HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2007-02-07
TOWN OF TmURON
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
, Tiburon, CA 94920
Regular Meeting
Tiburon Town Council
February 7, 2007
7:00 p,m.*
NOTE: Meeting Venue*
and Time*
AGENDA
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
CLOSED SESSION (6:00 p,m,)
Tiburon Police Department, 1155 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon CA 94920
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Section 54956,9(a))
County of Marin v. Martha Company
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
(Section 54956,9(b))
One Case - (Kol Shofar Appeal, letter from appellant's attorney dated September 6, 2006)
REGULAR MEETING (7:00 P,M.)
*Reed 8ementary School Multi-purpose Room, 1199 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon CA 94920
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Berger, Councilmember Smith, Vice Mayor
Slavitz, Mayor Gram
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons wishing to address the Town Council on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this
time, please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended
discussion or action on items not on the agenda, Matters requiring action will be referred to
the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future
Town Council meeting agenda. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes.
CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Town Council unless
a request is made by a member of the Town council, public or staff to remove an item for
separate discussion and consideration, If you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item,
please seek recognition by the Mayor and do so at this time,
1. Town Council Minutes - January 17, 2007
2, Town Attorney Employment Agreement - Adopt Second Amendment to Agreement
and Authorize Budget Amendment (Town Manager Peggy Curran)
ACTION lTEMS
3, Appeals of Planning Commission Decisions to Certify the Environmental Impact
Report and to Deny the Conditional Use Permit Application for Expansion of an
Existing Religious Facility and Day School - Reporr by Director of Community
Development Scott Anderson and Planning Consultant Lisa Newman
Address:
Assessor Parcel No,:
Applicant/Appellant:
Appellant:
215 Blackfield Drive
038- 351- 34
Congregation Kol Shofar ("CKS")
Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition ("TNC")
Actions for Council Consideration:
a) Adopt Resolution Denying CKS appeal of Environmental Impact Report (ElR)
Certification
b) Adopt Resolution Denying TNC appeal of Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Certification
c) Adopt Resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report (ElR) for the
project
d) Adopt Resolution Making California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Findings of Fact
e) Adopt Resolution Partially Granting the CKS appeal of the Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) denial, approving a Conditional Use Permit, and adopting a
Mitigation Monitoring Program
TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT
WEEKLY DIGESTS
. Town Council Weekly Digest - January 19, 2007
. Town Council Weekly Digest - January 26, 2007
. Town Council Weekly Digest - February 2, 2007
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 clata are available for viewing and
inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere- Tiburon library located adjacent to
Town Hall. Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town's website,
www.ci.tiburon.ca.us.
Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate
alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including
auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in
public meetings, Please send a written request, including your name, mailing
address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and
preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the
meeting, Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above
address,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to
provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action( s) in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
Public Hearing( s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence
delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing( s),
TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA
While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda,
it reserves the right to take items out of order, No set times are assigned to items
appearing on the Town Council agenda,
. f'f j, (i
--'," /\'\. I \... I
/
,
r
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Gram called the regular mteeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:40 p,m,
on Wednesday, January 17, 2007, ip. Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard,
Tiburon, California,
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Berger, Fredericks, Gram, Smith
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Slavitz
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO:
Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth,
Director of Community Development Anderson,
Director of Administrative Services Bigall, Interim
Chief of Police Hutton, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi
Prior to the regular meeting, Council met in closed session, beginning at 6:30 p.m" to discuss the
following:
CLOSED SESSION
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EV ALUA TION
(Section 54957)
Town Attorney
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIATION
(Section 54956,9(a))
County of Marin v. Martha Company
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT
Mayor Gram said that the Council had discussed some litigation and had conducted the
performance evaluation for Town Attorney Danforth,
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
Town Council Minutes #02-2007
January 17. 2007
Page 1
INTRODUCTION OF NEW TOWN EMPLOYEE
Steve Arana, Police Officer (Interim Chief of Police Dave Hutton)
Interim Chief Hutton introduced Mr. Arana and his girlfriend, who pinned his badge. Town Clerk
Crane Iacopi administered the Oath of Office.
Interim Chief Hutton said that Officer Arana had served for 10 years in the United States Coast
Guard before going to the police academy,
Mayor Gram welcomed Officer Arana to the Town,
PRESENTATION
Citizen Commendations (Interim Chief of Police Dave Hutton)
Interim Chief Hutton introduced Sgt. Mike Mourgos, who eloquently acknowledged four citizens
for their effort and valor in aiding local law enforcement. Mayor Gram presented the
commendations on behalf of the Council and Police Department.
The citizens recognized were: Margarita McLeod, Ms, Pamela Swain and Mr. James Chandler,
and Chrissie Cutting,
CONSENT CALENDAR
I, Town Council Minutes - January 3,2007
2. Police Department Video Upgrade - Approve Utilization of COPS funding for Upgrade of
Police Department's Video System(Interim Chief of Police Hutton)
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt Item Nos. I and 2, as written,
Fredericks, seconded by Berger
AYES: Unanimious
ABSENT: Slavitz
ABSTAIN: Smith, January 3,2007 Minutes
ACTION ITEMS
3. Annexation of Property to Sanitary District No, 5 - Referral by Marin Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) regarding Application for Annexation to Sanitary District
No, 5 by multiple properties on Paradise Drive
Councilmember Smith recused himself and left the room, stating that he represented a
homeowner's association in the affected area.
Town Council Minutes #02-2007
January 17, 2007
Page 2
Director Anderson said that LAFCO had referred an application to the Town consisting of20
properties located along Paradise Drive that desired annexation to Sanitary District No, 5 (SD 5).
Concurrent annexation to the Town was not being proposed at this time, according to Anderson,
Anderson said that the annexation request was being spearheaded by local builder Mark
Jansheski, who was constructing a home near Eden Lane (north of Sea firth Estates on the
upslope side of Paradise Drive). He said that Mr. Jansheski was willing to front the cost of
installing a force main that would have the capacity to serve all development between the SD 5
sewer plant at Paradise Cove and Trestle Glen Boulevard, This line would connect down to
another private line that runs to the plant already, according to Anderson, Both lines would be
accepted as public lines by the Sanitary District.
Mr. Anderson said that the benefit of the proposal was that existing homes in the area could stop
using outdated or failing septic systems. He said that the Seafirth Estates Subdivision might also
be able to join, thereby benefiting from a new, improved sewer system,
The Director said that LAFCO was seeking comments from the Town, Additionally, LAFCO
would require that all the affected property owners enter into pre-annexation agreements with the
Town, He said that there were 33 such agreements in place already, and that this would probably
add another 25-30 to the list.
Mr, Anderson said that the proposal was consistent with the Town's General Plan policies and
could aid the Town in its negotiations with the County over the future potential annexation of
Paradise Drive,
Councilmember Fredericks asked whether the capacity rating upgrade ofSD 5's Paradise Cove
treatment plant by the Regional Water Quality Control Board was a result of a recalculation or
was due to upgrades to the plant, and whether SD 5 still planned to upgrade the plant.
Director Anderson said that he thought the District was moving ahead with upgrades, rather than
pursuing other alternates, such as going around the Peninsula and/or pumping over the Tiburon
ridge,
Mayor Gram opened the public hearing,
Mr, Jansheski said that he had grown up in Tiburon and was respectful of concerns expressed
about future development in the Paradise Drive area, He said that he had heard about the
problems with the failing septic systems since the commencement of his construction, and that he
had received overwhelming support for the idea of a force main from all the neighbors he had
talked to.
Jahnsheski told the Council that LAFCO had received the preliminary environmental analysis for
the project and that the sewer line would have environmental merit.
Town Council Minutes #02-2007
January 17, 2007
Page 3
Randy Greenberg, Norman Way, said that she had tracked the sewer issue for 25 years and
strongly supported the proposal. She acknowledged that it would create a growth incentive, or
"spurt," to develop legal lots in the area, She said that this would result in traffic impacts from
construction; nevertheless, Ms. Greenberg said that she supported the proposal as a "big
correction" that was "long overdue,"
Greenberg asked the Council to be sensitive to any new development in order to keep the "rural"
character of the area intact. She said that she also supported the pre-annexation agreements,
Mayor Gram noted that the requirement for pre-annexation agreements for sewer service was
Town policy; Ms. Greenberg asked the Council to ensure that this policy continued.
Mayor Gram asked whether LAFCO was making the agreements mandatory; Director Anderson
said it would be a requirement and that LAFCO wantedlOO% of the owners who join the
annexation effort to be willing to sign the annexation agreement; otherwise a protest hearing
would cause several weeks' delay,
Councilmember Fredericks asked whether the agreements included anything about the Town's
right of first refusal to review development projects, Mr. Anderson said that they did not.
Mayor Gram closed the public comment portion and directed Staff to forward the comments to
LAFCO.
4, Police Vehicle Replacement - Consider Budget Amendment for Replacement of Vehicle
(Interim Chief of Police Hutton)
Interim Chief Hutton said that two patrol vehicles had been damaged, leaving the department
without a back-up vehicle, He asked the Council to authorize a budget amendment for
replacement of one vehicle in the current fiscal year. He noted that two vehicles were scheduled
for replacement in the next fiscal year and that this represented moving up the purchase of one of
these two,
In his report, Interim Chief Hutton noted that one of the vehicles had been damaged in an
incident with a juvenile, Councilmember Smith asked whether restitution was being sought from
the parents of the juvenile, Interim Chief Hutton said that restitution would depend on whether
the juvenile was convicted. Councilmember Smith and Mayor Gram said that the Town's desire
for restitution should be strongly expressed to the District Attorney, in this case. Interim Chief
Hutton said that he would follow up, Town Attorney Danforth said that she would investigate
the statutory obligations of the parents, Mayor Gram offered to have a letter sent to the DA
under his signature.
Town Council Minutes #02-2007
January 17, 2007
Page 4
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To authorize the budget amendment, as proposed, and to seek restitution for one of
the damaged vehicles,
Fredericks, seconded by Berger
AYES: Unanimious
ABSENT: Slavitz
PUBLIC HEARING
5. Repeal of Chapter 7B (Property Development Tax) of the Tiburon Municipal Code
(Director of Community Development Anderson)
Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance ofthe Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon repealing Chapter 7B (property Development Tax) of the Tiburon Municipal
Code
Council waived the staff report,
Mayor Gram opened and closed the public hearing, There was no public comment.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To read ordinance by title only,
Fredericks, seconded by Berger
AYES: Unanimious
ABSENT: Slavitz
Mayor Gram read, "An ordinance of the Town Council ofthe Town ofTiburon Repealing Chapter
7B (Property Development Tax) of the Municipal Code."
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt Ordinance,
Berger, seconded by Smith
AYES: Berger, Fredericks, Gram, Smith
ABSENT: Slavitz
TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Fredericks said that she had attended the Jt. Disaster Advisory Council meeting;
she noted that the City of Belvedere was interested in joint funding to upgrade its emergency
radio frequency and anteuna.
Councilmember Fredericks also said that she had attended a meeting of the League of California
Cities Transportation, Communications, and Public Works committee. One item of interest, she
noted, was the potential for problems with trenchless technology cross-boring, if utilities were
not properly marked.
Town Counct/ Minutes #02-2007
January 17, 2007
Page 5
Councilmember Berger said that he had met with architect Hank Bruce, who had been retained
by the Caprice to pursue its expansion application.
He also commended Town Manager Curran for her efforts to develop information regarding the
proposed fare increases in the Blue and Gold ferry service, and related meetings, to ensure
preservation of this service to the Town,
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT
Town Manager Curran said that Ranger Pipeline had been very cooperative and had agreed to extend
its contract price in the Del Mar Undergrounding District until March 9, 2007.
WEEKLY DIGESTS
. Town Council Weekly Digest - January 5, 2007
. Town Council Weekly Digest - January 12, 2007
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council ofthe Town of Tiburon, Mayor Gram
adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m., sine die.
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Town Council Minules #02-2007
January 17, 2007
Page 6
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting
February 7, 2007
Agenda Item: .1
STAFF REPORT
To:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From:
Town Manager's Office
Subject:
Recommendation to Adopt and Authorize the Town Manager to
Execute the Second Amendment to Town Attorney's Employment
Agreement and Authorize a Budget Amendment in the Amount of
$2,111
(iilfl
Reviewed By:
BACKGROUND
On January 17, 2007, the Town Council met in closed session to conduct an evaluation of Town
Attorney Ann Danforth. The attached amendment to her Employment Agreement provides for
the salary adjustment that was determined as a result of that process,
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The adopted municipal budget provides for an annual salary of $103,400 for the Town Attorney,
The proposed new salary of $1 05, 188 exceeds this appropriation by $1,788. When employer paid
retirement benefits are included, the total fiscal impact to the adopted budget is $2,111,
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Town Council:
Move to adopt, and authorize the Town Manager to execute, the second amendment
to the Town Attorney's Employment Agreement as presented and to authorize a
budget amendment in the amount of $2, 111.
Prepared By:
Peggy Curran, Town Manager
SECOND AMENDMENT TO TOWN ATTORNEY'S
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN ATTORNEY'S EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT ("Amendment") is effective as of February 7, 2007, by and between The Town of
Tiburon ("Town") and Ann R. Danforth ("Employee"),
RECITALS
A, On December 15,1995, the Town and Employee entered into a letter agreement
("Original Agreement") that retained Employee as Town Attorney for the Town,
beginning on January 22, 1996. Employee has ably served as the Town Attorney since
that date, On March 18, 1998, the Town and Employee amended the Original Agreement
by a memorandum providing for Employee's continuing as Town Attorney on a seventy-
five percent work schedule on an indefinite basis,
B. Effectively July I, 2001, the parties entered into a new agreement that superceded and
replaced the Original Agreement and amendment ("Attorney's Agreement"), The parties
subsequently amended the Attorney's Agreement on November 16, 2005,
C, The Town Council has conducted its 2006 performance evaluation of Employee as set forth
and is well satisfied with Employee's Performance, The Council finds that the Employee
has demonstrated legal and management skills that compare favorably to persons holding
similar positions in similar agencies,
D. The Town's policy is to offer compensation packages that are competitive with similar
employers for similar positions so as to maintain the highest quality staff to serve the public,
To continue to maintain a competitive compensation package for Employee so as to retain
Employee as Town Attorney, the Council has decided to further modifY the Employee's
Agreement and compensation as set forth in this Amendment and Employee has agreed to
such modification, The Town Council accordingly has authorized the Town Manager to
execute this Agreement on behalf of the Town.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE RECITALS AND
OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT, IT IS
AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Base Salarv, Section 4,1 of the Attorney's Agreement is amended to read as follows:
Town Attorney, Am. To Employment Ag" 2-07-07
I
4,1 Base Salary, Employee shall receive a base salary of One
Hundred, forth Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars
($140,250) per year, Consistent with the Town's practice, this salary
shall be retroactive to July I, 2007, the beginning ofthe fiscal year.
2. Attornev's Al!reement Otherwise Unchanl!ed, Except as expressly modified by this
Amendment, and the previous amendments described herein, the Attorney's Agreement
between the Town and Employee shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Attorney's Agreement shall be
effective as of the day and year written above,
Dated:
THE TOWN OF TIBURON:
By:
Margaret Curran
Manager, Town of Tiburon
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Thomas Curry, McDonough, Holland &
Allen
Town Attorney
EMPLOYEE
Ann R, Danforth
Town Attorney, Town of Tiburon
Town Attorney, Am. To Employment Ag" 2-07-07
2
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting
February 7, 2007
Agenda Item:,3,
SIIPPLE~IEYI.\L ST \FF REPOlrJ
To:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From:
Community Development Department
Subject:
215 Blackfield Drive; Congregation Kol Shofar Expansion Project
Conditional Use Permit; Appeals of Planning Commission Decisions to
Certify the Environmental Impact Report and to Deny the Conditional
Use Permit Application for Expansion of an Existing Religious Facility
and Day School (File #10404)
Reviewed By:
~
BACKGROUND
The staff report and attachments for this item were originally released on January 23, 2007,
Subsequently, Staff has been directed to make several revisions to the CUP Resolution (Exhibit 5
to the original staff report), primarily but not exclusively focusing on Condition #2, which
referenced Table I: Uses & Events/Activities. The revised draft resolution deletes Table I from
the Resolution and replaces it with text descriptions of use restrictions on the site. A new
condition # 13 regarding religious exercise has also been added.
To facilitate the meeting, Staffhas prepared a Meeting Procedure memo (Exhibit A) outlining
the order in which Mayor Gram intends to conduct the meeting.
Revisions to the CUP resolution also triggered minor changes to the Mitigation Monitoring
Program (MMP) for the project. In addition, the General Plan and Zoning Consistency findings
have been completed and are attached. Therefore, Staff is attaching a complete copy of the
revised CUP resolution and its attachments as Exhibit B.
Revisions were also required to the resolution making CEQA Findings of Fact. This revised
resolution is attached as Exhibit C.
CORRESPONDENCE
Letters received since the original staff report release are attached as Exhibit D, Any
correspondence received after Noon on February 2 (the late mail cut-off time) is not included
herein but will be distributed to the Town Council later,
T'lIVIl l\lllllcil Ml'din~
Fl'llrHiHY "I, .7.()(rl
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
I) Conduct the meeting in accordance with the attached Meeting Procedures memo,
2) Adopt the Resolution denying the CKS appeal of the ErR certification,
3) Adopt the Resolution denying the TNC appeal of the ErR certification.
4) Adopt the Resolution certifying the ErR,
5) Adopt the Resolution making CEQA Findings of Fact (revised Exhibit 4 dated
2/2/2007),
6) Adopt the Resolution partially granting the CKS appeal ofthe CUP denial,
conditionally approving the CUP, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program
(revised Exhibit 5 dated 21212007).
Exhibits:
A.
S.
C.
D,
Meeting Procedures Memo dated 2/2/2007
Revised CUP approval Resolution with all attachments
Revised CEQA Findings of Fact Resolution dated 2/2/2007
Correspondence received since January 23, 2007
Prepared By: Scott Anderson ~.-
Tll\\,'N ,,-"'I' TIBl1J~ll\1 P,l~l' _'1 p[.'2
Meeting Announcement and Procedure
Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit Appeal Hearing
February 7, 2007 7:00 PM
Reed Elementary School Multi-Purpose Room
1199 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California
To:
From:
Date:
Interested Parties
Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development
February 2,2007
The Mayor of Tiburon has requested that I send you a memo outlining the
procedure that he intends to follow at the meeting on February 7,2007. The
item involves three appeals of the certification of the EIR for the project, as
well as the Kol Shofar appeal of the project's denial by the Planning
Commission.
~ The Kol Shofar item will be introduced by the Town Council
Subcommittee (Staff report waived) and a description of changes
summarized. The Subcommittee and Staff will respond to questions
from the Council.
~ Kol Shofar will present first and will be allowed up to 30 minutes (less
would be appreciated).
~ The Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition will present next and will be
allotted up to 30 minutes.
~ Members of the public will be allowed to address the Council for up to
3 minutes each. Speaker cards will be used. Please limit public
comments to the CUP Resolution and its attachments. There is no new
information with respect to the denial of the EIR certification appeals
and the record contains all of the appellants arguments (including the
TN C's recent letter),
~ A rebuttal time of up to 10 minutes will be allocated to each appellant.
~ The Town Council will close the public comment portion of the
meeting and begin its deliberations and take any actions.
EXHIBIT A
RECORDING REQUESTED
RETURN TO:
TOWN CLERK
TIBURON TOWN HALL
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD
TIBURON, CA 94920
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2007
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON PARTIALLY UPHOLDING THE CONGREGATION KOL
SHOFAR APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONGREGATION KOL SHOFAR
SYNAGOGUE PROPERTY AT
215 BLACKFIELD DRIVE rAP 38-351-34) FILE #10404
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows:
Section.L Findinos.
A. In 1985, the Town of Tiburon approved a conditional use permit authorizing
synagogue and day school uses on property located at 215 Blackfield Drive,
The use permit conditions were subsequently amended by adoption of Planning
Commission Resolution Nos. 97-17, 2001-07, and 2004-10.
B. On April 21, 2004, the Town of Tiburon received a Land Development
Application (File #10404) (the "Application") from Congregation Kol Shofar
("CKS") with regard to its property at 215 Blackfield Drive (the "Property"), The
Application seeks a conditional use permit ("CUP") for remodeling of existing
structures and construction of new facilities on the Property, specifically: a
single-story, 9,733 square foot multi-purpose addition to the existing circular
building; four new single-story classrooms and a service room totaling 3,662
square feet; remodeling of the existing building; a new parking lot for 40 spaces;
and related lighting and landscaping improvements. In addition, the Application
seeks an increase in the maximum enrollment of the day school from 100 to 150
children, as well as allowing new special and congregational event evening
programs.
The Application consists of the following:
1. Conditional Use Permit and Environmental Review Submission, dated April,
19,2004, containing:
a, Geotechnical Report prepared by Herzog Engineers, dated February,
2004
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 2,2007
1
EXHIBIT' B
b. Traffic and Parking Study prepared by Robert Harrison Traffic
Engineers, dated April, 2004
c, Environmental Noise Study prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates,
Inc., dated April, 2004
d. Lighting Study and Recommendations prepared by Architectural
Lighting Design, dated April, 2004
e. Congregation Kol Shofar Use Summary, dated March, 2004
f. Visual Impact Study prepared by Herman and Coliver Architecture,
dated April, 2004
2. Project Plans (14 sheets) prepared by Herman and Coliver Architecture,
received April 21, 2004, including revised Sheet A 1.1 dated 11/4/2005
3. Revised project description prepared by IPA, Inc., dated July 14, 2004
4. Addenda to Traffic and Parking Study prepared by Robert Harrison Traffic
Engineers, dated June 21 , 2004 and August 18, 2004
5, Addenda to Environmental Noise Study prepared by Charles M. Salter
Associates, Inc" dated June 30, 2004 and August 18, 2004
6. Modified Use-Impact Analysis prepared by IPA, Inc., dated April 11 , 2006
7. FEIR: Alternative 7 Analysis prepared by Leonard Charles Associates, dated
April 18, 2006,
The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of this
resolution. The record includes the Staff Reports, minutes, application materials,
the Draft EIR, Final EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and all comments
and materials received at the public hearings and throughout the administrative
process.
C. On April 24, May 10 and May 31, 2006 the Planning Commission held duly
noticed public hearings on the Application, at which it considered the Final EIR
and heard and considered testimony and correspondence from interested
persons. At the conclusion of the May 10, 2006 hearing, a majority of the
Planning Commission indicated they could not support the Project based on,
among other things, asserted inconsistency with General Plan goals and policies
and failure of the Project to conform to Tiburon Zoning Ordinance standards and
provisions. The Planning Commission offered CKS a choice of either an "up or
down" vote on the Application or a continuance of the hearing to a later date to
enable a Planning COmmission subcommittee to attempt to craft a resolution of
conditional approval based on modifications necessary to satisfactorily address
the inadequacies identified by the Planning Commission at the May 10, 2006
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No, XX-2OG7 Revised Draft February 2, 2007 2
meeting. CKS initially indicated a willingness to consider such an approach for
conditional approval by the Planning Commission, but on May 16, 2006,
informed Town Staff that CKS did not wish to support such an approach and
requested an "up or down" vote on the Application.
D. At the May 31, 2006 hearing, the Planning Commission approved Resolution
2006-15 certifying the Final EI R and approved Resolution 2006-16, denying the
Conditional Use Permit application.
E. The Planning Commission's certification of the Final EIR and denial of the CUP
application was the subject of three (3) appeals. On June 6, 2006, CKS
appealed the Planning Commission's denial and certification of the EIR. On
June 12, 2006, Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition appealed the certification of the
EIR. The Greenwood Beach Homeowners Association appealed the certification
of the EIR on June 12, 2006. The Greenwood Beach Homeowners Association
appeal was subsequently withdrawn, The appeals from the applicant and
Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition have been denied by separate resolution.
F. On October 24,2006 and November 15, 2006, the Tiburon Town Council held
duly noticed public hearings on the appeals of the Planning Commission's
actions to certify the Final EIR and deny the Conditional Use Permit and, after
extensive testimony, closed the public hearing, and heard the recommendations
of the ad-hoc subcommittee of the Town Council. After due consideration and
deliberation, the Town Council voted unanimously to endorse the sub-
committee's recommendations and provided direction to staff to return with
resolutions reflecting the Town Council's direction for adoption at a future
meeting,
G. On February 7,2007, the Town Council held a duly noticed public meeting to
take final action on the appeals of the Planning Commission's decisions.
H. The Town Council finds, based upon evidence in the record, that all potentially
significant adverse impacts have been mitigated to less than significant levels
through modifications to the project as set forth in this resolution and in the
attached mitigation monitoring program. Findings of Fact pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act have been adopted by separate resolution.
I. The Town Council also finds based upon the application materials and analysis
provided in the certified EIR and Staff Reports and based on evidence in the
record that the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Tiburon General
Plan and is in substantial compliance with the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and
other applicable regulations.
J, The Town Council also finds that the improvements proposed by this Application
would be properly related to the development of the neighborhood as a whole
and reasonably compatible with the types of uses normally permitted in the
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No, XX-2007 Revised Draft February 2, 2007 3
surrounding area, once the mitigation measures and conditions of approval are
imposed to address potential hydrology, biology, air quality, noise, parking and
circulation, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts on neighboring homes,
K. The Town Council further finds that the imposition of new conditions of approval
and consolidation of previous conditions of approval placed on prior permits into
a new CUP is appropriate and reasonable at this time to ensure that the
synagogue and day school uses remain in substantial compliance with the spirit
and intent of the original 1985 conditional use permit, as subsequently amended
in 1997,2001 and 2004.
Section 2, Partial Grantina of the CKS Appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon does hereby partially grant the appeal of CKS and approve the conditional use
permit application subject to the conditions below. The Town Council finds, based on
evidence in the record, that changes to the project have to the Council's satisfaction
addressed the objections to the application expressed by the Planning Commission in
adopting its resolution of denial. Findings to that effect are attached as Exhibit C,
Section 3, Conditions of Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town of Tiburon
Town Council does hereby approve the Conditional Use Permit application (File
#10404), to remodel and expand the facilities for the existing synagogue and private
day school uses and increase the number of weekday and weekend events at 215
Blackfield Drive, subject to the following conditions and modifications:
1 , The approved physical improvements for Congregation Kol Shofar (CKS) are
depicted on the Proposed Site Plan Diagram (Sheet A 1 ,1) dated 4/16/2004
prepared by Herman & Coliver and as further detailed on Sheets, AO.1-0.3, A 1.2,
A2.0, A3.0, A3.1, L 1.0, L 1.0, C2.0, and C3.0 (all dated 4/16/2004); and Sheets
A 1,3 and A-3.2 (revised 11/04/05), as modified herein and summarized below:
A. Construction of a new one-story, 3,662 square foot, 20-foot high
classroom building consisting of four (4) classrooms and a service
building.
B. Construction of a new one-story, approximately 8,300 square foot, 23-foot
high Multi-Purpose Building (MPB), which represents a 15% reduction
from that shown on the referenced drawing. The MPB shall be pulled
back from the hill-slope to a distance at least five (5) feet from the top of
slope and appropriately landscaped. The multi-purpose room portion of
the MPB shall not exceed 4,500 square feet of net usable area. In
addition to the approximately 8,300 square feet of MBP, an attached
facility is approved that shall consist of a fully enclosed 800 square foot
one-story loading/unloading area for catering, clean-up and related
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-20m Revised Draft February 2,2007 4
purposes at the western edge of the MPB, as shown on Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein,
C, Interior remodeling of the existing main building and annex building on the
site,
D. CKS shall modify the parking lot layout to optimize circulation and provide
a minimum of 156 total on-site parking spaces, including handicapped
spaces, The primary parking lot shall be designed as "enter-only" from
Via Los Altos and "exit only" onto Reedland Woods Way. Improvements
to the existing service parking lot shall provide staff parking, handicapped
parking and service access and shall not be available to the public as a
parking area, except for those needing handicapped parking (see also
Mitigation Measure 3.3-B.1), The exit from the parking lot onto Reedland
Woods Way shall be as narrow as practicable to the satisfaction of the
Town Engineer. No parking structure is approved herein,
E. Landscape improvements as shown on Sheets A 1.1 and L 1.0 are subject
to further refinement at the Design Review application phase to implement
mitigation measures and conditions of approval herein. Approved
landscaping shall be professionally-maintained at all times in a healthy,
weed-free and litter-free condition. Dead or dying plants shall be promptly
replaced. A landscape maintenance bond for a term of three years
beyond occupancy of the MPS shall be required prior to occupancy of the
MPS. The landscape plan shall call for the removal of invasive plant
species such as French broom and pampas grass from the site,
F. The reconstruction and expansion plans approved as part of the
Conditional Use Permit provide a framework, in terms of the site plan
"footprint" and established maximum development intensity, which will be
subject to further refinement during the Design Review Permit process,
Plans submitted for Design Review shall provide detailed design
information, particularly for the facilities that are identified for further study
and modification, as noted above, such as the MPS, parking lot design,
and landscape plans, The Design Review Board shall not have the
authority to unilaterally further reduce the square footage of the MPB or
classroom additions.
2, This permit regulates use of all facilities at the site as follows:
Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays: Meetings, education,
lectures and similar activities of up to thirty (30) persons each, but not to exceed
one hundred (100) persons cumulative on the site at one time, are permitted until
9:00 pm. Day school uses with maximum attendance as authorized by this
permit may operate between 7:30 am and 6:00 pm, During one evening of CKS
choosing from Monday through Thursday, religious school and adult education
are authorized until 9:00 pm.
Fridays: Meetings, education, lectures and similar activities of up to thirty (30)
persons each, but not to exceed one hundred (100) persons cumulative on the
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No, XX-2007 Revised Draft February 2, 2007 5
site at one time, are permitted until 9:00 pm. Day school uses with maximum
attendance as authorized by this permit may operate between 7:30 am and 6:00
pm. In addition, up to thirty (30) member-sponsored congregational dinners are
authorized annually. The congregational dinners shall be limited to a maximum
of one hundred (100) persons and must conclude by 9:00 pm (not including
clean-up), In addition, Friday Night Special Services held in the Sanctuary
approximately thirty (30) times per year, may conclude as late as 10:00 pm.
Saturdays: Meetings, education, lectures and similar activities of up to thirty (30)
persons each, but not to exceed one hundred (100) persons cumulative on the
site at one time, are permitted until 1 0:00 pm. Sabbath Services are excepted
from the 100-person limit. In addition, an annual maximum of ten (10) member-
sponsored events may be held up to 10:00 pm (not including clean-up), with the
following attendance limits:
5 events @ 150 persons maximum attendance
4 events @ 200 persons maximum attendance
1 event @ 250 persons maximum attendance
Sundays: Meetings, education, lectures and similar activities of up to thirty (30)
persons each, but not to exceed one hundred (100) persons cumulative on the
site at one time, are permitted until 6:00 pm. Religious school and adult
education are excepted from the 100-person limit. In addition, an annual
maximum of seven (7) member-sponsored events may be held from 3:00 pm to
8:00 pm (not including clean-up), with the following attendance limits:
4 events @ 100 persons maximum attendance
2 events @ 150 persons maximum attendance
1 event @ 200 persons maximum attendance
The phrase "meetings, education, lectures and similar activities" does not include
parties or events that would use amplified sound or generate substantial noise.
Time and hour restrictions of this permit do not apply to the following list of
annual events and religious holidays: Rosh Hashanah (first day, first night, and
second day); Yom Kippur day and night; Sukkot Dinner; Simchat Torah Evening
Service; Tu B'Shvat Seder; Purim Play; Purim Service; Shavuot Night Service;
Selichot Night Service; USY (Synagogue teen-age Youth Group) events.
For purposes of this permit, a "member-sponsored event" is a private,
commemorative function for which a contract is generally entered into between
the member and the synagogue.
3, The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMRP), attached hereto as Exhibit Band
made a part of this resolution, is hereby adopted and its provisions shall be
implemented,
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 2,2007
6
4, The following conditions shall apply to all facilities at the site:
A. CKS facilities shall not be rented out to non-member public or private
parties, except for the classroom facilities that are rented to an entity
operating a private day school on the site. For member-sponsored
events, a sponsoring member must be present at the event or function for
substantially the entire event or function.
B. All HV AC units shall be baffled to reduce noise to surrounding residents.
HV AC units shall not be operated after the facility is closed each day. The
Building Permit application specifications shall include best practices for
minimizing sound from all ventilation and air circulation equipment.
C. The following conditions pertain to the Multi-Purpose Building (MPB) and
its Courtyard:
i) The MPB lobby shall not be used for seating at any event but shall
be kept clear except for High Holy Day services,
ii) Doors and windows of the MPB shall remain in the closed position
during large (100 or more persons) or amplified indoor events (such
as life-cycle events) except for the three High Holy Day services,
when they can be left open only during the services. (Mitigation 3.4-
B,1)
iii) Windows and doors shall be designed to minimize noise leakage to
outside areas.
iv. No outdoor amplification will be allowed except for the annual
Sunday School closing ceremony, at which time audio speakers
shall be faced toward the CKS facility and away from surrounding
residential uses. For any other event at which exterior amplified
sound is proposed, CKS must secure a Special Event Permit from
the Town, No loud bells or buzzers associated with any use on the
site shall be allowed. Any system employed to alert students as to
class times should not be clearly audible beyond the property
boundary. Landscaping shall be enhanced to reduce noise to the
surrounding neighborhood.
v. Use of the Courtyard for special events is authorized only for the
three High Holy Days and Sukkot and periodic congregational
lunches. Outdoor use of the Courtyard during events other than the
High Holy Days, Sukkot, congregational lunches, and Sunday
School graduation services shall be limited to people stepping out
for air and casual conversation. No food or drinks shall be served in
the Courtyard except for Sukkot and congregational lunches, and
no other organized activities will be held in the Courtyard.
vi. Shall not be rented out or otherwise used for non-member events,
For member-sponsored events, a sponsoring member must be
present at the event or function.
vii. The Design Review Permit application plans for the MPB shall
include a design for a fully enclosed, heavily sound-insulated area
connecting to kitchens wherein catering vehicles would be loaded
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 2, 2007 7
and unloaded and for storage of garbage and recyclables, This
area shall be large enough to accommodate van-type catering
vehicles, and no catering or supply vehicles such as equipment
rental trucks, shall be permitted unless they load and unload within
the enclosed area with the doors closed, To the extent practicable,
use of "back-up warning devices" on vehicles using this loading and
unloading area shall be minimized.
D. The following specific conditions pertain to the Classrooms:
i) Educational spaces in the facility are limited to 150 students on
weekdays, and a maximum of 100 students are permitted for a
private day school tenant use. The educational spaces may be
used for religious study and for religious educational instruction by
the congregation.
ii) Weekday school start and end times at the Kol Shofar site shall be
separated by a minimum of 15 minutes from the start and end
times of the Bel Aire public school.
E. The following specific conditions apply to the Annex Building:
i) The Annex Building is approved for accessibility upgrades and fire
sprinkler and other safety upgrades.
ii) Use of the Annex Building shall be limited to storage and religious
and educational activities.
5, The following Traffic and Parking Management program shall be implemented:
A. Phvsicallmprovements
i) Fencing or a landscaping barrier shall be installed along or near the
CKS frontage of Reedland Woods Way to effectively discourage
pedestrian access to the site from Reedland Woods Way.
ii) A minimum of 156 total on-site parking spaces shall be provided,
including handicapped parking spaces. Finalized parking lot
design, circulation and layout shall be provided as part of the
Design Review application.
iii) A lighted directional sign to be reviewed by the Design Review
Board shall be required at the corner of Blackfield Drive and Via
Los Altos to direct vehicles to the CKS parking lot entrance on Via
Los Altos and to discourage use of Reedland Woods Way by CKS-
related inbound traffic. The sign shall be constructed of natural
materials with low-impact lighting,
iv) New red "No Parking" curbs shall be painted at the following
locations:
(a) along both sides of Via Los Altos from Blackfield Drive to the
curve below 32 Via Los Altos;
(b) along the northwest side of Blackfield Drive from Via Los Altos
to the property at 231 Blackfield Drive;
(c) along the east side of Reedland Woods Way to the property line
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No, XX-2OO7 Revised Draft February 2, 2007 8
with 20 Reedland Woods Way;
(d) along the west side of Reedland Woods Way to the CKS
property line with 35 Reedland Woods Way.
v) "No U-turn" signs shall be placed along Blackfield Drive above the
Via Los Altos intersection and on Via Los Altos below 32 Via Los
Altos, with precise number and placement to be determined by the
Town Engineer. Tiburon Police shall be authorized to ticket drivers
who make U-turns in these areas.
vi) The Town Engineer shall review the condition of the "hump" at the
upper Via Los Altos driveway to CKS and determine whether minor
modifications are necessary to enhance circulation in and out of
that driveway.
B. Manaaement
i) All CKS-sponsored and CKS-member-sponsored events of 200+
persons (except Sabbath Services and Sunday School activities)
will require a minimum of three monitors/traffic controllers: 1) at the
corner of Blackfield DriveNia Los Altos; 2) CKS driveway at
Reedland Woods Way; and 3) at the CKS parking lot entrance on
Via Los Altos. Additional monitors may be necessary to adequately
direct traffic and parking, to be determined by CKS based upon
need. CKS shall inform the Tiburon Police Department five (5)
days in advance of any such event.
ii) The following traffic and parking management measures shall be
imposed for events or combinations of events/activities at CKS with
a cumulative attendance expected to be above 359 persons
(except for Sunday School programs):
(a) "Resident Traffic Only" temporary signs placed on Reedland
Woods Way and Via Los Altos.
(b) "No Parking" temporary signs placed on the southeast side
of Blackfield Drive between CKS and Karen Way,
(c) Trained traffic control monitors/controllers provided to the
satisfaction of the Tiburon Police Department.
(d) Total minimum event/service parking shall be calculated by
dividing the expected number of attendees by 2.3 (attendees
per vehicle) Adequate off-site parking (spaces required in
excess of 156, calculated at 2,3 persons per vehicle) shall
be secured at a remote parking lot or lots in advance. As a
condition of holding the event, written verification of the
parking availability must be presented to a CKS designated
person by contract, letter or e-mail from a remote lot owner
or operator at least five (5) days prior to an event/activity or
service, If such verification is not timely presented, or is
subsequently withdrawn, the event shall be cancelled unless
sufficient substitute off-site parking can be found and
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No, XX-2007 Revised Draft February 2,2007 9
verified in writing prior to the event. Such written verification
is to be kept on file at CKS and made available to the Town
upon request. Parking locations shall be pre-assigned and
notification provided by mail. Attendees will be issued
parking passes that indicate which lot (on-site or off-site) that
an attendee will be required to park in, and the parking pass
will be displayed in the windshield during the event or
service.
(e) Shuttle service to and from the remote parking lot or lots
shall be required. A traffic control monitor shall be provided
by CKS at the remote parking lot or lots to facilitate parking
and use of the shuttle by attendees. CKS shall develop a
shuttle program for review and approval by the Director of
Community Development at least 120 days prior to issuance
of the Certificate of Occupancy for the MPS, Shuttle runs
shall begin at least 30 minutes prior to the start of an event
or service and shall end no earlier than one hour after the
end of the event or service. A minimum of two shuttle buses
shall be in operation at all such times, Shuttles shall not be
diesel powered and engines shall not idle except when
loading or unloading.
(f) Attendees shall be issued parking passes and maps with
directions sent by mail or e-mail two weeks prior to the event
indicating the assigned parking lot (on-site or off-site) with a
copy of the mailed information (map, directions, sample
parking pass) sent to the Neighborhood Advisory
Committee, Tiburon Police Department, and Director of
Community Development. Invitations to events shall include
traffic, noise and circulation reminders as well as a reminder
to please limit noise in the parking lot and grounds upon
arrival and upon leaving an event.
(g) CKS shall be responsible for implementing all required traffic
controls.
(iii) For the High Holy Days services, the following shall apply in
addition to the measures identified in S(ii) above:
(a) CKS shall provide a courtesy mailing or e-mailing to Vista
Tiburon Subdivision addresses at least 10 days but no more
than 21 days before the start of High Holy Days services;
(b) Carpool/shuttle/parking permiVinformation and map shall be
distributed to members at least 21 days before the start of
High Holy Days services, This distribution shall include
traffic, noise and circulation reminders as well as a reminder
to please limit noise in the parking lot and grounds upon
arrival and upon leaving an event.
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. XX-2007 Ri!Vised Drafl February 2, 2007
10
C. Monitorina, Education, and Enforcement
(i) In order to enforce the traffic and parking management provisions,
a minimum of three (3) unannounced traffic and parking monitoring
events per year shall be performed by Town-retained independent
observers for at least the first two years following occupancy of the
MPB. The cost of the independent observers shall be paid by
CKS, The purpose of the monitoring events shall be to ensure that
the traffic and parking provisions, including off-site parking,
carpooling, and the use of on-site parking have been complied with
and become routine, To assist with the selection of unannounced
monitoring times, CKS shall provide the Director of Community
Development a list of all known events with the estimated number
of attendees on a quarterly basis, with said list to be provided at
least ten days prior to the first event on each quarterly list.
(ii) Results of each traffic and parking monitoring event shall be
forwarded to CKS, the Director of Community Development and to
the Neighborhood Advisory Committee within fourteen (14) days of
receipt, and will be made available to the Planning Commission for
each CUP review. If a traffic and parking monitoring event results
in a finding of non-compliance, the Director of Community
Development shall first inform CKS and the Neighborhood Advisory
Committee in writing about the non-compliance issues and require
immediate correction. If subsequent monitoring results in a second
finding of non-compliance within one (1) year of the previous
finding of non-compliance, the Director of Community Development
shall refer the matter to the Planning Commission for review of the
CUP provisions and recommendation of sanctions.
(iii) CKS shall conduct a multi-part educational program concerning
traffic control and parking. The program shall include:
(a) The strong discouragement of any parking in the
surrounding neighborhoods (including Bel Aire neighborhood
streets) when there are available spaces in the on-site
parking lot. CKS event attendees users must avoid parking
in neighborhoods.
(b) Instructions shall be sent at least twice annually to all
congregants that parking shall only be in CKS on-site
parking lots or at pre-approved and identified off-site parking
lots associated with the shuttle program.
(b) Diagrams showing parking locations and circulation patterns,
including entrances and exits from parking lots, shall be
included. A statement encouraging courteous conduct
toward neighbors shall also be included.
(c) CKS shall conduct an ongoing educational program for its
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No, XX-2007 R(?Vised Draft February 2,2007 I I
members and for attendees of CKS events concerning traffic
and parking, including a statement that Reedland Woods
Way is not to be used by inbound CKS-related traffic and
that U-turns and turn-arounds using residential driveways
are not to be made in the surrounding streets and will be
enforced by the Tiburon Police Department.
(d) CKS shall maintain an up-to-date database of its members
to facilitate and encourage carpooling. The carpool
database shall be updated annually and confirmation of the
update (but not the database itself) shall be submitted with
the annual review application information. The information
from this database shall be used by CKS to provide
information to its members about potential carpool partners
and will be targeted to members for whom carpooling may
be a viable means of reaching the property.
(e) CKS shall maintain a log of all events/activities of 150+
attendees, the duration (start and end) of these events and
the number of attendees and number of vehicles parking on-
site,
(f) The CKS log shall be made available to the Neighborhood
Advisory Committee and the Director of Community
Development upon 24 hours notice of a request to review
the log.
(g) CKS shall maintain a website available to the neighborhood,
the congregation, and the Town to provide regular
information on events, activities, parking and traffic. The
website shall provide an email address for written comment
from interested persons.
6. Lighting, Parking Lot Lighting, and Landscaping:
A. Parking lot lighting shall be on timers to turn off no later than 9:30 pm on
weekdays. The duration of lighting may be extended by manual override
device when occasions demand, but in no event shall be kept on later
than 10:30 pm except for High Holy Days, Selichot, Shauvot, and the
second night of Passover, at which times the parking lot lighting shall
remain on until no later than thirty minutes after event ending time.
S. Landscaping shall be enhanced in the Design Review application
drawings to achieve the goals of reducing off-site noise, light and glare
impacts,
C. Eucalyptus trees located on the CKS property in the immediate vicinity of
the area below 32 Via Los Altos shall be inspected annually by a certified
arborist or registered professional forester who shall file a report as to the
tree health and safety. Said report shall be submitted to the Town
annually.
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No, XX-2007 Revised Drqfi February 2, 2007
12
D. All skylights shall have blackout blinds to be closed at sunset whenever
the facility is in use.
7, Noise Controls: (see Condition No.4 and Exhibit B).
8, CUP Review:
A. The CUP shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public
hearing six (6) months after occupancy of the MPB. Additional reviews
shall occur once every six (6) months for the next two and one-half (2 %)
years thereafter, and annually after the first three (3) years, The Planning
Commission shall have the authority to modify the restrictions of this CUP
to further regulate or restrict the use.
B. During the first four (4) years following occupancy of the MPB and the
new classrooms, the Planning Commission shall not have the authority to
relax restrictions identified in the CUP, After the first four (4) years of
reviews and during subsequent reviews, the Planning Commission shall
have the authority to modify any aspect of the CUP in its reasonable
discretion, including restrictions contained within this Resolution, provided
that the Commission determines that such modifications would be
consistent with the spirit and intent of the Resolution and would not result
in additional impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.
C. CKS shall be responsible for submitting, at least 45 days prior to the
annual review date, a detailed narrative report of the current use and
operation of the synagogue and day school and supporting documentation
to demonstrate compliance with conditions of approval of this permit. The
Director of Community Development shall review the annual report for
completeness and may request clarification or additional documentation
as necessary. CKS shall be responsible for all Town processing costs
associated with the review and shall deposit in advance sufficient funds to
cover such cost.
D. CKS will advise and educate its tenant (the day school) concerning
provisions of this CUP, with special emphasis on minimizing traffic, noise,
lighting; providing courtesy to neighbors, and other issues addressed in
these use permit conditions of approval. CKS shall coordinate closely
with the tenant day school regarding securing all required Town permits
prior to making physical improvements at the site, and shall coordinate
timely responses to neighbor issues or complaints that involve the day
school.
E, Any significant expansion or intensification of the uses or operations
allowed herein, as determined within the reasonable discretion of the
Director of Community Development, shall require an amendment to the
CUP,
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No, XX-2007 Revised Draft February 2, 2007
13
9. Neighborhood Advisory Committee:
A. CKS shall support the formation and operation of a Neighborhood
Advisory Committee (NAC), which shall be composed of the CKS
Executive Director, a Board Member, a Congregation Member and three
neighborhood members selected by the surrounding neighborhood.
B. The NAC shall have two co-chairs (one from CKS and one neighborhood
representative) responsible for agendas and acting as committee liaison
to the Town. The NAC shall provide a brief, written report to the
Community Development Director annually or as deemed useful by the
committee.
C, The NAC shall meet periodically; initially once a month but not less than
twice a year.
D. The primary purpose of the NAC is to foster communication and
discussion and recognize and resolve issues before they result in CUP
compliance problems. The NAC shall be advisory in nature for the
purpose of discussing matters related to CKS operations such as, but not
limited to, CUP compliance issues, traffic management, coordination
before and analysis following special events, ongoing operations and
activities of the school(s), noise, landscaping and lighting, The Town shall
have sole and ultimate authority over CUP compliance determinations and
enforcement matters.
E. CKS shall advise the NAC at least two weeks in advance of
events/activities that are anticipated to exceed 359 cumulative attendees
(except the Sunday School program).
F, NAC meetings shall be held where the public may observe in a space to
be provided by CKS. Persons who place their name on a mailing or e-
mailing list maintained by the NAC shall be notified by CKS of all meeting
dates, times and locations. CKS shall maintain agendas and summary
notes describing the nature of NAC discussions and recommendations
during meetings.
G. NAC meetings shall not count towards the limit of special events allowed
atCKS.
10. An encroachment permit shall be secured from the Tiburon Public Works
Department for any work on Town streets, rights-of-way, or land over which the
Town holds a real property interest.
11. Applicable traffic mitigation fees shall be paid at the time of building permit
issuance.
12, The Town of Tiburon reserves the right to amend or revoke this CUP for cause,
in accordance with regulations of the Town,
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No, XX-2007 Revised Draft February 2,2007
14
13, The Town intends the conditions of approval of this permit to ameliorate the
project's substantial impacts on the neighborhood without imposing a substantial
burden on CKS's religious exercise. In the event that the practical
implementation of these conditions imposes a substantial burden on CKS'
religious exercise, the Town will, upon application by CKS, amend the conditions
to reduce that burden to a less than substantial level. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Town will not grant any amendment that is contrary to a
compelling Town interest.
Section 4. Prior Resolutions Superseded.
This Resolution supersedes Planning Commission Resolutions No. 97-17, 2001-
07, and 2004-10, which upon vesting of this approval shall become null and void.
Section 5. Vestinq,
The applicant must vest this approval by obtaining a Site Plan & Architectural
Review Permit for physical improvements described herein within two (2) years
following approval, unless a time extension is granted, Time extensions will not
unreasonably be withheld. Upon approval of a Site Plan & Architectural Review
approval, this Conditional Use Permit shall remain valid only as long as the Site Plan &
Architectural Review Permit remains valid, Site Plan & Architectural Review Permits
are valid for three years, and expire unless a Building Permit has been issued in
reliance on the Site Plan & Architectural Review Permit. Please be advised that if the
Building Permit approval lapses after the end of the validity date of the Site Plan &
Architectural Review Permit (and no extensions have been granted), the Building
Permit, Site Plan & Architectural Review Permit, and Conditional Use Permit may
become null and void unless the Building Permit has vested,
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town
of Tiburon on ,2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
Tiburon Town Council
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Tiburon Town Council Reso/ution No, XX-2007 Revised Draft February 2,2007 /5
~ >(k: ~:+ A
\
\
:I'J
fS0UlliIal In
irlP'
i i
i I
0- CD 0 a
H 11111
& g 1& 1&
& 1111
Il!III!I, III~ lll~ i I! ,~J.~"
i~mWlli I~iii I~nl i .
Hi ~j ill ~ il i
III gi I _' ,~ f
'0,: ~ ,! . i if ::1 i
N', U i"' = i t ~
'\~\id; ~ J ~1il
r- ~,~i~"ll- ~. i~;!;
:-" \~ '. . ; . j;:l..
o 'en f ~ i
-
)V/A L 5 AL )05 j
I:
~ I
I
.
Ii I
)
Ei q
~u
i &
~ I
I g
'""
st
,"
'-I,
.
um in }Itun ~
Il'l' ~Vi ,It ut.
'rltltI 111 Ufhii ~
F' flJ -I Ho' ~
Um ili iibJi'
~f~lf !.i {Jriif
I'll' -ii f ll'!
III hlj 1 f~ r~!~H
'I fit tl II r I~hfl
.li N wh
, ~itl ~i Ii:.Hi
i J~ Ii ,HI'U
tr I: 1.fl .."2,.
" i<t IJ.l\H
t'\ t: Iu.'
~ r
".
z-
o
Z .\ :
\,1" '
'<>0"'1 \\
, "
\Sl, "
I '~
~ I 'I
"'t.. \\ I I
I ,\: I
\ :",'
\ I I' \,
1 ""
, I, . ~
, "
. "
I II,'
\, '
- '.
. : ,\
I ~ :
"
! '
i !,
: i
i:
,
)
III!IOI>IIII'
III
Iii! ~" I,~I
.
~X[~~',+ g
CONGREGA TlON KOL SHOFAR EXPANSION PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (FILE #10404)
INTRODUCTION
Background Assembly Bill (AB) 3180 (California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section
2108,6) became law in California on January 1,1989, This bill requires all public agencies to
adopt mitigation or reporting programs when they approve projects with Mitigated Negative
Declarations or Environmental Impact Reports which identify significant environmental
impacts, The reporting or monitoring programs must be adopted when a public agency
makes its findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) so that the
program can be made a condition of project approval. The program must be designed to
ensure project compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. If certain
project impacts extend beyond the project implementation phase, long-term mitigation
monitoring should be provided in the monitoring program,
Purpose The Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit mitigation monitoring program will ensure
that all mitigation measures required by the Environmental Impact Report and agreed to by
the applicant are completed as part of project construction and are maintained in a
satisfactory manner during and following project implementation, This program is designed
in a table format for ease of use by the responsible parties. The table identifies the individual
impacts, corresponding mitigation measures, individual/agency responsible for
implementation, project phase for implementation, and assigns a party responsible to
implement, monitor, and confirm the implementation of the mitigation program, The table will
be used by the Town of Tiburon to verify that all required mitigation measures are
incorporated into the project and will provide a convenient tool to determine whether required
measures have been fulfilled,
MIT/GA nON MONITORING PROGRAM
Management The Town of Tiburon Community Development Department will be
responsible for overseeing implementation and administration of the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit.
The Director of Community Development will designate a staff member to manage the
MMRP, If current staffing in the Community Development Department cannot absorb the
task of managing the MMRP, an independent contractor will be hired at the expense of the
project applicant. The independent contractor would serve under the direction of the Director
of Community Development or designated staff member. Duties of the staff member
responsible for program coordination, whether a permanent Town staff member or
independent contractor, would include the following:
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
January 23, 2007
Town of Tiburon
Page 1
. Conduct routine inspections, plan checking, and reporting activities.
. Serve as liaison between the Town and project applicant regarding mitigation monitoring
issues,
. Coordinate activities of consultants hired by the Town or the project applicant when such
expertise and qualifications are necessary to implement and monitor mitigation
measures,
. Coordinate with other Town personnel and agencies having mitigation monitoring
responsibilities,
. Assure follow-up and response to citizens' complaints.
. Complete forms, checklists, and other documentation provided by the Town for
reporting, Maintain reports and other records and documents generated by the MMRP,
. Coordinate and assure corrective actions or enforcement measures are taken, if
necessary .
Baseline Data The baseline data for each of the environmental impact mitigation measures
to be monitored over the duration of.the project are contained in the June 2005 Kol Shofar
Conditional Use Permit Draft Environmental Impact Report, the February 2006 Kol Shofar
Conditional Use Permit Final Environmental Impact Report, the April 18, 2006 FEIR
Alternative 7 Analysis, and the March 2006 FEIR Errata Sheet.
Dispute Resolution The overall goal of the MMRP, to ensure compliance with required
mitigation measures, could be affected by disputes between the Town and project applicant
over what constitutes compliance, If there is conflict about appropriate mitigation measure
implementation, the responsible Town staff member will notify the Director of Community
Development via a brief memo and hold a meeting with the project applicant. After
assessing the information, the responsible staff member will determine the appropriate
method for mitigation implementation and will notify the Director of Community Development
of the decision, The project applicant, Director of Community Development, or any
interested member of the public may trigger Town Council review by timely appeal or
directed referral, The Town Council's decision is final.
Enforcement The MMRP will be incorporated as a condition of project approval. Therefore,
all mitigation measures must be complied with in order to fulfill the requirements of the
approval. A number of the mitigation measures will be implemented during the course of the
development review process, These measures will be checked in plans, in reports, and in
the field before granting construction-related permits (that is, grading, building, and
occupancy permits). If compliance is not found, these permits would not be granted, Most of
the remaining mitigation measures will be implemented during the construction or project
implementation phase, If work is performed in violation of mitigation measures, stop work
orders would be issued,
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Town of Tiburon
Page 2
Other mitigation measures may need to be monitored over time in order to ensure long-term
compliance, Planning Division staff is to provide for revisions to the mitigation measures if
necessary to assure success, subject to the appeal process. Mitigation measures and
monitoring actions are provided in the MMRP,
The MMRP The MMRP identifies the impacts and mitigation measure(s), Each impact and
mitigation measure number is the same as documented in the Draft Environmental Impact
Report. In addition, the MMRP identifies the person I agency responsible for implementing
and monitoring the mitigation ("Implemented By") and the project phase when
implementation is to occur.
Funding AB 3180 does not provide a specific funding mechanism for implementing MMRPs,
However, public agencies have the authority to levy charges, fees, or assessments to pay for
the program, just as they currently do for the preparation of environmental documents under
CEQA. For the Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit project, the project sponsor would be
responsible for the costs of mitigation monitoring.
Congregation Kat Shofar Conditionai Use
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Town of Tiburon
Page 3
s:><
;:0:0
<c'(;;
~"
0'0
~Ol'
s:~
g9
;::;:a
Q;::o:
S'o'
"'''
,,!!!.
0<:
~~
3
"
m
<;f
~
m
-<
.'"
'"
o
o
--J
E><t,VJ 6
"'
ro
~
8~~~~~~g~~i~g~~~~~
~ c..~.Q) -::J a.:::::J ==crO"C 0 Q (l) ([l::l
I~~ ~c.. ([l-:::::J-~~~~ wa.W
![~g Cil I~a.Q.~~ ~.~ g. 5" 0'0 l;i"<g
([l = 0 0 ~ ~ (11:7 - ~ Q 6'(0 Ui'~~
a. O([la.o~~~Q)O~~~UlO ~
. C"':::::J - 0- -'''0 CI) :J::J (/I CD CD c: Q) -l (1)
wm~~o(ll([lw_a. ~c..~w:::::J~
=(II~(Oo8~~~~~~c..~~;Ui'a.
c..~u ~ _.@ ~n-cg(1)~~~
~.wm8~~::J~~agg~'go~~~
::Jo_::J::J~Q) (II(IIE(II(O(II-(II-'~
~:3~a.~g3gmC:o-~Q)c:~g
~OQ)::J-mOQ)-'c..~uic(OCT~
-.::J =r ~(O ..... ::J a -. "'C -. tu 3 0.'0
-::JQ)O) _.a.C_.::J m~a.c..-'roo
lD(IIcc_::TOIl)Q)O(OUlQ.riiCD -
Q."C ro ~Q)::J :::::1.""7::1- c: .....=::i"1>> a.a
~ n. 3 _ '< !!?. ~ (;) 0 ~ g. g Ul ~ (C g- ~ (il
m5.~~g~~--~Q)~m~i~a-
(II::J-~Sa~~~CT(IIro~~~~~.~
::To--g~ film .....-<CD "C::Ja.;::;':Q.::J
11)'<0)11)(11-'__ Ulro . ~?'
=_o(ll:::J"O~ro~S~::J~3~m_Ul
iig~~c_.~Cil~~~'Omiaio
-.-d~ ~C"~~ m ID ~oco ~.~ m6":J CD
~ 0 (II Q) CD -< (ii (Jl G)- ..., (II =...., a :::::J 0 =
g ~ ~(Il ~'()ni'~:.t S":e Q~~ ~.()5.~.
Um=~(iigg=~~g3o_gg~~
~~i~roa::Ji38~~~~0a=ro
~~3~~-~-.~a3~~~g~i~
~~o~~~~~~~c~~~~~mm
~:-' ~.o~g ~G)' _5 O:"':"OlS'Q.~ 5:0
g Q3ma~@mm~~~~~oo~
~~~~~~m~a~.~maw~.....=m
cCD_W~ ."O~~'~- a<Ea~ffiffiE-.
~~Q~"O~~~g~~~~CD~~~~
rogms'a~m~~CD~g>~~~~,~
~!!l.~(6"~o'3.~ ~ o'8-g,~s'~ ~:..,
m~~~a~CD~~~~ -~Qm~3
~~~., o~mCDC 3.-Qc~mo
-'~m ~~ -. ~ii)0 ~ O'l;>:;"~~ W ~
3o'~~wo~0~~0~-~m-'~D
CD~CDm~3.""'-mo3.~w~.....ffioc
~~~m~~i~3.~~ga~ffi~~~
() '"
0 Iii
3 ~
..,
.. "
~ S.
0 ~
0 ..,
3 .2,
'C "
i[ n-
o' c.
~ "
m
g, US'
8 ~
~
~
2
n-
o.
~
"
<3
or
n-
en
'C
o
~
m
Q
"
m
'"
m
..
om -i
_.~ 0
~.~~
-,~~
g~!r
9:(0
~ -.
<O~
m
!!l
. ..
~8~~
(0 3. 3 3
!.aoo
Dl -< <
gg-~~
~ < 0 =
~~I::;
~ ~ w ~
~ ~ ~
=r =rm
m m ~
5' ~ g;
6: ~~'
~ m-
~ )C. ~
OJ 30
m 0 c
~ 3.~
o ~![
~ 00'
0. ~ ~
0-
m
x
o
m
m
0.
~
0>
S'
o
=r
m
m
~~
~ 0.
~"Q
0.0
m'C
o.!!l
o~
~~.
< 0
" '"
3.~
o
"
'"
'"
S'
'"
g,
~g'05-@~~;
aa:-s: 3 S'ro~Ui'
0" m cP ::E' :::!.
o S:"'C W ~ ~ ~
~m.2.ro~Dl g 5
_ m~~::I_~
s:s'o.5!tm ~~~
w.....-oorro-~
n~~wcmm"""
:::rCDm(O~;;;!1 w
~S:(j)m!.:::g~
(Dc' w m~c
(D~ ""'"'C~~~
~(')'--1<i5'~ ~~
-,~O m -.c CD
~ -g m E ~ ~IO
~.-!l~ ~ w ~g
o-()CD~C"O ~
m ~3.w a:-ti'a~
O'O'o':g o-CD ~ ni
g:3~~mO~.c
~ Q)'"'C.g 2:~;:::;:
~(J)g ~,~.!!.Q iir
.....O-2:roCD 0 g2"'
o~~ ~o~m
CD 3-=;:0 ~ ......
~<<; w~o~
~<;W~~CDoc
~*,~m~@:~~
(1)~~w"'C~~~
~ (]J~~~~ro~
.gm=~2-o:ffio:'
ro......o-w ~:::r
~s:m~ffini (1)
~~~g~~~~
owo ............CDO
::=-.(0"'0 9.0 S~"O
OCDCD~ 0
~3~;::::;.:~g:~m
S'CD mgCD~~
!2 3. 3 "0 0 ~-<,"O
C ~m3-' ~
9:~a~3 ro~~.
~~~':::!Io!!t~n
........~o~ow
@'~~;'3 it~
~~8~Q'~~!g.~s~~i
a.o~'< ~m~roa.8<m
OCD~t/I~~"'C~CD3.~3!:!."'"
;;; g. ~ m cg CD ~ !!!.!!!. c5'~"O.g ~
~ 2, ~ g g, ~ a: m ;.... ~ g ijf 3 CD
COO~CD~O~::T"'C::I:::rm"O
~~~~o~~"OCDoa.m~~
a. w:::rorom~~ ~-o
CD~O-<~~a.WCDa.!!t ~-g
IOG)'- o'o-;>:;"~ o~o~
~ ~ w -. ~ ...... 0 ~<c' ~ 3 ;::::;.:? CD
g.g- ~ CD ~. W 0 ~ ~ ~ :::r(ji ~
5.Q,g-wc5 (tg ~ !!t:'!!!.~ ~::!
<_3.(tS-s'~ ~ o~ ffi~ g~ g
w ~ row3 m ~<ro~
!:..Wg:OCD~ g: ~(1)ro~g
~~~ -:,~&.ro o3.ro(O"
~"O::;:o ~!!!.~ ~.ffi~a 5~
liio(1)m~CD"ONwoC<~
.....~ <_~~CD~~~C:;(1)
~r~g.E-o o.g ~~ni ~!!!.~
O'row-S: 3 ~.CD 0 c ~....."'U
~~~roCD<"""~3;:::;:m::T-
~ ~ -6c:;mmro' (trow
~~g-g.2 ;'(6"ro~ ;!a.,~ ~
- ~ (1)' ~ < 3. 9. m 0 ro 0
C" "O~O~~-' ~ I N
ro~oro::o' gs:g g.a
w (1) 5.. 3 m W ~"'C ro == Q < "0
g.~ rr<*~::ro~CD ~o
-'wo~-m(1)~;::::;':~rro=
~ ~ ~ ~!" w 0 a. ~ ;-< ~..Q
~g~3="""<2:oT1~~mo
0(1) ro m~"""
~ (ii'"'C a ~. Q."'" m ~ 'g., ..... 3
;::::;.: CD =C'2.~ ~w 0 (6"w
~-, !e.Q:l3"OCCD~O<-'
~~w(j)CDro~~"O~(1)3.
Q:l~~~o:~~~a~~~.
3 i5::;~~:g g ~~-g ~ ~S'
W -~Q:l ~ o:-~ ~ ~,~(O
=CD. ~ffiO......-Ui.mg~-
CD _ 0"O,",::::T :::r
~a_:ECD~.mCD~wogm
-g 3 :~~ (j)~,-g =3 -~-g
awffi~~o~ag~~g~
5'S: 0 () '"
m m 0 0 Iii
-~ ijl 3 ~
::o;w 0:..,
m",
m ~- 0
g,3 n-~ "
-,m
-m 0" S'
=r~ ~
m_ '"
~O' 0 '"
o ~ 0 ~
(D' 3 3 '!O
n-o .., 0.
. '" i[ m
.c o. m
~ US'
~ ~ ~
0
m g,
m
~ '"
OJ ia.
m
0 'C
~
'" =r
0 m
S. m
'" m
~ g,
"
.2,
m
n-
en
'C
0
~
m
Q
-im"
~~.~,
mCD ~
~m
"'~
S'~
mo.
!!l
.
'"
;l>
~
;0
::;
Gi
~
(;
Z
;0
m
1;;
c:
'"
m
i
"
.-
m
;0
m
Z
~
-<
(;
Z
"
:I:
1;;
m
;0:
:::;
Gi
)>
-i
5
z
;0:
o
z
:::;
o
'"
Z
Gl
-0
'"
o
Gl
~
;0:
" "
o!l;
i~
"'"
'-m
men
;0"
mo
Zz
-<en
>-
-<OJ
-.-
!i1m
oen"
~~~
"m~
C"';:u
>Om
Z"'en
o "
m 0
'i'
.
;::>; W
~Q..
e~ W
).
ere ~
~il'
"'~
gb> 0
S~ "
S"?S 16"
it
<0" '"
"Ut!1.
a ~ 3'
<0
OJ "C
"
3 n.
-" 0'
" e
c- ~
2 '"
" ;;
-< c-
!" "
'" 16"
0 w
0 w
..., 5'
"
~
w
<0'
~
~
"
"
'"
"U
"
<0
"
'"
W
"
~
~
<0'
!'(
0'
~
;:
"
mm6'b'~b3"~~~
~ ~~Cii CDt5~'9.2.g
-::::J ...., 0 ;::::;:.Q. ::T 3 (/I
~~@C') ;a.~ ~'3-!=1
I 3 - ::T::::!:I S' - N ;::::t!
?>(D-~~~g.l!:s.~
_.3.0 ~ (II ~!:!!.o~;
(II --~o'gnUl5'
~" o:EC1)~- o_.~
.0 ....,;::::;:Q) c~~~
c: ro::Ta.:::I(I)roc.(I)
~. .oQ)~:::~o~
a. !:.o- Q) 0 :::':::r Cil
Qi 0";; CD ~ (D g Q)
iji"O-::ex:J.....::J-c
::l~ Q) ~~'8<% ~
: iU l6" ~ U/--< ~ 3'
og-[~::Jm~-g
=3'!:!:Q3 ;:,::::g,~ 1'0'
_.(1)::J 1>><-<5.
-mg 'OCDrog
CD 0" "Q 3. ~ (II
ao 0 co(\)
5'~ ~. Ii ~
::J~ e!. 3.0
"
-< II
o
N
o
" 0 CJ)
0 0 lit
0:3 ~
=r."
ni 0
-"" "
0" ,r
~ <0
0 '"
0 ~
3 !!l.
"C '"
![ "
w
0' <0'
~ ~
8-
~
!!:
"C
or
"
w
"
8-
"U
.2.
"
n.
en
"C
0
~
w
Q
-;m"U
o~-
~~.~.
mC'DSl
~ "
<0-
S'~
"'"
!!:
"'-
e 3
:::l.ll)
~ ~
<Oe
<"
""
<oc
" -
-"
!'('"
o' 0-
~~
. . . . . . .
ii1
"
it
'"
eno
-"
Ow
3<0
~ ~
"0
it-
-c-
lJJO'
"'"
w ~
-"
"'-
"w
~~
,,"
~m
3 w
"or
~ "
--
~a:
,,-
no
@~
I=r
,,"
~<o
"'e
go:
o~
~:;'
-"
;:w
" -,
- ~
"
or-
or
~"
:8;:
We
-~
S'O'
!2"6"
e "
"'.-
~.()
..~
~
~
w'
Cii:z:~ ::J'~ 3 ~
-;::::;:1>> <mo
g ::r < () e!.. mOO
::+CD ~5~ ~.~
~.!e.':C::E a.~-<
~Q)o_(I)o-.
(D g~~~.:~
rA~-~~ffi~
CD307'Q. CD
~[31U~~~
III 0 fJ~:-'
g,gg o"m ~
Q)UlVla!- (I)
-(Dai':::T3
a.g<cno/J
(D1ll2t ::Em
:::::I - -. Ql (l) a.
~~<iiCilC6g.
~ g ~ ~~ 3
~~8."QQg
(1)<D,:<~2'::O:-
a.Ui'::r~ ~3
g.S'(D ~~~
~S~3~c:r
:JCDQ..S.roCD
~....,a.::r~c
-~O'R3m
ffi~ ...., 0 ~ a.
(0--_
3g,~8s.~
~ w-.:J _
3'~g~sffi
3mS"~3o-
o c 0'::: ~
~O~?~ID
3 .j:o.Jg )>_.... ~
~.~~~lQo-
5!m@-~~1D
ro fJ c. c.1/) ~
g~" ~ b'
ml/)~~
-gm ell 2
n;'Q, 0 U
a.cE ('i :J
" ID m 0
a~~
,,0"
a::: a.
~.('i 0
g o~
o Q.I/)
o e.ch
:a.9l:::
- "
Q.~ro-
Q:c.1/)
IDro=
~o!e:
!t 6" ~
S'::I :::;.
!e.-o I/)
~g.::E
IDCD;::O:
_~=r
o"e.
~"o
a;-:-a:
I/)<!t
,,"
;:<g ~
a.ii)CD
~g:~
o ~
!9lli
::: ~-6'
o =ID
!:..~ro
a.3iil
!!:"
:,::a.o
D3g,~g~
" -
iija.g.I/)()
tIl 3" 3 &-::;'
~ ::tIS'3 5
'Oo)lQ~O
O~I/)ct=l:
-0 1"..11:::: c. 8
ai'-::;:g.OCD
ct~o_~
0'-=3 ~Cii'
.... _-0 :J
~OC-l"=;
~;g~ID'
ro !2.O'::I a
.... C::I 0
S'm I/) m-....
[ ~ ~<9. ~.
~!!~~~
-<CD"'OCD=
~ ~~ ::i"
rg:~-o Q [
~ ID ~m~'
a; m 0"<-<
o ID S. CD' ID
S;~~:::5.
a; 90) ID-o
::I.....=~CD
@9gC.?k
S"~ g ~ ~
(j)~:.Q ~
<a.0~8
~--ID
Q) ~. ~:--5
s'::I - C
~~~b>g
Q~()::IO"
~ 9l < sa
. -"~-I/)
::Il::::~~
()3l(j;'~
W
h
~
!~~8b'~b'ro!:
::T~ 33fE..3~a.
ro ,;'"'0'0'0 ro'O ro_
o:J2.aro-' rolllffi
~"8g:3(j) (j)~~
o ::I !:::!: C:;;' 0) () 0)
~~!!!.~::IO~~~
oQ.o::;:J"1D3IDCD~.
::I _-CD::I"'O::I_::I
a~~ ~~@-fE.. ~~
~ 5' ~ ~~. g:~ S' ro
.... I/) _":,:1/) C:;;' _ I/)
~gg~0~o~2
~:J-oOCDI/):J@a
I/)O"a::~:::r- C
o~"Q:ffis; ~ffi am
....::::l CD CD 0. -"
ll8~~s: -g~~
c-a~ fE..!2.ll~ CD!!!.
@o:;m..... ~3'"-
s:~g" ~8-< g.~
CD ~lQ :: ~ 3 9. ~ Q..
~ _.CD - 0"2.1/) ell (1)
g:a2.c:;;'~.~o~~
o'~~ oal ll3::r~
~ffi[5-gc~~g,
2.gg ::CD~.(j)gc.
g: a.-==~~.cE:' 8 ~
~9.CD-~ 03:::!'
;- _cp ~"o :; 0" CD I/)
~fQS:;eIlCDCD~
1/)~~Q;:U8s-C.
~:::~3~:JQ:1/)
CDg.~:::!Ig al 1j)'ll
ID-I/) ~ ~Cii ~3'
::I 0 I/) <; 0. a. CD
~""~g.s:-.' ?-
CD ::I-CD eIl:J
CD!2.CDI/).....CD
a.C::;:J"::I 51D C/)~_'
llmPJg,p.g..
8 0 CJ)
0 lit
0:3 ~
=r."
e - 0
""
g:~ "
~ 5'
<0
0 '"
0 ~
3 !!l.
"C '"
![ "
w
0" <0'
~ ~
Q,
'"
i!!.
"C
or
"
w
"
Q,
"U
a
,,"
n.
en
"C
o
~
w
Q
-;m"U
~ cE .2.
::I S"CD
mCD51
~"
<0-
S'ID
,,is.
!!:
.,
::;
Gi
!:<
6
z
.,
m
>
en
c:
'"
m
i
"
r
m
.,
m
z
....
!:<
6
z
"
~
m
;:
::;
i5
>
-;
00
oZ
~;:
=:0
~ Z
~::j
_0
;U
z
G)
"U
el
G)
~
;:
.""
~B
i~
,,'"
rm
men
.,,,
mo
Zz
....en
>-
....'"
-r
~m
.""',,
~rn;t
0"....
00<
.,z
,,!!!
r'"
-r
!1;m
o
m
s:><
;::;:0
to';;;
!!i-:.-
ero
~;;J'
s:~
gb>
-."
0'9-
~ ~
5'0'
"'''
",,-
at:
",..
~ m
~
3
."
'"
0-
2
~
-<
,N
N
o
o
---l
. i
o
"
~
~
lU =Ql -0) 0 Q)-'
0:::::1 o~i5"C: ccB
L~ CD:::::I~:::::I:<:::::I =
f-'::ECO roCO (1)(C n
S:S:S:"Q s:gga.
CD I\J([) 0 CD _r+(/)
:Eom-gg~~(I)
CD ::Om:J,:J, _.:::r
~CD -'< :::T~g-f!!.
