Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TC Agenda 2018-05-02
TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Council Tiburon Town Hall May 2, 2018 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Closed Session-6:30 p.m. Regular Meeting-7:30 p.m. TIBURON TOWN U COUNCIL AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING-6:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Fredericks,Councilmember Thier,Councilmember Welner,Vice Mayor Kulik, Mayor Fraser CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL_COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) County of Marin vs.Martha Co.,et al.-United States District Court, Northern District of California-Case No. C06 0200 SBA CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4)of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (1 potential case) ADIOURN- to regular meeting REGULAR MEETING-7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Fredericks,Councilmember Thier,Councilmember Welner,Vice Mayor Kulik, 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 Cowncil 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. CC-L Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of April 18, 2018 special and regular meetings (Town Clerk Stefani) CC-2. Investment Summary- Adopt investment summary for month ending March 31, 2018 (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) CC-3. Virginia Design Contract Award - Authorize Town Manager to execute contract with Harris &Associates for completing Plans and Specifications for Virginia Undergrounding project,and a budget amendment in the amount of $8,000 for the resurfacing project (Department of Public Works) ACTION ITEMS AI-1. South Knoll Tree Removal Permit - Consider Tree Permit for the Removal of 21 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Trees, 15 Italian Stone Pine Trees and 6 Monterey Pine Trees from Town Property (Department of Public Works/Community Development Department) AI-2. PG&E Rule 20A Undergrounding - Update from staff on project and direct staff to either continue or close down project (Department of Public) PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1. Zoning Text Amendments - Consider zoning text amendments relating to parking standards, zoning permits and room and board provisions in single family dwellings - Introduction curd first reading of ordinance TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS TOWN MANAGER REPORT WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digests-April 20&27,2018 ADJOURNMENT GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435- 7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall. Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town's website, www.townoftiburon.org. Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing address,phone number and brief description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the meeting. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above address. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at,or prior to,the Public Hearing(s). TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda, it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items appearing on the Town Council agenda. 1� TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL & REGULAR MEETING DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING – 6:30 P.M. On April 18, 2018, the Council held a special meeting as follows: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Thier, Councilmember Welner, Vice Mayor Kulik, Mayor Fraser CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) County of Marin vs. Martha Co., et al. –United States District Court, Northern District of California - Case No. C06 0200 SBA CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSELANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (1 potential case) ADJOURNMENT–to regular meeting REGULAR MEETING –7:30 P.M. Mayor Fraser called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:35 p.m. on Wednesday, April 18, 2018, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fraser, Fredericks, Kulik, Thier, Welner ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chains, Town Attorney Stock, Director of Community Development Anderson, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Barnes, Management Analyst Creekmore,Town Clerk Stefani ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Matthew Sundstrom said his neighbor's heavy smoking is negatively impacting his family. He expressed disappointment that Tiburon does not have an ordinance protecting against secondhand smoke for multi-unit dwellings except apartments. I Ie asked the Council to make an amendment to Town Council Minutes #10-2018 DRAFT April 18, 2018 Page 1 the ordinance,and said Smoke-Free Marin offered to help facilitate the amendment and enforcement. PRESENTATION • Transportation Authority of Marin—"Renewing Transportation Sales Tax in 2018" Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director of the Transportation Authority of Marin, gave a presentation on the pending consideration of a renewal of a sales tax used for local transit. She summarized the existing Measure A sales tax, and said the future sales tax would enable long-term planning. She said a public opinion poll conducted in early 2018 supports renewal of the sales tax. Ms. Steinhauser reviewed the draft expenditure plan created and introduced Robert Betts of Marin Transit who discussed how Marin Transit has significantly grown service on all their programs.Ms. Steinhauser said the next step is for the TAM Board to approve the draft expenditure plan before asking the cities and towns in Marin for approval of the plan. If there are sufficient approvals, the TAM Board will consider putting the renewal on the ballot in November. Councilmember Thier said she was impressed with the report, and believed TAM was making the right decision by renewing the sales tax now, so as to ensure no loss of programming in the future. She was pleased that crossing guards will be maintained, and commented on how the relief of congestion seems to improve public opinion of the sales tax. Councilmember Fredericks asked the presenters to comment on other possible sources for local communities to get dedicated school bus funding. Ms. Steinhauser said it can be a balancing act on redirecting funds to high-demand needs,and local sales tax measures and transportation agencies are increasing attention to school transit. Mayor Fraser thanked the presenters and expressed gratitude that the local Yellow Bus program would not be what it is without their leadership and assistance. He said the Yellow Bus program has significantly decreased Tiburon Boulevard traffic,and other agencies are now modeling their school transit programs after Tiburon's. He said he would like to see some of the funding given to Marin Transit for school transportation come to Tiburon. Mayor Fraser opened the floor for public comment. April Dean,board member of Cool the Earth, believed the sales tax should substantively contribute to the electric vehicle movement to have a meaningful impact on carbon emissions,and would like to see dedicated monies from the sales tax toward EV infrastructure and education. Carleen Cullen,co-founder of Cool the Earth,echoed Ms.Dean's comments and said a new sales tax should consider education, outreach and infrastructure in support of driving electric vehicles. Mayor Fraser closed the floor. Ms. Steinhauser said the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee considered electric vehicles when Town Council Minutes 910-2018 DRAFT April 18, 2018 Page 2 drafting the plan, but ultimately decided against it because TAM has another funding program dedicated to electric vehicles. Councilmembers Welner and Fredericks commented on the Town's commitment toward spending money in support of electric vehicles, but there has been discussion on how to do a project in a meaningful way that will actually help the community. Welner encouraged the Cool the Earth representatives to reach out to staff or the Council if they have ideas. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-1. Town Council Minutes — Adopt minutes of March 21, 2018 special and regular meetings (Town Cleric Stefani) CC-2. Town Council Minutes—Adopt minutes of April 4,2018 regular meeting(Town Clerk Stefani) Councilmember Thier asked to remove Consent Calendar Item No. 1 for discussion. MOTION: To approve Consent Calendar Item No. 2, as written. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Welner VOTE: AYES: Unanimous CC-1. Town Council Minutes — Adopt minutes of March 21, 2018 special and regular meetings (Town Clerk Stefani) Councilmember Thier made the following changes: • Page 8, Paragraph 2, Line 1: Delete `to' • Page 8, Paragraph 2, Line 3: To read as "...from a potential bid protest" • Page 10,Bullet Point 22-70 to remove"guilty of a misdemeanor"and add"...in violation of this ordinance..." MOTION: To approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1, as amended. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Thier VOTE: AYES: Unanimous ACTION ITEMS AI-1. Tiburon Boulevard Rule 20A Undergrounding Project—Receive update and consider directing staff and PG&E to close down project (Office of the Town Manager/Department of Public Works) Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Barnes said staff has been working with PG&E to complete a priority undergrounding project between Lyford and Ned's Way along Tiburon Boulevard since 2014 using Rule 20A funds. Town Council Minutes #10-2018 DRAFT April 18, 2018 Page 3 Director Barnes said the cost estimate of this project increased dramatically as design progressed, and bids came in even higher. Barnes said if the Council wishes to continue this project,construction will be delayed until summer 2019, and the Council will need to allocate an additional $440,000 from the General Fund and authorize additional purchases of Rule 20A credits. He said the Council has the option to either continue to work on the project, or direct PG&E to close down the project. Vice Mayor Kulik asked if the cost will increase again to do the project in 2019. Barnes said the Town would have to rebid the project, and bids do not normally decrease. Councilmember Fredericks asked how much money had been spent on this project so far. Barnes said the Town had spent$109,000 to buy credits,which can be resold or used for a future project.He said the Town had also spent$140,000 in Rule 20A credits on a complete design,which can be used again in a reasonable time frame. He said the design will gradually go stale as technology changes. Councilmember Thier asked if there was a way to consider alternatives to shutting down the project entirely to see what future bids look like. Barnes said there is still work that needs to be done on the project,and as long as the project is open,PG&E will continue to charge against it in credits. Chanis added that sufficient Rule 20A credits would need to be purchased before the project is rebid. Mayor Fraser was disappointed the Town was not permitted by PG&E to review the bids. He said there is no guarantee the project won't get more expensive,and expressed frustration that the Town may no longer be able to afford a project that will benefit the community. Councilmember Welner wondered if this new information would change staff's analysis of the project as a Rule 20A vs. Rule 20B vs. cash project. Barnes did not believe any further Rule 20A/B analysis would make a difference,and said it would not be worthwhile to transform the project into a Rule 20B project as long as the Town can purchase Rule 20A credits for only $0.50 per credit. Mayor Fraser opened the floor for public comment. Ken Well asked why PG&E will not release the bid information, and inquired if the Town will be able to successfully manage three undergrounding projects at the same time. Town Manager Chanis said staff has asked PG&E repeatedly to share the bids,but their policy is to not release the information. He said the Town can manage all three projects at once as each project will have a separate project manager that is not Town staff. Mayor Fraser closed the floor for public comment. Fredericks said the risk of small cell installations on infrastructure might be a risk to consider for the future of this project. She thought the Council should keep this factor in mind when considering a large expenditure like this. Thier believed this was an important project,and the Council would benefit from more information Town Council Minutes 410-2018 DRAFT April 18, 2018 Page 4 before stopping the project entirely. She expressed disappointment over the large difference in cost, and that the bids are not available for analysis. She wondered about putting the project"on pause",as purchasing Rule 20A credits at an advantageous rate is still an option for now. Welner said there is a sense of discomfort with the high bids and no explanation as to why the cost increased so significantly. He encouraged the staff to seek further advice to.see if there is a way to analyze the bids and costs before closing down the project. He agreed that more investigation would be appropriate before making a final decision. Fredericks said this is a priority project, but now there is a lack of trust about the actual costs involved. She asked to see an analysis of what other improvement projects might get deferred due to this extra expenditure. Vice Mayor Kulik said the project likely will not get any cheaper,but the high cost might signify that the other Rule 20A priority undergrounding projects will be significantly deferred as the credits will take a long time to accumulate. He said he did not want to shut down a high-priority project, and agreed to defer the decision until after further investigation. Mayor Fraser said the Council should be specific in what further information is needed from staff, while keeping in mind that costs will not likely change.Town Attorney Stock suggested the Council give specific direction on whether or not to pursue purchasing additional Rule 20A credits. Fredericks said she would like to know what other high-priority capital projects might get deferred due to this extra expenditure. Welner thought it might be worth purchasing additional credits,if they can be acquired at an even cheaper rate,and perhaps enough to eventually make this cost more palatable. He also suggested the staff seek the advice of a consultant that could help the Town navigate this process. He wanted to be assured there are no other options the Town could take advantage of before making a decision. Chanis cautioned the Council against accumulating additional Rule 20A credits due to the unknown future of the Rule 20A program.He added that many other cities have had similar issues with PG&E and the Rule 20A program, and keeping the bids private is their policy. Thier said she would like to see the bids before making a decision, if possible. She said she would also like an analysis of the timeline and costs required to pause the project,and of closing down and opening the project again at a later date. She said she would also like to know what the cost might be as a Rule 20B project. Kulik said the question to answer will ultimately be if the Council wants to spend the extra money or not,and the costs may still increase.He said the Council is looking for a recommendation from staff and a listing of potentially compromised projects and an analysis of what the tradeoffs would be. Town Council Minutes#10-2018 DRAFT April 18, 2018 Page 5 Fraser suggested the staff analyze and report back on the issues raised by the Council tonight, and return to the Council with their best recommendation. No action taken. PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1. Cypress Hollow Landscape&Lighting District(LLD)—Hold annual protest hearing and consider adoption of resolution to continue the LLD assessment for fiscal year 2018- 2019 (Department of Public Works) Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Barnes said the Cypress Hollow Landscape & Lighting District assessment must be reviewed by the Council annually, and gave a brief background on the assessment. He said the Town is responsible for maintaining sanitary and storm drain easements, entry landscaping, an irrigation system and a children's park.He said the cost of the assessment has not gone up since it began in 1998, and no protests have been received in the last year. Mayor Fraser opened the floor for public comment. There was none. MOTION: To adopt resolution continuing the assessment for Fiscal Year 2018-19. Moved: Thier, seconded by Fredericks VOTE: AYES: Unanimous TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS None. TOWN MANAGER REPORT The Town Manager and the Town Council discussed scheduling for several upcoming meetings. WEEKLY DIGESTS Received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fraser adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. JIM FRASER, MAYOR ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes 410-2018 DRAFT April 18, 2018 Page 6 TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Mcctincy: . 1505 Tiburon Boulevard May '-), 2018 Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda ltem: CC- ' REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Administrative Services Department Subject: Inv stment Summary — March 2018 Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Pursuant to Government Code Section 53601, staff is required to provide the Town Council with a report regarding the Town's investment activities for the period ended March 31, 2018. ANALYSIS March 2018 Agency Interest Investment Amount Rate Maturity Town of Tiburon Local Agency Investment 24,310,793.02 1.524% Liquid Fund (LAIF) Money Market(Bank of $ 100,000.00 0.15% Liquid Marin) Total $24,410,793.02 The total invested at the end of the prior month was $24,410,793.02, therefore; the Town's investments did not change from February 2018. FINANCIAL IMPACT No financial impact occurs by accepting this report. The Town continues to meet the priority principles of investing— safety, liquidity and yield in this respective order. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to accept the Investment Summary for March 2018 Prepared By: Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services y, f f TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Special Meeting May 2,2018 1505 Tiburon Boulevard � C? Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: CC� STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of Town Council From: Department of Public Works Subject: Award of Design Contract for Virginia Undergrounding District to Harris & Ites Reviewed By: C BACKGROUND In 2017, property owners on a portion of Virginia Drive submitted petitions to form a utility undergrounding district (The District). On May 3, 2017 the Town Council unanimously passed Resolution No. 10-2017 which indicated the Town's intent to form The District. On January 7, 2018, Council considered the Draft Preliminary Engineer's Report for the project. After receiving a staff presentation, conducting a public hearing and deliberating, Council adopted Resolution No. 03-2018, which approved the Preliminary Engineer's Report and fixed March 21, 2018 at 7:30 p.m. at Town Hall as the time and place of hearing protests and objections to The District as proposed and counting the ballots for and against the proposed assessments to be levied. On March 21, 2018, Town Council held a public hearing on the proposed undergrounding district. After the public hearing ballots were tabulated. There being no majority protest, Council adopted Council Resolution No. 15-2018 confirming assessments. The next step is for the Town to award a contract to complete the design of the undergrounding proj ect. Town policy provides that"Town-maintained streets with a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 70 or greater will receive a slurry seal fully funded by the Town." Virginia Drive meets this condition. Staff has received two proposals from Harris &Associates, one for the design of the undergrounding and a separate proposal for the additional slurry seal work. I(Cid7)E'�[�G[ ].()y�----------- 2k0lS ANALYSIS The proposal from Harris for the design of the undergrounding district has a proposed cost of $141.927.00. Sperry Capital is currently working on interim financing for this cost, and we expect that financing to be finalized in July 2018. Until the proceeds from that financing are received, staff recommends funding the design from the Virginia Undergrounding Fund that was set up when the Town received subscription deposits. This will allow the design on the project to proceed immediately. The proposal from Harris for the design of the slurry seal for the undergrounding district has a proposed cost of$8,000. This would be paid from Road Impact Fees. The schedule for this design work is shown in table 1 below. Table 1 -Virginia Undergrounding Design Schedule Milestone Due date Notice to Proceed with Design May 6, 2018 65% Design June 24, 2018 Prepare Individual Plats and Coordinate with Property Owners August 5, 2018 95% Submittal September 30, 2018 Final submittal November 25, 2018 Prepare Right-of-Way Acquisition Documents December 16,2018 Out for bid January 10, 2019 Bid opening February 21, 2018 Harris & Associates has a Master Agreement with the Town that covers the terms of the contract, therefore this work will be awarded using two separate task orders. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Authorize the Town Manager to award a design contract for the Virginia Utility Undergrounding project to Harris & Associates in the amount of$141.927.00. 2. Authorize a budget amendment for the Virginia Utility Undergrounding Resurfacing project in the amount of$8,000 with funds to come from the Streets Impact Fund. 3. Authorize the Town Manager to award a design contract for the Virginia Utility Undergrounding Resurfacing project to Harris & Associates in the amount of$8,000. Prepared By: Patrick Barnes,Town Engineer TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting May 2, 2018 1505 Tiburon Boulevard y Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item:AI STAFFREPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Public Works Community Development Department Subject: South Knoll, Adjacent to McKegney Green; File #TREE2017001; Regarding a Tree Removal Permit Application Filed by Ron and Duffy Hurwin to Remove Twenty-one (21) Blue Gum Eucalyptus Trees, Fifteen (15) Italian Ston 'me Trees and Six (6) Monterey Pine Trees from Town Property; As ss� Parcel No. 055-131-23 Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Project Description The owners of the property at 558 Tenaya Drive (Ron and Duffy Hurwin, hereinafter referred to as "applicants") have submitted a tree permit application (File #TREE2017001)requesting removal of twenty-one (2 1) Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees, fifteen (15) Italian Stone Pine trees and six (6) Monterey Pine trees (Exhibit 1). The trees are located on or near South Knoll, in the Town's Richardson Bay Lineal Park, a public park. All of the trees are located on Town-owned property, except for five (5) Eucalyptus trees located on Town-leased land collectively owned by the 12 property owners of nearby Pine Terrace. South Knoll is an approximately 60-foot tall knoll rising above adjacent level areas of the Richardson Bay Lineal Park in between McKegney Green and South of Knoll Park and Playground. The Town's policy for trees located on Town property requires that the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission and/or Town Council review tree permit applications for pronninent trees located on Town property (Exhibit 2). Given this standard, staff has determined both POST and the Town Council should hear this item. Project Data Address: South Knoll adjacent to Old Rail Trail west of Pine Terrace and Tiburon Boulevard Assessor Parcel Number: 055-131-23 File Number: TREE2017001 General Plan and Zoning: P&R (Parks & Recreation) Current Use: Public Park Owner: Town of Tiburon Applicants: Ron and Duffy Hurwin Date Complete: February 22, 2017 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 13 Prior History At one time, South Knoll was largely barren of significant vegetation but over the past several decades has become the home of numerous eucalyptus, pine and oak trees. The eucalyptus trees in particular have grown large and tall, as is typical of the blue glue variety. Since acquiring the property from Caltrans in 1975, the Town of Tiburon has performed limited occasional thinning and other maintenance of these trees but has not removed any mature trees. In 1996, a group of property owners approached the Town to discuss the possibility of removing trees from South Knoll. The Parks and Open Space Commission (POSC), the predecessor of the Parks Open Space, and Trails Commission (POST), discussed this issue on November 12, 1996 and formed a subcommittee to investigate the issue further. The subcommittee received recommendations from the Public Works Department, Police Department and Tiburon Fire Protection District that the trees did not pose a public hazard. On February 11, 1997, the Commission concurred with these recommendations and directed the Public Works Department to continue to perform regular maintenance of these trees, but did not approve removal of the trees. Minutes of these meetings are attached as Exhibits 3 & 4. On May 7, 1997, the Town Council discussed a request from a resident to reconsider the Commission's recommendation (Minutes attached as Exhibit 5). The Council encouraged homeowners to meet with their respective homeowners' associations and prepare plans to window and shape the South Knoll trees which could be presented to Council for review, with the proposed work to be paid for by the homeowners. No plans were ever submitted. In 2003, the Town Council adopted an official written policy and guidelines for reviewing applications for removal or trimming of trees on Town property (Exhibit 2). In May 2006, a blue gum tree failed and fell onto the Old Rail Trail. A subsequent evaluation indicated that this tree failed because it was girdled (essentially strangled) on the south side by the large buttress roots of an adjacent tree, had extremely advanced decay in the root crown, the heart wood and supporting buttress roots and leaned heavily toward the trail. As a result of this failure, Marin Tree Service was contracted to conduct an immediate evaluation in June 2006 (Exhibit 6). This evaluation indicated there were five trees that posed some potential liability,justifying at least safety pruning. T his recommendation was brought to the POSC in October 2006, with the Commission recommending no work be performed until further review and hearing. Subsequently, the Town paid for a more extensive evaluation, conducted by Urban Forestry Associates Inc. This report is included as pages 32 to 39 of Exhibit 1. This report recommended that seven trees should be pruned and four trees should be removed. The Urban Forestry Associates report was discussed at the January 9, 2007 POSC meeting, with the POSC voting 4-0 to-allow Public Works to use their judgement in following the recommendations of the report. In March 2007, the Town Council approved a budget amendment for this work. The staff report for this item is attached as Exhibit 7. The work was completed with two trees being removed and a number being pruned. Staff returned to POSC to report back on the completion of the work on November 13, 2007. The staff report for this item is attached as Exhibit 8 and the minutes as Exhibit 9. At that meeting, one POSC member expressed the view that the work went beyond the scope to which POSC had agreed. it Vc.[irr4 Since the work completed in 2007, no significant maintenance work has been completed in this area. Regulatory Framework In 2003, the Town Council adopted an official written policy and guidelines for reviewing applications for removal or trimming of trees on Town property (Exhibit 2). This policy states that "the Town's overarching policy is that trees and shrubs on Town property are resources that will not generally be removed or substantially altered without good reason." These guidelines also call for review by the Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission and/or the Town Council for requests involving prominent trees, such as some of the subject trees on South Knoll. When tree removal is requested by a private party for any tree on Town property, a tree permit and an encroachment permit is required. For this tree permit, staff recommended to POST that they make a recommendation to the Town Council. Adopted Town Policy for Trees on Town Property The Town Council policy and guidelines for removal or trimming of trees on Town property lists several factors to be considered prior to making a decision on a tree permit to remove trees on Town property. These factors are listed below, with analysis of each: • Type and size of tree (native/non-native, undesirable, heritage-size, invasive, etc.): The subject Eucalyptus and Italian Stone Pine and trees are non-native species and the Eucalyptus and Monterey Pine trees are classified as "undesirable trees" under the Tiburon Tree Ordinance. • Prominence of trees (e.g. visual significance, historical significance, age): The subject trees are visible from a variety of public and private vantage points. The trees are visible from the Old Rail Trail, McKegney Green and the South of Knoll Park and Playground, as well as from Tiburon Boulevard and other public streets in the vicinity. The trees are also visible from much of the Little Reed Heights and Hawthorne Terrace neighborhoods uphill from Tiburon Boulevard, as well as from other homes along Pine Terrace and streets connecting to Avenida Miraflores. The trees are not historically significant but do add to the scenic value of this portion of Tiburon, particularly when viewed from Tiburon Boulevard, the Old Rad Trail and the Richardson Bay Lineal Park. • Qualitative health (e.g. apparently healthy, apparently unhealthy, dying, or dead): The HortScience Risk Assessment Report states that one tree, a black acacia has a condition of 1 (Tree in severe decline). Another 14 trees have a condition of 2 (Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated). The remainder of the trees are in fair to good condition. The applicants have submitted several reports (Exhibits 2, 3 &4 of the application materials attached as Exhibit 1) prepared by arborists which found structural and other defects in most of the Eucalyptus trees and one of the Monterey Pine trees. These reports are summarized below: _._ ___ ,__.....__. _____.____......._._.__._ n C.o;_ir,.ci� 1. Urban Forestry Associates Inc. prepared an arboricultural report in 2006 for the Town which evaluated 15 Eucalyptus trees on or around South Knoll. The report cited some defects on certain trees but deemed only one tree to be a hazard and recommended removal of only 2 of the 15 trees. 2. Urban Forestry Associates Inc. also prepared an arborist report in 2016 for the applicants which evaluated 4 Eucalyptus trees: 2 trees along Tiburon Boulevard (numbered as Trees 1 & 2 on the exhibit presented with the application) and 2 trees on South Knoll (Trees 8 & 9). The report cited risk defects on all 4 trees and stated that Trees 1 & 2 were "too high a failure risk" due to their proximity to Old Rail Trail, a bus stop, sidewalk and the Tiburon Boulevard roadway. 3. Arborscience prepared a native tree restoration plan in 2016 for the applicants which evaluated 57 trees on or near South Knoll. This plan states that "native habitat will be improved and tree hazards reduced by removing the invasive Eucalyptus and Pines," and that"existing Oaks will flourish once the undesirable trees are removed." The plan states that one Eucalyptus tree has extensive internal decay and that one Monterey Pine tree has a serious trunk defect. Appropriateness of location (e.g. active park vs. non-use area, etc.): South Knoll is a prominent natural topographic feature, an approximately 60-foot tall knoll rising above adjacent level areas of the Richardson Bay Lineal Park, including McKegney Green, the South of Knoll Park & Playground and the Old Rail Trail. The subject trees are situated on and around the tall knoll which is not an active park space, located above the more well-used recreational features in the adjoining flatter areas. • Benefit (e.g. aesthetics, shade, screening of unsightly use): The subject trees do not screen any unsightly uses in the vicinity. The original evaluation by staff minimized the shade provided by the trees. Staff has subsequently heard from a number of people, including POST members, that this is one of the few shady areas along the Old Rail Trail. The trees have some aesthetic value in creating a forested canopy for what would otherwise be a barren knoll and creating a more attractive scenic appearance for passersby on Tiburon Boulevard and the Old Rail Trail. Detriment (e.g. nuisance factors, view blockage, property damage, maintenance obligations): As previously noted, the Town has received complaints in the past from residents uphill from the knoll that these trees have grown into their views. The trees intrude into various portions of the views to the south and west toward San Francisco, the Golden Gate Bridge and Richardson Bay from homes in several nearby neighborhoods. Falling branches and soil degradation are nuisance factors often associated with Eucalyptus trees and the applicants have submitted exhibits detailing potential safety hazards commonly associated with these trees. itV" li � i)tfi�l� �.1CCLllI':� • Cost to remove and/or replace, including ongoing maintenance of any replacement vegetation: If the application is approved, the Town would require the applicant to pay for the removal of the trees and may require the applicant to pay to plant replacement vegetation. The applicants have submitted a native tree reforestation plan (included in Exhibit 1) which identified 222 existing Coast Live Oaks on the site, including 181 seedlings (less than 1 inch diameter), 26 saplings (1 to 4 inch diameter) and 15 small trees (4 to 12 inch diameter). The applicants contend these existing trees would have better potential for growth if the subject trees were removed. No other replacement vegetation is proposed as part of this application. Costs for ongoing maintenance after the tree removal is difficult to predict, but the work required would include thinning of oak trees, and ongoing control of invasive species that are likely to increase on the site if the trees are removed. • Likely effectiveness of replacement vegetation, if replacement is desirable: As indicated above, the applicants restoration plan relies on the existing native oak seedlings/saplings `flourishing' after the proposed tree removal is complete. Many of the existing oak seedlings are located on portions of South Knoll that are not occupied by the trees proposed to be removed. Although the stated intention of the application is to promote the growth of existing native vegetation on South Knoll, the lack of growth of these many small seedlings may indicate the removal of the trees as proposed would not necessarily foster improved or sustained growth for the Oak trees on the site, and in any case, their growth rate would likely be very slow. General Plan Consistency and Zoning Ordinance Conformance The Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Tree Ordinance contain numerous goals and policies relating to trees, which are listed below followed by brief analysis: Land Use Element: • Goal LU-F: To preserve and protect Tiburon's views, scenic environment, natural beauty, and open space. The removal of the subject trees would restore views for many residents, but would also affect the overall scenic environment of South Knoll. The mostly non-native trees are not part of the natural environment of the knoll. The site is part of the Richardson Bay Lineal Park but is not designated as open space. Open Space and Conservation Element: • Trees and woodland areas are important natural resources which provide habitat for birds and shaded, protected areas for other animals; and help to stabilize hillsides. Trees and wooded areas also contribute to the visual character of'the community. The subject trees provide potential habitat for raptors and other birds and contribute to the visual character of the community. • Trees and woodlands are valued by the 'Town for their ecological importance, their visual enhancement of the community, and their contribution to residential ..........._._ _.._ ..,..�»AI! � C!LIIICFi �rICCCIIIy� 0I privacy and quiet. The subject trees contribute to the visual enhancement of South Knoll, but also intrude into views enjoyed by residents in neighborhoods uphill from the site. • Policy OSC-33: Protected trees, as defined in the Municipal Code, tree stands, and tree clusters shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Sixteen(16) of the 42 trees proposed to be removed by this application meet the definition of "protected tree" as defined by the Tiburon Tree Ordinance. The proposed project would not preserve these trees or the tree clusters on South Knoll to the maximum extent feasible. Safety Element: • Tiburon is susceptible to wildfires, urban fires, and wildland-urban interface fires where the two areas meet. Eucalyptus trees do not perform well during a fire incident and are generally considered to be fire hazards. However, the subject Eucalyptus trees are not particularly close to homes in the area. The Tiburon Fire Protection District has established boundaries for wildland urban interface (WUI) areas that are subject to vegetation management regulations, and South Knoll is not located in a WUI area. In 1997, the Tiburon Fire Chief categorized the Eucalyptus trees on South Knoll as "remote from structures" and not subject to vegetation management requirements (Exhibit 10). • Wildfires often occur on grassy areas, and can spread to nearby dwellings. If the fires are unattended or exposed to winds, some forested areas, such as those of eucalyptus, may be particularly prone to forest fires. However, this problem is limited in the Tiburon Planning Area by interspersion of woodland areas within open grasslands. Although the Pine Terrace neighborhood is somewhat close to the Eucalyptus trees on South Knoll, the South of Knoll Park and Playground and the Old Rail Trail right-of-way provide buffers between the trees and structures in the vicinity that reduce the risk of wildfire hazards to these homes. Tiburon Tree Ordinance: Policy 41. The Town recognizes the scenic importance, shade-creating, and privacy-creaiing benefits of trees to the communny. The Town also recognizes that trees can provide soil stability, noise buffering, and wind protection benefits, and can help prevent erosion and debris flow landslides on the hilly terrain which characterizes most of Tiburon. The Town of Tiburon greatly values its trees for their ecological importance, visual enhancement of the community, and their contribution to residential privacy and quietness. The subject trees contribute to the scenic importance and visual enhancement of South Knoll, but also intrude into views enjoyed by residents in neighborhoods uphill from the site. The subject trees are not close enough to any homes in the vicinity, or dense enough, to provide substantial wind, noise, or privacy protection. Environmental Analysis An Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for this project, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The �7�. tj,,iuo)" oAvr l (mricli I,S1 \la I I IS/MND was released for public comment on April 5, 2017 and is attached to this report as Exhibit 11. The public review period for the IS/MND ended on April 26, 2017. The Initial Study concentrated on potential impacts on issues related to aesthetics, biological resources and noise and identified mitigation measures for that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. No substantial evidence was received to support a fair argument that the project would result in a significant impact on the environment. The initial study focused on the following issues: • Aesthetics. Evaluation of visual/aesthetic impacts under CEQA is highly subjective and subject to diverse opinions and conclusions. The project would change the views of South Knoll from residential neighborhoods by removing the subject trees and expanding existing views of the bay and cities beyond. The removal of the trees would alter the visual character of South Knoll when viewed from Tiburon Boulevard, McKegney Green, South of Knoll Park & Playground, Old Rail Trail, and other areas from a somewhat wooded hillside to a landform without significant vegetation other than grass, small trees and small shrubs. This change to the visual character of the knoll when viewed from these vantage points, although noticeable and substantive is not considered extensive enough to be a significant environmental impact substantially degrading the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. However, the tree removal would constitute an irreversible change to the visual environment over the short- to-medium term. • Biological resources. There is a remote possibility that raptors or other migratory birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) could establish new nests on the site in the fixture before the subject trees are removed. The IS/MND includes a mitigation measure requiring that any active raptor nests or other bird nests protected under the MBTA be avoided or not disturbed until young birds are able to leave the nest (i.e. fledged) and forage on their own. • Noise. The proposed project would result in a short-term increase in noise from tree removal equipment. T he IS/MND includes mitigation measures that would require the project to limit tree removal work to hours normally permitted for a tree permit, during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday, with only quiet work allowed to be performed on Saturdays. As noted above, the initial study identified mitigation measures for potential impacts on these issues that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. As of the writing of this report, no substantial evidence has been received to support a fair argument that the project would result in a significant impact on the environment. POST Review _.........._.m.... .... _________...__..._._........ ____ __._. I m\n C:c liI d Mccl it On April 25, 2017, the POST Commission considered the subject tree permit and appointed an ad-hoc sub-committee to make recommendations. Exhibit 12 is the staff report for that meeting (without attachments). Exhibit 13 is the minutes for that meeting. On May 15, 2017, the POST sub-committee met with Kent Julin, consultant for the applicants, at the knoll. After an informative discussion the sub-committee requested a compromise plan that would remove some of the trees as proposed in the permit, while leaving others. On June 24, 2017, Staff received a follow-up report from Mr. Julin (Exhibit 14) and provided it to the sub-committee. Rather than offer an alternative proposal as requested by the sub- committee, this report again recommended removing all 42 trees listed in the permit. The sub- committee then asked staff for a more formal risk evaluation to be performed on the trees requested to be removed. Accordingly, staff contracted with HortScience, Inc. for a risk assessment of trees over 10 inches in diameter(that size was chosen because staff recommends that all eucalyptus trees fewer than 10 inches in diameter should be removed in any event). HortScience, Inc. is considered experts in the field of risk assessment. The actual field assessment and resulting report was completed by Dr. James Clark. The final report was provided to the sub-committee on January 8, 2018. The POST Commission heard this item on February 12, 2018. The consensus of the Commission was that the permit request to remove 42 trees from the knoll was excessive. The Commission invited a compromise position and voted unanimously in recommending to Council that the permit as submitted be denied. Exhibit 16 is the staff report for that meeting (without attachments). Exhibit 17 is the draft minutes for that meeting. Tree Risk Report The attached Tree Risk Assessment Report (Exhibit 15) evaluates 39 trees. Regarding safety, risk was rated as moderate for four trees and low for 35. Staff notes that public comment has included the comment that the risk is "low"not "none". Staff points out that "low" is the lowest risk in the ISA risk assessment methodology. No trees received risk ratings of extreme or high. No trees were identified as in imminent danger of failing. All trees rated as moderate risk are recommended for removal. Other trees are recommended for pruning. The specific recommendations of the report are as follows: 1. Remove Blackwood acacias #22 —26. Trees #23 — 26 have moderate risk while #22 is in poor condition. 2. Remove dwarf Blue Gum #4 due to its declining condition. 3. Remove Blue Gum #5. This 84-inch diameter tree is in poor condition with a large open cavity at the base of the trunk on the uphill (north) side. Although the cavity was well- buttressed at the margins, large fungal fruiting bodies were growing on its interior. 4. Prune Blue Gums #l, 2 and 6 and Monterey Pines #55 and 56. 5. Evaluate Blue Gum #10 for installation of a cable support system. The Tree Risk Assessment Report also provides a condition assessment ranking from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). One tree was rated 1 and fourteen trees were rated 2. After removing the trees recommended above, there would be eight trees remaining rated at condition 2. Sol B Staff has received costs from Treemasters for two different projects: 1. Project Scope 1: All work as recommended in the Risk Assessment Report. The seven trees that would be removed and five trees that would be trimmed under this proposal are depicted in Exhibit 18. Trees with X's over them would be removed, trees circled would be trimmed. In addition, all eucalyptus less than 10 inches in diameter would be removed. The estimated cost of this work is $21,880. 2. Project Scope 2: All work as recommended in the Risk Assessment Report plus all trees with a condition assessment of 2 or less. The fifteen trees that would be removed and five trees that would be trimmed under this proposal are depicted in Exhibit 19. Trees with X's over them would be removed, trees circled would be trimmed. In addition, all eucalyptus trees fewer than 10 inches in diameter would be removed. The estimated cost of this work is $36,740. Public Comment Notice of this meeting was sent to property owners within 500 feet of Del Mar Middle School to provide notice to property owners uphill from the Knoll. Notice was mailed 10 days in advance of the meeting. As of the writing of this staff report staff has received five letters or e-mails. They are attached as Exhibits 20 through 24. Included in this correspondence is a collection of emails from the applicant (Exhibit 21). These e-mails raise a few questions that staff believe Council may want addressed: 1. The e-mails state that after a tree failure in 2006, Robert Morey provided a recommendation to immediately remove the 5 largest Eucalyptus trees and suggested removing 14 others, but that the Town a was not happy with that recommendation and hired Robert Moritz for a second report and he recommended removing 15 of the Eucalyptus trees. Staff has attached the report from Robert Morey and Robert Moritz as well as minutes from meetings after these reports were submitted to the Town. Clearly the Morey report (Exhibit 6) was preliminary, and the conclusion of the report actually states, "There are 5 [trees] that are considered as some potential liability justifying at least safety pruning:" The Moritz Urban Forestry Associates report evaluated 1.5 Eucalyptus trees on or around South Knoll. This report can be found on page 32 of Exhibit 1 with a recommendation on page 39 of Exhibit 1 which reads, "However, the Town may wish to consider tree removal for restoration purposes." Staff does not interpret this as a recommendation to remove all 15 trees. The staff report written for POST in 2007 (Exhibit 7) states that the recommendation from the report is that seven (7) should be pruned, four (4) should be monitored and four (4) should be removed. 2. The e-mails ask why the Hort Science Risk Assessment Report is different than previous reports. The answer to this is that the Hort Science Risk Assessment Report is the first report completed in accordance with the ISA best practices. 3. The emails suggest the Hort Science Risk Assessment Report was ordered by POST to "get a report that fit their agenda". Staff points out that the assessments done by Dr. Kent Julin were not risk assessments, and that POST first asked the applicants to provide an alternative plan that would not remove all of the trees proposed in the application. It was only after POST received the second report/plan from the applicants, which still proposed _.._._ _......_.._....._.__._...._..... 10v�.�CSF _[ll3t Ia��� Page 9�,I 13 i:: 0 removing all of the trees, did the POST subcommittee determine a true risk assessment was warranted. 4. The e-mails note that only the Hort Science Risk Assessment Report mentions removing the Blackwood acacias 422—26. In 2006, the Town did not ask to have the Blackwood acacias evaluated, possibly because they were in better condition than today. It is unclear why the reports provided by the applicants did not identify the Blackwood acacias for removal. Staff notes that the Blackwood acacias had the highest risk of any trees evaluated by Hort Science using ISA best practices for risk assessments. Staff also notes they are relatively low trees that cannot be seen from Tiburon Boulevard. ANALYSIS The intent of the Town Council policy for removal or trimming trees on Town property is not to declare "open season" on trees located on public property, but rather to establish a framework for review of meritorious applications. The Town occasionally receives requests to remove other trees on Town property, in parks, open spaces, and street rights-of-way to improve views for Tiburon residents. As with the Town's decision for the South Knoll trees in 1997, the Town Council has historically allowed Town-owned trees to be trimmed to restore views, but has generally discouraged removal of public trees for that purpose. The Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Tree Ordinance recognize the importance of trees to the character and beauty of the Town and recognize the role that trees have in advancing the public health, safety and welfare. As noted above, the removal of the trees proposed by this project would alter the visual character of South Knoll from a wooded hillside to a more barren area consisting of grass, brush and small trees for a considerable number of years. The applicants contend the removal of the Eucalyptus trees would lessen potential safety hazards on the knoll and in the vicinity, and would promote the growth of native Coast Live Oak seedlings on the site. The Town must balance these assertions with the effect the tree removal would have on the existing visual character of this prominent portion of the Tiburon Peninsula, and its general policy of discouraging removal of public trees absent a compelling reason. Staff also notes if all the trees are removed, broom and other invasive species will likely move into this space. A maintenance plan is needed to control these invasive species if the permit is approved. Staff hoped that the second version of the Tree Restoration Plan requested by POST, and received on June 24, 2017, would address ongoing maintenance and associated costs. However,this plan is essentially the same as the original plan submitted with the permit and seems to ignore the need for continued maintenance of the Knoll. The management recommendations can be found on page 22 of Exhibit 1 and page 5 of Exhibit 14. This is relevant as one of the reasons provided for approving the permit is that it avoids the future cost of maintenance of the blue gum trees. While that may be true, this needs to be balanced against other maintenance that would increase, such as ongoing control of invasive species that are likely to proliferate in the area if the trees were to be removed as proposed. The permit and plan state that after the Blue Gum are cut down the contractor would "Cover eucalyptus stumps with tarps or weed-block fabric to prevent re-sprouting and subsequent growth." This is important as previous cut stumps have re-sprouted and now need to be cut again. However, staff believes that cutting all the tees and covering stumps with tarps will be unsightly, and believes at least some of the stumps should be ground out. In short, staff believes the application as currently proposed does not adequately address the issue of restoration and Pa �10oI13_ Ik»\i; C.ouncil �i:rtin� future management of the area, including the associated costs of these activities. Staff would ask that if Council approves the permit, they also direct the applicant to work with Staff in developing a more robust restoration plan before undertaking the work. Safety is a major concern raised by the proponents. There are two concerns raised in regards to safety,tree fall hazards and fire hazards. The concern over tree fall hazards is why the Town hired HortScience to do a formal ISA risk assessment. Staff strongly recommends doing the work recommended in this report, including removal of some black acacia trees that are not included in the permit application. There is some public concern regarding the tree that fell in 2006. Staff notes that according to the Moritz Report (Page 32 of Exhibit 1) this tree "failed because it was girdled(essentially strangled) on the south side by the large buttress roots of T-1. This tree also had extremely advanced decay in the root crown, the heart wood and supporting buttress roots. Also, [prior to failure], it leaned out fairly heavily toward the trail". There is no other tree that has these conditions. Regarding fire hazard, this question was addressed in 1997 as part of the request to remove trees at that time. This area is the purview of the Tiburon Fire Protection District and Staff would defer to their opinion on this issue. However, Staff believes that a comment made at the February 12, 2018 POST meeting deserves some consideration; "if the Town is concerned about fire safety of trees, the Town should look at all trees and prioritize them. If the Town did that, McKegney Knoll wouldn't be in the top twenty" (Exhibit 17, Page 3). The attached Hort Science Risk Report recommends removing all Blackwood acacias and two Blue Gum trees. In addition, it recommends pruning three Blue Gum trees and two Monterey Pines. Staff strongly urges doing this work at the minimum. In addition, staff recommends removing all Eucalyptus trees that are 10 inches in diameter or less. After doing this safety related work, there would be eight trees remaining rated at condition 2. Removing these trees now would reduce future maintenance, lower future risk and allow space for native vegetation while retaining sufficient trees to maintain the character of the knoll. Staff believes that this could be an appropriate compromise position as envisioned by POST. the POS-3-IF +t + he + T +: Since meeting, he applicants appy oacil « e f own regarding getting a price for removing all trees with a condition of 3 or lower. This would remove tree numbers 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15 as well as all trees shown in Exhibit 19. Staff responded that a"Tree with a condition rating of 3 has moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care. For three of the trees with a condition of 3 the report recommends mitigating structural defects by trimming. The safety rating on all of these trees is low. Some of these trees are dominant trees visually and have been specifically identified by residents as such." Therefore, we could not recommend removing these trees. This exchange is included as part of Exhibit 21. FINANCIAL IMPACT The Town budget for FY 2017/18 included $35,000 for work on the Knoll. The risk assessment cost $3,500 leaving $31,500 for removal work. I()\\\oi- i 1r,� 1"n : 11,, �)lyll �-O LII?C1� �.�Cri:iP. Staff has received proposals from Treemasters for work on the Knoll area: 1. Work to remove all blue gum under 10 inches: $1,500 2. Pruning and removal as recommended in the Risk Assessment Report: $16,900 3. Cabling#10 Blue Gum: $1,500 4. Grinding stump for Blue Gum #5 near bike path: $1,880 5. Removal of eight trees rated as#2 condition: $14,860 In addition,pruning#1 Blue Gum will require a lane closure on Tiburon Boulevard, necessitating a Caltrans encroachment permit. The Town will need to pay the cost of that permit. The permit fee for Caltrans is based on actual time spent on the permit, so we do not yet have a cost. The estimate is about $2,000. There are sufficient funds remaining in the budget to do all the work recommended in the risk assessment, remove all trees Blue Gum under 10 inches, cable Blue Gum #10 and grind the stump of Blue Gum #5. The cost of this work would be $21,880, plus the encroachment permit. An additional $7,240 is needed to cover the cost of removing the additional eight trees that are in poor condition. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Hear the Staff report and a presentation from the applicant and take hear public comment 2. Provide staff direction regarding the trees at the South Knoll. Staff strongly recommends following the recommendations in the Risk Assessment Report. Additionally, Council may wish to reduce future maintenance by removing trees with a condition of 2. Staff would support this and believes it may be a reasonable compromise as envisioned by POST. This would require additional funding of $7,240. Exhibits: 1. Permit TREE2017001 Application form and supplemental materials 2. Guide to Policies for Trees Located on Town Property 3. Minutes of the November- 12, 1996 Parks and Open Space Commission meeting 4. Minutes of the February 11, 1997 Parks and Open Space Commission meeting 5. Minutes of the May 7, 1997 Town Council meeting 6. Dec 2006 Marin Tree Evaluation 7. March 7,2007 Staff Report Town Council Knoll Trees 8. Nov 13,2007 Staff Report POSC Knoll Trees 9. Nov 13, 2007 POSC minutes 10. 1997 letter from Fire Dept 11: Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration 12. POST April 25,2017 Staff Report- South Knoll tree permit report 13. POST April 25 2017 Signed Minutes 14. Tiburon Knoll Plan 6-24-17 15. South Knoll tree risk report Dec 2017 16. POST February 12,2018 Staff Report- South Knoll tree permit report P of i.? 17. POST February 12, 2018 Signed Minutes 18. South Knoll tree Map l 19. South Knoll tree map 2 20. Letter Clock Family 21. E-mails from Ron Hui-win 22. E-mail from Anne Libbin 23. Letter fi•om Eva Buxton 24. E-mail from Marilyn Zimmerman and Robert Mickel 25. Letter from Duffy Hurwin Prepared By: Patrick Barnes,Town Engineer � €jY !,� JAN 0 2 2017 _- TOWN OF TIBURON - : ; 4 �.�1.11 i.. y Fvt.>r ' J LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIO -- ---- TYPE OF APPLICATION o Conditional Use Permit o Design Review(DRB) o Tentative Subdivision Map o Precise Development Plan o Design Review(Staff Level) o Final Subdivision Map o Secondary Dwelling Unit o Variance(s) # o Parcel Map o Zoning Text Amendment o Floor Area Exception o Lot Line Adjustment o Rezoning or Prezoning o Tidelands Permit o Condominium Use Permit o General Plan Amendment o Sign Permit o Seasonal Rental Unit Permit o Temporary Use Permit GeTree Permit o Other APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: 7y'1Ckc6�1E- 6Z,�g>v k gol-C PROPERTY SIZE: I PARCEL NUMBER: 0 -- 131 - Z3 ZONING: PAUc # ;kecRcwtivr• PROPERTY OWNER: gY M 15E i 18uRcr MAILING ADDRESS: 1169 A&cm AW _ T 1r&-se . CA !inZo PHONE/FAX NUMBER: If-3S- 73` 0 E-MAIL: �ww•77iun1ocT�Qu . 4,eb 4 APPLICANT (Other than Property Owner): �U(5 wlnt MAILING ADDRESS: Snu T T a"lm CA 91�9zo PTS-TONE/FAQ".. NTUM.BER: 7 E-MAIL: �pvpt i'�i,t ir.; Q . ARCHITECT/DESIGNER/ENGINEER )R. k�-r TKLi nb - R8AoA.rCic-, bCE MAILING ADDRESS: P.Q. Qox 1( l 6066A C/W , e A 9 q-g7 PHONE/FAX NUMBER: tftg- 519 E-MAIL: k-tg1-, Tgl ^j g �m t,c . cati4 Pease indicate with an asterisk (*)persons to whom Town correspondence should be sent. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed): Yt\C rC6niEH -A kwLb NKK toe T 2� s Anrr ; J'' 9ATOW N-W --,Cr L ILL xRC AOO Tliy 2! LCi pal . r Antn a t wt -rlA�"tUE A�1.lEC QA 11$ "ALL 7}4hi 12.E C'ltR od�.�t » 61MIAIWAin46 N t%je JAMCnp'T !kt(J I ve Ci�GAT60 MEms'A&b rte�ASTjdtj 1=0/2 1w- C04aotj EXHIBIT P. t, of <� EXHIBITNO.� ____ 1, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application for approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions of the Town Municipal Code, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that the requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be responsible for defending against this challenge, with the defense counsel subject to the Town's approval. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense at the request of the Town and also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs, c aims or liabilities arising from the.approval, including, without litnitation, any award of attorney' fees that mig result from the third party challenge. Signature:* Date: 12 a7 !6 The property involving thise mit request may be subject to deed restrictions called Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which ay restrict the property's use and development. These deed restrictions are private agreements and are NOT enforced by the Town of Tiburon. Consequently,development standards specified in such restrictions are NOT considered by the Town when granting permits. You are advised to determine if the property is subject to deed restrictions and, if so, contact the appropriate homeowners association and ai ent neighbors about your project prior to proceeding with construction. Following this pro will in ize the potential for disagreement among neighbors and possible litigation. Signature:* tan Date: 12 Z 1(, *If oilier than owner, tnttst I e an authorization letter front flee otwtter or evidence of de facto control of the property or premises for par o es of filing this applicatiort NOTICE TO APPLICANTS Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65945,applicants may request to receive notice from the Town of Tiburon of any general (non-parcel-specific),proposals to adopt or amend the General Plan,zoning Ordinance,Specific Plans,or an ordinance affecting building or grading permits. If you wish to receive such notice, then you may makea written request to the Director of Community Development to be included on a mailing list for such purposes, and must specify which types of proposals you wish to receive:notice upon. The written request must also specify the length of time you wish to receive such notices (s), and you must provide to the Town a,supply of stamped, self-addressed envelopes to facilitate notification. Applicants shall be responsible for maintaining the supply of such envelopes to the Town for the duration of the time period requested for receiving such notices. The notice will also provide the status of the proposal and the date of any public.hearings thereon which have been set. The Town will determine whether a proposal is reasonably related to your pending application, and send the notice orl that basis, Such notice shall be updated at least every six weeks unless there is no change to the contents of the notice.that would reasonably affect your application. Requests should be mailed to: Town.of Tiburon Community Development Department Planning Division 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon,CA 94920 (415)435-7390(Tel) (415)435-2438(Fax) www,towno fti bu ron.ora DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE DEPARTMENTAL PROCESSING INFORMATION Application No.: 11,2%2-ot7w i GP Designation: Fee Deposit: 23f 5"' Date Received: Received By: i�cJ Recei t#: 237Z,/Pz z Date Deemed Complete: By:By: C Acting:Body: Action: Date: t Cta*zditions ± Approval or Comments: I?esoi!u±iolz or Qrdinatzee EXHIBIT p. 2- of �' PLANNING DIVISION \ ' o JAN 0 201 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT \ 1505 Tiburon Boufevard, Tiburon,CA 94920 Phone (415)435-7390 FAX (415)435-2438 www.tonoftiburon.org TREE PERMIT APPLICATION Address: - Mcker.Ncq &REExt kAiclL 1 16L.A&V1- Assessor's Parcel Number_ 055- 13(- Z3 Zoning: PH_WS Number of trees to be removed: V-2. j kzz--C Species of trees: 21 A�<Glrn EEcCLPiS (o )+1ori-t�E4R0►�rq 4 IC �CAAr4 S� PIN( S Size of trees (circumference in inches as measured two feet above ground level): x 466A TD EXFttRtT *A, t 08 -*C Reasons for trees to be removed or altered: NATio ri-RC 0 PLAN X��Jio(ZA`VUv% —r - wtu 1�emzDye- T}4e r-tkn m8t, t !,m1/AEWC- , ,J^-14Aruts 1+2C-t:S Tltlii L011L FAQ o2 AIA 10C AAQ(TAi �c,&tz6* Ftp 0MtA6-6-yZ E ELrrntNmin� r-AL(,1t6 NAZf}4Or -9 -Tb ?A6E 3 S P<Z�a fC c-,,LcLr� 'oer,.c�� r- zANMEA_'Z1� f 6 (Attach a completed Land Development Application Form and site plan along with separate sheets as necessary) Office Use Only File Number: -Vt'�erx0l-7 601 Date Received: f EXIABETj p. 3 of � � mg ggg .......... '01�n AII�."Z11-1`�.X ti SX _144 V- IN On N 0., a�. 4 Ohl Z11 w- TSL gg Google Goals Neighbors in the Reed Heights, Tiburon Knolls and the Del Mar area have created a collective group that are requesting the removal of 21 non-native Bluegum Eucalyptus, 6 non-native Monterey Pines and 15 non-native Italian Stone Pines on the McKegney Green Knoll and overhanging the bus stop on Tiburon Blvd. The focus of the Project is the restoration of the 222 native Coast Live Oaks and additional native flora such as coastal scrub, wild grasses, buckeye, toyon and rnadrrne on the Knoll, whose growth is being stopped or suppressed by the overbearing presence of the invasive,flammable, and failure prone Eucalyptus and Pine Trees. The eucalyptus'canopies not only deprive other trees of sunlight but the decomposing leaves that have dropped from the trees release allelopathic chemicals into the soil - chemicals that have a toxic effect on seedlings and roots of other plants. Exhibit#1: On October 5, 2016, the Tiburon Town Council created a 8 point ranking system for prioritizing town capital improvement projects. Our Restoration Project meets all 8 of the Town Council criteria: (9). Removes or reduces any threats to health or safety Dr. Kent ulin of ArborScience, Certified Arborist, ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor, Certified Forester Marin ReLeaf, President and past president of FIRESafe MARINA Exhibit #2 dated December 13, 2016, and Ray Moritz of Urban Forester Associates Certified Forester, ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor and co-founder of FIRESafe_Marin, Exhibit#3 dated December 12 2006& Exhibit#4 dated November 30,2016-have both inspected the above stated trees and have certified they are infested and that they represent a highly-pp fire hazard and pontaneous falling_limb liability_ Exhibit#5: Eucalyptus trees are highly flammable. Tiburon Fire Chief Richard Pearce is in favor of the removal of known fire prone eucalyptus on the Knoll as a fire prevention. As quoted in the Ark on June 22, 2016, Chief Pearce says, "I always look at tree removal from the lens of mitigating firefighting emergencies and firefightersafety. Historically, we know that eucalyptus can hasten fire behavior because the trees are full of highly explosive oils." If the eucalyptus trees on the Knoll were to catch fire, they will shoot "Roman candle" embers that could easily blow across Tiburon Blvd. and ignite the trees and homes, They are referred to as "gasoline on a stick". Eucalyptus trees are brittle and easily breakable. They are commonly referred to as "widow makers", as a limb or an entire tree may_spontaneow y_fall_without any warning, causing documented injuries and death. jj EAHIBIT l i�, of�' Exhibit#6:_ Ina letter to The Ark on June 29, 2016, Peter Brooks of Tiburon, who is a certified arborist, tree risk assessor and founding member of Marin ReLeaf, Mr. Brooks states, "I could accept this action (removal of the-non-native euc / ptus and pines on the Knoll), because I eel that the sign cance of the_orig"inol trees has been lost to a forest of secondaty trees. There are not enough resources available on the knoll for all of these trees as theycontinue to grow. Inevitabjy decline in yitality_will lead to stressed_trees and some will fail. The robabili od a tree or tree part failure hitting a person or peet is too h gh_for a municipality_to carry."He states, "In my opinion, the exponentially_increasing budget needs to. retain these trees in a "safe condition"is not warranted by the assets that the trees_provide. Es ecially when measured by the "loss o rea!propel_values _.or those impacted by the view obstruction': It should be rioted that I met with Mr. Brooks on the Knoll in duly of 2016 and he has agreed that two of the three trees he wanted preserved were not of any value. Unfortunately, the tree of concern, tree #S on the attached tree plot, has been determined to have multiple ISA recognized tree risk defects and conditions that affect tree stability and is recommended for removal by all of the arborist reports attached. Exhibit#7: On September 27, 2016, a cigarette tossed out of a car window ignited the grass and eucalyptus trees along Highway 101 in Petaluma, burning 14 homes and causing an estimated $1,500,000 in damage. "The oily trees are great fuel for fires," Petaluma Fire Battalion Chief Jeff Schach said. "When the eucalyptus caught fire, they produced a significant amount of heat and significant number of fire brands that carried on the wind and into the neighborhood,"Schach said. "The trees were definitely a contributing factor to the intensity and rate of fire spread." Exhibit#8:According to a LiveScience article by Marc Lallanilla, dated October 21, 2013, the massive out-of-control wildfires that are torching Sydney and other parts of New South Wales, Australia are being blamed on Australia's eucalyptus forests. The 1991 Oakland Hills fire killed 25 people and obliterated more than 3,000 homes is being blamed primarily on the eucalyptus trees throughout the Oakland Hills. Exhibit#9: In 1973, H. H. Biswell, professor of forestry and conservation at UC Berkeley, made the prophetic statement: "When eucalyptus waste catches fire, an updraft is created and strong winds may blow flaming bark for a great distance. I think that the eucalyptus is the worst tree anywhere as far as fire hazard is concerned. If some of that flaming bark should be blown on to the shake roofs in the hills, we might have a firestorm that would literally suck the roofs off the houses. People might be trapped." Exhibit#10:A report from the National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, provided a comparison of fuel loads and found that eucalyptus trees have a 3X of higher fuel load than coast live oaks. The_eucalyptus have a_30.84 tons per acre vs the coast live oaks 11.82 tons ver acre. Exhibit#11_Eucalyptus astonishing growth rate. According to a re op It by the National Park Service. US Department of the Interior. states that Blue Gum grow from 98 to 180 feet, reaching heights of 260 feet in California. Exhibit#12: On October 21, 2016, David Lumbard of San Rafael was killed by a falling eucalyptus tree in his backyard. "The tree lust snapped. There_ap_parently was no warning"stated Fire Chief Chris Gray of the,San Rafael Fire Department. Exhibit#13: On December 19, 2016, Margarita Mojarro of San Pedro was killed by a failing eucalyptus tree and a 4 year old is in critical condition in Penn Public Park in Whittier, CA while taking wedding pictures with their family. Officials described the tree as a very large eucalyptus with "multiple trunks" and that it could have been weakened by California's ongoing drought. Exhibit#14: On March 25, 2016, a family in Pasadena filed a lawsuit against the city of Pasadena and the Kidspace Museum over an Italian Stone Pine tree toppling on top of 6 children and their two 6-year-old twins that suffered multiple fractures while they were in the public park.The legal comRIaint_names._the_city_of Pasadena and the Kidspace Children's Museum and alleges dangerous condition on publicr_ op_erm negligence and premises liability. "Pasadena, like other cities, promotes the beauty of its town by having a lot of trees and taking pride in that," Matthew Stumpf, the family's attorney said. "There is nothing beautiful about a tree_that.comessfalling_down on children in an area where everyone knows children con negate." (2). Meets General Plan Policy Consistent with the General Plan land use�the restoration prect_would be beneficial in the Conservation of natural resourcu,the Restoration o f native habitats providing Wild l fe sanctuaries and an Improvement intended to enhance the e4oyment of nature while minimizing imps cts_on_the natural_qualities_o the land. (3). is required by legal mandate All three of the attached reports, including-the Urban Forestry_Associates report dated December 12 2006, Exhibit#4 that was commissioned b . the JownTiburon,_ ter a tree fell on the bike path, are completed by Certified Arborists and Qualified ISA Tree (tisk Assessors, recommend removal of the invasive non-native Blue Gum Eucalyptus and pines to mitigate the known hazards and to allow native tree and plant restoration. The Town of Tiburon has beenul�aware o__the_ad_v_anced root decay and structural defects present on the above stated trees. EXHIBIT— (4). Helps the Town avoid the consequences of deferred maintenance As quoted by Peter Brooks and stated in the attached arborists` reports, the removal of these trees will eliminate any current and future maintenance that these will trees require. In addition, the removal eliminates the inevitable liability that will be caused by a fire or failing limb or tree. The argument that there hasn't been a fire yet or someone injured or killed by these trees is not a logical reason to not remove these trees. (5). Provides a large functional benefit to residents Removal of the above stated trees will eliminate a known public safety issue in a public area that is used daily by hundreds of children and adults that live and visit Tiburon. The suppressed native trees and plants on the Knoll will be able to grow and the native trees that will replace the non-native species are less hazardous and flammable. (6). Can be funded out of another source besides the General Fund, such as a regional, state or private grant The McKegney Green Knoll Native Tree & Plant Restoration P.roiect will be totally paid for by private funds donated by the concerned_residents_of Tiburon and the local non- rofit groupsthat wish to partici ap to in ibis public safety-issue_The The will not require the town of Tiburon to allot any money out of the General Fund and should be considered a 2017 capital improvement project. All of the donations collected will be made out to the town of Tiburon and earmarked for The McKegn Green Knoll Tree Project. (7). Would have an effect on the town's ongoing operating costs The Eucalyptus, Italian Stone Pine and Monterey Pines that will be removed per the Proiect are diseased and area current public hazard. With the current Arborist reports notifying the town of Tiburon of the current and future dangers of these trees; the town would be obligated to continually_inspect, manage and remove the trees as their failure rate increases. (8). Would provide a significant aesthetic benefit to residents Chapter 15 of the Tiburon Municipal Code, Title IV, View and Sunlight Obstruction From Trees, adopted 12/3/91, sets policies on view ordinances. Section 15-1, B-2-1 states, "The Town of Tiburon recognizes that both outward views and plentiful sunlight reaching property contribute greatly to theualit QLlife in Tiburon_an"romote the general welfare of the entire comm w Exhibit#15: Mr. David Gotz, Archivist for The Tiburon Landmarks Society, provided me a copy of a aerial photograph taken of Del Mar Heights, circa 1956. The photo clearly shows no trees on the Knoll. IAiI.1BIT.