Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TC Agd Pkt 2012-10-03
TOWN OF TIBURON Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Boulevard October 3, 2012 Tiburon, CA 94920 Regular Meeting - 7:30 p.m. AGENDA TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Doyle, Councilmember Collins, Councilmember Fredericks, Vice Mayor O'Donnell, Mayor Fraser ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. IF ANY ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this time. Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future Town Council meeting agenda. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes. 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 September 5, 2012 regular meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 2. Town Council Minutes -Adopt minutes of September 19, 2012 regular meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 3. Town Investment Summary -Accept report for period ending August 31, 2012 (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) 4. Biennial Update of Town Conflict of Interest Code - Adopt resolution updating Town's Conflict of Interest Code to reflect changes in state law (Town Attorney Danforth/Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 5. Lyford Drive Parking Lot Project - Authorize Town Manager to negotiate and execute easements for PG&E electrical infrastructure associated with the Lyford Drive Parking Lot Project (Town Attorney Danforth/Town Engineer Nguyen) ACTION ITEMS Residential Building Report (RBR) Update - Receive update on the County-wide review of the RBR process for possible standardization/modification (Community Development Director Anderson and Building Official Lustenberger) TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT WEEKLY DIGESTS Town Council Weekly Digest - September 21, 2012 Town Council Weekly Digest - September 28, 2012 ADJOURNMENT GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435- 7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall. Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town's website, www.ci.tiburon.ca.us. 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. TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER ayor Fraser called tt ie me g of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:10 p.m. on Wednesday, September 5, 2012, in Town ouncil Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. NTERVIEWS He ' minission - One Vacancy • Francella Hall • Lee Erickson [application withdrawn] CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL - Regular Meeting 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: Collins PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Community Development Anderson, Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Jack Diego, Diego Brothers and a Marin County builder since 1982, distributed a letter to the Council regarding enforcement of a policy regarding waterproofing windows at their project at 430 Greenwood Beach Road. He complained about enforcement of requirements by the Building Division regarding his project. Mayor Fraser suggested that Mr. Diego possibly appeal his matter to the Building Appeals Board, and City Manager Curran asked that Mr. Diego contact her the next day to further address and resolve the issue. Brian McLaren, McLaren Roofing, voiced his concern about Building Division inspection processes. He recommended the City initiate an independent person to review all Town projects done in the last six months, survey and obtain feedback from those owners as to inconsistencies and problems they have had with the inspection process and the Building Division. Mayor Fraser stated that the Town will take his comment under advisement. David Kulik asked for an amendment to the August 15th minutes on page 24, 1 st paragraph, 2"d to the last sentence, "Therefore, he said he cannot support the appeal." He asked that this be amended to read, "Therefore, he said he can support the appeal" or that "he said he could not support the application." Mayor Fraser suggested and Councilmembers concurred, to remove the minutes of August 15t" to clarify Councilmember Collins' comments and agendize them for the next Council meeting. DRAFT Town Coun 'I Minutes #xx -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 1 'a... CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of July 18, 2012 regular meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 2. Town Council Minutes -Adopt minutes of July 25, 2012 special meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 3. Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of August 1, 2012 regular meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) Councilmember Fredericks referred to page 11, 1 S` paragraph and said some people interpreted the comment of Riley Hurd to mean there are 10 less seats of capacity than in the current Founder's Room. She clarified and recommended his comment should read, "There are 10 less seats of capacity than in the "new" Founders Room. 4. Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of August 15, 2012 regular meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) - Removed 5. Town Investment Summary - Accept report for period ending July 31, 2012 (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) 6. 2308 Mar East Street - Adopt resolution granting appeals of Design Review Board decision to approve a request for site plan and architectural review to construct additions to an existing single- family dwelling with variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, and a floor area exception (Associate Planner Tyler) Applicant: Dr. Peter Wilton Appellants: Magdalena Yesil and Jim Wickett, David and Kathryn Kulik AP No. 059-195-01 MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1, 2, 3 (as amended), 5 and 6, as written. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Doyle Vote: AYES: Unanimous ACTION ITEMS 1. Appointments to Town Boards, Commissions and Committees - Consider appointment to fill a vacancy on the Heritage & Arts Commission (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) Mayor Fraser reported that one of the applicants was not able to be interviewed and the interview will be continued to September 19, 2012. MOTION: To continue appointment to fill a vacancy on the Heritage & Arts Commission to the next Council meeting. Moved: Collins, seconded by Fredericks Vote: AYES: Unanimous DRAFT Town Council Minutes #.xx -2012 September- 5, 2012 Page 2 2. Establish Standards for keeping of Honey Bees and Chickens - Adopt resolution establishing standards for keeping of honey bees and chickens pursuant to adoption of ordinance (Cominunity Development Department) Associate Planner Tyler presented the report detailing the history of the text amendments to Chapters 16 and 20 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. The Council voiced three concerns relating to bee-keeping which she explained: 1. The Council could choose to set a minimum lot size in order to qualify for the keeping of bees; 2. Staff has drafted Standard No. 3 which would require an applicant to submit owner signatures of non-objection for all physically contiguous residential parcels as part of the application. The standard is written in a manner that the applicant's inability to secure the required signatures would not necessarily end the process but would trigger a conditional use permit, provided it was the only standard that could not be met as part of the application; 3. Staff has found several bee keeping certification programs throughout the country, many of which are on-line courses or offered at local universities. Staff was unable to find any local bee keeping- related courses with the College of Marin and they checked with local bee keeping associations; Marin Bee Keepers, Marin Bee Company, and Marin Bees to determine if they offered any certification courses,-without response. She noted that Standard No. 6 requires use of best management practices for bee keeping but requires no formal training or certification. The Council should consider whether the standard will suffice for any local bee keeping purposes, but staff would note that standards for bee keeping are adopted by Resolution and can be modified quickly if found to be necessary. Staff recommended the Council hear and consider public comment, make desired revisions to the draft standards and move to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Fredericks questioned who defines what are best practices. Ms. Tyler said that someone would need to educate themself on standards for bee keeping as learned from books, classes or other experienced bee keepers. Councilmember Fredericks said what troubles her is lack of enforcement mechanisms in meeting minimum standards. Ms. Tyler explained that if a neighboring property owner has honey bees next door and they are swarming or do not appear to be receiving the proper care, such as where they keep flying over into neighbor's yards to get water, the neighbor should let staff know, take photographs or contact a local bee keeping association to determine if it is normal behavior or not. She said that is what is meant by substantial evidence. Councilmember Fredericks said she found at least 6 courses offered on-line and she believes education and not necessarily certification should be required. Mr. Watrous stated that at the last meeting staff suggested that the individual be asked to provide documentation of the education rather than certification. It was the consensus of the Council to include the documentation requirement as part of Standard No. 6. Councilmember Fredericks referred to the ratio of hives to lot size, and she asked where this information came from. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said he recalled that this was in the context of certain locations in town where bee keeping would be excluded, like apartments. Councilmember Fredericks said in the standards (Condition No. 4) there was mention of the number of hives and she wondered how this was generated. Ms. Tyler said there was no scientific method, but was based on what has been seen in other jurisdictions that have regulations. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 September S, 2012 Page 3 Mayor Fraser asked and confirmed with Ms. Tyler that the Town will have a list of places where education can be obtained as part of the application process. Mayor Fraser also asked and confirmed that if a neighbor writes an objection to a colony, and files a use pennit, that the applicant will be required to pay additional fees over and above the permit fee. Mayor Fraser called for public continents and seeing none, he closed the public comment period. Councilmember Fredericks supported conditioning the keeping of bees as a good idea, as well as a conditional use permit procedure if they cannot as a good compromise. She also thinks that some kind of training course and documentation should be required, but did not have an opinion as to limiting it to larger sized lots, and questioned what this meant. Vice Mayor O'Donnell concurred with Councilmember Fredericks' comments and asked if there is a particular zone staff would recommend from which bee keeping would be excluded. Director of Community Development Anderson said as the standards read, the use must be associated with a single- family dwelling use and are not allowed in the R-3 and RMP zones. Councilmember Doyle supported Council suggestions and asked to give the process a try. Mayor Fraser agreed and asked staff to provide a resource list at the Town as part of the application process. MOTION: To adopt the resolution establishing standards for keeping of honey bees and chickens pursuant to adoption of ordinance, as amended. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell Vote: AYES: Unanimous PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tiburon Redevelopment Successor Agency Actions - Consider adoption of an updated Implementation Plan for the Tiburon Redevelopment Project (Town Attorney Danforth / Director of Community Development Anderson) Director of Community Development Anderson gave the staff report and said Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs) in California were abolished and the Town of Tiburon is now the successor agency for what was the RDA. Many of the responsibilities have now carried through to the successor agencies and one is the Implementation Plan required with all project areas created. Tiburon has just the one project area and the bonds were paid off many years ago, but the housing production requirement is still there that the Town provide 6.5 very low income units either within the project area or outside of the area. What staff has done in this update to the 2007 Implementation Plan is to carry forward the concept that those affordable units would be located on sites already identified in the Housing Element for affordable housing, which is a minor subset of what is required in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Mr. Anderson said the Town has resources available in the form of RDA set-aside monies which they jointly control with the County of Marin Housing Authority and housing in lieu funds that could be used toward meeting the housing production requirement. Staff recommends holding the public hearing, take comments, consider revisions, and adopt the resolution approving the updated Implementation Plan. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 September S, 2012 Page 4 Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked Mr. Anderson to explain the differences between this and the ABAG RHNA figures. Mr. Anderson explained that this requirement for housing production is because the Town had a RDA project area and built housing within the RDA area, namely the Point Tiburon residential development. Whenever this is done, it triggers a requirement for a certain percentage of the units built to be affordable as moderate income or low income. It is totally separate from the RHNA numbers generated by the State because it is a requirement only because the Town had a redevelopment project area in Tiburon. Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked if one requirement supersedes another requirement, and Mr. Anderson said one can fulfill the other but they must be treated separately. Any affordable units built as part of the RDA plan would also count towards the Town's regional numbers. Councilmember Fredericks said if the Town uses any of the RDA tax increment money, they can use it on a site outside of the RDA area and it just counts for fewer units. Mr. Anderson stated this is correct; as credit. Councilmember Fredericks said if there is a private development of a project outside the RDA project area and it is not snaking use of the tax increment, she asked if it is not required to address the CRL requirements for affordable housing. Mr. Anderson explained that if a private project development is built outside the RDA area, it is not responsible to provide these units, but if tax subsidy from the RDA is used, the Town would get credit for the units using the money as a subsidy. Mayor Fraser referred to the minutes and said the unused Reed School land at 1199 Tiburon is part of the overlay zone for affordable housing. He asked who has ultimate decision-making for this particular site. Mr. Anderson stated the school district controls the property. The Town has designated it as such, but in order to have the property used for this purpose, the owner would have to agree to this. The same could be true for any of the privately held sites. Mayor Fraser questioned and confirmed with City Attorney Danforth that the money the Town gave to Marin Housing Authority in terms of the Town's ability to manage the money is in partnership through a cooperation agreement. It contained a housing plan and they are to use it in accordance with that plan, subject to the Town's approval. Mayor Fraser asked if it could be used outside of the Town, and Ms. Danforth said she did not believe it could because it could not satisfy the housing production requirements. Mr. Anderson added that he believes they must satisfy that first and if anything is left over, potentially it could be used. But the primary purpose is that they must use the money first and foremost to complete the RDA's obligations. Vice Mayor O'Donnell stated that in order to effectively use this money, they must have a project or partner with a private entity because the amount of money is not substantial enough to build anything major, which is part of the requirement. He asked if steps were being taken in this direction, and Mr. Anderson said yes; the Council has a subcommittee actively working on this. Mayor Fraser opened the public comment period, and seeing no speakers, he closed the public comment period. MOTION: To adopt an updated Implementation Plan for the Tiburon Redevelopment Project. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell Vote: AYES: Unanimous DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 September S, 2012 Page 5 TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS - (moved up to allow reports by Vice Mayor O'Donnell (recused on the next item). Vice Mayor O'Donnell questioned and confirmed that staff has traditionally canceled the November 21St Council meeting. Ms. Curran stated the November 7t" meeting is, therefore, the last substantive meeting of the year. One December meeting is ceremonial to appoint the new Mayor and the second meeting has always been canceled. She added that the Town is also host to the MCCMC Dinner, the CART Meeting in September as well as other activities on the calendar. Regarding the January 2, 2013 meeting, this is the day after New Year's and Ms. Curran stated the Council can hold this meeting and staff would prepare ahead of the weeklong furlough prior to that. Another option is to cancel it, push it back one week or hold two January meetings back to back. Vice Mayor O'Donnell suggested waiting to make a decision until November to determine the January meeting schedule. Vice Mayor O'Donnell stated he heard from many people in town who asked to get back to holding a parade on the Sunday of Labor Day weekend. He spoke about Belvedere's wonderful concert series on that date and said they have the larger or bigger acts on that Sunday. Ms. Curran said there were some considerations with Joint Recreation's decisions not to proceed with it this year mainly because it is a week after the Art Festival which is too much to do them both well. There has been some talk about moving either event to a different date, possibly having a spring parade and then fmding the right niche for the Art Festival. She said anything is possible except having them on top of each other. Councilmember Fredericks said she worked on a couple of the parades and the proximity to the last school weekend makes it hard to get young families to participate prior to school starting, so some balance is needed. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said Tiburon likes to foster things Belvedere does and he suggested rescheduling the Art Festival on the weekend before. He thought perhaps having it just before the Sausalito Art Festival in the summer might be better, and he would like to see it pushed into the nicer months of the fall or another time. Ms. Curran said staff can explore the calendar. Mayor Fraser agreed and suggested getting additional resources to help the Joint Recreation team which is also a possibility. He also suggested better communication about cancelling the parade. Councilmember Fredericks pointed out that at one time, the major responsibility for the parade shifted from year to year between Belvedere and Tiburon. Ms. Curran said this was very burdensome on Joan Palmero and she agreed to discuss this further with Councilmembers and review the calendar. Recused: Vice Mayor O'Donnell recused himself at 8:19 p.m. due to a conflict of interest regarding the proximity of his residence to the subject property. 2. 440 Ridge Road - Consider appeals of Design Review Board approval of an application for site plan and architectural review to construct a new single-family dwelling, including variances for excess lot coverage and excess fence height, and a floor area exception (Planning Manager Watrous) DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 6 Applicants: Ridge Road, LLC Appellants: Lynn & Mark Garay; Fam Hansen & Angela Danadjieva AP No. 059-082-21 Staff presented the report detailing the history of the project, discussed the request by the DRB for redesign of the house, revisions made by the applicant, approval by the DRB of the revised design, and events leading to the appeal. Staff recommends taking testimony on the public hearing, closing the hearing, deliberating on the matter, either grant or partially grant the appeals, and return with a resolution at the next meeting. He noted DRB Member Greg Johnson was present and then reviewed the protocols for appeal hearings. BREAK Mayor Fraser called for a brief recess at 8:35 p.m. and, thereafter, reconvened the meeting at 8:39 p.m. Mayor Fraser asked for the appellant's presentation. Mark Garay, appellant, gave an overview of his home and his decision to purchase it 18 years ago. He noted the attraction of its privacy and views, the setback of the property at 440 Ridge Road and its height which did not intrude into any other line of sight. He said they built their house with the expectation that they would maintain their privacy. The planned project at 440 Ridge Road is an issue and a problem for them and they feel that the design of the project and the approved plans do not take sufficient consideration of contiguous properties' and are not respectful of the privacy of those owners. He also believes there are other options available to the applicant that would mitigate concerns or address them in a way for there to be no intrusion. Mr. Garay explained that the nature of the development along Ridge Road has been such that each of the properties has taken steps to dig into the hillside and bring the height down so there would be no intrusion to properties above them or below them. He said that this project was one where the new structure would rise 3 to 4 feet and, at the same time, spread out across the site where it creates angular projections that result in excess lot coverage and visual intrusion. He felt that the bases of the appeals that staff read were self-evident and stand on their own in the record. He said that while the 78" fence approved by the DRB would provide protection for their outdoor shower and spa, it does not provide protection for the backyard swimming pool area which they enjoy frequently. Ideally, he would like to see the project re-thought, compacted and brought into the hillside, with an end result that respects the contiguous properties and beautiful views. If that was not a possibility, he must next consider what mitigations are available to address his concerns with the existing project. He said that those mitigations would be to increase the fence height on the east side of his property to 9 feet and to change the fence height at the west side to 6 feet. Mr. Garay also stated that the rear or east portion of the house has been misrepresented and needs clarification. He said that his request to build the 9' fence was received at the DRB hearing with the characterization that it was a "Berlin Wall," but this failed to take into consideration that there is a grade difference between the two properties. He said that if they put up a 9' fence, the applicants will only see 5' of it because the rest falls into the hillside. He felt that the bottom part of the fence would be not seen because it drops down and could easily be mitigated with planting or a 3' planter box, and the "Berlin Wall" could disappear with some landscaping. He noted that some landscaping is actually shown on the plans. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 7 He said the other matter is the pine tree which is a heritage-sized tree. Staff is correct that there is a letter from an arborist which states that the tree is sick and will die. He said that there was some discussion that the tree obstructs views of the uphill properties but there was no information of what the tree obstructs. He felt that there is a completely inadequate record to support destroying the pine tree and thought that a court would come to the same conclusion. He said that another concern involves Ms. Danadjieva property at 450 Ridge Road. He said that he has been in the real estate business for 36 years and is sensitive to valuation and for sale issues. He said that her house is on the market but that no one is likely to buy it without putting another floor in. He said that given that another floor will be added inside the house and she has made an application for that, he stood up on the planter in her living room and viewed the point of view of the proposed floor, and the proposed house would be dead square in the Golden Gate Bridge view and this will have a huge financial impact to her. He said that she will build the floor in three months at the time demolition work may be occurring at 440 Ridge Road and the two projects could collide. Therefore, he suggested this be considered carefully before action is taken. Councilmember Fredericks asked if there is an application for a project at 450 Ridge Road. Mr. Watrous said that an application was submitted that afternoon; however, it was not complete. Fani Hansen, appellant/architect, gave a PowerPoint presentation and stated that they are all here to help and not destroy each other. She said that they would like to ameliorate the situation, help the applicants and do something everybody will be proud of. She felt there are two changes needed to save the Golden Gate Bridge views from the living room from 450 Ridge Road, along with its privacy and sunshine. She stated that the east wing's length has to be shortened by 24 feet and the height must be decreased by 4 feet. To accomplish this, she suggested relocating the laundry and maid's rooms to the lower floor. She said her sister, Angela Danadjieva, bought the lot for a top price because of its views of the Golden Gate Bridge and panoramic views. She asked not to deprive them of privileges granted to other properties in the vicinity such as those homes at 470 Ridge Road and 445 Ridge Road. She displayed a picture of the present building at 480 Ridge Road and said the developer was asked to reduce the size of the structure. She said that her sister lowered her house 30 feet from the street level to respect the views from 445 Ridge Road. She displayed what would be seen if 440 Ridge Road is developed from the living and dining room and presented a picture of loss of sun and privacy. Ms. Hansen stated they offered suggestions to ameliorate the plans and presented the proposal to relocate the garage. She asked to be consistent with approvals of other neighbors, not to block the Golden Gate Bridge view from the living room and not to take the privacy of the living and dining rooms. She said their goal is to offer suggestions to reduce the injury to other properties. Angela Danadjieva, appellant, said she was surprised with the amount of time spent on the project because a small amount of effort could solve the problem. She said that she was not against people building. She accepted that most of the south part of the house would be screened, but she cannot accept losing the views to the Golden Gate Bridge. She was considering selling the house and all realtors have told her that views of the lot are panoramic and now they would be taken by a fence, shrubs, and the house. She said that they do not want the applicants to redesign their home, but they suggest putting the laundry room and maid's room to the lower floor. This will reduce the length of the house and views will not be impacted. She said she only has one hour of daily light in the master bedroom and family room. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 8 Councilmember Fredericks asked for an explanation of the slope of the driveway and the turnaround. Ms. Hansen said that they also suggest a new driveway approach that would will be longer in length and flatter than what is proposed. Councilmember Doyle questioned why Ms. Danadjieva's house was reduced down by 30 feet. Ms. Danadjieva stated she bought the lot in 1982 as a panoramic view lot. The owner of the lot above her lot across the street saw that her home would be in his view of their residence, and she agreed to pay the cost to drop down her home by 30 feet to not encroach their views. Ms. Hansen pointed out that views from the new project will impact views into Ms. Danadjieva's dining and living room. Mayor Fraser asked for any clarifying questions from Councilmembers, and there were none. Phoebe Holscher, Holscher Architecture, representing the applicants, said the owner met with the appellants (Ms. Hansen and Ms. Danadj ieva) many times and incorporated all their wishes that were technically feasible without sacrificing her client's goals for the house and site. They redesigned and put up story poles for the project three times, moved the two-story portion back 48 feet and not 21 feet as the staff report indicates. They dug the house down to remove the volume up above which she pointed out on the plans, moved the master bedroom to the other side of the house, moved the secondary bedrooms downstairs under the deck, pulled the east side back 21' 10" after the first review, changed the pitch of the roof from 7:12 to a 5:12 hip roof, added a solid 5 foot fence along the property line, and added a 10 foot solid hedge along the property line that will provide privacy and more light across the side yard than the existing 40 foot tall trees do. She displayed the appellants' principal view from their patio, and said that only when looking 90 degrees to the right would they see the house. She said that they showed the view from their back patio as if it went straight across to their lower floor, but it does not. She presented what the cross section between the properties looks like. Councilmember Fredericks referred to the first photograph and the vegetation below the trees on the right, and asked whose it is and what is under it. Ms. Holscher said it is a continuation of the slope and all of the vegetation is on her clients' property. Ms. Holscher continued and said she would discuss massing, the Hillside Guidelines and the comment that the house do not adequately step down or dig in to the site. She presented drawings showing the appellants' house, the natural grade at the property line, a section taken through the main space of the applicant's house or the living room, and the cross section through the site. She presented the proposed design where the top of the ridge is 328.75 feet and the appellant's is higher. She did not understand why they needed them to lower 4 feet when the massing of the appellants' house is clearly larger than theirs. Regarding the sunlight issue, she presented the section through her client's property at their living room and the height of their property showing an acute angle which still gets into their living room and does not block light. She said that the existing 40 foot tall trees actually block their light, and while they want privacy, they do not want them removed. She said that there is no existing view of the Golden Gate Bridge, but have looked at this. She was concerned about last minute lobbying and submission of the application for a potential upper floor expansion submitted this afternoon by the appellants, saying that it seemed underhanded, given its timing. She said that the view of the Golden Gate Bridge for this expansion would still not be blocked by their house. She said she stood at the corner of the existing footing and she looked back at the appellants' house at the corner and in the other direction towards the bridge and she found a direct line between the Golden Gate Bridge and the appellant's house that would not be blocked by the new house. She said that the existing foliage blocks most of the house. She said that the corner of the DRAFT Town Council Minutes #.xx -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 9 house would be well away from any view of the bridge and this is not an issue. She said that they used analysis from Google Earth and maps, and projecting a ray which captures the full width of the bridge, and found that the proposal would not block it, and that the Garays' home will block it before theirs does. Regarding the privacy issue, Mrs. Holscher said that they proposed a 5 foot solid fence and 10 foot high hedging to provide more privacy between the two homes, and this is part of their DRB approval. Ms. Holscher stated that Ms. Danadjieva submitted an alternate plan which is not what they want to build. She said that never before had she seen a neighbor come up with the scheme of their own and demand it is the only acceptable one for the site. She was not aware of anything in the Town's guidelines that says that the applicant, DRB or Council is required to consider an alternate design by another neighbor. She said that they did modify the design in response to the appellants' concerns and suggestions. She said that the driveway of the alternate scheme would be longer, very close to the property line and would require a very high and expensive retaining wall. She said that the turnaround Ms. Danadjieva proposes is impossible and one would not be able to turn around. Regarding moving the laundry downstairs, she said that her clients do not want to go one floor down to do laundry and do not want the guest room (not the maid's room, as suggested) downstairs and separate from the children's room on the main floor. She said that the driveway is problematic and the options are not ones that she or her clients are willing to consider. David Holscher, Holscher Architecture, said he believes they did an exceptional job of mitigating for the appellants' (Lynn and Mark Garay) property. They pulled back the activity wing, hipped and dropped the roof 2 feet and lowered the bottom floor. He said that the appellant also wanted a 10 foot fence, not a 9 foot