~.~~.!!!.~<Ul;;:
g-iilg-NtIl iii"O (D
o a. 9. ~;;.- <~
ii:E^,llla:~ iii"a:
(DOmii)~~b~
~8..e:~-ofJlQ)
mUl Q) CD!;Q~~-
a.:2:a.a:~ 5'l
~<o~ W
~:<; ~~.~ ag
o o(iia. 30
g- fF-'o OJ~'
:2: ~ ~. iilc5
L~ Q) CD n_
(""- '< a ~g
o 0 3 ~~.
:::r s: < og
m ~ iii" ~.~
^ ..... r CD
Q..g~o
(f) '"
5 .z
~
)>
8'
W
"
m
o
"
'"
o
S'
'"
Q
~
m
~(f)
0. _
o.~
;::;::1
0'"
~
W()
o
3
'"
![
m
0.
~
8.
"
'"
e
W
m
"
m
~
"0'
.2, :E
m"
am
(f)"
-0 <g.
0"
" m
W m
o ~
~!!i-
o
o
!!l.
8.
"
~
'"
'"
Ol
'"
w
h
A
z
'"
~
iii
0.
8 :::O;:ral)>
::I m ro..Q =
!e.Q.o=.~
2 iii" ~ roc. it
o:::lv~ 0-
eD O-u III 0-
a. ~ OJ ::::;.
g,o~~~
0" _
::J ColD 0 6'
~(Jl_O::l
c:z.s.:3111
iUQ)CD~;;
3_<< ~ 0 to'
rr'" -::3
~.'<~OJ-
~ 00 wO
-,,,moo-
f!!..cno;:O:-CIl
Ul..!,::li@
:S.~<a::!::
~~iii'!;il~'
o O-b<:"(D
:::E :r (II (Jl a.
~3"g~~~
"tJc 0 o.s:
Q)::l (J) <<1l
~~~ 05"0
cC"iUa.'!l
~ g; 0" l~Lcr
::l. a.)>:::::I
co en' -::u
-iOO([l
i6 g ~ s.
~'Q) 0 ~
'g~~txl
~~~g
f!!..CD<3.
;;:OCllUl
m-2:::r
o~
(6'"=
wo-
_m
o
"Q
Sr
<;
o
o
o
c
'"
~
"
,Q
o
"
'"
o
S'
'"
Q
"
m
~
8.
~
'"
e
W
m
"
'"
3
~
8.
"
m
-;
~
"
m
~
'"
S'
m
!!!
'"
w
h
'"
'"
w
h
"
as-or ~
3 ;O::::J (D
::om 5' Q)
(I) CoCO :g
l&. ~ Q 5=-0 So ~:z. (II.::T~ =
iii"a.Q)m~:::T!!tQ)::I~O~
::l <: _ 0 ~ CD -<< ro a. S. a.
a.<:IU(1)::J~U' ""'C'ra.
<0 ~L!g.(Q -'Q) _0 Q) <tl fJJ
~ 2.. g-~. - ~ ;.. 3 :!."O ';j
o fJJ ~ ~ g, er S.~ '<;g Q) ~
g. ~-g ~ ~ <tllp ~ =:' a. 3 3
<Q) <fJJ ';j<tlOfJJ_,O
Qf~ g ai'cO. ~ Q) 3 3 -g 2.9:
,<o=l ::E_~~'5.<tl<03-<'
. <tlCD'~oarC'r3.Qj'mc3-
;:;t...., g _.erQ) I./l , ';j
~ ~ ~ g ro:g 0- b <tl
~~~ Q)o~.....fJJ ;!S.~
~c;:g-g.....-c ffi~<tl......~
a. <tl ::::l ~ ~ w <tl g-c 01 5'
(ii" :S' w ~ ~. (II 3' 0>(0
ofJJ ~"O-'(IIQ) -
Ow a.Ct5z.~~o9..
~~ Q)gw~a. 71-
~ a. '< 0 ::::l fJJ <tl'''O ~.~
<tlW gwa.<tl~.~roo
-gg ;;1./l$5.~S: S.
a.(Q ';jw<g:!.(Q-go-
<tlo Q)"O-, '<-~
!e."'" =Q) g"O .g, _,0
....,~ er"'" Wo ~-c
Qj'<tl <tl2S':w~~(II(Q~
~w ~o-......';j 3
w:' 'Q(Qg~O~fJJN.
g ';j ~ w (II _;0 --g <tl
<tl<tl _.....,(IIO<tlO"oo
(II 0 a.<tl .....<tl <tl (1)-'
I./l^ ~!U~(II9:a.(IIO
goo w a.~~ m~ s.
_=:0 (II 'TIfJJ =a.-.-.!a
~g "0 :r~"O ~'g ~ ,r
fJJQ) ~~=~o~[;:)
itcg o~ga:&.wS'~
_a._(I)(IIfJJ(Qa.
~ ~ Q Q~ ~
g;:J. -3-g;:J.
c.'. ffi"2.@.'
;;l s:*" g
0(1)" ~ C/J
o S. :::!I;::;:
3 _""U=(I)
"2.~5.~
'" ~ "
<Dc- ill
a.$0 ~
"g
~ (I) = QO
g' 3 ~
;::;:(Q
<;
o
o
o
c
'"
~
~
,Q
8.
"
.2.
m
a
(f)
'"
o
"
W
~
0"
<:' ar
C;;'~
cO::!.
~ ~
'"
~
~
!!!.
~
~
0.
o
"
'"
o
S'
'"
)>
o
~
i;"
a
c
~
;u
m
<
~.
"
a
(D'
a
(f)
'"
o
"
W
~
0"
<:. ar
iii'~
cO::!.
~ ~
'"
O()
" 0
"'3
2,"0
~!l
O'~
;::"
~~
~3f
:::;;-
"0
00
-0
-0
~c
"",
e~
W ~
m,Q
"0
"-
3 ~
_,0.
-0.
~
5'
~
W
~
~
0.
~Ja
-g~
0"
!!i-
5'
"(f)
$'
mo"
t9,~: ~
~ c'::!.
'" ~ ~
~ ..'"
-i
o
0;
~
'"
w
h
~
"
;;r
~
o
o
3
"
i;"
!iF
~
sr
<;
c
W
'"
8.
~
~
'<
"
'"
~
iil'
g,
"1'
..
)>
o
~
ii
a
c
~
;u
m
<
~'
"
a
(D'
a
(f)
'"
o
"
W
~
'"
w
'"
A
~-;
~~
o.m
,,~
~:g
~~
~"
3w
S.';j
3.~
35
09:
:::-<-
"'-
Ol~
w'"
"''''
~ill
m ~
_w w
-.0'
5 ~
2"~
o.m
5."0
"'",
~~
Q)2S':
""
c.'"
C'r-
~o
",-
-go
0.0
W'"
"O~
~ 2.
m N
w m
Q.
o
c
~
5'
"
o-we
~~-g.
';j=-,
COer=
-;"'~
o _.a.
~~a.
, ~ 0
~~
P-~
-i0
~-
m"
om
00.
Q):::!,
z,<
om
" ~
s.~
~~
m 3
'" -,
"
w'"
cO' fJJ
;;l~.
W W
~~
='"
cr z.
",.il
a: .
m!!1
as'
::!ja.
~~
w:C:'
5.~
~~
",)>
~~
"'~
a. 0,
en
lit
if
o
m
w
<C'
"
;U
'"
<
ffi'
0;
w
c
0-
3
'"
!!!.
o
o
3
'"
i;"
~
~
~.
<;
c
w
m
8.
~
"
'<
"
"
~
iil'
Q;
"1'
"
a
(D'
a
(f)
'"
o
~
w
~
0"
<:' Q)
C;;'::::l
co::!.
~ "
'"
'"
't'
OJ
'"
'"
w
'"
"
wwww
w(..)(..)w
OJ):.):.):.
:"""J::,.wiv
a~~ a~';!~ ~a?a?a?
3 CO(l)-CD<tl<tl---
_<....,(jJ~-9:<tls.s.s.
:::Tiii' ~'~ CD g~ ~, ~ ~ ~
~b<ura.::E ::T~' . .
:::!.I./l Qj,<g =w~ 3" 3" 3"
Cii)> -. ::::l::::l '?
::E~bw5=o9:cQ)Q)Q)
wg (IIr<tl-fJ:g aau.
'< ~ )> 0 a. cr-c <tl -. - -
fJJ<~I./l:::!.<tl-c""'ggg
~<2 5l ~Cii.g ~Q--::::l::J:::l
=s.' o::Eco"O:C:'~::~
g!a (II~::J~~ooo
Q. g' 0-' 0- S:~ g g g
m::E ~)>~C?oro<Dro
@;::;: fJJfJJ<tlo;:;tI./lI./l(ll
a.;r. ~o ....,<~I./ll./l
w::::l co"O~~ii)"~~~
5.~ a.~.s: ,::::l::J::::l
:::!.(O co 00 fJJ fJJ (II
@ CD' Cii:::l "Ul -, -'ce.
"*"s. (iJ ~~!Jl~::!.::!.::!.
::::l0 Q)~(IIo:::!l:::!l:::!l
$"- ro=~g.Ul~fJfJ
a.::T ~er~o::E3.3.3.
::E co S'co"O_2.::'"
;::;: (II (Q -. C er
::~ s:~gQco
~::E <tl!!!..~ ~ @
I ~ "0 (ij <tl!e.
(Q;1I; II) a.)>::::l :::!.
a 11)"'" _n
::E::::l 2S'::E @fJJ ~
s,a. ~~,<Q)a.
(Q 0' -(il-g;:;tO
(Q"'" 0 0.0
...., co -..... ...., C
g 0 ~ ffi(Q co $
:::l""" 0 !a3
a.m -ca.<tl-oer
g..... O"~'::E O~
< c co co ='< ::r
co"O O'::E-COo
:"' g (il~ g~ g:
en
lit
if
"
s'
!!!.
"C
a
(D'
a
0.
'"
w
<C.
"
o
o
3
'"
~
~
~.
<;
c
w
'"
8.
'"
"
'<
~
~
iil'
Q;
"1'
"
a
(D
a
(f)
'"
o
"
w
~
-;
~
"
m
~
'"
S'
'"
!!!
(f)
lit
if
"
S'
!!!.
'"
a
(D'
a
0.
'"
w
<C'
"
fl
3
'"
i;"
!f!
"
".
~
<;
c
w
m
8.
~
~
'<
"
"
~
iil'
Q;
"1'
en
lit
if
"
S'
!!!.
"C
a
(D'
a
0.
'"
w
<C.
"
"
a
(D
a
(f)
'"
o
"
w
~
"
a
(D
a
(f)
'"
o
~
w
~
-;
~
"
m
~
'"
S'
"
!!!
-;
~
"
m
~
'"
S'
"
!!!
i:
::j
c;
>
....
i5
Z
i:
m
~
c:
'"
m
i
..
r
m
i:
m
Z
....
~
i5
Z
..
:I:
>
'"
m
....
~~
i:;!
..'"
rm
m",
i:..
mo
Zz
~!:!!
....1lI
-r
!i1m
3::
=<
Gi
)>
-;
-5
flz
;03::
-'0
~z
~=i
_0
;0
Z
G'l
"
;0
o
G'l
~
3::
.."'..
Om>
"'''''''
0......
00-<
i:z
..S!?
rlll
-r
l;m
o
m
~s
/.C'(;;
i!!.".
0"0
~iil'
s:~
gb>
;::;:i5..
Q;;:;:
::i"o'
"'''
,,!!.
az;:
'Q"
w
3
..,
"
0-
2
w
.;;
!"
'"
o
o
"
i~~g~~S~~$~~~g$~~~d
~~~gc~~~g~~~~~g~~~~
~~~@lg~~Z~~g~~~~~~'i
.~ CD g. g altO 3. ffi ~ 0" l)) ~ 0 o' - 5"
~~l))~~ro~0~~a~loa=~i~
~=~~~~5&~~~0=;~rn-mc
~0"~a~-~acn~a8~~~>~3
_m_.~.~Og;::;:s.~a~=~3n~~m
~~Oa.(QA c:g.< ~-"_. ~mm
mJg am cscng.(j)a.m ~n..:c~ s.0'..c n.(ii
~5.m~~~mo~~~~3~~si~~
a~~~~~~~~~~~~CD~~CD~$
0~O'3g3~~~g~~;CD~~0~~
~o~~Wl))~CD~~~Om~~l))~O"o'
~~ a~g}g.en~ CD (ii"~;;;~ a~~~~ CD
~~O~~~B~~g~3m~~w~~~
C:-'~mO"~~~~-~~.m~Q~~~~
~'?'~m~~(Q-=~-a~_m~~~
~~;::;:~~0"~003g~mmo~-.m(Q
~~CDm~_=~~m o~~~o~~
~~oCDmroCD~~~l))3_<_.~tO~~
CD ~wro-~O"- ~ OCD~W-CDw
m~O~Wo<CDg~CD~l))~l))~~~=
<CD~~~g.m~ m~~o~~ml))O"O"
~U~.0"~CD~C:@CD~3~_0)~~~m
_;(j)mm~O~~~iOeno'~m0Nn
Qs'~f~~~~i(n~~~~~@~~
0(Q~c:~~g~CD- ~:~m~ (i".cQi'S
~~am~c:_.~~0.:co~~>-5.~0)
~~O)a. ~0<C~ ~~m00~m(j)
~.~~~ gs!~~Q~a w~~aa.
. ~ ~ O"~m ~~ =~m~
~~. m&0 Q i m
"
w
'"
"
"
0-<
w ~
=0)
;. ~.
0"-
5'~
~ w
g,g;
-0
~g
-<"
O'~
!:; 3
00
~ ~
JlQ'
@~
o
o~
""
"00
w=
,,-"
3 OJ
""0
~ -
_0
<
c:
"
"-
S
~
"
~z
~ 0
~"
i~
c:~
~
~1O,
~'(j)
i~
~~
".;;
~0
()/.C'
,,~
en0
w~
~ w
o.@
,,"-
~ 0
" ~
~-
:;;~
w 0
'<0
'5'.
~
"
w
~
o
c:
"
'"
:;;;ci
0"
00
g-~
:;;3-
~~
~~
"-0
<0
iii":!.
r'<,
0_
0"
)>3
="0
00
!/liU
.;;
o
",'
~
o
"0
;;,-
o
"
"-
o
~
'"
"
"
"-
;;,-
~
"-
w w
w W
0 0
'" '"
w" -< CD 5'~O 03<D'>
0-< ~ (iiO'~:I;;'\o~=
0" "
<%~o :I~_<en~@()
~3 0 (ii' a. ff-c ^
Wo = -~ r:::!'UJ-en
~-,~ ia.o<%;:;,en~
0-. --l~ (fl ~ Ql ~:g
"OO~
"3'" -'0);::0) ~0":1
~O"~ g"xg'< 0 2t0
o -.w as'0ao~Q
~~~ :I~),.:;ugcn~ w
=:0 cllg8:ma~~
-0 w "
,,~ ~ -O"-.~--":I W
~0a. g"CD g:m~hJ a. 0
CD s.~ ~::::J::::Jcnl/l()
~CD ~ O!2.~~~w;;'\
-< ~ .g~3::E-arp
Om -.
~ ~ ~ ~2.gga(JJ~
en-'"
c: ~3 3ffi8'g-=r53
~ w w ~~iil:?:~g-i
&H~~: :I
~ ~~ -0"30)0'<7
~'< '< ~ en t/I
Wil~ C6 ()~ ~ ~ 0 -g
5!!~ 0i~0"::::J~5~
Q.()- _ CD 0.....0 0
"0 ,,3 g.gffi~Q2"::::;m
a (J)~ '<l<<~O)W~"~
~ !~ ~.~t/I ::~~CD
:lc:l/I~~m(ii
3 ~iil U 0) CD~.a:l
~o-< ()~5"~
~ w 0 <::1-;;,\0-'
00 ~ ::::J 0 (J):::!. (1) S.
c~
3~ oCDI>> <1>>1\.)
CD&g-~CD3o
So- O' .a ~5S'9
~" .... c: -.0) -. +
16'3' ~ ~!!tc5 r~-g
w"o '<en~o~3~
iig ~ ~~;~o g
~ " nO) :::;'::1 --l/I
0."- ~=<1l~gs=
wO' U~-N@
~ ~
@ @-"
0 en 0 en
~ Ii1 ~ Ii1
'" i!- '" i!-
0 0
s' ~ s'
'" '" :;;
Q ~ Q ;:
" " " "
" " " "
ct ;;; ct <
"
~ !e.
'" s. '" s'
" '" " '"
" '" " '"
C ~ C "
0 " 0
" " "
" C " C
0
" " " 0
3 3 "
" "
= " = "
~ 3
~
"
.9"
"
~
en
"0
0
~
0
Q
g:J!~6'
ii. ~~ g:
5':!"~CD
~~3
"'"
3-
go
~ is:;g.z~
_ O)moo
~a.r< ~
Q!2. 0 _"<;=(1)
N'~ l/I ~--l~
ll~.~g 3 g:
s ii .g )> 0~ CD
~~~ g<Cj'~
^~;::;:l/I:I ~
$.-~:r:: (..)
~iu (j)~01
~'-1~ Cil ~~
CD 0 -.CD....CD
UJ~~g,(6~
::::J -. -
~mEg'2..~
5~ 3 O)@ a.
3 S"~a~:E
o)CD~OO)g
~g:~:loa.
=' ~<:I 0
CD =!~ iii'(C ~
10 O"mrtlJw
~ a ~ g ~':<
cr=::J3>~
E' 1J m ::;: CD
3~aga:
l/I 0"0 0"0
S'CD ;;~~"
~ g}<Cj' 0 C6
CD 0):1 ~ I>>
0=0WO"
m ggl\.)~
"
;0:
::;
Ci
!:;
i5
Z
3::
m
~
c:
'"
m
i
"
....
m
3::
m
Z
E
i5
Z
"
:I:
~
m
3C
::;
Gi
l>
-<
nO
oZ
~3C
0:0
~ Z
[=i
_0
'"
Z
Gl
"'ll
"
o
Gl
~
3C
.""
!B
I:;!
,,'"
....m
men
3::"
mo
Zz
~~
-1m
-....
~m
.""',,
Om>
",en"
n"-I
00-<
3::z
,,!!!
....m
-....
j;m
n
m
~s
$(;;
~5
o~
~ m
;::~
ob'
::!.:::i
09:
5.g:
<O~
,,!!!.
a~
~11l
3
-n
m
Q"
c
m
-<
.'"
'"
o
o
"
"
m
<0
m
'"
'"
w
-\,
'"
"
a
<
c:
m
m
"
5-
t;
3
!'!.
".
o
m
x
~'m "'U
c" ~
~o.~
CTWo:
!2.(Il(l)
~o!e.
m" 0
=(Il'C
<<l <5'~.
m"<O
"0"
",,~
m~s-
~(I) :r
m" m
;lJ"~
m ~o
(I) -.c:
s=~ :r
....m
5. iii' 5.
::E(i)g,
0"_
0" "
0." m
~ a
:iEQ)~
w g.:E
'< -. a.
0..::1 _.
~. s: (6
m m ~
~3~
'<..-
. s'o
,,3'
..m
~c
S':g
<Om
~~
0."
~.~
< -,
m"
~<O
~g,
!e,
"
!'!.
3'
m
<
~'
r
o
~
,.
S
~
5'
<0
iiI
~
~
0.
~.
~
'<
'"
or
;;
-n
5'
!'!.
~~
~3
~'2.
m
!ir
JI
Q
0-
~
"
!'!.
o
"
"
c
"
..
"
Q
a
m
n-
o.
m
!e,
"
Q,
..
"
'<
"
m
~
"
.2.
m
n-
Ul
"
o
"
~
Q
-l
~
m
"
<0_
"
m
~
'"
w
-\,
-
......0 Io.-N=!w
!e.3 Q) ~ :3'::;'0 iii'~-->'CT-
Q)w:g(l)<tlg-<5:()g-~()WIJ
~'C-<~-g iii"og~,< g ^lS:g
~~~ 1J~g:~ iP"8 ;oo~~s:
:3'~o.o::::J::::J(Ilo.O<tlC::3'g<tl
<tl;;:Q):'~""(Ilo;jO'g:~_::r;
I<tlCii'Jo(l)<tl 'J<<l-' olCi
-. a. 0 CD ...... 3 =2 3 c: :S."......:::r
(C _.- Q) S'o'<tl =S:~.a:::r
:::r!e.o~::::J0.<tl3(i)<tl0<(I)I
I~.Q)(C 0.(1) (Il CT-(Il::::J 0:3 Q.
o 0--a:r(C(il' <tl'g-m(D(I)'<
-<~gIam;!(il~~8:Q)PJO
00._- Q. c: (Il _. m ::I 0 .... 0 c: m
~ - (Il '< 5. s ~:::(C - m g <<l '()i
(Il 0 ~ar(ll ~iii'm~ ~~ ~(Il (Il
rr: ~ ;:;~.g m 9:!e. .... ~ (Il :J: 0: ~
=2 3_<tl (Il 0 (Il gN:2'IS-'< g o'
-, 0-'0 (I) ::I m ::!': -->. S; 0 _ 3 ~. (I)
~ ~ w :< ~ <<l g a. 3.-< m !!!. i_(Il
(Il (Il ~@'~'3 (Il~ 0 O!!t~o.:r
S-~ (Il I>> S'::T (Il 3 ~ ......(C S' (tI
(i)"........;-ft~g&:(Il ~g lllQ:
PJ!!: ffi~:'s'O'g g; I>> (tISa
~:2.0'c:~ g..<<l w ~.~ 3 I>>~.
......~i!r"8 (i)o.S:a~ g-~g~
a.3.:E::IW(l)<tl (Il......s.<(Il
w 0 -. - (Il =r (Il 3 -. ::::J (C ~ :::r
'<....::::J(tI(DI>>Qi"m 0 Q)
;~~ ~'3g;~~ 3 0 ~
(I)=:O"::I_.~ o:r 0< "'C
Qg~~;gi~ <<l!e: "'C
CD I>> <tl::l 2. (ii'lCi' 0" :rQ) -<
-::I (Il (Il <tl::T(tI W S'
ffio.:3' <tlw ::::J
W S'::::J
0.
Ul
or
;;
-n
5'
!'!.
"
a
,,'
n-
o.
m
~
<is-
"
"
a
,,-
n-
Ul
"
o
"
~
Q
-l
~
m
"
<0
5-
m
~
.
o -t"'C 0 S' 9::P
<<l(i)5~(tI5'm.g9:<<lii
.g ~ (ii' c.. C6 ~ ~'< ~ g a
-.s.(tI Q,-O:::l 0 ~,o (tI
<<l(C S';::l.g::::J(C;:::::J::::J CD
a. I>> _c: 3 "'U"'C:r(C (Il (Il
=r::::J~iil<tlQ.PJCDs:rr:~
I>> CD ~::I o'(Il 3 <tl::l W
::J!C6"g g ~CD-;;!!!.Q)_=
o::l~""-OCD(i)(Il~O"
8 ~ -. CD ~ CD ;:!. c..~. CD
::::J ()::::J 3 =" ...... -'::1 3 iii'
- (CS'I>>I>>O::lCDm(ll
a ^Ulao.~~......O'a.:':c:
- ......CD03:r~ OCD
(Il....I>>U!::I<tlCD::$'C....o.
m::::J ~;:!.ZS-~<P"'C
'0 o.PJ 0- CD O'~3 m
g~:E ~ ~<g:::::J~ !!!.~
~. g CD CD a. 0"3 5' =~
CT::::J =::1 00 I>>......:E
CD a. PJ U)':::;. 3-"O-oo-g
_(Il (Il <tl 0 ~ :;: (Il
oC:I>>:rSl8.Q.7'd!(Il
:::'"8 Cil ~g ~'~~m
-5::l3S'06:SlCD(Ilm
CD~ S'~O -::;.Q'g"Q a
3.... o.c: (Il..J _,
CD <'CD 0.0 O_(Il ~g 3
::I!!!..::"(I) 3-< (Ilc:,-w
gl>>o=rg()w;::;:~~
(C ::::J'2.~::::J 0 3.e:3'~
0.(1) =-'3"0 CD <
!!!..c w_o.:<" 3 CD~.<tl s:
-"8 ~::I a s: rti
::::J -2. CD Q)::::J
3'g; _CD _
~-
o-t()OCil~S.g~
(IlOOi" :r (l)CD<c...... c:
:r:ro ~ co ;:+< iir=ffiCil a
~a(ll:r!e. :::i~:E(i).....gCD
::::Jffi'":r01>> ~'CI>>CT(I)::;'(Il
O(llSC:;:+ ......3:3'<3(1)(1)
::.(Il=:....o. (I)<tl 0.1>> 0 ?-:<
o.:rCD I>> -ooo::::J Q) =ai o'
(i)w cr~w :3'--"0 CD )>(1)
=c:....::I c: Om"O::::J"'C__
~::::Jrr:S:~;:;8:::ag.~Q)0
@g,(Il<tl(l)~c:g~CDS'::!l~
"2.~~g ;:!.s-g !e.;;:~(C 0 a.
:E 0.. ~ a. g (Il ::::J -->.,< () a 8 =f'
:r(jj'C;:o (Il (Il~ ~s:^:::;:!.03
(I)(Il -(I)::T_ coooo....
::::J(I)(I)........,l>>oo. 0_
-_.:r< =.... I>> O(lliit-:3'
0" "'C ::I <tl 0' cr -'< _. :::r 0 3 (I)
Q)oO<tl(I) CD:3'(IlCil!!!..:.:o....
9:s-g rti m'9. (I)" 0. 0:: &'2.CD3
::Id!....::I::I::::J~~.OCD_O
(CCilS._O'I>>~g....<co....g,
g o.o'g ;=T-os.~"g ~(I)
5 g ~ rr: ~ m ~ ijj' Q-c ~ ~ -g
5''9. -:< (I) !e.-a (Il 3 I>> ::::J cr ~
Q)::I1>>0.:::::Jwo~3(1l(CCD~
0.(1) =<tl o.O(ll::::J :::Tw (C
S'(Il(ll'::::J (l)oc:c::::J~_
(Cmc: 0300CD::!.ao.og,
. ag.)>(I) ~'~s.-<<tl 55 ~g
(I)=:3~_0._ "Q(I)CD_
::I3S'=:J:S':r 000.0
'9,CD 3' !!: 'C(C CD ~ ;:CTU)'
::::J ~ c: - .... 'f I>> :3''< (Il
m 3ffio' 3 (I) ():3'
::I.... _ ^!!!..
9. 8". g 00-
..
::;
G'i
>
....
6
z
..
m
1;;
c
'"
m
i
"
0-
m
..
m
Z
E
6
z
"
:J:
1;;
m
'"
::;
~
-l
-6
biz
~ '"
~o
" z
~ -
:g,-l
_0
;lJ
Z
G'l
"
~
G'l
~
'"
" "
o!:;
i~
"'"
O-m
men
.."
mo
Zz
:;!!!!
~~
Om
Z
""':
om",
",en....
n"-<
00
..Ei
,,-
o-lll
-0-
>m
z
n
m
~s
cO"C;;
!'l.".
0'0
~il'
s:~
gQ
;:+a.
Q;:;:
::i"CS"
<Q"
-o!!'.
ac:
<Q~
OJ'"
3
-n
'"
0'
2
'"
-<
!'"
'"
o
o
"
-0
'"
<Q
'"
"'
'" '"
~ :.:..
o 0
'" ~
...
'"
:...
ill
i:D
'"
:...
ill
"'
~:[~~
!.c. a:~. ~
:::JQ)Oll)
~~-g'g:
"'U""'" -(I)
a ~;!og
-g "'C (I) 8..::1
:!..QQ)(I)!e.
'< (I)" 0=' 2
3 n::e --I@:
c: rol1)::TO
:!l ;a.~~::l
CD ii)CDCD::T
~g5~g
?l~Q)iil
w=
W
00'=,
-..",
o
0~0'
~O(l)
28m
O~<Q
g~=.
~c'"
(l)SJ,CD
::TO'a.
~:::::Jcr
;;:~.'<
..co
g~~
~ ~'9.
"2, ~ ~
go~
00 '
5i:::J0>
.:<"enS-
"Oc_
g9-~
ar -< -l
~Ul~
:::JQ:::J
~o;(J)~aoCi~~.~::e~~z
; @-.i~l~ $ (I) 0 $'~ =:~~ 0
< ::5.:::0;-.., CD o:::J =-(1) 3 g.;:;:S"Q
(I)(I)~~U_<_;:J'"c.::T~ '<~~
a~g:- ~~(I) S=Q):::J ~=t'!! Q) (') a.
(I) -::e:::l -':::J:::J (I):::J 0 O~:::l (I) 0
Q);;- =0 g,......pi ()~ ;;i3 ~.a.@ Q
ag CT8'~i5~ g ~(I) ~s:Q ~ 3 3
Ul!e.(I)a._IQ)::\.OQ.O(l)Q)Q)g
(I)..,;:J'" o~a.~@(I)::e-l3'<'<~
:2CCllO-c CO) IUC1lO-o ~::!i
-.0. 0::"" CD ::Te,.., Q.:::!..c.< -~Q) Ci
@ _.0.0 I5'a.~,<. :i:!jO-s.
(I)~~~~~?f(l)~>' &3~~
U)(D ::T:::o;<D'< Q) :::J a.:::J Z (/l _.::1
CD :::J CD III !e. 0 :::J.g Q. 0''< ~ ~ ~ g.:E
(I)~~~~~a.~~ro~g5a==
g(/)C~-g.~~~'Scr!e.a.a.~3cr
:::J (\) 3--:::J oo"-......~ CD cr--o.(I) CD
~ a. ~ 0-10 C 8 ~ ::T 0 3 (I) fJI 5" Q) Q)
~Q)..,(I)o"_(I)(I):::J(I)='OI.CC;
oibQ.(Ilc;o::-" :::JUlC. (11(3 0.0
:::J Q) CD ~ a 0 (jj Ei s=~ 0 -c CD 0" ~
~~ iQ~~~'a(l)o;g~.ga.
...... Q.W::lOQ)5U'<C!CDCDCD
......0 _.:::;'0.0 c o.a ~~. :J W X
lDw :J W C/).....:;. -'"0 CD Z,'AO
O<D :JCCO"~CD""''''''OwCDCD
_..... :;'0.:J~""'~~0~^-~~
:;'Jf CDoo.CDN'~ wwC/)CUl_
CD . 0 ~ ~ s. ~~ g ~ ~ 3 $ ffi g
00. g~C/)~OfrCUlg~~~~
cCD ::L-OCD~o~""'Qi'''''' CFCD
~~ ~8ao~~~aro$~~w
:< a..:JQ.ggg~~0.0"",w5
- CiiI.C~S: c.. ur::E ~ w ~ C
~~~WCD ~ws:CD~a.~
o.&:ca..~ :J~wwo8"C/)
:JOwo...... ~8":3C/).....::Ec
o?g~a: go~-g~~i5..
o m:3 S'I "'0 iii"~ n...... o.w
<3 x ~ I.C -" -. Ul CD W CD .....'<
w@CDCDrg. ~~o-Cii~C/)
:3"'0<< Ul~:3m:JOo
N'=,~'~ 5 ::J"3.....Cii..... g-
~Q~ur<< ~m~a2t@Q.
S"
;;
3
!!!.
o
o
3
0'
C
!!:
0'
~
..
~
<Q
S'
..
g.
<'
"
~
8
~
!!:
2
0.
0"
~
'"
lit
if
-n
S"
'"
~
o
..
0.
0.
..
W
rg'
o
o
3
"0
ii'
~
o
o
3
"0
[
0'
~
~
8 8
~ ~
!e. !e.
2 2
n n
0' 0'
~ ?
-0
a
"
0.
'"
"0
o
~
W
Q
'"
,;,
0:
~.
"'0
lito
if@.
-n..
S"<D
'" ,"
';;-0
- 0
fi.a
0"-
-..
c..~
.. 0
W ~
to" 0
~ -
"Tl
.2,
..
0.
'"
"0
o
~
W
Q
0'"
<'E,
(ii" a:
0'5"
~<Q
o
ii'
~
~
,:
"0
'"
0.
~
iii"
W
m
0;
'"
m
-0
)>
"
'"
"0
'2.
[
o'
~
o
~
<Q
o
S"
<Q
o
o
3
'"
J
-n
Q
5'
..
;;
~
='
..
"0
a
,,"
0.
-0
a
"
0.
m
"0
o
~
W
Q
-0
a
,,'
0.
m
"0
o
~
W
Q
0-0
<'Qi"
~:~"
""
<Q
0-0
<'Qi"
(j)":J
-"~
0-"
" ~
<Q
'"
:...
ill
in
'"
:...
ill
i.n
~~3~ ~
33;:I
a.;::;:~~
:r~::To
o....!!!.. 00'-
3-U:-coc"
W =:J:J 0 =3
=~9.it~9:CD
rtigcrUl~~g.
~:JCDffiuro~
iii"~ 0 ~ .....:;;J;_.
....."'0"'0 cr::TO 0
0"(1) ~ CD CD ~~
:J Q.2to-.2- <
~:'ICD ~ 1~3 CD
:Jgo.::Bo'c:J
O-=.w ~:J!e.:t:
~.g~..... s,cr~
oUl.....03CDg
3' ~ s: il ~'a
=-w CD c: a <~
~~iit@ ~.~~
0-"0 .... '" ",
:J:::J =:JL~'0.3
CD &~Q"fol-I 3h
.g c..(;i.$ ~.:;.~
-c' CD 0 8" 6.. CD ;:
~go~~3Q:
3,!e.$~Ul~CD
"'0 o.g ~-6'o
w re i5.. c..~
gg.s.g--g ~
o I.C 0 Ul
ma......(jlCD-I
-~~" Q.g~
Q-tg.~6:::J
3 ~ ~ ~~. S,
SOlD' .....--1
~~rE"I ~ 0'
EQ;;; is ~
c5c5O ::Eg
'"
lit
if
-n
S"
!'l.
"0
a
,,"
0.
0.
..
W
<is"
~
~Q
.. 3
'g"O
~.!!
n~
JI
Q'
<;
o
o
o
C
"0
'"
~
Q
'"
"
0.
Q
5'
..
)>
"0
'2.
[
0"
~
m
0;
'"
'"
,;,
0:
S'
<Q
"Tl
..
3
~
;;
~
"Tl
a
"
0.
m
"0
o
~
W
Q
"Tl
.2,
..
0.
m
"0
o
~
W
Q
0-0
<'m
(;i':J
0'2.
~ "
<Q
O"1JOOJ
<"iii"<'E"
(;i':J (;i' a:
o'~"o"S'
::J::J:::I(Q
<Q".
g-~;f~
~'!.fg g
_::3 ~'g.~
"'0 Ul..... 0
~( ~gr
.....:>.....0-
o CD C
0.0 II) =
oc.....a.
::JII)3'
Ul =CD C
~~::J"'O
?i Q...... S'
gws'::T
?8aCD
~03
z.3 C
OlWT
-c"O
w,,"c
"0"'-
..n"O
0" 0
Qi'~ $
![!g
::T=
~ 0.
::TW -"
g8c5
a:CUl
!!:='
ro erg
:$.~O::
..'"
::EII)g
_0'
::TUlro
..00.
~-s f5
~ <'CD
_,,0.
'"
~..m
m ~g
a-~"a
"'Q
~::Ea
~,w CD
c..=a.
..w
as,g.
W 0
g-~~
3"3 ~.
I.CC::T
~T-W
o -g 3
Q -a S"
w ~ 3"
3..c
-g0-3
~~o
0.0.-
CD S'C/)
< <Q --<
"_0
~o
urro~
o.~
Cor
lilg
60::
(;i" cr
....
3'~
"0"
",0.
0.",
Wo
o ~
~<Q
iil'0
00
~.g
~
JI
Q"
<;
'"
"
!!!.
o
o
o
C
"0
'"
~
Q
~
'"
~
'"
~
..
"
'"
:...
ill
'"
...
'"
CD::;;"OO
;:4!CDOO
'~o
on~
"'0 (i 0' (;l
CD _::l w
~~Q.i5..
::J < ~
<<CD S'::E
0. 3,1.C S"
CUl-a.
.....-11)0
s'...a s
lD~CDfJJ
~.g -:;: S,
-0_
~O'O::T
~:. Q CD
-'::J" 3
@CD3S.
Ul.....O.....
-=- ~ ro-6'
""0 c
.....0
I(;lo
to' 0 ~
='~..
I~cr
00 E.
<<.....e::
'" -,
ar3c5
-<1!.Ul
~::!i::T
.... 0
<Q.s.
~'~~
~ 0"
-03
,,~ '"
::TCD -.
.. <"
~ (1) -.
-~~
~ur::T
'<(;lCD
fJf5Q.
::l ::T~
0''''''
..wo.
'"
lit
if
-n
S"
!'l.
"0
a
,,"
0.
0.
..
W
<is"
~
il'0
00
='3
~'"
ii'
~
JI
Q'
<;
'"
~
!!!.
o
o
o
C
"0
'"
~
Q
~
'"
~
'"
~
~
-0
a
,,"
0.
m
"0
o
~
W
Q
0'"
<'E"
(;i'a:
o's'
~<Q
'"
..
ill
~
'"
lit
if
-n
S'
!!!.
"0
a
,,'
0.
0.
..
W
<is'
~
iil'0
00
~.g
ii'
~
JI
Q'
<;
'"
~
!'l.
o
o
o
C
"0
'"
~
Q
"Tl
a
,,"
0.
m
"0
o
~
W
Q
0'"
<'E.
(ire::
O"S"
~<Q
'"
::;
Gi
~
o
Z
'"
m
>
'"
c
'"
m
i
."
....
m
'"
m
Z
-<
~
o
Z
."
:I:
1;;
m
~
'"
~
'"
~
~
~."
~~
.,,'"
....m
m",
"'."
mo
Zz
-<",
!jijj
-....
~m
~"'."
Om>
"'''''''
n"'~
00
i:Z
.,,2!
......
-....
~m
n
m
s:
::;
15
)>
--<
-5
gz
;l.;:
-'0
sz
&=t
o
"
Z
Gl
"
"
o
Gl
~
;:
s::>;
:::0:0
cO.t;;
!!l".
0'0
~il'
s:~
g6'
;:;;is.
~.~
"'''
.,,!l1.
0<:
~~
'"
3
"
'"
0-
2
'"
-<
'"
'"
o
o
'"
CD~ ~:T<D::E.....
(J)Ow<tlUla:~
a:~,:<~-g(t)a.
CD.., CP:::I::I(J)
~-<-lCD ~..... 2
CIl ::::J"UllJep-C.............
~ 3 CD Q ro-g :]"
Q) Q) (11 ......;::l. (Q
~a~~Q UlS~~~OO~~~~~Q~
~~.~a~~i~CIli~~3~~~~a~~o
a.:::IQ)-~ = <3~ CIlC~(/)~~~Q)
.g"'o.:::Ig~Q)_3a-b~~3~~~.~Q)~o
..... -. ......t:::-...o....-. t:::"'C '"
.!!!' Ul ~ t:::!. - (\) 3 Q)' c:: .., S ~ 0 O' g Ql (I) ::!.
~.Q)::r :JID_ Ultlle::c::--Ql- ::::Ql
~~i5..~:s;.rpi5..(1l~"'C et3 tI) ~~ CIJ iIQ.g.-g,fIl
r-' - ~ _. III a.u "!:I Q) Ul 3' cp ::J '0 = g. c: n' "0
0'a."'C<3.~Fr'.. Q)" III (itQ.~::s.::J {J) Q)~
"'o2tf)cc'tj(l) 3"?~o~ >t "arOJ'-"
S::Jffia~.CPa. ii ..~~o ~Ulg
('\)0 3::l11l1D CI)~CD =ffi
(\)_1>> 10....:::1 c;: """"'WQ) ..-..;>l;".....
:::l ::1:::1- g.a. l: Vl::J.:::I Q)Of/l
~O"a.(1lw:::o:_. 0 ~Qla. <w=
.....~~co.:::Iro~ ;>l;" ro-ro ro;>l;"~
ron-'::ra.n~ s: ro~~ ::l-(J)
~.;>l;"3gro-$. Q~!ii" g. g;
ai""O"2.~."2.Ql!. 2; ~Ci ; =-
~~~c5~ll)"'C 2-3 iii"
mQti...:ra-m ..~ ;;
=ll)a.CPlC0.... Q) 0
0"3 -~.c.:::I.- :::l::E
ro_.;c.ro(J)::::J" ::r ~
n CD ell Q) ~CD 0-:.
3<(f)i5o. -0 .z
~.ai"~m~~9. -
3~a.OCDCDg
~'_~:::l~ll)Q.
a.a2~a:gCD
-3cr<1l=:=~
o (fIQ.(/)gll)
;~~~:3a.g
g-~_a.::TUl;
n g ::r<~.::rm
CD::l~ <3 ~a.
~9:Q) g t'D -:5"
;:!<5 CD g. ~ g Q)
."
'"
'"
'"
~
o
w w w
'" '" ~
:l> :l> [,
" ~ '"
IU 0"::T::r Q) UJ Q) -0 -i
::lCDQ)<tl::l::T::lQ)::T
Q)o_ c.2c.~<tl
!e.~ (') ~ (fJ 0- (fJ ::fCD
~(fJo.Q"~(fJfJCOl1l
uj'~5:~~"-~ ole.
:~ 0-::<5 ~o.~~
(il-< <tl (fJ UJ - ~,Q) <tl
w3s::i5~wsr5..o
iil~(fJ-=(il::l -
O<tl~!!.o- O::T::T
OCO _ ~ <tl it 6. t'D <tl
~go05'!e.CDt'D~
:E o."'C a!e.re Q,~ <'
~::Ta~!!......a.-<tl
<tlt'D<s::ibos:: :E
.....ga:na.~,g ~~
~<tl<tl<tlQ)<5(fJa.-
CD (fJ ::T a. (fJ
;j) Q) t'D ~"'C Q) (il g ffi
.. 5..g::;:~5..m 5:~
w<tl(1) - <tl
(il (fJ (fJ 8.-0 ;! a Q)
iii'~~::T(il(1)<tlg
!e.(1)t'D(1) (i'ii)(fJ?
16::3......:::!l.....::lo(jj
..... 5'3';j) ~g.-(1)
~~(1)-<0::T::l
3' . -g.- ~ (1)::;:
~ ;!~g: o.3'::l CD
CDCDt'DaCOCDC
;!-< _ 8. C g} :E 3
CD ::Tg (fJ <g. Q)-O ~
'Owo:=:"'=~o
w{i ~.CD (il 5"~5
~ 0-<5 a.~" Q..eE a.
UJ(1)_~!e.a._w
3 ~ (ii"t'D ~ (1) 0 ::l
Q) (ijo:-_-a.
~(fJ "'C (il (fJ_
CDt'D.g3 CD::Tffi
a.(D(1)CD (fJ~
~;.~,~~~ ;;:~
::ra.(fJ:;::;;(fJo.(1)~
~~~mg(j)a? f"-
5:a.=1.zg~ ~,
_"::3 1>>_ a.oco
<5 I>> a0-3'5.~
(fJ 3 t'D w Q) _._~
CD 0. a. 0' ::3 (1)1:': 0'00
1>>0_3.....co 11l t'D
a.;:os::~_wa:O(D
a ~8 aig 0 ::3:s.~ u-
o ..... CD -Q) 0 w..... .
_a.(il...... 0.::3 -'l3-~.o
(fJ !e:n 0 0.-< SlF<1l!:"
~. c em. w 3 m.
=a-s-c.(1) 8 9:=;>'0 "
2'1>> (1) 033 !e.o CD8
",::3 0 -''''C cO ::3
m @ a ~ ~ ~ a-~ .g !e.
::+8Q:~::;:~~(i1(5'2
;(oCD3oCD(fJ@~~2:
oa.......OWOO
::3 3" iU W 0"0 ;j)::;:::3
~!.o9:~gg~~~
OOOOCD.....a._ c
0; a ~ 0 8 3' ~ -<-0'
;j) -'0 ...... - W a.~, 3
w::;:o)2-::;:aog~(1)
(fJCDgl>>(1)::r""";-~
~ 8 ~ a. g ~:E ;! "2.?
'0 ::3<-'iii"o':::T!::!"~ ~
a !"'C!e. CD::3 0 ~ m'
{ico;:::;:8 :e.!ll ~
a.n!e.5.350t'Ds'c
0-0'_t'D"'C (ii'S, 0_'0'
-< ::3 ::r..... - CD a.. ::T 3
::T~,CD ~ ~". O":E <1l CD
t'D (i)(i)(fJ ~ (1) ~(fJ ~
-i' -O..-.-i ::3 I>>
o (1)::3CD::T.....CD3:r
~ -g. ~~ (1) m Cii CD !.
::3 0;:;> -0 (1)
" ::3 ,.. se,9:0 =.0 (ii'
CD 3 I>> se,::3 2)"c a.
::3 (1)::+c~. (fJ-o'CD
c W 3"a-Q:~"3~"
3~(o~CDQ:CDcg
o-CDoo-!'D3.t'D
~(fJO(1)g ~a.
0 CIl 0 CIl
0 Iii 0 Iii
3 ~ 3 ~
'0 '0
iD " iD "
~ S' ~ S'
'!!. '!!.
Ul '0 0 '0
." .2, 0 .2"
:>> 3
;u '" '0 '"
iil n- $[ n-
o. o.
< '" o' '"
~' . ~ .
<is' '"' <is'
~ ~
8
~
!!l-
2
n-
o'
~
Q'8 ~
:r~3
t'D ~"C
c-
it 2:;'
8. g ..
--
os 0 Ul
"'-."
-0 5')>
.2. ~;u
"'''
0-
::~~
gg-g
3o~
'" -",
aii)-
"'~
~ o.",
",. ~
~oo.
@~,
<5-g
Q) .9:.
a.~
0'"
<'w
(ij'::3
o'::!.
~ ~
'"
Ul
Iii
~
"
S"
'!!.
'0
a
<;;'
n-
o.
'"
.
<is"
~
."
o
<;;'
n-
Ul
'0
o
~
.
Q
."
o
<;;"
n-
Ul
'0
o
~
.
Q
."
a
<;;'
n-
Ul
'0
o
~
.
Q
0'"
:;::-ar
(ii"::3
o"::!'
~ ~
'"
0'"
<'w
(ij'::3
c'::!,
~ ~
'"
w
." 0 '"
0 -.0
'" C
os .g "5'
5'
~ <.~
c '!!.~
~ "'-
~ 3.-=:-;
'"
lil ~~
.
. '"
'" .0
-< C
e; .,,"
'0
S" '"
'" o.
'"' ~.
S' 5'
iD .
3 <;
0
'!!. ^
0 3
0
3 '"
~
0- C
C or
!!l-
0' n-
c
~ iil
'"
~ Ul.
'"
S' .
'" c
. '0
'!2.
ro"
o.
3
c
31
'"
Ul
0
0
3
'0
iD
~
0
0
3
'0
$[
0'
~
'"'
0
0
~
!!l-
2
n-
o"
~
o
<'
0;'
0'
~
..
::;
15
:!:
i5
z
..
m
In
c:
"
m
i
..
.-
m
..
m
z
-0
:!:
i5
z
..
:J:
In
m
"..
O~
~:;!
.."
'-m
mil>
....
mo
zz
):!!!
-olD
-.-
Om
Z
..
::;
Ci
:>>
....
-5
b'z
;a..
-'0
~~
" ....
.so
;ll
z
Gl
."
el
Gl
~
..
""..
Om"
,,11>"
0"'"
00-<
..z
..!!?
.-lD
-.-
;::;m
o
m
5:"-
;:;:0
lQ'C;;
!!l."
0'0
~il'
5:~
gg
-,~
Q~
:5"0'
"'~
,,!!!.
at:
~~
3
"
~
'"
2
'"
-<
_N
N
o
o
-.J
W' 0""0 Z
oCDoO
~~~9:
iii'-6'~ ~
S"-g ~:
c: 0.. 0 <C
~ ~ cE a;
. ;::+::::r:::::J
~-'"
2:ii"o
'" ~
03",
B~Q)
S-Tro
","C
S'-a ~
"-0
"'''''''
-~~
0",
O-!:. ~
~ ~~
-~~
5l to a.
~~-
0.5'0
ag-g
'" ~
~ '" <
:::::I'iii"
~ ~C'
......-CD
~~-
~'< ~
~c53
~~
C6U;-~
~'"
-~-
~~ffi
"
'"
'"
~
::
-.J
~~~g~g~
Q.::TQ. (l) ...
=rs'_a3.~ 3-
(Qtc:::rroQ.<1l(C
~UlCD...(D:;ll:"_
3:::rC/l~a.a.g.
(Dll)CDo>([lQ)
. =O:::::J ~.'rii<5'
(b g ~CD a:
3 a.9::e -15"
III :::::J~:::r::rlO
S'lO' CD CD (II
::T"'O :::::J Co::r
g-3g!:;~
.c:g,~&'l~g
E:-o@~.go
-1>>"00
:::::JUl-:::::Io:::::J
o (JI _(I)_~
_~Qg-t6'3
a~I3:::r~
CD - cO' OJ ~(Il
:'a ::Tar5 S
:::r I- ....-
~:EoC"~~
...... ~-<s.,< :::::l
~g.O::i"c:r~
..z =:~ ::l C'D :::::I
335/l 0 (tl 0
-.mcn~~iil
:::::J CDCD:::::J.....
@-=nr3.g.~
(JICD5~a.~
~ -g ~- ~~ ::I
~~~;;:3~
ro:::::Jl>>(Dwc..J
<lOC,,:::sO
tll_('iCDC'O
a!l.!"'""'9, ~3
!"
'"
~-i
~~
cQ"(D
;to>
~.o
;::;:(0
~
=0
"'~
~!!l
","C
3'~
~ -,
"-~
",'"
B:
~~
a=
3",
"'~
Q)~
o
""~
~Ul
~3'
"-'"
0'"
~~
~.!!:
, "-
~
"-
<C'
~
or
!!l.
~w:e-o-o(J)
r;-::::rOWCD
a:og:$~g
(I) Ul:::l:::::!.
~0'2Q)(C..;t
mg.~(J)~<ff
. :::T_~m a:
~.ffi~(fl S'
~!!l:~~
::E!R~c;:
;::;: WCll::T
:TUl..... CD (1)
=ia.o~
(C =1i):E ""
;:! cr (II ..!.... <
(/lCD mOo
w =g- Cii ~.
~~r~@";;:~
l!. !e. 3 Q.ll)
c5 3' m':<
~Q)~a:T
mUl tf)ro
'< it o-:e ......
=t'::E '< ;:;: ~
o .....::T:::::J
3~~~~
_,0
~"8 d' ~ 5
rog:=g-o.
e: 5' g 0.. ~
~ CD =:J
0.. 0(0 a.
Ul(\)::::J".....
~~"2 fij ii
oc::::ls~
g.~~ffi"o
~ '" ~
<l6'..::;(Ilu
<~. :rU
~ Ui =j"Cir~
~
o
0'
S
..
'"
w~
3=
"c"-
~ S'
'"
~
~
ffi'
'"
~
~
0:
'"
~
<C'
~
;;
"-
~,
5'
o
~
iD
<
!!.
'"
~
~
Oi
'"
~
'"
S'
'"
8
~
o
~
'"
iD
"-
N
"
o
o
~
<C'
3i
S'
'"
8-
~
!!!.
Ui
'"
~
"-
a
o
'"
S'
~
'"
~
'"
~
"C
a
~
~
;;
"-
00
00
;;: 3
""c
~ -
o ~
~i"
0"
~
(f)
"
)>
"
'"
"C
"C
a
<
!!!.
'"
~
"-
"C
a
or
>l.
'"
'"
"
~
"'
ii ro ii 3'-l
I>>-'l I>>U ii
a. s, a. a
fam~~d
r~ :;3~
~tO-S-:7_.CD
=3'~2!!~~~
~::l CIl _c -
~(Q cr~ ~.Q) ~
=o::l~gro~
3:;a~ -.8 CD
CIl = 0"O;a 3::T
Q) 0 ro S'ou (1)
i5.. c ~.(Q ro ![ -
crg:g-g~~rg.
&Qg-g-Q):
Q) CD::T::l::lO
a.c~(1)~a.
~~ CIlCll...3
ii --~ g
Q) CIlC;:+
m g 3 ai'Q
CIl 3 S'I>> :r
~ Q) 3'8:: CD
0. ~-~'g.a
~ N-~~1i'
Q) ~ -!l
i o5"~g
~ ... Q) ~ ~
CDo.C_
~g;roii
o O'CIl
(1)::l_::l
_,- 0 (1)
3 s::o ~
is:: g Q_
o :::!In
ur~3c
_0'1 w
a:i>:r~
3 i-J2t g
'"
~
~
c
'"
~
o
~
iD
<
!!.
(f)
lit
if
(f)
"
)>
"
'"
"C
"-
0'
!!l.
o'
~
i&>
~3
~"C
"';;
a!ir
'"
ro~
g~
ii::7
,,~
n~
~~
~
3
'"
a
~
~
"-
'"
Oi
'"
'"
~
"-
"
a
<;'
>l.
(f)
'C
o
~
'"
Q
0"
<' iD
(ij'::I
c5'2,
~~
'"
'"
'"
o
"
'"
'"
o
~
~i :t> {;a ~ ~
g~g~==m!
lFt53 ~~:7~
~g:~ -Q.-!!~
Q) o.::l m ~ fJ
':<=: ~ 0- (Q ffi =u
~... ~o o-S
~.Q. ~::l ~f~
=0: o-:r^iD
"Q ~ CD (1) S.::l
(1) 0 m CIl CD ~
<o.oos=
(1)a..cu(il
act ai'CD s.~
ii::l a.:ig:(1)
Q) ~ OOCD~
~~ :.~~~
~= ffi~~ a..
::g~CDo.~
~om~~'o
co -c(1)--
a-ii: ~,:7~ g
::l2g-~.'<g:
OOOa.::t'CD
::ct ;:CD 3u
::To. ~o W
CDO CD::~;a
ro::l Q.::T CD S'
CIl - Q) (1) CD(Q
o:iig:3~iir
(1) (1) (35..-CIl
g Q) 0 ~Q);O-
CD !!t 3 -6 i5..~
2t ~- ~..a Q) ~
f\JO-::loo.--
o ~ <p ~ ~~
;;0- 0 CIl
(1) - O"::l::T
~ffi ~~2
iD::l 8:iirg
~~ ~ ~Q
(f)00
argo
;:l.",3
.. ~"
,,~-
S' ga-
l>> 0 ".
-~
"C
a
<;'
>l.
"-
~
'"
<C'
~
0)00
argo
~ ~.6
~?iCD
l>s-!ir
,,~
'"
"C
"-
0'
!!l.
0'
~
(f)
"
)>
"
(f)
"
)>
"
'"
"C
"C
a
<
!!!.
'"
"C
"C
a
<
!!!.
'"
~
"-
'"
~
"-
"C
a
<;'
>l.
"C
a
<;'
>l.
."
a
<;'
>l.
(f)
"C
o
~
'"
Q
"
a
<;'
>l.
(f)
"C
o
~
'"
Q
0"
<"iD
(ij-::l
o' 2.
~ ~
'"
0"
<"iD
(ij":::l
0"2,
~ ~
'"
0"
<'iD
(ij'::l
0"2.
~ ~
'"
'"
'i'
'"
(f)80
Iit~o
~ ~.6
(f)~-
-02:;'
:t>o..
,,~
'"
"C
"-
0'
!!l.
0'
~
(f)
"
)>
"
'"
"C
"C
a
~
'"
~
"-
"C
a
or
>l.
"
a
<;
>l.
(f)
"C
o
~
'"
Q
0"
<"w
(ij":::l
-,~
0-.
~ ~
'"
'"
'"
),.
w
,,'"
- ~
3. a.
:7iD
~ Oi
~'"
"0
ai" 3
5'
~ ~
!e. ~_
~, ct
"-'
~
8-
~
~
~
~
~
"C
'"
:<-
S'
'"
~
~
g;
Oi
~
'"
Q
'"
"
~
'"
'"
(f)
lit
if
(f)
j;
"
'"
"C
"-
0'
!!l.
0'
~
"
a
<;'
Q.
(f)
"C
o
~
'"
Q
..
=<
i5
]>
....
i5
Z
..
m
1;
c:
'"
m
i
."
....
m
..
m
Z
E
i5
Z
."
:J:
]>
'"
m
3:
=<
Ci
]>
-i
00
o z
;l.3:
-, 0
2 z
:l=i
_0
"
Z
Gl
"
'"
o
Gl
~
3:
."."
0]>
~~
.,,'"
....m
m",
..."
mo
Zz
~~
-iID
-....
!l1m
.""'.,,
Om]>
"'''''''
o.,,-i
00-<
3Cz
.,,!e
....ID
-....
j;m
o
m
"'''
;:+0
<0'(;;
!!l.".
0'0
~il'
",'
gQ
;::0: a.
~t a:
~ 0'
"'~
-oll!.
ac:
"'~
il m
3
-n
"
0-
2
w
-<
!"
N
o
o
-.,
-0
w
'"
"
-0 en
or",
~-n
~. "lJ
~o
"'w
~
"-
~
N
'"
'"
h
~
-<.
~
m
~~
-g,g
~ro
3w
WW
~~
~~
~ffi
'< ~
w"
iil'~
;'~
~"
~~
mo
g g
~ -
g;Q.
5.0
0' (1)
~ ~
_w
00-
W,"
115 ~
~"
o'w
~ll
row
'Cw
or'
@
3
"
3
2'
~
"-
3w;;::
w""w
~.~x
3 -3
c 0- c
3"3
o ~ 0
g s. g
c: 3i l::
'C,,'C
w,,-w
~ ~
~~.Q
~~
~~
<-
~~
!2:g
~!e.
,,-"
w"-
~i5'
@ ~
~
.r
en
lit
~
-n
S'
!!l.
'C
a
,,'
g.
"-
"
w
<5"
~
-0
a
"
g.
en
'C
o
~
W
g
0-
m =.
~C:
5:~'
'Cw
W'
<;w
"-5.
O::T
"
~:!!
@iil
~O
u;'
~n
,,-<
W""
w"
"-<
a~
~ ~
~w
~.::::T
S:~
:j'o
"'0
-~
,,"w
roo:
0-"
c ~
i5:ro
5'.g
(C :::;"
S'3"
-'"
ffi~
,,'<
<=
"'"
~""
;<ii
w ~
~~
iil"
w
w
~
g.
c
w
-<
0-
S"
"
iil
w
w
"
5'
"
-w-<
3~~
w=
affi'"~
5(ij.g
Q.:::::ro
fIl 0'=1:
iifmQ)
=(J)ro
~ :Tal
1152!.~
<Di~
~115g
=;l),)-c
g- g. g
. ~ <' CD
!!!"-
we:
-~
_0
,,"'C
" 6
<=
~g
Q..-.<
~
~a
"-'C
_w
"">!-
CD::i"
g.cc"
<'-
""
~@
'<,.
~O'
"-~
OlDlII-l
oo::r::r
~g~CD
qU) o-CD
c: (I) CD~'
",,- w
'"'3'"
o..<'o~
w"<
o~ll~
~'<
'" w""
:T o:g ~
~ :f a ii3
-.(1) ><:::J
ao~r;
!:...::;"ll:ICD
Q) n.....(I)
.....c: ~.....
g. or'< s=
0'" 1\,)(0
-0 Co O:::u
OO(i'CD
:::t:"'9roCD
IllO-c..
(jl4::::::IW
?>~g.5.
~~~
, ~ 0
w"o
~w"-
"-~w
ID~~
-w
ijffi'<
~,,'"
:::T a.~.
,<"'~
,,-"c-
~g,s.
--"-
:E ffi~'
= CD
-~~
i~~
ww-n
--0
~ g.....
g.~~
,~
~iii':::U
. a. S'
~'"
<'
"
~
'"
'"
o
c
~
;;;
~ S'
"-en
s=g.
" 0
"-2-
~. g.
" -,
~(6
'<~
2"':<
3 ~
~~
g g
a. a-
III S'
~'"
!!l.w
;:;~
00
3~
'C"-
-<g
~3
~w
oa
ow
3. ~.
'< "-
~:T~
2,2!.ro
" "-
gg~
g & a.
go~
w 0- 0
S:~&.
g.2cn
g.:;;
" w
3'<
" w
~~
"'''-
"
~<
~ iii"
(6b
~w
0' )>
CDS
WW
~~
~g
~@
~,.
~~
ro.(D
~sa.
0--0
'<w
_>!-
~"
,,"-
:::!!@
miil
"0-10..3-1
Q:l::::J"())c::r
~~~.~CD
~ ~ "
<0 ~.Q) g2:S..
:;!.=(j) !e.
muc..3S'
? (I) "C ~.(C
(i1l1la::u
,?-~!!!.s'
(,Il:::::J:::J<C
-'" "
..g'l/I a. s:
llj.gg
. 0 CD:::::I
-1g::J![
::::J"- Q)::J
(DID::J(/)
::!l::::l a. 0
(ilQ.::ri5
9:~mQ.
!::2.'< 0 a.
~"< -~.
n~-o ;%
~s~~
--0 (1)'<
CD ~ a. m
ffi. s: ~ 5-
:Eracn-o
m~mo
:3 m -'0
a.:::ImO
III 3 =$
:gc~a.
o!e.~ ffi
Ciiro(ll:E
:T~~~
(1)n@<
OJ g:"S. ~
!2:~'5"~
'"
'"
:l>
~
'"
'"
6
.,;
~O':!!(IIo---t ~
m.....:3 c (1)::::T
@8~~iii":
3::sO,CD::Sib
~~~, ;~~.~;::;:Oro ~ c
0:::1 CDm3~-.(1)<ora
S'~ US '0 3 _UJ ~"a;'c a-
~g ~ a:~~ ~~cg ~~~.
9:3 ~ ():E iii'~ID:;::oa..Q)-==
t5 2!.0 O";::;:(i"9:=Cp 0":::1:::1
". cp 0 o::::T..:;: 5 ~ffi''< a..Q..
55'-5 ~itUJ _1ll:E:fUJ a.
pi..:;: _ UJ 0 0::1 OJ cp !g, 5"
::::T'7!i3a.0 CDee
(II:E ~ ~ ::::T :j' 8" Q) a?-<" Cp
-g s: a;'~ 2.3" a (II :E~.
~~ ~ 5"~r:;:r~ro<g's:~
~en-oeecp~Q)g. gr.S
. _UJO='O":::IJJ.....
?l ~ '<~;- Cp =
a. TI ~ ~Q..~Cp ~~"rntg.
..... -0 ID g.g CD 0' Cp ~ 0 (i)
~.oQ)UJCP~.....~ ~-
:E..... fio CD'l!!~ :TlJJ5'~
~~ {).....:::It;;!:.ogee~
w::;-@_ro:::!.a--
a.~......CP a -<"" orr
m3 ::::TCD2!.3ro- 3Cll
US'cp m (II :T-~~ ;:;:_g-
:::::I a a.~(1)::::TW CD a;'~~.
wUJ~wcpCP@~" ee
:::::I -, ::::T..... x !:!!"3 ~ ro (11:::::1
~Q. ~~ ~~!!l'O 8 ~~
wa. :::::1:::1 -.....3 -
CSS"..ora m~'3Co
Cee c-o :3 () cpra'O
.:-""..... n'~ 9:=::1 a:o
w Cp 2S:~ QUS'g-5'~"
fi.g '<~ Q) ~a.ee g-
..... ee - 0.5"-(11
~~. 0 S. g;ee ~ ~ ~
w~ :E~ g'~;~g.
aU)' 0'= ~CDCllCPa.
o
o
3
'C
~
:<
~'
c>
o
"
"
c
'C
W
~
Q
sa.
~
~
0-
0:,
c:
5'
'"
w
OlJJen
<'!:"~
a;"a::"TI
g"~'~
w
~
"-
'"
;;;
~
-n
S'
!!l.
-00 'C
a 0 a
,,' 3_" ,,"
!l.lI n
g- 0" g-
w ~ w
10' 0 10'
:::::I 2' :::::I
o
"
g.
"
o
~
~
c
g.
<5'
~
"'0
;;;0
~@.
:!!iD
~!i!
-0
a
,,"
0.
en
'C
o
~
w
g
-0
a
,,'
0.
en
'C
o
~
w
g
0-0
<'Ql
(is':::I
o':!,
~ ~
'"
<il~
"2.a;"
m=.
lil ~
,,-'"
~.~
:;g
UJ ~,
2:-<"
"
g:~
"-3'
_w
<5'
~o
~:::I
W
~
"-
w
a
c
~
"-
<>>
~
"
3
w
S"
0-
0:,
c:
5'
'"
w
~
~
0-
"
'"
::;
i5
~
i5
z
'"
m
)>
'"
C
;0
m
i
"
...
m
'"
m
z
E
i5
z
"
:I:
1;;
m
" "
~~
i:;!
";0
C-m
m",
"'"
mo
Zz
....'"
)>-
......
-....
!i1m
;:
::;
15
".
-<
?;o
o z
;3.;:
-"0
~!:
"-<
e,0
"
z
Cl
"'0
~
Cl
~
;:
";0"
Om)>
;0"';0
n"....
00-<
"'z
"le
c-"
>~
z
n
m
5::>;
;;;:0
<<i'~
~""
0'0
~il'
5:~
g~
-,,,
~~
5'0'
"'''
,,!!'.
o~
@(Jl
3
"
"
"
e
m
.:<
!"
N
o
o
--l
"
m
'"
"
~
w
'"
"'-i
0",
e "
~'"
~"8
(D~
gg,
em
12=
mo
<0
" ~
o.!!l-
~ 2
iir@:
!ilg
'" <
, "
'"
ii'
"
'"
'"
'"
1!,
'"
"
3
~
0.
S
~
<.n
3
"
'"
u
!!!
--l
~SQ
" 0
~.~
~u
c.ffi"
"''''
~s.
;;:0.
,,~
li ~'
ro~
ro 2.
0.--
0'"
~"
o ~
00.
< '
" 0
~9.
, '"
!!!
3
m
~
iii'
'"
'"
~
o
m
~
'"
"
'"
'i5
:E
"
'"
'<
u o.m
~ 3.~
~ ~:r
-u 3
:S.CD 0
(/I ::!.<
0= 0 S'
CD g-I.C
g-g,Q
!e.:ro
"2. cO" :T
e "'''
3 ~
C1) ~.c.
"''' e
~g-~
o' ~-g
::T::r8..
o"e
m"o
:5 Co S'
9.~(C
-m
g-8~
oa~
g a ai'
g-<Il
-"",
ro~::T
~~~
'< '"
:E~(\)
!a(1)(j'l
"ee
::!.:::J (/I
"mU
tp2:~
"0.
-"
00.
!"
<.n
fij" sa
o Ol
~ "
~.Ui
0.'"
g~
0;;:
m"
~~
!il{!l
,,-
-0.
um
c=
",,<
~'i
(/I_
-'"
Ol :E
!'l.m
~~
'"
:E
"
"
u
"
!!.
'"
<
~'
fr
"
'"
g
3
m
~
iii'
,.
"')>
~=
UU
-m
0.<
m"
-.0.
"
-"
:Eo
_,0
-"
"'",
:E'"
!aa
!!! m
",0.
:E!"
"u
" m
~~
"'''
,..-",
1&~ ~
2:c5'g
~~~
..:Eo.
, m m
iDs:!
OllD
0.'"
'"
~a
rom
"0.
--'"
3''0
""
"';l-
Co :5"
~.(C
"m
. Ol
om
~!"
m
Ol
m
,'"
m
"
0.
'"
0;
'"
5'
'"
m
Ol
m
'"
'"
'"
1!,
'"
"
w
~~
_0.
"
0.'"
0;
:E'"
-::i'
"''''
S'~
0"
" m
.!.'"
o
x",
o":;r
-~
'"
2. g-
~~~o
~3rgg
i:rQ.(/I ~
CD~~U
~::oQ
_0...(/1
ffi ~ 9: Ul
a.&~![
$.<a--
CD (n' CD-g
Q) -.0.0
'" "',,-(II:S.
- 0 0.
~a.=CD
~.~~~
Co"2.~ =.
Q) c ~il"o
-?~CIl~
~o3.
"
)>_m
=::T:::J
0." 0.
.:<uu
~.2. ~
~'n.g
"",,,
8 ;:~
~Q)O'
--~
~~~
0'(11 ro
:::I.a :::!.
~ffi~
""
mom
"''< -
0000""0-1
-.c: -'-0
ij'a:~'~ :E
0' s'cr::!.:::J
::I(O:::J:::l m
.",,,
II) 'e.
" "
0. "
,!!!
N
n
o
3
u
"
~
()
o
3
u
![
0'
"
8-
o
o
"
!!l-
2
Q.
o.
"
_w
0:...
o
;.
.,.
w
'P
)>
'"
()
o
~
!",
e
Q.
5'
"
o
o
3.
iil
o
'"
'"
'"
1!,
'"
u
"
o
~
0.
e
!!l-
~
US'
~
0'
~
Ol
.Q
e
~.
3
"
"
'"
:::s' ~ 0 0 3 (b }> !'J
crO.l:::::l^o><=
~"'<en"o
3o-.a.;:+:C1l()
.....wl>>..,Q"9.^
:r::::l r <' (Il cnOO
CDa.OCD;::;:Q)OOOlO--l
-l VI::E W cr"'C =(ji":r
c''g )>~ ;;J; CT 0 ::::I ~ C1l
c*;;f1ln!a~~Uo-
as.g-O::TQ~' ~
:::l(O. :::0 g en (l) 8. --I 9::
"tI. )>(1) ~CD o..c::r:::J
go~~gS'Q) ro (DCO
(") --wCllO:::ScQ)'O
<DO"~::::IUl(1)O-::l'Oiii"
0(1) g a... UI ~"E.::l
(1) o-w <::......w O~UI (''rUl
'O(1)-<::-::l?\WWUI
wm30wO-oo(/)3.::T
~"'OO-OOI (/)w
33::l0--c3~::T=
(1) -.;::;: (/) ::T::::l (1) - W 0-
3.ffiO~(1)g.3g=(1)
::!Ia.iA~ 8'< g2IgiD
Cii CT3.' 3 00-;- (1)...:::,
_'< W W (1) n UI a. (1) (1)
O'IO'<::I"'::T"C ~"':E
- a.000 '0(1)
a.?\C"w_O::::l_oa.
W OO(1)_lD-='(/) ::T::l
'<C"::IW-~Q(1)~.CT
(/) W (1) _W =(1) 02:'<
S'(/) n ::T~-O- (ii,(1):T
W (1) g:: (1)::!I(D --(1)
a. 0. (/) (1)..0 (1) :::!.O
<cwOa:cCii~o:!!
~-g-< @O@'a. (ii'g.
@ ::::l 0'0 ~"w (/) :i ~
w(1) 0 n.a.
S.ffiw~<2.- .!.,(/)
~ llg.S'Qj'2,f\.J ~ g
'<" ~~r~ g SolD
~Oeag3+ iD~
n?\(1l(1) 0-
::r(J)-<a.~s.-g ti'g'
~Ul9:Q)gs:iA g::2,
(1)::Tib ::::l.'... 0 _ro
a.!!!.n.~il!:~~m ~ Q-<!
en
Iir
;;
"
5'
!!!.
u
o
,,'
Q.
0.
"
'"
US.
"
o
"
.,
o
S'
'"
"
o
,,'
Q.
en
u
o
"
'"
Q
"
o
,,'
Q.
en
u
o
"
'"
Q
O"'UO"lJ
.g g, s: ~
~hJ 5'2,
3 ::::l c5
" ..
3.
~~ ;!
~c:CD
"',,;' n
iD~~
"'''Q.
-g (to"
"0 "
"'-
c=_~
(j)::TUl
_(1) m
Q ::u3
w(''r
=::TUl
_m'"
mg.~
"'0
iD::Ili
.Q",
S. W 0-
iD '< g::
a. oot5"
"'m"
'<""
s:g:a.
~ -< ~
:gga.
(3 ~8
-g.a~
m. _
m -12
0.",0
(ii"(1)m
~wO-
P:~-g
(''r'"
a.!!!.
n
o
3
u
ii"
~
"JI
~r
s
o
o
o
e
u
m
"
.Q
8-
"
~
'"
!;,
c:
5'
'"
'"
w
ex.
;.
'"
w w
~ ~
}.. ;i:-
N -
o;!Q!;;"W;!
Ul (1)~::I ICD
CD W :::!,a.-'w
<" -0 n. ~ 'g."C
"C...W "C
:T~s.'O "lJ~
(flOlCDCDiilW
~a~iDg:a.
o Ul ::l~ C (/)
(ij.::r0-_....::r
n~"'iDCD~
~;~~~8
::r~ i[a.-3
~mo.-(/)~~
-0-::1-000
"E. :r ~.~ (fl ~.
~'e::3 S.:T
3.~QghJ~
!g.iii!il;;)>5:
W <:: m. --0 s;
=O_w"E.~
-g ~ ffi~ ~. 0
n o~o:::<<I
::Tc3-oo..o
~!:CD!a?~'
(1)CDm(flnCD
--:<_03
~ffi -.m 3 CD
W~@UI"E.a.
lie (ii'~ ~'-~.
~(1)...::In::l
g';~ a. CD &
0l3.ai8~a.
,,-~(/) 3 ..S'
::I (1l <0'0 ::TIQ
~~~iii':r8
~a. ~(fl3
CD'" (fl O"E.
a.jg ~.![~
. c -... 0
-. ::r-'::::l
ib W ~o
a. -Ul_
enn
Iiro
;;~
::!liD
~~
U "JI
~. ~r
0.0
0.0
" 0
'" 0
~. ~
~
Q
8-
~
"
:E
'"
c
~
~'
'"
"
o
".
Q.
en
..,
o
"
'"
Q
en;o
~, g:
-m
m ~
':<0.
'"
00
(ii'::::l
"t'"
n~
en
0;
;;
"
5'
~
U
.9.
"
Q.
0.
"
'"
US'
"
n
o
3
U
"
~
"JI
g'
s
o
o
o
e
U
"
"
.Q
8-
"
"
:E
'"
!;,
c:
5'
'"
'"
"
o
".
