HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2022-11-16
TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Tiburon Town Council
November 16, 2022
Special Meeting – 4:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting - 5:00 P.M.
TIBURON
TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA
CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) ADVISORY NOTICE
Consistent with Government Code section 54953(e), the Town Council meeting will not be physically
open to the public and all Council Members will be teleconferencing into the meeting. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can access the meeting by following the meeting live at:
Audio/Video Webinar: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81857841390 Webinar ID: 818 5784 1390
Call-in Number: +1 669 444 9171 Access Code: 818 5784 1390 Instructions for providing public comment live during the meeting using Zoom are linked on the Town’s website and to this agenda. Members of the public may provide public comment by sending comments to the Town Clerk by email at comments@townoftiburon.org. Comments received prior to the start of the Council meeting will be distributed electronically to the Town Council and posted on the Town’s website. Comments received after the start time of the Council meeting, but prior to the close of public comment period for an item, will then be read into the record, with a maximum allowance of 3 minutes per individual comment, subject to the Mayor’s discretion. All comments read into the record should be a maximum of 500 words, which corresponds to approximately 3 minutes of speaking time. If a comment is received after the
agenda item is heard but before the close of the meeting, the comment will still be included as a part of the record of the meeting but will not be read into the record.
Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email or call the Town Clerk who will use their best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the Town’s procedure for resolving reasonable
accommodation requests. All reasonable accommodations offered will be listed on the Town’s website at www.townoftiburon.org.
SPECIAL MEETING – 4:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Griffin, Councilmember Thier, Vice Mayor Ryan, Mayor Welner CLOSED SESSION 1. Public Employee Performance Review: Government Code Section 34957 Title: Town Manager 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code section 54956.9: (One potential case) ADJOURNMENT – to regular meeting REGULAR MEETING – 5:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Griffin, Councilmember Thier, Vice Mayor Ryan, Mayor Welner ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this time. Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future Town Council meeting agenda. Please limit
your comments to three (3) minutes. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Town Council unless a request is made by a member of the Town Council, public or staff to remove an item for separate discussion and
consideration. If you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item, please seek recognition by the Mayor and do so at this time. CC-1. Town Council Minutes – Adopt minutes for November 2, 2022 Town Council regular meeting (Department of Administrative Services) CC-2. Teleconference Meetings – Adopt resolution that would allow the Town to continue to operate virtual board meetings in accordance with AB 361 (Department of Administrative Services) CC-3. Pending Vacancies on Town Boards and Commissions – Announce pending vacancy on Marin-Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control District Board of Trustees (Department of
Administrative Services)
ACTION ITEMS AI-1. United Against Hate Week – Adopt resolution declaring November 13-16, 2022 United Against Hate Week in the Town of Tiburon (Department of Administrative Services) AI-2. EV Patrol Vehicle Purchase- Consider Approving Purchase of Tesla Model Y For Use as a Marked Patrol Vehicle and authorize a Budget Amendment in the Amount of $30,500. AI-3. Martha Property Contribution Request – Consider Request for a $1,000,000 contribution pledge to be used for the acquisition of the Martha Property. PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1. Municipal Code Amendments – Hold public hearing and consider adoption of amendments to Chapter 13 (Building Regulations) of the Tiburon Municipal Code to adopt by reference and with
modifications to the latest state-authorized construction and fire codes (Community Development Department) PH-2. 4576 Paradise Drive – Consider appeal of Design Review Board approval of a tree permit application for the removal of 10 trees at 4576 Paradise Drive (Community Development Department) Owner/Applicant: Hendricks/Sierra Pines LLC Appellant: James Massey-Kim Address: 4576 Paradise Drive Assessor Parcel No.: 038-142-02 PH-3. 1911 and 1915 Mar West Street – Consider approval of a partial street abandonment associated with a proposed lot line adjustment (Community Development Department) [CONTINUED TO JANUARY 18, 2023] DISCUSSION ITEMS DI-1. Pickleball – Receive report from sub-committee on pickleball at Teather Park tennis courts DI-2. General Plan Update-Receive update on the status of the General Plan development process. DI-3. Landscape Equipment Ordinance – Discuss potential Municipal Code amendments to ban all
gas-powered landscape equipment TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS TOWN MANAGER REPORT 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.
DR
A
F
T
Page 1 of 3
Tiburon Town Council Minutes #22-2022 DRAFT November 2, 2022
TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
Consistent with Government Code section 54953(e), councilmembers attended this meeting by teleconference. Members of the public were invited to participate in the meeting by live-streaming the meeting on the Town’s website and submitting comments to comments@townoftiburon.org to
be included in the public record for the meeting.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Griffin
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chanis, Town Attorney Stock, Director of Community Development Tasini,
Director of Administrative Services Creekmore,
Public Works Operations Manager Kerslake,PublicWorks Engineering Manager Eshoo, AssistantPlanner Bonifacio, Town Clerk Dilena
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ruby Monterastelli asked for clarification about Municipal Code language and interpretation related to calculating heights of structures.
David Moller encouraged the Council to schedule a public hearing in early 2023 to adopt the
County’s model reach codes.
Mark Monterastelli said he had submitted a letter to the Town in March and hadn’t received a reply and asked the Council to expedite a response.
CONSENT CALENDAR
CC-1. Town Council Minutes – Adopt minutes for October 19, 2022 Town Council specialand regular meetings (Department of Administrative Services)
CC-2. Investment Summary – Adopt investment summary for month ending August 31, 2022(Department of Administrative Services)
CC-3. Investment Summary – Adopt investment summary for month ending September 30,
2022 (Department of Administrative Services)
MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Items No. 1-3, as written. Moved: Thier, seconded by Fredericks
CC-1
DR
A
F
T
Page 2 of 3
Tiburon Town Council Minutes #22-2022 DRAFT November 2, 2022
VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner ABSENT: Griffin
ACTION ITEMS AI-1. Parks Master Plan – Consider approval of a draft Request for Proposals for consulting services related to development of a Parks Master Plan (Department of Public Works)
MOTION: To authorize staff to release the Request for Proposals. Moved: Thier, seconded by Ryan VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner ABSENT: Griffin
AI-2. Budget Amendments – Consider fiscal year 2023 budget amendments to: 1) reconcile FY2022 projects in the amount of $141,858, and 2) fund improvements to a Town-owned condominium (Unit 2) in the amount of $60,000 (Department of Administrative Services)
MOTION: To authorize budget amendments in the amount of $141,858 to reconcile FY2022
projects and in the amount of $60,000 to fund improvements to a Town-owned condominium. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Ryan VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner
ABSENT: Griffin PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1. 8 Auburn Court – Consider appeal of Design Review Board approval of an addition to
an existing roof, with a condition to reduce the pitch of the roof, at 8 Auburn Court
(Community Development Department) Address: 8 Auburn Court Applicant/Appellant: Laura and Julian King
Assessor Parcel No.: 055-102-05 Public comment was received by:
• Trygve Morkemo expressed concern about additional impacts, such as the addition of
solar and ventilation, other than the proposed height and spoke against the appeal. MOTION: To remand the matter back to the Design Review Board with additional information presented tonight for further hearing, review, and action.
Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Ryan
VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner ABSENT: Griffin
DR
A
F
T
Page 3 of 3
Tiburon Town Council Minutes #22-2022 DRAFT November 2, 2022
PH-2. Municipal Code Amendments – Consider approval of amendments to Chapter 13 (Building Regulations) of the Tiburon Municipal Code to adopt by reference with
modifications to the latest state-authorized construction and fire codes (Community
Development Department) [CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 16, 2022] TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS
None. TOWN MANAGER REPORT None.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Welner adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m.
JON WELNER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST:
LEA DILENA, TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Department of Administrative Services
Subject: AB 361 Teleconference Meetings
Reviewed By: _________
Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________
Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY In accordance with Government Code Section 54953, the Council will consider adoption of a resolution
that would allow the Town to continue to operate virtual board meetings for the next 30 days. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Adopt the attached resolution (Exhibit 1).
BACKGROUND In September 2021, the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) was amended by Assembly Bill 361 to
allow fully virtual board meetings during a state of emergency. AB 361 amends Government
Code section 54953 to allow virtual board meetings through January 1, 2024 in any of the following circumstances: 1. The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and state or
local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.
2. The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. 3. The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has
determined, by majority vote, that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would
present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. To continue to hold virtual meetings while California’s state of emergency remains active, the body must make findings every 30 days that: 1) the body has reconsidered the circumstances of
the state of emergency and 2) that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability
of the members to meet safely in person or state and state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
Agenda Item: CC-2
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2
The attached resolution (Exhibit 1) makes the required findings to allow the Town Council and Council appointed boards and commissions to continue to operate virtual meetings for the next 30 days.
ANALYSIS No further analysis provided. FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town. CLIMATE IMPACT
Staff has determined this action will have no significant impact on the Town’s contribution to
global climate change. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is statutorily exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA, and if it were found to constitute a project, it would be exempt pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3).
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt the attached resolution (Exhibit 1).
Exhibit(s):
1. DRAFT Resolution
Prepared By: Lea Dilena, Town Clerk
EXHIBIT 1
Page 1 of 2
Town Council Resolution No. XX-2022 DRAFT 11/16/2022
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. XX-2022 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AND ON BEHALF OF COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES CREATED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54952(b) AUTHORIZING
TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH AB 361 (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e)) TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SAFELY PARTICIPATE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS WHEREAS, the Town Council is committed to ensuring public access to observe and
participate in local government meetings; and
WHEREAS, all meetings of the Town Council and other legislative bodies created pursuant to Government Code Section 54952(b) are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, so that any member of the public may participate in local government meetings; and
WHEREAS, the recently adopted AB 361, codified at Government Code section 54953(e), makes provisions for remote teleconferencing participation in local government meetings, without compliance with the requirements of 54953(b)(3), during a Governor-proclaimed state of emergency and if the local legislative body determines, by majority vote, that as a result of the emergency,
meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency due to the outbreak of respiratory illness due to a novel coronavirus (now known as COVID-19) and that State of Emergency is still in effect in the State of California; and
WHEREAS, on March 3, 2020, Marin County declared a local emergency due to the COVID-19; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, the Town Manager proclaimed the existence of a local state of
emergency within the Town, pursuant to Section 21-6 of the Tiburon Municipal Code and Section
8625 of the California Emergency Services Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was ratified by the Town Council on March 18, 2020; and WHEREAS, COVID-19 continues to threaten the health and lives of Town residents; and
WHEREAS, the SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant (Delta Variant) and SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant (Omicron Variant) are highly transmissible in indoor settings; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 2021, the California Department of Public Health issued guidance
calling for the use of face coverings and stating that the Delta Variant is two times as contagious as
early COVID-19 variants, leading to increasing infections, the Delta Variant accounts for over 80% of cases sequenced, and cases and hospitalizations of COVID-19 are rising throughout the state; and WHEREAS, on January 5, 2022, the California Department of Public Health issued guidance
again requiring universal masking indoors and stating that the Omicron Variant is more contagious
than early COVID-19 variants and the Delta Variant, and has increased the seven-day average case rate more than sixfold and doubled COVID-19 hospitalization rates; and
Page 2 of 2
Town Council Resolution No. XX-2022 DRAFT 11/16/2022
WHEREAS, the Delta and Omicron Variants have caused, and will continue to cause, conditions of imminent peril to the health safety of persons within the Town; an WHEREAS, the Town Council, acting as a legislative body pursuant to Government Code
section 54952(a) and for the benefit of the commissions, committees and other bodies that were created
by the Town Council pursuant to Government Code section 54952(b) (collectively referred to as “Legislative Bodies”), finds that the current conditions meet the circumstances set forth in Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to allow Legislative Bodies to continue to use teleconferencing to hold open and public meetings if the Legislative Bodies comply with the requirements set forth in Government
Code section 54953(e)(2) to ensure the public can safely participate in and observe local government
meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon that the Town Council does hereby:
1. Find that Current Conditions Authorize Teleconference Public Meetings of Legislative Bodies. Based on the California Governor’s continued declaration of a State of Emergency and current conditions, the Town Council finds that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, such that the
conditions continue to exist pursuant to Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to allow
Legislative Bodies to use teleconferencing to hold public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(2) to ensure members of the public have continued access to safely observe and participate in local government meetings.
2. Authorize Legislative Bodies to Conduct Teleconference Meetings. The Legislative
Bodies are hereby authorized to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution, including conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(2) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on November 16, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
__________________________
JON WELNER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST:
____________________________
LEA DILENA, TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Department of Administrative Services
Subject: Announcement of Pending Vacancy on the Marin-Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control District Board of Trustees
Reviewed By: _________
Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________
Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY The Council will announce a pending vacancy on the Marin-Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control District Board of Trustees and invite applicants to apply. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Announce the pending vacancy by adoption of this item on the Consent Calendar.
BACKGROUND Each January, the Town Council announces the pending vacancies on Town boards, commissions, and committees that are expected to expire in the coming calendar year. Most
Town appointments are scheduled to expire on February 28 of each year, but Town Council
appointments to the Marin-Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control District Board of Trustees expire on December 31 of each year. There is one pending vacancy on the Marin-Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control District Board.
Cathy Benediktsson’s term expires on December 31, 2022. Ms. Benediktsson is eligible for
reappointment to another two- or four-year term, at the Council’s discretion. Pending vacancies for the entire calendar year are always advertised as part of the regular appointments process at the beginning of each year, but it may be appropriate to remind the
public of the pending vacancy again and invite qualified applications.
The Notice of Pending Vacancy (Exhibit 1) has been posted and staff will accept new applications until December 16, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. and schedule interviews with the Town Council. The Council will interview all new applicants for the position before an appointment is
made.
ANALYSIS
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
Agenda Item: CC-3
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2
No further analysis provided. FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town.
CLIMATE IMPACT Staff has determined this action will have no significant impact on the Town’s contribution to
global climate change. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is statutorily exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of
the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA, and if it were found to constitute a project, it would be exempt pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council announce the pending vacancy by adoption of this item on the Consent Calendar.
Exhibit(s):
1. Notice of Pending Vacancy
Prepared By: Lea Dilena, Town Clerk
EXHIBIT 1
PENDING VACANCY NOTICE
On Town of Tiburon Boards, Commissions & Committees
2022
Town of Tiburon Representative: Marin-Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District Board of Trustees Statutory Authority: Marin-Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District Term: Two or Four Years
Purpose: The 24-member appointed Board of Trustees serves as the governing body
of the District. Founded in 1915, the District protects the health and welfare of the communities it serves from mosquitos and vector-borne diseases by utilizing cost-effective, environmentally responsible integrated vector management practices.
Qualifications: For this opening, applicants must be residents of the Town of Tiburon and have the interest, desire, and time available to serve for a two-year term, including attendance at regular meetings and other activities.
A term has expired as follows:
Appointee Date Appointed Term Expiration Next Term Cathy Benediktsson 8/5/2020 12/31/2022 1/1/23 – 12/31/25 or 12/31/27
********* The Town is seeking applicants interested in applying for the position. Interested residents can contact Tiburon Town Clerk Lea Dilena at ldilena@townoftiburon.org or (415)435-7377 for
more information. Applications are available at Tiburon Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard,
Tiburon CA 94920 or online at www.townoftiburon.org. Deadline to Apply: December 16, 2022 at 5:00 p.m.
The position will open until filled Notice posted at Town Hall Published in the Ark newspaper on November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Department of Administrative Services
Subject: Recommendation to Adopt Resolution Declaring the Week of November 13-19, 2022 United Against Hate Week in the Town of Tiburon
Reviewed By: _________
Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________
Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY The Council will consider adoption of a resolution (Exhibit 1) declaring the week of November 13-19, 2022 United Against Hate Week in the Town of Tiburon. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Adopt the attached resolution (Exhibit 1).
BACKGROUND The United Against Hate Week campaign is a call for local civic action by the people in every Bay Area community to stop the hate and implicit bias that are a dangerous threat to the safety
and civility of our neighborhoods, towns and cities. The campaign was initially developed in
Berkeley in 2017 after the city experienced a series of violent protests. The campaign is strongly supported by Not In Our Town, a leading anti-hate organization that serves a network of hundreds of schools and communities across the country who stand against
bullying, hate and inequality and work to bridge differences, foster inclusion and build equity.
The non-profit organization is offering the use of their videos and information packets for groups, cities, and schools to utilize in the week-long anti-hate campaign. This year, the Town of Tiburon joins Not In Our Town and many other Marin jurisdictions, as well as other community partners across the Bay Area, in declaring the week of November 13-19, 2022 “United Against Hate
Week” in the Town of Tiburon.
ANALYSIS No further analysis provided.
FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town.
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
Agenda Item: AI-1
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2
CLIMATE IMPACT Staff has determined this action will have no significant impact on the Town’s contribution to
global climate change. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is statutorily exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of
the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA, and if it were found to constitute a project, it would be exempt pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt the attached resolution (Exhibit 1) declaring the week of November 13-19, 2022 United Against Hate Week in the Town of Tiburon.
Exhibit(s):
1. Draft Resolution
Prepared By: Lea Dilena, Town Clerk
EXHIBIT 1
Page 1 of 2
Town Council Resolution No. XX-2022 DRAFT 11/7/2022
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. XX-2022
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON TO DECLARE THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 13-19, 2022 AS “UNITED AGAINST HATE WEEK” IN THE TOWN OF TIBURON THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON HEREBY FINDS AND
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Communities throughout the United States are composed of people from diverse backgrounds including different races, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, socioeconomic status', religions, citizenship status', political views, and broad ranging identities.
SECTION 2. The Town of Tiburon recognizes the shared humanity of our diverse communities and commits to act and encourage community action towards eliminating racial disparities, both inside government and in the community.
SECTION 3. The Town of Tiburon proudly stands united with communities nationwide
seeking to combat divisive rhetoric fueling racism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia, ageism, ableism, misogyny, transphobia, antisemitism, other forms of religious intolerance, and other forms of bigotry.
SECTION 4. The Town of Tiburon acknowledges the local and national, historical, legal
and political events that have contributed to diminishing the protections, rights, opportunities, and outcomes for black, indigenous, and people of color. SECTION 5. The number of hate incidents and crimes across the United States and in
the Bay Area has dramatically increased over the past few years, and disgusting acts of
intolerance and bigotry have occurred in Marin County schools and our community presenting an unequivocal need to stand in solidarity and unite against hate. SECTION 6. The Town of Tiburon joins other government agencies and community-
based organizations in recognizing this week and bringing to light that education, compassion,
and cooperation are key to unlocking understanding and embracing differences between people. SECTION 7. The Town of Tiburon commends all United Against Hate Week actions undertaken by local agencies, community-based organizations, and collaborative work with
participating community members to help create awareness, educate, and share resources
regarding how to positively respond to hate. SECTION 8. The Town of Tiburon acknowledges the importance of denouncing hatred and fostering welcoming environments that promote a sense of belonging.
SECTION 9. The Town of Tiburon joins in spreading the message of United Against Hate week: “We reject hate of any kind and believe that building a safer and more equitable world starts by working together.”
SECTION 10. The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon declares its commitment to stand United Against Hate and supports United Against Hate Week activities helping to
empower community bridge building and strengthening our communities to combat hate during
every week of the year, but with special attention during the week of November 13 through November 19, 2022, and onwards. SECTION 11. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on the 16th day of November, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS:
__________________________________
JON WELNER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST:
______________________________
LEA DILENA, TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 4
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Town Council
From: Police Department
Subject: Consider Approving Purchase of Tesla Model Y For Use as a Marked Patrol Vehicle and authorize a Budget Amendment in the Amount of $30,500.
Reviewed By: _________
Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________
Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY Council is considering approval of the purchase and upfitting of a Tesla Model Y for police patrol vehicle use, and considering a budget amendment in the amount of $30,500 to fund the project. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Approve the purchase of a Tesla Model Y as proposed. 2. Approve a Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Amendment in the amount of $30,500, with the
source of funds being General Fund Operating Reserves.
BACKGROUND The Town’s municipal fleet of vehicles and equipment is one of the largest greenhouse gas (GHG) contributors from Town operations. Since 2016, each time a vehicle in the fleet is replaced, an analysis is done to determine whether an appropriate EV vehicle option is available for the intended use. Currently the town owns 3 100% EV vehicles which are all located at Town
Hall (2 Nissan Leafs and 1 Kia Soul) and used by the Community Development Department and Public Works. In addition to the 3 EV’s, the town also owns 4 hybrid vehicles. One of these vehicles is located at Town Hall (Subaru CrossTrek), with the other 3 used by the Police Department (1 Toyota RAV 4, and 2 Ford Explorer Police Interceptor patrol vehicles).
The Police Department vehicle fleet consists of a total of 8 vehicles, five of which are marked patrol vehicles. Of the patrol vehicles, we have one Ford Taurus Police Interceptor sedan, two Dodge Charger sedans and two hybrid Ford Explorer Police Interceptor SUV’s. The Ford Explorer SUV’s are the newest vehicles in the patrol car fleet, and have been well received by the officers. This is partly due to the increased interior room as well as the increased ground
clearance which makes exiting and entering the vehicle much easier.
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
Agenda Item: AI-2
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 4
These vehicles are replaced as needed based on mileage, age, downtime for repairs, and operational needs. On average, the Town purchases one new patrol vehicle per year. Until now, staff has been reluctant to propose purchasing an EV for patrol use. However, EV technology has progressed significantly in the past 5 years, and although very limited in number, there are now
viable EV options available for use as police patrol vehicles. Staff analyzed both the Tesla Model
Y and Ford Mustang Mach-E EV, and based on that analysis, staff is recommending the town purchase and upfit a Tesla Model Y for patrol vehicle use. ANALYSIS
Ford Mustang Mach-E EV
Regarding the Ford Mustang Mach-E EV, staff could not identify any area agencies that have deployed these vehicles as patrol cars. However, the Michigan State Police conducts annual testing of various potential police vehicles, and included the Ford Mustang Mach-E EV in their latest evaluation round for patrol vehicles. It was the only EV in the group of 11 vehicles tested.
The Mach-E performed reasonably well in a number of areas related to acceleration and vehicle
dynamics, but was near the bottom of the group in several areas like driver controls and ergonomics. In addition, staff has had the opportunity to see a Mach-E at a trade show and the consensus was the interior was more constrained than the interiors of the three sedan patrol cars currently in the fleet. Based on the lack of examples of agencies deploying Mustang’s as patrol
vehicles and concerns about interior space and ergonomics, staff cannot recommend a Ford
Mustang Mach-E EV for patrol use at this time. Tesla Model Y The Tesla Model Y, along with a number of Tesla Model S’s are already being used as patrol
vehicles by multiple police agencies in California and other states. For example, Fremont PD,
Menlo Park PD, Cotati PD, and Seaside PD have all successfully deployed Tesla Model Ys as patrol vehicles in our region. Staff has had the opportunity to discuss how these vehicles are performing with staff from several of these agencies, and the response has been positive. Several staff members have also had the opportunity to inspect a Model Y and feel the interior
ergonomics and ground clearance are superior to our existing sedans, and comparable to the Ford
explorers in our fleet. Additionally, as a result of a number of these vehicles being deployed, aftermarket manufacturers of patrol vehicle equipment (Light bars, interior cages, radio mounting equipment etc.) are now
producing equipment specific to this vehicle type, making the upfitting of these vehicles much
more efficient. Although other Marin County police agencies have added Teslas to their unmarked fleet, none are using them as patrol vehicles. Tiburon would be the first law enforcement agency in our county to
deploy an EV patrol vehicle providing us with the opportunity to gather data on its effectiveness
in that application. FINANCIAL IMPACT The Town purchased and upfitted 2 hybrid Ford Explorer Interceptor patrol vehicles in Fiscal
Year 21-22, and will continue purchasing similar vehicles if the decision is made not to move
forward with the purchase of an EV at this time.
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 4
The Table below compares the total cost of acquiring and upfitting a Tesla Model Y with that of a hybrid Ford Explorer Interceptor. It takes into account the following: Purchase price, upfitting costs, any expected financial incentives available and the estimated residual value at vehicle retirement (7 years).
Based on these numbers, we estimate the additional cost to purchase and upfit a Tesla Model Y
vs. a hybrid Ford Explorer Interceptor is approximately $14,000. However, one of the reasons to consider EV’s is an expected reduction in operating costs. The table below compares the expected annual operating costs of the 2 vehicles and then shows how many years of estimated operating cost savings are needed to offset the additional acquisition cost.
In summary, the total cost of purchasing, upfitting and disposing of a Tesla Model Y is estimated
to be $14,000 more than that of a hybrid Ford Explorer Interceptor. However, annual estimated operating cost savings of $2,170 would offset that additional cost in approximately 6.5 years. The FY 22-23 budget includes $65,000 in funding for a new patrol vehicle. The cost for the purchase and set up of the Tesla Model Y exceeds the available funding by approximately
$30,500. If Council wishes to move forward with the acquisition of a Tesla Model Y, staff recommends authorizing a Budget Amendment in that amount, with the source of funds being General Fund Operating Reserves. A Note on Chargers
Introduction of an EV into the Police Department fleet will require installation of appropriate charging infrastructure. Staff is in the process of getting quotes for this work and cannot provide an accurate cost estimate at this point. However, staff is confident that incentives available through TAM and MCE will cover the entire cost of installing charging infrastructure for fleet use at the Police Department, and is therefore not requesting any additional funding for this work.
Acquisition Cost
Purchase Price (incl. tax and fees)$70,524 $50,000
Upfitting Cost $25,000 $23,000
Sub-Total $95,524 $73,000
Less Rebate from TAM ($2,500)$0
Less Residual Value at Retirement ($21,000)($15,000)
Total Adjusted Cost at Vehicle Retirement $72,024 $58,000
Estimated Acquisition Cost Differential $14,024
Tesla Model Y (EV)Ford Police Interceptor
Explorer (Hybrid)
Fuel $614 $2,384
Maintenance $2,500 $2,900
Estimated Annual Operating Cost $3,114 $5,284
Estimated Operating Cost Difference
Acquisition Cost Differential $14,024
Annual Operating Cost Savings $2,170
Years To Break Even ($14,024 ÷ $2,170)6.5
Break Even Analysis
Annual Operating Costs Based on 7,015 miles/year
$2,170
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 4
CLIMATE IMPACT Staff has determined this action will have a positive climate impact by reducing overall GHG emissions, and is consistent with the objectives of the towns Climate Action Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA, and if it were found to constitute a project, it would be exempt pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061 (b)(3).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
1. Approve the purchase of a Tesla Model as proposed. 2. Approve a Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Amendment in the amount of $30,500, with the source of funds being General Fund Operating Reserves.
Prepared By: Ryan Monaghan, Chief of Police
Tiburon Town Council
November 16, 2022
AI-2: EV Patrol Vehicle Purchase
Late Mail
Requests for Copies:
Lea Dilena, ldilena@townoftiburon.org
From:Sanna Thomas
To:Jon Welner; Jack Ryan; Alice Fredericks; Noah Griffin; Holli Thier
Cc:Lea Dilena; Lea Dilena; Greg Chanis; Ryan Monaghan
Subject:EV Patrol Vehicle for Tiburon
Date:Tuesday, November 15, 2022 11:03:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
RE AGENDA ITEM #2: "EV PATROL VEHICLE PURCHASE"
Dear Mayor Welner, Vice Mayor Ryan, and Council Members Fredericks, Griffin, and Thier,
I am writing to applaud your pending decision to purchase an EV for the Town's police fleet,which is one more step in fulfilling the commitments of Tiburon's recently adopted Climate
Action Plan. Bravo! The Tesla Model Y sounds like an excellent choice and will not onlyserve the police department's needs extremely well and be a model/test case for other police
departments in Marin, but also provide an example to the Town's residents of the importanceof shifting to an EV when retiring an older vehicle.
Thank you all for continually looking for opportunities to achieve the goals and strategies of
the Climate Action Plan to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 50% below 1990 levelsand reaching a 45% ZEV adoption rate, all by 2030 --- only 8 years away! Your example is
demonstrating to Tiburon residents that we have no time to waste and need to keep movingforward at a rapid pace.
Next up hopefully will be consideration of the 3 Green Building Reach Codes that the Marin
Board of Supervisors just unanimously adopted, one of which provides yet another avenue forexpanding EV adoption in Tiburon.
Best regards,
Sanna Thomas
--
Sanna Randolph Thomas, Ed.D
415-497-3192 (cell)
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 3
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Department of Administrative Services
Subject: Consider Request for a Pledge to Contribute $1,000.000 Towards the Acquisition of the Martha Property.
Reviewed By: _________
Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________
Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY Council is considering a request from a coalition of groups to pledge a $1,000,000 contribution towards the purchase of the Martha Property. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Staff recommends Town Council: Receive the Staff Report and presentation, and 1. Approve a pledge to contribute, indicating the contribution amount, and 2.Direct staff to establish a Martha Property Discretionary Reserve account and to transfer the contribution pledge amount from the general Fund Operating Reserve to the new account, or 3.If Council is not prepared to decide the matter, direct staff as to what additional information is needed before returning to Council to reconsider the matter.
BACKGROUND For over 30 years, a coalition of groups including the Trust for Public Land, County of Marin and Tiburon Open Space has been working to preserve approximately 110 acres of undeveloped land located in unincorporated Marin County at the southern end of the Tiburon Peninsula. The
property, known as the Martha Property, abuts existing open space parcels owned by The Marin
County Open Space District and offers unparalleled 360-degree views of the San Francisco Bay area. In addition to outstanding views, the area is also home to a number of important plant and animal species including: Tiburon Jewel Flower, Serpentine Reed Grass, California Red-Legged frog and Marin Dwarf Flax.
After many years of effort, the coalition, led by the Trust for Public Land, has reached an agreement with the property owners for an option to purchase the property for $42.1M. Currently, the coalition has identified a total of $26.1M in funding for the acquisition, leaving a $16.1M shortfall they hope to raise through various fundraising efforts. Once purchased, the
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
Agenda Item: AI-3
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 3
property would be transferred to the Marin County Open Space District. Representatives of the coalition have contacted the Town with a request for a commitment to contribute $1M towards the effort.
ANALYSIS
The sale of the property will not occur any earlier than mid-2023. As a result, the request before Council this evening is to pledge a contribution amount. It is not to authorize a payment, which would occur once the remaining funds have been raised. In addition, the Town would require execution of a Contribution Agreement acceptable to all parties. Staff anticipates returning to
Council to adopt the agreement and formally authorize expenditure of the funds at the appropriate
time. With regards to the source of funds for any contribution amount, staff recommends utilizing General Fund Operating Reserves. Further, if Council chooses to pledge a contribution, staff
recommends transferring the contribution amount from the General Fund Operating Reserve
Fund to a new Discretionary Reserve Fund set up for this project. FINANCIAL IMPACT As noted above, if Council chooses to pledge a contribution, staff recommends using General
Fund Operating Reserve Fund (GFOR) for the contribution. The GFOR is the Towns primary
reserve fund and per long standing town policy, should maintained at a minimum balance equal to 25% of the towns current annual operating budget. For Fiscal Year 23, this would indicate a minimum reserve balance of $3,000,000. The estimated balance of the GFOR at Fiscal Year end is $6.8M.
The Town has maintained a GFOR balance well above the policy required minimum for many years, using funds from the account to complete important projects like the renovation of McKegney Green and the update to the towns General Plan. The GFOR will also be looked to in the future to fund mid-year budget amendments and to at least partially fund projects to address
sea level rise, street and storm drain maintenance, or infrastructure improvement projects in town
owned parks. CLIMATE IMPACT Staff has determined this action will have no significant impact on the Town’s contribution to
global climate change. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of
the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA, and if it were found to
constitute a project, it would be exempt pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
Receive the Staff Report and presentation, and 1. Approve a pledge to contribute, indicating the contribution amount, and
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 3
2. Direct staff to establish a Martha Property Discretionary Reserve account and to transfer the contribution pledge amount from the general Fund Operating Reserve to the new account, or 3. If Council is not prepared to decide the matter, direct staff as to what additional
information is needed before returning to Council to reconsider the matter.
Prepared By: Greg Chanis, Town Manager
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 5
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Community Development Department
Subject: 2022 State-Authorized Building and Fire Code Adoption
Reviewed By: _________
Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________
Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY The Council will consider adoption of an ordinance that would update Chapter 13 (Building Regulations)
of the Tiburon Municipal Code to adopt by reference, with local amendments, the latest state-authorized construction and fire codes. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Staff recommends Town Council: 1. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of the Ordinance Amending Title IV. Chapter 13 (Building Regulations), and ratification of the Tiburon Fire District and Southern Marin Fire District Ordinances.
BACKGROUND Approximately every three years, the State of California adopts updated uniform construction
codes which local agencies then typically adopt in their local codes. The State provides limited
latitude to modify those codes by ordinance. Local agency modifications may provide for requirements that are more restrictive, but not less restrictive, than the state-adopted codes. The new state codes (2022 Building Code) will go into effect on January 1, 2023.
The Town Council introduced a draft ordinance following a public hearing at its meeting on
October 19, 2021. A copy of the draft Ordinance is attached as Exhibit 1. The ordinance now comes to the Town Council for consideration of adoption. As the proposed Ordinance adopts by reference the various codes adopted by the State of California, a public hearing is required after the introduction, and prior to Ordinance adoption. Therefore, the Council must conduct a second
public hearing on this item to adopt the Ordinance by reference. In addition to adoption of the updated State construction code, the Ordinance would also adopt by reference the 2022 Fire Codes adopted by the Tiburon Fire District (TFD) and the Southern
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
Agenda Item: PH-1
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 5
Marin Fire District (SMFD). Copies of the 2022 adopted codes from TFD and SMFD are attached as Exhibits 2 and 3 respectively. At the October 19 meeting, Council approved the Draft Ordinance as proposed, however, a
question was raised regarding language contained in Chapter1, Division II, Section 105.5 of the
draft Ordinance. Section 105.5 pertains to the expiration and possible extension of Building Permits, and reads as follows: Section 105.5 Expiration.
1. All permits issued by the Building Official shall expire by limitation and become null and void eighteen (18) months from the date the permit is issued. 2. In instances where the permittee has proceeded with due diligence and
made substantial progress but is unable to complete the project because
of unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the permittee, one extension of up to six (6) months may be granted, without payment of additional charges or penalties. In determining whether due diligence has been exercised, the Building Official shall consider whether work
began promptly after permit issuance, whether work was conducted on a
regular basis, and any other relevant facts. 3. If the project is not completed within the six (6) month extension allowed under subsection 2 above or if the six (6) extension was not provided under subsection 2, a Stop Work Order may be issued on the date of
expiration and work shall not recommence until the permit is reactivated
and extended. A reactivation and extension may be issued by the Building Official once a reactivation/extension Charge equal to one (1) times the original project construction permit fee is paid. A reactivation/extension charge, for purposes of this section, is primarily a
penalty for failure to complete the project within the allotted time, and
secondarily a fee to recover the cost of providing additional building inspection division services, and is defined as the subtotal of the building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, grading, and business license fee portions of the original permit. A permit reactivated and extended under
this subsection shall be valid for an additional six (6) months beyond the
date of its expiration prior to the reactivation/extension granted pursuant to this paragraph. 4. If the project is not completed within the six (6) month extension allowed under subsection 3 above, a Stop Work Order may be issued on the date
of expiration and work shall not recommence until the permit is
reactivated and extended. Reactivation and extension of the permit for another six (6) month period shall be allowed only if a Reactivation/Extension Charge equal to three (3) times the original project construction permit fees, as defined in subsection 3 above, is paid.
A permit reactivated and extended under this subsection shall be valid
for an additional six (6) months beyond the date of its expiration prior to the reactivation/extension granted pursuant to this paragraph.
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 5
5. If the project is not completed within the six (6) month extension allowed under subsection 4 above, a Stop Work Order shall be issued and the matter referred to the Town Council for resolution. The Town Council may reactivate and extend the permit for an additional six (6) months
upon submission and acceptance of a completion schedule for the project
and payment of five (5) times the original project construction permit fees (as defined in subsection 2 above) as a Reactivation/Extension Charge. The Town Council may, in its sole discretion, reduce the reactivation/extension charge based on such reasons as the project's
nearness to completion and/or the cause of the delay.
6. If the project is not completed within the six (6) month extension allowed under subsection 5 above, or pursuant to this subsection 6, a Stop Work Order shall be issued and the matter referred to the Town Council for resolution. The Town Council may impose additional requirements, such
as the retention of a qualified contractor for owner/builder projects or
retention of a qualified construction manager for a contracted project, in order to promote swift completion. The Town Council may reactivate and extend the permit upon imposition of any such conditions deemed reasonable, and payment of five (5) times the original project
construction permit fees (as defined is subsection 3 above) as a
Reactivation/Extension Charge. The question raised referenced line 2 of Subsection 5 (highlighted and underlined above), and related to whether the words ‘a Stop Work Order shall be issued’ should be replaced with ‘a Stop
Work Order may be issued’. Staff indicated we would provide more detailed information on this
section when the item came back to Council for adoption. ANALYSIS Staff notes the language in Subsection 5 of the draft Ordinance does not contain any proposed
amendments from the current version, which was adopted unanimously by Council in 2019.
However, in 2019 the Council adopted a number of amendments to this section, resulting in the current version that has been in place for the past 3 years. A copy of the redline edits for this section from the 2019 item is attached as Exhibit 4.
The rationale behind the current language is to provide the Building Official discretion with
regards to the issuance of a Stop Work Order when approving the 2nd and 3rd six-month extensions. However, if a project is not complete after the 3rd extension (Total elapsed project duration =3 years) and a 4th extension is needed, Subsection 5 limits the discretion of the Building Official by including the following provisions:
• Requires issuance of a Stop Work Order.
• Requires referral to Town Council for resolution
• Discretion given to Council to reduce the reactivation/extension charge based on such
reasons as the project's nearness to completion and/or the cause of the delay. These provisions are repeated in subsection 6 if the project requires a 5th extension.
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 5
The Table below shows the progression through this process for a hypothetical project with a permit issued on January 1, 2023.
Step Date Section
105.5
Reference
Elapsed
Project Time
(after
extension)
Cost Stop Work Council
Involvement
Permit Issued 1/1/2023
Permit
Expiration 6/30/2024 105.5 (1) 1.5 Years
Extension 1 12/31/2024 105.5(2) 2.0 Years No Cost No No
Extension 2 6/30/2025 105.5(3) 2.5 Years
1X Permit
Fees
May be
issued No
Extension 3 12/31/2025 105.5(4) 3.0 Years
3X Permit
Fees
May be
issued No
Extension 4 6/30/2026 105.5(5) 3.5 Years
5X Permit
Fees
Shall be
issued Yes
Extension 5 12/31/2026 105.5(6) 4.0 Years
5X Permit
Fees
Shall be
issued Yes
In summary, the current process provides a framework for encouraging the timely completion of
permitted projects through the incremental increase in permit reactivation fees and the introduction of more stringent measures as the process progresses. The purpose of this agenda item is for Council to consider adopting the draft Ordinance
introduced on October 19. If adopted this evening, the Ordinance would go into effect 30 days.
If Council wishes to make any amendments to the draft Ordinance, tonight’s meeting would be considered the 1st reading of the amended Ordinance and the item would be scheduled for adoption at a future Council meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct financial impact to the Town as a result of Council considering this item
CLIMATE IMPACT Staff has determined this action will have no significant impact on the Town’s contribution to global climate change.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA, and if it were found to
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 5
constitute a project, it would be exempt pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. To hold a public hearing and consider adoption of the Ordinance Amending Title IV. Chapter 13 (Building Regulations), and ratification of the Tiburon Fire District and Southern Marin Fire District Ordinances.
Exhibit(s): 1. Draft Building Code Ordinance 2. Southern Marin Fire District Fire Code Report & Ordinance 3. Tiburon Fire Protection District Fire Code Memo & Ordinance 4. 2019 ‘Redline’ amendments to Section 105.5 Prepared By: Greg Chanis, Town Manager
EXHIBIT 1
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 1
ORDINANCE NO. ( ).
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING PROVISIONS OF TITLE IV, CHAPTER 13 OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING WITH AMENDMENTS THE MOST RECENT STANDARDIZED CONSTRUCTION CODES
The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does ordain as follows: Section 1. Findings.
A. The Town Council held a public hearing on October 19, 2022, and has heard and
considered any and all public testimony on this matter to introduce the proposed ordinance. C. The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to the adoption of this Ordinance have been followed.
D. The Town Council finds that the amendments made by this Ordinance are necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. E. The Town Council has found that the amendments made by this Ordinance are
consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan.
F. The Town Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is ministerially exempt from the requirements of CEQA and is also exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 2. Amendments to Chapter 13, Article II. Tiburon Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 13, Article II (Technical Codes) is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
Article II. Technical Codes 13-4 Adoption by reference of technical codes. For the purpose of establishing proper regulations for building construction, for the
installation of plumbing, gas appliances and electrical systems, and for the storage and
handling of flammable liquids, the codes or portions thereof set forth in this article are adopted and are made a part of this chapter by reference without further publication or posting thereof, and not less than one certified copy, along with the deletions and exceptions therefrom and additions and amendments thereto, shall be kept on file for use
and examination by the public in the office of the town clerk.
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 2
13-4.1 Building Code. The Town Council hereby adopts, for the purpose of providing minimum requirements for
the protection of life, limb, health, property, safety and welfare of the general public, that
certain code known as the 2019 2022 California Building Code (based on the 2018 2021 International Building Code), Volume 1 and Volume 2, including the following appendices: Appendix J as published by the California Building Standards Commission in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, hereinafter referred to as the
"California Building Code", save and except such portions as are hereinafter amended or
modified by Section 13-4.1.1 of this chapter. 13-4.1.1 Amendments made to the 2019 2022 California Building Code. The 2019 2022 California Building Code is amended to read as follows:
(a) Section 1.8.5.1 is amended to read as follows:
1.8.5.1 General. Subject to the provisions of law, including Code of Civil Procedure Section 1822.50 et. seq., officers and agents of the Building Official may enter and inspect public and private properties to secure compliance with the provisions of this code and the rules and regulations promulgated by the department of housing
and community development. For limitations and additional information regarding
enforcement, see the following: (The remainder of this section is unchanged.) (b) Section 1.8.8.1 is amended to add the following as an additional paragraph at the
end of the existing section:
For appeal of non-administrative provisions of the code, the local appeals board and the housing appeals board shall be the Tiburon Building Code Appeals Board, except that if required by Health and Safety Code section 19957.5, the local appeals board and the housing appeals board shall be the County of Marin’s Disability
Access Appeals Board. The town council shall hear appeals of administrative
provisions as generally described in the administrative chapter of this code. (c) Chapter 1, Division II is modified as follows: (1) Section 104.6 is amended to add the following phrase to the end of the last
sentence: ", including the warrant provisions of Section 1822.50 et. seq. of
the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California." (2) Section 105.2 is amended to delete subsections 2, 4, 5, 6 and 12, and to modify subsections 1 and 7 to read as follows:
1. Detached accessory structures used as playhouses or play structures
provided that the structure: a. Does not exceed one-hundred twenty (120) square feet in area and is portable (i.e., is not anchored or affixed in any way); b. Does not exceed twelve (12) feet in height; and
c. Contains no plumbing, electricity or heating or cooling
appliances. d. Does not exceed one-story.
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 3
7. Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, counter tops and similar finish
work; except that repaving and/or re-striping of parking lots shall
require a permit. (3) Section 105.5 is amended to read as follows: Section 105.5 Expiration.
1. All permits issued by the Building Official shall expire by limitation
and become null and void eighteen (18) months from the date the permit is issued. 2. In instances where the permittee has proceeded with due diligence and made substantial progress but is unable to complete the project
because of unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the
permittee, one extension of up to six (6) months may be granted, without payment of additional charges or penalties. In determining whether due diligence has been exercised, the Building Official shall consider whether work began promptly after permit issuance,
whether work was conducted on a regular basis, and any other
relevant facts. 3. If the project is not completed within the six (6) month extension allowed under subsection 2 above, or if the six (6) month extension was not provided under subsection 2, a Stop Work Order may be
issued on the date of expiration and work shall not recommence until
the permit is reactivated and extended. A reactivation and extension may be issued by the Building Official once a reactivation/extension Charge equal to one (1) times the original project construction permit fee is paid. A reactivation/extension charge, for purposes of this
section, is primarily a penalty for failure to complete the project
within the allotted time, and secondarily a fee to recover the cost of providing additional building inspection division services, and is defined as the subtotal of the building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, grading, and business license fee portions of the original
permit. A permit reactivated and extended under this subsection
shall be valid for an additional six (6) months beyond the date of its expiration prior to the reactivation/extension granted pursuant to this paragraph. 4. If the project is not completed within the six (6) month extension
allowed under subsection 3 above, a Stop Work Order may be issued
on the date of expiration and work shall not recommence until the permit is reactivated and extended. Reactivation and extension of the permit for another six (6) month period shall be allowed only if a Reactivation/Extension Charge equal to three (3) times the original
project construction permit fees, as defined in subsection 3 above, is
paid. A permit reactivated and extended under this subsection shall be valid for an additional six (6) months beyond the date of its
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 4
expiration prior to the reactivation/extension granted pursuant to this paragraph.
5. If the project is not completed within the six (6) month extension
allowed under subsection 4 above, a Stop Work Order shall be issued and the matter referred to the Town Council for resolution. The Town Council may reactivate and extend the permit for an additional six (6) months upon submission and acceptance of a completion
schedule for the project and payment of five (5) times the original
project construction permit fees (as defined in subsection 2 above) as a Reactivation/Extension Charge. The Town Council may, in its sole discretion, reduce the reactivation/extension charge based on such reasons as the project's nearness to completion and/or the cause of
the delay.
6. If the project is not completed within the six (6) month extension allowed under subsection 5 above, or pursuant to this subsection 6, a Stop Work Order shall be issued and the matter referred to the Town Council for resolution. The Town Council may impose additional
requirements, such as the retention of a qualified contractor for
owner/builder projects or retention of a qualified construction manager for a contracted project, in order to promote swift completion. The Town Council may reactivate and extend the permit upon imposition of any such conditions deemed reasonable, and
payment of five (5) times the original project construction permit
fees (as defined is subsection 3 above) as a Reactivation/Extension Charge. (4) Section 109.2 is amended to read as follows:
109.2 Schedule of Fees.
On buildings, structures, electrical, gas, mechanical and plumbing system alterations requiring a permit, a fee for each permit shall be required as set forth in the Building Division Fee Schedule as adopted by resolution of the town council and amended from time to time.
(5) Section 109.4 is amended to read as follows: 109.4 Work commencing before permit issuance. Any person who commences any work without a permit on a building, structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system before obtaining
the necessary permits shall be subject to a penalty as set forth in the Town's
Schedule of Fines, established by resolution of the town council and amended from time to time. (6) Section 113.1 is amended to add the following as an additional paragraph at
the end of the existing section:
For appeals of non-administrative provisions of the code, the local appeals board and the housing appeals board shall be the Tiburon Building Code
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 5
Appeals Board, except that if required by Health and Safety Code section 19957.5, the local appeals board and the housing appeals board shall be the
County of Marin’s Disability Access Appeals Board. The town council shall
hear appeals of administrative provisions as generally described in the administrative chapter of this code. (d) Section 202. Definitions, is amended to change the definition of “Approved
Agency” to read as follows:
[A] Approved Agency. An established and recognized agency that is regularly engaged in conducting tests, furnishing inspection services or furnishing product certification where such agency has been approved by the building official. Approval shall be based on the review of the agency’s
quality control manuals and standard operating procedures in accordance
with ASTM E329-18. [HCD1 & HCD 2] “Approved agency shall mean “Listing agency” and “Testing agency.” [DSA-SS, DSA-SS/CC] This term is synonymous with “laboratory
of record” as referenced in section 4-335 of the California
Administrative Code. (e) Section 502.1 is amended to read as follows: 502.1 Address Numbers.
1. The following standards for address markings shall apply to residential
buildings: a. All residential structures shall display a street number in a prominent position so that it shall be easily visible from the street. The numerals in these numbers shall be no less than four inches in height, and one-
half inch in width, of a color contrasting to the background and
located so they may be clearly seen and read. If a building is not easily visible from the street, then the numbers are to be mounted at the access drive leading to the building. b. At each vehicular access to a multiple family dwelling complex
having four or more buildings, there shall be an illuminated
diagrammatic representation (plot plan) of the complex, which shows the location of the viewer and the building units within the complex. c. In multiple family dwelling complexes, any building having a separate identifying factor other than the street number shall be
clearly identified in the manner described in subsection (a). Each
individual unit of residence shall have a unit identifying number, letter, or combination thereof displayed upon the door. d. Maps of the multiple family complex will be furnished to the police department and applicable fire district upon completion of
construction. The maps shall include building identification and unit
identification. e. Buildings shall be numbered in such a manner and sequence as to
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 6
meet with the approval of the enforcing authority. f. This section shall not prevent supplementary numbering such as
reflective numbers on street curbs or decorative numbering, but this
shall be considered supplemental only and shall not satisfy the requirements of this section. 2. The following standards for address markings shall apply to commercial
buildings:
a. The address number of every commercial building shall be located and displayed so that it shall be easily visible from the street. b. The numerals in these numbers shall be no less than six inches in height, one-half inch in width, and of a color contrasting to the
background. In addition, any business which affords vehicular access
to the rear through any driveway, alleyway, or parking lot shall also display the same numbers on the rear of the building. c. When required by the Building Official, approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a
position as to be plainly visible and legible from the fire apparatus
road at the back of a property or where rear parking lots or alleys provide an acceptable vehicular access. Number height and width shall comply with Section 501.2. (f) Section 903.2, first sentence, is amended to read as follows:
903.2 Where required. Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this section, provided that where applicable code provisions adopted by the Tiburon Fire Protection District or
Southern Marin Fire Protection District are more restrictive, the more
restrictive provisions shall control. (g) Section 1015.2 is amended by adding the following as the last sentence of the
paragraph before the listed exceptions:
Guards are also required at waterfront bulkheads, fixed piers and gangways.
: (h) Section 1505 is amended to read as follows:
The roof covering on any structure regulated by this code shall be as specified in California Building Code Chapter 15 with the following conditions: 1. All new buildings and new additions shall have at least a Class A-listed or noncombustible roof covering.
2. Where alterations or repairs to existing roofs involve more than fifty (50) percent of the total area of an existing building within a one-year
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 7
time period, the entire roof shall be retrofitted with at least a Class A-listed or noncombustible roof.
3. Where applicable code provisions adopted by the Tiburon Fire
Protection District or Southern Marin Fire Protection District are more restrictive, the more restrictive provisions shall control. (i) Appendix J "GRADING" is modified as follows:
(1) J103 “Permits Required” is amended, to add the following:
J103.3 Grading Permit Fees. Fees shall be as set forth in the Building Division Fee Schedule established by resolution of the town council as amended from time to time. (2) J110 “Erosion Control” is amended, to add the following:
J110.3 Mud, Loose Dirt, or Debris on Public Street. No person, firm or
corporation who has a valid building, demolition or grading permit shall permit any mud, loose dirt or debris to be removed from the job site and deposited on any public street or sidewalk. 13-4.2 Residential Code.
The Town Council hereby adopts, for the purpose of providing minimum requirements for the protection of life, limb, health, property, safety, and welfare of the general public, that certain code known as the 2019 2022 California Residential Code (based on the 2018 2021 International Residential Code), including Appendices J and Q published by the
International Code Council, and as amended by the California Building Standards
Commission in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2.5, hereinafter referred to as the "California Residential Code," save and except such portions as are hereinafter amended or modified by Section 13-4.2.1 of this chapter.
13-4.2.1 Amendments to the 2019 2022 California Residential Code.
The 2019 California Residential Code is amended as follows: (a) Section 1.8.5.1 is amended to read as follows: 1.8.5.1 General. Subject to the provisions of law, including Code of Civil Procedure Section 1822.50 et. seq., officers and agents of the Building Official may enter and
inspect public and private properties to secure compliance with the provisions of
this code and the rules and regulations promulgated by the department of housing and community development. For limitations and additional information regarding enforcement, see the following: (The remainder of this section is unchanged.)
(b) Section 1.8.8.1 is amended to delete the second paragraph and add the following paragraph to the end of the section: For appeal of non-administrative provisions of the code, the local appeals board and the housing appeals board shall be the Tiburon Building Code Appeals Board,
except that if required by Health and Safety Code section 19957.5, the local appeals
board and the housing appeals board shall be the County of Marin’s Disability
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 8
Access Appeals Board. The town council shall hear appeals of administrative provisions as generally described in the administrative chapter of this code.
(c) Chapter 1, Division II is modified as follows: (1) Section 104.6 is amended to add the following phrase to the end of the last sentence: ", including the warrant provisions of Section 1822.50 et. seq. of the Code of
Civil Procedure of the State of California."
(2) Section 105.2 is amended to delete (building) subsections 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10, and to modify subsections 1 and 6 to read as follows: 1. Detached accessory structures used as playhouses or play structures
provided that the structure:
a. Does not exceed one-hundred twenty (120) square feet in area and is portable (i.e., is not anchored or affixed in any way); b. Does not exceed twelve (12) feet in height; and c. Contains no plumbing, electricity or heating or cooling
appliances.
d. Does not exceed one-story. 6. Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, counter tops and similar finish work; except that repaving and/or re-striping of parking lots shall require a permit.
(3) Section 105.5 is amended to read as follows: Section 105.5 Expiration. 1. All permits issued by the Building Official shall expire by limitation and become null and void eighteen (18) months from the date the
permit is issued.
2. In instances where the permittee has proceeded with due diligence and made substantial progress but is unable to complete the project because of unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the permittee, one extension of up to six (6) months may be granted,
without payment of additional charges or penalties. In determining
whether due diligence has been exercised, the Building Official shall consider whether work began promptly after permit issuance, whether work was conducted on a regular basis, and any other relevant facts.
3. If the project is not completed within the six (6) month extension
allowed under subsection 2 above or if the six (6) extension was not provided under subsection 2, a Stop Work Order may be issued on the date of expiration and work shall not recommence until the permit is reactivated and extended. A reactivation and extension may
be issued by the Building Official once a reactivation/extension
Charge equal to one (1) times the original project construction permit fee is paid. A reactivation/extension charge, for purposes of this
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 9
section, is primarily a penalty for failure to complete the project within the allotted time, and secondarily a fee to recover the cost of
providing additional building inspection division services, and is
defined as the subtotal of the building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, grading, and business license fee portions of the original permit. A permit reactivated and extended under this subsection shall be valid for an additional six (6) months beyond the date of its
expiration prior to the reactivation/extension granted pursuant to this
paragraph. 4. If the project is not completed within the six (6) month extension allowed under subsection 3 above, a Stop Work Order may be issued on the date of expiration and work shall not recommence until the
permit is reactivated and extended. Reactivation and extension of the
permit for another six (6) month period shall be allowed only if a Reactivation/Extension Charge equal to three (3) times the original project construction permit fees, as defined in subsection 3 above, is paid. A permit reactivated and extended under this subsection shall
be valid for an additional six (6) months beyond the date of its
expiration prior to the reactivation/extension granted pursuant to this paragraph. 5. If the project is not completed within the six (6) month extension allowed under subsection 4 above, a Stop Work Order shall be issued
and the matter referred to the Town Council for resolution. The
Town Council may reactivate and extend the permit for an additional six (6) months upon submission and acceptance of a completion schedule for the project and payment of five (5) times the original project construction permit fees (as defined in subsection 2 above) as
a Reactivation/Extension Charge. The Town Council may, in its sole
discretion, reduce the reactivation/extension charge based on such reasons as the project's nearness to completion and/or the cause of the delay. 6. If the project is not completed within the six (6) month extension
allowed under subsection 5 above, or pursuant to this subsection 6, a
Stop Work Order shall be issued and the matter referred to the Town Council for resolution. The Town Council may impose additional requirements, such as the retention of a qualified contractor for owner/builder projects or retention of a qualified construction
manager for a contracted project, in order to promote swift
completion. The Town Council may reactivate and extend the permit upon imposition of any such conditions deemed reasonable, and payment of five (5) times the original project construction permit fees (as defined is subsection 3 above) as a Reactivation/Extension
Charge.
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 10
(d) Section R312.1.1 is amended by adding the following sentence at the end of this section:
"Guards are also required at waterfront bulkheads, fixed piers and gangways for
these portions of open-sided walking surfaces only." (e) Section R313.3.1, is amended to add the following to the beginning of the section, to read as follows:
R313.3.1 Where required.
Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this section, provided that where applicable code provisions adopted by the Tiburon Fire Protection District or Southern Marin Fire Protection District are more restrictive, the more restrictive provisions shall
control.
(The remainder of this section is unchanged) (f) Section R319.1 is amended to read as follows: R319.1 Address Numbers. The following standards for address markings shall apply
to residential buildings:
a. All residential structures shall display a street number in a prominent position so that it shall be easily visible from the street. The numerals in these numbers shall be no less than four inches in height, and one-half inch in width, of a color contrasting to the background and located so they may
be clearly seen and read. If a building is not easily visible from the street,
then the numbers are to be mounted at the access drive leading to the building. b. At each vehicular access to a multiple family dwelling complex having four or more buildings, there shall be an illuminated
diagrammatic representation (plot plan) of the complex, which shows
the location of the viewer and the building units within the complex. c. In multiple family dwelling complexes, any building having a separate identifying factor other than the street number shall be clearly identified in the manner described in subsection a. above.
Each individual unit of residence shall have a unit identifying
number, letter, or combination thereof displayed upon the door. d. Maps of the multiple family complex will be furnished to the police department and applicable fire district upon completion of construction. The maps shall include building identification and unit
identification.
e. Buildings shall be numbered in such a manner and sequence as to meet with the approval of the enforcing authority. f. This section shall not prevent supplementary numbering such as reflective numbers on street curbs or decorative numbering, but this
shall be considered supplemental only and shall not satisfy the
requirements of this section.
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 11
(g) Section R905.1 is amended to read as follows: R905.1 Roof covering application. The roof covering on any structure regulated by
this code shall be as specified in California Residential Code Chapter 9 with the
following conditions: 1. All new buildings and new additions shall have at least a Class A-listed or noncombustible roof covering. 2. Where alterations or repairs to existing roofs involve more than fifty percent
of the total area of an existing building within a one-year time period, the
entire roof shall be retrofitted with at least a Class A-listed or noncombustible roof. 3. Where applicable code provisions adopted by the Tiburon Fire Protection District or Southern Marin Fire Protection District are more restrictive, the
more restrictive provisions shall control. 13-4.3 Plumbing Code. The Town Council hereby adopts, for the purpose of providing minimum requirements for the protection of life, limb, health, property, safety and welfare of the general public, that
certain code known as the 2019 2022 California Plumbing Code (based on the 2018 2021
Uniform Plumbing Code), published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, and as amended by the California Building Standards Commission in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 5, hereinafter referred to as the "California Plumbing Code", save and except such portions as are hereinafter amended or
modified by Section 13-4.3.1 of this chapter.
13-4.3.1 Amendments made to the 2019 2022 California Plumbing Code. The 2019 California Plumbing Code is amended as follows: (a) Section 1.8.5.1 is amended to modify the first paragraph to read as follows:
Section 1.8.5.1 General. Subject to the provisions of law, including Section 1822.50
et. seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, officers and agents of the Building Official may enter and inspect public and private properties to secure compliance with the provisions of this code. For limitations and additional information regarding enforcement, see the following:
(The remainder of this section is unchanged)
(b) Section 1.8.8.1 is amended to delete the second paragraph and add the following paragraph to the end of the section: For appeal of non-administrative provisions of the code, the local appeals board and
the housing appeals board shall be the Tiburon Building Code Appeals Board,
except that if required by Health and Safety Code section 19957.5, the local appeals board and the housing appeals board shall be the County of Marin’s Disability Access Appeals Board. The town council shall hear appeals of administrative provisions as generally described in the administrative chapter of this code.
(c) Chapter 1, Division II is amended as follows: (1) Section 101.1 is amended to read as follows:
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 12
These regulations shall be known as the California Plumbing Code, may be cited as such, and will be referred to herein as "this code".
(2) Section 103.1 is amended to add the following sentence at the end of the
section to read as follows: The term "AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION shall mean the Building Official or his duly authorized representative. (4) Section 104.3 is amended to replace the existing first paragraph to read as
follows:
104.3 Application. To obtain a permit, the applicant shall apply to the Authority Having Jurisdiction for that purpose. Every such application shall: (The remainder of this section is unchanged.) (5) Section 104.3.2 is amended to read as follows:
104.3.2 General. Fees shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of
this section and as set forth in the Building Division Fee Schedule adopted by resolution of the town council and amended from time to time. (6) Section 104.5 is amended to read as follows: 104.5 Fees. Any person desiring a permit required by this code shall, at the
time of issuance therefore, pay a fee, which fee shall be as set forth in the
Building Division Fee Schedule adopted by resolution of the town council and amended from time to time. (7) Section 105.2.6 is amended to replace the fourth paragraph with the following:
To obtain re-inspection, the applicant shall first pay the re-inspection fee in
accordance with the Building Division Fee Schedule adopted by resolution of the town council and amended from time to time. (9) Section 203.0 is amended to change the following definition to read as follows:
"AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION". The Authority Having
Jurisdiction shall mean the Building Official or his duly authorized representative. 13-4.4 Electrical Code.
The Town Council hereby adopts, for the purpose of providing minimum requirements for
the protection of life, limb, health, property, safety and welfare of the general public, that certain code known as the 2019 2022 California Electrical Code (based on the National Electrical Code, 2018 2020 Edition) as published by the National Fire Protection Association, and as amended by the California Building Standards Commission in the
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 3, hereinafter referred to as the “California
Electrical Code”, save and except such portions as are hereinafter amended or modified by Section 13-4.4.1 of this chapter. 13-4.4.1 Amendments made to the 2019 2022 California Electrical Code.
The 2019 2022 California Electrical Code is amended or modified as follows:
(a) Section 89.108.4.2 is amended to read as follows:
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 13
89.108.4.2 Fees. Any person desiring a permit required by this code shall, at the time of issuance thereof, pay a fee, which shall be as set forth in the Building
Division Fee Schedule adopted by resolution of the town council and amended from
time to time. (b) Section 89.108.5.1 is amended to modify the first sentence to read as follows: Section 89.108.5.1 General. Subject to other provisions of law, including Section
1822.50 et. seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, officers
and agents of the Building Official may enter and inspect public and private properties to secure compliance with the provisions of this code. (The remainder of this section is unchanged.)
(c) Section 89.108.8.1 is amended by adding the following sentence thereto to the end
of the section: For appeal of non-administrative provisions of the code, the local appeals board and the housing appeals board shall be the Tiburon Building Code Appeals Board, except that if required by Health and Safety Code section 19957.5, the local appeals
board and the housing appeals board shall be the County of Marin’s Disability
Access Appeals Board. The town council shall hear appeals of administrative provisions as generally described in the administrative chapter of this code. (d) Article 100 is amended to change the following definition to read as follows:
Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ)—The Authority Having Jurisdiction shall
mean the Building Official or his or her duly authorized representative. (e) Section 210.12 (D) is amended as follows:
(D) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications- Dwelling Units, Dormitory units, and
Guest Rooms and Guest Suites. The provisions of this section shall apply to existing
dwelling units when electrical service panels or sub-panels are replaced or
upgraded. In any of the areas specified in 210.12(A). (B) or (C) where branch circuit
wiring is modified, replaced, or extended, the branch circuit shall be protected by
one of the following:
(1) A listed combination-type AFCI located at the origin
of the branch circuit By any of the means described in 210.12(A)(1)
through (A) (6).
(2) A listed branch-circuit-type AFCI located at the first receptacle outlet of the
existing branch circuit.
Exception: AFCI protection shall not be required where the extension of the existing branch circuit conductors is not more than 1.8 m (6 ft) and does not include any additional outlets or devices, other than splicing devices. This measurement shall not include the conductors inside an enclosure, cabinet, or junction box.
13-4.5 Fire Code.
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 14
The Town Council hereby adopts, for the purpose of providing minimum requirements for the protection of life, limb, health, property, safety and welfare of the general public, that
certain code known as the 2022 California Fire Code (as adopted and modified by the
current Tiburon Fire Protection District and Southern Marin Fire Protection District ordinances), which Code and ordinances are hereby referred to, ratified, and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. Copies of said code and ordinances are on file and available for public inspection in the office of the town clerk.
13-4.6. Housing Code. The Town Council hereby adopts, for the purpose of providing minimum requirements for the protection of life, limb, health, property, safety and welfare of the general public, that
certain code known as the Uniform Housing Code (1997 Edition, as published by the
International Conference of Building Officials), hereinafter referred to as the "Uniform Housing Code", save and except such portions as are hereinafter changed or modified by Section 13-4.6.1 of this chapter.
13-4.6.1 Amendments made to the 1997 Uniform Housing Code. The 1997 Uniform Housing Code is amended as follows: (a) Section 103 is amended to revise the second sentence of the first paragraph to read as follows:
Such occupancies in existing buildings may be continued as provided by the
California Existing Building Code, as contained in Title 24, Part 10 of the California Code of Regulations, except such structures as are found to be substandard as defined by this code.
(b) Section 104.1 is amended to read as follows:
All buildings or structures that are required to be repaired under the provisions of this code shall be subject to the provisions of the California Existing Building Code, as contained in Title 24, Part 10 of the California Code of Regulations.
(c) Section 201.1 is amended to revise the first paragraph to read as follows:
The Building Official and his designees are hereby authorized and directed to enforce all of the provisions of this code. For such purposes, such officials shall have the powers of law enforcement officers.
(d) Section 201.2 is amended to read as follows:
Whenever necessary to make an inspection to enforce any of the provisions of this title, or whenever the Building Official or his authorized representative has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in any building or upon any premises an immediate threat to health and safety, the Building Official or his authorized
representative may enter such building or premises at all reasonable times to inspect
the same or to perform any duty imposed upon the Building Official by this code; provided, that if such building or premises be occupied he shall first present proper
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 15
credentials and demand entry; and if such building or premises be unoccupied he shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other persons having
charge or control of the building or premises and demand entry. If such entry is
refused, the Building Official, or his authorized representative, shall have recourse to every remedy provided by law to secure entry, including the warrant provisions of Section 1822.50 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California.
(e) Section 203.1 is amended by adding the following sentence to the end of the section
thereto: For appeal of non-administrative provisions of the code, the housing advisory and appeals board shall be the Tiburon Building Code Appeals Board. If required by Health and Safety Code section 19957.5, the housing advisory and appeals board
shall be the County of Marin’s Disability Access Appeals Board. The town council
shall hear appeals of administrative provisions of this code. (f) Section 301 is amended to read as follows: No building or structure regulated by this code shall be erected, constructed,
enlarged altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted or demolished
unless a separate permit for each building or structure has first been obtained as required by the Building Code. (g) Section 302 is deleted.
(h) Section 303 is amended to read as follows: Buildings or structures within the scope of this code and all construction or work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the Building Official as provided by this code and in accordance with the applicable requirements of the
Building Code.
(i) Section 401 is amended to add or change certain definitions as follows: (1) The definition of "Building Code" in Section 401 is amended to read as follows:
BUILDING CODE is the California Building Code as adopted with
amendments by the Town of Tiburon. (2) A definition for "Building Official" is added to Section 401 to read as follows: BUILDING OFFICIAL is the Building Official in the Community
Development Department of the Town of Tiburon.
(3) The definition of "Mechanical Code" in Section 401 is amended to read as follows: MECHANICAL CODE is the California Mechanical Code as adopted with amendments by the Town of Tiburon.
(4) The definition of "Plumbing Code" in Section 401 is amended to read as
follows:
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 16
PLUMBING CODE is the California Plumbing Code as adopted with amendments by the Town of Tiburon.
13-4.7 Mechanical Code. The Town Council hereby adopts, for the purpose of providing minimum requirements for the protection of life, limb, health, property, safety and welfare of the general public, that certain code known as the 2019 2022 California Mechanical Code (based on the Uniform
Mechanical Code, 2018 2021 Edition) as amended by the California Building Standards
Commission in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 4, hereinafter referred to as the "California Mechanical Code", save and except such portions as are hereinafter amended or modified by Section 13-4.7.1 of this chapter.
13-4.7.1 Amendments made to the 2019 2022 California Mechanical Code.
The 2019 California Mechanical Code is amended as follows: (a) Chapter 1, Division I, Section 1.8.8.1 is amended by adding the following sentence to the end of the section thereto: For appeal of non-administrative provisions of the code, the board of appeals shall
be the Tiburon Building Code Appeals Board, except that if required by Health and
Safety Code section 19957.5, the board of appeals shall be the County of Marin’s Disability Access Appeals Board. The town council shall hear appeals of administrative provisions as generally described in the administrative chapter of this code.
(b) Chapter 1, Division II is amended as follows: Section 101.1 is amended to read as follows: These regulations shall be known as the California Mechanical Code, may be cited as such, and will be referred to herein as "this code".
(c) Section 104.3.2 is amended to read as follows: 104.3.2 General. Fees shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of this section and as set forth in the Building Division Fee Schedule adopted by resolution of the town council and amended from time to time.
(d) Section 104.5 is amended to read as follows: 104.5 Fees. Any person desiring a permit required by this code shall, at the time of issuance for the permit, pay a fee, which fee shall be as set forth in the Building Division Fee Schedule adopted by resolution of the town council and amended from
time to time.
(e) Section 105.2.6 is amended to replace the third paragraph with the following: To obtain re-inspection, the applicant shall first pay the re-inspection fee in accordance with the Building Division Fee Schedule adopted by resolution of the
town council and amended from time to time.
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 17
(f) Section 107.1 is amended by adding the following to the end of the existing section thereto:
For appeal of non-administrative provisions of the code, the board of appeals shall
be the Tiburon Building Code Appeals Board, except that if required by Health and Safety Code section 19957.5, the board of appeals shall be the County of Marin’s Disability Access Appeals Board. The town council shall hear appeals of administrative provisions as generally described in the administrative chapter of this
code.
(g) Section 203.0 is amended to change the following definition as follows: The definition of "AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION" is amended to read as follows:
AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION — The Authority Having Jurisdiction
shall mean the Building Official or his duly authorized representative. 13-4.8 Dangerous Building Code. The Dangerous Building Code of the Town shall be the Uniform Code for the Abatement of
Dangerous Buildings (1997 edition, as published by the International Conference of
Building Officials), on file with the office of the Town Clerk, which Code is hereby referred to, adopted and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein, save and except such portions as are hereinafter amended or modified by Section 13-4.8.1 of this chapter.
13-4.8.1 Amendments made to the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. The 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings is amended as follows: (a) Section 103 is amended to read as follows: All buildings or structures which are required to be repaired under the provisions of
this code shall be subject to the provisions of the California Existing Building Code,
as contained in Title 24, Part 10 of the California Code of Regulations. (b) Section 201.3 is amended to read as follows: Whenever necessary to make an inspection to enforce any of the provisions of this
title, or whenever the Building Official or his authorized representative has
reasonable cause to believe that there exists in any building or upon any premises an immediate threat to health and safety, the Building Official or his authorized representative may enter such building or premises at all reasonable times to inspect the same or to perform any duty imposed upon the Building Official by this code;
provided, that if such building or premises be occupied he shall first present proper
credentials and demand entry; and if such building or premises be unoccupied he shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other persons having charge or control of the building or premises and demand entry. If such entry is refused, the Building Official, or his authorized representative, shall have recourse
to every remedy provided by law to secure entry, including the warrant provisions
of Section 1822.50 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California.
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 18
(c) Section 204 is amended to read as follows: All buildings or structures within the scope of this code and all construction or work
for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the Building Official
as provided in this code and in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Building Code. (d) Section 205.1 is amended by adding the following sentence to the end of that
section thereto:
For appeal of non-administrative provisions of the code, the board of appeals shall be the Tiburon Building Code Appeals Board, except that if required by Health and Safety Code section 19957.5, the board of appeals shall be the County of Marin’s Disability Access Appeals Board. The town council shall hear appeals of
administrative provisions of this code.
(e) Section 301 is amended to change certain definitions as follows: (1) The definition of "Building Code" is amended to read as follows: BUILDING CODE is the California Building Code as adopted with
amendments by the Town of Tiburon.
(2) A definition of "Building Official" is added to read as follows: BUILDING OFFICIAL is the Building Official in the Community Development Department of the Town of Tiburon.
13-4.9 Green Building Standards Code.
The Town Council hereby adopts, for the purpose of providing minimum requirements to enhance the public health and welfare and assure that residential and commercial development is consistent with the Town's desire to create a more sustainable community by incorporating green building measures into the design, construction, and maintenance of
buildings and appurtenant development, that certain code known as the California Green
Building Standards Code, 2019 2022 edition (also known as the 2019 2021 CALGreen Code) as published by the California Building Standards Commission in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, herein referred to as the "CALGreen Code," save and except such portions as are hereinafter amended or modified by Section 13-4.9.1 of this
chapter.
13-4.9.1 Amendments made to the 2019 2022 CALGreen Code. The California Green Building Standards Code is amended as follows: (a) For new residential construction only (not including additions), the Town Council
hereby adopts as mandatory measures the following otherwise voluntary divisions
of Appendix A4: 1. Division A4.1 (Planning & Design); 2. Division A4.3 (Water Efficiency & Conservation); 3. Division A4.4 (Material Conservation and Resource Efficiency);
4. Division A4.5 (Environmental Quality); and
5. Division A4.6 (Tier 1 & Tier 2), deleting all Tier 2 measures.
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 19
(b) For new nonresidential construction only (not including additions), the Town Council hereby adopts as mandatory measures the following otherwise voluntary
divisions of Appendix A5:
1. Division A5.1 (Planning & Design); 2. Division A5.3 (Water Efficiency & Conservation); 3. Division A5.4 (Material Conservation and Resource Efficiency); 4. Division A5.5 (Environmental Quality); and
5. Division A5.6 (Tier 1 & Tier 2), deleting all Tier 2 measures.
13-4.10 Energy Code. The Energy Code of the Town shall be the California Energy Code, 2019 2022 edition, and
the appendices thereof, as published by the California Building Standards Commission, on
file with the office of the Town Clerk, which Code and appendices are hereby referred to, adopted and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. 13-4.11 Miscellaneous Portions of the Building Standards Code.
The Town Council hereby adopts, for the purpose of providing minimum requirements for
the protection of life, limb, health, property, safety, and welfare of the general public, 2019 2022 California Building Standards Code Part 8 (Historical Building Code), Part 10 (Existing Building Code), and Part 12 (Referenced Standards Code), said codes being on file with the office of the Town Clerk.
Section 3. Findings Pursuant to Health & Safety Code. A. California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.5, 17958.7, and 18941.5 require
that findings be made in order to change or modify building standards found in the
California Building Standards Code based on local climatic, geologic, or topographic conditions. Therefore, the Town of Tiburon hereby finds that these changes or modifications to the Building Code as adopted herein are reasonably necessary because of the following local climatic, geological and topographical
conditions:
1. Climatic conditions: a. Most of the annual rainfall in Tiburon occurs during the winter, it receives no measurable precipitation between May and October.
During this time, temperatures average between 60 and 85 degrees.
These conditions eliminate most of the moisture in the natural vegetation and heavily wooded hillsides. The area also suffers periodic droughts that can extend the dry periods to other months of the year. These conditions can be further exacerbated by occasional
off-shore hot, dry, Santa-Ana winds.
b. Most of the annual rainfall in Tiburon occurs during the winter, and some portions of Tiburon are subject to tidal influences, there are
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 20
times that flooding conditions occur in low-lying areas. c. Tiburon is situated within a densely populated major metropolitan
area (the San Francisco Bay Area) that generates and releases into
the atmosphere significant quantities of greenhouse gases, which have detrimental effects to the local climate as determined by the State of California.
2. Geologic conditions:
a. Tiburon lies near several earthquake faults, including the very active San Andreas Fault and the Hayward Fault, and there are significant potential hazards such as road closures, fires, collapsed buildings, and isolation of residents requiring assistance.
b. Much of the Downtown commercial area is located on bay alluvial
soils, which are subject to liquefaction in the event of an earthquake. c. Tiburon lies in California Climate Zone 3 which is subject to coastal influence with precipitation in the winter, but with greater rainfall between October and March compared to other areas in Climate Zone 3.
d. The Tiburon peninsula is adjacent to the San Francisco Bay which provides a saltwater environment, higher wind exposure, varying tide rise, and is subject to marine life and environmental protection requirements.
3. Topographic conditions: a. Much of Tiburon is located in steep, hilly areas; many of the residential areas are heavily landscaped; and many exist adjacent to
hilly open space areas which are characterized by dry vegetation and
have limited access. In addition, the steepness of grades located in the hills and dales results in narrow and winding roads, and limited water supply. b. The major arterial route between Tiburon and U. S. Highway 101 is
Tiburon Boulevard (State Highway 131). Should that highway
become impassable, the only alternative roadway on and off the Peninsula is Paradise Drive, a narrow, winding road easily subject to closure in storms and having an extensive history of lane failures due to unstable soils and poor drainage. This would result in traffic
congestion, severely limiting emergency access.
B. Adoption by Reference of Tiburon Fire Protection District and Southern Marin Fire District Findings: The Town Council further adopts by reference all applicable climatic, geological,
and topographical conditions findings of the Tiburon Fire Protection District and the
Southern Marin Fire Protection District in their most recently-enacted ordinances adopting and modifying the California Fire Code and other related codes.
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 21
C. Climatic, geological or topographical conditions necessitates the above mentioned
modified building standards. Refer to the Tiburon Municipal Code Section 13-4 for
specific Title 24, Part and Provisions amended. Section 5. Severability.
If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the
fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be
declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its passage and adoption pursuant to
California Government Code Section 36937, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days
after passage by the Town Council, a copy of the ordinance shall be published with the names of the members voting for and against it at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published in the Town of Tiburon.
This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on October 19, 2022, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on ___________ by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
JON WELNER, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.( ). Effective XX/XX/2022 Page 22
LEA DILENA, TOWN CLERK
EXHIBIT 2
SOUTHERN MARIN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
FIRE PREVENTION
28 Liberty Ship Way Suit 2800 Sausalito, CA 94965 Phone: (415) 615-5535 / Fax: (415) 388-8181
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA TITLE: Southern Marin Fire Protection District (SMFD)
Ordinance 2022/2023-01 Adopting the California Fire
Code with Local Amendments RECOMMEDNED MOTION: Ratification of the Southern Marin Fire District adopting the 2022 California Fire Code, 2021 International Fire Code, and portions of the 2021 International Wildland-
Urban Interface Code and amendments as outlined in local fire protection district ordinance per section 13869.7 of the California Health and Safety Code.
SUMMERY
The Southern Marin Fire District pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code Section 13869.7, 17058.5, 17958.7 and 18941.5(b), is requesting the Tiburon Town Council ratify the SMFD Ordinance 2022/2023-01 related to the 2022 California Fire Code, 2021 International Fire Code and portions of the 2021 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code. Ratification of this ordinance will bring local codes into alignment with State and County codes already established. BACKROUND The Southern Marin Fire Protection District held a public hearing for the adoption of Fire Ordinance 2022/2023-01 on the 28 day of September 2022 at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors. This ordinance adopts by reference the 2022 California Fire Code, which consists of certain portions of the 2021 edition of the International Fire Code as amended by the California Building Standards Commission, and Appendix A of the 2021 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code, with certain amendments regarding fire prevention and fire safety regulations in structures and on property located within the jurisdiction of the Southern Marin Fire Protection District. This adoption process is required of the Southern Marin Fire
Protection District once every three years to stay current with the minimum requirements of the State of California Building and Fire standards as determined by the California Building Standards Commission. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS Other than the new code references, there are only a few changes in the proposed Ordinance language as compared to the last Fire Ordinance 2019/2020-01 adopted by the Southern Marin Fire District Board of Directors and by the Tiburon Town Council in 2019. The Fire Code is arranged and organized to follow sequential steps that generally occur during plan review or inspection. The 2021 International Fire Code (IFC), which California adopts with amendments as the 2022 California Fire Code, has again been
organized into 7 parts. Each part represents a broad subject matter and includes the chapters that logically fit under the subject matter of each part. The 2021 IFC was organized to allow for future chapters to be
conveniently and logically expanded without requiring a major renumbering. Therefore, this code adoption, as in past adoptions, results in some renumbering.
Proposed changes to 2022/2023-01 Ordinance include, but are not limited to:
• Renumbering of some referenced sections to reflect where the sections are found in this current edition of the fire code.
• Adoption of Appendix A of the 2021 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code.
• Adoption of an Amended Appendix BB of the 2022 California Fire Code: Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings, with Modifications and/or Deletions.
• Adoption of Appendix 4 Special detailed requirements based on use and occupancy
• Adoption of Appendix CC Fire Hydrant Locations and Distribution
• Adoption of Appendix E Hazard Categories
• Adoption of Appendix G Cryogenic Fluids - Weight and Volume Equivalents
• Correct the Referenced Sections for Establishing Limits for Storage of Various Hazardous Materials.
