keep it off the ridge. Regarding Lot 13, if it is feasible to reduce the house in mass or move it to the other side of the roadway, this might allow the applicant to achieve a good size house and mitigate visibility aspects from the neighborhood. Councilmember Fredericks: Voiced opposition to building on the ridge, supported reduction of square footages, and pointed out that the lots include RDAs which could also include both swimming pools and secondary developments and accessory buildings up to 15 feet in height. Therefore, both the house sites and RDAs may be made smaller. She agrees with much of what has been said about the possibility of moving Lot 13 but cited its looming visibility and agreed with the Commission's recommendation to remove it. She reminded the Council that Lots 9 and 10 were removed because of the habitat for Western Flax. Lots 5 and 6 are very visible from Middle Ridge and they are a continuous line of development; reducing their size and moving them further apart is an excellent idea. She was open to anything that reduces the built environment on the ridge. BREAK Mr. Hurd requested a 10-minute recess, and Mayor Slavitz called for a break at 8:48 p.m. The Council then reconvened the special meeting at 9:06 p.m. Mr. Hurd commented that the difficulty with this is that they understand the General Plan as the Town's Constitution and this project was designed to balance its requirements, which area often competing elements. The General Plan calls for certain things and others that are not always perfectly compatible which is why they must be balanced. He said an interesting case came out in July where a municipality was instructed that instead of choosing one like ridges, that balance is required. He said that they used the characteristics of OSC-12 to judge whether a ridge should have setbacks at all, whether it can be built on or not built on, and it says each of these characteristics should not be judged equally. Tonight, instead of seeing this OSC-12 analysis, they are hearing from the Council they want nothing on the ridges, which is new. Staff went through the entire analysis and concluded that the ridges do not warrant the high protection of some of the other ridges in town which it sounds as if these are being equated to. He said this has been difficult, compounded by the Town's borrowed view policy, and then looking down at the private property, that policy is not being applied. He said that a 100 foot setback from the ridgelines would be a deal breaker, impossible, and would render the site undevelopable. What they can do is try to explore a scenario in which they Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 11 move the lots discussed tonight off of the ridge. They cannot guarantee right now what the setbacks are going to be, but if the Council told them that getting them off the ridge by whatever amount would work, they are willing to look at it. They would also like to hear what it is these characteristics apply to ridges to make them untouchable. Mayor Slavitz confirmed with Mr. Watrous that the Council's deliberation centered directly or indirectly on characteristics in OSC-12. The list talks about local and regional visual prominence, the ability to connect to existing or potential open space, potential act as a neighborhood separator, views of and from length, height, presence of trees, presence of unusual physical characteristics, highly visible open slopes, significant vegetation, sensitive habitat, special silhouette or backdrop features, difficulty of developing or accessing an integrity ofridgeline form. He said the discussion had to do with why these ridgelines are important to the Town, and he believes the Councilmembers made this clear. Ms. Curran urged the Council to discuss this further to provide greater clarity to the applicant. Mr. Watrous reviewed the general (and not majority) consensus of the Council, as follows: • Make the homes on Lots 9 and 10 smaller and move them off the ridge; • Make the home on Lot 13 smaller and off the ridge; • Make the homes on Lots 5 and 6 smaller and spread them out a bit; • Move the home on Lot 8 off the ridge and make smaller, if possible. Councilmember Fredericks pointed out that she was opposed to the consensus for Lot 13 and believes it to be extremely prominent. Mayor Slavitz referred to Lot 11 and confirmed with Mr. Hurd that the closest point it comes to Ridgeline 5 is 10 feet. He asked if the Council was comfortable in setting a particular distance and if so, what would it be. Councilmember Collins suggested the applicant move them as far as possible away from the spine of the ridge and return with a conceptual drawing. By reducing the size of the homes, it should reduce the size of the RDAs and increase setbacks from the ridges. Councilmember Fredericks stated one of the reasons she was comfortable with the Planning Commission's finding is because when looking at this balancing, there are some places on this ridge that one cannot see because of the trees, and there are some places very prominent in looking back. Instead of micromanaging the footage of setbacks or what visibility is enough or too much, she felt they balanced among the different sites to allow some and remove some on the ridge, and this is the balancing act in protecting the ridge. Her point is that this kind of grosser balancing was an easier way of protecting the ridge than trying to figure out what setback for each lot would work. Councilmember O'Donnell said he arrived at square footages using the staff report from January and specific recommendations on what size some of the lots should be, and thinks there has actually been Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 12 a lot of care and analysis done. Vice Mayor Fraser said that the General Plan states that these are ridges and he does not believe the Council should support building on the ridges. He also agreed with Councilmember Collins about establishing the best setback possible from the ridgelines, but the Council should give the applicant credit for their excellent design overall, knowledge of the site, and allow them some latitude in building houses that would fit the guidelines that the Council sets forth, which does not include houses on ridges per the General Plan. Protecting ridges is clearly one of the center points and driving forces of the community. He thinks that given the differences of opinion on Lot 13, he would not eliminate it, but the visual mass is larger than it_ needs to be because of how it is sited. Councilmember Collins' also suggested siting it on the other side of the road, or reducing its size. Mayor Slavitz said he did not believe the Council was trying to protect these ridges like it does the Tiburon Ridge, and they are not asking for a 150 feet horizontal setback. However, they are asking for some separation, and he would not want to provide an exact number because what is designed in the relationship to the particular ridge can be different. He would think that the applicant could sketch a redesign, show floor areas, where houses could be relocated, and providing the distance from the ridge. He would be happy to accept the Planning Commission recommendations and shrinking Lots 2 and 3, but he is giving the applicant an opportunity to work out a plan that works out better for them and goes as far as what the Planning Commission suggested. It may be that the Council takes the Commission's recommendation after the applicant returns. Mr. Watrous reviewed, lot by lot, the majority consensus of the Council, as follows: All Lots: Do not build on the ridge; Lot 14: No change; Lot 13: Move off the ridge and make smaller; Lot 12: Move off the ridge; Lot 11: No change; Lot 10: Move off the ridge and make smaller; Lot 9: Move off the ridge and make smaller; Lot 8: Move off the ridge and make smaller; Lot 7: No change; Lot 6: Separate away from Lot 5; Lot 5: Separate away from Lot 6, possibly further uphill and further from sensitive habitat Lot 4: Reduce size to that recommended by Planning Commission; Lot 3: Move off the ridge and make smaller; Lot 2: No change. Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 13 Councilmember Fredericks said the Council should consider what would happen is if the only place to put an accessory building or secondary dwelling is closer to the ridge or on the ri dge, or place it so it does not look like a continuous line of structure. Mr. Watrous said generally, this is the. yard area or an area that can be fenced off, vegetated, or a swimming pool installed, versus areas that are private or common open space that are not to be touched. Mayor Slavitz asked if it would be safe to say the Council does not want RUAs on or near the ridge, and Mr. Watrous replied that it depends upon how the Council is looking at the structures; whether there may be a problem with someone having a 6-foot fence along a ridgeline or a 12- or 15-foot tall pool house, which he said is allowed. Mayor Slavitz said if the Council is serious about protecting the ridge he would not support accessory structures or fences on or near the ridge. Councilmembers concurred that RUAs should not be on or near the ridge. BREAK Mayor Slavitz called for a break at 9:34 p.m. for the applicant to briefly consider points made by the Council, and thereafter, reconvened at 9:41 p.m. Dr. Ken Kao, architect, said they appreciate the deliberations and requested the Council to direct staff to write out the specific details, goals and position for compliance for each of the lots as per discussion and detail the terms of compliance for the consulting team to evaluate and to return to the Council, per Councilmember Collins' suggestion for a concept sketch. They can then understand strategically how to develop the concept that can meet the criteria of General Plan compliance. Mayor Slavitz suggested continuing the hearing to a date certain. Ms. Curran offered September 21, 2011, and Mr. Kao confirmed. Councilmember Collins suggested there be story poles placed once the concept sketch is presented, and Mr. Kao agreed, and asked to be able to meet with staff prior to September 21, 2011. MOTION: Direct the applicant to make conceptual changes as described in deliberations and continue the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan and prezoning to September 21, 2011. Moved: Fredericks, seconded Collins Vote: AYES: Unanimous TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember O'Donnell reported on the success of the Art Festival held August 27 and 28, 2011. He noted there were only 7 Plein Air applicants and suggested that next year's competition include a People's Choice Award, which he felt would garner greater interest. Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 14 Ms. Curran announced plans and ideas for expansion of the Plein Air for next year and said this year's artists were limited to artists from the Peninsula. Mayor Slavitz also suggested further diversity in vendors for next year's festival. Councilmember Fredericks announced that as part of the Picnic on the Green, there will be a railroad sing-along, and she invited Council participation. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT None. WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digest - August 26, 2011 No discussion. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Slavitz adjourned the meeting at 9:47 p.m. ATTEST: l DIANE CRANE IACOK TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 15 Mayor Slavitz: He preferred not to indicate specificity for floor areas. The homes for Lots 9, 10 and 12 should be reconfigured and made smaller. He supported the suggestion for reduced floor areas for the homes on Lots 9 and 10 and locating them on either side of the ridge. Lots 8 and 3 sit on Ridge 6, and he questioned how Lot 8 could be built. He supported spreading out and reducing the floor areas of Lots 5 and 6 which would make them not look like one house, as well as moving them off the ridge. Vice Mayor Fraser: Echoed the Mayor's comments and was opposed to building on the ridge. It would be helpful to provide the applicant with direction about any setback from the ridgeline saying that he was unsure whether a 50 foot or 100 foot setback was appropriate. Encourage the applicant to consider smaller house sizes. He concurred with comments regarding Lots 3 and 8, but he was not opposed to removal of Lot 8 if the applicant could find a way to build a home and keep it off the ridge. Regarding Lot 13, if it is feasible to reduce the house in mass or move it to the other side of the roadway, this might allow the applicant to achieve a good size house and mitigate visibility aspects from the neighborhood. Councilmember Fredericks: Voiced opposition to building on the ridge, supported reduction of square footages, and pointed out that the lots include RUAs which could also include both swimming pools and secondary dwellings and accessory buildings up to 15 feet in height. Therefore, both the house sites and RUAs may be made smaller. She agrees with much of what has been said about the possibility of moving Lot 13 but cited its looming visibility and agreed with the Commission's recommendation to remove it. She reminded the Council that Lots 9 and 10 were removed because of the habitat for Western Flax. Lots 5 and 6 are very visible from Middle Ridge and they are a continuous line of development; reducing their size and moving them further apart is an excellent idea. She was open to anything that reduces the built environment on the ridge. BREAK Mr. Hurd requested a 10-minute recess, and Mayor Slavitz called for a break at 8:48 p.m. The Council then reconvened the special meeting at 9:06 p.m. Mr. Hurd commented that the difficulty with this is that they understand the General Plan as the Town's Constitution and this project was designed to balance its requirements, which area often competing elements. The General Plan calls for certain things and others that are not always perfectly compatible which is why they must be balanced. He said an interesting case came out in July where a municipality was instructed that instead of choosing one like ridges, that balance is required. He said that they used the characteristics of OSC-12 to judge whether a ridge should have setbacks at all, whether it can be built on or not built on, and it says each of these characteristics should not be judged equally. Tonight, instead of seeing this OSC-12 analysis, they are hearing from the Council they want nothing on the ridges, which is new. Staff went through the entire analysis and concluded that the ridges do not warrant the high protection of some of the other ridges in town which it sounds as if these are being equated to. He said this has been difficult, compounded by the Town's borrowed view policy, and then looking down at the private property, that policy is not being applied. He said that a 100 foot setback from the ridgelines would be a deal breaker, impossible, and would render the site undevelopable. What they can do is try to explore a scenario in which they Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 11 Councilmember Fredericks said the Council should consider what would happen is if the only place to put an accessory building or secondary dwelling is closer to the ridge or on the ridge, or place it so that it looks like a continuous line of structure. Mr. Watrous said generally, this is the yard area or an area that can be fenced off, vegetated, or a swimming pool installed, versus areas that are private or common open space that are not to be touched. Mayor Slavitz asked if it would be safe to say the Council does not want RUAs on or near the ridge, and Mr. Watrous replied that it depends upon how the Council is looking at the structures; whether there may be a problem with someone having a 6-foot fence along a ridgeline or a 12- or 15-foot tall pool house, which he said is allowed. Mayor Slavitz said if the Council is serious about protecting the ridge he would not support accessory structures or fences on or near the ridge. Councilmembers concurred that RUAs should not be on or near the ridge. BREAK Mayor Slavitz called for a break at 9:34 p.m. for the applicant to briefly consider points made by the Council, and thereafter, reconvened at 9:41 p.m. Dr. Ken Kao, architect, said they appreciate the deliberations and requested the Council to direct staff to write out the specific details, goals and position for compliance for each of the lots as per discussion and detail the terms of compliance for the consulting team to evaluate and to return to the Council, per Councilmember Collins' suggestion for a concept sketch. They can then understand strategically how to develop the concept that can meet the criteria of General Plan compliance. Mayor Slavitz suggested continuing the hearing to a date certain. Ms. Curran offered September 21, 2011, and Mr. Kao confirmed. Councilmember Collins suggested there be story poles placed once the concept sketch is presented, and Mr. Kao agreed, and asked to be able to meet with staff prior to September 21, 2011. MOTION: Direct the applicant to make conceptual changes as described in deliberations and continue the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan and prezoning to September 21, 2011. Moved: Fredericks, seconded Collins Vote: AYES: Unanimous TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember O'Donnell reported on the success of the Art Festival held August 27 and 28, 2011. He noted there were only 7 Plein Air applicants and suggested that next year's competition include a People's Choice Award, which he felt would garner greater interest. Town Council Minutes #18 -2011 August 31, 2011 Page 14 tF\e k: /mot 3 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 Town Council Meeting December 7, 2011 Agenda Item: C C -3 Recommendation to Adopt Annual Local Appointments List Pursuant to Town Council Appointments Procedure (Resolution No. 16-2007) and State Law (Government Code Section 54972), the Town Council must adopt and publish a list of local appointments it has made to boards and commissions during the year prior to December 31 of each year. The list is then posted at the Town Hall and a copy is sent to the Belvedere-Tiburon Library for public review. A list of appointments made by the Town Council for the period January through December 2011 is attached for Council's adoption. In January 2012, staff will return to the Council with the Town Council Committee Appointments list for revisions, following tonight's reorganization of the Council. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Adopt the annual local appointments list for January through December 2011. Exhibits: 1) Local Appointments List January through December 2011 2) Town Council Committee Appointments 2011 Prepared By: Diane Crane Iacopi, Town Clerk TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 1 TOWN OF TIBURON LOCAL APPOINTMENTS LIST January through December 2011 (Pursuant to Govt. Code Section 54972) Commission Incumbent Date Term Qualifications Appointed Expires PLANNING Tiburon COMMISSION Resident John February 2004; February 2013 Kunzweiler March 2005; reappointed March 2009 John June 2008; February 2014 Corcoran reappointed March 2010 Cathy March 2008; February 2012 Frymier resigned May 2011 Frank Doyle January 2010 February 2014 [replaced Jim Fraser] Erin Tollini January 2010; February 2015 [replaced March 2011 Emmett O'Donnell] Lou Weller June 2011 February 2012 [replaced Cathy Frymi er] DESIGN REVIEW Resident of BOARD Tiburon Peninsula Bryan March 2008 February 2012 Chong Michael June 2008 February 2012 Tollini Foy- publication in Decembe7°2011 John March 2009; February 2015 Kricensky March 2011 Lou Weller March 2010; February 2013 [replaced appointed to Frank Planning Doyle] Commission June 2011 Linda July 2010 February 2015 Emberson [replaced Grover Wilson] Greg September February 2013 Johnson 2011 [replaced Lou Weller] PARKS, OPEN SPACE 5 Members; 1 & TRAILS can be from (formed pursuant to Town Belvedere or Council Resolution No. Tiburon 22-2008) Peninsula Peter June 2008; February 2015 Winkler March 2011 Michael June 2008 February 2012 McMullen Phillip June 2008 February 2012 Feldman Robert March 2010 February 2014 McDermott [replaced Ralph Leighton] Park Allen May 2010 February 2014 [replaced Jill Sperber] HERITAGE & ARTS Resident of COMMISSION Tiburon For publication in Decembei-2011 Peninsula; up to two can be residents of Belvedere Dave Gotz May 2001; February 2014 February 2002; February 2006; March 2011 Jaleh March 2010 . February 2014 Etemad Azita de October 2010 February 2014 Mujica [replaced Ida Mae Berg] Anne Thull March 2008; February 2013 March 2009 Resigned November 2011 Marlene March 2007; February 2015 Rice March 2011 Ric Postle April 2010; February 2015 [replaced Liz March 2011 Schmidt] Patricia October 2002; February 2012 Navonne February 2004; March 2008 Resigned September 2011 Victoria Commissioner Arnett Emeritus (9/02) JOINT RECREATION Jerry October 1992; February 2013 3 Tiburon COMMITTEE Riessen February 1999; Residents (Joint Powers Agreement February 2003; (City of states that terms shall be February 2007; Belvedere & for two years; Town March 2011 RUSD make Foy- publication in Decembef-2011 Council previously made separate four-year appointments appointments) but has updated its procedure) Tina Warren May 2010 February 2012 [replaced Erin Tollini] Jane Jacobs Nov. 2008; February 2013 March 2011 Howard December December Block 2009 2011 (RUSD) Jiro Fraser January 2010 (TC liaison) DISASTER ADVISORY No set term Tiburon COUNCIL limit Resident; Belvedere & RUSD make separate appointments Ellen Rony February 2003 One Tiburon Vacancy Jim Fraser January 2010 (TC liaison) BELVEDERE/TIBURON Tiburon LIBRARY BOARD OF Resident; TRUSTEES Belvedere makes separate appointments/ RUSD appt. is ratified by both Councils For publication in December2011 Ric Postle June 2011 June 2014 Mary Falk May 2004; June 2011 March 2005; reappointed June 2008 (final term) Lois Epstein May 2006; June 2012 reappointed . June 2009 Beverlee June 2007; June 2013 Johnson reappointed June 2010 Ann Alywn June 2010 June 2011 (RUSD) MARIN COMMISSION Allan Bortel April 2002; Tiburon ON AGING June 2002; resident (over (Each of the 11 cities and June 2005; age 60) towns in Marin County June 2008; has an appointment to the June 2011 Commission on Aging) (3-year term) HILARITA-TIBURON Carolyn October 2009 No set limit Resident and REPRESENTATIVE Grey interest in (Tiburon affordable appointment housing to Board of issues and Directors) knowledge of Town's policies on affordable housing TOWN HISTORIAN Branwell August 1999 No set term Resident Fanning limit F07-publication in Decembei-2011 TOWN TREASURER William January 1998 No set term Resident - Osher limit Financial Background TOWN ARTIST Mary August 2008 August 2012 See H&A LAUREATE Musalo guidelines... MOSQUITO Col. Roger 1994; January Law no longer Resident 1999 (for term requires ABATEMENT BOARD Smith ending 12/98); appointed January 2003 representative; (for term Col. Smith ending 12/02); has offered to Dec. 2006; continue to Dec. 2010 serve. See Also: TOWN COUNCIL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS LIST For publication in Decembei-2011 TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 2011 1. STATE & REGIONAL AGENCIES 1. ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS (General Assembly meets in April and October) Jim Fraser, Delegate Emmett O'Donnell, Alternate 2. MARIN ENERGY AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Meets I S` Thursday from 7-9 p.m. at 1 McGinnis Parkway, San Rafael) Dick Collins, Delegate Jeff Slavitz, Alternate 3. PRIORITY-SETTING COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAMS (CDBG' (Meets twice a year in Marin City and at Civic Center) Jeff Slavitz, Delegate Jim Fraser, Alternate 4. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES (Meets quarterly and at the Annual Conference in September; other events as published) • State Director, representing North Bay Division (elected July 2008; re- elected 2010) • Transportation, Communication & Public Works State Policy Committee - (2-year appointment by League President) Alice Fredericks 5. INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ILG) BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Research affiliate of California State Association of Counties & League of California Cities) (Meets quarterly; meetings rotate between Northern & Southern California) Director (appointed by League of CA Cities Board of Directors) Alice Fredericks 6. MARIN CLIMATE ENERGY PARTNERSHIP (ICLEI) Local Governments for Sustainability (Meets Is` Thursday, San Rafael City Hall) Laurie Tyler, Staff Liaison & voting board member (Mann Climate Energy Partnership) 7. MARIN EMERGENCY RADIO AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Meetings scheduled as needed) Police Chief Michael Cronin Jeff Slavitz, Alternate Capt. David Hutton, 2"d Alternate Adopted Januar-y 5, 2011; amended March 28, 2011 Page 1 of 4 8. MARIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Meets 2" d Wednesday from 7-9 p.m., San Rafael City Hall) Jim Fraser, Delegate Jeff Slavitz, Alternate 9. REGIONAL AIRPORT PLANNING COMMITTEE (ABAG, MTC, BCDC) (Meetings scheduled as needed) Alice Fredericks, at large appointee by MTC (representing Marin County) 10. RICHARDSON BAY REGIONAL AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTOR (Meets monthly on 2nd Wednesday at 6: 00 p.m. - Sausalito City Hall) Emmett O'Donnell, Delegate Jeff Slavitz, Alternate 11. TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Meets monthly on 4th Thursday at 7:30 p.m. - Board of Supervisors Chambers, Civic Center) [Four year terms, effective May 1, 2008] Alice Fredericks, Delegate (Ms. Fredericks also serves as the cities' Southern Marin Representative to the Executive Committee, as well as TAM's representative to MCCMC, and on the TAM Legislative Committee) Dick Collins, Alternate • Fredericks has been appointed to serve on the SB 375 Marin SCS Ad Hoc Committee formed by TAM in February 2011 12. CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE WATER EMERGENCY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (Meetings scheduled as needed) Emmett O'Donnell, Delegate Alice Fredericks, Alternate II. LOCAL AGENCIES/COMMITTEES 1. BELVEDERE-TIBURON JOINT DISASTER ADVISORY COUNCIL (Meets bi-monthly on 2"d Tuesday from 4:00 - 5:30 p.m. in the Town Council Chambers) Jim Fraser, Town Council Representative 2. BELVEDERE-TIBURON JOINT RECREATION COMMITTEE (Meets bi-monthly on 3"d Monday in the Town Hall Community Room) Jim Fraser, Town Council Liaison Adopted January S, 2011; amended March 28, 2011 Page 2 of 4 III. TOWN AD HOC COMMITTEES (Meetings scheduled as needed) 1 2011-2012 BUDGET i. Alice Fredericks ii. Jim Fraser 2 DEL MAR CLAIMS i. Dick Collins ii. Emmett O'Donnell 3 PARADISE DRIVE AGREEMENT i. Alice Fredericks ii. Jeff Slavitz 4 MARTHA PROPERTY APPLICATIONS i. Dick Collins ii. Alice Fredericks 5 LEGISLATIVE ACTION (Mayor/MCCMC Representative) i. Alice Fredericks ii. Jeff Slavitz 6 CORPORATION YARD REDEVELOPMENT i. Dick Collins ii. Emmett O'Donnell 7 LYFORD DRIVE PARKING i. Dick Collins ii. Emmett O'Donnell 8 RECREATION MASTER PLAN i. Alice Fredericks ii. Jeff Slavitz 9 DOWNTOWN ISSUES i. Dick Collins ii. Jim Fraser 10 SMOKING ORDINANCE i. Alice Fredericks ii. Jim Fraser 11 NED' S WAY PROJECT i. Jim Fraser ii. Emmett O'Donnell Adopted January S, 2011; amended March 28, 2011 Page 3 of 4 12 REVIEW OF GARBAGE (MVRS) CONTRACT i. Richard Collins ii. Emmett O'Donnell V. MCCMC APPOINTMENTS • Elected by MCCMC Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) (Meets second Thursday at 7: 00 p.m., San Rafael Council Chambers) Jeff Slavitz • Town Appointments to MCCMC Committees 1. Legislative Committee (Meets4thd Monday at 8:00 a.m., San Rafael City Hall) Alice Fredericks (also serves as Chair) Dick Collins, alternate 2. JPA Oversight Committee (Meetings scheduled as needed) Jim Fraser, delegate Jeff Slavitz, alternate 3. Marin Green BERST (Green Building, Enerav Retrofit and Solar Transformation Collaborative) (Meetings scheduled as needed) John Kunzweiler, delegate (Planning Commissioner) Emmett O'Donnell, alternate 4. Pension Reform Subcommittee (Meetings scheduled as needed; will report quarterly to MCCMC; sunsets in 2011) Emmett O'Donnell, delegate Jeff Slavitz, alternate VI. TOWN APPOINTMENTS IN OTHER AREAS OF INTEREST MarinMap Steering Committee- (Meetings scheduled as needed) Nicholas Nguyen Chad Monterichard, Alternate Marin County Hazardous & -Solid Waste JPA (Meets quarterly) Town Manager Peggy Curran Adopted January S, 2011; amended March 28, 2011 Page 4 of 4 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting December 7, 2011 Agenda Item: To: Mayor & Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Departmen Subject: Consider Adoption of Resolutions Abandoning Portions of Easements and Releasing Restrictions on Property Located at 5 and 9 Main Street Pursuant to a Recorded Agreement Reviewed BACKGROUND Pursuant to an Agreement dating to June 2001, the Zelinsky family (Edward and Laleh Zelinsky and Barbara Abrams) granted the Town of Tiburon public access easements over small water portions of property at 5 and 9 Main Street (Guaymas and Servino restaurants) in order to accommodate a new, realigned, extended, and ADA-compliant Allan Thompson Bridge. Easements for the original Allan Thompson Bridge were granted by the Zelinsky family in 1977. This realigned waterfront walkway was part of the Town's larger Ferry Access Improvement project, which also included a new Zelinsky Bridge from the walkway to Shoreline Park, upgrading of Fountain Plaza, and major renovations to Ferry Plaza in Shoreline Park. The project was completed in 2003. The 2001 Agreement obligated the Town to re-convey small portions of the pre-existing (1977) public access easements associated with the original Allan Thompson Bridge alignment, since they would not be needed after the realigned bridge was completed. The proposed Council action would also release those portions of "open water" deed restrictions that are now located underneath the new Allan Thompson Bridge, which are no longer "open water". ANALYSIS The Resolutions before the Town Council fulfill the Town's obligations under the Agreement, specifically provision #6. Portions of easements to be abandoned clearly serve no public access purpose since the realignment of the Allan Thompson Bridge as part of the Ferry Access Project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt the Resolutions. EXHIBITS 1. Resolution abandoning unused easement portions over property at 5 Main Street. 2. Resolution abandoning unused easement portions over property at 9 Main Street. 3. Resolution releasing "open water" restrictions over properties at 5 and 9 Main Street. 4. Agreement between Town and Zelinsky and Abrams dated June 13, 2001. RESOLUTION NO. XX-2011 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ABANDONING A PORTION OF A PEDESTRIAN PASSAGE EASEMENT OVER PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 MAIN STREET (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 059-151-41) WHEREAS, in 1977 the Town of Tiburon ("Town") accepted an easement for public pedestrian passage purposes over a portion of the property (Property") located at 5 Main Street, said Property being described in attached Exhibit A, from the owners of the property ("Owner"). Said easement was granted by Grant Deed from the Fred and Juanita Zelinsky Trust dated April 20, 1977 and recorded in the Official Records of Marin County as document No. 21815 in Book 3195, page 172, on May 2, 1977 ("1977 Easement"); and WHEREAS, shortly thereafter the Town constructed the Allan Thompson Bridge, a pedestrian access way that utilized portions of the 1977 Easement to enhance public access to the ferry terminal located on the Property; and WHEREAS, in 2000 the Town embarked on the "Ferry Area Access & Safety Improvement Project" ("Project"). The purpose of the Project was to further improve access to the ferry terminal on the Property, particularly for persons with mobility problems. The Project was intended to construct a new public walkway that would relocate and replace the existing Allan Thompson Bridge on the Property. A portion of the walkway was designed in such a manner as to render a portion of the public access granted under the 1977 Easement over the Property obsolete and of no further public purpose; and WHEREAS, on June 13, 2001, the Town and Owner entered into an agreement entitled "Grant of Easement and Agreement", recorded in the Official Records of Marin County as Serial Number 2002-0030199 on April 15, 2002 ("2001 Easement"). The 2001 Easement conveyed to the Town the rights necessary to construct the new walkway and amended certain portions and provisions of the 1977 Easement. Paragraph No. 6 of the 2001 Easement states that following completion of the Project the Town would re- convey the obsolete portion ("Obsolete Portion") of the 1977 Easement to the Owner. WHEREAS, the 2001 Easement effectively relocated the Obsolete Portion, rendering it excess. To implement the provisions of Paragraph 6 of the 2001 Easement, the Town wishes to formally vacate and abandon its easement on the Obsolete Portion pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code, chapter 4.division 9, part 3, Chapter 4. The Obsolete Portion is physically part of a wooden deck with bench seating located bay- ward of the restaurant occupying 5 Main Street, and is a portion of Exhibit "B" to the 1977 Easement. There are no public facilities in the obsolete portion. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2011 --1--12011 ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Town of Tiburon does hereby vacate, abandon and extinguish the rights for pedestrian passage purposes over that portion of the Property at 5 Main Street as particularly described in attached Exhibit B and as graphically depicted for illustrative purposes only on attached Exhibit C, both Exhibits being attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council directs the Town Clerk to record this Resolution and its attachments with the Office of County Recorder. From and after the date this Resolution is recorded, the Obsolete Portion shall no longer constitute a public service easement. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: 2011 by the following vote: JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Exhibits: A. Legal Description of Property (5 Main Street) B. Legal Description of Obsolete Public Pedestrian Passage Easement Portion being Abandoned C. Drawing Depicting Area of Obsolete Public Pedestrian Passage Easement Portion being Abandoned S:\Administration\Town Council\Resolutions\5 Main St easement abandon reso.doc Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2011 --1--12011 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR 5 MAIN STREET APN 59-151-41 ALL TfIAT CERTAIN real property situate in the City of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, described below as. follows: PARCEL ONE: BEGINNING at the most Northerly corner of that certain parcel of land described in the Deed from Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation, to August C.J. 01dag, etux, recorded January 7, 1941 in Book 403 of Official Records at Page 117, Marin County Records; running thence along the Northerly line thereof, being also the Easterly extension of the Southerly line of the County Road, as determined by Decree of Court in the action of Sydney L. Plant vs. County of Marin , Case No. 4810, as referred to in said Deed, South 70° 10'30" West, 80.0 feet to a point; thence leaving said Northerly line and running South 19° 49'30" East, 283 feet, more or less, to a point on the Southwesterly line of the parcel of land described in said Deed; running thence along said Southwesterly line, South 56° 54' East, 70 feet, more or less, to the most Southerly corner thereof; running thence along the Easterly line of said parcel of land, North.1 ° 05' East, 105.62 feet and North 19° 49'30" West, 240.07 feet to the point of beginning. EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF OBSOLETE PORTION BEING ABANDONED All that portion of Parcel `B" as described in the Deed from the Frederick and Juanita Zelinsky Trust to the City of Tiburon recorded in Book 3195 of Official Records at Page 172, Marin County Records described as follows: COMMENCING at the Northeasterly corner of Parcel Two, as described in the Grant Deed from Varney to Zelinsky, recorded August 3, 1961 in Book1485, at Page 470, Marin County Records, said comer being on the southerly right of way line of Main Street; Thence, leaving said corner and said right of way line, along the easterly property line of said Parcel Two, South 21°16'58" East (South 19°49'30" East per deed), 183.40' feet; Thence, leaving said easterly property line, South 68°43'02" West (South 70°10'30" West per deed), 80.00 feet to the westerly property line of said Parcel Two also being the westerly line of said Parcel `B" Thence along the westerly property line of said Parcel Two and said Parcel "B" North 21'16'58" West (North 19°49' 30" West per deed) 19.5 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence, leaving said westerly property line, along the northerly line of said Parcel `B" North 68'43'02" East (North 70"10'30" East per deed) 6.00 feet to an angle point in said Parcel "B"; Thence along said Parcel "B", South 21°16'58" East (South 19°49'30" East per deed) 11.00 feet; Thence leaving said line of Parcel "B" South 68°43'02" West 6.00 feet to the westerly line of said Parcel Two also being the westerly line of said Parcel "B" as described in the Deed from the Frederick and Juanita Zelinsky Trust to the City of Tiburon recorded in Book 3195 of Official Records at Page 172, Marin County Records; Thence North 21016'58" West (North 19°49' 30" West per deed) 11.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Prepared by: I.L.Schwartz Associates, Inc. Q~pFESS/0 IS Soh' !F~ 1 No. 18221 rn ~o ing L. Sch artz, C.E. Exp. 6-30.05 0A `r~CIV1t 9rFOF C AI~F.,0 IL S1CHWAR'IZ ASSOCIATES, INC. Civil Engineering & Land Surveying 79 Galli Drive NOVATO, CA 94949 (415) 883-9200 FAX 883-2763 JOB TIBURON FERRY PLAZA - QUITCLAIM ESMT~ JOB No. 6940 - E9904 SHEET NO. 1 of 1 DESIGN BY JRH DATE 09/10/01 CHECKED BY ILS DATE 09/10/01 SCALE 1"= 20 EXHIBIT C Area of Public Pedestrian Passage Easement to be Abandoned 11161RnH545r5zc r cowrHe of xORMEAsTERc r cow of P.4R6EL ONE -DEED FROM PARGEL TWO - DEF_D FROM ✓.4~NEY TO ZEL/NSKY ✓.4RNEI' TO ZEL/NSKY Me5 oR 47° MAIN STWTETMe5 OR 470 \ 1 N 68 °4302" E ' 4319' 80.00' IN POINT OF POINT OF 9 MAIN STREET CoMk-ENCEMENT COMMENCEMENT PARGFL. TINO PARCEL ONE I I I O I m _ I ZEUNS ET AL I 1997 0003365 I I ~ I w I 5 MAIN STREET I I TRUE PONT OF I .fl I BEGINNING ry ry I z PARCEL THREE TRUE PONT OF O BEGINNING PARCEL 7TO EL TIIO I I - - PARC I FX~srn~s8,, Obsolete 3 N F8 04 02",E 8o._00 Easement Area to - Be Abandoned 5 68 °4502" 1N,180.001 EX157fts LINE TALE Ol N2/°1650112.10' N 2/ °16 50 " H 10.50' N 60 °43 02" `Y 6.00 ® N 21 '76 50" IN /1.001 TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING /PARCEL ONE ~ OFESS/py9 souls S CID i z W 221 rn `r_ Exp. -30-0 :rF of r n~AZ RESOLUTION NO. XX-2011 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ABANDONING A PORTION OF A PEDESTRIAN PASSAGE EASEMENT OVER PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9 MAIN STREET (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 059-151-40) WHEREAS, in 1977 the Town of Tiburon ("Town") accepted an easement for public pedestrian passage purposes over a portion of the property (Property") located at 9 Main Street, said Property being described in attached Exhibit A, from the owners of the property ("Owner"). Said easement was granted by Grant Deed from the Fred and Juanita Zelinsky Trust dated April 20, 1977 and recorded in the Official Records of Marin County as document No. 21815 in Book 3195, page 172, on May 2, 1977 ("1977 Easement"); and WHEREAS, shortly thereafter the Town constructed the Allan Thompson Bridge, a pedestrian access way that utilized portions of the 1977 Easement to enhance public access to the ferry terminal located on adjoining property at 5 Main Street; and WHEREAS, in 2000 the Town embarked on the "Ferry Area Access & Safety Improvement Project" ("Project"). The purpose of the Project was to further improve access to the ferry terminal located at 5 Main Street, particularly for persons with mobility problems. The Project was intended to construct a new public walkway that would relocate and replace the existing Allan Thompson Bridge, and extend it across the Property. A portion of the walkway was designed in such a manner as to render a portion of the public access granted under the 1977 Easement over the Property obsolete and of no further public purpose; and WHEREAS, on June 13, 2001, the Town and Owner entered into an agreement entitled "Grant of Easement and Agreement", recorded in the Official Records of Marin County as Serial Number 2002-0030199 on April 15, 2002 ("2001 Easement"). The 2001 Easement conveyed to the Town the rights necessary to construct the new walkway and amended certain portions and provisions of the 1977 Easement. Paragraph No. 6 of the 2001 Easement states that following completion of the Project the Town would re- convey the obsolete portion ("Obsolete Portion") of the 1977 Easement to the Owner. WHEREAS, the 2001 Easement effectively relocated the Obsolete Portion, rendering it excess. To implement the provisions of Paragraph 6 of the 2001 Easement, the Town wishes to formally vacate its easement on the Obsolete Portion pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code, chapter 4, division 9, part 3, Chapter 4. The Obsolete Portion is physically part of the lower floor outdoor dining and seating area of the restaurant that is currently located at 9 Main Street, and is a portion of Exhibit "C" to the 1977 Easement. There are no public facilities in the obsolete portion. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2011 --1--12011 ms s' ' fi'r T"~ T r '~`T . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Town of Tiburon does hereby vacate, abandon and extinguish the rights for pedestrian passage purposes over that portion of the Property at 9 Main Street as particularly described in attached Exhibit B and as graphically depicted for illustrative purposes only on attached Exhibit C, which exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated hereby by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council directs the Town Clerk to record this Resolution and its attachments with the Office of County Recorder. From and after the date this Resolution is recorded, the Obsolete Portion shall no longer constitute a public service easement. 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 Exhibits: A. Legal Description of Property (9 Main Street) B. Legal Description of Obsolete Public Pedestrian Passage Easement Portion being Abandoned C. Drawing Depicting Area of Obsolete Public Pedestrian Passage Easement Portion being Abandoned SA\Administration\Town Council\Resolutions\9 Main St easement abandon reso.doc Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2011 --1--12011 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR 9 MAIN STREET APN 59-151-40 ALL THAT CERTAIN real property situate in the City of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, described below as follows: PARCEL ONE: Beginning at the most Westerly corner of the parcel of land described in the Deed from Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation to August C. J. 01dag, et ux, recorded January 7, 1941 in nook 408 of Official Records at Page 117, Marin County Records; thence running along the Easterly extension of the Southerly line of the County Road, as determined by Decree of Court in the Action of Sydney L. Plant vs. County of Marin (Case No. 4810), as referred to in said Deed, North 70° 10' 30" East 43.19 feet to a point which bears South 70° 10' 30" West 80.0 feet from the most Northerly corner of the parcel of land described in said Deed; thence leaving said line and running South 19° 49' 30" East 282.74 feet to a point on the Southwesterly line of the parcel of land described in said Deed; thence running along said line, North 56° 54' West 72.615 feet to an angle point therein; thence running along the Westerly line thereof, North 19° 49' 30" West 212.0 feet to an angle point ;thence continuing along said Westerly line, North 17° 12" West 12.82 feet to the point of beginning. EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF OBSOLETE PORTION BEING ABANDONED All that portion of property described in Exhibit "C" in the Deed from the Frederick and Juanita Zelinsky Trust to the City of Tiburon recorded in Book 3195 of Official Records at Page 172, Marin County Records, described as follows: COMMENCING at the Northeasterly corner of Parcel One as described in the Grant Deed from Varney to Zelinsky recorded on August 3, 1961, in Book 1485, at Page 470, Marin County Records, said corner being on the Southerly right of way line of Main Street; Thence along the Northerly property line of said parcel and said Southerly right of way line, South 68° 43' 02" West (South 70 ° 10' 30" West per deed) 43.19 feet to the Northwesterly corner of said parcel; Thence, leaving Northerly property line and said right of way line, along the Westerly property line of said Parcel One, South 18 ° 39' 28" East (South 17 ° 12' East per deed), 12.82 feet; Thence South 21 ° 16' 58" East (South 19 ° 49' 30" East per deed) 162.1 feet to the intersection of said Westerly property line with the Southerly limit of an existing deck; Thence leaving said Westerly line along said Southerly limit, North 68 ° 43' 02" East (North 70 ° 10' 30" East per deed), 10.23 feet, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along said line and bearing, 33.52 feet to the Easterly property line of said Parcel One; Thence along said Easterly property line, North 21 ° 16' 58" West (North 19 ° 49' 30" West per deed), 11 feet, more or less, to the intersection of said Easterly property line with the Westerly extension of the Southerly limit of an existing overhead deck; Thence leaving said Easterly property line, along said extension and the Southerly limit of the overhead deck, South 68 ° 43' 02" West (South 70 ° 10' 30" West per deed), 33.52 feet to the Southwest corner of said overhead deck, said corner also being on the Southerly extension of the Westerly outside face of an existing building; Thence along said extension and said Westerly outside face, being 10.23 feet, more or less, distant from and parallel with the Westerly property line of said Parcel One, South 21 0 16' 58" East, 11 feet, more or less, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. LL SCHWAFaZ ARK)CIATES, INC. Civil