HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2006-10-24 (2)
CONGREGATION KOL SHOFAR APPEAL
OCTOBER 24, 2006
BINDER #2
CONTENTS
EXHIBITS
v. Planning Commission Staff report dated April 24, 2006 (w/attachments, late mail)
W. Planning Commission Staff report dated May 10, 2006 (w/attachments, late mail)
X. Planning Commission Staff report dated M?y 31, 2006 (w/attachments, late mail)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Story Pole Plan and Elevations received 9/5/2006 (2 sheets)
2. Drawings (11" X 17" reduced)
ATTACHMENT #3, Drawings (full-size), is separate.
~
EXHIBIT
V
123
Coaching Sheet
Dramatized the PAIN
Message Building Blocks
o Grabber
o CLAIMS/Repeated -7Takeaways Dyes Dna
Claim #1:
Claim #2:
Claim #3:
o Big Picture
o Objection handling
o Closing
Repeat CLAIMS
What do you think? Wait
Where do we go from here? Wait
Major Strengths
Selling 10 the Old BrainT" Coaching Sheet - Version 10.2
Coach:
o CLAIMED as unique: only, best, first, most...
Message Boosters
o Presenter 1:
Chi
Body 0 Best friend 0 Gestures 0 Posture 0 Use of space
o Facial expression 0 Eye Communication
Voice 0 Best friend 0 Pace
o Pitch
o Variations
Words 0 Best friend 0 No Jargon 0 No fillers 0 Pauses
o Wording with 'You'
o Presenter 2: Chi
Body 0 Best friend 0 Gestures 0 Posture 0 Use of space
o Facial expression 0 Eye Communication
Voice 0 Best friend 0 Pace
o Pitch
o Variations
Words 0 Best friend 0 No Jargon 0 No fillers 0 Pauses
o Wording with 'You'
o Contrast
DEmotions
o Varying Learning Styles
o Stories
o Less is more
Area of improvement
It. 2004 SalesBrain
Town of Tiburon
AGENDA ITEM A
~-,
~
STAFF REPORT
...... ......... ........ .... ... .............. .... ...
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LISA NEWMAN, PLANNING CONSULTANT
FILE #10404: REVIEW OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(FEIR) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED
EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING RELIGIOUS FACILITY AND DAY SCHOOL
(CONGREGATION KOL SHOFAR); 215 BLACKFIELD DRIVE;
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 038-351-34
MEETING DATE: April 24, 2006
REVIEWED BY: SA
..... .......... ..... ................... ....
BACKGROUND
The applicant has submitted a conditional use permit application for the expansion of an existing
religious facility (Congregation Kol Shofar) and day school. The subject property is a 6.94-acre
site located at 215 Slackfield Drive, and borders Blackfield Drive, Via Los Altos and Reedland
Woods Way. The site is surrounded by single-family residential neighborhoods.
On August 24, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing at which it directed that a
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) be prepared for the Kol Shofar expansion project.
A FEIR has been prepared for this project by the firm of Leonard Charles and Associates to
respond to public comments made on the draft environmental impact report (DEIR). The FEIR
was released on February 24, 2006. Commissioners received copies at that time.
The DEIR provides a detailed description of the expansion project on pages 5-14. The project
drawings are provided (to Commissioners only) as Attachment A to this report. For summary
purposes, the following brief description is provided:
The project proposes a new 9,733-square foot multi-purpose room consisting of a
meeting space, lobby, kitchen, rest rooms and storage space'to be added to the south
side of the existing circular building; a 3,662 square foot addition comprised of four new
classrooms and a service room; renovation of the existing Kol Shofar building without
adding additional space; a new 40-car upper parking lot and turnaround/drop off area to
the front entry; as well as new lighting, landscaping and other improvements.
A brief chronology of the processing of this application is as follows:
9/2004:
CUP Application is filed for new multi-purpose room, classrooms, remodeling and
programs.
Application is deemed complete.
Planning Commission Scoping Session for an EIR is held.
Draft EIR is released and circulated for public comment.
Planning Commission hearing on Draft EIR. \ /
EXHIBIT NO.~
10/2004
12/2004
6/2005
8/2005
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
8/2005
2/2006
3/2006
4/2006
Planning Commission hearing to recommend preparation of Final EIR.
Final EIR is released.
Applicant submits new alternative for analysis (Alternative 7).
Planning Commission hearing on FEI R and project merits.
ANAL YSIS
Purposes of the PlanninQ Commission HearinQ
The purposes of this public hearing are for the Planning Commission to: 1) hold a public hearing
on the project application; 2) consider certification of the Final EIR (FEIR); and 3) if appropriate,
take action on the project application for a conditional use permit (CUP).
Summary of Kev FEIR FindinQs
Significant Unavoidable Impacts
The key findings of the Draft EIR (DEIR) were summarized in the August 10, 2005 Staff report
for this project which is included as Exhibit 7 to this report. The DEIR identified two significant
unavoidable ("SU") impacts of the project as proposed that could not be eliminated or reduced
to atess-than-significant level through mitigation measures identified in the DEIR: 1) that the
project would increase noise levels in the area surrounding the project site by 2-7 decibels; and
2) that the project would frequently create a demand for more parking spaces than can be met
by on-site parking lots during certain events, which would result in drivers who park on local
streets making unsafe turnarounds in residential neighborhoods when arriving or leaving these
events.
After preparation of additional noise and traffic analyses as part of the FEIR, the previous
conclusion of the Draft EIR for noise remains unchanged, Le., that there would be a significant
unavoidable ("SU") noise impact caused by the increased weekend nighttime events upon at
least five-to-eight residences on Reedland Woods Way nearest the site, one residence on Vista
Tiburon Drive, and 11 residences on Slackfield Drive and Corte San Fernando. The FEIR
introduces a new traffic safety mitigation measure (Mitigation 3.3-C.3) that would reduce the
potential significant unavoidable impact of cars making unsafe turnarounds in private driveways
to a less than significant level.
Project Alternatives
The DEIR analyzed five alternatives to the project, including the "No Project" alternative. Of
these, the DEIR concluded that Alternative 5 "Restricted Use" (which would limit proposed
Saturday and Sunday events lasting until 9 PM to every-other weekend and limit maximum
attendance at any event, except the High Holy Days, to 275 people) would reduce the
significant unavoidable nighttime noise impact upon local neighbors to a less than significant
level. If the new traffic safety mitigation measure (parking receipt program or equivalent
measure) were included as part of this alternative, then the driveway turnaround-related
significant unavoidable impact would also be reduced to a less than significant level. The DEI R
.\~tat~.s that Alternative 5, as compared with the other alternatives, is the only one that reduces
'}
April 24, 2006
page 2 of 14
~
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
...................................................
impacts to a less than significant level and also meets most of the project sponsor's objectives,
although limiting the hours for new weekend nighttime events to 9 PM would somewhat restrict
use of the multi-purpose room for weddings and b'nai mitzvah celebrations. However, the
applicant contends (in a letter found at pp. 158-160 of the FEIR) that Alternative 5 is infeasible
for a number of reasons. The FEIR response to this comment disagreed with that contention.
The FEIR evaluates Alternative 6 "Reduced Events", at the applicant's request. This variation on
Alternative 5 "Restricted Use" would allow 27 Saturday events lasting until 11 :30 PM and 20
Sunday events lasting until 1 0 PM with a maximum attendance of 275 people. The FEIR
concludes that although this alternative would reduce the nighttime noise impact by limiting the
number of events, it would not achieve a less than significant level. This noise impact would
remain significant and unavoidable.
FEIR Alternative 7 Analvsis
Subsequent to release of the FEIR, the applicant submitted proposals (Exhibit 1) to modify the
parking lot access and to further reduce new activities proposed with the Kol Shofar expansion
project. In addition, further analyses of traffic and noise impacts identified in the FEIR were
provided by the applicant. Town staff also requested a review of a recommended mitigation
change. Leonard Charles Associates, the Town's environmental consultant, prepared a Final
EIR Alternative 7 Analysis that responds to these matters and is included as Exhibit 2 to this
report. An FEIR errata sheet is attached as Exhibit 3.
The applicant's submittal consists of the following concepts and reports:
1) Reduced Events: a reduction in newly proposed project activities below the level
outlined in the applicant's earlier reduced activities proposal that was analyzed in the
FEIR as Alternative 6.
2) Traffic: an evaluation of the EIR traffic analysis for the Tiburon Boulevard turn lane
impacts/mitigation measures, prepared by Robert L. Harrison. The report concludes
that the project would not exceed weekend pm peak hour turn lane capacity for a
300-person event;
3) Noise: an evaluation of the EIR noise impact analysis, prepared by Charles M.
Salter. The report concludes that the EIR analysis methodology is inconsistent with
the Town's practice of analyzing noise impacts based upon an annualized Ldn as the
gauge of overall changes in the noise environment and therefore, the finding of a
significant unavoidable nighttime noise impact cannot be supported by the data.
4) Access: the parking lot entrance at Reedland Woods Way has been eliminated. The
driveway at Reedland Woods Way would remain an exit only from the parking lot, as
it currently functions.
The applicant has proposed Alternative 7: Reduced Events as an acceptable (to the applicant)
alternative to the originally-proposed project.
April 24, 2006
paQe 3 of 14
STAFF REPO.RT
Town of Tiburon
Reduced Events
The FEI R Alternative 7 Analysis evaluates Kol Shofar's request to further reduce proposed new
weekend events as Alternative 7. This new alternative reduces the level and amount of new
nighttime events from the level proposed in Alternative 6. Alternative 7 includes a total of 12
new Saturday night events with a range of 150-250 attendees lasting until 11 p.m. and a total of
15 new Sunday events with a range of 100 -250 attendees that would last until 9 p.m. The
principal objective of Alternative 7 is to reduce the level and amount of new nighttime noise
caused by people arriving at and leaving the site to attend these events. In summary, the FEIR
Alternative 7 Analysis concludes that by reducing the number of new events and the maximum
number of people that would attend the new events, Alternative 7 reduces noise, parking and
traffic impacts to a less than significant level.
The FEIR Alternative 7 Analysis includes an updated version of the DEIR Table 13 that provides
a ranked comparison of the proposed project and the seven alternatives discussed. Of the
seven alternatives ranked, only three (Alternatives 5, 6 and 7) meet most or all of the applicant's
basic objectives. Of these three, only Alternatives 5 and 7 would reduce environmental impacts
to a less than significant level and these two Alternatives have nearly equivalent scores: 114
and 116, respectively.
Traffic
The FEIR discusses the need to extend the queue length of Tiburon Boulevard's eastbound turn
lane at Blackfield Drive on pages 28-30. Traffic counts taken at the October 25, 2005 Kol Shofar
event support the conclusion of the DEIR that there would be inadequate queue capacity for a
peak hour weekend event with 300 people attending, based upon the CalTrans design criteria
and the earlier Harrison traffic study. Even with a reduction in attendees to 275, the FEIR
concludes that additional queue length could be required. The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.3-
AA provides an alternative approach, which is to adjust the signal length and/or signal phasing
to allow sufficient time for left turns to clear the intersection during the one-hour weekend peak
period from 6:30 pm to 7:40 pm. Either option would require further traffic analysis and final
approval by CalTrans. Essentially, this mitigation measure is beyond the Town's authority to
implement, as that section of Tiburon Boulevard is a State highway, located in unincorporated
Marin County. Responsibility for determining and approving the final mitigation for this
intersection lies with CalTrans.
The FEIR Alternative 7 Analysis responds to Robert L. Harrison's April 17, 2006 memorandum,
which analyzes peak hour traffic impacts at the Tiburon Boulevard/Blackfield Drive intersection
using TRAFFIX software. This analysis concludes the existing eastbound turn lane has
adequate capacity to serve project-generated traffic. The EIR consultants, who used a different
software program in their EtR traffic analysis, HCS Software, reviewed this Memorandum and
conclude that the two software programs produce different results. Their finding, that the lane
capacity would not be sufficient for the peak hour condition, remains unchanged. The FEIR
Alternative 7 Analysis concludes that both sets of data should be supplied to CalTrans for their
review. CalTrans would then determine the feasibility and need for left-turn lane lengthening
and/or changing signal phasing which are identified as mitigation measures in the FEI R.
Alternatively, the FEIR Alternative 7 Analysis suggests the Town could coordinate with CalTrans
to monitor the impact of new project weekend peak traffic at this intersection in order to
determine the actual traffic impact.
April 24, 2006
page 4 of 14
..--..."
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
.......... ...... ......... ..... ....... ........... ... ... .......
Noise
As stated above, the ErR noise consultants reviewed the applicant's proposed Alternative 7 and
concluded that by reducing the number of new events and the maximum number of people that
would attend the new events, Alternative 7 reduces noise, parking and traffic impacts to a less
than significant level. In addition, the FEIR Alternative 7 Analysis responds to a critique of the
noise impact analysis presented by the applicant's noise consultant, Charles M. Salter
Associates, Inc. The EIR noise consultant, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., responds and provides
support for the conclusions in the FEIR about project noise impacts.
Access
The applicant has submitted a revised parking lot access plan that eliminates access from
Reedland Woods Way and continues the existing access point from Via Los Altos. The FEIR
Alternative 7 Analysis analyzes whether this change would cause circulation or traffic impacts
and concludes that this proposal would operate safely and without impacts. Staff views this as a
major improvement to the project that would eliminate a neighborhood concern about traffic
safety.
Modification to Parkina Receipt Mitiaation
In order to reduce the significant unavoidable traffic safety hazard from Kol Shofar attendees'
cars parked on neighborhood streets making unsafe turnarounds in private driveways, FEIf~
Mitigation 3.3-C.3 would require people attending newly proposed events on weekend
afternoons/evenings and Monday through Thursday "special events" to produce a receipt that
they have parked on-site or in an approved off-site parking lot. Kol Shofar staff would be
required to provide such receipts at these locations and collect them from attendees at the
entrance to the facility, subject to unannounced monitoring by the Town.
In staff's opinion, the parking receipt mitigation measure (Mitigation 3.3-C.3) would be difficult
for the applicant to implement successfully, and would present a complex monitoring challenge
for the Town, in order to determine that receipts are being properly handed out in various
locations (the project site as well as remote parking lots) and also collected from each attendee
at the door. Staff believes that this monitoring burden could outweigh the benefit of the
mitigation's intended purpose. Staff suggested to the EIR consultant that it would be preferable
to find a simpler solution to the problem of cars parking in the immediate neighborhood and
occasionally turning around in private driveways, thereby causing a traffic safety hazard.
Staff suggested to the EIR consultant that equivalent mitigation measures could be found, such
as expanding the existing Kol Shofar practice of placing "resident parking only" and IIno parking
signs" on select portions of adjacent streets during the High Holy Days, in concert with other
measures included within the existing CUP "High Holy Days Traffic Control Measures".
The FEI R Alternative 7 Analysis evaluates staff's suggestion and concludes that for the project
proposal, equivalent mitigation measures such as signage placed along Kol Shofar's frontages
on Via Los Altos, Slackfield Drive and Via Los Altos combined with other measures included in
the existing CUP (e.g., to notify Kol Shofar members about parking restrictions) would be
acceptable in lieu of the parking receipt mitigation measure. With regard to Alternative 7, the
FEI R Alternative 7 Analysis notes that the site will contain sufficient on-site parking for proposed
April 24, 2006
page 5 of 14
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
.
1
. Of TiS,. .
:-.; ~/".---.",v.p ~
.3:.~~f
\~~~!
r;\~~~J
(',;..,,-...-.: ~
,('O.~
.~ ~fVIA.~C..
,
.
~.
new events since attendance would be limited to 250 people only 7 times per year. The Town
could monitor the effectiveness of this mitigation over time. If this mitigation proves to be
ineffective in limiting traffic safety hazards, then the Town would substitute a more stringent
measure, similar to the parking receipt mitigation measure, as part of the annual review of the
CUP.
To further support the mitigation effort to reduce traffic safety hazards on adjacent streets, staff
recommends the Planning Commission consider adopting a modified mitigation measure
requiring that the onsite parking lot capacity be increased. Presently, the FEIR includes a
mitigation measure (Mitigation 3.3-8.4) to add seven parking spaces to the primary parking lot
by excavating the toe of the slope along a portion of the north side and constructing a low
retaining wall. Staff believes that additional parking spaces could be provided based upon a
more careful study of parking layout. Mitigation 3.3-8.4 could be reworded to require that on site
parking be increased as much as possible in addition to the seven newly required parking
spaces and that the layout and circulation pattern of the primary parking lot be optimized.
Problematic Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Noise Impact
The FEIR finding of a SU noise impact means that the Planning Commission has three options:
1) if the project is to be approved as proposed, a Statement of Overriding Considerations with
regard to this SU noise impact must be adopted as part of the CEQA findings and all
alternatives set forth in the EIR that could reduce impacts would need to be rejected; or 2) the
Planning Commission can approve modifications to the project - a project alternative or
combination of alternatives - that reduces the SU noise impact to a less than significant level
while at the same time keeping all other impacts at less than significant levels; or 3) the
Commission could choose to disagree with the SU conclusion of the EI R but would need to rely
on evidence in the record to support such a position (essentially agree with the Charles Salter &
Associates position rather than the EIR noise consultant's opinion and analysis).
The rationale behind the finding that Alternative 5: Restricted Use would have a less than
significant noise impact has to do both with the restrictions on lateness and frequency of newly
proposed nighttime events. All functions would end by 9 PM, except existing Friday night
services that end at 10 PM, and Saturday and Sunday events lasting past 5 PM would be
allowed at a maximum rate of every other weekend. Finally, all newly proposed events would be
limited to 275 people. 8y ending newly proposed events at 9 PM, neighbors can expect that
conditions would be quiet by 9:30 or 10 PM and having every other weekend free of nighttime
events would create a clear pattern for Kol Shofar's new activities, allowing neighbors quiet
weekends every-other week and the opportunity to plan any large social event accordingly.
Similarly, the FEIR Alternative 7 Analysis finds that the restrictions it would place on the number
of new nighttime events (12 Saturday events and 15 Sunday events during the course of a year)
and the reduced number of attendees (a maximum of 250 people at 7 events and less on all
others) would result in a less than significant noise impact.
Tiburon has approved CUPs in recent years for religious/social institutions located within or
adjacent to residential neighborhoods that place limitations on evening events. Three recent
April 24, 2006
page 6 of 14
STAFF REPORT
.
1
." ~.9-l-l-J-lt.v~ ....
.- !1i~~L.
t'\% ?~/~
~>~; ~~'O
A'6.~'\
.' ~1VnCiN(.. '.
T
.
Town of Tiburon
examples include: St. Hilary's new gymnasium, the Tiburon Peninsula Club renovation, and the
Belvedere Tennis Club reconstruction. Event restrictions were tailored to each situation. At St.
Hilary's Church, the CUP limits CYO use of the gymnasium from 6:30-7:30pm on alternating
weeknights and 3 PM on Saturdays with no uses permitted on Sundays. The Tiburon Peninsula
Club CUP limits indoor social events to 9 PM on any day. Outdoor social events are limited to 8
PM on any day and amplified music can only be used between 8 AM and 6 PM on weekdays
and 9 AM and 8 PM on weekends. The Belvedere Tennis Club CUP limits use of the spa to 9
PM and social events to 12 midnight. Staff emphasizes that each of these sites and settings as
well as operations are different, and attempting to make direct comparisons of impact is difficult.
Unquestionably, the number of new traffic trips that would be generated by the proposed Kol
Shofar expansion is much larger than the other projects.
Recommended EIR Alternative
If the Planning Commission finds the scale of proposed project additions and new events
appropriate, then of the two project alternatives (Alternatives 5 and 7) analyzed in the EIR that
meet most project objectives while achieving a mitigated project from a CEOA standpoint, Staff
believes that Alternative 7 is preferable. Staff's opinion is that the fewer in number and smaller
in size of the new events, so will the impacts be correspondingly smaller. It is likely that several
of the 27 new weekend evening events allowed under Alternative 7 would occur when
neighbors are indoors and parking lot noise would not be noticeable. If the Planning
Commission concludes that the proposed scale of improvements or number of events needs to
be reduced, then project options within the range of alternatives considered in the EIR should
be considered and the draft resolutions adjusted accordingly.
MitiQation MonitorinQ and ReportinQ ProQram
The MMRP table sets out the complete list of mitigation measures identified in the Draft and
Final EIR and provides the timeframe for implementation of each measure and the party
responsible for implementation. Some modification to this document will likely be necessary
depending on specific Commission decisions on various aspects of the project, such as traffic
and parking mitigations.
The FEIR Alternative 7 Analysis updates the MMRP to include revi~ions to mitigation measures
discussed above. CalTrans has submitted a letter requesting minor changes to the MMRP for
mitigation measures 3.3-A.1 and 2 and requested the Town include a requirement to have an
agreement in place with the project applicant responsible for sharing the cost of the additional
75 feet of the 150-foot lane extension for the cumulative condition.
CEOA FindinQs
Section 15091 of the CEOA Guidelines states that, "No public agency shall approve or carry out
a project for which and EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant
environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written
findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale
for each finding". The possible findings are:
April 24, 2006
page 7 of 14
Town of Tiburon
...
.
1
.:\' ~~(;.f>~.
~!~~Ii~ -, ~~~
.1~ ~i.
\~a~/
(\,~ ~~/
~;~; ~
Jt'o~.-<'
.~ ~tvlA.\f.lC.'
,
.
....
STAFF REPORT
1) Changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant adverse impact identified in the FEI R;
2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding;
3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEI R.
A draft Resolution providing the CEQA findings has been prepared and is attached as Exhibit
5. As discussed above, the FEIR finds that the proposed project would result in a SU noise
impact. Thus, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, item 3) above, would need to be
adopted with the CEQA findings prior to approval of the project. Commission approval of
Alternative 5: Restricted Use, or of Alternative 7: Reduced Events, would avoid the need to
adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations as all impacts would be reduced to less than
significant levels; i.e., a mitigated project would be achieved according to the FEIR.
General Plan Consistency
The FEIR provides an analysis of project consistency with General Plan policies. The project is
found to be generally consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element, Open Space
Element, Circulation Element, and Safety Element Goals and Policies. However, the FEI R
concludes that the project would be inconsistent with two Noise Element Goals: N-B, to
eliminate or reduce unnecessary, excessive and offensive noises from all sources; and N-C, to
minimize the exposure of community residents to noise through the careful placement of land
uses that may cause noise impacts. This conclusion is based upon the significant unavoidable
nighttime noise impact upon nearby residences associated with the project's proposed events
that would last until 1 0 or 11 :30pm. As discussed above, DEIR Alternative 5 Restricted Use
would limit weekend nighttime events to 9:00 pm and events would be much less frequent than
proposed by the project. The FEIR concludes that Alternative 5 would not have a significant
noise impact and would be consistent with General Plan Noise Element Goals N-B and N-C.
Alternative 7: Reduced Events, analyzed in the FEIR Alternative 7 Analysis, would also reduce
the significant unavoidable nighttime noise impact to a less than significant level and would be
consistent with the General Plan Noise Element Goals N-B and N-~.
Zonina Consistency
The Residential Open Zone (RO-1) District permits churches and parochial elementary or
secondary schools with a Conditional Use Permit. As discussed above, Kol Shofar has operated
at this former public school site under a CUP for over 20 years. Traditionally, churches and
schools are located in residential areas and form part of the fabric of suburban American
society.
The proposed new multi-purpose room and classrooms conform to the District standards for
building height and coverage as indicated in the table below:
April 24, 2006
page 8 of 14
~
\
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
... ..................... .... ... ......... ........ ...
Summary of Project Zoning Consistency
Zoning Min. Lot Min. Min. Min. Max. Lot Building Min. Lot
Area Front Side Rear Coverage Height Width
Yard Yard Yard
RO-1 40,000 30' 20' 200/0 to 150/0 30' 70'
sq. ft. 25'
Project 302,306 190' 130' 35' 13.70/0 23' 650'
sq .ft.
Consistency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Zoning Ordinance standards related to parking (Section 5.08.04) are analyzed in the DEIR.
Table 5 and pages 64-68 of the DEIR analyze the consistency of the proposed project, including
the new parking lot, and find that it would not meet the requirement of one space for each 4
seats of maximum seating capacity or one space for each 40 square feet of assembly area,
whichever is more. 139 total parking spaces are proposed for the project and the existing and
proposed uses on the site (sanctuary, chapel, multipurpose room, and classrooms) would have
a combined total parking requirement of 363 spaces.
Section 5.08.10 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
Planning Commission makes the following findings:
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 as being overlapping.
While some overlapping parking would result from the Kol Shofar expansion plan, allowing for a
reduction in the required number of parking spaces below 363, the DEIR includes Mitigation
Measure 3.3-C which proposes a limit of 275 attendees (based on 2 persons per car, this yields
a parking demand of 139 spaces). Commission adoption of Alternative 5 would establish a
maximum attendance limit of 275 for all new events, thus onsite parking could accommodate all
attendees and the findings in Section 5.08.10 would not need to be made. The 275-person limit
would not apply to the High Holy Days and existing Saturday and Sunday morning services, all
of which can exceed 275 people. Similarly, Alternative 7 limits maximum attendance to 250
people and would further reduce parking demand.
Section 4.04.02 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance provides required findings for conditional use
permit applications. Staff has prepared findings for approval based upon the assumption that
the Planning Commission would impose recommended FEIR mitigation measures and
restrictions upon the newly proposed Kol Shofar uses similar to Alternative 5 or Alternative 7.
The findings are provided below:
(a) Determine whether the location proposed for the Conditional Use applied for is properly
related to the development of the neighborhood as a whole;
April 24, 2006
page 9 of 14
Town of Tiburon
.~
.
!
.:.; ~/gJ-1!J((J-f> ....
~~7~.~ , "'\~
'i\~a~).
(\\~ :::- ~/
~R~
.' O~IV~(.'
,
.
-.
STAFF REPORT
Kol Shofar has operated its congregation and day school at this site for over 20 years.
Much of the surrounding residential neighborhood has developed after Kol Shofar
purchased the former school property. The location of the proposed Kol Shofar
expansion, including a multi-purpose room and new classrooms, adjacent to existing
buildings on the 6.94-acre site is properly related to the development of the
neighborhood as a whole because recommended conditions of approval and mitigation
measures would limit traffic, noise, aesthetic and other impacts of the proposed
improvements upon surrounding residential neighbors.
(b) Determine whether the location proposed for the particular Conditional Use applied for
would be reasonably compatible with the types of uses normally permitted in the
surrounding area;
The proposed Conditional Use Permit would regulate the continued and expanded
activities of Kol Shofar and the use would, given the recommended mitigation measures
and conditions of approval, be reasonably compatible with the residential uses permitted
in the surrounding area.
(c) Evaluate whether or not adequate facilities and services required for such use exist or
can be provided;
The FEIR concludes that adequate public services exist for the proposed expansion
project. The proposed onsite parking improvements with recommended mitigation
measures and conditions of approval to expand the number of spaces, redesign the
lower parking lot to optimize flow, and to improve traffic safety would allow onsite parking
facilities to function for all newly proposed events at Kol Shofar. .
(d) Stipulate such conditions and requirements as would reasonably assure that the basic
purposes of this Chapter and objectives of the General Plan would be served; and
Mitigation Measures in the FEIR would reduce potential significant impacts in the areas
of noise, traffic and circulation, light intrusion, and other topics to a less than significant
level. Imposition of conditions of approval to limit maximum ,attendance, frequency and
duration of newly proposed events, consistent with Alternative 7: "Reduced Events"
among other conditions, would also assure that the basic purposes of the Zoning
Ordinance and General Plan would be served.
(e) Determine whether the Town is adequately served by similar uses presently existing or
recently approved by the Town.
There are no other synagogues located within the Town thus the Town is not served by
other similar uses within its jurisdiction.
Conditional Use Permit
The proposed project involves the securing of all zoning and building entitlements for the
expansion/remodel of the Kol Shofar religious facility and day school. A conditional use permit
April 24, 2006
page 10 of 14
)
Town of Tiburon
....
.
.
.:0,; Of T18(; .
~r~",,p ;
~/." ~':-
.~~ a~).-.
r;\~ ~~/~
<'~\:::=-.... ~'o..'O
A'o,,~/,
.1: ~^'IAI~C.' ~.
,
.
STAFF REPORT
. ....... ....... ......... .... ........ ...... .... ......
(CUP) (File #10404) is the first application proposed as part of this project. In addition to the
CUP, the applicant would need to receive Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) approval
from the Design Review Board and building permits. Since the original 1985 CUP, the Town has
approved amendments to the Kol Shofar CUP in 1997,2001 and 2004. Conditions of approval
were updated with each CUP revision.
The following sections raise site and design issues that have not been addressed in the FEI R
that the Commission will want to closely consider.
Multi-purpose Room
The proposed 9,733-square foot Multi-purpose room is a large space that, according to the
application, is intended for lifecycle celebrations and to accommodate the entire congregation
during High Holy Days services. The space includes a 5,022 square foot banquet room, 1,838
square foot lobby, 1,070 square foot kitchen, and bathrooms, hallway and storage areas totaling
1,767 square feet. Although the space is sized to hold very large gatherings, the staff
recommendation to limit the maximum number of attendees at all newly proposed events to 275
means that the facility would be "fully" utilized only on the High Holy Days, three days per year
when the proposed combined services would allow up to 1,500 people in attendance. The next
largest gatherings, after the High Holy Days, are the existing services on weekend mornings
that are currently attended by up to 400 people. Staff has not made a recommendation about
the appropriateness of the proposed Multi-purpose room size but has focused instead on use
restrictions such as the number of attendees at new events and frequency of such events,
which are linked to providing adequate parking onsite and minimizing noise impacts upon
adjacent neighbors. If the Planning Commission concludes that the sheer size of the Multi-
purpose Room is not in character or harmony with surrounding development, or is otherwise
inappropriate for the residential setting, it can choose to reduce the size on those policy
grounds.
A draft Resolution (Exhibit 6) has been prepared for approval of the CUP application that
incorporates many of the prior CUP conditions of approval. New and modified conditions are
proposed based upon the FEIR analysis, FEIR Alternative 7 Analysis, and staff
recommendations, including: 1) mitigation measures that apply to the ongoing use of the facility
(e.g., the parking receipt program or equivalent measures that would be easier to implement
and monitor, keeping the multi-purpose room doors and windows closed during large events); 2)
new limitations on the uses proposed (e.g., imposing the restrictions set out ih Alternative 7; and
3) changes to prior conditions of approval that reflect the new proposed uses and facilities (e.g.,
increasing the day school student enrollment maximum; allowing a unified service for the High
Holy Days)
If approved by the Planning Commission, this project would be reviewed by the Design Review
Board as part of a subsequent Site Plan and Architectural Review application. The Design
Review Board would evaluate the proposed architectural design, the landscape plan, including
mitigation measures that require berms, plant materials and/or fencing to limit headlight
intrusion into adjacent residences, a revised parking lot plan that increases proposed parking,
and a detailed lighting plan.
April 24, 2006
page 11 of 14
STAFF REPORT
.
1
.~ ~~8 ·
~,/" ,U~ ~
~/.'\\~1,:
.'(it i?B) -.
It,~-,, ~
'- Olr~
. 1J1A1Nt.
,
.
Town of Tiburon
........ ....... .......... ..... ... .... ............. ...
Public Comments
A number of letters from the public, as well as from agencies, have been received to-date and
are included as Exhibit 8. The letters generally focus on traffic, traffic safety, noise, parking
and lighting issues and several manifest a deep concern and distrust over the long-term
intentions for future growth and activity levels at the synagogue.
Conclusion
Staff has evaluated the proposed expansion project and its impacts upon the neighborhood and
concludes that the most effective balancing of the applicant's goals and the neighbors' concerns
regarding noise, traffic and other impacts should be found in regulating the use (Le., the number
of attendees, frequency and duration of events) rather than the scale of the facilities. This
approach was successfully demonstrated with construction of the St. Hilary Gymnasium, a
thirty-foot tall, 8,300 square-foot building that has caused little or no neighborhood disruption
due to the use limitations placed upon it through the CUP conditions of approval.
The General Plan policy analysis in the EIR notes that churches and schools are traditionally
integrated into residential neighborhoods in Tiburon and all Marin communities. The key to
finding that such uses are "harmonious" with the predominant residential use lies in the intensity
of the proposed use. The Town has reviewed the CUP for Kol Shofar annually and made
adjustments to conditions of approval as necessary over the years, in 1997, 2001 and 2004.
The proposed conditions of approval for the new CUP bring forward many of the prior conditions
and include several new ones to address the .impacts of the proposed expansion. Staff is also
mindful of the legal difficulties associated with attempting to "cap" membership of a religious
institution. The extent to which a larger building will directly result in a larger congregation and
more activity is somewhat speculative, although it clearly removes one obstacle to such growth.
The expansion project, as proposed, meets the Town's RO-1 zoning standards except for on-
site parking capacity. The draft Resolution, consistent with FEIR Alternative 7: "Reduced
Events", limits attendance at new events to 250, a level where onsite parking is easily sufficient
to meet the demand, and limits the frequency of new weekend nighttime events to a maximum
of 27 during the course of a year, which was found to have less thap significant environmental
impacts. Annual review of the use permit by the Commission would be required for as long as
the Commission deems appropriate.
Possible Action Items
Following the public hearing, the Commission will need to consider whether it is prepared to
take three actions: 1) to certify that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 2) make findings of overriding economic, legal,
social or other circumstances that justify the significant unavoidable noise impact associated
with the proposed project OR select a project alternative or a combination of alternatives that
avoids all significant unavoidable impacts, and 3) to approve, approve with conditions, or deny
the Conditional Use Permit application. Staff strongly recommends that if the Commission, after
closing the public hearing, decides to make a conditional approval, that it perform all three
actions at the same hearing and not at separate hearings. The three actions necessary to
April 24, 2006
page 12 of 14
~
~
Town of Tiburon
.-
.
1
:'> ~_9J-1!....8J.I ~.
'Sf -.
~x..~~
;.t'O"~'
.~ ~IVIAI~C.. ~.
I
.
STAFF REPORT
... .... ........ ......... ............ .... ..... ......
approve a project are: 1) to certify the FEIR (Exhibit 4), 2) Adopt a CEQA Findings Resolution,
and 3) Adopt a CUP resolution with conditions and with a finalized MMRP.
ITEMS PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED
Draft and Final EIR Volumes
Correspondence Letters from Exhibit 8(a) through 8(t) listed below
ATTACHMENTS
A. Project Drawings (Planning Commission only)
EXHIBITS
1. Kol Shofar Submittal of New Traffic & Noise Analyses and Reduced Project Activities
2. FEIR Alternative 7 Analysis, April 18, 2006
3. FEIR Errata Sheet
4. Draft Resolution Certifying the FEI R
5. Draft CEQA Findings Resolution
6. Draft Resolution Conditionally Approving the CUP
7. August 10, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report
8. Correspondence:
a. Department of Transportation, March 10, 2006
b. Christianna Seidel, March 6, 2006
c. Dean L. Rider, MD, March 13, 2006
d. Dennis N. and Sara P. Sakai, March 13, 2006
e. Jean Ford, March 14, 2006
f. Jerry Thayer, March 14, 2006
g. Doris Symonds, March 14,2006
h. Neighborhood flyer, no date
i. Jane Sondeen, March 16, 2006
j. Marin Municipal Water District, March 16, 2006
k. John and Karen Nygren, March 20, 2006
I. Mr. And Mrs. Fred Conte, March 20, 2006
m. Lee Kranefuss and Nina Frank, March 20, 2006
n. Susan Goldwasser, M.D., March 21, 2006
o. Richard Goldwasser, M.D., March 21, 2006
p. Samantha and James Winter, March 21, 2006
q. Edward Baker, March 23,2006
r. Timothy Metz and Jennifer Jorgensen, March 23, 2006
s. Richard A. Holway, March 24, 2006
1. Robin Gonci & Satoshi Tanaka, undated
(Letters a through t were previously distributed to the Planning Commission and are not
reprinted here)
April 24, 2006
page 13 of 14
STAFF REPORT
.
!
:-.; ~ ~9_LI1..~.J.f ....
o~/Ii'~ "~O1-
t.,' ....~.. ...
.- ':'.~ ~.~.
\~..=:::;~!
"',~ 2""'~!
~('t;:~'
.~ I\'IVIA~
,
.
-e
Town of Tiburon
u. Resident, 40 Pamela Court, April 13, 2006
v. Mr. & Mrs. R. F. Uttermohlen, April 14, 2006
w. Rufus Thayer, April 14, 2006
x. Christianna Seidel, April 14, 2006
y. Richard Goldwasser, April 17, 2006
z. Christianna Seidel & Peter Stock, April 17, 2006
aa. Timothy Metz and Jennifer Jorgensen, April 17, 2006
bb. John & Karen Nygren, April 17, 2006
cc. Lawrence J. Duke, April 18, 2006
dd. Paul and Kellie Yenofsky, April 19, 2006
April 24, 2006
page 14 of 14
ftR
IP A, IDe
Scott L. Hochstrasser
E-Mail slh]ipa@aol.com
42 Glen Drive, Suite B * Fairfax, CA 94930 USA * Tele (4]5)459-6224 * Fax 459-5810
Emailed 4-] 1-06
Hard Copy-via Fed Express 4-] 8-06
Scott Anderson, Community Development Director
Lisa Newman, Contact Planner
Town ofTiburon
Planning Division
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Kol Shofar, 215 Blackfield Drive - CUP A - File # 10404
Dear Lisa,
Attached please find the following documents:
1. Proposed modified use summary dated 4-11-06 " Annual Use at Kol Shofar"
2. Modified Use - Impact Analysis: this includes findings, facts and conclusions addressing
the project use modifications and additional analysis conducted regarding traffic and noise
impacts.
3. Charles Salter Associates, Inc letter of April 6, 2006
4. Herman & Coliver Architects - Revised Circulation Sheet AI.I
5. Robert Harrison Memorandum of March 17, 2006
The proposed modified use summary and modified use impact analysis are a result of a great
deal of discussion and additional analysis of the modified project impacts. The project use
modifications show substantial efforts have been made to describe and modify the synagogue
usage and identify limitations on planned new usage. This change is being made in an effort to
alleviate concerns of neighbors and to reduce any environmental impacts.
There is a concern that presenting the new Annual Use at Kol Shof~r summary in chart fonn
may have only succeeded in making the picture more unclear. For that, we apologize.
Accordingly, we have tried to describe in as simple a written fonn as possible both the current
usage of Kol Shofar and the proposed new usage in this final official submission to you. That
description is provided in Attachment #1. Please note that with the exception of clarifying the
existing and proposed Friday night events, this is not a different proposal than the modified use
summary draft presented at our last Town meeting, it is merely a clearer one.
Regarding the Annual Use Summary (See Attachment 1 - Annual Use at Kol Shofar - prepared
by the applicants) several points are worth emphasizing:
EXHIBIT NO.
I
1. Each of the successive usage proposals describes a reduced usage from the one before in the
original application--the client's attempts to respond to the concerns of the neighbors and the
data emerging from the EIR process.
2. The most recent proposal does a much better job than previously in describing current usage
for evening events and the additional weekend uses.
3. The multi-purpose room, which seems to be generating the most concern of all that has been
proposed, deserves special comment and is critical to our client community for many reasons.
We have discussed the high-holiday needs, which are indeed real religious needs despite the
attempts of some of the project opponents to characterize them otherwise. We have also
discussed the need for this room for life-cycle events, also central to their community. In
addition, the client desperately needs additional educational space and space for Kiddush
(luncheons) after Saturday morning services. They need this room in order to serve current
community demand for programming, not for the purpose of holding what have been
characterized as parties.
Regarding the Modified Use Impact Analysis, additional findings, facts and conclusions are
suggested for the FEIR Amendment:
1. The FEIR identified additional or alternative mitigation measures that could further reduce
all of the potentially significant impacts to less than significant level, except for one. In an
effort to reduce all impacts to a less-than-significant impact, and to ensure feasible and
defensible mitigation, additional project analysis and project modifications have been
prepared.
2. The new information is replete with evidence to demonstrate that the modified project
presented in the Annual Use summary will not result in any significant and unavoidable
impact. (See Attachment 2, Modified Use Impact Analysis)
3. Based on the analysis and modification to the project the Town staff can now conclude that
the project will not result in a significant impact on the Tiburon Boulevard/Blackfield Drive
intersection. Nor will the modified project contribute to a significant cumulative impact. (See
Attachment 5, Robert Harrison March 17,2006 Memo)
4. To reduce the impact of people parking on the street turning around in residential
neighborhoods the project applicant now proposes two modifications. First, a substantial
reduction in the number of events and the maximum number of attendees at those events is
proposed. Secondly, the applicant proposes a revised circulation plan to ensure all vehicles
enter the site from Via Los Altos and exit from Reedland Woods Way, signs would be posted
at the intersection of Reed land Woods Way and along Via Los Altos, directing visitors to
follow this circulation plan. This plan ensures that existing and additional parking being
provided on-site is accessed first before anyon-street parking is used. (See Attachment 4,
Herman & Coliver Architects Revised Circulation Sheet A 1.1)
5. Regarding noise, as discussed in the Modified Use Impact Analysis and the Annual Use
2
summary, the project applicant proposes to substantially reduce the number of weekend events
and maximum number of attendees at those events. The In his recent letter; Charles M. Salter
Associates, Inc. submitted an analysis of the FEIR's conclusions. His letter explains that the
Town noise standard is not exceeded by the proposed project. With the proposed reduced
number of events and number of attendees specified in the Kol Shofar Annual Use summary,
any night time disturbance to neighbors of the project will be relatively rare. (See Attachment
3, Charles M. Salter Associates,Inc April 6, 2006 letter)
What you see in the attached two documents is CEQA at work. More importantly, I think you
will also find project applicants who have willingly modified their project to respond to
neighborhood concerns, and their efforts have gone way beyorid the Town thresholds and
standards to preserve the environmental quality of the neighborhood.
Finally, please give me a call to discuss the attached documents further and to let me know
when we might expect a look at the Towns consultants comments and staff report.
Sincerely,
Scott L. Hochstrasser
Attachments:
1. Kol Shofar Annual Use Summary (4-11-06)
2. Modified Use Impact Analysis (4-11-06)
3. Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. April 6, 2006
4. Hennan & Coliver Architects Revised Sheet AI.I
5. Robert Harrison, Memorandum March 17, 2006
3
Annual Use at Kol Shofar
Weekday usaee
Ring Mountain Pre-School uses the Synagogue for 100 children on a daily basis. Present
on the property also are 10-12 Kol Shofar staff members and the Ring Mountain staff.
The new proposal would add 50 children each day in a Kol Shofar Pre-School.
The Synagogue is also used for Kol Shofar's religious school on Tuesday and Thursday
afternoons (40-50 children) and Wednesday afternoon (135 children) The afternoon
program is 3:30-6 PM. This use will be unchanged.
Monday nieht
The Synagogue is currently not used on Monday night. We have proposed adding adult
education classes for 20-30 people, 25-30 weeks per year from 7-9 PM.
Tuesday nieht
The Synagogue is used for committee meetings on Tuesday nights, with 20-40 people
each week. This use is unchanged.
Wednesday ni2ht
The Synagogue is currently used for Adult Education from 7-9 PM, 30-45 weeks per year
with 30-50 people at each program. This use is unchanged.
Thursday nieht
The Synagogue is used for occasional meetings and Adult Education lectures (perhaps 10
times per year with fewer than 50 people at most events.) This use is unchanged.
Friday ni2ht
Friday night begins the Sabbath. A regular religious service takes place from 6: 15-7 :30
PM attended by 15-35 people. A monthly musical service on the, First Friday of the
month attracts 75-100 people from 7:30- 9:30 PM. A monthly Family Service with 25-50
people takes place on the Third Friday of the month from 6:30-7:30 PM.
Congregational dinners for 50-100 people after services are currently held on-site 1-2
times per month until 9PM (total 25 Fridays Per Year, See Table I DEIR, Page 12).
The above Friday night uses are unchanged in the ne,v application.
In addition to the above, \ve have proposed in our application that the Synagogue will be
used for additional member-sponsored Friday night dinners 5 times per year with up to
100 people present.
Saturday morninl!
The Synagogue is used weekly for Saturday morning services with 50-400 people in
attendance. This use is unchanged.
Saturday eveninl!
Currently the Synagogue is used fewer than 5 Saturday evenings per year for cultural
events (l 00-250 people). A new additional use is proposed. Member sponsored events
(primarily weddings and Bar or Bat Mitzvahs) will occur ending at 11 PM, with a few
staff remaining afterwards for clean-up. The most recent proposal is for 12 events per
year with attendance of 150 (4 events), 200 (4 events), or 250 (4 events).
Sunday mornine
The Synagogue is used for Religious School and Adult Education on Sunday mornings,
25-30 weekends per year. These programs are attended by about 300 chidlren and 100
adults each week. This use is unchanged.
The Homeless Coalition feeds the needy at Kol Shofar on Sunday afternoons from noon-
2 PM. About 25 people attend these luncheons. This use is unchanged.
Sunday evenine
A new use is proposed for Sunday evenings. Member sponsored events (primarily
weddings) will occur ending at 9 PM, with a few staff remaining afterwards for clean-up.
The most recent proposal is for 15 events per year with attendance of 100 (3 events), 150
(4 events), 200 (5 events), or 250 (3 events).
Periodic events, primarily tied to holiday observance
The following events have taken place annually at Kol Shofar for many years.
Details on times may be found in earler submissions to the Town. With the exception
of a change from split services to a single service for the First day of Rosh Hashanah
and for Yom Kippur, these uses are unchanged.
Rosh Hashanah First Night-400
Rosh Hashanah First Day-I 500
Rosh Hashanah Second Day-500
Yom Kippur Night-I 500
Yom Kippur Day-I 500
Sukkot Dinner-I 00
Simchat Torah Evening Service-I 50
Tu B'Shvat Seder-20
Purim Play-200
Purim Service-I 00
Shavuot Night Service-I 00
Selichot Night Service-I 00
USY (Synagogue teen age Y outh Group) Events-40
KOL SHOFAR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
MODIFIED USE IMPACT ANALYSIS (4-11-06)
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Kol Shofar Conditional Use
Permit Application identified several impacts as potentially significant. For some of
those impacts, mitigation measures were identified that would mitigate the impact to a
less-than-significant level. Other impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable.
The Final EIR identified additional or alternate mitigation measures that could further
reduce all of the potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level, except for
one. In an effort to reduce all impacts to a less-than-significant impact, and to ensure the
feasibility of mitigation, additional project modifications and additional analysis of the
project's impacts have been prepared. The analysis, which is discussed more fully below,
demonstrates that the project, as modified, will not result in any significant and
unavoidable impacts.
Proiect Modifications
Several of the impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant are related to the
introduction of weekend events at the proposed facility. For example, Impact 3.3-A
(Tiburon Boulevard/Blackfield Driver Intersection), Impact 3.3-C (turnarounds on
neighbourhood streets), and Impact 3.4-B (noise), are all related to the introduction of
additional weekend events at the facility. In addition, many comments on the EIR voiced
concern regarding an increase of events and attendance at the facility.
In an effort to alleviate the concerns of the Congregation's neighbors and to reduce any
environmental impacts, the applicant has voluntarily proposed further reductions in the
number of allowed weekend events, the hours of those events, and the attendance at those
events. The applicant has also proposed a revised circulation and parking plan.
Kol Shofar proposes that the project be conditioned with the following limitations on new
weekend events. It is understood that religious services and ev~nts may occur on
Saturday or Sunday and they are not included in the following use limitations because
they are existing uses and religious activities that are not currently limited by the Town.
· New Friday night events would be limited to 5 additional member sponsored
dinners per year. Of those 5 member sponsored dinners attendance would be
limited a maximum of 100 people. This number of dinners is consistent with the
number analyzed in the EIR, described as 25 congregational dinners per year, with
an expected increase of 5 dinners per year. There is currently no limit on the
number of Friday night congregational dinners, and new events are not necessarily
related to construction of the new multi-use facility. Nevertheless, the applicant
has agreed to limit new Friday night events because of a concern that new
1
Saturday and Sunday night events could amplify the neighbors' awareness of
Friday events.
· Saturday events would end at II 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 of 250 attendees,S events with a maximum of 200 attendees, 4 events
with a maximum of 150 attendees and 3 events with a maximum attendance of 100
attendees. .
The applicant has also provided further clarification on the expected increase in weekday
events. The Draft EIR reported that the project is expected to result in "[ e ]xpanded
special events on weekday (Monday-Thursday) evenings (6:00 - 10:00 p.m.) - up to ISO
people 78 times per year." (Draft EIR, p. 13.) The EIR did not identify any significant
effects related to expanding weeknight events. The applicant has clarified that the only
proposed increase in weeknight use of the site is the proposed addition of adult education
classes for 20-30 people, 25-30 weeks per year from 7:00 to 9:00, which is listed in Table
I of the Draft EIR. In addition to these modifications to the project, additional analysis
has been conducted regarding impacts related to traffic and noise. The combined result
of the project modifications and additional analysis is discussed below.
Impact 3.3-A (Tiburon Boulevard/Blackfield Drive Intersection)
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 of lane capacity (i.e., the space
needed for an additional 6 vehicles) would be needed to handle existing traffic plus peak
project-generated traffic." (Draft EIR, p. 62.) The Draft EIR also stated that the project
would contribute to a significant cumulative impact at this intersection.
The Draft EIR preparer proposed the following mitigation:
To address the project impact the following measure is required:
I. Pending Caltrans approval, the project shall fund lengthening the eastbound
left turn lane at the Tiburon BoulevardlBlackfield Drive intersection by adding
at least ISO feet of storage to the lane.
2
To address the project's increment of the cumulative impact, the following measure is
required:
2. Pending Caltrans approval and determination of need, the project, in
combination with other approved development, shall fund lengthening the
eastbound left turn lane at the Tiburon Boulevard/Blackfield Drive intersection
by adding at least an additional 150 feet of storage to the lane (this assumes
that the initial 150 feet has been added per Mitigation Measure 1 above). The
project applicant would be responsible for 75 feet of this 150- foot extension.
3. If lengthening 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 allo\'y 50% less attendees.
The Final EIR added an additional option for mitigating this impact:
4. If Caltrans determines that adjusting the signal length and/or phasing would
not adversely affect the level of service at intersections on Tiburon Boulevard.
and approves adjusting the signal timing, then the signal cycle at the
intersection will be changed to allow sufficient time for left turns to clear the
intersection on weekends between at least 6:30 and 7:30 p.m. In this case, lane
lengthening would not be required.
Robert L. Harrison Transportation Planning and Project Management (Harrison) prepared
the initial trip generation analysis upon which the EIR' s analysis is based. Relying on
this trip generation information prepared by Harrison, Crane Transportation Group
determined that the Saturday event traffic could cause the queue length at the intersection
to be exceeded.
Since publication of the Final EIR, Harrison prepared further analysis of the intersection,
which demonstrates that project traffic will not cause the inters~ction 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
3
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 ofTiburon Boulevard with
Blackfield Drive. The signal timing plan used in the project traffic study
was based on field observations of the typical operation of the intersection.
The green time assigned to each traffic movement was representative of the
normal signal operations. However, because the traffic signal at this
intersection is traffic actuated, the actual timing of each phase of the signal
varies in every signal cycle. The HCS2000 software used in the project
traffic study assumes a pretimed signal that does not vary in response to
traffic flow. In other words, when the traffic from the project is added to
existing traffic volumes, the software assumes the signal timing as used for
the existing condition.
The signal timing plan used in the project traffic study was adequate to
provide an accurate estimate of the project's impact on intersection LOS
but was not intended to provide engineering data sufficient to redesign the
intersection.
When the proper signal timing and software is used for the modeling, Harrison reports
the following results:
INTERSECTION OF TIBURON BOULEVARD AT BLACKFIELD DRIVE
Saturday Evening Conditions
Scenario LOS 1
Existing C
Existing + Project C
Cumulative C
Cumulative + Project C
Notes: 1 - LOS = Level of Service.
2 - Number of vehicles in the 95th percentile queue in the eastbound left turn lane.
Source: Robert L. Harrison Transportation Planning
95th Percentile 02
12 Vehicles
18 Vehicles
17 Vehicles
25 Vehicles
LOSl
C
C
C
C
95th Percentile 02
10 Vehicles
13 Vehicles
12 Vehicles
15 Vehicles
The Harrison report explains that:
The actual length of the eastbound left turn lane was measured in the field.
The storage portion of the lane is striped to a length of 329 feet. In addition
to the storage area, there is an area of bay taper and deceleration lane that is
4
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
re~ult in a 95t percentile queue of 10 vehicles. The traffic that would be
added by a 300 person Saturday evening at the project results in a 95th
percentile queue of 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 95th percentile queue
of 12 vehicles. If the trips generated by a 300 person Saturday evening
event at the project were added to this 20 year plus projection, the left turn
lane 95th percentile queue is project to reach 15 vehicles.
The existing intersection design would provide adequate pavement to serve
even a 15 vehicle queue. By using 46 feet of the available 62 feet of
deceleration lane, plus the full 329- foot existing length of the storage lane,
all 15 vehicles could be stored in this lane completely separate from the
through traffic lanes.
In addition, the applicant has voluntarily agreed to reduce the number of Saturday events
to just 12 events per year and to limit the attendance at those events. The Harrison
analysis discussed above was based on an event of 300 people. As noted above, the
applicant will now limit attendance to a maximum of 250 people, and this number of
guests will only be allowed 4 times per year. Thus, even if project generated traffic
caused the queue length to be exceeded, it would happen very rarely, and thus would not
be considered a significant impact requiring mitigation.
Based on the analysis above, Town staff should conclude that the project will not result in
a significant impact at the Tiburon Boulevard/Blackfield Drive intersection. Nor will the
project contribute to a significant cumulative impact. As such, no mitigation is required.
The Final EIR is modified to delete Mitigation Measures 3.3-AI-4 and to conclude tnat
this impact will be less than significant.
Impact 3.3-C ( midstreet turnarounds)
5
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." (Draft EIR, p. 67.)
The Draft EIR proposed the following mitigation:
To ensure that people attending project events can park on site:
1. Do not allow more than 275 people on the site for any function or combination
of functions.
OR,
2. Require valet parking for all times when there would be more than 275 people
on the site up to a maximum of360 people (this maximum assumes a 30
percent on-site parking efficiency gain due to valet parking, while maintaining
room on-site for emergency vehicle access.) Events of more than 360 people
would require shuttle service to and from Town-approved remote lots. To
avoid secondary impacts at remote lots, a Town-approved parking plan would
be required in advance of over 360-person events. Note: The Harrison study's
assumed 80-percent parking efficiency gain due to on-site valet parking for
High Holy Days is doubtful, and raises concerns for adequate emergency
vehicle access (i.e., maintaining clear drive-through access on-site for fire and
ambulance access). Therefore, the Town should also require a demonstration
of the valet parking plan.
To reduce the impact of people parking on the street turning around in residential
neighborhoods Mitigation Measure 1 or 2 above would be required, plus the Town could
consider the following measures:
3. The curb on both sides of the roadway fronting Via Los Altos and Reedland
Woods Way could be painted to red to prohibit parking.
4. The Town could implement a parking permit program'that allowed residents
24- hour parking but limited others to one hour.
The Draft EIR preparer stated that Mitigation Measures 3 and 4 were likely not feasible,
and that even if implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 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:
6
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 random
(unannounced) monitoring of these events. If no violations are detected during
monitoring in the first year, only one monitoring per year will be required in
subsequent years. If one violation occurs in any year, monitoring will be
conducted 5 or 6 times per year the following year. If there 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.
The applicant has proposed two modifications to the project which will mitigate this
potentially significant impact more effectively than the mitigation proposed above. First,
as discussed above, the applicant has proposed to substantially reduce the number of
events and the maximum number of attendees at those events. Limiting additional events
to a maximum of 250 people ensures there will be adequate parking on-site. To reduce
the potential that despite adequate on-site parking people would still turn around in the
street, the applicant has proposed a revised circulation and parking plan. According to
this plan, the Reedland Woods Way driveway would be an exit only, and all guests would
enter the site from Via Los Altos. In addition, signs would be posted at the intersection
of Reedland Woods Way and along Via Los Altos, directing vi~itors to follow this
circulation plan.
Town staff should find that these revisions to the project will reduce the potential impact
of midstreet turnarounds to a less-than-significant level. Furthermore, these proposals
will be more effective than those previously proposed in the Draft and Final EIR.
Accordingly, the Final EIR should be modified in the following respects. The Final EIR
is modified to find that with the incorporation of the project modifications, the potential
impact of midstreet turnarounds is determined to be less-than-significant. Therefore, no
further mitigation is required.
7
Impact 3.4-B (Noise)
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 1 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 comments, further noise studies were conducted and reported in the Final
EIR. Although noise measurements were only taken on the project site (not at the
surrounding residences), these studies further confirmed that noise generated by the
project would be within Town standards. (Final EIR, p. 43.) The Final EIR preparer
concluded that noise impacts from the project would be significant and unavoidable.
In response, Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. submitted an analysis of the Final EIR's
conclusions (Salter Report). The Salter Report explains that the Town typically uses an
annualized Ldn as the ruling metric to gauge overall changes in the noise environment.
This is the standard the Town has applied to similar projects within the Town such as the
Tiburon Peninsula Club and the Belvedere Tennis Club. The Salter Report also explains
that applying this standard and assuming 75 events a year, the increase in the annualized
Ldn would be less than one decibel, which would be a less- than-significant impact.
As discussed above, the project applicant proposes to substantially reduce the number of
weekend events analyzed in the EIR. With this reduction, any night time disturbance to
the neighbors of the project will be relatively rare. Given the infrequency of events, and
also considering the project will be within Town standards for noise, Town staff should
concluded this impact will be less than significant.
Therefore, the Final EIR should be modified as follows. With the mitigation required in
the Draft EIR (Mitigation Measures 3.4-Bl-5), Impact 3.4-B is considered to be less than
significant.
8
COi!:oultants in
iC\CGUStics
":'.I;uio/\j:sua'
Des'qn
,~ \ <'~'rn~ d"le2: (',s
130 Sutler St:.Cf;t
:';Gur
S,?n Ffanc;sco
C3;ifunia, 84104
4~~) 3~)7 0442
41-5 397 O~~54
j,')fC(1;(>~,;safter corY',
'/,'''If'}.j. crnSCJtl(;f, corn
\1 .S3ite;, FE
S~hi;"'ir,d ~A_ES
PE
R St:g;,.~;.)H, r~ D
Jc'~hu<~ r/ r~npe
Tr:y.-
U \:'\<;dGECk
". rlc;",t
,'Sz~::C[
L C",y,,:
t!
'A c;,;
Charles M Salter Assoc a
6 April 2006
~. ~ (p0 ~ ~ W [~Jr~"\..\..
It:; ~ IIi I\!
-120D6Ji01
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Scott L. Hochstrasser
IP A, Inc.
3727 Forest Gate Drive
Iowa City, IA 52240
Fax: 319.354.3051
Subject:
Congregation KoJ Shofar - Tiburon, CA - Response to FEIR
AcousticaJ Consulting
CSA Project No. 04-0104
Dear Mr. Hochstrasser:
At your request, we have reviewed the Noise Studies section of the FEIR. In summary,
we conclude the assessment that the project would create a "significant and
unavoidable" impact is incorrect. Our response to various conclusions in the FEIR are
as follows.
1. "The DEIR, consistent with most EIR analyses identifies noise increases
exceeding 3 dBA as a potentially significant impact. "
It is our understanding that the Town of Tiburon uses an annualized LdnJ as the
ruling metric to gauge overall changes in the general noise environment. The
use of this metric standard has been applied to other facility expansion projects
in the Town such as the Tiburon Peninsula Club and the Belvedere Tennis Club.
2. "Noise generated by existing nighttime events cause more noise at 35 Reed/and
Woods Way [and adjacent residences2) than would occur under the project. "
This assessment is correct because the access road that runs within 30 feet of
these residences has been eliminated in the new project site design. In our
discussion with Illingworth & Rodkin, Mr. Rodkin clarified that this statement
addresses single event noise such as automobile passbys.
3. "Homes near the new parking lot would experience significantly increased noise
levels (i.e. noise levels exceeding a 3 dB increase)" due to the increased
activities at Kol Shofar.
] Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) - A descriptor established by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to represent a 24-hour average noise level with a penalty applied to noise occurring
during the nighttime hours (10 pm - 7 am) to account for the increased sensitivity of people during
sleeping hours. The annualized is the average Ldn over the course of one calendar year.
2 Bracketed information is mentioned in the same report paragraph and has been added for clarification.
Scott L. Hochstrasser
6 April 2006
Page 2
We believe this assessment is ambiguous for the following reasons:
· The metric is not specified for the significantly increased noise levels. This
statement requires further clarification on what time weighting was used.
Without this information, this statement is erroneous. (Example: Is the sound
elevated by more than 3 dB for one second, one minute, or longer? And at
what duration is an elevated noise level considered significant?)
· We understand it is for this reason that Tiburon and the State of California
uses an annualized Ldn to assess impact. The study states that an additional
75 nighttime events could occur. Using this data, we calculated that these
additional events would increase the annualized Ldn by less than one
decibel, which would constitute a less than significant impact.
4. "There is no mitigation available for this impact, and the impact is determined
to be significant and unavoidable... "
We believe this assessment is incorrect for the following reason:
· There is mitigation available that is not a physical barrier or berm; it is
administrative control. Kol Shofar may choose to reduce or limit the
number nighttime events. The EIR presents a reduced use option
"Alternative 5" that states that reducing the number of new weekend events
would reduce this noise to less than significant levels. Therefore "reduced
use" is a way to "avoid significant impact".
5. "...requiring all events to end by 9:00 p.m."
The ending time chosen appears to be arbitrary. It is common practice to define
nighttime hours as those between 1 0:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. for increase sensitivity
during sleep. These hours are penalized as part of the Ldn metric.
This concludes our current comments.
Sincerely yours,
CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC
':7 .
c~fL
C~J~ ~~. -~:ltb-
Eric A. Yee
Principal Consultant
Charles M. Salter, P.E.
President
C h a r Ie 5 M S a I t erA s S 0 cia t e s 130 Sutter Street. Suite 500 San F,-ancisco California gLl1 04 Tei -1'1 5 :)f~7 r}ld2 f:
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
I=Tiiill
Cl ~...
~ i
~~
~..
J r ~ ~~
II j :; I! ' I ?e~
~.. q !!?~
f ~ ~: ~~ ~ J ~~
:1: ~ r ...""
EE ::o>p
)> II n ~ ~~
~ ! .-~
~
ill ..~
Hi
~ (Obert I. horrison
2370 Vista Del Mar lane
Tiburon, California 94920
Tel 415435-2871
Fax 415435-0118
Transportation Planning and Project Management
IoJ IE ~ ~ 0 VJ l~ ~II'
~ ... .... i 0 2006 l1!i
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Scott Hochstrasser
Robert L. Harrison
March 17, 2006
Response to Kol Shofar EIR Traffic Studies
PLANNING DIViSION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Requirement for the project to fund a 150-foot extension of the eastbound left
turn lane at the intersection of Tiburon Boulevard with Blackfield Drive.
The EIR Traffic Study incorrectly uses data provided in the project traffic study)
to find that a 300 person Saturday evening event at the project would have a
significant adverse impact on this intersection and the project should therefore fund
the above described improvement. I believe this finding of significant impact is in
error as explained below.
1 - Incorrect use of the project traffic study data. The analysis conducted in the
project traffic study was intended to determine the impact of project generated
traffic on the Level of Service (LOS) of several intersections, LOS is the standard
most commonly used by local jurisdictions, including the Town of Tiburon, to
determine project impacts. It is relatively easy to understand and can be calculated
using readily available technical data.
The project traffic study used available data such as traffic counts, intersection
geometric design and signalization conditions to estimate the impact of the project
on the intersection of Tiburon Boulevard with Blackfield Drive. The signal timing
plan used in the project traffic study was based on field observations of the typical
operation of the intersection. The green time assigned to each traffic movement
was representative of the normal signal operations. However, because the traffic
signal at this intersection is traffic actuated, the actual timing of each phase of the
signal varies in every signal cycle. The HCS2000 software2 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 same 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.
}
2
Congregation Kol Shofar Building Project, Traffic and Parking Study. April 2004.
University of Florida. McTrans Center. Highway Capatiy Software for Wndows
95198/NT/2000 (HCS2000). 2001.
Memorandum to Scott Hochstrasser - March 17, 2006
Response to Kol Shofar EIR Traffic Studies
Page Two
2 -- Use of Signal Optimization Software. Attached to this memorandum is the
calculation of the operation of the intersection using the TRAFFIX software.
TRAFFIX is the software used for the evaluation of project impact by most
jurisdictions in Marin County and in the Bay Area. TRAFFIX uses a signal
optimization program that estimates the way a signal will operate under variable
traffic loads. As can be seen in the table below, the intersection LOS letter grade
calculated by the HCS2000 and TRAFFIX software is the same.
However, the projected length of the traffic queue in the eastbound left turn lane at
the intersection is significantly shorter using the signal optimization function of the
TRAFFIX software. The estimate of the length of the queue is based on the
Caltrans design standard of the 95th percentile traffic volume.
Intersection of Tiburon Boulevard at Blackfield Drive
Saturday Evening Conditions
Scenario
Existing
Existing + Project
Cumulative
Cumulative + Project
HCS2000 Software
LOS1 95th Percentile Q2
C 12 Vehicles
C 18 Vehicles
TRAFFIX Software
LOS1 95th Percentile Q2
C 10 Vehicles
C 13 Vehicles
C
C
17 Vehicles
25 Vehicles
C
C
12 Vehicles
15 Vehicles
Notes: 1 - LOS = Level of Service.
2 - Number of vehicles in the 95th percentile queue in the eastbound left turn lane.
Source: Robert L. Harrison Transportation Planning
3 - Capacity of the Eastbound Left Turn Lane. 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 of 329 feet. In addition to the storage are~ there is an area of
bay taper and deceleration lane that is 182 feet in length. The bay taper is about
] 20 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. U sing the signal optimization
procedures of the TRAFFIX software, existing traffic volumes result in a 95th
percentile queue of 10 velricles. The traffic that would be added by a 300 person
Saturday evening event at the project results in a 95th 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.
Memorandum to Scott Hochstrasser - March 17 ~ 2006
Response to Kol Shofar EIR Traffic Studies
Page Three
"
The cumulative analysis for the project assumed the full build out of the Tiburon
Peninsula or a condition at least 20 years into the future. As shown in the above
table~ the Tiburon Peninsula build out traffic volumes would result in a Saturday
evening eastbound left turn lane 95th percentile queue of 12 vehicles. If the trips
generated by a 300 person Saturday evening event at the project were added to
this 20 year plus projectio~ the left turn lane 95th percentile queue is projected to
reach 15 vehicles.
The existing intersection design would provide adequate pavement to serve even a
15 vehicle queue. By using 46 feet of the available 62 feet of deceleration lane~
plus the full 329-foot existing length of the storage lane~ all ] 5 vehicles could be
stored in this lane completely separate from the through traffic lanes.
Summary. The existing eastbound left turn lane on Tiburon Boulevard at
Blackfield Drive has sufficient capacity to serve the traffic that would be added by
a 300 person Saturday evening event at Congregation Kol Shofar. There is no
need to increase the capacity of the left turn lane to serve the project.
Nor does it seem reasonable to impose a mitigation that would require the
rebuilding of the intersection in order to serve a traffic demand that is projected to
occur at 20 or more years into the future and then only intermittently on 25 to 40
Saturday evenings each year. This requirement is further weakened by the
circumstance that even if the projected 15 vehicle queue did occur~ there is
adequate pavement in the existing intersection to store all 15 vehicles.
MITIG8 - Saturday Evening ETue Mar 14, 2006 17:21:16
Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kol Shofar Project
Saturday Evening Existing Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 Tiburon Blvd at Blackfield Drive
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec): 78 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.719
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 20.3
Optimal Cycle: 78 Level Of Service: C
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 10 10 6 10 10
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Volume Module: >> Count Date: 1 Mar 2004 <<
Base Vol: 56 14 24 108 14 168 254 763 38 27 812 91
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 56 14 24 108 14 168 254 763 38 27 812 91
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0,85 0.80 0.80 0.80
PHF Volume: 76 19 32 126 16 195 299 898 45 34 1015 114
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 76 19 32 126 16 195 299 898 45 34 1015 114
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 76 19 32 126 16 195 299 898 45 34 1015 114
____________1_______________1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.59 0.59 0.85 0.67 0.67 0.85 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.93 0.93
Lanes: 0.80 0.20 1.00 0.89 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.90 0.10 1.00 1.80 0.20
Final Sat.: 898 225 1615 1136 144 1615 1787 3380 169 1787 3165 355
____________1_______________1 1---------------1 1---------------[ 1---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.17 0.27 0.27 0.02 0.32 0.32
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.23 0.60 0.60 0.08 0.45 0.45
Volume/Cap: 0.50 0.50 0.12 0.66 0.66 0.72 0.72 0.44 0.44 0.25 0.72 0.72
Delay/Veh: 31.7 31.7 27.7 37.8 37.8 39.7 33.6 8.6 8.6 34.8 19.3 19.3
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 31.7 31.7 27.7 37.8 37.8 39.7 33.6 8.6 8.6 34.8 19.3 19.3
DesignQueue: 3 1 1 5 1 7 10 17 1 1 26 3
*********************************************************~**********************
Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to R.L.Harrison Trans. Plan
MITIG8 - Sat.Evening Cum. +Tue Mar 14, 2006 17:23:12
Page 1-1
Kol Shofar Project
Saturday Evening Cumulative + Project
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 Tiburon Blvd at Blackfield Drive
********************************************************************************
Cycle (see): 78 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.925
Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 32.2
Optimal Cycle: 105 Level Of Service: C
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------ 1--------------- I 1 --------------- 1 1--------------- 11--------------- [
Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 10 10 6 10 10
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 68 23 29 166 21 257 393 931 46 33 991 148
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 68 23 29 166 21 257 393 931 46 33 991 148
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
PHF Volume: 76 26 32 184 23 286 437 1034 51 37 1101 164
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 76 26 32 184 23 286 437 1034 51 37 1101 164
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 76 26 32 184 23 286 437 1034 51 37 1101 164
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.48 0.48 0.85 0.67 0.67 0.85 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.92 0.92
Lanes: 0.75 0.25 1.00 0.89 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.91 0.09 1.00 1.74 0.26
Final Sat.: 685 234 1615 1132 141 1615 1787 3382 167 1787 3051 455
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.24 0.31 0.31 0.02 0.36 0.36
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.26 0.58 0.58 0.08 0.39 0.39
Volume/Cap: 0.58 0.58 0.10 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.92 0.53 0.53 0.27 0.92 0.92
Delay/Veh: 33.4 33.4 26.2 53.9 53.9 63.2 52.0 10.3 10.3 35.0 33.5 33.5
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 33.4 33.4 26.2 53.9 53.9 63.2 52.0 10.3 10.3 35.0 33.5 33.5
DesignQueue: 3 1 1 7 1 10 15 20 1 1 32 5
********************************************************************************
Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to R.L.Harrison Trans. Plan
MITIG8 - Saturday Evening +Tue Mar 14, 2006 17:19:57
Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kol Shofar Project
Saturday Evening Existing + Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 Tiburon Blvd at Blackfield Drive
********************************************************************************
Cycle (see): 78 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.846
Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 26.4
Optimal Cycle: 80 Level Of Service: C
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
--------~---I---------------I 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1
Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 10 10 6 10 10
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 56 20 24 142 18 220 337 763 38 27 812 128
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 56 20 24 142 18 220 337 763 38 27 812 128
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.80
PHF Volume: 76 27 32 165 21 256 396 898 45 34 1015 160
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 76 27 32 165 21 256 396 898 45 34 1015 160
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 76 27 32 165 21 256 396 898 45 34 1015 160
------------1--------------- I 1--------------- I 1---------------1 1---------------1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.53 0.53 0.85 0.67 0.67 0.85 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.92 0.92
Lanes: 0.74 0.26 1.00 0.89 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.90 0.10 1.00 1.73 0.27
Final Sat.: 736 261 1615 1129 144 1615 1787 3380 169 1787 3025 477
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.22 0.27 0.27 0.02 0.34 0.34
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.26 0.58 0.58 0.08 0.40 0.40
Volume/Cap: 0.55 0.55 0.11 0.78 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.46 0.46 0.25 0.85 0.85
Delay/Veh: 32.2 32.2 26.4 45.2 45.2 49.8 40.6 9.5 9.5 34.8 26.4 26.4
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 32.2 32.2 26.4 45.2 45.2 49.8 40.6 9.5 9.5 34.8 26.4 26.4
DesignQueue: 3 1 1 6 1 9 13 17 1 1 29 5
********************************************************************************
Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to R.L.Harrison Trans. Plan
MITIG8 - Sat. Evening CumulThu Mar 16, 2006 10:42:13
Page 1-1
Kol Shofar Project
Saturday Evening Cumulative
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 Tiburon Blvd at Blackfield Drive
********************************************************************************
Cycle (see): 78 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.805
Loss Time (see): 12 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh): 23.1
Optimal Cycle: 78 Level Of Service: C
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1--------------- 11---------------11---------------1 1---------------1
Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 10 10 6 10 10
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
------------1---------------1 I----~----------I 1---------------1 1---------------1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 68 17 29 132 17 205 310 931 46 33 991 III
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 68 17 29 132 17 205 310 931 46 33 991 111
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
PHF Volume: 76 19 32 147 19 228 344 1034 51 37 1101 123
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 76 19 32 147 19 228 344 1034 51 37 1101 123
peE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 76 19 32 147 19 228 344 1034 51 37 1101 123
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.54 0.54 0.85 0.67 0.67 0.85 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.93 0.93
Lanes: 0.80 0.20 1.00 0.89 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.91 0.09 1.00 1.80 0.20
Final Sat.: 815 204 1615 1134 147 1615 1787 3382 167 1787 3167 354
------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.09 0.02 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.19 0.31 0.31 0.02 0.35 0.35
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.24 0.59 0.59 0.08 0.43 0.43
Volume/Cap: 0.53 0.53 0.11 0.74 0.74 0.81 0.81 0.51 0.51 0.27 0.81 0.81
Delay/Veh: 32.3 32.3 27.2 42.7 42.7 46.3 38.7 9.5 9.5 35.0 22.6 22.6
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 32.3 32.3 27.2 42.7 42.7 46.3 38.7 9.5 9.5 35.0 22.6 22.6
DesignQueue: 3 1 1 5 1 8 12 20 1 1 30 3
********************************************************************************
Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to R.L.Harrison Trans. Plan
Final EIR for the Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit
Application: Alternative 7 Analysis
April 18, 2006
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, California 94920
Leonard Charles and Associates
7 Roble Court
San Anselmo, California 94960
415.454.4575
EXHIBIT NO.~
The Town has prepared a Final EIR for the proposed Congregation Kol Shofar
Conditional Use Permit application ("the project"). Subsequent to release of the Final
EIR, but prior to any certification hearing, the applicant submitted a letter/report and two
additional technical reports that requested that the EIR preparers revisit two impact
analyses and consider a modification of Alternative 6 that was assessed in the Final
EIR. In addition, the Town has requested a review of a mitigation change that Town staff
has recommended. This Final EIR: Alternative 7 Analysis responds to those technical
reports and Town-recommended changes.
1. Proposed Alternative 7
In commenting on the Draft EIR, the applicant suggested modifications of Alternative 5
(the Restricted Use Alternative in the Draft EIR). The Final EIR assessed these
suggested changes as the new Alternative 6 in Master Response 1 (see pages 3 to 5 of
the Final EIR). The original project proposal included a maximum of 40 Saturday
evening events and 35 Sunday events. Alternative 6 addressed in the Final EIR
reduced the proposed events to a maximum of 27 Saturday and 20 Sunday events. In
all cases, a maximum of 275 people would be allowed to attend these events.
The applicant has now suggested additional changes to Alternative 6. The additional
modifications, called Alternative 7, would include the following new weekend evening
events:
Alternative 7
Proposed New Weekend Events
4
4
4
.m. Ius cleanu
Maximum Allowed
Attendance
250
200
150
3
5
4
3
.m. Ius cleanu
Maximum Allowed
Attendance
250
200
150
100
Total
12
150-250
15
100-250
The principal objective of Alternative 7 is to reduce the level and amount of new
nighttime noise caused by people arriving at and leaving the site to attend these new
events. The Draft EI R determined that this new nighttime noise would be a significant
and unavoidable impact on residents of up to 20 nearby residences.
The applicant's proposed Alternative 6, addressed in the Final EIR (see Master
Response 1), would reduce this nighttime noise impact. However, the Final EIR
concluded that the reduction in noise from that alternative was not sufficient to reduce
the impact to a less than significant level.
The EIR noise consultant (Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.) reviewed Alternative 7 to determine
whether the reduction in events, hours, and attendees would be sufficient to reduce the
noise impact to a less than significant level. The noise consultant's report is attached at
the end of this report. The following summarizes the conclusions of that analysis.
1
The original Restricted Use Alternative (Alternative 5) analyzed in the Draft EIR included
restricting new events to every other Saturday and Sunday evening and required events
to end by 9:00 p.m. (up to approximately 50 new events per year). The new Alternative
7 would allow up to 27 Saturday and Sunday event nights per year. The new proposed
events schedule, with up to 27 additional event nights per year, would generate
significantly less noise than Alternative 5. Accordingly, the applicant would hold an
increased number of evening events, but fewer weekend events (12 Saturday events
and 15 Sunday events) than contemplated in Alternative 5. The new nighttime noise
would also be less than for Alternative 5 because the maximum number of attendees
would be significantly reduced. Alternative 5 would have allowed up to 275 people for a
maximum of 75 events. At a rate of an average of 2 people per vehicle, this would total
about 10,300 vehicles, or 20,600 trips (a vehicle arriving then leaving the site). In
comparison, the new modification would result in a total of 2,375 vehicles or 4,750 trips.
Alternative 5 restricted new Saturday and Sunday night events to every other weekend
(Le., every other weekend would have no Saturday or Sunday night events). The new
modification would allow a maximum of 27 new events, which would be approximately
one every other weekend (assuming that there were no weekends where there was both
a Saturday and a Sunday night event; in .that case, there would be additional weekends
where there would be no new event). Alternative 7 achieves the goal of keeping one-
half of the weekends event-free.
Alternative 5 required that all new weekend events end by 9:00 p.m., while Alternative 7
would allow the 12 new Saturday events to last until 11 :00 p.m. The reductions in the
number of events and the number of people coming to and going from these events
would offset the fact that 12 events would last 2 hours longer than allowed in the original
alternative.1 This new modification would generate less new nighttime noise affecting
nearby residents than Alternative 5. As such, Alternative 7 would also result in a less
than significant noise impact.
Other Impacts
By reducing the number of events and the maximum number of people that would
attend the new events, the alternative reduces parking and traffic impacts. The
alternative also reduces the hours of lighting, thereby reducing lighting impacts.
Conclusion
Alternative 7 would include approximately the same or more restrictions as Alternative 5
analyzed in the Draft EIR. Alternative 7 would reduce the nighttime noise impact to a
less than significant level, which is the same conclusion reached for Alternative 5 in the
Draft EIR.
I The differences between the alternative assessed in the Draft EIR and this most recent
modification are so small that it is difficult to conclude whether they are precisely equivalent. The
EIR noise consultants have concluded that the reduction in the number of events, the hours on
Sunday evening, and the number of attendees outweighs the fact that for 12 events, the hours
would be 2 hours longer than assumed in the original alternative.
2
2. Traffic
The applicant's traffic engineer (Robert L. Harrison Transportation Planning and Project
Management) has submitted a Memorandum titled Requirement for the project to fund a
150-foot extension of the eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of Tiburon
Boulevard with Blackfield Drive (dated March 17, 2006); this Memo is attached in the
back of this report. The analysis used a different software program (Le., TRAFFIX
software) for assessing impacts than was used in the applicant's original traffic analysis
(that used the Highway Capacity Software, or HCS). Based on the TRAFFIX software,
the applicant's traffic engineer concludes that the eastbound left-turn lane on Tiburon
Boulevard at the Blackfield Drive intersection has adequate queuing capacity to serve
future conditions, including conditions with project-generated traffic added.
The EIR traffic engineer (the Crane Transportation Group) reviewed this analysis. Their
review is also attached at the end of this report. To summarize the findings of this
review:
· Both software programs are used by the traffic engineering profession. Assessing
the intersection's operations using the different software programs provides
divergent results. One software program is not preferred over the other. The Town
used the TRAFFIX 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" (Le., 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.
Based on the Caltrans review (which would occur at the final design phase of the
project), the impact might be less than significant with no mitigation required or
potentially significant with lane lengthening and/or changing the signal phase required to
reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Caltrans might find that the TRAFFIX
software conclusions are acceptable and determine that, at most, lane lengthening
3
would only be needed for the cumulative condition. In that case, the applicant would be
responsible for a fair share of that future lane lengthening.
Providing these data to Caltrans to allow them to make the final decision on needed
improvements to the State highway is the same conctusion and recommendation
reached in the discussion of this left-turn lane in the Final EIR (see Master Response 6F
on pages 28-30 of the Final EIR). Implementation of any improvements required by
Caltrans would be the responsibility of Caltrans and the applicant.
Effects of Alternative 7
The Harrison report did not address queuing demand for the reduced number of events
and attendees proposed by the applicant (Le., Alternative 7). The Final EIR (page 29)
found that reducing event size from the originally proposed maximum of 300 people to
275 people would reduce traffic volumes during events by 90/0, which is less than one
vehicle space. Reducing attendance to a maximum of 250 people would further reduce
the need for lane lengthening. In addition, events of this size would only happen 7 times
a year. There would be 9 events with a maximum of 200 people attending. Using the
HCS software, this would require lengthening for approximately an additional 3-4
vehicles (calculated at roughly one car per 60 people). The events that would have a
maximum of 150 people attending would require about half the lengthening identified for
the original project, while the events with 100 people would require about one-third the
lengthening. Thus, left-turn lengthening and/or changing the signal phasing would still
be required for Alternative 7 using the HCS software.
For the 7 events attended by up to 250 people, lengthening would not be needed for the
"existing plus project" condition using the TRAFFIX software, and would be borderline
for. the cumulative condition. For the events attended by 200 people or less, no
additional lengthening would likely be required if the TRAFFIX software is used.
Monitoring
Recognizing that using different software provides different. results with divergent
mitigation needs, the Town may elect to monitor the intersection during these future
weekend events to determine actual queuing in the left-turn lane. To determine the
need for improvements given the "existing plus project" condition, the Town could
monitor up to ten events over the first year of operation, monitoring events during
different seasons. This assumes that Caltrans, after reviewing all the environmental
data, approves monitoring rather than immediate lengthening of the lane or changing
the signal phasing. A letter sent by Caltrans subsequent to circulation of the Final EIR
states that lengthening the left-turn lane must be completed prior to use of the new
multi-purpose room (this letter is attached to the back of this report), so Caltrans would
need to approve this alternate mitigation of conducting monitoring (or it can accept the
TRAFFIX software conclusions and not require lengthening or monitoring).
Monitoring results would be shared with Caltrans. Following a review of the monitoring
results, the Town and Caltrans would determine the need for lane lengthening and/or
changing the signal phasing. The applicant would be responsible for the costs of the
monitoring. The applicant would post a bond or some other form of financial assurance
acceptable to the Town and Caltrans to fund lane lengthening and/or changing the
signal phasing.
4
If the first year monitoring showed that there was adequate queuing capacity in the left-
turn lane, the Town would not require any immediate improvements. However, the
Town would have to continue monitoring until such time as the Town determined that
buildout of the planning area was essentially complete in order to determine whether
lane lengthening would be needed as part of the cumulative impact condition. The
Town should perform this long-term monitoring periodically on a.schedule determined by
the Town staff (with Caltrans input), with the applicant funding the cost of the traffic
monitoring (which is the cost of an observer watching the left turn lane during the peak
hour before and after the monitored event, noting the times when there was inadequate
capacity and how many vehicles were stacked outside the striped left-turn lane, and
reporting the results to the Town). Again, the applicant would need to provide the
appropriate financial assurance to the Town that improvements would be constructed
when warranted, as determined by Caltrans.
3. Noise
The Final EI R concluded that proposed new weekend evening events would have
significant and unavoidable noise impacts on residents of up to 20 residences located
near the site. The applicant has submitted a letter from the applicant's noise
consultants (Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., dated April 6, 2006). The letter
questions the methodology used to establish the significance of the noise impact. As
discussed previously, the EIR noise consultants have concluded that the new proposed
Alternative 7 would reduce the noise impact from new nighttime events to a less than
significant level. The following responds to the specific issues raised in the Salter letter.
1. The comment states that the Town of Tiburon has used an annualized Ldn (24-
hour average) noise metric on previous projects. The Ldn metric does not
capture the relatively short-term noise impacts described in the EIR. While these
short-term noise impacts generated by people coming from and leaving
nighttime events may not endure long enough or be loud enough to cause
significant changes in an average day-night noise metric, this does not mean
they are not a substantial impact to people living in the area. The CEQA
Guidelines state that a noise impact may be considered significant when there is
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project. As described in the EIR,
the project would cause noise levels to periodically (Le., when people were
coming to and leaving the site during new nighttime events) by 6-10 decibels
(dBA). This periodic noise increase would be substantial given the quiet
residential neighborhood, the large number of events originally proposed by the
applicant, and the time of night when the events would end. The impact was
considered significant.
2. This comment accurately describes the EIR conclusions.
3. The comment states that the EIR does not specify the time that the noise
increase occurs, and further states that the noise impact is not significant
because the annualized Ldn would increase by less than 1 dBA. As stated in
Response 1 above, the periodic noise increase is considered significant. The
new proposed events would cause periodic noise impacts for approximately one
hour up to 75 days a year, including 35 days where the noise would occur at
11 :00 p.m. or later (due to clean-up) when the ambient noise environment in the
5
residential neighborhood is very quiet. On these bases, the EIR preparers
continue to conclude that the project would have a significant periodic noise
impact on certain residents living near the site.
4. The comment is that the EIR does not consider a reduction in the number of
nighttime events as adequate mitigation for the noise impact. As described on
page 45 of the Final EIR, the reduction in the number of events, the hours when
such events could occur, and the people attending the events was considered a
substantial change in the project. These changes were assessed as a project
alternative. See the discussion above regarding Alternative 7 where the EIR
acoustic consultants conclude that these reductions in events and other
reductions would reduce the noise impact to a less than significant level.
5. The comment states that requiring proposed new events to end by 9:00 p.m. is
arbitrary. The EIR preparers selected the hour of 9:00 p.m. due to the quiet
residential character of the area. The applicant has likewise proposed restricting
events to this hour except for the 12 new Saturday night events. The applicant
proposes to allow these events to occur until 11 :00 p.m. The EIR noise
consultants have concluded that the 11 :00 PM ending time for these 12 events
would still achieve a less than significant impact given the other reductions
encompassed in Alternative 7.
4. On-site Circulation Change
The applicant has modified the on-site vehicle circulation to maintain existing conditions,
which include parking lot ingress only from Via Los Altos and egress via Reedland
Woods Way. This change would reduce traffic congestion on Reedland Woods Way
and at the Reedland Woods Way/Blackfield Drive intersection. 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. The additional traffic that would
use Via Los Altos to access the parking lot driveway would not substantially affect the
Via Los Altos/Blackfield Drive intersection. This intersection currently operates at Level
of Service A, and would continue to operate at that level of service with the added traffic
generated by new events. While reducing congestion on Reedland Woods Way, this
change would not reduce the traffic safety impact resulting from turnarounds on
residential streets to a less than significant level. In fact, because drivers will be unable
to access the parking lot from Reedland Woods Way, drivers who are unfamiliar with the
parking lot circulation pattern may turn onto Reedland Woods Way, discover they
cannot enter the parking lot from this street, and then make a u-turn to return to
Blackfield Drive. Other drivers whose intent was to drop someone off at the site may
decide to turn onto Reedland Woods Way and drop their passengers off at the sidewalk
rather than have to negotiate driving through the parking lot; these drivers would also
make a u-turn on Reedland Woods Way. Other mitigations (see below) would be
required to address the traffic safety impact of people turning around on residential
streets.
5. Parking Receipt Mitigation Change
Town staff has recommended revision of Mitigation Measure 3.3-C.3 that was
recommended in the Final EIR to reduce the traffic safety impact of people turning
6
around on residential streets to a less than significant level. Upon further review, Town
staff considers such a program unwieldy (Le., difficult to manage and monitor). The site
will contain sufficient on-site parking for proposed new events. As described previously
in this report, under Alternative 7, new events will be limited to 250 people, and even this
number will be aUowed only 7 times a year. Town staff has recommended the following
alternate mitigation:
1. For all 27 new Saturday and Sunday evening events, Kol Shofar shall place
signs along its frontage on Via Los Altos, Slackfield Drive, and Reedland Woods
Way stating that people attending events at Kol Shofar need to park on-site and
not on residential streets.
2. Kol Shofar shall require that all invitations and notifications of these new
weekend events include a note informing people they are to park on the site and
not to park on residential streets.
3. The Town shall monitor, at the applicant's expense, up to 4 events the first year
after project completion to determine whether people are parking on the street
during these new events. If Town staff determines that people are continuing to
park on the street during these events, then the parking receipt program
described in the Final EIR will be required. If the Town determines that all or all
but one or two cars are parking on-site, then monitoring will continue up to two
events per year thereafter. If that subsequent monitoring indicates non-
compliance, then the applicant will be so informed and additional monitoring (to a
level the Town deems necessary) shall be conducted. If the Town determines
there is noncompliance, then the parking receipt program or an equivalent
program identified by the Town will be instituted. The applicant shall bear the
costs of all monitoring.
This modified mitigation would be sufficient to reduce the traffic safety impact of people
turning around in residential neighborhoods to a less than significant level. Alternative 7
further limits the number of people attending new events, thereby ensuring that there is
adequate on-site parking. The signage and information programs should be sufficient to
essentially eliminate on-street parking at new events. And, if it proves that these
features are not adequate, then the originally recommended parking receipt program will
be required.
6. Conclusions
· Alternative 7 would reduce the significant nighttime noise impact to a less than
significant level. This alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed
project.
· Consistent with the recommendations of the EIR, Caltrans will be provided all data
relative to the left-turn lane on Tiburon Boulevard at the Slackfield Drive intersection.
Caltrans will determine whether improvements are needed at this intersection or
whether monitoring of the intersection is warranted. The Town will need to ensure
that the applicant is fiscally responsible for all monitoring and its fair share of
intersection improvements.
7
. The proposed change to the on-site circulation system will not result in any new or
more severe environmental impacts, and will reduce off-site impacts.
. The Town-requested change to the parking receipt mitigation measure (Measure
3.3-C.3) would provide equivalent mitigation to the original mitigation. Again, if it is
shown that the modified mitigation does not work, then the originally recommended
parking receipt program or an equivalent program will be required.
7. EIR Recirculation
The CEQA Guidelines require an EI R to be recirculated for additional public review and
comment if anyone of four conditions is met, as listed below:
1. When new information shows a new, substantial impact resulting either from the
project or from a mitigation measure. The new information discussed in this
analysis would not result in a new impact. Rather, the information indicates how
impacts already described in the EIR could be further addressed and reduced.
2. When the new information shows a substantial increase in the severity of an
environmental impact. The information contained in this analysis would not
result in a substantial increase in severity of any environmental impact.
3. When the new information shows a feasible alternative or mitigation measure
which is considerably different from those considered in the EIR and that the new
alternative or mitigation would clearly reduce the environmental impacts of the
project and that the project proponent declines to adopt it. This is not the case
for the new information provided in this analysis. In fact, applicant has proposed
the modification to Alternative 5, which would reduce noise and other impacts.
4. When the EIR is so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in
nature that public comment on the EtR was essentially meaningless. The EIR
preparers believe that the EIR provided a comprehensive accounting of potential
impacts, mitigation measures, and project alternatives. The public was afforded
ample opportunities to provide comment on the EIR.
The EIR preparers do not believe that the EIR needs to be recirculated given the new
information contained in this analysis. However, the Town will make the final decision
as to whether EIR recirculation is necessary.
8
13
Q)~
.....gt:
13~
Q)UJ
a:::
13
Q)~
(Ogt:
13~
Q)UJ
a:::
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
U
:!;Q)
It)CI)~
Q)
a:::
:ga..E
~E~g~~~~~~ro~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Q)~a:::
a:::
-
Q) CI)
l3CI)
C"")o~
Eo
~~
tn
Q)
>
;
ca
I:: -
~ .g
S o~
-C'IIEt:
<1: Q) 0
M-g a:::
'rea
-
Q)~ u
- 0 0 Q)
.Q .!, ,.... ~ .~
~ e a:
0..
.....
o
~
E
E
~
13
Q)-
CI) u
o.~
Q.e
ea..
a..
en
-
u
Ct1
Q.
~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~N~~~~~NNNN~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ro~~~~~~~~~ro~roro~~~~~~ro
(/)
""0
o (/)2
o ..... c
-E .S '0
E ~a..
.c Q) ~ (/)
. g: "0 QJ co (/) Q) (/) (/)
~ ~ g!9 C ~ .~ L.. ~ ~
ro (/) .c ~ >ro .:;: Q) 2 .:;: 0:;: ffi
~ o~ U L.. > L co L L (/) _
Q)..... 0 Q) Q)~>Q)Q) ua..
.~ a5 ~ ~ u ro (/) L.. > (/) (/)
~ L.. E _g n> o~ooo ~_
.S Ql (/) 0 32 '-:J .- '- ""0 '- '- '-....... E ~
~ c..... (/) Q)Q)nk (/)~C~~~L'#^_Q)
'-J .- u "0 Q) C Z LL LL C ..... '-J '-J '-J '-J ~ v,
o ""0 ro 0 0::: 0 o~ 0 0 0 U C co C C C ro Q) := C
o 0 Q.. :;:: Q) co..... ..... OU5 co ro E co ro co :J () 0 Q)
u: C ..Q E -5 .S ~ :J 0 Z ~ Q):JE 0. E Q) E E E a :J (/) <.9
E .Q LL - (/) (/) :J (/) 2 C ~. ~.b _ Q) 0 Q) Q) Q) L.. g ""0
C(/)Q)CQ)""O~OUOCCC OQ)OOO~Q)C
~ .~ e .~ g ro 5 (3 ft ~ u ~ ~ ..... ~ ""OQ) E "0 ""0 "0 0::: co :5
.b 0 W ro U :J 0 W W :J 0 0 ~ Ql ~ (/) _co Q) Q) Q) -g - .~ 03: Q)
(/) L.. - Q) P-T L.. ro L.. .::::' C (/) (/) '" co c;::r. L.
C W Q) :J (/) Q) ro C Q) Q) U5 ro ro =0 .- C co :J co co ~ \V L.. 0
~ Q) ro E CD ""0 E CD .~ .~ C :J :J ro 1: 8 ~ E ~ ~ ~ U5 ~ (5 >- 8
o ~ ~ :J ..... ro :J ..... 0 0 0 .~ .~ Q) a Q) U :J U U U :J :J Q) U Q) ~
O(/)(/)OCC~cZZO>>I~(/)COCC~OO<.9Cu Q)
Q) C
<(COoU5co gl
<(cooo<(cooLL<(coo<(cooow<(o<(<(<(~~~~os~E
~~~~M0MM***~~~~~m~~oom~~~5Eo~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oo~<
~CD
~ .
~~
~o
N .
~lO
~~
~~
~":
~~
mOO
<ON
ON
~~
<00
N~
~oo
:!lO
0>
.S
C
o
N
""0
C
co
0-
~
<;~ t>o
\1-
VJ"t
':)
y
04
('f)
Errata Sheet for the
Final Environmental Impact Report
For the Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit
March 2006
Prepared for: Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, California 94920
Prepared by: Leonard Charles and Associates
7 Roble Court
San Anselmo, California 94960
415.454.4575
EXHIBIT NO.3-
The following corrects errata contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
for the Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit project.
1. On page 1 of the FEIR, it states that the public review period for the DEIR was
July 7 to August 15, 2005. It should state that it was from July 1 to August 15,
2005.
2. Response 17 in the FEIR describes a new mitigation measure for the project that
includes the requirement for a parking receipt that attendees at new evening
weekend and weekday "special eventsll must show before being allowed
entrance to those events. This receipt guarantees that attendees of new major
events have parked. on the site. The response incorrectly stated that this
program was currently being conducted at San Domenico School. While the
County is monitoring traffic generated by special events at that school, attendees
are not given parking receipts for these events. It was the ErR preparers'
understanding that this monitoring was for exactly the same type of parking
program recommended in Response 17. However, the EIR preparers were
misinformed. Thus, the next to last paragraph under Response 17 (on page 190
of the FErR) will be deleted.
This error does not affect the recommended mitigation measure, nor does it alter
the FEIR conclusion that implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce
Impact 3.3-C to a less than significant level. The recommended mitigation
measure is feasible and would reduce the traffic safety impact to a less than
significant level.
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
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 Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does
resolve as follows:
Section.L Findinqs.
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 the availability of the DEIR was given as required
by law; and
WHEREAS, written comments on the DEIR were accepted from the public
from July 1, 2005 to August 15, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and accepted
testimony on the DEIR on August 10, 2005; and
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2005, after the close of the 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 and local CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed hearing on April
24,2006 at which it heard and considered the FEIR and received public
testimony; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that no significant new
information had been received that required recirculation of the EIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Congregation Kol Shofar !t
Final Environmental Impact Report:
EXHIBIT NO.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-XX April 24, 2006
Page 1
1. Consists of:
a. Congregation Kol Shofar Draft Environmental Impact Report,
dated June 2005; and
b. Congregation Kol Shofar Final Environmental 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 Planning Commission to have been
completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act and local CEQA guidelines.
3. Has been presented to the Planning Commission of the Town of
Tiburon, which has reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Final EIR.
4. Reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning
Commission.
5. Is hereby adopted as the Environmental Impact Report for the
Congregation Kol Shofar expansion project (File #10404).
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a
Commission of the Town of Tiburon on
vote:
meeting of the Planning
, 2006, by the following
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
JOHN KUNZWEILER, CHAIRMAN
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATTEST:
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-XX April 24, 2006
Page 2
EXHIBIT 5
CEQA FINDINGS RESOLUTION
IS STILL UNDER PREP ARA TION AND WILL BE
PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSION SHORTLY
RECORDING REQUESTED
RETURN TO:
PLANNING DIVISION
TIBURON TOWN HALL
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD
TIBURON, CA 94920
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE KOL SHOFAR SYNAGOGUE AT
215 BLACKFIELD DRIVE lAP 38-351-34) FILE #10404
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as
follows:
Section 1:. FindinQs.
A. In 1985, the Town of Tiburon approved a conditional use permit authorizing
synagogue and day school uses on property located at 215 Blackfield Drive.
The use permit conditions were subsequently amended by adoption of Planning
Commission Resolution Nos. 97-17,2001-07, and 2004-10.
B. On April 21 ,2004, the Town of Tiburon received a Land Development
Application (File #10404) (the "Application") from Congregation Kol Shofar ("Kol
Shofar") with regard to its property at 215 Blackfield Drive (the "Property"). The
Application seeks a conditional use permit ("CUP") for remodeling of existing
structures and construction of new facilities on the Property, specifically: a
single-story, 9,733 square foot multi-purpose addition to the existing circular
building; four new single-story classrooms and a service room totaling 3,662
square feet; remodeling of the existing building; a new parking lot for 40 spaces;
and related lighting and landscaping improvements. In addition, the Application
seeks an increase in the maximum enrollment of the day school from 100 to 150
children, as well as allow 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
b. Traffic and Parking Study prepared by Robert Harrison Traffic
Engineers, dated April, 2004
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-Draft April 24, 2006
Page 1
EXHIBIT NO.-'-
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 hearing.
C. On April 24, 2006, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on the Application, at which it considered the Final EIR and heard and
considered testimony and correspondence from interested persons.
D. The Planning Commission finds that based upon evidence in the record, the
proposed project as analyzed in the EIR would result in a potentially significant
adverse nighttime noise impact on several neighboring residences due to the
proposed number and lateness of nighttime events. The Planning Commission
finds that limitations on the frequency and hours of newly proposed activities,
consistent with FEIR Alternative 7: Reduced Events, would reduce this impact to
a less than significant level while still achieving the applicant's objectives, and
shall be incorporated into the project as a condition of approval of the CUP. The
applicant has put forward Alternative 7 as a revised project.
E. The Planning Commission also finds, based upon evidence in the record that all
potentially significant adverse impacts have been mitigated to less than
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-Draft April 24, 2006
Page 2
significant levels through modifications to the project as set forth in this resolution
and in the mitigation monitoring program.
F. The Planning Commission also finds, based upon the application materials and
analysis provided in the Final EIR and April 24, 2006 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.
G. 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, 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.
The Planning Commission finds that the project conforms to the items set forth in
Sections 16-4.4.2 and 16-4.4.3 of the Tiburon Municipal Code.