• Removed additional operating permits already covered in the existing code adoption.
• Added a Section to Address Required Construction Permits, Local Construction Permits referencing
Exterior Wildfire Protection Systems and Home Backup Generators
• Added Definition of “All Weather Surface”, “Driveway”, ``Exterior Wildfire Protection System”, “Home Backup Generator”, & “Target Hazard”.
• Amended Dimensions for Fire Apparatus Access Roads
• Added Requirements for “Gate Setback Requirements”
• Modified the Requirement for “Fire Hydrant Upgrades” with Exception
• Modified and/or Deleted Sections of Chapter 9 “Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems”.
• Added Sections to Chapter 12 “Energy Systems”
• Added Sections to Chapter 36 “Marinas”
• Added or Modified Sections to Chapter 49 “Requirements for Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas”
• Added or Modified Sections to Chapter 80 “Referenced Standards” This Ordinance will be utilized in full force and effect on January 1, 2023 which is more than thirty (30)
days after its passage and after ratification by the Marin County Board of Supervisors, and the City of Sausalito. A certified copy of the full text of the ordinance is currently available in the office of the Fire District, 28 Liberty Ship Way Suite 2800, Sausalito, CA and is attached to this staff report. ALTERNATIVES The Town Council can draft a letter directed to the Southern Marin Fire District with specific comments persistent to sections of the 2022 California Fire Code or SMFD Ordinance 2022/2023-01 they wish to have reviewed and provide recommendations they wish to be included or changed. FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact to the Town of Tiburon ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – SMFD Ordinance 2022/2023-01 Attachment 2 – SMFD Summary of Ordinance 2022/2023-01
PREPARED BY: Fred Hilliard, Division Chief / Fire Marshal SMFD/MVFD
REVIEWED BY: Chris Tubbs, Fire Chief SMFD/MVFD
1
ORDINANCE NO. 2022/2023-01
AN ORDINANCE OF SOUTHERN MARIN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
ADOPTING AND MODIFYING THE 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE AND
APPENDIX A OF THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL WILDLAND-URBAN
INTERFACE CODE WITH AMENDMENTS SUPPORTED BY LOCAL FINDINGS,
PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS GOVERNING CONDITIONS HAZARDOUS TO
LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM FIRE OR EXPLOSION; PROVIDING FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR HAZARDOUS USES OR OPERATIONS; AND
DEFINING THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE RISK REDUCTION
PREVENTION AND MITIGATION DIVISION AND OFFICERS.
WHEREAS, the Southern Marin Fire Protection District may adopt a fire code by
reference pursuant to Article 2 commencing with Section 50022 of Chapter 1 of
Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 13869, the Southern
Marin Fire Protection District may adopt building standards relating to fire and
panic safety that are more stringent than those building standards adopted by
the State Fire Marshal and contained in the California Building Standards Code
when such modified standards are reasonably necessary because of local
climatic, geological or topographical conditions;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 17958.5, 17958.7, and 18941.5 of the State of
California Health and Safety Code, changes or modifications to the 2022
California Building Standards Code are needed and are reasonably necessary
because of local climatic, geographic and topographic conditions.
WHEREAS, this Ordinance No. 2022/2023-01 was introduced and read by title
only at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Southern Marin Fire Protection
District on the 28th day of September, 2022.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Directors of the Southern
Marin Fire Protection District the following:
SECTION 1. ADOPTION OF 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, and
APPENDIX A of the 2021 INTERNATIONAL WILDLAND
URBAN INTERFACE CODE
The Board of Directors of Southern Marin Fire Protection District hereby adopt,
for the purpose of prescribing regulations governing conditions hazardous to life
and property from fire or explosion the following:
2
A. The 2022 California Fire Code, which consists of certain portions of the
2021 edition of the International Fire Code as amended by the California
Building Standards Commission, including:
1. Appendix 4 SPECIAL DETAILED REQUIREMENTS BASED ON USE
AND OCCUPANCY
2. Appendix B FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS, the
whole thereof, save and except such portions as are hereafter
amended by section 11 of this Ordinance.
3. Appendix BB FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS
4. Appendix C FIRE HYDRANTS LOCATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION
5. Appendix CC FIRE HYDRANTS LOCATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION
6. Appendix E HAZARD CATEGORIES
7. Appendix F HAZARD RANKING
8. Appendix G CRYOGENIC FLUIDS – WEIGHT AND VOLUME
EQUIVALENTS
9. Appendix H HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL INVENTORY STATEMENTS
10. Appendix I FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS- NONCOMPLIANT
CONDITIONS
11. Appendix O TEMPORARY HAUNTED HOUSES, GHOST WALKS AND
SIMILAR AMUSEMENT USES.
B. The International Fire Code published by the International Fire Code
Council, Inc., 2022 Edition hereof and the whole thereof, save and except
such portions as are hereinafter amended, added or deleted by Section 11
of this Ordinance.
C. Appendix A of the 2021 edition of the International Wildland-Urban
Interface Code save and except such portions as are hereinafter deleted,
modified or amended by Section 11 of this Ordinance.
Not less than one (1) copy of the Codes and Standards hereby adopted is filed
in the office of the Fire Marshal of the Southern Marin Fire Protection District,
and the same are hereby adopted and incorporated fully as if set out at length
herein, and from the date on which this Ordinance shall take effect, and the
provisions thereof shall be controlling within the limits of the Southern Marin
Fire Protection District.
SECTION 2. ESTABLISHMENT AND DUTIES OF THE RISK REDUCTION
PREVENTION AND MITIGATION DIVISION
The 2022 California Fire Code, which consists of certain portions of the 2021
edition of the International Fire Code as amended by the California Building
Standards Commission, and Appendix A of the 2021 edition of the International
Wildland-Urban Interface Code as adopted and amended herein, shall be
3
enforced by the Risk Reduction Prevention and Mitigation Division of the
Southern Marin Fire Protection District and shall be operated under the
supervision of the Chief of the Risk Reduction Prevention and Mitigation Division
of the Southern Marin Fire Protection District.
SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS
Wherever they appear in the California and International Fire Codes, unless
otherwise provided, the following words shall have the meanings ascribed to
them in this section:
(a) Whenever the words “Fire Code” are used they shall mean those
Codes and Standards adopted in Section 1 of this Ordinance.
(b) Wherever the term "Counsel" is used in the Fire Code, it shall be
held to mean the attorney for the Southern Marin Fire Protection
District.
(c) Wherever the word "jurisdiction" is used in the Fire Code, it shall
be held to mean the Southern Marin Fire Protection District.
(d) Wherever the words “Fire Code Official” are used in the Fire Code,
they shall be held to mean the Fire Chief or Fire Marshal of the
Risk Reduction Prevention and Mitigation Division of the
Southern Marin Fire Protection District.
SECTION 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF GEOGRAPHIC LIMITS OF DISTRICTS
IN WHICH STORAGE OF CLASS I, CLASS II AND CLASS III
LIQUIDS IN OUTSIDE ABOVEGROUND TANKS IS
PROHIBITED
The geographic limits referred to in Section 5704.2.9.6.1 of the California Fire
Code in which storage of Class I, Class II and Class III liquids in outside
aboveground tanks is prohibited are amended as follows: In all residential areas
and in all heavily populated or congested commercial areas, and agricultural
land of less than two (2) acres as established by the County of Marin, the City of
Sausalito and the Town of Tiburon.
SECTION 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF GEOGRAPHIC LIMITS OF DISTRICTS
INWHICH STORAGE OF CLASS I, CLASS II AND CLASS III
LIQUIDS IN ABOVEGROUND TANKS IS PROHIBITED
The geographic limits referred to in Section 5706.2.4.4 of the California Fire Code
in which storage of Class I, Class II and Class III liquids in aboveground tanks
is prohibited are amended as follows: In all residential areas and in all heavily
4
populated or congested commercial areas, and agricultural land of less than two
(2) acres. as established by County of Marin, the City of Sausalito and the Town
of Tiburon.
SECTION 6. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GEOGRAPHIC LIMITS OF
DISTRICTS IN WHICH THE STORAGE OF STATIONARY
TANKS OF FLAMMABLE CRYOGENIC FLUIDS IS TO BE
PROHIBITED
The geographic limits, referred to in Section 5806.2 of the California Fire Code
in which the storage of flammable cryogenic fluids in stationary containers are
prohibited, are hereby established as follows: In all residential areas and in
heavily populated or congested commercial areas, as established by County of
Marin, the City of Sausalito and the Town of Tiburon.
SECTION 7. ESTABLISHMENTS OF GEOGRAPHIC LIMITS IN WHICH
STORAGE OF LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GASSES IS TO BE
RESTRICTED
The geographic limits referred to in Section 6104.2 of the California Fire Code,
in which storage of liquefied petroleum gas is restricted, are amended as
follows: In all residential areas and in all heavily populated or congested
commercial areas, and agricultural land less than two (2) acres. The aggregate
capacity of any one installation shall not exceed a water capacity of 2,000 gallons
as established by the County of Marin, the City of Sausalito and the Town of
Tiburon.
SECTION 8. ESTABLISHMENT OF GEOGRAPHIC LIMITS OF
DISTRICTS IN WHICH STORAGE OF EXPLOSIVES AND
BLASTING AGENTS IS TO BE PROHIBITED
The geographic limits in which storage of explosives and blasting agents is
prohibited, are as follows: In all residential areas and in heavily populated or
congested commercial areas, and agricultural land of less than two (2) acres as
established by the County of Marin, the City of Sausalito and the Town of
Tiburon.
SECTION 9. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GEOGRAPHIC LIMITS OF
DISTRICTS IN WHICH THE STORAGE OF COMPRESSED
NATURAL GAS IS TO BE PROHIBITED
5
The geographic limits, in which the storage of compressed natural gas is
prohibited, are hereby established as follows: In all residential areas and in
heavily populated or congested commercial areas, and agricultural land of less
than two (2) acres as established by the County of Marin, the City of Sausalito
and the Town of Tiburon.
SECTION 10. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GEOGRAPHIC LIMITS OF
DISTRICTS IN WHICH THE STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS IS TO BE PROHIBITED OR LIMITED
The geographic limits, in which the storage of hazardous materials is prohibited
or limited, are hereby established as follows: In all residential areas and in
heavily populated or congested commercial areas, and agricultural land of less
than two (2) acres as established by County of Marin, the City of Sausalito and
the Town of Tiburon.
SECTION 11. AMENDMENTS MADE TO THE 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE
CODE AND 2021 INTERNATIONAL WILDLAND-URBAN
INTERFACE CODE.
The Southern Marin Fire District Board of Directors hereby finds that local
conditions have an adverse effect on the prevention of (1) major loss fires, (2)
major earthquake damage, and (3) the potential for life and property loss, making
necessary changes or modifications to the, 2022 California Fire Code and the
2022 California Building Standards Code in order to provide a reasonable degree
of property security and fire and life safety in this Fire District.
Specifically, the Southern Marin Fire Protection District Board finds that the
following local conditions make more stringent standards a necessity:
1. Climatic
a. Precipitation. Precipitation ranges from 15 to 42 inches per year with
an average of approximately 39.2 inches per year. Approximately ninety
percent (90%) falls during the months of November through April, and 10%
from May through October.
b. Relative Humidity. Humidity generally ranges from 50% during
daytime to 86% at night. It drops to 20% during the summer months and
occasionally drops lower.
c. Temperatures. Temperatures have been recorded as high as 104
degrees F. Average summer highs are in the 78 degree to 85 degree range.
6
d. Winds. Prevailing winds are from the northwest. However, winds are
experienced from virtually every direction at one time or another.
Velocities are generally in the 5 – 15 mph range, gusting to 7.4 – 30 mph,
particularly during the summer months. Extreme winds, up to 50 mph,
have been known to occur.
e. Summary. These local climatic conditions affect the acceleration,
intensity, and size of fire in the community. Times of little or no rainfall,
of low humidity and high temperatures create extremely hazardous
conditions, particularly as they relate to wood shake and shingle roof fires
and conflagrations. The winds experienced in this area can have a
tremendous impact upon structure fires of buildings in close proximity to
one another, commonly found in Southern Marin. During wood shake and
shingle roof fires, or exposure fires, winds can carry sparks and burning
brands to other structures, thus spreading the fire and causing
conflagrations. In building fires, winds can literally force fires back into
the building and can create a blowtorch effect, in addition to preventing
“natural” ventilation and cross-ventilation efforts.
2. Geographic and Topographic
a. Geography. The fire environment of a community is primarily a
combination of two factors: (1) the area’s physical geographic
characteristics and (2) the historic pattern of urban-suburban
development. These two factors, alone and combined, create a mixture
of environments which ultimately determines the area’s fire protection
needs.
The basic geographical boundaries of the District include the City of
Sausalito to the south, Tamalpais / Homestead Valley to the west, Mill
Valley to the north and Strawberry / Tiburon to the east.
The Fire District is in a unique geographic area, built upon a tree-
covered 980-foot slope with an average grade of 22%. Slopes of 60% are
commonplace. The District is water bound at its base, and along its
ridgeline is a national park area of highly combustible grass, brush,
and trees, mainly eucalyptus.
Lands in the southerly portion of the District were subdivided in 1850,
and in the central and northerly portions in 1870. The structural
buildup occurred between the 1880's and 1920's in many of the
residential areas and the District’s commercial center. The original
construction consists of frame structures built with little or no side yard
setbacks on small, narrow lots typical of that era.
7
Because of the size of the District (20.5 square miles), the
characteristics of the fire environment changes from one location to the
next. Therefore, the District has not a singular environment, but a
number of fire environments, each of which has its individual fire
protection needs.
The domestic water supply is located at the end of the Marin Municipal
Water District's distribution system and consists of five levels of gravity
systems of varying pressures and capacities. Sixteen percent of the
District’s hydrants are rated at less than 500 gallons per minute and,
therefore, are deficient for fire protection.
The service area of the District has a varied topography and vegetative
cover. A conglomeration of bay plains, hills and ridges make up the
terrain. Development has occurred on the flat lands in the central
portion of the District. However, over the last ten years, development
has spread into the surrounding hills and the smaller valleys and
canyons.
b. Seismic Location. The relatively young geological processes that have
created the San Francisco Bay Area are still active today. The District
sits between two active earthquake faults (San Andreas and the
Hayward/-Calaveras) and numerous potentially active faults.
Approximately 50% of the District’s land surface is in the high-to-
moderate seismic hazard zones.
c. Size and Population. The Fire District covers 20.5 square miles
including an urban population estimated at 26,175 and over 11,055
residential and commercial structures. Southern Marin Fire Protection
District is the fourth largest fire department in Marin County. Within
the Fire Protection District are three (3) fire stations and a total of 59
Fire District personnel. The Fire Protection District handles diverse
responsibilities including wildland, urban, freeway, air, water and
emergency paramedical services.
d. Roads and Streets Most of the District’s street and pathway systems
were laid out in the 1870's. Limited off-street parking has been
provided; therefore, many of the District’s streets have less than 20 feet
of unobstructed width and turning radius, as required by the California
Fire Code, Section 503.2. Roadways with less than 20 feet of
unobstructed paved surface are considered hazardous in terms of fire
access and protection.
The roadway systems on the flat lands within the Southern Marin Fire
Protection District are for the most part a grid or loop system.
Roadways with less than 20 feet of unobstructed paved surface, with a
dead-end longer than 150 feet, with a cul-de-sac longer than 800 feet,
8
or with a cul-de-sac diameter less than 68 feet are considered
hazardous in terms of fire access and protection. A large number of
roadways within the District fall into one of the above four categories.
e. Topography. The District’s service area is a conglomeration of bay
plains, hills, valleys and ridges. The flatter lands are found in the
central and eastern portions of the District. Most of the existing urban
and suburbanized areas are built on slopes ranging from 5% – 70%
grades.
Elevations are varied in the District within the Sausalito Marinship area
listed as 18 feet below sea level. Elevations in the Amaranth
development are in the area of 980 feet above sea level.
Correspondingly, there is much diversity in slope percentages with a
large percentage of homes in the 25% to 45% range and the average
slope being 22%. Slope is an important factor in fire spread. As a basic
rule of thumb, the rate of spread will double as the slope percentage
doubles, all other factors remaining the same.
f. Vegetation. Southern Marin Fire Protection District’s semi-arid
Mediterranean-type climate produces vegetation similar to that of most
of Marin County, with specific growth locale a result of topography and
prevailing wind. The south facing exposure is primarily rye grass with
occasional clumps of bay and oak trees in the more sheltered pockets.
The north facing slopes are heavily wooded from lower elevations to
ridge with oak and bay trees and minor shrubs of the general chaparral
class.
Expansion of the residential community into areas of heavier vegetation
has resulted in homes existing in close proximity to dense natural
foliage. Often such dwellings are completely surrounded by highly
combustible vegetation compounding the fire problem from a
conflagration point of view.
A large percentage of the structures in the District have costly shingle
or shake roofs. This very flammable material is susceptible to ignition
by embers from a wildland fire, furthering the spread of fire to adjacent
buildings.
Of the Fire District’s 20.5 square mile service area, approximately 15.8
square miles encompasses the wildland urban interface area.
Proliferation of sudden oak death syndrome has increased the dead fuel
loads in the oak woodlands and bay forests which has significantly
increased fire brand production and crown fire potential within the
wildland urban interface area.
9
g. Summary. The above listed conditions increase the magnitude,
exposure, accessibility problems and fire hazards presented to the Fire
District. The protection of life and property from fire is difficult due to
limited access problems created by water, cliffs, steep slopes, and the
lack of side yard setbacks, as well as the combustible structures and
their roofs.
Fire following an earthquake has the potential of causing greater loss
of life and damage than the earthquake itself. A large percentage of
dwellings in the Fire District have wood shingled roofs.
The majority of the District’s industrial complexes are located in the
highest seismic risk zones. The highest seismic risk zone also contains
the largest concentration of hazardous materials. Hazardous
materials, particularly toxic gasses, could pose the greatest threat to
the largest number, should a significant seismic event occur. The
District’s resources would have to be prioritized to mitigate the greatest
threat and may likely be unavailable for smaller single-dwelling or
structure fires.
Other variables may tend to intensify the situation:
1. The extent of damage to the water system;
2. The extent of isolation due to bridge and/or freeway overpass
collapse;
3. The extent of roadway damage and/or amount of debris blocking the
roadways;
4. Climatic conditions (hot, dry weather with high winds);
5. Time of day will influence the amount of traffic on roadways and
could intensify the risk to life during normal business hours;
6. The availability of timely mutual aid or military assistance;
7. The large portion of dwellings with wood shingle roof coverings could
result in conflagrations.
Conclusion: Local climatic, geographic and topographic conditions impact fire
prevention efforts, and the frequency, spread, acceleration, intensity, and size of
fire involving buildings in this community. Further, they impact potential
damage to all structures from earthquake and subsequent fire. Therefore, it is
found to be reasonably necessary that the International Fire Code, California
Fire Code and the State Building Standards Code be changed or modified to
mitigate the effects of the above conditions.
10
Furthermore, California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7 requires that
the modification or change be expressly marked and identified as to which each
finding refers. Therefore, the Southern Marin Fire Protection District finds that
the following table provides code sections that have been modified pursuant to
Ordinance No. 2019/2020-01, which are building standards as defined in Health
and Safety Code Section 18909, and the associated referenced conditions for
modification due to local climatic, geographical, and topographical reasons.
CA Fire Code Section Number Local followed by corresponding climatic,
geological and topographical condition findings as set forth above:
Section Number: Local Climatic, Geographical and Topographical Conditions:
Chapter 2 DEFINITION
202 1e, 2a, 2b, 2d, 2e, 2f
Chapter 3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
302.1 2b, 2d, 2e, 2g
307.4.4 2b, 2d, 2e, 2g
317.4.4 2b, 2d, 2e, 2g
319 2b, 2d, 2e, 2g
324 2b, 2d, 2e, 2g
Chapter 4 EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS
401.1.1 2c, 2d, 2e, 2g
401.3.2.1-401.3.2.2 2a, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2g
402.1 -403.1.1 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2g
403.9.1.4 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2g
Chapter 5 FIRE SERVICE FEATURES
502.1 2a, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f, 2g
503.1. 2a, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f, 2g
503.1.4 - 503.1.5 2a, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f, 2g
503.2.1. 2a, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f, 2g
503.2.6.1. 2a, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f, 2g
503.4-503.4.2 2a, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f, 2g
503.6.1-503.6.3 2a, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f, 2g
507.5.1-507.5.1.1 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2g
507.5.7 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2g
510.1 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2g
Chapter 9 FIRE PROTECTION AND LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS
901.7 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2g
902.1 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2g
903.2 - 903.2.1 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2g
903.3.9 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2g
903.6.1 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2g
906.11 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2g
907.2.13.1.2 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2g
907.6.6 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2g
907.8.5 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
918 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f
11
Chapter 11 FIRE PROTECTION AND LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS
1103.1 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2g
1103.2 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2g
1103.3 -1103.6.2 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2g
1103.9 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2g
1104 -1105 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2g
Chapter 12 FIRE PROTECTION AND LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS
1201.4-1201.7 2a, 2b, 2c, 2e, 2g
1202.1 2a, 2b, 2c, 2e, 2g
1208 -1208.6 2a, 2b, 2c, 2e, 2g
Chapter 33 FIRE SAFETY UNDER CONSTRUCTION
3314.3- 3315.5 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2g
Chapter 36 MARINAS
3603.6.1-3603.6.2 2a, 2b, 2c, 2e, 2g
3603.8 - 3603.9 2a, 2b, 2c, 2e, 2g
Chapter 49 REQUIREMENTS FOR WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIRE AREAS
4902.1 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2g
4903.2.1 - 4903.2.2 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2g
4906.2 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2g
4906.3 -4906.3.1. 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2g
4906.4.2.1 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2g
4907.2-4907.5 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2g
Chapter 56 EXPLOSIVES AND FIREWORKS
5601.1.3 2a, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2g
5608.1.2-5608.2 2a, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2g
Appendix B 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f, 2g
IWUI Appendix A 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2g
ACCORDINGLY, THE 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE IS AMENDED, ADDED
OR DELETED AS IDENTIFIED HEREIN:
CHAPTER 1
SCOPE AND ADMINISTRATION
Section 101.1 of Chapter 1 is amended to read as follows:
Section 101.1 Title. These regulations and locally adopted standards
shall be known as the Fire Code of the Southern Marin Fire Protection
District hereinafter referred to as “this code.”
Section 102.5 of Chapter 1 is hereby amended to read as follows:
12
Section 102.5 Application of residential code. Where structures are
designed and constructed in accordance with the California Residential
Code, the provisions of this code shall apply as follows:
1. Construction and designed provisions: Provisions of this code
pertaining to the exterior of the structure shall apply including,
but not limited to, premises identification, fire apparatus access
and water supplies. Provisions of this code pertaining to the
interior of the structure when specifically required by this code
including, but not limited to, Section 903.2 and Chapter 12 shall
apply. Where interior or exterior systems or devices are installed,
construction permits required by Section 105.7 of this code shall
also apply
2. Administrative, operational and maintenance provisions of this
code shall apply.
Section 102.7.3 is hereby added to Chapter 1 and shall read as follows:
Section 102.7.3 Nationally Recognized Listed Products. Any installation
of products and equipment due to permits required by this Code shall be
Labeled and Listed, as defined in Section 202.
Section 104.1.1 is hereby added to Chapter 1 and shall read as follows:
Section 104.1.1 Supplemental Rules, Regulations and Standards or
Policies. The Fire Code Official is authorized to render interpretations of
this code and to make and enforce rules and supplemental regulations and
to develop Fire Protection Standards or Policies to carry out the application
and intent of this code.
Section 104.13 is hereby added to Chapter 1 and shall read as follows:
Section 104.13. Fire Prevention Resource Sharing. Other enforcement
agencies shall have authority to render necessary assistance in plan review,
inspection, code interpretation, enforcement, investigation and other fire
prevention services when requested to do so.
Section 105.5 of Chapter 1 is hereby amended by adding the following additional
operational permits:
105.5 Required Operational Permits. The fire code official is authorized
to issue operational permits for operations set forth in Sections 105.6.1
through 105.5.55
13
Section 105.5.55 of Chapter 1 is hereby added to read as follows:
105.5.55 Local Operational Permits. In addition to the permits required by
section 105.5, the following permits shall be obtained from the (Bureau of Fire
prevention/Fire Prevention Division) prior to engaging in the following activities,
operations, practices or functions:
1. Fire Protection Plan. An operational permit is required to implement a fire
protection plan.
2. Radioactive material. An operational permit is required to store or handle
at any installation more than 1 micro curie (37,000 Becquerel) of radioactive
material not contained in a sealed source or more that 1 millicurie
(37,000,000 Becquerel) of radioactive material in a sealed source or sources,
or any amount of radioactive material for which specific license from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission is required.
Section 105.6 of Chapter 1 is hereby amended by adding the following additional
operational permits:
105.6 Required Construction Permits. The fire code official is authorized
to issue construction permits for work as set forth in Sections 105.6.1
through 105.6.25
Section 105.6.25 of Chapter 1 is hereby added to read as follows:
105.6.25 Local Construction Permits. In addition to the permits required by
section 105.6, the following permits shall be obtained from the Fire Prevention
Division prior to installation of the following:
1. Exterior Wildfire Protection Systems. A construction permit is
required for the installation of or design modification to an Exterior Wildfire
Protection System as regulated by section 918.
2. Home Backup Generator. A construction permit is required for the
installation of a home backup generator as regulated by section 1218.
3. Vegetation Management Plan. A construction permit is required to
implement a vegetation management plan.
Section 112.4 of Chapter 1 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 112.4 Violation Penalties. Persons who shall violate a provision
of this code or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements thereof or
who shall erect, install, alter repair or do work in violation of the approved
construction documents or directive of the Fire Code Official, or of a permit
or certificate used under provisions of this code, shall be guilty of a
14
misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $500 dollars or by
imprisonment not exceeding 180 days, or both such fine and
imprisonment. Each day that a violation continues after due notice has
been served shall be deemed a separate offense.
The imposition of one penalty of any violation shall not excuse the violation
or permit it to continue; and all such persons shall be required to correct or
remedy such violations or defects within a reasonable time; and when not
otherwise specified, each day that a violation continues after due notice
has been served shall be deemed a separate offense.
Section 112.4.2 of Chapter 1 is added to read as follows:
Section 112.4.2 Abatement of clearance of brush or vegetative growth
from structures. The executive body is authorized to instruct the Chief to
give notice to the owner of the property upon which conditions regulated by
section 304.1.2 of Chapter 3 and section 4907.4 of Chapter 49 exists to
correct such conditions. If the owner fails to correct such conditions, the
executive body is authorized to cause the same to be done and make the
expense of such correction a lien upon the property where such condition
exists.
Section 113.4 of Chapter 1 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 113.4 Failure to Comply. Any person who shall continue any
work after having been served with a stop work order, except such work
as that person is directed to perform to remove a violation or unsafe
condition, shall be liable to a fine not less than $500 dollars or more than
$1500 dollars.
Section 115 of Chapter 1 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
Section 115 DAMAGES AND EXPENSE RECOVERY
Section 115.1 Damages and Expense Recovery. The expense of securing
any emergency that is within the responsibility for enforcement of the Fire
Chief as given in Section 104 is a charge against the person who caused the
emergency. Damages and expenses incurred by any public agency having
jurisdiction or any public agency assisting the agency having jurisdiction
shall constitute a debt of such person and shall be collectible by the Fire
Chief for proper distribution in the same manner as in the case of an
obligation under contract expressed or implied. Expenses as stated above
shall include, but not be limited to, equipment and personnel committed and
any payments required by the public agency to outside business firms
requested by the public agency to secure the emergency, monitor
remediation, and clean up.
15
CHAPTER 2
DEFINITIONS
Section 202 of Chapter 2 is hereby amended by adding the following general
definition:
ALL WEATHER SURFACE shall mean A/C paving, or concrete capable of
supporting 55,000 gross vehicle weight. Grades up to and including 18%
may be of asphalt or concrete paving. Grades greater than 18% shall be of
ribbed concrete as to allow for water run-off and traction.
Exception: Materials approved by the Fire Code Official.
COVERINGS shall mean materials including, but not limited to gypsum
board, paneling, floorboards, lathe and plaster, wood paneling, brick and
mortar, or other materials attached to rough framing of the building
elements. ‘Coverings’ do not include carpet, linoleum, tile, wallpaper, or
other decorative finishes.
DRIVEWAY is a vehicular ingress/egress access route that serves no more
than 3 dwelling units, not including accessory structures. Driveways shall
provide a minimum unobstructed width 16 feet and a minimum
unobstructed height of 15 feet. Driveways in excess of 150 feet in length
shall be provided with turnarounds. Driveways in excess of 200 feet in
length and less than 20 feet in width shall be provided with turnouts in
addition to turnarounds.
EASEMENT ACCESS An access that allows one or more persons to access
or use or travel across another’s land to reach a nearby location, such as
a road.
EXTERIOR WILDFIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM An approved system of
devices and equipment which is automatically or manually activated to
discharge water and or an approved fire-extinguishing agent onto the
structure and or the exterior of the structure to hydrate the Immediate Zone
0 (0-5 feet from the home, including the home) and the Intermediate Zone 1
(5-30 feet from the home).
FIRE ROAD shall mean those improved or unimproved roads, public or
private, that provide access for firefighting equipment and personnel to
undeveloped areas.
HOME BACKUP GENERATOR. A permanent, fixed installation, internal
combustion engine-driven device that provides temporary electrical power to
a Group R-3 and R-4 Occupancies.
16
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION is modified to include:
[BG] Factory Industrial F-1 Moderate-hazard occupancy is
amended to add to the list of moderate-hazard factory industrial
groups the following:
Agricultural crop production including cultivation, drying, processing
and /or storage.
PRE-PLANS shall mean detailed plans of target hazard buildings. These
pre-plans include information on the building's location, occupancy,
hazards, fire department connections and hydrants, building layout, and
other pertinent data that would assist the fire department in case of an
emergency.
PRIVATE ROADWAYS A road owned and maintained by a private
individual, organization, or company rather than a government agency.
PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY shall mean any business that sells, leases or
rents space to the public that is enclosed, whether it is a building, storage
container or similar configuration.
SPARK ARRESTOR shall mean a chimney device constructed in a skillful-
like manner. The net free area of a spark arrestor shall not be less than four
times the net free area of the outlet of the chimney. The spark arrestor
screen shall have heat and corrosion resistance equivalent to 12-gauge wire,
19-gauge galvanized wire or 24-gauge stainless steel. Opening shall not
permit the passage of spheres having a diameter larger than 1/2 inch and
shall not block the passage of spheres having a diameter of less than 3/8
inch.
SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL shall mean the renovation of any structure,
which combined with any additions to the structure, affects a floor area
which exceeds fifty percent of the existing floor area of the structure within
any 36-month period. When any changes are made in the building, such as
walls, columns, beams or girders, floor or ceiling joists and coverings, roof
rafters, roof diaphragms, foundations, piles or retaining walls or similar
components, the floor area of all rooms affected by such changes shall be
included in computing floor areas for the purposes of applying this definition.
This definition does not apply to the replacement and upgrading of
residential roof coverings.
TARGET HAZARD is defined as a location or plausible scenario in which a
fire department or fire district could quickly become overwhelmed and for
which additional resources, now scarce, would be needed.
TEMPORARY shall mean any use for a period of less than 90 days, where
not otherwise referenced.
17
TENT A structure, enclosure, umbrella structure or shelter with or without
sidewalls or drops, constructed of fabric or pliable material supported by
any manner except by air or the contents that it protects.
UNWARRANTED ALARM shall mean the giving, signaling or transition of
an alarm notification to a public fire station or emergency communication
center when such alarm is the result of a defective condition of an alarm
system, system servicing testing, construction activities, ordinary household
activities, false alarm or other cause when no such danger exists.
CHAPTER 3
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Section 302.1 in Chapter 3 is hereby amended to add the following:
PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY
UNWARRANTED ALARM
Section 307.4.4 is hereby added to Chapter 3 and shall read as follows:
Section 307.4.4 Exterior Fire Features. Exterior fire features, commonly
used in landscape modifications or enhancements, shall be surrounded by
hardscape one and a half times the height of the flame and located ten (10)
feet from the structure. All exterior fire features shall be sourced by natural
gas.
Section 317.4.4 is hereby added to Chapter 3 and shall read as follows:
Section 317.4.4 Maintenance Agreement. Upon the approval of a rooftop
garden or landscaped roof, the fire official shall require a signed
memorandum, constructed by the District, as a Maintenance Agreement
for the proposed roof. The agreement shall require that the vegetation
selected does not display any fire-prone characteristics, including, but not
limited to, oil secretion and debris retainment. The agreement shall require
that in any instance the vegetation is deemed by the Fire Official as
unmaintained, dead, or hazardous to life and safety standards, all
vegetation shall be removed from the roof surface and a Class A roof
covering shall be installed post-removal. The Maintenance Agreement is
required to be returned to the Fire Official and shall be on record for the
duration of the existence of the rooftop garden or landscaped roof.
Section 324 is hereby added to Chapter 3 and shall read as follows:
18
Section 324 Public Storage Facilities
Section 324.1 General. Public Storage Facilities shall comply with the
provisions of this section.
Section 324.2 Location on Property and Fire Resistance of Exterior.
All public storage facilities shall meet the minimum requirements for setback
from property lines or fire resistive construction as set forth in Table 602 of
the Building Code for Group S, Division 1 occupancies.
Section 324.3 Fire Apparatus Access. All public storage facilities shall
have fire apparatus access roads provided in accordance with Section
503.
Section 324.4 Storage of Flammable and Combustible Liquids and
Hazardous Materials. The storage of hazardous materials or flammable
or combustible liquids in public storage facilities is prohibited. Such facilities
shall post legible and durable sign(s) to indicate the same in a manner and
location(s) as specified by the Fire Code Official. This section shall apply to
new and existing public storage facilities.
Exception: Only those quantities of flammable and combustible liquids
necessary for maintenance of the facility may be stored by the facility
management per Chapter 57 of this code.
CHAPTER 4
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS
Section 401.1.1 is hereby added to Chapter 4 and shall read as follows:
Section 401.1.1 Hazardous Occupancies. In occupancies of a hazardous
nature, where access for fire apparatus is unduly difficult, or where special
life and fire safety hazards exist as determined by standards or policies of
the Southern Marin Fire Protection District, that facility or business
management shall be required to develop and implement an Emergency
Response Plan, provide for an on-site Emergency Response Team,
Emergency Liaison Officer, staff training and fire drills in accordance with
Sections 405 and 406 and standards developed by the Southern Marin Fire
Protection District.
Section 401.3.2.1 is hereby added to Chapter 4 and shall read as follows:
Section 401.3.2.1 Unwarranted Alarm Notification. Notification of
emergency responders based on an unwarranted alarm may be punishable
by a fine in accordance with the adopted fee schedule. In addition, the
responsible party may be liable for the operational and administrative
costs, incurred from the emergency response or mitigation procedures
resulting from an unwarranted alarm notification.
19
Section 401.3.2.2 is added to read as follows:
Section 401.3.2.2 Multiple Unwarranted or Nuisance Alarm
Activations. Any occupancy that has more than 3 unwarranted or
nuisance alarms causing emergency response within a 12-month period
may be required to modify, repair, upgrade or replace their system and or
monitoring station as determined by the Fire Code Official.
Section 402.1 of Chapter 4 is hereby amended to add the following:
PRE-PLANS
UNWARRANTED ALARMS
TARGET HAZARDS
Section 403.1.1 is hereby added to Chapter 4 and shall read as follows:
Section 403.1.1 Pre-Plans: When required by the fire code official, pre-plans
shall be developed for target hazard buildings according to the written
standards developed by the authority having jurisdiction.
Section 403.9.1.4 is hereby added to Chapter 4 and shall read as follows:
Emergency Preparedness for Hotels, Lodging and Congregate
Houses. Hotels, lodging and congregate houses shall provide guests with
immediate access to a telephone to report emergencies. The exit diagram
shall indicate the location of the nearest telephone and instructions to dial
911.
CHAPTER 5
FIRE SERVICE FEATURES
Section 502.1 in Chapter 5 is hereby amended to add the following:
DRIVEWAY
Section 503.1. of Chapter 5 is hereby amended as follows:
Section 503.1 Where Required. Fire Apparatus access roads shall be
provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 503.1.1 through
503.1.5.
Section 503.1.4 of Chapter 5 is hereby added to read as follows:
Section 503.1.4 Undeveloped Areas. Fire Apparatus Access Roads,
improved or unimproved, shall be provided for firefighting equipment,
apparatus and personnel to undeveloped areas of the Southern Marin Fire
Protection District so as to gain access to improved, unimproved, and
undeveloped areas of the Southern Marin Fire Protection District in a manner
20
approved by the Fire Code Official. Any vehicle or other obstructions may be
towed away at the owner's expense.
Section 503.1.5 of Chapter 5 is hereby added to read as follows:
Section 503.1.5 Aerial fire apparatus access. Buildings or facilities
exceeding 30 feet or three stories in height, approved aerial apparatus
access roads shall be provided. For the purposes of this section, the highest
rood surface shall be determined by the measurement to the eave of the
pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of
parapet walls, whichever is greater.
Section 503.1.5.1 Width. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a
minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the
immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof.
Section 503.1.5.2 Proximity to building. One or more of the required
access routes meeting this condition shall be located not less than 15 feet
and not more than 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel
to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial
fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code
official.
Section 503.1.5.3 Obstructions. Overhead utility and power lines shall not
be located over the aerial fire apparatus access road or between the aerial
fire apparatus access road and the building. Other obstructions shall be
permitted to be placed with the approval of the fire code official.
Section 503.2.1. of Chapter 5 is hereby amended as follows:
Section 503.2.1 Dimensions. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an
unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm), exclusive of
shoulders, except for approved security gates in accordance with Section
503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 15 feet
(4572 mm).
Section 503.2.6.1. is hereby added to Chapter 5 and shall read as follows:
Section 503.2.6.1 Evaluation and maintenance. All existing private
bridges and elevated surfaces that are a part of the fire department access
roadway shall be evaluated by a California licensed civil engineer
experienced in structural engineering or a California licensed structural
engineer, for safety and weight rating, in accordance with American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Manual: ``The Manual for Bridge Evaluation,'' Second Edition, or other
approved standard. Vehicle load limits shall be posted at both entrances
to bridges. All bridges and elevated structures providing fire department
21
access shall be routinely maintained in accordance with Section 503.2.6 or
when directed by the fire code official or authorized designee.
Section 503.4 of Chapter 5 is amended to read as follows:
Section 503.4 Obstruction of fire apparatus access roads. Fire
apparatus access roads shall not be obstructed in any manner, including
the parking of vehicles. The minimum widths and clearances established
in sections 503.2.1 and 503.2.2 shall be maintained at all times. Any
vehicle or other obstruction may be towed away at the owner’s expense.
Section 503.4.2 is hereby added to read as follows:
503.4.2 Prohibition on Vehicular Parking on Private Access ways. If,
in the judgment of the Fire Code Official, it is necessary to prohibit vehicular
parking along private access ways serving existing facilities, buildings, or
portions of buildings in order to keep them clear and unobstructed for fire
apparatus access, the Fire Code Official may issue an Order to the owner,
lessee or other person in charge of the premises to paint the curbs red or
install signs or other appropriate notices to the effect that parking is
prohibited by Order of the Fire Department. It shall thereafter be unlawful
for such owner, lessee, or other person in charge of the premises to fail to
install, maintain in good condition, the form of notice so prescribed. When
such areas are marked or signed as provided herein, no person shall park
a vehicle adjacent to any such curb or in the private access way contrary to
such markings or signs. Any vehicle so parked in the private access way
may be towed away at the expense of the owner of the vehicle.
Section 503.6.1 is hereby added to Chapter 5 and shall read as follows:
503.6.1 Width. All gates shall open fully to provide an unobstructed
passage width of not less than 16 feet or a minimum of two feet wider than
the approved net clear opening of the required all weather roadway or
driveway and a minimum net vertical clearance of 15 feet.
Section 503.6.2 is hereby added to Chapter 5 and shall read as follows:
Section 503.6.2 Electronic Gates. All electric operated gates shall have
installed an approved key switch override system mounted on a stanchion
or wall as approved by the Chief in accordance with Standards/Policies
adopted by the Fire Code Official. All electronic or motorized gates shall
incorporate in their design the means for fast, effective manual operation of
the gates in the event of power or mechanical failure (i.e., easily removable
hinge pins for separating power linkage from gates; undercut, weakened or
frangible members requiring 40 pounds or less pressure against the gates
to cause their failure and the gates to open. All electrical wiring and
22
components of motorized gates shall be UL listed and installed in
accordance with the National Electric Code.
Section 503.6.3 is hereby added to Chapter 5 and shall read as follows:
Section 503.6.3 Gate Setback Required. Gates shall be set back from
roadways a minimum of 30 feet or more so as not to cause cross traffic to
stop or create a hazardous traffic condition on the roadway approach to the
driveway.
Exception: The fire code official is authorized to modify the setback if fire
apparatus access onto the property is not required to achieve 150-foot
access to the most remote portion of the building per 503.1.1.
Section 506.1 of Chapter 5 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 506.1 Key Entry Systems. When access to or within a structure
or an area is unduly difficult because of secured openings or where
immediate access is necessary for life-saving or firefighting purposes or in
commercial structures that have an automatic fire sprinkler or fire alarm
system installed, the Fire Code Official is authorized to require a key entry
system to be installed in an approved location. The key entry system shall
be of an approved type listed in accordance with UL1037, and if it is a box
shall contain keys necessary to gain access as required by the Fire Code
Official.
Section 507.5.1 of Chapter 5 is hereby amended by deleting exceptions 1 and 2
and shall read as follows:
Section 507.5.1 Where Required. Where a portion of the facility or
building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is
more than 350 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as
measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or
building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required
by the Fire Code Official.
Section 507.5.1.1 of Chapter 5 is amended to read as follows:
Section 507.5.1.1 Hydrant for fire department connections. Buildings
equipped with a water-based fire protection system installed in accordance
with Section 903 through 905 shall have a fire hydrant within 100 feet of
the fire department connections, or as approved by the fire code official.
Section 507.5.7 is hereby added to Chapter 5 and shall read as follows:
Section 507.5.7 Fire Hydrant Upgrades. When additions or modifications
to structures are made, the nearest fire hydrant (if a new one is not required)
23
located by the Fire Code Official, shall be upgraded to the minimum
standard of one 4 1/2” outlet and one 2 1/2” outlet for single family
dwellings and the minimum standard of one 4 1/2” outlet and two 2 1/2”
outlets for commercial structures.
Exception:
1) If the cost of upgrading the fire hydrant exceeds 2% of the cost of
the project based on the building permit valuation.
2) One- and Two-family dwellings equipped throughout with an
approved automatic sprinkler system that includes protection of all
closets and bathrooms.
Section 510.1 of Chapter 5 is hereby amended by deleting Exception 1.
CHAPTER 9
FIRE PROTECTION AND LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS
Section 901.7 of Chapter 9 is hereby amended by adding the following sentence:
Section 901.7 Systems out of Service. Where a required fire protection
system is out of service, the fire department and the fire code official shall
be notified immediately and, where required by the fire code official, the
building shall be either evacuated or an approved fire watch shall be
provided for all occupants left unprotected by the shutdown until the fire
protection system has been returned to service. This section shall also
apply to residential fire sprinkler systems.
Section 902.1 in Chapter 9 is hereby amended to add the following:
EXTERIOR WILDFIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
Section 903.2 of Chapter 9 is repealed in its entirety (with the exception of
subsections 903.2.5, 903.2.6, 903.2.8, 903.2.11, 903.2.12, 903.2.14, 903.2.15,
903.2.16, 903.2.17, 903.2.18, 903.2.19, 903.2.20, 903.2.21 which shall remain
in effect).
Section 903.2 of Chapter 9 is hereby added to read as follows:
Section 903.2 Where required. Approved automatic sprinkler systems in
new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the
locations described in this section 903.2.1 through 903.2.21.
Section 903.2.1 through 903.2.4 of Chapter 9 are hereby added to read as
follows:
24
Section 903.2.1 Required installations. An automatic sprinkler system
shall be installed and maintained in all newly constructed buildings or
structures.
Exceptions:
1. Detached pool houses, workshops, Group U private garages,
barns and similar structures, built in conjunction with existing non-
sprinklered single family residences and provided the new structure
is less than 1,000 square feet and is not intended for use as a
dwelling unit.
2. Detached non-combustible, limited combustible, or fire retardant
treated wood canopies.
3. Group B or M occupancies less than 1000 square feet.
4. Detached restroom facilities associated with golf courses, ball
fields, parks and similar uses as approved by the Fire Code Official.
5. Agricultural buildings as defined in Appendix C of the Building
Code and not exceeding 2000 square feet, having clear unobstructed
side yards free of combustible materials, exceeding 60 feet in all
directions and not exceeding 25 feet in height, located within an
agricultural zoned district as defined in the Marin County Planning
Code.
Section 903.2.2 Additions and Alterations. An automatic sprinkler
system shall be installed in all buildings in excess of 3,000 sq. ft. which
have ten per cent (10%) or more floor area added within any 36-month
period.
Exception: R-3 occupancies. See 903.2.3.
Section 903.2.2.1 Substantial Remodel. An automatic sprinkler system
shall be installed in all buildings which have fifty per cent (50%) or more
floor area added, or any “substantial remodel” as defined in this code,
within any 36-month period.
Section 903.2.3 Group R-3. An automatic sprinkler system installed in
accordance with Section 903.3.1.3 shall be permitted in Group R-3
occupancies and shall be provided throughout all one- and two-family
dwellings regardless of square footage in accordance with the California
Residential Code. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in all
mobile homes, manufactured homes and multi-family manufactured homes
with two or more dwelling units in accordance with Title 25 of the
California Code of Regulations.
25
Section 903.2.4 Change of Occupancy or Use. For any change of
occupancy or use, when the proposed new occupancy classification is
more hazardous based on a fire and life safety evaluation by the Fire Code
Official, including but not limited to conversion of buildings to single family
residences, bed and breakfast, inns, lodging houses or congregate
residences or other similar uses, an automatic sprinkler system shall be
installed throughout.
Section 903.3 of Chapter 9 is hereby amended by adding the following thereto:
The requirements for fire sprinklers in this code section are not meant to
disallow the provisions for area increase, height increase, or Fire-Resistive
substitution if otherwise allowed by sections 504 and 506 of the 2019
California Building Code. All automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be
installed in accordance with the written standards of the Fire Code Official
and the following:
a. In all residential buildings required to be sprinkled any attached
garages shall also be sprinkled, and except for single family
dwellings, in all residential occupancies the attics shall be sprinkled.
b. In all existing buildings, where fire sprinklers are required by
provisions of this code, they shall be extended into all unprotected
areas of the building.
c. All single-family dwellings in excess of 5,000 square feet shall
have automatic fire sprinkler systems designed in accordance with
NFPA Standard 13 or 13R.
d. All public storage facilities shall have installed an approved
automatic fire sprinkler system. An approved wire mesh or other
approved physical barrier shall be installed 18 inches below the
sprinkler head deflector to prevent storage from being placed to
within 18 inches from the bottom of the deflector measured at a
horizontal plane.
Section 903.3.9 of Chapter 9 is hereby amended by replacing item 2 with the
following:
Section 903.3.9 Floor control valves. Floor control valves and water flow
detection assemblies shall be installed at each floor where any of the
following occur:
1. Buildings where the floor level of the highest story is located more
than 30 feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access.
2. Buildings that are two or more stories in height.
26
3. Buildings that are two or more stories below the highest level of fire
department vehicle access.
Exception: Group R-3 and R-3.1 occupancies floor control valves
and water flow detection assemblies shall not be required.
Section 903.6.1 of Chapter 9 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
Section 903.6.1 Application. In all existing buildings, when the addition of
automatic fire sprinklers are required by the provisions of this code,
automatic fire sprinklers shall be extended into all unprotected areas of the
building.
Section 906.11 is hereby added to Chapter 9 and shall read as follows:
Section 906.11 Fire Extinguisher Documentation. The owner and/or
operator of every Group R Division 2 occupancies shall annually provide the
Chief written documentation that fire extinguishers are installed and have
been serviced as required by Title 19 California Code of Regulations when
such extinguishers are installed in residential units in lieu of common areas.
Section 907.2.13.1.2 of Chapter 9 is hereby amended by adding new subsection
3 to read as follows:
4. Duct smoke detectors shall be capable of being reset by a readily
accessible, remote push button or key activated switch as approved
by the Fire Code Official.
Section 907.6.6 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 907.6.6 Monitoring. New and upgraded fire alarm systems
required by this chapter or by the California Building Code shall be
monitored by an approved Central Station in accordance with NFPA 72
and this section.
Exception: Monitoring by central station is not required for:
1. Single- and multiple-station smoke alarms required by Section
907.2.11.
2. Group I-3 occupancies shall be monitored in accordance with
Section 907.2.6.3.
3. Automatic sprinkler systems in one- and two-family dwellings.
Section 907.8.5 of Chapter 9 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
27
Section 907.8.5 Smoke Alarm Documentation. The owner and/or
operator of every Group R Division 1, Division 2, Division 3.1, and Division
4 Occupancies shall annually provide the Fire Code Official with written
documentation that the smoke alarms installed pursuant to the Building
Code have been tested and are operational. If alarms are found to be
inoperable or are missing, such alarms shall be repaired or replaced
immediately.
Section 918 of Chapter 9 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
SECTION 918
EXTERIOR WILDFIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
Section 918.1 of Chapter 9 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
Section 918.1 General. Exterior Wildfire Protection Systems shall comply
with this section.
Section 918.2 of Chapter 9 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
Section 918.2 Construction documents. Documentation of the system
shall be submitted per 901.2.
Section 918.3 of Chapter 9 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
Section 918.3 Permits. Permits shall be required as set forth in section
901.3
CHAPTER 11
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS
Section 1103.1 of Chapter 11 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section1103.1 Required Construction. Existing buildings shall comply
with not less than the minimum provisions specified in Table 1103.1 and
as further enumerated in Sections 1103.2, 1103.7 through 1103.8.5.3,
1103.9.1, and 1103.10.
The provisions of this chapter shall not be constructed to allow the
elimination of fire protection systems or a reduction in the level of fire
safety provided in buildings constructed in accordance with previously
adopted codes.
Exceptions:
28
1. Where a change in fire-resistance rating has been approved in
accordance with Section 501.2 or 802.6 of the California Existing
Building Code.
2. Group U occupancies.
Sections 1103.2 Item #1 is deleted.
Sections 1103.3 through 1103.6.2 are deleted.
Sections 1103.9 is deleted.
Sections 1104 and 1105 are deleted.
CHAPTER 12
ENERGY SYSTEMS
Section 1201.4 of Chapter 12 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
Section 1201.4 Construction Documents. A scaled and dimensioned site
plan showing the location of all energy systems, property lines, buildings,
service and electrical panels, transfer switches, disconnects, underground
wiring and piping, fuel type and piping, map placard and signage. Site Plan
shall clearly designate property frontage for viewer orientation.
Section 1201.5 of Chapter 12 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
Section 1201.5 Signs and Labels. Caution signs or labels are required to
identify the quantity and type of additional power source(s) located on site.
Signs shall be required at the main service panel, and on disconnect
equipment. Additional locations may be required by the fire code official.
Section 1201.6 of Chapter 12 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
Section 1201.6 Disconnect. An approved and readily accessible
independent and clearly labeled single exterior disconnect shall be located
prior to any load/service panel and installed as close as possible to the main
service panel or as approved by the fire code official. Integrated equipment
toggle, rocker, or electronic switches shall not be utilized as an independent
disconnects.
Section 1201.7 of Chapter 12 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
29
Section 1201.7 Operational Testing. New installations shall be tested for
complete power and energy system shutdown. A normal power failure
shall be simulated by closing the main service breaker supplying normal
power to the building. Upon transfer from main power to alternate power
source(s), the single disconnect(s) shall be used to disconnect alternate
power from all alternate energy sources. A successful result of the
shutdown test shall include termination of all alternate energy power
sources serving the building (i.e. main service, photovoltaic system, energy
storage systems, and generators, when installed).
Section 1202.1 in Chapter 12 is hereby amended to add the following:
HOME BACKUP GENERATOR
Section 1208 of Chapter 12 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
SECTION 1208
HOME BACKUP GENERATOR
Section 1208.1 of Chapter 12 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
Section 1208.1 General. The use, operation and maintenance of home
backup generators in Group R-3 and R-4 occupancies shall comply with this
section.
Section 1208.2 of Chapter 12 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
Section 1208.2 Use. Home backup generators shall be installed in
accordance with the California Building Code, the California Electrical Code,
NFPA 110.
Section 1208.3 of Chapter 12 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
Section 1208.3 Permits. Permits shall be obtained for Home Backup
Generators as set forth in Section 105.
Section 1208.4 of Chapter 12 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
Section 1208.4 Installation. Home backup generators shall be installed in
accordance with the California Building Code, the California Electrical Code,
NFPA 110.
Section 1208.5 of Chapter 12 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
30
Section 1208.5 Listing. Home backup generators shall be listed and
labeled in accordance with UL 2200.
Section 1208.6 of Chapter 12 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
Section 1208.6. Maintenance. Home backup generators shall be operated
and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
CHAPTER 26
FUMIGATION AND INSECTICIDAL FOGGING
Chapter 26 is deleted in its entirety.
CHAPTER 33
FIRE SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION
Section 3314.3 of Chapter 33 is amended by adding the following to the end of
the exception:
Exception: Standpipes shall be either temporary or permanent in
nature, and with or without a water supply, provided that such
standpipes comply with the requirements of Section 905 as to capacity,
outlets and materials, as approved by the Fire Code Official.
Section 3315.3 in Chapter 33 is added to read as follows:
Section 3314.3 Where required. In buildings of combustible construction
required to have automatic sprinkler system by Section 903, automatic
sprinkler system shall be installed prior to construction exceeding two
stories in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access.
Such automatic sprinkler system shall be extended as construction
progresses to within one floor of the highest point of construction having
secured decking or flooring.
Section 3315.4 of Chapter 33 is added to read as follows:
Section 3314.4 Buildings being demolished. Where a building is being
demolished and an automatic sprinkler system is existing within such a
building, such automatic sprinkler system shall be maintained in an
operable condition so as to be available for use by the fire department.
Such automatic sprinkler system shall be demolished with the building but
shall not be demolished more than one floor below the floor being
demolished.
31
Section 3315.5 of Chapter 33 is added to read as follows:
Section 3314.5 Detailed requirements. Automatic sprinkler systems
shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of Section 903.
CHAPTER 36
MARINAS
Section 3603.6.1 of Chapter 36 is added to read as follows:
Section 3603.6.1 Width. A minimum width of 36" shall remain
unobstructed on all docs serving more than two vessels.
Section 3603.6.2 of Chapter 36 is added to read as follows:
Section 3603.6.2 Storage. Storage on docks shall be approved by the fire
code official.
Section 3603.8 of Chapter 36 is added to read as follows:
Section 3603.8 Lighting. Electrical lighting shall be provided to ensure
adequate illumination of all exterior areas, piers, and floats.
Section 3603.9 of Chapter 36 is added to read as follows:
Section 3603.9 When Required. The requirements in 3603.6.1 and
3603.6.2 and 3603.8 shall be applied retroactively to all marinas within
six months of the adoption of this code.
CHAPTER 49
REQUIREMENTS FOR WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIRE AREAS
Section 4902.1 of Chapter 49 is amended to read as follows:
FIRE PROTECTION PLAN. A document prepared for a specific project or
development proposed for construction and development in areas
designated as Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), and/or Moderate, High, or
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. It describes ways to minimize and
mitigate potential for loss from wildfire exposure.
WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIRE AREA. A geographical area
identified by the Southern Marin Fire Protection District as a “Fire Hazard
32
Severity Zone” in accordance with the Public Resources Code, Sections
4201 through 4204, and Government Code, Sections 51175 through
51189, or other areas designated by the enforcing agency to be at a
significant risk from wildfires as designated on the map titled Wildland-
Urban Interface Fire Area.
Section 4903.2.1 of Chapter 49 is amended to read as follows:
Section 4903.2.1.1 Preliminary fire protection plan. When a
preliminary fire protection plan is submitted, it shall include, at a
minimum, the following:
1) Total size of the project.
2) Information on the adjoining properties on all sides, including
current land uses, and if known, existing structures and
densities, planned construction, natural vegetation,
environmental restoration plans, roads and parks.
3) A map with all project boundary lines, property lines, slope
contour lines, proposed structure foundation footprints, and
proposed roads and driveways. The map shall identify project
fuel modification zones and method of identifying the fuel
modification zone boundaries.
4) The map shall include all existing emergency water supplies.
Section 4903.2.2 of Chapter 49 is amended to include the following:
The final fire protection plan shall include items listed in Section
4903.2.1.1 and the following:
1) A map identifying all proposed plants in the fuel modification
zones with a legend that includes a symbol for each proposed
plant species. The plan shall include specific information on
each species proposed, including but not limited to:
(a) The plant life-form;
(b) The scientific and common name; and
(c) The expected height and width for mature growth.
2) Identification of irrigated and non-irrigated zones.
3) Requirements for vegetation reduction around emergency
access and evacuation routes.
4) Identification of points of access for equipment and personnel to
maintain vegetation in common areas.
5) Legally binding statements regarding community responsibility
for maintenance of fuel modification zones.
6) Legally binding statements to be included in covenants,
conditions and restrictions regarding property owner
responsibilities for vegetation maintenance
7) Identify the location of fire protection systems or equipment.
8) Identify any power sources, meters, and shut downs.
33
Section 4906.2 of Chapter 49 is amended to read as follows:
Section 4906.2 Application. Buildings and structures located in
any Fire Hazard Severity Zone or any Wildland-Urban Interface
(WUI) Fire Area designated by the enforcing agency shall maintain
the required hazardous vegetation and fuel management per Sections
4906.3 through 4906.5.3.
Section 4906.3 of Chapter 49 is amended to read as follows:
Section 4906.3. Vegetation Management Plan. A Vegetation
Management plan shall be required for new construction, substantial
remodels, and landscape modifications including new plantings,
modifications to existing plantings, and/or excavation.
Section 4906.3.1 of Chapter 49 is deleted in its entirety.
Section 4906.4.2.1 of Chapter 49 is amended to read as follows:
Section 4906.4.2.1 Tree Planting. New trees classified as fire-
resistant vegetation shall be permitted provided the tree is planted
and maintained so that the tree’s drip line at maturity is a minimum
5 feet (9144 mm) from any combustible structure.
Section 4907.2 of Chapter 49 is amended to read as follows:
Section 4907.2 Application. Buildings and structures located in any
Fire Hazard Severity Zone or any Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Area
designated by the enforcing agency shall maintain the required hazardous
vegetation and fuel management:
Section 4907.4 of Chapter 49 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
Section 4907.4 Fire Hazard Reduction. Any person who owns, leases,
controls or maintains any building or structure, vacant lands, open space,
and/or lands within specific Wildland Urban Interface areas of the
jurisdiction of the (Jurisdiction/District), shall comply with the following:
1. Cut and remove all hazardous vegetation and ground coverings within
100 feet of structures, up to 200 feet when topographic or combustible
vegetative types necessitate removal as determined by the Fire Code
Official.
2. Remove accumulated dead vegetation on the property.
3. Cut and remove tree limbs that overhang wood decks and roofs.
34
4. Remove that portion of any tree which extends within 10 feet of any
chimney or stovepipe, roof surfaces and roof gutters
5. Clean any leaves and needles from the roof and gutters.
6. Cut and remove growth less than 3-inches in diameter, from the ground
up to a height of 10 feet, provided that no crown shall be raised to a point
so as to remove branches from more than the lower one-third of the tree’s
total height.
7. Ladder fuels shall be removed within 30 feet of the structure.
8. When required by the Fire Code Official, cut and remove trees that are 6"
of diameter or less at breast height, or four feet, six inches above ground,
to achieve canopy separation within 30 feet of the structure.
9. Clearance of flammable brush or vegetative growth from fire access
roads or driveways. The fire code official is authorized to require, within
10 feet on each side and 15 feet in height of highways, streets, fire
apparatus roads and driveways, to be abated of flammable vegetation
and other combustible growth.
10) Vegetation clearance requirements for new construction and substantial
remodels in Wildland-Urban Interface Areas shall be in accordance with the
2021 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code, as amended by the
Southern Marin Fire Protection District
EXCEPTION 1: When approved by the Fire Code Official, single specimens
of trees, ornamental shrubbery or similar plants, or plants used as ground
covers, provided that they do not form a means of rapidly transmitting fire
from the native growth to any structure.
EXCEPTION 2: When approved by the Fire Code Official, grass and other
vegetation located more than 30 feet (9144 mm) from buildings or structures
less than 18 inches (457 mm) in height above the ground need not be
removed where necessary to stabilize soil and prevent erosion.
Section 4907.5 of Chapter 49 is hereby added and shall read as follows:
Section 4907.5 Fire Hazard Reduction from Roadways. The Fire Code
Official is authorized to cause areas within 10 feet (3048 cm) on each side
of portions of highways, fire apparatus access roads (improved or
unimproved), and driveways (improved or unimproved), which are improved,
designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic to be cleared of flammable
vegetation and other combustible growth. Corrective action, if necessary,
35
shall be the same as the actions required in section 4907.4. The Fire Code
Official is authorized to enter upon private property to carry out this work.
EXCEPTION 1: When approved by the Fire Code Official, single
specimens of trees, ornamental shrubbery or similar plants, or plants
used as ground covers, provided that they do not form a means of
rapidly transmitting fire from the native growth to any structure.
CHAPTER 56
EXPLOSIVES AND FIREWORKS
Section 5601.1.3 of Chapter 56 Exceptions 1, 2, and 4 are hereby deleted.
Section 5608.1.2 of Chapter is added to read as follows:
Section 5608.1.2 Permit required. A permit shall be obtained from
the fire code official in accordance with Section 105.6 prior to the
performance of any firework display. Application for such approval
shall be made in writing no less than twenty (20) days prior to the
proposed display. The application shall be considered and acted
upon by the fire code official or authorized designee pursuant to this
Chapter and Title 19, Chapter 6, Article 3 - Licenses of the California
Code of Regulations. Any permit for a fireworks display may be
suspended or revoked at any time by the Fire code official or
authorized designee.
Section 5608.2 of Chapter 56 is added to read as follows:
Section 5608.2 Limitations. Possession, storage, offer or expose for
sale, sell at retail, gift or give away, use, explode, discharge, or in
any manner dispose of fireworks is prohibited within the limits
established by law as the limits of the districts in which such
possession, storage, offer or exposure for sale, retail sale, gifting,
use, explosion, discharge, or disposal of fireworks is prohibited in
any area as established by applicable land-use and zoning
standards.
Exception: Firework displays authorized pursuant to section
5608.1 for which a permit has been issued.
CHAPTER 80
REFERENCED STANDARDS
California Fire Code, Chapter 80 is amended as follows:
36
NFPA 1: Fire Code
Add Chapter 38: Cannabis Growing, Processing, or Extraction Facilities.
NFPA 13-22: Standard for the installation of Sprinkler Systems
*NFPA 13, Amended Sections as follows:
Revise Section 29.4.1 as follows:
29.4.1 The installing contractor shall identify a hydraulically designed
sprinkler system with permanently raised, stamped or etched
weatherproof metal or rigid plastic sign secured with corrosion resistant
wire, chain, or other approved means. Such signs shall be placed at the
alarm valve, dry pipe valve, pre-action valve, or deluge valve supplying
the corresponding hydraulically designed area. Pipe schedule systems
shall be provided with a sign indicating that the system was designed and
installed as a pipe schedule system and the hazard classification(s)
included in the design.
303-21: Fire Protection Standard for Marinas and Boatyards
APPENDIX B
FIRE-FLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS
California Fire Code, Appendix B Table B105.1(1) is amended to read as
follows:
TABLE B105.1(1)
REQUIRED FIRE-FLOW FOR ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, GROUP
R-3 AND R-4 BUILDINGS AND TOWNHOUSES
FIRE-FLOW
CALCULATION
AREA
(square feet)
AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER
SYSTEM
(Design Standard)
MINIMUM FIRE-
FLOW
(gallons per
minute)
FLOW DURATION
(hours)
0-3,600 No automatic sprinkler system 1,500 2
3,601 and greater No automatic sprinkler system Value in
Table B105.1(2)
Duration in Table
B105.1(2) at
The required fire-flow
rate
0-3,600 Section 903.3.1.3 of the California
Fire Code
or Section 313.3 of the California
Residential Code
1000 1
3,601 and greater Section 903.3.1.3 of the California
Fire Code
or Section 313.3 of the California
Residential Code
½ value in
Table B105.1(2)a
Duration in Table
B105.1(2) at
The required fire-flow
rate
For SI: 1 square foot = 0.0929 m2, 1 gallon per minute = 3.785 L/m.
a. The reduced fire-flow shall be not less than 1,000 gallons per minute.
37
Appendix B Table B105.2 is amended to read as follows:
TABLE B105.2
REQUIRED FIRE-FLOW FOR BUILDINGS OTHER THAN ONE- AND
TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, GROUP R-3 AND R-4 BUILDINGS AND
TOWNHOUSES
AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER
SYSTEM
(Design Standard)
MINIMUM FIRE-
FLOW
(gallons per minute)
FLOW DURATION
(hours)
No automatic sprinkler system Value in Table
B105.1(2)
Duration in Table B105.1(2)
Section 903.3.1.1 of the
California Fire Code
50% of the value in
Table B105.1(2)a
Duration in Table B105.1(2) at the
reduced flow rate
Section 903.3.1.2 of the
California Fire Code
50% of the value in
Table B105.1(2)a
Duration in Table B105.1(2) at the
reduced flow rate
For SI: 1 gallon per minute = 3.785 L/m.
a. The reduced fire-flow shall be not less than 1,500 gallons per minute.
APPENDIX C
FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION
Section C103.1 of Appendix C is amended to read as follows:
Section C103.1 Hydrant spacing. Fire apparatus access roads and
public streets providing required access to buildings in accordance
with Section 503 of the California Fire Code shall be provided with
one or more fire hydrants, as determined by Section C102.1. Where
more than one fire hydrant is required, the distance between
required fire hydrants shall be approved by the fire code official.
Section C103.2 of Appendix C is deleted.
Section C103.3 of Appendix C is deleted.
INTERNATIONAL WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE
APPENDIX A
Section A104.7.2 of Appendix A of the International Wildland-Urban Interface
Code is amended to read as follows:
Section A104.7.2 Permits. The Fire Code Official is authorized to stipulate
conditions for permits. Permits shall not be issued when public safety would
be at risk, as determined by the Fire Code Official.
Section A104.11 of Appendix A of the International Wildland-Urban Interface
Code is hereby added and shall read as follows:
38
Section A104.11 – Tracer Bullets, Tracer Charges, Rockets and Model
Aircraft. Tracer bullets and tracer charges shall not be possessed, fired or
caused to be fired into or across hazardous fire areas. Rockets, model
planes, gliders and balloons powered with an engine, propellant or other
feature liable to start or cause a fire shall not be fired or projected into or
across hazardous fire areas.
Section A104.12 of Appendix A of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code is
hereby added and shall read as follows:
Section A104.12 Explosives and Blasting. Explosives shall not be
possessed, kept, stored, sold, offered for sale, given away, used,
discharged, transported or disposed of within hazardous fire areas except
by permit from the Fire Code Official.
Section A104.13 of Appendix A of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code is
hereby added and shall read as follows:
Section A104.13 APIARIES. Lighted or smoldering material shall not be
used in connection with smoking bees in or upon hazardous fire areas
except by permit from the Fire Code Official.
SECTION 12. AUTHORITY TO ARREST AND ISSUE CITATIONS
The Fire Chief, Chief Officers, Fire Marshal, Deputy Fire Marshal, and Fire
Inspectors shall have authority to arrest or to cite any person who violates any
provision of this Chapter involving the Fire Code or the California Building
Standards Code regulations relating to fire and panic safety as adopted by the
State Fire Marshal, in the manner provided for the arrest or release on citation
and notice to appear with respect to misdemeanors or infractions, as prescribed
by Chapters 5, 5c and 5d of Title 3, Part 2 of the California Penal Code, including
Section 853.6, or as the same hereafter may be amended.
It is the intent of the Board of Directors of the Southern Marin Fire Protection
District that the immunities provided in Penal Code Section 836.5 be applicable
to aforementioned officers and employees exercising their arrest or citation
authority within the course and scope of their employment pursuant to this
Chapter.
SECTION 13. PENALTIES
A. Violations of the Fire Code as adopted herein are misdemeanors/infractions
and are subject to the penalties set forth herein.
39
B. If a criminal citation is issued, penalties shall be per Section 109 of the
California Fire Code and 109.4, or 111.4 of Section 11 of this ordinance. If
an administrative citation is issued, the penalties are as follows:
1) The first citation, within a 12-month period, for violations of the Fire Code
and any amendments adopted herein, shall be treated as a Civil Penalty
payable directly to the Southern Marin Fire Protection District and is set
at $250 plus the actual costs of all inspections required to gain compliance
at the rate set from time to time by the Southern Marin Fire Protection
District. Said civil penalties shall be a debt owed to the District by the
person responsible for the violation within thirty (30) days after the date
of mailing of the citation unless an appeal is filed as provided in Section
14. Upon failure to pay the civil penalty when due, the responsible person
shall be liable in a civil action brought by the Southern Marin Fire
Protection District for such civil penalty and costs of the litigation,
including reasonable attorney’s fees.
2) Any subsequent citations within a twelve (12) month period for any
violations of the Fire Code and any amendments adopted herein shall be
misdemeanors/infractions and shall be subject to the penalties set forth
herein.
3) The imposition of a penalty for any violation shall not excuse the violation
or permit it to continue, and all such persons shall be required to correct
or remedy such violations or defects within a reasonable time and, when
not otherwise specified, each day that a violation occurs or continues after
a final notice has been delivered, shall constitute a separate offense. The
application of both penalties shall not be held to prevent the enforced
correction of prohibited conditions.
4) Nothing contained in Subsections (a) through (e) of this Section shall be
construed or interpreted to prevent the Southern Marin Fire Protection
District from recovering all costs associated with a Fire District response
as described in Section 104.12 of the 2022 California Fire Code as
amended.
5) Any violation of any provision of this Chapter shall constitute a public
nuisance and shall entitle the Southern Marin Fire Protection District to
collect the costs of abatement and related administrative costs by a
nuisance abatement lien as more particularly set forth in Government
Code Section 38773.1, and by special assessment to be collected by the
County Tax Collector as more particularly set forth in Government Code
Section 38773.5. At least thirty (30) days prior to recordation of the lien,
or submission of the report to the Tax Collector for collection of this special
assessment, the record owner shall receive notice from the Chief of the
Southern Marin Fire Protection District intent to charge the property
owner for all administrative costs associated with enforcement of this
Ordinance and abatement of the nuisance. The notice shall include a
40
summary of costs associated with enforcement of this Ordinance and
abatement of the nuisance. The property owner may appeal the Chief’s
decision to the Board of Directors of the Southern Marin Fire Protection
District within fifteen (15) days of the date of the notice and request a
public hearing prior to recordation of the lien or submission of the report
to the County Tax Collector for collection of the special assessment. In
addition to the foregoing, the Southern Marin Fire Protection District is
authorized to prosecute a civil action to collect such abatement costs from
the property owner or other person in possession or control of the affected
property, and shall be entitled to recover such abatement costs, together
with the cost of litigation, including reasonable attorney’s fees. The
provisions of this section shall also apply to corrective actions for the
clearance of brush or vegetative growth from structures as outlined in
section 109.3.2.
SECTION 14. APPEALS
A. Any person receiving a citation for a civil penalty pursuant to Subsection (b)
of Section 13 or a bill for Southern Marin Fire Protection District response
costs and expenses pursuant to Section 104.12 of the Fire Code, may file
within thirty (30) days after the date of mailing the citation or bill, an
administrative appeal against imposition of the civil penalty or response costs
and expense. The appeal shall be in writing and filed with the Fire Chief and
shall include a copy of the bill and statement of the grounds for appeal. The
Fire Chief shall conduct an administrative hearing on the appeal, after giving
the appellant at least ten (10) days’ advance written notice of the time and
place of the hearing. Within ten (10) days after the hearing the Chief shall
give written notice of the decision to the appellant, which decision shall be
final. If the appeal is denied in part or full, all amounts due shall be paid
within thirty (30) days after the mailing of the notice of the decision of the
hearing officer.
B. Whenever the Chief shall disapprove an application or refuse to grant a permit
applied for, or when it is claimed that the provisions of the code do not apply
or that the true intent and meaning of the code have been misconstrued or
wrongly interpreted, the applicant may appeal from the decision of the Chief
to the Board of Directors of the Southern Marin Fire Protection District within
10 days from the date of the decision. The provision of this section shall not
apply to corrective actions for the clearance of brush or vegetative growth from
structures as outlined in various sections of this Code, or to matters for which
an appeal is provided pursuant to Section 14 (a) above.
SECTION 15. FORMER ORDINANCES
All former ordinances or parts thereof conflicting or inconsistent with the
provisions of this Ordinance or the Code hereby adopted are hereby repealed.
41
SECTION 16. VALIDITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for
any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portion of this Ordinance. The Board of Directors of the Southern
Marin Fire Protection District hereby declares that it would have adopted the
Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences,
clauses or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases shall be declared invalid.
SECTION 17. ORDINANCE PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE
A summary of this Ordinance shall be published and a certified copy of the full
text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the Southern Marin Fire
Protection District Clerk at least five (5) days prior to the City of Sausalito, City
Council meeting at which it is adopted.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its final
passage, and the summary of this Ordinance shall be published within fifteen
(15) days after the adoption, together with the names of the City Council
members voting for or against same, in the Marin IJ, a newspaper of general
circulation in the County of Marin, State of California.
SECTION 18. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The Board of Directors of the Southern Marin Fire Protection District finds that
adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (“CEQA”) under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15061(b)(3).
Within fifteen (15) days after adoption, the (Southern Marin Fire Protection
District) Clerk shall also post in the office of the (Southern Marin Fire
Protection District) Clerk, a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance
along with the names of those Board of Directors/Supervisors members voting
for and against the Ordinance.
The foregoing Ordinance No. 2022/2023-01 was read and introduced at a
Regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Southern Marin Fire Protection
District held on the 28th day of September, 2022, and ordered passed to print
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Board Members: Perazzo, DeBerry, Fleming, Hilliard, Willis
NOES: Board Members: None
ABSTAIN: Board Members: None
ABSENT: Board Members: Raveche, Chun
SOUTHERN MARIN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
FIRE PREVENTION
28 Liberty Ship Way Suit 2800 Sausalito, CA 94965 Phone: (415) 615-5535 / Fax: (415) 388-8181
ATTACHMENT 2 – SUMMERY TEXT OF SMFD ORDINANCE 2022/2023-01
The Sections of the Ordinance are summarized as follows: Section 1 Adopts the 2022 California Fire Code, which consists of certain portions of the 2021 edition of the International Fire Code as amended by the Building Standards
commission and appendix A of the 2021 edition of the International Wildland
Urban Interface Code.
Section 2 Establishes a Risk Reduction Prevention and Mitigation Division of the District and establishes duties and enforcement authority under the supervision of the Chief of the Risk Reduction Prevention and Mitigation Division.
Section 3 Adds specific definitions and meanings ascribed to them including Fire Code,
Jurisdiction, District Counsel, Fire Code Official, and Fire Marshal of the Risk Reduction Prevention and Mitigation Division.
Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Establishes areas in which storage of flammable or combustible liquids in outside
above ground tanks is prohibited; establishes areas in which storage of liquefied
petroleum gasses is to be restricted; establishes areas in which storage of explosives and blasting agents is to be prohibited; establishes areas in which the storage of compressed natural gas is to be prohibited; establishes areas in which the storage of stationary tanks of flammable cryogenic fluids is to be prohibited; and
establishes areas in which the storage of hazardous materials is to be prohibited or
limited.
Section 11 Specific Findings of Fact are located in this section. The District Board finds that local conditions have an adverse effect on the prevention of (1) major loss fires, (2) major earthquake damage, and (3) the potential for life and property loss, making
necessary changes or modifications to the 2021 International Fire Code, 2022
California Fire Code and the 2022 California Building Standards Code in order to provide a reasonable degree of property security and fire and life safety in this Fire District.
Amends several specific sections of the 2022 California Fire Code and Appendix
A of the 2021 edition of the International Fire Code: Permits; liability for incidents;
enforcement authority; emergency access for Fire District personnel to buildings and properties; fire alarm and protection systems; fire hydrant upgrades; fire sprinkler systems; public storage facilities; fire apparatus access roads; smoke
detector and fire extinguisher documentation; parking of tank trucks transporting hazardous and flammable materials; and corrective action requirements.
Section 12 Designates Chief Officers and other Fire District personnel specific authority to
arrest and issue citations for violations of the International Fire Code and California Fire Code.
Sections 13 Describes the penalties and procedures for issuing citations; imposition of penalties; provisions which constitute public nuisance and entitlements and
collections of abatement and administrative costs by means of nuisance abatement
lien.
Section 14 Describes the appeals process for any person(s) receiving a citation(s) for a civil penalty or a bill for response costs and expenses.
Sections 15, 16, and 17
Describes administrative provisions, validating and Ordinance publication date.
Section 18 Describes compliance with California Environmental Quality Act.
PREPARED BY: Fred Hilliard, Division Chief / Fire Marshal SMFD/MVFD
REVIEWED BY: Chris Tubbs, Fire Chief SMFD/MVFD
EXHIBIT 3
• Adoption of Appendix A of the 2021 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code.
• Adoption of an amended Appendix B of the 2021 California Fire Code: Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings, with modifications and/or deletions.
• Adoption of Appendix 4 Special detailed requirements based on use and occupancy
• Adoption of Appendix CC Fire Hydrant Locations and Distribution
• Adoption of Appendix E Hazard Categories
• Adoption of Appendix G Cryogenic Fluids - Weight and Volume Equivalents
• Correct the Referenced Sections for Establishing Limits for Storage of Various Hazardous Materials.
• Removed additional operating permits already covered in the existing code adoption.
• Added a Section to Address Required Construction Permits, Local Construction Permits referencing Exterior Wildfire Protection Systems and Home Backup Generators
• Added Definition of “All Weather Surface”, “Driveway”, ``Exterior Wildfire Protection
System”, “Home Backup Generator”, & “Target Hazard”.
• Amended Dimensions for Fire Apparatus Access Roads
• Added Requirements for “Gate Setback Requirements”
• Modified the Requirement for “Fire Hydrant Upgrades” with Exception
• Modified and/or Deleted Sections of Chapter 9 “Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems”.
• Added Sections to Chapter 12 “Energy Systems”
• Added Sections to Chapter 36 “Marinas”
• Added or Modified Sections to Chapter 49 “Requirements for Wildland-Urban Interface
Fire Areas”
• Added or Modified Sections to Chapter 80 “Referenced Standards”
The Sections of the Ordinance are summarized as follows: Section 1 Adopts the 2022 California Fire Code, which consists of certain portions of the
2021 edition of the International Fire Code as amended by the Building Standards commission
and appendix A of the of the 2021 edition of the International Wildland Urban Interface Code.
Section 2 Establishes a Community Risk Reduction and Fire Prevention Bureau of the
District and establishes duties and enforcement authority under the supervision of the Fire
Marshal of the Community Risk Reduction and Fire Prevention Bureau
Section 3 Adds specific definitions and meanings ascribed to them including Fire Code,
Jurisdiction, District Counsel, Fire Code Official, and Fire Marshal of the Community Risk
Reduction and Fire Prevention Bureau.
Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Establishes areas in which storage of flammable or combustible
liquids in outside above ground tanks is prohibited; establishes areas in which storage of
liquefied petroleum gases is to be restricted; establishes areas in which storage of explosives
and blasting agents is to be prohibited; establishes areas in which the storage of compressed
natural gas is to be prohibited; establishes areas in which the storage of stationary tanks of
flammable cryogenic fluids is to be prohibited; and establishes areas in which the storage of
hazardous materials is to be prohibited or limited.
Section 11 Specific Findings of Fact are located in this section. The District Board finds that
local conditions have an adverse effect on the prevention of (1) major loss fires, (2) major
earthquake damage, and (3) the potential for life and property loss, making necessary changes
or modifications to the 2021 International Fire Code, 2022 California Fire Code and the 2022
California Building Standards Code in order to provide a reasonable degree of property security
and fire and life safety in this Fire District.
Amends several specific sections of the 2022 California Fire Code and Appendix A of the 2021
edition of the International Fire Code: Permits; liability for incidents; enforcement authority;
emergency access for Fire District personnel to buildings and properties; fire alarm and
protection systems; fire hydrant upgrades; fire sprinkler systems; public storage facilities; fire
apparatus access roads; smoke detector and fire extinguisher documentation; parking of tank
trucks transporting hazardous and flammable materials; and corrective action requirements.
