HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2007-02-21
TOWN OF TmURON
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Regular Meeting
Tiburon Town Council
February 21, 2007
7:30 p.m.
AGENDA
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
CLOSED SESSION (6:30 p.m.)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
(Section 54956.9(b))
One Case - (Kol Shofar Appeal, letter from appellant's attorney dated September 6, 2006)
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Berger, Councilmember Smith, Vice Mayor
Slavitz, Mayor Gram
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT
ORAL COMMUNICA TlONS
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. 2005-06 Street Rehabilitation Project - Accept Project as Complete (Director of Public
Works/Town Engineer Nguyen)
(a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Accepting the
2005,06 Street Rehabilitation Project (2006,07 Phase I) and Authorizing the
Filing of the Notice of Completion for the Work
2. 6 Mateo Drive Drainage Easement - Accept New Easement for Public Drainage Purposes
and Abandon Old Easement; AP No. 038-381.21 (Director of Community Development
Anderson)
(a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Accepting an
Easement for Public Drainage Purposes over Property Located at 6 Mateo
Drive, Tiburon (AP#038- 381- 21)
(b) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Abandoning a
Portion of a Ten (10) foot Wide Storm Drainage Easement over Property
Located at 6 Mateo Drive (AP #038- 381- 21)
3. Stormwater Master Plan - Authorize Town Manager to Execute Agreement with CSW-
ST2 (Director of Public Works!rown Engineer)
ACTION ITEMS
4. 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 - Report by Director of Community
Development Scott Anderson and Planning Consultant Lisa Newman - continued from
February 7,2007
Address:
Assessor Parcel No.:
Applicant/Appellant:
Appellant:
215 Blackfjeld 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 (EIR)
Certification
b) Adopt Resolution Denying TNC appeal of Environmental Impact Report (ElR)
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 Making Consistency Findings for the Conditional Use Pennit
(CUP) Approval
f) Adopt Resolution Partially Granting the CKS appeal of the Conditional Use
Pennit (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 - February 9, 2007
. Town Council Weekly Digest - February 16, 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 data are available for viewing and
inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere-Tiburon library located adjacent to
Town HalL Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town's website,
www.citiburon.ca.us.
Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate
alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including
auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in
public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing
address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and
preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the
meeting. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above
address.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to
provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action( s) in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
Public Hearing( s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence
delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing( s).
TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA
While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda,
it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items
appearing on the Town Council agenda,
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting
February 21, 2007
Agenda Item: L
STAFF REPORT
To:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From:
Department of Public Works
Reviewed By:
Recommendation to Accept the 2005-06 Street Rehabilitation Project
(2006-07Phase I) And Authorize The Filing Of The Notice Of
Completion For The Work
W
Subject:
BACKGROUND
On April 19, 2006, the Council authorized staff to advertise and seek bids for the construction of
the 2006 Street Rehabilitation project. The project was posted and advertised as required by the
State of California's Public Contract Code.
The contract was awarded to North Bay Construction, Inc. on June 21, 2006 in the amount of
$834,956.30. Work consisted of asphalt concrete grinding and resurfacing, slurry sealing,
localized base repair, sidewalk, curb and gutter installation, and traffic striping ofthe following
road segments:
. Gilmartin Drive entire length (overlay)
. Stony Hill Road entire length (overlay)
. Via Paraiso East Gilmartin to private driveway (overlay)
. Via Paraiso West entire length (overlay)
. Bond Lane entire length (mill and overlay)
. Cibrian Lane entire length (overlay)
. Hillcrest Road Paradise Dr. to County line (mill and overlay)
. Old Landing Road entire length (overlay with fabric reinforcement)
. Seafirth Road entire length (mill and overlay)
. Seafirth Lane entire length (mill and overlay)
. Seafirth Place entire length (slurry seal)
Included in the work are two additional capital improvement community projects: a slide repair
on Old Landing Road and the construction of a pedestrian sidewalk on Lyford Drive adjacent to
Reed School. These projects were added to the annual resurfacing project.
i <1\\'11 ( ,lUillil \icl'ling
There was $900,500 budgeted to construct the project, and $150,000 budgeted for field
engineering and construction management (eM). The completed work included six change orders
for unforeseen items of work in the total amount of $102, 107 (of which approximately $10,000
will be reimbursed pursuant to a written agreement with a Town resident that initiated the change
order). Based on the work performed, material installed, and total change orders, the final project
cost is $889, 102.72, delivering the construction project under budget. The field engineering and
CM cost also came in under budget with a final cost of approximately $84,000.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
Move to adopt a resolution accepting this project as complete and authorizing the Director
of Public Works / Town Engineer to execute the Notice of Completion on behalf of the
Town Council, and upon completion of the 35 day period, release the retention funds to
the contractor.
Exhibits: Resolution Accepting the 2005-06 Street Rehabilitation Project (2006-07 Phase I)
And Authorizing The Filing Of The Notice Of Completion For The Work.
Prepared By: Nicholas T. Nguyen, Director of Public WorksITown Engineer
1,1\\
!.> ','
l\l,~C '()I ,)
RESOLUTION NO. _- 2007
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
ACCEPTING THE 2005-06 STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT (2006-07 PHASE I)
AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF THE
NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
WHEREAS, the Town Council budgeted funds in Fiscal Year 2006-2007 to complete
the project;
WHEREAS, North Bay Construction, Inc. was contracted on August 2, 2006 to perform
the work;
WHEREAS, The construction of the project was completed under budget on January
24, 2007; and
WHEREAS, The final construction cost, including payment of total quantities installed
is $889,102.72.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon as follows:
Section 1. The Town Council does hereby accept the construction of the The 2005-06 Street
Rehabilitation Project (2006-07 Phase I) Project as complete by North Bay Construction, Inc.
Section 2. The Town Council authorizes the Director of Public Works I Town Engineer to
execute the Notice of Completion and the Town Clerk to record the Notice of Completion.
Section 3. The Town Council authorizes the Director of Public Works I Town Engineer to
release the retention payment 35 days after the recordation date of the Notice of Completion,
pending release of any stop notices or Town claims.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on the 21st day of
February, 2007, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
When recorded mail to:
Town ofTiburon
Diane Crane Iacopi, Town Clerk
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
SPACE ABOVE TIllS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
Town of Tiburon
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENT
TO ALL PERSONS WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN for and on behalf of the Town of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of Califurnia, that
there has been a cessation of labor upon the work or improvement and that said work or improvement was completed
upon the 24th day of January, 2007 and accepted the 21st day of February, 2007; that the name, address and
nature of the title of the party giving this notice is as follows: The Town of Tiburon, a municipal corporation, in the
County of Marin, State of California, within the boundaries of which said work or improvement was made upon land
owned by said Town and/or over which said Town has an easement; that said work or improvement is described as
follows:
2005-06 Street Rehabilitation Project (2006-07 Phase I)
and reference is hereby made fur a further description thereof to the contract approved for said work or improvements
now on file in the office of the Town Clerk of said Town, and said contract is hereby incorporated herein by reference
thereto; and that the name of the Contractor who contracted to perfonn said work and make such improvement is
North Bay Construction, Inc.
I declare under pena1ty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Tiburon, California, on
.20_.
TOWN OF TIBURON
A Municipal Corporation
By:
Nicholas T. Nguyen, P.E.
Director of Public Works I Town Engineer
1/2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MARIN
On this day of ,20-, before me, DIANE CRANE IACOPI, Town Clerk of the
Town of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, residing therein, personally appeared Nicholas T. Nguyen,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person (s) whose name (s)
is/are subscribed to the within instnunent and acknowledged to me that helshelthey executed the same in hislher/their
authorized capacity (ies), and that by hislherltheir signature (s) on the instrument the person (s), or the entity upon
behalf of which the person (s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, Town Clerk
2/2
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting
February 21, 2007
Agenda Item: ~
ST,\FF REPORT
To:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From:
Community Development Department
Subject:
Recommendation to Adopt Resolutions Accepting a New Drainage
Easement and Abandoning an Existing Drainage Easement at 6 Mateo
Drive
~
Reviewed By:
BACKGROUND
In 2006, the Town Council authorized relocation of a portion of a public drainage easement, and
the pipe within in, on property at 6 Mateo Drive. The re-routing project has been completed and
the final transactions formalizing the new easement location, and abandoning the obsolete portion
of the existing easement, are now before the Town Council in the form of Resolutions.
Council action is requested on two action items:
I) Accepting a grant of public drainage easement from the owners of the property to reflect
the location of the re-routed drainage pipe and facilities; and
2) Abandoning all interest in the portion ofthe existing drainage easement that is no longer
used for public drainage purposes.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
RECOMMENDA nON
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
Move to adopt the attached Resolutions accepting the new drainage easement and
abandoning a portion of the existing drainage easement.
Exhibits:
1. Draft Resolution accepting a grant of public drainage easement
2. Draft Resolution abandoning a portion of a public drainage easement
Prepared By:
Scott Anderson, Director of Community Developmen~
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2007
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC DRAINAGE PURPOSES OVER
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 MATEO DRIVE, TIBURON
(ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 038-381-21)
WHEREAS, in 1989 the Town of Tiburon accepted an easement for drainage
purposes on property located at 6 Mateo Drive; said grant of easement being recorded as
serial number 89-20006 on April 7, 1989 in the official records of Marin County,
California; and
WHEREAS, the Town has recently had cause to relocate the storm drain facilities
located within a portion of the drainage easement described above to a location outside of
the easement; and
WHEREAS, the relocated storm drain facilities should be located within a
formally-granted and accepted easement; and
WHEREAS, the Town intends to abandon the portion ofthe original drainage
easement that is no longer used due to the relocation of the drainage facilities; and
WHEREAS, the owners of the underlying property have offered to the Town of
Tiburon a ten (10) foot wide easement for public drainage purposes in the area where the
relocated facilities are installed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon Town of Tiburon hereby accepts the grant deed of easement, attached hereto as
Exhibit 1, and directs the Town Clerk to record it with the Office of the County
Recorder.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town
of Tiburon on , 2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. ??-2007
../../2007
1
EXHIBIT I
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. ??-2007
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
../../2007
2
EXHIBIT 1
Recording Reqnested by:
Town Clerk of the Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
APN: 038-381-21
GRANT DEED OF EASEMENT
Michael Querard and Katherine Querard, ("Grantors"), the owners of real property
commonly known as 6 Mateo Drive, Tiburon, California, said property being described on
attached Exhibit "A" and further identified as Marin County Assessor Parcel No. 038-381-21,
hereby grant to tbe Town of Tiburon, a municipal corporation, an easement for public
drainage purposes, which is more particularly described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and
incorporated herein. The easement area is graphically depicted for illustrative purposes on
attached Exhibit "C". The grant of easement includes the installation, operation, repair,
replacement, access over, and ongoing maintenance of drainage facilities located therein.
"'U IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors have subscribed their names this I s:- day of
I .p~~ ,2006.
GRANTORS:
a,\i~
~ ...' \
Iv.. 1
K' therine Querard
CALIFORNIA ALL.PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
f~~c(,-:&:.~~~.zk~~c;.:e(:',,;::<'~-Q(-0X:J5f'gill-s,"&C~2:(i';(>'.&{l,!t2&{,~~~&1:Q:'~EQ'~G:Qf:...;f;X'&~~~Q~~
:0 . - ~
[ State of CalifOrn[a} I
: :~~At{{1'~" I,:
') " N.m. ,,'" "''',' O"''''~J 'J,e, 0,". N"'^ e,,,,,') ~
~,:,', personally appeared ,(1. '>r ttd",y( ;r- 1'.:[
.,.;. >.J, r / Nam~sl ot Sigollr(sl . .
[ . fll N~ pit: 1~iA/ /,;(,/.1';4/7;;<(;/ Arsona'IY known to me I
I. ' . proved to me on the basis of satisfactory ~""'I[
evidence .
r[[,:'" ~,II
to be the person(s) whose narne(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and
I, TERRY FRASER acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed 1
"@_..commISSlon#1646251thesameinhiS/her/theirauthorized
~ .";, ' Notory Public. CaHfomla ~ capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their 1
[, ~, , Ma~n County signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or 1
~ . MyComm. ExpIlesFeb 19,2010 the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) 1
I acted, executed the instrument. ~
I' [
r,,1
.1
I,
[,
SigniltUfeO! NotlllYPublic
['
"
,
,
,I
,
,
[
1
"
'I
1
.~
1
I
I
[,
OPTIONAL
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent
fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.
[,
[,
"
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document:
Number of Pages:
Document Date:
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer
Signer's Name:
"
.
Top of thumb here
o Individual
o Corporate Officer - Tille(s):
o Partner - 0 Limited 0 General
o Attomey.in.Fact
o Trustee
o Guardian or Conservator
o Other:
.1
I
~
I
%
Signer Is Representing:
~~Q<;,....g<:.-g.z;..~0':Q;'Q<,:.'?<;~0@~'@'';'''G<;:@;~~~,~Gk;G''(;>C~~-.g(,'G<:W~j~~"
'> '~__' 'U-X.l
Aeorder:CaIlToll.Free 1-80Q-876-6827
C1999 National NOlary Associahoo' 9350 De $010 A~e., P.O. Box 2402. Ghalsworth, CA 91313-2402' WWI/f.nalionalnolary,org
Prod. No. 5907
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
6 MATEO DRIVE, TIBURON
Lot 8 as shown on that certain parcel map entitled "Lands of David C. Mathew,
being a Lot Line Adjnstment of Lot 7 and Lot 8 of Paradise Estates Subdivision, 15
RM 78, Tiburon, Marin County, California", filed for record on Juue 5, 1974 in
Book 10 of Parcel Maps at Page 19, Marin County Records.
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
10' Storm Drainage Easement
A STRIP OF LAND ten feet (10') in width situated in the Town of Tiburon, County
of Marin, State of California, and being reserved as an Easement for storm drain
purposes, said strip of land located entirely within Lot B of the Map of Paradise
Estates Subdivision, filed for record August 10, 1973 in Book 15 of Record
Maps, at Page 78, Official Records of said County, the boundary of said Lot 8
being subsequently adjusted as shown on that certain Parcel Map and Lot Line
Adjustment filed for record June 5, 1974 in Book 10 of Parcel Maps at Page 19,
Records of said County, said ten-foot wide Easement lying five feet (5') on each
side of the following described centerline:
Commencing at a brass cap survey monument marking the centerline point of
curve of Mateo Drive at the northeasterly side of said Lot 8, as said street and
monument are shown on said Map of Paradise Estates, and from which point
another similar survey monument found in the centerline of Mateo Drive bears,
South 750 42'59" East, 213.97 feet; thence, South 25" 29'43" West, 20.00 feet to
the point of tangent on the northeasterly property line of said Lot 8; thence along
said tangent, North 64" 30'00" West, 5.12 feet to the Centerline Point of
Beginning for the 1 O-foot Storm Drain Easement herein described; thence along
said centerline, South 210 38'42" West, 101.08 feet; thence, South 050 34'59"
West, 4.56 feet to the POINT OF TERMINUS for the herein described 10-foot
Storm Drain Easement, said point also being at the center of an existing storm
drain outfall structure, and the centerline of an existing 10-foot wide Storm Drain
Easement as recorded by Document Number 1989-20006, records of said
County. (Area of new Storm Drain Easement = 1,056 Square Feet More or less.)
10 foot Drainage Easement
Town ofTiburon
October 2, 2006
(Marin County APN: 38.381C21)
End of Description
Jo.~.oG>
Date
~0=60.00'
/ b~~1'21'O.o' P,O.C.~ SCALE: 1" = 50'
/ A./ ../. /3.:17...... f....J~~gC?'oO. R S7S ........ LOT 14
~ ,\O'~\~ / ~(~ <' /'-... 8AS/~2ij9'E 2~
PARCEL 17 / ;;~;.)q~ 10' WIDE 0, RAIN AGE P'O'B'~,I,I,;:jX; ~~~g~~~;.
/ EASEMENT 1,056:1: SQ. FT. -,w...... ('!J
CENTERLINE ~I j R=570.00' ....
S21'38'42"W I,': 1 6=3'03'49"
/ 8' 1'/ ,
101.0 1'/ 1.,,,- L=30A8
/ I ~
/ CENTERLINE / ~q; ~ N64'30'OO"W
/ S05'34'59"W /".....J.." ","'!\"f 5.12' (TIE)
<0' '" " 4.56' / /-.... J./.:; ~!\
'tr.\'b / / 1 -- ....
R=270.00' 'b.~. i // 1 /.... ...... ......................
Li=13"D9'40" ~~ / / -- -.. __ -- _ _ /
L=62.02' ~ /" / ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ~ /'
/ ..'\.y -- --...... /'
/0';- I I P.O.T. ..........
/4-~/ EXISTING 10' I) I
/ / ~ / STORM ORAIN.J' I ,b LANDS OF LARSON
...~~ EASEMENT I I g .0 LOT 9
/ ~'*' / (DOC. NO. 89-20006) I u:i g (15 M 78)
/. 12/ I:": b 0.48:1: ACRES
/if/ LANDS OF I I ~
/c,"-t / QUERARD I / I
/./,,-~ ' LOT 8 I I 10'
/ {,d)~/ ' ~I 0.~~:1: MA~ \ \ I
~'\)) / ;: GRANT DEED DOC. \ \
/ ~ / is 2005-00011746 \ \
1/ 0 APN: \ \
// ./ ~I \ )
/ ~ LANDS OF MIRVAU Z 038-381-21. ,,)
/ I LOT 7 I 00 ..4,
. (10 M 19) ,",:;,::>. .;00
0.66:1: ACRES ...;'j;
./ ~'T'
'"
"-
MATEO
DRIVE (40')
'-
,
S6219'OO"E
20.00'
R=140.00'
6=115'12'05"
L=281.49'
./
APN:
038-381-19
CITY OF TffiURON
P1N. PARCEL "B"
(15 M 78)
2.95:1: ACRES
APN: 038-381,18
./
./
/
LOT 13
/
I
!
.
N
/
/
/
APN: 038-381-09 /
/
LEGEND
@ FOUND STANDARD BRASS DISC
STAMPED COUNTY SURVEYOR
IN MONUMENT WELL IN CENTERLINE
OF MATEO DRIVE
BASIS OF BEARING
THE MONUMENT LINE OF MATEO DRIVE
AS SHOWN IN PARADISE ESTATES
15 OF MAPS PAGE 78, FILED FOR RECORD
AUGUST 10. 1973 MARIN COUNTY
RECORDS, TAKEN AS SOUTH 75'42'59" EAST
EXHIBIT C 10' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
l!2.uiet Land Services, Inc.
~i.'DIJ 5573 W. La. P~ltllll Blvd.. Suite 215
~" p'-_ton. Cotllomlll 9"588
(915) 734-6788 PhOflB
-===- (925) 734-15732 Faz
MARIN COUNTY
TBRN6DOl DRN. BY:
LANDS OF QUERAND
6 MAlEO DRIVE
TIBURON, CA 94920 CALIFORNIA
SJH CHK. BY: KMM OAlE; 10/04/06
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2007
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
ABANDONING A PORTION OF A TEN (10) FOOT WIDE STORM DRAINAGE
EASEMENT OVER PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 MATEO DRIVE
(ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 038-381-21)
WHEREAS, in 1989 the Town of Tiburon accepted an easement for storm
drainage purposes over property located at 6 Mateo Drive through acceptance of a grant
deed of drainage easement recorded on April 7,1989 as Serial Number 89-20006 in the
Official Records of Marin County; and
WHEREAS, the Town has recently relocated facilities within a portion of the
storm drainage easement to a different portion of the property outside of said easement;
and
WHEREAS, the Town has accepted a new storm drain easement for the area in
which the relocated storm drain facilities were installed; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council hereby declares that the portion ofthe storm drain
easement proposed for abandomnent is no longer needed as part of the Town's storm
drain system and no longer serves any pubic purpose.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon Town of Tiburon does hereby abandon and extinguish the rights for storm
drainage easement over that portion of the first-described drainage easement, as
particularly described in attached Exhibit "A" and graphically depicted for illustrative
purposes on attached Exhibit "B".
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council directs the Town Clerk to
record this Resolution and its attachments with the Office of County Recorder.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town
of Tiburon on , 2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Tiburon Tawn Council
Resolution No. ??-2007
../../2007
EXltlBIT J..
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. ?? -2007
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
../../2007
2
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Abandonment of a Portion of a 10' Storm Drainage Easement
(The following legal description is for use in the abandonment and release of interest in
a portion, or segment of an existing Storm Drain Easement as described below.)
A STRIP OF LAND ten feet (10') in width situated in the Town ofTiburon, County
of Marin, State of California, being a portion of an existing 1 O-foot wide Storm
Drain Easement as said Easement was granted to the Town of Tiburon by that
certain Grant Deed of Drainage Easement and adopted by Town Resolution
Number 2521, recorded together on April 7, 1989 by Instrument Number 89-
20006, records of said County, said strip of land being located entirely within Lot
8 as said Lot is shown on the Map of Paradise Estates Subdivision, filed for
record in August 10, 1973, in Book 15 of Record Maps, at Page 78, Official
Records of said County, the boundary of said Lot 8 being subsequently adjusted
as shown on that certain Parcel Map and Lot Line Adjustment filed for record
June 5,1974 in Book 10 of Parcel Maps, at Page 19, Records of Marin County,
said 1 O-foot wide Storm Drain Easement segment to be Abandoned lying five
feet (5') on each side of the following described centerline:
Commencing at a brass cap survey monument marking the centerline point of
curve of Mateo Drive at the northeasterly side of said Lot 8, as said street and
monument are shown on said Map of Paradise Estates, and from which point
another similar survey monument found in the centerline of Mateo Drive bears,
South 750 42'59" East, 213.97 feet; thence, South 250 29'43" West, 20.00 feet to
the point of tangent on the northeasterly property line of said Lot 8; thence along
said property line and the Mateo Drive right-of-way, NOFi:h' 640 30'00" West, 51.00
feet to a Point of Curve; thence 53.77 feet along the Arc of a circular curve to the
left, having a Radius of 60.00 feet, a Central Angle of 510 21 '00" and a Long
Page 1 of~
Abandonment of portion of 10 foot Drainage Easement
Town of Tiburon
October 4, 2006
Chord which bears, South 89. 49'30" West, 51.99 feet to a point of compound
curve; thence, 6.46 feet along the Arc of a circular curve to the left, having a
Radius of 270.00 feet, a Central Angle of 1.22'19", and a Long Chord which
bears, South 63027'51" West, 6.46 feet to the Centerline Point of Beginning for
that segment of the 10-foot wide Easement to be abandoned, and from which
Point the adjusted northwest comer of said Lot 8 is located 103.36 feet further
along the Arc of said curve, having the Radius of 270.00 feet, and a Central
Angle of 230 18'20" to the said comer of Lot 8; thence from Point of Beginning
along the centerline of the 10-foot wide Easement, South 130 11 '57" East, 25.82
feet; thence, South 400 17'39" East, 37.65 feet; thence, South 26. 46'09" East,
68.51 feet to the Point of Terminus for the abandoned portion of the 10-foot
wide Drain Easement. Area of Abandoned portion of Easement = 1,320 Square
Feet more or less.
End of Description
This description together with Exhibit B - Plat of Partial Easement Abandonment
being attached hereto and made a part hereof.
~
(0- t-{.Oc,
Kevin M. McGuire CA PLS #6437
Date
Page 2 of~
~~60.00'
t>~51'21 '00. P.O.C. SCALE: 1" = 50'
\.~53. 77',1,( .
-__~6'/. 0
/' /' 5 JOO '" ..... LOT 14
/'~. '0 0"/1- 575......
\)~f''J,O: R=270.00" O. /.......... BASI 4:C~9"E ~
~ ..{I.,:o'/)'J, 6=1.22'19"..... "'- ........... 5 S-Q[ BE}lJ.97'
'I' ..'J,~...~'7 P.O.B., L=6.46' (TIE,) ~0<S':c9~ ~G5 .
'/ \) +'/ .00' J W
\0 CENTERLINE \. 10' WIDE STORM (liE)
/ S13'l1'57"E }~DRAIN EASEMENT -- __
25.82' (PORTION TO R=570.00'
/ CENTERLINE BE ABANDONED) / 6=3'03'~9"
I S40., 7'39"E 1,320:1: SQ. FT./"", L=30.48
I 37.65' A ~'" ~
..... -i,^> "V
'to /. CENrERLlNE v..... -- .;> "".
'V.\'b S26'46'09"E /' '/\ ..... ..... -- -- __
R=270.00' 'b;~_ 68.51'1 '/ '/ -- -- __ -- -- __
tF1S09'40" 0\. / / - _ - _ _ ./
L=62.02' 6:- '/ I -- -- -- -- ~ ./
/. ~'>>- 1 -- __ ./
/. c,"" 1/ P.O.T. ----./
'/';'~'/ EXISTING 10' I /
'/ <;), '/ STORM DRAIN I !" LANDS OF LARSON
'/ it- '/ EASEMENT '0 '8
,/~"", (DOC. NO. 89-20006) 1 I "! '0 (1~0~ ~8)
/. ~~ '/ I I ~ ~ 0.48:1: ACRES
'/!v~<, '/ LANDS OF I I z
'/c,"'~ '/ QUERARD I I
,,/~'/ LOT 8 I J
'/ '6y'.$;~'/ i' O.~;,o:l: MA~S I \
'/ Q~ '/ GRAND DEED DOC. \ \
'/~ ~/ ~ 2005-00011748 \ \
:f'/ '0 APN'. \ \
/' '/ P \)
'/ 81
I LANDS OF MIRVAlJ z 038.381-21 ,)
;/ I'
'/ I LOT 7 ~O .~
(10M 19) <J~' <;;cP
0.66:1: ACRES p'l'
",-i'
PARCEL 16
"'-.
.....
MATED
DRIVE (40')
PARCEL 17
R=140.00'
6=115., 2'OS"
L=281.49'
'"
APN:
038.381-19
CITY OF T1BURON
PTN. PARCEL "B"
(1S M 78)
2.95:1: ACRES
APN: 038-381-18
/'
/'
/
.....
I
I
,
N
Lor 13
/
/
I
APN: 038-381-09 /
/
LEGEND
@ FOUND STANDARD BRASS DISC
STAMPED COUNTY SURVEYOR
IN MONUMENT WELL IN CENTERLINE
OF MA rEO DRIVE
BASIS OF BEARING
THE MONUMENT LINE OF MA rEO DRIVE
AS SHOWN IN PARADISE ESTA rES
1S OF MAPS PAGE 18, FlLEO FOR RECORD
AUGUST 10, 1973 MARIN COUNTY
RECORDS. TAKEN AS NORTH 7S'42'S9"EAsr
EXHIBIT B "PARTIAL EASEMENT ABANDONMENT
ff2.uiet Land Services, Inc.
"9lUJ.eJi- 5673 W. lDa PDIltas Blvd.. SUite 215
. PI_ten. Callromla 94518
(925) 734-&788 Phone
-=- (925) 734-8732 fQlt
MARIN COUNTY
TBRN6001 DRN. BY:
LANDS OF QUERAND
6 MATEO DRIVE
TlBURON, CA 94920 CALIFORNIA
SJH CHK. BY, KMM DATE: 10/04/06
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting
February 21, 2007
Agenda Item: 3
STAFF REPORT
To:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From:
Department of Public Works
Subj ect:
Recommendation to Authorize the Town Manager to Execute An
~ With CSW-ST2 to Prepare a Stormwater Master Plan
Reviewed By:
BACKGROUND
In 2004, the Town adopted a stormwater runoff impact fee. The intent of the fee was to capture
revenue to offset the cumulative impact of new impervious surfaces created by construction
projects throughout the Town. Town streets and storm drain facilities have been impacted by the
effects of cumulative runoff over the years, requiring storm drain replacement and/or
improvements and street re-contouring to convey the increased flows.
In coordination with the impact fee and annual storm drain facility upgrades, the budgeted Storm
Drain Master Plan would enhance the management ofthe Town's drainage network by updating
the current inventory, analyzing overall needs, and identifying the gaps to bridge for an effective
drainage network.
Three proposals were received from our on-call engineering teams to prepare the master plan. All
appear to be responsive work proposals. The higher fee proposal of approximately $392,000 is
from Gannett Fleming. The mid-level fee proposal of approximately $112,000 is also from a
Marin County firm (CSW-ST2) with good knowledge of the local area. The lower fee proposal of
$103,000 is from an East Bay firm (Harrison Engineering) which is currently working on another
Town project.
CSW-ST2 is recommended for their local knowledge.
FISCAL IMPACT
An original project budget of $80,000 was approved for this Fiscal Year 06-07. A budget
appropriation of $32,000 will be necessary in Fiscal Year 07-08 to complete the project. There
are sufficient funds from the Drainage Impact Fee account and Streets and Drainage reserves.
1:)\\(1 ~ ,~lIl),-il \k'\.'lln~
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
Move to authorize the Town Manager to execute an agreement (Task Order) with CSW-
ST2 on behalf of the Town Council to prepare the stormwater master plan.
Prepared By:
Nicholas T. Nguyen, Director of Public WorksITown Engineer
i',I~C _~ ,,1 )
lit
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tibumn, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting
February 21, 2007
Agenda Item: 0.'
;
I
ST \FF IU~P()R r
To:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From:
Office of the Town Attorney & 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
On February 7, 2007, the Town Council held a continued hearing on the Congregation Kol
Shofar ("CKS") project to hear the appeals from CKS and the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition
("TNC"). Town staff and both appellants had agreed that the meeting should be recorded by a
court reporter, because of the controversy surrounding the project. The February 7th meeting
lasted for four hours until, at II pm, the court reporter advised the Council that she could not
continue. The Mayor accordingly continued the meeting until February 2 I st to allow testimony
from the six (6) speakers who submitted speaker cards at the at the February 7th meeting but that
the Mayor had not yet called by II pm, and to allow each appellant their allotted rebuttal time. A
Meeting Procedure Memorandum is attached as Exhibit 1.
Although the public did not fully complete its testimony on this project, the February 7th meeting
revealed widespread misunderstanding regarding the project's factual background and applicable
law, which warrant clarification in the record.
ANALYSIS
1. RLUIPA Applicabilitv to the Multi-Purpose Room
The size of the multi-purpose room is clearly the issue of most concern to the neighborhood
project opponents. CKS has already agreed to reduce the size of the structure by 15%, to lessen
mass and bulk, but that reduction will not materially reduce the attendance capacity. Several
speakers suggested that the Town could further reduce the size of this room without impinging on
the religious exercise protected by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
("RLUIPA").
Town Councillv'leeling
Fchruury 21 , 2007
CKS's Rabbi Derby has stated that Judaic law requires CKS to be able to accommodate all
worshipers simultaneously during the High Holy Days. The neighbors have argued that CKS's
past practice of holding multiple services disproves the Rabbi's statements and this argument has
some appeal. However, a reviewing court is likely to give greater weight to Rabbi Derby's
interpretation of Judaic law than to TNC's interpretation (or that of the Town Councilor staff),
Further, there are many levels of observance within the Jewish tradition. If CKS intends to
become more observant with this project than it has been previously, RLUIPA protections may
apply to that decision.
RLUIP A is a relatively new federal statute and there is insufficient case law interpreting it to be
certain how a reviewing court might apply it to this project - a point underscored by the fact that
both CKS and TNC have offered opinions based on consultations with well-respected law
professors and attorneys, offering persuasive and well-reasoned opinions that reach opposite
conclusions. My own research, and consultation with outside experts, indicates significant
uncertainty as to how a court might rule if the Town reduced the room size and CKS filed an
RLUlP A challenge. Given that the Town has less restrictive methods oflimiting the project's
traffic, parking and noise impacts, a further size reduction appears unnecessarily risky.
2. Disoarate Treatment Claims.
A large number of speakers supporting the project claimed that the Town had given more
favorable treatment to other, non-Jewish projects. This is factually untrue. The CKS project is
unique in Tiburon's history. The multi-purpose room would be the largest meeting facility in the
Town, and perhaps the second largest in Marin County, second only to the Marin County Civic
Center Auditorium.
Speakers most commonly mentioned the Saint Hilary's project, approved in 2000. This project
did not include a large new meeting space. It did include a new gymnasium, which
environmental review indicated could have significant noise impacts. The project approval
ultimately included conditions that addressed those noise impacts; it did not include the type of
traffic and parking limits imposed proposed for CKS because neither the Saint Hilary's
environmental review nor the neighbors indicated that these were issues of concern. The Council
will recall that the Saint Hilary's project generated a level of controversy comparable to that
facing the CKS project and that Saint Hilary's supporters similarly suggested that opponents-
and the Town - were anti-Catholic. However, Saint Hilary's ultimately accepted the conditions
and its relations with its neighbors appear to have greatly improved since construction of the
project.
Speakers also raised the meeting spaces at Bel Aire School and the Tiburon Lodge. Both of these
spaces are much smaller that the proposed CKS multi-purpose room; Bel Aire's room holds
approximately 350 persons! and the Lodge's holds approximately 200 persons. Further, the
Lodge is located in a commercial zone along Tiburon Boulevard, while Bel Aire is school district
property not subject to Town zoning regulation. These factors, collectively and individually,
negate any comparison with the CKS project.
1 The neighbors have asserted that the CKS room will be twice as large as the Bel Aire space. That is inaccurate.
The Bel Aire meeting space is about 3500 square feet, approximately three.quarters the size of the CKS space.
TOWN OF TIBT;R0N Pa~e:"2 of 5
Town COlIne;! J\1eeling
februclrY 21, 200i
3. Attendance and other CUP Restrictions.
Many speakers protested that the Town's proposed conditions were too intrusive into CKS's
religious activities, even suggesting that there might be some anti-Semitic motivation. This is
both unnecessarily inflammatory and palpably false. It bears repeating that CKS has applied to
construct the largest meeting space in the Town and one of the largest in the County, in the midst
of a residential neighborhood. Throughout this laborious process, the Town has focused solely
on the potential impacts of this proposal, never on the identity of the individual users. The
neighbors have argued that the most straightforward method of limiting those impacts would be
to reduce the size of the multi-purpose room and they are correct. However, given the need to
accommodate CKS's religious activities, the Town Council and staff have worked hard to craft
conditions that will avoid imposing substantial burdens on those activities and still mitigate the
impacts on the neighborhood. Advocates for the two sides may argue about how successfully we
have threaded that needle, but the Town's intentions are very clear.
CKS supporters also raised two other points that merit response:
. Prior problems in the neighborhood: several speakers claimed that CKS activities have
not historically given rise to any complaints of impacts. Regrettably, that is untrue. The
Planning Commission amended CKS's CUP in 1997,2001, and 2004 to address
neighbors' concerns and complaints regarding traffic safety, parking and noise. The
amendments imposed new conditions that, contrary to several statements at the February
7th meeting, do apply to CKS-sponsored activities.
. Regulation ofCKS-Sponsored activities: many speakers claim that the Town has no
power to regulate any CKS activity. This ignores the plain language ofRLUIPA.