-�-- i7_g_of in Marin lore their trees, they_also_love their views_/_lean toward that removal of trees in protection_9Lthe view"said board member Bryan Chong. Vice Chair Linda Emberson agreed. "View blockage counts for a lot. This is on town Property. l think_the town made the correct findings and that they should be removed."According to Section 1S-A-2, the town names all of the trees that we are requesting to be removed as "Undesirable Trees"and itis a well known fact that due to these_trees Zrowin g to "undesirable" heights, the trees on the Knoll are blocking the outward views"q a_great number of homes in Reed Hei hits, Tiburon Knolls and Del Mar. The Project will restore the views that have been lost or severely compromised by the extreme height and over population of the eucalyptus and pines on the Knoll and will allow the Knoll to replenish its natural habitat. Specifications Subject trees#1 - 21 & #28 - 48 locations_are plotted on the Native Tree Restoration Plan Map and is attached as Exhibit A. The undesirable, invasive, non-native trees that we are requesting to remove are listed by species and DBH on Exhibit B. The trees overhanging the bike path and.t_he Tiburon Blvd. bus sto . #1, 2 & 3 on Exhibit C. are not on CalTrans proMrtypeer Chad Klein Maintenance Manager North Bay Region District 4. The proposals are prepared by Arborscience, Dr. Kent Julin, Ph.D, who is an ISA Certified Arborist and a California Registered Professional Forester and Urban Forestry Associates, Ray Moritz, ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor. In his report, dated December 13, 2016, Dr.Julin states "that the native trees on the Knoll are being suppressed by the shade and allelopathic chemicals from the taller trees. Once the large trees, the eucalypts and pines, are removed, the remaining native trees will be free to grow.' Dr.Julin states"that the restoration of the Knoll will promote wildlife health, remove trees that are considered "undesirable" and are highly prone to failure, and recreate neighborhood views that have been lost." Dr. ulin , Ray Moritz and Peter Brooks recommend the remo_v_al of the-Eucalyptus Trees #1 -21, the Monterey Pines#28 - 33 and-the Italian Stone Pines #34-48. These trees are in heavily used public areas including Linear Park, the bike path,the children's playground and overhanging ..the Tiburon Blvd. bus stop.All of the eucalyptus are infested with Australian tortoise beetle_(Tra_c_hvmela sloanei)which create scalloped leaf margins. Maw of the trees have extensive internal decay, serious trunk defect: acute an le_crotch with included bark and most of the pines have been infected bX_pitch_pine canker (Fusarium circinatum}, which will 1 i ke lv lead to the premature death of these pines. Exhibit#17:We have received tree removal proposals from 7 local, certified arborists. We have chosen TreeMasters, who_are highly respectedlocally owned, nsured and bonded. They are alreadv an approved contractor„with the town of Tiburon. have completed many local_proiects and_areamiliar with working_with the town and Cal Trans to insure a safe and pro essional j®b._We have attached their proposal as Exhibit#17 and feel confident that they will do an excellent job. TreeMasters will work directly with Daniel Watrous, Planning Manager, Patrick Barnes, Town Engineer and Director of Public Works and their employees. Proposal We are requesting that The McKegney Green Knoll Native Tree & Plant Restoration Project be considered as a 2017 Tiburon town capital improvement project. Our collectivegroup_0 concerned Tiburon._residents will pay for the entire proiect with private donations. With the current proposal for the renovation and possible $1,600,000 expansion of the McKegney Green, Exhibit#18, the improvement to the Trestle Berm Portion of Blackie's Pasture and the Trestle Trail Project, our Restoration Protect will complement the town's scheduled2017p ects and have no financial impact on the town of Tiburon's 2017 capital impro_v_ementprojeet budget. McKegney Green Knoll Native Tree & Plant Restoration Project Any additional information required can be directed to: Ron Hurwin @ (415) 302-7814 ronhurw€n@gmail.com or Dr. Kent Julin @ (415)419-5197 kent.julin@gmail.com E , CONCLUSIONS JAN 0 2 2017 Native habitat will be improved and tree hazards reduced by removing the invasive- non-native eucalypts and pines. Proposed work would include removal of 13 protected, undesirable bluegum eucalypts. In addition, 8 unprotected, undesirable eucalypts and 21 unprotected and undesirable pines would be removed. All of these trees interfere with native plant health and are hazardous to the community. More than 150 established coast live oaks grow in the forested area on the knoll. Planting new trees is unnessary---existing oaks will flourish once the undesirable trees are removed. The Town of Tiburon specifically identifies both bluegum eucalypts and Monterey pines as undesirable because they are capable of reaching a height of more than 35' at maturity; the Town also designates many of these trees due to their size as "heritage" trees. The Tiburon Fire Department and the University of California Cooperative Extension list eucalypts and pines as fire-prone species. Sincerely, ARBORSCIENCE Dr. Kent R. Julin International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified California Registered Professional Forester Table 1. The 222 coast live oaks present at McKegney Green Knoll by size class and area. Seedlings Saplings Small Trees 4" <1" V to 4" to 12" Coastal Scrub 1 - 7 Grassland 38 18 - Forest 138 7 7 Roadside 4 1 1 1 Total 181 1 26 15 Table 2 Notes: ARB: Arborscience Report 12/18/16 UFA: Urban Forestry Associates Report 11/30/16 Trunk Diameter: Trunk diameter measured 4.5'above grade Town Undesirable Tree: Code of Ordinances Title IV— Land Improvement and Use, Chapter 15A-2 Definitions Town Heritage Tree: Code of Ordinances Title IV— Land Improvement and Use, Chapter 15A-2 Definitions Prohibited per Tiburon Fire Dept.: Prohibited Plants and Trees Fire Hazard per UC: UC Cooperative Extension (1998) Pyrophytic vs. Fire Resistant Plants ARBORS C1ENCE McKegney Knoll December 18, 2016 Page 6 f?: i it31":C p.Al of IT 41 A Table 2. List of trees growing at the McKegney Green Knoll. ARB UFA Common Trunk Town Town Prohibited Fire Falling Falling Tree Tree Name Diameter Undesirable Heritage by Tiburon Hazard Hazard Hazard Action # # in. Tree Tree Fire Dept. per UC ARB UFA 1 A blue um 72 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 2 B blue um 32 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 3 blue um 48 Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 4 blue um 6,10,10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 5 blue um 84 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 6 1 bluegum 64 Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 7 3 1 blue um 44 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 8 4 blue um 96 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 9 5a blue um 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 10 5b bluegum 14 Yes Yes Yes Remove 11 7 blue um 15,33 Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 12 8 blue um 36 Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 13 blue umV46 Yes Yes Yes Remove 14 9 blue um Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 15 blue um Yes Yes Yes Remove 16 10 blue um Yes Yes Yes Remove 17 blue um Yes Yes Yes Remove 18 blue um Yes Yes Yes Remove 19 11 blue um Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 20 blue um Yes Yes Yes Remove 21 blue um Yes Yes Yes Remove 22 black acacia Yes Yes 23 black acacia Yes 24 1 black acacia 6 Yes 25 black acacia 2-12(5) Yes Yes 26 black acacia 6,8 Yes 27 black acacia 1-4 7 Yes 28 Monterey pine 13 Yes Yes Yes Remove 29 Monterey pine 13 Yes Yes Yes Remove 30 Monterey pine 8 Yes Yes Yes Remove 31 Monterey Yes Yes Yes Remove 32 MonterYes Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 33 MonterYes Yes Yes Yes Remove 34 stone Yes Yes Remove 35 stone Yes Yes Remove 36 stone Yes Yes Remove 37 stone pine 8 Yes Yes Remove 38 stone pine 7 Yes Yes Remove 39 stone pine 18 Yes Yes Remove 40 stone pine 9 Yes Yes Remove 41 stone pine 6 Yes Yes Remove 42 stone pine 13 Yes Yes Remove 43 stone pine 7 Yes Yes Remove 44 stone pine 8 Yes Yes Remove 45 stone pine 6 Yes Yes Remove 46 stone pine 6 Yes Yes Remove 47 stone pine 7 Yes Yes Remove 48 stone pine 6 Yes Yes Remove 49 cypress 49 Yes Yes Yes 50 1 cypress 6-21 8 Yes Yes Yes 51 buckeye 3-8(8) Yes 52 laurel 8 54 madrone 5 55 madrone 6 56 madrone 6 57 madrone 2 ARBORSCIENCE- McKegne,Knoll D(,cember 18, 2016 - page 7 --- EAIIIBIT ----1 p._Q�of )Z-X Ii A IT d- tY, r. fi Fr>ac�.t .#e€h t 'slot ti �r£'4, rvt.k3 ° ''•� "-?: 1 � stiSw. P F WIN Sx 1}R „�. s ''x _ sys Z ,,,4 "�it "� � a -+nft - i�•'; rt„NO ,�p���..;,t'' t t <„3�\t� • -+, 4 'y >r 5y 4 c>CY`F sYrTT. '�..w " J\' \ -•rte 33 ✓ia,s '�'�` 1-7 }� j zr 1 \ s K-... rtt+'y:r.`,aa. \ F�a .5, 5-. L -3✓ � s M � ¢ FM i,- 9 t ''ll 1!�1�l�/ ! :52 `rC��tt�t"YgM �'ik- t4 SCS Npti'1h''y57 l. �< �S,Vy�.,'zt�=�> a, s.y i 3 r it' zb E'o se ME &' ij `� fi 2 d �.Ylx ''c `-`"rs {I"k.`,.,ta ' spa`` � .k -_i t, X#YS j.`kF&F >1't' 4 �'i� '..5r ; THAI `c zUlm � :r,a-a. r o-tz K c'`� • �^ '. � t s -fix ! p "Yk` �' € � � r 'E�, - � .fie p -• s ��'� }7 ^YL T�7 ; 6s 2' a` ;,r`e'f`` 'n f}+�: Ye. �`a'£r. JhR e Cz-h i. 1 .f.. ."�Y \ �'M1. Legend, 4' y bluegum gW s ro Nr ' �,�`5,y T ,r3 :t.rN y s a T a. C y Z" ! S,K�g#(✓t t�'tSSW{ �_ _7� il FAIF t ine , 1Monterey• >v. black acacia California tit California laurel C` madrone \ 5: 13.. C >` � 3 �'� t^�.,) S �4 F+ £ moi`{S`._ • i• NATIVE F � i'4 � ��.�a s} ��t t'"-l{r�� -ti F k �", � �>• r �g,�f�u��� Sk'�"� s x k�`� ^F:v ♦ �; # > ter L :. \ � �.:. �'�'< �'z.'�-i+y�'va".,�'i.Ry t� �* � �, .� ..t @ y. xz �� t ut.1 4 Y ''*` v _ s �t �• ?3l { b r i�3 PN-r�:34 s�4r ,,, S;r. t. 4 '.�-_ � _,��+ tF :. TREE RESTORATION • r • PLAN MAP ' MCKEGNEY GREEN KNOLL 1 62.5 125 250 Feet TIBURON, CALIFORNIA ARBORGIS 2016 i Fwd: Cal trans boundary Duffy Hurwin <duffyhumin@gmuioom^ Thu, Oct G. 2018adi(l48AKX To: Ron & Duffy Hurwin <ronhumin@0maiioom> ----- Forwarded message---'-- From: Klein, Chad C@DOT <ohedk|ain@dot.oe,gov> Data� Thursday, October G. 2O1S Subject: Cal trans boundary To'. Duffy Humin <duffyhunvin@gmai| oom> Cc." "Patel, Bharat@D07' <bhonat.k,pete|@doLou.gov>. "Weaver, yWedk@D[>T" ^murk.vveavor@doLca.guv>. "GonnaUo. Tbni@O07' <tunioouneUe@duica.gov> Good Morning, It was nice speaking with you on the phone this morning. Here is a follow up email to our conversation.The trees in question are not on state right of way. I had our state survey crew mark out the right of way line about ayear ago due tnatree issue just west ofthis location. /nthe pictures you will see the survey stakes painted in Orange with a yellow flag. They were staked on the right of way line. But as we spoke about if your contractor plans on doing any traffic control or parking of any equipment on state right of way you will need to receive a permit from our permits office. Below is another contact in permits for Marin County. FructuoxoP|anas (]uni) 510-715-68O5 Thank You Chad Klein Maintenance Manager | North Bay Region Dist.4 707-762-8841 - - From: Duffy Hurvvn [moi|to:dufh/humviM@gD1@iiooDl] 1). oF��� Sent:VVednesdm� October OS, ZO164:1SPK� —�__ �� To:3coraUe,Ton)@D(D'<toniucora|n@dcd.oa.Qov> t tkt.Y. i Ai off j �R .> , ' �g 9.v� s r 1 • l . � add 4 - ib 4yfrv. k T kx s2u •;za7 .KF. gt_ vin r.. g '��>¢re�y. tt R ads �� S.:'." � f • t �' zy•es r;. �', M t '' r J „SJ kj i �r' > rayr tt�u�~ / JF�' ''�''�'.. 4 i 7 K ' X Nm-- •Z e� r r �:,• 'r Xi cu k kr s ; ��� r� � �y ,CY � f a .'V � fi xa�,,�• St+r r }': '` C}z y1�s'.�• n w SY"�f'i' y f r y. ,VM Tom ,;.. � 4 .. „i., ,�" .fid '�' n�/� !`.H. s, x)!cr�,u, �}`� �',-.�t3*- r '",,�`',� .x•'Si�r( e .� ,� r .3i+ �.w,+„�,��- c��` "S'7. � •'Zw �ic�..r�rUpy,�i�' ��'}��� r-u. My& VMS A too ^dic }' '•-a. �• 4 ....... tart,{; fi r d..,. f .: f..0 M r. xg 3Y` �}7a • 4��� '� -pJS +`" *� "z t;t T }. rf P r i. 22 r r • �' 44 f Y -• 'ih SC T" t ✓; 3,y''sn FF ==Rich Ity 4V'-iw4t ... '.0...rr ... ...•., "i4`'�> lis ?. h '.,r.//, /4� f �' ...•: NlZf rii>"`ix�Sy+7.``'+. S,{ �"".y.', t K r 3 V f Y.S r4 s d !�r 4 ``�Sa� ^a•�7�sfr�42 u��"t� �i v rAM24 go ` Y i rt.�. ,�,, `# L R's a. 'a ahc ` !' ,tfrA�•�`,�, f fi x, •'" ». :.. +..' 'KS.�i -.� l' }fy Itis d 1 `' JAN 0 2 2017 _:7 facebook.com/arkeditor __ ___ ; OCTOBER 12, 2016 - THE ARK iiuron looksat .new wprioritizeay to town projects By DEIRDRE McCRONAN town's medium-and long-term capital improvement project Using the ferry landing as an example,Chanis said that dmccrohon@thearknewspapercom list and apply the ranking criteria to each project. until the Golden Gate district entered the picture he would At a future meeting—which may not be until the council's not think its replacement would be scored more than a 1 out Where should the town spend its money first—on resur- annual goal-setting retreat in February or March—the coun- of 4 on the"removes threats to health and safety"scale.The facing and repairing streets or on refurbishing McKegney cil will get the scored list and councilmembers will weigh in landing would score a 3 out of 3 on"legal mandate,"because Green?To help figure that out,the Tiburon Town Council:is on whether they agree with staff recommendations. the ferry landing is in violation of the Americans with Dis- now reviewing a new system for ranking the priority of the The ranking system is intended to help town staffers fig- abilities Act until the changes get made. That has pushed town's future capital improvement projects. ure out which projects should be put forward for a coming the project near the top of the list of projects. The council took its first pass at the proposed ranking sys- year's budget and which can wait a year or two or five.Cha- When finished,the ranking system will be applied to capi- tem,which is modeled after one used by the Marin County nis said it's a tool that won't take away the council's flex- tal improvement projects planned for the next five years. Public Works Department,at its Oct.5 meeting.The council ibility. The nearly$2 million in capital improvement projects for tinkered with the system in minor ways,but approved it?.n "This is not meant to be tying the hands of decision mak- this coming year are already approved and queued up.The concept. ers,"Chanis said. council approved them in June as part of the fiscal year 2016- For each project on the town's five-year horizon,the town During the council's discussion of the proposed ranking 2017 budget process.They are: would ask whether it: system,Councilmember Alice Fredericks asked if any of the • Railroad Marsh dredging to remove cattails,$45,000. �j- • Removes or reduces any threats to health and safety. criteria factors in the impact of climate change and projected • Hacienda Drive trail improvements and signage, • Meets General Plan policy. sea-level rise in San Francisco Bay. $1.25,000. • Is required by legal mandate. Chanis responded that the town is awaiting the results of • Undergrounding of utilities between Lyford Drive and • Helps the town avoid the consequences of deferred a county study on sea-level rise in Marin.After that report Ned's Way,$427,000. maintenance. is out, Tiburon will be in a better position to decide how to Ferry terminal walkway improvements,$125,000. • Provides a large functional benefit to residents. accommodate sea-level rise as a factor in determining the Curbs, ramps and miscellaneous sidewalk improve- Can be funded out of another source besides the Gen- priority of a project,he said. ments,$20,000. eral Fund,such as a regional,state,federal or private grant. Chanis noted that some capital improvement work is dif • Replacement of Tiburon Police Station carpeting, • Would have an effect on the town's ongoing operating ficult to anticipate and won't be sitting on any priority list. $15,000. costs. He cited the work on the Tiburon ferry landing that will • Audio-visual system upgrades to Tiburon Town Coun- • Would provide a significant aesthetic benefit to resi- be done this winter as an example. cil chambers at Tiburon Town Hall,$50,000. dents. "We would not have thought last year we would be replac- • Trestle Trail project,$165,000. Each criterion has a minimum and maximum of points ing the ferry landing,"he said. • McKegney Green design work,$200,000. that can be assigned to a project,but each criterion also is The ferry landing is in good shape, so the town had no • Point Tiburon Bayside steps and path easement pur- weighted according to its relative importance. plans to do any work on it. Then, Blue & Gold Fleet de- chase,$15,000. For example, a capital improvement might be assigned cided to turn its commuter ferry runs over to the Golden • Las Lomas public path maintenance,$10,000- the maximum 4 points for the degree to which it provides a Gate Bridge,Highway and Transportation District—and • Resurfacing of Beach Road public tennis courts,$15,000, functional benefit to residents,but that particular criterion the district insisted that the ferry landing be made more • New Morning Cafe street frontage improvements,$30,000, might have a Iow weight. wheelchair accemble. Right now, the landing itself has The next step will be for Tiburon Town Manager Greg some rough spots.Because the town owns the public ease- Deirdre McGrohan has reported on Tiburon local govern- Chanis. Tiburon Town En_uineer/Public Works Director ment over the landinv. the town is responsible for making resent and community issues for more than 25 years.Reach JAN 0 7 201 NATIVE TREE RESTORATION PLAN MCKEGNEY GREEN KNOLL Tiburon, California Prepared for. Duffy and Ron Hurwin 558 Tenaya Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 Prepared by. Dr. Kent Julini ARBORSCIENCE Post Office Box 111 Woodacre, CA 94973 kentjuli)iftmail.com December 18, 2016 O 1 International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist WE-8733A Tree Risk Assessor Qualified ISA 2016 California Registered Professional Forester 2648 Marin County Fire Department County Forester, Retired FireSafe Marin, Past President Marin ReLeaf, President EXFITBI`I" l p. v or 4'6, A ! ,L EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Invasive, non-native trees that have diminished native habitats and created hazardous conditions for the community dominate McKegney Knoll. This tree restoration plan describes existing conditions, and then provides management recommendations that will favor native habitat, reduce fire danger, and eliminate falling hazards presented by these trees. snq a - E F� f J x , A SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT The McKegney Knoll in Tiburon is a 3-acre open-space area managed by the Town of Tiburon Public Works Department. This knoll rises to nearly 90' above sea level and is surrounded by filled historic bay lands. Soils conform favorably to the Los Osos series that are shallow---11" of gravelly loam over 4" of weathered shale or sandstone (Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey). These soils have high runoff and retain little water in the soil profile. Rill erosion on the southeast side of the knoll (above the playground) is associated with a trail and stormwater runoff. Also included within the management area is a narrow strip of land (APN: 055-131-02) between Tiburon's Linear Park and Tiburon Boulevard (CALTRANS' jurisdiction). Several large eucalypts overhang a heavily travelled multi-use pathway (Linear Park), Tiburon Boulevard, and a bus stop used primarily by school children. ARBORSC/ENCS— McKegney Knoll December '13, 2016 Page 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Plant Communities. Plant communities on McKegney Knoll include coastal scrub along the western side near the bay that is tolerant to salt spray, grassland on the south and upper knoll where sun exposure and soil depth limit tree and shrub growth, and the forest on the north where exposure to bay salt and sun are reduced. Bluegum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), Italian stone pine (Pinus pinea), and black acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) dominate the forest on the knoll. Remnants of the native, mixed evergreen forest are present including coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and California coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica). Tree locations are plotted on the Native Tree Restoration Plan Map; Table 1 lists the coast live oaks by size and Table 2 lists all non-native or planted trees on the Knoll. Fire Hazards. Trees with leaves containing volatile waxes or oils, fine, dry or dead material on twigs, and loose papery bark are fire prone. These flammable materials ignite easily and become flaming embers that are blown downwind for a '/4 mile or more where they create spot fires and burn homes. The pines and bluegums that grow on the knoll directly threaten both nearby homes and those upslope to Tiburon Ridge. Roadside eucalypts in Petaluma caught fire on September 27, 2016 and damaged 13 homes. Both the Tiburon Fire Department and UC Cooperative extension identify eucalypts and pines as fire hazards. Tree_Falling_ Hazards. Five large eucalypts (Trees 1-5) grow over heavily used areas including Linear Park that is used by hundreds of pedestrians and cyclists daily, Tiburon Boulevard with 18,500 average daily tri psZ, and the bus stop used by dozens of school children on weekdays. In addition, the knoll is used for passive recreation— informal gatherings and picnics. Eucalypts are highly prone to large limb failures and have led to disastrous consequences locally, including the recent death of David Lumbard in San Rafael on October 21, 2016. One eucalypt (Tree 5) has extensive intemal decay and threatens both the Linear Park pathway and the handicap- accessible walkway. Urban Forestry Associates (UFA) recommends removal of Trees 1,2,7 and 8 because of multiple defects and the hazards they present to the public (report dated November 30, 2016). One Monterey pine (Tree 32) near the public restroom has a serious trunk defect: acute angle crotch with included bark. Coast live oaks. The knoll supports 222 native coast live oaks (Table 1) that include 181 oak seedlings (<1"), 26 oak saplings (V-4"), and 15 larger oaks (4"-12n diameter at breast height [dbh]). None of these trees shows symptoms of sudden oak death (Phytopthora ramorum). Bluegum eucalypts. Twenty-one (21) mature eucalypts occupy the northwestern side of the knoll and range in size from 4" to 96" dbh. The largest eucalypt (Tree 8) was probably planted in the early 1900s and is the seed source for the other eucalypts. Two (2) bushy bluegums—a multi-trunk cultivar—grow near Tiburon Boulevard (Trees 3 and 4). All of the eucalypts are infested with Australian tortoise beetle (Trachymela sloanei), which create scalloped leaf margins. Areas directly beneath the eucalypts have reduced plant species diversity owing to the allelopathic chemicals and shade produced by the towering eucalypts. 2 CALTRANS 2014 Traffic Volume Data for Tiburon Boulevard east of Trestle Glen Drive. ARBORSCIENCE— McKegney Knoll December 18, 2016 Cage 3 M4 ° WO C�'x§• .t t S € sr `� �,< s w �`kr4 z` '� a 'F �+us cn^ t1' o'.»irk♦,�'2`L f 3;�s -Vo kc Yf t z t.+�x t,r•�t 3, is.� u '`s4 z } tq a.' �4'� �s -+ 4� { s; AK3 v t Olt, Ogv �ml �i« yy,, s �} ,•t {fit r��Ep r"<ta f .t•' i S �.<'}s` S �Y Y ! s sr �3`se6e` fi �t�K� ��� n .1� d... 3L te `x.;ts,�' S' ty r� • Y Fra ' 4 < ,t t �,. •' t rr •` tY Kg, 152 10s�Cs ` ' t *rte fair ar "`,�6us ,� ` 1 .. ♦ j�TWWI � iv, mlmw i _ -s E C yrx. C'vY't' F t ..,�� w� �s 4•Fp rn ,z 'w : �W x '�kFrr�i ,W•o-z 4 rz? k "' r1a `✓ ,� �k4 ' IN _WY Ilk, �✓hi s-t RE, " <z - .t >s ,Kra �i. •, ta ;' r a t 4As„p Ai'.- .� ; u �atnF<*=�. ?'yL'Q',}�Y'frt'N k E t [ f rf YS _'k+w rTi�A Y t2j.>i3TM ql 4C `t t �' st`attg< fzs4. ''` ,+•c h - l x 4�' i . -Sum . �O�., ?rz", ' x ; {t"F jCs..� ;,P. P� o la f Ks¢t,sr z ;,�_y 'Lf• .-3' c r" f�`. , ryE r '<^�5,, v + i:. 8 s �.. t 7 13 s• j :. blue t a �•, 2'a.,, �y.5y 4 r y 'x, s z�-s,;. lit • p •, s Ri £. `� t n _ i dor �5 •' i ki r 7 'sr�.r: MM- OF monte • E � e • 1- 3 , e 24 S`�t ? t ss{ buck y s y S E "t 's '"' x Kf.. c s. • Y California laurel.1 x.. r k i •vtv J�a�b. ��s' rys"Cy.f.-iSt + ' S yrsi- '`k r 3.�` , fi. 3 r�U �,vKt✓ .z{ 'z Y,.rg„t� hal .. madrone K ti td e Y a s 6 d}� tte - Zt? .x ,rJt 'z.�� z• t3� „�'�`£a .,,....r_YT,.,.� ....a._`•»-... .. ...:�. ... .�..,s.'i.re3..._..., ...:.: ..... .... <. .i,:2..3:d_�s,v�2.,a:;'t.ts'.+-...�..[;S< _i.s....„.., :6. c ;<.s. r Black acacias. A row of 6 black acacias was planted along the paved pathway linking Tiburon Boulevard with Linear Park. These trees are native to Australia and have adapted to growing beneath eucalypts. Copious yellow flowers that are produced by this species in early spring create a pollen nuisance and develop into plentiful seedpods with copious light seed that is widely dispersed by the wind. Italian stone pines. Fifteen (15) young stone pines grow on the northeastern side of the knoll. These pines range from 6" to 18" dbh and form an overcrowded, dense canopy; two isolated stone pines grow upslope of the playground. No signs of disease are present in these trees. Monterey pines. Six (6) Monterey pines grow on the knoll in two locations-4 intermixed with the eucalypts on the northwest side of the knoll and 2 near the public restroom. Tree 32 has a serious trunk defect—acute angle crotch between trunks of comparable size—that will lead to failure in the future. Minor flagging on these pines is most likely being caused by pitch pine canker (Fusarium circinatum). This fungal pathogen has infected most of the Monterey pines in southern Marin and will likely lead to the premature deaths of these 6 pines. Other planted trees. Trees planted along the southeastern side of the knoll near the playgrounds include Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa), strawberry tree (Arbutus x marina), and California buckeye (Aesculus californica). MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS recommend the following to help restore native plants on McKegney Knoll. • Remove all eucalypts and pines to promote greater health of native trees already growing at the knoll. This work would (1) reduce competition for light, water, and nutrients, (2) eliminate eucalyptus' allelopathic chemicals that inhibit seed germination and native plant growth, and (3) eradicate the immediate source of non-native tree seeds. In addition this work would reduce hazards presented by these fire- and failure-prone species. Work should be done outside the bird-nesting season (April through August). • Protect to the greatest extent possible the coast live oaks, toyons, coffee berries and other native vegetation during any cutting operations. Flagging and creating designated work areas that avoid these native trees and shrubs can accomplish this protection. • Cover eucalyptus stumps with tarps or weed-block fabric to prevent resprouting and subsequent growth. • Thin the native oaks 1 year after initial tree work to promote proper spacing and health at maturity. EXHIBIT p 2 2..,of le(�' ARBORSCIENCE— McKegney Knoll December 18, 2016 Page 5 CONCLUSIONS Native habitat will be improved and tree hazards reduced by removing the invasive non-native eucalypts and pines. Proposed work would include removal of 13 protected, undesirable bluegum eucalypts. In addition, 8 unprotected, undesirable eucalypts and 21 unprotected and undesirable pines would be removed. All of these trees interfere with native plant health and are hazardous to the community. More than 150 established coast live oaks grow in the forested area on the knoll. Planting new trees is unnessary—existing oaks will flourish once the undesirable trees are removed. The Town of Tiburon specifically identifies both bluegum eucalypts and Monterey pines as undesirable because they are capable of reaching a height of more than 35' at maturity; the Town also designates many of these trees due to their size as "heritage" trees. The Tiburon Fire Department and the University of California Cooperative Extension list eucalypts and pines as fire-prone species. Sincerely, ARBORSCIENCE Dr. Kent R. Julin International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified California Registered Professional Forester Table 1. The 222 coast live oaks present at McKegney Green Knoll by size class and area. Seedlings Saplings Small Trees 4" <1" 1 to 4" to 12" Coastal Scrub 1 - 7 Grassland 38 18 Forest 138 7 7 Roadside 4 1 1 Total 181 26 15 Table 2 Notes: ARB: Arborscience Report 12/18/16 UFA: Urban Forestry Associates Report 11/30/16 Trunk Diameter: Trunk diameter measured 4.5' above grade Town Undesirable Tree: Code of Ordinances Title IV— I_and Improvement and Use, Chapter 15A-2 Definitions Town Heritage Tree: Code of Ordinances Title IV— L.and Improvement and Use, Chapter 15A-2 Definitions Prohibited per Tiburon Fire Dept.: Prohibited Plants and Trees Fire Hazard per UC: UC Cooperative Extension (1998) Pyrophytic vs. Fire Resistant Plants X 131 r- p.2oe ARB DRSCIENCE— McKegney Knoll December 18, 2016 Page 6 Table 2. List of trees growing at the McKegney Green Knoll. ARB UFA Common Trunk Town Town Prohibited Fire Falling Falling Tree Tree Name Diameter Undesirable Heritage by Tiburon Hazard Hazard Hazard Action # # in. Tree Tree Fire Dept. per UC ARB UFA 1 A blue um 72 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 2 B blue um 32 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 3 blue um 48 Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 4 blue um 6,10,10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 5 blue um 84 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 6 1 blue um 64 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 7 3 blue um 44 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 8 4 blue um 96 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 9 5a blue um 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 10 5b blue um 14 Yes Yes Yes Remove 11 7 blue um 15,33 Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 12 8 blue um 36 Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 13 blue um 14 Yes Yes Yes Remove 14 9 blue um 33 Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 15 blue um 10 Yes Yes Yes Remove 16 10 blue um 23 Yes Yes Yes Remove 17 blue um 1,4 Yes Yes Yes Remove 18 blue um 5,12 Yes Yes Yes Remove 19 11 blue um 46 Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 20 blue um 12 Yes Yes Yes Remove 21 blue um 9 Yes Yes Yes Remove 22 black acacia 8,11,12 Yes Yes 23 black acacia 4,6,12 Yes 24 black acacia 6 Yes 25 black acacia 2-12 (5) Yes Yes 26 black acacia 6,8 Yes 27 black acacia 1-4 (7) Yes 28 Monterey pine 13 Yes Yes Yes Remove 29 Monterey pine 13 Yes Yes Yes Remove 30 Monterey pine 8 Yes Yes Yes Remove 31 Monterey pine 5,9 Yes Yes Yes Remove 32 Monterey pine 32 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 33 Monterey pine 26 Yes Yes Yes Yes Remove 34 stone pine 10 Yes Yes Remove 35 stone pine 16 Yes Yes Remove 36 stone pine 12 Yes Yes Remove 37 stone pine 8 Yes Yes Remove 38 stone pine 7 Yes Yes Remove 39 stone pine 18 Yes Yes Remove 40 _ stone pine 9 Yes Yes Remove 41 stone pine 6 Yes Yes Remove 42 stone pine 13 Yes Yes Remove 43 stone pine 7 Yes Yes Remove 44 stone ine 8 Yes Yes Remove 45 stone pine 6 Yes Yes Remove 46 stone pine 6 Yes Yes Remove 47 stone pine 7 Yes Yes Remove 48 stone pine 6 Yes Yes Remove 49 cypress 49 Yes Yes Yes 50 c ress 6-21 8 Yes Yes Yes 51 buckeye 3-8(8) Yes 52 laurel 8 54 madrone 5 55 madrone 6 56 madrone 6 57 madrone 2X1tII3I`I r Zq.Of � ARBORSCIENCE-- McKegney Knoll December 18, 2016 Page 7 Urban Forestry Associates, Inc. 1 lr;T7ate`November 30 2016 JAN 02 2017 I, t_�� .lls.l,• flf'._ :.(1 URBAN FOR RY AS OCIATES, INC. C -- 8 Willow Street S-in Rafael,CA 94901 (415)454-42121nfoCaurbanforestryassociates.corn ARBORIST REPORT Hurwin Report on McKegney Field South Knoll Eucalypts #3 and 4 PURPOSE Urban Forestry Associates (UFA) was hired to inspect four Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees on the South Knoll of McKegney Field. We conducted an advanced risk assessment of the trees on October 31, 2016. UFA previously inspected the South Knoll Eucalyptus trees in 2005 and 2006 for the Town of Tiburon. SCOPE OF WORK AND LIMITATIONS Urban Forestry Associates has no personal or monetary interest in the outcome of this investigation. All observations regarding trees in this report were made by UFA, independently, based on our education and experience. All determinations of health condition, structural condition, or hazard potential of a tree or trees at issue are based on our best professional judgment. The health and hazard assessments in this report are limited by the visual nature of the assessment. Defects may be obscured by soil, brush, vines, aerial foliage, branches, multiple trunks or other trees. Even structurally sound, healthy trees are wind thrown during severe storms. Consequently, a conclusion that a tree does not require corrective surgery or removal is not a guarantee of no risk, hazard, or sound health. HISTORY The Eucalyptus have dominated the knoll for many decades. At some point, decades ago, the trees were cut to tall stumps. The stumps were then allowed to sprout and the sprouts allowed to grow to 72 feet. Over the years reproduction from the original trees have matured and have suppressed native vegetation. I previously inspected all of the Eucalyptus trees on the knoll in 2005. In 2016 UFA conducted a Resistograph©tests of T-3 (X 4). if 1 .a YAf '3n3yl��h^ i F -5yyY`;�"d- t t"i4 n 35" ;<z r S,z.. _.' k r 'r r 4✓. i t s 3i�s 65'''�s,SI . 9b9 "s ;.:;.'iGt`;<� <,lr ;�,'c���Eh��v.•�� v„''�„'Yr�S�k�9 w"rryF� e r�, ,.tt�i, �t. s -. • G i��.,'�' r5,•• i n '" J�t"��A��UL��tffi�yir�4ifs¢ 4 �� S <:_ , s � � t 3i '3 1 Y Page 1 of 7 Urban Forestry Associates, Inc. Date:November 30, 2096 OBSERVATION Our 2016 inspections concern only Trees 3 and 4 on the South Knoll and Trees A and B along Tiburon Blvd: TREE #3 Species Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) Size 38.4" DBH' Location About 10' Northwest of Tree#4 on the edge of a bank. Condition Previously felled at approximately 8 feet above grade. The 8' stump sprouted and the multiple leaders are now over 60 feet tall for a total three height of about 70 feet. The tree sprouted from the topping cuts and grew to its present height. The main crotch has common, multiple attachments of five mature sprouts Conclusion This tree has multiple ISA recognized tree risk defects and conditions which affect tree stability: • Second growth sprouts from a stump 0 4 codominant leaders (See Figure 1) • Common attachment of 4 leaders and 2 limbs • Acute angle crotches with included bark • High exposure to prevailing winds. RECOM'D The Eucalypts on this site are an invasive species that mechanically and chemically discriminate against and/or out compete most native plants. I recommend removal. Figure 1 —The multiple second growth leaders of Tree 3 are crowding one another at their common acute attachments. The leaders are now over- ; extended for the defective attachment. " i• 4 r 1 SyM��-lA K^ DBH is Diameter at Breast Height, measured 4.5' above grade on the upslope side of a tree. Page 2of7 EXHIBIT ! .A F Y t f.TN r <•..;� l x3• a,Jy R_ •x. �, � I.r r Yt. ! �p A 1`• i t t' jrtJ! r �2J tB t, � t bY��("i�f !`it?�1s1 Ytij%Js { , •9 :•1.. � • ,tY �J`Y. ,i. ...FF:�•'�` .V t,, t%Jt:- f?n0;(:J wtif`•1..:rti��r i ke. J ••!,• .. i! t. •�) r r� (r f 1 '!�'• •Yi`ly,t �' .t t�� �. Su J �� ! :� F. rr �'?��� .'� +F' �'r•�. .,lie° Y YZ{ .� r' #�.�r, 1 Y,+� .li °':Vi.• s r. .., tt -�•. t�.j.,. t;y: �{G>...... .•c� tr .. ! \ •Y o,•, ,A, < t:.N,. ` R 'Al P•�.b#fi \�. �.i�`•�Y'C%r'f • 9i{,' }t Qr. �t) �'l:.. :n.,,.`ii� �e :.^' .��. � '�x. ,i"�%�'.iF#. � ��•�,' •int° `.e4���lf�i.±�w1,11�1 \t`- �• .FF:'� ��• .'.t�;- `; 'f,.�LJ. ', ♦ •.ti rte .� 41, Jr•. �i :�,•• �! 7(� tv {...�� ..t�P ...,,...�. t.. .aV lr'+ �,•�� `4 f rK �..: `! • `-rl, -F♦ ' a fr,j � G If- (!�.:F•'n. 1, � llr:. r.�,.sa.F#,rYs•'C. � :?:\ ,�.,�� ••t.` •f�Y�' '•i�,�7�'>t:� I 'r -7't,�'.4 Ji •�fJ.e Wit, 5, J tr.1�.f41r ! `. �.+v..,• . r � r4'r I t•`'.t'' �`�{�.Y� y���Y�*n'`�°".•fyy< w r! ::csw.>.�'•�_ .r31�, f �'� �' r•�'��,m.Fxa>J:ro�a� •..+'%•Kd�`� ssk�.la'k*'�:v%� .,��� ^Yrw•t;•'n.`4xr v�'r1T. ' a��l t'�yf{i.„�,kr'..'?''`• t.'t r Lt GF`Y�+d tSP'm�.p,,� �?.� ��)���"...t�x�l'it' t ,:thy41.Ne se f - fv ' ':4 Y,'id:i%{�;i�';�.�4^[lti...=�*::.,.oE:r..•.'s�tni. �r i- • ME 43 YC K tri' R t • .. r �� `a����� r�-e•�xd i itC�tQ 3 ..d��ase L tib + ..w '�• gi��',�'�-e�.�e z � 3 .a�Z`"t �i - x ;SEK i F ��a'h'�7 •k.`�'``.T„& .}�;> �t a..w. +�+#3'sk? <� a�, i t �� > ` s fi: 4• W AN . fi �5 1 in��g� Z �� .• � � i������ �k, .,.��+` �, ����`�z �`,,. 4 -ti✓ 1.-: S 7� VR3 4 any} i3` pP d .iF)rte \ ••'s:.E ..7 yy f'�7'sl`I-a�x bac S .l' A � .A 13 - -r�'AF�•, rrnf't 4 ,�v t ,§-.;�f ! • F s E t ! r - -.•r,...,,�`:�, +� .�•.:.. ...E a ,�:,. .i.. ak .- ' .a,v`,, •+.,� ;,ter t k `�: � t x 57 � �. •< - ��y �f`i! .� J x,44'' Y. t Emma: -1�-� t fr.tt"`"'tiY Y rr-�f � r� nj. r 4 +�•"v�+r.`*`,. ' '� s s&�' t a�'i�.-s r '� .ava:4' . �` r,t�'��r�,�'f`t�`,� � w ��'�•-.�r tx.+"-x �''ayr..� T��i fi � .�e# � �' ''Yr°�a` i�,,,�t �.' �t 4 Pi„i'�`-i� z���` Xx t ° a d, ' �g �"�- ���:'r�°`�+.'�_�.�+m:*�"_'x,�� E'� �•t+ :$ `� e � t � r 4.iky�JraQti 'l. r� � ,j+!.✓.s�r �'��r yr��'ira. `I^ � �a b ,� y "sEy � .�`- A �r Urban Forestry Associates, Inc. Date:November 30, 2016 TREE A Species Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) Size 72" DBH Size Class Location It is on a narrow strip at the top of the cutbank for the bicycle / pedestrian trail and the Tiburon Blvd. sidewalk. It is approximately 16 feet west of Tree B (See photograph above) 4 4- >h -:i ill ' �l iy z,. �r a A WIC II I Tree A is immediately at the top of the cut bank and extends over trail. Condition Previously felled at approximately 6 feet above grade. The 6' stump sprouted and the multiple leaders are now over 50 feet tall for a total three height of about 60 feet. During the intervening years the tree was topped repeatedly at varying elevations. The tree sprouted from the topping cuts and grew to its present height. The main crotch has common, multiple attachments of 9 mature sprouts with secondary slender, over-extended sprouts from higher cuts. Page 5 of 7 ? ..l fIItI7 c, • ' ••• • • • e;P +� - S' f, r +.+�'i a•--. k tVWYa,it+f1 .z- Vii. h dbp« t .�` � 1�'� iY•Yn�, w 1�. � P � { E.4 4 r.l s k. i� • r• kit "r xaFa"1�e1�"�y' (.�pff" ,d n�t �l. �����tt�- S��• f + �. a bra f� :�4�f { v 1F" 1p,� '� <., - ,y � x ai f'•. � k � f� s� ?s v, '�y ♦�'f,'E� �.." ,t 1'lf •� '.'�t�},t �Q�i11y "[!�r i�4'�°h°E,• rff.�' t •,�;z ►. `�P Pi`�if'�`�r 'f vim! a yx$g�a7'�` �• .PwYav �,SC,./�,j9�F+y�1g,� •.,mak /A g" _� �.�: �` �: Y7 fE''�{Is'• V �. � -:�f�4 E. x - "°y yt++'• ,, -)bs .L�.P:.. f .Y ��` Y `.i� � �;�"r, r �i � ..�f f �! • yd p`'Y•p � C 4'�1`i�ik'�E a{I' � � �f� `' 43�a� .• � s rt/ F •?r��{.sra �M1 F�B �F �� �F r f� c�tP trs `fgt,rt� � fi s��+� `�l 7 �x. r r•� y-r (�rxt �` u."PdG,� A � C � ,i r �G'tl�lL,st �kY YY�'4• atA�{�i,. r i�a ft 43.�."�{ " Y F�SP�• �P ,r. . �Vt�r • `4x 4r.e� � \i �� ,{ R 4 .t.tR r�M� �LC p n y Cprs.� rrf��] ,�[F� y 4�14 E y 4r a +ES',,y{)rr�11 ( ,t1 _ � •: {!�, ` ii�� . k-t 'al'f>`■ `� �r�i�• a.6�°�_ a.'7��a-, r�` .f f NV, V %�kn ywi, �ft�`t. �,�1r " � �,aK�• `� •�,�,: ^'�t� ' ,.�+ `. P � � �� Vit. r: f► .r q, x '!f y,� �a '-*.-a� _ -.-1 A,�t.°iSrTr�.t_ ✓.. `;•FL @.�& 'd-.F ;;(-,� FUR:Ak.� yf L,•• +...::'•�'.'. {jy � *b fr,s d.r �C :7 f. C {{ t +y, e•K 7 + r'a `r" A t}r`FF • TKW`3y.�i �. :":i.k f6 �4` t �f !l.•t jq�•(d -F7 �♦ .: ♦ .T, \ �,E 'q pE ky�,;a. ♦v 9 ! . . t _€ d♦a.Q,q{t... "yw•..x, f? ]]��f ." f sr{.♦T. t\� .. 1: l a � !T 3't r t r r�' Yrs R\r �� a. ♦ °}R aV" �,� k. �` �+�` }:x .{ ♦y1 i'`�+' � M i � � �f r.�'`7! x a t'�7` �`l �L 4�'ya :.h + -.. i r,��� ��+yt. Ktie� .ti2' tl�r,_y•; �p' - xa. ,. s a -a .� F�,g� },��tF{ �C. °• a A�' ¢r� "QiYa f aY*` TR •♦.t s � t } e c. r e. w+ 47C tii� �g�yti '� ` r if t4 f''�t;t�ipt:,.•_ S�a•C`} "�`�`� e�tM. 7� 4 � SK re d � ae Pt t f's�l �''Y t � •' to r��*�: � �_ ♦:,x.i X d e w �P�` ��d� •�[t t� , .rr;:R s e 9T�� qY`•y� }� i �,r: -^� 4�5 br ?y r +M, w�"'^ i 4 r .��� � � r f}'rl Et/ s e,. Q - t •' [ r♦ jy r ej a�. t a^•0` i C Wiz' t aT -:'4 i 4 � F` I '�4�b .,e: N3` A 4[�6wf�i ♦moi _ ,,� r Wit_ . .�', t< `'y,�k� �'9�t tt i i e { t � �� ,�, i�' p[ :�'a-e •t �' N ti ,� � Ba � C s yin t ,♦ �� .ii�C ♦*:, f w-.. � �, � !s ` fry it `„•(2 ��,• ��. `�, ya'` ' � t } ,, � ..' k r i v� F /f r, y�. � .. !� �: y� M .'t � / � i{ f •�M! � .J r�j I, pr • :'.n �. y h d ^...E ext �♦.. � r[�p� /��t� � ' + :x. ,. vas`,•! {- �f'`.�_. r �i ^` +s x.,11+75 •��H�� �.'c�•cr3'.y'f+.�?'tr`�.�fr u'�s '`";.:. 8°3'`x� sMu �' r 7fi :;•:9.�„F 7 ...+ . •F �'`sa '4 is r '� ' •'� �En;Ft,,µ�y�"t� �y f*"" @e l M1� a t'Rs•. 't �+1i.E1i ,t� � h'Tifjr,.y Wr.$�� Sx Jl 'K' yi -}`• try i•Fi _{ !^�iF m JF' i:..7, e""i[` ;/ K , s �y�g;"Fa��t �ryi��,tt 2 4 •6 �t. 3 {��e, s+s�r i�? � r��''' fi��,7 'rk'=$ to �, :'ts e`�"�� [ .� 4` .�y ( �pt�z� �s° ,rtr. i- '' '''"3 *tFt�i ,eT {a. i �s` j '2•S. "�. ."'1�,j.. kti �tt '*Ctk24�ld re n'tk'S •.�fl:"a���♦R rsa'4 r4�AafY• �' 't .:~t '�Y"�,-... r '.?a"t�r� ..Sa �'C+k�..z�c_q f(,p 3.�°c„t e��. 77'�fa E'tt 3 ♦ t: . x: _ _ 'ea aany+. .;'�.. �:� 6t#��yy}:'... � a' rs�' �` a _µ rR'zr.vi7... gd; '`s�;.;' a2 �'�.�•�`�.2 �` S .e+` fa � ��i't�e'Vt� .� TFF� �If C Q tl5:`Eyat 7 to � �i K 't`sa'r'' AF rq�g '♦ r:: + y it -c to w .fsr4k 73,`Xy T j,y f T t a c ¢ t i'€� r{Ft,l' ` '`fy;.te.!rt'< 0 '�•fi&,} t `' ) .���:� ����r-�i ,�9<''�t�� -.f rt �.t �� ��' Q— �' •� x S d rt '!� ���t�,�, 1�:� zx ��t �. JAN 0 2 2011 Ray Moritz, Urban Forester, Consulting Arborist fi Date:December 12, 2006 URBAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATES, INC. MORITZ ARBORICULTURAL CONSULTING 8 Willow Street San Rafael, CA. 94901 (415) 454 4212 Fax: 415 454 4218 ARBORICULTURAL REPORT for the McKegney Green South Knoll Eucalyptus Trees, Tiburon, California 94920 Dave Davenport and Nicholas Nguyen Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 PURPOSE Moritz Arboricultural Consulting was asked to assess the health and structural stability of the eucalyptus trees on McKegney Green area for the Town of Tiburon. In addition, MAC was asked to provide tree work specifications for any hazard mitigation needs and recommendations for the long-term maintenance of the trees. The site has an abundance of native vegetation reproduction and the Town may whish to consider removing the nonnative species to restore the site. The trees were assessed on December 4, 2006. SITE LOCATION The subject trees are located on the south knoll of the McKegney Green area. ASSESSMENT Our assessment began at the northwest quadrant of the south knoll and our first tree is T- A, the tree that failed across the trail. All tree diameters were taken at DBH (Diameter at Breast Height, 4.5' above grade) or otherwise stated. Tree #A Species BIue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) Size The area where the root crown was previously located is 4.5'in diameter measuring from southwest to northeast. Location Located immediately adjacent to and north of T-1. Condition This tree failed because it was girdled (essentially strangled) on the south side by the large buttress roots of T-1. This tree also had extremely advanced decay in the root crown, the heart wood and supporting buttress roots. It also, far more likely than not, leaned out fairly heavily out toward the trail because the canopy of T-1 extends to the north over the tree that failed. Conclusion The tree's lean and decay combined with the root system being girdled by T-I significantly contributed to the failure of this tree. Recommendation nla. 1 i-ar L+,0,; 4k-q- Ray Moritz, Urban Forester, Consulting Arborist Date:December 12, 2006 Tree #1 Species Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) Size 63" DBH Location This is the northwest most tree in the stand. Condition This is a large eucalyptus with co-dominant leaders and an acute angled crotch with embedded bark. This tree is fairly vertical in form. The structural defects being the somewhat deformed root system on the north side of the base of the tree; and the acute angled crotch. It has some rather overextended limbs in the canopy but it appears that there has been work on this tree in the past. The sounding of the base of T-1, including the area where there is scar tissue from the pressure against the roots of T-A. appears to be sound and solid. Conclusion This tree is within failure distance of the trail path and the McKegney Green. Recommendation Continue 20% crown reduction work periodically for stability. Tree #2 Species Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) Size 60" DBH Location Located approximately 6' south of T-1. Condition This tree is overtopped by T-I and leans heavily out toward the McKegney Green. All of the scaffold limbs have a bowed form. This tree was apparently topped at approximately 12' above grade in the past and sprout growth now has formed the massive scaffold limbs. The south-southeast most scaffold limb has a swelling and a decay pocket on the northeast side of it. There is an acute angle crotch between the north most scaffold limb and the central scaffold limb on the west side of the tree. The base of the tree sounded solid, but there is some concern about the points of attachment where the old cuts are located and where branches have been removed in the past. I observed one small cavity on the southeast side of the base. The scaffold limbs have been headed back in the past to provide better stability. Conclusion It appears that our measurements confirm that this tree, if it reached the field at all, would only be with light brush; no heavy wood will actually reach the field in a failure. 2 p•3� of�i Ray Moritz, Urban Forester-, Consulting Arborist Date:December 12, 2006 Recommendation The hillside below the tree is not used. Therefore the target value is low. While it does not have a stable structure, it is not an immanent hazard to people or property. Removal to avoid failure is optional. Tree #3 Species Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) Size 36.3" DBH Location Located 17' southeast of T-2. Condition This tree is a smaller/suppressed tree under the canopies of T-4 and T-1. It has been topped at approximately 6-7' above grade in the past and has multiple leaders. Conclusion This tree is not a hazard. It has a common attachment but it sounded solid with a hammer; internal decay was not detected. Recommendation Monitor health and structural condition. Tree #4 Species Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) Size 25 ft in circumference = 95.5" diameter. Location Located 13' east of T-3. Condition This is a mammoth tree that was topped at approximately 12-14' above grade and now has eight major false leaders (spars). The perimeter stems are bowed outward and have approximately 12 over-extended, unstable limbs. The southwest buttress root has one dead root where it bifurcates. There is some unidentified bleeding on the south side of the root crown. The false leader attachments are somewhat suspect simply due to the prior topping and could be potential a site for termites and decay. Conclusion Any of these major spars could break out at any given time. It is difficult to tell the exact internal conditions at this common attachment. The area wider this canopy has a moderate level of recreational use. There is significant native reproduction in area. Recommendation Continue removing major deadwood. Reduce over-extended limbs to lessen the pressure on the attachments. Tree #S Species Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) Size 33.8" DBH Location Located 44'up slope of T-4. It is southeast of T-4 and it is up toward the crest of the hill. It has a stand of nonnative pines under the southeast portion of the canopy. 3 uX.111i11".(' 1). Ray Moritz, Urban Forester, Consulting Arborist Date:December 12, 2006 Condition T-5 has many exposed roots. The soil is apparently very shallow. There is a rock outcropping. The base of the tree sounds solid. The top of the canopy is quite exposed and it has a weak branch attachment. This tree appears to have been topped at approximately 18' above grade. The tree has two co-dominant stems with an acute angle crotch with embedded bark. There are "cars" (scar tissue)just below the crotch indicating that it has had fractures in the past. There are several overextended limbs. This tree overtops T-5A and is forcing it to the southwest. Conclusion This tree has an elevated hazard potential. There is moderate recreation use under it. Recommendation Remove. Tree#5A Species Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) Size 23.2" DBH Location Located approximately 13'northwest of T-5. Condition This tree has exposed roots and some dying limbs. There is major deadwood present in the canopy. Conclusion This tree appears to be fairly stable. Recommendation Remove major deadwood. Tree #5B Species Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) Size 16" DBH Location Located approximately 4'up slope of T-5. Condition This tree is suppressed by T-5 and the canopy is forced to the southeast over the pine trees. Conclusion This is currently not a hazardous tree. A few of the spindly branches are over-extended, but are not hazardous at this time. The base has an unusual sounding(hanuner report), but it is difficult to determine whether or not there is internal decay without a resistograph test. Recommendation The Town may wish to improve the structure of this tree through pruning if they remove T-5, or to remove it while it is small. Tree #5C Species Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) Size A collection of six stems: Approximately 8", 5", 1.5", 1.511, 1", 1" in diameter at DBH. 4 ti 1iI131"I' P. "y� Ray Moritz, Urban Forester, Consulting Arborist Date:December 12, 2006 Location This is a group of stems that are between T-4, 5, 6, and 7. Condition This tree reproduction is suppressed. Conclusion There are no hazard concerns with these trees at this time. If they were removed the understory that will be released consists of toyon, coast live oak, sage and other native plants. Recommendation You may wish to remove for restoration or to defray future costs. Tree #6 (this is not the tree formerly numbered T-6) Species Blue gum(Eucalyptus globulus) Size 22" DBH Location Located 25' east-northeast of T-5. Condition This tree is single stem and has a relatively vertical form. Conclusion This tree has no hazard issues at this time. Recommendation Monitor or you may wish to remove fore restoration. Tree #7 Species Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) Size Three-stems 25.9" and 17.4" DBH Location Located across the west slope of the knoll. Condition This tree has an acute angle crotch, crossing limbs, and deadwood. This tree has been wind reduced and is not growing tall. It has many poor branch attachments and is fairly contorted. Conclusion This tree is not a hazard; however, it has poor form and it must be considered in the future. It is at the top of a very steep west slope. Recommendation Remove the 17.4" stem to the southeast and retain the 2-stemmed tree to the west-northwest, which is 25.9" diameter. The Town may wish to reduce over-extended limbs with poor taper in the future, or to remove it for restoration and avoid future costs. Note: To the west of T-7, the undergrowth consists of Monterey pine, toyon, sage, sticky monkey flower, ,weeds and annual grasses. Tree #8 Species Blue gum(Eucalyptus globulus) (This is a new T-8; renumbered). Size 28" DBH. Location This a single stem tree that is 23'west-southwest of T-7. It is at the top of an extremely steep section of slope above T-9. It is overtopping T-7 to some extent. This is not a stable location, long term. Condition This tree has a straight and stable form. It is at the very top edge of a very steep slope, and is probably shallow rooted. No surface roots were observed. It is underlaid by toyon, oak, and blackwood 5 l?X1f1131T p. 0f �� ? Ray Moritz, Urban Forester, Consulting Arborist Dade:December 12, 2006 acacia, cotoneaster reproduction. Conclusion There is exposed rock near this tree, it has poor anchorage on the west side. It is not a hazard to people or property. Recommendation Remove to restore the native vegetation through "release" or to avoid future costs, but it is not a hazard and has no target of value. Note: There is a 6" eucalyptus reproduction 20' due south of T-8; right at the base of a boulder. It is overtopping a coast live oak that is growing up between the rocks and toyon. Our recommendation is to remove this tree and kill the stump to allow the oak and the toyon to thrive. Tree #9 Species Blue gum(Eucalyptus globulus) Size It is approximately 31" in diameter at DBH. Location It is at the base of this steep slope; at the east edge of McKegney Green. Condition This tree does not seem to display any significant structural hazards. Conclusion This tree appears to be stable. Recommendation One would only remove it for restoration pruposes. Note: Many of these eucalyptus trees seem to be serving as "nurse trees" for oak reproduction. Tree # 10 Species Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) Size 22" DBH Location Located directly down slope and 11'north of T-6. Condition It has a relatively straight/vertical form with no particular- hazard issue. Conclusion There are no particular hazard issues except that it has some large deadwood and, depending on the level of usage under the canopy or within the reach of deadwood failure, large deadwood should be removed. Recommendation Remove deadwood as needed. Tree #11 (formerly numbered Tree #6) Species Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) Size 51" DBH Location Located 33'northeast of T-10 and 86'east of T-4. There is coast live oak reproduction and four subordinate eucalyptus stems up slope to the south of the base of this tree. Condition This tree becomes two stems at approximately 5.5'above grade. This tree has an acute angle crotch with embedded bark. One co-dominant stem is to the northeast and toward the trail. The south stem is over the 6 I;X11MIT of Ray Moritz, Urban Forester, Consulting Arborist Date:December 12, 2006 subordinate stems is to the south-southwest. This tree is on a rock outcropping and has a number of surface roots down slope. It appears that there has been some slumping below this tree to the north; between the tree and the trail. The second subordinate reproduction under this tree to the west is crossing a scaffold limb that extends out to the south-southwest and there is a deformity in both the stem and the scaffold limb. The acute angle crotch is significant. There is a limb trapped between the bifurcation of the stem of the second reproduction to the south. Conclusion This tree is shallow rooted and has a defective acute angle crotch. Ho3wever it could be stabilized for some years with crown reduction. Recommendation I recommend the removal of the four subordinate stems to the south to increase growing space for the coast live oak. Also remove the deformed scaffold limb that extends to the south-southwest. Monitor T-11 on a. regular basis to assure the integrity of the acute angle crotch and shallow rooting. Conduct crown reduction as needed. Tree #12 Species Blue gum(Eucalyptus globulus) Size Multi-stemmed: 15", 1311, 1211, 6", 611, 5", 311, 3", 3" DBH Location 64.5' east northeast of T-11. It is on a more gentle portion near the northeast quadrant of the knoll. Condition This tree was cut to a low stump at some time in the past and has sprouted nine stems. Three of the stems are co-dominant with acute angle crotches. The co-dominant stems are respectively 13", 12" and 13" DBH. Observations There are some mature Monterey pine to the east, and there is an abundance of toyon and some Italian stone pines to the south. Recommendation Remove the whole tree and kill the stump. Remove all the reproduction and kill it. Allow the 6" diameter oak up slope to be released. Note: Along the north side of the trail, there are three eucalyptus that have been topped in the past -- some up to high stumps. There is an abundance of blackwood acacia. These trees were not assessed in this assessment. VIEW ISSUE CONCLUSIONS 7 Ray Moritz, Urban Forester, Consulting Arborist Date:December 12, 2006 These trees are old and their growth rate has been slowed for many years. I do not believe that these trees have significantly reduced views for the past five to ten years. However, the Town may wish to consider tree removal for restoration purposes. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION The South Knoll has an abundance of native vegetation. The eucalyptus trees have served as "nurse trees" for the reproduction of many native trees and shrubs that would be released by the removal of some or all of the eucalyptus trees and nonnative tree reproduction and control of other nonnative plants. v' Ray Moritz Consulting Arborist 8 ��of� � are willing to do what the city should have done on its own, why not do it?We can close our eyes or we can take care of it like they did on Angel Island and everywhere else. The goal is to get rid of the eucalyptus and allow the nathres to JAN 0 2 2011 ,start growing," Ilur win is referring to the California Department of Parks and Recreation plan initiated about 20 years ago to eradicate the Australian eucalyptus from Angel Island because it was destroying oak habitat. McKegney Knoll, located behind Pine Terrace, is a small hill that divides NIcKegney Green playing field from the. playground along Old Rail Trail. The knoll is home to the eucalyptus and pines,but also to native flora such as coastal scrub, wild grasses,coast live oak, buckeye,toyon and ma- drone. Hurwin said he has already received financial cornmit- 5"; ......... ments to pay for the tree removal from other homeowners in the Reed Heights,Tiburon Knolls and Del Mar neighbor hoods.If the town approves the removal,he will extend the I'IV fundraising campaign. The Town Council referred the matter to staff. Tiburon Planning Manager Dan Watrous said last week that he has notified Hurwin that the group will have to apply for a tree removal permit,at a cost of$280 for the first five trees and $55 for each additional tree.That's in addition to the cost of removing the trees. ELUOT KARLAN j FOR THE ARK "We.won't know what level of(environmental)review will A view from Ron and Duffy Hurwin's home on Tenaya Court in Tiburon captures the pine and eucalyptus trees on McKegney Knoll.At the be required until we see what the request is,"Watrous said. June 1 Tiburon Town Council meeting, Ron Hurwin,on behalf of a group of Reed Heights/Tiburon Knolls neighborhood property owners, The homeowners hired Kent R.julin, a certified arborist presented a letter proposing to pay to cut the trees down. and fore.-,ten to advise them. After studying the grove, he proposed that the eucalyptus and pines be cut down to the Kam Watson said that even after eucalyptus trees are re- "The trees have got-ten bigger and bigger and taller and stumps and replaced with more natives. moved, the allelopathic chemicals in the soil may "Interfere taller and the town doesn't appear to be taking care of it," Julin,who is also president of Marin ReLeaf,a tree plant- with the recruitment and establishment of native species." Gloria said. She said that removal of the trees would not ing organization, said there are many native trees already "Eucalyptus removal has become common procedure have an impact on her view, but to be good neighbors, she established on the knoll whose growth is suppressed by in California, including Angel Island and the Oakland and her husband plan to contribute to the tree removal fund. the eucalyptus. The eucalyptus' canopies not only deprive Hills, due to them being an invasive species, prone to Hurwin said he had asked Tiburon Fire Protection Dis- othentrees of sunlight but the decomposing leaves that have spontaneous falling limbs, and being very flammable," trict Chief Richard Pearce for his opinion and Pearce said dropped from the trees release allelopathic chemicals into Hurwin also argued in his letter. "Removal of the erica- that,from a firefighting standpoint,he would not oppose the the soil — chemicals that have a toxic effect on seedlings lyptus would also reduce the town's maintenance costs removed of the trees. and roots of other plants. and potential liability. No one can forget the devastation In an interview, Pearce confirmed that and added, "I al- "Restoration of the McKegney Green Knoll will provide of the Oakland Hills fire and how the eucalyptus trees ways look at tree removal from the lens of mitigating fire- opportunities for native plants to flourish,promote wildlife carried much of the fire." fighting emergencies and firefighter safety.Historically, we health,remove trees highly prone to failure(dropping limbs Gloria and William Wong have lived in their Tenava Drive know that eucalyptus can hasten fire behavior because the or falling over)and fire and re-establish neighborhood views house across the street from the Hurwins since 1973.When trees are full of highly exT)Iosive oils" that have been lost,"julin wrote in an opinion letter to the they moved in, McKegney Knoll had no trees on it Gloria homeowners who hired him,following his study of the knoll. said in an interview.She said shc-used to watch her son com- Deirdre iWcCrohan has reported on Tiburon local govern- In a paper on the effects of eucalyptus extract on California ing home from school along the bike path, which was pos- went and community issues for more than 25 years.Reach native plants, University of California at Berkeley researcher sible then because the tree growth didn't obscure the view. her at 415-944-46394. JUNE 79, 2016 - THE ARK 3 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR `Belvedere Deer Are Oh So bear, ("Homeowners want town to cut down trees,"June 22,pg. 1), I would like to challenge the idea of complete removal of all I Know': Culling herd is healthy the eucalyptus trees. Belvedere deer are oh so dear,I know, "There are three historically significant eucalyptus trees Hunters cull the herd to keep it healthy. (Eucalyphfs globulus) that were planted by the Northwestern Born in farm country a long time ago. Pacific Railroad to nark points along the tracks.The first tree is located just behind the bus stop on Tiburon Boulevard are Wolves stalked Belvedere a long time ago. across from the Del Mar Middle School tennis courts,and two Top predators today would take granny. more are across the bike path from this tree on Eucalyptus Belvedere deer are oh so dear,I know. Knoll. Deer just eat and breed and their numbers grow. I will defend the existence of these trees with all the re- Oh,aren't they cute,"Mommy,look at Bambi" sources I can muster. Born in farm country a long time ago. However,I understand the values of the views for the resi- Occam's Razor:a hunter with a bow dences that have them obstructed by the secondary-growth Donate venison to a charity. trees, which include many smaller eucalyptus and pines. Belvedere deer are oh so dear,I know. Furthermore, if necessary, I could support the removal of Belvedere deer are not so dear,oh no, oaks to open up views. Than to feed homeless and keep them healthy. I could accept this action because I feel the significance of Born in farm country a long time ago. the original trees has been lost to a forest of secondary trees. There are not enough resources available on the knoll for all Yes,I have changed from my youth long ago, these trees as they continue to grow. Inevitably, decline in But personifying deer is silly. vitality will lead to stressed trees and some will fail. The Belvedere deer are oh so dear,I know, probability of a tree or tree part failure hitting a person or Born in farm country a long time ago. pet is too high for a municipality to carry. —Bob Dougherty, Tiburonpet my opinion,the exponentially increasing budget needs to retain these trees in a safe condition is not warranted by A plan to cut eucalyptus should the assets that the trees provide.Especially when measured preserve the three largest trees by the loss of real property values for those impacted by the view obstruction. In response to your article regarding the proposal to re- It should be stated that the values returned to these resi- move the trees on Eucalyptus Knoll above McKegney Green dences equitably covers their burden of expense in removing ---- —the trees. If the homeowners present a plan to remove most of the trees while retaining and safely pruning the three largest Eucalyptus globulus trees,I will offer my services,pro bono, to act in an oversight position for the interest of the town. ---Peter Brooks, "Tiburon, certified arborist, tree-risle assessor,founding member of Marin ReLeaf JAN 0 � 2 011 Tossed cigarette suspected in maj®r Petaluma fire JULIE JOHNSONLJ THE PRESS DEMOCRAT September 28,2016 JAN 0 2017 S Fire investigators suspect a cigarette flicked out the window of a passing vehicle started a fire that ignited the grass and eucalyptus trees along Highway 101 Tuesday before tearing through a Petaluma neighborhood, burning 14 homes and causing an estimated $1.5 million in damage. Four homes were destroyed by flames. Many families who lived in 10 additional houses damaged by the fire were at least temporarily displaced by the acrid stench of smoke in the neighborhood of modest single-story homes along Stuart Drive whose backyards abut the highway. One day after the fire, families and neighbors Wednesday gathered to assess the damage and pick through the rubble for mementos in their tucked-away east Petaluma neighborhood. Many people blamed the now-charred stand of eucalyptus trees between their backyards and the highway for how quickly the fire spread to the neighborhood. Two people suffered minor injuries, and one cat died in the blaze. Suspected cause of Petaluma fire Folla, who has lived all his life in Stuart Drive homes, said he's called Caltrans numerous times to T L� 7 _�_ :�. Z of(W aCxN►Q� request the trees be trimmed and dead branches removed. Several doors down, Diane Luis helped her in-laws, Fernando and Alice Luis, into her car for a medical appointment. The elder Luis' home was damaged by smoke and water but can be repaired, she said. Diane Luis shook her head and voiced her frustration that a decadesold proposal to build a soundwall behind the neighborhood never came to:fruition. "Those trees aren't supposed to be here," Diane Luis said. 'The fire wouldn't have hit our home with a wall.This shouldn't have happened." The fire started just after 3 p.m. in dry grass near the northbound Highway 101 offramp at East Washington Street. The blaze quickly took hold in dry grass and a thick layer of leaf and bark litter and then raced up into the roadside eucalyptus grove. The wind sent fire brands from the trees into the neighborhood, ripping through backyards and roofs in the 300 block of Stuart Drive. The oily trees are great fuel for fires, Petaluma Fire Battalion Chief Jeff Schach said. "When the eucalyptus caught on fire, they produced a significant amount of heat and significant number of fire brands that carried on the wind and into the neighborhood,"Schach said. 'The trees were definitely a contributing factor to the intensity and rate of fire spread.", Many of the trees are slated to be cut down when a highway widening project gets underway, according to Caltrans spokeswoman Shannon Brinias. The project doesn't yet have funding and is still in the design phase, she said. Brinias said Caltrans has received a number of inquiries about the trees after the fire. Before then, the agency had not received a request for tree maintenance in that area through its online reporting system since 2010, she said. Brinias didn't know whether people had called to ask the agency to assess the trees. "We are currently reviewing a plan of attack regarding the burned trees," Brinias said. But not all trees were Caltrans responsibility, with numerous growing beyond the state agency's right-of-way and on private property. Eucalyptus trees provide good sound barriers because they are laden with branches and leaves, and many communities want to keep them, she said. They are otherwise considered a nuisance because of the amount of leaf litter, she said. Caltrans landscape designers opt to plant other types of trees, depending on the area's micro-climate. "We don't have a budget to be removing trees unless there's a sizable danger, a significant danger," ,1:VkIlL'.It Brinias said. "Right now our maintenance budget is extremely limited. We're doing the best we can with the budget we have. With an upcoming construction project, that's the ideal time. Petaluma Fire Marshal Cary Fergus said the fire's origin has been pinpointed to an area just before the highway's northbound exit for Washington Street. Fergus said he found cigarettes in the area where the fire began, on the shoulder just before a lane opened up to the offramp, and said that was the most likely cause of the fire. "It appears to be an accidental fire caused, most likely, as a result of discarded smoking materials," Fergus said. "There are burn patterns that extend up into that area." Schach said vehicle fires are also commonly caused when hot pieces of catalytic converters or mufflers fall away or by dragging chains, which can cause sparks. When firefighters arrived, the fire had already spread through 14 backyards and some roofs. "The fire was blowing between the houses from the backyard, coming through the fences,"Schach said. Stuart Drive resident jack Skilling, 30, said his wife, Bridget Skilling, was in the backyard with their 8-month-old son Hunter, playing in a kiddie pool, when she heard crackling noises and saw embers flying her way. "She grabbed the baby, the dog and helped get an elderly neighbor in the car,"said Skilling,who received a frantic phone call as his wife fled the neighborhood. Their house was damaged and habitable, but they were staying with family to keep their baby away from the stink of smoke. About 20 houses in the neighborhood were evacuated as at least 80 firefighters and a Cal Fire helicopter attacked the blaze from the ground and sky, taking almost an hour to bring it under control. The fire forced the closure of both northbound lanes of the freeway north of Lakeville Highway for almost an hour, backing up rush-hour traffic all the way into Marin County near Novato. Southbound traffic, too, was slowed as drivers gawked at the flames and thick plume of black smoke filling the sky. Staff Writer Christi Warren contributed to this report. You can reach Staff Writer Julie Johnson at 707-521-5220 orjulie.johnson@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @jjpressdem. art G..,.R g-g M-0 MR, rF ,Tfi. woa,;,;tt" j NNE Ni �w Lei p, 'T f sgpm� .lk 'Nyo jp 30 ir k, ME F".ME _1 ME, .1a W A 10 FK� R N NS rg� NMI I I I gwgyMl M,—1 "Ig R"% .............. ..... 41 ........... ......... ............ 4 e WIT �i s T !' �i r THE PRESS DEMOCRAT®WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2016; the homes on Stuart Drive, or to nearby McKenzie and by 911 calls starting at 3:16 "Right now I'm just try- ash, continued to fight the firefighters worked from Cortez Drive,outside of the p.m. with reports of multi- ing to get my cat,if l'ie's still blazing structures almost - ----- ---- -- the closed highway and fire zone, Petaluma Police ple homes ablaze, flaming alive," Folia said. "Other two hours after the initial CONT1ENM FROM Al inside the neighborhood Lt.Tim Lyons said. trees and a towering smoke than that, everything else call. while a Cal Fire helicopter Don Armstrong, who plume. can be replaced." "They're hammered, it shoulder,then exploded up dumped water on the blaze. lives on a cul-de-sac off at The first fire company on A cat that became trapped was hot," Holden said, de- into a row of the tall trees, Damage to the homes, the north end of Stuart scene immediately called in one of the destroyed scribing how crews rotated Petaluma Fire Battalion all in the 300 block, ranged Drive, said police kicked a for support, and Holden homes was killed,Battalion in and out of the houses, Chief Jeff Holden said. from a scorched fence at hole in his fence to facilitate said the blaze initially over- Chief Jeff Schach said in a breathing from air bottles Petaluma police evacuat-. one residence to four homes the evacuation. Armstrong whelmed the responding news release. that last 15 to 20 minutes ed about 20 homes as fire- left uninhabitable and eight said it was the third ire on crews.They worked first to A plumber, Folla said he at a 'time. The last crews fighters battled flames that with significant damage in- his block since 1954. halt the wind-blown fire's arrived home from work in cleared the scene about 7:45 quickly climbed to the tops cluding burned backyard Two residents suffered advance,then turned to the San Francisco and found p.m. of the trees and then rained decks, sheds and applianc- minor injuries that did not burning homes. his home a smoldering Petaluma deployed its en embers down on a row of es as well as windows and require hospital treatment. The flames apparently ruin. The home is insured, tire on-duty crew and was homes. siding, Holden said. No es- One was a young woman damaged gas service valves he said. aided by units from Ran- "7`rees were torching off, timate of the damage had who sustained burn blisters on multiple homes, fueling As 22 fire engines and cho Adobe, Lakeville, Gold embers were being thrown been calculated, he said on the bottom of one foot, the fire's spread as "flames other pieces of equipment Ridge,Cal Fire,Rincon Val- Coy the wind,)"Holden said. Tuesday night. No exact cause of the fire shot like a torch in the at- arrived, firefighters took ley, WA-mar, Rohnert Park, With the potential for The neighborhood is in was determined, but Hold- tic,"Holden said. over the neighborhood,fill- Sonoma, Schellville, Sebas- e.ven more destruction an older subdivision of en said it was accidental,at- The blaze was the equiva- ing the streets with parked topol,Bennett Valley,Santa and the number of homes modest, one-story homes tributing it to vehicle traffic. lent of a five-alarm fire, he vehicles while numerous Rosa and the Coast Guard, aflame, officials called for bordered by the highway, The fire's proximity to the said, hoses snaked in various di- officials said. waves of help -- more en- McDowell Boulevard, East busy highway meant it was Resident Bill Folla owned rection down the street. The Red Cross was called gin es,water trucks and per- Washington Street and Mc- seen by scores of drivers,as one of the hardest-hit While flames at several to help with temporary sonnel from departments Gregor Avenue, well as many residents in homes, which appeared to properties were quickly shelter for residents. Police throughout Sonoma Coun- Evacuated residents were the neighborhood. M dark be thoroughly charred in- doused,the burning homes officials have said evac- tY sent to the Safeway park- smoke rose over the area, side. He's lived on Stuart took longer to put out.Fire- uated residents can call As a dry, hot afternoon ing lot in the Washington police and emergency fire Drive for 55 years and 30 fighters, their protective 707-778-4872 for updates on breeze flung embers onto Square Shopping Center dispatchers were inundated years in his current home. gear covered in water and temporary shelter. CAMPUS & COMMUNITY. CAMPUS NEWS, RESEARCH, SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENT __.. .. Q&A: Campus environmental manager Tom Klatt tabs JAN 0 2 201 about hillside tree-removal plan By Public Affairs, UC Berkeley I MAY31,zoic _W G• o UC Berkeley, along with the City of Oakland and the East Bay Regional Park District, has applied for Federal Emergency Management Agency grants to remove trees in the East Bay hills. The overall proposed project spans more than 1,000 acres owned by the three entities, including an estimated 45,000 high-fire- danger trees on UC property in Strawberry and Claremont canyons in Oakland. The goal of the plan is to reduce the chance and severity of wildfires, protecting life and property. Public comment to FEMA has been invited through June 17. As the public considers the project, UC Berkeley's Tom Klatt, campus environmental manager and a member of the UC Fire Mitigation Committee, answered the NewsCenter's questions about it, Q:Why does UC Berkeley want to cut down trees in the hills? A: In 1973, H.H. Biswell, professor of forestry and conservation at UC Berkeley, made this prophetic statement:"When eucalyptus waste catches fire, an updraft is created and strong winds may blow flaming bark for a great distance. I think the eucalyptus is the worst tree anywhere as far as fire hazard is concerned. If some of that flaming bark should be blown on to shake roofs in the hills we might have a firestorm that would literally suck the roofs off the houses. People might be trapped." Biswell was absolutely right. Eucalyptus, planted by land speculators, along with equally flammable Monterey pines, have been implicated in several disastrous conflagrations in the East Bay hills, especially the deadly 1991 firestorm that took 25 lives, destroyed more than 3,000 homes and cost $1.5 billion, Reducing this risk means removing high-risk trees and vegetation. Eucalyptus are a special risk because they ' drop tons of dead leaves and branches on the } r forest floor, litter that provides excessive fuel + to fires.Their low branches serve as fuel I).q) of UW7 ladders up to their high crowns, and their Ar r x;. volatile ails burn hot and fast. When Aj r.; eucalyptus catch fire, flames shoot up to the crowns,which send embers flying. High winds can carry the embers across firebreaks and clearings and into residential areas. Eucalyptus groves on steep hillsides— like gag �.