H. The Planning Commission 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. Prior Resolutions Superseded.
This Resolution supersedes Planning Commission Resolutions No. 97-17, 2001-
07, and 2004-10, which upon vesting of the uses authorized by this CUP shall become
null and void.
Section 3. Conditions of Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the
Town of Tiburon does hereby approve the Conditional Use Permit application (File
#10404), to expand the facilities for the existing synagogue and private day school use
at 215 Blackfield Drive, subject to the following conditions and modifications:
1. The approved new multipurpose room, classrooms, remodeled facilities and
related parking and landscaping improvements shall be built consistent with the
project plans referenced above, on file (File #10404) with the Tiburon Community
Development Department.
2. The approved uses and activities of the synagogue and day school are set forth
in Table 1 attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made a part of this resolution.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-Draft April 24, 2006
Page 3
3. All requirements of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP),
attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part of this resolution, shall be
implemented. Modifications to the FEIR MMRP are the following:
a. Mitigation Measure 3.3-C.1 is adopted and Measure 3.3-C.2 is
deleted;
b. Mitigation 3.3~C.3 is replaced with an equivalent mitigation
measure to require "resident only parking signs", and "no parking"
signs in appropriate locations, as identified in Condition #4, below.
c. Mitigation Measure 3.5-0.6 is modified to state that lights will be
turned off at 10:00 p.m. every night, except for the twelve annual
Saturday nights when identified special events are planned and
lights will be tumed off at 11 :30 p.m.; and
d. Mitigation Measure 3.9-A.2 is modified to state that Kol Shofar is
responsible for traffic control and not the Police Department and
pertains to events with over 400 people, consistent with pre-
existing CUP requirements.
4. The following mitigation measures are incorporated as ongoing conditions of
approval:
a. At a minimum, the following traffic control measures shall be taken for all
new and existing events, or combination of events, with 250 or more
participants:
1) "Resident Traffic Only" or similar courtesy sign placed on Reedland
Woods Way near the Blackfield Drive intersection and on Via Los
Altos immediately east of (upslope from) the main Kol Shofar
parking lot entrance.
2) "No parking" signs placed on the east side of Reedland Woods
Way north of fire hydrant zone near the driveway entrance to 20
Reedland Woods Way up to the property line between 20 and 30
Reedland Woods Way. (Equivalent mitigation for Mitigation 3.3-
C.3).
b. The lower parking lot design shall be revised to optimize circulation and to
increase parking to the greatest extent practicable. A minimum of 7 new
spaces shall be provided however the intent of this condition shall be to
provide substantially more than 7 new parking spaces. The revised
parking lot layout shall be submitted for Town approval as part of the
design review application. (Equivalent mitigation for Mitigation Measure
3.3-C.3)
c. Doors and windows of the multi-purpose room shall remain in the closed
position during large or amplified indoor events (such as life-cycle events)
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-Draft April 24, 2006
Page 4
except for the three High Holy Day services, when they can be left open
only during the services. (Mitigation 3.4-8.1)
d. No outdoor amplification will be allowed except for the annual Sunday
School closing ceremony. (Mitigation 3.4-8.5)
e. The Congregation Kol Shofar facilities shall not be rented out to other
public or private parties, except for the classroom facilities that are rented
to the entity operating a school on the site, and shall be used solely by
Congregation Kol Shofar for the purposes identified in Table 1 (Exhibit A).
Outdoor use of the courtyard during events, other than the High Holy Days
services, shall be limited to people stepping out for air and casual
conversation. No food or drinks shall be served in the courtyard, and no
organized activities will be held in the courtyard. (Mitigation 3.4-8.6)
f. Parking lot lighting shall be on timers to turn off no later than 10:00 P.M.
each day. The duration of the lighting may be extended via manual
override device when occasions demand, but shall in no event be kept on
beyond 11 :00 P.M. on any occasion, except for twelve Saturday evening
events, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Selichot, Shauvot, and the second
night of Passover, at which times the parking lot lighting may remain on
until no later than fifteen minutes after the last vehicle has exited the
parking lots (Equivalent mitigation for Mitigation 3.5-0.6).
5 . All newly proposed Congregation Kol Shofar functions as identified in Table 1
(consistent with FEIR Alternative 7: Reduced Events) shall conform to the
following limitations:
A. All functions shall end by 9:00 p.m. except for the existing Friday night
service that shall end by 10:00 pm and new Saturday night events which
shall end by 11 :00 p.m.
8. All "new" events identified in Table 1 shall be limited so that the maximum
number of people allowed on the site shall not exceed 250 in any
instance. (Alternative 7: Reduced Events)
6. The day school shall be limited to a maximum student enrollment of 150 children.
Day school hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
7. On High Holy Days, Kol Shofar may provide a unified service subject to the
parking control and traffic management provisions provided in these conditions.
The impacts of the unified service shall be evaluated at the periodic CUP
reviews. The five (5) services associated with the High Holy Days (Rosh
Hashanah and Yom Kippur) comprise the busiest time of the year at
Congregation Kol Shofar. The following traffic control measures are to be taken
for all five (5) services associated with the High Holy Days, except as noted:
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-Dratt April 24, 2006 Page 5
a. Carpool/shuttle/parking information & map distributed to members at least
21 days in advance of High Holy Days.
b. Courtesy mailer to Reedland Woods Way and other Vista Tiburon
Subdivision addresses at least 10 days in advance of the annual High
Holy Days services.
c. "Resident Traffic Only" or similar courtesy sign placed on Reedland
Woods Way near the Blackfield Drive intersection and on Via Los Altos
immediately east of (upslope from) the Kol Shofar main parking lot
entrance.
d. "No parking" signs placed on the east side of Reedland Woods Way north
of fire hydrant zone near the driveway entrance to 20 Reedland Woods
Way, up to the property line between 20 and 30 Reedland Woods Way.
e. A remote parking lot shuttle program shall be in place and implemented
for the High Holy Days observances. Kol Shofar shall develop a shuttle
program for review and approval by the Director of Community
Development within 90 days of this approval. Any modifications to the
shuttle program shall be included in the periodic CUP reviews. Shuttle
service shall be used during the first day of Rosh Hashanah. Shuttle runs
shall begin at least 30 minutes prior to the start of services and end no
earlier than one hour after the end of services.
f. Trained and knowledgeable traffic control person stationed at Blackfield
Drive intersection with Karen Way to keep traffic flowing on Blackfield
Drive when the services let out. Duration of approximately 30 minutes or
until volumes subside. Not required for the second day of Rosh
Hashanah.
g. Trained and knowledgeable traffic control person stationed at Blackfield
Drive intersection with Reedland Woods Way to monitor/meter traffic
flowing out of the parking lot onto Reedland Woods Way when services
let out. Duration of approximately 30 minutes or until volumes subside.
Not required for the second day of Rosh Hashanah.
h. Kol Shofar shall inform the Tiburon Police Department about any
anticipated events where there will be heavy use of access roads to the
site. This means when more than 400 people are expected to be on the
site at anyone time. If the Police Department determines that traffic
control is needed for the event, Kol Shofar shall be solely responsible for
providing it in a manner satisfactory to the Tiburon Police Department.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-Draf1 April 24, 2006
Page 6
8. Kol Shofar shall conduct an educational program for its members concerning
traffic control and parking. The program will include written materials sent
annually to each membership unit, and a summary of each component provided
to the Town as part of the annual CUP review, consisting of the following:
a. A notice requiring that parking should be in the synagogue's on-site
parking lots or on off-site parking lots approved as part of the shuttle
program set forth above.
b. Diagrams showing parking locations and circulation patterns, including
entrances to and exits from parking lots.
c. A notice informing members of safety measures to be observed regarding
neighborhood traffic and pedestrians. Of primary importance is to inform
congregants that cars should avoid tuming around in residential driveways
to minimize traffic safety impacts.
d. A statement encouraging courteous conduct toward neighbors in all
matters relating to the use of the site.
e. A current database of its members to facilitate and encourage car-pooling.
The carpool database shall be updated annually and confirmation of the
update submitted with the annual review. The information from this
database shall be used to provide information to members about potential
car-pool partners, and will be targeted to members for whom carpooling
may be a viable means of reaching the synagogue.
9. Improved directional/informational signage relating to the revised parking and
site circulation on the property shall be installed. With the building permit
application, Kol Shofar shall submit for review and approval by the Director of
Community Development and Town Engineer such a signage plan. The
approved signage plan shall be installed prior to issuance of an occupancy
permit for the multi-purpose room.
10. Exterior amplified sound is approved for the annual Sunday School closing
ceremony only, at which time speakers shall be faced toward the facility and
away from surrounding residential uses. For any other event at which exterior
amplified sound is proposed, Kol Shofar must secure a Special Event Permit
from the Town. No loud bells or buzzers associated with any use on the site shall
be allowed. Any system employed to alert students as to class times should not
be clearly audible beyond the property boundary.
11 . Kol Shofar will advise and educate its tenant (the day school) concerning
provisions of this CUP, with special emphasis on minimizing traffic, noise,
lighting; providing courtesy to neighbors, and other issues addressed in these
use permit conditions of approval. Kol Shofar shall coordinate closely with the
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-Draft April 24, 2006 Page 7
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.
12. Kol Shofar shall designate a responsible and accessible person in a position of
authority to act as the official contact person for surrounding neighborhoods, and
to respond to communications, complaints, or perceived problems. The Town
shall be notified of the name and phone number for this contact person, whose
name and phone number shall be made available to the public on request and
dearly listed in the quarterly calendar.
13. Eucalyptus trees located on the Kol Shofar property in the immediate vicinity of
the rear playground area below 32 Via Los Altos shall be inspected annually by a
tree expert, who shall file a report as to the tree health and safety. Said report
shall be submitted to the Town along with the request for annual review of the
conditional use permit.
14. Any significant expansion or intensification of the uses or operations allowed
herein, as determined by the Director of Community Development, shall require
an amendment to this CUP.
15. This conditional use permit shall be initially reviewed by the Planning
Commission within one year of final building inspection/occupancy of the multi-
purpose room addition. The reviewing body and frequency of subsequent
reviews shall be determined by the Planning Commission following the initial
review, with the provision that at a minimum, an annual review by the Director of
Community Development will be required. Review of the permit shall be to
ensure, among other things, compliance with conditions of approval and
continued compatibility of the uses with the surrounding residential development,
induding but not limited to traffic safety, parking, and traffic congestion issues.
16. Kol Shofar shall be responsible for submitting, at least 45 days prior to the
annual review date, a detailed narrative report of the current use and operation
of the synagogue and day school, consistent with the format of Table 1, and
supporting documentation to demonstrate compliance ,with conditions of
approval of this permit. The Director of Community Development shall review the
annual report for completeness and may request clarification or additional
documentation as necessary. Kol Shofar shall be responsible for all Town
processing costs associated with the review and shall deposit in advance
sufficient funds to recover Town costs of review.
17. The Town of Tiburon reserves the right to amend or revoke this CUP for cause,
in accordance with regulations of the Town.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a
of the Town of Tibu ron on
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
meeting of the Planning Commission
,2006, by the following vote:
JOHN KUNZWEILER, CHAIRMAN
Tiburon Planning Commission
t
:Q
:L
><
JJ
.......
Q)
>
~
C'G
C
~
Q)
~
<(
~
Q)
:0
C'G
.-
w
C>
<(
en
=>
>-
.-
::i
u
<(
U-
oc1
.-
Z
W
>
w
a:
<(
u-
a
~
en
..J
a
~
z
a
i=
<(
C>
w
a:
C>
z
a
u
(/)
c
Q)
E
E
o
o
Q) Q)
0> 0>
C C
ro ro
..c ..c
00
o 0
zz
JI
Q)
(/)
- 0
(:-e-
ro :J
:Jo..
1:) -- E
c ~ 0
ro:Jo
(/)~cr:
JI
L- L-
ro ro
Q) Q)
>->-
<(<(
I
Q)o..
U :J
._ c
2: ro
Q)~
(/)0
~
o
o
-.;to
I ..-
o
l..()
~~
0..0..
00
Cf) Cf)
..- 0.1
~~
~~
l..() 0
..- Cf)
m~
>-
<(
o
a:
=>
.-
<(
en
~
Q)
z
Q)
(/)
o
0..
L-
:J
~E
~o
:J 0
~cr:
t/)
"0
c:
Q)
~
Q)
Q)
~
N
T""
.c
-s;
t5
~
co
c
o
~
0>0..
Q) :J
o..L-c
:J 0> ro
Q)6~
(/)00
o
l..()
oc;'o
"-0"-
l..()
..-
~
a..
o
o
~
~~~
0..0
0..00
00..
0-.0.1
..~~
f'-..- '
, I ~
~~o..
0..0..0
000
00..
,. ., ..-
(()f'-..-
T""
T""
~
a..
o
o
CD
Q) Q)
0> 0>
C C
ro ro
..c ..c
00
o 0
zz
Q) x
- (/) Q)
E(/) -Oc
>-o..c
o L" L- ....-
oro:J"'-
00 .3 a.. E-
(/)U:;J
~ffi"3g
O(/)~cr:
L-
eu
Q)
>-
Q;
a..
(/)
~~
ro Q)
~~
10
....C'0
U'
o~
c
o
~
U
:J
-0
W
0....
0"3
..c-o
U~
(/)+
(/) (/)
:J L-
o Q)
.- ..c
O>U
=ro
Q) Q)
cr:r-
c
Q) (/)
L-:t::::
-O:J
=-0
..c~
00
00
0..-
Cf)
~
a..
o
Cf)
0.1
..-
I
~
~
o
Cf)
ex)
>-
<(
o
z
=>
en
Q)
0>
C
ro
..c
o
o
Z
Q)
(/)
o
Q.
L-
:J
~E
~o
:J 0
~cr:
L-
ro
Q)
>-
<(
en
(/)
Q)
Q)
E
o
:r:
'-'
..c
U
C
:J
-.J
C
o
E
ro
o
o
l..()
0.1
l..()
..-
~
a..
o
o
0.1
I
~
o
o
0.1
..-
~
Q)
z
Q)
(/)
o
0..
L-
:J
~E
~O
:Jo
~cr:
~J
c
Q)
>
w
co
c
o
~
0>0..
Q) :J
o..L-c
:J 0> ro
Q)5~
(/)00
o
l..()
0.1
~I~
o
o
..-
~
a..
o
o
Q)
~
a..
o
o
M
~~~
0..0..0
000
00.'
.. ..0
-.;;ten..-
~~~
0..0..0..
000
000
C0~m
~
"C
CD
::s
c:
--
....,
c:
o
Co)
~
~
CD
:g
ftS
to-
8 ~ & Q) ~ ~ ~ Q) ~
= f? 0) co 0)
CD e: e: i CD f? c: c: e: m
e: .2:'co e: tV m ~m tV m cu
m U) cu
tV ct) CD .r. .s::: co .s::: .r. or: _cu
"fi -0 >. or: "C >.
~ 52&0 0 0 0 ~ 2&0 0 0 0 or:Q)
0 0 o~ 0 0 0 0.... 0 0 0 .g> b
z .E .,...J2 z z z .E .,...J2 z z Z -e:
C/)_
Q)
U) en U) U) en en
0
~ E E 8 E E E ~ ~ e-
~ 0 ~ ~ ~
e E=! tV ::J
::J ~ ::J ::J ~E
-- U) U) ~ U) en en -- "0
-0 -0
tVe: U) en ~ en U) U) tV c: e: ~o
E tV tV. tV .c co tV tV tV E tV tV ::J 0
C/)C/) u (3 :J U 0 0 0 C/)CI) en ~o::
....
co .... .... .... ....
~ tV tV tV tV
(1) a> Q) Q)
~ >- >- >- >-
Q)
U) en n. U) U) U) .... .... .... ....
~ ~ ct) ~ ~ ~ (1) Q) Q) Q)
Q) Q) oX CD Q) Q) 0- 0. Q. Q..
Q) Q) G) Q) Q) Q) en ~ ~ en
~ ~ CD ~ ~ ~ >.
~ ~
.... .... CD tV cu nJ
tV 0 f5 tV 0 0 0 0 Q) U "0 U
Q) ll) Q) "''It" ll) ll) '1:: "t: "t:
>- >- Cf') ~ u.. u.. u..
t t I t . t
< ll) (0 ~ &0 to ll) co N 0 e lO
"l:t "''It" N ('f) "''It" ~ ll) rt) ('I) ('II
I
I
I
U)
....
Q)
I Q) c
0 e:
Q) "8 , .~ is
0 E Q) Q) a;
en 0
.~ or: .~ e:
tV 0 1: ,2
Q) "0 '0 Q) CI) u 8 8 Q)
en ...J cu ~ 16
0 0 ad CI) >- z en g 0)
0) or: .r. ::J .r. or:
e: 0 0 0 in 0 0 ~ 10 Q)
or: c ....
E C/) en 0 :~ CI) en '0 cu 0)
c: u u Q) e:
0 ~ ~ Q) ! ! Q) 0
::J CD '1:: a. U
~ Q. Q. ...J 0:: >- Q. 0. u.. en 0
.....
II) Q) en en
"0 II) -fi u u II)
~ u ~ "0
5.2 cu ~ 5.2
~I Q) e 0 e e
e 0 ll) t- .,... 0 0 0 0
('II I/) ('II + + ..- ll) 0 .,... .,...
. il + t II) .!!l + + N
.!!l "0 .!!l .!!l to I I
ll) e 5.2 :; to 0
.,... :; ('II "0 :; :; ,.... I/)
"0 U ll) <( "0 U
<( <( .,... <( <(
0 I/) I 0 0 ll)
'l'"- e ..- ..-
.,...
I
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q. ~
Q. a.. 0
<( Q.. n.. e 0. 0- 0.. n.. Q. 0 t2 a..
e 0 e ~ 0 e 0 0 0 0 e
0 C2 e ~ ~ ~ 0 rt) 0 .,... 0
0; <0 .,... cO r.:. .,... m
.,... t co .,... ..- ..- I
. . t ~ I t I I I I ~ I
~ ~ ~ <( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n.. ~
<( <( n.. ll) 0. <( <( 0.. 0.. a.. 0 n..
e 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ll) e ~ 0
~ M ~ .,... ('I) ('I) ('f) ~ .,... ('I) 0 e
,.... ,.... .,... ..- ('I) m t-.:. .,... <0 ,.... .,... Lri
>-
<(
C ~
U)
It:
:) C
:z: ii
t- aL
"- 8 Q) "- ~ Q) Q) & "- 8 8 Q) Q)
.. m e to C) C) .. m e C) t>>
C C) .. CD e c: c c: c: c c: c: c
m ~z m c: Q)~cv tV l'O l'O as Q)~cv m as l'O m
co CI) 0 CD CI) en CD
l'Ooo>. .r; -fi moo>- .r:: .r; .r; .r; m "0 >- .r; .r; .s::. .s::.
Q)S2U) 0 ~ eSZu> 0 0 0 0 e~U) 0 0 0 0
60,,- 0 CD 0 (.)0.... 0 0 0 0 (.)0"- 0 0 0 0
.E~.E z Z z E..-.E z z z z E~.e z z z Z
I
I i
fI) (I) CI) CI) CI) CI) (I) CI) CI) (I) CI) (I)
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
0 0 0 0 ~ ~ e e 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0
0 0 E E ~ 0 ~ e E e e e ~e~e~
.... .... ....
CI) CI) ~ (I) CI) U) fI) U) U) fI) (I) U) CI) U) (I)
en U) en =1:) en en '" U) l'O U) fI) en U)eneenEU)~
E i ....
eu m tV m m m tV m .n m m m ~.!!!..c~..c.!!!.n
0 U (3 0 moo 0 0 0 (3 ::::i (3 (3 (3 00::J0::::i0::J
"- "- I (ij "- (ij "-
(ij to .... (ij to to to
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
>- >- m >- >- >- >- >- >-
"- "- Q) .... .... .... .... .... .... Q) "-
CD CD >- CD CD m l'O CD CD CD
'" (I) ~ ~ .... en (I) CL a. Q) Q) ~ en ~ ~ CL ~
~ ~ en CI) Q) ~ ~ 0 0 >- >- ~ en U) 0 It)
Q) Q) ~ ~ ~ Q) CD ~ ~ .... .... Q) Q) ~ ~ ~ ~
Q) Q) CD CD Q) CD CD I CD Q)' CD CD I CD
~ ~ CD CD en ~ ~ CD Q) Q) ~ ~ CD CD CD
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q. ~ ~ ~ ~
Q) 0 N 0 ~
0 0 0 0 Q) 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 Lt)
Lt) II) V M ~ Lt) II) V CO) ~ ~ II) V CO) M V
. , . . . . . . . I . . , . . .
Lt) <D U) U) N lC) <D u> U) 0 0 II) co Lt) lt) U) 0
~ ..q CO) N II) V "'It' C") N ~ ~ ~ ..q CO) N N C")
(I) !
0) I
.~ I
.-... I en Qi
"0 ~ Q)
CD :::J ~ I
1:)
:::J Q) Q) I
C -J Q)
- Q) "0 :::: "5 "5
.- c: E c
..., 0 (.) 0 0 0 .Q r
C .~ .r; E I .r; .r;
B (.) (.) (.) 10
0 I "0 "5 "0 Q) "6 "6 "0 en 0 -0 _I "0 en en (.)
c.,) m :::J en tV 0 0 eu ::J
"'-'" 0 0 >- "0 0 0 >- U) a. 0 0 >- en en "0
.s::. .r; 0) .s::. .s::. ::s ~ .s::. .s::. :::J :::J
... (.) (.) in w c: (.) (.) in 0 ::s (.) (.) in 0 0 W
C/) C/) ..... E C/) en rn "E c: en C/) :2> :~ -
CD "0 S "0 co m "0 :5
Q) ~ 0 ~ CD Q) CD e Q) CD Q3
.... m "0 .... tV 0 .... co "0
::is D. D. >- 4:: ~ Q. Q. >- c:: to 0 Q. D. >- c:: c:: 4::
ca I ~\
I-
en en '" en en (I) ~
"0 (I) "0 '0 (I) "0 '" '0 en "0 Q) :;
52 '0 52 52 "0 ~ "0 ~ ~I 52 .r; "0
52 52 52 (.) 4::
0 0 0 m
0 0 0 0 Lt) 0 0 0 lC) 0 0 ~ 0 Q) N 0
~ II) ..- M "'I:t ~ II) ~ "'I:t "'I:t N ~ ..- I- ~ 10
+ + +
+ + ~ . I + + en + I . + + ~ + + I
(I) ~ 0 N fI) !!l - ~ 0 ~ ~ 0
..... - S ..- CI) en
"5 3 :::J N ~ S S S N :; :::J ::s "0 "0 M I
"0 "0 "0
"0 "0 4:: "0 "0 4:: "0 "0 "0 4:: 2 52 I
4:: 4:: 4:: 4:: 4:: 4:: 4::
0 Lt) 0 0 lC) 0 lC) 0 Lt) 0 II) 0
..- ..- ..- M 0
~ ~ ..- ..- ..- I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Q.
~ Q. Q. Q. 4:: Q. ~ ~ Q. ~ 0 ~ Q. Q. Q. Q. Q.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C?- o 0 0 0 0 0
~ 0 <? 0 0 ~ <? <? 0 M 0 <? 0 C?- o 0 0
..- cO ..- a; a; ~ <D ..- cD a; ~ ..- cD ..- cD a; en
I t t I I I I I I , t , , I t t I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
4:: ~I 4:: Q. 4:: 4:: Q. 4:: Q. Q. Q. 4:: Q. 4:: Q. Q. ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II) 0 0 ~l 0 0 0 0
M M <? 0 ~ 0 M M ~ M ~ M M <? 0
t.:- O> r---- r---- ...... ..- 0) M t..:- en r---- en M r---- ,:...:
~
~ C
~ VI
C W
C Z
z en c
w
0 :) w
:E .... ~
Table 1 (continued)
CONGREGATION KOL SHOFAR: EVENT & FACILITY USAGE
Annual Events (held once per year) Maximum Attendees
Rosh Hashanah First NiQht 400
Rosh Hashanah First Day 1500
Rosh Hashanah Second Dav 500
Yom Kippur NiQht 1500
Yom Kippur Day 1500
Sukkot Dinner- 100
Simchat Torah EveninQ Service 150
Tu B'Shvat Seder 20
Purim Plav 200
Purim Service 100
Shavuot NiQht Service 100
Selichot NiQht Service 100
USY (Synagogue teen age Youth Group) 40
Events
a:
o
lL
UJUJ
ffio
-z
(/)et
z-
>-o-J
~[l.[l.
D:(/):i:
etUJO
[l.D:O
wZ
-JQ
m~
-et
(fJ~
Zz
OUJ
[l.:i:
(/)UJ
UJ-J
D:[l.
~~
a:D:
eto
[l.lL
UJ
:E (fJ
et
<( :c
[C [l.
C) Z
0 0
[C ~
0 Q. et
C) ~
Z
Z UJ
~ :i:
[C UJ
-J
0 [l.
Q. ~
W
- [C
c
'!:J z
<(
C)
:t z
a:
0
x: ..-
z
U 0
:E
z
0
~
<(
C)
E
:E
UJ
a:
::>
(fJ
et
UJ
:i:
z
0
~
C)
E
:i:
"005
c~
ctl.-
....0>
Q)C
-Q)W
~.~ C
.e-g>~
n.Wr-
o
(/)
C
o
0.
(J)
o
Q)
.0'
cl:
'0 .E
Q)
(/)
ctl
.c
0.
0>
C
.0
0>
C
o
Q)
.D
~
-.=
'0
.~
(/)
Q)
.8
":;
cr
(/) .
0-
E~
.....0'
0....
- 0.
-Q)
C.c
Q)-
E-
Q)O
O>Q)
ctl::
c-
ctlQ)
~E
C
0>
.w
Q)
"0
(ij
C
-.=
C
o
~
a.
E
o
o
0>
C
.C
~
o
C
"0
Q).-
--
Q)U
- ~
c.....
Eti
oC
08
-
...
cu
Ui
ii~@~~-g~.8c~~ctl-g
o E-o.!:::!Q)ffi--Eo
o.C'O (/)= o.(/)cu (/)<i3- 0 0.
Q) ~ ctl:; Q) Q).C ~ :; - ~ ....
E .~ g (/)"~ E.D g- Q) (/) Q) ~
o>.c :0:: ~ ~ _ "0 .... C ctl ;;., _ ctl
c r- U 8. (ij ~ ~ 8:~ ~~ ~ ~
:~-=~ e @;:;: 0:5~ ~ ctl
e Q) C 0......... Q) Q)E? ctl (/)'E
"@~ocQ)~.9-Ectlti -E
E - U !Q € C 0. ~ == _ ~ (/) "~
- Q) o.~ Q)-o:; C 0'-
'Oa5.cQ)LLO~>~~(i)c"O
>-E-~ .:; 5cu . oX: c.2 ~
g g- Be ~ C Q) Q) E? @ 0 iU .~
.0- Q).W O.c 0>Q).D ~.c
0. ~ .... t: o.r- ~ ~ E"O a5 ~
oQ)o~~c O-Q)C:::
C\/"9 C u-.2~tio"O 8.ctl ~
~ ~.2~'Oe > .....~c =
C o.er- ....~.5!?~ e 8.g.2~
!Q~*"";~~~:;~Q)~",,~
n.-"O:; 0 Q).~ E c.cu2E
-- ctlU.cc.o ~Q) C
~ctl"O>_-o_O(ijUU.Q
Q):;CC(/)Q)....CJ)-> c-
a5.Q 5 g ~.!:::! l5:2 ~ Q) ~ 8. ~
"'_....C.c(/)ctlctlOO- C
.x: O>~t:: 0 Q)U-+=::_ c~....;
Cctl Q)O-.cOoX:Q)OOcu-
eQ)~ucQ)-EctlQ) ~ ~
~o.o....Q)o>oEQ)C(/)Q)"";>
.D .... .D ~ .c ~ - 0 0..0, 0 - "~
F ~ cu cu:: (/) ~ g~ a5 [~8.-g
"0 >-.c :; ctl C 0 ctl.w E U 5
Q) 6 ~ E ~ .Q>-+= 0 - (ij.- cu C ....
(/)0:;0 CJ).x:_Ou CUE?>
8. ~ ti U ~ en "0 C .c c'O ti Q)
ee-g"OgQ)~~gn{gc(ij-g
0. Q) ~ 5 0. E (/) .2 ~ ~ g .2,~ ~
~ ~~e g_2~ C g uOE @
- 0 E E?>:o:: ctl ~ 0 ~ 0> ~ 2 U ....
-<i3oQ)cQ)co.CUctl ti~~
~~g-g*g~-gQ)....~gg-g
~"O ctl :Juu cu ctlEE ctl U O>ctl
~
1
rr5
:5~E~~-g~
o~~15g.~~o>
.~.g Q) E Trl ~ n:: :6
e >- ~ E Q) '(ij _ .2
o.-(/)Oo.ECU
"0 -5, Q) g Q) Q) .~
~:.cEctl~~Ec
o 0 ::. 05 ~.2
0.05-.8 0 o.CUo
e.c~ ecc
0.0 ~~,Q 0.~.2
Q) >c-Q) ....
:5 0 Q).2 ~.Dti ~
.... .c~C=Q)O
E*;~~~rnc.
u....cO'ctlCJ)....Q)
~g:g"OQ):s~~
~oQ)cEctl:;CJ)
~UCctlo<Ea5
f/) C ..--1.....
Q)-gOUQ)~o.8
.D~~~cu"OU5u
,~ E .5!? 'w .~ g cu Q)
:s .~ :5 Q) e o..c ~
ctl~O.Do.go=O
> Q) 0.._ - _
"'OE-::Qctle~Q)
5 o.5~2o~
e-gctl:;E~--(ij
E?>o :5 ~ CD [~
Q) 2'~ ~ 0 .c '0 _____
-g ti U .0.:: ..- .c ~
:JgCD ctl .~O)
cU:::Q)Q)E?~~
cu -.= ~ 0> ~ Q) .c
-Q)CD~CUCD.cu
ctl.D.DOO--ro
Eu"O CDtiO"~~
-g :; @ ~ O5.~ CJ) :;
:JO -eQ)o
.2 ~ ~ ~ '?-~ .8
.~:=: 05 c E ~.g"O
:!:: ~ iU "@ 0 0. '3 @
:=>E-t5ti.80I
'0
0>
C
.0,
OJ
o
o
CUc
~~ (/)
,~~ ~
"0 .~
>- .8 co
~-o ,.-
o.CD u
0"0 Q)
c.~ ~
u C ~
.&~ .8
c.... "
o 0 Q)
~ (/) ~
:5E
~g (ij
oE ~
g x 0
e .w ~
,~c :;
U Q) 0
~ ~ ~
(/).c .c
O5~(/)~
'@;:;CDe
_-.20>
~~~g
Q)ctl":;::
6602
EE;:;~
Q)Q)CCD
a:a:8>
.. .
05
Q)o>
Ec
0>.-
c::Q
W.:; g
C m .w
:;u'-
OC~
..-cuO
o
(/)
C
o
0.
(J)
o
Q)
'0'
cl:
C
0
U
2
ti
C
0
C U
0> '0
.w C
Q)
u ,2
0 Q)
Q) a.
'e- E
0. 0
(ij 0
C a;
u::: a;
+.; Q.
~ E
0
Ui 0
.8 . Qj~~-goe ~~~~e~ ~ ~E?'i
:;g~-~ctl~e~E_-eUQ)CDCQ)
g~~.g.x:~eoiU-OEo~~a5gE
OCDC~....~_u:;-gQ)uoo>.~g~
E~Wg~~gc~(J)g-~c'O~~~~
....cc.-.co.u.2.... (i)Co.c:t=(/)
E~~~i<g~Q)~c~~~~Q)g]
(ij......-.cQ).c(i)Qj:5g~Q)....O'c....Uctl
:;::~Q)(/)"O~e E(i)UC.~:;~E05:;
a5=:5@@eQ)~~eu~~gu~~~
oO.8~o>EN:.cQ)~~cEQ)Eo g
o.-g co.~Il)-:-:.2 g- ~~ ~E.8:g...: en
Q)CD!Q;:;~~2~ctl2CJ)::QmcCJ)0Q)....
.cQ)n.c........cE"Oa5E~ -uE~o
- .c - 0 0> Q) Q).... 0>0 U C .- -
~=eo~~~u8E~c~.5!?~Q)g>u
ctlctlec-o ouE oC(ije.Dw2
.~ (/) 0.2 ..0 E ~ ctl ~~:g8ti cu~ c ~
E"OO(/)(/) 0 Eo.c= ECJ).c:;a
= g C e ~ ~ti.... - 0 (/) ~ ~ Q) cu (/) 0 ~
Q)a.Qw~~OJoictl~~~.D~~r--
.8~~~~a.:6:;~~u-~~:;g~~
(/)-ow"-Eec~:5<a5~a.c(/)U--
ctl . Q)ti -_....(/)cucu>-(ij
.~ i ~ -g C 0. Q) >--.c 2 CJ) . c..D .c
g05=EctlgQ)~.o~~~en.5!?~_cCJ)
- ctl CD _ ctl.... w= :;~.ctl co(/)
~~mo.(/)CD.2 ctl-M .D.QQ):;::Q)
-CDuo>~(/)~n~O-~(ij>--E~~
-g u ctl C = Q) ~ _ c.:...: C C ctl -g Q) 0..0
OQ)~~CD:;-g(/)o>.Qctlctl.Q.ccu~~ctl
o.u E ~:Q 0. E iU E"E O>~ ~ C - -
~.Do>:J~o.~"O-ctloQ)-cctlo~
gg~ctl~-.8:J~gEgrr"O~E=~
e = ~ '0 ~ g> ~ .~ ~ ~ = cu ~ @ g ti ~ .~
~'5 en .Q'c.o.c-t5< ~Em.:- u~:o~
Q)>.cQ)-:J_u>-.... ~ ~"O
"O~~g~"O(ij2.c~~~00g>0(/)=
Q)~@~ti-g~c"O-~~~E~~Q)cu
:5 U(/)~~.x:05E~.Q~"O~0.Dti
ci=(/) .o....;'u L(/)CCUU=Q)
CD C 0."- g>:c 0 ctl 0,"0 _ ~ ctl ~ C cu Q)
~ '5 ~.8'~ e :; ~ .~ ~ g -g LL I CJ).2 ~ "0
cQ)CDooo.~.D~=c"Oc~ctlCJ)"OE
~~~~E~~~~g8~~~~~@8
,-
~
I~
'<t
QJ
Cl
ctl
n.
E
ctl
0,
o
cl:
0>
C
:e
o
0.
Q)
Q)a:
:g"O
C
(ijctl
t:0>
~.~
'60
t:~
o C
00
....~
~c
0.2
~-
U)~
o:E
~~
W
...J W
m 0
(i) Z
Z <(
~~ ~
a:en :E
<(w 0
a..a: 0
f-----
W
...J
m
(i)
Z
o
a..
en
w
a:
~
a: a:
<( 0
a.. l.L.
----
:E
<
a:
C)
o
a:
a..
C)
z
t=
a:
o
a..
w
a:
c
zs
<CD
'" ::J
:S
-: f------------
\
.!.
z
o
:E
z
o
t=
<
C)
t=
~
a:
o
l.L.
"'Om
C ~
cu--
....0>
Q) C
"'Q)w
~ C C
-~-6> ~
eco
D-WI-
Z
o
t=
<(
I-
Z
w
:E
w
...J
a..
~
o
en
C
o
0.
(f)
(3
Q)
"0
n.
(;
Q)
en
cu
..c
0.
w
en
<(
::I:
a..
Z
o
t=
<(
I-
Z
w
:E
w
...J
a..
~
~
;;::
o
C
0>
'w
Q)
"'0
Cii
C
;;::
C
.Q
Q)
"Q.
E
o
o
0>
C
-c
:J
o
C
.. 0
(1),-
+' ...
(I) U
-:J
a.....
E1i)
o C
08
-
~
cu
00
w
a:
:J
en
<(
w
:E
Z
o
t=
<(
CJ
E
:E
(f).- fj -0 0 ~ ~ -g
CUOC..c:J"'O
Q):5 en Q) cu Q)
..: c~~Ciic~
C .'- "'0 ~ .... "'0
Q)-g-g_~enoc
.~..c >. ~ ..Q ~::o cu
-O.':!2 CD 0- cu CD~
~D f::;:: E.... ~ cu
CUOCU....o>o~
"'01i)uIT:.8mo>en
@ 0> 0> 0>::5 ~~
en E .c :5 0 -(j) ~:: cij
ii 0 .8 o>~ cu ~ 0 :g
~ ~ m-~~:5Cii-g2
.o...en..."'Ou.oo
(;en ~:JOC'CCDo.
cu > 0. :J ..c..c C
-g..c E -g 0>.E ~ ... .2
:u -g .8 Q) -~ -~ 0 E 2
~ ~ en"Q.e:!::: CD-- m
u 0 (; E Q):t: o>-g 0>
0> -0 0 0> C ... ..c
.0 ~cU..c ui CD~'"
=..cfQ)::~:5g~
~~~.o~~u)o-5
en'" CT ... en E 0 0>
en :;:: :2 ~ Q) O>.~ ....
~5~6~:5:g~.8
U~;~a5(;a.c~
2~0(/)0>.c~~
1i)Q.~ c;~.2 (/) ~
CD'~ ~:2 'w ~ 2 .g ~
g>~ Cii ~ ~1i) m ~ g
C-Co.CCD_-C
-cu Q) cu E cu..c 0 - 0
......oc ... eu
"'O~cu8@~~ec
O>..c CD 0> -- e 0.Q
~(/)Q) CDE2u2
:5 ~ "Q. ai "Q. K g,~ m
"'0 u E Cii E E (/) ..c
@28~88E~~
y
C'?
~~~O
~ @~-~
:!:::CU(/)ui
~~>O>E
oco~.....
~8~~.8
"5 ..QgE
E....;~.;; ~
OCU-"'Cii
ue.8-g2:
~o.cCU2
:;:: g- g cry.~
~"'Oa59~
O>C:t;:..-C
o.CUcuc:>~
-g~:U-;a
cu .~"5 cu 0>
c>.~ ~.....
-w ~ t cu m
a5o~-g-g,
,~- iU'~:C
=mo.m>'
-E~~cu~
-~ 'g>~ ~ 2
..:W(/)~E
~c.~~m
CU~CUc-g,
:::'1-'50:c
~ Q) E::: 0
-o:sor:::.-
if: U",2
Q)O..c"-CU
0......... 0 ----.c
U-o:JNo.
:l=O>(/)ee
oEo>cuo.
5 E -~ IT: g-
~.gEE(/)
oen.g-g.2
~~~~~
.8~~
~E-o
~~~
_9-~ ~
Jl1i)CD
-00>>
>.c.8
0>.Q cu
mCU"'O
a5 ~~
o>U
]?>~
"5 .'-
oCiic
:;::.2
~a5~
~oCii
(/) 0. 1i)
_~ C.~
~-~CD
~e-E
=CDCU
(/)-0:0
~@o
cu .....
~~e
%:E 8
(/)gc
0- 0
u~Ui
-o~e
0>0 CD
..c:;:::-o
E-c
o Cii cu
C m o>-ci
(3 ~=5.~
EQ)O>:J
enoo>g
c:Jen....
8~-~~
-E(/)-o"'OoO>
cu~~*~;g
.0 0, ~ CD ~ .~
-g ..: <( g> '<t E
cu~cf:.8~
-g~.2:Ju
.oEg-~~5
CD.8~c~E
:5 (/) ~ .Q C") 'x
o(;8e(;~
:;;e'O 0> CD CD
0> 0>"'0 0 O>..c
(/)SO-@'"
:Jcu:S:2....O)
CD~O>OQ)C
.c...E~:5~
iU' m -g ~ -~ "5
E€ ~:5.~",o
tj.2~~2 ~
eo o.g'w ~
- ~~ ->CD OC 0,
-0....._
~~~~-g~
-oCDCU'-_C
CD~(/)CUCUQ)
,oo.....2:g-o
E..c2Q)-cu
0> _ ~ (/) (/)
ai ~.2 g=o'O
_~ ro .0 () (/)
'-"~~cuEe
-0 en cuQ)ui
~CD-gc;;:..Q~~
1* :S _Q,~ >.~ m
-~ '0 ~ ~~ ~ 0
>._ -0 ~ _ 1i) E
-.::: -~ (/) 0 if;' Q) C
Q) .... CD..c CD --
0.2 ro 0 > :s g
e cu ~ ~ .- (j)
D- E (/).~ 0> ~ >
CU
.c
g
CiiOl
Oc
-:'6
m:J
.9-0
oc
-c :::..
:JC")
~~
0>..-
:5..c
.~ ~
(/)~
CD '-"
c~
~g
32.0
:J"'O
o>c
~~
-CD
~.~
..Q(3
:E~
~e
.cCD
(/)E
(/)CD
CD 0>
Ciicu
~@
.....~
CD...
:!:::(/)
:;::0>
om
:0.....
'O~
C ~
-~E
CD.8
O(f)
>.C
.00
-g~
..... Q)
:JO>
g~
o 'So>
C\J Cc
c:> cu 'C
CD >. E:J
.c (j) '-" "'0
.8 -
Q)e cuE cug
..... 0> ~__
u~.x 62
CU..... eo.....
(/) m e 0. 0> ,- 0>
6~~g- om...
.~NCD- @~E
0> .....O~~.o=
o.CDCUCll)CCUO
E :5 g;, (/) -0 Q) 1J -
.~ ~ 6 -0> ~ ~ o,e
~ f: ~ 'E ~ ~ ~ ~
CUOCDco>(/)OCU
CD 0 .c cu 0 cu :0 .~ -0
:U.8;'~::::""'cu5- ~
..... "'0 CD CD 0 ~ Q) -s
20>>~ccu:5.... l:T
~.~gc~~';:o ~
:0 .c ~ .2>..Q g. 0) 'J _ .~
-u"'(/):::'~ccc-r:
o.~-o~ cu 0 C-CD<(
~ ~_.~:;:::~ -E;.
cT E .w () -0 cu u ~ -55 '
en:J O>:J _ C '_ C")
E:5 'o:!::: 0 m CUD CD
g 'c 0. a. g> CD > -.J ~ :J
~~~E.3:38~~~
Q)
~
C
.2
co
0>
:;::
~
-0
CD
co
~
.......
-om
C Q)
cuE
.....0>
Q)c
-Q)w
~_~ C
'eg>~
D-WI-
o
(/)
C
o
0.
(f)
(3
CD
"0
n.
C
0>
-w
0>
"'0
Cii
C
:;::
0>
C
-5
o
-
~
cu
00
..-
9
..-
C':i
CD
'OCD
C C
cu 'g:
(/)c
cW
~c
=~
CUo
UI-
(3
%-0:
n. .5
..cC
=m
~~
en ....
cO
~~
=0
cuo.
O(f)
'0
E
o
e
Q)
(/)
o
e-
:J
'?-
:;::
:i
E
Q)
:S
o
Q)
en
:J
.8
C ....
Q;.Q.Q
]ign.
'f~ ~
OCCU
0800
0>
(/)
cu
..c
0.
~
;;::
(;
C
.Q
CD
"Q.
E
o
o
;t::
~
-0_
cm
:Jo>
.8 ,~
1i):g
~cu
~B
- C
0>0
.~E
Co>
O>(/)
..c.....
15>2
CC
~ ';n
"'0 .~
50
:=-0
roO)
..c :;::
en..:.::
(3~
-~m
e:o
o.:u
Q)>
..cCD
+:"5
~S
Oc
a.e
0.:J
CU.o
~i=
cuo>
~=
ocu
0>Q)
-~ @
"'0 -
C C
CD....
ll..2
<i.
~
C':i
It)
0>
0>
ro
D-
E
cu
0,
o
n.
0>
C
t
o
0.
0>
Q)IT:
:::5-0
C
CUCU
c::o>
~ ~~
:00
c::=
OC
(JO
'-~
~c
0.2
.c:-
CI)~
o:E
~~
:E
<(
a:
C)
o
a:
0..
C)
Z
~
a:
o
0..
UJ
a:
o
z
<{
C)
z
oc
o
t-
Z
o
:E
z
o
~
<(
C)
E
:E
w W
....J
lD 0
Ui z
<{
z :J
~~ 0.
a:(/) :E
<{w 0
0. a: 0
w z
0
....J ~
lD
Ui <{
~
z z
0 W
0. :E
(/) w
W ....J
a: 0.
~ ~
a: a:
<{ 0
0. u..
W
(/)
<{
::L
0.
Z
0
~
~
z
w
:E
w
....J
0.
~
S
CI)
:J
:a
c
0
~
w
a:
::>
(/)
<{
w
:E
z
0
~
<{
Cl
~
~
a:
0
u..
Qi
uQ)
CC
roO>
C/)C
cW
roc
f::3:
roo
Of-
t5
'5-0;
.....c
n.. '0
;;;:c
~ro
~~
~O
~~
::0
roo.
0Cf)
Q)Q)
EEtU
gE5-
.....Q)Q)
Q)a>u
~ U .~
e.~c
:J ro'-
9-.;:.u
~itiQ)
"S0=S
E ..... C/)
'O~~
Q)-gC/)
~ro~
.8~m
o~ro
~c~Q)
Oj~-g>
]!3='So
g...-€1;)
Et::sQ)
OCUOc
o u; o,~
>-~ -
~E~
3 0. E
E.2t
EQ)ro
>0.
OQ)Q)
000
o
C/)
c
o
0.
Cf)
t5
Q)
0'
n=
U
Q)
t5
~
'5
C/)
c
~
iti
o
E
o
e
Q)
C/)
o
0.
:J
~
~
::;
E
Q)
E
'0
Q)
C/)
:J
.8
OJ 0
... Q) ~c
~"Sn..
~-g 1::
0;;;: tV
o~u;
o
c
3:
o
f-
Qi
0..
,S:sE~~ E.~
..: 6 ;; '0 ~ ~
~ g>~ Q) C. Q) >
'o'c ~ E Q) U Q)
.....Q)C/):J;;;: Q)>-
0.;;;: ..... (/J f- C/) ro
15>2 c/). 0 U
Q)c.sro(i)c g-3
E ~ ~ ~ ~.~ c. Cf)
-U'C e-~ ~ ~:s
~30~,....x-u
~.....~~~~ ~@
= .- :J 0 ;;;:
.....~~~C/)O-..:
o(/J~_ro... -Uui
C .. ro .8 ~ ~ ~,~ Q)
--- ~ eo.-8
,QcuQ)c~_ c
~E~~gE~~~
'E g-~.8 ~'O - ro
.....-:JC/)_ .8EQi
2~lDo""'~Q) Q)e3:
Q)Q) 0.....Q)_.....Q)
uuc-Q).....~u.....
e~n.101i2~
cD UU :J.....u...... Q) roo
~ c ~:9o Q) 0 u.SIO
roOf-IOU..... ~._~3:0
Q) .....Q).....uQ)
;;;:-;;:;0. _ro.o--Q)
- :> o.E ro C'- 0 Q) ~
o oro_cQ)C/) c.oo
-..... ro.Q Q) 6 (/J_-
~ 0. Qi Q) ~ .0 0. .- = U
cu' g.;;;: c :g C/) (/J ~ 3: Q)
o o~ro~~~o>g
-C/) Cc Q) Eu
~ @E:J lttQ).o ~ ~ ~
o ';;'~-1;)~::Q - > Q)
Q) iti ~ ltt 0 :J 0> Q) .0
~ 0 g ~ ~ ~ ~ 'E iU~
g o>~ 3tUitic ~~~
.s.s 0 o>:e ~ o,tU C/)
1;) -g E ~ =6 .S '5- ~ Cf) ~
~ ~ 8 m-g:s g-;.2;;;
N
<i
c::,
M
C")
<i
~
C")
Q)
C/)
o
0.
:J
~
~
"S
E
Q)
E
'0
Q)
C/)
:J
.8
o
~
OJ
a;
a.
EEi
Seu;
Qi
uQ)
C.S
roo>
C/)C
cW
roc
f::3:
roo
Of-
o
C/)
c
o
0.
Cf)
t5
Q)
'0
n=
E
o
e
Q)
(/J
o
0.
:J
f
"S
E
Q)
E
'0
Q)
C/)
:J
.8
o
~
Q)
(/J
o
0.
:J
f
::;
E
Q)
E
Qi
Q)
c
0>
c
W
c
3:
o
f-
o
C/)
c
o
0.
Cf)
t5
Q)
"0
n=
C
0>
'(j)
Q)
"0
t5
Q)
"0
c.
iti
c
u::
g
U
~
3:
Q)
c
>-
C
ltt
'0
Q)
C/)
:J
.8
o
~
OJ
a;
a.
E
o
o
'0
Q)
C/)
:J
.8
o
~
OJ
a;
a.
EE
00
oe
-
"-
tV
Cii
g-g~6g> oE6>~ :E~
ltt 'c ~ Q)'(j) ~ 0. Q)
U C C Q) >- C/) 'C :J >
"S E .Q .2 ;;;: .o:J g-u 0
olttt5t515> - Q).g
3:;;;Q)Q)c ~.8C/)~ ~c
0>"S ~ ~ ~ :J ~ <( ~ g e
.S 0 2 2 Q) .8 0. >- ~ ..... 0>
~lD.S.S@ Oro 00>
;;;:CQ)Q)_ -gQ)3:.8 .....c
0.0;;;:;;;: .. -.0 Q) u>
..... :J-- Q) g_.~ ~ c';
~:9a;ro~ ~g-o~ ~~
Uf-Q)Q)u Q) Q) _,
@ CUU.!!l .....=;;;: C/) ui ltt 3:
>- Q)3:-003:0
EOu.8::S .o_c-I::~~
g> ~ cu C/) E - 0 0 ltt <(.- -
Q).Q 6>c ~~-g> ~ :.~
i ~ '(j) Z E C/) f- ~ ~ -I E ~
~~~_ci. g .1;)~.~'Oc
'.." Q) ..... ..... <{ C/) C C/) > ltt
'(j) c ~ 2 g Q)'- ..... 9 Q) a.
Q)'- a> ..... .. ~ ~~ ~ .~ ~ ~
;;;:-;;;:.E...... 0 -
_ro_ U -I_=-Q)IOU
0> .. a> ltt 0."3 iUc C\J C
.s~g>E@ >~Q)3:Q).S~
~C:Q)'_E~_~ _a>a>;;;:Q)
..J ,,:g 0 ~.~ .2 ~ ro
'5' C/) = ~ cD >-:a:: U U a> a>
~'O ~:21;) ro ltt ro a>.o Cu
ltt _ o>:a:: ro 3: 1;) 0.;;;: Q. g a>
::S ~ '(j) ~ 2 ~ - ~ -; .8 ~ .0
Q)Q) ._C~.....(/Ja>_
~ - .c. 3: tU -t:i -0 ~ <( Q) (5 OlCU
E ~ ;'.2 C ~ ..... a> ,i -;:, ~ ~
E-ccua>:Ja>.....u c'">-
..... .- a> go.o = U._ C/) ro
2~~.8~~g-"5-g~~g3:
.{g:a:: '5'u ~ a> Ol 0 o.~ 0. <{ ~
C/) ltt ltt a> .o.S -5 cu ~ Q) C/)'C
C >-C/) 0lC/)- - (/J ......_;;;: ou
~~~@-gg.~~~a>g~~
::..... 0;;;: a> "0 a> ro Q).o C'--
ltt ~ C. U ~"S Q) '0 o>~.;; > E
Ou 0. a> a> o;;;:.c. Q).c. ltt Co
:=roltt.o3:3:f-Cf)::SC/)~O~
'<:t
<i
ch
M
,....
ai
ch
M
Qi
Q)
C
'5>
C
W
C
3:
o
f-
o
C/)
C
o
0.
Cf)
t5
a>
'0
n=
C
Ol
'(j)
a>
"0
t5
a>
'e-
0.
cu
C
u::
1::
S
(/)
C\J
ai
ch
M
g
'0
~
3:
a>
C
>-
C
ltt
'0
Q)
(/J
:J
.8
o
~
OJ
Q;
a.
E
o
o
Qi
a>
C
0>
C
W
C
3:
o
f-
o
(/J
C
o
0.
Cf)
t5
a>
"0
a..
C
Ol
'(j)
a>
U
t5
a>
'0
c.
cu
C
u:
t
tV
Cii
= U
UQ)
ltt >
a>o
;;;:.....
<{o.
0.
iUltt
3:u
a>C
> ro
-':u
OQ)
U~
c-
_C
~~
Ola>
.S .0
tU=
-ro
(/J.c.
(/JC/)
5>C/)
.- C
C/)Ol
Ol'(j)
.S Q)
C C/)
.....a>
~E
>-.....
ltto
3: C
a>o
>~
'C ltt
uu
Q).2
Ea>
..... ;;;:
Of-
:E-t:i
CQ)
3:=
olttc
u~3:
-g.~ ~
~.oa>
:C~E
:3-~E
~
lD
ch
M
g
'0
~
3:
a>
C
>-
C
ltt
'0
a>
C/)
:J
.8
o
~
OJ
a;
a.
E
o
o
g>C
'c .Q
c.!!l
ltt>
([0
o
(/J
C
o
0.
Cf)
t5
a>
'0
n=
C
Ol
'(j)
a>
U
t5
a>
'0
c.
cu
C
u::
1::
tV
u;
ui
a>
U
ro
0.
C/)
0>
C
:s;::
ro
0.
.~
:0
:J
0.
cu
C
o
~
'5
U
ro
......
0.
o
a;
>
a>
U
cu
;;;:
(/J
c
ltt
.~
a.
0.
ltt
a>
;;;:
f-
'<:t
ai
~
C")
g
'0
~
3:
a>
C
>-
C
ltt
'0
a>
C/)
:J
.8
o
~
OJ
a;
a.
E
o
o
g>C
'c .2
c.!!l
ro>
([0
o
(/J
C
o
0.
Cf)
t5
a>
'0
n=
C
0>
ti)
Q)
U
t5
Q)
'0
c.
cu
C
u:
-
"-
tV
Cii
o
C
o
t5
C
.2
>-
C
ltt
.2
2
'(j)
a>
::S
C
o
Q)
a.
o
a>
0.
10
......
C\J
@ui
E6
Q)t5
03
E.....
3:'0
g6
ltt~
(5,S
c.o
oE
08
~
<..5
ch
M
t5
a>
"0
c.
Q)
E
'0
~
a>
::S
o
LL
OJ
a;
a.
E
o
o
~ 5 ~ Iii -g ai .S ~
C\JE~(/JaJ(/JUU
c- ~0-a>.2
lttXou-~'::c/)
.c.ltt-ltta>o.:J
-; E a> a> gE g 6
o ,!!l .g ~ ~.- ..... .!!l
E2.c-a5 C/) ~~ ~
a> 'iij > ~ {g I
.0 ~ 0> >-:::; C U
::Qg->-gE8g~
g~ge>C/)~3:f-
3:o~Q)~ucQ)
Q)<O.~ E'S.- aJ-
Qi C") ~ ~ g ~ o.~
::S'O ,E.....lttOl
C g> Uoc ,
a> E,-2"Sf-32 (/)
;;;::J-C'OOO .....c
3:.~ ~c 3: ui ~~
~~a>o~~ua>
EE~Eg- a>c
~ltt%e~~e~
ro 0 0 0>0 E 0. CD
o-c'S<o ~ g-9-
..... 0. Q) .S C") C 0
g>:J~~c-g3:~
:s;::2a>E~>0
ro '00 0. ro - e f- Qi
0. oEQ)o.ro>
_~C")~og-..o
"*-aJ:EEc~'O
>6(/)3:-'03:.2
a> Q) - 0 Q)
.~~ E g>~f- ~ g
:Jo.:J'-C Oltt
gg~~~~E~
IT: 0. co o.W ~ ~ ltt
IT:
o
N
to
a>
Ol
ltt
n..
E
ltt
0,
o
n=
0>
C
t
o
0.
a>
Q)IT:
:gu
C
cultt
C::Ol
:2 ~E
:00
c::~
o C
00
~~
~c
o.Q
.c::-
U)~
o:e
~~
:E
<t
~
C)
o
~
Q.
C)
z
t=
~
o
Q.
W
~
o
z:g
<tCll
'~
I
)
-
Z
o
:E
z
o
t=
<t
C)
E
:E
W
-l
lD
(j)
Z
~~
a:tn
ctw
Q.a:
1---.
W
-l
lD
(j)
Z
o
Q.
tn
W
a:
~
a:
ct
Q.
------
a:
o
LL
w
o
z
ct
:i
Q.
~
o
o
----
Q;
0>
c:
'6>
c:
w
c:
3:
o
I--
g>c:
.C,Q
c:,~
CO>
0::0
z
o
i=
~
z
w
~
W
-l
Q.
~
a:
o
LL
o
C/)
c:
o
a.
Cf)
t)
0>
"e-
n...
o
C/)
c:
o
a.
Cf)
t)
0>
"0'
ct
w
C/)
ct
~
Q.
Z
o
~
~
Z
W
~
W
-l
Q.
~
t)
CD
'0'
0.
CD
E
'0
~
CD
E
o
l.L
$
CIl
a.
E
o
o
-
"-
as
Ci)
c:
0>
'Iii
CD
'0
t)
0>
-0
0.
(ij
c:
IT:
c:
0>
'Iii
0>
'0
t)
0>
"0'
0.
(ij
c:
IT:
-
"-
as
Ci)
w
a:
:::>
C/)
ct
w
~
Z
o
i=
ct
o
E
~
o>o>C/)u uO>~~CDO>O>~E=c/)OIDO>~~rog> o~
Ero~~ ig~SE~~co_3:~!c:~o~C/)~ -;
i g ~ ~ ~ e r ~ g ~ .2 ~ '3 g>~:= i5 ~ : I-- ~ ~ r"~
-~L:C: 3:a.~co~a.c:~~~~~~3:o~~~ ~~
"*L.g>~ 2c.c.EfJ-~~~:g~-5g>~~~:m~ ~o
>001-- c:~2~=ul--~L.~C:0>~0>-~co~ &~
o>-..c Oc"1ii o'~ CD 0> > & O>TI2'1ii:=- 0' a.C:
~~~~ O>'~ EL:o ~~C/)~o>.ti~~ ~~
~Q;~~" ~~o>c:~~c:g>=O>~E~S~c:o> CD~
OO~O>~~_UE~UD:=~~Q;CD oc:~COc: Ea.
.8 ~ L..2"O i"~ ~ -c I-- c ~ . ~ 2E ~~ ~ ~ ~ 2'g o"~
0>0=~g.~o>e~0>~a.2~co:=cog CD~iu -co~
~C/)-CDC: a.a. L:O~C:EC: .CD~-gUo>o>>~ ~Eco
uo>oL:~ ~a.O>I--Ec:o> _L.OEcoO>L. _ 3: CD 3:
,~ .~ 0>1-- ~ -~ CO E . CO 3: ~ CD ~ = ~ ~ ~ Q; CO 0>> E ,~
co~~~a~coC:~c.Q;~ ~~~coig>~ 3:'0 _ L.
0> -C/)-C/)UCOa.->UCD go> L:-L.C/)O>O> ~~u
G -g S ~"* & ~ ~ 0 ~ 2 CD ~ ~ 0 "~ 2 3: =0 a. ~ - .~ 3: L: iU
c:co~o>eL:o&~~DEoc:~c:~~3:~~CO O>c:~~
0> 0 CD a.1-- 3: 0 - 0 L. CO a. 0> - - C/) 0
n~EcoL: CDCDCO --~~=O~CD C:~(ijo> CDL.C/)
:E.2 ~ CD :: ~ ~.~ 0> 0 coo> ~ - CD ~ - 0> > 0::; L: a. '0
o>Eo>oo ~C/)O>>-~o>~~O>L.L.gc:o_C/) _a.o
0>~~c:c:3:0CDoCOOOc:_>L:c:ou~3:~CO _coo
c:o-~oO>..cE-L:OO~~CD=COL.C:~-ECD 00>~
~u~E~C:-c:g~~~g~~=0=8~iQ;~ ~~u
~ "~ ~ E -= ~ 0 0> 0> Y; C:o ~ ~:= ~,~ ~ 0 ~ ~ n... ~ ~ o>CO ~
~ OcoC/)o>UUc:U E- L.L.~_L.>O> ~ '0
-C/)CO c:c:c:0>~c:~_ c:ciCDOL. ~L.C/).Q ~~O>
iiU~~~~~~"':m~~--~Q.:g~i~~~~ g~~
20BCOo>i~~~coa.~ug>0>~0~~(I)~(ijU _~
CD L: '0 _'0 _- C/) ~"C ~E E _ ~L: (I) c: CO .0> a. 0>
a.~o>~ roC:CDO>co~'E-C:o-_ o>rr-L:oCD2Eo>L:
O>~CO CO>EL:> ~~C:-C:C:~C:-~~C:_L:-
gIG"'~ ~~~;~~g~~m~~CDoQ;~g~co~m
~L:c:E~~~~;::;'OO~Ego:UD~~O~~~OTI
E ,2> ~ 0> CD a. c: L: C/) L: 0> c: 0> C/) L{) CO L. = a.... 0 L. CD .2> c: CO
~IL.~...g~==iCf)~~~~UCD~~ ~o>oeC/)~~
C/) E~gQ.o>co3: OC:-::;C/)CD~O 20L:C/)coQ.C/)_
~.2(1)~(ij ~S~.8~~EUEt)roo~oo;~;2a.o~
C:__L. "-0 ~L:C/)-c:C/)C/) L:C/) L.
(l)Oa.ooEn...u~uu-c:~ C:>~-o>~E
~g~~i5~~~t)~~g>gCf)!g~CDg~coE
rrQ;(I)_ 0>_L.2~0~~_0~c:C/)~>u_
(I)=L.o~e~c:(I)gCD~~o(l)~CO~~ec:~
IT:COCO~_a.D_UL.DU>~a.>o_un...co_
C')
o
M
(1)
or-
u.:
o
C')
3:
CD
c:
~
c:
CO
'0
~
o
c:
CO
a.
~
o
o
o
(ij
c:
;;::
2
o
;t
Q)
Q)
a.~
E:;:
00
o~
Q;
(I)
c:
"6>
c:
w
c:
3:
o
I--
o
C/)
c:
o
a.
Cf)
t)
(I)
-0
ct
c:
0>
"Iii
CD
'0
t)
(I)
'0'
0.
(ij
c:
IT:
-
<<;
Ci)
~
CO
3:
0>
>
:g
C/)
C/)
CD
rn
.~
C/)
2
<(
C/)
o
-1
CO
:>
(I)
S
ro
c:
0>
"Iii
+-
"x
0>
o
c:
(ij
c:
Q;
E
c:
CO
CD
'0
S
o
ct
C\J
u.:
M
cr5
O>c:
c:o
:O~
'5~
mo
o
C/)
c:
o
a.
Cf)
t)
0>
-0
ct
3:
0>
c:
~
c:
CO
'0
~
o
c:
CO
a.
~
o
o
o
(U
c:
;;::
c:
0>
'Iii
0>
'0
t)
0>
-0
0.
(U
c:
IT:
2
o
;t
Q)
Q)
a.~
E:;:
00
o~
-
"-
as
Ci)
iCi)~
~~ ~
(3~i
~O>~
-(3
c: ~ 1ii
"- y-
C:~CD
.cu = D
EC/)c:
~co~
:QTI~
~~L:
~~-
C/)~i
EC:L:
o~~
e CD C/)
L. 0>
0>00
~ i5'~
~,~ ~
a.u ~
.!. (I) CO
'S~o
E~-6
CDCOI
SL.L:
-000>
O>I
C/)O>
3:~0>~
0- ~ ~
-g o>E 0
.- ~ 0> ~
3:~.c0>
uu::~
~c:ES
~ .Q li 0>
O~CDC:
00 ~ ~ "~
Q.CDU
or-
a:i
..}
cr5
O>c:
c:o
~ "Iii
'5 :~
mo
o
C/)
c:
o
a.
Cf)
t)
CD
'0'
ct
3:
(I)
c:
~
c:
CO
'0
~
o
c:
CO
a.
~
o
o
o
(U
c:
;;::
c:
0>
"Iii
0>
'0
t)
CD
-0
0.
(ij
c:
IT:
2
o
;t
Q)
Q)
a.~
E~
00
o~
-
<<;
Ci)
O>c:
c:o
o
-C/)
co-
o
uco
CD a.
~E
CD 0>
DC/)
'00
~c:
OCD
L:O
C/)~
~-gci
O~~
1-->
Cf)ECD
_0'0
o o.~
E~~
~C/)E
.~ & CO
c: L. L.
"- ~ 0
E a. 0
COE~
~.-
#2Eg>
3: o>'C
C/) L: ~
L.-U
0_C/)
00-
'0 c:
C/)O>
'0='0
(I) CO'-
~3:~
u.QE
c: ... L.
~O>co
OXO>
Cf)0>C:
N
":t
N
a:i
..}
cr5
3:
CD
c:
~
c:
CO
'0
~
o
c:
CO
a.
~
o
o
o
(U
c:
~
2
o
;t
Q)
Q)
a.~
E:;:
o 0
o~
-g~(ij
0'- c:
~ c.~
'000>
~(/)L:
.D -
CD co 3:
D ~CD
~ =as '~
~OL.
o~
L:(/)u
C/)~-
o~
EOO
OCOL:
O.c C/)
;~~
C/) CO
OC/)-
a. 0> 0
"'00>
~ct3a.
a. 't:: C/)
E~(ij
~ 0
EE~
0> g ~ .
s"'8c:
c:ocog
"- '00
o..c0>2
~CD:E~
'E(ijc:
;gro~o
~CDrro
D... 0
-<t-
,~~ ,Q
0- . L.
c: ~a.
.c CO -
... 0> 'C c:
g g 2 ,2>
'0'" co C/)
ESE~
M
f'-.
0>
0>
CO
n...
E
CO
rn
e
n...
0>
c:
:e
o
a.
0>
0> IT:
:3-g
Cijco
c::0>
~ ~2
'00
c::~
oc:
00
'-~
~c:
o~
J:::-
U)~
o:E
~~
W
..J W
m 0
en Z
Z cs:
~~ ~
a:(/) :E
cs:w 0
a.a: 0
u____
W
..J
m
en
Z
o
a.
(/)
w
a:
~
a: a:
cs: 0
a. u..
1-.--
::
<(
0:
o
o
0:
D-
O
2
i=
0:
o
0-
W
0:
o
2:0-
<(11)
O~
ZE
ii: 'E --~
00
t-~
Z
o
::
2
o
i=
<(
o
E
::
Z
o
E
Z
w
:E
w
..J
a.
~
w
(/)
cs:
:r
a.
Z
o
~
cs:
t-
Z
w
:E
w
..J
a.
~
w
a:
:)
(/)
cs:
w
:E
Z
o
~
C)
~
~
a:
o
u..
c3 CD
~g .s
.0 ro .2
i=.8 Q)
'OE-gg
cg(/)~
3'-.Qo
OCDO=
t-~~~
~~.g~
9-'0 :;
B~@~
~E~.s
.oQ)O'-
~.s'OC.E
::J .__
(/) .S 3 :i}
E"'O 0 0
Q)~-E ~
~'> ~ ~ ~
(/) 00.'- ,S 3 0
rooE
.Q~~~~
Cij_oQ)o
E~g~g>
~ E ~ '~ ':g
_cijOgo
r5g~+=-"O
'c :t:: - r5 0
~oE~-5
~ ,~~ ~ ~
Eg~ro.{g
::JO'-C
<(,0 0 g ::J
'OCI)
"SCO
O::J
OC
..j Z@
g>c
,- 0
c-
c.~
ro>
0:0
a
(/)
c
o
a.
CI)
t)
Q)
'0
0:.
c
Ol
'if)
Q)
'0
t)
Q)
'0
0..
co
c
u::
-
r-
eo
u;
~
ill
..t
M
OlC
Eo
c'-
c,~
ro>
0:0
OlC
co
:0 'if)
'5 :~
ill 0
a
(/)
c
o
a.
CI)
a
m
c
o
a.
CI)
t)
Q)
'0
0:.
o
Q)
'0
ct
o
Q)
'0
0..
Q)
:5
'0
~
Q)
:5
a
LL
CD
Q)
ii
E
o
o
t)
Q)
o
0..
Q)
.s
'0
~
Q)
:5
a
LL
CD
Q)
Q.
E
o
o
c
Ol
'if)
Q)
'0
o
Q)
'0
0..
co
c
u::
c
Ol
'if)
Q)
'0
o
Q)
'0
0..
co
c
u::
-
r-
eo
u;
-
;0
u;
c
o
U
2
iii
c
o
o
a
c
o
~
Ci
E
o
o
CD
Q)
Q.
E
o
o
OlC
co
:0 'if)
'5 :~
ill 0
a
m
c
o
a.
(/)
o
CD
'0
ct
c
Ol
'if)
Q)
'0
o
CD
o
0..
co
c
u::
-
;0
en
~~m g>a~ a.S ~ a g ,9 ~
Q)'O.c+=-.g.c'O'O 0 (/)'0 --
~ g ~ i8 g E! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Cij~"SO ,,20.0 :5s8. C'O
E'- O-Cro ~z= a(/)2' 8,~
::J~'OEam ,3 <Oc~ Ci
E >-2 CD.c >- g(/). 0 0 c a.
'x ro c Q) (/) ro +=- ,~ ~ .2 ~ ~ ~
E E ~:5 "0 0 m =5 :t:: .- {5 -fI>
Ci>Q)o~2'mt5 2~5} -
Q).o.o-co>co o.-C Q)~
:5E(5'O,QIC'O ro~o C::J
"O::Jc2-.c8CD .coo '0>0
CC_C~Ol N 02Q) a5~
: ,~ ~ ~ ~ I m .~ >- - .0 ::J
c.s(/)~g>Q)::J~ .og~ g@
Q)"Omroo.s~o ~t5~ +=-E
a;@~CijOc'Oo ~_2co ~~o
_ -=.c >- ro c c .0 0
occ'o-.o:5 ro"O g,~:g E-
'--rom>-,-,-c Q)O::J om
~~LL~~~.itj ~ '- o~ 0:5
5 Q) u; ~ g (5 .2 ~ ~ g g co .~
c:5 C~"O v>_ >- ~ CD;: E"O
~'OgEmcg5 .c.oo -E~
-;:: ..- ro 0 ::J Q) 0 m = (/) .- a.
o g e Q) a; Ol 0 (/) co '- <Ii _ 'S
; ~ 'E ~ ~ 0l'5.~ :; ~ g g co g-
~ ~ "0 ~ co .2 :i} ~ ~ Q) ~ ~ Q) .
,E_ c~ CD~aiii:;::; c m:cic:E~--=-
o .... .... '-' .Q.c ro Q) ::J;=.- C
~ c a5:5 cD"E~ Q) ot- 30 E_~
~ 3 E a ~ ro g- ~ 2, g.~ >- a5 ~
co~E-Q)~Q)m iiiCDroO~E-
.c mOo...c ::J 0. Q) . C "0 Q) 0.. ~.9- ~
m m ~ CD- 8 o.oE 08.c Q) 0::J Q)
t)ro..~g -=roO t-.c'-CT,-
~cccQ)_~~~~~co~=~Q)o
e Q) W v> g -= ~ m ::J .0 .9- >- ro
a. a; ,-~.c o.~~ 8 ~.2.{g 5>
1? m~~ ~ m-;'2 Q) g S'5'if)
t- 0.0 o.ro ::J.o"O:5 <(~.c ro N
<0
cO
..t
M
..-
<.5
..t
M
~
c\,
<.5
..t
M
c
o
U
2
iii
c
o
o
a
c
o
~
Ci
E
o
o
CD
Q)
Q.
E
o
o
g>c
'c,Q
c.~
ro>
0:0
OlC
Eo
c-
c.~
ct1>
0:0
a
(/)
c
o
a.
CI)
o
Q)
'0
ct
a
m
c
o
a.
CI)
o
Q)
'0
ct
c
Ol
'if)
Q)
"0
"0
Q)
'0
0..
co
c
u::
c
o
t5
2
iii
c
o
o
a
c
o
~
Ci
E
o
o
CD
Q)
Q.
E
o
o
c
Ol
'if)
CD
"0
o
Q)
'0
0..
co
c
u::
~
co
en
-
r-
eo
en
~
Q)
c
'0>
c
Q)
c
o
~
::J
.0
E
o
o
co
c
m
E
'0
Ol
.S
~
~
ro
(/)
(/)
Q)
o
Q)
c
C
::J
:0
:c
o
ct
~:;:;.,a~g~m
cCQ)-c-,-.o
,2> E ;g ~ 25 g> ~ 5
~.9-~ ~:;t ~ c
"O::JgCWct1ECD
.~ g- m 8.:0 iii ~ g c
Cij Q) > (/) CD 0.0 .e 3
.cEQ)~.ecD~g. 0
::coc t--o- ,t-
c(/)~~ c~2~~
Q)Q)3 'cuQ)Q)(/)-
K.s <.5:Q mCi~:5 g ~
"S-(j)g"OE--+=-"O
CTO _3c02~0Q)
Q) ~ ~ c 0 ~ o.S ~
~ocoomc>-(/)'-
.~ .~ 'gc ~ t5 '0 :0 (i) g ~
-a. ::Jcc::Joco
C-Q)'L~CDmgQ)(/)
Q) r5 E B ~.s --:- ,2.s ro
E '5. "0 ro 0 _ B o.Cij ~
.9--c@,g 0 0 a: ~ ,-.Q
~ciii asm.Q8.8 8
CDmv>oo::J-g ~CD
c.c~o.oro,- '-c
.Q:.,gQ)coo'-EE.8
o~~g!!1?~~g.c
2 'S ~ ro ,S -~.g 0 ~
iii CTg.o ro Q)- '- Q) Q)
c o:;CiEgo.gCD
8~oiiiEEoCDCO.o
~ ~ ,~ :0 8 2 -g .s ~ ,_
Q) CD Q)00-3
'S CD ~ (/) >- "0 - Q),~ (/)
.CT Cij ro '0 @:Q a5 t: '0 a
_m"S_c g:E8~e
~ g-.2 - .8 3::J - "0
Q) ~roOl,-E.8a@
(/).8cQ)cB'O"OQ)m
~ :g .~ 25 -E ~ g>
,2> 8."E ~ ~ c :0
~ (/)CD g ~ ro -g '5
..j O,-0Q)3roill
M
I.{)
<.5
..t
M
..-
<i
J,
M
g>c
,- 0
c-
c.~
m>
0:0
a
(/)
c
o
a.
(/)
o
CD
o
ct
3
Q)
'>
~
a::
<(
~
CI)
Q)
Q)
ii
E
o
o
c
Ol
'if)
Q)
"0
t>
CD
'0
0..
(ij
c
u::
-e
co
en
o-g
%ro
'-Ol
a.c
Ci~
"Omc
@~~
-g2
_~c
~ _ .itj
oOE
& ~Q .2
ro~o
co,~
a::iiie
<( ,S 0.
Cl..,-CD
(/).E.s
..g'O
~t5~
-::J-
~~~
oC'-
08.E
3Q)"O(/)::(/)"O.e
~~ @~~'~U~
Q) co m Q) 8.~ "0
.s-5i~ K(/)m~
'0 -....:o(/) ro
c(5Q)@Q)~a5E
ro--giii1l;-Q)m
"0 g> (3 '(j) "0 g>.o C
c,-cQ) '-CDro
::J.c'-" 2 3 >-;::;
ero=-.-oco.....
roo.ro.cm=.eQ)
c .c Ol-.E .c
'- 3 m ::J 0 >-t-
2CDOleQ)Q)CD
Q)CE"O~~~g
.sCD~--a' '~
~:5~:5-EoO
Q)a-g ~,~+=-~?
~(/)~2-;Q)Q)(;)
Q)Q)Q)~.cE~~
.0 "O.c 0.- ro 0
co 'if) t- '0 m m ~
Q) - CDCDro
~.e ~ "0 t:5 0l"O
Q)5~@~Cij~@
.eC,- .c
- - (/) "0 (/)
- "0 (/) g> ro Q) Q) Q)
~c ::J._ "0 0:Q.g
3rog~~2>Q)
~ iii:Q C>> ~ (;) K .e
~~~i>~go-g
'-' "9 ro ,- 0 _ 0
Q)Q)C-CD-T"OO
.s:50 .oco(j)CD
_ c~=_m~
o-g.sro~g::JE
CD ro'~ (/) m <1> ~
:2 _ "0 Cij Ol'- .0 CD
(/) (5 Q) .s .S 0 "0 :5
-- a. a.Q)-
~ Ol ro m ro '0 g ~
Q) .S ~ .0 ~ 0.. 0 ~
Q).c-g2-gCDCijo
Eroro.cro.c.cQ)
,.- 0._ m _ _ _ .0
N
<i
J,
M
co
Q)
Ol
m
~
E
co
C>>
o
ct
Ol
c
t
o
0.
Q)
Q:lCC
:g"O
C
Cijro
C::Ol
o c
.... '-
'00
c::~
OC
00
.....~
~c
o.Q
.c:-
C1)~
C5E
~~
w w
~ 0
en Z
Z ct
~~ ~
a:(f) ::E
ctw 0
o..a: 0
-.---
W
...J
lD
en
Z
o
0..
(f)
W
a:
~
a: a:
ct 0
0.. 11.
~---
::
< w
a: (f)
C) ct
::L
0 0..
a: Z
D- O
C) ~
z
t= ~
Z
a: w
0 ::E
0- w
W ...J
a: 0..
C ~
z=o
<CD
.., ::J
,I:
:E
0
~
6
::
z
0
i=
oct
C)
E
::
w
a:
::>
(f)
ct
w
::E
Z
0
j:::
ct Vi
C)
j::: Co
S (/)
:J
Co
en
3:
3:
.2
0
(/)
(ij
a>
lu
~
(/)
'~
Vi
co
C
co
Z
o
j:::
~
Z
w
::E
w
...J
Q.
~
coQ)(/)(/)a>o>
.0 co 15 lu.~
.s=Q)o>-u
U~E~Q)3
~(/)+-"OEe
,~+-'5co::;
:oc:Jcoenen
co~enU(/) u)
~~=E~2~ ~
_ o.:Ja:.c~ -
oCO c(/) -fjj
gQ)~ou~ 0
e ~ ~ ~ @ .!!? (/)
~ 0. -gg~> Q)
Co ~ ~~Q)~~~ ~
3: c +- .;;: '0 Ci; +- E E
o co "- 0 0> Q) '0 co
~ ~~ ~~'5~Eg ~
~Q) ~ Q)> ~ i"-~.s~~ 0>
Co .~:g "- +-og.oo. C
(/)"0 ? -' 0 co+- "-.0 E~ ~
~~~ '2CJQ).c .Q>ou.c._o':
~~~ ~i~ ~ ~i~~~~ ~
~~~ ~~- e @lu~Ecoo Q)
~~~ ~~~ ~ -OQ)C C
. -2- ~ ~. . ~ t5 ~.o. E: i ~ ~ ~ 3 0 E
o.~!!? ai~o."b~ fO 9-~ .,~~'E~c.u
0.. ..... ... "b c:: .... - w en 0. o.:e en - ~ _ 0
en :0:: .Q '- =0 5} en .Q "-" E: - 0. 0. '0 -._ (ij '0
en~e8~en~~~::Jenenen2cO>>.cc ~
.c: Q) en 0 ,l) 0 Q) :S ..... ~ en E: Q) ~ ,~ ~ en co '(i)
ocu~eno..::JE:~c::ac::~::J.o =0+-"0 ~
~ c- =s .~ 5} ~ .::J Q) ~ CI) E: ~ E: = co :e .2 @ Q) Q)
~~@~~Q)~~~~~~~~~2.og~ 3:
~~~~~~~OOQ~~$en o~~E ~
o>1::-Q)mctl _
.~ g~ U 0> E u) ~
............. o.o>.o(/).c a>o>
co "- '(i) 0> I- >- 0 .c
OCCa> ~c+-
{'5 ~ g ~ :>, ~~ c
@';;: en 0> ctl e (/) ~
....J 3: ~E3;: o.~ (L
~C ~c g>c o>c g>c
'c .Q 'c .Q 'c .Q .so 'c.Q
c-
c.~ c.~ c,~ c.~ c.~
m> co> co > co> co>
0::0 0::0 0::0 0::0 0::0
0 0 0 0 0
(/) (/) (/) (/) (/)
c c c c c
0 0 0 0 0
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
C/) C/) C/) C/) C/)
0 0 0 0 0
0> 0> a> a> 0>
'0 '0 '0 0 'e-
O: n: 0: n: 0-
"0 0 0 '0
a> a> a> c
'0 '0 0 co
C. C. C. co
0>
lu
'0 "0 '0 '0
C C C C
co co co :J
0
(ij co (ij lu
c
> > > ::;
0 0 0
c. c. c. c ii
0.. 0. 0. 0>
C co c: co c: co '(i) ~1LQ
0 0 0
~ ~ ~ 0> ~~en
rr:: rr:: rr:: "0
.~ <( ~ <( ~ <( 0 +-c:~
0. (L 0. (L 0. (L a> Co 8&
0. (f) 0. C/) 0. (f) 0
m co m c. ;t:: 0> co
rr:: crr:: crr:: c_ <( lurr::
<( Qi.Q ~ Qi.Q ~ .. 0 co S:Q~
(L .; :g ,~
(f) ]igC/) ]ig(f) _:JLL ..!aC/)
... 0."- 0."- ~~ i: a.c
:u E Vi 1:: E Ci) 1:: E 3i: 1::
OCCll OCCll OC:ClI O"-ClI
00 0800 0800 0800 o~oo
oil E ~-g
enmo cCO
.o-e Q)U
~~a> E~
enoen -rr::
o>E g , 0 0
,~:g ::; g> ~ ('\J
~ m '?-.~ '(i) en
0, -g E E Vio a>
..!- m :J 0 ctl c
~ViEe 0> a>
-mo>en a>u
~ a> E ~ E'~
E ~ 0 -0>0 c: "-
co +- 0 a>
o.E~E iE
~,g'(i)o 00
.2 >-.c ~ 2 c
g ~ :;'(i) ~.*
'0 g! ~ Vi 8 2
...... .;;: a> c
uu~ 3: a>:
Q)3:......o>~E
-gQ)3:E:sg
coCo,,- ::>
~Q)Q).E ~-g
Q)E.ou c:~
20 ~.~ 2c
_eno:J"OQ)
~~Ci;[ga;
c: '> a> Q) 3: c.
~~E.o :2=
~.Q g 'iU g'~
c: .0 .c +-
'0. - en en 0 ~ :>,
~~ ~.~=g:: m
{'5en-~co.Q~
~:S~~ E g>{'5
-en3:u a>3i:O
~~e@.oluo
I- ~ 0>....J <( o..~
gE'~
:;:;.- :J
m 0-
a,Q ~
.~ (/) 0
O:J......
3:~1:
a>.~.Q>
c +- "-
a> B,~ (ij
.c = ...... -fjj
+-UQ)
~~iU ~
c: .c .c co
00:= 3:
oC3: ~
'5-'~ ~ c 3:
c.~~.Q '0
Q)~a>2 @
E+-EE (/)
2~':.c ~
'c c 5 g lu
oog(/) Q)'
EOen2 ~-E
.8.8:g~ o~
+-uuE 00
B,Q)c=u.o
.;;: ~ .* ~ :;-g
~ES;~:
+- 8.~c mE
g!a>"fi~og
~lu:JQ) 0>>-
(/) > c: co
=(/)_o._~
.~ C ~ C. ~ co
c: Q) en E .- 3:
3:~~~....J
0> c.-
I-e~~
a> o.'(i) E
.::,~~~,-
~
C"') ,- r: C\!
<i ai 0 0 0
a: Lh Lh 0 0 Lh
0 M M C"') C"') M
11.
())
a>
0>
co
(L
Q)
>
Q)
1
.Q
0
a>
'0
C.
'0
c:
co
co
>
0
C.
0..
co
IT:
<(
(L
C/)
c
..0
CD.-
'it>
- ::J
0."-
EVi
o c:
08
'0
Q)
(ij
0>
0
c:
0
0
0>
C
'(i)
:J
(/)
0>
-0 ::;
2 x
:0 ;;=
:c <D
0 >
c. a>
a> 1
.0 .Q
-~ E
(/) .~
Q) '0
.s Q)
15 1:
e g
'0 Q)
c: .0
m '0 E
!:!! "3 m
(ij 0 0,
3: 3: 0
0 (/) n:
Q)
0> .;;: 0>
c: C c
E a> :e
0
.Q> 0> 0.
U c: u) 0>
0 '5 0. Q)IT:
0 '5 E :gu
u:: ro~ c:
(Om
c:: 0>
,2.~
:go
N M c::==
o c:
<.)0
.....~
~ c
o,Q
..c::-
U)~
oE
~~
a>
(/)
:J
w W
..J
m 0
U) z
<
z :J
~~ a..
a:(/) :E
<(w 0
a.. a: 0
Z
W 0
..J ~
m
U) <
I-
Z Z
0 w
a.. :E
(/) w
W ..J
a: a..
~ ~
a: a:
<( 0
Q. LL
w
(/)
<(
:x:
a..
Z
o
~
<(
I-
Z
w
:E
w
..J
a..
~
w
a:
::>
(/)
<
w
:E
z
o
~
<
"
E
:E
Q5 .~ ,~ $2 ~
o..:s ~ ~~
~~c= lI)
o~E-g-g
~5t:Qo
~ ~ ~~ ~
-L:Q)lI)'O
-g go ~ ~
n:'O~~=o
-g~:o~:g
:::l Q) 0... 0.. a:
e:CQ)lI)E
lU lI) L: lU
CL:....3:e
.2 ~ E2 ~
~~-g~~
-:~Co>lU
~= E .f: -0
3:~Q5~E
Q) - - ,-
>Q)Q):!:::lU
'C > '0 -
-OQ) Q)lI)
3:,lI).oE
Q)~~~g
c-'OL:
Q)Q)'-lI)L:
:s~~lU~
'O=~~E
g>3:cQ).2>
,- lI) Q) L: Q)
~mm;~ v)
=lU ~O~
>-o>lUu.2c
~,~ ~-50~
u ~ lI) ,- ~ U)
~~8.~cr;~
o
.2
o
r-
>-CCQ)'O
.0 0 Q).oQ)
-o'~oEo
Q)E>E!:gc
~ ci ~~ -0 E
lI)l{)lU"(UQ)t
Q);:-g~~lU
.0 r-:::l .c 0..
=:=(/)~::~
3:oc,Qo..Q)
-0:: 0 (U ~ ,~
Co.. 'Ux-
5~~.QQ)~
~xo..Q5Ec
E~~:Scie
.2~';":~oE
~ 0.. r- ,- C? ;::
....l{)-O~......Q)
'Or-c.cr-L:
C" lU 0>........
lU~....=lU>-
ci....co:t:::'O
>- lU ~ 'C 0 C
~:gQ)~-g~
~lI)~CDE~
'C E Q5 .2 lI)
~ ,~,~ :S -o-g
~-~O~lU
.Q~~:;(,-C
0> _ CDQ)
,~~ Cc,~~
~'-Q)CD-VI
ro.2.c>lUO
0...... 3: CD L: _
C ~ lI) C:!::: ~
'-~>-lU3:lU
~ '-CD {g ,~ '0 ~
L: ..... CD
,~E :::l ~ ':> CD
=:;::;cr;Q)fu~
<(lU(/):SlI)C
CD
E
:t:::
o
E
,g
CD
:0
'(i)
'5
CD v)
.03:
00
--0
~.~
~E
=0
lUe
CD CD
.oC/)
o
,- 0..
3:::;
CD'?-
~:g
O>E
O~
0>-
c.c
:;::; 0>
L::::l
0>0
=.c
13;'
,~~
-00..
oe
zo..
,...:
'0
C
lU
oS5 ~ ,S,Q
2 ~ lL :Q .~
lU ,~ ~ '5 ,~
0:0 (/)(DO
o 0
lI) lI)
C C
o 0
0.. 0..
(/) (/)
t) t)
CD Q)
'0' '0'
a:. a:.
C
0>
'(i)
CD
-0
t)
CD
o
a.
"(U
C
u:
1::
co
Ci)
C
o
U
2
u;
C
o
U
t)
,~
0.
'05>
C '(i)
o CD
:;::'0
CD_
Q~
~ 'e
00..
Qi~
1iiu:
~1::
oS
000
-<i
cr;
lI)
E
g
-0
CD
-00>
~>
L: "C
lI)O
0>-0
,~ (i)
~~
:!:::lU
-;ffi
.oE
-0
~;.,
:Q~
o>lU
"~~
~,~
o..lU
'- lI)
~~
0=
-.c
CD:!:::
0>3:
~1:
CD "~
.cQ)
I-L:
I{j to
0>
.0
-oO>CDCDlU 0 ~c
CD.o.cUc lU- ClU
-o_....Co ~3: Q).....
Q)"(U_0:;::; _0 E~
~ L: ~ g>=o .Q 0, ~ L:
lI) - .- -0 :::l '0
CD ......-01: lU ~_>- "- C
-0..." ..... ~lU
'5 ~ ~ g ~ :g -5 _
eL:c....-o ~'~ 0>"5
0.. ~ E "~ ~ 0> ,~ g,
.8 Ee- cc g~
-0 cD 0 0..a5 cD ~ ~~ 0-0
Q):!:::~3:E:!:::'x .c.f:c
5> C/) '- "~ Q) C/) Q) cr;,~ C/) lU
"(i) ~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E =g c 5>
Q)-- 0.. - Q) Q)_
'0 -oQ)E-lI).c Ell)
Q)E .-'-olU:g,- ~{15
::,g-e€~~ ~~ ~"5 >-
"(U o>lU 0'5 ~ C '-'0 glU
.ccoEO'"tti20c ,-3:
C/)oc..m:::l ~ U Q) C/) lU 0 ~
(j)lU 3: lU 0 ~ c.o ~ 0... "C'
E~~~-.....Q2lUlL-o
"~Q) a; - ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ci
-Sa:o~.o=u 0(/)Q5
0>0 ~lUQ)Q)O>C/)=:5i:
~ E 5> ~ Q) ,~ :S,~ 3: lU.f:
~ .~ "(i) -0 .0 .~ '0 ~"~ E a.
Q) >- ~ ro .8 .f: .c 0, Q) "~ lI)
O>'Q) S-oES..!..:S >-cn
"~(ij~ 3:~.8 ~ ~~"C.~
gll)....Q) c>--gEQ5."
- -0 >- 0- -0 C - .c - 0 _ 0>
g CoO a;~:02:!:::.o U lU,~
::=..lU-oa:~(i)~ 3:.8 ~ E-g
O>>-Q)clI):C-o'O_ L:C_
C 1: 3: O>"~ lI) Q)E Q) ~ lI) 0 g
:;::; :::l Q)"(i) - 0.. ,- C U ,_
.c U 05 Q)'~ -g E lU Q) O>:::l ~
~ ~ ~ 0 :!::: = '~ ~ ~ "(i) ~ a5
'OC Q)lI)
~cQ)'05E
lU ~:Q -ro U ~
Q) :t::: C.....lU
~2~u:.E"C.
"(U
.c
lI)
0>
C
~
"5
.0
C
'(ij
E
Q)
E
-0
C
:::l
o
~
-0
C
lU
C~
o.c
0>
C/)=
--0
~~
-(i)
>-"-
_.c
'c C/)
:::lL:
u....
~.~
-0
O>Q)
c: U
:;::;lU
C/)-
'x g-
w'-
cO
0)
0 ~
~
0 <t:
0 <b.
C') C')
a:
0
LL
C/)
0>
c:
~
'5
.0
3:
Q)
C
'0
>-
U
C
lU
0..
:::l
U
U
o
.8
o
~
Qi
Q)
a.
E
o
o
~ ,c: v) (j)
3:-L:lU
~ g-: ~
"C ~ ~ L:
'OCD-.::....
3:lI)~~
Q)Q)_0
cEll).....
-o:;:::::l2t
Q)_ElU
~"(Uc:-o
0...... lU c:
OlU"C.lU
a. C/) 0> 3:
-0 ~ c: "~
c:U:5i:>
lU-o~~
>- Q) 0..=
~ ~ Q>"~
"~ ~ ~ :g
.0 0 >- in
-Q)C::O
OQ)lU
0,- Q)
L:--O.=
U-o c:-
(/)c:lUQ)
c: lU cn~
"(ij c: Q)
c ~~-o
:::l00..Q)
o lI)o..
~ -g 0>:5
0> c: .~ l{>
o~ '(ij ~ -g
([clU,-
,- 0.. '
0> lU Q) c:
~E-g~~
,~ Q) cr; '$ 0>
x.oc:>c
Q) ~ ,~ >-Q) ~
Q)VllI) '-
.c:::lQ).cro
I- E -0 I- 0..
lI)Q)
~~
-OQ)
Q)L:
~-
~>-
0.. .0
'03:
Q).~
~~
0..'-
Q)Q)
~o..
Q) -
.oll)
lI)
Q)
"~ 8
C/)lU
.8Q)
<{~
C/)L:
oQ)
-1>
<II>-
-u
>c:
Q)
-00>
c: '-
lUQ)
>-E
lUQ)
~t)
C/):::l~
-g~E
0.0 lI)
~0i:5
-o32c:
c: 5,Q
.!!lut)
-0 Q)
Q)-o
Q) lU '-
a::S0...
'O.?;
Q)c:
C::::l
"lU 0
cO
"(ij .c
E~
2~
32E
:::lo
~u
C/)=
lU
O>.c
C:C/)
:e-g
:::l:::l
Uo
-0'-
Q)lU
'-c:
- ::;
>--
~~
~3:
{5"~
""6.0
00>
.c.c
u-
(/)-0
c: c:
-rolU
c~
53:
~Q)
>
0>>=
c:-o
ir,~
Q):S
:Sg
..... c:
0.Q
lLlU
o
......
Q)
0>
lU
0...
E
lU
0,
o
a:.
0>
c:
:e
o
0..
Q)
(1)([
:3-0
c:
tUlU
C::0>
,S? ,~
'60
c:::!:::
OC:
00
...~
~c:
o"Q
..c:-
CI)~
<5:E
~~
~
~
a:
o
o
a:
a.
o
z
i=
a:
o
a.
w
a:
c
z:o
~G)
., :J
C
:;
C ---
o
.....:~
Z
o
:E
z
o
i=
~
o
E
~
W
...J W
m 0
en Z
Z c:(
~~ ~
a:(/) :E
<(w 0
a.a: 0
--~
W
...J
m
en
Z
o
a.
(/)
w
a:
~
a:
c:(
a.
a:
o
LL
Z
o
i=
c:(
~
Z
w
:E
w
...J
a.
~
a:
o
LL
w
(/)
c:(
:I:
a.
Z
o
i=
c:(
~
Z
w
:!E
w
...J
a.
~
w
a:
::l
(/)
c:(
w
:!E
Z
o
i=
c:(
CI
E
:!E
;u~E
:i::c_
Q) .-
'E~ :i::
u..............
o'O~
~~~
'ro U .c
~Q):i::
>-~ ~
ttl.......
:s:,,-ttl
CI)~U
-g~~
o c ~
:S:.cm
-g15~ctt
~c~~
u....Ottl
Q) Q) Q.~
~.!!?f29
aU 0..
~C\/I-f2
....... >-~ "0
~2~~
~ ~ oi} ~
C 'x Q)'~
ttlo.co
)....I-""Q>
~ 8:.8 ~
.c ttl 0>
Q)u;Uc
~~:i::~
O>O~U
,~ E>:: Q)
....... u.......
.~ E I/) 2
Q) 1/).......
Q)~~~
.c.coo
I-I/)ttlo
u)
u
~
u
C
ttl
(j)
<5-g
:ttl
g-;u
~~
~>
h:g
.~ Q)
~~
o..u
g~
Q)
~o
5~
~>
9Q)
o...c
0.......
p<n
"00>
* -E:.
ou.2
o..ttl:;
E~~
cu~~
~<n~
ttl~~
~~~
~~~
6. -a5 -g
O>:J
u~~
Q):SC
~~2
Q)
~
Q)
I/)
ttl
Q)
(:;
.~
.8
~
ttl
:J
13
c
ttl
~~
.c :+=
~ttl
.~'O
.Ec
O>Q)
=>
2Q)
I/)~
0>.......
.~ o~
o~ 0>
~.~
Q)U
L. =
I- :J
Q).D
:QQ)
I/).s:::
c.......
00>
Oc
~~
~E
~~
~'O
Q)
Q)I/)
.cttl
I-Q)
~~
(j)
o-g
~~
u::~
Q)
=.8
-g"O
ttlO>
-<n
~09-
c.~
'6c
=sttl
.D .~
cu
I- Q)
sg
uttl
2-g
I/)Q)
o::=:
o..ttl
Q) I-
.DQ)
>
cu~
~~
~:i::~
C c
[-g ttl
:J:+= 0..
g 15 ~
ocg
EQ)E
:J.D :J
E E
.~~.~
~~E
u
c
.2
c
Q)
E
Q)
o
.ttl
I/)Ci.
~ ~
g~
ttl 0
Q):E
I- Q)
:+=>
Q) ttl
~.8
c c
Q) 0
.8:S
-e:@
CC
o 0
00
~~
~.c
x I/)
0'=
C ttl
~-
Q) ttl
~;U
.co..
~~
~CI)
~c
.......ttl
~~
- 0..
<{ ttl
Q)
.c
. I-
"0
C
ttl
0g'50
fr: ~:~ :s:
~~.?= ~
UHL 0 ~
<5
I/)
C
o
0..
if)
13
Q)
'0'
Q:
C
0>
'w
Q)
U
13
Q)
o
a.
cu
C
u::
~
C
~
'S
.D
:i::
Q)
C
'0
~
C
~c
:J 0>
o 'w
o Q)
0"0
.813
<5 05-
(ta.
~~
~u::
~~
oS
Ow
....
Co
Ui
..-
<.5
<b
M
<5
I/)
C
o
0..
(/)
13
Q)
'0'
Q:
'O~~ ~
5 :E :5 'S.
t1 .~ .~ g c
Ci. 0 Q) .:: E
g~g .a5~
o....guE~
0> o..Q)Q)C
c~EiI.i~Q)
'6 .~ 8 ~ E cu
:J gQ)C
g~-g~o>~
0- C ttl I/) ....... "0
en-~ 0_'- ~u
cCi.~~ ttl
Q) E Q) 0- Q) Q)
Eo-~:5:5
~02~2~
'S . -,~ Q) ttl ttl
0"5a.E"3.c
Q).- 0'- 00
~ ~ 2:i ~ ~
:s:Ci.ttl.......O=
~ 0.. _ ro :s: ttl
~<{0Q)~~
~~~~~c
:5 .~ E ~ ro ,~
,- 0> >-.- .s::: Ci.
:i:: if) [ I/) :: 0..
>- CI/)ttl
Ci. 0> en g Q) Q)
E ro c ~ ~.s:::
0>Q)~Q)1-
0> E ""', "-
~Q)~~'iU13
.s::: I-'SU.s:::.~
I/)~O"CI/)f2
c~~:co..
~I-Q)~~~
=n.0":J=.......
0.. ttl I- 0.. Q)
o..~ ~ 13 0.. ~
ttl.-"O>:: ttl Q)
Q)Ic(j)Q)CI)
~ttljo~.8
..- C\J
<i. <i.
~ ~
C':i C':i
I/)
0>
C
~
os
.D
:i::
Q)
c
'0
>-
o
C
ttl
0..
:J
o
o
o
.8
<5
(t
Q)
Ci)
a.
E
o
o
o
:s:
~
~
>-.......
ttl.~
(D~
c.~
00
~~
"- ttl
ttl.......
-5 'c
.- ttl
CI:if)
<5
I/)
C
o
0..
(/)
13
Q)
'0'
Q:
<5
CI)
C
o
0..
if)
13
Q)
o
Q:
C
0>
Iii
Q)
"0
13
Q)
'0'
a.
cu
C
u::
-e
lU
Ui
g
C
~
'S
.0
:i::
Q)
C
'0
r>
C
~5,
:J ._
o CI)
o Q)
ou
.813
<5 .5-
(ta.
~~
~u::
~~
oS
ow
~~
o
Q) 'K .
0.. 0.. 13
"OttlE
Q) Q).~
t).s:::"O
:J I- Q)
~.;~
5.g a.
o iI.i f2
uO 8:
~ ~:
u:m:5
Q)C>-
cttl.o
.g> if) "0
~ >-~
"0 m's
0"
Ec~
OCl)
~-E~
.s::: ttl-
I/) .s::: =
Ottl
E a: I-
Q) S
~~.511
1/).......:9
-I/)
cOc
.Q1/)8.
t)c~
Q)Q),,-
cEQ)
o~.o
:J=
~ O"~
I-~CI)
';l
<i.
cb
C':i
CI)
0>
C
~
'S
.0
:i::
Q)
C
'0
>-
o
C
co
0..