RLUlP A is explicitly triggered by regulations that impose a substantial burden on
religious exercise. It does not insulate any and all activities of religious institutions from
any and all regulations. The distinction between substantial and insubstantial burdens,
and between religious and non-religious activities is crucial in RLUlP A. Moreover,
RLUIP A expressly allows the Town to regulate to the extent necessary to protect
compelling Town interests, even ifthose regulations impose a substantial burden on
religious exercise.
. Significance of Table I: Several speakers objected to the use of Table I from the DEIR as
a limit on CKS activities. CKS representatives have repeatedly assured the Town, both in
public hearings and in meetings with staff, that the project will not cause substantially
increased impacts on the neighborhood compared with those caused by historic CKS
activities. In support of this position, CKS supplied the information in Table I as a
description of historic and projected future events. Subsequently, CKS representatives
have argued that the Town should essentially disregard this table, claiming, ironically, that
it does not include all historic and potential uses. We have tried to deal with this "moving
target" by preparing a new Table A that consolidates the old Table 1, the Annual Use
Summary submitted by CKS in April 2006, and more-recently received information from
CKS into a replacement document entitled Table A. Table A is not intended, in itself, to
act as a direct limit, but does establish a baseline by which the Town can evaluate
increases in activities that impact the neighborhood.
TC\\TTN OF Tn:n:I.(('N Pa~c 3 of 5
Town C'oulwil ~ll'ding
February 21, 200'J
All ofthat said, to avoid unnecessary limits on the number of worshipers at synagogue events,
staff has retailored the proposed conditions that previously limited attendance at religious
activities to focus on the primary sources of impacts from highly attended events: cars. The
project's enviromnental review identified traffic safety and parking issues that could arise from
an increased influx of automobiles into the neighborhood. This would occur when the number of
cars coming to an event nears or exceeds the capacity of the parking lot. The Town's solution is
to tie the parking requirements applicable to CKS activities and events to the number of cars
coming to the event to park. CKS could avoid those requirements to a great extent with a
successful car pool program, a drop-off/pick-up program, and/or increasing on-site parking. The
conditions that specify attendance limits have been amended to apply only to member-sponsored
events.
Staff also recommends other changes to the conditions to more precisely reflect CKS's
application. These changes generally involve modest increases to member-sponsored events and
day school enrollment, and continuation of existing religious school and other activities. The
impacts of all such events are mitigated by parking and duration limits.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
I) Accept public comment by those speakers from the February 7, 2007meeting who
submitted speaker cards but did not have the opportunity to speak; hear the rebuttals
by both appellants, close the public hearing; and make any desired changes to the
documents.
2) Adopt the Resolution (Exhibit 2) denying the CKS appeal of the ElR certification
(please note that the attachments to this resolution were distributed in the February 7,
2007 meeting packet and have not changed).
3) Adopt the Resolution (Exhibit 3) denying the TNC appeal of the ElR certification
(please note that the attachments to this resolution were previously distributed in the
February 7, 2007 meeting packet and have not changed).
4) Adopt the Resolution (Exhibit 4) certifying the ElR.
5) Adopt the Resolution (Exhibit 5) making CEQA Findings of Fact (the attachment to
this resolution was previously distributed for February 7, 2007 meeting; a revised
attachment will be available at the February 21, 2007 meeting).
6) Adopt the Resolution (Exhibit 6) making Consistency Findings for the CUP approval
(the attachment to this resolution was previously distributed for the February 7, 2007
meeting; a revised attachment will be available at the February 21, 2007 meeting).
7) Adopt the Resolution (Exhibit 7) partially granting the CKS appeal of the CUP
denial, conditionally approving the CUP, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring
Program.
Exhibits:
1.
2.
Meeting Announcement and Procedure Memo dated 2/16/2007
Resolution Denying CKS appeal ofEIR certification (attachments
previously distributed)
Tll\'{'N OF Tm1.:1<ON
Pa~e 4- of 5
Town cOllllcil1vlcding
Fchnwry ,21,200"(
3. Resolution Denying TNC appeal ofEIR certification (attachments
previously distributed)
4. Resolution Certifying the EIR for the project
5. Resolution Making CEQA Findings of Fact (revised attachment to
be distributed at meeting)
6. Resolution making Consistency Findings for the CUP approval
(revised attachment to be distributed at meeting)
7. Resolution Partially Granting the CKS appeal of the CUP denial,
approving a CUP, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program
Prepared By: Ann R. Danforth and Scott Anderson
Tl"'\\\"N ~"IF T1HLJ.(("IN r).1~(, 5 llf 5
EXHIBIT 1
Meeting Announcement and Procedure
Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit Appeal Hearing
February 21, 2007 7:30 PM
Town Council Chambers
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California
To:
From:
Date:
Interested Parties
Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development
February 16,2007
The Mayor of Tiburon continued the February 7, 2007 hearing on the Kol
Shofar appeals to complete public testimony. He requested that I send you a
memo outlining the procedure that he will follow at the continued meeting
on February 21, 2007.
~ The Mayor will call those speakers who had submitted speaker cards at
the February ih meeting but had not been called when he continued the
meeting.
~ The Mayor will allow a rebuttal time of up to 15 minutes to each
appellant.
~ The Town Council will close the public comment portion of the
meeting and begin its deliberations and take any actions.
EXHIBIT 2
RESOLUTION NO.
DRAFT
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON DENYING
THAT PORTION OF THE CONGREGATION KOL SHOFAR APPEAL CHALLENGING
CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
CONGREGATION KOL SHOFAR EXPANSION PROJECT (FILE # 10404)
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 38-351-34
BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council (the "Council") of the Town of Tiburon (the
"Town"), County of Marin, State of California, that:
WHEREAS, on May 31, 2006, the Tiburon Planning Commission (the "Commission")
adopted Resolution No. 2006-15 certifying the Congregation Kol Shofar Expansion Project Final
Enviromnental Impact Report ("Final EIR"); and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2006, Congregation Kol Shofar timely appealed to the Town
Council the Certification of the Final EIR with regard to two issues: (I) a finding of significant
traffic impact on the Tiburon Boulevard/Blackfield Drive intersection, and (2) Mitigation
Measure 3.3-B-4 which requires seven (7) additional parking spaces. (See Exhibit A,
Congregation Kol Shofar [June 6, 2005] Letter of Appeal); and
WHEREAS, on September 29,2006, a Meeting Procedure Memorandum was prepared
setting forth the order and the timing that the Mayor intended to follow at the October 24, 2006
and setting forth a cut-off date of October 20 at Noon for the receipt of mail the Town would
consider at the October 24 meeting; and
WHEREAS, on October 13,2006 the Mayor and the Members of the Town Council
received a Staff report responding to the appeals of the Final EIR Certification. (Exhibit B); and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2006 the Council held a hearing following the procedures set
forth in the Meeting Procedure Memorandum; and
WHEREAS, at the October 24, 2006 hearing, the Council requested that the Tiburon
Neighborhood Coalition submit written recommendations regarding the parameters ofthe
expansion. The Council agreed to re-open the public hearing to accept public testimony on this
document.
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2006, the Council continued the hearing on the
Congregation Kol Shofar appeal, at which it received the report of its ad-hoc sub-committee and
began deliberations; and
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. Draft-2007
Page I
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Congregation Kol Shofar
appeal, the Final EIR, the letter of appeal submitted by Kol Shofar, all Staff reports, Town files
and records and other documents, prepared for and or submitted to the Council or Town staff
relating to the Final EIR, the proposed Project and/or the Congregation Kol Shofar appeal, and
all written and oral testimony timely presented regarding the Congregation Kol Shofar appeal;
and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that, for the reasons set forth in the Staff report responding
to the appeals of the Final EIR Certification (Exhibit B), there is substantial evidence in the
record to support the Council's independent conclusion that the Congregation Kol Shofar
Expansion Project Final EIR complied with CEQA and local CEQA guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the portion of the Congregation Kol
Shofar Appeal challenging the Certification of the Congregation Kol Shofar Expansion Project
Final EIR is hereby denied.
Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon the date of its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon, State of California, on , 2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No, Draji-2007
Page 2
EXHIBIT 3
RESOLUTION NO.
DRAFT
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON DENYING
THE TIBURON NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION APPEAL OF CERTIFICATION OF THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CONGREGATION KOL
SHOFAR EXPANSION PROJECT (FILE # 10404)
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 38-351-34
BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council (the "Council") of the Town of Tiburon (the
"Town"), County of Marin, State of California, that:
WHEREAS, on May 31, 2006, the Tiburon Plarming Commission (the "Commission")
adopted Resolution No. 2006-15 certifying the Congregation Kol Shofar Expansion Project Final
Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"); and
WHEREAS, on June 12,2006, the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition timely appealed to
the Town Council the Certification of the Final EIR. (See Exhibit A, Tiburon Neighborhood
Coalition [June 12,2006] Letter of Appeal); and
WHEREAS, on September 29,2006, a Meeting Procedure Memorandum was prepared
setting forth the order and the timing that the Mayor intended to follow at the October 24, 2006
and setting forth a cut-off date of October 20 at Noon for the receipt of mail the Town would
consider at the October 24, 2006 meeting; and.
WHEREAS, on October 13,2006 the Mayor and the Members ofthe Town Council
received a Staff report responding to the appeals of the Final ErR Certification. (Exhibit B); and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2006 the Council held a hearing following the procedures set
forth in the Meeting Procedure Memorandum; and
WHEREAS, at the October 24, 2006 hearing, the Council requested that the Tiburon
Neighborhood Coalition submit written recommendations regarding the parameters ofthe
expansion. The Council agreed to re-open the public hearing to accept public testimony on this
document; and
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2006, the Council continued the hearing on the
Congregation Kol Shofar and Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition Appeals, at which it received the
report of its ad-hoc sub-committee and began deliberations; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Tiburon Neighborhood
Coalition appeal, the Final ErR, the letters of appeals submitted by Kol Shofar and Tiburon
Neighborhood Coalition, all Staff reports, Town files and records and other documents, prepared
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. Draft-2007
Page I
for and or submitted to the Councilor Town staff relating to the Final EIR, proposed Project
and/or the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition appeal and all written and oral testimony timely
presented regarding the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition appeal; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that, for the reasons set forth in the Staff report responding
to the appeals of the Final EIR Certification (Exhibit B), there is substantial evidence in the
record to support the Council's independent conclusion that the Congregation Kol Shofar
Expansion Project Final EIR complied with CEQA and local CEQA guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition
Appeal of the Certification of the Congregation Kol Shofar Expansion Project Final EIR is
hereby denied.
Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon the date of its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon, State of California, on , by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No, Draft-2007
Page 2
EXHIBIT 4
RESOLUTION NO.
DRAFT
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON CERTIFYING
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) FOR THE KOL SHOFAR
SYNAGOGUE EXPANSION PROJECT (FILE # 10404)
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 38-351-34
WHEREAS, the Town Council (the "Council") of the Town of Tiburon (the "Town"),
County of Marin, State of California does resolve as follows:
Section I. General Findings.
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluating the proposed
Congregation Kol Shofar Expansion Project (Conditional Use Permit) has been prepared and was
transmitted by the Town of Tiburon to concerned parties for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, a notice of availability of the DEIR was given as required by law; and
WHEREAS, written comments on the DEIR were accepted from the public from July I,
2005 to August 15, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon held a public hearing and
accepted testimony on the DEIR on August 10,2005; and
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2005, after the close ofthe public comment period, the
Planning Commission held another meeting, determined that no evidence requiring immediate
recirculation had been submitted to date, and directed that responses to comments and a Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the FEIR was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed hearings on April 24, 2006 and
May 10, 2006 at which it heard and considered the FEIR and received and considered public
testimony; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that no significant new information
had been received that required recirculation of the EIR; and
WHEREAS, on May 31, 2006, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2006-
15 certifying the FEIR; and
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. Draft-2007
Page I
WHEREAS, in June 2006, Congregation Kol Shofar and the Tiburon Neighborhood
CoaJition timely appealed to the Council the Certification of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2006, the Council held a public hearing and accepted
testimony on the Congregation Kol Shofar and the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition AppeaJs;
and
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2006, the Council continued the public hearing on the
Congregation Kol Shofar and Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition Appeals, at which it received the
report of its ad-hoc sub-committee and began deliberations; and
WHEREAS, the Council determined that FEIR complied with CEQA and local CEQA
Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, on , 2007 the Council adopted Resolution Nos. Draft-
2007 and Draft-2007 denying that portion of the Congregation Kol Shofar Appeal challenging
the Certification of the FEIR and denying the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition Appeal
challenging the Certification of the FEIR.
Section 2. Certification of FEIR
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Congregation Kol Shofar Final
Enviromnental Impact Report:
I. Consists of:
a. Congregation Kol Shofar Draft Enviromnental Impact Report, dated June
2005; and
b. Congregation Kol Shofar Final EnviromnentaJ Impact Report, dated
February 2006.
c. Final EIR for the Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit
Application: Alternative 7 Analysis, dated April 18, 2006.
d. Kol Shofar Final EIR Errata Sheet
2. Is hereby certified by the Council to have been completed in compliance with the
California Enviromnental Quality Act and local CEQA guidelines.
3. Has been presented to the Council, which has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Final EIR.
4. Reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Council.
Tiburon T own Council
Resolution No. Draft-2007
Page 2
5. Is hereby adopted as the Enviromnental Impact Report for the Congregation Kol
Shofar expansion project (File # 10404).
Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon the date of its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon, State of California, on ,2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. Draft-2007
Page 3
EXHIBIT 5
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2007
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON 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 Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon 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
, 2007 by adoption of Resolutions XX-2007 and XX-2007. The Town
Council subsequently and affirmatively certified the EIR through adoption of Resolution XX.
2007 on ,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:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
TOWN OF TrnURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
EXHIBIT A
CEQA Findings of Fact
for the
Congregation Kol Shofar
Conditional Use Permit Application
Revised 2/20/2007
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 of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, S 21000 et seq.) and the
CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, S 15000 et seq.). In particular, these findings
are prepared to cornply 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 irnpacts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Congregation Kol Shofar (the applicant) is seeking an amendrnent 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 rnulti-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 rneeting 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 classroorns 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 of the site,
and used now for overflow parking for approximately 18 cars will be improved for
40 car parking spaces in the northeast quadrant ofthe site.
. A new driveway will be constructed connecting the lower existing parking lot to a
drop off/turnaround circle north of the existing adrninistration wing. The
driveway will provide access to the new parking lot.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 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
classroorns.
. 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 ofthe 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 berrn northeast of the new parking lot;
o Landscaping with trees and shrubs around the new parking lot, driveway,
stair entrance, courtyard, and new rnulti-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 rnodifications
would be made to the existing administrative wing.
. Fire sprinklers would be added to the existing annex building.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 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, nurnerous 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 rnitigation measures aimed at reducing irnpacts from light and glare, noise, traffic
and parking were also added. As discussed below, all of these measures serve to reduce
the impacts ofthe project, and none of them triggered the need for further CEQA
analysis.
Goals and Objectives
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 ofwhorn live in southern
Marin County.
. To construct new building additions to conveniently and cornfortably 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.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 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
of the 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 ofthe 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 roofline 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
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 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 irnpacts
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 deerned 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 irnpacts. 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
commencernent 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, S 21092.1; CEQA
Guidelines, S 15088.5; Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco, Inc. v.
Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 1112 (Laurel Heights 1/).)
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
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/2012007 6
such an effect (including a feasible pr~iect 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 II, supra, 6 Ca1.4th 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, S
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 nurnber 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 environrnental review and public
comment. As part ofthat process, the project has also been rnodified 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 maximurn 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 frorn clean-up activities.
The Town Council finds that the modifications to the project do not trigger the need to re-
circulate the EIR. 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 roorn,
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.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 7
The original proposal for parking included a total of 139 spaces on site. The Town
Council will require a rninirnurn 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 nurnber 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 ofland. 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, Via Los Altos, and Vista Tiburon Drive on about 16 acres of the
original school site. The rernainder of the property is now the area used by Kol Shofar.
F or years, a variety of events and activities have regularly occurred. As membership has
increased, the Planning Cornmission 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 rernained
steady for about 8 years. Current activities of the site include religious services, religious
studies, library, administrative, Board rneetings, social events, cornrnunity 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.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 212012007 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 irnpacts 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 replacernent 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 irnportant 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 asserts and acknowledges that
distinguishing what constitutes a "new event" and what is in fact an existing event or
activity is not possible. 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 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
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 9
confusion in interpretation, the Town has determined that the CUP will not just limit
"new weekend" events. Rather the Town has lirnited the total nurnber of events that can
occur on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday evening, and in doing so has recognized that sorne
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 of the 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 EIR, 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.
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.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 10
The location and custodian ofthe 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, S 21081,
subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, S 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, S 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 rnitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR."
(CEQA Guidelines, S 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 Ca1.3d 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 Marv. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Ca1.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." (Id.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of
Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 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
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 of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA,
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/2012007 II
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, S 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 irnpacts 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 EIR.
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 rnodification 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, S 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, rnay 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, SS 15093, 15043,
subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, S 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme
Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving. . . any development project, a delicate task
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 11,52 Cal.3d at p. 576.)
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 212012007 12
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 itselfto 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 PROGRAM
A Mitigation Monitoring Program ("MMP") was prepared for the project, and was
approved by the Town Council by separate resolution. (See Pub. Resources Code, S
21081.6, subd. (a)(I); CEQA Guidelines, S 15097.) The Town will use the MMP to track
compliance with project mitigation measures. The MMP will remain available for public
review during the compliance period.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Draft EIR identified several irnpacts from the project as potentially significant. The
Draft EIR recommended mitigation measures, and the Final EIR 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.
Hydrolo2V. Drainal!e, and Water Quality
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
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.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 13
Facts and Evidence
Construction of additional structures and parking facilities in the intermittent creek
watershed will increase the quantity of stormwater runoff flowing into the existing storm
drain facilities. Stormwater 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 irnpacts 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 1 OO-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 ofthe 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 hydrologist 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
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 developrnent of the
proposed project. The capacity ofthe pipe is sufficient to handle the minor increase of
additional flow from the proposed project. (DEIR, p. 47.)
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 14
Based on averaged channel dirnensions of the West Ditch between Via Los Altos and
Cecilia Way measured in the field and a slope determined frorn 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 storm 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 cornputed 100-year peak discharge for the creek
under post-project watershed conditions. (DEIR, p. 47.)
The unobstructed capacity of the 12-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 I DO-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. (DEIR, p. 47.)
Tidal backwater influences can severely reduce the hydraulic capacity of the two 60-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 DO-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 purnp 3 is for power outages and extreme flow conditions. The Marin County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District believes that the need for purnp 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 1 DO-year peak
discharge, it is unlikely that the pump station could fully ameliorate flooding in the
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
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 212012007 15
Ditch. Implementation ofthis measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.I-A.l 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
comer 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 accornrnodate 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
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.)
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 212012007 16
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 irnpacts 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 rnitigate or avoid
the significant effects on the environrnent. 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 irnpact. (DEIR, p. 49.)
Mitigation Measure 3.1-B.I 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 3.1-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: (1) grading and earthwork shall be prohibited
during the wet season (typically October 15 through April 15) and such work shall be
stopped before pending storm events; (2) erosion control/soil stabilization techniques
such as straw or wood rnulching, 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
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 17
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 wonld res nIt 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 3.1-C.l and 3.I-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 irnpact These swales, if properly vegetated, would also capture pollutants and
benefit water quality. (DEIR, p. 50.)
Mitigation Measures 3.1-C.I and 3.I-C.2 require determination of the final runoff to each
swale and construction of cross-swale sills/weirs, vegetation, rock, and energy dissipaters
that would reduce velocities and erosion potential. Implementation of the recommended
rnitigation measures would ensure proper site drainage and stormwater delivery to storm
drains. Erosion would be controlled. The mitigations would also reduce the water
quality impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.1-C.l and 3 .1-C.2 will ensure
that impacts on drainageways will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 18
Mitigation Measure 3.1-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 .1-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 ftlsec to 4 ftlsec. With establishment of a dense grassed channel the
rnaximum 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
. Cover channel with biodegradable BioD-Mat (manufactured by RoLanka,
Inc.) or equivalent to limit erosion during vegetation establishrnent.
(DEIR, p. 50; FEIR, pp. 420-421.)
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 19
Impact 3.1-D:
Cumulative development could contribute to flooding in the
vicinity of the project site. (DEIR, p. 51.)
Finding
Based upon the EIR 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.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 irnpact 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 horne 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. Curnulative 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. 51.) As described under Impact 3.1-A, the project 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 irnpact
would be less than significant given the mitigation previously required. (DEIR, p. 51.)
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.1-A is described above.
Traffic and Circulation
Impact 3.3-A:
The project adds traffic to study area intersections.
Finding
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
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 212012007 20
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 ISO 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 irnpact the following rneasure is required:
I. Pending Caltrans approval, the project shall fund lengthening the
eastbound left turn lane at the Tiburon Boulevard/Blackfield Drive
intersection by adding at least ISO 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 ISO feet of storage to the lane
(this assurnes that the initial ISO feet has been added per Mitigation
Measure I above). The project applicant would be responsible for 7S feet
of this ISO-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 SO% less attendees.
The Final EIR added an additional option for mitigating this impact:
4. IfCaltrans 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
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.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 21
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
deterrnined 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 tirning 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.
When the proper signal timing and software is used for the modeling, Harrison reports
the following results:
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 212012007 22
INTERSECTION OF TIBURON BOULEVARD AT BLACKFIELD DRIVE
Saturday Evening Conditions
Scenario LOS I 9Sth Percentile 02
Existing C 12 Vehicles
Existing + Project ' C 18 Vehicles
Cumulative C 17 Vehicles
Cumulative + Project C 25 Vehicles
Notes: I - LOS = Level of Service.
2 _ Number of vehicles in the 9Sth percentile queue in the eastbound left turn lane.
Source: Robert L. Harrison Transportation Planning
LOSt
C
C
C
C
9Sth Percentile 02
10 Vehicles
13 Vehicles
12 Vehicles
IS 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 frocedures of the TRAFFIX software, existing traffic volumes
result in a 9St percentile queue of 10 vehicles. The traffic that would be
added by a 300 person Saturday evening at the project results in a 9Sth
percentile queue of 13 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 project.
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 9Sth percentile queue
of 12 vehicles. Ifthe trips generated by a 300 person Saturday evening
event at the project were added to this 20 year plus projection, the left turn
lane 9Sth percentile queue is project to reach IS 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
deceleration lane, plus the full 329-foot existing length of the storage lane,
all IS vehicles could be stored in this lane completely separate from the
through traffic lanes.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/2012007 23
The EIR traffic engineer (the Crane Transportation Group) reviewed this analysis.
(Crane letter, April 3, 2006.) To summarize the findings ofthis review:
.
Both software prograrns 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 TRAFFlX 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
(Alternative 7). The Harrison analysis discussed above was based on an event of 300
people.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/2012007 24
After the Planning Commission's denial ofthe pr~iect, 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, Septernber 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 Surnmer
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 ofthe counts exceed the March 2004
count of2,369 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, i.e., nine vehicles on August 26th and seven vehicles on September 2nd.
Intersection of Tiburon Boulevard at Blackfield Drive
Level of Service (LOS) and Eastbound Left Turn Queue
Kol Shofar Project Assumes 300 Person Attendance
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 212012007 25
Saturday Evening Conditions
2004 Count
March
August 26
2006 Counts
September 2
September 9
Notes: I-Number of Vehicles in the 95th percentile queue in the eastbound left turn lane.
LOS EB Left QI LOS EB Left QI LOS EB Left Q' LOS EB Left Q'
Existing B 10Veh 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
Proj ect
As shown above, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS C or better under
any ofthe 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 of the 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
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
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 212012007 26
the maximum attendance at those will be four events with 200 people and five events
with 150 people maxirnurn.
Thus, the Town Council concludes that even ifthe 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.I 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 ofthe 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
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
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/2012007 27
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. (FEIR, p. 40.)
With the proposed mitigation, the use of the upper driveway would be less than the
existing condition, and impacts would be reduced. Current use of the 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 irnprovement 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 Irnpact 3.3-C below.)
Mitigation Measures 3.3-B.l through 3.3-B.4 requiring cutting of vegetation, restricting
use of the upper driveway off of Via Los Altos, adding signs, and adding parking spaces.
With the imposition of these mitigation measures, the irnpact would be less than
significant. (DEIR, p. 64, FEIR, pp. 421-422.)
Mitigation Measnres
Mitigation Measure 3.3-B.l 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.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-B.2 requires:
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 28
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-BA 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.
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.I, 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 of turnarounds 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 rnitigation:
To ensure that people attending project events can park on site:
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 212012007 29
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 rnaxirnum of360 people (this maxirnurn assumes
a 30 percent on-site parking efficiency gain due to valet parking, while
maintaining room on-site for emergency vehicle access.) Events ofrnore
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 irnplement 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
Commission) on account to be drawn upon by the Town for use in randorn
(unannounced) monitoring of these events. Ifno violations are detected during
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Pennit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 30
monitoring in the first year, only one monitoring per year will be required in
subsequent years. If one violation occurs in any year, rnonitoring 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 comer 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 of 200+ persons require two rnonitors for
parking and noise control
.
Three unannounced traffic and parking monitoring times per year
Congregation Ko/ Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/2012007 31
. The following apply to events/activities with curnulative 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
a less than significant level. CTG recommended some revisions and additions to the
proposed mitigation that would reduce the impact to less-than-significant levels.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/2012007 32
Following the February 7, 2007 Town Council rneeting, the Town prepared further
modifications to the traffic and parking management conditions at Kol Shofar.
Specifically, the Town modified the trigger point for certain traffic management
conditions from the number of persons on site to the percentage of on-site parking
capacity that would be occupied (i.e., by counting parking spaces instead of people).
CTG reviewed these rnodifications and in a letter dated February 16,2007 concluded that
the traffic safety impacts would remain less than significant after mitigation provided that
one additional stretch of Black field Drive (up to Corte San Fernando) have temporary
"No Parking" signs placed along it during events at which on-site parking capacity would
be exceeded. The Town has incorporated this addition in the conditions of approval and
in the mitigations set forth below. The Town finds that with this mitigation program in
place, the project's potential for unsafe turnaround impacts will actually be less
significant than the existing condition,
Mitigation measures 3.3-C.I 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 rneasures 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.6 requires
a parking/shuttle program for any times when cumulative attendance at the site is
expected to exceed 90% of the on-site parking capacity. 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.5 will
act to further reduce this already less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.3-C.I provides:
The applicant shall modifY the parking lot layout to optimize circulation and provide a
minirnum 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.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/2012007 33
Mitigation Measure 3.3-C.3 provides:
A lighted directional sign to be reviewed by the Design Review Board shall be required
at the comer 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 Reed land Woods Way by CKS-
related inbound traffic. The sign shall be constructed of natural materials with low-
irnpact lighting.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-CA provides:
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 Black field Drive from Via Los Altos to the
property at 231 Blackfield Drive;
. along the east side of Reed land 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:
At events or combinations of events/activities at CKS with a cumulative attendance expected to
exceed ninety percent (90%) of the on-site parking capacity, calculated at 2.3 persons per vehicle
(except for Sunday School programs) will require trained traffic control monitors/controllers
provided to the satisfaction of the Tiburon Police Department, located as follows: I) 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.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-C.6 provides:
The following traffic and parking management measures shall be irnposed for events or
combinations of events/activities at CKS with a cumulative attendance expected to
exceed 90% of the on-site parking capacity (except for Sunday School programs):
. "Resident Traffic Only" ternporary signs placed on Reedland Woods Way
and Via Los Altos.
. "No Parking" temporary signs placed on the southeast side of Black field
Drive between Corte San Fernando and Karen Way.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 34
.
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 shall be secured at a remote parking lot or lots in advance for any event,
function, or combination thereof that is expected to exceed the on-site parking
capacity. Written verification of the off-site parking lot 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 relocated, rescheduled, or reduced in magnitude 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
Director of Community Development upon request. Parking lot locations shall be
pre-assigned and notification provided by mail or e-mail. CKS will issue parking
passes to attendees indicating their assigned parking lot. Attendees should display
their parking passes 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 or lots
to facilitate parking and use of the shuttle by attendees. CKS shall develop a
detailed shuttle program for review and approval by the Director of Community
Development at least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy for the MPB. Shuttle runs shall begin at least thirty (30)
minutes prior to the start of an event or service and shall end no earlier than one
(1) hour after the end of the event or service. A minimum of two (2) shuttle buses
shall be in operation at all such times. Shuttles shall not be diesel powered and
shuttle engines shall not idle except when loading or unloading.
.
To the extent practicable, attendees shall be issued parking passes and maps with
directions sent by mail or e-mail two (2) 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 CKS parking lot and
grounds upon arrival and upon leaving an event. CKS shall be 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:
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 35
(a) CKS shall provide a courtesy rnailing or e-mailing to all property
addresses within 300 feet of the CKS property 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
permit/information and map shall be distributed to mernbers 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.l 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 Reedland 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 of the rnain 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.)
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 36
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
rneasure 3.3-C.l 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
stage. This will further ensure that potential safety impacts in the lower lot are
minimized.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-F.l 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 rnitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
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.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 212012007 37
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
(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 cornments, 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 ElR, attached as Exhibit E to the Staff Report for the
October 24,2006 hearing; letter from Illingsworth 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
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/2012007 38
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-B.l provides:
Doors and windows of the rnulti-purpose room should remain in the closed position
during large (100 or more people).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 Measure 3.4-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 3.4-B.3 provides:
Indoor noise build-up in the multi-purpose roorn should be reduced through the treatrnent
of room surfaces with acoustically absorptive materials. A qualified acoustical specialist
should review the final design, prior to construction.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-B.4 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 3.4-B.5 provides:
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.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-B.6 provides:
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 39
No outdoor amplification will be allowed except for the annual Sunday School opening and
closing ceremonies, at which time audio speakers shall be faced toward the CKS facility and
away from surrounding residential uses. 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 3.4-B.7 provides:
Use of the Courtyard area for events is authorized only for High Holy Day events, opening and
closing Sunday School graduation ceremonies, Sukkot, and Saturday Kiddush lunches. Outdoor
use ofthe Courtyard during events, other than the High Holy Days, Sunday School opening and
closing ceremonies, Sukkot, and Saturday Kiddush lunches, shall be limited to people stepping
out for air and casual conversation. Except for Sukkot and the Kiddush lunches, no food or
drinks shall be served in the Courtyard. No organized activities, other than those listed in this
condition, will be held in the Courtyard.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-B.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.l 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.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 40
The highest noise levels would be generated during the grading and site preparation
phase with lower noise levels occurring during building construction. Table 11 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
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 ofthe 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.1 provides:
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 41
Allowable construction hours shall be regulated by Chapter 13-6 ofthe 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 3A-C.2 provides:
Properly muffle all internal combustion engine driven construction equipment (i.e.,
equipped with stock manufacturers' supplied mufflers or equivalent).
Mitigation Measure 3A-C.3 provides:
Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
Mitigation Measure 3A-CA 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 3A-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 Quality
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
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 42
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
Altos. The new classrooms and parking lot would be visible from a short section of
Reedland Woods Way. The new driveway would be visible from 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 of the 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 Wav
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 ofthe 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.)
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 43
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
The new multi-purpose roof and upper walls will 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.)
From Ring Mountain Open Space Preserve
From many vantage points on the Ring Mountain Trail, one will 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 I.)
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 of a 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.)
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 44
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.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-A.1 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 occidentalis (lavender starflower)
. Ilex spp. (holly)*
. Melaleuca spp. *
. Nerium oleander (oleander)*
. Olmediella betschleraria (Guatemalan holly)
. Osmanthusfragrans (sweet olive)*
. Pittosporum spp. *
. Rhamnus alaternus (buckthorn)*
. Thevetia spp.
. Viburnum spp. *
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 45
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:
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 Wav
Residents of 200,210, and 220 Blackfield Drive (see View 2) and 251 and 254 Karen
Way (see View 1) 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 of the new driveway,
turnaround, and classroom wing (see View 4 which would likely be similar to the view
from this home) Residents of231 Blackfield Drive would also likely have views ofthe
driveway and possibly part of the new classroom wing. While there would be a change
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 46
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.)
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 RWW 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 RWW 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
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 47
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, 4S, SO, 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.)
From Paseo Mirasol
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 Drive 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 ofthese homes.
Summarv
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, S 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
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 48
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.)
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-B.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.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 49
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
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 Pas eo 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
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 50
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
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 ElR. 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.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 51
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.S-C.1 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.S-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.
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.S-D.l through 3.S-D.11.
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 O.OS to 2.0 fc. A photocell timer will turn
the lights on at sunset and off at 11 :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 O.OS to 2.0 fc. A photocell
timer will turn the lights on at sunset and off at 11 :00 p.m. (DEIR, p. 107.)
Stairs and Paths
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings o.(Fact 2/20/2007 S2
The applicant proposes to use low bollard lights. No lights would be visible beyond the
property line. The range oflight 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
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 11 :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 of the 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 offthe property. While certain areas of the site
that are currently dark would now be illuminated for part ofthe 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.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 53
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:
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 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 in accordance with
permitted hours of use as identified in Table 1 and for High Holy Days, Selichot,
Shauvot, the second night of Passover, or other religious observance, 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:
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 54
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.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.IO provides:
The area immediately east of the cyclone fence at the existing parking lot shall be
landscaped with fast-growing shrubs or trees that can quickly grow to sufficient height to
block the views of cars and car headlights.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.ll provides:
All the lighting mitigations listed above shall be installed as part of the first phase of
project construction, if the project is not all built at the same time.
Impact 3.5-E:
Mitigations recommended for Impact 3.5-D could adversely
affect views in the area. (DEIR, p. 110.)
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-E.l and 3.5-E.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
secondary impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Facts and Evidence
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 55
Screening headlights could require the construction of a berm and/or solid wood fence
along at least portions of the north and east sides of the new parking lot and possibly
along the east side of the turnaround. Ifthe berm was not landscaped, it would provide
an unattractive view from Reedland Woods Way and some homes along that street.
Similarly, a solid wood fence could result in unattractive views from these same vantage
points if it was not aesthetically designed. These would be potentially significant
secondary impacts. (DEIR, p. 110.)
Mitigation Measures 3.5-E.l and 3.5-E.2 require that the new berm be landscaped and the
new fence be built to mimic an adjacent fence. By ensuring that berms are landscaped
and fences designed to meet Town design requirements, the secondary impacts of
constructing the recommended mitigation measures would be reduced to a less than
significant level. (DEIR, p. 110.)
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-E.l provides:
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 Emen!: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.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.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 56
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, 4/27/0S). 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.
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
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 57
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.
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.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
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
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 58
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 Town Council hereby finds that water
service impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of
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.1 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.l provides:
The applicant shall comply with all MMWD requirements, including completion of a
High Pressure Water Service Application; compliance with the District's Landscape
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 59
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
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.1 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, 4/12/0S).
Unless these laterals are adequately sized and constructed, there would be a potentially
significant impact on wastewater collection. (DEIR, pp. 114-11S.)
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:
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/2012007 60
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
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.l 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 of the 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.