} those in the East Bay hills — are extremely f flammable when hot Diablo winds of late summer and fall start blowing and make Tom Klatt,manager of Emergency g g cY control of a moving flame front impossible Services,at work clearing trail and brush in Strawberry Canyon in December 2005. until the winds stop. (NewsCenter photo by Jeffery Kahn) As a result, CaIFIRE (the state firefighting agency) has categorized the East Bay hills, particularly Berkeley and Oakland, as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Q: Is cutting down trees the only option for reducing the hazard? A: Australia,where eucalyptus are native, uses prescribed burns to keep fuel loads below six tons per acre in wildland areas and two tons per acre near homes. Mechanical methods can also be used to remove large amounts of vegetation. But the practicability, costs and environmental impacts of doing so -- and repeating the removal every five years — remains mind-boggling, especially on steep hillsides. Reluctance to use prescribed burns in the Oakland/Berkeley Hills starts from the risk that a fire could escape near a residential area. Also, there is a lack of fire crews trained and experienced in the use of this technique near residential areas, and the climate window for prescribed fire on steep hillsides is narrow. Prescribed fire also has an impact on air quality, and carries significant costs. Furthermore, the blue gum eucalyptus groves in the Oakland/Berkeley Hills are significantly different and apparently more flammable than groves of the same or similar varieties of eucalyptus near cities in Australia, according to recent research. J).116 of � j • s A a - a s •. i r a i a l 1 t'(1•f a ` 4 � � Sfi f t vY vki1 Yy t ���Slii� S at„ a >'w R t�+'<..;`y,�,.h 2�"fa•Y {t ; fit' at.3� lt�fis5 'R� +ti,�t �:• i5 �'.;�'.. ; .,i lU 4 1�i�t€¢t �` y,C, l al 7G f• �1 fi �� 1E1.LL6y `<�i f .�ll�'' 3'' ! t ;� 31t�Yt''9 t !Via'•�,Nd N.��e,t"t''�??p,������+v�.�� fv �t,� �{ '�F f 1 t � �Tt�.. 4. ti P. tF v y'+ +`YS a ruy (t7�r �g ,[r }Sa 's} �° `�'2F& �.� � > K,t �•� t �G,s�;r(�f�2x�.(;+1t�� T�S�i`a�, �,. } a .}x�c���c �t`z it -.ai€--t �y � �.�t Y t•L . >. k Fq�f si y'�u<` .t� d �{ l���`�} � Yt is 1 t, 'It Liif �"•Yydu �fr�r�e•rrj,=a �.F4*'t+� :� �r5'�',4rt"t'�1 t��G�?t4 ,y r �,i. ,�' �;' i?rfy��i t�.��tl a t 10� ! -� a�', xJ?? :.rY,t s''� ;Ct a'f4t f�"'�'j'�°.e' 44?@F•i�xf�tt`�i'art '.°Sx�tl�C �:`� �`aa-et`t�t4{ ��, }n j' t F'f� Y _ � t�1rr,3f4uE�t atF! tF}�s .. T "uF,6,,r `fit• tali ;'i`E) Sttiff LY.t Y ; :+�`4;` Si�v�)t'g, ��: .lr� y' �vl lt.t i9t r`r q�3 i t ( lk�� �sJt'r7.11v�s} ,i9) L J .Xf�( t `t'n: rty 754? me k v Y Llhj}4 r n itu F t S ?u )` 4yVSS}tYh# ! ex i yF T p4 {, N+ M..t! a \t tt SnY tf 5�jit 2 y,5 Y'S (y.t .'; FS, st t`v-� It f-. r tj F i }tr kkt aft pp� t 1m�p" t 'mms" y'< i"�� h 3� �i [a' t tt2 l T< iYi`d r.F l i.,Y€� t� '`tA i Y s"yy�lV(ttv h;,s° �i3 �ry'y ' - �"� tib s YY tr'a t�zs' `5{C rfl }t£ r< rr;� .? ufGt'"`�i',r ?L .9s'y ttK � �Xxr < �9 rA r�ersl'U• t"�115./.� tt�ti �tls f�+t4}. t6-i"o-zi ;tkt Yrs'rg'R 'I ri7xth .vet tzk g« at Iry f, ji'M Ytt .icfzc �a xt rt„ 5,` l , `^ 3gor,5� t?Y+ ,t .+L { Y`.. *< rgm �' Q df j .t7 G" 4.�p .S < ;".fn �ril�t4;F„"t.,.)- �1 F •x k' 'r,. A x R s� `�r? 5� x ���}�� rtttiy'� �jj. t£»�sky11 'f��.s { S3f'lt ♦a an G a a se 'cif t $ 5 r*tAF r�it� k �i '.c r 5 � i Of q. • • .•. • •• • • • / •- •- • • • •. •- • 1 • e • - Additionally, the eucalyptus oil that gives the trees their characteristic spicy fragrance is a flammable oil: This oil, combined with leaf litter and peeling bark during periods of dry, windy weather, can tum a small ground fire into a terrifying, explosive firestorm in a matter of minutes. That's why eucalyptus trees— especially the blue gums (Eucalyptus globulus)that are common throughout New South Wales—are sometimes referred to wryly as"gasoline trees." And after a bushf"ire sweeps through an area, the eucalyptus trees have an advantage over other plants. Their seed capsules open up when burned, and the seedlings thrive in freshly burned, ash-rich soils. "Give a hillside a really good torching and the eucalyptus will absolutely dominate," Bowman told KQED. "They'll grow intensively in the first few years of life and outcompete everything." Thousands of homes torched The threat posed by eucalyptus groves spreading beyond Australia was highlighted in 1991, when a wildfire torched the hills surrounding Oakland, Calif. That conflagration killed 25 people and obliterated more than 3,000 homes, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and was blamed primarily on the thousands of eucalyptus trees found throughout the Oakland Hills. Despite their well-earned reputation as a firefighter's worst nightmare, eucalyptus trees remain a favorite landscape specimen, renowned for fast-growing stands of tall shade trees that, according to some research, help repel insects through the same fragrant eucalyptus oil that's blamed for fueling wildfires. That's why some Bay Area residents are opposing a plan proposed by FEMA, the University of California, Berkeley, and the city of Oakland (plus other local agencies) to clear the Oakland Hills of eucalyptus trees and other nonnative trees. Groups like the Hills Conservation Network contend that the clearing is actually an environmentally destructive effort to create space for new UC Berkeley facilities. A'dangerous plant' But local experts are steadfast in declaring eucalyptus trees public fire enemy No. 1. "Eucalyptus groves on steep hillsides—like those in the East Bay hills—are extremely flammable when hot ... winds of late summer and fall start blowing and make control of a moving flame front impossible until the winds stop,"Tom Klatt, UC Berkeley campus environmental manager, said in a report from the university's Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources NewsGenter. "As a result, CaIFIRE [the state's firefighting agency] has categorized the East Bay Hills, particularly Berkeley and Oakland, as a 'Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone,"' Klatt added. Eucalyptus trees also aren't winning any friends among ecologists concerned about invasive species. The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) considers the eucalyptus a moderately serious problem, considering its rapid spread and its ability to displace native plant and animal communities. And its worldwide spread— eucalyptus trees are now found on every occupied continent —presents a worrisome scenario in the face of global warming, which is expected to make wildfires more common. "What the hell have humans done?" Bowman said. "We've spread a dangerous plant all over the world." Follow Marc Lallanilla on w( er and Google+. Follow us c liv science, Facebook& Google+. Original article on LiveScience. -' JAN 0 2 2017 _ c1 11�?Ir #>o a t4`r.rtYa ttJtii;ha3t*rt,:arrr':=a itftNf t'rf tw t ,arra $ :m t3 Y3?i *.t:l}EE!tT4ti..let t-h.3't'X e:l� .lrt`�e iti:3`S="[t;:I�TE�;�.xu-.,{tLi,zf','i.{I"1SWX`LL.$lc�e t;JV!:�1-tl.`tct.A'rG3.itL. "OW,tcp LoadCompa- risons phc4oM M&m rat"�tgaof trp Fuel tns�r.% .Z(01pi#t03Y �ed W,t �ysy Rm ;*IbQ f fp pmved f r ia:%1,vvL sa a put UAly caU%tmouc avwn ti!m was avow, vxm phato Titer MOO fh OW ta�.kWound of i�Cei G}t `r � :. $[f "C J d C ast =QVC c?: forest t y i atoft;r M4 194N%hom tlut vow th.,A bumod Tho cmn=ny of UnUIP415 t€&Wy �'xr�t.-.f.�.�✓�:�'saw` 55tyc�'7r�"�".°,c a�-G�',^c`ivt1a � ,-�r, .�'7�..,.in�� ��.AC'����TATr,a�='�r{.�,c c^„r5,i j' z�?- .F�'r�c..Y�N r:�S_.,..cr��a�si�'��+r hw(O in t 2wF wo,,"c" this AeDAwould t�S �G �byJyh"touTjx1 L8Cfor4groLn - y��.x""���Y �re+x.,.r^;:.:J�yr:".i�'t.�r��f`�.a..��t,-`.'��i�-:,'^-1.�a!"''S"-.t'-.�'..;..1e��''�e e�m w7".�",�a:-�5-,_»"F'�ts¢�..t,.-'��`�.`;'="�<�r"c��S�v�^a:1'�"K`a'`'>t"�`aS�-,..�-r:z.`�`4a�V`�.tr_.�-�^..��"r.?�.-�.Z.1�^+fi��r,��r-�-r�<..y^''..:�s+�''°�•�s"����sa��,..`..w1'��-G.,�.°�+,,"i�%-' ,��a��.�t�,,���T-%�J...�r,d��✓f^�.2'4-:'�.�x'sS*,.^-vT}...�.:.s} 't�.'a :..s.Gi.y^s'1',,.,,�s�xns%t,ri,�L�ra`� r Kw - Ov 47 t� fe 0 0..t� { : :{ V 49 Q v 001 (f.25 0.01 y4, �^ FuA In'.'t 1+ tat'ion cc1otR'moity cfFtY.yiOs*f bah Wve aW d4ad aumrW to vlApW in tom f "'li ao,Eutatwul, xy 'tit4 CaWwvg-a 9,by of C,L3itm f vv- OA CCeiit€$AiKF wi3 wNdt,im7'F u46 Ow,W'hm&llhi1 5i3tYww4on kF ba iud cm fuali data taAkoxtaxf fft",'S t d!~-ttaxf � s ��ltEFS�rs4t�.. +`�s33fwaiia &S62& ���L"•t5�;�t.}.i/��.aii�E CFGE:ii s6Paa#NN# Passat Rty"farat at S"+;fu",Ww tvatriaosGov,mmianA Rot matwon AM&(NP1 rA)'Tatid fu Aj'*rasW* waata{3n?t a. av,aaf 6ka Out wMAM Ne r rtmp.*m..tX4 loci bkwnao,mc4t imptbts rt ly."tasof,of WO.wt tF.Iiin k 1W snc$QKW,t,10,100,and 1,WO 63,w foo aria cimsc40od by Omlr diwnr4w and ttatws ddf rta Omo*OsU-ar$On*to dry -�s out and iKci n*rov abha for crrtar�[a a3, 2 l:trt Pe"fit±.a� • ' mv W - • 1� knU`1 bb� t i �Y? J` JAN 0 2 2017 _ i --- A Complex Challenge } AUSTRALIA FIRE MANAGEMENT, RESOURCE PROTECTION,AND THE LEGACY OF TASMANIAN BLUE GUM ntasaaruTHEAGE.tri ,CUR101535scer>S dead,dry,oilyteavesand debris-thatiscspecidly flammable, y _ from around the v rrid capture l the imagination,desira and Carried by long swaying brancdtm fore spreads:quickly in enteapri_cingspirit ofmany diMresttpeople-With fia"toiland euca))Ttusgro-ms -hen ihereisaufficiantdeadmaturialiuthe j m-AssiwVvndcamwc:41hTlusve,_ were imported ingreat canopy,fire moveleasily through thetree tops. numbersfrmn luara&vothe;meri.as,andCalifornia bc:-=e homy:to many of them. Adaptations to fire etctude heat-resistant seed capsules which protect the sed for a,critical short period when fill:reaches the 0%0FCRMA F.uatlyptns 003bub1s,or Thsraanun blue gum,was lest introduced crovms.One study showers that.seeds wereptvleoed from lethal �? to the San Francisco BayAnm in W3 as an ornamentaltrae. beat penetration for about A minutes.when.capwIcs were F Bann alter,it was widely planted for timber production when dosed to 8260 F.Following:all types o€fire,,an aeccderatad seed dornesticlumber sources were.being depleted.Eucalyptus shed occurs,even when the crocyusare only subjectedtointense off edhopctothe"ilardwcxxlFamine", which the IAyArea heat without igniting.Byrreseeding when the Etter isburnedoff. was ks:ettly awara of,after rebuilding from the M6 earthquake. blue gum eucatyptus I"many other speeiea takes advantage of i the freshlyuncoveredsoil that isavailable alterafire. j Blue-Asn c;_-times to ba the most widespread spLci s of E' euaaitipzus pYund in Cali tnia_Same afih sc ix sxszj-c planted Td AtiAGtidG t i3tAiY6'itlS as tocreateaindbr-s &winacl:prop?rtyboundare onlav dsthaE Onc4testablishedwithouIasturalcompetil-ors,blue,gum treescatt arcnrruinnsturnalprr3sAndothffnaturaiartissMnslhistoric spreadrepidisdisptaciagnatieavegetation,and altering ". plantings harvac\pzndeal,srh4.ond(he itOTigina] ala,as Wait historictandscapes.They also have"uncan nyability tosuniv-_ gum thrites er :ptionally%%Al on the California coast_ 7hcir revonsa to cutting ilio uode£go mass-sprouling.f-om the ! ---._---_---- base or trunk,and esan underground fiYzm the root systearr.This Upper mrd•:tfetwe E&rbu4ja digtibub D. ASTON,"NG GFUNTtt RATE has led to experimentation with a vnriety of treatments_At some From Brooker and Kleiwg,1593 Fa,4d guide to etr(slypts Volume 1:wul.h-,&s ern Australia, 11Iue,gum irons from 98 to tit)feet call,reaching heights of 260 sites,It istoric oucntyptus trees are intensively managed to preserve amnd ed Bovnings toot-Vsdona.AL>tralia feel in Califlmia-As much as 60 to 70 per>cwt of their totalbeiaht a cultural resource.In other ptaces,stands are waipletelyretnoved, tower asp;Cdi#orrria mamiiss v<Aae E globulus isusualh-acbievedhyapr10.Tbisrapid growth rate isoneoftbe and the area isrevegetatedwith native planks.immediate fhel has been mrdinnea02W`ar3lihora.Bertceley, main reasons these trees were considered for commercial reduction can be accomplished by thinning tree stands and Calitornta,ca flora tzatzq,,as,o+-ww-Viors.or0. planratians.Rapid growth is accompanied hyrapid water uptake, removing surface debris.Mostprojectx have multiple objmtivas, which is why eucati-ptus plantings were also used to drain Decisions about wvAandsfordevtloyrncntsod a aculture. t OFPf.)WOMN Smce the inception of the National Fire Plan in 22001 The national E u-call p t us are g U}d e d, BA.Fk,,LEAS,AYM rF-1 W 0G°Y party in the San Francisco lfs}`.Uca bas-_incre;uzd Their , TU 700 ucstyptuseredivided into groups onthc. hazArdousfixelprogsmstoraduce the threat ofwsildfffcanl s� � i��� t basisoftheirbask.Tbebarkonthc`guns',whirhinclude irel ltfiv1'. 0rder nil Fncal)TWs gk*uk�,isdeeiduons Censfant shpuddingofbark is bwm proven to be etc llycexnple_a.These projects must part of ahst m6-es these tics a fire barard.The bark eaichez fire balance fire manageineril objectives with thosa of antural and Invasive �p r'd e -a Ste?d readily,and the trans,_strips tend to carry fire up in to the canopy, cultural resource presers atit'a_These same challenges haw been the '1966 19 6 National casa 3gesia"'w*atwad_i�piteAepaermceafvolatiteorlxthat Lacedbyothealandman®�saswell.Thegoal oftbispublication lC' vast pt-Mace a&ot tires kzt_s ofbbne guin euctlyptus are c-}assed is to dmonsiratc tlrc mAiTonmental considerations&%sociatcd i i? l :RE 1.ion cin'b.s'mci'satass leer >c ant s.henErecat,and jeevm&leaves in ithrucalapturtreatmenm,=dtr�gjse a�m,ksofsaxnauflht neb<�Irr:meat w£torts It iF tlxr}nt -the arcumuLhtion of difSersaatstrate 3bsthmw bat uud. Add :1 t 14 d I~llFI gst-f-.c s»f tlxa#;n„n r. r,.!?(,- Ott Marin Independent Journal (http://www.marinij.com} San Rafael man killed when tree falls r JAN 0 2 2011 t By Mark Prado, Marin Independent Journal Friday, October 21, 2016 A tree toppled and killed a man who was working in the backyard of his San Rafael home Friday afternoon. San Rafael police and firefighters were called at 3:19 p.m. to 99 Deer Park Ave. near Dominican University. "A tree had come down and hit the resident," said Chief Chris Gray of the San Rafael Fire Department. The resident, whose name and age were not immediately available, was apparently watering and weeding, but not doing any work to or around the tree at the time it fell, officials said. Battalion Chief Matt Windrem described the tree as a fully mature eucalyptus, about 75 feet tall. Paramedics got the man out from under the tree and gave him medical attention, but he could not be revived, Windrem said. "The tree just snapped. There apparently was no warning," Gray said. "It was just a very tragic accident." URL.: htip://www.mai inij.comigenei-al-news/20161021/san-rafael-n►an-killed-when-tive-falls 2016 Marin Independent Journal (http://www.marinii.com) ,EXµ1& IT 4 12- JAN 0 9 2011 Post Dation 61-Xear-old woman identlfied as victim killed after tree fell on Calif. wedding By Amy B Wang December 19 A woman who died after a tree fell on a wedding party at a Southern California park Saturday has been identified as 61-year-old Margarita Mojarro,according to the Los Angeles County Department of Medical Examiner-Coroner. Mojarro was pronounced dead at a hospital shortly after 5 P.M.Saturday,assistant chief coroner Ed Winter told The Washington Post. M autopsy of the San Pedro,Calif.,woman is pending,he added. .About a half-hour earlier,a massive eucalyptus tree had fallen suddenly on a wedding party that was taking pictures underneath it at Penn Park in Whittier,about 20 miles east of Los Angeles. kround 4:30 p.m.Saturday,Whittier police responding to"multiple 911 calls"arrived at the park to find several members of the large xedding party trapped beneath the tree,a police spokesman said at a news conference Saturday evening. kmong them was Mojarro. Despite reports in some outlets,city officials said they could not confirm Mojarro's relationship to others at he wedding party. ?olice immediately began trying to free those under what they described as a large tree with multiple trunks. Los Angeles County firefighters used chain saws to cut away the branches. kuthorities reported Saturday that one person died at the scene.Five people were taken to a hospital with injuries, Los Angeles County ieputy fire chief John Tripp said at a news conference.Although most injuries were minor—"mainly just scrapes and bruises"—one Jerson had moderate injuries and was taken to a trauma center,'Tripp said. )fficials did not name any of the injured but noted that a 4-year-old was in critical condition as a result of head trauma,according to a tatement by the city on Saturday. It is unclear whether this was the same victim who was taken to the trauma center with injuries later lescribed as moderate. We're trying to make sure we're giving all the dignity and respect to that family,"Tripp said."'They were here for a joyous occasion and hen,unfortunately,a very large tree interrupted that and they right now are going through a lot of issues that we're trying to make sure we]support." 01., cx1+191 t' i3 Witnesses described hearing a loud crack and seeing people running from the area, according to the Associated Press.At the news conference Saturday,authorities said the tree collapsed as members of the wedding party were taking pictures after the ceremony at the park. Gilbert Duran said in a video broadcast on Facebook Live that he witnessed the tree fall while taking photos at a quinceanera party in the park,according to KTLA 5 News. Duran said he and some friends had been taking pictures under the same tree that afternoon but moved to get better lighting. It collapsed moments later,he said. "I watched this thing collapse on a whole wedding party,"Duran,at times emotional,said in his broadcast. "'They were running for their life and this thing just fell on top of them.I just watched them go flat.Dude,pray for them." Officials described the tree as a very large eucalyptus with"multiple trunks"and said it could have been weakened by California's ongoing drought. "Fortunately,there weren't more people that were injured by the tree collapse,"the fire spokesman said. "It could have been a Iot worse." He added that other members of the wedding party were taken to a Whittier senior center,where mental health professionals were on hand to help deal with the situation. On Monday,Whittier assistant city manager Nancy Mendez said the park remained closed—cordoned off by police tape and guarded with extra security—for an ongoing investigation. `We do have certified arborists on staff,but we are hiring an independent consulting arborist just to investigate the tree failure and see if :hey can determine the cause,"Mendez said. 'lie said Whittier Mayor Joe Vinatieri was reaching out to the family to offer condolences and support after the"awful"incident. 'Trees do fall, [but]I've been with the city since ig8o and I don't recall any other fatality,"Mendez said. ,ocal media reports noted that there had been heavy rainfall in the Los Angeles area last week,and authorities said that—along with rears-long drought conditions that have plagued California—may have contributed to the tree's weakening, according to the AP. Cripp,the fire spokesman,noted Saturday that a tree had fallen the year before in nearby Pasadena one day with no indication that inything was wrong. It's just a reminder for all of us that we have to be aware of our surroundings—not that I think this could have been prevented,"he aid. "But it's just,again,showing the vegetation of Southern California is still very stressed from the drought we've had over the last five ears." lead snore: !`:X E l I i s l'l I The Pasadena Star-News(littp://www. a� sadenast<arnews.com) JAN 0 2 2017 i Family sues Pasadena, Kidspace Museum over tree the toppled onto children -- -- By City News Service T—I AIA Au ST-eKC 01114C-- Friday, l114C--friday,March 25,2016 A lawsuit was filed Thursday on behalf of two of eight children injured when a tree toppled onto them near a Pasadena children's museum last summer. Yvonne Yeung,the mother of 6-year-old twins Brandon and Bryan Li,filed the Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit on behalf of her sons,seeking unspecified damages. The complaint names the city of Pasadena and the Kidspace Children's Museum and - - alleges dangerous condition on public property,negligence and premises liability. Pasadena Spokesman William Boyer said the city knows about the lawsuit, but the city attorney's office had not officially received it as of Friday afternoon. Brandon suffered multiple fractures to an arm and a leg,while Bryan sustained a head injury when the tree fell about 4:30 p.m. last July 28,according to the lawsuit, which also says both children suffered psychological injuries. "Both of them had to go through the trauma of experiencing this and not knowing if their twin was alive or not,"said Matthew Stumpf,the family's attorney from Panish Shea&Boyle. "They both have ongoing issues." The suit alleges the tree was improperly planted and maintained in a"rotten and decayed condition."The tree also was overgrown and leaning dangerously,and no barriers were in place to help protect people in the event of such a fall,the suit states. "Pasadena,like other cities in Southern California, it promotes the beauty of its town by having a lot of trees and taking pride in that,"Stumpf said. "There is nothing beautiful about a tree that comes falling down on children in an area where everyone knows children congregate." The plaintiff alleges city and museum officials knew or should have known of the dangerous condition of the tree and had ample time to take steps to prevent the accident. An arborist hired by the city determined that weak roots,years of drought conditions and a battery of rain caused the pine tree to topple.More than half an inch of rain fell in the Arroyo Seco less than 10 days before the tree fell,the arborist wrote in his report. Stumpf said his firm believes Pasadena should have allowed someone else to inspect the tree before destroying it. "The city made the decision not to preserve the tree so it could be examined by someone else, someone other than a person they hired,"Stumpf said. A half-dozen other children were treated at the scene and released that day. Kidspace Museum CEO Michael Shanklin said then that the children were waiting to be picked up by their parents after attending a summer camp session when the five-story-tall pine tree toppled. He said the tree was in a nearby park and not on the Arroyo Boulevard museum's property. StaffwriterJason Henry contributed to this report. URL:http://—w .pasadenastarnews.com/general-new.s/20160325/family-sues-pasatiena-kidspaee-museuni-over-tree-the-toppled-onto-children ©2016 The Pasadena Star-News(http://Nvnvw,pasadenastarnews.com) t.'." I i t)1,1,( ...___ P. .. ,nlr�y l�ni/ n.n1 YII,A A ,J ,F Sev r { ti 3 d "�• .ta{,.: en3�zP'�'��"3 it� <d'y „e �''s•.-r i `u�Ga��•a`� �'�'� �r� :`5,�, n. +"'' F°�..�--yle s-.Yi.. �:<- *2.. .,va,'. -.,^'o�j,,' f+�,P. `+ r`..d"'.. :aT•t.'�'r r4 x-�?-»: c, r y' ..ams'-.S. + 1'�. ."�z :4'r'ea'.`,4 .��� '�v„'w„ �:o s;�;N .��-tf'+ •c,. a.:.r. ?u;.�.- ' c. ,, .,:.-.,+..t, �}....- .;�y.., ....".�r. •C•✓'."y .=•,7. '�••`� ..>•yu.�'�h'?t+".vto ,a.: Trp ` ,,. a., M J e. tom'., v z. r` t 4 e , „v.,,cx ..,r ✓ :1, v� s.. w d.1; ,�� jy.• %,,.•.'}�ta,t^ ' <r„ ' zrs',>, '�'>, ,'r�?.` .•yr'+xv n%� •��, ar r` ?`=,. ,a,,: C-:nn' `�' arh'X�. a,.-�• �8;n,: ;.t,v,•. �`a.� ,:i,4:->w' +,4„rt; �"':�"•.---a' 'N' : dr P._ ,Y 5 vs ..c•�a''ay''.. ,'r;k.:., .:..1,.,; - �`Qr ,ty4..<.,.. ^:�.� b" a ,.^t__ -,_:e .:d•; i.dL•r•' r,..'-r x,=' '.'4i,e .,d`,•�'� 7•-. ;b, 1.,r J* c�,�`,�• .s.'°.tr �r.. �`�•.r',� ;�:, ,�`>!lx', y ,Y• _� .rrq. �'t.� �m ;:$,,C,�•,•t w..�;?:::,:.A:.:._ c:7A'."�;, ,z :-B<��i`� •<]:•}� .�., vA•:s' ,,� ^tt ,-aa.y,, '{�, 7'+s. ••.xS,«,,_, oouti.Ta. +,.•a•.;n. .s,. .�? a. ..]•'�">w 3;, y�? o. .r.-a;: :3a t^af`J:' $4,r ��' u� ,1Mf+:�+ }�• d'-,+P:' s• a:r -k^.z ), •.,Y=� +��2+r•. :_, < :rr ,.�J:.:T f?;,, :Xf1- f •:� .',Y. ,�k �r.:9Y'` >`•:Y•L.,.$: cl•4.. Sr{':i ,9Y ..�.V`ni:.. .,S•s:l'�:e 1•, ..T•'•a✓ .."!+Y •Sc.: ,rm ,1 .:..k>- r ..:x•„w .,rr:::` •.k... � ',t.. Y'+Y:'. .G, t/,: .32., '.o,`-•. .•,,�>, n.`' ,a ,^,+4•>' ,n”.s:` •r a. .f"�. •,:,r.•v,:S+r•hL`., .,•x..: vYx.....>t •,v 2M{*T, r,. -•S,{J h'4. 'i:` .�:, .,::e`, S�>+ ➢.. :X>r •,;�iJe. :Y?,'. .z�:`s ..`-ti 'M�s,,,,,'` �+.re=..ax&n% `fir .:m.. .S„-.e. w r fir.{ :?C"'`' "J,k�g"sw ..4 +.r. •.w. •.c�. ,1, g ,y... y' .,r •.X... :+a-,. ,•ax .r:S. KSv«a.. nsrE:.: .F° ,r !-, °T.. ,C:S'. a!C, %.rS_fr.< ',.4� �a•, .r'•�+}kr.� �:,..'�s F+;:l��eC', "k"`ler:K T.. ',�.,�+, :.,.,.r£Fwwo a:-:r: 4 :^,. ..a ,.°,r:: •Y 6•,,..j,. 'Y,3-, .,c s --[ 5 �, '{;•" "'a c• ... r` a ,!" ,r. ,?r„ ?. ..s :v'l°vrco. >'^.":+r +.g, cu,^..t •?'.'17 aMt �. . . .f F::• .� a e ''S�" :.y .:'t� t-a ,� =,�:rt :x n ,r?, ..�, �., ✓""`. .�}:� r�•,. •..Crc^, �,,.•-..��+..,e:..�,. s �•.. 1.' ,�j3 �3 r'% a.. r.L •'sib Z 1.,. .r,• �>:��•� -.'�.;j,�w •StS' •#�`''^r< til. r^c• .+, a ;K �•,`v ty� F>-..v .r. ,Fs`_'- t... tt��...a-.e,�: r,�; S., +,,... -? xx ..Ali.• .; _•ie. _'••,•• s. ...y�..;,,,.. p.,r+3-..r •; '�t•'s��•,/r .7'•' +•.{s 1~'Y' �"•";`) •, .`t- °f!t!... :! •"rK ,r.L a,^€i r'�r" yy: y, s ":.i� >,s I•, ;n'::d+ ,�,�:.1r.rr••.ri:„ ",S f,r .%. 4,4 .,t ,�;?r .-t^ y,ra ":n: :•'=-(-vvvvsLs•'s< ..,.,•>..rM •t`T..7.,, ,,,. •„�. fid. nr},+`,_ •,�a'' :4 ''.1:, ik"° -.d t; .J 'tipyi•'>'.;, at ,,,, .L' . ,: .'k ,.s r%`^: .S.. .w' Yn :.;n^.*:•:rL•r, d L, .9?r•,+ nb, ,a^..`"'cx ..5.k�1N,t"0� ,„y Y)7``..m ,�,.}6' r„'}^,2.x:-„T,. {r.. ,.,lr,>+}'w,.;,',,+3"'•`N 3.r .:.v.:r-•;:.,:.<.,;,z,, 5 k - 1 :v ✓ !E; S .^ i•: z�x f G zn. , ;its-r w,,, a •�'^•er%v: m ..�• �a ,.�,,cxx , �.., a a<- rsi^''.�:ao r'r 2.�`,•_ '-c ,C 1. ,.z..,.,. .>d-1- W ^ -rte. , hr•39. ',''e's« �• n c'•v' p..P`:: ,:,...:.�.^•,=;a• .: .i ...>. f.•::',+e#u ax' zi.+, »^"i:''wY.`shr•.h o1 rt i .L, .t.. ..s;: '.1 .:�a:s- ,.,:�•. P 2J,'.us `-`5,,.. '-r Y v::,•"t :�•., .'t,.. .-} � YTb.. .fc. w t,. :•;,,, n4: . ••..,,.kK'":_ <� ."y-'„ f•. .�:'^,ra-7 •i rocr-4''..a. nr+ C” :tom •:a!• r C. �z: :i �'a }'�;4rCd C 'r,:*��• t ra:Y :<.Y�`':. 7'r„'..� c...Y �+ ,.. � ,`'�, >,eGgS,. ',asx'-f• v` :w-„ a>: ,."h.,r, '�. .S>,...r„<. s•H+� .,.. �•s� .:>• ti;..,, 7. a- ..s..n. n•,}Y.$. n:ss:,,.<. %„ .+N•' y.. .rT„ ,}•. x. W-0142<a'a^. ':'` to : #•^X'. +.H k"'t >-n..}•N' a d. .:%> >9: +. '.. ,d,�' •/f'” g :''JA >A, o- 'Te"'. `r:, `r',;.w n>ir•:,vY'a:'•+„y -Y='•k'.. •; :.. . •. ,. .�.> "°;�?^n3° ;� ^•e^' ...r..,,w... � x�.Hfb'- s. tv� �.•�„• ,ti•. ,'S- - G ,;a^ ,ice' ai` >v.:•....h .:S"c'. ,r”; IU. 1 ,> 'r",, ., v`:+:•t ,rJi: .'� f• ,c. -- .,::,,vt. n?s .].tib,' "br=a r.w ,,"2' ,?e'• ,; k- w.a •'('- xr^' ,,.:,,t ,a s t r::d,, Mi$+�, a'i .c:. a•.,^ _'x'r•.'^r« fir^;' "�" ^5 wl r°•.. - 's: t.atr a:'-'s•,- y.• --r. k � f.''.^ ",y w :. +�.,. �;x ,rY' k ,rr 'V `TR y A a <.G IT} �`."�" 3.. a�R6 *i};T,�- 'r, . P. b >. . (rt. .i� N..S: ).b{.. M,\, ,^}.•.,�..+. •" •. !Jy, S' ✓: < eY+ ^ n},r ..Y :!] �rt'sQ .�'<' :qt; r.. •.kry„`t. u{,-,.: r'f+: -� ,Y` C'�:: R - •7`.•a^.r>r. } F1 +.:>c"C :`e:tcTr s• ,g =rte -,a'e ,ns .t a, 2 .rt/': .•3:. aL"+.wY'e>n x. _9"+w'+.ti i rr,:S.N-`., +s' i . :i'.,r;,,.> �'�.. ...�k,+ w. •: `'"'✓c..L£'�< c�� .r. ,'!V. 1„+�'”". o^Z. -"•a:':'i ..9�.r, ".�FW r .F4.•w •,.w <',%, '•'3 x 'r TT' .Yt: "r�dr`,-"t.. ,,J.•+.�� •• sa+,n«: '' ",f:'`a�..+ ,fYy �•} ^'.,..,•d �p r d,y aTi, i.?�`y.., .,r�'f3 .Ja'.'s.f• a's'c<:{`,'rm -a.. Y7j' q 'ra 2 r'L<rw •3f: a�P x,..1:1.., Mt. .�n..l .° <.. r t EWA, 5`•`,`+.y._r>•':B .'C, p"•:,, ^Y Vii,. `tt� '3x• !Fnf -.� :t::,Fys,,� Axr •!�.,.•. ..r�+. .1. +:r}v: ryY F 'C^ ,:Y`v,. ``li»•a. ra� ,:r• x4•r. - >.3i:.. ..x'. ..a.a: Fc}•: r. .^•>'�>. ' <>• "'i 1 :,.•.. sr .=4 .,^`n., ..r'•`:Ty.":,.•.. Y.+Xn:^ ';J,.,<,r. c='R'••' ..,�. ,L, .:.• .. ,,,sa..cr .J �«}`t ,'a•*,).�^".>« .'i'u:. .Rr5`.,,A+ ,c'`rF Mt,.A.«. .r,. r�',,.•';t',r�•• 1�•' < ,:§s'>r., ,Lf1z�, ..,r'.s�; .' iv e:Z,','',_, �,,:5• ,r. Tv�N� x ,y%3•. r•.. ,,:J>r �:. r r. _._=e' "l:;•_mow•., rt';':•'+t.t;�r;:>:cinkz,...,.,>r..;,r:%<, „i`,`,r^,.,:»-",,-..:�-+ -� r s e . .w ::��, >,. A'fii.,:r•a'°y: •.,_„>";•,,. ,t.'s.1i,{ ro .+G- ,..�' ,T 7., r5i.>. .Y rt'a'.. r ._L -,•.a::,?.,`'RR ,-a-`}.�SsT"'�.-•,.. ..r.,a� sn„ .ext:T••>�.t : •' •; .:: 6. +,.*,> q>. 1-i r<„r •Y<+ ...-'�''M:'v.,,,�1; 'F.:r ./`Z?.+.•K•o4 :o.:r.,°e,:;,. •' `c``.',L•, ..s •x. ••:aG r 4 .,,�. iK ,-sv,.. ,5,., a,:•r..•...✓ ��r,�, ... '. .th'i':^'�'. .^.dJ^pe.>. 3. 'T•},,.`°:1. M;'n III ,,::•I`- -' :a ,* f�.' _C'r 1 br:a.-k\r"°- ..S,. i. -.`•f.',.r.z+,r 'wry .�). >.E.-,.. 3,•, a ,3'•:�. R1. ..` ,R'.. ,-�, <� •.r.,..,;�"s- SOME s,., ,.,s P. 1 K''Y9,'”-- •4. ���,/ R. 1`. ti•tf. �, .qtr a), ..:..a... `i, .rvu1,•.,`} t zz '_�t+ .• a"'C :a. ,".,, :. ii=•>: .,',.,.� ..:t " ...... .. .. - 'fie„,:.' ,"�, 1 `-k`%. •,r.: u�:s•- e.,T'� ;a`t ,.. .. �?.•, r r .>�,'.” „r' ,t,3�.`: .,t"• -a1.. -�.x.,.W. t, ,t:."�,. ,7 .•,( .:.,.. 1< ,q�:rxa• s. :'+,k ,'.tk•?, r,,.'- •^r, t .Y' ':.t^^,., ;,<.."v '.,7 .ST^`a ,.'O �.}.�`.s,. .a- ,_'do. ,.,r :vS, .''. J,f r k.. •rn,. "3.•,. .,.s.- _ ".w4 •:.• r�� k :4,, wr I .`�"vA. _A': '•'(h ,s2. •.s -r=.., ..?•:`FSs,. wLr.,,b•;rt 3=.,x r Yv r4;. W;,:: }r•';= r.." -.,Ar rp,. 4 -ur-:, .. .. .trc.:.lu^ a•^ ,!?`.•:.,rr''�r�x„"°.:kciv-^,5., h'.• ..r f „r :^.-�rw,° ,.s. .'tiC�� 'v .,ti'' y3: ... fix. xx 3 i. L rNfi`.>.+,) .,r,. , '..`�"-'� ... ,.., 9 r •>F. +. ,.., ..^A.,-� r , ,,.r� . .:�,,.. " .c".'•3„ z- _ra$✓ ..a< ;5� :,� ,•nS�+. 'Rra `R': :,�•s .stt. , ..x^, r. .... e,+o... a „ic r.,G :s s'iYi v.v, <n'.- --r ,..,4•.�nD ;,r- , , .-n•',,'dd '..>,.r L,i, ....�•+ ,. ,. .r:. ... n ,.,..•. >s,..�k�t .,•.,';c• .,tj' a `; ,,�a,, `x �• '',s.,`C� c' i•a`+.;�;. .��^'ti='s^,,. .8 n ..•T'cx r s:.' is�,`:.•f�.•. ..'',+' ...aw riiF r'.- .#•+k.., r •,y ?,y' , .F y't.: `, f Rs '4'v "6 );XtJf ., .a>rr >�•d-,. r. -3 "r"tz. .S•w„ wn 7 3Fa t 4+- Sd" •�• ,c {,,%^. pSSw �r' x:1, T'Si4„}. e.,,;:a-•,u`. '' � '�{.i: v< <r•r'-� vs ,...L, rd yy--r•,.- .ftl�a„, v'47Pn, } ) `sn 'S r"�oeJ +,'st,»'i x"+.>r 'i'” }.'• _ fix'r.,.,; •Y•!4 °Y,v °.rC `>s. 'r :8'z«9.k5. n .W ta.,,:,� .s .� .S .:a&'R 1i., 'ti( d�''� _f v 'ft?. .,.^�:L}`wdC'•.,![?•+'�' 2. �rt',`. ..Y's.., ...n,: •vr ':Sn:..1: ^, ,< tt ,'.etr t.`:y, �.r• V t ,iY.,,.,.}.. :�I .°� .l<_s.. ,:}�•.. ?.. S'. r:,)' ••.'sro F.: �✓.:F•' .;•<' WIN � ' 'r'i�',C.u: 4L. r� • rI°,..t„ �>• /_ �v:n.v> �'ss .' , •^^ ...:E .� ..aa �' r,✓.c .. . fiXAt,..1i. Y"' v`��..sn.•^Y1:�4� �3n .'"t:^GA/ :� y..✓ 4xL • 3.1 ,����'�' ..,.�" < ,, , �.. %�tJ'. „ :J�g •.)✓ ^¢�`:, `�••,.� .;4x: �M �„ "1,, '� .,T.;. r;' fr-. �?'7' 1-..< .:� •.�. .:•S'csfr r •n., d,�>'`•',.-. : �. ..e.,e, -tt.',e!4l =,>•s'„ {rs Y,ws rr.� o:Y. a .3 .i.` <.!.j... •<J' r,Y t - 4 2 F Y 1,f:,,,• ": `°. x• to ::�r(`�i' ..4 .Y.. rF�`i �6".��.,,� Y` +-Sy`. d9 t"'.', ,'ti, S{:r S. r r hF, r£.. !',� CJ. k..'�•,,,• ":�.� �� .-1r?, '> .,.� :'.:.��yt .i:,t_•S•fk. b ,,t•., 'i�£', ;'d.. •.�. SN.,:: �'e J•>`S�S. "'�"\•"': h ,» rt^` r. as::5c,v•�' `"'- k. �i1 wzrr>.'r,r .w..,;,. ,rs,•.h :E.r„=. -s .,. r- �:3;x a a w ,n .5". `x. •.i, -'Vb-?a �<, r.,rty%, ,5=1t,` ' t't e.: x ,?r -."• ,, n3F.i:• ..:oi.y,r A�"r ,t�. t • '" aE:`. r,;t.. "+r•: :,=c?t'+;,,,'. .".•,Fn:-,...a. .a-'};:.3... ":L z. f<?t•,. •na..,., a`+3a^: ,,,- i r., 1 k:Yr 'S", ; w.. e., rs 'k.••,,., s 4r.n a.: .,J ,ay+, yry5`,�. -,$¢ ..r,t3.> ,.o•,.. '! s,•r�'- ,K'"'•$,�°;-^ ,�.,- .ws.r p�����+��r, .,>rv�;, .'Sa:�•n "]n-� �..5,�++ .+,s `ar'.•rr, ,..5•s .,r. , er•..•+t 'fiL +•;a,< •., ..,a .:,L xe a'J '.t. , •S` ikw'Y. .�,t'+i':?t,< .tsY'u•.a>`:'.' •ri<•a. s�„+/:.• .�•n''" l, y-• ,:r�,,y d � }.�rt .4 4 _�.'",av 7 3i`K�'.•Yc` .N a•ro 'M.,x �.,rx.,�., ••::•D•,." ,i• ..,} 'c.ir.'..' ..,r�r };7...•.,,1. :.n, '•:r.. ,�.:,:. .n3,r. .�, .,Y-':�+sx ..1.''y' fi�'» .0 •a"'v,^v,., '>4a.,,., ..a' n, r C :}fir• r ..qk ^3y, .r.:•r<i't:r .a +,�. ".',•c ..�. S�',..v .a vy,r:<as3ri;kl?!•r. � E s"2i a :_� es• s,.n>e. ..r^ -k .r'.'`r'�> :a,l,xm av'�4, ,x, .�^''xxS "�'-a> }. h'3"'•,a" e ."! ..'�t•, .S a,!^t4,^y -,?�,r. -r. ,tz r .,�r.<7 ?� >:r Cv •:Sr:.,to- 'fr.,y,✓ ,u..}.a»-''+,'aa•.. a.,;" .;e iJ-.,,;.,t .-a.. f,F'fn41 s '�,,Jns:.,f.l; .8.. .2'+ w., ., : F+t '::.-„•.a.•-.. ..ff.....� ,...•v i.e,,. sf'”, ,.. .,. .,r:Y ;s,,+:&„=�.+�SYyE" ,. -ya, , ,.. . '. 4,.+ ',.. .,fidr 3 ?�., .t r,i•., -n� ,_:•v..,>:r.. '.d°` ,�°�rr..s::- w',x¢; i.S sE +v a•rc.- 3• 4 q w}y a.. t ( 6 ur 1v. .. .,.•x� :'>'. 7u7 U•ki3 s;: „57,x, "q- •n'} ,v4 yet, r..s'.:. -S' .,.i !,',', +�� , x^.. . !.r.x e. ,{x, >•.n 7, .+,',%i!•;3: �.'g^y-'• arz +�-�.M1 ,.v::,.'r,,,,•• ,; } ,x '• a.T: ..m.,. . J:•+ "` ..,^,•,.' .C't1Y.°A-k ,!? [' .. "•f,"•' ;t'UF, f'. ".2.x��'l}.s:,,•.Y.: .h,. ..i5^�'E'::Y 'yitY: .t,. ,{,{. .S^. .1" ,y�s,,•_,..+r.,}:S,=r+ r ta`'. .h. #, fv r... } •'z y Y�g. :>�...14:•+ �.d ..„i"".•f•. £�:. ..} •5•". ..•j-,:s.. ,w3>r-.^ 'rv",c T:. .(.. ,.yJ.. .,}'f, .:•r. uF.�. .� .'�”' �•�",. �°' .r '$M s ✓a, .Ts°' � .F� ty T.m±C.nsr, r .vi' •� r,`a r Ds'K,• '•s ,). ..x. �.J�. C.};;rx•:�,"•.ror, .Y :•5. �k .,v'. c u� .+iYR:n ,:i•.� . ,.HT' ;{.,. „�'.. y r•:T � ^xa. . 'k„ '<dsA: k� her, �x. .?'. �. :r. ^.err,•..,-�'.+ .,� .� r. *•cru•' x' .r�:w :'S, •"'nit,+, n,'r ..•,`•. „o i +'rx:•.�.� v ai3,.rt" 5, 'v<,;.,. .f. .rn'KA:'6 �l z• r.:. Oar,+`. 'vT�� tt} h.Y.. u .. T•;.,q .,.NE :r n. •F".i'3-r�'f�•^ ..r?, ,x-, n cs"-. u `U, ,5: +;. .r t 3.Yr k*�n�Ge,,....:4"e> ..•'.�'in:a '}'L 'cc ^«:k'... ,-•L3 . <!•;.„P.k „i!. + u4.. i6. ..%'Z.,,, 9. x:%v,-«r'^a';... •L'.;.' ,H•=vx .,'3"",'. ...•l:. `u _ F.. .°;.id' ..y, i. ?+t ,rs a•t• ...rJ%, .a> r'r Pz., waci.., aa.., Y ,v •., - w Jyro .sra. r,. f '=6:" J St wo r4Y. �, ,x, .S✓. a. .ter. •�'} R , r .3!. .•�� d: P^.y ,"m - -L a� F 4' ,s�� "4t'•{n', 4y r,.,K..c.. , .1..,-n'tiz' .Ki:, ."+:'�" a �y� v(. . :_ ;d,."y 'n. .. .,l r.• �+:»'' .�a•.:.�, n 4Yd' .) :�E.,,2 21. { 6 .n,' ,.A^. ,isX'F'S •C� k: � .h ,HAi '•, , .. .,r"' t,,�n tl: �F.;�3n,.'�' ::}4•. .1,'),Ck. ' >• 'A'r:r ",.,.. ."y.! t' S:Y ,A3 L,•, s :^e.11v,fir.>.1. ."r, h d,r.W+ !•�°•s i�. .:"i^! v �', vsbs }L.M Rr. x § xr "�..ry>. w. h f. ,."t s- ?• R'. 5. A •{ :,rE"'' ro'".a; .,Y o.:..x, 9--L% w�' .* •r c rx.. •,.1F.="W ,N .;x R^ <,*C, 5 y n. {T,ydIja'I. h'KS .. . • 7 s,•T>iir „w: .1, .a'1.a. ^^tr' ,1 i<d§, .t~',' .s. ^�4ti,:.' ,•at ,T. -irrrs,::£:'?:� .t, , � .;a. .> ;',�`t j?f.• :: .�,. C 3' '�v''`. " 4 -,.Jr, ' ,.r:.. A4 .r .Y r,- d:x,�,.r. '•ex '?•... .r , a.. , •,.3^.. .ty~"t�•r.rr, a5: a....t�jt`•r�'`'. x�'••."} d' d. ..7} ;.` r Ah +,ra?iaS zr., sr xa• ,+tr ,;. `rp,-G<r l�" m ,m 'd .•:v'St";" us-'g: ..+„ .�'.^ ry7. r: "9xl, 9:;:., .3{". •�•,a53`Yn.•t' >< c• ..^t,. .:.. ,. "+, 2 ,x•<.--•. .. u- " �t'Q•� ,?r. ''�`, :ii,sr'•, ;.g„,.... .,•,x5, -r,y.� � £" ,N.% ,x..r`,T'•.oW.�t:^>:a�'`�''+ �u �' ,1'�S.',`�sa`•,'�'• .tx. .�' ✓~c ,�. ,i., .<., ,a.,.?.w'3�• 'w .�},u`t°•., '�`�''.�-'•'�,• a�.5 ,�:.> 'h�1y.- r.TF �' �����.-;� .`.:�E: t•,�•`'�.c-. r�w�t "'%r,-•*• �4���.: ..••:`,•+ .".f,«•'t4+;� ,,1.X �?A t'r .,'._ }�•,!S a^x.0:vaa"x'lr,«,r,�`G.:*r+ t..S ^r'�, 50-•-:�v.4'�'�,)a:t�.,t"',6, z' ,.+C»°',� A' �`r xe,,r�'. r :•. ,,S�>'•an`>'a.y�iLcy. i .Y' .�' .S'S`i.. .7. •I; ,;c,. .s �-. ,�����+,.�a 'sFa. t+, •Lv,,4tv,:•a`M.,t..aY.{ F•.,' er.. '`-S ,<•era x .�ER �' Y � .U'�:r:Cvci.6..' ,,'f�ru'r,•.f•x :,fir., ,r,> >f.;,..>.kn.,.,.,..,C^ ���n',K a r4 ..,`,•x,.,, ' >"is. �'"�':< 9":f- '.,!<•. �� .{, �•'. .,•? 2"'a`� '>: .°�'r „d? W,4•.. J"i t � ,a._+� •s. .:x,. „S• a,.ti' .,rt r;7.e'. � ',� '1,c, r. xrzrk^: §.:w..sb' nr4,b:r :�.. rJ �`:�,.,�-<?cs., ? ,�,��-�`t'•„••as 'La, nK ��r:•°� ec. ,rJ :rb'.- ..3•:°•<,;d .. s 'ir, .��'. 1•< ?t!�. -'��'t '`£�;'�ray':w'i,.z-.. 3.. '7 4� �• .,"lk > a. �:;r.-`v' .e. �'-.r 3':I!'. �`+' <'%$, ,.a a �t ���.�.J"'' A .-<`G�.M ,:. ':,;Jn. :.:1. •4, ,:.�5'.pp x�'` v.� s1('! n� ,y';. �,� �• ,� DF. S'i ie"M` .>� •8l >N 3' .7T+ r3'F•. V.' z'fi. .,,i`!t,/ �.> ✓"...4 % ,+,.�'*.+"R"$. '•:.4),'.7.t4M1 .r+• ;•>rd"C° w.. >, o-F.,,rn.,}'•: �.:•...{., S,. �L :3. ,•�: .t.. ,s.r� -,b•t, Y<!, .F. ,�. ,:�' .�3' , ,c ,•:. '^�'- °'S}7°` ,� l hw`.'r-- "%S C, "�'l'J 4r! ..Y�°, { y�?' i•'V }!<.i:�(. ,-�•f , ,F„` ni'i->,DNs,s ft•, �f J••�:" � v :3 5 ,,tr,Cw �Fi } n*g, ...y. '-P � T. � is •`)'1�.a 3..1 ^phi•„ <'. -:r.atoy .'A3,e ...,..15^ir .7+ "v's,, ,r:,P.B •, 'rnpp. i. r ,)i ,re.s,,,i'rr. c �. ��� r... ?tr o"N*.: ':fr' tr. .'JOT .<.- .ti" h J l'ti. V.ti"'-".r ,�"<1r"i:^4'••y,,'sis..-.j �!,. ,q f.�.:� _.'Y Y ..�':��'...:.;>•. ,,,r,'�,fl':?=.:•„�S Y.' ,P.>'o-7` �'C f r. .�, ..aa'2 <v ar � , r� ',t-, .> •-n t e-.'ra''al ."]� `•.'a•n... Ne.. .l:• >t•:!', :t .a 'y'`r'+Jrr r<'), .`�`` .a.�1;:.•t.. -�., ,*,r"' `.>�. -� s. ��< ><.� .]...r- ..r.. 74 - ,Ef,: Sr ,w]. ..y,+Av°;,.. •:ta;�> .�� :pct, � �.✓-«a ,�ufirat.' art:_ ,�^:•:=:r c>..,.,.' ,..5c• SaJ ,��' .', t'r .k:• %, a.,, x ;x x. ,c-.•� �^' "•.�•t,' .`� �'�d`•s•"'' •� ✓ �;}..,:,`",'.^-,.'s,.,, , "a,si`".a. M-�r, ...°•s,. m " '" � .r... ...� r �,., r. :� .s.. itc.w: .✓. •,u'=°" •�Yr/i�' '�,. _`�,. :•?:.:. �•,'�$ :1S`7W .•*};`.E� ;,„. ',y. .� vrYco��a�+,< ''•ai: ,:�•* t,;,.��.rv.�'F,: .i; +r Nr;F,�:y..•nC: r'S x:�r"'ns "•t2=,';,.+.:,.• "`.;=1;.,� },�y .'",.`'y. 4?, "'� 1}tr.,:-'xn., gG w.. ,wr,+.rr ,•',� _ hR ;;Hr: •1 w`x at§+r.¢wvr,9. Y,B ''t• .�1 ��y� ::� .,���� .r ;.- � ya-�i�' %xt.r•E j i"',.f�9'..!ryy¢f; O+,-iCi�;S '$.,�"=•M.wfg`r° -v).P y^ ''tiyFC:9. i �" '�P','•-'"5.:+•�"�r't x,5 >z 't.'s� �{. �,tw+ ''•l-P .0 +<,t" 5, y.++�, y�-41' �� <r si, "r .¢�., �'•G •'M,:s,x `;`c.1'ss•r z. ac>' }^ ct , ;, ++,,,,,, r. ,,.nr r ""' v t •�,k''� Sy {°4svfi ✓t� _q.;,; ,r.`•. �h�, n t,, 3•,"•:',. ;g' 4 .SS;+^;?s!'` '�•. .� 'x•.•�,%' .,4, Jtv `$ ^� VW�. .? 0 t � � .s"„f,,3+idq, Y,f.�,,'� i3i;`.°�}'t+,'u5 1 :� v,•"^ '.�✓>' y F d �.. ;.'.<4'.i a'.'Y.•'; ar, .,�,rs •�i>, ,.d,..;;_ 7a a,.r,W + .v„ - yr� h .Y,,.,t,.c•. k,> t' ..s1J'4. 3 •r., i:. y;.a>+'R .E••?' r ,.> ya1f�t�nibs .• i " a' y +a xw� t >, nz• w • .,� .-,-..fJ .,.. ..x. � .d, .�+ ,e"tm..• �T•a,;::�ss) .*z� .t.r dY �n..,.t >zY•u.- •"rrt"•'i C� .� s .r..> .3 s n.°:? ,r r ,y�"5 •°J•_''' !^r� 't' .� ..-.iY�'.�v. ,<S t,y R A� ^�'. c>.v +�Cr '•:3•',�,'”y;"'.ti 't.ti. '..�n }lµ �.�, `1ra'„r 'i�?W "e.^"r'' rr1t9••�' cYi,•?`.+n:iy "'w.. �a ,yam K r .'.''.oS t f ,rw ..�:• "nwa°,Fi, iii• vt: .u. <t;b r;.4,J...t.' T ,} r•y Ae.,As,y �l ?t„r <.u,._ ,.�a .ry" .fig,�. T. q .,r;, ,� >_U F. ti,. x�� '`3�' �+:. .�y"}" .<,ech_' `,`,,'"'t �.` .ifY..,•.nF .. .ia'�•'A r•�6r;aE"'! �Gr.`}'Jy.,. �..f>,n.'3a+.`� r(�an-a"}-tY` r„ :,,i,, .,•'4.4'.�,.er .Cn'a� „€ "� 6';' Yy;. �,ai.'' m)�•;?;. .@sy,a� sa ;. '^."� `` n`'¢ ��. ,.y,,,,. a.a,� .:'�h�,n, ,� y. ;;,r,-7:, ,.r''. ,.,x•r`'"�, :.ri,». ""i='�?�:•.rG1..rs �s�:,�.�'sa,..ap�, s ,.i:. ,m:,t.r.'a:3 Y= '° !? r' ry,, ¢»tL.;..ss,,�"`n. ,,.,�';"iv^„!` w;��r. •5 S`.': Ri r,,. ;i}'.. :br tr. ��.s�..r. kr frSy�yr,'•'�. x 'S..,uS fi ,•Cro"i �•c'���f. .[-li.k„ i,�ntytj,�}t...gS}. ^"� .,:�'ti S ,� 'i7r>5�4• K>�.•1.; ,Pl a.$,>; .:�<<„�.+r::�E.S°.t t. 1�.Y:;,r's•"< .r>��:"u7 f -7�y •Y t>x;:r x'.t +��' >',-��.`h .K'.'.<.:{t.M,,j°N:%.,.. ,::�: ;•a. ter .�^�_, :x.r, .t a .f .+--. r'�^•.`:..+a;, �i,r:�,,.. .� 'c .�ti c:. _..4:.s'.• „-W •tF:s✓+ 9 ;'•� �+.,.,,� `'r•. 'F J`�'-..+��'�`F f,x.• "t y,hn"�'«?'Fq. 'v� �o-1,'.uye.., ,,`M r ''p,a".'C,'. '' r ''��rY r.�,,• �. :Ny„r 'x �'lt;.• �,e. ,.. ., ,,;.g. .ryy "Lro• :,.Y y yy.x. .? :ta:✓. 'r5> �}fr+-• a>,r.:"' •`f' ` ,amu }:,fY," �' t�.,,,,J” `t};t.,r * ,s' + C. ,�•atr� '.} ,. ,, tYaa:..,s k.C,v.. }' .;t>,•._. 4,. '.:�:a+ "' , :✓�.}': '.?+:. tlt'ns ,1. ;a. .aY. .;'Sr r,}f: r a 7 .,,r- �_nyr.+A,tfis•_ A�t,: �.}r%T�y..•M r++.^vt;,,;�, .� ".4t. •6, <,,.;,,,M.,r...+ 'W'r• 'S .J ., .„>,'qA A�� `$> . ,v” ;�:+. fir'+:>.:}•s . `'�- � ,.�:.' `•�j,.:.,: > d- �!' sp: +>,64r r",:e"yr�4•.]. ✓,.,.'•e, .civ-+.;r t�)s- ,b:F b`� ��ta ,✓a;,�{o ,.,, r ,±i t.r. �a"r' r• .0 . r'h.:� t ...,,,s'c yhyy,.':S",';st:.�•wrry i 34•+•.Tar .rBY�,'.'.y, z=: �`a?�,� � 'd �.', ^''rwi. ,v+ if?;F:-�%3;�.,3y^+'v3 �:r.' <•`!'•s•d5•+Y`at'-y��K �+f•;,, yu 'v ,gD+ s-•,r..s�t' '�"S#<•, a. 'sc a f 'i`•, ^,r,x° � .� �t„ ;,brs. :•;w,;�'r r a. 3, / �`r,N:m.=-.s''.';'" rca:�,"•' �,�r,.. � }: 'fir. ,.."y-,.,Prr 9>a "' �.J'::.�$ torr, h�.;�'.,•�a7r. ,y��.q= �.:,r, ,''� •e;: +> :.��rkd F( y`•i6"•�f'a�'•4�v""'Jr'�;' '�rtF.;r,r?^;� s,�,'�.,:r�-�`.4,. (� )• .4' e's;.0 r.�"��''R'+•. 'u�:,i. ,1. .�m:�-•a' y° '`•;< S •F r§- ,�js�•].Yu..r"'T�H�R•s,'.$:.•?, ...�,rrs� 'k;`t«7 .,t:�t�^: ,.n....e' ), tc'3'_ .,-�E:v.,, ? r tr'�^.z. •4 ,`v,?r1.•a`..'^ r•.J: 3... ..�' •a r ,.E`�.a�`- •) .A u f,.. •,i..}..r rr t:: '�y-, .`.r�• '46 'r .,c.. Yi T:s, ..h<:yy r'"`.+. �n,err '��. i •u;� fix' r.4.<�':+:• "rSy'�va^..: :-�c'3Axwu,: Y .a .,;s ay. '3� Y+ 1"w �,; Y)dry-0,4�"'z�,"„"�+�), ak 4x: iG�s?� i'y. ,.s: i. c ':a..' .�w ,n,. :w, y_•rR,�'. -ry{,� ,.f 4' `: i.R' �,,, '''�. .� ,g., 'ye'Y^. :�,.: .,z7 •48" n .';T..c cr v4i,L':. >�^ T 3 r r75, �-'S iNK, ,:� ,.);i" <`''..-•:t. 's..c:�•r'»,vr. �}'v. �v.�"<.' :aak .• P,Jr'{,?td`t '�Cc ` SK � ira. � ,}',•,y.: <�B� J�,, .1r.. ,. ! `:^S•' -' ,'�' Y-^r A '?;.?°, !> 'Y�2x<; r "'?T.;r-,ir!- 7,{' Via_'' y%•!" N x r *•.t'i},;•ov'Y .y..,•t:..'>'F�'.: �•.:!•" x': �,:^, r. ,`��c�'R e' ?,`,n. •: ,�`�• kms`, rS ". d=:..,.,:�„.. "���." �n;,t.�' ,.<� .�r�� ,;c¢•- 4 y., e.,�v°-}i, r �`:- Yv�,T.r rr.,y �,.er a�''r.+i��,r,•.r t .�". •Y. :' 'x'M"]C a-'1nirn '•r'rs,+.y�. B:r F-T ..,:k ^-a. s,,. '••osr,"A..c.e. ,.'T`S„ rc 'v^•+a�a'v'•L.. fc ' '4, , •.''.'' .:ti. �•,' :"Y {� ,°�!', r,✓ rx y ,sa.. °�' fy G.. a<t:3..?;ki•'"-:'SL• � ,.�. .:r$-�' -r"+ ..rt: .`,Z- "Y. >..,{ 'c"j .:? =5m^a';:X{,.1 :-al, ,•ds''k,. r� r:ti a a S. :r. ,i' n�^a•• , •:�- w ,xc,,,t a'.,�,":„� r. -`„'a r t r?'ereX�,,.:.*tr- r "t k.S•;'„ !3”�'. r.s.•r .:,�„ i•'a' rr���.�.:',.J. b, �,a''$-:,F. x. +� �i,r •e`�•,t�cwr'e ,Tr „�.yGi-}',°Cuy •r"s' ';si'� ti ,°.. ���i ,,, '?) ,;�crs5•, ,k•+ 5�:55Ff•�,c,�; is Nye ,:'x« dtkm. >+„::„ v,of. .L;., ;„rty;;•�,. ,ry- `^t S. )�.aw.r:Fy:tr?C Mr 2 ,.1 r..�' .;�=�:✓ u -Y•r.. ,w `Y• W ,{ .., •a ..h.s:, ,�.,. ., ,,,. •.}^q<iv.:•,>. ,E'«�, f" .# '3�. :^f-r 'Sas,'',,lS � ua'2'r•a:'v:,n^• : t� / F•{u „F S�rtC.-e, � .. -.L�s iity,'+,q.�.^ " ,. ,. :,,. Al,ttr iC.� D=ry �[`". )i'i �.Ci�:''r,3-f., .h .}„t r'. R h:`!/.::Y ",:��,''T. .FiA'L+I ',l'f'3 FY I2 /' i.C,.iiC'!"• �yFi.. ,.,1}'>a �x.+"�"r+f.'� i: vv.:.. ,r„ F: 9,y,;4,, ',',`';•:,,.0.x;f•.x.,P7g,2 ,. ��g�l b,�^•7; •i3A '?:ySr' .2..,'x r: e.,r3 >A:,'afro... t .•1 7 ,err',S�.,Y`:�" 't ,;,x. �r+n:s ;F" f •. +d..t" r�n rf, r `S`S?: '�: }-'+ 'Y•n �;�v`. .�"'-n-..,..YKi..7` ✓M'�"e. �' ,ac.�"'�y '•`+'"" .,.r � - 1, ••55 'y ..?.,. r.s+z^r"''.' �.,��.'....rve �':�%i>�';a�••,�,,rt;S 'iq;(yx�:r `k A` •':1,.,:. :��Ph�>�' ..��"'�.' .i .r. ,S. ...�r> ,dr•.C;.S•.Y': ,rS/:bj: u•tr ,.sf. N :>�ii'.,4>` w,w`. 14-�y.•: 'r��., r: ."re? >ti.v.,s"'F� + t:,>.• �+�.4"^. ..-'a a .r..." .t,.;;r,•i,r `�'�+-{, ow•,,"]C..,t ,A�.� •1;. .,rr .yxa•,.a^) �����. +.' " ;fid„. .?., ,LxC„-•.rr? :4 ,,.:t a. >. b�. •._ ,lra.,..... ,�z; f •l ii>> ,"s ,S,• •da. r,.• Y4.x.,x �.:$•: �� .�<. R3:>.;.t"+, :;.s..s'e 1'+:.}•�K�aai' <i7.:•r�;�: .::Str: '�:. ,•?�j:e s.'cv,.a; "'.�,T,ri,•FS.�;a«b-a�:``Xti, 4•st 'd ,E�'�'•. n,r;;SrA''x �•'v� �- T-:'? :� ,.�.r >,a� u-,•�,, � .tx,. _ rs>• J°. aa. xad. ,� �. t <• e ..r 3�sF, "k r �^s s a � +' Y�..:A vaY_. ` e`s,. tiv4. ^•#> ''��, -.•c.V :.4,1Y' ,.u')��..w, ,+Lr'ni.'. ^�•''ti•r}•�: ''�: ,p;<:,.,c, '7 1. :kP.:':,• -vim:."="::?;✓,,:u, - ."'`i>�... ,r•'+a `G. .r.•,.t-�i�:'•'".' ��,.,'o'.•: ^rmy?:s�„ •ysri. ;}',+, .+, .„r'.�..�.:, ' +s.' .:,"+:u;. .�5,3'sC.x�sS.>„n•'v.„ j.:•c,�<:,,i,;.ab]^ Ri',,^v�'• c � M1 rs R,. k'r> ,,+'.},i':2,�'..,.+A.,'•, ✓r.i)' .•;t.r .:,'�✓ >•?s'`-.�r., •'ys.. i;: nj<.. qt;--lfrrf +l•?; n �. y },,,N�J�".�s%; 4�. :y,^ F ,5, ,�s '"ii•�`s W7 :;+;, '��. , ,y y,pa',a °`Trr`...•tr�.r• ^\�T �'E•R'�" x,.n::,i,'�g},f4'. :K�•L. y,�f?,.. i„'i�. <: 'b'�. ,tg s\ .: SX:� - +.:r i ,+.. ,str> aar r.,ih.<,+.,,'_ •�',t +.X�,= ^>,..,. A. i :.�i-•+�e�.'• .-[R •^,:jr: - Eef'9:t*L-,:rr:•t;<, 5v;x_r ..Y' :..` �'^w.y+�`i,=' f.,+e..,. rr�'i'„ � .i� .-Yv-i='n t :'>aaJ..a+•.•+ •,£ �LA r n, ,� ..ti�. :.dX ,,,,,> .-H., '`)" wC..,��:(. c �-„•i... ;4a.�,... '..•. ?-..., .lv �^.ma. �'. ,rfhT�' ,,,e. :ds.;%� '�ti'.-s z.+>r`Y. }4'.`,, .=s+aL �,s,+ `. ....t'". �.>.,.+FY'•s .<-- S.`,'>,c:.: �"'i,s`'. �"��'Yra'� ,tP �x'•"'� �- d.,. r.>1•, w"„�r -5_. rs."S,'%::., .•.lic,. J ,>`: .)�..,��„ .,,-', °sn. Q,�•',•-�f.�. •;t::cs' .F,?.�;.:s....:?:.s'U••.>i'<L,at,.¢: .,Y�,7,715� ...•a: ,+,�:. ;rn�... 4. '�r;;F.«. rww'as� ,�,a,v.. '':'"'C: 'r,>:tid• <•: •�"• K .,t..�. .,;ay �s .,,„rye:.; r >+,+3„. '� •�"�:k'fiz�h, rr_.,..Sh•r^?=::" '-h :Rit ,„,� A'„ �b+•} r ,/�'4`A. .r<�:`.� ;Y .�r .r.i ..yF` rL',• .x,.�"a� v YJ�r. .�s '�.�,+ y i'.- �Y+••�. vr.,,• ';•}�:;C•wi',, •i.Y�',. '�' ?.,3 <;�?Y.r ^, ,� S' `�.s rt .•w d�r.d �r 'r� s v.•t�=„•�, i<, ,' rye• ti4''"?rt�r.-,z 'ri. ;zr� �,. w'"^,*� 'i'�'�' _ --,,�,,,yy .•xr'.a sett ,:i:c 2 .✓ ;�,i ,.r2�. u,. •v. -k vT��4�'��.i-.'ra,,.�,i�+,� �^;ra.. 2•• ^, ,r.S�i'� � :`sk:;: 'r' r'x ':. :Y.�.l °�','kr.^";: ,,,y. 3.. _z.. r Y";3:� ; `c4-(•4 gz N.::. r..:4:,,..,,f ' , r '^'; :✓ 7! '�':N .]. ,:5..,, y:. „ ::, se"..G:. .';d%Y' [. sRY .w},..,. .tvL.L%. „C'}';� 'ri c § ,c .-a.4. .:'S:`^ - {•7,T -. .`'.,..a. ..k•'o,'a•+•'� 'n �°. .'t •::�.s. .r,r r•., Y ^wY ).. r'�2q._ re\...m..t. v!a . ]y}o' .t' 1 •f',.�:t .Y..:. �v.. a .lfie �• ,.t H . .,.. rx? ^+.� •1'.'. N' asr�" '•�.'. M DT,ak. "si.• y.Fn �.iS1': ,%s• R• - b ^� ..VY'C:,�m+. Q-,e,: `C. ,}• a-n. .,..;r-^t firr,' S` .f:X'. .✓:, C>.r �” ? C •,:1....N•7.,w..:•.•w�e n<l": '' '-1. .s,_., >Y,•.+ >"':5^. •••.Y.,. , niia ;n>.p. {�.rr �. -,.+.?tr::✓^•tsL.. �. ''`�, 'ri .r'. .r,.Y.•i:., '' ...,., ,Y.,:,:r,=1-•• r • � �� { �* ::;•i- ,..�...1, _ :•:yes+•: .•;r:?•: +�.a'C".x'Ln.+, ]v?r _tuo• ..�.T'.''�. .3y,'/•,`:£>n: �y?k ,ti,•• 1 -.ire. •'a.:t•, L+, + 'w:3,f• - "�' ` f,R;r:�ti8.+"%b , ��.:ry,,,X,yf hr�'-*.o-..,.vh a:,D,., -a,�.,Mm,. .� �r4-r'?.�S•.rrs..ta,-`„�,.,s.•.•,??',,', , .s:a�',:;ur...,: .a '�` ��{ s> .f3. .. ,,,:r •""r•,.,x '"{,� ,s}" t,,;,r,.•rc"^ .rm. r�'Yy?. u.'>t .H+,,.i..r•>x.'r`„ e�1. f' : .,9. 1 '} ),r .Il�� '-^:h ✓ £k. 'f/V: ,nryoRz- -.x..,..-.�v,�.. "�'y"'a"" �?x: �. &p. ,�>< .,�S.i'c.; _r• h r,r'R^• ,.� ,$, L n. •><.._,. v.., � ,'s1rs;a S. .? w. n .'.,' ?nc"r„ ,15+r+. :+,i '..•''• tr:a i -i ✓ .•,~:. .t' vtPsv .xaJ �,. .=••�+ttf. -sa; :',a,- '.r..t� a� ,v `t :r::•,a.!.,,.,, 'r -:.{'T; ,. �' .n-`.._r,i,.;:':L•• v..:}s,,,r,• :wZ...•'l+ •:,:ri` 3.^ >:_•4, �tv s e^ a:;r. -F �'�C'a TdP, w ka ,.v 3c' •�'S' .l.,r. r.,F,r`s�.'>y ,.Z� R)+x.nH• ='4- .i..}. ',ir r 'L'C,,:.,.':..• Y, < .+;:r i.. . 1 > r. :M4... 'x.•. 1 A.,', ,t.. t r 4 ,•C. ?::.r. t.'. ..5 u d .,. ,. Ta' ra '1 .53•x �" ..,�..sn+. a. �. a .,c}�+ r ra,.s•�.� •a.+ra .aft ;xXi :�S^>���ri,-. r <^<;sy,,.. „'� �, ,,e '�'.-i k{.,,fn '• ;X1,��'..� .us'. ,! ,4 �. 'r u,,.•k ,d..rx f. '.rxat„ !G. yy +.rs+. �,. �v �)p q. ,}.'.'•�ii.p -x:- 5a /•S,w.. �1� Y p$ /�' u`;,..,.,.,.s:.,..a. :s't,l•,.9. � .'4. A,.♦ R.1„hJ.,r< •. kI-. 1^ `ulhi S` •..,v 7'�t,• u:Fa•a :nKhY' tl 'Y L' �4rOlTirVLO g>L ,.,! A. 'ry� {•k. ..;.Z"Y'. 1 ra r��x¢�..v,. •' .n yY� -•::..,+ao• ,!14 .r •,:H y l,..a<Y.S.� °,:2...:.r.r 4 :F�::'d•'Caq'.r .1,;v •sltOw, ' rn ,l C. a• +3 i�k„ r•:Y+N., �f>tvirt a, -r•° 1"J 7'ra`'1•'F :.'r••:` +^<`�c',t •i�YS•.. 4'+' drr L �•ti ' S ?:v3.,rS _a,,: -ki ,.:XY>:sr t'. t„v:.:.ii:,.w,,-t •;4+..r `^' ° •t :r. •+,r.> sa.r sw F A > r71:r>• r'..,:) 'L) w ¢' - 6 r fFu{ rA a yMvt' �� � rr . +:jaiZ.a'��Lin?g.>}M1:•t.= Al”, u ".Ah,"��q is�,�ry)"•ns," ..'xri .`1'����`�k•x w<'Rvf'ki�,,Yr��'*t.>�� ;r,"s's�v ax•�r.,:y«P,a�"k„•r s�y a y+x,r ,sw.s✓>>a}�:�'�•'Yar].�yj.y„'ate�a�r„'I�,<se�"�..fi_.rrt.t�..2,'--7 �^ Y {bks• 't�Cs.a 5...{S�r r (rx 4s-ts�t 's; ,->z3,Y; +YS :, ).ri�,V•, David • a � -i.ry .<.(rd• r r a' a$ .,,'��t ;�� .14 �;s+ .•+,3 .rl� r> > f` c ... '� pr,-y. n '� $Ry= 3 K�a•,�f'io�v F{r,FZ �S"}I. , `•"aC'*'��("4rtrh { fr:, FS•,,.}•, Ka'c` F' •y„�'`44"r :ay{ e ^ `w`" �`.•p '�M-•. ., !r:; } �`? 4?,Yu'.-r"i,✓ "Cr rw p4i...! "+ `r'`'r,a '!, .zs4' ,. ,t :}�,,r,�,' .'s.� .TTM - <sY "'�•!¢ ,, ,r/3r,onn^s: r F t t'>;,+'e�5¢5-N."E'syR,c'fdnry^M?�s�";y'tt�ei rOttY.r^nL,"J'k�i.Y{''�y.p+ y p)r-llr}r�,�✓” .ravw� ,yra��i L5?'E74✓` r'in k �r"te'` 'rv.i°„•r-r.ftwX: '� «��sr:. cyy?y5f rbc.jN Belvedere-Tiburon • t . • Av tx�d + ,• • Blvd. - i -•- _ • on-CA • , s -.y L. �, r. r 1 };,3}.ay^7x'`,wC,r ”, {3 yf.,rv,F.+�fi t'`fi +-a b Z r >•,• c } t„y r?,w„r5, •?/£ ur rr p'�'^' R•� ? �J•� r w •v e• 52s{t' .,ak v. ,x r. J'•.c. .,xr (415)-435-5490 pL7 •1" L ;,,°'� i .n a7� '' i�? -w .E'fz' '`1`°•#`,i'wu'^� 4Y3rx�, a 'E` 5,,'.fr.s r' J .r •y t� Ir, "�. `� � :-'•rs<. �'.� �'� �.'¢.:,{«7`'rf�.e's'�5 ,J`y5,.'�. � !: ,�S ,S r. y �'- t Y Y f r' } �`^,--a- �., rof ,'...-tt6JAN +4 -_ n, r „ a+za.�< .. v' --> <,- Ya :s t `•, ➢a L ,rA .a✓' w S.,k i 017 V- ,Gt}' '4 ,✓ � '_;'• �,x.'-1"' '''�}'-S•,,:, �'Q.�r,^i�'I` �'4 .•, � tom, >w t a n 'za 6 tt''r frr<1 xT't�••.• A 't.,,Y:;z't.-" ;'� a> xa a R^:{>v �' wad• .°�'r - 7 ,aria, r� ,;3,, n` �Sr"T3,r ..�-�i r tL+... '^` vrt•�'r�.�u'-�s'4`2 )�, a g�. � xrk'fi"x'�'"`t �„3 rr.-y�' �� P r'. �:. .`rR �r '�i a� �'{•-,^a � ~y� }S��>' rR 4° T�G�;�. �A✓ti'�.>, r•�,lt•t�1A s�a yrs art''T d K�:,1 rr ta.� a ''�'� ! !rrlarkS50defy ! •} i �' a 'i r-:. .�,+ rc� .S tt"t t - , r {,2 p x'i, ,s r d Ft L.'^'{ r r�d - }<a• �� t.,,•aS R y' :�}.. -/t } {ray r t: , r}i .S -�t�- 7S �,^t.�' ? s `�t,. ,y< Ft�'E. .. ��' 7 ',t' .,) t't=.fir vr_' ,,;,x _'a. �y� ,�;4('0 /..,:>' 4 .tr`:"-.s- .2:tis�s xr r - s. }�'�'C•f.„e .5... .,�\ :'7 7``} ..ti ✓.,�a%'-.' Y ,n .,-, { r, nr W rI i .F+'.s?x .,D'. .�,;;v >{ ,,r.. .< '.bru. '„lit•Lta �t n•t, ;!m U �� ; Y ',}' ,• el., x.,p C). H V',' f F' ai ' :a).. .;:.: , :...r°.ar:,, .>.r,, ,, 5 ,. sr :,- .,,7 %Cr, ;:)r.r.. .�r£' C•j.: ,.,r. .F,..,.G +: :.s.^: 1., .,C,:•)'`... Y.`: .,.,3,, ..t<. ,;}. .;jo i'�0.aY,p n�r4.�s' "3'.y:: -•�r'i 'S JAN 0 2017 7� IUR I THE ARK NOVEMBER 23, 2016 __ Zd � �, f���.`r,,'' - — —t-hearknewspaper.com Tiburon board denies appeal, to stop tree removal on Avenida Miraflores Ey DE9RDRE NteCROHAN As much as people in "As much as people in Marin love their trees, they also dmccrohan@thearknewspapercona love their views,"said board member Bryan Chong."I'll lean Marin love their trees, they on staff for the correctgui dance. We are on town right of The Tiburon Design Review Board has rejected the ap- also love their views." way.I lean toward that removal of trees in protection of the peals of a Del Mar neighborhood couple who are trying to —Bryan Chong, Tiburon Design Review Board;nember view." stop a neighbor from removing trees adjacent to their prop- b Vice Chair Linda Emberson agreed. erty in the public right of way. "View blockage counts for a lot.This is on town property. At its Nov 3 meeting,the board voted 4-0,with member Mi- they weren't big enough yet,so he modified the tree-removal I think the town made the correct findings and they should chael Tollini absent,against the requests from Ed and Nancy pen-nit and approved it at staff level.That may mean Hariri be removed,"she said. Clock of 150 Avenida Miraflores. The couple was appealing will have to go through this process all over again when the It was unclear at press time what will happen next:The two town staff decisions:one that granted their neighbor per- remaining trees grow tall enough to qualify for removal. appeals court's temporary stay is still blocking Hariri's mission to remove the trees and one that denied the couple a About the same time,the Clocks decided to apply for a ret- legal ability to remove the trees, but if she ultimately pre- retroactive permit authorizing the planting of the trees. roactive permit for planting the four trees in the town right vails,Hariri and the Clocks will stili have to work out who's The board is expected to formalize the resolutions of de- of way.The town staff denied that permit. paying for and performing the work. The town is not re- nial at its Dec. 13 meeting. Watrous said a landscape plan dated April 1983 indicates sponsible, said Community Development Director Scott At issue in the acrimonious dispute between the neigh- "that no vegetation was to be planted in the town right of Anderson. bors are several trees planted by the Clocks—specifically way adjacent to the lot at 150 Avenida Miraflores." four in the town right of way adjacent to their property- Sometime after 1983,the Clocks or their gardeners plant- in other action Firuze Hariri, who lives at 163 Avenida Miraflores, re- ed a series of shrubs and trees within the town right of way, • 22 Raccoon Lane:The board approved conversion of quested the Clocks trim or remove the trees, Tiburon Plan- according to Watrous. 1,089 square feet of basement-level crawl space into livable ning Manager Dan Watrous noted in a report prepared for Ed Clock said that's wrong. In a Nov 16 telephone inter- area at the home of Tiburon Mayor Erin Tollini and her hus- the Nov 3 meeting. view, he said the four disputed trees were planted in the band, Design Review Board member Michael Tollini, who According to Hariri, the trees had grown to block her 1970s and that he and his wife didn't know they were on was absent from the meeting-The Tollinis will be required �G views of Richardson Bay. town property. to submit a landscaping plan before the building p g p g permit for When the Clocks didn't oblige,Hariri in June 2014 filed a Clock also asserted there was no permit requirement in the construction work is granted. _E lawsuit in Marin Superior Court seeking court enforcement effect for any of the landscaping in question when it was • 85 Eastview Drive:The board approved site and de- of the Tiburon view ordinance, which provides protections planted. sign plans for a new house on Eastview Drive after a second for important views, but makes enforcement a civil matter, Watrous, however, said the 1983 landscaping plan does public hearing.Board members said the applicant had done to be resolved privately between individual homeowners. not show any trees in that area. what they requested after the first hearing by positioning On Apr]19,the court ruled in favor of Hariri.The Clocks Neither Hariri nor her attorney,Barri Bonapart,returned the house closer to the street.The vote was 3-0,with Tollini = then appealed to the California Court of Appeal and were calls requesting comment. and Chong absent a granted a stay of the lower court ruling. During the Nov 3 Design Review Board meeting,Nancy 6 Via Capistrano:The board Iearned that real-estate However, in April,before the Marin court's ruling,Hariri Clock told board members the trees add value to their prop- investment firm Top Tier Group has withdrawn its applica- applied to the Tiburon Planning Division for a permit to re- erty and,as they've grown,have blocked out the headlights tion to build a new house in the Reedlands neighborhood. move the four trees,claiming they were actually in the town of cars driving up Avenida Miraflores that used to shine into right of way,not on the Clocks'property. their home. Deirdre McCrohan has reported on Tiburon local govern- That was confirmed by town staff,but Watrous determined However, the board agreed with the town staff's original ment and community issues for more than 25 vears.Reach two of the four trees in question didn't qualify as trees because decisions in denying the Clocks'appeals. her at 415-944-4634. PROPOSAL TREEVASTERS Tuesday, .Iuiy 26, 2016 3175 Kerner Blvd Ste A San Rafael. CA 949011415-455-9933 treemasters@treemasters.corn I Treemasters come, JAN 0 2011 CA License#660226 Fully Insured Worksite-, B-illing Address: Job Natne. Hlst'wir, 2016T2fl 3 Moil & huffy Hurwin Ron; Duffy Hutwin -.-.------- - 5.n,Tormya Dr 415-435-3598 Ti!urcn,CA 94920 Estimator Randy Resch CCL#10131 The Knofi Tiburon,Cil 1 # DesOpfion- - est 1 Eucalyptus Remove 1 $3,260.00 Remove one Northwest corner closest to the soccer field Eucalyptus cut stump low 2 Eucalyptus Remove 1 $1,580.00 Remove one Nouthwest corner eucalyptus, cut stump low 3 Eucalyptus Remove 1 $9,860.00 Remove one Northwest corner big Eucalyptus, cut stump low 4 Eucalyptus Remove 6 $5;5 ().00 Cluster of six trees located behind item#3 in the center of the Knoll Cut stumps low 5 Eucalyptus .Remove 4 $3,61aw Cluster of four trees located on the Southwest corner of the Knoll closest to the Bay Cut stump low 6 Eucalyptus Remove 5 $8,850.00 Cluster of five trees located above the bike path closest to the Ita4ian Stone pine cluster Cut stumps low 7 Eucalyptus Remove 1 $3,680.00 Western most tree located on HWY 131, over bangs bus stop and Ht<'+fY Cut stump low, 8 Eucalyptus Remove 1 $,980.00 Tree located East of ltem#7 on HWY 131 Cut stump low 9 Eucalyptus Remove 2 $2,580.00 Remove one big & one small Compact Eucalyptus East of#7-8 on HWY 131 Cut stump as low as possible 6-8" above grade 10 Eucalyptus Remove 1 $2,880.00 Tree located east of item #9 on the bike path Cut stump tow 11 Traffic Control Traffic Control 1 $1,520.00 Traffic Control to be contacted to a professional company hired by Treemasters to perform items#7-9 on HWY 131 1 }s.Ilt,.r1'.l'- �- l3. 57o!'66:1 Page 1 of 3 r.--..a-R rr 4i�r" 12 Italian Stone Pine Remove 14 $4,320.00 Remove cluster of 14 Italian Stone Pines up slope from restrooms on Knoll Cut stump low 13 Monterey Pine Remove 2 $2,440.00 Remove two Monterey Piries near restroorns Cut stump low 14 Monterey Pine Remove 2 $1,880.00 Trees located above restrooms on the north end of the Knoll Cut stump low 15 Pine Remove 2 Remove two select Pine trees located on the Southwest corner of the Knoll located closest to the soccer field, cut stump as low as possible 6-8" above grade 16 Permit fee 0 Permit fees for Cal Trans & town of Tiburon TBD 18 Eucalyptus Remove 0 Remove all eucalyptus saplings throughout project ,9 Misc tr©o work 0 Remove small trees as needed for removal access. 20 Set-up, breakdown and dump fee 0 $3,000.00 Set-up fee/breakdown 21 Misc tree work 0 Treemasters will build bridge with plywood; mats & tarps for access to soccer fields edge where they will also construct a work zone to protect trees, soccer field& pedestrian access 22 Package Discount 0 ($6,580.00) ODSt 17 Eucalyptus Treat to reduce re-growth 0 $560.00 Treat for regrowth all Eucalyptus stumps 23 Misc tree ,work C $1o28t3 Cover all Eucalyptus stumps in black plastic to to aid in regrowth prevention. Page 2 of 3 .04 • '4.F mpt-W .2 _:Z7 t rig "WK air 1;: qi' hl. 7" c,vo ..I ....... Nir 'N .......... N" 6" V�' 0" CO or NkN M � -W- S' 14 A-A! FiX M-3 A!3 i�..:4_b IWC ?v '5 'O.N RE M iv],x �+a„ r'�'�S�$ ��.��,� �'�,�, � �. 'E.K t�` i}.F�• a��• 5• fi7° �`wa.j. � f�� ,�?}r�� ��. rr` "Y*' aD b d&•i- "'�m..�,rr, 'vd ary t y2{y`,{r' :r- �y `y x F.hx:t,,f'' 46� ;� '.:N.'. � R�•� �•t4'+.., 4th .w ,,,y'•,'�' ��n'r ,2 ''�,ti ,{s 7Na. ``'36 G�gD,t+ .zr'` ,i $, � r d' � `�ty�d''^•°+�kiz�M"}�. �'� i'`` " ''�Y-1�n�A�"Y �•• 19 a�.'+' ;• 3Y e "•�j` t i* t ���^ f i�+�i��5'd'rd s�� y#�f�,�l%f*'�5"�n�` •"{� .,r *G rc �'i � s �i, y •? :""t. ."' r � 5. �t,f/t� j:i �i•�.r :+ 4• �' '�4�s,r i� rt'XS G!r JfiYl+c 3 z.w .� ~' 'jI �z �9 s ar + t 4 k .- f i s � r• rc ,� P Sri y � ;r � � �I. •.• :. I sfi �,. ,,a va>trr'.z a �v•z tiid. ti t u .': tkc,s,� • ono t �,..�• �e••�"id +q •r..f' �v ` yw� � '. �•�F', `s -Ky {rte+r r«;'..a. - J.. qt��. "'�c.'r�,° •t•�e. v�p 'a .t;s {. at-V _ v �o'.�,.. . '; r � M € ' +x``•+F w':,clj t r � r; : t' "�7 V,lk� � �t t�� & 5 •(i.p• _ �up,' }��,r; e5 r t 1f � o-+ Nf. ��� qk t�.Y I �"y'Fz-tt�r•+��Y' _ r a y ., s r�a•'` t � 1 l�,A13�.. r `'�y,. qa Vis;. �� 'd .f � .. �L :.k x: s. �'t Q "'s -Ft a 1 1 ,,. 54 It •ti. •uy'•-+"t ��•yY : r t iL 73.. : ? �!:-' t t'«"•.a x,8i1'� �, r f� Trr'�t �. �� s rcr�Y^Z Et`y:Kr .! 'v. _Mm ti`• "��+�,.+Y3''"` r ' �,". y nsM,fn-j'S�j'C '$ �' :.F ,a r- Z, E1 a s i ,kW^�e FY er*f�.+, s r" 'VSs• t1•. t ^^r f �.. ,�t �;..,a 9. h�.���� WY� ����- � �• ��+• a' s� 'S Yv�.rtis Q .�3 �.x�•�,�,z"' v '�, r �v.iy TC"�n✓f �t" Na i'q�`� r'� '�•�. l t it r e. 4u i� r r� �r� a. fi 'n �' t e "��t.3.>"' �,, >-. 3{k�s1,� �gknLwl� •S' 5N. � y r y,� c t e}',•Vby� w .^L, G)u�Y .. 2 s Y ,.,'sx w.. S' ,'3- � •K d c i � r+t ct�? �.. �jy�t„�w./r.;„, kyr .� �' *'"?Fi�uy.4, �� tt:� ���9 x�i_. �� r '°�'wi q'e` r� '�`>J;+� ?r' 5�� .,�Ya .✓ �"^�'"X ti � ``�'�i 7' 4 :r t4 j ✓ Y�� .-^ f v.•� `�' +���s.' w. Js � r""'" A x 'c "a t v '1• x1�.. zw{ z .F• �s �rt rM +axl,. ? � 7t '" > Mi¢ '=a!t,'. (� � ;, ,r c � >r ) yb � ••r 1 stir fig z x :..A w+ •, [ ! r 4 •'�•. Sy°Z1�3 .r` r :!• •) ,S,�Ar e t 00 +.•y, e.k. .._>t . .?:! J.tui..'.b. .. " '-s4 'i 3t b ,¢• F T �'T' State Of California STATE LICENSE BOARD ACTIVE LICENSE 660226 ;E F-ttv CORP TREEMASTERS TREE AND GARDEN CARE C61/D49 Dale 03/31 /GV 17 wAw.cs1b.ca.gov /k ffi 17' U0,0V"*8 P6 E R 31. 0 I Ue (c rhw�v 5 C-1 Qlr;ss ,; J t'e F ,Sr b--s I TREEMASTERS TREE-AND,GAIR-DE-N CA'ale, ell Z-i Ice it TREE500 OP ID: DD CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE e 01/11(141201 0 16 G THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW, THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER,AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER, IMPORTANT: if the certificate holder Is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(les) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED,subject to tho terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the cortificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). _RW4TACT^ rrtocucl:rz NAME. Richard Bolds BOLDS INSURANCE BROKERAGE PNflNE 700 Irwin Street-Suite 101 !4. s. xll.416-486_1700 --`T���rl�y:416.385-9$68 San Rafael,CA 94901- ut,. - - ----- -- Richard Bolds, _ 1t+SURERtS�AfPrSRC34)i6�OYERAvfi ? NAiC A. WSURERA WeSCO Insurance Compar:v r;stFro Treemasters Tree$Garden Care aisuxea.a Great Americas Ins Co 3175 f(er►ter Blvd insultERc•$tBt£Conn Insurance Fund Sart Rafael,CA 34901 _.._ _ ._... _._. .___._ . ?_._._ irvsuraFx o: $ tAtSFlftfft E COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION.NUMBER: _ VHIS i,S-10 :�E81IFY THAT 'z HE PGLiCiES 0=INSUiFAUCE t.STEO BELOW HAVE ULt J1 tSSt;ED TO THE INSUR D NAMED ABOVE FOP,THE Poi:E:.pli caELID INDICATED. NOTV41HSTA.d°�tNG ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM O CONE-MIN ti F ANY C013TRACT OR TOTFif_R DO`CUeAEUT V,4114 RESPECT TMJ',Arr#CJ!THIS OF.RT1FJfATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN. THE INSUPA ICE AFFORDED BY THE PMCIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUIaJFCT TO ALL THE TERMS,, EXCLUSIONS AND C�?�i'0-.10tkS of SUCH PoLiciEB.C0tors SHOyyhl MAY 14A4/E BEEN P.EDUCED By PAJD CLAWS, - _ __. . r _..._ a 7R -- -�1t��.r F4SL IFF 1 ILY I Yry I 7YPEOF NFSU aANCE PCILICY r(117teEft HbVti;"1f'['YYYh �dt.�S)iYYY � L6itti3 A ! � t G(:ffirssEfic�L 3Ct£LAAI.LLt$tJTY t � �E f5-C ilSfra:Er,u"f i$ 1,0Q33,QQ t �a.Ax oL.v c> PP1228423-01 0171112016 01/11f2017;, Leg W Exp ,000. ..._. .. 'Qtl t 1,00-0,000 AsM-IhbO X s:A21-11TY 4,00£3,00 r e i F1tVVPPi226423-01 OI141Patli6i Qlfit12117 �oo;v r r�L�,:k rrs�-y `t - - w_. ��r Tfti i - ;.T_ ID �f I{f-r � `. 'i_...rj'«t` #1URYC . 4t4idCRl1'tG3 !{ r •-al4•ti:::. i �: I P3i'�J '�'k CFAArta� .:3 _._._M_ -.. Ur.flREl lA rrAfTT .. f1F. (eRCb+OL f'FiP.E;r.CrE 3rQQC,QQ a r£x�z fue r sr,rt, )(S3717472 001111/2,016 0111112017 a to i 6,000,00 10 �Wt k �5tar c r[ 7 X r R 3t:- :VDEMPLOYERS LVQR9 STP 10101120161 1010 101011201611 --e=�+,k cCE-N-z 1,000,00 14 sAl i;A7dac ri n R) 0 L. i1clUcl,0217;S I I 4 %wSCRIPTION OF OPERATIC::+l S!lCr-A n-NS i VEHtCs.ES (Av9RQ 141 1"attadw-1 U mo,*apace is mRu'wt r,1 :_RTIFICATE liOLi3Efi CANCELLATION — ) SHOULD ANY OF THE A13OVE DESCRIBED POLFCIES BE CAI CE1 I is 13FFOPE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE Wft l.. HE OFI-11 RED 114 ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. Trec;•lnasters Tree�Garden Care 3976 Kerrier Blvd AUTHORME0 REPRF.SENTATNE San Rafael, CA 9901 Richard Bolds -46 �D 1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION, All rights reserved. XORD 25(2014101) The ACORD notne and logo are registered marks of ACORD all, the ers and standard bicycles. �AN 0 201 spans The council's decision to loosen its ntown restrictions on e-bikes comes about a 26 r WS ( 7 H E ARK NOVEMBER 9 2 01116 t voted See BICYCLES, PACE 28 McKeg'neyy continued from page 1 said Tollini, mentioning the list of oth`re cap' tal projects that the council is still in the pro- - > cess of ranking. � �3 with how to repair the field and its drainage She said$1.6 million would be a big hit,add- Design E systems. It commissioned a $17,000 scoping ing that she is not a fan of debt financing. �/� study last March to help determine how the "That's just kicking the can down the road," for. McAegney field should be repaired,but in August nixed Tollini said, a renovation proposal to expand the size of the At the meeting, councilmembers said they Green to begin, Meld to 1.10,000 square feet,citing the project's want time to look at funding options, a sen- high$2 million price tag. timent reiterated by Councilmernber Alice but town unsure A council subcommittee that has been Fredericks in an interview after the meeting. working with staff members recently agreed "We have to find a way to do it in a fiscally how �t will to recommend a revised project that preserves responsible way. We need more information the existing size of the field, removes the before we make a decision," Fredericks said o e crown slope.of the field,replaces the existing "It is a lot of money t0 Snend.for c�epartjcular . i acefift drainage systems and installs a new irriga- use.We have to think about our priorities and tion system that relies on potable water, not how this fits in." BY D.EIRDRE McCROHAN on the graywater treated by the nearby Rich- At the meeting,Vice Mayor Jim Fraser and dwiy,rt,rohaii.@thearhsaeuspapercoan ardson Bay Sanitary District plant. Councilmember Emmett O'Dumell volun- - While the cost of that project is estimated teered to serve on a committee to aggressively 11e Tiburon Town Council will allocate 4$1.6 million,ongoing maintenance costs for explore ways of financing the field rehab proj- _`b` 1170 to begin design work to replace the the renovated field are expected to be about ect. soccer field at McKegney Green—though $45,000 per year,and the field would have to "We have other projects in frontof us,"said the council is still unsure how it will come be resod every 10 years. Fraser."The council should commit to the pro- up with the,estimated$1.6 million needed However,before the council authorizes the cess and put ourselves on the clock to find the for the proposed renovation, repair project, it needs to find funding for it. money." The council at its Nov.2 meeting autho- The Tiburon Peninsula Soccer Club has com- O'Donnell also expressed his w1 mitment. rized'Town Manager Greg Chanis to exe- mitted to contributing $100,000 to the field "I'm willing to reignite the committee and c_ :a contract with landscape architecture renovation,but that represents just a fraction focus it on fundraising,"he said fi ni Abey Arnold Associates to complete of what's needed. Mark Minturn, president of the Tiburon t1he•&-sign work. Coming up with the rest of the money could Peninsula Soccer Club board of directors, T-h 74,250-square-foot playing field _ be a challenge because of the demands of pledged the club's support of that fundraising vVID&was built in 1975,has been repaired ether capital project priorities. process during the public-comment portion of mi Teseeded over the nears but is filled Tiburon has a long list of other projects that the council meeting. avitla uneven,torn-up surfaces. need attention, including an estimated 182 He said the club was committed to raising In recent months,the town has grappled pipelines in Tiburon's aging storm-drain sys- at least$100,000 and will kick its Friends of tem that need work. Failures in storm drain Fields group into high fundraising gear. See McKEGNEI' PACE 26 pipelines can cause water to swamp homes "We're willing to cooperate in every way we and open up sinkholes. can in raising funds.We're willing to dig into In a presentation to the council on Nov. our members' pockets and the community's 150 s1 netiti®ri over 2, Tiburon Town Engineer Pat Barnes out- pockets,"Minturn said. p lined the town's options for funding the field Max Cutler, a soccer-club parent, said soc- e no-U-turn sions renovation.Those include unallocated general cer helped his family settle into the commu- fund reserves, private donations and debt fi- nity gtrickly. When they moved to Tiburon neer Highway101 nancing or a combination of the three. from the East Coast,the family arrived on a "There is no funding for construction in- Sunday and,by Monday,Cutler's kids were at cluded in the 2016-2017 capital improvement soccer camp,he said. _ _ project budget,"he said. "It's the thing that has brought us into i b Saturday`:;;:' 4� 6Sunday "' 'a Barnes said Tiburon probably would not Tiburon.What we're considering here is a field qualify for state or federal grants often avail- of dreams.There's so much the kids learn in 1, able to low-income communities that cant soccer,all this value occurs outside the field, fund such projects on their own. it's more than square footage,"Cutler said. At the Nov 2 meeting, Mayor Erin Tollini O'Donnell volunteered to talk to Marin aw� M. r said she was OK moving forward with the Municipal Water District about lowering the t: I� project's design elements but she had reserva p- j g quoted cost of$300,000 for a water meter for tions about the project's possible$1.6 million irrigation by potable water. price tag. "We have had discussions with (the water �x "My only hesitation in this is were mov- district's)conservation officials there,"Barnes --=- ' ing forward without funding determined," said."We have not tried political negotiations." Dan Watrous From: Duffy Hurwin [duffyhurwin@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 12:59 AM To: Dan Watrous Subject: Fwd: Horse killed by eucalyptus Hi Dan - I just heard about this today from our barn manager when we were discussing trees. See link below. This is truly tragic. I called Sonoma Horse Park and they said they've removed many eucalyptus trees on their property after this happened. They told me the eucalyptus had been there around 40 years & nothing fell until this incident. They were told by their arborist that the drought made the trees more susceptible to failure and to remove every tree near where the horses live. They followed that advice. I'm a lifelong equestrian &this breaks my heart. Our horses lived in a 3 acre private pasture on the corner of West California and Hwy 1 in Mill Valley from 1995-2001. 2 of 4 sides of the pasture were surrounded by eucalyptus. We found many broken limbs and the fence was taken out several times by those trees. We were lucky the horses never escaped. The only thing that kept them safe was that, as prey animals, it's in their DNA to run from strange noises & they can gallop away at 25 mph. When we're in the parks, they prick their ears & are very alert to any noise. So I'm sure, every time a branch fell, they ran all the way to the other end of the property. A human isn't programmed to do that and cannot run that fast, certainly not a child or a mother pushing a stroller. Duffy Hurwin Subject: Horse killed by eucalyptus http //sanfrancisco cbslocal com/2015/12/22/horse-killed-after-winds-topple-trees-at-pot)ular-equestrian-center- in-petaluma/ Shared via the Google app 1? X11[131`1' 1 p.. ofd . 1 TOWN OF TIB .RON GUIDE TO POLICIES .FOR TREES LOCATED ON TOWN PROPERTY JANUARY 2003 Prepared by the Town of Tiburon as a guide to the Town's policies and procedures involving trees located on Town of Tiburon property,including parks,open spaces,and street rights-of-way EXHIBIT NO. 2-- For further:information on the Town of Tiburon's laws and procedures regarding trees, please consider consulting the following: • The View &Sunlight Ordinance (Chapter 15 of the Tiburon Municipal Code) m The Tree Ordinance (Chapter 15A of the Tiburon Municipal Code) ® The Encroachments Ordinance (Chapter 19 of the Tiburon Municipal Code) • The Sidewalk Ordinance (Chapter 24 of the Tiburon Municipal Code) For information on Tree Permits,call the Tiburon Planning Division at(415)435- 7390. For information on Encroachment Permits,call the Tiburon Public Works Department at (415)435-7354 or the Towns general telephone line at(415)435-7373. For information on the Town's Tree Ordinance or the View&Sunlight Ordinance, please call the Tiburon Planning Division at(415)435-7390. For information on the Towns Encroachment Ordinance,Sidewalk Ordinance,or Sidewalk Area, please call the Tiburon Public Works Department at(415)435-7354 or the Town's general telephone line at(415) 435-7373. For information on the Town's Commemorative Tree Planting Program, please call the Towns Receptionist at(415)435-7373. For viewing the full text of the Town's Tree Ordinance,View and Sunlight Ordinance,Sidewalk Ordinance, or Encroachments Ordinance,please visit the Town of Tiburon Website at www.townoftiburon.o! Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon,CA 94920 (415)435-7373 t EXHIBIT NO. � POLICY FOR TREES AND SHRUBS ON TOWN OF TIBURO.N PROPERTY Trees and shrubs can be a valuable aesthetic and environmental component of public land. They can slow down erosion and storm runoff,and can help filter out pollutants. The Town of Tiburon adopts the following policies with respect to trees and shrubs on Town property, including but not limited to parks,open spaces,and public street rights-of-way (including medians and islands). o The Town's overarching policy is that trees and shrubs on Town property are resources that will not generally be removed or substantially altered without good cause. • The Town will remove any tree or shrub that constitutes a public safety hazard when the hazard cannot be corrected or eliminated by thinning, trimming,or pruning. 4 The Town will remove any tree or shrub that is diseased or otherwise afflicted and threatens to pass its affliction to other trees or shrubs. o The Town will remove any tree or shrub that is damaging sewers or other utilities serving public or private property;or breaking up pavement,foundations or fences; when there is no reasonable lesser remedy such as removal of an offending root or limb. However,if the tree or shrub is located within the"Sidewalk Area"*,repair of damage is the responsibility of the adjacent fronting property owner,in accordance with Chapter 24 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. Issuance of an Encroachment Permit from the Town is required for all work wi.tl-dn the Sidewalk Area. ® When pruning or trimming of a tree or shrub is sought by private parties or other public agencies for reasons other than those set forth above,that party may apply for,and the Director of Public Works(or his designee) may issue,an Encroachment Permit provided that the work will not damage the health,or significantly alter the appearance of, the tree. Any Encroachment Permit shall authorize the work to be performed by a Town-approved contractor,and the work shall be performed under the direct supervision of the Director of Public Works (or his designee). Town Staff does not perform ornamental trimming or pruning on behalf of private parties. ® If a person applies for a permit to remove or alter a tree or shrub located on the "Sidewalk Area" of another person's property,that property owner must be consulted during the process,and their reaction to the application will be given great weight by the Town in rendering a decision on the application. e Any tree work that would significantly alter the appearance of a tree,or damage the health of a tree,requires prior issuance of a Tree Permit from the Community Development Department. The Tree Permit must be obtained prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. *Please refer to the attached diagram for graphic depictions of the "Sidev?alk Area". 