Q.
en
U
o
"
'"
Q
5:
5:
:;;
o
eno
Iiro
;;~
:!!ii
~~
u"JI
~. g'
0.0
0.0
" 0
'" 0
US.",
"i:
Q
8-
"
~
'"
!;.
c:
~'
'"
"
o
,,'
Q.
en
u
o
"
'"
Q
5:0
s:: <'
:;;~
o ~r
'"
=<
i5
~
o
z
'"
m
~
c:
'"
m
i
"
,-
m
'"
m
z
E
o
z
"
:I:
~
m
.."
05:;
i:;!
,,'"
'-m
men
"'"
mo
Zz
)!~
....OJ
-,-
~m
il:
=<
Gi
l>
-i
-5
g'z
ail:
-'0
~ ~
"....
.!;o
;0
Z
C)
"
~
C)
~
il:
.."'"
~rn5:;
n":;!
00
"'z
,,!!!
,-OJ
-,-
;:;m
n
m
H'
us'(;)
!!l."
e)"O
~il'
~2,
~ 0
0=.: a
Q;:;:
:5'0'
"'''
"'ll!l!.
ac:
"'~
il"
3
."
"
0-
2
"
-<
,N
N
o
o
--.j
'"
~
o
I>
~
~ !!IS'"~ '"
0..... ~ - !'l
"ffi'~,~ CD
s(()~.o
n CD Ql 0
g~~3~Ql~~rorou~o~a~~
VI 030VlOCD3U1(lltllo3CDC/l
~~~~~~~-~.~@~3~88i
n~~,,~~2'~~~~~~~~'~~CD
_.c~_~_~a~~CDUlcnQl~~<
gmo5 &30 ~a-~'~ncCD
.~o~ CD~~(DZ-.g;CDCD0.3
~~cn IDm~~ ..... 3u .....
~~8 i~~~~~g~.~. ~i
~~a CDoQo~CD~~~~~;
o 9t!!!. (C::.....!e. ~ )> < 5'- UI CD c::
'::"-':1 o...~ 03([1 -~Ql3
-gm &mCDC3CDcn~~~roQl
~ Co (II~"'O ~ 3 ::I...... ~ O!e. lI,l ::l
~sg ~~~~CD~o~Q~~~
- OVlO~::Io-OO""'_CD
i~-"'O ~...ot1l-.' (DC::::lCD~~
VJ Q) 0 a.::I (II ::l Cil (ll 3 CD .....
3' 5~ ::S. (ji" CD @(C ;!::T' ;;:!!!. a. ~
-0 Qt'CIl g--o (II::J::TCD CD :T~ 1jj"iiJ
(D""'co a.g"Oofi}m"", :-1~ 83
3- -'::1 :::..s::~-Dl<lU
ell I..... :i'~ ~ ..... 9: 0 0 ([l n ro CD 3'
3. CD ~ "'U 0 5' 3 {g !!t!e. ~ _-< (II
roNO C-rotuOr C">.....ODlQ)
noe: I!::!_ '<U'I_'ro::rc::l-'
a.1O(c 0.::r-3 ;::0:;0;-_.3 CD::I a. CD
c:::r CD Q i5'!!.~3 Z 0...... 0.
...Q~ ~::r Q)::l'<__'Q)_::r-.
A~~ mC::::T~Q)o'<~~O(DUl8
mo o3CD...::JCDOO'iiCT()c
~.n- C~C'DCDa.(JlC1l::l CDom
(D5:i g...><8.....@(1)>3"C3CO
"'0-'(1) (Jl(\)@3ro:::::J@~.CDro.:;!a.
ro @ o~ tii 3 e.lir5. =:::!'~n~
i-~ o3'~g3aw~2~oo
~na i~g~g~~ro~::!,a~
~,g CD (J)w<c~-o -~IO ~ ul
g~~ ro5.~ooSo~~z~~
=-:;:, n. ~:::)-o.- ;::::;':W(ll~
~g~' ~~~~~u~~~~i~
0.<0 _ :::) '< <0 0 ro ro ro ro ro ro = ro
"'~
~
o
iD
T
ro 3'i5l W ~ g.::o:;O
0-0 ro ~ J:1 ro ~ 0 (ii'
Ow 3 ro s::: W ::i'!:..-
3nro(lle!.o<02"~
3(1l~(Il3i-~~o-
ro -ro -'s::: W ro
~ OW ~0..5 o-~o.
i :g=;'wwYt:51~
~::ra~,on..ggm
-oO"ClO::T(Ilro~(Il
a g: 6i'~'~ ia~ :S=,
-g -~Q.=n (Il
(Ilro(J)wouowrr
~(Il _~l9,ro ~ a; ro
~goro~~::;"o.(j)
@ [~~in~r~
~::T5.g~c)"~ro
~~~3~~i
-1::i'~ S':;:g~~
iiii !!.as==s.o 0
(Il 0 ro~:::) ~
w ~-o ~ w 5l s= n
-O<O"C ::T-o' ro 0
~e.a o~~~ Ii
~':-g ~~'~;=~
;:!.::)m=;:!.::l-o.w
e:1ii"ro~::T~~
(Il 0 x!!t 3 -, (Il
~~ O'w ~,o~ g
=3~~.5l:S'-~
w a: ~ ~ -~ ~ w
rr~'< _iw -, ~
~-"C::T n~9
(1) (1) ~ (J) g: <'-0 ~
o::!l-' -,ro (Il
rrll~::i S,~n5'
'< (ij g-3'~ 3'0' ffi"
~(jirolO(Il~~
ro (Il (Il.(Il 9. ro g
0 en 0 en
0 Iii 0 Iii
3 ~ 3 ~
." ."
~ ." iD 'J<
5' ~ Q'
!!!.
() ." () <;
0 .9, 0
3 3 ".
." " ." iD
[ Q. [ 0.
0' 0. o' m
m <
~ '" ~ m
8- <is' 8- "
~ ."
." ", 3
.9, iD "
m 0. 3
Q. m
" ~
0 "
~
!!: ."
2 3
m
Q. 3
0'
~
"'ll "'ll
.9, .Q,
" m
Q. Q.
en (J)
." '0
0 0
~ ~
'" '"
~ ~
"'ll
"
'"
m
:;:
0)>-;
~: 5. ~
~, OJ:::::J
Oem
::::J =:::)
9:<0
~ ~'
~
OOJQ1J
<'S,<'w
~:e:;~:5
O:::::J 0-'
:::::J 1O ::::J :::)
,,'"
~
0.
o
ffi~
m
~3
~e.
_m
o :::!,
~!!!.
e'"
'0
'Oil
<il ~
"'~
~'O
< 0
~:ffi"
O-~
iDo-
0.'<
5i~
_e
"
~
m
~
0-
m
"
o
<
"
<il
0.
~
~
'"
m
0.
0.
o
~
~
"
~
'"
::;
Gi
~
o
z
'"
m
1:;
c::
'"
m
Ii
"
0-
m
'"
m
Z
....
~
o
z
"
:I:
1:;
m
3:
::;
Ci
)>
-;
-5
1;'z
"'3:
-'0
~z
,,-
.eel
;;a
z
Gl
"'ll
;;a
o
Gl
~
3:
.""
!B
Ii:;!
"'"
O-m
men
"'"
mo
Zz
;!!:!!
....ID
-0-
!j!m
.""',,
Om>
",en'"
0"....
00-<
..z
,,!!!
o-ID
-0-
~m
o
m
EXHIBIT C
FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
ORDINANCE BASED UPON MODIFICATIONS TO THE CONGREGATION KOL
SHOFAR (CKS) PROJECT
The Planning Commission Resolution 2006-16 denying the CKS Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) included certain findings that the scope and elements of the Project would be
inconsistent with policies of the General Plan and standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
Based upon numerous modifications to the Project, reflected in new and expanded CUP
Conditions of Approval and revised and expanded mitigation measures, the Town
Council has determined that the Project would be consistent with the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance and makes the following findings.
GENERAL PLAN
Noise
The Planning Commission found that the project would generate "substantial noise" from
events on Saturday and Sunday evenings, and that this "significant" noise generation
during "normally very quiet times conflicts with General Plan Goals N-A, N-B, and N-C
of the Noise Element."
Since the time of the Planning Commission's denial of the permit application, numerous
modifications and mitigation measures have been added to the project. These measures
will minimize, ifnot completely avoid, any perceptible noise impacts on the surrounding
neighborhood.
Modifications to the project that will further reduce noise impacts include reducing the
number of new Saturday and Sunday events, reducing the maximum attendance at those
events and requiring those events to end earlier. The conditions of approval limit new
evening weekend events as follows:
Friday events will be limited to 5 new member-sponsored events, with a
maximum attendance of 100 people, ending by 9:00 pm.
Saturday events will be capped at ten (10) new member-sponsored events:
five (5) events with a maximum attendance of 150 people, four (4) events
with a maximum attendance of200 people, and one (1) event with a
maximum of 250 people. All events must end by 10:00 pm.
Sunday events will be capped at seven (7) new member-sponsored events:
four (4) with a maximum attendance of 100 people, two (2) with a
Draft 2/2/2007
1
maximum attendance of 150 people, and one (1) with a maximum
attendance of200 people. All events must end by 8:00 pm.
Furthennore, the project has been modified to include an enclosed catering/service bay to
reduce noise impacts. This addition to the project will minimize noise impacts from
clean-up activities after events. These changes will reduce the late-night noise "spikes"
the Planning Commission cited in concluding the project is incompatible with the
neighborhood,
The Town Council finds that the project is consistent with the General Plan Noise
Element. The General Plan includes the following Goals:
N-A: To ensure that residential areas are quiet and that noise levels in
public and commercial areas remain within acceptable limits.
N-B: To eliminate or reduce unnecessary, excessive and offensive noises
from all sources.
N-C: To minimize the exposure of community residents to noise through
the careful placement ofland uses that may cause noise impacts.
These goals are effectuated by General Plan policies. Policy N-l provides that "[t]he
Town shall use the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines contained herein to
detennine where noise levels in the community are acceptable or unacceptable." The
Town's Guidelines apply the noise metric CNEL and Ldn as means for detennining noise
compatibility. Both metrics (CNEL and Ldn) account for increased sensitivity to noise at
night.
The Draft EIR reported that the noise from all various noise sources associated with the
project would be within Town standards (60 dBA Ldn for residential areas) if perceptible
at all. (DEIR, p. 87.) The Draft EIR further reported that night time events would result
"in an increase in the day-night average noise levels of about I dBA Ldn at nearby
residences (increasing average noise levels to 52 to 53 dBA Ldn)." This is a small
increase in Ldn, where a 3dBA increase is considered on the threshold of perceptible.
Nevertheless, the EIR consultant labeled this impact as significant because this type of
noise could be perceived as out of context with the existing nighttime noise environment.
Thereafter, in connection with the proposal of Alternative 7, the Town's noise consultants
concluded that the noise impacts associated Alternative 7 would satisfY the Town's
standards for Ldn, (Illingsworth & Rodkin, Inc., April 6, 2006.) Moreover the Town's
noise consultants also detennined that neighborhood disturbance from individual noise
events would not result in a significant impact because they will happen relatively
Draft 2/2/2007
2
infrequently, Given the infrequency of events, and also considering the project will be
within Town noise standards, the Town staff concluded that noise impacts will be less
than significant.
The project is consistent with Goal N-A, as the analysis demonstrates the project is well
within the established limits. The Town Council also concludes the project is consistent
with Goal N-B. First, the noises that have been the source of complaints from the
neighbors ofthe project are those associated with arriving and departing events via cars:
doors slamming, car alarm signals, engines, and conversation of people walking to their
cars. The Town does not consider these sounds to be "unnecessary, excessive or
offensive." Rather, they are typical noises associated with type of project. Furthermore,
as discussed above, measures have been included to reduce all noise from the project.
Similarly, the project is consistent with Goal N-C because of the several measures
included in the project to reduce noise impacts.
Traffic and Traffic Safetv
The Planning Commission found the project to be inconsistent with the following
General Plan Goals and Policies because of the project's potential to cause "unsafe
turnarounds":
C-C To maintain all existing, as well as to design all future, residential streets
with consideration of a combination of residents' safety, costs of
maintenance, and protection of residential quality of life.
C-F To minimize traffic congestion.
C-l Land use decisions shall take into consideration potential traffic and
circulation impacts,
SE-A To maintain a safe and healthy community,
The Town Council finds the project to be consistent with each of these goals and policies
and concludes that the Planning Commission's findings and objections have been
adequately addressed because new conditions of approval and mitigation measures have
been adopted that will further minimize the potential for unsafe turnarounds in the
neighborhood.
The EIR for the project analyzed the project's potential to result in traffic impacts. That
analysis considered, in detail, issues related to congestion and safety. The EIR concluded
that with the incorporation of mitigation, every traffic impact could be reduced to a less-
than-significant level, except for the impact related to "unsafe turnarounds." The Draft
EIR concluded that "[i]ncreased numbers of turnarounds in driveways or in front of
Draft 2/2/2007
3
homes and increased frequency of event-related turnarounds on these residential streets is
considered by the EIR traffic engineer to be a potentially significant safety concern."
(DIER, p. 67.)
Several modifications have been made to the project that minimize the potential for
turnarounds in the neighborhood. First, the number of new events and the number
attending those events have been significantly reduced from the level analyzed in the
Draft EIR and Final EIR. Also, the applicant has proposed to modify the circulation plan
from that analyzed in the Draft EIR to make Via Los Altos an "enter only" driveway and
to make Reedland Woods Way an "exit only" driveway. The Town Council has also
added several mitigation measures and conditions of approval that will further reduce the
potential for turnarounds. Those measures include:
. Requiring the lower parking lot to be modified to optimize circulation and
maximize spaces
. Requiring a lighted directional sign required at the comer of Blackfield
Drive and Via Los Altos
. Requiring new red "No Parking" curbs painted as follows:
Along both sides of Via Los Altos from Blackfield Drive to roughly the
curve below 32 Via Los Altos
. Along northwest side of Blackfield Drive between Via Los Altos
and Reedland Woods Way
. Along east side of Reedland Woods Way to driveway at 20
Reedland Woods Way
. Along west side of Reed land Woods Way to CKS property line with
35 Reedland Woods Way
. Requiring "No U-Turn" signs to be placed along Blackfield Drive and
lower Via Los Altos and Police authorized to ticket
. All member-sponsored events of 200+ persons will have three monitors for
parking and noise control
. There will be three unannounced traffic and parking monitoring times per
year with controls and sanctions to enforce compliance
. The following apply to events/activities with cumulative attendance >359
(except Sunday School activity):
. "Resident Traffic Only" signs placed on Reedland Woods Way and
Via Los Altos
Draft 2/2/2007 4
. "No Parking" temporary signs placed on the southeast side of
Blackfield Drive to Karen Way
. Professional traffic control provided to the satisfaction of the
Tiburon Police Department
· Shuttle service required
. Adequate off-site parking provided and verified in advance writing
. Parking lots pre-assigned to attendees prior to event/activity with
controls to monitor compliance
. Prior notice provided to Police Department: CKS responsible for
traffic control
. Attendees issued parking passes indicating parking lot (on-site or
off-site); must display pass in windshield
. For the High Holy Days services, the following shall apply in addition to
those above:
. Courtesy mailer to Vista Tiburon Subdivision addresses at least 10
days before High Holy days services
. Carpool/shuttle /parking permit/info and map distributed to members
at least 21 days before High Holy Days
. Kol Shofar is required to conduct a multi-part educational program
concerning traffic control and parking
. Kol Shofar will maintain an up-to-date database of its members to facilitate
car-pooling
. Kol Shofar will keep a log of all events/activities of 150+ attendees,
duration (start and end)
. This log will be available to the Neighborhood Advisory Committee and
Town Staff upon 24 hours notice.
The Town Council finds that these extensive requirements will not only reduce the
potential for unsafe turnarounds for new events, but will improve the existing situation.
Thus, the Town Council finds the project to be consistent with the Circulation Element
and Safety Element of the General Plan.
Light and Glare
The Planning Commission found that impacts from headlights and parking lot lights to be
inconsistent with three General Plan Goals and one Policy.
LU-B
To protect the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Draft 2/2/2007
5
LU-D
To ensure that all land uses, by type, amount, design, and
arrangement serve to preserve, protect and enhance the small-town
residential image of the community and the village-like character of
its Downtown commercial area.
LU-H
To protect and preserve existing neighborhood character and
identity.
LU-2
The Town shall limit the type and amount of uses within the Town
to those that are compatible with the nature, character and image of
the Town as a quiet, small-town residential community with a
village-like commercial area.
The Planning Commission based its conclusions, in large part, on the impacts of
headlights on a few of the neighboring residences. While focusing the analysis of
consistency on a few residences might be appropriate for Goal LU-H, which refers to
preserving "existing neighborhood character," the other Goals and Policies require
consideration of the community of Tiburon as a whole.
The Town Council finds that the events and activities that have occurred at Kol Shofar
for years are inherently a part of the community and its nature, character and image. New
conditions of approval and mitigation measures further reduce the number and size of
new weekend events. Therefore, the proposed project could result in only a modest
increase in the use of the site, particularly on weekend evenings. The Town Council
finds that with this increase, the events and activities ofKol Shofar will remain
compatible with the nature, character and image of the Town, will preserve, protect and
enhance the small-town residential image of the Town, and will protect the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
With regard to the increased potential for headlights to impact surrounding residences,
the Town finds the project to be consistent with the Goals and Policies of the General
Plan. The Planning Commission noted only three residences that could potentially be
impacted by headlights. The Town Council disagrees that this impact rises to the level of
incompatibility with the neighborhood. The EIR included detailed studies showing the
likelihood of impacts, and concluded the impact would be minimal. Several physical
modifications and mitigation measures have been added to the project, which will
substantially reduce the potential that light from headlights will reach the surrounding
neighborhood.
Furthermore, the Town Council has conditioned the project to substantially reduce the
number of new weekend evening events and the maximum attendance at those events.
Draft 2/2/2007
6
With these limitations, the increase in headlight intrusion, ifthere is any at all, will be
minimal.
The Town Council also finds that the proposed lighting for the project to be consistent
with the General Plan Goals and Policies. On-site lights will be on timers, and except for
special events, will not increase the hours when the lights are on. Additionally, Kol
Shofar has proposed to install lights that are specifically designed to focus light and
minimize off-site light spillage. The lighting plan will be subject to further review
through the Design Review process.
Taken together, although the project may increase light and glare impacts on the
surrounding neighborhood, any increase would be minimal. The Town Council therefore
finds the project to be consistent with the above-noted policies.
Neighborhood Comoatibilitv
The Planning Commission found the project to be inconsistent with several General Plan
Goals and Policies because of the impacts of the project on the neighborhood, such as
increased noise, light and glare, additional traffic, additional parking demand, and
reduced vehicular and pedestrian safety. According to the Planning Commission "taken
as a whole, these deleterious impacts are inconsistent with the Tiburon General Plan
goals and policies as set forth below, which are intended to protect the character and
quality of life of neighborhoods."
LU-A
LU-C
LU-D
LU-H
LU-I
Draft 2/2/2007
To provide an orderly balance of public and private land uses within
convenient and compatible locations throughout the community.
To preserve the character of the Tiburon peninsula through control
of the type and location of development.
To ensure that all land uses, by type, amount, design and
arrangement, serve to preserve, protect and enhance the small-town
residential image of the community and the village-like character of
its Downtown commercial area.
To protect and preserve existing neighborhood character and
identity.
To encourage intensity of development, density, and house
sizes/architectural styles that are consistent and compatible with
surrounding neighborhoods.
7
LU-2
LU-6
LU-13
C-C
C-D
C-F
C-I
C-l
N-A
N-B
N-C
SE-A
The Town shall limit the type and amount of uses within the Town
to those that are compatible with the nature, character and image of
the Town as a quiet, small-town residential community with a
village-like commercial area.
The Town shall closely consider the environmental constraints of
land and Prim Open Space preservation and other General Plan
policies through the development review process in determining the
location, type, and density and/or intensity of development.
Neighborhood character, which is defined by the predominant
architectural styles, type of buildings, building heights, mass,
setbacks, landscaping, and natural characteristics, shall be of
material consideration and preserved in all construction projects,
including remodels and additions, to the maximum extent feasible.
To maintain all existing, as well as to design all future, residential
streets with consideration of a combination of residents' safety, cost
of maintenance, and protection of residential quality oflife.
To provide an adequate means of circulation for emergency vehicles.
To minimize traffic congestion.
To provide adequate parking throughout the Planning Area.
Land use decisions shall take into consideration potential traffic and
circulation impacts.
To ,ensure that residential areas are quiet and that noise levels in
public and commercial areas remain within acceptable limits.
To eliminate or reduce unnecessary, excessive and offensive noises
from all sources.
To minimize the exposure of community residents to noise through
the careful placement of land uses that may cause noise impacts.
To maintain a safe and healthy community.
The Town Council finds the project, as modified through new conditions of approval and
mitigation measures, to be consistent with each of the identified Goals and Policies. In
the findings above, the Town Council addressed the Goals and Policies ofthe Land Use
Draft 2/2/2007
8
Element, Noise Element, Circulation Element, and Safety Element. The project's
consistency with Goal C-I, which requires adequate parking throughout the Planning
Area, is addressed by the findings below regarding the Zoning Ordinance, which
conclude that adequate parking will be provided for the project.
The remaining Goals and Policies above address general health, safety and compatibility
issues, either on a neighborhood-wide or community-wide basis. The facilities of
religious organizations have long been a part of the Tiburon community. These facilities
are specifically allowed in residential neighborhoods pursuant to the Town's Zoning
Ordinance.
The types of uses permitted in the area surrounding the project site consist ofKol
Shofar's existing facilities, Bel Aire School, and residential uses. The proposed
construction of the MPB and classrooms, and remodeling of other existing Kol Shofar
facilities is compatible with religious and school uses, which are traditionally established
within residential neighborhoods such as those surrounding the property. The Town
Council finds that allowing Kol Shofar to expand its facilities is consistent with the
character and image of Tiburon.
As discussed above, several modifications to the project have been made to minimize the
impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. With these measures, the additional noise,
light, traffic and parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood will be minimized. In
many instances, impacts will be less than what currently occurs. The number of large
evening events originally proposed has been substantially reduced, as have the duration
and attendance at those events. Additional measures to reduce noise have been
incorporated, such as an enclosed catering/service bay, and landscaping. The amount of
parking required has been increased, and several measures have been incorporated that
will improve the flow of traffic through the neighborhood and substantially reduce
visitors' use of off-site, on-street parking when visiting the site. The Town therefore
finds the project to be consistent with the Goals and Policies listed above.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The Town Council hereby finds that the proposed project, as modified by new conditions
of approval and mitigation measures contained within this resolution is consistent with
the findings necessary to approve a conditional use permit, as described in Section
4.04.02 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance which are as follows:
(a) Determine whether the location proposed for the Conditional Use applied
for is properly related to the development of the neighborhood as a whole;
The use of a multi-purpose building for Kol Shofar is an appropriate extension of
Kol Shofar's established use of the property for religious, educational, and
Draft 2/2/2007
9
member-serving events and activities. The traffic, noise, light and aesthetic
studies prepared in the review of the application establish that the proposed
project, as modified by conditions of approval contained in this resolution, will not
contain significant traffic, noise, light or any other impacts on the neighboring
residents. Added conditions to the project will substantially reduce any impacts
associated with potential new weekend evening events so as to minimize those
impacts. In many instances, the conditions of approval will serve to reduce
impacts below those that currently exist.
The Town Council therefore finds that the rationale behind rejection of the CUP
by the Planning Commission no longer applies.
(b) Determine whether the location proposed for the particular Conditional Use
applied for would be reasonably compatible with the types and uses
normally permitted in the surrounding area.
The types of uses permitted in the area surrounding the project site consist ofKol
Shofar's existing facilities, Bel Aire School, and residential uses. The proposed
construction of the MPB and classrooms, and remodeling of other existing Kol Shofar
facilities is compatible with religious and school uses, which are traditionally established
within residential neighborhoods such as those surrounding the property. The limited
additional weekend evening events that would occur under the CUP would have minimal
impacts on the surrounding neighborhood with the conditions required herein.
(c) Evaluate whether or not adequate facilities and services required for such
use exist or can be provided,
Congregation Kol Shofar is the only conservative Jewish congregation in Marin County.
Kol Shofar has demonstrated that the requested CUP is necessary to allow the
Congregation to practice its religion as mandated by religious law in facilities that are
appropriate to the needs of its religious community. Kol Shofar has also detailed its
search to find alternative locations to conduct its religious practice, to no avail.
The Planning Commission found the project to be inconsistent with this requirement
because of the Commission's determination that the project would not provide adequate
parking. The Town Council concludes that the Planning Commission's rationale for
denying the CUP on this basis has been adequately addressed because modifications to
the conditions of approval will ensure that adequate parking is provided for the proposed
facilities and activities.
(d) Stipulate such conditions and requirements as would reasonably assure that
the basic purposes ofthis Ordinance and the objectives of the General Plan
would be served.
Draft 2/2/2007 10
Conditions and requirements are stipulated below which would reasonably assure that the
basic purposes of this Ordinance and the objectives of the General Plan would be served.
(e) Determine whether the Town is adequately served by similar uses presently
existing or recently approved by the Town,
Congregation Kol Shofar is the only conservative Jewish congregation in Marin County.
Kol Shofar has demonstrated that the requested CUP is necessary to allow the
Congregation to practice its religion as mandated by religious law in facilities that are
appropriate to the needs of its religious community. Kol Shofar has also detailed its
search to find alternative locations to conduct its religious practice, to no avail. The
Town Council finds that modifications to the project and conditions of approval
contained herein, allow the minimum expansion required to adequately serve the intended
purposes of the project.
The Town Council further finds the project to be consistent with Section 4.04.03(a)(2)
and (3) and Section 4.04.03(b)(l) and (3) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, and finds
that the Planning Commission's findings to the contrary have been adequately addressed
by project changes and conditions and mitigations. Section 4.04.03 specifies the factors
to be considered in determining whether or not any conditional use should be permitted in
a specific location, including:
(a) The relationship of the location proposed to:
(2) Transportation, utilities, and other facilities required to serve it.
The project is adequately served by existing transportation facilities and utilities. The
increased traffic generated by the project is within the acceptable limits established by the
Town. The EIR for the project evaluated trips generated by an increase in weekend
events as well as an increase in student attendance and found that traffic would be well
within the acceptable limits. The Town Council has also required numerous conditions
of approval and mitigation measures that will provide adequate parking on-site for new
weekend events both by increasing the number of on-site parking spaces and by further
limiting the size and number of new weekend events, and further requirements for shuttle
programs in the event that on-site parking is anticipated to be inadequate. Additional
measures will improve the circulation in and around the site and minimize the potential
for congestion and unsafe turnarounds.
(3) Other uses ofland in the vicinity.
As explained above, the events and activities that will occur with this project are of the
same nature as those that have occurred at the site for decades. The modest increase in
Draft 2/2/2007
II
events and activities allowed by this CUP will be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
(b) Probable effects on persons, land uses, adjoining properties, and the general
vicinity, including:
(I) Probable inconvenience, damage, or nuisance from noise, smoke, odor,
dust, vibration, radiation or similar causes
The project is not likely to result in adverse impacts on neighbors with respect to noise.
Detailed analysis of potential noise impacts has shown that noise impacts will be well
within acceptable levels as established by the General Plan. While surrounding residents
may be able to hear occasional noise from new weekend events, the Town Council has
incorporated several measures that will minimize noise impacts, including a substantial
reduction in the number of events, the hours of events, and attendance at events,
landscaping improvements to reduce noise, and construction of an enclosed
catering/service bay to limit noise from clean-up activities at the site. Additional physical
improvements include standards for doors and windows, amplified music and the HV AC
system have also been included.
Dust raised by construction activities associated with the proposed project will be
mitigated through standards procedures such as watering the site during construction.
The proposed project is not anticipated to generate significant smoke, odor, vibration, or
radiation.
(3) Probable inconvenience, economic loss, or hazard occasioned by unusual
volume or character of traffic or the congregating of a large number of
people.
Although the project is expected to generate additional trips by facilitating new weekend
events, those trips will be made during traditionally off-peak hours and are not sufficient
to constitute unusual volume or character. The EIR traffic studies concluded that traffic
generated by the project would not reduce levels of service to unacceptable levels.
Several conditions have been placed on the project that will further reduce congestion
and improve traffic flow, such as "No U-turn" signs throughout the neighborhood, a
lighted directional sign at the corner of Via Los Altos and Blackfield Drive, an entrance-
only driveway on Via Los Altos and an exit-only driveway at Reedland Woods Way, an
education program, and traffic monitors. These measures will reduce the potential of
visitors to the site making unsafe turnarounds in the surrounding neighborhood streets.
Draft 2/2/2007
12
No inconvenience is likely to result from the congregating of people for the project, since
all events and activities will be conducted entirely on the Kol Shofar site and adequate
parking will be provided on-site or at an off-site parking location under certain
circumstances.
The Town Council further finds the project is consistent with Sections 5.08.04(d) and (k),
5.08.10 and 5.08.11 of the Zoning Ordinance, and concludes that the Planning
Commissions findings to the contrary have been adequately addressed by project changes
and conditions.
The parking required as a condition of approval would not be consistent with strict
application of the parking requirements of Sections 5 .08.04( d) and (k). Section 5.08.1 0,
however, allows for a reduction in the number of parking spaces if there are multiple
(overlapping) uses on the property. This section allows for a lesser number of spaces if
the following findings are made:
I) That the uses or times for which overlapping parking is being requested do
not have overlapping hours of operations sufficient to result in a deficiency
of parking spaces.
2) That the parking lot in question is within a reasonable distance from the
uses for which parking requirements are to be considered overlapping.
The Town Council finds that the project will provide adequate parking as required by the
Zoning Ordinance. The project has been conditioned to require at least 156 spaces on
site, including handicapped spaces. Assuming an average of 2.3 people per car, 156
spaces are sufficient to accommodate 359 people on site. The project is not expected to
increase the number of people on the site at anyone time, except for new weekend
evening events. No other events or activities would likely be occurring on the site during
those events. The maximum attendance at new events would be 250 people, and this is
allowed to occur only once per year.
For any time when cumulative attendance on the site is expected to exceed 359, the CUP
requires several additional parking management requirements, including written
verification for the use of an off-site parking location and shuttle service to that location.
Draft 2/2/2007
13
RESOLUTION NO. DRAFT-200?
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TffiURON ADOPTING
FINDINGS RELATING TO THE CONGREGATION KOL SHOFAR EXPANSION PROJECT
(FILE #10404) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 38-351-34
WHEREAS, on May 31, 2006 the Tiburon Planning Commission adopted Resolution No,
2006-15 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Congregation Kol Shofar
(CKS) expansion project.
WHEREAS, in June, 2006, three appeals of the EIR certification were filed, one of which
was subsequently withdrawn. The other two appeals have been denied by the Town Council on
through adoption of Resolutions XX-2007 and XX-2007. The Town Council
subsequently and affirmatively certified the EIR through adoption of Resolution XX-2007.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21081 that the Town Council hereby makes findings of fact regarding each impact identified as
potentially significant in the Environmental Impact Report, which has been certified by
Resolution XX-2007. The Town Council's findings are set forth in the document labeled
"Findings of Fact for the Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit Application," which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on , 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
EXHIBIT C
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. XX-200?
Page I
EXHIBIT A
CEQA Findings of Fact
for the
Congregation Kol Shofar
Conditional Use Permit Application
Revised 2/2/2007
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared for the Congregation Kol Shofar
Conditional Use Permit application ("Project") analyzes the environmental impacts that
could potentially result from construction and implementation of the project. These
findings have been prepared to comply with the requirements ofthe California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, ~ 21000 et seq.) and the
CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, ~ 15000 et seq.). In particular, these findings
are prepared to comply with the provision of Public Resources Code section 21081,
requiring the lead agency (the Town) to make certain findings when an EIR identified
potentially significant impacts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Congregation Kol Shofar (the applicant) is seeking an amendment to its existing
Conditional Use Permit which allows the use of the site for a religious facility and a day
school to allow remodeling of portions of the existing building on its property and
construction of new additions to that building as well as various parking, access, and
landscape improvements. The specific improvements, as originally proposed, are
described below.
. A new 9,733-square foot multi-purpose building will be added to the south side of
the existing circular building. This building will be used for major life-cycle
events such as b'nai mitzvahs, weddings, and lectures. The multi-purpose room
portion is designed so that it can be divided up into three smaller, discrete spaces
which will be used as classrooms for Hebrew School and smaller gatherings and
events. The addition contains a kosher kitchen, restrooms, storage, and a lobby, as
well as the meeting space (room). The net usable space of the meeting space is
4,500 square feet which would allow (per the building code) placement of a
maximum of 642 movable chairs.
. Four new classrooms and a service room (3,662 square feet) will be added to the
existing classroom wing. The new classrooms will replace those lost due to the
construction and remodel.
. An existing unimproved parking lot, located in the northeast quadrant ofthe site,
and used now for overflow parking for approximately 18 cars will be improved for
40 car parking spaces in the northeast quadrant of the site.
. A new driveway will be constructed connecting the lower existing parking lot to a
drop off/turnaround circle north of the existing administration wing. The
driveway will provide access to the new parking lot.
2
. New Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access will be constructed from the
drop off area to the front entry.
. A fire lane will be developed between the new drop off area and the new
classrooms.
. A play area will be developed to the east of the existing annex building.
. Minor improvements will be made to the small existing parking lot at the
southwest end of the site, including reduction of two parking spaces and addition
of a new trash enclosure.
. The existing courtyard to the east of the building will include new hardscape,
landscaping, and front entry.
. A new entry staircase will be constructed between the main parking lot and the
courtyard.
. New landscaping will be installed including:
o New lawns and a garden to the east of the new classrooms;
o A meditation garden north of the new classrooms and west of the existing
annex building;
o A landscaped berm northeast of the new parking lot;
o Landscaping with trees and shrubs around the new parking lot, driveway,
stair entrance, courtyard, and new multi-purpose room.
. The original application proposed a change to the existing exit from the main
parking lot to Reedland Woods Way to be both an entry and an exit.
. The original proposal provided that 139 parking spaces would be provided on-site.
. The existing circular building (the sanctuary) would be remodeled at both the
ground floor and the lower level, primarily to change seating.
. The attic of the circular building would be remodeled, and minor modifications
would be made to the existing administrative wing.
. Fire sprinklers would be added to the existing annex building.
3
The above is the description of the project as originally proposed and analyzed in the
EIR. Throughout the lengthy public process for the project, numerous revisions were
proposed. These are discussed more thoroughly below in the discussion of impacts and
mitigation measures. To summarize, the applicant proposed placing limits on the number
of events that could be held on site and the number of people attending. Further revisions
were made by the Town. The applicant proposed a revised circulation plan that would
keep the entrance at Via Los Altos and the exit at Reedland Woods Way. The applicant
and a sub-committee of the Town Council proposed adding an enclosure for catering and
service vehicles in order to reduce the noise impacts associated with cleaning up after
events. The applicant and the sub-committee also proposed adding more parking spaces.
Several mitigation measures aimed at reducing impacts from light and glare, noise, traffic
and parking were also added. As discussed below, all of these measures serve to reduce
the impacts of the project, and none of them triggered the need for further CEQA
analysis.
Goals and Obiectives
Below are the goals and objectives of the project:
. To make site modifications, changes to existing buildings and to add new
buildings on the Kol Shofar site that permit the congregation to conduct the same
religious services that have been permitted and occurred on the property since
1985.
. To permit site modifications and building changes and additions to existing
buildings to permit the property owner to continue religious celebrations and
educational uses that have been permitted on the site generally since 1985.
. To remodel existing interior building spaces, originally designed and built for
public school use, that are generally ill-suited for permitted religious services and
elementary school pedagogy with those which are specifically sized and outfitted
to meet the requirements of a twenty-first century synagogue serving the sacred
and life-cycle needs of its member families, the majority of whom live in southern
Marin County.
. To construct new building additions to conveniently and comfortably house
generally the same number of congregants and school children who participate in
religious services, religious celebrations and educational activities that have been
permitted and occurred on the property since 1985.
. To renovate existing building facilities to dignifY and make safe, convenient and
comfortable access to every indoor and outdoor place for all congregants, staff,
clergy and visitors, regardless of physical ability.
4
. To redesign and build major points of vehicle access that are suitable, convenient,
safe and comfortable for drop-off and pick-up of frail elderly and young children
regardless of physical ability and in accordance with ADA requirements.
. To provide gently sloped, covered and landscaped pedestrian access that provides
visual delight and is suitable for entry into a synagogue setting.
. To make renovations to interior spaces of existing buildings for more convenient
and serviceable facilities.
. To remodel the sanctuary to enhance its aura of spirituality, provide better site
lines to the pulpit for all congregants, enhance the lighting and acoustic properties
ofthe space, make the space more accommodating for worship services and
improve life safety and emergency exits.
. To construct a new multi-purpose room addition, to be built on the grassy area to
the south of the existing circular building. The floor space would be divisible into
three discrete rooms or open to seat up to 300 people at dining tables for religious
based life-cycle event such as weddings and b'nai mitzvahs.
. To ensure that building construction for the multi-purpose room has acoustically-
sealed walls to avoid noise spillage and potential negative impacts on surrounding
residential use, and to design the addition to have an internal connection to the
existing building and a roof line several feet lower than the existing dome of the
sanctuary to avoid apparent additional building bulk and massing on the property.
. To construct 40 more parking spaces on-site where presently unpaved an
inefficient overflow parking exists. A new safe and direct emergency vehicle
access and turnaround and a pedestrian drop-off circle is also planned to improve
safety, convenience and ADA compliant access to existing buildings.
. To improve on-site vehicle circulation and access the new parking lot and
turnaround will be connected to the large existing lower parking lot via a new two
lane drive, which has been carefully routed to minimize grading and removal of
existing mature trees. Most of the parking spaces in the new upper lot will be
designated as handicapped spaces.
. To provide earth mounds and landscape planting between neighboring properties
to maintain privacy and screen residential use from potential views of parked
vehicles and avoid potential intrusion of headlights and noise from Kol Shofar
activities. Low level, carefully focused and shielded exterior lighting is planned to
5
provide security to the property without inconvenience to the surrounding
neighbors. The on-site landscape planting is also designed to bring visual delight,
spiritual orientation to congregants and students using the facilities, to minimize
grading, preserve existing topography and vegetation, and avoid extensive water
use and fire hazard.
. To achieve a balanced redevelopment of existing buildings and addition of new
buildings, parking and landscaping to serve Kol Shofar's religious facility and
educational needs and those of their school tenants.
. To continue to permit the same general number and types of educational classes
and programs for pre-schoolers, children, teens, adults and seniors that have been
permitted on the site since 1985, and to avoid potential significant adverse impacts
that may result from poorly planned building remodel, additions and expanded
use.
. To improve site facilities to accommodate existing uses and the amended
Conditional Use Permit to accommodate Kol Shofar's religious and school
programs which allow for flexibility and opportunity to grow without substantial
inconvenience to the surrounding neighbors.
BACKGROUND
The application for the project was deemed complete in April of2004. Since that time,
extensive environmental analysis and public discussion of the project has occurred. This
CEQA process has resulted in several modifications to the project, all of which reduce
the project's impacts. As discussed below, none of these modifications trigger the need
for further environmental review of the project.
Discussion of Standard for Recirculation
Only if a lead agency adds "significant new information" to an EIR subsequent to the
commencement of public review and interagency consultation but prior to Final EIR
certification, must the agency "recirculate" a revised EIR, or portions thereof, for
additional commentary and consultation. (Pub. Resources Code, ~ 21092.1; CEQA
Guidelines, ~ 15088.5; Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco, Inc. v.
Regents of the University of California (\ 993) 6 Cal.4th 1112 (Laurel Heights 11).)
The "significant new information" standard was clarified in Laurel Heights II. There the
court held that recirculation was only required when new information was added to an
EIR that changed it in such way that the public was deprived of meaningful comment on
a new adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid
6
such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that project proponents have
declined to implement. (Laurel Heights II, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1129; CEQA Guidelines
15162, subd. (a)(l).) The court reasoned that by codifYing the "significant new
information" language, the Legislature did not intend to promote endless rounds of
revision and recirculation ofEIRs. (Laurel Heights 11, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1132.)
Instead, recirculation was intended to be an exception, rather than the general rule. (Ibid.)
Examples of how the "recirculation" standard should be applied are included in CEQA
Guidelines section 15088.5. For example, recirculation is required when "a new
significant environmental impact would result from the project." (CEQA Guidelines, ~
15088.5, subd. (a)(l).) This section is particularly relevant here, because Alternative 7 is
a new alternative that proposes to reduce the potential impacts associated with the project
as compared to the project initially proposed. Specifically, Alternative 7 is the same as
the proposed Project but with limits on the number of new events and a revised
circulation plan. (FEIR, p. 3.)
There is no basis for recirculating an EIR when changes in the proposed project will only
reduce impacts. (See Remy et. aI., Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act
(10th ed. 1999) pp. 304-305.) In other words, where a new alternative is similar to one
already outlined in an EIR, the time and expense associated with recirculation would not
be justified. (Ibid.)
The project in this case has undergone extensive environmental review and public
comment. As part of that process, the project has also been modified in ways that will
reduce impacts. Examples of these modifications include: a reduction in the total size of
the multi-purpose room; substantial reductions in the number of new weekend evening
events and the maximum number of attendees at those events; an increase in the number
of proposed parking spaces; improvements to the proposed on-site circulation plan;
substantial and detailed mitigation measures to reduce traffic and parking impacts; and an
enclosed catering/service bay to reduce noise impacts from clean-up activities.
The Town Council finds that the modifications to the project do not trigger the need to re-
circulate the ElR. The new enclosed catering/service bay will be about the size of a four-
car garage (800 square feet). It will be one story, connected to the multi-purpose room,
and access will be via the existing service driveway. The service bay will be located
basically on grade and not resulting significant grading. The Town Council has reduced
the size of the multi-purpose room by 15% from that analyzed in the EIR. The reduced
multi-purpose room is about 1460 square feet smaller than originally proposed. Thus,
even with the addition of the enclosed catering/service bay, the overall size of the
structures is smaller than originally proposed. Impacts related to the addition of the
enclosed catering/service bay will therefore be similar or less than impacts associated
with the project as originally proposed and analyzed in the EIR.
7
The original proposal for parking included a total of 139 spaces on site. The Town
Council will require a minimum of 156 spaces on site. To accomplish this, additional
grading and a retaining wall (or walls) will be necessary, but both will be minor. The
new retaining walls would be stepped and would be a maximum of four feet in height.
The additional parking will be in the same location as the existing parking, and will be
over 300 feet from the property lines and screened from view from neighboring
properties by landscaping. No further changes in the driveways or circulation plan will
be required.
Discussion of Existing Uses and Growth
It is important, particularly for CEQA's purposes, to put the application under
consideration in the proper context. Congregation Kol Shofar first occupied the site in
1984. Originally about 20 acres, the site and the facilities were originally built as
Reedland Woods Middle School. Kol Shofar has had a conditional use permit to operate
at the site since 1985. For more than 20 years, Congregation Kol Shofar has regularly
hosted a number of activities and events at the site. In 1985, the Congregation included
as members approximately 220 families. Over the years, the size of the Congregation as
grown, as has the neighborhood surrounding the property.
Over the years, portions of the original 22 acres site have been divided and developed as
single family homes. The Reed Union School District owned 22.59 acres of land. Kol
Shofar was part of a joint venture that purchased the Reed Union School site. Taldan
Investment Company, the investment partner, developed the single family homes on
Reedland Woods Way on about 16 acres of the original school site. The remainder of the
property is now the area used by Kol Shofar.
For years, a variety of events and activities have regularly occurred. As membership has
increased, the Planning Commission has placed additional conditions on Kol Shofar's use
permit. (See Conditions of Approval, as amended in 1997,2001, and 2004.) With
limited exceptions the Planning Commission has found that the facility has operated in
compliance with these conditions.
As of 2004, the Congregation consisted of 598 member units. Many members come for
just the High Holy Days or for very few events throughout the year. Other members are
more active and visit the site at least once weekly. Although the Congregation saw
regular growth over the 20 years it has occupied the site, membership has remained
steady for about 8 years. Current activities of the site include religious services, religious
studies, library, administrative, Board meetings, social events, community outreach and
affiliated activities. Kol Shofar has submitted detailed descriptions of the current
activities and events that take place on the site. (See, for example, January 2004 letter
from Ron Brown, Table I of Draft EIR, and subsequent explanation from Kol Shofar.)
The reality is that the site is in use at various hours of the day for a variety of activities.
8
These activities change from week to week and year to year. As such, ascertaining what
is an existing use as compared to a new use is not an exact science.
F or purposes of CEQA, this distinction does matter. CEQA requires that an EIR set forth
the "environmental setting" in which the project is proposed. The purpose is to establish
a "baseline" against which environmental impacts can be measured. In this case, the
application under consideration includes construction of a multi-purpose room, a remodel
of the existing sanctuary and other modifications to the site, and replacement of four
classrooms lost to the construction and remodeling. The appropriate scope of analysis for
the EIR, therefore, is the impacts that can directly and indirectly result from this
development.
The direct impacts of the project are more physical in nature and have to do with the
construction of the facilities and how they will occupy the site once completed. These
are impacts such as construction noise, changes in hydrology of the site, and the
aesthetics of the completed building. The EIR also considered in detail the indirect
impacts of the project which are mainly those related to additional use of the site that
could be facilitated by the new construction. In this context, it is important to understand
the distinction made in the EIR between "new events" and existing events and activities.
As explained above, a variety of events and activities have regularly occurred at the site
over the years. The existing CUP does not place any limits on the type, time or
maximum attendance at events and activities (other than to limit attendance at the private
day school, and require split services on the High Holy Days).
For environmental analysis of the project's indirect impacts, Kol Shofar provided an
estimate of the types of "new events" that likely would not have occurred at the site as it
currently exists, but could be facilitated by the new construction. These new events
mainly constitute additional use of the site on Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings.
The EIR process revealed that some potentially significant impacts are associated with
these new weekend events. The public hearing process has also made clear that these
potential new events are a concern of the site's neighbors.
As such, Kol Shofar voluntarily agreed to limit the number, time of, and maximum
attendance at "new" weekend events. The Town has determined to place additional
limits on weekend events. In doing so, however, the Town acknowledges that Kol Shofar
is not seeking to amend its existing CUP to add more events. Rather, Kol Shofar has
agreed to place limits, which do not currently exist, on potential new events.
Furthermore, the Town acknowledges that distinguishing what constitutes a "new event"
and what is in fact an existing event or activity is not exact. This is so because the
facility has been used for years for many different events and activities. For example,
there have been weddings and b'nai mitzvahs held at the facility in the past. Thus,
weddings and b'nai mitzvahs could be appropriately considered as existing events, and
one could argue that the limitations on new events should not apply. For purposes of
9
analysis, the EIR assumed that "new events" were generally Saturday and Sunday
evening events. The EIR also considered the additional Friday evening dinners at the
facility to be "new events." In order to avoid confusion in interpretation, the Town has
determined that the CUP will not just limit "new weekend" events. Rather the Town has
limited the total number of events that can occur on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday
evening, and in doing so has recognized that some of these events already occur at the
site.
Congregation Growth
Throughout the EIR process, some have commented that the EIR was required to analyze
the future growth of the size of the Congregation. The Town has determined, however,
that growth ofthe Congregation is not a reasonably foreseeable future part of the
proposed project. The EIR, therefore, properly declined to analyze such future growth.
Furthermore, to the extent that any growth in the size of the Congregation may occur, the
Town finds that predicting such future growth at this point would be purely speculative.
Furthermore, the evidence before the Town is that future growth is not reasonably
foreseeable. Membership grew steadily over the years from 220 member units in 1984,
to a peak of 609 member units in 1998. Currently, Kol Shofar estimates it has 598
member units. Thus, over the past 8 years, the total Congregation size has leveled off.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
The Recording of Proceeding ("Record") upon which the Town Council bases these
findings and its actions and determinations regarding the proposed project includes, but is
not limited to:
I The Final EIR which consists of the Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use
Permit Application Draft Environmental Impact Report (June 2005) and the
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit Application Final
Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments Document (February
2006) plus the appendices and technical reports cited in and/or relied on in
preparing the Final ErR, and further appendices prepared after circulation of
the Final EIR.
2 All staff reports, Town files and records and other documents, prepared for
and/or submitted to the Town staff, Planning Commission and the Town
Council relating to the Final EIR, appendices, and/or the proposed project.
10
3 All materials submitted to the Town either in writing or orally either at the
several public hearings or at any other time throughout the processing of the
project application.
The location and custodian of the Record is the Town of Tiburon Community
Development Director, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California, 94920.
FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are
implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before
approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, ~ 21081,
subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental
effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a
written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such
finding is that "[ c ]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15091, subd. (a)(1).) The second
permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such
other agency." (CEQA Guidelines, S 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third potential conclusion
is that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR."
(CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Public Resources Code section 21061.1
defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within
a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and
technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal"
considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors ("Goleta If')
(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553,565.)
The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular
alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a
project. (City of Del Mar v, City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.)
"'[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is
based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and
technological factors." (/d.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of
Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.)
The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant
environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The Town must
therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are
11
used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091
is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA
Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an
understanding ofthe statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA,
which include the policy that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if
there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Pub.
Resources Code, ~ 21002.)
For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more
mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant
level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such
measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to
reduce that effect to a less than significant level. These interpretations appear to be
mandated by the holding in Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v, City Council (1978)
83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-521, in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had
satisfied its obligation to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting
numerous mitigation measures, not all of which rendered the significant impacts in
question less than significant.
Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specifY
that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ ed] or substantially lessen[ ed]," these
findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specifY whether the effect in question
has been reduced to a less than significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened
but remains significant.
Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address
environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these
findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final ElR.
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where
feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would
otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where
such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifYing the project lies with
some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15091, subd. (a), (b).)
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially
lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the
project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the
specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable"
its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, ~~ 15093, 15043,
subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, ~ 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme
Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving. . . any development project, a delicate task
12
which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the
local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as
we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore
balanced." (Goleta II, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.)
These findings constitute the Town Council's best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and
policy bases for its decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the
requirements ofCEQA. To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed
mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified,
superseded or withdrawn, the Town hereby binds itself to implement these measures.
These findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a
binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the Town Council adopts a
resolution approving the Project.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") was prepared for the
project, and was approved by the Town Council by the same resolution that has adopted
these findings. (See Pub. Resources Code, ~ 21081.6, subd. (a)(l); CEQA Guidelines, ~
15097.) The Town will use the MMRP to track compliance with project mitigation
measures. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance
period.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Draft EIR identified several impacts from the project as potentially significant. The
Draft EIR recommended mitigation measures, and the Final ElR modified and/or added
mitigation measures. In addition, the Town Council has added further mitigation
measures and changes to the project. With the incorporation of these mitigation
measures, all of the project's impacts will be reduced to less than significant.
Hvdroloev. Drainal!e. and Water Ouality
Impact 3.t-A:
Development of the project would create new impervious
surfaces. increasing the rate and amount of stormwater runoff.
This runoff could contribute to flooding in the vicinity of the
project site. (DEIR. p. 49.)
Finding
13
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that impacts
associated with on-site peak flow rates and attendant downstream flooding will be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 3.1-
A.1. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The
impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
Construction of additional structures and parking facilities in the intermittent creek
watershed will increase the quantity of storm water runoff flowing into the existing storm
drain facilities. Storm water runoff from the project site flows into storm drains that
connect with a 48-inch RCP under the project site. The 48-inch RCP connects an
intermittent creek with the West Ditch on the south side of Via Los Altos. The proposed
project will concentrate additional storm runoff directly into the 48-inch RCP, and thus
the West Ditch, and may exacerbate flooding problems downstream. (DEIR, p. 46.)
Potential project impacts on peak flow rates and downstream flooding would be
potentially significant, due to the uncertainty associated with the extent of inundation of
downstream residential properties from any increase in the amount of stormwater runoff
reaching the West Ditch. Referring to Table 3 above, the computed increases in post-
project peak flow rates on the site relative to existing conditions for the 2-year, 25-year
and 100-year design rainstorms ranged from 8.7 to 9.7 percent. The greatest increase was
associated with the 25-year rainstorm. As listed in Table 3, the post-project peak flow for
the 25-year rainstorm was calculated as 19.2 cubic feet per second. The post-project peak
flow for the 100-year rainstorm was calculated as 25.0 cubic feet per second. (DEIR, p.
47.)
Discharge from the larger watershed, of which the project site is included, was also
calculated using the Rational Method. As cited in Table 4 above, the 25-year and 100-
year watershed discharges for both the pre- and post-construction watershed conditions
were calculated at 134 cubic feet per second and 185 cubic feet per second. Therefore,
while the computed peak flows for the smaller site watershed did indicate increases of 8-
10 percent for the designated recurrence interval rainstorms, the same methodology failed
to register a detectible increase for the larger West Drain Watershed. Since the FIRM
map for the Town of Tiburon has designated a substantial part of the Pamela Court
neighborhood as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), and the Tiburon General Plan
2020 has incorporated the provision that developments must maintain pre-project peak
flow rates for their project areas, the project's impact on local peak flow rates would still
be considered potentially significant. (DEIR, p. 47.)
The EIR hydrplogist conducted an analysis of culvert and channel capacity downstream
of the project site to Richardson Bay. The capacity of the 48-inch RCP under Reedland
14
Woods Way and Via Los Altos was analyzed using Manning's equation for pipe flow.
Assuming a conservative value, 1.5 percent, for the slope of the 48-inch RCP, the full
flow rate of the pipe was calculated to be 192 cubic feet per second. The 100-year storm
event on the portion of the watershed upstream of the pipe inlet would result in a
calculated flow rate of just over 169 cubic feet per second, after development of the
proposed project. The capacity of the pipe is sufficient to handle the minor increase of
additional flow from the proposed project. (DEIR, p. 47.)
Based on averaged channel dimensions of the West Ditch between Via Los Altos and
Cecilia Way measured in the field and a slope determined from a Marin County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District point survey, along with the application of the
Manning's equation for normal depth (i.e., a standard formula used for designing storm
channels in the absence of backwater effects), a channel capacity of 720 cubic feet per
second was computed. The 100-year stonn event would result in a peak flow of 185
cubic feet per second at the outlet of the watershed. The computed capacity of the West
Ditch was significantly higher than the computed 100-year peak discharge for the creek
under post-project watershed conditions. (DEIR, p. 47.)
The unobstructed capacity of the l2-foot x 5-foot concrete box culvert under Cecilia Way
was also assessed. The calculated capacity of the culvert for the free-flow condition was
1,285 cubic feet per second. The 100-year post-project peak discharge of the watershed
above the culvert is less than 185 cubic feet per second discharge of the entire watershed.
Under most conditions, the capacity of the culvert is sufficient to pass this flow.
However, if woody debris were to be trapped at the culvert entrance, the culvert capacity
could be reduced in proportion to the extent of the obstruction. This is likely the
rationale used for oversizing the culvert to such an extent. (DElR, p. 47.)
Tidal backwater influences can severely reduce the hydraulic capacity ofthe two 6O-inch
CMPs under Tiburon Boulevard, As stated previously, an extreme storm event during a
high tide may result in flooding because the capacity of the two 60-inch culverts would
be near zero. At full capacity the culverts can pass a flow of 190 cubic feet per second
without headwater. This flow rate is greater than the I OO-year flow rate of 185 cubic feet
per second, however, if the tide is above the culvert outlet elevation the capacity of the
two culverts is quickly reduced. The potential of a large storm event and a high tide
occurring together demonstrates the need for the Pamela Court Pump Station to control
flooding of the nearby residences. (DEIR, p. 48.)
The Pamela Court Pump Station consists of 3 pumps. Pump I is the lead, pump 2 is the
lag, and pump 3 is for power outages and extreme flow conditions. The Marin County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District believes that the need for pump 3 is
highly improbable (Jack Curley, personal communication, 3/31/05). However, since the
combined pumping station capacity is a small fraction of the West Ditch 100-year peak
discharge, it is unlikely that the pump station could fully ameliorate flooding in the
15
vicinity of Pamela Court during a coincident, spring high tide and 100-year flood event.
Since a good portion of the Pamela Court neighborhood has been mapped as a SFHA by
FEMA, any additional peak flow generated by the project (i.e. even at the local watershed
scale), would constitute a potentially significant impact. (DEIR, p. 48.)
Mitigation Measure 3.1-A.l includes specific measures to maintain runoff from the site at
pre-project levels. Therefore, the project would not increase peak runoff to the West
Ditch. Implementation of this measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.1-A.1 provides:
Meet the proposed Tiburon General Plan 2020 policy of maintaining the post-
development 100-year peak flow at the pre-development level. This can be accomplished
with above ground detention or by the construction of an underground stormwater
detention vault. The current site plan proposes a small detention pond near the northeast
corner of the site. Further analysis will be done at the design stage to size the detention
pond to ensure that the pond attenuates peak flows to the appropriate level. The outlet
pipe would be sized and positioned to accommodate stormwater storage at volumes
appropriate to the attenuation of site peak flows to pre-project levels. It is also necessary
for a geotechnical engineer to evaluate pond embankment stability as well as any
secondary impacts on slope stability. If the construction of a detention pond for full
attenuation is infeasible from a geotechnical standpoint, attenuation shall be achieved
with a smaller pond and/or an underground vault. (DEIR, p. 48, FEIR, p. 419.)
If it is found that an underground vault is best suited for the proposed project the vault
should be constructed of reinforced concrete or other highly durable material and be
fitted with a pipe outlet connecting the vault to the site storm drain. The outlet pipe
would be sized and positioned to accommodate stormwater storage at volumes
appropriate to the attenuation of site peak flows to pre-project levels. (DEIR, p. 48.)
The detention ponds/vault shall be properly maintained. Guidelines in the Municipal,
California Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook (March 1993) shall be
followed to ensure proper function including:
. Remove silt after sufficient accumulation (and properly dispose)
. Removal of trash every six months or as needed to prevent clogging of
control devices
. Vegetation growth should not be allowed to exceed 18 inches
16
Manage the detention ponds so as to eliminate the potential for mosquito breeding. This
will include dewatering the ponds at the end of the rainy season. (FEIR, p. 420.)
Impact 3.1-B:
Project development would result in the clearing of land for the
proposed site improvements. During and after project
construction exposed slopes will be at risk of eroding. (DEIR, p.
49.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that impacts on
erosion and downstream sedimentation will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level
by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 3.I-B.1. Accordingly, changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-
significant level.
Facts and Evidence
Project development would result in a large portion of the site being cleared and graded
for the proposed project. The multi-purpose building to be constructed on the south side
of the main building extends over the steep slope to the south and will expose the top of
the slope during project construction and after construction until vegetation becomes re-
established. If construction occurs during the rainy season, exposed earth would be
subject to erosion. This is a potentially significant impact. (DEIR, p. 49.)
Mitigation Measure 3.I-B.1 requires completion and implementation of an Erosion
Control Plan. The mitigation measure identifies what elements are to be included in that
plan. The recommended mitigation measure would ensure proper site drainage and
delivery to storm drains. Erosion would be controlled. The plan will be monitored for
effectiveness by the Town. Implementation of this measure will reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.I-B.l provides:
The applicant shall submit a detailed Erosion Control Plan to the Town Engineer prior to
issuance of a grading permit. The Erosion Control Plan shall include the following
restrictions, guidelines, and measures: (I) grading and earthwork shall be prohibited
during the wet season (typically October 15 through April 15) and such work shall be
17
stopped before pending storm events; (2) erosion control/soil stabilization techniques
such as straw or wood mulching, erosion control matting, and hydroseeding, shall be
utilized, in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area
Governments "Erosion & Sediment Control Measures" manual; (3) silt fences shall be
installed downslope of all graded slopes, in accordance with the installation guidelines
presented in the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board's "Erosion
Control Field Handbook"; and (4) hay bales shall be installed in the flow path of graded
areas receiving concentrated flows, as well as around storm drain inlets. These erosion
control best management practices shall be monitored for effectiveness and shall be
subject to inspection by the Town Engineer. After construction is completed, all drainage
facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment, and these drainage structures shall
be cleared of debris and sediment. Silt fences shall be left in place until the hydroseed
has become established. (DEIR, p. 49.)
Impact 3.1-C
Project development would result in the construction of 0.84
acres of additional impervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff
from the upper parking lot and classroom building will
concentrate runoff into grass swales that may erode. (DEIR, p
50.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that impacts on
drainageways will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of
Mitigation Measures 3.I-C.1 and 3.1-C.2. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant
level.
Facts and Evidence
The construction of two swales is proposed. The first swale is in the center of the upper
parking lot. The second swale is along the east side of the upper parking lot. If not
properly constructed, the swales could erode and/or become unstable. This is a potentially
significant impact These swales, if properly vegetated, would also capture pollutants and
benefit water quality. (DEIR, p. 50.)
Mitigation Measures 3.I-C.l and 3.I-C.2 require determination of the final runoff to each
swale and construction of cross-swale siBs/weirs, vegetation, rock, and energy dissipaters
that would reduce velocities and erosion potential. Implementation of the recommended
mitigation measures would ensure proper site drainage and stormwater delivery to storm
drains. Erosion would be controBed. The mitigations would also reduce the water
18
quality impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.I-C.l and 3.I-C.2 will ensure
that impacts on drainageways will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.I-C.l provides:
Complete an analysis on the quantity of stormwater to be conveyed in each swale.
Computations should be completed using the Rational Method. Complete an analysis to
ensure that the erosive potential of storm flow does not compromise the stability of the
swales. If it is found that either grass swale has the potential of erosion problems, then
geotechnical (e.g. geoweb) or natural erosion control fabrics can be incorporated into the
bed of the swale and seeded with erosion control grasses to reduce the erosion potential.
All C (runoff coefficient) factor, rainfall intensity and peak flow computations shall be
submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval. Consultants performing such
consultations shall pay particular attention to the low C values cited in Rantz (1971) for
natural watershed areas (0.1-0.3) and to increases in C values appropriate for higher
intensity, higher recurrence interval rainstorms. (DEIR, p. 50; FEIR, p. 420.)
Mitigation Measure 3.I-C.2 provides:
Construct notched cross-swale sills/weirs with outlet energy dissipaters to reduce overall
flow velocities and erosion potential. Vegetation establishment via seeding and erosion
control blanket installation (as cited above) would still be required.
Properly installed (i.e. embedded) rock may be used for the bed and bank material of the
swales, however, for further treatment of stormwater, grass swales designed as biofilters
are the preferred method of construction. As cited in Chow (1959), a conservative
velocity threshold for erosion in unvegetated gravelly, clay loam soils located on site is in
the range of 3 ft/sec to 4 ft/sec. With establishment of a dense grassed channel the
maximum permissible velocity increases.
Design ofbiofilter swales shall follow the guidelines in the Municipal, California
Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook (March 1993) including:
. 1200 sq.ft. ofbiofilter area per impervious acre to be treated
. Minimum width sized to convey the 2-year event
. Depth size to convey the 100-year event
. For design, use Manning's n of approximately 0.20
. Longitudinal slope not to exceed 5%
. Use of a flow spreader at swale entrance
19
. Cover channel with biodegradable BioD-Mat (manufactured by RoLanka,
Inc.) or equivalent to limit erosion during vegetation establishment.
(DEIR, p. 50; FEIR, pp. 420-42\.)
Impact 3.1-D:
Cumulative development could contribute to flooding in the
vicinity of the project site. (DEIR, p. 5\.)
Finding
Based upon the ErR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that the
cumulative flooding impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the
imposition of Mitigation Measure 3.1-A.\. Accordingly, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant
level.
Facts and Evidence
There are two areas within or partially within the West Ditch Watershed that are included
in the Tiburon General Plan 2020 to be developed. One single family home is included
in the Plan in the upper reaches of the watershed. The second area has been slated for 10
units of high-density housing on the border of the lower watershed adjacent to Tiburon
Boulevard. Cumulative effects from development of these future projects may increase
downstream flooding along the West Ditch. This is a potentially significant cumulative
impact.
The same mitigation measure required for Impact 3 .l-A is required for this impact.
(DEIR, p. 5\.) As described under Impact 3.I-A, the pr~iect will be required to provide
retention of peak flows on site so there will not be any increase in peak flows leaving the
site. As such, the project would not contribute to any cumulative impact. The impact
would be less than significant given the mitigation previously required. (DEIR, p. 51.)
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.I-A is described above.
Traffic and Circulation
Impact 3.3-A:
The project adds traffic to study area intersections.
Finding
20
Based on the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that this impact
will be less than significant without mitigation. No further mitigation is required.
Facts and Evidence
The Draft EIR stated that "[t]he only potentially significant impact associated with study
intersections is that the 325-foot long Tiburon Boulevard/Blackfield Drive intersection
eastbound turn lane would not have adequate queuing space to accommodate projected
vehicle queues. Project-generated traffic on a peak Saturday evening would result in
inadequate left-turn lane capacity. An additional 150 feet oflane capacity (i.e., the space
needed for an additional 6 vehicles) would be needed to handle existing traffic plus peak
project-generated traffic." (DEIR, p. 62.) The Draft EIR also stated that the project
would contribute to a significant cumulative impact at this intersection.
The Draft EIR preparer proposed the following mitigation:
To address the project impact the following measure is required:
1. Pending Caltrans approval, the project shall fund lengthening the
eastbound left turn lane at the Tiburon Boulevard/Blackfield Drive
intersection by adding at least 150 feet of storage to the lane.
To address the project's increment of the cumulative impact, the following
measure is required:
2. Pending Caltrans approval and determination of need, the project, in
combination with other approved development, shall fund lengthening the
eastbound left turn lane at the Tiburon Boulevard/Blackfield Drive
intersection by adding at least an additional 150 feet of storage to the lane
(this assumes that the initial 150 feet has been added per Mitigation
Measure I above). The project applicant would be responsible for 75 feet
of this I 50-foot extension.
3. Iflengthening the lane is not acceptable to Caltrans, then the proposed
events for Saturday evening will be eliminated from the project, and the
Sunday evening events shall be reduced to allow 50% less attendees.
The Final EIR added an additional option for mitigating this impact:
4. If Caltrans determines that adjusting the signal length and/or phasing
would not adversely affect the level of service at intersections on Tiburon
Boulevard and approves adjusting the signal timing, then the signal cycle at
21
the intersection will be changed to allow sufficient time for left turns to
clear the intersection on weekends between at least 6:30 and 7:30 p.m. In
this case, lane lengthening would not be required.
Robert L. Harrison Transportation Planning and Project Management (Harrison) prepared
the initial trip generation analysis upon which the EIR's analysis is based. Relying on
this trip generation information prepared by Harrison, Crane Transportation Group
determined that the Saturday event traffic could cause the queue length at the intersection
to be exceeded.
Since publication of the Final EIR, Harrison prepared further analysis of the intersection,
which demonstrates that project traffic will not cause the intersection queue length to be
exceeded. (March 17, 2006 Memorandum from Robert L. Harrison to Scott
Hochstrasser.) The difference in results is due to the fact that the Crane Transportation
Group modeling did not account for the existing signal timing at the intersection.
As explained by Harrison:
The analysis conducted in the project traffic study was intended to
determine the impact of project generated traffic on the Level of Service
(LOS) of several intersections. LOS is the standard most commonly used
by local jurisdictions, including the Town of Tiburon, to determine project
impacts. It is relatively easy to understand and can be calculated using
readily available technical data.
The project traffic study used available data such as traffic counts,
intersection geometric design and signalization conditions to estimate the
impact of the project on the intersection of Tiburon Boulevard with
Blackfield Drive. The signal timing plan used in the project traffic study
was based on field observations of the typical operation of the intersection.
The green time assigned to each traffic movement was representative of the
normal signal operations. However, because the traffic signal at this
intersection is traffic actuated, the actual timing of each phase of the signal
varies in every signal cycle. The HCS2000 software used in the project
traffic study assumes a pretimed signal that does not vary in response to
traffic flow. In other words, when the traffic from the project is added to
existing traffic volumes, the software assumes the signal timing as used for
the existing condition.
The signal timing plan used in the project traffic study was adequate to
provide an accurate estimate of the project's impact on intersection LOS
but was not intended to provide engineering data sufficient to redesign the
intersection.
22
When the proper signal timing and software is used for the modeling, Harrison reports
the following results:
INTERSECTION OF TIBURON BOULEVARD AT BLACKFIELD DRIVE
Saturday Evening Conditions
Scenario LOS I 95th Percentile 02
Existing C 12 Vehicles
Existing + Project C 18 Vehicles
Cumulative C I 7 Vehicles
Cumulative + Project C 25 Vehicles
Notes: I - LOS = Level of Service.
2 - Number of vehicles in the 95th percentile queue in the eastbound left turn lane.
Source: Robert L. Harrison Transportation Planning
LOS1
C
C
C
C
95th Percentile 02
10 Vehicles
13 Vehicles
12 Vehicles
15 Vehicles
The Harrison report explains that:
The actual length of the eastbound left turn lane was measured in the field.
The storage portion of the lane is striped to a length of329 feet. In addition
to the storage area, there is an area of bay taper and deceleration lane that is
182 feet in length. The bay taper is about 120 feet in length leaving a
deceleration lane of about 62 feet.
Assuming a standard 25 feet per vehicle, the storage capacity of the striped
portion of the eastbound left turn lane is 13 vehicles. Using the signal
optimization ~rocedures of the TRAFFIX software, existing traffic volumes
result in a 95 percentile queue of 10 vehicles. The traffic that would be
added by a 300 person Saturday evening at the project results in a 95th
percentile queue of \3 vehicles. There is no need to increase the length of
the eastbound left turn lane to serve a 300 person Saturday evening event at
the proj ect.
The cumulative analysis for the project assumed the full build out of the
Tiburon Peninsula or a condition at least 20 years in the future. As shown
in the above table, the Tiburon Peninsula build out traffic volumes would
result in a Saturday evening eastbound left turn lane 95th percentile queue
of 12 vehicles. If the trips generated by a 300 person Saturday evening
event at the project were added to this 20 year plus projection, the left turn
lane 95th percentile queue is project to reach 15 vehicles.
The existing intersection design would provide adequate pavement to serve
even a 15 vehicle queue. By using 46 feet of the available 62 feet of
23
deceleration lane, plus the full 329-foot existing length of the storage lane,
all 15 vehicles could be stored in this lane completely separate from the
through traffic lanes.
The EIR traffic engineer (the Crane Transportation Group) reviewed this analysis.
(Crane letter, April 3, 2006.) To summarize the findings of this review:
. Both software programs are used by the traffic engineering profession.
Assessing the intersection's operations using the different software
programs provides divergent results. One software program is not
preferred over the other. The Town used the TRAFPIX software for
predicting future conditions when preparing its new General Plan. The
TRAFFIX software does not require as detailed input as the HCS software,
and, is, thus, easier to use.
. Using the HCS software, there would be inadequate queuing capacity in the
left-turn lane during weekend p.m. hours of peak project trip generation
both for the "existing plus project" condition and the "cumulative base case
plus project" condition.
. Using the TRAFFIX software, there would be adequate queuing capacity
for the "existing plus project" condition. For the "cumulative base case
plus project" condition, there would be inadequate capacity (by two vehicle
lengths) if the overall level of service at the intersection is to be maintained
at LOS C.
. The applicant's traffic engineer has stated that the additional two vehicle
capacity that would be needed under the cumulative condition with the
level of service remaining at LOS C is met by the "bay taper" (i.e., an
unstriped area that allows drivers to decelerate and enter the striped left-
turn lane). However, the EIR traffic engineers reply that Caltrans typically
does not allow this unstriped bay taper to be counted as part of the queuing
capacity for left-turn lanes.
. The EIR traffic engineers conclude that the applicant will need to provide
all these data to Caltrans. Caltrans will need to determine which software
program queuing and level of service results they wish to utilize. Caltrans
would then determine the feasibility and need for left-turn lane lengthening
and/or changing signal phasing and when such changes would be required.
After publication of the Final EIR, the applicant voluntarily agreed to reduce the number
of Saturday events to just 12 events per year and to limit the attendance at those events
24
(Alternative 7). The Harrison analysis discussed above was based on an event of 300
people.
After the Planning Commission's denial of the project, the applicant performed additional
counts at the intersection. Traffic counts were conducted at several Saturday evenings at
the intersection, and the counts were then used to model the queue length at the
intersection with Kol Shofar traffic. (September 12,2006 memorandum from Robert
Harrison. )
Traffic was counted from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm on Saturday August 26, September 2, and
September 9,2006. The one hour volume from 5:00 to 6:00 pm of the two hour period
counted was the peak hour for all three Saturdays. The counts represent a Summer
season count, a Labor Day weekend count and a post-Labor Day weekend count.
The peak hour total approach volume was 2,550, 2,206, and 2,617 over the three
evenings counted. It should be noted that these total volumes were similar to those
counted for the study for the EIR. In fact, two of the counts exceed the March 2004
count of 2,369 vehicles. The total number of cars turning left on these evenings,
however, was less than on the March 2004 evening when traffic was counted. It appears,
then, that the high number of cars in the queue on the night of the March 2004 counts was
an anomaly.
The intersection LOS was then calculated using the TRAFFIC software. A summary of
the LOS and length of the eastbound left turn vehicle queue is shown below. The
accuracy of the software calculated length of the 95 percentile left turn vehicle queue was
validated by comparing it to the queues observed in the field. The 95 percentile queue
observed in the field was the same number of vehicles as estimated by the TRAFFIX
software, Le., nine vehicles on August 26th and seven vehicles on September 2nd.
25
Intersection of Tiburon Boulevard at Blackfield Drive
Level of Service (LOS) and Eastbound Left Turn Queue
Kol Shofar Project Assumes 300 Person Attendance
Saturday Evening Conditions
2004 Count 2006 Counts
March August 26 September 2 September 9
LOS EB Left QI LOS EB Left QI LOS EB Left QI LOS EB Left QI
Existing B 10 Veh B 9Veh B 7Veh B 8 Veh
Existing + C 13 Veh B 12 Veh B 9Veh B 10 Veh
Project
Cumulative C 12 Veh B 10 Veh B 8 Veh B 10 Veh
Cumulative + C 15 Veh C 13 Veh B II Veh C 13 Veh
Project
Notes: I-Number of Vehicles in the 95th percentile queue in the eastbound left turn lane.