Section 12 Designates the Fire Marshal and other Fire District officer’s specific authority to
arrest and issue citations for violations of the International Fire Code and California Fire Code.
Sections 13 Describes the penalties and procedures for issuing citations; imposition of
penalties; provisions which constitute public nuisance and entitlements and collections of
abatement and administrative costs by means of nuisance abatement lien.
Section 14 Describes the appeals process for any person(s) receiving a citation(s) for a civil
penalty or a bill for response costs and expenses.
Sections 15, 16, and 17 Describes administrative provisions; validating and Ordinance
publication date.
Section 18 Describes compliance with California Environmental Quality Act.
This Ordinance will be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and after
ratification by the Marin County Board of Supervisors, the City of Belvedere and the Town of
Tiburon.
EXHIBIT 4
2019 Changes to Section 105.5
(3) Section 105.5 is amended to read as follows:
Section 105.5 Expiration.
1. All permits issued by the Building Official shall expire by limitation and become null and void
eighteen (18) months from the date the permit is issued. except as follows:
a. In instances where the project is unusually large or complex, a twenty‐four (24) month
permit may be issued in the reasonable discretion of the Building Official at the time of initial
issuance; or
b.
2. In instances where the permittee has proceeded with due diligence and made substantial
progress but is unable to complete the project because of unforeseen circumstances beyond
the control of the permittee, one extension of up to six (6) months may be granted, without
payment of additional charges or penalties. In determining whether due diligence has been
exercised, the Building Official shall consider whether work began promptly after permit
issuance, whether work was conducted on a regular basis and any other relevant facts.
2. 3. Once the initial permit and/or approved six (6) month extension has expired, If the project
is not completed within the six (6) month extension allowed under subsection 2 above or if the
six (6) extension was not provided under subsection 2 a Stop Work Order shall may be issued
and work shall not recommence until the permit is reactivated and extended. A reactivation
and extension shall be allowed only if there have been no substantive changes to the approved
plans and specifications and a reactivation/extension charge equal to original project
construction permit fees is paid. one (1) times original project construction permit fees is paid.
A reactivation/extension charge, for purposes of this section, is primarily a penalty for failure to
complete the project within the allotted time, and secondarily a fee to recover the cost of
providing additional building inspection division services, and is defined as the subtotal of the
building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, grading, and business license fee portions of the
original permit. A permit reactivated and extended under this subsection shall be valid for an
additional six (6) months beyond the date of its expiration prior to the reactivation/extension
granted pursuant to this paragraph.
3. 4. If the project is not completed within the six (6) month extension allowed under
subsection 2 3 above, a Stop Work Order shall may be issued on the date of expiration and
work shall not recommence until the permit is reactivated and extended. A reactivation and
extension of the permit for another six (6) month period shall be allowed only if there have
been no substantive changes in the approved plans and specifications and a
reactivation/extension charge equal to three (3) times the original project construction permit
fees, as defined in subsection 2 3 above, is paid. The Building Official may, in his sole discretion,
reduce the penalty based on such reasons as the project's nearness to completion and/or the
cause of the delay. A permit reactivated and extended under this subsection shall be valid for
an additional six (6) months beyond the date of its expiration prior to the
reactivation/extension granted pursuant to this paragraph.
4. 5. If the project is not completed within the six (6) month extension allowed under
subsection 3 4 above, a Stop Work Order shall be issued and the matter referred to the town
council for resolution. The town council may reactivate and extend the permit for an additional
six (6) months upon submission and acceptance of a completion schedule for the project and
payment of five (5) times the original project construction permit fees (as defined in subsection
2 above) as a Reactivation/Extension Charge, . and provided that there have been no
substantive changes in the approved plans and specifications. The town council may, in its sole
discretion, reduce the reactivation/extension charge based on such reasons as the project's
nearness to completion and/or the cause of the delay.
5. 6. If the project is not completed within the six (6) month extension allowed under
subsection 4 above, or pursuant to this subsection 5 , a Stop Work Order shall be issued and the
matter referred to the town council for resolution. The town council may impose additional
requirements, such as the retention of a qualified contractor for owner/builder projects or
retention of a qualified construction manager for a contracted project, in order to promote
swift completion. The town council may reactivate and extend the permit upon imposition of
any such conditions deemed reasonable, and payment of five (5) times the original project
construction permit fees (as defined is subsection 2 above) as a reactivation/extension Charge.
provided that there have been no substantive changes in the approved plans and
specifications. If subsequent extensions are necessary Town Council shall determine
appropriate fees and conditions.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 10
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Community Development Department
Subject: Consideration of an appeal of the approval of a Tree Permit Approving the removal of seven (7) Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees, one (1) Canary Palm, one (1)
Coast Redwood tree and one (1) Coast Live Oak tree on the property located at
4576 Paradise Drive. The property is located within the RPD zoning district. Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY A Tree Permit application (File TREE2022-001) was filed for the removal of 10 (ten) trees on an
approximately 10 Acre (435,600 square feet) residential lot. The application was referred to the Design Review Board (DRB) due to the volume of public comments received during the 10-day public comment period. The DRB held a public hearing on September 1, 2022, took testimony and approved the application for removal of the trees. The appellant filed a timely appeal, requesting that additional conditions be implemented. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Grant the appeal, approving the tree removal with added conditions and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. 2. Deny the appeal, upholding the approval made by the Design Review Board and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. 3. Remand the matter back to the Design Review Board for further hearing, review, and action. In doing so, the council shall provide a specific description of the outstanding and unresolved issues for the Design Review Board to consider.
DETERMINATION APPEALED
This appeal has been submitted to consider adding additional conditions on the action by the Design Review Board (DRB) to approve a tree permit for the removal of ten (10) trees at 4576
Paradise Drive. The action may be appealed per Tiburon Municipal Code (TMC) Section 16-
66.020(C)(1). The appeal seeks to add the following additional conditions to the approval: require an additional study on erosion, require stumps to remain in place to protect against erosion, and consider limitations on “wood chipping” to limit noise impacts on neighboring properties. The Town Council may wish to evaluate if the conditions requested should be implemented to reflect
the concerns presented at the public hearing held for this application.
PROJECT SETTING
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
Agenda Item: PH-2
Town Council Meeting
November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON Page 2 of 10
The trees are located on an approximately 435,600 square foot residential lot on Paradise Drive that faces eastward toward the San Francisco Bay. The subject property is substantially larger and
irregularly shaped in comparison to other lots within the vicinity. Mature trees and other dense
vegetation occupy the majority of the subject property, which slopes significantly from the street entry to the base of the property in the rear. There are a large number of trees throughout the subject property, so it does not appear that removal of the 10 trees would denude the hillside or create a substantial void in the existing tree cover.
The areas in which the tree removal is proposed (locations depicted in blue areas on the map below) is concentrated in a northern portion of the property, towards the entrance to Paradise Drive. Further, please note that the trees appear to be located outside of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) jurisdiction, which extends inland 100 feet
from the mean high tide line, the approximate boundary of which is highlighted in red in the map
below. Although BCDC may be engaged in a review of erosion in relation to the subject property, the location of the tree removal would not appear to impact the existing areas of BCDC concern/erosion. The location of the applicant’s property is also indicated on the map below in purple. The location of the appellant’s property is outlined on the map below in orange.
Town Council Meeting
November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON Page 3 of 10
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
A tree permit application (File DR2022-001) was filed on January 5, 2022, for the removal or
topping of ten (10) trees on a large, densely vegetated, residential property located at 4576 Paradise
Drive, a property which was recently annexed into the Town of Tiburon (December 2021)
The trees are located along the uphill northern portion of the property, adjacent to Paradise Drive, as shown in the above project settings map. The tree removal application was filed by the neighboring property owner at 4575 Paradise Drive who requested the tree removal to restore
their water view; the subject property owner permitted the application and appears to support the
removal and or alteration of the trees as requested. The trees considered in the application are comprised of seven (7) Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees, one
(1) Canary Palm, one (1) Coast Redwood tree and one (1) Coast Live Oak. The subject trees are
all considered protected trees as defined in TMC section 15A-2 (Definitions: “Protected Tree”). A
protected tree includes a “heritage tree,” which is any tree, regardless of species, “which has a trunk
with a circumference exceeding sixty inches, measured twenty-four inches above the ground level.”
Each of the trees considered in this application has a circumference exceeding 60” measured 24
inches above the ground. (TMC § 15A-2 – Definitions (“Protected Tree: (1) Heritage Tree”).).
Please also note that the Coast Redwood tree and Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees are also listed under
the definition of “Undesirable Trees” (TMC 15A-2 Definitions (“Undesirable Tree”). However,
note that the definition of an undesirable tree states that an undesirable tree is still considered a
protected tree if it meets the criteria set forth in the definition of “protected tree.” Therefore, despite
being listed as an undesirable tree, the Coast Redwood tree and Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees are
considered “protected trees.” The removal or alteration of any "protected tree" on any property is
prohibited without the prior issuance of a permit.1
Tree Permits are reviewed by the Director of Community Development or their designee but may be referred to the Design Review Board when deemed appropriate, pursuant to TMC section 15A-7(a). In response to the filing and subsequent noticing of the tree permit application, the Director advised the applicant that this would be reviewed by the Design Review Board at a
future public hearing due to the numerous comments received. Staff also requested that the applicant provide an erosion study examining the anticipated impacts of the proposed tree removal and nesting survey, to better evaluate the application and respond to comments on the application. The applicant subsequently submitted a report assessing potential impacts for erosion based on the removal of the trees subject to this application. A nesting survey was not submitted
at this time; however, information on nesting would be required as a condition of approval prior to any removal - if the approval is upheld.
1 Please note that as part of the application (Exhibit 2(ii)(2) ), an Arborist’s Report was filed, which assessed 15 total
trees. However, it was later clarified that the size of four (4) of the Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees and the California
Bay tree listed within the Arborist’s Report had a circumference of less than 60’ and therefore did not meet the
definition of a “Heritage Tree”. A permit is not required for the removal of non-heritage trees, hence, they were
omitted from the application.
Town Council Meeting
November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON Page 4 of 10
A public hearing for this application was held at the September 1, 2022, Design Review Board Meeting. The applicant, Steven Hendricks, was unable to present at the meeting due to an illness, so Eric Crandall, the owner of the subject property presented in his place. As part of this
presentation, Mr. Crandall explained that the main objective of the non-native tree removal was
to restore the water views from the Hendricks’ residence that resulted from overgrowth and lack of maintenance of the subject trees. Additionally, Mr. Crandall represented that the tree removal would reduce the potential fire hazards within the neighborhood.
As part of the hearing process, letters (Exhibit 2(ii)(3-6,8-10, 13-16, and 18-22)) objecting to
the tree permit were submitted to the Design Review Board noting concerns for erosion of the shoreline as a result of the removal of trees. The applicant and Mr. Crandall contacted the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), who concluded that the tree removal would not induce erosion, but that the applicant must avoid removal during nesting season(Exhibit 2
(ii)(17)) ). Given the findings of CFDW, Mr. Crandall was amenable to a condition requiring that
tree removal does not occur during nesting season. Mr. Crandall attributed the erosion at the shoreline that had occurred to the substantial rain that occurred during October 2021. When the public comment period was opened multiple people, primarily within the adjacent
Paradise Cay community, voiced their concerns, which are summarized in four categories
outlined below:
• Erosion Control: Although the subject trees are removed from the shoreline, there was
nevertheless concern regarding erosion resulting from the removal of trees and that
erosion, specifically at the shoreline, would create runoff and increased sediment in the bay. Although discussion was presented at the DRB meeting, regarding the involvement of the
BCDC, staff notes that they contacted BCDC to provide notice of an opportunity for
comment, yet BCDC did not provide any. Staff remains in contact with BCDC and is keeping them apprised of this application.
• Impacts on Fish and Wildlife: With additional modifications to the subject property,
neighbors expressed concern regarding the existing fish and wildlife that may be adversely impacted by the tree removal and any channel blockage created by new shoreline erosion or runoff. In addition, several neighbors noted herons which, according to the neighbors, have historically nested in the trees on the subject property.
• View Restoration and Privacy: Although the view from the applicant’s property would appear to be partially restored by the tree removal and topping, other neighbors expressed concern that their views would be impacted, including loss of the existing treescape views they enjoy from their properties. Other neighbors expressed a concern for a loss of
privacy, noting that the removal of the trees would expose their property, thereby reducing
the privacy they currently enjoy.
• Number of Trees Removed and Permit Issuance: The subject application requests the removal or topping of ten (10) trees in total, some neighbors expressed concern over the
cumulative loss of trees and asked if further removal is appropriate. Commenters expressed concern that if there is an overall large number of trees removed, there would
Town Council Meeting
November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON Page 5 of 10
be adverse impacts to the abovementioned shoreline erosion, existing fish and wildlife, and view and privacy to neighboring property owners. Previous trees have been removed or altered when the subject property was still within the County of Marin jurisdiction.
Once the public comment closed, the Design Review Board deliberated on the application. In general, the Board was supportive of the request to remove trees, especially those that are fire prone and could create a hazard within the community. Further, the Board members recognized how, historically, the growth and lack of maintenance of the trees has contributed to the loss of
views. While disputes over view loss due to trees are extremely common within the Town, a
board member commended the applicant and subject property owner on working through a complex situation to come to an amicable arrangement to accommodate the view impacts. Although supportive of the application, the Board did acknowledge the concerns of the downhill
neighbors, as it related to potential erosion. One suggestion from this discussion was that the tree
trunks of the subject trees should remain, to provide future stability. Additionally, the Board stressed that the nesting season should be adhered to when determining when the trees can be removed and conditioned the project accordingly. The Board directed staff to prepare a resolution approving the application, for adoption at the following meeting. A copy of the staff report, late
mail, and approved minutes from the September 1, 2022, meeting are attached as Exhibit 2.
Resolution 2022-026 (Exhibit 1) was adopted at the September 22, 2022, Design Review Board meeting, including the following conditions:
1. The owner and/or applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Town harmless along
with the Town Council, commissions, boards, agents, officers, employees, and consultants from any claim, action, or proceeding ("action"), against the Town, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, employees, and consultants attacking or seeking to set aside, declare void, or annul the approval(s) of the project or alleging any other liability or
damages based upon, caused by, or related to the approval of the project. The Town shall
promptly notify the owner and/or applicant of any action. The Town, in its sole discretion, may tender the defense of the action to the owners and/or applicants or the Town may defend the action with its attorneys with all attorney's fees and litigation costs incurred by the Town in either case paid for by the owner and/or applicant.
2. A copy of the Tree Permit Resolution must be posted on the site in a conspicuous place at all times during performance of work authorized by the permit. 3. Tree work authorized by this permit shall be performed 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.
Only quiet work is allowed to be performed on Saturdays, such that noise from any source associated with the permitted work, including but not limited to vehicles, saws, chippers or other machinery, amplified sound, and worker's voices, shall not be plainly audible at the property line.
4. 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 Year's Day, Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.
Town Council Meeting
November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON Page 6 of 10
5. Tree removal must be stopped any time there are active nests observed in the tree. A pre-removal survey shall be completed to ensure no nests are in the subject trees. A copy of
this survey must be provided to the Town, prior to the removal of the tree(s). Tree
removal shall only occur outside of bird nesting season. 6. Any requirements of the Department of Fish and Wildlife must be met prior to and during the tree removal and pruning.
7. Any requirements of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission must be met prior to and during the tree removal and pruning. An appeal was timely received by the appellant on October 3, 2022 (Exhibit 3) in response to the
action taken, which was to approve the application. BASIS FOR THE APPEAL Staff has summarized the grounds for appeal below and offered staff’s response to address the
central issues.
Ground #1: An erosion mitigation plan, along with expert findings should be required or considered.
Staff Response: In conducting review of a tree permit, the review authority is directed to consider
several factors outlined in TMC section 15A-6(c). One of those factors includes consideration of “the topography of the land and the effect of tree removal or alteration on protection from wind, soil erosion or increased flow of surface water.” (TMC § 15A-6(c)(3).) In advance of the hearing before the DRB, Town staff required the applicant submit a report regarding potential erosion that
may occur due to the removal of additional trees. The applicant submitted a report from Mr.
Alexander Ortiz, a civil engineer. Mr. Ortiz had completed a report, which concluded that “execution of the proposed tree work will be inconsequential in pertinence to the potential for the generation and/or continuation of erosion processes at the subject site during any reasonably foreseeable future.” This report was included as part of the application for consideration by the
DRB. The Design Review Board, noting they were not experts on erosion, accepted the report
from the applicant’s expert. The appellant here asserts that the report is not supported by data or other evidence. This assertion was made to the DRB in correspondence submitted as part of the staff report and late
mail provided to the DRB prior to the hearing. The appellant here notes that an engineer from
BCDC had commented on a report submitted by the property owner’s civil engineer, Mr. Ortiz. Appellant notes that BCDC commented on certain analysis provided by Mr. Ortiz was lacking and inadequate and outside of his expertise. However, staff here notes that the report in which BCDC commented was regarding a report prepared on the erosion at the shoreline, and not
specific to the tree removal or erosion related to the trees that are part of this application.
As for the trees subject to this application, at the request of staff, the applicant had Mr. Ortiz prepare a subsequent report assessing potential erosion due to the proposed tree removal. This letter was submitted to Town Staff on June 24, 2022 (Exhibit 2(ii)(11)), in preparation for the
Town Council Meeting
November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON Page 7 of 10
Design Review Board meeting – and provided to the DRB prior to the hearing. In this letter, Mr. Ortiz concluded that “the execution of the proposed tree work will be inconsequential in pertinence to the potential for the generation and/or continuation of erosion processes at the
subject site during any reasonably foreseeable future” citing the existing drainage and subsurface
conditions. The Board considered the information from both Mr. Ortiz, comments from the community as well as correspondence from BCDC. Upon considering the information provided, the Board
determined that Mr. Ortiz’ analysis, along with the distance of the trees from the shoreline, and
the number of existing trees and vegetation that were not going to be removed, provided sufficient support that any impacts on erosion would be minimal. The Council may want to consider whether a supplementary erosion report should be conducted.
If the Council finds that another report should be conducted, Town staff requests that the Council
consider who should review that report to assess whether any additional conditions are necessary, or how the results of such a report would otherwise impose any conditions on the approval. Council may want to consider continuing the appeal until such a report can be completed so Council can review and impose any conditions deemed necessary or may want to remand the
matter back to the DRB for consideration said report once it has been completed and can be
considered whether additional conditions are necessary. Ground #2: The appellant has requested that if the approval of the tree removal is upheld that the following conditions be imposed:
• The tree stumps ( post cutting) shall remain on the property, to prevent future erosion and potential washout.
• The use of wood chipping on the property shall be limited and comply with the Town’s noise ordinance. Staff Response: As stated in the appeal, there was discussion at the September 1, 2022, Design
Review Board meeting about keeping the trunks or stumps to mitigate potential concerns for
erosion. Although the Board was supportive, the motion that was adopted did not include a condition requiring tree stump preservation as part of the final approval. The Town Council may wish to consider whether adding such a condition should be considered as part of the approval.
The Town’s Noise Ordinance does not expressly prohibit the use of woodchippers. However, any
wood chipping that does occur on the subject property would have to comply with the existing conditions of approval # 3 and #4 approved by the Design Review Board, which state the following:
• Tree work authorized by this permit shall be performed 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. Only quiet work is allowed to be performed on Saturdays, such that noise from any source
associated with the permitted work, including but not limited to vehicles, saws, chippers or other machinery, amplified sound, and worker's voices, shall not be plainly audible at the property line.
Town Council Meeting
November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON Page 8 of 10
• 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 Year's Day,
Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day,
Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.
The Town Council should determine if this condition is appropriate or if further limitations should be implemented. Tree permits are valid for 180 days, so the Town Council may also want to consider limiting the time in which the wood chipping is permitted, in addition to the hours of operation
FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town. CLIMATE IMPACT Staff has determined this action will have no significant impact on the Town’s contribution to global climate change. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff recommends that the Town Council determine that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 4 categorical exemptions.
Class 4 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 – Minor Alterations to Land):
Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes.
The proposed project involves removal of existing trees located in a residential zone. The project is located in an urbanized area where all public services and facilities are available to allow maximum development permissible in the General Plan and is surrounded with other single-family and homes on all sides. In addition, an arborist report submitted with the application notes the trees proposed for removal, are not native to the area and some have “many fire promoting
characteristics”. The report does not indicate that the trees are healthy, mature, and scenic, as these trees are within a large parcel surrounded by dozens of other trees. Additionally, a Tiburon Fire District letter to the subject property owner suggest the owner remove any dead trees or vegetation on this property that could “pose a possible fire hazard.” As such, the permit would not appear to involve the removal of healthy, mature scenic trees except for forestry and agriculture purposes.
Categorical Exemption Exceptions (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2) Further, none of the exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. There is no evidence that the Project will result in any adverse environmental impacts and the Project does not involve any unusual circumstances or historical resources. Indeed, the proposed project would not
significantly impact any environmental resource. In addition, there is no evidence that any significant cumulative impacts would occur.
Town Council Meeting
November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON Page 9 of 10
Specific supporting details regarding the project site include the following: 1) The property is located in a residential zone with single-family dwelling surrounding the property on all sides.
2) According to the California Department of Transportation, there are no scenic highways in
Marin County. 3) According to the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, there are no hazardous waste sites in the Town of Tiburon. 4) The existing home is not on the Town’s List of History Properties. The existing home has
gone through modifications throughout the years.
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Town Council conduct a public hearing on this matter, deliberate and then
consider adopting one of the following options:
1) Grant the appeal, approving the tree removal with added conditions and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. 2) Deny the appeal, upholding the approval made by the Design Review Board and direct Staff
to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting.
3) Remand the matter back to the Design Review Board for further hearing, review, and action. In doing so, the council shall provide a specific description of the outstanding and unresolved issues for the Design Review Board to consider.
Exhibits:
1. Resolution 2022-026 2. September 1, 2022, Design Review Board Meeting Documents
i.Staff Report ii.Attachments
1. Application, Arborist’s Report, and Supplemental Materials received on January 5, 2022
2. Town Tree Ordinance Chapter 15A 3. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 123 Trinidad Drive on January 24, 202 4. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 119 Trinidad Drive on January 24,
2022 5. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 115 Trinidad Drive on January 26,
2022 6. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 103 Trinidad Drive on January 26,
2022 7. Email correspondence between neighbor, BCDC, and Town Staff, Compiled
January 26, 2022 8. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 91 Trinidad Drive on January 27,
2022 9. Comment Letters, received from neighbor at 95 Trinidad Drive on January 31,
2022 10. Comment Letter, received from a neighbor that did not specify their address on
February 2, 2022 11. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation of Erosion Potential received on June 24,
2022 12. Tiburon Fire Protection Letter, requesting dead trees and vegetation is removed,
received on July 18, 2022 13. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 4505 Paradise Drive on July 27,
2022
Town Council Meeting
November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON Page 10 of 10
14. Comment Letter, received from neighbor that did not specify their address on August 22,2022 15. Comment Letter, received from neighbor that did not specify their address on August 22,2022 16. Comment Letter, received from neighbor that did not specify their address on August 24,2022
17. Email from property owner and California Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding Nesting Survey 18. Comment Letter, received from Fire Safe Team, on August 24, 2022 19. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 103 Trinidad Drive on August 25, 2022 20. Comment Letter, received from neighbor 119 Trinidad Drive on August 25, 2022 (Duplicate of January 24, 2022, email) 21. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 99 Trinidad Drive on August 25, 2022 22. Comment Letter, received from neighbor that did not specify their address on August 2,2022Public Comment Letters iii.Late Mail for September 1, 2022 Design Review Board Meeting iv.September 1, 2022 Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 3. Appeal Form, filed by James Massey-Kim on October 3, 2022 4. Correspondence Prepared By: Samantha Bonifacio, Assistant Planner
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 2
September 1, 2022 Design Review Board Meeting
Documents
Glossary of Exhibit 2
I. Staff Report
II. Attachments
1. Application, Arborist’s Report, and Supplemental Materials received on January 5, 2022
2. Town Tree Ordinance Chapter 15A
3. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 123 Trinidad Drive on January 24, 202
4. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 119 Trinidad Drive on January 24, 2022
5. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 115 Trinidad Drive on January 26, 2022
6. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 103 Trinidad Drive on January 26, 2022
7. Email correspondence between neighbor, BCDC, and Town Staff, Compiled January 26,
2022
8. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 91 Trinidad Drive on January 27, 2022
9. Comment Letters, received from neighbor at 95 Trinidad Drive on January 31, 2022
10. Comment Letter, received from a neighbor that did not specify their address on
February 2, 2022
11. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation of Erosion Potential received on June 24, 2022
12. Tiburon Fire Protection Letter, requesting dead trees and vegetation is removed,
received on July 18, 2022
13. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 4505 Paradise Drive on July 27, 2022
14. Comment Letter, received from neighbor that did not specify their address on August
22,2022
15. Comment Letter, received from neighbor that did not specify their address on August
22,2022
16. Comment Letter, received from neighbor that did not specify their address on August
24,2022
17. Email from property owner and California Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding
Nesting Survey
18. Comment Letter, received from Fire Safe Team, on August 24, 2022
19. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 103 Trinidad Drive on August 25, 2022
20. Comment Letter, received from neighbor 119 Trinidad Drive on August 25, 2022
(Duplicate of January 24, 2022, email)
21. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 99 Trinidad Drive on August 25, 2022
22. Comment Letter, received from neighbor that did not specify their address on August
2,2022Public Comment Letters
III. Late Mail for September 1, 2022 Design Review Board Meeting
IV. September 1, 2022 Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 7
STAFF REPORT To: Members of the Design Review Board
From: Community Development Department
Subject:
4576 Paradise Drive; Assessor’s Parcel No. 038-142-02; Consideration of a Tree removal permit for removal of seven (7) Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees, one (1) Canary Palm, one (1) Coast Redwood tree and one (1) Coast Live Oak tree on the property located at 4576 Paradise Drive. The property is located within the RPD zoning district.
PROJECT DATA: ADDRESS: 4576 Paradise Drive ASSESSOR’S PARCELS: 038-142-02 FILE NUMBER: TREE2022-001 ZONING: RPD GENERAL PLAN: PD-R (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) BACKGROUND: On January 5, 2022, an application (Attachment 1) was filed for the removal of six (6) Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees and one (1) Canary Palm and the alteration of one (1) Blue Gum Eucalyptus tree,
one (1) Coast Redwood tree, and one (1) Coast Live Oak tree on the property located at 4576 Paradise Drive. The application was filed by the neighboring property owner at 4575 Paradise Drive who requested the trees be removed to restore their water view; the subject property owner permitted the application and appears to desire to remove the trees as requested.
The Town Tree Ordinance Chapter 15A of the Tiburon Municipal Code (TMC), attached as Attachment 3, states that the removal or alteration of any "protected tree" on any property is prohibited without the prior issuance of a permit. The subject trees are considered protected trees because they meet the definition of a “heritage tree”, which is any tree, regardless of species, with a trunk that has a circumference exceeding sixty inches, measured twenty-four inches above the
ground level, per TMC section 15A-2 – Definitions. However, please note that the Coast Redwood
tree and Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees are also listed under the definition of “undesirable” trees. An undesirable tree is still considered a protected tree if it meets the criteria set forth in the definition of “protected tree.”
A courtesy notice was mailed to neighboring property owners within a 300’ radius of the subject
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Design Review Board Meeting
September 1, 2022
Agenda Item: PH-2
Design Review Board Meeting
September 1, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON Page 2 of 7
property to advise of the proposed tree removal. Staff received multiple letters (Attachments 2-10) in response to the notice, with the majority opposing removal of the trees. These letters express
concern over potential erosion, the existing habitat, and displacement of species that may occur should the trees be removed. Given the volume of letters received and the concerns presented, staff requested the applicant provide an erosion study and nesting survey, to better evaluate the application. In addition, pursuant
to TMC section 15A-7(a), the Director of Community Development has exercised her discretion to refer this matter to the Design Review Board for hearing and action. PROJECT SETTING:
Source: MarinMap, showing approximate tree locations and Arborist’s Report prepared by Urban Forestry Associates, INC.
The map and table above taken from the Arborist report, not the application, and indicate the
following: - 11 Trees to be Removed: 10 Blue Gum and 1 Canary Palm - 4 Trees to be Altered: 1 Coast Redwood, 1 California Bay, 1 Coast Live Oak, 1 Blue Gum
Tree # Species Treatment Tree # Species Treatment Tree # Species Treatment
1 Blue gum
Whole tree removal 6 Blue gum
Whole tree removal 11 Canary Island palm
Whole tree removal
2 Blue gum
Whole tree removal 7 Blue gum
Whole tree removal 12 Coast redwood
Top back to established cuts
3 Blue gum
Whole tree removal 8 Blue gum
Whole tree removal 13 California bay
Prune to match redwood height
4 Blue gum
Whole tree removal 9 Blue gum
Whole tree removal 14 Coast live oak Prune to reduce height
5 Blue gum
Whole tree removal 10 Blue gum
Whole tree removal 15 Blue gum Side prune lower limbs for view
Design Review Board Meeting
September 1, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON Page 3 of 7
The application, however is only for the removal of 6 Blue Gum and 1 Canary Palm and the
alteration of 3 trees (1 Coast Redwood, 1 Coast Live Oak, and 1 Blue Gum). The application did not include a request for a permit to alter the California Bay. Staff recommends that the Board request that the applicant team clarify which 6 of the Blue Gums are requested for removal under this application. It would appear that the additional trees included on the arborist report, including the California Bay do not appear to b subject to a tree removal permit, as the circumference of those
trees may be less than 60”, and thus would not meet the definition of a “protected tree”., The Board is also encouraged to request clarification from the applicant as to why not all trees listed in the report are part of the application and for clarification about which trees would be removed under this application.
The trees are located on an approximately 435,600 square foot residential lot on Paradise Drive that faces eastward toward the San Francisco Bay. The subject property is substantially larger and irregularly shaped in comparison to other lots within the vicinity. Mature trees and other dense vegetation occupy the majority of the subject property, which slopes significantly from the street entry to the base of the property in the rear. There are a large number of trees throughout the subject
property. The area in which the tree removal is proposed is concentrated in a northern portion of the property, towards the entrance to Paradise Drive. Further, please note that the trees appear to be located well outside of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
jurisdiction, which extends inland 100 feet from the mean high tide line. Although BCDC may be engaged in a review of erosion in relation to the subject property, the location of the tree removal would not appear to impact the existing areas of BCDC concern/erosion. An exhibit depicting the area of BCDC jurisdiction and the location of the trees is shown below, labeled Figure 1. Please also note that Town Staff has notified BCDC staff about this pending application and informed
them of when and where this hearing would take place and provided courtesy copies of this staff report and related material. FIGURE 1
Design Review Board Meeting
September 1, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON Page 4 of 7
ANALYSIS:
The Town Tree Ordinance provides the planning director, or their designee, several factors to consider in exercising their discretion to issue or deny a permit to alter or remove trees. Those factors are listed at Tiburon Municipal Code section 15A-6(c)(1-6), and provides as follows: (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, hazard, proximity to existing or
proposed structures or interference with utility services. (2) The necessity of removal or alteration of the tree in order to develop the property. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of tree removal or alteration on protection from wind, soil erosion or increased flow of surface water. (4) The number of trees in the neighborhood, and the effect of removal or alteration of the
tree on the character of the neighborhood, including privacy impacts on neighboring properties. (5) Good forestry practices; i.e. the number of healthy trees that a given property will support. (6) The historical significance and age of the tree.
To complete the required evaluation staff reviewed the application and subsequent documentation provided. An Arborist’s Report was included as part of the original application (Attachment 1). The report acknowledges that the Blue Gum Eucalyptus and Canary Island Palm are not native to the area and that the Blue Gum Eucalyptus have “many fire promoting characteristics”. In addition
the height of the Canary Island Palm cannot be controlled by pruning. The Board should evaluate if any further information is required to assess the factors noted in order to approve a permit for removal The site plan provided in the report also clarifies the location of the trees that are proposed for
alteration or removal. However, clarification is still needed from the applicant team on which trees are proposed to be removed and altered. As noted above, the trees appear to be located more than 100’ from the property line, which would indicate the trees are not within the jurisdiction of BCDC. (Government Code § 66610.) See Figure 1 for a depiction of the site marking the estimated area of BCDC jurisdiction. .
Also considered with the application is a geotechnical engineering evaluation (Attachment 17) of the subject property, which considered potential tree removal. The letter concluded that the execution of the proposed tree work will be inconsequential in pertinence to the potential for the
generation and/or continuation of erosion processes at the subject site during any reasonably
foreseeable future”. The Board should evaluate if any further information is required to assess the impacts of the proposed tree removal, as it relates to erosion and capability for future development. It should be noted that a nesting survey was not submitted with the application. However, per the
email provided to staff on June 8, 2022 (Attachment 17) , between the property owner and the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), a nesting survey was not recommended to be done until within 7 days of the work commencing, and only if the alteration or removal is to occur between February 1 and August 31, as that is nesting season. Further, DFW indicated that work completed between September 1 and January 31, is preferable in order to avoid nesting season. As
Design Review Board Meeting
September 1, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON Page 5 of 7
such, if the application is approved, Staff would recommend the Board include a condition of approval requiring that the work be completed between September 1 and January 31; or that if the
work is not completed between September 1 and January 31 that a pre-submittal nesting survey be completed, to ensure no nests are in the subject trees. In addition, the recommended condition of approval would also require that such a nesting survey would be provided to the Town for review and approval from the Community Development Department before the tree(s) are removed and that all work should stop, should an active nest be observed.
Based on the information provided, the Design Review Board should assess if the removal of the subject trees is consistent with the factors outlined in Tiburon Municipal Code section 15A-6(c)(1-6). PUBLIC COMMENT: As stated previously, the Town has received multiple letters from the adjacent neighbors, most of whom object to the removal of the subject trees. Those in support of the tree removal cite the concern of fire, specifically as it relates to the eucalyptus on the property. Any additional letters
received will be considered “Late Mail”, which will be circulated to the Design Review Board and made available for public review on the Town’s website. PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff recommends that the Design Review Board determine that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 4 categorical exemptions. Class 4 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 – Minor Alterations to Land): Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or
vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and
agricultural purposes. The proposed project involves removal of existing trees located in a residential zone. The project is located in an urbanized area where all public services and facilities are available to allow
maximum development permissible in the General Plan and is surrounded with other single-family and homes on all sides. In addition, an arborist report submitted with the application notes the trees proposed for removal, are not native to the area and some have “many fire promoting characteristics”. The report does not indicate that the trees are healthy, mature, and scenic, as these
trees are within a large parcel surrounded by dozens of other trees. Additionally, a Tiburon Fire
District letter to the subject property owner suggest the owner remove any dead trees or vegetation on this property that could “pose a possible fire hazard”. As such, the permit would not appear to involve the removal of healthy, mature scenic trees except for forestry and agriculture purposes.
Categorical Exemption Exceptions (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2)
Further, none of the exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. There is no evidence that the Project will result in any adverse environmental impacts and the Project does not involve any unusual circumstances or historical resources. Indeed, the proposed project would not
Design Review Board Meeting
September 1, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON Page 6 of 7
significantly impact any environmental resource. In addition, there is no evidence that any significant cumulative impacts would occur. Specific supporting details regarding the project site include the following: 1) The property is located in a residential zone with single-family dwelling surrounding the property on all sides. 2) According to the California Department of Transportation, there are no scenic highways in
Marin County. 3) According to the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, there are no hazardous waste sites in the Town of Tiburon. 4) The existing home is not on the Town’s List of History Properties. The existing home has gone through modifications throughout the years.
5) It is a common practice for the Town of Tiburon’s Design Review Board to approve additions and exterior improvements to existing single-family dwellings in an established residential neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION:
The Design Review Board should review this project, along with all reports and data submitted, supplemented by public comments and on-site inspections as appropriate, and consider the factors described in Tiburon Municipal Code subsection 15A-6(c)(1-6), and find whether issuance of the permit would be consistent with the purposes, policies and regulations of Chapter 15A.
The Board should then consider adopting one of the following options: 1) Continue the matter and provide direction to the applicant to resolve any issues or
information required in order for the board to act.
2) Approve the application, and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for
consideration of adoption at the next meeting.
3) Partially approve the application by making revisions or adding conditions to the
project, and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of
adoption at the next meeting.
4) Deny the application, and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for
consideration of adoption at the next meeting.
EXHIBITS:
1. Application, Arborist’s Report, and Supplemental Materials received on January 5, 2022 2. Town Tree Ordinance Chapter 15A 3. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 123 Trinidad Drive on January 24, 202 4. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 119 Trinidad Drive on January 24, 2022
5. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 115 Trinidad Drive on January 26, 2022 6. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 103 Trinidad Drive on January 26, 2022 7. Email correspondence between neighbor, BCDC, and Town Staff, Compiled January 26, 2022
Design Review Board Meeting
September 1, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON Page 7 of 7
8. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 91 Trinidad Drive on January 27, 2022 9. Comment Letters, received from neighbor at 95 Trinidad Drive on January 31, 2022
10. Comment Letter, received from a neighbor that did not specify their address on February 2, 2022 11. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation of Erosion Potential received on June 24, 2022 12. Tiburon Fire Protection Letter, requesting dead trees and vegetation is removed, received on July 18, 2022
13. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 4505 Paradise Drive on July 27, 2022 14. Comment Letter, received from neighbor that did not specify their address on August 22,2022 15. Comment Letter, received from neighbor that did not specify their address on August 22,2022
16. Comment Letter, received from neighbor that did not specify their address on August 24,2022 17. Email from property owner and California Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding Nesting Survey 18. Comment Letter, received from Fire Safe Team, on August 24, 2022
19. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 103 Trinidad Drive on August 25, 2022 20. Comment Letter, received from neighbor 119 Trinidad Drive on August 25, 2022 (Duplicate of January 24, 2022, email) 21. Comment Letter, received from neighbor at 99 Trinidad Drive on August 25, 2022 22. Comment Letter, received from neighbor that did not specify their address on August
2,2022
Urban Forestry Associates, Inc. December 14, 2021
4575/4576 Paradise Drive Pruning and Removal Report
Page 1 of 7
Assignment
Steven Hendricks asked me to visit his property at 4575 Paradise Drive and the property of Eric Crandall at 4576 Paradise Drive to document the proposed tree removal and pruning to submit to the Town of Tiburon to
obtain a Tree Removal Permit. I met with both Mr. Hendricks and Mr. Crandall while on site.
Observations
I previously visited Mr. Crandall’s property in September of 2021 to document several blue gum eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus globulus) he planned to remove. At this time, the property was zoned in unincorporated Marin. Since that time, it was rezoned into the Town of Tiburon. Mr. Crandall’s property is an improved, 10-acre, waterfront (partial), multiple residential lot with an average slope of 25 percent, located in the wildland
urban interface (marinmap.org). Mr. Crandall has been clearing overgrown, invasive vegetation from the site since he acquired it in 2019.
Mr. Hendricks lives upslope and across the street from Mr. Crandall’s property (Figure 1). The property has a beautiful view of the San Francisco Bay over the Crandall property (Figure 5). Several blue gum eucalyptus trees, a coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), a Canary Island date palm (Phoenix canariensis), a coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), and a California bay (Umbellularia californica) partially obstruct the view. See Table 1 for a summary of species, size, and proposed work. See Figure1 for approximate tree locations. See photos of subject trees in Figures 2-5.
Discussion
The Tiburon Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 15A requires a permit to remove or alter any tree on an
“undeveloped property” which is defined as any property of sufficient lined area that it could be subdivided. Chapter 15A also includes blue gum eucalyptus in its list of “undesirable trees.” “Tree” is defined as either a plant with a trunk of at least 20 inches or a height of 15 feet.
Conclusions
All the subject trees meet the definition of tree per the TMC and therefore cannot be removed or altered without a permit from the Town. The only trees proposed for removal are blue gum eucalyptus and a Canary
Island palm. Neither species is native to the area. Blue gum eucalyptus has many fire promoting characteristics and is being actively removed from the landscape throughout Marin. The height of the palm cannot be controlled through pruning, as it has only a single apical (upward growing) bud that cannot be pruned. The
proposed pruning of the redwood, bay, oak, and eucalyptus can be achieved without harming the health or structure of the trees and should be performed within established industry standards (ANSI A300).
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. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Since trees are living organisms, conditions are often hidden within the tree and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specific period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments cannot be guaranteed. Trees can be managed but they
Client: Steven Hendricks
Project Location: 4576 Paradise Drive, Tiburon, CA
Inspection Date: December 6, 2021
Arborist: Ben Anderson
Urban Forestry Associates, Inc. December 14, 2021
4575/4576 Paradise Drive Pruning and Removal Report
Page 2 of 7
cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk and the only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
Benjamin Anderson, Urban Forester ISA Board Certified Master Arborist & TRAQ RCA #686, WE #10160B (415) 454-4212 ex. 1
Urban Forestry Associates, Inc. December 14, 2021
4575/4576 Paradise Drive Pruning and Removal Report
Page 3 of 7
Figure 1. Approximate locations of subject trees.
Tree #Species Diameter Comments Treatment
1 Blue gum 7 stems <= 18"Whole tree removal
2 Blue gum 3 stems <=
20.5"Whole tree removal
3 Blue gum 4 stems <= 18"Whole tree removal
4 Blue gum 25" & 9" stems Whole tree removal
5 Blue gum 5 stems <= 20"Whole tree removal
6 Blue gum 13"Whole tree removal
7 Blue gum 19"Whole tree removal
8 Blue gum 43"Whole tree removal
9 Blue gum 37"
Canopy
already
removed
Whole tree removal
10 Blue gum 26"Whole tree removal
11 Canary Island
palm 35"Whole tree removal
12 Coast
redwood Many trunks Historically
topped
Top back to
established cuts
13 California bay <12"Prune to match
redwood height
14 Coast live oak ~10"
Prune to reduce
height using standard
reduction cuts
15 Blue gum Multiple large
trees
Side prune lower
limbs for view
Table 1. Brief descriptions of subject trees
Urban Forestry Associates, Inc. December 14, 2021
4575/4576 Paradise Drive Pruning and Removal Report
Page 4 of 7
Figure 2. Photo of Trees 1-9. All are to be removed.
Urban Forestry Associates, Inc. December 14, 2021
4575/4576 Paradise Drive Pruning and Removal Report
Page 5 of 7
Figure 3. Photo of Tree 10 to be removed and group of trees labeled Tree 15 to be lightly pruned.
Urban Forestry Associates, Inc. December 14, 2021
4575/4576 Paradise Drive Pruning and Removal Report
Page 6 of 7
Figure 4. Photo of Trees 12 & 13 showing proposed cut height. Tree 11 is behind Tree 12.
Urban Forestry Associates, Inc. December 14, 2021
4575/4576 Paradise Drive Pruning and Removal Report
Page 7 of 7
Figure 5. Photo of view from Hendricks home showing most of the subjec trees and planned work.
Title IV Current as Amended through Ordinance No. 461 N.S. (March 2001) Page 1 of 8 Chapter 15A of Tiburon Municipal Code Trees
Town of Tiburon
Planning Division (415) 435-7390
www.townoftiburon.org TREE ORDINANCE
________________________________________________________________________ TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 15A: TREES
Section 15A-1 Purpose and policy.
Section 15A-2 Definitions.
Section 15A-3 When a permit is required.
Section 15A-4 Exceptions from permit requirement.
Section 15A-5 Application filing and procedure.
Section 15A-6 Application review procedure.
Section 15A-7 Permit issuance.
Section 15A-8 Appeal.
Section 15A-9 Termination of permit.
Section 15A-10 Violation--Penalty.
Title IV Current as Amended through Ordinance No. 461 N.S. (March 2001) Page 2 of 8 Chapter 15A of Tiburon Municipal Code Trees
Section 15A-1 Purpose and Policy.
The Tiburon General Plan recognizes the importance of trees to the character and beauty of the Town, and recognizes the role that trees have in advancing the public health, safety and welfare. The Town has therefore determined that reasonable regulation of the removal, alteration, and planting of certain trees is necessary to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. Regulation of trees is based upon the
following general policies: (a) 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. (b) Policy #2. The Town recognizes the special significance of “protected trees” (heritage trees, oak trees, and dedicated trees), and values the contribution which such trees make to the beauty and quality of life of Tiburon. Any tree (including an “undesirable tree”) which has attained the size of trunk to qualify as a “heritage tree,” as defined in section 15A-2 will be provided the permit protection afforded by this chapter.
(c) Policy #3. The Town recognizes that certain types of trees, because of potential breakage and fire hazards, or their potential for creating view blockage due to rapid growth and tall height at maturity, should be prohibited from being planted without special permission. These trees are referred to as “undesirable trees.”
(d) Policy #4. The Town recognizes that because of the known benefits of trees, undeveloped properties and properties capable of further subdivision should be protected from unregulated removal of trees prior to the approval of development plans. Trees on such properties should be preserved so that they may be considered for incorporation into
development plans. (e) Policy #5. The Town recognizes that residents in single-family and two-family zones should have the freedom to determine the nature of their private landscaped surroundings. In such zones, only the removal or alteration of “protected trees” and the planting of
“undesirable trees” shall require permits. (f) Policy #6. The Town recognizes that properties located in zones other than single-family and two-family residential zones often have special landscaping circumstances, including commonly-owned or shared areas, and these special circumstances have the
potential to affect significantly larger numbers of persons and properties if unregulated.
Because of the potential for special landscaping circumstances, such properties require careful regulation. Therefore, all trees on such properties should be subject to reasonable regulation through the permit process. (Ord. No. 359 N.S., § 4 (part); Ord. No. 419 N.S., § 2(A), (B))
Title IV Current as Amended through Ordinance No. 461 N.S. (March 2001) Page 3 of 8 Chapter 15A of Tiburon Municipal Code Trees
15A-2 Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them: “Alteration” means any action which would significantly damage the health or appearance of any tree, whether by:
(1) Cutting of its trunk or branches; (2) Filling or surfacing or changing the drainage of the soil within the drip-line of the tree; or
(3) Performing other damaging acts. This definition does not include routine pruning and shaping, removal of dead wood, or other maintenance of a tree (including a protected tree) to improve its health, facilitate its
growth or maintain its configuration to protect an existing view. “Design Review Board” means the Tiburon Design Review Board or its successor. “Person” means any individual, corporation, partnership, firm or other legal entity,
including the Town. “Planning Director” means the Planning Director of the Town or his designee. “Planting” means the intentional installation or placement of a tree. “Property” means any land or area within the corporate limits of the Town of Tiburon which is subject to its regulatory authority. “Protected Tree” means any:
(1) Heritage Tree, meaning any tree which has a trunk with a circumference exceeding sixty inches, measured twenty-four inches above the ground level. (2) Oak Tree, including coast live oak, blue oak, California black oak, interior live oak,
canyon live oak, Engelmann oak or valley oak tree.
(3) Dedicated Tree, meaning a tree of special significance so designated by resolution of the Town Council.
“Removal” means the elimination, movement, or taking away of any tree from its present
location. “Shrub” means a woody perennial plant smaller than a tree, usually having permanent stems branching from or near the ground.
Title IV Current as Amended through Ordinance No. 461 N.S. (March 2001) Page 4 of 8 Chapter 15A of Tiburon Municipal Code Trees
“Single-Family Residential Zone” means any property located in a zone for which the principal use is detached single-family residential. Typically, this means the R-1, R-1-BA,
RO or RPD zone as shown on the Tiburon zoning map. “Town Property” means any property owned in fee by the Town of Tiburon, or any easements, rights-of-way or other similar interests of the Town in property. “Tree” means: (1) A woody perennial plant that has a trunk circumference of twenty inches measured at twenty-four inches above the ground surface; or
(2) A woody perennial plant at least fifteen feet in height that usually, but not necessarily, has a single trunk. In applying subsection (1) above, for trees with more than one trunk, the circumference measurement shall be ascertained from a single measurement around the outside
perimeter of all trunks and shall not be calculated as the sum total of the circumferences
of the individual trunks. References to “tree” shall include the plural. The Planning Director or his designee shall have reasonable discretion to distinguish between a “tree” and a “shrub” within the
confines of the definitions found in this chapter.
“Two-Family Residential Zone” means a property located in a zone for which the principal use is two-family or duplex residential. Typically, this means the R-2 zone as shown on the Tiburon zoning map.
“Undesirable Tree” means a Blue Gum Eucalyptus, Monterey Pine, Monterey Cypress, Coast Redwood, or any other species of tree (regardless of its height or trunk circumference) that generally grows more than three feet per year in height and is capable of reaching a height of over thirty-five feet at maturity. An “undesirable tree”
nevertheless constitutes a “protected tree” if it meets the criteria set forth in that definition.
Tree height at maturity and tree growth rate shall be determined using a recent edition of the Sunset Western Garden Book. Trees characterized as having a “fast growth” rate in the Western Garden Book shall be conclusively presumed to grow at least three feet in
height per year. Trees characterized as having a “moderate to fast growth” rate in the
Western Garden Book shall be conclusively presumed to grow less than three feet in height per year. If the necessary information on height and growth rate is not available in the Western Garden Book, then other information sources may be substituted in the reasonable discretion of the Planning Director.
Applicants may submit additional written information from other published sources that may be used in the Planning Director's reasonable discretion to make necessary determinations for tree height at maturity and tree growth rate.
“Undeveloped Property” means any property which:
(1) Is not improved with a primary building (for example, a dwelling unit or place of
Title IV Current as Amended through Ordinance No. 461 N.S. (March 2001) Page 5 of 8 Chapter 15A of Tiburon Municipal Code Trees
business); or
(2) Is improved with a primary building, but is of sufficient land area that it could be subdivided. Subdivision potential shall be based upon the minimum lot area requirement for the zone in which the property is located. (Refer to Tiburon zoning ordinance for minimum lot areas in each zone). (Ord. No. 359 N.S., § 4 (part); Ord. No. 419 N.S., § 2(C), (D); Ord. No. 461 N.S., § 3)
15A-3 When a Permit is Required.
The planting, removal or alteration of the following trees is regulated by this chapter and shall require a permit: (a) Protected Tree. Removal or alteration of any “protected tree” on any property is
prohibited without the prior issuance of a permit. (b) Undesirable Tree. Planting of any “undesirable tree” on any property is prohibited without the prior issuance of a permit.
(c) Town Property. Planting, removal or alteration of any tree on “Town property” is prohibited without the prior issuance of a permit, except that in cases of Town action on Town property, only the removal or alteration of a “protected tree” or the planting of an “undesirable tree” shall require a permit.
(d) Undeveloped Property. Removal or alteration of any tree on “undeveloped property,” including property which could be subdivided, is prohibited without the prior issuance of a permit. (e) Single-Family or Two-Family-Residential Zones. Removal or alteration of any
“protected tree” or the planting of any “undesirable tree” is prohibited without the prior issuance of a permit. (f) All Other Zones. Removal or alteration of any tree located in a zone other than a “single-family residential zone” or a “two-family residential zone” is prohibited without the
prior issuance of a permit. (Ord. No. 359 N.S., § 4 (part))
15A-4 Exceptions from Permit Requirement.
(a) A permit shall not be required under this chapter if the planting, alteration or removal of a tree has been authorized by a zoning, subdivision or other valid permit issued by the Town. The burden shall be on the applicant to demonstrate such approval.
(b) If personal injury or property damage is imminently threatened, or the fire marshal declares a tree to be a fire hazard, the chief of police, superintendent of public works, Planning Director, or Town manager may authorize or order the removal or alteration of a tree without compliance with other provisions of this chapter. The removal or alteration
carried out in such emergency conditions shall be reported to the Planning Director on the first business day following the work. (Ord. No. 359 N.S., § 4 (part))
15A-5 Application Filing and Procedure.
Title IV Current as Amended through Ordinance No. 461 N.S. (March 2001) Page 6 of 8 Chapter 15A of Tiburon Municipal Code Trees
(a) Any person wishing to plant, remove, or alter a tree regulated by this chapter shall apply in writing to the Planning Director for a permit. Application forms are available in the
planning department. The fee for such application shall be established by resolution of the Town Council. Applications filed with the Planning Director shall: (1) Identify the property on which the tree is located.
(2) Provide a perimeter outline of any existing or proposed buildings on the property. (3) Specify the location of the tree within reasonable accuracy to facilitate easy identification.
(4) State the species of the tree, the approximate height of the tree (currently and at eventual maturity), and the circumference of the trunk measured at twenty-four inches above the ground surface. (5) Furnish a statement of the reason for the request.
(6) Provide evidence, in writing, of property owner permission. (b) The Planning Director may require additional information to secure the purposes of this chapter, including a report by a certified arborist satisfactory to the Town, and/or a
tree inventory of the subject property, when reasonably necessary to make a final
determination. The cost of any such report or additional information shall be responsibility of the applicant. (Ord. No. 359 N.S., § 4 (part); Ord. No. 419 N.S., § 2(E))
15A-6 Application Review Procedure.
(a) Once the Planning Director determines that the application is complete, he should
cause to be mailed “courtesy” notices to all owners of property, as listed on the available county assessment rolls, within three hundred feet of the subject property, and to residents and other parties, including homeowners associations, which in the discretion of the director, may be significantly affected. The notice should briefly describe the proposed work to be performed. Courtesy notices should be mailed at least ten days prior to a
decision by the director. (b) On applications for planting an undesirable tree, the Planning Director shall within fifteen days inspect the site and shall consider the following factors in deciding whether, in the exercise of his discretion, to issue or deny the permit:
(1) The suitability of the location for the tree requested to be planted; (2) The potential for unreasonable or undesirable view blockage by the tree at maturity.
(c) On applications for the alteration or removal of trees, the Planning Director shall within
fifteen days inspect the trees and the site. The director shall then consider the following factors in deciding whether, in the exercise of his discretion, to issue or deny the permit: (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, hazard, proximity to existing or
proposed structures or interference with utility services.
Title IV Current as Amended through Ordinance No. 461 N.S. (March 2001) Page 7 of 8 Chapter 15A of Tiburon Municipal Code Trees
(2) The necessity of removal or alteration of the tree in order to develop the property.
(3) The topography of the land and the effect of tree removal or alteration on protection from wind, soil erosion or increased flow of surface water. (4) The number of trees in the neighborhood, and the effect of removal or alteration of the
tree on the character of the neighborhood, including privacy impacts on neighboring properties. (5) Good forestry practices; i.e. the number of healthy trees that a given property will support.
(6) The historical significance and age of the tree. (Ord. No. 359 N.S., § 4 (part); Ord. No. 419 N.S., § 2(F))
15A-7 Permit Issuance.
(a) The Planning Director may issue the permit upon finding that it would be consistent
with the purposes, policies and regulations set forth in this chapter. The Planning Director shall have the discretion to refer any application to the Design Review Board for hearing and action, and the board shall have all authority and discretion of the Planning Director, as set forth in this chapter, in acting on applications.
(b) The Planning Director may attach such conditions to the permit as deemed necessary, in the exercise of his discretion, to accomplish the purposes of this chapter. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, regulation of planting, cutting, grading, drainage, irrigation, encroachment into drip-line areas, paving and surfacing limitations, maintenance of trees at a maximum height, and erection of protective fencing.
Replacement of removed trees, on a basis of up to three to one, may also be required as a condition of approval. Where appropriate, any conditions attached to a permit shall run with the land and apply to permittee's successors in interest. The Planning Director may direct that any permit shall be recorded with the Marin County recorder. (Ord. No. 359 N.S., § 4 (part); Ord. No. 419 N.S., § 2(G))
15A-8 Appeal.
(a) The decision of the Planning Director may be appealed to the Design Review Board. A written appeal must be filed with the planning department within ten days of the decision. (b) No permit granted under the provisions of this chapter shall be effective until the
expiration of ten days following the granting of such permit. If an appeal is filed, action under any permit shall be suspended pending the outcome of the appeal. (c) The Design Review Board shall hear the appeal within thirty days of its filing. Notice of the time and place of the appeal hearing shall be given to the applicant, appellant and
other persons as deemed appropriate by the Planning Director. The Design Review Board may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Planning Director. The decision of the board shall be final. (Ord. No. 359 N.S., § 4 (part))
Title IV Current as Amended through Ordinance No. 461 N.S. (March 2001) Page 8 of 8 Chapter 15A of Tiburon Municipal Code Trees
15A-9 Termination of Permit.
Unless a longer time is set forth in the permit, a permit shall be valid for only one hundred
eighty days from final approval, and thereafter shall become null and void. For good
cause, time extensions may be granted in writing by the Planning Director. (Ord. No. 359 N.S., § 4 (part))
15A-10 Violation--Penalty.
In addition to all other remedies available under this Code or state law, any violation of
this chapter shall be subject to abatement as a public nuisance. All costs relating to the enforcement of this chapter shall be borne by and recoverable from the person in violation thereof. (Ord. No. 359 N.S., § 4 (part); Ord. No. 445, § 4)
S:\Planning\Forms\Current Forms\Tree Ordinance Handout.doc
1
Samantha Bonifacio
From:Dina Tasini
Sent:Monday, January 24, 2022 12:10 PM
To:Samantha Bonifacio
Subject:Fwd: 4576 Paradise Drive Tree Permit Application
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ross Martin <stephen.ross.martin@gmail.com>
Date: January 24, 2022 at 11:30:24 AM PST
To: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: 4576 Paradise Drive Tree Permit Application
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Dina,
I'm writing to express our concerns with the application for tree removal at 4576 Paradise Drive by
Kathryn Hendricks at the approval of Eric Crandall. We are located at 123 Trinidad Dr in Paradise Cay
neighborhood downhill from the site of the trees to be removed. Our main concerns are the following:
1. Erosion: Mr Crandall has been cutting what seems like over 100 trees over the last two years and we
have not observed any strategy to mitigate issues with erosion. Our neighbors have observed several
new issues related to his work during the rain storms of this year. We fear this further tree removal just
up the hill from us could cause future erosion into our property and the bay. Could we require an
engineer to evaluate the effect of tree removal on erosion and environmental impact before moving
forward with any more tree removal?
2. Privacy: With the abundance of tree removal already completed, we can now see Mr Crandall's house
and barn from our upstairs master bedroom. The trees being planned to be removed would completely
clear the visual directly to his house and barn, and vice versa to our house from his.
3. Impact to nature: The trees that Mr Crandall has removed previously and plans to remove according
to this plan affect the nesting of many migratory birds that have been coming to this property every year
since we have lived here. And they are here now (pictures attached). He has destroyed their habitat
and this new tree removal plan would do further damage if not completely remove their nesting
location.
4. Noise: My wife and I are working from home and the noise from the wood chipping and tree cutting
over the last couple years has been disruptive. If this project moves forward, can we request the
chipping is done at different location?
On top of these concerns, part of the reason we bought this home was because of the beautiful natural
area behind the house. With the continued destruction of trees and development choices by Mr
Crandall, the property behind us has significantly declined in appearance. We hope now that he has
2
been annexed into Tiburon, the town council can require he take the necessary steps to ensure proper
development with permits and limited destruction to the environment.
Thank you for hearing our concerns. Let me know if you have any follow‐up questions.
‐‐
Ross Martin
704.840.5077
3
4
5
1
Samantha Bonifacio
From:Dina Tasini
Sent:Monday, January 24, 2022 12:20 PM
To:Samantha Bonifacio
Subject:FW: Tree removal 4576 Paradise
Dina Tasini
Director of Community Development
Town Of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435‐7393
www.townoftiburon.org
From: Joyful <joyfulmail@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 11:29 AM
To: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: Tree removal 4576 Paradise
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Ms. Tasini
I received the Town of Tiburon letter from you on Saturday. The tree removal, noise, erosion and wildlife habitat
removal has been of great concern to me and my Paradise Cay neighbors.
I am especially saddened by the disturbance and removal of Great Blue Heron and Night Crown Heron nests and habitat
that they have been returning to year after year……. The last nest appears to be on the chopping block this time right in
view of my kitchen and backyard.
I will include some photos of the birds and the change of landscape since this summer. Birds have been coming back this
month to check things out before mating season‐ an amazing sight.
Please re‐examine the approved permit and consider the neighbors, privacy, erosion and the wildlife.
Thank you, Joy Graustark (119 Trinidad)
Please note the tree/habitat removal since 5/21. (Newest photos listed first)
1
Samantha Bonifacio
From:Dina Tasini
Sent:Wednesday, January 26, 2022 9:00 AM
To:Samantha Bonifacio
Subject:FW: 4576 Paradise Drive - Tree Permit [VERY CONCERNED]
Another concern about the trees. Dina
Dina Tasini
Director of Community Development
Town Of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435‐7393
www.townoftiburon.org
From: Ken Huang <kenshipin@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 7:27 AM
To: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: 4576 Paradise Drive ‐ Tree Permit [VERY CONCERNED]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Dina,
I am writing on behalf of myself and my family regarding the Courtesy Notice of Tree Permit Application of 4576
Paradise Drive. As we have tried to contact your office previously, we've been extremely saddened by what this
property owner has done to the property, havoc they have caused to the wildlife, and the stress placed on residences
nearby including us.
We have lived in Paradise Cay since 2003. Until now, we've enjoyed the beautiful birds coming in and out of the
neighborhood, mating and hatching their eggs in the nests that they built on the trees. The trees have provided home
to these birds and youngins. When the owners started removing the trees, we noticed a significant drop in the number
of birds. Additionally, we aren't hearing owls anymore as we used to in the evenings and early morning hours.
Anyhow I can go on and on as to how upset we are. In summary, we have real concerns about the owners of property
4576 Paradise's removal of the trees, especially combined with their complete disregard for the environment and
residences of Tiburon and Marin
We kindly ask your office to be very careful and thorough in your review.
Thank you and kindest regards,
Ken Huang (Ben and Nate)
115 Trinidad Drive
1
Samantha Bonifacio
From:Dina Tasini
Sent:Wednesday, January 26, 2022 10:38 AM
To:Cynthia Massey-Kim
Cc:Kris Bernard; James; Samantha Bonifacio
Subject:RE: 4576 Paradise Dr - Tree Permit Application
Good Morning,
BCDC has been working with Mr Crandall and has been in contact with our office. With respect to the tree application
we are evaluating the proposed removal of trees and have received many letters of concern. We are revieing the
proposal closely and due to neighborhood concern we will most likely refer this application to the Design Review
Board. We have not scheduled this item yet but once we do we will be notifying you and the neighborhood at large so
you can fully participate in the process. Thank you for your email I have copied Sam Bonafacio who will be working with
me to complete the process. Dina
Dina Tasini
Director of Community Development
Town Of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435‐7393
www.townoftiburon.org
From: Cynthia Massey‐Kim <cynslim@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 10:26 AM
To: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>
Cc: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>; James <jlm301@gmail.com>
Subject: 4576 Paradise Dr ‐ Tree Permit Application
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Dina and the Planning Department,
We are writing to you in response to the notification letter we received about the newly proposed tree removal
permit application for 4576 Paradise Dr.
Our concerns for this proposal are as follows:
(1) Proper Erosion mitigation, control, and prevention of the shoreline:
From our understanding, it is required of Mr. Crandall to work closely with BCDC to mitigate and prevent
future erosion to the shoreline, while protecting the Bay's conservation plans. The current state of the
shoreline has been detrimentally affected by the Owner's lack of mitigation plans and overall negligence for
the environment, while profusely cutting down trees over the last two years. Have the proper experts been
notified (ie. environmental studies, civil engineers, storm control planners, etc) or has the applicant or Owner
submitted any reports to verify that future erosion and destruction to the shoreline will be prevented with this
new tree removal? How can new trees be cut down if a resolution or plan to prevent erosion has not been
confirmed or approved by both the Town and BCDC? Amongst the community, there is documentation of all
2
the "new" runoffs from 4576 Paradise Dr, streaming downward into the Bay and shoreline, for your reference
if needed.
(2) Protection of Natural Habitat of Wildlife:
The Paradise Cay community can vouch that the trees (that are proposed to be cut down) serve as nesting
habitats for wildlife birds. The community has photos of these nesting birds over the years, and it is
unfortunate that the presence of these birds diminished drastically due to Mr. Crandall's tree cutting. Is it
required for the applicant or Owner to contact the CA Department of Fish & Wildlife to proceed with
permission to cut down these trees?
(3) Privacy:
How is the privacy of neighbors considered during the process of tree removal in the Town of Tiburon?
We kindly ask that you consider our concerns with high regard upon approving future tree removal.
We thank you for your time and consideration for the community.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Massey-Kim
103 Trinidad Drive.
1
Samantha Bonifacio
From:Dina Tasini
Sent:Wednesday, January 26, 2022 4:37 PM
To:Creech, John@BCDC
Cc:Plater, Brent@BCDC; Samantha Bonifacio
Subject:RE: FW: Important - Shoreline Inquiry / Community Concerns! ER2021.0100.00
Good afternoon John,
We will most certainly have him provide us with additional information so we can answer the questions regarding
erosion and sedimentation amongst other things such as nesting and wildlife. This will be reviewed fully the
neighborhood is very engaged and we are moving cautiously. I will share information with you if you are interested as
we receive it. Dina
Dina Tasini
Director of Community Development
Town Of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435‐7393
www.townoftiburon.org
From: Creech, John@BCDC <john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 4:33 PM
To: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>
Cc: Plater, Brent@BCDC <brent.plater@bcdc.ca.gov>; Samantha Bonifacio <sbonifacio@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: RE: FW: Important ‐ Shoreline Inquiry / Community Concerns! ER2021.0100.00
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Good afternoon Dina,
Thank you very much for getting back to me with such useful information.
As I am sure you are aware, BCDC is concerned about any further tree removal exacerbating erosion and sedimentation
into the Bay. It sounds like these concerns will be addressed at the public hearing.
Thank you very much for the info and please continue to keep BCDC in the loop as things progress.
Respectfully,
John Creech
Enforcement Analyst
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Bay Area Metro Center
375 Beale St., Suite 510
San Francisco, CA 94105
Direct: (415) 352‐3619
Main Number: (415) 352‐3600
2
john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is
prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
From: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 1:54 PM
To: Creech, John@BCDC <john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov>
Cc: Plater, Brent@BCDC <brent.plater@bcdc.ca.gov>; Samantha Bonifacio <sbonifacio@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: RE: FW: Important ‐ Shoreline Inquiry / Community Concerns! ER2021.0100.00
Hi John,
Sorry for the delayed response. Generally with eucalyptus we don’t have many issues approving the removal. In this
instance the property in question is Mr. Crandall’s property on Paradise. He enlisted his neighbor to apply for the permit
for removal of trees that block her view. Normally this can be approved at a staff level by the Director (meসহ). In this
instance due to community concern we are probably going to refer this to the design review board to review the project
and take action. At that time we will ask for a nesting study etc. Not sure it is connected to your shoreline issues but
please let me know what concerns you may have. I think at this point the neighborhood will have a difficult time
separating issues. So once the required 10‐day circulation and review period has been completed we will let the
applicant know that we will not be approving the permit ministerially and a public hearing will be set and at that time we
will request additional materials. Hope that helps. Please let me know your thoughts and if you get emails that you can
share please do so. Thank you Dina
Dina Tasini
Director of Community Development
Town Of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435‐7393
www.townoftiburon.org
From: Creech, John@BCDC <john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 4:11 PM
To: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>
Cc: Plater, Brent@BCDC <brent.plater@bcdc.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: FW: Important ‐ Shoreline Inquiry / Community Concerns! ER2021.0100.00
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Dina,
I hope you are well and had a nice holiday season.
I am hoping to get a bit of information from you regarding a tree removal permit at 4576 Paradise Dr in Tiburon, CA.
3
Would you please help me understand how that permitting process progresses? Are other agency approvals (i.e. CA
Dept of Fish and Wildlife, BCDC) required to grant the permit?
Thank you very much and please let me know if you have any questions. I will look forward to hearing from you soon.
Respectfully,
John
John Creech
Enforcement Analyst
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Bay Area Metro Center
375 Beale St., Suite 510
San Francisco, CA 94105
Direct: (415) 352‐3619
Main Number: (415) 352‐3600
john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is
prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
From: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 3:59 PM
To: Creech, John@BCDC <john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: FW: Important ‐ Shoreline Inquiry / Community Concerns! ER2021.0100.00
What about if we spoke at 9 on Wednesday and or afternoon on Wednesday. Dina
Dina Tasini
Director of Community Development
Town Of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435‐7393
www.townoftiburon.org
From: Creech, John@BCDC <john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov>
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 12:18 PM
To: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>
Cc: Plater, Brent@BCDC <brent.plater@bcdc.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: FW: Important ‐ Shoreline Inquiry / Community Concerns! ER2021.0100.00
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
4
Hello Dina,
Thank you very much for returning my call – sorry that we are playing phone tag! Hopefully we can find some time to
have a conversation and get on the same page regarding this property.
I think you said that you’re not available tomorrow, but I am available for a call on Wednesday morning or Thursday
morning if you can find some time.
I will look forward to speaking with you!
Respectfully,
John Creech
Enforcement Analyst
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Bay Area Metro Center
375 Beale St., Suite 510
San Francisco, CA 94105
Direct: (415) 352‐3619
Main Number: (415) 352‐3600
john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is
prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
From: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 2:23 PM
To: Creech, John@BCDC <john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov>; Doug Haight <dhaight@townoftiburon.org>; Fairley,
Nicole@Waterboards <Nicole.Fairley@Waterboards.ca.gov>
Cc: Megan Aceves <maceves@townoftiburon.org>; Chelsee Navado <cnavado@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: RE: FW: Important ‐ Shoreline Inquiry / Community Concerns! ER2021.0100.00
Hi John,
I do not want to create any confusion or issues but wanted to make sure BCDC understands we are waiting for you to
enforce within the shoreline, what we view as your jurisdiction. The residents are upset that we have not cited him for
the structure within the shoreline and boats, so any updates would be helpful. Doug will follow up with the illegal
construction within the Town’s jurisdiction and activities at the site. This is not going to be an easy enforcement so I
appreciate the coordination just want to stay out of your way on this and let BCDC do their enforcement. Let me know if
you need anything from us. Dina
Dina Tasini
Director of Community Development
Town Of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435‐7393
5
www.townoftiburon.org
From: Creech, John@BCDC <john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 2:10 PM
To: Doug Haight <dhaight@townoftiburon.org>; Fairley, Nicole@Waterboards <Nicole.Fairley@Waterboards.ca.gov>
Cc: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>; Megan Aceves <maceves@townoftiburon.org>; Chelsee Navado
<cnavado@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: RE: FW: Important ‐ Shoreline Inquiry / Community Concerns! ER2021.0100.00
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Good afternoon Doug,
Thank you very much for following up.
I am glad to learn that you are receiving these communications as well – sorry to inundate your inbox!
Please continue to keep me posted as you and your team make developments. Please let me know if there is anything I
can do to help this matter progress.
Have a great holiday!
Respectfully,
John Creech
Enforcement Analyst
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Bay Area Metro Center
375 Beale St., Suite 510
San Francisco, CA 94105
Direct: (415) 352‐3619
Main Number: (415) 352‐3600
john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is
prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
From: Doug Haight <dhaight@townoftiburon.org>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 11:36 AM
To: Creech, John@BCDC <john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov>; Fairley, Nicole@Waterboards
<Nicole.Fairley@Waterboards.ca.gov>
Cc: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>; Megan Aceves <maceves@townoftiburon.org>; Chelsee Navado
<cnavado@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: RE: FW: Important ‐ Shoreline Inquiry / Community Concerns! ER2021.0100.00
6
John,
Thank you for the update. I am receiving these emails and photos as well, but it doesn’t hurt to forward them and keep
us all connected to these concerns. I will also forward you and Nicole any information that I receive that may be of
concern to your jurisdictions as well.
Regarding our code enforcement process, I am working on confirming the extent of the violations that we will be
pursuing, which are primarily a continuation of the County of Marin’s code enforcement that was in process in October
2021, just before the property was annexed to Tiburon. The violations confirmed by Marin County are primarily
construction of a detached structure, and remodeling without a permit. We will also likely be pursuing drainage
modifications without a permit, excavating (at the beach), and construction of the structure constructed to store boats
without either a building permit or BCDC permit. I noticed from these photos that the erosion on the beach appears to
have been caused by changes in drainage flow on the property, causing hydraulic erosion, and possibly by excavation of
landing areas for the boats. Once we are able to access the site to either verify that these structures and remodeling are
abated or completed in accordance with any valid permits, I may also be able to observe any additional violations.
Note: I will be out of the office beginning tomorrow until January 3, 2022, so please continue to forward any information
that you receive but understand that I will have to pickup code enforcement on this property until after January 2, 2022
Thank you and best regards,
Doug Haight
Acting Building Official
Town of Tiburon | 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon CA 94920 | 415.435.7372
dhaight@townoftiburon.org www.townoftiburon.org
Town Hall and the Building Division will be closed for the holidays beginning Thursday, December 23, 2021 and will
resume regular working hours on Monday, January 3, 2022.
There will be no Building Division over-the-counter reviews beginning December 20, 2021. Over-the-counter reviews
will resume Monday, January 3, 2022 and will be available Mondays-Thursdays 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.
The Building Division has implemented guidelines about the holiday closure, permitted work days, and follow up reviews
for work conducted during the closure. Read the guidelines.
From: Creech, John@BCDC <john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 10:40 AM
To: Doug Haight <dhaight@townoftiburon.org>; Fairley, Nicole@Waterboards <Nicole.Fairley@Waterboards.ca.gov>
Subject: FW: FW: Important ‐ Shoreline Inquiry / Community Concerns! ER2021.0100.00
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
7
FYI:
Another update from the property at 4576 Paradise Dr. in Tiburon.
Best,
J
John Creech
Enforcement Analyst
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Bay Area Metro Center
375 Beale St., Suite 510
San Francisco, CA 94105
Direct: (415) 352‐3619
Main Number: (415) 352‐3600
john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is
prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
From: Cynthia Massey‐Kim <cynslim@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 10:17 AM
To: Creech, John@BCDC <john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov>
Cc: Pan, Katharine@BCDC <katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov>; Trujillo, Matthew@BCDC <Matthew.Trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov>;
Plater, Brent@BCDC <brent.plater@bcdc.ca.gov>; jlm301@gmail.com; jcs213@me.com; rickdvm@gmail.com;
tonibchamp@gmail.com; vhughes01@comcast.net; sbeauchamp@mac.com; joyfulmail@gmail.com;
Rachealturner@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: FW: Important ‐ Shoreline Inquiry / Community Concerns! ER2021.0100.00
Hi John,
Thank you for your email, and for passing along this information to the Town and CA Water Boards.
I am sending you more photos for your reference. I asked my husband to cross over to the public beach
yesterday during low tide to see first hand the condition of the ruined beach.
There are bricks everywhere, which I mentioned are spilling out from the Owner's property. This is truly
unsafe for anyone who accesses the public beach, especially young children such as mine.
I hope that the Owner is also responsible for the environmental impact all his construction is doing to the
shoreline and the Bay. As you can see from the photos, the bricks are everywhere, and it gets worse with
each rainfall.
More bricks and rubbish expand further into the Bay.
Thank you for taking these concerns seriously and we rely on your expertise in how to best handle this.
Cynthia Massey-Kim
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 10:55 AM Creech, John@BCDC <john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov> wrote:
8
Good morning Cynthia,
Thank you very much for the update.
I have forwarded your message and your pictures along to Tiburon Code Enforcement and CA Water Boards for their
records.
Yes, BCDC is working with the property owner to get him the appropriate BCDC permit.
Again, thank you very much for passing along this information. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Respectfully,
John Creech
Enforcement Analyst
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Bay Area Metro Center
375 Beale St., Suite 510
San Francisco, CA 94105
Direct: (415) 352‐3619
Main Number: (415) 352‐3600
john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is
prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
9
From: Cynthia Massey‐Kim <cynslim@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 10:46 AM
To: Njuguna, Priscilla@BCDC <priscilla.njuguna@bcdc.ca.gov>
Cc: Pan, Katharine@BCDC <katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov>; Trujillo, Matthew@BCDC <Matthew.Trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov>;
Creech, John@BCDC <john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov>; Plater, Brent@BCDC <brent.plater@bcdc.ca.gov>;
jlm301@gmail.com; jcs213@me.com; rickdvm@gmail.com; tonibchamp@gmail.com; vhughes01@comcast.net;
sbeauchamp@mac.com; joyfulmail@gmail.com; Rachealturner@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: FW: Important ‐ Shoreline Inquiry / Community Concerns! ER2021.0100.00
Dear Priscilla and John,
Hope all is well.
Just wanted to touch base with you and your team regarding any updates that you can share with our
community regarding 4576 Paradise Dr, and the owner's intent to hopefully rectify the damage he caused to
the shoreline and possibly the Bay.
As I mentioned in a prior email, the state of the shoreline and public beach is in ruin, and continues to get
worse with each rainfall. The irrigation ditch continues to get bigger, more bricks/rubbish are discharged into
the Bay, and with last night's heavy rainfall, his motorized boat fell over on its side, causing a larger
"irrigation" channel or ditch along the shoreline. Just this morning, the Owner moved the boat out of the
ditch (reference photo "boat4"), but it is still located within 100 feet of the shoreline. May I ask if it has been
determined whether the Owner needs a permit for his motorized boat? The boat was clearly unstable, and
now has caused more physical damage to the state of the beach. The public beach's condition is also unsafe,
with bricks spilling out from his property, through those ditches he has created.
We thank you for your time in advance - we would greatly appreciate any updates you can share with us. It
is eye-opening and just terrible to see the shoreline detrimentally affected.
Thank you again,
Cynthia
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:09 PM Njuguna, Priscilla@BCDC <priscilla.njuguna@bcdc.ca.gov> wrote:
Dear Cynthia,
10
You are welcome.
You can send Tiburon code enforcement related reports to Doug Haight, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon CA 94920 |
415.435.7372 dhaight@townoftiburon.org
Sincerely,
Priscilla
Priscilla Njuguna
Enforcement Policy Manager
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Bay Area Metro Center
375 Beale St., Suite 510
San Francisco, CA 94105
Direct: (415) 352‐3640
Main Number: (415) 352‐3600
priscilla.njuguna@bcdc.ca.gov
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is
prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
From: Cynthia Massey‐Kim <cynslim@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 11:13 AM
To: Njuguna, Priscilla@BCDC <priscilla.njuguna@bcdc.ca.gov>
11
Cc: Pan, Katharine@BCDC <katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov>; Trujillo, Matthew@BCDC <Matthew.Trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov>;
Creech, John@BCDC <john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov>; Plater, Brent@BCDC <brent.plater@bcdc.ca.gov>;
jlm301@gmail.com; jcs213@me.com; rickdvm@gmail.com; tonibchamp@gmail.com; vhughes01@comcast.net;
sbeauchamp@mac.com; joyfulmail@gmail.com; Rachealturner@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: FW: Important ‐ Shoreline Inquiry / Community Concerns! ER2021.0100.00
Dear Priscilla,
Thank you so much for your quick response and for your vigilance in communicating with our community.
Sometimes, we are 'left in the dark,' while we continue to witness illicit activities by the Owner.
We also learned on Monday that the property is now annexed into the Town of Tiburon. Other than Ms.
Dina Tasini's team, would you mind sharing the contact/email we can use for "Tiburon's code enforcement?"
Thank you for sending my report to Tiburon and to the Water Quality Board too. I appreciate your support
and assistance in moving these issues forward and hopefully, as you said, to resolution.
Thank you again for your time.
Cynthia
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 10:51 AM Njuguna, Priscilla@BCDC <priscilla.njuguna@bcdc.ca.gov> wrote:
Good morning Cynthia,
Thank you for your timely report on activities being observed.
We have learned that the property has officially been annexed into Tiburon this week and have shared your report
with Tiburon code enforcement which would enforce on a potential luck of Town authorization for the grading
observed. For our purposes where the excavation is occurring and how much will be among the considerations as we
determine what additional actions to take and how that approach aligns with our current response to the
unauthorized activity at the property that would require a BCDC permit.
12
BCDC has informed the property owner of his obligations and we will continue to do so. We have also shared your
previous report with the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Watershed Program for them to determine what
role they can play.
Thank you for your vigilance as we continue to work to bring this matter to resolution.
Sincerely,
Priscilla
Priscilla Njuguna
Enforcement Policy Manager
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Bay Area Metro Center
375 Beale St., Suite 510
San Francisco, CA 94105
Direct: (415) 352‐3640
Main Number: (415) 352‐3600
priscilla.njuguna@bcdc.ca.gov
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure
is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
From: Cynthia Massey‐Kim <cynslim@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 10:26 AM
To: Njuguna, Priscilla@BCDC <priscilla.njuguna@bcdc.ca.gov>
Cc: Pan, Katharine@BCDC <katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov>; Trujillo, Matthew@BCDC <Matthew.Trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov>;
13
Creech, John@BCDC <john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov>; Plater, Brent@BCDC <brent.plater@bcdc.ca.gov>;
jlm301@gmail.com; jcs213@me.com; rickdvm@gmail.com; tonibchamp@gmail.com; vhughes01@comcast.net;
sbeauchamp@mac.com; joyfulmail@gmail.com; Rachealturner@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: FW: Important ‐ Shoreline Inquiry / Community Concerns! ER2021.0100.00
Dear Mr. John Creech and Ms. Priscilla Njuguna,
Hope you are well.