:J
o
()
o
.8
<5
(t
CD
Ci)
Q.
E
o
o
U
C
ttl
C
Q)
E g'c
~@'c~
og-~:~
n.0n.0
<5
I/)
C
o
0..
(/)
13
Q)
"0
Q:
C
0>
'w
Q)
U
13
Q)
'0'
a.
cu
C
u::
13
Q)
'0'
a.
Q)
~
'0
~
Q)
~
0>
C
.~
o
CD
Ci)
a.
E
o
o
.;.;
L..
lU
Ui
~.E .~'O~:E
~CI) o~~g
~ ~ n.:J 0......
if)- Q) Xttl u)
>-u .s::: >-Q).s::: C
ttl~ .......~Q)....... Q)
""-=;' EQ)I-~ E
LLJ -' "- .s::: co C
5 ~ -2 Q) -fi-E .~
CI)..!.. =.0 g2...; 0"
~ .g cu == 0.. Q) 0- ~
-5~ ~:i::LO~~5
.-0 ........Q)t--c>._
a:<5~~o>~Q)f2ro
Q) -.... o.s::: ttl E 0 .g>
.s:::Q)I/)=.....s:::t-~
;::0 0 8: ~ .... [~ E
.D 'w Q) ttl Q) ~ Q) I/) U5
uc:5Q).s:::oO.......:J
Q)8.>~:i::EQ)a5u
:i::1/).D ~l/)c.2EC
.~ ~-gEc~~t.~
Q)Q).......I-Q):i:: ~o..
I- ~~ ~ ii; I/)~ Q) I/)
~cu.2Q)u~::ocu
_.s:::ctlCl)Q)Q)-Q).s:::
~~~=!Ea>~~
CI) ~ ttl ttl.o.~.~ 'E '0
u>.~ en 5E~; ~ ~
~Ci.:g:Ettl CQ)C
Ci. ~ :J -g >-2 ~~ 8
0>Q) ~ 0 C'w c....... C
c.s::::JOCO ttl"-O
'6l-xQ).......~.......s:O:;
= :+=.s::::J.......ttlUO
:J13:i::-.8.82Q).5
~:s ~ E ctl I/) 'w -g ~
.s:::.~- "Oc-g Q) Q) 0
I-OCU~Q)O~CO
'S E I- C.~
O"t ~ 0 (5
~ ~~~E
N ~~~.88..-
C\!
<{
~
(")
0>
Q) U
C C
'0 ttl
CO>CO>C
w.~ 0 C 0
C 2 'w =0 'w
~~~=s~
I-n.Orno
<5
I/)
C
o
0..
if)
'0
Q)
o
Q:
C
0>
'w
Q)
u
'0
Q)
'0'
a.
cu
C
u:
-e
as
Ui
C
o
:g
2
U5
C
o
()
'0
C
02
Q)
Ci.
E
o
o
Gi
Ci)
Q.
E
o
o
- >- I/)
COOctl
CQ)
O>Q)"-
C:Jctl
.~ g5
m~+:
:i::ctl2
<5cuU5
- C
Q)~8
cl/)Q)
C .... >
00.-
~~~
Q)f2
o..o..~
uQ)u
c.s:::=
CO....<{
c
'Eou)
Q)I/)Q):>-
K~5~
'S ~ Ci. U
O":J.......Q)
Q) (J) ~.~
Q)=u~
~g~iI.i
f2u~ *
0.. ~ 'S; ::
'iU2:Q~
~o~ g ~
UttlQ)
~<5.8cu
o _:i::
'O~a5Q)
~ I/)'-.D
-00-
C 0..:E: cu
oX:J.s:::
OQ)I/)CI)
N
;..
<i.
6
'"':0
(f)-r-
..-
..-
Q)
0>
ttl
n.
E
ctl
0,
o
Q:
0>
C
t
o
0..
Q)
Q)CI:
:3"0
C
Cijctl
c:0>
Oc
is-g
c:~
o C
00
~~
~c
0.2
.t::-
U)~
oE
~~
W
J W
m 0
c;; z
z c:t
~~ it
a:CI) :E
c:tW 0
n.a: 0
~---
W
J
m
c;;
z
o
n.
CI)
W
a:
~
a: a:
c:t 0
n. Ll.
---~
:E
<t:
a:
o
o
a:
a..
o
Z
i=
a:
o
a..
w
a:
c_
Z-o
<{(I)
0::3
Z:S
a: I: -~----
00
I-e
z
o
:E
Z
o
i=
<{
o
E
:E
z
o
Ei
~
z
W
:E
W
J
n.
~
W
CI)
c:t
:I:
n.
z
o
Ei
~
z
W
:E
W
J
n.
~
Q)=
.00
en
ro~
.c:,5:2
enx
o
en....
COc
Q)O
n;-S
W
a:
::>
CI)
c:t
W
:E
z
o
Ei
CJ
~
~
g>5
'g>'~
t)u
Q)
-gCi1
co~
ui....
coo
Q)
n;~
o>'~
cU
:gen
COQ)
o..E
ui:;::
'0<1>
COQ)
0....
....:S
en
en "0
<1><1>
u....
uQ)
CO Ci1 .
u~~
Q) Q)
~-g~
g-~fa
:J 0.. t)
cv)
a:
o
Ll.
Q)
.0
cti
.c:
en
en
CO
Q)
n;
0>
c
'5>
CO
W
"0
C
CO
u)
CO
Q)
n;
0>.-:..
Cen
:g~
CO <1>
0..<1>
- ~
~en
~Q;
....Ci1
en ~
~:S
8'~
co-
>-
~~
>'0
co_
D-g.
~~
oo::i
ro
'~
Ci1
E
'00
Q)-
UQ)
~::o ci>
o..COc
en C'C
::J::JQ)
enQ)Ci1
J5n;~
en>-
=t.o
alo"O
.c:~Q)
enQ)'O
~o-E
~-E8
:g8~
cow_
O>::JO
.~u ~
g~~
U.c:.c:
K~.5:?
ci;~~
::Jl:en
~'~ E
Q) .c: ::J
:S.Q>0..
o.c:_
....- ~
00"0
g>~~
,_ 0,_
>'c en
~ ~~
.c: g> ~
@'~ ~
W"OD-
'0
en
Q)
::0
'w
'>
~
U)
Q;
0..
Q)
Q)
~
en
Q; .
Ci12
~~
.c:':::
~CI)
~.5:2
>-:0
.- ::J
COo..
"0_
_I:
0..<1>
Q)U
~~
Q)CO
.00
=c
~o
en "0
2'~
~~
U5 ,~
lli
cD
>-
.0
C
~
o
:0
Q)
.0
C
CO
U
Ci1
:S
en
ro
'~
Ci1
E
Q;
.c: ,
o-g
OQ;
- >
'00
CU
CO....
enO
-= "0
'0 ~
enQ)
uiCi1
'C ~
.0<1>
~.o
o:g
en en
~"O
o..c
u'~
OQ)
U5:S
r-.:
Q;
0..
en
~
'E
II)
~
en
CO
c
~
o
'0
'0
Q)
:t::
Q)
~
.8
'0
.!
~
Q)
.0
(tj
.c:
en
en
<1>
(3
:c
~uj
c~
:2{g
2~
t)u
CQ)
0>
uCO
0..
ro3
og
-g~
~:c
en ~
Q):;
.c:o
f-.c:
o
'0
Q)
Q;
>
o
U
Q)
.p
'~
.::.::.
U
::J"";
.:::~
>-'0
.oQ)
'0:0
Q)-
15 .~
0.. en
en en
CQ)
~Ci
-0..
~~
"CO
Q)-
Ci1-g
Eu
Q)
=<1>
<{C
cO
0)
"0
C
O>~O>C
~ .Q ,~ .2
C .~ :Q .!!?
CO > ,- >
_ .- ::J.-
o.omo
0
en
C
0
D-
Cf)
0
Q)
'0
ct
c
Q)
E
D-
O
(j)
>
Q)
C '0
Q) 2
E 'w
D- o
0
(j) c
> 0
Q) :g
"0
2 0..
'w E
.8 0
U
0 CD
&: a;
- c.
... E
co 0
(j) 0
o~oui~~....E
c-enO>.... -
~ .Q,~ ~ =5 -6 ~ >-
~ ~B.~~ ~~.o
eno..>Q) e Q)
g~:g:Eo..~:g
~ ';;; ~:S Q) 2.~fa
c ;S.~ ~.~ coE=
o 0> > .- E 0 CO
~.~ ~~ ~- o~
en:;.c:....Q).!!?:O
coutc=mcc
-g2~co~Oco~
Q; 'in = ,g en fr Q) =
> Q) CO 0..0.... Ci12:
o - o...c: 0.. 0>
U :S ~ CO ~ 0..:;:: CO
og:E~-.Q~Q)
"0 ~=~~E~
<1> -g U:;:::: Q) ,-
rgQ;~3~uQ;
~~.2-gg-g€~
Q)~o::uco::Ju
~'52~rocD-:; ,
~ Q).... Wc Q) ~ cU .8 ~ en
.0 ....n Q).... ffi
co8.o.Q~Q) 0
.~ ~-~ g:E~ Q) fr
UC.c:coc....en....
en:;~en.c:.Q>froo..
~ 0 cro ~ en ....:Su
~ ~ ~ CO CO ,= 2: ~
"0 .....0 D-u ~ co.8 C
Q) ro ~,~ .5!? - Q)
.0.... -~en16enE
:;.2o>oroen oE
--scco::JQ)Ecoo
,~ u'C Q) cr en Q) 0.. U
0:=:-6 ~ CO ~{g,~ ~
o
~
ai
6
~
c-)C"')
Q;
Q)o>
,~ I:
g>g
W::J
cm
~u
oc
f-<{
o
en
c
o
0..
Cf)
o
<1>
0'
a:
C
0>
'in
Q)
'0
o
a>
'0
Ci
ro
c
IT:
-
....
co
(j)
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .8 g> 2 g ~ g>
~~~:m-:u: ~=g~:g '~:E
.c:Q;zQ;~o-So.Qo,c~ i3~
encuIc_ o_Ci1__CO ~g
..:liCO'C <1>....~cucenQ) 0
o 0.8~:g ~c E ~:2,~-g Q)U
~U:E.g_ -g COCi1 E ~ ~U ~ro
U >- Q) Q) = Q) "0 Q) E CO en Q) ,5:2
Q)CCiE~~~':::o~~~ :S,E
Q;ga><{cQ)~u~Q)fij:; _u
~O.o.~.~o~ @ ~~ E ~ ~-5Q)
.~~.8Ci1.!!?~>-c-@- E~ ~C)
'0 - '0 Z E ~ (j) ,2 E 0 a>
Q)ucQ)E'-,::,::,~ -.c:.5:? "5,0>
....c::J.co-.J.-en>- -::0 ::JO
cocoo-U -.Joro~-::J ON
en>--= t)_o..E:90o. ........
c L.. Q) CO 0 en.!!? _ en 0> .c: Q)
ro~""u~~ouccc,~ -I
EoCO=I-= ~ roOliiu co-
~~en~ Q)Q)~-g5}8.Q) en~
'-.~en .c.c:-Q)~en:g <1>'0
ro "0 ro.... ,- f- 0> U .- > 0> .r:
-<1>EQ)~ cencue ~(f)
"*:s~ggjgc'5~~oo..
~oroo.c:o~~~Q;g>~ g~
c ro Q) 0 "<t +-"C E ~ 0..:;:: en
ro ~ (j) Q) N en a>E E " <1> roQ) '0 16c .~e:
Ero..:liC:S Q) o--'.c:....o
::J en c><{u--_o '~(ij
.c~:=:~;S~Q)~~00~ cO>
Ci1 ~ .~ .~ ~ ~ 0 ~ en ~ 8 ~
:S:;-oE _ro-~~fijo, ene:
cQ)2~g.-zQ)f-~Q) cO
Q) ::J U c Iii ~ '0 ::0 0 E 16 .2 <..)
> oS ;g ro en ~ <1> 'in uj -g 0 Ci1 cO Ci1 .....
Q) c g ,5:2 'E g ~ c c ro - '0 0> "0 -2
~8UQ;EenQ)0'~-.::.::.0r-.: c
-en Eo....ufE'Ea>oenO>EQ)e:
E '6 jg <{ U Q) Q) Q) Q).c ~ en 0 ,~
0..'0........_ COII)~(ij
u2>
Q)\I)
.... Q)
-:>
<{oS
N
N
r:
U
6
..-
c-)
N
Q)
0>
ro
0.
E
ro
0,
o
a:
0>
c
t
o
0..
Q)
Q)eL
:3"0
c
(ijro
e:o>
,~ ,~
:So
e:~
OC
00
.....~
~c
0,2
.r:-
(f)~
o:E
~~
E
ro
0,
o
ti
0>
C
t
o
c..
Q)
CJ>a:
:3-g
--ro
~O>
.2 .~
'62
C::'-
OC
00
'-~
CUc
~o
0._
.c:::-
~.~
o:!:::
~~
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
Town of Tiburon
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT:
DANIEL M. WATROUS, PLANNING MANAGER
FILE #10404: REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(DEIR) FOR A PROPOSED EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING RELIGIOUS
FACILITY AND DAY SCHOOL (CONGREGATION KOL SHOFAR); 215
BLACKFIELD DRIVE; ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 038-351-34
FROM:
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 10, 2005
REVIEWED BY: SA
PROJECT DATA
Address:
Assessor's Parcel Number:
File Number:
Lot Size:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Current Use:
Owners:
Applicant:
Date Complete:
215 Slackfield Drive
38-351-34
10404
6.94 Acres
Medium Low Density Residential
RO-1 (Single-Family Residential- Open)
Religious Facility/Day School
Congregation Kol Shofar
Scott Hochstrasser/lPA, Inc.
August27,2004
BACKGROUND
The applicant has submitted a conditional use permit application for the expansion of an existing
religious facility and day school (Congregation Kol Shofar). The subject property is a 6.94 acre
site located at 215 Slackfield Drive, and borders Slackfield Drive, Via Los Altos and Reedland
Woods Way. The site is surrounded by single-family residential neighborhoods.
A draft environmental impact report (DEIR) has been prepared for this project by the firm of
Leonard Charles and Associates, and is currently being circulated for public review and
comment. The Town of Tiburon mailed a Notice of Preparation as required by CEQA, with a 45
day comment period scheduled to conclude on August 15, 2005, at 5:00 p.m. Written
comments may also be submitted at the hearing. At the conclusion of the comment period, the
consultants will respond to all oral comments made to the Planning Commission as well as
written comments submitted during the comment period.
ANAL YSIS
Purpose of the Plannina Commission Hearina
The primary purpose of this public hearing is to receive public testimony concerning the
contents of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project. The applicant will also have
EXHIBIT NO.~
STAFF REPORT
Town of Tiburon
............................... ..... ...............
an opportunity to address the Planning Commission at this hearing concerning issues related to
the DEIR. Speakers are encouraged to express their views on the adequacy of the DEIR.
Comments should focus on:
· the sufficiency of the DEIR in discussing possible impacts on the environment,
· ways in which adverse impacts might be minimized, and
· alternatives to the project.
Following the conclusion of the public testimony, the Planning Commission should provide
comments on the DEIR.
A subsequent public meeting will be held, after the close of the comment period, at which the
Environmental Coordinator will recommend to the Commission whether significant new
information has been received during the comment period that would require revision and
recirculation of the DEIR. This meeting is tentatively scheduled for the August 24, 2005
Planning Commission meeting.
In addition, a hearing or hearings will be scheduled for consideration of project merits by the
Planning Commission. This hearing will be held following the release of a Final EIR (FEIR)
which will contain the responses to comments on the DEIR.
Reference copies of the DEIR may be reviewed at the Planning Division at Town Hall or at the
Belvedere- Tiburon Public Library during normal business hours.
Proiect Description
The proposed project involves the securing of all zoning and building entitlements for the
expansion of the Kol Shofar religious facility and day school. A conditional use permit (File
#10404) is the first application proposed as part of this project.
The project site currently contains the Congregation Kol Shofar synagogue building (originally
constructed as a public middle school building), other facilities used by the Congregation, and
buildings and outdoor space leased to Ring Mountain Day School, a private, secular pre-school
that operates on the site. Vegetation on the site consists primarily of a variety of trees (including
Eucalyptus, Redwood, Acacia, Cypress, Monterey Pine and Coast Live Oak trees), weedy
grasses and herbaceous plants, along with more manicured lawn and play areas nearer the
buildings on the property. Two long (215 foot+) drainage easements exist along the northern
and eastern property lines. A 20,000 square foot private open space easement is situated
adjacent to other private open space in the Reedland Woods Way neighborhood. The site is
situated on a hillside, but does not contain any unusual geologic or soil constraints.
The following improvements are proposed as part of this application:
· Construction of a 9,733 square foot multi-purpose room with a maximum seating
capacity in the main room and lobby of 898 people.
August 10,2005
page 2 of 9
STAFF REPORT
Town of Tiburon
· Construction of four new classrooms on the northwest side of the building with
3,662 square feet of floor area.
· Construction of a new parking area connected to the existing lower parking lot on
the site and other parking and circulation improvements, with 40 new on-site
parking spaces.
· Landscaping changes to provide privacy and headlight protection for neighboring
residents.
· Various interior remodeling changes that involve no exterior modifications to the
existing building.
The application states that the proposed improvements are intended to meet the existing needs
of the congregation, without leading to an expansion of their membership. In particular, the
primary intent of the proposed multi-purpose room is to allow members to hold "life cycle
events" (such as weddings, bar mitzvahs, etc.) on the premises instead of the current practice of
holding such events at other locations. However, the project description states that the
following new events would occur as a result of the proposed expansion:
· New congregational activities on Saturday and Sunday evenings, up to 40 times
per year, with up to 300 people attending;
· Expanded congregational dinners on Friday evenings, 25 times per year, with up
to 100 people attending;
· Expanded events on weekday evenings, 25 times per year, with up to 150 people
attending; and
· Reducing the number of services on High Holidays from two services to one
(eliminating the current split service in favor of one service).
The pre-school enrollment is proposed to gradually increase from the current level of 100
children to a total of 150 children. The proposed new classrooms are intended to either support
this enrollment increase or be used to replace existing classrooms that would be displaced by
remodeling in the main building.
Summary of Kev DEIR Findinas
Hydrology and Water Quality
The creation of new impermeable surfaces on the site could increase water runoff from the site,
which could result in inadequate capacity where the downstream drainage system enters the
bay. The DEIR recommends construction of on-site retention facilities as mitigation measures
that would reduce this impact to less than significant levels. The DEIR also recommends
measures to reduce potential erosion impacts to a less than significant level.
August 10,2005
page 3 of 9
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
... ..................... .......... ........... ......
Biology
There are no known special status plant species or rare, threatened or endangered animal
species on the site. Project construction would require cutting down 11 trees, only one of which
is a native tree, while 103 new trees would be planted. This replanting would adequately
compensate for the trees that would be cut, and the impact would be less than significant.
Traffic and Circulation
Traffic generated by the project would impact the intersection of Tiburon Boulevard and
Blackfield Drive, which would have inadequate capacity in the eastbound left-turn lane on
Tiburon Boulevard to accommodate the projected traffic increase. The DEIR recommends that
the applicant pay for the extension of this left-turn lane to mitigate this impact. Project-related
traffic would not cause any other intersections to operate at unacceptable levels of service, nor
create traffic safety hazards at any nearby intersections.
The existing driveway that provides access from Via Los Altos to the west part of the site (the
Ring Mountain Day School) has inadequate sight lines and width. The DEIR recommends
widening the driveway and providing adequate sight lines, or, if adequate sight lines cannot be
provided, closing this driveway.
The site would not contain sufficient parking space to allow on-site parking for all people
attending proposed services and functions, and the DEIR recommends measures to reduce this
parking impact to a less than significant level. However, the DEIR still expects that people will
continue to park on local streets where convenient, causing vehicles to turn around in private
driveways or on these streets, which would pose a safety hazard for people living on these
streets. The DEIR concludes that this would be a significant and unavoidable impact of the
project.
Congregation members and visitors parking on the streets during large events would reduce the
number of on-street parking spaces available to local residents and their guests; the DEIR
concludes that although this would be a nuisance to local residents, this would not be a
significant environmental impact. Similarly, parking for High Holy Day services would cause
local congestion and would be a nuisance to local residents, but the DEIR concludes that this
would not be a significant environmental impact as it would only occur for a portion of three days
each calendar year.
All traffic impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels with the exception of safety
impacts caused by people attending services or events turning around in residential
neighborhoods.
Noise
Average noise levels created by new uses would be acceptable under the Town's Noise and
Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. However, noise caused by people using the new parking
lot, particularly during nighttime events, would be out of character with the adjacent residential
neighborhood. While noise created by other components of the project would be less than
August 10,2005
page 4 of 9
STAFF REPORT
Town of Tiburon
. ........ ..... ..... ....... ............ ....... .... ... ...
significant or could be reduced to less than significant levels with the imposition of mitigation
measures recommended by the DEIR, the DEIR concludes that noise generated by nighttime
use of the existing and proposed parking lots would result in a significant and unavoidable
impact on 17 homes on Reedland Woods Way, Vista Tiburon Drive, Blackfield Drive and Corte
San Fernando.
Aesthetics
The proposed new buildings and other planned improvements would not degrade any scenic
vistas, substantially alter views from the few public vantage points from which the property is
visible, nor block views of scenic resources from surrounding residences. Although project
improvements would change existing views from a number of nearby and more distant homes,
the DEIR recommends mitigation measures to reduce these visual effects to a less than
significant level. The DEIR also recommends mitigation measures to reduce headlight intrusion
and general lighting impacts to a less than significant level.
While all visual effects can be reduced to a less than significant level, the project would change
daytime and nighttime views, particularly for homes within the immediate area surrounding the
site. Though not deemed to be significant, the DEIR notes that the visual changes caused by
the new improvements associated with the project may be inconsistent with Tiburon General
Plan policies regarding maintaining the "harmony" of residential neighborhoods. This is a
project merits issue, not an environmental impact under CEQA.
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
The Southern Marin Fire Protection District can adequately provide fire and emergency medical
response, as long as the final design of the project complies with District requirements and the
applicant contributes its fair share of the cost of purchasing a new ladder truck that is needed to
adequately serve cumulative development in the area. Compliance with these requirements
would reduce fire and emergency medical services impacts to a less than significant level.
Water
The Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) can supply water to the project. Construction in
compliance with fire flow requirements and purchase of necessary water entitlements from
MMWD would reduce all water-related impacts to a less than significant level.
Wastewater
The Richardson Bay Sanitary District and Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin (SASM) have
ample collection, treatment and disposal capacity to serve the project. Compliance with all
standard District and Agency construction requirements would reduce all wastewater impacts to
a less than significant level.
August 10,2005
page 5 of 9
STAFF REPORT
Town of Tiburon
....... .... .... ............ ......... ......... ......
Police Services
The Tiburon Police Department has indicated that the additional complaints and calls for
assistance that can be expected to be generated by the increased number of large events
associated with the project will not significantly affect its ability to adequately serve the project
area and Tiburon in general. The DEIR concludes that the project would have a less than
significant effect on police services.
Other Resources
Fugitive dust from the construction of the proposed project could adversely affect the air quality
of nearby homes, but can be mitigated to less than significant levels through the implementation
of mitigation measures recommended by the DEIR. The DEIR recommends standard mitigation
measures to protect and treat cultural resources if any are uncovered during project
construction. Construction of the project in compliance with recommendations contained in the
geotechnical report would reduce geologic and soil impacts to a less than significant level.
land Use
The project is the expansion of an institutional use located within a single-family residential
neighborhood. The DEIR concludes that the new sources of noise, additional traffic, demand
for street parking and changes in views associated with the proposed project are possibly
inconsistent with Tiburon policies regarding projects being in "harmony" with surrounding uses.
This is a project merits issue, not an environmental impact under CEQA.
Project Alternatives
The DEIR identifies five feasible project alternatives to the proposed project and the proposed
project with the recommended mitigation measures. These alternatives include the following
levels of development of the property:
.
No project - no expansion of the existing facilities
Remodeling only
Remodeling plus the new classrooms
Remodeling plus the new multi-purpose room
Use restrictions
.
.
.
.
The first three alternatives would eliminate the significant and unavoidable noise and traffic
impacts, but would meet few, if any, of the project objectives. The fourth alternative would
lessen the potential noise and traffic impacts but would not reduce these impacts to less than
significant levels.
The fifth (restricted use) alternative would place caps on the use of the facility, including a 9:00
p.m. time limit on most functions and services; limiting functions past 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays
and Sundays to every other weekend; limiting the number of people allowed on site for functions
to a maximum of 275; and continuing to conduct the High Holy Day services as divided
services. The DEIR concludes that that this option would reduce the potential noise impacts to
August 10,2005
page 6 of 9
STAFF REPORT
Town of Tiburon
..... ..... .... .......... ...... ... ..... ......... ......
a less than significant level, but the traffic safety impact would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Significant Unavoidable Impacts
The DEIR identifies two significant unavoidable ("SU") impacts of the project which could not be
eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation measures identified in
the DEIR: that the project would increase noise levels in the area surrounding the project site;
and that the project will create a demand for more parking spaces than can be met by on-site
parking lots, which will result in drivers who park on local streets making unsafe turnarounds in
residential neighborhoods.
Comment letters received as of the date of this reoort
As of the date of this report (August 4,2005),71 comment letters regarding the DEIR have been
received. Copies of these letters are attached as Exhibits 2-72.
Future Action Reauired
The Commission will need to schedule a public meeting, after the close of the comment period
on AUQust 15, at which it will determine whether significant new information has been received
during the comment period that would require revisions and recirculation of the DEIR. The
Environmental Coordinator will make a recommendation based upon a review of all the
comments. The regularly scheduled meeting of August 24, 2005 is recommended for this
purpose.
RECOMMENDATION
1. At the conclusion of the Staff report, the Planning Commission should hold a
public hearing and receive comments on the DEIR. Following the closure of the
public hearing, Commissioners may provide verbal comments on the DEIR
should they so choose.
2. Scheduled the follow-up meeting for August 24,2005.
EXHIBITS
1. Draft Environmental Impact Report (previously distributed to the Planning Commission)
2. Letter from Rufus Thayer, dated July 14, 2005
3. Letter from Amanda Reynolds, dated July 18, 2005
4. Letter from Joanne Stokes, dated July 19, 2005
5. Letter from Dna Rotenberg, dated July 20, 2005
6. Letter from Samantha and James Winter, dated July 21,2005
7. Letter from Susan and Michael Dab, dated July 21, 2005
8. Letter from Wendy Shearn, dated July 21, 2005
9. Letter from Ida Gelbart, dated July 21, 2005
10. Letter from Eric Schmier, dated July 22, 2005
August 10,2005
page 7 of 9
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
11. Letter from Doris Symonds, dated July 24, 2005
12. Letter from Aviva Shiff Boedecker, dated July 25, 2005
13. Letter from Jeff Saperstein, dated July 25, 2005
14. Letter from Nathan Roth, dated July 25, 2005
15. Letter from Scott Landress, dated July 25, 2005
16. Letter from Anton Traub, dated July 25, 2005
17. Letter from Barbara and Jeff Farber, dated July 25, 2005
18. Letter from Ann and Randall Matthews, dated July 26, 2005
19. Letter from Timothy Metz and Jennifer Jorgensen, dated July 26,2005
20. letter from Mary Ann Snyder, dated July 27,2005
21. Letter from Karen Nygren, dated July 28, 2005
22. Letter from Richard Goldwasser, dated July 29,2005
23. letter from Christianna Seidel and Peter Stock, dated July 31,2005
24. Letter from Daniel and Sandy LaCoss, dated August 1, 2005
25. Letter from Roy and Esme Gordon, dated August 1,2005
26. Letter from Roger Beers, dated August 1,2005
27. Letter from Edward Baker, dated August 2, 2005
28. Letter from Wayne Gilbert, dated August 2,2005
29. Letter from Sandra Kurland, dated August 2,2005
30. Letter from Julia Gilden, dated August 2,2005
31. Letter from Seth and Julie Jacobs, dated August 2,2005
32. Letter from Anne Marie Klahr, dated August 2,2005
33. Letter from Helen and Fred Schwartz, dated August 2, 2005
34. Letter from Charles and Alaina Yoakum, dated August 2,2005
35. Letter from Ian Berman, dated August 2,2005
36. Letter from Judith Goodman Johnson, dated August 2,2005
37. Letter from Grant Morris and Judith Staples, dated August 2,2005
38. Letter from Alan Lefkof and Ann Gordon, dated August 2,2005
39. Letter from Shifra Raffel, dated August 2,2005
40. Letter from Marilyn Sugarman, dated August 2,2005
41. Letter from Carole and Bernard Fried, dated August 2, 2005
42. Letter from Robert Kligman, dated August 2,2005
43. Letter from Natan and Sarah Fenner, dated August 2,2005
44. Letter from David Snyder, dated August 3, 2005
45. Letter from Paul and Lauren Levitan, dated August 3,2005
46. Letter from Arlene and AI Stark, dated August 3,2005
47. Letter from Lori Feldman and Gary Caine, dated August 3,2005
48. Letter from Wendy Homer, dated August 3, 2005
49. Letter from Charles and Lois Epstein, dated August 3, 2005
50. Letter from Alison Kreshin and Nathan Cohen, dated August 3,2005
51. Letter from Cary and Manny Kopstein, dated August 3, 2005
52. Letter from Karen Hirsch, dated August 3, 2005
53. Letter from Samuel Noily, dated August 3, 2005
54. Letter from Cynthia Ulman, dated August 3,2005
55. Letter from Scott Willens and Regina DeAngelis, dated August 3,2005
56. Letter from Bonni Schiff, dated August 3,2005
57. Letter from Steven Schiff, dated August 3,2005
August 10.2005
page 8 of 9
STAFF REPORT
Town of Tiburon
....... ............ .............. ...............
58. Letter from Vivian Sherman, dated August 3, 2005
59. Letter from Bob Fetter, dated August 3, 2005
60. Letter from Brett Dick, dated August 3,2005
61. Letter from Phyllis Cantor, dated August 2,2005
62. Letter from Michelle Lerman, dated August 2, 2005
63. Letter from Robert Brownstein, dated August 2, 2005
64. Letter from Carolyn and Joe Preis, dated August 3, 2005
65. Letter from Gerald and Gale Weisman, dated August 3, 2005
66. Letter from Philip and Sara Schaefer, dated August 3, 2005
67. Letter from Don Abramson, dated August 3,2005
68. Letter from Shirley Ehrlich, dated August 3, 2005
69. Letter from Peggy Chipkin, dated August 3,2005
70. Letter from Tom and Karen Akin, dated August 4, 2005
71. Letter from Gail Dorph, dated August 4, 2005
72. Letter from Fred Rico Hurvich, dated August 4, 2005
August 10,2005
page 9 of 9
LETTERS8a
THROUGH 8t
WERE
PREVIOUSL Y
DISTRIBUTED
TO THE
COMMISSION
EXHIBIT NO. 1
rClgt: 1 Ul 1
Dan Watrous
From: npaplan@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 1 :41 PM
To: Scott Anderson; Dan Watrous
Subject: Comment from Neighbor of Kot Shofar
Scott and Dan,
For your info and the record, I received a call today from Don Bronstein, a neighbor of Kol Shofar
at 86 Paseo Mirasol, who said he can't attend the PC public hearing but has concerns with the
project, primarily about noise. He thinks that evening events are inappropriate for this
quiet residential neighborhood. Living uphill as he does, he says that any noise (car doors, voices,
etc.) at Kol Shofar is audible at his house. Nightime parties with music and large numbers of
people would be intolerable. However, if some evening events were approved, he believes they
should be limited to no later than 10 pm.
He doesn't see the need for the multi-:-purpose room other than the revenue generation it would
provide Kol Shofar because people plan their weddings and Bar/Bat Mitzvahs elsewhere now. He.
thinks a "commercial" party facility like this is inappropriate in this neighborhood. Nowhere else in
town is evening entertainment allowed in a residential neighborhood, especially given that this site
was previously a day-use only school.
He thinks Kol Shofar does a good job of limiting parking impacts within the neighborhood on High
Holy Days.
~ ~ l;.~5
)/ Y; lL - ~t
2/28/2006
STATE OFCALIFORNLA-BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
ARNOLD SCHW ARZENEGGER Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT A TI ON
111 GRAND AVENUE
O. BOX 23660
,KLAND, CA 94623-0660
)NE (510) 286-5505
..1.X (510) 286-5559
T1IY (800)735-2929
~,._..
. ~
..
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
March 10, 2006
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TlBURON
N131086
MRN-131-0.84
Dan Watrous
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Mr. Watrous:
Congregation Kol Shofar - Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department)
in the review process for this project. We have reviewed the FEIR and have the following
comments:
· Lengthening the existing eastbound left-turn lane at the Tiburon Blvd./Black Field Drive
intersection by 150 feet must follow the Department's design standards.
· Improvement work on the eastbound left-turn lane at the Tiburon Blvd./Black Field Drive
intersection must be completed prior to use of the newly constructed multi-purpose room.
· Please note the following corrections to the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program table
on page 5 under Mitigation Measures 3.3-A.I and 2: In the column "Party Responsible for
Implementation" it should read Project Sponsor, not the Department; also, under "Party
Responsible for Compliance" the Town Engineer and Project Engineer should be listed
instead of the Department.
· The project applicant is responsible for funding of any mitigation measures listed in the
FEIR. The Department's role is to review and approve the study and design documents
wherever State facilities are involved.
· The Town of Tiburon should have an agreement in place with the project applicant
responsible for sharing the cost of the additional 75 feet of the 150 feet-lane extension at the
Tiburon BoulevardIBlack Field Drive intersection for the cumulative condition. The
agreement must be executed prior to issuance of an encroachment permit by the Department.
Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call or
email InaGerhardofmystaffat(510)286-57370rina2:erhard@dot.ca.gov .
\~:JJ~Y'-~J~
TIMOT . SABLE
District Bra ch Chief
IGR/CEQA
"Caltrans Improves mobility across California"
IVlcll V, VV U:::1.L:::1a
vllll~lIi::lf ilia 0eluel
'+ I v-0U:::1- I , UU
IJ. I
Cbristianna Seidel
30 Reedland Woods Way
Tibmon, CA 94920
Dean Bloomquist
Town of Tiburon Building Official
1505 Tiburon Blvd
" Tiburon, CA 94920
March 6, 2005
Dear Mr. Bloomquis4
On behalf of the Vista TiburoD Homeowners Association (VTHOA), I am interested in
your assessment of Kol Shofar's existing drainage and proposed drainage plan that
empties a ditch into the ephemeral creek on the VTHOA's property. The drainage ditch
that parallels Ko] Shofar" s emergency access road is of primary concern. It appears to
drain surface water from the gravel parking lot. Currently Kol Shofar's ditch silts up
perioilically and they have to re-dig the trench leaving bare soil to eroded into the
VTHOA weir. VTHOA has to clean out the weir twice a year. Of course there is
sediment from the ephemeral creek itself but I believe Kol Shofar contributes to the
sedimentation from their ditch.. Erosion can be seen from their ditch on OUT slope before
the weir.
In addition, Kol Shofar has a concrete V -ditch located in the eucalyptus grove behind the
annex building, which also empties into the ephemeral drainage. It is also stated in the
DEIR on p. 43 "that piping was observed through the rip-rap at the exit portion of a 4'x
4' concrete box culvert which transmits flow into the upper portion of the ephemeral
drainage at the project site. Downstream from the box culvert another area of piping
through the riprap was observed along with many areas of bank instability, bed incision
and headcutting. The sediment load in the channel runoff was high". It sounds like these
areas should be checked as well.
The FEIR states, ';'it is legal to divert drainage to another private property" (p.249) in
reference to northwestern comer of the Kol Shofar property that naturally drains to the
creek. However, this proposal additionally seeks to continue to divert as well ~ add
additional drainage to the creek on VTHOA property. Furthermore, the existing and
proposed calculations of drain water do not represent the situation in the field. The
driveway, which is included in the existing calculations, appears to sheet and collect in
the public sewer. In the proposed calculations they fail to include the drainage from the
swale behind the proposed building as well as drainage from the roof.
As a registered landscape architect, I believe this drainage issue needs to be resolved if
any more drainage is added to the ditch. The burden to remove debris and sediment from
the weir rests solely on VTHOA. Kol Shofar can and should remedy the issUe of
draining onto others' private property by rerouting their drainage to the public sewer.
The slope and gradient are in their favor and there is no reason except convenience to
drain the water onto our property.
f~C l~ (G. L~ ~
I~ ,232006
_; \ \ \1
;" \ '(
'~
Dennis N. & Sara P. Sakai
1 0 Vista Tiburon Dr
Tiburon, Ca 94920
1 3 March 2006
iburon Planning Commission
505 Tiburon Blvd
iburon, Ca 94920
lear Sirs,
~e live on the lot above Kol Shofar. We fervently respect their religion and are happy to have
hem share our neighborhood. We plan our schedule around their worship and holidays and
::>Ierate the inconvience with good humor. When they are having an outdoor ceremony and I am
. my garden with my dogs, t go inside lest the dogs might bark and disturb the worshipers.
hat said, the largest investment of every family in the neighborhoods impacted is most likely
1eir home. And this expansion will be a death blow to all of us come resale time. Not to
lention the devestation it will bring to our daily lives. There are 600 member 'units' in Kol
hofar, but only 100 of them actually live in Tiburon. The school expansion is a 50% increase,
ut I'm told Ring Mountain neither asked for nor needs the increase.
lur neighborhood is zoned for low density housing, including a school the size of the present
01 Shofar with hours of operation befitting a small school. We have accomodated the change
:> a religious community, but a larger school, larger temple and an even larger party rental
:lcility is beyond comprehension. If we were to rent out our home for 'life cycle events'
=>ARTIES] , surely we would be hearing from City Hall and rightly so.
he first time we visited Tiburon we were struck by its beauty and tranquility. The quality of
Fe here is particularly wonderful and we wanted to be a part of that. Recently the equally
)vely town of Belvedere enacted a farsighted noise ordinace to protect their citizens. We
itizens of Tiburon depend upon you, our Planning Commission, to ~nsure that the peace and
eauty of our special neighborhood remains intact. We are counting on you to do the right
ling for our neighborhood and the ambiance of Tiburon.
Respectfully, -9
Sara P Sakai ~.. .
d 'F t?
/ . // //r
Dennis N Sakai MD ~~L&" (": $X cz~ h..1)
Dean L. Rider, M.D.
Board Certified
Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology
350 Pamassus Avenue, Suite 900. San Francisco, California 94117 . (415) 566-5402
March 13,2006
RECEIVED
MAR 1 5 2006
Mr. Paul Smith
Mayor of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF T1BURON
Dear Mr. Smith,
I am writing in strong opposition to the Kol Shofor expansion proj~t. My concerns
center on safety, congestion and inappropriate commercial use of a facility that is
sUlTounded- by single family residences and ~learly not in a commercial setting. The
volume of cars that currently occurs now is not acceptable and remains a safety issue for
the children and adults alike in our neighborhood. Expanding the activities and volume
of people attending these activities will only make the situation worse.
The proposal calls for a facility that would accommodate 898 people! To put this into
perspective this is the equivalent to the population of thousands of towns across our city.
And of aU these people coming together in a residential neighborhood that was never
equipped or planned to handle this.
The bottom line is that the current use of this facility is already excessive for its location.
To expand this both in volume and frequency is not acceptable. There are plenty of other
locations in commercially zoned area where this type of activity would be welcomed and
appropriate. They should be encouraged to go to these places for this type of expanded
activities.
Th~u, d
V J8s<e
Dean L. Rider M.D.
55 Via Los Altos
Tiburon, Ca.
94920
Jim Kunzweiler, Chairman
March 14, 2006
Planning Commission
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, Californian 94920
/fi-L-- Jr;!-
5/d-ci ~/7~
Dear Chairman:
~ ~ ~ ~':~2~UO
I
I.
i ~.
L/i
I am very concerned about the expansion plans of Kol Shofar and
myself with the specific plans for this project.
I have lived very close to this site for 39 years so I have experienced the vast
development in my surrounding neighborhood over these years. With the Bel Aire
School located here, there is already tremendous traffic problems. If Kol Shofar plans
for expansion are approved, traffic will be greatly congested. In addition, the
increased hours of operation will increase the noise level of this otherwise peaceful and
quiet neighborhood. Cars constantly stopping for the stop sign after many people have
exited Kol Shofar is almost unbearable, especially late at night.
The construction plans allow too many people in the new multi-purpose room and four
new classrooms for a building located in this neighborhood. As an example, our near-
by Strawberry Recreation Center allows for a much lower capacity of occupants.
Please be aware of the serio'us concerns of the people living near Kol Shofar and call
for a reduction of these large expansion plans.
~=~~
5cYJ/ ---9 dt ]"
. Temple Kol Shofar expansion
."eeflllll 01 nburon PI.nnlng CommISsion to
discuss fheproJecf.8nd Its """ro".'.
, . .
March 29; 2006
.7:30 PM
Reed School Auditorium .(New 1.ocafIon)
PI_.. Attendl
It's imDortant for our neiphborhood to show UD so the
town knows we care about our Qualitv of life.
.. New multipurpose room; largeSt in Southern Marin to seat over
600 people
· Facility.with remodeled and enlarged $CInctuary, new
multipurpose room and lobby to hold over 1,400 .people.
Existing facility; holds 762. people.
· Only a net increase of 22 new parking spaces
Significant Impacts
· Noise until late at night weekdays and ~kends till 12:30
· Traffic with cars driving andtuming around in neighborhood
streets d~y and night '
· Parking on neighborhood streets
· Safety of our community due to increased parking and traffic
· Light pollution with additional lighting. Lights remain on
weekdays and weekends until iate at night.
For more information call Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition
Interested in signing a petition of opposition or helping fund our efforts call
435-9661 or 435-2233
See our facts sheet or go to www.tiburonnc.ora
. Facts Reaardina
TemDIe Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit and ExoansionIRemodel
Member8hlD
· Current 600 unit r:nembership = 1,860 people
· In 1984, 220 unit membership = 682 people
· Of 600 member units, 100 live in Tiburon
Caoacity
· Existing facility accommodates 762 in sanctuary
· New sanctuary plus multipurpose room to hold 1,275
· Total capacity = 550 chairs in sanctuary, 611 movable seats in
. multipurpose room, 238 seats in lobby, plus 225 under canopy in
outside courtyard = 1,624 seated
· 1,860 current membership. Currently no cap on future membership
· Capacity of 849 for multipurpose.room and contiguous lobby with
the~ter ~ seating
For cofnDarison:Marin Cou~ Ciyic Cef!ter.Auditoriumho1ds 2,000,
. Strawberry- Recreation Center seats 265, Mill Valley Community _ Center
- se~- banquet style 285 and holdS 500 not seated
New Construction
· New 9,733 sq ft multi-purpose room, with 1,000 sqft kitchen
· New 3,662sq ft for 4 new classrooms
· Additional new paved upper parking lot, circular drop off area, driveway
and entrance and exit
Parkina
· Adds only a net of 22 parking spaces to what currently exists which are
to -be in a newly paved upper parking lot
ProD088d Houra Of Ooeration for Events
· Saturday evenings 27 times per year till 12:30 ~
· Sunday evenings 20 times per year until 11:45 PM
· Weekday special events 2 eveningslweek nine monthslyear until 1 0
PM
· Currently facilities not used beyond 7 PM during weekdays except for
Board meetings, adult educatiqn and Friday night service and 2:30 PM
weekends
School Exoanslon .
· Currently 100 pupils
· Expansion to 150 pupils, a 50% increase
· With 4 new classrooms, projected capacity of 321 pupils
~~~~.::~~
PLANNING DIV,SION
TOWN OF TIBURON
March 14, 2006
Rufus G. Thayer
158 Blackfield Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
415-381-2504
Tiburon Planning Commission
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Kol Shofar - Final EIR (FEIR) Hearing March 29, 2006
Reed School Auditorium
Gentlemen:
I have reviewed the subject document and find it seriously deficient regarding basic
issues such as Traffic, Parking, Noise, Safety and any meaningful discussion of the
Applicanfs ultimate plan for use of the proposed facility.
Parking: The project will service a crowd of between several hundred to the area of 1800
people for various events, many of which are social events now carried out at other
locations. Only a net additon of 22 parking spaces is provided. The FEIR does not
meaningfully address the increased impact of off site parking in the immediate
neighborhood which most certainlywill continue to happen for many events. The "voucher"
program discussed in the FEIR is unenforceable and will not have the stated result of
mitigating increased impacts on the neighborhood.
Noise: The FEIR concedes there will be unmittigatable increased noise impacts onthe
surrounding neighborhood which exceed Town standards.
Traffic: There will be a substantial increase in traffic along Blackfield Drive with long lines of
cars at the Karen Way stop sign when approaching the complex and at the Tiburon
Boulevard intersection when leaving the complex. The inevitable increased noise,
materially increased exhaust fumes and safety impacts are an unreasonable burden on the
residents along Blackfield Drive particularly because the bedrooms face the street. There is
no meaningful discussion of these impacts since no effective mitigation is offered.
Safety: Conversion of the exit only use of Reedland Woods Way to become the main
entrance and exit for the facility will increase risk of accidents since this location is on a blind
curve descending from higher up.
Expansion Plans: There is no meaningful discussion of the ultimate build out and use of the
site leaving the local resiidents with the concern that even greater impacts will occur in future
iterations. Upon completion of this phase it appears there wilf be a maximum seating
capacity of approximately 1800 people. This is considerably larger than the initial capacity
when Kol Shofar started and considerably more than presently existing capacity.
The neighbors have absorbed the steady growth of the facility up to now in the
belief the facility serves residents of the community and immediately surrounding areas. The
Applicant now wants to serve a much larger, regional community far beyond what the
neighborhood can reasonably be expected to absorb.
The proposed project is not within the character of the neighborhood and will
overwhelm the neighborhood, irrevocably diminishing the quality of life of those who live
nearby. The project as proposed should be denied and the Applicant should be advised
that if they want to remodel the existing building they should submit plans that will
accommodate no more than existing levels of use.
';rspeCtfU~#b_~~~ed
t::tt:1t7\-
benefit
Corporate Office
S Market Street 7th Floor
) Francisco CA 94105
415.781.8153 Fax 415.781.3930
efitcosmetics.com
~ ~~~~:,c
~1
PLANNING DIV:SIOl',j
TOWN OF TIBURm~
:i-
Dan Watrous
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
March 14, 2006
Dear Dan,
I can call you Dan because we've met and you were very accommodating when I was having some difficulty
with an addition in my neighborhood. You helped me resolve it effortlessly.
But another issue has come to my attention that cannot be resolved as easily and that is the expansion of
Kol Shofar. This multi purpose facility, however needed and important is utterly impossible to think of
building in this community.
This community has been zoned residential. That not withstanding, I cannot believe that the planning
commission would endorse a development of this magnitude. We are talking something along the lines of
twice as large as the Strawberry or Mill Valley Recreation Centers; are we not?
t
These respective centers are smaller; do not impact the community as this new Kol Shofar expansion.
I find it highly arrogant that the developers have called it an "expansion". This is not an expansion; this is a
brand new facility, equipped to house events of 800 well into the wee hours, parking facilities that destroy
outlying land masses and an erosion of the authenticity that is uniquely, Tiburon.
The city of Tiburon, I believe, begins at Blackfield. These homes that rest on Blackfield and flank the
surrounding neighborhoods are single family homes that were designed for living well back in the 60's that
brought a feeling of safety, family values and unity to the community. There is no reason to destroy these
relished feelings..Jor the sake of "making a colossal recreation center" Kol Shofar at the entrance to this
bucolic neighborhood.
My children have grown up in this neighborhood, learned to drive on the wide boulevards, and I've
cherished it's feeling of neighborhood and security.
With the development of this new facility this is at risk. The immense increase in traffic, parking, and noise
makes this unconditionally a mistake and a fearful one at best. I would NOT like to be the Kol Shofar
personage that quickly drives out of the parking lot and runs into a car or a child at play.
I am sympathetic with Kol Shofar. I am a business woman with many stores so I understand that growth is
a needed necessity. However, having said that...there is prudent growth and growth that is single minded in
nature. The Kol Shofar falls in the second category.
Let Kol Shofar find a better land opportunity that is multi zoned and does not compromise or pose a threat
to the health and well being of our, all ready existing, community.
My sister is building a home on Greenwood Beach Road and Miles Berger designed her home. At no point
was this development mentioned to her during or prior to her purchase. She is currently quite disturbed. I
dare say that real estate values will decrease dramatically as a result of the change of usage and traffic in
this area. It will no longer be a neighborhood, but rather a congested, backed up, mess of honking cars,
irritated drivers and more than an ry horn wners. I look forward to the meeting on March 29th.
Rega~
QFord
55 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
----. -"1
~ [E: CC ~ ~ ~ [E I~"~:'!
U"ll
..,,":: 2 0 2005 l0
March 16, 2006
Tiburon Planning Commission
Tiburon Town .Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
PLANNING DIViSION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission,
I live at 143 Blackfield Drive and am writing to voice my concern about the proposed
expansion project by Kol Shofar. On Rosh Hashanah last year, cars lined the street,
bumper to bumper, from Kol Shofar to 2 houses beyond us. The only parking available
to anyone else living along this stretch of Blackfield Drive was some distance away.
Plus, had it been necessary to leave home during the time people were departing the
service, it would have been impossible to get out of the driveway.
Plans to construct an 898-capacity multi-purpose room with only 40 new parking spaces,
and to have events 40 weekends out of the year, lasting until after midnight on Saturdays,
will affect us much more profoundly in the way of noise, traffic congestion, and parking.
I am not adverse to Kol Shofar being able to improve their facilities, however, it would
be far more appropriate in the present setting to keep the capacity as it is, and to provide
enough on-site parking to accommodate all attendees, and to limit the number of
weekend events to no more than 12 per year, and to limit the number of weeknight events
to no more than once per wee~ to finish by 7 p.m.
Thank you for listening to the neighbors ofKol Shofar.
Sincerely, ~
J~deen
MARIN MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT
r-.; --)
220 Nellen Avenue Corte Madera CA 94925-1169
www.marinwater.org
March 16, 2006
File No. 244.1
Iii. i.'S,.( ervice No. 43051
lv/Map No. M2G-15
L./1
i
I
Town of Tiburon Planning Dept
1505 Tiburon 81
Tiburon CA 94920
~~
RE:
PLANNING DIViSION
TOWN OF TIBURON
WATER A V AILABILITY - Congregation Kol Shofar
Assessor's Parcel No.: 038-351-34
Location: 215 Blackfield Dr., Tiburon
Gentlemen:
The above referenced parcel is currently being served. The purpose and intent of this service are to
provide water to the Kol Shofar Synagogue and day school. The proposed expansion including a
multi-purpose room and four additional classrooms will not impair the District's ability to continue
service to this property. However, the existing facility has been operating well above the property's
water entitlement of 1.47 acre feet per year. Therefore, the purchase of additional water is required
to bring the property's entitlement up the level of its current use. The purchase of additional water
will also be required for the proposed new const ruction.
The water and facilities required to bring this property into compliance with the District's rules and
regulations and to accommodate the proposed new construction will be available upon request and
fulfillment of the requirements listed below.
1. Complete a High Pressure Water Service Application.
2. Submit a copy of the building permit.
3. Pay appropriate fees.
4. Comply with the District's rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested.
Please note that current District rules require each structure to be metered individually.
5. All landscape and irrigation plans must be designed in accordance with the most current
District landscape Requirements (currently from Ordinance #385). Prior to providing water
service for new landscape areas, or improved or modified landscape areas, the District must
review and approve the project's working drawings for planting and irrigation systems. Any
questions regarding the District's current water conservation and landscape Ordinance
should be directed to Charlene Burgi at (415) 945-1525.
6. Comply with the backflow prevention requirements, if upon the District's review backflow
protection is warranted, including installation, testing and maintenance. Questions regarding
backflow requirements should be directed to the Backflow Prevention Program Coordinator
at (415) 945-1559.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (415) 945-1531.
Very truly yours,
{)LJ.. ~cJ~
Joseph Eischens
Engineering Technician
JE:dh
F :\ENGI NE ER\WP\LETTERS\Ltrs-2006\Ltrs-Mar~e-03-16-06a-dh .doc
rpCyclf~d
rpf'vcJahle
John and Karen Nygren
22 Paseo. Mirasol
Tiburon, CA 94920
~ ~~~::~~
Tiburon Planning Commission and Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
PLANNING DIViSION
TOWN OF TIBURON
March 20, 2006
Re: Kol Shofar Final EIR and Conditional Use Permit Application
Dear Tiburon Planning Commissioners and Council members,
We have numerous significant concerns regarding the Final EIR as well as the merits of
the proposed Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit Application for the expansion of the
temple. We believe the Final EIR is not adequate due to significant impacts not being
properly identified and/or not being mitigated to a level of insignificance. We also are
concerned with the size of the proposed project and conditions requested by the
applicant for the Conditional Use Permit. We oppose the magnitude of the proposed
project expansion and remodel of Temple Kol Shofar and its Conditional Use Permit.
The project does not comply with the Tiburon General Plan and Parking Zoning Code.
We support the remodel and modernization of the existing facility as long as traffic,
parking, circulation, safety, noise, light pollution and water run off do not exceed the
current conditions.
The EIR on page 214, L30 states, "The Planning Commission will be responsible for
determining whether traffic generated by the project is in harmony with the
neighborhood." On page 208, L2, it states, "The Planning Commission is responsible for
making the final determination of project "harmony" and consistency with pertinent
policies and regulations."
1. The Final EIR offers an extremely faulty mitigation measure, 1-7, Page 190, to
mitigate on-site parking, parking on residential streets and safety issues related
to vehicle turn arounds on the residential streets surrounding the temple. This
sole mitigation measure is used to mitigate a variety of significant impacts and
concerns addressed by the public as well as the EIR consultant throughout the
Final EIR. On page 213, L25, it states, "the EIR preparers agree with the
comment that congestion in the parking lots is one reason some people currently
park on neighboring streets, and this would be expected'to occur in the future."
Due to the extreme questionability of mitigation measure 1-7, there remain
serious significant impacts that have not been adequately mitigated regarding the
proposed application.
The mitigation measure requires people attending new proposed events to
produce a receipt showing they have parked on the site or in an approved off-site
parking lot. The EIR states on page 190, "A similar program is currently being
used successfully at the San Domenico School in San Anselmo, administered by
Marin County." To clarify how successful this mitigation measure works, Karen
Nygren called San Domenico School and spoke to Christy Marksbury, assistant
to the head master of the school. Christy confirmed the County of Marin requires
a mitigation measure at the school, but this measure is unlike the one stated in
the Final EIR. San Domenico School merely has a rubber counter placed across
the driveway and periodically through the year has a traffic count of the number
of cars entering and exiting the schoof. Thus, the EIR the mitigation measure
offered for Kol Shofar's various traffic and safety concerns is not similar to and
lacking in validity and assuredness of mitigation of various issues discussed in
the Final EIR.
Mitigation measure 1-7 is referred continuously throughout the Final EIR as the
way to solve significant impacts of the project. For the record to name some of
these instances mitigation measure 1-7 is referenced on pages 28, 42 147, 189,
197,211,215,220,273 and 301 to mitigate the safety from increased turn
arounds in residential streets which would "potentially injure or kill a child or other
pedestrian. "
Mitigation measure 1-7 is referenced on pages 89,90,141,190,246, and 281 to
name a few, to mitigate the on-street parking to reduce the significant traffic
safety issues for new and weekend and special events.
Mitigation measure 1-7 on pages 143, 189, 213, and 214 is used to insure that
people attending large, new, weekend events would not park in the residential
and neighborhood streets.
Various issues as to how the proposed 1-7 mitigation measure will successfully
reduce the level of significant impacts to a level of insignificance remain
unanswered.
a. Where will the receipts be handed out? At the entrance of the parking lot
or within the parking lot?
b. If the receipts are distributed at the entrance to the parking lots by an
attendant, will this cause traffic back up and queuing on the residential
streets? If so, how will this affect the safety and level of service on
Reedland Woods Way, Via Los Altos and Blackfield Dr?
c. Will the receipts be of different colors dependent on the day and time of
use? If not, how will one know it's not a receipt from a previous use?
d. Will each person in a car or one receipt per car be given out? If only one
per car, how will the temple be able to determine jf the people without a
receipt have parked in the parking lot or on the street?
e. If a person does not have a receipt, will they be turned away by the
temple and not be allowed to enter?
f. How can the temple control a car entering the parking lot from obtaining a
receipt, is unable to find a remaining parking space and then exits the Jot
holding onto a receipt or merely exits the parking lot and then parks on
the street?
g. What if more people show up then the 275 cap? Also, what will happen if
more cars arrive for an event then can be parked in the lots? Will the
hopeful attendees be told to go home, if they are restricted from parking
in the street and there is no remaining room in the parking lot and a
shuttle service has not been provided for prior to the event?
2
h. Will the "fox be guarding the hen house?" The EIR says that Kol Shofar
will be responsible for monitoring their own congregation. Is this a
guaranteed way to assure the compliance of this critical mitigation? A full
time, independent staff, hired by the town and paid for by the applicant, is
the only way to guarantee the receipts and parking on site is complied
with. The costs associated with this monitoring would cost far in excess of
the suggested $1,000 by the FEIR. Staffing, to be effective would need to
be more than on a few events as recommended in the EIR, it would be
needed at all events in order to ensure compliance. To insure funding for
this staffing, would the town require a bonding or guaranteed source of
funding for this program? To insure compliance the staff collecting the
receipts should be hired by the town and paid for by the applicant.
i. What will be the penalty to the attendees if they do not have a receipt?
j. What will be the immediate penalty for attendees who park on the
neighborhood streets orland do not have receipts?
The importance of 1-7 mitigation being viable is stressed by the EIR consultant in
various comments. On page 167, G11 it states, "Increased number of events
would result in new turn arounds which would increase safety hazards." On page
167, G-12 it states, "with the new activities, people will park on-street. The
substantial increase in the number of large events will result in an unquantifiable,
but substantial number of new turn arounds." Page 167, G13, "The standard is
safety. "
Page 42 of the EIR states, "The EIR identifies a significant and unavoidable
traffic safety impact that would result from an increased number of vehicle turn
arounds on neighborhood residential streets" The project would increase
hazards, "as identified by the EIR traffic engineer." "The EIR traffic engineer
considers an increase in actions that would potentially injure or kill a child or
other pedestrian as significant."
The EIR and its 1-7 mitigation measure does not meet the requirements of the
Tiburon Parking Zoning Codes. It was surprising to read the statement in the
EIR on page 167, "Whether the site contains sufficient parking to handle existing
uses is a moot point." If the Town as well as the EIR are to comply with its
Tiburon Parking Zoning Code, existing as well as new parking requirements must
be addressed and met by this application. Section 5,08.00 Parking and Loading
states, "A new use, structural addition or alteration on such parcel shall be
allowed only if it does not increase or create a parkinQ deficiency as determined
in this section." "The required parking shall be provided on the parcel or
contiguous lot or parcel where the use is located. For non-residential uses, the
required parking may be provided on another parcel providing that the parcel is
within the Town in a commercial zone and is reasonably convenient to the
subject parcel, as approved by the Town." The Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
application, temple expansion and parking plan does not come close to meeting
the Town's Parking Zoning Codes that must be applied evenly to all applicants of
the Town of Tiburon. Thus, the size of the temple's expansion and its inability to
accommodate parking on site with a viable mitigated parking program gives
reason to restrict the size of not only the attendees but the extent of the proposed
remodel, expansion and CUP.
3
2. The applicant has suggested on page 29 of the Final EIR, the mitigation of
reduction of traffic volumes by 9% by reducing the number of attendees at an
event from 300 to 275 people. The sanctuary is suggested to be remodeled to
accommodate 550 chairs. This would require 138 parking spaces per the Tiburon
Parking Zoning Code. If so, would the CUP, in order to accommodate all on site
parking for the sanctuary as well as the proposed multipurpose room, require that
the multipurpose room could not be used at the same time as the sanctuary
since all the parking allocations would have been taken up by the use of the
sanctuary and visa versa? This has not been discussed in the FEIR and
mitigated by mitigation measure 1-7. Also, what happens if the school is in
session or the classrooms used at the same time as the sanctuary or
multipurpose room. How would the on site parking be accommodated in the
EIR's mitigation of a 275 cap for events? Is the 275 cap for all the facilities and
uses within the proposed CUP and remodeled temple? Or, does it only require
the new uses to comply with the 275 cap.
If so, the FEIR does not mitigate the impacts of on site parking for the entire
facility and there remain significant impacts that have not been mitigated to a
level of insignificance to comply with the Town's Parking Zoning Codes. On
page 418, AA37 it states "The room can hold over 600 people, so it would need
to be reduced by over 50% just to get to the size of the ErR-recommended cap."
This response only discussed the multipurpose room. This response does not
take into account the other facilities of the building. How would the proposed EIR
1-7 receipt mitigation measure be used to insure no on-street parking for the
entire building complex's parking allocation per the Parking Zoning Code? This
is unclear and 'has not been adequately answered in the EIR. It's totally illogical
to have an expanded facility that can accommodate 611 in the multipurpose
room and 550 in the remodeled sanctuary and 238 in the lobby, which totals
1,860 people, when the temple is suggesting a cap of 275 people at an event for
a mitigation. This does not include numbers of school students and staff for the
existing and expanded school facilities. The receipt mitigation is not a viable
mitigation for this significant impact. Thus, the EIR must change its statement
that these impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance and remain a .
significant impact.
3. We have several remaining concerns regarding traffic and circulation during the
time of an emergency.
a. On page 74 of the Final EIR, in a letter from Robert Stone, Fire Chief of
the Southern Marin Fire Protection District, it states, "it is imperative that
fire and emergency medical apparatus have direct driving access to any
and all points of the property, Le. fire lanes, drive through, etc.,
especially during hiah occupancy events." The EIR states on page
141, F38, "The Town considers events such as Kol Shofar's High Holy
Days not typically subject to CEQA evaluation because they are a rare,
peak event, occurring for parts of three days during the year." This same
theme is echoed in other areas of the document. The FEIR continues to
say the impacts of such infrequent events do not need to be evaluated
and are insignificant and thus are not studied. The High Holy Day events
are to have attendance in excess of the 275 cap discussed in the EIR.
They are projected to have potentially 1,860 attendees. The Fire
Department has expressly stated that they have concerns "especially
durinQ hiah occupancy events." The EIR fails to adequately discuss
mitigations and fire access in particular for these high occupancy events
4
as requested by the Fire District. It merely refers to the applicants High
Holy Days Control measures traffic and parking program. The significant
impacts of high occupancy events have not been evaluated by the EIR.
Thus, the FEIR is inadequate to conclude there are no significant safety
impacts that are a concern of the fire district. Thus, the EIR cannot
conclude that the fire and emergency impacts have been fully mitigated to
a level of insignificance;
b. Reference to the Final EIR comments on page213, L23 and L25. The
town must require a valet parking plan prior to approval of the project, not
after construction as recommended in the FEIR. The EIR states, "it is
unknown precisely how long it would take to clear the parking lots.'
"Precisely how the valet parking would be done is not known." The Town
must also require a demonstration of the valet parking plan prior to an .
occupancy permit. The valet service plan must be coordinated with the
shuttle program. The shuttle patterns as well as individual parking, and
valet service affect the circulation of the upper and lower parking lots and
turn arounds. These must be coordinated to insure the valet plan is
feasible for the number of vehicles proposed to be parked on site. The
Fire Department has requested to review and approve the valet parking
plan. This should be done before construction, not just prior to an
occupancy permit in case changes need to be made to the project
because the plan does not meet the emergency and safety standards of
the Fire District.
4. The FEI R require a mitigation measure of the applicant to extend the left turn
pocket lane on Tiburon Blvd to 150 feet to mitigate the traffic impacts to Tiburon
Blvd at Blackfield Dr. We disagree with the comment regarding this mitigation on
page 212, L 18 where the burden to insure this mitigation is performed is the
responsibility of the applicant. The FEIR states, the "Town staff considers this
contact with Caltrans to be the applicant's responsibility." It is the Town's
responsibility to protect its residents and insure that an applicant complies with
the required mitigation measures of the FEIR. The Town should be involved in
contacting Caltrans to insure the developer applies for necessary permits, pays
for, and has the Tiburon turn lane improvements in place, prior to construction or
occupancy of the new project. We believe the FEIR should instruct the Town
regarding its responsibility to insure a mitigation measure is achieved.
5. Several conditions should be added to the CUP relating to traffic if this project is
approved.
a. The applicant shall pay its fair share toward the resurfacing of Blackfield
Drive, Reedland Woods Way and Via Los Altos, due to the increase in
traffic caused by the expanded use.
b. The applicant shall pay its fair share toward traffic impact fees, as other
development projects are in Tiburon, related to the improvements to the
101fTiburon Blvd. interchange. Approximately 500 of the 600 member
units of the Temple live outside of Tiburon and most likely pass through
the 101fTiburon Blvd interchange. Thus, the impacts by this large
number of vehicle users should pay the same mitigation fees as are
required by other projects of similar size in Tiburon.
5
c. The left turn storage lane on Tiburon Blvd at Blackfield Dr., recommended
as a mitigation measure, is to be exterided by 150 feet. The CUP should
require the cost of this mitigation be estimated by Caltrans prior to
construction of the project. If the additional storage capacity lane is not
able to be completed and in place prior to release of the occupancy
permit for the expanded uses, funding by a bond prior to construction of
the remodel/expansion shall be required. Also, the encroachment permit
for work on the state right-of way must be obtained prior to construction of
the project.
d. If extra Tiburon police are required to monitor and police events in excess
of 275 attendees, beyond the normal staffing level of the police
department, to insure the entire Town is adequately protected, the temple
shall repay the town for costs of the extra police service.
e. No on street parking shall be allowed during High Holy Day as well as
regular events. Any over flow parking will be accommodated by off site
parking as required in the Town of Tiburon Parking and Loading Zoning
Code, section 5,08.00.
f. High Holy Day events shall be maintained as dual services in order to
reduce the traffic and safety impacts and protect the character of the
residential neighborhoods. A singe service with an attendance of
potentially 1,860 and number of vehicles it will attract at one time and
associated impacts is not in harmony and in character with the
surrounding residential neighborhood. Page 142 of the FEIR states, "the
Town may find that these single service events will result in effects on the
neighborhood that are inconsistent with the General Plan goals and
policies or other planning guidelines. In that case, the Town may not
allow the requested single services."
6. The Final EIR on page 19 identifies the proposed project as inconsistent with
Tiburon General Plan Noise Element Goals N-A, N-B and N-C. Page 45 of the
FEIR states, "residents of homes near the new parking lot would experience
significantly increased noise levels..." Page 216, L38 states, "Nighttime use of
the parking lot to be significant." Page 216, L 36 states, "nighttime noise impacts
will be a significant and unavoidable impact for some project neighbors." Page
42 of the FEIR states, "The DEIR also finds that project-generated noise would
significantly and unavoidably affect certain neighbors. The applicant's attorney
states that adverselv affectino a few people is not necessarilv sionificant under
CEQA. "
We find this statement in the FEIR very biased toward the temple and the
attendees that come and spend only few hours a few times a year or month in
the synagogue and are not impacted by the noise on a daily basis. The families
that reside contiguous to or in the neighborhood of the temple cannot escape to
another home and will experience the new noise on a daily basis at all times of
the day. The many young children residing in these homes need to go to sleep
at a reasonable hour to get good nights sleep to be able to perform well at
school. Currently the temple is proposing to have functions until 12:30 AM on
Saturday evenings and 11 :00 PM on Sunday's, as well as late nights, 10:00 PM,
during the week. Families need to relax and rest quietly in their homes so they
will be able to function well at work as well as at home. Significant noise will
seriously affect their quality of life and ability to function. Unless these residents
6
move to a new home, they will not be able to avoid the significant noise impacts
of the temple.
For the FEIR to conclude that since this only affects a few people and not
necessarily significant under CEQA is unacceptable. We live in a society where
the rights of every individual are just as important as the whole. The noise
impacts remain significant, and offering the reduction of the hours, times and
days of use still exceed existing levels of significance. Merely reducing the
hours, times and days by a small percentage is not an acceptable mitigation.
Significant noise impacts remain. Thus, the project should not be allowed to
increase its noise impacts beyond what currently exist.
7. The FEIR states on page 145 that the noise study did not evaluate a cumulative
noise analysis of the existing lower parking lot along with the new upper parking
lot. This was not done since the EIR consultant believed the baseline for this
study was to account only for the new noise levels beyond what exists. We
strongly believe the noise study for the DEIR is not an acceptable study since
new conditions will be created to the existing lower parking lot due to changes in
its circulation pattern, traffic flow, wait time to enter and exit the lower lot, valet
parking plan, restriping of the lower lot, and intersection related impacts by the
new circular driveway. The existing noise conditions of the lower lot will be
changed as well as impacted by the new proposed upper parking lot and new
circular driveway drop off location. The new upper parking lot is at a higher
elevation then the lower parking lot and much closer to several of the residents
homes. The threshold of noise in the upper parking lot and circular driveway will
be greater then that of the lower lot.
The cumulative impacts of these new conditions must be evaluated to
understand the full impact of the actual noise level impacting the neighborhoods.
The FEIR cannot plead to explain away the need to do a cumulative impact
analysis because the lower lot already exists. The lower lot will have changes in
its type and intensity of use and thus the FEIR must analyze these changes in
noise conditions as well as do a cumulative study of the new noise levels. The
EIR already states noise is a significant impact that cannot be mitigated. The
EIR needs to fully disclose the full extent of this significant, unmitigable impact.
8. Page 273, R33 of the FEIR states the "DEIR is based on the proposed permitted
capacity." The FEIR states in Master Response Number 3 that it is not for the
EI R pre parers to speculate on the number of membership units that will
eventually belong to the congregation. With these statements, it appears the
DEIR consultant has predetermined the decision of the Town of Tiburon as to
whether there will be a cap on the membership as wen as what will be the
permitted capacity. If there is to be a capacity level cap, this is to be determined
by the Town Council or Planning Commission, not the EIR consultant. It is the
FEIR's purpose to give the public and decision makers adequate information to
determine if and what the permitted capacity of the Congregation shall be.
Thus, the noise impact analysis as wen as traffic and other environmental impact
studies were based on a capacity level that is still to be decided. The DEIR has
offered 5 different Alternatives to the proposed project and CUP. Without the
FEIR studying and offering a full range of analysis based on the capacity of the
sanctuary, multipurpose room and school buildings, one is unable to adequately
understand the environmental impacts of the project and make a sound and
educated decision regarding the significance of the impacts.
7
9. Page 86, E4 of the FEIR states the proposed multi-purpose room would seat an
additional 611 people, while the remodeled sanctuary could seat about 150 more
people than currently can be seated. Thus, the project would add space that
could seat about 760 more people than currently can be seated in the facility
during major events. (This does not include the lobby area which could seat 238).
The consultanthas predetermined by the FEIR's response the Town will place a
cap of 275 in the CUP and the large new facilities would be used in a fashion that
represents the capacity cap of the buildings.
What is the purpose of the Town approving a new multipurpose room and
remodeled sanctuary which will hold an additional 760 people if this is far in
excess of the 275 cap required to mitigate the environmental impacts? The FEIR
states on page 86, E4 "If the buildings were filled on a regular basis, there would
be significant traffic congestion, parking and noise impacts." As mentioned in my
previous comment, the DEIR states, the "DEIR is based on the proposed
permitted capacity." The FEIR lacks adequate information required to determine
what should be the size of the new buildings. The FEIR says that the buildings
are consistent with the neighborhood. How can this be determined when the
FEIR concludes that a cap of 275 must be established to avoid significant
impacts on the community, but the new buildings are allowed to be constructed
to accommodate an additional 760 people? This 760 number does not even
include the number of new students and staff of the four new classrooms.
The FEIR must include analysis of the total expansion and not limit its discussion
to a predetermined cap proposed by the applicant and not yet determined by the
Town. Without this information, there is not adequate information to analyze the
various Alternatives of the DEIR to determine what should be the final project.
The FEIR does not include adequate information to state the project is consistent
with the General Plan policies and the impacts have been mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
10. The FEIR has not included photosimulations that have repeatedly been
requested by the public to be included in the FEIR so they can have a true
visualization of the mass and bulk of the proposed project. Page 143, F44
states, "the Town typically does require such photosimulations for an EIR. " Yet,
for this project the Town staff has determined that the applicant-prepared
photosimulations, which are merely dotted lines provided in the DEIR, are
sufficient. The public has repeatedly stated that dotted lines portraying the new
additions are inadequate to the visualize the impacts of the new 9,733 square
foot multipurpose room as well as the 3,662 square feet of new classroom. It is
stated in the FEIR that it is common practice for the town.to require
photosimulations of a project of this intensity.
We strongly believe the Town should respect and comply with this reasonable
request for photosimulations of the new project which is a usual practice of the
Town. The FEIR should not provide the public with what the applicant has
merely submitted, but what the public has requested so that the public as well as
decision makers can make valid judgments regarding the impacts of this project.
11. Several other conditions should be added to the CUP relating to this project if
approved.
8
a. Green building practices should be used and 50% of the materials from
the existing building should be recycled upon remodel.
b. A canopy, if used, on the grounds, shall be installed and removed within a
two week period, in order to have its impact less then significant.
c. Kol Shofar will be required to have a permit or liquor license to serve
alcoholic beverages in the multipurpose room for safety and noise control.
No alcoholic beverages shall be allowed except for religions ceremonies.
12. The following is a listing of the General Plan Policies and Goals where we
strongly disagree with the FEIR's conclusion that they have been mitigated to a
level of insignificance and are consistent with the Tiburon General Plan Goals
and Policies. We believe they remain unmitigated and are inconsistent with Town
guidelines. Our previous comments and comments made by the EIR consultant
support our rationale for this statement.
a. LU-B: "To protect the health, safety and welfare of the community."
b. LU-C: "To preserve the character of the Tiburon Peninsula through
control of the type and location. of development." In the FEIR, page 208,
L2 it states the Planning Commission is responsible for making this final
determination.
c. LU-D: To ensure that all land uses, by type, amount, design and
arrangement, serve to preserve. protect and enhance the small-town
residential imaae of the communitv... On page 7, the FEIR states that
"The Planning Commission will need to determine whether the proposed
buildings remain compatible with the "small village character" of the
community. "
d. LU-H: To protect and preserve existina neiahborhood character and
identify. . .
e. LU-I: To encourage intensity of development, density and housing styles
that are consistent and compatible with surrounding neighborhood. In the
FEIR, page 208, L-3, it states, "However, the Planning Commission will
be required to make the findings regarding consistency with these
planning guidelines." Thus, for the FEIR to conclude consistency is
contrary to its own statement that it is for the Planning Commission to
make this determination.
f. LU-2: "The Town shall limit the type and amount of uses within the Town
to those that are compatible with the nature and image of the Town as a
Quiet. small-town residential community with a village-like commercial
area."
g. LU-5: "New development shall be in harmony with adjacent
neighborhoods and open spaces." On page 208, L2 of the FEIR, the
FEIR states, "However, the Planning Commission is responsible for
making the final determination of project "harmony" and consistency with
pertinent policies and regulations." Thus, for the FEIR to conclude
consistency is contrary to its own statement that it is for the Planning
Commission to make this determination.
9
h. LU-12: "Monotony in design, and massive or inordinately large or bulky
structures and site coverage that overwhelm or that are inconsistent with
the surrounding area, shall be avoided."
i. LU-15: "Remodels, tear-down/rebuilds, and new construction shall be
compatibte with the design, size and scale of existing dwellings in the
surrounding neighborhood."
j. C-B: uTo provide safe and convenient movement of local residents and
visitors to their places of employment, shopping and recreation in the San
Francisco Bay Area."
k. C-C: uTo maintain all existina. as well as to design all future, residential
streets with consideration of a combination of residents' safetv, cost of
maintenance and protection of residential Qualitv of life."
I. C-D: liTo provide an adequate means of circulation for emergency
vehicles." The mitigation measure 1-7 is faulty and there is no approved
valet or shuttle service plan.
m. C-E: "To improve the circulation system for pedestrians and bicyclists,
including safety enhancements." There has been no discussion of
bicyclists in the FEIR or discussion of neighborhood pedestrian use and
safety on the streets or parking lots.
n. C-F: "To minimize traffic congestion." Mitigation measure 1-7 is faulty,
and the overflow parking scenarios using shuttles services and valet
service has not been shown to be workable.
o. C-I: UTa provide adequate parking throughout the Planning Area."
Mitigation measure 1-7 is faulty and does not meet the Town's parking
Zoning Code requirements for on-site or no street parking.
p. SE-A: lIThe project, as mitigated, would not result in significant traffic
safety or other safety impacts." Mitigation measure 1-7 is faulty and does
not mitigate the turn arounds in the neighborhood that have been stated
in the FEIR to be a significant impact. Also, the Fire District has not
accepted the circulation plan, valet parking plan and on-site parking and
street parking issues have yet to be resolved.
We thank you for considering our comments and concerns and request that the FEIR not
be certified as complete and the project is denied as proposed. The temple should
revise its application to create a project that would not further impact the Tiburon
neighborhoods with additional new noise, safety, traffic, parking, lighting and other
impacts than what currently exist.
Y~~_UIY, . /1
c:::::: :.~: C ;Jot
John~.~flren
~_.-.~ ./ ....---;J
__0".... .". .
.... _..- /
/ ":~
//'. Karen -./
10
March 20, 2006
Tiburon Planning Dept
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Mr. Dan Watrous
~. ~ CC ~jD :6~ ~I
PLANNH~G DIViSION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Dear Mr. Watrous,
We are writing to express our objection to the propOsed enlargement of the Kol Shofar facility. Our four
main concerns are safety, parking. noise and light pollution. We live within a block ofKol Shofar.
Both Kol Shofar and Bel Aire School contribute to the vehicle traffic and parking issues in the
neighborhood. We see first hand that Kol Shofar cannot currently provide enough parking for its members.
We regularly have our street filled with overflow parking from. Ko] Shofar. We deal with it at least a dozen
times a year, and we deal with Bel Aile School events about that much again It is a nuisance, but we have
never complained to anyone about it, as it is within a tolerable range. Now, on top of what we already
endure, the thought of dealing with this every other weekend and until 1 Opm twice during the week, is
beyond any acceptable limit. The neighborhood simply cannot handle the load, and as Kol Shofar is not
providing enough padcing to accommodate its current load, it is definitely not providing enough to handle
the increased load
There are a lot of kids in this neighborhood, both living here, andas a result of Bel Aire School. We
already have a daily "rush hour" to and from the school twice a day. However, at least the families
dropping offkids for school are aware of the situation, and tend to show more caution than the average
driver. A person attending a party at Kol Shofar (especially one unfamiliar with the area and leaving an
event where alcohol is served) is not as likely to show the same amount of heightened caution. A girl was
nearly hit on Blackfield last year. This will happen again, and KoI Shofar's expansion will increase the
daily threat we face. The expansion will push us over the threshold of tolerable risk to public safety. Cars
and kids don'1 mix. We have witnessed many cars run the stop sign at Blackfield and Karen Way
(probably due to the less common "T' intersection than a typical4-way intersection). Ko} Shofar's
expansion creates a safely hazard by the increase in traffic and their poor exiting sttategy from the facility.
We are already dealing with both Kol Shofar's and Bel Aile School's activities during the daytime on
weekdays. Kol Shofar's evening and weekend events will take away from us the only peace we had left on
weekends and evenings. The Bel Aire homes are all designed with 3 bedrooms on the front. This is a quiet
neighborhood at night and we hear everything - Every car door opening and shutting at nigh~ every
conversation on the street within a block, or anyone playing nmsic. If a neighbor were to have parties
every other weekend ~ late evening activities twice during the week, adding the noise level and puking
congestion that Kol Shofar is proposing. they would find themselves dealing with the police on a regular
basis.
The requirements for lighting at the parking lot directly conflict with residentialligbting requirements. For
residential applications, we are required to provide shielded downligbts at aU exterior lighting.. For safety,
KoI Shofar will be lighting their parking lot like a supermarlret. This is in direct conflict with the intent to
provide minimalligbt pollution and visual annoyance in residential neighborhoods. This is a residential
neighborhood, not a commercial district. The Ko} Shofar expansion does not suit its ClDTent location.
Sincerelv -. '--';J /'-.1. ~':
. .'.J-',-" / . _'"
. ( / 9~-
~___.." ..._.". ",:::'''--<--_A l'-_.- .~
Mr. and Mrs. Fred Conte
258 Karen Way
Tiburo~ CA
94920
415.389.1&73
/~ ~
~/'A /ij~r--
~ ./7 ~. ./ .fi.",/o",- .,.,/./,. .1... h;
/,,0 i-' 'z~.q-./?/~~ ~/ t-/
To: Tiburon Planning Commission and Town Council
~-~f~ :3U~ ~~
L
PLANNING DIViSION
TOWN OF T/BURON ~
From: Lee Kranefuss & Nina Frank
35 Reedland Woods Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
Cc: Tiburon Neighborhood Trust
Date: March 20, 2006
Re: Final EIR study for Kol Shofar Synagogue expansion plans
We live in the neighborhood of Kol Shofar, and we have carefully read both the draft EIR
(DEIR) of August 2005, as well as the proposed final EIR (FEIR) of February 2006.
Based on this reading, we believe that the FEIR is incomplete; that it has errors; and that
it fails to capture some of the key issues. As property owners who will be significantly
affected by this proposal - aesthetically and economically - we believe that the town
should not certify this FEIR, nor approve the project as requested - and that, if it does, it
exposes itself to legal challenges and risks.
Overview of Concerns
As we have stated in prior correspondence, we moved to Tiburon with the goal of
enjoying the residential quality of life offered by the town. As stated at page 8 of the
FEIR, the town General Plan stipulates that "The town shall limit the type and amount of
uses within the town to those that are compatible with the nature, character, and image of
the town as a quiet, small-town residential community with a village-like commercial
area" (LU-2, emphasis added).
While I will detail my concerns below point-by-point, I think it is important to see the
forest for the trees. We live next to Kol Shofar. Our neighborhood is very quiet; all three
of my children have bedrooms overlooking Kol Shofar. What Kol Shofar is asking for is
not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, nor is it consistent with the town's
obligations as Lead Agency under CEQA to protect the community. What Kol Shofar is
proposing to put in place is, at its core:
· A multi-purpose facility that can accommodate 300-600 people at a time, with
planned usage - mainly parties, with attendant noise and congestion - that will
run until 12:30 AM (including cleanup) on up to 75 weekend nights per year.
· A significant increase in nighttime usage during the week, with up to 150
people attending events 78 nights per year until 11 :00 PM (including cleanup).
· A large increase in daytime usage as a school, increasing enrollment to 150
children in daily classes.
All of this is in addition to the current 400 people attending Saturday services, and 400
people involved in Sunday school activities - which is already a significant strain on the
tranquility and ~afety of neighborhood (as was documented in the DEIR as a
significant and unmitigatable problem in item 3.3C).
I ask the members of the Planning Commission this simple question: which of you
would vote in favor of such a facility being built in your neighborhood? Would you
want a large and noisy facility - with plans to operate until at least 11 :00 PM on
more than 150 nights per year - next to your home? Would you want a facility that
would have a capacity rivaling the Marin Civic Center next to your home? While
the effort is cloaked in spiritual language (calling the weekend events "Iifecycle
events"), what is really being asked for is the right to build a combination
schooJ/banquet hall, with essentially unlimited operating hours, in a residential
neighborhood. H~w can this be seen as keeping with the "quiet, sma))-tow~
residential community" goal of the general plan?
Kol Shofar has been a consistently bad neighbor, showing limited regard for both the
neighborhood, the town, and zoning/code regulations. I have no objection to Kol Shofar
carrying out its basic religious mission of worship; in fact, we were members of Kol
Shofar until this project arose. However, 1 do object to their building a party facility
(with capacity larger than the Mill Valley Recreation Center) next to my home.
In addition to considering tbe specific objections, we urge each of the elected
members of the town to step back and consider the bigger picture - and their
obligations to the voters of Tiburon. Based on the applicant's own data, only 100 of
the 600 member-units appear to reside in the incorporated town of Tiburon. Why
should voting residents of Tiburon be forced to suffer with congestion, noise, and the
community degradation from a large-scale facility whose beneficiaries are primarily
from outside the town?
A General Comment on Kol Shofar's Mitieation Plans
Before going into the specifics of the DEIR and FEIR, I wish to comment on Kol
Shofar's lack of respect for the community in the past. Kol Shofar has long been
adversarial and shown a disregard for the neighborhood and the town itself. As I
mentioned, we were members of Kol Shofar. One of the things that struck us - compared
to other facilities we are involved in - is the general inability of Kol Shofar to respect or
enforce commitments it has made. Throughout the EIRs Kol Shofar either promises to do
something after the project is completed, or claims that the lack of prior complaints is
proof that there have been no problems with the neighborhood. Many of their proposed
mitigation plans require continuing action on their part after the facility would be in place.
The history of Kol Shofar's behavior under their current CUP shows that they are
either unable or unwilling to execute even the simplest programs that require
continuing action, and that the neighborhood has repeatedly brought complaints to
them and the town about this. Any mitigation measure contemplated must
antjcipate that Kol Shofar will not suddenly become capable or willing to enforce
rules. The temple has had years to demonstrate success under the current CUP, and
has failed. It would take years of demonstrated action to show that they have
become able to enforce parking, noise and behavioral restrictions.
As a brief history, I offer the following points. Prior to our moving into this
neighborhood, Kol Shofar attempted to expand its parking lot. This led to litigation
(which Kol Shofar subsequently lost), and bad feelings between the neighbors and the
temple. During that litigation (as can be seen from the litigation record), KoI Shofar
repeatedly refused to negotiate or work with the neighborhood. Instead, they continued
to pursue court action under a number of theories (all rejected) to allow them to do what
they wanted without regard for the neighborhood.
Subsequent to that, there has been a long and troubled relationship with respect to their
operation under the CUP. When Kol Shofar tried to renew its CUP in 2004, many
neighbors spoke out about the lack of compliance with the existing CUP conditions at the
renewal meeting [I have attached a copy of the letter we sent to the town related to the
CUP process of 2004 as Attachment # 1 -letter of 3/17/2004]. As you can see, we
objected to what we saw as continuing non-compliance with the CUP. Many of these
issues covered parking and traffic. Even after renewal of the CUP, we saw little effort to
comply with the conditions; in fact, many of the continuing problems have been
docwnented by neighbors and the authors of the DEIR and FEIR as part of this process.
What reason do we have to believe Kol Shofar will be any more effective in the future?
A specific case of a point of extreme contention has been the use of the "emergency"
road next to 35 Reedland Woods Way. Though this was designated for use only as
handicapped and emergency route (as evidenced by a sign that is at the bottom of the
road), Kol Shofar refused to take steps to limit use of this entrance: indeed, the parents of
children on my daughter's Sunday school class were told to use this entrance to "make it
easier on Sunday School teachers" (rather than using the designated drop-off spot in the
main lot). As members we objected, and nothing was done.
When Kol Shofar had a tenant (the Jewish Community High School) who applied for a
CUP, we asked as a condition that the entrance be gated. Despite a record of non-
compliance in using this road, Kol Shofar objected to the gating, claiming it would put
them into non-compliance with ADA requirements.
Yet, after years of complaint about this issue - and Kol Shofar's assertion they could not
do this legally - we and the other neighbors were surprised one day to see construction on
such a keypad-controlled gate. We later saw the motivation: this was done just before the
original application for the current project was submitted. It appears that after 5 years,
Kol Shofar took steps it had objected to for a variety of reasons because it was apparently
worried about the EIR.
However, even in making this attempt to "paper over" what had been simmering for years,
Kol Shofar showed a blatant disregard for the rules. In fact, the Town of Tiburon was
forced to stop ("red-tag") the construction (which was nearly complete) since the temple
had not put the project through design review in its haste to clean up this point of
contention. The project was so far along that the town subsequently approved a post-
construction permit/variance. As a result, the neighborhood now has an unsightly gate
that does not meet standard town design rules. This was brought to the attention of Kol
Shofar, who refused to paint or change the gate since they now had the variance and saw
no need to spend the money just to please the neighborhood.
To add insult to injury, though this entrance was to be for emergencies, deliveries, and
handicapped access, the code is well known to many non-qualified members who
continue to use this entrance for personal convenience.
We again raised concerns during the initial EIR scoping of 2004 (Attachment #2 - letter
of 12/6/2004), pointing out the poor behavior of the temple as a neighbor. Ye~ despite
having been put on notice through this process, we have yet to see an improvement in that
behavior. What we do see in the FEIR are two things: (1) an inaccurate statement that
Kol Shofar is a good neighbor that is sensitive to the community, and (2) many complex
promises and processes that, we are assured, will mitigate significant impacts (ranging
from keeping doors closed to policing sophisticated parking systems).
Based on this long-term experience of non-compliance, we have strong reservations
about any mitigation that requires sole or independent action on the part of Kol
Shofar to insure compliance with any approvals. The temple has a long history of
ignoring requirements placed on it, including CUP, zoning, and planning review
processes of the Town of Tiburon. They have consistently represented themselves as
sensitive to the neighborhood, while the record indicates otherwise. Any mitigation
that relies on their compliance must, sadly, be understood in the context of the last
eight years (or more) of neighborhood chaUenges and litigation. It would be
unreasonable, from experience, to presume any mitigation program in the DEIR or
FEIR will be carried out as planned or suggested.
Specific Issues with the EIRs
We have reviewed in detail the proposed Final EIR (FEIR), and ~he Draft EIR (DEIR)
which was incorporated by reference. We feel that, given the magnitude of the proposal,
it significantly understates the impact (or overstates the mitigation potential) in a variety
of areas. In addition, we believe it is incomplete in a number of studies and areas (and/or
inconsistent), and thus is not certifiable by the town. Finally, for reasons described above,
we believe it relies on mitigation approaches proposed by the applicant where there is
little if any demonstrable intent or capability of the applicant to enforce such (or similar)
measures effectively. I will outline our principal objections below, with reference to the
DEIR/FEIR.
Uses (DEIR p.9 and following~ also Master Response 3 of FEIR)
The DEIR report says "For purposes ofthe,EIR analysis, it will be assumed that all
congregational events will be conducted within the multi-purpose room... [d]oors to the
outside will be kept closed during events to keep amplified sound from escaping the
building. Outside use of the courtyard during events would be limited to people stepping
outside for air and casual conversation." However~ the doors will not be sealed shut: with
300 people in attendance, one must presume that the doors will be opening frequently
while these people step out for conversation, as well as to arrive and to depart (from
] I :30 PM to midnight). It is hard to imagine how one can accept the claims that (l) all
noise is contained inside, and (2) only a small amount of quiet conversation will be heard
outside. Everyone who has been to a wedding knows that the area surrounding the
building - if there are 300 guests - is noisy~ both from the doors opening to let people in
and out (and the sound that escapes)~ as well as from the people outside, especially when
alcohol is consumed. Only extraordinary levels of enforcement could make this happen.
Unfortunately, the applicant has, as documented above, maintained a poor track record of
enforcing rules placed on it, and a poor record of compliance with conditions in its CUP _
and both the applicant and the town have been made amply aware of this.
I also note that the claim is made that ". . . the congregation does not intend to rent the use
of the facilities to non-members" ( emphasis mine). Note that Kol Shofar already allows
non-member to use the facilities; for example, Sunday School students from other
temples already use the facility. In addition, Kol Shofar has rented to both Ring
Mountain School and Jewish Community High School. We expect that, if the facility is
expanded, Kol Shofar will want to recapture the costs through additional rentals. (To add
insult to injury, whenever we have had a problem with the operations of a tenant~Kol
Shofar has refused to help on the grounds that there is little they can do to police the users
of their facility who pay rent.) The adversarial relationship between Kol Shofar and the
neighborhood has often hinged on what has been stated as Kol Shofar's "intent", and how
that has subsequently changed over time (such as membership projections and
expectations). One must expect that, over time, Kol Shofar - based on past actions - will
fmd ways to expand the defInition of "consistent and continuing usage", "members",
"rent", and other relevant terms in creative ways - as it has an established pattern of
doing.
The essence of this proposal is expansion - of facilities, hours, and services. I note in the
DEIR at page 13 that, with respect to Saturday/Sunday daytime events, "the applicant has
calculated the number of such events based on past uses." It seem~ illogical to conclude
that a facility that expands will have the same number of activities as in the past. On
page 16 of the DEIR, the claim is made that "it would be speculative to assume that the
congregation would continue to grow.. . [given that it has not grown since 200 I]." This
point is echoed in the FEIR at pages 20-21.
However, as noted in the appendix, the congregation grew steadily (in member units) for
nearly 20 years before slowing down:
700
- '.-.' .,.'
"j.
;?:~ ;~ ,., ~;,,:,
,'..;
~~'," I:' ~t.~
~.'}. !;;'.' (?
t.; ~ ~tt
~~(." ~::::~
- ~d;'. ;.~;:.
I'
" ~.. ~--~a ~r~
p." ~.:.~ Ii.;
\:1 ~.~.
r,~. t.r. I ~:
,:~ ~~:' ,!~i
t:~ '/~i J';';
'.r- i"'e' t"" . f~~
- r':;~ f:'~ :"\' ;"':::' k,."
t~~~ ,.. I,:-,e ,~
-__,I ,':~:? ~::~~ ;:;-::1 ~~f .~:I-i~
I"~:' t:.",
~',~'. ~~::.:~ i:~) .~.I:'" ,:-.
~-:(-i ~:('~ ~:~. I> -~
.' . {j ~~? ;';~'J
",', J~.i~ ~~t, t~,~ H,~
....... ~'>~ i:.;: ~~,'~ ~~~ j :i)~
- -.J '\'.::l c'/'" ~[t ,?:t ~~:: ....;~_J
I. ~J~~ ~J. ~',:,.. {:1;! ,ti i.:::~
r ~~t ~':: ';1', \;;i r~i i;;~ t~ ~:~, M ~;
, , I:~ ~c::~,
~.. f\. j;:> ~:~~ i~.~!
to:" ~\. ft,~ ~~'~.
~D: t~_~ ~?~ ~} ~\~ i; t;~ jF~
- '~:' ~;~~.' ;~j" ~t.~ t~}. tit; ~;~~.
~.::,:~ :~:::~: ~r: ~~ ~.t
~~~J t;~ t~;~ f~:;r ~y~ ri: t~J
.-< ir~ h: ~A!. ~j:f'~ ~~~, i.,1 f~~ ~:~:;,~
!,:" ;:,:t tAt ~.~ ~;:,: H- v~
r~~~ ,;':':. 1:1 f2; ~~~ (,. t::". j....
~::~t i;:~;~ ",:
- i\::-' ,........ ~;J:~ i!.\~ i\~ ,\~
',~" .- ~ ~ ~,':t ~-n, tn:
I. ~~<;.~ ,:0.:.', i'Y~ f~~ .?~ ~-?~~
. k.' ~~i: ..~- . tit:.
(':: i.::! ~c~. f,'<! ;:~!~. r"~ v~'
~._'., "0'- i~~,t
r: ~..,,'~ M~ ~?:;, t::-'. Ii ~_~i: t:: i"1t
ni, f';~' I','" i::,:-I ~<,
, i;-"-I tf~ ~~} ~'~j ri~ ~.~~~ i:i~~ ~.,'. (;1
- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
600
500
400
300
f:-~~ Estimated
. Actual
200
100
o
1.0
co
en
~
...... 0
co en
en en
~ ~
N "ll:t
en en
en en
~ ~
CD co
en en
en en
~ ......
o N
o 0
o 0
N N
"ll:t
o
o
N
Source: Leonard Charles report, pages 125-126 of DEIR
Although it has slowed recently, it seems unreasonable to assume - especially with
expanded facilities - that there will be no growth going forward - indeed, it would be
far more speculative, from a statistical perspective, to presume Kol Shofar will not
grow given this long-term trend. Any analysis tbat does not take into account at
least tbis possibility is incomplete.
Noise
I believe the greatest challenges in the DEIR relate to noise.
Tbe DEIR itself notes that "given tbe Tiburon General Plan policies aimed at
protecting residential neigbborhoods from 'unnecessary, excessive, and offensive'
noise (particularly noise not generated by residential uses), the impact is considered
to be significant and unavoidable." The applicant, recognizing the gross inconsistency
of their intended use, suggested a small capping of evening events (Saturday events
reduced from 35-40 to 27; Sunday events from 25-30 to 20, and maximum attendance
reduced from 300 to 275). As noted on page 4 of the FEIR, even under a restricted
use approacb, "This variation of the Restricted Use Alternative reduces the
significant and unavoidable noise impact, but it would remain significant and
unavoidable". Thus, under any planned usage, the town will be required to issue a
"Statement of Overriding Considerations" under CEQA if this project is to be approved.
The noise that necessarily would come from the evening activities (including the
weeknight activities) that the facility expansion will drive are grossly inconsistent with
the neighborhood environment - and this is made even more clear based on subsequent
noise analysis submitted in response to the DEIR. In master response 7, data is
provided based on a new noise study. This shows that, at the point nearest the most
affected residences on Reedland Woods Way, the ambient nighttime noise level is a
mere 40-41 dBa. These levels are extremely low; this is an extraordinarily quiet
neighborhood, as the residents have been pointing out for more than a year. Finally,
the data is in place to show this.
However, as noted in table 9 of the original DEIR, cars entering and exiting the parking
_lot were measured at over 60 dBa - which is above the threshold that leads to sleep
interference as identified on page 75 of the DEIR. Also in the DEIR, in Salter's April
2004 repo~ they measured peak noises for cars entering the "service road" at the
Reedland Woods Way property boundary at as high as 69 dBa (See table 3 of that report,
site 2). This would be a problem during the day, and will be a real challenge at night _
and the data is there in the DEIR to show how loud this could be, day or night. Based on
the submitted measurements, one could expect sound levels to rise from an ambient
40-41 dBa to 60, or as high as 69 dBa. This represents a peak increase of up to 20-29
dBa, to nearly 1750/0 of ambient levels; given that the dBa scale is logarithmic, this
represents an increase in acoustic energy of over 100 times. As noted on page 82 of
the DEIR, one would expect the nature of these noises to be particularly pernicious
in a quiet neighborhood: "noises associated with the use of the parking lot, such as
vehicular circulation, loud engines, car alarms, squealing tires, door slams, and
human voices could potentially affect the neighbors of20, 30,35, and 45 Reedland
Woods Way as well as [other residences)."
In addition to traffic noise, there is the problem of event noise. The applicant often
tries to rely on soundproormg of the facility as a mitigation measure. However, the
proposed uses (weddings, etc.) do not lend themselves well to containment. Absent
locking aU attendees inside, it is unreasonable to expect wedding or other parties _
which will be running most weekends - to be able to truly contain all of their noise
indoors. People will wander out and talk (often loudly while having a good time); doors
will open and close; and, if a band is present, bass sounds, drums, and crowd screams will
penetrate walls and windows. The DEIR calls this out: as stated at page 86, "No
measurements were taken to confIrm how noisy such conversations might be given
nighttime ambient noise levels." The only comparative study in the DEIR that was done
was to measure the noise increase during the day from two very q'-;liet events (a small
indoor play and a quiet religious ceremony in the afternoon), and, in the FEIR, from one
nighttime event that was primarily solemn and religious in nature. These are hardly
comparable to a 300 person party at ] ] :30 PM on a Saturday night.
Nonetheless, the applicant has, in the DEIR, tried many times to overcome these
objections by using inapplicable acoustical statistics - e.g., using Haveraging" methods to
try to minimize the impact. Many of the mitigating arguments make many claims such as
"an [average] increase of3 dB would be barely perceptible", when the real problem is
peak noise - not average. A jet taking off generates] 20 dBa at 200 feet (from the DEIR).
If one accepts averaging, then this would be deemed "barely perceptible" under the
applicant's arguments as long as it occurs 200 feet from your bedroom for only 1 minute
per hour, 24 hours per day. Clearly, that sort of noise would not fit with the environment
of Tiburon - nor will the Kol Shofar parking lot or evening program plans. If this plan is
approved, the town will incur significant additional costs as the Police department
would need to respond repeatedly on a nightly basis to frequent complaints from
neighbors, and would need to continually spend its weekend and evening time trying
to get the noise under control from Kol Shofar.
In summary, Master Response 8 makes the point in its last paragraph: "...there is
!!Q mitigation available for this impact, and the impact is determined to be
si2nificant and unavoidable..." (underlining added).
Traffic and Traffic Safety (including Master response 6 of the FEIR)
The DEIR is correct to point out that traffic safety is a significant and unavoidable
challenge which will require the town to issue a "Statement of Overiding
Considerations" under CEQA if this project were to be approved. We disagree
completely that this is mitigatable to an "insignificant" level as has been claimed in
the FEIR.