As shown above, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS C or better under
any of the scenarios tested. While the total traffic volume was higher on August 26 and
September 9, as compared to March 2004, the distribution of the turning movements
allowed the intersection to serve the higher 2006 volumes more efficiently than it could
serve the 2004 traffic.
For existing conditions, this study shows that using either the 2004 or the more recent
2006 data, a 300 person event at Kol Shofar added to existing traffic would result in a
Saturday evening eastbound left turn queue no greater than 13 vehicles. As reported in
the project EIR, the capacity of the existing left turn lane is 13 vehicles. The traffic
generated by the largest Kol Shofar event tested would fit within the capacity of the
existing left turn lane and traffic signal design, while still maintaining an adequate LOS.
For the cumulative condition, assuming the 2006 traffic volumes as a base, and adding an
event at Kol Shofar as large as 300 persons in attendance to each count, the longest
eastbound left turn queue would be 13 vehicles. Thus, under any ofthe 2006 traffic
based cumulative conditions, the largest Kol Shofar event tested would not cause the
storage capacity of the existing left turn lane to be exceeded.
The limits on the number of new Saturday events and attendance at those events makes it
even more certain that the queue length at this intersection is not likely to be exceeded.
The modeling discussed above was based on an event with 300 people, all arriving during
26
the Saturday peak hour. In approving the project, the Town Council has limited new
Saturday events to a maximum attendance of250 people, and this number of people is
allowed only once per year. Nine more new Saturday evening events will be allowed, but
the maximum attendance at those will be four events with 200 people and five events
with 150 people maximum.
Thus, the Town Council concludes that even if the modeling showed a potential for the
queue length to be exceeded, that potential would happen so rarely that the impact would
be considered insignificant on that basis as well.
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Impact 3.3-B:
The project will add traffic to the inadequate driveway serving
the pre-school facility and southwest end of the site. (DEIR, p.
64.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that impacts on
the driveway will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of
Mitigation Measures 3.3-B.l through 3.3-BA. Accordingly, changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant
level.
Facts and Evidence
The existing safety concerns of inadequate sight lines for drivers turning left out of the
pre-school driveway and usage of a driveway of inadequate width would be exacerbated
by the addition of 50 more students (a 50 percent increase in vehicles using this
driveway). It is possible that the students would not be a part of the existing pre-school,
but, instead, could be Kol Shofar students; however, as a worst case, it is assumed that
these students would access the site by this driveway. There would also be increased use
of this driveway from people attending proposed services and events on the site.
Increased use of this driveway is a potentially significant safety impact. (DEIR, p. 63.)
The applicant's engineers have examined the upper driveway that provides access to Ring
Mountain School to determine whether there would be adequate line of sight at this
intersection. (See letter from Sandis, FEIR, p. 62.) The engineers determined that
27
removal of the vegetation uphill of the driveway would increase the line of sight to the
north to 170 feet. The DEIR recommended (based on observed speeds of vehicles
driving on Via Los Altos) that the recommended sight line should be 195 feet. The
applicant's engineers determined that an additional 20 feet of sight line could be realized
by raising the grade of the driveway. In either case, however, the line of sight would not
meet the minimum recommendation. (FElR, p. 40.)
With the proposed mitigation, the use ofthe upper driveway would be less than the
existing condition, and impacts would be reduced. Current use ofthe driveway for
picking up and dropping off children would be eliminated. While there would continue
to be some use of this lot, it would be used only by staff and employees who would be
more familiar with the less than recommended sight lines. The existing situation would
also be improved by removing vegetation that blocks the sight line to the north. This
would increase the line of sight from the existing 100 feet to 150 feet. The DEIR also
suggested raising the driveway to gain an additional 20 feet. The Town, however,
declines to add this additional requirement because it may result in additional impacts
and the gain of an additional 20 feet in sight line distance is minimal. Furthermore, with
the mitigation as set forth below, impacts will be less than significant, and in fact, will be
an improvement over existing conditions. Finally, adding warning signs on the Via Los
Altos approach to the driveway would further improve the existing safety hazard. (FEIR,
p.40.) The requirement for adding parking spaces was added to offset the spaces lost by
closing this lot off to the general public. Originally, only 7 spaces were required, which
corresponded to a maximum attendance at events of275 people. The mitigation measure
has been revised to increase the number of on-site parking spaces to at least 156. This
will more than make up for the lost public parking spaces from restricting access to the
upper lot, while also helping to improve parking and mitigate the impacts related to
turnarounds (see Impact 3.3-C below.)
Mitigation Measures 3.3-B.l through 3.3-BA requiring cutting of vegetation, restricting
use ofthe upper driveway off of Via Los Altos, adding signs, and adding parking spaces.
With the imposition of these mitigation measures, the impact would be less than
significant. (DEIR, p. 64, FElR, pp. 421-422.)
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.3-B.1 requires:
The existing upper driveway off Via Los Altos will be restricted to use by those needing
handicapped parking, or by CLS, school, or event staff or employees. The lot will not be
open to use by the general public. A keypad gate will be installed on the driveway. A
stop sign shall be installed where the driveway intersects Via Los Altos to ensure drivers
leaving the parking lot stop before entering Via Los Altos.
28
Mitigation Measure 3.3-B.2 requires:
On Via Los Altos, vegetation within 25 feet of the sidewalk and for 80 feet uphill from
the driveway shall be cleared and replanted with low-growing groundcover.
Mitigation Measures 3.3-B.3 requires:
Uphill and downhill of the driveway warning signs stating "Blind Driveway Ahead" shall
be installed. The location of these signs shall be identified and approved by the Town.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-B.4 requires:
The applicant shall modifY the plans for the lower parking lot to optimize circulation and
provide at least 156 on-site parking spaces, including handicapped spaces. (FEIR, pp.
421-422.)
Impact 3.3-C:
The project could create a demand for more parking spaces than
can be met by on-site parking lots which will result in drivers
who park on local streets making unsafe turnarounds in
residential neighborhoods. (DEIR, p. 64.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to
changes in the proposed project the traffic safety impact will be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.3-C.l, 3.3-C-3. The impact
will be further reduced by limitations on the number of few events and the number of
people attending those events as required by the Town Council's approval of the project.
Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The
impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
Although the Draft EIR concluded that the project would have adequate parking, it stated
that "[i]ncreased numbers ofturnarounds in driveways or in front of homes and increased
frequency of event-related turnarounds on these residential streets is considered by the
EIR traffic engineer to be a potentially significant safety concern." (DEIR, p. 67.)
The Draft EIR proposed the following mitigation:
29
To ensure that people attending project events can park on site:
I. Do not allow more than 275 people on the site for any function or
combination of functions.
OR,
2. Require valet parking for all times when there would be more than 275
people on the site up to a maximum of 360 people (this maximum assumes
a 30 percent on-site parking efficiency gain due to valet parking, while
maintaining room on-site for emergency vehicle access.) Events of more
than 360 people would require shuttle service to and from Town-approved
remote lots. To avoid secondary impacts at remote lots, a Town-approved
parking plan would be required in advance of over 360-person events.
Note: The Harrison study's assumed 80-percent parking efficiency gain due
to on-site valet parking for High Holy Days is doubtful, and raises concerns
for adequate emergency vehicle access (i.e., maintaining clear drive-
through access on-site for fire and ambulance access). Therefore, the Town
should also require a demonstration of the valet parking plan.
To reduce the impact of people parking on the street turning around in
residential neighborhoods Mitigation Measure I or 2 above would be
required, plus the Town could consider the following measures:
3. The curb on both sides of the roadway fronting Via Los Altos and
Reedland Woods Way could be painted to red to prohibit parking.
4. The Town could implement a parking permit program that allowed
residents 24-hour parking but limited others to one hour.
The Draft EIR preparer stated that Mitigation Measures 3 and 4 were likely not feasible,
and that even if implementation of Mitigation Measures I and 2, people would continue
to park on Via Los Altos and/or Reedland Woods Way. The EIR traffic engineers
therefore considered this impact significant and unavoidable.
In response to comments, the Final EIR proposed to replace Mitigation Measure 4 with
the following:
4. Require people attending new proposed events on weekend afternoons/evenings
and Monday through Thursday "special events" to produce a receipt that they have
parked on the site or in an approved off-site parking lot. Kol Shofar will staff the
parking lot to give people the parking receipt and staff the door to ensure that
attendees have a receipt. The Town will monitor the program. Kol Shofar will
place $1,000 (or whatever amount deemed appropriate by the Planning
30
Commission) on account to be drawn upon by the Town for use in random
(unannounced) monitoring of these events. Ifno violations are detected during
monitoring in the first year, only one monitoring per year will be required in
subsequent years. If one violation occurs in any year, monitoring will be
conducted 5 or 6 times per year the following year. Ifthere are no violations
during that year, then monitoring can return to a once a year schedule. If two
violations occur during the first year or years when multiple monitoring is done,
Kol Shofar will be required to conduct patrolling and placing signs warning people
not to park on the street during new proposed events. If two or more violations
occur after the year when two violations were identified, then the Town can
revised the Conditional Use Permit to allow fewer events and/or attendees at those
events or require additional measures aimed at reducing on-street parking during
the target events.
After circulation of the Final EIR, the applicant, staff and the EIR and traffic consultants
made several recommendations to improve on the suggested mitigation for this impact.
The applicant proposed to limit the number of events and attendees, improve the
circulation plan, and increase the number of on-site parking spaces. After several
meetings with the applicant and neighbors of the project, the Town Council
recommended the following measures at the November 15, 2006 hearing:
. Lower parking lot to be modified to optimize circulation and maximize
spaces
. Lighted directional sign required at the corner of Blackfield Drive and Via
Los Altos
. New red "No Parking" curbs painted as follows:
Along both sides of Via Los Altos from Blackfield Drive to roughly the
curve below 32 Via Los Altos
· Along northwest side of Blackfield Drive between Via Los Altos
and Reedland Woods Way
. Along east side of Reedland Woods Way to property line at 20
Reedland Woods Way
. Along west side of Reedland Woods Way to CKS property line with
35 Reedland Woods Way
. "No U-Turn" signs placed along Blackfield Drive and lower Via Los Altos
and Police authorized to ticket
. All member-sponsored events of200+ persons require two monitors for
parking and noise control
31
. Three unannounced traffic and parking monitoring times per year
. The following apply to events/activities with cumulative attendance >359
(except Sunday School activity):
. "Resident Traffic Only" signs placed on Reedland Woods Way and
Via Los Altos
. "No Parking" temporary signs placed on the southeast side of
Blackfield Drive to Karen Way
. Professional traffic control provided to the satisfaction of the
Tiburon Police Department
. Shuttle service required
. Adequate off-site parking provided and verified in advance writing
. Parking spaces pre-assigned to attendees prior to event/activity with
controls to monitor compliance
. Prior notice provided to Police Department: CKS responsible for
traffic control
. Attendees issued parking passes indicating parking lot (on-site or
off-site); must display pass in windshield
. For the High Holy Days services, the following shall apply in addition to
those above:
. Courtesy mailer to Vista Tiburon Subdivision addresses at least 10
days before High Holy days services
. Carpool/shuttle /parking permit/info and map distributed to members
at least 21 days before High Holy Days
. CKS to conduct multi-part educational program concerning traffic control
and parking
. CKS to maintain up-to-date database of its members to facilitate car-
pooling
. CKS to keep a log of all events/activities of 150+ attendees, duration (start
and end), and number attending
. Log to be available to Neighborhood Advisory Committee and Town Staff
upon 24 hours notice
The Town subsequently requested that the EIR traffic consultant provide an opinion on
whether these measures would effectively reduce or avoid the significant impact
associated with turnarounds. In a letter dated January 18,2007, Mark Crane of Crane
Transportation Group (CTG), EIR traffic consultant, provided an expert opinion as to
whether the above-stated mitigations were adequate to reduce the traffic safety impact to
32
a less than significant level. CTG recommends some revisions and additions to the
proposed mitigation and the Town has incorporated these revisions and additions in the
conditions of approval and/or the mitigations set forth below. The Town finds that with
this mitigation in place, the project's impacts will actually be less significant than the
existing condition.
Mitigation measures 3.3-C.1 through 3.3-C.6 provide a comprehensive plan that requires
adequate parking on-site, improves the circulation plan, limits areas where on-street
parking is allowed, and provides measures that will encourage visitors to the site to park
on-site via the appropriate access.
It should also be noted that these measures will likely reduce turnarounds from those that
happen under existing conditions. This is so because mitigation measure 3.3-C.5 requires
a parking/shuttle program for any times when cumulative attendance at the site exceeds
359 people. It is unlikely that this condition would be triggered by new events, because
they will be occurring at a time when there is rarely another event or activity at the site.
Additionally, mitigation measures 3.3-C.7 will act to further reduce this already less than
significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.3-C.l provides:
The applicant shall modify the parking lot layout to optimize circulation and provide a
minimum of 156 on-site parking spaces, including handicapped spaces. The primary
parking lot shall be designed as "enter-only" from Via Los Altos and "exit only" onto
Reedland Woods Way. Improvements to the existing service parking lot shall provide
staff parking, handicapped parking and service access and shall not otherwise be
available to the public as a parking area. Finalized parking lot design, circulation and
layout shall be provided as part of the Design Review application.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-C.2 provides:
Fencing or a landscape barrier shall be installed along or near the CKS frontage of
Reedland Woods Way to effectively discourage pedestrian access to the site from
Reedland Woods Way.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-C.3 provides:
A lighted directional sign to be reviewed by the Design Review Board shall be required
at the corner of Black field Drive and Via Los Altos to direct vehicles to the CKS parking
lot entrance on Via Los Altos and to discourage use of Reedland Woods Way by CKS-
related inbound traffic. The sign shall be constructed of natural materials with low-
impact lighting.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-CA provides:
33
New red "No Parking" curbs shall be painted at the following locations:
. along both sides of Via Los Altos from Blackfield Drive to the curve below
32 Via Los Altos;
. along the northwest side of Blackfield Drive from Via Los Altos to the
property at 231 Blackfield Drive;
. along the east side of Reedland Woods Way to the property line with 20
Reedland Woods Way;
. along the west side of Reedland Woods Way to the Kol Shofar property
line with 35 Reedland Woods Way.
"No U-Turn" signs shall be placed along Blackfield Drive above the Via
Los Altos intersection and on Via Los Altos below 32 Via Los Altos, with
precise number and placement of signs to be determined by the Town
Engineer. Tiburon Police shall be authorized to ticket drivers who make
illegal U-turns in these areas.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-C.5 provides:
All CKS-sponsored and CKS-member-sponsored events of200+ persons (except Sabbath
Services and Sunday School) will require a minimum of three monitors/traffic
controllers: I) at the corner of Black field DriveNia Los Altos; 2) CKS driveway at
Reedland Woods Way; and 3) at the CKS parking lot entrance on Via Los Altos.
Additional monitors may be necessary to adequately direct traffic and parking, to be
determined by CKS based upon need. CKS shall inform the Tiburon Police Department
five (5) days in advance of any such event.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-C.6 provides:
The following traffic and parking management measures shall be imposed for events or
combinations of events/activities at CKS with a cumulative attendance above 359 persons
(except for Sunday School programs):
. "Resident Traffic Only" temporary signs placed on Reedland Woods Way
and Via Los Altos.
. "No Parking" temporary signs placed on the southeast side of Blackfield
Drive between CKS and Karen Way.
. Trained traffic control monitors/controllers provided to the satisfaction of
the Tiburon Police Department.
. Total minimum event/service parking shall be calculated by dividing the
expected number of attendees by 2,3 (attendees per vehicle) Adequate
off-site parking (spaces required in excess of 156, calculated at 2.3
persons per vehicle) shall be secured at a remote parking lot or lots in
advance, As a condition of holding the event, written verification of the
34
parking availability must be presented to a CKS designated person by
contract, letter or e-mail from a remote lot owner or operator at least five
(5) days prior to an evenUactivity or service. If such verification is not
timely presented, or is subsequently withdrawn, the event shall be
cancelled unless sufficient substitute off-site parking can be found and
verified in writing prior to the event. Such written verification is to be kept
on file at CKS and made available to the Town upon request. Parking
locations shall be pre-assigned and notification provided by mail.
Attendees will be issued parking passes that indicate which lot (on-site or
off-site) that an attendee will be required to park in, and the parking pass
will be displayed in the windshield during the event or service.
.
Shuttle service to and from the remote parking lot or lots shall be required.
A traffic control monitor shall be provided by CKS at the remote parking
lot to facilitate parking and use of the shuttle by attendees. CKS shall
develop a shuttle program for review and approval by the Director of
Community Development within 120 days ofthis approval. Shuttle runs
shall begin at least 30 minutes prior to the start of an event or service and
shall end no earlier than one hour after the end of the event or service. A
minimum of two shuttle buses shall be in operation at all such times.
Shuttles shall not be diesel powered engines and engines shall not idle
except when loading or unloading.
.
Attendees shall be issued parking passes and maps with directions sent by
mail or e-mail two weeks prior to the event indicating the assigned parking
lot (on-site or off-site) with a copy of the mailed information (map,
directions, sample parking pass) sent to the Neighborhood Advisory
Committee, Tiburon Police Department, and Director of Community
Development. Invitations to events shall include traffic, noise, and
circulation reminders as well as a reminder to please limit noise in the
parking lot and grounds upon arrival and upon leaving an event. CKS
responsible for implementing all required traffic controls.
. For the High Holy Days services, the following shall apply in addition to
the measures identified in B(ii) above:
(a) CKS shall provide a courtesy mailing or e-mailing to Vista Tiburon
Subdivision addresses at least 10 days but no more than 21 days before the
start of High Holy Days services;
(b) Carpool/shuttle/parking permit/information and map shall be
distributed to members at least 21 days before the start of High Holy Days
services. This distribution shall include traffic, noise and circulation
reminders as well as a reminder to please limit noise in the parking lot and
grounds upon arrival and upon leaving an event. For the High Holy Days
services, the following above shall apply and also, carpool, shuttle, parking
35
permit/information and map shall be distributed to members at least 21
days before the start of the High Holy Days services.
Impact 3.3-F:
The project will add traffic to the driveways to the Lower Lot,
thereby causing potential safety impacts at those driveways and
within the parking lot. (DEIR, p. 69.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to
changes in the proposed project the circulation safety impact will be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.3-F.1 and 3.3-F.2.
Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The
impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
The Draft EIR reported that people will access the Lower Lot via a one-way inbound
driveway from Via Los Altos and/or a two-way (in and out) driveway from Reedland
Woods Way. Both of these driveways currently exist, but the R.eedland Woods Way
driveway is currently only for outbound vehicles. This driveway would be reconstructed
to eliminate the steep grade as it approaches Reedland Woods Way as well as to
accommodate inbound and outbound traffic. The existing emergency vehicle gated
driveway on Reedland Woods Way would be eliminated. Access to the new "Upper Lot"
parking area and new drop-off area would be provided by a new driveway extending west
from the northern end ofthe main parking lot (see Figure 4). (DEIR, p. 70.)
The Lower Lot layout and driveways could cause turning movement conflicts near the
driveway to Reedland Woods Way. This is because of the proximity of the driveway to
the new upper lot and to the parking aisles in the lower lot and the Reedland Woods Way
driveway. This is a potentially significant internal circulation safety concern. (DEIR, p.
70.)
After circulation of the Final EIR, revisions to the circulation plan were proposed. As
explained in the supplement to the Final EIR, this change would reduce traffic congestion
on Reedland Woods Way and at the Reedland Woods Way/Blackfield Drive intersection.
(See FEIR Appendix, Exhibit E to Staff Report for October 24, 2006 hearing.) While this
change is not needed to reduce any impact to a less than significant level, it would reduce
the amount of activity and congestion on Reedland Woods Way. Furthermore, mitigation
measure 3.3-C.1 requires the applicant to modifY the parking and circulation plan to
optimize circulation and provides for review of the plan at the Design Review Permit
36
stage. This will further ensure that potential safety impacts in the lower lot are
minimized.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-F.1 requires installation of stop signs at critical intersections on
the site, and Mitigation Measure 3.3-F.2 requires installation of a "no exit" sign at the
parking lot driveway intersection with Via Los Altos. These mitigations will allow for
safe circulation on the site. Implementation of these measures, along with the proposed
changes to the circulation plan, will mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measnres
Mitigation Measure 3.3-F.l provides:
Provide stop signs at the south end of the new driveway to the new Upper Lot and a stop
sign on the parking aisle approach in the Lower Lot driveway just before it reaches the
Reedland Woods Way driveway.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-F.2 provides:
Provide an internal "no exit" sign at the Via Los Altos ingress driveway. (DEIR, p.70.)
Noise
Impact 3,4-B:
The project would increase noise levels in the area surrounding
the project site. (DEIR, pp. 81-88.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that noise
impacts due to future use of the new buildings will be mitigated to a less-than-significant
level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.4-B.l through 3.4-B.5 and by
Alternative 7. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the
environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
The Draft EIR reported that the noise from all various noise sources associated with the
project would be within Town standards (60 dBA Ldn) if perceptible at all. Regarding
large, night time events, the Draft EIR stated that night time events would result "in an
increase in the day-night average noise levels of about I dBA Ldn at nearby residences
37
(increasing average noise levels to 52 to 53 dBA Ldn). (Draft EIR, p. 87.) Although
these noise levels, if perceptible at all, are within the Town standards, the Draft EIR
preparer concluded that "based on the EIR preparers' experience, it is projected that this
noise could be perceived as out of context with the character of the existing nighttime
noise environment, and would likely disturb some nearby residences (primarily the
residents of20, 30, 35,45,65 and 80 Reedland Woods Way and possibly 10 Vista
Tiburon Drive)."
In response to comments, further noise studies were conducted and reported in the Final
EIR. Although noise measurements were only taken on the project site (not at the
surrounding residences), these studies further confirmed that noise generated by the
project would be within Town standards. (Final EIR, p. 43.) The Final EIR preparer
concluded that noise impacts from the project would be significant and unavoidable.
In response, Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. submitted an analysis of the Final EIR's
conclusions (Salter Report). The Salter Report explains that the Town typically uses an
annualized Ldn as the ruling metric to gauge overall changes in the noise environment.
This is the standard the Town has applied to similar projects within the Town such as the
Tiburon Peninsula Club and the Belvedere Tennis Club. The Salter Report also explains
that applying this standard and assuming 75 events a year, the increase in the annualized
Ldn would be less than one decibel, which would be a less- than-significant impact.
Also after the Final EIR, the applicant proposed Alternative 7, which substantially
reduced the number of weekend events and attendance at those events, which was the
main source of the noise impacts. With this reduction, any night time disturbance to the
neighbors of the project would be relatively rare. Given the infrequency of events, and
also considering the project will be within Town standards for noise, this impact would
be less than significant under Alternative 7. The Town's noise experts agreed with this
conclusion. (Appendix to Final EIR, attached as Exhibit E to the Staff Report for the
October 24,2006 hearing; letter from lllingsworth and Rodkin.)
After circulation of the Final EIR and the Planning Commission's denial of the
application, the Town Council sub-committee suggested further measures to reduce noise
impacts from the project. In addition to the reductions in the number of events and
attendance at those events required by the project approval, the following mitigation
measures will reduce potential noise impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.4-8.1 provides:
Doors and windows ofthe multi-purpose room should remain in the closed position
during large (100 or more peopletor amplified indoor events (such as life-cycle events)
38
except for the three High Holy Day services (when they can be left open only during the
services).
Mitigation Measure 3A-B.2 provides:
Sound rated doors with a minimum of STC 35 should be used along exterior walls of the
multi-purpose room to reduce noise impacts on nearby residents during indoor amplified
events.
Mitigation Measure 3A-B.3 provides:
Indoor noise build-up in the multi-purpose room should be reduced through the treatment
of room surfaces with acoustically absorptive materials. A qualified acoustical specialist
should review the final design, prior to construction.
Mitigation Measure 3A-BA provides:
A mechanical ventilation system, suitable to the Town of Tiburon building official, must
be provided in the multi-purpose room to allow occupants the option of maintaining
windows and doors closed.
Mitigation Measure 3A-B.5 provides:
All HV AC units shaH be baffled to reduce noise to surrounding residents. HV AC units
shall not be operated after the facility is closed each day. The Building Permit application
specifications shaH include best practices for minimizing sound from all ventilation and
air circulation equipment.
Mitigation Measure 3A-B.6 provides:
No outdoor amplification will be allowed except for the annual Sunday School closing
ceremony, at which time audio speakers shall be faced toward the CKS facility and away
from surrounding residential uses. For any other event at which exterior amplified sound
is proposed, CKS must secure a Special Event Permit from the Town. No loud bells or
buzzers associated with any use on the site shall be allowed. Any system employed to
alert students as to class times should not be clearly audible beyond the property
boundary. Landscaping shall be enhanced to reduce noise to the surrounding
neighborhood.
Mitigation Measure 3A-B.7 provides:
39
Use of the Courtyard for special events is authorized only for the three High Holy Days
and Sukkot and periodic congregational lunches. Outdoor use of the Courtyard during
events other than the High Holy Days, Sukkot, congregational lunches, and Sunday
School graduation services shall be limited to people stepping out for air and casual
conversation. No food or drinks shall be served in the Courtyard except for Sukkot and
congregational lunches, and no other organized activities will be held in the Courtyard.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-8.8
The applicant shall enclose an area adjacent to the multi-purpose room to be used for
vehicles and activities related to catering and clean-up efforts.
Impact 3.4-C:
Construction of project improvements would generate
construction noise over a period exceeding one year. (DEIR, p.
92.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that
construction period noise impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the
imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.4-C.1 through 3.4-C.5. Accordingly, changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a
less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
The significance of construction noise impacts is a function of the type and duration of
construction activities occurring at the project site. The duration of project construction
is unknown at this time. Project construction activities would include clearing and
constructing buildings, driveways, parking facilities, and landscaping.
The highest noise levels would be generated during the grading and site preparation
phase with lower noise levels occurring during building construction. Table II in the
DEIR (p. 90) describes the amount of noise that typical pieces of construction equipment
produce at a distance of 50 feet from the piece of equipment. Table 12 in the DEIR (p.
91) describes average equivalent noise levels near construction sites.
Large pieces of earthmoving equipment such as graders, scrapers, and bulldozers
generate maximum noise levels of 80 to 85 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Maximum
hourly average construction generated noise levels of about 81 dBA to 88 dBA measured
40
at a distance of 50 feet from the site could intermittently occur during busy construction
periods. These noise levels typically drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of
distance between the noise source and receptor.
Noise exposure at residences would depend on both distance and shielding from terrain
and/or structures. Due to the topography of the area, hilltop residences would be exposed
to unshielded noise levels. The nearest noise sensitive receptors are located 300 or more
feet from proposed building envelopes and 60 feet from the proposed parking lot. Hourly
average noise levels would be approximately 80 to 85 dBA at receptors located 60 feet
from busy construction activity and approximately 65 to 72 dBA at receptors located 300
feet from busy construction activity. Noise levels would be lower in areas further from
construction or shielded by intervening structures or terrain. Construction noise levels
would be substantially above the ambient at receptors in the vicinity of the project site,
especially during the construction of the new parking lot.
Given the potential for increases in noise at adjacent residential land uses as a result of
project construction, the construction project would cause a potentially significant noise
impact. The allowable construction hours set forth in Chapter 13-6 of the Town
Municipal Code substantially reduce the potential disturbance resulting from construction
activities. As stated in the purpose of the ordinance, the limitation on hours is intended to
balance the need to construct with the right to quiet. Additional controls are
recommended for this project to reduce the effects of construction noise at adjacent
residential land uses
The mitigation measures below will reduce construction noise impacts to a less-than-
significant level by implementing the measures set forth in the Town of Tiburon's Noise
Ordinance. In addition construction equipment mufflers and maintenance and idling
prohibitions will be required. A Noise Disturbance Coordinator will be responsible for
responding and addressing construction noise complaints. Implementation of these
measures will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.4-C.l provides:
Allowable construction hours shall be regulated by Chapter 13-6 of the Town Municipal
Code. There shall be no construction truck traffic on Sundays or holidays. The
allowable hours of construction shall be conspicuously posted on a sign at the project
entrance.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-C.2 provides:
41
Properly muffle all internal combustion engine driven construction equipment (i.e.,
equipped with stock manufacturers' supplied mufflers or equivalent).
Mitigation Measure 3.4-C.3 provides:
Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-C.4 provides:
Select "quiet" construction equipment (i.e., equipment that is designed to operate more
quietly than typical pieces of the same equipment), particularly air-compressors, standby
engines, etc. whenever possible.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-C.5 provides:
Designate a "noise disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding to
any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine
the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. starting too early, bad muffler, loud contractor
radio, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem.
Conspicuously post the telephone number and name of the disturbance coordinator at the
construction site.
Visual and Aesthetic Ouality
Impact 3.5-A:
Proposed building additions, parking areas, and driveway would
change views from public vantage points. (DEIR, p. 102.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to
changes in the proposed project the visual impact will be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.5-A.l through 3.5-A.3.
Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The
impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
Proposed improvements will be visible only from short sections of the three adjacent
streets and a distant street to the east. The multi-purpose room will be visible from short
sections of Black field Drive, Reedland Woods Way, Upper Cecilia Way, and Via Los
42
Altos. The new classrooms and parking lot would be visible from a short section of
Reedland Woods Way. The new driveway would be visible [rom short sections of
Blackfield Drive and Reedland Woods Way. From these vantage points, the proposed
new buildings and circulation improvements will not affect a scenic vista nor
substantially change existing public views. The following provides a more detailed
discussion of the changes to public views. (DEIR, p. 100.)
From Blackfield Drive
As shown on View I, starting at Karen Way, a small section of the roof of the multi-
purpose room would be visible. However, this change does not affect a scenic vista nor
significantly degrade the visual character of this view. Further north, project
improvements would not be visible again until one approaches the Reedland Woods Way
intersection. Traveling north, one would look to the left (northwest) and see the new
driveway. (DEIR, p. 100.)
As shown on View 3, traveling west (downhill) on Blackfield Drive from the point where
the site is first visible, one would see the top ofthe multi-purpose room. One would also
see part of the new driveway from this location. The changes in view will not be
substantially noticeable, particularly given that the new buildings will not be painted
white as shown in the simulations. (DEIR, p. 100.)
From Reedland Woods Way
Starting at Blackfield Drive, one will see the new driveway traveling up the hill to the
turnaround. Further north, one will be able to see a part of the new classrooms for about
30 feet. As one passes the existing cypress grove, one would see the new parking lot and
any cars parked there, at least until such time as proposed landscaping is sufficiently
mature to screen the lot and parked cars. The driveway will be landscaped along its
eastern side, so that once this landscaping is mature, views of the driveway would be
buffered or screened. However, the proposed landscaping trees at thus location are
western redbud. This is a deciduous tree which means there would be little screening
during the winter months. The new views of the driveway and the new parking lot would
be potentially significant. Heading south, one may have a view of the multi-purpose room
roof, though the new roof is not any higher than the existing main building roof and may
not be visible behind the existing roof. (DEIR, p. 101.)
From Via Los Altos
It will be possible to see the roof of the multi-purpose room as one passes the driveway to
the lower lot and the driveway to the upper lot. The views of the building walls would be
screened, so only the clerestory-windowed roof would be visible. This would be a minor
change in views from this road. Most drivers would not even see the building as their
view would be focused straight-ahead along the road. (DEIR, p. 101.)
From Upper Cecilia Way
43
The new multi-purpose roof and upper walls wi\l be visible from the north end of this
street. The existing building is barely discernible in the distant landscape. Assuming the
new multi-purpose room is painted an earth-tone color (as proposed), it would not
substantially alter the view from this vantage point. (DEIR, p. 101.)
Prom Ring Mountain Open Space Preserve
From many vantage points on the Ring Mountain Trail, one wi\l be able to see the roof
and some of the clerestory windows of the new multi-purpose room to the south of the
existing building. The new turnaround, parking lot area, and any cars parked in it would
be visible. The new classrooms and the driveway may be visible from a few locations.
Views of the site are from 0.25 mile to nearly 1.0 mile distant from the trail. In addition
to the distance, views of much of the site are screened or buffered by the tall trees on the
site, especially the eucalyptus grove at the north end. While the new buildings will be
visible, they would be inconspicuous additions to a landscape dominated by views of
large homes at upper elevations and established neighborhoods at lower elevations. So
long as the buildings and roofs are an earth-tone color, they will not significantly change
these distant views. What will be a more obvious change is the new turnaround and
parking area and cars parked there. These areas are more open (i.e., less buffered by
large trees) and will be visible from a number of vantage points. However, the area that
would be developed is not large and landscaping is planned along its north and east sides.
This is a potentially significant impact. (DEIR, p. 10 1.)
After circulation of the Final EIR, the applicant and the Town Council sub-committee
proposed adding an enclosed catering/service bay to reduce noise impacts. The enclosure
would be about 800 square feet, or about the size ofa four-car garage. Because the Town
Council has also determined to reduce the square footage of the multi-purpose room, the
project over-all will be smaller than originally proposed. The enclosed catering/service
bay will be a single story and at grade with existing buildings. No changes in the
driveway or circulation plan will be required. The Town Council has therefore
determined that the addition of the enclosed catering/service bay will not add any new
significant visual impacts or substantially increase visual impacts.
The project would have potentially significant impacts to public views from Ring
Mountain Open Space Preserve and Reedland Woods Way. (DEIR, p. 102.)
Mitigation Measure 3.5-A.l requires buildings and roofs to be constructed with earth-
tone colors. Mitigation Measures 3.5-A.2 and 3.5-A.3 require installation oflandscaping
and maintenance of that landscaping around the new parking lot. The Final EIR added
the requirement that landscaping be pruned so as not to block panoramic views from
surrounding neighborhoods. (FEIR, p. 423.) The Town Council has also added a
requirement that landscaping shall be designed to minimize light and glare from the
project. These landscaping mitigations will screen the parking lot from sensitive off-site
public vantage points. The mitigation measures will reduce the visual impact to a less-
than-significant level.
44
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-A.l provides:
Buildings and roofs will be earth-tone colors as approved by the Town.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-A.2 provides:
The east side of the driveway, the area between the turnaround and the new parking lot,
and the east and north sides of the new parking lot shall be landscaped with non-
deciduous trees. The landscaping shall include trees and shrubs that are fast-growing
and, preferably, drought-resistant. This landscaping shall be installed as part of the first
phase of site development, if the project is not all constructed at the same time. The
following lists species that could be used to provide hedge screening. They have been
selected because they make good hedges and are fast-growing. The plants marked with
an asterisk are also low water users:
. Escallonia spp. *
. Garrya elliptica (coast silktassel)*
. Grevillea robusta (silk oak)
. Grewia occidenta/is (lavender starflower)
. /lex spp. (holly)*
. Melaleuca spp. *
. Nerium oleander (oleander)*
. Olmediella betschleraria (Guatemalan holly)
. Osmanthusfragrans (sweet olive)*
. Pittosporum spp. *
. Rhamnus alaternus (buckthorn)*
. Thevetia spp.
. Viburnum spp. *
Landscaping shall be fertilized and irrigated per the protocol established in a written
report by a landscape architect or arborist. The applicant shall be responsible for
fertilizing, irrigating, and replacing dead trees until such time as the tree screen blocks
views from neighboring residences on Reedland Woods Way. The applicant shall prune
and trim planted trees and shrubs so they are properly maintained and do not block
panoramic views from surrounding residences. Landscaping for the entire site shall be
maximized to reduce light and glare from the site.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-A.3 provides:
45
Plant the entire west side of the new parking lot with trees or shrubs.
Impact 3.5-B:
Proposed building additions, parking areas, and driveway would
change views from private vantage points. (DEIR, pp. 105-106.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to
changes in the proposed project the visual impact will be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.5-A.2 through 3.5-A.3 and
Mitigation Measure 3.5-B.1. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
From Blackfield Drive and Karen Way
Residents of 200, 210, and 220 Blackfield Drive (see View 2) and 251 and 254 Karen
Way (see View I) will see part of the multi-purpose room. These views are all from a
lower elevation, so the new building will be part of the main building, but what is more
visible is the residence at 32 Via Los Altos above the main building and the lower
parking lot. The views are often buffered by intervening trees. The new building will not
block any scenic vista or substantially degrade the existing views. Residents of two or
three of these homes will also have a view of part of the new driveway. This view would
replace a view of two trees and a grassy hillside. While the change will be evident, it is
relatively minor and would not be expected to significantly degrade existing views.
(DEIR, p. 103.)
The residence at 230 Blackfield Drive would have a clear view ofthe new driveway,
turnaround, and classroom wing (see View 4 which would likely be similar to the view
from this home) Residents of23l Blackfield Drive would also likely have views of the
driveway and possibly part of the new classroom wing. While there would be a change
in views, the buildings and other improvements would not block a scenic vista nor
degrade scenic resources. (DEIR, p. 103.)
From Reedland Woods Way
From 35 Reedland Woods Way (RWW), one will see the new turnaround and parking lot,
the top of the new multi-purpose room, and the new classroom wing. As one can see
from Photo 7, these additions will be quite evident from the upper windows of this home.
A similar view is expected for the upper story of the adjacent 45 RWW residence.
(DEIR, p. 103.)
46
From 20 and 30 RWW, one will see the new turnaround, parking lot, and the new
classroom wing and possibly the top of the new multi-purpose room from the upper
windows. As one can see from Photos 5 and 6 and View 4, all but the new multi-purpose
room will be quite visible from these two residences. (DEIR, p. 103.)
From the upper story of 65 RWW one will be able to see the new parking lot (more will
be visible than shown in Photo 4 during the winder when the trees lose their leaves) and
part of the classroom wing through the eucalyptus trees. Residents of 60 R WW will also
have views of some of the new improvements. From upper story windows, it is likely one
can also see the parking lot area. Residents of 80 R WW will also see part of the
classroom wing through the eucalyptus trees. (DEIR, p. 103.)
The change in views for 20,30,35,45,65, and 80 RWW would be substantial though
existing views would not typically be defined as scenic. (DEIR, p. 103.)
From Via Los Altos
View 5 shows that the residents of 32 Via Los Altos (VLA) will look down on the new
multi-purpose room. They likely also will look directly down onto the new classroom
wing. The residents of 31 VLA will also see the new multi-purpose room but probably
not the new classroom wing. The residents of 38 VLA will have a filtered view of the
new classroom wing, but the intervening eucalyptus trees substantively block that view.
The multi-purpose room will be quite evident to the residents of 31 and 32 VLA.
However, the building will not block a scenic vista. The existing view of the main
building on the site would not be characterized as scenic. (DEIR, p. 104.)
Some residents of homes further uphill on VLA will also have distant views of parts of
the multi-purpose room, and parking lot. These views are so distant that the impacts on
these residents would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 104.)
From Vista Tiburon Drive
A shown on Photo 10, the classroom wing would be quite visible from 10 Vista Tiburon
Drive (VTD). Though photos were not taken from other residences on this street, it is
likely that residents of 30, 40, 45, 50, and 60 VTD will have partial views of the
classroom wing, possibly the roof of the multi-purpose room, and (for the northernmost
homes) the new parking lot. Many of these views will be blocked or filtered by
intervening eucalyptus trees. The new improvements would not block scenic vistas nor
degrade scenic resources. (DEIR, p. 104.)
Prom Paseo Mirasol
47
No photos were taken from residences on this street. However, it is likely that some
residences in this area will have views of the turnaround/drop off and new parking lot.
Some may have partial views of the top of the multi-purpose room and possibly part of
the classroom wing. These visual changes would be relatively minor given the distance
from these residences and the trees on the site. None of these views of the project site
would likely be characterized as scenic. (DEIR, p. 104.)
From Other Streets
. Residents of 80 and 90 Monterey Drive and 220 Rancho Drive will look down and
see the roof of the new multi-purpose roof.
. The residents of 4, 6, and 10 Corte San Fernando will have partial, filtered views of
parts of the multi-purpose room and possibly the driveway and turnaround.
. The multi-purpose room will be visible from numerous residences in the Upper
Cecilia Way/Circle Road neighborhood. However, the building addition would be
hard to even see from this distance. The view of the site area from these homes would
continue to be dominated by site trees and the home at 32 Via Los Altos.
. The project would also be visible from more distant homes to the east. These visual
changes would be relatively minor given the distance from these residences and the
trees on the site.
None of these views of the project site from these vantage points would likely be
characterized as scenic. The project would not block scenic vistas or degrade scenic
resources for the residents of these homes.
Summary
The project will be most noticeable to residents of up to 8 residences on Reedland Woods
Way,3 residences on Via Los Altos, 2 on Monterey Drive, 7 residences on Vista Tiburon
Drive, 5 residences on Blackfield Drive, 3 residences on Corte San Fernando, 2
residences on Karen Way, and possibly a few residences on Paseo Mirasol. However, in
no case will project improvements block an existing scenic vista. As shown in the
accompanying photographs and photomontages, the site is an institutional development
set in eucalyptus trees surrounded by homes. While it does contain some open space
qualities (i.e., it is not subdivided and developed with homes), it would not typically be
considered to have high scenic value. From most vantage points, existing trees and
buildings would screen or filter views of new project improvements. Residents that
would be most affected are residents of20, 30, 35, and 45 Reedland Woods Way, 10
Vista Tiburon Drive, and 31 and 32 Via Los Altos. The change in views to these
residents is a potentially significant impact. (DEIR, p. 105.)
48
Project improvements are required to undergo Site Plan and Architectural review.
During this review, the Town's Design Review Board will assess the visual changes
inventoried above and require changes to the design to minimize the visual changes to
protect privacy and views of surrounding neighbors. (DEIR, p. 105.)
The project will be painted in earth tone colors that would reduce the visual effects. The
project also contains landscaping to soften the appearances of buildings and screen
parking. This includes a Meditation Garden at the north end of the classroom wing.
(DEIR, p. 105.)
The additional landscaping recommended for Impact 3.5-A (e.g., 3.5-A.2 and 3.5-A.3) is
also required for this impact. In addition, mitigation measure 3.5-B.l requires the
landscape plan to included fast-growing shrubs and trees to block views of the new
driveway, and landscaping for the west side of the classroom wing. The additional
recommended landscaping should substantially reduce impacts to residents of Reedland
Woods Way homes and the northernmost Blackfield Drive homes. It is not possible to
screen buildings from homes above the site. However, the changes in views from these
homes is considered to be less than significant given recommended mitigation measures,
existing screening, and/or the existing quality of the view of the site. (DEIR, p. 105.)
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-8.1 provides:
The landscaping plan will be expanded to include planting fast-growing shrubs or trees
that will block views of the new driveway from the east and additional fast-growing trees
on the slope below the south side of the multi-purpose room. Landscaping shall be
required for the west side of the classroom wing.
Impact 3.5-C:
Headlights on vehicles using the new driveway and parking area
could intrude on residences north of the site. (DEIR, p. 106.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to
changes in the proposed project the visual impact will be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.5-C.l and 3.5-C.2.
Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The
impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
49
The Draft EIR reported that headlights on vehicles traveling west (uphill) on the new
driveway, around the drop off/turnaround, and into the new upper parking area could
intrude off the site and possibly shine into three residences on Reedland Woods Way and
one residence on Paseo Mirasol. The applicant proposes to construct a series of three
berms along the north side of the new parking area. These berms would be 1-2 feet
higher than the adjacent parking area. These berms would be planted with 9 redbuds and
8 coast live oaks. In addition, to the north of these new planted berms is an existing
landscaped berm immediately south of the wooden fence between the site and the
residence at 35 Reedland Woods Way. (DEIR, p. 106.)
It is not expected that headlights would be visible at Reedland Woods Way residences for
vehicles using the new driveway. The driveway is oriented southeast/northwest. So,
headlights on vehicles traveling west (uphill) would be aimed towards the northwest
corner of the project site and not towards residences on Reedland Woods Way.
Headlights on vehicles traveling east (downhill) would be visible at 230 Blackfield Drive,
though the angle of the headlights makes it unlikely that the headlights would directly
intrude into windows of that home. Headlights on vehicles using the driveway would not
intrude on residences on Via Los Altos as existing and proposed project buildings would
screen views of vehicle headlights from Via Los Altos residences. Vehicles using the
turnaround would have headlights pointed at 20 and possibly 30 and 35 Reedland Woods
Way. (DEIR, p. 106.)
Headlights on vehicles using the new parking area could intrude into windows of homes
at 20 and 30 Reedland Woods Way and one home to the east on Paseo Mirasol. It is
likely that once proposed landscaping is mature, that the new landscaping plus the
existing landscaping to the east of the parking area would screen all or some views of
these headlights. The existing cypress grove between the eastern parking area and
Reedland Woods Way would likely screen most headlights for cars at the eastern side of
that lot. It is possible that these headlights might not intrude into all or any of the homes
cited here. Elevation sections prepared by the applicant (see Figure 8) show that the
residents of 20 and 35 Reedland Woods Way would not see headlights in the parking lot
when planned landscaping is mature. However, these elevations do not show if the
landscaping would block headlight intrusion from cars driving around the turnaround and
in the upper part of the new parking lot. Absent a headlight intrusion study based on
survey data (before and after landscaping matures), it will be assumed, as a worst case
analysis, that headlights may intrude into some windows in as many as 3 residences on
Reedland Woods Way and one residence on Blackfield Drive for a number of years until
planned landscaping matures (and possibly even after landscaping matures). Headlight
intrusion is a visual invasion of privacy and is considered a potentially significant impact.
(DEIR, p. 106.)
Subsequently, several commenters requested that the EIR include a headlight intrusion
study and assessment of a more complete lighting plan than was submitted for EIR
50
analysis. The applicant's architects prepared a headlight intrusion study, which was peer-
reviewed by the Town Engineer. That study along with the revised lighting plan is
attached after Master Response 8 (it also includes an analysis of the feasibility of an
underground parking garage, an analysis of the feasibility of constructing a driveway
from Blackfield Drive to the lower parking lot, and a feasibility analysis of changing the
grade of the upper driveway on Via Los Altos). (FEIR, pp. 46-47.)
To summarize the headlight intrusion study, headlights from vehicles on the site would
intrude into the second story of the home at 220 Blackfield Drive (at a distance of 120
feet) and the second story of 20 Reedland Woods Way (at a distance of 100 feet).
Headlights from vehicles driving around the turnaround would not affect the ground floor
of 35 Reedland Woods Way because an existing fence would shield the residence from
direct headlight intrusion. The home at 220 Blackfield Drive would be affected by
vehicles in the lower lot, but this is an existing condition. In addition, Mitigation
Measure 10 for Impact 3.5-D requires planting landscaping between the parking lot and
this residence to block headlight spill off the site. (FEIR, pp. 46-47.)
Mitigation Measure 3.5-C.l requires construction of a berm and/or fence to block
headlight intrusion of a home on Reedland Woods Way. Mitigation Measure 3.5-C.2
allows the Town to monitor the project after completion to ensure there is no additional
headlight intrusion, and to require additional improvements to address that intrusion, if it
occurs. Mitigation Measure 3.5-C.l has been revised to eliminate the need for a headlight
intrusion study, as that study was completed prior to circulation of the Final EIR. The
DEIR conclusions regarding aesthetic impacts are not changed by this additional
information. The only change is to remove the need to conduct a future headlight
intrusion study and to require the specific mitigations to ensure there is no intrusion.
(FEIR, pp. 46-47.) The mitigation measures will reduce the visual impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-C.l provides:
A berm and/or solid fence will be constructed on the east side of the new parking lot that
will prevent headlight intrusion of the residence at 20 Reedland Woods Way.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-C.2 provides:
The Town will have the right to monitor the project once the new circulation
improvements are completed to confirm there is no headlight intrusion into residences. If
such intrusion does occur, the Town will have the right to require remedial improvements
to eliminate such intrusion.
51
Impact 3.5-D:
Project lighting would change nighttime views in the area.
(DEIR, p. 109.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to
changes in the proposed project the visual impact will be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.5-D.l through 3.5-D.ll.
Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The
impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
The following describes the lighting the applicant proposes to use for the project.
Lower Parking Lot
The applicant proposes to install new lower-wattage lights on the existing poles. These
lights will have shields installed which will prevent light trespass and glare beyond the
property line. The range oflight levels will be 0.05 to 2.0 fc. A photocell timer will turn
the lights on at sunset and off at II :00 p.m. (DEIR, p. 107.)
Upper Parking Lot
The applicant proposes to light this lot with lights on 10-foot poles. All lights will be
aimed away from Reedland Woods Way so there would be no light trespass or glare
beyond the property line. The range of light levels would be 0.05 to 2.0 fc. A photocell
timer will turn the lights on at sunset and off at II :00 p.m. (DEIR, p. 107.)
Stairs and Paths
The applicant proposes to use low bollard lights. No lights would be visible beyond the
property line. The range of light levels would be 0.1 to 3.0 fc. A photocell timer will
turn the lights on at sunset and most bollards off at 11 :00 p.m. A few bollards would be
left on all night. (DEIR, p. 108.)
The project application does not include a lighting plan showing the location of where
these lights are proposed or whether other exterior lights in areas other than the two
parking lots, the paths, and the stairs are proposed. (DEIR, p. 108.)
Much of the site (other than the eucalyptus grove) is already lit with lights. The area
where the new driveway, turnaround, and parking lot are planned is the one area where
there are not existing lights. Lights in this area could adversely affect nighttime views
from homes on Reedland Woods Way and possibly other locations. New lights on the
new multi-purpose courtyard could be visible from off the site. Lights in the new multi-
purpose room would illuminate the clerestory windows in the upper part of the building
52
and could be visible off the site. The clerestory windows are north-facing and could be
visible to some residents to the north. (DEIR, p. 108.)
The existing parking lot is lit; lights are turned off at 10:00 p.m. except on special
occasions. As originally proposed, lights could be on until II :00 p.m. The Draft EIR
determined that the project would result in new lighting in the area during nighttime
hours. Any lights that cause glare or light trespass off the site would be considered to
have a potentially significant impact. (DEIR, p. 108.)
Subsequent to circulation ofthe Final EIR, the applicant and the Town Council sub-
committee proposed additional changes to the project that would further reduce lighting
impacts. Specifically, the sub-committee recommended changes in the hours of
operation, and black-out blinds for any skylights. Those recommendations have been
incorporated into the mitigation below.
Mitigation Measures 3.5-D.l through 3.5-D.ll require that lighting be installed and
managed to eliminate light trespass or glare off the site and to turn lighting off when not
needed for access and security purposes. The recommended mitigation measures would
reduce the lighting impacts. Implementation of these measures would ensure that there
would be no direct light trespass or glare off the property. While certain areas of the site
that are currently dark would now be illuminated for part of the night, this illumination
would be contained and would not be expected to substantially affect views from
surrounding residences. The replacement of existing lights with new lower, shielded
lights would reduce the existing light impacts from Kol Shofar floodlights and globe
lights. Requiring landscaping along the eastern edge of the existing parking lot would
eliminate existing headlight intrusion and lighting impacts to the east of the site as well as
generally mitigate visual impacts for homes on Blackfield Drive and Corte San Fernando.
The elimination of these existing light sources is a beneficial impact of the project. The
lighting mitigations recommended above would reduce the impact to a less than
significant level. DEIR, p. 109.)
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.l provides:
Lighting of all outdoor use areas and walkways shall use low-level walkway lights and
bollards.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.2 provides:
Floodlighting of walls and rooflines will be prohibited.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.3 provides:
53
Building entries would be lighted with low-level fixtures using concealed lamps.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-DA provides:
Security lighting of the new driveway, the turnaround, and the two upper parking areas
will use low-level bollards with shielded lights unless this poses a safety hazard (as
determined by the Police Department), in which case the area shall be lit using as few as
possible shielded lights at 10 foot height with lights aimed away from Reedland Woods
Way residences.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.5 provides:
The large lower parking lot will be lit using shielded lights at 10 foot height with lights
aimed away from Blackfield Drive.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.6 provides:
Parking lot lighting shall be on timers to turn off no later than 9:30 pm on weekdays. The
duration of lighting may be extended by manual override device when occasions demand,
but in no event shall be kept on later than 10:30 pm except in accordance with permitted
hours of use as identified in Table I and for High Holy Days, Selichot, Shauvot, and the
second night of Passover, at which times the parking lot lighting shall remain on until no
later than thirty minutes after event ending time.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.7 provides:
No direct lighting or glare will be allowed to be visible from off the property through the
multi-purpose room windows. All skylights in the multi-purpose room shall be equipped
with blackout blinds to be closed at sunset whenever the facility is in use.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.8 provides:
Existing security lights on and around the main building shall be replaced with shielded
lights.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.9 provides:
Lighting (including existing lights) shall be designed to provide needed security and
safety without escaping from the site. Lighting shall be reviewed by the Design Review
Board. The Design Review Board shall retain the authority to review project lighting
once it is installed and to be able to require replacement and/or additional light shielding
to minimize light escape from the site.
54
~~,
:S;lP!^Old 1'3-~'E ;llllSU;lW UO!ltlll!l!W
s;unstlaw UO!ltl~!l!W
('011 'd '~I3a) '1;l^;lI1UU:Jy!uJol!S
uuq1 sS;lI tl 01 p;l:Jnp;ll ;lq PlnoM S;llnSU;lUl UO!ltlJol!l!Ul P;lPU;lUlUlO:J;ll ;lq1 JolU!Pru1SUO:J
JO SPtldUl! Ampuo:J;ls ;lq1 'SlU;lUl;ll!nb;ll UJol!S;lP UMol1;l;lUl 01 P;lUJol!S;lP S;l:JU;lJ puu
p;ldtl:JsPUtll ;l.!tl SUll;lq ltlq1 Jolupnsu;l AH ';l:JU;lJ 1U;l:Jufptl Utl :J!Ul!Ul ollI!nq ;lq ;l:JU;lJ M;lU
;lq1 puu p;ldtl:JspuUl ;lq Ull;lq M;lU ;lq11uq1 ;ll!nb;ll Z'3-~'E pUtl \'3-~'E S;llllSU;lW UO!ltlJol!l!W
('0 II 'd '~EIO) -SPtldUl! Ampuo:J;ls
1Utl:J!.!!uJol!S Alltl!lU;llOd ;lq PlnoM ;lS;lql 'P;lUJol!S;lP Alltl:J!1;lq1s;lu10U StlM 1! J! SlU!od
;lJoltl1UU^ ;lUlUS ;ls;lq1 UlOlJ SM;l!^ ;l^!pUlllUUn U! 1lns;ll Plno:J ;l:JU;lJ pOOM P!IOS U 'AptlI!Ul!S
'l;l;lllS 1tlq1 JoluolU S;lUlOq ;lUlOS pUtl AU1\\. spoo1\\. PUU[P;l;l~ UlOlJ M;l!^ ;l^!ptlllltlUn lItl
;lP!^Old PlnoM 1! 'p;ldtl:JSPlItlI10U StlM UU;lq ;lqlJI 'punOluwn1 ;lqlJO ;lP!S 1Stl;l ;lq1 JolUO(tl
Alq!ssod PUtllOl JolU!~lud M;lU ;lqlJO S;lP!S 1SU;l pUU qllOU ;lqlJO SUO!llod 1SU;llltl JoluOltl
;l:JU;lJ pOOM P!IOS lO/PUU UU;lq tl JO UO!Pru1SUO:J ;lq1 ;ll!nb;ll Plno:J SlqJol!IPtl;lq JolU!U;l;ll:JS
a;)Uap!A3 pUll Sptl.tl
'PA;lllUtl:J!.!!uJol!S-uuq1-ss;l1 tl 01 P;lluJol!l!Ul S! l:JtldUl! Ampuo:J;ls
;lql 'lU;lUlUOl!^U;l ;lq1 UO Sp;lJ.P 1Utl:Jy!uJol!S ;lq1 P!OAUlO ;lltlJol!l!Ul q:J!qM p;lfOld p;lsodold
;lq1 'OlU! P;lltllOdIo:JU! lO 'U! p;ll!nb;ll U;l;lq ;l^tlq SUO!ltll;llItllO S;lJolUtlq:J 'AlJolU!PlO:J:JV
'Z'3-~'E pUtl ['3-~'E S;llllStl;lW UO!ltlJol!l!WJO UO!l!sodUl! ;lq1 Aq PA;lllUtl:J!J!UJol!S
-Utlq1-ss;l1 tl 01 P;lltlJol!l!Ul ;lq ll!M PtldUl! Itlns!A ;lq1 p;lfOld p;lsodold ;lq1 U! S;lJolUtlq:J
01 ;lnp 1tlq1 spu!.! Aq;ll;lq l!:Juno;) UMol ;lq1 'plO:J;ll ;ll!lU;l ;lq1 pUtl ~I3 ;lq1 uodn P;lsuH
~U!PU!.tl
('011 'd '~I3a) "Ila.ltl aql U! SMa!A palJll
AlaS.laAptl Plno3 a-S"f ptldWI .loJ papuaWW03a.l SUO!ltl~!l!W
:3-S"f plldwI
';lUl!l ;lUltlS ;lq11tllI!nq lltl10U S! p;lfOld ;lqlJ! 'UO!PIUlSUO:J p;lfOld
JO ;lstlqd 1Sl!.! ;lqlJO llud su P;llltl1SU! ;lq nuqs ;lAOqtl P;llS!1 SUO!ltlJol!l!Ul JolU!lqJol!( ;lq11lV
:S;lP!AOld I I'a-~'E ;llllStl;lW UO!luJol!l!W
'SlqJol!IPtl;lq lU:J pUtl S.!tl:J JO SM;l!A ;lq1 ~:Jolq
ollqJol!;lq 1U;l!:lmns 01 MOlJol Al~:J!nb UU:J 1uq1 S;l;l.IJ lO sqruqs JolU!MOlJol-1SUJ q1!M p;ldu:Jspuuf
;lq lluqs lOI JolU!~.!tld JolU!lS!X;l ;lIll 1U ;l:JU;lJ ;lUOPA:J ;lq1 JO 1SU;l A(;:lltl!P;lUlUl! tl;l.!tl ;lql
:S;lP!AOld OI'a-~'E ;llllStl;lW UO!ltlJol!l!W
Any berm will be landscaped concentrating on the use of native species. The landscaping
will be approved by the Town during Site Plan and Architectural Review.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-E.2 provides:
Any fences required for headlight screening will undergo Site Plan and Architectural
Review. It is recommended that the fence(s) mimic the existing 6-foot solid wood fence
separating the site from 35 Reedland Woods Way. (DEIR, p. 110.)
Fire Protection and Emerl!:encv Medical Services
Impact 3.6-A:
The project would generate increased calls for fire response and
emergency medical aid. (DEIR, p. 112.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to
changes in the proposed project the fire response and emergency medical aid impact will
be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 3.6-
A.l. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The
impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
The increased usage of the site would increase the calls for service for fires and medical
emergencies. The project in and of itself would not require hiring additional staff or
purchasing additional equipment. There is adequate fireflow to the site, though
additional hydrants may be needed. Additional traffic on local streets would not
significantly interfere with emergency response or evacuation in the area (Giordano,
personal communication, 4/27/05). However, unless the project is designed to meet
SMFPD access and other requirements, there could be a potentially significant impact.
(DEIR, p. 112.)
Rationale
Mitigation Measure 3.6-A.l requires that the project be constructed to comply with the
requirements set forth by the Southern Marin Fire Protection District. The mitigation
measure will reduce the fire impact to a less-than-significant level.
56
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.6-A.l provides:
Final design shall comply with all SMFPD requirements including but not limited to
construction materials, fire alarm system(s), access and egress within the building
enveloped and parking areas, proper "on-site" fire flow, fire sprinkler system(s), proper
vegetation management, driveway design and layout, and hydrant placement.
. The existing Ring Mountain School driveway and proposed new driveway
must be maintained open and free of parked cars at all times except in
designated parking spaces, and any valet parking plan must reflect this.
They will be red-striped. The fire district will review and approve the valet
parking plan.
. Reedland Woods Way and Via Los Altos will be kept free of parked cars
that could obstruct emergency vehicle access, per review by the Fire
Protection District.
. For the Ring Mountain School driveway, red curbing should be maintained
along this driveway, and the driveway turnaround shall comply with
County standards.
. The existing fire hydrant near the Reedland Woods Way Main Lot
driveway shall be moved approximately 20 feet north, nearer the edge of
the new access driveway to the circular drop- ff area, and a new hydrant will
be constructed along the circular drop-off area.
. The Town shall consider requiring sky lights in the sanctuary to increase
the ease of ventilating the building in the event of a fire.
. Maximum occupancy shall be posted for all buildings, and the Fire District
shall be notified whenever attendance is anticipated to exceed the
maximum occupancy,
. All gates shall have Knox Key Control to enable fire access.
57
Impact 3.6-C:
Project development, combined with development of other
anticipated projects in Tiburon, could contribute to cumulative
demands for fire protection services and emergency medical
services. (DEIR, p. 113.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to
changes in the proposed project the cumulative impacts on fire protection services and
emergency medical services will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the
imposition of Mitigation Measure 3.6-C.l. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant
level.
Facts and Evidence
Additional development in the SMFPD service area would increase the demand for fire
protection and emergency medical response. The SMFPD believes the cumulative
impact would require purchase of a new ladder truck to adequately serve the project plus
other new development in the area. Unless such a truck is purchased, there would be a
potentially significant cumulative impact (DEIR, pp. 112-113.)
Mitigation Measure 3.6-C.l requires that the project pay its fair share to a vehicle
replacement fund for the Southern Marin County Fire Protection District. The mitigation
measure will reduce the fire impact to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 113.)
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.6-C.l provides:
The applicant shall pay a fair share contribution to a vehicle replacement fund.
Water
Impact 3.7-A:
The project would generate demand for water service. (DEIR, p.
115.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the TownCouncil hereby finds that water
service impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of
58
Mitigation Measures 3.7-A.l and 3.7-A.2. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant
level.
Facts and Evidence
MMWD can supply water to the project assuming that the applicant extends water mains
per all MMWD requirements (McGuire, personal communication, 4/07/04). The
applicant currently is using more than its water entitlement. The site has an entitlement
of 1.47 acre-feet of water per year, and last year used 2.59 acre-feet. The applicant will
need to purchase the additional entitlement needed to serve proposed uses on the site
(currently at a cost of $26,900 per annual acre-foot required). The applicant will also
need to provide a separate water meter for the new classroom building. If these MMWD
requirements are not met, there would be a potentially significant impact (DEIR, pp.
112-113.)
Mitigation Measures 3.7-A.l and 3.7-A.2 require that the project comply with all Marin
Municipal Water District requirements for on-site facilities and to purchase the required
water entitlement. These measures will reduce the impact to the water provider to a less-
than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 115.)
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.7-A.1 provides:
The applicant shall comply with all MMWD requirements, including completion of a
High Pressure Water Service Application; compliance with the District's Landscape
requirements, payment of appropriate fees; and compliance with all District rules and
regulations in force at the time service is requested.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-A.2 provides:
The applicant shall request that MMWD calculate the water entitlement required to serve
the project. The applicant shall purchase the additional entitlement.
Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal
Impact 3.8-A:
The project would generate demand for wastewater collection,
treatment, and disposal service. (DEIR, p. 117.)
Finding
59
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that wastewater
impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation
Measures 3.8-A.l and 3.8-A.2. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant
effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
RBSD states that there is adequate capacity in trunk collection lines to serve the project.
There is adequate treatment and disposal capacity. The only concerns that RBSD
mentioned were that the project applicant would need to have the number of fixture units
inside building additions review by RBSD. The applicant would be responsible for
paying required fees for those fixture units. Secondly, RBSD would need to review the
Utility Plan to determine the size needed for sewer laterals and to ensure they are
constructed per all District requirements (Dittle, personal communication, 4/12/05).
Unless these laterals are adequately sized and constructed, there would be a potentially
significant impact on wastewater collection. (DEIR, pp. 114-115.)
Mitigation Measures 3.8-A.l and 3.8-A.2 require that the project comply with all
Richardson Bay Sanitary District requirements for on-site facilities. These measures will
reduce the impact to the wastewater provider to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p.
117.)
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.8-A.l provides:
The collection system shall be designed and constructed per all requirements of the
Richardson Bay Sanitary District. The applicant shall be responsible for all fees required
by the appropriate district.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-A.2 provides:
The building plans shall be reviewed by the Richardson Bay Sanitary District. The
applicant shall be responsible for District-required fees for all new fixture units, as
calculated by the District.
Police Services
Impact 3.9-A:
The project would generate calls for police response. (DEIR, p.
119.) Facts and Evidence
60
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that police
response impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of
Mitigation Measures 3.9-A.1 and 3.9-A.2. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant
level.
Facts and Evidence
The Police Department believes, based on complaints received this year, that increased
use ofthe site will generate additional requests for assistance. However, with a minimum
staffing level of one sergeant and two officers per shift, the Department could adequately
handle these increased calls, including the larger High Holy Day events (Hutton, Memo
to Leonard Charles, 4/21/05). However, the Department recommends that the applicant
consider reinstating the practice of hiring off-duty officers or a private security firm to
assist them with security at large events to address security and liability concerns. Large
events could have a potentially significant impact (DEIR, p. 119.)
Mitigation Measures 3.9-A.l requires the applicant to hire one or more off-duty police
officers or a private security firm to be present during large social events and High Holy
Day events. Mitigation Measure 3.9-A.2 requires that the applicant notify the Police
Department of events when more than 275 people are expected on the site so that the
Police Department can determine whether traffic control is needed. These measures will
reduce the impact to the Police Department to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
All CKS-sponsored and CKS-member-sponsored events of 200+ persons (except Sabbath
Services and Sunday School) will require a minimum of three monitors/traffic
controllers: I) at the corner of Black field DriveNia Los Altos; 2) CKS driveway at
Reedland Woods Way; and 3) at the CKS parking lot entrance on Via Los Altos.
Additional monitors may be necessary to adequately direct traffic and parking, to be
determined by CKS based upon need. CKS shall inform the Tiburon Police Department
five (5) days in advance of any such event.
Note: Mitigation Measure 3.9-A.1 and 3.9-A.2 have been replaced with the above measure.
61
Other Resources
Impact 3.10-A:
Project construction will generate dust which may drift off the
site and adversely affect the air quality in nearby residential
neighborhoods. (DEIR, p. 122.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that
construction period impacts due to dust will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level
by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3 . 1O-A. I through 3 .1O-A.1O . Accordingly,
changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is
mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
Project construction will generate dust which may drift off the site and adversely affect
the air quality in nearby residential neighborhoods. This would be a potentially
significant air quality impact. (DEIR, p. 121.)
The mitigation measures will reduce dust emissions from grading and other construction
activities to a less-than-significant level by implementing dust control measures. These
dust control measures include preventing visible dust clouds from extending beyond
construction sites, watering all active construction areas at lest twice daily and more often
during windy period and covering all hauling truck or maintaining two feet of freeboard.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.1 O-A.l provides:
Construction contracts shall specify dust mitigation requirements.
Mitigation Measure 3.1 0-A.2 provides:
Contractors shall provide equipment and personnel for watering all exposed or disturbed
soil surfaces on the project site at a frequency sufficient to avoid visible dust plumes. All
dry active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily.
Mitigation Measure 3.1 O-A.3 provides:
62
Unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas shall be paved, watered three
times daily, or treated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers.
Mitigation Measure 3.1O-AA provides:
All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas shall be swept daily (with water
sweepers).
Mitigation Measure 3.10-A.5 provides:
Streets shall be swept daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent public streets.
Mitigation Measure 3.1 0-A.6 provides:
Earth moving or other dust-producing activities shall be suspended during periods of high
winds when dust control efforts are unable to prevent visible dust plumes which cannot
be controlled by watering.
Mitigation Measure 3.1O-A.7 provides:
Stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by the wind shall be
watered or covered.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-A.8 provides:
The speed of all construction vehicles shall be limited to 15 miles per hour while on
unpaved surfaces.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-A.9 provides:
All materials transported by truck will be covered or wetted down as needed to suppress
visible dust.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-A.lO provides:
Disturbed areas will be revegetated or covered as soon as possible.
63
Impact 3.10-B:
It is unlikely that there are any cultural resources on the site;
however, it is always possible that unknown cultural resources
could be uncovered during site grading and preparation. (DEIR,
p. 123.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that potential
impacts on subsurface cultural resources will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level
by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.IO-B.1 and 3.IO-B.2. Accordingly, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a
less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
The site has been previously disturbed, and it is unlikely that there are any cultural
resources on the site. However, it is always possible that unknown cultural resources
could be uncovered during site grading and preparation. If such resources were present,
project grading and construction could damage or destroy these resources, and this would
be a potentially significant impact. (DElR, p. 122.)
Mitigation Measures 3.IO-B.l and 3.IO-B.2 require that the applicant shall implement
specific measures in the event that archaeological artifacts or cultural resources deposits
are encountered during future grading, excavation, or other land alterations or in the
event that human skeletal remains are discovered anywhere on the site. Implementation
of these measures will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.10-B.l provides:
If cultural resources are discovered on the site during construction activities, all
earthmoving activity in the area of impact shall be halted until the applicant retains the
services of a qualified archaeological consultant who shall examine the findings, assess
their significance, and develop proposals for any procedures deemed appropriate to
further investigate and/or mitigate adverse impacts to those resources. The applicant
shall abide by the recommended proposals.
Mitigation Measure 3.1 O-B.2 provides:
In the event that human skeletal remains are discovered, work shall be discontinued in the
area of the discovery and the County Coroner shall be contacted. If skeletal remains are
64
found to be prehistoric Native American remains, the Coroner shall call the Native
American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Commission will identifY the
person(s) it believes to be the "Most Likely Descendant" of the deceased Native
American. The Most Likely Descendant would be responsible for recommending the
disposition and treatment of the remains. The Most Likely Descendant may make
recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation/grading
work for means of treating or disposing of the human remains and any associated grave
goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
(DEIR, p. 122.)
Impact 3.10-C
While the project site does not contain any unusual geologic or
soil constraints, the geotechnical report describes several
potential geological and soil impacts including: potential
damage to buildings due to seismic activity; potential damage to
improvements due to landsliding; and damage to improvements
due to expansive soils. (DEIR, p. 123.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that potential
geological impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of
Mitigation Measure 3.10-C.1. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects
on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
A geotechnical study of the site and project was prepared for the applicant. The Town
considers the report to be professionally prepared and did not require a separate
geotechnical analysis for the EIR. The report is presented in Appendix A of the EIR.
While the project site does not contain any unusual geologic or soil constraints, the
geotechnical report describes several potential geological and soil impacts including:
potential damage to buildings due to seismic activity; potential damage to improvements
due to landsliding; and damage to improvements due to expansive soils. The Initial
Study concluded that all these potentially significant geotechnical and soil impacts could
be addressed by the mitigation measure provided below. (DEIR, p. 123.)
Mitigation Measure 3.1 O-C. requires that all improvements be designed and constructed
per the geotechnical report that has been prepared for the project. Implementation of this
measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 123.)
Mitigation Measures
65
Mitigation Measure 3.10-C provides:
All recommendations contained on pages 8 through 15 of the Geotechnical Investigation
for Congregation Kol Shofar (Herzog Geotechnical Consulting Engineers, February 11,
2004) shall be implemented during site preparation and project construction.
IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
During the CEQA scoping process applied to the project, some environmental impacts
were dismissed with a "Less- Than-Significant Impact" response on the Initial Study, on
the ground that there was no fair argument that such impacts would occur. The Planning
Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record that the decisions
made in the Initial Study (included in the EIR appendix) to dismiss such theoretical
impacts was erroneous, nor is there substantial evidence that any impact that might occur
has not been adequately examined in the EIR.
Additionally, the Town Council finds, based on the EIR and the record that the following
impacts identified in the EIR are less-than-significant and do not require mitigation.
Impact 3.2-A Tree Loss
Impact 3.3-D Traffic Impacts on the Reedland Woods Way/Blackfield Drive Intersection
Impact 3.3-E Traffic Impacts on the Karen Way/Blackfield Drive Intersection
Impact 3.3-G Traffic Impacts associated with High Holy Day Services
Impact 3.4-A Exposure of People on the Project Site to Excessive Noise
Impact 3.6-B Exposure to Wildfire
Impact 3.7-B Cumulative Water Demand
Impact 3.8-B Cumulative Wastewater Demand
Impact 3.9-B Cumulative Police Demand
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Where a significant impact can be substantially lessened (Le., mitigated to an "acceptable
level") solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the lead agency, in drafting its
findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives with respect to that
impact, even if the alternative would mitigate that impact to a greater degree than the
proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code, ~ 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association
v, City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v.
City of Hanford( 1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731; and Laurel Heights Improvement
Association v, Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403.)
The preceding discussion reveals that every potentially significant impact associated with
the project identified in the EIR has been substantially lessened, if not fully avoided, by
the adoption of feasible mitigation measures and changes to the project. Thus, as a legal
matter, the Town Council, in considering alternatives in these findings has no obligation
66
to consider whether the alternatives are environmentally superior. Nevertheless, the
Town Council evaluates the project alternatives to assess whether there are other feasible
ways to further reduce the project's significant adverse environmental impacts.
Alternatives to the proposed project are discussed in the EIR at pages 143 to 159 of the
Draft EIR and pages 3 to 6 of the Final EIR. The following alternatives were examined
in the Draft EIR and Final EIR
.
Alternative I - No Project - No Future Development
Alternative 2 - Remodeling Only
Alternative 3 - Remodeling and Classrooms Only
Alternative 4 - Remodeling and Multi-Purpose Room Only
Alternative 5 - Restricted Use
Alternative 6 - Reduced Events
.
.
.
.
.
In response to comments on the June 2005 Draft EIR, the applicant proposed the sixth
alternative (Reduced Events), and this alternative was assessed in the Final EIR. After
circulation of the Final EIR, the applicant proposed an additional alternative: Alternative
7 - Further Reduced Events. That alternative was analyzed in an appendix to the Final
ErR, labeled as "Final ErR for the Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit
Application: Alternative 7 Analysis," included as Exhibit E to the Staff Report for the
October 24, 2006 Town Council meeting,
Alternative I No Development Alternative
Facts
The No Development Alternative assumes the continuation of existing environmental
conditions with no development at this time at any location on the site. This means that
the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would not be approved and implemented. It illustrates
the effects of maintaining the status quo (should existing conditions continue).