Just wanted to follow up with you regarding our email, expressing concerns over a variety of issues and activities that are occurring within 100ft off the shoreline.
Currently at this very moment, we are witnessing an excavator doing work along the elevated slope of his property,
right above the shoreline. Is this permitted by your department?
This is approximately 100 feet upwards, above the shoreline.
All the grading, construction, and erosion caused by these activities are of huge concern to the community. Whether
he is "merely cleaning up shrubs," it would be great to know that he has consulted with experts and received
appropriate permits allowing for these activities, so close to the shoreline.
The ditch in the public beach is not getting better, but only getting worse and deeper with each rainfall. Quite
honestly, even after it rains, there are streams flowing into the Bay, discharging waste and other rubbish.
Please see photos attached, this is happening right now.
Please advise your thoughts and we await your response.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Cynthia Massey‐Kim
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 8:50 AM Cynthia Massey‐Kim <cynslim@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Priscilla and the BCDC team,
14
Thank you for confirming your receipt of my email.
We thank you in advance for looking into these matters, and any information (or education) that you can
provide our community would be greatly appreciated.
We look forward to hearing from you and await your findings.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia Massey-Kim
On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 12:16 PM Njuguna, Priscilla@BCDC <priscilla.njuguna@bcdc.ca.gov> wrote:
Good afternoon Cynthia Massey‐Kim,
Thank you for sharing your concerns about 4576 Paradise Drive to BCDC. We have an open enforcement case that
we are working on and appreciate additional insight into additional work being undertaken without appropriate
approval.
A member of our team assigned to that matter, John Creech, will reach out to you if he requires additional details.
Your ongoing vigilance is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Priscilla
Priscilla Njuguna
Enforcement Policy Manager
15
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Bay Area Metro Center
375 Beale St., Suite 510
San Francisco, CA 94105
Direct: (415) 352‐3640
Main Number: (415) 352‐3600
priscilla.njuguna@bcdc.ca.gov
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or
disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
From: Cynthia Massey‐Kim <cynslim@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, October 29, 2021 at 3:09 PM
To: Pan, Katharine@BCDC <katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov>, ReceptionDesk@BCDC
<reception@bcdc.ca.gov>
Cc: James <jlm301@gmail.com>, Julie Schwach <jcs213@me.com>, Rick Schwach / Neighbor
<rickdvm@gmail.com>, Toni Beauchamp <tonibchamp@gmail.com>, vhughes01@comcast.net
<vhughes01@comcast.net>, SCOTT BEAUCHAMP <sbeauchamp@mac.com>, Joyful
<joyfulmail@gmail.com>, Racheal Turner <Rachealturner@yahoo.com>
Subject: Important ‐ Shoreline Inquiry / Community Concerns!
Dear BCDC and Ms. Katharine Pan:
I am writing to you today in hopes to seek your expert advice and gain insight as to what can be done to
preserve and protect the ‘public beach’ located closest to and/ between 103 Trinidad Dr. and 4576
Paradise Dr.
The neighboring community is concerned about various factors, which have been detrimentally caused by
the 4576 Paradise Dr. property. First, the current condition of the beach is in ruin. Due to the owner
cutting down trees on his property over the last 2 years without consulting the proper
professionals/experts to mitigate erosion, the result is quite catastrophic for the public use of the beach,
access to the Bay, and the shoreline. The erosion runoff from 4576 not only creates flood concerns to
16
the surrounding homes, but also poses serious safety issues for those who enjoy the public beach. The
current state of the beach appears to be hazardous; there appears to be red bricks and other rubbish that
flowed into the Bay, from his property through his man-made irrigation channels. Although the rainstorm
last week was severe and rare, the community has voiced that no prior rainstorm like this has ever
affected and transformed the beach to its ruined condition.
Also, the community has voiced concerns about the drastic changes seen on the beach, shoreline, and
water channel over the past several decades. The erosion (especially now) from the Property is causing
the shoreline to change. The community is now fearful and concerned that the erosion and runoff from
4576 (and the Owner’s negligence to address these concerns), the water channel between South Paradise
Cay and 4576 Paradise Drive will disappear in the years to come. Not only will this be detrimental to
those homeowners, but also to the general public as paddle boarders and kayakers may not be able to
enjoy the water. Said differently, the mound of land located across our dock is inching its way closer to
our property. We’ve noticed this change even within the last 2 years we have been in our home.
Furthermore, the Owner of 4576 Paradise Dr. has created a “marina,” which is within 100ft of the
shoreline and within your jurisdiction. During the storm, in order to prevent his motorized boat (and
other storage shelters) from floating or moving towards the Bay, we witnessed the Owner digging into
the beach with a shovel to redirect water flow into the Bay. This further exacerbated the shoreline
erosion.
While we are on the topic of erosion and runoffs within your jurisdiction, do you permit excavators and
other diggers to remove vegetation/trees on steep slopes within 100ft of the shoreline? These activities
have occurred numerous times over the last few months. This has been a concern but came to fruition
when we saw how the water and land runs into the Bay.
Please see attached letter, which includes a copy of this letter, as well as clear photos of the beach in its
current state, historical view, and previous state prior to 4576 manipulating the beach/shoreline and
making a man-made irrigation channel into the Bay.
Please advise your thoughts on this. We as a community have a lot of questions and rely on your
expertise for valid information and education. We have approached the Owner to investigate (to
alleviate) these erosion issues, but he has denied action on anything as he claims it’s not his fault (but
from the homes above his lot). If there is another department or agency that does handle these
concerns, please let us know.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Massey-Kim
917-302-1302
17
‐‐
Cynthia Massey‐Kim
cynslim@gmail.com
‐‐
Cynthia Massey‐Kim
cynslim@gmail.com
‐‐
Cynthia Massey‐Kim
cynslim@gmail.com
‐‐
Cynthia Massey‐Kim
cynslim@gmail.com
‐‐
Cynthia Massey‐Kim
cynslim@gmail.com
1
Samantha Bonifacio
From:Dina Tasini
Sent:Wednesday, January 26, 2022 1:39 PM
To:Samantha Bonifacio
Subject:FW: 4575/4576 Paradise Drive Tree Removal Application
Not sure if I sent this one. Let’s get together and discuss what our next steps are once the circulation period is
over. Dina
Dina Tasini
Director of Community Development
Town Of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435‐7393
www.townoftiburon.org
From: colonno@yahoo.com <colonno@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 12:53 PM
To: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: 4575/4576 Paradise Drive Tree Removal Application
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dina,
I live on 91 Trinidad Drive in Paradise Cay and have serious concerns about the large number of trees already removed
from the Crandall property and the latest application to remove an additional 11 trees. It is somewhat disingenuous to
see this application being filed by Steven Hendricks, when all of the trees are on the property of Eric Crandall and few
have anything to do with improving the view from the Hendricks’ home. Apart from removing trees used for many years
by nesting birds and destroying the privacy and view for everyone living below the Crandall property, there have already
been major issues with erosion resulting from the overzealous clearing of the Crandall property over the past year or
so. Significant runoff of dirt/stones from the hillside into the already shallow waterway that separates the Crandall
property from the adjacent properties below is already quite evident. At a minimum, the Tiburon Planning committee
should require an erosion abatement plan be part of any further tree clearing to ensure that the waterway does not get
filled in with dirt and subsequent storm runoff cause flooding of the properties below on Trinidad Drive. Thanks you for
the chance to comment on this application.
Rich Colonno
Timmers Landing HOA President
colonno@yahoo.com
1
Samantha Bonifacio
From:Dina Tasini
Sent:Monday, January 31, 2022 9:15 AM
To:Samantha Bonifacio
Subject:FW: 4576 Paradise Road 038-142-02
Dina Tasini
Director of Community Development
Town Of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435‐7393
www.townoftiburon.org
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Victoria Hughes <vhughes01@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2022 2:48 PM
To: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: 4576 Paradise Road 038‐142‐02
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Ms. Tasini:
I support the removal of these trees.
We live at 95 Trinidad Drive, just East of the property.
1. The Eucalyptus trees are not indigenous and are crowding out the indigenous trees and plants.
2. The owners of the property have cleared away alot overgrown shrubs and junk bushes which were a result of the
shade created by the Eucalyptus. As a result of the clearing many indigenous Oak trees have been cleaned up and are
really beautiful.
3. The Eucalyptus are a fire hazard. On hot dry windy days we are worried that if a fire started it would travel over to
our property.
5. This property was originally grassland with live oaks and bay trees spotted throughout. Now, as a result of the
Eucalyptus, grass has been shaded out and it is an overgrown mass of non native vegetation.
6. At this time of year, the Eucalyptus trees block the sun at about 3:00 pm on our street, and we sit in the shade and
shiver. A picture to follow.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my concerns.
Victoria S. Hughes
95 Trinidad Drive
1
Samantha Bonifacio
From:Dina Tasini
Sent:Monday, January 31, 2022 9:16 AM
To:Samantha Bonifacio
Subject:FW: 4576 Paradise Road. 038-142-02
Dina Tasini
Director of Community Development
Town Of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435‐7393
www.townoftiburon.org
From: Victoria Hughes <vhughes01@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2022 2:56 PM
To: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: 4576 Paradise Road. 038‐142‐02
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
It is 2:50pm 1‐29‐2022. The sun is about to go behind the Eucalyptus trees on the 19 acre lot at 4576 Paradise Road and
we will be entirely in the shade.
Thank you,
Victoria S Hughes
95 Trinidad Drive
415 272‐5104
2
3
Sent from my iPhone
1
Samantha Bonifacio
From:Dina Tasini
Sent:Monday, January 31, 2022 9:16 AM
To:Samantha Bonifacio
Subject:FW: 4576 Paradise Rd. In the shade
Dina Tasini
Director of Community Development
Town Of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435‐7393
www.townoftiburon.org
From: Victoria Hughes <vhughes01@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2022 3:39 PM
To: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: 4576 Paradise Rd. In the shade
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
3:38 pm
2
Sent from my iPhone
1
Samantha Bonifacio
From:Dina Tasini
Sent:Tuesday, February 1, 2022 9:49 AM
To:Samantha Bonifacio
Subject:FW: Trees at 4576 Paradise Dr.
Dina Tasini
Director of Community Development
Town Of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435‐7393
www.townoftiburon.org
From: SCOTT BEAUCHAMP <sbeauchamp@mac.com>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 9:00 PM
To: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: Trees at 4576 Paradise Dr.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Ms. Tasini,
Attached please find photos of nesting birds taken on January 23, 2022 at 5:06pm and also on January 27, 2002 between
6:04pm and 6:26pm. Photos show the tall Eucalyptus trees on at the property at 4576 Paradise where nesting birds
reside. We believe these same trees are the ones marked for removal as indicated on the tree cutting permit notice we
received from the Town of Tiburon. In the photos attached, there are two birds located inside the nest, and one sitting
on the branch next to the nest.
The nest shown in the photo has been in the same tree for the the past 5 years or more. The birds return to this same
nest each year around this time to raise their young. Once the chicks are hatched, you can hear their screeching
throughout the night.
There is no doubt nesting birds live there! Each photo file contains the date and time they were taken. I have similar
photos from the past five years of the same, and videos of the birds traveling from trees on the south end of the
property to the nest.
2
3
4
5
ALEXANDER ORTIZ
CONSULTING ENGINEER
3494 Camino Tassajara, #121
Danville, California 94506
925/876-1955
June 24, 2022
A1288CC
Town of Tiburón
Community Development Department, Planning Division
Via E-Mail: dtasini@townoftiburón.org
Attention: Miss Dina Tasini
RE: Civil Engineering Consultation
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation of Erosion Potential
Proposed Tree Management Operations at Sierra Pines Group, LLC, Property
4576 Paradise Drive
Tiburón, California
Ladies, Gentlemen:
In reply to the request of Mr. Eric Crandall of Sierra Pines Group, LLC, review of an official application directed to the
Town of Tiburón for land improvement work proposed for the subject property has been performed. Presented for evaluation
was a copy of a Tree Removal Permit Application, dated December 3, 2021, that was presented to the Town by Mrs. Kathryn
Hendricks, owner of the property located at 4575 Paradise Drive (directly across the street from (to the west-northwest of) the
4576 address). It is understood (1) that the project will principally consist of maintenance and/or removal of a selection of
large, mature trees (the majority being eucalyptus) that are found broadcast throughout roughly the northern half of the sub-
ject site; and (2) that the Town has voiced interest pertinent to the effect of the proposed work on site hydraulic erosion.
In performing this consultation, the scope of work furnished by this office included (1) surface reconnaissance of the general
areas wherein applicable operations will be conducted, (2) personal and telephone discussions with Mr. Crandall, (3) review
of published and available technical and other applicable information including that (a) of the aforestated application, (b) of a
note dated December 16, 2021, that was prepared by Sierra Pines Group, LLC, and (c) of a December 6, 2021, arborist report
that was prepared by Urban Forestry Associates, Incorporated, (4) office evaluation of the compiled data and corresponding
engineering analyses, and (5) preparation of this brief e-letter. Furthermore, it is understood that Mr. Crandall has been in
consultation with Miss Amanda Culpepper of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife as to this matter.
It should be observed that, in 2019, this office was engaged by Sierra Pines Group, LLC, to furnish civil engineering consul-
tation services pertaining to the then-envisioned redevelopment of the parcel. It is presently in the process of assisting in the
preparation of the Precise Development Plan that is required for such an enterprise by the Town of Tiburón. Hence, overall
project site reconnaissance was initially conducted by the undersigned on May 22, 2019, and several subsequent visits have
been performed since; the latest being on February 6, 2022.
SYNOPSIS
The following narrative, to be regarded as very general, was developed from the discussions held, from the review of availa-
ble and published information, and from field reconnaissance:
A. Site and Vicinity Features
The subject site is located to the east, and nestled within an inboard bend, of Paradise Drive (the street front); said thorough-
fare constituting nearly half of its political perimeter. The lot is roughly D-shaped and covers an area measuring nearly 10
acres in plan. The only locations where adjoining private land is found are along the extreme southern, and middle-half of
the eastern borders. A number of single family homes, all well set from the common property lines, are located therein; those
found to the east being founded on the artificial landfill that forms the Paradise Cay enclave. The Hendricks property is
found directly across the street and upslope from the northwesternmost corner of the parcel.
Precedent to its present state, the general area that surrounds the site has been under contemporary development (id est, semi-
rural tending to upscale residential) for over 140 years.
Both the Hendricks and subject parcels are sited within the lower reaches of an east-southeast-draining swale that originates
off the summit of nearby Ring Mountain (at just over 600 feet in elevation, the most prominent feature of the Tiburón
Peninsula) and fans down to a minor estuary that forms the greater part of the subject site’s eastern boundary. The summit is
mapped to be roughly one-half mile west of (inland from) the waterfront. Overall, the drainage basin has a fall-line which, in
JUNE 24,
2022
A1288CC Page 2
general, is very steeply sloping near the summit and nearly flat by the shore; the flanks being steep to very steep, and, occa-
sionally, precipitous. Estimated to drain a total of 60 acres or so (less than 10 percent of a square-mile) in plan, the overall
watershed is hence considered to be relatively small.
As is also the case in the overall San Francisco Bay Area, it should be observed that the subject site appears to have been
generally improved to its present state and condition in accordance with methods for such that have been typically exercised
in Marín County common land development and residential construction during the 20th and 21st centuries.
B. Subsurface Conditions
In pertinence to your stated interest, geologic information relevant to the vicinity of the proposed work indicates that the near
surface soils that are found in the general area are underlain by bedrock materials consisting predominantly of Franciscan
Mélange that extend down to the shoreline (Paradise Cay being beyond (to the east of) its range). The Mélange is character-
ized, in general, as a tectonic mixture of disorganized and variably sheared and fractured shales and sandstones containing
greenstone, chert, graywacke, and their metamorphosed equivalents, plus metamorphic rocks and serpentinite.
Bedrock at the site is found naturally exposed at relatively shallow depth (less than adult person-height or so) and rock out-
croppings can be readily observed throughout the general surrounding area and neighboring inland properties. Field obser-
vation by the undersigned also indicates that a number of relatively minor gullies and their associated tributaries have been
carved out to their present configuration by creek bank erosion and creek bed scour processes thereby revealing such pres-
ence of underlying bedrock. These conditions should be regarded as typical by comparison to any other similar minor stream
under a similar state of affairs. Notwithstanding, a high proportion of the trees scheduled for processing do not appear to be
located within close proximity of any gully or the shoreline.
CONCLUSION
Formation of the Franciscan Mélange, described herein-above, is dated to the Cretaceous Period of the Mesozoic Era. 145 to
65 million years ago. During this time, the earth structure that underlies the subject site has been shaped by nature to its pre-
sent configuration by numerous processes and circumstances; hydraulic erosion being among these. What is presently ob-
served is the net result of what has thus been geologically experienced. By comparison, excavation of the Grand Canyon of
the Colorado River in Arizona has reportedly been occurring during the last 5 to 6 million years.
Hence, in magnitude and extent, it may be concluded that the execution of the proposed tree work will be inconsequential in
pertinence to the potential for the generation and/or continuation of erosion processes at the subject site during any reasona-
bly foreseeable future. Furthermore, as applicable to this consultation, over forthcoming periods of time comparable to those
which have already elapsed, similar future site performance can therefore be anticipated.
LIMITATIONS
Because of the nature and limited scope of the project, the presentation of this correspondence lacks broad and exhaustive
detail and definition. Also, the opinions and conclusions stated are based solely on the review of published and available data
and on the evaluation of surface, visible, and exposed conditions; mechanical subsurface exploration was beyond the scope of
the services provided. It is possible that future elucidated information or additional work may modify the opinions and con-
clusions of this e-letter.
Services furnished by this office consist of professional opinions, conclusions, and recommendations made in accordance
with generally accepted civil engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either ex-
press or implied.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please call.
Yours sincerely,
Alexander Ortiz
Copies: Addressee (1)
Mrs. Kathryn Hendricks (1 – Via E-Mail)
Sierra Pines Group, LLC (1 – Via E-Mail)
Attention: Mr. Eric Crandall
July 18, 2022
Samantha Bonifacio
Town of Tiburon Planning Dept
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Ms. Bonifacio:
Located at 4576 Paradise Drive are several dead Pine Trees as well as other dead Eucalyptus
tree limbs and various other dead vegetation. A certified arborist has also identified the dead
vegetation. I have requested the property owner remove any dead trees and other dead
vegetation on the property.
The Tiburon Fire District supports the removal of any dead trees or vegetation on this property
that could pose a possible fire hazard.
If you have any questions, please give me a call at 435-7200
Thank you,
Django (DJ) Heckler
Fire Prevention Specialist
1
Samantha Bonifacio
From:Django Heckler <dheckler@tiburonfire.org>
Sent:Monday, July 18, 2022 3:09 PM
To:Samantha Bonifacio
Subject:Re: Dead trees (and other dead vegetation) at 4576 Paradise Drive
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hey Samantha,
Sorry about any confusion I've caused. The main tree (s) is right at the Paradise Drive roadway just before coming up on
Mateo Drive. I can go by tomorrow and take a picture and email it to you for clarification.
As you may know this is a huge property and the homeowner has been doing a tremendous amount of work clearing out
vegetation over the last couple of years and I want to be able to continue to support the removal of dead trees,
branches and any other dead vegetation.
Thanks,
DJ
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 11:41 AM Samantha Bonifacio <sbonifacio@townoftiburon.org> wrote:
Hi DJ,
Thank you for letting me know. There is a pending tree application for this property that will be going to the Design
Review Board soon. Is there a way you can identify which trees you are directing to be removed and/or provide me a
copy of the Arborist’s report? I’m attaching what we received as part of the application process and I just want to
determine if any of the requested trees are part of what is under review.
Thank you,
Sam
Samantha Bonifacio
Assistant Planner
415-435-7392
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California 94920
The Planning Division is open 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM, Monday through Thursday and is closed on Fridays.
2
All new Planning Division Applications should be submitted to: plans@townoftiburon.org .
From: Django Heckler <dheckler@tiburonfire.org>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 9:01 AM
To: Samantha Bonifacio <sbonifacio@townoftiburon.org>
Cc: eric94920@aol.com
Subject: Dead trees (and other dead vegetation) at 4576 Paradise Drive
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Samantha,
Please see the attached Dead Tree Letter (and other dead tree limbs & vegetation) for 4576 Paradise Drive.
Thank you,
‐‐
Django (DJ) Heckler
Fire Prevention Specialist
Tiburon Fire District
1679 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon CA 94920
(415) 435‐7202 (desk)
(415 )328‐7174 (cell)
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
1
Samantha Bonifacio
From:Dina Tasini
Sent:Wednesday, July 27, 2022 9:32 AM
To:Samantha Bonifacio
Subject:FW: letter of support
Dina Tasini
Director of Community Development
Town Of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435‐7393
www.townoftiburon.org
From: james gassel <james_gassel@me.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 8:58 PM
To: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: letter of support
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
My name is James Gassel and I live at 4505 Paradise dr, Tiburon, CA where I am Steven Kendricks neighbor. I wanted you
to know that I am in full support of Mr. Kendricks tree cutting permit request and would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Best Regards,
James
James Gassel 415‐305‐4773
You don't often get email from james_gassel@me.com. Learn why this is important
JULY 27,
2022
1
Samantha Bonifacio
From:Kris Wyek
Sent:Monday, August 22, 2022 11:51 AM
To:Samantha Bonifacio
Subject:FW: 4576 Paradise Dr
Respectfully,
Kris Wyek
Planning Technician
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435‐7390
www.townoftiburon.org
From: h.foedisch@nm.com <h.foedisch@nm.com>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 4:50 PM
To: Kris Wyek <kwyek@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: 4576 Paradise Dr
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Kris,
In response to the notice of additional tree removal on 4576 Paradise Dr. I am writing to voice my
objections to it. Both herons and egrets nest in the Eucalyptus and other trees on this property, they are active rookeries and the owner has already removed many trees which, in my option, has adversely affect their mating and lifespans. The trees also offer some wind protection to Paradise cay and our entire neighborhood will be negatively impacted from the disruption to wildlife and loss of the
buffer the trees provide.
I hope someone from the city will visit this property, there seems to be a lager number of bee hives and our windows and painted surfaces are covered with the yellow sticky “splat” of bee excrement. I know this may sound petty or weird but the cost and time spent cleaning it up is frustrating.
Thank you, Herb
You don't often get email from h.foedisch@nm.com. Learn why this is important
2
Herb Foedisch, CFP® | Founder and Private Wealth Advisor
600 Montgomery St., Suite 1600, San Francisco, CA 94111
P: 415‐733‐6571 | F: 415‐395‐9120
ParadiseCayFinancial.com
CA License: 0730934
To upload documents: Secure Document Upload
To access your accounts online and go paperless: Click here to access your accounts
Our Team:
Josh Weaver, CFP® | Private Wealth Advisor | 415-733-6574 | josh.weaver@nm.com
Wynne Wan, RICP® | Director of Investment Operations & Services | 415-733-6573 | wynne.wan@nm.com
Sallie Madriz | Director of Insurance Operations and Services | 415-733-6726 | sallie.madriz@nm.com
Martin Shteynman | Client Service Representative | 415-733-6572 | martin.e.shteynman@nm.com
Paradise Cay Financial Wealth Management & Insurance Services is a marketing name for Herbert W Foedisch Jr. in their capacity as a representative of Northwestern Mutual is not a legal business name. Northwestern Mutual is the marketing name for The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Milwaukee, WI (NM) (life and disability insurance, annuities and life insurance with long-term care benefits) and its subsidiaries. Herb Foedisch is an Associate Insurance Agent of NM and Northwestern Long Term Care Insurance Company, Milwaukee, WI (long-term care insurance), a subsidiary of NM. Investment advisory services provided as an Advisor of Northwestern Mutual Wealth Management Company®, (NMWMC) Milwaukee, WI, a subsidiary of NM and a federal savings bank. Investment brokerage services provided as a Registered Representative of Northwestern Mutual
Investment Services, LLC (NMIS), a subsidiary of NM, broker-dealer, registered investment adviser and member FINRA and SIPC. There may be instances when this agent represents companies in addition to NM or its subsidiaries. While links to other websites are provided for convenience and information, please be advised that except for information related to Northwestern Mutual (NM), the inclusion of, or linking to, other websites does not imply NM endorsement of, nor responsibility for, those websites.
Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc. owns the certification marks (CFP®, CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ and federally registered
CFP® (with flame design) in the U.S. which it awards to individuals who successfully complete CFP® Board’s initial and ongoing certification requirements.
Please do not send orders for mutual funds or securities via email, as they cannot be processed.
Your transmission of electronic mail to this address represents your consent to two-way communication by Internet email. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer on which it exists.
Any information in this email regarding products and services is considered an advertisement for Northwestern Mutual.
Northwestern Mutual, its subsidiaries and affiliates may review and retain incoming and outgoing electronic mail for this
e‐mail address for quality assurance and regulatory compliance purposes. Please be advised that communications with
{SECURE MESSAGE} in the subject line have been sent using a secure messaging system. Communications that do not
have this tag may not be secure and could be observed by a third party. Our commitment to privacy: At Northwestern
Mutual, your privacy is important to us. For more information about our privacy practices, please review our privacy
notices.
If you don’t want to receive any emails from your financial representative and any emails (except servicing emails) from
Northwestern Mutual, unsubscribe.
Northwestern Mutual
720 East Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202‐4797.
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Ken Huang
Dina Tasini; Doug Haight; Kris Wyek
4576 Paradise Drive - Tree Removal
Wednesday, August 24, 2022 8:36:18 AM
Conservation-Exisitng-Conditions-Report.pdf
Conservation-Exisitng-Conditions-Report.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Town of Tiburon (plus Dina, Dough and Kris),
This email is in response to the tree removal request by 4576 Paradise Drive which is
scheduled for Public Hearing on September 1, 2022.
We have serious concerns about the tree removal for the reasons listed below which we've
expressed concerns to your office in prior emails.
We believe the owners of 4576 Paradise Drive (as you are already aware the property is
owned by an investment limited liability company) are in violation of the following and we
are informing your office to ensure compliance for the safety, health, and well being of
Tiburon Residents. We hope our town government can be our voice and advocate.
1.Floodway obstruction pursuant to Tiburon Ordinance Chapter 13D Flood Damage
Prevention. One cannot build, encroach or even fill in the designated floodway which the
property owners have done. It is in violation of the town's Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance as well as the National Flood Insurance Program.
2.Destruction of sensitive wildlife. Paradise Cay is located in an unique area. As such, we
have wildlife that exist in our area due to the resources the area provides. We believe the
owners have already violated the policies and implanting programs of the General Plan as well
as the Municipal Code. We have concerns for the loss of sensitive wildlife and those birds
under the "special status species" list. [Something to consider: The owner's shifty behavioris likely so they can skirt around OSC-c. We think they have and are clearing the land in
advance of any permit application so that there will be little environment assessment to do.They are destroying the land and any nesting areas, sensitive wildlife communities so none
exist by the time they apply to build.]
3.Create Tiburon 2040: The owners are in violation or potential violation of the following
policies: OSC-16, OSC-17, OSC-18, OSC-21,OSC-22, OSC-33, AND OSC-34. Also page
25, OSC-f. [Doc. attached.]
4.Loss of Shade and Privacy: The trees provide shade and privacy to our home. By cutting
the trees we will lose our privacy as our home will be visible from Paradise Drive which has
been a high traffic road. Further, the trees have thus far provided shade on hot days, and
particularly important now that we are having hotter days.
We hope your office takes all of the above into serious consideration. We hope proper review
and technical assessments are made before allowing any tree cutting and any construction on
site. We would suggest STOP Work until proper reviews have been done and BCDC hearing
is final.
Thank you for your assistance. Please let us know what we can do on our end as well to help
resolve the very difficult situation.
Best regards,
Ken Huang
CONSERVATION
Topics:
1 Cultural and Historic Resources
2 Biological Resources
3 Air Quality
4 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
5 Mineral and Energy Resources
6 Hydrology and Water Quality
7 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
The natural resources in the Town and surrounding
area form an important part of Tiburon’s unique
character and quality of life. These resources include
cultural resources, biological resources, air quality,
geology and soils, mineral and energy resources,
hydrology and water quality, and aesthetic resources.
These resources are described in relation to the Town
and the General Plan Planning Area, which includes the
Town, its Sphere of Influence (SOI), and land in the
Planning Area outside of the SOI.
CONSERVATION
ii Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 1
Key Terms ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Regulatory Framework ......................................................................................................................... 1
Environmental Setting ......................................................................................................................... 4
References ......................................................................................................................................... 16
2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................... 19
Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................................... 20
Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................................... 28
References ......................................................................................................................................... 41
3 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................ 51
Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................................... 51
Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................................... 55
References ......................................................................................................................................... 66
4 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY ........................................................................................... 72
Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................................... 72
Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................................... 76
References ......................................................................................................................................... 85
5 MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 98
Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................................... 98
Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................................... 100
References ....................................................................................................................................... 102
6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ......................................................................................... 106
Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................................................... 106
Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................................... 111
References ....................................................................................................................................... 115
7 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES ................................................................................... 118
Key Terms ......................................................................................................................................... 118
Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................................................... 118
Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................................... 122
References ....................................................................................................................................... 125
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Resources Listed With The Northwest Information Center File Directory ..................................... 8
Table 1-2: Historic Resources Identified and Evaluated for the Downtown Tiburon Historic Resources Study
and Listed On the Marin County Historic Property Data File Directory ......................................................... 13
Table 2-1: Cover Types - California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System .................................................... 29
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions iii
Table 2-2: Special Status Plants Present or Potentially Present (5 Mile) ..................................................... 33
Table 2-3: Special Status Plants Present or Potentially Present (15 Mile) .................................................. 35
Table 2-4: Special Status Animals Present or Potentially Present (5 Mile) .................................................. 37
Table 2-5: Special Status Animals Present or Potentially Present (15 Mile)................................................ 38
Table 3-1: Staff Recommended Ceqa Thresholds Of Significance ............................................................... 54
Table 3-2: Federal And State Ambient Air Quality Standards ........................................................................ 61
Table 3-2: State And National Attainment Status .......................................................................................... 62
Table 3-3: SFBAAB Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary - Ozone ................................................ 64
Table 3-4: SFBAAB Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary - Pm 2.5 ................................................. 64
Table 3-5: SFBAAB Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary - Pm 10 ................................................. 65
Table 3-6: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data (San Rafael [534 4th Street]) ............................................ 65
Table 4-1: Planning Area Soils ......................................................................................................................... 77
Table 4-2: Fault Activity Rating ........................................................................................................................ 79
Table 4-3: Richter Magnitudes and Effects .................................................................................................... 79
Table 4-4: Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale for Earthquakes ...................................................................... 80
Table 4-5: Significant Earthquakes in the Region .......................................................................................... 80
Table 4-6: Landslide Susceptibility Matrix ...................................................................................................... 82
Table 5-1: Mineral Resource Classification System .................................................................................... 101
Table 6-1. State Watershed Hierarchy Naming Convention ....................................................................... 112
Table 6-2. Planning Area Impaired Water Bodies ....................................................................................... 114
LIST OF FIGURES (figures are located at the end of each chapter)
Figure 1-1 – Historic Resources
Figure 2-1 – Land Cover Types
Figure 2-2 – CNDDB 5-Mile Search
Figure 2-3 – CNDDB 9-Quadrant Search
Figure 2-4 – Sensitive Natural Communities
Figure 3-1 – CARE Program Areas
Figure 3-2 – Major Emitters
Figure 4-1 – USGS Topographic Map
Figure 4-2 – SoilS Map
Figure 4-3 – Earthquake Fault Map
Figure 4-4 – Liquefaction Potential
Figure 4-5 – Landslide Vulnerability
Figure 4-6 – Shrink-Swell Potential
Figure 5-1 – Mineral Resource Zones
Figure 6-1 – Watersheds
Figure 7-1 – Open Space Resources
Figure 7-2 – Visual and Scenic Characteristics
CONSERVATION
iv Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
This page left blank intentionally.
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 1
1 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
These resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects that may have historical, architectural, archeological,
cultural, including tribal cultural, or scientific importance. Preservation of Tiburon’s cultural heritage should be considered
when planning for the future.
KEY TERMS
Archeology. The study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts and monuments.
Complex. A patterned grouping of similar artifact assemblages from two or more sites, presumed to represent an
archeological culture.
Ethnography. The study of contemporary human cultures.
Midden. A deposit marking a former habitation site and containing such materials as discarded artifacts, bone and shell
fragments, food refuse, charcoal, ash, rock, human remains, structural remnants, and other cultural leavings.
Paleontology. The science of the forms of life existing in former geologic periods, as represented by their fossils.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FEDERAL
National Historic Preservation Act
Most regulations at the Federal level stem from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and historic preservation
legislation such as the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. NHPA established guidelines to
"preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and to maintain, wherever possible, an
environment that supports diversity and a variety of individual choice." The NHPA includes regulations specifically for Federal
land-holding agencies, but also includes regulations (Section 106) which pertain to all projects that are funded, permitted,
or approved by any Federal agency and which have the potential to affect cultural resources. All projects that are subject to
NEPA are also subject to compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and NEPA requirements concerning cultural resources.
Provisions of NHPA establish a National Register of Historic Places (The National Register) maintained by the National Park
Service, the Advisory Councils on Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Offices, and grants-in-aid programs.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act and Native American Graves and Repatriation Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act recognizes that Native American religious practices, sacred sites, and sacred
objects have not been properly protected under other statutes. It establishes as national policy that traditional practices and
beliefs, sites (including right of access), and the use of sacred objects shall be protected and preserved. Additionally, Native
American remains are protected by the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act of 1990.
Other Federal Legislation
Historic preservation legislation was initiated by the Antiquities Act of 1966, which aimed to protect important historic and
archeological sites. It established a system of permits for conducting archeological studies on Federal land, as well as setting
penalties for noncompliance. This permit process controls the disturbance of archeological sites on Federal land. New
permits are currently issued under the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979. The purpose of ARPA is to
enhance preservation and protection of archeological resources on public and Native American lands. The Historic Sites Act
of 1935 declared that it is national policy to "Preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national
significance."
CONSERVATION
2 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
STATE
California Register of Historic Resources
California State law also provides for the protection of cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of
prehistoric and historic resources identified in documents prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Under CEQA, a cultural resource is considered an important historical resource if it meets any of the criteria found
in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Criteria identified in the CEQA Guidelines are similar to those described
under the NHPA. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains the California Register of Historic Resources
(CRHR). Historic properties listed, or formally designated for eligibility to be listed, on the National Register are automatically
listed on the CRHR. State Landmarks and Points of Interest are also automatically listed. The CRHR can also include
properties designated under local preservation ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires that lead agencies determine whether projects may have a significant effect on archeological and historical
resources. This determination applies to those resources which meet significance criteria qualifying them as “unique,”
“important,” listed on the CRHR, or eligible for listing on the CRHR. If the agency determines that a project may have a
significant effect on a significant resource, the project is determined to have a significant effect on the environment, and
these effects must be addressed. If a cultural resource is found not to be significant under the qualifying criteria, it need not
be considered further in the planning process. CEQA emphasizes avoidance of archeological and historical resources as the
preferred means of reducing potential significant environmental effects resulting from projects. If avoidance is not feasible,
an excavation program or some other form of mitigation must be developed to mitigate the impacts. In order to adequately
address the level of potential impacts, and thereby design appropriate mitigation measures, the significance and nature of
the cultural resources must be determined. The following are steps typically taken to assess and mitigate potential impacts
to cultural resources for the purposes of CEQA:
• identify cultural resources,
• evaluate the significance of the cultural resources found,
• evaluate the effects of the project on cultural resources, and
• develop and implement measures to mitigate the effects of the project on cultural resources that would be
significantly affected.
Historical resources are considered part of the environment and a project that may cause a substantial adverse effect on the
significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5 defines what constitutes a historical resource, including: (1) a resource determined by the State Historical
Resources Commission to be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (including all properties on the
National Register); (2) a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code
(PRC) Section 5020.1(k); (3) a resource identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of
PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (4) any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that the City determines
to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational,
social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided the City's determination is supported by substantial
evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered to be historically significant if it meets the
criteria for listing on the California Register.
Furthermore, AB 52 amended CEQA to: (1) define an adverse change to a Tribal Cultural Resource as a “significant impact;”
and, (2) require consultation with affected California Native American Tribes prior to the release of a negative declaration,
mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project.
“Tribal Cultural Resources” as defined by CEQA include “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and
objects with a cultural value to a California Native American Tribe” that are included or eligible for inclusion in the California
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 3
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources. “Tribal Cultural Resources” also include cultural
landscapes, historical resources, and non-unique archaeological resources that meet these criteria. A lead agency has
discretion to designate a resource as a “Tribal Cultural Resource.”
State Laws Pertaining to Human Remains
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity
of discovered human remains until the county coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American.
If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the California Native American Heritage
Commission. CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.5) specify the procedures to be followed in case of the discovery of human
remains on non-Federal land. The disposition of Native American burials falls within the jurisdiction of the Native American
Heritage Commission.
Senate Bill 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes 2004)
Senate Bill (SB) 18 requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes to aid in
the protection of traditional tribal cultural places (“cultural places”) through local land use planning. This legislation, which
amended §65040.2, §65092, §65351, §65352, and §65560, and added §65352.3, §653524, and §65562.5 to the
Government Code; also requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to include in the General Plan
Guidelines advice to local governments on how to conduct these consultations. The intent of SB 18 is to provide California
Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose
of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. These consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and
amendment of both general plans (defined in Government Code §65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government
Code §65450 et seq.).
Assembly Bill 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014)
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of CEQA and equates
significant impacts on “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts (PRC Section 21084.2). AB
52 defines a “California Native American Tribe” as a Native American tribe located in California, and included on the
contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. AB 52 requires formal consultation with California
Native American Tribes prior to determining the level of environmental document if a tribe has requested to be informed
by the lead agency of proposed projects. AB 52 also requires that the consultation address project alternatives and
mitigation measures, for significant effects, if requested by the California Native American Tribe, and that consultation
be considered concluded when either the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, or the
agency concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.
LOCAL
Tiburon General Plan
The existing Tiburon General Plan Open Space & Conservation Element and Downtown Element identifies the following
goals, policies, and implementing programs related to cultural resources:
Open Space and Conservation Element
Goals
The Open Space and Conservation Element does not establish any goals specific to cultural resources.
Policies
OSC-47: The Town shall protect significant geological, ecological, archeological, and paleontological resources and historic
sites.
CONSERVATION
4 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
OSC-48: The Town will strive to preserve and protect structures and properties which have historical, cultural, aesthetic, or
other special character or interest to the Town.
Implementing Programs
OSC-h: The Town shall create and adopt an overlay zone for the area containing the Town's Inventory of Local Historical
Buildings and adopt additional protection measures for the structures identified in the Inventory.
OSC-i: The Town shall either establish an inventory of sites which have known archaeological sites or the possibility of
containing archaeological sites; or enter into an agreement with an outside entity which can provide similar services. Where
sites have the possibility of containing archaeological resources, project sponsors shall be required to notify contractors to
cease construction activities upon encountering archaeological artifacts or human remains until proper authorities have been
notified and a mitigation plan is developed.
Downtown Element
Goals
DT-A: To preserve and enhance the historical attributes and small-town village character of Downtown that exists on Main
Street and Ark Row.
Policies
DT-19: Throughout Downtown Character defining elements of buildings listed on the Town’s Inventory of Local Historical
Buildings (Resolution No. 07-2001 as amended) shall be retained, preserved, and restored whenever feasible.
DT-23: Ark Row Public and private improvements (including signs) shall be compatible with and shall not compromise Ark
Row’s historic resources and its unique character.
DT-24: Ark Row The historic arks, cottages, and other resources of Ark Row shall be retained and rehabilitated consistent
with recommended actions provided in applicable sections of The Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation &
Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
Implementing Programs
DT-g: The Town shall adopt a resolution designating the former Northwest Pacific Railroad Yard palm tree as a protected
tree.
Town of Tiburon Municipal Code
Chapter 13 – Historic Landmarks. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the general and economic welfare of the town
by preserving, enhancing, or perpetuating those places, buildings, structures, works of art and other objects having a special
historical interest or value for their use, education, and view of the general public.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Cultural resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects that may have historical, architectural, archeological,
cultural, or scientific importance. Preservation of the Tiburon’s cultural heritage should be considered when planning for the
future.
PREHISTORY
Humans are believed to have resided in southern Marin County for the past 13,000 years. Archeologists who have studied
these past cultures have uncovered evidence of widespread activities that allowed them to divide these previous 13,000
years into periods or phases based on the kinds of subsistence behaviors practiced.
Six periods have been identified with locally defined phases and regional cultures added to the mix. The six periods are:
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 5
• Early Holocene (Lower Archaic), 8000 - 3500 B.C
• The Early Middle Period (Middle Archaic), 3500 B.C. - 500 B.C.
• The Lower Middle Period (Initial Upper Archaic), 500 B.C. – A.D. 430
• Upper Middle Period (Late Upper Archaic), A.D. 430 – A.D. 1050
• Initial Late Period (Lower Emergent), A.D. 1050 – A.D. 1550
• Terminal Late Period: Protohistoric Ambiguities, A.D. 1550 – 1775 (Milliken et al. in Jones and Klar 2007).
Early Holocene (Lower Archaic), 8000 B.C. – 3500 B.C.
Few Bay Area sites have been discovered to represent this time period. A pattern of generalized mobile foraging with artifacts
such as the milling slab and hand stone (mano and metate), and large wide stem and leaf shaped projectile points common.
The Early Middle Period (Middle Archaic), 3500 B.C. – 500 B.C.
New technological advances involving the use of the mortar and pestle first appear during this period as does the first
evidence for the manufacture of shell beads. Researchers suggest increased sedentism occurred as did an expansion in
trade.
The Lower Middle Period (Initial Upper Archaic), 500 B.C. – A.D. 430
A dramatic shift in the types of shell beads being manufactured is observed at sites with components dating to this period.
New types of bone tools, such as the barbless fishhooks, first appeared indicating an increasing exploitation of the immediate
environment, probably brought on by increasing populations pressures.
Upper Middle Period (Late Upper Archaic), A.D. 430 – A.D. 1050
A.D. 430 witnessed another dramatic shift in the selection of bead styles and the way people were buried. What caused this
dramatic cultural upheaval is uncertain. The formally popular style of shell beads became obsolete with new, smaller varieties
becoming widespread.
Initial Late Period (Lower Emergent), A.D. 1050 – A.D. 1550
Populations continued to increase as did resource exploitation and with it a whole new level of the manufacture of numerous,
finely made grave goods that were buried with the dead. Social stratification can also be observed in the differing amounts
of grave goods interred with a particular individual. The bow and arrow appeared in the area around A.D. 1250 causing
among other things, a shift in the procurement of rock types and sources used in the manufacture in this new technological
innovation.
Terminal Late Period: Protohistoric Ambiguities, A.D. 1550 – 1775
Once again, the style of shell beads abruptly changed throughout the Bay Area. Grave goods became less common and
some researchers have suggested that populations were faced with increasing stress by over population and perhaps the
early introduction of European-based diseases.
ETHNOLOGY
COAST MIWOK
The voyages of Drake in 1579 and Cermeño in 1595 resulted in sketchy accounts of the life of the Coast Miwok prior to
disruption of the native culture. The Coast Miwok traditional way of life disappeared rapidly after the founding of the mission
at San Francisco in 1776 and the later missions at San Rafael and Sonoma. Forced movement of Coast Miwok to the
missions and the determination of the friars to convert the natives to Christianity and destroy all vestiges of their former life,
along with epidemic diseases of the whites, soon left few natives that could remember the pre-contact culture. The Russian
colony at Fort Ross used Bodega Bay in Coast Miwok territory as a port, but the Russian policy was to interfere with Indian
life only to the extent necessary to harvest the maximum number of sea otter pelts.
CONSERVATION
6 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
The Coast Miwok occupied what is now Marin County and part of Sonoma County, as far north as the vicinity of Sebastopol.
There is extensive coastline in this territory and resources from the sea and salt marshes were important in Coast Miwok
subsistence; however, the resources available in the interior of their territory were by no means ignored. Sea mammals
were not part of the diet, but various species of fish were taken with nets, seines, weirs, spears, and line-with-gorge
technologies. Even more important in the diet were clams and some species of mussel, resulting in the characteristic coastal
shell middens familiar through archeology.
The most important food resource, as with most California Indians, was the acorn. It was leached to remove most of the
tannic acid and then ground into meal and prepared in various ways. It was particularly valuable because the meal could be
stored against times of shortage of other foods. Kelp was collected, dried, and stored as another hedge against seasonal
shortages. The interior of the territory provided, in addition to acorns, the many mammals and rodents that were hunted or
trapped. Birds, both interior and coastal, were netted and a wide variety of vegetable foods were collected. Despite the
relative abundance of their food sources, winter and early spring were still times of short food supply, and stored acorns
and kelp were then the primary foods (Kelly 1978).
Villages were situated so as to be handy to food resources at various times of year. The Coast Miwok moved among
residences on the coast, around salt or freshwater marshes and on interior streams so that they would be close to the most
abundant food supply available at a particular season. Dwellings were conical brush-on-frame structures capable of
sheltering up to ten individuals. Other structures included semi-subterranean sweathouses, that served as something of a
men's club, and--at major villages--a dance house for religious ceremonies. The dance house was basically the same
construction as the sweathouse only larger. An excavation about two feet deep and fifteen in diameter formed the floor and
a timber framework supported a brush dome capped with earth (Kroeber 1925).
Archeology has provided an extensive collection of the stone tools that were used, but it is clear from ethnology that basketry
and cordage were used for the majority of utilitarian objects. These materials do not preserve well, so they are uncommon
in archeological sites. Basket making was a highly developed skill and baskets were woven tightly enough to hold water and
cooking of acorn mush was accomplished by dropping hot rocks into baskets containing the mush. Cordage was used for
the variety of nets used in taking fish, birds, and small mammals.
In terms of socio-political organization, the term Coast Miwok is primarily a convenience for anthropologists, denoting a
group speaking the same language and occupying a contiguous territory. In fact, there was no overall political control of
this group and the real basis of social organization was the main village. Major villages were occupied by a group of related
families under the authority of a headman. Even at this level the powers of the headman were limited and, basically, advisory.
No overall authority for Coast Miwok was recognized, and village groups were sometimes on better terms with their Pomo
or Patwin neighbors than with other Coast Miwok village groups. Within the village group, close ties were maintained
through the extensive religious/ceremonial life and through kinship ties (Kelly 1978).
Through much of aboriginal California, shell beads served as a form of currency. As a coastal people, the Coast Miwok had
access to the raw material and bead manufacture was an important industry because it provided currency to trade for goods
from neighboring groups. This allowed the Coast Miwok to import obsidian from the Wappo to the north to use in making
arrowheads and other edged tools. Chert was used to form more utilitarian edged implements, but obsidian was the preferred
material. Yellow ocher was also obtained from the Wappo for paint and venison and magnesite cylinders were obtained
from the Pomo (Kelly 1978). Despite their access to clam shell, the trade relationships of the Coast Miwok do not appear
to have been very extensive. Perhaps this reflects the relative abundance of resources available in their own territory.
HISTORIC PERIOD
Tiburon is a community that has had extensive documentation over the years and remains committed to the preservation
and protection of resources through the Belvedere-Tiburon Landmarks Society, a non-profit group founded in 1959. Until
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 7
the Covid-19 pandemic caused closures, the Landmarks Society maintained the Landmarks History Collection with two
archivists, and published articles and books on the local history, as well as creating videos.
The Landmarks Society maintains a website providing access to all of these resources to the public. Of particular value is
the detailed timeline of events for the community. The Landmarks Society manages and maintains the Old St. Hilary’s
Landmark and the surrounding wildflower preserve, the China Cabin (in Belvedere), the Railroad Ferry & Depot Museum,
and the Landmarks Art and Garden Center.
Many pictorial books have been published on the history of the community, with photographs documenting buildings within
Tiburon, including:
Fanning, Branwell
2006 Images of America: The Tiburon Peninsula. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston.
2010 Then & Now: Tiburon and Belvedere. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston.
Fanning, Branwell and William Wong
2007 Images of America: Angel Island. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston.
Heig, James, editor.
1984 Pictorial History of Tiburon: A California Railroad Town. Scottwell Associates, San Francisco.
A number of other publications document different aspects of the community and economy of the Town.
The land of the Tiburon Peninsula was first awarded by the Mexican government to John Thomas Reed in 1834 as the
Rancho Corte de Madera del Presidio. An Irish sailor, Read had arrived in the area in 1826, and became a Mexican citizen
in 1834. His widow and four children applied for confirmation of the grant of 7,845 acres; it was finally awarded to the family
in 1884. Dairying and cod fishing were two major industries in the area.
Angel Island, first named by early arrivals in San Francisco Bay in 1775, has been called by its current name since the arrival
of the Americans in the region. It is the largest island in San Francisco Bay, and has served as a cattle ranch, part of the
coastal defense system, the West Coast immigration station (1910-1940), a prisoner of war camp, and a Nike missile base.
Since 1962, the island has been a California State Park.
In 1882, Peter Donahue made a deal with the Reed family for a railroad right-of-way for the North Pacific Railroad (name
later changed to Northwestern Pacific). The railroad company built a railroad yard and ferry terminal, with ferries taking
commuters and vehicles to San Francisco and Sausalito. Barges hauled loaded freight cars to San Francisco and Richmond.
In the 1970s, the abandoned railroad was removed, and the right-of-way purchased by Tiburon for the waterfront path. The
railyards were used for housing and commercial projects.
Other enterprises in the Town included the U.S. Navy Coaling Station where ships refueled, beginning operations in 1904
until 1931. That site became the California Maritime Academy until World War II and was converted to the manufacture of
anti-submarine nets. Later, research facilities were established at the site.
For many years, most of the land of the peninsula were controlled by descendants of the Reed family and used for cattle
ranching. Development began after the War on smaller tracts. Eventually, the primary landowners finalized a Master Plan
in 1956.
In 1961, Richardson Bay Audubon Center became established, representing a culmination of a seven-year local campaign
to protect bay and shoreland from real estate development. The Center includes the Rose Verrall gift of nine shoreland acres
CONSERVATION
8 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
and the wildlife sanctuary of nine hundred tideland acres. This was followed by the dedication of Old St. Hillary's Historic
Preserve, which was the first hillside open space conserved with wildflower acreage as part of Marin County parks system.
There were attempts to incorporate a city of Tiburon, opposed by the large landowners. In 1964, the incorporation became
official and included Angel Island. The citizens elected a city council, and a city manager engaged. Open space became a
priority. A major preservation effort was launched to revitalize Main Street and Downtown Tiburon. New buildings have
been added to provide community services.
In 1971, the Richardson Bay Path and lineal park was established on an old railroad right-of-way along the shoreline. This
was followed by the acquisition of the Belvedere Cove waterfront by the Town for open space, panoramic vista and
preservation of China Cabin. In the many years after in 1983, the Ring Mountain Preserve was dedicated under ownership
and management of The Nature Conservancy.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Northwest Information Center
One hundred and forty-two cultural resources have been identified within the Town’s General Plan Planning Area, according
to files maintained by the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System
(CHRIS). The one hundred and forty-two recorded cultural resources represent both the prehistoric and historic periods
(see Table 1-1).
Most of the prehistoric period resources were identified in the early part of the 20th century by archeologist Nels Nelson who
recorded over 400 shell mound midden sites along the Bay Area’s shorelines during this period (thirty-two in the Planning
Area). Many of these shell mound middens were the result of simple shellfish processing and do not possess artifacts or
features that indicate habitation while others are connected with more permanently inhabited prehistoric village sites, some
of which continued to be occupied well into the early Spanish Period. In addition to the prehistoric resources identified by
Nelson, 11 other prehistoric sites, including prehistoric rock art, habitation, and lithic scatter have been identified in the
Planning Area. Historic resources include a preponderance of historic period resources relates to Angel Island’s military
installations and immigration station, as well as assorted historic foundations, walls, and buildings in the Planning Area.
TABLE 1-1: RESOURCES LISTED WITH THE NORTHWEST INFORMATION CENTER FILE DIRECTORY
PROPERTY # ADDRESS PERIOD/TYPE NAME
P-21-000055 /
CA-MRN-000024 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/
Shell Midden Nelson No. 24
P-21-000056 /
CA-MRN-000025 Not Listed Prehistoric/Historic
Habitation/Shell Midden Nelson No. 25
P-21-000057 /
CA-MRN-000026 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/
Shell Midden Nelson No. 26
P-21-000058 /
CA-MRN-000027 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/
Shell Midden Nelson No. 27
P-21-000059 /
CA-MRN-000028 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/
Shell Midden Nelson No. 28
P-21-000060 /
CA-MRN-000029 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/
Shell Midden Nelson No. 29
P-21-000061 /
CA-MRN-000030 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/
Shell Midden Nelson No. 30
P-21-000062 /
CA-MRN-000031 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/
Shell Midden Nelson No. 31
P-21-000063 /
CA-MRN-000032 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/
Shell Midden Nelson No. 32
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 9
PROPERTY # ADDRESS PERIOD/TYPE NAME
P-21-000064 /
CA-MRN-000033 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/
Shell Midden Nelson No. 33
P-21-000065 /
CA-MRN-000034 Not Listed Prehistoric/Historic
Habitation/Shell Midden Nelson No. 34
P-21-000066 /
CA-MRN-000035 Not Listed Prehistoric/Historic
Habitation/Shell Midden Nelson No. 35
P-21-000067 /
CA-MRN-000036 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/
Shell Midden Nelson No. 36
P-21-000068 /
CA-MRN-000037 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/
Shell Midden Nelson No. 37
P-21-000069 /
CA-MRN-000038 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/
Shell Midden Nelson No. 38
P-21-000072 /
CA-MRN-000042 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/
Shell Midden Nelson No. 42
P-21-000073 /
CA-MRN-000043 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/Quarry Nelson No. 43
P-21-000074 /
CA-MRN-000044 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/
Shell Midden Nelson No. 44
P-21-000075 /
CA-MRN-000045 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/
Shell Midden Nelson No. 45
P-21-000076 /
CA-MRN-000046 Not Listed Prehistoric/Historic
Habitation/Shell Midden Nelson No. 46
P-21-000077 /
CA-MRN-000047 Not Listed Prehistoric/Historic
Habitation/Shell Midden Nelson No. 47
P-21-000078 /
CA-MRN-000048 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/Shell
Midden Nelson No. 48
P-21-000079 /
CA-MRN-000049 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/Shell
Midden Nelson No. 49
P-21-000080 /
CA-MRN-000050 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/Shell
Midden Nelson No. 50
P-21-000081 /
CA-MRN-000051 Not Listed Prehistoric/Historic
Habitation/Shell Midden Nelson No. 51
P-21-000082 /
CA-MRN-000052 Not Listed Prehistoric/Historic
Habitation/Shell Midden Nelson No. 52
P-21-000083 /
CA-MRN-000053 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/
Shell Midden Nelson No. 53
P-21-000084 /
CA-MRN-000054 Not Listed Prehistoric/Historic
Habitation/Shell Midden Nelson No. 54
P-21-000085 /
CA-MRN-000055 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/
Shell Midden Nelson No. 55
P-21-000086 /
CA-MRN-000056 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/
Shell Midden Nelson No. 56
P-21-000087 /
CA-MRN-000057 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/
Shell Midden Nelson No. 57
P-21-000088 /
CA-MRN-000058 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation/
Shell Midden Nelson No. 58
P-21-000267 /
CA-MRN-000281 Not Listed Prehistoric/Historic Habitation Not Listed
P-21-000371 / Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation Not Listed
CONSERVATION
10 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
PROPERTY # ADDRESS PERIOD/TYPE NAME
CA-MRN-000405
P-21-000385 /
CA-MRN-000423 Not Listed Prehistoric Rock Art Not Listed
P-21-000386 /
CA-MRN-000425 Not Listed Prehistoric Rock Art Not Listed
P-21-000407 /
CA-MRN-000453 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation Lee’s Shell Mound
P-21-000408 /
CA-MRN-000454 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation Not Listed
P-21-000409 /
CA-MRN-000455 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation Not Listed
P-21-000415 /
CA-MRN-000461 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation Not Listed
P-21-000530 /
CA-MRN-000604 Not Listed Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Not Listed
P-21-000531 /
CA-MRN-000605 Not Listed Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Not Listed
P-21-000545 /
CA-MRN-000407 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation Not Listed
P-21-000576 /
CA-MRN-000617H Not Listed Historic Foundations Not Listed
P-21-000577 /
CA-MRN-000618H Angel Island Historic Military Property Battery Wallace, Building 89
P-21-000578 /
CA-MRN-000619H Not Listed Historic Cemetery Not Listed
P-21-000579 /
CA-MRN-000620H Not Listed Historic Foundations Not Listed
P-21-000580 /
CA-MRN-000621H Not Listed Historic Refuse Scatter/Wall Not Listed
P-21-000581 /
CA-MRN-000622H Not Listed Historic Foundations Not Listed
P-21-000582 Not Listed Historic Concrete Rubble Not Listed
P-21-000583 Not Listed Historic Foundation Not Listed
P-21-000584 Not Listed Historic Water Conveyance
Feature Not Listed
P-21-000585 Not Listed Historic Cistern Not Listed
P-21-000586 Not Listed Historic Refuse Scatter Not Listed
P-21-000587/
CA-MRN-000623H Not Listed Historic Foundation Not Listed
P-21-000588 Not Listed Historic
Foundations/Landscape Not Listed
P-21-000589 Not Listed Historic Building Not Listed
P-21-000590 Angel Island Historic Improved Spring
Feature Stone Spring Box
P-21-0005891 Angel Island Historic Water Tanks Concrete Tank Site
P-21-000592 Angel Island Historic Water Tank Redwood Tank Site
P-21-000595 /
CA-MRN-000627 Not Listed Prehistoric Isolated Artifact Not Listed
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 11
PROPERTY # ADDRESS PERIOD/TYPE NAME
P-21-000625 /
CA-MRN-000641 Not Listed Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Not Listed
P-21-001091 13 Main Street, Tiburon Historic Commercial Building Not Listed
P-21-001092 Not Listed Historic Single Family Property Railway Employees
Houses/Sharktown
P-21-001093 Not Listed Historic Single Family Property Grant House
P-21-001094 Not Listed Historic Wetland Feature Downtown Marsh
P-21-001099 Angel Island Historic District Angel Island District
P-21-002436 Angel Island Historic Military Property Bachelors Officer’s Quarters
P-21-002437 Angel Island Historic Military Property Residence Building
P-21-002438 Angel Island Historic Military Property Residence Building
P-21-002439 Angel Island Historic Military Property Residence Building
P-21-002440 Angel Island Historic Military Property Old Hospital Building, Building 316
P-21-002441 Angel Island Historic Military Property Company Officer’s Quarters
P-21-002442 Angel Island Historic Military Property Field Officer’s Quarters
P-21-002443 Angel Island Historic Military Property General Shafter Quarters
P-21-002444 Angel Island Historic Military Property Non-Commissioned Officer’s
Quarters
P-21-002445 Angel Island Historic Military Property Company Officer’s Quarters
P-21-002446 Angel Island Historic Military Property Quartermaster’s Storehouse
P-21-002447 Angel Island Historic Military Property Detention Barracks, Building 317
P-21-002448 Angel Island Historic Military Property Power House, Building 314
P-21-002449 Angel Island Historic Military Property Stable/Mule Barn, Building 313
P-21-002450 Angel Island Historic Military Property Carpentry Shop
P-21-002451 Angel Island Historic Military Property WWII Barracks, Building 241
P-21-002452 Angel Island Historic Military Property WWII Barrack, Building 242
P-21-002453 Angel Island Historic Military Property WWII Mess Hall, Building 233
P-21-002454 Angel Island Historic Military Property Sentry Tower
P-21-002455 Angel Island Historic Military Property Monument
P-21-002456 Angel Island Historic Military Property Bell
P-21-002457 Angel Island Historic Military Property Immigration Station Site
P-21-002541 Angel Island Historic Military Property Angel Island Telegraph
P-21-002553 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation Gilmartin Mound
P-21-002630 Not Listed Historic Rock Wall Not Listed
P-21-002636 Angel Island Historic Road/Trail Perimeter Road/Perle’s Beach Trail
P-21-002654 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation Not Listed
P-21-002655 Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation Not Listed
P-21-002662 20- 22 Main Street, Tiburon Historic Commercial Building Harbor Light
P-21-002664 /
CA-MRN-684H Not Listed Historic Refuse Scatter Not Listed
P-21-002859 Rock Hill Drive & Del Mar
Drive, Tiburon Historic Commercial Building Belvedere Tennis Club
CONSERVATION
12 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
PROPERTY # ADDRESS PERIOD/TYPE NAME
P-21-002912 Paradise Park Marina,
Tiburon Historic Wharf El Campo Resort/Monticello Grove
P-21-003019 Angel Island Historic District Camp Reynolds District
P-21-003021 /
CA-MRN-00754/H Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation Not Listed
P-21-003022 Angel Island, West Garrison Historic Military Property 600 Man Barracks
P-21-003023 Angel Island, West Garrison Historic Military Property Captain’s Quarters, Building 54
P-21-003024 Angel Island, West Garrison Historic Military Property NCO Quarters, Building 55
P-21-003025 Angel Island, West Garrison Historic Military Property Chapel, Building 59
P-21-003029 Angel Island, West Garrison Historic Military Property NCO Quarters, Building 58
P-21-003030 Angel Island, West Garrison Historic Military Property Mule Barn, Building 69
P-21-003031 Angel Island, West Garrison Historic Military Property NCO Quarters, Building 70
P-21-003032 Angel Island, West Garrison Historic Military Property NCO Quarters, Building 71
P-21-003033 Angel Island, West Garrison Historic Military Property NCO Quarters, Building 79
P-21-003034 Angel Island, West Garrison Historic Military Property Office and Barracks/West garrison
Hospital
P-21-003035 Angel Island, West Garrison Historic Military Property Latrine, Building 86
P-21-003036 Angel Island, West Garrison Historic Military Property West Garrison Flagpole/Camp
Reynolds Flagpole
P-21-003037 Angel Island, West Garrison Historic Military Property Quarters/Duplex, Building 95
P-21-003038 Angel Island, West Garrison Historic Military Property NCO Quarters, Building 72
P-21-003045 Angel Island, North Garrison Historic Military Property Fire Station, Building 231
P-21-003046 Angel Island Historic Military Property Cable Vault/Subterranean Cable Vault
P-21-003064 Angel Island Historic Military Property Battery, Building 88
P-21-003066 Angel Island, East Garrison Historic Military Property Administration Building
P-21-003067 Angel Island, East Garrison Historic Military Property Hospital/Hospital Annex, Building 23
P-21-003068 Angel Island, East Garrison Historic Military Property Post Exchange, Building 19
P-21-003069 Angel Island, East Garrison Historic Military Property Guard House, Building 20
P-21-003070 Angel Island, East Garrison Historic Military Property Mess & Drill Hall, Building 22
P-21-003071 Angel Island, East Garrison Historic Military Property N.C.O. Quarters, Building 24
P-21-003072 Angel Island, East Garrison Historic Military Property N.C.O. Quarters, Buildings 25-28
P-21-003073 Angel Island, East Garrison Historic Military Property Officer’s Club, Building 29
P-21-003074 Angel Island, East Garrison Historic Military Property Tennis Courts
P-21-003075 Angel Island, East Garrison Historic Military Property N.C.O. Quarters, Buildings 32, 34-37
P-21-003076 Angel Island, East Garrison Historic Military Property Bowling Alley, Building 38
P-21-003077 Angel Island, East Garrison Historic Military Property PX Tailor Shop, Building 40
P-21-003078 Angel Island, East Garrison Historic Military Property Commissary Warehouse, Building 41
P-21-003079 Angel Island Historic Military Property Battery Drew Mortar Hill, Building 87
P-21-003080 Angel Island, East Garrison Historic Military Property Barrack, Building 103
P-21-003081 Angel Island, North Garrison Historic Military Property Barrack, Building 222
P-21-003082 Angel Island, North Garrison Historic Military Property Dental Clinic, Building 224
P-21-003083 Angel Island, North Garrison Historic Military Property Wharf & Dock Storehouse, Buildings
315 and 319
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 13
PROPERTY # ADDRESS PERIOD/TYPE NAME
P-21-003084 Angel Island, East Garrison Historic Military Property Electric Sub-station
P-21-003088 Not Listed Historic Building Garage
P-21-003090 /
CA-MRN-757/H Not Listed Prehistoric Habitation Not Listed
P-21-005505 Angel Island Historic NRHP District Angel Island District
P-21-005553 Angel Island, East Garrison Historic Military Property 600 Man Barracks
P-21-005568 Angel Island, East Garrison Historic Military Property Commissary Warehouse, Building 41
SOURCE: NORTHWEST INFORMATION CENTER, CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,
SONOMA
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) lists five properties for the Town’s General Plan Planning Area as of
November 27, 2020. These include:
• Angel Island, U.S. Immigration Station;
• San Francisco and North Pacific Railroad Station House-Depot (Peter Donahue Building);
• Lyford’s Stone Tower; Benjamin and Hilarita Lyford House (Lyford House); and
• St. Hilary’s Mission Church (Old St. Hilary’s Church).
Two NRHP Districts, the Camp Reynolds District and the Angel Island District are also on record.
Local and Regional Directories and Studies
Forty buildings were evaluated in 1999 for the Downtown Tiburon Historic Resources Study (Mathews 1999) and are
identified on the Marin County Built Environment Resources Directory, as shown on Table 1-2. Some resources appear on
multiple directories (NWIC list of resources/Marin County Built Environment Resources Directory). Three significance ratings
were assigned to the forty buildings by Mathews (1999, Appendix D):
• Significant, which are structures that have retained their historic integrity and have the highest importance in
maintaining the historic character of the neighborhood;
• Complementary, which are structures that are not deserving of individual architectural merit, but which have enough
architectural quality that they support the pervasive historical character established by significant structures; and
• Non-Complementary, which are structures that have since been substantially altered and thus no longer maintain
architectural qualities or character typical of the time they were built.
Of the buildings evaluated in 1999 for the Downtown Tiburon Historic Resources Study, 17 buildings were designated
Significant, another 17 buildings were designated Complementary, and 6 buildings were designated Non-Complementary.
TABLE 1-2: HISTORIC RESOURCES FROM THE DOWNTOWN TIBURON HISTORIC RESOURCES STUDY AND THE MARIN COUNTY HISTORIC PROPERTY DATA FILE DIRECTORY
SIGNIFICANCE RATING ADDRESS YEAR BUILT BUSINESS NAME
Significant 20 Main Street 1910 Harbor Light
Significant 21A Main Street (Ark) Unknown Not Listed
Significant 26 Main Street 1912 Mark Rueben Gallery
Significant 27 Main Street 1920 Sam’s Café Anchor Restaurant
Significant 32 Main Street 1921 Junelles Gifts
Significant 34 Main Street 1921 Han Syi Studio/Masson Real Estate
Significant 38 Main Street 1900 Rooney’s Café and Grill
CONSERVATION
14 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
SIGNIFICANCE RATING ADDRESS YEAR BUILT BUSINESS NAME
Significant 55 Main Street 1925 Not Listed
Significant 72 Main Street 1918 Windsor Vineyards
Significant 104 Main Street 1895 Switzer Galleries/Attorney
Significant 106 Main Street 1920 Schoenberg Guitars
Significant 108 Main Street 1920 Not Listed
Significant 110 Main Street 1920 Tiburon Deli
Significant 112 Main Street 1890
Residential/Ed’s Garage Antique Car
Display
Significant 114 Main Street 1930 Servino Restaurant
Significant 116 Main Street 1906 Ark Angels
Significant 118-120 Main Street 1880 Alterations & Dressmaking by Trudy
Complementary 5-7 Main Street 1965 Guyamas/Boudin/Candy Store
Complementary 9 Main Street 1975 Tutto Mare
Complementary
10 Main Street, 1700 and 1704
Tiburon Boulevard 1969 Little Angels/Portofino/St. Angelo’s
Complementary 15-17 Main Street 1886
Waypoint Pizza/Silk, Satin & Lace/Old
Gold Jewel
Complementary 16 Main Street 1916 St. Angelo’s
Complementary 31 Main Street 1929 Store
Complementary 35 Main Street 1925 Sweden House Bakery
Complementary 40 Main Street 1958 Tiburon Playhouse
Complementary 42 Main Street 1955 Not Listed
Complementary 44 Main Street 1955 For Her
Complementary 46 Main Street 1962 Westerly Tea
Complementary 74-76 Main Street 1972 Giftique/Ruth Livingston Interior
Complementary 80 Main Street 1965
Attorney/Creature
Comforts/Abaya/Bucky’s Place
Complementary 82-100 Main Street 1970
Tiburon Books/Parsley’s/Stephens
Antiques/Tiburon Shoe Repair/The
Attic/Still Life/Office/Tiburon Mail
Service/For Paws/Tiburon Physical
Therapy/Tiburon Thrift Shop/Business
Services
Complementary 122 Main Street 1870 Just Nailed Manicuring/Next Salon
Complementary 130 Main Street 1920+ Main Street Properties
Complementary 1696 Tiburon Boulevard 1936 New Morningside Café and Paradise
Non-Complementary 21 Main Street Unknown Main Treat
Non-Complementary 23-25 Main Street 1961 Bird & Hound General Store
Non-Complementary 28 Main Street 1918 Watch Store
Non-Complementary 30 Main Street 1916 R.J. Sax
Non-Complementary 39 Main Street 1926 National Emergency Services
Non-Complementary 41 Main Street 1930 Tiburon Tommies (was Pharmacy)
SOURCE: DOWNTOWN TIBURON HISTORIC RESOURCES STUDY, APPENDIX D (MATHEWS 1999), MARIN COUNTY BUILT ENVIRONMENT RESOURCES
DIRECTORY
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 15
In 2001, a second study, Intensive Survey of Downtown Historic Resources (3D Visions), supplemented the work of Mathews
(1999) by providing additional construction and cultural details concerning 23 properties with the goal of eliminating
requirements of the State’s Title 24 Building Code for these properties. The Town prepared a list of buildings eligible for
the State’s Historical Building Code, Buildings in Downtown Eligible for State Building Code (as of June 8, 2016). The list
includes: (Main Street Lower) 13, 15, 17, 19 Main Street; 16, 18 Main Street; 21A Main Street (on pier); 24, 26 Main Street;
27, 29 Main Street; 30 Main Street; 31, 33 Main Street; 32 Main Street; 34, 36 Main Street; 35 Main Street; 38 Main Street;
55 Main Street; (Main Street Upper, aka Ark Row) 72 Main Street; 104 Main Street; 106 Main Street; 108 Main Street; 110
Main Street; 112 Main Street; 116 Main Street; 188, 120 Main Street; and, 122 Main Street.
The Town also prepared a list of local historic landmarks, Town of Tiburon Local Historic Landmarks (as of June 8, 2016).
The list has five properties:
• Peter Donahue Building, 1920 Paradise Drive
• Lyford’s Stone Tower, 2034 Paradise Drive
• Old St. Hilary’s Church, 201 Esperanza Drive
• Brick Kiln Bunkhouse, 841 Tiburon Boulevard
• Lyford House, 376 Greenwood Beach Road
CONSULTATION
In November 2020, the Native American Heritage Commission had provided a list of tribes located within the boundaries of
Marin County. This included the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and the Guidiville Indian Rancheria. Peak &
Associates contacted representatives of the tribes requested to be contacted pursuant to AB 52. However, to date, no
responses have been received.
CONSERVATION
16 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
REFERENCES
Fanning, Branwell. 2006. Images of America: The Tiburon Peninsula. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston.
Fanning, Branwell. 2010. Then & Now: Tiburon and Belvedere. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston.
Fanning, Branwell and William Wong. 2007. Images of America: Angel Island. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston.
Heig, James, editor.1984. Pictorial History of Tiburon: A California Railroad Town. Scottwell Associates, San Francisco.
Jones, Terry I. and Katherine A. Klar, editors. 2009. California Prehistory. Alta Mira Press, London.
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Kelly, Isabel S. 1978. Coast Miwok. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 414-425. Handbook of North American
Indians. vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Mathews, Glen David. 1999. Downtown Tiburon Historic Resources Study. Ms. on file, Town of Tiburon, Marin County,
California.
3D Visions. 2001. Intensive Survey of Downtown Historic Resources. Ms. on file, Town of Tiburon, Marin County, California.
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
4
1
65
3
9
7
8
2
Belvedere Cove
Richardson Bay
San Francisco Bay
Belvedere
Lagoon
¯0 ½¼
Miles
TIBURON
BELVEDERE
SAUSALITO
MILL
VALLEY
Angel Island
T
i
b
u
r
o
n
B
l
v
d
Trestl
e
G
l
e
n
B
l
v
d
LEGEND
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Sphere of Influence
Tiburon Planning Area
!(Local: Significant
!(Local: Complementary
!(Local: Non-Complementary
!(Local: Historic Landmark
!(State Historic Commercial Building
!(Federal Historic Property
!(Federal Historic District
Sources: ArcGIS Online World Hillshade Map Service; Town of Tiburon; National Register; Northwest Information Center. Map date: March 1, 2021.
Figure 1-1: Historic Sites
£¤101
UV131
£¤101
P a r a d i s e Dr
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
33
35
45
34
43
313029
38
23
1918171615141312
50
49
37
48
36
42
41
25
2826
22
21
20
11
10
24
4644
32
4039
47
INSET MAP
See Inset Map
27
ID Name ID Name
1 Benjamin and Hilarita Lyford House 26 Westerly Tea
2 Belvedere Tennis Club 27 For Her
3 Brick Kiln Bunkhouse 28 Not Listed
4 St. Hilary's Mission Chruch 29 Rooney's Café and Grill
5 SFNP Railroad Station House-Depot 30 Han Syi Studio/Masson Real Estate
6 Lyford's Stone Tower 31 Junelles Gifts
7 Camp Reynolds NRHP District 32 R.J. Sax
8 Angel Island 33 Watch Store
9 Angel Island U.S. Immigration Station 34 Mark Rueben Gallery
10 Main Street Properties 35 Harbor Light
11 Just Nailed Manicuring/Next Salon 36 St. Angelo's
12 Alterations & Dressmaking by Trudy 37 Little Angels/Portofino/St. Angelo's
13 Ark Angels 38 Not Listed
14 Servino Restaurant 39 Tiburon Tommies (was Pharmacy)
15 Residential/Ed's Garage Antique Car
Display 40 National Emergency Services
16 Tiburon Deli 41 Sweden House Bakery
17 Not Listed 42 Store
18 Schoenberg Guitars 43 Sam's Café Anchor Restaurant
19 Switzer Galleries/Attorney 44 Bird & Hound General Store
20
Tiburon Books/Parsley's/Stephens
Antiques/Tiburon Shoe Repair/The
Attic/Still Life/Office/Tiburon Mail Service/For Paws/Tiburon Physical
Therapy/Tiburon Thrift Shop/Business
Services
45 Not Listed
21 Attorney/Creature
Comforts/Abaya/Bucky's Place 46 Main Treat
22 Giftique/Ruth Livingston Interior 47 Not Listed
23 Windsor Vineyards 48 Waypoint Pizza/Silk, Satin & Lace/Old
Gold Jewel
24 New Morningside Café and Paradise 49 Tutto Mare
25 Tiburon Playhouse 50 Guyamas/Boudin/Candy Store
CONSERVATION
18 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
This page left blank intentionally.
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 19
2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section describes biological resources in the Planning Area from both a qualitative and quantitative perspective. The
results of this assessment may be used in planning and management decisions that may affect biological resources in the
Planning Area.
KEY TERMS
The following key terms are used throughout this section to describe biological resources and the framework that regulates
them:
Hydric Soils. One of the three wetland identification parameters, according to the Federal definition of a wetland, hydric soils
have characteristics that indicate they were developed in conditions where soil oxygen is limited by the presence of saturated
soil for long periods during the growing season. There are approximately 2,000 named soils in the United States that may
occur in wetlands.
Hydrophytic Vegetation. Plant types that typically occur in wetland areas. Nearly 5,000 plant types in the United States may
occur in wetlands. Plants are listed in regional publications of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and include such
species as cattails, bulrushes, cordgrass, sphagnum moss, bald cypress, willows, mangroves, sedges, rushes, arrowheads,
and water plantains.
Sensitive Natural Community. A sensitive natural community is a biological community that is regionally rare, provides
important habitat opportunities for wildlife, is structurally complex, or is in other ways of special concern to local, State, or
Federal agencies. CEQA identifies the elimination or substantial degradation of such communities as a significant impact.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) tracks sensitive natural communities in the California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB).
Special-Status Species. Special-status species are those plants and animals that, because of their recognized rarity or
vulnerability to various causes of habitat loss or population decline, are recognized by Federal, State, or other agencies.
Some of these species receive specific protection that is defined by Federal or State endangered species legislation. Others
have been designated as "sensitive" on the basis of adopted policies and expertise of State resource agencies or
organizations with acknowledged expertise, or policies adopted by local governmental agencies such as counties, cities, and
special districts to meet local conservation objectives. These species are referred to collectively as "special status species"
in this report, following a convention that has developed in practice but has no official sanction. For the purposes of this
assessment, the term “special status” includes those species that are:
• Federally listed or proposed for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.11-17.12);
• Candidates for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (61 FR 7596-7613);
• State listed or proposed for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (14 CCR 670.5);
• Species listed by the USFWS as a species of concern or by the CDFW as a rare species or species of special
concern;
• Fully protected animals, as defined by the State (California Fish and Game Code Section 3511, 4700, and 5050);
• Species that meet the definition of threatened, endangered, or rare under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15380);
• Plants listed as rare or endangered under the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (California Fish and
Game Code Section 1900 et seq.); and
• Plants listed by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as rare, threatened, or endangered (List 1A and List 2
status plants in Skinner and Pavlik 1994).
Waters of the U.S. The Federal government defines waters of the U.S. as "lakes, rivers, streams, intermittent drainages,
mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, and wet meadows" [33 C.F.R. §328.3(a)]. Waters of the U.S. exhibit a defined bed
CONSERVATION
20 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
and bank and ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The OHWM is defined by the USACE as “that line on shore established by
the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of
litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” [33 C.F.R. §328.3(e)].
Wetlands. Wetlands are ecologically complex habitats that support a variety of both plant and animal life. The Federal
government defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for
life in saturated soil conditions” [33 C.F.R. §328.3(b)]. Wetlands require wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic
vegetation. Examples of wetlands include freshwater marsh, seasonal wetlands, and vernal pool complexes that have a
hydrologic link to waters of the U.S.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
There are a number of regulatory agencies whose responsibility includes the oversight of the natural resources of the State
and nation including the CDFW, the USFWS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS). These agencies often respond to declines in the quantity of a particular habitat or plant or animal species
by developing protective measures for those species or habitat type. The following is an overview of the Federal, State, and
local regulations that are applicable to General Plan implementation.
FEDERAL
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act, passed in 1973, defines an endangered species as any species or subspecies that is
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is defined as any species or
subspecies that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
Once a species is listed, it is fully protected from a “take” unless a take permit is issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service. A take is defined as the harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or
collecting wildlife species or any attempt to engage in such conduct, including modification of its habitat (16 USC 1532, 50
CFR 17.3). Proposed endangered or threatened species are those species for which a proposed regulation, but not a final
rule, has been published in the Federal Register.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
To kill, posses, or trade a migratory bird, bird part, nest, or egg is a violation of the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA:
16 U.S.C., §703, Supp. I, 1989), unless it is in accordance with the regulations that have been set forth by the Secretary of
the Interior.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Section 668) protects these birds from direct take and prohibits the take
or commerce of any part of these species. The USFWS administers the act, and reviews Federal agency actions that may
affect these species.
Clean Water Act – Section 404
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates all discharges of dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States
(WOTUS). Discharges of fill material includes the placement of fill that is necessary for the construction of any structure, or
impoundment requiring rock, sand, dirt, or other material for its construction; site-development fills for recreational,
industrial, commercial, residential, and other uses; causeways or road fills; and fill for intake and outfall pipes and
subaqueous utility lines [33 C.F.R. §323.2(f)]. The USACE is the agency responsible for administering the permit process
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 21
for activities that affect WOTUS. Executive Order 11990 is a Federal implementation policy, which is intended to result in no
net loss of wetlands.