Engineering & Land Surveying 79 Galli Drive NOVATO, CA 94949 (415) 883-9200 FAX 883-2763 1997 EXHIBIT C Area of Public Pedestrian Passage Easement to be Abandoned N012THEq ST~~ y GOR/JER OF P.4RGEL ONE - ~Em FROM VARIVE>" TO Z-EL /NSKY /485 OR 470 \ MAIN 1 i✓oR1-17EAsrZ~7RL r coRIVE2 ~ P.4R6F1 TlNO - pFEp FROM 1i!iR/✓EY TO ZEUNSKY STREET1405 OR 470 N 60 "4.3 02" F -57L-5~. /q' t~ 9 MAIN STREET f ry I ~ I o 0 I ~ TRITE POINT OF BEffNN1NG PARCEL T1T0 PARCEL TIPO i I~ Obsolete Easement Area to Be Abandoned POINT OF GOkfH,L-/JGEMENT P.4RGEL 73N0 ET AL 0003365 JOB TIBURON FERRY PLAZA - QUITCLAIM ESMT~ JOB NO_ 6940 - E9904 SHEET NO. 1 OF 1 DESIGN BY JRH DATE 09/10/01 CHECKED BY ILS DATE 09/10/01 SCALE 1"= 20' 00' POINT OF 60MMEN6,EMFNT PARCEL ONE 5 MAIN STREET TRUE POINT OF I BEGINNING I PARCEL THREE I I I I I F V'. N 6?8 °4302",E\ 80.00 0 W N ks) TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING /ARCEL ONE 5 68 043 02" H /80.00' EXt57M , LINE TABLE. Ol N 2/ °16'38 " `Y 2. l0' O N 21 016 55 " H 10.58' N 68 °43 02" H 6.00' ® N 21 016 58 " N 00' o OFESSI0~,4 UIS S~ W - 221 rn Exp. 6-30-0 =0 \t '?OFrkLA~V RESOLUTION NO. XX-2011 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF OPEN SPACE RESTRICTIONS FROM PORTIONS OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5 AND 9 MAIN STREET (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 059-151-41 AND 059-151-40) WHEREAS, in 1977 the Town of Tiburon required certain restrictive covenants to be placed on properties at 5 and 9 Main Street in association with the planned construction of a waterfront bridge and walkway ("Allan Thompson Bridge"). The restrictions were intended to preserve for posterity as open, undeveloped and unimproved space (i.e., water), the areas immediately bay-ward of the Allan Thompson Bridge upon its construction; and WHEREAS, shortly thereafter the Town constructed the Allan Thompson Bridge, a pedestrian access way that utilized portions of the 1977 Easement to enhance public access to the ferry terminal located on adjoining property at 5 Main Street; and WHEREAS, in 2001, the Town constructed a new, relocated, and ADA-accessible Allan Thompson walkway utilizing portions of the restricted open space areas, but leaving all bay-ward portions of the remaining open space-restricted areas open for the benefit of the public; and WHEREAS, the full length of the Allan Thompson walkway remains subject to a public access easement granted in 2001; and WHEREAS, the Town and property owner of 5 and 9 Main Street now wish to clarify the public record by releasing the open space restrictions from those portions of the properties over which the new Allan Thompson walkway has been constructed; and WHEREAS, an Agreement releasing said portions of property from the open space restrictions has been executed by the property owner. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Town of Tiburon hereby approves the Agreement authorizing the release of open space restrictions, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, authorizes the Town Manager to execute it, and directs the Town Clerk to ensure its timely recordation. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on , 2011 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. xx-2011 4--12011 EX.1AIBIT NO. %3 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK SAAdministration\Town Council\Resolutions\5 and 9 Main release of restrictions reso.doc Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. xx-2011 --1--12011 EXHIBIT 1 AGREEMENT FOR RELEASE OF OPEN SPACE RESTRICTIONS This Agreement made this day of , 201_, by and between Barbara Z. Abrams, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor," and the Town of Tiburon, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee." Recitals 1. Grantor is the owner of certain real properties (portions of which are underwater) commonly known as 5 Main Street and 9 Main Street, Tiburon, Marin County, State of California (APN #s 059-151-41 and 059-151-40 respectively), hereinafter referred to as the "Easement Site". 2. Grantee is the owner of certain real property (which is primarily underwater) immediately adjoining Grantor's property, commonly known as 1920 Paradise Boulevard, Tiburon, Marin County, State of California (APN #059-163-01), hereinafter referred to as "Shoreline Park". 3. Grantee currently holds an easement over the Easement Site by virtue of a Grant Deed for the Fred and Juanita Zelinsky Trust dated April 20, 1977 and recorded in the Official Records of Marin County as document No. 21815 in Book 3195, page 172, on May 2, 1977 ("1977 Easement"). The 1977 Easement area is the site of the Allan Thompson Bridge, which provides access to a ferry dock. Under the terms of the 1977 Easement, the properties described in Exhibits D and E thereto are restricted to non- exclusive public rights of access and are to remain forever in the natural state as open, undeveloped, and unimproved space ("Open Space Restrictions"). The attached Exhibit "A" contains a drawing, for illustration purposes only, depicting the areas where the Open Space Restrictions are being released. 4. A public ferry service is operated on a dock located adjacent to Shoreline Park. Grantee received funding to construct, and subsequently completed the construction of, the "Ferry Area Access & Safety Improvement Project" ("Project"). The purpose of the project was to improve access to the ferry terminal, particularly for persons with mobility problems. The Project constructed a public Walkway that replaced and extended the former Allan Thompson Bridge. A portion of the Walkway was constructed on the property that is subject to the Open Space Restrictions under the 1977 Easement. 5. On June 13, 2001, Grantor and Grantee entered into an agreement entitled "Grant of Easement and Agreement", recorded in the Official Records of Marin County as Serial Number 2002-0030199 on April 15, 2002 ("2001 Easement"). The 2001 Easement conveyed to Grantee the rights necessary to construct the walkway and amended certain portions and provisions of the 1977 Easement. To clarify the public record, the parties now wish to formally remove the Open Space Restrictions from those portions of property that are the site of the new Walkway. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. The 1977 Easement is hereby amended to release for the Open Space Restrictions those portions of property described in attached Exhibit "B". 2. Except as otherwise amended herein and by the 2001 Easement, the 1977 Easement shall remain in full force and effect, such that the Grantor shall not fill or develop that portion of the property described in Exhibits D and E to the 1977 Easement that remain subject to the Open Space Restrictions. The 2001 Easement shall remain in full force and effect except as may be modified herein. 3. This Agreement includes the following Exhibits, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein: Exhibit "A": Drawing Depicting Released Property Areas Exhibit "B": Legal Description of Released Property Executed on , at Tiburon, Marin County, California GRANTOR Barbara Z. Abrams (As trustee of the Alan L. Abrams Testamentary Non-Exempt QTIP Trust B and Barbara Z. Abrams and as Trustee of the Barbara Z. Abrams Living Trust dated May 26, 1999, D.b.a. Main Street Properties) GRANTEE Margaret A. Curran, Town Manager Town of Tiburon APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ann R. Danforth, Town Attorney S: Wministrationl Town CouncillResolutionsTelease of Open Space Restrictions Agreement.doc 2 LL 9CHWARIZ ASSOCIA-TIES, INC. _ Civil Engineering & Land Surveying 79 Galii Drive NOVATO, CA 94949 (415) 883-9200 FAX 883-2763 JOB TIBURON FERRY PLAZA - JOB NO_ 6940 - E.9904 SHEET N0. 1 01 1 DESIGN BY JRH DATE 09/10/01 CHECKED BY ILS DATE 09/10/01 SCALE 1"= 2 0' EXHIBIT "A" Areas of Open Water Restriction to be Released NORTH~45T ,L GORNER OF NOR77EA57rRZ Y GORIIER OF PARGEL ONE - DEED FROM FARG._.L T40 - VA R/~!E Y TO ZFL /NSKY QED rR0,~1 I4~3 OR 470 YARNEY TO ZEL /IYSKY -VAIN ST BEETI405OR 470 m N 68°4.302"E v RoINT of Po~NT OF GOMMENGEMENT GoMM~-NGFII~~NT FARGEL T/IVO PARGaOld I 9 MAIN STREET ` I I I ZEZINS'KY I 1997- L Q I Lr~ I o 0 I MrE POINT OF z BEFLNN7NG PARCEL 770 PAIrCEL TP0_ - Fx15rr11s t N 68 °43 02" F 43.7' EA-Sa-evr V• i I ET AL ! 0003365 i 1 w I TRUE POINT OF I o BEGINNING I PARCEL THREE I ~ I 5 MAIN STREET I I I EX15Tlti5 13" N 68 043 02" E 80.00' ~O 5 68 °43 02" H 80.00' I Exr5n#s _i7' 1~" Key PARCEL ONE Open Water Restriction Release Areas L IIE T At3L E.- 0/ A121-1650'N2.10' N 21016 58 " N 10..58' G3 Iv' 68 °4302 " 6.00' N 2/'16 58" PV ll.00' i 1 TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL ONE ,OFESS/pN9 ~,©UI S SC l w ~0. 221 ' m cr / Exp. 6-30-Q =i OFC4'~ 4 EXHIBIT "B" LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FOR AREAS OF OPEN WATER RESTRICTIVE COVENANT RELEASE All that certain real property situate in the Town of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, being a portion of the lands of Zelinsky Et.AI. as set out in the Deed recorded under Document No. 1997-0003365, Marin County Records, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: All that portion of Easement "E" as described in the Deed from the Frederick and Juanita Zelinsky Trust to the City of Tiburon recorded in Book 3195 of Official Records at Page 172, Marin County Records described as follows: COMN ENCING at the Northeasterly corner of Parcel Two, as described in the Grant Deed from Varney to Zelinsky, recorded August 3, 1961 in Book1485, at Page 470, Marin County Records, said corner being on the southerly right of way line of Main Street; Thence, leaving said corner and said right of way line, along the easterly property line of said Parcel Two, South 21'16'58" East (South 19°49' 30" East per deed), 183.40' feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence, continuing along said easterly property line also being the easterly line of said Parcel "E", South 21'16'58" East, 2.10 feet; Thence, leaving said easterly property line and said easement line, South 68°43'02" West, 80.00 feet to the westerly property line of said Parcel Two also,being the westerly line of said Parcel "E"; Thence along the westerly property line of said Parcel Two and said Parcel "E", North 21'16'5 8" West (North 19°49' 30" West per deed) 2.10 feet; Thence, leaving said westerly property line, along the common line between Parcels "E" and Parcel "B" as described in the Deed from the Frederick and Juanita Zelinsky Trust to the City of Tiburon recorded in Book 3195 of Official Records at Page 172, Marin County Records, North 68°43'02" East (North 70°10'30" East per deed) 80.