Findings and Rationale
Potential environmental impacts of the No Development Alternative are discussed on
pages 144 through 145 of the Draft EIR and in Table 13 of the Final EIR. The Town
Council finds that the No Development Alternative is less desirable than the proposed
project and rejects this alternative for the reasons discussed below,
The No Development Alternative would avoid the environmental impacts associated with
construction and operation of the proposed project. This alternative, however, would not
foreclose development of the project site; as it would be available for development some
time in the future. Furthermore, the No Development Alternative would not fulfill (but
67
also would not foreclose) the applicant's objectives to develop the site for religious-
related use, thus postponing realization of the applicant's objectives indefinitely.
Alternative 2 Remodeling Only
Facts
This alternative would allow all proposed remodeling of the existing facility but not
construction of new buildings or circulation improvements. All proposed non-school
functions would be included to the degree that the remodeled facility and available
parking can handle the number of people who would attend. High Holy Day services
would continue to be divided services. The proposed functions would be limited to those
listed in Table I with the exception that no new event (other than the three High Holy
Day services) can have more than 275 people present (including staff); if there is more
than one event occurring on site at the same time, the total number of people allowed on
the site would be limited to 275 people.
Findings and Rationale
Potential environmental impacts of the Remodeling Only Alternative are discussed on
pages 146 through 147 of the Draft EIR and in Table 13 of the Final EIR. The Town
Council finds that the Remodeling Only Alternative is less desirable than the proposed
project and rejects this alternative for the reasons discussed below.
Based on all environmental factors analyzed, the ElR concluded that the Remodeling
Only was the environmentally superior alternative (except for the No-Project
Alternative). This alternative will avoid or lessen each significant environmental impact
identified in the EIR to a less-than-significant level. The Town Council finds that the
Remodeling Only Alternative is less desirable than the proposed project and rejects this
alternative for the reasons discussed below. This alternative is also not environmentally
superior to the project as approved with the incorporation of mitigation measures.
The alternative only meets 2 of the 12 project objectives and thus is not consistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section l5l26.6(a) that states that an alternative should"... feasibly
attain most of the basic objectives of the project..."
Alternative 3 - Remodeling and Classrooms Onlv
Facts
This alternative includes remodeling of the existing building and construction of the new
classroom wing in the area where it is proposed. The play areas would either remain
where they are or be relocated to the east of the classroom wing. Landscaping associated
with the classroom wing would also be constructed. No new parking lot, driveway, or
68
turnaround would be constructed. Uses of the main building would be restricted as
described under Alternative 2.
Findings and Rationale
Potential environmental impacts of the Alternative 3 are discussed on pages 147 through
150 of the Draft EIR and in Table 13 of the Final EIR. Based on all environmental
factors analyzed, the EIR concluded that the Remodeling and Classrooms Only
alternative was environmentally superior to the proposed project. This alternative will
avoid or lessen each significant environmental impact identified in the EIR to a less-than-
significant level. The Town Council finds that the Remodeling and Classrooms Only
Alternative is less desirable than the proposed project and rejects this alternative for the
reasons discussed below.
The alternative only meets 3 of the 12 project objectives and thus is not consistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section l5l26.6( a) that states that an alternative should"... feasibly
attain most of the basic objectives of the project..."
Alternative 4 -Remodeling and Multi-Purpose Room Only
Facts
The Remodeling and Multi-Purpose Room Only alternative assumes construction of all
the proposed project elements except for the new classroom wing and expansion of the
school population.
Findings and Rationale
Potential environmental impacts of the Remodeling and Multi-Purpose Room Only
Alternative are discussed on pages 150 through 152 of the Draft EIR and in Table 13 of
the Final ElR. This alternative could potentially meet 10 ofthe 12 basic objectives of the
project. The Town Council finds that the Remodeling and Multi-Purpose Room Only
Alternative is less desirable than the proposed project and rejects this alternative for the
reasons discussed below.
The Remodeling and Multi-Purpose Room Only Alternative would not substantially
lessen environmental effects of site development in comparison to the project. In fact,
this significant and unavoidable noise and traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for
the project as originally proposed would remain. The project as approved incorporates
substantial caps on increased use of the site and extensive mitigation for noise and traffic
impacts. The project as approved with the incorporation of mitigation will have fewer
impacts than this alternative.
69
Alternative 5 Restricted Use
Facts
The Restricted Use Alternative assumes development of all proposed additions but would
restrict the use of those facilities by requiring all events except existing Friday night
events to end by 9:00 p.m.; allowing new Saturday and Sunday evening events only every
other weekend; and requiring that no more than 275 people be on site for new events.
Findings and Rationale
Potential environmental impacts ofthe Restricted Use Alternative are discussed on pages
152 through 154 of the Draft EIR and in Table 13 of the Final EIR. The Town Council
that finds that although the Restricted Use Alternative is environmentally superior to the
proposed as originally proposed and analyzed in the EIR, this alternative would have
greater impacts than the project as approved with the incorporation of mitigation.
Specifically, this alternative would allow more Saturday and Sunday night events and
would allow a maximum attendance of275 people at these events. Furthermore, this
alternative does not include the catering enclosure and substantial traffic mitigation
measures that further reduce the impacts of the project as approved. In addition, the
Town finds this alternative to be infeasible as it fails to meet project objectives and would
unduly restrict Kol Shofar's existing uses. (FEIR, pp. 158-159.)
Alternative 6 Reduced Events
Facts
The Reduced Events Alternative assumes development of all proposed additions but
would restrict the use of those facilities by reducing the number of Saturday evening
events to a maximum of 27 events and Sunday night events to a maximum of 20 events.
It would restrict the number of people allowed at proposed events to a maximum of275
people.
Findings and Rationale
Potential environmental impacts of the Reduced Events Alternative are discussed on
pages 3 through 6 and in Table 13 of the Final EIR. The Town Council finds that the
Reduced Events Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project.
However, this alternative would not reduce the significant and unavoidable noise impact
to a less than significant level. This alternative is not environmentally superior to the
preferred Restricted Use Alternative. Furthermore, this alternative would not be
environmentally superior to the project as approved with the incorporation of mitigation.
70
Alternative 7 Further Reduced Events
Facts
The Further Reduced Events Alternative assumes development of all proposed additions
but would restrict the use of those facilities as follows:
· Saturday events would end at 11 p.m. and would be limited to 12 events per year.
Of those twelve events, attendance would be limited as follows: 4 events with a
maximum of 250 attendees, 4 events with a maximum of 200 attendees, and 4
events with a maximum of 150 attendees.
· Sunday events would be limited to 15 evenings per year, all ending by 9 p.m.
Sunday events would have the following limitations on attendance: 3 events with a
maximum of250 attendees, 5 events with a maximum of200 attendees, 4 events
with a maximum of 150 attendees and 3 events with a maximum attendance of 100
attendees.
Additionally, under the Further Reduced Events Alternative, the applicant proposed a
revised circulation and parking plan. According to this plan, the Reedland Woods Way
driveway would be an exit only, and all guests would enter the site from Via Los Altos.
In addition, signs would be posted at the intersection of Reedland Woods Way and along
Via Los Altos, directing visitors to follow this circulation plan.
Findings and Rationale
While this alternative is environmentally superior to the project as originally proposed
and analyzed in the EIR, it is nevertheless not environmentally superior to the project as
approved with the incorporation of mitigation. Specifically, the project as approved
includes an enclosed service/catering area that will further reduce post-event noise,
reduces the number and lateness of events, requires additional on-site parking, and
includes several other substantial mitigation measures that will reduce parking and traffic
impacts.
Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed In The EIR
In addition to the alternatives discussed above, two other alternatives were identified in
the EIR, but eliminated from further analysis because they were considered infeasible.
(DEIR, pp. 154-156.)
Alternative Location
71
As explained in the EIR, several commenters on the Notice of Preparation stated that they
felt that Kol Shofar had outgrown its present site and should relocate. The EIR, however,
assesses the impacts of the current application, which is for construction of the multi-
purpose room and classrooms, and other improvements. The EIR therefore concluded
that an alternative-location alternative would consist ofa feasible location to construct
four new classrooms and a multi-purpose room.
The EIR concluded there are no vacant sites that are large enough to construct the
proposed 13,395 square feet of building space. A site would have to be 1.5+ acres to
allow this amount of non-residential development. Town staff has stated that no vacant
sites of this size designated for non-residential use exist. Of sites that are designated for
residential use, only two are not surrounded by existing residential use (where there
would be similar impacts as at the proposed site). One site is the "Neill Smith" property
(34 acres) off of Paradise Drive. This site has an existing home, and there are plans to
subdivide it to build additional homes. The other site is the western portion (about 15
acres) of the "Cherry" property on the south side of Trestle Glen Boulevard. This site is
bordered by residential development to the south and north. There is currently an option
on this site which would allow future (likely residential) development. Constructing the
four new classrooms at a location far from the rest of the school would not be feasible,
given administrative and educational coordination required for such an institution.
Constructing the multi-purpose room elsewhere in Tiburon is not feasible because there is
not a suitable non-residential site and because adequately-sized residential sites are either
not for sale, have existing development plans, or have neighboring residential uses
(where impacts could be expected to be similar to those identified for the proposed
project). (DEIR, p. 155.)
In response to comments raised at the public hearing, Kol Shofar provided the Town with
additional information on the feasibility and availability of alternative locations for just
the multi-purpose room and classrooms, or the entire facility, including locations outside
the Town of Tiburon. (August 22, 2006, Letter from Ron Brown, Exhibit H to the Staff
Report for the October 24, 2006 hearing.) The letter describes the years-long search by
Kol Shofar to find a place to relocate the synagogue; a search that has so far been
fruitless. The letter also describes the infeasibility of renting other facilities for
observance and celebration of life-cycle events.
The Town Council therefore finds there are no feasible alternative locations for the
proposed project or relocation of the entire synagogue.
Proiect Redesign
The Draft EIR also considered re-designing the project to move either the classrooms or
the multi-purpose room. The re-design was chiefly aimed at reducing what the Draft EIR
considered to be significant and unavoidable noise impacts. (DEIR, pp. 155-156.) As
72
explained in the Draft EIR, such a re-design would not reduce the noise impacts, it would
simply shift them. Furthermore, moving the location of either the classrooms or the
multi-purpose room could have additional safety impacts and visual impacts. (DEIR, p.
156.)
For these reasons, the Town Council finds that any re-design alternatives would not
reduce the potentially significant impacts of the project, particularly when compared to
the project as approved with incorporation of mitigation.
END
73
KOL SHOFAR LATE MAIL
(Received between 1/23/07 and 2/2/07)
2/2/07 12:00 p,m.
Tiburon Town Clerk
50 Pamela Court
Tiburon, CA 94920
January 30, 2007
Tiburon Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
. ~~ (.l"'."_
':0
Re: Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit and Expansion/Remodel
Dear Town Council:
As a resident of Tiburon within a few hundred yards of the proposed expansion of
Congregation Kol Shofar, I must object to the planned super-sizing of their physical
facilities and the extended-hour use of those facilities. The Bel Aire neighborhood is not
capable of sustaining the additional traffic, parking, late-night noise, nor the additional
week-day congestion from the pre-school.
The Planning Commission denied the Congregation Kol Shofar plan after considerable
study, The Town Council appears ready to reverse the Plamling Commission finding
without any significant changes in the plan, nor any indication from the Congregation
that they wish to make substantive concessions to alleviate concerns of their neighbors,
The impact on our neighborhood will be negative and considerable. The council has a
responsibility to all the residents of Tiburon.
And let us address the elephant in the living room directly. Some have suggested that
neighborhood concerns disguise animosity against the Congregation rather than
objections to a design that is grossly inappropriate to its context. I would argue that if the
Congregation Kol Shofar plan were appropriate, this tactic would not have to be used.
That fact that some have chosen to raise this issue is an indication that the proposal
cannot succeed on its own merits,
I urge the Town Council to follow the advice of its Planning Commission and to deny the
Congragation Kol Shofar plan as now constituted,
incere~.\\!I~"~'" /
Humphrey ~,tW~
STEPHAN C. VOLKER
JOSHUAA.H. HARRIS
MARNJE E. RIDDLE
Law Offices of
STEPHAN C. VOLKER
436 14th STREET, SUITE 1300
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
Phone 510/496-0600 .:. Fax 510/496-1366
e-mail: svolker@volkerlaw.com
10.356.01111.13 J .02
February 2,2007
", uJINAL
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, California 94920
Re: Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition response to January 23, 2007
Tiburon Community Development Department Staff Report re CKS
Expansion Project Conditional Use Permit (File #10404)
Dear Mayor Gram and Honorable Town Council Members:
I. INTRODUCTION
We write on behalf of the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition (TNC) in response to
the Community Development Department's Staff Report dated January 23, 2007
recommending the partial granting of CKS' appeal from the Planning Commission's
denial ofCKS' application for a conditional use permit (CUP) to expand its synagogue at
215 Blackfield Road, Tiburon (Project) and denial ofTNC's appeal challenging
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) thereon. Pursuant to
Tiburon Zoning Code section 16-3.8.4, the Town Council may only "approve, modify or
disapprove the action appealed from" - i.e., the Planning Commission Resolutions under
appeal. The Town Council has no authority to consider and approve a project different
from that reviewed by the Planning Commission. The only question before the Council
is whether to approve, disapprove or modify the two Planning Commission Resolutions
on appeal: No. 2006-15 certifying CKS' FEIR and No. 2006-16 denying CKS' CUP
application. The Town Council has no authority to formulate and grant a new and
different Conditional Use Permit that has not first been reviewed by the Planning
Commission as required by section 16-3.8.4. We urge your denial ofCKS' CUP appeal,
and granting ofTNC's FEIR appeal, for three reasons.
First, CKS' appeal is predicated on the erroneous assumption that the Project is
exempt from the Tiburon General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and that the Planning
Commission's denial ofCKS' CUP for the Project violated the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act of2000 (Public Law 106-274,42 U.S.C. S 2000cc et seq.
(RLUIP A). Contrary to CKS' claims, the Planning Commission's decision is fully
supported by the record and applicable law and must be upheld. CKS could mitigate the
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 2
Project into compliance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance by reducing the size
of its Project and providing adequate parking for its events and curtailing its noisier
activities after 9 PM on Saturdays and 8 PM on Sundays so neighbors and their children
can secure the restful sleep their health requires. Nothing in RLUIP A or the cases
thereunder relieves CKS of its duty to cooperate with the Town to avoid unnecessary
harm to public health and safety.
Second, the FEIR certified by the Planning Commission's Resolution No. 2006-
15 on May 31, 2006 for the Project fails to comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (CEQA) in several significant
respects. Most notably, the FEIR fails to adequately address and mitigate the Project's
adverse impacts on traffic, parking, noise, night time light and glare and its profound
conflict with the character of the existing neighborhood in violation of the Goals and
Policies of Tiburon's 2020 General Plan, fails to address the Project as currently modified
by CKS and the Town Staff, and fails to address or mitigate the impacts of foreseeable
growth in the membership of CKS and in the attendance at its events and activities that
will be enabled by the proposed facility expansion. These violations of CEQA must be
rectified before the Town may properly consider the Project for approval.
Third, the many new mitigations proposed for the Project lack the specificity,
enforceability and certainty required by CEQA. The vague, untested and potentially
illusory mitigation measures provide no assurance that the many new potentially
significant impacts of the Project resulting from its recent modifications by CKS and the
Town will in fact be reduced to insignificance. Unless and until these impacts are
adequately addressed and enforceable and certain mitigation measures to mitigate them
are formulated following adequate public review, approval of the Project would violate
CEQA.
The foregoing points are explicated more fully in the following discussion of the
applicable facts and law. For these reasons as discussed more fully below, we ask that
you deny CKS' appeal from the Planning Commission's denial of its CUP, direct CKS to
conform the Project to Tiburon's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and direct Town
Staff to provide a proper CEQA review process.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
CKS' appeal is based on false claims of religious intolerance. Contrary to these
unseemly accusations, CKS has been afforded every courtesy and opportunity to
participate fully and lawfully in the Tiburon community. The Town of Tiburon
welcomed CKS into the community by approving a CUP for CKS's proposed use of the
6.94 acre Project site (APN 38-351-34) in 1984, through adoption of Ordinance No. 306
N.S. At that time, CKS had 220 family memberships and a total congregant population
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 3
of approximately 700 adults and children.l The Project site is surrounded by a quiet
residential neighborhood of single family homes located west of Blackfield Drive about
one-half mile north of Tiburon Boulevard2 Because the site is situated at the base of a
topographic bowl, it is visible3 and audible4 to many of the surrounding homes.
CKS chose a residential community in which to conduct its religious and social
activities. In so doing, it accepted and assumed the need to respect and cooperate with its
neighbors and their right to protect their families' health and safety. The presence of
many small children bicycling on neighboring streets and walking on sidewalks to the
nearby Bel Aire School, for example, poses extraordinary safety concerns. These
concerns weigh sharply against any expansion of CKS' facility that would cause traffic to
make unsafe turnarounds utilizing local driveways.5 Yet as presently configured, the
Project would do exactly that.6 Because the Project does not provide sufficient on-site
parking for the large events it proposes, it will create an unacceptable traffic hazard that
"would potentially injure or kill a child or other pedestrian.") CKS could, but has
declined to, solve this problem. Although "sufficiently increasing the on-site parking
capacity would bring the Project into Zoning Ordinance. . . compliance and is the most
logical mitigation, . . . this approach was strenuously argued against by the CKS at the
May 10,2006 [Planning Commission] hearing."s Although CKS could mitigate its
Project into compliance, it has steadfastly refused. As will be shown below, RLUIP A
does not relieve CKS of its duty to cooperate in the reasonable mitigation of its Project's
adverse impacts.
Over the next decade, the Town accommodated a substantial expansion of the
facility's use, as CKS more than doubled its population. Since 1984, CKS had
experienced "an average annual increase of approximately 21 membership units.,,9 By
December 1996, CKS had 480 family member units, totaling 1,523 adults and children.lo
I Letter dated December 23, 1996 from CKS to Scott Anderson, Tiburon Planning
Director (CKS December 1996 letter) at p. 1.
2 Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit Draft Environmental Impact dated
June 2005 (DEIR) at p. 6, Fig. 2.
3Id at p. 95, Photos 3 and 4.
4 DEIR at pp. 81-82; FEIR at pp. 92, 226, 291, 298 and 315,
5 Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit Final Environmental Impact Report
dated February 2006 (FEIR) at pp. 194,233,303 and 307.
6 Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-16, adopted May 31, 2006, at pp,
4-5.
7 FEIR at p. 42.
8 Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-16, adopted May 31, 2006, at p, 5.
9 CKS December 1996 letter at p. 1.
IOId
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2,2007
Page 4
Because of this rapid growth, in 1997 the Town Planning Commission initiated review of
the CUP, and requested that CKS provide information regarding its present and
anticipated future use of the site. I I In response, CKS provided the Town with a detailed
breakdown of its use ofthe site for a range of religious services, studies, religious
celebrations, administrative offices and school activities.12 CKS reported no large late-
night activities other than a once-monthly fathering of 50-1 00 people in its Sanctuary
between 7:30 and 10:00 p.m. on Saturday. 3 Saturday Sabbath service included only 100
people, or up to 250 if a bar or bat mitzvah took place.14 Sunday morning religious
school attendance included approximately 272 students, 25 faculty and 100 other adults
between 9:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.mY The only larger gatherings were the 2-day Jewish
New Year (Rosh Hashanah) and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur).16 CKS reported
that "[o]n the evening of Yom Kippur, Yom Kippur day, and the first day of Rosh
Hashanah there are approximately 800 people attending OPTION I and 750 for OPTION
2. These figures include[] children who are in child care and in separate children's
services held elsewhere in the building. To alleviate overcrowding, we have successfully
utilized a split service format, We have approximately 195 non-members attending the
"OPTION 2" services only. . . . the first service ("OPTION 1") is attended by members
only."I?
Based on CKS' description of its ongoing usage of the site, the Town Planning
Commission adopted Resolution 97-17. This Resolution allowed CKS to continue to
operate its facilities within the general framework of the usage levels described in CKS'
December 23, 1996 letter. 18 Although the Planning Commission's 1997 CUP did not set
any cap on membership, Condition No.2 of Resolution No. 97-17 provided that the
Town would "continue to monitor and document growth of the membership with regard
to adequacy of parking, traffic congestion and neighborhood compatibility. 19
Significantly, Condition No. 17 to Resolution No. 97-17 directed that "[a]ny significant
expansion or modification of the uses or operations herein, as determined by the Town of
Tiburon, shall require an amendment to this permit.,,20
II CKS, Conditional Use Application and Environmental Review Submission to the Town
of Tiburon, dated April 19, 2004 (CKS CUP Application), at p. 5.
12Id.
13 CKS December 1996 letter, pp. 2-4.
14Id at p. 2.
15Id
16Id
17Id at pp. 2-3.
18 Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 97-17.
19Id atp. 2.
20 Id
----..-......--.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 5
During CKS' second decade of operation, the Town continued to accommodate
its expansion, imposing only modest restrictions to mitigate potential noise, parking and
traffic impacts. The Town Planning Commission conducted annual reviews of CKS'
CUP in 1998, 1999 and 2000, finding in each case that the use remained in conformance
with the CUP conditions,21 In 2000, the Planning Commission's annual review "found
conformance but noted that a gradual transition ofthe day school tenant from preschool
to high school use required permit amendment.,,22 Accordingly, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 2001-07 amending CKS' CUP a second time,
adding reasonable restrictions on amplified sound at special events, on parking, and on
use of Reedland Woods Way, and requiring annual monitoring.2J Resolution No. 2001-
07 was based on CKS' updated description of its level of usage of the facility, which
reported that CKS "now has 609 member units or 1,914 total people, and that "over the
past 14+ years, we have had an average annual increase of approximately 20 membership
units.,,24 Sunday religious school activities had also expanded to "approximately 300
students, 20 faculty and 100 other adults," for a total population of 42025 Saturday
Sabbath services had increased to 90-125 participants, and if a bar or bat mitzvah also
took place, to "between 250 and 400 people.,,26
Even at the zenith of its growth, however, CKS reported no increase in attendance
at the gatherings for the Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah) and the Day of Atonement
(Yom Kippur). During these High Holy Days, attendance remained static,
"approximately 800 people attending the early services and 750 for the later services,,,27
On the second day of Rosh Hashanah CKS reported approximately 300-400 people for a
single service, including children. Again, CKS reported that "[t]o alleviate
overcrowding, we have successfully utilized a split service format. We have
approximately 195 non-members attending the later services only.,,28 As in 1996, CKS
reported that its "main sanctuary and balconies can currently accommodate
approximately 840 peopl.e per the Uniform Building Code," and its "c?~fel can .
accommodate, based on Its square footage, approximately 190 people.'- Through Its
most recent annual report on activity levels, CKS has continued to operate well within the
21 CKS, Conditional Use Application & Environmental Review Submission to the Town
of Tiburon, dated April 19, 2004, at p. 6,
"Id.
23 Tiburon Planning Commission No. 2001-07 at pp. 2-3.
24 Letter dated May 7, 2001 from CKS to Tiburon Planning Director Scott Anderson
(CKS May 2001 letter) at p. 1.
25 Id.
26Id. at p. 4.
27 Id. at p. 4.
28 Id. at p. 4.
29 Id. at p. 5,
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 6
same general parameters, including "successfully utiliz[ing] a split service format "for the
High Holy Days.,,3o
After 2001, when its population reached 609 member units/' CKS' congregation
stopped growing. Indeed, the following year, "[i]n 2002, membership declined to 595
units (1,880 people).32 CKS' population remained static for the next five years,
numbering "approximately 598 member units" in June 200533 and again in February
2006.34 In its recent submissions to the Town, CKS has consistently maintained that it
expects the population of its congregation to remain static or even decline, in light of an
overall downward trend in the size of Conservative Jewish congregations in Marin
County.35 As of February 2006, CKS' EIR consultants concluded that, "[b]ased on the
past seven years, one could project a declining Congregation membership.,,36 Based on
CKS' representation that it had stopped growing, the Planning Commission certified
CKS' FEIR as adequate even though it did not address the environmental impacts of the
Project should CKS' population resume growing.3?
In swnmary, for twenty-two years, the Town has accommodated CKS' initial
period of rapid growth, from 220 to 609 membership units, imposing only modest
conditions on noise, parking and traffic in a reasonable effort to balance CKS' desired
growth and activity levels with public health and safety and environmental compatibility.
CKS has functioned well within these parameters, achieving both its intended level of
growth and the full range of its desired religious services, studies, religious celebrations,
administrative functions and school activities.38 On the three High Holy Days (Rosh
Hashanah and Yom Kippur), CKS has for over 10 years voluntarily and "successfully
utilized a split service format" in which approximatelr. 1,550 congregants and guests
attending services select either early or later services. 9 By doing so, CKS minimized
overcrowding not only of its facility, but of local streets and parking areas as well. This
30 Letter dated January 21, 2004 from CKS to Tiburon Planning Director Scott Anderson
(CKS January 2004 letter) at p. 4.
31 CKS May 2001 letter at p. 1.
32 DEIR at p. 126.
33 Id at p. 127.
34 FEIR at p. 21.
35 CKS' testimony to the Planning Commission on May 10, 2006.
36 FEIR, p. 21.
37 Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-15, dated May 31, 2006; DEIR at
pp. 126-127; FEIR at p. 86.
38 CKS CUP Application at p. 5.
39 Id at pp. 2, 5; CKS December 1996 letter at p. 3; CKS May 2001 letter at p. 4; CKS
January 2004 letter at p. 4.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 7
entirely voluntary accommodation has served CKS well over the past two decades and
has also minimized the burden on the surrounding residential neighborhoods,40
III. CKS' CUP APPLICATION FOR THE PROJECT
Although CKS and its consultants have stated publicly that the Congregation
reached its peak population in 1998, and that "[b Jased on the past seven years, one could
project a declining Congregation membership,,,4! in April 2004 CKS filed an application
for a Conditional Use Permit to dramatically expand both the size of its facility, and the
scope and duration of activities therein:2 CKS proposed an increase in the size of its
facility from 43,741 gross square feet ("GSF") to 57,146 GSF:3 Most of this increase in
building space would be occupied by the proposed Multi-Purpose Building, which as
proposed to the Planning Commission last May and again in CKS' attorneys' letter
submitted January 19, 2007, would utilize 9,733 GSP44 Additionally, the Project
proposed construction of four new classrooms in a new classroom building encompassing
3,662 GSF45
CKS' proposed increase in facility usage included substantial increases in the
number of evening events, as well as significant expansion of the number of people
participating in them. Its original CUP Application proposed Saturday evening events
from 7:00 p.m, until II :30 p,m. for up to 300 people up to 40 weekends per year.46 After
this activity, CKS proposed an additional hour of clean-up by up to ten people, until
12:30 a,m47 CKS proposed late night activities on Sundays as well, numbering up to 300
people and extending until I 0:00 p.m, for up to 35 weekends per year48 Clean-up
following these activities by up to ten people would last until 11:00 p,m:9 CKS also
proposed for the first time in its 22 years of operation that its historically split services
during the High Holy Days be combined into a single service attended by up to 1,500
persons. 50
40Id
41 FEIR at p. 21.
42 CKS CUP Application at pp. 3-6; DEIR at pp. 5-13.
43 DEIR at p. 6, Fig. 5, "Building Square Footage Summary."
44 Id
<SId
"CKS CUP Application at p. 6; DEIR at p. 6, Fig. 5, "Projected Use Summary."
47 Id
48 Id
49 Id
50 DEIR at p, 13,
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 8
These profound changes in the size ofCKS' facility and in the frequency,
intensity and duration of its activities threaten severe adverse impacts on its surrounding
residential neighbors. Even as subsequently attenuated, they pose many significant
impacts on public health, safety and environmental quality, and would impose an undue
burden on the surrounding community. Even as currently proposed, this Project would
tip the balance of what is a reasonable impact for the community to bear. According to
CKS' own Draft Environmentallmpact Report ("DEIR"), the Project as originally
proposed would, unless additional, effective mitigation measures were devised and
imposed, cause significant and unavoidable impacts on traffic safety, 51 noise levels,52 and
parking.53 In the aggregate, the DEIR identified "twenty-three j'otentially significant
adverse impacts that would result from project development,,,5 including inconsistencies
with Tiburon's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance policies requiring that projects be "in
harmony" with the adjacent neighborhood and avoid the creation of traffic hazards and
excessive night time noise and glare within residential neighborhoods. 55 In particular, the
DEIR noted that unless adequate mitigation measures were devised and imposed, the
Project:
will create a demand for more parking spaces than can be met by on-site parking
lots which will result in drivers who park on local streets making unsafe
turnarounds in residential neighborhoods. 56
will add traffic to the Reedland Woods Way/Blackfield Drive intersection causing
potential queuing problems, 57
[will generate] traffic [that] will add congestion at the Karen Way/Blackfield
Drive intersection. 58
will add traffic to the driveways to the [Project's] Lower Lot thereby causing
potential safety impacts at those driveways and within the parking lot. 59
[will generate traffic! at High Holy Day services [which] would cause traffic and
parking congestion.6
51 DEIR at p. 18.
52 Id. at p. 19.
53Id. at p. 21.
54 Id. at p. 21.
55 Id. at pp. 21, 28-37, Table 2.
56 Id. at Table 2, Impact 3.3-C.
57 !d. at Table 2, Impact 3.3-D.
58 Id. at Table 2, Impact 3.3-E.
59 Id. at Table 2, Impact 3.3-F.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 9
would increase noise levels in the area surrounding the project site,61
[will generate night time traffic whose headlights] using the new driveway and
parking area could intrude on residences east of the site.62
[would require night time] lighting [that] would change night time views in the
area. 63
In addition to the foregoing impacts, the DEIR identified fifteen other potentially
significant impacts.64 TNC and others pointed out additional impacts that were
6-
overlooked or understated by the DEIR. '
In response to the dozens of comments from neighbors pointing out the Project's
significant adverse environmental impacts, the Town's FEIR acknowledged that the
Project posed "a significant and unavoidable traffic safety impact that would result from
an increased number of vehicle turnarounds on neighboring residential streets. ,,66 This
determination was based on "a standard EIR approach, which is a criterion that an impact
is significant if the project would increase hazards 'as identified by the EIR traffic
engineer. ",67 The FEIR explained that "[t]he EIR traffic engineer considers an increase
60 Jd. at Table 2, Impact 3.3-G.
61 Jd. at Table 2, Impact 3.4-B.
62 Jd. at Table 2, Impact 3.5-C.
63 Jd. at Table 2, Impact 3,5-D.
64 Jd. at Table 2.
65 Comments ofthe Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition on the Draft Environmental Impact
Report for the Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit Application, dated
August 1,2005, reprinted in FEIR at pp. 97-130; comment letters of Rufus G, Thayer
dated July 14, 2005, Samantha and James Winter dated July 21, 2005, Karen Nygren
dated July 28 and 29, 2005, Christiana Seidel and Peter Stock dated July 31, 2005,
Christiana Seidel dated August 10, 2005, Edward Baker dated August 2, 2005, Kurt
Kaull dated August 4,2005, Timothy Metz and Jennifer Jorgensen dated August 7, 2005,
David and Julie Wong dated August 9, 2005, David and Joyce Holden dated August 14,
2005, William E. Stewart dated August 14,2005, Christopher J. Harney dated August 14,
2005, Joanne Stokes dated June 19,2005, Ona Rotenberg dated June 22, 2005, Doris
Simonds dated June 24, 2005, Amanda Reynolds dated July 18,2005, Mary Ann Snyder
dated July 27, 2005, Daniel and Sandy LaCoss dated August 1, 2005, Bob Fetter dated
August 3, 2005, K. Robert Ingalls dated August 4,2005, Tom and Karen Akin dated
August 4,2005, Pru and Fred Starr dated August 10,2005, Dennis Sakai, M,D. and Sarah
Sakai dated August 10,2005, collectively reprinted in FEIR at pp. 187-320.
66 FElR at p, 42,
67 Jd.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 10
in actions that would potentially injure or kill a child or other pedestrian as significant.
Therefore the increased number of turnarounds generated by the project was deemed to
be significant. ,,68
The FEIR suggested that the traffic safety impact "can be reduced to a less than
significant level by requiring that attendees of new events show proof that they have
parked in an on-site parking 10t.,,69 However, as the Planning Commission subsequently
and properly determined, this mitigation would not be effective.7o The Planning
Commission likewise found that mitigations proposed in the DEIR and FEIR to reduce
noise and light impacts failed to reduce those impacts to insignificance.7l The FEIR
concluded that the Project was inconsistent with three Goals of the Tiburon General Plan
Noise Element: N-A, "[t]o ensure that residential areas are quiet;" N-B, "[t]o eliminate
or reduce unnecessary, excessive and offensive noises from all sources;" and N-C, "[t]o
minimize exposure of community residents to noise through the careful placement of land
uses that may cause noise impacts."n The FEIR's determination of General Plan
inconsistency was "based upon the significant unavoidable night time noise impact upon
nearby residences associated with the project's proposed events that would last until
10:00 or 11:30 p.m.,,73
Because the evidence presented to the Planning Commission clearly demonstrated
that the Project would cause significant adverse environmental impacts on the
surrounding neighborhood, in violation of applicable General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
standards, in April, 2006 CKS submitted proposed modification to the Project, styled
"Alternative 7," which proposed a reduction in the frequency and duration of Project
activities.74 Alternative 7 proposed "a total oftwelve new Saturday night events with a
range of 150-250 attendees lasting until 11 :00 p.m. and a total of fifteen new Sunday
events with a range of 100-250 attendees that would last unti19:00 p.m.,,75
But Alternative 7 failed to reduce the Project's adverse impacts on the
community's health and safety to insignificance. The Planning Commission found to the
68 Id., emphasis added.
69 Id.
70 Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-16, adopted May 31, 2006, at pp.
4-5.
71 Id.
72 FEIR at p. 19.
73 Tiburon Planning Commission Staff Report for April 24, 2006 Planning Commission
meeting at p. 8.
74 Tiburon Planning Commission Staff Report prepared for Planning Commission meeting
on April 24, 2006 at pp. 3-4.
75 Id. at p. 4.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 11
contrary, based on its detailed review of the entire record, that the proposed mitigations
would simply not work. In reaching its decision, the Planning Commission heard public
testimony and considered expert commentary, including critical assessments from
Acoustical Engineer Richard A. Carman, Ph.D., P.E. and Traffic Engineer Arul Edwin,
M.S., M,Eng., ITE, SCE.76 Following receipt of extensive testimony at public hearings
on April 24, May 10, and May 31, 2006, the Planning Commission determined that the
Project as modified by Alternative 7 still posed unacceptable adverse impacts on public
health and safety and the environmental quality of the surrounding community, in
violation of numerous standards of the Tiburon General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Its
findings, based on a detailed view of the entire record of proceedings before the
Commission, directly refute the allegations in CKS' appeal of arbitrary conduct, and are
therefore excerpted at length in the following discussion of the Planning Commission's
decision.
The Planning Commission's discussion of this point is relevant not only because
this is technically an appeal from the Planning Commission's decision. The Planning
Commission's ruling is highly pertinent to the Town Staffs recent proposals to
"mitigate" the Project's impacts on traffic safety by painting curbs red and placing signs
forbidding V-turns. As the Planning Commission found with regard to the previous,
similar mitigations that had been proposed, these measures are unlikely to stop visitors
from making "T" turns in driveways, and making V-turns farther up the street such as Via
Los Altos that may now bear "no U-turn" signs, When more people in cars arrive for an
event than its onsite parking can accommodate, the predictable result is an onslaught of
excess cars traveling on local residential streets looking for places to park and making
"T" and "V" turns when they are unable to do so. Painting curbs red only makes matters
worse, by reducing the number of parking spaces, and pushing the resulting excess traffic
farther up the hills surrounding the CKS facility.
IV. THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION DENYING THE
CUP
The Planning Commission demonstrated fairness, sensitivity and a thorough
command of the facts and law at every turn in its deliberations, After several lengthy
hearings spanning months of careful review, the Commission reluctantly disapproved the
Project because CKS declined to provide adequate parking and reduce its late night hours
of operation. Absent these reasonable and feasible mitigations, the Project presented
significant conflicts with the Tiburon General Plan and Zoning Ordinance:
76 Letter dated May 8, 2006 from Richard A. Carman, Ph.D" P.E" to Tiburon Planning
Commission; letter dated May 8, 2006 from Arul K. Edwin, M.S., M.Eng., ITE, SCE, to
Tiburon Planning Commission.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 12
1. The Planning Commission finds, based upon the evidence in the Entire
Record, that the project is inconsistent with numerous Tiburon General
Plan goals and policies, and is not in compliance with provisions of the
Tiburon Zoning Ordinance because of parking deficiencies and the
cumulative activity levels, noise, disruption, and the sensitivity of the
days and hours that these activity levels would occur. The Planning
Commission further finds that the Project is incompatible with
surrounding residential development; and would be materially
detrimental to the quiet enjoyment of people's homes and
neighborhoods. Specifically, the Planning Commission finds that the
Project would be inconsistent with Tiburon General Plan Land Use
Element Goals LU-A, LU-B, LU-C, LU-D, LU-H, and LU-I; with
Land Use Element Policies LU-2, LU-6, and LU-13; Circulation
Element Goals C-C, C-D, C-f, and C-I and Circulation Element Policy
C-l; with Safety Element Goal SE-A; and with Noise Element Goals
N-A, N-B, and N-C. The Planning Commission further finds that the
Project is not in conformance with, or fails to comply with, Tiburon
Zoning Ordinance Sections 4,04.02 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e); Sections
4.04.03 (a)(l), (a)(2), and (a)(3); Sections 4.04.03 (b)(l) and (b)(3);
Section 5.08.04; Section 5.08.10; and Section 5.08.11.
J. The Planning Commission finds that although the EIR concludes that
the Project would not result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts
on the environment as characterized under the California
Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Commission disagrees with
certain conclusions of the EIR based on evidence in the Entire Record.
Specifically, the Planning Commission received written testimony
from two acoustical experts stating that the Draft EIR's use of a 24-
hour average metric, "Ldn," to assess the impact of intermittent noise
spikes during the evening was not appropriate, as it trivializes short-
term spikes in noise by averaging them against the ambient noise
levels during the rest of the 24-hour period. The Final EIR
acknowledges that arrival and departure noise levels will reach 65
decibels, and that background night time noise levels in the
neighborhood are only 40-41 dBA. FEIR, p. 43. Thus, the short-term
noise impact at these evening events might reach 25 decibels above
background levels at 11 :00 p, m., a very substantial increase. Neither
the Draft ErR nor the final EIR proposes any mitigation measure that
would assure that the significant spikes in late night week -end noise
would be mitigated to achieve a level of insignificance. The Planning
Commission therefore finds mitigation measures for Impact 3.4-B
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 13
(Noise Impacts in Areas Surrounding the Project Site) inadequate to
mitigate the increased noise,
In addition, the Planning Commission finds that the mitigation
measures specified for Impact 3.5-C (Headlights on Vehicles Using
the Driveway) are inadequate to reduce to insignificant late-night,
week-end headlight intrusion into homes in the immediate vicinity of
the driveway and parking lot, as more fully set forth in Section 4
below.
The Planning Commission also finds that Mitigation Measure 3.3-C.3
(the parking receipt program) proposed for Impact 3.3-C (Insufficient
On-Site Parking Resulting in Unsafe Turnarounds) is unwieldy, unduly
difficult to monitor and enforce, unlikely to be successfully
implemented, and therefore infeasible. The Planning Commission
finds that the alternative mitigations put forth in Alternative 7 to
address the Project's deficient on-site parking are insufficient to offset
the basic problem of inadequate on-site parking, and simply spread or
relocate the impacts into surrounding neighborhood streets. The first
of these alternate mitigations, that "Kol Shofar shall place signs along
its frontage on Via Los Altos, Blackfield Drive and Reedland Woods
Way stating that people attending events at CKS need to park on-site
and not on residential streets," mayor will cause unsafe turn-arounds
by the attendees who had intended to park along these streets until they
observed these unexpected signs. Furthermore, visitors arriving at
night or in the rain may not see these unexpected signs at all. Others
may choose to disregard the signs, since there is no proposed effective
enforcement mechanism to dissuade attendees from doing so. The
second alternate mitigation, that "Kol Shofar shall require that all
invitations and notifications of these new weekend events include a
note informing people there to park on the site and not to park on
residential streets," rests on three unproven assumptions: (1) that all
drivers will receive, remember and comply with the request; (2) that
there will be adequate room to accommodate them within the on-site
parking lots (a premise that would not be true where individual
vehicular occupancy by guests is at lower rates than CKS' projections,
and certainly during the High Holy Days and other events where
attendees greatly exceed on-site parking capacity); and (3) that
attendees will not attempt to park elsewhere if traffic backs up at the
Via Los Altos ingress point to the parking lot. The third alternate
mitigation, the institution of a monitoring program covering "up to
four events the first year after project completion" to assess the
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2,2007
Page 14
efficacy of the foregoing mitigation measures, would not itself prevent
significant unsafe turn-around impacts. Rather, it would document
such impacts for the purpose of developing additional mitigation
measures. As such, this measure would not itself prevent adverse
traffic and parking impacts. The Planning Commission finds that
sufficiently increasing the on-site parking capacity would bring the
Project into Zoning Ordinance parking regulation compliance and is
the most logical mitigation, yet this approach was strenuously argued
against by CKS at the May 10, 2006 hearing.
K. The Planning Commission concludes that substantial modifications to
the Project above and beyond those put forth by CKS in Alternative 7
would be necessap' to secure Planning Commission approval, as
discussed herein. 7
The Planning Commission supported its foregoing findings with a detailed
analysis of the evidence presented to the Commission together with the applicable
standards of the Tiburon General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.7s Its analysis separately
addressed the Project's noise, traffic and traffic safety, light and glare, neighborhood
compatibility and zoning (parking) violations, as documented in the following summary.
A. Noise
The Commission found that "[t]he Project will generate substantial noise from
events," including "twelve Saturday evening events with significant attendance (four with
250 attendees, four at 200 and four at 150) and fifteen new Sunday evening events (three
with 250 attendees, five at 200, four at 150 and three at 100).,,79 As the Commission
pointed out, "[t]he proposed Saturday evening events would continue 'until II :00 p.m.
plus cleanup,' and the Sunday events would continue 'until 9:00 p.m. plus cleanup."'so
Cleanup times, moreover, "are proposed to last until midnight on Saturdays, and . . . until
10:00 p.m. on Sundays."Sl As the Commission explained, "[t]his means that noise and
lights from departing guests, vendors, and others; people taking out supplies and/or
removing tables and chairs; caterers carrying out equipment and food; people talking
outside; car and truck engines starting up; car doors slamming; and related headlight
77 Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-16 adopted May 31, 2006, at pp.
3-5, emphasis added.
78 Id. at pp. 6-17.
79 Id. atp.7.
80 Id.
81Id.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 15
glare and parking lot illumination would thus continue until midnight on Saturdays and
until 10:00 p.m. on Sundays.,,82
As the Commission pointed out, the foregoing activities create noises so loud that
they will prevent school-age children from sleeping at times when their health requires it:
The Final ErR acknowledges that arrival and departure noise spikes will
reach 65 decibels, and that background night time noise levels in the
neighborhood are only 40-41 dBA. FErR, p. 43. Thus, the short-term
noise spikes during these evening events might reach 25 decibels above
background levels as late as II :00 p.m., a very substantial increase. These
represent serious noise incompatibilities with surrounding residences. For
example, many neighbors have school-age children. These children, who
need to be in bed Sunday evenings for school the next morning, would be
subject to sleep-disturbing noise and lights after they had retired for the
night. Also, residents in the Bel Aire neighborhood will be disturbed as
cars exiting the facility travel down Blackfield Drive at the end of an event
between 11:00 and 12:00 p.m. on Saturday and between 9:00 and 10:00
p.m. on Sunday. The residents of Blackfield Drive have written letters
and spoken publicly about the fact that many bedrooms face Blackfield
Drive. These neighbors will be disturbed at night by the increased noise,
light and traffic of cars traveling on Blackfield Drive to these night time
83
events.
Even as modified by Alternative 7, however, as the Planning Commission
explained, "[t]he Project would allow weekend evening events to occur on twenty-seven
(twelve on Saturdays and fifteen on Sundays) of the 104 weekend evenings each year,
representing 26% of annual weekend evening[ s], clearly a substantial portion. Allowing
such an increase in night time noise and activity on more than one-fourth of annual
weekend evenings conflicts with the Tiburon General Plan Noise Element's Goals" N-A,
N-B and N-C, which direct that the Town must "insure that residential areas are quiet"
and that "unnecessary, excessive and offensive noises" are eliminated or reduced, as
noted above84 Although the Town Council's January 23, 2007 Staff Report's proposed
conditions of approval (Proposed CUP, Table I, Parts I and 3) reduce these events trom
104 to 17 weekend evenings (plus "annual" events), the noise impact on this quiet
residential neighborhood remains "unnecessary, excessive and offensive."
82 Id.
83 Id. at p. 7.
84 Id.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 16
The Planning Commission's findings that the Project would unnecessarily harm
school-age children by generating excessively loud noises late at night is wholly
supported by the record and, contrary to CKS' baseless appeal, poses no conceivable
violation ofRLUrPA, as further discussed below.
B. Traffic and Traffic Safety
The Planning Commission found that "[t]he proposed substantial increase in the
square footage on the Property, and proposed increase in use of the Property, will result
in substantial additional traffic generation, particularly for large-scale events drawing
hundreds of attendees. As the number of facility users increases, so will the number of
cars delivering them, and the number of consequential unsafe tum-arounds in local
driveways and streets. ,,85 rn reaching this finding, the Planning Commission relied on the
extensive public hearing record. As the Commission explained, "[t]he Draft EIR
identified unsafe turnarounds in neighborhoods and using private driveways for the
purpose as an existing safety hazard that would increase as a result of the Project.,,86
Quoting from the DEIR, the Commission pointed out that '" [i]ncreased numbers of
turnarounds on those residential streets is considered by the ErR traffic engineer to be a
potentially significant safety concern. ",87 The Planning Commission noted that it had
"received substantial evidence from the public confirming that existing events and
activities at the existing CKS facility had resulted in unsafe tum-arounds by guests
driving vehicles to such events to seek additional parking sites off-site or to avoid traffic
congestion in the vicinity of the Property.,,88
Based on the foregoing evidence from the ErR traffic engineer and the public, the
Commission concluded that: "[t]hese tum-arounds pose significant traffic hazards to
vehicular and pedestrian safety, in conflict with the Tiburon General Plan's Circulation
Element, Circulation Goals C-C and C-F, Circulation Policy C-I, and Safety Element
Goal SE-A," which require the Town to "maintain all existing. . . residential streets with
consideration of . . . residents' safety. . . and protection of residential quality oflife,"
"minimize traffic congestion," and "maintain a safe and healthy community.,,89
The Planning Commission's conclusions that the Project would result in unsafe
turn-arounds, and that the proposed mitigations would at best only push these unsafe
tum-arounds farther into surrounding neighborhoods, remain fully applicable now. The
85 Id. at p. 8.
86 Id.
87 Id. at p. 8, quoting from the DErR at p. 67.
88 Id.
89 Id., quoting Tiburon General Plan Circulation Element at Circulation Goals C-C and
C-F, and Safety Element Goal SE-A.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2,2007
Page 17
January 23, 2007 Staff Report's proposals (at 31-35) to tighten restrictions on parking in
the immediate vicinity of the CKS facility (by painting curbs red and erecting "no
parking" signs) will similarly have the obvious effect of pushing the problem onto
neighboring streets whose curbs are not painted red and whose streets are not cluttered
with "no parking" signage. The basic problem remains that the onsite parking proposed
for the Project is insufficient to accommodate the large numbers of anticipated visitors.
The Staff Report's proposal to require written agreements to provide offsite parking is
unlikely to be effective because in the past, CKS' visitors have not made use of available
offsite parking, as the photographic documentation submitted by TNC clearly
demonstrates. Rather, despite the availability of these offsite parking facilities, CKS
visitors have repeatedly insisted on driving up and down streets adjacent to the Project in
search of parking, resulting in unsafe turn-arounds throughout the neighborhood (again,
as documented in the many photographs submitted by TNC).
rn addition to the significant adverse impacts of the Project on traffic and traffic
safety noted by the Planning Commission in its denial decision, the Project would
substantially increase left turns from Tiburon Boulevard onto Blackfield Drive, requiring
either a substantial lengthening of the left turn lane on Tiburon Boulevard, or a
reconfiguration of the signal sequencing on Tiburon Boulevard, potentially triggering
traffic congestion on Tiburon's main thoroughfare. The January 23,2007 Staff Report's
contrary conclusion (Report at 24) relies in part on the April 3, 2006 Crane
Transportation Group letter which assumes incorrectly that Caltrans will allow queuing
of left turn traffic within the "bay taper" area used for deceleration, an error confirmed by
"the EIR traffic engineers" (id.). As Traffic Engineer Arul Edwin testified to the
Commission, it is impossible to assess the Project's adverse impact on the Tiburon
BoulevardIBlackfield Drive intersection until Caltrans completes its review. Had CKS
consulted with and developed mitigation measures acceptable to Caltrans prior to
preparation of the ErR, or even before submitting its proposed Alternative 7, CKS could
have solved this problem:
rn my experience, it is imprudent to presume to forecast Caltrans' future
assessment of the additional traffic impact [on the Tiburon
BoulevardIBlackfield Drive intersection] created by Alternative 7.
Caltrans might, for example, determine that additional data and analysis,
or even a different methodology, might be appropriate or necessary.
Additionally, Caltrans might impose or require other alternatives or
mitigation measures not yet assessed by either the Town or CKS. Had
Alternative 7 been included within the DErR submitted to Caltrans as part
of its normal inter-agency review of this project, then these unnecessary
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 18
uncertainties with regard to Caltrans' assessment and design standards
could have been avoided.9o
As Planning Commissioner Richard Collins emphasized during the Commission's
deliberations on May 31, CKS' creation ofa surge of incoming traffic on Tiburon
Boulevard would create a dangerous situation at its intersection with Blackfield Drive, a
safety hazard that was not acceptable even on an infrequent basis. This hazard has still
not been eliminated. Rather Town Staff proposes to defer resolution of this problem to
vague future reviews by Caltrans, whose approval of the January 23,2007 Staff Report's
traffic analysis (at 24-27) is required. Such does not suffice. CEQA Guidelines sections
15126, 15126.4(a)(2), 15144 and I 5358(a)(2) require that a project's "reasonably
foreseeable" impacts be fully addressed at the time of project approval.
rn summary, in light of the significant traffic safety hazards posed by the Project,
particularly to school-age children who bicycle neighboring streets and walk on
sidewalks to the nearby Bel Aire School,91 the Planning Commission properly exercised
its discretion to withhold approval of the Project until these safety concerns are
adequately addressed. CKS' appeal, and the January 23, 2007 Staff Report, fail to show
otherwise.
C. Light and Glare
The Planning Commission carefully examined the mitigation measures proposed
by CKS to address the substantial light and glare impacts of the Project. It noted that the
DErR acknowledged that the headlight impacts of vehicles accessing and egressing the
Project at night on homes on Reedland Woods Way and Paseo Mirasol was a "potentially
significant impact.,,92 The FEIR acknowledged additional impacts on the residents on
Blackfield Drive.93 Although both the DErR and the FErR proposed potential mitigations
of unknown efficacy, the Planning Commission found these uncertain "measures
insufficient to reduce the impact of late-night vehicular headlight intrusion into the
effected homes to a level of insignificance." The Planning Commission properly found
that the Project as currently configured "conflict[s] with the Tiburon General Plan's Land
Use Element, Land Use Goals LU-B, LU-D, and LU-H, and Land Use Policy LU-2,"
which require the Town to "protect and preserve existing neighborhood character.,,94 The
9Q Letter dated May 8, 2006 from Arul K. Edwin, M.S., M.Eng., LT.E., S.C.E, to Tiburon
Planning Commission, at p. 2.
91 FErR at pp. 194,233,303 and 307.
92 Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-16, ~dopted May 31, 2006 at p. 9,
quoting from DEIR at p. 106, emphasis in original.
93 Id. at p. 9, citing FErR at p. 49.
94 Id. at pp. 9-10.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 19
Planning Commission also noted that the Project would disturb sleep throughout the
neighborhood, since the Project is located at the bottom of a bowl and therefore would,
when illuminated on weekdays until 9:30 p.m. or on weekends until 10:30 p.m. or later
for special events (January 23, 2007 Staff Report at 54), "be visible from neighboring
homes.,,95 rn combination with the late-night headlight glare into their sleeping quarters,
and contemporaneous noise spikes up to 25 decibels above background levels, the
Project's night time activities would have a significant adverse impact on the health of
the surrounding neighbors, particularly their young children.96
Reasonable mitigation measures are readily available to reduce these adverse
impacts to insignificance, including curtailing the duration of night time activities to 9:00
p.m. on Saturday and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday. CKS' appeal failed to advance any evidence
to suggest that the Project's night time activities could not be brought to a close at an
earlier time in order to protect the health of neighbors and their school-age children who
require a full-night's rest. Consequently, there is no evidence in this record that
reasonable mitigations to protect neighbors from late-night light and glare would
substantially burden CKS' exercise of its religion, as erroneously claimed in its appeal.
D. Neighborhood Compatibility
After careful review of the foregoing issues, the Planning Commission found
"that the Project poses significant impacts on the surrounding neighborhood from
increased noise levels, additional light and glare, additional traffic, increased parking
demand, and reduced vehicular and pedestrian safety.,,97 The Commission summarized
its concerns:
Siting a facility with the capacity to accommodate over 1,500 people, and
with plans for large evening events, in a quiet residential neighborhood,
while providing only 139 [now 156] on-site parking spaces, clearly
conflicts with the neighborhood character. Adjacent homes would be
subjected to night time increases in noise by as much as 25 decibels.
Nearby residences would be subject to headlight glare from scores of cars
arriving and leaving the facility on weekend nights. Neighbors would be
subjected to worsening traffic, parking congestion, and significant traffic
hazards.
Taken in the aggregate, these adverse impacts on the surrounding
neighborhood pose unacceptable deleterious effects on the "existing
95 Id. at p. 10.
96 Id.
97 Id. at p. 10.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 20
neighborhood character and identity," creating conflict, rather than the
required compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, and are
inconsistent with the Tiburon General Plan. . . .98
The Planning Commission cited seventeen separate goals and policies of the
Tiburon General Plan's Land Use, Circulation, Noise and Safety Elements in determining
that the Project as presently configured conflicts with the General Plan "in numerous,
fundamental respects.,,99 rn the case of each of these conflicts, however, the Project
could be reconjigured to mitigate these impacts to insignificance. Most notably, as the
Planning Commission observed, the Project could be reduced in size or modified to
provide adequate onsite or offsite parking secured by a lease or covenant as required by
Zoning Code S 16-5.8.2(a) and (b) to substantially reduce its impacts on traffic, traffic
safety and parking. The Project's proposed late night activities could be brought to a
close at an earlier hour, thus reducing its adverse impacts on noise, light and glare to
insignificant levels. There is no evidence in the record before the Planning Commission
that CKS could not make these adjustments in its Project. Accordingly, there is no
evidence that such reasonable mitigation measures would substantially burden CKS'
exercise of its religion as claimed in its appeal.
E. Zoning Ordinance (primarily Parking) Non-
Conformance
The Project's adverse impacts on community noise, traffic and traffic safety,
parking, light and glare and neighborhood compatibility also violate the Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance. Consequently, the Planning Commission found that "the Project is
inconsistent and does not conform to the findings necessary to ap~rove the application"
as required by section 4.04.02 ofthe Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. 1 0 The Commission
detailed a host of reasons why the Project as currently proposed poses unnecessary
conflicts with its neighbors. It observed that "[t]he proximity of homes surrounding the
site, the bowl-like topography in which the site rests, the relatively narrow residential
streets nearby, and the relative quietude of the area surrounding the site create heightened
potential for impacts on the surrounding homes and streets during otherwise quiet times
for this neighborhood, especially on week-end evenings and nights. . . . during which the
proposed new events and activities would occur.,,101
The Commission fully understood its duty to fairly balance the interests before it.
It explained that "[w]hile neighborhoods often bear a burden of noise and traffic when a
98 Id. at p. 12, citing Tiburon General Plan, Land Use Element, Policies LU-I and LU-2.
99 Id.
100 Id.
101 Id. at p. 13.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 21
religious institution and/or school is in the vicinity, the frequency, time of night, and
scale and number of attendees of new activities and events proposed for the site would
unnecessarily intrude on the usual hours of respite from that noise and traffic currently
enjoyed by the surrounding residential neighborhoods, and make the proposed project
incompatible with the types of activity and uses normally permitted in the surrounding
residential area.,,102 They key word here is "unnecessarily." CKS presented no evidence
in support of its appeal that it could not adopt the modest mitigations that would allow its
Project to be approved.
rn reaching its conclusions, the Commission paid particular attention to the
Project's numerous violations of the on-site parking requirements of the Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance:
The Project would create an additional net total of 22 [now 39] parking
spaces, far less than required by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The
proposed Multi-Purpose Room, at 642 seats capacity, would require 161
additional parking spaces in accordance with Sections 5.08.11 and
5.08.04(d) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. 103
For these reasons, the Planning Commission found that the Project violated sections
4.04.03(a)(2) and (3) and 4.04.03(b)(1) and (3) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, which
forbid approval of projects which fail to provide adequate transportation, utilities and
other facilities required to serve them and which therefore cause harm to surrounding
land uses. Although the Town Council's increase in onsite parking to 156 spaces will
help mitigate this Project's impacts, this improvement is still insufficient to satisfY the
Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, which require adequate parking for all uses of the
Project, not just for some.
For these reasons, the Commission correctly found that the Project violated
sections 5.08.04(d) & (k), 5.08.10 and 5.08.11 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance.104 The
Commission explained how the Project as presently configured would conflict with each
of these ordinances. First, the Commission pointed out that section 5.08.04 requires that
places of assembly provide one parking space for each four seats of maximum seating
capacity, or one for each forty square feet of assembly area, whichever is greater. 105
Contrary to this ordinance, the 642-seat, 4,500 square-foot assembly area of the Project's
Multi-Purpose Room would require 161 parking spaces; the Project's 550-seat, 5,336
square-foot remodeled Sanctuary would require 138 parking spaces; the Project's
102 Id., emphasis added.
103 Id.
104 Id. at pp. 15-16.
105 Id. at p. 15.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 22
remodeled 1,842 square-foot Chapel would require 46 spaces; and the Project's 150-
student pre-school would require 18 spaces.106 The Project's combination of these uses
"yields a total parking requirement of 363 spaces, far more than the 139 [now 156] spaces
proposed for the existing lower and proposed new upper parking lotS.107
The Planning Commission then properly acknowledged and applied its discretion
under section 5.08.10, which permits the Commission to allow a project to "utilize the
same spaces required for another use or time" if it is able to find that "the uses or times
for which overlapping parking is being requested do not have overlapping hours of
operation sufficient to result in a deficiency of parking spaces" and, where an off-site
parking lot is proposed, "the parking lot in question is within a reasonable distance from
the uses for which parking requirements are to be overlapped.,,10S The Commission
explained why it could not waive the requirements for each individual use, citing the
DErR's analysis of the conflicting timing of the overlapping uses. 109 Since many of the
uses would operate simultaneously, the Commission pointed out, the "Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance requirements ranged from 161-299 parking spaces where only 139 [now 156]
spaces had been proposed." Faced with this substantial parking shortfall, the
Commission found "this discrepancy too large to approve the Project.,,110 This
discrepancy remains far too large, even with the 156 parking spaces currently proposed in
the January 23, 2007 Staff Report.
The Commission likewise found the Project inconsistent with section 5.08.11,
which requires additional off-street parking spaces where a change in use or increase in
floor area creates additional parking demand. The Commission explained that, "[a]s
calculated above, the combined parking requirement for the remodeled and expanded
facilities is 363 parking spaces and based upon the overlapping uses proposed, it could be
reduced to 299 spaces. The proposed 139 [now 156] parking spaces would not fulfill this
requirement. ,,1l1
Finally, the Commission considered its discretion to propose specific conditions
of approval which would guide CKS as to which specific modifications to its Project
would achieve conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. But CKS rejected the
Commission's offer to provide this guidance, and instead demanded "an 'up or down'
vote on the Project."l12 Thus rebuffed, the Commission was left with no alternative but
106 Id. at pp. 15-16.
107 Id. at p. 16.
108 Id. at p. 16, citing Tiburon Zoning Ordinance section 5.08.10.
109 Id. at p. 16, citing DErR at p. 65.
110 Id.
111 Id. atp. 17.
112 Id. at p. 14.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Tovm Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 23
to vote to "proceed. . . with a denial," since providing a "stipulation of conditions of
approval is inappropriate" in light of CKS' refusal to entertain such a compromise.
rn sunnnary, the Planning Commission carefully considered the Project's
significant adverse impacts based on the extensive record before it. The Commission
applied each of the relevant provisions of the Tiburon General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance, and where the Project conflicted with them, adopted findings explaining its
conclusion that the Project would require further mitigation. The Commission
thoroughly considered all of the mitigations proposed during the ErR process, but found
they were either ineffective or insufficient to comply with local planning laws. Even
though only modest modifications of the Project are needed to reduce its unacceptable
impacts to insignificance, CKS refused the Commission's repeated requests to explore
such mitigations with the Commission's 2-member Project Subcommittee, demanding
instead "an 'up or down' vote on the Project."l13 The Commission was therefore
impelled to disapprove the Project as proposed, but in doing so provided CKS with ample
opportunity to consider and accept mitigations that would bring the Project into
conformance with local planning and zoning laws.
Thus, CKS' claim that the Planning Commission acted in an arbitrary manner is
directly refuted by the record. Contrary to its appeal, CKS holds the key that will unlock
the approval door. Providing adequate parking, further reducing the magnitude of its
proposed expansion and reducing the duration of its proposed night time activities would
render CKS' project approvable. There is no evidence in the record before the Planning
Commission that accepting these reasonable modifications would substantially burden
CKS' exercise of its religion. Accordingly, as discussed in the following section of this
letter, the Planning Commission's denial of the Project does not offend RLurPA in the
slightest.
V. THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF THE CUP
CONFORMS FULLY TO RLUlPA.
CKS' appeal and subsequent correspondence from its lawyers Mr. Ragghianti and
The Becket Fund advance loose accusations that the Planning Commission violated CKS'
religious freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. CSK' unseemly claims
ignore the Planning Commission's careful review and detailed findings, and the extensive
record on which they are based. Seeking to bypass the actual facts of this proceeding
because they refute its baseless allegations of bias, intolerance and arbitrary conduct,
CKS premises its entire argument on the false hope that RLUrp A flatly trumps the
Town's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance where they conflict with its proposed use.
Such is not the law.
113 !d. at p. 14.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 24
A. RLUlPA Does Not Preempt Local Planning and Zoning
Laws.
RLUrPA does not expressly or impliedly preempt local land use laws. To the
contrary, it merely provides that "a government may not 'impose or implement a land use
regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden' on religious exercise unless the
government demonstrates that the imposition of the burden is 'in furtherance of a
compelling governmental interest' and is the 'least restrictive means of furthering' that
interest." Curtin & Talbert, Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law (25th ed.,
2005) (Curtin & Talbert) at p. 55, citing 42 U.S.C. S 2000cc.
RLUrPA does not itself define "substantial burden." However, "the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals recently clarified what must be shown to demonstrate a 'substantial
burden' on religious exercise under RLUrp A." Id., citing San Jose Christian College v.
City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1035 (9th Cir. 2004). In City of Morgan Hill,
[t]he Ninth Circuit held that for a land use regulation to impose a
'substantial burden,' it must be 'oppressive' to a 'significantly great'
extent. That is, a 'substantial burden' on 'religious exercise' must impose
a significantly great restriction or onus upon such exercise. See Id. at
1034.
The Court held that the ordinance at issue in City of Morgan Hill imposed
no restriction whatsoever on the plaintiff religious college's religious
exercise; it merely required the college to submit a complete application
for rezoning, as it required of all applicants. Id. at 1035. Because the
college was not precluded from using other sites within the city and the
city would have imposed the same application requirements on any other
applicant similarly seeking approval of a rezone, the court found no
"substantial burden." Id.
Id. at pp. 55_56.114 So too in this case, the Planning Commission's reasonable
request that CKS provide adequate parking (or reduce the project's size) and
reduce its late night hours poses no "substantial burden" on CKS.
114 "rf a claimant demonstrates that a regulation constitutes a substantial burden on its
religious exercise, the burden shifts to the government to prove that the burden is the least
restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest." Curtin & Talbert,
supra, at p. 55. However, because there is no evidence in the Planning Commission's
record of proceedings that the modest mitigations necessary to secure Project approval
would pose a "substantial burden" on CKS' religious exercise, it is unnecessary to
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 25
RLurp A also includes a non-discrimination provision, codified at 42 U.S.C.
section 2000cc(b). This provision contains three prohibitions. First, "[ n]o govemment
shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious
assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a non-religious assembly or
institution." 42 U.S.C. S 2000cc(b)(1). Second, "[n]o government shall impose or
implement a land use regulation that discriminates against any assembly or institution on
the basis of religion or religious denomination." Id. at subd. (b)(2). Third, "[n]o
government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that - (A) totally excludes
religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or (B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies,
institutions, or structures within ajurisdiction." Id. at subd. (b)(3).
Thus, the relevant questions for this Council's inquiry are (I) whether the
Planning Commission's denial ofCKS' application "imposes a substantial burden on [its]
religious exercise," and (2) whether the Planning Commission imposed a land use
regulation in a manner that (a) treats CKS "on less than equal terms with a non-religious
assembly or institution," (b) discriminates against CKS "on the basis ofreligion or
religious denomination," (c) totally excludes religious assemblies from Tiburon, or (d)
unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions or structures within the Town.
The answer to each of these questions is clearly "no." There is no evidence in this
record that the mitigations to CKS' Project needed to secure its approval impose a
"substantial burden" on CKS' religious exercise. Nor is there any evidence in this record
that the Planning Commission imposed a land use regulation that discriminated against
religious assemblies or institutions in general, or against CKS in particular. Accordingly,
for the reasons discussed more fully below, the Planning Commission's decision fully
comports with RLUIPA.
B. The Planning Commission's Decision Does Not
"Substantially Burden" cKS' Religious Exercise.
Neither CKS' original appeal, nor the subsequent correspondence from its
lawyers, identified any evidence in the record that the modest and discrete mitigations
needed to secure approval of the Project pose a "substantial burden" on CKS' religious
exercise. The reason for this is simple. There is no such evidence. At no time during the
Planning Commission's lengthy hearings in this matter did CKS ever make a c1aim-
much less submit evidence to support it - that providing adequate parking (or reducing
the magnitude of its proposed expansion) and reducing its night time hours of operation
would impose a "substantial burden" on its religious exercise, much less be "oppressive"
address the extraneous issue of whether these mitigations are "the least restrictive means
of furthering a compelling governmental interest."
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 26
to a "significantly great" extent as required to support a claim under RLUIP A. City of
Morgan Hill, supra, 360 F.3d at 1034. CKS' failure to cite any such evidence completely
disposes of its RLUIP A claim.
Instead of providing the Planning Commission or this Council with relevant facts
from the record in this case, CKS' lawyers cited the facts present in other court
proceedings. But the facts present in other cases have nothing to do with this case. It is
the facts of this case that will govern this Council's decision, and any subsequent court
revIew.
Nor do any of the court rulings cited by CKS' lawyers suggest that the law as
articulated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - the highest court in the Western
United States - in City of Morgan Hill is in any respects wrong. To the contrary, the sole
Ninth Circuit ruling cited by CKS' lawyer (Mr. Ragghianti), Guru Nanak Sikh Society of
Yuba City v. County of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978 (9th Cir., Aug. 1,2006), expressly approves
andfollows the RLUrPA tests established in City of Morgan Hill, agreeing that "[f1or a
land use regulation to impose a 'substantial burden,' it must be 'oppressive' to a
'significantly great' extent." 456 F.3d at 988, quoting City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d at
1034, emphasis added.
Applying this test to the extreme facts in Guru Nanak, the Ninth Circuit found
that the defendant Sutter County had indeed imposed a substantial burden on the
plaintiffs exercise of religion that was "oppressive" to a "significantly great" extent.
Guru Nunak, 456 F.3d at 989-992. Guru Nanakprovides no support for CKS' contention
that the Planning Commission violated RLUIP A. The facts in Guru Nanak could not be
more different from the facts here. In Guru Nanak, the defendant county repeatedly
refused to allow a plaintiff religious group to construct a temple, first in an urban district,
and then in a rural area. Here, by contrast, the Town has welcomed CKS' operation of its
facility and repeatedly accommodated its growth - to nearly three times its original
congregant size - over the past twenty-two years. rn Guru Nanak, the proposed use
measured only 2,850 square feet and was located on a 28.8-acre lot "that did not border
anyone's front or back yard." Guru Nanak, supra, 456 F.3d at 983. CKS' project, by
contrast, measures 57,146 gross square feet - roughly twenty times greater - on a site that
is four times smaller - 6.94 acres - that is surrounded by homes. The CKS project thus
has a density eighty times greater than the tiny temple proposed by Guru Nanak.
Further, the Guru Nanak temple was proposed in a remote, lightly populated
agricultural zone where the minor increase in traffic from the seventy-five people who
would use the temple posed no impacts on surrounding land uses, in contrast to the
substantial noise, traffic, parking and glare impacts that the Project here would impose on
the surrounding residential neighborhood. 456 F.3d at 990. Moreover, the modest
mitigations required here to secure Project approval pose no significant burden on CKS,
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 27
unlike the repeated outright permit denial suffered by the religious group in Guru Nanak.
In contrast to the Planning Commission's detailed findings specifYing the specific
respects in which CKS' Project violated the Tiburon General Plan and Zoning Ordinance,
in Guru Nanak "the County's broad reasons given for its tandem denials could easily
apply to all future applications by Guru Nanak." 456 F.3d at 989.
The Guru Nanak Court's careful delineation of the extreme hostility to religious
exercise that violated RLUIP A in that case thus stands in stark contrast to the exact
opposite circumstances present here. Where, as here, the local government documents
the land use impacts warranting rejection of a proposed religious use, and there is "no
reason to believe that the city would not approve an application for a smaller or
differently configured building and parking lot. . . that sufficiently addressed the
applicable requirements relating to buffers and other forms of impact mitigation," there is
no "substantial burden." Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. City of West Linn (2004) 192 Or.App. 567, 598, 86 P.3d
1140,1156.
Finally, in Guru Nanak, the group "readily agreed to every mitigation measure
suggested by the Planning Division, but the County, without explanation, found such
cooperation insufficient." Id., emphasis added. Here, by contrast, the roles are reversed.
The Planning Commission offered to provide CKS with a detailed "stipulation of
conditions of approval," but CKS refused, without explanation, to entertain any such
compromise. Tiburon Planning Commission No. 2006-16, adopted May 31, 2006 at p.
14.
Thus, the very sharp differences that distinguish the facts of this case from those
present in Guru Nanak expose the illogic ofCKS' lawyers' argument, and compel its
rejection. The modest mitigation measures at issue here pose no substantial burden on
CKS' exercise of religion. To the contrary, they would achieve precisely the reasonable
accommodation ofCKS' desired expansion that it claims it has been denied.
The other cases cited by CKS' lawyers provide even less support for its position.
CKS places heavy reliance on four federal trial court rulings from the East Coast,
Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck, 417 F.Supp.2d 477, 561 (S.D.N.Y.
2006) (Westchester); Hollywood Community Synagogue v. City of Hollywood, 436
F.Supp.2d 1325, 1328 (S.D.Fla. 2006); Mintz v. Roman Catholic Bishop, 424 F.Supp.2d
309,318-19 (D.Mass. 2006); and Murphy v. Zoning Com'n of Town of New Milford, 289
F.Supp.2d. 87 (D. Conn. 2003). None of these cases involves facts even remotely similar
to those present in this case. Each is readily distinguishable because none involved an
applicant's refusal to accept modest mitigations that were available, feasible and well-
justified by potentially serious impacts on public health and safety as in this case.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 28
Moreover, one of these rulings has been vacated, II 5 two have been appealed and could be
reversed, 116 and the fourth ruling, in Mintz v. Roman Catholic Bishop, was appealed and
settled on terms favorable to the defendant city.117 Thus, none of the District Court
rulings on which CKS primarily relies has any relevance to this case.
The only other authority on which CKS places significant reliance, Saints
Constantine & Helen Greek Orthodox Church, Inc. v. City of New Berlin, 396 F.3d 895,
899-900 (7th Cir. 2005), is readily distinguishable because there the city's flat rejection
of a proposed church use was based on a palpably "bad faith" pretext that a non-church
institutional use might thereupon result. 396 F.3d at 898-901. Again, the contrast to the
Planning Commission's measured and reasonable efforts to find a solution to CKS'
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance conflicts is striking, and dispatches its contrary
argument.
In sunnnary, at no point in its lawyers' letters does CKS provide any substantial
evidence - because there is none - that provision of adequate parking, and a reduction in
the Project's size and late-night hours, would "substantially burden" CKS' exercise of
religion - much less be "oppressive to a significantly great extent" as required by settled
law. Since that is the relevant test, CKS' failure to present evidence on this point requires
rejection of his argument.
C. The Planning Commission's Decision Does Not
Discriminate Against cKS.
CKS' lawyer Mr. Ragghianti devoted less than one page to his argument that CKS
was the victim of "disparate treatment," and makes no effort to distinguish between and
115 Last year, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned and vacated the District
Court's ruling in Murphy v. Zoning Com 'n of Town of New Milford. Id., 402 F.3d 342
(2nd Cir. 2005).
116 The District Court's ruling in Hollywood Community Synagogue v. City of Hollywood
has been appealed by several neighbors whose intervention was denied. If their appeal,
which is pending before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, succeeds, the District
Court's Consent Decree will necessarily fall. The District Court's ruling in Westchester
has been appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
117 The District Court's ruling in Mintz v. Roman Catholic Bishop, supra, was appealed to
the First Circuit Court of Appeals on May II, 2006. On May 23, 2006, the parties to the
Mintz litigation settled the appeal on terms favorable to the Town of Lenox. The Roman
Catholic Bishop agreed to provide twenty-five additional parking spaces and augment
landscaping as sought by the Town, as documented in the Settlement Agreement annexed
at Exhibit 3 to our October 3, 2006 letter to this Town Council.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 29
to apply the four discrete tests governing discrimination claims under RLUIP A.11S The
only claim CKS advances is that "St. Hilary's Catholic Church was granted a CUP by the
Town for even more significant construction in a residential neighborhood than is here
proposed, and this was done on the basis of a Negative Declaration - not the full-scale
and costly EIR required ofCKS." Ragghianti Letter dated September 6,2006 at p. 10.