2 EXHIBIT N0, � CRITERIA FOR TOWN REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS INVOLVING TREES AND SHRUBS ON TOWN OF TIBURON PROPERTY Trees and shrubs on property owned or controlled by the Town of Tiburon can be valuable aesthetic and environmental resources. They can also be public or private nuisances in certain locations and/or situations.The Town's general policy is that trees and shrubs on Town property may be valuable resources, and will not generally be removed or substantially altered without good cause. When reviewing requests from private parties or other public agencies for removal, alteration, or planting of trees or shrubs on Town property, the Town shall consider the following factors prior to making a decision: W Type and size (native/non-native,undesirable,heritage- size, invasive, etc.) ® Prominence (e.g.visual significance,historical significance, age) ® Qualitative health(e.g.apparently healthy, apparently unhealthy, dying, or dead) ® Appropriateness of location(e.g. active park vs. non-use area,etc) ® Benefit(e.g. aesthetics,shade,screening of unsightly use) • Detriment(e.g. nuisance factors,view blockage,property damage,maintenance obligations) m Cost to remove and/or replace, including ongoing maintenance of any replacement vegetation o Likely effectiveness of replacement vegetation, if replacement is desirable 3 EXHIBIT NO.2, SIDEWALK AREA DIAGRAM DIAGRAM Of A UWAAM OF A SrRPEr MIN SIDF34" ThTr W19tf=SIMM Acro CURB AND GUMtiR OR CURD AVD(OM private property line^ Sidewalksi ., " dewalk Area public sidewalk Area" curb gutter Edge of asphalt f crdcje of asphalt 'A public street travelway landscape island median planter �.._.._ 7 public street travelway curb s edge of asphalt _ gutter public r parking ' bays landscape ' strip "Sidewalk public sidewalk Area" Private property line! "Sidewalk Area" is defined as the area between a private property line and the street line, which area may include the sidewalk itself, a planting strip, parking strip and any curbing,bulkheads;retaining walls or other works for the protection of any sidewalk, planting strip, or parking strip. For the purposes of this definition,"street line" shall mean the outer physical boundary of the street,where the asphalt meets the concrete curb or gutter. (Tiburon Municipal Code,Section 24-01). EXHIBIT NO. � Procedure for Tree Alteration, Removal, or Planting in the Town of Tiburon Party initiating request for removal, alteration, or planting (� Emergency tree Request initiated by Request initiated by removal/alteration(if Town of Tiburon private party or other personal injury or public agency* property damage is imminently threatened) ►—� i Scope of Work Requested Alteration, Alteration, Removal or alteration may be removal, or Minor trimming removal,or Minor trimming authorized in advance by: planting or thinning only planting or thinning only Police Chief, Superintendent of Public Works,Town Manager, or Planning Director. Permit requirement ree Permit required only Tree permit required for alteration, for removal of any removal,or planting of any tree. Encroachment No permits permit and No permits protected tree**or required Referral to POST and/or Town supervision of work required planting of any Council if the subject tree is by Public Works undesirable tree***. prominent. Encroachment permit Department and supervision of work by Public required. Works Department required. 'Requests for tree planting under the Town's Commemorative Tree Planting Program are considered to be Town-initiated requests. "Protected Tree- Any heritage tree(greater than 60 inches in circumference),any Oak tree,or any dedicated tree. "'Undesirable Tree- Any Blue Gum Eucalyptus,Monterey Pine,Monterey Cypress,Coast Redwood or any other tree that grows more than three feet per year in height,and is capable of reaching a height of 35 feet at maturity. Please refer to Chapter 15a of the Tiburon Municipal Code for more details. TOWN OF TI.BURO.N COMMEMORATIVE TREE PLANTING PROGRAM (Revised 1/2003) 1. You may suggest the type of tree or trees that you prefer. 2. The Public Works Department will then review your suggestion to be sure that the tree species is permitted under the Town's tree ordinance and that it will grow well in an available location to be approved by the Town. 3. A representative from Public Works and a representative from the Heritage & Arts Commission will work with you to find finalize the specific location of the tree, which must be near a water source. The Public Works Department will then plant, water, and maintain the tree. 4. You will be responsible for all the associated costs, such as the purchase price, installation, and on-going maintenance of the tree. You will be issued an invoice by the Town of Tiburon. 5. The Town will then await the personal information on the person you are honoring. This information will be included in the Town's Commemorative Book kept on permanent public display at Tiburon Town Hall. 6 EXHIBIT NO. � �9 Elephant Rock. To repair the pier, which was damaged in the December 1995 wind storm, the ramp to the pier must be brought up to ADA standards. He proposes to replace the deck around the rock with galvanized metal grate, which will withstand tidal action. He is proposing a 30' switch-back ramp which will meet ADA standards. He noted he has run the plan by the Planning Director and Building Official and incorporated their comments into this plan. The plan has also been shown to the Town's ADA consultant, Richard Skaff. Commissioner Rony expressed concern with how hot metal gets during good weather. Mohammadi noted the railing will be wood and not metal. Responding to Commissioner Sullivan, Mohammadi estimated the repair costs between $70,000 • 80,000 and he is seeking grant monies for the repair. Commissioner Wiviott recommended he contact Barbara Boxer's office regarding grants . She also recommended the rock be declared an historical site and perhaps the Landmarks Society would help with financing or lfistorical Preservation funding. Chair Eth asked about the slipperiness of metal grating. Mohammadi noted the grate will be treated with a special non-skid surface that meets ADA specifications. :Peter Brooks asked about corrosion of the metal. Mohammadi noted there are other materials such as hard plastics, that could be used but he does not know if they would meet ADA requirements. The Commission commented that they liked the design and are glad to have the rock available again to the public and disabled persons. Commissioner Rony questioned if the wood would be treated so it would not splinter•, Mohammadi responded it would. MOTION: That the Parks& Open Space Commission approved the Elephant Rock design dated 8/28/96 Moved: Wiviott, Seconded by Canter Vote: AYES: Unanimous 2. SOUTH OF KNOLL TREES Duffy Hurwin, 558 Tenaya Drive, cited a San Francisco Chronicle article which reported the Calabassas fire was started from a eucalyptus tree falling onto power lines. She noted the trees on the knoll are almost 200' tall and could take down power lines if they fell. She noted these tree are reproducing and the petitioners would like to see the saplings removed and the larger trees brought down in volume and their massiveness reduced. She is not advocating getting rid of the trees,just maintaining the trees. Chair Eth questioned if Ms. Hurwin has talked to the Fire Department. She stated she spoke with one fireman who, "off the record", stated the Fire Department would love to see the trees gone. In response to Commission Snow, Ms. Hurwin stated she would like POSC MINUTES NO. 146 11/12/96 2 EXHIBIT NO. to see the height of the trees reduced to their distance to the bike path. Responding to Chair Eth, she would love to see the trees replaced with oak trees or other native trees. Eleanor Becker, 567 Virginia Drive, supported Ms. Hurwin's comments. Mary Jo Broderick, 20 Rowley Circle and 40 year resident, stated the trees are beautiful and part of the Town's heritage. She does not feel the trees present a fire hazard as they are basically on an island that would not spread. She expressed concern that the trees could be damaged from topping or windowing. Hazel Caldwell, Sutter Court, advocated getting rid of the young growth and keeping the larger trees. She would like to see the larger trees windowed. She urged that the trees not be topped because they bush out with new growth. Holly Laurie, Avenida Miraflores at Hilary Drive, stated in the last eight years more of the saplings are growing up into her views, and would like to see the smaller trees removed. Peter Brooks, Brooks Tree Service, reported he pruned the larger trees on the knoll eight years ago. He noted the larger trees could use some safety work, but it is not a pressing issue. He stated that if the smaller trees were removed, their stumps should be ground. He estimated the cost of windowing/day lighting the larger trees at $8,000, and if money was an issue, he recommended that one tree a year be done. He feels the larger trees are part of the Town's heritage and would be outraged if the Town removed them. In response to Commissioner Rony, he stated the younger trees can grow IS' in a year. Peter offered to help remove the secondary trees, Responding to Commissioner Rony, Peter stated the trees could very easily be damaged by improper pruning, he recommended the larger trees be pruned for crown reduction. Commissioner Canter feels the trees do not pose a large safety factor as no problems were associated with these trees during last years severe storms. Peter Brooks stated the trees pose some safety risk and that all trees pose a hazard. Responding to Commissioner Rony, Brooks indicated the trees should be maintained every 5-10 years. Joan Dracott, 1795 Vistazo Test, stated she submitted to the Commission a letter opposing any work on the trees. Claire Russell urged the Commission to remove the secondary trees and grind their stumps. Mary Jo Broderick feels the Commission's main concern should be safety and not views. POSC MINUTES NO. 146 11/12/96 3 Hazel Carter, urged the Commission to consider Peter Brooks generous offer and expertise. Commissioner Canter feels the trees are truly magnificent, they are not near any power lines, provide a wonderful habitat for monarch butterflies, and pointed out that Peter Brooks feels the trees are sound and do not create a safety or fire hazard. Commissioner Sullivan questioned the petitioners if there is any organized effort to pay for pruning the trees? He feels the Public Works Department should remove the secondary trees and any further reduction be done at the petitioner's expense. Commissioner Rony disclosed that she recognizes several names on the petition and that Peter Brooks has worked on some of her trees, but she has not discussed the issue with any of them. If the focus is safety she stated the Town has a responsibility for the safety of the trees. She would support restorative action and the removal of a portion of the secondary trees. Commissioner Snow feels safety is the most critical issue, and since the trees have not been managed properly he is also concerned with the health of the trees. He would support staging the work based on urgency and keeping in mind the health and longevity of the trees. Commissioner Ferro also feels safety is a concern and that views should not be taken into consideration. She would like to see the secondary trees removed. Commissioner Wiviott feels the secondary trees should be removed and then continue discussions regarding the heritage trees. She suggested the trees be reviewed annually for safety purposes. Commissioner Eth feels removing the smaller trees would be a big change for the area. He feels the Commission is working with very few facts and would like to hear from Public Works, Police, and Fire. MOTION: to establish a sub-committee"South of Knoll Eucalyptus Grove" Moved: Wiviott, Seconded by Snow Vote: AYES: Unanimous Commissioners Wiviott and Canter volunteered to serve on the sub-committee. Commissioner Rony noted the sub-committee needs to look into the safety issue with Public Works, Fire and Police. POSC NRNUTES NO. 146 11/12196 4 1V. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. SOUTH OF KNOLL TREES Chair Eth suggested hearing from the public first, followed by presentation of the Subcommittee Report concerning the trees. Eleanor Becker (567 Virginia Drive) indicated that views are very important and that some "windowing"would be appropriate. Fred Borgman(5 87 Virginia Drive) stated that the trees have grown significantly during the thirty years he has been a resident of the area and that it would be appropriate to trim the trees to reclaim some of the view. Spencer Hahn (100 Howard Drive) stated that it would be wrong to remove the trees. He mentioned that he is a reformed environmentalist, having previously supported removal of trees for view purposes,he now feels differently because of the beneficial environmental dualities of trees and natural habitat. Sue Benvenuti (Hilary Drive)said that the trees serve as a windbreak, and are also a landmark in the South of Knoll area.The trees should be preserved and should not removed. Joan Dracott (Hilary Drive) stated that the trees are a landmark and should not be topped. Some "windowing" may be acceptable. David Malecek (12 Malvin Court)indicated that he had previously submitted a petition to the Commission concerning this issue. He said that views which had previously existed a few years earlier are now significantly reduced. The trees should be trimmed and "windowed." Secondary growth should also be removed. John Smissaert (7 Felipa Court) referred to the Town's Municipal Ordinance(15-4) concerning trees and view blockage, and suggested the Town may need to address the view issue accordingly. Henry Broderick(20 Rowley Circle)stated that the Town should permit no damage to the trees. There are important issues relating to private-personal advantage and the public interest in preserving the trees and the park area for the community which should be weighed. There is a strong public interest associated with preserving the trees. Duffy Hurwin(558 Tenaya) indicated that it was her intention that the secondary growth, rather than the seven large trees,be removed. She also indicated that the secondary POSC Minutes No. 148 February 11, 1997 2 EXHIBIT NO. growth may present a potential fire hazard. Roger McGee (Ham Court) stated that view maintenance is important, and the Town should keep the trees trimmed and growth under control. The secondary growth should be controlled. Chair Eth asked the Subcommittee to present a report. Commissioner Canter discussed her conversations with Fire Chief Bliss,Police Chief Herley and Superintendent lacopi concerning the current condition of the trees and potential safety problems. She reported that the aforementioned public officials found no fire or public safety hazard. Because power lines are under grounded in the area a potential problem has been alleviated.The trees.act as a windbreak for the area,and the smaller trees are not now a safety problem.In recent years the trees have withstood four major wind storms without incurring significant damage. Commissioner Canter suggested that safety pruning of the lower branches may be appropriate. Commissioner R,ony discussed her conversations with Chiefs Herley and Bliss,and Supt. lacopi,and indicated that these officials felt that the trees in their current state do not present significant public safety problems. The nearest overhead power lines are at a distance from the trees, and are not a hazard. It may be the case that significant cutting, trimming, "windowing"may present other problems such as weakening of the trees. Removal of the nearby secondary-smaller.trees may be a problem because the root systems of larger ands smaller trees may be intertwined. Commissioner Rony suggested that trimming or thinning lower branches maybe appropriate, and cited the Superintendent's recommendation, as well as the Town's Ordinance in support of preservation of the park area trees. Chair Eth asked for Commissioners' comments. Commissioner Canter stated that this area is an important habitat which should be maintained as a wild woodland area,in as natural a state as possible. There appear to be no significant public safety issues which would require major trimming of the trees. The public interest in.preserving the trees in their current condition outweighs the private interest in"windowing"the trees for view enhancement purposes. Supported safety pruning of the trees. Commissioner Sullivan indicated that safety factors were not prominent. Supported safety trimming and removal of short stubs in the area. POSC Minutes No. 148 February 11, 1997 3 Commissioner Rony lamented the ongoing gentrification of the Town, and desires to preserve natural woodland areas where possible. Supported safety pruning and removal of dead or decaying lower branches. Stated that the stand of trees should be left as is. Commissioner Snow supported the recommendations of the Public Works Superintendent, that safety pruning should be performed to maintain the health of the trees. Agrees that this publicly accessible wooded area should be preserved. Commissioner Zender accepted the recommendation of Superintendent lacopi concerning safety pruning and trimming of the trees. Chair Eth expressed appreciation for the South of Knoll woodland area, and supported the Superintendent's recommendation to safety prune and trim the trees where appropriate. MOTION: M/J. Eth/In response to the issues raised regarding thinning and removal of trees in the South of Knoll Area,the Parks &Open Space Commission concurs with the recommendation of Public Works Superintendent Iacopi that the trees are not now a public hazard, and that the Public Works Department continue to perform regular maintenance of the trees. Moved: Rony, Seconded by Canter Vote: Ayes: Unanimous 2. FLOOD PLAIN PROPERTY PROJECT Chair Eth asked for the report of the Subcommittee. Commissioner Zender.summarized the subcommittee meetings with Jim Wilson, the Town Engineer, Bruce Ross and Staff Liaison McVeigh, the review of the three(3) landscape design contract proposals,and the proposed scope and budget for hte project. Jim Wilson and Bruce Ross followed up with Mark Schatz concerning the Carducci proposal, and clarified issues concerning the engineering services needed and the appropriate cost of the contract proposal. Both Ross and Wilson now proposed POSC acceptance of the most recent contract proposal of Carducci Associates, Chair Eth asked for Commissioners' comments. Commissioner Rony pointed to some confusion regarding the process whereby this project is now before the POSC for recommendation to the Town Council. Questioned whether the POSC should recommend approval of the contract proposal for landscape design based on the previously submitted broad and general schematic plan. POSC Minutes No. 148 February 11, 1997 4 MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar, as amended. Moved: Thayer, Seconded by Thompson Vote: AYES: Unanimous Ben Taylor, Vista Vistazo Homeowners' Association President, said,he was concerned about the Town's liability in approving the site plan for 1450 Vistazo West in that no setbacks or boundaries had been defined, there was no geotechnical report, and no one had approached Sanitary District No. 5 about the sewer manhole which was in the middle of the proposed house location on the property. In response to a question from Mayor Hennessy, Planning Director Anderson said the Town's conditions of approval require the property owner to deal directly with the Sanitary District on the sewer line issue. Councilmember Ginalski pointed out that he had voted to deny the Design Review Board decision because of the concerns expressed above, MOTION: To adopt Resolution Upholding Design Review Board Decision re: Approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review for Construction of Single Family Residence at 1450 Vistazo West, Moved: Thompson, Seconded by Thayer Vote: AYES: Hennessy, Thayer, Thompson, Wolf NOES: Ginalski G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9) Trees South of the Knoll -Discussion of Letter from Eleanor Becker to Tiburon Town Council, dated April 2, 1997 - (Plus Excerpts of POSC Minutes dated 11/12/96, 2/11/97,and Town Council Minutes dated 2/19/97). Town Manager Kleinert said there was no Staff Report, but that Eleanor Becker had contacted him about the possibility of appealing the Council's approval of the Parks& Open Space Commission's recommendation concerning the maintenance of the eucalyptus trees located south of the knoll. He advised Ms. Becker that there was no formal appeal process of a Town Council decision and suggested instead that she write a letter to the Council. Councilmember Wolf said the issue of views was not addresses by the Parks & Open Space Commission and that the neighbors deserved the same consideration of view preservation as anyone else. Councilmember Ginalski concurred. Mayor Hennessy and Vice Mayor Thayer said they concurred with the Parks& Open Space Commission's recommendations. Councilmember Thompson said the Town should prune some of the saplings. Town Manager �^ � Town Council Minutes#111.. 41gv 7. 1997 2 EXHIBIT NO. ]Kleinert said Town Staff's sense was that Council wanted no windowing or pruning of the larger trees. Councilmember Wolf pointed out that as the decision currently stood there could be no removal of younger saplings either. Councilmember Ginalski suggested the homeowners meet with Mr. Brooks and have him draw up a proposal. Mayor Hennessy told the homeowners in the audience to meet with their respective associations and reach consensus on the issue, then to hire an arborist to draw up a plan for windowing and shaping which could be presented to Council for their review but would be paid for by the homeowners. Councilmember Wolf pointed out that the Town would still fund its usual portion for maintenance of trees in that area. Hank Broderick said Mayor Hennessy's suggestion was"asking too much" since there was no consensus among the homeowners. He said a better plan would be to form a committee. Mayor Hennessy encouraged him to do so. 10)Downtown Main Street ADA Improvements A)Discussion of Cost-Sharing Arrangements B)Letter from Chamber of Commerce President Steve Sears to Mayor Hennessy, dated 4/23/97. Councilmember Thompson said he had supported Option No. 3 partly because he thought it could later be converted to Option No. 1. Thompson also said he thought Option No. 2 would get rid of the need for ramps and rails but had found out later that neither of the above assumptions were true, therefore he asked for reconsideration of the matter. Thompson also pointed out that he had spent time on Main Street with the Town Engineer and had seen first-hand the problems with Option No. 3 concerning delivery vehicles and the difficultly safety vehicles had in getting through. He also saw that five foot sidewalks forced pedestrians into the street when someone in a wheelchair was passing. Thompson suggested formation of a subcommittee of Belvedere and Tiburon Councilmembers to study the issue further. Mayor Hennessy said she favored both Councils' full participation in the process. MOTION: To agendize Reconsideration of the Options for Main Street ADA Improvements. Moved: Thompson, Seconded by Wolf Vote: AYES: Hennessy, Thayer, Thompson, Wolf NOES: Ginalski Councilmember Ginalski said he vehemently disagreed and complained that anytime someone did Town Council Minutes#I 1/2 kfgv 7, 1997 3 UbfUbf. M50 LYl .31 41U4rc"Vo Specializing in Tree Preservation INC. 34 DeLuca Place,Suite M - SAN RAFAEL, CA 94991 472-7105 ROBERT MORE`!- CEFMFIED ARBORIST#178 Town of Tiburon 06/05105 Attn:Tony)acopi 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: Follow-up Safety inspection of Eucalyptus trees in Soccer Field and Bicycle Path ..area, This report is in regard to Bluegum Eucalyptus(Eucalyptus globulus)trees in the same general area as the Bluegum Eucalyptus(Eucalyptus globulus)tree that uprooted over the bicycle path and removed,on an emergency service basis, (Thursday,June 1,Friday,June 2 and Monday,June 5.) This is a preliminary assessment due to the time constraints placed on inspection and reporting. Note regarding fallen tree: Upon close inspection,it is apparent that the Bluegum Eucalyptus(Eucalypt-us lobulus) tree failed due to girdling roots(creating a high pressure socket with root rot(mycelium fungal mat)),and increased buttress Toot pressure with the adjacent Bluegum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus)tree,5-6' diameter. Upon preliminary inspection,the remaining adjacent tree(Tree#l)has the same symptoms as the previous tree;however,it does not appear to be in imminent danger of falling as it is fairly well balanced.However, if it should fail,this tree is within range of the soccer field and would extend well into the.field. It is-my recommendation to at least safety prune (to be dune on a 12-15 year cycle),which includes reducing the height by,at least,one-third and shape proportionately()reduce weight and wind resistance),or preferably,remove it entirely,due to the proximity to the soccer field. There is another(Tree#2)Bluegum Eucalyptus(Eucalyptus,globulus)tree,5' in diameter,(5' to the south),on the same west side of the hill. On preliminary examination,the concern for this tree is unlike the previous tree,as this entire tree leans off-balance to the west,directly above the soccer, field, It is difficult to tell the exact condition of the root system without in depth examination of the buttress root system (root collar),including sail samples and lowering the soil level. I strongly recommend that it should at least be reduced in height by ane-third and shaped proportionately- However,preferably,to eliminate fuwxc concern, it-hotdd be removed, HIBIT NO. Page 2 Further south and on the west side of the hill (Tree#3), is one Bluegurn Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus)tree,2.51 in diameter,well-balanced at bottom of the hill(semi- level ground.,only about 20' from the soccer field):- If this tree should fail it would extend onto the soccer field area. Safety pruning as above or removal is recommended. edge edof the hill top, is another Bluegum EucalyptusDirectly above,on the cliff — P (Eucalyptus globulus)tree(Tree 44), 2.5' diameter. Because it is on the cliffedge, I am concerned about the lack of appropriate.root development- Although the tree is fairly well balanced it could uproot directly from the cliff side. I recommend this tree be removed. There are two smAtler(Tree 45)co-dominant Blucgum Eucalyptus(Eucalyptus globulus) trees,approximately 2W'and IV in diamotex,growing with increasing buttress ptessure. There is no imminent danger,but these trees will gradually develop into becoming a problem in about 15-20 years. Of the trees we have addressed, 5+trees are on the west side of the mountain,above the soccer field,and the,remaining 12-14 Bluegum Eucalyptu's(Eucalyptus globulus)trees, which range from 7' in diameter to I' bi diameter,are on the north side of the hill, above the bicycle path.These 12-14 trees may be subject to limb,failure due to large arching lateral branches,co-doMinant leaders with tight crotches or junctions(bulging)included bark,creating gradual increased internal buttress pressure,which over the years creates leader failure (the leaders aders are as large as individual trees). There are 5 that are considered as some potential liability justifyipg at least safety pruning..These trees are not likely to uproot,however,to be clear,there are structuralflaws present which represent possible danger to hikers,foot traffic on the bill. Note: This is only a preliminary overview due to time constraints. An in depth report, consisting of root collar excavation,core samples etc. is possible if further explanations are required. My preliminary recommendation is to remove the trees within range of the soccer field and simply safety prune the remaining trees for now. Please feel free to contact us should you have further questions or concerns. Regards, Robert Morey Certified Arbori.qt#176 RM/dac Town Council Meeti�rg TOWN OF TIBURON March 7, 2007 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From Nicholas T. Nguyen, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Subject: Recommendation to Authorize Budget Amendment of$15,000 for Eucalyptus Tree Pruning and Removal on Town Property at the Knoll Area Near McKegney Green Reviewed By: BACKGROUND In late May of 2006, a very large Bluegum Eucalyptus tree with a diameter of approximately 5.5 feet located at the knoll area near McKegney Green collapsed over the paved multi-use path. Luckily,the tree fell during the evening and resulted in no injuries and minimal property damage. The failure was linked to girdling roots with root rot. As a result of this incident, staff ordered two follow-up field reviews and reports of the surrounding trees in the area, generally Bluegum Eucalyptus. An initial inspection and report, conducted by Marin Tree Service, revealed various potential problems with the trees including girdling roots, very tall dimensions, off-balance growth, and overhanging limbs over high use areas. The inspection recommended safety pruning to lighten the canopy and eliminate overhanging limbs, as well as removal of certain trees. A recent and more comprehensive investigation was prepared by another locally-known arborieultural consultant, Moritz Arboricultural Consulting,which recommended that of the 15 trees reviewed, • Seven (7) should be pruned. Pruning consists of limb removal, crown reduction, or other forms of trimming. • Four(4) should be monitored. • Four (4) should be removed. Removal was recommended because there is poor anchorage, the trees pose some hazard, or that removal would promote growth of native species. EXHIBIT No. T Qlcil (,(i(ltlt'II tAlt'Sailtl_ In a separate review by Moritz Arboricultural Consulting, working on behalf of the Reed Heights- Tiburon Knolls Property Owners Association, the firm determined that the trees are also very old. He estimated the oldest trees are 120 years old;the specie's life span is about 125-150 years old. Staff presented the original information from the Marin Tree Service inspection report to the - Parks and Open Space Commission (POSC) at its October 10th meeting for their evaluation and direction. The POSC concurred with staff that safety and liability are priorities, and voted (3-1) to perform safety pruning. The Commission suggested that tree removal should not be performed until further review and hearing are conducted. The comprehensive Moritz Arboricultural Consulting report was subsequently prepared in December,2006. The report was discussed at a January 9,2007, special meeting of the POSC which voted(4-0)to have Department of Public Works staff use their judgment in.implementing the report recommendations. FINANCIAL IMPACT The cost to perform the safety pt Lining is approximately$15,000, which was not budgeted for this fiscal year. The Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG)indicated.that it will make available a grant to cover a majority of this cost provided certain risk management practices are adopted by the Town. The Town's Administrative Services Director, in charge of risk management, will work with ABAG towards this end. In the meantime, a budget amendment will be necessary to perform this work before the end of the winter season. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to authorize a budget amendment in the amount of$15;000 for safety pruning and removal of various Eucalyptus trees on Town property at the knoll area near McKegney Green, EXHIBIT Exhibit A—Marin Tree Service and Moritz Arboricultural Consulting inspection reports Exhibit B —Vicinity map for pruning Exhibit C—Property owner notification Prepared By: Nicholas T. Nguyen, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer TOWN OFTIg$URON Parks and Open Spat,, Committee 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Meeting Tiburon, CA 94920 November 13, 2007 Agenda Item: i To: Parks and Open Space Committee From: Nicholas T.Nguyen, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Subject: Update On Eucalyptus Tree Pruning and Removal on Town Property at the Knoll Area Near McKegney Green BACKGROUND In late May of 2006, a very large Bhtegum Eucalyptus tree with a diameter of approximately 5.5 feet located at the knoll area.near McKegney Green collapsed over the paved multi-use path. Luckily, the tree fell during the evening and resulted in no injuries and minimal property damage. The failure was linked to girdling roots with root rot. As a result of this incident, staff ordered two follow-up field reviews and reports of the surrounding trees in the area,generally Bluegum Eucalyptus. An initial inspection and report, conducted by Marin Tree Service, revealed various potential problems with the trees including girdling roots, very tall dimensions, oft-balance growth,and overhanging limbs over high use areas. The inspection recommended safety pruning to lighten the canopy and eliminate overhanging limbs, as well as removal of certain trees. A recent and more comprehensive investigation was prepared by another locally-known arboricultural consultant,Moritz Arboricultural Consulting, which recommended that of the 15 trees reviewed, ® Seven (7)should be pruned. Pruning consists of limb removal, crown reduction, or other forms of trimming. • Four(4) should be monitored. • Four (4) should be removed. Removal was recommended because there is poor anchorage, the trees pose some hazard, or that removal would promote growth of native species. EXHIBIT NO.. f5- t ;'S 1'lir� In a separate review by Moritz Arboricultural Consulting, working on behalf of the Reed Heights- Tiburon Knolls Property Owners Association, the firm determined that the trees are also very old. He estimated the oldest trees are 120 years old; the specie's life span is about 125-150 years old. Staff presented the original information from the Marin Tree Service inspection report to the Parks and Open Space Commission (POSC) at its October 10th meeting for their evaluation and direction.The POSC concurred with staff that safety and liability are priorities, and voted (3-1) to - - perform safety pruning. The Commission suggested that tree removal should not be performed until further review and hearing are conducted. The comprehensive Moritz Arboricultural Consulting report was subsequently prepared in December, 2006. The report was discussed at a January 9,2007, special meeting of the POSC which voted (4-0) to have Department of Public Works staff use their judgment in implementing the report recommendations. On March 7,2007;the Town Council authorized a budget amendment in the amount of$15,000 for safety pruning and removal of various Eucalyptus trees on Town property at the knoll area near McKegney Green. UPDATE The work was done by Treemasters, a local company, consistent with the recommendations. The process was as follows: 1. Staff requested bids from local tree contractors to complete the work that,was recommended by Ray Moritz. The recommendations were actually shown to the contractors prior to their bidding. 2. The contractors provided bids to complete the recommendations (not all recommendations were implemented per staffs decision). There are always field conditions that may vary the work but nothing substantial that was brought forward. 3. Treemasters received the job. 4. The work was noticed by mail, as well as one week before actual work by placement of signs along the multi-use path because of the requirement for path closure. The work was completed by the end of June 2007 within 3 days of start(along with trimming of adjacent trees along the cut-over path, normally referred to as the Pine Terrace path) and overseen by staff periodically. By this time, Dave Davenport had resigned from the Town and the oversight was provided by Dennis Trumble and Tony Iacopi (who has since retired). 5. There were 4 trees that were recommended to be removed in Moritz report, for safety and health concerns, as well as for the purpose promoting native species. Only 2 were actually removed. 6. Various trees were trimmed back by removing limbs, as per recommendations from the report. The trees were not "topped", as many upper branches remain. 7. There were no change orders to this project. When the work was completed, it was inspected by Tony and Dennis and approved. 't(,M \OF TIBU1it)\ Pager`2 of 3 People have.generally commented that they are pleased with the way the trees looked (not the "better" view through them, but the trees themselves). Staff believes that the tree canopies will fill out by spring. Prepared By: Nicholas T. Nguyen, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES NO. 217 APPROVED November 13, 2007 6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD CALL TO ORDER Chair Christopher Wand called the regular meeting of the Parks and Open Space Commission to order at 6:00 P.M., Tuesday,November 13, 2007 in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. I. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Wand; Commissioners Canter, Lindqvist, McMullen and Zender. EX-OFFICIO: Director of Public Works/Town Engineer-Nick Nguyen II. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS None III. STAFF AND COMMISSION BRIEFING Director Nguyen reported that the County helped clear and rehabilitate two fire roads, one at Shepherds Way; the other, two portions of Gilmartin (Ridge Trail and Lower Ridge). The work has been 90% completed and a marked difference can be noted. A chain/bollard gate will be constructed on the Lower Ridge Trail. Two residents raised to the Town Manager their concern regarding the fuel loads in Open Space. She has issued a position memo regarding this issue noting it is really a matter of nature; and not one which the Town can do much about. However, the Town has agreed to cut back the vegetation very near the homes on Sugar Loaf and Place Moulin. The multi-use path is 99% complete. The feedback has been quite positive about the project. The Town is contracting with a vendor to make the etiquette signs which have been approved by the Town Council. There are two new drinking fountains—one near the Belvedere Tennis Club and the other at San Rafael Avenue. Fountains were limited by strategic locating and availability of service laterals. The issue of developing a management plan for the Town's Open Space has been delayed by DPW staffing shortages. EXHIBIT NO. Director Nguyen reported that the Town's response to the Oil Spill was limited to putting out signs of notification and need for precaution. The main responsibility fell to the County, Coast Guard and other federal organizations. Discussion ensued regarding temporary courtesy signs placed for the Richardson Bay Audubon Center and Sanctuary during the breeding season along the shoreline October 31 to March 31. Copies of the signs with their information based on the ordinance were shown to the Commission. Commissioner Canter expressed concern that that the signs don't remind people to refrain from wading or from allowing their dogs in the shoreline water. Director Nguyen noted the ordinance does not address that aspect of protection. He suggested it's best not to sign what can't be enforced. Commissioner Wand pointed out that handling hazardous waste required training. Commissioner Wand noted that the multi-use path looks great but he did have concern about the retaining wall near South of Knoll Playground as it's rotted and pitched.Nguyen said the Contractor was unable at this time to work on it and other measures may have to be considered. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S 5-0 Canter/Zender to approve Minutes No. 216 as amended: V. A.b. 3: Delete Commissioner Canter as a member of the subcommittee Change to: "All Commissioners will assist" V. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Cypress Hollow Park West Side Improvements Director Nguyen reported that he has called upon the Town's On-Call Engineers to help administer the project; a$7,500 proposal for doing so has been received. Nancy W. O'Neill, a Cypress Hollow resident at 185 Rancho Drive, again presented a plan of using the horseshoe pit space which would better serve the neighborhood children. She continues to suggest a tire swing and monkey bars be placed in the pit area. Additionally, she recommends the removal of overhanging tree branches so that older children can throw balls. She pointed out that the park is meant to be used and enjoyed by as many people as possible and that it's a real neighborhood gathering place. Cathy Mortimer, 40 Cypress Hollow Drive, also spoke in favor of modifications pointing out the changes would favor older children. She suggested that paving would lend itself to the use of small bikes and scooters and the tree trimming would enhance the kids' ability to throw balls. She emphasized she wants Cypress Hollow to remain a small neighborhood park and does not want to extend themselves to bring in users from elsewhere. Mark Boyadjian, 170 Rancho Drive, thinks the park is a public space and brings the community together. He notes that outsiders do use it at times. He says that when he bought a house close to the park, he expected some noise. Ed Browne, 20 Baccharis Place, owns a house which backs up to the section of the park which contains the pit. He objected to the lack of notice regarding park changes and feels the government is ahead of itself. He noted that the agendas in The Ark aren't sufficient. He didn't object to a playground when he bought his house 12 years ago; but he thinks the park should continue to be used as it was designed. In 1999, changes were discussed, at which time he sent a letter to Tony Iacopi objecting. His main point is that it was designed as a park not a playground. To Commissioner Zender's inquiry, at this time Mr. Brown has no suggestions of somewhat passive changes to which he'd be amenable. To Commissioner Wand's inquiry about tree trimming, he would not object to the height being altered but he would find grooming of the width objectionable due the impact on their privacy. The Commissioners agreed that the issue should be staffed further. Director Nguyen urged that options be worked on by the Subcommittee and the neighbors. Commissioner Zender reminded the group that Belveron had a users survey which might be modified to assist the Cypress Hollow neighborhood. Commissioner McMullen urged that a design be formed for the neighbors and POSC to consider. He also expressed the apparent lack of depth of conversation among these neighbors. M/S Wand/Canter 5-0 to postpone POSC action until the Subcommittee meets with the Cypress Hollow neighbors to develop some options which will be brought to the next scheduled POSC meeting. B. Possible additional drinking fountain locations on multi-use path Commissioner Wand suggested that in light of environmentalists, et al's realization that water bottles have become so unpopular and detrimental, he wants to explore the possibility that Tiburon offer more sources for drinking water. Commissioner Canter- opined that this borders on overkill. A possible location might be between Beach and Mar West. It was generally agreed when the next opportunity occurs that a public lateral is available, a drinking fountain might be installed. C. Outcome of the approved Pruning of Knoll's grove of eucalyptus trees Commissioner Canter expressed concern that the pruning went beyond the scope to which POSC agreed and indicated that she would not have voted to have a heritage tree removed. She has photos of the present situation and claims that Moritz who presented an assessment of the grove's health actually works for Reed Heights. Commissioner Zender noted that the finished job looked fine. Commissioner McMullen opined that the area looks more open now and that he's pleased with the work. He noted that there had been a considerable amount of discussion regarding this matter and he thought there had been proper management of the project. Director Nguyen indicated that Asst. Superintendent Davenport had left the Town's employ by the time of the work but that his next in command had supervised the work in accord with the agreed upon Moritz Report. Commissioner McMullen asked for the report so they can determine what action regarding the tree in question was agreed upon. Convnissioner Wand agreed that the grove of trees looks bad now because they had never been pruned; he assured the Commission they will grow back and fill in six months to a year from now. Commissioner Lindqvist reminded the Commission that the actual tree pruning was done by Treemasters. Director Nguyen will be providing the Commission with a definitive description of the scope of work provided to Treemasters. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:18 PM. CHAIR, CHRISTOPHER WAND, Parks & Open Space Commission ATTEST: NICHOLAS T. NGUYEN, SECRETARY Ro TIBURON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1679 TIBURON BOULEVARD, TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920 TELEPHONE: (415) 435-7200 FAX: (415) 435-7205 FIRE -DI ROSEMARY BLISS, FIRE CHIEF January 16, 1997 Margot Zender Parks & Open Space Commission 1155 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon, Ca. 94920 Dear Ms. Zender: Thank you for contacting me. regarding the regulations for vegetation management. The Tiburon Fire Protection District enforces the Uniform Fire Code and the California State Resources, Code which require dead brush and grass to be cut and cleared within thirty feet of structures and for large trees to be trimmed within ten feet of the ground. The eucalyptus grove on the knoll in Tiburon is remote from structures and is not subject to these regulations. The Fire District has no authority to require the trimming or removal of these trees. Please feel free to contact me again if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Rosemary Bliss Fire Chief enc. EXHIBIT NO. /0 PROTECTING THE COMMUNITIES OF BELVEDERE AND TIBURON Initial Study For the South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal APRIL 2017 PREPARED BY Town of Tiburon Community Development Department T NO EXHIBI .1k TABLE OF CONTENTS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (DK/\FT).... --- ....... ....................................... ........... 2 A. PROJECT —... ............... ......... ..........................................................................-] B. REFERENCES............... ................ ........................................ ...... .......................... '— .................. C. EVALUATION OFENVIRONMENTAL l&{P}\CTS--_ ....... .......-.......... ...... ............ _ ........8 Aesthetics........ ... ...... ....... .......... .......—....... ......................... ........................................9 Aoricuknrn............— ....... ----'.-- .........--'......---................................................. lO Air Quality..........................— .......—......_—_— .......................................... ...... ........ —.� l� Biological Reouuroos— ... ------........ ---' ......_—......—...... ........ ............. ---'' |l Cultural Reoourcca--------- .............. ...... ---, ....... ........ ...... ---'--_-i5 Geologyand Soils.... —....... .........--'........................ — ........................ -~_.—'—...... |j Greenhouse Gas Emissions..... —........ —......... .................................................----...... i7 Hazards....... ......................--------..----'--.—._-------.--_----- lD }{vdrukugvand \�ukn Quality....... ----.---_—_---.—.'._---.—_—__--.2O LandUse and Planning ........ ................ ......... .................... .' ........ ......................... —...22 MineralItosoorccx—................................. ...... .............. ..... ...... - ....... ...........................23 Noise.......... _....... ....... ........—. .... ........—.—.................................. ................................23 Populationand Housing............... — .......... .... ............................... ...................._�......... ,25 PublicServices............... ................................. ....... ........ ....................................................26 Recreation................. ..... . ......-- ..... ... ...... ........................................................ .......27 ......... ......—...........— ...... .................. '~.~^—_.^~.~' .................Z7 Utilities and Service Systems............................... '_—''_',^.................................. _......28 Mandatory Findings of Significance........ ....... ................................... ...... .... ..............3O Il CONSENT AGREEMENT FOR MITIGATION MEASURES............................................31 LIST OFFIGURES Figure l: Project Location and Vicinity Map.........— ....................... ...........................................---^'5 8ou,hKnoll Tree Removal Proposal iokio| S*dy-lowno[llbomqCx xpi/2017 | MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 X County Clerk, Marin County 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 234 San Rafael, CA 94903 FROM: Town of iburon Community Development Department 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon., CA 94920 Project Title: South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal Proponent: Ron and Duffy Hurwin Project Location. A.P.N. 055-131-23; adjacent toTiburon Boulevard and McKegn.ey Green, Tiburon, CA 94920 Project Description: The applicant represents a group of private property owners seeking approval of a Tree Permit(File#TREE2017001) froth the Town of Tiburon to remove forty-two(42)trees froth South Knoll in the Town's Richardson Bay Lineal Park, a public park. The project would remove twenty-one (21)Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees, fifteen (15)Italian Stone Pine trees and six(6)Monterey Pine trees from South Knoll and its immediate vicinity. South Knoll is a prominent natural topographic feature located adjacent to McKegney Green and the South of Knoll Park& Playground, The stated intentlof the tree removal is to promote growth of native vegetation, reduce potential safety hazards and improve views from residences above the site. South Knoll is an approximately 50-foot tall knoll rising above adjacent level areas of the Richardson Bay Lineal Park. Vegetation oil South Knoll consists of nal ive and non-native trees, including Blue Gunn Eucalyptus, Coast Live Oak, Monterey Pine and Italian Stone Pine trees, and assorted shrubs and grasses. Numerous Coast Live Oak seedlings are present on the site, which have the potential for better growth if the subject trees are removed. Finding: I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant el'fect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. Therefore,a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. Signature: , __)f ,_QA,bA. - 45117 Daniel M. Watrous Date Planning Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal Initial Sttidy-'I'o%vnof-i-ibt.iron,(A April 201? 2 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Project Title: South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager(415) 435-7393) 4. Project Location: South Knoll portion of the Richardson Bay Lineal Park, between McKegney Green and the South of Knoll Park and Playground, Tiburon,CA S. Project Sponsors' Names and Addresses: Ron and Duffy Hurwin 558 Tenaya Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 G. Person Preparing the Submission/Initial Study Checklist Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager—Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Phone: (415) 435-7393 Fax: (415)435-2438 Email: dwatrous@towiioftiburoji.org 7. File Number: TR-EE2017001 8. Assessor Parcel No. 055-131-23 9. Type of Approval Sought: Tree Permit I'C(lUeSt to remove 42 trees from a public park. 10. Size of Subject Property: Approximately 5 acres. 11. Present and Previous Use of Site or Structures: Public Park since 1975, unimproved Caltrans (State Highway 13 1) right of way prior to 1975; no structures on the site; remnants of a ruined water tank near the knoll-top. 12. General Plan Designation: Parks & Recreation. 13. Zoning: P &R(Parks and Recreation). W. Description of Project: The applicant represents a group of private property owners seeking approval of a Tree Permit (File #TREE2017001) from the Town orriburon to remove forty-two (42)trees from South Knoll in the To,.Nn's Richardson Bay Lineal Park, a public park. The project South Knoll'l'rec Removal Proposal Initial Study—'T'own of'l'ihurorn,CA A0612017 3 would remove twenty-one (21) Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees, fifteen (15) Italian Stone Pine trees and six (6) Monterey Pine trees from South Knoll and its immediate vicinity.The project 4vould also remove all Eucalyptus saplings from the site and cover Eucalyptus stumps to prevent re- sprouting and subsequent growth. No new tree planting is proposed as part of the project. South Knoll is an approximately 50-foot tali knoll rising above adjacent level areas of the Richardson Bay Lineal Park. South Knoll is a prominent natural topographic feature located adjacent to McKegney Green and the South of Knoll Park & Playground. Vegetation ort South Knoll consists of native and non-native trees, including Blue Gum Eucalyptus, Coast Live Oak, Monterey Pine and Italian Stone Pine trees, and assorted shrubs and grasses.Numerous Coast Live Oak seedlings are present on the site, which have the potential for better growth if the subject trees are removed.. The trees proposed to be removed are located completely on Town-awned property. No trees are located within the Caltrans right-of-way for Tiburon Boulevard(State Highway 131). The trees do not fall within 100 feet of the shoreline of Richardson Bay, and are therefore not within the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). The stated intent of the tree removal is to promote growth of dative vegetation, reduce potential safety hazards and improve views from residences above the site. The removal of the trees is intended to promote greater health of native trees already growing ori the knoll, including 222 Oaks, consisting of 181 seedlings (less than 1 inch diameter),26 saplings (1 to 4 inch diameter) and 15 larger oaks(4 to 12 inch diameter).The removal of fire-prone and failure-prone tree species, such as Eucalyptus and Pine trees, is intended to eliminate potential fire hazards and reduce hazards from trees and limbs falling on pedestrians on adjacent parks, Old Rail Trail,as well as a nearby bus stop along Tiburon Boulevard. The project would eliminate trees which have grown into the views toward Richardson Bay, Sausalito and San Francisco from many residences nearby and uphill from the site. Workers removing the subject trees would access the site using the unpaved pathway along the shoreline to the west of the site. Equipment would be carried up the knoll for removal of trees and tree debris would be carried down to vehicles and removed from the site. Workers would coordinate with the Tiburon Public Works Department to avoid disruption to the Old Rail Trail and adjacent parks during tree removal. 15. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: North: Public park (McKegney Green), single-family residential, State Highway 131 South: Public park (South of Knoll Park and Playground); Richardson Bay East: Public park(Old Rail -frail multi-use path), single-family residential West: Public park, Richardson Bay 16. Other agencies or utility providers whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None. South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal Initial study—Town offiburon,CA April 2017 4 Project Location and Vicinity Map - Figure 1 Richmond a afael-B�ace� ?RR t? iFAH- "IUEF & -' . IT To SanC Rafael s 1 i I yf Y fie {:'.f5�((`/x, qu J FM-00,0 ! t� l L - �Vai l my Tburon g l San Francisco Bay r / ; Proiect Locationz X. "y iil t \� > " " z l ''i � � i Richardson ` r ��c BeI V w 4t t 1 /'�\6 l'l[, •P 3S pyypyyee,, Angel (slantl M_ARIN (£ 'zr '�O y4 J TN$an Francisco n � South Knoll'free Removal Proposal Initial Study—To-wn Of Tiburon,CA April 2017 5 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on tte following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry ❑ Air Quality ® Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards and Hazardous ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality Materials ❑ Land UselPlanning ❑ Mineral Resources Noise ❑ Populationli-Iousing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is;required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the envirorumnt, but at lest one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect oil the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an EARLIER EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Daniel M. Watrotls Date Planning Manager Town of Tiburon South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal initial Study—Town of Tiburon,CA April 2017 6 B. REFERENCES The following is a list of references used in the preparation of this document. Each of the topics addressed in Section C, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, includes alist of references by number. The numbers for the reference sources correspond with the sources that are listed below by number. I. Town of Tiburon General flan 2. Town of Tiburon Zoning Ordinance 3. Arboricultural Report prepared by Urban Forestry Associates, Inc., dated December 12, 2006 4. Arborist Report prepared by Urban Forestry Associates, Inc., dated November 30, 2016 5. Native Tree Restoration Plan prepared by A.rborscience, dated December 18, 2016 6. Tiburon Tree Ordinance 7. Field Inspection 8. Experience with other projects of this size and nature 9. Hazardous waste list website: htip://www.dtse.ca.gov/database/Calsites/Coi-tese List.cfin. 10. State Planning and Zoning Law H. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 12. Composite Flood Hazard Areas- HUD National Flood Insurance Program 13. Marin Countywide Pian 14. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans 15. Bay Area Clean Air Plan 16. Department of Fish &r. Game 17. Town of Tiburon Climate Action Plan 18. State/Federal Environmental Standards (a) Ambient Air Quality Standards (b) Noise Levels for Construction Equipment 19. Federal Environmental Standards (a) Water Quality Standards-40 CFR 120 (b) Low-Noise Emission Standards-40 CFR 203 (c) General Effluent Guidelines& Standards-40 CFR 401 (d) National Primary& Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards -40 CFR 50 20. CEQA Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal Initial Study—Town of Tiburon;CA Apri1 2017 - ----___ _7 C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Note: For each topic listed below, a reference source was used to complete the Environmental Checklist. The reference sources are listed by number in Section B of this document. 1. Aesthetics Would the project have: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic El vista? (Sources-. 1, 2, 7, 8) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ❑ El ❑ including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 1, 2, 7, 8) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual F1 El 0 ❑ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 1, 2, 7, 8) d) Create a new source of substantial light or El glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?(Sources.- 1,*21 71 8) Discussion-. The proposed project would involve the removal of 42 trees from South Knoll, a portion of the Town's Richardson Bay Lineal Park,. South Knoll is located between McKegney Green and the South of Knoll Park & Playground. South Knoll is visible from several residential neighborhoods and from Tiburon Boulevard (State Highway 131), the main thoroughfare leading into and out ofTiburon. South Knoll is also prominently viewed from the adjacent portions of the Lineal Park and from Old Rail Trail, the heavily-used pedestrian and bicycle path that passes on the landward side Of South Knoll. The removal of these trees WOW Id change the visual character of South Knoll from a somewhat wooded appearance to a landform with very little significant vegetation. - -----—------ ------------------ South Knoll Tec Removal Proposal Initial Study—'town ol'TibUron,CA April 2017 8 The appearance of South Knoll when viewed from residential neighborhoods would be changed as a result of the removal of these trees. Most homes in the vicinity of the project site currently have views to5vard Richardson Bay, Sausalito and San Francisco. The trees proposed to be removed intrude into these views froth many residences nearby and uphill from the site.The project would change these views by removing the trees and expanding existing views of the bay and cities beyond. This change would alter existing views from these homes, but would not have an adverse impact on such views. Tiburon Boulevard is the main thoroughfare leading into and out of Tiburon, but is not designated by the State of California as.a scenic highway. The removal of the trees proposed by this project would alter the visual character of South Knoll when viewed from Tiburon Boulevard, McKegney Green, South of Knoll Park & Playground, Old Rail Trail, and other areas from a somewhat wooded hillside to a landforrn Without significant vegetation other-than grass and small shrubs. This change to the visual character of fihe knoll when viewed from these vantage points,although noticeable and significant, is not considered extensive enough to substantially degrade tire-existing visual character or quality of the site and its Surroundings. Over the sport term,this visual change would constitute an irreversible environmental change, as even under the best circumstances significant native tree growth would take decades to occur. 2. Agriculture and T+orestty.Resources: Would the_project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland, or farmland ofStatewide Importance (Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 1, 13) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ❑ use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 1, 2) c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or causeL1 El rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), ortimber land zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8))? (Sources: 1, 2) South Knoll"free Removal Proposal Initial Study—Town ofI"iburou.CA April 2017 9 d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? (Sources: 1, 8) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ e) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in.conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use?(Sources: 1, 8) Discussion: There is no farmland on the site or in the vicinity. The existing zoning of the property is Parks and Recreation (P&R), and there are no existing Williamson Act contracts, and therefore the proposed project, does not conflict with any agricultural zoning. The project does not involve other changes in the existing environment which would result iia conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. The removal of 42 trees from the site would result in the temporary loss of significant vegetation on the site until existing Coast Live Oak seedlings on the site have the opportunity to flourish once the subject trees are removed from the site. 3.rtraity project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 1, 7, 8, ❑ ❑ ❑ 14, 15, 17, 18,. 19) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.for which the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing ernissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19) South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal Initial Study—Town of Tiburon,CA April 2017 li) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ Pollutant concentrations? (Sources: 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 e) Create obectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ (� substantial number of people? (Sources: 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19) .Discussion: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Bay Area Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD., 2010).The project site is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD) is the regional government agency that inonitors and regulates air pollution within the air basin. Three pollutants are known to exceed the state and federal standards in the Town: ozone, particulates(PMl0), and carbon monoxide. Both ozone and PMl0 are considered regional pollutants, because their concentrations are not determined by proximity to individual sources, but show a relative uniformity over a region. Carbon monoxide is considered a local pollutant, because elevated concentrations are usually only found near the source(e.g., congested intersections). The removal of 42 trees on the subject site would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any applicable air quality plan and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project area is cion-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The use of mechanical equipment to remove the trees could result in short-term in7pacts to air duality, but Staff considers this temporary impact to be less-than-significant. Potentially Less Than Less Than No 4. Biological Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Would the project: Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ❑ ❑ ❑ directly dor through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 3, 16, 19) b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑ ❑ ❑ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or•regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal Initial Study—Town of Tiburon,CA April 2017 _ 11 Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Dish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1, 3; 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 19) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ❑ ❑ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Sources: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 19) d)Interfere substantially with the movement of _ ❑ ❑ ❑ any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1.6, 19) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ® ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, 8, 16, 19) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ (� Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 16, 19) Discussion: Arborist reports for the site were conducted by Urban Forestry Associates, Inc., in 2006 and 2016 and a native tree restoration plan for the site was prepared by Arborscience in 2016. The studies indicated that the site is dominated by native and non-native trees, including Blue Gum Eucalyptus,Coast Live Oak, Monterey Pine and Italian Stone Pine trees, and assorted shrubs and grasses. Numerous Coast Live Oak seedlings are present on the site, which have the potential for better growth if the subject trees are removed.Field reconnaissance surveys and records research did not indicate the presence of any special status plant or animal species or any jurisdictional wetlands on the site. The removal of the trees,from this site would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal Initial Study-Town orTiburon,CA April 2017 � ��- 12 The Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Tree Ordinance contain numerous goals and policies related to trees, including the following: 0 1� Land Use Element: Goal LU-F: To preserve and pl-OtCdTibliron's views, scenic environment, natural beauty,and open space. Open Space and Conservation Element: Tree Policies Trees and woodland areas are important natural resources which provide habitat for birds and shaded,protected areas for other animals; and help to stabilize hillsides. Trees and wooded areas also contribute to the visual character of the community. Trees and woodlands are valued by the Town for their ecological importance, their visual enhancement of the COMITILM ity, and their contribution to residential privacy and quiet. Policy OSC-')').- Protected trees, as defined in the Municipal Code, tree stands, and tree clusters shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Policy USC-34: The Town shall protect natural habitat, and natural wooded areas shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Safety Element: Fire Hazards Tiburon is susceptible to wildfires, urban fires, and wildland-urban interface fires where the two areas meet. Wildfires often occur on grassy areas, and can spread to nearby dwellings.If the fires are unattended or exposed to winds, some forested areas, such as those of eucalyptus, may be particularly prone to forest fires. However, this problem is limited in the Tiburon Planning Area by interspersion of woodland areas within open grasslands. Tiburon Tree Ordinance: Policy#1. Tile Town recognizes the scenic importance, shade-creating, and privacy-creating benefits of trees to the community. The Town also recognizes that trees can provide soil stability, noise buffering, and wind protection benefits, and can help prevent erosion and debris flow landslides,on the hilly terrain which characterizes most of Tiburon. The Town of Tiburon greatly values its trees for their ecological importance, visual enhancement of the community, and their contribution to residential privacy and quietness. The Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Tree Ordinance recognize the importance of trees to the character and beauty of the Town, and recognize the role that trees have in advancing the public health, safety and welfare. The removal of the trees proposed by this project would alter the visual character of South Knoll South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal Initial Study-"roam ofTiburon,CA April 2017 13 when viewed froth Tiburon Boulevard, IvIcKegney Green, South of Knoll Park & Playground, Old Rail Trail, and other areas from a somewhat wooded hillside to a landform without significant vegetation other than grass and sinal]shrubs. This change to the visual character of the knoll when viewed from these vantage points, although noticeable and significant, is not considered extensive enough to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Over the short term,this visual change would constitute an irreversible environmental change, as even under the best circumstances significant native tree growth would take decades to occur. The removal of the Eucalyptus trees would lessen potential fire and safety hazards on the knoll and in the vicinity and would promote the growth of native Coast Live Oak seedlings on the site. There is a remote possibility that raptors or other migratory birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act(META) could establish new nests on the site in the future before proposed tree removal begins. These birds include: Cooper's Hawk, white-tailed.kite, red-tailed hawk, great horned owl,and other raptors. None of these species have formal listing status Linder the State or federal Endangered Species Acts, but some are recognized as fully protected by the California Fish & Wildlife Department. Nests in active use are protected under the MBTA and raptor nests in active use are further protected under Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. Although no evidence of any bird nesting has been observed on the site, new nests could be found or established before tree removal is initiated.Destruction of a nest in active use would be a potentially significant impact, but Could be mitigated through implementation of avoidance measures prior to tree removal. The following condition should be applied to tree removal activities on the subject site, and would reduce the biological impacts to less-than-significant levels: Recommended Mitigation Measure 1310-1:Any active raptor nests or other bird nests protected tinder the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the vicinity oj'proposed tree removal shall be avoided until young birds are able to leave the nest (i.e.fledged) and forage on their own. Avoidance may be accomplished either by scheduling tree removal during the non-nesting period(i.e. September through F ebruary) of,, ifthis is not feasible, by conducting a pre-renloval survey for bird nests. Provisions of the pre-reinoval survey and nest avoidance, ifnecessary, shall include the following: • If tree removal is scheduled during the active nesting period(March through A ligust), a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct a pre-removal survey no more than 14 days prior to initiation oj*these activities to provide confirmation on presence or absence of active nests in the vicinity. This shall include both a daytime visual survey for raptors and other diurnal bird species and a nighttime survey nesting owls. If active bird nests are encountered, species-speciflic measures shall be prepared by a qualified biologist in consultation with the CDFW and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active nest. At o ininimuni, tree removal near the nest shall be deferred until the young bit-cis have fledged. A nest setback zone based on site conditions and proximity of the nest to existing and proposed development shall be established ivithiti which all tree removal-related disturbance shall be prohibited. The perimeter of the nest setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated and tree removal personnel shall be restrictedfromthe area. • l(pernianent avoidance of the nest is not possible, impacts shall be minimized by prohibiting disturbance within the nest setback zone until a qualified biologist verifies that the birds have either(q) not begun egg-laying and incubation,. or(b) that the Smith Knoll Tree Removal Proposal initial Study—Town offiburon,CA April 2017 14 juveniles fltom the nest are foraging independently and cal,2able of independent survival at an earlier date. A surveit by the qualified biologist ver fj)ing that the young have fledged shall be sub7nitted to the Town of fihuron prior to initiation of tree removal in the crest setback Lone. 5. Cultural Resources Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? (Sources: l; 7, 8) b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? (Sources: 1, 7, 8) c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Sources: 1, 7, 8) d)Disturb any human remains, including those El El ® El interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Sources: 1, 7, 8) Discussion Native American archeological sites in this portion of Marin County are often located along ridgetops, rnidslope terraces, alluvial flats, bay marsh margins and near sources of water such as springs. The subject site is situated along the Bayside in a location where such archeological sites are possible.However,the removal of the trees proposed by this project would not cause soil displacement that would disturb or destroy archeological resources potentially located on the site. 6. Geology And Soils South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal Initial Study—Town ofl iburon,CA April 2017 ��—� 15 Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Inipact with Mitigation Impact Incorporated i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo ❑ ❑ ❑ Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or biased on other substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Sources: 1, 7, 8) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?(Sources: 1, ❑ ❑ ❑ 7, 8) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ liquefaction? (Sources: 1, 7, 8) iv) Landslides? (Sources: 1, 7, 8) ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ El topsoil?(Sources: 1, 7, 8) c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ❑ ❑ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 1, 7, S) d)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ❑ ❑ ❑ California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources: 1, 7, 8) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ South knoll Tree Removal Proposal Initial Study—Town of Tiburon,CA April 2017 16 E ptic tanks or alternative waste water ems where sewers are not available sal of waste water?