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL TWO: All that portion of Easement "D" as described in the Deed from the Frederick and Juanita Zelinsky Trust to the City of Tiburon recorded in Book 3195 of Official Records at Page 172, Marin County Records described as follows: COM ENCING at the Northeasterly corner of Parcel One, as described in the Grant Deed from Varney to Zelinsky, recorded August 3, 1961 in Book1485, at Page 4701 Marin County Records, said corner being on the southerly right of way line of Main Street; Thence along the northerly property line of said parcel and said southerly right of way line, South 68°43'02" West (South 70°10'30" West per deed) 43.19 feet to the northwesterly corner of said parcel; Thence, leaving northerly property line and said right of way line, along the westerly property line of said Parcel One, South 18°39'28" East (South 17°12' East per deed) 12.82 feet; Thence South 21'16'58" East (South 19°49' 30" East per deed) 162.1 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING also being the northwesterly corner of Parcel "D as described in the Deed from the Frederick and Juanita Zelinsky Trust to the City of Tiburon recorded in Book 3195 of Official Records at Page 172, Marin County Records; Thence along the northerly line of said Parcel "D", North 68°43'02" East (North 70'10'30" East per deed) 43.75 feet to the easterly property line of said Parcel One also being the northeasterly corner of said Parcel "D"; Thence along the easterly line of said Parcel One and said Parcel "D", South 21'16'58" East (South 19°49.30" East per deed) 10.58 feet; Thence, leaving said easterly property line and said easterly easement line, South 68°43'02" West, 43.75 feet to the westerly property line of said Parcel One also being the westerly line of said Parcel "D"; Thence along said westerly property line and said westerly easement line, North 21'16'58" West (North 19°49' 30" West per deed) 10.58 feet to the POINT OF BEGUSMING. III! Ilillli1111111lllllllllllliill Recorded I REC i=E` .00 Official Records I County Of I Mar i n JOAN C. THAYER I Recorder I I SI 09:00AM 15-Apr-2002 I Page 1 of 21 AP #'s 59-163-O1; 59-151-40; and 59-151-41 Recording Requested, Return to: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD TIBURON, CA 94920 ATTN: SCOTT ANDERSON DOCUMENT TITLE GRANT OF EASEMENT & AGREEMENT WITH RESOLUTION OF ACCEPTANCE ATTACHED L a '~'X..TI1BrT INTO. Recording Requested by: Diane Crane Iacopi Town Clerk of the Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 GRANT OF EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT This Agreement is dated June 13, 2001, and is by and between Edward G. Zelinsky, Laleh Zelinsky and Barbara Z. Abrams, hereinafter referred to as Grantors, and the Town of Tiburon, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee." Recitals 1. Grantors are the owners of certain real property (a portion of which is underwater) commonly known as 5 Main Street, Tiburon, Marin County, State of California (APN 9 059-151-41) ("Easement Site"). 2. Grantee is the owner of certain real property immediately adjoining Grantors' property, commonly known as "Shoreline Park" or 1920 Paradise Boulevard, Tiburon, Marin County, State of California (APN 9 059-163-01) ("Shoreline Park"). Shoreline Park is more particularly described in Exhibit A. 3. A public ferry service is operated on a dock located adjacent to the Easement Site and the Shoreline Park. Grantee has received funding to construct the Ferry Area Access & Safety Improvement Project" ("Project"). The purpose of the Project is to improve assess to the ferry terminal, particularly for persons with mobility problems; and 4. The Grantee currently holds an easement over an area adjacent to the Easement Site by virtue of a Grant Deed from the Fred and Juanita Zelinsky Trust dated April 20, 1977 and recorded in the Official Records of Marin County as document No. 21815 in Book 3195, page 172, on May 2, 1977 ("1977 Easement"). Exhibit D contains a copy of the 1977 Easement. The 1977 Easement is the site of the Allan Thompson Bridge, which provides access to the ferry dock. To improve the accessibility of the ferry dock to persons with impaired mobility, Grantee wishes to create a public Walkway over the Easement Site, which will replace and extend the existing Allan Thompson Bridge. Grantee therefore desires to acquire an easement over the Easement Site for the purpose of constructing and maintaining said Walkway as a part of the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1# 1. Grant: For valuable consideration, Grantors hereby grant to Grantee an easement as hereinafter-described ("Easement"). 2. _Description and Use of Easement: The Easement is for the purpose of (a) allowing Grantee to construct, and maintain the Project; and (b) providing public access to the Project improvements and the ferry. 3. Location: The location of the Easement shall be as described on Exhibit B and shown on Exhibit C. 4. Exclusiveness of Easement. The Easement granted herein is exclusively for the purposes set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement and to provide public access to the dock. 5. Character of Easement: The Easement shall be appurtenant to Shoreline Park. Reconvey nce of 1977 Easement: A portion of the 1977 Easement, consisting of some or all 6. Cof that segment of the 1977 Easement located on property commonly known as 9 Main Street in Tiburon will no longer be used for public access after the Town has completed the Project ("Obsolete Portion"). After the Project is complete, the Town will determine the exact confizuration of the Obsolete Portion and re-convey it to Grantors. 7. Secondary Easements: The Easement includes incidental rights of maintenance, repair, and replacement, described as follows: the right to go upon Grantors' property with necessary equipment for the maintenance or repair of the Project once constructed. 8. Hold Harmless and Insurance: Grantee shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend Grantors from any claim, lawsuit or liability involving the construction of the Walkway or its subsequent use by the public. 9. Ownership of Improvements: Grantee shall retain ownership of any improvements placed in the easement. Grantors shall have the right to review and approve the proposed improvements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. By execution of this instrument, Grantors indicate their approval of the Project. 10. Commencement of Use: If Grantee does not complete construction of the Project within two (2) years of the date of this easement, this Agreement shall automatically become null and void, unless extended by written agreement of the parties. The two-year time period shall be tolled during the pendency of any litigation challenging construction of the Project. 11. Other Responsibilities of Grantee: Grantee shall begin maintaining the Allan Thompson Bridge and the site of the Easement upon execution of this Agreement. The 1977 Easement is hereby amended such that Grantee and its lessees shall be solely responsible for maintaining the 2 Walkway in a clean and safe manner. Grantee shall be responsible for any transfer taxes or other costs associated with the grant and recordation of this easement. 12. Arbitration: The parties agree that any dispute between the parties regarding the terms or application of this agreement shall be submitted to binding arbitration. 13. Entire Agre: This instrument contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to the rights herein granted and the obligations herein assumed. Any oral representations or modifications concerning this instrument shall be of no force and effect excepting a subsequent modification in writing, signed by the party to be charged. 14. Binding Effect: This instrument shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of Grantor and Grantee. 15. Exhibits: This Agreement includes the following Exhibits, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference: Exhibit A: Shoreline Park (Dominant Estate) Exhibit B: Easement (Legal Description) Exhibit C: Easement (Diagram) Exhibit D 1977 Easement 2 i ~ W / at Tiburon, Marin County, California Executed on GRANTORS i Edward G. Zelinsky) ~-2 Laleh Zelinsky GRANTEE BY: Ilarry S. Hat thews - S--'* Mayor, To of Tiburon APPROVED AS TO FORM: AADannffoo Town Attorney &W& A r-#%M&11 w Ai i _pi 1apn-4q;: enKNOWLEDGMENT 60 J64 State of California ss. County of _Mar in On 3 / 5 / 0 2 before me, Date personally appeared Edward G. Z e 1 in sky Name(s) of Signer(s) personally known to me proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence Place Notary Seal Above GAIL A. STINE Comm. # 1233399 t~ NOTARY PUBLIC -CALIFORNIA u' Marin 'County r~ s My Comm. Expires Aug. 29, 2003 to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Gail A. Stine Name and Title of Officer (e.g., 'Jane Doe, Notary Public ) WI SS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document cr~mPnt and arr-r^APmPnfi Title or Type of Document: r ant o f E a Document Date: ,T1i nP 1 3 , 2 0 01 Number of Pages: 1 5 Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer t: Signer's Name: t=❑ Individual Top of thumb here ❑ Corporate Officer - Title(s): [X- Partner - [R Limited C General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: o_...a..~ ran ,_Rnn_976-AR77 C 1999 National Notary Association • 9350 De Soto Ave.. P.O. Box 2402 • Chatsworth, CA 91313.2402 • www.nationalnotary.org rrau. , c-ni MnRNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ss. County of ma-in On 3/5/02 before me, Gail R Mine Date Name and Title of Officer (e.g., 'Jane Doe, Notary Public') personally appeared Name(s) of Signers GAIL A. STINE Comm. a 1233399 a 4K NOTARY PUBLIC- CALIFORNIA 0 Marin County 1 DNA „ohs: My CorAm. Expires Aun.29~ 2003 Place Notary Seal Above personally known to me D proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/.her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WFNESS my hand and official seal. c 0- t Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Grant of Easement and Agreement Document Date: June 13, 2001 Number of Pages: 1 5 Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(lies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ` ❑ Individual Top of thumb here ❑ Corporate Officer - Title(s): ® Partner - ® Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: 0 1999 National Notary Association • 9350 be Solo Ave., P.O. [3oz 2402 • Chatsworth, CA 91313-2402 • www.nauonainotary.org Prod- No. 5907 neoruer. ,,all iuu-r , -aw o-v 1--AL IFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of GAIL A, ZSTINE Comm, # 1233399 rr • @ NOTARY PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA U~ Merin County My Coutm, Expires Au;.19, 2003 ~ ss. On 2/25/02 before me, Gail A. Stine Date Name and Title of Officer (e.g., `Jane Doe, Notary Public") personally appeared Barbara Z. Abrams Name(s) of Signer(s) LX personally known to me F] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence Marin Place Notary Seal Above to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/.her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WI HESS my hand and official seal. _ L Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type.of Document: far~~ ~-F Easement and -Agi=eeR;°n+ Document Date: June 13, 2001 Number of Pages: 15 Signer(s) Other Than Named Above.- Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: t: ❑ Individual Top of thumb here ❑ Corporate Officer - Title(s): E Partner - E Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: C 1999 National Notary Association • 9350 De Soto Ave., P.O. Box 2402 • Chatsworth, CA 91313.2402 • www.nationalnoLary.org Prod. No. 5907 Keoroec Gan ioa-r-ree i-ouu-oio-ooar ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of California ss. County of 4X-1 °~11U°l before me, 1-46012- On F_ appeared qAr~l~y fI SIGNER(S) personally known to me - OR - ❑ proved to me on the basis oil' satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and ackno,,vledQed to me that he; she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their si`Tnatures(s) on the instrument the person(s). or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. DIANE CRANE IACOPI Comm. # 1286660 rn WITNESS my h' d anc official seal. N NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA 0 • Marin County My Comm, Expires Dec. 8, 2004 'i \O I A , IG'\.AT , Rt: OPTIONAL INFORMATION The information below iti not required by law. However, it could prevent fraudulent attachment of this acknowl- ed<,ement to an unauthorized document. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER (PRINCIPAL) ❑ I IVIDUAL CORPORATE OFFICER ZY,4 Vo TI LL(Si ❑ PARTNER(S) ❑ ATTORNEY-IN-FACT ❑ TRUSTEE(S ) ❑ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR ❑ OTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSOtiISi OR FNTIT'r'i ILS i DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT G 4410 TITL OR TYPE OF DOCU;vIENT NUMB OF PAGES l3 0 _ 1T rEOF DOC liMENT RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF ~V SIGNER APA 5/99 V,LLEI'-SIERRA. ti(N) . 6~ OTHER jL Exhibit A Shoreline Park Lot 1 as shown on document 84-8031, Page 4 of Volume 19 of Maps, recorded on February 16, 1984, in the Official Records of Marin County. 5 EXHIBIT B EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS All that certain real property situate in the Town of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, being a portion of the lands of Zelinsky Et.AI. as set out in the Deed recorded under Document No. 1997-0003365, Marin County Records, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: All that portion of Easement "E" as described in the Deed from the Frederick and Juanita Zelinsky Trust to the City of Tiburon recorded in Book 3195 of Official Records at Page 172, Marin County Records described as follows: CONIlVIENCING at the Northeasterly corner of Parcel Two, as described in the Grant Deed from Varney to Zelinsky, recorded August 3, 1961 in Book1485, at Page 470, Marin County Records, said corner being on the southerly right of way line of Main Street; Thence, leaving said corner and said right of way line, along the easterly property line of said Parcel Two, South 21°16'58" East (South 19°49'30" East per deed), 183.40' feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence, continuing along said easterly property line also being the easterly line of said Parcel "E", South 21'16'58" East, 2.10 feet; Thence, leaving said easterly property line and said easement line, South 68°43'02" West, 80.00 feet to the westerly property line of said Parcel Two also being the westerly line of said Parcel "E"; Thence along the westerly property line of said Parcel Two and said Parcel "E", North 21016'58" West (North 19°49'30" West per deed) 2.10 feet; Thence, leaving said westerly property line, along the common line between Parcels "E" and Parcel "B" as described in the Deed from the Frederick and Juanita Zelinsky Trust to the City of Tiburon recorded in Book 3195 of Official Records at Page 172, Mann County Records, North 68°43' 02" East (North 70'10'30" East per deed) 80.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL TWO: All that portion of Easement "D" as described in the Deed from the Frederick and Juanita Zelinsky Trust to the City of Tiburon recorded in Book 3195 of Official Records at Page 172, Mann County Records described as follows: CONINIENCING at the Northeasterly corner of Parcel One, as described in the Grant Deed from Varney to Zelinsky, recorded August 3, 1961 in Book1485, at Page 470, Mann County Records, said corner being on the southerly right of way line of Main Street; Thence along the northerly property line of said parcel and said southerly right of way line, South 68°43'02" West (South 70°10'30" West per deed) 43.19 feet to the northwesterly corner of said parcel, Thence, leaving northerly property line and said right of way line, along the westerly property line of said Parcel One, South 18°39'28" East (South 17°12' East per deed) 12.82 feet; Thence South 21°16'58" East (South 19°49'30" East per deed) 162.1 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING also being the northwesterly corner of Parcel "D as described in the Deed from the Frederick and Juanita Zelinsky Trust to the City of Tiburon recorded in Book 3195 of Official Records at Page 172, Marin County Records; Thence along the northerly line of said Parcel "D", North 68°43'02" East (North 70'10"10" East per deed) 43.75 feet to the easterly property line of said Parcel One also being the northeasterly corner of said Parcel "D"; Thence along the easterly line of said Parcel One and said Parcel "D", South 21'16'58" East (South 19°49.30" East per deed) 10.58 feet; Thence, leaving said easterly property line and said easterly easement line, South 68°43'02" West, 43.75 feet to the westerly property line of said Parcel One also being the westerly line of said Parcel "D"; Thence along said westerly property line and said westerly easement line, North 21°16'58" West (North 19°49'30" West per deed) 10.58 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL THREE: BEGINNING at the intersection of the northerly and westerly lines of Parcel "B" as described in the Deed from the Frederick and Juanita Zelinsky Trust to the City of Tiburon recorded in Book 3195 of Official Records at Page 172, Marin County Records, said lines being labeled per said deed "North 70'10'30" East, 64 feet" and "North 19°49' 30" West, 173.4 feet"; Thence, from said point of intersection and along said westerly line, North 21'16'58" West, 3.50 feet; Thence, leaving said westerly line, South 23°43' 02" West, 4.95 feet to a point on the northerly line of said Parcel "B"; Thence along said northerly line, North 68°43' 02" East, 3.50 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Prepared by: I.L.Schwartz Associates, Inc ng L. Schwartz, C.E: REV-EAS-LGL.DOC 09/ 10/01 ?ESS/0 ~pUI Sr, SC l~. CZ No. 18221 N m Exp. 6-30-05 `~I,ql CIVIL - - LL SCHWARTZ ARX)CIATES, INC. Civil Engineering & Land Surveying 79 Galli Drive - NOVATO, CA 94949 (415) 883-9200 FAX 883-2763 JOB TIBURON FERRY PLAZA - NEW EASEMENTS JOB No. 6940 - E9904 SHEET,. 1 DESIGN BY JRH D~ CHECKED BY ILS SCALE 1 20' EXHIBIT C M -fN L No. 18.) Exp. 6-30-05 s NOt?Tr1E1~5 TERL Y GOf? l NEi< OF NORTHEA5TEr~ Y GORIYE kF~~OFCA\L\~Z~' P ~4r2GEL ONE - 1EED FROM FAR6a T`YO - DEEFROM V14RNEY TO ZEL /N5KY VARNEY TO ZEL /N5KY 1485 OR 470 J-1-4 IN STREET 1485 OR 470 N 68 °4302" E 43. /q' 80.00' POINT OF 6;OM7-EN6E»ENT PARCEL T`YO i I Z=NSKY 1997- w I Z I ~ I ° I ~V TRUE POINT OF BE'~INNING PARCEL Y70 PARCEL 770 - - - - EX1577A6 E'G' N 68 °4302" E 43.75' FXl57?/pi 68 043 D2 ! V 3.73 EA5EMOVT v• POINT OF GOMMENGEMENT PARCEL ONE N ET AL 0003365 ! LQ I i ° ! TRUI PARCEL THREE ! BE'GI l PARC I 3 EX15TW ,54-4~r B' N 68 043 02" E 80.00' V 7777 \ 5 68 °4302 u f~l 80.00' EX-577N6 E _59, f° PARCEL ONE L INE TA3L E- l N21°l658"JY2.l0' ~N21°1658' ?V10.-50' 0 N 23°4302 `V 4.q.5' Q,q 21°l658"H5.50' O N 68 °43'02 ",E 5-50' POINT OF KING 'L THREE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING /PARCEL ONE NO TE-• cX15 T IN6 LA5t,~NT FAR2G 5 'B5 "J PER 51x5 OR 172 S C mevvt C' Tv tir.aen 2181E r~ n g Rer-1 eS.l. ed b Tp „ 0-F T 1$l~ON ~ P,ecorded, Trail to: AT 21815 A 1 r 1 (YI. MAY 2 1977. Official Records of Mann County, Calif. FED $ F RECORDER -D T T? o n C? Ly A nor ney 1534- 'i= th Avenue SznP3fa e1, CA 94 901 G?,, NT DEEZED FOR PEDE.STR.IAN PASSAGE EASEMENT A'-",TD RESTRICT! AIL COVE`iA,NT FP.ED=iCR Tu D JUA`1I.TA ZELIL;SKY TPI ST (hereinafterr°-erred to as "Grantor") , hereby grants to the C_-TY OT TIBUROi7, a municipal corporation (here i naf ter re-erred L-0 as "C?"anLee"), an e asertent for pedestrian passage over a r o, Le-ade and walkway for pub l 1C use, over and ac=ss the real property situ3teC1 , the Ci -'V Of T lbur JP_, Co',1i1t1 O° i'ar1_1, State Of California, describe" in MM"' "En' and "C" attached hereto_ Grantor, repreasents to Grantee the-L- it has constructed nodes Irian pr oonenade and walkway over said real P--coe--ty z SCCd and manner and a r'rJ;,'°P_3n t and war, n'.s yl ^.a t i t W:- jl Maintain it in safe condition at all ti--:es and will, at all ti;-yes, malnt3-n public liabi lity insurance in amounts d`~-;ed sz t.Ls=actory to the Tiburon City Manager r naming Cr antee as an additional insured and providing nor prior Doti ce to . 0=a Lee of any cancellation of the policy. ExH~Bi-r p 'C.i -Ir G. an tor es7v covenants w4 `h G. antee tI1a L e ro_'e_ ~V described in Exr? 1D1 is "D" and 1f L,~, atta c:1ed here to ~ si?all be rest- i cted to none.rclusive public richt.s of access and to remain. forzTrer in ,the natural state as open undeveloped, ul "ia 1`d, z-d uni mproved space. DATED: 1977. } ss. -COUP T; Y OF Z- :~LRI~i ) 0 Q~&. & i n tha ear one -cho sand On this day of ni Ze hu c.r and be-o e me, :f~ , a Notary Public, State o aLifornia duly commissio ICLA E =-d sWE II r per s oval lv appeared known to me to be th- erson hose na-^e ~S su~scr ;d to . the c~iti~iin instrument and acknotirledged to me tha t he , x`cu ted the same. I'`. I-IT-NESS ;-q-=REOF I have hereunto set r,-,y hard 1 of fixed ~nl M17 official seal i Lhe County o% t-~e day and Year this certific~ \f t ~ tilbo 1 1 l1 A1. Al . /1 't a . tiny coz~!ission expires FREE? ICY ~JTD JUI~.'TIT?1 ZELINSKY TRUST By : -step `ary _ U- 1D i c, ght ~..I~M~~a f1 e 'of California VUC'31 95 1 tj EXHIBIT "A" Commencing at a point in the Northerly line of Tideland Lot 15 1/2 which bears South 64° 33' 30 West, 134.80 feet from Tideland St-at-ion, 469 , said Doint being the most Southerly corner of the parcel of land conveyed to the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company by M. J. Gillogly and Zoe H. Gillogly, his wife, by that certain indenture dated January 12, 1927, recorded June 9, 1927, in Volume 119 of Official Records, page 301p Marin County Records; thence North 22 ° 06' West , 26.40 feet to the Southerly line of Main Street; thence along said southerly line, North 70° 10' 30" East, 56.28 feet to the true Point of Beginning, said point being the Northeast corner of a parcel of land now or formerly owned by Fred Zelinsky and known as "The Dock." Thence leaving said Point of Beginning and said right of way line, along the Easterly property line of said parcel, South 19° 49' 30" East, 224 feet, more or less, to the Southerly limit of an existing deck; thence along said Southerly limit of the existing deck, South 70° 10' 30" West, 55.23 feet to a point on the Westerly property line of said parcel; thence leaving said Southerly limit o= said deck, along said Westerly property line, North 19° 49' 30" West, 5 feet, more or less, to the outside face of the existing building; thence leaving said Westerly line, along the outside face of the existing building, North 70° 10' 30" East, 47.23 feet, more or less, to the Southeasterly corner of the existing building; thence along the Easterly outside face of said building, 8 feet, more or less, distant from the above mentioned Easterly property line, North 19° 49' 30" West, 103.5 feet; South 70° 10' 30" West, 2 feet; thence along the Easterly outside face of sai existing building, now being 10 feet, more or less, distant from said Easterly property line, North 19° 49' 30" West, 115.5 feet, more or less, to the Northerly property line of said parcel and the Southerly right of way line of Main Street; thence along said Northerly property line, North 70° 10 30" East, 10 fee`, more or less, to tr:e Point of Beginning. Containing 2 , 259 Square Feet in area . EXHIBIT "B" Begs nr_ing at the Northeasterly corner of Parcel Two, as described in the Grant Deed from Varney to Zelinsky, recorded on August 3, 1961, in Book 1485, at page 470, Maria County Records; said point also lying on the Southerly right of way line of Main Street; thence leaving s ai d 'P o i nt of Beginning and right of way line, along the Easterly property line of the ab-ove referenced Parcel Two, South 19° 49' 30" East, 183.4 feet, more or less, to the intersection of the extension of the Southerly limit of an existing promenade deck with said Easterly property line; thence leaving said Easterly line along said Southerly limit of said promenade deck, South 70° 10' 30" West, 80 feet, to the Westerly property line of said parcel; thence along said Westerly property line, North 19° 49' 30" West, 19.5 feet; thence leaving said Westerly property line, North 70° 10' 30" East, 6 feet, more or less, to the Easterly limit of an existing deck; thence along said Easterly limit, South 191 49' 30" East, 9.5 feet, more