fence. On Friday, May 25t1', Mr. Holscher, his client and 5 workers worked 4 hours to come up with the revised plan. He said that Mr. Garay stated that all he had to worry about were the down lights and he probably would not come to the meeting. Mr. Holscher said that their last plan had an outdoor area and a place to sit where the appellants' property could be seen, and this was mitigated. He noted that the hot tub and pool were relocated, which had been proposed close to Mr. Garay's backyard and hot tub. He stated that they paid for a variance for the fence which will be very odd, but it was all for Mr. Garay. Mr. Holscher stated that they would have three sets of bushes of screening. He said that they addressed all comments and are trying to be good neighbors. He said that they worked extensively with the Mr. Garay and he was stunned that after Memorial Day, Mr. Garay said the changes would not work for him. Mayor Fraser asked Mr. Holscher why the family room came out 4 feet. He explained that they have two different materials coming together and they set them off because it would be odd to have done otherwise. Councilmember Doyle asked and confirmed that the fence is proposed to be solid. He asked and confirmed that about the location of the yellow tape shown in the presented illustrations. He then asked Mr. Holscher to point to where the tree is located. Mr. Holscher stated that it is dying and dangerous, and he did not understand why Mr. Garay wants to save it, as it could potentially crush either house. Mayor Fraser opened the public comment period. Public Comments: Lowell Strauss said about one year ago he went through the design review process to build a new home. He said that during that process, Ms. Danadjieva was very agreeable and did not protest anything they were doing. He said that the neighbor on the other side of the proposed house, Jim Bernhisel, cleverly came up with an argument for protecting his future development potential. Mr. Strauss said that the planner and the DRAFT Town Council Minutes #.xx -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 10 DRB bought into this argument and as a result, they reduced their house to 5,600 square feet to about 5,000 square feet, pulled the house back 23 feet and reduced the quality and value of the home significantly. He said that Mr. Bernhisel successfully argued his case that he had a full on Golden Gate Bridge view from the existing structure which was not impacted at all. Mr. Strauss said that he looked at the plans for this project and did not think there would be much of an impact, but he took a 12 foot ladder and looked at the second story from within the existing mass of Ms. Danadjieva's home and the story poles block the Golden Gate Bridge view. He said that the value of Ms. Danadjieva's property will be greatly diminished and it is not fair or equitable. He said that Ms. Danadj ieva's house is on the market now and she has not been able to sell it for a year, and if the project is approved, he was not sure if anyone would purchase her home because it will not have a view. He felt that her property rights need to be protected and he asked for equality in the way these things are approached. He voiced his support for the appellants, stating that the addition will eliminate any possibility for a Golden Gate Bridge view within the existing building footprint and will greatly diminish the value of her property. Jim Bernhisel said this old neighborhood was built in the 1950's. He has an 1800 square foot house and the applicant's property is about the same size. He said that Mr. Strauss' house is now about 1800 square feet and then there are 4500 square foot homes which impact the area which was designed for 2,000 square foot homes. He said that Ms. Danadjieva has a relatively new home at about 4500 square feet and it seems peculiar to him that his property, which will need to be enlarged at some point, was brought in to make some sort of analogy between her house and his house. Councilmember Fredericks asked if the recently approved house at 460 Ridge Road had to change to address the views from Mr. Bernhisel's house. Mr. Bernhisel said no. He gave some history of the development in his neighborhood, stating that agreements were made throughout the neighborhood about where someone was going to build a house and where they were not, all without design review and a planning department. He said that homes were built that captured wonderful views in the entire area, and it was done between neighbors and their architects. He said that the house that Mr. Strauss proposed was completely in front of his home and he objected to this, and the DRB agreed. Councilmember Fredericks said the previous speaker said that when 460 Ridge Road was built, its design took into consideration the existing view from 480 Ridge Road and asked if Mr. Bernhisel's existing Golden Gate Bridge view is out of the periphery of a panoramic view or was it the center of his view? Mr. Bernhisel said it is centered; his house is directly viewed to the south. Councilmember Fredericks asked what the future potential view that was being saved by the way 460 Ridge Road was designed. Mr. Bernhisel said he would have been boxed in to have any ability to enlarge his house like the rest of the neighbors from 2,000 to 4,000 or 5,000 square feet. He could not go down or up, so his only ability is to maneuver in around Mr. Strauss's new development. Councilmember Doyle clarified stating if the house had been built the way it was proposed originally, Mr. Bernhisel would not have been able to expand his house in any way that would have maintained the views, but he currently has a view in his small house. Mr. Bernhisel concurred with this. He agreed that the future development of a home should be considered, particularly if it is a 1950's house and all homes around it are being remodeled and more than twice their size. He felt that this is an important consideration for planning staff and the DRB to consider. Paula Little said during her 24 years. living in her home, she has seen the pine tree deteriorate and it is a serious problem. She said that the Hannahs who lived there before were unable to take care of the tree and it is a danger and should be removed. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 11 Mayor Fraser called for the appellants' rebuttal. Mr. Garay indicated that he had nothing to add. Fani Hansen, appellant, disagreed with the applicant's representatives in describing there are no view impacts, as well as privacy impacts. She said that this would affect Mr. Garay's privacy as well, but his house is much lower and his views go much wider to the other side of the Golden Gate Bridge. She said that sunlight comes down and through the trees, but the solid wall of a house would create different shadows, and she asked that her view be preserved. Dave Holscher referred to the tree and said three uphill neighbors have asked for the tree to be removed. He said that views of the Golden Gate Bridge would not be blocked and there is no physical evidence supporting that claim. He said the DRB was at the site and saw that the house would have no impact on the peripheral views. He also said they would not take sunlight away from their new design. He said this is the hardest project he has ever worked on and appreciated the DRB coming and looking at the site. Mayor Fraser closed the public hearing and asked for comments from DRB Member Greg Johnson. DRB Member Greg Johnson agreed that the project has been lengthy, but he thinks the staff report and minutes reflect very accurately the deliberation and amount of work that went in by the DRB. He said that all Boardmembers visited the sites, and believed there was great deliberation and direction given to the architect after the first presentation. The DRB consists of two architects and he has worked and designed homes in this area, including Councilmember O'Donnell's house, and he knows the process of designing houses on the hillside. He said that it was important to note that what they responded to and approved responded to all issues the DRB had raised. He said that the project was a sensitive solution to those issues raised. He said that what has been proposed is no different than a lot of other homes within this area. He said that Mr. Strauss' project went through the DRB three times because it was not properly designed for the property and was revised several times. Mr. Johnson said that he was troubled by some of the information and the way things were presented tonight. He said that the Council was presented with photographs and photomontages of a building and extension of a building in a condition that will not exist. He said that the architects have clearly presented a landscape plan that included a fence, hedging, etc. to help screen the properties. When the Council was shown a photograph, there were no trees, even the tree Mr. Garay would like to see removed. He suggested that the Council take into consideration the quality of the staff report, the amount of time the DRB spent looking at the property, walking on the property, the feedback in the minutes and given to the architects and owners, and the fact that the DRB unanimously approved the project the second time it was brought back to them. Councilmember Fredericks said Mr. Johnson for his recollection of the issues with Mr. Strauss' home. Mr. Johnson said a couple of DRB members did raise the issue of protecting a future view. He said that a couple of members brought this up, but he did not share the same opinion. He believes that sensitive design is done carefully to allow for future development. He said it would be very hard pressed for anybody to design a building on Mr. Bernhisel's lot that would capture the Golden Gate Bridge view without enormous costs and massive intrusion into the site. Mr. Watrous said his recollection was that there was some discussion in terms of Mr. Bernhisel's home as a smaller older home that would likely want to expand in a similar fashion that other homes have expanded DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 12 in the future, and that the original design Mr. Strauss presented would somewhat constrain where that possible addition would go. He said this was one of a number of issues brought up and Mr. Strauss was asked to redesign it to address a number of issues, and the final version did address all issues to the satisfaction of the Board. He noted that any discussion of potential expansion for 450 Ridge Road was not mentioned whatsoever at the DRB meeting and not brought up by the neighbors at all. He said that nothing was officially brought to the Town until the application was filed this afternoon, which he said requires a floor area exception and is incomplete. Mr. Watrous said part of the difference is that the house at 480 Ridge is an original 1950's house, while Ms. Danadjieva's house is much more recent and is nearly at its floor area ratio. He said that there is no expectation that the house for sale has to have an expansion, especially being that close to its floor area ratio. Mayor Fraser asked for Council comment and deliberation and to take the appeals individually, addressing the Garay appeal first and then move to the appeal from Angela Danadj ieva and Fani Hansen. Councilmember Doyle said he had no issue with removing the tree because it blocks views and will most likely fall over. He said that these trees are troublesome and this one is right in the middle of the living space of the proposed house. He said that Mr. Garay's house has been in magazines and is beautiful. He remembered when it came through at the DRB and there were changes proposed. He said that Mr. Garay's house is beautiful and has incredible views, but is also built-out with many variances. He said that the amount of the rear yard that would be viewed from one spot in the new house would be very minor. Councilmember Doyle said he did not like the variations in the fence design and felt that a 10-foot fence was unnecessary. He said that the approved fence with the shrubbery or vines would be fine. He did not think that the fence would block any views and there could be some agreement between the property owners to figure out the landscaping. He thought that a straight fence would look better. He said that no one is guaranteed complete privacy for their property. Councihmember Fredericks concurred with Councilmember Doyle's comments, agreed with the findings and conclusions of the DRB. Mayor Fraser echoed Councilmember Fredericks' statement. He said that the Garay property is built out almost at the property line and the view impact would be minor. He agreed that the fence should be one height. There was discussion about the location and design of the fence and the possible need for additional landscaping in front of the fence. Mr. Holscher said that the landscape plans shows such vegetation already. Mayor Fraser said he believed the DRB made the proper findings and supported the application. MOTION: To direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the Lynn & Mark Garay appeal. Moved: Fredericks, seconded Doyle Vote: AYES: Unanimous Regarding the second appeal of Ms. Danadjieva at 450 Ridge Road, Councilmember Doyle stated that in walking down her steps, there is a spot where one can look directly at the Golden Gate Bridge from the window. He said that one does not have the rights to views sideways across properties. He said that there would be some loss of privacy in the rear yard. He said that these are two drastically different homes. Ms. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 13 Danadjieva's home can be compared to a cathedral and was designed specifically for that space and feels like it has always been there. He did not think there has ever been light into the bedrooms, because there is a 4 foot overhang on the roofs which may only provide some light in the winter. He said that there will be a difference given that there will be a building next door as opposed to trees. He questioned whether or not the shrubs will be 10 feet tall when planted or will they grow to that height in 10 years. He thought that the view out the rear of the house is the view. He said that the architect has tried to do what they can to pull the new house back and have done nothing to impact the appellants' views. He was not sure how to change the feeling that the house would look right into the patio. He supported the DRB's decision but asked that something be done to plant shrubs or trees to keep the area outside Ms. Danadjieva's house somewhat screened. Councilmember Fredericks recognized the problems about this project and how it relates to Ms. Danadjieva's house. She said that there is no concept in the Hillside Guidelines that protects a house from its surroundings. She said that the DRB noted that this was an urban setting. She agreed with the DRB findings. She thought that the difference in sunlight between the existing trees and the proposed structure is just a victim of the urban setting of all the houses in that neighborhood. She was concerned about the issue raised about whether there is any duty to preserve a potential view, because the view of the Golden Gate Bridge is on the periphery. She said that some of the information the Council was given about precedent for view protection of future improvements was difficult to apply to this project. She said that the ability to expand Mr. Bernhisel's house is limited by what is going on the lots around it. She noted that Ms. Danadj ieva's house was built later and does not have the same capacity to expand. She supported the DRB's findings and their conclusion. Councilmember Doyle added that it struck him that when Ms. Danadjieva's house was built she did something for a neighbor she did not have to do. She incurred a lot of expense and dropped her house down 30 feet, and while there have been some changes made on the applicant's design, he would like some thought put into mitigating the one element of how the house would look into their yard. He would support what the DRB said but he wanted some give and take on the applicant's part to provide some privacy, such as a tree or something. Councilmember Fredericks recognized the applicant's nonverbal agreement from the audience to do something regarding planting for more privacy. Mayor Fraser agreed. He said he had been to Ms. Danadjieva's house 4 to 5 times. He said that the roof overhang blocks sunlight from coming into the house and he did not see views of the Golden Gate Bridge from inside the house. He said that a second floor added to the house would be closer to the ceiling and look at the eaves of the roof, so the only way one could capture a view is to push the house further out on the lot. He thought that the massing of the applicant's house facing Ms. Danadjieva's house was rather significant. He wished there was a way to pull it back some more, and thought a little bit could go a long way. He agreed with Councilmembers that proper mitigation of vegetation to provide screening and privacy was important and he would like to make sure it was sustained. He said that he could not find fault with the DRB's findings and decision, and he could not support the appeal. MOTION: To direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the Fani Hansen & Angela Danadjieva appeal. Moved: Fredericks, seconded Doyle Vote: AYES: Unanimous DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 September 5, 2012 Page 14 TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS - Provided earlier in the meeting. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT None. WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digest - August 17, 2012 • Town Council Weekly Digest - August 24, 2012 • Town Council Weekly Digest - August 31, 2012 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fraser adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. in honor of Irv Rabin. JIM FRASER, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 Septembe7• 5, 2012 Page 15 C,-C,_~ TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Frasray, the regular mZi of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednes eptember 19, 2012, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, C ia. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Collins, Doyle, Fraser, O'Donnell Fredericks PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Administrative Services Bigall, Director of Community Development Anderson, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen, Police Chief Cronin, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi PRESENTATION AND APPOINTMENT 1. Commendation for Outgoing Artist Laureate- Consider recommendation of Heritage and Arts Commission to honor outgoing Artist Laureate Mary Musalo with commendation for her outstanding service to the community (Heritage and Arts Commission Chair Marlene Rice) 2. Appointment of New Artist Laureate - Consider recommendation of Heritage and Arts Commission to adopt resolution appointing Jaleh Etemad to a four-year term as the Tiburon Artist Laureate and authorize Town Manager to enter into agreement with Ms. Etemad on behalf of the Town (Heritage and Arts Commission Chair Marlene Rice, Town Manager Curran) Heritage & Arts Commission Chair Marlene Rice gave the staff report outlining the achievements of Mary Musalo during her term as Artist Laureate, especially noting the many public workshops she provided to the community to "discover the artist within". Mayor Fraser presented her. Musalo with a commendation on behalf of the Council. Ms. Musalo thanked the Council and the community for the opportunity to serve as Artist Laureate. She said her goal of "shining the light on the arts in Tiburon" had been realized. She also said the Town would make "ise ision in choosing Ms. Etemad as the next Artist Laureate. DRAFT Town Cou it Minutes #xx -2012 September 19, 2012 Page I Chair Rice presented the extensive background and qualifications of Ms. Etemad to the Council in her staff report. MOTION: To appoint (adopt resolution) Jaleh Etemad as Tiburon Artist Laureate and authorize the Town Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the Town. Moved: O'Donnell, seconded by Collins Vote: AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Fredericks Ms. Musalo placed the laurel wreath on Ms. Etemad's head. Ms. Etemad thanked the Council and told the story of how she came to this country and her evolution and training as an artist. She said she looked forward to working in such a vibrant community and continuing the tradition of Artist Laureate. Ms. Rice invited everyone to a reception upstairs in the Community Room to celebrate the occasion of Ms. Etemad's appointment. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Town Council Minutes - Adopt Minutes of August 15, 2012 regular meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 2. Lyford Drive Parking Lot - Approve Agreement with City of Belvedere for provision of water, power and landscaping for Lyford Drive Parking Lot (Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth) 3. FY 2013 Street Paving Project - Approve Award of Contract - Del Mar Underground District Streets (Public Works Director Nguyen) 4. Supplemental Law Enforcement Funds - Approve Resolution approving expenditure plan for COPS funds for FY 2013 (Chief of Police Cronin) 5. 440 Ridge Road - Adopt Resolutions denying appeals of a Design Review Board decision to approve a new single family dwelling; Applicants, Ridge Road, LLC; Appellants, Lynn & Mark Garay; Fani Hansen & Angela Danadjieva; AP No. 059-082-21; (Planning Manager Watrous) 6. Del Mar Undergrounding Project - Approve amendment to Del Mar Undergrounding Project budget (Public Works Director Nguyen) Mayor Fraser asked if anyone on the Council or the public wanted to comment on the Consent Calendar and in response to a request from the public, he removed Item No. 5 from the calendar. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #x -2012 September 19, 2012 Page 2 MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Items No. 1 through 4, and No. 6, as written. Moved: Collins, seconded by O'Donnell Vote: AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Fredericks 5) 440 Ridge Road - Adopt Resolutions denying appeals of a Design Review Board decision to approve a new single family dwelling; Applicants, Ridge Road, LLC; Appellants, Lynn & Mark Garay; Fani Hansen & Angela Danadjieva; AP No. 059-082-21; (Planning Manager Watrous) Councilmember Collins said that he would abstain from voting on Item No. 5 because he was not present for the public hearing. Vice Mayor O'Donnell recused himself and left the dais and the Council Chambers. Town Attorney Danforth noted that Councilmember Collins' presence at the dais allowed for a quorum to be met on the matter at hand, even though he would not vote. Fani Hansen commented on Item No. 5. Ms. Hansen said that the statement on page 2 of the resolution that "there was no evidence presented by appellant" was incorrect. She said that "the entire presentation of the appellants focused on the evidence that contradicted the Design Review Board's findings." Ms. Hansen said that appellant Mark Garay had authorized her to make this notation on his behalf, as well, in an email to Dan Watrous. Mr. Garay's email stated (in part) that there was "in fact abundant evidence presented. What weight the Council chose to give to it is another matter...," noted Hansen. Town Attorney Danforth said that the types of injury presented by the appellants were not considered injurious under the Town Code and Town's guidelines. However, she agreed that the statement might be reworded and suggested the following language: WHEREAS, the evidence presented by appellants was not sufficient to refute the Design Review Board's findings in support of the variances and exceptions and the Council agreed with said findings. The Council concurred with the substitute language for inclusion in the resolutions. MOTION: To adopt Item No. 5 (resolutions), as amended. Moved: Fraser, secon Vote: AYES: ABSTAIN: RECUSED: ABSENT: DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 ded by Doyle Doyle, Fraser Collins O'Donnell Fredericks September 19, 2012 Page 3 Angela Danadjieva asked for the opportunity to comment. Mayor Fraser said the public comment portion was closed but he allowed her to come to the dais and speak. Ms. Danadjieva said that as the designer of 450 Ridge Road, she felt that state law would be breached in the approval of new or existing development [at 440 Ridge Road]. She said that she "cannot buy" the concept of no injury; she said there was an injury of privacy and reduction of view of the Golden Gate Bridge, and sunlight. She asked the Council not to diminish the value of her home because of a laundry and maid's room. She said that through minor adjustments, the impacts could be ameliorated [by the applicant]. She said that she had looked at the [applicant's] plans and it would be easy to do. She said that she had always respected her neighbors and had made considerable concessions to accommodate them. Mayor Fraser thanked Ms. Danadjieva for her comments. ACTION ITEMS 1. Downtown Parking and Circulation Analysis - Hear presentation from Consultants Nelson\Nygaard Inc. regarding the findings and recommendations in their report to the Town dated August 2012 (Community Development Director Anderson, Town Manager Curran) In his staff report, Director Anderson said that in workshops conducted by the Downtown Vibrancy Committee, the issues surrounding parking in the downtown area had been raised again and again. He said that the Town Council had authorized the consulting firm of Nelson/Nygaard to study both circulation and parking and make recommendations. He introduced Brian Canepa of Nelson\Nygaard, who made a power point presentation to the Council. Mr. Canepa said that there were 18 different recommendations in the report; 10 pertaining to circulation and 8 pertaining to parking. He encouraged questions and feedback on the material. Mr. Canepa listed the identified goals and objectives for parking: ■ Parking is a up blic resource that should be convenient and easily accessible ■ Parking regulations should not prevent customers and residents from coming to (or staying in) Downtown ■ The existing parking supply should be used as efficiently as possible before adding new supply ■ Long-term parkers should not occupy "prime" parking spaces ■ Evaluate pricing as a management tool, but do so judiciously ■ Strike a balance between: - On and off-street parking - Public and private parking He also listed the goals and objectives of the circulation study: DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 September 19, 2012 Page 4 ■ Improve circulation so that Downtown better serves all users, including pedestrians and bicyclists ■ Off-street parking supply should be easily accessible from all parts of Downtown ■ Enhance and simplify connections between Main Street, Ark Row, and the rest of Downtown ■ Maximize the character and value of Main Street and Ark Row ■ Improve visitor information and way-finding signage ■ Establish a "look" or "feel" that distinguishes Downtown ■ Explore implementation of a new design and traffic measures for Tiburon Boulevard In his description of the existing parking conditions, Mr. Canepa said that only 9% (140 spaces) of the available parking in the downtown area was on-street parking. He noted that the rest of the available parking was divided into reserved/tenant only parking spaces, customer parking only spaces, and privately-owned, publicly accessible "paid" spaces. He said the total number of parking spaces in downtown was just over 1,600; nevertheless, during peak usage times, he said that not all of the spaces were taken. He said there were challenges to informing people of where the parking was located (which would warrant better signage, described later in one of the recommendations) but also challenges in managing the existing on-street parking for more turnover and availability. Canepa said that the key circulation issues identified by the study were that the Main Street area was an underutilized asset; and that Ark Row was largely unknown with issues of connectivity to the rest of downtown. He also said that the wide, long boulevard leading to the downtown (Tiburon Boulevard) was a State highway that created issues with the creation of a "Main Street" environment with largely pedestrian usage. Mr. Canepa presented the recommendations of the parking study: P-1: Adjust on-street time restrictions and utilize demand-based pricing Mr. Canepa recommended increasing the on-street parking time limits from two to five hours (with progressively increasing pricing) and manage it through the installation of meters. He said that meters were for managing demand, not for revenue generation. He said that the price structure should be set to achieve a target occupancy rate. He showed prices in "peer cities" in the Bay Area, including Mill Valley and Redwood City. P-2: Implement Resident Permit Program This kind of program would allow special downtown parking rates for residents. Canepa pointed to the successful program, "RSVP Mill Valley". He said that the price of the program should cover the cost of administration which included issuing the permits, mailing stickers, etc. P-3: Expand on-street supply Mr. Canepa said that there was an overabundance of 20-minute parking downtown. He said that reducing the number of short-term spaces would result in a net gain of 10-12 on-street spaces. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 September 19, 2012 Page 5 P-4: Evaluate cooperative access agreements For this to work, Canepa said that it would have to be mutually beneficial to the parties and cited examples of private ownership of lots with public management (of meters), or the reverse, also leasing private spaces for public parking, or even the direct purchase of private lots for public use. P-5: Peak period valet (if necessary) Canepa said this solution could be useful during peak summer weekends. P-6: Community outreach and ongoing communication Canepa said that ongoing communication with the public to explain changes and benefits of new programs goes a long way in achieving buy-in. He said that the City of San Francisco used a "phone app" and Redwood City had distributed a written brochure to explain their parking programs. P-7: Ongoing data collections, monitoring and evaluation This is necessary to keep the Town informed of what is working and not working and to assist the Council in its policy setting. P-8: Evaluate use of parking revenue for Downtown Improvements Canepa recommended revenue collected from meters be used for downtown beautification, street sweeping, or other uses that the downtown community and the Town deem appropriate. Mayor Fraser asked if the Town could simply manage its inventory of two-hour and 20-minute spaces, would that have a material effect, or whether a need for way-finding (signs), cooperative agreements, as well as the other recommendations were also necessary. Mr. Canepa said that a three-pronged approach (meters, signage, and cooperative agreements) works best; he said that the Town would want to have its on-street and off-street parking working hand in hand. Canepa also stated that the only way to fix the congestion of street parking was to install meters. Mr. Canepa then moved on to the recommendations in the circulation portion of the analysis. He said that the Town might consider prioritizing the recommendations into lower-cost, shorter tern objectives and higher-cost, long-tenn planning solutions. C-1: Initiate negotiations with Caltrans to take ownership of Tiburon Boulevard in the Downtown Canepa said this would come with a cost-the maintenance of the boulevard; however, he said that it was likely that Caltrans would be interested given that it did not like to have "dead end" highways in its inventory. He said that reclaiming Highway 131 in the downtown area would allow the Town to more easily make decisions about the future of the roadway. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #.ax -2012 September 19, 2012 Page 6 C-2: Close targeted number of driveways along Tiburon Boulevard Mr. Canepa said this would allow smoother traffic flow and reduce conflicts between bicyclists, pedestrians and drivers. He said that driveways could be closed off inexpensively through the use of planters, for instance, and showed several examples and potential sites. C-3: Install mid-block crossing on Tiburon Blvd. and add high visibility treatments Canepa said while these were primarily to encourage safe crossing of the boulevard, they had the additional benefit of encouraging the pedestrian character of the town. The location discussed was a crossing opposite the Tiburon Lodge. C-4: Transition Lower Main Street into a formal "shared space" Mr. Canepa gave some examples of how Lower Main Street could become an area where pedestrians have priority over cars at times. He said the street currently "acts" as an informal shared space, with pedestrians crossing at many points; he said that making this a more formal arrangement would alert drivers to the fact that the space is used differently than other roadways. Canepa said this could be realized through the use of different street surfaces (an inexpensive solution) or raising the street to the level of the sidewalk. C-5: Design and implement coordinated way-finding system Mr. Canepa said improving signage would help direct motorists to under-utilized off-street parking, free up the most convenient spaces in front of businesses, and reduce traffic caused by cars "cruising" around looking for parking. He said it would also direct bicyclists and pedestrians to their routes and the location of amenities. He said that signage should be located at the entrance to downtown, near major off-street lots, along major arterials, near bike/ped routes, and in retail districts (in partnership with local businesses). C-6: Expand bicycle parking and replace some existing facilities Mr. Canepa said the study had identified some facilities that were in disrepair but he also introduced new concepts, such as bike "corrals" which he said were becoming popular in some areas. The remainder of the recommendations fell into the "higher cost" category, according to Mr. Canepa. C-7: Permanently close targeted driveways on Tiburon Boulevard This recommendation would be in lieu of the use of planters (recommendation No. 2) by expanding the existing curb at three locations: Tiburon Boulevard between Chase Bank and Town Hall; Beach Road/Tiburon Boulevard intersection (site of Shark's Deli); and the south side of Tiburon Boulevard opposite the fire station. Closing off driveways would create more parking. C-8: Convert eastern section of Tiburon Blvd. into a "Main Street" with generous public space This program was described in three alternatives forms and would incorporate designated bike DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 September 19, 2012 Page 7 lanes and angled parking along Tiburon Boulevard. C-9: Consider reallocating right-of-way on Tiburon Blvd from Mar West to Beach Road This recommendation built on the information in the previous slide and would create additional bike lanes and parking near Town Hall. C-10: Replace major four-way intersections with one-lane roundabouts Mr. Canepa said the addition of roundabouts, particularly at Mar West Street, would not only improve traffic flow and provide traffic calming, but also act as a "visual cues" to drivers and others that they are entering the downtown area. He said that roundabouts were less costly than signalized intersections. Mr. Canepa asked if there were any questions from the Council. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said that he didn't understand the proposed parking meter rates. He said that paying $1.50 per hour for five hours didn't make sense when a person could park all day in a lot for $5.00. Mr. Canepa said that parking prices should reflect demand; that the idea was to free up the higher demand spaces. He said that pricing could be a graduated structure (the longer you park the higher the rates). He said that the more desirable spaces could be priced higher. Councilmember Doyle said that he liked some of the ideas, especially those that addressed the circulation issues. He said there were five different curb cuts at Shark's Deli and that it made sense to close some of them. Doyle also said there were a lot of good ideas presented regarding signage. Councilmember Doyle asked the consultant whether he had evaluated the entrance of the [Main Street] parking lot that served the movie theater. Mr. Canepa said that he had but had not made any recommendations about that location because it was a private lot. Councilmember Collins said it was a very good report and that he viewed it as a guide to short- term, mid-term, and long-term planning. He said the information was presented in a logical manner but that the parking meter pricing seemed kind of "touchy feely" and somewhat arbitrary. Collins wondered what effect metered parking would have on private lots. Mr. Canepa said that what someone would pay for parking depended on their individual sensitivities. He said that higher priced street parking might shift people to parking in lots. Mayor Fraser asked whether CalTrans approval would be needed to fill in the curb cuts. Town Manager Curran said yes, and that their approval was needed for virtually everything having to do with Tiburon Boulevard. The Town Manager elaborated on the recommendation for cooperative agreements. She said that DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 September 19, 2012 Page 8 she and the Chief of Police had discussed various public/private scenarios and she said she thought there would be opportunities to work with the private property owners along Tiburon Boulevard that would mutually enhance parking and appropriate turnover in the Downtown. Mr. Canepa said many parking lot owners wanted to "do their own thing" and also wanted to maintain free parking for customers. Nevertheless, he agreed with the Town Manager that opportunities exist for public/private cooperation. Mayor Fraser opened the hearing to public comment. Mike Gornet, former President of the Chamber of Commerce, said it seemed counterintuitive to think that raising the parking times from two to five hours would help reach the 85% target for turnover of parking. Mr. Canepa said that businesses liked to create turnover and that without any inducement it was hard to achieve. Mr. Gornet asked whether residents of Belvedere might be included in the downtown resident parking pass. The consultant said that it was "doable" and noted that Mill Valley sold its permits to residents of other towns, although at a higher price. Patrick Sherwood commented on the effects of installing roundabouts. He wondered whether there was a way to measure them aesthetically to make them more beautiful and engaging. He agreed that what is primarily visible now while driving down Tiburon Boulevard are parking lots. Mr. Canepa said that roundabouts slow traffic down and signify a change ahead, like a transition to Downtown. He said that now, Tiburon Boulevard "feels like" a highway with its broad expanse of asphalt. He said that trees might be planted in the median and the Town could also plan to bring buildings closer to the street for visibility. He said these things enhanced the character of a community. Steve Sears asked how lower Main Street could be primarily pedestrian and still accommodate cars. Mr. Canepa said that there were options, according to cost. He said one way would be to stripe Main Street like a crosswalk to signify pedestrian use; also, the pavement could be textured. A more expensive way would be to bring the roadway up flush with the curb but that would require some differential or barrier between street and sidewalk to comply with accessibility regulations. Mayor Fraser asked about a continuous, shared roadway between Ark Row and Main Street. Mr. Canepa said that a way to achieve this would be to continue the no parking zone along Main Street and find ways to funnel pedestrians onto Ark Row. Mayor Fraser closed the public comment portion of the hearing and opened the matter to Council deliberation. Vice Mayor O'Donnell began his remarks by stating that he did not support the installation of DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 September 19, 2012 Page 9 parking meters at this time. He stated that the downtown was on the cusp of change and that it would be prudent to hold off and see how development unfolds. With regard to resident parking permits, O'Donnell said was a good idea but that it was more of a "big city" idea; also, that permit programs do get abused and misused. He also thought the cost of administering such a program was worrisome and that it could lead to the creation of more bureaucracy, for what in his mind was not that big of an issue. The Vice Mayor said the study made clear that there was plenty of parking, albeit not all free, in the downtown area. O'Donnell said that he would like to see more cooperation between the property owners in resolving the parking issues. With regard to the circulation analysis, the Vice Mayor said that he would like to see a roundabout installed at Mar West Street and Tiburon Boulevard; he said he thought it would enhance aesthetics and safety, and would create a new circulation pattern for the Library, as well. O'Donnell said that a roundabout in that location would act as a "bookend" to the one at Paradise Drive but that the Town should wait to undertake such a project to coincide with the building of the new Library. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said that he liked the idea of adding a crosswalk across Tiburon Boulevard in the vicinity of the Lodge; also, that he agreed with the idea of relinquishment and that the Town had already taken steps in the direction. O'Donnell said that he was not in favor of angled parking, however, but said there would be enhanced parking at the new lot on Tiburon Boulevard and Lyford Drive [currently under construction]. O'Donnell said that he liked the recommendation of changing the surface of Main Street (to enhance pedestrian access). He said he liked the Town's practice of closing the street on certain occasions such as Friday Nights on Main, and suggested that it might be closed on more occasions such as Labor Day, Opening Day on the Bay, and the like to create an open air mall. The Vice Mayor said that the pavement should not be raised but that to change the surface and color, similar to what they did at Strawberry Village in the vicinity of Pizza Antica, made sense. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said that he favored bikeway connectivity through the Town and additional bicycle parking. He also said he supported the idea of private property owners, or perhaps the Town, by rezoning of the area, to somehow create a continuous sidewalk connection between Main Street and Ark Row (through relocation of the entrance to the Main Street parking lot). Councilmember Doyle agreed with many of the recommendations and said that if the Town's relationship with CalTrans changes, it would be possible to do them. Doyle said that he, too, liked the idea of a roundabout at Mar West, and said that there was a very difficult connection to the bike [MUP] path at that intersection. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xa -2012 September 19, 2012 Page 10 With regard to parking meters, Doyle said that a lot of meters might not be required to have an impact. He posited that five or six versus 20 might help create quick, short-term parking close to businesses. Councilmember Doyle also liked the idea of turning the medians on Tiburon Boulevard into green spaces, and the creation of more crosswalks. He suggested getting rid of the small median at the intersection of Main Street and Paradise Drive, which he called the "bump" median because of all the tire marks on it. Councilmember Collins said the report was well thought out and that he particularly liked the idea of roundabouts. He reiterated that some of the recommendations could be implemented sooner than others and suggested that staff come back with specific recommendations for Council's review and prioritization. He said that the "low-hanging" fruit might include signage, green spaces, closure of curb cuts, improvement of medians, additional crosswalks, bike access, and the double use of Main Street for pedestrians and cars. He said that the connection to the bike path at Mar West should be placed on the short list because of existing safety and visibility issues. With regard to metered parking, Collins said that he would reserve judgment on this recommendation. Mayor Fraser also favored the roundabout at Mar West. Secondly, he said that parking management was an issue downtown and he had first-hand experience because he works in the downtown area. But he said that he, too, would withhold judgment on the meters but said that some sort of management program was needed. The Mayor said that if parking downtown is too difficult, people "turn right instead of left" and leave town to shop and dine. He said that the Town wanted residents to come downtown and that turnover of spaces was to the benefit of residents. He said that a resident parking program in a couple of participating private lots would be beneficial, if it could be worked out. Mayor Fraser said that he, too, liked the idea of connecting Main Street and Ark Row and making the whole area more pedestrian friendly. He suggested considering closure of Main Street on the weekends. Mayor Fraser said he loved the roundabouts but said that Mar West should be the priority intersection for both traffic calming and to mark the beginning of downtown. The Mayor said that a letter had been sent to CalTrans to explore relinquishment and that it made all the sense in the world for the Town to be able to control its destiny in this regard. He said this would have a long-term effect of improving the downtown and making it a friendlier place for the community. Mayor Fraser suggested that staff return to Council with a list of six, nine and 12-month goals. Town Manager Curran summed up the direction of Council: to bring back to the Council a list of DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 September 19, 2012 Page 11 logical priorities, focusing on low-hanging fruit, that is, easily achievable and cost effective measures; to identify costs and a timeframe for implementation and a rational way to proceed. She said the list to be prepared by staff would include the grand and the minute, and everything in between, in a multi-year approach. Mayor Fraser added that bike racks should be called out in this project list-how many we have now, where they are located, and how to improve the program. Town Manager Curran gave kudos to Brian Canepa and Nelson\Nygaard for their efforts in the creation of a very useful document for the Town. Councilmember Collins said that he had done a good job in explaining the ideas in the document, as well. TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Fraser reported that a subcommittee of the Jt. Recreation Committee had been formed to undertake the fundraising efforts for the fixtures and furnishings of the new facility at Dairy Knoll. He said the goal was to raise $100,000 by December and that the Belvedere Community Foundation had offered a matching grant of $50,000. He asked the Town Manager whether the committee might use the Town's mailing list to solicit donors. Town Manager Curran said that while the names on the list were private, the Town could use its newsletter to promote the fundraising efforts. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT None. WEEKLY DIGESTS ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fraser adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. JIM FRASER, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2012 September 19, 2012 Page 12 ` " TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Administrative Services Department Subject: Investment Summary - August 2012 Reviewed By: Town Council Meeting October 3, 2012 Agenda Item: CC-3 BACKGROUND Pursuant to Government Code Section 53601, staff is required to provide the Town Council with a report regarding the Town's investment activities for the period ended August 31, 2012. ANALYSIS August 2012 Agency Investment Amount Interest Rate Maturity Town of Tiburon Local Agency $181,9689566.13 0.377% Liquid Fund (LAIF) Housing note to $ 800,000.00 0.378% Based on Town Manager Contract Money Market $ 1009000.00 0.20% Liquid (Bank of Marin) Note to Former $ 219683.54 5.55% June 1, 2017 Town Employee Total $191,890,249.67 The total funds invested at the end of the prior month were $20,690,647.20, or $800,397.53 more than the reporting month. FINANCIAL IMPACT No financial impact occurs by adopting the report. The Town continues to meet the priority principles of investing - safety, liquidity and yield in this respective order. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to accept the Investment Summary for August 2012 Prepared By: Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services TOWN OF TIBURON t 1505 Tiburon Boulevard < Tiburon, CA 94920 BACKGROUND Town Council Meeting October 3, 2012 Agenda Item: 6- - y The Political Reform Act requires every public agency to adopt a conflict of interest code, and review that code every two years to make sure that it remains current. The Town last reviewed its code in 2010. The Fair Political Practices Commission ("FPPC") has notified the Town that it is time to review and update, if necessary, the code again. The FPPC has promulgated a model conflict of interest code, which the Town has historically adopted by reference. The model code contains most of the provisions required by law. However, by design, the model code does not specify the agency employees or commissioners whose economic interests render them subject to the code's reporting requirements nor the extent of those requirements for the designated employees. That task is left to individual public agencies. The Act itself mandates reporting requirements for certain positions. With respect to the Town, those officials are the following: the members of the Town Council and Planning Commissions, the mayor, Town Manager, Town Attorney, Town Treasurer, other Town officials who manage Town investments, and any candidates for any of these offices at any election. Under the Act, the Town's code must (i) indentify any other Town positions that involve making (or participate in making) decisions that could foreseeably have a material financial effect on any economic interest; (ii) for each designated position, specify the types of economic interests that the person holding the position could materially affect; and (iii) require persons holding those positions to disclose any of the specified types of economic interests for their positions. The Town Attorney and Town Clerk have reviewed the Town's code and recommend amendments to reflect the following: 1) Since the 2010 update, the State Legislature dissolved the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency and the Town Council has assumed the role of successor agency; 2) Since the 2010 update, the Council has created and made appointments to the Building Code Appeals Board, whose members should report assets that could be affected by their service; 3) Disclosure Category 2 required clarification to be consistent with Form 700 requirements; and 4) We determined that the Heritage & Arts Commission's disclosure category should be Category 4 rather than Category 1. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 8 The revisions are shown in shaded areas on Appendices "A", "B" and "C" of the draft resolution. (Appendix "C" of the 2010 resolution has been deleted and Appendix "D" is replaced with the new Appendix "C" in the 2012 resolution). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to adopt the attached resolution amending its Conflict of Interest Code and direct Staff to complete the 2012 Local Biennial Notice, as required by law. Exhibits: 1. DRAFT Resolution Repealing and Amending Town's Conflict of Interest Code 2. FPPC - 2012 Local Agency Biennial Notice Prepared By: Diane Crane Iacopi, Town Clerk Ann R. Danforth, Town Attorney DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. XX-2012 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 53-2010 AND AMENDING THE TOWN'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE WHEREAS, in 1980 the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 1094 which incorporated by reference the Fair Political Practices Commission's (FPPC) model Conflict of Interest Code (Title 2, Division 6, Section 18730 of the California Code of Regulations), including appendices detailing which positions must file an annual disclosure statement and what interests must be disclosed; WHEREAS, since 1980, the Town Council has amended its Conflict of Interest Code in 1991, 1997, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010, in order to comply with changes to FPPC regulations regarding disclosure', the adoption of new filing forms, as well as changes to job descriptions and titles of its required filers; WHEREAS, Section 87302 of the California Government Code requires the Town to designate other positions within the Town that are required to file disclosure statements; and WHEREAS, since adoption of Resolution No. 53-2010, the following changes have occurred and warrant review pursuant to Section 87302: • the State Legislature dissolved the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency and the Town Council assumed the role of successor agency; • The Town Council created and made appointments to the Building Code Appeals Board, whose members should report assets that could be affected by their service; • Disclosure Category 2 required clarification to be consistent with Form 700 requirements; and • During the 2012 Biennial Review of the Town's Conflict of Interest Code, it was determined that the Heritage & Arts Commission's disclosure category should be Category 4 rather than Category 1. NOW, THEREFORE, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon RESOLVES as follows: 1) Resolution No. 53-2010 is hereby repealed; 2) The FPPC's Model Conflict of Interest Code as set forth in Section 18730 shall continue to be incorporated by reference as the Town's Conflict of Interest Code; 3) Appendix "A" attached to this resolution is hereby amended and incorporated into the Conflict of Interest Code. 4) Appendix "B" attached to this resolution is hereby amended and incorporated into the Conflict of Interest Code. 5) Appendix "C" attached to this resolution is hereby amended and incorporated into the Conflict of Interest Code. 6) The Town Clerk continues to be designated as the filing officer for the Town. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on October 3, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: JIM FRASER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK ;Xr f rJHIBIT NO. APPENDIX "A" DESIGNATED POSITIONS 1. Members of the Following: DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES (Unless otherwise specified, Government Code Section 87200 filers must review all schedules on Form 700. See Appendix "D" for specific disclosure categories.) BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Town Council Form 700 B. Town Council as Successor Agency to the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency Form 700 C. Planning Commission Form 700 2. GENERAL MANAGEMENT A. Town Manager - Form 700 B. Town Treasurer Form 700 3. TOWN ATTORNEY Form 700 ~~;3IT N0. APPENDIX "B" DESIGNATED POSITIONS DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES (Unless otherwise specified, review all schedules on Form 700. See Appendix "D" for specific disclosure categories.) 1. Members of the Following: BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Design Review Board B. Parks, Open Space & Trails C. Heritage and Arts Commission D. Building Code Appeals Board 2. GENERAL MANAGEMENT A. Director of Administrative Services B. Town Clerk C. IT Coordinator 3. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A. Director of Community Development B. Planning Manager C. Associate Planner D. Assistant Planner E. Contract Planner F. Building Official G. Building Inspector 2 2 [2]new category = 4 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 4. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT A. Dir. of Public Works/Town Engineer B. Superintendent of Public Works 5. POLICE DEPARTMENT A. Chief of Police B. Police Captain 6. CONSULTANTS Form 700 4 4 4 As deemed applicable by Town Manager -HIBIT N0. APPENDIX "C" DESIGNATION OF POSITIONS AND APPLICABLE DISCLOSURE `CATEGORIES FOR THE TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Designated Position Disclosure Category 1. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS Form 700 (which may be combined with Town Council Statement) 2 CONSULTANTS As deemed applicable by Town Manager [SCHEDULE DELETED IN 2012 and REPLACED BY NEW EXHIBIT "C"J EXHIBIT NO. APPENDIX "C" DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES A. APPROPRIATE FORM All persons holding offices or positions specified in Government Code Section 87200 shall file FPPC Form 700 for purposes of complying with the financial disclosure requirements of the Conflict of Interest Code. All other positions and offices designated in Appendix B shall only file the appropriate schedules in Form 700 based on the disclosure categories listed below. B. DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES (as amended below) Category 1: Interests in real property located within the jurisdiction or within two miles of the boundaries of the jurisdiction or within two miles of any land owned or used by the agency; and investments and business positions in business entities, and income, including loans, gifs, and travel payments, from all sources. Category 2: Interests in real property located within the jurisdiction or within two miles of the boundaries of the jurisdiction or within two miles of any land owned or used by the agency (with the exception of a home used exclusively as a personal residence). Category 3: Investments and business positions in business entities, and income, including loans, gifts, and travel payments, from sources that provide services, supplies, materials, machinery, or equipment of the type utilized by the agency. Category 4: Investments and business positions in business entities, and income, including loans, gifts, and travel payments from sources that provide services, supplies, materials, machinery, or equipment of the type utilized by the designated position's division or department. 1-)YKHIBIT INTO. 2012 Local Agency Biennial Notice Name of Agency: Mailing Address; Contact Person: Office Phone No: E-mail: Fax No: Accurate disclosure is essential to monitor whether officials have conflicts of interest and to help ensure public trust in government. The biennial review examines current programs to ensure that the agency's code requires disclosure by agency officials who make or participate in making governmental decisions. This agency has reviewed its conflict-of-interest code and has determined that (Check one box): ❑ An amendment is required. The following amendments are necessary: (Mark all that apply.) O Include new positions. O Revise disclosure categories. O Revise the titles of existing positions. O Delete titles of positions that have been abolished and/or positions that no longer make or participate in making governmental decisions. O Other (describe) ❑ No amendment is required. ❑ The code is currently under review by the code reviewing body. Verification The agency's code accurately designates all positions that make or participate in the making of governmental decisions; the disclosure categories assigned to those positions accurately require the disclosure of all investments, business positions, interests in real property, and sources of income that may foreseeably be affected materially by the decisions made by those holding the designated positions; and the code includes all other provisions required by Government Code Section 87302. Signature of Chief Executive Officer Date Complete this notice regardless of how recently your code was approved or amended. Please return this notice no later than October 1, 2012, or the date specified by your agency, if earlier, to: (PLACE RETURN ADDRESS OF CODE REVIEWING BODY HERE) PLEASE DO NOT RETURN THIS FORM TO THE FPPC. '-_1IBIT NO. California Fair Political Practices Commission advice@fppc.ca.gov/ www.fppc.ca.gov/866-ASK-FPPC 6/2012 To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Department of Public Works Department of Community Development Town Council Meeting October 3, 2012 Agenda Item: a7 Subject: Recommendation To Adopt a Resolution Granting Utility Easements To PG&E For Electrical Lines and Facilities Within The Lyford Drive Multi- Modal Parking Lot Project Site; Assessor Parcel No. 060-061-15 Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Construction of the multi-modal parking lot near the intersection of Lyford Drive and Tiburon Boulevard is underway; work began in mid-August and has been progressing steadily. At this juncture, it is timely for the Town to grant to PG&E the easements where electrical infrastructure associated with the project will be located and maintained. PG&E requires three types of easements for these installations and submitted their standard form of easement documents. The Town Attorney asked PG&E to modify the easements to provide for an indemnity provision, with partial success. PG&E agreed to include an indemnity, but without the Town's usual "defend and hold harmless" language. This means that PG&E would not be obligated to defend the Town if a lawsuit arises from their work in the easement, but they would pay any damages awarded against the Town as a result of PG&E negligence. The negotiated provisions are similar to those that the Town has accepted with other utility providers, such as MMWD. FISCAL IMPACT There would be no direct fiscal impact from granting the easements to PG&E. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council, by approval of this consent calendar item, adopt the Resolution granting the easements and authorizing the Town Manager to execute the finalized documents. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 EXHIBITS 1. Draft Resolution. 2. Form of Grant of Easement with draft exhibits. 3. E-mail regarding indemnity provisions. Prepared By: Nicholas T. Nguyen, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer, Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development RESOLUTION NO. DRAFT-2012 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON GRANTING EASEMENTS TO THE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ASSOCIATED WITH THE LYFORD DRIVE MULTI-MODAL PARKING LOT PROJECT (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 060-061-15) WHEREAS, the Town is currently in the process of constructing a multi-modal parking lot (Lyford Parking Lot) near the intersection of Lyford Drive and Tiburon Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) will provide electrical service to the site and will underground electrical utilities in the future at the site; and WHEREAS, such utility installation and maintenance of the utilities over time will require easements on the Town of Tiburon-owned portion of the Lyford Parking Lot site and the Town of Tiburon and PG&E have mutually agreed upon the location and provisions of said easements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby grant the easements to PG&E, in a form substantially as set forth in attached Exhibit 1, and authorizes the Town Manager to execute the finalized documents and ensure the proper recordation of the grant of easements. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on , 2012 by the following vote: AYE: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAY: COUNCILMEMBERS : ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JIM FRASER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Attachments: Grant of Easement with Exhibits A-F Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. DRAFT-2012 --1--12012 Distribution Easement (Rev. 01/11) RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Santa Rosa Land Services Office 111 Stony Circle Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Location: City/Uninc Recording Fee $ Document Transfer Tax $ [ ] This is a conveyance where the consideration and Value is less than $100.00 (R&T 11911). [ ] Computed on Full Value of Property Conveyed, or [ ] Computed on Full Value Less Liens & Encumbrances Remaining at Time of Sale Signature of declarant or agent determining tax SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY LD# 2401-05- EASEMENT DEED PM# 30813088 TOWN OF TIBURON, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter called Grantor, hereby grants to PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation, hereinafter called Grantee, the right from time to time to construct, reconstruct, install, inspect, maintain, replace, remove, and use facilities of the type hereinafter specified, together with a right of way therefor, within the easement area as hereinafter set forth, and also ingress thereto and egress therefrom, over and across the lands of Grantor' situate in 'the Town of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, described as follows: (APN 058-152-01 & 060-061-15) The parcel of land conveyed by Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation to City of Tiburon, a municipal corporation of the State of California by deed dated January 4, 1971 and recorded in Volume 2429 of Official Records on page 428, Marin County Records. Said facilities and easement area are described as follows: Such poles, aerial wires, cables, electrical conductors with associated crossarms, braces, transformers, anchors, guy wires and cables, fixtures and appurtenances, as Grantee deems necessary for the distribution of electric energy and communication purposes, located within the strip of land of the uniform width of 30 feet lying 15 feet on each side of the centerline described in Exhibit' "A" and shown upon Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Such underground conduits, pipes, manholes, service boxes, wires, cables, and electrical conductors; aboveground marker posts, risers, and service pedestals; underground and aboveground switches, fuses, terminals, and transformers with associated concrete pads; and fixtures and appurtenances necessary to any and all thereof, as Grantee deems necessary for the distribution of electric energy and communication purposes, located within the strip of land of the uniform width of 10 feet lying 5 feet on each side of the centerline described in Exhibit "A" and shown upon Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Distribution Easement Rev. (01/11) Grantor hereby confirms in Grantee all necessary rights for Grantee's existing poles, wires and other appurtenances located on said lands. Grantor further grants to Grantee the right, from time to time, to trim or to cut down any and all trees and brush now or hereafter within said easement area, and shall have the further right, from time to time, to trim and cut down trees and brush along each side of said easement area which now or hereafter in the opinion of Grantee may interfere with or be a hazard to the facilities installed hereunder, or as Grantee deems necessary to comply with applicable state or federal regulations. Grantor shall not erect or construct any building or other structure or drill or operate any well within said easement area. Grantor further grants to Grantee the right to assign to another public utility as defined in Section 216 of the California Public Utilities Code the right to install, inspect, maintain, replace, remove and use communications facilities within said easement area (including ingress' thereto and egress therefrom). The legal description herein, or the map attached hereto, defining the location of this utility distribution easement, was prepared by Grantee pursuant to Section 8730 (c) of the Business and Professions Code. The provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and bind the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto. Dated: , By. Print Name & Title EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR GRANT OF PG&E EASEMENT [NufPcff ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY being a 1,209 square foot triangular-shaped Easement located in the Town of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, said Easement being situated entirely within that certain parcel of land owned by the Town of Tiburon as described in that certain Quitclaim Deed from the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company to the City of Tiburon, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California, recorded January 12, 1971 in Book 2429 O.R. at Page 428 in the Records of said County, said Easement being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an Iron Pipe Monument marked "LS #4402" found at the centerline intersection of Lagoon Road and Maybridge Road, as said streets, monument and Basis of Bearings for the herein described Easement are shown on that certain Tract Map entitled Map of Lagoon Subdivision #7, filed for record in Book 8 of Maps, at Page 104, in the Official Records of said County, and from which point another similar monument found on centerline of said Lagoon Road bears, South 35°03'12" East, 729.14 feet, as said monument is shown on said Tract Map; thence leaving said Point of Commencement on a mathematical tie, North 58° 37'17" East, 190.03 feet to the most southerly corner of, and Point of Beginning for the triangular=shaped PG&E Easement herein described, said Point of Beginning being located on a circular curve of the southwesterly right-of-way line of California State. Highway 131 (also known as Tiburon Blvd.) as shown upon that certain Caltrans Right-of-Way Map # R-143-13, dated May 1979, said Right-of-way line also being the line common to said Lands of Town of Tiburon; thence, northerly along said line, 118.70 feet on the Arc of said circular curve to the left, having a Radius of 1,462.70 feet, a Central Angle of 4° 38'59", and a Long Chord which bears, North 34° 59'26" West, 118.67 feet to the most northerly corner of said PG&E Easement; thence departing said Right-of-way line of said Highway 131, South 47° 0022" West, 18.96 feet; thence South 44° 10'57" East, 117.54 fe tt e Point of Beginning and containing 1,209 square feet more or less. LAND Sod The foregoing Legal Descn 'on was prepared by: vV KEVIN M. WGUIRE o J?IZ-540 do No. 643 i M. McGuire CA PLS# 643 7 DATE '~~0 F CA0 Pm[Fir Cq4 It - C44 sr (Mm° Rs q~h~i~gR PROPERTY LINE TYPICAL N DETAIL SCALE: 1" = 30' N 47'00'22"E 18.96' < . % 40 es 0 `a .0 0 ~ pry 01 (5,A PG&E GUY WIRE EASEMENT P.O.B. leg \ N58'37'17"E 190.03' (TIE) BASIS OF BEARINGS S35'03'1 2"E 729.14 (M-M) (729.30' RECORD) FOUND I.P. MONUMENT LS #4402- (8 M 104) / 200 100 0 200 SCALE: 1" = 200' - DIET RivER,.' ~'-Land Services Inc. 11501 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 200 Dublin, CA 94568 MAYBRI MAYBRIDGE ROAD EXHIBIT "B" PG&E OVERHEAD LINE EASEMENT LANDS OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APN: 058-152-01 & 060-061-15 TOWN OF TIBURON MARIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA HENG1105 DRN. BY: MAS CHK. BY. KM-MT-DATE. 9/25/12 PAGE 2OF2 AN KEVIN M. MCGU R O -.Or-, .4 ?a THE TOWN O.R. 428 GRANT DEED (APN: 058-2429152O-01 } ~o 02 ~o FOUND I.P. MONUMENT LS #4402 (8 M 104) P.O.C. N 58"37'17"E 190.03' (TIE) Exp. t23(~©t No. 6437 F L14 LANDS QF OF C A OF TIBURO (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE (E) OVERHEAD LINES PG&E OVERHEAD \/r, LINE EASEMENT 1,209 SQ. FT. PG&E GUY WIRE EASEMENT POINT OF BEGINNING LANDS OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON GRANT DEED 2429 O.R. 428 (APN: 060-081-15) EXHIBIT " V" LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR GRANT OF PG&E EASEMENT D o d L1,5V ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY being a rectangular-shaped Easement located in the Town of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, said Easement being situated entirely within that certain parcel of land owned by the Town of Tiburon as described in that certain Quitclaim Deed from the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company to the City of Tiburon, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California, recorded January 12, 1971 in Book 2429 O.R. at Page 428 in the Records of said County, said Easement being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an Iron Pipe Monument marked "LS #4402" found at the centerline intersection of Lagoon Road and Maybridge Road, as said streets, monument and Basis of Bearings for the herein described Easement are shown on that certain Tract Map entitled Map of Lagoon Subdivision #7, filed for record in Book 8 of Maps, at Page 104, in the Official Records of said County, and from which point another similar monument found on centerline of said Lagoon Road bears, South 35°03'12" East, 729.14 feet, as said monument is shown on said Tract Map; thence leaving said Point of Commencement on a mathematical tie, South 79° 22'09" East, 249.23 feet to the northeasterly corner of, and Point of Beginning for the rectangular PG&E Easement herein described, said Point being located on the southwesterly Right-of-Way line of the California State Highway 131 (also known as Tiburon Blvd.) as shown upon that certain Caltrans Right-of-Way Map # R-143-13, dated May 1979, said Right-of-way line also being the line common to said Lands of Town of Tiburon; thence, along said line, South 28° 10'22" East, 60.04 feet; thence, departing said common line and entering the said lands of the Town of Tiburon, South 61 ° 49'38" West, 8.21 feet; thence, North 28° 10'22" West, 60.10 feet; thence, North 62° 12'29" East, 8.21 feet to the Point of Beginning and containing 493.11 Square Feet more or less. The foregoing Legal Description was prepared by: - Z~ zot2_ Kevin M. McGuire CA PLS# 6437 DATE LAND }{EVIN M. WGUIRE ~o Exp. (?-~V. X)Q_ ~r- No. 6437 -OF CA DLANDS OF \n(APN: E TOWN OF TIBURON ANT DEED 2429 O.R. 428 S79'220058-152-01) 249.23' _ Mq_~\GFR FOUND I.P. MONUMENT LS #4402 (8 M 104) POINT OF COMMENCEMENT 8~ \ 'l0 g LANDS OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON GRANT DEED 2429 O.R. 428 (APN: 060-061-15) DETAIL SCALE: 1" = 30' POINT OF BEGINNING KEVIN M. WGUIRL PG&E EASEMENT C1 p' t2~ ?-P ~i o. 5437 D C A~\ - °fi~ <ON% ~i r 0 ` o ~j b PROPERTY LINE TYPICAL .j y` . S7g• P.O.B. 00*1 a~ 22 09_~ ?4g,23' ~71F A 0 'p, N62'12'29"E 8.21' PG&E EASEMENT 493.11± SQ. FT. O fOA O'oO 0 lJ.ao~ w %p cP ` o. u'02k a 'O 3.0 a+o a. S61 '49'38"W 8.21' FOUND I.P. MONUMENT LS #4402 (8 M 104) 100 50 0 100 SCALE: 1" = 100' L%: UIET RIVtR~AEXHIBIT "D" PG&E FACILITIES EASEMENT Land Services Inc. f LANDS OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON 11501 Dublin Boulevard. Suite 200 APN: 060-061-15 Dublin, CA 94568 TOWN OF 11BURON MARIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA t95) 7880n.e HENG1105 J DRN. BY. MAS CHK. BY: KMM DATE: 9/25/12 FAUL Z OF 2 EXHIBIT "9." LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR GRANT OF PG&E EASEMENT D o d ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY being a five-foot wide strip of land located in the Town of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, said strip being situated entirely within that certain parcel of land owned by the Town of Tiburon as described in that certain Quitclaim Deed from the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company to the City of Tiburon, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California, recorded January 12, 1971 in Book 2429 O.R. at Page 428 in the Records of said County, the centerline of said five-foot wide strip lying two and one-half feet (2.5') on both sides of the following described centerline: Commencing at an Iron Pipe Monument marked "LS #4402" found at the centerline intersection of Lagoon Road and Maybridge Road, as said streets, monument and Basis of Bearings for the herein described Easement are shown on that certain Tract Map entitled Map of Lagoon Subdivision #7, filed for record in Book 8 of Maps, at Page 104, in the Official Records of said County, and from which point another similar monument found on the centerline of said Lagoon Road bears, South 35°03'12" East, 729.14 feet, as said monument is shown on said Tract Map; thence leaving said Point of Commencement on a mathematical tie, North 52° 52'23" East, 190.43 feet to the Centerline Point of Beginning for the herein described strip of land, said Centerline Point being located on the southwesterly Right-of-Way line of the California State Highway 131 (also known as Tiburon Blvd.) as shown upon that certain Caltrans Right- of-Way Map # R-143-13, dated May 1979, said Right-of-way line also being the line common to said Lands of Town of Tiburon as described in said Quitclaim Deed; thence, along said centerline, South 31 ° 02'31" West, 23.25 feet to the Point of Terminus for the herein described Strip of Land, the sidelines of which to be lengthened or shortened as needed to extend out to and terminate at the said Right-of-Way line of CA. Hwy. 131, saicFstrip of land containing 116 square feet more or less. The foregoing Legal Description was prepared by: 41- z S Zak Z Kevin M. McGuire CA PLS# 6437 DATE k KE01 M. M„GUIRE 0 No. 6437 CNL q~ iSoRN Rai RjGyT'9 e06' oP. FLgR ~3J PROPERTY LINE TYPICAL MAYBRIDGE ROAD DETAIL OF GUY ANCHOR EASEMENT SCALE: 1" = 20' ~ A c~F /d► (PSG <11 0 9s o~ ~ ' O F y ~ lp ~ ~O CENTERLINE OF PG&E GUY WIRE tL V EASEMENT ' ' ' " S31 02 31 W 23.25 116± SQ. FT. (APN: 058-152-01) , 2.50' pn&[~)7 KEVIN M. Mcf U E Expo ~2..-~/•t No. 6 337 LANDS THE TOWN OF T~ GRANT DEED 2429 O.R. 4 (APN: 058-152-01) PG&E OVERHEAD LINE EASEMENT PG&E GUY WIRE EASEMENT 232.5± SQ. FT. POINT OF BEGINNING , 8. \ j0 FOUND I.P. MONUMENT A LS #4402 (8 M 104) POINT OF, COMMENCEMENT N52'52'23"E 190.43' (TIE) LANDS OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON GRANT DEED 2429 O.R. 428 (APN: 060-061-15) P.O.B. BASIS OF BEARINGS S35'03'1 2"E 729.14 (M-M) (729.30' RECORD) FOUND I.P. MONUMENT LS #4402- (8 M 104) (APN: 060-061-15) RyUIETD IVER and Services Inc.~~ 11501 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 200 Dublin, CA 94568 200 100 0 200 SCALE: 1" = 200' EXHIBIT "F. PG&E GUY ANCHOR EASEMENT LANDS OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APN: 058-152-01 & 060-061-15 TOWN OF TIBURON MARIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA HENG1105 1 pRN. BY: MAS CHK. BY. KMM DATE: 9/25/12 PAGE 2 OF 2 From: Dunlap, Jim [mailto:JADa@pge.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:32 AM To: Ann Danforth; Eagleton, Shauna; Nicholas Nguyen Cc: Ladeinde, Tosin; Scott Anderson; kibu@csgengr.com; Hayes, Patrick F; ryan@harrison- engineering.com Subject: RE: PG&E Easement for Tiburon Project Ms. Danforth, PG&E's Rule 20, provides that 'PG&E will, at its expense, replace its existing overhead electric facilities with underground electric facilities along public streets and roads, and on public lands and private property across which rights-of-ways satisfactory to PG&E have been obtained by PG&E.' PG&E's standard easement document represents those rights satisfactory to PG&E. We are agreeable to adding the indemnity provisions that Shauna forwarded to the Town previously, but the broader indemnity provisions you propose are not acceptable. We understand that the Town is concerned about potential expense of defending a claim against the Town arising from PG&E's work in the easement area. However, the provisions we have forwarded are what PG&E deems reasonable and appropriate. We understand that the City desires that we include express provisions regarding restoration of the property, and stating that Grantor is under no obligation to maintain surfacing upon the easement. We are agreeable to including the restoration provision that Shauna has provided, and also to adding the following: Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, Grantee shall be under no obligation to install or maintain a roadway or pavement or other surfacing upon the easement. Please let us know how you wish to proceed. Jim Dunlap Land Agent Land rights Services - North Coast From: Ann Danforth [mailto:ADanforth@ci.tiburon.ca.us] Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:59 AM To: Eagleton, Shauna; Nicholas Nguyen Cc: Ladeinde, Tosin; Scott Anderson; Dunlap, Jim; kibu@csgengr.com; Hayes, Patrick F; ryan@harrison- engineering.com Subject: RE: PG&E Easement for Tiburon Project Good morning, Shauna: As a general rule, the Town requires a stronger indemnity (i.e, one that includes the requirement to defend and covers attorneys fees). Under your proposed language, we could be put to considerable expense defending against a claim arising from PG&E's work in the easement area. Please do what you can to obtain approval of our language. EX-FIBIT NO. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard F Tiburon, CA 94920 To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Town Council Meeting October 3, 2012 Agenda Item: 4,-r-/ Subject: Residential Building Reports (RBR's) Review Status Reviewed By: ~L) BACKGROUND On June 6, 20125 the Town Council received a report on the Town's current regulations concerning Residential Building Reports, commonly known as RBR's. Minutes of that meeting are attached as Exhibit 1. At the meeting, it was suggested that the Marin Association of Realtors could perhaps request the cities to standardize their approach. The Town Manager also offered to raise the issue with her colleagues at the Marin Manager's Association. On July 12, 2012, the MAR sent a letter (Exhibit 2) recommending the adoption of certain principles with regard to RBR inspections and processes. The letter has been reviewed by the Marin Managers Association, and the Planning Directors and Building Officials groups within Marin County. A formal response to the MAR letter is currently being prepared. DISCUSSION The current status of the RBR process review is as follows: ➢ The Tiburon Building Division has begun taking steps to develop and implement process improvements and procedural changes intended to streamline and standardize the Town's RBR process. Progress so far includes work on developing a revised report and inspection form, ongoing collaboration with other Marin County jurisdictions in developing and, hopefully, adopting county-wide standardized inspection processes and standards, and developing ways to integrate both of these efforts in such a way as to make the Town's RBR program more efficient, user-friendly, and customer-oriented. ➢ Among those steps is the preparation of a pre-printed checklist format, wherein the most common life-safety deficiency items usually observed at the site inspections can be "checked off' on the form at the first inspection, with the results immediately available to the applicant, thereby eliminating the up to ten-day waiting period for the results of the inspection in most instances. The form will also have space for the inspector to include any high-concern life-safety item that is not one of the standard checklist items, and for the identification of potentially un-permitted work, which will require up to a three- working-day time period for records research and investigation. The goal of this proposed checklist format is to significantly reduce the turnaround time for RBR reports, reduce Building Division staff time spent on generating them, allow for greater transparency regarding the types of compliance items that will be of concern with the RBR process, and enhance the consistency and uniformity of the process as a whole. ➢ On a parallel track, the Tiburon Building Official is part of a Marin County Codes Advisory Board sub-committee assigned the task of improving the RBR process county- wide. The group is currently working on a draft response to address the concerns contained in the MAR letter of July 12, 2012. These concerns that were raised include this group's perception of the level of (or lack of) consistency, double jeopardy, transparency, timeliness, and fees associated with the RBR process across the county. While some of these concerns are state mandates and beyond the ability of local jurisdictions to control, many are legitimate concerns, and the sub-committee is now engaged in ongoing collaborative efforts to address them by developing achievable and realistic recommendations to forward to decision-makers in our respective jurisdictions. ➢ The Marin Managers Association is continuing to discuss and coordinate this effort among the 11 cities that perform RBR's in Marin County. Staff will report to the Town Council on a proposed response to MAR in the near future, and intends to continue with the broader process outlined above. We believe real progress is being made toward a more standardized approach to RBRs in the County that will simplify and speed the process while still protecting the public interest in these matters. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council receive the report and, if necessary, provide any additional direction to staff regarding the RBR regulations and/or process. EXHIBITS 1. Minutes of June 6, 2012 Town Council meeting (excerpt). 2. Letter from Marin Association of Realtors dated July 12, 2012. Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development Fred Lustenberger, Building Official Danforth said that the amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement would increase the numberd voting committee members from seven to nine. She said the City of Belvedere was set to discuss the matter at its next Council agenda, as well. Councilmember Fredericks complemented the Mayor on the wisdom of his recommendation. MOTION: To approve amendment, as written. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Collins Vote: AYES: Unanimous 3. Residential Resale Building Reports - Review of Residential Building Reports (RBRs) process (Director of Community Development Anderson) Director Anderson said that since 1970, the Town of Tiburon has required preparation of a Report of Residential Building Record, commonly called an RBR, prior to the sale or exchange of a dwelling unit. He said that newly-constructed units are exempted. Anderson said the intent of the RBR is to protect the public health and safety of residents; he noted that RBR ordinances have been adopted by all of the ten other municipalities in Marin County. Recently, Anderson said that Town staff was asked to prepare a review of the regulations and process, along with preparing a general comparison of Tiburon's RBR regulations with other Marin municipalities. He said this review was summarized in more detail in the written staff report. Anderson said that staff generally provided an owner with a copy of the RBR within 10 days of the inspection, and that they then had 30 days to make the corrections. He said the report was good for one year and clearly delineates mandatory versus an advisory corrections. Anderson said that Building Official Lustenberger was present and could provide additional information. Councilmember Collins asked if the inspections followed the regular building permit inspection protocol. Director Anderson said that in the case of a building permit, the inspector normally only inspected the work that was subject to the permit; he said the RBR was a broader inspection and the purpose was to make the house safer for the new owners. Collins said that the cities of Mill Valley and Ross cited the same Government Code Section as Tiburon did for their RBR ordinance; however, Collins said those cities provided sellers with a punch list but not a mandate to make the corrections. He asked how, the Town had come to expand on this authority. Director Anderson said that the process used by Mill Valley was identical to Tiburon's; he said that Ross was better in clarifying that a physical inspection is required to comply with the ordinance, and Ross sends a Fire Marshal to inspect the property, as well. Town Council Minutes #11-2012 June 6, 2012 Page S Ff 1 ~ rr. J P,! .ra„ No. Councilmember Collins said he wanted to know how the Town came to go beyond the express authority of the Government Code. Town Attorney Danforth said that the Town's police power allowed it to require broader report. Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked about the cost to prepare an RBR and whether a homeowner would have to pay an additional fee for a permit to make the repairs. Building Official Lustenberger said staff generally waived the permit fees for repairs as most things could be done for $250 or less (the cost of the RBR permit). However, he said that separate permits are required for work when the inspection discovers work that has been done without a permit. The Vice Mayor asked how this differed from private inspections. Lustenberger said that private inspections were done at the behest of the buyer or seller, and that they were voluntary. He said those reports belong to the person who hires the inspector while the Town's reports are a public record. Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked whether the RBR process was a matter of interjecting the Town into a private transaction and, if so, was there an issue of liability to the Town. He also asked what happens if the work to be performed is so onerous that it either delays or dumps a sale. Town Attorney Danforth said that work performed without a permit was by definition illegal and said that it would be difficult to frame a cause of action against the Town on this basis. Councilmember Doyle asked if there was liability if the Town "missed something" in its RBR. Town Attorney Danforth said that the Town's inspections were covered by statutory immunity. Vice Mayor O'Donnell referenced the case of a collapsing deck in San Francisco that had not been identified in a building report. He asked what would happen if the Town missed something this serious. Town Attorney Danforth said she had heard of this case. She commented that the Town's resale inspections looked for deficiencies that were egregious and obvious; she said it would be difficult to construct a case of liability if the cause could not have been seen. Collins asked if there was a risk involved in preparing these reports. Danforth said that one could argue that every time the Town does an inspection there is a risk, but the Town does it anyway because the public safety is served. She maintained that all cities have statutory immunity for this reason. Mayor Fraser said the Town Council of Corte Madera had decided not to renew its RBR ordinance because of the perceived liability to the Town. He said it would be helpful to find out more about the reasons for this Council's decision. Mayor Fraser said he was a supporter of the RBR process and noted that nine out of 11 cities performed these inspections, although the County did not. However, the Mayor pointed out that the report criteria is not standardized between cities; he said that property owners and contractors did not know what to expect across jurisdictions. He said that the items subject to inspection Town Council Minutes #11-2012 June 6, 2012 Page 6 depended on the building officials of those jurisdictions. He wondered whether there was a way to improve the process, to aid homeowners and contractors, through standardization. Director Anderson said that each municipality had the authority to create its own regulations. In some cases, however, he said regulations were based on a model ordinance like the recently- adopted construction and demolition ordinance adopted by the Marin cities. He said he had not heard of a desire to standardize the RBR process. He also noted that most counties did not perform RBRs because they were too far flung geographically and did not have enough personnel to provide this kind of service. Mayor Fraser said that standardization would be a huge benefit and agreed with the Director that the cities and county had moved toward standardization in Green Building regulations and in other areas, as well. He asked staff to consider taking a leadership role in this area. Councilmember Fredericks cited her experience in buying and selling homes in several communities; she said that her real estate agent handled these transactions and that it was simply a matter of complying with local requirements. She said that she did not think it was a good use of staff time to seek standardization from other cities. Vice Mayor O'Donnell suggested that an interested party, the Marin Association of Realtors, might be able to marshal the resources to take this on. He said that he agreed with the Mayor's philosophy but also thought that Councilmember Fredericks had a valid point. The Mayor agreed that this might be a better approach. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said that while health and safety were paramount, he was still concerned about liability and risk to the Town in the RBR process. O'Donnell asked about shifting the responsibility for inspections to private parties. Town Manager Curran noted that the Town had been issuing RBRs for 40 years without any related lawsuits. O'Donnell took issue with the direction of the conversation at this juncture. Vice Mayor O'Donnell stated that the reason the Mayor had raised the issue was that there was discontent in the community with the process. He described a "horrendous" experience he had with a former Town building inspector while trying to sell his home; he said that the inspector refused to tell him what was in his report and that O'Donnell had to wait 10 days to obtain a copy. He said if the Town could better manage the process, it would be the better way to go. Councilmember Fredericks said that the Vice Mayor had made an excellent suggestion earlier in proposing that the Marin Association of Realtors might look into the possibility of standardizing the inspection process. Town Manager Curran also offered to raise the issue at the Marin Manager's Association monthly meeting. She said that the City Managers might canvass their respective councils to see if there was interest in pursuing this, and then turn it over to the realtor's association. Curran said that she would report back to the Council on this issue. Town Council Minutes #11-2012 June 6, 2012 Page 7 Mayor Fraser said he concurred with this recommendation, as well as following up with the Town of Corte Madera. No further action was taken on the matter by the Council. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Animal Control Services - Recommendation to adopt a revised fee schedule for Animal Control Services provided by the Marin Humane Society under a Joint Powers Agreement between all the Marin cities and the County of Marin (Director of Community Development Anderson) Director Anderson said that an increase in fees for animal control services had been adopted by the County of Marin; he said that the JPA member cities were being asked to adopt the same fee schedule. Anderson said that increased fees for services provided by the Madn Humane Society to the cities and county would help avoid or off-set increases to the JPA dues. Vice Mayor O'Donnell commented that if it is possible to standardize fees for animal control services, why not standardize home inspection reports. Councilmember Collins said that the fee increases were small and seemed to be in order, as stated in the staff report. MOTION: To adopt the fee resolution, as written. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Collins Vote: AYES: Unanimous 2. FY 2012-13 Municipal Budget - Introduction and adoption of Municipal Budget for fiscal year ending June 30, 2013 (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) Director Bigall reported on the state of the Town's finances. She said that the Town had lived through the worst recession since the Great Depression but because of fiscal adjustments it had made, the Town was emerging in a better position than some other public agencies. She said these adjustments included salary and benefit reductions, not filling positions in certain departments, capping future pension liabilities, and paying off the PERS side fund liability. Therefore, Bigall said that 2012-13 Operating Budget of $16,239,761 was projected to have a modest surplus of $73,484. Director Bigall reviewed the budget assumptions and projections more fully in her power point presentation. She then turned the presentation over to Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen who made a presentation on the capital improvement budget for the coming year. Director Nguyen listed the three categories of projects: streets, drainage, and community projects. He said that some of these projects were rolling forward from the last fiscal year-the Del Mar Undergrounding project, the Lyford Drive Parking project, the Ned's Way project, and others. Town Council Minutes #11-2012 June 6, 2012 Page 8 MARIN "UNGEsT REALTORS July 12, 2012 Ms. Margaret Curran Town Manager Town of Tiburon 1155 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Ms. Curran: On behalf of our Board of Directors, I am writing to let you know that the Marin Association of REALTORS® is "Calling on Tiburon and the nine other local jurisdictions that conduct onsite inspections of residential properties to adopt and enforce six basic principles that seek to ensure the inspections are fair to homeowners. Depending on individual housing markets, dozens - or hundreds - of residential properties may be sold every year in these cities and towns. According to the association's housing turnover index, the average number of annual residential property sales over the last five years in Tiburon is 123. The resale inspection principles that were approved by our Board of Directors call for consistency, no double jeopardy, transparency, timeliness, revenue peutrality and sensitivity to today's economic conditions. The principles, which are enclosed, were prompted by reports from REALTORS® about various problems associated with resale inspections' in different cities and towns in the county. Our members and their clients have experienced issues about the conduct of inspections in some jurisdictions more than others. But rather than rehashing old problems, we want to start fresh-with a clean slate for all local governments. After the six principles are adopted, it will be much easier to monitor compliance and address issues. I look forward to working with you and your colleagues to ensure these principles are adopted and enforced as soon as possible. If you have any questions or need more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, _~Z~ 4 4 Edward Segal, e-PRO, RCE, CAE Chief Executive Officer/Governmental Affairs Director Enclosure Tc711DIT NO. 40 Mitchell Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94903 • 415-507-1000 • 415-507-1031 fax • www.MarinCountyREALTORS.com MARI.N association of . REALTORS" Fair Principles for City and Town Resale Inspections The Marin Association of REALTORS@ recognizes that public entities have a legitimate community interest in ensuring that local housing is safe and meets current building codes. Cities and towns often seek to accomplish this by conducting property inspections (resale inspections) when homes are sold and providing written reports to the buyers prior to close of escrows. Homeowners are charged a fee for this process. At the same time, citizens have a right to expect transparency, consistency and fairness when their elected governments require mandatory inspections. Resale reports should not include arbitrary decisions, subject owners to inconsistent standards, promulgate new rules, or generate additional revenue to close budget gaps. To proactively address these issues and avoid unreasonable obstacles to home sales and frustrations for residents in the resale inspection process, the Marin Association of REALTORS@ calls on local governments in jurisdictions where onsite inspections are conducted to adopt and enforce the following key principles and ensure that they are communicated to the public. Consistency Building standards should not be applied retroactively. Homeowners who performed work on their homes in accordance with building standards in effect at the time of the work, but without a permit, should not be required to redo the work when they obtain a permit at the time of sale. y No Double Jeopardy • Re-inspections to finalize resale report repairs should not raise new issues that were not identified on the original resale reports. Different inspectors should not mean different standards and results. • When homes are sold, and the homeowners originally bought them with approved city or town reports, new items for the current reports should not be raised that were not included on the original reports if the building standards did not change. Transparency • Cities and towns should communicate resale inspection requirements in advance. Rules, procedures, timelines and potential penalties should be posted at city and town offices and on their Web sites. • The cost analysis used to set inspection fees should be posted by cities and towns at their offices and on their Web sites. ➢ Timely Inspection Process • When cities or towns mandate inspections as a condition of home sales, they have an obligation to the citizens to ensure that the process is completed within a reasonable timeframe without obstructing the sales. • Trained city and town staff should be available to meet posted due dates, including adequate coverage for vacations, etc. • Owners should be able to schedule inspections within seven working days, and receive reports within seven working days after the inspections. • Resale inspection-timelines should be posted by cities and towns at their offices and on their Web sites. If the cities or towns cannot meet the posted timelines, then the inspections should be waived. No Excess Inspection Fees Inspection fees should only recover the full cost of the inspections, and should not be used to generate additional revenue for the cities or towns. Distressed Home Sales In recognition of today's economic conditions, homes that are sold as short sales should have inspection fees waived or substantially reduced. 7/12/12