Congregation Ko/ Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 61
Mitigation Measures
At events or combinations of events/activities at CKS with a cumulative attendance expected to
exceed ninety percent (90%) of the on-site parking capacity, calculated at 2.3 persons per vehicle
(except for Sunday School programs) will require trained traffic control monitors/controllers
provided to the satisfaction of the Tiburon Police Department, located as follows: 1) at the comer
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.
Note: Mitigation Measure 3.9-A.1 and 3.9-A.2 have been replaced with the above measure.
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 3.10-A.l through 3.10-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 3.10-A.1 provides:
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 62
Construction contracts shall specify dust mitigation requirements.
Mitigation Measure 3.1O-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 3.10-A.3 provides:
Unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas shall be paved, watered three
times daily, or treated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-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 3.1O-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.IO-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 3.1 0-A.8 provides:
The speed of all construction vehicles shall be limited to 15 miles per hour while on
unpaved surfaces.
Mitigatio~ Measure 3.1 0-A.9 provides:
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 63
All materials transported by truck will be covered or wetted down as needed to suppress
visible dust.
Mitigation Measure 3.1 O-A.lO provides:
Disturbed areas will be revegetated or covered as soon as possible.
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 3.10-8.1 and 3.10-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. (DEIR, p. 122.)
Mitigation Measures 3.1O-B.l and 3.10-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 3.1 O-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
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 64
further investigate and/or mitigate adverse impacts to those resources. The applicant
shall abide by the recommended proposals.
Mitigation Measure 3.IO-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
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 3.1O-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.)
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 65
Mitigation Measure 3.10-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
Mitigation Measure 3.IO-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 ElR.
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 (i.e., 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, S 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association
v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 66
City of Hanford(l990) 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 ErR 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
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 ElR. The following alternatives were examined
in the Draft EIR and Final EIR
.
Alternative 1 - 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
EIR, labeled as "Final EIR 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 1 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
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 67
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
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 1 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 EIR 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 15126.6(a) that states that an alternative should".. . feasibly
attain most of the basic objectives of the project..."
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 68
Alternative 3 - Remodeling and Classrooms Only
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
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 15126.6(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 EIR. This alternative could potentially meet 10 of the 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.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 69
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.
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 of the Restricted Use Alternative are discussed on pages
152 through 154 of the Draft EIR and in Table 13 of the Final ElR. 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 of27 events and Sunday night events to a maximum of20 events.
It would restrict the number of people allowed at proposed events to a maximum of275
people.
Findings and Rationale
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 70
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.
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 Reed land 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
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 71
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.
(DElR, pp. 154-156.)
Alternative Location
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 of a 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). (DElR, 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 forjust
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.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 72
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
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. (DElR, 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.
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit CEQA Findings of Fact 2/20/2007 73
EXHIBIT 6
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2007
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE CONSISTENCY
FINDNGS REGARDING THE CONGREGATION KOL SHOFAR
EXPANSION PROJECT (FILE #10404)
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 38-351-34
WHEREAS, 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 for the Kol Shofar Expansion
Project and deny the Conditional Use Permit application. After extensive
testimony, the Town Council 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 for adoption at a future meeting reflecting the Town Council's
direction.
WHEREAS, 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 and continued the public meeting to February 21 , 2007 in order to hear
from those speakers who had submitted speaker cards but were unable to speak
due to the lateness of the hour. After hearing those final speakers and allowing
rebuttal time from both appellants, the Town Council adopted Resolutions XX-
2007 and XX-2007 denying the appeals of the EIR certification; adopted
Resolution XX-2007 affirmatively certifying the EIR; and adopted Resolution XX-
2007 making Findings of Fact with respect to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The Town Council indicated its intention to partially uphold
the CKS appeal of the denial of the conditional use permit application.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby
makes findings of fact regarding the proposed project's consistency with the
Tiburon General Plan and substantial conformance with the Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance. The Town Council's findings are set forth in the document entitled
"Findings of Consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Based
Upon Modifications to the Congregation Kol Shofar (CKS) Project (File #10404),"
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:
1
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
Tiburon Town Council
2
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
ORDINANCE BASED UPON MODIFICATIONS TO THE CONGREGATION KOL
SHOFAR (CKS) PROJECT (FILE #10404)
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, the
latter being established as Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code. 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 evening
weekend events as follows:
Friday events will be limited to 5 new (additional to the existing 25)
congregational dinners, with a maximum attendance of approximately 100
people, ending by 9:00 pm.
Saturday events will be capped at sixteen (16) total, of which ten (10) are
new member-sponsored events: eight (8) events with a maximum
attendance of approximately 150 people, six (6) events with a maximum
attendance of approximately 200 people, one (1) event with a maximum of
approximately 250 people, and one (I) event with no specified attendance
Congregation Kol Shofar CUP (File #10404) Consistency Findings
2/20/2007
I
limit provided that all traffic and parking conditions are met. All events
must end by 10:00 pm.
Sunday events will be capped at seven (7) total (all are new) member-
sponsored events: four (4) with a maximum attendance of approximately
100 people, two (2) with a maximum attendance of approximately 150
people, and one (1) with a maximum attendance of approximately 200
people. All events must end by 8:00 pm.
Furthermore, 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 of land 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
determine where noise levels in the community are acceptable or unacceptable." The
Town's Guidelines apply the noise metric CNEL and Ldn as means for determining noise
compatibility. Both metrics (CNEL and Ldn) account for increased sensitivity to noise at
night.
The Draft ElR 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 1 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.
Congregation Kol Shofar CUP (File #10404) Consistency Findings
2/20/2007
2
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 determined that neighborhood disturbance from individual noise
events would not result in a significant impact because they will happen relatively
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 of the 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 ofproject. 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 Safety
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.
Congregation Kol Shofar CUP (File#10404) Consistency Findings
2/20/2007
3
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
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."
(DlER, 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 corner of Blackfield
Drive and Via Los Altos
. Requiring 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 Reed land 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
. Requiring that for all events or combinations of events/activities at CKS
(except Sunday School activities) with a cumulative attendance expected to
exceed ninety percent (90%) of the on-site parking capacity, calculated at
Congregation Kol Shofar CUP (File # 10404) Consistency Findings
2/20/2007
4
2.3 persons per vehicle, there will be three monitors for parking, traffic and
noise control.
. There will be at least three unannounced traffic and parking monitoring
times per year with controls and corrective action to enforce compliance
. The following apply to events/activities or combinations thereof that are
expected to exceed 90% of the on-site parking capacity (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 from Corte San Fernando 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); to display pass in windshield
. For the High Holy Days services, the following shall apply in addition to
those above:
· Courtesy mailer to all property addresses within 300 feet of the CKS
property 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 that have exceeded ninety
percent (90%) of the on-site parking capacity.
. This log will be available to the Neighborhood Advisory Committee and
Town Staff upon reasonable notice.
Congregation Kol Shofar CUP (File # I 0404) Consistency Findings
2/20/2007
5
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.
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
proposed 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
Congregation Kol Shofar CUP (File #10404) Consistency Findings
2/20/2007
6
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.
With these limitations, the increase in headlight intrusion, if there 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. In addition, fencing and landscaping will be
employed to reduce light and glare impacts.
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 Compatibility
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 oflife of neighborhoods."
LU-A
To provide an orderly balance of public and private land uses within
convenient and compatible locations throughout the community.
LU-C
To preserve the character of the Tiburon peninsula through control
of the type and location of development.
Congregation Kol Shofar CUP (File #10404) Consistency Findings
2/20/2007
7
LU-D
LU-H
LU-I
LU-2
LU-6
LU-13
C-C
C-D
C-F
C-I
C-l
N-A
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.
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 Prime 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 of life.
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.
Congregation Kol Shofar CUP (File #10404) Consistency Findings
2/20/2007
8
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.
SE-A
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 of the Land Use
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.
Congregation Kol Shofar CUP (File #10404) Consistency Findings
2/20/2007
9
ZONING ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 16 OF TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE)
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 Municipal
Code Chapter 16 (Zoning), section 16-4.4.2, 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
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
Congregation Kol Shofar CUP (File #10404) Consistency Findings
2/20/2007
10
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 of this Ordinance and the objectives of the General Plan
would be served.
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 16-4.4.3(a)(2)
and (3) and Section 16-4-4-3(b)(I) and (3) of the Tiburon Zoning regulations, and finds
that the Planning Commission's findings to the contrary have been adequately addressed
by project changes and conditions and mitigations. Section 16-4-4.3 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 pr~iect evaluated trips generated by an increase in weekend
Congregation Kol Shofar CUP (File #10404) Consistency Findings
2/20/2007
11
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 all
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 off-site parking
locations, shuttle and carpool 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
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:
(1) 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.
Congregation Kol Shofar CUP (File #10404) Consistency Findings
2/20/2007
12
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.
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 16-S.8.4(d) and
(k), 16-S.8.1O and 16-S.8.1l of the Zoning regulations, 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 the strictest
possible interpretation or application of the parking requirements of Sections 16-S.8.4(d)
and (k). However, Section 16-S.8.4 allows the Town discretion and flexibility in
determining "normal occupancy", with the intent to require parking areas that
are "adequate but not excessive". Such excessive parking results in poor site planning
and wasteful utilization of scarce land resources. A typical example is that shopping
malls are not designed to accommodate parking needs for the several busiest shopping
days of the year; rather; they are designed to adequately accommodate all other days
of the year.
Town of Tiburon practice with facilities designed with the potential to hold very large
numbers of people, but which are not "normally" used to that capacity, is to avoid
impractically large or nonsensically excessive parking area that would only occasionally
be used, and to apply alternative parking solutions such as off-site parking agreements
and carpool programs, or find that on-site parking provided to be adequate for normal
use. The latter approach was used with the Saint Hilary Church expansion project.
In addition, Section 16-S.8.1O of the Municipal Code 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:
Congregation Kol Shofar CUP (File # I 0404) Consistency Findings
2/20/2007
13
1) 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 Multiple Uses provisions of the Zoning regulations are
applicable to this project. The Town Council finds that, taking into account the normal
use provisions and the Multiple Use provisions of the Zoning regulations, the project will
provide adequate parking pursuant to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The project has
been conditioned to require at least 156 spaces on site, including handicapped spaces.
Assuming an average of2.3 people per car, 156 spaces are sufficient to accommodate
approximately 359 people on site. The pr~iect is not expected to increase the number of
people on the site at anyone time, except for new weekend evening events and High
Holy Day combined services. No other events or activities would likely be occurring on
the site during those events. The number of new instances at which substantial increases
in the number of people would be on the site or exceed the project's expanded on-site
parking capacity is small.
For any time when cumulative activity is expected to exceed 90% of on-site parking
capacity, the CUP requires several additional parking management requirements,
including written verification for the use of an off-site parking location or locations and
shuttle service to that location or locations.
END
Congregation Kol Shofar CUP (File # I 0404) Consistency Findings
2/20/2007
14
RECORDING REQUESTED
RETURN TO:
TOWN CLERK
TIBURON TOWN HALL
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD
TIBURON, CA 94920
EXHIBIT 7
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 lAP 38-351-34) FILE #10404
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows:
Section 1. Findinas.
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 day school use 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 16. 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 Drafi February 16, 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 16. 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, and in support of the
conditional approval, have been adopted by separate resolution.
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. Physical Plant Improvements. 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
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 16, 2007 4
facility is approved that shall consist of a fully enclosed eight hundred
(800) square foot one-story loading/unloading area for catering, clean-up
and related 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 primary parking lot layout to optimize circulation and
provide a minimum of one hundred fifty-six (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. The exit from the primary 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. Improvements to the
existing service parking lot (accessed from the upper driveway on Via Los
Altos) shall provide staff parking, handicapped parking and service
access. This lot 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).
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. Uses Regulated.
A. The project will accommodate greater intensity of use than the site would
support at present and accordingly could cause increased impacts to the
neighborhood. In imposing the conditions herein, the Town intends to
ameliorate the potential for such increased impacts. The Town does not
intend that this use permit impose new attendance restrictions on the
existing events and activities that have been conducted at CKS since the
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 16. 2007 5
inception of its operation in 1984. The Town has not previously limited
attendance at these events and activities. The types and times of these
events and activities and the number typically attending these events and
activities, based on information provided by the applicant, are set forth in
Table A, attached hereto as Exhibit C. This list is not exhaustive, but
establishes a general baseline for this permit. Any substantial increase in
use from that already established that creates identifiable adverse
neighborhood impacts shall require an amendment to the CUP, as
determined by the Planning Commission.
B. CKS has applied for an increase in the number of Friday evening
congregational dinners from twenty-five (25) annually to thirty (30)
annually. According to CKS, such dinners are held until 9:00 pm and
have a maximum attendance of approximately one hundred (100)
persons. CKS has also applied for added adult education classes for
approximately twenty (20) to thirty (30) persons on Monday evenings from
7:00 pm to 9:00 pm approximately twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) weeks per
year. The requested increase in the number of Friday evening
congregational dinners and added Monday evening adult education
classes are hereby approved. No member-sponsored events have been
applied for, are currently held according to the applicant, or are authorized
by this use permit for Monday through Friday. Existing parameters of
activity during Monday through Friday are set forth in the baseline (Exhibit
C).
C. This permit authorizes and regulates member-sponsored weekend
evening events on Saturday and Sunday. A member-sponsored event is
defined as a private function pursuant to an agreement between the
member and the synagogue, at which a sponsoring member must be
present at the event for substantially the entire event. Member-sponsored
weekend evening events shall be limited as follows:
(i) Saturday member-sponsored events shall be limited to sixteen (16)
total annually (six (6) existing plus ten (10) new): eight (8) events
with a maximum attendance of one hundred fifty (150) people; six
(6) events with a maximum attendance of two hundred (200)
people; one (1) event with a maximum of two hundred fifty (250)
people, and one (1) event with no specified attendance limit
provided that all conditions applying to an event expected to
exceed ninety percent (90%) of on-site parking capacity, as set
forth below, are met. All events must end by 10:00 pm.
(ii) Sunday member-sponsored events shall be limited to seven (7)
total annually (all new): four (4) with a maximum attendance of one
hundred (100) people; two (2) with a maximum attendance of one
hundred fifty (150) people; and one (1) with a maximum attendance
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 16.2007 6
of two hundred (200) people. All events must end by 8:00 pm.
3. The Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a
part of this resolution, is hereby adopted and its provisions shall be implemented.
4. Facilities:
A. The following conditions shall apply to all facilities at the site:
(i) CKS facilities shall not be rented out to non-member public or
private entities, except for the classroom facilities that are rented to
an entity operating a private day school on the site.
(ii) 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.
(iii) No outdoor amplification will be allowed except for the annual
Sunday School opening and closing ceremonies, at which time
audio speakers shall be faced toward the CKS facility and away
from surrounding residential uses. 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.
B. The following conditions pertain specifically to the Multi-Purpose Building
(MPB) and its Courtyard:
i) The MPB lobby shall not be used for event seating except for High
Holy Day services.
ii) Doors and windows of the MPB shall remain in the closed position
during functions of one hundred (100) or more persons and during
amplified indoor events (such as life-cycle events) except for High
Holy Day services, when the doors and windows can be left open
only during the services.
iii) Windows and doors of the MPB shall be designed to minimize
noise leakage to outside areas.
iv. Use of the Courtyard area for events is authorized only for High
Holy Day events, opening and closing Sunday School graduation
ceremonies, Sukkot, and Saturday Kiddush lunches. Outdoor use
of the Courtyard during events, other than the High Holy Days,
Sunday School opening and closing ceremonies, Sukkot, and
Saturday Kiddush lunches, shall be limited to people stepping out
for air and casual conversation. Except for Sukkot and the Kiddush
lunches, no food or drinks shall be served in the Courtyard. No
organized activities, other than those listed in this condition, will be
held in the Courtyard.
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 16, 2007
7
v. The Design Review Permit application drawings 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 warning devices" on vehicles using this loading and
unloading area shall be minimized.
C. The following specific conditions pertain to the Classrooms:
i) The tenant day school shall be limited to a maximum enrollment of
one hundred (100) children, to be operated on weekdays only. Day
school use of the site (tenant day school attendance in combination
with any CKS-operated pre-school attendance) shall not exceed
one hundred fifty (150) school children on weekdays. 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 CKS site shall be
separated by a minimum of fifteen (15) minutes from the start and
end times of the Bel Aire public school.
D. 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 one hundred fifty-six (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) Red "No Parking" curbs shall be painted at the following locations:
(a) along both sides of Via Los Altos from Blackfield
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2OG7 Revised Draft February 16. 2007 8
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) 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 exceed ninety percent (90%)
of the on-site parking capacity, calculated at 2.3 persons per
vehicle (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, located as
follows: 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.
(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 shall be
secured at a remote parking lot or lots in advance for any
event, function, or combination thereof that is expected to
exceed the on-site parking capacity. Written verification of
the off-site parking lot 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
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 16. 2007 9
event/activity or service. If such verification is not timely
presented, or is subsequently withdrawn, the event shall be
relocated, rescheduled, or reduced in magnitude 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
Director of Community Development upon request. Parking
lot locations shall be pre-assigned and notification provided
by mail or e-mail. CKS will issue parking passes to
attendees indicating their assigned parking lot. Attendees
should display their parking passes 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
detailed shuttle program for review and approval by the
Director of Community Development at least one hundred
twenty (120) days prior to issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy for the MPB. Shuttle runs shall begin at least
thirty (30) minutes prior to the start of an event or service
and shall end no earlier than one (1) hour after the end of
the event or service. A minimum of two (2) shuttle buses
shall be in operation at all such times. Shuttles shall not be
diesel powered and shuttle engines shall not idle except
when loading or unloading.
(f) To the extent practicable, attendees shall be issued parking
passes and maps with directions sent by mail or e-mail two
(2) 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 CKS parking lot and grounds upon arrival and
upon leaving an event.
(g) CKS shall be responsible for implementing all required traffic
controls.
(ii) 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 all
property addresses within three hundred (300) feet of the
CKS property at least ten (10) days but no more than
twenty-one (21) days before the start of High Holy Days
services;
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2OG7 Revised Draft February 16. 2007 10
(b) Carpool/shuttle/parking permit/information and map shall be
distributed to members at least twenty-one (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. Monitorino, Education. and Enforcement
(i) In order to enforce the use, 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 (2) 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, shuttle service, 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 or combination of events/activities with the estimated
cumulative number of attendees on site in excess of three hundred
(300) persons on a quarterly basis, with said list to be provided at
least ten (10) days prior to the first event on each quarterly list.
(ii) Results of each traffic and parking monitoring event shall be
forwarded by the Director of Community Development to CKS and
to the Neighborhood Advisory Committee (see Condition #9) 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 corrective action.
(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 shall advise event attendees to avoid
parking in surrounding neighborhood streets.
(b) CKS shall mail or e-mail written reminders at least twice
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 16. 2007 11
annually to all congregants that they should park in CKS on-
site parking lots or at pre-approved and identified off-site
parking lots associated with the shuttle program.
(c) Diagrams showing parking locations and circulation patterns,
including entrances and exits from on-site and any assigned
off-site parking lots shall be included. A statement
encouraging courteous conduct toward neighbors shall also
be included.
(d) 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.
(e) 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 periodic 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.
(f) CKS shall maintain a log of all events/activities that have
exceeded ninety percent (90%) of the on-site parking
capacity.
(g) The CKS log shall be made available to the Neighborhood
Advisory Committee and the Director of Community
Development upon reasonable notice of a request to review
the log.
(h) 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 e-mail 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 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, the second
night of Passover, or other religious observances, at which times the
parking lot lighting shall remain on until no later than thirty (30) minutes
after event ending time.
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 16, 2007 12
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 of this Resolution).
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.
However, the Town Council intends that the effectiveness of the project
design, mitigations, conditions, and restrictions of the use permit should
be tested over a substantial period of time before the Planning
Commission entertains any proposal to relax conditions or restrictions.
B. CKS shall be responsible for submitting, at least forty-five (45) days prior
to the periodic 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, including adopted mitigation measures. The Director of
Community Development shall review the 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.
C. CKS will advise and educate its tenant (the day school) concerning
provisions of this CUP, with special emphasis on minimizing traffic, noise,
light and glare, 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.
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
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 16. 2007 13
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 Director
of Community Development 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 escalate or
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 or combinations thereof that are anticipated to exceed
ninety percent (90%) of the on-site parking capacity (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 be considered member-sponsored events.
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 impacts on the neighborhood without imposing a substantial burden on
CKS's religious exercise. In the event that the 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
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February 16. 2007 14
approve any such amendment request 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. Vestina.
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
Resolution No. XX-2007 Revised Draft February /6. 2007
/5
ilHi m nnw ~
rlll{ ~'( litl~~f g
~l~(, 11. ,lflUl, ~
U [,' fr. .tllU s
, l,hi ~ti ~'~JH{ "
HE'. 'i1 rJr 'i'
~"!r ~[, ~!lt. J
flItt' i~~ II'Jiftf
...l, "I' .Ir.!
'l . III z:
III lhl} i r~ hHll
I fi1tl r 1 I~if"'
. tl~ J' IWh
~iH ,1 lhHl
. ~~ I! .n'lu
"I' !:l !.tll 1I"a,
" h l'l.mr
1,""(\ t-If 8'8..
9."l i
~
Z
Q
"- }. \ :
,!.... '
, .cv"j " \
~ 0 L \'
V"ll \1
, "
~ \ I I
"
'f.. I' I I
, \\,' I
\ LJ,,'
\ I "\ I
1 'I"
\ " .~
, "
" '
I J\ 1\
I, '
- '.
~ f 1\
l ~ !
"
, '
,
,
,
i :,
/ i
, ,
! '
,
)
-
)V/A L 5 AL )05 )
r
~ I
I
.
~ i
/
~ii ~ II
on.
. . iI
. I
L
.. g
)
'!I' lUll
!',T:l~II!Il,
~lll ~ "tI I!!I,'
Ill! Iii
i\li I
!!l
~!O
I~
",g
;li
""-
:--I. -
'ii--
'1
Exhibit A
EXHIBIT B
CONGREGA TION KOL SHOFAR EXPANSION PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (FILE #10404)
INTRODUCTION
Background Assembly Sill (AS) 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 (CEQA) 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.
MlTlGA nON MONITORING PROGRAM
Management The Town of Tiburon Community Development Department will be
responsible for overseeing implementation and administration of the Mitigation Monitoring
Program (MMP) for the Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit.
The Director of Community Development will designate a staff member to manage the MMP.
If current staffing in the Community Development Department cannot absorb the task of
managing the MMP, 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
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Pennit (File # 1 0404)
Mitigation Monitoring Program February 21,2007
Town of Tiburon
Page 1
responsible for program coordination, whether a permanent Town staff member or
independent contractor, would include the following:
. 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 MMP.
. 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 FElR
Alternative 7 Analysis, and the March 2006 FEIR Errata Sheet.
Dispute Resolution The overall goal of the MMP, 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 MMP 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
Congregation Kot Shofar Conditional Use Pennit (File #10404)
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Town of Tiburon
Page 2
implementation phase. If work is performed in violation of mitigation measures, stop work
orders would be issued.
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 MMP.
The MMP The MMP 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 MMP 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 MMPs.
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 Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit (File #10404)
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Town ofTiburon
Page 3
z
o w
.. "
Ulo:Z
WO"
o:~_
~W~
0:-''''
ca:;!!!O
..Ul"
~ .
wZ
....2
!!!!c
Ul~
Zz
Ow
..'"
Ulw
w....
0:..
~;!!
~~
..~
:IE
~
Cl
o
0:
..
Cl
z
ii:
o
~
Z
o
:IE
z
o
;:
..
Cl
;:
iii
w
~
..
z
o
!;1
~
z
w
'"
w
-'
..
;!!
,,:;;
cl1
~.-
:u~
ti"w
.~.~~
Eco
a.Wf-
o
w
c
o
0.
m
ti
"
'0
fl.
-
0 .E
" C>
C
W '0
~
.c C>
0. C
0
"
l'? .Q
~ ~
- w
0 "
c c 2
C> ,Q 'S
~,. 0-
" ;; w '
" "- 00
a; E E"
.....0
c 0 o~
~ U _ 0.
C> c i::~
.2 iIi.Q ~;:::
~ -0
0 .S!~ " 0
~ o.~ ~~
Eu; c-
l! o c ~ "
II) uS :;;j;
W
0:
::J
::1
w
'"
z
o
!;1
Cl
;:
i
i;.8~(ij.8-gal.9~gJ~(tl-g
o E_o.~(l)fJJ--Eo
a.C:'O fJ)= C-cnCij U)(ij_ 0 0-
4l~ <<I3::Q)Q).;::83::-J::....
::;J!!5:3.*~.og-~rn .Cl.)~
Ol..c:~ III >>......:2 5. m~_ <<I
c: I- 0 0 m ~ :::l a. Q) ~:.=,Q E
:~ .Eg.c:_~m'O=:O!3V1
(l)-=(/)....alQ) lIlg.o~Q)('ll
"E Q) c: 0......... Q) cv- <'II ((.It
._>Or::::Q)~a.E('ll1i) .-..c
~~ol!!€c.i5.::I:=_Q)"':s;
...... Q) o.:::l Q)...... 0 3:: c g.-- :>
'O:B..c: Q)LL. o~ >::= lllE'iii 1:'0
E-~ -::1- oQ)
(j'a.>-~ Gi"C 0 m u)~ 1::= a;
"6.2.0 ~~ f5~ ~4i~ 0 ~i:
a. ~ .... t: 0.1- ~ it E -0 C ~
oQ)o:::l~C: o-Q)C:~
N"'9 c: 0-.2-=0"0-0 &.('11 Q)
OQ>Oa>-_lD Q) .0
N.....-..c:Oc>Q).0'5 =
c: o.cl-- ....g~m.... 0.5.210
J:!!~,*~:g~~3::~Q)~",,~
0.--03 <5 Q)'~ E....ai cv.,E
__ <<l O.,e 0. 0-:::lG> r::
r!! CUu >.....- oB oti-o-o.Q
Q)3::r::::cUlW....III-> C"""
c: 0 6,2 g!.!:::! 2:$ ~ (ll 11l &. ~
~G::...."i:::..cU)<<l(\10o-5 c
x 0)$1:: 0 Q)"'8Ii=::_ c:~-'
C(tl Q)O-..c: ~Q)OO('ll-
OQ:lQ)-ccw-Emev ;:; ::3
::ic..E;....Q)CJIoEQ)c:II)~-'~
.0 .....og..c;g...... 0 Q.'51t5-.s
i= ~ co <<I:: CI) ~ 8$ ai ~-8 g-g
"C >-..c 3:: co c: 0 co '(i) E U 5
Q)o~ E ~.~li= 0-i1i.- co C L..
"'o:lto "'~_ou coO)
8........ iil-c-8 co "0 c'!:: ~'5cn Q;
0_-0 C Q)Q)OJ:::CO -0
L..cQ)"OOQ)o.c:;:::;u-Oc(ijC
0. Q) J::: C o.J::: '" 0 co Q) C 0 U ::I
(\)E~gc"""Q):2~08;'!::c
J:::o.O'...O--'" Q) UJ:::CO
...... .2 E 21; co ~ 0 ~ 0) ~ 2 U ...
'Q)Q)oQ)1ijQ)ca.coco iil$~
11l~g-gQ)6~-g(\)L..~6g-g
~"OCO::l-o-ccoco:S.EcouO)co
~
"\'
0;
~..9,lE$"'-c~
_.0 is co:lt Q).-
_ co_-c2 ct5 0)
u:; '" 0 'm co C
(\)-0 E..::.:-....-
'2 ~ E ~.~a.-g
a.~"'RO'E-c(3
-o~Q) 0: Q) (\).5
~1:-SCO~~~a
8..Q:i.E.915 8..g:g
eJ:::~ ecc
0.'0 ~~.~ o.co,2
Q) > C - (\):2 L..
-S is Q).Q ~.o(;j 8-
L.. J:::~C=Q)O
.ES-~~j'glJ)o.
"O~:?o.co"'L..(\)
~gt5-cQ)~,*~
::IoQ)c-Sco:lt'"
~uccoo<j:1ij
Ul c --t:
(\)a10"O(\)~00
.oooQ)-"O--
Ul L.. .......!:::!.!!! c(f)"O
._.g~ '" 0.0 co ~
:g.~ g Q) e ~'E.2
COL.. .00.000
> Q) 0.._ - _
"015.Q.:Q co-c7ii Q)
5-0 a.g ~.!o~
eQ)CO:ltE-8(ijm
~t5:s ~ Q) a. ~
Q) ::1.- Q) OJ:::'-
-0-= :It.Q.>I--'~M
c"'-oa....... CO)
::;) a Q) co.::I OJ
cu~G3Q).!!!:2......
co ~:;::; tn~ Q) J:::
......Q)Q)::ICOQ)J:::U
~.o.oO.s-"""Cii
- "0-0 Q) '" t5.5::2
-o3cJ:::L..Q) -
5oCOI--2'~~~
0J:::- coo.co
_ "'.!!! 3::' =.0
.~~Q:icE~~-g
~ ::Iro'm 0 0.'3 co
:::~E.c(;j.9C>I
'0
C>
C
'c,
C>
0
U
--
"c
w " w
o > "
c.!" .c
.~ a. 0
" ,5
,.,2 '"
" ~
""
c." "
0" "
~ " "
c." 0
" c x
c "
w
.!!.~ 2
c 0 "
~Q ~
;; w
- .c 2
~ - a;
E c
~ 0 "
8 E .Q
~ x '0
C ',. c
"
" '" "5
'0 " 0
'" > .c
~ " w
W.c .c
~ W w3
~~
~- " e
-- 0 C>
,. 0'5 c
CDm~g
> >- co
000-
E E~ ~
Q) <l) 0 Q)
o::o::u>
. . .
:;;
.~ :?
:?j2
U.J"5 a
c::m'ii)
~-g:~
f- ~O
5
w
c
o
Co
II)
o
"
"0
fl.
c
0
ii
.s
w
c
c S
-
C> 0
',.
" c
" 0
0 ~
" "-
'0 E
5- 0
a; u
c ;;
u: ;;
~ "-
E
l! 0
II) U
~cQ;!i1i~'6e~Ci1i!e~~~~~
::Io~-J:::CO~c2E<l)_-c-oQ)<l)cQ)
u",.-l1l"'_oo- ococoJ:::coE
Ul co 0)"0 -"""- 1.0 L.. U $ -5 - U ;;"1-- Q)> ~ :;::;
OQ)c::!;::......- ::!Q)CD-o"" u...
E ~ w (3 ~ _ g c C1J(f) a. Q) c 15 .2! ti.E ~
L..ec.5J:::~u~~ ~co Q)(\)",
.g'm~~i<g~Q)~c~~i~igj
i1iL..~J:::Q)J:::'ii)(j)-Sa~Q)L..o.CL..UCO
;~ Q) "'-0 ~e ~-S'ii)-c 0.!fJ :It'~.g (j)3
~=-s~~e<l)0)~e"OUl~2-o~=E
-OO-a. J:::-.5 wQ)Q)"O ~...<a
o _ tn_ N J::: Q) _ = C L.. Q) t: 0 U
o.-g c-.SI.O-U u. CO~ COJ::: O~ ~ co
Q)Q)~g~......~"S~~cn~~~(;jg~L..
-S<l)a.cL..Q;cE~~E::I_'-"'OEC.E
J:::-OO).oQ) OE tno-Oc'-
S=eO~o~"'Oo ~c-=~::IQ):?"'O
cococc-t5 ouE oC(ijO.owS
c 00 o~ocoQ)=;O-Cii= U
._'" ._" t::lt >COmO'" coc9:!
E-gO~~~.E EoJ:::= EIIlJ::::lt~
= 0 c L.. ... - Ul L.. -C> '" co i!:' co '" 0 '"
Q) cOw:;)ro ...0-0 Ul(;j=~::;;:: Ull-'S
.- Ul U"" Q) co Q) c co Q) 11l
B!~!~'~~~~~g-::I~:lt.~~!
w-QwI-E~CL..-<Q)Q)OJ:::"'o--
coc"'O~"'O~8-(;j~>--SQ;"'co~~(ij
g'~~E~g<l)"'.o~~~~~~~c~
-COQ) _m"'CO= :It:s:CO:SCOUl
~~Wo.UlQ).E co-M .o~Q)u<l)
_Q)-oC1J~",~~~O_~ro~-oEQ)~
-g-ococ=- ::I ~c~cccoQ)Q)o.'13
o Q) ~ ii -8 ~ ~ '" :?2 ~ ~.2 J::: m g ~.!
0."'0 E ~.- a. Ul'- m c ;::: 0);;;;:- ~ c.-
c ~.o C1J::I ~ a. Q)"'O'13 m 0 Q) - C co 0 ~
og::lco~-B::I~OEgO::"'O~E-m
:;:::;._"'_UltnUlgUlUl m>cc-oc
~~~og~~~e~~c~~8~~'~
w:ltJ:::~;::I_U-o ~.- ~ .o~"'O
"'O.~~c~"'Oi1i$~!~~8g:?OUl=
Q)~~~i~~c-g-~8...~.o:~~!co
-S U"'L..~"::':O c~ou"'OQ)o ~
~:.=Ul .oL..._co'-.,::.'ii)ccou=Q)
Q) ~ 0.'- tn1: 0 m ~-o co co Q) m-
g:o g-B'~ e :lt~.~~e~Li:I :;;.Q~I
cQ)Q)isoo.n.o~:.=c"'Oc:QCOUl"'OE
co~J:::'c=11l::!~co5o~co.~~eco
:2 .0 I- 0..E.c Ul Ul E 00 o(f) LL. co CD m U
~
~
0;
...
"
C>
~
a.
...
'i'g
eN
...
e~
_N
"'"
!!!~
u:2
~.Q
~Q)
ElL
cfE
,,~
wC>
:;'0
m~
toC>
o c
~~
o c
UO
~:;;
<,!c
0.2
.c-
U)~
C>
o:E
,,:;;
w
U
wZ
....$
Ill""
-..
!l1"
>00
.....U
0: .ll"
<wO
..0:..
WZ
....Q
e;!!(
"''''
ZZ
OW
..,.
"'W
w....
0:..
~!!l
~~
....
::E
~
"
li
0.
"
z
ii:
0-
...."
_ m
z"
0.5
::E'E
z 0
OU
;::
<
"
;::
i
iii
"m
fij.~
dig
13"LlJ
.!!!..~~
e l: 0
<1.LlJ....
iii
" "
fij.!:
~g>
t5 $w
.2.'~~
e c 0
<1.LlJ....
"'
"
'"
..
<1.
<; <;
'" '"
C C
0 0
"- "-
lI) lI)
13 13
" "
B B
Ii: Ii:
'0 '0
" "
'" '"
.. ..
LC LC
"- 0.
;;; ~
.E ""
'0 '0
C C C C
'" 0 '" 0
'in :a; 'in ii
" "
" 'ii " 'ii
a; E a; E
C 0 C 0
"" 0 "" 0
'" C '" C
-E C
(b.Q 'C Gi.Q
" -13 " -13
0 .!!" 0 .!!2
o.~
1:: E;;; 1:: 0._
E '"
J!I o C J!I o C
Ul 08 Ul 08
~
..
Z
o
~
...