Clean Water Act – Section 401
Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires an applicant who is seeking a 404 permit to first obtain a water quality
certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). To obtain the water quality certification, the RWQCB
must indicate that the proposed fill would be consistent with the standards set forth by the State.
Department of Transportation Act - Section 4(f)
Section 4(f) has been part of Federal law since 1966. It was enacted as Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation
(DOT) Act of 1966 and set forth in Title 49 United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 1653(f). In January 1983, as part of an
overall recodification of the DOT Act, Section 4(f) was amended and codified in 49 U.S.C. Section 303. This law established
policy on Lands, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Historic Sites as follows:
It is the policy of the United States Government that special effort should be made to preserve the
natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
and historic sites. The Secretary of Transportation shall cooperate and consult with the Secretaries of
the Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, and with the States, in developing
transportation plans and programs that include measures to maintain or enhance the natural beauty of
lands crossed by transportation activities or facilities. The Secretary of Transportation may approve a
transportation program or project (other than any project for a park road or parkway under section 204
of title 23) requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of a historic site of national, State, or
local significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the
park, area, refuge, or site) only if: a) There is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and
b) The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area,
wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use.
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
The Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits the obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the United States. The Act
requires authorization from the USACE for any excavation or deposition of materials into these waters or for any work that
could affect the course, location, condition, or capacity of rivers or harbors.
San Francisco Bay Area Habitat Conservation Plan
Habitat conservation plans ensure there is adequate minimizing and mitigating of the effects non-federal activities have on
threatened and endangered species, as required under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. The San Francisco Bay
Area Habitat Conservation Plan was prepared by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to address its activities in the
402,440-acre Plan area, which includes portions of California’s Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San
Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. USFWS issued PG&E a 30-year incidental take permit and approved the
Plan to establish strategies to avoid, minimize, and offset potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of PG&E’s
operations, maintenance, and minor new construction activities on 32 species federally listed as threatened or endangered.
STATE
Fish and Game Code Sections 2050-2097 - California Endangered Species Act
The CESA protects certain plant and animal species when they are of special ecological, educational, historical, recreational,
aesthetic, economic, and scientific value to the people of the State. CESA established that it is State policy to conserve,
protect, restore, and enhance endangered species and their habitats.
CONSERVATION
22 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
CESA was expanded upon the original Native Plant Protection Act and enhanced legal protection for plants. To be consistent
with Federal regulations, CESA created the categories of "threatened" and "endangered" species. It converted all "rare"
animals into the Act as threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants. Thus, there are three listing categories for plants
in California: rare, threatened, and endangered. Under State law, plant and animal species may be formally designated
through official listing by the California Fish and Game Commission.
Fish and Game Code Sections 1900-1913 - California Native Plant Protection Act
In 1977, the State Legislature passed the NPPA in recognition of rare and endangered plants of the State. The intent of the
law was to preserve, protect, and enhance endangered plants. The NPPA gave the California Fish and Game Commission
the power to designate native plants as endangered or rare, and to require permits for collecting, transporting, or selling
such plants. The NPPA includes provisions that prohibit the taking of plants designated as "rare" from the wild, and a salvage
mandate for landowners, which requires notification of the CDFW 10 days in advance of approving a building site.
Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3800 - Predatory Birds
Under the California Fish and Game Code, all predatory birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes in California,
generally called “raptors,” are protected. The law indicates that it is unlawful to take, posses, or destroy the nest or eggs of
any such bird unless it is in accordance with the code. Any activity that would cause a nest to be abandoned or cause a
reduction or loss in a reproductive effort is considered a take. This generally includes construction activities.
Fish and Game Code Sections 1601-1603 – Streambed Alteration
Under the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW has jurisdiction over any proposed activities that would divert or obstruct
the natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any lake or stream. Private landowners or project proponents must
obtain a “Streambed Alteration Agreement” from CDFW prior to any alteration of a lake bed, stream channel, or their banks.
Through this agreement, the CDFW may impose conditions to limit and fully mitigate impacts on fish and wildlife resources.
These agreements are usually initiated through the local CDFW warden and will specify timing and construction conditions,
including any mitigation necessary to protect fish and wildlife from impacts of the work.
Public Resources Code Section 21000 - California Environmental Quality Act
Public Resources Code Section 21000 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes standards and
regulations necessary for the maintenance and protection of the natural environment. It also identifies that a species that is
not listed on the Federal or State endangered species list may be considered rare or endangered if the species meets certain
criteria. Under CEQA public agencies must determine if a project would adversely affect a species that is not protected by
FESA or CESA. Species that are not listed under FESA or CESA, but are otherwise eligible for listing (i.e., candidate or
proposed) may be protected by the local government until the opportunity to list the species arises for the responsible
agency.
Species that may be considered for review are included on a list of “Species of Special Concern,” developed by the CDFW.
Additionally, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) maintains a list of plant species native to California that have low
numbers, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened with extinction. This information is published in the Inventory of
Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. List 1A contains plants that are believed to be extinct. List 1B contains
plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. List 2 contains plants that are rare, threatened,
or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere. List 3 contains plants where additional information is needed.
List 4 contains plants with a limited distribution.
California Oak Woodland Conservation Act
The California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1334, known as the California Oak Woodland Conservation Act, in 2001 as
a result of widespread changes in land use patterns across the landscape that were fragmenting oak woodlands character
over extensive areas. The Act created the California Oak Woodland Conservation Program within the Wildlife Conservation
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 23
Board. The legislation provides funding and incentives to ensure the future viability of California’s oak woodlands resources
by maintaining large scale land holdings or smaller multiple holdings that are not divided into fragmented, nonfunctioning
biological units. The Act acknowledged that the conservation of oak woodlands enhances the natural scenic beauty for
residents and visitors, increases real property values, promotes ecological balance, provides habitat for over 300 wildlife
species, moderates temperature extremes, reduces soil erosion, sustains water quality, and aids with nutrient cycling, all of
which affect and improve the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the State.
California Wetlands Conservation Policy
In August 1993, the Governor announced the "California Wetlands Conservation Policy.” The goals of the policy are to
establish a framework and strategy that will:
• Ensure no overall net loss and to achieve a long-term net gain in the quantity, quality, and permanence of wetland
acreage and values in California in a manner that fosters creativity, stewardship, and respect for private property.
• Reduce procedural complexity in the administration of State and Federal wetland conservation programs.
• Encourage partnerships to make landowner incentive programs and cooperative planning efforts the primary focus
of wetland conservation and restoration.
The Governor also signed Executive Order W-59-93, which incorporates the goals and objectives contained in the new policy
and directs the Resources Agency to establish an Interagency Task Force to direct and coordinate administration and
implementation of the policy.
Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
The Natural Community Conservation Planning Act provides long-term protection of species and habitats through regional,
multi-species planning before the special measures of the CESA become necessary.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act authorizes the SWRCB to regulate state water quality and protect beneficial
uses.
LOCAL
Tiburon General Plan
The Tiburon General Plan contains the following goals, policies, and implementing programs related to biological resources.
Open Space and Conservation Element
Goals
OSC-A: To maximize, protect, preserve and enhance the Town's unique open space and natural beauty.
OSC-B: To provide and permanently preserve as much open space as possible to protect shorelines, open water, wetlands,
significant ridgelines, streams, drainageways, riparian corridors, steep slopes, rock outcroppings, special status species and
their habitat, woodlands, and areas of visual importance, such as views of and views from open space.
OSC-C: To permanently protect to the maximum extent feasible, the unique open space character of the Town which is
attributable to its large amounts of undeveloped land and open water.
OSC-D: To permanently protect as conservation areas, to the maximum extent feasible, all lands and other areas in the public
trust.
OSC-E: To manage the Town's open spaces for the benefit of the entire community.
CONSERVATION
24 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
OSC-F: To preserve and improve the quality of the environment through resource restoration and conservation, management,
and pollution control.
Policies
OSC-7: Where possible, land that is proposed for preservation as permanent open space shall be contiguous to existing
open space and/ or open space areas that may in the future be permanently preserved.
OSC-8: Where appropriate, greenbelts shall be required to separate development areas or to link open space areas.
OSC-14: Use of open water shall be limited to landings for boats; boating, swimming, fishing; and parks.
OSC-16: The Town shall preserve and enhance the diversity of wildlife and aquatic habitats found in the Planning Area
bayfront lands, including tidal marshes, seasonal marshes, lagoons, wetlands, and low-lying grasslands over historical
marshlands.
OSC-17: Development shall not encroach into sensitive wildlife habitats, limit normal range areas, or create barriers to
wildlife that cut off or substantially impede access to food, water, or shelter, or cause damage to fisheries or fish habitats.
Access to environmentally sensitive marshland and adjacent habitat shall be restricted, especially during spawning and
nesting seasons.
OSC-18: Freshwater habitats in the bayfront areas associated with freshwater streams and small former marshes should be
preserved and/ or expanded so that the circulation, distribution, and flow of the fresh water supply are facilitated.
OSC-19: Those areas underlain by deposits of "young muds" should be reserved for water-related recreational opportunities,
habitat, open space, or limited development subject to approval by the Corps of Engineers and other trustee agencies.
OSC-20: Buffer zones of at least 100 feet shall be provided, to the maximum extent feasible, between development and
wetland areas.
OSC-21: Development and construction shall comply with all federal and state regulations regarding jurisdictional waters
and wetlands.
OSC-22: In its review of applications for development, the Town shall require open space buffers of at least 50 feet on each
side of the top of the bank of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams on properties less than five acres and of at least
100 feet on each side of the top of the bank on properties greater than five acres, to minimize disturbance of natural vegetation
and maintain the environmental and scenic attributes of the corridor. Where modification of corridors is required for flood
control or crossings, such modification shall be made in an environmentally sensitive manner that enhances, replaces, or
retains vegetation.
OSC-25: A diversity and abundance of wildlife and marine life shall be protected and maintained. The Town shall strive to
preserve and protect to the greatest extent feasible wildlife habitat in the open spaces, shoreline, marshes, mudflats, and
other biologically sensitive areas.
OSC-26: To the maximum extent feasible, and as required by federal and state laws, development and construction shall not
affect special status species or special communities.
OSC-33: Protected trees, as defined in the Municipal Code, tree stands, and tree clusters shall be preserved to the maximum
extent feasible.
OSC-34: The Town shall protect natural habitat, and natural wooded areas shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible.
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 25
OSC-64: The use of native plants for landscaping shall be encouraged and the planting of invasive, exotic species shall be
discouraged.
OSC-65: The removal of invasive, exotic species, such as broom and pampas grass, shall be required as a condition of
approval for new developments.
OSC-66: New developments shall be required to ensure ongoing removal of invasive, exotic species through home owners
associations, covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs), or other appropriate mechanisms.
OSC-67: The Town shall encourage homeowners associations to disseminate information about the harmful effects of
invasive exotic species in landscaping.
Implementing Programs
OSC-a: Applicants shall be required to demonstrate that proposals for development minimize environmental impacts and
comply with the General Plan and applicable regulations, ordinances, and guidelines. The Town shall require that an
assessment of environmental constraints and Prime Open Space characteristics be prepared prior to the submittal of Precise
Development Plan applications for large undeveloped parcels. Revise the Town's water conservation ordinance when
required by changes in MMWD' s water conservation ordinance.
OSC-b: The Town shall review development applications that are submitted to the County and that are within the Town's
sphere of influence and areas of interest in order to encourage conformance with Town policies, including minimizing the
visual impact of development on surrounding hills visible from the Town.
OSC-c: The Town shall require an environmental assessment for development proposed on sites that may contain sensitive
biological resources, including wetlands, occurrences of special status species and sensitive natural communities, native
wildlife nurseries and nesting locations, and native wildlife movement corridors. The assessment shall be conducted by a
qualified professional to determine the presence or absence of any sensitive resources which could be affected by proposed
development, shall provide an assessment of the potential impacts, and shall define measures for protecting the resource
and surrounding buffer habitat.
OSC-d: Where hillslope stabilization is proposed as part of development proposals, or wherever such stabilization is required
by the Town to protect public safety, the Town shall require the project to evaluate all slope repair-related modifications such
as the secondary impacts of subsurface drainage on site and watershed ecological communities, including special-status
species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. In the event impacts are likely, modifications to the proposed project
shall be considered. In the event avoidance and project modification are infeasible, appropriate on- or off-site habitat
mitigation shall be required prior to project approval, as mandated by the State and federal regulatory agencies.
OSC-e: The Town shall establish a clearinghouse of information for public use related to protection of sensitive biological
and wetland resources, maintain contacts for agencies responsible for their protection, and encourage programs dedicated
to the restoration and management of the remaining natural area.
OSC-f: The Town shall consider revising and expanding the Tiburon Tree Ordinance to provide protection of both individual
trees and native woodlands. Factors to consider in expanding the current ordinance include the importance of protecting
smaller sapling trees and balancing their protection against those of designated "protected trees", defining critical
management guidelines necessary to maintain healthy woodlands, and methods to encourage natural regeneration in
woodland habitats.
Town of Tiburon Municipal Code
Chapter 15 Trees. The Tiburon Municipal code establish standards and regulations related to the protection of "protected
trees" (heritage trees, oak trees, and dedicated trees), and the removal of potentially hazardous trees.
CONSERVATION
26 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), established to both protect and direct
development of the Bay and its shoreline, is a commission which regulates development along the waters of the Bay.
Altogether, the Commission is charged with:
• Regulating all filling and dredging in San Francisco Bay (which includes San Pablo and Suisun Bays, sloughs and
certain creeks and tributaries that are part of the Bay system, salt ponds and certain other areas that have been
diked-off from the Bay);
• Protecting the Suisun Marsh, the largest remaining wetland in California, by administering the Suisun Marsh
Preservation Act in cooperation with local governments;
• Regulating new development within the first 100 feet inland from the Bay to ensure that maximum feasible public
access to the Bay is provided;
• Minimizing pressure to fill the Bay by ensuring that the limited amount of shoreline area suitable for high priority
water-oriented uses is reserved for ports, water-related industries, water-oriented recreation, airports, and wildlife
areas.
• Pursuing an active planning program to study Bay issues to ensure that Commission plans and policies are based
upon the best available current information.
• Leading regionwide adaptation planning in light of rising sea level;
• Administering the federal Coastal Zone Management Act within the San Francisco Bay segment of the California
coastal zone to ensure that federal activities reflect Commission policies.
• Participating in the regionwide program to administer a Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS) to ensure
appropriate dredging and dredged materials disposal in San Francisco Bay; and,
• Participating in California's oil spill prevention and response planning program.
San Francisco Bay Plan
The San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan) guides BCDC’s planning and actions for the area within its jurisdiction. The Bay
Plan includes two primary parts: the policies to guide future uses of the Bay and shoreline, and the maps that apply these
policies to the present Bay and shoreline. The Bay Plan addresses the following matters as specifically required by the law:
1. The results of the Commission's detailed study of the Bay;
2. The comprehensive plan adopted by BCDC for the conservation of the water of San Francisco Bay and the
development of its shoreline;
3. BCDC’s recommendation of the appropriate agency to maintain and carry out the Bay Plan;
4. BCDC’s estimate of the approximate amount of money that would be required to maintain and carry out the
provisions of the Plan for the Bay; and
5. Other information and recommendations BCDC deemed desirable.
BCDC has jurisdiction over five areas: the San Francisco Bay, a 100-foot shoreline band, salt ponds, managed wetlands,
and certain waterways. The provisions of the Bay Plan pertaining to areas outside of the 100-foot shoreline band are advisory.
In the Tiburon Planning Area, the Bay Plan applies to activities within San Francisco Bay and activities along the 100-foot
shoreline band. The provisions of the Bay Plan pertaining to areas outside of the 100-foot shoreline band are advisory.
There are no salt ponds, managed wetlands, or waterways under BCDC’s jurisdiction in the Tiburon Planning Area.
Permit requirements are detailed in Title 7.2 of the California Government Code and Title 14, Division 5 of the California
Code of Regulations. BCDC has the authority to approve projects with conditions that must be carried out as a part of the
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 27
authorized project. According to BCDC's website, typical permit conditions include requirements to construct, guarantee,
and maintain public access to the Bay, plan review requirements that must be met before construction can begin, and
mitigation requirements to offset the adverse environmental impacts of proposed projects.
The Bay Plan establishes seven policies related to biological resources that address conservation of the Bay’s tidal resources
and native species and specifically address placement of fill and sediment. The Tiburon Planning Area is located within the
area addressed by Plan Map 4, which refers to the area as Central Bay North area. The Bay Plan establishes the following
policies which apply to specific areas within the Planning Area:
30. Harbor Seal Haul-Out - Protect harbor seal haul-out and pupping site where harbor seals rest, give birth and nurse
their young. Projects allowed only if protective of harbor seals and other sensitive wildlife.
31. Harbor Seal Haul-Out - Protect harbor seal haul-out and pupping site where harbor seals rest, give birth and nurse
their young. Projects allowed only if protective of harbor seals and other sensitive wildlife.
32. Angel Island State Park - Use only for camping, picnicking, water-oriented recreation. Access by boat only. Preserve
boat slips and mooring buoys at Ayala Cove. No commercial uses except for convenience needs of park visitors.
Preserve and interpret cultural, historical, and natural features of the island. Protect harbor seal haul-out and
pupping site where harbor seals rest, give birth and nurse their young. Projects allowed only if protective of harbor
seals and other sensitive wildlife.
33. Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies - If and when not needed by San Francisco State University,
acquire, and develop for park. Expansion of Romberg Tiburon Center should be compatible with park use. Romberg
Tiburon Center lands outside of the shoreline band should be developed consistent with recreation policy 4-b.
Provide public access through the site to the shoreline.
Richardson Bay Special Area Plan
Richardson Bay provides a wide range of aquatic and wildlife habitats for abundant and diverse populations of fish and
wildlife. Because of its location sheltered from strong tides and winds and close proximity to the Pacific Ocean, Richardson
Bay is an area of high value for fish that spend part of their life in the ocean and part in an estuary, and for sea birds and
migratory waterfowl as a refuge during winter storms. It is estimated that over 350,000 birds seek refuge during the winter
months in the Audubon Society's wildlife sanctuary alone. Because of the shallowness of the Bay's water, many acres of
mudflats are exposed at low tide providing important feeding areas for shorebirds and habitat for algae and small crustaceans.
Moreover, Richardson Bay is one of the few areas in the San Francisco Bay system in which harbor seals reside and haul
out.
Because of this, the BCDC recognized that the Richardson Bay is a unique and irreplaceable resource to the region. However,
Richardson Bay has experienced increasing problems over the past years related to the protection of sensitive biological
species and natural environments. In order to identify these problems to biological resources and offer recommended
solutions, the Richardson Bay Special Area Plan was prepared to establish standards for development along the shores of
Richardson Bay. Polices within the Richardson Bay Special Area Plan include:
1. The open water, marshes, and mud flats of Richardson Bay are particularly valuable wildlife habitat and should be
afforded maximum protection. Eelgrass beds, important to herring spawning and for production of detritus, should
also receive maximum protection.
2. Future shoreline developments adjacent to mud flats or tidal or diked marshes should provide a natural landscaped
buffer area between the development and the shoreline. The buffer area should be a minimum of 20 to 40 feet wide,
depending on the sensitivity of the wildlife and the density and intensity of development, and should be planted
with native shrubs and trees such as coyote brush, toyon, and coast live oak.
3. The harbor seal haul-out area on Strawberry Spit should be further protected by buoys placed offshore of the haul-
out site during the haul-out season (November to April).
CONSERVATION
28 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
4. Open areas of Richardson Bay used as resting and feeding areas by migratory waterfowl during the winter should
be protected from speeding boats through continued patrolling of the Audubon Society Sanctuary and by posting
of notice of boat speed restrictions in upper Richardson Bay.
5. Any development within Richardson Bay should avoid destruction of marshes, mud flats, shellfish beds, and
eelgrass beds. If such losses are unavoidable, the project should be authorized only if the minimum amount of
habitat disturbance necessary to accomplish the purpose of the project occurs and the habitat loss is mitigated to
the fullest extent. Mitigation should be within Richardson Bay, preferably at the development site, or if that is not
feasible, at a site identified in the Tidal Restoration and Marsh Enhancement section of the Special Area Plan.
Town of Tiburon Open Space Resource Management Plan
The Town of Tiburon owns and manages approximately 250 acres of open space distributed among 21 parcels. These open
space areas vary considerably in size, vegetation, occurrence of special-status species, and proximity to residences. Nearly
all of the parcels were either purchased outright by the Town for preservation purposes or were acquired as a result of open
space dedications required by the Town for new development projects. The primary emphasis of the Open Space Resource
Management Plan is management of vegetation and protection from non-native, invasive species of vegetation. Other topic
areas such as erosion, fire hazard management, and passive recreation are also addressed in the Open Space Management
Plan.
Town of Tiburon Guide to Policies for Trees Located on Town Property
The Guide was prepared in 2003 by the Town as a guide to the Town’s policies and procedures involving trees. The Guide
includes criteria for Town review of applications involving trees and shrubs on Town property; a sidewalk area diagram; and
a procedure for tree alteration, removal, or planting.
The Guide establishes the 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). 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 Guide identifies conditions that warrant removal, including public safety hazards, disease, and damage to utilities and
establishes a process for pruning of trees and shrubs.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
BIOREGION
Tiburon is located within the Bay Area/Delta Bioregion. The Bay Area/Delta Bioregion extends from the Pacific Ocean to the
Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin Valley bioregions to the northeast and southeast, and a short stretch of the eastern
boundary joins the Sierra Bioregion at Amador and Calaveras counties. The bioregion is bounded by the Klamath/North
Coast on the north and the Central Coast Bioregion to the south. The Bay Area/Delta Bioregion is one of the most populous
areas of the state, encompassing the San Francisco Bay Area and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The water that
flows through the Delta supplies two-thirds of California's drinking water, irrigating farmland, and sustaining fish and wildlife
and their habitat. The bioregion fans out from San Francisco Bay in a jagged semi-circle that takes in all or part of 12
counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, and
parts of Sacramento and Yolo. The habitats and vegetation of the Bay Area/Delta Bioregion are as varied as the geography.
VEGETATION
Vegetation occurring within the Planning Area primarily consists of agricultural, ruderal, riparian, and landscaping vegetation.
Because of the urban nature of the developed areas within Tiburon, there is limited undisturbed natural vegetation. Common
plant species observed in the region include: wild oat (Avena barbata), rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus), softchess (Bromus
hordeaceus) alfalfa (Medicago sativa), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), rough
pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus), coyote brush
(Baccharis pilularis), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), sow thistle (Sonchus asper),
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 29
telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), barley (Hordeum sp.), mustard (Brassica niger), and heliotrope (Heliotropium
curassavicum).
WILDLIFE
Agricultural and ruderal vegetation in the Planning Area provides habitat for both common and special-status wildlife
populations. For example, some commonly observed wildlife species in the region include: California ground squirrel
(Spermophilus beecheyi), California vole (Microtus californicus), coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), northern harrier (Circus
cyaneus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), American killdeer (Charadrius vociferus),
gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), garter snake (Thamnophis species), and western fence lizard (Sceloporus
occidentalis), as well as many native insect species. There are also several bat species in the region. Bats often feed on
insects as they fly over agricultural and natural areas.
Locally common and abundant wildlife species are important components of the ecosystem. Due to habitat loss, many of
these species must continually adapt to using agricultural, ruderal, and ornamental vegetation for cover, foraging, dispersal,
and nesting.
PLANT COMMUNITIES
Agricultural and natural plant communities provide habitat for a variety of biological resources in the region. Sensitive habitats
include those that are of special concern to resource agencies or those that are protected under a Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, CEQA, the Fish and Game Code, or the Clean Water Act (CWA). Additionally, sensitive
habitats are usually protected under specific policies from local agencies. Figure 2-1 illustrates the plant communities (land
cover types) in the vicinity of the Planning Area.
California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System
The California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) habitat classification scheme has been developed to support the CWHR
System, a wildlife information system and predictive model for California's regularly occurring birds, mammals, reptiles, and
amphibians. When first published in 1988, the classification scheme had 53 habitats. At present, there are 59 wildlife habitats
in the CWHR System: 27 tree, 12 shrub, 6 herbaceous, 4 aquatic, 8 agricultural, 1 developed, and 1 non-vegetated.
The CWHR System identified 16 cover types (wildlife habitat classifications) in the Planning Area out of the 59 types in the
State. These include: Annual Grassland, Barren, Closed-Cone Pine-Cypress, Coastal Oak Woodland, Coastal Scrub,
Eucalyptus, Fresh Emergent Wetland, Lacustrine, Montane Hardwood-Conifer, Perennial Grassland, Saline Emergent
Wetland, Urban, Valley Foothill Riparian, Valley Oak Woodland, Water, and Wet Meadow.
Table 2-1 identifies the total area by acreage for each cover type (classification) found in in the Planning Area. Figure 2-1
illustrates the location of each cover type (classification). A brief description of each cover type follows.
TABLE 2-1: COVER TYPES - CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE HABITAT RELATIONSHIP SYSTEM
COVER TYPE TOWN OF TIBURON SOI (ACRES) PLANNING AREA GRAND TOTAL
Annual Grassland 407.93 76.82 139.59 624.34
Barren 45.58 0.67 1.11 47.36
Closed-Cone Pine-Cypress 74.05 0.00 0 74.05
Coastal Oak Woodland 552.06 294.36 34.72 881.14
Coastal Scrub 192.15 73.56 47.61 313.32
Eucalyptus 167.51 20.52 1.68 189.72
Fresh Emergent Wetland 1.56 5.78 0.22 7.56
Lacustrine 143.32 30.91 0.00 174.24
CONSERVATION
30 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
COVER TYPE TOWN OF TIBURON SOI (ACRES) PLANNING AREA GRAND TOTAL
Montane Hardwood-Conifer 0.00 35.80 0.00 35.80
Perennial Grassland 58.96 8.52 87.49 154.96
Saline Emergent Wetland 5.74 0.00 0.00 5.74
Urban 1,366.48 281.65 36.31 1,684.44
Valley Foothill Riparian 1.33 0.00 0.00 1.33
Valley Oak Woodland 3.78 0.00 0.00 3.78
Water 6,745.48 118.31 0.00 6,863.80
Wet Meadow <0.01 <0.01 0.22 0.22
SOURCE: CASIL GIS DATA, 2021.
Developed Cover Types
Urban habitats are not limited to any particular physical setting. Three urban categories relevant to wildlife are distinguished:
downtown, urban residential, and suburbia. The heavily developed downtown is usually at the center, followed by concentric
zones of urban residential and suburbs. There is a progression outward of decreasing development and increasing vegetative
cover. Species richness and diversity is extremely low in the inner cover. The structure of urban vegetation varies, with five
types of vegetative structure defined: tree grove, street strip, shade tree/lawn, lawn, and shrub cover. A distinguishing feature
of the urban wildlife habitat is the mixture of native and exotic species. Within the Planning Area, there are 1,650.34 acres
of urban habitat.
Herbaceous Cover Types
Annual Grassland habitat occurs mostly on flat plains to gently rolling foothills. Climatic conditions are typically
Mediterranean, with cool, wet winters and dry, hot summers. The length of the frost-free season averages 250 to 300 days.
Annual precipitation is highest in northern California. Within the Planning Area, there are 484.74 acres of annual grassland
habitat.
Fresh Emergent Wetland habitats occur on virtually all exposures and slopes, provided a basin or depression is saturated or
at least periodically flooded. They are most common on level to gently rolling topography. They are found in various
depressions or at the edge of rivers or lakes. Soils are predominantly silt and clay, although coarser sediments and organic
material may be intermixed. In some areas organic soils (peat) may constitute the primary growth medium. Climatic
conditions are highly variable and range from the extreme summer heat to winter temperatures well below freezing. Within
the Planning Area, there are 7.33 acres of fresh emergent wetland habitat.
Saline Emergent Wetland habitat occur along the margins of bays, lagoons, and estuaries sheltered from excessive wave
action. At their lower margin they are exposed once every 24 hours; whereas, at their upper margin, submergence is short
and infrequent, followed by weeks or months of continuous exposure. Characteristic or distinctive vascular plant species
ranging from lower saline sites to higher or brackish sites are cordgrass, pickleweed, Humboldt cordgrass, glasswort,
saltwort, jaumea, California seablite, seaside arrowgrass, alkali heath, seashore saltgrass, spearleaf saltweed, shoregrass, the
endangered birdsbeak, common glasswort, sea-lavender, brass-buttons, saltmarsh dodder, gumweed, salt rush, tufted
hairgrass, Pacific alkali bulrush, Olney bulrush, tule bulrush, California bulrush, common cattail, tropical cattail, cinquefoil,
and coast carex. Frost-free days range from 330 to 365. Within the Planning Area, there are 5.74 acres of saline emergent
wetland habitat.
Perennial Grassland habitat typically occurs on ridges and south-facing slopes, alternating with forest and scrub in the valleys
and on north-facing slopes. Perennial Grassland habitats are most often found on Mollisols. These soils may grade into
Inceptisols to the north, with higher precipitation allowing for leaching of the mollic horizon, and into Alfisols to the south,
under drier conditions. On the north coast, Perennial Grassland habitat may occasionally be found on Ultisols which formerly
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 31
supported Douglas-fir habitats, but which have been cleared by humans. Climatic conditions are under strong maritime
influence. Perennial Grassland habitat of the coastal prairie form occurs along the California coast from Monterey County
northward. It is found below 3,280 feet in elevation and seldom more than 62 miles from the coast. Relic perennial grasses
within annual grassland habitat occur in patches throughout the state. Within the Planning Area, there are 67.48 acres of
perennial grassland habitat.
Wet Meadow habitat occurs where water is at or near the surface most of the growing season, following spring runoff.
Hydrologically, they occupy lotic, sunken concave, and hanging sites. Lotic sites are those with main input flow (other than
precipitation) from upstream sources; at least early in the growing season, water flows across them at depths of 4-8 inches.
They frequently occur on rather steep slopes, and downstream runoff is the main output flow. Surface flows, although
constant, are usually no more than 0.4-inch deep. Wet Meadows occur throughout virtually every forest type of the Sierra
and Pacific Northwest floristic provinces and as inclusions in the northern coastal prairie and sagebrush steppe. Where
conditions are favorable, Wet Meadows occur in the Transverse and Peninsular ranges of Southern California. In the Sierra
Nevada and Cascade ranges, Wet Meadows usually occur above 3,940 feet in the north and above 5,900 feet in the south.
In the Klamath Mountains, Wet Meadows occur in the California red fir zone at 4,600 feet to 6,400 feet elevation. Swales in
the valley and foothill grasslands occasionally provide conditions suitable for Wet Meadow species. Within the Planning
Area, there are less than .01 acres of wet meadow habitat.
Tree-Dominated Cover Types
Coastal Oak Woodland habitats are common to mesic coastal foothills of California where moisture conditions are more
favorable, such as north facing slopes and canyons, or higher elevations. Coastal oak woodlands occupy a variety of
mediterranean type climates that vary from north to south and west to east. (The climate becomes hotter and drier toward
the south and east.) Precipitation occurs in the milder winter months, almost entirely as rainfall, followed by warm to hot,
dry summers. Near the coast, the summers are tempered by fogs and cool, humid sea breezes. Mean annual precipitation
varies from about 40 inches in the north to about 15 inches in southern and interior regions. Mean minimum winter
temperatures are 29 to 44 degrees Fahrenheit (F), and the mean maximum summer temperatures are 75 to 96 F. The
growing season ranges from six months (180 frost-free days) in the north to the entire year in mild coastal regions to the
south. The soils and parent material on which coastal oak woodlands occur are extremely variable. Within the Planning Area,
there are 846.41 acres of Coastal Oak Woodland habitat.
Closed-Cone Pine-Cypress habitats are typically found on sites that are rockier and more infertile than the surrounding soils.
Many stands are found on serpentine soils. Although, typically found at low elevations, due to the coastal distribution of
much of this habitat type, interior stands may be found at elevations up to 6550 feet. Closed-cone pine-cypress occurs in
patches as an interrupted forest along coastal California from southern San Diego county north to Oregon. Inland, the
distribution is a few widely scattered locations in the Peninsular and Coast Ranges and in the North and Central Sierra
Nevada. Landforms are gentle to steep slopes where stands occur in interior California and coastal terraces or bluffs where
distributed along coastal California. Within the Planning Area, there are 74.04 acres of Closed-Cone Pine-Cypress habitat.
Eucalyptus habitats generally adjoin a number of other wildlife habitats and are found at low elevations, where freezing is
not a problem. Most eucalyptus have been artificially established, usually in and around urban/rural areas. Other habitats
found in proximity to eucalyptus include cropland, valley foothill riparian, Orchard-vineyard, Coastal Scrub, Chamise
Redshank Chaparral, Annual Grass, Pasture and Residential Park. Eucalyptus occurs in California from San Diego and
Imperial counties in the south, usually at elevations below 1500 feet, but it has been found up 2100 feet; and to Shasta in
the north. Most eucalyptus, however, is found around populated areas of southern and central California. Eucalyptus habitats
have been extensively planted throughout the state since their introduction in 1856 with large-scale planting operations
beginning in 1870. As such, they are found in locations with highly variable site characteristics. Generally, they are found
on relatively flat or gently rolling terrain, occasionally in the foothills. Climatic conditions are typically referred to as
Mediterranean, characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, mild winters. Precipitation ranges from approximately 12 inches
CONSERVATION
32 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
to 24 inches. Temperature regimes in areas of eucalyptus groves range from a mean monthly low of 43 F in January to 73
F in August, with low temperatures occasionally reaching 32 to 25 F and high temperatures typically exceeding 100 F.
Eucalyptus demonstrates the ability to withstand many temperature conditions, with the exception of prolonged cold or
freezing weather. Within the Planning Area, there are 74.04 acres of Eucalyptus habitat.
Valley Foothill Riparian habitats are found in valleys bordered by sloping alluvial fans, slightly dissected terraces, lower
foothills, and coastal plains. They are generally associated with low velocity flows, flood plains, and gentle topography.
Valleys provide deep alluvial soils and a high water table. The substrate is coarse, gravelly, or rocky soils more or less
permanently moist, but probably well aerated. Frost and short periods of freezing occur in winter (200 to 350 frost-free
days). This habitat is characterized by hot, dry summers and mild and wet winters. Temperatures range from 75 to 102 F in
the summer to 29 to 44 F in the winter. Average precipitation ranges from 6 to 30 inches, with little or no snow. The growing
season is 7 to 11 months. Within the Planning Area, there are 1.33 acres of valley foothill riparian habitat.
Valley Oak Woodland habitat occurs in a wide range of physiographic settings but is best developed on deep, well-drained
alluvial soils, usually in valley bottoms. Most large, healthy valley oaks are probably rooted down to permanent water
supplies. Stands of valley oaks are found in deep sills on broad ridge-tops in the southern Coast Range. Where this type
occurs near the coast, it is usually found away from the main fog zone. The climate is Mediterranean, with mild, wet winters
and hot, dry summers. Remnant patches of this habitat are found in the Sacramento Valley from Redding south, in the San
Joaquin Valley to the Sierra Nevada foothills, in the Tehachapi Mountains, and in valleys of the Coast Range from Lake
County to western Los Angeles County. Usually, it occurs below 2000 feet. Within the Planning Area, there are 3.78 acres
of valley oak woodland habitat.
Montane Hardwood-Conifer habitats range throughout California mostly west of the Cascade-Sierra Nevada crest. East of
the crest, it is found in localized areas of Placer, El Dorado, Alpine and San Bernardino Counties. A typical montane hardwood
habitat is composed of a pronounced hardwood tree layer, with an infrequent and poorly developed shrub stratum, and a
sparse herbaceous layer. On better sites, individual trees or clumps of trees may be only to 13 feet apart. On poorer sites,
spacing increases 26 to 33 feet. Where trees are closely spaced, crowns may close but seldom overlap. Elevations range
from 300 feet near the Pacific Ocean. Annual precipitation varies from 110 inches in in the northern Coast Range to 36
inches. Within the Planning Area, there are 35.01 acres of montane hardwood habitat.
Shrub-Dominated Cover Types
Coastal Scrub habitats occur discontinuously in a narrow strip throughout the length of California. Two types of northern
Coastal Scrub are usually recognized. The first type (limited in range) occurs as low-growing patches of bush lupine and
many-colored lupine at exposed, oceanside sites. The second and more common type of northern Coastal Scrub usually
occurs at less exposed sites. Here, coyote bush dominates the overstory. Within the Planning Area, there are 265.71 acres
of coastal scrub habitat.
Aquatic Cover Types
Lacustrine habitats are inland depressions or dammed riverine channels containing standing water. These habitats may occur
in association with any terrestrial habitats, Riverine, or Fresh Emergent Wetlands. They may vary from small ponds less than
one acre to large areas covering several square miles. Depth can vary from a few inches to hundreds of feet. Typical lacustrine
habitats include permanently flooded lakes and reservoirs, and intermittent lakes and ponds (including vernal pools) so
shallow that rooted plants can grow over the bottom. Most permanent lacustrine systems support fish life; intermittent types
usually do not. Within the Planning Area there are 174.60 acres of lacustrine habitat.
Water habitat is similar to the marsh habitat. water habitats are home to a variety of plants, fish, and wildlife. Within the
Planning Area there are 6,867.15 acres of water habitat.
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 33
Other Cover Types
Barren habitat is defined by the absence of vegetation. Any habitat with less than 2 percent total vegetation cover by
herbaceous, desert, or non-wildland species and less than 10 percent cover by tree or shrub species is defined this way.
The physical settings for permanently barren habitat represent extreme environments for vegetation. An extremely hot or
cold climate, a near-vertical slope, an impermeable substrate, constant disturbance by either human or natural forces, or a
soil either lacking in organic matter or excessively saline can each contribute to a habitat being inhospitable to plants. Within
the Planning Area, there are 46.25 acres of barren habitat.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
The following discussion is based on a background search of special-status species that are documented in the California
Department of Fish & Wildlife CNDDB. The background search was regional in scope and focused on the documented
occurrences within 5 and 15 miles (16 U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] Quadrangles) of Tiburon.
Special-Status Plants
The search revealed documented occurrences of 64 special status plant species within 5 miles of the Planning Area. The
search revealed documented occurrences of 91 special status plant species within approximately 15 miles of the Planning
Area.
Tables 2-2 and 2-3 provide a list of special-status plant species that are documented within 5 and 15 miles of the Planning
Area, and their current status. Figure 2-2 illustrates the special status species located within approximately 5 miles of the
Planning Area. Figure 2-3 illustrates the special status species located within 9 quadrangles, approximately 15 miles, of the
Planning Area.
TABLE 2-2: SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS PRESENT OR POTENTIALLY PRESENT (5 MILE)
PLANTS SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS STATE STATUS
Astragalus tener var. tener alkali milk-vetch None None
Layia carnosa beach layia Endangered Endangered
Carex comosa bristly sedge None None
Gilia capitata ssp. chamissonis blue coast gilia None None
Calystegia purpurata ssp. saxicola coastal bluff morning-glory None None
Coastal Brackish Marsh Coastal Brackish Marsh None None
Coastal Terrace Prairie Coastal Terrace Prairie None None
Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Choris' popcornflower None None
Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta congested-headed hayfield tarplant None None
Gilia millefoliata dark-eyed gilia None None
Helianthella castanea Diablo helianthella None None
Arctostaphylos franciscana Franciscan manzanita Endangered None
Cirsium andrewsii Franciscan thistle None None
Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary None None
Plagiobothrys glaber hairless popcornflower None None
Horkelia cuneata var. sericea Kellogg's horkelia None None
Spergularia macrotheca var. longistyla long-styled sand-spurrey None None
Navarretia rosulata Marin County navarretia None None
Fritillaria lanceolata var. tristulis Marin checker lily None None
Polygonum marinense Marin knotweed None None
CONSERVATION
34 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
PLANTS SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS STATE STATUS
Arctostaphylos virgata Marin manzanita None None
Hesperolinon congestum Marin western flax Threatened Threatened
Microseris paludosa marsh microseris None None
Arenaria paludicola marsh sandwort Endangered Endangered
Streptanthus glandulosus ssp. pulchellus Mt. Tamalpais bristly jewelflower None None
Arctostaphylos montana ssp. montana Mt. Tamalpais manzanita None None
Cirsium hydrophilum var. vaseyi Mt. Tamalpais thistle None None
Amorpha californica var. napensis Napa false indigo None None
Pleuropogon hooverianus North Coast semaphore grass None Threatened
Carex praticola northern meadow sedge None None
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Northern Coastal Salt Marsh None None
Polemonium carneum Oregon polemonium None None
Horkelia marinensis Point Reyes horkelia None None
Clarkia franciscana Presidio clarkia Endangered Endangered
Arctostaphylos montana ssp. ravenii Presidio manzanita Endangered Endangered
Leptosiphon rosaceus rose leptosiphon None None
Collinsia corymbosa round-headed Chinese-houses None None
Serpentine Bunchgrass Serpentine Bunchgrass None None
Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover None None
Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata San Francisco Bay spineflower None None
Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda San Francisco campion None None
Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia None None
Grindelia hirsutula var. maritima San Francisco gumplant None None
Lessingia germanorum San Francisco lessingia Endangered Endangered
Triphysaria floribunda San Francisco owl's-clover None None
Plagiobothrys diffusus San Francisco popcornflower None Endangered
Stebbinsoseris decipiens Santa Cruz microseris None None
Holocarpha macradenia Santa Cruz tarplant Threatened Endangered
Silene scouleri ssp. scouleri Scouler's catchfly None None
Kopsiopsis hookeri small groundcone None None
Symphyotrichum lentum Suisun Marsh aster None None
Streptanthus batrachopus Tamalpais jewelflower None None
Calamagrostis crassiglumis Thurber's reed grass None None
Calochortus tiburonensis Tiburon mariposa-lily Threatened Threatened
Lessingia micradenia var. micradenia Tamalpais lessingia None None
Quercus parvula var. tamalpaisensis Tamalpais oak None None
Horkelia tenuiloba thin-lobed horkelia None None
Eriogonum luteolum var. caninum Tiburon buckwheat None None
Streptanthus glandulosus ssp. niger Tiburon jewelflower Endangered Endangered
Castilleja affinis var. neglecta Tiburon paintbrush Endangered Threatened
Trifolium amoenum two-fork clover Endangered None
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 35
PLANTS SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS STATE STATUS
Valley Needlegrass Grassland Valley Needlegrass Grassland None None
Pentachaeta bellidiflora white-rayed pentachaeta Endangered Endangered
SOURCE: CDFW CNDDB 2020.
TABLE 2-3: SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS PRESENT OR POTENTIALLY PRESENT (15 MILE)
PLANTS SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS STATE STATUS
Sanicula maritima adobe sanicle None Rare
Astragalus tener var. tener alkali milk-vetch None None
Malacothamnus arcuatus arcuate bush-mallow None None
Layia carnosa beach layia Endangered Endangered
Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered fiddleneck None None
Gilia capitata ssp. chamissonis blue coast gilia None None
Suaeda californica California seablite Endangered None
Isocoma arguta Carquinez goldenbush None None
Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort None None
Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Choris' popcornflower None None
Calystegia purpurata ssp. saxicola coastal bluff morning-glory None None
Coastal Brackish Marsh Coastal Brackish Marsh None None
Coastal Terrace Prairie Coastal Terrace Prairie None None
Cirsium occidentale var. compactum compact cobwebby thistle None None
Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta congested-headed hayfield tarplant None None
Gilia millefoliata dark-eyed gilia None None
Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii Delta tule pea None None
Helianthella castanea Diablo helianthella None None
Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary None None
Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Franciscan onion None None
Arctostaphylos franciscana Franciscan manzanita Endangered None
Cirsium andrewsii Franciscan thistle None None
Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana Hillsborough chocolate lily None None
Plagiobothrys glaber hairless popcornflower None None
Horkelia cuneata var. sericea Kellogg's horkelia None None
Hoita strobilina Loma Prieta hoita None None
Spergularia macrotheca var. longistyla long-styled sand-spurrey None None
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Northern Coastal Salt Marsh None None
Carex praticola northern meadow sedge None None
Northern Maritime Chaparral Northern Maritime Chaparral None None
Pleuropogon hooverianus North Coast semaphore grass None Threatened
Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. viridis Marin checkerbloom None None
Navarretia rosulata Marin County navarretia None None
Polygonum marinense Marin knotweed None None
Hesperolinon congestum Marin western flax Threatened Threatened
Microseris paludosa marsh microseris None None
Arenaria paludicola marsh sandwort Endangered Endangered
Fritillaria lanceolata var. tristulis Marin checker lily None None
Lilaeopsis masonii Mason's lilaeopsis None None
Arctostaphylos montaraensis Montara manzanita None None
CONSERVATION
36 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
Streptanthus glandulosus ssp. pulchellus Mt. Tamalpais bristly jewelflower None None
Arctostaphylos montana ssp. montana Mt. Tamalpais manzanita None None
Cirsium hydrophilum var. vaseyi Mt. Tamalpais thistle None None
Amorpha californica var. napensis Napa false indigo None None
Monardella sinuata ssp. nigrescens northern curly-leaved monardella None None
Polemonium carneum Oregon polemonium None None
Viburnum ellipticum oval-leaved viburnum None None
Arctostaphylos pacifica Pacific manzanita None Endangered
Arctostaphylos pallida pallid manzanita Threatened Endangered
Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi pappose tarplant None None
Sidalcea calycosa ssp. rhizomata Point Reyes checkerbloom None None
Horkelia marinensis Point Reyes horkelia None None
Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre Point Reyes salty bird's-beak None None
Clarkia franciscana Presidio clarkia Endangered Endangered
Arctostaphylos montana ssp. ravenii Presidio manzanita Endangered Endangered
Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense Pitkin Marsh lily Endangered Endangered
Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta robust spineflower Endangered None
Leptosiphon rosaceus rose leptosiphon None None
Collinsia corymbosa round-headed Chinese-houses None None
Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover None None
Arctostaphylos imbricata San Bruno Mountain manzanita None Endangered
Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata San Francisco Bay spineflower None None
Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda San Francisco campion None None
Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia None None
Grindelia hirsutula var. maritima San Francisco gumplant None None
Lessingia germanorum San Francisco lessingia Endangered Endangered
Triphysaria floribunda San Francisco owl's-clover None None
Plagiobothrys diffusus San Francisco popcornflower None Endangered
Extriplex joaquinana San Joaquin spearscale None None
Stebbinsoseris decipiens Santa Cruz microseris None None
Holocarpha macradenia Santa Cruz tarplant Threatened Endangered
Silene scouleri ssp. scouleri Scouler's catchfly None None
Serpentine Bunchgrass Serpentine Bunchgrass None None
Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia short-leaved evax None None
Kopsiopsis hookeri small groundcone None None
Chloropyron molle ssp. molle soft salty bird's-beak None None
Symphyotrichum lentum Suisun Marsh aster None None
Streptanthus batrachopus Tamalpais jewelflower None None
Lessingia micradenia var. micradenia Tamalpais lessingia None None
Quercus parvula var. tamalpaisensis Tamalpais oak None None
Horkelia tenuiloba thin-lobed horkelia None None
Eriogonum luteolum var. caninum Tiburon buckwheat None None
Streptanthus glandulosus ssp. niger Tiburon jewelflower Endangered Endangered
Calochortus tiburonensis Tiburon mariposa-lily Threatened Threatened
Castilleja affinis var. neglecta Tiburon paintbrush Endangered Threatened
Calamagrostis crassiglumis Thurber's reed grass None None
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 37
Trifolium amoenum two-fork clover Endangered None
Valley Needlegrass Grassland Valley Needlegrass Grassland None None
Heteranthera dubia water star-grass None None
Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood None None
Pentachaeta bellidiflora white-rayed pentachaeta Endangered Endangered
SOURCE: CDFW CNDDB 2020.
Special-Status Animals
The search revealed documented occurrences of 45 special status animal species within 5 miles of the Planning Area. The
search revealed documented occurrences of 83 special status animal species within approximately 15 miles of the Planning
Area. While the CNDDB does not contain any official documented occurrences of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
within 5 miles or 15 miles of the Planning Area, it is noted that there have been recent sightings within Marin County,
including the Tiburon Peninsula1.
Tables 2-4 and 2-5 provide a list of the special-status animal species that are documented within 5 miles and 15 miles of
the Planning Area, and current status. Figure 2-2 illustrates the location of documented occurrences within 5 miles, and
Figure 2-3 shown documented occurrences within 15 miles of the Planning Area.
TABLE 2-4: SPECIAL STATUS ANIMALS PRESENT OR POTENTIALLY PRESENT (5 MILE)
ANIMAL SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS STATE STATUS AMPHIBIANS
Dicamptodon ensatus California giant salamander None None
Rana draytonii California red-legged frog Threatened None
Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog None Endangered
CRUSTACEANS
Vespericola marinensis Marin hesperian None None
Tryonia imitator
mimic tryonia (=California
brackishwater snail)
None None
Gonidea angulata western ridged mussel None None
REPTILES
Emys marmorata western pond turtle None None
FISH
Thaleichthys pacificus eulachon Threatened None
Spirinchus thaleichthys longfin smelt Candidate Threatened
Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby Endangered None
INSECTS
Plebejus icarioides missionensis Mission blue butterfly None None
Danaus plexippus pop. 1
monarch - California overwintering
population None None
Bombus caliginosus obscure bumble bee None None
Adela oplerella Opler's longhorn moth None None
Cicindela hirticollis gravida sandy beach tiger beetle None None
Microcina tiburona Tiburon micro-blind harvestman None None
Bombus occidentalis western bumble bee None Candidate Endangered
1 Bartlett, Amanda. 2020. “Here’s why you might see more bald eagles in the Bay Area right now”. Available at:
https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/more-bald-eagles-bay-area-marin-county-15165134.php#taboola-2
CONSERVATION
38 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
ANIMAL SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS STATE STATUS
BIRDS
Melospiza melodia pusillula Alameda song sparrow None None
Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon None None
Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned night heron None None
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail None Threatened
Rallus obsoletus California Ridgway's rail Endangered Endangered
Hydroprogne caspia Caspian tern None None
Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk None None
Phalacrocorax auritus double-crested cormorant None None
Ardea herodias great blue heron None None
Ardea alba great egret None None
Circus hudsonius northern harrier None None
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat None None
Melospiza melodia samuelis San Pablo song sparrow None None
Asio flammeus short-eared owl None None
Egretta thula snowy egret None None
Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite None None
MAMMALS
Taxidea taxus American badger None None
Scapanus latimanus insularis Angel Island mole None None
Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat None None
Erethizon dorsatum North American porcupine None None
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat None None
Zapus trinotatus orarius Point Reyes jumping mouse None None
Reithrodontomys raviventris salt-marsh harvest mouse Endangered Endangered
Sorex vagrans halicoetes salt-marsh wandering shrew None None
Microtus californicus sanpabloensis San Pablo vole None None
Enhydra lutris nereis southern sea otter Threatened None
Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat None None
SOURCE: CDFW CNDDB 2020.
TABLE 2-5: SPECIAL STATUS ANIMALS PRESENT OR POTENTIALLY PRESENT (15 MILE)
ANIMAL SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS STATE STATUS AMPHIBIANS
Dicamptodon ensatus California giant salamander None None
Rana draytonii California red-legged frog Threatened None
Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog None Endangered
REPTILES
Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus Alameda whipsnake Threatened Threatened
Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco gartersnake Endangered Endangered
Emys marmorata western pond turtle None None
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 39
ANIMAL SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS STATE STATUS FISH
Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 4
coho salmon - central California coast
ESU Endangered Endangered
Hypomesus transpacificus Delta smelt Threatened Endangered
Thaleichthys pacificus eulachon None None
Mylopharodon conocephalus hardhead None None
Spirinchus thaleichthys longfin smelt Candidate Threatened
Archoplites interruptus Sacramento perch None None
Pogonichthys macrolepidotus Sacramento splittail None None
Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby None None
CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
Caecidotea tomalensis Tomales isopod None None
Helminthoglypta nickliniana bridgesi Bridges' coast range shoulderband None None
Vespericola marinensis Marin hesperian None None
Tryonia imitator
mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater
snail)
None None
Pomatiopsis binneyi robust walker None None
Gonidea angulata western ridged mussel None None
INSECTS
Banksula incredula incredible harvestman None None
Microcina leei Lee's micro-blind harvestman None None
Calicina diminua Marin blind harvestman None None
Microcina tiburona Tiburon micro-blind harvestman None None
Talanites ubicki Ubick's gnaphosid spider None None
Plebejus icarioides missionensis Mission blue butterfly None None
Danaus plexippus pop. 1
monarch - California overwintering
population
None None
Bombus caliginosus obscure bumble bee None None
Adela oplerella Opler's longhorn moth None None
Cicindela hirticollis gravida sandy beach tiger beetle None None
Microcina tiburona Tiburon micro-blind harvestman None None
Bombus occidentalis western bumble bee None None
Euphydryas editha bayensis Bay checkerspot butterfly Threatened None
Lichnanthe ursina bumblebee scarab beetle None None
Speyeria callippe callippe silverspot butterfly Endangered None
Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble bee None Candidate Endangered
Hydroporus leechi Leech's skyline diving beetle None None
Callophrys mossii marinensis Marin elfin butterfly None None
Callophrys mossii bayensis San Bruno elfin butterfly Endangered None
Trachusa gummifera San Francisco Bay Area leaf-cutter bee None None
Ischnura gemina San Francisco forktail damselfly None None
Speyeria zerene sonomensis Sonoma zerene fritillary None None
CONSERVATION
40 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
ANIMAL SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS STATE STATUS
Dufourea stagei Stage's dufourine bee None None
BIRDS
Melospiza melodia pusillula Alameda song sparrow None None
Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon None None
Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned night heron None None
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail None Threatened
Rallus obsoletus obsoletus California Ridgway's rail Endangered Endangered
Hydroprogne caspia Caspian tern None None
Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk None None
Phalacrocorax auritus double-crested cormorant None None
Ardea herodias great blue heron None None
Ardea alba great egret None None
Circus hudsonius northern harrier None None
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat None None
Melospiza melodia samuelis San Pablo song sparrow None None
Asio flammeus short-eared owl None None
Egretta thula snowy egret None None
Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite None None
Riparia riparia bank swallow None Threatened
Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned night heron None None
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl None None
Pandion haliaetus osprey None None
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus western snowy plover Threatened None
Coturnicops noveboracensis yellow rail None None
Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus yellow-headed blackbird None None
MAMMALS
Taxidea taxus American badger None None
Scapanus latimanus insularis Angel Island mole None None
Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat None None
Erethizon dorsatum North American porcupine None None
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat None None
Zapus trinotatus orarius Point Reyes jumping mouse None None
Reithrodontomys raviventris salt-marsh harvest mouse Endangered Endangered
Sorex vagrans halicoetes salt-marsh wandering shrew None None
Microtus californicus sanpabloensis San Pablo vole None None
Enhydra lutris nereis southern sea otter Threatened None
Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat None None
Scapanus latimanus parvus Alameda Island mole None None
Nyctinomops macrotis big free-tailed bat None None
Eumetopias jubatus Steller (=northern) sea-lion None None
Sorex ornatus sinuosus Suisun shrew None None
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 41
ANIMAL SPECIES COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATUS STATE STATUS
Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat None None
Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat None None
SOURCE: CDFW CNDDB 2020.
SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) considers sensitive natural communities to have significant biotic
value, with species of plants and animals unique to each community. The CNDDB search revealed four sensitive natural
communities within 15 miles of Tiburon, as shown on Figure 2-4. This includes coastal brackish marsh, salt marshes where
a significant freshwater influx dilutes the seawater to brackish levels of salinity; coastal terrace prairie, a grassland plant
community found along the Pacific Coast; and northern coastal salt marsh, a non-tidal, non-forested wetland that is
continuously or frequently flooded and contains saltwater; and serpentine bunchgrass.
All of these community types were once more widely distributed throughout California, but have been modified or destroyed
by grazing, cultivation, and urban development. Since the remaining examples of these sensitive natural communities are
under continuing threat from future development, CDFW considers them “highest inventory priorities” for future conservation.
WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS
Wildlife movement corridors are a strip of natural habitat connecting populations of wildlife otherwise separated by cultivated
land, roads, etc. A variety of wildlife corridors are identified in the Planning Area including but not limited to:
Riparian habitat. Riparian habitat often serves as essential wildlife corridors between habitat patches in an otherwise
fragmented, urbanized landscape. For many animals, it is not only the quality of one patch of habitat, but also the ability to
move among multiple habitat patches for example from uplands through the valley floor, that makes survival possible.
Foothill access. Foothill access to adjacent upland habitat or corridors for movement up and downstream is essential for
many wildlife species, including amphibians that live in upland habitats but must move to aquatic habitats to breed. For
example, California red-legged frogs and California newts make their way from upland habitats to ponds or slow-flowing
streams to breed. Foothill yellow-legged frogs, a close relative of the California red-legged frog, also utilizes perennial,
rocky stream; however, it is never found far from water.
Streams. Streams convey, filter, and store sediments and nutrients. Their floodplains recharge groundwater aquifers and
control flooding. They also provide critical wildlife-movement corridors between important habitats for both water and land
animals.
WILDLIFE REFUGES
The purpose of wildlife refuges is to preserve lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate,
restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and
future generations.
The Richardson Bay Audubon Center & Sanctuary is a wildlife refuge located in the Planning Area along Richardson Bay
and is comprised of 10.5 acres of uplands and 900 acres of subtidal bay, the center supports a variety of ecosystems. The
sanctuary provides vital habitat for migratory waterbirds and other wildlife. The sanctuary is also part of many National
Audubon Society nature centers, chapters, and programs focused on bird conservation and public engagement.
REFERENCES
Barbour and Major. 1988. Terrestrial vegetation of California.
CONSERVATION
42 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
Bartlett, Amanda. 2020. “Here’s why you might see more bald eagles in the Bay Area right now”. Available at:
https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/more-bald-eagles-bay-area-marin-county-15165134.php#taboola-2
California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. “Special Animals List.” CNDDB.
California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. “State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of
California.”
California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. “Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List.” CNDDB.
California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. “State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Animals of
California.”
California Dept. of Water Resources. 2020. Integrated Report (CWA Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report).
California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. California Natural Diversity Database.
Hickman, James C. 1993. Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California.
Sawyer, John and Todd Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation.
Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, F.P., and Knapp, G.L., 1987, Hydrologic Unit Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper
2297, 63 p.
Skinner, Mark W. and Bruce M. Pavlik, Eds. 2001. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Vascular Plants of California.
P
ar
a
d
i
s
e
Dr
Tib
uro
n
Blvd
S p encerAve
T r e s tle G l e n B l v d
Mai
n S t
Bridgeway
B e l v e d er e Dr
E
S
t
r
a
w
b
e
r
r
y
D
r
C e n t r o E a stSt
S t e w a r t D r
B l a c k f i e l d D r
Vista
zo
W
estSt
A venid a Mira f l o r e s
Paradi s e D r
L y f o r d D r
M a r WestSt
R i d g e R d
R e ed R a n c h R
d
Centro
W
e
s
t
St
G
eld
e
r
t
D
r
Hi
l
a
r
y
D
r
P a r a d i s e D r
B e a c h R d
Belvedere Cove
Richardson Bay
San Francisco Bay
Belvedere
Lagoon
¯0 ½¼
Miles
BELVEDERE
SAUSALITO
MILL
VALLEY
CORTE MADERA
Angel Island
LEGEND
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Sphere of Influence
Tiburon Planning Area
Annual Grassland
Perennial Grassland
Coastal Oak Woodland
Valley Oak Woodland
Valley Foothill Riparian
Closed-Cone Pine-Cypress
Montane Hardwood-Conifer
Coastal Scrub
Eucalyptus
Fresh Emergent Wetland
Saline Emergent Wetland
Wet Meadow
Lacustrine
Water
Barren
Urban
Sources: ArcGIS Online World Hillshade Map Service; CALFIRE-FRAP, fveg15_1, 2015. Map date: March 1, 2021.
Figure 2-1: Land Cover Types
£¤101
UV131
£¤101
CONSERVATION
44 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
This page left blank intentionally.
ALBANY
BERKELEY
EMERYVILLE
PIEDMONT
ALAMEDA
HERCULES
PINOLE
SAN PABLO
EL CERRITO
ORINDA
BELVEDERE
SAUSALITO
CORTE
MADERA
ROSS
FAIRFAX
OAKLAND
RICHMOND
MILL VALLEY
SAN RAFAEL
SAN
ANSELMO
LARKSPUR
SAN FRANCISCO
TIBURON
¯0 1½
Miles
Figure 2-2: California Natural Diversity Database - 5-mile Search
LEGEND
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Planning Area
5-mile Radius
Special Status Species Occurrence*
Plant (80m)
Plant (specific)
Plant (non-specific)
Plant (circular)
Animal (80m)
Animal (specific)
Animal (non-specific)
Animal (circular)
Terrestrial Comm. (specific)
Terrestrial Comm. (non-specific)
Terrestrial Comm. (circular)
Multiple (specific)
Multiple (non-specific)
Multiple (circular)
Sensitive Environmental Occurrence
Sources: ArcGIS Online Shaded Relief Map Service. Map date: November 29, 2020. Revised: March 2, 2021.
* CNDDB version 11/2020. Please Note: the occurrences shown on this map
represent the known locations of the species listed here as of the date of this
version. There may be additional occurrences or additional species within
this area which have not been surveyed and/or mapped. Lack of information
in the CNDDB about a species or an area can never be used as proof that no
special status species occur in an area.
CONSERVATION
46 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
This page left blank intentionally.
NOVATO PETALUMA
POINT MARE ISLAND
SAN RAFAEL SAN QUENTIN RICHMOND
POINT BONITA
SAN
FRANCISCO
NORTH
OAKLAND WEST
SAN
FRANCISCO
SOUTH
HUNTERS POINT¯0 21
Miles
Figure 2-3: California Natural Diversity Database - 9-quad* Search
LEGEND
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Planning Area
Special Status Species Occurrence**
Plant (80m)
Plant (specific)
Plant (non-specific)
Plant (circular)
Animal (80m)
Animal (specific)
Animal (non-specific)
Animal (circular)
Terrestrial Comm. (specific)
Terrestrial Comm. (non-specific)
Terrestrial Comm. (circular)
Multiple (80m)
Multiple (specific)
Multiple (non-specific)
Multiple (circular)
Sensitive Environmental Occurrence
Sources: ArcGIS Online USGS Topographic Map Service. Map date: November 29, 2020. Revised March 2, 2021.
* Because the City of Tiburon is within two USGS 7.5' quadrangles, the 9-
quad search was extended to 11 quads.
** CNDDB version 11/2020. Please Note: the occurrences shown on this map
represent the known locations of the species listed here as of the date of this
version. There may be additional occurrences or additional species within
this area which have not been surveyed and/or mapped. Lack of information
in the CNDDB about a species or an area can never be used as proof that no
special status species occur in an area.
CONSERVATION
48 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
This page left blank intentionally.
P
ar
a
d
i
s
e
Dr
Tib
uro
n
Blvd
S p encerAve
T r e s tle G l e n B l v d
Mai
n S t
Bridgeway
B e l v e d er e Dr
E
S
t
r
a
w
b
e
r
r
y
D
r
C e n t r o E a stSt
S t e w a r t D r
B l a c k f i e l d D r
Vista
zo
W
estSt
A venid a Mira f l o r e s
Paradi s e D r
L y f o r d D r
M a r WestSt
R i d g e R d
R e ed R a n c h R
d
Centro
W
e
s
t
St
G
eld
e
r
t
D
r
Hi
l
a
r
y
D
r
P a r a d i s e D r
B e a c h R d
Belvedere Cove
Richardson Bay
San Francisco Bay
Belvedere
Lagoon
¯0 ½¼
Miles
BELVEDERE
SAUSALITO
MILL
VALLEY
CORTE MADERA
Angel
Island
LEGEND
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Sphere of Influence
Tiburon Planning Area
Sensitive Natural Community
Coastal Terrace Prairie
Serpentine Bunchgrass
Wetland
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
Lake
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Sources: ArcGIS Online World Hillshade Map Service; Marin County GeoHub; City of Tiburon General Plan; California Natural Diversity Database; National Wetlands Inventory. Map date: March 1, 2021.
Figure 2-4: Sensitive Natural Communities and Wetlands
£¤101
UV131
£¤101
CONSERVATION
50 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
This page left blank intentionally.
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 51
3 AIR QUALITY
This section discusses the regulatory framework, regional climate, air pollution potential, and existing ambient air quality for
criteria air pollutants, toxic air contaminants, odors, and dust. Information presented in this section is based in part on
information gathered from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board
(CARB).
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FEDERAL
Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) was first signed into law in 1970. In 1977, and again in 1990, the law was substantially
amended. The FCAA is the foundation for a national air pollution control effort, and it is composed of the following basic
elements: NAAQS for criteria air pollutants, hazardous air pollutant standards, state attainment plans, motor vehicle emissions
standards, stationary source emissions standards and permits, acid rain control measures, stratospheric ozone protection,
and enforcement provisions.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for administering the FCAA. The FCAA requires the EPA to set
NAAQS for several problem air pollutants based on human health and welfare criteria. Two types of NAAQS were established:
primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect the public welfare from non-health-
related adverse effects such as visibility reduction. The state and federal primary standards for major pollutants are shown
in Table 3-2.
The law recognizes the importance for each state to locally carry out the requirements of the FCAA, as special consideration
of local industries, geography, housing patterns, etc. are needed to have full comprehension of the local pollution control
problems. As a result, the EPA requires each state to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that explains how each state
will implement the FCAA within their jurisdiction. A SIP is a collection of rules and regulations that a particular state will
implement to control air quality within their jurisdiction. CARB is the state agency that is responsible for preparing the
California SIP.
One particular aspect of the SIP development process is the consideration of potential control measures as a part of making
progress towards clean air goals. While most SIP control measures are aimed at reducing emissions from stationary sources,
some are typically also created to address mobile or transportation sources. These are known as transportation control
measures (TCMs). TCM strategies are designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled and trips, or vehicle idling and associated
air pollution. These goals are achieved by developing attractive and convenient alternatives to single-occupant vehicle use.
Examples of TCMs include ridesharing programs, transportation infrastructure improvements such as adding bicycle and
carpool lanes, and expansion of public transit.
Federal Hazardous Air Pollutant Program
Title III of the FCAA requires the EPA to promulgate national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs).
The NESHAP may differ for major sources than for area sources of HAPs (major sources are defined as stationary sources
with potential to emit more than 10 tons per year [TPY] of any HAP or more than 25 TPY of any combination of HAPs; all
other sources are considered area sources). The emissions standards are to be promulgated in two phases. In the first phase
(1992–2000), the EPA developed technology-based emission standards designed to produce the maximum emission
reduction achievable. These standards are generally referred to as requiring maximum available control technology (MACT).
For area sources, the standards may be different, based on generally available control technology. In the second phase
(2001–2008), the EPA is required to promulgate health risk–based emissions standards were deemed necessary to address
risks remaining after implementation of the technology-based NESHAP standards. The FCAAA required the EPA to
promulgate vehicle or fuel standards containing reasonable requirements that control toxic emissions, at a minimum to
CONSERVATION
52 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
benzene and formaldehyde. Performance criteria were established to limit mobile-source emissions of toxics, including
benzene, formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene. In addition, Section 219 required the use of reformulated gasoline in selected
U.S. cities (those with the most severe ozone nonattainment conditions) to further reduce mobile-source emissions.
STATE
California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) was first signed into law in 1988. The CCAA provides a comprehensive framework for
air quality planning and regulation, and spells out, in statute, the state’s air quality goals, planning and regulatory strategies,
and performance. CARB is the agency responsible for administering the CCAA. CARB established ambient air quality
standards pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) [Section 39606(b)], which are similar to the federal
standards. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is one of 35 air quality management districts that have prepared
air quality management plans to accomplish a five percent annual reduction in emissions documenting progress toward the
state ambient air quality standards.
Air Quality Standards
States have the authority to set standards that are more stringent than the federal NAAQS. As such, California established
more stringent ambient air quality standards.
Federal and state ambient air quality standards have been established for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur
dioxide, PM10, and lead. In addition, California has created standards for pollutants that are not covered by federal standards.
The state and federal primary standards for major pollutants are shown in Table 3-2.
CARB Mobile-Source Regulation
The State is responsible for controlling emissions from the operation of motor vehicles in California. Rather than mandating
the use of specific technology or the reliance on a specific fuel, the CARB’s motor vehicle standards specify the allowable
grams of pollution per mile driven. In other words, the regulations focus on the reductions needed rather than on the manner
in which they are achieved. Towards this end, the CARB has adopted regulations which required auto manufacturers to
phase in less polluting vehicles.
Tanner Air Toxics Act
California regulates TACs primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information
and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). The Tanner Act sets forth a formal procedure for ARB to designate substances as
TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before ARB can designate a substance as a
TAC. To date, ARB has identified more than 21 TACs and has adopted EPA’s list of HAPs as TACs. Most recently, diesel PM
was added to the ARB list of TACs. Once a TAC is identified, ARB then adopts an Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM)
for sources that emit that particular TAC. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the
control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate
BACT to minimize emissions.
The Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act requires that existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a
specified level prepare a toxic-emission inventory, prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant, notify the public
of significant risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction measures. ARB has adopted diesel exhaust control
measures and more stringent emission standards for various on-road mobile sources of emissions, including transit buses
and off-road diesel equipment (e.g., tractors, generators). In February 2000, ARB adopted a new public-transit bus-fleet rule
and emission standards for new urban buses. These rules and standards provide for (1) more stringent emission standards
for some new urban bus engines, beginning with 2002 model year engines; (2) zero-emission bus demonstration and
purchase requirements applicable to transit agencies; and (3) reporting requirements under which transit agencies must
demonstrate compliance with the urban transit bus fleet rule. Upcoming milestones include the low-sulfur diesel-fuel
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 53
requirement, and tighter emission standards for heavy-duty diesel trucks (2007) and off-road diesel equipment (2011)
nationwide.
Transport of Pollutants
The California Clean Air Act, Section 39610 (a), directs the CARB to “identify each district in which transported air pollutants
from upwind areas outside the district cause or contribute to a violation of the ozone standard and to identify the district of
origin of transported pollutants.” The information regarding the transport of air pollutants from one basin to another was to
be quantified to assist interrelated basins in the preparation of plans for the attainment of State ambient air quality standards.
Numerous studies conducted by the CARB have identified air basins that are impacted by pollutants transported from other
air basins (as of 1993). Among the air basins affected by air pollution transport from the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
(SFBAAB) are the North Central Coast Air Basin, the Mountain Counties Air Basin, the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, and the
Sacramento Valley Air Basin. The SFBAAB was also identified as an area impacted by the transport of air pollutants from the
Sacramento region.
LOCAL
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD is responsible for attaining and maintaining air quality conditions in the SFBAAB through a comprehensive
program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and promotion of the understanding of air quality issues.
The clean air strategy of the BAAQMD includes the preparation of plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards,
adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, and issuance of permits for stationary
sources of air pollution. The BAAQMD also inspects stationary sources of air pollution and responds to citizen complaints,
monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implements programs and regulations required by the FCAA,
FCAAA, and the CCAA.
The BAAQMD has regulated TACs since the 1980s. At the local level, air pollution control or management districts may
adopt and enforce CARB’s control measures. Under Regulation 2-1 (General Permit Requirements), Regulation 2-2 (New
Source Review), and Regulation 2-5 (New Source Review), all nonexempt sources that possess the potential to emit TACs
are required to obtain permits from BAAQMD. Permits may be granted to these operations if they are constructed and
operated in accordance with applicable regulations, including new source review standards and air toxics control measures.
The BAAQMD limits emissions and public exposure to TACs through several programs. The BAAQMD prioritizes TAC-
emitting stationary sources based on the quantity and toxicity of the TAC emissions and the proximity of the facilities to
sensitive receptors. In addition, Regulation 11 Rules 2 and 14 address asbestos demolition renovation, manufacturing, and
standards for asbestos containing serpentine.
BAAQMD Air Quality Plans
As stated above, the BAAQMD prepares plans to attain ambient air quality standards in the SFBAAB. The BAAQMD prepares
ozone attainment plans (OAP) for the national ozone standard and clean air plans (CAP) for the California standard both in
coordination with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
With respect to applicable air quality plans, the BAAQMD prepared the 2017 Clean Air Plan to address nonattainment of the
national 1-hour ozone standard in the SFBAAB. The 2017 Clean Air Plan is a roadmap for regional efforts to reduce air
pollution and protect public health and the global climate. The 2017 Plan identifies potential rules, programs, and strategies
to reduce GHG emissions and other harmful air pollutants in the Bay Area. The 2017 Plan complements and supports other
important regional and state planning efforts, including Plan Bay Area and the State of California’s 2030 Scoping Plan.
This Plan lays out 85 distinct control measures to decrease fossil fuel combustion, improve energy efficiency, and decrease
emissions of potent GHGs and other pollutants. Numerous measures reduce multiple pollutants simultaneously, while others
focus on a single type of pollutant - for example, “super-GHGs” like methane and black carbon.
CONSERVATION
54 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
The goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are to:
1. Protect local air quality and health at the regional and local scale
a. Attain all state and national air quality standards
b. Eliminate the disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from toxic air contaminants;
and
2. Protect the climate:
a. Reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990
levels by 2050
BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance
BAAQMD has adopted project-level and plan-level advisory thresholds of significance for air pollutants, pollutant precursors,
and GHG emissions. BAAQMD’s plan-level thresholds of significance are shown in Table 3-1.
TABLE 3-1: STAFF RECOMMENDED CEQA THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
POLLUTANT CONSTRUCTION-RELATED OPERATION-RELATED PROJECT LEVEL
PLAN LEVEL
Criteria Air Pollutants and
Precursors (Regional and Local)
Consistency with Current Air Quality Plan control measures Rate of VMT increase or vehicle
trips is less than rate of increase in population
GHGs
No Threshold Recommended Qualified Climate Action Plan Meets or Exceeds
AB 32 or EO S-03-05 targets
OR
6.7 MT CO2e/capita/yr; 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr;
Risks and Hazards/Odors Overlay zones around existing and planned sources of TACs (including adopted Community
Risk Reduction Plan areas) and odors Overlay zones of at least 500 feet from all freeways and
high volume roadways
Accidental Release of Acutely
Hazardous Air Pollutants
No Threshold Recommended No Threshold Recommended
SOURCE: BAY AREA QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
The BAAQMD published CEQA Air Quality Guidelines in 2017 to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of
projects and plans proposed in the SFBAAB. The Guidelines contain instructions on how to evaluate, measure, and mitigate
air quality impacts generated for project-level and plan-level activities. The Guidelines focus on criteria air pollutant,
greenhouse gas (GHG), toxic air contaminant, and odor emissions generated from plans or projects. The Guidelines are
intended to help lead agencies navigate through the CEQA process. The Guidelines offer step-by-step procedures for a
thorough environmental impact analysis of adverse air emissions in the Bay Area.
BAAQMD CARE Program
The BAAQMD CARE Program aims to identify locations with high toxic emissions and sensitive populations, and to use the
information to help the Air District establish policies for the use of its incentive funding, regulatory authority, and other
programs to reduce toxic emissions in areas with high TAC exposures and sensitive populations.
Figure 3-1 shows the areas within the Planning Area that are designated by the CARE Program. As shown, no portions of
the Planning Area are designated by the CARE Program.
CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency Standards
The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is a set of mandatory green building standards for new
construction. CALGreen was first developed by the California Building Standards Commission in an effort to meet the goals
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 55
of A 32, which established a comprehensive program of cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases (GHG) to 1990 levels
by 2020. CALGreen applies to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed
building or structure on a statewide basis unless otherwise indicated. Additions and alterations to existing buildings which
increase the building’s conditioned area, interior volume, or size are also covered by the scope of CALGreen.
The California Building Standards Commission has the authority to propose CALGreen standards for nonresidential
structures that include, but are not limited to, new buildings or portions of new buildings, additions and alterations, and all
occupancies where no other state agency has the authority to adopt green building standards applicable to those
occupancies.
Additionally, on May 9, 2018, the California Energy Commission adopted the 2019 Title 24, Part 6 Energy Code updates
that took effect January 1, 2020. The cost-effective 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards focus on four key areas:
smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to
exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and nonresidential lighting requirements.
Town of Tiburon General Plan
The existing Tiburon General Plan includes the following goals, policies, and implementing programs related to air quality:
Resource Conservation Element
Goals
OSC-F: To preserve and improve the quality of the environment through resource restoration and conservation, management,
and pollutant control.
Policies
OSC-55. The Town shall participate in efforts to voluntarily reduce activities that pollute on Spare the Air days and help
publicize Spare the Air day activities.
OSC-56. The Town shall promote the reduction of particulate matter from construction sites, roads, parking lots, and other
sources through best management practices (BMPs).
OSC-57. The Town shall require the use of feasible control measures to reduce PM10, NOx, and diesel particulate matter
related to construction activities.
OSC-58. The Town shall, through implementation of Circulation Element policies, encourage the reduction of the number
of single-occupant vehicle trips and cumulative emissions that result from auto use.
Implementing Programs
OSC-l: Consider the adoption of a wood smoke ordinance to reduce the emission of particulate matter into the air.
OSC-m: The Town shall pursue the gradual replacement of the Town's vehicle fleet with zero or low emission vehicles,
where appropriate.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN (SFBAAB)
Tiburon is located within the SFBAAB, which comprises all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San
Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, the southern portion of Sonoma County, and the southwestern portion of Solano County.
Air quality in this area is determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the
CONSERVATION
56 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
presence of existing air pollution sources and ambient conditions. These factors along with applicable regulations are
discussed below.
TOPOGRAPHY
The topography of the SFBAAB is characterized by complex terrain, consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys,
and bays. This complex terrain, especially the higher elevations, distorts the normal wind flow patterns in the SFBAAB. The
greatest distortion occurs when low-level inversions are present and the air beneath the inversion flows independently of air
above the inversion, a condition that is common in the summertime.
The only major break in California's Coast Range occurs in the SFBAAB. Here the Coast Range splits into western and
eastern ranges. Between the two ranges lies San Francisco Bay. The gap in the western coast range is known as the Golden
Gate, and the gap in the eastern coast range is the Carquinez Strait. These gaps allow air to pass into and out of the SFBAAB
and the Central Valley.
CLIMATE
The SFBAAB is characterized by complex terrain, consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and bays, which
distort normal wind flow patterns. Climate of the SFBAAB is determined largely by a high pressure system, as discussed
below. Within the Town, temperatures range from an average low of 47 degrees to an average high of 87 degrees.
High Pressure Cell
During the summer, the large-scale meteorological condition that dominates the West Coast is a semi-permanent high
pressure cell centered over the northeastern portion of the Pacific Ocean. This high pressure cell keeps storms from affecting
the California coast. Hence, the SFBAAB experiences little precipitation in the summer months. Winds tend to blow on shore
out of the north/northwest.
The steady northwesterly flow induces upwelling of cold water from below. This upwelling produces a band of cold water off
the California coast. When air approaches the California coast, already cool and moisture-laden from its long journey over
the Pacific, it is further cooled as it crosses this bank of cold water. This cooling often produces condensation resulting in a
high incidence of fog and stratus clouds along the Northern California coast in the summer.
Generally in the winter, the Pacific high pressure cell weakens and shifts southward, winds tend to flow offshore, upwelling
ceases, and storms occur. During the winter rainy periods, inversions (layers of warmer air over colder air; see below) are
weak or nonexistent, winds are usually moderate, and air pollution potential is low. The Pacific high pressure cell does
periodically become dominant, bringing strong inversions, light winds, and high pollution potential.
Wind Patterns
During the summer, winds flowing from the northwest are drawn inland through the Golden Gate and over the lower portions
of the San Francisco Peninsula. Immediately south of Mount Tamalpais, the northwesterly winds accelerate considerably and
come more directly from the west as they stream through the Golden Gate. This channeling of wind through the Golden Gate
produces a jet that sweeps eastward and splits off to the northwest toward Richmond and to the southwest toward San Jose
when it meets the East Bay hills.
Wind speeds may be strong locally in areas where air is channeled through a narrow opening, such as the Carquinez Strait,
the Golden Gate, or the San Bruno gap. For example, the average wind speed at San Francisco International Airport in July
is about 17 knots (from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m.), compared with only 7 knots at San Jose and less than 6 knots at the Farallon
Islands.
The air flowing in from the coast to the Central Valley, called the sea breeze, begins developing at or near ground level along
the coast in late morning or early afternoon. As the day progresses, the sea breeze layer deepens and increases in velocity
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 57
while spreading inland. The depth of the sea breeze depends in large part upon the height and strength of the inversion. If
the inversion is low and strong, and hence stable, the flow of the sea breeze will be inhibited, and stagnant conditions are
likely to result.
In the winter, the SFBAAB frequently experiences stormy conditions with moderate to strong winds, as well as periods of
stagnation with very light winds. Winter stagnation episodes are characterized by nighttime drainage flows in coastal valleys.