But CKS fails to show that the CUP granted to St. Hilary's Catholic Church was in fact
for a "more significant construction," deigning to "belabor the factual similarities
between that proj ect and the present one." Id.
Since CKS has the burden of persuasion on this claim, and has failed to advance
any facts to support it, it fails. The actual facts in the case ofSt. Hilary's expansion
refutes this contention. First, St. Hilary's is not a "large mainstream congregation" and
CKS, a "small conservative congregation." St. Hilary's currently has about 1100
parishioners; CKS has about 600 family units (representing approximately 1500
individuals). St. Hilary's involved a gymnasium rather than a multi-purpose room. St.
Hilary's provided adequate parking for all additional square footage added to the site,
whereas CKS has failed to do so for its Project. CKS proposes a 50 percent increase in
student population whereas St. Hilary's remains static. CKS' Project threatens unsafe
turnarounds on residential streets. St. Hilary's gymnasium, by contrast, poses no
significant traffic impacts. The St. Hilary's gymnasium is used for sports until only 3:00
p.m. on Saturday, and not used for sports on Sundays. CKS, by contrast, proposes large
events until 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays (with cleanup extending until II :00 p.m.), and 8:00
p.m. on Sundays (with cleanup extending one hour later). A summary of these and other
substantial differences between the significant impacts imposed by CKS' Project and the
modest impacts ofthe St. Hilary's gymnasium is provided in Exhibit 4 to our October 3,
2006 letter to this Council, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Given the much greater adverse impacts posed by CKS' Project, it was entirely
appropriate that the Town request review of those impacts in an EIR, and after thorough
study, request reasonable mitigations as was done here. Thus, there is no evidence that
St. Hilary's was accorded more favorable treatment than CKS.
For the foregoing reasons, CKS' claim of "disparate treatment" is completely
unfounded, and affords no support for its appeal.
118 As noted previously, under RLUIP A the four relevant tests are whether the Planning
Commission imposed a land use regulation in a manner that (a) treats CKS "on less than
equal terms with a non-religious assembly or institution," (b) discriminates against CKS
"on the basis of religion or religious denomination," (c) totally excludes religious
assemblies from Tiburon, or (d) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions or
structures within the Town. 42 U.S.C. 9 2000cc(b)(1), (2), and (3).
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 30
VI. THERE IS NO "PRIOR RESTRAINT" ON RELIGIOUS
EXPRESSION.
CKS' final RLUIP A argument is that the Planning Commission imposed a "prior
restraint on religious expression in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution" by exercising "unbridled discretion" in its rejection of
CKS' CUP application. This argument fails. The Planning Commission exhaustively
reviewed the voluminous file in this case, and carefully considered the evidence and
arguments advanced by all parties throughout the proceeding. Its Resolution No. 2006-
16 is thoroughly documented by references to the DEIR, FEIR, relevant traffic and noise
studies, staff reports, and evidence presented by the parties. It rests on a detailed analysis
of the relevant provisions of Tiburon's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Far from an
exercise in "unbridled discretion," the Planning Commission's decision reflects
scrupulous adherence to the highest standards of adjudicatory review. CKS' contrary
assertion is devoid of merit, and should be sunnnarily rejected.
VII. SUMMARY OF REASONS WHY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF cKS' CUP SHOULD BE UPHELD.
The Planning Commission's decision to require additional, modest mitigations to
address the Project's significant adverse impacts on noise, traffic and traffic safety,
parking, light and glare and neighborhood compatibility is thoroughly supported by
applicable law and the record. CKS' claims that the Planning Commission violated
RLUrPA and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, by
contrast, are contrary to applicable law and refuted by the record. Accordingly, the
Council should affirm the Planning Commission's Resolution No. 2006-16 denying
CKS' CUP application.
VIII. THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CERTIFICATION OF THE
FEIR SHOULD BE SET ASIDE.
The Planning Commission's Resolution No. 2006-16 certifying the FErR for the
CKS Project should be set aside because the FEIR violates CEQA in at least eight
significant respects, as detailed below.
A. Summary of FEIR Deficiencies
1. The FEIR fails to remedy the Draft EIR's (DEIR's) deficient
assessment ofthe noise impacts of the cKS Project. The Planning Commission
properly found the DEIR's noise assessment deficient. rn its Resolution No. 2006-16
denying CKS' Conditional Use Application, the Commission stated: "the Planning
Commission disagrees with certain conclusions of the EIR based on evidence in the
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 31
Entire Record. Specifically, the Planning Commission received written testimony from
two acoustical experts stating that the Draft ErR's use of a 24-hour average metric, 'Ldn'
to assess the impact of intermittent noise spikes during the evening was not appropriate,
as it trivializes short-term spikes in noise by averaging them against the ambient noise
levels during the rest of the 24-hour period. The Final ErR acknowledges that arrival and
departure noise levels will reach 65 decibels, and that background night time noise levels
in the neighborhood are only 40-41 dBA. FErR, p. 43. Thus, the short-term noise impact
of these evening events might reach 25 decibels against background levels at II :00 [now
10:00] p.m., a very substantial increase. Neither the Draft EIR nor the Final EIR
proposes any mitigation measure that would assure that the significant spikes in late night
week-end noise would be mitigated to achieve a level of insignificance. The Planning
Commission therefore finds mitigation measures for rmpact 3.4-B (Noise rmpacts in
Areas Surrounding the Project Site) inadequate to mitigate the increased noise."
Resolution No. 2006-16, ~ J, pp. 3-4, emphasis added. The January 23, 2007 Staff
Report ignores this finding and commits the very error condemned by the Planning
Commission by averaging the Project's noise spikes over a 24-hour period (id. at 37-38).
2. The FEIR, DEIR and January 23, 2007 Staff Report fail to adequately
address and mitigate this Project's adverse impacts on parking. The DEIR and FEIR
fail to acknowledge the Project's clear and substantial violation of the Tiburon General
Plan's and Zoning Ordinance's parking requirements for new Projects. The Planning
Commission properly found in Resolution No. 2006-16 that the FEIR's parking
mitigations are illusory because they are "infeasible": "Mitigation Measure 3.3-C.3 (the
Parking Receipt Program) proposed for rmpact 3.3-C (insufficient on-site parking
resulting in unsafe turnarounds) is unwieldy, unduly difficult to monitor and enforce, and
unlikely to be successfully implemented, and therefore infeasible. The Planning
Commission finds that the alternative mitigations put forth in Alternative 7 to address the
Project's deficient on-site parking are insufficient to off-set the basic problem of
inadequate on-site parking, and simply spread or relocate impacts into surrounding
neighborhood streets." Resolution No. 2006-16, ~ J, p. 4, emphasis added.
Rather than address and fully mitigate this Project's obvious parking deficiencies,
the DEIR erroneously assumes that this Project may shift CKS' burden onto neighboring
streets to absorb the excess vehicles its undersized parking capacity cannot accommodate.
rt asserts, incorrectly, that the Project proponent can divert "about 33 cars to park on-
street along the Project site frontages of Via Los Altos and Blackfield Drive." DEIR at p.
67. This assumption directly violates the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, a conflict that
neither the DEIR, the FEIR nor the January 23,2007 Staff Report addresses.
The governing standards are set forth in Zoning Ordinance sections 16-5.8.2-.11.
They direct that "[t]he required parking shall be provided on the parcel or contiguous lot
or parcel where the use is located," or "on another parcel providing that the parcel is
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 32
within the town in a commercial zone and is reasonably convenient to the subject parcel,
as approved by the town." This Project fails this test.
Neither the DEIR, the FErR nor the January 23, 2007 Staff Report discloses the
Zoning Ordinance's requirement that where parking is to be provided at an off-site
location, then the Project proponent must provide "a covenant by the owner or owners of
such [off-site] parcels for the benefit of the town, in a form approved by the town, that
the owner or owners will continue to maintain the required number of parking spaces so
long as the building, structure, use or improvement is maintained within the town," and
that the "title to and right to use the parcel or parcels upon which the parking spaces are
to be provided shall be subservient to the title to the premises upon which the [project]
building has been or is to be erected," or alternatively, that the off-site parking spaces are
secured by a "lease agreement. . . . reviewed and approved by the town." Tiburon
Zoning Ordinance section 16-5.8.2(a) and (b). Yet this requirement is simply swept
under the rug. This omission defeats the purpose of an EIR, which is to identifY and
attempt to resolve environmental conflicts such as traffic and parking.
The DEIR, FErR and January 23, 2007 Staff Report likewise fail to determine this
Project's maximum, simultaneous parking demand. Zoning Ordinance section 16-5.8.10
directs that where a project involves multiple uses such as CKS proposes here, "[p larking
required for multiple uses shall be the sum of the requirements for each individual use."
But contrary to this clear requirement, the DEIR, FEIR and January 23, 2007 Staff Report
only consider the impact of the greatest individual use - not the sum of all
contemporaneous uses. Despite repeated requests from TNC for a comprehensive
assessment of the timing and intensity of the different uses proposed for the Project,
neither the DEIR nor the FEIR, nor any subsequent staff analysis, has determined the
maximum simultaneous parking demand of the facility if it is expanded as proposed.
Because the FEIR fails to rectify this omission, it cannot be certified.
3. Neither the DEIR, the FEIR nor the January 23, 2007 Staff Report
addresses and mitigates to insignificance this Project's profound conflict with the
character of the existing neighborhood, in violation of Goals and Policies of the
Tiburon 2020 General Plan. Neither the DEIR nor the FErR addresses all of the
Project's numerous and substantial violations of the Tiburon General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance. Instead, the DEIR and FErR stop short of acknowledging many ofthe
planning and zoning violations this Project poses. These violations are pervasive and
underscore this Project's many significant environmental impacts. As the Planning
Commission found in Resolution No. 2006-16, "based on the evidence in the Entire
Record, . . . the Project is inconsistent with numerous Tiburon General Plan Goals and
Policies, and is not in compliance with provisions of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance
because of parking deficiencies and the cumulative activity levels, noise, disruption, and
the sensitivity of the days and hours that these activity levels would occur. The Planning
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 33
Commission further finds that the Project is incompatible with surrounding residential
development; and would be materially detrimental to the quiet enjoyment of people's
homes and neighborhoods. Specifically, the Planning Commission finds that the Project
would be inconsistent with Tiburon General Plan Land Use Element Goals LU-A, LU-B,
LU-C, LU-D, LU-H, and LU-I; with Land Use Element Policies LU-2, LU-6, and LU-13;
Circulation Element Goals C-C, C-D, C-F, and c-r and Circulation Element Policy C-I;
with Safety Element Goal SE-A; and with Noise Element Goals N-A, N-B, and N-C.
The Planning Commission further finds that the Project is not in conformance with, or
fails to comply with, Tiburon Zoning Ordinance Sections 4.04.02(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e);
Sections 4.04.03(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3); Sections 4.04.03(b)(1) and (b)(3); Section
5.08.04; Section 5.08.10; and Section 5.08.11." Id. at 3 ~I. ~ I, p. 3.
The FErR's failure to acknowledge and address these plan conflicts is a clear
violation ofCEQA. CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d) directs that "[t]he EIR shall
discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans. . .
." Id., emphasis added. Because the FEIR fails to do so, it cannot be certified.
4. Neither the DEIR, the FEIR nor the January 23, 2007 Staff Report
addresses and mitigates the Project's significant adverse impacts on traffic and
circulation. The Project would generate substantial late night traffic on Saturday and
Sunday evenings in a quiet residential neighborhood, dramatically increasing hazards to
drivers and pedestrians alike. As the Planning Commission found in Resolution No.
2006-16, none ofthe mitigations proposed in DEIR and FEIR, even as supplemented by
the Alternative 7 analysis (and most recently, the January 23, 2007 Staff Report), would
prevent significant unsafe turn-around impacts from cars that cannot be accommodated
by on-site parking and would be forced to seek parking on adjacent residential streets. Id.
at ~ J, pp. 4-5. Turn-arounds on residential streets, particularly at night, pose significant
impacts on public health and safety, and conflict with the General Plan's Land Use Goals
LU-B, LU-D, and LU-H, which require new projects to "protect the health, safety, and
welfare ofthe community," "preserve, protect, and enhance the small-town residential
image of the community," and "protect and preserve existing neighborhood character and
identity." The Project's unsafe patterns of traffic and parking activity likewise
contravene the Goals and Policies of the Circulation Element, including Circulation
Goals C-C, C-F, C-I, and C-l, which require projects to "maintain all existing. . .
residential streets with consideration of. . . residents' safety. . . and protection of
residential quality of life," "minimize traffic congestion," "provide adequate parking,"
and "take into consideration potential traffic and circulation impacts."
The DErR's and FEIR's failure to address these General Plan conflicts violates
CEQA's command that "[t]he EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the
proposed project and applicable general plan. . . ." CEQA Guidelines S 15125(d).
Therefore the FEIR cannot be certified.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 34
5. Neither the DEIR, the FEIR nor the January 23, 2007 Staff Report
adequately addresses and mitigates the adverse impacts ofthis Project's night time
light and glare on nearby residences. Although the DEIR concedes that "[h]eadlight
intrusion is a visual invasion of privacy and is considered a potentially significant
impact," (DEIR, p. 106, emphasis in original), the FEIR and the January 23, 2007 Staff
Report assume that this impact will be mitigated to insignificance through landscaping
and erection of a fence or berm. FEIR, p. 49 and Mitigation Measures 3.5-C.I and 3.5-
D.lO; January 23, 2007 Staff Report at 49-51. But neither the DErR nor the FEIR
acknowledges that the mitigation measures they propose are not adequate to reduce the
impact of vehicular headlight intrusion into the effected homes to insignificance. The
proposed mitigation of the headlight intrusion into 35 Reedland Woods Way - an
existing fence - would not shield the second story (i.e., the sleeping quarters) of this
residence from direct headlight intrusion. The FEIR's assumption that headlight
intrusion into 20 Reedland Woods Way would be reduced to insignificance because of
the 100- foot distance is in error, as modern headlights are designed to reach several
hundred feet. The FEIR's assumption that headlight intrusion into 220 Blackfield Drive
would be insignificant because that residence has been impacted by other headlight
intrusions in the past "without complaint" does not in fact identify a mitigation measure
as CEQA requires. Public Resources Code S 21002. I (a) ("The purpose ofan [ErR] is to
. . . indicate the manner in which. . . significant effects can be mitigated."). The fact that
this home is already affected by existing headlight intrusion does not mitigate the impact
of the additional headlight intrusion that this Project would cause. rnstead, it makes it
worse. Moreover, the FEIR overlooks the fact that the addition oflate night weekend
events, as well as more frequent night time use of the facilities on week days, will
substantially increase the frequency and duration of headlight intrusion, and extend it into
much later hours. Suggestions that future landscaping might reduce these headlight
impacts to insignificance are not borne out by any specific landscaping plan, would
require many years to implement, and are not specifically enforceable in any event.
For these reasons, the Planning Commission correctly found in Resolution No.
2006-16 that "the mitigation measures specified for Impact 3.5-C (headlights on vehicles
using the driveway) are inadequate to reduce to insignificance late-night week-end
headlight intrusion into homes in the immediate vicinity of the driveway and parking lot.
. . ." Id. at p. 4, emphasis added. Because the FEIR fails to acknowledge and address this
failure to mitigate a significant impact, it cannot be certified.
6. Neither the DEIR nor the FEIR addresses alternative locations for the
Project outside the Town of Tiburon. The DErR and FEIR fail to examine off-site
locations for the Project outside of Tiburon, even though roughly 85 percent of CKS'
congregation resides outside the Town. DEIR, p. 155 ("this ErR does not examine an
alternative of relocating the entire facility and programs to another location. In view of
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 35
the Project's substantial conflicts with the Tiburon 2020 General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance as found by the Planning Commission, it behooves the Town and the applicant
to examine alternative sites outside the Town for part or all ofthe proposed Project.
Since the primary impetus for the Project is a combination of large-scale celebratory
events on the weekends, consideration should be given to renting existing facilities at
alternative locations for these short-term, occasional events. Although the public has
repeatedly requested consideration of alternate sites, potential alternate locations outside
the Town were ignored, and even those within the Town were summarily dismissed
without careful consideration.
Under these circumstances, CEQA requires consideration of off-site alternatives.
Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board o{Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 575 fn. 7, citing
San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. County of San Bernardino (1904) 155
Cal.App.3d 738, 751 and Methow Valley Citizens Council v. Regional Forester (9th Cir.
1967) 833 F.2d 810. Because the FErR fails to consider alternative locations outside
Tiburon, it cannot be certified. Although the January 23, 2007 Staff Report (at 72)
asserts that CKS claimed it found no alternate sites, the Town never actually conducted a
search for alternate sites. In any event, neither the DEIR nor the FEIR did so, contrary to
CEQA's requirements.
7. The DEIR and FEIR do not address the Project as currently
proposed. Subsequent to preparation of the DEIR and FEIR, CKS has modified the
Project description substantially, changing previous configurations of the parking lot
circulation plan, descriptions and numbers of events, on- and off-street parking proposals,
and discussion of the corresponding changes in this Project's environmental impacts and
compliance with the Tiburon General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The result is a
confusing, indeed dizzying array of project features and impacts the cumulative effect of
which is to defY reasoned public assessment of this Project's impacts. See, January 23,
2007 Staff Report at proposed Resolution No. XX-2007 (following page 73). "An
accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and
legally sufficient ErR." County of In yo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185,
193. Since these changes were never addressed in either the DEIR nor the FEIR, the
FEIR cannot be certified. "To the extent the [Town of Tiburon] in certifYing the FEIR as
complete, relief s] on information not actually incorporated or described and referenced in
the FErR, it fail[s] to proceed in the manner required by CEQA." Vineyard Area Citizens
for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, ~ Cal.4th ~ (Supreme
Court Docket No. S132972, filed February 1,2007), slip op. at 33.
8. Neither the DEIR nor the FEIR addresses or mitigates the impacts of
foreseeable growth in the membership of cKS and attendance at its events that will
be enabled by the proposed facility expansion. The DEIR concedes that CKS'
membership's "[e]xpansion would result in additional traffic congestion and parking,
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 36
noise, and visual impacts and potentially increasing land use compatibility
inconsistencies." DErR, p. 140. Yet neither the DErR, the FEIR, the Alternative 7
analysis nor the January 23, 2007 Staff Report, discloses the foreseeable growth in
membership of CKS. Nor do they reveal the foreseeably increased attendance at the
events to be held at the proposed facility. Nor do the DErR and FEIR attempt to forecast,
much less to mitigate, the foreseeable increased impacts in traffic congestion and parking,
noise, visual aesthetics, and neighborhood character that will result from this foreseeable
growth.
This omission violates CEQA. CEQA Guidelines section 15144 requires the
Town to "use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can." Courts
require agencies to conduct a "thorough investigation" before concluding that an impact
cannot be evaluated. Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176
Cal.App.3d 421, 430. Where, as here, continued growth for a congregation whose size
has tripled during the past 20 years is a "reasonably foreseeable consequence," its
impacts must be examined. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University
of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 396. An ErR "must present information in such
manner that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can actually be understood
and weighed." Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, supra, slip op. at 28-37
and 44. Because the FEIR fails to do so, it cannot be certified.
IX. DETAILED DISCUSSION OF DEIR AND FEIR DEFICIENCIES
A. The Final EIR Fails to Adequately Address Inconsistencies with the
General Plan or to Properly Categorize Those Inconsistencies as
Significant Environmental Impacts.
The Final EIR's treatment of the Project's consistency with the General Plan
violates multiple tents of CEQA. First, it makes the mistaken assertion that "such a
consistency analysis.. .is not required by CEQA." FErR at 6. No authority is cited for
this proposition, and it is flatly contradicted by CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d),
which requires that an EIR "discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and
applicable general plans...." 119
119 Assessment of a project's impacts on local or regional plans is clearly required as well
in the "Environmental Checklist" in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, used for
determining whether impacts are significant for ErRs. The Checklist requires assessment
of any "[c]onflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect."
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 37
Second, the Final ErR wrongly asserts that a project's inconsistency with a
general plan is not an environmental impact. See, FEIR, Responses F69, G21. The Final
ErR cites no authority for this assertion, and it is again flatly contradicted by cases
decided under CEQA. In Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v.
County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 175, the court held that "a project would
normally be considered to have a significant effect on the environment if it conflicts with
the adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located." More
recently, in Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 930,
the court held that an inconsistency with the General Plan was ipso facto a significant
environmental impact, which had to be considered as such in an EIR.
Thus, although the DEIR and to a lesser extent, the FEIR conclude that the Project
is inconsistent with the existing General Plan in a number of respects, they err in refusing
to treat any of these inconsistencies as a significant impact, in direct violation of well-
established CEQA precedent.
"A project is inconsistent if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is
fundamental, mandatory, and clear." Endangered Habitats League, supra 131
Cal.App.4th at 782, citing Families Unafraid, supra 62 Cal.App.4th at 1341-42. If a
project is inconsistent with the Planning and Zoning Laws, then it cannot be approved.
Neighborhood Action Group, supra 156 Cal.App.3d at 1184-86. The Project will violate
requirements of both the General Plan and the Zoning Code and therefore poses
significant impacts.
First, as discussed above, the DEIR clearly identifies many inconsistencies ofthe
Project with the General Plan, including but not limited to inconsistencies with:
. OSC-2 in the old General Plan and LU-5 in the new Plan ("new development
shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and open spaces") (Draft ErR at
130);
. Policies C-C in the old and new General Plans ("to maintain all existing, as well
as to design all future, residential streets with consideration of residents' safety,
cost of maintenance, and protection of residential [quality of life]") (Draft ErR at
133); and
. Old OSC-II and new OSC-35 ("...grading shall be kept to a minimum and every
effort... made to retain the natural features of the land including... trees...")
(Draft EIR at 131).
Additionally, the DEIR identified inconsistencies with the Town Zoning Code,
including, but not limited to, findings of inconsistency with:
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 38
. Section 4.02.00 (d) (Site Plan and Architectural Review) because "[t]he proposed
non-residential buildings and parking facilities are out of character with
surrounding residences" (DErR at 136);
. Section 4.04.00 (Conditional Use Permit Review) because the Project is not
"properly related to the development ofthe neighborhood as a whole" or
"reasonably compatible with the types of uses normally permitted in the
surrounding area" (DEIR at 137); and
. Zoning Code S 5.08.04 (Parking) because "the project would not include
sufficient spaces to meet [the parking] criteria" (DEIR at 138).
In addition to these violations identified in the Draft EIR, the Project would also
violate the following key parking provisions in the Zoning Code:
. Section 5.08.00 (Parking and Loading) states that "[n]o structure shall be
constructed unless spaces for parking and truck loading and unloading are
permanently provided and maintained for the benefit of residents, employees,
customers, and visitors, within or outside of buildings or in combination of both,"
yet the Project will not provide adequate parking;
. Section 5.08.01 (Applicability) states that "[a] new use, structural addition, or
alteration on such parcel shall be allowed only if it does not increase or create a
parking deficiency as determined in this section," yet the multi-purpose room will
create a new parking deficiency under the terms of the code;
. Section 5.08.02 (Location of Required Parking) states that "required parking shall
be provided on the parcel or contiguous lot or parcel where the use is located
[and] [f]or non-residential uses, the required parking may be provided on another
parcel providing that the parcel is within the Town in a commercial zone and is
reasonably convenient to the subject parcel, as approved by the Town," yet the
developer here has not provided the required parking and has not suggested a plan
of how it would do so;
. Section 5.08.03 (A) states that "[t]he required parking stalls, loading berths and
parking aisles may not be located on any street right-of-way," yet CKS' Multi-
Purpose Building users will use the streets for parking every Saturday and Sunday
and during the High Holidays when there is no other place to park;
. Section 5.08.03 (D) states, in part, that "[a]ccess driveways shall not be arranged
so as to unduly increase hazards to traffic or pedestrians," yet the entrance and
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2,2007
Page 39
exit points to the on-site parking present significant hazards to neighborhood
traffic, including bicyclists and pedestrians;
. Section 5.08.03 (F) states, in part, that "[l]arge paved areas shall be given visual
reliefby the interspersion of landscaping within the paved area, as well as around
the perimeter," yet the current plans for the new parking lot do not include
landscaping within the paved area;
. Section 5.08.04 (d) (Parking Requirements) states that for places of assembly, one
spot shall be provided "for each 4 seats of maximum seating capacity; or one for
each 10 square feet of assembly area, whichever is more," yet the Project's 139
parking spaces pale in comparison to: (I) the 299-space demand from the
sanctuary and multi-purpose room (calculated through the maximum seating
capacity ratio) and (2) the 363-space demand from the entire facility. DErR pp.
65-66.
. Section 4.04.11 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements), under the
Conditional Use Permits Section of the Zoning Code, directs that "[t]he
requirements for provision of off-street parking and loading applicable to the
particular use shall prevail, unless in the findings and conditions recited in the
Resolution, specific additional requirements are made with respect thereto," yet
the off-street parking requirements seem to have been cavalierly dismissed
because the violations will only occur occasionally.
Because construction of the Multi-Purpose Building will contribute additional, significant
parking deficiencies in and around CKS, the addition is incompatible with both the words
and the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance's parking requirements.
The Project is simply too large for this residential neighborhood. It violates
parking standards. The General Plan and Zoning Code protect residential neighborhoods
from inappropriately large development projects. The EIR must acknowledge this
conflict as a significant impact. Because the FErR fails to do so, it cannot be certified.
B. The Final EIR Inexplicably Changes the Conclusions of the Draft EIR
Regarding Key Inconsistencies with the General Plan and
Zoning Code.
The Draft EIR included a review of the Project in relationship to the General Plan
then in effect, and the Final EIR now includes a review of the Project in relationship to
the new Tiburon 2020 General Plan. However, despite the fact that some of the language
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 40
in Tiburon 2020 is identical to the old General Plan (or conceptually the same), the Final
EIR concludes in some instances that the Project is consistent while the Draft EIR
concluded it was not. There is no explanation presented for this arbitrary about-face.
The analysis in the FEIR is, thus, directly undermined by the analysis in the DErR.
The following are examples of these unexplained contradictions between the
Draft ErR and Final EIR. In all instances, the conclusion of Project inconsistency in the
Draft ErR was changed without explanation to Project consistency in the Final EIR:
. Both OSC-2 in the old General Plan and LU-5 in the new Plan contain the same
language: "New development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods
and open spaces." Compare Draft EIR at 130 with Final ErR at 9. The DEIR
concludes that the "new non-residential buildings and parking areas could be
considered to not be 'in harmony' with surrounding single family uses." The
FEIR, however, flatly determines the opposite, that the new uses are in harmony
and therefore are consistent with the General Plan. Id.
. Policies C-C in the old and new General Plans have virtually identical language:
'To maintain all existing, as well as to design all future, residential streets with
consideration of residents' safety, cost of maintenance, and protection of
residential [quality oflifeJ." Compare Draft EIR at 133 with Final ErR at 16.
The FErR determined that the Project was consistent, while the DErR said that the
project would be inconsistent. !d.
. Old OSC-II and new OSC-35 contain identical language: "...grading shall be
kept to a minimum and every effort... made to retain the natural features of the
land including...trees...." Compare Draft ErR at 131 with Final EIR at 13.
Again, the conclusions of the FErR and DEIR conflict. Id.
The Draft EIR also made findings of inconsistency with the Town Zoning Code
which conflict with the Final ErR's findings of consistency with certain policies in the
new General Plan. For example, the Draft EIR found that the Project was inconsistent
with subsection (d) of Section 4.02.00 (Site Plan and Architectural Review) because
"[t]he proposed non-residential buildings and parking facilities are out of character with
surrounding residences." DEIR at 136. Yet, the Final EIR concludes that the Project is
consistent with new LU-H requiring the Town "[t]o protect and preserve existing
neighborhood character and identity" (FErR at 8) and consistent with new LU-13 calling
for the preservation of "neighborhood character." FEIR at 10. Yet, again, there is no
explanation for these contradictory findings.
The Draft EIR also determined that the Project was inconsistent with provisions in
Section 4.04.00 relating to CUPs, including separate requirements that the location of the
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 41
Project be "properly related to the development of the neighborhood as a whole" and
"reasonably compatible with the types of uses normally permitted in the surrounding
area." DEIR at 137. Yet, the Final EIR found that the Project was consistent with new
LU-I requiring that developments be "compatible with surrounding neighborhoods."
FErR at 8.
Most confounding is the conflict in the findings regarding the Project's
consistency with Town parking requirements. The Draft ErR found the Project
inconsistent with the parking requirements in Zoning Code S 5.08.04 because "the project
would not include sufficient spaces to meet these criteria." DEIR at 138. On the other
hand, the Final ErR finds that the Project is consistent with new Goal C-I "to provide
adequate parking."
The unexplained and unsubstantiated reversals contained in the FEIR reveal the
fundamental lack of analysis in the environmental report. Changing conclusions about
the Project's consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance does not alter the
DEIR's prior analysis and determination that the project is inconsistent. Without more,
such as a significant alteration in the Project, the contradictions in the two documents
render the analysis arbitrary and highlight the CEQA deficiencies in the Project's review.
Because the FEIR fails to acknowledge and rectify these substantial inconsistencies, it
cannot be certified.
C. The FEIR Does Not Adequately Address the Parking Requirements in
Tiburon's Zoning Law.
The Draft EIR showed that there is a significant disparity between the parking
provided for every one of the facilities in the Project and the parking requirements in
Section 5.08.04 ofthe Town Code. DEIR at 64, Table 5. Section 5.08.04 requires one
parking spot "for each 4 seats of maximum seating capacity." Section 5.08.04. The
DEIR therefore concluded that the Project was "inconsistent" with this provision, and,
indeed, that it could not meet the criteria in that provision allowing for a reduction in the
number of required spaces. DErR at 138. The Draft EIR noted that "use of the multi-
purpose room alone at full capacity could result in parking demand in excess of on-site
supply." DEIR at 65. Unfortunately, the Draft EIR impermissibly failed to identifY this
inconsistency as itself a significant impact under CEQA, as discussed above. Also, the
Final EIR appears now to backtrack from some of the conclusions regarding this
inconsistency in the Draft EIR, despite the fact that there has been no change in the size
of the Project.
The Final ErR does not rectify any of these problems and is largely dismissive of
the significant parking deficiency in the Project expansion. First, the Final EIR claims
that the parking deficiency is not a significant impact under CEQA "because Section
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2,2007
Page 42
5.08.10 of the Town Code allows for a reduction in the total number of Code required
parking spaces." FEIR at 140. The FEIR's puzzling reference to the inapplicable "dual
use" parking provision must be ignored because the Draft EIR found that the Code's
criteria for reduction under that provision are not satisfied by the Project, and the Final
ErR confirms this. DEIR at 138; FEIR at 140.
The Final EIR also now claims that the failure to meet these Code requirements
has been mitigated by a new parking receipt mitigation measure. But, nothing in the
Town Code's parking provisions allows such deficiencies in onsite parking to be excused
by this kind of mitigation measure. In fact, the Zoning Ordinance specifically directs that
the requirements of off-street parking for conditional uses "shall prevail, unless. . .
specific additional requirements are made with respect thereto." Section 4.04.11. Thus,
the Project must provide enough on-site parking for the maximum number of occupants,
per Section 5.08.04.
Even so, there are serious questions about the Final EIR' s evaluation of the
effectiveness of such a parking receipt program, including many, basic questions about
the mechanics of the program proposed for the first time in the Final ErR. Will CKS
"ticket monitors" - for lack of a better term - block entrance to religious ceremonies if
the entrant does not present a valid ticket? How will CKS prevent reuse of tickets from
previous events? Will CKS limit access to the property for the entirety of the service or
scheduled event, or just at the beginning? How will CKS distinguish between people
who honestly arrived on foot and therefore would not need a ticket and those attendees
who parked out of sight and then walked to CKS?
But even if the ticket plan worked as represented, it would still be expected that
people would in the first instance drive to CKS thinking there will be sufficient parking
and those in excess of the spaces there will have to turn around and drive elsewhere to get
a receipt, with the result that there is more traffic on these streets, not less. Seemingly,
the ticket program promises to produce many frustrated drivers who, because they were
among the last to arrive, were denied on-site parking and thus entrance to the property.
These drivers, consequently, will be hurried and aggravated as they leave the parking lot
in search of parking somewhere else. Thus, even with the ticket system, traffic numbers
will still increase, and the dangers associated with increased number of cars will increase
as well.
The Final ErR creates even further questions about exactly where parking for
CKS events will be provided. As noted above, there is no parking plan provided, either
for onsite valet parking or for locating where offsite parking will be allowed. Project
changes made for the first time in the Final EIR now necessitate the loss of seven spaces
on the Via Los Altos parking lot (FEIR at 40-41) and the creation of replacement spaces
in the lower lot, requiring its further reconfiguration. There may be a further loss of
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 43
spaces in this parking lot because ofthe need for emergency access around the perimeter
of the school building.
The January 23,2007 Staff Report conflicts in many significant respects with the
analysis presented in the DEIR and the FEIR. For example, it assumes that CKS visitors
will require only one vehicle per 2.3 persons rather than the 2 persons per vehicle
capacity employed in the EIRs. This contlict is never examined in an EIR as required by
CEQA. The January 23, 2007 Staff Report is not an ErR. Although it purports to address
some ofthe parking and traffic issues (at 27-35), such does not remedy the above
deficiencies in the DEIR and FEIR.
Parking, therefore, remains an unresolved, unmitigated significant impact that
will, ifthis Project is allowed to proceed, create continual conflicts between the
neighbors and members of CKS. Such conflicts - as identified in the Tiburon planning
and zoning laws and normally avoided by adherence thereto - are a significant and
unavoidable impact ofthe Project under CEQA. Because the FEIR fails to acknowledge
and address this point, it cannot be certified.
D. The Description of the Project Remains Inadequate
A complete description of the project is the essential starting point for an ErR.
Unfortunately, the description ofthe Project remains incomplete in the Final ErR, and
that document creates added uncertainty as to certain features ofthe Project. Thus, there
is still no determination of the feasibility ofthe flood detention pond proposed to be
required or what its impacts will be. See Response F61. The site of offsite parking lots
has yet to be determined or their impacts evaluated. See Response F64. No parking plan
has been provided. See Response E21. And the project proponent still has not
determined where some of the onsite parking spaces will be provided and whether any
changes in the configuration of site development may be necessitated by them. See Final
EIR at 40-41.
The Final EIR also continues to give insufficient attention to the CUP and other
authorizations which must be obtained from the Town in order for these facilities and
activities to be approved. Although the Draft EIR stated that "[t]he proposed project
would require approval of a Conditional Use Permit Site Plan and Architectural Review
approval" (p. 14), neither it nor the Final EIR includes any descriptions of the proposed
terms of these approvals.
Indeed, the CUP approval is one of the key actions which requires the EIR
analysis. In this respect, the Final EIR departs from CEQA's long-established definition
of the project as "the whole ofan action which has the potential for resulting in either a
direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 44
change in the environment." Pub. Res. Code ~ 21065. "Project" refers both to the
"underlying activity being approved by an agency," and "the governmental permits
necessary to develop such an undertaking." 14 Cal. Code Regs. SI5378(c) (emphasis
added).
Obviously, a description of the proposed CUP is important. Indeed, in a number
of contexts, the Final EIR makes "assumptions" about what will be in the CUP. See, e.g.,
FErR, Response F8. In other places, the EIR defends its failure to conduct certain
analyses by claiming that the "Conditional Use Permit, if approved, would establish"
certain conditions. FErR at 21.
Yet, in response to TNC's comment on the Draft EIR that all of the terms of the
CUP need to be set forth as the "governmental permit necessary to develop" the Project,
the Final EIR simply responds that "[t]he actual conditions that the Town would add ifit
approves the CUP amendment are currently unknown." Response F3. To add to the
confusion, the Town subsequently released CKS Alternative 7, proposing a new set of
CUP conditions. The Project, including the CUP conditions, has morphed significantly,
particularly in the January 23, 2007 Staff Report, but without a corresponding
amendment and recirculation of the EIR. Recirculation of the Draft EIR is required
where, as here, it omits discussion of potentially significant adverse environmental
effects of the project. Vineyard Area Citizensfor Responsible Growth, supra, slip op. at
41-44. As discussed below in the section addressing recirculation, the FErR's incomplete
attempts to analyze such a rapidly changing project do not satisfY CEQA.
This omission violates Tiburon's "Environmental Review Guidelines." They
require that mitigation be clearly identified so that the analysis of the impact and the
mitigation measure can be clear. rn Section F.8., Tiburon's Guidelines instruct:
The discussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish between the
measures that are proposed to be included in the project and other
measures that are not included but could also reduce adverse impacts.
This discussion shall identifY levels to which impacts will be reduced by
mitigation and the basis upon which such levels were predicted. Where
several measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be
discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be
identified.
Section F.9. similarly states:
All mitigation measures which are proposed to be included in the project
shall include a detailed description of the steps to be taken to ensure
implementation. The discussion shall include an item by item
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 45
identification of the specific mitigation, the monitoring action, criteria and
standards used, process for signing off completion of task and
noncompliance issues.
These Guidelines thus clearly mandate that the entire package of mitigation measures be
identified from the outset. The Town's Guidelines require that the environmental
analysis of the proposed mitigation measures be specifically detailed so as to fulfill
CEQA's purpose of fostering informed decisionmaking. Because some of the key
mitigation measures for this Project (including CUP conditions) have been changed with
each new version ofthe environmental analysis, the FEIR does not comply with the
Town's "Environmental Review Guidelines" and therefore cannot be certified.
The FEIR's failure to address the terms ofthe CUP now being proposed in the
January 23, 2007 Staff Report for adoption, as part ofthe FEIR's Project description,
violates CEQA. Here, the Final EIR simply asserts that the information is not available,
but presents no reason for not obtaining the information. The lack of an adequate project
description undermines the CEQA process from the outset and blocks the development of
meaningful information on the Project's impacts. Because the EIR, here, failed to
adequately describe the Project, it fails to provide the information essential to an
informed decision, and cannot be certified.
E. Key Impact Topics Are Inadequately Evaluated.
The lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant only if it
produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.
Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App. 3d 692. The analysis
in the Final EIR falls short of this standard.
Traffic and Circulation
The Final EIR fails to address the Project's impact on the intersection of Tiburon
Boulevard and Blackfield Drive adequately. Among other things, it rejects the request of
Commissioner Collins that the "summer conditions" at this intersection be evaluated,
given the ErR's recognition that those conditions may be worse than the ones used to
determine the magnitude of the Project's impact on this intersection.
In addition, while the Draft EIR unequivocally required that CKS fund the
lengthening ofthe Tiburon Boulevard left turn lane onto Blackfield, the Final EIR adds
uncertainty to this mitigation by suggesting that later analysis by Caltrans might allow for
a change in signalization in lieu oflengthening the lane. FEIR at 29-30. However, this is
an analysis that should be performed now by the Town and Caltrans, and included in the
DEIR. This is not an idle point. The Final EIR recognizes that a change in the
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 46
signalization could lead to an adverse change in the LOS ratings of other intersections. rf
so, this would be an impact of the Project not studied in the ErR. Clearly, this issue
cannot be left unresolved in the FEIR.
The Draft ErR also identified the addition of traffic to the "inadequate driveway"
on the southwest end ofthe site as a potentially significant safety impact. DErR at 63.
As mitigation for this impact, the Draft ErR stated that "[t]he applicant shall cut roadside
vegetation on the project site west of the driveway or provide an engineering/survey
analysis of what the sight lines would be if the vegetation were removed." DEIR at 64.
However, a subsequent study included in the Final EIR and referenced in the January 23,
2007 Staff Report (at 28) demonstrates that the required sight line could not be achieved
by cutting vegetation, and as substitute mitigation the Final EIR proposes restricting the
use of this lot to CKS, school or event staff or employees. FEIR at 40.
However, there are a variety of unanswered questions raised by this change in
mitigation. What is the basis for concluding that the 12 people will come in only 6 cars?
Since there will now be more evening and daily events accommodated by the Project
expansion, there may be increased use of this lot at other times which has not been
studied in the ErR. Tbe sightlines will remain inadequate, but this lot will continue to be
used at times varying from its current use.
The Final EIR also now states that closure of this lot for public use means that
most school drop off and pickup would occur at the new drop-off area on the east side of
the site. FErR at 41. Despite the claim that this was studied in the Draft ErR, that
document did not take account of the increased usage of the exit onto Reedland Woods
Way resulting from the closure of the old lot to the public.
The Draft ErR at page 69 stated that traffic from cars queue for 50' along
Reedland Woods Way (between Blackfield Drive and CKS' driveway) as they exit the
parking lot. However, as TNC noted in its comments, the Draft EIR did not adequately
consider the safety impacts to the residents and children of Reed land Woods Way as they
attempt to use their neighborhood street when 139 [or 156] cars are simultaneously
exiting the parking lot.
The Draft ErR dismissed the extraordinary traffic and parking impacts occurring
on the High Holy Days by asserting that "such events are not typically subject to CEQA
evaluation" (DEIR at 70) and their impact is insignificant (DEIR at 72). No authority or
analysis was cited for these assertions. The Final EIR does acknowledge that the Project
includes a change in the dual services on these days to single services which will clearly
increase the traffic impacts in ways that are not considered in the EIR. rndeed, it admits
that the traffic analysis "does not assess impacts of the single service events on study
intersections." (FErR at 142).
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 47
Moreover, TNC's comments also noted that the Draft EIR made no attempt to
consider any mitigation for the impacts of this extraordinary attendance, despite
acknowledging that CKS' car pool and shuttle program is unlikely to work, the
"possibility" that the lack of on-site parking is not in conformance with Town parking
requirements, and the "inconvenience and nuisance to local residents." (p.71). This was
contrary to the report of the Town's traffic consultant who did endeavor to develop
mitigation (albeit inadequate). See Crane Report at 17.
The Final EIR does not remedy any of these defects, and states that arrangements
to "formalize" the use of off-site parking lots and the control of on-street parking "are
implicit in the High Holy Days Traffic Control Measures." FErR at 142, emphasis added.
But, "implicit" is not good enough. CEQA requires that mitigation measures be specific
and enforceable. State Water Resources Control Bd. Cases (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 674,
789, citing Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1027
("Public Resources Code section 21002 requires agencies to adopt feasible mitigation
measures to substantially lessen or avoid otherwise significant adverse environmental
impacts. .... For each significant effect, the EIR must identifY specific mitigation
measures; where several potential mitigation measures are available, each should be
discussed separately, and the reasons for choosing one over the others should be stated").
Because the FEIR fails to do so, it cannot be certified.
Aesthetics
TNC's comments on the Draft EIR demonstrated the importance of adequate
photo simulations in evaluating the Project's aesthetic impacts. As we noted, the only
photo simulations are those prepared for CKS. They "do not show the proposed parking
areas, access driveway, lighting, or landscaping" (DEIR at 99); they represent only a
small number of viewpoints, and not necessarily those suffering the greatest impact (e.g.,
from Reedland Woods Way and Ring Mountain Preserve); and they do not address
potential mitigation by planting trees or shrubs. The Final EIR's response to this
comment is conclusory, and fails to remedy the problem. See FErR, Response F44.120
Because the FEIR fails to remedy this omission, it cannot be certified.
120 The Draft EIR also wrongly claimed that the Project would have no impact on
"[s]cenic resources" simply because there was no State scenic highway nearby. DEIR at
98; see also IS at 13. The Final ErR's response, that all "scenic resources" have been
defined and evaluated, ignores this error. FErR at 144.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2,2007
Page 48
Noise
The Draft EIR fails to provide information sufficient to determine the magnitude
ofthe Project's noise impacts and the efficacy of its proposed mitigation. The Final ErR
leaves these major questions unanswered, as shown below.
First, the Draft ErR erroneously relies on "Ldn" noise readings which are
completely inappropriate to evaluate the impact of this Project. As TNC's noise
consultant Richard Carman pointed out, Ldn is utilized in assessing the impact of steady
noises, such as freeway traffic. Ldn measures the average noise over a 24-hour period.
Where, as here, the noise of late-night events would represent a one-time spike in noise
levels when compared with noise levels during the rest of the 24-hour period, utilizing
the Ldn metric trivializes the obviously significant impact of late-night noises that
awaken residents. The Planning Commission accordingly found that "the Draft ErR's
use of the 24-hour average metric, 'Ldn' to assess the impact of intermittent noise spikes
during the evening was not appropriate." Resolution No. 2006-16, '\I J, pp. 3-4. Because
the DEIR's analysis ofthis Project's noise impacts is thus flawed, it cannot be certified.
Second, the Draft ErR relies heavily on the biased data provided by CKS. CKS'
data included "background" noise measurements curiously taken on the one day that
three garbage trucks collect from the neighborhood. Accordingly, CKS' suggested Ldn
level is atypical. In seeming recognition of this flaw, the Final EIR suggests that
different data would be collected for a further Ldn measure, but fails to explain how this
data was collected and to disclose the resulting measurement. FEIR, p. 269, Response 2.
Third, although the Final ErR now includes noise measurements taken at a night
time event, it concedes that the event in question was not comparable to peak weekend
events. FErR at 29. No apparent adjustments were made to account for the noise impacts
that would likely result from the peak weekend events.
Fourth, although commenters requested evaluation of whether the Project's
projected noise impacts would be magnified by the "bowl effect" created by the terrain in
the vicinity of the site, the Final ErR simply provides abstract descriptions of what a
"bowl effect" is, without making any effort to use that information to determine the
extent to which noise impacts will be greater at this site as a result. See FErR, Responses
E33, P17.
Finally, the proposed late night use is a new activity where no activity presently
occurs. rn this case, noise from both lots must be considered in order to measure the
change in the level of noise from existing conditions.. Despite comments requesting that
the noise impacts of the upper and lower parking lots be combined because they will be
used simultaneously, the Final EIR refuses to do so. The response is confusing,
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 49
appearing to justify its refusal to study this because one of the parking lots currently
exists. See, FErR, Response F48. This reasoning ignores the fact that the upper lot's
noise will be added to the lower lot's noise when the two are simultaneously used, and
this will be a direct impact of the Project expansion. The FEIR's failure to consider this
cumulative impact violates CEQA. CEQA Guidelines S 15130(a)(I).
A ir Quality
The Draft EIR did not include any review of the impact on the surrounding
neighbors of diesel exhaust emissions from equipment used in the construction of the
Project. This impact was reviewed in the Initial Study and dismissed as insignificant, but
solely based on the treatment of diesel exhaust emissions as an "objectionable odor." IS
at 18. TNC pointed out that this discussion ignored the fact that diesel exhaust is a toxic
air contaminant of serious public health concern, and it has been linked to a range of
significant health problems. Many young children reside in the area and would be
exposed to this serious health risk. The Final EIR acknowledges that diesel exhaust can
increase the risks of cancer, and reports on the ErR consultants' risk assessment
performed in another context and the current state of federal and state regulations of
diesel engines and fuels. FEIR at 135.
However, no risk assessment is provided in the Final EIR for this Project, and
there is no substantiation for the conclusion that the federal and state requirements will
mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level. The fact that full implementation
of federal and state plans will reduce cancer risks by 75 percent in 20 I 0 and 85 percent
in 2020 (FErR at 135) does not tell us anything about what the risks will be in the nearer
time frame when the construction of the Project will actually take place. Nor is there any
substantiation for the conclusion that "[a]t most, people living near the project site would
be exposed to intermittent diesel emissions for a few weeks." Id.
F. The EIR Improperly Defers Mitigation.
The Draft EIR failed to specify many of its mitigation measures, improperly
deferring that task until after the public review process and the agency's approval of the
Project. This violates CEQA. See Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of
Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal. App. 4th 1597, 1606, n. 4 ("the City cannot rely upon post-
approval mitigation measures adopted during the subsequent design review process").
The Final EIR contends that these measures all satisfY CEQA because they have
"performance standards" that define what the later design ofthe measure must achieve.
FEIR at 22-23. This misses the point. The mitigation measures yet to be designed or
now proposed in the January 23,2007 Staff Report may themselves have impacts or may
require other changes in the Project which will have adverse impacts not studied in this
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 50
EIR. The fact that these measures may have "performance standards" for the degree of
impact reduction they are required to meet does not excuse this EIR's failure to evaluate
the impacts of the measures themselves.
For example, the Draft EIR proposed as mitigation "[a]bove ground detention or
. . . the construction of an underground stormwater detention vault," and states that
"[f]urther analysis will be done at the design stage to size the detention pond to ensure
that the pond attenuates peak flows to the appropriate level," and "[t]o assess any
secondary impacts of the detention pond on slope stability." DEIR at 48. This is an
impermissible deferral of the assessment of the impacts of the mitigation measure. rn this
respect, it does not matter that the measure must be designed to meet the "performance
standard" of maintaining post-development 100-year peak flows at the pre-development
level. FEIR at 148. Without knowing whether the detention facility will be above-
ground or below ground or how large it will be, there is no way of judging whether it will
have impacts of its own or will cause a reconfiguration of other parts of the Project.
The Draft EIR required shuttle service for events of more than 360 people, but
deferred analysis of the "secondary impacts at remote lots" to a later "Town-approved
Parking Plan." DEIR at 31. TNC commented that there is no showing that the shuttle
service would work or that its secondary impacts would in fact be avoided. The Final
ErR asserts in this instance that the "performance standard" is that the Town will not
allow any remote lots whose use causes "undue congestion." But this vague term is not
otherwise defined, and it is entirely unclear what the impacts of these remote lots will be
or whether they will be effective. Because the FEIR fails to provide this essential
information, it cannot be certified.
G. The EIR Does Not Consider a Reasonable Range of Alternatives
The Draft ErR failed to consider alternative locations for the meetings or events
for which the multi-purpose room is proposed, contrary to CEQA's requirement that a
"reasonable range" of alternatives be considered in an EIR See Goleta II, supra, 52
Cal.3d at 566 (alternatives under CEQA typically involve either "different uses of the
land under consideration" or "similar uses at different locations"); Laurel Heights
Improvement Assoc. v. Regents of the University of California ("Laurel Heights II"), 6
Ca1.4th 1112, 1142 (1994) (required consideration of a reasonable range offeasible
alternatives was achieved in Draft EIR "by considering a wide variety of alternatives
ranging from several different uses for the Laurel Heights site to different locations for
the research laboratories").
Both the Draft and Final EIRs declined to consider alternative locations, stating
that there were no feasible sites in Tiburon for construction of 13,395 square feet of
building space. However, since the great majority ofCKS' congregation resides outside
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 51
of Tiburon, there was no reason to limit the review of alternative locations to within
Tiburon. Moreover, given that the Final ElR now proposes caps on the attendance and
number of events in the expanded facilities, the EIR should have considered whether
CKS' needs in light of these caps could have been met with either another organization's
existing facilities or smaller new construction by CKS in Tiburon or elsewhere. Because
the FEIR fails to provide this essential information, it cannot be certified.
H. The Final EIR Fails to Evaluate the Impacts of (1) Increased cKS
Membership Enabled by the Project and (2) Use of the Project at Full
Capacity.
The Final EIR has reneged entirely on the promise made in the rnitial Study on
the Project that "[t]he EIR will assess impacts of future growth of the congregation as
part of the cumulative effects of the project." Initial Study (IS) at 6. Elsewhere, the
Initial Study stated that "[t]he ElR should include a history ofthe size of the facilities,
size of the congregation, number of events and parties, etc. from 1984 to the present and
into the future to understand the growth projections and the impacts of growth." Id. at 8
(emphasis added). However, the Draft EIR did not address these issues, omitting the
assessment of the impacts of continued growth in the membership of CKS. It also
refused to conduct an evaluation of the impacts of the use of the facilities at full capacity.
TNC's comments explained that CEQA requires evaluation of both the "growth
inducing" impact of the proposed expansion of the existing facilities as well as the impact
of the existing facilities at full capacity. This request was reiterated by two members of
this Planning Commission - the body that is charged by law with the Town's initial
review ofthe proposal and the adequacy of the EIR ~ again to no avail. The Final EIR
inexplicably rejects these requests for this essential information "per the direction of the
Town Planning Division staff." Response E7.
This omission is a fatal flaw under CEQA. The Draft EIR conceded that any
membership "[ e ]xpansion would result in additional traffic congestion and parking, noise,
and visual impacts and potentially increasing land use compatibility inconsistencies."
DEIR at 140. Yet these potentially severe impacts were not evaluated in the Draft EIR
on the premise that "[a]ny increase beyond the caps listed in Table I would require an
amendment to the CUP and additional environmental review," and that "[i]t would be
speculative to assume that the congregation would continue to grow or how much it
might grow." DEIR at 16.
The Draft ErR thus assumes that the Town can regulate future growth in the size
of Congregation Kol Shofar. This assumption is questionable at best. Once the Town
approves the facility's size, it is unlikely that the Town will be able to effectively regulate
its future use. Certainly, the Town has no authority to regulate increases in the
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 52
congregation's size. Therefore the Town must consider foreseeable increases in the
congregation's population - and thus, the facility's level of use - before approving the
facility. Because the FErR fails to do this, it cannot be certified.
To rectify this omission in the Draft ErR, Commissioner Collins requested,
among other things, that the Final EIR list the number of members of the Congregation
for each of the years from 1985 to 2004, for purposes of evaluating the likelihood that the
expanded facilities would lead to a further growth in membership. The Final EIR
sunnnarily dismisses the request on the ground that "[t]he EIR preparers do not have any
information on Congregation size prior to 1995." FErR at 8, Response E I. Elsewhere,
the document states that "this information was not provided by the applicant" (FErR at
20-21), but it does not state that the ErR consultants even bothered to ask CKS for these
figures. The Final ErR does not reflect any effort whatsoever to acquire this critical
information regarding congregation size.
Instead of being helpful, the Final ErR is argumentative. It asserts that "[b]ased
on the past seven years, one could project a declining Congregation membership." FEIR
at 22. But this assertion ignores the fact that membership has steadily increased over the
last twenty years and is now almost triple its original number. As explained in the DErR,
"[a]t the time the 1985 CUP was approved, Kol Shofar served 220 member units. . . and
projected a 350 family maximum." DErR, p. 125. The original CUP, thus, was
premised on an ultimate maximum of350 member units. By 1997, however, the
congregation had grown to 137% of its estimated cap to "480 member units (totaling
1,523 people)." Id. In 1998, the membership number grew to 522 (or 1,609). By 1999,
membership had grown to 542 member units. Id. In 2001, CKS had 609 member units,
nearly three times the estimated maximum number of potential member units on which
CKS obtained its original CUP.121 The ErR's claim that such growth cannot be predicted
to continue in the future is premised on a decline of only II member units over the past
five years. This modest decrease is statistically insignificant when compared to the
history of intense growth in congregation size. A continued increase in congregation size
cannot be dismissed as "speculative" because the congregation has a demonstrated
capability and propensity of far surpassing estimates of ultimate congregation size.
The expansion and enhancement of facilities and services makes it extremely
likely - rather than extremely unlikely, as the EIR preparers would have it - that the
growth trend will continue. The slight decline in membership between 2001 and 2002
does not reduce that likelihood.
121 rn relation to the actual number of member units in 1985 (220), CKS grew 276% over
the 16-year interval between the initial issuance of the CUP and the 2001 amendment.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 53
Ultimately, the Final EIR dismisses any evaluation of the potential impact of
inducing membership growth by asserting that it is "speculative." Yet, it never responds
to the fact that CEQA does not allow an agency to dismiss an impact evaluation as
speculative without a showing that the agency has first thoroughly investigated the issue.
CEQA Guideline section 15144 states that "[ d]rafting an EIR.. .necessarily involves some
degree of forecasting," and that "an agency must use its best efforts to find out and
disclose all that it reasonably can." See, Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth,
supra, slip op. at 12-13. In turn, while section 15145 allows an agency to terminate
discussion of an impact if it is "too speculative for evaluation," the agency cannot reach
this conclusion without conducting a "thorough investigation.,,122
The Final EIR does not reflect any such "thorough investigation" ofthis issue. In
fact, the Final EIR contains no showing that the Town has used any effort - much less its
best efforts - "to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can" about the Project's
inducement of growth in membership.
The Final EIR asserts that "[t]he number of new events and people accessing the
site for such events are what will result in environmental impacts, not the size of the
overall Congregation." FEIR at 21. But, of course, it is the membership for whom the
events are planned and it is the membership that attends the events. A growth in
membership necessarily means that there will be more people who will want to attend the
events. There will be increased pressure on the Town to allow CKS to use its expanded
facilities to adequately serve this increased membership. CEQA does not permit
122 In Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura, 176 Cal.AppJd 421, 430
(1985), the court stated: "Although the County was not required to engage in sheer
speculation as to future environmental consequences. . ., the EIR was required to set
forth and explain the basis for any conclusion that analysis of the cumulative impacts. . .
was wholly infeasible and speculative." The court struck down an agency's attempt to
escape analysis of an impact as speculative. The California courts have determined that
an EIR for a proposed project must include analysis of the environmental effects of future
action if: "(I) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the
future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or
nature of the initial project or its environmental effects." Laurel Heights Improvement
Assn. v. Regents of University a/California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396. In Laurel
Heights, the court emphasized that the issue is not to be decided simply on the basis of
"whether the public agency or the project proponent had any definite plans" for action
after the initial project. 47 Ca1.3d 376, 396 (emphasis added). The court therefore held
that other evidence was sufficient to establish the likelihood of expansion, despite
evidence from the Regents that only they could approve a plan for future expansion of the
facility and had not approved any such plan. 47 Cal.3d at 397-398. The question is
whether membership growth is a "reasonably foreseeable consequence" of the Project.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 54
approval of a project without evaluation of its foreseeable growth in usage, regardless
whether future growth would require future approvals. Stanislaus National Heritage
Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.App.4,h 182, 195-206 (impacts of
foreseeable future phases of a project must be examined when the project's first phase is
approved, even though future phases would require additional approvals).
Contrary to this principle, the FEIR as amended by its new Alternative 7 assumes
that a cap of250 per event will suffice to curb use offacilities accommodating up to
1,624 people. 123 In view of the fact that Kol Shofar's Congregation already includes
1,860 people - prompting its request for these larger facilities - it is foreseeable that more
than 250 members will be seeking to use them at these evening events. Because the
FEIR fails to address this foreseeable impact, despite CEQA's clear requirement that it do
so, the FEIR cannot be certified.
The impact of foreseeable growth in use is probably greatest at the weekend
services. The EIR assumes that both the sanctuary and the multi-purpose room will be
used during these weekly events. 124 DErR at 65. Even in the latest iteration of the
Project proposed in the January 23, 2007 Staff Report, the limit on attendees apparently
would not apply to existing Saturday and Sunday morning services, all of which can
exceed 250 people. rncreased membership will cause increased weekly traffic and
parking impacts. Although a maximum attendance of 400 people is predicted for
Saturday services (DEIR at 66), this estimate may turn out to be similar to the 1985
estimate of a maximum 350 member units. Where the congregation surpassed its
estimate before, it is likely to do so again. Without a reasonable forecast of the increases
to the size of the congregation, the EIR fails to identifY the growth inducing and
cumulative impacts of the Project, contrary to CEQA.
The Final EIR's reliance on "caps" as a means of avoiding environmental analysis
does more than "hide the ball." It also seeks to predetermine how this Project must be
regulated. Because no information has been provided about the impacts that could result
from the sizing of these facilities, the Final ErR in effect seeks to compel the Town to use
"caps" as the mitigation of Project impacts. With the full review required by CEQA, the
Town would have the option of determining whether the Project's ultimate impacts
required limiting the size ofthe expansion for which a CUP would be granted. The ErR
must provide those ultimate potential impacts prior to mitigation to allow decisionmakers
123 According to the FEIR at pages 208-210, the capacity of the existing sanctuary plus
the multi-purpose room is 1,275 people. The lobby can accommodate 238 additional
seats. An available canopy can shelter 225 people for the High Holidays. The sum of
these three numbers, 1,275 + 238 + 225, is 1,624 people.
124 Because the remodeled sanctuary is slated to hold 550 persons, the multi-purpose
room will be used for overflow seating.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 55
and the public a comprehensive understanding of the Project's impacts. See, Vineyard
Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, supra, slip op. at 13-18.
In sum, there is nothing "speculative" about estimating the capacity of the
expanded facilities to accommodate new members and activities. The analysis of the
impacts enabled by approval of the proposed expansion cannot be deferred to a later
amendment of the CUP. DEIR at 16. CEQA requires agencies to disclose all potentially
significant impacts of a project so that decisionmakers and the public can consider the
project and its entirety of impacts prior to taking a position on the worthiness of project.
Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215,1229, quoting Laurel Heights
1, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 392 ("the environmental impact report is "'the heart ofCEQA'"
and the "environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its
responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points
of no return"). The FEIR here fails in its most basic mission of providing information
about the ultimate impacts of the Project by preemptively truncating its analysis of any
future membership growth based on illusory "caps" on attendance in the new, larger
facility. Because the FEIR fails to provide this essential disclosure, it cannot be certified.
I. The FEIR's Responses to Comments Are Inadequate.
The FErR fails to address the profound deficiencies in environmental review that
TNC has identified, depriving the Town and the public of a complete evaluation ofthe
Project's impacts. Under CEQA, an EIR is not only an informational document, which
must contain all pertinent information on environmental impacts of a project, but it is also
a "document of accountability." Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the
University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376, 392 (1988). Thus CEQA requires that all
information, and the decision making process of the agency, be fully public to protect
"not only the environment but also informed self-government." Id. This FEIR lacks this
essential accountability.
For example, the FEIR's responses to comments dismiss requests for relevant
information as "unknown" or "unavailable" when such information could readily have
been obtained from the Staff or CKS and is essential to understanding the Project's
impacts. Response F3 states that the CUP conditions are "currently unknown" and will
be determined "when the Town considers the merits of the project and whether a CUP
amendment will be approved." FEIR at 131. However, the EIR counts on the conditions
in the CUP to mitigate impacts. Without full disclosure and complete analysis of the
specific mitigation measures in the EIR the public cannot consider and comment on the
effectiveness of the conditions as mitigation measures. The response that the mitigation
measure will be unknown until the Project is already approved impermissibly evades the
public's valid request for critical information.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 56
Because the EIR does not provide information essential to an informed decision
on the Project, and because the FEIR's responses to comments sunnnarily reject requests
for this information, the environmental review process has failed CEQA's requirements.
Therefore, the FErR cannot be certified.
J. The Additional Information Submitted After the Release of the Draft
EIR Requires that the EIR Be Recirculated
CEQA requires that "[w]hen significant new information is added to an
environmental impact report after notice has been given. . . and consultation has
occurred. . . , but prior to certification, the public agency shall give notice again. . . , and
consult again. . . before certifYing the environmental impact report." Public Resources
Code section 21092.1.
The last-minute revisions to critical components of the Project contained in the
Appendix submitted by CKS (subsequently adopted by the Staff as Alternative 7 in the
Staff Report prepared for the April 24, 2006 meeting) and presented in the January 23,
2007 Staff Report purportedly transform previously-significant impacts to insignificant
impacts by simplistically reducing hours of operation and the number of events. FErR
Appendix at 1-2; January 23, 2007 Staff Report at 31-57 and Resolution No. XX-2007
following page 73. These changes must be addressed in a supplemental EIR. Their
"buri[ al] in an appendix" does not suffice. See, Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible
Growth, supra, slip op. at 33.
Under long-standing CEQA law, the addition of "significant new information" to
the EIR analysis requires the agency to recirculate the revised ErR for additional
commentary and consultation. CEQA Guidelines SS 15162-15163. Because this CEQA
requirement was not met, the FEIR cannot be certified.
1. Traffic
Neither the DEIR nor the FEIR evaluates the adverse traffic impacts of
Alternative 7 and the additional Project modifications and mitigations proposed in the
January 23, 2007 Staff Report (at 27-37 and in Resolution No. XX-2007 following page
73), since they appeared subsequent to these documents. Although, as the Planning
Commission Staff Report on Alternative 7 related, "by reducing the number of new
events and the maximum number of people that would attend the new events [compared
to Alternative 6], Alternative 7 would reduce noise, parking and traffic impacts," these
impacts would not be reduced to a less than significant level. April 24 Staff Report at
page 4. As documented further in the comments from TNC's traffic engineer, Arul K.
Edwin, the impact on traffic of allowing twelve Saturday night events to last until II :00
p.m. rather than 9:00 p.m. may be significant for several reasons. First, introducing a
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 57
massive pulse of traffic at 11:00 p.m. (or at 10:00 p.m. under the latest proposal) on a
Saturday night will have a substantially greater impact on existing traffic conditions at
that hour, than would a similar pulse of traffic occurring two hours earlier, at 9:00 p.m.
Neither the Alternative 7 Analysis, the January 23,2007 Staff Report nor the Draft and
Final EIRs, provides baseline information respecting the traffic levels present at 11:00
p.m. versus 10:00 p.m. versus 9:00 p.m. on Saturday evenings. The likelihood of
accidents resulting from this late-night surge of traffic is also greater than it would be for
9:00 p.m., because motorists are generally less alert in the late evening after the time
when most would usually retire for the night.
The Alternative 7 Analysis and January 23, 2007 Staff Report (at 24) speculate
about Caltrans' future assessment of this Project's impacts on the Tiburon
Boulevard/Blackfield Drive intersection. Rather than conduct the required assessment of
the Project's impact on the Tiburon Boulevard! Blackfield Drive intersection now, the
former hypothesizes that "the impact might be less than significant with no mitigation
required" "[b]ased on the Caltrans review." !d., emphasis added. But Caltrans' review
has not yet taken place. Without Caltrans' assessment, or the Town's independent further
review, it is impossible to predict the significance of the impacts, much less the efficacy
of potential mitigation measures.
The Alternative 7 Analysis is internally inconsistent. Its discussion of "On-Site
Circulation Change" concedes that Alternative 7 "would not reduce the traffic safety
impact resulting from turnarounds on residential streets to a less than significant level."
Id. at p. 6, emphasis added. But the Analysis then proceeds to the opposite conclusion,
that three proposed mitigation measures "would be sufficient to reduce the traffic safety
impact of people turning around in residential neighborhoods to a less than significant
level." Id. at p. 7, emphasis added. Yet as the Planning Commission found in Resolution
No. 2006-16, "the alternative mitigations put forth in Alternative 7 to address the
Project's deficient on-site parking are insufficient to off-set the basic problem of
inadequate on-site parking, and simply spread or relocate impacts into surrounding
neighborhood streets." Id. at ~ J, p. 4, emphasis added.
The Alternative 7 Analysis sidesteps assessment of potentially significant traffic
and parking impacts by speculating further that the elimination of parking lot ingress via
Reedland Woods Way "would reduce traffic congestion on Reedland Woods Way and at
the Reedland Woods Way/Blackfield Drive intersection." Id. at 6. The record does not
support this claim. Alternative 7 would add twelve late-night traffic events on Saturdays,
and fifteen evening events on Sundays. The addition of the very substantial traffic
associated with these large events would increase, rather than "reduce," congestion on
Reedland Woods Way. Compared to existing conditions, drivers unfamiliar with the
proposed parking lot circulation pattern at the CKS parking lot might turn onto Reedland
Woods Way from Blackfield Drive seeking to enter the parking lot from Reedland
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2,2007
Page 58
Woods Way. Those drivers would then need to make a U-turn or T-turn on Reedland
Woods Way to return to Blackfield Drive. Turn-arounds on this quiet residential cul-de-
sac would potentially have a significant impact on vehicular and pedestrian safety on that
street, particularly in light of the substantial number of young children who reside there.
The addition of these twenty-seven significant evening events would also create
congestion on Via Los Altos, the street that CKS proposes as the sole access point for on-
site parking. The additional traffic congestion on this street would tend to create similar
turn- around scenarios on other local streets, as drivers who are turned away from a full
parking lot at CKS, or seek to avoid the line of cars turning left from Blackfield Drive
onto Via Los Altos, seek out other streets in the neighborhood for parking. Where
parking is unavailable within a reasonable distance, these drivers can be expected to
make U-turns and t-turns on these other streets, creating unsafe conditions for vehicles
and pedestrians alike.
The three mitigations proposed in the Alternative 7 Analysis for the additional
traffic/parking conflicts on surrounding streets are likewise speculative. The first of these
mitigations, that "Kol Shofar shall place signs along its frontage on Via Los Altos,
Blackfield Drive and Reedland Woods Way stating that people attending events at Kol
Shofar need to park on-site and not on residential streets," may cause turn-arounds by the
attendees who had intended to park along these streets until they observed these signs.
Visitors arriving at night or in the rain may not see these unexpected signs at all. Others
may choose to disregard the signs, since there is no proposed enforcement mechanism to
dissuade them from doing so. The Planning Commission properly found that this
supposed mitigation was illusory. Resolution No. 2006-16 at ~ J, p. 4. Similar signage
proposed in the January 23,2007 Staff Report (at 31-34) suffers from the same infirmity.
.
The second proposed mitigation likewise poses more questions than it answers.
Alternative 7 proposed two other mitigations that may have been abandoned in the
January 23,2007 Staff Report. Neither suffices. The first mitigation proposes that "Kol
Shofar shall require that all invitations and notifications of these new weekend events
include a note informing people to park on the site and not to park on residential streets."
Alternative 7 Analysis at 7. But this mitigation rests on assumptions that remain
unproven: (1) that all drivers will remember and comply with this request; (2) that there
will be adequate room to accommodate them within the on-site parking lots; and (3) that
they will not attempt to park elsewhere if traffic backs up at the Via Los Altos ingress
point. Because the demand for parking depends on the vehicle occupancy rate, which
necessarily varies from event to event, the proposed on-site parking may prove
insufficient.
The other Alternative 7 mitigation proposed a monitoring program covering "up
to four events the first year after project completion" to assess the efficacy of the
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 59
foregoing mitigation measures. But studying the effectiveness of these measures after the
fact is akin to locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen. To be effective,
mitigation measures must be certain and enforceable before the impacts occur, to prevent
them. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 306-308. "[T]he
CEQA process demands that mitigation measures timely be set forth, that environmental
information be complete and relevant, and that environmental decisions be made in an
accountable arena." Oro Fino Gold Mining Corporation v. County of El Dorado (1990)
225 Cal.App.3d 872, 884-885. Deferring evaluation of speculative mitigation measures
to vague future monitoring efforts plainly violates CEQA's requirement for certainty and
enforceability before project approval. Accordingly, the Planning Commission properly
found that this supposed mitigation measure "would not itself prevent significant unsafe
turn-around impacts." Resolution No. 2006-16, ~ J, p. 5.
In sunnnary, it is clear that Alternative 7 - and to an even greater degree, the
myriad additional modifications proposed in the January 23, 2007 Staff Report - present
substantial changes in the Project that pose potentially significant impacts on traffic. Yet
no additional professional analysis of the impact of these changes on traffic has been
presented in an EIR. Instead, staff proposes speculative mitigation measures of dubious
enforceability whose efficacy may never be known. The public is entitled, and CEQA
demands, a proper analysis of and mitigation for these impacts. Because this has not
been done, the FEIR cannot be certified.
2. Noise
Both Alternative 7 and the Project as currently proposed by staff would increase
night time noise in a quiet residential neighborhood. The precise extent and impacts of
this increased noise have not been adequately assessed. As Richard Carman, TNC's
noise expert, pointed out in his separate comment letter, the analyses conducted in the
DEIR utilized erroneous methodology. They relied on an inappropriate matrix, "Ldn,"
which is designed to assess the impact of steady traffic noise, rather than intermittent
disturbances such as the night time events that would be allowed under Alternative 7 and
the January 23, 2007 Staff Report. By averaging the loud noises associated with crowds
departing the Project at II :00 p.m. (or 10:00 p.m.) over the noise level during the
remaining 23 (quiet) hours of the day, the DEIR and the January 23, 2007 Staff Report (at
37-38) trivializes the actual impact of these events. The Planning Commission agreed,
finding that "the Draft EIR's use of a 24-hour metric "Ldn," to assess the impact of
intermittent noise spikes during the evening was not appropriate." Resolution No. 2006-
16, ~ J, p. 4. Sweeping the problem under the rug does not suffice under CEQA.
The Alternative 7 Analysis concluded that the revised Alternative 7 Project would
have a less than significant noise impact on its neighbors due to decreased frequency of
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 60
activities and number of participants. The Alternative 7 Analysis compares Alternative 5
in the Draft and Final EIR to the new alternative, stating,
Alternative 5 required that all new weekend events end by 9:00 p.m., while
Alternative 7 would allow the 12 new Saturday events to last until II :00 p.m.
The reductions in the number of events and the number of people coming to and
going from these events would offset the fact that 12 events would last 2 hours
longer than allowed in the original alternative.
Alternative 7 Analysis at 2. The so-called "offset" referenced above, however, makes no
sense. The difference between a party that ends at 9:00 p.m. and a party that ends at 11:00
p.m. is enormous when one is referring to a quiet, family-oriented, residential
neighborhood. The analysis' conclusion that "this most recent modification [is] so small
that it is difficult to conclude whether [the two projects' noise impacts] are precisely
equivalent" arbitrarily ignores the significant nuisance of noisy celebrations continuing
into the night when people are trying to sleep. The January 23, 2007 Staff Report appears
to adopt the Alternative 7 Analysis (at 38).
Because the FEIR has failed to conduct an adequate noise assessment of the
Project as modified by Alternative 7 and the January 23, 2007 Staff Report, it cannot be
certified.
3. Parking Lot Access
The significant changes to the proposed parking lot access and circulation plans
contained in Alternative 7 and the January 23, 2007 Staff Report (at 31-36) represent a
major modification to the Project that will cause new substantial impacts and requires
recirculation. The traffic and safety impacts on Via Los Altos are sunnnarily dismissed
as inconsequential. Alternative 7 Analysis at 6; January 23,2007 Staff Report at 27-29.
rn addition, the Analysis itself identifies substantial increases to already significant
impacts and potential new substantial impacts by stating:
While reducing congestion on Reedland Woods Way, this change would not
reduce the traffic safety impact resulting from turnarounds on residential streets to
a less than significant level. rn fact, because drivers will be unable to access the
parking lot from Reedland Woods Way, drivers who are unfamiliar with the
parking lot circulation pattern may turn onto Reedland Woods Way, discover they
cannot enter the parking lot from this street, and then make a U-turn to return to
Blackfield Drive.