Z
W
,.
W
....
..
!!l
w
0:
::>
~
w
,.
Z
o
~
'"
;::
i
..cuoUlro'O
~~C:~5~
C1>1i) 13J!!m $
-: c::! 0 al r::: (/)
c: ,-- 'O~....'O
C1>-g "0" _ :=:: f,/) 0 c.
E.c:>.(Uo(/)-<tI
:o.~ Q) s--= lQ~.91
~:O~:O::;E""~m
moctl....cno3:
uUjUO:::.EQiQ)fIl
fijQ)CI>(1l~-5ClQ)
.~ ~ .0:5 0 'Q.i ct>;: ni
00 (ij-lVo;
.g 0 -: Ol-~::"O c:
"O~ ~.~~:;; ~~~
O(/)~::JOC'EQ)a.
m __ a.::s.t::..c: c:
-g..c E-g~.E :5~.Q
(ij-g .EQ)'iii'~o'E:g
Q) CIl lIlo.e~ (1)'- Q)
u ~ '0 E Q) ~ cn-g CI>
Ql.... O(l) c-.c
.o~~U,l::cnQ)~"""
=..cEQ)=~=8..~
('II Q) (U..c co m ~....::I
1ii=5- :5~E8-g
In- :2 ~ Q) Q).!: ....
~5~6~:5:g~.E
is 8:;~ ai'5 Q.l:: m
~~.; ~~~.Q ~ ~
Q).!: ~g"(ij.g:g.g ~
01= - ca >.- .....D 0
~J!!~"5~~~~~
'(ijCl>('lIEc..<<l.t::ooo
.....0 c -.... u
"Orortl8fij~~cg
~.s::;. Q) w'E c: 8'iij
!=~ ,:s!e*ce
..... Q) 0-(1) 0.0.0..2 Q)
"C u Eai E E fIl..c
c:co3:ooCl>e~
m.!U(/)0 u:5C1>:!:
iii
~
~
~
<'i
(Q$l30
~fij.2.!:
~mcnui
Ul::S>~s=
:5 ~U "'. t::
~83:~~
"'5 .Q g.!:
E-"~'o tl!
8~~;;1ii
3: e- c: c=
o c.c m.!
co:: g.~M'!:
~"Oai9B
a>C::t::......C
O-C'lI1tI6Q)
-g3:m-5
m.~:i lQ ~
z.>uQ>....
'00 ~:e (ij lii
~.... ~-o.c
c.E >-~ E
.- ..... ~ l!? ~
J!!lC-2~
cc(ijttllll
'~'g-;j~2
.:W III ~.=
o c:J;....
~~E~~
_OS.....Cl
_I-:J; oi:.
C 0._.....
.~~ g~.E
!:2- ul'- CIl
~.9.c~m
8-0 g;'~
~.!llllce
a;!::: Cl ttl C.
5 E.:n:: Ii
.=...g E ,: III
Olll.g-o~
- Q)(1)2-
<(.oQ"u~
.9~ti
~E-o
"LC-
m~5
'!i"~~
.~ Ul CIl
"m>
>-cE
Cl,2 ('ll
liim-o
~i,~
,,0
~>~
~-@ ~
:=.2
LCC-
~Q).!:!!
~o(ij
0.;;;
~ c.:
~'~(j)
~e~
~Q).!:!!
".0
~ ;0
.. ~
~Xlc
%E 8
IIlgc
12 Q).Q
0> '"
o
~~Ii>
LCO="
B-c
o(ij ('ll
c ~ g>"ri
o o:o.~
2Q)Q):J;
-uQ>tr
~:J;IIl~
8~'~~
"2gj~-ouQ)
ttl ('ll:o= -! 5l;g
.c 0, ~ (j);j;!.!Z
-g.:<( ~oo:t E
('ll~ c E;.9!
~ ~.2:J; (.)
.oEg.:5l~
~.9~c~E
_ III ~.2("")'x
oo8eo~
---Q)
-oco Q)Q)
CIlCll-OOg>.c
III E 0- ('ll-
:J;(;iS~""'Q)
Q)~Q>oQ)C
.o-E-;j-=;
~Ii>~ ~.=n
E:E ~=,~-o
TI.2l?~25l
eoa.g'oo~
_ -~~ di> Co 0,
,,~-
~~~~~~
"'C Q) ('ll.- _ c
Q)~Ulm~Q)
.00.....2:0-0
E~.!l Q)- ('ll
Q) _i;:UlIll
cai Xl ,2 5:a'O
6(ij~UUl_
-o~ttlttlE~o:r.i
~CIl~o;~E5l
('ll.c CIO .c ttl
U; - ClO> >~ Q)
c-'(ij"-.!:!!.oo
._0 Q)-U('ll C
>>_ -o:=: -"U)'-
1::,52 Ul O~CIl Z.
~lii~Q~.c'U
e(;i ~ ~:o=~
a.. E IIl.S C):5: >
..
'E
g
(ijcn
Oc
-=-:0
.. ~
,9- "i3
o c
'c;:"
"'"
:;;~
,,~
-=13
.S (ij
Xl5
c~
ilg
:2.0
""
",c
~~
-~
~,-
..20
:E[
10c
.c"
"'E
~~
....
~5i
~:;;
,,-
~'"
"""
010
:i5
_2
0..
c ~
2>E
"'0
~U5
>-c
.00
-0;;
~~
"'"
13m
,l!!>
~ :J;C)
ci @'2
>- E "
Q) _-0
.ge m (;ic
~ ~ E ~.~
~ Q)'x 0 P
e -
III (ij C a. Q) ,2 Q)
Q~~li glIl:o=
2:NQ)O::R~~~
Q) Q) Co Q C ttl
Q..cQ)CIOQ)-oO
,S;'~_IIl~ Q)~-
.... Q) 0 g Q) (ij C)c
8.E;~'2~~~~
('ll 0 Q) c Q) III 0 ~
~~;~.9m:.o.s "'C
ttl_>- _.....('lle'" ~
....-oQ)Q)o-8 CIl'S
~Q)>~c('ll="", e'"
'5.~gc~~'3Eo ~
:.0 -= ~ .Q)"* g.di 'J _'~
_-o_Ul_:=:CCC",,"":
o's:-o~('llOc-Q)<(
-=.. Q) c l;:: ('ll _E I
crE.!:::!oi; ('lli3('ll~,""":
Ul:J;UlQ>:J;_ "2.~M
o E:5 'e'~ 0 Ii> ttl:C ~
0'2 Q.c.c CIl >...JS:J;
~~~E3:38&Xl~
"
:;;
'C
"
1ij
~
m
.0
. . . . . . . c
,Q
1ij
g
:1
~
<;i
~
<'i
c
..
0
""
'c
'"
'in
c r--
..
:; 0
;;>0
'" eN
'" ,. .
.!! e~
" _N
.0 .. ~
.Q m ..
u:2
" ~.o
c -"
" ~u.
J2
13 .! E
.. ..
0. III 0,
E ::J e
" ...<1.
" " '"
;; ,Q.S
a; :So
0 c:::o=
OC
,-,0
~:;;
.!!! c
~ 0.2
l' .e-
ll)"
'" '"
<'i oE
"':;;
w
"
wZ
-,$
10-'
-..
.,..
,.i50
......0
0:.,0:
<wO
..0:..
wZ
-,Q
~!;(
.,....
Zz
Ow
....
"w
w-,
0:..
1:!
~15
....
::Ii
iI!
C>
~
D-
C>
z
ii1
O"C
t:..
Z ~
0.5
::lie
ZO
O!:!.
;:::
<
C>
;:::
:E
Iii
"
c
.c,
c
W
c
3
~
Iii
"
c
.c,
c
W
c
~
I-
<;
~
c
o
0-
W
<3
"
B
a:
~
o
~
c
o
0-
W
<3
"
.~
"-
w
:!l
:t
..
Z
o
:1
....
Z
w
..
w
-'
..
!
~
."
.lll
3
"
c
>-
c
'"
"0
"
~
~
B
<;
it
t
a.
E
o
o
c
en
.;;;
"
"C
<3
"
.0
:s.
m
c
IT:
1:;
:l
Ul
c
en
.;;;
~
<3
"
.0
:s.
m
c
IT:
1:;
:l
Ul
W
0:
::>
.,
<
w
..
Z
o
:1
"
;::
i
m~.8~~ :2...:
,g ~:; ~ 'Q) Co ~
;'.2 ~'f:.c ~ ~
.o~.!"Og- J!:!c
5l Q) ~~1i) 05
::l'- ........... corn
oo-gQ)..Q
-l:t=a..... .Ern
~~~~~ ~.~
:s~c:{~~ ~C)
tf.I> _ Cii ~
l!? III (..jCii (I) ~.2
Q)o~~';:: "0
.c . ::l'- en 'iiiE
..... . .:= (5 Co 0>.5 Q) 3t
ccc3:o(ij.o> .1:"'0
~~5Ul"fi~~~ ;:::.!
ii=i;::i;::.9(/)c: OC
'5d;'c<(u)~~~ Q)~
.~I.~._ Ul::::'::: c ~ oS:! ~
UI In (/) 00 Q) en';:: ....."T"<
ccc:....J ;:;"u;U NC
~~~.~~~c.(I) em
--->.... .9:5 ~~
~~~:t:051Ul~ ";Em
~~.!!Ool::l<:Q,) c:~
Q) CD Q) iQ.S 0 0 0 0
.0..0..0 3:~.....:>....... :;::; Q)
.8.9.8~~~rtI:g .s~
"C -0 "0.::: 0.3:...... Q)-
5 5 5-o~ o.~<{.9 ~~
J2 J2 J2 G.i ~.8 -0 :g <( >. ~
ooo8:rJ......a>-1Ulgm
mm9::::Jiig-Et'll.9~~
E E E ~~= c:>.~ (/)'f:
--:-::;;.c'~o.!!>.3-o
-0 -0 -0 .- 0)....."0 <.:i!:! Q)
Q)Q)Q)~=o.!!Q).s.!!!-E
]!~iQ)~-;;Jg~.!i>E
Q) Q) Q).c Q>J:: (I)...... ceo
OOOI-c:I-.5.ECDO.;:
N("").........
~<i<iai
MMMM
C"":i("')t""iM
N
<Ii
0\
.,;
Iii
"
c
.c,
c
W
c
3
o
I-
<;
~
c
o
0-
W
<3
"
"e-
"-
~
."
.lll
3
"
c
>-
c
'"
"0
"
~
~
B
<;
it
.!i
"
a.
E
o
o
c
en
.;;;
"
"C
<3
"
'e-
o-
m
c
IT:
1:;
:l
Ul
~ "C
"C"
'" >
"0
"'~
<0-
0-
iU"'"
3"C
" C
> '"
.;:: 'U
0"
-o!E
c-
._ c
~~
en"
.S .0
10=
-'"
~'"
~~
.~~
~en
C)'iii
.5 Q)
c ~
~ "
~:5
>--
",0
3 c
" 0
>:.;::
.C '"
"Co
".2
:;"
-'"
01-
:C-ci
~~
019 c
-o~~
"'0._ 0
ai.81-
- "
~1ij-E
0-", >-
OJ ~.Q
'"
o;i
'"
.,;
g>c
.~:~
'" >
0:0
<;
~
c
o
0-
W
<3
"
.0
a:
~
."
.l!!
3
"
c
>-
c
'"
"0
"
~
~
B
.2
a:
~
a.
E
o
o
m
'"
I~
.Q
~
~
~
.;;
"
a::
c
en
.;;;
"
o
1:;
:l
Ul
c
o
~ui
3~
!!'"
'u g.
""C
.!:::!dl
.~ l5:
i5..~
Oij
o c
-'"
-'"
.2 en
C).E
c"C
:.;;;:.2
~ 0
~.5
"a;
..c~
-~
,E5
~~
lij ~
-'"
0-0-
~~
-<0
""::::
'00
~g
=E
~:~
~ E
C'"
.~~
0.':;:
o-e
"'0-
""C
"'C
1-'"
c
3
o
I-
0)00 Q)
cC"
"t:.2.=
c.!!! en
~.~ t:
,,-ow
5
~
c
o
0-
W
<3
"
B
a:
~
."
.lll
~
c
>-
c
'"
-
o
"
~
~
B
,2
a:
j!i
..
a.
E
o
o
3
"
.;;
"
a::
"C
C
'"
~
c
g
:0_
"C .-
"'E
-"
0,,-
~"
c~
",OJ
0-"
~'"
0_
0_
00
B.&
.Q~
~'"
"-::
Q.i.E
- en
j/c
E'&
OC
00
~
~
<3
"
:;:
!!
<(
o<l
c
'"
a:
2
cnc
.2
10
..0
t:=
slS:
w'"
g>c
.~:~
'" >
0::0
<;
~
c
o
0-
C/)
<3
"
.0
a:
~
.;;
"
a::
m
:;
<3
2
:;:
!!
<(
Ol~
~ E.g
o1:l '5~ c-
.Q"
C oU)"U
.!!! :: => '*
ll. Ola Q)-
c'.:.s::. c..
J!!~o..::: 5
Uj c: .. ~ U
g,*~ ~
a1_ Q) 0
.eg E..c i:::E
sgo::os:g
en mO_ C/) to
-gg~~Ecii~:Q~ 0)".
aJ'- 0 0 c:.~ .- O)~
'g"U o..::::g c: m:g S"in
513 ~$:"U m lD.=O C (l)
fii.5.2'u 5l c.:s~ Q) E;;
s .:G ~ lfi~_ Co::; (/).9
0(/)"'0-0_0 - ::::t::1/l
...... Q) 'U 0 U) c 1& 0 (.) In
i3 g~ m~Q)~.!:::!t:: Q) 8
1Il 0._ 0::: '0 '0 ..c rn ~ ..c 0
.!:::!lIlCiiO-":>flJC ::m
E J:_OlO_i:i:(/) me:
;.;:; 0) III g.5 0...2 ttl ~ .~
g..=. '0 ~ 11). '0
':-~~ro:E m~ (;:G
.8~g5Q)~I-~'> g~
_ ~ _.~ . e 0 a.
5Q)......><2:(;j'~go. mID
>-~~_Q)Q)oQ)32Q) OJ
.!!!~ (f):l:13.......o-g~
c~~O)<(mctl= =::l
:gon:lC:c(/) Com S8
Em;o8m..c ~.!!!
O)CD ';:: U).!!! --l.,. U) .--c
.E ~ o.g ~ to 'fu ~:; ~.2-
~ m<(<I.I>o:tlog, -Q)
a.o~~:5 c: -g:E.!!! m.~
Q) ....JBom::l"C-;;g
=EuimU)>-C)C.~ ....::e
~E8>"Em~~C:l::'~~:>'
:c 'c ~ E E ~ (;; +-' .Q g ~;.~
o 'E U) 0 Q).~ c.B (0 m Cll to >
E '0-= €;-o'O Q)'Sil~ c.S:~
co 8,..>0....... 8.)5.~ ~ en 0
(ij a. i: E Q) 0.$ 0 m III 15 0
~ Q) 5 9- 8:5'(5 c~ -g o~
C ~ i5 (i) :>.::1 i5 ~ .!;!I.~ J! ~ -g
Be@crnQ)@Q)~~rn'C.!!!
._ Q.J:.Q)~;J:.c'Ca::: 0 @"'C
c.. - C)'C $
Q. C:Q)a:::
ttI '0 Q)
Q) c:D::: E
~ Lf'O.g
...
<Ii
0\
,.;
c..i
0\
.,;
N
c..i
0\
.,;
g>c
'c.Q
c:.!!2
"'>
C:o
~
o
~
c
o
0-
W
<3
"
.0
a:
en
c
.0
en
c
o
"C
C
'"
m
c
'"
"0
~
c
'"
0-
~
8
o
.~
"
"-
"
~
OJ
"
:;
-
o
~
"
:;
.e
en
c
.0
en
c
o
B
o
,,-
.c~
-"
rou
J:E_Q)
UlQ)O~
"'C > Q)-
..........Ulttl
~:6::1~
Ill.!:: Q) c:
~'C ~.Q)
Q)O.....Ul
.;;; g~
~g ~1- .
c:<{u . ~
.!;!I~g~E
~ -1"'C ~.!;!1
ornc:.....-
Q):>:-g~
;'CO::lQ.
>oC:~OE
.c rn <(.c._
'0 Q) Ul.5 ~
Q)'f:.3 ~.2
~Orn""'J:
'>~:>~j
~.~ c: 'i Ul
Q)~o(f.)ro
.c u Q):::'::::'~
o.!!! 0 () Q)
- 00 @ >om
.~o~~E
~(i)Q)~e
rn Eo>::I
C:o-Ulm
~ u ~15 c:
u Q).- 0-
.~~~~~
'0 to 0..'0 g
"'C'C(/)C:O
g~::t:.!!!2
~':;U'C1ii
= tT Q) ~ c:
<(~=o::8
'"
~
'"
.,;
Iii
"
c
.c,
c
W
c
3
o
I-
"0
~
o
o
10
(i) ~
"c
.5 &.
g>w
W<3
c"
n
1-"-
"
:;
"0
~
c
'"
0-
~
8
o
B
<;
.~
.~
"
"-
"
~
OJ
"
:;
"0
~
"
:;
.e
en
c
.0
en
c
o
"C
"
Q;
"-
E
o
o~
c
o
i::::
","C
_"C
W'"
~
~ ~ ~
.9 ~ ~
Q) -l 2
.'2: to a.
o :> Q)
:;
(tj:!2 E .9
g~ ,g >-
~~ .~ ~
.2al 0 ..~
OlE 32g?0
.~.g ~~~ ~
,g ~ u"'C'C~
.E~ ..!!!Q)@Ul
Q)<(~al.;::-"'C
J:Ul_-"::'::'CO
.....O<(Ou~O
m-.JUl~ffiD:::S:
~$.3'(ij..-'5'C
'E_roiiiMQ.l;
._ 0.- g>N'C-
roUl>~m'-'C
Q.Q)NL: Ul Q.l
Q.l:gMt:: ~1ii~
.cUl~OQ)tO
7O;S.Q ~ g.~~
~lL~;; 0..;;=
Ul C)Q) C)Q.l Ol'~
-er::::~r::::J:C:Q.l
a~a~B~~
-en
c
"
a;
"- .
o
?
"C
"
'"
...
c..i
0\
.,;
<D
"
en
'"
"-
""
o
,..0
ON
;g...:
_N
,,'"
"",
""2
~.c
-"
.-LL
E:
&E
" ~
",en
::;'0
iUtt
",en
.2.5
i30
c::'!:
o C
00
~:;;
,l!1c
o.Q
,,-
",'"
en
15:
,,:;;
w
o
wZ
-'s
m-'
-..
~,.
>00
......0
'" .ll"
",WO
""'LL
::!
~
'"
o
'"
..
'"
z
ii:
0-
t::i
z ~
0.5
::!'<O
ZO
O~
;::
<(
'"
;::
iii
wZ
-,2
~!;(
"'''''
Zz
Ow
..,.
"'w
w-'
"'..
~!
!1ii!i
"LL
w
'"
"'
J:
..
Z
o
!;;:
....
Z
W
,.
W
-'
..
!
w
'"
::>
:f,l
w
,.
Z
o
!;;:
"
;::
i
"
~N.8~ Q)
..Q(")C/)-1Il
t'O;:cCijQ)
~ o.Ql~~
.-- C/) c;
o~o 8";;;
32(/)coE
.~g Qla...a
B :!;;:<(Ec I
>- O(f.lQ)o=>
('II >(0 0 U '--
:S:<tlm...J.S!!E~
Ill$: Ol.~~i=j,!
-g1l)5>c...:~
o'O-C:(tlQ)~
s:8mo....Q.lcu
"Os:-g-g~'5E
c:"C~mEr::::o
=6;c.5~UJi
Q.l=t5 Q):;::; III ~ ~
Q) (1).0 ~.22 0 Q)
~~~ ~ ~I-'f:
~ 10 '5i ~ 0.:5;:
"0 ('f') f/l'-..c III
"Uj:€ ~ ~ ~ ~~
1il 3:'iii~ CI).-g ~
~ ~"E ",g.!:;
Q)::::::I.3<(EQ)
=~I-; C'lI UlS'~
W:J'- 0 Q) 0 iii
g>o.o>...J-o.J:: ro
-ffi ~~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~
.l!
o
~
(/)
(5
"
"
,s
""
10
"
E gc:
81ij i:: *
:gi~:~
a... 0 a.. 0
5
'"
e
o
0.
(/)
13
"
B
0:.
'E .~
:;; .~ " .~
.. ..
" " " "
'" .. '" ..
:::> :::> "
" " "
'" '"
,s :::> ,s :::>
- " "0 "
0
'" ,s '" ,s
:E "0 .5 "0
'" ~ 00 ~
" "
> >
" " " "
,s ,s ,s ,s
,s .s> ,s .s>
']; '" ']; '"
e e
~ '5 ~ '5
'" '"
:l e :l e
'" 0 '" 0
c M ~
0" '"
13 c: Q) "C
~_.! ~~~~iO
:g g.!!!_ ~ruu-;
.~ m -5 5l ~:s: E ~~
1ii Q.U) Q) ~ UJ ~ U ......
:;~ >oJ: ...."0.9 Q) r::::
E'iii~~ 8 g.c.= ~
::ll:!:r::-Q)$:o~-e
(,) 0 ::J"O..c E t::: (U
<'lI Q)U)~:::-g(ij.! Co
..c..c .....- ro m c; Ql Q)
.....-0> -0"00
.~o- 2:;=-"0:;::; Q) Q)
c.a. (1).-..0 (,)
~*8~~~~Bo
~ ~ ~,g.Q 1ii en ci~
ra:;:--;l5:E iU'.s.5 2
UJ cf3 E (/) 3::::;;:~::l
.~ 8,- Itl Q)..... (15.0
:os: Q;~e"O.~ ~~i=
15 c.~c2-o....J c: Q)
~~~8 ~U).!:2 ~=
~~Ulu.Q~>lEE
C:._ r::lE.....u c: m 0
~c:O~CNO.:::1::
Q)~ ~- Q) -.80'- .
'08~~~:gc:~~E
ell ><("').5 tt'l5~~-;; ~
I:: (I) "m c....... I:: <1.1
OoC\l.....(I)"'(I)~C/Jor.
:;:::;---OO_(I)~o
,~~~"~ 8~.Q~O ~
..c'02 &=:.::; gO"-c >.
E (I) m (I) 0<.."_ (I) (I) I::
8 o.:s.....11.. (I)~U (I) m
xO=I::,~mml::_
o ~~!~o:B g ~
Ul 0 . "'.0"'0:::.::: ~o.o
1:::5~Ei=~O~::I::5
~UOf!!(I)~(I)Ul"'O>
(I) ai 1! g:5 ~:5 8 ~ j
~~ ~ 5.'Om7O ~~"=:
'"
li
'"
""
,,-
uo.
.E~8
uu~
" e_
Ul ~ Z.
&. m '0
,s ~ ~
(I)~ ~
~:s C'l
mE.=:
~~~
Ul 0 (ij
"''''0.
~.t:: (I)
~j:~
m(J) C
"" 0
EO"
1:-:5
""'-
E w 0
~~~
m ":2: 0
::5o~
E~1:
C'l1: ~
.=: (I) ji);":'"
~ > a. Ul
m~~E
o.o(l)~
-g ~"=: 8'
~g~ 5.
lEm<l.l(5
m.=: ~ 0
l;:;.ox.t::
C'lE(I)<X
"=: 8 B >-
s: ..... U m
g~2-g
.8E16~
~ ~ e-o
I- (I) (1)_
<0
li
'"
""
"
e
'"
'0
"
"
'"
e
o
"
~
'"
0.
'"
e
'"
.;;;
~
f!!ui
00
o.~
E<(
"'"
-0
">.--1
c"~
0>
u"
~::5
.=~
cS
"",
12u
'" 0
" 0
~S
-
o
"
"
.;;;
00
'"
"
,s
5>.
"''''
~S
-e
e"
o l;;
""
~"
'" e
c.'"
"'(/)
e"
"'0
"in I::
~j
&..8
E"
2>
. "C
-0>0
,~ U
"'...
"''''
..~
o u
~~
"
,s
B
"
"
"
'>
0....
~ e
0."
~ E
""
='"
00.
E~
8 "
_u
~~
00
:!:11..
e e
00
E>;
-.0
0._
>0....
e"
o~
u_
u-
lE~
l" 0
,,13
"",
c-
.- '"
m:;:::;
~'"
....'"
"
(I) .r. (I) "'0
>-:3..c - 15 (I) ~
.0 (1).== >-0 'OC/J E ..c Ul"C
u -g u ~ I:: - 1:::::'::: ~ >.= Ul (I)
2(1)~Ulm~.QO (ij~~>
!!! lii"3(i)oo7O m m 1::;; Ul5-g
::I _ 0""0 - (I) 0 0 E m - c m
~ C"':! ~ i: 8 ~~.; e B 0 (I) -8 u
OC\l"'~I::(I)~.$~o~ih:E5
(1)>-8 g!Ul I:: m"-'-(I) I:: 0
..c .0 m Ci> u:;: ai (I) E 5. I:: or. C'l-
Ulo.o.mm=:3,,,,o-m<l.l
rn ~..!!. Ul I:: = ';:: ..... (I) >-~ c E ..c
.t::"'O O)I::'-_$: a...... m 0 s: I:: I::
UlI::I::OUlO (l)OUl;:::m'-~
g ~:g ~:2 ~ ~~ Ci> I:O'~ U U _
:;::mm(l).....(I)::::-"'=->.t::8;:
;:: _ 0.0.0:5 ~::I~ (I).t::~ ::1'-
mo M-l::o.E ~:2:0S:U~
o......~N.Qom O~::I~~~
8 .8 '{l- C'l:;:::; 0 ~ f!! Ul Ul E .... .....
._ :t:: m I:: m 0)= _ m:!= (I) 0 (I)
~ ~ ou:g,~.~.g g~ . ::I"'O-~
~ I::~,* mE~CQ 070 8 g~:t::
~ u m:s a. 0 m > 1).... "::; '" ::I 0
I:: (I)::Io(l)oo.m OL.oU(l)
(1)00"-15.....<1.1_1::70(1)::1(1)-
ff; (I)-8~Eo]i.Qgji)~~"fi.~
E ~<( 1.0 ~ g C ~ ji) g. 0";: ~ ~
::I (1).......1.0 m:;:;; 0:-'2 o......~o ~::I
E(I)(I)"'--_U(I)1::UO> -_Ul
"c :5"0'0 m 5= ~~ ji)15-guE
"e O)i: Ul -g - U (I) ~ I:: m c 2 (I)
I:: <1.1 '" .....~(I)_ ens::::> (I) moo
(ij i5 > 8 ::I I:: 8 'iij.- 0 I:: '" 0 lE
15:~ Q:i x ~ %! x:t:::3o ~ ~~::I
I-Uo.(I)Ul<l.l(l)OU_(I)o.....Ul
...
"
0>
'"
Cl.
...
o
;;:-0
ON
,,~
ON
;;;~
"",
[t2
~.o
-"
~LL
.tE
'"
,,~
",,,,
:;:,e
....
"'"
"2.~
'i5o
C:~
Oe
00
~::;;
J!!e
0.2
"'-
(J)~
o:E
"'::;;
w
o
w~
ffi:J
-..
"''''
>~o
1-..0
0:"'0:
""WO
..0:..
WZ
...2
!!!<
"'I-
Zz
Ow
..'"
"'w
w...
0:..
~!
g
....
:IE
ii!
"
~
..
"
z
0:
0-
!::i
z ~
0.5
:IE'C
ZO
o~
>=
""
"
>=
i
w
~
..
Z
o
~
I-
Z
W
'"
W
...
..
!
w
0:
::l
~
w
:E
Z
2
!<
"
>=
!ii
0>
~ c
..c :g.
aC ro.....
- &. a..Q
'~:J-g ~ g'Cll
.Q~ro~~=
~~~~ ~.~
!E Q) ~~"'C:n
~:5'~~ ~ ~
cB<<Io,~~
$~~....;:ZC).
'ELl 0.-- m c ~
~ Jg Q) E'i5:g"2:
TI~~d>:5~~
::)ClIm.....C).........
U')~~~~~~
....:m(/JttI~_r::::
1iiEgE:.ctu~
ij)-g~~.5~~
Q) m (,,) '0 rn.-.s:::.
=(f).Q~$~~
.9 G g":;: -g"5.E
o-:::~ K~,g.g
"C .... m ('II III
a.~ a.. 5 0 lIl:g
g~ ....:;; $~
:';:::;OUl~Q)UV,l
';:: Q)CUlCU
~C.:J:;::;UlQ)C
.5 ]1 ~ g ~~.~
en..... - (ll 15
m~ 0 04= c: CD
o - "I::m =:0
-;; >-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
$.0:::..... . I/) 0:1:: Ul 0
.Qoo 0 8' ~.~~.s=. E en';
.....-8Clla. -"O-:g(J)~Cll
~'>~ Z.'03.s00=S~
..2 e"O~'c mm 0 c:~..r::: UI
CoC:J:J 0 Q)'e CO_(/) Q)
g'1Il n).t=. E; rJJ 0.= 0 ',5
:.;:;::.cOlUlE:Jo(/)....E:GOl
~=.5 00 o:z e-~~:J E ~
a.~~ g.U'_~ ~ ro.~:;::; CD
.! III ~(j)o.9~'E CD,SofiE
oOQ)>.....o:i gE::S:J
~:gS~.g.5.::!g"O<(=~ g>
....o==Cl) lIl_c .(0"0'-
Q) E'o co..... 1Il.J:: (/) (1) Q) r::"C
.s:::. <<I J:: (5 >-- ca = 0 m (U ('II
-0-11) ~ o~ ttl'~ C 11)..2
E....oU)l1> __J:: QQ)c
o c-:::s::-E 0 >,(U Ih~:.;:::; c:J
~ 8:20 >.~ g.5-g.... ~'51o
"U OJ .J:l-mtn('lloQ)cOI
c: 2 c: ch(ij 111 a. Q) c a.1Il c:
mij::.- Q) > m:J.n Q) <I.l ou.-
a m~ Q) o~ o==.~ > c 0>16
-~ l!-g a.m8~ ~ Q)'di (p.Q
8 <( Q) Q) a..... _ Ul Ul Q).c ~ e:
.- ._= <<I e: 0 Ul....:5_ 0 Q,)
c=-oO<<l-oQ)Q)e:o_(ija...c:
Q,)l!?E>>e:E_::I_o..c:Q):3:;
~'5l!?~ <<I ~~~ ~-g: me.
-CTQ)_~Q)!E=>Q)Q,)'_Q)
~ ~:5~'~ ~a5~ ~ Q) ~~ ~
t5~m"5i~OU(J)m:5.c..cQ,)
ci. o-8.....~~
Ol _m t52-8l::c
.!: g,g.s"8l!? g.!: m Q,)
~..::; Ole: 00= E e: E
~ ~.!: .2 -E -0 7ii ~ &.~
-oE~iU,g;i~m::lE
Q) cD ~E~....!! Ul~':
~ o-o.E'ij) s; ~~ 3.E
'" ~cz.....>-o
'4i'iO~:c I1lE Q) ~ ~~
..c E';:;)~..c: m.9 Ul-o';:;)
=>>Ul'--a. me:e:
~.c<<lE.9~~~mo
UlC~I1lC ,2Q)"Og.
m ~-;:5 ~.~~~~~
-8 Ul e:olilo ~ E.!:cn
e: a:~ >>UlQ...- ~~:::.:::
Q)'-ua.me:. mU
:::: t5 ,- 0 a. 0 c e: a...... '
m~-guOl~Q,).gI1le:~
cLi:o= m,!::e E.!!:5 ~ e
:O..c: ~:5~t- g-B.!: Q,)c
~:s; >'j ~Gi"'ij),= Q,) e: 0
:;::;;>Q,)_ Q)>UUlttlU
U Ul Q,) Q) ~ = Q) -0 '0 Ol,~
~li:5~ E'EO ;i':'s1ij
- EB:t: <<I E~ Gi'E m.;:.
~-o 0 ~ Ul~8 3,~=~-o
x;i'8.0~~Eg~a:,~
Q) Ul Q) 0 0 E . <<I a.::l
Q,) Q)~~i3.~ 0 ~~::l g-
:5 ~ Q) ~ ~~U~ a.-g~
~ ~ ~ ~:o <( '0 .;:. .9 m ttI
~ -0 .....
CD_ ffi.!: ~ >-~ CD
.!: g-~..c: CD..c:I1l~~o..~:5
~ o..'t:,21 ..c 2l.~'o e: a. <<I 0
~;,;__"I_ 'iijIOe:m~E
........... 0.. ..c: _ e: _ Ol- 't:
ttI><<Ioo Uloo'E,!:~-g!!!
~,.g.so..'t: a.'t:!E=>UlmUl
~ ~ g'~ -& E -& ~~ ~ ~ a: ~
g'"$ ~ U ~ -0 CD CD ~ e: ,g ~ CD
.- ttI E CD_ e::5-go..&.m E 0
~:OI:5~ m~uo:::lOl""'li.i
-CDCD_O 50e:--o.E.E..c
~EEo~-.oCD ~'li.i;;(plij~~~
CD .... s::..cm-o -=m
..c:~ g'.!! Ul c ~~.E~::e E-o
:~~oiU .Ettle:E'L:CDI1lN
8:g E g ~ ~ ~.g l!? (;;:5 g;(;i
.~ -8 ~:;;-N 'j:: N E ttI a: iii.!: ttI
CD'-CDCDe: c(;i'L::Qa.8~~
UlUl't:....m CDm(;i_::l'-m_
Ul ~ ~ -g :5 ~~ :c 4i ~ ~ ': ttI
iU'~U::l~ .Em.~~e:Ul~~Ul
Omm..c:o ~Ul..c:m5~=..c8
>-Q)CDQ)E ttI~t- ....<<I~E,-
- E -0 Q) ;..--e..c..: ~ Olo Ul CD c=
IO..,'>-Eg,,, Ev.....-O ECD
..c 0 e: - 8 E Q) 8 -g e: ~c) Ul
..c:_ 0..- ::l'-::I E':;;:'- ttI 0 0.9 u.
Ql 0 _:5..c 2:..c: E;... E - I ~.; ::!:
I--'-UlQ)UlOQ)CD.Q..c: I1lm
e:~ ~ >-Ul::::'_ Ul.... OlCl~-O
~~ Ul m.g ~g-g ~a:.!:I o,g~
....-o~ UlQ m e-'50ttl+-~ CD Ul';I
0-0..1.. Ul.....O m..c .!! m..c:m.~
u.. mu ~ jj)~UE~B a.:::-o~~
-:g m o:o'~ o.=~ 0 e: l1l'I-
~ttI~I_-oIu_u..ttI.c
.
'"
"
0>
'"
a.
'"
o
,,>,0
eN
'>.-'
eN
;;;~
~'"
li:2
~.o
-~
.~..
<fE
ro
~ ~
",0>
:::>e
..a.
co>
oc
~g
o c
()o
~:;
ol!1c
0.9
-l::-
"'~
~~
w
u
wi!
ffi::J
-..