Drainage is a reversal of the usual daytime air-flow patterns; air moves from the Central Valley toward the coast and back
down toward the Bay from the smaller valleys within the SFBAAB.
Temperature
Summertime temperatures in the SFBAAB are determined in large part by the effect of differential heating between land and
water surfaces. Because land tends to heat up and cool off more quickly than water, a large-scale gradient (differential) in
temperature is often created between the coast and the Central Valley, and small-scale local gradients are often produced
along the shorelines of the ocean and bays. The temperature gradient near the ocean is also exaggerated, especially in
summer, because of the upwelling of cold ocean bottom water along the coast. On summer afternoons the temperatures at
the coast can be 35ºF cooler than temperatures 15 to 20 miles inland. At night this contrast usually decreases to less than
10º.
In the winter, the relationship of minimum and maximum temperatures is reversed. During the daytime the temperature
contrast between the coast and inland areas is small, whereas at night the variation in temperature is large.
Precipitation
The SFBAAB is characterized by moderately wet winters and dry summers. Winter rains account for about 75 percent of the
average annual rainfall. The amount of annual precipitation can vary greatly from one part of the SFBAAB to another even
within short distances. In general, total annual rainfall can reach 40 inches in the mountains, but it is often less than 16
inches in sheltered valleys.
During rainy periods, ventilation (rapid horizontal movement of air and injection of cleaner air) and vertical mixing are usually
high, and thus pollution levels tend to be low. However, frequent dry periods do occur during the winter where mixing and
ventilation are low and pollutant levels build up.
AIR POLLUTION POTENTIAL
The potential for high pollutant concentrations developing at a given location depends upon the quantity of pollutants emitted
into the atmosphere in the surrounding area or upwind, and the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the contaminated air.
The topographic and climatological factors discussed above influence the atmospheric pollution potential of an area.
Atmospheric pollution potential, as the term is used here, is independent of the location of emission sources and is instead
a function of factors described below.
Wind Circulation
Low wind speed contributes to the buildup of air pollution because it allows more pollutants to be emitted into the air mass
per unit of time. Light winds occur most frequently during periods of low sun (fall and winter, and early morning) and at
night. These are also periods when air pollutant emissions from some sources are at their peak, namely, commute traffic
(early morning) and wood burning appliances (nighttime). The problem can be compounded in valleys, when weak flows
carry the pollutants upvalley during the day, and cold air drainage flows move the air mass downvalley at night. Such
restricted movement of trapped air provides little opportunity for ventilation and leads to buildup of pollutants to potentially
unhealthful levels.
CONSERVATION
58 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
Inversions
An inversion is a layer of warmer air over a layer of cooler air. Inversions affect air quality conditions significantly because
they influence the mixing depth (i.e., the vertical depth in the atmosphere available for diluting air contaminants near the
ground). The highest air pollutant concentrations in the SFBAAB generally occur during inversions.
There are two types of inversions that occur regularly in the SFBAAB. One is more common in the summer and fall, while
the other is most common during the winter. The frequent occurrence of elevated temperature inversions in summer and
fall months acts to cap the mixing depth, limiting the depth of air available for dilution. Elevated inversions are caused by
subsiding air from the subtropical high pressure zone, and from the cool marine air layer that is drawn into the SFBAAB by
the heated low pressure region in the Central Valley.
The inversions typical of winter, called radiation inversions, are formed as heat quickly radiates from the earth's surface after
sunset, causing the air in contact with it to rapidly cool. Radiation inversions are strongest on clear, low-wind, cold winter
nights, allowing the build-up of such pollutants as carbon monoxide and particulate matter. When wind speeds are low,
there is little mechanical turbulence to mix the air, resulting in a layer of warm air over a layer of cooler air next to the ground.
Mixing depths under these conditions can be as shallow as 50 to 100 meters, particularly in rural areas. Urban areas usually
have deeper minimum mixing layers because of heat island effects and increased surface roughness. During radiation
inversions downwind transport is slow, the mixing depths are shallow, and turbulence is minimal, all factors which contribute
to ozone formation.
Although each type of inversion is most common during a specific season, either inversion mechanism can occur at any
time of the year. Sometimes both occur simultaneously. Moreover, the characteristics of an inversion often change
throughout the course of a day. The terrain of the SFBAAB also induces significant variations among subregions.
Solar Radiation
The frequency of hot, sunny days during the summer months in the SFBAAB is another important factor that affects air
pollution potential. It is at the higher temperatures that ozone is formed. In the presence of ultraviolet sunlight and warm
temperatures, reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen react to form secondary photochemical pollutants, including
ozone. Because temperatures in many of the SFBAAB inland valleys are so much higher than near the coast, the inland
areas are especially prone to photochemical air pollution.
In late fall and winter, solar angles are low, resulting in insufficient ultraviolet light and warming of the atmosphere to drive
the photochemical reactions. Ozone concentrations do not reach significant levels in the SFBAAB during these seasons.
Sheltered Terrain
The hills and mountains in the SFBAAB contribute to the high pollution potential of some areas. During the day, or at night
during windy conditions, areas in the lee sides of mountains are sheltered from the prevailing winds, thereby reducing
turbulence and downwind transport. At night, when wind speeds are low, the upper atmospheric layers are often decoupled
from the surface layers during radiation conditions. If elevated terrain is present, it will tend to block pollutant transport in
that direction. Elevated terrain also can create a recirculation pattern by inducing upvalley air flows during the day and reverse
downvalley flows during the night, allowing little inflow of fresh air.
The areas having the highest air pollution potential tend to be those that experience the highest temperatures in the summer
and the lowest temperatures in the winter. The coastal areas are exposed to the prevailing marine air, creating cooler
temperatures in the summer, warmer temperatures in winter, and stratus clouds all year. The inland valleys are sheltered
from the marine air and experience hotter summers and colder winters. Thus, the topography of the inland valleys creates
conditions conducive to high air pollution potential.
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 59
Pollution Potential Related to Emissions
Although air pollution potential is strongly influenced by climate and topography, the air pollution that occurs in a location
also depends upon the amount of air pollutant emissions in the surrounding area or transported from more distant places.
Air pollutant emissions generally are highest in areas that have high population densities, high motor vehicle use, and/or
industrialization. These contaminants created by photochemical processes in the atmosphere, such as ozone, may result in
high concentrations many miles downwind from the sources of their precursor chemicals
CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
The EPA uses six "criteria pollutants" as indicators of air quality and has established for each criteria pollutant a maximum
concentration above which adverse effects on human health may occur. These threshold concentrations are called National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). CARB has monitored the gaseous criteria pollutants carbon monoxide, nitrogen
dioxide, ozone, and sulfur dioxide since its inception in 1968. Monitoring is performed to demonstrate attainment or non-
attainment of national and state ambient air quality standards.
Each criteria pollutant and its associated health effects is described below.
Ozone (O3) is a photochemical oxidant and the major component of smog. While O3 in the upper atmosphere is beneficial
to life by shielding the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun, high concentrations of O3 at ground level are a
major health and environmental concern. O3 is not emitted directly into the air but is formed through complex chemical
reactions between precursor emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence
of sunlight. These reactions are stimulated by sunlight and temperature so that peak O3 levels occur typically during the
warmer times of the year. Both VOCs and NOx are emitted by transportation and industrial sources. VOCs are emitted from
sources as diverse as autos, chemical manufacturing, dry cleaners, paint shops, and other sources using solvents.
The reactivity of O3 causes health problems because it damages lung tissue, reduces lung function and sensitizes the lungs
to other irritants. Scientific evidence indicates that ambient levels of O3 not only affect people with impaired respiratory
systems, such as asthmatics, but healthy adults and children as well. Exposure to O3 for several hours at relatively low
concentrations has been found to significantly reduce lung function and induce respiratory inflammation in normal, healthy
people during exercise. This decrease in lung function generally is accompanied by symptoms including chest pain,
coughing, sneezing and pulmonary congestion.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, and poisonous gas produced by incomplete burning of carbon in fuels.
When CO enters the bloodstream, it reduces the delivery of oxygen to the body's organs and tissues. Health threats are
most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease, particularly those with angina or peripheral vascular disease.
Exposure to elevated CO levels can cause impairment of visual perception, manual dexterity, learning ability, and performance
of complex tasks.
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is present in all urban atmospheres. NO2 can irritate the lungs,
cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and lower resistance to respiratory infections. Nitrogen oxides are an important precursor
both to O3 and acid rain and may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The major mechanism for the formation of
NO2 in the atmosphere is the oxidation of the primary air pollutant NOx. NOx plays a major role, together with VOCs, in the
atmospheric reactions that produce O3. NOx forms when fuel is burned at high temperatures. The two major emission sources
are transportation and stationary fuel combustion sources such as electric utility and industrial boilers.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) affects breathing and may aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease in high doses.
Sensitive populations include asthmatics, individuals with bronchitis or emphysema, children, and the elderly. SO2 is also a
primary contributor to acid deposition, or acid rain, which causes acidification of lakes and streams and can damage trees,
crops, historic buildings, and statues. In addition, sulfur compounds in the air contribute to visibility impairment in large
CONSERVATION
60 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
parts of the country. This is especially noticeable in national parks. Ambient SO2 results largely from stationary sources such
as coal and oil combustion, steel mills, refineries, pulp and paper mills, and from nonferrous smelters.
Particulate matter (PM) is not a single pollutant, but rather is a mixture of many chemical species. It is a complex mixture of
solids and aerosols composed of small droplets of liquid, dry solid fragments, and solid cores with liquid coatings. Particles
vary widely in size, shape and chemical composition, and may contain inorganic ions, metallic compounds, elemental carbon,
organic compounds, and compounds from the earth’s crust. Particles are defined by their diameter for air quality regulatory
purposes. PM includes dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets directly emitted into the air by sources such as factories,
power plants, cars, construction activity, fires and natural windblown dust. Particles formed in the atmosphere by
condensation or the transformation of emitted gases such as SO2 and VOCs are also considered particulate matter.
Based on studies of human populations exposed to high concentrations of particles (sometimes in the presence of SO2) and
laboratory studies of animals and humans, there are major effects of concern for human health. These include effects on
breathing and respiratory symptoms, aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, alterations in the body's
defense systems against foreign materials, damage to lung tissue, carcinogenesis, and premature death.
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) consists of small particles, less than 10 microns in diameter, of dust, smoke, or droplets
of liquid which penetrate the human respiratory system and cause irritation by themselves, or in combination with other
gases. Particulate matter is caused primarily by dust from grading and excavation activities, from agricultural uses (as created
by soil preparation activities, fertilizer and pesticide spraying, weed burning, and animal husbandry), and from motor vehicles,
particularly diesel-powered vehicles. PM10 causes a greater health risk than larger particles, since these small particles can
more easily penetrate the defenses of the human respiratory system.
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) consists of small particles, which are less than 2.5 microns in size. Similar to PM10, these
particles are primarily the result of combustion in motor vehicles, particularly diesel engines, as well as from industrial
sources and residential/agricultural activities such as burning. It is also formed through the reaction of other pollutants. As
with PM10, these particulates can increase the chance of respiratory disease, and cause lung damage and cancer.
The major subgroups of the population that appear to be most sensitive to the effects of particulate matter include individuals
with chronic obstructive pulmonary or cardiovascular disease or influenza, asthmatics, the elderly, and children. Particulate
matter also soils and damages materials and is a major cause of visibility impairment.
Lead (Pb) exposure can occur through multiple pathways, including inhalation of air and ingestion of Pb in food, water, soil,
or dust. Excessive Pb exposure can cause seizures, mental retardation, and/or behavioral disorders. Low doses of Pb can
lead to central nervous system damage. Recent studies have also shown that Pb may be a factor in high blood pressure and
subsequent heart disease.
ODORS
Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction
to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory
effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).
With respect to odors, the human nose is the sole sensing device. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the
population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals have the ability to smell minute quantities of specific substances;
others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may
have different reactions to the same odor; in fact, an odor that is offensive to one person (e.g., from a fast-food restaurant)
may be perfectly acceptable to another.
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 61
It is also important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a
familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to
almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity.
Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell
experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the
odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor. For example, a person may use the word “strong” to describe the intensity
of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air.
When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity
weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during
dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection
threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human.
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
A sensitive receptor is a location where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons, are present and
where there is a reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure to pollutants. Examples of sensitive receptors include
residences, hospitals, and schools.
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
Both the EPA and the CARB have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality
standards represent safe levels of contaminants that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant.
The federal and California state ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 3-2 for important pollutants. The
federal and state ambient standards were developed independently, although both processes attempted to avoid health-
related effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are
more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and PM10.
In 1997, new national standards for PM2.5 were adopted for 24-hour and annual averaging periods. The current PM10
standards were to be retained, but the method and form for determining compliance with the standards were revised. The
CARB regularly reviews scientific literature regarding the health effects and exposure to air pollutants. On May 3, 2002,
CARB staff recommended lowering the level of the annual standard for PM10 and establishing a new annual standard for
PM2.5. The new standards became effective on July 5, 2003, with another revision on November 29, 2005. Revised standards
for O3 and NO2 went into effect on May 17, 2006 and March 20, 2008, respectively.
TABLE 3-2: FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
POLLUTANT AVERAGING TIME FEDERAL PRIMARY STANDARD STATE STANDARD
Ozone 1-Hour
8-Hour
--
0.070 ppm
0.09 ppm
0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour
1-Hour
9.000 ppm
35.00 ppm
9.00 ppm
20.00 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual
1-Hour
0.053 ppm
0.100 ppm
0.03 ppm
0.18 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual
24-Hour
1-Hour
0.030 ppm
0.140 ppm
0.075 ppm
--
0.040 ppm
0.250 ppm
PM10 Annual
24-Hour
--
150 µg/m3
20 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
CONSERVATION
62 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
POLLUTANT AVERAGING TIME FEDERAL PRIMARY STANDARD STATE STANDARD
PM2.5 Annual
24-Hour
12 µg/m3
35 µg/m3
12 µg/m3
--
Lead 30-Day Average
3-Month Average
--
0.15 µg/m3
1.5 µg/m3
--
NOTES: PPM = PARTS PER MILLION, µG/M3 = MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, 2016.
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of
concern. TACs are injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite the absence of criteria documents. The
identification, regulation and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants. Unlike criteria
pollutants, TACs are regulated on the basis of risk rather than specification of safe levels of contamination.
Existing air quality concerns within Marin County and the entire SFBAAB are related to increases of regional criteria air
pollutants (e.g., ozone and particulate matter), exposure to toxic air contaminants, odors, and increases in greenhouse gas
emissions contributing to climate change. The primary source of ozone (smog) pollution is motor vehicles which account
for 70 percent of the ozone in the region. Particulate matter is caused by dust, primarily dust generated from construction
and grading activities, and smoke which is emitted from fireplaces, wood-burning stoves, and agricultural burning.
ATTAINMENT STATUS
In accordance with the CCAA, the CARB is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or
unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant
concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant
concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an
exceptional event, as defined in the criteria.
Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can
be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment
being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data do not support either an
attainment or nonattainment status. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories,
with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.
The U.S. EPA designates areas for O3, CO, and NO2 as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or
“better than national standards.” For SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet
the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, the CARB terminology of
attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used.
Table 3-2 presents the state and federal standards and attainment status for the BAAQMD.
TABLE 3-2: STATE AND NATIONAL ATTAINMENT STATUS
POLLUTANT AVERAGING TIME CALIFORNIA STANDARDS1 NATIONAL STANDARDS2
CONCENTRATION ATTAINMENT STATUS PRIMARY ATTAINMENT STATUS
Ozone 8 Hour 0.070 ppm
(137µg/m3)
Nonattainment9 0.070 ppm
Primary same as secondary
Nonattainment4
1 Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 µg/m3)
Nonattainment -- See Footnote
#5
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
8 Hour 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
Attainment 9 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
Attainment6
1 Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
Attainment 35 ppm
(40 mg/m3)
Attainment
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 63
POLLUTANT AVERAGING TIME CALIFORNIA STANDARDS1 NATIONAL STANDARDS2
CONCENTRATION ATTAINMENT STATUS PRIMARY ATTAINMENT STATUS
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)
1 Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 µg/m3)
Attainment 0.100 ppm
See Footnote #11
See Footnote
#11
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
0.030 ppm
(57 µg/m3)
-- 0.053 ppm
(100 µg/m3)
Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 µg/m3)
Attainment 0.14 ppm
(365 µg/m3)
See Footnote
#12
1 Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 µg/m3)
Attainment 0.075 ppm
(196 µg/m3)
See Footnote
#12
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
-- -- 0.030 ppm
(80 µg/m3)
See Footnote
#12
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
20 µg/m3 Nonattainment7 -- --
Respirable
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
24 Hour 50 µg/m3 Nonattainment 150 µg/m3 Unclassified
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
12 µg/m3
Nonattainment7
12 µg/m3
See Footnote #15
Unclassified/Att
ainment
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
24 Hour -- -- 35 µg/m3
See Footnote #10
Nonattainment
24 Hour 25 µg/m3 Attainment -- --
Lead 30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 --
-
Attainment
Calendar Quarter - -- 1.5 µg/m3 Attainment
Sulfates Rolling 3 Month
Average14
- -- 0.15 µg/m3 See Footnote
#14
Hydrogen
Sulfide
1 Hour 0.03 ppm
(42 µg/m3
Unclassified -- --
Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.010 ppm
(26 µg/m3
No information
available
-- --
Visibility-
Reducing
Particle Matter
8 Hour
(10:00 to 18:00 PST)
See Footnote #8
Unclassified
-- --
Notes: mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; ppm=parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PM10, and
visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour or 24-hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead and the PM10 annual standard), then some
measurements may be excluded. In particular, measurements are excluded that ARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average. The Lake Tahoe CO
standard is 6.0 ppm, a level one-half the national standard and two-thirds the state standard.
2. National standards shown are the "primary standards" designed to protect public health. National standards other than for ozone, particulates and those based on annual
averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour ozone standard is attained if, during the most recent three-year period, the average number of days per
year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 4th highest daily concentrations is 0.070 ppm (70 ppb) or less. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is
less than 150 µg/m3. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 µg/m3.
Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The national annual particulate standard
for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially-averaged
across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the standard.
3. National air quality standards are set by US EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety.
4. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. An area will meet the standard if the fourth-
highest maximum daily 8-hour ozone concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than 0.070 ppm. EPA will make recommendations on attainment
designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations October 1, 2017. Nonattainment areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with
attainment dates varying based on the ozone level in the area.
5. The national 1-hour ozone standard was revoked by U.S. EPA on June 15, 2005.
6. In April 1998, the Bay Area was redesignated to attainment for the national 8-hour carbon monoxide standard.
7. In June 2002, CARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10.
CONSERVATION
64 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
POLLUTANT AVERAGING TIME CALIFORNIA STANDARDS1 NATIONAL STANDARDS2
CONCENTRATION ATTAINMENT STATUS PRIMARY ATTAINMENT STATUS
8. Statewide VRP Standard (except Lake Tahoe Air Basin): Particles in sufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer when the relative humidity is
less than 70 percent. This standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibility impairment due to regional haze and is equivalent to a 10-mile nominal visual range.
9. The 8-hour CA ozone standard was approved by the Air Resources Board on April 28, 2005 and became effective on May 17, 2006.
10. On January 9, 2013, EPA issued a final rule to determine that the Bay Area attains the 24-hour PM2.5 national standard. This EPA rule suspends key SIP requirements as long as monitoring data continues to show that the Bay Area attains the standard. Despite this EPA action, the Bay Area will continue to be designated as “non-attainment”
for the national 24-hour PM2.5 standard until such time as the Air District submits a “redesignation request” and a “maintenance plan” to EPA, and EPA approves the
proposed redesignation. 11. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100ppm (effective
January 22, 2010). The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expects to make a designation for the Bay Area by the end of 2017.
12. On June 2, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-
hour daily maximum concentrations. The existing 0.030 ppm annual and 0.14 ppm 24-hour SO2 NAAQS however must continue to be used until one year following U.S.
EPA initial designations of the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA expects to make designation for the Bay Area by the end of 2017.
13. ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure below which there are no adverse health effects determined.
14. National lead standard, rolling 3-month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008. Final designations effective December 31, 2011.
15. In December 2012, EPA strengthened the annual PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) from 15.0 to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). In
December 2014, EPA issued final area designations for the 2012 primary annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. Areas designated “unclassifiable/attainment” must continue to take steps to
prevent their air quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels. The effective date of this standard is April 15, 2015.
SOURCE: BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, 2020.
SFBAAB MONITORING
The SFBAAB is composed of the counties of Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin, Napa, Contra Costa, and
Alameda, along with the southeast section of Sonoma and the southwest section of Solano counties. BAAQMD and CARB
maintain numerous air quality monitoring sites throughout each County in the Air Basin to measure ozone, PM2.5, and PM10.
It is important to note that the federal ozone 1-hour standard was revoked by the EPA and is no longer applicable for federal
standards. Data obtained from the monitoring sites throughout the SFBAAB between 2017 and 2019 is summarized in Tables
3-3 through 3-5.
TABLE 3-3: SFBAAB AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA SUMMARY - OZONE
YEAR
MAX. DAYS > STANDARD 1-HOUR OBSERVATIONS 8-HOUR AVERAGES YEAR COVERAGE STATE NATIONAL STATE NAT'L STATE NATIONAL
1-HR 8-HR 1-HR 8- HR MAX. D.V.¹ D.V.² MAX. D.V.¹ MAX. D.V.² MIN MAX
2017 5 6 0 3 0.139 0.11 0.102 0.110 0.087 0.110 0.075 0 100
2018 2 3 0 0 0.099 0.10 0.102 0.080 0.084 0.080 0.073 9 100
2019 4 7 0 1 0.106 0.10 0.104 0.086 0.080 0.085 0.073 75 100
NOTES: ALL CONCENTRATIONS EXPRESSED IN PARTS PER MILLION. THE NATIONAL 1-HOUR OZONE STANDARD WAS REVOKED IN JUNE 2005 AND IS NO
LONGER IN EFFECT. STATISTICS RELATED TO THE REVOKED STANDARD ARE SHOWN IN ITALICS. D.V. ¹ = STATE DESIGNATION VALUE. D.V. ²=
NATIONAL DESIGN VALUE.
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD AIR POLLUTION SUMMARIES, ACCESSED DECEMBER 2020.
TABLE 3-4: SFBAAB AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA SUMMARY - PM 2.5
YEAR
EST.
DAYS > NAT'L '06 STD.
ANNUAL AVERAGE NAT'L
ANN. STD. D.V.¹
STATE ANN. D.V.²
NAT'L '06 STD. 98TH PERCENTILE
NAT'L
'06 24-HR STD. D.V.¹
HIGH 24-HR AVERAGE YEAR COVERAGE
NAT'L STAT
E NAT'L STATE MIN. MAX.
2017 13.3 13.7 13.1 10.9 13 54.2 35 199.1 199.1 90 100
2018 16.4 14.4 14.5 12.0 14 82.7 48 197.2 197.2 27 99
2019 1.1 9.4 9.4 11.7 14 20.6 48 35.9 35.9 93 100
NOTES: ALL CONCENTRATIONS EXPRESSED IN PARTS PER MILLION. STATE AND NATIONAL STATISTICS MAY DIFFER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
STATE STATISTICS ARE BASED ON CALIFORNIA APPROVED SAMPLERS, WHEREAS NATIONAL STATISTICS ARE BASED ON SAMPLERS USING FEDERAL
REFERENCE OR EQUIVALENT METHODS. STATE AND NATIONAL STATISTICS MAY THEREFORE BE BASED ON DIFFERENT SAMPLERS. STATE CRITERIA FOR
ENSURING THAT DATA ARE SUFFICIENTLY COMPLETE FOR CALCULATING VALID ANNUAL AVERAGES ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN THE NATIONAL CRITERIA.
D.V. ¹ = STATE DESIGNATION VALUE. D.V. ²= NATIONAL DESIGN VALUE
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 65
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD AIR POLLUTION SUMMARIES, ACCESSED DECEMBER 2020.
TABLE 3-5: SFBAAB AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA SUMMARY - PM 10
YEAR EST. DAYS > STD. ANNUAL AVERAGE 3-YEAR AVERAGE HIGH 24-HR AVERAGE YEAR COVERAGE NAT'L STATE NAT'L STATE NAT'L STATE NAT'L STATE
2017 0 25.8 20.7 22.1 20 22 95.3 98.0 100
2018 2.9 13.1 20.9 23.1 20 23 191.1 201.0 100
2019 0 26.2 18.4 19.1 20 23 75.4 77.1 100
NOTES: THE NATIONAL ANNUAL AVERAGE PM10 STANDARD WAS REVOKED IN DECEMBER 2006 AND IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. AN EXCEEDANCE IS NOT
NECESSARILY A VIOLATION. STATISTICS MAY INCLUDE DATA THAT ARE RELATED TO AN EXCEPTIONAL EVENT. STATE AND NATIONAL STATISTICS MAY
DIFFER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: STATE STATISTICS ARE BASED ON CALIFORNIA APPROVED SAMPLERS, WHEREAS NATIONAL STATISTICS ARE
BASED ON SAMPLERS USING FEDERAL REFERENCE OR EQUIVALENT METHODS. STATE AND NATIONAL STATISTICS MAY THEREFORE BE BASED ON
DIFFERENT SAMPLERS. NATIONAL STATISTICS ARE BASED ON STANDARD CONDITIONS. STATE CRITERIA FOR ENSURING THAT DATA ARE SUFFICIENTLY
COMPLETE FOR CALCULATING VALID ANNUAL AVERAGES ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN THE NATIONAL CRITERIA. * = THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT (OR NO)
DATA AVAILABLE TO DETERMINE THE VALUE.
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD AIR POLLUTION SUMMARIES, ACCESSED DECEMBER 2020.
MARIN COUNTY AIR QUALITY MONITORING
BAAQMD and CARB maintain four air quality monitoring sites in Marin County that collect data for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5
in recent years. Data obtained from the nearest monitoring site to the Town, San Rafael (534 4th Street) monitoring site.
monitoring station, between 2017 and 2019 is shown in Table 3-6.
TABLE 3-6: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA (SAN RAFAEL [534 4TH STREET])
POLLUTANT CAL. FED. YEAR MAX. CONCENTRATION DAYS EXCEEDED STATE/FED STANDARD PRIMARY STANDARD
Ozone (O3)
(1-hour)
0.09 ppm
for 1 hour N/A
2017
2018
2019
0.088
0.072
0.096
0 / 0
0 / 0
1 / 0
Ozone (O3)
(8-hour)
0.070 ppm
for 8-hour
0.075 ppm for
8-hour
2017
2018
2019
0.063
0.054
0.080
0 / 0
0 / 0
1 / 1
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
50 ug/m3
for 24 hours
150 ug/m3 for
24 hours
2017
2018
2019
24.0
166.0
33.0
0 / 0
12 / 6
* / 0
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) N/A 35 ug/m3
for 24 hours
2017
2018
2019
74.7
167.6
19.5
(N/A) / 8
(N/A) / 13
(N/A) / 0
*THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT (OR NO) DATA AVAILABLE TO DETERMINE THE VALUE.
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD AIR POLLUTION SUMMARIES, ACCESSED DECEMBER 2020.
MAJOR EMITTERS IN TIBURON
CARB maps major emitters and facilities throughout the state. No major emitters were identified by CARB within the Planning
Area. However, Figure 3-2 shows major emitters (including refinery, electricity generation, and other combustible sources)
that currently exist in the broader region outside of the Planning Area.
Air pollutant emissions are generated in Tiburon by stationary and area-wide sources, such as space and water heating,
landscape maintenance from leaf blowers and lawn mowers, consumer products, and mobile sources, primarily automobile
traffic. None of the existing uses within Tiburon involve heavy industrial or manufacturing processes that would result in the
release of toxic air emissions identified by CARB. Overall, motor vehicles are the primary source of pollutants in the Planning
Area.
CONSERVATION
66 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
REFERENCES
C Donald Ahrens. 2006.. Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate, & the Environment.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2014. Identifying Areas with Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution in the San
Francisco Bay Area. Version 2. March 2014. Available:
<http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CARE%20Program/Documents/ImpactComm
unities_2_Methodology.ashx?la=en>.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. Adopted April 19, 2017.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Updated January 5, 2017.
<http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status>.
California Air Resources Board. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at:
<https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf?_ga=2.8928053.1674993250.1560795718-
134288941.1517513703>.
California Air Resources Board. ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005.
California Air Resources Board. California Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at:
<https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/california-ambient-air-quality-standards>.
California Air Resources Board. CARB Pollution Mapping Tool. Accessed December 2020.
California Air Resources Board. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics. https://www.arb.ca.gov/html/databases.htm.
California Energy Commission. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory.
<http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/inventory_current.htm>.
California Energy Commission. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004. (CEC-600-
2006-013-SF.) December. Available: <http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publicastions/CEC-600-2006-013/CEC-600-
2006-013-SF.PDF>.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team. 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. Available: <http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/>.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for
Policymakers. <http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf>.
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 67
This page left blank intentionally.
§¨¦580
§¨¦580
§¨¦80
§¨¦80£¤101
£¤101
§¨¦880
UV123
UV13
SAN FRANCISCO
RICHMOND
TIBURON
OAKLAND
BERKELEY
ALBANY
MILL VALLEY
ALAMEDA
EL CERRITO
LARKSPUR
CORTE MADERA
SAN
RAFAEL
BELVEDERE
SAUSALITO
EMERYVILLE
SAN PABLO
Angel Island
S a n Fra n ci s c o B ay
¯0 1½
Miles
Treasure
Island
Yerba Buena
Island
Figure 3-1: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CARE Program Areas
LEGEND
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Sphere of Influence
Tiburon Planning Area
2013 Cumulative Impact Area
24-Hour PM2.5 Exceedance Area
Sources: ArcGIS Online World Hillshade Map Service; Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CARE Cumulative Impact Boundaries 2013 (updated version 2). Map date: March 1, 2021.
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 69
This page left blank intentionally.
'4
'4
'4
'4
'4
'4
'4
'4
'4
'4
'4
§¨¦580
§¨¦580
§¨¦80
§¨¦80£¤101
£¤101
§¨¦880
UV123
UV13
SAN FRANCISCO
RICHMOND
TIBURON
OAKLAND
BERKELEY
ALBANY
MILL VALLEY
ALAMEDA
EL CERRITO
LARKSPUR
CORTE MADERA
SAN
RAFAEL
BELVEDERE
SAUSALITO
EMERYVILLE
SAN PABLO
Angel Island
S a n Fra n ci s c o B ay
¯0 1½
Miles
Treasure
Island
Yerba Buena
Island
Figure 3-2: California Air Resources Board (CARB) Major Emitters
LEGEND
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Sphere of Influence
Tiburon Planning Area
'4 Electricity Generation
'4 Refinery
'4 Other Combustion Source
Sources: ArcGIS Online World Hillshade Map Service; California Air Resources Board Pollution Mapping Tool . Map date: March 1, 2021.
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 71
This page left blank intentionally.
CONSERVATION
72 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
4 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
This section addresses seismic and geologic hazards in the Planning Area. For hazards relating to flooding, wildfire, and
hazardous materials, see the Hazards and Safety Existing Conditions Report.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
STATE
The State has established a variety of regulations and requirements related to seismic safety and structural integrity, including
the California Building Standards Code, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and the Seismic Hazards Mapping
Act.
California Building Standards Code
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, known as the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) or simply "Title 24,"
contains the regulations that govern the construction of buildings in California. The CBSC includes 12 parts: California
Building Standards Administrative Code, California Building Code, California Residential Building Code, California Electrical
Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Energy Code, California Historical Building Code,
California Fire Code, California Existing Building Code, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), and
the California Reference Standards Code. Through the CBSC, the State provides a minimum standard for building design
and construction. The CBSC contains specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and
site demolition. It also regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control.
The California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16 addresses structural design, Chapter 17 addresses structural tests
and special inspections, and Chapter 18 addresses soils and foundations. Section 1610 provides structural design standards
for foundation walls and retaining walls to ensure resistance to lateral soil loads. Section 1613 provides structural design
standards for earthquake loads. Section 1704.7 requires special inspections for existing site soil conditions, fill placement
and load-bearing requirements during the construction as specified in Table 1704.7 of this section. Sections 1704.8 through
1704.16 provide inspection and testing requirements for various foundation types, and construction material types. Section
1803.1.1.1 requires each city and county enact an ordinance which requires a preliminary soil report and that the report be
based upon adequate test borings or excavations, of every subdivision, where a tentative and final map is required pursuant
to Section 66426 of the Government Code. Section 1803.5.3 defines expansive soils and specifies that in areas likely to
have expansive soil, the building official shall require soil tests to determine where such soils do exist. Section 1803.5.4
specifies that a subsurface soil investigation must be performed to determine whether the existing ground-water table is
above or within 5 feet (1524 mm) below the elevation of the lowest floor level where such floor is located below the finished
ground level adjacent to the foundation. Section 1803.5.8 provides specific standards where shallow foundations will bear
on compacted fill material more than 12 inches (305 mm) in depth. Sections 1803.5.11 and 1803.5.12 provide requirements
for geotechnical investigations for structures assigned varying Seismic Design Categories in accordance with Section 1613.
Section 1804 provides standards and requirements for excavation, grading, and fill. Sections 1808, 1809, and 1810 provide
standards and requirements for the construction of varying foundations.
California Environmental Quality Act
Treatment of paleontological resources under CEQA is generally similar to treatment of cultural resources, requiring
evaluation of resources in a project’s area of potential affect, assessment of potential impacts on significant or unique
resources, and development of mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts, which may include monitoring
combined with data recovery and/or avoidance.
State Laws Pertaining to Paleontological Resources
Several sections of the California Public Resources Code protect paleontological resources.
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 73
Section 5097.5 prohibits “knowing and willful” excavation, removal, destruction, injury, and defacement of any “vertebrate
paleontological site, including fossilized footprints,” on public lands, except where the agency with jurisdiction has granted
express permission. “As used in this section, ‘public lands’ means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or
any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.”
California Public Resources Code, Section 30244 requires reasonable mitigation for impacts on paleontological resources
that occur as a result of development on public lands.
The sections of the California Administrative Code relating to the State Division of Beaches and Parks afford protection to
geologic features and “paleontological materials” but grant the director of the State park system authority to issue permits
for specific activities that may result in damage to such resources, if the activities are in the interest of the State park system
and for State park purposes (California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 4307 – 4309).
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 sets forth the policies and Criteria of the State Mining and Geology
Board, which governs the exercise of governments’ responsibilities to prohibit the location of developments and structures
for human occupancy across the trace of active faults. The policies and criteria are limited to potential hazards resulting from
surface faulting or fault creep within Earthquake Fault Zones, as delineated on maps officially issued by the State Geologist.
Working definitions include:
• Fault – a fracture or zone of closely associated fractures along which rocks on one side have been displaced with
respect to those on the other side;
• Fault Zone – a zone of related faults, which commonly are braided and sub parallel, but may be branching and
divergent. A fault zone has a significant width (with respect to the scale at which the fault is being considered,
portrayed, or investigated), ranging from a few feet to several miles;
• Sufficiently Active Fault – a fault that has evidence of Holocene surface displacement along one or more of its
segments or branches (last 11,000 years); and
• Well-Defined Fault – a fault whose trace is clearly detectable by a trained geologist as a physical feature at or just
below the ground surface. The geologist should be able to locate the fault in the field with sufficient precision and
confidence to indicate that the required site-specific investigations would meet with some success.
“Sufficiently Active” and “Well Defined” are the two criteria used by the State to determine if a fault should be zoned under
the Alquist-Priolo Act.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, passed in 1990, addresses non-surface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including
liquefaction and seismically-induced landslides. Under the Act, seismic hazard zones are to be mapped by the State Geologist
to assist local governments in land use planning. The program and actions mandated by the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
closely resemble those of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (which addresses only surface fault-rupture
hazards) and are outlined below:
The State Geologist is required to delineate the various “seismic hazard zones.”
• Cities and Counties, or other local permitting authority, must regulate certain development “projects” within the
zones. They must withhold the development permits for a site within a zone until the geologic and soil conditions
of the site are investigated and appropriate mitigation measures, if any, are incorporated into development plans.
• The State Mining and Geology Board provides additional regulations, policies, and criteria, to guide cities and
counties in their implementation of the law. The Board also provides guidelines for preparation of the Seismic
Hazard Zone Maps and for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards.
CONSERVATION
74 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
• Sellers (and their agents) of real property within a mapped hazard zone must disclose that the property lies within
such a zone at the time of sale.
Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has Seismic Design Criteria (SDC), which is an encyclopedia of new
and currently practiced seismic design and analysis methodologies for the design of new bridges in California. The SDC
adopts a performance-based approach specifying minimum levels of structural system performance, component
performance, analysis, and design practices for ordinary standard bridges. The SDC has been developed with input from the
Caltrans Offices of Structure Design, Earthquake Engineering and Design Support, and Materials and Foundations. Memo
20-1 outlines the bridge category and classification, seismic performance criteria, seismic design philosophy and approach,
seismic demands and capacities on structural components and seismic design practices that collectively make up Caltrans’
seismic design methodology.
LOCAL
Town of Tiburon General Plan
The existing Tiburon General Plan includes the following goals, policies, and implementing programs related to geology,
soils, seismicity, and paleontological resources:
Safety Element
Goals
SE-A: To Maintain a safe and healthy community
SE-B: To identify hazardous areas and to discourage to the maximum extent feasible development of areas subject to hazards
including, but not limited to, geotechnical hazards, unstable slopes and flood-prone areas.
SE-C: To ensure safe subdivision and building design.
SE-D: To encourage disaster preparedness planning for effective emergency response and to protect public safety.
SE-E: To reduce the impact of hazardous materials exposure and to strive to reduce threats to health, safety, and the
environment from hazardous materials.
Policies
SE-1: The Town shall permit development only in those areas where potential danger to the health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of the community can be avoided or adequately mitigated.
SE-2: The Town shall require development and construction to be located, designed, and implemented to avoid, eliminate,
or reduce geologic and non-geologic hazards.
SE-3: The Town shall continue to require detailed geotechnical investigations for development proposals. Such investigations
shall determine the actual extent of geotechnical hazards, specify adequate repair/ improvement techniques, describe
optimum design for structures and improvements, and set forth any special requirements for the sites.
SE-4: Development allowed within areas of potential geologic hazard shall neither be endangered by, nor contribute to, the
hazardous conditions on the site or on surrounding properties.
SE-5: Development in areas subject to landsliding shall comply with the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy. The Town shall
require physical improvements to landslides and to potential landslide areas in instances where avoidance is not feasible or
appropriate, as determined through the development review process.
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 75
SE-6: The Town should actively encourage owners of developed property to repair or improve unstable slopes, install
drainage facilities, and take other measures that may reduce potential safety hazards.
SE-7: The Town shall discourage development on slopes exceeding 40% wherever possible.
SE-8: Development located below or in the path of gullies which are highly susceptible to debris flow mudslides shall be
strongly discouraged.
Implementation Measures
SE-a: Where possible, the Town should advise residents of the Tiburon Planning Area of ways that they can reduce geologic,
fire and flooding hazards.
SE-b: The Town shall require project applicants for new development to prepare a hydraulic and geomorphic assessment of
on-site and downstream drainageways that are affected by project area runoff. Characteristics pertinent to channel stability
would include bank erosion, excessive bed scour or sediment deposition, bed slope adjustments, lateral channel migration
or bifurcation, and the condition of riparian vegetation. In the event existing channel instabilities were noted, the applicant
could either propose their own channel stabilization program, or defer to the mitigations generated during the Town's
environmental review. Any proposed stabilization measures shall anticipate any project-related changes to the drainageway
flow regime.
SE-c: Through the application review process, the Town shall continue to require review by the appropriate Fire District for
fire prevention considerations.
SE-d: As part of an Open Space Management program, the Town shall develop a plan, including funding sources and/ or
other opportunities, such as volunteer groups, for reducing fire hazards and maintaining fire roads on Town-owned open
space.
SE-e: The Town shall continue to review and update the Emergency Operations Plan to ensure that it remains up-to-date.
SE-f: The Town shall adopt a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to comply with the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and
maintain eligibility for hazard mitigation funding from FEMA.
SE-g: The Town shall use its best efforts to disseminate emergency preparedness information to the community.
SE-h: The Town shall conduct an immediate post-earthquake assessment of critical facilities and buildings in the Planning
Area to determine the extent of damages, if any, to essential Town infrastructure. This should be performed by trained
professional(s) utilizing the current state-of-knowledge regarding post-earthquake assessment.
SE-i: The Town shall coordinate with the Marin Municipal Water District to replace the piping and fittings in those water
tanks in the Planning Area that are not currently fitted with flexible, earthquake-resistant joints. In addition, the water tanks
should be evaluated to ascertain their ability to withstand strong seismic ground shaking.
SE-j: The Town shall create and implement a Seismic Improvement Program. The Program shall include conducting a
seismic risk assessment of existing Town infrastructure, which would help to create a list which would prioritize the buildings
and equipment that should be retrofitted. Following risk assessment, the Town should adopt a program that would upgrade
vulnerable facilities based on the priority list.
SE-k: The Town shall increase education regarding upgrading of buildings using structural and non-structural mitigation
measures.
CONSERVATION
76 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
SE-l: The Town shall evaluate the potential impacts related to hazardous materials during the environmental review process
for new developments or businesses where the production, use, storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials is
proposed. The potential impacts should be fully mitigated.
SE-m: The Town shall coordinate hazardous materials with other public agencies.
Open Space & Conservation Element
Policies
OSC-47: The Town shall protect significant geological, ecological, archaeological and paleontological resources and historic
sites.
Town of Tiburon Municipal Code
Chapter 13, Article II, Technical Codes, of the Town’s Municipal Code adopts the 2019 California Building Code. Section
13-4.1 identifies amendments made to the 2019 California Building Code to address specific issues for the Town of Tiburon.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The Planning Area lies within Coast Range Geomorphic Provinces. The Coast Range is a northwest-trending mountain range
(2,000 to 4,000, occasionally 6,000, feet elevation above sea level) and set of valleys. The ranges and valleys trend northwest,
subparallel to the San Andreas Fault. Strata dip beneath alluvium of the Great Valley. To the west is the Pacific Ocean. The
coastline is uplifted, terraced and wave-cut. The Coast Range is composed of thick Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary
strata. The northern and southern ranges are separated by a depression containing the San Francisco Bay. The northern
Coast Ranges are dominated by irregular, knobby, landslide-topography of the Franciscan Complex. The eastern border is
characterized by strike-ridges and valleys in Upper Mesozoic strata. In several areas, Franciscan rocks are overlain by
volcanic cones and flows of the Quien Sabe, Sonoma, and Clear Lake volcanic fields. The Coast Ranges are subparallel to
the active San Andreas Fault. The San Andreas is more than 600 miles long, extending from Pt. Arena to the Gulf of California.
West of the San Andreas is the Salinian Block, a granitic core extending from the southern extremity of the Coast Ranges to
the north of the Farallon Islands.
LOCAL SETTING
Topography
The topography ranges in elevation from approximately sea level to approximately 790 feet above sea level. Hillside areas
of the Planning Area have the highest elevation, while the marine and waterfront areas have the lowest elevation. Figure 5.4-
1 shows the USGS Tiburon Quadrangle Topographic view.
Tiburon consists of two general topographic zones: the lowland zone and the hillside zone. The lowland zone corresponds
to estuarine and flatland soils, and the hillside zone includes steep slopes and rocky soils.
In the Lowland Zone, estuarine (coastal) areas are underlain by Bay Mud, which consists of unconsolidated silt and clay with
abundant organic material, local peat, sand, and gravel lenses or discontinuous beds (USGS, 1973). Local deposits of
artificial fill occur along the margins of San Francisco Bay and in filled channels. Old fill (generally placed before the 1950s)
typically consisted of heterogeneous material. Engineering challenges associated with coastal areas include weak
compressible soils and risk of liquefaction. The flatland areas of Tiburon are underlain by alluvial deposits, unconsolidated
flood-plain deposits, sand, silt, gravel, and clay, irregularly interstratified.
In the Hillside Zone, the hillside areas of Tiburon consist primarily of tilted marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks that range
in age from Paleocene to Pliocene. Hillside areas of the Planning Area contain steep slopes, weak bedrock, and local landslide
deposits.
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 77
Soils
A Custom Soil Survey was completed for the Planning Area using the NRCS Web Soil Survey program. The NRCS Soils
Map is provided in Figure 4-2. Table 4-1 below identifies the type and range of soils found in the Planning Area. As shown
in Table 4-1, the majority of soils within the Planning Area consist of clay soils and sandy loams. Below is a brief description
of prominent soils within the Planning Area.
TABLE 4-1: PLANNING AREA SOILS
NAME TOWN OF TIBURON SOI PLANNING AREA GRAND TOTAL
Barnabe very gravelly loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes 141.02 0.00 0.00 141.02
Gilroy-Typic Argixerolls-Bonnydoon, 30 to 50 percent
slopes 68.66 0.00 0.00 68.66
Henneke stony clay loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes 422.38 59.57 196.05 678.00
Los Osos-Bonnydoon complex, 15 to 30 percent
slopes 154.84 46.22 19.53 220.59
Los Osos-Bonnydoon complex, 30 to 50 percent
slopes 637.49 122.26 100.52 860.27
Los Osos-Urban land-Bonnydoon complex, 15 to 30
percent slopes 8.94 60.25 3.31 72.50
Los Osos-Urban land-Bonnydoon complex, 30 to 50
percent slopes 196.45 0.00 0.16 196.61
Maymen-Maymen variant gravelly loams. 30 to 75
percent slopes 5.60 0.00 0.00 5.60
Montara clay loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 14.57 0.00 0.00 14.57
Rock outcrop-Xerorthents complex, 50 to 75 percent
slopes 31.17 0.00 0.00 31.17
Saurin-Bonnydoon complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes 20.58 0.00 0.00 20.58
Saurin-Urban land-Bonnydoon complex, 15 to 30
percent slopes 84.30 5.09 0.00 89.39
Saurin-Urban land-Bonnydoon complex, 30 to 50
percent slopes 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03
Tamalpais-Barnabe variant very gravelly loams, 30 to
50 percent slopes 43.83 0.00 0.00 43.83
Tocaloma-McMullin complex, 50 to 75 percent
slopes 663.01 388.80 0.00 1,051.81
Tocaloma-McMullin-Urban land complex, 30 to 50
percent slopes 2.62 0.00 0.00 2.62
Tocaloma-Saurin association, very steep 91.62 37.28 0.00 128.90
Urban land-Xerorthents complex, 0 to 9 percent
slopes 22.02 0.00 0.00 22.02
Water 6,903.61 161.07 0.00 7,064.68
Xerorthents, fill 92.91 0.00 0.00 92.91
Xerorthents-Urban land complex 160.33 66.33 29.36 256.02
Total 9,765.95 946.87 348.95 11,061.78
SOURCE: NRCS CUSTOM SOIL SURVEY 2021.
The Barnabe series consists of shallow, well drained soils that formed in material from sandstone and shale. Runoff varies
from medium to very rapid, and permeability is moderate. These soils are located mostly in the southern portion of Angel
Island.
CONSERVATION
78 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
The Gilroy series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils that formed in material weathered from basic igneous and
metamorphic rocks. Runoff varies from medium to rapid, and permeability is moderately slow. These soils are located on
Angel Island.
The Henneke series consists of shallow, well drained soils that formed in material weathered from ultramaficserpentinite
rocks. Runoff varies from medium to very high, and permeability is moderately slow and slow. These soils are primarily
located through the center of Tiburon.
The Los Osos series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils that formed in material weathered from sandstone and
shale. Runoff is considered very high and permeability is slow. These soils are primarily located through the western and
center portions of Tiburon.
The Maymen series consists of shallow, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in residuum weathered from shale,
schist, greenstone, sandstone and conglomerate. Runoff is high to very high runoff; moderate to moderately rapid
permeability. A small portion of this soil is located on the central portion of Angel Island.
The Montara series consists of shallow well drained soils that formed in material weathered from serpentinitic rocks. Runoff
is medium and high, and permeability is moderately slow. Seep areas adjacent to rock outcrops may persist for several
months after the end of the rainy season. A small portion of this soil is located on southwestern side of Angel Island.
The Novato series consists of very deep, very poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium deposited along the margin of
bays. Soil is Very poorly drained and has a low saturated hydraulic conductivity. Water table fluctuates with the tides from
0.5 meter above the surface during very high tides to a depth of 0.5 meter during low tides. These soils are primarily located
along the southern shore of the Tiburon Peninsula.
The Saurin series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils that formed in material weathered from sandstone and
shale. Runoff is slow to very rapid, and permeability is moderate. This soil is primarily located along the northern and
southeastern shore of mainland Tiburon.
The Bonnydoon series consists of shallow, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in material weathered from
sandstone and shale. Runoff is medium to very rapid, and permeability is moderate. This soil is primarily located along the
northern shore of mainland Tiburon.
The Tamalpais series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils that formed in material weathered from igneous rock
and sandstone. Runoff is rapid to very rapid and permeability is slow. This soil is primarily located at the southern portion
of mainland Tiburon.
The Tocaloma series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils that formed in material weathered from sandstone and
shale. Runoff is slow to very rapid and permeability is moderately rapid. This soil is primarily found at the northeastern
corner of mainland Tiburon and along the coast of Angel Island.
FAULTS AND SEISMICITY
Faults
A fault is a fracture in the crust of the earth along which rocks on one side have moved relative to those on the other side.
A fault trace is the line on the earth's surface defining the fault. Displacement of the earth's crust along faults releases energy
in the form of earthquakes and in some cases in fault creep. Most faults are the result of repeated displacements over a long
period of time.
Surface rupture occurs when movement on a fault deep within the earth breaks through to the surface. Surface ruptures
have been known to extend up to 50 miles with displacements of an inch to 20 feet. Fault rupture almost always follows
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 79
preexisting faults, which are zones of weakness. Rupture may occur suddenly during an earthquake or slowly in the form of
fault creep. Sudden displacements are more damaging to structures because they are accompanied by shaking.
The State designates faults as active, potentially active, and inactive depending on how recent the movement that can be
substantiated for a fault. Table 4-2 presents the California fault activity rating system.
TABLE 4-2: FAULT ACTIVITY RATING
FAULT ACTIVITY RATING GEOLOGIC PERIOD OF LAST RUPTURE TIME INTERVAL (YEARS)
Active (A) Holocene Within last 11,000 years
Potentially Active (PA) Quaternary 11,000-1.6 Million Years
Inactive (I) Pre-Quaternary Greater than 1.6 Million
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
The U.S. Geological Survey data was used to identify potential earthquake fault lines within 10 miles of the Planning Area.
The closest faults include the Hayward Fault Zone located approximately 7 miles to the east of the Planning Area, Morgana
Fault located approximately 9 miles east of the Planning Area, and the San Andreas Fault Zone located approximately 9 miles
west of the Planning Area. Additionally, the Hayward Fault is within an Alquist-Priolo fault zone. Figure 4-3 provides a map
of known area faults.
Seismicity
The amount of energy available to a fault is determined by considering the slip-rate of the fault, its area (fault length multiplied
by down-dip width), maximum magnitude, and the rigidity of the displaced rocks. These factors are combined to calculate
the moment (energy) release on a fault. The total seismic energy release for a fault source is sometimes partitioned between
two different recurrence models, the characteristic and truncated Gutenberg-Richter (G-R) magnitude-frequency
distributions. These models incorporate our knowledge of the range of magnitudes and relative frequency of different
magnitudes for a particular fault. The partition of moment and the weights for multiple models are given in the following
summary.
Earthquakes are generally expressed in terms of intensity and magnitude. Intensity is based on the observed effects of
ground shaking on people, buildings, and natural features. By comparison, magnitude is based on the amplitude of the
earthquake waves recorded on instruments, which have a common calibration. The Richter scale, a logarithmic scale ranging
from 0.1 to 9.0, with 9.0 being the strongest, measures the magnitude of an earthquake relative to ground shaking. Table 4-
3 provides a description and a comparison of intensity and magnitude.
TABLE 4-3: RICHTER MAGNITUDES AND EFFECTS
MAGNITUDE EFFECTS
< 3.5 Typically not felt
3.5 – 5.4 Often felt but damage is rare
5.5 – < 6 Damage is slight for well-built buildings
6.1 – 6.9 Destructive potential over ±60 miles of occupied area
7.0 – 7.9 “Major Earthquake” with the ability to cause damage over larger areas
≥ 8 “Great Earthquake” can cause damage over several hundred miles
SOURCE: UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 1997.
In 2014, the United States Geological Survey updated the 30-year earthquake forecast for California, which concluded that
there is a 72% probability of at least one earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or greater striking somewhere in the San Francisco
Bay region before 2043. The 72% probability of a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake includes the well-known major plate-
CONSERVATION
80 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
boundary faults, lesser-known faults, and unknown faults2. As shown in Table 4-3, an earthquake at this magnitude is capable
of causing widespread damage to over ±60 miles of occupied area.
The Modified Mercalli intensity scale for earthquakes is summarized in Table 4-4.
TABLE 4-4: MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE FOR EARTHQUAKES
RICHTER
MAGNITUDE
MODIFIED
MERCALLI EFFECTS OF INTENSITY
0.1 – 0.9 I Earthquake shaking not felt
1.0 – 2.9 II Shaking felt by those at rest.
3.0 – 3.9 III Felt by most people indoors, some can estimate duration of shaking.
4.0 – 4.5 IV Felt by most people indoors. Hanging objects rattle, wooden walls and frames creak.
4.6 – 4.9 V Felt by everyone indoors, many can estimate duration of shaking. Standing autos rock. Crockery
clashes, dishes rattle and glasses clink. Doors open, close and swing.
5.0 – 5.5 VI Felt by all who estimate duration of shaking. Sleepers awaken, liquids spill, objects are displaced,
and weak materials crack.
5.6 – 6.4 VII People frightened and walls unsteady. Pictures and books thrown, dishes and glass are broken.
Weak chimneys break. Plaster, loose bricks and parapets fall.
6.5 – 6.9 VIII Difficult to stand. Waves on ponds, cohesionless soils slump. Stucco and masonry walls fall.
Chimneys, stacks, towers, and elevated tanks twist and fall.
7.0 – 7.4 IX General fright as people are thrown down, hard to drive. Trees broken, damage to foundations and
frames. Reservoirs damaged, underground pipes broken.
7.5 – 7.9 X General panic. Ground cracks, masonry and frame buildings destroyed. Bridges destroyed and
railroads bent slightly. Dams, dikes and embankments damaged.
8.0 – 8.4 XI Large landslides, water thrown, general destruction of buildings. Pipelines destroyed and railroads
bent.
8.5 + XII Total nearby damage, rock masses displaced. Lines of sight/level distorted. Objects thrown into air.
SOURCE: UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 1997.
The Significant United States Earthquake data published by the USGS in the National Atlas identifies earthquakes that caused
deaths, property damage, and geologic effects or were felt by populations near the epicenter. No significant earthquakes are
identified within the Planning Area; however, significant earthquakes are documented in the region. The following table
presents the significant earthquakes in the region.
TABLE 4-5: SIGNIFICANT EARTHQUAKES IN THE REGION
MAGNITUDE INTENSITY LOCATION YEAR
4.1 IV 9 miles south east of Alum Rock 2017
4.0 IV Piedmont 2015
4.1 IV 6 miles east of Yountville 2015
4.0 IV 2 miles north of Fremont 2015
6.0 VIII South Napa 2014
5.6 VI San Jose 2007
5.0 VII Napa 2000
6.9 IX Loma Prieta (San Andreas) 1989
5.4 N/A Santa Cruz County 1989
2 United States Geological Survey. 2014. Earthquake Outlook for the San Francisco Bay Region 2014-2043. Available at:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 81
MAGNITUDE INTENSITY LOCATION YEAR
6.2 N/A Morgan Hill 1984
5.8, 5.8 VII Livermore 1980
5.7 N/A Coyote Lake 1979
5.7, 5.6 N/A Santa Rosa 1969
5.3, 4.2 N/A Daly City 1957
5.4 N/A Concord 1954
6.5 N/A Calaveras fault 1911
7.9 IX San Francisco 1906
6.8 N/A Mendocino 1898
6.2 N/A Mare Island 1898
6.3 N/A Calaveras fault 1893
6.2 VIII Winters 1892
6.4 N/A Vacaville 1892
6.8 VII Hayward 1868
6.5 VIII Santa Cruz Mountains 1865
6.8 N/A San Francisco Peninsula 1838
SOURCE: UNITED STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 2019.
Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone
The California legislature passed the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act in 1972 to address seismic hazards associated
with faults and to establish criteria for developments for areas with identified seismic hazard zones. The California Geologic
Survey (CGS) evaluates faults with available geologic and seismologic data and determines if a fault should be zoned as
active, potentially active, or inactive. If CGS determines a fault to be active, then it is typically incorporated into a Special
Studies Zone in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Act. Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones are usually
one-quarter mile or less in width and require site-specific evaluation of fault location and require a structure setback if the
fault is found traversing a project site. The Planning Area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone. The nearest
Alquist-Priolo fault zones are the Hayward Fault Zone and the San Andreas Fault Zone, as shown on Figure 4-3. The
Hayward Fault Zone is located approximately 7 miles east of Tiburon and the San Andreas Fault Zone is located approximately
9 miles west of Tiburon.
Seismic Hazards
Seismic Ground Shaking
The potential for seismic ground shaking in California is expected. As a result of the foreseeable seismicity in California, the
State requires special design considerations for all structural improvements in accordance with the seismic design provisions
in the California Building Code. These seismic design provisions require enhanced structural integrity based on several risk
parameters.
Fault Rupture
A fault rupture occurs when the surface of the earth breaks as a result of an earthquake, although this does not happen with
all earthquakes. These ruptures generally occur in a weak area of an existing fault. Ruptures can be sudden (i.e. earthquake)
or slow (i.e. fault creep). The Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act requires active earthquake fault zones to be mapped and it
provides special development considerations within these zones. Tiburon does not have surface expression of active faults
and fault rupture is not anticipated. Figure 4-3 shown regional faults in relation to Tiburon.
CONSERVATION
82 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
Liquefaction
Liquefaction typically requires a significant sudden decrease of shearing resistance in cohesionless soils and a sudden
increase in water pressure, which is typically associated with an earthquake of high magnitude. The potential for liquefaction
is highest when groundwater levels are high, and loose, fine, sandy soils occur at depths of less than 50 feet. Figure 4-4
provides a map of the liquefaction potential of the soils within the Planning Area and general vicinity. As shown in the figure,
portions of Tiburon could be subject to liquefaction during or after an earthquake. The locations in the Town which are prone
to liquefaction are located in the hillside areas and the marina and waterfront.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading typically results when ground shaking moves soil toward an area where the soil integrity is weak or
unsupported, and it typically occurs on the surface of a slope, although it does not occur strictly on steep slopes. Oftentimes,
lateral spreading is directly associated with areas of liquefaction. The potential for liquefaction exists in the hillside and
waterfront areas; lateral spreading of soils may occur in these areas of the Planning Area.
Landslides
Landslides include rockfalls, deep slope failure, and shallow slope failure. Factors such as the geological conditions,
drainage, slope, vegetation, and others directly affect the potential for landslides. Common causes of landslides include
heavy rainfall events and construction activity that is associated with road building (i.e. cut and fill). The potential for
landslides is moderate to high in the hillside areas of the Planning Area. Figure 4-5 shows Landslide Vulnerability within the
Planning Area. As indicated on Figure 4-5, the majority of the Planning Area has a low vulnerability index with a few
landslides. Surficial deposits, or areas not vulnerable to landslide are located on the coast on all sides of the Planning Area.
The areas with the highest landslide vulnerability are located inland to the northwestern portions of the Planning Area,
particularly on the slopes of high elevations.
The Susceptibility to Deep-Seated Landslides map covers the entire state of California and was originally published in May
of 2011 as CGS Map Sheet 58. It made use of several data layers of varying scales and formats, such as landslide inventory,
geology, rock strength, and slope and identifies classes of landscape susceptibility on a scale of 0 (low) to 10 (high) that
reflects the generalization that on very low slopes, landslide susceptibility is low even in weak materials, and that landslide
susceptibility increases with slope and in weak rocks. The landslide susceptibility matrix, based on rock strength and slope
steepness in degrees, is described in Table 4-6. Landslide susceptibility zones in the Planning Area range from class 0 to
10, as shown on Figure 4-5. Areas with highest landslide susceptibility (classes 9 and 10) are located inland to the
northwestern portions of the Planning Area, particularly on the slopes of high elevations. Other areas with moderate to high
susceptibility (classes 6 through 8) are located throughout the majority of the Planning Area, particularly on the hills on the
north and south side of the Tiburon Peninsula and Angel Island.
TABLE 4-6: LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY MATRIX
LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY CLASS ROCK STRENGTH SLOPE STEEPNESS
0 (0) 1 <3 to 10
2 <3
3 <3
3 (III) 1 10 to15
5 (V) 2 3 to10
6 (VI) 1
15 to 20
7 (VII) 1 20 to 30
3 3 to 10
8 (VIII) 1 30 to >40
2 10 to 15
9 (IX) 2 15 to >40
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 83
3 10 to 15
10 (X) 3 15 to >40
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP SHEET 58, 2011.
NON-SEISMIC HAZARDS
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils can undergo significant volume change with changes in moisture content. They shrink and harden when
dried and expand and soften when wet. If structures are underlain by expansive soils, it is important that foundation systems
be capable of tolerating or resisting any potentially damaging soil movements. In addition, it is important to limit moisture
changes in the surficial soils by using positive drainage away from buildings as well as limiting landscaping watering.
According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the soils in the Planning Area soils vary from a low shrink-swell potential to a high
shrink-swell potential as shown in Figure 4-6. Portions of the Planning Area with a high expansive soil potential are located
in the foothill areas and along the coast of the western Planning Area. The eastern portions of the Planning Area, particularly
Angel Island and the western portion of the Tiburon Peninsula, have a low to moderate expansive soil potential with a
moderate potential typically with the areas of higher elevation.
Erosion
Erosion naturally occurs on the surface of the earth as surface materials (i.e., rock, soil, debris, etc.) are loosened, dissolved,
or worn away, and transported from one place to another by gravity. Two common types of soil erosion include wind erosion
and water erosion. The steepness of a slope is an important factor that affects soil erosion. Erosion potential in soils is
influenced primarily by loose soil texture and steep slopes. Loose soils can be eroded by water or wind forces, whereas
soils with high clay content are generally susceptible only to water erosion. The potential for erosion generally increases as
a result of human activity, primarily through the development of facilities and impervious surfaces and the removal of
vegetative cover.
The Custom Soils Report identified the erosion potential for the soils in the Planning Area. This report summarizes those
soil attributes used by the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation Version 2 (RUSLE2) for the map units in the selected area.
Soil property data for each map unit component includes the hydrologic soil group, erosion factors Kf for the surface horizon,
erosion factor T, and the representative percentage of sand, silt, and clay in the surface horizon.
Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69.
Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. Within the
Planning Area, the erosion factor Kf varies from 0.20 to 0.43, which is considered a low to moderate potential for erosion.
The wind erosion potential ranges from moderate-to-high during the spring, summer, and fall, however this potential for
wind erosion diminish during the winter.
Collapsible Soils
Collapsible soils undergo a rearrangement of their grains and a loss of cementation, resulting in substantial and rapid
settlement under relatively low loads. Collapsible soils occur predominantly at the base of mountain ranges, where Holocene-
age alluvial fan and wash sediments have been deposited during rapid run-off events. Soils prone to collapse are commonly
associated with manmade fill, wind-laid sands and silts, and alluvial fan and mudflow sediments deposited during flash
floods. During an earthquake, even slight settlement of fill materials can lead to a differentially settled structure and significant
repair costs. Differential settlement of structures typically occurs when heavily irrigated landscape areas are near a building
foundation. Examples of common problems associated with collapsible soils include tilting floors, cracking or separation in
structures, sagging floors, and nonfunctional windows and doors. Collapsible soils have not been identified in the Planning
CONSERVATION
84 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
Area as an issue. However, in areas subject to potential liquefaction, the potential for liquefaction-induced settlement is
present.
Subsidence
Land subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of an area with little or no horizontal motion due to changes taking place
underground. It is a natural process, although it can also occur (and is greatly accelerated) as a result of human activities.
Common causes of land subsidence from human activity include: pumping water, oil, and gas from underground reservoirs;
dissolution of limestone aquifers (sinkholes); collapse of underground mines; drainage of organic soils; and initial wetting
of dry soils. Subsidence has not been identified as an issue in the Planning Area.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
The term “asbestos” is used to describe a variety of fibrous minerals that, when airborne, can result in serious human health
effects. Naturally occurring asbestos is commonly associated with ultramafic rocks and serpentinite. Ultramafic rocks, such
as dunite, peridotite, and pyroxenite are igneous rocks comprised largely of iron-magnesium minerals. As they are intrusive
in nature, these rocks often undergo metamorphosis, prior to their being exposed on the Earth’s surface. The metamorphic
rock serpentinite is a common product of the alteration process. Naturally occurring asbestos is identified within Marin
County. There is no naturally occurring asbestos mapped within the Planning Area.
Paleontological Resources
Among the natural resources deserving conservation and preservation are the often-unseen records of past life buried in the
sediments and rocks below the pavement, buildings, soils, and vegetation which now cover most of the area. These records
– fossils and their geologic context – undoubtedly exist in below the surface in areas in and near Tiburon, and span millions
of years in age of origin. Fossils constitute a non-renewable resource: once lost or destroyed, the exact information they
contained can never be reproduced.
Paleontology is the science that attempts to unravel the meaning of these fossils in terms of the organisms they represent,
the ages and geographic distribution of those organisms, how they interacted in ancient ecosystems and responded to past
climatic changes, and the changes through time of all of these aspects.
The sensitivity of a given area or body of sediment with respect to paleontological resources is a function of both the potential
for the existence of fossils and the predicted significance of any fossils which may be found there. The primary consideration
in the determination of paleontological sensitivity of a given area, body of sediment, or rock formation is its potential to
include fossils. Information that can contribute to assessment of this potential includes: 1) direct observation of fossils within
the project area; 2) the existence of known fossil localities or documented absence of fossils in the same geologic unit (e.g.,
“Formation” or one of its subunits); 3) descriptive nature of sedimentary deposits (such as size of included particles or clasts,
color, and bedding type) in the area of interest compared with those of similar deposits known elsewhere to favor or disfavor
inclusion of fossils; and 4) interpretation of sediment details and known geologic history of the sedimentary body of interest
in terms of the ancient environments in which they were deposited, followed by assessment of the favorability of those
environments for the preservation of fossils.
The most general paleontological information can be obtained from geologic maps, but geologic cross sections (slices of
the layer cake to view the third dimension) must be reviewed for each area in question. These usually accompany geologic
maps or technical reports. Once it can be determined which formations may be present in the subsurface, the question of
paleontological resources must be addressed. Even though a formation is known to contain fossils, they are not usually
distributed uniformly throughout the many square miles the formation may cover. If the fossils were part of a bay environment
when they died, perhaps a scattered layer of shells will be preserved over large areas. If on the other hand, a whale died in
this bay, you might expect to find fossil whalebone only in one small area of less than a few hundred square feet. Other
resources to be considered in the determination of paleontological potential are regional geologic reports, site records on
file with paleontological repositories and site-specific field surveys.
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 85
Paleontologists consider all vertebrate fossils to be of significance. Fossils of other types are considered significant if they
represent a new record, new species, an oldest occurring species, the most complete specimen of its kind, a rare species
worldwide, or a species helpful in the dating of formations. However, even a previously designated low potential site may
yield significant fossils. No paleontological resources have been identified in the Planning Area.
REFERENCES
Asbestos TEM Laboratories inc. adapted 2011 U.S. Geological Survey open-file report prepared by Bradley S. Van Gosen
(U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO) and John P. Clinkenbeard (California Geological Survey, Sacramento.
California Department of Conservation. 2002. California Geological Survey, Note 36.
California Geological Survey. 2013. Seismic Shaking Hazards in California Based on the USGS/CGS Probabilistic Seismic
Hazards Assessment (PSHA) Model.
California Geological Survey. 1999, Revised 2002. Simplified Fault Activity Map of California. Compiled by Charles W.
Jennings and George J. Saucedo.
California Geological Survey. 1992. Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of
1972 with Index to Special Studies Zones Maps. California Geological Survey (formerly California Division of Mines
and Geology, CDMG) Special Publication 42, Revised 1992. California Department of Conservation.
California Geological Survey. 2003. The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps. Prepared by T. Cao,
W.A. Bryant, B. Rowshandel, D. Branum, and C.J. Willis. California Geological Survey. June 2003.
Ellsworth, W.L. 1990. “Earthquake History 1769-1989.” The San Andreas Fault System, California. R.E. Wallace, ed. United
States Geological Survey. Professional Paper 1515. Chapter 6.
Jennings, C.W. 1994. Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic
Eruptions. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), Geologic Data Map No. 6, Map Scale 1:750,000.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA), Web Soils Survey 2019.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2014. Earthquake Outlook for the San Francisco Bay Region 2014-2043. Available at:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3020/fs20163020.pdf
U.S. Geological Survey. Significant Earthquakes. 2019. Available at: <
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/browse/significant.php >.
U.S. Geological Survey. The Severity of an Earthquake. Published 1997. Available at:
<https://pubs.usgs.gov/unnumbered/70039541/report.pdf>.
¯0 1½
Miles
Figure 4-1: USGS Topographic Map
LEGEND
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Planning Area
Tiburon Sphere of Influence
Sources: ArcGIS Online USGS Topographic Map Service. Map date: November 29, 2020. Revised March 2, 2021.
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 87
This page left blank intentionally.
P
ar
a
d
i
s
e
Dr
Tib
uro
n
Blvd
S p encerAve
T r e s tle G l e n B l v d
Mai
n S t
Bridgeway
B e l v e d er e Dr
E
S
t
r
a
w
b
e
r
r
y
D
r
C e n t r o E a stSt
S t e w a r t D r
B l a c k f i e l d D r
Vista
zo
W
estSt
A venid a Mira f l o r e s
Paradi s e D r
L y f o r d D r
M a r WestSt
R i d g e R d
R e ed R a n c h R
d
Centro
W
e
s
t
St
G
eld
e
r
t
D
r
Hi
l
a
r
y
D
r
P a r a d i s e D r
B e a c h R d
Richardson Bay
San Francisco Bay
Belvedere
Lagoon
¯0 ½¼
Miles
TIBURON
BELVEDERE
SAUSALITO
MILL
VALLEY
CORTE MADERA
Angel Island
LEGEND
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Sphere of Influence
Tiburon Planning Area
Barnabe very gravelly loam
Gilroy-Typic Argixerolls-Bonnydoon
Henneke stony clay loam
Los Osos-Bonnydoon complex
Los Osos-Urban land-Bonnydoon complex
Maymen-Maymen variant gravelly loams
Montara clay loam
Novato silty clay
Rock outcrop-Xerorthents complex
Saurin-Bonnydoon complex
Saurin-Urban land-Bonnydoon complex
Tamalpais-Barnabe variant very gravelly loams
Tocaloma-McMullin complex
Tocaloma-McMullin-Urban land complex
Tocaloma-Saurin association
Urban land-Xerorthents complex
Xerorthents, fill
Xerorthents-Urban land complex
Water
Sources: ArcGIS Online World Hillshade Map Service; NRCS Web Soil Survey, Marin County (CA041) and San Mateo County, Eastern Part/San Francisco County (CA689). Map date: November 30, 2020. Revised March 2, 2021.
Figure 4-2: NRCS Soil Map
£¤101
UV131
£¤101
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 89
This page left blank intentionally.
§¨¦580
§¨¦580
§¨¦80
§¨¦80£¤101
£¤101
§¨¦880
UV123 UV13
SAN FRANCISCO
RICHMOND
OAKLAND
SAN RAFAEL
BERKELEY
ALAMEDA
PINOLE
HERCULES
ALBANY
MILL VALLEY
ORINDA
ROSS
CORTE
MADERA EL CERRITO
LARKSPUR
FAIRFAX
SAN
PABLO
BELVEDERE
SAUSALITO
EMERYVILLE
SAN
ANSELMO
PIEDMONT
Angel Island
S a n Fr a nc is c o B ay
¯0 1½
Miles
TIBURON
Figure 4-3: Earthquake Faults
Sources: ArcGIS Online World Hillshade Map Service; USGS Quaternary Faults database. Map date: November 29, 2020. Revised March 3, 2021.
H
a
y
w
a
r
d
F
a
u
lt
Z
o
n
e
M
o
r
a
g
a
F
a
u
l
t
W
ild
catFault
P
i
n
o
l
e
F
a
ult
H
a
y
w
a
r
d
F
a
u
lt
Z
o
n
e
S
a
n
A
n
d
r
e
a
s
F
a
u
lt
Z
o
n
e
S
a
n
G
r
e
g
o
r
i
o
F
a
u
l
t
Z
o
n
e
S
a
n
A
n
d
r
e
a
s
F
a
u
lt
Z
o
n
e
LEGEND
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Sphere of Influence
Tiburon Planning Area
Quaternary Fault
Alquist-Priolo Zone
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 91
This page left blank intentionally.
P
ar
a
d
i
s
e
Dr
Tib
uro
n
Blvd
S p encerAve
T r e s tle G l e n B l v d
Mai
n S t
Bridgeway
B e l v e d er e Dr
E
S
t
r
a
w
b
e
r
r
y
D
r
C e n t r o E a stSt
S t e w a r t D r
B l a c k f i e l d D r
Vista
zo
W
estSt
A venid a Mira f l o r e s
Paradi s e D r
L y f o r d D r
M a r WestSt
R i d g e R d
R e ed R a n c h R
d
Centro
W
e
s
t
St
G
eld
e
r
t
D
r
Hi
l
a
r
y
D
r
P a r a d i s e D r
B e a c h R d
Richardson Bay
San Francisco Bay
Belvedere
Lagoon
¯0 ½¼
Miles
TIBURON
BELVEDERE
SAUSALITO
MILL
VALLEY
CORTE
MADERA
Angel Island
LEGEND
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Sphere of Influence
Tiburon Planning Area
Very Low
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
Sources: ArcGIS Online World Hillshade Map Service; Marin GeoHub "Liquefaction", 11/10/2020. Map date: November 30, 2020. Revised March 2, 2021.
Figure 4-4: Liquefaction Potential
£¤101
UV131
£¤101
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 93
This page left blank intentionally.
P
ar
a
d
i
s
e
Dr
Tib
uro
n
Blvd
S p encerAve
T r e s tle G l e n B l v d
Mai
n S t
Bridgeway
B e l v e d er e Dr
E
S
t
r
a
w
b
e
r
r
y
D
r
C e n t r o E a stSt
S t e w a r t D r
B l a c k f i e l d D r
Vista
zo
W
estSt
A venid a Mira f l o r e s
Paradi s e D r
L y f o r d D r
M a r WestSt
R i d g e R d
R e ed R a n c h R
d
Centro
W
e
s
t
St
G
eld
e
r
t
D
r
Hi
l
a
r
y
D
r
P a r a d i s e D r
B e a c h R d
Belvedere Cove
Richardson Bay
San Francisco Bay
Belvedere
Lagoon
¯0 ½¼
Miles
TIBURON
BELVEDERE
SAUSALITO
MILL
VALLEY
CORTE MADERA
Angel Island
Sources: ArcGIS Online World Hillshade Map Service; Marin GeoHub "Landslides" 11/10/2020. Map date: March 2, 2021.
Figure 4-5: Landslide Potential
£¤101
UV131
£¤101
LEGEND
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Sphere of Influence
Tiburon Planning Area
Distribution of Past Landslides - Landslide Potential*
surficial deposits - no potential
few landslides - lower potential
many landslides - moderate potential
mostly landslide - high potential
water
* The best available predictor of where movement of landslides and earth
flows might occur is the distribution of past movements (Nilsen and
Turner, 1975).
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 95
This page left blank intentionally.
P
ar
a
d
i
s
e
Dr
Tib
uro
n
Blvd
S p encerAve
T r e s tle G l e n B l v d
Mai
n S t
Bridgeway
B e l v e d er e Dr
E
S
t
r
a
w
b
e
r
r
y
D
r
C e n t r o E a stSt
S t e w a r t D r
B l a c k f i e l d D r
Vista
zo
W
estSt
A venid a Mira f l o r e s
Paradi s e D r
L y f o r d D r
M a r WestSt
R i d g e R d
R e ed R a n c h R
d
Centro
W
e
s
t
St
G
eld
e
r
t
D
r
Hi
l
a
r
y
D
r
P a r a d i s e D r
B e a c h R d
Belvedere Cove
Richardson Bay
San Francisco Bay
Belvedere
Lagoon
¯0 ½¼
Miles
TIBURON
BELVEDERE
SAUSALITO
MILL
VALLEY
CORTE MADERA
Angel Island
LEGEND
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Sphere of Influence
Tiburon Planning Area
Low
Moderate
High
Nil
Water
Sources: ArcGIS Online World Hillshade Map Service; Marin GeoHub "Expansive Soil" 11/10/2020. Map date: November 30, 2020. Revised March 2, 2021.
Figure 4-6: Expansive Soil Potential
£¤101
UV131
£¤101
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 97
This page left blank intentionally.
CONSERVATION
98 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
5 MINERAL RESOURCES
This section describes mineral resources in the Planning Area from both a qualitative and quantitative perspective. The
results of this assessment may be used in planning and management decisions that may affect mineral resources in the
Planning Area.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FEDERAL
Energy Policy and Conservation Act
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 sought to ensure that all vehicles sold in the U.S. would meet certain fuel
economy goals. Through this Act, Congress established the first fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles in the
United States. Pursuant to the Act, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, which is part of the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT), is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing
standards.
Since 1990, the fuel economy standard for new passenger cars has been 27.5 mpg. Since 1996, the fuel economy standard
for new light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less) has been 20.7 mpg. Heavy-duty vehicles (i.e., vehicles
and trucks over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight) are not currently subject to fuel economy standards. Compliance with
federal fuel economy standards is determined on the basis of each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of
its vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, which is administered by
the USEPA, was created to determine vehicle manufacturers’ compliance with the fuel economy standards. The USEPA
calculates a CAFE value for each manufacturer based on city and highway fuel economy test results and vehicle sales. Based
on the information generated under the CAFE program, the USDOT is authorized to assess penalties for noncompliance. In
March 2020, the USDOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the EPA released the final Safer
Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years (MY) 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, which
sets CAFE and CO2 emissions standards that increase 1.5% in stringency each year from MY 2021 through 2026. These
standards apply to both passenger cars and light trucks, and are intended to continue the United States’ progress towards
energy independence and carbon dioxide reduction, while recognizing the realities of the marketplace and consumers’
interest in buying vehicles that meet all of their diverse needs. In MY 2026, it is projected that 40.4 mpg will be the overall
industry average required fuel economy.
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct)
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum and improve
air quality. EPAct includes several parts intended to build an inventory of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally
fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. EPAct requires certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase
a percentage of light duty AFVs capable of running on alternative fuels each year. In addition, financial incentives are included
in EPAct. Federal tax deductions will be allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of AFVs. States
are also required by the act to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs.
Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed into law on August 8, 2005. Generally, the act provides for renewed and expanded
tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives,
grants, and loan guarantees for a clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal
purchase requirement for renewable energy.
U.S. Federal Climate Change Policy
According to the USEPA, “the United States government has established a comprehensive policy to address climate change”
that includes slowing the growth of emissions; strengthening science, technology, and institutions; and enhancing
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 99
international cooperation. To implement this policy, “the Federal government is using voluntary and incentive-based
programs to reduce emissions and has established programs to promote climate technology and science.” The federal
government’s goal is to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity (a measurement of GHG emissions per unit of economic
activity) of the American economy by 18 percent over the 10-year period from 2002 to 2012. In addition, the EPA administers
multiple programs that encourage voluntary GHG reductions, including “ENERGY STAR”, “Climate Leaders”, and Methane
Voluntary Programs. However, as of this writing, there are no adopted federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws directly
regulating GHG emissions.
STATE
Warren-Alquist Act
The 1975 Warren-Alquist Act established the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, now
known as CEC. The Act established state policy to reduce wasteful, uneconomical, and unnecessary uses of energy by
employing a range of measures. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates privately-owned utilities in the
energy, rail, telecommunications, and water fields.
Energy Action Plan
The first Energy Action Plan (EAP) emerged in 2003 from a crisis atmosphere in California’s energy markets. The State’s
three major energy policy agencies (CEC, CPUC, and the Consumer Power and Conservation Financing Authority
[established under deregulation and now defunct]) came together to develop one high-level, coherent approach to meeting
California’s electricity and natural gas needs. It was the first time that energy policy agencies formally collaborated to define
a common vision and set of strategies to address California’s future energy needs and emphasize the importance of the
impacts of energy policy on the California environment.