(Sources: 1, 7, 8) Discussion: There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within tile 'T'own of Tiburon and the town is not near any known active faults. The nearest knows} active faults are the San Andreas fault, about 8 miles to the southwest, and the Hayward fault, about 8 Milcs to the northeast. Therefore, the potential for fault surface rupture (as opposed to ground shaking) within the Town limits is low. There would be no impact. The project site is located on the western side of the Tiburon Peninsula, facing Richardson Bay. The site is located within the Coast Range GeoinorphicProvince of California. Tectonic forces resulting in extensive folding and faulting of the area formed these features. Slopes are inclined downward toward the southwest. Bedrock has been mapped previously within the general area of the site as cotlsisting of Jurassic to Cretaceous aged semi-schist, phyllite and schist of the Franciscan Assemblage. The removal of 42 trees from the subject property would not expose people or structures to seismic impacts or landslides and would not cause soil displacement that would disturb geologic resources on the site. The removal of the trees could marginally lessen soil stability, which has some potential for increased soil erosion on the site. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sigtti.iicant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact In------- a) or oraa) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ ❑ VNJ ❑ directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Sources: 1, 8, 17; 18, 19) b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or ❑ ❑ ❑ regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Sources: 1 8, 17, 18, 19) Discussion: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD) has adopted a CEQA threshold of significance of 1,100 metric tons of CO2lyear for GHG emissions. Emissions below this threshold would be consistent with State laws intended to reduce GHG emissions. Projects that generate GHG emissions above threshold levels are considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact. The BAAQMD South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal Initial Study—Town of Tiburon.CA April2O) 7 17 has developed screening criteria to help compare projects to.the thresholds of significance. The screelling criteria developed for greenhouse gases uses default emission assumptions in the Urban Land Use Emissions Model (URBEMIS) and off-model GHG estimates for indirect emissions from electrical generation, solid waste and water conveyance. The proposed project does not have other significant sources or GHG's not accounted for in this methodology; therefore tl}e screening criteria are applicable to this project. According to the screening criteria only projects greater than the following thresholds would be considered to make a significant impact including: • Single-family Residences—56 dwelling units ® Apartments (low rise)— 78 dwelling units • Condom iniumltownhouses—78 dwelling units The proposed project would be substantially less than the screening criteria for significant cumulative GHG emissions and therefore_wouldgenerate a less-than-significant amount of greenhouse gases. The proposed project would not conflict with the Town ofTiburon's adopted Climate fiction Plan. 8. Hazards And Hazardous Materials Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to tl�e public or the; (� EN environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?(Sources: I, 7, 8, 9, 13) b) Create a significant hazard to tile public or the E environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources: 1, 7, 8, 9, 13) South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal Initial Study—Town o1'Tiburan,CA April 2017 I� C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or- waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 1, 7, 8, 9, 13) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list EJ F1 EI of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 1, 7, 8, 9, e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 1, 7, 8, 13) Fora project within the vicinity of a private El El ❑ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for People residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 1, 7, 8, 13) 9) Impair implementation of or physically ❑ El ❑ interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 1, 7, 8, 13) 13 It) Expose people or structures to a significant El jM risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, is, ncluding where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 1, 7, 8, 13) South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal Initial Study—Town ol-Tiburon,CA April 201? 19 Discussion: No hazardous materials would be used for this project. Although Del Mar Middle School is located within one-quarter mile of the project site, no hazardous materials exist or would be used on the site that vN,ould affect this sensitive receptor. There would be no impact in regard to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The project site is undeveloped. The project site is not included on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List(known as the Cortese list) compiled by the State Department Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) under Government Code Section 65.962.5_ The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public airport or located in tile vicinity of a private airstrip. The proposed project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; nor impair implementation of any such emergency plan. The project site is not located within a Wildland Urban Interface(WUI) and would remove 21 Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees from the site, helping reduce the potential for wildfires front these flammable trees. Lrology And Water Quality he project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation I act P• Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or waste. ❑ ❑ ❑ dischargerequirements?(Sources. 1, 7, 8, 11, l 9) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ❑ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Sources: 1, 7, $, 11, 19) c)Substantially alter(lie existing drainage ❑ ❑ © ❑ pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?(Sources: 1, 7, 8, 11, 19) South Knoll'Tree Removal Proposal initial Study—Town of Tiburon,CA April 2017 � 20 � � [d),Substantia' lly alter the existing drainage F1 tte pattern of the site cu including tht teration of the course of a strearn or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which Would result in e)Create or contribute rurroffwater which would El exceed the capacity of existing or planned storniwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runofV f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? El 9) Place housing xithin a I 00-year flood hazard F] El N area as mapped oil a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources: 1, 7, 8, h) Place within a I 00-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood j) Expose people or structures to a significant El risk of loss, in.jury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a J) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or rnudflow? El El El Discussion: Tile removal of4] trees oil the projectsite would not violate any water quality standards mwaste discharge requirements and would not degrade groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume ora lowering of the local groundwater table level. South KnnUTucRemoval Proposal Initial Study—Tn`n`ofTibuwn.Cx Apd12017 21 Tile removal of these trees Could marginallyuffez[absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff from the knoll upon which the trees are located. Drainage oil the site currently flows down toward McKegney Green, South of Knoll Park, Old Rail Trail and the bay. The rninor increase in runoff that could be caused by the removal o[trees oil tills site would have |exn-U)ou'aigoiOuout environmental impact that would no/nxoend the capacity n[existing or planned utormnm|erdroinagoe systems orprovide substantial additional Sources ofpolluted runoff. The subject site isnot within any |00'ycarfloodplain. The proposed project wou}dnoiexposoponp|oor structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. There is no known potential for tsunamis, seichoa, ornnudDn*uotthe project yik:. }ucrouyudrunot[bom (hcsitcdouxoothuveUhopotenhol for carrying any pollutants into the drainage basins below the site or into the bay. [10. Land Use And Planning the p 17 1 Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than N,0 Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Physically divide all established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, El El El policy, or regulation of all agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,, but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?(Sources: 1, 7, 8) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Sources: 1, 7, 8) Discussion- The projectsite is surrounded by pucks, developed residential neighborhood--, and the bay and is designated for Parks& Recreation use bvthe Tiburon General Plan. The proposed project ux/u|dnotphyy/c | divide uncstub\ishodcn/nmunity.Nuhubiiuiconxorvaiinnp|anshuvobeunponpurcdndd/esxing (hesi(enod surrounding lands. The Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Tree Ordinance r000�niznthe in�ponancoo[trees(othe character and beauty of the Town, and recognize the role that trees have in advancing tile public health, safiely and welfare. The removal of the trees proposed by this project would alter the visual character of South Knoll when viewed from Tiburon Boulevard, McKegney Green, South of Knoll Park &-, Playground, Old Rail Trail, and other areas from a somewhat wooded hillside to a landform without significant vegetation other than grass and small shrubs. This change to the visual character of the knoll when viewed from these vantage points, although noticeable and significant, is not considered extensive enough to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Over the short term, this visual change would constitute an irreversible environmental change, as even under the best circumstances significant native tree growth would take decades to occur. Tile removal of the Eucalyptus trees would lessen potential fire and safety hazards oil the knoll and in the vicinity and would promote the growth of native Coast Live Oak seedlings ora the site. 11. Mineral Resources Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources: 1, 7, $) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ❑ ❑ ❑ important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1) Discussion: Ring Mountain, which is considered by the State as a Scientific Resource Zones is the only mineral resource located near the Town of Tiburon. Ring Mountain is preserved as open space owned by the iVlarin County Open Space District. Therefore no impact would occur. There are no known mineral resources of significant value in the Tiburon planning area, on the site or categorized as locally important within the Town that would be lost due to development of the project site. As a result, there would be no impact to mineral resources associated with the proposed project. South Knoll'free Removal Proposal Initial Study—Town of Tiburon,CA April 2017 23 12. Noise Would the project result in: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ❑ ❑ ® [� levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: I8) b)Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ ❑ ❑ Eli excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources: 1, 7, 8, 18) c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?(Sources: 1, 7, 8) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase ❑ ® ❑ in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources. 1, 7, 8, 18) e)For a project located within an airport land use ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two utiles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?(Sources: 1, 13) f)For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project expose people resitting ❑ ❑ ❑ or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1, 13) South Knoll"free Removal Proposal Initial Study—Town orTiburon,CA April 2017 24 Discussion: The proposed project will result in a short-term increase in noise from tree removal equipment. The proposed project would not generate or expose people to noise levels in excess of standards established in the Town's General Plan and other applicable standards. The short-term increase in Noise which would occur during most daylight hours is not likely to increase ambient noise to significant levels for surrounding residences, but could result in increased noise transmission to homes in the vicinity of tile site. The following condition should be applied to construction on the subject site, and would reduce the noise impacts to less-than-significant levels: Mitigation Pleasure NOISE-]: Thefollowing noise control measures shall be implemented to mitigate construction-related noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors to a less-than-significant level.' a. Tree work authorizer)by this permit shall be petforrned during the hours of 7:00 a.rn. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and 9:.30 a.rrr. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. Only quiet work is allowed to be performed on Saturdays, such that noise fi orrr any source associated with the permilted work, including but not limited to vehicles, saws, chippers or other machinery, amplified sound, and workers voices, shall not beplainlyaudible at the property line. b. No work pursuant to this permit shall be performed on any Sunday or on holidays observed by the Town of Tiburon. These holidays are New t'ear's Day, 1llartin Lather Ding Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. The project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels and would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise.The project site is not Ideated within an area that is covered by an airport land use plan and is not located within close proximity to a public airport or public use airport. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No airstrips are located in the Town of Tiburon. The nearest private airstrip is located at Smith Ranch, which is approximately eight(8) miles north of the project site. There would be no other noise impacts. .13, Population And Housing Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant significant with Significant Impact Itapact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a)Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ ❑ ❑ �xJ area, either directly(for example, by proposing new hornes and busitlesses)or indirectly(for example, through extension of roads or other South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal Initial Study—To%vn ofTibti ion,CA April 2017 �� 25 infrastructure)? (Sources: 1, 10) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ F1 ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: I) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ F1 ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: I) Discussion: The project proposes the removal of 42 trees on a nonresidential site. The removal of these trees would have no impact on population growth and would not displace existing housing or residents. There would be no impact. 14, Public Services Potentially Less Than Less Than No significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Would the project result in substantial adverse F] El ❑ physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, Z� need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction Of which Could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to 4=1 maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of' the public services: Fire protection? (Sources: 1, 7, 8) El ❑ El Police protection? (Sources: 1, 7, 8) 1-1 El n Schools? (Sources: 1, 7, 8) El El El ------------------- ......... South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal Initial Study-Town ot-ribirron, CA April 2017 26 Parks? (Sources: 1, 7, 8) ❑ ❑ ❑ M Other public facilities? (Sources: 1, 7, 8) ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities. No new governmental or service-related facilities would need to be constructed as a result of removing 42 trees from the subject site. Fire and police department services are adequate to provide continued service to the project site. The removal of the trees would not create a demand for new school services. The clearing of trees from South Knoll would not increase the demand for additional park space and would not alter the use of the adjacent McKegney Green and South of Knoll Parr recreational spaces. There would be no impact. 15. Recreation Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Nvith Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?(Sources: 1, 8) b)Does the project include recreational facilities ❑ ❑ or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources: 1, 8) Discussion: The proposed project would remove 42 trees from a site adjacent to Town-owned recreational areas, including McKegney Green, South of Knoll Park and Old Rail Trail. The removal of the trees would not substantially increase the use of these recreational resources and would not include or require construction or expansion of recreational facilities. There would be no impact. South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal Initial Study—Town of'1`iburon, GA April 2017 27 1 f, Transportation/Traffic Would the project: Potentially Less Than loess Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or ❑ ❑ ❑ policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limiters to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? (Sources: 1, 2, 8) b) Conflict with an applicable congestion ❑ ❑ ❑ management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?(Sources: 1, 8, 13) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ❑ ❑ ❑ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location, that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources. 1, 13) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ❑ ❑ ❑ feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g., farm equipment)? (Sources: 1, 7, 8) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ (Sources: 1, 7, 8) South Knoll"free Removal Proposal initial Study—'rown ofTibtiron,CA April 2017 28 f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or F-1 prograins regarding public transit, bicycle,or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? (Sources: 1, 8, 1 3)) Discussion: The removal of 42 trees from the subject property would not generate any additional traffic or alter any portions of the existing circulation System in the vicinity of the site. The proposed project would not affect air traffic patterns and would not create any hazardous roadway design features. The project would not alter any existing emergency access or conflict with adopted policies,, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. 17. Utilities And Service Systems Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than INO significa"t Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of F1 the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board*! (Sources: 1, 8, 11) b) Require or result In the construction of new ❑ ❑ ❑ water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1, 8, 11) c) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ❑ storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of Nvhich could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources' 1, 8) d)1-lave sufficient water supplies available to South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal Initial Study—Town of Tibili-on, CA April 2017 29 serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 1, 8) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 1, 8) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?(Sources: 1, 8, 13) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 and regulations related to solid waste?(Sources: 1, 8, 13) Discussion: The proposed project would not generate wastewater or use water resources and would not require new or expanded facilities. As noted in the discussion under Section 9 above,the removal of these trees could marginally affect absorption rates,drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff from the Knoll upon which the trees are located. Drainage on the site currently flows down toward McKegney Green, South of Knoll Park, Old Rail Trail and the bay. The minor increase in runoff that could be caused by the removal of trees on this site would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Refuse(including recyclable materials) from the proposed project would be collected by the Mill Valley Defuse Company and transferred to the Redwood Landfill located in Novato, which has a remaining capacity of approximately 22 million cubic yards. This capacity is expected to be sufficient, under current projections, for another 22 years. Thus, the proposed project's solid waste disposal needs would be accommodated. There would be no impact. The removal of 42 trees from the site would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. There would be no impact. ._........ ____ _ South Knoll'tree Removal Proposal Initial Study—Town orTiburon,CA April 2017 30 Mandatory Findinbs Of Sian ilicanee Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant tivith Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to degrade El ❑ ® ❑ the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a }dant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California History or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are ❑ ❑ ❑ individually limited,but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of.past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ' c) Does the project have environmental effects ❑ ❑ ® ❑ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion: The Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Tree Ordinance recognize the importance of trees to the character and beauty of the Town, and recognize.the role that trees have in advancing the public health, safety and welfare. The removal of the trees proposed by this project would alter the visual character of South Knoll when view-ed from Tiburon Boulevard, McKegney Green, South of Knoll Park& Playground, Old Rail Trail, and other areas from a somewhat wooded hillside to a landforin without significant vegetation other than grass and small shrubs. This change to the visual character of the knoll when viewed from these vantage points, although noticeable and significant, is not considered extensive enough to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Over the short tern,this __.-_.._..._........_.__ South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal Initial Study—Town offiburon,CA April 201? 31 visual cthange would constitute an irreversible environmental change, as even under the best circumstances significant native grokvth would take decades to occur. The removal of the Eucalyptus trees would lessen potential Fire and safety hazards on the knoll and in the vicinity and would promote the growth of native Coast Live Oak seedlings on the site. The project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, which could cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project has the potential for the following environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly: Tree removal activities could disturb nests of raptors or other migratoiy birds. The proposed project will result its a short-term increase in noise frotra tree removal equipment and activities. Mitigation measures have been identified for these potential impacts that would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. ....... .__ _- South Knoll Tree Removal Proposal Initial Study—Town ofTiburon,CA April 2017 32 /y TOWN OF TIBURON Parks,Open Space and Trails Commission Meetinu 1505 Tiburon Boulevard � Tiburon, CA 94920 April 25, 2017 k Auenda Item: AH-2 STAFF REPORT To: Members of the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission From: Community Development Department Subject: South Knoll, Adjacent to McKegney Green; File #TREE2017001; Referral for Comment and Recommendations Regarding a Tree Removal Permit Application filed by Ron and Duffy Hurwin to Remove twenty-one (21) Blue Gum Eucalyptus Trees, fifteen (15) Italian Stone Pine Trees and six (6) Monterey Pine Trees from Town Property; Assessor's Parcel No. 055-131-23 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The owners of the property at 558 Tenaya Drive (Ron and Duffy Hurwin, hereinafter referred to as "applicants") have submitted a tree permit application (File TREE2017001) requesting removal of twenty-one (2 1) Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees, fifteen (15) Italian Stone Pine trees and six (6) Monterey Pine trees. The trees are located on or near South Knoll, in the Town's Richardson Bay Lineal Park, a public park. All of the trees are located on Town-owned property, except for five (5) Eucalyptus trees located on Town-leased land collectively owned by the 12 property owners of nearby Pine Terrace. South Knoll is an approximately 60-foot tall knoll rising above adjacent level areas of the Richardson Bay Lineal Park in between McKegney Green and South of Knoll Park and Playground. The Town's policy for trees located on Town property requires that the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission review tree permit applications for prominent trees located on Town property. ROLE OF THE PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS COMMISSION The Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission's role in reviewing this tree permit application is to provide comments and make recommendations to Town Staff prior to a decision on the application. Town Staff has determined that, due to the prominence of the trees requested to be removed, the Town Council will make the decision on this application. PROJECT DATA Address: South Knoll adjacent to Old Rail Trail west of Pine Terrace and Tiburon Boulevard Assessor Parcel Number: 055-131-23 File Number: TREE2017001 General Plan and Zoning: P&R (Parks & Recreation) EXHIBIT NO 14Z00'_ Current Use: Public Park TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 9 Owner: Town of Tiburon Applicants: Ron and Duffy Hurwin Date Complete: February 22, 2017 BACKGROUND/PRIOR HISTORY At one time, South Knoll was largely barren of significant vegetation but over the past several decades has become the home of numerous eucalyptus, pine and oak trees. The eucalyptus trees in particular have grown large and tall as is typical of the blue gum variety. Since acquiring the property from Caltrans in 1975, the Town of Tiburon has performed limited occasional thinning and other maintenance of these trees, but has not removed any mature trees. In 1996, a group of property owners (including one of the applicants) approached the Town to discuss the possibility of removing trees from South Knoll. The Parks and Open Space Commission (the predecessor of the POST Commission) held a discussion of this issue on November 12, 1996 and formed a subcommittee to investigate the issue further. The subcommittee received recommendations of the Public Works Department, Police Department and Tiburon Fire Protection District that the trees did not pose a public hazard. On February 11, 1997, the Commission concurred with these recommendations and directed the Public Works Department to continue to perform regular maintenance of these trees, but did not approve removal of the trees. Minutes of these meetings are attached as Exhibits 4 & 5. On May 7, 1997, the Town Council discussed a request from a resident to reconsider the Commission's recommendation (Minutes attached as Exhibit 6). The Council encouraged homeowners to meet with their respective homeowners' associations and prepare plans to window and shape the South Knoll trees which could be presented to Council for review, but would be paid for by the homeowners. No such plans were submitted and the issue has not been publicly discussed since, until the current application was getting underway. On June 1, 2016, the applicants appeared before the Town Council under the public comment portion of the meeting and indicated their intention to file an application in the near future. The application was filed on January 2, 2017. ANALYSIS Regulatory Framework In 2003, the Town Council adopted an official written policy and guidelines for reviewing applications for removal or trimming of trees on Town property (Exhibit 2). This policy states that "the Town's overarching policy is that trees and shrubs on Town property are resources that will not generally be removed or substantially altered without good reason." These guidelines also call for review by the Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission and/or the Town Council for requests involving prominent trees, such as some of the subject trees on South Knoll. Separately, the Tiburon Tree Ordinance mandates that removal of any tree on Town property requires prior issuance of a tree permit and an encroachment permit, except in the case of direct Town action. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 9 Adopted Town Policy for Trees on Town Property The Town Council policy and guidelines for removal or trimming of trees on Town property lists several factors to be considered prior to making a decision on a tree permit to remove trees on Town property. These factors are listed below, with analysis of each: Type and size of tree (native/non-native, undesirable, heritage-size, invasive, etc.): The subject Eucalyptus and Italian Stone Pine and trees are non-native species and the Eucalyptus and Monterey Pine trees are classified as "undesirable trees" under the Tiburon Tree Ordinance. • Prominence of trees (e.g. visual significance, historical significance, age): The subject trees are visible from a variety of public and private vantage points. The trees are visible from the Old Rail Trail, McKegney Green and the South of Knoll Park and Playground, as well as from Tiburon Boulevard and other public streets in the vicinity. The trees are also visible from much of the Little Reed Heights and Hawthorne Terrace neighborhoods uphill from Tiburon Boulevard, as well as from other homes along Pine Terrace and streets connecting to Avenida Miraflores. The trees are not historically significant but do add to the scenic value of this portion of Tiburon, particularly when viewed from Tiburon Boulevard,the Old Rail Trail and the Richardson Bay Lineal Park. • Qualitative health (e.g. apparently healthy, apparently unhealthy, dying, or dead): None of the trees is dead or dying and most appear to be in healthy condition. The trees have not been extensively trimmed over the years. The applicants have submitted several reports (Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 of the application materials attached as Exhibit 1) prepared by arborists which found structural and other defects in most of the Eucalyptus tees and one of the Monterey Pine trees. 1. Urban Forestry Associates Inc. prepared an arboricultural report in 2006 for the Town which evaluated 15 Eucalyptus trees on or around South Knoll. The report cited some defects on certain tees but deemed only one tee to be a hazard and recommended removal of only 2 of the 15 trees. 2. Urban Forestry Associates Inc. also prepared an arborist report in 2016 for the applicants which evaluated 4 Eucalyptus trees: 2 trees along Tiburon Boulevard (numbered as Trees 1 & 2 on the exhibit presented with the application) and 2 trees on South Knoll (Trees 8 & 9). The report cited risk defects on all 4 trees and stated that Trees 1 & 2 were "too high a failure risk" due to their proximity to Old Rail Trail, a bus stop, sidewalk and the Tiburon Boulevard roadway. 3. Arborscience prepared a native tree restoration plan in 2016 for the applicants which evaluated 57 trees on or near South Knoll. This plan states that"native habitat will be improved and tee hazards reduced by removing the invasive Eucalyptus and Pines," and that"existing Oaks will flourish once the undesirable trees are removed." The plan states that one TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 9 Eucalyptus tree has extensive internal decay and that one Monterey Pine tree has a serious trunk defect. • App7°opriateness of location (e.g. active park vs. non-use area, etc.): South Knoll is a prominent natural topographic feature, an approximately 50-foot tall knoll rising above adjacent level areas of the Richardson Bay Lineal Park, including McKegney Green, the South of Knoll Park & Playground and the Old Rail Trail. The subject trees are situated on and around the tall knoll which is not an active park space, located above the more well-used recreational features in the adjoining flatter areas. • Benefit (e.g. aesthetics, shade, screening of unsightly use): The subject trees do not screen any unsightly uses in the vicinity or provide substantial shade for the adjacent portions of McKegney Green, the South of Knoll Park & Playground and the Old Rail Trail. The trees have some aesthetic value in creating a forested canopy for what would otherwise be a barren knoll and creating a more attractive scenic appearance for passersby on Tiburon Boulevard and the Old Rail Trail. • Detriment (e.g. nuisance factors, view blockage, property damage, maintenance obligations): As previously noted, the Town has received complaints in the past from residents uphill from the knoll that these trees have grown into their views. The trees intrude into various portions of the views to the south and west toward San Francisco, the Golden Gate Bridge and Richardson Bay from homes in several nearby neighborhoods. Falling branches and soil degradation are nuisance factors often associated with Eucalyptus trees and the applicants have submitted exhibits detailing potential safety hazards commonly associated with these trees. The Town has not performed substantial trimming or other maintenance on these trees over the years. • Cost to remove and/or replace, including ongoing maintenance of any replacement vegetation: The Town would require the applicant to pay for the removal of the trees and may require the applicant to pay to plant replacement vegetation. The applicants have submitted a native tree reforestation plan (included in Exhibit 1) which identified 222 Coast Live Oaks on the site, including 181 seedlings (less than 1 inch diameter), 26 saplings (1 to 4 inch diameter) and 15 small trees (4 to 12 inch diameter), which would have better potential for growth if the subject trees were removed. No other replacement vegetation is proposed as part of this application. Costs for ongoing maintenance after the tree removal would likely be the same or less than the maintenance costs of the existing trees. • Likely effectiveness of replacement vegetation, if replacement is desirable: Many of the existing oak seedlings are located on portions of South Knoll that are not occupied by the trees proposed to be removed. Although the stated intention of the application is to promote the growth of existing native vegetation on South Knoll, the lack of growth of these many small seedlings indicates that the removal of the subject trees would not necessarily foster improved or sustained growth for the Oak trees on the site, and their growth rate would likely be very slow. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 9 J General Plan Consistency and Zoning Ordinance Conformance The Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Tree Ordinance contain numerous goals and policies relating to trees, which are listed below followed by brief analysis: Land Use Element: • Goal LU-F: To preserve and protect Tiburon's views, scenic environment, natural beauty, and open space. The removal of the subject trees would restore views for many residents but would affect the scenic environment of South Knoll. The mostly non-native trees are not part of the natural environment of the knoll. The site is part of the Richardson Bay Lineal Park, but is not designated as open space. Open Space and Conservation Element: • Trees and woodland areas are important natural resources which provide habitat for° birds and shaded protected areas for other animals; and help to stabilize hillsides. Trees and wooded areas also contribute to the visual character of the con2munity. The subject trees provide potential habitat for raptors and other birds and contribute to the visual character of the community. • Trees and woodlands are valued by the Town for their ecological importance, their visual enhancement of the community, and their contribution to residential privacy and quiet. The subject trees contribute to the visual enhancement of South Knoll, but also intrude into views enjoyed by residents in neighborhoods uphill from the site. • Policy OSC-33: Protected trees, as defined in the Municipal Code, tree stands, and tree clusters shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Sixteen (16) of the 42 trees proposed to be removed by this application meet the definition of "protected tree" as defined by the Tiburon Tree Ordinance. The proposed project would not preserve these trees or the tree clusters on South Knoll to the maximum extent feasible. Safety Element: • Tiburon is susceptible to wildfires, urban fires, and wildland-urban interface fires where the Iwo areas meet. Eucalyptus trees are susceptible to wildfires and are generally considered to be fire hazards. However, the subject Eucalyptus trees are not particularly close to homes in the area. The Tiburon Fire Protection District has established boundaries for wildland urban interface (WUI) areas that are subject to vegetation management regulations and South Knoll is not located in a WUI area. In 1997, the Tiburon Fire Chief categorized the Eucalyptus trees on South Knoll as "remote from structures" and not subject to vegetation management requirements. • Wildfires often occur on grassy areas, and can spread to nearby dwellings. If the fires are unattended or exposed to winds', some forested areas, such as those of TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 9 iAic :in, eucalyptus, may be particularly prone to forest fires. However, this problem is limited in the Tiburon Planning Area by interspersion of woodland areas ivithin open grasslands. Although the Pine Terrace neighborhood is somewhat close to the Eucalyptus trees on South Knoll, the South of Knoll Park and Playground and the Old Rail Trail right-of-way provide buffers between the trees and structures in the vicinity that reduce the risk of wildfire hazards to these homes. Tiburon Tree Ordinance: Policy #1. The Town recognizes the scenic importance, shade-creating, and privacy-creating benefits of trees to the community. The Town also recognizes that trees can provide soil stability, noise buffering, and wind protection benefits, and can help prevent erosion and debris flow landslides on the hilly terrain which characterizes most of Tiburon. The Town of Tiburon greatly values its trees for their ecological importance, visual enhancement of the community, and their contribution to residential privacy and quietness. The subject trees contribute to the scenic importance and visual enhancement of South Knoll, but also intrude into views enjoyed by residents in neighborhoods uphill from the site. The subject trees are not close enough to any homes in the vicinity, or dense enough, to provide substantial wind, noise, or privacy protection. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS An Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for this project, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The IS/MND was released for public comment on April 5, 2017 and is attached to this report as Exhibit 3. The public review period for the IS/MND ends on April 26, 2017. The initial study focused on the following issues: • Aesthetics. Evaluation of visual/aesthetic impacts under CEQA is highly subjective and subject to diverse opinions and conclusions. The project would change the views of South Knoll from residential neighborhoods by removing the subject trees and expanding existing views of the bay and cities beyond. The removal of the trees would alter the visual character of South Knoll when viewed from Tiburon Boulevard, McKegney Green, South of Knoll Park &Playground, Old Rail Trail, and other areas from a somewhat wooded hillside to a landform without significant vegetation other than grass and small shrubs. This change to the visual character of the knoll when viewed from these vantage points, although noticeable and substantive, is not considered extensive enough to be a significant environmental impact substantially degrading the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The tree removal would constitute an irreversible change to the visual environment over the short-to-medium term. • Biological resources. There is a remote possibility that raptors or other migratory birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBIA) could establish new nests on the site in the future before the subject trees are removed. The IS/MND includes a mitigation measure requiring that any active raptor nests TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 9 or other bird nests protected under the MBTA be avoided or not disturbed until young birds are able to leave the nest (i.e. fledged) and forage on their own. • Noise. The proposed project would result in a short-term increase in noise from tree removal equipment. The IS/MND includes mitigation measures that would require the project to limit tree removal work to hours normally permitted for a tree permit, during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and 9;30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday, with only quiet work allowed to be performed on Saturdays. As noted above, the initial study identified mitigation measures for potential impacts on these issues that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. As of the writing of this report, no substantial evidence has been received to support a fair argument that the project would result in a significant impact on the environment. CONCLUSION The intent of the Town Council policy for removal or trimming trees on Town property is not to declare "open season" on public trees, but rather to establish a framework for review of meritorious applications. The Town occasionally receives requests to remove other trees on Town property, in parks, open spaces, and street rights-of-way to improve views for Tiburon residents. As with the Town's decision for the South Knoll trees in 1997, the Town Council has historically allowed Town-owned trees to be trimmed to restore views, but has generally discouraged removal of public trees for that purpose. The Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Tree Ordinance recognize the importance of trees to the character and beauty of the Town, and recognize the role that trees have in advancing the public health, safety and welfare. As noted above, the removal of the trees proposed by this project would alter the visual character of South Knoll from a somewhat wooded hillside to an essentially bare landform for a considerable number of years. The removal of the Eucalyptus trees would lessen potential fire and safety hazards on the knoll and in the vicinity and could promote the growth of native Coast Live Oak seedlings on the site. The removal of the trees would also improve views from many homes uphill from South Knoll. The Town must balance these concerns with the effect the tree removal would have on the visual character of this prominent portion of the Tiburon Peninsula and its general policy of discouraging removal of public trees absent a compelling reason. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report (April 19, 2017), 56 letters and 1 petition have been received regarding this application. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission: 1. hear any public comment on this item; and TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 9 2. Provide comments and/or recommendations to the Town Council regarding the subject tree permit application. EXHIBITS 1. Application form and supplemental materials 2. Guide to Policies for Trees Located on Town Property 3. Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration 4. Minutes of the November 12, 1996 Parks and Open Space Commission meeting 5. Minutes of the February 11, 1997 Parks and Open Space Commission meeting 6. Minutes of the May 7, 1997 Town Council meeting 7. Letter from William Wong, dated April 10, 2017 8. Letter from Gloria Wong, dated April 10, 2017 9. Letter from Lee Darby, dated April 10, 2017 10. Letter from Bill Brinkman, dated April 12, 2017 11. Letter from Joan White, dated April 13, 2017 12. Letter from Ken James, dated April 13, 2017 13. Letter from Maria Castor-Dara, dated April 13, 2017 14. Letter from Melissa Hopps, dated April 13, 2017 15. Letter from Susan Brautovich, dated April 14, 2017 16. Letter from Linda Novy, dated April 14, 2017 17. Letter from Diane Larson and Richard Wolf, dated April 15, 2017 18. Letter from Ken James, dated April 16, 2017 19. Letter from Janet Robinson, dated April 16, 2017 20. Letter from Sarah Bowen, dated April 16, 2017 21. Letter from Marilyn and Peter Siewert, dated April 16, 2017 22. Letter from Kari Kobil, dated April 16, 2017 23. Petition supporting the application, dated April 17, 2017 24. Letter from Rene Gomez, dated April 17, 2017 25. Letter from Helen Heimerl, dated April 17, 2017 26. Letter from Russell Jackman, dated April 17, 2017 27. Letter from Mary Ann Finger, dated April 17, 2017 28. Letter from Derek Parker, dated April 17, 2017 29. Letter from Ann Hunt, dated April 17, 2017 30. Letter from Georgia McDaniel, dated April 17, 2017 31. Letter from Stacey Singer, dated April 17, 2017 32. Letter from Michael Dab, dated April 17, 2017 33. Letter from Virginia Sargent, dated April 18, 2017 34. Letter from Harold Kleiderman, dated April 18, 2017 35. Letter from Eva Buxton, dated April 18, 2017 36. Letter from Ron and Shirley Kosciusko, dated April 18, 2017 37. Letter from Ralph Leighton, dated April 18, 2017 38. Letter from Ken Keating, dated April 18, 2017 39. Letter from Frannie Hohman, dated April 18, 2017 40. Letter from Ilse Gonzalez, dated April 18, 2017 41. Letter from Donna Egeberg. dated April 18, 2017 42. Letter from Sprague Von Stroh, dated April 18, 2017 43. Letter from Katherine Van Dusen, dated April 18, 2017 44. Letter from Peter Brooks, dated April 18, 2017 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 9 45. Letter from Natalie Patrizio, dated April 18, 2017 46. Letter from R.M. Thomas, dated April 18, 2017 47. Letter from Tony Barth, dated April 18, 2017 48. Letter from Randall Druckrey and Eleanor Barron-Druckrey, dated April 19, 2017 49. Letter from Audrey Fancy, dated April 19, 2017 50. Letter from Violet Marshall, dated April 19, 2017 51. Letter from Sherry Wootton, dated April 19, 2017 52. Letter from Jonathon Kramer, dated April 19, 2017 53. Letter from Barry Wootton, dated April 19, 2017 54. Letter from Cynthia Rigatti, dated April 19, 2017 55. Letter from Bronwyn Power, dated April 19, 2017 56. Letter from Gaelen Cooper, dated April 19, 2017 57. Letter from Abbi and Ron Fox, dated April 19, 2017 58. Letter from Susan Schneider, dated April 19, 2017 59. Letter from Robyn Barth, dated April 19, 2017 60. Letter from Margarita Perry, dated April 19, 2017 61. Letter from Wei and Catherine Chow, dated April 19, 2017 62. Letter from Laurie James, dated April 19, 2017 63. Letter from Ken James, dated April 19, 2017 Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 9 OF 9 MINUTES NO. 36 PARKS, OPEN SPACE & TRAILS COMMISSION April 25,2017 Special Meeting Tiburon Town Hall---Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon.Boulevard,Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Winkler at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 25, 2017 in the Town IJall Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, lst floor,Tiburon,California. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Winkler, Vice-Chair Allen; Commissioners McMullen,Thier, Feldman Ex-Officio: Dan Watrous, Planning Manager, Dmitriy-Lashkevich, Associate Engineer ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None MINUTES Minutes of the September 20,2016 meeting were approved as submitted by a vote of 4-0. All members were present for this meeting,so I don't understand the vote count. I suggest we either 1)change this to 5-0 or 2)simply end the sentence at"as submitted" Minutes of the January 17,201.7 meeting were approved as submitted by a vote of 4-0. McMullen was absent from this meeting. It should either be a 4-0-1 vote with him abstaining or simply stop the sentence at"as submitted". ACTION ITEMS 1. Reauthorization of Bicycle,Pedestrian and Driver Education Ad-Hoc Subcommittee and reappointing the same members with a sunset date of September 20,2017. Staff representative,Dmitriy Lashkevich, introduced the reauthorization and reappointment of the Ad-hoc Bicycle,Pedestrian and Driver Education Subcommittee and recommended that the Commission pass a motion reauthorizing the subcommittee and reappointing same members and establishing sunset date of September 20, 2017. Reauthorization and reappointments of Commissioners Allen and Thier were approved by a vote of 4-0. EXHIBIT NO.t Tiburon Parks, Open Space& Trails Connnnission Minutes April 25, 2017 Page I 2. South Knoll,Adjacent to McKegney Green,tree removal permit application to remove twenty-one(21) Blue Gum Eucalyptus Trees,fifteen(15)Italian Stone Pine Trees and six(6)Monterey Pine Trees from Town Property. Commissioner Feldman recused himself from the discussion because of tile proximity of"llis]ionic to the trees. Planning Manager Dan Watrous provided a staff report describing the permit applicants' request, Town policy, and the Commissions role in reviewing the application, which was to provide comments and make recommendation to the Town Council, which will make a final decision on the application. Chair Winkler introduced the applicant's representative, Kent Julin. Mr. Julin spoke about his experience as an arborist and tree risk assessor licensed by the state of California, and as a former fire fighter. He provided images showing the trees not being present oil the Knoll 60 years ago. He spoke about embers of eucalyptus trees burning and embers spreading to roofs of houses and the trees being falling hazards. He recommended removal of the trees and mentioned revegetating with new native trees. Commissioner Thier asked for clarification regarding the report and whether the tree falling r� hazards were limited to only the 6 trees evaluated in the report. Mr. Julin responded that Commissioner Thier's summary is reasonable. Chair Winkler asked if disease was a significant factor,noting that there are points of weakness in locations where trees were pruned previously. Mr. Julin responded that the trees are heavily infested with Australian beetles, but not diseased with root pathogen. The beetle is specific to eucalyptus trees. Weakness at the junction Of previously topped or pruned areas is common. Chair Winkler opened the hearing to members of the public. Chris Jones stated lie lives in Greenbrae. He was born and raised in Australia where these eucalyptus trees are native. These trees are called widow-makers because limbs fall and kill loved ones. He supports eliminating invasive plants and supports removal of these trees. He is afraid that a limb will fall on a child riding bike along the path. Lee Darby,Comstock Drive for the past 40 years, cannot see the trees from home. Was involved in organizing the removal of the Eucalyptus trees near Stewart Drive and expressed support for removing these trees as well. Bill Wong stated that some people think these trees have been there forever. When they built their house in 1971 the Knoll was bare and the m of trees sprouted since 1971. Contrary to the Tiburon tree ordinance,Tiburon did not maintain them. Fie supports the Knoll Restoration Project, Tiburon Parks, Open Space& Trails Coininission Minutes April 25, 2017 Page 2 Terry Hennessy stated that she was mayor of Tiburon when people in this area asked to remove these trees in the past. If Staff and Council agreed to remove every tree that was requested during her tenure with the town,Tiburon would be barren. She hopes that POST will use its wisdom to preserve as many trees as possible. Trees are more important than views. When somebody wants to take out 48 trees and only 6 are diseased it disturbs her. Bill Brinkman stated that he lives in Del Mar neighborhood and has a direct unobstructed view of the knoll and the trees.He wants them to be gone. He wants to remove these trees because of the safety. The trees are a fire hazard and the limbs are large and can fall. Ken James stated that lie lived in Tiburon in 1958. When he got here the trees were there.In 1972, quite a few trees were there and he would hide behind the trees and watch trains go by. He believes the proposal should be denied. He stated that allowing a group to come in and pay for a request such as this sets a dangerous precedent for the Town. He believes this proposal is about views and hopes that the Town gets its own reports to rely upon. Otherwise anyone can go out and get report to support getting the view they avant. Anne Libben stated that she lives on Mateo Drive and has no interest in views. She is a member of Audubon Society and strongly supports the project. Her main concern is that the Town be aware of maintaining the area after the trees are removed. When you remove the vegetation,the first thing to come in istheFrench broom.Historically the Knoll was not barren but it was treeless.It is valuable habitat. She stated that a eucalyptus tree limb fell and damaged icer property at one time. Virginia Sargent stated that sheds a Marin native for 60 years and has memories of commuting from Mill Valley to Tiburon. If she wanted to preserve the fond memories of Tiburon, Blackie would still be alive. She supports the tree removal. Why did no one mention the 2006 report where an arborist evaluated these trees? If there was litigation,the attorneys would say there was 10 years' notice of this hazard. Commissioner Thier noted that the 2006 report is attached to the staff report. Hazel Caldwell identified herself as a lover of trees. See stated that you can find any side you take supported by documentation. She does not encourage fear mongering, and noted that the incidence of vehicle accident injury is far greater than injury from a tree limb falling. She loves the trees. She thinks we should all support each other and not be divided. Colin Probert stated that talk of litigation is very intimidating. He uses the Old Rail Trail and that section of the trail is the only section of shade along the trail. It is special. He is against the removal of these trees. The trees also divide the park from the playground in a way that makes them important. He agreed that you can make the argument on both sides and provide supporting data. If the Commission makes a decision,it should be based on an objective report and not based on a report prepared by people who have a substantial economic interest in the tree removal. Tiburon Parks, Opera Space& Trails Commission Minutes April 25, 2017 Page 3 Becky Pringle stated her family planted Eucalyptus trees on their property. Her cousin was jogging and a'tree branch fell oil her and broke her arm. She supports the removal of these trees,which have a shallow root system. Andy Flack stated that there should be a compromise solution. Removing 42 trees is excessive. He supports cutting dangerous trees but not all 42 of the trees proposed. With the trees removed,the area will look a lot worse. Susan Shaw stated that she is not affected by view blockage from the trees and supports a compromise where we could keep as many trees as possible. Mel Ronick stated that lie does not live in view of the trees. His daughter played soccer on McKegney Green and when she rested, the kids would seek shade under those trees. So€ile are dangerous for kids and lie supports removing those trees. When someone is put on notice of danger and does nothing there could be massive lawsuits against the town. Amy Blakeneystated that she is not a resident of Tiburon. She is an ex-member of Fire Safe Marin and supports the project to remove the trees. In 2009 she spoke with all cities of Marin and encouraged them to fund a vegetation management plan. Eucalyptus trees are dangerous and deadly and should not be located in parks, along walkways, or in areas where people spend time. Chris.Darling stated that he €net Kent Julin some time ago. He was advised to remove Borne trees and is still maintaining them. Peter Brooks supports what Mr. Julin said. The problem is if the trees are not taken dowry another group will try to take them down again later. We have been dealing with this for over 20 years.He loves the largest tree and hopes it stays. :Emir Keye-stated that he moved here in 2012. What was striking to him about Tiburon was those trees. This is a world class view.He thinks this is an economic story. A select number of petitioners have views that would be enhanced by the tree removals. A lot of residents and homeowners enjoy those trees as well. The economic value of preserving those trees actually adds homeowner value and tax revenue to the whole community that is far in excess of the value added to the affected individuals. Sutroforest.com is a wonderful website that addresses a lot of myths about tree dangers Charles Cavendish stated that presentation was very compelling but wanted to reaffirm that a balanced point of view must be presented for what is needed for public safety. Applicant Duffy Hurwin stated that she moved here in 1989 and her friend lost her home in the Oakland Hills fire. She often finds fallen Eucalyptus limbs along trails,which concerns her. Children that go up to the Knoll can accidentally set a spark and the ashes from the trees could set her house on fire. Kent Julin stated that on DeSilva Island, the Eucalyptus trees were rewired to be maintained due to bird habitat. There were two 2006 reports regarding the Knoll, one of which was not in the Tiburon Parks, Open Space& Trails Conwrission Minutes April 25, 2017 Page 4 packet and he handed to Mr. Watrous. There are trees that cannot be maintained. They are in very poor condition. He thinks the right course of action would be to restore the land to its natural condition. Chair Winkler closed the public comment period and brought the matter back to the Commissioners for discussion. Commissioner McMullen stated this is the largest tree issue to come before Commission in his time. He isnot a fan of Eucalyptus trees but wants compromise solution. He would liketo see a subcommittee appointed to study the issue. Vice Chair Allen stated that a compromise is probably the way to go. He specifically would like to see advice.regarding which trees it is possible to save. Commissioner Thier stated that she discourages the tree removal and would like to see the Town perform an independent study. Chair Winkler explained that he is a volunteer firefighter and has observed Eucalyptus trees as being negative in many ways. He supports this application. Commissioner Thier made a motion that an independent study be performed under contract to the Town to decide which trees should come down. Motion seconded by Commissioner McMullen. Motion failed 3-1 (Winkler, McMullen and Allen opposed). Chair Winkler stated that the next option is to form a subcommittee forfurther study. He did not support that dea because lie likes the proposal. Vice Chair Allen stated we can use Town resources to help make a decision. Commissioner Thier stated she was concerned that any subcommittee should operate within a defined timeline and wanted to avoid delay. Vice Chair Allen made a motion to create a subcommittee to research and explore compromise while alsoconsidering option to do nothing or remove all the trees. Seconded by McMullen. Commissioner McMullen moved to modify the motion to include a timeframe to make a recommendation at the next regular POST meeting. The amended motion was seconded by Commissioner their and agreed to by Commissioner Thier. Motion (as amended)carried 4-0. Chair Winkler appointed Vice Chair Allen and Commissioner McMullen to the ad-hoc subcommittee. Tiburon Parrs, Open Space& Trails Commission Minutes April 25, 2017 Page 5 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. PARK ALLEN, CI-I klk Parks, Open Space&Trails Commission ATTEST: DMITRIY L KEVICH, ACTING SECRETARY Tiburon Parks, Open Space& Trails Commission AYtinutes April 25, 2017 Page 6 NATIVE TREE RESTORATION PLAN MCKEGNEY GREEN KNOLL Tiburon, California Prepared for: Duffy and Ron Hurwin 558 Tenaya Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 Prepared by Dr. Kent Julin' ARBORSCIENCE Post Office Box 111 Woodacre, CA 94973 kent.julin@gmail.com June 24, 2017 O <j i• *ti ' .moi` ' International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist WE-8733A Tree Risk Assessor Qualified ISA 2016 California Registered Professional Forester 2648 Marin County Fire Department County Forester, Retired FireSafe Marin, Past President Marin ReLeaf, President EXHIBIT NO. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Invasive, non-native trees have diminished native habitats and created hazardous conditions at McKegney Knoll. This tree restoration plan describes existing conditions, and then provides management recommendations that will favor native habitat, reduce fire danger, and minimize tree-falling hazards. SITE DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT The McKegney Knoll in Tiburon is a 3-acre open-space area managed by the Town of Tiburon Public Works Department. This knoll rises to nearly 90' above sea level and is surrounded by filled historic bay lands. Soils conform favorably to the Los Osos series that are shallow-11" of gravelly loam over 4" of weathered shale or sandstone (Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey). These soils have high runoff and retain little water in the soil profile. Rill erosion on the southeast side of the knoll (above the playground) is associated with a trail and stormwater runoff. Also included within the management area is a narrow strip of land (APN: 055-131-02) between Tiburon's Linear Park and Tiburon Boulevard (CALTRANS' jurisdiction). Several large eucalypts overhang a heavily travelled multi-use pathway (Linear Park), Tiburon Boulevard, and a bus stop used primarily by school children. EXISTING CONDITIONS Plant Communities. Plant communities on McKegney Knoll include coastal scrub along the western side near the bay that is tolerant to salt spray, grassland on the south and upper knoll where sun exposure and soil depth limit tree and shrub growth, and the forest on the north where exposure to bay salt and sun are reduced. Bluegum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), Italian stone pine (Pinus pinea), and black acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) dominate the forest on the knoll. Remnants of the native, mixed evergreen forest are present including coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and California coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica). Tree locations are plotted on the Native Tree Restoration Plan Map. Table 1 lists the trees planned for removal. Fire Hazards. Trees with leaves containing volatile waxes or oils, fine, dry or dead material on twigs, and loose papery bark are fire prone. These flammable materials ignite easily and become flaming embers that are blown downwind for a '/4 mile or more where they create spot fires and burn homes. The pines and bluegums that grow on the knoll directly threaten both nearby homes and those upslope to Tiburon Ridge. Roadside eucalypts in Petaluma caught fire on September 27, 2016 and damaged 13 homes. Both the Tiburon Fire Department and UC Cooperative extension identify eucalypts and pines as fire hazards. ARBORSCIENCE_ — McKegney Knoll June 24, 2017 Pace 2 c�1\v ti •�-EL� ` "'n � J"3'� -"�ia�' ,''.. C/',� ��C�Y,�`n���, y,# s ,/� : 101 y Species 0 Italian stone pine �.....✓i Mn"tur ey pine 7 1 3y t? 99 c st five oak r r ® — Calif-reiia buckeye / >, caiffo(nia laurel Calleal Pea,' monterey cypress Viawian box mdwood Y ✓��� .sxs Y� \ _ iii �/ K Note, Onlythe blugurn eucalypts are numbered_ MAP OF ESTABLISHED TREES MCKEGNEY GREEN KNOLL M 100 200 Feet BORGIS a TIBURON, CALIFORNIA ARBORSCIENCE— McKegney Knoll June 24, 2017 1 ge 3 Tree Fallinq Hazards. Five large eucalypts (Trees 1-5) grow over heavily used areas including Linear Park that is used by hundreds of pedestrians and cyclists daily, Tiburon Boulevard with 18,500 average daily tri ps2, and the bus stop used by dozens of school children on weekdays. In addition, the knoll is used for passive recreation— informal gatherings and picnics. Eucalypts are highly prone to large limb failures and have led to disastrous consequences locally, including the recent death of David Lumbard in San Rafael on October 21, 2016. One eucalypt (Tree 5) has extensive internal decay and threatens both the Linear Park pathway and the handicap- accessible walkway. Urban Forestry Associates (UFA) recommends removal of Trees 1,2,7 and 8 because of multiple defects and the hazards they present to the public (report dated November 30, 2016). One Monterey pine (Tree 32) near the public restroom has a serious trunk defect: acute angle crotch with included bark. Coast live oaks. The knoll supports more than 200 native coast live oaks that include 1-year-old seedlings to established oaks that range in height from 4' to 20' tall (count=28; See Map of Established Trees). None of these oaks shows symptoms of sudden oak death (Phytopthora ramorum). Toyons. This large, native evergreen shrub (to small tree) is an important native component of coastal forests. A total of 21 established toyons that stand greater than 6' are present on the Knoll (See Restoration Plan Map). Bluegum eucalypts. Twenty-one (21) mature eucalypts occupy the northwestern side of the knoll and range in size from 4" to 96" dbh. The largest eucalypt (Tree 8) was probably planted in the early 1900s and is the seed source for the other eucalypts. Two (2) bushy bluegums—a multi-trunk cultivar—grow near Tiburon Boulevard (Trees 3 and 4). All of the eucalypts are infested with Australian tortoise beetle (Trachymela sloanei), which create scalloped leaf margins. Areas directly beneath the eucalypts have reduced plant species diversity owing to the allelopathic chemicals and shade produced by the towering eucalypts. Black acacias. A row of 6 black acacias was planted along the paved pathway linking Tiburon Boulevard with Linear Park. These trees are native to Australia and have adapted to growing beneath eucalypts. Copious yellow flowers that are produced by this species in early spring create a pollen nuisance and develop into plentiful seedpods with copious light seed that is widely dispersed by the wind. Italian stone pines. Fifteen (15) young stone pines grow on the northeastern side of the knoll. These pines range from 6" to 18" dbh and form an overcrowded, dense canopy; two isolated stone pines grow upslope of the playground. No signs of disease are present in these trees. Monterey pines._ Six (6) Monterey pines grow on the knoll in two locations-4 intermixed with the eucalypts on the northwest side of the knoll and 2 near the public restroom. Tree 32 has a serious trunk defect—acute angle crotch between trunks of comparable size—that will lead to failure in the future. Minor flagging on these pines is most likely being caused by pitch pine canker (Fusarium circinatum). This fungal 2 CALTRANS 2014 Traffic Volume Data for Tiburon Boulevard east of Trestle Glen Drive. ARBORSCIENCE— McKegney Knoll June 24, 2017 R,ge 4 pathogen has infected most of the Monterey pines in southern Marin and will likely lead to the premature deaths of these 6 pines. Other planted trees. Trees planted near the knoll include Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa), strawberry tree (Arbutus x marina), Victorian box (Pittosporum undulatum), olive (Oleo europaea), Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), eugenic (Eugenia uniflora), and California buckeye (Aesculus californica). MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS I recommend the following to help restore native plants on McKegney Knoll. • Remove all eucalypts and pines to promote greater health of native trees already growing at the knoll (see Restoration Plan Map, Page 7). This work would (1) reduce competition for light, water, and nutrients, (2) eliminate eucalyptus' allelopathic chemicals that inhibit seed germination and native plant growth, and (3) eradicate the immediate source of non-native tree seeds. In addition this work would reduce hazards presented by these fire- and failure- prone species. • Tree cutting operations would be completed over a 10-day period outside the bird-nesting season (see Cutting Operations Map, Page 8). Equipment and logs would be staged northwest of the Knoll at the edge of the ball field. A mobile crane will be set up in 5 locations (1-5) to access trees in 5 work areas (A-E). Barriers will be placed as needed at 4 access points (I-IV) to separate the public from tree work. • Protect to the greatest extent possible the coast live oaks, toyons, coffee berries and other native vegetation during any cutting operations. Flagging and creating designated work areas that avoid these native trees and shrubs can accomplish this protection. • Cover eucalyptus stumps with tarps or weed-block fabric to prevent resprouting and subsequent growth. • Thin the native oaks 1 year after initial tree work to promote proper spacing and health at. maturity. ARB 0RSCIENCE— McKegney Knoll June 24, 2017 Page 5 Table 1. List of trees to be removed at the McKegney Green Knoll. ARB UFA Common Trunk Town Town Prohibited Fire Falling Falling Tree Tree Name Diameter Undesirable Heritage by Tiburon Hazard Hazard Hazard # # (in.) Tree Tree Fire Dept. per UC ARB UFA 1 A bluegum 72 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 B bluegum 32 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes — 3 bluegum 48 Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 bluegum 6,10,10 Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 bluegum 84 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6 1 bluegum 64 Yes Yes Yes Yes 7 3 bluegum 44 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 4 bluegum 96 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9 5a bluegum 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes 10 5b bluegum 14 Yes Yes Yes 11 7 bluegum 15,33 Yes Yes Yes Yes 12 8 bluegum 36 Yes Yes Yes Yes 13 bluegum 14 Yes Yes Yes 14 9 bluegum 33 Yes Yes Yes Yes 15 bluegum 10 Yes Yes Yes 16 10 bluegum 23 Yes Yes Yes 17 bluegum 1,4 Yes Yes Yes 18 bluegum 5,12 Yes Yes Yes 19 11 bluegum 46 Yes Yes Yes Yes 20 bluegum 12 Yes Yes Yes 21 bluegum 9 Yes Yes Yes - Monterey pine 13 Yes Yes Yes Monterey pine 13 Yes Yes Yes Monterey pine 8 Yes Yes Yes - Monterey pine 5,9 Yes Yes Yes - Monterey pine 32 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - Monterey pine 26 Yes Yes Yes Yes - stone pine 10 Yes Yes - stone pine 16 Yes Yes stone pine 12 1 Yes Yes - stone pine 8 Yes Yes - stone pine 7 Yes Yes - stone pine 18 Yes Yes - stone pine 9 Yes Yes - stone pine 6 Yes Yes stone pine 13 Yes Yes - stone pine 7 Yes Yes - stone pine 8 Yes Yes - stone pine 6 1 Yes Yes - stone pine 6 Yes Yes - stone pine 7 Yes Yes stone pine 6 Yes Yes Table 1 Notes: ARB: Arborscience Report 12/18/16 UFA: Urban Forestry Associates Report 11/30/16 Trunk Diameter: Trunk diameter measured 4.5' above grade Town Undesirable Tree: Code of Ordinances Title IV–Land Improvement and Use, Chapter 15A-2 Town Heritage Tree: Code of Ordinances Title IV–Land Improvement and Use, Chapter 15A-2 Prohibited per Tiburon Fire Dept.: Prohibited Plants and Trees Fire Hazard per UC: UC Cooperative Extension (1998) Pyrophytic vs. Fire Resistant Plants ARBORSCIENCE— McKegney Knoll June 24, 2017 Page 6 r /• yy y5 / vv� � 1 � s � d Yc T,N 3 Ui w� \ Legend �r 5 � 7 ' z , (oaf 4 z zr p �s� \ `�''' ✓ d rya��.yi�,� �i�� i s� Trees to Keep Trees to Rer�ac��te �. 0 50 100 2cc peel RESTORATION PLAN MAP " J MOKEGNEY GREEN KNOLL ARES€ RG.'IS 2017 TIBURON, CALIFORNIA ARBORSCIENCE— McKegney Knoll June 24.. 20 7 Page 7 // ' �a e Trees to Remove WorkAreas l Stager-g Area � u c' . X X,TFaffic Barrier f�'�bfy 0 75 150 3 F__t CUTTING OPERATIONS MAP } �- __ � � -__-_ , �__�_� MCKE NEY GREEN KNOLL TIBURON, CALIFORNIA ARBORGIS 21717 ARBORSCIENCE-- McKegney Knoll June 24, 2017 Wage 8 CONCLUSIONS Native habitat will be improved and tree hazards reduced by removing the invasive non-native eucalypts and pines. Proposed work would include removal of 13 protected, undesirable bluegum eucalypts. In addition, 8 unprotected, undesirable eucalypts and 21 unprotected and undesirable pines would be removed. All of these trees interfere with native plant health and are hazardous to the community. Twenty-eight (28) coast live oaks that range in height from 4' to 20' grow on the knoll. In addition, there are 21 native toyons ranging in height from 4' to 15' on the knoll. Planting new trees is unnecessary—existing oaks, toyons, and other trees will flourish once the undesirable trees are removed. The Town of Tiburon specifically identifies both bluegum eucalypts and Monterey pines as undesirable because they are capable of reaching a height of more than 35' at maturity; the Town also designates many of these trees due to their size as "heritage" trees. The Tiburon Fire Department and the University of California Cooperative Extension list eucalypts and pines as fire-prone species. Sincerely, ARBORSCIENCE Dr. Kent R. Julin International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified California Registered Professional Forester ARBORSCIENCF_ — McKegney Knoll Ju ;e 24, 2017 Page 9 Town of Tiburon Tree Risk Assessment South Knoll, McKegney Park Prepared for: Town of Tiburon Public Works Department 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon CA 94920 Prepared by: HortScience, Inc. 325 Ray Street Pleasanton, CA 94566 December 26, 2017 l NORT E N C E V. EXHIBIT N Tree Risk Assessment South Knoll, McKegney Park Town of Tiburon Table of Contents Page Introduction 1 Assessment Procedures 2 Description of Trees 3 Tree Risk Assessment 5 Summary and Recommendations 7 List of Tables Table 1. Species present and tree condition. 3 Table 2. Proposed action. 8 Exhibits Tree Assessment Form Tree Risk Ratings Tree Assessment Plan Tree Risk Assessment South Knoll, McKegney Park Town of Tiburon Introduction The Town of Tiburon manages 65 miles of roadway, 70 acres of parks, and 250 acres of open space. One of the Town's facilities is the South Knoll of McKegney Park, located south of Tiburon Blvd. and Del Mar Middle School. The Town's Department of Public Works requested that HortScience, Inc. assess and evaluate the risk associated with a number of trees on the South Knoll (Photo 1). This report provides the following: 1. Assessment of tree health and structural condition. 2. Assessment of tree risk. 3. Management recommendations. f a R � � tit S - t � t a 41e .9 Photo 1. Aerial view of South Knoll, McKegney Park. Tiburon Blvd. is at the top of the photo. The assessment focused on trees near the linear trail (red arrows). Tree Risk Assessment. HortScience, Inc. South Knoll, McKegney Park. Town of Tiburon. Page 2 Assessment Procedures Trees were assessed in December 2017. The assessment procedure consisted of a Level 2 inspection as described in the Best Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment(Smiley et al. 2017. 2 nd edition. International Society of Arboriculture). A level 2 inspection is a visual assessment from the ground. Risk is described in the Best Management Practices publication as the combination of likelihood of a tree failure striking people or property and the consequences of that failure. Assessment of these factors is then combined into a risk rating. Trees greater than 10" diameter were evaluated as follows: 1. Identify the tree as to species. 