!l!:E
,.00
.....0
"'U>'"
<wo
.."'..
z
wo
-'-
<Do-
-<
U>o-
Zz
Ow
":E
u>w
w-,
"'..
/:!
~gj
....
:E
~
Cl
fil
..
Cl
z
ii:
0-
!::i
z ~
o.~
:=;1:
ZO
o!:l.
;::
<I:
Cl
;::
i
:u
~
e
.0,
e
W
e
~
...
"
o
e
o
0.
U)
o
~
.0'
a:
w
!!l
J:
..
Z
o
~
0-
Z
w
:E
w
-'
..
!
e
0>
.;;;
~
-0
o
~
"2
0.
0;
c
u:
t
J!l
lJ)
w
'"
::>
!!l
w
:E
z
o
~
'"
;::
i
- ,.,
.2",
0>;0
c ~
:g 'f:;
",-0
0._
~.2
8.~
0.._
~~
~ ~
=0.
o.~
-cu;>.
~E~
;0 ~ ~
.~:5.~
~e-o
..0.-
3:.c ~
~~~
Q) e en
~ 0...0
_ 0.0
_"'0
o~;;:
1?~"C
~"'c
'"
~ 0>-
_c..o
::;,.- Q)
Sl~&
~ 0. ~
=~:5
c;;-:g
0C~
CO"
'~.~m
0.0_
.8 c."a;
00~
Q)1f.i.E
~(U~
0..0 -
~C0
a.. aI.a
~
LL
'"
'"
~
c
~
'"
"0
B-
c
'"
0.
~
"
"
o
0;
c
'"
.9
.2
a:
~
a.zo
5'"
uJ!!
:u
~
c
.0,
e
W
c
~
...
"
o
c
o
0.
rn
o
"
.0'
a:
e
0>
.;;;
"
..0
o
"
"2
0.
0;
c
u:
t
J!l
lJ)
>-
'"
;0
.~
.0
~
~
i'!
0>
.~
o
.9
;;:
~
o
-'
'"
:>
~
=
..
e
0>
.;;;
.x
"
o
~e
0;
e
~
.~
c
'"
"
..0
."
o
a:
N
LL
'"
,.;
O>c
:6 .~
3:~
",0
"
~
e
o
0.
rn
o
"
.0'
a:
~
c
,.,
e
'"
"0
~
e
,.,
e
'"
"0
B-
c
'"
0.
~
"
"
o
0;
e
'"
.9
.2
a:
~
Q.".
5'"
uJ!!
B-
e
'"
0.
~
"
"
o
0;
e
'"
.9
"
it
S
~
Q.".
E=
0'(3
uJ!!
e
0>
.;;;
"
..0
o
"
"e-
o.
0;
c
u:
t
J!l
lJ)
-00"
""'.0
~-fi ~
,,~ "
Q)..!e.>
=~~
cc-
.- III C
e >"
._ <ilL:
'" ~;o
EO-
"o~
~ ..0 "
"0.5.2
"5'O~
o"~
.c ii= en
en:.a >-
O>E'"
.5 mD
..o~'"
:goo
.o-I
Q)~.c
Ul 0,21
ol!!I
E"""
~ 0. ~
0. Q)..... .
;00:5(;)
"SEQ)~
E .c._
Q) 0:: i::
.ca.E~
::~o..Q)
o-~-S
~Q)xr:n
o l? Q).5
'C~(;)5
.!:: 0l"E"U
3=.~ ~~
u:::lCUo
ai~~c:
C/) ,Q ~.Ji
o:t: 0 0
oCflcb.;:'
o &.!E ~
~
<Ii
~
,.;
O>c
co
:C'iij
S:~
",0
"
~
e
o
0.
rn
o
"
"e-
D-
e
0>
.;;;
"
..0
o
"
"e-
o.
0;
c
u:
t
J!l
lJ)
o>e
eo
.20
"'0
..0'"
,,0.
~.~
~iJl
.0 '0
..oe
g8
~~
~..o
<0" .
("')....$
o e
0-"
... 0> >
(I).: Q)
o;g~
~'"
E.o :a
.~ ~ ~
.5 e- 0
E~o
0...0
co;;!:;.!:
..c '3 Dl
j E'E
l!! 1?.g
g~$
..0 e
u~~
Jqr;;;
~.... ~
-g .g .e
i5~ m
U)"e
N
"t
N
<Ii
~
,.;
~
e
,.,
e
'"
"0
B-
e
'"
0.
~
"
"
o
0;
e
'"
.9
"
ii
!i
~
Q.".
E=
0"
UJ!!
..0"",
8.~ c
:::I e.ii=
-g~1?
~.o-
~m3=
~~.~
5.~ ~
~~:E
~86
._ cu.c
..0 ~
=..c.
~--
.0 .~ iQ
Q) cn'~
~B~
~~ g-
o.~_
~U)~
:::IE~
Eo~
Q>2gc:
=0 co.Q
.E.....ug
o.c~.::.
7' ~ al ~
;g'iii 6-8
~" 0
.0'::'<(_
Q) Q) 0
'5:5 en'~
~"5~ c-
o :::I Q) ,9
.ge1Ul{l
E:5E-o
,.;
o/l
Ol C ~c:
~:~ ~.~
'3.~.!!!.2:
lIJOa...O
"
~
e
o
0.
U)
o
"
"e
D-
"0
~
~
=
c
o
~
C.
0.
..
E
:u
D-
O>
e
:g
.5
"'
1:'
'"
Iii
.Q
..0
e
'"
B-
c
'"
0.
~
"
"
o
.9
"
ii
2~
~"i5'
o.~
EO.
0"
0=
5~ ;e,~:?
:s= >:Q'N
.Q m I'S'E
i= .s CO 'c
- rn-ci $ CD 'E
a,!:: CD C:.r;.
c:~ :g~1- 0
~.5o 'm~-
I-CD~""-olfi
Ul 0 OJ U
~ ~.g,!:-5u
:S-o -g m ~
.s 0. C::::J 0.
:6m2~__
~3~:SUllfi:5
iEaUl.Q..cE
:t: CD'g.s U CD'Q.
~:E '3: CD'~ -0 g.
_,!: ~ '5 Z'-5 CD
E-o c: c:= c: c:
CD CD'C CD ~'-,Q
ii):g'iij U-=m
~~:E.g~~B
c:o.m~_Ul,=
aCDEa....UlU
~.c,o;;~ 5'iij
S1;iC:CDm="U
c: :::J ,2 IE"'C ~ c:
CD E ~ m CD;;:: m
> .~.cm'u c:
- CD"" CD 0
~'~~.Q 8,0.=
'cii=-;= 0 Ul$
~ac~CD5C:
U:?~Ul..c=~
~E'O ~,~o~:s
= U c: c:=-u
<t:.5g:::J=2:E
;e~m.g
>Ul:t:-o
IUlEc
=:gQ)5
..q: <(:::Ja..Ul
<0
<Ii
~
,.;
g'c
'c,2
c:,~
'" >
D:i5
"
o
e
o
0.
U)
o
~
.0'
a:
e
0>
."
Q)
..0
o
~
B
"-
0;
c
u:
t
J!l
lJ)
o
"
B
"-
Q)
=
-
o
~
"
=
"
u.
~
Q.
E
o
u
g'c
'c,2
c:,!l2
'" >
D:i5
"
o
c
o
0.
U)
o
~
.0'
a:
0>
e
.0
0>
e
o
a"U"U >->-0 ~iU'Qi:?m m1?
,g8g~~;; D"E:Sc~.r;.-
/A.1:2 ~ ,~8 >--= 0 8, ~ : =
__!!:1:Z"'C~,,5 o}~.2!a"U~"U
........ 'u J: V~ c: _ e: ,_ -
~-ui .c..c ....."Ue~g~-c~
e: (ij CD 0_ ~ ..... Q) -
..cUl-a..... ,~cu -fi';;;o~"
,~Ul:::J m c: '" ..... w
V~ ..... I ~ :?CI) .... "U .Q
(ij ~ ~ ~ :!2 .c .... ~ ';:: >o.E 0_
:::J,::,::c_ :::J0:S .E.::.::,;Hg"5.E~
e:m - w :::J........OO
C Q) ~ m.r;...c -E(I)."E:S Dl e:_ Ul"
m Jt'Cij ~ : Ul 0 Ul cu (I) ,5 Ul-=
1? 0 ~ .! Q):? "U'~ ~-g 2::~ ~
:::0 :?'CijE'i5.. ~ 0 g cu..! g ~
.Eiij:.a~Ul~ ,;::EOUlUl:::J
......Q)C_Ul"U .,g~Q)~~~"'C
o.E:::J me: _Q)..cUo.Ul~
~~ g 50 j-g i5~: 5 g.g'c
Q).r;.:::JQ)a 0 00-0."U~
UUlUl- ..c,!l2,gQ)..ca::;;2e
~:CE:::JUl~OUlUUl~-Q)a
~~o>-mcu..ccU):::J"U~..co
g1ii':::;.2!-g:g~iU'o:g~;c::
cu >. C::::J Q) Q) -00::::,( S C:-o
Ul-m..cQ)Oe: C"C.J'--mc::
Q)Q)~3"C.c;:"o:::J'50Q)......cu
..c 'c m ;> -= >.,S _ U) 0 ~ ~ ~ .
~O-o"CUlt::"'CCUC) :::JCij.:::t:"E
::!> E C Q)t: Q) c:: Q) c: '(/).r;. :::J~~
c:: ~ m~~ g-g Cii'Cij lfi _Ul(f)
OCD.?;-UCU....l:: .Q.r;.~UlO:::J
_u:.=o o.:::J-oUUmQ)-a
'~C)'u~.s Q) Ul (Q"U 50'co.O
1;:::,5.1:2 cu .r;. Q)~C:- >00 Q)
'Q.Ul Ul~-:S:::Jm.r;.o~~~
E-fj~ CD >--g.s 0 :?~J: ....w-
m"Uo :::i%o Q)O'c:g.r;. 8 c'=
.... c: :::J E ii)Ul Q) Q)'-,~rna
o m1?.c Q).Q'O.r;. o.~I C:="U
.g _.... c-a.r;.Q)'CijmQ)
'5 :?-o 0 E ~ 8'0 ui1ii -5 -fj ~ ~
o'~ (ij~$:@:::J 1ll~:8 C:"C ~ Ul
ZOo.~Ill~:::J~~>m~c:oQ)
O_..cUln:l..........Ill(f}_n:lu.c
<0
<Ii
~
,.;
....
to
~
,.;
0>
"
0>
'"
D-
....
o
",0
eN
.....:
ON
;'"
"",
::::,:::J
!:!:..o
-"
.- u.
E
&E
"i"
"'0>
:::>e
,,"-
,,0>
,Q,5
:ijo
l:::t:
o C
00
~:;;
J!!e
o,Q
.e-
rn'"
0>
0=
"':;;
w
o
wZ
...lS
.....l
-..
"':IE
>~O
......0
0:",0:
<wo
..0:..
WZ
...lQ
~!<
"'....
Zz
Ow
":IE
"'w
~~
~!!i
~:s
....
:Ii
ii
C>
o
0:
0.
C>
Z
ii!
0-
~-g
z=
0.:
:Ii 1:
ZO
00
;::
<
C>
;::
i
g'c
't:.Q
l::.~
.. >
[[0
"
'"
c
o
0.
00
13
"
"e-
o.
~
..
Z
o
:i
....
Z
w
:IE
w
...l
..
!!i
w
0:
::>
'"
<
w
:IE
Z
o
:i
Cl
;::
i
~
.~~
"il::>
"'0
~~
.--
~-
" 0
16al
u_
~ .
.E~
m g
('II+-
"'C~
:R5
00
0"
~m
c-
..ill
o'~
= ~
-""
"''''
c'"
8~
"E"@.f1
...cC
"'''
>
=00"
o '" ~
00.2
c>c
co
:.c'u;
~::?!
alO
c>c
co
:c '(ii
~:~
alO
"
'"
c
o
0.
00
13
"
.0'
Ii.
"
'"
c
o
0.
00
13
"
.0'
Ii.
c
.2
~
a.
0.
..
0:
<
0.
00
"
..
1ii
~
o
ti
2
u;
c
o
u
05
c: "ijj
o~
~13
E .~
80.
"Cij
" c
n
0:1
OUl
c
c>
.~
"
'"
13
"
.0'
c-
m
c
u:
~
:I
Ul
c
o
ti
2
u;
c
o
u
'0
c
.2
0;
a.
E
o
o
~
Q.
E
o
o
'"
:!1
.S;
~
..
0.
=
C
..
"
o
~5g .~~
~ ~dl tl(E:
<0_ ::l::::J
1?-g~ ~E
- ::I CL. C-o
o(/)~ S.!!:!
(0 c;g a..
I 00 ai g.
~ 0 a > II)
CD ~ "a. :g -~
15..::' ~ Q) ~
~tj8 .~~
U:::l Q) c: (U
.b.a Q) '5
1;'1::= c: C
-o.Q~ ~ E
Q)t)tf.I Ul
~.5g Et5
~~u EB
~ou~ aU)
_ 0-5
Q) 0 ~ Cii'~
..0 C 0 C
rn Q)~ Q;~
~.o 0 :E 2::
~~~8m'~
~;~~E:_
.Q~~ ai :J-=-c
t51-~u E_Q)
2 .g.~ >oai~
iil Q) m ~ -.:: E":::l
c:"8 Q) 0. &.9- 0-
8()~~ ~ 5-~
~(ij (I):: ll.. CD 0
.0 C. >. (lJ
~:Q~ ~
o c._._
~~:g:N
'"
<Ii
.,f
'"
't
N
t.i
.,f
'"
-
t.i
.,f
'"
c
o
ti
2
u;
c
8
'0
c
.2
0;
a.
E
o
o
~
Q.
E
o
o
g'c
'c.Q
c:.!a
.. >
0::0
"
'"
c
o
0.
00
13
"
"e-
O-
c
c>
.~
"
'"
13
"
"e-
o.
m
c
u:
~
:I
Ul
c
o
t3
.E
'"
c
o
u
'0
c
.2
0;
a.
E
o
o
;;
li
Q.
E
o
o
~
"
c
.0,
c
"
c
g
'"
=
"
E
8
-0""";;' .....Q.locnL..
~ca>J?g.8~~
O)Cl>:C(llcoQ):::lE
"00 E'jjj:o€.5lG:::l
Q) ,9- VI "ijj :::l -e Q) C
"O:::lr2c(;;mEID
.!ag-....&.:.c(j)~g c
ai Q) ~ ID Q) ~~ ~ ~
:5E<ll....,J::G)CID (:!.
_~:fiQ)I-:::gIDa)Q)
c: .f=.o Cm-:~.l:
Q) Q):= ,'- Q) Q) f/l_
E.c .-0 Q)~o.""..c c: >-
a.-O-In (1)-0.0
":3'Qq) 5'0 ES1iiU-o
gUlui~C8~~2~
:Q)~ocQ)~ iiiE
Q) O.~.r:..2.!l!!'-~c 0.
6.~g:Coo'O~8o.
Q) ::lCCo m
E-....'i......;Q)m::lQ)Ul
Q)~l;B~.r::.---c-.~Eco
E'a-g ~ 8:::~ ~m ~
,9-.?;- m'- 0 C L- .Q
::l ....."E.....Q)OOOO
g~Ul.g~~;p()m~
cE~o..ome .5c
o 0 mOL-E"Eo
t5~~8UlQ).9Q)o8:;;:
2.~~~EE~:o -e
U;g.~E-E]!Q).;eQ)~
C ::l 0..5 cO.o
8~8u;EE8Q)~~
~ ~.~:.c 8.$'OE-E-
Q).~ Q)::l_::l'~
,- Q).2: Q) >0'0.2 01;)
g......;:: .!l!! C'O - ~:.c ~
~ e.!!gm"S<DoQ)g
t58.B~ oolEo.r::.L-
Ji!o:em.....:c::lEo=~
Q)ol!' OJL- .....om
CI).....I:lQ)c.s'O'OQ)Ul
1O:.c ttl m.$ E OJ
cc,5Dcmc
,2'l&'"E >.e c;p
ill "Ul g1ij ro-g~
..t OL-oQ):1;mm
m
c
<;;
E
-
o
c>
.s
:Q
~
..
'"
'"
~
"
c
c
=
:E
i'
e
0-
'"
"'
t.i
.,f
'"
g'c
.~:~
.. >
[[0
"
'"
c
o
0.
00
13
"
.0'
Ii.
c
c>
.~
"
'"
13
"
'e-
0.
m
c
u:
~
:I
Ul
g'c
.~:~
.. >
[[0
"
'"
c
o
0.
00
13
"
'e-
O-
~
"
.S;
~
'"
<
0-
00
~
Q.
E
o
o
c
c>
.~
"
'"
13
"
'e-
0.
m
c
u:
~
:I
Ul
13'"
" c
.-..
o
~c>
o.c
1i~
","c
c U..
ttl~ :fi
c_
_.!!c
m_'(ij
E; 0 E
~ c ~
0.00
0..- _
cojiu
,...~.~
~"'~
<Co.
a....;::: Q)
(1).EE
.. go
$.- "
"o~
- =-
o.~"
eiiiE
o c ~
u 8.E
:CQ)'OUl~Ul'O.r::.
~~ ~~"i,~~j
Q)"'(ij ID Q) 8..92 '0
E"5i~ [Ulm~
'0...............0$ ttl
cOQ)~Q).!l!!:fiE
ttl--gU;~-Q)Ul
'0 g>u 'iij '0 g>D c
S~.5 ~ Q)'3:~!!:!
~ ~'iij:E'~,g~ ~
c .r::. OJ_.g ~
L- ~ Ul ::l 0 >-1-
.3Q)cne(l)~~
Q)C.5'Oml-l-C>
.r::. Q) o..r::. c
..... .r::. ~ :>; a. oj .'3:
:fi..... Ul::c..... E g> e
1_'0 ttl ~:.;:J'- OJ
o ~ <Dli= c~
((.1-- Q) Q) Q) ((.I
~ '(I) Q) l!:!.r::. E ~~
:Q~o.::~:iQ)
~ Ul _ 0 Q) Q) ro
ro:€ ui-g15E.g-g
Q) 0 lR m o.m (I) m ~
::;c.; Ul'O.r::.UlQ)
_'OUl~co.$~&~
to'~ ~'3:'O O'~'O L-
:c ::lo~2>(I).$
Q).....'O L- m..... e.r::. m
.2: Kl'o 9lu; ~ 0.'0 ~
uQ)~rJ.58.9g~
Q) Q) c- (1)_ OJ..Q
EE g ..o7ii-g~ ~
_ l!:!=..... Ul m-
o-g=ttl~g::lEm
Q) m'3: Ul Ul Q) >of!!
:Q -'01ii cn'- D Q) ttl
Ul"5 Q)=.5:o'O=~
1;)- 0. o.,~"S (I)';::
ttlcn~Ul~OOUlQ)
(I).~ UlD Ul c.. 0 ~1;)
~~-g~~Q)mlrl~
t- a..!! ((.I !!! ::; oS D co
-
~
'"'
N
<i
,;,
'"
~
<;
~ ~
If: -m "
ttl E-V
"in Q) >
Q) <D m:a
~ '0 ~::l_
J'!! :Q' :fi <D Q. :B
~~~ ~.~~
gj~::::' ~~-;
o e..~ 0 ~ c::
om1ii -.r::~,'~.
" --....." " Iii (.) l:))
ci~ ~ ~~ci"O~ ~ Ul
~:Q.Q:2o ~5i.Q~ ~
m~eg5m~$!~5
't:Q)<tIO .gO"Q):Ses
g~~'~~Jl~i5ig
~ <tI @ ~ ~~.~s ~~
LU{!){!){!)::;:;:<::Z:OOQ
. . . . . . . . . .
o
-
"
c>
..
0-
....
o
~O
1';N
...,..:
eN
..~
,,"
u:2
~"
-"
.- "-
eo
~E
..
" ~
",c>
:::>0
..0-
"c>
.2.5
~B
".-
o c
UO
~::;;
,l!1c
0.2
.t:-
"'~
oE
"'::;;
w
U
wZ
-'~
10-'
-..
!!1"
>00
1-..0
'" .>1"
",WO
.."'...
WZ
-,2
~!<
"'I-
zz
Ow
..,.
"'w
w-'
"'..
~!
g
.....
,.
iI!
Cl
~
..
Cl
z
a:
0",
1-..
Z ~
0.5
,.1:
ZO
o~
;::
'"
Cl
;::
:E
w
'"
'"
J:
..
Z
o
S
Z
w
,.
w
-'
..
!
w
'"
::>
~
w
,.
Z
o
!;i
'"
;::
..
ttI Q) III III Q) OlE
coO ttI-g (ij.5 en
._= Q) 0 >."'0:=
~~~3:~58
-;i(l).c-a-g.g
~cg~~~~
CI:l~Ul:OCll
ij)==G>..cE.9
Q.lg;c&2e"O
_ ClI::l .1::_ (l)
o Cl)CUl 0
.8!~o-g~;j
el-'::: 8 to.~-E
Co "'C c: en > Q)
Q).....;MQ)Q>UQ>
=.~-8~~'E.o
L-oC)gl-om::al
Q)-e.5"'~o..c
C.(QUOlCCcn ......
? "0 ......!!!.5.!!! ~Q) ..Q
.... ~og.oa. ~ ~
o ~............o E.::&. III :i:
~ 'E.e-g ~:s~.~ (ij
g ~~ m.~-g.c~ i
~ ~(ijg'EroOQ) c
::J "oQ)i5.g~C= Q)
E Q)Q.C) ::10.... =
J!:l ~.~~.E~o..-O.E
ttI . Q.:e f/J'- '0
ai ~ g.~-g g)'~~~.~ ~
~ ,<<:I E Q).!!!'N ~ In g. .$ '00
c::~::J.o :,:o--cU'-ij)
E ~ E=ro~.Q;;l1?~: Q.I
m Q).5<'l1>.Q)"cO'-C.c. 3=
"'", .c:: "_..r=..o - c: o..~ m""" Q)
f...,: ::::.; fIl t 0 CD 0..5...J E .!:::
~o';l!?(l)m .21::
. . .'~ It::c ~ ~ E l3 - Q)
(lJ.....iiiQ)l->-ol!:!~
~ c: c: III ;:: c~.....
-0 Q) &..:=: >.~...~ OJ c
~.~ If) Q)~ o'iij-g ('ll
....J~~=>o..l!:!ma:
g>~
"j;;.Q
c:.~
'" >
0::0
o
W
~
o
0.
Ul
13
..
'0'
a:
~
.Q
;;
.2
C.
0.
'"
'"
'"
a.
Ul
1::
J!l
U)
~
.0
~
.c
W
o
~
..
~
E
.~
'"
<i
,;,
M
g>~
'c;.Q
c:.~
'" >
0::0
o
W
~
o
0.
Ul
13
..
'0'
a:
13
..
'0'
0.
13
..
'0'
0.
'"
~
'"
'"
~
'"
..
>
e
0.
0.
'"
..
>
e
0.
0.
'"
~
.Q
;;
.2
C.
0.
'"
~'"
Q).Q <(
-130.
.!!:I(/)
~~ ~
0~J!l
u8U)
~
.Q
;;
.2
C.
0.
'"
~'"
Gi.Q <(
-130.
.!!::JU)
~~ 1:
0~J!l
u8U)
'"
..
a.
Ul
'"
..
a.
Ul
Ci..!. en ~'O
In :g.=: :g ~
.0-'"
2Cii3 ~~
..c C.c ....... Q)
rn.Q _0:::
g>:a ~ C) ~ 0
.-"COc-oN
~ en ~.~ ';) 1V
~-g9-E1i)Q)
..!. (0:::; 0 m g
CI)...... '50 Q) Q)
~ gj E ~~:2
~1Il1ll.!!! -:fi
;;:; 1Il; 0 I: '-
1:;_1Il 0 1Il
-aEo;-g;
lIl.g-8o 0'0
~ >'iii~.5 I:
g ~;'(ii ~.~
.- lIl:::l_ 0:::1
0> 0 Ul O.b
_." W" ~
-g""OlIl~1L:
"0 ~;~ ="5>
~~~:: ~=
a.1Il00 1Il15
~;~~ g~
Eo lIl,g;:~-
_l!lo.:::I"O:i5
=;::00-0>
~ ,!I!Cii ~ ~ ~
I: > 1Il 1Il a.
al.::.::..c:.o "C_
~g";;'iU g~
1::0 O..c: -
'0..= Ul Ul o~ .
~'3:$~:g::iU
~1O.b'g. ('II.Q$:
~:S.~~ E ~~
~lfi~-g~:gg
~ ~ c,~ <( ~~
~
ai
,;,
M
g>~
'c;.Q
I:,!!l
'" >
0::0
o
W
~
o
0.
Ul
13
..
'e-
o.
~
<5
,;,
M
g>~
.~:~
'" >
0:0
o
W
~
o
0.
Ul
13
..
'e-
o.
13
..
B
0.
'"
~
'"
'"
I!'
'"
'"
~
~
e
'"
E
~
;~
"13
~ ~
""
~w
-~
~O
.."
=..
"'~
'"
Gi-
-52
.!!!en
o.~
~:g
u~
'"
~
'"
..
>
o
0.
0.
'"
~
en
'in
..
'"
13
..
'e-
0.
~-
.. 0 al
~t5 .!:
_~u.
~~~
0~J!l
u8cn
'"
..
a.
Ul
g 1U"! E
;;:;;<fe
.!!i! It')-
:::IEf"iUl
eii= 0
'u g~ ~
~ o~ E
III 0 _'-
~- ~
III Ul,2 B
:5~:g.g
lIl~""O~
"",,,,
g~E.s
13- '"
<I) ~ .8
'e.2 -g ai
o.:::'.t::! ~ "C
""OEI: I:
~15'c III ('II
- ~'E~ m
_.0_
I:'~.!!l.$ (ij
o ~ Ul'(ii III
E"OBlIlu)~-E
.s~lii:S8o~
-"0""01:1:00
"5>lIl'(ii 0-8 B..c
.~~ ~ OJ'(ii g'g
III a. o.!: ~ ('II
..c E- c.. = Ul
:; 8,5 ~~ ('liE
~lIll:.g.~'Og
~ (ij.~ ai.2 O)~
;:.:!!E=2:S~
3 ~...!:~c"5>m
~E_-:':::.::i~
e; .. ~ wg
I- e~'~:a
1Il c.. ('II g. ('II
~.S~~~..-
N
<5
,;,
M
g>~
'~:~
'" >
0::0
o
~
~
o
0.
Ul
13
..
B
a:
~
.Q
~
C.
0.
'"
'"
..
a.
Ul
1::
J!l
U)
~
..
~
..
~
~
..
~
W
W
>-
'"
~
..
3
q>
-
o
,;,
M
13
..
'e-
0.
'"
~
'"
~
~
0.
0.
'"
'"
..
a.
Ul
~
.. 0
s-
..13
- ~
o.~
E0
o ~
u8
..;
$
:c
:c
o
0.
..
.0
.~
~
..
~
'"
o
e
'"
~
'"
!!l
..
3
"0
en
~
E
.Q>
'i5
o
o
iL
oj
'"
"
..
1l
~
o
"
en
~
'in
~
~
..
~
x
=
Q;
>
.!!!
~
52
~~ .5 ~ iU
a.:: C.Ql$:
:::IV'I:-
~~~~~
:::It:- 0
~.:!! ~~ $:
-..c: Q> Ul"O
-ggo~~
al"C8:E!:o
~1Il._ Ul III
l::Qo 13 III
g.!I! a.. o.n::
'-~ III Ul E
~..c::S ('II e
~:::'>-~-
-~.o~>
~ Ul"O Ul 1:
-_~ ~ ~al
iUc5E .!: "0
~.o:U~~
'E:~~~'co
"ClIl lIlUl
~ I Ul..c E
III ~~= OJ
1:.Q"Cl=
lIl(l)iiUl..c:
:SUlN('II3:
_:::1('11(1):>
o;:..c(ijE
~~z.lIl.Ql
Em~:s~
OJ~mlll_U)
=('11 ~Olll
~O)al 0.E g
'~,5 lfi..co-8
o~ Ul'!::!"-'(ii
~ ~8.~1U ~
E
.~
'"
$
~
g
..
.0
'"
"
o
3
W
..
."
c
..
en
,5 u:i
",0.
'S~
lll-
M
..
<;
.E
E '"
o.~
gai
.. E
~~
~.c
"''''
~"
::-g
$..
-"'x
0"
~..
",.0
o ~
~ '"
~E
Bg
~;
..~
,S ::
-0
g g
<I);;:;
.ci!'
=~
j!!'"
w..
en~
,5 l-
E.
g~
-'"
0'"
-~
en"
:E~
'" ~
0.0
o
-
;;
W
E
g
'"
..
"'..
~'E:
wO
en'"
.5Ci3
w=
~t;
:::'al
-;;00
.cE
-0
~.:::
>-
:Q~
en'"
~'"
:g~
"'.-
0.'"
~ W
~~
0=
-~
lIl:!:"
~3
.!!!.E
lIl.Ql
~..
I-~
.0
<0
::
"
en
'"
a.
....
o
;;-0
eN
"...:
eN
;;;'"
"",
li:2
~.c
-"
'-u.
E'
<fE
'"
" ~
",en
::;,~
160.
"en
.2,5
~B
".-
o ~
00
~::;;
J!!~
0,2
"'-
Ul~
(SeE
"'::;;
w
o
w:l
-'-
1Il-'
-..
!l!"
>00
1-..0
"'"''''
""wO
.."'...
..
~
C>
~
..
C>
z
ii:
0-
t::i
z ~
C.!:
..'!;
ZO
00
>=
<(
C>
>=
iii
wZ
-,2
e:!!c
"'I-
Zz
Ow
....
"'w
w-,
"'..
~!
!!i~
.....
w
::i
:I:
..
Z
o
~
Z
W
..
W
-'
..
!
w
'"
::>
::i
w
..
Z
o
;::
""
"
;::
i
..... -- c:
arc m <'II
;:.t: > _..r::::
Q)~8:
.c..r::::CQ)
15~~~
~o~g
E~-g:::
Q)Q) (I) E
al UJ 6 ::)
g ~:Ql g
.5~~'~
:;~(uE
.0 OJ:: e!
,jIo;;::
c..r::::.... co
mOlO..c
EI .111 Q)
~ 0 ~.~~
~:: gE C'I
o a. II) ,21.5
.- 8 m-u
NXll.(5c
t)a>--Q>
o E ~ .~~
c: a..c.:.:: >
CD 0 ,Ql(ij Q)
..r:::: ("') co.......
3:.. Q)
OUQ)lj::::
8"'- C.c al
.- c: 0 - (1)
al~ ~ IDS
u......cnE2
Q).... Q)'-'-
:g.!=~E
~~""O.~~
> c: c..c.-
oom:?:::
~m~
-~-
","'~
o ~ ~
~"
E .Qliji
e >-.,e:
-~3:
~=Q)
,Q<((I)
.~ c
> 1Ii::l
3 '"
~.ga;
0.5"0
-3:3l
" 0> 0
~!';u
0:2 Q)
;;:: ':3.a
moO 0
""-
.0",,,,
0"
j e-.5
ii.1S
" ,-
.....:.;::;;:J
..!:2:;~
O>E<>
~ m
o~:o
0>- ~
~~-
:E ~.~ ~
~~-g~
...... 0..-
~ ~.g..!!?
.= Q) 5-.2;-
"'C a. lV;.;:::
o E 1Il Tj
Z 0..0 J!
'"'
g>~
"i:;.Q
c.!!.!
m>
0::0
"
~
m
o 0> ~
0...5.2
u.~ .!!.!
00::::'- >
..::; ::::l._
00"'0
<; <;
'" '"
~ ~
0 0
a. a.
00 00
0 0
" "
'0 "e
Q. ..
'"
~ 0>
0 ~
, 11 :g
2 '3
1;; .0
~ ~
8 ~
0 0
,~ 1l'
0
0. ~
m
~ 0 ~ a.
0> 0> ~
';;; ~ ';;; <>
" 0 " <>
" ;;:;"0 0
0 H 2
" ~
'e E '- ,9
o e
a. U a. Q.
.. l!i~ S
~
ii: ..!!iL ..
t a.., a.
E1=' E
B oB 0
'" UOO U
"
.0
-g..81? 8 ~ m.9 ~'E
11=:5,2 ~3: ffi~
Q) ('II (U - ..... 0 E-g,
c:~=.~:g ..Q 0 ~..r::::
-8 O)-o:E m :? ~ .~ -g
'>:s-8&.,e ~~ l!? m
e~o>~..~u m .....
Co ...... c a.'a 21;
o::::i E.9;t<'ll .......= 0
- EE..... :?c -01;'
'0(1)80-1:: .;:;m .::s
CD::: :> Q)ES,!!.! o~ g-c
CUll!? a; 'iij x ..r::::._ c
.~~.!!.!.~~~~~~ ~ ~
"0 =00. -rnm l1l,Ql
Q)E -l!?EaiQ>..c Em
.c,g"E~Q),g Q) ~ (;; .~"O
= ...... Q) u- U ::) >0
(tI 0) ~ ,g oS. 9 C "'"0 CT (tI
~.5lD'5lif(tl.s! 0 C ~ ~
........g- (tI"'~Q)Ul(tlO~
SO~Q)oQ)g..g~a...';::
..c Ul'-..c.-__... (tI u.."'C
.2JQ) i>-~-S~..c U ~ "
--o:::,5.o~' 0 Ul_ U) ~
~5 .s(tlQ)Q)O)~=.!l
ti;5 ~~~"~=.5 ~ (tI~
'x ;:'ij)"'C S; - ~,lJ:! ..c';::
Q) Q)'" o'c 0 0 > .~ 0..
~o (tI - .- ..c rn Q) ~ Ul
~.2Q)d5-gE'5i)= .2'-~
ii!2..c. "" (tI.9 g (tI..::.:: D..(tI
::)'''-ij) ~"'-u E';::
13"0 >>._"0 ~'>> 0 0 (I) ..
cc.ci>~ii~~:C om~
-=-(tI"'Cn::.sQi.~~.S! 1ij Eii
:?~ ~ c ~:c -g"'C..... ..c c.2
:=:; Q),2J.- ~ E Q)"5> Ul.2 g
~O'5 :fi.~-s E Q.'Qj CU'-
:.:i ~ ~o~~,-~..c .2J2'i
(tI~E :fiUi Q)
~ C Q) "'C C E
(tI~'9 co 8 ~
Q) !i= c... (tI
a) ~~iEu:.Eo..
..
~
'"
0>
~
:Q
'3
.0
~
'"
E
"
,s
"
~
~
e
m
"
~
m
c2!
o~
0>
Ul=
:g,-g
=~
z.:c
';::Ul
B=
5l';:
"
:?l'l
:=(tI
.~o.