Traffic and safety have long been problems with Kol Shofar. As noted in the DEIR,
numerous existing traffic control tools (painted arrows, stop signs, "do not enter" signs
and, for example, the "handicapped parking only" sign on the "emergency" entrance,
etc.) have long been viewed as non-binding by users of the facilities. (Again, this is
another example of the source of long-standing tension with the neighborhood, and
evidence of an attitude that the applicant feels no need to comply with rules, laws, town
requirements, or to act with sensitivity to the neighborhood). The neighborhood has long
complained to the temple about this, but little, if anything, has been done. This has led to
very dangerous situations. For example, as events end, drivers in the existing lot often
pull onto Reedland Woods Way without stopping or looking up the street; I myself was
almost hit by a car while I was jogging on the sidewalk. More traffic.emptying onto
Reedland Woods Way can only make this worse, and posted traffic signs have
proven ineffective.
As noted in the DEIR report (and confirmed in the FEIR), we have a continuing problem
with people who prefer to use street parking (even when there is adequate parking in the
lot), and who make "turnarounds" on the street - often crossing over sidewalks and into
driveways to do so. Even ifKol Shofar were granted additional parking space (as
requested for 44 cars), the significant increase in vehicle traffic that would come from
expansion can not help but make this situation worse; adding 90 or more cars (as
anticipated in the traffic studies) will increase this risk substantially. There is simply
inadequate parking in the neighborhood to support a facility of the size requested - even
under the plan proposed. This led to a significant and unavoidable safety impact a~
identified in the DEIR - in a neighborhood with over 20 small children.
Kol Shofar has tried to respond to this with a plan for checking "tickets" for use of
designated parking. This would require a complex and well-run system, with a
necessarily difficult set of interactions among fellow temple members - in other words,
something Kol Shofar has never been able to do. Would someone at the door really turn
away a family they knew who did not have the requisite ticket? As pointed out above,
Kol Shofar has an atrocious record of implementing even the most simple programs -
often, in fact, giving out the wrong information to members. Even in the FEIR this
current inability to manage traffic and parking is noted as a given (in the section on
noise): ~'.. . currently people use the handicapped driveway to drop people off and turn
around..." (FEIR, page 45); despite its being gated, this avenue of entrance/exit continues
to be abused.
Kol Shofar's planned expansion, furthermore, would entail many non-members
attending events. How can one believe that such a complex system could or would be
enforced given the complete (and well-documented) lack of compliance with much
simpler programs in the past? And, if the plan were accepted, how would the town
enforce non-compliance? Again, the Tiburon Police would end up spending considerable
time, it seems, taking care of this situation.
I believe there are also flaws in the traffic studies as submitted. First, all of the analysis
of the Tiburon Blvd/Blackfield traffic flows shows a mix of 120 new cars coming from
Tiburon Blvd. onto BlackfieId, with 83 coming from the north and 37 from the south.
While the extension of the ~'holding" lane on Tiburon Blvd. may allow that intersection to
operate normally, no studies were done of congestion on Blackfield below Via Los Altos,
and none were done during peak school commute hours. Due to the Bel Aire school, the
intersection ofBlackfield Drive and Karen Way is an often congested one, so much so
that the Tiburon police need to patrol it regularly in the mornings. Any proposal to add
students to Kol Shofar must look at this intersection as well. One must presume that an
increase in traffic would drive the need for even more Police intervention. And, at the
very least, one would need to prove that this intersection's service level would not fall as
part of this application - which was not done.
Finally, I believe the traffic studies fail to capture some of the dynamics that come from
crowds in a rush (as are typical at schools and event facilities). While a summary of
police-reported accidents was evaluated, it needs to be considered that most non-injury
accidents are not reported to the police. In the morning commute, I have twice been rear-
ended at the intersection of Blackfield turning onto Tiburon Blvd. as drivers who are
impatient to make the turn fail to stop at the yield sign (looking for their own opening
onto Tiburon Blvd. instead of the car in front of them and then accelerating). Today
(March 19,2006), as I took my children biking, I had to wait while a line of more
than 10 cars exiting onto ReedJand Woods Way without looking up the street, and
then "rolling" through the stop sign at the intersection of Reedland Woods Way and
Blackfield. This problem would only get worse with more traffic - and with using
Reedland Woods way as the exit for all traffic from Kol Shofar. While the claim is
made that residents exiting Reedland Woods Way would have right-of-way (as the)1
do now), history has shown that this often is not so in practice: a large crowd intent
on getting out of a facility will move as a pack - as it does no - with no regard for
existing or proposed sign age, or for safety.
As noted in Master Response 6.B of the FEJR the observations related to turnarounds -
identified as significant in the DEIR - were described as "relatively few"; however, the
comment is then made that ~'observations of this single event are not conclusive regarding
[what may occur]...In addition, though the number...may not be substantial, they still
pose a safety hazard. Nothing could be more important than the safety of children, as
identified in the DEIR. The assertion by the applicant is that this can be mitigated with
the ticket system. I make three points with respect to this: (1) per the above, Kol Shofar
has been grossly unable to control the current traffic and safety situation - including
compliance with CUP requirements - and has given no reason to believe they will
succeed with this complicated system; (2) the plan will increase traffic by increasing the
number and type of events - which can not help but to make matters more troubling; (3)
safety of the neighborhood is currently compromised as evidenced by observations and
photos in the FEIR, and there is every reason to believe these issues (including
turnarounds), which could lead to serious injury or death - and is already a significant
issue with current use - will get worse.
Finally, with respect to Master Response 6C, I note that the standard that has been used is
that ''the town engineer.. . sees no problem with it [the Blackfield Drive curve and
topology]." With all due respect, the analysis of such a situation - which involves the
possibility of life or death outcomes -:- should be supported by an analysis undertaken by
someone with specialized skill and training in the field if the town plans to rely on that
judgment.
Aesthetics (including Master Response 8)
Another area where I believe the DEIR is wrong is in aesthetics.
Tiburon is a wooded environment, and the nature of the neighborhood around Kol Shofar
is that it has a lot of open space. While it may not be manicured or spectacular, it is
natural and wooded - not a concrete and asphalt jungle lit until late at night.
A number of photos were taken from our house (photo 7, DEIR),and our neighbors'. Kol
Shofar is at the bottom of the hill, and in most cases we ( and others) look down upon the
property.
While Kol Shofar submitted many simulations of the public view impact, none were done
from private vantage points. As noted at page 99, "[the photosimulations] do not show
the proposed parking areas, access driveway, lighting, or landscaping". However, when
viewed this way, a very different picture emerges.
The view from our home would be spoiled by the plan. The area shown in photo 7
would become a paved (and lit) parking lot, with a school building in the back. The
"drop-off" point that all cars would circle would be about where the left-hand tree is
now. As noted at page 103, "from 35 Reedland Woods Way, one will see the new
turnaround and parking lot, the top of the new multipurpose room, and the new
classroom wing. As one can see from photo 7, these additions will be quite evident
from the upper windows... (a] similar view is expected from 45 Reedland Woods
Way." Inasmuch as the application often claims that the facility will be visually
non-intrusive due to its low profile and/or use of consistent colors, the existence of a
new, highly visible asphalt parking lot seems to be a significant and unmitigatable
challenge.
Furthermore, based on the above, there is a clear an material error in the new lighting
intrusion study of Herman & Coliver. At page 55 of the FEIR, they claim, with respect to
upper parking, "no light source [would be] visible from beyond the property line". Given
that it is clearly documented that at least two residences will look down on the proposed
new lot, this simply can not be true. Further, we would be subject to reflection and/or
glare from the parking lot as well as security lights. As pointed out at page 96 of the
DEIR, "existing security lights on the main building currently throw glare into these
windows [35 and 45 Reedland Woods Way]". No proposed mitigation has been
suggested; in fact, in the past (and, per the application, in the future) the. amount and
timing of security lighting is left to the discretion of the Tiburon Police Department.
Thus, one must assume the worst, especially at a religious facility in this age: there may
be a mandate for extensive, 24 hour security lighting in the future.
In addition to unsightly asphalt and cars, we would see every headlight from every car at
night as they entered and exited the drop-off circle: as noted at page 106, "Vehicles using
the turnaround would have headlights pointed at 20 and possibly 30 and 35 Reedland
Woods Way". Again, this has been addressed by Herman & Coliver in the FEIR, who
assert that the danger of such intrusion is only at tbe ground level of our home (35
. Reedland Woods Way), and that that is protected by an existing fence. In fact, the
turnaround will be elevated above the level of our fust floor, to approximately or above
the elevation of the ceiling level of our fust floor or the floor of our second floor. As it is,
we already get headlight glare at night from cars using the "upper" lot and emergency
road as they turn - and need to close our window shades to eliminate this problem (as
well as the security light glare - both of which we have complained about to the temple to
no avail). We believe the report is wrong - we wi]) get the light into our second floor.
Further, we disagree strongly with the claim on page 48 that "[since the drop-off will be
for turnaround] any nuisance created by the headlights from cars traveling around the
circle would be momentary in duration..." and, presumably, les iritrusive. In fact, the
result will be like having a large "strobe light" adjacent to our upper bedroom windows-
hardly insignificant and unobtrusive. Rotating lights of this nature are used in
lighthouses precisely because they are so visible and will distract the attention of an
observer who is not looking directly at the light due to the visual and mental intrusiveness
that is caused by the momentary and repeating nature.
I disagree wholeheartedly with the claims that these impacts would be "less than
significant after mitigation" at pages 106, 107 and 110 of the DEIR - which are
echoed in the FEIR. Given the perspective, and the general lack of artificial light in
this neighborhood (there is only one streetlight on Reedland Woods Way, and it is at
the top of tbe cul-de-sac and not visible to most bomes), any amount of blacktop,
beadlights, security lighting, and glare from even low-level lighting will bave a
significant impact tbat can not be mitigated well througb vegetation and/or berms.
Conclusion
In summary, the DEIR has identified two areas where there is significant impact that
would require a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" under CEQA. We continue to
believe there are flaws in the DEIR and FEIR, and we believe that there are other areas
where there has been inadequate study, and/or an impact should have been classified as
"significant" rather than "less than significant", including some of those identified above.
On technical issue alone, can see no compelling reason for the Town of Tiburon to
conclude that Kol Shofar deserves any waivers, approvals or permits to proceed.
At a more basic level, we oppose the town approving this plan. Simply, the project
does not fit witb the neighborhood. Despite being cast as a site for religious
celebration, Kol Shofar is on an expansive plan to build a school and party facility -
and to use these facilities until around midnight nearly half the nights of the year.
Tiburon is a quiet residential community, and Kol Shofar is buried in the heart of
one of its quietest neighborhoods. I again ask if anyone on tbe Commission would
want this next to their home?
r
Lee Kranefuss
Nina Frank
Attachment #1: CUP letter of 3/17/2004
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Planning Director, Town of Tiburon
Lee Kranefuss & Nina Frank, 35 Reedland Woods Way, Tiburon
March 17, 2004
Kol Shofar Synagogue review of Conditional Use Permit
We write to you to encourage that the Conditional Use Permit for Kol Shofar be reviewed
by the full Planning Commission, and to request that the permit be either revoked or
amended due to what we believe is continuing non-compliance.
We live in the house adjacent to the Kol Shofar Synagogue. Since we purchased our
house five years ago, we have had considerable difficulty with the synagogue and its
relationship with the neighborhood. Our experience comes not only as neighbors, but,
sadly, as members of the synagogue as well. Specifically, we believe the synagogue is in
violation of its permit in a number of areas, and there are numerous reasons for
reconsideration of the permit.
One of the greatest concerns is with regard to traffic in the neighborhood. The 1997
permit, in section 2.2, says that the town should monitor growth "with regard to adequacy
of parking, traffic congestion, and neighborhood compatibility." Reedland Woods Way
is a quiet, dead-end street. Due to increased membership that uses the main parking lot,
as well as traffic that repeatedly and frequently uses the (unauthorized) "emergency"
entrance (designated for handicapped access only), traffic is frequently dangerous on a
street with over 20 small children. Quite frequently people not only use the "emergency"
road, but, in addition, they run the stop sign at the bottom of the road. Exiting traffic
from the main lot is also heavy, and frequently dangerous due to erratic and haphazard
driving while people exit and enter during peak congestion. We believe that this is, de
facto, inadequate and incompatible with the character of the neighborhood - and thus
runs against the conditions imposed in section 2.2 requiring "adequacy of parking.. . and
neighborhood compatibility."
Section 2.5 asserts that "permittee will conduct an educational program. ..concerning
traffic and parking. The program will include written materials...". As a member, I can
tell you that we have never been aware of such a program being executed in the five years
we have been here. At best the very minimum information required in 2.5A, 2.5B and
2.5e is included as part of the High Holy Days tickets once per year (as the synagogue
noted in its letter related to the 2001 amendment). However, the permit language says
such notification should be "included", but indicates that more should be done
("... permittee will conduct an educational program... "). To the best of our knowledge,
there has never been such a program - despite repeated requests from the neighborhood
to see one implemented. As a matter of fact, we have on occasion been aware of verbal
instructions to members specifically encouraging them to violate the use conditions (e.g.,
telling people to use the emergency roadway to speed up the drop-off of children).
Section 2.15 requires the permittee to "advise and educate its tenant" (a school) about the
conditions of the use permit. However, numerous complaints on our part to the
synagogue about traffic problems have been met with the response that it is not
synagogue members causing the problem, but, rather, that it is poor behavior on the part
of the tenants - over which the synagogue has no control. By abrogating ultimate
responsibility, we believe the synagogue is in non-compliance with its permit.
Section 2.16 requires that the synagogue appoint a "responsible and accessible
person... to act as the official contact person for surrounding neighborhoods." Our
experience over the years is that calls to that person are frequently unanswered or not
returned. This is a clear violation of the use permit.
In 200] the permit was amended. Attached to the 200] amendment is a letter from the
congregation to the town. It makes assertions that we believe are not consistent with the
views of the neighborhood. In particular, the letter claims "we have... enjoyed a good
relationship with our neighbors." In fact, we believe the neighborhood, in large part, is
quite upset with the synagogue, its continuing traffic problems, and its unwillingness to
put forth adequate effort to address serious safety, quality-of-life, and environmental
issues in a quiet residential community. In fact, the relationship is so adversarial that it is
our understanding that the neighborhood sued the synagogue before we moved in over
issues related to the use of the facilities.
Overall, we believe the continued use of the facility is not in keeping with character of
the neighborhood, and, in addition, not in keeping with the conditions required by the use
permit (as outlined above), and that this should be considered by the Commission in full.
Attachment #2: Initial EIR letter of 12/6/2004
To: Tiburon Planning Commission
From: Lee Kranefuss & Nina Frank
35 Reedland Woods Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
Cc: Christy Seidel, Secretary, Tiburon Neighborhood Trust
Date: December 6,2004
Re: EIR study for KoI Shofar Synangogue expansion plans
We live in the neighborhood of KoI Shofar We have carefully read their application for
expansion, and have attended meetings between Kol Shofar and the neighborhood.
When we moved to Tiburon, our goal was to enjoy the quality of life offered by the Town.
Tiburon is a collection of quiet residential suburban neighborhoods, composed of small
side roads, whose intended application is for residential dwellings. It is bisected by one
major roadway (Tiburon Blvd.), which is the only road in town able to support any
degree of traffic and noise. As a result, most development of large or high volume
facilities (such as churches, businesses, or schools) has been restricted to the immediate
vicinity of Tiburon Blvd. This action is consistent with the Master Plan of the town,
which should guide all decisions with respect to Kol Shofar.
Having lived near Kol Shofar for over 6 years, we believe that the intended expansion is
not only not in keeping with the character for the neighborhood, but is inconsistent with
the Master Plan. Even at its current usage levels and size, Kol Shofar has been the
subject of extensive difficulty which has come to the attention of the Planning
Commission in the past. It is already a high volume facility dropped into a neighborhood
with inadequate parking, a "bowl-like" environment that concentrates noise, and
inadequate streets to support traffic volume. The neighborhoods immediately
surrounding Kol Shofar are quiet, dark (at night), and full of children and families which
have chosen to live in their homes precisely because they are safe, and residential in
nature.
Attempts to work with Kol Shofar to mitigate its impact in the past have been met with
limited cooperation. Indeed, past efforts by Kol Shofar to expand have led to litigation.
It is inconceivable that the facility expansion proposed by Kol Shofar can be reconciled
with the current and intended nature of the neighborhood.
Kol Shofar has often raised this as an issue of religious freedom. We strongly disagree
on this point. Prior to this application, our family was a member ofKo] Shofar. We have
withdrawn from the synagogue due to our extreme disappointment of the adversarial
nature of Kol Shofar in planning this development - and indeed, in their unwillingness to
work with the neighborhood to alleviate problems caused by operating at the current scale
under the Conditional Use Permit.
This is not an issue of religious freedom. It is an issue of the appropriate usage of a
residential neighborhood. Kol Shofar wishes to build new (and unsightly) commercial
facilities to accommodate 300-600 people, often for "life cycle" events such as Bar
Mitzvahs and weddings, most of which would occur in a residential setting at nights and
on weekends - with traffic, alcohol, amplified music, etc. I believe that if a newspaper
(which could also claim First Amendment protection) tried to build a facility to
accommodate this many people, and anticipated parties most weekend nights of the year,
the Planning Commission would reject the proposal as inconsistent with the
neighborhood. The issue is not one of religious freedom: it is whether the high-impact
usage envisioned is suitable for this neighborhood, or any in residential Tiburon. It is not.
I ask the Planning Commission to fulfill its duties to the citizens of Tiburon. We moved
here (at considerable cost, as have many others) because Tiburon provides a quiet
residential community. We believe that that should be preserved. It concerns many in
the neighborhood that there seems to be an assumption on the part of the town and the
Commission that Kol Shofar is de facto entitled to do what it wants with this property.
We disagree: rather, it is the burden of the applicant to show that what they want to do is
entirely in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and the Tiburon Master Plan
and zoning ordinances. It is not.
The neighborhood is now mobilizing to oppose this plan - not only for the sake of this
neighborhood, but for the sake of Tiburon neighborhoods in general. This sort of
development can only be supported in the vicinity of Tiburon Blvd. (if it can be
supported in Tiburon at all). However, we believe the first line of defense should be the
Planning Commission, which is there to represent the community at large. Again, the
burden should be on the applicant to prove conformance - not on the community to prove
non-conformance. The EIR should accomplish this by testing the assumptions of Kol
Shofar against the character of the neighborhood.
Attached is a list of issues I believe need particular attention in the EIR. While not
exhaustive, it does cover some of the key points.
Lee Kranefuss
Nina Frank
EIR issues
1. Lighting. Reedland Woods Way (RWW) has only one streetlight at the top. The
neighborhood is essentially completely dark on moonless nights. Kol Shofar's (KS)
expansion indicates it will have late night lighting on poles. This is inconsistent with the
character of the neighborhood.
2. Noise. KS has conducted a noise study that is flawed in two ways. It compared
daytime background noise against daytime noise during periods of current KS activities.
The actual application calls for increased noise at times (nights) when the neighborhood
is nearly silent. The question that must be addressed is, how much noise will be added at
times and levels of anticipated usage? Parties running until 11 or 12 at night are very
different in intensity and quality than daytime traffic. The night time quiet of the
neighborhood will be destroyed by this proposal.
3. I note also that I believe KS has used the wrong standard in assessing even current
noise. They have used softWare designed for estimating the sound impact (via time-
weighting) of major roadways. Time weighting "evens out" impacts in a way that is not
appropriate for this facility study. Thus, applicant claims the sound increase is (or will
be) below the threshold of detectability (1 dB). Time weighting would allow one to make
this statement if extremely loud but infrequent noises occurred that would be very
disturbing! With adequate time-weighting, one could launch a 747 daily from the
parking lot of Kol Shof:;rr, at midnight, and claim the increase "is below the level of
detectability". Clearly, it would not be, and would not be consistent with the nature of
the neighborhood The key metric needs to be peak noise versus average background at
the time when the new facility is intended to be used.
4. Parking. Parking is already inadequate. Adding 40 spaces will not solve the problem
- it will become quite a bit worse with the anticipated increase in usage. In addition,
expanding parking will be visually unappealing, will increase noise and fumes for
adjoining properties (through bringing cars closer), will increase surface that reflects both
light and sound, will increase runoff, and will further burden roads with increased traffic.
5. Visual impact. KS has submitted photos showing that they believe there will be
almost no visual impact form the facility. The locations and angles they chose were
intentionally chosen to make it appear that way. A full review of the visual impact needs
to be made - from all angles and perspectives, nit just the applicant's chosen few.
6. Overall conformance with the Master Plan. The Master Plan lays out the intended
long tenn character and allowable uses for various forms of neighborhood in Tiburon.
The KS application needs to be very carefully vetted against every point in the Master
Plan.
220 Blackfield Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
March 21, 2006
RECEIVeD
MAR 2 3 2006
Dear Planning Commission:
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TlBUROr~
Weare writing to mention our concerns with the Congregation Kol Shofar application for
extensive building, remodeling, and the conditional use permit. We have read the Final
Environmental Impact Report concerning the requested changes by CKS, and are
concerned about many aspects.
The most prominent concern is noise and traffic that will be created if the application were
accepted as is. Our neighborhood is full of families, it is quiet, and it is very residential in
nature. CKS' s request for extended . hours every day of the week for large groups of people
is in no way harmonious with our neighborhood, or frankly any neighborhood in Tiburon.
The noise and traffic that would result does not fit with our residential community. Most
of our school-aged children are in bed by 7:30 or 8:00 pm with most adults not too much
later. We can just imagine what the noise and traffic would be like based on the current
Jewish high holidays where there are extended hours and much traffic clogging our streets.
1t is an annoyance and it is disruptive to our usual lives however, because it is 1-2 times a
year, it is livable right now. However, CKS's requests to continue this practice with
parties and events, is not livable.
In reading through the Final Environmental Impact Report, it is our understanding that
traffic and noise issues are clearly issues pointed out by the consultant. In fact, they are
unmitigated issues that do not have a clear solution for a project like this. We would hope
that the Town would surely see this as a problem and this would be another reason that the
project should not move forward as requested. In order to solve these problems, traffic
would need to be reduced by limiting the number of attendees to events and hours would
need to be restrictive (nothing past 7 pm). There is no need on CKS's part for extended
hours or the large volumes of people they are requesting. The high holiday services are
currently split, like many other conservative Jewish synagogues in the country and the area
(Congregation Beth Sholom in San Francisco) and parties after life cycle events are in no
way a requirement in the Jewish faith. We have restaurants, civic centers, and community
centers if one chooses to have a party that are located in business'districts.
We support CKS' s request to do some remodel work, however we don't support nighttime
hours for activities with large numbers of people. Additionally, we do not support the
addition of a multipurpose room. We need to keep our residential neighborhood safe,
quiet, and a peaceful place to enjoy family life. We hope that the Town feels the same and
can put some limitations on this extensive project.
SjPcerely,
~~.~~~O~
I Samantha and James Winter
220 Blackfield Drive
220 Blackfield Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
March 21,2006
~ ~~~~20:6~!~'
Dear Planning Commission:
PLANNING DIVISiCJ:,
TOWN OF TlBUPQlL,"
We are writing to stress our concerns with the Congregation Kol Shofar's application for
extensive building, remodeling, and a conditional use permit. We have read the Final
Environmental Impact Report concerning the requested changes by CKS, and are concerned
about the many impacts that the plan. would have on our neighborhood. aspects.
The most prominent concern is the level of noise and traffic that will be created if the
application were accepted as is. Our neighborhood is full of families, it is quiet, and it is very
residential in nature. CKS' s request for extended hours every day of the week fot large
groups of people is in no way harmonious with our neighborhood, or frankly any
neighborhood in Tiburon. The noise and traffic that would result does not fit with our
residential community. Most of our school-aged children are in bed by 7:30 or 8:00 pm with
most adults not too much later. We can just imagine what the noise and traffic would be like
based on the current Jewish high holidays where there are extended hours and much traffic
clogging our streets. It is an annoyance and it is disruptive to our usual lives however,
because it is 1-2 times a year, it is livable right now. CKS's request to expand the hours of
this practice with parties and events for a significantly greater number of people would not be
livable.
In reading through the Final Environmental Impact Report, it is our understanding that traffic
and noise issues are issues clearly pointed out by the consultant. In fact, they are unmitigated
issues that do not have a clear solution for a project like this. We would hope that the Town
will surely see this as a problem and this would be another reason that the project should not
move forward as requested. In order to solve these problems, traffic would need to be
reduced by limiting the number of attendees to events and hours would need to be restrictive
(for example, nothing past 7 pm). There is no religious or faith based need on CKS's part for
extended hours or the large volumes of people they are requesting: the high holiday services
are currently split, like many other conservative Jewish synagogues across the country and in
the area (e.g., Congregation Beth Sholom in San Francisco), and parties after life cycle events
are not a requirement of the Jewish faith. We have many restaurants, civic centers, and
community centers in the immediate area if one chooses to have a party after an event held at
CKS..
We support CKS' s request to do some remodeling work, however we don't support nighttime
hours for activities with large numbers of people. Additionally, we do not support the addition
of a multipurpose room. We need to keep our residential neigbborhood safe, quiet, and a
peaceful place to enjoy family life. We hope that the Town feels tbe same and can put some
limitations on this extensive project.
Sincerely,
,J~~ t{J~
, Samantha and James Winter
220 Blackfield Drive
.~
Richard Goldwasser, M.D.
38 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburon, CA 94920
March 21,2006
Town of Tiburon
Planning Commission and City Council
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Congregation KoI Shofar Proposed Remodel and Expansion
Dear Planning commission and Town Council Members,
I am writing both as a neighbor of Congregation Kol Shofar, and as an active
member of the synagogue. I attend classes and services, and have 3 children who have
attended religious sch€>ol since kindergarten. 1 value deeply the mission of Kol Shofar.
However, as a family who has lived in Tiburon for 9 years; whose kids walk and
bike to school and to Blackie's Pasture, I strongly oppose the expansion of the
synagogue.
The Temple leadership and EIR do not accurately portray the existing impact that
Kol Shofar has on the neighborhood. As membership has tripled over the past 20 years,
so have the traffic, parking, noise, and safety issueS (e.g., from my own home, I hear
happy, loud voices during the days and as people leave events at 10:30 p.m.)
I, as well as neighbors, have not complained over the years, not wanting to be
perceived as unwelcormng, angry, or hostile.
As a member, I feel appreciative of the good aspects < of Kol Shofar, but
responsible for the clogged streets on High Holidays, Saturday mornings, and Sunday
mornings when congregants' cars make driving, bicychng, and even walking more
hazardous. One of my daughter's classmates was almost killed in broad daylight as a car
failed to stop at Blackfield and Karen Way as she crossed the street. This is scary,
particularly since Bel Aire School is busy not just during the week, but also on many
weekends throughout the year.
Re: Congregation Kol Shofar Proposed Remodel and Expansion
21 March 2006
Page 2
It is now, with Kot Shofar's proposed expansion, that the surrounding community
is speaking up. The impact is already intense; nobody wants to see their quality of life
and the safety of Tiburon residents degraded with an expansion that is sure to overwhelm
this residential neighborhood with more cars, more noise, and more hours of congestion.
Kol Shofar's Executive Director, Mark Levy, argues disingenuously that the
proposed Multi-purpose Room is Hnecessary for religious purposes-to properly
accommodate High Holiday observance and life-cycle events year round (e.g., Bar or Bat
Mitzvahs)." This is, quite simply, not true. Except for the High Holidays, the sanctuary,
which seats over 700 people, always accommodates members and guests adequately for
religious services, life-cycle events, classes, lectures, and other special events. To justifY
the expansion as a religious imperative is unethical and blatantly wrong.
There are 3 days per year (Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) for which more
people come to Kot Shofar than can be seated at one time in the current sanctuary.
Kol Shofar has joined countless other Conservative Jewish Congregations by providing
Early and Late Services to satisfy congregants' needs during these High Holidays. . Also,
space is used at the Presbyterian Church for children's and alternative services. This has
been an acceptable compromise that Rabbi Lavey Derby has been willing to make for
many years. There is no compelling reason to change this practice. If anything, 1his
arrangement has buih relationships between Kol Shofar and the non "Jewish community
of Tiburon.
Similarly, a larger space for receptions following life-cycle events is not necessary.
Currently following services, weddings, or BarlBat Mitzvahs, people gather in an existing
room for blessings, ceremonial food and drink, talk, and light food. This is usually
followed by people going home or to other venues for a party (e.g., Mill Valley
Community Center, which seats 250, Strawberry Recreation Center, which seats 265, or a
restaurant).
I am told this Multi-Purpose Room will be used for parties, which are, of course,
not an essential part of Kol Shofar's religious or educational mission. As a congregant, it
would be nice to not have to go elsewhere for the party, but as a neighbor, it seems
grossly inappropriate to so profoundly impact other peoples' lives purely for
convenience, particularly when we recall how many more cars will remain parked on the
streets for more hours, tbat people are loud even outdoors after happy events~ and that
these life-cycle events could occur on over 40 weekend days and nights per year until as
late as midnight! Most Jewish congregations do not hold receptions on site~ why should
Kot Shofar be different?
Re: Congregation Kot Shofar Proposed Remodel and Expansion
21 March 2006
Page 3
In summary, the Multi-purpose Room is not necessary for religious or educational
purposes and will negatively impact Tiburon in many ways. The Temple leadership is
distorting Jewish law and tradition in order to justify an expansion It ought to be
rejected outright.
Although I really would prefer not to have the noise and traffic that comes with a
large remodel, I do see a need. The building is old, and classroom space can be
mad equate, especially on Sunday mornings when many children and adults come to
. Kot Shofar. The Annex is particularly in need of work and could easily be used to
greater advantage; currently much of that space is poorly utilized.
It is noteworthy that the plans call for no increase in classrooms, and that last year
the synagogue actually eliminated teaching. positions. All this, combined with "the ffi-Ost
recent problems with embezzlement by the former controller at Kol Shofar, ought to give
. us pause before approving a plan that has no benefit for Tiburon.
Please feel free to call upon me if you have any questions regarding the above.
Sincerely,
fC' c k(J C-I! ~
. Richard Goldwasser, M.D.
Susan Goldwasser, M.D.
38 Pas eo Mirasol
Tiburon, CA 94920
March 21, 2006
Town ofTiburon
Planning Commission and City Council
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Congregation Kol Shofar Proposed Remodel and Expansion
Dear Planning Commission and Town Council Members,
I am a member of Kol Shofar, and I live in the neighborhood. The Kol Shofar
leadership is misinforming the town by saying it is Jewish law that
weddings/Bar Mitzvahs (i.e., life-cycle events) and receptions need to be held in the
same place. It is more convenient, but not necessary.
Most Jewish congregations in the world, as well as in California, .do not have
banquet facilities on site, and they are certainly in compliance with Jewish law.
It is an unethical distortion to assert Ko1 Shofar must have wedding/Bar Mitzvah
receptions, complete with catering facilities (1000 sq. foot kitchen) and state-of-the-art
soundproofing to accommodate bandslDJs, in order to fulfill a religious mandate.
The religious ceremonies of Jewish weddings and Bar .Mitzvahs take place in
Temple sanctuaries. Kol Shofar's current sanctuary already accommodates over
700 people. Life-cycle events have taken place successfully for years within the existing
space. How many more people do they need to accommodate? They say it is
"necessary" to have an additional 9733 sq. foot multi-purpose room which will seat
600 additional guests. Who has a party with over 700 guests, never mind space for an
extra 600? I doubt even the Bush twins when they marry will have that many guests.
Only in Tiburon would you string together the words - necessary, Bar Mitzvah
event, i.e., party and 9000 sq. foot banquet facility.
Perhaps the Kol Shofar leadership needs to be acquainted with the Chinese
proverb, "Better big heart than big house."
Re: Congregation Kol Shofar Proposed Remodel and Expansion
21 March 2006
Page 2
I would encourage Town Council and Planning Commission members to contact
several Rabbis and inquire if there is any compelling religious justification for needing a
banquet facility on site so Jewish ceremonies and parties can occur in the same place.
A banquet facility will bring unwelcome traffic and noise to our residentia,}
community. Doesn't Tiburon bave an ordinance concerning noise pollution? Why
should we have such different standards than our Belvedere neighbors?
In all due respect, please do not grant Kot Shofar permission for this
multi-purpose/banquet hall out of religious concerns because our current sanctuary seats
over 700 people and is more than adequate to fulfill our religious obligations.
Sincerely,
i/ . J.l (f (J
_, .rt-GWVV\ /. /(jli...d(/VZL.~,.
Susan Goldwasser, M.D.
TIMOTHY
METZ
AND JENNIFER JOR~
~ ~7_~,
v~Ar: 2 3 200S
March 23, 2006
'~.
, ~..
!.~;;'~1'
PLANNING DIVISION
lOWN OF TIBURON
Town of Tiburon Planning Commission and
Tiburon Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re.: Kol Shofar Expansion Plans - Final EIR and Merits commentary
Dear Tiburon Planning Commissioners and Tiburon Town Council Members:
We are writing today as a follow-up to our letter of August 2005 concerning the proposed expansion to
the Congregation Kol Shofar facilities at 215 Blackfield Drive. We have reviewed the final EIR and feel that it
proposes inadequate mitigation measures that will still leave very significant impacts on those neighborhoods
surrounding the facility. All issues described in our prior letter are still valid today. We feel there is no adequate
mitigation measure proposed to effectively alleviate the very significant impacts that our neighborhood will
experience if this project is allowed to move ahead. The major mitigation measure in the Final EIR is 1-7 (the
"receipt" system) on page 190. Other people writing letters are addressing this in detail, but suffice it to say
that the proposed receipt system to mitigate significant impacts for traffic, parking, safety and noise is flawed
from its conception. It has no successful precedent to show it will work and will still leave neighborhood
residents having to live with the very significant impacts that this project would bring into their lives.
We take no issue with Congregation Kol Shofar's desire to improve and renovate their facilities and
landscape their property; in fact we would welcome this. However, we do not support the level of expansion
of both facilities and activities as proposed in the EIR. We feel that allowing this expansion to continue will
pose significant safety and other issues for the surrounding neighborhoods.
Safety for all neighborhood residents, especially for our children, is our biggest concern with the Kol
Shofar proposal. The proposed change to the traffic flow that will put the main entrance to the parking lot on
Reedland Woods Way is a huge safety concern for us. First, placing a parking lot entrance that will see at least
100 cars per event on a 10 house cul de sac is obviously a significant impact. There is no way around the fact
that going from 20 cars using the street (2 cars per family) to 120 is a 600% increase in the traffic utilization of
the street. With all of this additional traffic comes the dramatically increased probability that there will be an
accident involving a pedestrian or another vehicle. Compounding this risk is the fact that the intersection of
Blackfield Drive and Reedland Woods Way is a very dangerous intersection. The sight line for drivers making a
left turn from Blackfield onto Reedland Woods Way is marginal at best (150 feet maximum) and when cars are
parked on either street, the sight line is wholly inadequate to allow a safe left turn (no more than 100 feet). Add
to this the minimal queuing distance for cars entering the parking lot, the large crowds expected at events and
the minimal queuing distance on Blackfield and you have a traffic disaster waiting to happen. Will drivers
rushing to an event at Kol Shofar look carefully for pedestrians (like our children as they attempt to cross the
street) or will they be worried about oncoming traffic coming down Blackfield as they try to slide into the
recently vacated spot in the parking queue when they are 10 minutes late for a wedding? We all know what the
answer should be, but we also all know the reality. Our kids will be significantly more at risk than they would
be if the entrance was not placed on Reedland Woods Way. There is no proposed mitigation for this.
There are currently at least 20 children living on Reedland Woods \V'ay Each of these children walks
down Reedland \Xloods \V'ay and crosses the street at Blackfield Drive when they go to the park, to school, to
The Cove, etc (which most of these kids do at least once per day). If you allow Kol Shofar to alter their
parking configuration to allow ingress on Reedland Woods Way, our children will be faced with a HUGE
-2-
March 23, 2006
increase in risk and in traffic as they struggle to walk across the street at that intersection. Naturally this also
increases the risk of an accident and injuries or fatalities at that intersection. Please prevent us from the
possibility of an accident and maintain the Reedland Woods Way parking lot access as exit only.
One of the main reasons that Kol Shofar cites for needing this expansion is the religious hw requiring
them to hold their High Holy Days services as a community in a single service at th~ same time. However
religious law does not state that they need to worship together in a new multi purpose room and redesigned
sanctuary at 215 Blackfield Drive. If this was such an important la"'l, why have they not conducted their High
Holy Days services in a suitable offsite events facility or large church? Why have they not setup temporary
tents for those 3 days of the year when they cannot acco.;nmodate everyone in the sanctuary so they can
worship together? If this religious law is so critically important to the practice of their faith, surely they would
. not have gone for so long with split services?
It is a fundamental fact of our modern world that there are very few synagogues (conservative or reform)
with congregational memberships of 500 or greater that actually hold their High Holy Days services in their
own temple as a single service. Most larg~ congregations make a compromise on High Holy Days. They either
choose that worshipping in their own facility is their priority and they split their service (like Kol Shofar, Beth
David in Saratoga, Beth Sholom in Encino, Beth Sholom in San Francisco, Aliyah in Woodland Hills, etc.) OR
they find a suitable off site facility that is large enough to accommodate their cong~egation for the three days
of the year that they require a facility of that size (like Beth Haverim in Agoura Hills, B'nai Sholom in Walnut
Creek, etc.). Some congregations actually do both a split ~erVice AND hold services off site (such as Sinai
Temple in Los Angeles and Rodef Sholom in San futfael).
Kol Shofar has been violating religious law because they have chosen to violate religious law All they ever
had to do to not violate religious law is to conduct their High Holy Days services as a single service off site at
an event facility or a church that can hold their congregation in one place at one time like many other
synagogues (conservative, reform and reconstructionist) have been doing for years.
In summary, while we recognize and respect Kol Shofar's need to serve their community, this expansion
plan goes far beyond these needs. We embrace Kol Shofar's desire to improve their facilities by
renovating/ rebuilding the existing space. However, we do not view the additions of a multi use room and
associated parking lot expansion as necessary to serve their community. We also feel that these two aspects of
their expansion plan significantly change the character of the residential neighborhood in which they are
located. We hope that the Planning Commission carefully considers these and other issues faced by people
who live in the neighborhood surrounding Kol Shofar when they review the proposals and vote on actions to
take.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, -
/'
~
Timothy Metz and Jennifer Jorgensen
5 11 R E E 0 LAN 0 \V 0 ODS \Xi A Y . T I BUR 0 N, CA. 9 4 9 2 n
PHONE 415.3835381
-,. DUHdru nClHer
31 Via Los Altos
Tiburon
CA 94920
Planning Commission
TO,"TI ofTiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon
CA 94920
23 March 2006
Dear Commissioners,
KoJ Shofar FEIR
Let's just dive into the points. .. .
Expansion
Kol Shofar's reticence in projecting cong:r:egation numbers hides its true intentions
11 is Kol Shofar that has chosen to expand its congregation and its activities, the
obligation must be on CKS to do so without causing any adverse impacts to a residential
neighborhood.
Kol Shofar has been looking for alternative premises for many years, it has either been
rejected by surrounding towns (see for example the enclosed (A) Larkspur committee
minutes of 20 July 2000, which refers to an approach by Kol Shofar that was, it is
understood, rejected because of noise traffic and parking concerns) or the price of
development in a suitable location has been too high.
The current application is seen as very much a last resort by CKS because it knew there
would be so many issues surrounding the development, this also permits it to do the
development on the cheap without having to pay a premium (or anything in fact) for
'entitled land'.
/
l{M 001/010
I
03/23/2006 10:48 IF~1
~ Edward Baker
I4J002/010
Despite requests from many commentators and two of the planning commissioners the
FEIR has failed to anal yze the likely fluure growth of the congregation, it is reasonable
for the FEIR consultant to say projecting such growth is not within its ambit, however it
is also reasonable to require CKS to provide projected growth estimates and require tbe
FEIR consultant to critically review these.
The lack of such projections from CKS can only be because it expects there will be
further growth from the ne\v facilities.
The Koret foundation is an organization that provides funds for the development of the
Jewish community in the Bay area, CKS is one of the initial members in its initiatives
and there is a quote on the foundations website from a Koret Synagogue rabbi along the
lines of "if you build it then the people will come"(sec enclosed B).
The CKS application cites a maximum attendance of 400 for even special religious
observances (excepting High Holy days) yet is planning on remodeling the sanctuary to
accommodate 550 permanent seats. If CKS is permitted to build this size sanctuary and
the multipurpose facility then the Town cannot impose any limits through the CUP or
otherwise on attendances.
At present over two thirds of CKS members are from outside Tiburon, FElR page 271,
refR20, with the expanded facilities CKS can become .much more ofa regional centre tor
conferences and educational events.
Inconsistencies between the Project and the General Plan
There are several General Plan Goals and Policies tbat the FEIR claims the Project is
consistent with, whereas either the project is inconsistent or that determination has to be
made by the Planning Commission. For the latte~ these should be considered individually
by the Planning Commission and each explicitly concluded upon rather than accepted by
default.
Inconsistencies
LU B: Page 7 FEIR The project threatens the health and safety of the
community througb the increased parking and traffic in a residential
neigh borhood.
z
LV H: Page 8 The multi purpose room will mainly be used for parties - this is
not a school or church purpose; it is recreational. There are sufficient
qualitative differences between this proposal and the St Hilary project, for
example St Hilary does not hold late night parties in any of its facilities.
LU ]1, LU 12 and LV 13: Page 9110 Views and Architectural Merit, just
because the project does not block panoramic views does not mean it isn't an
eyesore. The existing building is massive, bulky and monotonous the Town
should not be encouraging the enlargement of same hence the project IS
inconsistent.
The same applies in respect of OSC 31 Page 13.
Items for the Planning Commission to opine on
LV C and LU D Page 9 FEIR It is left to the Planning Commission to
determine jf this Project is in the "character" and "small village character" of
the community. Yet despite this the FEIR still concludes the project is
consistent.
The FEIR is fla\ved it should not reach the Planning Commissions conclusions for them
and shouJd clear))' summarize those matters the Planning Commission needs to deliberate
upon.
Noise
Building design
Despite some general discussion and recommendations (page 85 DEIR) there is neither
critical review of the actual proposed construction nor any requirements made thereof to
minimize noise impacts. Before any meaningful assessment can be made as to whether
there will be inlpacts or not from the 'Iifecycle events' there needs to be a thorough
understanding of \vhat the noise sources from these events will be and how the building
design will attenuate same.
'LifecycIe' Event Noise
The suggestion in Master Response 7 FEIR Page 43 that the event of October 2005 can
represent the noise from a nighttime party is difficult to accept. The event took place in
the early evening, was comparatively short and involved ritualized singing and dancing
with only "light snacks/dessert served". Also "many were children" (page 29 FEIR).
~ VVv,' V-LV
3
03/23/2006 10:48 IFt~
--'t Ed~'ard Baker
Existing Noise levels
The FEIR (page 43) states that two 24 hour noise measurements were taken to confirm
the ambient noise levels in the area, however the results of these are not given. These
should be provided.
Data presented is un-representative
CODnnentators have previously stated that the noise date is un-representative. On page
45 of tbe FEIR it notes a noise increase exceeding 3dBA as potentially significant yet
even though the I & R mea~urements of the increase in noise from the project~ at 6 - 10
dBA, are more than this 3 dBA over those of the CKS noise survey, being 2-7 dBA, it
considers these results "similar". This in fact demonstrates the CKS results are not
reliable and the whole noise survey should be performed by an independent consultant.
The FEIR is flawed and a full independent noise analysis is required.
Timescale
Previous commentators have asked about the time construction will take and their
concerns are enhanced by the lack of any reply in the FEIR and the suggestion on page
30 that the project will be built in phases. Such extended disruption from construction is
unnecessary and the construction period should be limited to a single six month window.
Site Maintenance
In the response to OSC 65 Page 15, the FEIR states "'the applicant has been removing
broom. . ." this statement is incorrect. The main area upon which broom grows is above
the upper entrance drive off via Los Altos - it is obvious the broom has not been cleared
from this area - as opposed to the private landowner immediately across the street who
regularly clears broom from a similar size are~ as do the owners of 32 Via Los Altos.
Doug Mack's Jetter of December 16 2004 included in the DEIR has photographs showing
the lack of site maintenance, in particular there is a picture of a thriving Pampas Grass
plant at the Reedland Woods exit from CKS, this plant continues to thrive as of today's
date.
The FEIR is factually flawed and unrepresentative on this subject leading to doubts about
its credibility in any other respect.
!4J004/010
4-
--'> Edward Baker
Parking Mitigation
The suggested Alternative Mitigation Measure 4 discussed on page 190 of the FEIR is
prima facie quite appea]ing~ however it suffers many shortcomings:
r
the tickets I receipts idea has too many deficiencies to even begin to list, let me
merely tell of two friends of mine who, many years ago whilst students, worked at a
leisure park~ one was in the booth selling tickets and the other collected the tickets at
the gate, the scam simply involved anyone wearing a blue shirt not being given a
ticket when they paid and the accomplice at the gate knowing not to ask for a ticket
from these people, the 'surplus' proceeds were split at the end of the day. One of
these friends is now an eminent medical doctor and the other an attorney.
it relies on KeS advising the Town of the dates and timing of events
the sample size for independent review is too small to be meaningful
there is no mechanism for input from local residents or for local residents to report
violations
the penalties are vague and insignificant
it requires .violations' over three years before even these vague penalties may be
brought
there is no defInition of what constitutes a 'violation' is one car parked on the street a
.violation'
how to tell if a violator is not someone other than a CKS member - you can just see
the reports from the observers along the lines of ..several cars were seen parked on
the neighborhood streets during the event, it could not be determined whether these
represented persons attending the KS event or local residents and so these are not
considered violations".
Significant Impacts
There remain the parlcing and noise impacts which cannot be mitigated.
There are in addition 23 potentially significant impacts listed in the DEIR that are
claimed to be capable of mitigation; whilst individually these are not significant post
mitigation. coIlectively there remain significant impacts from these.
This gets to the whole issue of the development of CKS, there has been a gradual erosion
of the neighborhood over the twenty years there comes a point to call a halt and say
141005/010
r
03/23/2006 10:49 IF~\
--; Edward Baker
l.
enough we do not ant to see a continual progressIve creepIng degradation of our
environment.
School Buildings
CKS has been vague in describing how the new classrooms will be used, on page 13,
paragraph 4 DEIR, it says the new classrooms Inay replace existing classrooms, until it is
clear what organization win use these the FEIR is unable to conclude whether or not
there will be any i,mpacts therefrom.
Internal Remodeling
As with the school buildings CKS is economical with facts about what the internal
remodeling will be and whilst it lists a capacity of 550 for the newly remodeled sanctuary
it also lists a capacity of 150 for the chapel. There are also numerous other rooms and
classrooms. 'The FEIR fails to review the internal remodeling and fails to discuss how
lllultiple simultaneous events will impact the environment.
Conclusion
CKS is very much aware of the flaws in the DEIR that was based largely on its data and
was very much concerned that an independent report would be required. See extract
from The Jewish News Weekly www.ie\vlshsf.com enclosed where Howard Zack
expresses these concern~ (C).
If the multipurpose room is built the Town cannot impose through the. CUP or otherwise
limits on the size of community religious events - the only limit is the physical plant size.
Yours sincerely
~ rtIl
Edward Baker
141006/010
~
Gail. If Albertson's decides to sell, use of the existing
parking area will be very important. Sidewalks should
be included along Dougherty. It's important to consider
play fields in some - of the alternatives because joint
development with the School District is not guaranteed.
High density housing will require large amounts of
asphalt, which will generate large amounts of nmoff.
(no name). Whicbaltemative best addresses traffic
congestion on Dougherty?
Charles. It's important to retain the existing railroad
view corridor and the existing Redwood grove. The
amount of traffic generated from proposed uses must be
calculated for eacb alternative. Perhaps a site visit
would help the Committee better understand how the
different elements relate to each other.
Marilyn. Need a better understanding of how much
traffic will be generated.
James. A bicycle path should be included parallel to
Magnolia. If it's located away from a main arterial,
bicyclists would not use it.
(no name). Support uses in Alternative X in subareas A
and B. The alternative diagrams should be posted on
the web.
Mart.. The proposed plaza in subarea A needs to be
bi and should function as a Town
Karen Polivy. Retaining the gas station is important
because it provides a valuable service to Larkspur
residents. The alternatives show too much housing.
The Kol Shofar Synagogue is interested in relocating to
this site. This provides an opportunity for joint use such
as shared classrooms.
. Bob Pendoley responded that Kol Shofar had
approached City staff about a possible development
including a synagogue, school, community center and
other facilities. Staff advised Kol Shofar that they could
address the CLASP Committee under public comment
time on the agenda. Yesterday the property owner's
attorney wrote a letter to the City Council objecting. that
staff was interfering with their property rightc;. The
Council has asked staff not to take up the issue pending
advice from the Ci Attome.
ar. synagogue would not generate as much
traffic conge~1ion as the proposed alternatives. There is
a tremendous amount of congestion already on
Dougherty.
~VV'/VJ..V
A
Mary. The alternative diagrams should illustrate the
existing Redwood grove.
Carl. Are there optional types of housing to consider?
Rebert. How many housing units are proposed fur eacb
alternative? Adding additional housing will increase
traffic. Where win the cars go? There. is already too
much congestion on Dougherty.
Barbara. The calculation of hou..<iing units should
include, . and make eXI"icit, the number devoted to
affordable housing. Re1aining the gas station is
important
Pam. Fifteen percent of tbe units in Larkspur Isle are
devoted to affordable housing.
Julia. Traffic congestion along Dougherty is a
"nightmare." A study analyzing traffic impacts is
important There seems to be too much parking in each
alternative. Consider locating a plaza at the comer of
Ward and Magnolia.
Ju. Why is the nursery depicted as an interim use?
Response: The Niven family has indicated they would
like the ability to develop the property for housing in the
julure.
Art. Traffic congestion must be reduced. The
alternatives should include uses and services that people
are willing to walk to (such as the pJa23).
Jeff. To en.sme sustainability, a diversity of housing
types should be encouraged. The bicycle path should
connect to the proposed plaza, as well as to the railroad
buildings.
Leo. The recommended changes should be illustrated
on the diagrams. Highway 101 is a "nightmare." There
are too many cars everywhere. It's important to
coordinate with other conununities in the region.
Chairperson GDardi asked the Committee to consider
the draft schedule found in the meeting packets. The
proposed schedule extends through calendar year 2000
and attempts to avoid conflicting community events
such as back-to-school nights, etc.
Some Committee members expressed concern about
whether the work could be completed by the end of the
Meeting #12
July 20. 2000
Page 4
Ce"truJ Ltzrlupllr ~cijk PIDn
7
03/23/2006 10:50 IFAX
Koret Foundation - Koret Synagogue Initiatives
1!.......~........................)..>;?I.'....'
. ~""
, . ~ , ..
-. ~ .'-, ....
~ '. # '. ...
" 'V _ '. -
. .
'. '..- - --
} D ~~ ~..~ -b tr.. -1' : ~) ~.;' j: ~~ N ~) ':~
';:.::5'
iL.ii:::ra;~
,~:...~ .
:....-:_,...~J~., -}.:~
. ~~Pu::'1'i
C~tactU. Ilif~t
.-;/~'.}:.::}:::::_~:~_:.:
~ '~..~l >"
~
--; Edward Baker 141008/010
Page 1 of 1
.:Koret. Synagogue Initiative
The Koret Synagogue Initiative
(KSI) represents a major
commitment to the continuity of
Jewish identity through the
restoration of the synagogue as th
central address for Jews. KSI
funding for synagogues allows an
expansion of programming to reach ..... .H. m..
more diverse segments of the
Jewish community, both affiliated and unaffiliated, thus attracting new
members and deepening the participation of existing members. The
Koret Foundation has funded KSf in three phases, beginning in 1995
with four Bay Area synagogues and expanding to a total of nine
synagogues several years later. Today, in multiple reform, conservative
and orthodox synagogues in the Bay Area, the third phase of KSI is
building on the success of the first two phases.
"If you build an authenti~ )ewish
community. one fn which Judaism
is Ji.e:d 3ttth(1J)tkaflr. hon~stly~
pas5iooue.J)'. .lOa joyfldly.th-e.n
~~ wfH come:'
-Ko'l.'t Syno{UJue htithniy~ ntbbl
Evaluation of the first two phases of the Koret Synagogue Initiative by
the Institute of Jewish Community and Research reports that KSI's
support for program staff in targeted synagogues has accomplished the
following objectives:
. increased membership
· increased involvement of existing members
· strengthened synagogue communities.
:..;;.,~ . ..~~~
..
"."l;:,
~!.-
~(I)
.
. Abc
. KOf
Initi
. Ko:
r-
-v
-P!
. ROt
. KOf
Aw
-c
-PI
. KOf
Put
-c
- PI
. KOf
Jev
-c
-.PI
· Ko:
Init
-D
-K
-G
-K
. Ko;
De'
. COI
.
Al?P!y'!~9j9!~1.(.?@~~t I -'~QL~t--'-nitJativf:s It>,baut Koret FOlmda!l9!} I N.E:~S~_r:!J!;lI':.~Clti9f1.~ I G.9.rl~.a.9.t
!.)~ IljQ.f))~
(C) 2001, Karel Foundat:ofl. Ai; :-ights rEserved
.. "'~:,,~..
'.~ '
'~
http://VvWW .koretfoundati on.org/initiatives/syn main.shti111
~
3/9/2006
---, DUnu.rU 1:Hi.Ker Igj 009/010
Koret Foundation - Koret Synagogue Initiative Page 1 of 4.
gr:~
_A'.. ~I ~.
~ ~.~~ (~ ~ r~ .A 'r 1 f) ~ t!.E ~~ E) ~
-' ..,
few . GJ"Wtt~ I-~~~
~Il;' ~i::;.' .,ifliP"'"
r~i,.;~~~l.;,~f.r.~".;.i.i....r.........;.i..
~h&~.;.J~, a. ~ '_"
>..;v'..~<.J.~,~:::'- ....:~. tf.tnl ,.:.:!.,;,:,. . .
r ~ '~;:::..v:': ~;"!:::.~.....'.: .'
:.~~~;~:~~~~;:~, -:.:~:
%~{~?~tf~r
e-onmt U$ ':~~~M;~~W~;{
~:~:~~~f:~r.t3~2fi
Koret Synagogue Initiative
~j.- y t~ ~~- ;~'O t1 t~8 s
Synagogues
Koret Synagogue Initiative - Phase I
Beth Am
Los Altos Hills
Reform
Size: 650
Sherith Israel
San Francisco
Reform
Size: 1,100
Beth Sholom
San Francisco
Conservative
Size: 650
t g .
(}. \~
v<) -- ~
rf ;cl1 P-J
~&~ 1QUe.Y.
K ~ ~o(k
(mJrrJ.',,~t .
Kof Shofar
Tiburon
Conservative
Size: 650
Sample Programs
Full-time program director I
community organizer, new member
workshops and social activities,
senior lunchtime series, retreats,
Morasha S'nai Mitzvah Family
Enrichment Program, Shabbaton,
extensive senior programs, informal
gatherings at congregant homes
with Beth Am's Rabbi and President
Talking Tachlis, young adult
havurot, creative Shabbat services,
Rosh Chodesh groups, social action
projects (AIDS walk, Sukkot in April,
etc), Women's Passover Seder,
Parent and Toddler Discussion Play
Group
Retreats, Feast of Jewish Learning,
Leamers' Minyan, congregational
retreat, poetry readings, senior
matinee, young adult programming,
Rosh Chodesh group, meditation
before Minyan, communrry-building
events Retreats, Feast of Jewish
Learning, Learners' Minyan,
congregational retreat, poetry
readings, senior matinee, young
adult programming, Rosh Chodesh
group, meditation before Minyan,
community-building events
Half-time program
director/community organizer,
Neshama Minyan (an alternative
service), Saturday Night at the
Synagogue, Erev Shabbat potlucks,
several small groups based on age,
life cycle, occupation, and
geography
Synagogues
Koret Synagogue Initiative ~ Phase If
Beth Am
Los Altos Hilts
Reform
Size: 650
Kol Shofar
Sample Programs
Shab..baton, a B'nai Mitzvah Family
Enrichment Program, membership
recruitment, the formation of a
social action committee, and family
camps
Saturday Night at the Synagogue,
http:// www .koretfoundati on. org/initiati ves/synagogue .shtml
f!Jr!)
.
. Abc
. KOf
Intti
. Kor
-. c,
-PI
. ROl
. Kor
Aw;
-c,
-PI
. Kor
Put
-CI
-PI
. Kor
Je't\
-c.
- P,
. KOf
Initi
-01
- K~
-Go
- K~
. Kor
De\
. Cor
r
3/9/2006
03/23/2006 10: 51 IFA..1. --7 Edward Baker
j. - Kol Shofar plans major makeover, but some neighbors are wary (print view)
~ 01 0/010
Page I o.f2 .
j.
(
bttp:/Iwww.jewisbstcom/COBteatl2-O-
ImodWeldisplaystoryJstory _ idn67061formatlbtmVedition _ id/514ldisplaystory.btml
-~
Kol Shofar plans major makeover, but some neighbors are wary
by joe eskenazi
staff writer
When the rainy season comes, Rabbi Lavey Derby removes the manuscripts from his top shelf and
replaces them with pots and pans to catch the rainwater, which will inevitably trickle through the roof.
To accommodate students., four of Congregation Kol Shofar's 24 classrooms are crammed beneath the
main sanctuary's balcony.
"We've literally outgrown every inch of space," said Derby in a slightly strained tone.
~~The building we're in, which was built by the town ofTiburo.n as a middle school in the 19605, was
comfo.rtable fo.r a community o.f 300. But it is really unsuitable fo.r a co.mmnnity o.f Qur size/' which is
twice that.
Finally, after years of searching unsuccessfully fo.r a larger site and, later, opting to work with what it
already has o.n its seven-acre plo~ Ko.l Shofar bas something to show for it The Conservative
congregatiQn has come up with plans for four additional classrooms and a 4,OOO-squaTe-foot
multipurpose structure with a seating capacity of 600. The congregation also aims to. renovate the
landscaping> exterior and interior of the existing buildings.
A IQQsely united coalition Qfthe synagogue's neighbors, however, is less than enthusiastic about the
plan.
At a Tiburon planning commission meeting earlier this mo~ members of the Tibmon Neighborhood
Coalition and their lawyer, Roger Beers of Oakland, expressed concerns about augmented traffic,
congestion, lightin and late-night noise.
At a follow-up meeting set for Wednesday, Aug. 24, the planning commission will decide whether the
synagogue's Draft Environmental Impact Report has been thorough enQugh, whether additional analyses
are required or whether KQI Shofar will be forced to scrap the report and start again from square one.
Howard Zack, the oo-chair of Kol Shofar's building committee, hopes the commission doesn't opt for
the latter. An EJR he notes, is as thick as a phone book, takes more than a year to compile and has
already cost the synago.gue more than $]00,000.
And, he adds dryly, Kol Shofar isn't hoping to congest the neighborhood with eager new congregants
drawn to a brand-spanking-new synagogue. They just want to house the people they already have.
"'Suppose you live in an 800-square-fo.ot apartment. If you get married and have two. kids and move into
a 3~OOO-square-foot home, you're not moving with the intention to. have a 12-person family," he
explained.
10
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-O-/moduleldisplaystory / story _ id/26706/fonnatJprintJed... 3121/2006
Richard A. Holway
42 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburon, CA 94920
fD) IE CC IE 0 \w [E fRI
~ j\:[jp: 2 Ll 2005 ~
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
To: Town ofTiburon
Planning Commission
Subject: KoI Shofar Expansion Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement &
Conditional Use Permit (File #10404)
From: Richard A. Holway
March 24, 2006
This letter is to go on record as opposing the construction of a new
multi-purpose room with a maximum capacity of 898 people and
the construction of four new classrooms.
The opposition to these new and expanded facilities is based on
the disruption of the harmony and balance that has existed in this
residential neighborhood between the neighbors and the Kol
Shofar.
Sincerely,
R~~ ({~ H~.,
Richard A. Holway
Robin Gonci and Satoshi Tanaka
254 Karen Way
Tiburon, CA 94929
To Dan Watrous and Lisa Newman,
We are writing to say that we do not feel that the Town of Tiburon should
allow the construction of the new multipurpose room at Kol Shofar.
1. The events that would be held in the new multipurpose room are not in
keeping with the historical use of Kol Shofar as a school and place of worship.
At Kol Shofar, the current frequent events that draw large crowds are the
Friday night special services up to 30 X a year, Friday night dinners up to 25
X a year, and the 3 High Holiday Days. The new multipurpose room would .
host additional events of up to 275 people on 27 Saturdays and 20 Sundays
and would mean people would be at the facility past midnight. Allowing
frequent large events would be very different than dinners and religious
services and would be an expansion of the use of Kol Shofar that should not
be permitted in a residential neighborhood. .
2. Allowing the new multipurpose room to be built would not be in keeping with
a residential community, especially in a small and quiet town like Tiburon.
Allowing approximately 89 cars to drive by people's homes as they arrive and
leave the event would create a lot of additional traffic noise, clog our .
intersections, and raise the danger level for children and pets as all cars do.
It would also lower the quality of life in our neighborhood. Who would enjoy
having 89 cars drive by his/her house in a short period of time? Thiswould
be a lot of traffic to add to a business district but we are talking about a
neighborhood! Clearly we cannot allow traffic like this to be added to a small
neighborhood in Tiburon.
3. The Final Environmental Impact report significantly underestimates the
number of residents that would have unacceptable levels of increased noise
because the report only focuses on residents of homes ne,ar the parking lot,
turnarounds, cars parking ofIsite, and the sounds coming from the facility.
The report states on page 42 that unacceptable noise will "affect some
residents albeit not a large number." This is simply not true because the
report fails to consider the negative impact of traffic noise of the additional 89
cars passing residences twice on many nights along Tiburon Boulevard,
Blackfield Drive, and the other streets close to Kol Shofar. Buried.Gn page
208 of the report it states that 48 residences are within 300 feet of the project
boundary. Most of these residences would experience the noise of increased
traffic condensed in a short time span many nights of the year. Surely the
number is higher than 48 when you consider Tiburon Boulevard, Blackfield
Drive, and the other streets around Kol Shofar. We feel that the traffic noise
and traffic level will have a significant impact on a large number of Tiburon
residents.
Thank you for allowing us to express our concerns.
Robin Gonci and Satoshi Tanaka
-~-- ~ ~",~, ~. .,~"v!,...".,-_..!g-.,;",rR,r.__',\.j., '-( f 13/ Db
C]. . . -, ri/I,
IlliJ) , ' , .", .', ,I : Li .
a~~ ~~
/J:-:Y1ce ,/Q-59. 9 UA- f- L u ~ol ~
l 'O.c / I/-f!(} ~ -;;:Bd U(A ~ <> czfJc&~ )
}kea ~{/Jv~ ~ ~?1VI/l{f~f1-?1i~
<9?n. pac y. 0,?efJ cri{fi - '1:0/, rY10(J o/Je '_
.-e x (fCVvl 0 ( (!VI.. _ (l~e ad )0 ~ {)f1',~
b UV{pAO h €'7n~1 t7l 0 (; /.e {~
ffJe~o:', u rnef~ J bflZh d.ffi '[,d
eOA~ 10 c~ r~'ll J Lv I i cu,( t{
i-)e' Aa t€' ~ .YeaA1t. (o(~
aeQ;UJ riR:Mer 7leir/$~~
() /) 1~:V '------;) ~ .
- L;((J~ 0,) f!bJ:j. '1/ ~~
/YO / a1nefa {}o
;; bV/ltfVL (~ qc/q:;zO
EXHIBIT NO. ~IA..
:Mr. aruf :Mrs. :F. ~ rzlttemuJfifen ~
33 Via San :FernarukJ ~
TlfJUronJ Cafijonz.ia 94.920
(415) 435-4193
iLl P t-'t' /L / ~ 2 c:J c.) '=.
~ ~P\~~7~:~
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
11.-1 E rt-t 8 E/~ S o;z:- 7/ L9 C/ 1"9 C) f1., 1 .;0 L~/f ,v A.J / "vb>
C?? Ar' # r S> /0 A/ /7,,(.1 P 7;:) 40 ~ c: C' tl "v 01 L
Ct::' ,u 6-..fJ 8- tr'l- r /0 A/ Xc L S""f/cJ r /j~ '.s d ?-< q 4. E:; J-
IV Ex' (>4 IV () T/-16/,I( ;=rtCiL~-7/ L5 15 7c---)7 ALL/-/
!)J ."1- P,P Jf' CJ ? /f I Tt T E rL> ,A t:J u /( /1/ t5-1 c.-/I 8c) /f' -
H c/o D. ~L? 4- /( c;:. L{~::' ,.At E ~ T.$ Pt:? E- s.e AJ r.6;) Fo/(~
E X (,4 )1/) )01(/ ,/7-L TEa.. T h'e i3'/.: 0 ~OCA F/1C7 S'
r _
r..~ /J...,.. J r LV/L-L j).iF S T~cJ)/ 'Iff E iff ~ ,ue ;= I r 5 LJ~
iJll;{ J/V E) ?J-f 4o/J, /-/C}P f) 5 C{ti/~ r I 5/}-t= L--T /: rf:1 (J:-
AMP r:} ,.~gIE/JCE,
---
)j~ E t1.s 6 ,Dc:',;i) (.1 T r ~/~ rt-t' / T PfA/ Y /;u C;{?~ /'-]- 56
!P 'I)-I,E-I,~ 4J15- PE~M/T~ J~ 111.E./J /f-?ft:'
S JJ ~ 6 <;'1 AI E OU) DF-;E 'X? !/-,vt'loft/ / j.t: /
r/fE~ .rl-1'tYi/E To 4 -<O(/j r?D/{/ T/!./fT
/5 A /J/j-Prc; j) ~/[/D /o,ucf) Pc:;~L
'Tlf cl ~ If ell V) II E..5,
{oA PI4L L Y
j. c/ L1.)L /$ c.} ~ tiT 1" E ([J /11.) /lu; #
71' If IS >/ f)?;,vT 5 ~ / TI/I.3 A OD /tJE JJ ..>/,,<h~c.
()c 10 6c.4) 19''/0 \
EXHIBIT NO.b...
~ ~ ~ ~ VJ l~~ If;.
~. \\!i
I~ Af'( 11 2006 I.~\
PLANNING DIVISION
laWN OF 11BURON
April 14, 2006
Rufus G. Thayer
158 Blackfield Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
415-381-2504
Tiburon Planning Commission
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Kol Shofar - Updated Appendix Transmitted April 12, 2006
Gentlemen:
I have reviewed the subject updated documents transmitted by the staff in its
memo dated April 12, 2006. The magnitude and scope of the project remain unchanged.
The revised parking lot circulation plan and the use of different traffic and noise
measurement standards together with promises to limit attendance on certain occassions
does not materially change the intended ultimate use of the substantially enlarged fadlity
described in the application.
The objections raised in my letter dated March 14, 2006 regarding on street parking
congestion, the attendant ambient noise levels which are an integral part of the large parties
and other functions planned at the enlarged facility, heavy traffic loads on connecting streets,
safety, and the continued failure to disclose ultimate building and use plans, remain
unchanged.
The proposed major enlargement of the facility and the intended substantialy
increased levels of use is materially out of character with the neighborhood and if approved
will irrevocably reduce the quality of life of those who live nearby. The proposed project
should be denied. The applicant should be advised that if they wish to remodel their facility
they should submit plans that will accomodate no more than the existing levels of use.
Respectfully submitted,
4t~ f~MP/)
hormefMay;V '7 L
EXHIBIT NO.~
~~r~~::~~~
PLANNING DIViSION I
TOWr~ OF TIBURON I
Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition
30 Reedland Woods Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
Tiburon Planning Commission and Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
April 14, 2006
Re: Kol Shofar Final EIR and Conditional Use Permit Application
Dear Tiburon Planning Commissioners and Council Members,
The Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition was very concerned about the location of the
proposed main entrance of Kol Shofar on Reedland Woods Way (RRW). The Tiburon
Neighborhood Coalition (TNC) commissioned an independent study by T JKM Traffic
Consultants to assess the two left-hand turns, one over Blackfield Drive onto RRW and
one over RRW to enter the project site since no studies were done in the either the DEIR
or FEIR despite many requests from residents and commissioners. The only comment
on this left-hand turn from Blackfield Drive onto RRW is by the City engineer, who is not
a traffic engineer.
T JKM traffic engineer, Arul Edwin, wrote a report dated March 22, 2006, which is
attached to this letter. The T JKM Traffic Consultants' findings are as follows: 1) "Based
on our field-estimated sight distance of 100-170 feet, sight distance along Blackfield
Drive is not adequate and indicates a safety concern." and 2) "If there are two vehicles
on the short segment [of RRW] waiting to enter the site, there is a potential for queue
spillover onto Blackfield Drive, which could block oncoming southbound through vehicles
on Blackfield Drive and thereby create a hazardous condition".
The current circulation pattern with a right hand turn into the parking lot from Via Los
Altos and an exit only on RRW was instituted for traffic safety. Originally there was two-
way traffic into the Kol Shofar parking lot off RRW but it was changed in 1992. Reason
as well as trial and error went into the development of the current traffic pattern. Several
attempts were made to make this intersection at Blackfield and RRW safe. One can still
see the left-hand turn-out lane stripes that still remain from one of those failed attempts
to deal with this difficult intersection. (Please see attached letter from City Engineer
Stanley Bala, dated 1217/95).
Kol Shofar's proposed entry on Reedland Woods Way was a significant impact and the
TNC is pleased to know that it has been changed, thus mitigated.
S:4Z.IY, ..
(ftz/<~c::?-~~-/
Christianna Seidel
Member of the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition
EXHIBIT NO.1..x.
~
Pleasanton
5960 IngJewood Dr., Suffe 100
Pleasanton, CA 94588.8535
925.463.0611
925.463.3690 fax
Sacramento
980 9th St, 16th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814-2736
916.449.9095
Transportation
Consultants
Santa Rosa
141 Stony Gir., Suite 280
Santa Rosa, CA 95401-4110
707.575.5800
707.575.5888 fax
Fresno
516 W Shaw Ave., Suita 200
Fresno, CA 93704-2515
559.325.7530
559.221.4940 fax
tjkm@tjkm.com
www.tjkm.com
March 22, 2006
Ms. Christianna Seidel
Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition
30 Reedland Woods Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
Su bject:
Sight Distance Evaluation of Blackfield Drive I Reedlands Woods Way Intersection in
the City of Tiburon.
Dear Ms. Seidel:
The purpose of this letter is to srunmarize results for the subject study. At issue is a modification of an
existing exit-only driveway at Congregation Kol Shofar, located approximately 55 feet (ft) west of the
Blackfield Drive I Reedland Woods Way intersection in the Town of Tiburon. This letter addresses the
neighborhood's concerns about the driveway modification relative to sight distance at the subject
intersection.
Sight Distance
T JKM conducted a field evaluation of sight distance for the northbound approach of Blackfield Drive at the
Blackfield Drive / Reedland Woods Way intersection on Tuesday, March ]4,2006. Our field estimates
indicate that between 100 to ] 70 ft of sight distance is available for northbound left turning vehicles looking
for gaps in oncoming southbound traffic on Blackfield Drive. The amount of sight distance depends on two
factors: ]) where northbound vehicles will pull up at the intersection to wait for left turn gaps and 2) whether
there are vehicles parked along northbound Blackfield Drive that could obstruct (and effectively reduce)
sight distance. Average and typical speeds of oncoming southbound vehicles are discussed in the next
section.
Table 1 shows California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standards for stopping sight distance
based on a range of speeds. As shown in the table, the estimated 170 ft of stopping sight distance falls within
the roadway design speed range of25 to 30 miles per hour (mph). These calculations assume a flat terrain.
.....
~.__.--.._~-_..-.-~~
~ ..
. Ms. Christianna Seidel
March 22, 2006
2
TABLE 1: CALTRANS SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS
Source: Caltrans Highway Design Manual (2004), Table 201.1 (English version)
Note: mph = miles pel hour
Design Speed Stopping Sight
(mph) Distance (feet)
20 125
25 150
30 200
35 250
40 300
However, it should be noted that the southbound Blackfield Drive approach at Reedland Woods Way has a
steep downhill gradient of approximately 80/0, based on measurements from a topography map supplied by
the Town of Tiburon. A downhill gradient actually adds to the stopping sight distance. Thus, T JKM
estimated stopping sight distance using the basic formula from the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which accounts for downhill gradients. The fonnula is as follows:
SSD = 1.47 * v * (2.5 sec) + v2/ (30 * ((l] .2/32.2) +- G)), where
SSD = Stopping sight distance (ft)
v = speed (mph)
G = gradient (-8% in equation above)
Assuming an 80/0 downgrade at a design speed of 25 mph, the stopping sight distance from the fonnula above
is estimated to be l70 ft. Therefore, because of the downhill gradient, more stopping sight distance is
required for vehicles on the approach than if the approach was flat.
Speeds on Blackfield Drive
The current Blackfield Drive signed speed limit is 25 mph. Although the majority of vehicles travel within
the speed limit, there is a potential for a few vehicles to exceed the speed limit. Based on a roadway design
speed of 25 mph and our stopping sight distance calculations above, it is estimated that a minimum of 170 ft
of stopping sight distance is needed for approaching vehicles. This result, together with our tield-estimated
sight distance of ] 00 - 170 feet, indicates a safety concern.
Another issue related to this safety concern is that there is queuing storage for only two (2) vehicles on the
short segment of westbound Reedland Woods Way segment located between Blackfield Drive and the
subject driveway. If there are two vehicles on the short segment waiting to enter the site, there is a potential
for queue spillover onto Blackfield Drive, which could block oncoming sou~bound through vehicles on
Blackfield Drive and thereby create a hazardous condition.
If you have any questions about our study, please free to can us at (707) 575-5800.
Very Truly Yours,
~
1/
Arul K. Edwin
Associate / Branch Manager
C:\Documents and Settings\akJuterTJKM\Desktop\L032206 Tiburon Sight Distance final.doc
---../
"
~
REcaVED
DEe 0 5 1995
-----
TOWN OF TIBURON
PLAr..!NING & BUlLDING DEPT.
L. Logan Boles
210 Blackfleld Dr.
Tlburon. Ca. 94920
Nov. 26 . 1 995
IPJ I erg DYIS fFJ)
NOV ~ & 1995
TOWN MANI\CiEA'S Of:FICE
TOWN OF rlBUFtON
Town Counc i I
Town of Tiburon /?1.x 1-3~- -,2~38
Tlburon. Ca. 94920
Dear Members of the Tlburon Town Council:
1 am writIng to protest the recent engIneerIng changes
to Blackfield Drive, dIrectly in front of my home. Tlburon
'has made our street less safe; and has denIed us the street
parking which ,we have used since our houses were built.
The reverse. or "S" curve on this portion of BJackf!eld
Dr. has been a traffic hazard sJnce before Tlburon annexed
the area. The recent addition of a left turn lane only
makes matters worse bv eliminating the parking lane and
forCIng traffIC against the curb, endangering pedestrians.
particularlv children walking to school. My famIly agrees
With our neIghbors that it IS now much more dIffIcult for us
to enter BlackfleJd Dr. from our driveways.
For all the years that -Reedland Woods School operated.
Tlburon did not deem a left turn lane necessary to protect
school children. Since then CongregatIon Kol Shofar
members. at tImes 1nlarge numbers have used that
intersection without a left turn lane. Nearby, Bel AIre
School has no left turn lane to protect children being
drIven to the school. Simllarlv Del Mar School and Reed
School do not have left turn lanes.
In fact. in my 26 years In Tlburon I cannot remember
the town ever addIng a turn lane to a residential street to
protect a schoo) or church. much less a small reSidential
street. Why here? Why now?
1 urge that you take immedIate actIon to el~mlnate thIS
turn lane before an acc1dent occurs. Long term residents of
this nleghborhood remember too well the tragIC death of a
child. hit by a car nearby on Via Capistrano.
Yours truly.
/ /Wh
L. Logan Boles
?t7;/ t
I/jjJ
t/~
/1/i/ ~
"--J.
~
.--./
sia Mohammadi
Town Engineer
Page -2-
For example, the sight distances, after eli~nating the left
turn lane, may cause problems.
In addition, Blackfield Drive at the curve, going towards
Tiburon Boulevard was not originally designed for the speeds
now used. Perhaps, this problem should also be addressed in
connection with the Reedland Woods Way.
I hope this letter will be of some help.
Yours truly,
~pJ:~
c Robert Kleinert
Scott ~derson
. ~
~
c;~ ~&Cvv~
~.
~J
s. M. BALA CONSVLTINCj
CIVIL ENqlNEERINq / LAND DEVELOPMENT
772 TAMARACK DRIV'E, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 94903
TELEPHONE (415) 491- 4774
December 7, 1995
REeF~'fED'
DEe 1 1 1995
Sia Mohammadi
Town Engineer
Town of Tiburon
TOV\fN OF TlBURON
PLANf-JING & BUILDING DEPT.
Faxed: Dec. 8, 1995
Re : Vista Tiburon
Intersection of B1ackfie1d and Reedland Woods Way
Reference is made to our telephone discussion of to-day.
The following will confirm my opinion expressed and provide
more information.
The problem of providing the left turn storage lane on.
Blackfield Drive was discussed in detail by Planning
Commission during the precise' Plan and the Tentative Map
hearings._It was made clear that approx~ately three
properties will loose street parking along their frontage.
The intersection with left turn storage lane was approved
by Planning Commission, subject to a detail design at the
Final Map stage.
I was not invplved in the checking of the construction
plans. However, prior to terminating my involvement- in this
project, I transmitted to the Town my preliminary comments
on the plans submitted. The plans were inadequate. Please,
see my 9 pages letter, addressed to Dave Bracken, dat~d July
21, 1994.
The following statement is made on page 4 ': "Blackfield at
Reedland Woods Way : Detailed design is required including
all dimensions. Provide buttons in addition to the striping:"
I am not familiar with the design of the intersection as
constructed. In fact I did not see it.
It is my opinion that the need for the left turn storage lane
is marginal. However, not providing it, may cause safety
problems.
In short, full evaluation of the problem and adjustments may
be needed.
s. M. BALA, C.E.. T.E.. FELLOW A.S.C.A.
,-<-
Richard Goldwasser, M.D.
:3 8 Pas eo MirasoJ
Tibufon, CA 94920
April 11, 2006
f5) lE (c lE ~ w lE In\
~ f\P."\ I 8 2006 ~
Planning Commission andiTown Council
Town ofTibufon
] 505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
RE: Ko] Shofar Expansi on Project
Dear Planning Commissi~ and Town Council,
This is to elaborate1upon and clarify points] made in my letter of March 21, 2006.
Kol Shofar's Executive Director Mark Levy sent a letter to neighbors of the
synagogue stating the Multi-Purpose Room was "necessary chiefly for religious 1
purposes - to properly accommodate High Holiday observance andlife-cycle events year
round (e.g.) Bar or Bat Mi{Zvahs).H
Alterna1ives to the) massive room were not adequately explored. These could
include:
a) Renting a theatre in Corte Madera or the Curran Theatre in San Francisco (which
seats over J 600~ for the High Holidays_
b) Sharing the cost ofa tent for High Holidays with another organization that holds a
Fall fundraiser.
c) Acquiring a retractable tent that could be set up for lhe High Holidays and then
removed for1l1~ remainder of the year.
d) Continuing to haVel Sabbath lunches in a room that could be enlarged but not to
the size of1he~ Multi-Purpose Room.
e) Expanding the sanctuary to hold 1600, but having a partition so the Sabba1h
lunches can be held immediately adjacent to the space used for the remaining
362 days of the 'year.
f) Acknowledging th~ Bar or Bat Mitzvah parties are notl~necessary.. . for religious
purposes," and! that a huge banquet facility on site is therefore not truly
necessary.
g) Working in an ope$ and straightforward fashion with congregants and neighbors.
This includes the congregation's apparently new intention to develop a Day
EXHIBIT NO.~
APR 18 2006 12:07PM R GOLDWASSER M.D.
(415)381-1699
p.3
Re: Kol Shofar Expansion Project
17 April 2006
Page 2
School, which has not been discussed previously. Such a plan is sure to have
greater impact on Bel Aire School students and Blackfield Drive residents
with safety, traffic, and noise issues not adequately addressed in the FEIR.
As a member of Kol Shofar, I began last August an earnest effort to speak with
Rabbi Lavey Derby, President Diane Zack, and the Board of Directors. My phone calls
and letters went without r~sponse, until my Jetter was published in the Ark earlier this
month.
Unfortunately, my' experience in trying to engage Temple leadership in
meaningfuJ, good faith discussions has been parallel with tbat of other nejghbors~ there
has .been no ~'negotiating partner." While the leaders profess to having mailed out letters
to neighbors, most-including my wife and I-never received anything. (Even Mark
Levy's letter inexplicably Was not delivered to our house.)
When I met last week with Rabbi Derby and Diane Zack, and accepted their
apologizes for their Jack of response, 1 indicated my desire to see KoJ Shofar~s mlssion
advanced, but not at the expense of others.
The current plan is~ a bloated wish lis~ which fails to consider alternatives and
fails to address ultimate uses (e.g., will we have nighttime parties and a full time Day
Scbool added to the impact that Kal Shofar already has on the neighborhood?)
Moreover, the mitigations do not address some key issues, including noise in the parking
lots as congregants and clealn-up crews arrive and leave events.
I urge you to reject the current proposal
Sincerely,
{( I C l(J Grfi /-
Richard Goldwasser, M.D.
Enclosures: Letter to the Ark
Conservativel Congregations of SF Bay Area .- High Holiday Service
Infonnation
t"t~:JJjUl-lb~~
Con8erva~e CODI!J"t2ations of San Francisco Bav Area
Hi2h Holidav Servi<< Information
It appears from the following information that there is a random pattern of one or two
High Holy Day services. It is NOT a given* Also, the size of the congregations varies.
Some are able to accommodate their full membership on the High Holy Days by
expanding into their adjacent social hall. Most have significantly smaller congregations
then that ofKol Shofar. Also, several do hold services at off site facilities for the High
Holy Days to accommodate the larger nmnber of attendees for these 2 days. One shares
the parking lot of the adjacent church to accommodate cars.
Beth David. 19700 Prospect Rd., Saratoga, CA 95010, (408) 257-3338
This past year they held 2 separate High Holy Day services. On the first night
there was a 6 PMiand later an 8 PM service. They are able to accommodate 1,000
people between the sanctuary which holds about 250 - 300 people and adjacent
social hall They said that these split services were not full. During the following
day service they held a less formal ceremony in the adjacent Ascension Church
gymnasium, which holds 400, plus they hold separate youth services as well as
more fonnal service in the sanctuary. They share the parking lot with the adjacent
church for their services.
Congregation Netivot Shalom. 1316 University Ave. Berkeley, CA 94702, (5]0) 549-
9447
Sanctuary holds approximately 300
For last years High Holy Day services they went to another site and used
Northbrae Community Church to hold their attendees. In the church they used
two separate rooms, one holding 250 and the other 320 people* Thus, one could
say they held a type of split service. They have about 340 family members.
Congregation B'nai Sh~om~ 74 Eckley Lane, Walnut Cree~ 94959:0 (925) 934-9446
They hold two separate High Holy Day services. One is traditional and the other
is contemporary. These are held in two different locations. They have around
3&0 to 400 famiJJy members.
Temple Beth Abraham.. 327 MacArthur Blvd, Oakland, (510) 832-0936
They hold one all High Holy Day service with a total seating between sanctuary
and adjacent sOClial hall of740. They have 370 family members
Temple Beth Shalom, 642 Dolores Ave, San Leandro.. 94577, (5]0) 357-8505
They hold one High Holy Day service. They extend their sanctuary into their
social hall. The sanctuary holds about 150 people and when extended into social
hall they hold about 250 people.
Beth Jacobs~ 1550 Alameda de las Pulgas. Redwood City, CA 9406], (650) 366-8481
They hold one High Holy Day service. The sanctuary opens into the social ball.
The woman I talked to was not sure of the exact numbers and suggested I call
back to confirm, but she thought the sanctuary held about 200 people and that
when expanded into the social hall it was about 400.
p.4
APR 18 2006 12:07PM R GOLDWASSER M.D.
l415l381-1699
p.S
, -;i~ < :'. J' . . . ~. _ !. . '. ,i , . . . " ,
. '. ;.... ,'_-. '- .,. "" t ." . . tIl ' Ih' ~.. '.': .' - u:'
. '" '. t;., . . ~ ~ . ~ = l ~ ~ ;i ~ Q '- -t 'ea' .~ ~ ': ~. , " ;
:': ~:I~'I(~I;J' ! ~l'g.~,~:~,;.. . 'JS~~ r ~ . a. ~l: ~ tM:~:i::ii~.J'~Il\l'~t Iii:: ,:'" i
, "J! ....it, .lt8'l m: .e, ill a. "i'/:'" 11 n ill~" fi; tl '\;l Poi s ~ .lrll 'S .'11 ~'" 'if' , "
. )~ ~'I= "'~:" I' '.:!: ~ii" ~ ,- -~:~....,. r, ' I" $ ~~.:~ i c. ~, g . S ~. ;~I :iro,Ll. .~ .:::t::;e'l; . ': : '.-; I .'::
'.' '. ~'.., . '< 'c;'" 5f. "" " I' '< \.h '_ 0 8 ~ w "0: ~) .....: .. ' .,-to'l!-~ '. ~ ~ '
. ~.,~ ~ I.. \J. ' Q_ I f \ -~- ~ ' . \wi ." . =:s e:s ~ ~ ; ~ 1: ;'QJ'.:': - t' .
,\ ~,~_. I ~~. :". g rn ~s -lOQ ~ ~ ~ ~ a -' , .~~t'le .. ", O'"~", :=/ '-
-::~'{.' ~'m~ . .- ..... ,', '. "i'i'.~) - ~. ~.'~ Q- .. ~;j);,: : ~ ;', '
; ~il, :i~~" ~!tl; ~O.~ ~ ~':II i g . ~~. C: ~~& ~ f" l:~p. ~,~,.; .lli; '~- ~~ .: .' < .~
~ "I" .;~ .:Jt:"~'-i~g'Ai' ^ -:t'jl' '(: I. f'+ g S~'~.~.n.~-~. ~~ 'i.;I~~:) ~~'81~: ::.'., .
. :-!:'} .:fX: 6Z~' ...' "a"_ U',' _..- ~}: J. .0.' CJQ-f.?';;lI-~ a.~ :.,~ . !"'~ .:'0.' i, ': '~'. .
_ . _ ". }o. - - i') PI: . ~'\ ., .~. ~ . A. Il' .- '. , ~,.., .. , , .::, .
.'~!' '. , g,?" "- I' 0 g..t:;~. . L '11" . .>', '. -- ". .',
~. .~~ !~ i'I~~'~~ 1 ~ 'f c2tT . ~~~~!..tl' ';. ,il!Ii g i'.t) l:t 't'E!" Ii ;'g,~"f~ c~~l.t.I' \ 'I'!{~;:'" .:!" 'I ',. ;, '.1 :
,'''. ""1 . .... - "~'l~: '. "> .' ,- ' ~n.t; c:: _'?"1,. _()t.t-t, .. -. . ~.. ". , - , .
,", ..... .' Q' 1,'.:' '::i. t:r'~ ~.... ~ n '"':.' .:. .::r:-. -,',. -~ 1",.' . ,'.' '" ,
, '_ . , . "CtQ y. . v p . t:1' ~ s:~'< ;;J -- ~ 9" . ~-a . 'Ii' , , .
. ~'I': :_::1 ,:'1' ~~-:.~. ~. ~'o~ J':':~~" , .. ,'O~ ~ em' ~ cr'~ '~..~ ,~'~"~,I',i1:~.~fl")~ ia:- ", , t' -' i
" ,': .,(: _~. 0- ~'t . . .;-'~' ~~tr 0 CO) l:T'< ti::b..r,; S ~". "~~I" " ~~tt . P"'- .' " '
~ .:' ,.IIi, '" J.' eo, " ... "_ .' -~'J'.Fn i t1 .~.Q tI.) :r F ' .~"..;~,.;~ ' ,.' ,
~..t' .. .~ .' .. . err" 't.. ,- - '!"t. .~J:t . "-'. ';.' . ! . ;.' -
,0, , .... ~ . . '< eo " ':., ~"" lJ~g &, .g;;' 0 :~, . y I. 'ri~ ' f
"~:I;)'~'I~~'1f~t~':ji'S:gl' ...~t."i[\lP;Q.~l~j:'~f~'~H~~ ,'," .,: :
: ;:', I' "'~i"1 f)_I:) .. .:jil"" :." a ot.O':S'~?2.tfg.!.,jL~{: ~'\'~~I" .~ : '-. .
'. ,- 0' ;)'-1' r . ;.Ff "'I' ,a. d'~.a e:~OQ..~t;t~t:::t~,~t:~L.<~~~t., " ,.,' ,:' , :.! - . .':
:..~:~, ~',1,';r . -: . .. '.: '.' :n I.~'~ i ~~~ ~;fQ.:-.:--)'-.-'~ :~', --~.-- ~ .
r1~ '.~ ! ""~' ,: ': ' ,~" g- .~ .,~ ~ .~ .,er ~ .,~ {~~ .~' : ;~~ ~&>>' :
, o,-f. :i "_ ~ . _' " .., " \Olij''', ~ en 9 .' I Q,' \'.~, " 1.~.;, .",} ..
',-:-' ll' : .' , . (:), , . ....... . I ~ Ctl .'" d-' f1 0 n .:jS (-- ,,-: ~~. ~
:;~J'~ ~,:a.lc' ~'~ . . I .~ . ~!1'~.~ ~ g g.:~ i'9~.!:t~i:.. .'
JIUJ>.?ff.~.n ~'i' .' e ~.. I;l , "" Po::l , , Iil. JKO( "~.!i
,.'> . ..~ '., ',' .!;. . " .: ;,;.~~~~; :j;;,g; . ..,,' . :
.Ji .. ~.. .~'.~.~'g~- -...'..'......-..' ..-. .1.. ."t.~~~. .. .'
~:~~~~~j1:..,;,/~ ~t.t~~_ ; :,' _ .~; .~
n;~. D;g.I~'j",-'~. .:. -~r:~': . : -.,." -
. -~ - m-,~~.n_g~';:.~, :".. :~it;I' } ~ ;' ." :
'< ~l . I-~; 1-' ,~"..l"t>'f :... {
.ct ~ ..': l' .~~. ." ~. t
. !-~ r ~:' :. ~: ~D~: ~il~4.e;' .' : - :', ;
" ~.~;, 6 :0 ~ .)ii~" ~~<.!:~.~~ : ", '. . ,
-& ~lf; -r+l', .' '-. ~5 ~~ '." - .'
..Q-:~~~;!r'.. ~1'1_:' :'..~; '1' ~ ~~~., - ..... ;
. S!~i:~~I./~~:! ;-;.~\~ .~ :'l~{t.: . ~ .
'ft :~' :~_~., -.'; -,"': ~~~. -".-
~ ~fIl:\ f~ ~\~.. ~~'I-')' -. .' ',:
. "-.if: ~~:..;,:.... ~,;~EI, J VI
;g :i~~:I~i~: ;,,<, ~'!I':' Ji' . .;
I' l' ~. - '. \. :1:'
-.. ,v.. "J J.... I . , ~
dt . ,V).~: ";: j- ,~,' "', ~. ,J;" ' ~,'
: "~:' ~~ ~ ~i'~: ~.~f~..~~.(, : \ .... ",
. ~~. ~ ~ .;,,> 5<:T-"t':=S"r'" . .
':8" -- , ,--- :-c:r:' !ii-l\ .....
- a.". . . ~ ,,: ~.>.' ~.. '"
- J aii.~:~"" .-' ~~::-',' . ~.. ii
'f,H~'" 51, . . ".. tjb.~~- ,,' . . ..' .
Q< Co 't,. ..,';~ ,.:::; :1"
... '., o~~~. :\:~~.~. ,~ 'i:~:' '
.,~ g,'ii~: .'~~' ~.~:r: "~b, .),
< " C1! ~'. ;'''-( t.' ';.1f~~; - ,"~ .;~~ .
. .:: "_...' ".:.>-";~,,,_,- f-', (' - . .r,. ..--, "'--"':'.'N"'~;;; :~~i.~~;;""";l~\"~""';"='-"M~ ,
:'.:.-..r'<~'" -~'.:~'. ..- .-....'....... [..... ( .'.:~:.'.. . ..'. ~>. ,~./..::i. .;- . ... '.".' -:~.. .~.-~. &~.. 0' <=. (/j.S-. 8 .rr.....~...... -~..~' . .;.*'~.:I..-~-. -;..l' ....~. . ..;',,<: Q'
_. ,. .f,.oIi .0 ~ - . ..~(l g ,'<I' ~ ::r.C) ~ i-~ .0, ~
:. .,,_,_' J.;ll>- ...< :. . r,,_ ..,'-' . ;.!. . . . OQ: .<; ,. =' o. - f'+''''''-' :. :-- . .
, .' _ . ' .. ...,..., -... . I . .' 0 . o. ~ ,.... .. .1' ... ......
"-.'.' ,:.:;.~. .,.;.,~~.f~......~.....:.:a.)r..:~...:..t~-.~.~....-../...~.... "..:,... .-..l.- fl,[.!.~..tJj~...~. .~.~.-~.j~ g '~.~. s.~.. ..~..~~... ..'!Il......;,._.~.~>.:....._i.., ..~.
1_. ; ii('!6-ll.; -wo. ~-; ,_. .1 Ii 2- - II) .o-,g ~ fP ~OS ..-d ..~"%.. .in
~...::.~.~.~..,...~~...>..I. .~i_~.~.-.::,..g,."....g: ':.~;-..~..-.'_2-..~..f!'.'..'. :........0... +'. ...... ':.'.'~II.. ...t:J''i..... ~...~....i'.'..8...Q...~......R.a....~. .'I.~.....~. -:;..~.Ii\l~-~..:.'...; .-'...f...~.....l). ...1...'....1.1-.-- ....f,..'O.... ' ,
~~;f~:,.:;.~~I.. -~~~)~q~r.='I~:;, -<~I:.:.R:~~.-<.."!. ~;:p}f~tr.'~..-e~'s~ !}:~~, >;l(.::.'~;-'"~,>.:<" i~ll. "2.,
i4JJ~'~I" { ., - i ,-(1)' - ~6-,-.+.-. .,!~- _::1.;-.. ~'1 :K:2 ~ 16' fV . -~ . . 0 ~~~ - e.w .I.' - .. .. ' ",,'
;J;i:~isi:1>' I ':'. -,~:<' ..:!...._(./:::!:.'.;}J>. -{fr.-tit (J~"-:n: .~.~ [.~ ~;~. '_'fa:-- t.'~". :: ',.: A; /'VJ:.... :
~,:~'-;.~~~fi: t,-: <. .~. _ra-~:tt~. .;.;- ''''(:) . I i-S'i' O-e ,t1.g~- ~-ro ~'gi~; :;li ~'-f:r:.. "iti ;:!.;-~
., .j~':.'~~I~ ~~. ::-. ~~:~;: ~.~:;.-j>o-~,.\::/1-;n:,.:',;_. .,.--.:_~. J;Ot)q!'pifR') n o'<'t:h~,. ~:~~. ;'; ');t._~';~. ~~. ;:~er( :,
t..i....~_~'. '~.;'I .' ,.. .~.. ..\,\. ..,. --- ..' .-.H. '.0 ~ rl' .P->.tj ~ ii1!~.~_.tT ."..' .,Ill.. -'j :
> --':".,;,'t'~.. ..... .: k i:.t.. '_;.,.,;n-:F'/;" ....... .() .. . ..: .. ..-' :-..'. . ',:' ...?,~". ?.... !
l~, ~",.~~~l ~.~ .\ /.,} \ ,,' JI-~:~-'.;'I-'-:,s.t:.. '~:j. .:!tidi~:~ ..~-- f'-'~:-ll.:~:,e;:I.:"";. _: .I;~;' .
r., .. .... ,;lj ,. ~.i.-.".' -'.. -,i .'... . .;-'~'......(;..- ...'.........:... .....-. ~:.... .~;l(...i..~..~ .~&"., .....-. .'_.-. I:.."O.~ ..........;. '.'. ~.; . '. .'<... .~.' . .
fl. ;1,';,.. . " .' " -;, :j. .; ;,h;./ '; 'I!l+. g' ; ~l'j ~.*- .... i~: tr ~i~; ~i, t, ,.~ (~ ·
;,...;;r~;, '.... ; ii.' 'ill!J..1. '.'... _,I ..i.~~J..:'...'._. ~ ....:;..I..~II...- '.!I-..:~.;.'.. ....5. :~...o8...I::'.~ '.. So.'" E?. ...~.{Y....:..,..,iJ.,~..,!..,jil.. .....:'.. _l..... ....'..,'."... .' '~.::.':
~ 'tl)1: ; , ;;:;"~l~~ ~W>~';;l~l.~i~\' QO~ ltt~ !' on g'~-.lt;i;!\I1\ ;\:~~~' .
:,?t~..'... "..~.' t.:.'...-.!.....'. ..~......' ~.': i...~..:,n,;..~..~.. .(.:,:.,.$1 '..~...>....,~. .':.'. '.. _.~. '..~.."....'.. .'.-.. "...:.\..-~'.....($'.'..I... .".' .... ~.....i!....~.. ;:.~..;'.~ .:.!.......~l.i::r....--.e:.....'~... .'..~..:..~.. .~. .:.' i. 8. ....@........~:,.-.:..~.:..I.. .~.-.....;....,Bi.... _~.~'.:...~;.:..:..l......I'.... f,-..;1..~......'....'...~.'.../......~'.'r....~..'..... '.-.'~.'...j;..... '~.....i J
t{ '.:.__'.-;..;I~{ i ~'~..,~. _;9 _.eo-:- ..;}~;S'O}'~'<S'-~ ~~ . tl g'~. ~~~~:~, Y~lfWi< ~' ,
.:....~.:.,!.. ,_:..;~~.l.'..... {tl'._:.;:ti~~....,;:er:...,:..:,tii....i._.. .;~II,~...: . -::.~.... ..<.. .~.~.-' :..'ff.':-\ .~:,~.. ...r;:t.;..~.~'~'~~ g.:.: a :'g,'.. ".~ ~.'.- }.-i:;.>../... . ..'.;!""'~.. ;...'t.r.:...I:...~:..I;..x:..!. :.
. .' '1.:'~~S'. tx_-:. ;~. o. . ~J., .. 'l,'r '8:-.,...: '"1 ;.~ i ;:;>,~ . .. ~ ........ -'~:'-' ;~'f;t.3- '.. ..
,I. . ..., ./-' ~. .,'- .It.liI..- S' . OJ... ,', (I:., .n~' "-~. < .1:S" '..jI).~'I""- ..-.~.~...~.- .
1. . t-~:. './ . ',., ., :,.. ..,._1.<:' 't:h.~J::j.~ 0.. tn' - '.j$. '" .."~ - r..Q-' ~.... .
. : '.' ... . oj' " : :- :.c ~. .' i'", W -~-,t'\l " ~ ~ _~~ .'j .. . ct. . -; ,
, .._~~ )~i '>!?., ~. .P1 - r1t'hn- .~ .~.~_ a: Eo i'Clh.~ 19.t;i .".-.ii;i...e.~~r.."., I
. .
, c>
-. .~ .
. i
i
'-T'<-J} ...JU~ - .10;:);:)
April 13,2006
Editor,
I appreciate the tetter from my neighbors and co-rongregants (The Ark, April 12, 2006). regarding
Kol Shofar's proposed remodel and expansion.
They are correct in identifying noise and traffic as real issues. From our house we already hear
people coming and going from Kol Shofar, both day and night. The Rubensteins, Quints.
Farbers, Jainchills and Jaffes all live further away, and are presumably spared this intrusive
annoyance.
The tone of my April 5th letter was indeed dismaying. What produced the intense frustration was
the inexplicable lack of response from any Board member or Rabbi Derby, to whom I have called
and written since last August in an effort to discuss my concerns.
I did not invent the assertion that Bar/Bat Mitzvah parties are part of the religious "need" for the
almost 10,000 square foot Multi-purpose room (with a 1000 sJ. kitchen). Executive Director Mark
Levy wrote a letter that was distributed throughout the neighborhood. He stated the Multi-PUfPose
Room is "necessaJY chiefly for religious purposes - to properly accommodate High Holiday
observance and life cycle events year round (e.g. Bar or Bat Mitzvahs)". Since B'nai Mitzvot
services occur in the sanctuary. and parties are held outside. it follows that he is calling the
parties necessary religious> events for which a massive banquet hall is needed. With all due
respect, , think this is a distortion of Jewish law.