or less, to the inter- section of said Easterly limit of deck with the Northerly limit of the above mentioned promenade deck; thence along said Northerly. limit, North 70 ° 10' 30" East, 64 feet to the intersecti on of said Northerly limit with the Southerly extension of the Easterly outside face of the existing building being 10 feet, more or less, distant from the Easterly property line of said parcel; thence along said extension and along said Easterly outside face of said building, North 190 49' 30" West, 173.4 feet, more or less, to a point on the Northerly property line of said parcel, said line also being the Southerly right of way line of Main Street; thence along said Northerly property line, North 70° 10' 30" East, 10 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning. Containing 2 , 591 Square Feet of area. EXHIBIT "C" Beginning at the Northeasterly corner of Parcel One as described in the Grant Deed from Varney to Zelinsky recorded on August 3, 1961, in Book 1485 , at page 470, Marin Countv Records, said point also being on the Southerly right of way line of Main Street; thence leaving said point, along said Southerly right of way line and Northerly line o said parcel, South 70 ° 10' 30" West, 43 .19 feet, to the Northwester l_v corner of said parcel; .thence leaving said corner and said right of way line, along the Westerly property line of said parcel, South 17° 12' East, 12.82 feet; thence South 19° 49' 30" East, 162.1 feet to the intersection of said Westerly property line with the Southerly limit of an existing deck; thence leaving said Westerly line along said Southerly limit, North 70° 10' 30" East, 43.75 feet, to the Easterly property line of said parcel; thence leaving the Southerly limit of said deck, along said Easterly line, Nort:i 19 ° A-91 30" West, 11 feet, more or less, to the intersection of said Easterly line with the Westerly extension of the Southerly limit of an existing overhead deck; thence leaving said Easterly property line, along said extensi or. and the Southerly limit of the overhead deck, South 70° 10' 30" West, 33.75 feet to the Southwest corner of said overhead deck, said corner also being on the Southerly extension of the Westerly outside face of an existing building; thence along said extension and said Westerly outside face., being 10 feet, more or less, distant from and parallel with the Westerly property line of said parcel, North 19° 49 30" West, 158.9 feet, more or less, to the point of intersection with the Northerly limit of an existing overhead deck; thence along said Northerly limit, North 70° 10' 30" East, 33.75 feet, to the Easterly property line of said par: el; thence along said Easterly line, North 19° 49' 30" West, 5 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning. Containing 2 , 2 8 5 Square Feet in area. EXHIBIT "D" Commencing at the Northeasterly corner of Parcel One, as described in the Grant Deed from Varney to Zeli nsky , recorded on August 3, 1961, in Book 14805, at page 470, Marin County Records t said corner being on the Southerly right 'of way line of Main Street; thence along the Northerly property line of said parcel and said Southerly right of way line, South 70° 10' 30" West, 43.19 feet, to the Northwesterly corner of said parcel; thence leaving said corner and said right of way line, along the Westerly property line of said parcel, South 17° 12' East, 12.82 feet; thence South 19° 49' 30" East, 162.1 feet, to the true Point of Beginning, said true Point of Beginning also being the intersection of said Westerly property line with the Southerly limit cJ an existing.deck; thence leaving said point, along said Southerly limit, North 70° 10' 30" East, 43.75 feet, to the Easterly property line of said parcel; thence leaving said Southerly limit along said Easterly property line, South 19 ° 49' 30" East, 22.0 feet; thence leaving said Easterly line South 70° 10' 30" West, 43.75 feet, to the Westerly property line of said parcel; thence along said Westerly line North 19 ° 49' 30" West, 22.0 feet, to the true Point of Beginning..- Con-tai ning 963 Square Feet in area. EXHIBIT "E" Commencing at the Northeasterly corner of Parcel Two, as described in the Grant Deed from Varney to Zelinsky, recorded on August 3, 1961, in Book 1485, at page 470, Marin County Records, said corner also being on the Southerly right of way line of Main Street; thence leaving said corner and said right of way line, along the Easterly property line of said Parcel Two, South 19° 49' 30" East, said point 18 3 . 4 feet, to the true Point of Beginning If being the intersection of said Easterly property line with the Easterly .extension of the Southerly limit of. an existing promenade deck; thence leaving said true Point of Beginning, along said extension and said Southerly limit", South 70° 10' 30" West, 80 feet, to the Westerly property line of said Parcel Two; thence along said property line, South 19 ° 49' 30" East, 13 feet; thence leaving said Weste--1-7 property line, along a line. 13 feet distant from the above-- mentioned Southerly limit, North 70 ° 10' 30" East, 80 feet, to the Easterly property line of said parcel; thence along said Easterly property line, North 19° 49' 30" Writ, 13 feet, to the true Point of Beginning. Containing 11,040 Square Feet in area . RESOLUTION NO. 15-2002 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING AN AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING THE FERRY AREA ACCESS AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROTECT WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has obtained funding from the State of California to construct the Ferry Area Access And Safety Improvement Project ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the Town wishes to construct a portion of the Project on property owned by Edward G. Zelinskv, Laleh Zelinsky and Barbara Z. Abrams ("Grantors"); and WHEREAS, the Grantors are willing to grant an easement to the Town for purposes of constructing the Project, subject to the terms and condition of the Grant of Easement and Agreement attached hereto, which is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Town is willing to accept the easement and the terms and conditions of the Grant of Easement and Agreement. NOW5 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon that the Town of Tiburon approves the Grant of Easement and Agreement and accepts the easement offered by the Grantors. The Easement Agreement shall be executed by the Mayor and shall be recorded with the Office of the Marin County Recorder. The Town Attorney is authorized to execute any other documents that may be necessary or appropriate to complete this transaction. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on March 20, 200'? by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fredericks, Gram. Slavitz & Thompson NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBE atthews TOM GRAM, VICE MAYOR 1`,~4llillf1i;11Town of Tiburon ,:0 ATTEST: i DIANE CRANE I.ACOPI. TOWN CLERK TIBURON TOt!V COUNCIL RESOLUTIONNO. 15-2002 TH 1, tS" -R ANN CIE . F GO PY- l/~~rlllltttltlW> To: From: Subj ect: Reviewed By: BACKGROUND TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Department of Public Works Town Council Meeting December 7, 2011 Agenda Item: . cc Recommendation to Accept the 2011 Storm Drain Cleaning Project and Authorize the Filing of the Notice of Completion for the work. a On September 6, 2011, the Public Works Department sent out Notice Inviting Bids to several firms for the cleaning of a portion of the Town's storm drain system. One bid was received on September 26th from Roto Rooter in the amount of $110,000 which was also the Engineer's Estimate. Staff found the bid to be responsive to the Town's needs. The contract was awarded by Council on October 5, 2011 in the amount of $110,000. Work consisted of the jetting, flushing and video recording forty-eight storm drain lines throughout Town to remove debris and inspect the lines to determine future repair needs. The work was substantially completed on November 18, 2011. No change orders were issued for the project and all work was completed on time and within budget. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Town Council: Move to adopt a resolution accepting this project as complete and authorizing the Director of Public Works / Town Engineer to execute the Notice of Completion on behalf of the Town Council. Exhibits: Resolution Accepting The 2011 Storm Drain Cleaning Project, And Authorizing The Filing Of The Notice Of Completion For The Work. Prepared By: Matthew S. Swalberg, Engineering Technician Recording Requested By: Town of Tiburon, Marin County, CA When recorded mail to: Town of Tiburon Diane Crane Iacopi, Town Clerk 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Town of Tiburon NOTICE OF COMPLETION TO ALL PERSONS WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN for and on behalf of the Town of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, that there has been a cessation of labor upon the work or improvement and that said work or improvement was completed upon the 18th day of November 2011 and accepted the 7th day of December 2011; that the name, address and nature of the title of the party giving this notice is as follows: The Town of Tiburon, a municipal corporation, in the County of Marin, State of California, within the boundaries of which said work or improvement was made upon land owned by said Town and/or over which said Town has an easement; that said work or improvement is described as follows: 2011 Storm Drain Cleaning Project and reference is hereby made for a further description thereof to the contract approved for said work or improvements now on file in the office of the Town Clerk of said Town, and said contract is hereby incorporated herein by reference thereto; and that the name of the Contractor who contracted to perform said work and make such improvement is Roto Rooter Inc. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Tiburon, California, on TOWN OF TIBURON By: A Municipal Corporation 20 Nicholas T. Nguyen, P.E. Director of Public Works / Town Engineer 1/2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MARIN On this day of , 20 , before me, DIANE CRANE IACOPI, Town Clerk of the Town of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, residing therein, personally appeared Nicholas T. Nguyen, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person (s) whose name (s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity (ies), and that by his/her/their signature (s) on the instrument the person (s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person (s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature DIANE CRANE IACOPI, Town Clerk 2/2 RESOLUTION NO. XX-2011 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ACCEPTING THE 2011 STORM DRAIN CLEANING PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, The Town Council budgeted funds in Fiscal Year 2011-12 to complete the project; WHEREAS, Roto Rooter was awarded the contract on October 5, 2011 to perform the work; WHEREAS, The flushing and televising of the storm drain lines were substantially completed under budget on November 18, 2011; and WHEREAS, The final project cost is $110,000.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon as follows: Section 1. The Town Council does hereby accept the 2011 Storm Drain Cleaning Project as complete by Roto Rooter. Section 2. The Town Council authorizes the Director of Public Works / Town Engineer to execute the Notice of Completion and the Town Clerk to record the Notice of Completion. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on the 7th day of December, 2011, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK 1/1