Alternative 7 Analysis at 6. In addition, the Analysis identifies another new substantial
impact to safety resulting from the new circulation plan:
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 61
Other drivers whose intent was to drop someone off at the site may decide to turn
onto Reedland Woods Way and drop their passengers off at the sidewalk rather
than have to negotiate driving through the parking lot; these drivers would also
make a U-turn on Reedland Woods Way.
Id. The analysis provides that "[0 ]ther mitigations" would address these new "traffic
safety impact of people turning around on residential streets," but the mitigation
measures referred to are inapplicable to the problems identified by the Analysis.
Alternative 7 Analysis at 6-7.
4. Tiburon Boulevard/Blackfield Drive
The new information only adds more confusion to the analysis of the impacts of
the Project on the intersection ofTiburon Boulevard and Blackfield Drive. In violation
of CEQA, the ErR does not state whether or not traffic impacts will be significant; rather
the Report simply defers the question to Caltrans for further study. The Alternative 7
Analysis goes so far as to suggest that the Town and Caltrans could, after the Project is
already built, jointly "monitor the impact of new project weekend peak traffic at this
intersection in order to determine the actual traffic impact." Report at 4. If all impacts
could be resolved so easily, then there would be no need to conduct any CEQA analysis
prior to approval of the Project. CEQA, however, requires that all impacts of the Project
be clearly identified in the CEQA analysis prior to certification and approval. Therefore,
the ErR's failure to provide vital information and conclusions regarding the traffic
impacts of the Project violates CEQA.
The January 23, 2007 Staff Report adds even more confusion. It refers to even
more data and analysis that were never examined in the DEIR and the FEIR. Id. at 21-26.
Among other unexamined impacts, this report relies on a proposal to "adjust the signal
length and/or signal phasing to allow sufficient time for left turns to clear the intersection
during the one-hour weekend peak period from 6:30 pm to 7:40 pm." Alternative 7
Analysis at 4. But this proposal does not address the impacts such an alteration would
have on through traffic traveling on Tiburon Boulevard during these peak weekend hours.
The proposed mitigation measure thus raises a new, potentially significant impact on
traffic conditions in Tiburon, requiring recirculation of the analysis.
5. Parking Signs
Both Alternative 7 and the January 23, 2007 Staff Report (at 31-34) rely on new
signage mitigations that would restrict parking on nearby streets. But these proposals
raise many new substantial impacts to surrounding areas of the neighborhood that will
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 62
not be marked "resident parking only." Such new impacts from these new mitigation
measures require analysis.
6. Additional Capacity in the Parking Lot
The Alternative 7 Analysis and January 23, 2007 Staff Report propose greater
onsite parking (currently proposed for 156 spaces), but fail to describe how this many
vehicles will be shoe-horned onto the Project site. This new mitigation evades CEQA
review, defers critical analysis to the future, and raises new unstudied, potential impacts
related to aesthetics, circulation, on-site safety, lighting, and noise. Again, the late
disclosure of significant new features of, or substantial new information about, the
Project requires recirculation of the DEIR.
7. Saturday, Sunday and High Holiday Services' Impacts
The Alternative 7 Analysis on which the January 23, 2007 Staff Report relies in
part (at 24-25) states that the new alternative "would be sufficient to reduce the traffic
safety impact of people turning around in residential neighborhoods to a less than
significant impact." Alternative 7 Analysis at 7. This conclusion ignores, as has the
entire environmental review process, the safety, traffic, and parking impacts - both
cumulative and growth inducing - on the surrounding neighborhood of the increased
participation in Saturday and Sunday services. These impacts are likely to occur based
on the vastly expanded capacity of the Project. An estimate, given by CKS, that
maximum attendance will probably only reach 400 attendees at these services does not
satisfY CEQA's call for thorough forecasting and study of all foreseeable impacts. Even
assuming that the congregation size does not grow in the future - a rather unlikely
outcome given past rapid growth - attendance at regular services from the current
congregation of 598 families is likely to increase because of the expanded seating
capacity afforded by the Multi-Purpose Building addition.
Similarly, neither Alternative 7 nor the subsequent traffic reports by Crane
Transportation Group address, or remedy, the lack of analysis of the impacts of
conducting single services on High Holidays. The additional materials also do not
suggest mitigation measures that would minimize the extreme impacts of single services.
Thus, the DEIR, the FErR, the Alternative 7 Analysis, and now the January 23, 2007
Staff Report all fail to adequately identify the impacts of High Holiday single services or
attempt to address how the impacts of these truly massive events will be controlled.
Although the major events will only happen three times a year, CEQA still demands that
the impacts ofthose events be fully disclosed, discussed, and analyzed to ensure
informed decisionmaking.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2, 2007
Page 63
CEQA contains no religious exemption for discussion of impacts. The Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals recognized in City of Morgan Hill, supra, that CEQA
compliance does not constitute a substantial burden under RLUIP A. 360 F.3d at 1037.
Without analysis of these impacts, the EIR fails in its most critical role of providing
information to the public and the decisionmakers. Although the Saturday, Sunday, and
High Holiday events are religious in nature, the impacts ofthose events must still be
identified, and if significant, reduced to insignificance through mitigation measures
through the CEQA process. The EIR here fails to provide adequate information on these
central impacts of the Project.
8. Lack of Alternatives
The January 23, 2007 Staff Report's attempts to remedy the FEIR's deficient
examination of alternatives with a further, cursory description of alternatives to the
Project. Id. at 66-73. This tardy review does not satisfY CEQA because this report does
not appear in either the DEIR or the FEIR, or in a supplemental EIR.
Because the FErR thus does not satisfY CEQA's call for a searching investigation
into alternatives that would have fewer impacts on the surrounding residential
neighborhood, it cannot be certified.
9. Malleable Conditional Use Permit Limits Are Illusory
Mitigation Measures
The FEIR and the subsequent Alternative 7 Analysis, impermissibly rely on
illusory CUP constraints to minimize impacts of the Project expansion. For example, the
analysis contends that there will be no parking deficits if the Town limits event
maximums by the proper amount. The analysis discounts the malleability of the CUP
conditions and thereby truncates all discussion of the actual impacts of the Project at full
build-out and capacity. Nothing in these documents or in the January 23, 2007 Staff
Report constrains use of the Project facilities in the future if and when CKS seeks a
change in the CUP conditions at a later date. The promise offuture environmental
studies for these foreseeable increases represents a clear case of improper segmentation
of the Project's overall impacts. CEQA requires that all impacts of the entire Project be
identified and analyzed prior to construction of the physical building, not in piecemeal
future reviews as CUP conditions are relaxed.
Mayor Tom Gram
Honorable Town Council Members
Town of Tiburon
February 2,2007
Page 64
K. Summary of cEQA Deficiencies
The proposed Project is simply too large for its intended site. The FEIR's many
errors and omissions as documented above hinder, rather than advance, public dialogue
about how to solve this mismatch. An EIR that squarely and thoroughly addresses these
errors and omissions may provide the answers needed to permit resolution of the traffic,
parking, noise, light, aesthetic and neighborhood compatibility impacts identified above.
Without a proper FElR, this task is much more difficult, if not impossible.
Accordingly, this Council should decertify the FElR and remand this matter to the
Planning Commission with directions to prepare a proper environmental analysis
consistent with CEQA's requirements.
X. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Town Council reverse
the Planning Commission's certification of the Project FEIR, and affirm the Planning
Commission's denial ofCKS' CUP Application.
OC~lI""'rijd!L
Stephan C. Volker
Attorney for Cross-Appellant
Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition
SCV:taf
cc: Tiburon Planning Commission
(
REMY, THOMAS, MOOSE and MANLEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MICHAEL. H REMY
1944 - 2003
TINA A 'HOMAS
JAMES G MOOSE
WHITMAN F MANLEY
ANDREA K LEISY
lIFFANY K WRIGHT
SABRINA V 1ELLER
ASHL E T CROCKER
r elephonco (916) 443.2745
Facsimile: (916) 443~9017
E-mail: inro@rtmmlawcom
http://www rtmmlaw com
JENNIFER. S HOLMAN
MICHELE A TONG
AMY R HIGUERA
HOWARDf WILKINS 111
MEGAN M QUINN
AMANDA R BERlIN
JASON W HOt DER
MELAN1ESENGUPIA
LAURA M HARRIS
KATHRYN C COTTER
455 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 210
SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95814
BRIAN J PLANT
OT' COUNSEL
ii
February 2, 2007
";1
\
L.
.- <. 2007
Mayor Tom Gram and Members of the City Council
1505 Tiburon Blvd,
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Congregation Kol Shofar
Comments on Proposed Conditions of Approval
Dear Mayor Gram:
Last week, Town stafI'posted a draft CUP Resolution for the Congregation Kol
Shofar application. While much of the draft CUP Resolution emhodies the
recommendations presented by the sub-committee in November, there are several
aspects ofthe draft that depart from the sub-committee recommendations. In some
instances, the draft CUP proposes limitations on Kol Shofar's use ofthe site that are not
justified by any ofthe analysis performed to date, and would substantially burden Kol
Shofar's ability to practice its religion. Below we set forth the specific sections of the
draft CUP Resolution that are problematic.
Before getting into the details, however, we think it is important to explain the
reasoning that supports many of the proposed edits. As a threshold matter, we think it is
important to point out that, technically, Kol Shofar is not seeking a CUP amendment to
"allow new special and congregational evening events." The existing CUP places no
limits on the types, timing or attendance at events. Rather Kol Shofar is seeking a CUP
to improve its facilities. Kol Shofar anticipates that more of its members will choose to
utilize these facilities than in the past, and thus for pUlposes of environmental analysis,
Kol ShofaT has stated anticipated usage. As the process made clear, attendance at
weekend events is clearly the source of much ofthe neighbors' angst over the project,
and Kol Shofar therefore voluntarily agreed to limit the number of new events. Thus, it
is proper to view this CUP resolution as placing limits on Kol Shofar that do not
currently exist, rather than allowing uses that were previously prohibited.
You will see below that we have also suggested adding language to the CUP
resolution establishing that the Design Review permit process not be used as a vehicle
Mayor Tom Gram and Members of the City Council
February 2, 2007
Page20f12
to make further reductions in the size ofthe facilities. We believe the proposed
language reflects the intent of the sub-committee, and should not be controversial. We
also believe, however, it is important that this be clearly established because ofthe
process Kol Shofar has been through thus far. The Town, its staff and consultants, as
well as the Council's sub-committee, spent considerable time and effort arriving at its
November consensus as to the reduction in size to the facilities. It was hardly the
product of quick reaction, but instead constituted the result of studied analysis, taking
into account all of the applicable development policies ofthe Town. Kol Shofar's
architects have spent a great deal oftime analyzing the proposed reduction and have
concluded it is the minimum space needed to accomplish the basic goals of the project.
It would be folly indeed to send Kol Shofar to Design Review with the opportunity to
revisit the sanTe size issue that consumed years and has been decided on appeal by the
Town Council. The Planning Commission has already expressed its opinion on this
issue and denied our application; and the Council has determined the size ofthe subject
facilities. We, of course, want to remove the possibility that this project will once again
be before the Town Council on appeal.
You will also see that several of the proposed edits clarify that some of the
conditions of approval apply only to Ilew weekelld evellts. Throughout this process the
Town has always made the representation that it does not intend to curtail religious
activities that have been ongoing at the site for many years and which were not
restricted in number or timing under the current COP We believe clarity on this issue
will help prevent disputes in the future.
Below, we set forth the language ofthe draft CUP Resolution that was circulated
on the Town's website, with our suggested edits. Each suggested edit is followed by
the rationale for the edit.
Section 3. Conditions of Approval
Section
IF
Draft CUP Language
The reconstruction and expansion plans approved as part of the Conditional Use
Permit provide a framework, in terms of the site plan "footprint" and established
maximum development intensity, which will be subject to further refinement
during the Design Review Permit process Plans submitted for Design Review shall
provide detailed design information, particularly for the facilities that are identified
for further study and modification, as noted above, such as the MPB, parking lot
design, and landscape plans.
Prooosed Language
The reconstruction and expansion plans approved as part of the Conditional Use
Permit provide a framework, in terms of the site plan "footprint" and established
maximum development intensity, which will be subject to further refinement
during the Design Review Permit process, Plans submitted for Design Review shall
provide detailed design information, particularly for the facilities that are identified
Mayor Tom Gram and Members ofthe City Council
February 2, 2007
Page 3 of 12
for further study and modification, as noted above, such as the MPB, parking lot
design, and landscape plans. "Maximum development intensity" above refers to a
15% reduction in the square footage ofthe MPB as Oliginally proposed. The
square footage ofthe MPB and classrooms shall not be further reduced through the
Design Review Permit process.
Rationale
The proposed edits clarify what the term "maximum development intensity" refers to (a 15%
reduction from the original proposal), and also establishes that the square footage of the MPB and
classrooms shall not be further reduced through the design review process,
The Town Council arrived at the plOposed reduction in the size oflhe MPB after extensive
meetings with the applicant and neighbOls. The applicant has made clear that the reduced size of
the MPB is the minimum that can feasibly accommodate the needs of the applicant, in connection
with the practice oflhe Congregation's religion. The Design Review process should not be a
vehicle for furtl1er reductions to the size oflhe MPB after all the process Kol Shofar has been
through here and after all the hearings and the Sub-committee's and Town Council's lengthy
review and detailed analysis oflhis issue.
Section
2
Draft CUP Language
This pemlit regulates the CKS-Sponsored and CKS-Member-Sponsored Weekend
Events/Activities on Friday through Sunday as set forth in Part I ofT able I, said
Table! attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part of this resolution This
approval contemplates that CKS shall use the site in a manner substantially
conforming to and generally consistent with historical baseline use as shown in Part
2 (Ongoing Weekly Events/Activities) and Part 3 (Annual Events) ofT able I. This
permit is not intended to establish new limits on the ongoing weekly events and
activities listed in Part 2 and Part.3 of Table I
Prooosed Language
This permit regulates new member-sponsored weekend evening events on Friday
through Sunday. New member-sponsored weekend evening events shall be limited
as follows:
Friday events will be limited to 5 new member-sponsored events, with a
maximum attendance of 100 people, ending by 9:00 pm,
Saturday events will be capped at ten (10) new member-sponsored events:
five (5) events with a maximum attendance of 150 people, four (4) events
with a maximum attendance of200 people, and one (1) event with a
maximum of 250 people. All events must end by 10:00 pm.
Sunday events will be capped at seven (7) new member-sponsored events:
four (4) with a maximum attendance of 100 people, two (2) with a
Mayor Tom Gram and Members of the City Council
February 2, 2007
Page 4 of 12
maximum attendance of 150 people, and one (I) with a maximum
attendance of200 people. All events must end by 8:00 pm,
A member-sponsored event is a private, commemorative function associated with a
religious observance, such as a wedding, bar mitzvah or baby naming, for which a
contract is entered into between the member and the synagogue, This permit is not
intended to establish limits on activities and events of the type that have historically
occurred at the site.
Rationale
Several edits are suggested here, all aimed at clarifying that this permit places limits only on new
weekend member-sponsored events. This has been the express intention of the Town throughout
this process, but the language circulated in the draft CUP Resolution went fal beyond that.
Language has been added to clarify what is to be considered a "new weekend member-sponsored
event," to provide certainty regarding how this permit will be enforced.
We have deleted references to "CKS-Sponsored events," an important edit, because as worded in
the draft CUP Resolution, and the accompanying Table 1, the Town would in fact be limiting
existing religious events or reducing the number of new events allowed by combining them with
existing events.
This language also proposes to eliminate Table 1 and instead describe the limitations on new
weekend events in the text of the resolution.
We believe that the language defining a new weekend member-sponsored event allows the Town
to appropriately limit new events, without placing limits on existing events.
Section
4C.ii
Draft CUP Language
Doors and windows of the MPB shall remain in the closed position during large
(100 or more persons) or amplified indoor events (such as life-cycle events) except
for the three High Holy Day services, when they can be left open only during the
services, (Mitigation 3.4-B.I)
Proposed Lanl!Uage
During new weekend events, doors and windows of the MPB shall remain in the
closed position during large (100 or more persons) or amplified indoor events
(Mitigation 3.4-B.1)
Rational
This condition should only apply to new weekend member-sponsored events. The draft CUP
Resolution language suggests that is the intent (by reference to life cycle events), but it is not
cleaL Kol Shofar has never previously been required to keep all doors and windows closed at the
numerous events and activities that have historically been held at the site, and we believe no other
religious institution in Town has been limited in such a manner.
Mayor Tom Gram and Members ofthe City Council
February 2, 2007
Page 5 of 12
Section
4.Cv
Draft CUP Language
Use of the Courtyard for special events is authorized only for the three High Holy
Day events. Outdoor use of the Courtyard during events other than the High Holy
Days and Sunday School graduation selVices shall be limited to people stepping out
for air and casual conversation. No food or drinks shall be selVed in the Courtyard,
and no organized activities will be held in the Courtyard.
Proposed Language
During new weekend member-sponsored evening events, no food or drinks shall be
selVed in the Courtyard, and no organized activities will be held in the Courtyard.
Rationale
As worded in the draft CUP Resolution, this condition would place new limitations on
religious activities and events that have occurred on the site for years. A version of this
condition was added by Leonard Charles in the Final EIR in response to a comment that
the "assumption" upon which the EIR analysis was based was not "enforceable," but it
was clearly meant to apply only to the new weekend member sponsored events that
were the subject ofthe analysis. (FEIR, p. 132.) The understanding throughout this
process has been that the conditions of approval for this CUP application should not
reach back and limit long existing events and activities. The courtyard has been
periodically used for years for outdoor events. Furthermore, during the weeklong
religious holiday of Sukkot, the congregation is commanded to eat outside.
This is a critical point. The provision as originally drafted would drastically cut-back
on uses and activities that have occurred at the site for years, with no complaint, and
would substantially burden the congregation's ability to practice its religion.
Section
4.C.vi
Draft CUP Language
No non-member use and no non-member, member-sponsored use
will be permitted. For member-sponsored events, a sponsoring
member must be present at the event or function
Proposed Language
For new weekend events, the facility shall be used only for
member-sponsored events, Members shall not sponsor events on
behalf of non-members, For member-sponsored events, a
sponsoring member must be present at the event or function,
Rational
We believe the intent of the draft CUP Resolution and the proposed edits are the same,
The draft CUP language, however, could be interpreted to prevent non-members from
visiting the site. It could also prevent some ofthe uses ofthe site that benefit the
community at large and that have occurred at the site for years (such as the homeless
lunches), a result that was likely not intended.
Mayor Tom Gram and Members of the City Council
February 2, 2007
Page 6 of 12
Section
4.E.ii
Draft CUP Language
Use of the Annex Building shall be limited to storage and
religious and educational activities. No active use ofthe Annex
Building shall be made after 7 PM on any day.
Proposed Language
Use of the Annex Building shall be limited to storage and
religious and educational activities.
Rationale
The use of the Annex Building was not addressed by the sub-committee It was our original
understanding that the Annex Building is being addressed in the CUP not so much because
limitations on the use of the Annex Building are necessary, but more to provide information on the
intended use.
Currently, the Annex Building is used primarily for storage, but on occasion, Kol
Shofar has used it for various activities on site. Requiring use of the Annex Building to
end at 7 pm would be a reduction and limitation on activities that have occurred on the
site for years without complaint. Specifically, the youth group has used the Annex
Building for years, and their activities go beyond 7 pm, Kol Shofar would like the
ability to make better use of the Annex Building once the safety upgrades are in place.
It is not anticipated that making better use ofthe space would increase the number of
visitors to the site at anyone time, as such use would be similar to the historical use.
There is no justification for limiting the use of the the Annex Building in this manner.
Section
5.B.i
Dmft CUP Language
All CKS-sponsored and CKS-member-sponsored events of200+
persons will require a minimum ofthree monitors/traffic
controllers: 1) at the corner of Black field DriveNia Los Altos; 2)
CKS driveway at Reedland Woods Way; and 3) at the CKS
parking lot entrance on Via Los Altos. Additional monitors may
be necessary to adequately direct traffic and parking, to be
determined by CKS based upon need. CKS shall inform the
Tiburon Police Department five (5) days in advance of any such
event.
Proposed Language
All new weekend member-sponsored events of 200+persons will
require a minimum of two monitors/traffic controllers: I) CKS
driveway at Reedland Woods Way; and 2) at the CKS parking lot
entrance on Via Los Altos. Additional monitors may be necessary
to adequately direct traffic and parking, to be determined by CKS
based upon need. CKS shall inform the Tiburon Police
Department five (5) days in advance of any such event.
Mayor Tom Gram and Members of the City Council
February 2, 2007
Page 7 of 12
Rationale
We propose deleting reference to "CKS-sponsored" events and reducing the number of monitors
back to two (the original recommendation ofthe sub-committee). Applying this requirement to
every event (as the reference to "CKS-sponsored events" would do) or activity would be so
burdensome that the congregation could not function or carry out its religious practice, With the
definition of member-sponsored events provided above, the reference to "CKS-sponsored events"
can be deleted.
Also, the requirement for three monitors is excessive. A monitor at Blackfield Drive and Via Los
Altos would serve little purpose. The provision allows the number of monitors to be increased if
necessary,
Section
5.Bii
Draft CUP Language
The following traffic and parking management measures shall be
imposed for events or combinations of events/activities at CKS with
a cumulative attendance above 359 persons (except for Sunday School
programs):
Prooosed Language
The following traffic and parking management measures shall be
imposed for events or combinations of events/activities at CKS with a
cumulative attendance expected to be above 359 persons (except for Sunday
School programs):
Rationale
We have added language that clarifies that this provision applies only when Kol Shofar expects
attendance to be more than 359 people. The language which follows this provision in the draft
CUP Resolution is very restrictive, and could punish Kol Shofar for failing to have perfect
prescience regarding attendance,
Section
5.B.ii(d)
Draft CUP Language
Total minimum event/service parking shall be calculated by dividing the
expected number of attendees by 2.3 (attendees per vehicle) Adequate off-
site parking (spaces required in excess of 156, calculated at 2.3 persons per
vehicle) shall be secured at a remote parking lot or lots in advance. As a
condition of holding the event, written verification of the parking
availability must be presented to a CKS designated person by contract, letter
or e-mail from a remote lot owner or operator at least five (5) days prior to
an event/activity or service. If such verification is not timely presented, or is
subsequently withdravm. the event shall be cancelled unless sufficient
substitute off-site parking can be found and verified in writing prior to the
event Such written verification is to be kept on file at CKS and made
available to the Town upon request. Parking spacesllocations shall be pre-
assigned and notification provided by maiL Attendees will be issued
Mayor Tom Gram and Members of the City Council
February 2, 2007
Page 8 of 12
parking passes that indicate which lot (on-site or off-site) that an attendee
will be required to park in, and the parking pass will be displayed in the
windshield during the event or service.
Prooosed Language
Total minimum event/service parking shall be calculated by dividing the
expected number of attendees by 2.3 (attendees per vehicle). Adequate off-
site parking (spaces required in excess of 156, calculated at 2.3 persons per
vehicle) shall be secured at a remote parking lot or lots in advance. Written
verification ofthe parking availability must be presented to a CKS
designated person by contract, letter or e-mail from a remote lot owner or
operator at least five (5) days prior to an event/activity or service_ Such
written verification is to be kept on file at CKS and made available to the
Town upon request.
Rationale
The requirements under Section 5.Rii in the draft CUP are much more onerous than those
proposed by the sub-committee. Presumably, this is a result of Mark Crane's input. We see little
value, and many problems with this approach. In the edits above, we have deleted requirements to
cancel events if written verification of off-site parking is not obtained. This edit is absolutely
necessary_ This requirement apparently applies to all activities and events on the site, not just new
weekend member-sponsored events. Leaving the possibility of cancellation in the CUP means that
the Town would be in tlle position of canceJling regular religious activities in the event there is an
unforeseen problem in securing off-site parking.
We have also deleted the requirement for parking passes from this section ofthe CUP. Kol Shofar
is willing to implement a parking pass program for the High Holy Days, and for times when
member-sponsored events would overlap with other events or activities for a cumulative
attendance of more than 359 people. But requiring parking passes for other events or activities,
even when Kol Shofar anticipates attendance will be greater than 359 people, is unreasonable and
would substantially burden the practice of their religion, The practical consequence would be
turning people away from attending religious services if they failed to plan far enough in advance
The reality is that the decision of whether or not to attend a particular religious service is made on
a day-by-day basis.
Section
5.b.ii(e)
Draft CUP Language
Shuttle service to and from the remote parking lot or lots shall be required.
A traffic control monitor shall be provided by CKS at the remote parking lot
or lots to facilitate parking and use ofthe shuttle by attendees. CKS shall
develop a shuttle Rrogram for review and approval by the Director of
Community Development within 120 days of this approval. . .
Mayor Tom Gram and Members of the City Council
February 2,2007
Page 9 of 12
Proposed Language
Shuttle service to and from the remote parking lot or lots shall be required.
A traffic control monitor shall be provided by CKS at the remote parking lot
or lots to facilitate parking arId use of the shuttle by attendees.. CKS shall
develop a shuttle program for review and approval by the Director of
Community Development within 120 days of issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy. ..
Rationale
It seems premature and unnecessary to require the shuttle program now, when CKS is still far from
pulling a building permit and occupying the new facilities.
Section
5.C.iii.(a) and (b)
Draft CUP Language
CKS shall conduct a multi-part educational program concerning traffic
control and parking. The program shall include:
(a) The strong discouragement of any parking in the surrounding
neighborhoods (including Bel Aire neighborhood streets) when there are
available spaces in the on-site parking lot CKS event attendees users must
avoid parking in neighborhoods.
(b) Instructions shall be sent at least twice aImually to all congregants that
parking shall only be in CKS on-site parking lots or at pre-approved and
identified off-site parking lots associated with the shuttle program
Proposed Language
CKS shall conduct a multi-part educational program concerning traffic
control and parking. The program shall include:
(a) The strong discouragement of any paTking in the surrounding
neighborhoods (including Bel Aire neighborhood streets) when there are
available spaces in the on-site parking lot.
(b) Instructions shall be sent at least twice annually to all congregants
encouraging parking in CKS on-site parking lots or at pre-approved and
identified off-site parking lots associated with the shuttle program
Rationale
We propose deleting any language that suggests that Kol Shofar congregants and visitors aTe not
allowed to park on public streets. Numerous requirements have been added to the CUP to
virtually eliminate the possibility that Kol Shofar visitors will park on neighborhood streets or
make a u-turn on any of the streets, making this additional language unnecessary. It is blatantly
discriminatory to tell Ko1 Shofar congregants and visitors they are not allowed to park on public
streets when it is perfectly legal to do so. Much of the extreme language in this latest version was
not developed by the sub-committee, but rather was suggested by Mark Crane.
Mayor Tom Gram and Members of the City Council
Febmary 2, 2007
Page 10 of 12
Section
5C.iii.(d)
Draft CUP Language
CKS shall conduct an ongoing educational program for its members and for
attendees of CKS events concerning traffic and parking, including a
statement that Reedland Woods Way is not to be used by inbound CKS-
related traffic and that U-turns and turn-arounds using residential driveways
are not to be made in the surrounding streets and will be enforced by the
Tiburon Police Department.
Prooosed Language
CKS shall conduct an ongoing educational program for its members and for
attendees of CKS events concerning traffic and parking.
Rationale
Again, the Town is proposing that Kol Shofar be treated differently than anyone else using the
public streets, The numerous conditions, including the revised circulation plan, the directional
signs, the permanent "no u-tum" signs, monitors, and various other requirements make this type of
specificity unnecessary. The Town and neighbors have repeatedly made the assertion that Kol
Shofar should not be treated differently than other religious institutions, but with requirements like
this, they certainly will be.
Section
5.C.iii.(e)
Draft CUP Language
CKS shall maintain a log of all events/activities of 150+ attendees, the
duration (start and end) of these events and the number of attendees and
number of vehicles parking on-site.
Prooosed Language
CKS shall maintain a log of all new weekend member-sponsored
events/activities (as defined above in Section 3, Conditions of Approval,
subsection 2) of 150+ attendees.
Rationale
Kol Shofar will maintain a log of new weekend member-sponsored events, but it will not maintain
a log of every event/activity that occurs on the site. Kol Shofar should not be required to keep
such detailed records of its religious practice. No other religious institution in the Town is
subjected to such a requirement. Furthermore, Kol Shofar will not count attendees or cars at these
events. It is simply unreasonable, and unnecessary.
Section
6.A.
Draft CUP Language
Parking lot lighting shall be on timers to turn off no later than 9:30 pm on
weekdays, The duration of lighting may be extended by manual override
device when occasions demand, but in no event shall be kept on later than
10:30 pm except in accordance with permitted hours of use as identified in
Table 1 and for High Holy Days, Selichot, Shauvot, and the second night of
Mayor Tom Gram and Members of the City Council
February 2, 2007
Page 11 of 12
Passover, at which times the parking lot lighting shall remain on until no
later than thirty minutes after event ending time.
Prooosed Language
Parking lot lighting shaH be on timers to turn off no later than 10:00 pm on
weekdays. The duration of lighting may be extended by manual override
device when occasions demand, but in no event shall be kept on later than
thirty minutes after the activity/event ending time,
Rationale
The current CUP allows parking lot lights to remain on until 10:00 pm. There are currently
occasional events during the week that go past 9:00, and it would be a safety hazard to require
visitors to walk to their cars in the dark.
Furthermore, the EIR and conditions of approval contain several mitigation measures that will
reduce the impact of parking lot lighting. In addition, the applicant has proposed a lighting plan
that will reduce impacts from what currently exists. This plan will be subject to Design Review,
Thus, impacts will be less than what currently exists on the site, and cutting back the time is not
justified in light of the hazard to visitors.
Section
8.E
Draft CUP Language
Any significant expansion or intensification of the uses or operations
allowed herein, as detern1ined within the reasonable discretion of the
Director of Community Development, shall require an amendment to the
CUP
Prooosed Language
[Delete the entire section,]
Rationale
This requirement is unnecessalY given the Plam1ing Commission's broad oversight and numerous
reviews required in this resolution.
Section
9.F
Draft CUP Language
NAC meetings shall be held where the public may observe in a space to
be provided by CKS. Owners of property within 300 feet ofthe CKS
property and other persons who place their name on a mailing or e-mailing
list maintained by the NAC shall be notified by CKS of all meeting dates,
times and locations. CKS shall maintain agendas and summary notes
describing the nature ofNAC discussions and recommendations during
meetings.
Prooosed Language
Owners of property within 300 feet of the CKS property and other persons
who place their name on a mailing or e-mailing list maintained by the NAC
Mayor Tom Gram and Members of the City Council
February 2, 2007
Page 12 of 12
shall be notified by CKS of all meeting dates, times and locations, CKS
shall maintain agendas and summary notes describing the nature ofNAC
di~cu~~ions and recommendation~ during meetjng~,
Rationale
Kol ShofaI is not necessarily opposed to the idea of sending notice of, and inviting the public to,
the NAC meetings. We do believe, however, that a small meeting with only the six members in
attendance will be more productive and will help to foster better relations between Kol ShofaI and
the neighbors. The NAC committee members can then keep their members infonned and be
available for their input.
We thank the members ofthe Council for their committed and thoughtful consideration
of these issues.
Tiffany Wright
Scott Anderson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Evelyn Woo [kikuhana@excite.com]
Friday, February 02, 2007 11 :50 AM
Scott Anderson
Kol Shofar Expansion
To: The Tiburon Town Council
Tiburon Planning Department
From: Evelyn Woo
263 Cecilia Way
Tiburon
Date: Feb. 2, 2007
Re: Kol Shofar Expansion
As a resident of Tiburon for 22 years in the Bel Aire subdivision, I find that my
neighborhood's concerns about Kol Shofar's expansion has not been addressed by the town's
Planning staff and the Town Council. This project will impact Bel Aire and we will become
the parking lot for the synagogue.
painting the curbs surrounding the facility to prevent street parking immediately around
the synagogue only encourages the additional parking into the Bel Aire neighborhood - this
the offsite parking facility - which is unacceptable.
As my neighbors and I have repeated again and again, this is not a matter of religious
rights, it is an issue on whether the expansion fits within a residential neighborhood.
Kol Shofar's massive expansion would fit into a commercial area but not in a residential
area. The town's zoning ordinances clearly state that an expansion of this size is out of
character for the neighborhood. The resulting problems from this expansion includes
increased levels of traffic on all of the streets and the burden on the neighborhoods to
absorb the additional cars for parking - this is left unanswered and unresolved.
In resolving this contentious matter, I hope that the Town Council will look to a fair and
reasonable balance between the interests of the residents and Rol Shofar and also by
protecting the neighborhood and the town's General Plan and zoning Ordinance.
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
I
February 2, 2007
:0.1avor Gram
Tiburon Town Council
Tiburon .1'O\vn Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA ()4920
Re.: Kol Shofar Expansion Plans
I\1ayor Gram and Ivfcmbers of the Town Council:
As we now approach our last official Town Council meeting regarding the Congregation Kol Shofar expansion
project, T feel compelled to share \vith you some of the actions I have witnessed since we moved into the neigh borhood
surroundl11g Congregation Kol Shofar. ?vfany other incidents (both large and small) have happened, but hopefully this
\lv111 give you a sense of the concerns \ve have surrounding the massive proposed expansion and that we feel arc still
unaddressed 111 the current Town Council and Kol Shofar proposals. However, before I do that I want to state two
items up front:
1. As mentioned before, we welcome and recognize the vital role that a religious organization such as
Congregation Kol Shofar plays in a community like Tiburon. Their presence in our community can be a
positive influence on our daily lives as citizens of a broader community than just the neighborhood we live in.
That being said, there is a broader neighborhood that Congregation Kol Shofar exists in and their proposed
expansion project needs to take into account the impacts that this neighborhood will experience. It is
importanr to note that we are not and never have been entirely opposed to a remodel project by Congregation
K01 Shofar; in fact we would welcome a remodel of the current facilit.ies. Rather we t.hink t.hat it. is extremely
critical that all parties move towards an agreed upon project that satisfies many of Ko1 Shofar's goals while still
respecting the neighborhood in which all of us must coexist. The current religious land use rhetoric and one
sided project solution will only serve to pull the communities apart rather than bringing the communities
together and that. is very unfortunate.
2. I have writ.ten many letters since this process started. 1 continue to stand by and support. all of my comments
in those prior letters. The fact that 1 am not repeating those statements here docs not lessen their importance
in this matter.
Beyond all of the parking, t.raffic, noise and safety issues I have written about. before (and which are still wholly
applicable now), my concerns also stem from some (not all) Kol Shofar members' lack of adherence to existing
gtudclines and common courtesies and my subsequent concern about hO\V' we can conceivably expect them to comply
\\rith new requirements in the future. Remember that no matter how well the leadership committee (and neighborhood
groups and Rabbis and Executive Direct.ors, ete.) tries t.o implement rules and regulations, t.his is a group of 600 diverse
famIlies, many of \'vhom do not attend services regularly and are not as intimately aware of or concerned about "obeying
the rules" that help make the neighborhood a safe and peaceful place t.o live. Too often I have seen some congregants
think111g about their own busy schedules and lives and not paying attention t.o the impact their actions have or could
have on t.he residents surrounding Kol Shofar and on ot.her Ko1 Shofar members themselves.
J ,et me give a few examples of issues I have personally witnessed in the past few months:
1. I was driving down Reed}and \\1oods \X/ay on a Sunday afternoon when parents were parked on both sides
of Reedland \'\loods \Via}' waiting t.o pick up their children from religious school. I noticed a girl about to
cross the street mid block to get into her parents' waiting car. :0.1canwhile, another parent in a black Bl\f\X'
was parked in the red zone actively picking up their ChIld. I st.opped my vehicle behind the black BT'vf\\/
and wait.ed for the girl t.o cross \'vhen to my horror, the black 13;'1\\1 sped off and narrowly mIssed hitting
the girl who was about t.o step off the curb. The B."vf\Xr proceeded to roll t.he stop signs at both Reedland
W'oods \X'ay and Karen \Xlay on it.s way to speeding down Blackfield to get t.o wherever they were going.
This made me shudder for fear of what could have happened t.o t.he little girl I saw or to one of my three
children if they happened to he crossing the street in front of this person. This was a Ko} Shofar member
putting the life of another Kol Shofar member's child in danger while I, a non-Kol Shofar member and
resident of the street, waited for the child to cross like I should have done.
This situation could have been avoided or the risk lessened if those cars were parked in the parking lot,
like they should have been, to pick up their children. No children would have crossed the street mid block
and been at risk of being injured by a vehicle.
2. Parking on Reedland \Xloods \\lay, Blackf1eld and \,'ia Los Altos when many spaces are available in the
parking lot happens regularly for a myriad of reasons including: congregants are late, need to pick up their
children, prefer to park there rather than parking in the lot. This happens ALL THE TIj\.fE (there is a
black Porsche Cayenne and a white van loaded with boxes that can be seen parked on Reedland \\loods
\Xlay every weekend). Anyone who parks on Reedland \Xloods \X/ay, Blackfield or Via Los Altos must either
make a C-turn or T-turn in the street or cui de sac or must use a residential driveway to make a
turnaround. All streets surrounding Kol Shofar arc dead ends with many of the legal turnaround spots
(cuI de sacs and/ or roundabouts) quite far from the Kol Shofar property. Anyone who parks on those
streets must turn around in the neighborhood when arriving or leaving. This unnecessarily puts neighbors
and their children in harms "\vay as these cars perform their turnaround maneuvers. This activity and safety
risk will only increase as more, larger and more frequent events and activities take pace at Kol Shofar as a
result of this expansion project.
~lust we wait until another child is hit or nearly hit by a car before this practice is stopped? Is it not
painfully obvious that if this is happening today, when Kol Shofar members should be on their best
behavior, that this will only get worse in the future if this expansion is approved?
3. I was riding my bike do"\vn Reedland \"Xloods \\/ay in broad daylight and saw a car exiting the parking lot at
Kol Shofar. I try to be a defensive cyclist and good thing I am. The gentleman driving the vehicle was
paying absolutely no attention to me or anyone else on the road and began to exit the driveway. Luckily I
had antic1pated this and came to a stop and alerted him to my presence just as he was pulling out of the
dnve"\vay. \X-11at if I had not been riding defensively? I would have plowed my bike into the side of his car
at about 20 ,\.JPH and flown over his car. On the other hand, he might have driven his car into me. \,\lho
knows "\vhat injuries I may have suffered? \\/hat if there was a child on a tricycle coming down the
side"\valk? \\lould the driver have noticed them? \\/hat tragedy could have resulted in this scenario?
4. Regular use of the back parking lot by people who arc not disabled and arc not making deliveries is a
consistent and ongoing issue '\vith Kol Shofar members that has been happening since the back gate \vas
installed. Despite CCP guidelines describing legitimate use of the back lot and repeated requests
(supported by the Town in the CUP) by the neighbors that this unauthorized use of that lot cease and
desist, this improper usage continues to this day. j\nyone can revie"\v the public record of letters from
neighbors to see that this has been an ongoing issue for years nmv.
5. :Ylore of an inaction than an action... upkeep (or lack thereof) of the landscaping and grounds of the Kol
Shofar facility. ,-\s long as I have lived in Tiburon (and from what I gather from others, this has been the
status quo for years) the Kol Shofar grounds have been in a perpetual state of disrepair. I.itter is not
picked up, trees are not pruned, weeds and invasive plants are not removed, drip irrigation systems are
111active, cut and exposed on the surface, dead potted plants have been thrO'wn on the grounds, ete. This is
not the proper way to maintain a property that one cares about nor is it the proper upkeep that is followed
by residents in the surrounding neighborhood. Since this is a behavior that has existed for years, why
should the neighbors believe there VJill be a change in the future?
To echo this point and our concerns, one of the major issues neighbors have with the Congregation Beth
EI project in Berkeley is a lack of the landscaping that Congregation Beth El promised to install as
required by their application and design reviews. In this case, Congregation Beth EI ran short of funds
after the building was completed and left the property virtually devoid of the required landscaping. The
neighbors of Congregation Kol Shofar do not want to see this happen in our neighborhood. That is why
we requestcd a completion bond or escruw account to ensure that proper landscaping and property
maintenancc funds are available to ensure all aspects of the project are completed.
Currently, there arc no late night parties at Congregation Kol Shofar. Latc night parties (such as wedding receptions
and R'nai ~,1itzvah celebrations) bring in out of town guests who arc often teenagers or recent college graduates. Par
better or worse, this demographic is generally not one that is most concerned about the residents surrounding a party
locale. Rather they tend to be more concerned, and understandably so, with the joyous celebration they are experiencing
with friends whom they have not seen for a long time. This celebratory atmosphere can often lead to poor deCIsions
and greater than usual impacts on residents surrounding the event facility.
\X/bat is the point of thcse examples you may ask? Am I trying to say that Kol Shofar members are worsc drivers or
parkcrs or have worsc bchavior than other people? ABSOLUTELY NOT! The issue at hand is that many people
drive unsafcly cverywhere, every day. I\Jany people exercise poor judgment and inappropriate behaviors cvery day.
Hmvever, when people are in a hurry to get somewhere 011 time (such as to a wedding or B'nai ;\1itzvah or Shabbat
service or anything for that matter) or to leave an cvcnt to go home or go somewhere else, they tcnd to pay a lot less
attention to thclf surroundings and pay more attention to their busy livcs. This is human nature in our modern world.
ThIS IS further complicatcd \vhen parking is limited or \'vhen thcy are relluired to park in an unknown locale. J\faking
matters worse, with an 111crcase in building capacity, increased sIte usage and an 111C1'case in members, these incidents \\rill
become more frequent and our level of tolerance of these issucs will decrease accordingly. This too is human nature.
Y\lhy must we wait for another accident or injury to occur beforc these concerns become crystal clear? \V'hy do we
have to wait for another child to get hit likc the one who got hit on lower Reedland \\.loods \Vay a few years ago? \V'hy
do we havc to wait for another near collision at Karen \v'ay \\lith a child going to Bel Aire School like we witnessed last
spring? \Xlhy do \ve need to wait for a car exiting the parking lot to hit a child riding their bicycle down Via Los ,\1ros as
has almost occurred before? \X/hy must I run thc risk of being hit by a car exiting the parking lot and colliding with me
as r am rtding my bike? Thcse scenarios arc not the figments of our imaginations; they really happened. The likelihood
of one of these scenarios actually resulting in tragedy is dramatically increased as the facility gets expandcd and more
large scale events take place there. Please do not wait until something tragic happens before action is taken to ensure
that this project does not bring thcse dramatic health and safety issues to our neighborhood. Unfortunately it would be
too latc once that bridge has been crossed.
Sincerely,
Timothy Metz
50 Reedland \Voods \Vay
Tihuron, C\ 94920
February 1,2007
Ii,
~ i '
" ?nn7
-- '- ,--,_,~I.
Tiburon Planning Dept
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
I L_
,
L-.~
Dear Sir or Madam,
We are writing to express our concern regarding two items listed in the most recent report on Kol Shofar.
We live within a block ofKol Shofur.
Our strongest concerns are the late hours of operation on Saturday nights and the proposal to stripe the curb
red along sections of Via Los Altos and Blackfield.
This is a residential neighborhood and Kol Shofar's proposal to have parties until JOpm (with clean up
after) on Saturdays is incompatible with the neighborhood. The greatest disturbance to neighbors is the
time after the party ends, as members are going back to their cars talking all the way, opening and shutting
car doors, starting engines, turning on headlights and driving off. Service vehicle are loading supplies and
making noise. All this starts at IOpm and continues for the next hour. This is a nuisance for everyone
surrounding the facility. Please consider ending the larger events earlier.
Secondly, we disagree with the proposal to red stripe the curb on sections of Via Los Altos and Blackfield.
This will do nothing more than move the problem to the neighboring streets. Kol Shofar cannot meet its
parking requirement now and will not be able to meet it in the future. The red striping will take away an
additional 30-40 spaces. The areas proposed for the red striping are the few areas where there are no
homes. Of all the streets where the Kol Shofar members park, those are the spaces that affect the
neighborhood residents the least. The proposal for the "No U Turn" signs and the police presence to ticket
offenders should be a far more effective solution to the current unsafe driving practices in those areas.
However, with the additional red striping, the unsafe driving will be moved to residents' driveways where
there will be no signs or police presence. It would be very beneficial to have "Resident Parking Only"
signs for not only the places already stated in the proposal but also on Karen Way, Via San Fernando, and
Corte San Fernando.
We appreciate all efforts to mitigate the disturbance. Please consider our requests. Thank you.
Mr. and Mrs. Fred Conte
258 Karen Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
415.389.1873
r~ I:~; I~ 1'; II VII'; F-\
,. Ii ',." ,\ /} ':::'""',-,~,':' ,,---.:.:,;! \ 'I
2 2007
TOWN OF TI8URON
10 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburon, CA, 94920
Feb. 1,2007
Tiburon Town Council
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA, 94920
f5) ~~cc;d~ ~
~ FEB - 2 Z007 I!!J
Dear Town Council Members:
lOWN CLERK
J'Q,WN OF TIBURClN
I add my voice to the many who have expressed grave concern over the
extent of Kol Shofar's projected expansion. We are informed that the
completed building will seat up to 1,624 people. The Marin Veterans
Memorial Auditorium, built to stage major events, has a seating capacity of
2,000 -- not significantly more than Kol Shofar's request.
An auditorium of this size and scope in this setting is totally inappropriate.
The attendant parking, traffic and noise would cause serious problems for
the community and ultimately the town. I ask that you follow the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, and deny a permit for the
additional multipurpose room.
Sincerely,
. ))j J" .'lc ~\...!~ LL"
-
Sally R. Schroeder
Christianna Seidel
30 Reedland Woods Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
Tiburon Mayor and Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
G<;--ir,'- -:;-11 \i/n'-;-I \!
::, .....,\ 11 '1 \\ f} -'.' \, , ';
"I ,--
'j;
.I..,;J
- 2 2007
February], 2007
h!
L
Re: Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit Application
Dear Mayor Gram and Tiburon Town Council Members,
Over the last several years, I and many other neighbors as well as our lawyer have
worked diligently to communicate our concerns both to the Town Council as well as
Congregation Kol Shofar (CKS). While some of our concerns were partially addressed,
there are too many impacts that remain unresolved. The Town Council failed to compel
Kol Shofar to seek a better solution to meet their religious needs while maintaining a
respectful presence in the neighborhood.
Given that the subcommittee negotiations failed and CKS refused mediation, the
neighbors are faced with the prospect of a large-scale facility and proposed late night
hours for events that are beyond being merely a disturbance. These impacts will
potentially jeopardize the health, safety and welfare offamilies in the neighborhoods
surrounding CKS. Compromises were needed to make this expansion plan work. CKS
must accept the limitations presented by the site they have choosen, which is deep in a
residential neighborhood, surrounded by homes on all sides. We share this neighborhood
with CKS and they have demonstrated very little concern for their neighbors throughout
the review process. The proposed parking solution, too difficult to monitor, the
increased traffic in a residential neighborhood, the late night hours and noise, light, glare
in a quiet residential neighborhood is both out of character and contradicts the Tiburon
General Plan.
I want to express my concern over several of the findings in the Staff Report dated
January 23, 2007. In the CEQA Findings of Fact, on p. 10, it states that, "The Town has
determined, however, that growth of the Congregation is not a reasonably foreseeable
future part of the proposed project. The EIR, therefore, properly declined to analyze such
future growth." However, in all "Notice of. Public Hearing" documents regarding the
CKS expansion sent by the Town of Tiburon to neighbors, is the quote, "The applicants
intention for the proposed expansion is 'to improve site facilities to accommodate
existing.. .religious and school programs which allow for flexibility and the opportunity
to grow without substantial inconvenience to the surrounding residential neighbors."
CKS clearly states its intention to grow, yet the Town says growth "is not a reasonably
foreseeable future part of the proposed project"? Also, in Remy, Thomas, Moose &
Manley's letter dated January] 9, it states that CKS intends to increase attendance and
membership as a result of their newly enlarged facility and consequently plan for more
week night activity.
On page 29 of the CEQA Findings of Fact, Impact 3.3C states CKS will need more
parking than they can provide on-site. Town Council has made a condition that when
there are more than 360 persons on-site, a shuttle is required. A specific remote parking
lot location (or several) needs to be identified and a long term agreement(s) needs to be
made to demonstrate they have a parking solution that is more than temporary. rn
addition, it would be difficult at best for CKS predict the head count for Saturday service
aiIead oftime. CKS has stated that attendance varies between 200-400 people on
Saturdays; combined with the anticipated increase in use of the facility due to concurrent
programs it appears there will be a need not only for valet, but a shuttle program on many
Saturdays. This should be specifically stated in the conditions.
If parking stickers for residents are to be issued, I would request that residents with
stickers may park on our street with no time restrictions as is the current situation. In
addition, I would request that each residence be give a placard that we may give to
visiting guests to be placed in their window.
Impact 3.4-B: The project would increase noise levels in the area surrounding
the project site. (DEIR, pp. 81-88.) The Town Council found that noise impacts due to
future use of the new buildings will be mitigated to a less-than-significant. While the
impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant on an annualized average, the Final EIR
preparer concluded that noise impacts from the project would be significant and
unavoidable. Based on the EIR preparers' experience, "it is projected that this nighttime
noise environment, and would likely disturb some nearby residences (primarily the
residents of20, 30, 35, 45, 65 and 80 Reedland Woods Way and possibly 10 Vista
Tiburon Drive)." The abrupt spikes up to 65dB will significantly impact the neighbors at
night. Many residents on Paseo Mirsol, Blackfield, Via San Fernando, Via Los Altos and
Corte San Fernando and Vista Tiburon are affected by existing noise from the temple and
have expressed their concern about future noise, especially late at night. Charles M.
Salter Associates' rebuttal stated that the Town typically uses an annualized Ldn and that
this is the standard the Town has applied to similar projects within the Town such as the
Tiburon Peninsula Club (TPC) and the Belvedere Tennis Club (BTC). The Town
Council required TPC end events by 9 PM as a courtesy to the neighbors. BTC, bound
by the Bay and Tiburon Boulevard has of course more lenient event restrictions and a far,
far smaller facility and capacity. AS A CONDITION TO APPROVAL, PLEASE
REQUIRE A 9 PM THE CLOSING TIME FOR ALL NEW WEEKEND EVENTS.
In addition, please condition the use of the site on weekdays so that groups of over
50 people need to leave the site by 7:30 PM.
Impact 3.5-B: Proposed building additions, parking areas, and driveway would
change views from private vantage points. (DEIR, pp. 105-106.) Mitigation Measure
3.5-8.1 tackles some visual issues such as the new driveway but fails to mention
mitigation of the visual impacts of the new upper parking lot and school wing that would,
as the FEIR states, "significantly impact 30 Reedland Woods Way" among other homes.
The conditions should require that the landscaping plan should be expanded to not only
include planting fast-growing shrubs or trees that will block views of the new driveway
but also the upper parking lot and classroom wing to diminish its visual impact from the
east.
Along with a list of shrubs, there should also be a list of evergreen trees to be used to
defuse the effects of on-site lighting and car headlights as well as to dampen the noise.
These trees should include, among others, Quercus agrifolia, Pittosporum spp.,
Lyonothamnus floribundus, Arbutus 'Marina', llex spp.
Comments on the Edits Proposed by Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley
I was disheartened to see the requested changes to the pending resolution for the Kol
Shofar expansion. Kol Shofar, represented by Remy, Thomas, Moose & Manley in a
letter dated January 19,2007, has become more emboldened and candid in their requests
concerning the use of their expanded facilities.
According to Remy, Thomas, Moose & Manley's letter, CKS is now taking the
disingenuous position that the neighbors are primarily concerned with weekend events
and therefore it is okay to engage in more weekday night activities. The neighbors have
been consistent that we object to the disproportionate scale, scope and extended hours of
use at CKS, not just on weekends.
The request to identify the "classroom wing" as "educational spaces" and stating that the
classrooms might now actually reside in the main facility undermines what CKS has
claimed throughout the review process, which is they have inadequate space for
classrooms, hence the need for a new addition. Similarly, only now do they reveal that
the annex will be remodeled and used as additional space for activities despite neighbors'
persistent questions about use of this space previously. They claim the use of the annex
will not add more people on site at anyone time; however, the annex can now be used
concurrently with the sanctuary and multi-purpose room and needs to be accounted for in
terms of parking requirements and other impacts. This violates CEQA which requires an
analysis of the impacts arising from the entire project not just piecemeal components of
use or construction ( see Judge Duryee's decision dated 3/17/98). In the January 19th
letter, the request to remodel the annex for more space, increase weekday hours for
activities, and leave the parking lot lights after 10 PM on weekdays due to extended late
night weekday use, increases the density of use and impacts not studied in the EIR
Throughout the review process, CKS has assured both the Town and the neighbors that
the multi-purpose room would only be used by CKS members. Now they request that the
member-only restriction be lifted for uses other than the new weekend events. This
opens up the use the multi-purpose room to large groups on weekdays and potentially
weekends. CKS had promised from the inception of the project that the multi-purpose
room would only be used for its own members and their own activities.
CKS agenda is becoming more transparent, they not only want to expand the facility
disproportionately to the site and its infrastructure, but to use that new facility unfettered
and without regard for neighbors or the greater community or the spirit of the Tiburon
General Plan. The Town Council has proposed to allow the significant expansion of the
facility with a promise to the neighbors that the impacts could be mitigated through the
CUP. But Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley, Mr. Ragghanti and the Beckett Fund have
consistently challenged the Town and the CUP restrictions making it clear that they aim
to force the Town to allow a large facility with little to no restrictions.
Given Kol Shofar's overt lack of concern and cooperation with the neighbors, their
demand for unrestricted use for activities and existing events in a large capacity facility
imposes on the surrounding neighborhoods negative impacts neither anticipated nor
studied. Attached is a letter from a neighbor of the recently constructed Beth El
Synagogue in Berkeley. As you can see the intention of the City to forge a compromise
between the neighbors and the temple were dashed once the facility was built. The
Synagogue has blatantly refused to uphold their agreements. Sadly the Town has not
enforced the CUP of the religious institution. The institution lacks respect for the
neighbors, has breached its agreements with the Town with impunity and has made no
good faith efforts to rectifY the situation. I send this letter because, despite our efforts to
mediate with CKS, despite our efforts to work with the Town's subcommittee, CKS has
remained focused solely on their own community, with disregard for the greater
community. Read this letter and see the upshot of complicated CUP restrictions that
ultimately have NO teeth!!!
Sincerely,
Christianna Seidel
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 09:47:33 -0700
To: WCosin@...
From:
Subject: Congregation Beth El, its neighbors and the city
I've seen your brief reply to Nancy's note concerning the posting of no parking signs.
Your comment, "1 hope everything else is ok from the neighborhood perspective," offers me an
opportunity to reply.
No, it is not; far from it. I cannot speak for others who were deeply involved in the years
of meetings, hearings and negotiations surrounding the move of the synagogue to 1301
Oxford Street, but for myself, I am coming to believe that that was wasted time and
effort. And, hard as it is to contemplate, that forces me to consider that, in this instance at
least, government in Berkeley has failed -- failed me, failed my neighbors, and failed in
what ought to be a central responsibility to follow its own rules and enforce its own
commitments.
After years of discussions, those LOCCNA stalwarts who stuck with it hammered out
with CBE an agreement, later incorporated into the use permit, that laid out how parking
and traffic would be handled, that imposed restrictions on hours of use and noise, that
mandated creek preservation and landscaping -- that would represent a few of the steps
that a massive institution in the midst of a residential neighborhood needed to take to try
to fit in.
The conditions n commitments n that ultimately were required by the city represented
hard-fought compromises. We felt we gave more than we got; undoubtedly Beth EI's
leaders felt the same. But ultimately we made a deal, backed by the city's assertions that
it would enforce that deal.
The parking plan is ajoke. As the statistics painstakingly compiled by my neighbor and
friend...will show, CBE event attendees do not park in accordance with the plan and are
not in any effective way directed to do so. Instead, they crowd the streets closest to the
synagogue site. Despite hours of pulling and tugging over how Camp Kee-tov would be
handled, neighbors came home last week to find that portions of their streets had been
posted as no parking zones, in violation of the agreed-upon stipulations, because someone
at Beth EI decided the buses couldn't be accommodated as the synagogue had committed
they would be. A refrigeration truck ran throughout two nights last weekend; at II pm
Saturday teenagers were carousing in the sound-amplifYing amphitheater that the
synagogue buildings form, and at 9 am Sunday camp counselors were practicing in-
unison chants as though they were in a suburban shopping mall parking lot rather than the
midst of a residential neighborhood. The site remains unlandscaped and without any
sound barriers. Lights still shine from the windows throughout the night, and Beth El's
stewardship of the creek and the undeveloped area along Berryman Path is, to say the
least, unimpressive.
When we question, when we protest, we are told that it was unintended, mistakes by
well-meaning people. But all those discussions, all those negotiations were only a half-
decade ago. The folks who agreed to them still lead the congregation, and the documents
they signed certainly have not faded.
You were a part of this process. You saw how much this mattered to us, and how hard we
worked to forge a set of reasonable compromises. Why has the city turned its back?
Where is the oversight to ensure that Congregation Beth EI in fact becomes the good
neighbor it committed itself to be? There are clear, simple, unambiguous yardsticks for
how well it is doing. They are laid out in the conditions attached to the use permit.
Congregation Beth EI is demonstrably, and by its own admissions, not meeting them.
What will the city do?
Best,
Alan
Mayor Gram and Tiburon Town Council
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
2007
J
February 1,2007
Regarding: Congregation Kol Shofar Renovation, Expansion and Conditional Use
Permit
Dear Mayor Gram and Tiburon Town Council Members,
TIBURON TOWN COUNCrL FORSAKES ITS NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE
CONGREGATION KOL SHOFAR EXPANSION (Title as it appeared in the Ark)
What a tremendous disappointment is the pending adoption ofthe Congregation Kol
Shofar's (CKS) expansion and remodel plans by the Tiburon Town Council, led by Paul
Smith and Tom Gram. With only a 15% reduction of the multi-purpose building from the
original overly ambitious proposal, the seating capacity will remain exactly the same, as
will the associated impacts.
The Town Council has failed to understand the impacts of this expansion on the
neighborhood, which is situated in an extremely quiet, tranquil bowl beside Ring
Mountain. But even more extraordinary is the fact that they have not upheld the Tiburon
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. All of Tiburon becomes far mOre vulnerable if the
Town Council adopts the Kol Shofar expansion as it currently is proposed. The Tiburon
Town Council appears to have turned a deaf ear to the neighbors, their constituents, in
favor of bending to the interests of an institution, 85% of who don't even live in Tiburon.
Msrs. Gram and Smith praised Chairman Kunzweiler and the considerable efforts and
judgments of the Planning Commission on this matter, but wasted no time in setting aside
their work. What took the Tiburon Planning Commission over two years to research,
ponder, question and resolve, the Town Council appears to have hastily overturned and
drew new and unstudied conclusions. Msrs. Gram and Smith scolded the TNC last
November 17, for not having at its immediate disposal, an exact size prescription for the
CKS remodel/expansion. Designing the project and regulating its size is in no way the
purview of the neighbors. It's the Town Council's job to make recommendations and
guide this process. It's the Town Council's job to direct the applicant to go back to the
drawing board to remedy its own issues and negative impacts.
The CKS CUP restrictions are unenforceable; the parking solution is unresolved and does
not remotely reflect or comply with the Tiburon parking code. Restrictions such as
painting the curbs red surrounding CKS would deter parking in the immediate
neighborhood, but would serve to push CKS parking into Bel Aire on a regular basis.
Town Council has refused to address the issue of parking in Bel Aire. What happened to
the concept of fairness to both parties and the equal dissatisfaction over the outcome that
Mayor Smith touted at the beginning ofthe process? Congregation Kol Shofar was
clapping and clearly pleased with the directives of the Town Council at the last meeting
simply because they were told the facility could be built with only the smallest of
modifications to their original plan. Indeed, the CUP has been substantially altered to
restrict the proposed nighttime events on 42 weekends a year; and despite that, it still
would be the most lenient CUP in a Tiburon residential neighborhood allowing parties
until I OPM on Saturday nights followed by one hour of clean-up. It appears CKS
knowingly asked for the moon, so they would end up with just what they hoped for.
As such, the Town Council has lost all credibility with neighbors and possibly exposed
itselfto corrective legal action for non-compliance with its own town policies-parking
code and Town General Plan. It reflects poorly on the ability of Msrs. Gram and Smith
and the rest of the Town Council to guide Tiburon sensibly and legally in its path of
growth. CKS needs and deserves a renovation of their facility. This can be achieved in
a way that is in harmony with the neighborhood. Currently, it is not. The scope and size
ofthe project remains too large. This is exactly what the Planning Commission correctly
concluded.
Peter Stock
30 Reedland Woods Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
Page I of2
Scott Anderson
From: Metz, Tim [tmetz@mountainhardwear.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 2:20 PM
To: Scott Anderson
Cc: ythurmond@yahoo.com
Subject: My letter to The Ark from this week.
2!JlJ7
Hi Scott,
I wanted to make sure that my letter and Yvonne Thurmond's letter from this week's Ark were submitted for the
record for next week's meeting. I have pasted the text from each below.
Thanks,
Tim
What's wrong with this pIcture?
When the Planning Commission voted down the ambitious Kol Shofar project, all of us in
the surrounding neighborhoods were relieved. We knew it would not be the end of the story,
but we felt that their methodical and even handed fact finding had shown that they got the
issues, and understood their roles and responsibilities in upholding the spirit and letter of the
Town General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
On the other hand, as we have struggled to make sense of the Town Council's approach to
the proposal, we have been struck by an apparent willingness on their part to give in to such a
huge room, with such huge impacts. The list of transgressions with regard to the Town's own
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance is substantial, and the possible remedies (a parking
structure!?) which include a loosely written and unenforceable CUP and a non-existent parking
program, seem like a strained contortion when compared to the elegant solution of allowing a
remodel and a significantly pared down multi purpose room which in fact fits the neighborhood,
the site, and the available parking. We believed that the Town Council was only too willing to
grant this massive encroachment on our neighborhood, out of fear that Kol Shofar would follow
through on their threats to use federal statutes to force Tiburon to violate its own laws and
codes, and potentially cost the Town substantial legal fees. In fact, our neighborhood group
spent a large amount of our own money to show the Town Council that Kol Shofar had no
case.
Now, however, it appears there is another, less obvious reason that the Town Council
seems to have dismissed the valid concerns of the neighbors. That has to do with the
application that Kol Shofar filed to get this ball rolling. It turns out that part of that application
has Kol Shofar, or any applicant for that matter,
"accept...responsibility for defense at the request of the Town and also agree to defend,
indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities"
should some third party, like the neighbors, litigate over the project approval. This obviously
gives the Town Council an extremely biased perspective when reviewing the project, and
dumps the responsibility of protecting the neighborhOod, and the Town's General Plan and
2/1/2007
Page 2 of2
Zoning Ordinance, in the lap of the people who should instead expect that of their elected
officials. Again, what's wrong with this picture?
Tim Metz
KoISho~rC~~IGazing
On February 7th, the Town Council will likely approve their take on the Kol Shofar project,
hoping to close a three year journey. Throughout the process, our neighborhood group made
diligent efforts to convince the Town that Kol Shofar's proposal was completely out of scope for
our quiet, secluded neighborhood. The Planning Commission voted 4 to 1 to deny, and
provided substantial findings as to why a project of such magnitude would violate the Town
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Unfortunately, the Town Council has taken a decidedly different tack. In meetings with
Council members Paul Smith and Tom Gram, the TNC was warned more than once that with a
successful solution, "neither side would walk away happy", implying that as they reworked the
project, both sides would be left wanting. How did things turn out? Kol Shofar got hit with a
miniscule 15% reduction of the massive multi-purpose wing, leaving its capacity unchanged,
and still the largest kitchen supported meeting room in southern Marin. The four new
classrooms and 50% increase in preschool students were left untouched. The hours of use
still exceed the Tiburon norm of 9 PM, and up to 35 weekends of the year will have new parties
and events to impact the streets, the quiet, and the safety of our lives. Weeknights are left to
the imagination, not the CUP. The offsite parking plan required by Town Ordinance was never
established, and a paltry 156 parking spaces were proposed when 298 are required.
And on the neighbors' side? Some red curbs (bound to push the parking into Bel Aire) and
a promise of tough consequences Gust none serious enough to put in writing). Who was
unhappy with the outcome? Probably not Kol Shofar. They got their room. They got their
events. And they got a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which is unenforceable. Especially
when they wave the flag of religious exercise under RLUIPA, the federal religious land use
act. That's what got us here in the first place. Kol Shofar's threat of a lawsuit under RLUIPA,
apparently caused the Town Council to decide that this congregation from all over Marin (85%
live outside of Tiburon) was a little more important than the constituents of the town.
What will happen when Kol Shofar decides that 35 events are not quite enough, that their
"religious exercise" requires more? Nothing. Because the Town, having already caved to the
threat of RLUIPA, will have created a huge room to fill, controlled by a CUP they can't enforce,
instead of a room that fits the neighborhood, controlled by the limits of good planning and good
sense.
Yvonne Thurmond
2/1/2007
Feb 01 07 01:48p
Mind~ Canter
415-888-4444
Jftnuary :II. 2007
Re: Kol Sholhr
Dear Council Mell1bers:
I am deeply concerned regarding the Kol Slwt,,, project.
I am deeply concerned with the proposcd noise. tratlie, and parking impacts on our
neighborhood
I am deeply conccrncd that this prop()sed Ii1cility will have over J 500 people at CvC/ilS and
how rhis willallccl our ncighborh(Hld
The impacts or Souch a facility totally vlolate:s the Towns General Plan policies. goals and
Parking Zoning Codes
It wIll havc only 15(1 parking spaces The rest ofthc parking locations has ncver been
dctermined I ask you. whcre arc 1500 people going to park their cars?
Also, of most ConCcrJl
The ElR clearly states lh~lllhc ndvcrsc negative impi.1d orlloisc, tranic and parking can
NOT be mitignted
The Planning, Comm;,sit\n denied this project 1 respectfully requesllhal you dcny this
project as wdl
Your truly.
/
,.:;'// !,</" "
I' t---"
Mi~dy CanLcl:
I'arks and Open Spacc Commissioner
167 I3Jackticld Orive
Tiburon. Ca.
415-:lR8-80SQ
l./-.
/.1.< _
---'-
p,1
~
~~~Ptl~
FEB - 1 2007
~
T.oWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
page I of I
Dan Watrous
From: priscilla wanat [cillawanat@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 12:42 PM
To: Dan Watrous; tomgram@pacbel.net
Cc: cillawanat@yahoo.com
Subject: [pOSSIBLE TOWN OF TlBURON SPAM] Kol Shofar
Importance: low
f03
","17
,
1-
I am sending this letter so that it may be passed on to the Town Council. r have not found a direct email
address for it.
Tiburon Town Council,
Tiburon,
CA 94920
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to express my astonishment that you could even consider approving the proposed plans for
the enlargement/remodel at Congregation Kol Shofar. This project is completely unsuitable for its
current location. My objection has absolutely nothing to do with wishing to restrict religious freedom.
It has to do with an unsuitable usage for a facility in a residential area. The problems are of parking,
traffic, noise and disruption in a residential area, over what are planned to be substantial numbers of
weekend evenings. My objections would be the same for a synagogue, a church, a mosque, a tennis
club, the Sierra Club or the local Bear Baiting Society. It is simply out of place.
r am aware that there is the potential threat of a lawsuit, but to accede to the demands would be, r
understand, to act contrary the Town of Tiburon's own zoning laws. That would set a terrible precedent
and open the town to other applications for unsuitable projects.
Congregation Kol Shofar has operated for numbers of years in this location. I understand that it has
grown, perhaps beyond the capacity of its present facilities. If that is the problem, there are other
solutions than imposing on what has been a welcoming neighbourhood.
Yours faithfully
Priscilla Wanat
86 Claire Way
Tiburon CA 94920
CillaWillll!t@yahoo.cQI11
.suckercP!J!!91L~am with award-winning protection.
Try the freeXllhoJl! M~iL.Bt;1!1
2/1/2007
HERMAN &..COLlVER :ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING AND DESIGN STUDIO
r:
L
i -:
1.--__..:
~--
January 30, 2007
Ron Brown
Congregation Kol Shofar
215 Blackfield Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Ron,
The following additional information is provided to clarify project modifications proposed by the
Tiburon Town Council Subcommittee in their recommended conditions of approval for a
Conditional Use Permit:
1.Exhibit "C":
Drawino L 1.0A: Clarification of Reduced Multipuroose Wino wi Added Service Garaqe.
Illustrates size and location of original Multipurpose Wing, per CUP Application.
Superimposed is the location of the Multipurpose Wing reduced in size by 15% for a
total of approximately 8300SF. Also indicated is a substantial setback of the building
footprint from the top of siope, plus an 800SF Service Garage. The Service Garage
footprint lies aimost entirely within the perimeter of the originaily proposed Multi-
purpose Wing footprint. Therefore, it represents virtually no increased visual
exposure. Exterior viewpoints indicated on the CUP documents would not reveal any
additional building massing than already shown.
2. Construction Techniques for Noise Control of Multi-Purpose Room and Service Garaqe.
See attached letter from Acoustic Engineer, Eric Yee, of Charles Salter Associates.
3. Standards for Liohted Sian.
Design and iighting of a sign to be located at the corner of Blackford Drive and Via
Los Altos directing Kol Shofar visitors to the proper parking entry will be subject to
approval by the Tiburon Design Review Board. it is tentatively expected to be a metal
enclosure, raised modestly above ground level, painted flat-black, with white lettering
about 2.5" high, cut from the biack surface, backed with white acrylic and back-lighted
from within the enclosure to minimize glare. Intensity of back lighting may be adjusted
by varying bulb wattage. White acrylic lettering would be clearly visible during daylight
hours without back lighting. Lighting would be activated by photocell and shut off by
time clock.
Sincerely,
ir~-
Attachment: Exhibit "C"
Attachment: Letter from Eric Yee, Acoustic Engineer
363 CLEMENTINA I SAN FRANCISCO f CA 94103.4104
T:415.552.9210/F:552.9811/info@hcarchitec!lJre.com
2007
.
i" ,,~" --~ .'::: \:/
/6' Ii\ I~'~\~ \ \ I I I/\~ \~~~'t--':'-~-=-':"-t~' ;'-f~~ ~-{' \ p ~ ~ ~ 0 p' ~ n -" .
, ,S \ \ \ \ \ \ '\ ~ "" " '1 _ -""1-- \ ~i"~j', - -,. - ~ ~ S 8. g tr i ~ ~ I ~ t ~ 14 ~ ~
/ 'e.- \ \ \ I, \ \ I, _'" ,- . "" ) ,. \.-"'v '\"" -, ~ ~ ~ Ii. ~ 0 -. .. 2 5 g ;:. "
1/ 'I I' 1 I 1 r ' ~ I'~ ./, i ,L' I'." ~ 'I ' "'" ,," 0 · g '" "~lr~il.5" "'
;' , /1, \\, I I\~' \ \ \:i' / ., '"" \/.~\,\;L.I\;?; '" \ n~U ~'g; g~hH ~
I,. i ' v \ \' , 1 ~ \ I i.. /.. . I' -. :J!' ~ "g g ~ $'1: g. ". ~ ~ .. ~ 0;
k'" Jli})"\\ l\It 7\ I " 1 \",! /, II: . a: QS' 0 ~ ~ if ~ "ll. ~ 'E. · ~ ~ ~ 8
~ ./ ~." :f ~ \'1)\\~~\ \) \:!; i \'~\~/; ,':~ /Ii/ /l~~ I!' ,. " ~"I Jill! Hi HfHU ~
@-.. /!I i" IX /, I ~II 1/:1"" i '" 0 Hi 1 '0'0 il,~g 9"'~~[9::'
"'<)\'<"." -: ~'\ II~Nil:if'6[11' IJ~ ,I F...,\,i. IlL ,Iii ~~~~l fifil, ;88'~h]
I_"'/~~ _ ~'c; ,I 'I Iii' \1,: 1I1/N~ ~~V/ ~ !l,l{" ",/1 ~H~5 ~;~ ~~h~;lil,
, 2;:;;;>CI) ~ '"rL,' ~~ ~,~,\, ,Ll" i! I~Y j'~ \! ~~7f\" r"))/ girl ~ij~~ ~U ~HnH
. !fflf f..- 'mr,:,,; ~\\ '1;11 \1 I ~.u 1# rl ~'/I.Yr.:4 h,,\,lf [dE'S p3- ~;;:;;~~~I<'
_ , . ;Y ";',::':'f\,;:'."", to:~\,\': \ 'I' "r I......i,~ l~ ~~~~ iNI -J. ~6'~~~ S:.N . H;lo,8"
. " ",',',," , ' \ \ " \ \ I -..: V " ~ ~ 7fl" 9' 9 ~ 5, Jl. I!: 'S- g ; ,,~,
..,. "Hi"I1m\\, \ , ,y-- > > - / w .,.0_ _~o -~~..g
~)\I'/' \" ~ ~ ,;;,i,"'iji,ilil,\\\1 \ I I, ~ d" 80" ' , . il,l "'~ ~~j t!f~ ~B
1:g,~ .-..;~g
, /' "0 :,r'i',!,""':' ,I ,C,', ~ _ \' I \~ "'~ JS ~ ~g ~ g.a o=lS:~ 9~
~ 'I}; 'f'f,;,,'f!) 1.7, ,\\:,IV C-j \\1-.1-..../..')0.( ~ ! ,II -ho~ ~H H~H~
,'. . ~~\ " '\;+j'fj' . 1\\ "I, ~ 1---r-3--1J[~-L' J !i [, f-i )~m h] ~~ . H HHi~
, \-u' {I.,'. \ --, 1<~T ft-t 'iJ-fU:: ;hl ~j. \ 'ti~j..<\\ ~~!~i g,~. .~g,'3g~~
n H.!i ~ gi
~l :8.8,g~~
\"\ )J\t ~fl~ /I~S~;>~~ 'it (-1~ 'N ~~;J' ~ ' .\ IfR~~ .~ ~&~ifH
','\'. ~~ ~.I.l.'.\.",.",', g~~Y/ i/.f"\\~1 K~~ J. V;" ~8ff it ",';:;' .. Il\ "II &~ hq~.~
. \\~,j~~ ,\ /~tI ~~ '~. ,) _ t---11. ,~~~ Y&x\~~' ~~ ~~~a:~.