Jj~
.;
o
~ ~
ci <i
.;, J:,
C"':i M
i;'.5.0~
~c.=~
.;:: 8-0 Q)
-c~~=
~Ul~~
~ ~Ui e
"O=::)R
5l= E (tI
o(tlc"O
0.._ (tI C
e(tlo.(tI
D..~O)~
"'C (tI c,~
co:g>
(tI-o(tl~
>>Q) 0._
~~Q)~
.~~~.~
-0 0 >>ti
o :E ~:o
,g':::"O~
~-gffi~
c (tI u)~
s ~ 8 .
5g-~~
o "'a.
~ ~ O)E
O)CCUl
,5"iij:g -0
O::E(tI~
O)'CijD..Q)c
.5E~.o(tl
UiQ)_=C.
'~.c ~';: ~
..... 0) >0'-
Q) ~'ij) (I)~
~E~~~
.
~~
~u:
""
,,~
-/'-
m>
a..o
03
m'~
.:::~
Q.~
~~
"";
.0",
"
j8
",m
2"
<(~
~-ai
--,>
m>
5g
"
"I'"
~"
mE
it;'"
;;:0
Ul::l~
-g t;.g
0.0 Ui
;;:00
-o:Ec
c 5.2
~o-O
" "
mme
n::::;a...
~E
.S ::)
mo
'EU
'Cij..c.
q
~.2'-
:Q~
~o
,g<>
"'=
m
o>~
~'"
:e-g
i3 5
,,~
"m
~ E
>..a
~>
~ ~
:g .~
0-0
0"
13=
00"
~ ~
'iij(tl
E>.
5 ~
:;;~
:?:g
a::.~~
(1)= (;;
= 0)"0
~ ~ ~
00 m
u..co(j)
.
>3"
~~::
Q) =
.~l ~
,,--
oo~
--' ,,"
.5g~
~Q)~
i;'~ c
;;: m
Ul~"O
-g~~
o ~ _
:S:..c-~
-gS(;;1li
~ clt:: ~
"O_O(tl
"" m a.~
_00
0:::0-0 a.
IN...e
_ >>~"O
"'CD::)'"
mm.g~
cEo U
E'gl'1J
~"'-Q)
~R.9=
~m 0>
~-o tag
Ii= ~ ~co
,~~.f!: -g
]!Q)"Og
~.c :g~
Q):ct! 8 ~
..c...cuo
t-Ul(tlO
s-g
_m
ii;'
~~
~>
h:g
.5 Q)
~~
m-
a."
o ~
~ m
oj'
.2'-0
g~
",>
9l
~-
pm
,,~
*.f!:'uj
0".0
o.(tI:;
~ ~-b
ro~~
-;;m~
(tI=jg
~Ul=
(tI~~
lI=.~ Ul
9 -ai-g
g->::)
-o.!l~
Q)~c
~~B
~
"
0>
m
..
....
o
,..0
eN
". -
e~
~N
..'"
~g:
!;!:..c
-"
~...
~E
"i!!
",0>
::;'0
(ijQ:
<:0>
o ~
~'g
t::.~
o ~
(.)0
~:;;
ol!!~
0.2
.c-
Ulm
0>
~~
w
U
wZ
...1$
lD...I
-0.
~..
>00
....o.U
0:0l0:
<wO
Q.o:u.
z
Wo
...1_
!;!!~
Ol....
Zz
Ow
0."
OlW
W...l
0:0.
~!!
~i5
Q.u.
..
i:i
C!l
o
0:
Q.
C!l
Z
"'
0-
1-'"
-"
Z ~
o.~
:E~
ZO
OU
;::
<
C!l
;::
i
W
Ol
i!:
0.
Z
o
~
z
W
..
W
...I
0.
!!
W
0:
OJ
Ol
<
W
..
Z
o
;::
<
"
;::
iii
..
;
..
..
'"
..
~
,~
2
~
'"
~
13
c
'"
.. '
..l!1
.c~
.5~
~~
.cc
0>"
:::>
~..
...:g
0>-
.5.=
.!:::CJl
~.5
@;g
~ ~
...0
:QQ)
...c
c-
Oo>
0.5
~~
..1:::;:::;
.. C
c~
~-
1-0
.. ~
.c",
1-..
13"
:5=
..
i5~
l!18
u:~
..
=.9
'"
c'C
",,,
-0;
a.Q-
l:.~
:OE
3m
.0 .~
0;
sg
'C'"
~-g
....
0,"
0.'"
.. ~
.0..
>
(ij~
-532
ij-:!: ~
~ '0 C
0...'"
~~ g.
g:g g
o c 0
E..E
~.o ~
E E
'~1ij'~
:E~E
'C
c
'"
o ~c:: 0
8:'~:~ ~
:E ~.~ ~
UlQ.O::2:
(;
..
c
o
0.
<n
13
..
'e-
o.
c
0>
'in
..
'C
13
..
.~
0.
0;
c
ii:
i::
J!!
<n
'C
C
.2
C
..
E
8
,-"1
"0.
....
..-
gj,!
",0
w:E
~ ~
.. '"
:Co
"'-
c c
"0
0=
- ~
-.0
,g:s
c c
o 0
<;~
..'"
><.c
x"
o.!:::
c.ll!
>< '"
~ iO'
~o.
"iij~
-:;;..
me
-l'l
1J'a
;;::fir
..
.c
.1-
(;
..
c
o
0.
<n
13
..
'0
n.
g
:g
'3
.0
~
c
'0
(;
c
g .~
0..
0"
0'0
.9'0
- ..
g'O'
n..a.
J!i~
.. ,-
~~
n
U<n
..
0>
C
:E
'3
.0
~
..
C
-
o
(;'
c
'"
0.
~
o
o
o
2
,2
n.
~
0.
E
o
U
'5 _(J)"iij '0
c:g.J:: ~
~t;:=! '5.
Q)'_ ~ g-c
0..08 .:: ~
E III c:: C Q)
8:5~-cE;g
g':S ~~ ! :B
:O'3:8~~(ij
::l 9. Q) C
g 8-g ~ iii~
.-_ ~ CQ.~ ai"C
~'E.iti8~~
Q) E $.- Q) Q)
Eo-~:S=
lEo2$g$
'5 c'~ Q) co ttI
O"oc.E"5..c
~;o=.2e
o~5..Q)~::lo.
s:'- a..J::
:! "8:= i ~ 'iij
:E<(~8:i-5i
=m85i:S:!:c
.- E- - ttI
~ ~ :>,.5 ~ ,g
~ U) l! en :::: 2:
z...... _ 5 Ul co
0. Q) 11);;::; Q) Q)
ErnE~ g...c
0;:> Q) ~ (1)1-
~>EQ)~"";
(ijQ)~""'mu
..c. ::;'5 'C .r:..~
~~~:i~K
r:::: Q)'" CIl C
l'l~""l'l"
__0.. 0-"5--:5
i5.. tll....O'Q)
o..,&~:o 0.2:
(lJ.-"U i:: co Q)
~:I::i~~(J)
t-cu--.JOI-B
o
w
,.;
~
.(
,.:.
,.;
D
~
~
(;
..
c
o
0.
<n
13
..
"e-
o.
c
0>
'in
..
'C
13
..
'e-
o.
0;
c
ii:
i::
J!!
<n
N
<f
....
,.;
~~
"'~
c.!:2
oD
-l'l~
~ '"
"'-
.c ,-
o c
,- '"
<l:<n
(;
..
c
o
0.
<n
13
..
'0
n.
g
:g
'3
.0
~
..
c
'0
g
~~
G 'iij
0"
0'C
.91:5
- ..
.2 '0
a..c.
ii~
.. ,-
5~
E~
oJ!!
U<n
(ij~
_ 0
0)=
0. &:~
'Om.::.
Q) Q).!a
t)..c"C
21- .$
- '"
(/).......-
cO~
0';:: 0.
0-0
..-
,- 0.
'CDo.
ffi ~~
"'.c
'O:!:-
..c,..
c"'.o
.21(1) '0
ffi >- ~
'0 (Q.-
"'~
Q)clfi
.00-
-Ulffi
ro"EQ)
.c"'-
Ul..c=
0'"
EO:: .....
.. .E
~~~
Ul-,Q
- ..
cO c
.Q Ul &.
ocUl
......
=E-
8.~ .8
Q)::J'ro
.c rr.c
f-~Ul
'1'
~
.(
"'
,.;
c
"" ..
~c E
'2.28i
~:~o ~
0..00..0
(;
..
c
o
0.
<n
13
..
'e-
a.
..
0>
c
:Q
'3
.0
~
c
'0
,..
u
c
'"
0.
~
o
o
o
2
(;
ii:
~
0.
E
o
U
0>
c
'0
0>
C
o
~o Q) Clo c'O(ry'Q)(I) ~
(Q_ .~.S o.Q ..0::::.:::: (Q
.-== Ul ~ i!: "fi '0 Q; -g ~o-c
ffi$ ::::Ill(/)J!EnJE>-G
(/)- E ,~o>;..o_ ui
;:.i ::::IQ)~mU(QUl'OQ) c
'v_ U~-cUlQ)S:_OQ),~ Q)
aJ'S nJ'CQ)..c _c...... E
5~ -,=5~;:-g5E~]i ~
Ul..!. ...... Q)......9 tU 0 g E 'S
"E.~ ~..c 0 -c'-S: (ij Q) ~ ~
(Q'::' --Q).....,oc'O(Q
i3.~ (1)'00..:2 cQQ)af C
o::'2rj6.-~ ~ ~~:g..oo ~
Q).EE_~~o..o~~.98 cn
; Q)'~ nJ(J)-~= .=:::i
:cO -Q)o.EO::uig>>~ E
~.U) Q) .~ c ~ ~ Ul 10 ,g:g C t:i
'0 5 ~ :!: 8..c 0 tU >-<( nJ 0 ::J
Q)0.~~.....~E'O~Ul0.5 '0
s:Ul.cUQ) _Q);>O .c ~
.~ ~-c ~ 0...... e10 ~...J-gi= '0
> Q) Ul Q) - u'- tU Q)
Q) Q)1O _bo.c 0-c.S!! Q) 0.
......c_cQ) 0_ >u..c Ul
Q)=a~.s~O~(/)c!E- =
.c~(ijQ)co~c6o~E (Q
=UlU_-ce?1!iQ).-(l)-.E ~
~c~O(l):g,.'::'~c:'l..gu,s Ul
Ul(Q Ul~ 'OtUUl(Q~="'O
Ul,g~- c xC"':! (l) 0..9-=:0 (Q c.. l!!
c 0.'- 0 (l) N C Q) - C ..c .....
~0.5iio '~O<{(l)~Ula:;5
o.nJ Q).s......1ii...... (l) ~og~-'= U
ClQ).......o,o (l)u...J-(Qooc
.~~~ E$-g'3o (Q CIa- ~.Q
;g ,I;: 8 ~1j lfio..~'S-8'ti ~ g
ioS: ~::J""'c(l)~nJ$(Q,l:;
'c~O(l)~;;:o.~o.oc-~
(l)ti (Q s: 50 - coo
~ 0 ~ 11 8 o. 1i),Q '0 ~ ~ &. ~ 0
1iiffi~Ef-~()~::::Iffi
a:;'OU~(l)~(l)Ul'O>
ai ll~; ~; 8 ~ ~
N <1ii~o..'Omm~~.5""':
'1'
<f
'"
,.;
;;;
.. 'C
c c
'51 (tI
Jj.~g~15
~~:~~:~
t-o..omo
(;
..
c
o
0.
<n
13
..
'0
n.
C
0>
'in
..
'C
13
..
'e-
0.
0;
c
ii:
i::
J!!
<n
c
o
u
E
..
c
o
o
'0
c
o
~
Ci
E
o
u
~
0.
E
o
U
(ij ~~
c ..
0>"-
C ~ '"
'C O"c
$ ~.Q
",--
s: nJ 2
~--
0"'''
_ c
_$0
Q)'_ U
c" ..
5~~
l!?"O~
:g,.o..~
'C .. 'C
c..c=
",-<<
c
cOui
Q)UlQ):>.
K~gm
'S~ 0..'0
0'"::J-8
Q) Ul ~._
Q):': '0 1;
~~~iii
~'O~ m
0.Q).- -
.0>_
ro.3:2~
.,CUlOQ)
Ul" ~ Q;
Ul.....O......
OO::~
O'OCQ)
~ m.~~
C &.s (ij
OX::J..c
OQ)UlUl
N
,
~
<f
o
'Co
"'~
..'-
.0:;:
~~
.. X
o
..'";"
'" c
l!1 0
",.s
g>>-E
'51'~
'"
;n'C
..
-g1ii
(Q~
.,;~
'" 0
..
(ij~
g>>~
:gUl
"'..
o.E
.+-
..
'C"
"'..
0-
-E
..
..'"
....
g Q;
(Qm .
'C~~
~ -c'~
ll~D
c '" '"
::::> 0. U;
,.;
..
.0
0;
.c
..
..
'"
~
'"
0>
C
'0,
'"
;n
'C
C
'"
.,;
'"
l!1
'"
'1'",
.5 l!?
"''11
"'lit
":~
-l'l~
~Q)
~o;
~ ~
[fi;
~!
~~
~~
~Q
:<~
"
'"
~
..
0>
'"
a.
....
o
~~
;g .....-
~N
..~
:91~
I.l:-
~.o
-"
~LL
~E
"l!!
:3~
150.
co>
,Q.~
~o
c::~
o c
<..)0
~~
O!!!C
o.Q
.c:-
C/J'"
0>
o:::i
,,~
w
"
w3J:
-'-
10-'
-..
!!1'"
>00
1-,,"
0: ")I"
CWO
..0:..
wZ
-,2
!!!!c
(/)1-
Zz
Ow
..'"
(/)w
W-'
0:..
~;!!
~~
....
:;;
~
"
o
0::
..
"
z
ii:
0-
!::i
z ~
c.!:
:;;1:
ZO
00
;:::
<
"
;:::
i
w
(/)
<
:I:
..
Z
o
ii'
I-
Z
W
'"
W
-'
..
;!!
w
0:
::>
::1
w
'"
Z
o
;::
<
"
;::
iE
..
':B
;;;
E
.5
'"
~
15
.~
.S;
-
"'
:;;
0.
~
~
'"
.!lu;
"10
~ ~
;Et;
.!..2
,.,15
.- ~
"0.
"-
_c
i}~
~:5-
~ ..
.co
--
- c
~o
"'''
$'~
~~
U5 .~
"0
~-
""
~:c en
o."c
III c.;::
~ ~ ~
Ula>m
~(ij:r::
=~~
"0"
~"'~
cnQ,)o
mo~
~~8
:g8.8
alU;_
o>~o
.!: '02
g~~
,,~~
K~~
ii {g ==
~c'"
~.~ ~
~~ ~
:5 ~2-
....- ~
00"
.~-g~
>";:: III
E ~~
o>C
:E-5 ~
m~~
W" 0.
.0
<ri
~
c
~
o
15
"
.c
c
l'l
;;;
=:
'"
,.
";B
;;;
E
:;;
~ .
o-g
cd;
.>
-g8
..-
",0
~"
'0 ~
"'''
ulro
.C ~
.c~
~.c
o~
"''''
~'O
o.C
~'j
o~
en:;
'"
:;;
0.
'"
~
.E
"'
~
'"
..
C
~
o
"
"
"
::
"
~
.9
"
~
~
~
.c
,.
~
'"
'"
~
c;
E
g!'ui
c~
g~
o ~
2",
"'''
C~
0>
0"
0.
rn3
'0:5
-g~
~:c
'" ~
~ 5
~o
I-~
(;
"
l"
~
>
8
~
.c
.~
~
o
SO;
~
,.,,,
.c~
"15
~:~
0>
0.",
"''''
C "
~o..
-0.
"*l~
.;:: 0
,,-
ai-g
E"
"
=~
<c
<ri
.,;
"
C
..
~c: OIl::
.~:~~:~
.!!.~':;.~
a..O[DO
:;;
~O>
.!: c:
0)'0
aD'3g
c:m.-
~"C.~
~.<o
;!:
"
0>
..
..
(; (;
'" '"
C C
0 0
0. 0.
en en
13 13
" "
B "e-
o. ..
C
0
C ij
~ 2
E ;;;
0.
0 C
a; 8
> 13
~
C " ~
" ~ 'e
E .~ 0.
0. - C 15
0 0 0>
l! C .~ C
0 ~ .Q
" ~ " 10
" 13
~ C. ~ C.
.~ E "e E
.9 0 0
0 0. '-'
(; a; ,. ~
.C 10 C
n. il:
.;; Q. .;; Q.
E E
J!I 0 J!I 0
en 0 (/) 0
Oi?Oull3~i?
c:"'" Ul 0).... t:;_
~.Q.= ~:5-5 ~ >-
:9u~'- == 8-g..c
en Q)._ 2:l;::: 0
en Q. > Q;I .... Q)
2 l/l" ell Q.I o.~"'C
;;;.S 16l = >.~:o
al .!:2 01- ~ ~ E m
c:=.5~.- E=
or:n~.-Eo m
~.5 E.a; ~- o~
III SJ:: .... Q) ~:u
ttl-o't:-=tt1c"E
-0 (UcttlCll(Um
~.~~g~ g.4)~
~ Q) (tI 2:0 o..a1 2:
8= gfm~ a.:8'ro
ogEi?-..Q~Q)
-0 l:::::fii~~~
Q)-gu;:::lIl'-
E Q; co 3 ~-o....
!!2>5-og-g1?ui
:p8n,Surot:8
i}.!:2 2(ij- ,25 .
....-ou;..r::.~8oo!!l
a>eCWOlc-Ulm
..cm8.o.2~Q)~~
.~ :rl-=rn g!E]! Q) g-
uC-CmC....I/J...
f/l S ~ fJl.s=..Qlg-o Co
~ 0 au ~ Ul .... -5-c
-UllVmcu....O' lV
cu lV Ul 0. 'w 0. o-c
~.::.gE~:5m_~
€~Ul;....!EUl~UlE
.a:E~o~:1lE~E
.~i3.;::maUl$o.8
o::!::.g ai m rJ\:J.E ~
o
~~
,.!.
<ri
o
~
'"'"
lV - lV 11) lV lV lV lV 0 0>- C (ij O\:J
nm>Cl~~~~-CcO .o.C_5
_~:;::l cu-- - Ul:c tlJ.- t:::~....
~Ulcu~ _-c_ccu"'Cu ~~c
~Q:jzQ:j~o'So:8rnc~ OUlO
Ul C ("lIE. ~..... m- m .!d5~
~e'~C~1:: ~-g5~~ gUai
oo-m._mEElV:;::l_O ~_o.
~u~.g_-gcu(jjE~EU ~~
i~~~~8~~5~~m ~'5~
.... ~ 0.<( Ul 0 0 >< C ~ .....
lVoQ) ClVUl\:JlVQ)m~ o:&~
~U~g!.QOQ)c""Q)Eo _
~lVO~~~om~-5~:1l ~g~
~-5-Z'~~~5m....~OC ~~
m\:J-g m E~~;2 E.E~,g ~Cl"'C
....c~~o...J.-Ul~ -~ ~o"'C
mmo-U ...Jom.!!_~ ot::!Q)
~ ~- ~ 1;; en ~ E,g 0 a.. ..c mE
~g!~oQ)~O:CE~~E "'.....~~
E 0 cu=~= ~ m o';:;)-c ,_~
o m Q)-co.o -
~Ul~~ lVlV~cUlc.~ :c.eoo.E
-i5'iij ~ .-5~- 8 ~.~'> 0....._
!!!mEQ)~ ~UlC"'CO ~Ci).c"
~:5~g5.8c'C~5:.0a.
~o~o~o~~~Q:j~rJ g~~
C m Q) U "'<t -.;:: E ~ a.:.;: Ul
mQ)~mNUlQ)E-lVm"'C ico:
Em..::..::5 Q)Eo...J~~O C._"'<t
~Q)Ul~E~<~1;;:=& 'iij~g
:5::!:: c:5:.: lV .... 0 0 0 III E I:))N
nic: 'iij'~m,~....~ Ul> 8~.
~.- E n co J2 11) Q:j c ~ 1:))....
=i~Q)~~z1l)~~1I)Em~ ~8~c
~~~~~_"'C~ 0 III ~ mo
Q) -m~~Q);:;)~-gocoro(jj52u
~i~~~~mg'~~~'g~-g~~2
~'~IIl<E,-,oQ:j:&~EQ)oUlm~c~1;;
'::;"'C~ o.\:J~~:5~rJgE~~g
oa:llllo
o:&'cut)
~ ~ 'g,,~
;;(.s.1J~
"-
o
;;-0
ON
" .
O~
~N
..~
~ ..
cr:2
~.c
-~
.ELL
<fE
"I"
",0>
0)0
a;!t
~O>
.Q.=
'60
c~
o C
00
~::;;
J!>C
o.Q
..,-
","
0>
~~
N
N
~
cj
o
'"
U
Eo-
....
=
~
~
...
...
~
foil
~
foil
'"
;;;>
Cl::
<
r.
o
=:
'"
"'"
~
z
o
...
...
<
'"
~
'"
z
o
u
<
foil
"'"
~
<
...
'0
o
..<:
t)
~
~
'0
~
.:::
2
~
<2
'0
o
""
t)
r/J
,
'"
~
I>-,
-g
~
20
'0
to
~
~
S
o
E
~
~
to
o
~
S
o
o
~
~
~
to
o
'"
t)
'E
'"
r/J
""
C
'S
o
~
'0
o
""
t)
~
~
_ '0
0_
o c
.c to
t) C
r/J '"
, -
'" ~
~cE
'0
to
?-
~
--g
~
'0
o
""
t)
r/J
~
;:l
o
:~
~
~
""
.5
-
'"
'"
;:;:
'"
'"
jj
'S
s
o
U
'0
a
12
to
o
~
+
~
.:= ~
.g~
<r:""
o
or, or,
+
~
-
=~
"'C .... V)
<r:~",
,
OON
- ~ ~
C
to
B
t)
C
to
r/J
~
S
o
o
~
~
~
..!l
U
~
S
o
o
~
~
~
to
o
~
S
o
~
~
to
o
~
S
o
o
~
~
~
..!l
U
~
.c
;J
~
'"
S
r/J
+ +
.E3 U"J + Z3 +
3:9~~-a~~~
'0 ~ ;:l._ '0._ ;:l._ 0
<r:0:;;:~<r:~:;;:~"1
00 000 V10
......-<_V)V)__V'l'<:tN
I I I I I I I I I
~~~~~~~;:;:~~~~;:;:~~~~~
<r:1>-,1>-,1>-,<r:1>-,<r:<r:<r:I>-,I>-,~<r:I>-,I>-,~~1>-,
oooooooooooooooov)o
~OOOMOOOMOOOM~MO-M
~..~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
'0
o
..<:
t)
~
~
'0'0
]~
t) .:::
r/J '"
, -
'" ~
O:c.S
~
S
o
o
~
~
~
"
o
~
Ei
o
o
~
~
~
to
o
-g
~
20
'0
to
~
'0
,g
t)
r/J
~
;:l
o
]n
'"
~
+
.E3 U"J +
-'0
;:l ._
'O~
<r:o
00
~~
~
S
o
o
~
~
~
to
o
j
;J
'0
.:::
to
~
E
o
E
~
~
to
o
+
+
~ ~
~ t1J,;t::: (/l "0 U"J
- ""C:l :3 "0'- ;..,
;:::j.... "0._ ~ (1)
:;;:~<r:~or,-5
OOOM~
lJiV) -_
I
::,E~:::E~~~::,E~
<r:1>-,1>-,1>-,<r:1>-,1>-,~
00000000
MOOOMOMO
r=-.:":";':":",o 0.;" M-.a
0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0
or, '" or, or, '" '" "7 or, or, '" '/
, , , , , , , , ,
\0 or, N or, \0 or, or, 0 or, \0 or, or,
'" '" or, '" '" '" N '" '" '" N
~
~ '0
~
'"
'0 C
~ '0
'" '"
;:l is
f-
>>~
- '"
~'';::
'" .-
'" ;>
is 'B
",,<r:
.:::~
'15 ~
"".:::
C '"
O~
"
c
c
'"
'Ci
- '"
~'&
,,-
;:: '"
~ b<J
il "
"-.0..
~
\C
=
=
M
~
<
f.iil
(;..
<JJ
f.iil
...
...
...
>
...
...
U
~
<JJ
...
Z
f.iil
>
f.iil
f.iil
Z
...
....
f.iil
<JJ
<
=
...
~
f.iil
=-
f.iil
<JJ
;:l
~
<
I"<
o
=:
<JJ
....
o
~
z
o
...
...
<
"
~
"
Z
o
U
-<
f.iil
....
i:Q
<
...
"
o
.~
u
.g
oJ
-
:;
""
<C
~
....
.D
;J
""
~
00
S
o
8
00
00
'"
o
o
.".
,
o
'"
'"
u
'E
~
VJ
on
"
'E
o
::E
'0
o
.D
u
00
~
-""
0_
o "
.D '"
u "
VJ '"
, -
~ ....
~<2
00
S
o
o
....
00
00
'"
o
~
'"
..-l
o<l
.D
U
"
::l
..-l
~
....
.D
:.:i
'0
o
..<::
"
en
00
::l
o
:~
0;
~
00
S
o
o
....
00
00
'"
o
+
00
""
~ ~
",.Do
_~V)
olUe
-E-<N
"
o
.~
u
.g
oJ
-
:;
""
<C
'0
o
..<::
u
00
~
-""
0_
] ~
u "
VJ '"
, -
'" ....
O:J2
00
S
o
o
....
00
00
'"
o
1l
?"
a:i
-g
>-
00
S
o
e
00
00
'"
o
+ +
~ rJl -;, ~
;:j~'=:~=~
"'0 ~ ::\._ "0._ 0
<Co~~<C~";'
00 OOOV)
...-..........V)V)..............
'"
u
'E
'"
VJ
t
z
~
""
';:
""
c
'"
.3
u
[;i
VJ
0;
S
VJ
'"
u
.~
c;
'"
VJ
0;
'"
'"
c..
VJ
c
'"
.3
u
~
VJ
o
o
~
,
'"
r-
N
....
'"
"
"
is
0;
;::
o
'a
'"
....
on
"
o
U
'"
u
'E
'"
VJ
~
.3
u
[;i
VJ
0;
S
VJ
00
s
o
8
00
00
'"
o
00
s
o
8
00
00
'"
o
00
s
o
o
....
00
00
'"
o
c
'"
.3
u
"
'"
VJ
c
'"
::l
-
U
[;i
VJ
o
N
,
'"
~
+
~ rJl +
~""oo
:::.- .::::.tj
-c::l ~ ::3._ V)
<Co:;!~'i'
00..........00
__V)V)N
o
o
o
-
o
o
.".
,
o
'"
c..
::>
, I
~::E~::E~~~::E~::E~::E~::E~::E~::E~::E~::E~::E~~~::E~::E
~~~~....................~~~~V)~~~~~..........~~~~~~~~o~~~~
oooooooooo~oooooooooooV)oooooV)o
~~~~~~~~~~"~~~~~~~~~~~..~~6~~-~
~~~~~~~ _~ _~~~~~__~~_~~~_V)~~_
'"
.".
,
o
'"
N
'"
o
'"
,
'"
.".
~
""
00
....
::l
..<::
E-<
o
'"
,
'"
.".
N
'"
o
'"
,
'"
N
o
~
o
'"
,
'"
.".
~
""
00
....
::l
.<:
E-<
~
""
';:
""
>''''
- '"
~.~
"'.-
'" ;.
:s",g
on<
<=I~
.~ '"
0-
00<=1
<=I '"
0&
o
'"
,
'"
.".
o
.".
,
'"
'"
N
'"
o
'"
'"
N
N
'"
~
""
';:
""
~
""
....
~
VJ
'"
a
a
'"
'6
- '"
(>'&
"'"
" "
'- Co
il "
k."'-.
,-,
'"'
<:>
<:>
N
~
-<
fiIil
>-
~
..c:
(J
"
"
...l
..c:
on
"
."
."
Q
on
t!
<1)
;.
<1)
."
<1)
....
o
on
.:
o
"-
on
,
....
<1)
..0
8
<1)
:2:
-0
o
..c:
u
en
on
"
o
:~
~
~
on
on
<1)
"
8
o
::c:
~
..c:
u
S
...l
"
.9
.'"
0;
o
U
~
.... .s
<1) u
-5 "
o '" OIl
ifJ "
CIj Cd v.~ ~
e c ~ '5
< gg~ex~
s::::: ..... rfJ ~ s:::::
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'a
...l ifJifJu<<::2:
,...
~
""
~
""
rIJ
~
~
-<
""
o
=
rIJ
...
o
~
z
o
....
,...
-<
~
~
~
z
o
u
-<
""
...
Q:l
-<
,...
o
on
01
,
o
o
~
on
- -
49=
.~ ."
~<<:on
oo~
00 on
M~
M
-b:2:~:2:~",
""0.. 0..0..""
c..o<oo~
oOO('t')oo
0" ("I'j" "0
N ..0 ..N N..
....--<('fjV)....--<OO--N
'0
~
-g
"
"
en
o
M
,
on
01
~
."
"
"
en
01
on
o 00
0000000 0000
0V10lrllr)OV'lOOOOOO
"'1" 1.1")- _NN -~
'"
t!
OJ
;>
~
~
g.
o
....
"
..c:
B ~
.~ 0
OJ ><
'" rIJ OJ
;.-,0 OJ) ~
~." " 1$ 1$ "
t; 6 ~ '5 .~ 'E ~
I-< g OJ.);;;'-" r?; k) Q) 0,) l1J
i.i: en.- '" ...... '1:l rIJ rIJ ::I
~ ~-a~Q k)~J5 B~~~
a a a ::I ~ @ 0 ... ;.-,'S"~'- '"
..c: - ..c: ..c: Po.- ,... ~ '" ... z z "
en rfJ rfJ P.Q :::. _ Il) >..
(lj (lj CIj .- .- .... - p.. r:n +-' +-' r./l
:I:z::C::I:~~ol!~ssg..8~
..c: _ ..c:..c: S s.-'< ~ i:ll 'C'- ~.8 ><
rJJ~c.f.IrfJoo~j:;","" '""'_~r/)
O.~ 0 0 "-' "-' ::1._ ~ ::I ::I _ ~ ~
~~~~,,",,"rlJrIJ""l'l-.l'l-.rlJrIJ,....,
"-
o
o
'"
'0'
~ ....,
~'&
'>....,
" '"
~ ~
"-<0...
KOL SHOF AR LATE MAIL
(Received at 2/7/07 Hearing and subsequent to 2/7/07 Hearing) *"
'f -& 2, &l-
2/16/072:00 p.m.
Tiburon Town Clerk
r}7t~:t~1* .
....-
February 7, 2007
M c/c( 4-)
,---
ft .M (r
"
O-t 2 - i--iJ.1-
The Town Council
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon BI.
Tiburon CA 94920
RE: File 10404
Dear Council Members:
I am writing on behaif of Congregation Koi Shofar (CKS) and its above-referenced application in
regards to its property at 215 Blackfieid Drive in Tiburon.
During the course of the last few days, weeks and months, we have, on multiple occasions,
outlined to you, both pubiicly and privately, what restrictions we were willing to live with, and what
restrictions and conditions we found objectionable. The purpose of this ietter is to briefiy note the
sections of the draft resolution dated February 5, 2007 that were provided to us by Scott
Anderson. Tonight, we will comment at length on some of our objections, but we wanted you to
know that there are parts of the draft resolution that may not be discussed tonight that we
nevertheless object to. These sections include, but are not limited, to:
1. Sec. 3.1.B. At the November hearing before your council, you advised the community of
your intent to reduce the size of the proposed MPB by 15%. We find this reduction
punitive and without merit or basis, and simply based on the desire of the council to
succumb to the pressures of a few vociferous neighbors. There is no basis for this
reduction, especially since the EIR that both your body and the planning commission
approved, after two years of study and a positive recommendation from your own staff
and consultants, were full of mitigations for a 9733 sq ft building. We see no logical
reason for you to make this reduction.
2. Sec. 3.1.E. Providing a landscape maintenance bond is a punitive measure based on the
assumption that CKS will refuse to maintain its site. No such bond was required of St
Hilary (SH) when their expansion was approved (File 19908), and to make CKS file a
bond when St Hilary did not have to is a discriminatory act.
3. Sec. 3.2. Our attorney and various members of our team and the community will speak
in opposition to the adoption of this unconstitutional, onerous, burdensome, and in our
opinion, illegal section. Simply put, the idea that government has the power to regulate
the number of people attending a religious institution is contrary to the American way of
life. While we have always agreed that the town could limit the number of people
attending a private, member-sponsored event at our facility, we object in the strongest
terms possible to the notion that you, as a governmental body, have the ability to regulate
any part of our religious practice. Frankly, there is almost nothing in the proposed
language that we find acceptable, and we urge you to carefully review the language that
our attorney has provided to you as a substitute for what you have proposed.
4. Sec. 3.4.C.(i) This would preclude us from putting any chairs at all in the lobby, such as
we have now so that the elderly or those who need to rest for a moment can have a place
to sit as they enter or exit the building, because someone will surely construe this to be
sealing for an event.
5. Sec. 3.4.C.(ii) This petty and punitive condition is unnecessary and forces us to have to
count people at religious services. Our religious beliefs preclude us from counting on
religious holidays or the Sabbath, and we will not do so. Moreover, if the purpose of this
condition is to restrict noise, it seems foolish to us to restrict noise inside but not restrict
the noise created by the daily play of school children who attend our facility. What sense
does it make to allow children to go outside to play, and then to say that doors and
windows must be closed (precluding the possibility of using a draft to cool off a building
instead of energy.wasting air conditioning) when 100 or more people are inside the
building?
6. Sec.3.4.C.(v) Limiting the use of the new Courtyard space is punitive and
discriminatory. No such restriction is imposed on any other religious institution in town, or
for that matter, on any other commercial endeavor in town. Again, there is no basis for
this onerous and capricious restriction. We currently have no restriction on the use of our
outdoor area for serving food and drink, and as evidenced by the record, there have
never been complaints about this practice. I remind the council that there is no similar
restriction at St Hilary, and in fact, outdoor activities and the ability to serve food and
drink outside, at any time, are not restricted at all.
7. Sec.3.4.o.(i) We categorically reject the notion that the town has the right to limit the
number of children coming to CKS for religious instruction, though we agree that the town
can limit the use of our facilities by a sectarian private day school tenant. How and why
we use the space is up to us, subject to state regulations, and the town has no right to
dictate what the space mayor may not be used for.
8. Sec. 3.5.A.(iv) Painting the curbs adjacent to CKS red is an abuse of the town's police
power, and is without merit or basis unless the town believes that keeping our members
and guests away from the site is acceptable social policy and legally permissible. There
are no public safety issues raised in the EIR that require the curbs to be painted red, and
in fact, the only reason to paint them red is to "insure" that those few neighbors that live
on Via Los Altos, Blackfield and Reedland Woods are given the impression that the
council is doing "something" to keep traffic to a minimum. In fact, this will not be the
case. As the TNC has correctly pointed out, this will force people in to the Bel Aire
neighborhood in order to find parking. Moreover, from a pubiic policy point of view, this
condition will create the one and only place in the entire town where on-street, public
parking is prohibited for reasons other than public health and safety, especially since T-
and U-turns will be prohibited (which we support). It is, in a word, punitive and
discriminatory - St Hilary, located in a much more dense area of homes, has no such
restrictions, and in fact, during well-attended events at that church, people literally park
everywhere and anywhere, as you are well aware.