2. Tag each tree with an identifying number and recording its location on a map. 3. Measure the trunk diameter at a point 54" above grade. 4. Evaluate the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 —5: 5-A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species. 4-Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected. 3-Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care. 2-Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1 -Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated. 5. Comment on the presence of defects in structure, insects or diseases and other aspects of development. 6. Identify the part of the tree most likely to fail and rate the likelihood for failure (improbable, possible, probable, imminent). 7. Identify what would be struck if that part failed (targets such as people, buildings, cars). & Rate the likelihood that a target(person or structure)would be present at the time of failure (very low, low, medium, and high). This assessment considers the frequency with which a person or vehicle is present, i.e. its occupancy. 9. Assess the likelihood of the tree failure impacting the specific target(unlikely, somewhat likely, likely, very likely). 10. Rate the consequences if a person or property were struck by that tree part (negligible, minor, significant, severe). 11. Combine the ratings for likelihood of failure and striking the target and the consequences of the failure to identify the risk (low, moderate, high, extreme). 12. Describe treatments (e.g. pruning, tree removal) that would reduce the risk and assess the residual risk that would remain if that treatment were applied. One failure mode (tree part and target)was assessed for each tree. The inspection interval was five years. Tree Risk Assessment. HortScience, Inc. South Knoll, McKegney Park. Town of Tiburon. Page 3 Description of Trees Thirty-nine (39) trees were assessed, representing five species (Table 1). All trees had been planted or had seeded in on their own. No species was native to the San Francisco area. No trees were indigenous to the site. Table 1. Species present and tree condition. South Knoll McKegney Park. Tiburon CA. Common name Scientific name Condition No. of Poor Fair Good Excell Trees (1,2) (3) (4) (5) Blackwood acacia Acacia melanoxylon 5 -- -- -- 5 Blue gum Eucayptus globulus 6 7 7 -- 20 Dwarf blue gum Eucayptus g/obu/us'Compacta' 1 1 -- -- 2 Italian stone pine Pinus piney 3 2 3 -- 8 Monterey pine Pinus radiata -- 4 -- -- 4 Total, all trees assessed 15 14 10 -- 39 Blue gum was the most frequently encountered species (20 trees). Blue gums dominated the South Knoll, particularly on the.north and west sides. Blue gums ranged from 11 in. to 99 in. in diameter. The majority of trees had trunks greater than 30 in. Among the largest trees were#8 (99 in.) and 5 (84 in.) while#1, 6 and 19 were larger than 50 in. Almost all blue gums had been crown reduced one or more times in the past. Following reduction, sprouts ,` had been allowed to develop. Over time, the pattern of reduction and resprouting has resulted in vase- a " shaped crowns with numerous scaffold and lateral _, z" ' branches. 1 ' Photo 2. Looking west at blue gum#1. Note vase shaped form which has resulted in part from a history of crown reduction pruning. Condition of blue gum trees was equally divided " among poor, fair and good (Photo 3). Those in poor < ' condition tended to be suppressed in developmentf. and/or possessed defects in structure such as -� "" _ � asymmetric form and more than one trunk. In contrast, trees in good condition had well-developed crowns. �� Tree Risk Assessment. HortScience, Inc. South Knoll, McKegney Park. Town of Tiburon. Page 4 #8 a #6 /p Photo 3. Looking south from linear trail at blue gums#6, 7 and 8. Tree#6 was in fair condition with a one-sided crown that had been reduced in size. Tree#7 was in poor condition having been suppressed in development. Tree#8 was in good condition with a full, well-developed crown. Eight Italian stone pines were ; present on the east side of the Knoll. Trees ranged from 9 in. h� T to 21 in. It is likely that all pines were planted at the d P same time. Differences in size ' and condition were due to crowding and availability of water. The largest Italian stone pines were#39 (21 in.) and 42 (18 in.) (Photo 4). Both13: were located on the southE edge of the planting. Tree condition varied from poor(3 tree) to fair (2) to good (3). Photo 4. Looking north at Italian stone pine#39 (right) and 42 (left). Both had full but one-sided canopies. Tree Risk Assessment. HortScience, Inc. South Knoll, McKegney Park. Town of Tiburon. Page 5 Five blackwood acacias were located between the linear trail and Tiburon Blvd. All were in poor condition and overmature in development. Trunks ranged from 6 in. to 16 in. in diameter. All acacias but one had two or more trunks that arose close to the ground. Monterey pines#43 and 44 were located in the southeast corner of the Knoll. They were 17 in. and 15 in. in diameter. Both were in fair A condition but lacked a central leader and vigor. ' x Monterey pines#55 and 56 �s were located near the play � z area and bathroom on the _.rt east side of the site (Photo r - 5). Both were mature in development and in fair condition. Tree#55 had trunks of 22 in and 18 in. while#56 was 29 in. Photo 5. Looking west at Monterey pine#56 (left) and 55 (right). Dwarf blue gums#3 and 4 were located adjacent to the walking trail near its terminus at Tiburon Blvd. Tree#3 was large and mature with the multi-stem form and dense canopy that is typical of the species. Tree condition was fair. Tree#4 was in poor condition due to poor structure and lack of vigor. Descriptions of each tree can be found in the Tree Assessment Form and approximate locations are shown on the Tree Assessment Plan(see exhibits). Tree Risk Assessment Tree risk assessment is the systematic process of evaluating the potential for a tree or one of its parts to fail and, in so doing, injure people or damage property. All trees have the potential to fail. The degree of risk will vary with the size of the tree, type and location of the defect, tree species and the nature of the target. In describing risk and its assessment, I have used the terminology found in the Best Management Practices. Risk is an assessment of the combination of likelihood of a tree failure striking people or property, and the consequences of that failure. Risk is categorized in four ways.. low, moderate, high and extreme. Trees rated as low may benefit from mitigation and monitoring. Immediate action is not normally required. In contrast, a rating of extreme involves a tree in imminent danger of failing, where the likelihood impacting a target is high and the consequences would be severe. In general, the rating defines a priority for action. Tree Risk Assessment. HortScience, Inc. South Knoll, McKegney Park. Town of Tiburon. Page 6 At South Knoll, McKegney Park, target occupancy was assessed as follows (Photo 6): ■ Tiburon Blvd. Constant • Bathroom and play structure., Constant ■ Vehicle on Tiburon Blvd. Frequent ■ Bus stop on Tiburon Blvd. Frequent ■ Person on linear trail. Frequent ■ Person on walking trail. Occasional • Person at bus stop. Occasional • Person using bathroom or play area. Occasional ■ Person in general landscape. Rare Aside from Tiburon Blvd., the most heavily used area of the South Knoll appeared to be the linear trail. A walking path connected the linear trail to Tiburon Blvd. in the area of trees#1 —5. Access to trees on the south side of the trail was limited due to steep slopes and lack of trails. r 4 ! N a � F Photo 6. Looking east along linear trail, one of the potential targets of a tree failure. Some branches extend over Tiburon Blvd. and a bus stop (left edge of photo). Risk ratings were as follows: ■ Extreme. No trees were identified as having extreme risk. ■ High. No trees were rated as having high risk. ■ Moderate. Blackwood acacias#23—26 were identified as having moderate risk (Table 2). ■ Low. The remaining 35 trees including all 20 blue gums were identified as having low risk. Tree Risk Assessment. HortScience, Inc. South Knoll, McKegney Park. Town of Tiburon. Page 7 Blackwood acacias were all in poor condition and overmature in development. I have observed that trees of this species are more likely to fail as they age. Were they to fail, they would fall onto the linear trail. Risk ratings for individual trees are found in the attached Tree Risk Rating Form. Summary and Recommendations Thirty-nine (39) trees were assessed at the South Knoll of McKegney Park including 20 blue gums, eight Italian stone pines, five blackwood acacias, four Monterey pines, and two dwarf blue gums. Trees were largely mature in development. Tree condition was a mix of poor, fair and good due largely to growing conditions and management history. The risk associated with each tree was assessed using the terminology and methods described in Best Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment with either a Level 1 or Level 2 Inspection. Risk was rated as moderate for four trees and low for 35. No trees received risk ratings of extreme or high. No trees were identified as in imminent danger of failing. For blue gum, tree failures are most likely to occur during periods of rain and strong winds. Use of the linear and walking trail is likely to be lower during severe storms. In contrast, activity along Tiburon Blvd. and near the bus stop seems unlikely to be affected by weather. Lifespan of species present varies widely. Blue gums have the potential to grow for many years with a lifespan of over 300 years in its native range. This is in stark contrast to blackwood acacia which can be expected to decline after 25 years. Monterey pine's lifespan at unirrigated sites in Tiburon may be 25 years and perhaps twice that under irrigation. Monterey pines#43 and 44 will never be assets to the site while trees#55 and 56 can expected to slowly decline in health over the next 10 to 15 years. Based on my observations and assessment, I recommend the following (Table 2): 1. Remove blackwood acacias#22 —26. Trees#23—26 have moderate risk while #22 is in poor condition. 2. Remove dwarf blue gum#4 due to its declining condition. 3. Remove blue gum#5. This 84 in. diameter tree is in poor condition with a large open cavity at the base of the trunk on the uphill (north) side. Although the cavity was well-buttressed at the margins, large fungal fruiting bodies were growing on its interior. 4. Prune blue gums#1, 2 and 6 and Monterey pines#55 and 56 as noted in Table 3. 5. Evaluate blue gum #10 for installation of a cable support system. This 39 in. diameter tree was in good condition but has codominant trunks that arise near the base. The two resulting stems are vertical in orientation. Installation a cable system will reduce movement of the two stems and the likelihood that they will fail. Tree Risk Assessment. HortScience, Inc. South Knoll, McKegney Park. Town of Tiburon. Page 8 Table 2. Proposed action. South Knoll, McKegney Park. Tiburon CA. Tree Species Trunk Condition Proposed Notes No. Diameter 0=dead Action (in.) 1=poor 5=excell. 1 Blue gum 58,43 3 Prune Remove dead branches throughout crown; reduce end weight on long branches; remove slender laterals that extend over bus stop&Tiburon Blvd.; reduce length of SE-facing low limb on S. with large wound on upperside. 2 Blue gum 40 3 Prune Reduce end weight on long branches; remove slender laterals that extends over bus stop & Tiburon Blvd. 4 Dwarf blue gum 11,11,8 2 Remove Poor condition; unlikely to recover 5 Blue gum 84 2 Remove Poor condition; large cavity 6 Blue gum 59 3 Prune Continue to reduce crown, both stems & branches on W. 10 Blue gum 39 4 Evaluate Tree is too large to structurally for cable prune but has good form. system 22 Blackwood acacia 14,12,9 2 Remove Overmature; poor condition 23 Blackwood acacia 16,6,5 2 Remove Moderate risk 24 Blackwood acacia 6 1 Remove Moderate risk 25 Blackwood acacia 10,5,5,4 2 Remove Moderate risk 26 Blackwood acacia 10,8 2 Remove Moderate risk 55 Monterey pine 22,18 3 Prune Prune to remove branches that extend over bathroom &clean crown. 56 Monterey pine 29 3 Prune Prune to remove branches that extend over play area &clean crown. Tree Risk Assessment. HortScience, Inc. South Knoll, McKegney Park. Town of Tiburon. Page 9 6. Monitor tree health and structure as part of routine management operations. Key elements to be considered include: 1) change in orientation such as increase in leaning or bowed stems, 2) development of cracks in the lower trunk and between stems, 3) appearance of fungal fruiting bodies, and 4) broken and partially attached branches hung-up in the crown. Our procedures focused on trees with observable defects. Failure of apparently defect- free trees does occur, especially during storm events. Wind forces, for example, can exceed the strength of defect-free wood causing branches and trunks to break. Wind forces coupled with rain can saturate soils, reducing their ability to hold roots, and blow over defect-free trees. Although we cannot predict all failures, identifying those trees with observable defects is a critical component of enhancing public safety. Trees also change over time. Our inspection represents the condition of the tree at the time of inspection. Trees should be inspected after storms of unusual severity to evaluate damage and structural changes. Initiating these inspections is the responsibility of the Town of Tiburon. HortScience, Inc. James R. Clark, Ph.D. ISA Certified Arborist WE-0846A ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#357 ATTACHMENTS Tree Assessment Form Tree Risk Ranking Tree Assessment Plan South Knoll Tree Assessment Form McKegney Green Knoll R, Tiburon CA . December 2017H 0 T J,14 SCIENCE TREE SPECIES TRUNK CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER 0=dead for (in.) 1=poor PRESERVATION 5=excell. 1 Blue gum 58,43 3 Low Codominant trunks @ base; trunks fused together from 3' to 7', exposed roots on slope; topped sev'l. times with resprouts; full intact canopy; SE. facing limb low on trail side has large wound on upper surface. 2 Blue gum 40 3 Low Multiple attachments @ 6'; 1 stem vertical but one-sided to N.; 2nd vertical & one-sided to S.; 3rd leans E. with small gap in canopy; sev'l. horizontal laterals over bus stop. 3 Dwarf blue gum 43 3 Low Typical form & structure; multiple attachments @ 4'; upright; canopy intact. 4 Dwarf blue gum 11,11,8 2 Low Multiple attachments @ base; slight lean & one-sided to S.; thin canopy. 5 Blue gum 84 2 Low Top of slope btwn. linear trail and sidewalk; large well- buttressed cavity on N.; multiple attachments @ 5'; attachments okay; open rangy form; previously topped; 2 largest stems vertical; smaller stems on S.; twig dieback throughout; crown reduced on linear trail side. 6 Blue gum 59 3 Low W. edge; multiple attachments @ 5' & above; one-sided & upper canopy bowed W.; small basal cavities; reduced on W. @ ends. 7 Blue gum 38 2 Low Multiple attachments @ 7' @ topping point; partly suppressed; long lateral on S.; previously reduced. 8 Blue gum 99 4 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6' to 12'; where topped; largely upright; very large base with num. small wounds. 9 Blue gum 27 3 Low Intermediate; sinuous trunk in upper canopy; one-sided to W. with heavy laterals; surface roots. 10 Blue gum 39 4 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 18', vertical; surface roots. Page 1 l South Knoll Tree Assessment Form McKegney Green Knoll »V , Tiburon CA cm ,� December 2017 H Q R T S C I E N C E TREE SPECIES TRUNK CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER 0=dead for (in.) 1=poor PRESERVATION 5=excell. 11 Blue gum 17 2 Low Suppressed; one-sided to S.; poor form & structure. 12 Blue gum 33,15 3 Low Codominant trunks @ base & 6'I-.upright; slightly flat-form to NW. - SE. 13 Blue gum 37 3 Low Edge of W. slope; open rangy form. 14 Blue gum 13 4 Moderate Edge of W. slope; good form & structure. 15 Blue gum 12 3 Low High narrow crown; crook & sinuous trunk high in crown. 16 Blue gum 25 4 Moderate Good form & structure; narrow form; codominant trunks mid- crown; heavy lateral to S. 17 Blue gum 25 4 Moderate S. edge; one-sided to S.; otherwise good. 18 Blue gum 17,7 2 Low Codominant trunks @ 3'; one-sided to E.; crook mid-crown on E. 19 Blue gum 54 4 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 6' & 14'; rounded form with horizontal laterals low in crown. 20 Blue gum 15,10 2 Low Codominant trunks @ base; 15" multiple attachments @ 20' with lateral branch from #19 in attachment; growing into crown of#19. 21 Blue gum 18 2 Low Poor form & structure; suppressed; one-sided & leans S. 22 Blackwood acacia 14,12,9 2 Low Poor form & structure; multiple attachments @ base; 14" stem one-sided to S.; 12" corrected lean E. with codominant trunks high in crown; 9" leans NE. 23 Blackwood acacia 16,6,5 2 Low Poor form & structure, codominant trunks @ base & 2'; 16" stem vertical with codominant trunks mid-trunk, lost central leader; very thin canopy; 6" horizontal over linear trail. 24 Blackwood acacia 6 1 Low Largely dead; losing bark along trunk. Page 2 South Knoll Tree Assessment Form McKegney Green Knoll Tiburon CA ' December 2017 H to RTSCIENCE TREE SPECIES TRUNK CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER 0=dead for (in.) 1=poor PRESERVATION 5=excell. 25 Blackwood acacia 10,5,5,4 2 Low Multiple attachments @ base; 12" stem with trunk cavity. upper canopy bowed over linear trail; 5" horizontal over linear trail. 26 Blackwood acacia 10,8 2 Low Poor form & structure; leans S.; codominant trunks @ 4'; upper canopy bowed flat over linear trail. 28 Blue gum 38 4 Moderate W. edge; bottom of slope; several large scaffolds; branches extend to edge of field. 35 Italian stone pine 11 2 Low Leaning & one-sided to SE.; lost central leader. 36 Italian stone pine 14 4 Moderate Okay form; strong central leader. 37 Italian stone pine 10 2 Low Leaning & one-sided to NE.; codominant trunks @ 18'. 38 Italian stone pine 9 3 Low Codominant trunks @ 15; narrow crown. 39 Italian stone pine 21 4 Moderate S. edge; codominant trunks @ 7'; one-sided to S.; dense canopy. 40 Italian stone pine 10 3 Low Slight lean S.; intermediate. 41 Italian stone pine 10 2 Low Poor form & structure; codominant trunks @ 5'; both stems bowed flat to E. 42 Italian stone pine 18 4 Moderate S. edge; multiple attachments @ 18'; one-sided to S. 43 Monterey pine 17 3 Low Lost central leader; upper canopy thin; sequoia pitch moth; red turpentine beetle. 44 Monterey pine 15 3 Low Lost central leader; thin upper canopy. 55 Monterey pine 22,18 3 Low Codominant trunks @ 2'; vertical; thin canopy; surface roots. 56 Monterey pine 29 3 Low Circling roots may also be girdling; typical form & structure; thin canopy; small cut roots on N. Page 3 South Knoll s � Tree Risk Ratings McKegney Green Knoll Tiburon CA December 2017 H O R T ,,! SCIENCE Tree Species Trunk Heritage Condition Tree part Target Risk Rating No. Diameter Tree 0=dead likely to Likelihood Likelihood Overall Conse- Rating (in.) 1=poor fail of of likelihood quences 5=excell. failure impact 1 Blue gum 58,43 Yes 3 Branch People at bus Possible Low Unlikely Severe Low stop 2 Blue gum 40 Yes 3 Branch People at bus Possible Low Unlikely Severe Low stop 3 Dwarf blue gum 43 Yes 3 Branch People on the Improbable Low Unlikely Significant Low walkway 4 Blue gum 11,11,8 No 2 Stem People on the Possible Low Unlikely Severe Low walkway 5 Blue gum 84 Yes 2 Whole tree People on the Possible Medium Unlikely Severe Low linear trail 6 Blue gum 59 Yes 3 Whole tree People on the Possible Low Unlikely Significant Low or large play field 7 Blue gum 38 Yes 2 S.-facing or People in Possible Very low Unlikely Severe Low horizontal landscape 8 Blue gum 99 Yes 4 Branch People in Improbable Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape 9 Blue gum 27 Yes 3 Branch People in Improbable Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape 10 Blue gum 39 Yes 4 Branch People in Improbable Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape 11 Blue gum 17 No 2 Branch People in Improbable Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape 12 Blue gum 33,15 Yes 3 Branch People in Improbable Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape Pagel South Knoll Tree Risk Ratings McKegney Green Knoll Tiburon CA December 2017 H O R,. 1' $C I E N C E Tree Species Trunk Heritage Condition Tree part Target Risk Rating No. Diameter Tree 0=dead likely to Likelihood Likelihood Overall Conse- Rating (in.) 1=poor fail of of likelihood quences 5=excell. failure impact 13 Blue gum 37 Yes 3 Branch People in Improbable Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape 14 Blue gum 13 No 4 Branch People in Improbable Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape 15 Blue gum 12 No 3 Stem People in Improbable Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape 16 Blue gum 25 Yes 4 S.-facing People in Possible Very low Unlikely Significant Low branch landscape 17 Blue gum 25 Yes 4 Branch People in Improbable Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape 18 Blue gum 17,7 No 2 Stem People in Possible Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape 19 Blue gum 54 Yes 4 Branch People in Improbable Very low Unlikely Severe Low landscape 20 Blue gum 15,10 No 2 Branch People in Improbable Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape 21 Blue gum 18 No 2 Branch People in Improbable Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape 22 Blackwood acacia 14,12,9 No 2 9" stem People on the Probable Low Unlikely Severe Low sidewalk by street 23 Blackwood acacia 16,6,5 No 2 Branch People on the Probable Medium Somewhat Severe Moderate linear trail likely 24 Blackwood acacia 6 No 1 Whole tree People on the Probable Medium Somewhat Severe Moderate linear trail likely Page 2 South Knoll Tree Risk Ratings McKegney Green Knoll All Tiburon CA , December 2017 HO RT ,'r S C I E N C E ,s r' Tree Species Trunk Heritage Condition Tree part Target Risk Rating No. Diameter Tree 0=dead likely to Likelihood Likelihood Overall Conse- Rating (in.) 1=poor fail . of of likelihood quences 5=excell. failure impact 25 Blackwood acacia 10,5,5,4 No 2 Stem People on the Probable Medium Somewhat Severe Moderate linear trail likely 26 Blackwood acacia 10,8 No 2 Stem People on the Probable Medium Somewhat Severe Moderate linear trail likely 28 Blue gum 38 Yes 4 Branch People in Possible Very low Unlikely Severe Low landscape 35 Italian stone pine 11 No 2 Whole tree People in Possible Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape 36 Italian stone pine 14 No 4 Branch People in Improbable Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape 37 Italian stone pine 10 No 2 Whole tree People in Possible Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape 38 Italian stone pine 9 No 3 Stem People in Possible Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape 39 Italian stone pine 21 Yes 4 Branch People in Improbable Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape 40 Italian stone pine 10 No 3 Whole tree People in Possible Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape 41 Italian stone pine 10 No 2 Stem People in Possible Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape 42 Italian stone pine 18 No 4 Branch People in Improbable Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape 43 Monterey pine 17 No 3 Branch People in Improbable Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape Page 3 z3 South Knoll Tree Risk Ratings g McKegney Green Knoll Tiburon CA - December 2017 H O R TSCIENCE Tree Species Trunk Heritage Condition Tree part Target Risk Rating No. Diameter Tree 0=dead likely to Likelihood Likelihood Overall Conse- Rating (in.) 1=poor fail of of likelihood quences 5=excell. failure impact 44 Monterey pine 15 No 3 Branch People in Improbable Very low Unlikely Significant Low landscape 55 Monterey pine 22,18 Yes 3 Branch Bathroom Possible High Somewhat Minor Low likely 56 Monterey pine 29 Yes 3 Branch People in the Possible Medium Unlikely Severe Low play area Page 4 i 1. South Knoll Tiburon, CA Prepared for.- Town or:Town of Tiburon • Public Works Department e.. o Tiburon, CA December 2017 No Scale Notes: i' Base map provided by: 1 � ESRI Numbered tree locations are approximate �T 4 � d � ( e \fie w HORT 5CIENCvE 325 Ray Street Pleasanton,California 94566 Phone 925.484.0211 .� Fax 925.484.0596 y ' TOWN OF TIBURON Parks, Open Space and Trails L ° 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Commission Meeting Tiburon, CA 94920 February 12, 2018 Agenda Item;1 STAFF O . To: Members of the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission From: Community Development Department Subject: South Knoll, Adjacent to McKegney Green; File #TREE2017001; Referral for Comment and Recommendations Regarding a Tree Removal Permit Application filed by Ron and Duffy Hurwin to Remove twenty-one (21) Blue Gum Eucalyptus Trees, fifteen (15) Italian Stone Pine Trees and six (6) Monterey Pine Trees from Town Property; Assessor's Parcel No. 055-131-23 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The owners of the property at 558 Tenaya Drive (Ron and Duffy Hurwin, hereinafter referred to as "applicants") have submitted a tree permit application (File TREE2017001)requesting removal of twenty-one (2 1) Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees, fifteen (15) Italian Stone Pine trees and six (6) Monterey Pine trees (Exhibit 1). The trees are located on or near South Knoll, in the Town's Richardson Bay Lineal Park, a public park. All of the trees are located on Town-owned property, except for five (5) Eucalyptus trees located on Town-leased land collectively owned by the 12 property owners of nearby Pine Terrace. South Knoll is an approximately 60-foot tall knoll rising above adjacent level areas of the Richardson Bay Lineal Park in between McKegney Green and South of Knoll Park and Playground. The Town's policy for trees located on Town property requires that the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission review tree permit applications for prominent trees located on Town property (Exhibit 2). ROLE OF THE PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS COMMISSION The Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission's role in reviewing this tree permit application is to provide comments and make recommendations to Town Staff prior to a decision on the application. Town Staff has determined that, due to the prominence of the trees requested to be removed, the Town Council would make the decision on this application. PROJECT DATA Address: South Knoll adjacent to Old Rail Trail west of Pine Terrace and Tiburon Boulevard Assessor Parcel Number: 055-131-23 File Number: TREE2017001 General Plan and Zoning: P&R (Parks & Recreation) X'HIBIT NO. Current Use: Public Park E Owner: Town of Tiburon TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 4 Applicants: Ron and Duffy Hurwin Date Complete: February 22, 2017 BACKGROUND On April 25, 2017, POST considered the subject tree permit and appointed an ad-hoc sub- committee to make recommendations. Exhibit 3 is the staff report for that meeting (without attachments). Exhibit 4 is the minutes for that meeting. On May 15, 2017, the POST sub-committee met with Kent Julin, consultant for the applicants, at the Knoll. After an informative discussion the sub-committee requested a compromise plan that would remove some of the trees as proposed in the permit while leaving others. On June 24, 2017, Staff received a follow-up report from Mr. Julin (Exhibit 5) and passed it to the sub-committee. This report again recommended removing all 42 trees listed in the permit. The sub-committee then asked staff for a risk evaluation to be performed on the trees requested to be removed. Accordingly, staff entered into a contract with HortScience, Inc. for a risk assessment of trees over 10 inches in diameter (that size was chosen because staff recommends that all eucalyptus trees under 10 inches in diameter should be removed in any event). HortScience, Inc. is considered experts in the field of risk assessment. Dr. James Clark, who performed the assessment, was a professor at the University of Washington, where he taught Kent Julin. The subsequent report (Exhibit 6) was passed to the sub-committee on January 8, 2018. ANALYSIS The attached Tree Risk Assessment Report evaluates 39 trees. Regarding safety, risk was rated as moderate for four trees and low for 35. No trees received risk ratings of extreme or high. No trees were identified as in imminent danger of failing. All trees rated as moderate risk are recommended for removal. Other trees are recommended for pruning. The specific recommendations of the report are as follows: 1. Remove blackwood acacias 422 —26. Trees 423 —26 have moderate risk while #22 is in poor condition. 2. Remove dwarf blue gum #4 due to its declining condition. 3. Remove blue gum #5. This 84 in. diameter tree is in poor condition with a large open cavity at the base of the trunk on the uphill (north) side. Although the cavity was well- buttressed at the margins, large fungal fruiting bodies were growing on its interior. 4. Prune blue gums #1, 2 and 6 and Monterey pines #55 and 56. 5. Evaluate blue gum #10 for installation of a cable support system. The Tree Risk Assessment Report also provides a condition assessment ranking from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). One tree was rated 1 and fourteen trees were rated 2. After removing the trees recommended above, there would be eight trees remaining rated at condition 2. Staff has received costs from Treemasters for two different projects: TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 4 I. All work as recommended in the Risk Assessment Report. The seven trees that would be removed and five trees that would be trimmed under this proposal are depicted in Exhibit 7. Trees with X's over them would be removed, trees circled would be trimmed. In addition, all eucalyptus under 10 inches in diameter would be removed. The estimated cost of this work is $21,880. 2. All work as recommended in the Risk Assessment Report plus all trees with a condition assessment of 2 or less. The fifteen trees that would be removed and five trees that would be trimmed under this proposal are depicted in Exhibit 8. Trees with X's over them would be removed, trees circled would be trimmed. In addition, all eucalyptus trees under 10 inches in diameter would be removed. The estimated cost of this work is $36,740. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The April 25, 2017 Staff Report stated that an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for this project, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The IS/MND was released for public comment on April 5, 2017 and the public review period for the IS/MND ended on April 26, 2017. The Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is attached as Exhibit 9. The Initial Study concentrated on potential impacts on issues related to aesthetics, biological resources and noise and identified mitigation measures for that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. No substantial evidence has been received to support a fair argument that the project would result in a significant impact on the environment. PUBLIC COMMENT Notice of this meeting was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the Knoll thirteen days in advance of the meeting. A number of letters were received prior to the April 25, 2017 meeting and are available for review at Town Hall. Ten e-mails regarding this project was received after the April 25, 2017 meeting and prior to the writing of this staff report. They are attached as Exhibit 10 through 19. SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The POST subcommittee provided the following comment for this report: The POST subcommittee focusing on tree cutting on the knoll next to McKegney has met, toured, and discussed the proposal put before us. The proposal offered to pay for the removal of 21 (please check the requested number of trees) trees on the knoll. We the POST subcommittee are of the opinion that the proposal by the petitioner is extreme - cutting down the majority of trees. We realize and the town realizes that work must to be done but not to the extent request in the application. We therefore will propose to the POST/Council that we deny the proposal as written. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 4 i �..TI 5�3,.� �.�� ,I (..,. il•. i f �.I,..S II? We thank the petitioners for bring important topic to our attention, and hope to work with them in the future on a potential modified version of their application. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission: 1. Hear the Staff Report and recommendations of the POST subcommittee 2. Hear any public comment on this item; and 3. Consider and provide comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project 4. Provide comments and/or recommendations to the Town Council regarding the subject tree permit application. EXHIBITS 1. Permit TREE2017001 2. Policy for Trees Located on Town Property 3. POST April 25. 2017 Staff Report - South Knoll tree permit report 4. POST April 25 2017 Signed Minutes 5. Tiburon Knoll Plan 6-24-17 6. South Knoll tree risk report Dec 2017 7. Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration 8. South Knoll tree Map 1 9. South Knoll tree map 2 10. Email from Michael King dated February 1, 2018 11. Email from Paul Williams dated February 2, 2018 12. Email from Colin Crawford dated February 2, 2018 13. Email from Becky Pringle dated February 3, 2018 14. Email from Harold Kleiderman dated February 4, 2018 15. Email from Audrey Fancy dated February 4, 2018 16. Email from Bill Brinklan dated February 6, 2018 17. Email from Ron and Duffy Hurwin dated February 3, 2018 18. Email correspondence between Ron Hurwin and Mike Lantier, Deputy Fire Marshal 19. Letter from Ken James dated February 4, 2018 Prepared By: Patrick Barnes, Director of Public Works Daniel M. NA'atrous, Planning Manager TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 4 MINUTES NO. 41 PARKS, OPEN SPACE & TRAILS COMMISSION February 12, 2018 Special Meeting Tiburon Town Hall---Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Allen at 6:00 p.m., Monday. February 12, 2018 in the Town Hall Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, 1 st Floor, 'Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Allen, Commissioners McInerney, Nikfar and Wood Absent: Vice Chair Feldman Ex-Officio: Greg Chanis, Town Manager, Patrick Barnes, Town Engineer, and Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING Commissioner McInerney presented an update of the Blackie's Pasture and Old Rail Trail Subcommittee, which was recommended to be renamed the Blackie's Old Rail Trail Subcommittee (BORT). She said that the subcommittee is seeking volunteers for a task force helping with issues and enhancements related to Blackie's Pasture and Old Rail Trail. ACTION ITEMS 1. South Knoll, Adjacent to McKegney Green, tree removal permit application to remove twenty-one (21) Blue Gum Eucalyptus Trees, fifteen (15) Italian Stone Pine Trees and six (6) Monterey Pine Trees from Town Property. Town Engineer Barnes presented a staff report describing the history of Town efforts related to trees on South Knoll. He explained the results of a recent risk assessment studN on the trees and the recommendations of the study for tree removal and trimming. Commissioner Nikfar asked about the distribution of trees on the Knoll by their condition and whether the trees could be improved to a different category through trimming. ToNvn Engineer Barnes indicated that trimming could accomplish that. Tiburon Parks, Open Space& Trails Commission Minutes Februcn-r 12, 2018 Page I EXHIBIT NO. Commissioner McInerney asked if any of the trees had been planted by the railroad. Ron Hurwin, applicant, indicated that he had done historical research and found that there was no record of any Eucalyptus trees being planted by the railroad. Chair Allen opened the public comment period. Duffy Hurwin, applicant, explained her safety and fire concerns about Eucalyptus trees and how they hired arborists who evaluated the trees and recommended their removal. Ron Hurwin, spoke about a Eucalyptus tree that had fallen on the Old Rail Trail in 2006 and questioned the lack of action by the Town to work on trees on the Knoll since that time. He asked why the most recent Town tree study was different than previous studies and did not address their native tree restoration concerns. Bill Wong stated that he was concerned with the safety of the trees and felt that a low risk for a trees did not represent no risk. He said that these were the wrong trees in the wrong location. Ken James read from the risk assessment and noted the recommendation to remove only a limited number of trees and some pruning. Anile Libben stated that she is a member of Audubon Society and said that restoring or enhancing views is not a reason for removing trees, but supported the removal of non-native vegetation. She stressed the need for budgeting for ongoing maintenance once trees have been removed to protect native species. Stacy Singer spoke of the fire dangers from Eucalyptus trees. Kent Julin read from a letter he wrote regarding his evaluation of the subject trees. He said that the project would reduce fire danger, improve views and reduce the safety risks from falling limbs. Roger McGee supported the proposal for fire and safety reasons. Diane Lynch said that the Town had hired appropriate experts to review the trees. She agreed with the recent risk assessment and felt that the request has more to do with views. She spoke of other vegetation fire hazards elsewhere in town that she felt were more dangerous. Eva Buxton stated that she is a botanist spoke of the non-native nature of Eucalyptus trees, problems with the species and efforts by other agencies to remove such trees. She supported the tree removal proposal. Lee Darby supported the removal of the trees. Bill Brinkman stated that he supports the tree removals and said that safety was the main issue with these trees. Harold Kleiderman said that the goal of the applicants was consistent with Town goals for eradication of non-native species. Tiburon Parks, Open Space& Trails C0117171ission MintNes February 12, 2018 Page 2 Catherine Van Dusen was concerned with safety issues from the Eucalyptus trees. Amy Blakeney stated that she an ex-member of Fire Safe Marin and supports the project to remove the trees and other projects that remove Eucalyptus trees. Becky Pringle spoke of issues with trees blocking views throughout Tiburon. She supported removal of all the trees on the Knoll. Hazel Caldwell said that she did not support removing all of the trees and favored a compromise that would provide more safety and fire protection. Helene Marsh did not support removing all the trees and favored a compromise that would recognize the climate benefits of the tree, including carbon sequestration. Don Love was concerned about private citizens paying to remove trees to enhance their views. Yvonne Green stated that the trees have environmental benefits as habitat area. Derek Parker did not support the request and questioned some of the findings in the Initial Study prepared for this application. He also stated that if the Town is concerned about fire safety of trees, the Town should look at all trees and prioritize them. If the Town did that, McKegney Knoll wouldn't be in the top twenty. Marie O'Dare did not support removing all the trees and favored a compromise that dealt with maintenance of these trees. Chair Allen closed the public comment period. Commissioner Wood asked a question about who would pay for removal of the trees. Mr. Hurwin stated that a collective group committed to funding$52,000 for the tree removal and restoration. Commissioner Nikfar asked Mr. Hurwin to respond to claims that the project was just to preserve views. Mr. Hurwin that removing the trees would improve his views about 5%. He said that this was about safety, fire and native plant restoration. Commissioner McInerney said that it was hard to say to just cut down all the trees. She said that there was a need for more maintenance in the area and she supported a compromise solution. Chair Allen stated that the Commission was doing this because they want to improve the town and love Tiburon. He stated that the subcommittee needed more answers and had a report done by an expert who specialized in risk assessment. He said that they spent a lot of time on this and found that the Knoll has needs maintenance. He noted that the amount of open space in town is immense and that there are a lot of Eucalyptus trees in town, and dealing with those trees in general was a different matter. Commissioner Wood stated that he has spent many hours dealing with this issue, but the testimony has added to the discussion. He said that the applicants have made an intriguing offer to remove trees at no Tiburon Parks, Open Space S, Trails Commission Minutes February 12, 2018 Page 3 cost to the town, but he felt that the request was extreme. He found that the risk assessment was adequate for what it covers, but was never intended to look at the fire hazard, which he believed exists on the Knoll. He felt that many of the trees have not been properly cared for and need to be trimmed, not terminated. Commissioner Nikfar asked about the effect of a compromise on the remaining Oak trees on the Knoll. Town Manager Chanis stated that that would be impossible for staff to predict, but lie felt that the situation for the Oaks would not be any worse than it is today. Commissioner Wood moved to recommend to the Town Council that the application be denied and encouraged a compromise approach that would reduce the fire hazard and enhance the health and appearance of the trees on the Knoll. The motion was seconded by Commissioner McInerney. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Wood recused himself from the following item. 2. Request to Install Major Donor Boulder Monument with Plaque at End of Trestle Trail. Town Engineer Barnes presented a staff report describing the existing and proposed improvements at the end of Trestle Trail. Jim Wood made a presentation explaining the proposed boulder monument that would contain the names of major donors to the Trestle Trail project. Chair Allen asked for clarification as to what the Commission was being asked to review, whether this would set a precedent or weigh in on the design of the monument or both. Town Engineer Barnes stated both. Commissioner McInerney asked if the plaque on the right side of the rails could be used as a historical marker and the donor names could be placed elsewhere. Mr. Wood said that they were pleased with the proposed design. Commissioner McInerney said that it felt like there would a lot of things with names on them. Town Engineer Barnes noted that, as noted in the staff report, both plaques on either side of the rails were originally indicated to be historical plaques in the original staff report to POST. Chair Allen opened the public comment period. Hazel Caldwell asked if the boulder was intended as an impediment to cyclists or pedestrians to going to the end of the trail. Town Engineer Barnes said that this was intended as an impediment to cyclists and the gravel surface was not designed to be accessible and was not ADA accessible. Chair Allen closed the public comment period. Commissioner McInerney asked if the font size on the monument could be changed to put all donors on one plaque. Mr. Wood said that they are hoping for as many donors as possible to pay for ongoing maintenance of the trail. Tiburon Parks, Open Space& Trails Commission Minutes February 12, 2018 Page 4 Chair Allen stated that he had no problem with the appearance or layout, but had concerns with the number of plaques with names. Commissioner Nikfar moved to approve the project design as proposed. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner McInerney thought that it was a slippery slope to approve another plaque that appears to be inconsistent with Town policy on plaques. She thought that there were too many items with names. Commissioner Nikfar stated that there are many items along the Old Rail Trail already that have plaques. Town Manager indicated that many of these plaques date back prior to the 1990s when the Town policy regarding plaques changed. Chair Allen agreed with Commissioner McInerney that there were too many items with names, but was unsure where to place the additional names. Town Manager Chanis reminded the Commission that their role in this matter was to make a recommendation to the Town Council, and if there was no motion approved, staff would summarize the Commission's discussion to the Council and the Heritage & Arts Commission. Chair Allen indicated that the supported the four items shown by the trail (2 plaques, one bench and one boulder), but not how the names on the items were distributed. Commissioner Nikfar moved to approve the project design as proposed. The motion died for lack of a second. Chair Allen moved to support a different design with fewer items with names. He later withdrew his slot►on. Mr. Wood stated that the plaque on the right side was always intended to include names of donors. Town Manager Chanis disagreed and noted that both of those plaques were always intended as historical plaques. Chair Allen and Commissioner McInerney indicated that they would like to see both side plaques have historical displays and all names of donors places on the boulder plaque, with larger font for larger sponsors. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. PARK ALLEN, CHAIR Parks, Open Space &Trails Commission ATTEST: Tiburon Parks, Open Space& Trails C0MMISsion Minutes February 12, 2018 Page 5 DANIEL M. WATROUS, ACTING SECRETARY Tiburon Parks, Open Space& Trails Commission Minutes February 12, 2018 Page 6 EX1 1BIT NO'S / r i ISO: � t <y , �\ & \ EXHIBIT NO,_ _ APR 2 3 291B B IUB t L.f'�NINING DIVIS-10!?"t THE CLOCK FAMILY 150 Avenida Miraflores, Tiburon, CA 94920 April 19, 2018 Tiburon Town Council c/o Sung Kwon, Planning Manager 1505 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: McKegney Knoll Trees; Council Meeting on 5/2/2018 Dear Members of the Town Council: As residents at the above address for the last 38 years, since 1980, we strongly support the 4-0 vote of commissioners in regards to retention of the beautiful, erosion-preventing and shade- and habitat-providing forty two (42) trees on McKegney Knoll. We have been involved with a number of tree disputes over the last few decades, employing two of the arborists at various times who supported removal of the beautiful stand of trees on McKegney Knoll. However, we respectfully disagree with those two arborists, who live in Woodacre and San Rafael, because they do not appreciate the neighborhood vitality and positive qualities afforded all residents of Tiburon who commute and traverse the sections of property where the 42 trees live and thrive. Thank you for your consideration of our opinion and strong support for retention of the McKegney Knoll trees. Very truly yours, ow a, OU 1--k RP,1A k- cK EXHIBIT NO.. Ron Hurwin<ronhurwin@gmall.com> Tiburon POST Commission special meeting on Monday, February 12, 2018 6P i at City Hall to present their decision on the McKegney Green Knoll Native Tree & Plant Restoration Project Ron Hurwin <ronhurwin@gmail.com> Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 1:27 PM To: Ron Hurwin <ronhurwin@gmail.com> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Ron Hurwin <ronhu1wi11@gmail.c0m>wrote: - -Forwarded message - ----- From: Ron Hurwin <ronhurwina@gmail.com> C'Qt' } , Date: Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:32 PM Subject: Fwd: Tiburon POST Commission special meeting on Monday, February 12, 2018 @ 6PM at City Hall to present their decision on the McKegney Green Knoll Native Tree& Plant Restoration Project To: Ron Hurwin<ronhurwin @gmail.com> My name is Rost Hurwin and 1 am co-applicant of the McKegney Green knoll Dative Tree and plant Restoration Project. 1 believe that the December 26, 2017 HortScience Tree Assessment Report is bias and Purposely Does Not Address our Tree Removal Permit Application or our Intended Native Tree& Plant Restoration. At the 1596 meeting The Towyn Council said that the trees on the Knoll were sage and that they had not had a tree fall on the bike path and that the Tiburon Fire Chief did not feel that the trees were "close" enough to any homes to worry about them catching fire. 1 guess that he did not know about the "burning Eucalyptus embers"traveling up to 2 miles and "jumping across" Highways and an 8 lane freeway. My question is: HOW CLOSE were the over 3,000 homes that burned down in Oakland? On Wednesday, May 31,2006,10 years after Duffy's request was denied, an enormous mature Eucalyptus tree fell off the Knoll and landed across the entire bike path at 3:30PM,fortunately no one was hit. Someone called the Tiburon Fire Department and they decided that it was too large for them to remove and they barricaded and caution taped off the bike path and referred it to the Tiburon Department of Public Works.On June 1, 2006, Tiburon hired Marin Tree Service for$9,000 and it took them 3 full days to remove the tree off of the bike path. On June 14,2006, The Tiburon Public Works hired Robert Morey, owner of Marin Tree Service of San Rafael,to evaluate the safety risk of the remaining Eucalyptus trees on the Knoll. He presented The Town with a recommendation to immediately REMOVE the 5 largest Eucalyptus trees for$32,000 and suggested removing the additional 14 Eucalyptus trees for"safety and native restoration"and that "array be subject to limb failure and there are structural flaws present which represent possible danger to bikers and forst traffic on the hill". Since the Town of Tiburon was not happy with that recommendation, On December 12, 2006 the Town used public money to hire Ray Moritz, owner of Urban Forestry, and Certified Arborist to EXHIEIT NO. of 3 4/23/2018, 136 P provide them a second Arborist report. Ray Moritz recommended REMOVING 15 of the Eucalyptus trees and suggested that the Town of Tiburon may wish to Consider Removing ALL of the Eucalyptus on the Knoll for RESTORATION purposes. As of February 3, 2018, over 11 years after they received Ray's recommendations, the Town of Tiburon has not completed the recommendations. The Town of Tiburon chose to ignore the recommendations of bath of the tree experts that they hired. In 21I07, over 1'1 years ago, they decided, as a cost savings, to only trim the trees that had branches that could fall on the bike path or McKegney Soccer Field and take their chances on anyone getting injured or killed, putting the residents of Tiburon at great physical risk and the financial risk of the prevailing law suit that would occur. Pat Barnes, director of Public Works & the Town Engineer, admitted to rare on October 25, 2017, that Tiburon has been negligent in maintaining the Knoll, and that,January of 2007, over 41 years ago, was the last time the Town of'Tiburon diel any safety maintenance on the overgrown grove of Eucalyptus trees can the McKegney Green Knoll. In December of 2016, Our Committee hired Dr. Kent Julin, owner of ArborScience in Fairfax,former President of FireSafe Darin and one of the Bay Area's leading Certified Tree Risk Assessors. Dr. Julin inspected all of the trees on the Knoll and found them in different stages of decay, He recommended the removal of all of the 21 nonnative,flammable Australian Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees and presented us with a full Native Tree& Plant Restoration Plan that included the removal of 16 nonnative Italian Stone Pines and 6 nonnative Monterey Pine trees. Once implemented,there are over 220 native Coastal Live Oaks,Toyon, Madrone, Buckeye and native floral that will thrive on the Knoll. In December of 2016,just to be sure that we were doing the right thing, we hired Ray Moritz,also formally with Fire Safe Marin and also one of the Bay Area's leading Certified Tree Risk Assessors,to provide us a second option. Ray informed me that he had already given the Town of Tiburon a full report on the trees can the McKegney Green Knoll in 2006 and again in December of 2006.After Mr. Moritz reinspected the Knoll, he stated that the same Eucalyptus trees that he inspected in 2006 should be removed and he recommended that Dr.Julin's Restoration Plan be approved. We filed a Tree Removal Permit Application for our Committee on January 2, 2017 and included over 100 pages of supporting documents and reports. It has been over 14 months and we are still awaiting permission to start the Project. On April 5, 2017 The POST Commission had us pay for an Initial Study and a Mitigated ]Negative Declaration for the Project. The Study states that our Project will have NO Negative Impact on the Knoll and the surrounding homes and will encourage native habitat. The Town's own report states,"The removal of the Eucalyptus trees would LESSEN potential FIRE and Safety Hazards on the Knoll and in the vicinity and would PROMOTE the growth of NATIVE Coast Live Oak seedlings on the site."The Tiburon Fire Department list Eucalyptus and Pines as FIRE-PRONE species. In December of 2097,The new POST Subcommittee decided to hire,with taxpayers' money,their "'own" consultant for a 3rd Report, even though they had already paid 2 other local companies and refused to follow their recommendations. They hired HortScience from Pleasanton, CA to provide them a "Tree Risk Assessment". HortScience inspected the Knoll and provided a 20 page report, that that evaluated 39 trees on the Knoll, 22 Blue Gunn Eucalyptus, 8 Italian Stone Pines,4 Monterey Pines and 5 Blackwood Acacia.. The Report states that, "Thirty-nine(39)trees were assessed, representing five species.All trees had been planted or had seeded in on their own. NO species was NATIVE to the San Francisco area. of 3 4/23/2018. 1:3 6 P NO trees are indigenous to the site." The new report states that all 5 Acacias are in Poor condition, 15 of the 22 Eucalyptus are in Poor or Fair condition, 5 of the 8 Italian Pines are in Poor or Fair condition and all 4 of the Monterey Pines are in Fair condition.According to their rating system: 15 of the trees are in Poor Condition which means, "Trees in Severe Decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk: Extensive Structural Defects that Cannot be Abated." In other words,trees that are dying and should be removed. For some reason,after declaring 29 of the 39 trees on the Knoll as hazards, HortScience is Only recommending removing 2 Large diseased Eucalyptus Trees and the 5 Blackwood Acacia,which no one else even mentioned in the other 4 reports, and simply trimming several of the"poor or fait" trees and removing the new Eucalyptus seedlings! In addition, HortScience never once mentioned the apparent Fire Hazard of the Eucalyptus and Pines and has no opinion on the Native Tree & Plant Restoration of the Knoll! The fire danger is apparent. The recent fires this summer in Sonoma, Napa, Mendocino and Santa Barbara should be a wake up call that the question is not IF we will have a fire, it is When? All the assessments were prepared by certified Arborists.We have never stated that ALL of the trees were dead or diseased. Could the POST Commission explain to us how this 3rd Arborist Report can be so different than the previous 4 Arborist Reports? The Only Reason the POST Commission would seek a 5th Opinion is that they were trying to get a report that Fit THEIR Agenda. Is it possible that the POST Subcommittee gave HortScience direction as to what they wanted the report to state? Did the POST Commission actually inform HortScience of the large Eucalyptus Tree that fell from the Knoll in 20067 Can the POST Commission explain Why you are planning on following the HortScience Report but refused to act on the previous 2 reports that were paid for with public money? Lastly, can the POST Commission explain Why the HortScience Report totally ignored all of the issues presented in our application and does not address the essence of our Tree Permit in front of you, which is Native Tree& Plant Restoration and Fire Hazard? 1 of 4/23/2019 1-36 P t'. j h t Ron Hurwin<ronhurwinmaii.com> The Restoration Project Never Had a Chance of Getting Approved Ron Hurwin<ronhurwin@gmail.com> Mori,Apr 23,2018 at 1:06 PM To: Ron Hurwin <ronhurwin@gmail,com> _M_-----Forwarded message ---------- rC--d 2 M41 1q., ill From: Ron Hurwin<ronhurwin@gmail.com> Date:Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:11 AM Subject: Fwd:The Restoration Project Never Had a Chance of Getting Approved To: Patrick Barnes <pbarnes@townofUburon,org>, Dan Watrous <dwatrous@townoftiburon.org>, Scott Anderson <sanderson@townoftiburon,org>, Dmitriy Lashkevich <dlashkeviclm@townoftiburon.org>, dmccrohan@thearknewspaper.com, Adrian Rodriguez<arodnguez@marinij.com>, editor@thearknewspaper.com, Mike Lantier<mlantier@tiburonfire.org> Pat, Thank you for your prompt response. The impression that you presented to the public in your power point presentation was that the exact same group of neighbors have presented comprehensive proposals for a full McKegney Green Knoll Native Tree&Plant Restoration Project 3 times before and have been denied each time by the POST Commission in 1996,2006 and 2007. We are insulted that you would imply that our group is in the same category as a"group of neighbors" coming to a POST Commission meeting, standing up, spending 3 minutes and asking for the Town to pay for removing some trees. You purposely clumped our January 2, 2017 privately funded, professional Restoration Project and tree removal application, that included approx.100 pages of supporting documents, in the same presentation. What was the reason you felt it was necessary to include those previous request, when we are asking for an entirely different comprehensive, detailed project?Was it to try to embarrass us before we were turned down? My wife Duffy& I met with Scott Anderson and Dan Watrous in May of 2016 and inquired what we would need to do to present a Native Restoration Project to the POST Commission. They said that we should speak at the June 2016 POST Meeting and give them a"heads up"as to the scope of our Project. We went to the meeting and gave a 3 minute summary to the Commission. We were then told that we must pay for a$2,315 Tree Removal Tree Application before the Commission will even entertain discussing our Project. Our group then spent the next 6 months preparing the Project and hired 2 of the most respected Arborist in Marin to prepare reports to present with our packet. On January 2, 2017 we applied for our permit. We provided 2 Certified Arborist Reports, from the leading local Tree Risk Assessors, that state that all of the trees on the Knoll are in various stages of decay, This has now been verified by your new$3,500 Tree Risk Assessment Report completed by HortScience of Pleasanton, which states that 15 trees are in Poor condition, which are trees in decline with extensive dieback, significant structural defects that Cannot be abated. In layman terms, trees that are Dying and Cannot be Saved. The same report states that 14 trees are in Fair condition,which are trees with moderate vigor, moderate dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care. In layman terms,trees that are beginning to die that Might be slowed down by continued maintenance. only 10 of the 39 trees studied are in Good condition, which are trees with slight decline in vigor, small amount of dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected, in layman terms, trees I of 3 4/23/2018, JIA0 P that are starting to decline that might be controlled with constant maintenance.Your own report verifies that none of the trees on the McKegney Green Knoll are in excellent condition, Given the fact that the Tiburon Public Works Department has not done ANY safety pruning or maintenance since 2006,11 years ago after a large Eucalyptus Tree fell from the Knoll on May 31, 2006 across the bike path at 3:30PM on a Wednesday afternoon, what do you think the chances are that Public Works Department will provide"continued maintenance"to the 32 trees that will remain on the Knoll after You follow the HortScience recommendation to remove only 7 trees? The Town then demanded that we pay for an Initial Study, performed in April 2017 by the Town of Tiburon Community Development Department. That Study performed by Tiburon states that there would beNmNegative Impact created by our Project, and that the removal of the Eucalyptus trees would"promote greater health of native trees already growing on the Knoll, remove the fire-prone and failure-prone tree species, such as Eucalyptus and Pine tnaus, that would eliminate potential fima hazards and reduce hazards from trees and limbs failing on pedestrians on adjacent parks, Old Raill Trail. as well as a nearby bus stop along Tiburon Blvd.". In addition we had numerous meetings with Dan Watrous, Tiburon Planning Manager and Scott Anderson, Tiburon Director of Community Development, numerous meetings on the Knoll with members of the Committee, Town Hall and the Fire Marshall,we have dedicated thousands of hours providing the POST Commission research,calling CALTrans(overify the property line near the bus stop, calling other cities throughout the North Bay that actually pay for Eucalyptus removal, and numerous group member meetings so that we could give professional presentations, instead of just standing up and saying "I love those trees"as our opponents did. The HnrtSdenoeTree Risk Assessment Report validates our reports that the trees onthe K8cKeQneyGreen Knoll are decaying and are a hazard, Their Report states, "All trees have the potential to fail". It also states that, "Failure ofapparently defect-free trees does occur, especially during storm events.wind forces,for example, can exceed the strength of defect-free wood causing branches and trunks to break". Most importantly, HortScience states, 'Trees also change over time. Our inspection represents the condition of the tree at the time of inspection". In legal terms that means that HortScience will only stand by the condition the trees were in on December 26, 201T Why won't they give us, say a one year guarantee that none of the trees that they deemed"safe"will not fall until next December? It would seem to reason that the POST Commission would review all 5 reports and make an intelligent, unbiased decision that best serves the residents and tourists of Tiburon. However, the HortScience report, requested by Mr. Jim Wood and the Post Commission, completely ignores the essence and basis ofthe W1oKeQneyGreen Knoll Native Tree and Plant Restoration Project.Thene1maboo|ute!yno mention of the known Fire Hazards, the Spontaneous Limb Failure and the benefits of Native Restoration, It appears that HortScience was directed by the Commission to not include these most important factors in their report. It appears that the POST Commission is ignoring the facts on the other 4 reports requesting the removal of the trees and native restoration on the Knoll and will proceed with their minimal tree removal and trimming recommended by HortScience. You know that if you take a tree that is rated 2 and put some lipstick on it, it is still a tree that|adying. The Commission provided the December 2017 HortScience Report to Deirdre McCrohan, a reporter at the Ark Newspaper, before providing it tous, the applicants urthe public. OnFebruary 7. 2O18, one week before the February 12, 2018 POST Commission meeting, The Ark published the findings from the report. The article basically stated that the POST Commission has decided to take only the recommendations from this new report and totally ignore the previous 4 reports, which 2 were paid for by the POST Commission. The article was inflammatory and bias. It states, "The homeowners have tried unsuccessfully to persuade the Town to take down the trees several times for more than 20 years. In the past,the homeowners have protested the trees grew up into their views of San Francisco,the Golden Gate Bridge and the bay. Last year,the group changed tack and now say those trees pose a public safety hazard. They and other supporters argue removing them also would promote the growth of native vegetation".As in your presentation,the Ark is implying that our group is the exact same group that has been denied for over 20 years.Where do you think she picked upthat impression? I just received an email with the upcoming story that will be published in the Wednesday February 14, 2018 |J. The article quotes Jim Wood, the newest member of the Commission and the one who asked the Commission to 1of] 4123/2818. 1:10y deny our application, "It has to be denied just on the pure love of trees". Mr, Wood came to my house last November to discuss the Project, but he was probably more interested in seeing if the trees blocked my view. At that time, Mr.Wood said that he "loves trees', "thinks that they have souls and spirits", "refuses to kill trees" and" believes that they are living species like dogs and cats". This is corning from a member of the POST Commission that is supposed to be fair and unbiased! It was obvious that Mr. Wood did not read any of the scientific material stating that the Eucalyptus trees"kill" people. Someone needs to remind Mr. Wood that if your family dog injures or kills someone, you will be required to put your dog down. We all love trees, but these are the wrong trees in the wrong place. Do we really need to"kill'these trees after they"kill"someone. Now we get to have the Town Council decide on our proposal. The two new members were asked before the election during a town hall meeting, "What is your opinion of the McKegney Knoll Project?". They both said that they don't agree with "killing trees". Let's see how unbiased the Town Council will be when they get a chance to approve our Project, It has become quite obvious that the POST Commission had no intention of approving our Restoration Project. The Town required us to pay the mandatory $2,315 Tree Removal Application and then the mandatory$1,600 Initial Study fee, requested 2 weeks after our application was submitted, before the Town of Tiburon would put us on the "agenda". We have over$12,000 invested in this Project plus the group has put in over a thousand hours preparing the information for the POST Commission. Why didn't Town Hall just tell us almost 2 years ago that"they have already denied the"same"proposal 3 times during the last 20 years"and we could have used the money and time on something more fruitful. Here is the goad news,the POST Commission can use the same power point presentation the next time a group comes in looking to Restore the Knoll, they will just need to add"2017 Denied". Ron Hurwin 3 of 3 4/23/2018, 1:10 1 4' � I� + Ron Hurwin<ronhurwin&mail.crarn> The McKegney green Knoll Nature Tree & Plant Restoration Project Committee Ron Hurwin <ronhurwin@gmail.com> Fri, Feb 16, 2098 at 11:45 AM To: Kevin Hessel <editora@ithearknewspaper.com> Thank you for reaching out to us and allowing us to clarify our concerns_ Ron On Fri, Feb 16,2018 at 11:30 AM Kevin Hessel <editorthearknewspaper com>wrote: Hi Ron and Duffy, really great information. I was able to read it this morning and incorporate some of these comments further into our report, so we should be good to go. Very much appreciate your time to address my questions, and of course I'll continue to follow this closely as it moves to a Town Council decision. Best, -Kevin Kevin Hessel, executive editor The Ark • thearknewspaper.com 1550 Tiburon Blvd Ste D, Tiburon, CA 94920 office: 415-435-2652 • hotline: 415-967-2653 Want to advertise in 73ze Ark?Contact Henriefte at 415-135-1190 or hcorn fhearknewspaper comf To subscribe or ic?ne ,contact Leigh at 415-435-265.2 or 1page n @ thearknewspapet.com. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:29 PM, Ron Hurwin<ronhurwin@gmal.com>wrote: Hi Kevin, Thank you responding to my letter dated February 14, 2018. We would like to respond to several of the questions that you sent to us this morning. Unfortunately, like you,we are unable to respond to several of your questions, due to the unavailability of past records and the time restraints of your publishing deadline. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:43 AM, Kevin Hessel <editor c@thearknewspaper.com>wrote: Hi Ron and Duffy, Thanks for this string of emails and supporting documentation. I understand you requested to be interviewed separately for the story and for your reactions to the POST meeting, but for the purposes of our next article, I believe these several long emails and the documents provided offer the commentary we need to produce a story that fairly portrays your perspective. A few things I'd like to seek clarity on: ® First, you describe yourselves as a"group,"but the tree-removal application is from the two of you. Are there any other members of your group? Did these members provide financial assistance for your efforts to date? Have any of these members pledged to you or to the town to financially contribute to your offer to pay for the tree removal?Can we have the names of all these people(all I of 4 4/23/2018. 1:46 P members, members who have provided financial assistance to date and members who had pledged a financial contribution for the tree removal) for verification and to potentially seek comment?We're simply seeking toclarify the size and extent ofthis group sothat when members of the public get up and speak and we quote them in the paper,we can accurately identify them as partofyourgroup; |hiomayhe|pbatherdehfyboourreoderaenU\hepub|iovvhiohneighborsanain your group who state their motivation is safety and which neighbors are not in your group who may state their motivation is at least in pert about views. In 2016 a committee of concerned citizens was formed, representing residents from Reed Heights, Tiburon Knolls and the Del Mar districts, Our Project has received overwhelming support and we have nannivnd verbal financial and fundraising commitments from residents in all 3 districts. We contacted an attorney, an accountant and several banks to explored the option of forming a non profit 501(C),After reviewing the necessary filings, accounting and the length of time to be approved, we decided to present the Project as a Tiburon Town Management Project, which would be facilitated by the Tiburon Public Works Department. We will have all of the funds written directly to the Town and earmarked for the Restoration Project only. °° in an effort to get the Project moving ahead and to keep the positive momentum going, Duffy& I agreed to file the application for the Committee personally. It should be evident, from the volume of letters sent to the POST Commission and the large amount of people that spoke in support of our Project at the April 25, 2017 and the recent February 12, 2018 POST Commission meetings, that we represent residents that are concerned about the safety, fire and native restorations issues that are the basis of our application, °° It's unfortunate that the residents of Tiburon, their children and thousands of tourists are currently exposed to the documented potential dangers of the neglected, overgrown grove of Eucalyptus trees On the Knoll, that the trees on the Knoll block some views. If no one stood to benefit by getting an improved view, would they now be "a fire and spontaneous limb failing species"and a candidate for removal? Can Tburon justify not allowing the removal of these worldwide, including the Town of Tburon's, list of "undesirable species" trees because some people will get back the views that the Town has encroached on due to their neglect? Every town and State& Federal Park in Marin has been aggressively eradicating Eucalyptus and Pine trees and has a eradication program . The Town of Woodside has a"matching fund program"that will match up to 50%, or $2,000 per tree,for residents to remove Eucalyptus trees on their property, The Los Altos Hills County Fire Department has a Eucalyptus Removal Program that will remove ANY Eucalyptus tree AT NO COST, "to try and responsibly reduce the risks that are posed by Eucalyptus trees in our district". Why is Tiburon the only Town that refuses to wake up and correct a"mistake"that was made a hundred years ago °° There is no other area in Tiburon that has Eucalyptus trees in an area that has as high an exposure for liability amthe trees onthe [NcM|mgneyGreen Knoll. VVeall love trees but these are the wrong species oftrees inthat location, " Next, it's my understanding that in 1996, Duffy circulated a flier within yours and surrounding neighborhoods that her"Reed Heights Committee for Safety and Beauty"was seeking removal of these same trees. You state that you're insulted your current group is lumped in with the 1996 group, yet unless our reporting is mistaken it appears that you were also the founders and leaders of that group in 1996, as you are today. You perhaps accurately point to the town as being misleading in stating all the groups made equivalent efforts, but to me it seems also misleading to state you have no affiliation with another group that you yourselves started. Can you help me understand that? In 1996 Duffy was on the board of the Reed Heights Home Owners Association, A member, Eleanor Becker, who had lived here since the 50's and was 75 years old, recruited Duffy to be her"assistant" in preparing the November 12. 