Whether High Holiday services alone justify construction of a facility that seats 1600 people can
be debated. r submit that al1ematives are available that would not open the door for once. twice
or thrice weekly nighttime parties in a residential neighborhood as has been proposed. (e.g. a
retractable tent for the Higt!l Holidays, and perhaps a larger space for Sabbath Kiddush lunches,
or sharing the cost of a tent each fall with another organization).
Unfortunately, my experience in trying to engage Temple leadership in meaningful, good faith
discussions has been parallel with that of other neighbors in the impact zone. The Tiburon
Neighborhood Coalition (tiburonnc.org), which includes dozens of families, has met with little
success in finding a "negotiating partner", contributing to the anger evident in my earner letter to
The Ark.
On a more encouraging note, my letter to The Ark prompted a call from Doreen Kanter M.D., who
listened and communicated my predicament to the President of the Kol Shofar Board of Directors,
Diane Zack. She and I than had a productive talk, and I subsequently met with Rabbi Lavey
Derby. Walking around the neighborhood together. and standing in my backyard, he appreciated
the synagogue's existing impact, and how the proposed expansion would affect many Tiburon
residents who do not live further up the hill.
Hearing President lack arld Rabbi Derby's sincere apologies for not responding sooner, I now
feel hopeful that meaningful dialogue will finally begin. The neighbors do not want to interfere
with legitimate religious aotivjtjes, and I believe some of the Temple's leaders understand that
"Building Community" cannot be done ethically under Jewish law if it comes at others' expense.
This is a time for creative and innovative thinking, in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect.
Sincerely
Richard Goldwasser M.D.
38 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburon, CA 94920
789-8791 home
381-1690 work
707 -4068 pager
p.b
Christianna Seidel & Peter Stock
30 Reedland Woods Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
~
~ ~ [E ~ ~ [E rn'll
II )',
, 8 2005 Il~) I
~'.~- I
I
1
PLMmf~,JG DIIJISICJr\j
TOWi\1 OF TI8UROi'J
Tiburon Planning Commission and Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd
TiburonJ CA 94920
April 17, 2006
Re: Kol Shofar Final EIR and Conditional Use Permit Application
Dear Tiburon Planning Commissioners and Council members,
We request that the City does not certify the FEIR at this time. Many questions asked by
Commissioners and Tiburon residents are left unanswered. There are conflicting and
contradictory conclusions and several inadequate mitigations to significant impacts. To
proceed to the merit of design phase with a controversial FEIR will only increase
dissension and further delay the process. We hope the issues discussed below will be
rectified in the FEtR before it is certified. To proceed to the merits of design with so
many errors, omissions and conflicting statements, makes the City is vulnerable to legal
challenge.
We are opposed to the size of Kot Shofar's proposed facility expansion as well as the
hours of use and number of new events requested by the applicant for the Conditional
Use Permit. The project does not comply with the Tiburon General Plan, nor does it
comply with Tiburon Parking Code. We support the remodel and modernization of the
existing facility with the proviso that traffic, parking, circulation, noise, lighting and safety
are either equivalent to the existing conditions or are improved upon.
Several issues yet to be analyzed that are not in the FEIR are as follows:
1. Growth: The FEIR evades the subject of growth of the congregation over time
saying it would be "purely speculative". However, the congregation has grown
from 220 families in 1984 to over 600 in 2006. As stated in a letter written to the
Town of Tiburon in 1984 by John Roberto Associates, KolaShofar's
representative for the original CUP, "There are currently 220 families with
anticipation of 350 families in the future". The original 350 family intention has
been far exceeded and the congregation claims yet again they have no intention
of growing but they demand no caps on the size of the congregation. If they
have no intention to grow, why do they defend the "no cap" position and ask for a
sanctuary that when combined with the multipurpose room and adjoining spaces
exceeds the size of any other in venue in Marin with the exception of the Marin
Civic Center auditorium which seats 2000 people? Maybe looking at the website
for the Koret Foundation, dedicated to the revitalization of Jewish life in America,
would shed some light on the matter. At Koret Foundation.org/initiatives/syn
website (See Attachment A), one can see the partnership and mission
established between Koret and Kol Shofar to build the congregation membership.
EXHIBIT NO. ? z
Kol Shofar and the Koret Foundation are investing in and studying ways to grow
the congregation in a three-phase program called the Synagogue Initiative. "An
evaluation by the Brandeis University Institute for Community and Religion
documented the dramatic success of this first phase of KSI in three Bay Area
synagogues (Kol Shofar being one of the three). In the Congregation Kol Shofar
newsletter called "The Rabbi's Study" dated July 2,2002 on page 1 (See
Attachment B or go to kolshofar.orglJeadership/rabbis/sermons/rosenzweig.html)
the rabbi writes, "It's probably no wonder one of my favorite movies is "Field of
Dreams".... [Costner] is out in the cornfield where he hears a voice whispering 'If
you build it they will come'. That's what I believe about synagogues: if you build
an authentic Jewish community.... then the people will come. Particularly in this
moment in history when we are riding a great wave of interest in spiritual, in
personal meaning, people will come." He goes on to say "Let me tell you that
our efforts have been met with success beyond our wildest dreams. Our
Saturday Night at the Synagogue Program is drawing hundreds of people to Kol
Shofar..." In light of the active intentions and alliances to grow the congregation,
future growth of the congregation and its associated impacts must be studied
because the capacity of the proposed buildings far exceeds the caps used as a
basis for the EIR studies. There is no long-range projection of future impacts on
the neighborhood as the congregation grows and the potential for increased
impacts is very real given the size of the facility they propose.
2. If the words preached by Rabbi Lavey Derby in his sermon are true: "Our
Saturday Night at the Synagogue Program is drawing hundreds of people to Kol
Shofar...", why does the memo from Scott Hochstrasser, dated March 21, 2006,
list the attendance to these events as 100 people. Other questions also arise:
Why did Kol Shofar use the 2003 figure for the number of events? How many
Saturday Night at the Synagogue Programs occurred in 2004 and 2005? How
many people actually attended these events? Will Kol Shofar turn away people
when the quota of 100 people is reached? In fact, how will any of the numbers
provided for the events at Kol Shofar be verified given the capacity of the
multipurpose room far exceeds the cap set forth in the CUP proposal?
3. When I asked question #7 in my letter to the City dated July 17, 2006, "The issue
of long-term growth potential and its related impacts was raised at the scoping
session but has not been addressed to date. It is a very important planning issue
which needs to be resolved so the Town ofTiburon and the neighbors can see the
long-term repercussions of this project. TIlls long-term growth study would, in
effect, set up some parameters for determining the maximum capacity of Kol
Shofar's. . ... proposed building relative to the neighborhood and its infrastructure.
Please add this information to the fmal EIR." The response on the FEIR, p. 246,
was "The EIR preparers have no grounds (and likely have no legal authority) to
establish a maximum Congregation size. The number of events on site will be
limited to the events and caps established in the EIR." I did not ask the EIR
preparers to propose a cap on the size of the congregation but rather to address
the environmental impacts of the building when used at full capacity, whether that
capacity is reached in 1 year or 20 years the Town needs to be aware of the
impacts that building can potentially have over time in order to make an informed
decision. In this scenario, the event size would be limited by the size of the
facility not an ephemeral CUP. As stated in Lawrence Duke's letter to the Town,
dated 4/17/06, that over time the Commissiohers, Council, and Planning Staff
change, and fundamental promises are broken or forgotten and conditions of the
CUP are easily amended.
4. Growth: Given that the Kol Shofar sanctuary is being substantially enlarged
from 100 permanent seats to 550 permanent seats there is the potential to seat
more congregants at regular Saturday services. In addition, Kol Shofar can open
up the multi-purpose room to seat even more congregants on a regular basis, up
to 1864 people since there are no caps. They do not have enough parking at
their facilities for current Saturday services, much less for services with more
people. The neighbors are adamant that Kol Shofar has adequate parking on-
site for the safety and preservation of our neighborhoods.
5. Use: Kol Shofar has not made a commitment to what type of school would
occupy the existing and proposed classroom space slated for 150 children. With
the addition of the multi-purpose room and extensive kitchen facilities, the
proposed school is more apt to be a private elementary or high school than the
existing preschool. The EIR consultant mistakenly writes "For purposes of the
EIR, it will be assumed that the classrooms wilt be used by a pre-school or
elementary school arriving and leaving at the same time as existing pre-school
students, since this provides the worse case scenario." (P.13, DEIR) The
existing preschool drop-off and pick-up times are staggered over a 1 % hour
period in the morning and afternoon pick -up is staggered from 1 pm until 6 pm
with the majority of the pick-up between 1 and 2 pm which is complimentary to
the Bel Aire school schedule. Bel Aire students being dropped off and picked up
creates considerable traffic congestion on Blackfield Drive in the morning and
afternoon. To add another elementary school with similar hours to Bel Aire
would further increase the safety concerns and traffic congestion and was not
considered in the FEIR. If the classroom proposal is accepted, we strongly urge
the Town to limit the use to a preschool as portrayed in the traffic studies and
projections in the FEIR, otherwise new studies would have to be added to the
FEIR.
6. Emergency Access and Parking: There is no plan for valet parking, hence it is
unknown if the fire department will have access to the facilities in case of
emergency, particularly when the building is at full capacity. The emergency
plan, especially for the High Holy Days, was dismissed with the justification that it
only occurs several days a year. These issues need to be resolved before the
project is approved as it directly impacts the health, safety and welfare of the
congregants and the community. Health, safety and welfare are the foremost
issues in reviewing any project, surpassing any aesthetic criteria.
Issues in the DEIR and FEIR that present factually incorrect information or present
erroneous conclusions are as follows:
7. Noise: The FEIR states that 20 homes are significantly.impacted by the increase
noise, especially at night, and there is no mitigation that would reduce this
significant impact. There are quite a few homes that are negatively impacted by
current noise levels that are not listed in the FEIR and undoubtly there are more
affected by Kot Shofar's noise that are not listed. Neighbors not mentioned in the
noise study that we know are affected by current noise levels are 10, 30, and 40
Vista Tiburon and 31, 32 and 38 Via Los Altos. There are 6 neighbors on
Reedland Woods Way, not 5 as stated in the FEIR (p. 45) that face the Temple
that would be greatly affected. The acknowledged "bowl effect" in the FEIR (p.
92) causes more homes to be affected than the study leads one to believe. In
addition homes up and down Blackfield, many whose bedrooms face the street,
will be affected by late night traffic noise and parked cars in their neighborhood.
The noise impact is understated.
8. Noise: The Kol Shofar lawyer states that the inconvenience of several
residences does not necessarily create a significant impact. (FEIR, p.42) To
marginalize residences surrounding the temple is wrong. To have noise late at
night is disruptive. "Uncharacteristic" noise at night in a residential neighborhood
is incompatible and should not be allowed. We hope the town is fair-minded and
follows the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan.
9. Noise: The Salter Associates report, dated April 6, 2005, is clearly paid for by
Kol Shofar. The data is ineffectively manipulated in an attempt to diminish the
unavoidable significant impact of the nighttime noise. Salter says the following
statement in the FEIR is ambiguous and therefore erroneous without clarification
of the duration of the noise: l"Homes near the new parking lot would experience
significantly increased noise levels (Le. noise levels exceeding a 3 dB increaser
due to the activities of Kot Shofar.' What the statement actually reads in the
FEIR, p. 45 is "Hom~s near the new parking lot would experience significantly
increased noise levels (Le. noise levels exceeding a 3 dB increase) for at least
the one-half hour peak arrival and one-half hour peak departure period during
these new weekend events." The duration is plainly stated in the FEtR, but
omitted by Salter in his report. Regardless of that fact, does the duration of noise
matter given the fact that the noise exceeds the acceptable levels 3dBA increase
on a routine basis at Kol Shofar, especially at night?
10. Noise: The Salter report finds this statement to be correct: "Noise generated by
existing nighttime events cause more noise at 35 Reedland Woods Way [and
adjacent residences) than would occur under the new project." How could the
Kol Shofar emergency/ handicap only driveway that is rarely used especially at
night under the current conditions cause more noise than the proposed grand
entry/ circular drop-off and a 4D-car parking lot, especially considering the
proposed extended late night hours throughout the week and weekend?
11. Noise: To mitigate the significant impact of noise through reduced events leaves
the door open to an on-going issue between the neighbors, Kol Shofar and the
Town. The neighbors would have to endure the annoyance and inconvenience
of nighttime noise on a routine basis. To allow this extraordinarily large facility to
be built based on arbitrary caps set to control the environmental impacts is to
create an inherently faulty system where the neighbors will have to continually
register complaints to keep the number of events and the hours in check in order
to protect the residential quality of the neighborhood. If we don't complain, it will
be assumed all is well and the Congregation can have more. That is not our job.
The City officials should follow the General Plan and Municipal Code and
demand a facility that is appropriately sized to the residential quality and
infrastructure of the neighborhood. Kol Shofar can up the bar slowly and
degrade the residential quality of the neighborhood over lime by building on
oversized building and claim they will underutilize it and then over time increase
activity incrementally. This has been the historic pattern of Kol Shofar as noted
by Lawrence Dukes letter to the Town dated 4/17/06.
12. Is the annualized Ldn an appropriate style of measurement in a residential
neighborhood? To annualize the Ldn over the course of one calendar year does
not address the fact that nighttime noise generated by Kol Shofar events will
cause an increase in noise level of over 3 dBA hence is a significant impact is
created. The employment of the annualized Ldn method means we could have
quarry blasting at night or some other loud,inappropriate function just as long as
they limited the activity to the designated number of nights that equate to an
annualized increase of less than 1 dB. They might be able to blast 78 times at
year at night because it would smooth out on an annualized basis. Meanwhile
the residents would have 78 sleepless or sleep-interrupted nights.
13. Noise: The hours of use requested by Kol Shofar are not compatible in a
residential neighborhood. St. Hilary Church has no events after 7:30 PM. That
seems reasonable and should serve as a guideline for Kol Shofar's hours of use.
14. Use: The FEIR compares the Kol Shofar project with St. Hilary as a compatible
use in a residential neighborhood. Kol Shofar cannot be compared to St. Hilary
Church for many reasons. St Hilary's shuts down by 7:30 PM on any given night
while Kol Shofar is proposing many weeknights until 10 pm and on the weekends
until 11 :30 and 12:30 at night. By way of comparison, St.Hilary does not have
parties on-site versus Kol Shofar, which proposes parties with up to 250 people
(and a capacity for 300 people or more), amplified music, and the serving of
alcohol at parties. In addition, St. Hilary's church holds a maximum of 350
people as opposed to the maximum of 1,864 people proposed by Kot Shofar. St.
Hilary has sufficient parking on-site and was able to meet the parking code
requirements. Kol Shofar currently has parking problems. They use the streets
regularly for their services and propose to use the streets for their numerous
events in the future, which not in keeping with the Tiburon parking code and is
highly controversial with the neighbors. The proposed scale, use and hours of
operation by Kol Shofar are radically different than those of St. Hilary and
therefore cannot and should be compared.
15. Traffic: Kol Shofar hired Harrison to analyze the Tiburon BoulevardlBlackfield
intersection. They claim there is no need to increase the eastbound turnout lane
because "it could provide adequate pavement to serve even a 15 vehicle queue
(the 20 year build out scenario) by using 46 feet of the available 62 feet of the
deceleration lane." (Harrison memo dated 3/17/2006) Is this safe? Is not the
deceleration lane use for decelerating to avoid accidents?
16. Traffic: In the Appendix to the Final EIR it states on p. 5 "The applicant has
voluntarily agreed to reduce the number of events to 12 per year and limit the
attendance at those events". The Harrison memorandum, dated March 17, 2006,
concludes "Even if the project generated traffic caused the queue length to be
exceeded, it would happen very rarely, and thus would not be considered a
significant impact requiring mitigation." As stated above, the capacity of the
building and the potential number of events far exceeds the current proposal.
The applicant is merely adjusting the numbers to reduce impacts to gain approval
but can expand in an incremental fashion.
17. Traffic: Kol Shofar has changed the entrance to the facility after the FEIR was
completed. While Kol Shofar has returned to the existing circulation pattern, the
proposed volume of traffic and hours of use would significantly increased for the
project and therefore should be studied. .
18. Traffic should be analyzed with the TIRE system so the quality of life is taken into
consideration.
19. What is the impact on the parking given that Kol Shofar will run all its traffic
through the parking lot to access the grand entry? Will this increase the number
of cars parking in the street to avoid the increased congestion in the parking lot?
20. Parking: The Town parking code is very clear: "A new use, structural addition on
such a parcel shall be allowed only if it does not increase or create a parking
deficiency as determined in this section." (Section 5.08.00) Kol Shofar does not
have enough parking spaces for the facility currently as witnessed by the cars
parked up and down the neighboring streets every Saturday morning much less
for the expansion. To not apply the Town Parking code in this situation,
particularly when "the EIR traffic engineer considers an increase in actions that
would potentially injure or kill a child or other pedestrian is significant.", is to
ignore the health, safety and welfare of the community. The Kot Shofar project
needs to be downsized to a point where they can meet the Town's parking
requirements for the capacity of their proposed building.
21. Master Response 1: Reduced Events, Land Use section acknowledges "this
alternative would add views of a non-residential building, parking lot, and
driveway to the neighborhood and increase noise levels, traffic congestion, and
parking congestion. It is possible these changes would be considered
inconsistent with the General Plan goals regarding protecting residential
neighborhoods from uncharacteristic noise as well as inconsistencies with
conditional use permit (CUP) requirements regarding acceptable noise, traffic,
and visual impacts in residential neighborhoods." With the admission of these
inconsistencies, the EIR consultant states in the Land Use Element section of the
FEIR that the project is COnsistent with the goals of the General Plan. This is a
conflict within the FEIR document.
22. We take issue with FEIR's determination that the Kol Shofar expansion project is
consistent with the following goals set forth in the General Plan because the
determination goes against common sense as well as some of the studies
presented in the document:
LA-A: "To provide orderly balance of public and private land uses within
a convenient and compatible locations throughout the community."
"Compatible location" and "orderly balance" would suggest similar uses are
grouped together. A project with significant noise impacts, increased traffic
and late night operation does not strike an "orderly balance" and is arguably
incompatible.
LU-B: "To protect the health, safety and welfare of the community." The
increase in traffic volume and parking tum-arounds caused by the project
increase the risk of accidents with pedestrians. The FE I R says that as traffic
volumes and parking on streets increases, "pedestrians will need to act more
defensively". The surrounding neighborhoods are filled with young kids and to
a lesser extent elderly, neither of which are prone of "defensive thinking". It is
the first and foremost duty of city officials to protect and promote the health,
safety and welfare of the community.
LD-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." Events with up to 250 people, amplified
music, and the serving of alcohol until 11 :00 PM, or even 9 PM, is NOT
compatible with and does NOT enhance the small-town residential feel, nor is
a 10,000 s.f. multi-purpose room compatible within a residential neighborhood.
The scale, proposed use, hours of operation in no way reflects "a small-town
residential feeling". This use should be relegated to a commercial area near a
major arterial, not deep in a residential neighborhood.
LH-U: "To protect and preserve existing neighborhood character and
identity." The proposed night events are disruptive and offensive deep in a
residential neighborhood. This incompatibility of land use will set up continual
discord between neighbors and Kol Shofar. In a neighborhood where children
are in bed by 7:30 or 8:00 p.m. and families have to get up early, late night
events are a significant disturbance in terms of noise, light, and traffic. By
approving this project as proposed, the City is neither protecting nor
preserving the existing character of the neighborhood. The character and
ambience of the neighborhood is one of single-family homes, no streetlights,
complete quiet, and adjacent open space. The proposed 4Q-car, lighted
parking lot adjacent Redland Woods Way is particularly a nuisance on this
quiet, unlit street.
Policies: "New development shall be in harmony with adjacent
neighborhoods and open spaces." The consultant refers to S1. Hilary as an
example of a religious institutional expansion in a residential neighborhood to
justify the consistency of Kol Shofar with this policy. As stated above, the
scale, use, hours of operation and impacts such as parking and noise
proposed by Kol Shofar are radically different than those of S1. Hilary and
therefore cannot be compared.
C...B: To provide safe and convenient movement of local residents and
visitors to their places of employment, shopping and recreation...". The
receipt program as a mitigation proposed to solve parking problems is
ineffective. There is no way for neighbors or the town to be assured the
system would be enforced. Once the project is built the neighbors will have to
live with diminished safety and lack of street parking in their neighborhoods.
Kot Shofar claims they need the multi-purpose room for "life cycle" events and
for the High Holy Days to worship together. If the primary mission is to
worship together on the High Holy Days, why not erect a tent on-site at this
special time? We believe, despite the chaos of those few days, the
neighborhood would be supportive of this measure in the spirit of compromise.
We do not support the expansion based on the need for a facility to hold their
parties and celebrations. The celebration following a religious ceremony is not
an integral or essential part of the ceremony. The party after the ceremony
can occur on or off-site, and often does occur off-site as has been the case at
Kol Shofar over the past 20 years. Of course, it would be nice as well as
convenient to celebrate on-site but it is not a part of the religious ceremony.
Many other conservative synagogues in the Bay Area split High Holy Day
services and celebrate "Life -Cycle" events off-site as discussed by Karen
Nygren in her letter to the City. In light of the incompatibly of routinely large
events and parties in a residential neighborhood, we urge the Town to deny
the construction of the multi-purpose room and encourage Kol Shofar remodel
its facility with the possibility of a tent on special religious occasions and to
continue with its present hours. The existing building and grounds are in dire
need of repair.
Sincerely,
~Ch. ~S
nstlanna
ItTTftWM&JJr If
K.O&Ef_
JOUNDATlON fUNDS
'~o~~t>~ynagogue Initiative
The Koret Synagogue Initiative
(KSI) represents a major
commitment to the continuity of
Jewish identity through the is Ijved authentkaJly, honestly,
restoration of the synagogue as the p..assionately, and joyfully, then
central address for Jews. KSI peop1e will come."
funding for synagogues allows an -KOfet SynQtogue initiative Fobb.l
expansion of programming to reach
more diverse segments of the
Jewish community, both affiliated and unaffiliated, thus attracting new
members and deepening the participation of existing members. The
Koret Foundation has funded KSI in three phases, beginning in 1995
with four Bay Area synagogues and expanding to a total of nine
synagogues several years later. Today, in multiple reform, conservative
and orthodox synagogues in the Bay Area, the third phase of KSI is
building on the success of the first two phases.
"If)'Ou build an authentic Jewish
c<:>mmunity. one in which Judaism
Evaluation of the first two phases of the Koret Synagogue Initiative by
the Institute of Jewish Community and Research reports that KSl's
support for program staff in targeted synagogues has accomplished the
following objectives:
. increased membership
. increased involvement of existing members
. strengthened synagogue communities.
.
. Abc
. Kor
Initi
. Kor
-c
- PI
. ROI
. Kor
Aw
-c
- PI
. Kor
Pul
-c
- PI
. Kor
Jev
-c
- PI
. KOI
Init
-D
-K
-G
-K.
. Kor
De'
. COI
Applying for a Grant I Koret Initiatives I About Koret Foundation I News & Publications I Contact
Us I Home
C9 2001. Koret Foundation_ All rights reserved,
http://www.koretfoundation.orglinitiatives/syn _ main.shtmI
4/18/2006
~oret toundatIon - K.oret Synagogue Initiative
fOUNDATiON 'UNOs
Contatt.Us
KoretSynagogue I nitiative ~li Descriptron
Description and Impact
D Download PDF version
of KSI brochun>
(Acrob:tt Reader requir~d)
In considering hqw the Koret Foundation could
help repair, restore and refresh Jewish vitality in America in the 1990s
and beyond, the Foundation concluded that a massive effort is needed
to reconnect American Jews to the spiritual/religious side, as well as the
communal side, of their heritage and culture. The Foundation observed
that for generations the synagogue has served as the central address
for Jews, both spiritually and communally, and through its revitalization,
offers an opportunity to impart renewed vitality to Jewish life.
In its first three years, the Koret Synagogue Initiative tested the
hypothesis that synagogues that create innovative programs of inreach
and outreach could be effective in helping individuals (both members
and nonmembers) reconnect with their spiritual heritage and a sense of
community. An evaluation by the Brandeis University Institute for
Community and Religion documented the dramatic success of this first
phase of KSI in three Bay Area synagogues.
KSI Phase II took place over the following three years in partnership
with the three San Francisco Bay Area Jewish federations. During this
phase, the Koret Foundation expanded KSI to include five additional
congregations in order to further test the original hypothesis. Evaluation
of Phase II further validated the Phase I finding that innovative
programming was key to expanding synagogue membership and,
equally important, to transforming congregants into a cohesive
community of involved and engaged Jews individually and communally
strengthened by their shared heritage.
Page 1 of 1
.
. Abc
. Kor
Initi
. Kor
-CI
-PI
. ROl
. Kor
Aw;
-CI
-PI
. Kor
Put
-CI
-PI
. Kor
JeVl
-CI
- PI
. Kor
Initi
-01
Imp
- K~
-G!
- K~
. Kor
De\
. Cor
'-
Applying for a Grant I Koret Initiatives I About Koret F.oundation I News & Publications I Contact
Us I Home
@ 2001. Koret Foundation_ All rights reserved_
httn-//W\MW kOTPtfolln(btlon ()To/lnltl~tivp~/~vn hTO('.hllTPl ~html
d/l R/700fl
cOntact .Us
-*
KoretSynagogue Initiative Il~ SynagoguE'S
Synagogues
Koret Synagogue Initiative - Phase I
Beth Am
Los Altos Hills
Reform
Size: 650
Sherith Israel
San Francisco
Reform
Size: 1,100
Beth Sholom
San Francisco
Conservative
Size: 650
Kol Shnfar
i1buron
Conservative
Size: 650
Sample Programs
Full-time program director /
community organizer, new member
workshops and social activities,
senior lunchtime series, retreats,
Morasha B'nai Mitzvah Family
Enrichment Program, Shabbaton,
extensive senior programs, informal
gatherings at congregant homes
with Beth Am's Rabbi and President
Talking Tachlis, young adult
havurot, creative Shabbat services,
Rosh Chodesh groups, social action
projects (AIDS walk, Sukkot in April,
etc), Women's Passover Seder,
Parent and Toddler Discussion Play
Group
Retreats, Feast of Jewish Learning,
Learners' Minyan, congregational
retreat, poetry readings, senior
matinee, young adult programming,
Rosh Chodesh group, meditation
before Minyan, community-building
events Retreats, Feast of Jewish
Learning, Learners' Minyan,
congregational retreat, poetry
readings, senior matinee, young
adult programming, Rosh Chodesh
group, meditation before Minyan,
community-building events
Half-time program
director/community organizer,
Neshama Minyan (an alternative
service), Saturday Night at the
Synagogue, Erev Sha~bat potJucks,
several small groups based on age,
life cycle, occupation, and
geography
Synagogues
Koret Synagogue Initiative - Phase II
Beth Am
Los Altos Hills
Reform
Size: 650
* Kol Shofar
Sample Programs
Shabbaton, a B'nai Mitzvah Family
Enrichment Program, membership
recruitment, the formation of a
social action committee, and family
camps
Saturday Night at the Synagogue,
http://www .koretfoundation.org/initiatives/synagogue.shtml
.
. Abc
. Kor
Initi
. Kor
-CI
- PI
. ROt
. Kor
Aw;
-CI
- PI
. Kor
Put
-CI
- PI
. Kor
Jelll
-Cl
- PI
. Kor
Initi
- D,
- K:
-GI
-K:
. Kor
De\
. Cor
4/18/2006
h~rCL rUUIluaUUIl - ~urCL .::>ynaguguc lIlluauvc
Tiburon
Conservative
Size: 650
Emanu-EI
San Francisco
Reform
Size: 1,853
Sherith Israel
San Francisco
Reform
Size: 1,100
Beth Sholom
San Francisco
Conservative
Size: 650
Peninsula Temple
Sholom
Burlingame
Reform
Size: 750
Beth David
Saratoga
Conservative
Size: 650
Temple Sinai
Oakland
Reform
Size: 750
Rodef Sholom
San Rafael
Reform
Size: 1,148
Minyan Retreats, and groups for
singles, empty nesters, & mental
health professionals
An assistant rabbi, late Shabbat for
young adults, Mitzvah Corps and
Mitzvah Day, a youth group, family
Torah study, a Rosh Chodesh
group, chavurot
Membership outreach (new member
dinners & prospective member open
houses), several chavurot, young
family outreach, "Friday Night Live"
service, a downtown noon-time
lecture program
Development of the Jewish Family
Preschool, retreats, several
chavurot, intense learning
experiences (I.e. Hebrew-in-a-Day
& Siddur-in-a-Day)
An assistant rabbi, youth groups,
adult education courses and
lectures, a Social Justice Task
Force, interfaith outreach, a Chai-
Club, a young couples group
A membership coordinator, family
Shabbat dinners, babysitting during
Shabbat morning services,
member -to-member connections,
seniors program, a singles and
young couples group, a Mitzvah
Day
An assistant rabbi, a senior
program, a leaders' Minyan, b'nai
mitzvah chavurah, PACE (Parent
and Child Education), a singles
program
Full-time program director, part-time
program assistant, Mitzvah Day, a
singles group, single parent family
programs, chavurot, senior
programs, Jewish holiday programs,
social action programs directed to
the homeless, neighborhood-based
programs
Koret Synagogue Initiative - Phase III
Synagogues
Beth David
Saratoga
Conservative
Programs
Yoetz Ne'eman: A Synagogue Wide
Mentoring Program, which will
provide opportunities for 50% of the
http://www .koretfoundation.org/initiatives/synagogue.shtml
rage L. U1 't
4/18/2006
Size: 650
Blnai Emunah
San Francisco
Conservative
Size: 140
Emanu-EI
San Francisco
Reform
Size: 1,853
Peninsula Sinai
Foster City
Conservative
Size: 236
Shalar Zahav
San Francisco
Reform
Size: 400
Shir Hadash
Los Gatos
Reform
Size: 550
Kol Emeth
Palo Alto
Conservative
Size: 530
Shir Shalom
Sonoma
Reform
Size: 137
Shomrei Torah
Santa Rosa
Reform
Size: 325
congregation to learn from each
other to improve their religious
understanding and observance, and
increase and enhance their practice
of religious customs and traditions
Am Segula, a Torah study program
- unaffiliated and affiliated
participants will learn about the
methods used in Jewish tradition to
interpret Torah through an on-site
and an internet class
Enhanced programming for young
adults through a Rosh Chodesh
group, Adult Mitzvah Corps, and a
Late Shabbat program
Expanded programming for empty
nesters and young adults including
monthly Shabbat dinners and
services for young adults, monthly
Jewish study groups, and
community social action activities
Program expansion in various areas
including its adult education
program that will work towards
increasing membership
A 2/3 time Jewish community
organizer to assist in the
implementation of synagogue-
based programming focused on
expanding membership and
eliminating perceived barriers to
synagogue life
"Making Room for Shabbaf' - to
encourage families to bring Shabbat
into their homes, Shabbat kits will
be distributed to congregational
members and families wjth young
children will be given an opportunity
to worship and study together,
socialize, and eat dinner together
on Shabbat
A variety of outreach programs and
the expansion of programs in four
areas: Adult Jewish Learning,
Jewish Arts and Culture,
Community Connections, and
Tikkun Olam (community service
activities)
Post B'nai Mitzvah program - which
will offer opportunities for social
involvement, Jewish study and
academic enrichment, appreciation
of Jewjsh culture, leadership
http://www .koretfoundation.org/initiatives/synagogue.shtml
4/18/2006
n.,VICl rVWJU(1UVH - ^,-Ult;l ~YHt:1gUgUt; lIllUt:1UVt;
rage q or q
development, social action, and
strengthening connections with
Judaism and synagogue life
Applying for a Grant I Koret Initiatives I About Koret Foundation I News & Publications I Contact
Us I Home
@ 2001. Karet Foundation_ All rights reserved.
httn:/ /www.koretfoundation.oTQ/initiatives/svnaQoQue.shtml
4/1 &/2006
. -0- .. "'... .
, R;}_b.l2i~'J>?~
A TTfJetlM~Nr t?
WHA T WOULD ROSENZWEIG SAY?
Kol Nidre, 5757
One of my favorite stories about Kol Nidre is a modem story about the German Jewish philosopher
Franz Rosenzweig. Rosenzweig grew up in an assimilated, secular Jewish family in the years before
World War 1. As a young man in search of spirituality he made the decision to convert to Christianity,
and at age 27 he went to the synagogue on
Kol Nidre eve in order to say goodbye to Judaism. But something happened to him. The power of that
service was so real, he was moved so deeply, that he decided not to convert but rather to immerse
himself in Judaism instead.
This is a haunting story and what haunts me about it is a single question: what would happen if Franz
Rosenzweig came into Kol Shofar? Would he have had the same experience? What would he feel? What
would happen inside him? Would his life be changed forever by the experience?
Some of you undoubtedly read the article in the Jewish Bulletin last week which boldly announced that
"the majority of Bay Area Jews neglect or even consciously shun synagogues for most of the year." yet,
the article, continues, these same Jews return to their spiritual birthplaces for two days every fall. And I
am haunted by the question: what is it about synagogue life that fails to attract and arouse the fervor of
Jews? If a visitor walked into our synagogue, what would she find? What would she feel? Would she
feel moved by transcendence or by boredom? Would she feel a dynamic connectedness or just another
disconnect?
Let me confess to you that these questions are much more than academic to me. They are "devarim ha-
omdim be-rumo shel olam" -matters that are at the center of the universe. And I take them very
personally. Despite a lifetime of watching people flock to synagogues two days a year, only to stay away
the other 363 days, I nevertheless must believe that a synagogue which thinks of itself as a community
more than an institution will be attractive to people; that a community based on spiritual and ethical
values which offers people the opportunity to expand their own spiritual and ethical sides will be
attractive to people; that a religious community which is truly open to personal exploration and which
addresses people's joy and suffering, love and death, which addresses people's quest for meaning must
be attractive to people. I believe this. Probably, I need it to be true.
It's probably no wonder that one of my favorite movies is "Field of Dreams" . You remember:
midwestern farmer Kevin Costner is out in his cornfield where he hears a voice (on the High Holidays
we would describe it as a "still, small voice") whispering "If you build it .they will come." That's what I
believe about synagogues: if you build an authentic Jewish community, one in which Judaism is lived
authentically, honestly, passionately, joyfully, then people will come. Particularly at this moment in
history when we are riding a great wave of interest in the spiritual, in personal meaning, people will
come.
During the past year and a half we at Kol Shofar have been given the opportunity to find out. Thanks to
an initaitive of the Koret Foundation, and with the cooperation and generosity of the Marin Community
Foundation, three Bay Area synagogues and Kol Shofar were given the financial resources to hire
program directors whose job it would be to "build it" and see if they would come. Ostensibly what they
were meant to build was a program, but in reality what they needed to build was community. That's
what our very fine program director, Karen Roekard, helped us focus on. Building and strengthening
community .
http://ko I shofar. org/leadership/rabbis/ sermons/rosenzweig.html
4/18/2006
un111100 I.nunI
Page 2 of4
Very early on in our project we made the decision to focus our efforts in two different, but mutually
complementary, directions. Because Marin sits at the heart of the spiritual renewal movement in our
country, our leadership decided to reach out to those Jews who think of themselves as spiritual seekers.
At the same time, we decided to build our own community by focussing on two populations which have
been traditionally underserved by synagogues: singles over 35 and adults whose children are already
grown and out of the house.
Let me tell you briefly that our efforts have met with a success beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Our
Saturday Nights at the Synagogue Program is drawing hundreds of people to Kol Shofar not for
membership but to experience the spiritual depth that Judaism offers. Our neshama minyan draws a
hundred people on Shabbat, many of them members who never come to regular services but who never
miss a Neshama minyan. The group of singles now has over 80 names on its roster. They meet regularly
for Shabbat dinner and other activities. They call themselves a "mishpacha" -- afamily. The same thing
has happened to our group of, for lack of any better description, "Empty nesters. " With the nurturing
presence of our program director, these 30 -40 households have evolved into a havurah which meets
regularly for socializing, discussion and spiritual growth. They have already mapped out an entire year's
worth of activities.
And that's just the beginning. over the past year 10 new chavurot have been created, including a havurah
of mental health professionals whose 25 active members have committed themselves to use their
professional skills to serve the Kol Shofar community. Currently they are studying the Jewish traditions
surrounding death and mourning so that they can help bring comfort to the bereaved with both their
psychological skills and their knowledge of Jewish tradition. They will also provide volunteer teaching
and guidance about the sticky issues that arise when people come together in community. This year we
will see the creation of neighborhood get togethers on Shabbat and other occasions. And all these efforts
are designed with one purpose in mind: to empower people, to nurture relationships and connectedness,
to foster intimacy, to build a richer, deeply fulfilling community.
Kol Shofar has always been known throughout the area for our emphasis on community. I didn't create
it, but I'm enormously proud of it. Our Rabbi Emeritus, Rabbi David White and the founders of this
synagogue 15 and 20 years ago dreamed of a community whose hallmark would be "haimishness." Just
this past Thursday I received a letter from a member which begins:
"On January 9, 1981, I attended services at Kol Shofar for
the first time. My journal entry from that night said,
'What an amazing experience. Went to services at Kol
Shofar. This is what I want. It was beautiful, warm. I
have never felt so accepted in a Jewish place. Everyone
was so welcoming and encouraging... .'"
Go anywhere in the Bay Area and mention Kol Shofar by name and you will hear the same thing: "Oh,
Kol Shofar, it's so haimisch!" When we were I 00 families this was a wonderful accomplishment. No\v
that we are 470 households, it is simply extraordinary. In fact, 6 I % of our members stated that our warm
and friendly atmosphere was a very important factor in their choosing to join. Of the four synagogues
studied by the Koret Foundation, we are the only one whose atmosphere was of major importance to
people. We are people who seek community. And if you build it, they will come.
We dreamed that a synagogue might be a place were people could examine and explore the intricacies of
Judaism and discover the depth of meaning \vithin it. We dreamed that Kol Shofar might become a safe
http://kolshofar.orglleadership/rabbis/sermons/rosenzweig.html
4/18/2006
place where adults could stretch themselves and grow Jewishly, intellectually and spiritually . You know
what we learned this year? Of the four synagogues in the Koret study, we have the highest rate of
involvement in adult Jewish education. 67% of our members have participated in Jewish studies this
past year, and almost half of us engage in Jewish learning at the synagogue once a month or more. If you
build it, they will come.
One of the proudest moments of my life occurred last year when a group of Kol Shofar members, led by
Anne Zhishka, Elliot Bien and others, stepped forward to take responsibility for a project of feeding the
homeless here at kol Shofar on Sunday's. We had participated for years in the tzeddakah project of
bringing meals to homeless shelters and collecting food for the Food Bank. And when our members
came together to feed the poor here, in our home, I felt again as if Judaism had come alive. They showed
me that our Torah is not just words on a parchment. The Torah is alive, and the adults and children who
feed the homeless on Sundays are showing us all how to live it.
1 used to joke that Sundays at Kol Shofar was the quintessential Jewish experience: we study Torah a
little, we davven a little, we eat a little, we schmooze a lot! And now we do tzeddakah on Sundays. And,
our building is packed on Sundays. Because if you build it, they will come.
For the most part, people will come for a lot of activities and programs. Except services. Kol Shofar
appears to be the same as every other synagogue described in the Bulletin article. 270/0 of our our
members believe that attending synagogue services is very important. Fewer than that actually attend
services once a week. Despite our proclaimed interest in God and spiritual questions, it appears we do
not find services at all interesting. What conclusions should we draw from this?
To me, the most stunning statistic to emerge from the Koret Foundation's study of four Bay Area
synagogues is that 99% of members from all four synagogues agreed that it is important or very
important for them to be Jewish and for their children to be Jewish. 990/0 That's practically impossible __
you can't get two Jews to agree on anything. So when 99% of the members of four synagogues agree __
well, we're talking motherhood and apple pie. We have arrived at the highest value, the elusive sunnum
bonum.
But note the following: while 990/0 throughout the Jewish community insist that it's very important to be
Jewish, 70/0 keeps kosher. 180/0 attend synagogue services. 19% think its important to experience Jewish
culture. 21010 report that they usually light candles on Shabbat. 290/0 think its very important to observe
Jewish rituals. 370/0 believe its very important to contribute to social justice. 450/0 say its very important
to have a bris for their male children. And these are synagogue members! Imagine what the unaffiliated
must think!
And at Kol Shofar, 240/0 of us have a Shabbat dinner. Only 2 1/20/0 regularly do havdallah. But 990/0 of
us think its important to be Jewish.
What shall we make of these facts? What are they telling us about ourselves? I suppose it depends on
whether you like to see the glass half full or half empty.
The fact that 990/0 of all synagogue members say that being Jewish is important to them suggests that
they feel real commitment to Jewish community and identity. They express considerable interest in
religious programming and in studying Jewish spirituality. But at the same time the vast majority of us
are ambivalent about how to translate that into daily practice and meaning. We do not seem to make
room for religious content to our Jewish lives, and the key traditional determiners of Jewish identity _
keeping kosher, lighting shabbos candles, having a bris, going to the synagogue for prayer -seem to be
irrelevant. We distance ourselves from daily practice and observance. Ritual has little place in our
http://kolshofar .org/leadership/rabbis/sennons/rosenzweig.html
4118/2006
uptlueo 1 .nuru
rage Lt Ul 't
Jewish lives. The activity of tefillah is, for all intents and purposes, a forgotten art. I wonder if we are
afraid to be religious. In our current political and cultural climate, where religiousity is associated with
extremism and with the far right, maybe its just not PC to be religious. Or maybe, the meaning of being
Jewish is going through a radical transformation. For us, today, being Jewish means belonging,
connecting, having a warm Jewish feeling, learning. We gravitate towards the intellectual pursuit, the
social connection. The spiritual, ritual practice is ignored.
Consider again our Sunday morning program. It's amazingly popular. And thanks to the generosity of
one of our members we have this year added a new feature to our Sunday morning program: a cappucino
cart. We call it "Mi Ka-Mocha." The name is cute, but also revealing. The building is jammed. And the
success of our Sunday program has virtually replaced Shabbat as the day of gathering at the synagogue.
If you build it, they will come, but not for davenning and not for regular ritual practice. It's the sign of
the times.
The truth is Jews are changing, and Jewish identity is in flux. In many ways our Jewish lives are fuller
than ever before. But we are giving up mitzvot. We are giving up the ritual practice that gives energy
and life to our spiritual search. We are abandoning the very activities that concretize the spiritual
meaning we hunger for. 150 years ago most Jews gave up the notion of a commanding God. We have
since even given up the possibility of hearing God's voice and feeling God's presence through the
mitzvot. We have discovered that there are no consequences --no punishment --for not doing the
mitzvot. But we have forgotten that there is awesome consequence when we do the mitzvot --we are
raised to a new spiritual level, to greater closeness with God and greater awareness of the gifts and
blessings we have received.
I am haunted by Franz Rosenzweig. What would he find here, at Kol Shofar, that would change his life
forever? What would he experience here that would set his soul on fire and move him to a life devoted
to God and Torah? I hope you'll ponder my question over the next day. And I hope you'll let me know
what would move you, too. Because the real question is not about Rosenzweig. It's about you.
http://kolshofar .org/leadership/rabbis/sermons/rosenzweig.html
4/18/2006
TIMOTHY METZ AND JENNIFER JORGENSEN
April 17, 2006
~~A~~::ffi~~
Town of Tiburon Planning Commission and
Tiburon Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA. 94920
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Re.: Kol Shofar Expansion Plans - Response to Amended Proposal
Dear Tiburon Planning Commissioners and Tiburon Town COlU1cil .t\lembers:
After reviewing Kol Shofar's revised proposal, \ve still strongly oppose their expansion project. The
proposed multi purpose room, combined \\7:1th the capacities in the rest of the proposed facility, creates a
physical space that accommodates far more people than our small, guiet, residential neighborhood can bear. In
your evaluation of the project, it is incumbent on you to consider not only the proposals that Kol Shofar is
presenting, but also the potential future use of tlle property by Kol Shofar or another occupant of the site.
Mter all, you are not just being asked to review a CUP change, but you are also being asked to decide
the merits of a massive construction project to build the second largest event facility in all of Marin
County. Only the l\1arin Civic Center at 2,000 seats would be bigger.
\V'hat is Kol Shofar going to do when new members want to join or when visitors want to attend High
Holidays services? Their stated membership of 1,880 people (DEIR page 139) is already more than 200 people
above what the ne\v proposed project can accommodate. Even if the project is built as proposed, as they
continue to grow they are going to have to split services and violate religious law again or they are going to
have to find another suitable facility offsite to conduct a single service. They are right back to where they are
today, BUT with one very key difference. If this project is allowed, the neighbors will be burdened \vith a multi
purpose room/ social hall in their backyard that can no longer accommodate the stated needs of the grO\ving
congregation.
"Nature abhors a vacuum."
Kol Shofar's stated project goal is to provide a facility that GIn accommodate the entire congregation in a
single service during the three days of High Holidays services each year. They also plan to use the multi
purpose room for other events throughout the year, but these proposed uses leave the facility dormant or
highly underutilized for most of the year. Is it realistic for the neighbors to expect that Kol Shofar \vill be
content with this limited usage?
On the point of membership growth, "nature abhors a vacuum" is extremely relevant as well. Kol Shofar
has shown a reluctancejinability to provide fuhlre membership projections, so let us provide some information
for them. A. guote from Rabbi Lavey Derby's Kol Nidre Sermon, 5757 (see a,ttached AppendLx A) sums up
their goals and our concerns:
"It's probabjy no wonder that one qfl11)'fat.orite movies is "rteld of Dream/'. You remember: A1idwestern farmer Kevin Costner
is out in his C"ornjield where he hears a [Ioice (on the High Holidq)'S Jve v.Jould desm"be it as a "still, small voice'') whl~rpen"ng "~f
you build it thfj)' will come." That's lvhat I befier;e about J)'nagf{~ueJ: f( JOu build an autbentiC" Jewish communitv. one in whieb
Judaism is filled authentiealjv. honeJtll'. tJaJsionate!l'. iqvfuljl'. then beot>/e lp;!1 come."
This may seem like a bemgn guote, but the underlined portion of this guote is highlighted on the Koret
Synagogue Initiatiye section of the Koret Foundation web~ite. The Koret Synagogue Initiative states its goal as
fo11O\vs (see attached Appendix B):
"KfI funding for J)'nagogueJ a/lolJ!.r an e:>..pamion of programJJJi/~g to reacb more dil'erse se,gments q{ the Jewish communi!)', both
q[filiated and unalfiliated. tbus attratting new memben and deepenirl,g the partidpation if existi'Zg members."
EXHIBIT No.h..
-2-
April 17, 2006
Furthermore, the Koret Synagogue Initiative states the following accomplishments:
"KS!'s support for program staff in targeted s)'lJagogues has accomplished the following objectives:
- increased membershiD
- increased involvement rif exi.rting members
- strengthened [J'nagogue communities."
Obviously Kol Shofar's efforts \\lith the Koret Foundation have been extremely successful as their
membership numbers are up dramatically since Rabbi Derby joined the congregation and have gone up even
further since they began participating in the Koret Synagogue Initiative.
\V'hat about other alternatives? Could Kol Shofar erect wedding/event tents to house the people who
cannot fit in the sanchlary during theJ-ligh Holidays? If they need a space for Saturday lunches, why don't they
upgrade the existing annex building? From our discussions with Mark Levy, all they plan to do with the annex
is fix the leaks in the roof and paint the inside. Apparently funding is too tight to allow much more. This
building could easily be fixed up to house a kitchen and to host congregational lunches and meetings.
On another point, Kol Shofar claims that the new classroom wing ",,--ill be used to replace eX1sttng
classrooms that will be lost in the reconstruction of the sanctuary. While that may be true, the new proposal
"add(s) 50 children each dav in a KolSh~far Pre-School'. The DEIR and FEIR mention 50 additional students in the
school. \'Ve assumed tllls meant an expansion of the Ring Mountain Day School to an additional 50 students.
All of a sudden, there is a new Kol Shofar preschool being mentioned. \V'hat are we going to find out about
next? This is a slippery slope we are going down. \X'bat are those new proposed classrooms really going to be
used for? Kol Shofar got a variance for their CUP once to allow the Je\V-ish Community High School to be
located there. Is this new preschool the only thing Kol Shofar is thinking about in the near term?
N one of Kol Shofar's compromises have reduced usage of the facility in any significant manner. All they
have proposed is a modest reduction in the number of attendees and in the proposed hours of usage. It is
interesting to us that the reduced attendance is conveniently sized to allow maxinlUm capacity while alleviating
concerns on Kol Shofar's part that they might need to fund a CalTrans left turn Jane extension on Tiburon
Bouleyard at Blackfield Drive. Is this modest reduction of attendees at an eyent really a sigtllficant change? Is
shortening eycnt durations by 30 minutes a significant change? \'Ve certainly don't think so on either count.
Again, we recognize and respect Kol Shofar's need to serve their community. \X'e embrace Kol Shofar's
desire to improve their facilities by renoyating/ rebuilding the existing spacc. However, \ve do not view the
additions of a multi purpose room, expanded classrooms and associated parking lot expansion as necessary to
serve their community. \X!e also feel tllat these aspects of their expansion plan significantly change the
character of the residential neighborhood in which they are located. In making your decision, please consider
not only KoI Shofar's proposed usage, but also the future usage potential of a development project as large as
this one.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
lkJvrl#P:V 7{/1T---
Timothy l\fetz and Jennifer Jorgensen
5 II ]\ FED] .\ N D \\ 0 ODS \\.\ Y . T J B l' RON. C.\ . '}4 ') 2 II
PHONE: 415.383.5381
untitled] .html
http://www.kolshofar.org/leadership/rabbis/sermons/rosenzweig.html( ] of 5)03/24/2006 4:] 6:46 AM
untitledl.html
http://www.kolshofar.org/leadership/rabbis/sermons/rosenzweig.html(2 of 5)03/24/20064:] 6:46 AM
untitledl.html
http://w\vw.kolshofar.orglleadership/rabbis/sermons/rosenzweig.html(3 of 5)03/24/2006 4: 16:46 AM
untitled] .html
http://wwwokolshofar.org/leadership/rabbis/sermons/rosenzweig.html (4 of 5)03/24/2006 4:] 6:46 AM
untitled 1.html
; ,
'~ I
~i'
~fL
~'11l
J
.' 'T..'~';:';j-.~~:;'.DY:i/" ....:: '~'{J',:;;:',::;~f::.V\;:~/ "'/:;/1?-:,,2 ,'0','1 :"',;!::):>, '::,.. '.~.r;... 'r,'~~;:;'.."
'. 'I u}'t:,.':'.-:- X.~}':<:' E/,..,.>/~;,..." 'c' :3~':'~/f:i'~U:.: X"T"., ,:/.~}}i
~. .::"'.,,' ';\~':r,."'.o: '.,;< '/;:' 1}:;i:.',{;
'" 7' ~':~~-c~~J:~' ....~..:':~~;f '~.~;_:."~r ~~!.Sh~far, that would change his life
pi ."~ ," .....\>~,: it'II:],- ;e l..... ::':4;rpan.dmo.ve him to a life devoted
, ~'<C,\,,: .c;J ,.,. U:j~:~ll)i v.'
Jt YOU ..' ~.~ I 'It,;lt 11 ~:"i~'i( - . .' I. hope. you'll let me know
~j-, i).~_",:' :b1llj d~";~k::- Ll' :(;%: ; ,: '"':.' ..
1 ~-tr';" :;; ":'i}""(":i:.'- ....: ,..:..~ I' b
~ l' :90 r.1- :/1 :Jt t:J:l~:nc a)( L ~ ...~c:.~~~~vyt;J t S a out you.
;..~/,' ~\~l. .is.:' ::lyP-}. '(~":.o" > "..,';' . ,
""'.>,..': -'.. ';J-]'..?,,:,;~ .' : .,
',,~;>'{ );; " ::/ )"">",'i;~ ';K< ..:'>~<>/ ;,~'..,..,
:/(b>.\,:", :',;,., ,..,>:; ~f~~tl ....... -""},,<
f;;._;~;~L,::;I\/;'; .",.' < ,~'; i'~."> :.;: '.. ,.x;
;'.:1i,', .. e.'. '" ,.,; .,:{:>(t :,(:.y,><" "" "1\,': .. .
t2?;:.c" t;; ,', .., ,,':. ;fi~i:~l,;:i;, . ?l;~ ,.. .ib; ,'. : T'~:'/~fi'}~t;w~"jt;) T>\'
"!i;,,'~f' <;,::... <, ;''0" '1:'.'1'tt~{( J r~)..;;{., >.\,'t~;,:.:; .:t/:~?r'
."c', ',";::-,.'.< "~' ...,. .>' ::;~''''. .. '.....,: .:; ':t " .'
I'?': :'-\?:::!.:, .~ ;\\ ,;w: ;', '~t;i.}i';:" {:'., ..;<"
;:' .,."<' " {;t,;\( ..f::::,<,,:-,?. :
. ~, ~F.;";~~;;':' i: "~c. "':'" ~\7 ,c.'. "'
;,,;, ~<\t':,.;~,. .;;. ;-'
'.. :'>;{:;<i~:",:, i~X ~;~;;d.;s .,:....\,.'" ~.. f;' . .~;
;~ ;'.",;,., ." :( ....;"
'/:.,', ....;',;:,'.
'/,: :",:,:: -~" <<:c'-,k...""; '"
, yc, ,.';;",:;,,"; :.;:\_,;{?-., ,;'; :c.',,'"
.f,..,; ~);' ''.'. .'.:, :;'jfll~~~< ,.;.,. ;:"'- :'.... "CO'.\ ;",
c:,\,>_'. ::./". ~';. "j.: ~i ..~':! l{~ .'.' '\' '0 .. .' "~~,'" . , " .
;:> >.Y*\ ,;"1;,;,;, <,'; :", .?'.. ".". .'>.. .....,' ::.' . ..-'
'>/r.' ;}.' ~;It'i';if :'~!I.' i'.,.:> "N' .:~ !',:/.:i;:,;:: :.,,:: a';~.,. -'. :
i;i,:'::: .~..." :.; ~~;~CI-~':::~("1.:~.tt:;~:i!;: ;,:':;';p,:~";'3& "}< . . .
'>;"0'" '<')-~':';\':"':"~' :"',^;''.;:; ,'/;-,.' .
;:;c,\,,; ,';? "'d. '/~'1~"':1"'-' 2;, :;.: . .
(': ";f;1~ :,':;)r;~ ::j ." ",.;:', .
. "'" :/0 ;~ "/:'.;'~'"
.~\i; '..;~: {.:-y,\,<;. :" !F.';'/' c.; ::,' "'<f~:-'?
;H;,;.");~"j;;,~;;<i,_ <'.-:'}; :, .~'.x';. "", .':":~;;;~ ~~>:;" .:,.".t.:,,/'
C:,~';&,;;;;c.,,; <"'}"'p h;..'..... :,:. . - ~;;'; .;;~:..:.,
-j'",c,,' ,.'').5' (,: [~i~':,' ,..:,,.: ' ,; :'.. ',i; ::~'13~,..
. U~;:'.'.. ,:-'" ,~i" ";:.',( ;C."'i: :. .C: :;"t,':'. ::'--
.<' "j:ir',\::,../:-;): ie' .,1::~:~U "';"). . .';>.
';';'~:'i'" ;;",: ;0;: ,. :CJ;.; :.~: c.,.> );):,";.';,.,;.~.;,~~:U.\,;,. :
,,;. :,_':;. :" '~--"; ,cIc'.;'>}; :;<, ,o~ 1; >:,'~"';
;:;'~,}V/,!tt.,' ._},~}}~.'[;.,:;:<~{i,)}!"!~" ':''.}~>,;'.
, . " . ...': . "::;W~;';~>. :~':{:J~: :' ,:;; ,,:r:'..\ .: ... '..? r}1;'~?' ", ,.';:'r.:'~;'\: X::;~.!i'.
i;. ({( ;,-,.;~;(/.' . . . ,c'.:;"J;;'" '.;' i"~'}:;'~ :;.;:';';' , ," : ' "
">~';':;<' . . ,....--'~.L.":../' -'/"::'. '."":;;' '. "'.
~~.. .~ <,~;~_~~:j: :_" ;-' . - -; ,',:->., '/>, :;.~":' ',Y_::;'~x:. ~ " , j
:frY'. '>.' (i. >;,;.;':.r. _ ' . '. ,. . .t;.. '. " . '.' _.... . ..!i>'~: ~
',~ <..fe:'; i~;'.:r:".<J';; _:.: . :- . . . .;:~ .
: i.'.,; ;'-.'i, ""';>. ' .^.
,';: ~"~:.;: ,,'" 'i"q,. .;'}-/:;.'.;. , -
j"">.;{'2 .;. . .....x.,' '::.,\', .
;.J', ',': ::;;:;"";." ';,,' ..,.,.':~'.':.Y ;i' .' , , ..,
, ",......_. '. ;.,;::i:~];';;' /_~:.';:::i';!,"";.::r : ',':,'"
.' :':}"'. . . \'.r '.f'.\:;:}N:;;~. .;;:P:: '~;, :>1;-( , .
~;;.;'L"> '."";'~;i~" '\i. .;/(!;;,,'.::?:;Y" Y:V:' ,
i '.. "{7.:~jJ(;";~~:~:4.~;5::; :.' ;6"./' ,
~I: ;;(~');'.,.,. " j;:~,,>::.y,:_' .j;.;.;'.:,. .' . ,: ,-:;~:~,,':)l~;).,:' ','-.
,"{ ~-:\;~,~~...;::,.~ . ;':'\:,}~~7:}h,i-,: , ;' '.' )~.(.: .}:s/(' . . .;. "
l~< ;,; '. .~' 'lr~;t/i<" ".;,-:,,'}('" : , ..
',(,/.::.".;. .:.;;./.20;1." .' '. '.; :)~<' ..' :
,.;:'.( '.~~:':' " ...' :,.. ;" '''. . ',,",. ','J, "C'; '.'
.<', ".:;: ,'. :;',>. . ;. '; ~ ~ .~::'J"': ;:-f' <.> .;.: v
',";',e '.; .. .; ';." ".: : '~-~;'~(;i ..' -. ..
:;", · .,.. ; , " :.;..' ,}Z"...:,:,::: .- '. .. ',' " ,; "
;. ~ '. ,l ',,:
l(
~.~:
:0 eSSl
,.~ ~.
I ,:.
~
" :
, ,
. .
J ,;:-
li;;l;f~1 );'V:;; ~c(y.'.
;,i;::'~~ ::););.'.~.';; \
';:. ,< ::,"":,.' . .
.:It:>; L< ,;:'~~ ....... ; ( ," .,
;';;:", ,;>.;'/5'.>~X,.'. '-
.. ;',:N/ -:;j:"'i:'\}"([; ;.
1l;Y;':'::':J:':, :0:;:;..>;
~:,.',;);~"n.I ~;', ., .
;.7? ';,~'<>:-:_.:.....~,; >' .,,',
: ,'::""- . .
~I~'~<!_:':{ \' , i :
. :i', .,~~ "f.} ~;:":':'" ~.", '
'. F;':; "'.
;;..: ~
; ~.
~, ; l'
l.>
....,:"i.
<: t
http://www.kolshofar.org/leadershiplrabbis/sermons/rosenzweig.html (5 of 5)03/24/20064:] 6:46 AM
Karel Foundation - Karel Synagogue Initiatives
-
It:rOD~ ::~:~
~ '~I .~
,nUNDATION rUNOS
..:: -". ',:",',">" '- '..
'\,_....:.'._._.. :'_c.-, ','
Cohtac-t Us'
~'fP~ ).t~ B
Koret Synagogue Initiative
The Koret Synagogue Initiative (KSI) ~.~-~-"._._--_._--._-.._._-- -- __'__,_w~'m._._~
"If YOll build an authentk j~wish
represents a major commitment to
the continuity of Jewish identity
through the restoration of the
synagogue as the central address
for Jews. KSI funding for
synagogues allows an expansion of
programming to reach more diverse
segments of the Jewish community,
both affiliated and unaffiliated,' hus at
deepening the participation of existing members.
as un e In ree p ases, beglnnrng In with four Bay Area
synagogues and expanding to a total of nine synagogues several years
later. Today, in multiple reform, conservative and orthodox synagogues in
the Bay Area, the third phase of KSI is building on the success of the first
two phases.
conlmulltty, one in which Judaism
15 Hved authentkany~ honestl)',
p.as:sj,onately. and joyfully, then
peopl e w:ill come:'
~KCtr-et S)'~}t1tv~ue 'n#tiath'e fdbbi
Evaluation of the first two phases of the Koret Synagogue Initiative by the
Institute of Jewish Community and Research reports that KSl's support
for program staff in targeted synagogues has accomplished the following
objectives:
. increased membership
. increased involvement of existing members
. strengthened synagogue communities.
Ii About the Initiatives
. Koret Education
Initiative
. Koret Prize
- Current Honorees
- Prior Honorees
. Routes to Learning
. Karet Jewish Book
Awards
- Current Winners
- Prior Winners
. Koret Jewish Studies
Publications Program
- Current Winners
- Prior Winners
. KoretYoung Writer on
Jewish Themes Award
- Current Winner
- Prior Winners
. Koret Synagogue
Initiative
- Description and Impact
- KSI Phase III
- Guidelines
- KSI Synagogues
. Koret Israel Economic
Development Funds
. Community Impact
t~p~yj,QgJ9-La Grailt I K~~lDltL~_Eyg~ 16.~~!t.KQ@lE9J.lLl~a1i9J} I N_?_yy_s__~_E@lica!lon~ I ~Q}l!~<2Ll!~ I
tlQD'l~
(<) 2001, Karet Foundation. All rights reserved
http://www,koretfaundation,orglinitiatives/syn _ main,shtmI03/22/2006 4:05: 13 AM
Koret Foundation. Koret Synagogue Initiative
"'I
KPItEf a
'f N [) 1\ T ION I 11 NO;;'
~, for .. G.....,t~i*#~
.~J:i-~f~O::.
Contact.U $
-
...........
-
':,kOr~tSyna,gogue Initiative 1111 Synagogues
;.~(jre.t:~~~~g~~~~)~i,t~~~iye.:'~~h~ie-".:.;; '~~';--:\;:.'>r,~::;'.,: ,:'? ~-.' : ~:;
~~~~~i!~il~t~~J,t;$
Full-time program director I
community organizer, new member
workshops and social activities,
senior lunchtime series, retreats,
Morasha S'nai Mitzvah Family
Enrichment Program, Shabbaton,
extensive senior programs, informal
gatherings at congregant homes
with Seth Am's Rabbi and President
Talking T achlis, young adult havurot,
creative Shabbat services, Rosh
Chodesh groups, social action
projects (AIDS walk, Sukkot in April,
etc), Women's Passover Seder,
Parent and Toddler Discussion Play
Group
Retreats, Feast of Jewish Learning,
Learners' Minyan, congregational
retreat, poetry readings, senior
matinee, young adult programming,
Rosh Chodesh group, meditation
before Minyan, community-building
events Retreats, Feast of Jewish
Learning, Learners' Minyan,
congregational retreat, poetry
readings, senior matinee, young
adult programming, Rosh Chodesh
group, meditation before Minyan,
community-building events
Half-time program directorl
community organizer, Neshama
Minyan (an alternative service),
Saturday Night at the Synagogue,
Erev Shabbat potlucks, several
small groups based on age, life
cycle, occupation, and geography
,,~ore:ts~nagog~~:~ij~tiati,~~'~~ P~ase~II'.:"... ' ~'; " '; ': : (':~:'.";, ~~.
'.~In!~?l~~~~J~ft\0?;~;tJ~:; f~~m~~~;1~t+:~!~~')1~
Shabbaton, a S'nai Mitzvah Family
Enrichment Program, membership
recruitment, the formation of a social
action committee, and family camps
Saturday Night at the Synagogue,
Minyan Retreats, and groups for
singles, empty nesters, & mental
health professionals
http://www,korctfoundation,org/initiatives/synagogue,shtmI (J of 4)03/22/20064:07:23 AM
Beth Am
Los Altos Hills
Reform
Size: 650
Sherith Israel
San Francisco
Reform
Size: 1,100
Beth Shalom
San Francisco
Conservative
Size: 650
Kol Shofar
Tiburon
Conservative
Size: 650
Beth Am
Los Altos Hills
Reform
Size: 650
Kol Shofar
Tiburon
Conservative
Size: 650
_ KOret JnUfati~~~ : .
. About the Initiatives
. Koret Education
Initiative
. Karet Prize
- Current Honorees
- Prior Honorees
. Routes to Learning
. Karet Jewish Book
Awards
- Current Winners
- Prior Winners
. Karet Jewish Studies
Publications Program
- Current Winners
- Prior Winners
. Koret Young Writer on
Jewish Themes Award
- Current Winner
- Prior Winners
. Koret Synagogue
Initiative
- Description and Impacl
- KSI Phase III
- Guidelines
- KSI Synagogues
. Koret Israel Economic
Development Funds
. Community Impact
'7.' ~: 'J ' . I t
-. .' .~' - , - ~
Koret Foundation - Koret Synagogue Initiative
Emanu-EI
San Francisco
Reform
Size: 1,853
Sherith Israel
San Francisco
Reform
Size: 1,100
Beth Sholom
San Francisco
Conservative
Size: 650
Peninsula Temple
Sholom
Burlingame
Reform
Size: 750
Beth Dav id
Saratoga
Conservative
Size: 650
Temple Sinai
Oakland
Reform
Size: 750
Rodef Sholom
San Rafael
Reform
Size: 1,148
An assistant rabbi, late Shabbat for
young adults, Mitzvah Corps and
Mitzvah Day, a youth group, family
Torah study, a Rosh Chodesh
group, chavurot
Membership outreach (new member
dinners & prospective member open
houses), several chavurot, young
family outreach, "Friday Night Live"
service, a downtown noon-time
lecture program
Development of the Jewish Family
Preschool, retreats, several
chavurot, intense learning
experiences (I.e. Hebrew-in-a-Day &
Siddur-in-a-Day)
An assistant rabbi, youth groups,
adult education courses and
lectures, a Social Justice Task
Force, interfaith outreach, a Chai-
Club, a young couples group
A membership coordinator, family
Shabbat dinners, babysitting during
Shabbat morning services, member-
to-member connections, seniors
program, a singles and young
couples group, a Mitzvah Day
An assistant rabbi, a senior program,
a leaders' Minyan, b'nai mitzvah
chavurah, PACE (Parent and Child
Education), a singles program
Full-time program director, part-time
program assistant, Mitzvah Day, a
singles group, single parent family
programs, chavurot, senior
programs, Jewish holiday programs,
social action programs directed to
the homeless, neighborhood-based
programs
:,k~rei~$yriagQgil~jnitiati';e" ~'~ha$'{ III' :' >' "' ,_".. ".,., : c, ',' .~ ,~\
,,~),"'~"'.y '''''',1'4.~ "'~'''' .':~~ "";I:-:L~~"", ' '~:: 4-'" ~<,I. ~ ..' ~ , -< > ..
r;~~~~r.~~w~;~:Gt?~S1I~;'.t~:;"N2'i:, C'
Beth David
Saratoga
Conservative
Size: 650
Yoetz Ne'eman: A Synagogue Wide
Mentoring Program, which will
provide opportunities for 50% of the
congregation to learn from each
other to improve their religious
understanding and observance, and
increase and enhance their practice
of religious customs and traditions
bttp://www,koretfoundation.org/initiatives/synagogue.shtmI (2 of 4)03/22/20064:07:23 AM
Koret Foundation - Koret Synagogue Initiative
B'nai Emunah
San Francisco
Conservative
Size: 140
Emanu-EI
San Francisco
Reform
Size: 1,853
Peninsula Sinai
Foster City
Conservative
Size: 236
Sha'ar Zahav
San Francisco
Reform
Size: 400
Shir Hadash
Los Gatos
Reform
Size: 550
Kol Emeth
Palo Alto
Conservative
Size: 530
Shir Shalom
Sonoma
Reform
Size: 137
Shomrei Torah
Santa Rosa
Reform
Size: 325
Am Segula, a Torah study program -
unaffiliated and affiliated participants
will learn about the methods used in
Jewish tradition to interpret Torah
through an on-site and an internet
class
Enhanced programming for young
adults through a Rosh Chodesh
group, Adult Mitzvah Corps, and a
Late Shabbat program
Expanded programming for empty
nesters and young adults including
monthly Shabbat dinners and
services for young adults, monthly
Jewish study groups, and
community social action activities
Program expansion in various areas
including its adult education program
that will work towards increasing
membership
A 2/3 time Jewish community
organizer to assist in the
implementation of synagogue-based
programming focused on expanding
membership and eliminating
perceived barriers to synagogue life
"Making Room for Shabbat" - to
encourage families to bring Shabbat
into their homes, Shabbat kits will be
distributed to congregational
members and families with young
children will be given an opportunity
to worship and study together,
socialize, and eat dinner together on
Shabbat
A variety of outreach programs and
the expansion of programs in four
areas: Adult Jewish Learning,
Jewish Arts and Culture, Community
Connections, and Tikkun Olam
(community service activities)
Post B'nai Mitzvah program - which
will offer opportunities for social
involvement, Jewish study and
academic enrichment, appreciation
of Jewish culture, leadership
development, social action, and
strengthening connections with
Judaism and synagogue life
http://www,koretfoundation,org/initiatives/synagogue.shtml (3 of 4)03/22/20064:07:23 AM
Koret Foundation - Koret Synagogue Initiative
Applvinq for a Grant I Koret Initiatives I About Karet Foundation I News & Publications I Contact Us I
Home
@ 2001, Karet Foundation, All rights reserved,
hltp://www,koretfoundation.org/iniliatives/synagogue,shtml (4 of 4)03/22/20064:07:23 AM
Commissioners,
Please note that due to a misunderstanding on the part of the authors, references in the
following letter to the "PEIR Appendix" are referring to revised application materials
submitted by the applicant, not to the Alternative 7 Analysis prepared by Leonard Charles
& Associates, the EIR preparer. The EIR preparer's Alternative 7 Analysis was neither
completed nor available at the time the letter was written.
Staff
8 bb
John and Karen Nygren
22 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburon, CA 94920
[0) ~(C~~\w[EfR\
ru APRll'3m ~
Tiburon Planning Commission and Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
.J:
~~,~,
April 17, 2006
Re: Kol Shofar Appendix to Final EIRlConditional Use Permit Application
Dear Tiburon Planning Commissioners and Town Council members,
The Appendix to the Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit Appendix to the Final EIR comes
to several faulty conclusions using incorrect analysis to mitigate impacts to less then
significant. It states on Page 1 "The analysis, which is discussed more fully below,
demonstrates that the project, as modified, will not result in any significant and
unavoidable impacts."
Significant negative impacts to the project remain unmitigated. The Appendix to the
FEIR concludes that by changing the circulation pattern of the parking lot as well as by
limiting attendance in the proposed new multipurpose room to 250 people and reducing
days and times of use the remaining significant impacts identified in the DEIR have been
mitigated to a level of insignificance. This is a false conclusion for the following reasons
we will discuss in our letter. The cap of 250 is only for new events, not existing events.
The 250 cap must be based on the cumulative use of the entire facility for all events; the
remodeled existing facility as well as the addition of the new multipurpose room, lobby,
and school facilities for the FEtR to legitimately determine that the impacts of the
Conditional Use Permit for Kol Shofar have been mitigated. Congregation Kol Shofar's
Conditional Use Permit is not for only a portion of its use; it has and will continue to be
determined on an annual basis for the entire use of the facility. If a cap is determined to
be used only to mitigate the negative impacts of Kol Shofar's new use, the mitigations
can only be assured if there is a binding guarantee that the proposed Conditional Use
Permit is a permanent cap in perpetuity. This is the only way that the FEIR can
conclude that the impacts will remain mitigated to a level of insignificance.
InadeQuacies and Inaccuracies of the FEIR and Appendix
What the FEIR seriously lacks is a discussion of the cumulative impacts of the total
facility; existing, remodeled and proposed new spaces. Without this discussion there is
no way that the FEIR along with the Appendix can come to the conclusion within the
Appendix to the Final EIR that all impacts of the project have been mitigated to a level of
insignificance .
What is extremely contrary is the thought process and logic of the FEIR and Appendix in
that Kol Shofar plans to construct a new multi-purpose room and lobby to accommodate
898 people, and then applies a Conditional Use Permit Cap of 250 to say that future
impacts will be mitigated. It is also contrary in its logic that the Congregation states in
the DEIR it plans to have a facility when in full use, to accommodate 1,624 seated
attendees at one time, but since this will only happen a few days a year, this will not be a
significant impact. How can the FEIR guarantee that this will only be a few days a year
in the future? The membership of the congregation, as documented in the DEIR, has
EXHIBIT NO.tt'
grown since 1985 from 220 to now 600 member units equaling 1,860 people. There is no
cap placed on membership. There is no guarantee a Conditional Use Permit cannot be
changed by a new political body. The Town of Tiburon regularly changes and relaxes
requirements of Conditional Use Permits.
What if the Congregation decides in the future to sell the facility to a new owner? What if
the Congregation changes for religious purposes its manner of use? What will be the
impacts and how will these be mitigated? There is no discussion of regulating the size of
the new facility, only discussion of capping the amount and size of use.
The public and decision makers have no indication as to how to understand the
implications of the cumulative impacts of the proposed, along with the existing facilities.
The only suggested manner to mitigate the impacts, which are stated in the Appendix of
the FEIR, is to have a cap of 250 in the multi-purpose room, for a facility that is planned
to accommodate 1,624 attendees. There is no intelligent logic to reach such a
conclusion.
The Tiburon General Plan has policies that state that projects should be in harmony and
compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. The Curran Theatre, in
downtown San Francisco has a seating capacity of 1,667, almost the same as the 1,624
seating proposed for the Congregation Kol Shofar facility. Downtown San Francisco is
an urban area. The Congregation Kol Shofar is nestled in and surrounded by a very
quiet residential community. The proposed size and magnitude of the facility are in
violation of the Tiburon General Plan. The size of the expanded facility is totally out of
character with the surrounding community. The DEIR compares the existing structure
with itself to establish the point that the building is in character with the community. It
fails to look at the size and mass of the expansion in relation to the surrounding
residential homes and community. Please reference our letter of March 20,2006 to the
Town of Tiburon where we have also stated other areas in which this project does not
comply with the Tiburon General Plan and Zoning Ordinances.
The Appendix of the FEIR offers no discussion or alternative to mitigating the impacts
such as reducing or restricting the size of the proposed multipurpose room to be in
conformance to the mitigated 250 cap. It only suggests a cap of 250 attendees. This is
not an adequate EIR analysis or mitigation measure. Would it not be best to only allow a
new facility or a remodeled existing facility that can only accommodate 250 people as a
mitigation measure to insure compliance and guarantee no significant negative impacts
in the future? The Appendix to the FEIR fails to offer limiting the size of the new facility
as an alternative mitigation. Please explain why.
The FEIR limits new uses in the new multi-purpose room to 250, but does not include
discussion and study of the cumulative impacts of simultaneous use of the remodeled
existing facility along with the proposed addition. What are the impacts if the remodeled
sanctuary holding 550 people, plus the school holding 150 students, plus chapel, library
and other interior areas are in use at the same time as the 250 attendees suggested in
the cap are using the new multipurpose room? Will this be significant? How is this
mitigated to a level of insignificance? The FEIR does not include a cumulative analysis
of a maximum use scenario with 898 attendees in the multipurpose room and lobby
instead of the 250 people suggested as a cap in the multipurpose room and lobby. The
cumulative impacts will be significant. The FEIR fails to discuss the cumulative impacts
of the entire facility new, remodeled and existing facilities which are planned to
accommodate when at full capacity 1,624 people. Without this study and discussion, the
FEIR cannot conclude environmental impacts ranging from parking, traffic, noise,
2
lighting, and etc have been reduced and mitigated to a level of insignificance. CEQA
requires a study of the total use of a facility, not just analyzing a part. Thus, the FEIR is
not in compliance with CEQA.
Faulty ParkinQ Analysis
On page 6 of the FEIR Appendix it states, "Although the Draft EIR concluded that the
project would have adequate parking...." This is an inaccurate statement. The DEIR in
fact stated that parking would be adequate only if certain mitiQation measures would be
implemented. One of these mitigation measures was to place a cap of 275 attendees on
the use to accommodate the parking for the new multi purpose room. The Appendix to
the FEIR fails to mention the reason for the reducing the previous FEIR cap from 275 to
250. Is this possibly because instead of the creation of 40 new parking spaces, there
actually will be only a net increase of 22 new parking spaces from what currently exists
due to the loss of parking on the rear side of the building? The Appendix fails to reveal
this information.
The mitigation measure, to insure no on street parking and safety issues related to the
number of turnarounds in driveways, in front of homes and on residential streets, is now
altered in the Appendix. The Appendix now changes the proposed DEIR circulation plan
from an entrance and exit on Reedland Woods Way to an entrance on Via Los Altos and
exit on Reedland Woods Way. The Appendix fails to discuss how this proposed traffic
circulation pattern is different then what currently exists as the Congregations traffic
pattern. It is actually the identical circulation pattern that is currently in use for Kol
Shofar. Kol Shofar's traffic and parking issues are currently a problem. There are
neighborhood concerns regarding the current Congregations use of on street parking
and the safety of turn arounds on residential streets. In fact a child has been hit by an
auto exiting from the existing facility on a neighborhood street. It is iIIooical to conclude
that bv offerino a mitioation measure that is the same condition as what currentlv exists
to mitioate an existino sionificant neoative impact. the impact will no lonoer be
sionificant. Placing signs on the street explaining where people are to enter a parking lot
is not an adequate mitigation measure to reduce these impacts to a level of
insignificance.
In fact, the Appendix fails to include a discussion of how the entrance it proposes on Via
Los Altos and exit on Reedland Woods Way will be impacted by the increased parking
and new circulation pattern proposed in the Conditional Use Application. In addition to a
new multi-purpose room, the Conditional Use Permit Application also includes a request
for a new circular drop off site, a new interior driveway which links the existing parking lot
to the circular drop off, the exit on Reedland Woods Way and the new upper parking lot.
The Appendix fails to include a study or discussion as to how t~is new circulation pattern
will function with the entrance now on Via Los Altos rather then Reedland Woods Way.
Will this new circulation pattern affect the number of existing parking spaces? Will it
create increased noise and congestion within the parking lot? Will it allow for a
functioning valet service? Will it impact the use of a potential shuttle service? Will it
instead encourage more members of Kol Shofar's congregation to park on the street due
to its awkward configuration? Etc.
The Appendix states on page 7 the town staff believes that the change of the Conditional
Use Permit to the cap of 250 people for the multipurpose room for new events and
returning to the existing circulation pattern the project will reduce the potential impacts of
midstreet turnarounds and on street parking to a less-than-significant level. The
Appendix also states, "Furthermore, these proposals will be more effective than those
previously proposed in the Draft and Final EIR." Has a traffic engineer studied these
3
changes to agree with staffs conclusions? Are town staff traffic engineers? The
conclusion by staff of keeping the status quo on the entrance and exit to the parking lot,
without considering the changes within the circulation pattern of the revised parking lots,
as mitigating the on street parking and turn arounds on residential streets is totally
illogical. These impacts as determined in the DEIR still remain significant, and in fact will
increase with the addition of a new multipurpose room and lobby and classroom, beyond
what is the existing use. Once again, the FEIR has failed to study the cumulative
impacts of the existing along with the new project proposed by Kol Shofar which will total
up to 1,624 attendees. Will the proposed new multipurpose room and lobby be only
used when other parts of the existing facility are not in use? Most likely not. If both the
new multipurpose room and lobby are used at the same time as the existing and
remodeled sanctuary, school, chapel, library and etc., the impacts will be greater then
what the current circulation pattern handles. The parking lot will not have the capacity to
accommodate additional new uses along with exiting uses. The cumulate parking needs
for existing as well additional events has not been evaluated. The total parking required
to meet the needs of Kol Shofar cannot be accommodated on site. The FEIR fails to
adequately discuss and mitigate this total need. It leaves this to future study. The
parking requirements of the Tiburon Parking Zoning Code have not been met or
addressed by the applicant, Town and FEIR. Thus the impacts remain significant and
have NOT been mitigated to a level of insignifance. It is not for the town staff to
conclude the impacts have been mitigated. Traffic studies, the EIR consultant, the
public and decision makers are to make this conclusion.
Annual Use of Kol Shofar
· Page 9 of the Appendix to the FEIR describes the annual use. It states that
events on Saturday and Sunday will not exceed 250 to mitigate significant
impacts. How can the FEIR and Appendix to the FEIR conclude that significant
impacts have been mitigated to less then significant when there is discussion of
events requiring valet parking with an attendance up to 360 in the FEIR? There
is discussion of shuttle service required for events of over 360 people? If Kol
Shofar states they will cap events at 250 to mitigate significant impacts, why is
there discussion by Kol Shofar of larger events which will have significant
unmitigated impacts? Why does it say on page 7 of the Appendix that the cap
"Limiting additional events to a maximum of 250 people ensures there will be
adequate parking on-site. JJ This is illogical, unless Kol Shofar applies the 250 cap
for all events. Thus, significant impacts have not been mitigated to a level of
insignificance. Can the town place a permanent cap on all events to not exceed
250 to avoid significant negative impacts? I do not believe so. One cannot bind
the hand of future decision makers. Thus, without a permanent cap for the entire
facility, the mitigations are only temporary and/or misleading.
In addition, the Appendix to the FEIR fails to offer in its analysis an alternative
mitigation to the 250 cap to insure the residents and town that the impacts are
mitigated to a level of insignificance. The FEIR or Appendix FEIR could offer an
alternative to capping the size of the facility. CEQA requires that an EIR offer
alternatives. Such an alternative which it could include would be to remodel the
existing facility to include new space to accommodate 250 persons for "Iife cycle"
events and parties along with the planned remodel of the sanctuary. This
mitigation measure would assure future negative impacts would not occur and
thus mitigate the many of the significant impacts of the Conditional Use Permit.
The failure of the FEIR to discuss the cumulative use of the entire facility. both
existinQ. remodel and new expansion leads to the inability to truly mitiQate all the
4
various environmental impacts of Kol Shofar to a level of insionificance. Due to
the FEIR as well as Appendix to the FEIR focus on onlv the additional new
events of the Conditional Use Permit Application. their impacts and mitioation
measures cannot be relied on to be valid to reduce the impacts to a level of
insionificance. Thus. the FEIR is inadeQuate. inaccurate and faultv.
. Page 9 of the Appendix to the FEIR discusses weekday use. This section is
unclear. What is the difference between Ring Mountain Pre School and the Kol
Shofar Pre-School? Will 50 additional children be added to the Ring Mountain
Pre-School, which currently operate with 100 students on a daily basis or will Kol
Shofar take over the operation of this school and become what was previously
called the Ring Mountain Pre-School and change the name and be called the Kol
Shofar Pre-School serving 150 students. The way this weekday usage of Ring
Mountain School is explained is confusing and needs clarification. Please clarify
this new use for an additional 50 students. Also, the impacts of parking and
circulation for the additional 50 students and four new classrooms has not been
sufficiently discussed and analyzed in the FEIR or FEIR Appendix.
Proiect Modifications
Page 1 and 2 discuss limiting the number of new weekend evening events to reduce the
negative impact to a level of insignificance. Currently the Congregation has no evening
events on the weekends. Thus, even one Saturday or Sunday event lasting until 10 PM
(Sun) or 11 (Sat) PM and clean up until 11 PM or 12 midnight is a new significant impact
and change from the existing condition. Merely reducing the number of events does not
remove the significance of the negative impact of a wedding party, Bar or Bat Mitzvah
party, dinner party, or family celebration with dancing, alcohol and music in the quiet
residential neighborhood. The reduction of events, in itself, does not make the quality of
the proposed 12 Saturday and 15 Sunday events to be insignificant in their impacts.
Even one such party is inappropriate to be compatible or in harmony with the
neighborhood. Thus, the FEIR must state the impacts to the residential community
remain significant and have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Tiburon Boulevard/Blackfield Drive Intersection
The Appendix to the FEIR and Robert I. Harrison traffic study in response to Kol Shofar
application determines that by changing the timing of signalization to accommodate the
east bound traffic on Tiburon Blvd, between 6:30 PM and 7:30 PM on weekends, the left
turn movement onto Blackfield Drive will properly maintain the intersections level of
service (LOS). The study focuses on changing the signalization timing to accommodate
cars turning left and the length of the eastbound storage portion of the stacking lane.
What the Harrison study fails to study and take into account are the impacts to the
westbound traffic along Tiburon Blvd at the Blackfield Drive interchange if the
signalization timing is changed to accommodate the eastbound traffic on Tiburon Blvd
making a left turn onto Blackfield over the needs of the west bound traffic on Tiburon
Blvd during this same time of use. Weekend traffic, particularly during the fall, spring
and summer months traveling westbound between 6:30 PM and 7:30 PM can be
extremely heavy. A signalization timing change to accommodate Kol Shofar's left turn
requirement, may in fact, cause extensive westbound traffic back up on Tiburon Blvd for
residents and visitors to the Town of Tiburon. This impact was not studied in the
Harrison report. Thus, the mitigation of changing signalization to accommodate the flow
of traffic for Kol Shofar might in fact create a new significant negative traffic impact. This
has not been studied. Without additional study by an independent traffic engineer, not
hired by Kol Shofar, the Town and FEIR cannot conclude the impacts at Tiburon Blvd
5
and Blackfield Dr. have been mitigated to a level of insignificance by merely changing
the timing of the signalization.
In addition the Harrison traffic study did not look at the impact of changing the
signalization timing at the Blackfield Dr. intersection in relation to the other signalized
lights along Tiburon Blvd. Currently all the traffic lights are synchronized to facilitate the
flow of traffic along Tiburon Blvd from the Highway 101 interchange to Trestle Glen and
beyond. What will be the affects of traffic flow when the timing signalization is modified
to accommodate the needs of Kol Shofar without considering the impacts for the entire
Tiburon Peninsula? Will these be significant? If so, how will these additional impacts be
mitigated? This remains unknown. Thus, the FEIR or Appendix can not conclude that
the impact at the Tiburon Blvd.lBlackfield Dr. interchange has been mitigated to a level
of insignificance.
Noise Impacts
Currently there are no weekend evening events held at Kol Shofar. Kol Shofar is
proposing to hold new weekend evening party's on Saturday and Sunday evenings until
10 PM, 11 PM or 12 midnight. The impact of noise from even one new weekend
evening party in the proposed new multipurpose room, primarily built to accommodate
party's, is a significant negative impact. Kol Shofar is nestled among homes in a very
quiet residential neighborhood with many children and working families. Even one new
evening event creates more noise then what currently exists. This is a significant
change. It is not for town staff to conclude that this impact is less than significant by
merely reducing the number of weekend events. Who has established the threshold at
which the number of events is no longer a significant impact? The Tiburon General Plan
Noise Element states; N-C: "To minimize the exposure of community residents to noise
though careful placement of land uses that may cause noise impacts." 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-6: "Hours of use of recreation and commercial
facilities should be regulated to minimize offensive noise to ensure compatibility between
such facilities and nearby residential areas." The General Plan does not make a
distinction between how many events are significant. It implies all uses should not
negatively impact Tiburon's residents. Thus, the noise impacts remain significant
negative impacts contrary to what the Appendix of the FEIR states. The quality of life of
Tiburon residents should be the primary concern for Tiburon decision makers.
Thank you for allowing us to comment on the inadequacy and inaccuracy's of the Kol
Shofar Conditional Us Permit Appendix to Final EIR.
6
Lawrence J. Duke, M.D.
62 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburon, California 94920
Tel: 415-435-4078
Fax: 415-435-6409
E-Mail: ljdukemd@msn.com
~ ~ A~ ~ : :ffi ~ ~
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
April 18, 2006
Mr. John Kunzweiler
Chairman, Tiburon Planning Commission
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Kol Shofar Application
Dear Mr. Kunzweiler:
Due to a previous obligation, I will be unable to attend the meeting on
4/24/06 to discuss the above referenced application. The purpose of this
letter is to bring before the Commission facts which may not have previously
discussed.
As background information, I have lived in Tiburon since May, 1972 and
have occupied the same property since December, 1976. As the address
indicates, my home is in the general area of the project under discussion,
but is located at a reasonable distance from it. The impacts on my property,
while potentially considerable, are substantially less than the impacts on
properties located on a different portion of Paseo Mirasol.
As some members of the Planning Commission may know, I was quite
active in town affairs during the period 1984 through early 1990, serving as
a planning commissioner, town council member and as mayor for two and a
half of the four years between 1986 and 1990. I was quite involved in the
entire approval process for the conversion of the Reedland Woods School
site to its present uses as a place of worship and a large residential area. I
believe it is accurate to say, with no hesitation, that there was no substantial
meeting or discussion regarding this property that took place between the
time of my appointment to the planning commission in late 1984 until I left
the council in 1990 that I was not privy to, participated in, or unaware of the
findings and discussion. Although earlier town councils had acted on
certain aspects of the overall project, it was during my tenure on the council
Planning Commission 4/18/06
Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT No._i c c.
that this overall project was given final approval; largely because overall
approval of the project was dependent on the settlement of litigation related
to it. The decision for final approval was one that I supported and one I was
instrumental in obtaining a majority of town council members to support.
Unfortunately, the largely unanticipated growth in the scope and severity of
impacts created by Kol Shofar make this a decision that must be revisited
and rectified. There is simply no other reasonable choice to allow Kol
Shofar to continue their plans for significant expansion and growth and,
simultaneously, to protect the integrity of the neighborhood.
As you may be aware, there was considerable discussion and dissension
about this project. The primary concerns of the neighbors revolved around
two issues: the number of homes to be built and the potential use of the
school building during hours in which the school building had not been
previously used, particularly nights and weekends. Due to significant
planning constraints imposed on the town, the neighbors were prevailed
upon to accept a larger number of homes than they clearly desired.
However, the council was much less constrained regarding the use of the
building. Commercial entities were proposed, but were clearly out of the
question for a residential neighborhood. The use of the property for a
private school was opposed by the Reed Union School District, the owner of
the property.
A place of religious worship for limited use appeared, at the time, to be a
reasonable alternative. However, the property was too expensive for Kol
Shofar, or for any limited use religious entity, to buy. Therefore, Kol Shofar
was allowed, as a means of acquiring the property for limited use, to
develop a residential community ,on the school land. To facilitate this, Kol
Shofar brought a developer into the project. In effect, Kol Shofar was
allowed to acquire this property at a substantial discount because of its
commitment to limited use. Such anticipated continued limited use of this
property was well outlined in a letter to the town from Congregation Kol
Shofar date 5/20/1985 and is contained in town records.
I would like this point to be as ~Iear as I can make it. Were it not for Kol
Shofar's commitment to a very limited use of the existing school building, on
a contining basis, no residential development would have been allowed;
and, if statements made at the time by the members of Congregation Kol
Shofar were accurate, Kol Shofar would not have been financially able to
acquire the property. I can assure you with one hundred percent certainty,
there was a clear understanding between the hierarchy of Kol Shofar and
the town, that Kol Shofar's use of the building would never have impacts on
the neighbors greater than the impacts of the middle school previously
Planning COl111lllssion 4/18/06
Page 2 of 4
present. Without that clear commitment by Kol Shofar, this project would
never have been approved by the then current town council.
Unfortunately, the safeguards that the town council believed were built into
this approval have, over the years, partially fallen by the wayside. At its
present level of use, the impacts on the neighbors and neighborhood by the
presence of Kol Shofar far outweigh any impacts that the middle school
created and are considerably greater than those present at the time of
project approval. These additional impacts create substantial ongoing
disruptions on the local community. For Kol Shofar now to come to the town
with a plan for expansion that effectively turns a site designed and approved
only for limited religious worship into one which potentially has the impacts
of a commercial operation, indicates a complete forgetfulness on the part
Kol Shofar. I can only assume that the individuals in the Kol Shofar
congregation who are now making the decisions were simply not present
when the overall project was originally approved.
I sympathize and agree with the members of Kol Shofar when they state the
current building is simply not adequate for their continued use. What they
seem to have forgotten is that the building was never adequate, nor
appropriate, for the uses that are now contemplated; and it was never
envisioned, not by the town, the neighbors or Congregation Kol Shofar itself,
that this ptoperty would be adequate for such expanded use. This site will,
for all time, be inadequate for the uses Congregation Kol Shofar now desire,
and every year will bring a new request for additional changes from Kol
Shofar, and ongoing controversy within the community.
The single most appropriate use of this property has always been, and
remains, residential development; not for use as a school, not for extended
hours for religious worship and/or celebrations and parties, and not for a
commercial enterprise. The present application by Kol Shofar presents the
town with an important opportunity to rectify any previous
misunderstandings and/or misjudgments. To accomplrsh this, the town
should take the following actions:
1. The application by Kol Shofar should be denied and appropriate
findings made that the continued use of the site by Congregation
Kol Shofar is not compatible with the peace and tranquility inherent
in, and an integral part of, a residential neighborhood, and not
compatible with the original understandings of approval.
Planning Commission 4/18/06
Page 3 of 4
2. Congregation Kol Shofar should be given sufficient time and
assistance to allow it to sell the property and relocate to another
site more suitable for their expan~ion plans and desires.
3. If Congregation Kol Shofar refuses to take such action or
procrastinates in its implementation, sufficient justification exists
for acquisition of the property by the town by eminent domain and
redeployment for residential use.
Again, I apologize for my inability to attend this meeting in person. I would,
of course, be happy to discuss any aspect of this matter with you or other
members of the planning commission at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Lawrence J. Duke
cc: via-email:
Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development
Paul Smith, Mayor, Town of Tiburon
Planning Commission 4/18/06
Page 4 of 4
);/ -.
/
RECEIVED
APR 1 8 1995
215 BLACKFIELO DRIYE · TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 388-1818
Date:
to:
From:
May 20~ '1985.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Co~~r ~~~~i~J~~~'1.;,,;
Sta.n~ . Ofcl. ...91:~~~:;:2,
Use of Former Reedland-Woods School by Congregation Kol Shofar and Childrens
Circle Center (Vista-Tiburon)
Re:
Congregation Kol Shofar is a Conservative Synagogue with approximately 220 families.
Its activities range from religious services (sanctuary and chapel), religious studies
(classrooms)) library, administrative offices and board meetings, social events
(meeting hall and kitchen) and affiliated activities. During the coming years we
expect to grow to 300-350 families. The present full-time staff consists of four
individuals; the Rabbi, Administrative Coordinator) Secretary and Maintenance
Supervisor. The building is utilized for l~ hours for Friday evening Sabbath Service,
3~ hours for Saturday morning Sabbath Services, 3~ hours for Sunday morning Children
and Adult Education (September-June) and during other time)s occassionally for Board
Meetings, Study Groups, small Committee Meetings) Social and Holiday Events. Therefore,
during the weekdays the Sanctuary, Social Hall and lower classrooms are usually unused.
The land directly surrounding the structure is used for parking, play area and outside
activities.
Since Kol Shofar's initial interest in this location several years ago, it has always
ed the 1ntel1tj'on..~pselpod of the building <.a roximately 17% of the-space}
',' .'" . '~~~~p~.tJ~~~&~\
profit organization fonnerly 10cated in Greenbrae. Their use will be as a Day Care,
Pre-SChool and Elementary School K-5th. Their enrollment will be approximately 75
children and they will use their space on Monday-Friday, not on nights or weekends.
Projected growth as per the following studies is to 100 students. Staggered hours
have arrivals at 7:30 am, 8:30 am, 9:15 am and 12:30 am and departures at 12:25 pm) ,
.2:15 pm) 3:15 pm, 5:30 pm and 6:00 pm.
A detailed description of the Synagogue and School use as as well as technical/
functional data, traffic projected time schedules etc. are contained in the following:
1. Vista Tiburon-Taldan Investment Company) Annexation) Pre-zoning and Master Plan
Application dated August 15, 1984.
2. Certified EIR of Environmental' Collaborative dated January 18, 1985.
3. Marin
.
County Use Pennit Application and Staff Report dated April 27,.1984. I
@ AffILIATED WITH THE UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF AMERICA Ex~.I",+-
p, 3 .~ 4-
/
.~':!
~.7
Tiburon Planning Commission
May 20) 1985
Page 2
In addition, a presentation was made by the Congregation at a well attended Community
Informational Meeting on November 15) 1984. A shorter overview was given on the
Vi~eo Tape Presentation shown to the Planning Commission and Ne~ghbors in April, 1985.
Ko1 Shofar has thus far occupied the building for about one year and has encountered
no negative feelings or ~omments from the neighbors concerning its use. As discussed
in the presentations; we are spending several hundred thousand dollars on the facility
and grounds 'for ,items such as new roof, complete heating system, conversion, creation
()f~~mk~i'l1g lot. creation of level access to the bui 1ding and many code and safety
t~qtl1iiin~jnelltsJ fire'b:yd:~.!Il~,';P.rf.iJl~"~r s:r$t~ upgrade. .
Stan 01 eko; Ko 1 S h 0 f;';~dl 0 r Gud r i n't~~t}";Ch~1~;~~~i~~~t:'t;~t~'t<ifle"W~Vl+l'al\fe
to supply any further infonnation if needed.
". ':-
EXHIBIT NO.. J
p~ 4 of f
, >,.,f. ",~,"~.., "_
~
04/19/2006 11:01 FAX 415 388 4282
Y C INC
~02
,
April 19, 2006
J 9 2006
i: I
II' !
ILl j i
L~i
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TlBURON
Tiburon Planning Commission
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
VIA FAX: 435-2438
Re: Kol Shofar Application
Dear Tiburon Planning Commission,
We have lived in Tiburon since March 1997 . We have been residents at the 40 Vista
Tiburon Drive address for that entire time. We have truly enjoyed Tiburon's friendly
neighborhood environment. It is in that spirit that we express certain concerns about the
proposed Kol Shofar expansion plans.
As a member of another Temple (not Kol Shofar) we understand the desire to have an
appropriate place to worship and celebrate. However, we would not want that place to
adversely affect the traffic and noise levels of the neighborhood. Those are really our
pnmary concerns.
The proposal to dramatically increase the size of KoJ Shofar would create traffic and
noise problems that have the potential to significantly impact the current environment in
OUT neighborhood. Clearly if this were not a religious organization we can't imagine that
the town would even be considering approving the proposal. Just as a restaurant or bar
would not fit environmentally neither does a religious organization that will sponsor
events similar in noise and traffic.
We do not understand how adding such a small number of parking spaces will satisfy the
request to significantly increase the number of people present at the new facility. Where
will these people park? How will that affect traffic and safety in th~ neighborhood?
If Kol Shofar desires to have 250 people present at their functions why build a multi
purpose room that would hold significantly more than that? We moved to Tiburon
because we wanted a place that was safe, peaceful and relatively calm The noise and
traffic that would be created in a residentiaJ area as a resuJt of late night parties should
not be permitted. Would you find this acceptable in your neighborhood?
We believe we are entitled to the same consideration that the neighbors surrounding St.
Hilary received. Ow nndcrstanding is that no IDte night parties are held. We have been
EXHIBIT NO.!iJJ
L0 UJ
lold that functions end by 730 PM. Why should this neighborhood be any different? As
residents of the same town should we not be entitled to the same consideration?
It is our understanding that the majority of the membership at Ko] Shofar arc not Tlburon
residents. Why should residents of other communities be allowed to adversely affect our
neighborhood? Local residents should not have that privilege either.
We clearly understand the desire to modernize and improve the existing faciJity. That
would be a real positive for Kol Shofar and the community. However, the multi pllIpose
room, which would dramatically increase the size of the existing facility without the
proper controls over noise and traffic is something we would hope the planning
commission would reject.
In its present form we believe the proposed expansion simply does not fit the footprint of
this neighborhood. We urge you to reject this proposa~.
The matters of noise, traffic and safety simply must take precedence over any
organizations desire to grow.
~1l:Lmilted,
pa~~
~.
Kellie Yenofsky
40 Vista Tiburon Drive
Ti buron, CA 94920
(415-388-4504)
2
04/18/2006 14:4~
~153886b~8
BOLES
PAGE 01
LAtE MAll # I
210 Blackfield Dr.
Tiburont CA 94920
April 18, 2006
I-:c~;-~ -'-
~
~ L[~c U
9 2~O~~' ~ i
raburon Town Council
Town of Tiburon
Via FAX (415) 435-2438
Re: Congregation Kol Shofar Expansion Plans
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Dear Tiburon Town Council:
We will be out of town for a family wedding next Monday, but wish to express
our firm opposition to the proposed expansion at Congregation Kol Shofar.
Having lived in our residence since March} 972, we are possibly the longest term
immediate neighbors of the Reedland Woods School property, now occupied by
Congregation Kot Shofar. We moved into our home~ intending that our children would
walk to Bel Aire Elementary School, cross the street to the Reedland Woods Middle
School, and then walk about 4 blocks to the planned Tibufon High School.