In the October 2005 Energy Action Plan II, CEC and CPUC updated their energy policy vision by adding some important
dimensions to the policy areas included in the original EAP, such as the emerging importance of climate change,
transportation-related energy issues, and research and development activities. The CEC adopted an update to the EAP II in
February 2008 that supplements the earlier EAPs and examines the State’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate
change.
State of California Energy Action Plan
The CEC is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply,
demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The current plan is the 1997
California Energy Plan. The Plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air
quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To
further this policy, the Plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in
implementing incentive programs for zero-emission vehicles and addressing their infrastructure needs; and encouragement
of urban design that reduces VMT and accommodates pedestrian and bicycle access.
Bioenergy Action Plan – Executive Order #S-06-06
Executive Order #S-06-06 establishes targets for the use and production of biofuels and biopower and directs state agencies
to work together to advance biomass programs in California while providing environmental protection and mitigation. The
executive order establishes the following target to increase the production and use of bioenergy, including ethanol and
biodiesel fuels made from renewable resources: produce a minimum of 20 percent of its biofuels within California by 2010,
40 percent by 2020, and 75 percent by 2050. The executive order also calls for the state to meet a target for use of biomass
electricity.
CONSERVATION
100 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975
The California Department of Conservation Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (§ 2710), also known as SMARA,
provides a comprehensive surface mining and reclamation policy that permits the continued mining of minerals, as well as
the protection and subsequent beneficial use of the mined and reclaimed land. The purpose of SMARA is to ensure that
adverse environmental effects are prevented or minimized and that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition and
readily adaptable for alternative land uses. The production and conservation of minerals are encouraged, while giving
consideration to values relating to recreation, wildlife, range and forage, as well as aesthetic enjoyment. Residual hazards to
public health and safety are eliminated. These goals are achieved through land use planning by allowing a jurisdiction to
balance the economic benefits of resource reclamation with the need to provide other land uses.
If a use is proposed that might threaten the potential recovery of minerals from an area that has been classified mineral
resource zone 2 (MRZ-2), SMARA would require the jurisdiction to prepare a statement specifying its reasons for permitting
the proposed use, provide public notice of these reasons, and forward a copy of the statement to the State Geologist and
the State Mining and Geology Board (Cal. Pub. Res. Code Section 2762). Lands classified MRZ-2 are areas that contain
identified mineral resources.
Division of Mines and Geology
The California Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) operates within the Department of Conservation. The DMG is
responsible for assisting in the utilization of mineral deposits and the identification of geological hazards.
State Geological Survey
Similar to the DMG, the California Geological Survey is responsible for assisting in the identification and proper utilization
of mineral deposits, as well as the identification of fault locations and other geological hazards.
Public Resources Code
Public Resources Code Section 2762(d) and 2763 requires a lead agency to prepare a statement specifying its reasons for
permitting a use that would threaten the potential to extract mineral resources either 1) in an area that has been designated
in its general plan as having important minerals to be protected, or 2) if the use is proposed in an area with significant
resources pursuant to Section 2761(b)(2) and the lead agency has not yet acted on the State’s designation. Public Resources
Code Section 2763 requires that lead agency land use decisions involving areas designated as being of regional significance
shall be in accordance with the lead agency's mineral resource management policies and shall also, in balancing mineral
values against alternative land uses, consider the importance of these minerals to their market region as a whole and not
just their importance to the lead agency's area of jurisdiction.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
STATEWIDE RESOURCES
In 2012, the California Geological Survey identified that approximately 4 billion tons of permitted aggregate reserves lie
within the 31 aggregate study areas in California. These permitted aggregate reserves have been determined to be acceptable
for commercial use, exist within properties owned or leased by aggregate producing companies, and have permits allowing
mining of aggregate material. Sand, gravel, and crushed stones are construction materials that are collectively referred to as
construction aggregate. These materials provide the bulk and strength to Portland cement concrete (PCC), asphaltic concrete
(AC), plaster, and stucco. Other uses include road base, subbase, railroad ballast, and fill.
From 1981 to 2010, California consumed an average of about 180 million tons of construction aggregate (all grades) per
year. (CGS, 2012)
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 101
REGIONAL SETTING
The North Bay region, comprising Sonoma, Marin, and Napa Counties, places an ongoing demand on crushed stone and
alluvial deposits for construction materials, including asphaltic concrete, aggregate, road base and sub-base, and Portland
cement concrete. Eight sites in Marin County have been designated by the State as having significant mineral resources for
the North Bay region; these include Ring Mountain, Novato Conglomerate – Black Point, Franciscan Complex Sandstone-
San Pedro Hill, Sonoma Volcanics Andesite-Burdell Mountain, Franciscan Complex Serpentinite-Bowman Canyon Quarry,
Sonoma Volcanics Andesite-Burdell Mountain Open Space Preserve. These sites contain deposits that qualify as marketable
commodities by meeting a threshold value based on gross sales price. Four of these sites should be considered for removal
from State listing because they have been purchased for public open space, are already subdivided and used for residential
purposes, or are highly environmentally sensitive. In addition, there are mineral resource sites not designated by the State
that have County approved operating permits and reclamation plans.
Total consumption of mineral resources to 2030 in Sonoma, Marin, and Napa counties is estimated at 478 million tons.
Although the volume of deposits remaining in local quarries has not been determined, it is expected that mined commodities
will still need to be transported from outside the County. Consumption level may vary if growth patterns change, and
unforeseen events such as disaster reconstruction could dramatically increase the need for materials. Fine sand and gravel
suitable for producing Portland cement concrete is already limited in supply locally. Efforts to reduce demand for mineral
resources, including minimizing waste of mined materials and using fly ash as a constituent in concrete, can help conserve
resources and limit the need for additional extraction.
In some areas of the county, quarry operations, including truck transportation and blasting, have resulted in substantial
conflicts with nearby residential and recreational uses. One example of this is the noise and truck traffic experienced by
neighbors of the San Rafael Rock Quarry, which operates under a permit granted in 1972.
MINERAL RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION
Pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA), the California State Mining and Geology Board
oversees the Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) classification system. The MRZ system characterizes both the location and
known/presumed economic value of underlying mineral resources. The mineral resource classification system uses four
main MRZs based on the degree of available geologic information, the likelihood of significant mineral resource occurrence,
and the known or inferred quantity of significant mineral resources. The four classifications are described in Table 5-1 below.
TABLE 5-1: MINERAL RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTIONS
MRZ-1 Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is
judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.
MRZ-2 Areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is
judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence.
MRZ-3 Areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated.
MRZ-4 Areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ classification.
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, ACCESSED DECEMBER 2016.
LOCAL MINERAL RESOURCES
All of the Marin County mineral resource sites are identified by the State as MRZ-2 and MRZ-3, except for Ring Mountain,
which is located within the Planning Area. Ring Mountain is considered a Scientific Resource Zone (and therefore not a
production site) due to the presence of rare geologic formations.
CONSERVATION
102 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
Figure 5-1 shows mineral resource zones within and near the Planning Area. As shown on Figure 5-1, the majority of the
central portion of the Planning Area is designated MRZ-1 indicating areas where no significant mineral deposits are present
or there is little likelihood for their presence. Tiburon also contains areas designated MRZ-3. These areas are located mainly
in the northern portion of the Planning Area near the coast and the Northwestern corner of the Planning Area. There are no
areas designated MRZ-2 or MRZ-4 within the Planning Area. Tiburon’s current General Plan does not identify other significant
mineral deposits or active mining operations in the Planning Area.
REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation. 2002. California Geological Survey, Note 36.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 1987. Special Report 146 Part II, Classification of
Aggregate Resource Areas South San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region, Plates 2.25, 2.26, 2.29, 2.31.
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 103
This page left blank intentionally.
P
ar
a
d
i
s
e
Dr
Tib
uro
n
Blvd
S p encerAve
T r e s tle G l e n B l v d
Mai
n S t
Bridgeway
B e l v e d er e Dr
E
S
t
r
a
w
b
e
r
r
y
D
r
C e n t r o E a stSt
S t e w a r t D r
B l a c k f i e l d D r
Vista
zo
W
estSt
A venid a Mira f l o r e s
Paradi s e D r
L y f o r d D r
M a r WestSt
R i d g e R d
R e ed R a n c h R
d
Centro
W
e
s
t
St
G
eld
e
r
t
D
r
Hi
l
a
r
y
D
r
P a r a d i s e D r
B e a c h R d
Belvedere Cove
Richardson Bay
San Francisco Bay
Belvedere
Lagoon
¯0 ½¼
Miles
TIBURON
BELVEDERE
SAUSALITO
MILL
VALLEY
CORTE MADERA
Angel Island
Sources: ArcGIS Online World Hillshade Map Service; California Geological Survey, SR205: Updated Mineral Lands Classification Map for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate
in the North San Franicsco Bay Production-Consumption Region, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, and Southwestern Solano Counties, California, Plate1a, 2013. Map date: March 2, 2021.
Figure 5-1: Mineral Resource Zones
£¤101
UV131
£¤101
MRZ-1: Little likelihood for presence of
MRZ-3: Contains mineral occurences of
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Sphere of Influence
Tiburon Planning Area
significant mineral resources
undetermined mineral resource significance
LEGEND
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 105
This page left blank intentionally.
CONSERVATION
106 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section provides an overview of hydrology and water quality within the Planning Area and the vicinity. For information
on flood-related issues and flood safety, see the Flooding chapter of the Existing Conditions Safety Report.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FEDERAL AND STATE
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA), initially passed in 1972, regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the
nation. Section 402(p) of the act establishes a framework for regulating municipal and industrial stormwater discharges
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Section 402(p) requires that stormwater
associated with industrial activity that discharges either directly to surface waters or indirectly through municipal separate
storm sewers must be regulated by an NPDES permit.
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act and does so
through issuing NPDES permits to cities and counties through regional water quality control boards. Federal regulations
allow two permitting options for stormwater discharges (individual permits and general permits). The SWRCB elected to
adopt a Statewide General Permit (Water Quality Order No. 2013-001-DWQ-DWQ).
Coastal Zone Management Act
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was passed in 1972. This act, administered by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, provides for the management of the nation’s coastal resources, including the Great Lakes. The
goal is to “preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the nation’s coastal zone.”
The CZMA outlines three national programs: the National Coastal Zone Management Program, the National Estuarine
Research Reserve System, and the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP). The National Coastal Zone
Management Program aims to balance competing land and water issues through state and territorial coastal management
programs, the reserves serve as field laboratories that provide a greater understanding of estuaries and how humans impact
them, and CELCP provides matching funds to state and local governments to purchase threatened coastal and estuarine
lands or obtain conservation easements.
California Water Code
The Clean Water Act places the primary responsibility for the control of surface water pollution and for planning the
development and use of water resources with the states, although this does establish certain guidelines for the States to
follow in developing their programs and allows the Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw control from states with
inadequate implementation mechanisms.
California’s primary statute governing water quality and water pollution issues with respect to both surface waters and
groundwater is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Division 7 of the California Water Code) (Porter-
Cologne Act). The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and each of the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs)
power to protect water quality and is the primary vehicle for implementation of California’s responsibilities under the Clean
Water Act. The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and the RWQCBs authority and responsibility to adopt plans and
policies, to regulate discharges to surface and groundwater, to regulate waste disposal sites and to require cleanup of
discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter-Cologne Act also establishes reporting requirements for
unintended discharges of any hazardous substance, sewage, or oil or petroleum product.
Each RWQCB must formulate and adopt a water quality control plan (Basin Plan) for its region. The regional plans are to
conform to the policies set forth in the Porter-Cologne Act and established by the SWRCB in its State water policy. The
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 107
Porter-Cologne Act also provides that a RWQCB may include within its regional plan water discharge prohibitions applicable
to particular conditions, areas, or types of waste.
Water Code Section 13260 requires all dischargers of waste that may affect water quality in waters of the state to prepare
and provide a water quality discharge report to the RWQCB. Section 13260a-c is as follows:
(a) Each of the following persons shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of the discharge, containing the
information that may be required by the regional board:
(1) A person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the quality
of the waters of the state, other than into a community sewer system.
(2) A person who is a citizen, domiciliary, or political agency or entity of this state discharging waste, or
proposing to discharge waste, outside the boundaries of the state in a manner that could affect the quality
of the waters of the state within any region.
(3) A person operating, or proposing to construct, an injection well.
(b) No report of waste discharge need be filed pursuant to subdivision (a) if the requirement is waived pursuant to
Section 13269.
(c) Each person subject to subdivision (a) shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of waste discharge
relative to any material change or proposed change in the character, location, or volume of the discharge.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required for discharges of pollutants to navigable
waters of the United States, which includes any discharge to surface waters, including lakes, rivers, streams, bays, the ocean,
dry stream beds, wetlands, and storm sewers that are tributary to any surface water body. NPDES permits are issued under
the Federal Clean Water Act, Title IV, Permits and Licenses, Section 402 (33 USC 466 et seq.)
The RWQCB issues these permits in lieu of direct issuance by the EPA, subject to review and approval by the EPA Regional
Administrator. The terms of these NPDES permits implement pertinent provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Act’s
implementing regulations, including pre-treatment, sludge management, effluent limitations for specific industries, and anti-
degradation. In general, the discharge of pollutants is to be eliminated or reduced as much as practicable so as to achieve
the Clean Water Act’s goal of “fishable and swimmable” navigable (surface) waters. Technically, all NPDES permits issued
by the RWQCB are also Waste Discharge Requirements issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act.
These NPDES permits regulate discharges from publicly owned treatment works, industrial discharges, stormwater runoff,
dewatering operations, and groundwater cleanup discharges. NPDES permits are issued for five years or less and are
therefore to be updated regularly. The rapid and dramatic population and urban growth in the Central Valley Region has
caused a significant increase in NPDES permit applications for new waste discharges. To expedite the permit issuance
process, the SWRCB has adopted several general NPDES permits, each of which regulates numerous discharges of similar
types of wastes. The SWRCB has issued general permits for stormwater runoff from industrial and construction sites
statewide. Stormwater discharges from industrial and construction activities in the San Francisco Bay Region can be covered
under these general permits, which are administered jointly by the SWRCB and RWQCB. Tiburon is within the jurisdiction
of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.
The SWRCB and RWQCBs enforce State of California statutes that are equivalent to or more stringent than the Federal
statutes. RWQCBs are responsible for establishing water quality standards and objectives that protect the beneficial uses of
various waters. In 2003, smaller (less than 100,000 population) municipalities and unincorporated counties were required
to obtain coverage under a statewide NPDES Municipal General Stormwater Permit (Phase II Permit) issued by the State
Water Resources Control Board. In Marin County, the County and all Marin's municipalities, including Tiburon, are subject
to the conditions of the regulations described in the current 2013 Phase II Permit. The Marin County Permittees are currently
subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS000004, issued by Order No. WQ 2018-
CONSERVATION
108 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
0007-EXEC on March 13, 2019, which pertains to stormwater runoff discharge from storm drains and watercourses within
their jurisdictions.
Assembly Bill 3030 - Groundwater Management Act
In 1992, the State Legislature provided for more formal groundwater management with the passage of Assembly Bill (AB)
3030, the Groundwater Management Act (Water Code Section 10750, et seq.). Groundwater management, as defined in
DWR’s Bulletin 118 Update 2003, is the planned and coordinated monitoring, operation, and administration of a groundwater
basin, or portion of a basin, with the goal of long-term groundwater resource sustainability. Groundwater management needs
are generally identified and addressed at the local level in the form of Groundwater Management Plans (GMP). The Act
provides local water agencies with procedures to develop a GMP to enable those agencies to manage their groundwater
resources efficiently and safely while protecting the quality of supplies. Under the Act, development of a GMP by a local
water agency is voluntary.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) established a framework for sustainable, local groundwater
management. SGMA requires groundwater-dependent regions to halt overdraft and bring basins into balanced levels of
pumping and recharge. With passage of the SGMA, the Department of Water Resources launched the Sustainable
Groundwater Management (SGM) Program to implement the law and provide ongoing support to local agencies around the
state. The SGMA defines “sustainable groundwater management” and requires that a Groundwater Sustainability Plan be
adopted for the most important groundwater basins in California as a means to empower local agencies to manage basins
sustainably. The SGMA establishes basic requirements for the Groundwater Sustainability Plans as well as a timetable for
the adoption of the plans.
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary
The watershed of the Bay-Delta Estuary provides drinking water to two-thirds of the State’s population and water for a
multitude of other urban uses, and it supplies some of the State’s most productive agricultural areas, both inside and outside
of the Estuary. The Bay-Delta Estuary itself is one of the largest ecosystems for fish and wildlife habitat and production in
the United States.
The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Basin Plan) includes a
summary of beneficial water uses, water quality objectives needed to protect the identified beneficial uses, and
implementation measures. The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for all the ground and surface waters of the
region. The term “water quality standards,” as used in the Federal Clean Water Act, includes both the beneficial uses of
specific water bodies and the levels of quality that must be met and maintained to protect those uses. The Basin Plan includes
an implementation plan describing the actions by the RWQCB and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain the
water quality standards.
The RWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s ground and
surface water. Permits are issued under a number of programs and authorities. The terms and conditions of these discharge
permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. Water quality problems in the region
are listed in the Basin Plan, along with the causes, where they are known. For water bodies with quality below the levels
necessary to allow all the beneficial uses of the water to be met, plans for improving water quality are included. The Basin
Plan reflects, incorporates, and implements applicable portions of a number of national and statewide water quality plans
and policies, including the California Water Code and the Clean Water Act
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 109
LOCAL
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan)
The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) is a California state planning and regulatory
agency with regional authority over the San Francisco Bay, the Bay’s shoreline band, and the Suisun Marsh. BCDC was
created in 1965 and is the nation’s oldest coastal zone agency.
Its mission is to protect and enhance San Francisco Bay and to encourage the Bay’s responsible and productive use for this
and future generations. State law requires sponsors of projects that propose to fill or extract materials from the Bay to apply
for a BCDC permit. In addition to minimizing any fill required for an appropriate project and ensuring that the project is
compatible with the conservation of Bay resources, BCDC is tasked with requiring maximum feasible public access within
the Bay’s 100-foot shoreline band. In addition, BCDC leads the Bay Area’s ongoing multi-agency regional effort to address
the impacts of rising sea level on shoreline communities and assets.
The San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan) was completed and adopted by the BCDC in 1968 and has been updated regularly
with the most recent revisions approved by BCDC in 2019. Essential parts of the Bay Plan include policies to guide future
uses of the Bay and shoreline, and the maps that apply these policies to the present Bay and shoreline. The Bay Plan
addresses the following matters as specifically required by the law:
1. The results of the Commission's detailed study of the Bay;
2. The comprehensive plan adopted by the Commission for the conservation of the water of San Francisco Bay and
the development of its shoreline;
3. The Commission's recommendation of the appropriate agency to maintain and carry out the Bay Plan;
4. The Commission's estimate of the approximate amount of money that would be required to maintain and carry out
the provisions of the Plan for the Bay;
5. Other information and recommendations the Commission deemed desirable.
The Bay Area Plan includes findings and policies related to hydrology/ water quality. The hydrology/ water quality section of
the Bay Area Plan includes polices the implementation of programs for controlling pollution, including stormwater
management plans, Total Maximum Daily Load implementation plans, construction site stormwater runoff and erosion,
sediment controls, establishing best management practices, such as site planning or structural controls, new technologies,
project siting criteria, and operating methods.
Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
Formed in 1993, Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP). MCSTOPPP is a joint effort of
Marin's cities, towns and unincorporated areas. Their goal is to:
• prevent stormwater pollution
• protect and enhance water quality in creeks and wetlands
• preserve beneficial uses of local waterways
• comply with State and Federal regulations
Though the County and each of the eleven cities and towns carry out their own individual stormwater pollution prevention
programs, MCSTOPPP provides for the coordination and consistency of approaches between the individual participants and
documents their efforts in annual reports. These reports include information on illegal discharges, street cleaning efforts,
creek maintenance, new development, and other issues of concern. MCSTOPPP prepared the Action Plan 2010 in May
2005, which serves as a stormwater management plan per the NPDES permit requirements and describes planned
MCSTOPPP activities for the period July 2005 through June 2010. MCSTOPPP has also prepared a planning and design
CONSERVATION
110 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
guide for post-construction best management practices. While MCSTOPPP provides guidance for compliance with NPDES
permitting, permit compliance is administered by the specific municipality in which the project is proposed.
Town of Tiburon General Plan
The existing Tiburon General Plan includes the following goals, policies, and implementing programs that address water
quality, supply, and conservation.
Resources Conservation Element
OSC-52. Water quality should be maintained or enhanced in order to promote the continued environmental health of natural
waterway habitats.
OSC-53. The Town shall continue to be an active member agency of the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Program (MCSTOPPP) to reduce pollution being conveyed through storm water systems to the Bay and to comply with
federal and state water quality regulations.
OSC-54. The Town shall promote the adoption and implementation of Start at the Source-Design Guidance Manual for
Stormwater Quality Protection and the most recent follow-up publication Using Site Design Techniques to Meet Development
Standards for Stormwater Quality: A Companion Document, both of which apply to new development and redevelopment
projects. These documents stress the incorporation of runoff and other pollutant source controls into the project design
process.
Town of Tiburon Municipal Code
Chapter 13E Water Efficient Landscape. As mandated under State Government Code Section 65595(c), certain new
construction, remodel, and rehabilitation projects that include landscape and irrigation improvements are required to comply
with water-efficient landscape requirements and monitoring of water usage for irrigation. The purpose of this chapter is to
comply with this state mandate regarding water-efficient landscaping. The ordinance contains provisions that include but are
not limited to, the following:
1. The application and monitoring of a "maximum applied water allowance" that is established for applicable projects.
2. The review of required landscape and irrigation plans, specifications and supportive documents prepared for
applicable projects for compliance with water-efficient landscape restrictions, including limitations on the type and
amount of landscape materials and plant species.
3. The review, inspection and approval of landscape and irrigation that is installed for applicable projects to ensure
compliance with the approved landscape and irrigation plans and specifications.
4. The post-installation monitoring of water usage for irrigation by applicable projects.
Chapter 14A Drainage Areas. This chapter is enacted for the purpose of establishing drainage fees to defray the actual or
estimated costs of constructing planned drainage facilities for the removal of surface and storm waters from local or
neighborhood drainage areas.
Chapter 17 Harbor and Waterways. This chapter establishes additional standards and regulations related to zoning, parks
and recreation and the obstruction, diverting, etc., of watercourses within the Town of Tiburon.
Chapter 20A Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention. The purpose of this chapter is to establish the legal authority required by
section E.6.a of the phase II stormwater permit and to ensure the future health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of
the Town of Tiburon and to protect and enhance watercourses, fish and wildlife habitat by:
1. Minimizing discharges other than storm runoff to storm drains or watercourses to the maximum extent practicable;
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 111
2. Responding to the discharge of spills, preventing and controlling the discharge of spills to storm drains or
watercourses and prohibiting dumping or disposal of materials other than stormwater;
3. Reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable;
4. Requiring operators of construction sites, new or redeveloped land, and industrial and commercial facilities to
install, implement, or maintain appropriate best management practices ("BMPs").
5. Requiring development projects to maintain or reduce the volume, velocity, peak flow rate and duration of runoff
as compared to the pre-development stormwater runoff and preventing stormwater pollution whenever possible,
through stormwater management controls and ensuring that these management controls are properly maintained.
6. Authorizing the town to take the foregoing and all other actions specified by Section E.6.a of the Phase II Small
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, Water Quality
Order No. 2013-0001—DWQ, General Permit No. CAS000004 ("Phase II Stormwater Permit") and subsequent
revisions and amendments thereto.
7. The intent of this chapter is to protect and enhance the water quality of our watercourses, water bodies, and wetlands
in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Clean Water Act, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
(California Water Code section 13000 et seq.), and the phase II stormwater permit and subsequent revisions and
amendments thereto.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGIONAL HYDROLOGY
The Planning Area is located in the Angel Island-San Francisco Bay Estuaries, Arroyo Corte Madera Del Presido-Frontal San
Francisco Bay Estuaries, Larkspur Creek-Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries, Redwood Creek-Frontal Pacific Ocean, and
Richardson Bay-San Francisco Bay watersheds. Elevations on the peninsula range from sea level to about 650 feet, and it is
drained by multiple small watersheds on the north and south sides. Raccoon Strait is present to the southeast of the peninsula
(separating it from Angel Island), Richardson Bay lies to the west and southwest, Belvedere Lagoon and Cove to the South,
and San Francisco Bay to the northeast.
CLIMATE
The Tiburon peninsula is located in the Mediterranean-type climate zone typical of coastal central California. This zone is
characterized by cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers, with almost all rain falling between the months of October and
April. The mean annual precipitation (MAP) in the region ranges from up to 50 inches at the highest points of Mount
Tamalpais to roughly 24 inches near the Town of Bolinas, with an average value of about 23 inches near Tiburon.
WATERSHEDS
A watershed is a region that is bound by a divide that drains to a common watercourse or body of water. Watersheds serve
an important biological function, oftentimes supporting an abundance of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife including special-
status species and anadromous and native local fisheries. Watersheds provide conditions necessary for riparian habitat.
The State uses a hierarchical naming and numbering convention to define watershed areas for management purposes. This
means that boundaries are defined according to size and topography, with multiple sub-watersheds within larger watersheds.
Table 6-1 shows the primary watershed classification levels used by the State. The second column indicates the approximate
size that a watershed area may be within a particular classification level, although variation in size is common.
CONSERVATION
112 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
TABLE 6-1. STATE WATERSHED HIERARCHY NAMING CONVENTION
WATERSHED LEVEL APPROXIMATE SQUARE MILES (ACRES) DESCRIPTION
Hydrologic Region
(HR)
12,735
(8,150,000)
Defined by large-scale topographic and geologic considerations. California is
divided into ten HRs.
Hydrologic Unit (HU) 672
(430,000)
Defined by surface drainage; may include a major river watershed,
groundwater basin, or closed drainage, among others.
Hydrologic Area (HA) 244
(156,000)
Major subdivisions of hydrologic units, such as by major tributaries,
groundwater attributes, or stream components.
Hydrologic Sub-Area
(HSA)
195
(125,000)
A major segment of an HA with significant geographical characteristics or
hydrological homogeneity.
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, 2012.
Hydrologic Region
Tiburon is located in the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region. The San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region covers
approximately 2.88 million acres (4,500 square miles) and includes all of San Francisco and portions of Marin, Sonoma,
Napa, Solano, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties. Significant geographic features include the
Santa Clara, Napa, Sonoma, Petaluma, Suisun-Fairfield, and Livermore valleys; the Marin and San Francisco peninsulas;
San Francisco, Suisun, and San Pablo bays; and the Santa Cruz Mountains, Diablo Range, Bolinas Ridge, and Vaca
Mountains of the Coast Range.
The San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region has 28 identified groundwater basins. Despite the tremendous urban development
in the region, groundwater use accounts for only about five percent (68,000 acre-feet) of the region’s estimated average
water supply for agricultural and urban uses, and accounts for less than one percent of statewide groundwater uses. The
Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers flow into the Delta and into San Francisco Bay. The Delta is the largest estuary on the
West Coast, receiving nearly 40 percent of the state’s surface water from the Sierra Nevada and the Central Valley. The
interaction between Delta outflow and Pacific Ocean tides determines how far salt water intrudes into the Delta. The resulting
salinity distribution influences the distribution of many estuarine fish and invertebrates, as well as the distribution of plants,
birds, and animals in wetlands areas.
The north lobe of San Francisco Bay is brackish and is known as San Pablo Bay. It is surrounded by Marin, Sonoma, Napa,
and Solano counties. Suisun Marsh is between San Pablo Bay and the Delta and is the largest contiguous brackish marsh
on the West Coast of North America, providing more than 10 percent of California’s remaining natural wetlands.
Local Watersheds (Hydrologic Sub-Areas)
Within the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region, the Planning Area is located in the Angel Island-San Francisco Bay
Estuaries, Arroyo Corte Madera Del Presido-Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries, Larkspur Creek-Frontal San Francisco Bay
Estuaries, Redwood Creek-Frontal Pacific Ocean, and Richardson Bay-San Francisco Bay watersheds as shown on Figure
6-1.
LOCAL DRAINAGE
The Department of Public Works is responsible for the maintenance and improvement of all public infrastructure owned and
managed by the Town. In addition to normal maintenance operations, they are a key agency in responding to emergencies
involving the Town’s infrastructure as well as weather related events and other disasters that have the potential for adverse
impacts to public health or the environment. Tiburon is responsible for maintaining the flood control system within the
incorporated area. In the unincorporated parts of the Planning Area, responsibility for storm drain maintenance lies with the
Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 113
The developed portions of the Tiburon Planning Area are primarily within three major watersheds: Angel Island-San
Francisco Bay Estuaries, Arroyo Corte Madera Del Presidio-Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries, and Larkspur Creek-Frontal
San Francisco Bay Estuaries. The Town is drained by multiple small watersheds on the north and south sides of the
Peninsula. Primarily water drains to the Town stormwater drainage system that runs under Tiburon Boulevard and outlets to
Raccoon Strait near the Ferry Terminal, or the secondary outlet which drains south to Belvedere Lagoon. Other portions of
Tiburon drain to Railroad Marsh, a pond/marsh feature that serves as a flood control feature.
Tiburon’s creeks are also a key part of the Town’s open space network. They are valuable physical, aesthetic, recreational,
and ecological assets. Protection of creeks not only preserves surface water quality, but also reduces flood risks, preserves
biodiversity and habitat, minimizes erosion of stream banks, and prevents downstream siltation.
STORMWATER QUALITY
Potential hazards to surface water quality include the following nonpoint pollution problems: high turbidity from sediment
resulting from erosion of improperly graded construction projects, concentration of nitrates and dissolved solids from
agriculture or surfacing septic tank failures, contaminated street and lawn run-off from urban areas, and warm water drainage
discharges into cold water streams.
The most critical period for surface water quality is following a rainstorm which produces significant amounts of drainage
runoff into streams at low flow, resulting in poor dilution of contaminates in the low flowing stream. Such conditions are
most frequent during the fall at the beginning of the rainy season when stream flows are near their lowest annual levels.
Besides the greases, oils, pesticides, litter, and organic matter associated with such runoff, heavy metals such as copper,
zinc, and cadmium can cause considerable harm to aquatic organisms when introduced to streams in low flow conditions.
Urban stormwater runoff was managed as a non-point discharge (a source not readily identifiable) under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500, Section 208) until the mid-1980's. However, since then, the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency has continued to develop implementing rules which categorize urban runoff as a point
source (an identifiable source) subject to NPDES permits. Rules now affect medium and large urban areas, and further
rulemaking is expected as programs are developed to meet requirements of Federal water pollution control laws.
Surface water pollution is also caused by erosion. Excessive and improperly managed grading, vegetation removal, quarrying,
logging, and agricultural practices all lead to increased erosion of exposed earth and sedimentation of watercourses during
rainy periods. In slower moving water bodies these same factors often cause a buildup of siltation, which ultimately reduces
the capacity of the water system to percolate and recharge groundwater basins, as well as adversely affecting both aquatic
resources and flood control efforts.
303(d) Impaired Water Bodies
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires States to identify waters that do not meet water quality standards or
objectives and thus, are considered "impaired." Once listed, Section 303(d) mandates prioritization and development of a
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The TMDL is a tool that establishes the allowable loadings or other quantifiable
parameters for a waterbody and thereby the basis for the States to establish water quality-based controls. The purpose of
TMDLs is to ensure that beneficial uses are restored and that water quality objectives are achieved.
San Francisco Bay (Central), with 70,405 assessed acres, and Richardson Bay, with 2,439 assessed acres, are listed by the
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board as having limited water quality, as required by the Clean Water Act,
Section 303(d). Table 6-2 identifies each pollutant identified for San Francisco Bay (Central) and Richardson Bay, along
with the final listing decision, TMDL status, expected TMDL completion date, U.S. EPA TMDL approval date (for approved
TMDLs), and potential sources. Pollutants within the Planning Area include Chlordane, a synthetic viscous toxic compound
used as an insecticide; DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), another a synthetic viscous toxic compound used as an
insecticide; Dieldrin, another a synthetic viscous toxic compound used as an insecticide; Mercury, a naturally-occurring
CONSERVATION
114 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
chemical element used in the production of other chemicals; Selenium, a mineral found in the soil; Invasive Species, an
organism that causes ecological or economic harm in a new environment where it is not native; Dioxin Compounds, a group
of highly toxic chemical compounds that are harmful to health; Furan Compounds, a heterocyclic organic compound used
in the creation of other chemicals that can be harmful to the immune system and reproductive development; and PCBs
(Polychlorinated biphenyls), which are highly toxic industrial compounds that pose serious health risks to fetuses, babies
and children, who may suffer developmental and neurological problems from prolonged or repeated exposure.
TABLE 6-2. PLANNING AREA IMPAIRED WATER BODIES
POLLUTANT FINAL LISTING DECISION TMDL STATUS1 EXPECTED TMDL COMPLETION2
USEPA TMDL APPROVAL DATE3
POTENTIAL SOURCES
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CENTRAL
PESTICIDES
Chlordane Do Not Delist from 303(d)
list 5A 2013 Unknown
DDT
(Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroet
hane)
Do Not Delist from 303(d)
list 5A 2013 Unknown
Dieldrin Do Not Delist from 303(d)
list 5A 2013 Unknown
Metals/Metalloids
Mercury
Do Not Delist from 303(d)
list (USEPA approved
TMDL)
5B 2008-02-12
Atmospheric Deposition,
Industrial Point Sources,
Municipal Point Sources,
Natural Sources, Nonpoint
Sources, Resource Extraction
Selenium
Do Not Delist from 303(d)
list (USEPA approved
TMDL)
5B 2016-08-23 Unknown
Miscellaneous
Invasive Species List on 303(d) list 5A 2019 Unknown
Other Organics
Dioxin compounds
(including 2,3,7,8-TCDD)
List on 303(d) list 5A 2019 Unknown
Furan Compounds List on 303(d) list 5A 2019 Unknown
PCBs (Polychlorinated
biphenyls)
Do Not Delist from 303(d)
list (USEPA approved
TMDL)
5B 2010-03-29 Unknown
Trash
Trash List on 303(d) list 5A 2021 Unknown
RICHARDSON BAY
Pesticides
Chlordane List on 303(d) list 5A 2013 Unknown
DDT
(Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroet
hane)
List on 303(d) list
5A 2013 Unknown
Dieldrin List on 303(d) list 5A 2013 Unknown
Other Organics
Dioxin compounds
(including 2,3,7,8-TCDD) List on 303(d) list 5A 2019 Unknown
Furan Compounds List on 303(d) list 5A 2019 Unknown
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 115
PCBs (Polychlorinated
biphenyls)
List on 303(d) list (being
addressed by USEPA
approved TMDL)
5B 2010-03-29 Unknown
PCBs (Polychlorinated
biphenyls) (dioxin-like)
List on 303(d) list (being
addressed by USEPA
approved TMDL)
5B 2010-03-29 Unknown
PCBs (Polychlorinated
biphenyls) (dioxin-like)
List on 303(d) list (being
addressed by USEPA
approved TMDL)
5B 2010-03-29 Unknown
Miscellaneous
Invasive Species List on 303(d) list 5A 2019 Unknown
Fecal Indicator Bacteria
Indicator Bacteria
List on 303(d) list (being
addressed by USEPA
approved TMDL)
5B 2009-12-18 Unknown
Metals/Metalloids
Mercury
List on 303(d) list (being
addressed by USEPA
approved TMDL)
5B 2008-02-29 Unknown
1: TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TDML)
2: DETERMINATION THE LOADING CAPACITY OF THE WATERBODY AND ALLOCATION OF LOAD AMONG DIFFERENT POLLUTANT SOURCES.
3: APPROVED TMDL WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS GENERALLY BECOME IMPLEMENTED THROUGH EPA’S NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMITS UNDER CWA SECTION 402.
SOURCE: STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, FINAL 2014/2016 CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED REPORT (CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 303(D)
LIST / 305(B) REPORT)
Groundwater
According to the California Department of Water Resource’s Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool, there are no
groundwater basins are identified within the Tiburon Planning Area. Therefore, the Tiburon Planning Area is not considered
a groundwater recharge area. The nearest groundwater basin to the Tiburon Planning Area is the Ross Valley Groundwater
Basin located approximately 0.5 miles northwest of Ring Mountain.
REFERENCES
State Water Resources Control Board, CalEPA. 2012. California Lakes and Reservoirs Impaired by Mercury.
<http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/mercury/reservoirs/>.
California Water Quality Control Monitoring Council, CalEPA. 2013. Which Lakes, Streams, or Ocean Locations Are Listed
By The State As Impaired? Available at:
<http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/mywaterquality/safe_to_eat/impaired_waters/>.
California Department of Water Resources. 2016. Bulletin 118, California’s Groundwater, 2016 Update.
California Department of Water Resources. 2021. Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool. Available at:
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office for Coastal Management. Coastal Zone Management Act. 2019.
Available at: <https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/act/>.
Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta Estuary. December 2018.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. San Francisco Bay Plan. January 2008.
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
P
ar
a
d
i
s
e
Dr
Tib
uro
n
Blvd
S p encerAve
T r e s tle G l e n B l v d
Mai
n S t
Bridgeway
B e l v e d er e Dr
E
S
t
r
a
w
b
e
r
r
y
D
r
C e n t r o E a stSt
S t e w a r t D r
B l a c k f i e l d D r
Vista
zo
W
estSt
A venid a Mira f l o r e s
Paradi s e D r
L y f o r d D r
M a r WestSt
R i d g e R d
R e ed R a n c h R
d
Centro
W
e
s
t
St
G
eld
e
r
t
D
r
Hi
l
a
r
y
D
r
P a r a d i s e D r
B e a c h R d
Belvedere Cove
Richardson Bay
San Francisco Bay
Belvedere
Lagoon
¯0 ½¼
Miles
TIBURON
BELVEDERE
SAUSALITO
MILL
VALLEY
CORTE MADERA
Angel Island
LEGEND
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Sphere of Influence
Tiburon Planning Area
Watersheds
Angel Island-San Francisco Bay Estuaries
Arroyo Corte Madera Del Presidio-Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries
Larkspur Creek-Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries
Redwood Creek-Frontal Pacific Ocean
Richardson Bay-San Francisco Bay
Hydrography
Artificial Path or Connector
Ephemeral Stream (rain-dependent)
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Intermittent Stream (seasonal)
Lake or Pond
Reservoir
Swamp or Marsh
Sources: ArcGIS Online World Hillshade Map Service; USGS Watershed Boundary Dataset; USGS National Hydtrography Dataset. Map date: January 4, 2021. Revised March 2, 2021.
Figure 6-1: Watersheds Map
£¤101
UV131
£¤101
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 117
This page left blank intentionally.
CONSERVATION
118 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
7 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
This section provides an overview of the visual character, scenic resources, views, and scenic highways that are encountered
within the Planning Area and the vicinity. For information on historical structures and resources, see Section 1 (Cultural and
Historic Resources).
KEY TERMS
Scenic Highway Corridor. The area outside of a highway right-of-way that is generally visible to persons traveling on the
highway.
Scenic Highway/Scenic Route. A highway, road, drive, or street that, in addition to its transportation function, provides
opportunities for the enjoyment of natural and human-made scenic resources and access or direct views to areas or scenes
of exceptional beauty (including those of historic or cultural interest). The aesthetic values of scenic routes often are protected
and enhanced by regulations governing the development of property or the placement of outdoor advertising. Until the mid-
1980’s, General Plans in California were required to include a Scenic Highways Element.
View Corridor. A view corridor is a highway, road, trail, or other linear feature that offers travelers a vista of scenic areas
within a city or county.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
STATE
California Department of Transportation – California Scenic Highway Program
California's Scenic Highway Program was created by the Legislature in 1963 to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors
from change, which would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. The State laws governing the Scenic
Highway Program are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Section 260 et seq. The State Scenic Highway System
includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been so designated. These
highways are identified in Section 263 of the Streets and Highways Code.
LOCAL
Town of Tiburon General Plan
The Tiburon General Plan sets forth policy guidelines for decision making on issues related to development and conservation
in the Town. Goals and policies related to aesthetics are contained in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the
Tiburon General Plan. Additionally, the Downtown Element contains goals and policies related to aesthetics that are specific
to the Downtown area. Public and private open space designated by the General Plan are shown in Figure 7-1.
In addition to the goals, policies, and implementing programs listed below, the Open Space and Conservation Element
establishes Significant Ridgelines as shown on Figure 7-2 to implement Resolution 2859 (see following discussion).
Open Space and Conservation Element
Goals
OSC-A: To maximize, protect, preserve and enhance the Town's unique open space and natural beauty.
OSC-C: To permanently protect to the maximum extent feasible, the unique open space character of the Town which is
attributable to its large amounts of undeveloped land and open water.
OSC-E: To manage the Town's open spaces for the benefit of the entire community.
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 119
Policies
OSC-1: The Town shall strive to permanently preserve through setbacks, dedication, purchase, easement, or other
appropriate means exceptional structures, sites, open space and sensitive environmental resources. The Town shall strongly
encourage the permanent protection of open space through conveyance of fee title to an appropriate government agency or
land trust; by easement; deed restriction; or other appropriate mechanism acceptable to the Town.
OSC-2: In considering whether open space land shall be dedicated to the Town or other public entity, the benefits to the
community of public ownership shall be weighed against the costs of management efforts and other liabilities associated
with owning the land.
OSC-3: The Town shall strive to secure, through trail easements that connect to other public trails or through other
appropriate mechanisms, public access to those portions of open space land most appropriate for public use.
OSC-4: Public or private open space shall be permanently protected. It is the Town's general policy that publicly-owned
open space land will not be traded or sold.
OSC-5: The Town hereby establishes a goal that a minimum of 50% of the area of lands designated as Planned Development
- Residential shall be preserved as permanent open space.
OSC-6: The Town prefers clustering of lots in new subdivision design to maximize the preservation of open space to the
greatest extent feasible. However, where the Town determines that a project would better conform to the goals and policies
of the General Plan, "estate lot" type development (i.e., large homes on large lots) may be considered. Easement, deed
restriction, or other appropriate mechanism acceptable to the Town shall be used to preserve open space within common
areas or individual lots.
OSC-7: Where possible, land that is proposed for preservation as permanent open space shall be contiguous to existing
open space and/ or open space areas that may in the future be permanently preserved.
OSC-8: Where appropriate, greenbelts shall be required to separate development areas or to link open space areas.
OSC-9: Undeveloped ridgelines have overriding visual significance to the Town. In balancing open space interests with
development interests, the protection of predominantly undeveloped ridgelines shall have the highest priority.
OSC-10: Development and the construction of buildings and yard improvements associated with development, including
landscaping and trees, shall be set back a minimum of 150 horizontal feet of either side of Tiburon Ridge.
OSC-11: Development and the construction of buildings and yard improvements associated with development, including
landscaping and trees, shall be set back a minimum of 50 vertical feet of either side of Tiburon Ridge, measured from the
highest point of the roofline of a structure or tree.
OSC-12: Development shall be set back from Significant Ridgelines. Setbacks shall be based on an evaluation of the following
characteristics: Local and regional visual prominence, ability to connect to existing or potential open space, potential to act
as a neighborhood separator, views of and views from, length, height, presence of trees, presence of unusual physical
characteristics, highly visible open slopes, significant vegetation, sensitive habitat, special silhouette or back-drop features,
difficulty of developing or accessing, and integrity of the ridgeline land form.
OSC-13: Roads and utilities constructed along or across the Tiburon Ridge or Significant Ridgelines shall be strongly
discouraged. If no other vehicular access is viable, crossing of ridges shall be minimized and shall be as near to perpendicular
to the ridgeline as possible.
CONSERVATION
120 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
OSC-28: Principal vistas, viewpoints, and view corridors on land subject to development shall be identified and preserved
to the maximum extent feasible.
OSC-29: Open space views from key roadways, including Tiburon Boulevard, Trestle Glen Boulevard, and Paradise Drive,
shall be protected through the permitting process.
OSC-30: Development shall be encouraged in areas where it least interferes with views of and views from open space to
the maximum extent feasible.
OSC-31: The preservation of visual qualities, views, and the view potential of the natural and built environment shall be a
major consideration of the Town in any development project review.
OSC-32: The Town shall protect visual access to the bayfront and scenic vistas of water and distinct shorelines through its
land use and development review procedures, to the greatest extent feasible.
Downtown Element
Goals
DT-A: To preserve and enhance the historical attributes and small-town village character of Downtown that exists on Main
Street and Ark Row.
DT-C: To encourage greater pedestrian activity and enjoyment of life in Downtown while respecting surrounding residential
uses.
Policies
DT-11: Maintain Shoreline Park's historic Donahue Building (currently the Railroad/Ferry Museum) as a public use.
DT-13: In order to encourage pedestrian use and enjoyment of the street, the Town shall discourage commercial office uses
from occupying street-fronting ground floor space suitable for retail and restaurants in new or redeveloped buildings in the
Upper Tiburon Boulevard area.
DT-16: In order to encourage pedestrian use and enjoyment of Main Street, the Town shall discourage commercial office
uses from occupying ground floor space suitable for retail and restaurants on Main Street and Ark Row.
DT-17: Throughout Downtown. New buildings or alterations to existing buildings in the Downtown should substantially
adhere to the guidelines set forth in the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook.
DT-18: Throughout Downtown. Street furniture and street lighting shall be high quality and consistent with the guidelines
established in the Site Furnishings Supplement to the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook, and shall be installed only in
locations that will enhance use and enjoyment of sidewalks, parks, pedestrian corridors, plazas and other public areas.
DT-19: Throughout Downtown. Character defining elements of buildings listed on the Town's Inventory of Local Historical
Buildings (Resolution No. 07-2001 as amended) shall be retained, preserved, and restored wherever feasible.
DT-20: Throughout Downtown. Encourage public art in those locations in Downtown where it is appropriate.
DT-21: Main Street. New construction and remodeling of buildings shall be architecturally compatible with, and contribute
to, the village character of Main Street, the principal features of which are described in the Downtown Tiburon Design
Handbook.
DT-22: Main Street. New construction and remodeling shall respect both the well-defined streetscape of Main Street and
the street's maritime environment.
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 121
DT-23: Ark Row. Public and private improvements (including signs) shall be compatible with and not compromise Ark Row's
historic resources and its unique character.
DT-24: Ark Row. The historic arks, cottages, and other resources of Ark Row shall be retained and rehabilitated consistent
with recommended actions provided in applicable sections of The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation &
Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
DT-25: Tiburon Boulevard. New buildings shall observe a setback of 25 to 30 feet from the curb, with entrances visible to
the motorist and welcoming to the pedestrian, to create an engaging, pedestrian-friendly environment. Where possible,
frontage improvements including wider sidewalks and street trees on both sides of the street should be installed consistent
with the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook.
DT-27: Tiburon Boulevard. The visual presence and location of on-site parking spaces are to be made secondary to building
storefronts, entrances, and street orientation. Locating parking behind buildings will be required wherever possible.
DT-28: Tiburon Boulevard. A mix of two-and three-story buildings is encouraged for new construction.
DT-29: Point Tiburon. The prevailing design theme and sign program established at the Point Tiburon Plaza should be
retained to ensure a harmonious and consistent appearance within this commercial center.
Implementation Measures
DT-a: The Tiburon Zoning Ordinance shall be revised to be consistent with the goals and policies of this Element and to
implement the guidelines of the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook.
DT-b: Adopt a property maintenance ordinance for Downtown that will require that public and private improvements
(including signs) be kept in good repair.
DT-d: Over the long-term, implement installation of streetscape improvements to Tiburon Boulevard's public right-of-way as
described in the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook. These improvements may include, but are not limited to, widening
sidewalks to a minimum of eight feet; providing a landscaped planter strip between sidewalks and streets on both sides of
Tiburon Boulevard; installing new street trees in these planter strips; and replanting the existing median strip with
lower-growing vegetation.
DT-e: Facilitate the long-term future improvement of the four corner properties at the intersection of Tiburon Boulevard and
Beach Road and adjacent sites.
DT-f: The Town shall adopt a street furniture/ outdoor seating plan for Main Street, with possible future extension of the plan
to other areas of Downtown.
DT-g: The Town shall adopt a resolution designating the former Northwestern Pacific Railroad Yard palm tree· as a protected
tree.
DT-h: Consider installation of a Downtown Tiburon entry sign/ planter area at an appropriate location.
DT-i: Consider adoption of a public art ordinance and establishment of a community program to encourage public art where
appropriate.
Town of Tiburon Municipal Code
Chapter 15 - View and Sunlight Obstruction from Trees. The purposes of this chapter are to establish standards and
regulations in order to preserve views from unreasonable obstruction and establish a process by which impacted persons
may seek restoration of obstructed views by growth of trees.
CONSERVATION
122 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
Chapter – 16a Signs. The provisions of this chapter establish and regulate the location, size, type and number of signs
allowed within the Town of Tiburon, and guide the design, aesthetics, materials, and illumination of signs within the Town
of Tiburon.
Section 16.30.070, Lighting, establishes standards and regulations related to exterior lighting. This section is to ensure
lighting does not invade the privacy of other properties or produce glare or light pollution.
Section 16-52.020, Site Plan and Architectural Review, of the Tiburon Municipal Code provides standards for a Design
Review process for development in the Town. The purpose of site plan and architectural review is to ensure that the design
of proposed construction and new land uses assists in maintaining and enhancing Tiburon’s character. Specifically, the site
plan and architectural review process ensures that new uses and structures are compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood; retains and strengthens the visual quality and character of the Town; and ensures that construction complies
with all applicable Town standards and guidelines, and does not adversely affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or
natural resources.
Section 16-23.060, Historic Protection Overlay Zone Allowable Uses and General Development Standards, of the Tiburon
Municipal Code provides standards for development within the HPO (Historic Protection Overlay) Zone. The purpose of the
HPO zone is to protect, maintain and enhance historic structures in the downtown area that are included in the Town's local
historic inventory of buildings located in downtown Tiburon ("Inventory"), as adopted by resolution of the Town Council and
amended from time to time. The HPO zone is intended to safeguard the Town's heritage as embodied and reflected in the
buildings listed in the inventory.
Town Council Resolution 2859
In 1992, the Town Council adopted a Resolution (2859) which affirmed that "in balancing open space interests with
development interests decision-makers shall consider the protection of ridgelines to the maximum extent feasible to be of
the highest priority." The Resolution also designated other Significant Ridgelines to be subject to General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance policies and regulations concerning "ridgelines, significant ridgelines, and secondary ridgelines." The Significant
Ridgelines designated by Town Council Resolution 2859 are shown on Figure 7-2.
Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook
The Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook is intended to serve as a guide for the retention, revitalization, and new
construction of buildings, storefronts, and streetscapes in Downtown Tiburon. The Handbook consists of goals, basic design
concepts, and design guidelines. While the guidelines address many specific design elements, they differ from absolute
standards found in ordinances, and are nonprescriptive in nature. Their major objective is to promote the development of
recognizable building designs and site furnishings consistent through the Downtown and responsive to Tiburon’s historic
legacy.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGIONAL SCENIC RESOURCES
Visual resources are generally classified into two categories: scenic views and scenic resources. Scenic views are elements
of the broader viewshed such as mountain ranges, valleys, and ridgelines. They are usually mid-ground or background
elements of a viewshed that can be seen from a range of viewpoints, often along a roadway or other corridor. Scenic
resources are specific features of a viewing area (or viewshed) such as trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. They
are specific features that act as the focal point of a viewshed and are usually foreground elements.
Aesthetically significant features occur in a diverse array of environments within the region, ranging in character from urban
centers to rural agricultural lands to natural water bodies. Features of the built environment that may also have visual
significance include individual or groups of structures that are distinctive due to their aesthetic, historical, social, or cultural
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 123
significance or characteristics. Examples of the visually significant built environment may include bridges or overpasses,
architecturally appealing buildings or groups of buildings, landscaped freeways, and a location where a historic event
occurred.
Within the greater regional context of Marin County, there are 3 federal parks, 7 state land parks, 459 acres of County-owned
parks, and 1,491 acres of local parks owned by local municipalities. Approximately 85 percent of the park land is provided
by the Point Reyes National Seashore and the Golden Gate National Recreational Area federal lands. There are also a handful
of facilities operated by private non-profit organizations. In addition, 464 linear miles of trails are open to the public, including
26 miles of paved pathways. Marin County has many open space and watershed lands that are generally protected for
environmental purposes and are not available for active recreation. However, these lands provide valuable open space visual
resources of the world-famous Pacific Ocean coastline, redwood forests, and natural landforms. The county and local
municipality-owned parks situated within the built environment offer natural areas, trails, water features, and visual breaks
within urban environments.
Marin County has 34 open space preserves providing 14,675 acres of ridgelands, baylands, and environmentally sensitive
lands with 175 miles of trails and fire roads available for public use. Many of these open space lands are located near
residential communities providing not only habitat for wildlife but visual resources for the nearby communities.
Tiburon is located on the Tiburon Peninsula, surrounded on three sides by the San Francisco Bay, Raccoon Straits, and
Richardson Bay. From the San Francisco Bay, the Tiburon Peninsula rises steeply to the Tiburon Ridge, which extends from
Ring Mountain (elevation 602 feet) at the western edge of the Town through Mount Tiburon (elevation 748 feet) in the
eastern part of the Tiburon Peninsula. Angel Island, a State Park located within the Town limits, rises from San Francisco
Bay to a height of 788 feet at Mount Livermore. The southwest facing side of the Tiburon Peninsula, overlooking Richardson
Bay, consists primarily of open spaces and sloping grasslands. The north-facing side, overlooking San Francisco Bay and
San Pablo Bay is sparsely developed and steep with dense tree cover over much of the area. The central spine of the Tiburon
Ridge is an important feature that defines the geographic context of the Town.
SCENIC HIGHWAYS AND CORRIDORS
Scenic highways and corridors make major contributions to the quality of life enjoyed by the residents of a region. The
development of community pride, the enhancement of property values, and the protection of aesthetically pleasing open
spaces reflecting a preference for the local lifestyle are all ways in which scenic corridors are valuable to residents.
Scenic highways and corridors can also strengthen the tourist industry. For many visitors, highway corridors will provide
their only experience of the region. Enhancement and protection of these corridors ensures that the tourist experience
continues to be a positive one and, consequently, provides support for the tourist-related activities of the region's economy.
Scenic Highways: A scenic highway is generally defined by Caltrans as a public highway that traverses an area of outstanding
scenic quality, containing striking views, flora, geology, or other unique natural attributes. A highway may be designated
scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape,
and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view.
Scenic Corridors: A scenic corridor is the view from the road that may include a distant panorama and/or the immediate
roadside area. A scenic corridor encompasses the outstanding natural features and landscapes that are considered scenic.
It is the visual quality of the man-made or natural environments within a scenic corridor that are responsible for its scenic
value. Commonly, the physical limits of a scenic corridor are broken down into foreground views (zero to one quarter mile)
and distant views (over one quarter mile). In addition to distinct foreground and distant views, the visual quality of a scenic
corridor is defined by special features, which include:
• Focal points - prominent natural or man-made features which immediately catch the eye.
CONSERVATION
124 Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions
• Transition areas - locations where the visual environment changes dramatically.
• Gateways - locations which mark the entrance to a community or geographic area.
Many of the roadways throughout Marin County and within proximity to Tiburon offer views of some of the County’s most
scenic resources. There are currently no designated State Scenic Highways or National Scenic Byways within the Planning
Area. However, the entire stretch of State Route 1 and sections of U.S. 101 running through Marin County, and within a mile
of the Planning Area, are eligible to be a State Scenic Highway. The criteria for official designation and eligibility includes
the scenic quality of the landscape, how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, and to the extent to which
development intrudes upon the traveler’s enjoyment of the view. The Planning Area is visible from both roadway segments.
RIDGELINES
Ridgelines are defined as a line formed along the highest points of a mountain ridge, or as an area of higher ground
separating two adjacent streams or watersheds. Besides water, ridgelines are the most visually defining open space attribute
in the Planning Area. Ridgelines also provide the greatest opportunity for community scenic value. Public access to the
Tiburon Ridge and Significant Ridgelines in the Planning Area, as designated by the Resolution 2859 by the Town Council
and as shown on Figure 7-2, allows community members to enjoy unique views within the Town. Significant ridgelines,
including these at the end of the Tiburon Peninsula, have been identified by the Town and their protection has been given
the highest priority in the Open Space & Conservation Element of the Town’s General Plan.
OPEN SPACE AND OTHER SCENIC RESOURCES AREAS
Public parklands and open space land uses largely contribute to the visual environment of Tiburon and Marin County.
However, the community character of the built environment also plays a crucial role in defining the visual environment. While
Mount Tamalpais State Park encompasses the most dominant natural landform in the county, other visually prominent
ridgelines are designated within the Ridge and Upland Greenbelt areas. Restrictions are placed on development in these
areas to protect the visual quality of the ridgelines, hills, and view corridors. This includes Angel Island and hillside areas
within the Planning Area.
Communities within Marin County, including Tiburon, have traditionally strived to design compact villages, towns and cities
that blend with the surrounding natural and agricultural landscapes. By encouraging residential development near city or
town centers, walkable neighborhoods maintain a pedestrian-scale heritage, such as Tiburon with its urban waterfront areas,
designed to promote public use with residential communities nearby. Tiburon has a special visual character that benefits
from attractive building design and layouts. County and local ordinances have protected nearby ridgeline and viewsheds. By
regulating urban and rural design standards, new structures, additions, lighting, signs, landscaping, infrastructure and other
design elements can offer visual resources by complementing existing character and the surrounding natural environment
and view corridors. When the scenic qualities of the built environment are protected, residents and visitors can enjoy a
distinctive visual environment.
Tiburon has a unique visual environment with an attractiveness and diversity of landscape that includes views of open space,
ocean vistas, Richardson Bay shoreline, San Francisco Bay shoreline, hills and ridgelines, agriculture lands, stands of various
types of trees and other natural features. The Railroad Marsh area, Old Saint Hilary’s Open Space Preserve, Middle Ridge,
Ring Mountain Open Space Preserve, and other areas within Tiburon are designated as Public Open Space by the Tiburon
General Plan. As previously described, ridgelines are also described in the Tiburon General Plan as the most visually defining
open space attribute and greatest opportunity for community scenic value in the Tiburon Planning Area. Figure 7-1 shows
public and private open space and parks and recreation areas within the Planning Area.
Water and shoreline resources are important visual resources that draw tourists to the area for recreational opportunities,
provide critical habitat, and provide for scenic areas within and surrounding urban areas. The most visually significant water
bodies in the Planning Area are the Richardson and San Francisco Bays which forms the southwestern and northern
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 125
boundaries of the Tiburon Peninsula, respectively. The appearance of the Bay, and people's enjoyment of it as a scenic
resource, contribute to the enjoyment of daily life in the Bay Area. As a special kind of open space, the Bay acts as both the
unifying element of the entire Bay region and as a physical divider of its parts. The wide surface of the Bay, and the distant
vistas it affords, offer relief from the crowded, often chaotic, urbanized scene and help to create a sense of psychological
well-being.
Another one of the visual attractions of San Francisco Bay is its abundance of wildlife, particularly birds and other special
status species which are constantly moving around the Bay waters, marshes, and mudflats in search of food and refuge.
Wildlife refuges like the Audubon Society Wildlife Refuge, located in the Planning Area, provide scenic areas where wildlife
can congregate and move freely.
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 community,
and their contribution to residential privacy and quiet.
Wetlands are not only important for habitat; sediment, erosion and pollution control; flood storage; water recharge; recreation
and scientific research; and education; but also, for their scenic value. Wetlands are among the most important land-based
qualities of open space because they of their abundance of unique ecosystems and wildlife. In addition, views from or across
water give the Planning Area a regional open space value.
Furthermore, for the same reasons, streams and riparian habitat are an important scenic resource and are a critical
component of high quality habitat. Woody vegetation provides shade that keeps water temperatures within tolerable ranges
for aquatic organisms, stabilizes streambanks and floodplains, and provides protective cover for wildlife. They also offer
unique areas to recreate and explore.
Overall, the Town has approximately 1,309 acres of open space within the Planning Area. Figure 7-2 provides an overview
of visual and scenic characteristics of the Planning Area, including ridge and upland greenbelt areas, areas with significant
tree cover, Tiburon Ridge and significant ridgelines, streams, and wetland/riparian features.
LOCAL VIEW CORRIDORS
The Open Space and Conservation Element specifically contains policies that call for the protection and preservation of view
corridors and open space views from key roadways, including Tiburon Boulevard, Trestle Glen Boulevard, and Paradise
Drive. These roadways are identified on Figure 7-2.
REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation. 2019. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available: <
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways>.
Town of Tiburon. Tiburon General Plan. September 7, 2005.
Marin County. Marin Countywide Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report. November 2007.
Marin County. Marin Countywide Plan. November 6, 2007.
P
ar
a
d
i
s
e
Dr
Tib
uro
n
Blvd
S p encerAve
T r e s tle G l e n B l v d
Mai
n S t
Bridgeway
B e l v e d er e Dr
E
S
t
r
a
w
b
e
r
r
y
D
r
C e n t r o E a stSt
S t e w a r t D r
B l a c k f i e l d D r
Vista
zo
W
estSt
A venid a Mira f l o r e s
Paradi s e D r
L y f o r d D r
M a r WestSt
R i d g e R d
R e ed R a n c h R
d
Centro
W
e
s
t
St
G
eld
e
r
t
D
r
Hi
l
a
r
y
D
r
P a r a d i s e D r
B e a c h R d
Belvedere Cove
Richardson Bay
San Francisco Bay
Belvedere
Lagoon
¯0 ½¼
Miles
TIBURON
BELVEDERE
SAUSALITO
MILL
VALLEY
CORTE MADERA
Angel Island
LEGEND
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Sphere of Influence
Tiburon Planning Area
Public Open Space
Private Open Space
Park and Recreation
Audubon Society Wildlife Refuge
Tiburon Ridge Trail
Other Trail
Sources: ArcGIS Online World Hillshade Map Service; Marin County GIS. Map date: November 29, 2020. Revised March 2, 2021.
Figure 7-1: Open Space Resources
£¤101
UV131
£¤101
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 127
This page left blank intentionally.
P
ar
a
d
i
s
e
Dr
Tib
uro
n
Blvd
S p encerAve
T r e s tle G l e n B l v d
Mai
n S t
Bridgeway
B e l v e d er e Dr
E
S
t
r
a
w
b
e
r
r
y
D
r
C e n t r o E a stSt
S t e w a r t D r
B l a c k f i e l d D r
Vista
zo
W
estSt
A venid a Mira f l o r e s
Paradi s e D r
L y f o r d D r
M a r WestSt
R i d g e R d
R e ed R a n c h R
d
Centro
W
e
s
t
St
G
eld
e
r
t
D
r
Hi
l
a
r
y
D
r
P a r a d i s e D r
B e a c h R d
Belvedere Cove
Richardson Bay
San Francisco Bay
Belvedere
Lagoon
¯0 ½¼
Miles
TIBURON
BELVEDERE
SAUSALITO
MILL
VALLEY
CORTE MADERA
Angel
Island
LEGEND
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Sphere of Influence
Tiburon Planning Area
Ridge and Upland Greenbelt
Trees
Tiburon Ridge
Significant Ridgeline
Stream
Scenic Road
Wetland
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
Lake
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Sources: ArcGIS Online World Hillshade Map Service; Marin County GeoHub; City of Tiburon General Plan. Map date: December 22, 2020. Revised March 2, 2021.
Figure 7-2: Visual and Scenic Characteristics
£¤101
UV131
£¤101
CONSERVATION
Create Tiburon 2040: Existing Conditions 129
This page left blank intentionally.
1
Samantha Bonifacio
From:Kris Wyek
Sent:Monday, August 22, 2022 11:50 AM
To:Samantha Bonifacio
Subject:FW: 4576 paradise dr
Respectfully,
Kris Wyek
Planning Technician
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435-7390
www.townoftiburon.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Joan Foedisch <joanfoedisch@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 4:25 PM
To: Kris Wyek <kwyek@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: 4576 paradise dr
[You don't often get email from joanfoedisch@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Kris,
The owner of that land has already taken down so many trees I sincerely hope, unless the trees are unhealthy that you
will not allow more trees to come down.
We finally have some our birds back after losing their nesting trees.
Thank you,
Joan Foedisch
1
Samantha Bonifacio
From:Dina Tasini
Sent:Thursday, July 7, 2022 5:16 PM
To:Samantha Bonifacio
Subject:FW: Site Visit at 4576 Paradise and Next Steps
Dina Tasini
Director of Community Development
Town Of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435‐7393
www.townoftiburon.org
From: Eric Crandall <eric94920@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 3:51 PM
To: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: Fwd: Site Visit at 4576 Paradise and Next Steps
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dina,
Here's the email I received from CDFW regarding nesting birds. You can see that they recommend work be done between September 1 and January 31 to avoid nesting season. If work is done between February 1 and August 31, then they ask for a nesting bird survey to be done within 7 days of when work will commence.
Thanks,
Eric
-----Original Message----- From: Culpepper, Amanda(Mandy)@Wildlife <Amanda.Culpepper@Wildlife.ca.gov> To: ERIC CRANDALL <eric94920@aol.com> Sent: Tue, Apr 26, 2022 10:47 am Subject: RE: Site Visit at 4576 Paradise and Next Steps
Hi Eric,
Thanks for reaching out regarding CDFW’s typical nesting bird protections. Fish and Game Code sections protecting birds, their eggs, and nests include sections 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession or needless destruction of the nests or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird). CDFW generally recommends working outside the nesting season (approximately February 1 to August 31) to avoid impacting nesting birds. If activities will be conducted during the nesting season, then nesting bird surveys should occur within 7 days prior to the activity. If nesting birds are located at or near the project site, then appropriate no-work zone buffers should be put in place, size dependent on species, to avoid impacts, or the activities may need to be delayed until after the nesting has finished. Below I’ve provided recent measures from a CDFW Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement that provide nesting bird protection requirements.
2
1.1 Nesting Bird Surveys. If construction, grading,
vegetation removal, or other Project-related activities are
scheduled during the nesting season, February 1 to August
31, a focused survey for active nests shall be conducted by
a Qualified Biologist within 7 days prior to the beginning of
Project-related activities. The results of the survey shall be
sent to CDFW by email prior to the start of Project
activities, for review and acceptance. If an active nest is
found, Permittee shall consult with CDFW regarding
appropriate action to comply with Fish and Game Code. If a
lapse in Project-related work of 7 days or longer occurs,
another focused survey and, if needed, consultation with
CDFW, shall be required before Project work can be
reinitiated.
1.2 Active Nest Buffers. If an active nest is found during
surveys, Permittee or the Qualified Biologist shall consult
with CDFW regarding appropriate action to comply with
state and federal laws. Active nest sites shall be designated
as “Ecologically Sensitive Areas” (ESA) and protected
(while occupied) during Project work by demarking a “No
Work Zone” around each nest site.
Buffer distances for bird nests shall be site specific
and an appropriate distance, as determined by a
Qualified Biologist. The buffer distances shall be
specified to protect the bird’s normal behavior to prevent
nesting failure or abandonment. The buffer distance
recommendation shall be developed after field
investigations that evaluate the bird(s) apparent distress
in the presence of people or equipment at various
distances. Abnormal nesting behaviors which may cause
3
reproductive harm include, but are not limited to,
defensive flights/vocalizations directed towards Project
personnel, standing up from a brooding position, and
flying away from the nest. The Qualified Biologist and
Biological Monitor shall have authority to order the
cessation of all nearby Project activities if the nesting
birds exhibit abnormal behavior which may cause
reproductive failure (nest abandonment and loss of eggs
and/or young) until an appropriate buffer is established.
The Qualified Biologist shall monitor the behavior of
the birds (adults and young, when present) at the nest
site to ensure that they are not disturbed by project work.
Nest monitoring shall continue during Project work until
the young have fully fledged (have completely left the
nest site and are no longer being fed by the parents), as
determined by the Qualified Biologist. Any reduction in
monitoring active nests must be approved in writing by
CDFW.
1.3 Nesting Habitat Removal or Modification. No habitat
removal or modification shall occur within the ESA-marked
nest zone (see above measure) until the young have fully
fledged and will no longer be adversely affected by the
Project, as determined by a Qualified Biologist or Biological
Monitor. Any trees or shrubs that are removed shall be
“downed” in such a manner as to minimize disturbance to
stable soil conditions.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions or need further information. Best, Mandy Amanda Culpepper (she) Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) | CESA Compliance California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 3: Bay Delta Region (707) 428-2075* | amanda.culpepper@wildlife.ca.gov 2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100, Fairfield, CA 94534
4
*This is a temporary phone number associated with my previous position.
From: ERIC CRANDALL <eric94920@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 5:49 PM
To: Culpepper, Amanda(Mandy)@Wildlife <Amanda.Culpepper@Wildlife.ca.gov>
Subject: Re: Site Visit at 4576 Paradise and Next Steps
WARNING: This message is from an external source. Verify the sender and exercise caution when clicking links or
opening attachments.
Mandy, No worries. Thanks for getting back to me and congratulations on what looks like a promotion. Can we do Tuesday at 10am? My number is (415) 250-4434. Thanks, Eric
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 21, 2022, at 5:05 PM, Culpepper, Amanda(Mandy)@Wildlife <Amanda.Culpepper@wildlife.ca.gov> wrote:
Hi Eric, Apologies for the delay! I’m transitioning to a new position and things are hectic. I have availability next week on Tuesday 4/26 and Wednesday 4/27 any time between 8:30 and 4:30. Let me know what time works best for you and I can give you a call. Best, Mandy Amanda Culpepper (she)
Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) | CESA Compliance California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 3: Bay Delta Region (707) 428-2075* | amanda.culpepper@wildlife.ca.gov 2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100, Fairfield, CA 94534 *This is a temporary phone number associated with my previous position.
From: Eric Crandall <eric94920@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 3:54 PM
5
To: Culpepper, Amanda(Mandy)@Wildlife <Amanda.Culpepper@Wildlife.ca.gov>
Subject: Re: Site Visit at 4576 Paradise and Next Steps
WARNING: This message is from an external source. Verify the sender and exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments.
Mandy,
I hope everything is good with you. Thank you for taking the time to speak with Alex Oritiz, my engineer, regarding my property. I was wondering if I might be able to arrange a time to speak with you? Let me know what works for you, and I should be able to make it work on my end. Thanks,
Eric Crandall
-----Original Message----- From: Culpepper, Amanda(Mandy)@Wildlife <Amanda.Culpepper@Wildlife.ca.gov> To: eric94920@aol.com <eric94920@aol.com> Cc: Swaney, Jerrad@Wildlife <Jerrad.Swaney@wildlife.ca.gov> Sent: Mon, Feb 7, 2022 6:14 pm Subject: Site Visit at 4576 Paradise and Next Steps
Hello Eric, Apologies for my delay in getting back to you after meeting you on February 1, 2022 at your property. I have attached a summary of my site visit to 4576 Paradise Drive with recommended next steps. I will also be forwarding this to BCDC to ensure we are all communicating and coordinating. Information about CDFW’s Lake and Streambed Alteration Program is available on our website. The online system for obtaining a permit from CDFW is called the Environmental Permit Information Management System (EPIMS). Fees for Lake or Streambed Alteration notification are updated annually in the California Code of Regulations. Fees are based on the cost of the project. In 2022, the minimum fee for a standard agreement is $645 for projects that cost less than $5,000 and the maximum fee is $5,748.75 for projects that cost $350,000 or more. As we discussed, your neighbor should notify CDFW of the tree removal activities once Town of Tiburon has approved the tree removal permit and prior to removing the trees. Please let me know if you have questions. Best, Mandy Amanda Culpepper (she) Environmental Scientist | Marin & Solano Counties California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(707) 428-2075 | amanda.culpepper@wildlife.ca.gov 2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100, Fairfield, CA 94534
CDFW is transitioning to the Environmental Permit Information Management System (EPIMS), an online system, for all Lake or Streambed Alteration (LSA) Notifications. CDFW now only accepts Notifications
through EPIMS.
August 24, 2022
>
>
> Kris Wyek
> Planning Technician
> Town of Tiburon
> 1505 Tiburon Blvd.
> Tiburon, CA 94920
>
> RE: Eucalyptus tree removal at 4576 Paradise Dr.
>
> Hi Kris,
>
> My name is Bob Emrich. I am in favor of removing the seven blue gum eucalyptus trees at 4576 Paradise Drive.
> These trees are one of the most fire intensive plants in Marin county. They not only put a lot of fire fuel on
> the ground as they shed bark, leaves and twigs, but in intense fires, volatile compounds in foliage cause
>explosive burning.
>
> Why are they still there? Because they are so large, the sheer cost of removing them is the biggest factor. Even
> though they have been ID’d as a problem, the cost to take a large eucalyptus down is very expensive, much to
> the dismay of local residents and fire departments.
>
> In my opinion, the fact that Steven Hendricks is willing to pay for the expense of removing these huge trees is a
>blessing to the nearby neighborhood and the surrounding community.
>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> Bob Emrich
> FIRESAFETEAM.COM
> 415-390-2711
1
August 24, 2022
RE: 4576 Paradise Dr. Tree Removal, Notice of Public Hearing (Thurs, Sept 1, 2022)
Dear Dina, Design Review Board, and the Town of Tiburon,
We are writing to you again in response to the proposed tree removal permit application for
4576 Paradise Dr.
Our concerns for this proposal are as follows:
(1) Proper erosion mitigation plan and prevention of more destruction to the shoreline:
As you may be aware, In January of 2022, BCDC issued a violation to Mr. Crandall for
“extraction and placement of fill materials to form trenches exacerbating beach erosion and
sedimentation into the Bay.”* It is our understanding that Mr. Crandall is required to work
closely with BCDC/Water board and other expert agencies to restore the shoreline to its original
state. Mr. Crandall has yet to act and is still under violation with BCDC for the erosion caused
by his property.
We realize the location of the proposed trees are outside of BCDC’s jurisdiction. Therefore, we
kindly urge and request that the Town of Tiburon requires Mr. Crandall to work with civil
engineers/other experts who have the scope, expertise, and knowledge of how to prevent
further erosion, sedimentation, and potential wash out. The current state of the shoreline has
been detrimentally affected by Mr. Crandall’s disregard for grading and removing trees (some
without permits) during the last 2+ years, which we can assume contributed to the erosion
caused.
To further support and validate changes seen to the bottom of the Bay floor along the
shoreline, we hired a civil engineer to measure the changes from the erosion. It was found
that the waterway’s topography has changed from 2020 to 2022; new measurements indicate
that the “ground’s surface on the westerly bank is higher, and the water channel is slightly
lower at an elevation of about 1 foot when compared to the 2020.”** [see diagram at end of
this letter, provided by CSW ST2 Civil Engineer]
We understand that sediment changes, but we must consider the erosion caused by Mr.
Crandall, which is supported by BCDC’s violation to the property owner. Without proper
erosion mitigation, how can the Town of Tiburon approve all these trees to be removed? Much
of the Crandall property is on a downward slope, with multiple homes in Paradise Cay sharing a
border. What happens when another washout occurs with the next heavy rainstorm? Not only
does erosion and sedimentation have negative effects on the Bay, but there is also much
concern for flooding, especially for those homes located upland from the water channel.
Since the last notice provided to the community, has the applicant provided any expert reports
or environmental studies? Has the applicant or property owner provided erosion prevention
plans? Mr. Crandall reported to the County that his civil engineer, Mr. Alex Ortiz, “didn’t
believe anything needed to be done” regarding the erosion. Please note Mr. Ortiz’s assertions
2
about the erosion along the shoreline were dismissed by BCDC, as his claims “[lacked]
foundation, based on an inadequate review of evidence, and are outside the scope of the
author’s expertise.”*** We hope that the Town of Tiburon will consider this and will require
further studies to be provided with this tree removal application.
Lastly, as I mentioned in my last letter, the community has accumulated photos/videos of
shoreline changes and runoffs from 4576 Paradise Dr, streaming downward, for your reference
if needed.
(2) Protection of Natural Habitat of Wildlife:
The Paradise Cay community can vouch that the tree removal proposal includes those that
serve as nesting habitats for wildlife birds. The community has photos of these nesting birds
over the years, and it is very unfortunate that the presence of these birds has diminished
drastically due to Mr. Crandall's previous tree cutting. Has this tree removal application been
approved by the appropriate wildlife conservation agencies? Please see attached in this letter,
photos of the wildlife birds that nest in the trees located on 4576 Paradise Drive.
(3) Privacy:
We would like to better understand how privacy of neighbors is considered during the process
of tree removal in the Town of Tiburon.
We kindly ask that you consider our concerns with high regard before approving future tree
removal. We thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Massey-Kim
103 Trinidad Drive. Tiburon. / cynslim@gmail.com
_____________________________________________________________________________
Available upon request:
*Quote 1: BCDC Violation letter to Mr. Crandall, dated Jan 19, 2022
**Quote 2: CSW ST2 Civil Engineer Report, dated July 2022
***Quote 3: BCDC Violation letter to Mr. Crandall, dated March 18, 2022
3
Image below indicates changes of ground surface of Bay floor:
Images of wildlife birds nesting in trees located on 4576 Paradise Dr:
4
From: Joyful Date: August 24, 2022 at 11:12:22 AM PDTTo: kwyek@townoftiburon.comSubject: Fwd: Tree removal 4576 Paradise
Hello Kris While walking my dog after meeting you this morning I found the email I sent in January regarding the trees to be removed. Hope this helps and can be included in the staff report. Thank you, Joy Graustark
Joy
Begin forwarded message:
From: JoyfulDate: January 24, 2022 at 11:29:55 AM PSTTo: dtasini@townoftiburon.orgSubject: Tree removal 4576 Paradise
Hello Ms. Tasini
I received the Town of Tiburon letter from you on Saturday. The tree removal, noise, erosion and wildlife habitat removal has been of great concern to me and my Paradise Cay neighbors.
I am especially saddened by the disturbance and removal of Great Blue Heron and Night Crown Heron nests and habitat that they have been returning to year after year……. The last nest appears to be on the chopping block this time right in view of my kitchen and backyard. I will include some photos of the birds and the change of landscape since this summer. Birds have been coming back this month to check things out before mating season- an amazing sight.
Please re-examine the approved permit and consider the neighbors, privacy, erosion and the wildlife.
Thank you, Joy Graustark (119 Trinidad)
Please note the tree/habitat removal since 5/21. (Newest photos listed first)
Joy
1
Samantha Bonifacio
From:Kris Wyek
Sent:Thursday, August 25, 2022 1:20 PM
To:Samantha Bonifacio
Subject:FW: Tree removal 4576 Paradise Drive, public hearing, Sept. 1, 2022
Respectfully,
Kris Wyek
Planning Technician
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435‐7390
www.townoftiburon.org
From: Julie Schwach <jcs213@mac.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 1:02 PM
To: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>; Kris Wyek <kwyek@townoftiburon.org>; Doug Haight
<dhaight@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: Tree removal 4576 Paradise Drive, public hearing, Sept. 1, 2022
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Dina, Kris, Doug, and the Town of Tiburon,
I am writing to express our concerns for the proposed tree removal permit application for 4576 Paradise Drive, Tiburon. I
know you are aware of the many frustrations Mr. Crandall has imposed upon the Paradise Cay community, additional
tree removal can now be added to our very long list of complaints and grievances that we as a community have already
submitted to you in writing, by phone and in person. Our concerns are as follows:
1. Protection of the Natural Habitat for Wildlife: (Below) is a list of documented bird sightings I have made over the last
23 years as a resident of Paradise Cay. I also have documented photographs/videos of many of these birds nesting and
feeding along the shoreline. Have any Nest Surveys been taken to assure the safety and preservation of the nesting
habitats for these wildlife birds from the trees proposed for removal? Please let me know if you would like me to submit
any photographs/videos for your reference.
Bird sightings from 99 Trinidad Drive (Paradise Cay):
Great Blue Heron
You don't often get email from jcs213@mac.com. Learn why this is important
2
Black‐crowned Night Heron
Great Egret
Snowy Egret
Black Oystercatcher
Black‐necked Stilt
American Avocet
Red‐shouldered Hawk
Red‐tailed Hawk
California Gull
Western Gull
Long‐billed Curlew
Long‐billed & Short‐billed Dowitcher
Double‐crested Cormorant
Plovers
Spotted Sandpiper
Killdeer
Mallard
American White Pelican
Brown Pelican
Green‐winged Teal
Common Merganser
Western Grebe
American Bittern
American Goldfinch
Yellow Warbler
Hermit Warbler
2. Shoreline erosion: We have lived in Paradise Cay for over 23 years. The deteriorating and erosion of the shoreline
since Mr. Crandall has lived at 4576 Paradise Drive has been substantial. Has the Town of Tiburon contacted any civil
engineers or other environmental experts to examine the impact of the proposed tree removal to the shoreline and or
properties in Paradise Cay? Over the past 2 years the shoreline erosion was detrimentally affected by his previous tree
removal (without permit). The water runoff from the storms this past winter due to tree removal destroyed the
shoreline and changed the structure of the channel along Paradise Cay. It is predicted that Northern California will be
facing a 2022‐2023 La Niña winter. Have changes in weather patterns been considered regarding the proposed tree
removal and the impact on the shoreline and our Paradise Cay neighborhood? Our community has accumulated many
photos/videos depicting shoreline changes and erosion caused by 4576 Paradise Drive for your reference if needed.