10A6Petition, that was presented tothe POSC Committee. That petition did not request the removal ofthe trees, itonly asked the Town bmcorrect the obvious neglect and overgrowth of the trees on the Knoll and to thin out the abundant new growth that was present. Duffy was inher 4O'a. owned her own business, had a computer and a fax machine (modern technology for that time). Duffy typed up Eleanor's handwritten letter, which is available for you to see, and the names of the 47 homeowner's that signed Eleanor's petition, She then faxed the items tothe Town ufTiburon. |nthe November 12, 1096 POSC minutes, Duffy iuquoted as"She noted that these Eucalyptus trees are reproducing and the petitioners would like to see the saplings removed and the larger trees brought down in volume and their massiveness reduced. She is NOT advocating getting rid of the trees,just maintaining the trees". She also states, "The F1vo Department said that they would "love to see the trees gone"and "That she would like to see the height of the trees reduced to their distance to the bike path and she would love tosee the trees "Replaced with oak trees and other Native troes.'' Duffy was just asigner onthe petition and she Did Not advocate toremove the trees, 44 °^ In the February 11, 1997 PO8C minutes, Duffy isstated aysaying, "She indicated that|iwas her intention that the secondary growth, rather than the seven large trees, be removed, She also indicated that the secondary growth may present"apotential Fire Hazamd". ^° As evidenced in the May 7, 1907 Town Council minutes. Eleanor Becker, not Duffy. contacted the Town Manager about appealing the Council's decision on the issue of the trees on the Knoll, The Council recommended the homeowners draw up a proposal plan for winclowing and shaping that would be paid by the homeowners. Amthere was noactual"ComAl|Mee~ tha |uou�vVuaebandoned . . " Related, did you have any involvement at all in the 2006-2007 groups requesting to remove the trees? Unfortunately, our reporting archives don't name any names for those efforts, and the meetings/agendas for the town are no longer posted online. With Monday's holiday we have early deadlines and are not able to acquire the town's documents in time for this next article, It would be helpful for you to provide us with information regarding your involvement in 2006-2007 (eg, none at all, part of a larger group, the leaders of that group, the sole members of that group, etc) ^�� = Town Hall just sent me the only record that could be found in 2006-2007. The March 7, 2007 Town Council minutes reference, Safety Trimming of Trees at McKegney Green/South Knoll. It states that a tree fell from the Knoll in May 2006. "while No One was Hurt in the incident, the Town asked Marin Tree Service toprepare areport nnthe condition ofthe others treos'''A| McKee, President ofLittle Reed Heights/Tiburon Knolls Property Owners Association, not Duffy or 1, stated that"some of the homeowners wanted to have theEuca|yptuatPeeanannovedco[np|ete|yand[ep|8medVWthshorter, matUpatneee." Heauggaubod(hat the Town split the estimated$60,000 cost with the homeowners,The request was denied and no application was ever filed. I do want to make it understood that members of the public in support of your plan—though not necessarily part of your specific group—have clearly stated that they will gain a view benefit and that"views are not a dirty word,"as people"came to Tiburon for the views,"When we write that some neighbors in support of the plan are motivated by viawm, this|man accurate statement regardless ofwhether it's your personal motivation. It was related to me that Duffy claimed our article was libelous, but in addition to view motivations among neighbors being true, you were not named in the previous article or accused by us of personally having such motivations, Also, for your own knowledge going forward, Deirdre isn't and never has been the writer of the Police& Fire Reports, so it wasn't Deirdre who ignored or helped"cover up" the 2006 tree fall. Atthe time, apart- time hee|oncevvhterVvhndidn'twonhfromlhengwsnJ0m (andtherofonewhomayhavehad|imi(ednawo judgment orcommunication with other staff)was writing the blotter items, I've only been editor since 20i1. so I can't speak to the editors motivation at the time in not making that a larger story or publishing a photo of the tree across the path; I of course have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, but I believe I would have made odifferent coverage choice. °° It's unfortunate that your previous Editor did not see the importance, value or"news worthiness"of an such an important issue that has now prompted numerous local newspaper articles and televised news interviews on ABC and NBC, San Francisco. Had the Ark done the responsible thing, reporting and highlighting the fact that someone could have been killed, the public would have required the Town to follow through on the 2006 recommended removal of at least 15 Eucalyptus trees still nnthe Knoll, i2 years later Thanks for your time. As stated, with the holiday-shortened week—we go to press again tomorrow morning— I'm under some intense editing deadlines, so it will be difficult for me to carve out time to discuss this inperson nrbyphone. But | did want inassure you that yVareceived your emaiks, read them all thoroughly and that weare taking your comments and responses seriously, which will hereflected in our article. Best regards, Kevin Thank you for reaching out to us. This is a serious and current problem that our group felt so strongly about that they were prepared to self fund. We all thought that The Project should have been received as a "win win". Ron & Duffy Humin k Raga Hurmtin<ronhurwin rnai1.com> Staff reports and exhibits PcP fb, t� Patrick Barnes <pbarnes townoftiburon.org> Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:55 AM To: Ron Hurwin <ronhurwin@gmaii.corn>, Randy Treemasters<randy@treemasters.com>, Kent <kent.julin@gmail.corn> Ron— I am reluctant to ask any contractor for a proposal for something that has a very low likelihood of being funded. It casts contractors time and money to put together proposals. Staff here has met and discussed this and we believe this has a very low chance or being funded and is not something we would recommend. Certainly we want to do work to abate risk as suggested in the Risk Assessment Report. It may be worthwhile to consider removing trees with condition of 2 as these trees are "Trees in decline, epicormie growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated." Whether we want to remove these trees now or in the future is a decision yet to be made and will require Council to allocate additional funds to this project. It is another thing to recommend removal of a tree with a condition of 3. A Tree with a condition rating of 3 has moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care. For three of the trees with a condition of 3 the report recommends mitigating structural defects by trimming. The safety rating on all of these trees is low. Some of these trees are dominant trees visually and have been specifically identified by residents as such. You are correct that the trees under 10 inches are not tagged or listed and numbered. I am reluctant to show trees that are not tagged. it has the potential to lead to confusion. Patrick Barnes, PE Director of Public Works/Town Engineer 415-435-7388 From: Ron Hurwin <ronl0urwin gmail.corn> Sent; Saturday, April 14, 2018 10:51 PM To: I'ptrid�Pam §-<pO€ne-sClQ*; (ffib 1r€n,o—t9'a Randy Trggrrli §Wt *rpnoy 0, tr= „� Gters;s.r ri 3� lel? Subject! Re: Staff reports and exhibits of 3 4/23/2018, 12:51 P Hi Pat, We would like your permission for Treemasters to provide a modified McKegney Green Knoll, aka South Knoll,tree nemovo| prop000l. VVemmu)d|ikeh`aeetheaddiUons| coa(boiakeHod8canoePianB. \Uaremove|cfoU"1 -2" onodiUontneooandthetroesundor1O''. endoddihonddiUona| Euma\yptunthathevebeennaiedo "Y The modified proposal would include the removal of HortScience Report tree number 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15. These additional Eucalyptus trees have been classified as a condition of"Y and a"low" suitability for preservation- Asnoted. UheseineeShavemodmRytestnJdura| dafectmthat"mighf' berniUgatedwiUn"reQu|arcone^ Themaireeo would require constant mon|toriDgand maintenance and vvebelieve that itwould bemore financially prudent hm remove them now. If possible, can Treemasters also provide a detail as to how many trees are 10" and below,where they are located and what species they are? I assume that these trees are not listed or numbered on the HortScience tree map. If we receive the new proposal from Treemasters by Friday,April 27, 2018, that details the added cost to remove the above stated trees, our committee will be able to consider presenting a "compromise"at the May 2,2018 Town Council meeting. YVethank you inadvance for your prompt response, Ron Hurwin OnWed, Feb 28,2818od1(l3OAM, Patrick Barnes <pban7eo@toxwnoftibuoono»g>enzba: http,//t8VVDoftibuRJD.graDiCUs.COOl/Gene[8tedAoeDdaVieVYe[DhD7Vi6w,id=7&CliD_kd=82 htfD://tOVYOOftibUPoO.gQ]MicU@.00m/M8taVi8VV8[DhD?Vi8V —id=7&CliD_id=170&D0et8_id=8339 httD://t0VVDOf1ibU[OO.Qr3DiOU8.000/M8t8VieVV8[DhD?VieYy_id=7&OliD_id=17O&0et@_id=857O Links for staff reports and exhibits. Patrick Barnes, PE Director ofPublic Works/Town Engineer 415-435-7388 Sung Kwon From: Anne Libbin <libbin18@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 2S, 2018 10:48 AM To: Sung Kwon Subject: McKegney Knoll tree removal proposal I am writing in support of the plan to remove the invasive, non-native blue gum eucalyptus, Italian stone pines and Monterey pines on the knoll south of McKegney Green. The Town Council should accept the offer of payment for removal of the trees, while making clear that the reasons for the Town's action are to restore native plant habitat, and safety, and not to improve views. If and when the native trees (mostly coast live oaks) reach a height that interferes with views, the Town will not approve pruning or removal to restore the views that may temporarily occur with the removal of the non-native trees. There are currently coast live oaks struggling to grow under the canopy of the non-native trees, and they are likely to grow much faster once they get sunlight and water that is currently going to the non-native trees. The claims by the opponents that the non-native trees provide habitat for raptors and other birds displays ignorance of the superior habitat provided by native trees, brush and grasslands, which are all inhibited by the non-native trees, particularly the eucalyptus. The beauty of the oak studded grasslands on Ring Mountain and other Town open space demonstrates how beautiful the McKegney Knoll could be if the non-native trees are removed, and the native vegetation is allowed to flourish. The Town also should provide for some ongoing maintenance following the removal of the non-native trees, in particular to prevent invasive broom from taking over in the disturbed soil. Early eradicati any 1 E-.14IB1T N®- broom sprouts will be much more efficient than a later effort to eliminate an established thicket. Thank you for your attention. Anne Libbin 18 Mateo Drive Tiburon Z Tiburon,April 25, 2018 Town Council of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: South Knoll Bluegun Eucalyptus and other non-native trees Dear Mayor Fraser and other council members, As a botanist and f-orn a natural resources point of view, I will define a non-native species: It is a plant that evolved in one geographic region and was transported to another region within recent history. Bluegun,Monterey pine, Black acacia,and Stone pine are such species in Marin County. All non-native species are not invasive;however three(first three)of the four mentioned above do,for various reasons, outcompete native vegetation and thus are invasive. The greatest offender is blue-um (Eucal)ptus globulus), native to Australia. This species spreads rapidly, forms monospecific stands, outcompetes native species for moisture and nutrients, leaves dense layers of bark and leaf litter on the ground, contains compounds(volatile oils)that alter the soil chemistry inhibiting the growth of native species, is fire prone for reasons just mentioned, commonly experiences limb failure, and supports very few wildlife species(raptors known to nest at times). In short—bluegums(and other non-native trees)cause environmental harm by disrupting native systems. Land managers in Marin County such as GGNRA, MMWD, MCOSD, Mt. Tam SP,and others,are all fighting invasive species and all of them include bluegun eucalyptus and black acacia(Acacia melanox)lon)in the invasive- species list in their Vegetation and Biodiversity management plans. It is,however, difficult for these agencies to find funding for expensive, large-scale projects like the conversion of Eucalyptus groves to native oak woodland;the cost prevents them from achieving other important invasive-species management goals. Therefore, it is incomprehensible that the Town wants to encourage the growth and keep up maintenance of these non-native, invasive species that are also fire-prone and a safety hazard, instead of accepting the offer to have them removed, and the Knoll restored to native oak woodland, at NO cost to the Toivn! The Town hired HortScience of Pleasanton(why not a local arborist of whom there are plenty?)to evaluate the trees and they suggested removing seven trees,rated 35 trees as `low-risk', and four trees as `moderate-risk.' This evaluation was done in 2017! When will the next evaluation be performed? What will an arborist recommend three, five,ten, etc.years from now, i.e., when will more trees need to be cut down—all at a great expense to the Town? (It appears that the last inspection was in 2006,when a limb broke off and actually fell across the bike path.) I have asked the Town to rid the Middle Ridge open space parcel (which supports federally and State-listed species) of Monterey pine,pampas grass, French broom, and bamboo to protect the rare and endangered species for several decades but have been turned down each time by staff claiming lack of funds! What funds will the Town use to remove the seven(7)trees and perhaps the four(4)trees with moderate risk this year? - So what if part of the reason to have the trees removed from the South Knoll is to improve views for the neighborhood behind the Knoll! By paying for the removal of 42 trees,the"neighbors"would be doing the Town a tremendous service,both ecological and financial. I know that there is no requirement to have any knowledge of vegetation in general, or that of the Peninsula in particular,to be a member of the Parks, Open Space and Trails commission and to recommend actions on open space. I dare say that I am one of very few people in town, who knows the condition of, for instance,the Atkinson Open Space Bond Purchase or the La Cresta Open Space Dedication parcels. Both of these parcels are located on Ring Mountain—an area with federally and State-listed species pursuant to the Endangered Species Acts. Both parcels are overrun by woody and herbaceous,non-native species such as Monterey pines,French broom, Scotch broom,thistles, and sweet fennel. The Town has on my insistence lately taken some interest in the Middle Ridge parcel,but other open space areas are left unmanaged (except for fire fuel control). Instead of being familiar with and supporting the growth of native vegetation that supports native wildlife, a commissioner on the POST EXHIBIT NO. commission suggests that the grove of non-native trees on the South Knoll should remain "for the love of trees" and because trees"have spirits like dogs and cats." Therefore,the POST commission recommends that the council deny tree removal permits. There are, unfortunately,other groups and individuals without knowledge of native versus non-native vegetation that agree. I urge the Town Council to grant the permits necessary to remove the invasive trees in order to begin the restoration of the South Knoll to a native plant community that supports native wildlife. I am aware that the Tiburon Fire Department supports denial of a permit; however, Marin County Fire Chief Jason Weber said that'he wished Australia would take back the encs"(personal communication). I would like to conclude with the Mission Statement of a Marin Conservation League committee of which I am a member: The mission of the Invasive Plant Subcommittee of the Parks and Open Space Committee is to educate and inform the citizens of Marin County about the threat to our open spaces posed by invasive plants and to mobilize the human,financial, governrnental and institutional resources of our count))to take effective action to restore our open space habitats to their natural condition to the maximum extent reasonably feasible. I wish this mission statement would reach the Town of Tiburon and its residents! Sincerely, Eva Buxton Botanist Conservation & Invasive Species Chair California Native Plant Society, Marin chapter Sung Kwon From: zimmickel <zimmickel@earthlink.net> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 9:12 AM To: Sung Kwon Subject: McKegney Knoll trees Dear Sung Kwon, This letter is in support of OPPOSING the tree permit proposal to remove 42 trees at or near McKegney Knoll. We closely have been following the Reed Heights neighbors' proposals over the last two years. We are aware that the initial proposal was made in 1996. We do not believe that their arguments for removal (fire safety, views, danger of falling limbs) are made in the best interest of the Tiburon community. We do support the HortScience proposal to remove the seven trees that they find in decline. Additionally, we would like to see pruning and routine maintenance performed on any trees that are in need. We feel that the Town Staffs compromise settlement would send a message that anyone who complains loudly and long enough to our town council will receive a compromise to at least partially accommodate their complaints, no matter how valid the complaints are. Perhaps the remaining eight Scale 2 trees could be pruned or otherwise have their status improved shy of removing there? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Marilyn Zimmerman and Robert Mickel Howard Drive, Tiburon This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus EXHIBIT IST®. 1 April 23, 2018 a T � C&UIJ e 4 L McM60-p-T i Summary of attached pages re: Native Restoration Project v.s. prior request for maintenance 1) List of 47 petitioners who requested the town to do maintenance in 1996 2) Original letter written by Eleanor Becker 3) Typed version of Eleanor Becker's letter faxed to the town by Duffy Hurwin on 10/1S/1996 4) Parks &Open Space Memorandum 11/12/1996 confirming that the town received the petition from 47 residents and summary of the request to safety prune larger trees and remove saplings The memorandum states that there were 16 eucalyptus trees+10 bushes on the knoll. There are now 22 full size trees+saplings so there's a net increase of 37.S%more full grown trees than there were 20 years ago. When Eleanor Becker wrote the letter,she was 75 years old and had lived in Reed Heights since the 1950's when there were only 1-2 original trees. So the population of eucalyptus trees on the knoll had increased by 800%since she bought her home. Eleanor bought a full water view property and was concerned about how much of her view was lost. My focus was on safety as I was seeing continuously fallen branches on the property where we boarded our horses in Mill Valley. The majority of the petitioners lived high on the hills where their view was NOT impacted by the eucalyptus trees but they were concerned about safety and deferred maintenance. 1 EXHIBIT NO. -5;-K,4 1 u CS. — 0 MEMORANDUM TO: PARKS&OPEN SPACE COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12, 1996 FROM: HEIDI MCVEIGH, SECRETARY SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR.TREE MARTMNANCETREMOVA,- SOUT14 OF KNOLL QUEST The Town has received a petition signed by 47 residents of the Dei Mar/Reed Heights area of Tiburon regarding the Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees�n McKegney Greenen 7 The petition requests the Town safe rune the larger trees ana remov�o tie sm mer trees and saplings. � safety p � This request is based on safety factors and maintenance ofBay views that have been blocked by years of rapid growth and propagation of the trees. ANALYSIS 1. There are sixteen(16)Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees and ten(10)bushes on the Knoll. ` Though Blue Gum Eucalyptus fall under the category of"undesirable trees", eight of these trees are categorized as"protected"under Chapter 15A of the Municipal Code(Trees). A protected tree is defined as"any tree which has a trunk with a circumference exceeding sixty(60) inches,measured twenty-four(24) inches above the ground level". 2. Protected trees require a permit from the Planning Director for their removal or alteration. 3. Trees on Town-owned property are exempt from Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code (View and Sunlight Obstruction from Trees). 1 A d Tree -tf-tfteelo Kant- Toto! PetIMOrs SUOMitted DY IgIdert My, til petitions ,,,, 70 Cohen 15-�Jennedv 95 Kandel 100 Alberni 105 Mir 110 MOM 120 Kemp 135 Galloony 139 Buich, 140 SNahnazi 141 Zichtet- 4 Hilary Rnlys (3 petitions ) 640 MUM 941 - Laurie 646 Keating MY= fou" 16 petitions '', 2 Hinkle 4 - WhAborg 6 Engltit right 8 - Wynne \j 12 - Moleclk,: 16 - Chezan Murk Terra (3 petitions) ic" 16 - Haines Strunk 30 - Fismen Y) 545 Gallyot 511mecgOn Drjyq ( I petition' ,51ewart Driva ( 7 petitions) 138 - Hansen 142 - Korenbrot 146 - Hollis 190 - Gqramegnc 192 - Brining 195 - Machtinge,.,,- 198 - Pfeiffer Suttq[ Court k2 petitions.''.: 1 - Caldwell/Fredricksen 2 - Rhe 0 bi!Rumpf 1knaya Drive Q petitions ,'10 550 - Thomas 55-h., 558 - Hurwin 562 - Feldman 564 - Heimer! 565 - Wong Mirainia Drive (8 petiticns ''. 559 - AbraMamson 563 - Nagar 567 - Becker 571 - Pastene 578 - Wills 583 - Burgin 587 - Borgman 590 - Wood n S SUVA A-A-1--fr, DID ------------- DATE: 1A /15/1995 FROM: DUFFY HURAIVELEANOR BECKER Dr FAX: 00435-4224 AITENTION : Bob Kleinert & Town of Timon Council memoer'',-, 00 431-2438 THIS COVER SHEET + 0 PAGE4 3 YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEA53E CAILL MESSAGE: Some residents of Tiburon orp rer;;-iestingi i Tiburon sponsor some "overhauling" 0 Qster of Blue Gum Eucolyptus trees in Tibuon wos rhe groNth is considered by us to Move gotten a hit out of hand , The, trees indicated are on Green , They are of vorying heigNts and diameters rorm ( "offspring" of the ,original trees) and large dic*,"irer 1.Aithic.i under the category of , "heritoge" trees kj]"t'nouah thi"s is considered in Tiburon s own tree ordinance L) , c a le in-j n�.r native" ) and are rapid!- filling up the knoll area , We ere !..I odvocating o "clear cutling I eradication of all tne Treeg , Our requests with regards to these trees oj. Larow "original" tress agfet , .V overhanging branchep, window, out Some of the center h�rcnches an?' rvM9y loose tart on the sides of the trees which is in �,"--3nqer falling within a year . Tnis should enhance tMe ampearance. ,,,,f i1e trees Wnile. at the some t0q, redtucing frire hazard and ficniger cif -fally-ig nranches, bark and seed pods, ooth well incHn spec tis of Eucalyptus tree , 5mallar trees and which will furtner reduce fire hazard and dangef 6f 0111ing material as mentioned above, These trees have grown arou'rtd' trie 'tMicker old growth trees and add nothing to the appearance of the knoll , 5 . Annual maintengnce of the trees to control their growth and, spread, without enoggeringtheir value as providers of shade, aesthetics and reminders Aburon notives ' Seri t imien tcl, experiences of playing in this grove , ,Ne feel that our above request represents a fair middle ground compromise between tree lovers and those whc wish all the trees removed for a range of recsors from safety concerns to maintenance of Bevy, View-,; they purchased between 10-30 yeags ago wriici� bee.r-, impedec',,' !)'y, decades of "deferred maintenance of these trees , Given tne average 15 foot pe; year growth rate and "fertility" cf this sPecies 9f tree, years alone equals 150 feet of Vertical growth not to mention horizontal spread and propagation. Had these trees been given adequate annual safety pr"ning from the time they were planted, we would not be asking the Town 16 t1lnuqyy %Otch Up" at this time . We believe that the Town is long overdue in reducing the mass of the grove bock to what it was year, ago when the Del Mar and Read Hpights/Tiburon Knolls subdivisions were built and the original homeowners who still reside in those homes pyrchased water and city view Toornes . Once this is done, E rainimal annual WintEyancejaj PG & E ond Pacific Bell yparly d? on ucalyptus thn" , grOV into tneir wires) is all that will be required io keep the situation in control in tMe future , We look forward to seeing you at the meeting on November 12, Sincerely, Duffy Hurwin and Eleanor Becket, Lb 61 61 611\6 V\-ANVIll rc.),C,s up -Putd V\k vt L V�( lye � ok- cu vo UJ. Cf CO, V U r _...{L t,V\ t : w per'-/ j/j � �} .. . to ....5 �Af._.. r'Y.[J' U! -�.... -J.v,i,_.,. �1 '_—.. .1+ - .-*.✓�.`.}. i.. ��� � ....... .. l � J r () koll ly ' 05 ow f ell Ut Cx L awtkkIT- OWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting 1505 Tiburon Boulevard May 2,2018 Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: A1 -2- STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Public Works Office of the Town Manager Subject: Staff Update on Rule 20A Undergrounding Project between Lyford and N As ay Reviewed By: BACKGROUND On April 18, 2018, Staff provided an update to Council on the Rule 20A project between Lyford and Ned's Way. This project would underground Tiburon Boulevard from Lyford Drive to about 880 feet west. It also includes about 250 feet of undergrounding on Lyford Drive. The April 18, 2018 Staff Report is attached as Exhibit 1. Table 1 below summarizes the cost estimate history for the project. Table 1 - Cost Estimate istory Rule 20A Project 2014 2018 2018 no design 100% design Bid Base Estimate $1,931,665 $3,002,466 Contingency $561,972 $742,111 Total $925,980 $2,493,673 $3,744,566 Before the project can continue, the Town must secure sufficient Rule 20A credits to cover the base estimate, $3,002,466. In addition, there is a potential need to expend additional funds for contingency expenses totaling $742,111 credits. Assuming a cost of$0.50/credit, the total expenditure from General funds is shown in Table 2. Table 2 - Funds Needed for Rule 20A credits Rule 20A credits General Fund Cost Current Estimate w/o Contingency $3,002,446 Current Rule 20A Credit Balance $910,000 Purchased from City of Rocklin $438,000 $109,000 Available from Trinity County $1,045,000 $522,500 Additional Credits to Continue $609,446 $304,723 Subtotal $3,002,446 $936,223 Possible contingency $742,111 $371,056 Total Potential Project Cost $1,307,279 'TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE I off= N ay ), 1018 The project cannot be completed in 2018 as the Town does not currently have sufficient funding and construction must occur during the school summer recess beginning June 18th. Starting construction any later than June 18th risks construction near the school in the fall after the start of the new school year. In addition to the funding situation, both the Town and the Reed School District are waiting for PG&E to respond to comments on proposed easement documents required that need to be executed for the project to move forward. If the project continues, the Town will need to get additional Rule 20A credits. The project would need to be rebid and construction would occur in the summer of 2019 at the earliest. At the April 18, 2018 meeting Council asked a number of questions and asked staff to return to the next Council meeting with additional information. This staff report provides that information. ANALYSIS The following is a list of questions and from the April 18, 2018 meeting and answers to those questions. 1) If we rebid in 2019,will the cost go up? David Phillips of PG&E has stated that he has never seen a rebid where the project cost went down. The construction market will continue to be difficult due to the Orville Dam,North Bay fire reconstruction, increased spending by Caltrans and labor shortages. 2) How much money has already been spent on this project? We have spent $166,350 in Rule 20A credits. We have also spent $109,000 in General Funds to purchase additional Rule 20A credits but those credits could likely be sold and the money recovered. 3) Is the design good for the future? Yes, but over time the design will go stale in varying degrees for three reasons: • The systems used by PG&E change every 4 to 5 years and if a system changes the old design will need to be put into the new system. • Equipment used in the field changes every few years and the plans would need to be checked and updated if necessary for that new equipment. • If another utility is placed in the roadway in the area of the joint trench, the alignment would need to be changed. This change would result in a redesign of the project. 4) When will small cell installations roll out? Is there any information we can get from the broadband companies? We believe that this question is asking whether the Town might take down poles only to have a micro cell site installed in one of these locations. There is not currently enough information to provide an answer to this. We do not know the future plans of the various providers in this regard particularly in specific locations. The Planning Department believes that under current law the TowToWN OFTIBURON PAGE 2 OF 6 NL,iy 2,'!018 Town does not have much say regarding placing such sites on existing utility poles owned by other utilities but could require a permit for a new pole. 5) Is there a way to "pause" this project to see what bids look like next year and not fully shut down the project? We could have PG&E minimize work. As long as the project stays open there will be charges of about $3,000 per month. Staff believes that it is important to understand the schedule that would exist under this scenario: • January - Bid • February - Open Bids • Late February or first meeting in March - Council decides to move forward. • Second meeting in March- approve purchase of all credits and all easements. • This leaves staff only two to four weeks to negotiate Rule 20A credits and get easements. As an option staff can negotiate contingent credits before bid opening. Both options put the Town in a poor negotiating position for those credits. Therefore, staff believes the two most economical choices are to shut the project down indefinitely or work on the project assuming a rebid at the same cost in January and secure credits and easements now. Staff points out that the cost could rise again and we may need to expend additional funds. There are no guarantees. 6) Do we have a projected cost for the encroachment permits and easements? To date the easements have cost nothing and no entity has discussed requiring payment for them. The school does have one condition that the Town agrees with—all trenching around the school must be done during Summer break. The Caltrans encroachment permit will have a cost, but it is relatively minor. 7) Would like to see the bids before making a decision. Staff has reviewed the bidding information available from PG&E, and could not identify any irregularities that would call into question the validity of the bids, or bidding process. 8) Provide a detailed timeline and expenditures required going forward. The project cannot occur this summer. If Council decides to move forward next year the cost of the project will largely be determined by the bid. Council should plan that the costs will be at least what they were in this bidding effort as shown in Table 2. Regarding the timeline if the project continues for construction in 2019: • May—Authorize purchase of credits • Summer and fall 2018 - Purchase credits • Fall 2018 - Approve easements • November 2018 - Caltrans Permit • January 2019 - Put out for bid • February 2019 - Open bids, authorize additional credit purchases if needed TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF l o"vn(;o ncil 1.9eeti N-1 a 1 2,24:31£3 • March 2019 - Approve purchase of additional credits if needed • April 2019 - Revise Form B and get approval from other utilities • June 2019 - Begin construction 9) What is cost of closing down and opening up at a later date? There is no cost to close down a project. The cost of starting back up depends on how stale the project design is when the project is reopened. The cost could be minimal, or we could be starting over. 10)What is the process of opening and closing the project? To close the project, we need only send PG&E a letter asking for it to be closed. To start a project Council passes a resolution. 11)What is the cost of doing this as Rule 2013? This project has not been bid as a rule 20B so we do not know the cost. There are differences between Rule 20A and Rule 20B. The reason that Rule 20A is less expensive than Rule 20B is because we have $910,000 in Rule 20A funds that can only be accessed by doing a Rule 20A project(or selling the credits) and we can buy credits at about $0.50/credit. Previous calculations based on PG&E estimates indicate that as long as the Town can purchase credits for $0.50 or less, Rule 20A is a less expensive alternative. 12)Is there a consultant or a lobbyist that could advise us if there is a different approach to take with PGE? There are consultants the Town could hire to help understand and navigate the process in the future, and Staff has contacted one of the firms for an initial review of our situation. It is unclear at this point what services we would be asking a consultant to provide. If Council wishes staff to continue exploring this option, we would return to Council at a future meeting with a more detailed analysis of potential options and their associated costs. 13)What is the chance that we could accumulate enough credits (50 cents per) over time to make this cost more palatable? If this is a project the Council wishes to pursue, the Town could slowly build a bank of Rule 20A funds via negotiations. It is important to note however, that this entails using real general fund monies to buy credits that can only be used a certain way in a certain program. The value of these credits depends on the program existing in its current form into the future. While we do not know what changes the future might bring, it is possible that the program could change such that these purchased credits become less valuable. 14)What projects will the Town not be able to do if we spend money on the Rule 20A project? Ultimately project priorities are set by Council. Further, Council could decide to fund this project and all other projects by lowering reserves and/or diverting money that might be available for contingencies or paying off unfunded liabilities. ToWN OF TiBUR N PAGE 4 OF Town Council Mcctino X-9ay?,"2018 Staff has attached the draft proposed 5-year CIP that will be presented to Council May 16'1' (Exhibit 2). While this is a draft, it represents the types of projects that might compete with this Rule 20A project. Also, attached is the project ranking spreadsheet that was discussed by Council at the Council Retreat (Exhibit 3). The Rule 20A project is not on this list as it was an active project. The Rule 20A project was ranked last year and was in the middle tier. However, this was largely because it scored so well in the category"Dedicated or Non-GF source of funding available". Rescoring the project utilizing General Fund money, the project scores in the lower third. FINANCIAL IMPACT The FY 2017/18 CIP budget included $500,000 for this project in addition to the Town's $910,000 of available Rule 20A credits. Of this $500,000, the Town spent $109,500 on purchasing $438,000 of credits from the City of Rocklin. To continue forward with the project, Council would need to allocate an additional $440,000 to the Rule 20A/2013 undergrounding project from the General Fund Infrastructure. This assumes additional credits are available at $0.50/credit, and that the project cost equals the recent bid amount with no contingency. It is entirely possible that there will be contingency expenses on this project and this could require additional funding of$371,056 (25% contingency) at a later date. Again, this assumes additional credits are available at $0.50/credit. RECOMMENDATION There are basically three options. One option is to pause the project and rebid in January. As noted above, this places the Town in a poor negotiating position to get Rule 20A funds. Even while paused,the Town would be charged $3,000 per month of Rule 20A credits. Staff recommends against this option. The two other options are continuing forward with the project or closing the project for an indeterminate period of time. The bidding environment is very difficult and will likely remain so for the next couple years. It is unlikely that a rebid in January will result in better prices, and likely will result in a higher bid. At a minimum, the price in Table 2 is the price the Town should be prepared to pay if Council decides to continue with the project. Maintenance projects need to be funded to avoid the increased costs of deferred maintenance, but given the bid climate, this may not be a good time to bid improvement projects that are optional. Staff recognizes that this project has been on the Council undergrounding priority list since 2005. Using the ranking criteria approved by Council, compared to all other types of projects, this undergrounding project ranks about in the middle if it is funded by Rule 20A funds, but in the low tier if General Funds are used. TOWN of TiBURON PAGE Off= 'hown(;ounc it Meet_iti 7 The costs on this project have escalated beyond what Council or staff could have imagined when we started this project, or even this last January. The Town is now faced with the prospect of using large amounts of General Funds to continue the project. Finally, staff notes that continuing forward with this project with construction in the summer of 2019 would potentially result in three undergrounding projects being constructed at the same time, two of them with portions on Tiburon Blvd. Given the above, staff recommends closing down the project. Prepared by: Patrick Barnes,Director of Public Works Greg Chanis,Town Manager TowN OF TiBURON PAGE 6 OF TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting Aril 18, 2018 r ' 1505 Tiburon Boulevard. P Tiburon, CA 94920 n Agenda Item: A '1, STAFF PO . To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Public Works Office of the Town Manager Subject: Staf. update on Rule 20A/B Undergrounding Project between Lyford and N d' Way Reviewed By: BACKGROUND In September 2005, Council confirmed that Tiburon Boulevard continues to be the Town's Rule 20A funding priority and that the next project priorities would be (a) Mar West to Ned's Way, (b) Ned's Way to San Rafael Avenue, and (c) Reed Ranch Road to Trestle Glen Boulevard. Responding to this priority list, the Town undergrounded overhead lines along Tiburon Boulevard from Lyford Drive to roughly 750 feet west of the intersection in conjunction with the construction of the new parking lot. Another project was completed in 2015 that undergrounded the south side of Tiburon Boulevard from the Lyford parking lot to Mar West. Since 2014, staff has been working with PG&E to underground the utilities between Lyford and Ned's Way using the Town's rule 20A funds. This project would underground Tiburon Boulevard from Lyford Drive to about 880 feet west. It also includes about 250 feet of undergrounding on Lyford Drive. The project boundary includes a utility running through the school property. As this property is within the undergrounding district boundary it must be undergrounded. This significantly increased the estimated cost of construction. The undergrounding district includes approximately 1,781 feet of main trenching, 25 feet of service lateral trenching (trenching from property line to the panel on the property), and one panel conversion. In 2014, the ball-park planning level estimate for the project provided by PG&E was $925,980 of Rule 20A credits. The Town entered into an agreement with PG&E for them to do the design of the project, and in the FY 2017-18 budget, Council allocated $500,000 to the project to cover additional costs above the Town's Rule 20A balance of$910,000. This balance includes borrowing ahead against the next five years of allocations, the maximum borrow ahead allowed. In late December 2018, PG&E provided updated cost estimates based on 100% design. The estimated cost of the project, including contingency, was $2,493,673 of 20A credits. On January 17, 2018, Council directed the Town Manager to negotiate with other jurisdictions to obtain approximately $1,424,000 in Rule 20A. At that time staff estimated that credits could be purchased for approximately $0.50/credit. EXHIBIT NO. it t a r. 4 r��t(;��e�v ��s-: v 7a."F;'€�a::ht' l,G:� a1. .i;. Co»,/rr C;o>.m"d IvIc tJw, April 18, 'Citi; On February 21, 2018, Council authorized the Town Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Rocklin to purchase $438,000 of PG&E Rule 20A credits for $109,000. That agreement has been executed. On March 7, 2018, Council authorized the Town Manager to execute the attached Memorandum of Understanding with the County of"Trinity to purchase PG&E Rule 20A credits. The MOU with the County of Trinity consists of the following two components: • An agreement to purchase $700,000 worth of credits now, at a cost of.50/credit: and, • An option to purchase up to an additional $345,000 of Rule 20A credits, at a cost of $.50/credit. The option to purchase additional credits would expire on June 30, 2019. Staff has not yet executed this agreement. Recently, PG&E received bids for the project from contractors. The bids are well over the PG&E estimate. The total cost of the project, including contingency is now$3,744,556. Table 1 below summarizes the cost estimate history for the project. Table 1 - Cost Estimate istory Rule 20A Pro'ect 2014 2018 2018 no design 100% design Bid Base Estimate $1,931,665 $3,002,466 Contingency $561,972 $742,111 Total $925,980 $2,493,673 $3,744,566 Before the project can continue, the Town must secure sufficient Rule 20A credits to cover the base estimate, $3,002,466. In addition,there is a potential need to expend additional funds for contingency expenses totaling $742,111 credits. Assuming a cost of$0.50/credit, the total expenditure from General funds is shown in Table 2. Table 2 - Funds Needed for Rule 20A credits Rule 20A credits General Fund Cost Current Estimate w/o Contingency $3,002,446 Current Rule 20A Credit Balance $910,000 Purchased from City of Rocklin $438,000 $109,000 Available from Trinity County $1,045,000 $522,500 Additional Credits to Continue $609,446 $304,723 Subtotal $3,002,446 $936,223 Possible Contin enc $742,111 $371,056 Total Potential Project Cost $1,307,279 Staff has previously been told that the funding and property requirements for the project needed to be completed two months before construction. Construction must occur during the school summer recess beginning June 18th. Starting construction any later than June 18th risks construction near the school after school starts in the fall. Given this, April 18'h is the drop-dead date for securing the necessary credits and for resolution of the property issues for construction to occur during 2018. In addition to the funding situation, both the Town and the Reed School District are waiting for PG&E to respond to comments on proposed easements documents required for the project to move forward. ANALYSIS The current cost of the project with contingency is now over four times the no-design ball park cost estimate, provided to the Town by PG&E in 2014 when Council decided to proceed with the project. It is 50%more than the cost presented to Council in January 2018. While this project has been a priority since 2005,the costs are more than anticipated due to the requirement to underground the wires over the school and, probably, the current bidding environment. PG&E solicited bids from four pre-qualified contractors. Two declined to put in bids, stating they were too busy with other work. The other two were very close, only about 6% percent apart. PG&E has not shared the bids, so staff cannot provide further analysis. Given the project schedule and the requirement to do the project during the school summer break, Staff believes it is virtually impossible to construct the project this summer. Therefore, if Council wishes to continue moving forward on this project, construction would occur no earlier than Summer 2019. In this scenario, PG&E would rebid the project in Spring 2019. We currently have a 100%design. This design will stay viable for a few years although changes may need to be made as new equipment standards are developed by the utilities. PG&E will continue to charge against the project as long as the project remains open. The only way to avoid these continuing charges is to close the project down. Currently, PG&E has expended about $140,000 in Rule 20A credits. Regarding Rule 20A in general, as noted above, the Town currently has $910,000 in credits (including borrow ahead)plus the $438,000 in credits purchased from Rocklin, for a total of $1,348,000 in credits. The Town receives just under$30,000 per year in additional credits. Over the past ten years Rule 20A costs have risen faster than general construction costs_ Over the long term, general construction costs rise by about 3.5%per year. The amount Tiburon receives annually is insufficient to cover the cost of inflation for the amount of credits already owned. Therefore, it makes sense to use the credits soon. However, given the results on this project, it is uncertain that the Town can find a project that we can complete for under$1.4M. FINANCIAL IMPACT The FY 2017/18 CIP budget included $500,000 for this project in addition to the Town's $910,000 of available Rule 20A credits. To continue forward Council would need to allocate an additional $440,000 to the Rule 20A/2013 undergrounding project from the General Fund Infrastructure. This assumes additional credits are available at $0.50/credit. ovoll Cotirwii 'vIcc-i-iw" April 18-21.01� It is entirely possible that there will be contingency expenses on this project and this could require additional funding of$371,056 at a later date. Again, this assumes additional credits are available at $0.50/credit. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Town Council: 1. Receive staff report on status of Rule 20A/2013 project. 2. Direct staff to continue work on the project, or, 3. Direct staff to cease work on the project and ask PG&E to close the project down. Prepared by: Patrick Barnes,Director of Public Works Greg Chanis,Town Manager (�� !"_ E k .. Anticipated Anticipated Anticipated Anticipated Anticipated FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 Street Improvements Annual Pavement Management Program 1,300,000 1,300,000 Engineering Annual Program 175,000 175,000 175,000 Paving Hawthorne Undergrounding District 47,000 500,000 Slurry Virginia Undergrounding District 8,000 100,000 Paradise Drive Foundation 140,000 Main Street Seawall 30,000 100,000 600,000 Crosswalk at Cecilia 45,000 Class 2 Buffered Bike Lane Tiburon Blvd 20,000 100,000 Contingency Provision 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 Mar West Roundabout&associated improvements 100,000 400,000 Stewart Drive Study 15,000 .., Strut Improvements...$1,67 ,Q00.... ,$$85,0(b..,. $Sb,�100....$1510,00 .....$720,t3D© Drainage Improvements Annual Drainage Improvements 1,100,000 100,000 500,000 Beach Road Drainage 95,000 900,000 Storm Drain Master Plan 250,000 Culvert ORT @ San Rafael Ave. 30,000 125,000 rama�ge Improvements $1,19 ,bb0 $i,b25,Oft0 $1t3O,b00 $5b0,00 $25(),(30 Community Improvements Miscellaneous Rail Road Marsh Maintenance 30,000 150,000 Hawthorne Undergrounding General Benefit 500,000 Hawthorne Undergrounding 11,846,006 Virginia Undergrounding 1,683,000 Rule 20A(no contingency) 940,000 Accessibility Ferry Dock Pile Replacement 180,000 Buildings/Facilities Town Hall HVAC Replacement 30,000 260,000 Public Works Corp Yard Design 30,000 300,000 Public Works Corp Yard (New) 3,200,000 Park Facilities Elephant Rock 170,000 550,000 McKegney Green 2,040,000 Pathway Lights 180,000 Downtown Program Street Frontage Improvements New Morning Cafe 49,755 230,000 Community Improveme�tts $ ,7 ,755 „ I ,$ 8,0t6 $3,24} ,f00 $410,00 $ai T�3TAL Al.L CAPITAL IlU1PR+OY1rM1:NT$ $11,579,75 $1A,838008 $4180,00{� 2;4Q,flOD $9�O,I3QCl EXHIBIT No. TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting 1505 Tiburon Boulevard May 2,2018 �t A enda Item: orf Tiburon,CA 94920 g STAFF POR To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: Public hearing to consider a recommendation from the Planning Commission to adopt various text amendments to Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code primarily related to parking standards, but also including changes to expiration, time extension and renewal provisions associated with zoning permits; changes to definitions; and clarification of room/board provisions allowed in single family dwellings; Town File MCA 2018-02 (Ordinance---Introduction an first Reading) Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Town staff has initiated the process of amending various provisions of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance text, with the substantive amendments relating to parking standards but also addressing miscellaneous sections including room/board provisions in single family dwellings, expiration, time extension and renewal provisions associated with certain zoning permits, and as clean-up measures to reflect changes in state law or to clarify existing provisions and definitions. The Planning Commission has unanimously recommended approval of the proposed text amendments to the Town Council. ANALYSIS This section summarizes the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance by Article. ARTICLE II (ZONES AND ALLOWABLE LAND USES) In Section 16-21.030, Table 2-1 (Allowable Land Uses and Permit Requirements for Residential Zones) would be amended to clarify that the "room/board provisions for a single paying guest", which are a permitted use in single family dwellings, do not encompass vacation or short-term rental uses (such as those advertised by AirBnB and VRBO websites). Such short-term rental uses are prohibited in Tiburon. New text requiring a minimum 31 consecutive day term for such boarders (and thus excluding vacation rentals) would be added as shown in attached Exhibit A. Zo��n C.�7inril ��Ie�tir7�; May 2,2018 ARTICLE III (GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND PARKING STANDARDS) Section 16-32 (Parking and Loading Standards) would be amended in several subsections. A redline copy depicting the proposed amendments to this section is attached as Exhibit B. The primary purpose of these amendments is to increase the flexibility afforded to decision-makers in the review of new or altered uses in commercial areas with respect to the number of parking spaces required. Lack of ability to create new parking in the downtown Tiburon area(without building parking structures) has been a recognized problem for many years. With the emergence of e-commerce, the advent of services such as Uber and Lyft, and the likely future proliferation of autonomous vehicles and other technological changes that would act to significantly reduce commercial parking demand in the future, many municipalities across the nation are abandoning the concept of adding parking to existing commercial areas without obvious need. Zoning requirements to provide additional parking for new uses, and for changes in use that are considered "intensifications", are being revisited in light of economic vitality concerns in downtown areas and as antithetical to emerging trends regarding parking demand. Parking counts and analyses conducted since the 1990s have consistently concluded there is a significant oversupply of parking in the downtown Tiburon area. The most recent study,the Downtown Circulation and Parking Analysis, was prepared for the Town by Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates in 2012. This document is available for viewing on the Town's website. While primarily focused on circulation improvements in the downtown area and on the possible installation of parking meters in downtown Tiburon, the study confirmed that peak hour parking occupancy was no higher than 50% at the time the study was conducted, and was estimated during summer months to be only 74%, resulting in a minimum of 410 spaces available at peak hours in the downtown area. For comparison purposes, an 85% to 90%peak parking occupancy is considered ideal. The study concluded that downtown Tiburon has a significant oversupply of parking and far more than enough to meet current demand. It further noted that perceived parking shortages in the downtown were not related to the overall supply of parking, but to inefficient utilization of spaces caused by limited turnover of on-street parking spaces (hence the suggestion to install parking meters), and a desire for highly convenient parking (free parking and/or spaces very close to an intended destination). Staff has observed no significant changes in downtown Tiburon parking supply or demand in the short years since the Nelson/Nygaard study was released, and is not concerned that the proposed text amendments would result in a future parking shortage in the downtown area. A summary of and general rationale for the proposed zoning text amendments to the Parking and Loading provisions, organized by section, is as follows: Section 16-32.010 (Purpose): These amendments provide a backdrop and rationale for the revised sections following, which are intended to provide more flexibility for the Town decision- makers and for applicants with respect to parking in commercial zones. Section 16-32.030 (Location of Parking): The added text provides for"other satisfactory methods" of securing parking for a use short of a lease agreement or recorded covenant, with the purpose of providing additional flexibility since leases and covenants are difficult if not 4'.o_ -)of 5 I_i7wll CC [.I c.il %le�Etin May 2,2018 impossible to obtain for many downtown owners/tenants who control no parking spaces of their own and who cannot obtain leases or easements from others. Section 16-32.040 (Number of Spaces Required): New subsection C provides a framework through which required spaces for proposed non-residential uses can be reduced, provided that certain findings are made. A parking study may be required to justify making the findings in certain instances (i.e., for a major project). New subsections D and E provide protection against the elimination of existing parking spaces, and provide an exception for instances when state- mandated handicapped parking requirements often require a loss of parking spaces overall. Proposed amendments to Table 3-1 are intended to reduce the number of situations where a simple change of use might trigger a requirement for additional parking that will be virtually impossible to fulfill. By adopting the same parking standard for multiple types of uses, the required parking will remain the same for a larger number of use changes, unless floor area is being increased. Section 16-32.070 (Motorcycle Parking and Electric Vehicle Charging Stations): This section would be modified to require electric vehicle charging stations in all parking lots with more than twenty (20) parking spaces, at a ratio of one EV charging station per each forty (40) parking spaces thereafter. This standard would only be applied to new and substantially renovated parking lots; it is not retroactive to existing parking lots unless a major renovation is proposed. The Planning Commission expressed enthusiastic support for the EV station requirement, but only if a variance could fairly easily be granted in those situations where the requirement was inappropriate or made little practical sense. Section 16-32.080 (Landscaping): The addition of text in subsection 6 will provide flexibility in those rare situations where installation of landscaped areas within a parking lot might be difficult or result in considerable loss of parking spaces. The current text provides no flexibility at all and could trigger a variance requirement that could be challenging to approve. Section 16-32.090 (Loading Berths): The added text provides more flexibility in determining that existing loading zones are adequate to serve a new or changed use (new loading zones would take up a lot of space and our downtown area already depends heavily on existing shared loading zones on Main Street and Paradise Drive). Section 16-32.110 (Changes in Use, Additions, Enlargements): The addition of subsection B allows for the director or review authority to find that a change in use, addition, enlargement or similar intensification is "not substantial" in terms of increased parking demand. Staff and the Planning Commission have been using this approach informally for years to allow minor changes in use and to approve conditional use permits, but the long-standing practice should be codified. ARTICLE V (ZONING PERMIT PROCEDURES) Several subsections in Section 16-52 would be amended to add or clarify provisions addressing time extensions, expirations, and renewals of certain zoning permits. These permits include site plan and architectural review permit, conditional use permit, condominium use permit, tidelands permit, and home occupation permit. Expiration and renewal sections would be added to the home occupation provisions (where they are currently missing); an expiration section would be TT)_\�K TSFFJ R(.)?2 I'tyt' i(7f 7 May 2,2018 added to the tidelands permit provisions (which currently has none); and expiration and/or time extension provisions associated with site plan and architectural review permits, conditional use permits and condominium use permits would be clarified and obsolete clauses would be removed. These are procedural clarifications consistent with long-standing practice in Tiburon. The specific proposed text for each permit type can be found in the draft ordinance attached as Exhibit C. ARTICLE X (DEFINITIONS) Section 16-100.020 (Definitions) would be amended to modify the definition of certain terms as shown below: Community apartment. A development as defined in Section 4105 '2� of the California Civil Code,or any successor Section thereto. Condominium.The term"condominium" shall include the following: 1. Community apartment as that term is defined in Civil Code Section 4105 13 5 1(d) or any successor Section thereto; 2. Condominium as that term is defined in Civil Code Section 4125 13 5 1(f) or any successor Section thereto; 3. Stock cooperative as that term is defined in Civil Code Section 4190 1351(m) or any successor Section thereto; or 4. Undivided interest project that is defined as any parcel of land containing five or more residential dwelling units in which five or more individuals own an undivided interest coupled with the right of exclusive occupancy of any unit located thereon. Stock Cooperative. A development as defined in Section 4190 125 of the California Civil Code, or any successor section thereto. Vacation Rental. Rental of any dwelling unit, in whole or in part, within the Town of Tiburon to any person(s) for exclusive transient use of 30 consecutive calendar days or less, in instances where the unit is only approved for permanent residential occupancy and not approved for occupancy by transients, as that term is defined in Title II, Chapter 7 of this Code. Rental of units within Town-approved hotels, motels and bed and breakfasts shall not be considered Vacation Rental,nor shall providing room and 1,,,,,r f one guest in a single family.1.,,011;,,. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 11, 2018, discussed the matter, and unanimously recommended approval to the Town Council. The Planning Commission resolution and draft minutes from that meeting are attached as Exhibits D and E. PUBLIC COMMENT Staff mailed information (Exhibit F) regarding the proposed parking amendments to all owners of commercial property in Tiburon prior to the Planning Commission public hearing. One phone call and one e-mail (Exhibit G) were received, both in support. No one spoke on the item at the Planning Commission hearing. The proposed parking amendments were also reviewed by the May 2,2018 Town Council's ad-hoc Downtown Revitalization committee prior to commencement of the public hearing process. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that the proposed amendments are exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on the basis that they have no potential to result in adverse impacts on the environment or are categorically exempt based on exemptions for minor alternations in land use limitations. These are set forth in Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION 1. That the Town Council conducts a public hearing and considers the proposed ordinance. 2. Initiate a motion to read the ordinance by title only. If the motion is seconded and passed, the Mayor will read aloud the full title of the proposed ordinance. 3. Initiate a motion to approve by a roll call vote the first reading of the ordinance and to wave all future reading of the ordinance. If the motion is seconded and passed, the proposed ordinance would return for adoption at the next regular meeting of the Town Council. EXHIBITS A. Redline of Table 2-1 showing added text. B. Redline copy of proposed text amendments to Parking standards. C. Draft Ordinance. D. Planning Commission Resolution 2018-04. E. Draft minutes of Planning Commission meeting of April 11, 2018. F. Letter to commercial property owners in Tiburon dated March 28, 2018. G. E-mail from Ron Caceres received April 12, 2018. Prepared By: Scott Anderson,Director of Community Development R0\1 (' ,_ 7 N5 TABLE 2.1 P Permitted Use Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements U Conditional Use Permit MP Ministerial Permit for Residential Zones — Use not allowed PERMIT REQUIRED BY DISTRICT Specific Use LAND USE (1) R-1 R-1-B RO R-2 R-3 RPD RMP Regulations AGRICULTURAL&OPEN SPACE USES Agriculture,including Aviaries(6) U U U U U U U Botanical conservatories,outdoor nature labs,and similar facilities — — U U Open space use — — — — — P P Wildlife sanctuaries — — — — — U U RECREATION,EDUCATION&PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES Equestrian facility(2) U U U — — U U Title Vl,20-5.1 Golf course/country club U U U — — U U Library,museum U U U U U — — Parochial or other nonprofit school-elementary,secondary,or U U U U U U U college t Philanthropic or charitable facility U U U U U U U Private residential recreation facilities U U U U U U U Public park P P P P P P P Playground U U U U U U U Publicly owned building or facility U U U U U 0 U Religious places of worship U I U U I U U I U U RESIDENTIAL USES Home occupation P P P P P P P 16-52.110 Intermediate or community care facility(3) P P P P P P P Multifamily dwelling — — — — P — P Secondary dwelling unit/Junior accessory dwelling unit(5) MP MP MP — — MP — 16-52.100/16-52.105 Single-family dwelling P P P P — P P Single family dwelling providing room/board for one=t paying guest fora inimum of 31 consecutive days;vacation rentals are not P P P P — P P ermit ed Two-family dwelling,attached — — — P — — P Two-family dwelling,detached — — — P(4) — — — 16-40.020 Transitional,supportive housing P P P P P P P Key to Zoning District Symbols R-1 I Single-Family Residential R-3 Multifamily Residential R-1-13 Modified Single Family Residential RPD Residential Planned Development RO Residential Open RMP Residential Multiple Planned R-2 Two-Family Residential Notes:(1)See Article X(Definitions)for land use definitions. (2)The keeping of horses subject to licensing of each horse pursuant to the Tiburon horse license ordinance.Use permits for keeping horses shall automatically terminate upon revocation of license issued under horse license ordinance. (3)As defined by state law or any other residential care facility for the handicapped(as defined by the Fair Housing Act)located in a single-family dwelling. All such facilities shall be subject to all regulations of the California Health and Safety Code. (4)Provided that the Design Review Board has approved or conditionally approved a detached two-family dwelling exception,as set forth in Section16-40.020. Detached two-family dwellings that lawfully existed on June 4,2003 are deemed legal nonconforming structures subject to provisions of Sec.16-62. (5)Also subject to Standards adopted by separate Resolution of the Town Council. (6)Except for chicken-and bee-keeping as set forth in Section 16-40-070. Nca AI TA 16-32 Parking and Loading Standards Sections: 16-32.010 -Purpose 16-32.020 -Applicability 16-32.030 -General Parking Regulations. 16-32.040 -Number of Parking Spaces Required 16-32.050 -Disabled/Handicapped Parking Requirements 16-32.060 -Bicycle Parking 16-32.070 -Motorcycle Parking 16-32.080 -Parking Design and Development Standards 16-32.090 -Loading Berths 16-32.100 -Multiple Uses 16-32.110 -Change in Use-Additions and Enlargement 16-32.120 -In Lieu Payments 16-32.010 - Purpose The purpose of this Section 16-32 is to establish off-street vehicle and bicycleparkin requirements that balance the Town's goal to encourage walking, bicycling,and transit use with theog al to provide adequate off-street parking to meet the needs of residents, shoppers, and visitors. The Town discourages providing parking in excess of that required by the standards herein except where good cause can be demonstrated. It is also the purpose of this chapter to provide flexibility and allow alternative means of addressing parking demand in„the,commercial zones. Off-street parking requirements and provisions set forth herein consider various factors. including the context of Downtown's transit availability, generous overall supply parking in the Downtown commcrcial area. demonstrated on-street and off-street parking availability, density and mix of uses, extensive shared parking, walkability, and the use of alternative modes of transportation. The requirements in Seetioq 16-13-2 are intended to ensure that no building or structure sha4-+�e eonstruet"i-C-1, ----E'C.-A FC-fflOdeled or ehanged in use allowed --less -p-j. +-"I' ., both, -in eompli the requirements of Section 16 32. The Town disee 16-32.020 - Applicability Each land use and structure, including a change or expansion of a land use or structure, shall provide continuously maintained off-street parking and loading areas in compliance with Section 16-32. A land use shall not be commenced and a structure shall not be occupied until the improvements required by Section 16-32 are satisfactorily completed. Redline Draft of Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Parking Regulations 2-22-2018 1 16-32.030 - General Parking Regulations A. Location. 1. Parking. The required parking shall be provided on site, except that required parking may be provided on another lot providing that the lot is in a commercial zone within the Town and is reasonably convenient to the subject lot, as determined and approved by the Review Authority. If the building, structure, use, or improvement requiring parking space is located on one lot and the required parking is on another lot, partially or wholly, then one of the following shall apply: a. There shall be recorded with the county recorder of Marin County a covenant by, the owner or owners of such lots for the benefit of the Town, in a form approved by the Town, that the owner or owners will continue to maintain the required number of parking spaces so long as the building, structure, use or improvement is maintained within the Town. The covenant shall stipulate that the title to and right to use the lot or lots upon which the parking spaces are to be provided shall be subservient to the title to the premises upon which the building has been or is to be erected and that it is warranted that such lot or lots are not and will not be made subject to any other covenant or contract for use without prior written consent of the Town. b. The Town may permit required parking spaces to be secured by a lease agreement. The terms of any such lease agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Town prior to establishment of the use to determine whether the provisions of Section 16-32 are satisfied. A copy of any such lease shall be maintained in the files of the Town. It shall be understood that the loss of required parking spaces secured by such method shall be valid cause for revocation of a Conditional Use Permit, or other Zoning Permit, allowing such use. C. Other equivalent methods satisfactory to the Review Authority. 2. Loading. The required loading shall be permanently available, marked, and maintained for loading purposes for the use it is intended to serve. Loading spaces shall be located as required in Section 16-32.090 (Loading Berths). B. Recreation vehicle,trailer and truck parking. 1. It is unlawful for any person to place, keep or maintain, for dwelling purposes on any property, any travel trailer, automobile, truck, recreation vehicle, camper, boat or other temporary or movable facility(excluding mobile homes). 2. Parking or storage of trucks having gross weights of less than five thousand pounds (two and one-half tons), trailers, boats and campers for periods in excess of seventy-two hours is permitted without a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Section 16-52.040 (Conditional Use Permit) in completely enclosed structures or when not plainly visible from any public right-of-way. 3. Public agency or utility company vehicles for emergency responders on official business Redline Draft of Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Parking Regulations 2-22-2018 2 EXHIBIT p. I of or when assigned by the agency or company to an employee as a "company car" may be kept or placed in residential zones. C. Parking log and map. The Town may maintain a log and/or map of all parking lots in commercial zones, noting the buildings and/or uses assigned to each. However, it shall be the responsibility of the property owner and/or applicant to demonstrate the availability and adequacy of parking for a use or building to the satisfaction of the Review Authority. 16-32.040 - Number of Parking Spaces Required A. Parking requirements. The minimum number of parking spaces (stalls established in Subsection B. below shall be required to serve the uses or buildings listed. The ratios listed shall apply to normal occupancy densities and uses. Higher or lower ratios may be used for other than normal occupancy densities and uses, availability of public transportation and other special conditions, as determined by the Review Authority. B. Minimum number of parking spacestalk. It is the intent of the Town that parking areas be adequate but not excessive. When units of measurement determining the number of required parking spaces result in the requirement of a fractional space, any fraction of over one-half shall be rounded up to the next parking space. In the case of any use that is not specifically mentioned in Table 3-1 below, the provisions for a use that is so mentioned and is similar, or as determined by the Director if no.similar uses are mentioned in Table 3-1, shall apply, with the Review Authority having final approval authority. C. Required Parking Reduction in Commercial Zones. The Review Authority inav reduce the required parking spaces for proposed non-residential uses or structures located in a VC. NC or_O zone if it males the following findings prior to approval of the non-residential use structure or expansion: 1. An adequate parking su ply exists in the surrounding commercial area and the proo�osed structure, use or expansion will not result, either individually or cumul,ativel rn inadequate parking supply. The Town may require an independent parking study for the purpose of.determining whether it can make this finding. The proposed structure use or expansion will promote the general welfare of the surrounding commercial area.. 3. The reduction of required parking spaces will not result in a substantive detrimental effect on the surrounding area due to identified factors including but not limited to those set forth in Section 16-32.010. D. The California I3uildin Code. T'he required number of spaces in off-stleet,.paarking facilities that arerested or redesigned to meet accessibility requirements may be reduced as necessary to comply with Title 24 of the California.Building Code. E. Elimination of Parking Spaces. Existing off-street parking spaces may not be eliminated without first obtaining Site Plan and Architectural Review approval pursuant to this Chapter, except as allowed in subsection D above. Redline Draft of Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Parking Regulations 2-22-2018 3 EXHIBIT p, e �{' TABLE 3-1 MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING STALLSSPACES General 1 space per studio and one bedroom units for multifamily Single-family,two-family, or dwellings; 2 spaces per two or more bedroom units for multifamily multifamily dwelling units. dwellings;1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, with a minimum of 2 spaces required for single-family and two-family dwellings; condominium units require 2 spaces per unit Bed and Breakfast Inn One for each guest room plus 2 covered spaces for resident family Place of assembly One for each four seats of maximum seating capacity; or one for each forty square feet of assembly area,whichever is more One for each four seats of maximum seating capacity for indoor seating and one for each eight seats of maximum capacity Restaurantsa_bars outdoor seating; for restaurants or bars with no or nontraditional seating, 1 per 60 sq._ft. of the floor area (less kitchen and service area); 30 4t. en servvise area)#leorarea Retail sales offices banks clinics 1 for each 400259 sq.ft. of gross floor area labs,services Offices hanks 1 for ea- 00 sq.ft of net floor area, excluding RGR GGGWpiable areas nh as mechanical area, corridors,toilets and the I'Lo Reala estte�-.ffiGe-S s ro- 4oGr-area 4- Me d'Gal and ,dental Offices n_linin_o_ John 4-for each 250 sq.ft,_ofjfGs_s41o�a Cvti_�Pndnrdnrd�_g GaF8 onnnvnln ont hncn'tnlc Tpe r each it n-54inntc nh,c 1 for each two employees nn the nufsing-hornes rnaXi" ohif+ Self Service laundry and dPy cleaning 1 for ea-h three washing M Ghines DFY Gleaning , "-kup 3-spases Beauty-shops 2-per--�r station. Ma- rass€teed area Re;a*� area;three-r*nim-wm fac+tlt 1-€dar ea s-floor-area Animal hospitall -i-for-ea Service station 5minimum,1--ef--whteh-shalt-be4arge-enough te-aeecodnmodate--a toMng-v_-Nde In addition to the clientele parking listed above for service uses, Employee parking and for other bulk storage, wholesale, packing, fabricating, processing, and similar uses, 1 parking stall shall be provided for each 1.5 employees on the maximum working shift Hotel, motel, rooming or boarding 1 per guest room plus 1 space for each 2 employees on the house maximum working shift Hospital,sanitarium, rest home One for each four beds plus one space for each two employees of the maximum shift Harbor or marina 1 for each 2 berths, slips, or moorings except that none are required for berths reserved for visiting boats Educational,child care, libraries,exhibition Child day-care centers 3 minimum, plus 1 for each 10 children over the first 15 Libraries, museums 1 for each 500 s ._ft. of gross floor area 1=-x e--public Adult education 1 for each 4 seats of maximum session 16-32.050 - Disabled/Handicapped Parking Requirements Parking spaces for the disabled shall be provided in compliance with the Federal Accessibility Guidelines, and/or California Code of Regulations Title 24, as applicable. Parking spaces required for the disabled Redline Draft of Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Parking Regulations 2-22-2018 4 EXHIBIT p. ( of shall count toward compliance with the number of off-street parking spaces required by Section 16- 32.040 (Number of parking spaces required). 16-32.060 - Bicycle Parking For all uses except single-family and two-family dwellings, bicycle racks or stands shall be provided at the rate of one bicycle per fifteen required parking 4altsV4ces. Bicycle racks or stands shall be located off-street so as to avoid undue interference with pedestrians and vehicular traffic, and shall have adequate provision for secure locking of bicycles. 16-32.070 - Motorcycle Parking Motorcycle parking shall be provided for all commercial uses at a rate of one space per forty 40 twent- - required parking 44—,sprees, with a minimum of one niotorc ele space for any lot with more than 20 vehicle parking spaces. 16-32.080 - Parking Design and Development Standards A. The layout of parking 44ss�aces, loading berths, parking aisles, landscaping, lighting and other required information shall be submitted with the application for the applicable land use permits and shall comply with all the requirements specified below, which shall be completed prior to occupancy. 