The Tiburon Hills subdivision has been existence for over 35 years. Neighboring
Bel Aire Subdivision recently celebrated a 50th annivefsary. This area is, and always has
been a RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD!
The schools were jn keeping with the residential nature of our neighborhood.
Times of operation were daytime on weekdays, about September through mid June.
Traffic was minimal, involving school busses, a few parents car pooling children and
school staff
Noise was mostly limited to weekdays, during the day when many residents were
away at work Eveningg and weekends, when many families were at hornet were peaceful
and quiet.
Congregation Kol Shofar has slowly brought an unwelcome change to OUf
peaceful neighborhood, with activities generating noise on nights and weekends and
creating traffic and parking problems. Current impacts on our neighborhood are
unacceptable and any increased activity is out of the question.
We ask that Tiburon consider all adverse impacts of present, let alone any
increased noise, traffict weekend and evening operations on our residential neighborhood.
Perhaps Congregation Kol Shofar needs to find a more suitable location.
Please be aware that the vast majority of the members ofKol Shofar are not
residents of the Tiburon Peninsula~ and have no affinity with our community.
Yours truly,
~~~ 0~~
~
,.~~
StG ne Boles
L Logan Boles
1
LA T6iJMILJtmmission
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon CA. 94920
17t'n April, 2006
~ ~~[E,rJ~~iij.1
! 9 i)unn:~ JII J II
. ,r L .j\) lJ i
I !
PLANNlf'JG OIVISIOr'J !
TOWN OF TIBUROf\J '
As Residents residing at 146 Blackfield Drive, Tiburon we wish to make know our concerns on the Kol
Shofar Expansion in that the increased traffic pattern and lack of parking for this facility causes a problem
for us in trying to get out of our drive especially when the traffic we are already experiencing going up to
thc school is heavy during school activitics and so \yc oppose the approval for this new development.
Sincerely,
~ g'~ .~
. ~ ~ ~.' ~? // J o,vA-.A--
,/7 '-' ~""'-- /...-Ic.: '(..
G/-------:?--~p_. ..."....
//~-=~t ~..
Ronald Clare
Joan Clare
Planning Commission
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
LATE MAIL #
I
~ ~A~~::~~
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Re: Kol Shofar expansion
April 18, 2006
Attn: Commissionets,-
Those of us who live on Paseo Mirasol, backing up to the old railroad right-of-
way, have been very tolerant of Kol Shofar in the past. We acquiesced to the
Town allowing them 220 families in the existing building even though the noise
from amplified voices and music has disturbed our formerly quiet and peaceful
setting. Already those who live on adjoining streets are impacted from traffic
and parking on Kol Shofar "special days".
Since Kol Shofar's permission to have 220 families they have gradually crept
up to over twice that number (unlawfully) They claim to be serving the local
community but many Jewish families in our immediate vicinity go to synagogues
elsewhere and the attendees at Kol Shofar come from all over including San
Francisco!
It is preposterous to imagine that ANY increase in membership and building
capacity at Kol Shofar would not substantially adversely impact this cui de sac
area. There are no sidewalks on Via San Fernando or Paseo Mirasol and
children have to walk in the street. The increased traffic (which should NEVER
be in a residential area) is a grave hazard. The "special days" at Kol Shofar
mostly fall on weekends when families are home. If the neighbors expect to
entertain during these times, there are no parking places for their guests. And
Kol Shofar proposes to provide 22 more parking spaces in their lot to alleviate
the problem with their expansion? In relation to Kol Shofar's NEEDS to have
the capacity to seat 1,624 people, with a generous allowance, each car carrying
4 persons, they will need 400 pius cars to parK in their lot ~hat will hold 144 cars
and the rest on the streets. There isn't that much parking on the streets in all of
Bel Aire.
If Kol Shofar can't stay within the bounds of what was originally allowed them,
they should relocate. This is not the place for them here. We respectfully
request that you deny any expansion at Kof Shofar.
!Jf'<<~7(( t);t/&;. ('~4.U~
- Jeanne & Robert Ortalda
14 Paseo Mirasol
lATE MAIL # . ,
~ ~~ r: : :6~ ~I
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
April 17, 2006
Tiburon Planning Commission
1505 Tiburon Blvd,
Tiburon, 'CA.94920
Dear Planning Commission,
As landlords of 251 Karen Way Tiburon directly across the street from Kol Shofar and
longstanding 160 Leland Way residents, we oppose the massive Kol Shofar expansion
project as it continues to stand.
Bel Aire residents significantly suffer from the Congregation's parking when major
events occur. Currently every single spot on Blackfield Drive and Karen Way is taken,
not allowing residents to park in front of their own homes.
The plan has yet to realistically address the absurd lack of parking necessary to
accommodate such a population into our neighborhood. A new building allowing
hundreds of people weekly event activities injures Bel Aire residents, and radically
devalues our property.
Where is the true Congregation's parking shuttle plan? Even the current system needs to
be better designed. Will the congregants park in the Cove shopping area?
Pedestrian access around Blackfield Drive and Karen Way is susceptible to the
dangerous curved hill in front of the facility. Are there plans for another stop sign or light
in front of a much-needed crosswalk so people won't be hit by hundreds of cars when
they cross the street?
This plan is disastrous.
?=-' y- -rf!
Pm and Fred Starr
160 Leland Way
Tiburon, CA. 94920
4] 5- 38] -0] 69
LATE MAIL # f
Stephan C. Volker
Joshua A.H. Harris
Mamie E. Riddle
Law Offices of
STEPHAN C. VOLKER
436 14th Street, Suite 1300
Oakland, California 94612
Tel :510/496-0600 .:. FAX: 510/496-1366
e-mail: svolker@volkerlaw.com
[O)~CC~O~~l
ru APR2 I 2000
April 21 , 2006
Planning Commissioners
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, California 94920
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Re: COMMENTS OF THE TIBURON NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION ON
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
CONGREGATION KOL SHOFAR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICATION
Dear Commissioners:
The Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition submits these comments on the' Final
Environmental hnpact Report ("Final EIR" or "FEIR") for the Congregation Kol Shofar
Conditional Use Pennit ("CUP"). The Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition ("the Coalition") is, at
this current time, a group of approximately 30 families living in residences in the vicinity of the
Project proposed to be built by Congregation Kol Shofar ("Kol Shofar").
The Coalition has participated extensively in the proceedings before the Town of
Tiburon regarding the proposals for the remodeling and expansion of the Congregation's
existing facilities. Again, we wish to emphasize that the Coalition believes the Congregation is
a contributing member of the community, and we certainly recognize the legitimacy of the
Congregation's desire to provide adequate facilities and services for its membership. As stated
in its comments on the Draft Environmental hnpact Report ("Draft EIR" or "DEIR"), the
Coalition does not oppose Kol Shofar's proposal for remodeling of the buildings and grounds
within the existing footprint.
As also stated before, in any other context, we would also support Kol Shofar's
proposed expansion of facilities and activities. Unfortunately, they will occur in a setting which
creates difficult conflicts with the residential values of the area. Thus, the Coalition is greatly
concerned about the negative impacts on the adjoining neighborhoods, and we are compelled to
voice our concerns about the proposals for the expansion of facilities and activities.
-1-
In particular, the Coalition opposes the proposed construction of the multi-purpose
addition (MPA), the primary purpose of which is to hold events and parties, particularly in the
evenings, which will conflict directly with the residential surroundings. The Coalition also
opposes the expansion of the hours of operation and types of functions proposed in the
expanded facilities, and the Coalition is concerned about the parking, safety, traffic and noise
impacts of the Project.
It is imperative that the impacts of Kol Shofar's proposals be fully evaluated under the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). In the Coalition's comments on the Draft
EIR, we expressed our appreciation of the Town's determination to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report on the Project for this purpose. Nevertheless, our comments on the Draft EIR
indicated that the document fell short of the analysis required by CEQA. We made constructive
comments about how these deficiencies could be remedied. However, the FEIR remains
inadequate and fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA in certain fundamental regards,
as summarized below:
The Project proponent's submission of last-minute revisions, impacting much of the
previous analysis contained in the DEIR and FEIR, violates CEQA by depriving the
public of its right to review and comment on the environmental analysis prior to project
approval.
The Final EIR continues to refuse to consider the likely growth in membership and
attendance that will be enabled by the facility expansion proposed - despite the fact that
the Draft EIR conceded that this membership "[ e ]xpansion would result in additional
traffic congestion and parking, noise, and visual impacts and potentially increasing land
use compatibility inconsistencies." DEIR at 140.
The FEIR fails to adequately address the Project's multiple inconsistencies with the
General Plan.
Also with regard to the General Plan and zoning laws, the FElR inexplicably flip-flops
from determinations in the DEIR that the project is inconsistent with many provisions of
the relevant plans to consistency findings in the FEIR with analysis to explain the
different, seemingly arbitrary outcome.
The FEIR fails to explain or resolve the conflict between the unequivocal parking
restrictions in the zoning code and the excessive, unmitigated demand for parking
represented by this proj ecL
The FEIR does not provide an adequate description of the project by severely limiting its
discussion of the CUP conditions that will be imposed on the project.
The Final EIR also fails to correct inadequacies in the analyses of particular impacts,
including traffic and circulation, parking, safety, aesthetics, noise, and air quality.
-2-
, '
· The FEIR does not remedy the DEIR's flawed deferral of mitigation measures.
The FEIR does not consider a reasonable range of alternatives. The analysis only
involves a subtraction of different elements of the Project and does not include
alternative locations where some of Kol Shofar's needs could be met.
In addition to violating CEQA in a whole host of ways, the Project will violate the
Town's planning and zoning laws by ignoring provisions of the parking and conditional use
subchapters as well as multiple General Plan provisions. Not only are inconsistencies with the
planning and zoning laws significant and unavoidable impacts under CEQA, as noted above,
violations of the planning and zoning laws require that the project be reworked and revised until
it is consistent with all applicable plans. Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras
(1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1184-86. Especially in this case, where many of the General Plan
and zoning provisions are "fundamental, mandatory, and clear," the project must comply with
the relevant provisions or the Project will be deemed illegaL) The developer has failed to
explain how the construction of this massive MP A and the consequent development of a
potentially enormous demand for parking can be reconciled with Tiburon' s planning and zoning
laws. As such, the Commission should reject Kol Shofar's application and advise it to
substantially downsize any further project proposals in the subject location.
For the reasons stated above, as explicated more thoroughly below, the Coalition
opposes Kol Shofar's CUP application and proposal to build the over-sized MPA.
The Additional Information Submitted After the Release of the Draft EIR Requires that
the EIR Be Recirculated
CEQA requires that "[ w ]hen significant new information is added to an environmental
impact report after notice has been given . . . and consultation has occurred . . . , but prior to
certification, the public agency shall give notice again . . . , and consult again . . . before
certifying the environmental impact report." Public Resources Code section 21092.1.
The last-minute revisions to critical components of the Project contained in the
Appendix submitted by Kol Shofar (and most recently adopted by the Staff as Alternative 7 in
the Staff Report prepared for the April 24, 2006 meeting) purportedly transform previously-
significant impacts to insignificant impacts by simplistically reducing hours of operation and the
number of events. FEIR Appendix at 1-2. The Appendix's conclusory dismissal of significant
impacts is, however, arbitrary and not based on substantial analysis. Id. Additionally, the
public has not had sufficient time to respond to the Appendix's new conclusions because of the
timing of the 11 th-hour submission. An EIR cannot analyze a constantly moving target, and the
public cannot be expected to keep up with last minute modifications by the developer. Quick
) Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 782,
citing Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural EI Dorado County v. EI Dorado County Bd. of Sup'rs
(1998) 62 CaLApp.4th 1332,1341-42.
-3-
alterations in CUP conditions do not rectify the fundamental deficiencies in the environmental
report.
Under long-standing CEQA law, the addition of ~~significant new information" to the
EIR analysis requires the agency to recirculate the revised EIR for additional commentary and
consultation. Because the Town has not complied with this provision of CEQA, the EIR is
legally deficient and should not be approved.
The Final EIR Inexcusably Refuses to Evaluate the Impact of the Increased Kol Shofar
Membership Enabled by the Project or the Impacts of the Use of the Expanded Facilities
at Full Capacity.
The Final EIR has reneged entirely on the promise made in the Initial Study on the
Project that "[t]he EIR will assess impacts offuture growth of the congregation as part of the
cumulative effects of the project." Initial Study (IS) at 6. Elsewhere, the Initial Study stated
that "[ t ]he EIR should include a history of the size of the facilities, size of the congregation,
number of events and parties, etc. from 1984 to the present and into the future to understand the
growth projections and the impacts of growth. J1 Jd. at 8 (emphasis added). However, the Draft
EIR did not address these issues, omitting the a~sessment of the impacts of continued growth in
the membership of the Applicant. It also refused to conduct an evaluation of the impacts of the
use of the facilities at full capacity.
In the Coalition's comments on the Draft EIR we emphasized the necessity under CEQA
for evaluating both the "growth inducing" impact of expansion of the facilities as well as the
impact of the facilities at full capacity. Numerous other people requested that the Final EIR
perform these kinds of analyses. Most importantly, this request was made by two members of
this Planning Commission - the body that is charged by law with the Town's initial review of
the proposal and the adequacy of the EIR.
Indeed, in reviewing the Draft EIR, no member of the Planning Commission excused the
Town Staff and the EIR consultant from performing an evaluation of the impacts of the
increased membership enabled by the Project expansion. The Final EIR reflects that these
requests by the members of the Planning Commission (and the public) were apparently
overridden "per the direction of the Town Planning Division staff." Response E7.
The Draft EIR conceded that any membership "[ e ]xpansion would result in additional
traffic congestion and parking, noise, and visual impacts and potentially increasing land use
compatibility inconsistencies." DEIR at 140. Unfortunately, those potentially devastating
impacts were not evaluated in the Draft EJR on the premise that "[a ]ny increase beyond the caps
listed in Table 1 would require an amendment to the CUP and additional environmental
review," and that "[ i]t would be speculative to assume that the congregation would continue to
grow or how much it might grow." DEIR at 16.
After reviewing this position in the Draft EIR, Commissioner Collins requested, among
other things, that the Final EIR simply list the number of members of the Congregation for each
of the years from 1985 to 2004, for purposes of evaluating the likelihood that the expanded
-4-
facilities would lead to a further growth in membership. The Final EIR peremptorily dismisses
the request on the ground that "[ t ]he EIR preparers do not have any information on
Congregation size prior to 1995." FEIR at 8, Response E1. Elsewhere, the document states that
"this information was not provided by the applicant" (FEIR at 20-21), but it does not state that
the EIR consultants even bothered to ask the Applicant for these figures. The Final EIR does
not reflect any effort whatsoever to acquire this critical information regarding congregation size.
Instead, the Final EIR is argumentative. It asserts that "[b ]ased on the past seven years,
one could project a declining Congregation membership." FEIR at 22. But this assertion
ignores the fact that membership has steadily increased over the last twenty years and is now
almost triple its original number. As explained in the DEIR, "[a]t the time the 1985 CUP was
approved, Kol Shofar served 220 member units. . . and projected a 350 family maximum."
DEIR, p. 125. The original CUP,thus, was premised on an ultimate maximum of 350 member
units. By 1997, however, the congregation had grown to 137% of it estimated cap to "480
member units (totaling 1,523 people)." Id. In 1998, the membership number grew to 522 (or
1,609). By 1999, membership had grown to 542 member units. Id. In 2001, Kol Shofar had
609 member units, 174% above the estimate of the maximum number ofpotential member units
on which Kol Shofar attained its original CUP.2 The EIR's claim that such growth cannot be
predicted to continue in the future is premised on a total decrease of only 11 member units over
the past five years. Such a decrease is statistically insignificant when compared to the history of
intense growth in congregation size. A continued increase in congregation cannot be dismissed
as "speculative" because the congregation has a demonstrated capability and propensity of far
surpassing estimates of ultimate congregation size.
The expansion and enhancement of facilities and services makes it extremely likely _
rather than extremely unlikely, as the EIR preparers would have it - that the growth trend will
continue. The slight decline in membership between 2001 and 2002 does not reduce that
likelihood.
Ultimately, the Final EIR dismisses any evaluation of the potential impact of inducing
membership growth by asserting that it is "speculative." Yet, it never responds to the fact -
emphasized by the Coalition in its comments on the Draft EIR - that CEQA does not allow an
agency to dismiss an impact evaluation as speculative without a showing that the agency has
first thoroughly investigated the issue. CEQA Guideline section 15144 states that "[ d]rafting an
EIR.. .necessarily involves some degree of forecasting," and that "an agency must use its best
efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can." In turn, while section 15145 allows
an agency to terminate discussion of an impact if it is "too speculative for evaluation," the
agency cannot reach this conclusion without conducting a "thorough investigation."3
2 In relation to the actual number of member units in 1985 (220), Kol Shofar grew 276% over the
16-year interval between the initial issuance of the CUP and the 2001 amendment.
3 In Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura, 176 Cal. App~ 3d 421, 430 (1985), the
court stated: "Although the County was not required to engage in sheer speculation as to future
environmental consequences..., the EIR was required to set forth and explain the basis for any
conclusion that analysis of the cumulative impacts... was wholly infeasible and speculative."
-5-
The Final EIR does not reflect any such "thorough investigation" of this issue. In fact,
the Final EIR contains no showing that the Town has used any effort - much less its best efforts
-c "to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can" about the Project's inducement of growth
in membership.
The Final EIR asserts that "[t]he number of new events and people accessing the site for
such events are what will result in environmental impacts, not the size of the overall
Congregation." FEIR at 21. But, of course, it is the membership for whom the events are
planned and it is the membership that attends the events. A growth in membership necessarily
means that there will be more people who will want to attend the events. There will be
increased pressure on the Town to allow Ko} Shofar to use its expanded facilities to adequately
serve this increased membership. It is shortsighted to allow a project expansion which will
accommodate a greatly increased membership and refuse to evaluate the impacts of that
increased membership's usage of the facilities on the ground that there are "caps" in place now
that would have to be reviewed later. Does it make any sense to suppose that a cap of 275 per
event will last very long if the Town has approved facilities accommodating up to 1,860 people?
In addition, the EIR does not cap attendance at the weekend services. The EIR assumes
that both the sanctuary and the MPA will be used during the weekly events.4 DEIR at 65. Even
in the latest iteration of the Project contained in the most recent staff report, the limit on
attendees "would not apply to . . . existing Saturday and Sunday morning services, all of which
can exceed 275 people." Increased membership will cause increased weekly traffic and parking
impacts. Although a maximum attendance of 400 people is predicted for Saturday services
(DEIR at 66), this estimate may turn out to be similar to the] 985 estimate of a maximum 350
member units. Where the congregation surpassed its estimate before, it is likely to do so again.
Without a reasonable forecast of the increases to the size of the congregation, the EIR fails to
The court struck down an agency's attempt to escape analysis of an impact as speculative. The
California courts have determined that an EIR for a proposed project must include analysis of the
environmental effects of future action if: "(1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the
initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely
change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects." Laurel Heights
Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396. In Laurel
Heights, the Court emphasized that the issue is not to be decided simply on the basis of "whether
the public agency or the project proponent had any definite plans" for action after the initial
project. 47 Ca1.3d 376, 396 (emphasis added). The court therefore held that other evidence was
sufficient to establish the likelihood of expansion, despite evidence from the ~egents that only
they could approve a plan for future expansion of the facility and had not approved any such
plan. 47 Ca1.3d at 397-398. The question is whether membership growth is a "reasonably
foreseeable consequence" of the Project.
4 Because the remodeled sanctuary is slated to hold 550 persons, the MP A will be used for
overflow seating.
-6-
identify the growth inducing and cumulative impacts of the project and therefore fails to comply
with CEQA.
\
The Final EIR's reliance on "caps" as a means of avoiding environmental analysis does
more than "hide the ball." It also seeks to predetermine how this Project must be dealt with by
the Planning Commission. Because no information has been provided about the impacts that
could result from the sizing of these facilities, the Final EIR in effect seeks to compel the
Planning Commission to use "caps" as the mitigation of project impacts. With the full review
required by CEQA, the Planning Commission would have the option of determining whether the
Project's ultimate impacts required limiting the size of the expansion for which a CUP would be
granted. The EIR must provide those ultimate potential impacts prior to mitigation to allow
decisionmakers and the public a comprehensive understanding of the project's impacts.
In sum, there is nothing "speculative" about estimating the capacity of the expanded
facilities to accommodate new members and activities. The analysis of the impacts enabled by
approval of the proposed expansion cannot be deferred to a later amendment of the CUP. DEIR
at 16. CEQA requires agencies to disclose all potentially significant impacts of a project so that
decisionmakers and the public can consider the project and its entirety of impacts prior to taking
a position on the worthiness of project. Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry (1994) 7 Ca1.4th
1215, 1229, quoting Laurel Heights 1, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 392 ("the environmental impact
report is "'the heart of CEQA'" and the "environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert
the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached
ecological points of no return"). The EIR here fails in its most basic mission of providing
information about the ultimate impacts of the project by preemptively truncating its analysis of
any future membership growth based on illusory "caps" on attendance of the new mega-facility.
As such, the EIR is fatally inadequate.
The Final EIR Fails to Adequately Address Inconsistencies with the General Plan or to
Properly Categorize Those Inconsistencies as Significant Environmental Impacts.
The Final EIR is legally wrong in its treatment of the Project's consistency with the
General Plan. First, it makes the mistaken assertion that "such a consistency analysis. . .is not
required by CEQA." FEIR at 6. No authority is cited for this proposition, and it is flatly
contradicted by CEQA Guidelines S 15125( d), which requires that an EIR "discuss any
inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans...." 5
5 There is also a variety of references to the impacts on local or regional plans in the
"Environmental Checklist" in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, used for determining
whether impacts are significant for EIRs. The Checklist includes a reference to any "[ c Jonflict
with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect."
Other items in the checklist include conflicts with or impacts on ( a) "any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations," (b) "local
policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
-7-
Second, the Final EIR is legally wrong in asserting that a Project's inconsistency with a
General Plan is not an environmental impact. See, FEIR, Responses F69, G21. The Final EIR
cites no authority for this assertion, and it is again flatly contradicted by cases decided under
CEQA. In Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of lnyo (1985)
172 Cal. App. 3d 151, 175, the court held that "a project would normally be considered to have
a significant effect on the environment if it conflicts wjth the adopted environmental plans and
goals of the community where it is located." More recently, in Pocket Protectors v. City of
Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 903, 930, the court held that an inconsistency with the
General Plan was ipso facto a significant environmental impact, which had to be considered as
such in an EIR.
Thus, although both the DEIR and FEIR conclude that the Project is inconsistent with
the existing General Plan in a number of respects, they err in refusing to treat any of them as a
significant impact, in direct violation of well-established CEQA precedent.
The Final EIR Inexplicably Changes the Conclusions of the Draft EIR Regarding
Particular Inconsistencies with the General Plan and Zoning Code.
The Draft EIR included a review of the Project in relationship to the General Plan then
in effect, and the Final EIR now includes a review of the Project in relationship to the new
Tiburon 2020 General Plan. However, despite the fact that some of the language in Tiburon
2020 is identical to the old General Plan (or conceptually the same), the Final EIR concludes in
some instances that the Project is consistent while the Draft EIR concluded it was not. There is
no explanation presented for this arbitrary about-face. The analysis in the FEIR is, thus, directly
undermined by the analysis in the DEIR.
The following are examples of these unexplained contradictions between the Draft EIR
and Final EIR. In all instances, the conclusion of Project inconsistency in the Draft EIR was
changed without explanation to Project consistency in the Final EIR:
Both OSC-2 in the old General Plan and LU-5 in the new Plan contain the same
language: "New development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and open
spaces." Compare Draft EIR at 130 with Final EIR at 9. The DEIR concludes that the
"new non-residential buildings and parking areas could be considered to not be 'in
harmony' with surrounding single family uses." The FEIR, 'however, flatly determines
the opposite, that the new uses are in harmony and therefore are consistent with the
General Plan. Id.
Policies C-C in the old and new General Plans have virtually identical language: "'To
maintain all existing, as well as to design all future, residential streets with consideration
ordinance," (c) "an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan," (d) "an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan," and ( e) "'acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any... public services."
-8-
of residents' safety, cost of maintenance, and protection of residential [quality of life]."
Compare Draft EIR at 133 with Final EIR at 16. The FEIR determined that the Project
was consistent, while the DEIR said that the project would be inconsistent. ld.
Old OSC-II and new OSC-35 contain identical language: ".. . grading shall be kept to a
minimum and every effort ... made to retain the natural features of the land
including...trees...." Compare Draft EIR at 131 with Final EIR at 13. Again, the
conclusions of the FEIR and DEIR conflict. ld.
The Draft EIR also made findings of inconsistency with the Town Zoning Code which
conflict with the Final EIR's findings of consistency with certain policies in the new General
Plan. For example, the Draft EIR found that the Project was inconsistent with subsection (d) of
Section 4.02.00 (Site Plan and Architectural Review) because "[t]he proposed non-residential
buildings and parking facilities are out of character with surrounding residences." Draft EIR at
136. Yet, the Final EIR concludes that the Project is consistent with new LU-H requiring the
Town "[t]o protect and preserve existing neighborhood character and identity" (FEIR at 8) and
consistent with new LU-I3 calling for the preservation of "neighborhood character." FEIR at
10. Yet, again, there is no explanation for these contradictory findings.
The Draft EIR also determined that the Project was inconsistent with provisions in
Section 4.04.00 relating to CUPs, including separate requirements that the location of the
Project be "properly related to the development of the neighborhood as a whole" and
"reasonably compatible with the types of uses normally permitted in the surrounding area."
DEIR at 137. Yet, the Final EIR found that the Project was consistent with new LU-I requiring
that developments be "compatible with surrounding neighborhoods." FEIR at 8.
Most confounding is the conflict in the findings regarding the Project's consistency with
Town parking requirements. The Draft EIR found the Project inconsistent with the parking
requirements in Zoning Code S 5.08.04 because "the project would not include sufficient spaces
to meet these criteria." DEIR at 138. On the other hand, the Final EIR finds that the Project is
consistent with new Goal C-I "to provide adequate parking."
The unexplained and unsubstantiated reversals contained in the FEIR reveal the
fundamental lack of analysis in the environmental report. Changing conclusions about the
project's consistency with the General Plan and zoning laws does not alter the DEIR's prior
analysis and determination that the project is inconsistent. Without more, such as a significant
alteration in the project plans, the contradictions in the two documents make the analysis
arbitrary and highlight the CEQA deficiencies in the project's review.
The FEIR Does Not Adequately Address tbe Parking Requirements in Tiburon's Zoning
Law.
The Draft EIR showed that there is a significant disparity between the parking provided
for every one of the facilities in the Project and the parking requirements in Section 5.08.04 of
the Town Code. DEIR at 64, Table 5. Section 5.08.04 requires one parking spot "for each 4
seats of maximum seating capacity." Section 5.08.04. The DEIR therefore concluded that the
-9-
Project was "inconsistent" with this provision, and, indeed, that it could not meet the criteria in
that provision allowing for a reduction in the number of required spaces. DEIR at 138. The
Draft EIR noted that "use of the Multi-Purpose building alone at full capacity could result in
parking demand in excess of on-site supply." DEIR at 65. Unfortunately, the Draft EIR
impermissibly failed to identify this inconsistency as itself a significant impact under CEQA, as
discussed above. Also, the Final EIR appears now to backtrack from some of the conclusions
regarding this inconsistency in the Draft EIR, despite the fact that there has been no change in
the Project.
The Final EIR does not rectify any of these problems and is largely dismissive of the
significant parking deficiency in the Project expansion. First, the Final EIR claims that the
parking deficiency is not a significant impact under CEQA "because Section 5.08.1 0 of the
Town Code allows for a reduction in the total number of Code required parking spaces." FEIR
at 140. The FEIR's puzzling reference to the inapplicable "dual use" parking provision must be
ignored because the Draft EIR found that the Code's criteria for reduction under that provision
are not satisfied by the Project, and the Final EIR confirms this. DEIR at 138; FEIR at 140.
The Final EIR also now claims that the failure to meet these Code requirements has been
mitigated by a new parking receipt mitigation measure. But, nothing in the Town Code's
parking provisions allows such deficiencies in on site parking to be excused by this kind of
mitigation lneasure. In fact, the zoning code specifically states that the requirements of off-
street parking for conditional uses "shall prevail, unless. . . specific additional requirements are
made with respect thereto." Section 4.04.11. Thus, the Project must provide enough on-site
parking for the maximum number of occupants, per Section 5.08.04.
Even so, there are serious questions about the Final EIR's evaluation of the effectiveness
of such a parking receipt program, including many, basic questions about the mechanics of the
program proposed for the first time in the Final EIR. Will Kol Shofar ticket monitors - for lack
of a better term - block entrance to religious ceremonies if the entrant does not present a valid
ticket? How will Kol Shofar prevent reuse of tickets from previous events? Will Kol Shofar
limit access to the property for the entirety of the service or scheduled event, or just at the
beginning? How will Kol Shofar distinguish between people who honestly arrived on foot and
therefore would not need a ticket and those attendants that parked out of sight and then walked
to Kol Shofar?
But even if the ticket plan worked as represented, it would still be expected that people
would in the first instance drive to Kol Shofar thinking there will be sufficient parking and
those in excess of the spaces there will have to turn around and drive elsewhere to get a receipt,
with the result that there is more traffic on these streets, not less. Seemingly, the ticket
. pro graIn promises to produce many frustrated drivers who, because they were among the last to
arrive, were denied on-site parking and thus entrance to the property. These drivers,
consequently, will be hurried and aggravated as they leave the parking lot in search of parking
somewhere else. Thus, even with the ticket system, traffic numbers generally will increase, and
the dangers associated with increased number of cars will increase as well.
-10-
The Final EIR creates even further questions about exactly where parking for Kol Shofar
events will be provided. As noted above, there is no parking plan provided, either for onsite
valet parking or for locating where off site parlcing will be allowed. Project changes made for
the first time in the Final EIR now necessitate the loss of seven spaces on the Via Los Altos
parking lot (FEIR at 40-41), without any indication of where the replacement spaces will be.
There is likely to be a further loss of spaces in this parlcing lot because of the need for
emergency access around the perimeter of the school building.
Parlcing, therefore, remains an unresolved, unmitigated significant impact that will if this
Project is allowed to proceed, create continual conflicts between the neighbors and members of
Kol Shofar. Such conflicts - as identified in the Tiburon planning and zoning laws and
normally avoided by adherence thereto - is a significant and unavoidable impact of the Project
under CEQA.
The Description of the Project Remains Inadequate
A complete description of the project is the essential starting point for an EIR.
Unfortunately, the description of the Project remains incomplete in the Final ElR, and that
document creates added uncertainty as to certain features of the Project. Thus, there is still no
determination of the feasibility of the flood detention pond proposed to be required or what its
impacts will be. See Response F61. The site of offsite parlcing lots has yet to be determined or
their impacts evaluated. See Response F64. No parlcing plan has been provided. See Response
E21. And the project proponent still has not determined where some of the onsite parking
spaces will be provided and whether any changes in the configuration of site development may
be necessitated by them. See Final EIR at 40-41.
The Final EIR also continues to give insufficient attention to the CUP and other
authorizations which must be obtained from the Town in order for these facilities and activities
to be approved. Although the Draft EIR stated that "[t]he proposed project would require
approval of a Conditional Use Permit Site Plan and Architectural Review approval" (p. 14),
neither it nor the Final EIR includes any descriptions of the proposed terms of these approvals.
Indeed, the CUP approval is one of the key actions which requires the EIR analysis. In
this respect, the Final EIR departs from CEQA's long-established definition of the project as
"the whole of an action which has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in
the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." Pub.
Res. Code S 21065. "Project" refers both to the "underlying activity being approved by an
agency," and "the governmental permits necessary to develop such an undertaking." 14 Cal.
Code Regs. SI5378(c) (emphasis added).
Obviously, a description of the proposed CUP is important. Indeed, in a number of
contexts, the Final EIR makes "assumptions" about what will be in the CUP. See, e.g., FEIR,
Response F8. In other places, the EIR defends its failure to conduct certain analyses by
claiming that the "Conditional Use Permit, if approved, would establish" certain conditions.
FEIR at 21.
-11-
Yet, in response to the Coalition's comment on the Draft EIR that all of the terms of the
CUP need to be set forth as the "governmental permit necessary to develop" the Project, the
Final EIR simply responds that "[t]he actual conditions that the Town would add if it improves
the CUP amendment are currently unknown." Response F3. To add to the confusion, the
developer released an FEIR appendix, approximately one week ago, proposing a new set of
CUP conditions. The project, including the CUP conditions, thus, morphs significantly each
time Kol Shofar submits materials. As discussed in the section addressing recirculation, the
FEIR's incomplete attempts to analyze such a rapidly changing project do not satisfy CEQA.
Even the Town's own "Environmental Review Guidelines" require that mitigation be
clearly identified so that the analysis of the impact and the mitigation measure can be clear. In
Section E8., Tiburon's Guidelines instruct:
The discussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish between the measures
that are proposed to be included in the project and other measures that are not
included but could also reduce adverse impacts. This discussion shall identify
levels to which impacts will be reduced by mitigation and the basis upon which
such levels were predicted. Where several measures are available to mitigate an
impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure
should be identified.
Section E9. similarly states:
All mitigation measures which are proposed to be included in the project shall
include a detailed description of the steps to be taken to ensure implementation.
The discussion shall include an item by item identification of the specific
mitigation, the monitoring action, criteria and standards used, process for signing
off completion of task and noncompliance issues.
The Town has clearly decided that it wants the entire package of mitigation measures to be
identified from the outset. The Town's Guidelines require that the environmental analysis of
the proposed mitigation measures is specifically detailed so as to fulfill CEQA's purpose of
fostering informed decisionmaking. Because some of the key mitigation measures for this
project (including CUP conditions) have been changed with each new version of the
environmental analysis, the EIR does not comply with the Town's '~Environmental Review
Guidelines" and therefore should not be approved.
Obviously, the final CUP conditions will not be known unless and until the Project is
approved by the Town. Not providing the terms of the CUP that will be proposed for adoption
by the Planning Commission as part of the Project description, however, violates CEQA. Here,
the Final EIR simply asserts peremptorily that the information is not available, but presents no
reason for not obtaining the information. The lack of an adequate project description
undermines the CEQA process from the outset and blocks the development of meaningful
infonnation on the project's impacts. Because the EIR, here, failed to adequately describe the
project, it fails to provide the necessary accurate information to make an informed decision.
-12-
Particular Impact Topics Are Inadequately Evaluated.
The lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant only if it produces
rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding. Kings County Farm
Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692. In a number of respects, the analysis
in the Final EIR falls short of this standard.
Traffic and Circulation
The Final EIR deals inadequately with the Project's impact on the intersection of
Tiburon Boulevard and Blackfield Drive. Among other things, it rejects the request of
Commissioner Collins that the "summer conditions" at this intersection be evaluated, given the
EIR's recognition that those conditions may be worse than the ones used to determine the
magnitude of the Project's impact on this intersection.
In addition, while the Draft EIR unequivocally required that Kol Shofar fund the
lengthening of the Tiburon Boulevard left turn lane onto Blackfield, the Final EIR adds
uncertainty to this mitigation by suggesting that later analysis by CalTrans might allow for a
change in signalization in lieu of lengthening the lane. FEIR at 29-30. However, this is an
analysis that should be performed now by the Town rather than deferring this option to later
study by CalTrans. Among other things, the Final EIR recognizes that a change in the
signalization could lead to an adverse change in the LOS ratings of particular intersections. If
so, this would be an impact of the Project not studied in the EIR. Clearly, this issue cannot be
left to later study by another agency.
The Final EIR also improperly dismisses concerns expressed in the comments regarding
the safety hazards posed by the Blackfield turn onto Reedland Woods Way. In the Coalition's
comments on the Draft EIR, we emphasized the potential safety hazard of adding traffic from
the Project expansion to the curved, reversed banked segment of Blackfield Drive near the
intersection of Reedland Woods Way. Many cars exceed the speed limit as they drive around
this curve past the Reedland Woods Way intersection. The Final EIR rejects this concern based
solely on the opinion of the town engineer, who is not stated to have any expertise as a traffic
engIneer.
In its comments on the Draft EIR, the Coalition complained that the document had not
examined the possibility of an alternative entrance on Blackfield Drive. We emphasized that
the Traffic Report prepared by the Town's consultant (Crane) noted that public scoping
comments had asked that access be designed for the Project exclusively to Blackfield Drive.
Draft EIR, App. D. at 18. The Crane report also noted that site plans with this change would
have to be developed in order for meaningful evaluation to be provided, but that "sight lines to
and from a well designed driveway connection to Blackfield Drive would be acceptable." Jd.
However, the Town did not request any further review of this alternative access by the Town's
consultant who had raised the issue.
Instead, the Final EIR relies entirely on the opinion of the Applicant's engineer to
conclude that such an entrance is infeasible. Yet, it is apparent from an examination of the
-13-
topography of the site that other locations for the driveway from Blackfield could have been
explored that did not have the particular slope constraints that led to the conclusion of
infeasibi lity.
The Coalition also complained about the impact of switching the Reedland Woods Way
driveway from an exit only (as it currently is) to an entrance and exit, and we noted that the
traffic and safety impacts of this change had not in fact been specifically evaluated in the Draft
EIR. The Final EIR also does not provide this evaluation, but merely references the Draft EIR's
discussion of Impact 3.3-A, which considered overall whether the Project would affect the level
of service on local intersections, but did not specifically address the safety and traffic impacts of
making the driveway both exit/entrance.
The Draft EIR also identified the addition of traffic to the "inadequate driveway" on the
southwest end of the site as a potentially significant safety impact. DEIR at 63. As mitigation
for this impact, the Draft EIR stated that "[t]he applicant shall cut roadside vegetation on the
project site west of the driveway or provide an engineering/survey analysis of what the sight
lines would be if the vegetation were removed." DEIR at 64. However, a subsequent study
included in the Final EIR demonstrates that the required sight line could not be achieved by
cutting vegetation, and as substitute mitigation the Final EIR proposes restricting the use of this
lot to Kol Shofar, school or event staff or employees. FEIR at 40. It is claimed that for
Saturday and Sunday evening events this will require use of 6 parking spaces in this lot for 12
people, and that the other 7 spaces that would have been used by the public in this lot will have
to be replaced elsewhere on the property.
However, there are a variety of unanswered questions raised by this change in
mitigation. What is the basis for concluding that the 12 people will come in only 6 cars? Since
there will now be more evening and daily events accommodated by the Project expansion, there
may be increased use of this lot at other times which has not been studied in the EIR. The
sightlines will remain inadequate, but this lot will continue to be used at times varying from its
current use.
The Final EIR also now states that closure of this lot for public use means that most
school drop off and pickup would occur at the new drop-off area on the east side of the site.
FEIR at 41). Despite the claim that this was studied in the Draft EIR, that document did not
take account of the increased usage of Reedland Woods Way resulting from the closure of the
new lot to the public.
The Draft EIR at page 69 stated that traffic from cars queue for 50' along Reedland
Woods Way (between Blackfield Drive and the Applicant's driveway) as they exit the parking
lot. However, as the Coalition noted in its comments, the Draft EIR did not adequately consider
the safety impacts to the residents and children of Reedland Woods Way as they attempt to use
their neighborhood street when 138 cars are simultaneously exiting the parking lot.
The Draft EIR dismissed the extraordinary traffic and parking impacts occurring on the
High Holy Days by asserting that "such events are not typically subject to CEQA evaluation"
(DEIR at 70) and their impact is insignificant (DEIR at 72). No authority or analysis was cited
-14-
for these assertions. The Final EIR does acknowledge that the Project includes a change in the
dual services on these days to single services which will clearly increase the traffic impacts in
ways that are not considered in the EIR. Indeed, it admits that the traffic analysis "does not
assess impacts of the single service events on study intersections." (FEIR at 142).
Moreover, the Coalition's comments also noted that the Draft EIR made no attempt to
consider any mitigation for the impacts of this extraordinary attendance, despite acknowledging
that the Applicant's car pool and shuttle program is unlikely to work, the "possibility" that the
lack of on-site parking is not in conformance with Town parking requirements, and the
"inconvenience and nuisance to local residents." (p. 71). This was contrary to the report of the
Town's traffic consultant who did endeavor to develop mitigation (albeit inadequate). See
Crane Report at 17.
The Final EIR does not remedy any of these defects, and states that arrangements to
"formalize" the use of off-site parking lots and the control of on-street parking "are implicit in
the High Holy Days Traffic Control Measures." FEIR at 142, emphasis added. But, "implicit"
is not good enough. CEQA requires that mitigation measures be specific and enforceable. State
Water Resources Control Bd. Cases (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 674, 789, citing Sacramento Old
City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1027 ("Public Resources Code section
21002 requires agencies to adopt feasible mitigation measures to substantially lessen or avoid
otherwise significant adverse environmental impacts. [~]... [m . .. For each significant
effect, the EIR must identify specific mitigation measures; where several potential mitigation
measures are available, each should be discussed separately, and the reasons for choosing one
over the others should be stated").
Finally, the Coalition commented that the Draft EIR's traffic analysis is inadequate to
consider the impacts on local residential streets, and that it should have used a traffic impact
methodology more appropriately tailored to streets in residential areas such as the TIRE (Traffic
Infusion on Residential Environments) Index. The Final EIR responds in an entirely conclusory
fashion, asserting that the TIRE index is not "a widely accepted methodology" and that the
Town considered it "unlikely to add meaningful data to the analysis." FEIR at 143.
The research underpinning the TIRE Index was conducted in San Francisco during the
late 1970s. The TIRE index methodology was developed at DC Berkeley to measure the
environmental capacity of residential streets. It provides a more appropriate measurement than
physical capacity for determination of quality of life impacts from traffic. Environmental
capacity is a measure of the livability of a street and includes such factors as: speed, ability to
back out of driveways, noise, perception of safety.for pedestrians and bicyclists. The TIRE
index is a theoretical numerical representation of a resident's perception of traffic on their
everyday activities and is based on the total daily traffic volume. This would more accurately
reflect the impact on quality of life resulting from Project-generated traffic increases.
A quick web search indicates that the TIRE Index method is used by a number of cities
in the Bay Area and by other large jurisdictions. Thus, it is used not only by the City of Palo
-15-
Alto but also by the City of Los Altos,6 by the City of Albany/ by the City of Saratoga in its
Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Update,8 by the City ofPetaluma,9 by the University
of California at Santa Cruz in the CEQA review of its Long Range Development Plan, JO and by
the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation Traffic Study Policies and Procedures.ll
Aesthetics
The Coalition's comments on the Draft EIR emphasized the importance of adequate
photo simulations in evaluating the Project's aesthetic impacts. As we noted, the only photo
simulations are those prepared for the Applicant. They "do not show the proposed parking
areas, access driveway, lighting, or landscaping" (Draft EIR at 99); they represent only a small
number of viewpoints, and not necessarily those suffering the greatest impact (e.g., from
Reedland Woods Way and Ring Mountain Preserve); and they do not show the effect of the
mitigation of planting trees or shrubs. The Final EIR's response to this comment is again
entirely conclusory. See FEIR, Response F44.J2
Noise
In our comments on the Draft EIR, the Coalition complained that the information
provided was not sufficient to determine the magriitude of the Project's noise impacts and that
the mitigation was unsatisfactory to address the noise impacts of the Project. The Final EIR
provides some additional information, but continues to treat nighttime noise as an unavoidable
significant impact. In other respects, it leaves major questions unanswered.
First, although the Final EIR now includes noise measurements taken at a nighttime
event, it concedes that the event in question was not comparable to peak weekend events. FEIR
at 29. No apparent adjustments were made to account for the noise impacts that would likely
result from the peak weekend events.
Second, although any number of commenters requested evaluation of whether projected
noise impacts of the project would be magnified by the "bowl effect" created by the
configuration of the terrain in the vicinity of the site, the Final EIR simply provides abstract
6 http://www.ci.los-altos.ca.us/planning! documentslPinewoodSchoolAttachmentF. pdf
7 http://www.albanyca.org!archiveI/2004/pdf/on_ mIl 0261 7593.pdf
8 http://www.saratogawoods.org!circulation_study.htm
9 see Bowman v. Petaluma, 185 Cal.App.3d 1065 (1986)
] 0 http://www . universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeetJsep04/1 08findings. pdf
]1 http:// www.lacity.org/ LADOT/TrafficStudyGuidelines.pdf
]2 The Draft EIR also wrongly claimed that the Project would have no impact on "[ s )cenic
resources" simply because there was no State scenic highway nearby. DEIR at 98; see also IS at
13. The Final EIR's wholly inadequate response is that all "scenic resources" have been defined
and evaluated. FEIR at 144.
-16-
descriptions of what a "bowl effect" is, without making any effort to use that information to
determine the extent to which noise impacts will be greater at this site as a result. See FEIR,
Responses E33, P 17.
Third, despite other comments requesting that the noise impacts of the upper and lower
parking lots be combined because they will be simultaneously used on occasion, the Final EIR
refuses to do so. The response is confusing, appearing to justify its refusal to study this because
one of the parking lots currently exists. See, FEIR, Response F48. This reasoning obviously
ignores the fact that the upper lot's noise will be added to the lower lot's noise when the two
are simultaneously used, and this will be a direct impact of the Project expansion. There is no
warrant under CEQA for failing to consider this cumulative impact.
Fourth, although the Final EIR acknowledges the Coalition's comments that the pure
tones from beeper devices on construction equipment can have a significantly greater impact
than the other construction noises reviewed, it ultimately passes the buck to OSHA as to
whether any mitigation will be required for this. See, FEIR, Response F52.13 Clearly, there is
little likelihood that any such mitigation will be implemented if the Town does not order it. On
other requests by the Coalition regarding construction noise, the Final EIR is simply not
responsive. See, FEIR, Responses F53-56.
A ir Quality
The Draft EIR did not include any review of the impact on the surrounding neighbors of
diesel exhaust emissions from equipment in the construction of the Project. This impact was
reviewed in the Initial Study and dismissed as insignificant, but solely based on the treatment of
diesel exhaust emissions as an "objectionable odor." IS at 18. The Coalition pointed out in its
comments on the Draft EIR that this discussion ignored the fact that diesel exhaust is a toxic air
contaminant of serious public health concern, and it has been linked to a range of serious health
problems. The Final EIR acknowledges that diesel exhaust can increase the risks of cancer, and
reports on the EIR consultants' risk assessment performed in another context and the current
state of federal and state regulations of diesel engines and fuels. FEIR at 135.
However, no risk assessment is provided in the Final EIR for this Project, and there is no
substantiation for the conclusion that the federal and state requirements will mitigate these
impacts to a less than significant level. The fact that full implementation of federal and state
plans will reduce cancer risks by 75 percent in 2010 and 85 percent 'in 2020 (FEIR at 135) does
J3 The Coalition suggested a number of mitigation measures that could be considered to address
this impact, including: an automatic braking device that triggers upon contact; and administrative
controls, such as a spotter or flagger and prohibiting all foot traffic in the work area. See, e.g.,
California OSHA regulations at 8 CCR 1592 and federal mining regulations at 30 CFR 56.14132.
Further, a new backup alarm has recently been offered that drastically cuts down on the number
and duration of beeps by only beeping when it senses something behind it. Despite the request
that the EIR require meaningful mitigation for backup bells by specifying one or more of these
alternative methods, the Final EIR simply "punts" this question to OSHA.
-17-
not tell us anything about what the risks will be in the nearer time frame when the construction
of the Project will actually take place. Nor is there any substantiation for the conclusion that
"[ a]t most, people living near the project site would be exposed to intermittent diesel emissions
for a few weeks." Id.
The EIR Improperly Defers Mitigation in Some Respects.
The Coalition's comments on the Draft EIR noted that some of the mitigation measures
proposed were in fact left to be defined in important respects after the public review process and
the agency's approval of the project. This violates CEQA. See Quail Botanical Gardens
Foundation, Inc. v. City of En cinitas (1994) 29 Cal. App: 4th 1597, 1606, n. 4 ("the City cannot
rely upon postapproval mitigation measures adopted during the subsequent design review
process").
The Final EIR contends that these measures all satisfy CEQA because they have
"performance standards" that define what the later design of the measure must achieve. FEIR at
22-23. This misses the fundamental point advanced by the Coalition. The mitigation measures
yet to be designed may themselves have impacts or may require other changes in the Project
which will have adverse impacts not studied in this EIR. The fact that these measures may have
"performance standards" for the degree of impact reduction they are required to meet does not
excuse this EIR' s failure to evaluate the impacts of the measures themselves.
For example, the Draft EIR proposed as mitigation "[a]bove ground detention or by the
construction of an underground stormwater detention vault," and states that "[ f]urther analysis
will be done at the design stage to size the detention pond to ensure that the pond attenuates
peak flows to the appropriate level," and "[ t]o assess any secondary impacts of the detention
pond on slope stability." DEIR at 48. This is an impermissible deferral of the assessment of
the impacts of the mitigation measure. In this respect, it does not matter that the measure must
be designed to meet the "performance standard" of maintaining post-development 1 DO-year peak
flows at the pre-development level. FEIR at 148. Without knowing whether the detention
facility will be above-ground or below ground or how large it will be, there is no way of judging
whether it will have impacts of its own or will cause a reconfiguration of other parts of the
Project.
The Draft EIR required shuttle service for events of more than 360 people, but defers
analysis of the "secondary impacts at remote lots" to a later "Town-approved Parking Plan."
DEIR at 31. The Coalition in its Draft EIR comments noted that there is no showing that the
shuttle service would work or that its secondary impacts would in fact be avoided. The Final
EIR asserts in this instance that the "performance standard" is that the Town will not allow any
remote lots whose use causes "undue congestion." But this vague term is not otherwise defined,
and it is entirely unclear what the impacts of these remote lots will be or whether they will be
effective.
-18-
The EIR Does Not Consider a Reasonable Range of Alternatives
In the Coalition's comments on the Draft EIR, we contended that the EIR should have
considered alternative locations for the meetings or events for which the multi-purpose room is
proposed in order to satisfy CEQA's requirement that a "reasonable range" of alternatives be
considered in an EIR See Goleta 11, 52 Ca1.3d at 566 (alternatives under CEQA typically
involve either "different uses of the land under consideration" or "similar uses at different
locations"); Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. v. Regents of the University of California
("Laurel Heights II''), 6 Ca1.4th 1112, 1142 (1994) (required consideration of a reasonable range
of feasible alternatives was achieved in Draft EIR "by considering a wide variety of alternatives
ranging from several different uses for the Laurel Heights site to different locations for the
research laboratories").
The Draft EIR rejected any review of alternative locations, stating that there were no
feasible sites in Tiburon for construction of 13,395 square feet of building space. However,
since Kol Shofar serves a congregation that has a substantial membership outside of Tiburon,
there was no reason to limit the review of alternative locations to Tiburon. Moreover, given
that the Final EIR has confirmed that there will be caps on the attendance and number of events
in the expanded facilities, the EIR should have considered whether Kol Shofar's needs in light
of these caps could have been met with either another organization's existing facilities or
smaller new construction by Kol Shofar in Tiburon or elsewhere.
The FEIR's Responses to Comments Are Inadequate.
The deficiencies that the Coalition has identified need to be corrected in order to provide
the Town and the public with a complete evaluation of the Project's impacts. Under CEQA, an
EIR is not only an informational document, which must contain all pertinent information on
environmental impacts of a project, but it is also a "document of accountability." Laurel
Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the University of California, 47 Ca1.3d 376, 392
(1988). Thus CEQA requires that all information, and the decision making process of the
agency, be fully public to protect "not only the environment but also informed self-
government." Id. This document lacks this essential accountability.
For example, the FEIR's responses to comments simply dismiss certain requests for
relevant information as "unknown" or "unavailable" when such information could readily have
been obtained from the Staff or the Applicant and is essential to understanding the Project's
impacts. Response F3 states that the CUP conditions are "currently unknown" and will be
determined "when the Town considers the merits of the project and whether a CUP amendment
will be approved." FEIR at 131. However, the EIR counts on the conditions in the CUP to
mitigate impacts. Without full disclosure and complete analysis of the specific mitigation
measures in the EJR the public is deprived of considering and commenting on the effectiveness
of the conditions as mitigation measures. The response that the mitigation measure will be
unknown until the project is already approved insufficiently responds to a valid request for
critical information.
-19-
Because the EIR does not provide information critical to making an informed decision
on the project, and because the FEIR's responses to comments summarily rejects requests for
this info~ation, the environmental review process has violated CEQA. Therefore, the
application should be denied.
The Project Violates the Planning and Zoning Laws and Therefore Should Not be
Approved
"A project is inconsistent if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is fundamental,
mandatory, and clear." Endangered Habitats League, supra 131 Cal.App.4th at 782, citing
Families Unafraid, supra 62 Cal.App.4th at ] 34] -42. If a project is inconsistent with the
Planning and Zoning Laws, then it cannot be approved. Neighborhood Action Group, supra
156 Cal.App.3d at ] 184-86. The Project will violate requirements of both the General Plan and
the Zoning Code and therefore cannot be approved.
First, as discussed above, the DEIR clearly identifies many inconsistencies of the Project
with the General Plan, including but not limited to inconsistencies with:
OSC-2 in the old General Plan and LU-5 in the new Plan ("new development shall be in
harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and open spaces") (Draft EIR at 130);
Policies C-C in the old and new General Plans ("to maintain all existing, as well as to
design all future, residential streets with consideration of residents' safety, cost of
maintenance, and protection of residential [quality of life]") (Draft EIR at ] 33); and
Old OSC-ll and new OSC-35 ('".. . grading shall be kept to a minimum and every effort
... made to retain the natural features of the land including... trees...") (Draft EIR at
13] ).
Additionally, the DEIR identified inconsistencies with the Town Zoning Code,
including, but not limited to, findings of inconsistency with:
Section 4.02.00 (d) (Site Plan and Architectural Review) because "[t]he proposed non-
residential buildings and parking facilities are out of character with surrounding
residences" (Draft EIR at ] 36);
Section 4.04.00 because the Project is not ""properly related to the development of the
neighborhood as a whole" or ""reasonably compatible with the types of uses normally
permitted in the surrounding area" (DEIR at 137); and
Zoning Code S 5.08.04 (ParlUng) because "the project would not include sufficient
spaces to meet [the parking] criteria" (DEIR at 138).
In addition to the violations identified in the DEIR, the Project would also violate the
following key parlUng provisions containing in the Zoning Code:
-20-
Section 5.08.00 (Parking and Loading) states that "[n]o structure shall be constructed
unless spaces for parking and truck loading and unloading are permanently provided and
maintained for the benefit of residents, employees, customers, and visitors, within or
outside of buildings or in combination of both," yet the Project will not provide adequate
parking for its crowds of visitors;
Section 5.08.01 (Applicability) states that "[aJ new use, structural addition, or alteration
on such parcel shall be allowed only if it does not increase or create a parking deficiency
as determined in this section," yet the MPA promises to create a new parking deficiency
under the terms of the code;
Section 5.08.02 (Location of Required Parking) states that "required parking shall be
provided on the parcel or contiguous lot or parcel where the use is located [and] [f]or
non-residential uses, the required parking may be provided on another parcel providing
that the parcel is within the Town in a commercial zone and is reasonably convenient to
the subject parcel, as approved by the Town," yet the developer here has not provided
the required parking and has not suggested a plan of how it plans to do so;
Section 5.08.03 (A) states that "[t]he required parking stalls, loading berths and parking
aisles may not be located on any street right-of-way," yet Kol Shofar's MPA users will
use the streets for parking every Saturday and Sunday and during the High Holidays
because there simply is no other place to park;
Section 5.08.03 (D) states, in part, that "[a]ccess driveways shall not be arranged so as to
unduly increase hazards to traffic or pedestrians," yet the entrance and exit points to the
on-site parking present significant hazards to neighborhood traffic, including bicyclists
and pedestrians;
Section 5.08.03 (F) states, in part, that "[l]arge paved areas shall be given visual reliefby
the interspersion of landscaping within the paved area, as well as around the perimeter,"
yet the current plans for the new parking lot do not include landscaping within the paved
area;
Section 5.08.04 (d) (Parking Requirements) states that for places of assembly, one spot
shall be provided "for each 4 seats of maximum seating capacity; or one for each 10
square feet of assembly area, whichever is more," yet the approximately 139 spaces of
parking pales in comparison to the 299 space demand from the sanctuary and MPA
calculated through the maximmn seating capacity ratio; and
Section 4.04.11 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements), under the Conditional
Use Permits Section of the Zoning Code, directs that "[t]he requirements for provision
of off-street parking and loading applicable to the particular use shall prevail, unless in
the findings and conditions recited in the Resolution, specific additional requirements are
made with respect thereto," yet the off-street parking requirements seem to have been
cavalierly dismissed because the violations will only occur occasionally.
-21-
Because construction of the MPA will contribute additional, significant parking deficiencies in
and around Kol Shofar, the addition is incompatible with both the words and the spirit of the
zoning regulations related to parking.
The MPA is over-sized for the area in which it is located. The General Plan and Zoning
Code protect residential neighborhoods from inappropriately large development projects. The
Town has an obligation to follow its own laws and deny the application as inconsistent with the
Town's planning and zoning laws.
Conclusion
The Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition appreciates the effort of the Town in undertaking
the environmental review of the Project in the EIR and the opportunity to comment on the Draft
and Final EIRs. While there are some aspects of the EIR which provide an adequate review of
the Project's impacts, we believe there remain serious shortcomings. These must be corrected
before the application for a CUP is considered on its merits in order to provide the Town and
the public with a complete evaluation of those impacts and the means of their mitigation.
The Town of Tiburon must ensure that it is adjudging the present application in strict
compliance with its obligations under CEQA and the Town's planning and zoning laws. While
the applicant is a religious institution, the Town cannot endorse any religion through lenient
application of the law. Such review could violate the Establishment Clauses of the California
and U.S. Constitutions. We encourage the Planning Commission to uphold the law and deny
this application.
Very truly yours,
Isl
JOSHUA A.H. HARRIS
Attorney for
Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition
-22-
I
STEPHAN C. VOLI::J'R
JOSHUA A.H. HAI<IUS
La\v Offices of
STEPHAN (:~ \l()lJ(ER
436 J 4th STREET SU1TE 1300
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
Phone 51 0/496-0600 ~:. Fax 510/496-1366
e-Inail ~ svolker@volkerlaVv'.com
~ ~ ~ ~ U \W ~3.ij
" t! I Ii
n rln~.(~ : I ,I!
2 .Ii /ILJf If, I., 'oj I
-, ~ '_!'J J i /
1>-_"./
PL/J,NNING DIVISiOr'~
TOW~j OF TIBUf1m~
\I1ARNJI': RiDDLE
April 24, 2006
Planning Con1mjssion
TOWTI of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CaJifornia 94920
LATE MAiL #
I
Re: SUI)PLEi\'lENT.AL COI\Il\'IENTS OF' TTBURON NEIGHBORHOOD
COALiTION ON THE KOL SHOF'llli .FINAL ENVIRONi\tlENTAL
I1\'fPACT REPORT: ALTERNATIVE 7 ANALYSIS AND
RE1JATED STAFF REPORT
Dear Comn1issioners:
The Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition (the "Coahtion") respectfully subnlits the
{-()Hovv/ing additional connnents on the Kol Shofar Final Erniironnlental hnpact Report
Alternative 7 Analysis (".Alternative 7 .Analysis"), dated April IS, 2006, and related Staff
Report CRep011~'), dated April 24, 2006, Alternative 7 n10difies conditions of the
proposed eJ~1""~ansion ofKol Shofar's facilities (the "ProjecC), but does not resolve many
critical f1a\v~;;in the environmenlal analysis. In certain instances, the new ahernative
creates new, slg-nificant, tuistudled impacts, :requiring further evaluation and public
:reviev..r and comrnent.
EIR Recirndatiofl
As noted throughout the rest of the connnents below, c.ertain changes to the
proposed ProJect, contained in the Alternative 7 Analysis \:viU create ne\N, substantial
impacts resulting from Project alterations or fron1 new proposed nlitigation Ineasures. As
such, these new proposals requ.ire recirCUlation of the EIR for full public revic\.Iv and
comrnent.
Project Description
The late submission of a brand nev\' aiten1ative that purportedly tkcre,tsE,.:s aU of
the pre\/iousiy s.lgnificant impacts to inSIgnificance, the major revisions to the parking Jot
circulation plan, the constantly shining hours and nun1bers of e'vents. and the tmresolved
series of on-street parkmg proposals further exacerbate em already i ilegally imprecise and
ever-shifting Project description.
Noise
The Alternative 7 Analysis and the StafTReport conclude that the revised
Alternative 7 Project '.Nould have a less than significant noise inrpact on its neighbors due
to decreased frequency of activities and nun1ber of participants. T11e Alternative 7
Analysis compa.res Alternative 5 in the Draft and Final FIR to the ne\V alternative,
statmg,
Alternative 5 required that aH nevv weekend events end by 9:00 run., while
Alternative 7 -y..,7ould allow the 12 ne..^", Sat1.1rday events to last until 11 :00 p.nl.
The reductions in the number of events and the number of people conling to and
going from these events \NOl.dd ojfset the fact that 12 events \vouJd last 2 hours
longer than alkn.ved in the origin,ll ahernati ve.
Alternative 7 Analysis at 2. The so-called '''offset"' referred above is lU1scientific and
illogical. The difference bet\.veen a party that ends at 9 p.m. and a party that ends at 11
p.nl. is enonnous \vhen one is referring to a quieL family-oriented, residential
neighborhood u, not to mention the difference that 12 such parties per year make in
signjficant noise jn1pacts to surrounding neighbors, 'i11e analysis' condus-ion that "this
nlost recent ITIodification [is] so small that it is difficult to conclude \vhether [the n.vo
projects' noise ilnpacts} are precisely equivalent" arbitrarily ignores the signiticant
nmsance of on-going~ raucous parties continuing into the night \.vhen people trying to
]
sleep.
AutoH1obHe Access
The significant changes to the proposed parking lot access and circulation plans
contained in Alternative 7 represent a n1{~ior mndiI-lcationto the Project that \vill cause
nelN substantial irnpacts and requires recirculation, The tratTic and safety ilnpacts r>D Via
Los Altos are sUll1n1arily disn-ussed as. inconsequential. Alternative 7 _Analysis at 6. In
addition, the Analysis itself identifies substantial increaBes to already signiflcant in1pacts
and potentia) nev.: subst,mtial inlpacts by stating:
\Vhi!e reduc'ing congestion on Reedland \"VoodsWay, this change would not
reduce the traffic safety ilnpact resulting fron1 turnarounds on residential streets to
a less than significant level. In fact, because driv~:rs \\lH be unable to access the
parking lot from Reedland \'loods \Vay. drivers 'who are unfarniliar 'with the
parking lot circulation pattern :may turn onto Reedland \Voods \Vay, discover they
cannot enter the parking lot frorn this street and then make a u-turn to return to
BbckfieId Drive_
Alternative 7 Analysis at 6. In addltion, the AnalySiS identifws anotber ne',;.,,' subst,mtia!
nnpact to safety resulting from the ne\v circulation plan:
j 'Yh~ Coalit[;)l: agr~c-) witb tbe fIR':,; cC::rdt.::-;io:l th;jl tbe ~;II;dy ~;uhni1:.cd b Chak$ T\t Sahel A:;:-;C(;lClt~~;.
b~> l dded Apnl (), 200(,) 1l;"':0E~cl]y In,;j;3.lizc s 1elnpu,3,v or r~Tj0dic in(:TcH:;~:) In mnblcnt nC)i~3{~ kycL: <.md
is tbu~; i1t<:ppJicClhk 1,) lh~ ptc:,;(:[)1 prc(:~cd[ng.
Other drivers whose intent v..ms to drop some one off at the site may decide to turn
onto Reedland \Voods "Vay and drop their pa'SSengers ofT at the side\valk rather
than have to negotiate driving through the parking 10L these drivers v.:ould also
lnake a u-turn on Reedland Woods \Vay.
ld. The analysis provides tbat "[ oJther rnitigation::{" \,vould address these nev,,' '-'traffic
saf(;;ty impact of people turning around on residential streets,~' but the mitigation
:measures referred to are inapplicable tnthe problenls identified by the Analysis.
Altenlative 7 Analysis at 6-7.
Traffic Impacts of the Projet-t on Tiburon Boulevard
The new information only adds rnore confusion to the analysis on the iJnpacts of
the Project on the intersection of TibuJon Boulevard and Blackfield Drive. In violation
of CEQA, the EIR does not state ,"vhether or not tratIlc in1pacts v,,;11 be significant; rather
the Report simply defers the ques60n to Caltrans for further study. The Alternative 7
Analysis goes so f~1J as to suggest that the Tow"n ,md Caftrans could, cUter the Project is
already builL jointly "n10nltor the inlpact of nev.: pr(~ject v~'eekend peak traffic at this
intersection in order to detem1ine the actual traffic in1pact.'~ Report at 4. If all inlpacts
could be resolyed so easIly, then there would be no need to COndlH.:t any CEQA analysis
prior to approval of the Project CEQA, ho\.vever~ requires that all impacts of the Project
be dearly identified in the CEQA analysis prior to certification and approval, Therefore,
the EIR's failure to provide vital inforn1ation and conclusions regarding the traffic
in1pac.ts of the Project violates CEQA,
In addition, the Statf Report suggests a rniligation Jneasure that could itself
produce new~ signiJlcant irnpacts, The Reporr refers to the proposed JVl1tigation \leasure
3.3-A.4~ '\vluch is to adjust the signal length and/or signal pha..;;ing to aHovv sufficient
tiIue tor left turns to dear the intersection during the one-hollI \veekend peak period from
6:30 pm to 7:40 pm." Report at 4 ThIS proposal does not address the inlpacts suc.h an
alteratH.Hl would have on through trafflc travdmg on Tiburon Boulevard during these
peak weekend hours. The proposed InitigatH:m rneasure thus raises a new, potentially
significant nnpact on traffic conditions in Ti buron, requiring recirculation of the analysis.
Parking Signs
The new m'itigation measure, potentwlly restncting parking on nearby streets
through the use of signs, raises many nev.' substantw! 'impacts to sUlTotmding areas of the
neighborhood that \:<Yill not be marked "resident parking only ,'~ Repoli at 5, Such new
impacts frOD1 these nell.' mitigation D1easures require analysis and recirculation of the
environmental reV1e\\',
3
Additional Capacity in the })arking Lot
The StatJReport suggests that "additIonal parking spaces could be pf(}"vided based
upon a more careful study of parking layout." Report at 6. Further, Staff suggests that
.'l'v1itigation 1V1easure 3.3-B4 could be reworded to require that on-site parking be
increa'3ed as n1lH.:h as possible. . . ," Id. These n(:\v mitigation suggestions are vague,
defer critical analysis .until some point in the future, and raise new unstudied, potential
impacts related to aesthetics, circulation, on-site saf(;.;ty, lighting, cmd noise. A.gain, the
late disclosure of new feat'ures of or information about the Pr~ject requires recirculation
and highlights the still vague and ever-changing description of the Project.
Saturday a,nu Sunday and High Holiday Services~ Imp:uts
The ,Aherna6ve 7 Analysis states that the nev.,i alternative ;""..vould be sufficient to
reduce the traffic safety iinpact of people turning around in residential neighborhoods to a
less than significant ilnpact "Alten1ative 7 Analysis at 7. This conclusion ignores, as
bas the entire environmental revie\v process, the safety, traffic, and parking irnpucts--
both cumulative and growth inducing --- on the surrounding neighborhood of the increased
pm-ticipation in Saturday and SWlday services. These impacts are likely to occur ba..;;ed
on the vastly expanded capacity of the Project capacity. An estinlate, given by the
applicant. that maximu.m attendance "\-\lin probably only reach 400 attendees at these
services does not satisfy CEQ/\ 's callf-()r thorough forecasting and study of all
f()reseeable impacts. Even assuming that the congregation size does not grow' in the
future.-- an extremely unli kely outcome of the facili ties exp~ms-ion ,.- attendance at regular
services frOITI the current congregation of 598 fan1ilies is likely to increase because of the
expanded seating capacity affon.kd by the multi-purpose addition.
Sirnilm-ly, Alternative 7 does not address, or relnedy, the lack of analysis of the
inlpacts of conducting single services on High l-folidays, The additional rnaterials also do
not suggest nlitigation n1easures that \vould nlinlnllze the e.xtrenle inlpacts of single
SerVl{:es. Thus, the DEIR, the FEIR, and m_l\V this Alternative 7 Analysis aU fail to
adequately identify the impacts of High Hohday smgle services or attempt to addTess
how the in1pacts of these truly nlassrve events 'Will be controlled, Although the rn~jor
events ,:viB only happen three tirnes a year, CEQA stil I demands that the in1pacts of those
events be fuBy disclosed, discussed, and analyzed to ensure jnfornled decisiomnaking,
CEQA contains no religious exemption for discussion oflrnpacts. \Vlthout
~malysis of these impacts. the ElR fails in its rnost critical role ofprovidmg information to
the public and the declsionrnakers, AJthough the Saturday, Sunday, and High Holida.v
eve.nts are religious in nature, the in1pacts of those events D1ust still be identified, and if
significant reduced to lnsignit1ca.nce through m.irigation measures through the CEQA
process The EJR here, mdudmg the Ahernat;ve '7 AnalYSIS, fails to prOVIde adequate
rnformation on these cen1ral Hnpacts of the Project.
4
No Ren]{~dy for Lack of j,\.lteJ'natives
Again, /'dternative 7 sHnply pares dOVvl) uses of tbe rw,v Project facility, but does
not present a true alternatlve to the Project. None of the so-called alternatives presents a
feasible alternative to construction of the n1ulti-purpose facility. As V<.'.ith n1any sinular
faulty analyses, the root of the alternative deficit lies \h,1th the overly narro\v Project goals
<md purposes. By artificiall)/ constraining the purposes of tbe Project, the Applicant
predetermined the outCOHW of the altenwtive selection.
Tlu.ls, theFEIR, including the ne\v 1\1 ternative 7 Analysis, does not satisfy
CEQA's call for a searching investigation into alternatives that \votdd have fewer inlpacts
on the surrounding residential neighborhood.
Chang(~abl(~ Condhionall)se Pennit LiJnitations As ~litigation 'l(~asun~s
The FEJR, including the Alternative 7 A.nalysis, repeatedly relies on CUP
constraints to minimize impacts of the Project expansion. For exampk\ the analysis
continually contends tbat there 'NiB be no parking deficits if the Town limits event
rnaxirnums by the proper arnount. The <malysis discounts the malleability of the C1JP
conditions and thereby truncates an discussion of the actual impacts of the Project at fuli
build-out and capacity, Nothing in this nlitigation packet constrains use of the Project
f~'Kihties in the future if and \\oilen the Applicant seeks a change in the CUP conditions at
a later date. The prOlnise of future environmental studies t(.1f these alterabons of use of
the facilj ti es represents a d ear case of improper segnwntati on of overaU irnpacts of the
Project. CEQ/\. requires that all itnpacts (~f the ouire Project be identified and analyzed
prior to construction of the physical bui]ding~ not in piecen1eal future revie-\Ns as CtTP
conditions are relaxed.
Condusion
Tl1e 'Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition finnly objects to the construction of the
nluJti-purpose addition at Koi Sho(-lf. As discussed above and in the Coalition's other
comments letters sutJJnit1ed on this pf(~ject, the environmental revw\v of the expanSion
prOject is inadequate. Further, as also discussed previously, the ne\\' facl]i ty w.j]l be used
to throw large-scale panics, a use that will inappropriately disrupt the surrounding, quiet,
residential neighborhood. The Planning COlnn1ission should, therefore, deny Kol
Shofar's appli cation
Very truly yours,
I I
/s/
JOSHU A /\, H. HARRI S
Attorney for the
Tiburon Neighborhood Coahtion
5
Kol Shofar
Page 1 of2
. ,/ ,/ "
Scott Anderson
LATE MA',l # I
From: Paul Smith [psmith@marinlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 5:25 PM
To: Scott Anderson; Vice Mayor, Tom Gram
Cc: gtraggs@rflawllp.com
Subject: FW: Kol Shofar
Tom, FYI.
Scott; please pass this and the attachment on to the Planning Commission per Gary's request below.
Thanks,
Paul
From: Gary T. Ragghianti [mailto:gtraggs@rftawllp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 4:49 PM
To: Paul Smith
Subject: Re: Kot Shofar
Paul: I was out yesterday and am responding to the letter than Larry Duke wrote and which you were kind enough
to send to me.
I worked for Larry and know him well. Indeed from 1985-89 I served as the Town attorney and was the Deputy
Town attorney for years before 1985.
Sadly I must say this letter misses the mark significantly.The attachment to the letter contains no evidence or
even indication that there was some limitation imposed by the Town on the approvals granted to CKS in
connection with the development of this land.
Also I am unable to divine from Mr. Dick's letter any indication as to what the mentioned level of impacts to the
neighborhood actually were, from the Middle School, against which the operation of the CKS use was assertedly
to be tested in the future.
We do know however that for years after the approvals were originally granted to CKS the Town reviewed it and
assessed it in connection with the CUP it held and still holds.No review indicated that there were limitations or
impact thresholds such as are referred to in this letter. If there are documents which so state I do not have
possession of them nor have I seen them over the several years I have represented CKS.
It is,simply stated, incomprehensible that the opponents to the application wou,ld not have raised these issues
were they in fact actual use limitations placed on the project.... and equally incredible that the Town,over the
many years it reviewed CKS facilities use would not have mentioned them either.Neighbors , staff and PC ICC
certainly had more than ample opportunity to do so over the years as you may see from the chronology I am
attaching for your review.
Finally the recommended course of action set forth in the letter is freighted with legal dilemma and danger.1 won't
even argue further on this point it appears so clear.
Would you kindly pass this and the attached chronology on to Tom Gram and the PC... and all others who the
opposition continues to supply with inaccurate data.
I would appreciate your calling me on my cell after you have reviewed this.
Thanks for your continuing attention and courtesy regarding these matters.
4/20/2006
Page '2 at '2
Gary
4/20/2006
, 1 .
Chronol02Y of CUP approvals" reviews and modifications by County of Marin and
Town of Tiburon-1984 to Present
1984- Kol Shofar secured the first Use Permit for the site from the
County of Mann - Permit UP 84-12 - this permit allowed 38,000 sq ft of
the facilities to be used for religious facilities w/up to 350 families
and 7,000 sq ft for school purposes.
*Tiburon Ordinance 306 approved Kol Shofar Master Plan and CUP -
5-20-85 Stan Dick letter was Exhibit to approved project description.
*Town Reso 97-17 Planning Commission amended the 1985 CUP - allowed
Friday evenings to 9: 15pm, Sat. Bar & Bat Mitzvahs with approx 100-150,
once a month to lOpm..... estimated 480 member families. (Exhibit to
approved project Dec. 23, 1996 letter from Stan Dick)
* Town Reso 2001-07 Planning Commission amended the Reso 97-17 CUP-
estimated 609 member families, Sat. events 250-400 people attend to
lOpm, Bar and Bat Mitzvahs, Sunday up to 300 attending classes to mid
day. Jewish Community High School approved 20-30 students and up to 12
staff.
* Town Annual Review CUP 2004 - no change in use but three new or
amended conditions were added, significant one - required Kol Shofar to
provide traffic control personnel for events with 400 or more people
attending.
As may be seen, the use for the property was established before it \vas located in the
Town.
Secondly, over the years the Town Planning Commission has approved modifications to
the use by CUP amendment. I am not aware of any complaints relating to use (I do
believe there was an appeal in 1996 or 1997 but am advised it related to location of
proposed parking, not use of the facilities.).
Moreover, the Town record shows that there \vas not even a public hearing required for
several of the annual reviews performed by the staff because, although the Town publicly
noticed the review, there were no public comments.... (So much for the unfounded
baseless suggestion that the Town hasn't been paying attention to what is going on at
, l '
,
CKS and that the CUP isn't an effective vehicle for dealing with same! Where were the
present complainants regarding use of the facilities over all these years?).
Finally, even at the 2004 annual review the PC
found that use of the site was consistent with past approvals but went ahead and
responded to neighborhood concerns and modified some of the conditions to
address traffic and parking issues with events having 400 people or
more.
Hope this helps clarify these issues.
~
John and Karen Nygren
22 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburon, CA 94920
LAtE MAIL # I
Tiburon Planning Commission and Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
April 24, 2006
Re: Staff report and attachments for April 24, 2006 Planning Commission meeting
Regarding Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit and FEIR Impact
Report
Dear Tiburon Planning Commissioners and Council members,
We will begin by saying we strongly object and are overwhelmed by the amount of
additional new material that is included in the April 24,2006 staff report regarding the
application for Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit. Included in this packet
is a new Alternative 7, its analysis, 'a brief discussion of the new Alternative 7, suggested
mitigation monitoring tables, a new Acoustic study, traffic study, Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, as well as the EIR consultant's analysis of the newly proposed
Alternative 7. Along with this also is a Resolution for a Conditional Use Permit to be
adopted by the Planning Commission to approve a new Alternative 7.
This staff report and attachments, which include a significant amount of new material
were first available to the public the evening, if one had Internet access, of April 19th. We
were first able to obtain a copy at Tiburon Town Hall on April 20th, allowing only 4 days
prior to the April 24, 2006 Planning Commission hearing where the commissioners will
discuss the certification of the FEIR as well as merits of the project. This limited time, to
digest and comment on this material, is an undue and inappropriate burden on the public
as well as decision makers in order to have the ability to intelligently digest and respond
to this extensive amount of new material.
As you will read in our following letter, the FEIR is so fundamentally and basically
inadequate, inaccurate and conclusory in nature that public comment on the FEIR has
been essentially meaningless. In fact, staff has made conclusions of impacts being
mitigated to a level of insignificance without adequate study by professionals.
This new information should have been included and incorporated in the Congregation
Kol Shofar FEIR. A reasonable amount of time for public comment, such as required by
CEQA, should have been allowed for review.
Staff Report's Conclusion. Paae 12 of 14: CEQA requires that impacts be mitigated
through appropriate mitigation measures to a level of insignificance to protect the
environment. Throughout the staff report for the April 24th meeting and the Leonard
Charles and Associates (LCA), April 18th Alternative 7 analysis there are conflicting,
inaccurate and inadequate responses.
Alternative 7 states that there will be a maximum use by 250 people in the multipurpose
room and new events to mitigate impacts. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program that is referenced in the CUP to "control" the level of impacts instead
inaccurately states 275 people will be allowed on site for any function or combination of
functions (3.3-C.1-2). This 275 number is stated as well as in other Mitigation Measures
in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program reference to be complied with in the
Conditional Use Application Resolution attached to the April 24 staff report and LCA
FEIR updated analysis. This in direct conflict with the staff report and LCA statements
that in order to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance no more than 250 people will
be allowed for new events.
In staff's conclusory remarks, the staffs use of St. Hilary's as a comparative to Kol
Shofar is a poor demonstration of how a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is used to
mitigate impacts. Less than one year after the initial CUP was granted for the new St.
Hilary's gymnasium, the Town of Tiburon actually modified and changed the hours of
use in the CUP relating to St. Hilary's. Additionally, a gymnasium is a poor comparison
to the Congregation Kol Shofar proposal. In fact, on page 7 of 14 of this same staff
report, staff states, "each of these sites as well as operations are different, and
attempting to make direct comparisons of impacts is difficult." This is directly contrary to
the staff stating a comparison of St. Hilary with Kol Shofar on page 12 of 14 as a
successful approach for a CUP.
In the staff report and LCA April 18 report, it is now noted on an Errata Sheet that
Mitigation Measure 3.3-C is no longer to be used. The response incorrectly stated that
the program recommended for mitigation was currently being conducted at San Dominco
School. liThe ErR preparers were misinformed." Mitigation Measure 3.3C was the
primary mitigation measure used in the FEIR to mitigate "the safety from increased turn
arounds in residential streets which would potentially injure or kill a child or other
pedestrian"; "mitigate the on-street parking to reduce the significant traffic safety issues
for new and weekend and special events"; and was "used to insure that people attending
large, new weekend events would not park in the residential and neighboring streets".
Alternative 7 and the new staff report attempted to remedy this "misinformed" mitigation
measure with new suggestions in the Appendix, LeA report and staff report. Their
attempts to mitigate the impacts are found to be inadequate in several cases illogical,
which we will explain further in our letter.
Even though mitigation measure 3.3-C.3 has been omitted from Alternative 7, as
indicated in the staff report as a proposed mitigation, it continues to be listed as a
mitigation measure in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The new
mitigation measure 3.3-C-1, suggested and reworded by staff to mitigate impacts, is not
included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This is only one more
example, of the inaccuracies and inadequacies of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program referenced in the proposed CUP slated for a~option by the Town.
Not to be repetitive in several of our comments, please refer to our letter submitted to the
Town of Tiburon on April 17 , 2006 regarding the Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit
Appendix to the Final EIR. Many of these comments continue to relate to this latest
Town of Tiburon "packer'.
Kol Shofar continues to "lead the town" into suggesting 'ways to mitigate impacts created
by their proposed Conditional Use Permit and project. The Congregation continues to
reduce newly proposed events to reduce their impacts to a level of insignificance without
success, Kol Shofar never considers reducing one of the primary causes of the
significant impacts; the excessive size and scale of the proposed new facility. Kol
Shofar continues to never consider remodeling the existing facility as a way to
accommodate the new events. They have only reduced, to some degree, the number of
2
. ,
attendees, number of days and times of use. Staff as well is lacking in its report in
offering alternative measures to reduce the significant impacts. Staff and LCA primarily
discuss ways to mitigate impacts by the method of a CUP Permit and restricting the days
and times of use for a facility that is planned to be built to accommodate over 1,500
people and 1,624 during the High Holy Days.
On page 11 of 14, staff admits in Section "Multipurpose Room': that it has focused its
attention on a CUP to mitigate impacts of the proposed project. The FEIR also has
focused primarily on offering information, study and analysis on mitigating the application
by a CUP. The FEIR, as well as staff reports, have thus been remiss in offering
adequate alternatives and analysis as required by the CEQA process, as to reducing the
size of the proposed Multipurpose Room or in eliminating the Multipurpose Room from
the project. The FEIR should offer suggestions and information relating to remodeling
the existing facility to accommodate the uses of the Congregation. The FEIR and
previous analysis are inadequate and inaccurate for the Town to conclude the FEIR is
certifiable.
Page 12 of 14 of the staff report, concludes that staff has evaluated the proposed
expansion project and its impact upon the neighborhood. Staff concludes that the most
effective "balancing" of the applicant's goals and the neighbors' concerns regarding
noise, traffic and other impacts should be found in regulating the use, by using a CUP
rather than the scale of the facilities." CEQA does not evaluate impacts and make
environmental determinations related to a "balancing act". Significant negative impacts
are not mitigated to a level of insignificance as a "balancing act." This statement and
judgment by staff flies in the face of the purpose of CEQA. Thus, this leads one to
seriously question the judgment of staff when they make determinations throughout the
DEIR, FEIR, Appendix, etc. that the impacts have been mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
Caltrans reaardina Tiburon Blvd/Blackfield Interchanae: In the staff report it remains
unknown if Caltrans will accept the change of signalization timing as a mitigation
measure at the intersection of Blackfield Dr. and Tiburon Blvd. (Please refer to my
comments of my April 17, 2006 letter page 5, questioning the impacts regarding the
change of signalization timing). Page 3 of the LCA report states traffic information based
on Caltrans review "which would occur at the final design phase of the project", would be
after the proiect has been approved. CEQA requires adequate information in the FEIR to
insure mitigations for a project are viable when it has been determined a significant
impact has been identified. This information needs to be included in the FEIR analysis
to analyze the significant impacts of a project prior to project approval, and not left to a
design review stage, after an approval. Thus, the impact of the length of pocket/turn
lane remains a significant impact which has not been reduced to a level of insignificance.
The LCA report states on page 3 and 4, that in order to assure that the left turn traffic
improvements are required, if found to be necessary, a bond to assure financial
assurance of compliance will need to be set aside. The LCA report also suggests
monitoring the Tiburon Blvd interchange for impacts after the Kol Shofar expansion is
complete to determine if the proposed mitigation of lengthening the left turn pocket lane
is NOT an acceptable mitigation. This is contradictory.
CEQA requires impacts be addressed and known prior to concluding there is a need to
mitigate a significant negative impact prior to approval of the project, not afterwards. It
makes no logical sense to allow the multipurpose room to be constructed and then not
allow Kol Shofar to use the multipurpose room if the mitigation measure is not truly
3
obtainable. In fact, in a Caltrans letter it states the left turn lane must be completed prior
to use of the new multipurpose room. Once again, this is contrary to a different staff
proposed mitigation, of monitoring "after the completion of the new multipurpose room to
see if the mitigation is necessary."
When one looks at the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program referenced in the
proposed CUP, included are the conflicting mitigations for Tiburon Blvd/Blackfield Drive
Intersection; all listed are: (3.3-A.1, 3.3-A.2, 3.3-A.3 and 3.3-A.4). There is no clear
direction as to which is the mitigation measure to be used to mitigate this significant
impact to a level of insignificance. There is no clear direction to the public and decision
makers as which is the superior and appropriate mitigation measure to incorporate in the
CUP. Thus, with all this contrary and conflicting information, it is only logical to conclude
that this identified significant impact of left turn stacking lane at Tiburon Blvd and
Blackfield Dr. has not been mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Access issue relating to staff reoort: Alternative 7 eliminates the entrance from
Reedland Woods Way and continues the existing entrance on Via Los Altos. Staff
concludes this is a major improvement from what was studied in the FEIR. Staff
concludes the change to the existing entrance and exit pattern for Kol Shofar eliminates
neighborhood concerns about traffic safety. The neighborhood has repeatedly stated,
the size of the increase in the new uses, day and night, as well as existing access is a
major safety concern. Staff are not traffic engineers certified to reach such an important
conclusion.
This is contrary to neighborhood concerns and what is stated by Leonard Charles &
Associate (LCA) in his report. LCA report on page 6 #4 states, "while reducing
congestion on Reedland Woods Way, this change would not reduce the traffic safety
impacts resulting from turnarounds on residential streets to a less than significant level.
In fact, because drivers will be unable to access the parking lot from Reedland Woods
Way, drivers who are unfamiliar with the parking lot circulation pattern may turn onto
Reedland Woods Way, discover they cannot enter the parking lot from this street, and
then make a u-turn to return to Blackfield Drive."
A safe and well functioning access and exit to the parking lot is also dependent on a well
designed and well functioning internal circulation plan of the proposed revised/new
parking lots. The new internal circulation plan/pattern has NEVER been studied or
analyzed in the DEIR, FEIR or additional traffic study to understand its impacts on noise,
function, safety, ADA compliance, lighting, etc to see how it will actually work and
accommodate the proposed 139 parking spaces. This is stated in the FEIR to take place
during the design review stage of project. Thus, the safety concerns of the neighborhood
relating to the exit onto Reedland Woods Way are still not clearly understood. A child
has already been injured by a car exiting this parking lot.
Parkina Mitiaation Chanae: Town staff has recommended a revision of Mitigation
Measure 3.3-C.3, the parking receipt program by replacing it with a mitigation measure
to use signage along Kat Shofar's frontage road areas along Blackfield Dr., Via Los Altos
and Reedland Woods Way. This is a mitigation measure that has currently been in use.
It is not a new measure and has not been effective in controlling Kol Shofar's on street
parking. It does not reduce the significant unavoidable traffic safety hazards from Kol
Shofar attendees documented practice of parking on neighborhood streets. Entrance
and Exit Only signs currently exist; however, staff recommends these signs as a "new"
mitigation measure. This is an illogical mitigation measure since the condition currently
4
exists. This use of signage has not mitigated turn arounds on the residential streets.
Thus, this will not mitigate these unsafe turn arounds in the future.
The requirement for Kol Shofar to place signs along its frontage areas only pushes the
on street parking by the Congregation attendees farther away from Kol Shofar,
negatively impacting an expanded area of the residential area surrounding the
synagogue. In fact, this exasperates the already significant impact. Thus, this
suggested mitigation by staff is known not to work, and the impact remains very
significant and not mitigated to a level of insignificance.
What staff, LCA, Harrison study and the FEIR fail to discuss and study, is the fact that
one of the major parking impacts and safety issues affecting the neighborhood are the
High Holy Day events. This currently has major significant impacts on the community.
The FEIR claims the impacts of these infrequent events are insignificant, since they
occur only a few days a year, thus, do not need to be studied and analyzed. The
intensity, parking, safety, etc. impacts by Kol Shofar during the High Holy Days will
double, since Kol Shofar proposes to combine the split services into a single service in
the expanded new and remodeled existing facility. This is the primary reason for Kol
Shofar's desire to expand to such a huge facility. We believe there are other alternatives
to accommodate Kol Shofar's "needs" which are not analyzed in the FEIR. Single
services will double the existing significant traffic, noise, safety and parking impacts, if
allowed to proceed. It is unknown what the impacts will be from an event attended by
1,624 people. The impacts from an event of this magnitude and extent, in the very quiet
residential neighborhood have never been studied or analyzed. There will be cars from
1,624 attendees simultaneously parking around the temple, in the residential
neighborhood at one time. The new/revised parking lots are planned to hold only 139
cars. This is far below the required number (406) parking spaces for cars required for
such a magnitude of use in the Tiburon Parking and Zoning Code. (Please see copies
of the attached photos that were included in the DEIR documenting parking for a split
service. Double this impact in your mind for a single service). There will be in excess of
267 cars parked around the residential neighborhoods. Other methods suggested such
as a shuttle service and noticing of attendees of parking "etiquette" currently are not
adhered to by the Congregation and do not work. These are not reliable and affective
mitigation measures, which are suggested for the CUP, Alternative 7 to mitigate the
significant impacts. The impacts of a single service must be studied and analyzed within
the FEIR. There is no question, .in our minds, it will be concluded that Kol Shofar must
continue to use its established pattern. of split services in order to reduce the magnitude
of the significant impacts from a single service, accommodating 1,624, in the residential
community. .
The staff report, page 5 of 14, on one hand states that the receipt program, as a
mitigation measure would be "difficult for the applicant to successfully implement and
would present complex monitoring challenges to the town. " Yet, three pages later, page
5 of 14 and page 6 of 14, staff states that if the mitigation measures of reducing
attendees and time of year is not effective, they would substitute a more stringent
mitigation measure, similar to the receipt program which they have already stated is too
complex to be successful and work. The logic that a potentially unsuccessful mitigation
measure will be implemented in the future if impacts are later found to be not
successfully mitigated to a level of insignificance is totally illogical. Thus, the impacts
cannot be deemed mitigated to a level of insignificance. Once again, at no time does
staff or LCA offer a mitigation to reduce the size of the proposed multipurpose room or
suggest a remodel of the existing facility as a mitigation measure. The only alternative
5
offered as a mitigation measure is to use a CUP. This is a fatal flaw of the FEIR and its
analysis.
Page 6 of 14 of the staff report, staff suggests a mitigation of increasing the size of the
parking lot by seven (7) parking spaces, yet states additional parking spaces could be
provided based upon more careful study of parking layout. There has been no
engineering analysis of the impacts of excavating the toe of the hill to provide more
parking spaces. There has been no study of what the new internal circulation impacts
have on the existing parking layout, let alone a new parking layout. It is purely
speculative by staff to claim Kol Shofar will meet their new parking needs as required in
the FEIR to accommodate 250 attendees for new events. There has been no parking
study to evaluate the cumulative parking layout and needs for the existing and new
parking for Kol Shofar. Thus, for staff to conclude by expanding the parking lot to
accommodate seven (7) additional parking spaces has mitigated the impact to a level of
insignificance, based on no study or factual evidence, is pure speculation. Thus, the
impact remains unmitigated to a level of insignificance and remains a major concern to
the neighborhood.
Noise Imoact: We disagree with the conclusions of staff and LCA. Reducing the
number of events and the number of people attending these events by the use of a
Conditional Use Permit, does not guarantee the impacts from the project are or will
continue to be mitigated to less than significant, unless the Conditional Use Permit can
be guaranteed in perpetuity. Adding new events, such as on a Saturday and Sunday,
where no events currently occur, in and by itself is a new impact that cannot be mitigated
in a YmY-quiet residential neighborhood, Page 2 of the Leonard Charles. and Associates
analysis, in the April 24th staff packet, states that with modifications to reduce events in
Alternative 7, to last only 2 hours longer then originally allowed for some events, mitigate
the impacts of the noise of the event. This is a faulty conclusion. The LCA report
concludes there basically is no difference between an event that lasts until 9 PM at night
verses 11 PM at night, or an event that lasts until 10 PM verses 12 PM at night in a very
quiet, neighborhood with young children. This is an illogical conclusion. LCA states that
the difference of 2 hours is not significant in relation to noise from the project and thus
the significant noise impacts are reduced to a level of insignificance. This conclusion
does not meet a level of reasonable logic. In fact, Leonard Charles & Associates stated
on Page 5 of this report that CEQA Guidelines state "that a noise impact may be
considered significant when there is, a substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.>>
Thus, the impact remains significant and remains unmitigated.
Staff's report, page 7 of 14 offers examples hours and times of use of other Conditional
Use Permits for other religious/social institutions in Tiburon. Tiburon Peninsula Club and
S1. Hilary's are examples of facilities "within" residential neighborhoods surrounded by
hills, where noises reflect off the hillsides. St... Hilary's gym CUP limits the time of use of
the events until 7:30PM. The Tiburon Peninsula Club's CUP limits its time of use for
evening events on any day until 9 PM. It is unfair and unreasonable for the
neighborhood around Kol Shofar, which is surrounded by hills to suffer the impacts of
evening events lasting as late as 10 PM, 11 PM and 12 PM as requested for approval in
Alternative 7 and the Resolution for its new Conditional Use Permit. This would be
inconsistent with the limits placed on these other facilities. The staff report, page 7 of 14
states, "Unquestionable, the number of new traffic trips that would be generated by the
proposed Kol Shofar expansion is much larger than the other projects." For the exact
reason mentioned by staff, the noise impacts from the Kol Shofar project would be much
larger than the other projects. In addition, they would last much later into the evening
6
having greater significant impact on the residential neighborhood then these other
projects. New weekend events, beyond what is currently allowed in the Kol Shofar
Conditional Use Permit, must not be permitted, in order to mitigate impacts to a level of
insignificance and preserve the quality of life for the residents in the surrounding
neighborhoods.
General Plan Consistency: We continue to strongly disagree with the FEIR conclusion
that this project is consistent with Tiburon General Plan Policies. (Refer again to our
previous letters of March 20, 2006 and April 17, 2006). The project is a "far stretch" from
being in harmony or compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. To believe a
facility, when looked at as a whole will accommodate 1,500 at one time (1,634 at High
Holy Days) with a parking lot with a capacity of only 139 as being consistent with the
Town of Tiburon Parking and Loading Zoning Codes and determined by staff to be
compatible with a small residential neighborhood is incomprehensible. It's totally beyond
any logic or rational reasoning.
Zonina Consistency: Page 9 of 14 and 10 of 14 of the staff report discusses zoning
consistency.
(a) On the bottom of this page 9 of 14, it states the Planning Commission is to determine
whether the location proposed for the Conditional Use applied for is properly related to
the development of the neighborhood as a whole. If one looks at the scale of Kol Shofar
in relation to itself the DEIR has claimed the addition of the multipurpose room is
. compatible with the building. If one looks at the scale and magnitude of the proposed
multipurpose room cumulatively with the existing facility and the impacts that come along
with the expanded facility, clearly what is proposed is not compatible and in harmony
with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The Conditional Use Permit conditions
recommended to limit its impacts do not mitigate the impacts to a level of insignificance
to the surrounding neighborhoods. The Consistency Conclusions as stated in the FEIR
are seriously flawed. (See our comment letter of December 6,2004, July 28,2005,
March 20,2006 and April 17, 2005 for our rational).
Possible Action Items: Page 12 of 14 of the staff report: The temple proposes a new
multipurpose room and lobby to accommodate 898 people, a remodeled existing
sanctuary to accommodate 550 people, plus a new chapel, a library, kitchen, offices and
other interior classrooms and educational spaces, plus a 500/0 increase in the size of the
school to accommodate 150 students, all of which are stated to be adequately serviced
by only 139 parking spaces in the new/revised parking lots. This is an illogical
conclusion. The staff report concludes that the impacts for all these uses, in relation to
the massive size of the proposed facility and minimal parking spaces, are to be
adequately mitigated by a Conditional Use Permit that limits only new events on
Saturday and Sunday to 250 attendees. It's preposterous to conclude that all the
various impacts of such a large facility have been reduced to a level of insignificance by
the Alternative 7 Conditional Use Permit. The staff suggests the Commission to possibly
make findings of overriding economic legal, social or other circumstances that justify the
significant unavoidable noise impact associated with the proposed project. The town
consideration to use lIover riding considerations" to mitigate these monumental impacts
to a level of insignificance for Kol Shofar shows no concern about the impacts to the
surrounding residential neighborhood. This is a far leap in reasonableness to come to
such a conclusion. This is unfair to the residential neighborhood.
Conditional Use Permit: Congregation Kol Shofar has operated for over 20 years,
since 1985, in our residential neighborhood under Conditional Use Permits. These
7
Conditional Use Permits have set a precedent for Kol Shofar's uses and size. Split
services for the High Holy Days have been part of their Conditional Use Permit since
1997. This helped to accommodate the ever increasing size of its membership within its
facility. The current uses of the Kol Shofar have been accepted, by the adjacent
residents, as being reasonably compatible with the surrounding community. Kol Shofar
was established at the same time as the approval of the Vista Tiburon development in
the adjacent neighborhood. Thus, its history should be compared in time to these
adjacent homes. The 1985 Conditional Use Permit for the synagogue was incorporated
in part of the negotiations and approval process of Vista Tiburon Development proposal.
It was promised to the neighborhood, at the time of this approval, that Kol Shofar would
limit its size as agreed to in the 1985 "CUP" to expanding in size to no greater then 300-
350 families. Currently, Kol Shofar's membership is 600 famili~s = 1,860 members.
This fact has been overlooked when deliberating the approval of this latest Conditional
Use Permit, to accommodate over 1,500 people, at one time, with a multipurpose room
which would be one of the largest in all of Marin County.
The following comments state reasons for disagreeing with the Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance findings for conditional use permit applications on page 9 of 14 and 1 0 of 14
in the staff report.
(b) The proposed Conditional Use Permit would not be able to regulate the
continuation of expanded activities of Congregation Kol Shofar. Thus,
significant impacts stated to be mitigated to a level of insignificance, at this time,
within a few years will become significant. Kof Shofar's track record, over the
last 20 years has established an upward pattern. It has shown it continues to
expand and has expanded over 1700/0 beyond its first Conditional Use Permit.
There was a promise to the community to limit its expansion in 1985. This
promise has not been kept. Thus, a promise to abide with a new Conditional
Use Permit is not an assured way to regulate its use and guarantee that the
significant impacts of this proposed new use will remain mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
( c) A parking lot, of only 139 spaces for the proposed new and remodeled facility
which will accommodate 1,500 people, is a "far stretch" for one to be able to
conclude that adequate public services exist for the proposed expansion. In no
way, does this proposal even begin to come close to meeting Tiburon's General
Plan Policies and Parking and Loading Zoning Code requirements.
(d) Please refer to our letter of March 20, 2006, pages 9 and 10, where we detail
how this project is inconsistent with Tiburon General Plan policies. With the
changes to the project, offered by Alternative 7, our conclusions that this project
remains inconsistent with the Tiburon General Plan remain unchanged.
Conclusions bv Leonard Charles & Associates:
· On page 7 of the LCA report, the conclusions are not substantiated by this
conflicting analysis. Alternative 7 will not reduce significant noise impacts to less
then significant. These remain unmitigated and significant.
· The LCA mitigation regarding Tiburon Blvd. is still unknown. It is left up to
Caltrans to decide at an unknown date in the future, what mitigation will be used
for the project. This is not a mitigation method accepted by CEQA regulations; to
decide if mitigation is viable in the future.
..
.
8
· On-site circulation has never been studied or analyzed. LCA only discusses in
their analysis the exit and entrance to the parking lots. We have previously
stated the onsite impacts remain unknown and interior circulation remains a
significant unmitigated impact. To have, as"fall back" mitigation, a parking
receipt program, that the town has already stated in this April 24, 2006 staff
report "would not be affective" is totally illogical. and inadequate to be used and
justified as a reliable alternative mitigation measure.
The FEIR is not adequate in its current form. There are many studies and areas of
information missing for it to be certified as adequate. New information is needed which,
indeed, might require recirculation.
In this letter we have only spent a limited amount of time discussing the Conditional Use
Permit Resolution included in this staff report, because we strongly believe that
Alternative 7 is not appropriate in mitigating the remaining significant impacts of this
project to a level of insignificance. This CUP Resolution included with the April 24, 2006
staff report is seriously flawed.