" \ ,~, \ \0f; . \;:\. ,___ II;),(: "-j.t..,;/ ~. '\\, ')J h eg ~~~g
'."'., \\ \.'. \. \;:,::.:;.c.'.<:.., /D ~ .1'1'.~. !i ~< \\\, ~ U ald"g
, '\, \ \:\ i\:a . . .~ '(, ""'" ~ !j ~ ",;; ~a '\ \'\.\\\ a " - ~
'; \>\ \ \ \ \il\\ \ il~ II "c, ~*-r """, I' ,I'c.l !'~ 'i I y~\' ,,' \ ,
) fi \ i \ \ ,\1' . "\ l" --= ~" b If" !' >'1 ; 'i, '~,/;)' .'
) I \\\1 II I ~~~ ~~ o.~~ ~\ \ !~'" -0';' I, "
(, I I !i ill :! 'I .:::;\\. ~'i' 'I,: \'. ,',
I :1r.J\ I III il ' , ~ \ . ~ ~,:' r. ~ \ "',' ,II ~\, 1\.'1.
:. I tlj , I 1 " ~~ II ,\~~\~I' ~ :;.. i "'\ ' ", ,I, "
I{ \/
I
ml b8 [] 0 D ~ ~ ~ '. ~ ~u - C>~l (\i k~\,J#fi..'i'\" "~ ~~ < II. !~. i .,..i. I
~ ~ >: e ~ ~~ ~ 00 M }l~lt~~ .iI' "'1 ~~ ~~ I!'\!, ,I.
R g ~ @ ~ ~ ~ L- __'~ /AI) I i ( I ~ ,I:"j , ~?: / / .! ,\ \' / "
rn ~ ~ m :l-~ tQ? t Wfi;;;Y!/t w"'! 'h-, r/ /: . ,\.
! ~ II ~ , ~~ ~~~ ~ Ir~ ~~~ y iWfi;%~. fi'~ // 't',I
~ ~ ,~~ ~ ~~ ....~~xv ~~ ~ I ~~il;;..; U ' /li1! / / 1\,
~ 'i ~e \\ ...... ".:.:.\(5 ~' (I ~o ,/ d 'JJ.I
Q ~ ~~Q~;1 .J-j 1 "~,~~ (/J.~;: . 'I 7;1 ~ ~I~m /'~ li:1 ',-
00@G~ \ ~
~ ~ 'ii i~ ~ '1, I o!el " ~ \ ~r<',~"~ Will Ilf ~' \:;\1 m 11-'\~
i ~ ~o ~~ ~ . 'I' ~~ ii :--.? 3' -<,f.~ijj'1Iffft f{:}//I//I/!/i/fj \ V\ ... :/1: i ;:'..-
~ ~ ~~ ~~ 0 ' 0 ~',I IX' ,.., '''''''-\:6' ~.. I /:::::}///!///" \. " ,I Cl
m ~ ~m ~m ~ ,.;~ 'i~ .~_ :tb-.."..~':i'r.,-:7j'.~tx/~~',~" ~ ~;::/;;;,;j~ \\( \ >< I I" 7';
~ Se Sa ~, ,. _. ,,,.", .. .. "".;1;" //;.;.;// ' \ "
~ ~; ~~ I' \c.... ) e,. . / .',@;?i) ;;~;r( If \..- \ ,ill
~~~o ~i~ ~\\. \\\ '~~/_,~~"'V~~:;;~:::~~~i:.":lif~ \\\v;\ /::I: J':\ 5
~ ~ a'''~" ..~~- "'" 0 'l --... .~: ////"" A, ,
" \ o~ ~~ Qo ~~-" ;;0 '];t;<;;; cl l::e '\.. :. I Y \' I \'~"
II \ ~~ ,\'i': 5~~::e2'< /-,,-z';:% \ \ \ \ --- I"
W ~ W ~ . ~.. 0 Ie,.))> z'!--i. Z Z /, .'. 0 ~Cl), d' I \ \ ----- \
------
~ ,,~?> ~~!;; ~~~~ ~ g~~~~ z co Cl) ~ ~ ci ~ 0 0 I -, '1,
~ ~U~~~ ~ ~ i~~~~ ~ ~~~.~~ ~ ~ . g ~Cl) z C . ,I',.. ".. (J) ---- I \ ' \~, ~
~ ~~f ~ ~ U~d ~ ~~s g ~ ~ ': ,\ ~ m 1'n~0 ~~l\'\~ :,'~ fl ~ -II \\~'
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~i 2 > 8 ~ ~\\ \>(~~ <\ ~\~~l> < -.- \. Co.. '-.. '-.. "'.... \,
~ ~ 0 ~e 0 ~ ~ rr.~.t--- I' I .~: :.t.K-~ <\,t \~~ '/ =:0.. '-..... ~IY ~ \
"~~~<ee">~ ~.".;.\ ~ "1..1'- I~" \,\~/;1\~ .~~.. ". :::::-, I! ~l ~ ~/) '.\
~@~~~~~~~~ ~~F~>: ~~8~~ 8 0 --.....:'N--,...,:..:.,;\~~~,\ .'./i.' ;.y;. .... ,,~(\0l4,,'~.t._. :1/ 0 / / ,
~ h~~~~~~ ~,,~~~ ~~.8'~ ~' i,' '\ I ," . -::-""'~C'I . -\""..L, ,..' / ,,~ /@i-1-I';:
, <,f ~!I Ii' ! "~. ! Ii' '; it' .; c ~... n L '-./1. ~ //}
~ ~ :;ffi ~a' ~ ~~ ~ k'll:. '. < 1 r 11 VIA ' !! : '-II '_u ;V
~ _ ~ ~ z I ~ .......... ). ,.ps AL 71os'
" / I,
\\
\, ....\
I,
/
N
~C; ~ ~
:>'" '"
p~ ~ ~
~ '" ~
" m
1i' ~
1i' c
~ ~
ili s::
~ ~
~ ~
U) !::J
/
I [is 3:0
. > c:;o
). ~(j)
. .'" Z
~~
."jlo
0;0
"'m
mo
:;;c:
-C')
Zm
"0
r-
-"
ili
,~
~i
n
o
i
i. "
~ i ~
~ I
~ ~
~ J
\)
'C.
i!,l
<"> t
~ ~ i
~m
~~
J>o~
~~
;:Ow
8:x:
m!f:
~?6
a f
> g J
~
.
-
) ~
~ ~ i
~ ;2 I
i<l~
;J
~ ~
· (~ i
I -.J
c,':)
; I i ~
Hie
;1 I~ 0 )> I
Ii:! ~ IJI
!ml
Uih
i1lhl
[I'
Hi'l
",~h
Ill"
I, I
'"
l!:l
'"
c:>
:J:>
0" 00 i
! ! 'I 'II
I, Ii I
i ! ~i ~i
i II !l
llil
\
!,!IUil!I"11 !!ill! mil i i ~
1'1""' 'II" ' ,o.,R l.
i"'l"'ii l.pl!r! n
, I Ii 'ili l ' !' ~
0""1 \ l
i'l Ii!!!,' Uili !!lll I"
~ "';l~ ~~ ~~ to ~ g!il ~
! I ! II i , II I
I (I ~~ ,.1
" ~~ ! ii
"llllo 1;:~
r- ~~ : ~i..
-- ~~ ! ~
o Clo . Q
:p i ;;
"
,
i Ii d
~ ~ j;! '"
~ ~ -~
~ !~
~ '"
r
51t~
,I
Ii
.. .- J
r'--J,
I i ,
, . ~~ ~ II
i HI' !!III
I H~ :!!tm mlj
Pil,
! ~ i ; i'l! ~ - Jlill
~ ~ '1 ~ iJ i""
~ i i ~ ~ Ill! Iii'
'.::J . !(II
,
l
Charles M Salter Assoe ates Ine
31 January 2007
Bob Herman
Herman & Coliver Architecture
363 Clementina Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
via fax 415/552-9811
, 2001
1.
Subject:
Congregation Kol Shofar - Tiburon, cA - Acoustical Consulting
CSA Project #04-0104
Dear Bob:
This letter addresses the potential noise issues outlined in your e-mail dated
30 January 2007.
MULTI-PuRPOSE ROOM
To help contain noise inside, we recommend using an acoustically rated glass door
system such as Nana Wall for the exterior exposure that is predominantly glass doors.
The Nana Wall system has different STC ratings depending on the type of glass used in
the frame. Whether or not a Nana Wall is employed, we would work with your office
to select the appropriate STC-rated system to best meet the needs of this project.
For the other exterior exposure, the wall could be an upgraded construction such as a
2x6 plate with 2x4 staggered stud construction. The interior facing could consist of a
double layer of 5/8-inch gypsum board. The exterior facing could be a three-coat
stucco system. The operable windows and clearstories in this wall could all be a dual-
glazed laminated window. We would of course work with you to design a facility that
adequately reduces inside noise to the outdoors.
The roof of the multipurpose room should consist of a built up roof on the exterior. The
roof joist cavity should be filled with batt insulation. The underside of the roof joists
should have two layers of gypsum board suspended from resilient clips.
The lobby into the Multi-Purpose Room should be acoustically treated with sound-
absorptive material on sufficiently available surfaces to help reduce propagation from
the Multi-Purpose Room to the outdoors.
The Multi-Purpose Room should also be treated with acoustically absorptive materials
on sufficiently available wall and ceiling surfaces to reduce noise build up.
Bob Herman
3 I January 2007
Page 2
SERVICE GARAGE
To reduce noise from clean up activities, Kol Shofar has proposed building an enclosed
service garage. The wall construction of this service garage should be a single-stud
wall and could have a standard three-coat stucco exterior finish. The wall cavity should
be filled with batt insulation.
For the garage doors, the most effective sound isolation would be to use manually
operated swing doors that are sound-rated. Companies such as lAC or Jameson
manufacture a wide array of acoustically rated products that would suit this project. We
will work with you to select the appropriate door design. All other exterior doors from
this service garage should be solid core and acoustically gasketed to minimize sound
leaks. Any windows would be small fixed glazing.
The interior of the service garage should be treated with an acoustically absorptive and
abuse resistant material such as acoustic panels or plaster. This material would
minimize noise build up and reflections inside the garage.
r trust this information will prove useful to you. Please call me if you have any
questions regarding our recommendations.
Sincerely yours,
CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC
~~: it' {)
L/~/~
Eric A. Yee
Principal Consultant
P: \CSA _Projects\y2004\04-01 04_ eMS_Temple Kol Shofar\30jan07 _additional items pdL eay.doc
Mayor Gram and Tiburon Town Council
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
~_.:--
,:-.\ I, --'. I' ,
1:!l.J). i'.' 1 '\\ I:
I'
I,;;' i
, I
I'lL
,
John and Karen Nygren
22 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburon, CA 94920
r:'
2007
February 1, 2007
Regarding: Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit and Expansion
Dear Mayor Gram and Tiburon Town Council Members,
The Conditional Use Permit and Expansion Plan proposed for adoption by the Town
Council on February 7,2007 is based on incomplete evidence, information and
significantly violates the Town of Tiburon's General Plan Goals, Policies and Parking
and Loading Zoning Codes. We believe that many of the findings for approval of this
CUP and Expansion plan were arbitrarily determined.
Tiburon's General Plan Goals and Policies which this proposed CUP and Expansion
plan violate are:
Land Use Goals
. To protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. (LU-B)
. To ensure that all land uses, by type amount, design and arrangement, serve to
preserve, protect and enhance the small-town residential image of the
community. (LU-D)
. To protect and preserve existing neighborhood character and identity. (LU-H)
. To encourage intensity of development, density, and house sizes/architectural
styles that are consistent and compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. (LU-I)
Land Use Policies
. The Town shall limit the type and amount of uses within the Town to those that
are compatible with the nature, character and image of the Town as a quiet,
small-town residential community with a village-like commercial area. (LU-2)
. New development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and open
space. (LU-5)
. The Town shall encourage projects that enhance its character and image through
the development and design review processes. Monotony in design, and
massive or inordinately large or bulky structures and site coverage that
overwhelm or that are inconsistent with the surrounding area, shall be avoided.
(LU-12)
. Outside lighting shall be allowed for safety purposes. The Town shall limit
excessive light spillover and glare resulting from site lighting. (LU-16)
Circulation Goals
. To maintain all existing, as well as to design all future, residential streets with
consideration of a combination of residents' safety, cost of maintenance, and
protection of residential quality of life. (C-C)
. To provide an adequate means of circulation for emergency vehicles. (C-D)
. To minimize traffic congestion. (C-F)
. To provide adequate parking throughout the Planning Area. (C-I)
I
Circulation Policies
. Land use decision shall take into consideration potential traffic and circulation
impacts. (C-1)
. All new projects shall be required to pay a pro rata share of needed traffic
improvements in accordance with the burden created by such new projects. (C-2)
Safety Goals
. To maintain a safe and healthy community. (SE-A)
Safety Policies
. 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-1)
Noise Goals
. To ensure that residential areas are quiet and that noise levels in public and
commercial areas remain within acceptable limits. (N-A)
. To eliminate or reduce unnecessary, excessive and offensive noises from all
sources. (N-B)
. To minimize the exposure of community residents to noise through the careful
placement of land uses that may cause noise impacts. (N-C)
Noise Polices
. Hours of use of recreation and commercial facilities should be regulated to
minimize offensive noise to ensure compatibility between such facilities and
nearby residential areas. (N-6).
The Town is also violating and seriously deviating from Chapter 16: Zoning,
Section 5.08.00 of the Town's Parking and Loading Zoning Codes.
The EIR as well as CUP do not take into consideration, analyze and mitigate many
issues that remain, and impact the project and the neighborhood.
1. There is no information regarding the impacts from the proposed 156 parking
spaces in regarding to health, safety, light, glare, visual impacts, traffic and noise.
The Town Council decided without any additional study that they would expand
the new parking lots to accommodate more parking then had been ever studied
in the EIR. In fact, Alternative 7 had reduced the number of attendees from 275
to 250 as to lessen the impacts of the project and its insufficient parking. The
Town Council, as non-professionals arbitrarily increased the parking lot capacity
without knowing the impacts and actually evaluating if the 156 spaces would be
adequate. They after the fact, hired Crane and Associates to determine that 2.3
person parking spaces per car would accommodate their parking needs to
support the council's position of the November 15, 2006 meeting. The 2.3 per
person per car is in conflict with the Towns Parking and Loading Zoning Code
requirements for a place of assembly and a facility such as Kol Shofar of 2
people per vehicle.
2. The Town offers, without any publiC comment and professional analysis the
mitigation of retaining walls which might be required to accommodate the 156
parking spaces and state they believe this will have minimal impact. This
determination is extremely arbitrary, with no basis, public comment and study.
3. The Town has deferred any parking lot study or circulation plan for the parking lot
until the Site Plan and Design Review stage of the project. There is no
information, prior to a CUP approval of the impacts and viability from and of the
parking lot or its workable circulation plan since this study has never been
included in the EIR and has been deferred to after approval of an extremely large
2
new facility. Deferring information to a later date is not a mitigation measure. It
does not meet the requirements of CEQA to defer vital information for analyzing
a projects impact to a time in the future; after approval of the CUP and Expansion
P~. '
4. The CUP refers to the point that ADA spaces will be located in the new upper
parking lot, but does not indicate how many of these spaces are required out of
the total of 156 parking spaces.
5. The EIR and CUP only addresses mitigations to avoid significant impacts of
parking, safety, traffic issue to a very narrow area directly surrounding the facility.
It totallv fails to evaluate or mitigate the impacts to the residents of the affected
contiguous Bel Aire neighborhood. The mitigations to paint curbs red and place
no parking signs around the facility during large events does improve the impacts
around the facility, but pushes all the parking, traffic and safety impacts into the
Bel Aire neighborhood, particularly along Blackfield Drive and Karen Way.
Repeatedly residents of the town and adjacent neighborhoods have brought this
significant impact and point to the attention of the town and repeatedly this has
been ignored. Thus, the impacts from the proposed CUP and expansion plan will
cause significant harm to this neighborhood. These impacts have not been
studied or mitigated.
6. There is no discussion of what the cumulative impacts of the facility's total use
will be and how it can accommodate the parking and traffic of the very quiet
residential neighborhood.
7. The Town Council fails to look at the total capacity of the existing and new facility
to evaluate and determine its cumulative impacts and ability to safely
accommodate 1,500 people. The Town Council merely narrowly looked at the
facility in regard to the existing membership and how to control the existing
membership through a Conditional Use Permit. It is only rational to determine
that a facility constructed with a capacity to accommodate 1,500 people will over
time have a membership which will grow to fill its new enlarged space. The Town
Council defers discussing this subject of growth, stating that one cannot predict
the future growth of membership.
8. In the recent letter to the Town of January 23,2007 by CKS's attorney's, Remy,
Thomas, Moose and Manley, they admit in their letter CKS intends to enlarge
their attendance as a result of their newly enlarged facility and consequently plan
for more week night activity. "Kol Shofar antioipates that more of its members will
choose to utilize these faoilities than in the past and thus for purposes of
environmental analysis, Kol Shofar has stated anticipated usage. "This is totally
contrary to previous public statements by CKS representatives, the information
given to the EIR consultant in preparation of the scoping for the project and EIR,
the discussion and analysis within the EIR and the findings used for developing
the Conditional Use Permit and Expansion Plan. This statement by CKS's
attorneys totally undermines the Town's ability to make legitimate findings in
the latest proposed CUP. The Town has stated that future growth and activity
are too speculative to address in the EIR, yet included in this latest letter CKS
admits that they anticipate more of its members to utilize the facilities once the
expansion is completed. These actions by the Town and CKS violate CECA
which requires an analysis of the impacts arising from the entire project not just
piece meal components of the ultimate build out, including parking. The two
matters must be considered together. This was the subject of litigation brought
against the Town in 1998. Judge Duryee's decision dated 3/17/98 ruled against
the Town of Tiburon for exactly these reasons. The Town, once again, is
repeating the same illegal actions and ignoring the courts previous decisions.
3
9. The Town Council in its approval has focused on the plans for the new
multipurpose room. There is no information regarding the remodel of the existing
facility. How many people will the proposed remodel of the facility hold? What
will be its interior configuration? Will it too have a kitchen, activity rooms, and
other spaces besides a sanctuary? The Town Council has approved an
expansion plan, without any information as to what a major part of this
expansion/remodel plan will entail. Without this information, it is impossible to
understand the cumulate size and impacts of the total facility and its impacts on
light, traffic, safety, noise, etc.
10. The Town dodges the responsibility of insuring the parking mitigations are
followed. They require Congregation Kol Shofar to monitor itself, to insure the
parking mitigations for off site parking are followed. Verification of the off site
parking by the Town will only be entered into "iF the town requests the
information. This is like asking the "fox to guard the hen house." This is not an
adequate or proper mitigation. The town is merely shirking its duty.
11. The Town on Saturdays has established the hour of 10 PM for new events to
end. They have included a new mitigation measure of a "garage" for trucks for
caterer's to use during clean up time. This mitigation was offered to insure that
noise, traffic, light, glare, and parking issues would not disturb the very quiet
residential neighborhood late at night during clean up. Yet, as a mitigation
measure for large events, they require a shuttle service to continue operating for
over one hour after the time an event is to end. This leads one to conclude that
the Town realizes that even though an event is to end, let's say at 10 PM, that
people will continue to linger around after the conclusion of an event for over an
hour. Thus, the mitigation measure of the "garage" to reduce noise, traffic and
etc., as a reason to allow events to last later into the night is in total conflict with
the mitigation measure to require a shuttle service to continue to operate over
one hour after the conclusion of an event. In addition, the mitigation measure of a
garage for catering trucks as well as an extended shuttle service have not had
any EIR analysis or time for publiC comment and review. The idea of the parking
garage first was offered by the Town Council after close of the public comment
period at the November 15, 2006 meeting and the extended shuttle service time
to one hour after close of the event has first been made public in the Town's
January 23,2007 staff report and newly introduced CUP, slated for adoption on
Feb 7, 2007.
12. The mitigation measure for the "garage" for catering trucks, as stated has never
been studied to insure it's a viable mitigation. In fact, on page 89 of the staff
report, it states that the Town hopes that when trucks back up it will minimize the
back up beeping noise from the truck. There is no discussion as to what time of
night these trucks will back up and the disturbing noise level created by the
beeping sounds. The garage will be located directly below and adjacent to
residential homes with sleeping children. How will the beeping noise affect them
if it backs up at 11 or 12 PM at night? There is no regulation, study or discussion
regarding the safety from the movement of these trucks in and out of the
driveway, let alone the noise and time that they will operate.
13. The Town continues to overtook the point that the size, bulk, capacity and mass
of such a facility is totally out of scale, harmony and compatibility with the
neighborhood. This is a very quiet single family residential neighborhood with
many children, working families and seniors. A facility with the capacity to
accommodate 1,500 is totally incompatible with the neighborhood. The Town
continues to state the facility is compatible, "as a whole", with the community.
This is not acceptable and indefensible. It flies in the face of a multitude of
Tiburon's General Plan Goals and Policies.
4
14. The Town states that the visual impacts do not affect the scenic views and thus
do not affect the surrounding residents. A facility with the capacity to hold 1,500
people is massive. With the addition of the new multipurpose room and
classroom, the facility is the size of a large commercial facility that should be
located in a commercial zone or area which is not totally surrounded by single
family residences on narrow, hilly residential and cul-de-sac streets.
15. The CUP resolution contradicts itself by stating that the visual impacts which
exist will be dealt with at the Design Review stage. This is after the approval of
the CUP. This defers the resolving of mitigations of a significant visual impact
until after the approval of the CUP. If the impacts do exist, they must have
realistic mitigation measures offered prior to approval of the CUP and Expansion
Plan and be included in the EIR and by the Town.
16. The CUP does not adequately mitigate the cumulative impacts from the uses of
the entire facility. It does not establish any limits for on going weekly event and
activities. If Congregation Kol Shofar is permitted to expand its facility to
accommodate 1 ,SOO people, one can only logically conclude that due to the
newly expanded capacity of the facility it will accommodate many more people
then it has in the past. The CUP only regulates "new events"; it does not ever
seriously discuss activities and existing events. Thus, there is no information or
regulations included in the CUP to insure that the health, safety and welfare of
the residents will be protected by the increase in the size and capacity of the
facility. The EIR as well as CUP only evaluates the impacts of the existing
membership and has absolutely no information as to how the huge expansion of
the existing facility will affect the on going as well as ever increasing activities
and events. Thus, there is no way to determine if the mitigation measures
included in the EIR and CUP are adequate. Significant negative impacts remain
and are not mitigated in the Feb 7th proposed CUP and Expansion Plan.
17. The CUP requires that the doors to the multipurpose room be closed if there are
over 100 people inside. This is an arbitrary conclusion. There is no information
that helps the Town reach this conclusion. The type of activity taking place
inside of the facility is what should make the determination of when the doors
should be closed verses the number of people. Kol Shofar could have a group of
50 teenagers inside the room, yelling and screaming during a playful activity and
the noise would have significant impacts to the neighborhood. Thus, this
mitigation has no basis. In order to avoid noise impacts to the surrounding quiet
residential neighborhood, the doors to the multipurpose room must be kept
closed at all times.
18. The CUP requires a Neighborhood Advisory Committee to be formed to hear and
work out problems and conflicts and mediate disputes between Congregation Kol
Shofar and the neighborhood, once the CUP and Expansion plan are approved.
The neighborhood has continued to share with the Town its serious concerns
regarding the negative and significant impacts of the proposed expanded faCility
and CUP. The Town Council is moving forward to approve the CUP over the
objections of the neighborhood. It is not the residents' job to worK out the
problems which arise from this approval by the Town. It's the Town's
responsibility to fix the problems which they will create for the neighborhood.
otherwise they will be shirking their responsibility. The Town should not place
the burden of their misguided decision on to the residents. The Neighborhood
Advisory Committee is a nice idea, but not a mitigation measure for the health,
safety and welfare issues that approval of this CUP and Expansion Plan will
create.
5
We have previously submitted numerous letters stating our concerns and objections
to this project. These letters still remain relevant.
We strongly recommend the Town Council not adopt the new Congregation Kol
Shofar CUP and Expenditure Plan as included in the staff report of January 23,
2007. It is one that does not adhere to the Goals, Policies and intent of the Tiburon
General Plan and protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of this very
quiet residential neighborhood. What it will do is put the residents in harms way.
Yours truly,
~:~~ren
-r~
6
~:~fl'~~:---- - ~--I
,I ,
II:
IU lL JAN: : 2007
L.
FL
January 28, 2007
Yvonne Thurmond
30 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburon, CA. 94920
Re: Noise from Congregation Kol Shofar
Dear Mayor Gram and Tiburon Town Council Members,
About two weeks ago I was enjoying my yard on a nice Sunday afternoon when the
whole space was invaded with noise. There were happy sounds of children leaving
Sunday school at Congregation Kol Shofar when all of a sudden a shrieking yell came
from the CKS parking lot. It was a father reprimanding his son at the top of his lungs on
why he had run the other way when he saw his father approaching. He continued to try
to get his child under control for at least 5 more minutes, all at a very high decibel level.
This kind of situation is what sticks in the neighbors' minds when we think of increased
usage of CKS. r do not think we can count on people to modifY their behavior to become
reasonable neighbors without strict regulations being imposed on them by the authorities.
Please listen to the neighbors and our frustrations regarding CKS and its expansion.
Yours truly,
ltl.flM.J- ,j t tJ,)v')"A./f/t,(j
Yvonne Thurmond
Richard A. Holway
42 Paseo Mirasol,
Tiburon, CA 94920
I,I:!}! ?(XP
To: Town Council ofTiburon
Subject: Kol Shofar Expansion Project/Conditional Use Permit
From: Richard A. Holway
January 30, 2007
It appears that all of the testimony about how sound carries in the Ilbowlll
surrounding the Kol Shofar has fallen on deaf ears.
We in the neighborhood are not deaf. We hear the social chatter, car doors
slamming, the start up of the cars etc. at the conclusion of night events.
Allowing the Kol Shofar to have social events that go beyond 9:00 PM on
Saturday nights is just FLAT OUT WRONG! This is an encroachment on
our neighborhood.
Nuff said!
f0eLJ {Lf~~
Richard A. Holway I
Page I of I
Dan Watrous
~~----_._-,,-~----~.._---------_..~._- -- - ----.-..----------------------------.-.-------------..,,-,--------- .
From: Shadan, Carolyn [cshadan@ebmud.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:10 PM
To: Dan Watrous
Subject: Proposed Kol Shafar Expansion
clAN
?D07
Mr. Watrous,
I am writing to voice my opinion on the proposed expansion at Congregation Kol Shafar. I live in the Bel Aire
neighborhood.
I think the congregation should be allowed to expand as long as adequate parking is provided and the times of
operation match those of a similar facility, St. Hillary's.
The current plan does not provide adequate parking. Currently, we get the overflow on our streets because the
streets are flat. Driveways are blocked and residents are awakened by cars turning around in their driveways
shining headlights into the front bedrooms. We also get the hired tour busses as they wait to load passengers for
the Bar and Bat Mitzvah celebrations. It is very irritating in a residential neighborhood to listen to these busses
rev their motors as they wait.
The hours of operation are excessive for a residential neighborhood. Currently St. Hillary's Gym is restricted to
hours of operation that are much earlier than those proposed for the Congregation. Why shouldn't the two
facilities have similar operating restrictions? They are both religious institutions. If we step away from the
hysteria and look at the square footage and hours of operation of St.Hillary's, which is located in a residential
neighborhood, the need for lawyers might be eliminated.
I think that both sides ofthis issue are forgetting that this is a residential neighborhood. The residents are subject
to restrictions on home expansion and are not unreasonable to ask the Congregation to adhere to residential
restrictions.
Stop paying the lawyers and design a facility that meets the needs of current members, with room for expansion.
You will eliminate off site parking and the need for tour busses. Be a good neighbor and limit your celebrations to
hours to don't disrupt your neighbors.
Yes, parking structures are expensive, but that is what fund raising is for!
Carolyn Shad an
279 Cecilia Way
TIburon,Ca.
1/31/2007
Page I of2
Scott Anderson
From: Metz, Tim (tmetz@mountainhardwear.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31,20079:06 AM
To: Mayor, Paul Smith; Mayor, Tom Gram; Alice Fredericks; Council member Miles Berger; Vice Mayor,
Jeff Slavitz
Cc: Scott Anderson
. Subject: Note from Berkeley Neighbor
Mayor Gram and Members of the Town Council,
I thought it was important to pass this ieller along to you as an indicator of why we still have major issues and
concerns regarding the Congregation Kol Shofar project. This is a letter from one of the neighbors of
Congregation Beth EI (CBE) in Berkeley that was addressed to Wendy Cosin at the City of Berkeley. I think it
sums up a lot of what they have been going through since the Beth EI project was completed. I and the TNC fear
that we are headed down the exact same path if this is not resolved in a more coherent and comprehensive
manner. These neighbors continue to deal with the issues in this letter to this day.
For clarification, LOCCNA stands for Live OaklCodornices Creek Neighborhood Association.
Best regards,
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 200609:47:33 -0700
To: WCosin@...
From:
Subject: Congregation Beth EI, its neighbors and the city
1D)~~~~W~1rn
mJ JAN 3 1 Z007 I!1J
Tim
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
I've seen your briefreply to Nancy's note concerning the posting of no parking signs. Your
comment, "I hope everything else is ok from the neighborhood perspective," offers me an opportunity
to reply.
No, it is not; far from it. I cannot speak for others who were deeply involved in the years of
meetings, hearings and negotiations surrounding the move of the synagogue to 1301 Oxford
Street, but for myself, r am coming to believe that that was wasted time and effort. And,
hard as it is to contemplate, that forces me to consider that, in this instance at least,
govemment in Berkeley has failed n failed me, failed my neighbors, and failed in what
ought to be a central responsibility to follow its own rules and enforce its own
commitments.
After years of discussions, those LOCCNA stalwarts who stuck with it hammered out with
CBE an agreement, later incorporated into the use permit, that laid out how parking and
traffic would be handled, that imposed restrictions on hours of use and noise, that mandated
creek preservation and landscaping n that would represent a few of the steps that a massive
institution in the midst of a residential neighborhood needed to take to try to fit in.
The conditions -- commitments -- that ultimately were required by the city represented
hard-fought compromises. We felt we gave more than we got; undoubtedly Beth EI's
leaders felt the same. But ultimately we made a deal, backed by the city's assertions that it
1/"11 f"'dIA"'7
Page 2 of2
would enforce that deal.
The parking plan is ajoke. As the statistics painstakingly compiled by my neighbor and
friend...will show, CBE event attendees do not park in accordance with the plan and are not
in any effective way directed to do so. Instead, they crowd the streets closest to the
synagogue site. Despite hours of pulling and tugging over how Camp Kee-tov would be
handled, neighbors came home last week to find that portions oftheir streets had been
posted as no parking zones, in violation of the agreed-upon stipulations, because someone at
Beth El decided the buses couldn't be accommodated as the synagogue had committed they
would be. A refrigeration truck ran throughout two nights last weekend; at 11 pm Saturday
teenagers were carousing in the sound-amplifying amphitheater that the synagogue
buildings form, and at 9 am Sunday camp counselors were practicing in-unison chants as
though they were in a suburban shopping mall parking lot rather than the midst of a
residential neighborhood. The site remains unlandscaped and without any sound barriers.
Lights still shine from the windows throughout the night, and Beth El's stewardship of the
creek and the undeveloped area along Berryman Path is, to say the least, unimpressive.
When we question, when we protest, we are told that it was unintended, mistakes by well-
meaning people. But all those discussions, all those negotiations were only a half-decade
ago. The folks who agreed to them still lead the congregation, and the documents they
signed certainly have not faded.
You were a part of this process. You saw how much this mattered to us, and how hard we
worked to forge a set of reasonable compromises. Why has the city turned its back? Where
is the oversight to ensure that Congregation Beth El in fact becomes the good neighbor it
committed itself to be? There are clear, simple, unambiguous yardsticks for how well it is
doing. They are laid out in the conditions attached to the use permit. Congregation Beth El
is demonstrably, and by its own admissions, not meeting them. What will the city do?
Best,
Alan
1/"Il/I')f\(V7
re n n re Ii ,.-.. ~....,."
lr U lbl!; ~ ..,= cJ 13
REMY, THOMAS, MOOSE and MANLEY, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MICHAEL H. REMY
1944 - 2003
TINA A. THOMAS
JAMES G. MOOSE
WHITMAN F. MANLEY
ANDREA K. LEISY
TIFFANY K. WRIGHT
SABRINA v. TELLER
ASHLE T. CROCKER
Telephone: (916) 443.2745
Facsimile: (916) 443-9017
E-mail: info@rtnunlaw.com
http://www.rtmmlaw.com
JENNIFER S. HOLMAN
MICHELE A. TONG
AMY R. HIGUERA
HOWARD F. WILKINS 111
MEGAN M. QUINN
AMANDA R. BERLIN
JASON W. HOLDER
MELANIE SENGUPTA
LAURA M. HARRIS
KA THR YN C. COTTER
455 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 210
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 958\4
.\ i
II
BRIAN J. PLANT
OF COUNSEL
JAN 2 3 2007
January 19, 2006
L.
L_____.~_
Scott Anderson
Community Development Director
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Congregation Kol Shofar CUP Application!
Proposed Conditions of Approval
Dear Scott,
As you know, Congregation Kol Shofar has been working with the Town to
review all of the various documents necessary for Town Council consideration and
approval of its proposed project. Our goal is to provide additional assistance to the
Town to ensure that all of the necessary findings are made, that all of those findings are
supported by substantial evidence, and further to ensure that all of the Council Sub-
committee recommendations are properly incorporated into the approval documents.
As part of that review, you have provided us with a draft resolution that includes
proposed conditions of approval for the CUP. Attached are our proposed edits to that
resolution. Some edits are minor, and meant only to clarify the text. Other edits are
more substantive in nature. These are described below. We are using this letter as the
vehicle for providing CKS feedback on the Council Sub-committee's recommendations,
as requested at the November 15, 2006 hearing.
Our specific edits are included in the attached "Proposed CUP Resolution" and
are explained below. Before getting into the details, however, we think it is important
to explain the reasoning that supports many of the edits. As a threshold matter, we
think it is important to point out that, technically, Kol Shofar is not seeking a CUP
amendment to "allow new special and congregational evening events." The existing
CUP places no limits on the types, timing or attendance at events. Rather Kol Shofar is
seeking a CUP to improve its facilities. Kol Shofar anticipates that more of its members
will choose to utilize these facilities than in the past, and thus for purposes of
Scott Anderson
January 19, 2006
Page 2 on
environmental analysis, Kol Shofar has stated anticipated usage. As the process made
clear, attendance at weekend events is clearly the source of much of the neighbors'
angst over the project, and Kol Shofar therefore voluntarily agreed to limit the number
of new events. Thus, it is proper to view this CUP resolution as placing limits on Kol
Shofar that do not currently exist, rather than allowing uses that were previously
prohibited.
You will see below that we have also suggested adding language to the CUP
resolution establishing that the Design Review permit process not be used as a vehicle
to make further reductions in the size of the facilities. We believe the proposed
language reflects the intent of the sub-committee, and should not be controversial. We
also believe, however, it is important that this be clearly established because of the
process Kol Shofar has been through thus far. The Town, its staff and consultants, as
well as the Council's sub-committee, spent considerable time and effort arriving at its
November consensus as to the reduction in size to the facilities. It was hardly the
product of quick reaction, but instead constituted the result of studied analysis, taking
into account all ofthe applicable development policies of the Town. It would be folly
indeed to send Kol Shofar to Design Review with the opportunity to revisit the same
size issue that consumed years and has been decided on appeal by the Town Council.
The Planning Commission has already expressed its opinion on this issue and denied
our application; and the Council has determined the size of the subject facilities. We, of
course, want to remove the possibility that this project will once again be before the
Town Council on appeal.
You will also see that several of the proposed edits clarify that some of the
conditions of approval apply only to new weekend events. Throughout this process the
Town has always made the representation that it does not intend to curtail religious
activities that have been ongoing at the site for many years and which were not
restricted in number of timing under the current CUP. We believe clarity on this issue
will help prevent disputes in the future.
Section I. Findings
B. Proposed We propose to delete the phrase "as
Edit well as allowing new special and
congregational event evening
programs."
Rationale As explained above, we make this edit
only to clarify the difference between
the existing CUP and the requested
CUP.
B.8. Proposed Delete the reference to the Crane
Edit Transportation Group letters.
Rationale The Crane Transportation Group letters,
while part of the administrative record,
Scott Anderson
January 19,2006
Page 3 of7
are not part of the application.
B. Proposed See attached resolution.
(concluding Edit
paragraph)
Rationale To clarify that there was more than one
public hearing, and that materials were
submitted throughout the process.
C. Proposed Insert "asserted."
Edit
Rationale To make clear that the Town Council
disagrees with a finding that the proj ect
is inconsistent with the General Plan
and ZoninE! Ordinance.
E. Proposed Add a brief explanation of the appeals
Edit filed.
H. Proposed Clarify that the Town Council's
Edit reasoning is also set forth in the CEQA
Findings of Fact, which will be attached
to this resolution.
Section 3. Conditions of Approval
J.D. Proposed Allow the use of the existing service lot
Edit for handicapped parking. It provides
much easier access to the facility for
disabled congregants because of its
location.
J.F. Proposed Add a sentence limiting the Design
Edit Review Board and Planning
Commission's ability to further reduce
the size of the proi ect.
Rationale The Town Council arrived at the
proposed reduction in the size of the
MPB after extensive meetings with the
applicant and neighbors. The applicant
has made clear that the reduced size of
the MPB is the minimum that can
feasibly accommodate the needs of the
applicant, in connection with the
practice of the Congregation's religion.
The Design Review process should not
be a vehicle for further reductions to the
size of the MPB after all the process
Kol Shofar has been through here and
after all the hearings and the Sub-
Scott Anderson
January 19, 2006
Page 4 of7
committee's and Town Council's
lengthy review and detailed analysis of
this issue.
2. Proposed Clarify that Table I is meant only to
Edit limit new weekend events.
Rationale Throughout this process, the
understanding has been that the limits
on the use ofthe MPB only apply to
new weekend events. Table I in the
DElR, and subsequent submittals by the
applicant have been provided as
information for the ElR and to the
public. The Town Council has not
expressed an intention to limit these
religious activities which currently take
place at the facility and the
Congregation has continuously and
vigorously objected to imposing any
further restrictions on religious
practices conducted at Kol Shofar.
4.A. Proposed Clarifications on use ofthe facilities.
Edit
4.C.v. Proposed Clarify that this condition applies only
Edit to the new weekend evening events.
Delete the restriction that the MPB is to
be used by Kol Shofar members only.
Rationale This condition was added by Leonard
Charles in the Final ElR in response to
a comment that the "assumption" upon
which the EIR analysis was based was
not "enforceable." (FElR, p. 132.) The
understanding throughout this process
has been that the conditions of approval
for this CUP application should not
reach back and limit long existing
events and activities. The courtyard has
been periodically used for years for
outside events. Furthermore, during the
weeklong religious holiday of Sukkot,
the congregation is commanded to eat
outside.
The restriction on member use only for
the MPB goes far beyond what has been
contemplated and contradicts other
Scott Anderson
January 19,2006
Page 5 of7
conditions which allow "member
sponsored" events.
4.C.vi. Proposed Re-word limitations.
edit
Rationale We believe this more clearly states the
sub-committee's intent, and also makes
clear that the condition refers only to
new events.
4.D. Proposed Remove references to "four new
edit classrooms" and refer instead to
educational spaces.
Remove reference to Ring Mountain
Preschool, and remove specifications on
the affiliation of students (private v. Kol
Shofar students).
Rationale The four "new classrooms" are being
built to replace existing sub-standard
space that will be lost due to
construction ofthe MPR and remodel of
the sanctuary. Dayschool activities
might take place in other areas of the
facility. With limitations on attendance,
it seems unnecessary to specify where
the classes will actually be.
The reference to Ring Mountain
Preschool is overly specific. Although
there are currently no plans to change
tenants, it is possible another private
preschool could replace Ring Mountain
Preschool sometime in the future
without any change in the impacts.
4.E. Proposed Limit Annex Building use to religious
edit. and educational activity.
Rationale It is our understanding that this
language is being added not so much
because limitations on the use of the
Annex Building are necessary, but more
to provide information on the intended
use.
Currently, the Annex Building is used
primarily for storage, but on occasion,
Scott Anderson
January 19, 2006
Page 6 of7
KoJ Shofar has used it for various
activities on site. Kol Shofar would like
the ability to make better use of the
Annex Building once the safety
upgrades are in place. It is not
anticipated that making better use of the
space would increase the number of
visitors to the site at anyone time.
Kol Shofar believes it would be bad
planning to limit the use of this building
more specifically. The neighbors of the
project specifically requested that Kol
Shofar make better use of its space and
Kol Shofar has gone to great lengths to
provide information on existing uses of
the site and has agreed to limits on new
events at the MPR.
5.B.i. Proposed Require two monitors rather than three.
edit
Rationale The sub-committee previously
recommended two monitors. We
believe the third monitor at Via Los
Altos will not provide any additional
benefit, as the Via Los Altos entrance
has been designated under the
circulation plan as the appropriate
entrance. Further, the condition allows
for more monitors ifnecessarv.
5.B.iii. Proposed I believe this is just a typographical
edit correction.
5.C.iii.(e). Proposed Clarify that the log is only required for
edit. new weekend events.
6.A. Proposed Changed time to turn off parking lot
edit lighting.
Rationale The current CUP allows parking lot
lights to remain on until 10:00 p.m.
There are currently occasional events
during the week that go past 9:00, and it
would be a safety hazard to require
visitors to walk to their cars in the dark.
Furthermore, the ElR and conditions of
approval contain several mitigation
measures that will reduce the impact of
Scott Anderson
January 19, 2006
Page 7 of7
parking lot lighting. In addition, the
applicant has proposed a lighting plan
that will reduce impacts from what
currently exists. This plan will be
subject to Design Review. Thus,
impacts will be less than what currently
exists on the site, and cutting back the
time is not justified in light of the
hazard to visitors.
9.F. Proposed Delete sub-section F.
edit
Rationale Kol Shofar is not necessarily opposed to
the idea of sending notice of and
inviting the public to the NAC
meetings. We do believe, however, that
a small meeting with only the six
members in attendance will be more
productive and will help to foster better
relations between Kol Shofar and the
neighbors. The NAC committee
members can then keep their members
informed and be available for their
input.
Thanks very much for taking our comments into consideration. Kol Shofar is
very excited to finally be reaching the conclusion of the application process. As such,
we remain available to assist the Town in any way to ensure a complete and thorough
approval.
Tiffany Wright
Tkw/46/CUP Resolution Conunents.doc
RECORDING REQUESTED
RETURN TO:
TOWN CLERK
TIBURON TOWN HALL
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD
TIBURON, CA 94920
.... -CEI\!F""'
.J"" . . "..........
fjv;'t, ..!, j 1...
~ \i .. L .1,1 \.' ..=...._:'f'
I . -------:
FEB - '2007 i
~_......_--j
TOWiJ
TOWN OF TiBlJi:;OiJ
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2007
LATE MAIL # 3
cJ-l-o 1
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON PARTIALLY UPHOLDING THE CONGREGATION KOL
SHOFAR APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONGREGATION KOL SHOFAR
SYNAGOGUE PROPERTY AT
215 BLACKFIELD DRIVE lAP 38-351-34) FILE #10404
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows:
Section 1. Findinqs.
A. In 1985, the Town of Tiburon approved a conditional use permit authorizing
synagogue and day school uses on property located at 215 Blackfield Drive.
The use permit conditions were subsequently amended by adoption of Planning
Commission Resolution Nos. 97-17, 2001-07, and 2004-10.
B. On April 21, 2004, the Town of Tiburon received a Land Development
Application (File #10404) (the "Application") from Congregation Kol Shofar
("CKS") with regard to its property at 215 Blackfield Drive (the "Property"). The
Application seeks a conditional use permit ("CUP") for remodeling of existing
structures and construction of new facilities on the Property, specifically: a
single-story, 9,733 square foot multi-purpose addition to the existing circular
building; four new single-story classrooms and a service room totaling 3,662
square feet; remodeling of the existing building; a new parking lot for 40 spaces;
and related lighting and landscaping improvements. In addition, the Application
seeks an increase in the maximum enrollment of the day school from 100 to 150
children, as well as allowing new special and congregational event evening
programs.
The Application consists of the following:
1. Conditional Use Permit and Environmental Review Submission, dated April,
19, 2004, containing:
a. Geotechnical Report prepared by Herzog Engineers, dated February,
2004
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 5, 2007
I
b. Traffic and Parking Study prepared by Robert Harrison Traffic
Engineers, dated April, 2004
c. Environmental Noise Study prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates,
Inc., dated April, 2004
d. Lighting Study and Recommendations prepared by Architectural
Lighting Design, dated April, 2004
e. Congregation Kol Shofar Use Summary, dated March, 2004
f. Visual Impact Study prepared by Herman and Coliver Architecture,
dated April, 2004
2. Project Plans (14 sheets) prepared by Herman and Coliver Architecture,
received April 21,2004, including revised Sheet A 1.1 dated 11/4/2005
3. Revised project description prepared by IPA, Inc., dated July 14,2004
4. Addenda to Traffic and Parking Study prepared by Robert Harrison Traffic
Engineers, dated June 21, 2004 and August 18, 2004
5. Addenda to Environmental Noise Study prepared by Charles M. Salter
Associates, Inc., dated June 30, 2004 and August 18,2004
6. Modified Use-Impact Analysis prepared by IPA, Inc., dated April 11 ,2006
7. FEIR: Alternative 7 Analysis prepared by Leonard Charles Associates, dated
April 18, 2006.
The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of this
resolution, The record includes the Staff Reports, minutes, application materials,
the Draft EIR, Final EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and all comments
and materials received at the public hearings and throughout the administrative
process.
C. On April 24, May 10 and May 31, 2006 the Planning Commission held duly
noticed public hearings on the Application, at which it considered the Final EIR
and heard and considered testimony and correspondence from interested
persons. At the conclusion of the May 10, 2006 hearing, a majority of the
Planning Commission indicated they could not support the Project based on,
among other things, asserted inconsistency with General Plan goals and policies
and failure of the Project to conform to Tiburon Zoning Ordinance standards and
provisions. The Planning Commission offered CKS a choice of either an "up or
down" vote on the Application or a continuance of the hearing to a later date to
enable a Planning Commission subcommittee to attempt to craft a resolution of
conditional approval based on modifications necessary to satisfactorily address
the inadequacies identified by the Planning Commission at the May 10, 2006
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 5, 2007 2
meeting. CKS initially indicated a willingness to consider such an approach for
conditional approval by the Planning Commission, but on May 16, 2006,
informed Town Staff that CKS did not wish to support such an approach and
requested an "up or down" vote on the Application.
D. At the May 31, 2006 hearing, the Planning Commission approved ReSolution
2006-15 certifying the Final EIR and approved Resolution 2006-16, denying the
Conditional Use Permit application.
E. The Planning Commission's certification of the Final EIR and denial of the CUP
application was the subject of three (3) appeals. On June 6, 2006, CKS
appealed the Planning Commission's denial and certification of the EIR. On
June 12,2006, Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition appealed the certification of the
EIR. The Greenwood Beach Homeowners Association appealed the certification
of theEIR on June 12, 2006. The Greenwood Beach Homeowners Association
appeal was subsequently withdrawn. The appeals from the applicant and
Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition have been denied by separate resolution.
F. On October 24,2006 and November 15, 2006, the Tiburon Town Council held
duly noticed public hearings on the appeals of the Planning Commission's
actions to certify the Final EIR and deny the Conditional Use Permit and, after
extensive testimony, closed the public hearing, and heard the recommendations
of the ad-hoc subcommittee of the Town Council. After due consideration and
deliberation, the Town Council voted unanimously to endorse the sub-
committee's recommendations and provided direction to staff to return with
resolutions reflecting the Town Council's direction for adoption at a future
meeting.
G. On February 7, 2007, the Town Council held a duly noticed public meeting to
take final action on the appeals of the Planning Commission's decisions.
H. The Town Council finds, based upon evidence in the record, that all potentially
significant adverse impacts have been mitigated to less than significant levels
through modifications to the project as set forth in this resolution and in the
attached mitigation monitoring program. Findings of Fact pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act have been adopted by separate resolution.
I. The Town Council also finds based upon the application materials and analysis
provided in the certified EIR and Staff Reports and based on evidence in the
record that the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Tiburon General
Plan and is in substantial compliance with the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and
other applicable regulations.
J. The Town Council also finds that the improvements proposed by this Application
would be properly related to the development of the neighborhood as a whole
and reasonably compatible with the types of uses normally permitted in the
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Droft February 5,2007 3
surrounding area, once the mitigation measures and conditions of approval are
imposed to address potential hydrology, biology, air quality, noise, parking and
circulation, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts on neighboring homes.
K. The Town Council further finds that the imposition of new conditions of approval
and consolidation of previous conditions of approval placed on prior permits into
a new CUP is appropriate and reasonable at this time to ensure that the
synagogue and day school uses remain in substantial compliance with the spirit
and intent of the original 1985 conditional use permit, as subsequently amended
in 1997,2001 and 2004.
Section 2. Partial Grantinq of the CKS Appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon does hereby partially grant the appeal of CKS and approve the conditional use
permit application subject to the conditions below. The Town Council finds, based on
evidence in the record, that changes to the project have to the Council's satisfaction
addressed the objections to the application expressed by the Planning Commission in
adopting its resolution of denial. Findings to that effect are attached as Exhibit C,
Section 3. Conditions of Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town of Tiburon
Town Council does hereby approve the Conditional Use Permit application (File
#10404), to remodel and expand the facilities for the existing synagogue and private
day school uses and increase the number of weekday and weekend events at 215
Blackfield Drive, subject to the following conditions and modifications:
1. The approved physical improvements for Congregation Kol Shofar (CKS) are
depicted on the Proposed Site Plan Diagram (Sheet A 1.1) dated 4/16/2004
prepared by Herman & Coliver and as further detailed on Sheets, AO.1-0.3, A 1.2,
A2.0, A3.0, A3.1, L 1.0, L 1.0, C2.0, and C3.0 (all dated 4/16/2004); and Sheets
A1.3 and A-3.2 (revised 11/04/05), as modified herein and summarized below:
A. Construction of a new one-story, 3,662 square foot, 20-foot high
classroom building consisting of four (4) classrooms and a service
building.
B. Construction of a new one-story, approximately 8,300 square foot, 23-foot
high Multi-Purpose Building (MPB), which represents a 15% reduction
from that shown on the referenced drawing. The MPB shall be pulled
back from the hill-slope to a distance at least five (5) feet from the top of
slope and appropriately landscaped. The multi-purpose room portion of
the MPB shall not exceed 4,500 square feet of net usable area. In
addition to the approximately 8,300 square feet of MBP, an attached
facility is approved that shall consist of a fully enclosed 800 square foot
one-story loading/unloading area for catering, clean-up and related
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 5, 2007 4
purposes at the western edge of the MPB, as shown on Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
C. Interior remodeling of the existing main building and annex building on the
site,
D. CKS shall modify the parking lot layout to optimize circulation and provide
a minimum of 156 total on-site parking spaces, including handicapped
spaces. The primary parking lot shall be designed as "enter-only" from
Via Los Altos and "exit only" onto Reedland Woods Way. Improvements
to the existing service parking lot shall provide staff parking, handicapped
parking and service access and shall not be available to the public as a
parking area, except for those needing handicapped parking (see also
Mitigation Measure 3.3-B.1). The exit from the parking lot onto Reedland
Woods Way shall be as narrow as practicable to the satisfaction of the
Town Engineer. No parking structure is approved herein.
E. Landscape improvements as shown on Sheets A 1.1 and L 1.0 are subject
to further refinement at the Design Review application phase to implement
mitigation measures and conditions of approval herein. Approved
landscaping shall be professionally-maintained at all times in a healthy,
weed-free and litter-free condition. Dead or dying plants shall be promptly
replaced. A landscape maintenance bond for a term of three years
beyond occupancy of the MPB shall be required prior to occupancy of the
MPB. The landscape plan shall call for the removal of invasive plant
species such as French broom and pampas grass from the site.
F. The reconstruction and expansion plans approved as part of the
Conditional Use Permit provide a framework, in terms of the site plan
''footprint'' and established maximum development intensity, which will be
subject to further refinement during the Design Review Permit process.
Plans submitted for Design Review shall provide detailed design
information, particularly for the facilities that are identified for further study
and modification, as noted above, such as the MPB, parking lot design,
and landscape plans. The Design Review Board shall not have the
authority to unilaterally further reduce the square footage of the MPB or
classroom additions.
2. This permit regulates use of all facilities at the site as follows:
Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays: Meetings, education,
lectures and similar activities of up to thirty (30) persons each, but not to exceed
one hundred (100) persons cumulative on the site at one time, are permitted until
9:00 pm. Day school uses with maximum attendance as authorized by this
permit may operate between 7:30 am and 6:00 pm. During one evening of CKS
choosing from Monday through Thursday, religious school and adult education
are authorized until 9:00 pm. Notwithstanding the foregoing, one day per week,
CKS may conduct Hebrew School for up to one hundred (100) attendees in
addition to the above, until 9:00 pm.
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. XX.2007 Revised Draft February 5, 2007
5
Not withstanding the preceding paragraph, if a religious event not listed below
falls on a weeknight, CKS may give the Director of Community Development at
least ten (10) days prior notice bye-mail or letter naming the religious event and
describing CKS's plans to celebrate it. In no event shall the celebration include
amplified music; it shall not be held outside; and it shall end by 10:30 pm with
lights out no later than 11 :00 pm. This exception shall be available only
occasionally, i.e. approximately four (4) times per year.
Fridays: Meetings, education, lectures and similar activities of up to thirty (30)
persons each, but not to exceed one hundred (100) persons cumulative on the
site at one time, are permitted until 9:00 pm. Day school uses with maximum
attendance as authorized by this permit may operate between 7:30 am and 6:00
pm. In addition, up to thirty (30) member-sponsored congregational dinners are
authorized annually. The congregational dinners shall be limited to a maximum
of one hundred (100) persons and must conclude by 9:00 pm (not including
clean-up). In addition, Friday Night Special Services held in the Sanctuary
approximately thirty (30) times per year, may conclude as late as 10:00 pm.
Saturdays: Meetings, education, lectures and similar activities of up to thirty (30)
persons each, but not to exceed one hundred fifty (150) persons cumulative on
the site at one time, are permitted until 10:00 pm; provided, however, if the
cumulative total of attendees at CKS events is more than one hundred (100)
persons, then no member-sponsored event shall be held on those nights.
Sabbath Services are excepted from the 100-person limit. In addition, an annual
maximum of ten (10) member-sponsored events may be held up to 10:00 pm
(not including clean-up), with the following attendance limits:
5 events @ 150 persons maximum attendance
4 events @ 200 persons maximum attendance
1 event @ 250 persons maximum attendance
Sundays: Meetings, education, lectures and similar activities of up to thirty (30)
persons each, but not to exceed one hundred (100) persons cumulative on the
site at one time, are permitted until 6:00 pm. Religious school and adult
education are excepted from the 100-person limit. In addition, an annual
maximum of seven (7) member-sponsored events may be held from 3:00 pm to
8:00 pm (not including clean-up), with the following attendance limits:
4 events @ 100 persons maximum attendance
2 events @ 150 persons maximum attendance
1 event @ 200 persons maximum attendance
The phrase "meetings, education, lectures and similar activities" does not include
parties or events that would use amplified sound or generate substantial noise.
Time and hour restrictions of this permit do not apply to the following list of
annual events and religious holidays: Rosh Hashanah (first day, first night, and
second day); Yom Kippur day and night; Sukkot Dinner; Simchat Torah Evening
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-20m Revised Draft February 5, 2007 6
Service; Tu B'Shvat Seder; Purim Play; Purim Service; Shavuot Night Service;
Selichot Night Service; USY (Synagogue teen-age Youth Group) events.
For purposes of this permit, a "member-sponsored event" is a private,
commemorative function for which a contract is generally entered into between
the member and the synagogue.
3. The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMRP), attached hereto as Exhibit Band
made a part of this resolution, is hereby adopted and its provisions shall be
implemented.
4. The following conditions shall apply to all facilities at the site:
A. CKS facilities shall not be rented out to non-member public or private
parties, except for the classroom facilities that are rented to an entity
operating a private day school on the site. For member-sponsored
events, a sponsoring member must be present at the event or function for
substantially the entire event or function.
B. All HVAC units shall be baffled to reduce noise to surrounding residents.
HV AC units shall not be operated after the facility is closed each day. The
Building Permit application specifications shall include best practices for
minimizing sound from all ventilation and air circulation equipment.
C. The following conditions pertain to the Multi-Purpose Building (MPB) and
its Courtyard:
i) The MPB lobby shall not be used for seating at any event but shall
be kept clear except for High Holy Day services.
ii) Doors and windows of the MPB shall remain in the closed position
during large (100 or more persons) or amplified indoor events (such
as life-cycle events) except for the three High Holy Day services,
when they can be left open only during the services. (Mitigation 3.4-
B.1)
iii) Windows and doors shall be designed to minimize noise leakage to
outside areas.
iv. No outdoor amplification will be allowed except for the annual
Sunday School closing ceremony, at which time audio speakers
shall be faced toward the CKS facility and away from surrounding
residential uses. For any other event at which exterior amplified
sound is proposed, CKS must secure a Special Event Permit from
the Town. No loud bells or buzzers associated with any use on the
site shall be allowed. Any system employed to alert students as to
class times should not be clearly audible beyond the property
boundary. Landscaping shall be enhanced to reduce noise to the
surrounding neighborhood.
v. Use of the Courtyard for special events is authorized only for the
three High Holy Day events and Sukkot, plus Saturday Sabbath
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Drofi February 5, 2007 7
Kiddush lunches. No amplified sound shall be allowed outdoors.
Outdoor use of the Courtyard during events other than the High
Holy Days and Sunday School graduation services shall be limited
to people stepping out for air and casual conversation. Except for
Sukkot and the Sabbath lunches, no food or drinks shall be served
in the Courtyard, and no organized activities will be held in the
Courtyard.
vi. Shall not be rented out or otherwise used for non-member events.
For member-sponsored events, a sponsoring member must be
present at the event or function.
vii. The Design Review Permit application plans for the MPB shall
include a design for a fully enclosed, heavily sound-insulated area
connecting to kitchens wherein catering vehicles would be loaded
and unloaded and for storage of garbage and recyclables. This
area shall be large enough to accommodate van-type catering
vehicles, and no catering or supply vehicles such as equipment
rental trucks, shall be permitted unless they load and unload within
the enclosed area with the doors closed. To the extent practicable,
use of "back-up waming devices" on vehicles using this loading and
unloading area shall be minimized.
D. The following specific conditions pertain to the Classrooms:
i) Educational spaces in the facility are limited to 150 students on
weekdays, and a maximum of 100 students are permitted for a
private day school tenant use. The educational spaces may be
used for religious study and for religious educational instruction by
the congregation.
ii) Weekday school start and end times at the Kol Shofar site shall be
separated by a minimum of 15 minutes from the start and end
times of the Bel Aire public school.
E. The following specific conditions apply to the Annex Building:
i) The Annex Building is approved for accessibility upgrades and fire
sprinkler and other safety upgrades.
ii) Use of the Annex Building shall be limited to storage and religious
and educational activities.
5. The following Traffic and Parking Management program shall be implemented:
A. Phvsicallmprovements
i) Fencing or a landscaping barrier shall be installed along or near the
CKS frontage of Reedland Woods Way to effectively discourage
pedestrian access to the site from Reedland Woods Way.
ii) A minimum of 156 total on-site parking spaces shall be provided,
including handicapped parking spaces. Finalized parking lot
design, circulation and layout shall be provided as part of the
Design Review application.
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-20m Revised Draft February 5, 2007 8
iii) A lighted directional sign to be reviewed by the Design Review
Board shall be required at the corner of Blackfield Drive and Via
Los Altos to direct vehicles to the CKS parking lot entrance on Via
Los Altos and to discourage use of Reedland Woods Way by CKS-
related inbound traffic. The sign shall be constructed of natural
materials with low-impact lighting.
iv) New red "No Parking" curbs shall be painted at the following
locations:
(a) along both sides of Via Los Altos from Blackfield Drive to the
curve below 32 Via Los Altos;
(b) along the northwest side of Blackfield Drive from Via Los Altos
to the property at 231 Blackfield Drive;
(c) along the east side of Reedland Woods Way to the property line
with 20 Reedland Woods Way;
(d) along the west side of Reedland Woods Way to the CKS
property line with 35 Reedland Woods Way.
v) "No U-turn" signs shall be placed along Blackfield Drive above the
Via Los Altos intersection and on Via Los Altos below 32 Via Los
Altos, with precise number and placement to be determined by the
Town Engineer. Tiburon Police shall be authorized to ticket drivers
who make U-turns in these areas.
vi) The Town Engineer shall review the condition of the "hump" at the
upper Via Los Altos driveway to CKS and determine whether minor
modifications are necessary to enhance circulation in and out of
that driveway.
B. Manaqement
i) All CKS-sponsored and CKS-member-sponsored events where
200+ persons are anticipated (except Sabbath Services and
Sunday School activities) will require a minimum of three
monitors/traffic controllers: 1) at the corner of Blackfield DriveNia
Los Altos; 2) CKS driveway at Reedland Woods Way; and 3) at the
CKS parking lot entrance on Via Los Altos. Additional monitors may
be necessary to adequately direct traffic and parking, to be
determined by CKS based upon need. CKS shall inform the
Tiburon Police Department five (5) days in advance of any such
event.
ii) The following traffic and parking management measures shall be
imposed for events or combinations of events/activities at CKS with
a cumulative attendance expected to be above 359 persons
(except for Sunday School programs):
(a) "Resident Traffic Only" temporary signs placed on Reedland
Woods Way and Via Los Altos.
(b) "No Parking" temporary signs placed on the southeast side
of Blackfield Drive between CKS and Karen Way.
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 5, 2007 9
(c) Trained traffic control monitors/controllers provided to the
satisfaction of the Tiburon Police Department.
(d) Total minimum event/service parking shall be calculated by
dividing the expected number of attendees by 2.3 (attendees
per vehicle) Adequate off-site parking (spaces required in
excess of 156, calculated at 2.3 persons per vehicle) shall
be secured at a remote parking lot or lots in advance. As a
condition of holding the event, written verification of the
parking availability must be presented to a CKS designated
person by contract, letter or e-mail from a remote lot owner
or operator at least five (5) days prior to an event/activity or
service. If such verification is not timely presented, or is
subsequently withdrawn, the event shall be cancelled unless
sufficient substitute off-site parking can be found and
verified in writing prior to the event. Such written verification
is to be kept on file at CKS and made available to the Town
upon request. Parking locations shall be pre-assigned and
notification provided by mail. Attendees will be issued
parking passes that indicate which lot (on-site or off-site) that
an attendee will be required to park in, and the parking pass
will be displayed in the windshield during the event or
service.
(e) Shuttle service to and from the remote parking lot or lots
shall be required. A traffic control monitor shall be provided
by CKS at the remote parking lot or lots to facilitate parking
and use of the shuttle by attendees. CKS shall develop a
shuttle program for review and approval by the Director of
Community Development at least 120 days prior to issuance
of the Certificate of Occupancy for the MPB. Shuttle runs
shall begin at least 30 minutes prior to the start of an event
or service and shall end no earlier than one hour after the
end of the event or service. A minimum of two shuttle buses
shall be in operation at all such times. Shuttles shall not be
diesel powered and engines shall not idle except when
loading or unloading.
(f) Attendees shall be issued parking passes and maps with
directions sent by mail or e-mail two weeks prior to the event
indicating the assigned parking lot (on-site or off-site) with a
copy of the mailed information (map, directions, sample
parking pass) sent to the Neighborhood Advisory
Committee, Tiburon Police Department, and Director of
Community Development. Invitations to events shall include
traffic, noise and circulation reminders as well as a reminder
to please limit noise in the parking lot and grounds upon
arrival and upon leaving an event.
(g) CKS shall be responsible for implementing all required traffic
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 5,2007 10
controls.
(iii) For the High Holy Days services, the following shall apply in
addition to the measures identified in B(ii) above:
(a) CKS shall provide a courtesy mailing or e-mailing to Vista
Tiburon Subdivision addresses at least 10 days but no more
than 21 days before the start of High Holy Days services;
(b) Carpool/shuttle/parking permit/information and map shall be
distributed to members at least 21 days before the start of
High Holy Days services. This distribution shall include
traffic, noise and circulation reminders as well as a reminder
to please limit noise in the parking lot and grounds upon
arrival and upon leaving an event.
C. Monitorinq, Education, and Enforcement
(i) In order to enforce the use, traffic and parking management
provisions, a minimum of three (3) unannounced week-day and a
minimum of three (3) unannounced week-end and/or major event
traffic and parking monitoring events per year shall be performed
by Town-retained independent observers for at least the first two
years following occupancy of the MPB. The cost of the
independent observers shall be paid by CKS. The purpose of the
monitoring events shall be to ensure that the use and traffic and
parking provisions, including off-site parking, carpooling, and the
use of on-site parking have been complied with and become
routine. To assist with the selection of unannounced monitoring
times, CKS shall provide the Director of Community Development a
list of all known events with the estimated number of attendees on
a quarterly basis, with said list to be provided at least ten days prior
to the first event on each quarterly list.
(ii) Results of each traffic and parking monitoring event shall be
forwarded to CKS, the Director of Community Development and to
the Neighborhood Advisory Committee within fourteen (14) days of
receipt, and will be made available to the Planning Commission for
each CUP review. If a traffic and parking monitoring event results
in a finding of non-compliance, the Director of Community
Development shall first inform CKS and the Neighborhood Advisory
Committee in writing about the non-compliance issues and require
immediate correction. If subsequent monitoring results in a second
finding of non-compliance within one (1) year of the previous
finding of non-compliance, the Director of Community Development
shall refer the matter to the Planning Commission for review of the
CUP provisions and recommendation of sanctions.
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 5, 2007 II
(iii) CKS shall conduct a multi-part educational program concerning
traffic control and parking. The program shall include:
(a) The strong discouragement of any parking in the
surrounding neighborhoods (including Bel Aire neighborhood
streets) when there are available spaces in the on-site
parking lot. CKS event attendees users must avoid parking
in neighborhoods.
(b) Instructions shall be sent at least twice annually to all
congregants that parking shall only be in CKS on-site
parking lots or at pre-approved and identified off-site parking
lots associated with the shuttle program.
(b) Diagrams showing parking locations and circulation patterns,
including entrances and exits from parking lots, shall be
included. A statement encouraging courteous conduct
toward neighbors shall also be included.
(c) CKS shall conduct an ongoing educational program for its
members and for attendees of CKS events concerning traffic
and parking, including a statement that Reedland Woods
Way is not to be used by inbound CKS-related traffic and
that U-turns and turn-arounds using residential driveways
are not to be made in the surrounding streets and will be
enforced by the Tiburon Police Department.
(d) CKS shall maintain an up-to-date database of its members
to facilitate and encourage carpooling. The carpool
database shall be updated annually and confirmation of the
update (but not the database itself) shall be submitted with
the annual review application information. The information
from this database shall be used by CKS to provide
information to its members about potential carpool partners
and will be targeted to members for whom carpooling may
be a viable means of reaching the property.
(e) CKS shall maintain a log of all events/activities of 150+
attendees, the duration (start and end) of these events and
the number of attendees and number of vehicles parking on-
site.
(f) The CKS log shall be made available to the Neighborhood
Advisory Committee and the Director of Community
Development upon 24 hours notice of a request to review
the log.
(g) CKS shall maintain a website available to the neighborhood,
the congregation, and the Town to provide regular
information on events, activities, parking and traffic. The
website shall provide an email address for written comment
from interested persons.
6. Lighting, Parking Lot Lighting, and Landscaping:
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 5, 2007 J 2
A. Parking lot lighting shall be on timers to turn off no later than 10:00 pm on
weekdays. The duration of lighting may be extended by manual override
device when occasions demand, but in no event shall be kept on later
than 10:30 pm except for High Holy Days, Selichot, Shauvot, and the
second night of Passover, at which times the parking lot lighting shall
remain on until no later than thirty minutes after event ending time.
B. Landscaping shall be enhanced in the Design Review application
drawings to achieve the goals of reducing off-site noise, light and glare
impacts.
C. Eucalyptus trees located on the CKS property in the immediate vicinity of
the area below 32 Via Los Altos shall be inspected annually by a certified
arborist or registered professional forester who shall file a report as to the
tree health and safety. Said report shall be submitted to the Town
annually.
D. All skylights shall have blackout blinds to be closed at sunset whenever
the facility is in use.
7. Noise Controls: (see Condition NO.4 and Exhibit B).
8. CUP Review:
A. The CUP shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public
hearing six (6) months after occupancy of the MPB. Additional reviews
shall occur once every six (6) months for the next two and one-half (2 Y2)
years thereafter, and annually after the first three (3) years. The Planning
Commission shall have the authority to modify the restrictions of this CUP
to further regulate or restrict the use.
B. During the first four (4) years following occupancy of the MPB and the
new classrooms, the Planning Commission shall not have the authority to
relax restrictions identified in the CUP. After the first four (4) years of
reviews and during subsequent reviews, the Planning Commission shall
have the authority to modify any aspect of the CUP in its reasonable
discretion, including restrictions contained within this Resolution, provided
that the Commission determines that such modifications would be
consistent with the spirit and intent of the Resolution and would not result
in additional impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.
C. CKS shall be responsible for submitting, at least 45 days prior to the
annual review date, a detailed narrative report of the current use and
operation of the synagogue and day school and supporting documentation
to demonstrate compliance with conditions of approval of this permit. The
Director of Community Development shall review the annual report for
completeness and may request clarification or additional documentation
as necessary. CKS shall be responsible for all Town processing costs
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. XX-20m Revised Draft February 5.2007
13
associated with the review and shall deposit in advance sufficient funds to
cover such cost.
D. CKS will advise and educate its tenant (the day school) concerning
provisions of this CUP, with special emphasis on minimizing traffic, noise,
lighting; providing courtesy to neighbors, and other issues addressed in
these use permit conditions of approval. CKS shall coordinate closely
with the tenant day school regarding securing all required Town permits
prior to making physical improvements at the site, and shall coordinate
timely responses to neighbor issues or complaints that involve the day
school.
E. Any significant expansion or intensification of the uses or operations
allowed herein, as determined within the reasonable discretion of the
Director of Community Development, shall require an amendment to the
CUP.
9. Neighborhood Advisory Committee:
A, CKS shall support the formation and operation of a Neighborhood
Advisory Committee (NAG), which shall be composed of the CKS
Executive Director, a Board Member, a Congregation Member and three
neighborhood members selected by the surrounding neighborhood.
B. The NAC shall have two co-chairs (one from CKS and one neighborhood
representative) responsible for agendas and acting as committee liaison
to the Town. The NAC shall provide a brief, written report to the
Community Development Director annually or as deemed useful by the
committee.
C. The NAC shall meet periodically; initially once a month but not less than
twice a year.
D. The primary purpose of the NAC is to foster communication and
discussion and recognize and resolve issues before they result in CUP
compliance problems. The NAC shall be advisory in nature for the
purpose of discussing matters related to CKS operations such as, but not
limited to, CUP compliance issues, traffic management, coordination
before and analysis following special events, ongoing operations and
activities of the school(s), noise, landscaping and lighting. The Town shall
have sole and ultimate authority over CUP compliance determinations and
enforcement matters.
E. CKS shall advise the NAC at least two weeks in advance of
events/activities that are anticipated to exceed 359 cumulative attendees
(except the Sunday School program).
F. NAC meetings shall be held where the public may observe in a space to
be provided by CKS. Persons who place their name on a mailing or e-
mailing list maintained by the NAC shall be notified by CKS of all meeting
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 5,2007 ]4
dates, times and locations. CKS shall maintain agendas and summary
notes describing the nature of NAC discussions and recommendations
during meetings.
G, NAC meetings shall not count towards the limit of special events allowed
atCKS.
10. An encroachment permit shall be secured from the Tiburon Public Works
Department for any work on Town streets, rights-of-way, or land over which the
Town holds a real property interest.
11. Applicable traffic mitigation fees shall be paid at the time of building permit
issuance.
12. The Town of Tiburon reserves the right to amend or revoke this CUP for cause,
in accordance with regulations of the Town.
13. The Town intends the conditions of approval of this permit to ameliorate the
project's substantial impacts on the neighborhood without imposing a substantial
burden on CKS's religious exercise. In the event that the practical
implementation of these conditions imposes a substantial burden on CKS'
religious exercise, the Town will, upon application by CKS, amend the conditions
to reduce that burden to a less than substantial level. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Town will not grant any amendment that is contrary to a
compelling Town interest.
Section 4. Prior Resolutions Superseded.
This Resolution supersedes Planning Commission Resolutions No. 97-17, 2001-
07, and 2004-10, which upon vesting of this approval shall become null and void.
Section 5. Vestiilq.
The applicant must vest this approval by obtaining a Site Plan & Architectural
Review Permit for physical improvements described herein within two (2) years
following approval, unless a time extension is granted. Time extensions will not
unreasonably be withheld. Upon approval of a Site Plan & Architectural Review
approval, this Conditional Use Permit shall remain valid only as long as the Site Plan &
Architectural Review Permit remains valid. Site Plan & Architectural Review Permits
are valid for three years, and expire unless a Building Permit has been issued in
reliance on the Site Plan & Architectural Review Permit. Please be advised that if the
Building Permit approval lapses after the end of the validity date of the Site Plan &
Architectural Review Permit (and no extensions have been granted), the Building
Permit, Site Plan & Architectural Review Permit, and Conditional Use Permit may
become null and void unless the Building Permit has vested.
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 5,2007
15
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town
of Tiburon on , 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
Tiburon Town Council
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 5, 2007
16