1. The required parking st-a-W-spaces, loading berths and parking aisles may not be located on any street right-of-way; 2. The required parking 4tall4spaces, loading berths and parking aisles, if outdoors, may be located on the required side and rear setbacks, and within the required front setbacks up to three feet from the street right-of-way; 3. Each parking stall and loading berth shall have vehicular access to the street, accessway, or alley, without passing over other parking 4,d44sspaces; 4. Each parking stall shall have vehicular access to the street without backing into it or another stall, except where conditions of terrain or siting in the case of single- and two- family dwellings makes this infeasible, as determined by the Review Authority. Access driveways shall not be arranged so as to unduly increase hazards to traffic or pedestrians; 5. Each parking stall, aisle and driveway shall be graded, drained and surfaced so as to prevent dust, mud or standing water, to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. For non- residential lots and uses, all parking 4a144spaces, aisles, circulation directions, motorcycle maI-er- spaces, pedestrian spaces, no-parking spaces and the like shall be clearly marked with durable traffic paint. Raised wheel stops or similar devices acceptable to the Town Engineer, shall be provided to protect adjacent walks, fences, walls, landscaping and the like but shall not be installed in locations that may unduly increase hazards to pedestrians, such as between parking 4al-1-ss.ace ; 6. Landscaping, including trees and shrubs for shading and visual buffering, shall be required and shown as part of the parking layout. Large paved areas shall be given some measure of visual relief by the interspersion of landscaping within the paved area where rea_sono ably feasible, as well as around the perimeter. Potentially unsightly areas such as trash storage shall be screened from public view and other properties by opaque fences or walls. Landscaping shall be water-conserving types and shall be properly irrigated and maintained. Defective or dead landscaping shall be promptly replaced; 7. Sufficient lighting shall be provided to protect the public in a parking area during the time it is accessible to the public after daylight; glare shall be shielded from other properties. Redline Draft of Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Parking Regulations 2-22-2018 5 EXHIBIT p. . of E. Each parking lot stall and aisle shall comply with the minimum dimension requirements in Figure 3-4, Figure 3-5, and Table 3-2. — l Any Angle -Aisle Width € * iS Fel `Stall Width lnterlacking Module r i ,Stall Depth t`'� � i Interlocking to Ca Curb Module , x Stall Width to Aisle ,, } 450 Parking 30"Parking S Parking Width Figure 3-4.Parking Dimensions Diagram,30 and 45 degrees f z q' F Aisle Width j 9 F Stall Depth ; 7 Stall Depth w/ Stall Width ' i -Landscape ` Overhang � a i ii --Landscape _�90°Parking Overhang Figure 3-5. Parking Dimensions Diagram,90 degrees Redline Draft of Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Parking Regulations 2-22-2018 6 EXHIBIT p._6 of TABLE 3-2: PARKING DIMENSIONS Car Stall Module Stall Depth Angle in Stall Aisle Stall Space Width Wall-to- Module W/ Degrees Width Width Depth Depth to Aisle Wall Interlock Landscape Overhang A B C D E F G H Standards Size Staft§pAces 0 8.5 12 8.5 22 22.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 30 8.5 12 16.4 18 17.0 44.7 37.4 15.4 35 8.5 12 17.3 18 14.8 46.6 39.6 16.2 40 8.5 12 18.1 18 13.2 48.2 41.7 16.8 45 8.5 12 18.7 18 12.0 49.5 43.5 17.3 50 8.5 14 19.3 18 11.1 52.5 47.0 17.7 55 8.5 16 19.6 18 10.4 55.2 50.4 18.0 60 8.5 18 19.8 18 9.8 57.7 53.4 18.1 65 8.5 20 19.9 18 9.4 59.8 56.2 18.1 70 8.5 22 19.8 18 9.0 61.6 58.7 18.0 90 8.5 24 18.0 18 8.5 60.0 60.0 16.0 Handicapped S aces 30 14.0 12 21.1 18 28.0 54.2 42.1 20.1 45 14.0 12 22.6 18 19.8 57.2 47.3 21.2 60 14.0 18 22.6 18 16.2 63.2 56.2 20.9 90 14.0 24 18.0 18 14.0 60.0 60.0 16.0 For parking spaces constrained by walls or other physical barriers on one side, one foot shall be added to the width required in Table 3-2, and for parking spaces constrained on both sides, two feet shall be added to the width required in Table 3-2. 16-32.090 - Loading Berths Off-street loading spaces shall be provided as required by this Section. The Director may modify these requirements if the Director first determines that the operating, shipping, and delivery characteristics of the use do not require the number or size of loading berths as required by this Section, or determines that existing loading berths(public or private)are adequate to serve the needs of the use. A. A minimum of one loading berth shall be required for each building or related group of buildings on a property containing more than five thousand square feet of floor area used for the storage, receipt, distribution, processing, or display of goods, materials or merchandise. B. Loading berths shall be no less than twelve feet by thirty-five feet wide with fourteen feet minimum height clearance. C. Loading berths shall be located off-street and arranged to avoid undue interference with parking, pedestrians, street traffic, and other properties. Berths may be open or covered. 16-32.100 - Multiple Uses Parking required for multiple uses shall be the sum of the requirements for each individual use; provided that parking spaces required for one use or time may utilize the same spaces required for another use or time upon Commission approval, by means of appropriate conditions, of such dual parking. The Commission shall not grant such approval unless it is able to, and does, make the following findings: Redline Draft of Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Parking Regulations 2-22-2018 7 EXHIBIT 8 p. +- of �' A. That the uses or times for which overlapping parking is being requested do not have overlapping hours of operations sufficient to result in a deficiency of parking spaces; B. That the parking lot in question is within a reasonable distance from the uses for which parking requirements are to be overlapped. Failure to abide by the conditions of the approval shall be cause for revocation of such approval for all uses involved, regardless of previous approvals. 16-32.110 - Change in Use - Additions and Enlargement Whenevef on any let of site there is a ehange in use, or- inefease in floor area or in the number of employees, or other unit of measurement speeified above to ealeulate the numbef of fequir-ed off stfee par-king spaees, then additional off street parking spaees shall be pr-ovided an the basis of the inettease in floor af!ea or number of employees, or- in seek other applieable uuit of meastifement. The efleets of additions, enlargements and ehanges in use shall be eumulative in regard to off street par-kiti r-eq-ui� s A. Whenever on any" lot or site there is a substantial change in use, addition or entar eg ment, or Substantial increase in the number of employees or other unit of measurement used to calculate the number of required off-street parkinc, spaces,then additional off-street parkin spaces shall be provided corresponding to the increase in floor area, number of employees, or such other applicable unit of measurement in accordance with Section 16-32.040. The effects of additions, enla acnients and changes in use shall be cumulative in regard to off-street parkin requirements. B. For non-residential uses located in an NC, VC, or O zone,the provisions of subsection A above shall not appy if the change in use, addition or enlargement, or increase in the number of emplovees is not substantial as measured _.increased parking demand. as determined by the director or the Review Authority, and does not have the potential to result, either individually or cumulatively, in an inadequate parking supply foi• the surrounding commercial area. The Director may establish minimum thresholds for determining whether a proposal would constitute a substanttial change in use, addition or enlarg7ement. 16-32.120 - In Lieu Payments In lieu of furnishing the parking spaces required by the provisions herein, the Town may permit the requirements to be satisfied by the payment to the Town, prior to the issuance of the Building or Occupancy Permit, of a sum equivalent to the estimated normal current cost to the Town of providing required parking spaces to serve the contemplated uses. The amount of payment for each required parking space shall be fixed by the Council by resolution. An application for permission to make such in lieu payments shall be filed with the Town and set for public hearing before the Council within forty-five days of filing. The Council may waive all or part of the parking normally required, and require payment in lieu thereof and impose conditions when the facts demonstrate that granting the application: A. Will not result in an unreasonable burden on parking facilities serving the area in which the subject use is to be located; B. Will not materially adversely affect the use and enjoyment of property in the vicinity; and C. Will be consistent with the general purpose and intent of this Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. Redline Draft of Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Parking Regulations 2-22-2018 8 LX.IIIBIT p. �' 1 2 3 ORDINANCE NO. XXX N. S. (DRAFT) 4 5 6 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON 7 AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE IV, CHAPTER 16 (ZONING) BY MAKING 8 VARIOUS TEXT AMENDMENTS PRIMARILY BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY RELATED 9 TO PARKING AND LOADING 10 11 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 12 13 A. On , 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2018-XX 14 recommending to the Town Council that various text amendments be made to Title IV, 15 Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code. 16 17 B. The Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on , 2018 and has 18 heard and considered all public testimony on the proposed Ordinance. 19 20 C. The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to the 21 adoption of this Ordinance have been followed. 22 23 D. The Town Council finds that the amendment actions made by this Ordinance are 24 necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. 25 26 E. The Town Council has found that the amendments made by this Ordinance are consistent 27 with the goals and polices of the Tiburon General Plan and other adopted ordinances and 28 regulations of the Town of Tiburon, and further the intent and purposes of General Plan 29 goals and policies. 30 31 F. The Town Council finds that adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the requirements 32 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305 of the 33 CEQA Guidelines, as well as being exempt from CEQA under the "general rule", 34 pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. 35 36 SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE. 37 38 Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is amended as follows: 39 40 (A) Section 16-21.030 (Table 2-1) is amended such that under the category of"Residential 41 Uses", the text reading "Single family dwelling providing room/board for 1 paying guest" 42 shall be changed to read "Single family dwelling providing room/board for one paying 43 guest for a minimum of 31 consecutive days; vacation rentals are not permitted." 44 45 (B) Section 16-32 is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 46 47 Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No. XXX N. S. Effective--1--12018 1 . BUT 48 16-32 Parking and Loading Standards 49 50 Sections: 51 52 16-32.010 Purpose. 53 16-32.020 Applicability. 54 16-32.030 General parking regulations. 55 16-32.040 Number of parking spaces required. 56 16-32.050 Disabled/handicapped parking requirements. 57 16-32.060 Bicycle parking. 58 16-32.070 Motorcycle parking and electric vehicle charging stations. 59 16-32.080 Parking design and development standards. 60 16-32.090 Loading berths. 61 16-32.100 Multiple uses. 62 16-32.110 Change in use--Additions and enlargement. 63 16-32.120 In lieu payments. 64 65 16-32.010 Purpose. 66 67 The purpose of this Section 16-32 is to establish off-street vehicle and bicycle parking 68 requirements that balance the Town's goal to encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use with 69 the goal to provide adequate off-street parking to meet the needs of residents, shoppers, and 70 visitors. The Town discourages providing parking in excess of that required by the standards 71 herein except where good cause can be demonstrated. It is also the purpose of this chapter to 72 provide flexibility and allow alternative means of addressing parking demand in the commercial 73 zones. Off-street parking requirements and provisions set forth herein consider various factors, 74 including the context of Downtown's transit availability, generous overall supply of parking in 75 the Downtown commercial area, demonstrated on-street and off-street parking availability, 76 density and mix of uses, extensive shared parking, walkability, and the use of alternative modes 77 of transportation. 78 79 16-32.020 Applicability. 80 81 Each land use and structure, including a change or expansion of a land use or structure, shall 82 provide continuously maintained off-street parking and loading areas in compliance with Section 83 16-32. A land use shall not be commenced and a structure shall not be occupied until the 84 improvements required by Section 16-32 are satisfactorily completed. 85 86 16-32.030 General parking regulations. 87 88 A. Location. 89 90 1. Parking. The required parking shall be provided on site, except that required Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No. XXX N. S. Effective --1--12018 2 EXHIBIT C p._j_of (I 91 parking may be provided on another lot providing that the lot is in a commercial 92 zone within the Town and is reasonably convenient to the subject lot, as 93 determined and approved by the Review Authority. 94 95 If the building, structure, use, or improvement requiring parking space is located 96 on one lot and the required parking is on another lot, partially or wholly, then one 97 of the following shall apply: 98 99 a. There shall be recorded with the county recorder of Marin County a 100 covenant by the owner or owners of such lots for the benefit of the Town, 101 in a form approved by the Town, that the owner or owners will continue to 102 maintain the required number of parking spaces so long as the building, 103 structure, use or improvement is maintained within the Town. The 104 covenant shall stipulate that the title to and right to use the lot or lots upon 105 which the parking spaces are to be provided shall be subservient to the 106 title to the premises upon which the building has been or is to be erected 107 and that it is warranted that such lot or lots are not and will not be made 108 subject to any other covenant or contract for use without prior written 109 consent of the Town. 110 b. The Town may permit required parking spaces to be secured by a lease 111 agreement. The terms of any such lease agreement shall be reviewed and 112 approved by the Town prior to establishment of the use to determine 113 whether the provisions of Section 16-32 are satisfied. A copy of any such 114 lease shall be maintained in the files of the Town. It shall be understood 115 that the loss of required parking spaces secured by such method shall be 116 valid cause for revocation of a Conditional Use Permit, or other Zoning 117 Permit, allowing such use. 118 C. Other equivalent methods satisfactory to the Review Authority. 119 120 2. Loading. The required loading shall be permanently available, marked, and 121 maintained for loading purposes for the use it is intended to serve. Loading spaces 122 shall be located as required in Section 16-32.090 (Loading Berths). 123 124 B. Recreation vehicle, trailer and truck parking. 125 126 1. It is unlawful for any person to place, keep or maintain, for dwelling purposes on 127 any property, any travel trailer, automobile, truck, recreation vehicle, camper, 128 boat or other temporary or movable facility (excluding mobile homes). 129 2. Parking or storage of trucks having gross weights of less than five thousand 130 pounds (two and one-half tons), trailers, boats and campers for periods in excess 131 of seventy-two hours is permitted without a Conditional Use Permit in accordance 132 with Section 16-52.040 (Conditional Use Permit) in completely enclosed Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No. XXX N. S. Effective--1--12018 3 EXHIBIT P. I of t�� 133 structures or when not plainly visible from any public right-of-way. 134 3. Public agency or utility company vehicles for emergency responders on official 135 business or when assigned by the agency or company to an employee as a 136 "company car" may be kept or placed in residential zones. 137 138 C. Parking log and map. The Town may maintain a log and/or map of all parking lots in 139 commercial zones, noting the buildings and/or uses assigned to each. However, it shall be 140 the responsibility of the property owner and/or applicant to demonstrate the availability 141 and adequacy of parking for a use or building to the satisfaction of the Review Authority. 142 143 16-32.040 Number of parking spaces required. 144 145 A. Parking requirements. The minimum number of parking spaces (stalls) established in 146 Subsection B. below shall be required to serve the uses or buildings listed. The ratios 147 listed shall apply to normal occupancy densities and uses. Higher or lower ratios may be 148 used for other than normal occupancy densities and uses, availability of public 149 transportation and other special conditions, as determined by the Review Authority. 150 151 B. Minimum number of parking spaces. It is the intent of the Town that parking areas be 152 adequate but not excessive. When units of measurement determining the number of 153 required parking spaces result in the requirement of a fractional space, any fraction of 154 over one-half shall be rounded up to the next parking space. In the case of any use that is 155 not specifically mentioned in Table 3-1 below, the provisions for a use that is so 156 mentioned and is similar, or as determined by the Director if no similar uses are 157 mentioned in Table 3-1, shall apply, with the Review Authority having final approval 158 authority. 159 160 C. Required Parking Reduction in Commercial Zones. The Review Authority may 161 reduce the required parking spaces for proposed non-residential uses or structures located 162 in a VC, NC or O zone if it makes the following findings prior to approval of the non- 163 residential use, structure or expansion: 164 165 1. An adequate parking supply exists in the surrounding commercial area and the 166 proposed structure, use or expansion will not result, either individually or 167 cumulatively, in an inadequate parking supply. The Town may require an 168 independent parking study for the purpose of determining whether it can make this 169 finding. 170 2. The proposed structure, use or expansion will promote the general welfare of the 171 surrounding commercial area. 172 3. The reduction of required parking spaces will not result in a substantive detrimental 173 effect on the surrounding area due to identified factors including but not limited to 174 those set forth in Section 16-32.010. Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No.XXXN. S. Effective--1--12018 4 EXHIBIT C p._q- of 13� 175 D. The California Building Code. The required number of spaces in off-street parking 176 facilities that are restriped or redesigned to meet accessibility requirements may be reduced 177 as necessary to comply with Title 24 of the California Building Code. 178 179 E. Elimination of Parking Spaces. Existing off-street parking spaces may not be eliminated 180 without first obtaining Site Plan and Architectural Review approval pursuant to this 181 Chapter, except as allowed in subsection D above. 182 TABLE 3-1 MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES Generalized Use 1 space per studio and one bedroom units for multifamily Single-family,two-family, or dwellings; 2 spaces per two or more bedroom units for multifamily multifamily dwelling units dwellings;1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, with a minimum of 2 spaces required, for single-family and two-family dwellings; condominium units require 2 spaces per unit Bed and Breakfast Inn One for each guest room plus 2 covered spaces for resident family Place of assembly One for each four seats of maximum seating capacity; or one for each forty square feet of assembly area,whichever is more One for each four seats of maximum seating capacity for indoor seating and one for each eight seats of maximum capacity Restaurants, bars outdoor seating; for restaurants or bars with no or nontraditional seating, 1 per 60 sq. ft. of the floor area (less kitchen and service area Retail sales,offices, banks,clinics, 1 for each 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area labs,service uses In addition to the clientele parking listed above for service uses, Employee parking and for other bulk storage, wholesale, packing, fabricating, processing, and similar uses, 1 parking stall shall be provided for each 1.5 employees on the maximum working shift Hotel, motel, rooming or boarding 1 per guest room plus 1 space for each 2 employees on the house maximum working shift Hospital,sanitarium, rest home One for each four beds plus one space for each two employees of the maximum shift Harbor or marina 1 for each 2 berths, slips, or moorings except that none are required for berths reserved for visiting boats Educational,child care, libraries, museums Child day-care centers 3 minimum, plus 1 for each 10 children over the first 15 Libraries, museums 1 for each 500 sq.ft.of gross floor area Adult education 1 for each 4 seats of maximum session 183 184 16-32.050 Disabled/handicapped parking requirements. 185 186 Parking spaces for the disabled shall be provided in compliance with the Federal Accessibility 187 Guidelines, and/or California Code of Regulations Title 24, as applicable. Parking spaces 188 required for the disabled shall count toward compliance with the number of off-street parking 189 spaces required by Section 16-32.040 (Number of parking spaces required). 190 191 16-32.060 Bicycle parking. 192 193 For all uses except. single-family and two-family dwellings, bicycle racks or stands shall be Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No.XXX N. S. Effective--1--12018 5 EXHIBIT C_ p. 5 of l.3 194 provided at the rate of one bicycle per fifteen required parking spaces. Bicycle racks or stands 195 shall be located off-street so as to avoid undue interference with pedestrians and vehicular traffic, 196 and shall have adequate provision for secure locking of bicycles. 197 198 16-32.070 Motorcycle parking and electric vehicle charging stations. 199 200 Motorcycle parking shall be provided for all commercial uses at a rate of one space per forty 201 required parking spaces, with a minimum of one motorcycle space for any lot with more than 202 twenty parking spaces. Electric vehicle charging stations for all uses shall be required at a rate of 203 one charging station for each forty required parking spaces, with a minimum of one charging 204 station for any lot with more than twenty parking spaces. 205 206 16-32.080 Parking design and development standards. 207 208 A. The layout of parking spaces, loading berths, parking aisles, landscaping, lighting and 209 other required information shall be submitted with the application for the applicable land 210 use permits and shall comply with all the requirements specified below, which shall be 211 completed prior to occupancy. 212 1. The required parking spaces, loading berths and parking aisles may not be located 213 on any street right-of-way; 214 2. The required parking spaces, loading berths and parking aisles, if outdoors, may 215 be located on the required side and rear setbacks, and within the required front 216 setbacks up to three feet from the street right-of-way; 217 3. Each parking stall and loading berth shall have vehicular access to the street, 218 accessway, or alley, without passing over other parking spaces; 219 4. Each parking stall shall have vehicular access to the street without backing into it 220 or another stall, except where conditions of terrain or siting in the case of single- 221 and two-family dwellings makes this infeasible, as determined by the Review 222 Authority. Access driveways shall not be arranged so as to unduly increase 223 hazards to traffic or pedestrians; 224 5. Each parking stall, aisle and driveway shall be graded, drained and surfaced so as 225 to prevent dust, mud or standing water, to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. 226 For non-residential lots and uses, all parking spaces, aisles, circulation directions, 227 motorcycle spaces, pedestrian spaces, no-parking spaces and the like shall be 228 clearly marked with durable traffic paint. Raised wheel stops or similar devices 229 acceptable to the Town Engineer, shall be provided to protect adjacent walks, 230 fences, walls, landscaping and the like but shall not be installed in locations that 231 may unduly increase hazards to pedestrians, such as between parking spaces; 232 6. Landscaping, including trees and shrubs for shading and visual buffering, shall be 233 required and shown as part of the parking layout. Large paved areas shall be given 234 some measure of visual relief by the interspersion of landscaping within the paved 235 area where reasonably feasible, as well as around the perimeter. Potentially Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No. XXX N. S. Effective --1--12018 6 EXHIBIT C p. 6 of 13 236 unsightly areas such as trash storage shall be screened from public view and other 237 properties by opaque fences or walls. Landscaping shall be water-conserving 238 types and shall be properly irrigated and maintained. Defective or dead 239 landscaping shall be promptly replaced; 240 7. Sufficient lighting shall be provided to protect the public in a parking area during 241 the time it is accessible to the public after daylight; glare shall be shielded from 242 other properties. 243 244 B. Each parking lot stall and aisle shall comply with the minimum dimension requirements 245 in Figure 3-4, Figure 3-5, and Table 3-2. s - . t 1 Any Angle i'Aisle Width: V \ '\ 'Stall Width Interlocking _ } Module [Stall Depth, Interlocking to E Curb Module, 3 . 1 � i Stab Width to Aisle - L 1` 450 Parking 30,1 Parking f; �Parking Width ___ 246 247 Figure 3-4. Parking Dimensions Diagram, 30 and 45 degrees 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No. XXX N. S. Effective 4--/2018 7 EXHIBIT p._3_of B 1 t c ,. Aisle Width _I l t _I Stall Depth Stall Depth w/ La sca Stall Width I O edrha pe i £ „ € -Landscape \901 Parking Overhang 259 Figure 3-5. Parking Dimensions Diagram, 90 degrees 260 261 TABLE 3-2: PARKING DIMENSIONS 262 Car Stall Module Stall Depth Angle in Stall Aisle Stall Dth tAilWall alModule W/ 263 Degrees Width Width Depth Space Width Wal 11 Interlock Landscape 264 epo se Overhang 265 A B C D E F G H Standard Size Spaces 266 0 8.5 12 8.5 22 22.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 267 30 8.5 12 16.4 18 17.0 44.7 37.4 15.4 35 8.5 12 17.3 18 14.8 46.6 39.6 16.2 268 40 8.5 12 18.1 18 13.2 48.2 41.7 16.8 269 45 8.5 12 18.7 18 12.0 49.5 43.5 17.3 270 50 8.5 14 19.3 18 11.1 52.5 47.0 17.7 55 8.5 16 19.6 18 10.4 55.2 50.4 18.0 271 60 8.5 18 19.8 18 9.8 57.7 53.4 18.1 272 65 8.5 20 19.9 18 1 9.4 59.8 56.2 18.1 273 70 8.5 22 19.8 18 9.0 61.6 58.7 18.0 90 1 8.5 24 18.0 18 8.5 60.0 60.0 16.0 274 Handicapped Spaces 275 30 14.0 12 21.1 18 28.0 54.2 42.1 20.1 45 14.0 12 22.6 18 19.8 57.2 47.3 21.2 276 60 14.0 18 22.6 18 16.2 63.2 56.2 20.9 277 90 14.0 24 18.0 18 14.0 60.0 60.0 16.0 278 For parking spaces constrained by walls or other physical barriers on one side, one foot shall be 279 added to the width required in Table 3-2, and for parking spaces constrained on both sides two 280 feet shall be added to the width required in Table 3-2. 281 282 16-32.090 Loading berths. 283 284 Off-street loading spaces shall be provided as required by this Section. The Director may modify 285 these requirements if the Director first determines that the operating, shipping, and delivery Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No. XXX N. S. Effective--1--/2018 8 EXHIBIT p.(of 13 286 characteristics of the use do not require the number or size of loading berths as required by this 287 Section, or determines that existing loading berths (public or private) are adequate to serve the 288 needs of the use. 289 290 A. A minimum of one loading berth shall be required for each building or related group of 291 buildings on a property containing more than five thousand square feet of floor area used 292 for the storage, receipt, distribution, processing, or display of goods, materials or 293 merchandise. 294 B. Loading berths shall be no less than twelve feet by thirty-five feet wide with fourteen feet 295 minimum height clearance. 296 C. Loading berths shall be located off-street and arranged to avoid undue interference with 297 parking, pedestrians, street traffic, and other properties. Berths may be open or covered. 298 299 16-32.100 Multiple uses. 300 301 Parking required for multiple uses shall be the sum of the requirements for each individual use; 302 provided that parking spaces required for one use or time may utilize the same spaces required 303 for another use or time upon Commission approval, by means of appropriate conditions, of such 304 dual parking. The Commission shall not grant such approval unless it is able to, and does, make 305 the following findings: 306 307 A. That the uses or times for which overlapping parking is being requested do not have 308 overlapping hours of operations sufficient to result in a deficiency of parking spaces; 309 B. That the parking lot in question is within a reasonable distance from the uses for which 310 parking requirements are to be overlapped. 311 312 Failure to abide by the conditions of the approval shall be cause for revocation of such approval 313 for all uses involved, regardless of previous approvals. 314 315 16-32.110 Change in use - Additions and enlargement. 316 317 A. Whenever on any lot or site there is a substantial change in use, addition or enlargement, 318 or substantial increase in the number of employees or other unit of measurement used to 319 calculate the number of required off-street parking spaces, then additional off-street 320 parking spaces shall be provided corresponding to the increase in floor area, number of 321 employees, or such other applicable unit of measurement in accordance with Section 16- 322 6- 322 32.040. The effects of additions, enlargements and changes in use shall be cumulative in 323 regard to off-street parking requirements. 324 B. For non-residential uses located in an NC, VC, or O zone,the provisions of subsection A 325 above shall not apply if the change in use, addition or enlargement, or increase in the 326 number of employees is not substantial as measured by increased parking demand, as 327 determined by the director or the Review Authority, and does not have the potential to Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No. XXX N. S. Effective --1--12018 9 EXHIBIT p. 61 of 13 328 result, either individually or cumulatively, in an inadequate parking supply for the 329 surrounding commercial area. The Director may establish minimum thresholds for 330 determining whether a proposal would constitute a substantial change in use, addition or 331 enlargement. 332 333 16-32.120 In lieu payments. 334 335 In lieu of furnishing the parking spaces required by the provisions herein, the Town may permit 336 the requirements to be satisfied by the payment to the Town, prior to the issuance of the Building 337 or Occupancy Permit, of a sum equivalent to the estimated normal current cost to the Town of 338 providing required parking spaces to serve the contemplated uses. The amount of payment for 339 each required parking space shall be fixed by the Council by resolution. An application for 340 permission to make such in lieu payments shall be filed with the Town and set for public hearing 341 before the Council within forty-five days of filing. The Council may waive all or part of the 342 parking normally required, and require payment in lieu thereof and impose conditions when the 343 facts demonstrate that granting the application: 344 345 A. Will not result in an unreasonable burden on parking facilities serving the area in 346 which the subject use is to be located; 347 B. Will not materially adversely affect the use and enjoyment of property in the 348 vicinity; and 349 C. Will be consistent with the general purpose and intent of this Zoning Ordinance 350 and the General Plan. 351 352 (C) Section 16-52.020(0) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 353 354 Expiration of site plan and architectural review approval. Site plan and architectural 355 review approval shall expire and become null and void three years after the date of 356 approval unless a building permit has been issued before the date of expiration, or in the 357 event no building permit is required, construction is complete. No time extensions are 358 permitted. 359 360 (D) Section 16-52.040(P) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 361 362 Expiration of conditional use permit. 363 364 1. Conditional use permits issued in compliance with this section shall expire and 365 become null and void two years after their effective date unless the authorized use 366 has been commenced or an extension has been granted. Subsequent approval of a 367 site plan and architectural review permit in reliance on the conditional use permit 368 approval shall automatically extend the lifetime of the conditional use permit 369 coterminous with the expiration of the site plan and architectural review permit. 370 2. For good cause, an extension of the expiration date of the conditional use permit 371 not to exceed one additional year may be granted by the review authority. A Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No. XXX N. S. Effective --1--12018 10 EXHIBIT p.j o_of _l o 372 request for extension must be filed prior to the expiration date and shall be 373 accompanied by a filing fee. The permit holder shall submit sufficient information 374 for the review authority to determine whether good cause for an extension exists. 375 Consideration of the extension shall be made at a duly noticed public hearing. 376 377 (E) Section 16-52.050(H) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is added to read as follows: 378 379 Expiration of condominium use permit. 380 381 1. Condominium use permits issued in compliance with this section shall expire and 382 become null and void two years after their effective date unless the authorized use 383 has been commenced or extension has been granted. Subsequent approval of a 384 tentative or vesting tentative subdivision map in reliance on the condominium use 385 permit shall automatically extend the lifetime of the condominium use permit 386 coterminous with the expiration of the tentative or vesting tentative subdivision 387 map. 388 2. For good cause, an extension of the expiration date of the condominium use 389 permit not to exceed one additional year may be granted by the review authority. 390 A request for extension must be filed prior to the expiration date and shall be 391 accompanied by a filing fee. The permit holder shall submit sufficient information 392 for the review authority to determine whether good cause for an extension exists. 393 Consideration of the extension shall be made at a duly noticed public hearing. 394 395 (F) Section 16-52.080(H) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is added to read as follows: 396 397 Expiration. A tidelands permit shall expire and become null and void three years after its 398 effective date, unless vested. No time extensions are permitted. 399 400 (G) Section 16-52.110(G) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is added to read as follows: 401 402 Expiration. A home occupation permit shall expire and become null and void one year 403 after its passage if the use approved therein does not commence. Failure to annually 404 renew the home occupation permit as set forth in subsection (H) shall cause the permit to 405 expire. 406 407 (H) Section 16-52.110(H) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is added to read as follows: 408 409 Annual renewal. A home occupation permit shall be subject to annual renewal. Said 410 renewal may occur in conjunction with renewal of the associated business license. 411 412 (I) In Section 16-100.020(C) of the Tiburon Municipal Code, the definition of"Community 413 apartment" is amended such that the reference to "Section 1351(d)" is changed to 414 "Section 4105". 415 416 (J) In Section 16-100.020(C) of the Tiburon Municipal Code, the definition of 417 418 "Condominium" is amended such that: Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No. XXX N. S. Effective--1--12018 11 EXHIBIT p._ ( 1 of (3 419 1. The reference to Section 1351(d) is changed to "Section 4105". 420 2. The reference to "Section 1351(f)" is changed to "Section 4125". 421 3. The reference to Section 1351(m) is changed to "Section 4190". 422 423 (K) In Section 16-100.020(S) of the Tiburon Municipal Code, the definition of"Stock 424 cooperative" is amended to read as follows: 425 426 Stock cooperative. A development as defined in Section 4190 of the California Civil 427 Code, or any successor section thereto. 428 429 (L) In Section 16-100(V) of the Tiburon Municipal Code, the definition of"Vacation rental" 430 is amended to read as follows: 431 432 Vacation rental. Rental of any dwelling unit, in whole or in part, within the Town of 433 Tiburon to any person(s) for exclusive transient use of 30 consecutive calendar days or 434 less, in instances where the unit is only approved for permanent residential occupancy 435 and not approved for occupancy by transients, as that term is defined in Title 11, Chapter 436 7 of this Code. Rental of units within Town-approved hotels, motels and bed and 437 breakfasts shall not be considered Vacation rental. 438 439 440 SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. 441 If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this 442 Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid 443 or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability 444 of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of 445 this Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The Town Council of the 446 Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, 447 subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or 448 more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof 449 be declared invalid or unenforceable. 450 451 SECTION 4. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. 452 453 This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after the date of adoption. 454 Pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code, a summary of this ordinance shall 455 be prepared by the Town Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Town Council meeting at 456 which adoption of the ordinance is scheduled, the Town Clerk shall (1) publish the summary in a 457 newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon, and (2)post in the office of the Town 458 Clerk a certified copy of this ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this 459 ordinance, the Town Clerk shall (1)publish the summary in a newspaper of general circulation in 460 the Town of Tiburon, and (2) post in the office of the Town Clerk a certified copy of the 461 ordinance along with the names of those Council members voting for and against the ordinance. 462 463 This ordinance was read and introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the 464 Town of Tiburon, held on , 2018, and was adopted at a regular meeting Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No.XXX N. S. Effective--1--12018 12 f;�111I�1'I'--- _ p•___(_`�` 465 of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, held on , 2018, by the 466 following vote: 467 468 469 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 470 471 NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: 472 473 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 JIM FRASER, MAYOR 481 TOWN OF TIBURON 482 ATTEST: 483 484 485 486 487 LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK 488 Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No.XXX N. S. Effective --1--12018 13 EXI IIBI.T C_ F._1 3 of_f o3 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL ADOPTION OF TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has initiated text amendments to the Town's Zoning Ordinance, codified as Title IV, Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a display ad notice of the public hearing on the amendments was published in the Ark newspaper on March 28, 2018 and other noticing was provided as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed and advertised public hearing on April 11,2018 and considered any testimony received during the public hearing; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has determined that the amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on the basis that they have no potential to result in adverse impacts on the environment(Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, or are exempt under section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission finds that the proposed zoning text amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and programs of the Tiburon General Plan and are consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Town Council adopt the Zoning Ordinance text amendments as set forth in attached Exhibit"A". PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon held on April 11, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Amir, Corcoran, Defever, Tsai, Williams NAYS: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018-04 04/11/2018 1 H R O HAIR 'ribs n Planning Commission ATTEST: f I r. SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY (ACTING) Attaclunent: Exhibit"A" TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018-04 04/11/2018 2 EXHIBIT p. a of.3 Exhibit "A" to this Resolution is identical to Exhibit C of this Staff Report and is therefore not included herein. EXHIBIT P. 3 of 3 I single family residences all around the applicant's residence. If built today, it would be built as a 2 single family residence and he voiced his support. 3 4 ACTION: M/S (Williams/Amir) to approve Resolution approving the subject Conditional Use 5 Permit. Motion carried 5-0. 6 7 2. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS: Consider Recommendation to Town 9 Council Regarding Various Text Amendments to Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal 10 Code (Zoning), Including but not Limited to Parking Regulations, Permit Extensions, 11 Renewals, and Expirations, and Updating of Various Definitions; File#MCA 2018-02; 12 Town of Tiburon-initiated Amendments [SA] 13 14 Director Anderson stated this is a series of proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, 15 many of which relate to parking and others dealing with definitions, renewal and extension of 16 certain permits, and some room and board provisions needing to be cleaned up to better mesh 17 with vacation rental provisions. The role of the Planning Commission is to consider making a 18 recommendation to the Town Council on these amendments, and the Town Council would hold a 19 separate public hearing and make a decision. 20 21 Anderson reviewed sections proposed for amendment that included: 22 23 1. "Room and board"provisions, which allow for a single paying guest in any single family 24 dwelling, clarified such that is does not encompass short-term or vacation rental-type 25 uses. 26 2. Parking and loading standards, primarily in commercial areas. The primary purpose of 27 the amendments is to provide more flexibility for decision-makers in the review of 28 altered uses within the Town's two commercial areas (Downtown and the Cove Shopping 29 Center). He explained that there is a noted lack of ability to create new parking in 30 downtown Tiburon and in the Cove Shopping Center without building multi-level 31 parking structures. 32 3. The trends of E-commerce and technological changes, autonomous vehicles, Uber and 33 Lyft services are causing municipalities to re-think downtown and commercial parking 34 demand strategies, and many are abandoning the idea of building additional parking 35 facilities unless there is an obvious need for them. 36 4. Zoning requirements to provide additional parking for new uses and for changes in use 37 that are considered "intensifications" are being re-visited in light of these trends. The 38 Town has looked at parking in the Downtown area for a long time and parking counts and 39 analyses have been done going back into the 1980's. In the 1990's parking counts were 40 done on the summer months and these carried forward into the 2000's. What was seen 41 over time was a shrinking demand for parking in the downtown during its busiest times. 42 The most recent analysis the Town had prepared was in 2012. This study is on-line and 43 fairly in-depth, and it arrived at the same conclusion that the downtown is essentially 44 over-parked, that it never reaches the level of peak hour occupancy of the spaces one 45 would like to see in a healthy and vital downtown, and that there is an over-supply of 46 parking in the downtown and a perceived convenience issue about parking not always TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION April 11,2018 MINUTES NO. 1080 (Draft) PAGE 4 I being as close or as free as people would like, but that the overall supply is more than 2 adequate. In observing parking downtown over the past 30 years, Anderson said he was 3 convinced these amendments would benefit and are in the best interests of the Town 4 moving forward. The parking amendments have been reviewed and recommended to 5 move forward by the Town Council Downtown Revitalization Ad-Hoc Committee. 6 There are several sections of the parking regulations being changed, with the general idea 7 of providing more flexibility for decision-makers when there are use changes being 8 proposed. Important to note is that Commission and staff have both been dealing with 9 this issue for some time. The Commission and staff have been using similar approaches 10 in practice for some years to approve use permits and use changes, and it is time that 11 these practices are codified. Anderson indicated that he mailed a copy of the notice, a 12 cover letter and information to all commercial property owners in Tiburon and received 13 one phone call in support, no correspondence, and stated there are no speakers here 14 tonight. 15 16 5. A series of other amendments proposed would clarify provisions regarding expirations, 17 renewals, and extensions for certain types of permits, and these are also a cleanup 18 measure and the intent is to make clear as to when permits expire, and if they need to be 19 renewed or extended. There are also changes to definitions mostly reflecting changes in 20 State law. 21 22 Mr. Anderson requested the Commission consider one additional amendment, stating staff had 23 neglected to add the words, "or any successor section thereto"to the definition of"Stock 24 Cooperative", and he asked that the Commission consider adding this in its motion. 25 26 In terms of environmental review, the State of California does not consider parking to be an 27 environmental issue. Staff has preliminarily determined that the proposed amendments to the 28 zoning ordinance would be exempt under CEQA, and staff s recommendation is to hold a public 29 hearing, hear any testimony, discuss the proposed amendments and move to adopt the resolution 30 recommending approval of the text amendments, with the one modification, to the Town 31 Council. 32 33 Vice Chair Williams referred to changes in Article 3 at the top of page 3 of Exhibit 1, Section A; 34 Parking Requirements. In every other instance staff has crossed out"stalls" and replaced it with 35 "spaces" and here, there is parenthetical stalls underlined, and she asked if this was simply a 36 typographical error. Mr. Anderson said this was done on purpose, as unfortunately the word is 37 used in places where it is not easy to undo, and for the first reference, staff decided to keep the 38 word `stalls' in the text. 39 40 Vice Chair Williams referred to Table 3-1 on page 4 of Exhibit 1 and stated"real estate offices" 41 and"medical"have been crossed out. Also, at the top under Retail Sales, staff has broadened 42 that to offices, banks, clinics, labs and service uses and was not sure that encompassed"medical" 43 and "real estate offices". She asked if any wording was lost here or whether this was intentional. 44 Mr. Anderson said this was intentional and "real estate offices"will be considered as "offices" 45 and said staff could add the word "medical"to "clinics and labs", if the Commission so desired. 46 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION April 11,2018 MINUTES NO. 1080 (Draft) PAGE 5 EXHIBIT P. J Of� I Vice Chair Williams referred to page 2 of Exhibit 1, subsection C has been added, "Other 2 Equivalent Methods". She appreciates it is not always easy to get these leases or covenants and 3 she asked for examples of other equivalent methods of getting additional parking. Mr. Anderson 4 responded that he was thinking of an agreement that may not necessarily be a lease, but that 5 would be enforceable, noting there are all sorts of creative mechanisms out here, and people may 6 know of methods that staff are simply unaware of and which may be fine. 7 8 Commissioner Tsai referred to Table 3-1 and asked to better understand "Dry Cleaning - 3 9 spaces" under"Services". He asked if this means whether a dry cleaning service would no 10 longer have the access to 3 parking spaces in front of their business or whether this indicates it 11 was now 1 space for each 400 square foot area, given the size of a dry cleaner. Mr. Anderson 12 clarified that dry cleaning would now be under"service uses" and require 1 space per every 400 13 square feet of gross floor area. In addition, employee parking requirements further down in the 14 table would apply to all service uses, so that both employee and customer parking would be 15 addressed. 16 17 Commissioner Tsai said this could have a potential impact on certain businesses, but since there 18 was no concerns voiced to date from businesses, parking must not be an issue for most. 19 Anderson explained that most businesses have as much as they are ever going to have, and this is 20 an attempt to make it easier to change from use to use without needing to manufacture parking 21 spaces that truly cannot be created. 22 23 Commissioner Tsai referred to the vacation rentals and asked if this was an update of the 24 vacation rental ordinance adopted a couple of years ago relating to Airbnb, etc. Anderson 25 confirmed, stating at the time staff did not pick up the fact there was something in the residential 26 use table that talked about room and board for one paying guest in any single family residence 27 being a permitted use. There was some ambiguity that could lead one to believe someone could 28 be allowed to have an Airbnb rental, when the intent to is to allow a longer-term boarder. 29 30 Commissioner Tsai asked, and it was confirmed, that this wording translates to the fact that 31 someone cannot rent a room in their house to another individual for less than 31 days. 32 33 Commissioner Amir referred to Section 16-32.070 which adds the additional language for 34 electric vehicle charging stations. This new language is in the paragraph that otherwise provides 35 for motorcycle parking. He asked staff what was the consideration at play in making the 36 decision to propose this language. Anderson replied that the Town would like to encourage these 37 stations, and even require them. There are parking lots in the downtown, such as the Point 38 Tiburon Plaza lot, which just received approval to install four EV charging stations. Staff 39 believes this will happen anyway, and it does not hurt to have this language included in the event 40 that other owners decide to redo their parking lots and this is when the requirement will kick in. 41 42 Commissioner Amir asked what part of the Municipal Code indicates when this requirement 43 would be triggered. For example, he asked if this new language would require EV charging 44 stations to be implemented immediately for new parking lots. 45 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION April 11,2018 MINUTES NO. 1080 (Draft) PAGE 6 EXHIBIT p. 4I of I Mr. Anderson said this is not a retroactive requirement. Applicants would need to propose a 2 project that would be a dramatic change or upgrade to their parking lot. The Town is not trying 3 to force people to install EV charging stations in existing lots without a substantive permit 4 approval requirement from the Town. An example is where the Point Tiburon Plaza parking lot 5 is being completely redone from the ground up, and that is when this requirement would apply. 6 7 Chair Corcoran asked if this would apply to any property owner in Town with 40 spaces or more, 8 such as schools, churches and businesses. 9 10 Mr. Anderson said when applicants come to the Town requesting major remodeling of a parking 11 lot, the requirement to install one or more stations would kick in. He confirmed that it only 12 applies to commercial uses. 13 14 -Chair Corcoran referred to the instance when the New Morning Cafe application was presented 15 without having adequate parking. He believes another business had to assign some of the spaces 16 they had control over to that building and he asked if this greater flexibility diminish the 17 opportunity for this mechanism. Anderson replied an applicant would still need to show how 18 and where they were going to provide the parking. In the case of New Morning Cafe they 19 provided a bit of it on-site and the rest of it had historically been assigned to an off-site parking 20 lot, and he recalled that number was going to increase by a few spaces for the two residential 21 units. Moving forward, an applicant would still generally fall under the same requirement, but 22 there is more flexibility for the Town, if it can make certain findings, to not require them to 23 necessarily enter into some sort of lease agreement or recorded covenant. In the Downtown, 24 there are several properties without any parking on-site, and it would allow more opportunities if 25 they wanted to intensify the use without running up against a brick wall if they were unable to 26 obtain a lease from another lot owner, which is getting to be more and more difficult. 27 28 Chair Corcoran asked if some commercial property owners have stopped making renovations 29 because of parking requirement issues and that this flexibility would encourage more owners to 30 make necessary updates. Anderson said the proposed amendments are responsive to a belief that 31 the current parking regulations act as an impediment to changing uses or doing any sort of 32 change that could be considered intensification, even if it is a more desirable tenant. He 33 corrected his prior statement about the EV charging stations. Motorcycle parking applies only to 34 commercial uses, but the EV charging station section is written such that it would apply to all 35 uses. This would include large, non-commercial facilities that have more than 40 parking spaces 36 in their lots, and he agreed this would include uses such as religious institutions and larger 37 apartment complexes, so the Commission might want to limit its applicability to "commercial 38 and multi-family"uses. 39 40 Chair Corcoran said if they were to keep the proposed text"as is" and a school, church or 41 commercial property wants to upgrade their parking lot, could an exception or variance be 42 approved by the Commission for good cause. Anderson replied that a variance to waive the 43 requirement to install the EV charging station in a parking space would be a simple matter to 44 approve compared to a variance to waive installation of a required parking space. 45 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION April 11,2018 MINUTES NO. 1080 (Draft) PAGE 7 EXHIBIT P. of G, I Commissioner Tsai asked and confirmed with Mr. Anderson this type of parking lot renovation 2 does not often happen. Anderson confirmed that such applications are infrequent and that 3 repainting of parking lot striping is not significant enough to trigger the requirement to install an 4 EV charging station. 5 6 Commissioner Defever referred to Table 3-1 and asked how staff reached the conclusion of 7 changing some of the square footages from 1 parking space per every 250 square feet to the 8 majority for 1 parking space per every 400 square feet. Anderson stated these changes were 9 based on a recommendation by the Town's transportation consulting firm of Nelson\Nygaard 10 Associates, who reviewed the Town's parking standards as they compare with other I 1 jurisdictions. Anderson said the changes would be minimal given most commercial spaces in 12 Downtown are small. He confirmed that the ratios in the current table mostly date from 1976. 13 14 Chair Corcoran opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers. 15 16 Chair Corcoran asked fellow Commissioners for comments regarding the proposed amendments 17 by section, and there was no opposition to the amendments regarding the room and board 18 provisions. 19 20 Vice Chair Williams said she was in favor of incorporating flexibility and discretion into parking 21 regulations subject to review. If this is something that will prompt owners to make improvements 22 that are beneficial to the Town, she was in favor of all recommended parking text amendments. 23 24 Chair Corcoran said he understands the Planning Commission does not make its decisions based 25 upon economic concerns, but to the extent the EV charging station requirement could be an 26 imposition on a property owner, the Commission could approve a variance. He guessed that a 27 property owner could lease the EV charging station, and conformed that stations in private lots 28 charge for the use and recoup the cost of the installation over time. 29 30 Vice Chair Williams supported the revised Purpose section of the parking regulations and agreed 31 the Town was moving in the right direction of encouraging EV charging stations as well as 32 recognizing alternative modes of transportation and not having an over-supply of parking. Her 33 concern is that this is an older community and she would hate to take away convenient parking 34 for people. However, the fact that there were no complaints or opposition and staff received a 35 letter of support was compelling. 36 37 Commissioner Tsai said one of his first concerns is whether the Town is changing something to 38 accommodate existing business owners, but the fact there is no one at the meeting, a study has 39 been done, and there are no issues, he was supportive. He thinks the bigger issues of parking 40 downtown to some extent are issues of paid versus free parking. 41 42 With regards to EV charging stations, he supported it at 40 spaces as a better ratio. One issue he 43 finds is that when taking his kids to the Belvedere Park parking lot,there are a total of 12 spaces 44 with 2 EV charging stalls. People cannot park in these 2 spaces and often any additional parking 45 always overflows to the street with those two charging station spaces empty. He agreed with the 46 Chair that the Town should have flexibility with the use of a variance. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION April 11,2018 MINUTES NO. 1080 (Draft) PAGE 8 EXHIBIT E P. • of 1 2 Commissioner Defever echoed comments of support, agreed with observations of true parking 3 conditions in Downtown Tiburon, and thinks many complaints heard are because people are so 4 used to being able to park very close to their destination, and do not like paying for parking. 5 Regarding EV charging stations, she would imagine an apartment complex that wants to redo 6 their lot may take a poll from tenants. If none of them has an electric car and the apartment 7 owner must still install an EV charging station per the ordinance, there is the ability for such 8 explanation and flexibility through a variance. 9 10 Commissioner Amir said his most significant issue was the EV charging station language. He 11 thinks the due process to be able to obtain a variance is significant, given likely circumstances 12 described by Commissioner Defever where no tenants have an electric vehicle. He also 13 supported the Purpose section language that sets forth where the Town should be going in 14 encouraging alternate modes of transportation, including public transportation (which he uses), 15 and also having broader language regarding electric vehicles, and he voiced his support for the 16 other proposed amendments as well. 17 18 Vice Chair Williams thanked staff for the redline document and the concise staff report. 19 20 Chair Corcoran said he too supported the changes, said it was fascinating to see autonomous 21 vehicles coming on-line, and in five years from now the Commission may look at this and think 22 the 400 square feet per space standard was unnecessary. He hoped these amendments will 23 encourage more owners to remodel if this is something that was holding them back. He was 24 completely in favor of EV charging station requirements with the fail-safe of a variance process 25 based on circumstances that would argue against the charging station requirement. 26 27 ACTION: M/S (Williams/Amir) to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of Municipal 28 Code, Chapter 16 (Zoning) text amendments to the Town Council, as amended to add the words 29 "or any successor section thereto" to the Stock Cooperative definition. Motion carried 5-0. 30 31 32 ACTION ITEMS (Al) 33 34 1. Planning Commission Minutes—Meeting of March 28, 2018 35 36 ACTION: M/S (Tsai/Williams) to approve the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of March 37 28, 2018, as submitted. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Corcoran abstained). 38 39 40 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION April 11,2018 MINUTES NO. 1080 (Draft) PAGE 9 EXHIBIT E p. of . coo m• Town of Tiburon® 1505 Tiburon Boulevard m Tiburon,CA 94920®P.415.435.7373 F 415.435.2438®www.rownofriburon.org Community DevelopmentDepartment March 28, 2018 Jim Fraser Dear Tiburon Commercial Property Owner: Mayor The Town of Tiburon is proposing amendments to its zoning ordinance aimed at David Kulik providing more flexibility with respect to parking and loading requirements in Vice Mayor commercial zones. The amendments would make it easier to change or intensify uses Alice Fredericks by making parking requirements less of an impediment, with a goal of increasing the Councilmember vibrancy of the Town's commercial areas. •••••.. Holli Thier I hope that you will take the time to review the enclosed public hearing notice and Councilmember summary of proposed amendments, and review the full content of the proposed ..... ..... .... parking amendments at the following link: Ton welner Councilmember https://www.townoftiburon.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=97 If you have any questions, please contact me at sanderson townoftiburon.or or at Greg Chanis Town Manager 415-435-7392. Sincerely, j J , Scott Anderson Director of Community Development Enclosures: Notice of Planning Commission hearing for April 11, 2018 Summary Description of Proposed Parking Amendments 3� TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON VARIOUS ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS PRIMARILY BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY RELATING TO PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS Notice is hereby given that the Tiburon Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider various Town-initiated amendments to the Tiburon Municipal Code, specifically to Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning). Proposed amendments include: 1) numerous revisions to the Parking and Loading standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance; 2) updating of obsolete references to state codes in certain definitions, specifically "condominium", "stock cooperative" and "community apartment"; 3) clarification of the "room/board for one paying guest"permitted use provision associated with single family dwellings; 4) adding or clarifying the time extension, renewal and/or expiration provisions for various types of zoning permits, including site plan and architectural review, home occupations, condominium use permits, conditional use permits, and tidelands permits; and 5) modifying the definition of "vacation rental" to delete references to room and board in single family dwellings. The role of the Planning Commission is to make a recommendation to the Tiburon Town Council on the zoning text amendments. Town staff has preliminary determined that the amendments are categorically exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)pursuant to Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines and also Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission will consider this preliminary determination in making any recommendations to the Town Council. °i Additional information regarding the various proposed zoning text amendments is available for review at the offices of the Tiburon Planning Division, 1505 Tiburon ' s E Boulevard, Tiburon, CA, and will be available through a link on the Town's website no later than March 28, 2018. Inquiries and written comments regarding the proposed amendments should be directed to Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920 or by calling 415-435-7392 or sending an e-mail to sanderson@townoftiburon o ff. The Planning Commission public hearing will be held at the Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. The Planning Commission will meet on Wednesday,April 11, 2018. The meeting will begin at 7:30 P.M. z PUBLISH AS V4 PAGE DISPLAY AD IN THE ARK ON MARCH 28, 2018 if EXHIBIT p ,� PROPOSED PARKING AMENDMENTS SUMMARY 3/20/2018 Overview Given the virtual impossibility, absent construction of parking structures, of creating additional parking in the Town's commercial areas(Downtown and Cove Shopping Center),the proposed amendments aim at providing Town decision-makers with increased flexibility with respect to parking requirements in commercial zones. Municipalities across the nation are abandoning the concept of building parking structures and additional parking lots as a medium-to-long range planning tool due to the increasing popularity of services such as Uber and Lyft and the likely advent of autonomous vehicles and other technological changes that will significantly reduce commercial area parking demand in the future. Intent of Specific Amendments to Parking Regulations Section 16-32.010(Purpose): These amendments provide a backdrop and rationale for the revised sections in the Parking Regulations, which are intended to provide more flexibility for the Town decision- makers and for applicants with respect to parking and loading in commercial zones. Section 16-32.030(Location of Parking): The added text provides for"other satisfactory methods" of securing parking for a use short of the currently required lease agreement or recorded covenant,with the purpose of providing additional flexibility since leases and covenants are difficult if not impossible to obtain for many downtown owners/tenants who control no parking spaces of their own. Section 16-32.040(Number of Spaces Required): New subsection C provides a framework through which required spaces for proposed non-residential uses can be reduced, provided that certain findings are made. A parking study may be required to justify making the findings in certain instances (i.e.,for a truly major project). New subsections D and E provide protection against the elimination of existing parking spaces, and provide an exception for instances when state-mandated handicapped parking requirements result in an unavoidable loss of spaces. Amendments to Table 3-1 are intended to reduce the number of situations where a simple change of use might trigger a requirement for additional parking that would be virtually impossible to create. By adopting the same parking standard for multiple types of uses,the required parking would remain the same in most instances of a change of use, unless actual floor area is increased. Section 16-32.080(Landscaping): The addition of text in subsection 6 will provide flexibility in those rare situations where installation of landscaped areas within a parking lot might be difficult or result in considerable loss of parking spaces. The current text provides no flexibility in such situations. Section 16-32.090(Loading Berths): The added text provides more discretion in determining that existing loading zones are adequate to serve a new or changed use (new loading zones would take up a lot of space and our Downtown already depends heavily on existing communally-available loading zones on Main Street and Paradise Drive). Section 16-32.110(Changes in Use,Additions, Enlargements): The addition of subsection B allows for the director or review authority to find that a change in use, addition, enlargement or similar intensification is"not substantial" in terms of increased parking demand. Staff and the Planning Commission have been using this approach informally for years to allow minor changes in use and to approve conditional use permits for more substantial changes in use, but the practice should be codified. EXHIBIT p.3 of 09[8/091q®AJOAV oane 91g11edwoo ww zg x ww gZ lewaol op a}}anbl13 09 LS/091q®lGaAd ql!m @lq!1edwoo,,8/q Z x,,L ozls lagel 058-171-47 059-151-52 059-101-15 RON CACERES DAMNER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP Mecum Loma Linda, LLC 862 CORDOZA COURT C/O COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL 1605 Euston Road WOODLAND,CA 95695 ATTN: PROPERTY MGMT San Marino, CA 91 108 50 CALIFORNIA STREET,SUITE 1900 SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94111 059-102-02 060-105-80 059-101-02 MARIA DELLA SANTINA RONALD GOLDMAN SULTAN TIBURON LLC 52 DUNFRIES TERRACE 55 MAIN STREET 3148 ROUNDHILL ROAD SAN RAFAEL,CA 94901 TIBURON, CA 94920 ALAMO,CA 94507 059-102-17 059-101-13 059-151-42 KIA ZANDVAKILI JIM MANTEGANI MAGGIE MCDONOGH K2 PROPERTIES LLC I MANTEGANI WAY 37 SYCAMORE AVENUE PO BOX 12705 OAKLAND, CA 94604 TIBURON, CA 94920 MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 059-161-07 059-151-49 _ 87 POI NT TIBURON PLAZA INC NG COOK PURDY TRUST HOTEL MANAGER POI08 1 BOX 5 1701 TIBURON BOULEVARD PO PO BOX 1 5 94920 THE LODGE AT TIBURON TIBURON, CA 94920 1651 TIBURON BOULEVARD TIBURON, CA 94920 059-151-48 059-151-35 ALAN RART NATIONALL EMERGENCY SERVICES STEVE SEARS&BRIAN WILSON ACV-ARGO TIBURON LP STREET N MAIS 39 MAIN STREET 27 27 MAI S CA 94920 770 TAMALPAIS DR., SUITE 401-B TIBURON, CA 94920 CORTE MADERA,CA 94925 Mary Wiegmann 060-082-57 Boardwalk Center Agent JIM ALLEN BERT DAMNER c/o Bayside Management BELVEDERE LAND COMPANY 1 SAN CARLOS AVENUE 83 BEACH ROAD 180 Harbor Drive, Suite 100 BELVEDERE, CA 94920 SAUSALITO,CA 94965 Sausalito, CA 94965 058-171-43 058-171-68 058-171-88 BANK MANAGER BARBARA ROBERTS LALEH ZELINSKY CHASE BANK ROBERTS HOLDINGS LLC ZELINSKY PROPERTIES LLC 1535 TIBURON BOULEVARD 801 A ST 130 MAIN ST TIBURON, CA 94920 SAN RAFAEL,CA 94901 TIBURON, CA 94920 GENERAL ALibrary Director Store Manager GENEMANAGER Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library CVS/Pharmacy CORINTHIAN YACHT CLUB 43 MAIN STREET 1501 Tiburon Boulevard 1599 Tiburon Boulevard TIBURON, CA 94920 Tiburon, CA 94920 Tiburon, CA 94920 Fire Chief 058-171-97 Deirdre McCrohan Tiburon Fire Protection District Garfield Beach CVS LLC THE ARK Newspaper One CVS Drive 1679 Tiburon Boulevard Store Accounting#1483 1550 Tiburon Boulevard, Suite D One Tiburon, CA 94920 Woonsocket, RI 02895 Tiburon, CA 94920 Cove Shopping Center--Tiburon S.-PlanninglStaff c/o Mike Lee FolderslsandersonProjects 0owntown Vibrancy 38 Terrier Place ProjectlDowntown property owner labels final.doc Hillsborough, CA 94010 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 EXHIBIT F p.L- of Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 Scott Anderson From: Ron Caceres R Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 9:16 PM !��APR V To: Scott Anderson Subject: Parking Hi Scott, PLANNING DIVISION Hope you're doing well. I tried to send this email earlier but it bounced back. Can you let me know what the outcome of the meeting was?Thanks and take care. Ron To: Scott Anderson - Planning Director Dear Scott, I am unable to make it to the planning commission meeting tonight, but wanted to express my strong support for any proposals that reduce the parking requirements for Tiburon properties. As you know, I have long advocated for little or no parking requirement for our building at 41 Main Street, as all the parking lots are controlled by a handful of individuals/companies. We property owners are at their mercy when it comes to pricing. In the almost 15 years our project has been there,there has never been an issue with parking. I spoke about this at previous meetings and I believe my previous comments are on the record. Thank you, Ron Caceres Property Owner 41 Main Street Tiburon, CA Cell: (916) 417-7774 i �� _ _ . LATE MAIL # A 0 r pX rc May 1,2018 Jim Freser,Mayor Council Members Town of Tiburon 1505 San Rafael Ave. Tiburon,CA 94920 ATT: Sung Kwon Re: Removal of Non-native Trees at Knoll Dear Mayor and Council Members The Marin Audubon Society strongly recommends removing the nonnative eucalyptus,Italian Stone Pine and Monterey Pine,from the McKegney Green South Knoll, Our recon mendation is based on the ecological value and'benefits of the native trees and the public benefit of having native trees on a park owned by the public. Native trees and other plants provide food and needed components for nesting and roosting to support native birds and other wildlife.The three non-native species have very:invited value for native wildlife. They may support an occasional raptor nest because they are tall,but compared to native species their value is minimal.In comparison,native oaks support more than 800 native species that support native woodland and grassland ecosystems. It is widely recognized that with climate change,weather patterns are cl anging.although it is unclear exactly what the change will mean, increased hotter and/or colder weather,more or fewer storms with greater intensity can be expected. One of the recommended measures to increase resilience of our native ecosystems is to maintain and increase native trees,shrubs and grasses. Native plants are the backbone of terrestrial ecosystems. Natives are adapted to our Mediterranean climate and offer the best chance for our local ecosystems to survive in the face of climate change. Further,we urge that a Management Pian for the Knoll be prepared by a plant ecologist and be implemented by the down.The Plan should guide the maintenance and management of the site to ensure that the native trees have maximu;n chance of surviving.I should address: Methods that wilt ensure the non-native trees are removed in a manner;hat preserves the native oaks and any other native species that are growing on the site. Maintenance measures that will ensure any non-native plants that may colonize the denuded areas will be remover'. Revegetation strategy;if recommended,and a list of native species. Finally,we recommended that the Town adopt Policies that ensure in the future any vegetation removal will not be on the basis of preserve views. The importance of native oaks and other native species is demonstrated by the 24 Marin County Open Space Preserves,and other protected natural areas. All are protected for their native vegetation;,all are essential for wildlife and are well'-::sed and enjoyed by people. The Town will do a great service for the community by restoring thls Knoll to it native ecosystem. Sincerely,: 1 .4A ra Salzman,Cq-ch'iir Phii Peterson Co-chair Conservation Committee Conservation Committee � #Tiburon Town Council 5.2.18 LATE MAIL ------ Bill Brinkman comments re South Knoll Tree Removal Permit I'm Bill Brinkman. I've lived in the Del Mar neighborhood for 33 years. I'm president of the Del Mar Neighborhood Association, but I'm commenting on my own behalf, not the board or association. I met the Hurwins about 2 years ago. When I heard about the long history of nearby neighborhoods trying to remove the Eucalyptus trees at the knoll, and Hurwin's current plan of removal, not only for safety, but also native habitat restoration, I was very impressed and in full agreement. And I continue to be in total support of the project. This is the third time I written/spoken in support of removal of the non-native trees to improve safety from fire, falling limbs, and toppling trees, as well as returning the knoll to its native habitat. Let the Coastal Oaks grow and thrive! realize some people see all trees as good trees. If it's green, alive, and a tree, it's good. But not all trees are good, and these are bad trees! I understand the POST voted to recommend denial of the permit. Assuming the Council agrees, I think it's a shame the knoll will not be developed into a beautiful community asset, and instead will remain an unsafe, unattractive nuisance. In that case, I urge the Town to implement Hort Plan B and follow a strong regimen of maintenance.