As a resident of Tiburon and neighbor of Kol Shofar, it is conclusive that the only way to allow
Congregation Kol Shofar to continue to function, in a manner that does not impact the
neighborhood, isremodel and modernization of the existing facility as long as traffic, parking,
circulation, safety, noise, light pollution and water run off are compatible with existing
conditions. The Tiburon Town Council and Planning Commission should deny the project as
proposed. We request the Congregation to continue to function under the terms of its current
Conditional Use permit including split services. We strongly urge Kol Shofar to revise its
application to create a project that would mitigate the significant negative impacts as well as
enhance and contribute to the fabric of the existing residential neighborhood.
Yours truly,
John E. Nygren
Karen Nygren
9
r'- Blackfieldon curve near Kol Shofar & ReedJand Woods Way
I
--:~".:~~.:<:'"'' '
;;': :.~, :::' ,.:.~:- :';-;;'~~::,', ,",::; ~~- :.:~. 'S ':>;.
~1~(;kfi~I~..~~ar ~~la~~\lVoo~V'}ay .11
~- Blaclmeld So~th.of Karen Way "l
... .. ~ +'. . ~.". ..:" -, -.-.._~.. ..-~ ...-~'." .,.'..,0........' . .'. .. ".." ....-.. .:.~ ~. .... ....4......... ..,.,.........4..,.. .... .," ~.
BJacktieJdon curve between Via San Fernando
& ReedlandWobds Way
~-.. ~~'.- ~., ..~..,....,
On BJackfield near Heedland Woods Way !
!
r..mK;~~~-W~;-E-~~;'~f.BI;~kfi~'d: ~----'- -------'\
I toward entrance to Bel Aire School :
..._~----------~------------~~~~---.......~----...
looking up Via Los Altos from Blackfietd
with Kol Shofar parking lot to right
Further up Via Los Altos. with Kol Shofarto right
..W~stminster -~r~sb~e;ian Church- pa~~ing lot near .'-1
Blackfield & Tjburon Blvd at 6:57pm
{
Halfway llP Via Los Altos, lo{)kilig doWnhlllt
with K61 Shofafto left
Via Los Altos. looking downhill, with
Kol Shofar to left of 32 Via. Los Altos
Kol Shofar is supposed to use this lot for
overflow shuttle parking - it was not used
~ ~A~ ~4D:6~ ~
-~
'~;jC;i\l
· LATE MAil #
31 Via Los Altos
Tiburon
Planning Commission
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon
23 April 2006
Dear Sirs,
Kol Shofar Expansion - FEIR
Please find enclosed three letters that recently appeared in the Ark and are of relevance to
the subject. Additionally I would like to make the following comments.
Visual Impact
Despite two written requests for the impact from my property to be examined, the FEIR
fails to consider this. Attached are two photographs; one shows the playground where
the multi-purpose room will be built and requires little vision to understand what an
impact a 10,000 sq ft structure will have - and whilst it may not be the most pleasant of
views at the moment, we do not want to have more screening planted to limit the vistas.
It will not only be views from my property that will be affected but there are several
hundred yards of Via Los Altos the will similarly be subject to the eyesore - however at
present the sightlines are obscured by the (deliberately?) unchec~ed growth of broom on
Kol Shofar's property, the other photograph indicates in the background the height of
this. This broom and these sightlines Kol Shofar is committed to clear.
In failing to make any assessment of the impact from a considerable part of the boundary
of the property the FEIR is incomplete.
Parties are not religious events
Any approval of the expanded CUP must have as part of it that the uses for the
multipurpose facility must be for strictly religious or educational purposes as required by
the residential zoning of the area. Kol Shofar is trying to extend the definition of
religious use to parties - this is inappropriate. Kol Shofar has itself proposed a
distinction between 'congregational events' and 'member sponsored events' - there
should be a clear prohibition of 'member sponsored events'. Members of our TNC group
in their discussions with Rabbi Darby have been surprised how even he sees these
'member sponsored events' as an irrelevance.
Yours sincerely
Edward Baker
to',
IN ftiliJ vE f\)CJTH! J-( & trl1T (j F t3 ffbtJ H AN tfJ HtJVv HI KJU 1/ I.$VV.
V / G VV PRrJ /1 ~ f V I A L-tJ-r ftt-f"V J .
31 Via Los Altos
Tiburon
CA 94920
c
The Editor
The Ark
1550 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon
CA 94920
16 March, 2005
Dear Editor,
Kol Shofar expansion lowers the bar for development in any Tiburon Neighborhood
On [Wednesday ~iarch 29th now re-scheduled to Monday 24 April-] at 7:30 pm, an
important meeting is being held in the auditorium at Reed School, 1199 Tiburon
Boulevard, which will set the future tone for permitted development within residential
neighborhoods in Tiburon. It is to discuss the merits of Congregation Kol Shofar's
Conditional Use Application to build a 10,000 sq. ft. approx. multi-purpose facility,
capable of holding almost 900 people and additional classrooms on its Blackfield Drive
site. The Planning Commission meeting will also consider certification of the [mal
environmental impact report on the project.
Kol Shofar wants the multi-purpose facility for 'lifecycle' events, which neighbors are
concerned wi]] result in disruptive parties until the near midnight deadline requested in
the project proposal, and asks for these events on 40 Saturday evenings; with a slightly
earlier deadline of 11 :00 pm for events on 40 Sundays per year and frequent weekday
events until 10:00 pm. The oft quoted St Hilary's gym has a 7:30 pm deadline on its
CYO events [planning Commission Staff Report for March 9, 2005 meeting; Para. 21].
Originally requesting a cap of 300, Kol Shofar is now offering a cap of 275 attendees at
these lifecycle events, which neighbors are concerned 'Yill increase over time,
approaching the 900 capacity in the same way as High Holy Day services have increased
from an initially projected maximum of 350 [Source Appendix F Draft EIR dated June
2005] to currently 1,500 [Source: page 7 Draft EIR).
The signatories below, who include present and past members of Kol Shofar, do not
object to the presence of Kol Shofar in the neighborhood. We welcome the current
practice of celebrating the religious aspect of lifecycle events at Kol Shofar, followed by
the social 'party' aspect being celebrated at locations more suited to that type of event
such as the Mill Valley and Strawberry recreation centers and the Osher Marin JCC in
San Rafael. However there is no imperative for parties to be held on-site.
l
The Kol Shofar development relies on some of the principles that led to the building of
the new gym at St Hilary's. Yet in applying them to activities that will be much more
disruptive, pushes, for all Tiburon neighborhoods, the envelope of acceptability of non-
residential activity in residential areas. This is not in harmony or compatible with our
quiet neighborhoods which the Tiburon general plan requires to be protected.
We ask that residents throughout Tiburon attend the meeting at 7 :30 pm at Reed School
on Monday 24 April Wednesduy 29 14arch. We have formed a group the 'Tiburon
Neighborhood Coalition' to express our concerns. People may want to acquaint
themselves with some of the material on our website www.TiburonNC.org prior to that
meeting.
Yours truly,
Edward Baker - 31 Via Los Altos
Nina Frank & Lee Kranefuss - 35 Reedland Woods Way
Richard Goldwasser - 38 Paseo Mirasol
David Holden - 231 Blackfield Drive
Kurt KauJI - 38 Via Los Altos
Margaret Kirby - 230 Blackfield Drive
Timothy Metz - 50 Reedland Woods Way
Karen Nygren - 22 Paseo Mirasol
Rufus G (Jerry) Thayer - 158 Blackfield Drive
Yvonne Thurmond - 30 Paseo Mirasol
James & Samantha Winter - 220 Blackfield Drive
The Editor
The Ark
1550 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon
CA 94920
March 16, 2006
Dear Editor,
Kol Shofar's Proposed Expansion Impacts Residential Neighborhoods
There is a meeting of the Town's Planning Commission on Monday 24 April Vl cdnesday,
~4arch 29th-at 7:30 pm at Reed School to consider the proposed expansion of the Kol
Shofar Temple and to consider the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) on the project.
This report concluded there are significant impacts from the project that cannot be
mitigated. To reduce some of the traffic and parking impacts, it proposes a mitigation
measure that will be ineffective because of the difficulty of supervising it.
Neighbors have considerable concerns about the proposed Kol Shofar project that
include:
Use: The hours of purposed use have increased significantly to include late night events
to past midnight on Saturday nights, 11 :30 on Sunday nights and until 10 pm most
weeknights.
Parking: Kol Shofar's members park regularly on neighborhood streets due to the
limitations of its on-site parking. This is a minor inconvenience at present because it
happens for limited periods during the day. With an increase of only 22 on-site spaces,
the impacts from such street parking will be significant as stated in the FEIR.
Noise: The FEIR does not adequately assess the impact of events and the noise of many
guests departing late at night, as it relies on existing events at Kol Shofar for its analysis
that are more structured and subdued.
Traffic: As stated in the FEIR there will be increased safety risks to residents from the
additional traffic and the turning around of vehicles in local driveways and streets.
Safety: The expansion intends to use the existing parking lot driveway off Reedland
Woods Way as the main entrance and exit (it currently is just an exit). 800/0 of the
traffic is projected to use this proposed driveway. The use of this entrance will require
vehicles to make a left turn from Blackfield Drive into Reedland Woods Way on a
dangerous blind curve and another left turn into the parking lot. This issue has been
ignored by the Town's advisors despite being persistently raised by neighbors.
Expansion Plans: Members of the Planning Commission and neighbors have asked Kol
Shofar to make clear its plans for the future growth in its congregation to no avail.
Neighbors are concerned about the impacts of long-term growth in terms of traffic,
parking and noise. With the purposed expansion of the facilities, Kol Shofar will have
the ability to expand significantly beyond the number of people set forth in the caps used
to analyzing the project. The neighbors do not want to be put in the position of
monitoring Kol Shofar CUP caps for events, nor do the neighbors want an on-going issue
of Kol Shofar attempting to amend their CUP in the coming years to accommodate larger
events.
Following the expansion, Kol Shofar will have a facility with a seating capacity as
follows: [Source: Draft EIR, Figure 5]:
550 people in the sanctuary
228 in the lobby and hallways (as presently occurs at large events)
898 in the new multi purpose facility
This total of 1,676 does not include the small chapel that can accommodate 150 or any of
the numerous classrooms both present and proposed. By way of comparison the
auditorium at the Marin Civic Center has a capacity of 2,000.
We ask that these matters be fully considered and out of that consideration we hope a
project will emerge that better suits the neighborhoods surrounding Kol Shofar.
Christy Seidel & Peter Stock - 30 Reedland Woods Way
31 Via Los Altos
Tiburon
CA 94920
The Editor
The Ark
1550 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon
CA 94920
11 April 2006
Dear Editor,
Lowering the bar for Development in Tiburon
The postponed meeting of the Tiburon Planning Commission to discuss the merits of the
Kol Shofar expansion and consider the certification of the Final Environmental Impact
Report ('FEIR') for the project will be held at 7:30 pm on April 24th, 2006 at the Multi-
Purpose Room of Reed School at 1199 Tiburon Boulevard.
This is an important meeting for any resident of Tiburon to attend as the project would
have significant impacts in a residential neighborhood and its approval would give the go
ahead for similar significant impacts to be acceptable in any Tiburon neighborhood.
Whilst Kol Shofar has submitted revised proposals with reduced times and numbers, its
original application, of April 2004, probably best gives indications of the eventual
disruption from the proposal. The application requests construction of a multi-purpose
room with a capacity of 900, that would be used for what Kol Shofar terms 'lifecycle' or
'member sponsored events', which local neighbors feel can be best characterized as
parties. These would last until past midnight on 40 Saturday nights per year with a
slightly earlier deadline of 11 :00 pm for events on 40 Sundays per year and frequent
weekday events until 10:00 pm.
The FEIR considers the noise, traffic, parking and other environmental areas and
concludes that there will be significant unavoidable impacts on the neighborhood. The
concern exists however that even despite these and the inconsistencies with the Tiburon
General Plan the project may still be approved.
We ask that residents throughout Tiburon attend the meeting at 7:30 pm at Reed School
on Monday 24 April. We have formed a group the 'Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition' to
express our concerns. People may want to acquaint themselves with some of the material
on our website \v\vw.TiburonNC.org prior to that meeting.
It is also important for residents to write to the Planning COlllllllssion at the Town Hall
expressing their concerns; the weight of opinion plays a part in the decision.
Yours truly,
Edward Baker - 3] Via Los Altos
Nina Frank & Lee Kranefuss - 35 Reedland Woods Way
Richard Goldwasser - 38 Paseo Mirasol
David Holden - 23] Blackfield Drive
Kurt Kaull- 38 Via Los Altos
Margaret Kirby - 230 Blackfield Drive
Timothy Metz - 50 Reedland Woods Way
Karen Nygren - 22 Paseo Mirasol
Christy Seidel & Peter Stock
#
April 23, 2006
LATE MAIL #
I
rr::~\ is (i'-~-- ~. . i i
\ I LJ) \ L~' _~___..::~_c__.~
Irul
PLAr~NI NG DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
\0 ,
\
Town of Tiburon Planning Comtnission and Town Council
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Congregation Kol Shofar Final EIR and Conditional Use Permit Application
As a resident and member of the Vista Tiburon Homeowners Association (and a member
of the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition (the "TNC")) living at the comer of Via Los
Altos and Vista Tiburon (38 Via Los Altos) in a house whose property backs up to and
looks directly down on the Congregation Kol Shofar ("KS") property, I am a Tiburon
citizen and tax payer who is as affected as anyone by the negative aspects of the proposed
Kol Shofar expansion.
I am late in my submission of my comments in advance of this April 24th FEIR meeting
due to my recent extensive business travel, however, my delay has allowed me to now
have reviewed all of the information made available to the public in advance of this April
24th meeting, from the Staff Report to the numerous letters submitted by my fellow
concerned neighbors. With the intention to not be redundant with the detailed points
previously made by those of my neighbors with whom I agree, I will simply say that I am
especially aligned with the viewpoints ofMr. Goldwasser, Mrs./Mr. Seidel/Stock and
Mrs. Nygren, as well as with the comments submitted by our TNC attorney, Mr. Harris.
You can assume, for purposes of this application, that their views are largely my views.
Because so much has already been said in detail about the issues at hand, I thought I
would devote my written comments here to thoughts that would hopefully strike a cord
with the Commissioners and Council members related to the pragmatic and common
sense.
1 . We do not need a town general plan to remind us of the character and harmony of
the neighborhoods we have elected to live in within Tibufon and then to consider
whether parties (lifecyc1e or not) on numerous weekend evenings until9-11pm
are consistent with that plan. Common sense whispers to me something is wrong
with that picture.
2. Further, it does not seem to make sense to allow the building of a 10,000 sq ft
facility whose primary stated need related to the applicant's main purpose is
accommodation of activities that only occur 2-3 days out of the entire year
(whether those are important activities for them or not). And this seems
especially extraordinary to allow when (i) many similar religious houses of
worship confront the exact same issue with a perfectly allowable and pragmatic
solution related to splitting High Holy Day services into two services vs the
,.
desired but not strictly followed one service, and (ii) there are perfectly feasible,
less physically permanent, alternatives to constructing a building for these desired
2-3 days of single services (like temporary structures such as tents, etc).
3. Putting aside the core reason cited for needing the Multipurpose facility (i.e.
accommodate High Holy Day participants on only 2-3 days), and moving to the
ancillary reasons the facility would be usefu~ it seems troublesome to allow the
construction of the facility when these ancillary uses include hours of operation of
to II pm on Saturday evenings and 9pm on Sunday evenings at a frequency that,
while modified downward recently, is still very significant for a neighborhood
like ours that historically has had zero of these party-type events to cope with.
The desire to restrict this type usage (parties) should find even more support when
it is considered that very, very frequently the party portion of these Jifecycle
events are held elsewhere from where the ceremony was held and that having
these parties on-premises where the religious ceremony took place is not
widespread or typical, but is more a convenience and an understandable desired
luxury. If there where not some of the real negative aspects of this project at play
(noise, traffic, parking, night hours), then being more accommodating of a
convenience or luxury might be just fine--however, given the nature of the
surroundings where the synagogue has chosen to locate (i.e. smack in the middle
of our neighborhood), this is not that fact pattern and it is not logical to allow this
project to proceed as planned.
4. Another common sense observation of this project is that the average attendance
at the standard KS service is 200-250 people. This expansion plan calls for the
remodeled sanctuary to be able to accommodate upwards of 550 people. Again I
ask, why construct, for the purposes of meeting needs on 2-3 High Holy Days, a
permanent sanctuary that will be built to accommodate 2 times the number of
people that are needed for the everyday usage. What about instead, if some of the
alternatives already raised as solutions for the High Holy Day volumes make
sense (i.e. temporary accommodations), considering scaling down the number of
people the sanctuary can accommodate (to something closer to everyday needs)
and utilizing some of that extra day to day sanctuary space for some of the other
needs cited by the project (i.e. for example to provide larger space for Sabbath
Kiddush lunches)7
In conclusio~ I am opposed to the size ofKS's proposed facility expansio~ as well
as the hours of use and number of events requested. In additio~ the project does not
seem to comply with the Tiburon General Plan, nor does it seem to comply with the
Tiburon Parking Code. While I am supportive of the remodel and modernization of
the existing facility, like all of my interested neighbors, I am quite adamant about
wanting all the existing issues already cited around noise, traffic, safety, parking,
circulation and lighting satisfactorily addressed. On a separate note, I understand
there is much to indict both legally under CEQA and otherwise regarding the due
process and sufficiency of review of this town-ru~ EIR process, as well as numerous
errors, omissions and conflicting statements surrounding the discussion of the project
publicly which could avail the interested neighbors of addressable claims and
remedies further down the road. While that type of pursuit is not one that anyone
wants, again on a common sense note, it is important that we feel we have had a
process that is fact based and fair. This group of neighbors is not at the radical fringe,
but is intelligent, well-considered, fair-minded and committed and needs to feel the
outcome here makes sense in light of their expressed concerns and that the town has
ensured that the "right-thing", taking both sides' core considerations into account, is
being considered and pursued.
Thank you for the opportunity to communicate my views to you on this important and
highly personal topic.
Sincerely,
~S1
.~
LATE MAIL #-L
April 24, 2006
To: Tiburon Planning Commission; Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
~ ~~~4n~6~!~
I
!
PLMnllNG O:\iS
TOWf\1
From: Yvonne Thurmond
30 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Letter to the editor of The Ark;
Opposing Kol Shofar, proposed expansion.
Dear Commission and Council members,
The following letter to the editor was published in the April 19th 2006 edition of The Ark
newspaper.
The Editor,
The ARK,
1550 Tiburon Blvd.,
Tiburon, CA. 94920
April 12, 2006
Dear Editor,
Kol Shofar Expansion Is Not Like St. Hilary's
There is no doubt that the Kol Shofar development is similar in some respects to the
building of the new gym at St. Hilary's. llowever, the activities this expansion is meant
to accommodate are much more disruptive and will push, for all Tiburon neighborhoods,
the envelope of acceptability of non-residential activity in residential areas. This project
is simply not compatible nor is it in harmony with our quiet neighborhoods which the
Tiburon General Plan requires to be protected.
The hours of use and associated noise, traffic and parking problems are one area of
obvious difference. The St. Hilary's gym is limited to use until 7:30 pm, whereas the Ko/
Shofar facility would be allowed to be used until after midnight. Additionally, the late
hours of usage for the new multi-purpose room would not be for organized basketball
tournaments like St. Hilary's gym, but instead for the holding of gatherings and parties
where there is every likelihood alcohol and amplified music would be provided.
One unfortunate similarity between the projects is the likelihood that the enforcement of
any conditions imposed on the use of the facility would be relaxed rather than tightened
over time. The recent concession by Kol Shofar to reduce the time of usage could easily
be eroded just as they have very easily increased their permitted membership from a first
advised maximum of350 to the current 1,500 congregantsfor High Holiday services.
The Town ofTiburon seems willing to grant a permit that does not adhere to The Tiburon
General Plan which will place the burden of enforcement of the General Plan on Kol
Shofar's neighbors. This is not acceptable as it is The Town's responsibility to set usage
restrictions on projects that are congruent with the General plan in the first place.
Please write a letter to the Tiburon Planning Commission and Town Council regarding
your concerns and send to: Tiburon Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, CA. 94920,
to be included in the Commissioner's packet. The meeting to discuss this project and its
approval will be held Monday, April 24, 7:30PM at Reed School Auditorium. Our letters
and presence at the meeting will make a difference.
Yvonne Thurmond
Thank you for taking this letter into consideration while deliberating on this issue.
Sincerely,
U~~k~
Yvllme Thurmond
lATE MAil #--L
~
'ill' ))
2 4 2006 tJ
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Planning Commission/Town Council
62 Claire W
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
April 25, 2006
RE:Kol Shofar Extension
I am casting a NO vote on the above matter. I am a "live in" property owner
of 53 years and a retired member of the Flood Control Advisary Board.
REASONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Bel Aire was flooded in 1967. Our drainage system is old. New roofs and hard
surfaces intensify the additional runoff into our drainage system.
BLACKFIELD DRIVE is the MAIN ACCESS to Bel Aire and it is already backed up
with traffic at peak hours. At present it is very difficult to enter Blackfield
Drive f rom the side street)CHECK Claire Way at Karen Way when school is dismissed
............ ,-
to witness a very dangerous situation.
Additional traffic will impact the safety of our older residence and children
who exercise and walk their d~gs in the area.I am concerned about the availability
for emergency equipment to'access properties.
ZONING In 1953, when we purchased our property, the area was zoneo for
"Single Family Dwellings" only. In my opinion,KolShofar will be operating ,not
only a school, but a profit making business from the facility which will
accommadate 2,000 people. This size facility will attract many people from far
and wide as there is no other building that size in Marin County.Without a
doubt this will impact the people of Bel Aire~.It also opens the door for other
businesses such as quick foods etc.......
We are workers and property owners of 158 homes in Bel Aire and need our rest
and peac~of mind. PLEASE RESPECT OUR RIGHTS and eliminate the noises, late night
traffic, honking horns for school children being picked up, outsiders parking.
adjacent to private homes in Bel Aire, PUT AN END to a i)otential~ business In a
residental area.. I have no problem with renovatirGJnthe existing building.
RespectfUlly submitted by
(Jv~~e-/
O. LeClerc
page 1 or 1
Dan Watrous
LATE MAIL j.L
From:
Sent:
To:
bartlettjack [ba rtlettjack@comcast.net]
Monday, April 24, 200611:31 AM
Dan Watrous
~ ~~ ~ 4~ ~s ~ ~
Subject: CONGREGATION KOL SHOFAR BUILDING REQUEST
Planning DepartmentIPlanning Commission
PLA!~r\JIf'JG DIVISION
TOWi~ OF TIBURON
I am writing in support of Congregation Kol Shofar's request for a building permit so that it can expand and
renovate its current facility. I am a member of the Community Church, (United Church of Chnrist) in Mill Valley. I
have had the rewarding experience of working with a number of the members of Congregational Kol Shofar on
projects of genuine benefit to the Marin community. It is to Tiburon's benefit to have Congregation Kot Shofar as
one of his religious organizations. Kol Shofar sits on a site that is not in immediate proximity of its neighbors. The
renovation and expansion it envisages wilt in no way have a negative effect on its neighbors. I urge the Tiburon
Planning Commission to honor and support Congregation Kol Shofar's request.
Jack Bartlett
17 Plymouth Avenue
Mill Valley, CA 94941
388-8440
4/24/2006
LATE MAIL # I
N. Edward Boyce, Jr., M.D.
Nancy Renshaw Boyce, R.N., M.A.
· 47 Partridge Drive
San Rafael, CA 94901-8300
telephone: (415) 453-5471
internet: nancy marinlink@comcast.net [or]
edboyce@comcast.net
telephax: (415)-457-9743
~ ~I\~ ~4~:ffi ~ ~ .
PLANN!NG DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
27 March 2006
Tiburon Planning Commission
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
re: Congregation Kol Shofar application
Dear Planning Commission,
We send this letter in support of the basic excellent citizenship and expansion plans of the
Congregation Kol Shofar and hope you will approve their plans. We value highly their
standing and good works in the community of faith traditions.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
.
Sincerely,
LJ1Au";{B~
Nancy Re~haw Boyce, R.N., M.A.
~~~~
N. Edward Boyce, Jr., M.D.
.
Jody Ceniceros
Modified:
Thu 4/20/2006 12:05 PM
LATE MAil , ./
~
re ~ re n '0. /7 r~ Ir-. ""'.\...1
L!;; ~ U;; U Vi If;J II \"
II' :
III );
, 2 ! f1nOf' II, !
, 1 LU 0 L:)
To Tiburon City Planning,
PLAN~JII~G DIVISION
TOWr~ OF TIBURON
My husband and I live at 73 Via Los Altos. We do not wish to have our neighborhood accommodate any more
people who do not own homes here, as in the proposed enlargement of the Kol Shofar.
We already have a lot of school traffic from Bel Aire and the existing Kol Shofar. I have to come to a stop
half on the way up our hill for people to enter these driveways and do not wish anymore of that or excess parking
problems.
We own another home at 146 Blackfield Drive, in which our parents live, and they also dread the idea of
more parking and traffic problems. They are already watching the people and car traffic past their house and do
not wish it to increase.
We are also well aware of the construction pollution, noise and truck traffic that our neighborhood would
have to endure if this project proceeds.
Sorry for the late interest, however we have been out of town for the most part of the last several months.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
'n~
J ody Ceniceros and Peter Clare
EXHIBIT
W
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM
ol.
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT:
LISA NEWMAN, PLANNING CONSULTANT
FILE #10404: REVIEW OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(FEIR) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED
EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING RELIGIOUS FACILITY AND DAY SCHOOL
(CONGREGATION KOL SHOFAR); 215 BLACKFIELD DRIVE;
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 038~351-34
FROM:
MEETING DATE: May 10, 2006
REVIEWED BY: SA
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the Kol Shofar Expansion project Final
EIR and Conditional Use Permit application at its April 24, 2006 meeting. After extensive public
testimony, the Commission continued the public hearing to allow limited additional testimony on
the topic of the FEIR Alternative 7: Reduced Events at the May 10, 2006 hearing. The
Commission recognized that the public had not had much time to consider this new applicant-
sponsored alternative prior to the April 24 hearing and should therefore be provided some
limited opportunity to comment on it at the next meeting.
The Planning Commission requested that Kol Shofar provide a detailed list of events that would
be accommodated in the proposed Multi-purpose room. The applicant has submitted a
response to this request that is attached as Exhibit 1. Staff has provided some further analysis
of proposed uses in this Staff Report.
ANAL YSIS
Conditional Use Permit
At the April 24 Planning Commission hearing and in subsequent letters, a question has been
raised about clarifying: 1) the difference between existing and proposed "activities" and "events"
for Kol Shofar; and 2) how will the new Multi-purpose room be used. These questions are
discussed below.
Proposed and ExistinQ "Activities" and "Events"
With regard to the meaning of proposed and existing "activities" vs. "events", Staff's
interpretation has been that the terms define "activities" as ongoing programs (e.g., weekly
meetings and services) vs. "events" as intermittent or special occasions (e.g., life-cycle events
such as bar mitzvahs and weddings). The DEIR Table 1 identifies all existing and proposed
"activities" and "events" at Kol Shofar with the proposed times, days, location and maximum
attendees. The FEIR Alternative 7 Analysis adapts Table 1 to identify the existing and reduced
number and time of proposed "activities" and "events". Thus, DEIR Table 1 reflects Kol Shofar',. a I '
EXHIBIT NO.-W'
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
......... ....... ........ ....... ..... ...........
original proposal (the "project") and the FEIR Alternative 7 Table 1 represents a revised
proposal by Kol Shofar intended to reduce impacts.
The draft CUP Resolution (Exhibit 6 in the April 24, 2006 Staff Report) incorporates the
Alternative 7 Table 1 as the baseline for the new Use Permit. This baseline establishes the
maximum numbers of attendees, days and times of "activities" and "events" for both existing
and new proposed events. Based on this Table, the only "activities" and "events" during the
week that exceed 250 people (and therefore would require compliance with special parking
conditions of approval in the Draft CUP Resolution) are the following existing ones:
· Saturday morning services from 9:15 AM -1:30 PM when up to 400 people may attend;
· Sunday morning Religious School from 8:30 AM to 12:30 PM when up to 400 people
may attend; and
· High Holy Days when from 400-1500 people may attend 5 different services.
In order to mitigate traffic and noise impacts identified in the EIR, consistent with Alternative 7,
Condition #5 of the draft CUP limits the total number of attendees for any new events so that no
more than 250 people may attend, and limits the times for new weekend night events to 9:00
PM for new Sunday events and 11 :00 PM for new Saturday night events. When larger, existing
events occur, Conditions #4a and #7 require specific traffic control measures be utilized
Smaller, existing and newly proposed weeknight gatherings are also identified in Table 1. New
nighttime activities/events are proposed for Mondays when an adult education class for 30
adults would be held from 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM on 25-30 weeks per year, similar to existing
classes scheduled on Wednesday nights. In addition, existing Friday night Congregational
Dinners for 100 people from 5:00 pm to 9:00 PM on 25 Fridays per year would be expanded
under the project to allow 5 additional dinners per year.
To aid in the comparison of proposed new events under the originally proposed project and
FEIR Alternative 7, Leonard Charles has prepared a new version of the DEIR Table 1 that
incorporates the Alternative 7 reduced events in underlined red text. This table shows Saturday
and Sunday events and is provided as Exhibit 2. In addition, Exhibit 2 includes a table
comparing the annual average trips associated with the originally proposed project, DEIR
Alternative 5, and FEIR Alternative 7.
Use of the Multi-purpose Room
As noted in the previous Staff Report, the proposed 9,733-square foot Multi-purpose Room is a
large space that, according to the application, is intended for Iifecycle celebrations and to
accommodate the entire congregation during High Holy Days services. Although the space is
sized to hold very large gatherings, the staff recommendation to limit the maximum number of
attendees at all newly proposed events to 250 means that the facility would be "fully" utilized
only on the High Holy Days, three days per year when the proposed combined services would
allow up to 1,500 people in attendance. The next largest gatherings, after the High Holy Days,
are the existing services on weekend mornings that are currently attended by up to 400 people.
As shown in FEIR Alternative 7 Table 1, the Multi-purpose Room would be used for a number of
smaller existing and proposed events each week, even though the room would not be fully
,
,
,,) )
May 10, 2006
page 2 of 4
STAFF REPORT
Town of Tiburon
. ................ ....... ....... ........ ............
utilized. The list of activities/events proposed for the Multi-purpose Room, as shown in Table 1,
is the following:
· Friday evening existing congregational dinners (50-100 people);
· Saturday morning existing service (50-400 people);
· Saturday evening - up to 12 new activities/events ( 150-250 people);
· Sunday morning existing religious school (400 people); and
· Sunday evening - up to 15 new activities/events (100-250 people).
As stated in the previous Staff Report, staff has not. made a recommendation about the
appropriateness of the proposed Multi-purpose Room size but has focused instead on use
restrictions such as the number of attendees at new events and the frequency and duration of
such events, which are linked to providing adequate parking onsite and minimizing noise
impacts upon adjacent neighbors. If the Planning Commission concludes that the sheer size of
the Multi-purpose Room is not in character or harmony with surrounding development, or is
otherwise inappropriate for the residential setting, it can choose to reduce the size on those
policy grounds. The EIR also listed goals and policies that would need to be reviewed for
project consistency by the Planning Commission. Specific general plan goals, policies, and
zoning ordinance provisions, which the Commission should consider in its review and
deliberations, are contained in Exhibit 3.
Public Comments
Materials received at the April 24, 2006 meeting are attached as Exhibit 4. Correspondence
received subsequent to that date is attached as Exhibit 5. Late mail received after completion
of the staff report is attached separately.
Conclusion
As stated by Staff at the April 24,2006 meeting, the draft CUP resolution is offered as a starting
point for Commission deliberations.
Possible Action Items
Following the closure of the public hearing, the Commission will need to consider whether it is
prepared to take action or to provide direction to Staff It is possible that the Commission may
only be in a position, following closure of the public hearing, to commence its deliberations and
make enough progress to provide staff with specific direction for returning with revised
Resolutions for consideration at a future meeting. The amount of time needed to complete and
return with such revisions would depend on the extent of changes req uired.
The three actions necessary to approve a project are: 1) to certify the FEIR (Exhibit 4 in the
4/24/06 Staff Report), 2) Adopt a CEQA Findings Resolution (Exhibit 5 in the 4/24/06 Staff
Report), and 3) Adopt a CUP resolution with conditions and with a finalized MMRP (Exhibit 6 in
the 4/24/06 Staff Report). Staff strongly recommends that if the Commission, after closing the
May 10, 2006
page 3 of 4
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. .............. ..... .... ..... ........... ........
public hearing, decides to make a conditional approval, that it perform all three actions at the
same hearing and not at separate hearings.
EXHIBITS
1. Kol Shofar List of Events Planned for Multi-Purpose Room
2. Comparison Table, FEIR Alternative 7, Table 1, prepared by Leonard Charles
Associates
3. List of general plan goals and policies and zoning ordinance provisions
4. Materials received at April 24, 2006 meeting
a. Paper copy of PowerPoint presentation by Scott Hochstrasser
b. Letter from Brad Tardy dated April 24, 2006
c. Letter from Hebrew Union College dated April 15, 2006
d. Letter and petitions submitted by Jerry Thayer
e. Photos distributed by John Nygren of street parking
f. Size comparison and photos of tent structures from Tim Metz
g. Earthquake Hazard materials submitted by Julie Jacobs
5. Correspondence received subsequent to April 24, 2006 meeting
a. Mr. And Mrs. Fred Conte, April 26, 2006
b. Barbara Waxman, April 26, 2006
c. John and Karen Nygren, April 28, 2006
d. Reverend Carl Saysette, April 30, 2006
e. Intersection LOS table prepared by Crane Transportation Group
f. Tim Metz, May 1, 2006
g. Lerman Law Partners, April 28, 2006
h. Martin Fleisher, April 28, 2006
i. John Leszczynski, received May 3, 2006
j. Timothy Metz & Jennifer Jorgensen, May 4,2006
k. Edward Baker, May 4,2006
I. Peter Stock, May 4, 2006
m. Christy Seidel, May 4,2006
Late Mail received after staff report completion is attached separately
PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED
Draft and Final EIR Volumes
April 24, 2006 Staff Report and Attachments
Draft Resolutions (FEIR Certification; CEQA Findings; CUP Approval)
Project Drawings
May 10, 2006
page 4 of 4
~ ~M~~::~~
Multi-Purpose Room Usa2e
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TI8URON
We have previously (see Attachment 1 to the Staff Report produced for the April 24,
2006 meeting) provided a comprehensive description of all of the functions that will take
place at Kol Shofar following the proposed renovation and expansion of facilities
Many of those described functions have been going on for years at the Synagogue. Few
are new and only those that are new are the subject of the Environmental Impact Report
for the CUP currently before the P.C.
In response to the request of Mr. Kunzweiler for a complete list of the functions that will
take place in the Multi-Purpose Room we have produced the list below.
Please note that with the exception of those functions described below as new, all
events currentlv take place at Kol Shofar, and have for years. althoue:h in
drasticallv inadequate space.
New Events
New Shabbat Dinners (Friday nights)-an increase in these dinners from current 25 per
year to 30 per year- already described in Attachment 1.
Life Cycle Celebrations Saturday and Sunday Evenings
High Holy Days-as previously indicated, the Multi-purpose Room will be used for
religious services on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur concurrently with services taking
place in the sanctuary.
Current Functions That Have Been Takine: Place at Kol Shofar For Manv Years
Friday Night dessert and coffee after religious service
Friday Night Music/Dance once a month after musical service
Existing Shabbat Dinners (Friday nights)
Supplemental Saturday Morning Services
Saturday Luncheon after Service
Holiday Luncheon after Service
Sunday Brunch for children and adults in religious education
Religious School Snack-mid-week
Purim Play (Once per year)
Holiday Use by Ring Mountain
Ring Mountain Parent/Teacher Meetings
Sunday Coalition Lunch (weekly homeless lunch)
Staff LuncheonslMeetings
EXHIBIT No.L
, /, ,
Breakfast after Thursday Morning Service
Adult Education Classes and Lectures
Meditation Classes
Teen Activities
Baby Naming/Circumcision
Second Night Passover Seder
Religious School Holiday Services
Holocaust Memorial & Israeli Independence Day Functions
New Member Functions/Dinners
Donor Appreciation Gatherings
t . 1~J- 4
Scott: Thanks for forwarding the correspondence attached to your 5/2 email.
In Tiffany's absence I shall respond having conferred with my clients at CKS. The
whole concern about what is an activity or an event is a red herring that we may.
have unwittingly contributed to by the language used in our application. The
Congregation advises that there really is no substantive religious difference
between the two words....neither is really descriptive of the religious activities that
have been going on for years at CKS and those few new functions that may be
facilitated by approval of the CUP for the multi-purpose room. Every activity that
goes on at CKS is religiously motivated or ritual based. The Synagogue simply
doesn't exist for any other purpose.
That said I would observe that Mr. Metz's definition seems to be as good as any
insofar as distinguishing the functions that have been going on at CKS for years
and those which may be characterized as discrete one-time functions. It is these
few new functions that are the subject of the environmental review for the
CUP application at the PC now.
The Congregation declines to complete the matrix mentioned by Mr. Metz.
Indeed it is frustrating after all of the information we have been asked to
provide...and have provided... that this would even be suggested. I am not aware
that any religious institution in Tiburon has been required to prepare this kind of
documentation even when, as in the case of Sf. Hilary's Catholic Church,
they were applying for permission to expand their buildings and an increase in
usage in connection therewith.
We have applied to expand our facilities, and carefully analyzed the resulting
additional impacts on the neighborhood of the new functions that could result
from expanding the current facility. It is important to remember that Kol Shofar
has a 22 year history of operating at 215 Blackfield under a CUP and that no
significant problems have arisen due to the existing religious programs of the
synagogue, during that entire period of operation.The Town has repeatedly
reviewed the operations at the Synagogue and repeatedly approved the CUP
over the years.
Please understand that we are not taking the position that information on the
current use of the facility is irrelevant to the Planning Commission's consideration
of the CUP. To the contrary, such information establishes the "baseline" against
which the impacts of the current application should be measured. We think the
information provided thus far demonstrates that the potential increase in use of
the site with the new multi-use facility will be quite small.
We do take the position, however, that the Planning Commission's consideration
of the current CUP application is not a proper forum for re-considering the
existing CUP. The question currently before the Planning Commission is
whether to approve an application for a modest expansion of the facility. As part
of that application, Kol Shofar has agreed to limit future new events. The
r r 3., ~ 4-
Planning Commission may either approve the CUP (with or without conditions) or
deny it. Neither action provides a mechanism for limiting existing religious uses,
as there is no basis for doing so.
The CEQA analysis conducted over the past 2 years suggests also that the
proposed expansion will result in no significant problems in the future. Staff
recommends approval of the CUP with conditions recited in the staff report; the
EIR consultant agrees that all significant adverse impacts have or will be reduced
to a level of insignificance with Alternative 7 adoption.
The Congregation is beginning to feel that it is being treated differently than other
religious institutions in Tiburon whose day-to-day activities are not monitored by
the town as is apparently sought here by some of the project opponents. A
particularly probative and instructive comparison is that of Saint Hilary's,
mentioned earlier above. The square footage of their new facilities is nearly
identical to ours, they were not required to do an EIR and they neither had then
nor have now any of their pre existing religious activities under scrutiny. Only
basketball is regulated in connection with the use of their gym. Moreover all of
the opposition to the construction of these new SH facilities in a residential
neighborhood and the associated claimed issues of noise and traffic seems to
have been overstated if not completely inaccurate, as I understand that the
annual review of the SH CUP was heard last week by the PC and not a single
person spoke in opposition.
You can imagine the difficulty one has in explaining and reconciling the land use
process involved in these two projects when they are compared side to side..
, J\(m. youk.~~~IY~r~Y~~~_~!H.!fJ.t'I_~_~_~_ ~~~t?~r_s_~ ~~_~fJ"~~_~~~~~___
As always if you have any questions do not hesitate to call.
Gary T. Ragghianti
p/ 4,)- 4-
w
CJ
c(
en
::>
>
I-
:J
0
c(
lL
I'- ~
Q) I-
> Z
+:: W
aJ >
C W
"
... c(
lL
..... 0
J:
..! en
Jl ..J
aJ
I- 0
~
Z
0
i=
c(
CJ
w
"
CJ
z
0
0
'l;
,/- --.
(f)
- a> a> 0> a> 0>
e
0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0>
E ee e e e
cUcU cU cU cU
E .c .c .c .c .c
0 00 ~ 00 0 ~
0 00 Q) 00 0 Q)
zz z zz z Z
0> 0> a> a>
(f) (f) (f) (f)
0> ~ 0 0 0 0
::J ~e- (L (L (L
I... I... I...
e cU ::J ::J ::J ::J
0> ::Jo.. a... a... 0..
> "0.- E .- E .- E .- E
e~ 0 ~o ~o ~o
cU::JO ::J 0 ::JO ::JO
(/)~a: ~o: ~o: ~o:
~
m
fn Q)
~ (f)
'0 ~ "0
"0 C fn Q) e
0 Q)'O (L 0> (f)
'C ~c UJ ~"O
0> Q) Q) >.~ 0> e
0.. Q)~ co Q) 0> 0>
I... I... ~ Q) ~~ I.- ;:~
COcU co
0> 0> 0 Q) 10 0> LOa>
~~ ~ ~ _(1) ~ (1)0>
I 0' ab;:
<t:<t: U')(\I O~ <t:
Mor- C\l0>
e en
0 (f)
>. ~ 0>
co 0>
- 0 -
'> ::J E e
I ~ 'U 0 0>
0 >
<t: _w :r: w
0- -
cU 0- .c cU
.c::J 0
c 0"0 e e
0 (f)~ ::J 0
~ ....J ~
ctS (J) (f)
0>(L 0> (L ::J l.- e 0> (L
o ::J a> ::J o 0> 0 a> ::J
_ e 0.'- e .- .c ;e (LI... e
c: cU ::JO> co 0>0 CO ::JO> CO
_e 0> :=co _e 0>
o>~ 0> 0 0> 0> 0 0>0
{f)U {f)U U 0:.- U (/)0 U
~ e
0> (f)
0 00 I.- ~ LO 00
~O OOLO 'U::J C\I LO
0 == "0 00(\1 0
('i) (\I .c<t: , (1),
, T"" T"" , , T"" 00 T"" '0 T""
0 OLO LO 00
LO LO T"" 00 T"" LOT""
OT""
('i)
~ ~I~ ~ ~~
~ ~~~a...o..
:E:E~a...a...O<t: 0.. a... 00
~~ a...OO('i)O :E~a...Oa...O~
<(Q.0('i)0"~ 0 ~ Q. 000"0
a... a... 000" ..C\IC\I ('i) 0.. o a... 0 .. 0 T"" T""
00 MO..T""T""~T"" (\I 0 OO..O..T""
.. .. f'- T"" T"" ~ ' "0~~q>~1
(1)('i) Nor-' " ~ T"" 0
T""C\I or-or-~~~a...o.. I C\I ::m~~~o..~
, , ~~o..a...a...OO , ~~o..a...a...Oo..
~~ o 0 01 Ct) 0 ~ ~ 00000
<t:<t: Q.Q.OOO" .. <t: 0 Q.0..000"0
LO 0 OO......T""T"" 0 0 g8c1j~~~m
T""(1) OOCOf'-f'-T""T"" Ct) C\I
0> T"" eDeD co T"" ;,)Cr)
>
c(
C >
" c(
::> c
I- - Z
c( ::>
en en
$>"
(/)
Q) ~
E Q)
~ C
-- Q)
0 .c
~ .....
Q) ~
.0 0
E --
~
:J <<1
C Q)
Q)
..r: ~
..... Q)
""0
C (/)
as Q)
(/) E
0> '';::
Q) --
""0 0
C CD
2 .0
1ti E
__ :J
o C
~C""O
Q) 0 C
-ElitU
:J'i:: CJ)
C () (J)
E (J) Q)
(J)""O
:J ""0 C
E ..... Q)
.- () ::::
~ .~ cU
EeO
0-
r:;;- ~
o ctS Q)
._ c.o
1ti 00, E
~oc :J
Q) 0 C
Q.
o (J) CJ)
--EQ)
o _ E
CJ) (J).-
~ ""0 .....
:J C C
o .-
..r::JCJ)
""O:JQ)
Q) () C
(f) () cU
OO.c
g. ""0 ()
~:JO>
o..O.c
Q)~-
-ECJ)~
(f) .~ .0
(J) :!: . i::
:Q:5~
I... () Q)
~~""O
Q)W""O
""OeO>
~Q)~
() > C
cUQ)::
.oCX
cQ)2.......
.- .c
X~-g~
(J)~C:.t:J
I-tU:'=<<1
(J)~C
Q)~O>_
.....~""O(J)
OQ)C.:!:::=
Z 0..::> <(
EXHffiIT NO. ~
s'
Table Showing the Annual Number of Trips Generated by the Proposed Project,
Alternative 5, and Alternative 7
Maximum number of Maximum Trips per year1
attendees and staff Number of New
allowed at new Weekend events
weekend evening per year
activities
Original Project 300 75 22,500
Proposal
Alternative 5 275 52 14,300
Alternative 7 250 7 1,750
200 9 1,800
150 8 1 ,200
100 3 300
Total: 5,050
10 single-family NA 365 36,500
homes2
Notes
1 - the trips per year are calculated at an average rate of two people per year. One visit
to the site equals two trips (one trip coming and one trip going).
2 - trips for single family homes are calculated at the normal average rate of 10 trips per
day per residence. This is the number of homes on Reedland Woods Way.
w
Z (!)
0 <{
- en
en ::::>
0=: ~
w
> ...J
0
C <{
W L1.
I- oc!S
0 ~
z
W w
0:: >
0:: w
0 0::
0 <{
L1.
a
::I:
...... en
..J
(1) a
>
~ ~
n:s Z
t:
L- a
(1)
-+oJ ~
<{ <{
(!)
~ w
(1) 0::
.0 (!)
n:s Z
~ 0
0
00
- Q) a> a>Q) Q)
e
a> 0) 0) 0) 0) 0>
E e e ee c
mm mm m
E .c .r:. .c .r:. .c
0 ()() ~ ()U U ~
U o 0 CI) 00 0 CI)
zz z zz z Z
a> Q) a> Q)
00 rn 00 rn
a> - 0 0 0 0
~e- 0.. 0.. 0..
::J I... I... I...
e m ::J ::J ::J ::J
a> ::Ja... 0.. 0.. 0..
> -0.- E .- E .- E .- E
e~ 0 ~o ~o ~o
m::Jo ::J 0 ::J 0 ::Jo
(/)~a:: ~a:: ~a:: ~a::
L-
a)
fn Q)
~ rn
-c ~ '0
'0 C rn Q) e rn
0 Q)-c (L a>-c
'C .::t:.c:: UJ ..lll:::c
Q) Q) CI) >.~ a> CI)
0.. Q).::t:. m Q) a>.::t:.
I... I... ~ CI) ~~ I... ~ CI)
roro m
a>Q) oCl) 10 ~ LOCI)
~~ "'t~ .....('1) '?~
U') N 0' LO It)
<t:<t: C'? or- O~ <t: N"l"""
e en
0 rn
>. ~ Q)
ro Q)
- 0 .....
'S; ::J E e
I ~ '0 0 a>
0 >
<t: _W I W
0..... "-
ro 0- .r:. ro
.r:.::J 0
c 0'0 e e
0 (/)1 ::J 0
~ ~ :tJ
ro oorn m
Q)o.. 0) 0.. ::J L- C 0) 0..
o::J Q) ::3 oQ) 0 a> ::J
._ e 0..'- c .- .c E (L'- e
~ro ::JO) a) 0)0 ro ::JO) m
.....e a> ==ro _e a>
a> a> a> 0 Q)Q) 0 Q)O
(/)() (/)U U a::~ () (/)() ()
I e rn
0 00 ~~ LO 00
~o l.O 'O::J N LO
OONO == '0 og~o
M, .r:.<t: I
I T""" T"""IOT""" ()o T"""10T"""
0 OLO LO 00
LO LOT""" 00 T""" LOT"""
o T"""
M
~~~~ ~ ~ ~~
~~~a...a...o<t: a... ~o...~oo
~~ a...OOMO ~ ~~a...oa...o~
<([LaMa ..~ 0 [L 000"0
0...0.. oOo....NN M a... o a... 0 .. 0 T""" T"""
00 C'? 0 .. T""" T""" T""" T""" N 0 ~o~~m-r;-I
.. .. t- T""" T""" ~ I
M M Nor- I I I ~ T""" 0 o I I ,~
T""" N "l"""or-~~~O"'o... I N ::m~~~o...~
I , ::E::Ea...a...a...oo I :E~a...a...a...oa...
~~ ~ ~
<{<{ c..c..ggg~<? <{ 0 c..a...gggqg
LO 0 00 .. .. .. T""" T""" 0 0 ~~M~~~m
T""" M oocot-t-T"""T""" M N
0> T""" CD CD <X) T""" C'? M
~
<(
C ~
0:: <(
::::> c
~ z
<( ::::>
en en
f/)
Q)
E
~
\t-
O
L-
Q)
..0
E
:J
e
Q)
.L:.
+J
~
Q)
e
Q)
.c
.....
L-
~
I...
rn
Q)
>.
L-
Q)
0-
f/)
Q)
E
:.;:#
\t-
O
"'C
C
co
f/)
Q)
Q)
"'C
e
Q)
==
co
\t-
O
L- ."0
Q) e e
..o.Q rn
Ea.ui
:J'C Q)
e 0 Q)
Ef/)"'C
Q)e
:J "'C Q)
E+J.....
.- 0 ro
>< Q)
co .~ \t-
E e 0
O-L-
c- Q)
oco.o
:.;:#.~ E
co 0) :J
(D'C e
0- 0 -
OQ)~
\t-.L:.E
o :: ._
f/)Q).....
I... "'C e
:J e'-
O:JOO
.L:.L-Q)
"'C:JO>
Q) 0 e
(/)orn
OO.c
~ 0
o "'C Q)
L-:J.c
~O.....
Q) ~ 00
.L:.(/)Q)
+J .0
(/).~'C
Q) ~ 0
:9~~
t;o"O
(/) ~ Q)
Q) (/) ::J
"'C +J _
~ai.o
o > e
co Q)'-
:OcX
eQ)2r--
. - .L:.
x~~~
Q)L-e~
~ co ~ co
Qj ~ CD E
+JI..."OQ)
oQ)e~
Z ~:J <(
L-
Q)
.0
E
::J
e
General Plan Goals & Policies and Zoning Provisions
General Plan Goals and Policies
LU-A: To provide an orderly balance of public and private land uses
within convenient and compatible locations throughout the
community.
LU-B: To protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
LU-C: To preserve the character of the Tiburon peninsula through
control of. the type and location of development.
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-I: To encourage intensity of development, density, and house
sizes/ architectural styles that are consistent and compatible with
surrounding neighborhoods.
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.
C-C: 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.
- N-A: To ensure that residential areas are quiet and that noise levels in
public and commercial areas remain within acceptable limits.
N-C: To minimize the exposure of community residents to noise
through the careful placement of land uses that may cause noise
impacts.
EXHIBIT NO.~
I
Zoning Ordinance Provisions
4.04.02. Purposes.
The uses listed as Conditional Uses are hereby declared to be uses possessing
characteristics of such unique and special qualities as to require special review to
determine whether or not any such use should be permitted in a specific location
which may be proposed. The purposes of the review are to:
(a) Determine whether the location proposed for the Co.nditional Use applied
for is properly related to the development of the neighborhood as a whole;
(b) Determine whether the location proposed for the particular Conditional
Use applied for would be reasonably compatible with the types of uses
normally permitted in the surrounding area;
(c) Evaluate whether or not adequate facilities and services required for such
use exist or can be provided;
(d) Stipulate such conditions and requirements as would reasonably assure
that the basic purposes of this Chapter and the objectives of the General
Plan would be served; and
(e) Determine whether the Town is adequately served by similar uses
presently existing or recently approved by the Town.
4.04.03. Special Considerations.
Factors to be considered in determining whether or not any conditional use
should be permitted in a specific location are:
(a) The relationship of the location proposed to:
(1) The service or market area of the use or facility proposed;
(2) Transportation, utilities, and other facilities required to serve it; and
(3) Other uses of land in the vicinity.
(b) Probable effects on persons, land uses, adjoining properties, and the
general vicinity, including:
2
(1)
Probable inconvenience, damage, or nuisance from noise, smoke,
odor, dust, vibration, radiation, or similar causes;
\,
(2) Probable hazard from explosion, contamination, or fire;
(3) Probable inconvenience, economic loss, or hazard occasioned by
unusual volume or character of traffic or the congregating of a large
number of people; and
(4) The number of such uses presently existing or recently approved
within the area.
(c) The need of the community for additional numbers of such uses, paying
particular heed to whether the neighborhood is already served by similar
uses.
3
Scott Anderson
From:
Sent:
slh 1 ipa@aol.com
Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:41 PM
Scott Anderson
npapfan@aol.com
Kol Shofar Power Point - 4-24-06 for PC Record
__..Jbject:
~
KSPresentation. ppt
(7 MB)
Scott/Lisa,
At the meeting 4-24-06 the PC chairman asked that we submit the Power
Point presentation into the record. Attached is an electronic copy. I
can also print out a hard copy and submit it with a transmittal cover
letter if you like. Please let me know by Wed 4-25-06 if the electronic
format is acceptable of if you would like a hard copy.
Sincerely,
Scott L. Hochstrasser, President
IPA,Inc. (International Planning Associates)
42 Glen Drive, Suite B
Fairfax, California 94930
Office (415)459-6224
Fax (415)459-5810
Cell 319-621-0808
lJ
~ ~i.f\
~ \, ~,~ ~
-\ {S{;N (. ~ ~ Ai J'-;...'J-~
\ 0(;" " a
Lv---1 <-t" _ ~ ~,u~'O-
G "J)'
~IT NO.l}a..
~
Z ~
O\D~
~o~
r./) 0 rT"'1
r./)N~
~ "r./)
~~~
~.~ ~
o8Z~
up.,z
CJ<e9
~CJ~
z~Q
zE--Z
~ .~ 0
~~U
~~~
z~~
o ~
~ 0
~O~
CQ~(/)
l--I ~
E-- 0
~
m jE
'-.. jl
~l\~:~:~~~",
, iu . '.
,j n :-- '\. ""<;
~ ,,'~'
(~:.::~,/;l j '.,,',~,~\! ·
j ./"_'...< ~ ~ \' f
i" ',<,..) "," \ \, ... 'it \
"'"."0'. ~\. _, . '". '., .'~ ) \ ... Id
1o\j ,~) ,\/i
,J~ \,j/\;::"': ,
~\. -J/ .\'*)
~\, "./) .........
.~8.i rjj
r//
(--~
\ ----.
'\
",
\
\
\
\\
."........-_..J '
<t "
\"\
. '.
I
,
..i
>'" II III
.
.'\:- .
.'- ..
,\r-=~~: "
.. ~!l';' \
,..__1 }(,~~"< i
- ",' \ '.
/ .t.~,L:fJ ,''-"i
\;1
tit
t\~-".- -----.'
.<'1
... .
'.#' '
t
f
, ,:
..
..~:#.,
r
IF
o
w
z
m
~
o
o
Q
W
(I'J
~
o
u:
n.
o
Z
4(
C)
6
I-
<I)
~
~
o
:r
f/)
..J
~
~
~
~
0:
~
W
l-
US
C
w
fI)
~
o
0:
n.
.
It:
S
::r
fI)
...I
~
~
..J
n.
~
ii5
(!J
z
;::
(fJ
x
w
a::
~
o
J:
fIJ
..J
o
~
r:..
~
~w
--'u
~iE
wtl
~0
Q~
~.~
~=
-~
~~
CIi :I:
II ~
g t! 18.
m fD i:loiJ
~
-
N IlW3
<: <
CJt
o
an
..
g
an
'CDj
~l
;;Ii
&:at
LLli
~1
a:; !
:=J; ~ lu
~i c,=
:5; ~ ~ ~
:E. '!. ~.. ". ti ~
Et;; S, , ~
, o. .... i. ~ 'c:Jl w >-
~; =' i'u.J In
, at D..z:C 8
- r= 15:1 ..;."
~,;S Cr
!;~ ~
at :
c..
~ ,
;
i .
~ ~
zl I
wi 1
., I
2!
i21 I
sel I
I
~i ,
tie: ! I
l
wi !
...... 1
~'
. . I .
i !
! r
i
j i
; i
~ I
~
i l
! I
If) I I
!
! I
f
~ t
1 I
j !
I f
I I
i
I ~
I
m-! !
i I
j
~ I
i I
i i
f i
I ~
I ,
! !
1
IlP.J N !l' 0
m .....;...
"":. CD'4D
- !
!
i
lDie
aim
II:D 1m
f
i
I ~!! ~!I ~
,.. -..( !.- o. ,,:W
-- ~f ! ~
10
z]
~itu
gd ..
t::. :6
1Z1"-
~
~ i
~ ~
:J! 10
tJ;..!
(1')1
I _~
=1 ~
CPl. '~"
tI .~
~l.:
-=1 .. ~
Q1Z~
~ 19 ::t
~Iii
t.:J I a:a t:j
~l~~
~15ll2
!
I
I
!
I
~l
~l
I
I
I
{
l
~
;&1
~ !
=1
I
!
I
t.'Jl!
<I
-I
-- !
wi
,
f
I
I
-J
=s
CD
S
~
i i!i ~
Nl=
i I
f~!.
'sel ;
==:i i
Cil I
.l;......1
:::"c;;;:i
~!Ol
:el:J:j
g;~l ~;
ji;Q,.., U
:fn~ ....! a
51~; <
OJ ,_ ::z:
>-.! m'....'" Q
~1. ~l ~~ ~,.
t-' 01 U1
Wi c:;;! .' CD
r-: m! tLi .~
Etl:Sl-' p
0;~;~ ~
~'; ;
cr---'
t::::=:
p;.:.
:
~I
cd
.....
CD
w
!
~
~
~
. r:....,
. ..~.
~
~
E
-<
...,
~
;;;
~
II<
g
_le
~
~
;;
~
~
~.
0)
rf.l
o
~
o
~
~~
o 5
-+-J. S
~ ~
o 0
:203
bJ)>
.~ (])
(])Q
z (])
S .~
or/J
~ ~
r/J (])
(])Z
()
a
~
rf1
.~
Q
~
IU >l ~; [ <<.-
; imd 1;~II~ l!ihdll~11
-...~ \ .
lS 8 ~l!i~_~._ ili ~I
Ii.;... "' -' :!11~:;~E It;; !~ ~l
it ~~g ~ Q oOt~a:t- Q,:;; 11:..... J
!~!;j~~ glll~~S~~ !!f ~~h!~i~ ~ I;
.~~_~~ ~ ~~~~ .t~~~v,Jl~~~~'
I!:~"'W:; ~ -li~~!: ;i~;:i~i!~iJ~~1
..,!~:;f~; l!2 ~~..~ $....;.:;-.. ,..,sh
e;t' -lJI:oc> - "'l!:!~C:~ 7.! 'lP.....' :;;! .." I
~ ~11ir~~ ~iii~~~~~-~~I
\<>. .- ;-, . :
'~~~~, I III II I
IlfiiiP !
~ I ~~ I~ ~ ~ I
~lif Jt i ~~.I
alA .
51- .1
l".~--._--'- .. ~
I ~.. --;,
t: ~
~ ! I
'I'~i L Hi
! ~ 11. . . i' ,,!
1 !IIi I ij-.-imi
i' i
I
1.
-~ 1
0:"1' .
u. ~~
> :~. ..;~
I;
-:----
\
\
\
\
\~.~'.-.'...
' t'
i i
, .;t
'Y..' lit
\'
l\
tU :\
.o'I.y; :
...,.,"! t
c
ro
C-
O)
:t=
CJ)
0)
>
--
+oJ
ro
~
+-I
CJ)
::J
..
~
if
~,
-~-"""'ft-:...>c_
/
..
CD
c..:>
c
CD
"-
C ~
0 CD
.- c:::
+-'
(.)
Q) c
Cf) CO
Q) C1.
Cl. I
CO
() ~
C/) C
D
C 0
.-
CO +-'
.....J c..:>
Q.)
C/)
0>
C
+:i
C
CO
c..
-0
.Q)
_ .X
~
....-... .
U)
CO
.-
C
C
.Q)
"-
.CD
c..
'-"
"0
C
ro
>.
1::
Q)
Q.
D
~
aQ)
'C
c:J
Q) Q)
o 0
.!2..c
"OQ)
<{u..
C'?
C
o
~
t)
Q)
C/)
Q)
0-
m
t)
en
-0
c
m
....J
N
C
o
--
........
(.)
Q)
C/)
Q)
c..
co
t)
en
""0
c
co
....J
~
CJ)
..c
:J
L-
..c
(f)
............
0>
C
~
C
co
-
a..
"'C
Q)
X
~-
~
Q)
u
c
~
~
Q)
0::
c
co
a..
I
cry
~
N
C
o
--
+-'
U
Q)
CJ)
<~'''''
- '1--.
fr'''' .\.
~
, r.,.J
"'I
~
~
. -- ~~ ---:so
, ,
i
L
r
~\
~r'i~'~
'{~ \ ....,\\ ~~/'-"",>,~,<,
" ", "\, !~ /' \, .
\, " t:~:~l~~
., "~
' .'.'';'' ". '"
'.,.~
J0-
It
C
:;I
~
I
.
..: III!
a=.
--- '1'""-"',--- '~-JI' "''''...
I . f ' ~t!~ -0-
' 'I J ~ ... . H, =.~
O:!t-~ I~,. f\l' ""il
!, ~.';..r ~ " /<:;: ~ ,', Ii
H: " ![ , ''''., ,.' ::J
t, · .,; \,,' I ..
I R I ~ ,I ~ . '<< i" -lit...
!, · , , ~ '-iRe
. ;'. f, ..- It ! " 'f' , -"1IiI _
. -, R t t x-
'I' I '_:J.~ 1 ,__ m_ _ _ I.:, . ~""I:'
'-------.- -- -..---.---- >-
'l~ '1' ;- ..--... b;, i ~ ::: .,
1 f,l I_~ ;.ft ,; II III
" R ~, - , .' I I
a.' f .. I -t . . ! :' , . """!
-i'!., .~i ,,~-,. t:;~';!E_
ll:. 'f...... '. ": ..1 :': . '. "~.' t. 1.,' ;! l, "'. i! ~h1, _. ~;:
"~ j',~ -';"" It'l~r,.' ;:r'"'.
_f \ J'.'~ I' ;;; If - 1''i!I!i~ DI:
i L__~_' "'5 _~___._'.wa.,..Ji -..---..... ,~.L;i ~~:~= E!
.II
o
ar::
&:1
.-:
::u
!:~
~i
o!
ml
I.b
iii
t !III
~2!1
tI
".
...r
.... iii :it
:lC ~ It
O!f
-:-
""'!r
=~~
.... ;; f
2;~~
8i1i:
lE;r
III :U~
..IIiU.
o~~
~Lftk
H
t-~
:ct
.,~
::::ilie
all
lUil
=:J~
iii! Iii
::Ii ..,
0:
s:;.~ .
Dai,
Cis
5:6
...J e !
o~1
<<.~:
.:~,
Il. : rm
;1
iIB III
,.. n......
.'<"~~'\
\:~ ~~....
'''''~':..<'',','
;' '\ "\'
./ y---" '17, \ "
.....+, <: \;1... ..1. c-,-\ \
" '''-J ~< \ ,\ ...
oIl' " ,..\ )
.., g.. ':Y;/ ,
i~'. / .': .(#:,.)
11\....' ... --./ .-\.,' ." ". ..... .,.
f;i\ \'-. ---,.I ',"' ...; ,." '..
.i\~..' -i.
~:\, ..' ,
1I~ .,..111". .,
~<~'. ..!'
..:., ":;,.
Ii' ....
r.:c
, .
r........:.-
"/e'
\---..--.-:....--- '.
,
\,
\r~
!
./
!
-..-----,'
II i.
.1
:.
_. i. .
,--- -
r.-=.::::~~~::::::'.,.'^
t \ .~<<'. ''''\,,',
,. ~~:, '\ '..
\ it Ii';'" .
f i' { /I~'" '<....;,<, ,
,{fl __J' ,
~\ l' C
,if 0'
t,Si--~-.--_: ..,-...."..' '..~
fl.. :'\J ~
l.~'" ..
;..,
..
r
r
,
f
t
f
c
u.i
Z
Ui
~
o
u
c
UJ
UJ
o
n.
o
&:
o
z
<
(!)
z
t=
(I)
X
.W
~
~.
a:
..;{
u..
~
UJ
..J
~
x
cr:
~
W
I-
(is
o
w
(I)
o
0-
o
cr:
0-
cr:
it
o
:I:
UJ
<5
x
2
<:
-'
0-
W
I-
ii.i
Cl
z
i=
w
X
w
a:
<(
u..
o
:I:
W
-'
o
x
-
I
~j
I ~:
I
I ~ b1)
c.8
0
~ .~
~
bIJ 00.
0 .~
0 I ><
.~ 0.. (1)
~ 0 (1)
~ ~ 'fi
~ ~
r.n " ~
~ Q) ~ 0
~ ~
.~
rfJ ;:j 00
~ Q) I 0 Q) ~
~ ~ 0
s 0 ~ ~ 0
. ~ a OJ) ~
Q)
Q) 0 Q) rJJ ~
~ E ~
> rfJ t) ] ro
.~ Q) ;:j
rF1 0 u ~ ~ ~
Q)
~ Q) Q) ~
~ r/) ~ ~ ~ r/) rJJ
I ~ ~ 00 0 ~ "'d 0
. . ~ s
. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a
S Q) Q) 0 rJJ Q) (1)
.~ ~ S ~
.0) S 0 ~ ~ rJJ
I ~ Q) Q) 0
.~ N ~ Q) Q) ~
~ bI} Q) N ;:j S ~ ~ 00 b/J
> t) > ~ Q) 0
~ Q) ~
~. ~ rJJ .;> 0 .... '1j ro .~
0 0 .~ OJ)
Q) U rJJ 0 ~~
.~ ~ ~ Q) ~ 0 0 ~~
> ~ Q) t) ~ ~ .0 .~
~ 0 "'d t) ~ S ~ ~
0 ~ S ~ a ~ s S 6 tS,.n
.~ Q)
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~
~ . r'\ ~ ~ ~
rfJ OJ) "
~ ~ Q) C\j~ ~ Q) rJJ (/)'"3
0 () ~ " .~ ~ E blJ ~ u
~ ~< ~ o ~
~ ~ ~ Q) ~ ~ .(3
rfJ .~ Q .~ u ~ .~
blJo 0< ~ r/) '1j
~ ~ '1j ~
.~ A
.~ 0 A ~
~ A cd
A A ~
cd ~
~ ;
. p'
-to
Ii
f
rfl
~
o
. ,.....(
~
. ,.....(
~
~
~
bIJ
~
. ,.....(
~
~
. ,.....(
~
~
~
o
.~
~
.~
'""0
'""0
<
Q)
rfl
o
fr
;:$
~
.~
~
~
;:$
~
o
~
o
o
· .-4
~
C)
(])
s
o
C)
---
~
,.0
bIJ
· .-4
,.0
~
~ C
N cd
~E
cg
o cd.
tn rfJ
(]) ~
o~
o ~
" C)
~ .~
rF1 C)
o ~
~ ..-4
~tn
t'- · .-4
" ><
0\ Q)
A
~
cj
~
rfJ
. .-4
:>-
'"'0
.~
o
:>-
cj
o 00
~~
~O
t:: (]).
(])~
0-. · Uj
o Q)
~ ~
O-.bIJ
~ ~
o ..-4
~'"C
Q) ~
~ g
Q) b
C) ~
~ 00
..~
~ ~
Q) 0
~ 00
Q) ~
~ C)
rfJ cd
~ ~
u S
~ ..-4
o Q)
.~ rfJ
~ ~
U'"tj
o 0
~ cd
A
~~
S .~
rfJ~
Q)Q)
'"C Q)
~~
u~
.S b
~~
~oo
,...-l ~
.,D cd
S ~
Q) Q)
00 00
00 0
cd 0
~ ~
~N
'"tj~
Q)\D
00 ~
~ ~
~ Q)
~ .s
\D'"C~
~Ooo
V)O~
~~ (])
~ $-04:>-
rFl ~ Q)
o bl) ~
NO'"C
,......,... .~ ..-4
\."" ~ ~
o cd 0
V)" ~ ~
A
~
~
~
~
Q.)
.-0
u
~
.~
~
~
~
ca
~
~
~
ca
,..q
"
~
..D
..D
o
~
~
~
~
Q)
00
:::s
~
~
~
.
00 00
~~
~Q)
~
~ .~
rFlB
o
"
Q)
~ 0.0
~ cd
t'- 8
~ ~
~ 00
A
~
Q)
.~
;>
a)
~
~
cd
~
~
a)
s
~
o
~
.~
;>
~
~
I
~
(])
.~
e:
(])
;>
o
rfJ
rfJ
Q)
U
o
~
~
Q)
~
~
Od
~
u
Q)
.~
o
~
~
(])
~
~
""0
.........
o
o ;>
.+-J ro
00 (1) 0
~ H.+-J
o 00 (]) 00
..o~~d
00 0 0
~ ..c ~'.;3 00
o C'j. ....... ro .+-J
~ ~ ] .~ ~
~ ........ ~ .~ ""0
g ~ ~ S .~
~ S ~ ~ ~
~ ,,~:Q bl).bIJ
;:j ~ H .r;; ~
o 9 C'j (1)..-4
""0 ""0 ~ ""0 ]
o ~ ] ""0 ;:j
o ro ,... (1) 0
..0 ~v -::: ~
~ bI} u ~v ~
o~~a~
..n ~ c.+-4 Q.,
..0 ~ C'j L-.~ ~
bIJ........ .b 0 0
........;:j u 00
(1) ..n t/.) " ~ .+-J
~ (])..-4 U
""0 c: . ....... ~ ro
~ 0 ""0 OJ) ~
(1) .+-J ::s. ~ d
..0 ;:j ~ "'.J ~
~ t/.) (1). .......
~ ~ (]) ""0 ~
~ ........ t/.) .+-J ~
o (]) .0 u ~
,..q ;> ~ (1) (1)
r/) .a5 ~ .S. a
~ u t/.) ;..... s
O(1)~~O
~ ~-C'j (1) ~
o ] E: -:S .~
~ ro ~ ""0 (])
t/.) H ~
~ c:::s roE
ro ro U ""0 ro
(1) - (]) (1) bIJ
~ ~ ~ ~ '.;j
(1) :.E ro . .......
o~u~S
~]~~;.....
l" oo~ ~o
A
""0 t/.)
(1) "E
~ (1)
.s S
..n S
;:i 0
00 U
OOH~
roC'j~
~ (1) ~
c= ...c: ~
oo~
........ ~ t
~ bI) 0
u.s ~
;.::: ~ (1)
~(])~
~(1)~
ro S U
.+-J bI) ro
~ ~ ~
s .~ S
""Oo~
~ u ~
(1) t/.) ~
S.~ a3
ro:o 8
~ ::s S
~ ~ 0
u C'j .~
ro ""0 ;>
~ c:
-:S~~
g u g
S ~ .~
00 (]) ;.....
. .-4...c: 0...
..0 ~ ro
.+-J~
oo~
bOO 0
ro N 00
00 ~ ;:i
~ (1) ~
~s (1)
o (]) ..r:=
~ g .+-J
t-<Q8
A
~ 0 (])
ro~..c=
;.... ""0 ~
Q~~~
0) ;:i 0 ;.....
..oc.8t/.)~
~ ~ c.+-4
~ 00 ~ 0
~ C'j (])
o ~ S ~
2V)Sd
t:::: Q) 0 00
~ .~ .s .~
o a ~ ~
C) Q) (]) .~
,,~ .+-J ~ ..n
'U.....-4 0
~<~~
~ ""0 ~ ~
.+-J E 0 'S
bl) ~..c= ;.....
t:::: Q). rfJ ~
. ....c 00 ~
~ e 0 (1)
0) ~~ Q)
..0 (]) S
C) ;..... (]) ~
~Q):>o
..n ~..c ~
;:iooC'j""O
~~a'"3
ro........ Q) 0
~~~>
~C'j~~
O)a~V)
..0 Q) U (])
U ~ Q)
~.~ ;>
~ C'j O.Z
~ H C'j.
0) U 0... a
..0 (1) ~
.+-J '~.s E \0
~-~~
o p.. Q) <r: Q)
o (]) 0... ;>
N :> ::s ~ ..c
..., . ....... t/.)..c= ro
~~(])~a
bl)~-B~2
;::s ~ (]) ~.....-4
<C~.,.n""O~
A
o
~ s:::
.+-J 0
s:::
(l) b1)
;:i s:::
~ ........
(l)~
00 ;....
.,.n 0
;:j ~
r/) s:::
~ ~
(l) (l)
........ ..0
[) ;....
;....tS
.~ 0
-..0
~r/l
~o
;....~
c.8 ~
""0 b1)
,,~ s:::
"'" . ....... .
00 ~ r--
ro ro Q)
(l) (l) ........
-..0 I""""
Q) ........
~ = 1d
00 0 a
ro ..;j
~ ~. ~
~ t;::: ~
~ ........
~t
_ (l)
ro C)
c: 0
~~
ro a
\0 .C:
o ~
o~
N ;::s
C ..o~
ro 0)
2 ~
..n 0)
0)-
~ ~
A
"-
m~
~
Q)
;>
. .......
~
ro
a
(1)
~
-
C'j
~
U
(1)
.C(
~
0...
~
Q)
c:
~
. ~
. QJ
00 rJ.J
~Q)t:) >
. ....
0"""'" cd ~
~~~ =
=
~ 00 S ~
t" rJ:J >. · ~ QJ
~,........ Q) ~
=+t o ca rJ.J .......
,.n .~ .~ =
~~O ~
0) bl)0~ ~
> .,....... cd aJ
Q)~ rJ'.)
0$ (l) .~
0
.~ t) ~
~ ~ ~ ~
ro 00.-0 ~
. ,.......
a ~~ (l) ~
u ~ 0
00 . ~ >. .-
0) Q) ~ ,........ ~
. ~~~ aJ
~ rJ.J . ~
Q) \OS rJ.J . a
~ t'- rJ:J ~ =
~ > u .,....... t'- t)
rIJ In .,....... QJ (JJQ)Q)~ rIJ
QJ ~ > cd aJ
> (JJ t.) .,... ~ .~ >- >-.S ~.
~ .,... > Q) ..- s ..- ~ .~
..- .,... .~ = =O~bI) ~
U = ..-,.n =.,....... = rJ.J cd.~ ~
0) = = 0 ... Q) ... ~ a rJ.J ......
... =~ QJ.~ (JJ~Q)"'O ~
.~ QJ ... t.) ..- 0 ~ . ~ ~ =
0 ~ (JJ Q) <0 ...... Q),........ C\$ aJ
~
< "-.'::"") <'€~~ ......
~ ...... 0 ~
~ < ~ rIJ Q) rIJ~'U~ ~
QJ (JJ ~ ..-~
rIJ = ~ ..- Q) t)
~ ~ rIJ~ = ~ Q) 0
~ ~ QJ.,....... QJ 0 O.~ =
0 ~ > .--:= >~Q)~
~ s ~ S ~t::~~ rIJ
.~ QJ .,...
~ ..- (JJ ~ ~~ ~~~Q) l"-
.,... ..- 0
~Q) e ~ QJ 0 (JJ <..j....( ~ ~ OJ
~ .- 0 ~ 0 ~Q)~~ >
.- ... = = r:= c.S ~
~ ..- 00 rJ:J .-
~ rIJ Q) ~ Q) ~cdO~ ..-
QJ QJ 0 QJ 0 =
(/) QJ ~Q ~Q (JJ r:= ~ C\$ =
... ~~VJ,..o ;...
..= (JJ
..-
~ . ~
. . <
~ N rfJ
~
(])
>
.~
~
ro
~
~
(])
~
~
~
~
~
ro
tr)
Q)
>
.~
~
ro
a
Q)
~
~
~
0)
(.)
c:
CD
a-
~
--
c
to-
O)
. >
;"
ca-
c:W
a-LL
CD
.....
-
<t
It)
0)
>
;"
ca-
w
Eo
0)
.....
-
<t
a-
ca
0<(
..t:D..
en.=>
-t)
o
~
C/)
~
c x
Q)
> ro .
Q)E.....;c
'- '- ro :J
Q)Q)CfJCfJ
~ ~ C/) C/)
0) 0) L- L-
,+-,+-.r::..c
OOL()++
~NN~
Q)
Q)
~
~
x C/)ro 5 ~
ro c
E EC/) Q)
o o..E~
L() ~ 0.. Q)
N~o>Q)
@).8.8!
f'- 0.. 0.. ro
N:J:JI
Q)
0)
L-
'+-
C/)
X -0
ro c
E 0)
L()E~
f'- 0.. 0)
NO>~
@).8~
L() 0.. ro
f'-:JI
-0
C
0)
~
.0)
0) C
> en :J
>...CJ)
~ffi.....;
0) > ro
ZWCf)
0)
u
.r::
0)
>
o
o
CO
o
.N
en
0..
.C
~
0)
Q) > ~.
Q) U
00 .- c
.- ..c
o u 0)
Z ro.pi
"'O~en
Q) c
-+-'-+-'0
rouo
O)ro
..- 0..
:t= . E D...
~-C.9
0)
U
..c
0)
>
o
L{)
00
L{)
'r'
I
en
0..
Q)
O)~~
00 .- c
.- .!:
o U Q)
ZroJi)
-goes~
-+-',-+-' 0
rouo
O)ro
.- 0..
:t=ED...
~-C.9
'C
~
Q)
U
.c
Q)
>
o
L{)
f'-
~
en
0..
Q)
O>~~
00._ C
.- ..c
o u Q)
ZroJi)
"'O~en
0> \.IV C
-+-'-+-'0
rouo
O)ro
.- 0..
~ED...
~-C.9
'C
~
o
~
co
L0-
r-
Q)
en
o
Z
"'0
c~
Q)ro1i5
-Q)'+-
t) -+-' ro
~:c ~(ij 00
roQ)O)"'O
~>.r::C
Q)cen~:J
O)ro~oeoo
c-+-',-,~
ro C/) :J 00 ro 0>
.r:: .0 "'0 0.. E :J
O :J 0> .C :J 00
C/) '- -+-' -+-' en
C/) ~
"'0-
o C
o 0
~\~ ~
~C/)~
~ "'0 0)
ro.C Q)
~ ro I
0> "'0 ........
>0>""-'
.C 0> ro
OO::S
"'0 0>
00)
o C
~\s ~
~C/)t)
~ "'0 0
ro c c
~ ro I
0> "'0 ........
>0>""-'
'C 0> ro
OO::S
c
o
~
.ro
:J
t)
'-
o
0>
~
CJ)
I
C
o
~
~
~
~
cd
~
C)
.~
,...-..(
o
~
~
,...-..(
~
,...-..(
cd
~
Q)
~
Q)
c
~
C)
~
(])
-+-J
rfJ
.~
rfJ
~
o
U
bJ)
~
.~
~
o
N
~~
o~
~~Q)
~Q)oo
cO 8.~
00 S 0
O)oZ
~ .~ '"d
~ :> ~
.-- ~ ca
t'-Q)~
Q) ~ ~
:>~~
.p cO cO
cjrnr/J
d Q) ~
~.G ~
~.,..... 0
~ ~.~
~O~
~ O-c~
~ ~ .~
.~ H U
~cO~
a .~~u
0: e ~ Q)'--
.~ Q) 00
~ ~ ~~
~ ~Q)'"d
Q) .--CI ~
o t) ~ cj
Q) Q) 0 ~
r~ .S ~ bIJ
v ~2 ~
o ~.,......~
o ~~'"d
~c.SQ)~
~ o~ u
,.n ,.Q ~ -5
.~ r./) U rn 00
to~"EE
o ~ 2:: ..a sa)
~ Q) cd ~
~ ~ Q) cd~
f$ ~~ 1ij~
o
~ A
~
I
.0
~
~
()
.~
~
~
en
.~
o
bIJ
o
.~
o
o
N
.~
Q) ~ bD ~
Q) 0 ~ U
s :::: ~ .~
v ~ tn
00 8 rn -~
S ~ ~o
-,;j,.Q ~ Q)
;.;:: - ~ ~ ,.Q
\J Q) 0 ~
] ~ ~ .8
bl) 00'-- ~ ~
~~Q)Q)
· ,....c U Q) t
~ cd d -~
:S-B~E
~~~Q)
~ bl)ca ~
O~~Q)
~;.a~~
Q) ~ -~ 00
~~o~
U ~ 0 ....i
g 0 ~ 0 .6,.....
~ .~ ,.Q
Q) 00 t'--- U
~ "'C Q) 00 Q)
bl) ~ .2: ~ ~
.s '"d ~ 8 ~
:g8arn~
.S tn Q) ~ ~
~~~ocd
~ .~ < ~ 8
r~ ~ ,,~ ~ -~
~ ~, ...., ,.Q ~
..2 .~. ~ u :.a
r" Q . ~
::] ~~ 8
~~ ~ rn a cd
~.~ ~ '"d
Q)o~a~
~ = 0- ~ -s:
~ cd U 00 ;;;>
A
~,
~
~
.Ea ~
~u
u ~
.~ Q)
~ ~
o .~
~ ~
~ 0
.~ u
~. bIJ
~ .s
~ ~
Q) 0
~N
o
~
c.8 . ~ bJ). ==
00 ~ rFl ~\J
.~ ~ . ~ ~ Q) Q)
a ~ bJ) o. ~~ ..
Q) ~. ~ ~......
'\j ro bO c~ t.S
~E~~~09
00Q)'~1"""""00~
Q) 0 .~ ~ > r:/J
rFl ~ ~ ;;>
~ O.~ C · Q) ~
........,.....( ;>- ro 2 ' - 0
~ ~ '-8..s 53 ~ ~
~.~ C'd.~ ;> ~ ~
0> -il)-'"
,_ ;;> ~.... ro ~
~ ~ ~\J ~ P-+ ~
.,..... ~ · ~ C'd ~
"8 g ~ ~"' '0 s13
o ~ ~ ,- 0 ro ~
U u t:::"'g rn ~'~ '
rnil).p'\jil)t::~
~ ro 0, rn il) il) il) ~
~28~S..o~u
;> . ~ ~"..J rFl Q) ""0
ro a il)'~ g ~ ~.B
'\j il) ~ ~ o,~ ~ ~
~ il) 0, .~ il) rn il) 0
'S ,S ~ 0 I-< t t ~ rn
~ .s ~ il) rn"'..o ~ ~ ~
,,~ ~ U rFl Q)d +-J B .0
"" ' _ ;:j U I:< "' .;:::
~ ~] ~ 'E S ~] ~
(1) I:< L..., .... il) il) ..... ~
rr.; rn l' ro rn '\j >. 1-<"' 0
::J ro r1.i ~ rn ~ ro U
...0 ~ 0 :::$ C'd 0 Q) ~
........ I-< ro '';::: 0 rn N >......
ro t.S il) ro' - ~ ..... ~ 'S::
s::: 0 ~.b,~ 0 ~ U ;;>
. 9 ~ 0 .:!3 Q) '.g 0, ro ~
.--::: r/'J N . S I-< I-< il) ~ ~
'"d-tcS..o~ '0,
s::: 0;>-1:< 0 il) ~8
o ~ 0"'g~Q) s~ 0
U A U~U U
~!
~
1-
-
I
\
'1:j
a
~
()
.~
~
o
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
;....c
(])
.~
(])
c.:J
~
()
~
(])
....f-)
r.Jj
.~
r.Jj
~
o
U
00
~
.~
~
o
N
~
~
Q)
S
'"0
~
Q)
s
<
~
.~
Q)
~
.(1)
rJJ
~
~
cd
~
o
.~
~
.~
'"0
~
o
U
t-
Q)
;>
. ......
-+--l
C\$
a
Q)
-+--l
..--.
~
~
-+--l
. ......
~
-+--l
~ ..
Q) t:d}
~ ~
....... .......
00 ~
~ 0
0..--.
U ......-4
-+--l" c.8
00 Q)
Q)~
::s -+--l
cToo
Q) Q)
~ ;>
-+--l Q)
~ - . ......
Q)~
~ ~
~
Q)
s
C\$
~
~
u
~"
~
~
~
Q)
.,e
-+--l
~
~ .......
~~
o Q)
.,e-+--l
r/J ~
..--. 00
o Q)
~ ~
~
C\$
~
~
Q)
~
o
~
. ......
;>
~
~
~
a
~
u
. ......
~
o
~
~
C\$
~
~
~
~
. ......
s
~
Q)
......-4
OJ)
~
. ......
VJ
OJ)
~
. ......
"'0
~
::s
o
~
::s
00
Q)
~
~
~
~
.~
~
~
~
.~
~
.~
.D
.~
~
C\$
a
o
u
Q)
~
.D
C\$ Q)
= 00
o ::s
00 ~ rJ5
C\$ ro
Q) ....... ~
~~ 0
.. Q) .. ~
...... ""0 ...... 00
c:J . ...... c:J Q)
= 00 = ~
~~~~
~
C\$
~
Q)
~
Q)
u
~
~
o
~
...c:=
~
.~
~
~
u
~
Q)
~
00
.~
00
~
o
U
. .
~ N
~
~
Q)
~
o
N
~
I
o
~
OJ)
.S
a
Q)
;>
o
OJ)
Q)
..c:
~
~
o
00
~
o
. ......
~
C\$
~
::s
OJ)
Q)
~
Q)
~
~
...c:=
~
.~
~
~
u
~
Q)
tn ~
....... u
00 Q)
~ .~
o 2
u~~
u
..'~ ..
.... ~ ......
c:J ~ c:J
= . ...... =
~ 0 ~
00
Q)
;>
.~
~
u
Q)
.~
.D
o
~
~
C\$
00
~
C\$
o
OJ)
~
c.S
o
...c:=
r/)
~
o
~
00
~
Q).
Q)
s
. .
~ ~
~
~
bI)
.~
~
o
~
~
o
.~
~
C)
~'
~
c.8
~
00
(])
~
cr
(])
~
o
~
.-0
o
~
~
00 Q)
.~ ~
~ ~
~ 1::
o 0
-~ ~
~ ~
_~ 00
~ 0
~ ~
~ Q)
u
Q) ~
...c: (l)
~ '"0
Q) -,...-.4
U :;:>
o Q)
-~ ~
00 ~
.-0 -~
Q) ~
00 C])
00 ~
~
f"i Q)
~ ~oo
Q) fro
> ~ 0
~ -~
r"""4 "'~ 00 ~
~ ...., -~ u
00 ~ ~ C\:$
~ Q) \wi
~ ~ ~ on
~ g. 0 ~
~ ~ u-~
o 0 ~ ~
>() Q)~
;;;>Q)~~
~~ ~~
.
.
bI)
~
o~
~
d ~
Q) ~ 00
:::r:: ...... CI) ~
o · 0 E s::..3
;.:::: . s:: ~ "'0 0 ......
..0 ~ · 9 CI) s:: '.p t8
~ ~ "E:i >:S ~ ~ rJ)
~ Q) ~.~ d
] ~ ~ :> ~..;;::: rJ)
..... .S B 8.';;::: ~ g
Q) ~.~ ~ ~. Q) o.;j
~ ..... "'0 0.. !::,.q 0
o ga~~;;~
I oS 00 OQ.):~ 0
~ bl}~ 00 ~ C)
bI) ~~8~ ~
. S CI) :.a · .... ...... ~ ..;;:::
l-; ,.q s:: ..... ro .... :>-
ro ..... " .....E s:: ro ?-
Q) ~~ 0 0 00 ~
:::r:: ~ . ~ rJ)'.p s:: ro
.3 "€ rv ~ :.a .9 ~
...... rJ) CI) ......" s:: ..;;::: on
..0 ~ U ~ CI) 0 "'0 s::
::l 0 0 u >:S uS::' ;:::::
~ CI) ~ ..... ..... ..... l-; 0 0
CI) ~ 0 CI) 0.. 0.. ~ U ..;;:::
~~~~o~Oo~Q
~ Q.) \oJ "'0 ~ 0
:Q:-9 ~ >- ~ ~ (;5 'S: ~
o ...... ..... ?- ~
~ Q.) C)
~ Q ~ cd~' 0
o
.
,......j N ~
E!
~~
~
. .
~
-
~
I
rn
~
o
.~
~
.~
~
~
o
U ~
o
~ . ,.....(
Q) ~
~ ro
.~ .~
.~ ~
o .~
~~
~~
cB a
~
rJj
Q)
;::$
~
~
~
cd
~
7JJ
o
~
\D
~
.~
~
.~
,..c::
~
~
o
o
.~
~
::s
~
o
00
~
I
~
.@
Q)
~
Q)
00
~
~
cd
o
o
.~
~
.~ ~
""0 ~
o 0
o fr
U~
.
~-I
~
Q) Q)
~ :~
~ r.n
~I
~ ~
.~ 0
~ Q)
CD~
rJ) ~
.. ~ t'-
rJ:J U Q)
~ CD;> ~
o .o'.;:j 0
.~ ~ ro '"
~o~ME~
~Q)::
I ~ I.\J
('f')--c"'O
Z ~ ~ ~
.e q.5 1;;
~ O"'C ~
..;j Q) t;
~ ro ~ ~
Q) .~ 5 0
OJ} .~ rJ) ~
~('j ~ ~2 ..
~ ,..,.... O-c CD rJ)
"-'" \J Q) ~
. a ~ s 0
~ .~ ~
o ~ ".....-4
~ oro[5t.8
::tI:: '.;:j E C) 00
:.a 2;;:! ro
t:: ~ Cd t6 "'0
.9 R (!) 0'\ ~
-+-> '"' 00 ~ ~
.~ ~
"i:l . ~ ;::i""-< 0
r-4 ~ "'C '" .+-J
o ...... (!) bl) :>..
U .~ C).5 ~
s.g~ :.a
"i:l 0 (!) a 0
o · I-< 0.. ~
Q) --c
~
N
.
I
-
rfJ
~
o
.~
~
.~
'1j
.~
o ~
U 0
'1j .~
Q) 1d
~ b/J
.~ .~
'1j .~
o~
~'1j
~ ~
c.8 ~
+-J
r:rJ
0)
~
cr
0)
~
.Q) ~
,..Q u ~
.~ ~ t+== ~
~ 0 0 ~
rJJ l-<.J:: ~ d
Q) 0 ~ 0
.~ ~ rJJ Q) .~
"......-4 00 Q) ~ ~
~t~~~
d 0 rJJ 0 U
~~rJJ~~
o ~ .~ ~
c.> 0.013 ~
~ 1:: Q) t:
~ 0 ~.~ ~
l'- .~ ~ S Q)
~ .,.n.~
Q) ~ ~ ~ >
;> 00 Q) rJJ Q)
.~ ~ ~ ~
~ Q).~ ~ ~
~ ,..Q U ~ bIJ
a ~ 0"......-4 . ~
Q) ;....c rJJ"......-4 rJJ
~ ::i rJJ ;:g Q)
"......-4~cj~~
-< 0"......-4 " ~
~ cj bIJ ...,
. ~ .~,....c ~
o r- ~ ..... ~
~ ~ ~ .~ ~
~;>2~o
~ Q) 0 ~ t
~~~~cj
8~"'d~~
~~a~~
bIJ 00 ~(\ 0 >
o "'d ~"......-4 ;;;>
.~ 8.5 Q) Q)
~. ~ ~ ~ .~
~v~~"""
~ 0 ~ ~ ~
~ E ~t.8
Q) rrJ Q) ~
~ ~ ~ ,p
.00 0.00 bl) ~
I ~ I .~ ~
o 0 ~ ~ cj
O~O~tn
~~
o ~
.~ cO
Q)~"......-4
> ~ cO
.~ ~ u
~ u .+:j
I.V ~ U
a.~ cO
Q) U ~
~ Q) ~
duQ)
gf~ ]
~ > ~ .
~ ~ OJ)~
~.~ 0 p:)
Q) s ~ I
~.~ ~ ~
.00 ~ cO ~
I 0 ~ ,....c
o "......-4......
o ~ cO 0
~ d.~
~ tTj 0 cd
~ .~ bIJ
~ bl).~.~
~ ~ "0 .~
\I.j .~ "0 ~
~ ~ cO ~
cj tTj bl),..o
~ ~ ~ .~
Q) .~ >
~ N "0 ;;;>
o .~ "0 ~
~ S cO ~
o .~ ~ 2
r'I ?;S 0,00
~ I. V "......-4 . 00
~ s cO 0
U 0 ~ 0
.~ ~ u
o rJJ Q) Q)
~d~~
~bIJ~~
Q) .~ ~ .00
~ ~ :~ ~
~~~~
~;
~
~
-
~
rf1
~
o
.~
~
.~
~
~
o
U ~
o
~ .~
(]) ~
~ cd
.~ bJ)
~ .~
~ .~
O::E
::E~
~
c.8 8
~
rf1
(])
~
c:r
~
. .
00
~
o
~
~
c.8
rfl
cd
V
I
~
<
I
("'()
.
("'()
~
o
.~
~
cd
OJ)
.~
~
~
cO
.~
'"0
o
~
-I
~;
~
1n ~
~ 0
~ .~
~
~ Q) Q)
~ O~,..O~ ·
..q~.......s rJJ
~;..;gfo15a
~ Q) .~ () I'f"\ ~
o Q);"; "".......
. ...... ~ ;:j Of) d ........
....... . ...... ""d q ;::; ro
~ bO · ...... 0.. U
rJJ q .0 i$..9 >-.
~ Q) .~ 0 Q) .,rJ
2 q u........ :>
~ >ro 0 Q) ""d
. ...... ;;> 0.. ~ ""d Q)
Q) 0 ro ~
:> ~ U ""d q · ......
.C ""d ""d a.g ~
Qaas~~
:9rnOoo~Q)
,n;"; 0 rJJ
~ 0 ...::l ;..; Of) 0
lj:::; rJJ rJJ Q) q ..q
~ q Q) rJJ. ...... .......
U 0 bl) 0 "'0 Q)
~ 0.. q 0..;;::: ..0
fV'\ rn 0 ~' ~
J:::::.......U;:j"O~
-d ~ Q).9< ""d ~
:> .0' a ~ q rJJ
........ ;..; ........ ;:j ro rJJ
o:l 0.. d S Q) "E
~ Q) ~ Q) ""d ro
o ..q .8..q 0 ""d
;..;....... ....... d q
;:j >-. ~ ~ ;::; ro
;9..o~oetn
f-;1S""d&Of)bO
........ ;..; S ;:j · S · S
.o~~"O~
~ .~ 0 O,...-t 0
~ ,-... .~~.
I s= ~ ~ .~
~otna..oq
rrl S ro Q) 4-< 0
Q) ~O~
(1)
.,rJ
I
-.,
-
E
I~
00
~
0,
.~
~
.~
~
~
o
U ~
o
~ .~
(]) +-J
~ ro
. -J bIJ
~ .~
~ .~
o '
:;E:;E
~~
c.8 ~
~
00
Q)
~
cT
Q)
~
~
Q)
~ ~
o (1)
l-< ......... E
c.8 l-< ro
c.8 0 00
Q) 0 ..... ro
......... "'d Q) · ..... Q) ~
:9 .~ Q) S t:: ~ ro
00 00;> . ..... 0 0 Q)
1) 0 g ~ 2 i ~ g.V) ~
"~ ~ ~.=: 9: .~ "8 ~ ~ ]
l-< Q) ro W c..> ~ "'d ..... .....
0..:9 l-<U Q) ~ 0 0 0
~ E-< Q) 4-<...Q ti--l ~ ro g.. .....
CS]~~.S ~ ~~ Q)~,€
...Q ..... ro ro........ . ~ --::::.g E ;>
r:/l ~ ~ :> v 0 I.V I.V I.V 0
......... ro 00 0.Q) ......... So......... l-<
,~ g 5 ~ S ~ l-< ~ ] ~
>.1<.< . ..... 00 9< c..> 0 0 ro ..... ro
..... 0 '''' Q) ..... Q) Q) 4-< ~
] ~ 0 0 ~ Ol) 0 l-< 0.....
..... Ol) 0.. ..... 0 ro ro 0 riJ
..... 0 00..... Q) . ..... ......... "'d 0 Q)
ro 0 ..... c..>. 00 00 Q) 8 · ..... 0
S c..> c..>.~ ~ ~ ~ cE ~"s ~
"' l-<' ~..n "'0 0.. l-< Q) l-< ro
~ 0 0 ~ 0 l-< 00..... Q) l-<
" ..... ::::::, l-< 00 Q) 0 ..... ..... ;< ..... 0
S '"0 0.. ..." ~ ::::::, 00 00Q) Q) .......
o ....., Q) '"0 ..... "'d t/)
ro ].S Q) 0 S ~..~ 00 Q)
2 ;>-...... ~ ~ ro ~ .1:l ~ 0 ~
Q) ~ f"""4 0 r" ~ ~ cE~ C\$ ro
"'d . .......... 0 ~ ~ ..... ro .. --<
c..> 0:::::..... ~ c+:< U ..0 Q)
5: g,".g c.8 ~ bo ~ l-< ~ ~
b ro Q) Q)"C; 0 .~ oS c.8 U ~
L. c..> 00 ~.5 "~ ~ "~ ..... 0 0-
r' Q) li) ..... ......... r--.......... ;> . 00 Q) Q)
(1) E ~ ~o Q) "' ro !::l 0 00 O...Q "'d
.... w..... .... "" 0 w ..... ..... c..> :> ro
~ ........ " ..... ........;> Ol) ~ ~ 0 ;> ~
'"0 E "'d g ~".;j '00 c..> bo ~] ~"-
~ ,-+ ~.~ ~p actS ..1.._-' 0 f"""4 ~ ~ d .0
... ... "" ..... . ..... ';;;' > ..... " ,4-< 5 -
w ..... ~ ro "'d VJ ~ Q) "" 0 ... ......
00 Q) 1...... f"""4 0 Q) ~ 00 ......... Ol) d '-'
~ ~ ~:.8 ~ ~ ~ g :g' ~ ~"~ ~
.B 5< os s ..... -< ~ ~ am ~
ro Q) ____ 0 00 ~
U "'0 "'0 C) .
t.. ro :> ro ~
.....-oI~~
~ .~ co b
00
(1)
~
rn
$-(
(1),
~
(1)
OJ)
....
~
N....
~
I
~
~
N
.
('f')
f''':- ~
~
I
-
~
z ~.
o ~~.
~o~
rJ:}C'-l~
~ . .r-. r:/)
~.~ ~
~~~
osz~
u~z
(j~g
~O~
z~o
~~z
~u:l8
~~
z~~
oZ~
~~o
~O::r:
C:O~r:/)
1--1 ~
~ 0
~
In _
~~tt.... ~
liUd
~...
.....
0:;;'-
!~ ~~
ihUi
~ ~ -< i
iHi<<d. n
!~::l-:t:I::>tS" !!cl
~~;g~~~~~~!
!:a~~";":i""",ul
i:~ ..;: ol( t
~it ~ f
~l" 5~ c!
ffii~ L;~t ~l
~1 ~ h~~;; ~ II
~; 5~~""..?r:=~a:l
~! h",,~J)!lo/~...,
SI :i~~y.~~;~ ~g
~I. ~p.::!-r;'(;o&.~ t,
i:! "'...-_...~...."'...l
~r.
/,-
...,;........-....;' ..
~l/
---'''''--",--..;;::'
7-
~
i ~
:,~~t:;;;~~;:1 ~
. >j ~
I ~ ~
I~E
~ ~ ~
l~~
If
P-
i
S
tv_ S ~
~ .t;." ~;S~
!!! >--Ct;
i;;tU<
i~ir:ze
l:ll ~~~;;
~1 ~.oo
i&"
.:;I~~~
:>tl-..:;.w
~l~~g~~
t!~!i~~
Q'o.._--
~16~li~e
3!igi~"'~
~faEi~E
gi.":;
i'f~
'\~ Iii Ii IJ
e ~~ ~~ tC a t
i I~ II i. I t
ff~='~
I~. ~
,~ i
I~. ~.
: I'd I I i
li~~~~~l
~1~i.1 &1~
;\EB;.~ ~.-.,
\, ~ .
\ .~..
..,:. II.,
\,~
l\
\
\
\
\
'......
\
\
\
\
\
'\
I
~
c
CO
D-
O)
~
CJ)
0)
>
--
~
CO
So..-
~
en
::J
-.-~
~(
t~
_._-E__~~
L ~TE Mt'!