9. Sec.3.5.B.(i) This condition requires us to count people during religious holy days, and
as previously noted, is not permitted. We agree that the town may count people at
member-sponsored social (i.e., non-religious) functions, but since the maximum number
of people able to attend such an event is capped at 250, and since our parking lot will
hold cars for up to 359 people, our lot will never fill up, obviating the need for monitors.
And, as mentioned elsewhere, this is a discriminatory condition because no such
condition was imposed on St. Hilary, save for the need to have a monitor in the morning
for school dropoff. The prospects for problems and confrontations resulting from this
restriction are easy to foresee....1 only need to remind you of the confrontation that
occurred last year between one of your uniformed officers and a resident of Reediand
Woods Way during our High Holy Day services. Can you imagine what would have
happened if the confrontation was between the same person and one of our elderly
congregants, and a fight broke out? This conditions is unfair and begs for trouble.
10. Sec.3.5.B.(ii) There is virtually nothing in this section that makes any sense to us at all.
While the goal of these discriminatory restrictions is to manage traffic in parking, in fact,
they will make things worse. First and foremost, with the exception of the High Holy Days
and perhaps one or two other times a year, we never know what attendance will exceed
359 peopl~. And on the day that we have 359 people in attendance, but didn't expect it,
IS the 360 person expected to turn around and go home? Or to walk blocks in the rain
during the winter? And what other religious or commercial institution in town puts out "no
parking" signs when a large crowd is expected? Does St Hilary put out signs for
Christmas and Easter? Does Sam's put out signs on sunny Sunday mornings? The
answer, as you know, is no; and yet, this section contains language that singles out Kol
Shofar for special treatment, as if the surrounding neighbors are somehow different from
other residents of the town and deserve and merit special consideration. Again, the
council is trying to do nothing more than show the neighbors how tough it is, at the
expense of common sense and fair treatment. The passes and notices requirements of
(e) and (f) are unworkable and discriminatory, and frankly, ones we can not implement.
11. Sec. 3.5.B.(iii) No where in the proposed resolution is there greater proof of the
discriminatory nature of the entire resolution than in this section. It is prima facie evidence
of the council's cowering before a few neighbors, and of the triumph of political posturing
over common sense and iegalities. I refer, of course, to the requirement that the 19
homes in the Vista Tiburon subdivision be the only ones to receive notice of the High
Holy Days. Where does that leave the neighbors on Blackfield or in the Bel Aire
neighborhood - this c1eariy envisions them as second class citizens, not worthy of notice,
though in many instances, they are more affected by traffic than any Vista Tiburon
resident. Subsection (a) is an unintentionai admission by the council that the only thing
they are interested in doing is appeasing a few vocal people.
12. Sec.3.5.C.(i) This is unacceptable as written, as it provides a virtual blank check to the
town to interfere with our operations. The "sneaking-in" of an additional three days at the
last minute, and the inclusion of the word "minimum", means that the town will have the
ability on a daily basis to come on our site and monitor our events. The imposition of this
condition is punitive and discriminatory - again - because no such condition was
imposed on St Hilary, and none exists at other religious or commercial institutions in
town. This has the potentiai of destroying our already-tight budget, and moreover, seeks
to fix a problem that does not exist, and has not ever existed. It is as if the town already
assumes we will violate the provisions of the resolution and violates the very heart of our
judicial system which declares someone innocent until proven guilty. If we violate the
provisions of the resolution, let the town cite us as outlined in (ii); otherwise, leave us
alone.
13. Sec. 3.5.c.(iii) I would merely note the discriminatory and punitive (not to mention
impractical and unworkable) nature of most of this section. While we have no problems
with educating our members about parking issues (as we do now, and have done for
many, many years), and while we have no problems with a few of the conditions in this
section (notably carpooling), there are other parts which we strongly oppose. In (a), for
example, there is a requirement that attendees must avoid parking in neighborhoods.
Can the town seriously believe that this is in any way legal, absent a permit parking
system? And I will tell you now that there is no way we can abide by (e), for religious
reasons stated elsewhere, and for the plain reason that this section is offensive,
burdensome, discriminatory, and contrary to what we believe to be lawful regulation.
14. Sec.3.6.A. We call attention to this section only to note the discriminatory nature of it vis-
a-vis other religious and commercial institutions in town. We believe, as previously
stated, that the town has no business telling us when our religious activities need to
finish, and by inference, when the safety of parking lighting will be unabie to be utilized.
15. Sec. 3.8.A. We call your attention to the fact this section calls for six semi-annual
reviews, while St Hilary only had four. It again evidences the discriminatory nature of this
resolution.
16. Sec. 3.8.E. We believe this section is vague and unenforceable, not to mention
unnecessary. Our attorney will speak to this item further.
17. Sec. 3.13. Our attorney will speak further to this "savings" or "out" clause. Suffice it to
say that it needs to be substantially re-written.
As previously noted, the list above is not meant to be a full recitation of all of the concerns and
problems we have with the proposed resolution. Rather, it is intended to highlight a few of the
more egregious, onerous, burdensome and discriminatory provisions that we have discovered in
the draft. We hope you take the time and effort in your deliberations to resolve these issues to
our complete satisfaction.
Since~~ ~ \;~\ V
Bruce Raful ~~.
85 Angela Avenue ".
San Anselmo CA,
Topic I St Hilary I Kol Shofar
Date of Applic3tion Filing " October 25, 1999 April 24, 2004
Date of Planning Commission Denial September 13, 2000 I May 31,2006
Date of City Council hearings I November 9 & 14, 2000 , October 24 & November 16.2006
Date of City Council Approval of Project I December 6,2000 I February 7, 2007
Time between Date of Application Filing
and Final City Council Hearing 408 days I . 992 days
I
EIR Required No Yes
Proposed project physical additions 4700 sq ft Parish Hall 9733 sq ft MPR
, 9000 sq ft classroom 3662 sq ft classroom
2325 sq ft convent new parking lot
575 sq ft convent garage
2500 sq ft rectory
575 sq ft rectory garage
8300 sq ft gymnasium
T own changes to proposal New rectory rejected; 15% reduction in MPR
addition to existing rectory OK'd Enclosed 800 sf service bay
Proposed project use additions CYO Athletic Program Increase day school by 50
Permit review by Planning Commission At 6, 12 & 18 months after At 6,12,18,24,30 & 36 months
completion of gym, then yearly then yearly
Power of PC at review hearing PC can relax or further restrict PC can further restrict use; PC cannot
on-site uses relax use for first 4 years of use
Time of construction 2.5 yrs after construction begins Permit approval to be obtained in 2 yrs
Neighborhood Advisory Comm. (NAC) Not required or created 6 member NAC created to foster
communication and discussion
Maximum school enrollment allowed 335 in K-8 150 in preschool
I (100 max in private day school)
Operating hours of school Not regulated or restricted I Requires 15 minute separation
between school & Bel Aire School
Traffic monitors 2 on school days for 40 minutes 3 at any event over 200 people;
Tiburon PO to be notified in advance;
PO to approve trained monitors for
events over 359 people
Traffic restrictions in neighborhood None For any event (except BB) over 359:
Restricted or no parking signs in area.
CKS to educate members to not park
on public streets in area, what restric-
tions are in place, and to set up a
carpool database and plan.
Traffic restrictions for parking lot None If event exceeds 359, CKS to provide off
! site parkin9 or event shall be cancelled
Use of parking lot No restrictions If event exceeds 359, spaces in lot to be
pre-assigned and parking passes (which
must be displayed) indicating which lot
the attendee must use to be mailed
Shuttle service for large events Not required 2 non-polluting shuttles required
Neighborhood notice for large events Not required I Required for High Holy Day services
Independent monitoring of parking Not required 6 times a year for at least 2 years
based on list sent to the town every
quarter of all known upcoming events,
. including estimated event attendance;
sanctions to be imposed if findings of
non-compliance are found.
Maintenance of event log Not required Required for all events with 150+ people
(plus duration of event, number of
I attendees, and number of cars on site)
Creation & maintenance of web site i Not required Required to provide public information
1 on events, parking & traffic.
Lighting Church clerestory lights to be I No specific notation In CUP
I off when church is not in use I
Concurrent functions ~ Implement procedures to limit I Not noted in CUP
!
-~ ! concurrent functions which may !
I overburden parking 1
Windows & doors 12 pane or laminated non~operablel MPB doors/windows to be
1 windows in gym; two sets of closed except during HH
doors to gym
Minimize/mitigate light extrusion
HVAC Gym to have baffled unit and All HVAC units to be baffled;
~ system to not operate when gym HV AC not to operate after
is closed facility is closed each day
Use limits CYO limited to 7 months: Not more than 100 people on site
8 am~7:30 pm MWF during the week
I 8am~6:30 pm TT Friday nights:
9am~3pm Saturday; no Sundays ,30 events, 9 pm close, 100 people
Saturday nights:
CYO use of gym open to all 10 events, 10 pm close,150-250 people
. One supervisor on site during use Sunday nights:
17 events, 8 pm close, 100~200 people
No restrictions on use of gym, Monday through Sunday:
either by type or length of activity Existing events (e.g., services) allowed
at other times (some new Monday night events)
Parking lot lighting Mitigate glare Mitigate glare
No restrictions on time Not allowed past 10 pm (or past 10:30
if occasion demands); holidays excepted
Landscaping Erect fence or barrier at slope Landscape to reduce noise, light & glare
facing Hilary Drive to act as to the neighborood; required tree
landscaped sound barrier inspections
Rental to non~members Not disallowed Disallowed
(with exception of existing preschool)
Seating in lobby Not disallowed Disallowed except for HH
Skylights Generally allowed I Generally allowed if they have blackout
blinds which must be used at night
Outdoor amplification Not regulated or restricted Disallowed except at BB closing
Outdoor use - generally Not regulated or restricted Use of MPB courtyard banned except
for Shabbat kiddush,HH & BB graduation
Outdoor use to serve food or drinks Not regulated or restricted Disallowed except for kiddush & Succot
Directional parking signs Not required Required
New red "no parking" zones None required N & S side of Via Los Altos
NW side of Blackfield
E & W side of Reedland Woods
New "No U-turn" signs None required I Required on Blackfield & Via Los Altos
STREET NAME #OF NUMBER OF HOMES NUMBER OF HOME MOVED TO AREA
HOMES BUILT BEFORE 1984 SALES SINCE 2000 AFTER 1984
Reedland Woods 10 0 4 10
Vista Tiburon 9 0 3
9
Via Capistrano 18 18 4 11
Corte San Fernando 10 10 1 5
200-300 Blackfield 12 11 4 7
300-399 Blackfield 24 7 5 21
Via Los Altos 36 2 18 35
Paseo Mirasol 38 32 4 20
Midden Lane 9 0 3 9
Via Elverano 2 1 0 2
TOTAL 168 81 46 128
RECENT HOME SALES IN THE KOL SHQFt\B NJ;::LGH~()BI-:IQQQ
ADDRESS DATE OF SALE PRICE PRIOR SALE PRICE PRIOR
DATE
46 Via Los Altos 6106 $5,450,000 $1,600,000 7/00
96 Via Los Altos 8/05 $4,900,000 $980,000 11/97
97 Via Los Altos 8/06 $4,800,000 $3,255,000 12/99
87 Via Los Altos 3106 $4,100,000 $2,675,000 9/98
103 Via Los Altos 5/05 $3,600,000 $2,900,000 1/02
95 Via Los Altos 3/05 $2,900,000 $705,000 3/90
67 Via Los Altos 8/05 $2,800,000
80 Reedland Wds 4/06 $3,600,000
50 Reedland Wds 4/05 $2,750,000 $1,699,000 12/99
70 Paseo Mirasol 9/05 $2,100,000 $190,000 7/77
8 Via Capistrano 9/06 $2,100,000 $1,207,500 12/98
10 Via Capistrano 1/06 $1,700,000 $550,000 9/93
8 Midden Lane 4105 $2,452,000 $1,800,000 7/01
55 Monterey Dr 9/06 $2,595,000 $2,375,000 3/05
55 Monterey Dr 3/05 $2,375,000 $885,000 4/97
45 Monterey Dr 8/05 $2,289,500 $859,000 12/93
100 Monterey Dr 8/05 $2,125,000 $1,700,000 7/03
30 Cypress Hollow 10105 $2,395,000 $2,137,500 3/04
20 Cypress Hollow 3/06 $2,300,000 $1,800,000 12/03
281 Blackfield 7105 $2,575,000 $693,000 2/85
280 BI3ckfield 12/06 $1,764,000 $1,300,000 6/99
270 Blackfieid 2/06 $1,723,000
119 Blackfield 6/06 $1,600,000 $865,000 12104
151 Leland 6/06 $1,275,000 $884,000 6/01
124 Leland 8/05 $952,000 $339,000 7/94
256 Karen 10/05 $1,250,000 $575,000 6/99
354 Karen 1105 $950,000 $799,000 8/03
22 Claire 5/05 $1,225,000 $375,000 7/91
34 Claire 12/05 $925,000
70 Claire 3/05 $910,000
42 Claire 2/07 $902,000 $38,000 12/72
290 Cecelia 5/05 $1,225,000 $855,000 4/03
291 Cecelia 7/05 $1,025,000 $195,000 10/85
258 Cecelia 6/05 $979,000 $613,000 8/02
246 Cecelia 10/05 $880,000
75 Pamela 10105 $1,050,000 $525,000 7/98
50 Pamela 5/06 $940,000
85 Pamela 9/06 $890,000 $360,000 8/89
64 Rancho 7/06 $906,000 $650,000 4/04
80 Harriet 1/05 $895,000 $136,000 8/81
---
o
~
<Y
~
r-
eo
<:;Q
<:y
.::J
'2
C:::,
\<1
-
~
~
'7"
c;
...,
=:s (..
"-
~
"$
~
LL
1 i n Co'<\. ~I L /Vlrt ~,
r~ ~~((~_I~JJ71~~',II\ 1'->'" ;2.-Hi
I\~\r 'I , ~ ~k," ... ^nAJ) a1 ;;17)0'7
lIll' 1 ?()()? , 1 -rrn.D]\. t.ou.~
~~:C~bO~~~~~', c.
1) As my farTillya-pproached Kol Shofar, walking up Via J.~~
Los Altos during one of the High Holidays this year, I
looked up and saw a man in the street in dark clothing
at the beginning of the residential section, with
something in his hands which was aimed at us. I was
alarmed, and asked my husband to call 911 as I put my
arms around my children. When we all looked up the
street at the man, he ducked behind the bushes next
to the sidewalk. This alarmed us further. My husband
pulled out his cell phone, and was about to call as the
man reemerged from the bushes, and we could see
that it was a camera, and not a weapon, pointed at us.
At first I was relieved, and then I was heartbroken.
This is not the spirit of respect and kindness I have
come to know in our town.
2) Our laws protect people engaged in union activities
from intimidation through surveillance. I worked one
summer for the N.L.R.B. while I was in school, and
practiced labor law after graduation. It is unlawful for
an employer to engage in surveillance of employees
involved in protected union activities. This prohibition
against surveillance includes photographing and
vi~_e()JapJ!!g .ernPLqy~es;}Certainly we would not want
protected and cherished first amendment rights to the
free exercise of religion to be infringed upon any more
than lawful union activities.
The new limitations on the number of participants in
meetings and classes can be enforced only through
surveillance of religious activities which have been
'T~ .~~
l,.l/V
carried on at Kol Shofar for many years. "This is not in
keeping with Tiburon's respect for and appreciation of
religious, freedom~
3) Marin has been experiencing difficulties with
extraordinarily high rates of teen alcohol use. My 20
year old didn't drink in high school. She did, however,
attend Hebrew High at Kol Shofar on Wednesday
nights, often gathering with more than 29 of her peers,
teachers and administrators, when there were more
than 100 people in the building. She also left parties
early or missed them entirely on Saturday nights so
that she could awaken on Sunday mornings to teach
Sunday school at Kol Shofar. Additionally, she led
religious services from time to time on Shabbat. These
activities were supported and nurtured by members of
the Kol Shofar community, and became part of how she
defined herself. I believe that this sense of who she
was contributed to her decision not to drink.
The new restrictions on the numbers attending
meetings and classes would have prohibited some
Hebrew High School activities, Hebrew School weekly
prayer gatherings, holiday celebrations, parent
meetings, and many other activities in which my family
has participated at Kol Shofar on weekdays over the
past decade. The entire community benefits when our
kids are provided with these healthy alternatives to
alcohol-related mischief and drunken driving, and
when we provide our children and young adults with a
supportive forum in which to define their values and
engage in meaningful consideration of ethics.
JJ!17 Ok TO /1 (-\1\)lt;~
(k. iLv\ s:'lA~fi.c
4) There are many educational, ~Ietic, and
,
commercial activities in Tiburon which take place in
the immediate vicinity of Kol Shofar. My family will
continue to make a conscious effort to limit the impact
on the neighbors when we engage in these activities,
out of respect and consideration for their interests. We
all support these activities, nonetheless, because they
are parts of living in a thriving community.
5) Our nation could not have had a clearer wake up call
than what happened in New Orleans. We are living in
an earthquake zone, and our town has adopted a "get
ready" campaign to encourage disaster preparedness.
Kol Shofar is a designated emergency shelter for our
entire Tiburon community. Because of the low vacancy
rate in our housing stock, many of us may be living in
a designated emergency shelter for a long time after a
major earthquake or other disaster. Let's all work
together to get Kol Shofar into the best possible
condition as soon as possible, so that when we need it
in an emergency, it will be ready for all of us.
We are so fortunate to live in such a beautiful
community, with so many caring individuals. We need
to proceed past the strains on our relationships
associated with the renovations at Kol Shofar. Through
a spirit of mutual respect and consideration, we can
make a renovated Kol Shofar an asset for th entire
community.
0{~t\~~e& L~"
(~~ \fff\' ) .
/~ . .JrJ;, ^ \ i LA: ~OduJ
--t {J, CWU /' (I 11 A . \j
.j ~~ ~ C:L cY L~^L .
\ Il}fF ~1..\J)>>fi~..o. q~... ..~, L'.,(}!IL
- \ V~n / 1.1\/\kA-VV iJ
.~
~ ~
~
:t~'
a_
n
!;;:[
~
<::::j,...-
-+
s ~." F c-, I.' ' -
,'.\TT':"-' - C ,~ li,"
FebruarySV, F2007" '4401 324G
': 1 4~, 3, S'~ c' _ f;, \ e,f." Ll ,I I:' ,,'I" ~./, L bC,
;(eIJ4(J
Ie AJ 1
;J-l-o 1
~~
Ragghian ti I F rei tasLLP
-C-'""
Mayor Smith and Members of the Town Council
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Appeal of Congregation Kol ShofarjRLUIPA
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of the Town Council:
I do not rise to speak tonight to threaten you with a lawsuit. Rather I speak
111 hope of preventing one fronl my client.
My remarks are intended to be focused and sharp in an attempt to deal
with those parts of the UP that are not only offensive to Congregation Kol Shofar
("CKS")
but also violate the constitution and the federal law in our opinion, and patently
so.
Never in the history of this Town's existence has it sought to so intrusively
interfere with the practice of religion by a religious institution. The Town
embarks tonight, should it adopt the draft resolution, on a certain slippery slope
that will embroil it in expensive and lengthy litigation. . . I seek to prevent that
from our side. I do not refer to the CEQA litigation that the limited number of
opponents continually threaten.
What you propose to do in adopting section 2 of your draft CUP is
confounding to us in the sense that it is both counterintuitive, and illegal.
Very simply stated here is the position of CKS, stated by its lawyer, after
review of the draft CUP released by the Town.
It is illegal and violative of the constitutional rights of every Jew who is a
member of KS and all others who may wish to attend, or who are invited to
attend a service or function there. Moreover, it is the product of a misguided
1:0" ['''- f ':' ~-'-I' 1
O'.o'IT'_
i',;',II':1
-"Jri','!
" OM,' 1< Lee'
Pc',i.,r:,u,p" Ii/_'.,LLV,L iC'~I" I, 'Ph TH'-",',", I'
;"Cli,Cl fl<A:'."
Hl"Q[:'-- Iv.. I"U\'/L,~"C
I, r'.'I~"" iV;"'OTC)RP,Ir;.
. C [ ,,~ c:; ',: ,
1:;",;";-"i,,TI,:.
[<viI', eREI','"
attempt to provide some degree of comfort to a group, which has committed
itself to the rejection of this application.
Before one ever raises the specter of RLUIP A, one must deal with the
Constitutional proscriptions which are enshrined in our laws and culture that
allow all people to freely associate and practice whatever religion they wish in
whatever manner they wish. This is one of the few points I believe free from
legal debate, even in Tiburon.
This council should announce to these neighbors what restrictions exist in
connection with this Town's imposition of any limitations on numbers
worshiping or participating in core religious activities on K S's site. Each of you
manage a multi-million dollar municipal corporation. Part of your fiduciary
duties, to all citizens, is to assess and manage risk...... and may I state
respectfully, you have grave and certain, indeed palpable real world risk staring
you in the face. . . most of which might be avoided by simply telling the
neighbors what I have just indicated..... that you won't and can't impose
restrictions on a religious institution and roll the dice with the public fisc. . . that
religious institutions and the practices that go on inside them are protected to a
large degree against the very type of restrictions set forth in Condition 2 as well
as others set forth in the proposed CUP that I shall cover.
In this regard is it possible that no one has yet raised the caution flag in
the face of the oral and written comments provided to you about the proposed
limitations set forth in the draft CUP ,especially Condition 2 ?
If not, permit this review to become part of this record and your reflected
judgment in what you propose to do tonight:
In considering what now follows please let your minds recall the recent
Saint Hilary's UP and the stark difference in the conditions you imposed there. .
. and all other UPs the Town has issued for religious and non-religious facilities
in Tiburon. That should be enough to send the risk level here to double RED.
Ironically, also isn't it curious that the opponent neighbor group has repeatedly
stated that they do not want to see KS treated in a disparate manner from other
like religious facilities, and the Town has, over the months and years we have
been processing, agreed.
Now trv and reconcile this with that:
No other CUP in Town places limits on the number of persons who may
gather to pray and worship their GOD in a religious facility.
None has ever required religious institutions to keep a log of how many
people come to attend religious services, activities and functions when their
assembled numbers reach a certain level.
N one requires attendees be counted and their numbers reported to the
local government and neighbors.
None place numerical limits on attendees allowed to participate in
meetings, lectures, education, reading, worship, in feeding the hungry, at a
religious institution.
None place limits on the total number of congregants (or customers of
non-religious businesses that hold UP's) who may be physically present on site,
at a church or other place of worship.
None require every blind to be shut tight at night while operating, and
none require all doors to be kept shut while operating, regardless of weather or
other circumstances.
None have been required to have three (3) monitors on site when a certain
number of people are expected on site, nor to have parking passes distributed,
lighted directional signs, painted curbs removing available public parking, or
threaten the cancellation of religious services as a penalty for failing to conform
to these proposed conditions.
None have ever been subject to such frequent and intrusive announced
and unannounced inspections and review over a period of 4 years, and
None has ever had a condition imposed stating that for a period of 4 years
these limitations/ these restrictions may not be relaxed, regardless whether
actually necessary in years 2, 3 or 4, based on what is then occurring; rather they
may be only made more restrictive under your proposed draft.
None has allowed outdoor space to be built (Courtyard) only to be told
when the religious institution, or non-religious business can actually use it for
their congregants or customers, or members (in contrast St. Hilary's outdoor
courtyard is now used frequently for religious and social purposes according to
testimony in this record).
None seek to list the specific religious holidays a religious institution may
worship without the burden of these limits on numbers and hours.
None allow the CDD to determine, apparently in his sole standard less
subjective opinion, whether facts exist sufficient to require an amendment to
their UP. Only CKS.
None prevent congregants from using the public streets of the Town to
park when they arrive for services or other religious activities and services and
force the curbs in a single neighborhood, where we have been for over 20 years,
to be painted red, even though all realize that it does not constitute a violation of
the CVC to park there -only of this UP.
In connection with my remarks I submit for inclusion in this record with a
written record of my remarks, the Town's approved CUP's for Tiburon Lodge
and Belvedere Tennis Club. St Hilary's has been previously submitted for the
record.
We reiect these proposed limits and we consider them unlawful.
Surely you can see the fundamental unfairness in trying to saddle KS with
such limitations while all others in Town operate free of them. Particularly
compelling and probative are the remarks of Rabbi David Saperstein from the
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, whose letter was submitted to
Council and who has been an instructor at Georgetown Law School for 28 years
He was involved in the actual drafting of RLUIP A and states your proposed
limitations and restrictions referred to herein cannot be reconciled with this
Federal legislation
We have offered alternative language for Condition 2 and offer it now
again. I have copies available to present to Council as part of a memo we
delivered last week to Paul and Tom, before our representatives met with them
to discuss the Draft CUP. (A meeting that the opponents flatly refused to attend
with these two members of the Council. Imagine that. Does that speak volumes
?). We offer this language again as a compromise the CKS will endorse which
does not limit our religious prerogatives.
In that communication we also interposed objection to Condition 8 E and
requested modification of Condition 13 to remove the last sentence therin and
make one other slight and non-substantive change.
In closing my remarks I state as clearly and calmly as is possible. We did
not enter this process to end up in Court. We do not want to sue the Town We
will deal with any CEQA suit if it happens.
BUT PLEASE, AND RESPECTFULLY, MAKE NO MISTAKE AT ALL
REGARDING MY EARNESTNESS IN WHAT NOW FOLLOWS OR THE
LEVEL OF COMMITMENT OF MY CLIENTS TO SUPPORT WHAT I NOW
SAY.
The limitations we oppose in this draft UP are:
Completely inappropriate.
Patently, particularly on the record here, disparate and discriminatory.
Violative of our client's constitutional rights to the free exercise of
religion.
Violative of RLUlP A, constituting real, easily identifiable, substantial
burdens on religious practice. . . . and hardly the least restrictive alternative
available to the Town to address its asserted compelling interest here.
Inconsistent with and unnecessary in view of staff and consultant studies,
analysis and reports on the impacts of the proposed project, all of which have
been mitigated to a level of insignificance.
We will do whatever is required, and in that will find the support of other
Jewish and religious organizations throughout the area and beyond to vigilantly
protect our rights to worship God in peace and harmony, as we have for over 20
years with our neighbors.
You can prevent this collision from occurring and you should.
Time for presentations this evening has not allowed commentPlanning
Commission proceedings. The PC, in rejecting the staff recommendation of
approval, and in ignoring all of the many studies and reports submitted, as well
as the full EIR required to be produced, got it wrong instead of right. It has
never apparently occurred to the opponents that this might be the case, despite
the overwhelming substantial evidence that has been produced there as well as
here before the Council. Simply stated, if it was intended that the PC be the end
of the line in terms of final action on discretionary land use entitlements then the
appeal sections of your TMC would not be necessary. But, of course, it is not the
end of the line at all. This is hardly the first time that the Town Council has
modified a PC determination... and it will not be the last.
As a last comment, time permitting, I would simply state that there is no
recognizable legal standard of review that makes neighbor opposition to a
project the compelling factor in an appeal. And for good reason. Frequently
neighbors are motivated by an exaggerated sense of entitlement and/ or
disingenuous legal puffing, or both.
We ask you to seriously consider our compromise language for proposed
Cond 2 and to eliminate section 8 E , and modify section 13, as well as those
other sections that you will hear others speakers mention. These however are the
main culprits we seek to eliminate to forestall further review by CKS.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening.
GTR/ ejm
Attachments
y
~
!:iilll!illilll ml111111111111:
2004-01 elb560
~,:!:o;.'':::s'd
----. ---
,,::':....- :-::.:.
,,-'-;
~-~i:lal ~E:or[S
RECORDING REQUESTED P.>'f-t-
RETURN TO:
Town of Tiburon Planning Division
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Attn: Daniel M. Watrous
LOijn~y [if
i:)a.hn
JOAN c. THA~':::R
F{E'c-Qroei'
01:3~PM 21-Dec-2004
WL
Page
Of 7
, w
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO EXPAND AN EXISTING HOTEL AND RESTAURANT (TIBURON LODGE)
AT 1647/1651 TIBURON BOULEVARD
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 58-171-87
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows:
Section 1. FindinQs.
A. The Planning Commission has received and considered an application to expand an
existing hotel and restaurant (Tiburon Lodge) located at 1647/1651 Tiburon Boulevard
(File #10408). The application consists of the following:
1. Application Form and supplemental materials received October 18, 2004
2. Site Plan and Master Plan, received October 18, 2004
3. Supplemental materials received November 10,2004
4. Transportation Study prepared by CHS Consulting Group, received November 17,
2004
The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of this resolution.
The record includes the Staff Reports, minutes, application materials, and all comments
and materials received at the public hearing.
B. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on December 8, 2004, and
heard and considered testimony from interested persons.
C. The Planning Commission has found that the project is exempt from the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines,
D. The Planning Commission has found, based upon the application materials and analysis
provided in the December 8, 2004 Staff Report, that the project, as conditioned, is
consistent with the Tiburon General Plan and is in compliance with the Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance and other applicable regulations. The Town finds that the hotel and restaurant
TffiURON PLANNING COMMISSlON
RESOLUTlONNO 2004,l4
DECEMBER 8, 2004
uses are consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation contained in
the Land Use Element, as such uses are not generally considered to be "tourist-oriented"
uses that are discouraged in the aowntown area.
E. The Planning Commission also finds that the existing hotel and restaurant have
historically been considered to be compatible with the neighboring commercial and
residential areas. The changes proposed by this application would not substantially
change the relationship of the improvements on the property to the surrounding area, and
the parking on the site would be adequate to serve the proposed modifications to the
hotel and restaurant.
F. The Planning Commission also finds that the parking for the hotel and restaurant are
consistent with the requirements for multiple use parking contained within Section 5.08.10
of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, as it is reasonable to assume that not all sleeping units
will be occupied during the lunch and dinner peaks of the restaurant, and the main
parking lot is close to both the hotel rooms and the restaurant on the site. A review of the
parking situation should be conducted after a period of time to insure that the parking on
the site will be sufficient for the expanded hotel and restaurant.
Section 2. Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the Town of
Tiburon hereby approves the Conditional Use Permit application (File # 10408), to expand an
existing hotel and restaurant (Tiburon Lodge) located at 1647/1651 Tiburon Boulevard, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The use shall comply with the plans submitted and on file with the Planning
Division dated October 18,2004 and November 10, 2004 and the project
description on file with the Planning Division for this project except as modified
herein.
2. A total of 106 hotel rooms are approved as part of this application. Rooms 113,
213,245,325,326,327,328 and 329 are approved as part of this application.
Room 114 is no longer approved to remain, and shall be removed prior to final
building occupancy for the construction approved under this application.
3. A minimum of 121 parking spaces shall be provided on the site at all times.
4. This permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing by
January 31, 2006, primarily to evaluate parking and traffic issues. During this
review, the Planning Commission shall have the authority to modify relevant
provisions of this permit. The Town reserves the right to amend or revoke this
Conditional Use Permit for cause, in accordance with adopted regulations of the
Town.
5. Site Plan and Architectural Review approval shall be required for all additions.
6. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Town Building Division,
including but nor limited to those required for legalization of previously
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-14
DECEMBER 8, 2004
2
unpermitted hotel rooms, construction of building additions, and demolition of
portions of existing structures.
7 The applicant shall meet all requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District,
CalTrans, Sanitary District No.5, Marin Municipal Water District, and all other
applicable agencies.
8. The Design Review Board is encouraged to maintain or enhance the landscaping
buffer between the hotel and the adjacent residences during review of the
approved parking and circulation improvements and in any future improvements to
this property.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December
8, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: COLLINS, FRASER, HERMANN, KUNZWEILER
AND SNOW
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT:
O~/\\:\\\II:'IU"JJ-
~~,\....,JIJI
,,>., I;; ';' 11//
ICHARD COLLINS, CHAIR~iAN'-\,"""',: c( "->
TIBURON PLANNING CO~S~tQN ..... '-i. .~-:
l ~-..~ {t~",,;,>cc~ ":'~ ~.
~ tt_ ..:, ..,,; ......-,~, : -.: ::'
:. 0 : '" \ '-'. ".
::. ,. 'oF ."'",,"-...,"./ ,: .'- ~
" /1 - . v"X,.."".?.." . ' ~
'~>,~!,"""~'~ ~--.~~.../<;,:) -..:~
',- " 'j ..... .....~ ," ."
~'/,' "-- ~( .. C f'~ V ,\'-~
I, I ,.~ \'
! I I f i I ~ i ' \ ! I ~
A TTEs-r:
j)~,w~
DANIEL M. WATROUS, SECRETARY
H :dwatrouslResolutionslpc1 0408 .resolution .doc
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLlITION NO. 2004-14
DECEMBER 8. 2004
3
RECORDINC; REQUESTED
RETURN TO
Tiburon Planning Department
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon. CA 94920
Attn Daniel M. Watrous
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND THE FACILITIES FOR AN EXISTING
PRIVATE RECREATIONAL FACILITY (BELVEDERE TENNIS CLUB)
AT 700 TIBURON BOULEVARD
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 55-201-36
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows:
Section.1 Findinqs.
A. The Planning Commission has received and considered an application to expand the
facilities for an existing private recreational facility (Belvedere Tennis Club) located at 700
Tiburon Boulevard (File #10401). The application consists of the following:
1. Application Form and supplemental materials received January 7, 2004
2. Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevation Drawings and Section Drawings, received
February 10, 2004
The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of this resolution.
The record includes the Staff Reports, minutes, application materials, and all comments
and materials received at the public hearing.
B. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on March 10, 2004, and
heard and considered testimony from interested persons.
C The Planning Commission has found that the project is exempt from the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines.
D. The Planning Commission has found, based upon the application materials and analysis
provided in the March 10, 2004 Staff Report, that the project, as conditioned, is
consistent with the Tiburon General Plan and is in compliance with the Tiburon Zoning
Orcinance and other applicable regulations. The Town finds that the proposed expansion
would enhance the ability of the Belvedere Tennis Club to provide an appropriate level of
services and recreational activities to its members, the majority of whom reside on the
Tiburon Peninsula. consistent with Goal PR-A of the Parks & Recreation Element. The
;IBUROi' PLPc'NING COM1ilSSlON
RESOLuTION NO 2004-D3
;v1i\RCH I U, 2004
proposed expansion would also assist the Belvedere Tennis Club in maintaining tnls
appropriate diversity of land uses, consistent with Policy LU-1 Of the Land Use Element
E. The Planning Commission also finds that the Improvements proposed by this appiicatlon
would be properiy related to the development of the neighborhood as a whole and
reasonably compatible with the types of uses normally permitted in the surrounding area.
once the mitigation measures are imposed to adequately buffer nOise, light and glare
impacts on neighboring homes and adequacy of the provided on-site parking IS
demonstrated.