3. Privacy: How might the privacy of our neighbors in Paradise Cay be affected by the proposed tree removal?
We hope that you take our concerns (as a community) seriously as you review Mr. Crandall’s application for tree
removal. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Julie Schwach
99 Trinidad Drive, Tiburon
jcs213@me.com
1
Samantha Bonifacio
From:Dina Tasini
Sent:Thursday, August 25, 2022 2:14 PM
To:Samantha Bonifacio
Subject:Fwd: Proposed tree removal at 4576 Paradise drive
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Richard Schwach <rickdvm@gmail.com>
Date: August 25, 2022 at 5:07:28 PM EDT
To: Dina Tasini <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>, Doug Haight <dhaight@townoftiburon.org>, Kris Wyek
<kwyek@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: Proposed tree removal at 4576 Paradise drive
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dina,
I am writing to you and the town off Tiburon regarding the proposed tree removal by Eric Crandall at
4576 Paradise Drive. I have read the proposal and I am aware that Crandall has stated that the neighbor
has requested topping and removing trees to improve their view corridor from their property above
him. Before any approval for tree topping or removal occurs, it is very important that your staff
reviewing this request fully understand the impact this may have on the property, the shoreline, and the
habitat living in the trees to be cut.
Prior to this proposal by Mr. Crandall, he has removed many trees illegally without permits and it has
had a very serious detrimental effect on his property and our shoreline. His property has a very
significant downslope from Paradise drive to the waters edge. The trees that he has already remove and
those that he is now wanting to top have had a very important role in providing a canopy effect during
rain storms to diffuse the falling of the water. Without the canopy, the rain rushes down his property in
a river to the shoreline. The erosion we have seen since Crandall has moved in has been deplorable.
We have lived here for 23 years and have experienced many heavy downpours. Because of the large
expansive canopy effect of the Eucalyptus trees he wants to top there was no run off and no erosion of
the shoreline for all this time. Now that he has removed the trees and canopy effect without providing
proper drainage down his property, the shoreline is being destroyed. As you know he and his LLC are
being fined daily by BCDC because of his reckless behavior of shoreline destruction and failure to correct
the water flow on his property.
Now that he has been annexed into the town of Tiburon and is no longer under the rules of the county,
we as a concerned neighborhood are asking you and the town of Tiburon to take Crandall’s behaviors
seriously and understand that he is affecting the quality of life and property values of all of our homes
here in Paradise Cay.
2
Before a permit is issued on this property, the town should make a visit with a civil engineer to
appreciate the slope of the property and understand that he has done nothing to improve water flow
and drainage to the water’s edge. The environmental impact of tree topping and removal is to be taken
very seriously on this particular property for all the reasons stated above.
Thank you for taking our concerns for his proposed action seriously. It has been so sad to see what he
has done to destroy this once beautiful property and tremendous bird habitat we all have cherished and
enjoyed.
Sincerely,
Richard Schwach DVM, MS
From:Racheal Turner
To:Dina Tasini; Doug Haight; Kris Wyek; Town
Subject:Public Hearing re: Tree Removal - 4576 Paradise Drive
Date:Friday, August 26, 2022 4:53:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Ms. Tasini and Town of Tiburon officials,
I write to express my concerns re: the tree removal proposal for the property located at 4576 Paradise
Drive. If you can please include my email with the staff report, and for the Design Boards Review, that
would be greatly appreciated.
I believe the Town is already aware of all of these issues due to detailed complaints w/ supporting
evidence submitted by my neighbors, so I'll keep my email very short / high level. I'm happy to provide
any additional detail you might need.
Tree Cutting: before being annexed into the Town, the LLC cut down a substantial number of trees,
including very large trees and trees with bird nests in them. This resulted in loss of privacy, as well as
detrimental impact to the environment. It also meant weeks (literally, not exaggerating here) of noise
pollution - chainsaws, wood chippers, etc. I am working from home because my workplace is still remote
due to covid, and working from home with all that noise right next door was a serious problem. I'm
concerned that more tree cutting will mean more noise, loss of privacy, negative impacts to the
environment, etc.
Harm to Bird Wildlife: there used to be a number of big, very cool sea birds that nested in the trees on
that property, but the trees with their nests were cut down. I believe my neighbors have sent photos.
Erosion & Pollution into the Bay: without trees to protect / hold the soil, the rainstorms this year brought
mudslides from the LLC's property into the bay, along with a bunch of bricks that the LLC had put in.
There's now a substantial amount of dirt and debris blocking / impeding water and wildlife from coming
into the part of the bay that extends behind my home. Again, I believe you have photographic evidence
already. The LLC should be required to dredge that part of the bay to return it to its prior condition.
Loss of Privacy / Beauty: with so many trees gone, I can now easily see into the property and see the
random items being stored there. For example, I can easily see a boat trailer (without the boat).
Thank you in advance for hearing my concerns.
Thanks,
Racheal Turner
111 Trinidad Dr.
Tiburon, CA 94920
PH-3 Late Mail #1 (received 8/26/2022)
From:Mark Lonning
To:Kris Wyek
Subject:Fw: 4576 Paradise Drive - Tree Removal
Date:Monday, August 29, 2022 12:42:02 PM
You don't often get email from mlonning@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
August 29, 2022
Re: 4576 Paradise Drive – Tree Removal
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in support of the proposed tree removal at 4576 Paradise Drive in
Tiburon. I see no legitimate reason that the small number of non-native trees should
not be removed. The removal will actually improve the site. An abundance of similar
trees will remain and the objections from neighbors that I have seen, do not appear to
be valid or sincere in nature.
Sincerely,
Mark Lonning
65 Red Hill Circle
Tiburon, CA 94920
PH-3 Late Mail #2 (received 8/29/2022)
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Toni Beauchamp
Kris Wyek
Scott; Dina Tasini
4576 Paradise Drive Tree Removal, Notice of Public Hearing (Thurs, Sept 1, 2022)
Friday, August 26, 2022 6:16:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon:
As adjacent neighbors to the 4576 Paradise Drive property, we are responding to the proposed
tree removal permit application and have outlined our concerns below:
Erosion and damage to the shoreline:
We understand the desire by the requested party to have unobstructed views of the bay from
their home, but we fear that the removal of additional trees on this property will cause further
damage to the shoreline and bay.
Over the past two years, we have witnessed the dramatic change to the shoreline and waterway
behind our home from other tree removal on this property. The owners of the 4576 Paradise
Drive property, Sierra Pines LLC and the Crandall family, cleared many trees and brush when
the land was under the County jurisdiction, and not part of the Town of Tiburon yet.
Unfortunately, we do not believe that any expert assessment was completed before that tree
work was done to show that the tree removal and clearing of the property would not do harm
to our shoreline or bay. As such, when there were heavy storms last year, the washout caused
tremendous erosion and destruction along the shoreline. There are visible changes to the
elevation of the ground, the waterline, and now bricks and other debris have washeddown onto the shore.
BCDC has already reviewed the damage and a violation has been ruled against Mr.Crandall and Sierra Pines LLC since January 2022. To resolve the violation, Mr.Crandall and Sierra Pines LLC are to hire a qualified Storm Water Pollution PreventionPlan Developer to prepare a remediation plan for BCDC approval and to implementsuch plan once approved. As of today, we do not believe that Mr. Crandall or SierraPines has resolved their violation and fines are still accumulating.
Knowing that BCDC has already assessed the beach damage and erosion fromactivities on this property, we ask that a qualified expert (deemed by the Town ofTiburon or BCDC) first review the plan for the trees removal and confirm that bydoing so a future rain storm may not cause further damage, erosion, and/ordestruction to the bay and shoreline below 4576 Paradise Drive.
We believe, and fear, that this erosion to the shoreline not only has affected ouraccess to the waterway behind our home, but may lead to a change to its overallvalue if we do not still have the same access to the bay in future years.
Protection of Wildlife:
PH-3 Late Mail #3 (received 8/26/2022)
In addition, the trees on the 4576 Paradise Dr. property have long been a naturalhabitat for wildlife birds. The nesting birds return to the same nests in the same trees
each year. We have photos and evidence of their return for each nesting season on
the 4576 Paradise Drive property. Unfortunately, we've seen the number of birds andwildlife diminish since other tree cutting has occurred on this property. As such, hasthe effect on this natural habitat and nesting season been evaluated by theappropriate agency regarding the removal of these trees?
We love our neighborhood and the beauty of its surroundings and nature. Although
we do not necessarily want to stand in the way of neighbors wishing to improve their
views, we also would like them to be familiar with any habitats and wildlife they may
be negatively impacting in the process of their requested improvements. Especially in
regards to any excess land erosion or fill that may end up in the bay and tidal inlets as
a direct result of clearing trees on uphill properties.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
Please call if you have any questions. Thank you.
Scott and Toni Beauchamp107 Trinidad Dr.Tiburon, CA 94920415-789-5275310-880-7475310-880-7258
From:
To:
Richard Schwach
Dina Tasini; Doug Haight; Kris Wyek
Subject:Re: Proposed tree removal at 4576 Paradise drive
Date:Monday, August 29, 2022 4:57:15 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from rickdvm@gmail.com. Learn why this is
important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
In writing this letter of concern, I later realized I did not indicate where I reside. My apologies
I live at 99 Trinidad Dr. in Paradise Cay
My property line is in contact with the shoreline that is being destroyed by Mr. Crandall’s negligence.
Sincerely,
Richard Schwach DVM, MS
> On Aug 25, 2022, at 2:07 PM, Richard Schwach <rickdvm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dina,
>
> I am writing to you and the town off Tiburon regarding the proposed tree removal by Eric Crandall at 4576
Paradise Drive. I have read the proposal and I am aware that Crandall has stated that the neighbor has requested
topping and removing trees to improve their view corridor from their property above him. Before any approval for
tree topping or removal occurs, it is very important that your staff reviewing this request fully understand the impact
this may have on the property, the shoreline, and the habitat living in the trees to be cut.
>
> Prior to this proposal by Mr. Crandall, he has removed many trees illegally without permits and it has had a very
serious detrimental effect on his property and our shoreline. His property has a very significant downslope from
Paradise drive to the waters edge. The trees that he has already remove and those that he is now wanting to top have
had a very important role in providing a canopy effect during rain storms to diffuse the falling of the water. Without
the canopy, the rain rushes down his property in a river to the shoreline. The erosion we have seen since Crandall
has moved in has been deplorable.
>
> We have lived here for 23 years and have experienced many heavy downpours. Because of the large expansive
canopy effect of the Eucalyptus trees he wants to top there was no run off and no erosion of the shoreline for all this
time. Now that he has removed the trees and canopy effect without providing proper drainage down his property,
the shoreline is being destroyed. As you know he and his LLC are being fined daily by BCDC because of his
reckless behavior of shoreline destruction and failure to correct the water flow on his property.
>
> Now that he has been annexed into the town of Tiburon and is no longer under the rules of the county, we as a
concerned neighborhood are asking you and the town of Tiburon to take Crandall’s behaviors seriously and
understand that he is affecting the quality of life and property values of all of our homes here in Paradise Cay.
>
> Before a permit is issued on this property, the town should make a visit with a civil engineer to appreciate the
slope of the property and understand that he has done nothing to improve water flow and drainage to the water’s
edge. The environmental impact of tree topping and removal is to be taken very seriously on this particular property
for all the reasons stated above.
>
> Thank you for taking our concerns for his proposed action seriously. It has been so sad to see what he has done to
PH-3 Late Mail #4 (revision to attachment 22
in the staff report, received on 8/29/2022 )
destroy this once beautiful property and tremendous bird habitat we all have cherished and enjoyed.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Richard Schwach DVM, MS
1
Samantha Bonifacio
From:
Sent:Monday, August 22, 2022 1:48 PM
To:Samantha Bonifacio
Subject:4576 Paradise Drive
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Ms. Tasini,
We are the owners of 4480 Paradise Drive which is adjacent to 4576 Paradise Drive.
We understand that a tree removal permit has been submitted by the owners of 4575 Paradise Drive in order to restore
their views.
We are writing in support of this application, and would like to see the Town of Tiburon grant the permit. Our views are
precious, and a huge part of the value of our properties. Eucalyptus grow extremely fast, are invasive, and are also a fire
hazard.
Removing these trees will provide benefits not just to the applicants, but to the property owner, as well as the rest of the
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Caroline and Arne Kristensen
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
PH-3 Late Mail #5 (received 8/22/2022)(omitted from staff report in error)
1
Samantha Bonifacio
From:Mark Lonning
Sent:Monday, August 29, 2022 12:18 PM
To:Samantha Bonifacio
Subject:4576 Paradise Drive - Tree Removal
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
August 29, 2022
Re: 4576 Paradise Drive – Tree Removal
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in support of the proposed tree removal at 4576 Paradise Drive in Tiburon. I see no
legitimate reason that the small number of non-native trees should not be removed. The removal will
actually improve the site. An abundance of similar trees will remain and the objections from
neighbors that I have seen, do not appear to be valid or sincere in nature.
Sincerely,
Mark Lonning
65 Red Hill Circle
Tiburon, CA 94920
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
PH-3 Late Mail #6 (received 8/29/2022)
From: Robert Frick <
Date: Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 8:24 PM
Subject: Eucalyptus tree removal 4576 Paradise Drive
To: <dtasini@townoftiburon.org>
Ms. Tasini,
I've reviewed the tree removal application submitted by Hendricks for tree removal at 4576 Paradise
Drive, and I wanted to write in and voice my support for this project.
The removal of these eucalyptus trees will be beneficial not only for the applicant's views, but for
the entire Tiburon Peninsula. As a long time resident of Paradise Drive, I've watched these
eucalyptus grow like weeds on this property, creating a huge fire hazard for all of us. The removal of
these trees is a big step in the right direction.
I further support the removal of these trees because doing so is restoring the applicant's views. Our
views here are very special, and none of us want them taken away. The Town has gone so far as to
create a view ordinance to allow a property owner's views to be restored. It sounds as if the
applicant and the property owner are a perfect example of how the view ordinance should be
applied.
I hope the Town does what's right for the applicant and the community and grants this tree removal
permit.
Sincerely,
Robert Frick
5060 Paradise Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
--
Thank you,
Eric Crandall
Field One Paintball
(415) 324-4050 main line
(415) 324-4052 direct line
(415) 324-4051 fax
PH-3 Late Mail #7 (received 7/29/2022)
(omitted from staff report in error)
Kris,
After reading the Staff Report for our application, there appeared to be a bit of confusion. I’d like
to take a moment to try and clarify things ahead of the Design Review Board meeting Thursday.
When we submitted our application for tree removal, we included all the tree work we planned to
do. This was removing a total of 11 trees, and trimming an additional 4 trees.
We were advised that five of the trees on the application did not require a permit. These trees
are included in the arborist report, and shown on the site plan, but do not require a permit, and
so are not part of this application.
Below is the site plan done by the arborist showing all the trees being removed or trimmed.
PH-3 Late Mail #8 (received 8/30/2022)
The table to the left lists each tree, and
whether a permit is required.
The trees listed in green do not require a
permit.
The trees listed in red do require a permit.
Trees 12, 13, 14, and 15 are only being
trimmed.
I apologize for the confusion. In hindsight, I
should have probably submitted a revised
arborists report showing just the trees on the
application.
To clarify, this application is for removal of 6 Blue Gum Eucalyptus and 1 Canary Island Palm. It
is also for trimming of 1 Coast Redwood, 1 Coast Live Oak, and 1 Blue Gum Eucalyptus.
I hope this letter clears up any confusion regarding which trees are part of our application.
Sincerely,
Steven Hendricks
From:Eric Crandall
To:Kris Wyek
Subject:Hendricks Tree Removal Application
Date:Tuesday, August 30, 2022 5:33:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Kris,
We wanted to write to you regarding the Hendricks' tree removal application on the property we own at
4576 Paradise Drive. We would like to let the Design Review Board know that, as the property owners,
we support the Hendricks' application to remove trees on our property to restore their views.
Shortly after we bought our 10 acre property, a mutual friend asked us to reach out to the Hendricks', our
neighbors across the street, as they wanted to talk to us about tree removal on our property.
We did, and Steve Hendricks let us know that they were very interested in removing some trees that were
blocking their view of the Bay. We told him we were open to working with him, but wanted to be clear on
which trees were being removed. Steve's property was in Tiburon, and ours was in the County pending
annexation, so we discussed the Tiburon view ordinance, and how it might apply to our situation.
Over the course of a few months, Steve showed us pictures from his property, and came down to our
property so we could both get a clear understanding of the work he wanted to do. We had some concerns
about privacy, safety, and habitat. In addition to discussing the work he was proposing with each other,
we also brought out two different arborists to get their opinions, as well as a biologist.
We learned from the arborists that when trees are topped, you are significantly shortening the life of the
tree, and the new growth can get big, but will be weak, creating a hazard. In short, it seemed clear that
topping was not an option that made sense for us. The biologist assured us that any birds that may use
those trees would be back since we have plenty of other trees on the property. She did alert us to avoid
tree work during the nesting season (February-August). She also let us know that getting the eucalyptus
out of there would help to restore the native habitat.
I'd like to add that we intend to plant some native trees in the area where these trees are being removed.
We have been looking for drought tolerant natives who are fast growing, don't grow too tall, and provide
habitat. At the moment we're thinking about Dogwood or Wax Myrtle, but haven't made a final decision.
After a few months of talks, we had a loose agreement with the Hendricks for them to remove trees on
our property to restore their views. There were some trees that we were ok with, and some others that we
were going to make a final decision on as the work progressed. The process was very amicable, and both
of us were looking to find a solution that could work for all parties.
We believe our arrangement is an example of how the Tiburon View Ordinance is supposed to work.
Steve began getting quotes for the work, a process which took quite some time. We're told many of the
quotes were six figures, and not what the Hendricks' were looking for. Ultimately they found a tree service
they were happy with and work started.
Our property was annexed into Tiburon, and when we asked if the tree work in progress could be
finished, we were told the work needed to stop. The work was stopped immediately, and the Hendricks'
applied for a permit with the Town to continue the work.
The tree removal will not only benefit them, but will also help us in our ongoing process to clean up our
PH-3 Late Mail #9 (received 8/30/2022)
property and make it more fire safe. Our property had been in the same family for 140 years before we
purchased it, and the family hadn't been there in more than 20 years, so there was lots of "deferred
maintenance". We got a visit from the fire department within a month of purchasing the property, and they
gave us some goals for the first year, which I'm happy to say we exceeded. Unfortunately, our work still
isn't done, but we are working diligently to make our property fire safe for our family, and the rest of the
community.
Eucalyptus put a huge amount of debris on the ground, so the removal of these eucalyptus will greatly
reduce the fuel on our property.
We know a handful of our neighbors have expressed their opposition to this work being done. There were
also some letters of support, and I know there are even more neighbors who have been very happy with
our efforts to clean up our property.
Unfortunately, some of the neighbors enjoyed this property being vacant for the the 20+ years before we
bought it, and don't like that we're living here and making improvements. We've been asked to stay off
portions of our property by three different neighbors who feel our use of portions of our property invades
their privacy. We've even received a letter from a neighbors lawyer claiming that we were trespassing
while on our own property, and claiming that the boundary survey that had been done (by the previous
owner of their property) couldn't be relied on. We were told a new survey was forthcoming, but that never
happened.
Some neighbors have made repeated reports to all sorts of authorities, including the Town. These claims
include bee poop on their houses, our Christmas lights being light pollution, and us removing trees in
violation of existing rules. If you are curious, Town staff may be able to provide you some additional
information on the claims that have been made and the outcome of those claims. While we don't believe
any of these unproven allegations are relevant, they have been brought up, so we wanted to give you
some background.
We intend to attend the Zoom meeting, so if you have any questions for us, please feel free to ask.
Again, we fully support the removal on the trees on the Hendricks' application, and hope you will allow the
removal to proceed.
Thank you,
Danielle and Eric Crandall
From: Jeff Marples
To: Kris Wyek
Subject: RE: Eucalyptus tree removal at 4576 Paradise Dr.
Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 8:51:32 AM
Hi Kris,
RE: Eucalyptus tree removal at 4576 Paradise Dr.
It most likely is none of my business but I heard about the potential removal of the Eucalyptus trees
at 4576 Paradise. I wanted to put my two cents in on the matter.
I grew up with these trees on our family lot and they are a potential danger both from falling as well
as fire. These trees have very shallow root systems and fall in severe wind storms. As you most likely
know they are very large and heavy trees, potentially causing significant danger if falling. We had 16
of these trees on our lot and now they are all gone, primarily due to wind storms over the years. The
last tree that fell was a neighbors and came within a foot of the roofline, no joke, it was a foot. It
destroyed the surrounding our patio and fence line on 2 sides.
You might also know that these trees are a fire dangers as they shed bark that often times is left on
the ground. It just takes one careless act of a smoker or lightning strike to start an inferno. That
hillside is getting drier and drier, and this only adds to putting more fuel on a potential blaze.
The cost of removing these trees has got to be a heavy chunk of change and if the resident is willing
to pay for the removal, I would support that. These trees are not native to the area. I know they are
inhabited but some birds but trees are everywhere and I’m sure they can find a new spot to nest.
Thank you for the time.
Always here to help advise you and your friends. Thank you,
Jeffrey Marples
Broker / 415.336.9695 / DRE:#01329244
SanFranciscoCondoMania is still best source to search Condos / TIC / Co-Ops in San
Francisco!
From: Jeff Marples
To: Kris Wyek
Subject: RE: Eucalyptus tree removal at 4576 Paradise Dr.
Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 8:51:32 AM
Hi Kris,
RE: Eucalyptus tree removal at 4576 Paradise Dr.
It most likely is none of my business but I heard about the potential removal of the Eucalyptus trees
at 4576 Paradise. I wanted to put my two cents in on the matter.
I grew up with these trees on our family lot and they are a potential danger both from falling as well
as fire. These trees have very shallow root systems and fall in severe wind storms. As you most likely
know they are very large and heavy trees, potentially causing significant danger if falling. We had 16
of these trees on our lot and now they are all gone, primarily due to wind storms over the years. The
last tree that fell was a neighbors and came within a foot of the roofline, no joke, it was a foot. It
destroyed the surrounding our patio and fence line on 2 sides.
You might also know that these trees are a fire dangers as they shed bark that often times is left on
the ground. It just takes one careless act of a smoker or lightning strike to start an inferno. That
hillside is getting drier and drier, and this only adds to putting more fuel on a potential blaze.
The cost of removing these trees has got to be a heavy chunk of change and if the resident is willing
to pay for the removal, I would support that. These trees are not native to the area. I know they are
inhabited but some birds but trees are everywhere and I’m sure they can find a new spot to nest.
Thank you for the time.
Always here to help advise you and your friends. Thank you,
Jeffrey Marples
Broker / 415.336.9695 / DRE:#01329244
SanFranciscoCondoMania is still best source to search Condos / TIC / Co-Ops in San
Francisco!
PH-3 Late Mail #10 (received 8/31/2022)
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16 8 9/1/22
Chair Berger said he has used mineral cap roofs and they can be very handsome if properly applied. They are made from the same material asphalt shingles are so making it a 2 and 12 roof
would work aesthetically. He very much supports Boardmember Malott’s idea of picking up the
entrance with a trellis or some covered detail which staff could approve. He would be interested if a motion could be made to approve the project as designed except that the roof slope will be decreased to a 2 and 12 slope with either a secured shingle application or a mineral cap roof, for vents to be painted black and clustered together or shared as much as possible, and for staff to
approve a trellis or modest roof extension over the entry.
It was M/S/C (Berger/Malott) to determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to adopt the resolution approving the project as designed, except that the roof slope will be decreased to a 2 and 12 slope with either a secured shingle application or a mineral cap roof, for vents to be painted black and clustered together or shared as much as possible, and authorize staff to review and approve a trellis or modest roof extension over the entry. Vote: 4-0.
PH-3 4576 PARADISE DRIVE; Assessor’s Parcel No. 038-142-02; Consideration of a Tree removal permit for removal of seven (7) Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees, one (1) Canary
Palm, one (1) Coast Redwood tree and one (1) Coast Live Oak tree on the property located at 4576 Paradise. The property is located within the RPD zoning district. Director Tasini gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation regarding the application for tree removals at 4576 Paradise Drive for various trees for a property located within the RPD
zoning district. The application was filed by Kathy Hendricks, neighboring property owner, who requested removal of the trees to restore their water views. The two property owners worked together to approve the various trees. The TMC states “removal or alteration of any protected tree is prohibited without the issuance of a tree permit.” The subject trees are protected because of their circumference in excess of 60”. The redwood and eucalyptus, although classified as
undesirable in the code, are considered protected because they meet criteria of a protected tree due to trunk size. Staff provided noticing of the tree removals within 300 feet and received a large volume of letters with concerns. In these instances, the Director has the discretion to refer the matter to the
DRB. She described trees’ northern location in the 10 acre site, said the property slopes down to the shoreline, and staff contacted BCDC to ensure they have no comments. She said the Board is not making findings but there are factors considered in order to issue or deny a tree permit which include: Health of the tree, the necessity to remove the tree, topography
and effective removal, the number of trees and how removal impacts the neighborhood, whether the trees need to be thinned, and any historical significance. The applicant provided an arborist report and a geotechnical report to support the removal. A nesting study was not submitted and this has been questioned and commented on by several
members of the adjacent community. Staff has recommended to the Board that if the Board wishes to approve this, a condition of approval be included for a nesting study. The Board will review the project and consider the following options:
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16 9 9/1/22
1) Continue the matter and provide direction to the applicant to resolve any issues or information required for the board to act.
2) Approve the application, and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for
consideration of adoption at the next meeting. 3) Partially approve the application by making revisions or adding conditions to the project, and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting.
4) Deny the application, and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for
consideration of adoption at the next meeting. She noted that she has the authority to approve the application and if an appeal was received, it would come to the DRB and then go to the Town Council. She was trying to provide varying
opportunities for the neighbors and the applicant and said she was available to answer questions.
Chair Berger noted the applicant is not the owner, but the neighbor uphill who is asking that the trees be removed. Ms. Tasini added that the applicant’s husband has lost his voice, and Mr. Crandell will be presenting and they are both in agreement with this.
Vice Chair Kim asked and confirmed the process. Ms. Tasini said they review lot coverage and they bring that forward and they normally hold a study session with the Council and see whether this is something they want for the benefit of the community. There are many things in the code that need amendment and they hope to do some of this after the General Plan Update.
Boardmember Malott asked if there is any guidelines or handbooks they could work with on trees, or text that the Board should be aware of. Ms. Tasini stated when they look at trees relating to fast-growing or species, they do conduct research and has the Sunset Western guidebook which the TMC refers to.
Vice Chair Kim said if Boardmembers have suggestions to simplify the code, she asked if this could be done. Ms. Tasini said yes; a Boardmember could send an email to her and staff tracks items needing to be changed. However, for this application, staff proceeded per what is in the current code.
Vice Chair Kim said if utility services believe a tree needs to be cut down, she asked if they approach the Town or could they remove it because it is within their easement area. Ms. Tasini said if it is in their easement, they could. Staff looks at public safety as well, so the Fire Department can work with the utilities with respect to that which is a different process.
Chair Berger called on the applicant for a presentation. Eric Crandell, property owner, said his presentation was meant to be given to the Board by Mr. Hendricks, applicant and neighbor requesting the tree removal but he will be presenting. The home at 4575 Paradise Drive has been in the Hendricks family since the 1940’s and Mr.
Henricks’ wife moved there in 1972. The Hendricks property sits above and west of his property at 4576 Paradise Drive where the tree work is taking place. Their view of the Bay has been slowing disappearing as eucalyptus trees have grown taller and have multiplied. When they purchased their property in 2019, the Hendricks reached out through a mutual friend to try to restore their views.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16 10 9/1/22
He described the property, noted the previous owners were impossible to reach, and when he
purchased it, they were happy to begin discussions. His property has hundreds if not thousands
of trees on it, including many native oak and bay trees, none of which are being removed, and the redwood, bay and oak on the application are only being trimmed. In November 2021, his property was annexed into the Town of Tiburon from the County and the
Hendricks had begun their tree removal to restore their views and the County did not require a
tree removal permit for eucalyptus due to their undesirability and high fire hazard. They spoke with the Town when the property was annexed, let them know of the on-going tree work and they were told to stop removal and this occurred. The Hendricks applied to the Town to continue the work in January.
He then displayed the vicinity of the property and both properties, stating the area in green is the area where tree removal is taking place. The Hendricks’ main views are facing this green area and he noted there was confusion about the number of trees being removed which do not require a permit. He believes there are 6 eucalyptus and 1 canary island palm being removed and then pruning 3 trees that require a permit and 1 that does not. He said of the 11 being removed, only
7 require a permit. He described those in red that require a permit to be removed or trimmed and trees in green that are trimmed and removed and do not require a permit. He then recited portions of and described the Town’s view ordinance, stating it seems it was put in place for situations like this one and they worked together on a solution that worked for them.
He presented photos of views from the Hendrick’s living room, obstruction by trees, described fire risk and reasons for removing eucalyptus trees, and said he did not believe there was any impact to homes in Paradise Cay. He noted a Senior Environmental Scientist from California Department of Fish and Wildlife
came out following a complaint, spoke about the tree removal and they saw no issues, and said to avoid nesting season which he described. Another complaint related to erosion which occurred on the beach after the October storm and this is well away from the project area. Water from some homes on various streets all drain water through his property of about 60 acres, and no erosion occurred where trees were previously removed. Fish and Wildlife and Marin Resource
Conservation District came out and found no violations. BCDC’s claim is based on an eye witness account so they have appealed this and are awaiting action. In conclusion, the application is to remove non-native trees to restore views which the TMC says is the Hendrick’s right. Removing them will restore their views from primary living area, it is
supported by the Town’ view ordinance, he supports removal, it will reduce fire hazard in the neighborhood, there is no evidence to support negative impacts, and the whole neighborhood will benefit. The arborist report is available and the civil engineer is present for any questions. Chair Berger opened the public comment period.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16 11 9/1/22
James Massey Kim said one item in the Town’s ordinance when approving or denying tree permits is analyzing the topography of the land, protection from wind, erosion and increased
water flow. His biggest concern is erosion and the lack of a proper erosion mitigation plans to
prevent washout to the homes located downhill. He urged the Board to consider these impacts to neighbors downhill. Mr. Crandell is in violation with BCDC for extraction and placement of fill materials to form elicit trenches, exacerbating beach erosion and sedimentation into the bay. They have not submitted an erosion mitigation plan, said the property is on a downward slope
and without a plan, removal of the trees will cause further erosion downhill.
He then spoke of Mr. Crandell’s responsibility to work with BCDC and the Water Board and other agencies to restore the shoreline and said hundreds of trees were cut without insight into erosion mitigation or planning. He hired a civil engineer and he referred to his letter. Findings
show that the bay floor is now one foot higher into the channel and could eventually block all
water access to neighbors along Trinidad Drive. If washouts continue, the channel will be blocked completely, affecting fish and wildlife, and likely property values. He said Mr. Crandell’s civil engineer, Mr. Ortiz, stated in his letter that proposed tree work will be inconsequential to the erosion process. BCDC dismissed Mr. Ortiz’s assertion that nothing
needed to be done to correct erosion. The BCDC violation states verbatim that Mr. Ortiz lacked foundation based on inadequate review of evidence and are outside of the scope of the author’s expertise. Therefore, the proposed tree work will affect erosion and he requested the Town consider the facts and require further studies to be provided with this tree removal. From his understanding, a soils report was submitted to the Town and he asked if it was done before or
after Mr. Crandell removed previous trees, and he questioned how Mr. Ortiz can make a technical assertion without a qualified soils report from an expert. Mrs. Kim stated they understand Tiburon has a very strong view ordinance. She questioned Paradise Cay’s views of all the beautiful trees and vegetation already taken down, and she asked
if their views can be restored. Ken Huaong, 115 Trinidad Drive, said she has lived in this house since 2003 and over the last two years they have witnessed the changes of the natural landscape of the shoreline as well as the trees since Mr. Crandell has moved in. She referred to the report she submitted and said with
removal and trimming of the trees, it will affect their privacy tremendously. Currently, the Crandell’s can currently see into bathroom shower. They highly recommend the Town have a study done to ensure the shoreline is not affected and safety of the flood zone area where she lives.
Rich Wok, said the biggest issue is the effect of erosion on the Crandell property and the failure of Mr. Crandell to make any effort to get the drainage under control. There is a 70 foot drop from Paradise Drive down to the shoreline and this is a very significant slope. He has lived here 23 years adjacent to Mr. Crandell’s property and they have observed the shoreline in major storms every year. The most that has ever happened during a rain storm is a small trickle over
some rocks.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16 12 9/1/22
There has never been any erosion. In the last 2 years, they have seen hundreds of red bricks being eroded as more than 10-12 inches of shoreline has been eroded and started to fill up the
tidal line. Therefore, Mr. Crandell’s lack of respect for what he has done in terms of illegally
removing the trees prior to annexation has created a tremendous drainage problem on his property and it will happen the same way underneath the trees he is proposing to remove on the north end of the property. The speakers will experience the same shore erosion. It will go straight into the canal behind their property. BCDC is fining Mr. Crandell daily and he is under
appeal because he refuses to take the proper efforts to make drainage on his property so shore
erosion can stop. The view of neighbors above is nothing compared to what is happening down at the water line and he is disregarding the impact of what he is doing to the north end of this property in addition
to the privacy of the neighbors. He implored the Board to be responsible and ensure they consult
with BCDC before any decision is made to remove any trees. As a veterinarian, it saddens him to see these trees come down because of the nests, but this is not the issue here. It is view and mainly shore erosion and privacy to those on Trinidad. Considering the fact they are expecting a triple year of La Nina this year and perhaps the same kind of rainfall they experienced last year, he begged the Town to work with BCDC before any decision is made before removing any of
the tree canopy that buffers the rainfall as it comes onto the property. S. Bosham said they had moved to the property across from the Crandell’s in 2013 and one of the primary enjoyments of having the views from behind their house is the wildlife, nature, and the large mature trees. Since they have lived there, they have noticed and have videoed several
migrating bird species returning to the same trees every year into the same nests that are in those trees. He thinks arborist reports have said there are existing nests that exist in those trees and he asked the Board to consider having a nesting survey done prior to any decisions being made on what trees will come down.
Lastly, they notice some of the erosion concerns mentioned by other neighbors. A great example in one of the letters was about diverting rainfall by using the canopy of the trees so that the rain can be dispersed on a wider basis. If the trees are removed there is grave concern about having additional rain erosion that will cause more debris to come down into the southern part of that property. Mr. Crandell noted it is not near where the trees are going to be removed, but this is
because they have not been removed yet. The erosion that happened was caused partly since he did remove several trees, bushes and shrubs in that area and that is where most of the erosion occurred so they believe the same thing will happen on the north side. Rachel Turner said she lives across the channel from the property, said she is also very
concerned about erosion and has witnessed the mud, bricks and other things coming into the channel between their properties, water, wildlife, and pointed out that this property is not owned by Mr. Crandell. It is owned by Sierra Pines, LLC which is a property development LLC. It is reasonable for the Board to require a real estate development LLC to engage in appropriate environmental, erosion and wildlife studies before additional damage occurs to the channel
between the properties and to the wildlife. She shares concerns about privacy as well but principal concerns are erosion and the channel between the homes.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16 13 9/1/22
Joy said she has lived here 36 years and is directly down from the Hendrick’s and would be in line for additional trees to be removed as stated in their request. She will get a perfect view of
Paradise Drive, but what concerns her most is the erosion, her view, but the trees that have the
great Blue Heron nests. There were two nests this year with 6 babies born and they show up in December, start their dance, and then they do not fledge until June. They are amazing and it would be ashamed to lose them and for them to lose their habitat. She knows views are important but it all must be weighed.
Rebuttal – Applicant
Alexander Ortiz, Civil Engineer, stated he was not planning on speaking but he agrees with the female architect that made the first presentation in the fact it seems like adjacent properties
become appropriated by neighbors and so they do not want anything done. He also reminded the
Board that BCDC has nothing to say about tree removal based on Mr. Crandell’s presentation. He had been assisting Mr. Crandell in the redevelopment of this property since May 2019. He is very familiar with the subject property but the entire area. Since May 2019 he has visited the site and surroundings several times under diverse
circumstances. He does not know that any commentary made was based upon any review of the letters mentioned. He issued a letter on behalf of Mr. Crandell to SVDC on February 22, 2022 and it is self-explanatory. The reply by Mr. Plater at SVDC was unexplained and unsubstantiated, and no copy of that document was issued directly to him. Mr. Crandell forwarded him a copy of it.
His letter focuses on the concept that the evaluation of present conditions on the passage of long extended periods of time is a good anticipator of future performance. This principal is not only applicable to the subject situation but many other factors and many branches of science and other human endeavors. Based on the work performed as Mr. Crandell stated, the tree removal should
not influence the present potential for hydraulic erosion. He has nearly 50 years of engineering experience. In order to exercise and practice his profession, he possesses every professional degree properly and legally. Regardless, he quoted Dr. Richard Fineman—"If you want to master something, teach it” which is something he also has in his resume. He is also a firm believer that “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Mr. Crandell added that the storm that caused the erosion in October was the largest in recorded history. Staff did reach out to BCDC about this tree permit and they were not interested. This is a tree removal permit and the TMC states it is the Hendrick’s right to remove these trees.
Chair Berger allowed an additional public comment. Ross Martin said he is another downhill neighbor and offered their agreement with the other neighbors that they have strong concerns about erosion and privacy. They have noticed since the Sierra Pines, LLC purchased this property there has been aggressive tree cutting prior to getting
annexed into Tiburon. This is further cutting on top of that. Mr. Crandell spoke heavily about reducing fire risk but every single tree he has cut down has been in the front of his house. There are many eucalyptus trees behind his house that he has not touched and this is a fire risk as well. He is concerned about his true intentions of these tree cutting and improving the value of his property without thinking of those properties downhill from him.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16 14 9/1/22
Vice Chair Kim said she believes the Town needs to amend the tree ordinance to allow for staff
to approve any eucalyptus trees that have large diameters from having to go through this process.
She is concerned and they are in a different world since the ordinance was established. They are not civil engineer experts and neither are any of the speakers so she feels strongly that because people saw water and erosion and they are equating causation, the Boardmembers are not experts in determining that falling trees equals more erosion. This is not in their purview and while she
appreciates their comments, there have been historic storms. They are still living in a historic
drought which has caused the soil composition to change. When you have climate change, there are unusual storm patterns and she would take the advice of the civil engineer who has studied this and understands this. As long as the applicants follow the law on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife say about nesting, she questioned who the DRB is to question the biology
and migratory patterns of birds. Therefore, she has no problem in approving the permit for tree
removal and trimming. They are invasive species. They have little biological value to maintain them and are a hazard in this climate. Boardmember Malott said he has lived in Tiburon for 46 years and when he first came here there were grasslands over almost all the hillsides. He has watched somewhat like a water torture in
reverse as trees have grown foot by foot into his view and all his neighbors’ views to the point where he now spends a lot of money each year to maintain trees on other people’s property through agreement. Eucalyptus trees are difficult to manage and, in this case, he visited the site and those trees have been cut once. They are multi-trunk trees in many cases. They are weed trees and grow 12 to 15 feet per year once they are cut and he has some in front of his house to
prove it. He has a system called “view value” where he analyzes views and tries to determine objectively a value to them. By his calculation, the uphill neighbor here has lost at least $400,000 to $600,000 worth of value to his property because the trees growing up into his view. He thinks the Town’s ordinances are very explicit. The uphill neighbor has the right to remove
the trees. He believes Vice Chair Kim was correct in looking at the downhill neighbors as self-serving and trying to use erosion as a causation which is probably not caused by these trees at all but by the excessively heavy rainfall they had over a short period of time. He would vote to remove these trees and thinks the applicant and homeowner on whose property the trees reside have done a wonderful job of working through a very complex situation with lots of players and
technical issues to make this happen and he voted to support the permit. He recommended leaving the trunks of all trees in place because they will, over decades, provide some stability. Boardmember Chong echoed comments made. He owns about every single historical Tiburon picture-type coffee table book. The thing he enjoys looking at the old photos is just how bare
Tiburon was prior to all the homes being built and people planting all of the trees. He suspects people were the reason these trees were planted which is not only the wrong type of tree but it is why they are here now. Much of the Board’s time is also talking about views and the impact trees or new projects have
on people’s view, and this is clearly a view that was had by an uphill neighbor and a way to restore it. Regarding erosion, he would go to the civil engineer’s opinion but he also thinks people do not want their property to erode away. If it does become a problem, he has no doubt an owner would put the measures in to ensure their property does not erode. He thinks that hillside has been barer in the past and so he very much supports the permit.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #16 15 9/1/22
Chair Berger said this project reminds him of a comment his father-in-law who was an architect
and ex-Mayor in Tiburon when they sat looking over at Belvedere Island with its lush trees. He
said isn’t it beautiful to look at all of the trees and he said, “Oh yes, very beautiful, and there is a lawsuit on every one of them.” This is a classic case of the application of the view ordinance and he echoed comments of other Boardmembers. Not every tree is coming down and it makes sense to remove those of risk. He thinks trimming of the trees shown in the diagram were minimal and
aesthetic and engineering indicated the ground will be stable.
He is sensitive to what the neighbors said about erosion on the site but thinks something ought to be done about erosion such as mitigation measures so the retaining the trunks may play a part on the site, but this is not in their purview. If there has been erosion in the channel opposite the
Paradise Cay homes something should be done about it, but it is a red herring to say the tree
removal is going to have anything to do with it. He would advise the owner to look at measures to mitigate any erosion that might fill the channel further. He agrees with the nesting season comments, asked the applicant to adhere to the nesting season so as not to interrupt the bird’s timing, and that staff address this when they put together the final
documents.
It was M/S/C (Chong/Malott) to find that issuance of the permit would be consistent with the purposes, policies and regulations of Chapter 15A, approve the application, and direct staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting, and include the nesting season dates and for the applicant adhere to best practices relating to tree removal outside of the nesting season. Vote: 4-0.
BREAK Chair Berger called for a break at 8:29 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:32 p.m.
PH-4 266 CECILIA WAY; Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-212-06; File No. DR2022-064/VAR2022-017; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for demolition of existing home and construction of an approximately 2,562 square foot new residence with an attached approximately 394 square foot one-car garage, along with a Variance
request of excess fence height for a 8’ tall fence (in lieu of a maximum of 6’ tall fence) along the rear property line. The project will include new skylights and other landscape improvements like new vegetation, patios, pathways, fence and gate and outdoor barbeque. The proposed structure and improvement will cover approximately 2,956 square feet of the lot, where a maximum total of 3,350 square feet lot coverage is allowed
for one-story development in the R-1-B-A zone district. Chair Berger called on the applicant for a presentation. Natalie Dement, homeowner, said she and her husband Brandon are excited to be here and they
introduced themselves. They just purchased 266 Cecilia Way from her 101 year old grandmother in June and she described growing up in Tiburon less than one half mile away. They worked with Mr. Barringer to create a home that is special to them while also fitting in with the community.
EXHIBIT 3
TOWN OF TIBURON
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920 Phone 415-435-7373
www.townoftiburon.org
APPELLANT(S)
(Attach additional pages if necessary)
Name:________________________________________________________________________
Mailing Address:________________________________________________________________
Telephone:_________________________(Work)_______________________________(Home)
FAX and/or e-mail (optional):_____________________________________________________
ACTION BEING APPEALED
Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed:__________________________________
Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed:__________________________________________
Name of Applicant:______________________________________________________________
Type of Application or Decision:___________________________________________________
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
(Attach additional pages if necessary)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
******************************************************************************
STAFF USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE
Last Day to File Appeal:____________________ Date Appeal Filed:____________________
Fee Paid:__________ Receipt No. ________ Date of Appeal Hearing:________________
NOTE: Current Filing Fee is $500 initial deposit for applicant and $300 flat fee for non-applicant
S:\Administration\Forms\Notice of Appeal form revised 3-9-2010.doc Revised March 2010
Page 1 of 5
Town Council Resolution No. 10-2021 05/05/2021
RESOLUTION NO. 10-2021
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
ADOPTING AN AMENDED POLICY FOR THE PROCESSING, SCHEDULING,
RECONSIDERATION, AND STORY POLE REPRESENTATION OF APPEALS, AND
SUPERSEDING EXISTING POLICIES
WHEREAS, the Town receives and hears appeals from decisions of various
commissions, boards and administrative officials from time to time, and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has adopted various policies over the years with
respect to appeal procedures, scheduling, and reconsideration, including Resolutions Nos. 2878
and 3218 and Town Council Policy Nos. 95-01 and 2002-01, all of which were superseded by
Resolution No. 17-2010 on March 17, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that it is timely and appropriate to
update and consolidate these policies regarding appeals; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public meeting on this matter on March
31, 2021 and has heard and considered any public testimony and correspondence; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Town Council Resolution No. 17-
2010 is hereby superseded by this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of
the Town of Tiburon does hereby adopt the following general policy with respect to processing,
scheduling, and reconsideration of appeals and for story pole installation for appeals.
APPEAL PROCEDURE
1. The Municipal Code sets forth instances when persons may appeal a decision by a review
authority (e.g. Town official, Design Review Board or Planning Commission) to the
Town Council. Any person making such an appeal must file a completed Town of
Tiburon Notice of Appeal form, available on the Town’s web site and at Town Hall, with
the Town Clerk not more than ten (10) calendar days following the date of the decision
being appealed. Shorter time frames for filing an appeal apply to certain types of
permits. If the final day to appeal occurs on a day when Town Hall is closed for public
business, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day at which Town Hall is
open for public business. Appeals may not be revised or amended in writing after the
appeal period filing date has passed.
2. The appellant must submit filing fees with the Notice of Appeal form. Filing fees are set
forth in the Town’s current adopted Fee Schedule.
Page 2 of 5
Town Council Resolution No. 10-2021 05/05/2021
(a) If the applicant is the appellant, the remainder of the filing fee (if any) will be
refunded following completion of the appeal process. Additional staff time or
costs to process an applicant’s appeal is the financial responsibility of the
applicant and will be billed per the Town’s current hourly rate schedule and/or at
actual cost if outside consulting is required.
(b) If the appellant is not the applicant, then a fixed amount filing fee is required with
no refund or additional billing required.
3. In the appeal form, the appellant shall state specifically either of the following:
(a) The reasons why the decision is inconsistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code or
other applicable regulations; or
(b) The appellant’s other basis for claiming that the decision was an error or abuse of
discretion, including, without limitation, the claim that the decision is not
supported by evidence in the record or is otherwise improper.
If the appellant is not the applicant, the Town Council need only consider on appeal
issues that that the appellant or other interested party raised prior to the time that the
review authority whose decision is being appealed made its decision.
4. The appellant must state all grounds on which the appeal is based in the Notice of Appeal
form filed with the Town Clerk. Neither Town staff nor the Town Council need address
grounds introduced at a later time that were not raised in the Notice of Appeal form.
5. The procedure for presentation of the appeal at the Town Council meeting is as described
below. In cases where the applicant is the appellant, paragraphs (c) and (f) below would
not apply.
(a) Town Staff may make a brief (approximately 10 minute) presentation of the
matter and then respond to Town Council questions.
(b) Appellant and/or appellant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no
more than ten (10) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions.
Appellant may divide up the ten (10) minutes between various speakers or have
only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to
responding to Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the ten (10)
minute time limit.
(c) Applicant and/or applicant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no
more than ten (10) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions.
Applicant may divide up the ten (10) minutes between various speakers or have
only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to
responding to Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the ten (10)
minute time limit.
(d) At the Mayor’s discretion, with consensus of the Town Council, the amount of
time specified in subsections (b) and (c) may be increased, but each side must be
given equal time.
Page 3 of 5
Town Council Resolution No. 10-2021 05/05/2021
(e) Any interested member of the public may speak on the item for no more than
three (3) minutes. A speaker representing multiple persons (e.g., homeowner's
association, advocacy group or official organization, etc.) may speak on the item
for no more than five (5) minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor.
(f) Appellant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any
comments previously made at the hearing.
(g) Applicant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any
comments previously made at the hearing.
7. The testimony portion of the appeal hearing is closed and the Town Council will begin
deliberations on the appeal. There will be no more applicant, appellant, or public
testimony accepted unless requested by the Town Council.
8. If, following deliberation, the Town Council is prepared to make a decision on the
appeal, it will direct Town staff to return with a draft resolution setting forth the decision,
and the findings upon which it is based, for consideration at a future Town Council
meeting. The decision of the Town Council is not final until the resolution is adopted.
Alternatively, if the Town Council is not prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it
may:
(a) Continue the appeal to a future date;
(b) Remand the item to the review authority from which it was appealed for further
hearing, review and action, with a specific description of the outstanding and
unresolved issues and appropriate direction thereon; or
(c) Refer the item to another review authority for its review and recommendations
prior to further Town Council consideration.
9. Following a final decision by the Town Council, Town staff will promptly mail a Notice
of Decision to the applicant and appellant.
RECONSIDERATION
If, after the Town Council has voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution of decision, significant
new information comes to light, which information was previously unknown or could not have
been presented at the appeal hearing due to circumstances beyond the parties’ control and not
due to a lack of diligence, the Town Council may entertain a motion to reconsider its direction to
prepare a resolution of decision. Any such motion to reconsider must be made prior to adoption
of the resolution of decision, and the motion must be made by a Councilmember who voted on
the prevailing side in the vote sought to be reconsidered. Any Councilmember may second the
motion. The Town Council may consider and vote on the motion to reconsider at that time, and
if the motion carries, the matter shall be placed on a future agenda for further notice and hearing.
Page 4 of 5
Town Council Resolution No. 10-2021 05/05/2021
SCHEDULING OF APPEALS
1. The Town’s policy is to schedule and hear appeals in an expeditious manner. Appeals
will generally be heard at the first regular Town Council meeting that is at least fifteen
(15) days after close of the appeal period. At the sole discretion of the Town Manager,
the Town may schedule the appeal for a subsequent Town Council meeting based on the
complexity of the matter, availability of key Town staff members and Councilmembers,
agenda availability, or unusual circumstances. Town staff will make reasonable efforts to
establish the hearing date for the appeal within three (3) working days of the close of the
appeal period. The Town Clerk, in coordination with appropriate Town staff, will
promptly advise all parties to the appeal of the selected hearing date.
2. The Town Manager will grant requests for continuances from the date established above
in the event that all parties to the appeal agree in writing to a date specific for the
continuance and that date is deemed acceptable by the Town Manager.
3. Attendance of parties to an appeal at the hearing is desired, but not required. The Town
Council will consider written comments or representation by others in lieu of personal
appearance.
STORY POLES
For appeals where story poles were erected for review of the original decision being appealed, a
story pole representation shall be required for the Town Council’s appeal review process, as
follows:
1. A story pole plan showing the poles to be connected, including location and elevations of
poles and connections, shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted as adequate by
Planning Division Staff prior to installation of the poles and connections.
2. Critical story poles, as determined by Staff, must be connected by means of ribbons,
caution tape, rope or other similar and highly visible materials clearly discernable from a
distance of at least three-hundred (300) feet in clear weather, to illustrate the dimensions
and configurations of the proposed construction.
3. Story poles and connecting materials must be installed at least ten (10) days prior to the
date of the appeal hearing before the Town Council.
4. Failure to install the poles and materials in a timely manner may result in continuance of
the public hearing date.
5. Story poles must be removed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of final
decision by the Town Council.
Page 5 of 5
Town Council Resolution No. 10-2021 05/05/2021
APPLICABILITY
This policy, while primarily written for use by the Town Council, is intended to apply to the
extent practicable to Town decision-making bodies, other than the Town Council, which may
hear appeals from time to time. Be advised that certain types of appeals, such as appeals of staff-
level design review application decisions to the Design Review Board, may have different
deadlines for filing of the appeal than the ten (10) calendar days specified above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town
of Tiburon on May 5, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Ryan, Thier, Welner
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fredericks, Kulik
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
_______________________________
HOLLI THIER, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK
/s/
/s/
1
October 3, 2022
Re: Resolution No. 2022-026 / Assessor Parcel No. 038-142-02
Dear Members of the Town Council:
I'm writing to you today to appeal the decision for tree cutting at 4576 Paradise Drive.
First, I’d like to emphasize that I am not opposed to the actual tree cutting and restoration of views.
However, the reasons for my appeal are twofold: (1) Explain in further detail why an erosion mitigation
plan + expert findings are necessary and should be reconsidered with this approval (2) Request this
permit be approved, with conditions.
1. An erosion mitigation plan, along with expert findings should be required or considered.
• Please see below photos for your reference that support our community’s claims as to
why erosion is a huge concern for the downhill neighbors of South Paradise Cay.
2
3
• A second expert opinion should be required. Mr. Alexander Ortiz concluded that the
“proposed tree work will be inconsequential in pertinence to the potential for the
generation and/or continuation of erosion processes … during any reasonably foreseeable
future.” Mr. Ortiz’s assertions are not supported with factual data, nor are there any
supplementary findings to back up his claim. BCDC’s senior engineer dismissed Mr.
Ortiz’s assertions about the shoreline erosion not being Mr. Crandall’s fault. BCDC found
Mr. Ortiz’s claims “lacked foundation [and were] based on inadequate review of evidence
and are outside the scope of the author’s expertise.” How can the Town simply ignore
why BCDC dismissed Mr. Crandall’s civil engineer? There should be more expert review to
mitigate erosion and to validate whether Mr. Ortiz’s claims are correct.
• The Design Review Board recognized there were erosion issues, and that they were not
experts on this matter. They simply prioritized the views.
• Chair Berger in his closing statement on Sept 1st indicated “hopes” that the owners of
4576 Paradise will do something to mitigate erosion.
2. Approval to Cut down Trees, with conditions
• We kindly request for clarification around the motion proposed by Board member Mallot
to leave the tree stumps (post-cutting), which was then seconded by Chair Berger. It is
unclear whether the decision was approved with such conditions.
• Cutting down the trees would prioritize preserving views but leaving stumps in the
ground will help mitigate further erosion and prevent potential washout. Will the Town
Council consider supporting both needs and requests? A tree’s large root system acts as
a bind towards any loose soil surrounding the tree. The roots hold the soil in place while
stabilizing the tree and improving the drainage of the soil. The tree stumps will naturally
decay over 3+ years, which should be ample time for the property owners to come up
with an erosion mitigation plan for their long-term development. Further, leaving the
stumps could help prevent additional washout and erosion into the Bay, which Mr.
Crandall is still in violation for with BCDC.
• Also, we kindly request the Town to strongly regulate the ability to WOODCHIP on the
property, and not allow wood chipping from the fell. Prior to annexation to the Town,
Mr. Crandall would woodchip for hours on end, with zero regard for noise disruption
(high decibel) to the community. An average woodchipper noise is 107dB and prolonged
noise above 70dB reading could cause hearing damage. The CDC
(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2007-175/pdfs/2007-175.pdf) notes that even being
exposed for 2mins could create damage to the ears.
4
We have been living the “Wood chipping” noise disturbance for a few years now. I
understand and appreciate that Mr. Crandall has an outsized lot, and many things need to
be cleared. However, ONE family’s “needs” and issue(s) should not outweigh the noise
disturbances, inconveniences, and the detriment of MANY surrounding neighbors. I
believe the town has created designated “chipper” days for this specific reason – so that
families can dispose debris in a safe and non-disruptive manner. The Town’s noise
ordinance is sensitive to a dog’s barking for an extended period; how is it fair and
acceptable for neighbors near the property to listen to Mr. Crandall’s unsafe wood
chipping for hours? Just last week there had been tree removal work done on the
property (assuming for the trees that do not require permits), and the noise level of the
woodchipper has been and is a huge disturbance. Not only is the woodchipper very loud,
especially at an elevation, but the debris is also being discarded downward and close to
the neighboring homes. Please see below photo for your reference.
Conclusion:
I want to reiterate that we are NOT opposed to the tree cutting and the preservation of
views; as a Paradise Cay resident myself, I understand that views are one important piece
to not only home value but also to one’s actual enjoyment of their property. However,
we are very concerned about the further erosion the tree cutting will create on/by Mr.
Crandall’s property and the impact it will have to the downhill neighbors, as well the
shoreline. There is no question the lot resides in a sloped area. When it rains, debris and
5
fill run downward, and into the bay. (A PowerPoint presentation will be presented during
the appeal meeting).
What is alarming is the zero efforts and attempts to mitigate this paramount erosion
issue. BCDC has confirmed that no attempts have been made by Mr. Crandall, despite
their recommendation to contact the appropriate agencies, such as storm water control
board. Instead, Mr. Crandall merely applied for an appeal, stating the erosion was not his
fault. If Mr. Crandall had even attempted to elucidate plans for mitigation prior to any
tree removal and grading on the property, we probably wouldn’t be in this situation now.
For the past two years, our community has witnessed Mr. Crandall act without
permission, but ask for forgiveness later, on many occasions. It would be prudent as a
now Tiburon resident to follow the Town’s ordinances appropriately, timely, and
respectfully.
The community has approached Mr. Crandall directly about many issues that negatively
impact the neighboring homes, one of which includes the loud decibel and excessive
wood chipping. There is a Town Ordinance 20-2.179 that prohibits animal noises which
unreasonably disturbs the peace; we sincerely hope that the Town will consider instilling
conditions to this approval that will alleviate the noise disturbance caused by Mr.
Crandall’s non-stop wood chipping that extends past 30 minutes at a given time.
Lastly, I believe that the Town is under false pretenses that Mr. Crandall continues to the
be the victim of harassment from his downhill neighbors. As the Town is aware, there are
on-going conflicts between Mr. Crandall and multiple homes in Paradise Cay. Some issues
include wood chipping, bees, cows, tree removal and construction without permits, and
border disputes where he claims more land (into our properties despite the lot lines he
submitted to the Town for annexation) yet refuses to quiet his title. The Paradise Cay
community also has been reported to local agencies such as the County Sheriff, the
County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, BCDC, and the CA State Lands
Commission. There is a double standard presented by Mr. Crandall. Is the Town aware of
this? Many neighbors on Trinidad Dr. would argue they are the real victims.
Regardless, we kindly ask the Town Council to consider this appeal and our requests for
further expert reports that delineate an erosion mitigation plan and approve this tree
permit with conditions.
We thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
James Massey-Kim
EXHIBIT 4
From:Cesare Rotundo
To:Dina Tasini; Lea Dilena
Subject:4576 Paradise Drive: File No. CUP2022-007
Date:Thursday, November 10, 2022 10:48:30 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from cesarer@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Ms. Tasini and Ms. DiLena,
As a 4576 Paradise Drive neighbor (I live at 151 Trinidad Dr, Tiburon) I'd like to present mypoint of view on the above project. I see two items being requested for approval.
The first is the removal of a total of 10 trees on the property. I don't live immediately down the
property hence I can't evaluate the impact of such a change, nor I know how many trees willbe remaining. My concern would be that drastically reducing the number of trees will increase
the risk of erosion, while having too many trees may increase the risk of fire. I'll listen to thepublic hearing, counting on these concerns being addressed. I'd also like to know and consider
the reason why James Massey-Kim and his LLC want to remove trees. Is it to maintain, tobuild new dwellings in the future, or to build structures for additional cow farming?
On the second item, to have 4 cows on the property, I'm instead strongly against it. Many
times I see the two cows currently on the property while running along Paradise drive. Theyare curious animals and when I stop they look at me. They are big, peaceful animals.
I moved to our new home in Marin in June 2021, and when I first saw the cows I was puzzled
by the reasons why someone would want to have them in a residential zone. I could see a lotof reasons why zoning regulations are being created, such as sanitation, noise, pollution of the
Bay, etc., as being relevant in this case.
While cows in the middle of a residential zone invoke images of happy bucolic times of the1920s, the area where I chose to live is today a residential area, I have a hard time
understanding why a neighbor would be allowed to keep cows at all, let alone scaling thenumber beyond the two that apparently have been authorized to raise.
I'd be hard pressed to justify to someone that wants to move here why there is livestock
farming next door. Isn't this, in 2022 and not 1922, a residential area? What does RPD mean? Ibelieve the Tiburon Town Council has to choose between:
1. include livestock farming as a right for any property owner that has such inclination, or 2. upheld the rights of all the residents like me that moved here with the assumption that
this is a residential area where residents dutifully pick up their dog's poop and dispose ofit properly, not raise cows.
Should the Town Council opt for (1), I feel I'd be put in a position to lie when I describe whereI live, by not disclosing that I have a livestock farm next door. I see nothing positive or
humane about it. I don't see pets but cows. I don't see bucolic images but issues with poopdisposal and pollution in a residential area by the Bay.
Should James Massey-Kim strongly desire to raise cows (and even more than 2 of them) so
that he can feel he's really living the bucolic life of the 1920s, then there is an option: move toa non-RPD area with like-minded individuals. There are plenty of those areas, less than an
hour drive north of Tiburon. Or, if he loves Tiburon, he should follow common sense that Iexpect the Tiburon Town Council to apply.
Finally, I believe it's sad that we don't look beyond our fence, and don't consider that killing
trees and raising livestock is exactly the opposite of what should happen on this planet. Itshows a selfish nature that we should rationally oppose.
Best Regards,
Cesare Rotundo(650)504-2355
From:Joan Foedisch
To:Kris Wyek; Lea Dilena
Subject:Re: 4576 paradise dr 2nd time around
Date:Friday, November 4, 2022 2:05:39 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from joanfoedisch@gmail.com. Learn why this is
important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> On Aug 19, 2022, at 4:24 PM, Joan Foedisch <joanfoedisch@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Town Clerk,
>
> The owner of that land has already taken down so many trees I sincerely hope, unless the trees are unhealthy that
you will not allow more trees to come down.
> We finally have some our birds back after losing their nesting trees.
>
> Thank you,
> Joan Foedisch
Tiburon Town Council
November 16, 2022
PH-2: 4576 Paradise Drive Appeal
Late Mail
Requests for Copies:
Lea Dilena, ldilena@townoftiburon.org
From:Toni Beauchamp
To:Dina Tasini; Lea Dilena
Cc:Scott
Subject:Appeal to Tree Removal at 4576 Paradise Drive
Date:Friday, November 11, 2022 11:38:58 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Tiburon Town Council and Ms. Tasini:
The following is a response to the Design Review Board’s recent approval to remove multiple specified
trees at 4576 Paradise Drive. As adjacent neighbors to this property, we are supportive of the appeal by
James Massey-Kim and request further review, regulation and oversight prior to granting a permit for
these trees to be removed.
Please note that we understand that the applicants have a right to maintain their views and improve their
property. We do not wish to prevent them from doing so. We are simply asking that the property
owners at 4576 Paradise Drive address and fix the current violations and issues that have been assessed
against them prior to doing further tree removal. We want the issues corrected first, and there to be
oversight with a specific plan in place before removing the trees in order to prevent additional runoff of
pollution and debris into the bay caused by hillside erosion.
We ask the following:
I. Request applicable oversight prior to tree removal as referenced in Town Municipal Code Ordinance
20A to prevent Runoff Pollution into the bay:
Please reference Town Municipal code Ordinance No. 557.NS, Chapter 20A “Town of Tiburon Urban
Runoff Pollution Prevention Ordinance” that is applicable to this property’s request. As such, we ask
that a plan be submitted to the town to ensure that there are protections in place that the removal of
additional trees will not cause further pollution, damage and erosion to the shoreline and bay.
II. Request that the Property Owner address BCDC violations prior to further tree removal.
Due to past tree removal on the property, BCDC has already reviewed the current damage and a
violation has been ruled against the property owners in January 2022. To resolve the violation, the
owners are to hire a qualified StormWater Pollution Prevention Plan Developer to prepare a remediation
plan for BCDC approval and to implement such plan once approved. As of today, we do not believe
that the owners have resolved their violation and fines are still accumulating.
Knowing that BCDC has assessed the beach damage and erosion from activities on this property, we ask
that the Town Council issue a condition that the BCDC violations must be corrected first before any
tree permit approvals are granted, and also request that a qualified expert (deemed by the Town of
Tiburon or BCDC) first review the plan for the tree removal and confirm that by doing so a future rain
storm(s) may not cause further damage, erosion, and/or destruction to the bay and shoreline downhill
from the 4576 Paradise Drive property.
Again, we do not wish to stand in the way of neighbors wishing to improve their views and property.
We are just asking that the concerns raised by BCDC and the impact to downhill neighbors in Paradise
Cay be addressed prior to further tree removal being done. We love our neighborhood and want to
protect the beauty of our natural surroundings.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
Please call if you have any questions. Thank you.
Scott and Toni Beauchamp
107 Trinidad Dr.
Tiburon, CA 94920
415-789-5275
310-880-7475
310-880-7258
From:Cesare Rotundo
To:Dina Tasini; Lea Dilena
Subject:4576 Paradise Drive: File No. CUP2022-007
Date:Thursday, November 10, 2022 10:48:30 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from cesarer@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Ms. Tasini and Ms. DiLena,
As a 4576 Paradise Drive neighbor (I live at 151 Trinidad Dr, Tiburon) I'd like to present mypoint of view on the above project. I see two items being requested for approval.
The first is the removal of a total of 10 trees on the property. I don't live immediately down the
property hence I can't evaluate the impact of such a change, nor I know how many trees willbe remaining. My concern would be that drastically reducing the number of trees will increase
the risk of erosion, while having too many trees may increase the risk of fire. I'll listen to thepublic hearing, counting on these concerns being addressed. I'd also like to know and consider
the reason why James Massey-Kim and his LLC want to remove trees. Is it to maintain, tobuild new dwellings in the future, or to build structures for additional cow farming?
On the second item, to have 4 cows on the property, I'm instead strongly against it. Many
times I see the two cows currently on the property while running along Paradise drive. Theyare curious animals and when I stop they look at me. They are big, peaceful animals.
I moved to our new home in Marin in June 2021, and when I first saw the cows I was puzzled
by the reasons why someone would want to have them in a residential zone. I could see a lotof reasons why zoning regulations are being created, such as sanitation, noise, pollution of the
Bay, etc., as being relevant in this case.
While cows in the middle of a residential zone invoke images of happy bucolic times of the1920s, the area where I chose to live is today a residential area, I have a hard time
understanding why a neighbor would be allowed to keep cows at all, let alone scaling thenumber beyond the two that apparently have been authorized to raise.
I'd be hard pressed to justify to someone that wants to move here why there is livestock
farming next door. Isn't this, in 2022 and not 1922, a residential area? What does RPD mean? Ibelieve the Tiburon Town Council has to choose between:
1. include livestock farming as a right for any property owner that has such inclination, or 2. upheld the rights of all the residents like me that moved here with the assumption that
this is a residential area where residents dutifully pick up their dog's poop and dispose ofit properly, not raise cows.
Should the Town Council opt for (1), I feel I'd be put in a position to lie when I describe whereI live, by not disclosing that I have a livestock farm next door. I see nothing positive or
humane about it. I don't see pets but cows. I don't see bucolic images but issues with poopdisposal and pollution in a residential area by the Bay.
Should James Massey-Kim strongly desire to raise cows (and even more than 2 of them) so
that he can feel he's really living the bucolic life of the 1920s, then there is an option: move toa non-RPD area with like-minded individuals. There are plenty of those areas, less than an
hour drive north of Tiburon. Or, if he loves Tiburon, he should follow common sense that Iexpect the Tiburon Town Council to apply.
Finally, I believe it's sad that we don't look beyond our fence, and don't consider that killing
trees and raising livestock is exactly the opposite of what should happen on this planet. Itshows a selfish nature that we should rationally oppose.
Best Regards,
Cesare Rotundo(650)504-2355
November 16, 2022
Members of the Town Council,
I am writing to you today to express my concerns about the tree removal decision that was previously
approved by the Design Review Board on September 1, 2022. First, I want to emphasize that I am not against
cutting trees to improve property; I understand and appreciate the value of preserving views and promoting
fire safety measures.
However, I kindly request the Town Council and Staff planners to consider the following, prior to finalizing this
tree removal permit.
1. Town Municipal Code Ordinance 20A- requires a Tiburon project to devise an Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Plan.
a. 20A-2 discusses discharges other than storm runoff to storm drains, prohibits disposal of
materials and protects against pollutants
b. 20-A-3 delineates specifics for “erosion and sedimentation control plans”
c. 20-A-11 (B4) speaks to depositing or removing any material in or from a watercourse
Why doesn’t this Municipal Code apply to this tree removal process, as it specifically includes references to
“any construction activity that involves soil [disturbance] including clearing, paving, grading, and excavation.”
The Code also speaks to “erosion and sedimentation control plan” to avoid drainage and erosion related
problems.
I find it important to also remind the Town that some of the designated trees (to be removed) reside beneath
the cows. The Planning Commission meeting to review Mr. Crandall’s waste management plan for the cows
has not been held yet, and no plans have been approved. Shouldn’t the location of the trees (and removal)
plus the waste management plan for the cows be considered together? This part of the property seemingly is
on the same sloped area. The Town’s Municipal Code Chapter 20A calls for a runoff plan – for both soil
disturbing activities and possible pollutants.
Please also consider what the National Resources Conservation Service says about erosion:
• Soil erosion is defined by loss of topsoil to wind, rain, or other forces and is intensified by
human activity, and it can have negative environmental impacts.
• Clearcutting, or when trees are removed, the land is left exposed, without the security of roots
to prevent soil from being swept away.
• According to agricultural experts, 60% of per soil is washed away and ends up in rivers,
streams, etc, along with whatever has been applied to that soil (including pollutants). Soil that
does not make its way to the waterways can end up being deposited into neighboring areas.
2. Mr. Crandall’s civil engineer’s claims that erosion will not be a problem should be further explored.
Mr. Ortiz’s hypothesis was rejected by BCDC; even though these proposed trees are outside of their
jurisdiction, it is disappointing that the Staff is quick to ignore a governing agency’s recommendations
for one part of the property where erosion has been identified as a serious problem.
Again, I am not against the idea of this project. However, I hope the Town Council will consider the importance
of all these issues above before the permit is approved and finalized.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Cynthia Massey-Kim
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Department of Administrative Services
Subject: Gas-Powered Landscape Equipment Regulations
Reviewed By: _________
Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________
Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY The Council will discuss potential amendments to the Town’s leaf blower and hedge trimmer regulations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Provide direction to staff on whether to bring back an ordinance for consideration.
BACKGROUND
In 2010, the Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 518 N.S. (Exhibit 1) which regulated the use of gas-powered leaf blowers and hedge trimmers in town. The ordinance:
• Bans the use of gas-powered leaf blowers and hedge trimmers in residential areas
• Bans the use electrically powered leaf blowers and hedge trimmers outside the hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., and on certain holidays, in residential areas
• Bans the use of electrically powered leaf blowers and hedge trimmers outside the hours of
9 a.m. to 4 p.m., on Saturdays and Sundays, and on certain holidays, in nonresidential areas In 2022, the cities of Fairfax and San Anselmo have pursued adopting stricter ordinances that ban
all gas-powered landscape equipment. The Town of Fairfax adopted an ordinance (Exhibit 2) on
July 6, 2022, and the Town of San Anselmo is expected to adopt a similar ordinance the week of November 14. Tonight, staff is seeking feedback from the Council on whether to bring forward a similar
ordinance for consideration.
ANALYSIS No further analysis provided.
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
Agenda Item: DI-3
Town Council Meeting November 16, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2
FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town.
CLIMATE IMPACT
Staff has determined the elimination of gas-powered equipment to be consistent with the Town’s Climate Action Plan strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA, and if it were found to
constitute a project, it would be exempt pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061 (b)(3). RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council provide direction to staff on whether to bring back an
ordinance for consideration.
Exhibit(s): 1. Tiburon Ordinance No. 518 N.S. 2. Fairfax Ordinance Prepared By: Lea Dilena, Town Clerk
EXHIBIT 1
ORDINANCE NO. 518 N. S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
REPEALING TITLE VI, CHAPTER 30 (LEAF BLOWERS AND HEDGE TRIMMERS)
OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING A NEW TITLE VI,
CHAPTER 30 (LEAF BLOWERS AND HEDGE TRIMMERS)
The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
A. The Town of Tiburon adopted restrictions on the operation of leaf blowers and hedge
trimmers in 1995 and now finds that amendments to these restrictions are appropriate and
are of such extent that repeal and re-adoption of amended regulations is warranted.
B. On January 6, 2010, the Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing, and has heard
and considered public testimony on the proposed Ordinance.
C. The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to the
adoption of this Ordinance have been followed.
D. The Town Council finds that the amendment actions made by this Ordinance are necessary
for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
E. The Town Council has found that the amendments made by this Ordinance are consistent
with the goals and policies ofthe Tiburon General Plan and other adopted ordinances and
regulations of the Town of Tiburon.
F. The Town Council finds that this project is categorically exempt from the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act under the "general rule", pursuant to Section
15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines and is also exempt pursuant to Section 15305 (Minor
Alterations to Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 2. REPEAL OF TITLE VI, CHAPTER 30 (LEAF BLOWERS AND HEDGE
TRIMMERS).
Title VI, Chapter 30 (Leaf Blowers and Hedge Trimmers) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is
hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. ADOPTION OF TITLE VI, CHAPTER 30 (LEAF BLOWERS AND HEDGE
TRIMMERS).
Title VI, Chapter 30 (Leaf Blowers and Hedge Trimmers) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is
hereby adopted as follows:
Town ofTiburon Ordinance No. 518 N. S. Effective 0211912010
Title VI, Chapter 30: LEAF BLOWERS AND HEDGE TRIMMERS
Sections:
1n-1 Title
30-2 Purpose and intent.
30-3 Definitions.
30-4 Use Restricted.
30-5 Enforcement and violations.
30-1 Title.
This chapter shall be known as the "Town of Tiburon Leaf Blower and Hedge Trimmer
Ordinance" and may be so cited.
30-2 Purpose and intent.
a) The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the use of leaf blowers and non-manually
powered hedge trimmers within the town, so as to prevent the unreasonable and continuous
disruption of the community due to associated mechanical noise and the propensity of the
devices to broadcast dust and other airborne pollutants into the air and onto nearby
properties.
b) Residential areas are being distinguished from other areas of the town because of the
special maintenance needs for commercial and other public areas, and the particular
sensitivity of residential uses to the impacts and effects resulting from the use of leaf
blowers and non-manually powered hedge trimmers.
30-3 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the terms in this section shall have the following meaning:
Electrically-powered hedge trimmer" means any hedge trimmer powered by electric means,
including but not limited to cordless rechargeable hedge trimmers.
Electrically-powered leaf blower means any leaf blower, leaf vacuum or other leaf gathering
device powered by electric means, including but not limited to cordless rechargeable leafblowers.
Gas-powered hedge trimmer" means any hedge trimmer directly powered by an internal
combustion or rotary engine using gasoline, alcohol or other liquid or gaseous fuel. Electrically-
powered hedge trimmers are not included in this definition.
Gas-powered leaf blower" means any leaf blower, leaf vacuum or other leaf-gathering device
directly powered by an internal combustion or rotary engine using gasoline, alcohol or other liquid
or gaseous fuel. Lawn mowers, lawn edgers, and electrically-powered leaf blowers are not
included in this definition.
Non-residential area" means any area other than a "residential area", as defined herein.
Residential area" means any parcel of land where the primary use of the property is for
residential purposes (such as a single-family residence, duplex, apartment building or other form
of residential structure). Street areas, up to the center line of the street, directly in front of
Town of Tiburon Ordinance N6.518 N. S. Effective 0211912010 2
properties used for residential purposes are also considered residential areas for the purposes of
this chapter. No parcel with a mixture of residential and commercial uses shall be considered as a
residential area for purposes of this chapter.
30-4 Use Restricted.
a) In any Residential Area:
1) It is unlawful for any property owner or employee, agent or contractor working for
a property owner to operate or authorize the operation of any:
a. Gas-powered leaf blower to blow leaves, dirt or other debris off sidewalks,
driveways, lawns or other surfaces at any time within any residential area.
b. Gas-powered leaf blower to collect leaves, dirt or other debris from
sidewalks, driveways, lawns or other surfaces at any time within any
residential area.
2) It is unlawful for any property owner or employee, agent or contractor working for
a property owner to operate or authorize the operation of any gas-powered hedge
trimmer to trim, prune or otherwise maintain landscaping at any time within any
residential area.
3) It is unlawful for any property owner or employee, agent or contractor working for
a property owner to operate or authorize the operation of any electrically-powered
leaf blower or any electrically-powered hedge trimmer within any residential area
except between the hours of nine a.m. and four p.m. No use of these devices is
allowed on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Day,
President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving
Day, and Christmas Day.
b) In any Non-Residential Area:
1) It is unlawful for any property owner or employee, agent or contractor working for
a property owner to operate or authorize the operation of any leafblower within
any non-residential area except between the hours of nine a.m. and four p.m. No
use of any leafblower shall be allowed on any Saturday, on any Sunday or on any
of the following holidays: New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Day, President's
Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and
Christmas Day.
2) It is unlawful for any property owner or employee, agent or contractor working for
a property owner to operate or authorize the operation of any electrically-powered
hedge trimmer within any non-residential area except between the hours of nine
a.m. and four p.m. No use of electrically-powered hedge trimmers in any non-
residential area shall be allowed on any Saturday, on any Sunday or on any of the
Town ofTiburon Ordinance No. 518 N. S. Effective 0211912010 3
following holidays: New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Day, President's Day,
Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas
Day.
30-5 Exemptions.
Use of leafblowers and/or hedge trimmers by public agency employees for emergencies or for
park or public right-of-way maintenance is exempted from regulations of this chapter.
30-6 Enforcement and violations.
a) Violations of this chapter will be subject to an administrative enforcement process under
title VI, chapter 31 of this code that may include a citation assessing a monetary fine not to
exceed two hundred fifty dollars and/or a verbal or written cease and desist warning from
town officials. The town council may adjust the monetary fine amount for violations from
time to time by resolution.
b) Any property owner or employee, agent or contractor working for a property owner who
violates this chapter may also be considered guilty of an infraction, and each day such
violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall
be punishable as such. Such infraction shall be punishable by a monetary fine not to
exceed two hundred fifty dollars. The town council may adjust the monetary fine amount
for violations from time to time by resolution.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason
held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Town Council declares that it would have passed
this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of
the fact that any one or more section, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
SECTION 5. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date ofpassage,
and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after passage by the Town Council, a copy of the
ordinance shall be published with the names of the members voting for and against it at least once
in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon.
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on January 6, 2010, and was adopted at a regular meeting ofthe Town Council of the
Town of Tiburon on January 20, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Collins, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Slavitz
None
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 518 N. S. Effective 0211912010 4
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
RICHARD COLLINS, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACO-'I, TOWN CLERK
Town ofTiburon Ordinance No. 518 N. S. Effective 0211912010 5
EXHIBIT 2
I
t
e
m
4
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
I
t
e
m
4
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
I
t
e
m
4
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
I
t
e
m
4
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
I
t
e
m
4
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
I
t
e
m
4
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
I
t
e
m
4
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
I
t
e
m
4
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
(E)The remedies and penalties provided in this section are cumulative and not
exclusive. The Town Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or any other relief toenforce the provisions of this chapter and any regulations or administrativeprocedures developed pursuant hereto."
SECTION 3. Compliance with CEQA. This Ordinance was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the Town. The Town Council finds and
determines that the adoption of this Ordinance, which is intended to prohibit the use of gasoline
powered landscape equipment and to encourage the use of electric equipment, is exempt from
CEQA pursuant to section 15061 of the Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that adoption of the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(3)). The Town Council hereby directs the Town
Manager or designee to prepare and file a Notice of Exemption within five business days
following adoption of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held
to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect
the validity of the remainder of this Ordinance. The Town Council hereby declares that it would
have adopted this Ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid
or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. Effective Date and Posting. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after
its adoption. Copies of this Ordinance shall, within fifteen days after its passage and adoption,
be posted in three public places in the Town of Fairfax, to wit: 1. Bulletin Board, Town Hall
Offices; 2. Bulletin Board, Fairfax Post Office; and 3. Bulletin Board, Fairfax Women's Club Building, located at 46 Park Road.
The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council on the 1st
day of June 2022, and duly adopted at the next regular meeting of the Town Council on the 6th
day of July 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
ACKERMAN,COLER,CUTRANO,GODDARD,HELLMAN
None
None None
Stephanie Hellman, Mayor
Michele Gardner, Town Clerk 5 Item 4 Attachment 1
Item 4 Attachment 1