Section 2. Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the Town of
Tiburon hereby approves the Conditional Use Permit application (File # 10401), to expand the
facilities for an existing private recreational facility (Belvedere Tennis Club) at 700 Tiburon
Boulevard, subject to the following conditions
1. The use shall comply with the plans submitted and on file with the Planning
Division dated February 10, 2004 and the project description on file with the
Planning Division for this project except as modified herein.
2. The subject permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public
hearing eighteen (18) months after completion of the clubhouse building to
evaluate noise, parking and traffic issues. During this review, the Planning
Commission shall have the authority to modify the restrictions of this permit. The
Town reserves the right to amend or revoke this Conditional Use Permit for cause.
in accordance with adopted regulations of the Town.
3. Hours of operation for the Belvedere Tennis Club shall be limited as follows:
a. No later than 9:00 p.m. for the spa;
b. No later than 6:00 p.m. for the wading pool;
c. No later than 12:00 a.m. (midnight) for social events.
4. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for project construction the
project developer shall submit a Site Plan and Architectural Review application to
the Town of Tiburon Planning Division and receive written approval from the
Design Review Board. The Design Review Board is directed to carefully evaluate
potential noise and lighting impacts, and impose conditions of approval necessary
to avoid unwanted noise, light and glare impacts on neighboring residential
properties.
5. Valet parking shall be provided for all events for which the on-site parking capacity
will be exceeded.
6. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Town Building DiVision
for the proposed addition.
7. The applicant shall meet all requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District,
the Richardson Bay Sanitary DistriCt. and all other applicable agencies
TIBJ'ROj;.T PLAi"rf'JfNG COMMlSS10N
RESOLl;TIOC: NO. 2004-03
JviARCH ] 0,200"+
,
PASSeD AND ADOPTeD at a regula, meeting of the Planning Commission on M3rch l'
2004. by the following vOle:
AYES COMMISSIONERS SNOW, FRAS::R, GRE::N'3::RG AND
KUNZWEILER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NON::
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
RECUSED COMMISSIONERS COLLINS
I sl Wayne Snow
WAYNE SNOW, CHAIRMAN
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION.' ,.
"
ATTEST:
:} .
Isl Daniel M. Watrous
DANIEL M. WATROUS, SECRETARY
'0
r
,,-', ",':".'
H:dwatrous\Resolutions\pc1 040 1.resolution.doc
TlBlJRDN pL.~\r:~n,,'G COJvOillSSIOf\
RESOLUT10N NO. 2004--O~,
j"L'".RCH !I} 2004
2006-0018998
RECORDING REQUESTED
RETURN TO:
Tiburon Planning Department
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Attn: Daniel M. Watrous
~ecorded
Gfficial Records
County of
Marin
JOAN C. THAYER
Assessor-Recorder
i REC FEE
I
i
(1,0t
9Y
~
I
I
lAM
07:18AM 28-Mar-2006 I Pa~e 1 of 4
1111111111111111111111111111111111
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MODIFY PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS
TO EXPAND THE FACILITIES FOR AN EXISTING PRIVATE RECREATIONAL FACILITY
(BELVEDERE TENNIS CLUB) AT 700 TIBURON BOULEVARD
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 055-201-36
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows:
Section 1. Findinqs.
A. The Planning Commission has received and considered an application (File #1 0503) to
modify the previously approved plans (File #10401, approved by Resolution No. 2004-03
on March 10,2004) to expand the facilities for an existing private recreational facility
(Belvedere Tennis Club) located at 700 Tiburon Boulevard. The application consists of
the following:
1. Application Form and supplemental materials received August 17, 2005 and
October 25, 2005
2. Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevation Drawings and Section Drawings, received
February 13, 2006
3. Acoustics report prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates, dated February 1,
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, and all comments
and materials received at the public hearing.
TIBURON PL~NNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO_ 2006.07
MARCH 8. 2006
B. The Planning Commission held duiy-noticed public hearings on February 22 and March
8, 2006, and heard and considered testimony from interested persons.
C. The Planning Commission has found that the project is exempt from the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines.
D. The Planning Commission has found, based upon the application materials and analysis
provided in the February 22 and March B, 2006 Staff Reports, that the project, as
conditioned, is consistent with the Tiburon General Plan and is in compliance with the
Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and other applicable regulations. The Town finds that the
proposed modifications to the previously approved expansion would enhance the ability
of the Belvedere Tennis Club to provide an appropriate level of services and recreational
activities to its members, the maJority of whom reside on the Tiburon Peninsula,
consistent with Goal PR-A of the Parks & Recreation Element. The proposed expansion
would also assist the Belvedere Tennis Club in maintaining an appropriate diversity of
land uses in Tiburon, consistent with Policy LU-1 of the Land Use Element.
E. The Planning Commission 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 surrounding area,
with the conditions imposed as set forth below to address noise, light and glare concerns
of neighboring residents.
Section b Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the Town of
Tiburon hereby approves the Conditional Use Permit application (File # 10503), to modify the
previously approved plans to expand the facilities for an existing private recreational facility
(Belvedere Tennis Club) at 700 Tiburon Boulevard, subject to the following conditions:
1. The use shall comply with the plans submitted and on file with the Planning
Division dated February 13, 2006 and the project description on file with the
Planning Division for this project except as modified herein. The approvals
granted herein supersede those granted under Conditional Use Permit NO.1 0401
by Resolution No. 2004-03.
2. The subject permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public
hearing six (6) months after completion of the clubhouse building to evaluate
noise, parking and traffic issues. During this review, the Planning Commission
shall have the authority to modify the restrictions of this permit. The Commission
may, at its discretion, establish an ongoing periodic review schedule for the use.
3. Hours of operation for the Belvedere Tennis Club shall be limited as follows:
a. No later than 9:00 p.m. for the spa;
b. No later than 12:00 a.m. (midnight) for social events.
TlBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO 2006-07
MARCH 8, 2006
2
4. A club staff member shall be present during all social events. The staff member
present shall be equipped with a cellular telephnne with which he/she can be
contacted by neighboring residents to report any noise or other concerns resulting
from the social events.
5. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for project construction, the
project sponsor shall submit a Site Plan and Architectural Review application to
the Town of Tiburon Planning Division and receive written approval from the
Design Review Board. The Design Review Board is directed to carefully evaluate
potential noise and lighting impacts, and impose reasonable conditions of
approval necessary to avoid unreasonable noise, light and glare impacts on
neighboring residential properties. The Board is also directed to evaluate the
possibility of reducing the height of the fitness center roofline by one to two feet
(1'-2').
6. A total of 42 parking spaces shall be provided, as shown on the approved plans
for the project. Valet parking shall be provided for all events for which the on-site
parking capacity will be exceeded.
7. The following improvements shall be installed as described in the Acoustics
Report prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates, dated February 1, 2006:
a. The sound-isolating fence shall be installed as indicated on the plans
submitted on February 13, 2006. This fence shall have a minimum
.. .. ->-'turface weight of three (3) pounds per square foot and shall be built
airtight;
b. An electronic sound-limiting system shall be installed within the
clubhouse. This system shall be specified by Ken Graven, P.E. All
amplified music within the clubhouse shall be connected to this system;
c. Sound-absorbing ceiling treatments similar to the absorptivity of the
current acoustical ceiling tile treatment shall be installed within the
clubhouse;
d. The pool pump equipment enclosure shall be engineered such that the
equipment, when operating, shall not be audible at 9 Palmer Avenue or
any other residence. The equipment enclosure shall have sound-isolating
walls and roof and acoustically-treated air intakes and other ventilation
openings.
8. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Town Building Division
for the proposed addition.
9. The applicant shall meet all requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District,
the Richardson Bay Sanitary District, and all other applicable agencies.
10. The Town reserves the right to amend or revoke this Conditional Use Permit for
cause, in accordance with adopted regulations of the Town.
TIEURON PLANNIi'<G COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-07
MARCH S. 2006
3
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 8,
2006, by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: KUNZWEILER, BIRD AND FRASER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
,,\\I\+liJ
"
"
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: AGUIRRE
,\\"
"
~<:""-,
;/ <,".,,,!' .~.
- '.
""':"':"~:<'~"""
4..,-;" "":-....
RECUSED: COMMISSIONERS: COLLINS
. ~- -
.. ::
:. () -~
.
"
, ,
~}
-:;.,.- 1.' ".44 ~ , ...-
.....~ ....;-te ..~ .,~,\ ~ '-"....
/'/1' '0, .......-1 ''''' \,'
""~ . -I, . C ,'-- \,,,,
1'1 \\\
1!II/illllltll
. -~ =
:: '..1_:
/s/ ,1nnn Klln~WRiler
JOHN KUNZWEILER, CHAIRMAN
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
nBURON PL~NNlNG COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-07
MARCH 8, 2006
4
Dear Tom and Paul:
I have been debriefed by our side on your meeting last Fri. I am pleased that the meeting
occurred and hope that it allowed both you and Tom to get a better idea of CKS position on
certain of the provisions contained in the draft CUP put on the Town's website.
With the above in mind we submit the following comments on our position regarding the sections
of the draft, which follow, all of which, in their present state we oppose.
DRAFT CONDITION 2
We feel most strongly about our opposition to this particular condition as it is presently drafted. In
order to provide some examples of how such a condition would impact those coming to CKS to
worship or study please consider these actual examples. it is the limits proposed on the numbers
of people who are permitted to be on site participating in Jewish religious and educational
activities that strikes at the very heart of our right to practice our religion. I can't imagine a court
upholding a limitation sought to be imposed.... as that unexpected 101 'st person walks through
the door on a given day.
These constitute I trust graphic illustrations of just how much the Town would be meddling in the
internal congregational religious activities and programs at CKS if it adopted Condition 2 as
stated in the version we received on Friday A.M.
1. Scenario on a Tuesdav niQht: Women's spirituality group meets for a special service with
Rabbi Chai Levy: 40-50 women. Board of Directors meeting: 20 + attendees. Beit Binah
(Religious Education) Committee: 15 - 20 participants. Rabbi Derby conducts an adult learning
session on Kabbalah: If more than 10 show up, he's going to have to turn them away???
2. CauQht between a rock and a hard place: Draft CUP permits only 100 persons on the
site anyone night. Also, during one night, religious school and adult education are authorized
until 9 P.M under the current draft. So if our Tichon (Hebrew High school, extremely important
to Congregation in forming the Jewish identity of our teens) attracts more than 100 enrollees. . .
we're going to turn kids away? Or if, as I understand was suggested in the conversation on
Friday, we hold it on two different nights? (A really bad idea says our clients - the teens need to
be TOGETHER to have an effective program) . but our current CUP draft provides we may
only offer the program one night a week.
3. Wednesdav niQht scenario: Tichon (Hebrew High school for teens), current enrollment =
about 85 (approx.): when we have a concurrent adult education program - we have to turn
interested learners away over 15 people??
4. Fridav niQht dilemma: Actually, EVERY Friday night program is Shabbat (Sabbath)
related!! We wouldn't have anything on Fri. night, not sanctioned by, or permissible under our
Sabbath standards or practice. To limit the numbers of persons who may attend is to limit
Shabbat observance on Friday night. . Also. it seems patently unfair and unnecessary to
state "Fri. night Special Services in the sanctuary may be held approx. 30 times per year" .. we
currently have, and have had for many years weekiy Fri. night services, and we suggest the Town
has no legal basis to be dictating when CKS decides to have a "special service" in the sanctuary.
I could go on with other numerous problems with the language but I suggest these drive home the
point.
We do not believe it necessary, or even helpful, for the Town to impose limits and restrictions on
ongoing activities at Kol Shofar for CEOA purposes. Apparently there is a fear that not imposing
such limits would leave the Town vulnerable in a CEOA suit. This fear is unfounded in our
opinion.
The proper procedure for analyzing impacts under CEOA is to compare the impacts of the
proposed project to the environmental baseline. Thus, the proper analysis for the Kol Shofar
project is to analyze the direct and indirect impacts of the multi-purpose room on the existing
environment. The existing environment includes the events and activities that occur at Kol Shofar
on a regular basis. That does not mean, however, that the EIR should have disregarded the
impacts associated with the existing activities in analyzing the impacts of the project. Rather, the
impacts of the proposed project must be considered in the context of the existing environment.
That is exactly what the Kol Shofar EIR did. This can be seen in several areas of the analysis.
For example, when considering whether the potential for visitors to make unsafe u-turns is a
significant impact, the EIR considered the fact that there is already existing traffic in the
neighborhood. Because of the existing traffic, even a few additional turnarounds are considered
a significant impact.
Nothing in CEOA requires the Town to provide some sort of guarantee that the underlying
assumptions of the EIR will remain true. The court in Environmental Council of Sacramento v.
City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.AppAth 1018, 1034-1037 specifically rejected the argument
that baseline assumptions in the EIR must be enforceable. All CEOA requires is that there be
substantial evidence in the record supporting the agency's determination. In this case, the
substantial evidence is that Kol Shofar does not propose or anticipate a substantial increase in
the regular, ongoing events and activities that have been occurring at the site. There is no
evidence in the record to the contrary, except for the neighbor's unsupported statements that a
new MPR will somehow compel Jews from all over Marin and elsewhere to visit the site.
In the event that an unforeseen increase in activity at the site does occur, CEQA provides a
method for dealing with the situation. Renewal of a CUP by the Planning Commission is a
discretionary action, and thus subject to CEOA. Public Resources Code provides that if
"substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being
undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report," then a
supplemental EIR can be prepared. (Pub. Resources Code, 9 21166, subd. (b).)
It is important to note, also, that CEOA does not grant the Town the power to place otherwise
illegal restrictions on the site. As CKS has stated and plans to make clear Wed night. the
proposed limitations contained in draft cond 2 will substantially burden the practice of their
religion. I can not imagine what compelling government purpose would be served by such
limitations, particularly when all of the various conditions imposed on the project will reduce the
impacts from what currently occurs. For example, all the requirements regarding lighting,
parking, circulation and noise will not just reduce impacts from new weekend evening events, but
all events and activities at CKS. And further, even if there was such a compelling interest, limiting
these events and activities is surely not the least restrictive means of accomplishing mitigation.
In an effort to be constructive and offer assistance to the sub-comm. and to protect our
client from what we feel is a direct and substantial burden on the conduct of the reliClious
activities and educational events 10nCl occurrinCl at the CKS facilitv, we propose the
followinCl rewrite of the Condition:
PROPOSED REDRAFT OF CONDo 2:
It is not the intention of the Town to limit, or restrict anv of the core reliaious. and/or educational
activities. events, meetinas lectures. or similar functions that have been conducted at CKS since
the inception of its operation in 1984. The DEIR contains a Iistina of the tvpes of such reliaious
activities that occur presentlv at CKS (TABLE 1 to DEIR). This Iistina is not exhaustive. and
cannot be, as reliaious functions chanae and evolve over time to be responsive to the needs and
desires of the conareaants at CKS. The Town notes that the conduct of such reliaious activities
has not in previous vears operated in such manner so as to cause sianificant neiahbor
complaints, or caused Town action to amend the existina CUP of CKS, to ameliorate claimed
unacceptable impacts to the surroundina neiahborhood. The Town has not previouslv placed
limits on these events and activities. which have historicallv occurred. on the site. The tvpes and
times of these events and activities. and the number attendina these activities, as set forth in
Table 1 of the DEIR. establishes a baseline for this permit. Anv substantial increase in use from
that alreadv established, which creates identifiable adverse neiahborhood impacts shall reouire
an amendment to the CUP, as determined bv the Plannina Commission.
This permit reaulates new member-sponsored weekend evenina events on Fridav throuah
Sundav. New member-sponsored weekend evenino events shall be limited as follows:
Friday events shall be limited to 5 new member-sponsored events. with a maximum attendance
of 100 people. endina bv 9:00 pm.
Saturday events shall be limited to ten (10) new member-sponsored events: five (5) events with a
maximum attendance of 150 people. four (4) events with a maximum attendance of 200 people,
and one (1) event with a maximum of 250 people. All events must end by 10:00 pm.
Sunday events shall be limited to seven (7) new member-sponsored events: four (4) with a
maximum attendance of 100 peoole, two (2) with a maximum attendance of 150 oeoole. and one
(1) with a maximum attendance of 200 oeop/e. All events must end by 8:00 om.
A member-sponsored event is a private. commemorative function associated with a reliaious
observance. such as a weddina, bar mitzvah or baby namina. for which a contract is entered into
between the member and the svnaaoaue.
DRAFT CONDITION 8 E.
This condition should be removed in its entirety in our judgment.
It grants to the CDD legally impermissible and unfettered discretion to decide
when we may need to amend our UP. Moreover if such staff is entitled to do this
why do we need all of the other onerous CUP review provisions set forth in 8 A-
D? If circumstances change in such a way as to suggest some impermissible
increase in intensity of operation of our facility under our UP then we should be
permitted to have notice and an opportunity to defend our position since the UP,
as a matter of law, vests in us protectable property rights not subject to being
summarily interfered with by the unilateral determination of a staff member that
an amendment must be obtained.
Draft Cond 13
This condition is acceptable.... but we suggest modifications set forth
below.
Remove the word "significant" from the first sentence.
Remove the word "practical" from the second sentence.
Delete the last sentence entirely since it has the effect of taking all comfort that
the escape clause purports to provide away in one fell swoop.
DRAFT CONDITION 5 B. (m (d)---located on pa!!e 9.
Delete the last sentence contained in this section. It is draconian and simply unacceptable
that we should be required to cancel a religious event or ceremony because we somehow
forgot to timely obtain written verification of parking availability 5 days prior to the
event.
DRAFT CONDITION 5 C. (Hi) (e) & (t)----located on pa!!e 12
This is a condition that directly impacts the practice of the Congregation's religion.
The actual counting of people or cars is a religiously prohibited activity on the Sabbath and on
Jewish holidays, and cannot be done. These conservative Jews do not write on the Sabbath, let
alone count, or on Jewish holidays either.
Moreover the counting of people attending congregation religious services is particularly offensive
to my clients. You will hear that this condition is rejected for the religious reasons stated ...not to
mention that it is not imposed on any religious or non-religious CUP holder in Tiburon.
Please let me know if I can answer any questions either of you may have concerning the points
made in this communication.
Gary
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be
--
lfnll~ ~=~7
LATE MAIL # If
Mr, Scott Anderson
Director of Community Development
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Io! ~ ~~ nn~ ~\
lrU~c ! 61ll11l~j!
_____._J .
PU\I\!N!['JI; Di\.':S!ON
TD,/\jN OF U(J~'::J[~
February 16,2007
Dear Mr. Anderson,
Crane Transportation Group (CTG) has reviewed items 6, 7 and 12 of our January 18,
2007 letter in relation to changes you note in your letter of February 13,2007 and
accompanying Exhibit A. You asterisk item B ii) ( c ) as the item proposed for change.
We note that the change also pertains to C, (iii) ( e ).
The change appears to pertain to the Town Council's choice to reference a cumulative
attendance level of "90 percent of parking lot capacity" (a 322 person event) rather than
the CTG-recommended 200+ person event (referenced in CTG items 6 and 7), the Town
Council's choice to omit reference to "150+ attendees" (referenced in CTG item 12) in
favor of"90 percent of parking lot capacity" (a 322 person event).
CTG evaluation:
The size of the event to be monitored is of less concern than the fact that random,
unannounced monitoring will take place in order to insure that CKS attendees will park
on-site. By instituting measures that result in on-site parking (i.e., use of the Kol Shofar
parking lot rather than parking on neighboring residential streets), there should be no
reason for CKS attendees to conduct turn-arounds on neighboring residential streets.
Therefore, whether the City chooses to impose the measures listed in item B ii) ( c ) for
events of 200+ attendees or for events of"322 attendees or greater" is not of critical
concern. The important concept is that the City can monitor at any time, for any size
event, and will do so three times per year, at a minimum.
CTG recommends an additional change to item B ii) ( b ) change shown in bold italics:
"No Parking" temporary signs placed on the southeast side ofBlackfield Drive between
Via San Fernando and Karen Way."
,
I
This change is recommended to discourage parking on Blackfield Drive anywhere near
the CKS ReedIand Woods Way access.
Conclusion: The Parking and Traffic Management Provisions under consideration by
Town Council would, in our opinion, reduce Impact 3.3- to a less than significant level
after mitigation. These measures would also be expected to improve existing conditions
in the CKS neighborhood.
We hope this evaluation has been of assistance to you and your staff, Please call if you
require further assistance.
Sincerely,
Mark D. Crane, P,E.
Crane Transportation Group
2/16/07 CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Page 2 of2
Memorandum to Scott Anderson, Town of Tiburon, CA
To the Tiburon Town Council and Staff
Comments from John and Karen Nygren
22 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon 94920
Regarding Congregation Kol Shofar's CUP and Expansion Plan
February 21, 2007
LATE MA\L #~
Since only 3 minutes of time to speak publicly is inadequate to share our concerns about
the Congregation Kol Shofar application, for the record, we submit the following letter.
r;.-::;
The Environmental Impact Report regarding this project remains inadequate sincJH':', I':. ((~ \'c: 1\ VI I';, 11-
does not address the cumulate impacts of the total project including the associated '
remodel and reconfiguration of the existing facility. Upon completion of the entire , ~['r\]'
project, as staff has commented in the staff report for the Feb 21, 2007 meeting,
Congregation Kol Shofar will become the 2nd largest meeting facility in all of Marin
County. CKS, as per page 2 of 5 of the Feb 2151, 2007 staff report is not in a commercial
zone or whose property is not under the jurisdiction of a school district. In fact, CKS is
nestled within a very quiet residential neighborhood which is zoned residential. A facility
which will accommodate over 1,500 attendees with an inadequate number of 156 on-site
parking spaces cannot be found to be compatible or in harmony (as a whole) with the
surrounding neighborhood and does not comply with a multitude of Tiburon General
Plan and Zoning Codes which we have previously pointed out in letters to the Town
related to this permit application. A facility of this magnitude will not only be a burden to
the neighborhood and its residents but also create hazardous and unsafe impacts which
have not been adequately mitigated by the Town's proposed mitigations.
The size of the facility must be reduced to meet the capacity of its on-site parking as per
the Town of Tiburon's Parking and Loading Zoning Codes to truly mitigate the impacts of
this proposed project. The CUP and Town Council continues to avoid the point that the
capacity of the building (1,500 people) is such that it will accommodate future growth.
This analysis in the EIR has been overlooked by the Town even after repeated requests
to take this into consideration and study by the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition and
public.
We also wish to register a protest of the process the Town Council has taken in regard
to reviewing and potentially approving this application.
The Resolution for Denying CKS Appeal Regarding the Certification of the EIR
fails to state the cut off date of February 2, 2007 as the deadline for letters to be
received by the town for consideration by the Town Council and staff for the Feb yth and
continued Feb 2151 meeting for this application. Yet, from Feb 2nd through Feb yth and
the continued Feb 2151 meeting the town has continued to receive letters and respond to
letters from CKS by making 3, 4 and more revisions to the staff report, CUP, mitigations
and resolution presented at the Feb y'h and now the Feb 2151 meeting. What was
amazing was the staff emailed to a select group of people a new Resolution 6, new
Exhibit 6 and new Exhibit A only one day prior to the Feb 2151 meeting. This continues to
give the public absolutely inadequate time to respond to its ever changing CUP,
mitigations, findings and resolutions.
The public meeting of Feb 71h was continued until Feb 2151 since public testimony had not
been completed due to the 11 PM late night hour of the meeting. Yet, prior to
completion of public testimony and prior to public deliberation by the Town Council
regarding this application, the staff and Town Council again made significant changes to
the resolutions, CUP, mitigations and findings to be considered at their Feb 21s1 meeting.
In addition, as per the staff report, even though the documents slated for adoption have
1
been significantly changed, only those members of the public who had not spoken at the
meeting of Feb yth would be allowed to comment at the Feb 21st meeting. Thus, the
Town Council, by the stated guidelines for the Feb 21st staff report, has not allowed the
public to speak out and comment about the ever changing and latest revised versions of
the CUP application and expansion plan. The Town has repeatedly violated its own
directions to the public when they stated, they would not consider any written comments
submitted to the town after Feb 20d deadline and continues to make changes as directed
by CKS.
We object to the Certification of the EIR as adequate and based on evidence of the
November 15th meeting. The non professional judgment of the Town Council and staff
does not represented educated decision making to state that all impacts have been
mitigated to a level of insignificance as required by CEQA. New findings and mitigations
included in the latest version of the Feb 21st resolutions and mitigations for adoption
have significant and conflicting impacts. They must have professional analysis and be
subject to public review. The findings conflict with information included by professionals
in the EIR.
The Resolution of Findings in attached Exhibit 7, Map of Exhibit A, and Mitigation
Monitoring Plan of Exhibit B have inaccuracies, inconsistencies and are inadequate to
certify the project impacts as mitigated to a level of insignificance. Many significant
negative impacts remain. The project is NOT in compliance with the Town's General
Plan and Parking Zoning Code or properly related to the development of the quiet
residential neighborhood as a whole. The excessive size, capacity and scale of the total
proposed facility is not one which should be permitted in a residential neighborhood.
Many of the proposed mitigation measures and conditions of approval by the Town
Council are unreasonable and unfounded to insure the health, safety and welfare of
Tiburon's residents from the synagogue's expansion and remodel plan. The proposal
tips the balance of what has been a previous reasonable size and use of the facility to
one that is an unsafe burden on the neighborhood and Town. This conclusion is based
solely on considering the Town's General Plan and Zoning Code regulations.
Some comments regarding the Conditions of Approval follow:
. 1 (A) The impacts from the mitigation for construction of the service building were
never studied. This was a mitigation that was proposed by a Town Council
member at the November 15, 2006 hearing and incorporated into the CUP as a
mitigation measure by staff without any public comment or professional review.
The purpose of the mitigation, as stated on the record at the November 15'h
meeting, was to mitigate the late night noise from large partieslevents on
Saturday nights so as to allow them to continue until 1 0 PM. The service building
for caterers and their trucks rather then mitigating late night noise creates new
impacts as well as is conflicted by another new mitigation measure that was not
studied in the EIR or professionals. This new mitigation measure requires
shuttles to continue for at least one hour after a large event. The impacts of
noise, safety, entrance and exit from the new service building by large vehicles is
not studied and unknown. The driveway, due to its configuration and location on
Via Los Altos was found by EIR traffic engineer to be unsafe and the mitigation
proposed was to reduce the impact by allowing only staff, handicap and event
employees to use this driveway, NOT service trucks and large vehicles. At the
time of the traffic engineer's study, a service garage was never part of the
proposal. The facility and this driveway were never studied for the use by large
vehicles and catering trucks. The impacts from large trucks at this location
remain a significant impact. Until there is professional study and analysis, it
remains a new significant impact. In addition, there is no guarantee that all
2
parties/events/activities will be catered and use the service garage. Thus, a
service garage would only mitigate impacts from late night party noise if a
catering service is used. In addition, the noise from people departing from a
large event finishing at 10 PM will continue beyond 11 PM, over one hour after
the event is completed, due to the mitigation measure to require the one hour
shuttle schedule following a party. Thus the service garage and shuttle service
do not mitigate the noise impacts and it remains significant and unmitigated and
is contrary to the Town Councils CUP, resolutions, mitigations and findings.
. 1 (B) A 15% reduction of the Multipurpose Building is an inaccurate statement of
reduction. The multipurpose building was reconfigured when the 800 sq ft
service garage, loading and storage facility was added onto the new
multipurpose room after the reduction of the same building by 15%. Thus, it is
inaccurate to state that the size of the facility has been reduced by 15% to
mitigate the mass of the building. The impacts of this service garage and loading
area were never included in the project at the time of the EIR review as required
by CEQA. The impacts of the size, scale and mass of the building remain
exceedingly large, inadequately studied or have had no public or professional
review.
. 1 (D) There has been no study or information in the EIR to insure that 156
parking spaces will safely fit on site without any significant environmental
impacts. The parking lot design has been deferred until a future time. It is to be
debated at the Design Review stage of the planning process. Unfortunately, the
DRB will not have any information regarding the design and its impacts to
analyze the 156 parking lot since there has been no study of any parking lot of
any size in the EIR. The noise, light, traffic and safety issues associated with a
156 parking lot are unknown. The original EIR studied the traffic impacts from
139 cars entering and exiting the lot, but never the impacts from noise, light,
glare and safety within the parking lots and its circulation. It is only logical to
conclude that increasing the size of the parking lot from 139 cars to 156 cars will
increase the significant impacts. Thus the impacts are both unknown, have not
been studied in any EIR analysis and remain unmitigated.
. 1 (D) The EIR required, as a mitigation to reduce the safety impacts of the rear
upper driveway on Via Los Altos to a level of insignificance, that only staff,
handicap and service employees would be allowed to use this particular
driveway. The current resolution is based on arbitrary information. It allows
catering trucks of unknown size and with back up beeping sounds to enter and
exit from this driveway to use a new service and loading garage. These people
will be unfamiliar with the hazardous conditions of this driveway. Thus, this is
contradictory to the EIR's recommended mitigation and the impacts of the new
service garage remain unstudied and unknown. Thus, the Town's condition for
approval does not mitigate the noise and safety impacts to a level of
insignificance with the new service, loading and storage garage.
. 4 B (ii) This mitigation to require doors to be closed during large "events" of 100
is an inadequate mitigation. It is not only the number of people that create noise
at an event/activity, it is the type of activitylevent that is taking place inside a
room that makes a difference as to the type of noise emitted from the MPR. One
could have only 50 screaming children running around a room, playing a game,
when the doors are left open. The noise traveling outside would be significant.
Thus, merely by connecting the mitigation for noise to the number of people
inside of the room, rather then also the type of activitylevent is not an adequate
3
4
. 5 B (e) Shuttle service for large weekend events which end at 10 PM and
continue until at least one hour after the end of an event (until 11 PM) will create
. 5B (d) Off-site parking locations as mitigated in this, Feb 21" CUP is in violation
of Tiburon's Parking and Loading Zoning Code. In addition, the CUP requires
reverification of CKS off-site parking locations to be verified bv CKS. This is like
requiring the "fox to guard the hen house." This is an inadequate mitigation
measure and not one that is in compliance with the Town's Parking and Loading
Zoning Code. In addition, the CUP does not indicate where the off-site parking
will be located. This information is required in the Town's Parking and Zoning
Codes. Thus, the off-site parking mitigation for large events is a requirement by
the Town without knowing the location of this parking and the impacts related to
the off-site parking location/s.
. 5 B (d) The number of 2.3 attendees per vehicle has been arbitrarily established
and does not comply with Tiburon's Parking Zoning Code requirements. The 156
on-site parking spaces for a facility accommodating 1,500 people remain grossly
inadequate. Please refer to many previous letters written to the Town by TNC
members, such as Tim Metz.
. 5 B (b) Traffic management mitigations continue to ignore the impacts from
parking, safety, U-turns in adjacent neighborhoods to CKS, such as the Bel Aire
neighborhood. The EIR and Town Council continue to avoid study and seriously
addressing the impacts and developing reasonable mitigations for these other
adjacent neighborhoods. The CUP focuses its mitigations on the Reedland
Woods Way residents and Via Los Altos bordering the facility. The impacts from
the expanded facility, particularly relating to parking, traffic, noise and safety
have been overlooked and not studied in the EIR or mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
. 5 A (Ii) Please refer to my previous comments regarding the 156 on-site parking
spaces.
. 4 (D) The Annex Building includes no specified time or hours of use. This is
unknown. Without this information, the impacts from noise and light from this
building remain unknown, unstudied in the EIR and unmitigated and potentially a
significant impact.
. 4B (v) The CUP "presumes" that partieslevents will all be catered. CKS will be
constructing a new and very large commercial kitchen, which will allow for
preparation within the facility for parties/events by means other then caterers.
The noise, traffic', safety, light, glare impacts from an event that is not catered
have not been addressed or studied in the EIR. There is no study to know if
large trucks or vans are able to safely "back up" into or out of the loading and
service area. There is no information to verify if there is adequate turn radius for
large vehicles and what would be the maximum sized vehicle allowed safely
entering and exiting this location. The driveway entrance onto Via Los Altos has
a "hump". It is unknown if a truck or the size of a truck which can safely use this
driveway. Thus the service garage as recommended as a Condition of Approval
as mitigation remains significant. It does not mitigate late night noise, traffic and
safety impacts with this CUP proposal.
mitigation measure. The noise impact has not been fully mitigated to a level of
insignificance by this mitigation.
5
John and Karen Nygren
Thank you for carefully considering our comments and concerns.
. Mitigations 3.3 A.1 - 4 have been deleted since the Town states they have
been found to be less than significant. In the FEIR, there is a letter on page
71 from Caltrans dated August 12, 2005. This letter states that the left turn
storage lane should be extended by 150 feet. It says that "However,
Appendix D - Mitigation Measure VII-Impact #1 indicates that the lane should
be extended by 125 feet. This discrepancy should be reconciled. Please be
advised that, for an additional 6 cars queuing in the left turn storage lane,
extending the length by 150 or more is necessary." CKS has hired their own
engineers to state reasons why they believe this storage lane is not needed.
There has never been any letter from Caltrans agreeing that this mitigation
measure which Caltrans has required is not needed. Thus, this impact
remains significant and is not mitigated and must be included in the final
Mitigation Monitoring Plan and CUP requirement. The Town does not have
jurisdiction over Caltrans right-of-way and cannot override a Caltrans
mitigation measure without the approval of Caltrans. There is no letter on the
record that states otherwise.
In regards to the Mitigation Monitoring Program:
. 9 (A) The Neighborhood Advisory Committee, required in the CUP, is used as a
means for the Town to enforce the conditions of the Town's CUP. Since this is a
mitigation measure imposed on the neighborhood, the Town should be required
to staff and pay for the noticing of the meetings as well as be responsible for
taking the minutes of the meeting and reporting back to the Town. This should
be the responsibility of the town and not an imposition on the neighborhood to
make sure that the CUP regulations are complied with. The Town should be
responsible for resolving the issues of conflict and compliance of the CUP which
has been issued by the Town. It is not the job of the CKS and neighbors to
resolve the issues and conflicts created by the Town's CUP. Particularly since
this CUP resolution has been adamantly opposed by the neighborhood. The
Neighborhood Committee is not a "mitigation measure". It is merely a means by
which the Town shirks its duty. If there is to be a Neighborhood Committee, its
meetings must be staffed by the Town and paid for by CKS.
. 5 B (ii) (a & b) High Holy Day traffic, safety, noise, parking and other impacts
from over 1,500 attendees using the facility at one time has never been studied
in the EIR. The hazardous conditions of allowing this number of attendees to use
the facility in this residential neighborhood with narrow cui du sac streets and
young children remain unknown and unstudied. Thus, this remains a Ylm1
serious and significant unmitigated negative impact that has not been mitigated
by the conditions of this CUP.
significant noise, light, and glare on the surrounding residential neighborhood
with many young children. Thus, late night noise spikes from people gathering
outside the synagogue and waiting for possibly over an hour to take a shuttle
back to their cars is an inadequate mitigation. Thus, the noise impact from late
night events remains significant and unmitigated.