"'"
Ii
I
[OJ IE (G IE 0 Vi 1;;0. .it-, i'
["U !.~~ 2 fl 2006 ~I
Bradford C. Tardy
Architecr
257 Karen Way
libmon, CA 94920
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
April 24.2006
Town of Tiburon
Planning Department
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon. CA 94920
Sent via fax to 435.2438
Dear Planning Department,
KoJ Shofar's proposed project and requested change of use is completelv inaD'Dfonriate for our neiebborbood!
The proposed project and .change of use fails to harmoniously meet Ihe needs of our residential neighborhood
generally and more specifically in the following ways:
1. . The use permit changes allow for far too many social gathering by far too many people on too many days
too late at night. I am in favor of the use permit remaining as is, NO CHANGESl They have been a good
neighbor to date. A change of use as requested by Kol Shofar will destroy our quiet use of enjoyment of
[)ur homes. Please do not anow this to happen. Our nights are peaceful.... please keep them that way.
2. BuDdinC additions - the size of the .auditorium, kitchen, multi-purpose room, schooJ classrooms and other
structures are far too large and are completely out of context with the surrounding residentiaJ
neighborhood. The ~xisting buildings overall usable squ~ footage should Dot be increased. The
usable area should be restticted lo what is there no~.. NO.e~ANGES!
3. Parking - The proposed addition of 22 Dew pa~ng --SpellS on &ite for this .size of a project is absolutely
outrBgeousand insulting! It is not acceptable to dump all C1f automobiles into my neighborl1ood and in
front of my hoose. Do not let this happen. It is honible planning. .
4. High School- The addition of new classrooms is needed for Ko) Shofar to house a private High School.
They had a private high school in the facility a couple of years ago but they left because Kol Shofar was too
small. Kol Shofar was never designed as B High School and again. . ~ a High School is not appropriate fit
for our neighborhood. Please do not approve the expansion. A smaU school Dse is acceptable but not a
I8.rge one.
5. Good Neighbors - Kot Shofar has been a good neighbor 'until they decided t[) do this grossly oversized and
non contextual expansion. They have sent out infonnation to the neighborhood misrepreSenting the size of
the project, the need for the project, and how they will use tbe project. Their audacious and flagrant lack of
honesty is an abomination.
6. Property V Blues - I am convinced that the value of my property will go down due to the severely
inCreased use of a civic center type facility one block from my house. Do not allow our property values to
drop.
Conclusion - This project has no redeeming value. It is 8 proposed large private institutional eODuDunity
center in the middle of a sublime, quiet and tranquil neighborhood. This project wOl destroy the
context of th~ neigbborhood, the peace and enjoyment of our lands and homes and endangers Clur
children by increase traffic. This is not good planoing. Do not allow this proposal to be passed.
-k~
\ \ ~ ,,\- L ,-,,(2 4?\/'--" ,
tl 7k.
'i Le /' C ('. - 'J J ,(1~
~-u (~'(V.....-<
rj ~ . ~\..)-/I f'-'\ ',-~
t i~ !~- '(".J4-~ L
YV'-Jv L- "" . ;
EXHIBI'T' Mn!J
4.;;-""'...
. ..'
HEBREW UNION COLLEGE - JEWISH INSTITUTE OF RELIGION
~ ~. .......f~ ~r ~ --:
... .- c ~...,. '."
,
~~ 1.:' ~ 7= --;c
Irlrt<,.? w..:.;,. ~;..
;~ ~~ ~. ?'
~:. -.;;.,.. ~~' '~. ~
. l .- ....} ;. .
-....,_ ......-1".. '-.f ___~:.
r
April 15, 2006
Rabbi Lavey Derby
Congregation Kol Shofar
215 Blackfield Road
Tiburon CA 94920
Dear Lavey,
I am writing in response to your inquiry regarding the prospects for congregational growth at
Congregation KoI Shofar, based on 2004 Jewish Population Survey of Sonoma, Marin, San
Francisco and. the Peninsula. As a gesture of appreciation for all your support in the early
phases of the study, 1 put together a special analysis directed at your congregation which
augments the more general findings in the published report
I am disappointed to report that prospects for your congregational growth are negligible at
best. I come to this pessimistic conclusion for the following reasons:
1. Most of the households that identify as Conservative but are not affiliated have lived
in Marin County for 15 years or more. If they were planning to join, they would have
already.
2. Jews moving into Marin since 1990 overwhelmingly identified either as Reform or as
"no religion." By contrast, Conservative identified Jews who are recent migrants to
the Bay Area moved to comm unities on the Peninsula.
3. The Conservative identified Jews in Marin who do not currently belong to a
synagogue are all intermarried. Synagogue affiliation among intermarried Jewish
households is low in all five counties studied.
4. Finally, the great majority of unaffiliated Conservative.identified Jews who are
intermarried in Marin are not raising their children in Judaism. Thus, they have
little motivation to join a synagogue.
This is explained further in the attached report.
All the Best,
~ J,/""J
/---, '
".' -~ ~~-t.
..../F ·
/VJ~
;7,--_
Bruce A. Phillips, PhD
Professor of Sociology and Jewish Communal Studies
J c:f pC
Qece:lvct "-
4-~4-0~
Mk-Q ~
. Los Angeles
3077 University Avenue
Los Angeles. CA 90007-3796
(213) 749.3424
fax (213) 747-6128
'f.'
EXHmIT NO.~
CURRICULUM VITAE
EDUCATION
Bruce A. Phillips, Ph.D.
1975 Ph.D. in Sociology,.University of CaI ifomi a, Los Angeles
1971 BA in Sociology, Magna Cum Laud, with Department Honors,
Brandeis University, Waltham, MA.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
1980-Present PROF~SSOR OF JEWISH COMMUNAL SERVICE,
Hebrew Union College, Los Angeles
1976-1980 RESEARCH DIRECTOR, Jewish Federation Council of
Greater Los Angeles
PUBLICATIONS AND PAPERS
1982a
1982b
1983
1984a
1984b
1984c
The Research Needs of the Local Jewish community: Current
Trends and New Directions," in Marshall Sklare (ed.),
Understanding American Jewry, Transaction Books.
"An Information System for the Social Casework Agency: A
Model and Case Study, Administration in Social Work (with
Bernard Dimsdale and Ethel Taft).
"Intermarriage and Jewish Fertility," paper presented at the
Association for Jewish Studies, Boston.
"Sampling Strategies in Jewish community Studies, in Steven
M. Cohen, Jonathan S. Woocher, and Bruce Phillips (eds).
Perspectives in Jewish Population Research, Boulder,
Westview Press.
"Data Collection Procedures in Random Digit Dialing
Screening Studies: Interviewers and Respondents," in Steven
M. Cohen, Jonathan S. Woocher, and Bruce Phillips (eds).
Perspectives in Jewish Population Research, Boulder,
Westview Press (with Eve Weinberg).
"Exploring Possibilities for Follow-up Studies of Jewish
Communal Studies," in Steven M. Cohen, Jonathan S.
Woocher, and Bruce Phillips (eds). Perspectives in Jewish
Population Research, Boulder, Westview Press.
Bruce A. Phillips
1985a
1985b
1986
1987
1988a
t988b
1989
1990a
1990b
1992
1994
1995a
1995b
2
"Designing Community Population Studies that are Used: A
Model for Decision-Making," Journal of Jewish Communal
Service, Summer, Vol. 61, No.4.
"The Consumer Reports: The Hiring of Entry Level Jewish
Communal Workers," Journal of Jewish Communal Service,
Winter. .
"Los Angeles Jewry: A Demographic Profile," American
Jewish Year Book, Vol 86.
"Denominational Differences Among American Jews," paper
presented at the Association for Jewish Studies, Boston.
"Jewish Education asa Communal Activity," Journal of Jewish
Communal Service, Spring (with Michael Zeldin).
"The Feminization of Jewish Communal Service," Journal of
Jewish Communal Service, Winter (with Rita Lowenthal).
"Factors Associated with Intermarriage in the Western United
States, Papers inJewish Demography, 1985, Jerusalem
Institute of Contemporary Jewry, Hebrew University.
"Regional Differences Among American Jews," Papers in
Jewish Demography, 1989, Jerusalem, Institute of
Contemporary Jewry, Hebrew University.
. "A Sociological Perspective on Jewish Identity," David Gordis
& Yoav Ben-Horin (eds.),Jewish Identity, Los Angeles,
Wilstein Institute for the Study of Jewish Policy
(Forthcoming).
"Migration Patterns of Israelis in the United States, " Paper
Presented at the International Geographical Union, Los
Angeles.
& peter Friedman, "The 1990 Chicago Metropolitan Area
Jewish Population Study." Contemporary Jewry 15: 39-66.
"Mobility Among Eastern European Jews" in Reuben Rumbaut
and Slyvia Pedraza (eds), A Reader in Race and Ethnicity
(with Steve Gold). New York. Wadsworth
"The Iranian Jewish Family." Journal of Jewish Communal
Service Spring, 1995
Bruce A. Phillips
1996a
1996b
1998
2005a
2005b
2005c
2006a
2006b
BOOKS
3
"Identity and Social Structural Factors in Jewish
Intermarriage"in David Gordis and Y oav Ben-Borin (eels.)
Studies from the 1990 National Jewish Population Study.
IIlsraelis in the United States II in David Singer and Ruth Seldin
(eds.) American Jewish Year Book, 1996
"Children of Intermarriage: How 'Jewish'T' Coping with Life
and Death: Jewish Families in the Twentieth Centurv. P.
Medding.( ed). New York, Oxford University Press.
"American Judaism in the 21 st Century" Dana Kaplan (ed.) The
Canibridge Companion to American Judaism. New York.
Cambridge University Press
"Catholic (and Protestant) Israel: The Permutations of
Denominational Differences and Identities in Mixed Families"
in Eli Lederhendler (ed.) Studies in ContempOrary Jewry
AnnuaL Vol. XXI, Oxford University Press
"Assimilation, Transformation, and the Long Range Impact of
Intermarriage." Contemporary Jewry . Vol. 25 pp 50-74.
"Negotiating the Fault-lines: Jews in the Social Ecology of Los
Angeles, ~~ Casden Institute Annual, University. of Southern
California (forthcoming).
"American Jewry in the 21st Century A Demographic Profile
(forthcoming in the American Jewish Year Book)
1991 Brookline: The Evolution of a Jewish American Suburb, 1915-
1940, New Y or~ Garland Press.
1997 Re-Examining Intermarriage, Brookline, MA. Wilstein
Institute,
Manuscript Whv Not? American Jewish Intermarriage (submitted for
publication)
Bruce A. Phillips
4
DEMOGRAPIDC AND PLANNING STUDIES CONDUCTED
1979 Los Angeles Jewish Population Study.
1981 San Francisco South Peninsula Jewish Community Center
Feasibility Study
1982a Las Vegas Jewish Population Study
1982b Denver Jewish Popul.ation Study
1984a Phoenix Jewish Population Study
1984b Milwaukee Jewish Population Study
1985 Marin County Jewish Community Center Feasibility Study
1987 Houston Jewish Population Study
1989 Survey of Jewish Educators in Los Angeles
1991 Chicago Jewish Population Study
1993 National Survey on Mixed Marriage
1997 Survey of Reform Jewish Educators
1998 Evaluation Survey Open Charter School, Los Angeles, CA.
1999-2002 Analyses of Voter Primary and Election Results Data for the
Genethia Hayes for School Board Campaign
2000 Survey of Hebrew Union College Alumni
2000 Seattle Jewish Population Survey
2004 Jewish Population Survey-San Francisco, Sonoma, Marin, and
the Peninsula
Bruce A. Phillips
5
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND CURRENT AND PREVIOUS COMMUNITY POSITIONS
Board Member, Southern California Jewish Historical Society
Past Board member ,Association for the Social Scientific Study of Jewry
Contributing Editor, ContempOrary Jewry
Association of Jewish Community Organization Personnel
Member of the National Technical Advisory Committees to the 1990 National Jewish
Population Survey of the Council of Jewish Federations and the Year 2000 National Jewish
. Population Survey of the Council of Jewish Federations
Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles: Urban Affairs Task Force of the
Community Relations Committee~ Task Force on Immigration, Metropolitan Region; Task
Force on Affiliation, Task Force on the Jewish Family, Council on Jewish Life, Research
Advisory Committee
April 24, 2006
Kol Shofar Hearing - Planning Commission
1. Good evening, I am Jerry Thayer. I have lived at 158 Blackfield Drive for the last 23
years.
Previously, I have served on the Planning Commission and on the Town Council. In
1991 my colleagues did me the honor of designating me to serve a one year term
as Mayor and on three other occasions to serve one year terms as Vice Mayor.
2. Mr. Harris has done a fine job identifying major defects in the review of environmental
impacts caused by this project.
3. In addition, the numerous letters and communications you have received from_
neighborhood residents overwhelmingly demonstrate that the proposed enlargement of
the facility and the inevitable increased level. of use, are materially out of character with the
neighborhood.
4. I hand you a set of photographs taken by my neighbor on Oct. 16, 2005 just after 6pm.
during a HHD service. The pictures show a clogged condition of cars parked all the way up
Blackfield Drive, on Karen Way and on Via Los Altos. The increased level of use the
enlarged, modernized facility will attract will make the undesirable impacts on the
neighborhood worse. -
5. Here is a package of a petition with 175 signatures of neighbors opposing the enlarged
facility. These signatures were collected by going door to door and reflect the considered
feelings of those who signed.
6. The TNC and those who signed the petition do not oppose the renovation of the
existing facility so long as it remains in the existing foot print and does not exceed existing
levels of use.
7. If the current application is approved, the major enlargement of the facility and the
inevitable increased level of use it will. attract, will irrevocably reduce the quality of life for
those who live in the neighborhood.
8. This application should be denied. The applicant should be advised to submit plans to
remodel their facility within the existing foot print that will accomodate no more than the
existing level of use.
Thank you,
Jerry Thayer
EXHIBIT NO.~
12(((~VL'/?i PC-
(t'\+3 4(.} Y/ {J0~ n-
Petition Ol!Posin~ Temple Kol Shofar's Conditional Use
Permit Awlication
t7i"
Attached are 18 pages, consisting ot:,m signatures of the immediate neighbors of Kol
Shofar. They oppose the addition of the proposed "multi-purpose room". These
signatures were collected by the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition (rnC).
Please take this petition into consideration while making your decision.
~ ea,'. ..; t' cl jb Lt- J 4c~ Joob
'r t <.: ,.,.', '^ 0 C ftA. ,.,.,:;. H ,e."-
~ i'<:.-\:i J.. .'\
,.-+-
Petition Opposing T ample Kol Shofar's Conditional Use Permit Application
March 2006
To the Town of Tiburon's P.lanning Commission and Town Council
As Tiburon residents, we oppose the magnitude of the proposed expansion and remodel of
Temple Kol Shofar and its Conditional Use Permit Application. The project does not
comply with the Tiburon General Plan ~nd Parking Zoning Code and. there are significant
unmitigable impacts associated with the expansion. The project would negatively impact
our quality of life in terms of safety, traffic, parking, noise, and lighting. It is not in harmony
and compatible with our residential community.
We support the remodel and modernization of the existing facility as long as traffic, parking,
circulation, safety, noise, light pollution and water run off are compatible with existing
conditions. The Tiburon Town Council and Planning Commission should deny the project
as proposed and require the temple to revise its application to create a project that would
mitigate negative impacts as well as enhance and contribute to the fabric of the existing
residential neighborhood.
Name
Address
Telephone/Email
~<?15
~''1~
~-u ~L
P ease return all petitions to Yvonne Thurmond, 30 Paseo Mirasol, 435-
Petition Opposina T empte Kol Shofar's Conditional Use Permit Application
. March 2006
To the Town of Tiburon's Planning Commission and Town Council
As Tiburon. residents, we oppose the magnitude of the proposed expansion and remodel of
Temple Kol Shofar and 'its Conditional Use Permit Application. The project does not
comply with the Tiburon General Plan and Parking Zoning Code and there are significant
unmitigable impacts associated with the expansion. The project would negatively impact
our quality of life in terms of safety, traffic, parking, noise, and lighting. It is not in harmony
and compatible with our res"idential community.
We support the remodel and modernization of the existing facility as long as traffic, parking,
circulation, safety, noise, light pollution and water run off are compatible with existing
conditions. The Tiburon Town Council and Planning Commission should deny the project
as proposed and require the temple to revise its application to create a project that would
mitigate negative impacts as well as enhance and contribute to the fabric of the existing
residential neighborhood.
Name
Address
TelephonelEmail
~'E;L/-Icf b
31-&' - I L-/ 7 3
3m-SLJ~
~t - S 5
3?Y: CJ//
3g1 f]20C(
.1 (1- t, 2.-oc,
---
- If' /2."
return all petitions to ~n~ ~
Petition Opposina Temple Kol Shofar's Conditional Use Permit Application
March 2006
To the Town of Tiburon's Planning Commission and Town Council
As Tiburon residents, we oppose the magnitude of the proposed expansion and remodel of
Temple Kol Shofar and its Conditional Use Permit Application. The project does not
comply with the Tiburon General Plan and Parking Zoning Code and there are significant
unmitigable impacts associated with the expansion. The project would negatively impact
our quality of life "in terms of safety, traffic, parking) noise, and lighting. It is not in harmony
and compatible with our residential community.
We support the remodel and modernization of the existing facility as long as traffic, parking,
circulation) safety, noise, light pollution and water run off are compatible with existing
conditions. The Tiburon Town Council and Planning Commission should deny the project
as proposed and require the temple to revise its application to create a project that would
mitigate negative impacts as well as enhance and contribute to the fabric of the existing
"residentia~ neighborhood.
Name
Address
"
k (-"" .-
.1/ ; l-<'
16+ BLRC.kFIELb DRlV
151-/3 ("hcJj'])~
II /1 II
~td
IJY/
Telephone/Email
/J.C:A7 'C/V' 0 c
:;J 0 [, - /I v /'^- -----J
LJ C?- f..?-::- / /
~ C/ (7 (./)L, k;(/ '7
--.J _J \C/
~ 0" ~ - ? / "
'"'; ()) - (1?Y f
383-- 5858
Please return all petitions to Yvonne Thurmond, 30 Paseo Mirasol, 435-8424 by March 28
Retition'C)pposinQ.'tentPleKlof.'.ShofarsConditionaJ.UseRermitApplication
Marcn2DOO
,;oh_'ToWn,,'of.Tiburon's"'Ptannit1gCdmmi~ior1.an~" ToWn'. Council
e"~f:'.~~~"er~p(;)~d-'e'CI~Si~~.'ang"..,,.e"!odel of
. . J~I~fJ~.j'J)~:';P~~j~i~srn~t
b:ur~~~eJie~.<'.~.fatll ..... ..... ... .'; .c!~e'~m~.:th~j'~r~$~nifiean1
'........ ....aSSDciatett...wifn..~~..elq)~~s1~n~.......3htac..pr();~ct.,Vil(j~td".f'le~~*lve,IY':irnpact
..................~,i~ltermsQfo.saf~1}1}tr?l1fIC~,.~rkirlg,. noi~eJ arto.figtfting....ltis.nof..in.harmony
. ... .Mtble'wi'thourresiderttial"oommunity.
'f!t!:~..~~...'~..,..... rr~11lodetand.mOdemiZil~of,.tbeexi$tit)g"fa~Uitya$,..IOJ'lg'.a$.,.tr~ffic-j ...parking,
riir~ijl~an,'u. ...,.... .... ...'irioiset...li~btpall.rt"Cl~~r.~.flOff'.;:lre'cQrgpatiDlewftbexiSting
. 'c~.. -. . . :~.JJm.'. .J~uron'[own"Q~~.~r""~tl~.~-""'flirlg"~~njis~i9~-~htlnldd~JlM..tb~proJect
as. ..., .. .. '.@~'..'r~1J..i,.ettu~terrJPJ~:.t9:,. ...:, . .. .' ...(~ ..... ... ......()ntoi"7~t~.~.pr~J~;~a.t}Notdd
rn~ig_ ' :-,jrtlpa~sas..well.a~'~JrJtl.an~~lld'~ontriotJtet9.tne-fabri<:0ftne~exjsting
res" . bomood. .
':'~~me
1
J
j
1
I
!
I
!
I
1
---
i
!
i
Piease return all petitWrLf; to Yvonne 71m1'1nona, 30 Paseo Mira:wl, 435-8424 by March 28
Petition Opposina Temple Kol Shofar's Conditional.Use Permit Application
March 2006
To the Town of Tiburon's Planning Commission and Town Council
As Tiburon residents~ we oppose the magnitude of the proposed expansion and remodel of
Temple Kol Shofar and its. Conditional Use Permit Application. The project does not
comply with the Tiburon General Plan and Parking Zoning Code and there are significant
unmitigable impacts associated with the expansion. The project would negatively impact
our quality of life in terms of safety, traffic, parking, noise, and lighting. It is not in harmony
and compatible with our residential community.
We support the remodel and modernization of the existing facility as long as traffic, parking,
circulation, safety, noise, light pollution and water run off are compatible with existing
conditions. The Tiburon Town Council and Planning Commission should deny the project
as proposed and require the temple to revise its application to create a project that would
mitigate negative impacts as well as enhance and contribute to the fabric of the existing
residential neighborhood.
Name
Address
Telephone/Email
, ,
Jrfv l{i S
3~3- 3
83'- )
3<61.97Cl )
~~
~ lcl s.sty +-
"3 08.-( 3C\
c,'
~~{fel\- fYrtf9L
~rJ O~S~
Please return all petitions to Yvonne Thurmond, 30 Paseo Mirasol, 435-8424 by March 28
Petition Opposina Temple Kol Shofar's Conditional Use Permit Application
March 2006
To the Town of Tiburon's Planning Commission and Town Council
As Tiburon residents, we oppose the magnitude of the proposed expansion and remodel of
Temple Kol Shofar and its Conditional Use Permit Application. The project does not
comply with the Tiburon General Plan and Parking Zoning Code and there are significant
unmitigable impacts associated with the expansion. The project would negatively impact
our quality of life in terms of safety, traffic, parking, noise, and lighting. It is not in harmony
and compatible with our residential.community.
We support the remodel and modernization of the existing facility as long as traffic, parking,
circulation, safety, noise, light pollution and water run off are compatible with existing
conditions. The Tiburon Town Council and Planning Commission should deny -the project
as proposed and require the temple to revise its application to create a proj~ct'1hat would
mitigate negative impacts as well as enhance and contribute to the fabric ofihe existing
residential neighborhood.
Name
Address
l)rlA1-:> T AfGDy
S-7 i~ ltJN
'Z-~
--
\ r-.
_\
~ .
" \~
. .. _._.}~\J.J
\ ~ -.......,.............'-..... -
"3 >, (t.~ lIe (A \A; {
r-
c:2 .S-:S
'-.-'
Telephone/Email
4 I D\ 3 ~ t . II 0 I
~~A I~J5
3 t>~/ f{" --- 0 J>;j-- 7
,5150 - 8,~;: ,9
3JQ~ jb ~
-?g~l'-'oy~{
3 (1 OJ r-bCJos
, gci-- 0
)YL/ - & {( l
,
I
r
g8 0fbb
Please return all petitions to Yvonne Thurmond, 30 PaseoMirasol, 435-8424 by March 28
Petition OpposinQ Temple Kol Shofar's Conditional Use Permit A,pplication
March 2006 -
To the Town of Tiburon's Planning Commission and Town Council
As Tiburon residents, we oppose the magnitude of the proposed expansion and remodel of
Temple Kol Shofar and its Conditional Use Permit Application. The project does not
comply with the Tiburon General Plan and Parking Zoning Code and there are significant
unmitigable impacts associated with the expansion. The project would negatively impact
our quality of life in terms of safety, traffic, parking, noise, and lighting. It is not in harmony
and compatible with our residential community.
We support the remodel and modernization of the existing facility as long as traffic, parking,
circulation, safety, noise, light pollution and water run off are compatible with existing
conditions. The Tiburon Town Council and Planning Commission should deny the project
as proposed and require the temple to revise its application to create a project that would
mitigate negative impacts as well as enhance and contribute to the fabric of the existing
residential neighborhood.
Name
Address
Telephone/Email
~ --~ f}'~ i 7 / ~ ~J4f.L
. ;L 11~~ I/~:L,
p~~
fa. PO-4R-o ~
7? -P. =:tJ.
.-/ .0
,:>5l~
~ \1 \ ~ ~.--.J ~'V rV:..-J~
24 V, t.. ~c..~~ c.~.1.-~
r
~
4.:sS-2"3
~~/'?S"- 7-7/7
c;3S O~:Y-6
,.. ~ (tj~
~~ 91'93
755- 5'3 @
ff?- 2Y'"L 5
I<?~ -~o2-
l{3 ~r'S-c, n-
~
1-.
S -"3)/
~s- -4:L 11
Please return all petitions to Yvonne Thurmond, 30 Pas eo Mirasol, 435-8424 by March 28
Petition Opposina Temple Kol Shofar's Conditional Use Permit Application
March 2006
To the Town of Tiburon's Planning C.ommission and Town Council
As Tiburon residents, we oppose the magnitude of the proposed expansion and remodel of
Temple Kol Shofar and its Conditional Use Permit Application. The project does not
comply with the Tiburon General ,Plan and Parking Zoning Code and there are significant
unmitigable impacts associated with the expansion. The project would negatively impact
our quality of life in terms of safety, traffic, parking, noise, and lighting. It is not in harmony
and compatible with our residential community.
We support the remodel and modernization of the existing facility as long as traffic, parking,
circulation, safety, noise, light pollution and water run off are compatible with existing
conditions. The Tiburon Town Council and Planning Commission should deny the project
as proposed and require the temple to revise its application to create a project that would
mitigate negative impacts as well as enhance and contribute to the fabric of the existing
residential neighborhood.
Name
Address
.~~"/' // r...--- h .I ~} ., '
"' a--/u-- It) ../ vl/ c,J,U{'l.j
.:L,;L a 'l) 1Jt'1M/'
~r~. .S-e;"> )"'1 J Y'-tj.:.) I
(V7 I" t..:;4 ,
_-_~._ .; ..----" '#f r- -.
{.~~~ <.. "-,.~~-4--'\,.../
[ .
(\ ''''\ ^ ........ ; )
., \. ; .J _
K'i(~ >0
I
Telephone/Emaif
4-~~S - ~:;Gl\, ~
'")-
20
Cj.'?, ):-. 97.7 c-.
tf>f=- 3/ tV
( t
t {
/ 1'''' t .' ,-"I -J
-(~; -/~/ ) ~)
Lt"6S - 6to~
4.
p
~J) bO
Please return all petitions to Yvonne Thurmond, 30 Paseo Mirasol, 435-8424 by March 28
Petition OpposinQ Temple Kol Shofar's Conditional Use Permit Application
March 2006
To the Town of Tiburon's Planning Commission and Town Council
As Tiburon residents, we oppose the magnitude of the proposed expansion and re~odel of
Temple Kol Shofar and its Conditional Use Permit Application. The project does not
comply with the Tiburon General Plan and Parking Zoning Code and there are significant
unmitigable impacts associated with the expansion. The project would negatively impact
our quality of life in terms of safety, traffic, parking, noise, and lighting. It is not in harmony
and compatible with our residential community.
We support the remodel. andmodemization of the existing facility as long as traffic, parking,
circulation, safety, noise, light pollution and water run off are compatible with existing
conditions. The Tiburon Town Council and Planning Commission should deny the project
as proposed and require the temple to revise its application to create a project that would
mitigate negative impacts as well as enhance and contribute to the fabric of the existing
residential neighborhood.
Name
Address
Telephone/Email
3
~
1&9 - c), 4lt
^/3S-- cy
Sl.i~~ ~\- c r
;J~~~
'1 ('4./
tf .J-/l?~ttJ '{,It t;~~fJ.
2- u~k~~s
} (Jft;GA
l~( ~ (".
Please return all petitions to Yvonne Thurmond, 30 Paseo Mirasol, 435-8424 by March 28
Petition Opposina Temple Kot Shofar's Conditional Use Permit Application
March 2006
To the Town of Tiburon's Planning Commission and Town Council
As Tiburon residents, we oppose the magnitude of the proposed expansion and remodel of
Temple Kol Shofar and its Conditional Use Permit Application. The project does not
comply with the liburon General. Plan and Parking Zoning Code and there are significant
unmitigable impacts associated with the expansion. The project would negatively impact
our quality .of life in,terms of safety, traffic, parking, noise, and lighting. It is not in harmony
and compatible with our residential community.
We support the remodel and modernization of the existing facility as long as traffic, parking,
circulation, safety, noise, light pollution and water run off are Compatible with existing
conditions, The Tiburon' Town Council and Planning Commission should deny the project
as proposed and require the temple to revise its application to create a project that would
mitigate negative impacts as well as enhance and contribute to the fabric of the existing
residential neighborhood.
Name Address T elephone/Email
K;A~ ,.,foe I !~ 10 C) l"t" fa ~ A). '-' ~ ~3.-.;>g 3 (1II:c,6t;/(; e"cJ./ I
,(" / 5 ,..'!::~ y')" {~1 VI f'Y}(/ I'H' l?..-
J lA st\ V\ ~f (f'\ (J,." i L~ Cry) '5 R--!r" Ie () I 43;; - &L,,-l L'7 ( .r.,"fVl (. ....": <
Jcnn/=ter Hull 3~ · k.)?d &J,,~~ - --
Pd7/ns{.,IQ .
---~ L S /, '("? c- t> --'-:;>1 I~/. 7 ~1-1/ () I
. i" :5 \.0! iJt'/
id (C'.1-" /C-
I
/
(c" I . C.iJ/"v1
.>+' . n-e.-{-
Please return all petitions to Yvonne Thurmond, 30 Paseo Mirasol, 435-8424 by March 28
Petition Opposing Temple Kol Shofar's Conditional Use Permit ApDlication
March 2006
To the Town of Tiburon's Planning Commission and Town Council
As Tiburon residents, we oppose the mqgriitude of the proposed expansion and remodel of
Temple. Kol Shofar and its Conditional Use Permit Application. The project'does not
comply with the Tiburon General Plan and Parking Zoning Code and there are significant
unmitigable impacts associated with the expansion. The project would negatively impact
our quality of life in terms of safety, traffic, parking, noise, and lighting. It is not in harmony
and compatible with our residential community.
We support the remodel and modernization of the existing facility as long as traffic, parking,
circulation, safety, noise, light pollution and water run off are compatible with existing
conditions. The Tiburon Town Council and Planning Commission should deny the project
as proposed and require the temple to revise its application to create a project that would
mitigate negative impacts as well as enhance and contribute to the fabric of the existing
residential neighborhood.
Name Address T elephone/Email
--
I ^ .~: . ( I -.- Cp,k7-~
'I! t; f L~ 15 jj /1.-./\ iLL..: i -J,rGt u >> / lt/5 -~1~ l-I. -7ff.()
~,d. irJ.... J ..
.
.
Please return all petitions to Yvonne Thurmond, 30 Paseo Mirasol, 435-8424 by March 28
Petition Op'posinQ Temple Kol Shofar's Conditional Use Permit Application
March 2006
To the Town of Tiburon's Planning Co.mmission and Town Council
As Tiburon residents, we oppose the magnitude of the proposed expansion and remodel of
Temple Kof Shofar and its Conditional Use Permit Application. The project does not
comply with the Tiburon General Plan and Parking Zoning Code and there are significant
unmitigable impacts associated with tne expansion. The project would negatively impact
our quality of life in terms of safety, traffic, parking, noise, and lighting. It is not in harmony
and compatible with ourresidential community.
We support the remodel and modernization of the existing facility as long as traffic, parking,
circulation, safety, noise, light pollution and water run off are compatible with existing
conditions. The Tiburon Town Council and Planning Commission should deny the project
as proposed and require the temple to revise its application to create a project that would
mitigate negative impacts as well as enhance and contribute to the fabric of the existing
residential neighborhood.
Name
Address
Telephone/Email
U&~ST LcO 'I
'It; lli,4 !. 0.5 ,4L-7o.s
/ I t.it;. (cd lJ /Ju 1
/0/ U~Uf :1L/-dJ
gS-lJI*~s 'ALToS
'5/ 1//4 t.us ~l-z.1
.PJ2
?~t g'd'~ 1-,
331 ~(}Y3
tj}\--qc/1jJ
6f-r-6fri
(OC( 7~LI(~{/L
;1-b3 CE:t)LI/f-w,
Please return 0/1 petilions to Yvonne Thurmond, 30 Paseo Mirasol, 435-8424 by March 28
Parking for Kol Shofar Rosh Hashanah Services
on Tuesday 10/4/2005 from 11 :30 a.m. to 11 :50 a.m. -
At Paseo Mirasollooking ~own Blackfield
toward Kol Shofar
At Via Los Atlos looking North up"Stacifield,
Kol Shofar at left
Above Kof Shofar looking down Via Los Altos
At Via Los Atlos looking South down BlaCkfield
.f~'~~ ..: ~'. ~~. _if:. -..... "'~':"";:::;:'~~..i.:;.j.:.~!.".':'.-..:'-"'~~'',.':'''"!''''-
.:;;.. i~ 1.~~~~.~tlf~~~.z-mi~~~~$;~~i?~:=~~:i:<:.~'';~'';:'''~~''.~, -
At Blackfield looking up Via Los Atlos,
Kol Shofar on right
"Shuttle" parking at Westminster Presbyterian Church at
11 :49am - a few cars used the Shuttle Service "'
EXHIBIT NO. ~\...
Submitted by John Nygren to Tiburon Planning Commission at meeting on 4/24/2006
Page 1 - / ') " nil I
() ~ "/l 1,,1 . L (/1 ~ rTc.i
K-tL"C,(V((;l tJL v L,. ,.--t-
/. /) (.. . .J
~f~'-f 0~- ~
Parking for Kat Shofar Yom Kippur Services
on Wednesday 10/12/2005 from 6:55 p.m. to 7:20 p.m.
At Paseo Mirasollooking down Blackfieid
toward Kol Shofar .
At Blackfield looking up Via Los Altos,
Kol Shofar on right
Blackfield at Karen Way looking North toward
Kol Shofar at back left
Above Kol Shofar looking down Via L<?s Altos
"Shuttle" parking at Westminster Presbyterian Church
at 6:55pm - Shuttle Service not used
Submitted by John Nygren to Tiburon Planning Commission at meeting on 4/24/2006
Page 2
Tiburon Planning Commission
April 24th EIR and CUP Review
Size comparisons:
1. Kol Shofar proposal-1,624 person capacity. As stated in Figure 5 of the DEIR,
Kol Shofar's multi purpose room would be 9,733 square feet and would seat 848
people (642 people in the main room and an additional 256 people in the lobby).
Additionally, sanctuary improvement will allow seating for 550 people with an
additional 226 people in the lobby/hallway. Overall size. of Kol Shofar's proposed
facility is 57,146 square feet (vs. 43,7p1 square feet today). With all of this seating
capacity, there are only 139-145 proposed parking spots.
2. Marin Center Veteran's Memorial Auditorium - 1,950 person capacity. This is
the only facility in Marin County that would be larger than Kol Shofar's proposed
expansion. This facility has 550 dedicated parking spaces on site plus another 368
parking spaces for the Events Center.
3. Mill Valley Community Center - 400 person capacity. The Mill Valley
Community Center Cascade Room is 65 x 63 feet (4,095 square feet) and will only
seat 400 people. The proposed multi purpose room is almost 2 ~ times the size of
this room. The overall square footage of the Mill Valley Community center complex
is 37,000 square feet.
4. Other size comparisons, see Appendix A.
Capacity:
Kol Shofar is already over capacity for the project as it is being proposed today. With
1,880 members (DEIR page 139), the congregation is already too large to fit in the
proposed facility. If they wish to accommodate their entire congregation, they will need to
seek other alternatives for their High Holidays services anyhow.
Alternatives:
Note: Kol Shofar has stated that services can and will be split, but must happen at the
exact same time of day. These alternatives could have been and can be
implemented at any time. Alternatives like these are practiced by a variety of
different religious congregations when they require services with too many
attendees to fit in their primary places of worship. See Appendix B for a .Iist of High
Holidays practices at other Jewish congregations.
1. Special Event Tent Rental - There are many companies out there ~hat do this and
their fees include setup and takedown. Their busy season is from Memorial Day
until Labor Day, so the High Holidays fall outside of this window. Both companies I
contacted said that if the booking was made in advance, they would definitely be
ab.le to provide a tent for the Kol Shofar events. There is no such thing as being
booked up. Long term commitments and shrinking the size of the proposed tent 4f
can reduce the fees even further. Two proposals for 10,000 square foot tents (can .
accommodate almost 1,500 people) follow: EXHIBIT NO.. '._
\) . ,11 D( (\l~.
\C.ec{\.I.J<tA ~ v . CJ-
4--J-4-6&
-r:r
Too Productions (the Special Event Services company that provides tents and other
event services for the Mill Valley Film Festival, etc.) can provide a 10,000 square
foot clear span tent with real glass doors, floor, carpet, air conditioning and/or
heating, seating, etc. for $30,000 (or $3 per square foot for larger or smaller tents)
for the entire High Holidays period. Contact them at (510)965-1091 for more
details.
The owner of Top Productions grew up on Via Capistrano and attended Reedland
Woods Middle School, so he is intimately familiar with the site and what could be
done to accommodate High' Holidays services there.
Sianature Special Event Services (see attached proposal) can provide clear span
and pole tents as well. They have provided clear span tents with clear roofs and
have setup structures for many major events. They can do a 10,000 square foot
tent for Kol Shofar for $32,085 (or $3.21 per square foot for larger or smaller tents)
for the entire High Holidays period. This quote does not include seating, lighting,
power or HVAC. Contact Michael Bec~ at (866)479-8368 for more information.
2. Offsite Rental -
- The Marin Center Exhibit Hall is 22,500 square feet with 368 parking spots
and could accommodate the entire congregation.
- The Century Theatre in Corte Madera can seat 637 people and can be rented
for events lasting until 11: 15 AM for $650.
- The College of Marin Fine Arts Theatre can seat 650 people.
- The JCC gym can seat 600 people.
- The JCC multipurpose space is a 500 seat theater.
- Angelico Concert Hall at Dominican University can accommodate 500 people.
- Fairfax Pavilion can seat 400 people.
- The Showcase Theater at the Marin Center can seat 315 people.
3. Remodel The Existing Annex Building - Currently this structure is in a state of
disrepair and is very lightly used. From what we are told, the only plans for this
building are a repair of the leaking roof and some paint on the interior. This building
is 2,271 square feet and used to be the Reedland Woods Middle School gym. This
building could be easily remodeled to accommodate a kitchen and/or a space to
host congregational lunches and dinners. It could also host overflow crowds for any
major services. Using it for two meeting rooms is.not making very good use of this
large space.
Appendix A: Other size comparisons
1. Curran Theater - San Francisco - 1,667 seats
2. Geary (ACT) Theater - San Francisco - 1,040 seats
3. Fillmore Auditorium - San Francisco - 1,200 seats
4. Coronet Theatre - San Francisco - Recently Closed, 1 screen, 1,230 seats
5. Mountain Winery - Saratoga - 1,750 seats
6. Century Corte Madera Theatre - Corte Madera - 637 seats
7. CineArts at Sequoia - Mill Valley - 2 screens, 687 seats
8. California Theatre - San Jose - 1 screen, 1,200 seats
9. Fox Theatre - Redwood City.- 1 screen, 1,400 seats
10. Stanford Theatre - Palo Alto - 1 screen, 1,175 seats
11. Globe Theater - Los Angeles - 1 screen, 1,303 seats
12. Grauman's Chinese Theatre - Hollywood:' 7 screens, 1,492 seats
Appendix B: High Holidays practices
1. B'Nai Sholom - Walnut Creek.;.... single service held offsite at another facility.
2. Beth David ~ Saratoga - split services held at different times of day (as Kol Shofar
is currently doing).
3. Beth Sholom - San Francisco - split services held at different times of day (as Kol
Shofar is currently doing).
4. Rodef Sholom - San Rafael - split services happening at the same time of day.
One service is onsiteand the other offsite.
5. Sinai Temple - Los Angeles - split services happening at the same time of day.
One service is onsite and the other offsite.
6. Beth Haverim - Agoura Hills - single service held offsite at another facility.
7. Beth Sholom - Encino - split services held at different times of day (as Kol Shofar
is currently doing).
8. Aliyah - Woodland Hills - split services held at different times of day (as Kol
Shofar is currently doing).
~
J G N A T U R E 12345 Slauson Ave
, E C , A I ,v E "l! ~ E tv, C [ '; Whittier, CA 90606
Remit To: SIGNATURE SPECIAL EVENT SERVICES, LLC
12345 Slauson Ave
Whittier, CA90606
)H: 866-479-8368
FAX 562-318-1108
lob Site:
Rental Quotation
Tiburon, CA 94920
Contract #
Contract Date:
Date Out:
Date Due In:
Event Date:
0412412006 11:33
10/0212006
09/23/2006
:ustomer:
~H: 510-558-2953
Job Location:
P.O. Number:
Ordered By:
Written By:
Terms:
Tiburon, CA
Michael Beck
FX:
Last Updated:
0412412006 11 :33
8:30
Cat-Class
Qty.
1
1
Description
10,000 sq ft clear span tent
10,000 sq ft carpeting
Per Unit
2.35 Per Sq Ft
.75 per sq ft
1~;:;~i~li"ltli;i,c:~::,~~~!~l~i~!;~:~i"~~t";I:;;,::ii,:~
Subject to availability
Subject to site inspection
Based on standard staking installation
Does not include permits or permit fees
Environmental Fee 3.5% Approx
Sub-total:
Taxes:
Less Deposit
TOTAL DUE:
Total
23,500.00
7,500.00
1,085.00
31,000.00
TBD
:ustomer responsible for all permits. insurance and marking of all underground lines.
~ricing is good for 30 days from contract date.
$ 32,085.00
:AD BEFORE SIGNING: Signature Special Event Services, LLC hereby leases to the Customer the Equipment (as defined in the Terms and Conditions on the
verae side) and Customer hereby accepts all TERMS AND CONDITIONS listed In this rental agreement, IncludIng the Tenns and Conditions
at forth on the reverse side, which the undersigned has read and understands.
1:MINDERS: (1) Rates do not include fuel or delivery; (2) Customer pays for all time the Equipment is out, including Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays.
) Customer assumes all risks and is responsible for an damages and other costs, including late charges. Details of the above as well as other obligations
ld responsibilities are contained In the TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON REVERSE, THE INDIVIDUAL SIGNING BELOW AS OR ON BEHALF OF
:USTOMER: (1) AGREES TO ALL THE ITEMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS RENTAL AGREEMENT, (2) ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT
IF THE EQUIPMENT IN GOOD WORKING ORDER AND, (3) IS FULLY FAMILIAR WITH ITS OPERATION AND USE.
ISTOMER SIGNATURE
SSES REPRESENTATIVE
DATE
DATE
NAME PRINTED
, BUIUilNG OCCUPANCY. SUMMARY:
BlJIIDIN8lWffl.ACf~ '. '.~. AIlS OCCfII'/IIIt:T rtIIJJS:1D . . . .4UDJlIID : /IDUIIII. . ..
~" Tt1f IICCI.PAICr . DCCIiIwn:r . 1ICQio--_.. .
1'SJe.c*.. . .I!lD_r:tI:_-,1IUI
~6 2 3JDRY CIflClMilIlUlUlll6 . . .-
~ .~ 5.331' 1t-2.1- 1550 ~!ifA18 mWIllUr". FOIl RilED SfA1 RalT;
RilED IfAiI E C8C 1llIlU.2.U ..
CIIJ\PB. '1,171 1.84! A-J 1. 213 FAClUlh7
lIlllNIY : I\fADIIIIl JIM... . 748 n& A-J 14: ,~ . FACtllII. ED '.
lOOlIY.JW1.WAY 1,11111 ,.Bll8 ';'2.1. 221 221.. ,
ClASSROOIolS R nwRt lMi ;.Ri U36 3.031 E-2,"-3 2& PER ci.As8 - . 25 PER CI.A6I IIVf.lUS6l\IllII.. 605 ri
: OffICES . .. :781 8 1 7.
I4SC. . 75% 718 ..
TOUT ~IIS 1,llB4 8Il5 SIZE IIASBlIII * Of
. . 1llIlET fllJIlRBi IlEOQ.
. STOIWlf ' .1.1IlI3 157 U
t.lECHAllI~ .4.605 4.181
: 1IAl1WA'/S 1._ un ..
MECJiAtlcAi.ATIIC ' 6,6lrl &om
lUfJllllSf 28.lI!iI .
OOSIlIl8' SIllRY ADIINISlJIA1IlIN WIHI'-, '
0IflCES S,IilI5 UIit 8 2IJ.2i Sf VAIIElI """ LAlIUT .
CONfilIENCE IlII. 5lI5 631 8 25a ' 3lI VAIIIfll 011 USE .
. ClASSlIOOMS 1lI1'; IIEL $CiIllOl. , 2,111 .',818 w..w 25,30 Sf II'iE. Q.ASSIIlIlII'; 838 51
, ' . .1UTAL DlIf. 8,281
mm.a i II1IJIiy IlCIIiol wvi&
OFfICES ' ,. ,... 8 '-14 14
ClA88IiooMs lil:~ 1.70S. U1t: E-1."-3 2& - 3liiVNIDl 31 PBII:lA8S' AVE. CI.A8SRiXIl.. 721 SF
SCIIllOL UIIIWIY 832 .187' E-l,," 10.11 11
: TOJAl8liF 8,281 .
EllISJItII , IflJR'( ANIIEX liunDlrie
. IMEfJuIG ROOYS 421 . . 1,8l1O 1.454 A-J ' 3O-4Il . 48 AVE. MID RllIIIIs7211if
liroIwlE 171 8311' 5-2
.1UTALBBF 2m
. '
PROPOSED11ffil1lYMUL'iH'mPosEIlUILlING :
.u.:n.PIIRI'OSE ROOM: 6,022 4.500 It-U (1l'P.)
DIlIN& .1IAIIlIU~ 3llO .llOO DIIlINGI\H IlYli.El'VBI18
. lOOSf6EAl$ ll42 lI42 IlIBH HOlIlAVS SERVICE
M-PlOBll'I . , 1.1131 'J8I A-a tti8 231
lOTCID 1,070 m 6 5 CAlDIIIi9llDC11Bl
l1lILfT 1l00us -:- 7Uli '0411
IlAUWAY .ioz 88i
6Tll/Wlf - .380 B-2
1lltAI. SIF 1,73S
l'IIOPOSfD' SI1lRY WlS6llOOMIU.QHB .
ClA6SIIOOMs /.ft - pflfSCtlOll. 2134 [..1,"-3 26-30 34 . AVE.IlAS&IIlKIII..llIIlI SF
1llII.fTfIllIlM5 112 &liE iLWI)!If Ii' Of'
. . lIIIlETflICJUIiD RBlD. '
~. 815 6-2'
11J1AL8lIf . a IlI2
.:. i3.UllDING SQUARE. FOOTAGESUMMMY:.::. .. .!
1lAlHi: 'rrHIIFWOIII",fUIfll.7IBIW". I ~lIIrClJmM&f '
BIIIUItU"" ,
EXISTING. . .
EXlIlTIN9Ill1U111t1t 'If
. .. nlllRY CIlCUlAlfllUJB. .
:~~.
: 21lO11V' CIIlCUlAR IIUlCl .
. . lMIN~~... .
.. 21lO11V' CI\ClllAIIIIUJB. .
. M1GIIANlCAlATllll. .
1 &101I'i ADIIH. WIN8
1 mI/lV ClABSIIIllN lMIlB .
EJDllTINllANNEXId.ONI '
. EllImIQ IIUIUlIIB llJI'Al..
, . IllfA
I
., '1lBIOIE.. ...,.,: .: '. I ....31,' .
~ JIlitJJINIi!'lJOlPlllfJ ..'2.87~.~ ..
10,5112B6F ~2I'-f' ..B.m:" : . i /laI~.
. 12.~~ 8&f
-~.
1lBIOIlB.-~ .
. IIOT IlCC\lI'WIi.E SPMlL
8.281_ dl'oV 1IEJIOIa....
8.2I1l1liF itt.foV 1IIIOII1IIl4lal. .
.2,27188F, i'.... FIlESPIlR.IJIIiRADf.AIlAACCE8L,
. 4a,lIlBlf
1.6026&1'
'. .i
. I 2.1.
2.~ . .
m
UI"
PROPOSED .
PIIlI'lI8ID 1IlI.1H'IJI!'06E IIUl8.
PIlII'OSED~ IIUl8. .
. ... PIlIlP08EIl U lllTAl-
1 inIRf... ClIIS1IIlG1dt .
.t SJORt.IIEw IDISlRUCD .
UI
1.21
4.41
.UJrClWlASENEA(4l,llll281if)1lOEB1IIlf1a~. .
IIICUlllE I:IICWIl twJIl8l1H11!-ntl
uEliIWaL AI:IDL. . . :.. .
. ~1IlIJfS:. .. ... . .,. ... . .. ..
.'0 MAiIIlML Cau:iuR aWlIN8 NOT 8ICliIIED.. UlTcciwlAeE FUllII HAs UI'BI tlIlIUJW; .
.:2.===~:~:=~;.-. '
. SITE.SauAREFOOTAGE SUMMARY:..
~ A/lfA : .. JJJ'f1lF_~ ,,/Dr ClM1UIIf
EllIlIIIIl6 J:DT SIZE ~.483IF NOCIINISt.
EllISlIII!Il.lriVBl PAllDl8lDJ . .14Jl82 IF UIIlIlIIIUIIFAi:lIllPllll'iBllfL' t1,2S:
EXISIIIi8 /!fIMGE PMioNB wi ,8,t7BIF. .MIIIOIlIllPlllNElolfll, E IIEUII... . an
EllISIl1l8 ~ 10. PNlJQli6Ul1 ' '.If. RBIIMiIRB lllJGUIlSIlOIItIUltlw.w.. . ..1$'
~ EI,DIlEJl/:Y/HCIJINE ,7,"UI. .J!BIOViD 'Olflll)"lI'FEII.... UJi, 2n
PISTIIla ENTRY COURTYARD,uWil . . 1UBIf SfIE 1lIi'IIDVEMaIr,IlfE 1IEUlIl. . us
~ IUY AIIF.A. LAWN . ',,;tI... . Il9iDVEDlOR 00 ~1l\Dll.. us
EllISiJNa REAR COIlIRYAI\II . .I,I4OSF.. NO CIWIGE.. '..JS
EllISJlII8'AI8lEX P\.AYYAI\II 1.lI1IOSF RBllMD fO!I (II) GAIIlEIl ~ t:WliIIOlIIlIUlll . 1.8s.
: aJSmG SIll MPfIlMJeITS :
11J1A1.& 111~ " lUTAL "'! au 1
EllISJlII8I1lW1lAGf EASBISfr .. . ',lIll88f I'LVflINS&lAIIIIlIlAPf 8IlIlEBi . 2n..
IIOII1R f'RQPEIIIY lIIE . : ~~WI!.lEfI!lMDHL .
flPnIllIlHH IWtE wBIENr 11,412 If ~~:. : ...."
romtPl\llPl:HJY.~. . . .
fl9l1N&~ EAI9IBfI" ,. , ' t~1f .~QWIIiE, .. ;S.
w'r I'ROPBIIYUIIE, II.ACilIiulIll1Nf ..
AIIEA Of EIIIlJM IEIM&I . ....mIF ''''''
&It Of UIBIBOIIIlIT,WII1III 18.1&7. .u~
SfIBAl:lC . .
. . . ' . EllIS1II9 aErBACX .
;.. IIEMAIItINB EASEMENTI
'IOTAL- ....... 11J1AL. - 21.51
EllIS1Il8lDT 8lZE ~.
. SfTBAQlI EASBIfNl .~
. . .' lOTIL..m"
mAL 8U1U1AaiLOl- 117,111. ,
~llPPfRP"'lDJ .'1,083. .. CllI!S1IlJClOI 4.D~
PIlIlI'ilsED l.I'P9IlIioNlfF . . '5.!J851f .~~....,. ,1.1l'
(CIIIWIl~.. . .
PlIOI'llliED2-WAYIM'E : .I.lI06SF NlW COHmIIC1JlII . 1.81
. 1lP~&EIWXlEPAl!Ul8 UIT 741 SF IMPRlMDRlR FIlE1JJIC'Il.1MMAIIE & . 02S
DB.MRr__~ ...1011U1A11.
IIPROVEIJ BmJI' COUIIT'YNID .. ..~ltf lIIlt 8IPIIIMIIIJIf - ~AGCfSI US
IIIPIlDVED IU.~ i:oIRJm 7._IF .lIIlt~-N1AACCE18 U~'
PIlDPOIlBI CW$ROOlIlA'MI AREA J,B38 IF. awCON~. 1.JS
PII/lI'OSBl flAY ARfA 2,23D If' IlEW.GllHS'IIIIGlDt . o.a
PIIDP.O&l:D IIARIIBI ARfAII . . milf Il61 COIISIRlICIQI !LIS
PRlIPOSElI mlMl'liovEMalll. . ,lOTIL- .in
'IOTAL - .....
. . .' . .
PARKING lOT COUNT:.
ElIISIIII8I..D'M11 pAIIXil8lDJ lUA- 'IIAII WI') : .
. 01SDN8 69IVI:E PAIIIOII/llOl (UA. ~91 LOr,.
. BIISIlNlI ~PAIIllI/IGlOl .ItA. 'lACXLOl")
CIII'ACr.
.
D.
. O. 4
. EXIIlIH lIIHRE JDJJl.
.SlMIWID
... .
. If.
.1$-".
APPIIIJIlllfF.SllE II1Im" PAIlIlIl8 .
(1) SIt ~ ijI8 A1.ms;1lUCDlRJ) III.
3S
II
.. M'IIOVBII.IlWBI PAIIlINl LlJf
. ~ BaIYI:E PNlkIItl LOr.
PIIOI'OliBIII'I'8l PA/ICM lOt
.
11
<<I
,.
8E/lE1W:II01D:.: '.. ,.".'., .
. . 1.~~ apAJlDjlnnll't~PllEPARED8'(Ril8B1TL.twi.ml.lIlAllSPlIITAlI PlNfM._1IIl4,
.. . . : 2. ~ it EJISJiI8 ~EHc1LOT 41K:P &4 STNIIWID P.AYID PAIlICI/Illwcu.w ~ _ 1110 '4 CNI5 WtltJ
.. . ~.UlflWNlNB AREA WII)I fIRE LANUIIlI.E WImL ... . . . . .' "
, . .
>
"C
"C
CD
::s
c.
):;"
':tl
I
~
CD
::s
-
"'0
::s"
o
-
o
en
J
)
-;
~;.
.'"
j
:Q Map for BeJvedere/Sausalitoffiburon http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-binlpickmapx.pl
ko I Shot, (s des ijV/A Luf CLS ~ ~er:Y'V'~ sWier
Earthquake Hazard Map for .
Belvedere/SausalitolTiburon
Scenario: North. H.ayward and South Hayward Segments
of the Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault System
These intensity mapS are not intended to be site-speciftc. Rather, they depict the general risk within
neighborhoods and the relative risk from community to community.
For information on how these maps were madet dick here.
To see the full description of the modified Mercalli intensity scale. click here.
Are you in a hazard zone? For help with retrofitting, go to our HOME QUAKE SAFETY TOOLKIT.
Did you get to this page from a QUIZ? If so, close this window to return to the QUIZ.
~
Select another city or fault.
Return to ABAG Earthauake MaDS and Info Home Paae.
jbp 10/20/03
:}f 1
EXHIBIT NO.if-",
[J '0'. (A~ Or (l!1~24/~
\- ( (, t' t ..; /C cA ~A.: ,~'- ! \ ~
() A Lf-J-'-t-[b 5+
:Q Map for BelvederelSausalitoffiburon
http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-binlpickmapx.pl
Earthquake Hazard Map for
Belvedere/SausalitolTiburon
Scenario: North Golden Gate Segment of the San
Andreas Fault System
These intensity maps are not intended to be slte-specific. Rather, they depict the general risk within
neighborhoods and the relative risk from community to community.
For information on how these maps were made, click here.
To see the full description of the modified Mercalli intensity scale, click here.
Are you in a hazard zone? For help with retrofitting, go to our HOME QUAKE SAFETY TOOLKIT.
Did you get to this page from a QUIZ? If so, close this window to return to the QUIZ.
~
Select another city or fault.
Return to ABAG Earthauake MaDs and Info Home Paae.
jbp ] 0/20103
)f 1
4/24/06 5:27 PM
I ){t L.t (A V t~ /). /-"; -';. 1:::, t '7. '.'1 'p5 /
- --c. - L.' (7 e::J,-...' f;. i/
~ ~ I
r\ I 0' 1.'1 t tIl (i L - t. /!:~)It{) /( 1'1 (z ". . -:>
i . , -' " L 1/ IV?.
J { pdf'
n I Ip. / / 111/ W h.. [I, \)U 'J' L!\ , j L
The
Nightmares
The Problem
Lorna Prieta and
Northridge Were
a Wake-Up Call
In one nightmare, the Haywanl fault - extending from San Pablo Bay to the
Alameda County-Banta Clara County border - suddenly ruptures, generating
a magnitude 6.9 earthquake.
. Over 155,000 housing units are made uninhabitable.
. Almost 360,000 people are forced from their homes.
. Over II O~OOO people require publicly-provided shelter.
At the same time -
. The phone system is overwhelmed.
. Power outages are widespread.
. Water and sewer are out of service due t-o numerous pipe breaks.
. The transportation system is crippled by over 1~600 road closures.
In another nightmare, the Peninsula-Golden Gate segment of the San
Andreas fault - extending from the Santa Cruz Mountains nearHwy. 17 to
west of the Golden Gate Bri~ge - ruptures, generating a magnitude 7.3
earthquake and closing over 800 roads. Fewer homes and apartments are
located nearby than in the Hayward earthquake.
. "Only" II O~OOO housing units are made uninhabitable, including 66,000
in SanF rancisco.
. Almost 240,000 people are forced from their homes.
. Over 70~OOO people require publicly-provided shelter.
This report is intended to provide information so that cities and counties can develop
effective programs encouraging homeowners to retrofit and, thereby, prevent these
nightmares. The focus of this report is on structural retrofitting, not on nonstructural
measures (which include gas sb ut-off valves and strapping Willer heaters 10 walls).
The Problem - 1
OUR HOUSING WILL BE DECIMA TED
The 1989 Lorna Prieta earthquake caused a total of over 16~000 units to be
uninhabitable throughout the Monterey and San Francisco Bay Areas
(including almost 13,000 in the Bay Area). As shown in Table I below,
thirteen of 18 potential Bay Area earthquakes analyzed are expected to have
a far larger impact than the Lorna Prieta earthquake. In fact, eight of these
earthquakes will probably have a greater impact than the 1994 Northridge
earthquake.in the Los Angeles are~ where over 46,000 housing units were
made uninhabitable. Many Bay Area faults can generate earthquakes and
every Bay Area county is significant~v affected by at least two. Several of
the larger earthquakes on longer faults will impact several counties.
TABLE 1: Predicted Uninhabitable Units for Bay Area Counties and Selected Earthquake Scenarios
The Number of
Uninhabitable
Homes Expected
Is Huge and
Extends Over the
Entire Bay Area
Earthquake Alameda Contra liIfaEiit Napa San San Santa Solano Sonoma
Scenario Costa Francisco Mateo Clara TOTAL
Santa Cruz Mis. 1,968 159 297 0 11 r 781 223 1,277 2 3 15,710
San Andreas
,,_..i:
'GatCSan ~ 3,820 188 1;4a5 3 65,316 22,525 15,094 11 42 108,484
rNottheaa-GoJdea 4,345 560 2,988 19 62,654 1,904 449 127 1,804 74,851
Gate San Andreas
iili.n1ireBay Area . .
San Andreas 16,048 1,173 3~49St 20 82,354 24,472 29,593 185 2,530 159,870
No. San Gregorio 3,104 238 1,176 4 38,306 9,040 589 12 45 52,514
So. Hayward 64 .451 1760 1,030 16 13,940 245 11 892 126 37 93.497
No. HayWard 43 132 7686 t~653) 19 11.464 210 303 128 74 64,669
N + S Hayward 88,265. 10,102 .2.:125": 36 37,670 1,616 14,273 . 1,046 559 155.692
Rodg=s Creek 3,688 1,418 --.1;549 53 11.460 151 100 1.148 13,988 33,555
;~;:CD::ck",: , ..Z6911'.';
,) ":No:'Havwanf 49,284 9,786 713 29,758 363 402 1,386 14,115 108,498
So. Maacama 325 17 27 22 1,986 11 11 15 825 3,239
West Napa 1,382 286 27 4.284 2,011 15 29 1,668 126 9,828
Coocord- 3,511 11,363 29 1,307 3,191 76 325 2,868 37 22,707
Green Valley
No, Calaveras 7,836 3,509 27 18 3,191 78 4,882 181 6 19,728
Centrnl Calaveras 3,037 75 27 3 3,191 182 10,145 13 4 16,677
Mt. Diablo 6,128 4.868 751 .3 10,489 23 109 17 4 22 392
Greenville 2,701 2,637 27 19 2,005 16 101 190 6 7,701
Monte Vista 323 5 16 1 2,429 2,392 27,223 2 2 32,393
TABLE NOTES - This table is based on ABAG's
modeling of uninhabitable housing units in future earthquake
scenanos (Shaken Awake!, Perkins and others, 1996). This
modeling is based on an extensive statistical analysis of the
housing damage which occurred as a resUlt of the 1989
Lorna Prieta and 1994 Northridge earthquakes. However,
the expected percentage of pre-I 940 single-family homes
rendered uninhabitable used to generate this table is larger
than published in 19%. New data on lack of retrofitting and
reasons for low damage in the Northridge earthquake caused
ABAG to increase the uninhabitable percentages used to
create this table for pre-1940 single-family homes to 19%
and 25% for MMl IX and X, respectively.
Note that several fault segments listed above have
new segment end points or were not included in the 1996
report. They are included in this table to reflect ground
shaking information published by USGS in 2003. The Santa
Cruz Mts.-San Andreas is similar, but not identical. to the
fault causing the Lorna Prieta earthquake. The Monte Vista
and West Napa faults have been added to the faults analyzed
by USGS to illustrate the impact of an earthquake in these
areas. The Maacama fault could impact the North Bay. but
too little was known about the fault for the USGS to issue
probabilities for it in 2003. It too, has been added to
illustrate possible damage. On the other hand, the Southern
Calaveras, the Southern San Gregorio, and the northern
North Coast-San Andreas faults are outside of the Bay Area.
The Bay Area impacts of earthquakes on these fault
segments are dwarfed by their Bay Area segments so they
are not included. Additional information on earthquakes and
housing is available in Shaken Awake! and on the ABAG
Earthquake Program Internet site at http://quake.abag.ca.gov
The Problem - 2
PEOPLE WILL NEED TO BE TEMPORARILY SHELTERED
And the
Nightmare
Doesn't End
When the
Ground Stops
Shaking
During the first three to six weeks following a major eart.hquake~ the
American Red Cross, as well as local governments and other organizations,
struggle to operate hundreds of emergency shelters for the displaced. and to
feed many more. Shelters, typically set up for a short period of time, will
need to remain open for months, partially because of the Bay Area's low
vacancy rate and high occupancy levels. Finding housing is a major
challenge in the Bay Area even before an earthquake strikes!
120,000
f 100,000
ca.
-
Qi
~
C/) 80,000
.=
Q)
Q. 60,000
2
0.
.... 40,000
0
...
.8
E 20,000
::::J
Z
0
O:ty O:ty Day O:ty C9y O:ty C9y CSy
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Date
-+- Northridge
__ The Hayward Earthquake
"Nightrrare"
photo source -American Red Cross
The response needs for several of these scenario earthquakes will exceed
anything ever experienced in this country. The American Red Cross effort
to shelter, feed, and provide emergency assistance after the Northridge
earthquake cost $7.2 million. The cost of the Red Cross effort after
Hurricane Andrew was $13 million. The cost for the Hayward scenario
"nightmare" could easily exceed either of these nmnbers by a factor of ten.
The response will stress the resources of government and nongovernment
response agencIes.
And when these agencies complete their emergency assistance, cities and
counties of the impacted area continue to pick up the pieces of intermediate
and long-teoo housing shortages for years.
Long-teoo sheltering can have severe secondary impacts, as well. As
illustrated in both southern California after the Northridge earthquake and in
Kobe, Japan, the damaged neighborhoods can be socially decimated - with
large increases in substance abuse, suicide rates, and violence.
The Problem - 4
April 26, 2006
Tiburon Planning Dept
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Lisa Newman
IDJ1lE ~ rE~ ..\..~.'(.,...i.:
~i AP,e. > - 'i:;
PL E,:):";:.',; :!: ''';,'<'
T(;' _L._~:"__. _...._.________
Ie r: I
I.~) Ir<\!
!! Iii
if !} i
Mr. and Mrs Fred Conte
258 Karen Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Ms. Newman,
Weare writing in response to Alternative 7 proposed for the KoI Shofar Project. The information
presented prior to the meeting was too new to respond to at the time.
We live within a block ofKol Shofar. I am a licensed architect and contractor. After. listening to my
clients program requirements and reviewing the zoning, the next things I immediately think about are the
impact to the neighbors and the parking. If they can't meet the requirements, I tell them they have an uphill
battle. Kol Shafar has been in the planning process for two years because they have not been able to solve
these problems.
We can get past the occasional nuisance caused by the congregation because Kol Shofar provides a positive
religious service for its members. What we cannot get past is the change in use that is proposed by
allowing evening weekend parties 27 times a year.
Please consider the effect on you if a neighbor a block away had a party for 250 people every other
weekend .of the year. Please consider that although the party ends at II pm, it takes another I-~ hours for
the noise to end. Because it is otherwise quiet at night, the noise seems amplified. When people head out
to their cars, it is human nature to be talking about the event the entire way. People tend to speak louder if
alcohol has been served. Two hundred and fifty people open and shut the car doors 250 times when
leaving then start up the engine. There are also aU the service people, loading supplies, opening and
shutting car doors. Imagine yourself on a quiet night hearing all these noises outside your bedroom
window for 1-1/2 hours after the party has ended at 11 pm. All these noises are more significant at night,
when ambient noise is low.
Please also consider that weddings and parties are most likely to take place in the half of the year when the
weather is nice, the same time everyone else in the neighborhood has the opportunity to enjoy their
backyards. Conceivably then, a party at Kol Shofar could ruin every nice weekend for the neighborhood
inhabitants. Please consider limiting the events to 1 event per month, not just ''x'' number per year. This
would bring tbe nuisance within an acceptable range, and not ruin every summer weekend.
Regarding parking, we see many of the reports leave Karen Way out, and we don't know wby as we see
first hand that we are one of the quicker streets to fill up, even before the end of Black field fills up. Thus,
we are impacted by parking, and more significantly by the after hours noise of people coming and going.
We see the consultants' numbers in these reports; however, we do not always see bow they mesh with
human nature and common sense. Each report bas to establish certain variables, and if one of those
variables is not considered, (Le. that people park on Karen Way and talk allthe way back to their cars) then
the report does not present an actual reality, only a bunch of numbers ''proving'' one point or the other.
We can accept the size of the project if we see a cap of evening weekend events limited to I per month,
perhaps 2 events in some months. Capping the number and time of the events is the only way to mitigate
the parking and noise problem. We would also like to see the hours limited to 8pm because the net effect is
9:3Oprn- IOpm. We would like to see restrictions on music amplification limited to the interiors. Although
restrictions may state that doors will be closed, please realize that it is human nature to open them,
especially as there is a new courtyard proposed. Note that it took about 20 minutes on the April24tb
meeting at Reed before the room heated enough with the 175 bodies there, and someone opened the doors.
After people left the meeting, people stood on the street talking for some time. The school parking lot was
filled, and all surrounding streets had filled by the time the meeting started. This is the reality of human
nature in a social setting. We can accept a certain amount and can bend some to accommodate, but not
every other weekend.
~--~Q,..Q
EXHIBIT NO..5 Q..
THE ODYSSEY GROUP
~ ~~:i~:~ ~
April 26, 2006
PLANNING DIVISlmJ
TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Planning Commission
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94<920
Dear Commission Member,
1 will make this missive brief because I understand you are buried in paperwork as it relates to
this project and want to be respectful of your time. I will make my points clear and concise.
I am in favor of the Kol Shofar enhancement project. Kol Shofar has gone above and beyond
what is typically required and has acted in good faith. It is time to approve the project and let
the community be just as it has been-a working community which includes a house of Jewish
worship.
The multipurpose room will be used for the multiple purposes already taking place in hallways,
stairways and frankly, dark, decrepit areas. No new use is proposed just space that is respectful
of the activity being shared by participants.
Celebration oflifecycle events have been reduce by 65% from 75 to 27 evenings per year. Some
have dismissively referred to these as parties-they are not just' parties. They are
multigenerational events acknowledging lifecycle milestones. And they will be over before a
potential neighbors party breaks up!
The most recent community meeting was filled with a majority ofKol Shofar supporters - were
you aware of that? Rather than choosing to be heard through the night, Kol Shofar supporters
chose to make a quiet, respectful showing of numbers.
Please approve the project now, and don't waste more time, money or energy on this process
which has run away with itselfin your good effort to do you best job of overseeing it for the
communi ty _ It is .time.
B'Shalom,
,~~ar~ Waxma.n/7
ZJ;:;t:lvb~ ~
3 Laurel Way Kentfield, California 94904
T 415.461. 3610
www.theodysseygroup.net
barbara@theodysseygroup.net
EXHIBIT NO.~ ~
Joh~ and Karen Nygren
22 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburan, CA 94920
~ ~ ~~~~l~: lE ~
.c. .
~~.,; PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Planning Commission and Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
April 28, .2006
Re: Uses of the Multipurpose Room & other Areas re: the Kal Shofar CUP Application
Dear Tiburon Planning Commissioners and Council Members,
The April 24, 2006 Planning Commission meeting was an informative meeting revealing
new information which has not been adequately studied in the DEIR or FEIR. Several
important public statements were made by members of Kol Shofar's Rabbi Lavey Derby,
Kol Shofar's Board President Diane Zack and members of the Congregation. These
raised significant new issues regarding the Congregation's planned new uses for the
project that have not been adequately studied and analyzed in the DEIR or FEIR. It
leaves the decision makers as well as the public unable to fully understand the CUP
Application. A significant and substantial amount of new information is important to know
and be analyzed to understand the total project and uses for the new and existing
facility. Without this information, along with previous points we have made in earlier .
letters regarding the inaccuracy, conflicting and inadequate information, the FEIR is not
certifiable and not substantial in its content, and requires revision and recirculation of the
document
The Public and Planning Commissioners were reminded at the April 24, 2006 Planning
Commission meeting that the new multipurpose room will be capable of being divided
into sections to accommodate a multitude of "activities" as well as "events". Within the
sections of the new multipurpose room, new and existing uses will simultaneously take
place. Including the contiguous lobby, this new facility will have a capacity to
accommodate 898 people. The DEIR, in discussion of the new multipurpose room, has
been primarily identified as an area to accommodate High Holy Day events and "life
cycle" events. "Life cycle" events have been described as events such as weddings and
BarlBat Mitzvahs. There has been very limited discussion in the QEIR of the
multipurpose room being partitioned and used for activities and other uses.
Planning Commissioner, Richard Collins, asked at the April 24, 2006 meeting about the
definition and difference between "activities" verses "events." There appears to be a fine
line between the difference of activities and events. The Kol Shofar CUP Application,
Alternative 7, only regulates new "events." Thus, "activities" remain unreaulated in the
new facility. How can the impacts of the new "sectioned" multipurpose room, lobby and
kitchen areas impacts be known without analysis of all the activities, as well as events in
the new facility, cumulativelv. along with a newly remodeled existing structure? The
DEIRlFEIR must include an analysis of the entire use of the new project. The
DEIRlFEIR contains extremely limited information regarding these other uses in the new
multipurpose room. There is no information as to what will be cumulative number of
people using the new multipurpose room for "activities" and or "events" at one time.
EXHIBIT ~O.Sc.
Should.all the additional uses also be limited and included-in the 250 cap for the total
use in the multipurpose room to mitigate the impacts of the new multitude of activities
now planned for the new facility? Alternative 7 limits the number of attendees for only
new events in the multipurpose room to 250. It was concluded by staff and consultants
this was the only way to mitigate the significant negative impacts of noise, on street
parking in residential neighborhoods and the safety issues of turn arounds on
neighborhood streets. This multitude of various activities plus events has not been
evaluated in the DEIR nor had the opportunity for public review or response in the FEIR.
Thus, this is significant new information and an extremely rational reason for the need
for recirculation of the document once this new information and study relating to its
impacts is available.
Congregation members mentioned at the April 24, 2006 Planning Commission meeting
that the new multipurpose room would also be a community hall, meeting room for
teens to gather together, a place to hold movies for adults and teens, as well as
community educational events. All these would be sponsored by Kol Shofar, but
available for the entire community. Rabbi Derby stated at the April 24th meeting, it is not
the policy of for his Congregation to turn anyone away attending activities and events,
even if they are not members. Thus, does the promise by the Kol Shofar to only hold
events that they sponsor also include people from the entire Marin and Bay Area
community? I believe Rabbi Derby's intentions are quite admirable, but for the s'cale and
scope of what he envisions, the magnitude of the impacts of the facility and the number
of people it will accommodate is unacceptable and unrealistic resulting in significant
negative impacts which have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance. This facility
is located nestled - between the hills of a very quiet residential neighborhood. As the
Tiburon General Plan states, a project must be in. harmony and compatible with the
neighborhood. This CUP Application and Alternative 7 are in complete conflict with this
guiding principle of Tiburon's policies, goals and codes.
There was mention at the April 24th meeting, by Rabbi Derby, of holding events such as the
Passover Seder at the Synagogue. -Once again, I appreciate the fact that the Kal Shofar
offers this event for its Congregation. The Passover Seder was stated to accommodate
400 attendees. This event is not listed on the Annual Use at Kol Shofar list that was
submitted on April 11 , 2006 by Kol Shofar's Planning consultant. What other events of
this nature have also been left off the list? How will these additional large events and
activities impact the residential neighborhood? What are these significant negative
impacts? How can we be assured 400 is the cap for the Seder, when it was stated that
250 would be the cap for new events? This is not studied in the DEIR and adequately
regulated in Alternative 7 and the CUP. If the dinners accommodate 400 attendees, and
the multipurpose room along with the lobby able to accommodate 898 people, will these
Passover dinners expand beyond the 400 number of attendees, since the'multipurpose
room is of such huge proportion and the new kitchen to be 1 ,100 square feet.
For emphasis, we restate, there is limited discussion in the DEIR or FEIR about activities
or the number of attendees, individually or simultaneously, who will be using the new
multipurpose room, new lobby and 1,100 square foot kitchen.
Also, there is no information or discussion regarding the new proposed Kol Shofar
preschool Rabbi Derby revealed at this meeting, which is now to be in addition to the
existing Ring Mountain Day School. There is extremely limited information in the DEIR or
FEIR that discusses the current "activities" to understand the number of people who are
2
involved in all these "activities", and thus be able to relate this information to the
significant impacts which would be created in the new multipurpose room, lobby, kitchen
as well as 4- new classrooms.
The Annual Use "statement" about Kol Shofar, submitted on April 11, 4006, in a letter
from IPA, Inc, Scott Hochstrasser, to Scott Anderson, Community Development Director
and Usa Newman, Contract Planner to the Town of Tiburon, must be used as a baseline
for existing activities and events currently held at Kol Shofar. The new CUP. if approved,
must include caps on the number of attendees. times - and days of use related to 'existina
as well as new uses for both events and activities. This is necessary to refrain activities
and events from exceeding the existing baseline number of attendees, days and times of
use for these activities. We ate not in any way saying that the Congregation should
discontinue its existing activities, only there has come a time when the size and number
of these activities needs a cap. As Diane lack said, we are busting at the seams, trying
to accommodate the current activities. If there is no full understanding of the significant
negative impacts that the expanded space will have on the surrounding community in
relation to accommodating expanding activities, the surrounding neighborhood is and will
in the future also be -bursting at its seams" from trying to accommodate the expanded
number of attendees the new multipurpose room will provide for the synagogue. All this
comes with increased new parking needs, more traffic, noise, safety and other
environmental issues that have not been discussed in the DEIR. Already Kol Shofar's
use is in violation of Tiburon's Parking and Loading Codes as well as previously
mentioned General Plan Guidelines and Policies.
Rabbi Derby also said he had a dream to have a large preschool or school for Kol
Shofar Congregants children. The synagogue plans to begin to start gradually attracting
50 students. Kol Shofar School could eventually reach 150 students if it replaces the
100 students currently at the Ring Mountain School. The Rabbi was very hopeful and
intent in his presentation of reaching his dream. If so, it is unclear whether this preschool
will meet at the same time as all these other events and activities. The CUP Application
must be a use permit for the entire facility. There is no information informing the public or
decision makers as to what is the timing of the new preschool orland children's Sunday
School in relation to the new and existing activities and uses. This information and
analysis must also be included in an adequate CEQA document. The cumulative
impacts of the simultaneous uses of the schools must be studied and analyzed along
with all the other activities and events of Kol Shofar.
The DEIRlFEIR must include a discussion of what are the cumulative environmental
impacts relating to noise, traffic, parking, times and days of these new uses in the new
multipurpose room and other environmental issues along with the existing activities and
events when the facility is completed. If some of these activities currently held in the
existing building will now be held in the new multipurpose roomt there is no disclosure as
to what activities and events will be continued to be held, and remain in the in the newly
remodeled facility. There is no information that reveals the total number of people who
will be using the existing and new facility concurrentlv during various times and days of
the week. There is no study or information that explains how many parking spaces will
be required for all these activities and events taking place, simultaneously in the various
new sections of the multipurpose room, kitchen, lobby classrooms, along with, the newly
remodeled spaces in the current facility (chapel, library, classrooms, offices, meeting
spaces, annex, etc.). A Conditional Use Permit's responsibility is to regulate all the uses
of an entire facility. Without this information, how can a CUP accurately address and
"
-'
monitor the number of attendees, times and days of use to mitigate the currently
unknown, potentially significant impacts related to all these additional activities in the
new multipurp9se room and expanded spaces. .
The proposed Congregation Kol Shofar Application for the new "conditional" use permit,
it is to regulate and address all the activities and events taking place in the facility.
Without this, the Town would have no way to determine whether or not Kol Shofar was in
compliance with the Conditional Use. Permit. Thus the Conditional Use Permit would be
unenforceable and meaningless.
We find that the current level of activities already overwhelms the neighborhood with
unsafe on-street parking, turn arounds in the neighborhood, noise and traffic. The
DEIRlFEIR must address all these new issues prior to certification of the FEIR.
Definitely these are new conditions and new information that .must be included in the
document. Thus, the DEIRlFEIR, as required by CEQA, must be recirculated after all
the impacts and studies have been updated to reveal the impacts and how they are to
be mitigated to a level.of insignificance.
Thank you for allowing us to commit on the Congregation Kol Shofar Application. We
look forward to being able to review a revised, accurate and adequate DEI~. The other
option for the Town is to deny the project as proposed and request Kol Shofar to return
with a project that conforms to the Tiburon General Plan Guidelines by remodeling the
existing facility (which was built as a school, not a synagogue) to offer similar uses, in a
modernized facility that will'be more functional for the Congregation with no more then .
the existing impacts on the surrounding residential neighborhood.
Iy,
. e/t
John E. Nygren ~
Karen Nygren
4
Rev. Dr. Carol C. Saysette
193 W. Blithedale Avenue
Mill Valley, CA, 94941
April 30, 2006
i ! i-" \i ,~;~~: - ~; . ;'_:~--;~----'~"; , r"\~ ,
1,\.j..'.1 "... '.'
J ' !.. i :; '~
. ,~-'U LIl'l,t}'-< J, ;},""'''\10
PLAf'J~JING DIVISiON
TO\M'J OF TIBURON
Members of the Tiburon Planning Commission
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA, 94920
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I am an ordained Clergy person and am currently semiretired, but continue as a part time
Adjunct Professor at the San Francisco Theological Seminary in San Anselmo. I was a Pastoral
Counselor at the Seminary for eleven years. Prior to that I was the Co-Minister of the
Community Congregational Church in Tiburon. I am active in interfaith work here in Marin, and
have had the joy of being in gatherings attended by the Rabbis at Kol Shofar, and many of their
members.
I am writing in support of the expansion of the Kol Shofar Synagogue. As this issue was
on my mind recently, I heard a news broadcast that underlined the importance of the religious
communities in New Orleans. Without those communities, the Katrina victims are bereft of
much of the invisible infrastructure that glues a community together. In the areas where
churches and synagogues have chosen to stay, and have had the ability to stay, the
neighborhood is beginning to mend and make plans for the future.
As a long time pastor, hospital chaplain, hospice volunteer, pastoral counselor, spiritual
director, and neighbor, I have observed that those persons who belong to a loving religious
community do better through difficult times, and thrive to a greater degree than many who are
nQt part of a religious community. Sadly, we have too few organizations in Marin that include
persons of all ages, to which one can belong for one's whole life. The only ones I know of are
the religious communities.
KOL SHOFAR, in my view, is one of the most important communities in Tiburon a~d all of
Marin. Much of its work is probably invisible, as is true with most spiritual communities.
However, I personally have friends who have benefitted greatly from belonging to Kol Shofar,
and have been invited to some gatherings which I enjoyed very much. It is a magnificent group
of people, and the Rabbis are fabulous!
It is my understanding that Kol Shofar is eager to cooperate with the city and the
neighbors to make any impact from their expansion as limited as possible.
Best wishes to you as you work through this decision, and thank you for being willing to
serve in this capacity. I know it is a huge commitment of time, energy, and wisdom.
cc: Rabbi Lavey Derby
Sincerely, Ip~ p ~
EXHIBIT NO.Ed
Table 1"
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AND
LEFT TURN LANE QUEUE SUMMARY
TIBURON BOULEV ARD/BLACKFIELD DRIVE
RESULTS WITH ANALYSIS
SOFTWARE INITIALLY RESULTS AFTER CHANGE IN
EMPLOYED BY KOL SHOFAR ANALYSIS SOFTWARE BY KOL
TRAFFIC ENGINEER, ROBERT SHOFAR TRAFFIC ENGINEER, ROBERT
HARRISON, WHEN LEFT TURN HARRISON, TO SHOW LEFT TURN
LANE QUEUING IMPACT LANE QUEUING ACCEPTABLE FOR
IGNORED SOME "WITH PROJECT" ACTIVITIES
HCS SOFTWARE TRAFFIX SOFTWARE
A I B A I B I C
EXISTING
Tiburon Blvd. EB Left
Lane Queue
(capacity= 13 vehicles) *
13
12
C-21.2 C-25.5 C-20.6
10 9 10
Level of Service
C-22.9
D-45.2
EXISTING + PROJECT
Level of Service C-26.5 D-53.3 C-27.0 C-34.3 C-24.6
Tiburon Blvd.EB Left 18 16 13 12 13
Lane Queue
( capacity= 13 vehicles) *
CUMULATIVE BASE CASE
Level of Service C-27.2 D-46.4 C-23.8 C-31.5 C-22.4
Tiburon Blvd. EB Left 15 14 12 10 12
Lane Queue
( capacity= 13 vehicles) *
CUMULATIVE BASE CASE + PROJECT
Level of Service C-33.2 D-53.8 C-32.3 D-45.4 C-27.8
Tiburon Blvd. EB Left 22 19 15 13 14
Lane Queue
(capacity= 13 vehicles)*
* Storage demand calculated at 25 feet/vehicle.
(A) Optimized for level of service with traffic activated signal, with Kol Shofar's traffic engineer's March 17,2006
revised lane geometry (i.e., no separate right turn lanes on the Tiburon Boulevard approaches to Blackfield Drive).
(B) Optimized to clear Tiburon Blvd. eastbound left turn lane with traffic activated signal, with Kol Shofar's traffic
engineer's March 17,2006 revised lane geometry (i.e., no separate right turn lanes on the Tiburon Boulevard approaches to
Blackfield Drive)..
(C) Optimized for level of service with traffic activated signal, but with approach lanes as originally assumed by Kol
Shofar's traffic engineer (i.e., with separate right turn lanes on the Tiburon Boulevard approaches to Blackfield Drive).
Source: Crane Transportation Group EXHIBIT NO.Se
4/3/06 Kol Shofar
Page I of2
Scott Anderson
From:
Dan Watrous
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:15 PM
To: Scott Anderson
Cc: .~ --
Subject: FW: Kol Shofar Facility Usage Matrix
Importance: High
~~~[E~~(Eln~\
I II
^^ ~I..f r; nnf"'(:": ~)ll
l' u'\ l L 1\'1 h '
. 0' _ .- I
-.
Sorry - here's the version WITH the attachment.... .
Dan
PLANNING DIVISION
. TOWN OF TIBURON
Daniel M. Watrous
Planning Manager
Town of Tiburon
(415) 435-7393
-----Original Message-~--
From: Metz, TimI ---]
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:08 PM
To: (Tiburon Planning Commission) John Kunzweiler; Dan Watrous
Subject: Kol Shofar Facility Usage Matrix
Importance: High
Hello John and Dan,
In the Planning Commission meeting on April 24th, we were all having a difficult time understanding the difference
between special "events" and ongoing "activities" at Kol Shofar. I think we ultimately concluded that "activities"
are regular, ongoing things that happen each week while events are special occasions that do not occur on a
weekly cycle. We were also having a difficult time trying to determine what spaces within the synagogue would
be used on any given day of the week.
I put together this usage matrix in Excel which I would like to see filled out by Kol Shofar to record description,
times and # of people for every ongoing activity (current and projected in the new CUP timeframe) that happens
or will happen at the synagogue and the rooms in which that activity does or will happen. Without documentation
at this level, it is difficult for anyone to determine how the facility is really being used. This matrix would then
become the baseline for usage and new events could be layered on top of it to determine the true impact of those
events. As it stands right now, we really have no idea what the true impacts of these new events are.
I created a legend with 3 color codes...one for KS events...one for Ring Mountain events and one for other
events. This will help show who is using the facilities and when.
Take a look at the attachment and see if this makes sense to you. I tried to break things down to individual
usable space~. I also had the day run from 5:00 AM until midnight as I don't think anyone projects use of the
facility during the hours from midnight to 5:00 AM.
Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy I Metz
Mountain Hardwear, Inc.
EXillBITNO.Sf
"
~l~i
...~~D.
).00
ij,J:::iit
;s.:::i...
~~~ ..
~~
~
-E
lEI
"
2-
'"
=r
o
if
"'"
I>>
~
~
C:
go
i
~
go
~~~~
l:u;l:l:
~~~~
~~~~
~
l
8
5
i
~
I
i
8
I
~
;
~
8
t
f
8
i
;
8
!!
f
8
~
l
8
...
f
.8
!
t
..
,
i
I
g
!
t
..
!
i
~
8
I
t
"D
B
'a
o
i
()
it
go
~
o
o
:I
:IE
s-
CD
"D m ~
sg;.v;.vi (; ~~ ts. f1 ~. ~ ~ ~.~
'a . .
0 l:; l:;
%~tt .. QlQl ::l iiJ II> II> l: II> II> ::I
!!ll g It ~~ CD -<aaa~a CD
~ '"
~~~~ !: 6'.6' ~~~3~ 0
c: ::l :T
a: ~~ . ~!~~~ 0
~ )C 2-
"D ~~ :IE
c:
-a s-
o CD
I
IIJ
!'!:
!~
i
;
i
~
~
i
I.
i
!P
,
i
!?
~
8
'f
f
i
i
i
..
!
i
!
2
~
l
2
I
g
*
~
~
!
i
..
!
i
..
!
~
!?
~
i
;
!
~
El
!
8
"
,
~
g
~
!
8
i
8
i
i
0
~
8
i
f
f
i
I
8
!!
J
Ii
.~
f
i
!
g
!'I
!
i
*
i
I
i
*
i
!t
~
i
0
~
i
,
I
~
nnnb>
E~E!'t
ggS!~
3 3~ 3
~~~
,
.8
*
~
o
!!'~
l
i
!P
,
i
~
!
~
!P
!
i
..
i!.
?
i
!?
~
8
i
f
::.
f
!
i
j
..
8
II>
!
8
~
f
i
!
g
~
f
i
*
~
g
f
8
~
,
i
..
!
i
~
8
*
f
1
!
g
....
!
8
I
i
!
!
~
*
i
f
g
..
!
i
!!
;
~
Ii
~
~
8
I
~
~
!t
s-
CD
:p
D.
:I
s-
;;
:r
=:
~
~
nnQnnnbt::~t?
=E!E!mg:S'~5
agggga~-<~c:
~3333~!g ~
~~l~~~~
m
ts.
.
l:;
::I
CD
~
n
E:
~
IIJ
E-
o:
s-
CD
!!'
;
i
..
*
~
g
!
g
..
0
t
i
..
,
~
i
;
!
~
0
I
g
f
'l
i
!
i
...
!
i
..
f
~
...
!
i
!
g
5
~
g
I
i
I
8
~
~
0
~
~
~
i
i
~
E:
o
:J
~
I>>
'<
LERMAN LAw PARTNERS, LLP
LERMAN LAw BUILDING
802 '~" STREET
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901
TELEPHONE: (415) 454-0455
FAX: (415) 454-0540
www.realestateinvestorlaw.com
~ ~!~~:::~~
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
April 28, 2006
Tiburon Planning. Commission
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Planning Commission,
I am wnting this letter in support of the Kol Shofar project. As an attorney, board
member of many civic groups including the Marin County Bar Association and long-
time member of Kol Shofar, I am very committed to seeing the old dilapidated Kol
Shofar building rebuilt. Our children have celebrated important life cycle events at the
synagogue, and I pray that one day my children will be married in the synagogue. The
synagogue -is like a second home for us; we go to services every Shabbat. . While Kol
Shofar is so important in our life, the current facility is wholly inadequate to
accommodate the community's needs. The building project will not expand the current
use of the facility, but rather will enable our family and others in the community to
occupy the building comfortably. We have operated on the site for years with no
neighbor complaints. And the current proposal has reduced the use to only 27 evening
events. The use is not out of line with the current use of the area (the Cove Shopping
Center with a market, blockbuster ....is only 2 blocks away.) The current building is an
eye sore for the area; the new building will be beautiful and aesthetic and will
complement the beauty of Tiburon.
Replacing the building and having a new home to pray, to study, to celebrate is vitally
important to the entire community. If you would like to reach me to further discuss the
project, I can be reached at 415308-3640.
MCL/ml
EXIDBIT NO.~
MARTIN M. FLEISHER & LISA D. GURWITCH
2 West Shore Road
Belvedere~ CA 94920
415-435-4222
~~~~~~~~-
I I
" 37006 ~I
I !
t
t
i
~
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
April 28, 2006
Tiburon Planning Commission
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon~ CA 94920
Gentlemen:
Weare writing to encourage your support for the renovation of Congregation Kol Shofar,
to make it a more comfortable and appropriate setting for the religious, spiritual and
educational activities of the congregation. At the Planning Commission's meeting on
April 24, many of the comments from the neighbors who oppose the project focused on
the personal inconvenience of noise or traffic. Since our family lives on a busy street in
Be]vedere~ we certainly understand these concerns. A more fundamental point seemed to
have gotten lost~ however, at Monday's meeting. The contribution of the synagogue, as
in the case of the churches~ schools~ the library, and other institutions, to the fabric of the
community cannot be overstated. The community is more than just the lovely homes and
natural surroundings we enjoy. We all benefit from the presence of these organizations,
those in which we participate, and those that serve the needs of our neighbors.
Sincerely,
~~L5L
/tftJ 4L
Marty Fllt;;l
Lisa Gurwitch
, /1Ut/ ~ lib' An i37 ""n /l
/ ~r~~
Max Fleisher
~~
Brian Fleisher
EXHIBIT NO. 5~
,.,.,.,.
-:,;....:. .:~':'
.~.~nl'l~:;._ ::::i:---.o-:..
g~~,.
itj,;.:....:O~....::;,~.:~~\.f~~.~~"...,.. .
John Leszczynski
5 Circle Drive #D
Tiburon; CA 94920
THIS IS A-,~tinnP10l~TA~i'f }.li~~~'~i~..
. NOTICE THA~FlFIE.el!'
-YO'UR PROPERTY.
fr1JN : ~-rr !n\c\erse (\
034-012-48
TIBURON TOWN OF
1155 TIBURON BLVD
TIBURON CA 94920
As Bel Aire residents we urge Y01.l to attend the FINAL public hearing q ._~e .~~I.- ,'?\ I ',- on
the Kol Shofar matter. Here's why, and what to say before the commiss~on (everyone who wants to
make a comment gets 3 minutes): ;,
FACTS
.:;::4..32E:t+ i SSi:i ;:::=::4
11,1"1 l"lI,1 It u 1,/UnH; ,II,', I, II, 'f" Hlll,J" 1,lu "",
1. The Bel Aire neighborhood is NOT considered in ANY of the Environmental Impact Reports for the
Kol Shofar expansion.
2. The new Multi-Purpose Room w/lobby has a total, legal capacity of 898 people for events. This
translates to a projected total of 360 cars arriving for Kol Shofar "celebratory" events (on
weekend nights in particular).
3. On site parking at Kol Shafar will have a TOTAL capacity for about 121 cars.
4. The Bel Aire neighborhood has a TOTAL capacity for about 490 cars on its streets. On a typical
Friday, or Saturday night, 200 cars are parked on our streets. Therefore Bel Aire has room for an
additional 290 cars.
5. There is NO legal impediment, enforceable by the town, to prohibit Kol Shofar guests from using
our neighborhood as a "default" parking lot. A NET 239 cars could be cruising our neighborhood
looking for a place during a Kol Shofar evening event.
6. Bel Aire has level streets and is the closest and most convenient place for guests to park. This
means wall-to-wall cars snaking around our neighborhood, during w~ekend nights in particular.
SUGGESTIONS
Regardless of whether you approve or disapprove of Kol Shofar's plans, urge the Planning Commission,
AT A MINIMUM, to make ANY approved expansion of Kol Shofar's facility conditional upon:
1. The passing of a town ordinance to PROHIBIT parking on neighborhood streets for Kol Shofar events
associated with the multi-purpose room;
2. Enforcement of such an ordinance by the Tiburon Police Department to the extent of a parking
ticket for the first offense, and a ticket and TOW for the second offense.
.There are several ways to structure an EFFECTIVE enforcement of such an ordinance, but it's
suggested we leave that for another time. Right now, let's just get it "on the table". This
approach is the ONLY sure way to protect our neighborhood.
PLEASE ATTEND THE FINAL MEETING ON MAY 10th, or at least send a letter or email to Scott Anderson or
Dan Watrous at Town Hall expressing t~ese views (sanderson@ci.tiburo a.us OR
dwatrous@ci . tiburon. ca. us. Be assured, they ARE listening to suc . commu icat ions.... but we need more
help to keep our families safe, and our property values where the shoul be.
/
EXHIBIT NO.S i,
You can find more facts at: www.tibu
Thanks for your hel~~
,
"
TIMOTHY METZ AND JENNIFER JORGENSEN
May 4, 2006
~ [E ~ [E ~ %7 ~~- ii
1" I ':.
jJ ~r'!nr- I l/
: '1: Ill.; I ~- / '1
Lv c, h.,/ I
I
Town of Tiburon Planning Commission and
Tiburon Town Council
TIburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Re.: Kol Shofar Expansion Plans - Alternatives that have never been considered
Dear Tiburon Planning Commissioners and Tiburon Town Council Members:
There are several alternatives that have never been considered by Kol Shofar, Planning Staff and the EIR
Consultants. Until these other alternatives have been considered and their impacts assessed, the EIR process
should not be considered complete and the neighbors cannot be assured that a thorough and complete analysis
has been done. These alternatives are not drastic nor would they lead to Kol Shofar's project goals not being
satisfied. However, all of these alternatives would leave the neighbors with SIGNIFICANTLY fewer negative
impacts than any other proposals (except Alternative 2) in the EIR. Until these or other alternatives have been
considered, the neighbors needs have not been fully considered in this proposed project.
Following is a list of other alternatives that have not yet been considered. These alternatives and others need
to be considered before the EIR can be certified and the CUP approved or denied.
1) Alternatives for High Holidays:
a) Rent a dignified event tent to house High Holidays overflow. Make better use of the Annex building.
See my handout from the April 24th Planning Commission meeting for further information on this
option.
b) Rent an offsite facility or find another religious institution with a suitable sanctuary/facility size that
can be used for an offsite and separate High Holidays service at the same time as the one at Kol
Shofar. This is the most common split service alternative practiced by other synagogues around the
country. This alternative would not violate religious law, as services would both happen at the same
time.
2) Alternatives for other proposed events:
a) Rent a tent to house overflow from these proposed events. Make better use of the Annex building.
\Vith this alternative, fewer proposed events would be allowed since noise could become an issue.
b) Rent an offsite facility for events. Split events into an onsite religious event and an offsite social event.
e.g. Wedding ceremony onsite and reception offsite, B'nai l\1itzvah service onsite and reception offsite,
ete.
c) Reconfigure existing space with a smaller sanctuary than what has been proposed and more
social/ classroom space to better accommodate social events and classes. Keep Ring Mountain Day
School as a tenant. Make better use of the Annex building for these functions.
d) Reconfigure existing space with a smaller sanctuary and more social/classroom space to better
accommodate social events. Remove Ring Mountain Day School as a tenant and make better
use of the space they are using to accommodate Kol Shofar's needs. Make better use of the
Annex building for these functions.
\Vhile we truly appreciate the role that Ring Mountain Day School plays in the community, they are
Kol Shofar's tenant and they do take up a significant portion of the synagogue space (i.e. the entire
existing classroom wing). If Ring Mountain Day School were no longer in the Kol Shofar facility, all
of the space currently allocated to this school could be reconfigured more specifically for Kol Shofar's
needs, whether it is additional classroom or social space or both. Thus far in the discussion, there has
been no mention of whether portions of the facility should continue to be leased out to a tenant. ~
EXIDBIT NO. 5~
/'
-2-
May 4, 2006
prudent person would think that if an expansion was being considered. the first place to look for that
expansion would be within the existing walls of the facility.
3) General alternative:
a) Move up the end times of proposed events to something more in line with a residential environment.
Events should end no later than 8:00 PM with cleanup happerung thereafter. Including cleanup, no
event other than High Holidays should end after 9:00 PM in a residential neighborhood.
b) Find a parcel of land or another existing facility that is more suitable for the proposed usage. Kol
Shofar would relocate onto/into that more suitable site. This is not necessarily the best alternative,
but it is an alternative nonetheless. This is also an alternative that Kol Shofar has considered in the
past since they are on the record as pursuing relocation to Larkspur.
Again, we recognize and respect Kol Shofar's need to serve their community. \Ve embrace Kol Shofar's
desire to improve their facilities by renovating/rebuilding the existing space to make it more suitable for the
practice of their faith. However, we do not view the additions of a multi purpose room, expanded classrooms
and associated parking lot expansion as necessary to serve their religious needs and community. We also feel
that these aspects of their expansion plan significantly change the character of the residential neighborhood in
which they are located.
As always, thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
I~ f/>J~
SO REEDLAND WOODS \l,'AY. TIBL'RON. CA. 94920
PHONE. 415.3835381
--?
~ ~"~ ~402:6~ ~i
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
31 Via Los Altos
Tiburon
Planning Commission
Town ofTiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon
4 May 2006
Dear Sirs,
Kol Shofar Expansion - FEIR - RLUIP A - 'Tbe elephant in the corner'
The elephant in the corner that KS has kept quiet about thus far is RLUIP A - once the
facility is built, by invoking that act KS can overrule any limitations in the CUP with
impunity. The Planning Commission has the opportunity now to decide that parties are
not religious events and so avoid any RLUIP A conflict.
The attorney for the TNC has been pointing out to the Planning Commission that the
FEIR should draw its conclusions based on the permitted capacity of the project - not just
Alternative 7.
Not only does CEQA require this but Alternative 7 and the whole CUP is a complete
'man of straw' which KS can completely ignore once the multi-purpose facility is built.
As J said in my previous letter the CUP for the project should specifically provide for
only religious events at the multipurpose room and exclude all parties and sociaJ events.
Yours sincerely
Edward Baker
~ VV.l.I VV.l.
EXHIBIT No.5 f{
May 4, 2006
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
~ ~'j~ lE 40 ;: ~ ~
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Gentlemen,
The following is in response to the Public Hearing for the Kol Shofar Expansion Project
and proposed approval of the FEIR, April 24, 2006
I am currently a member of the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition and have grown
increasingly weary of hearing arguments posed by Kol Shofar leadership, their planning
consultant, Rabbi Lavey Derby and now their law fmn, that seem to indicate a
preordained right to build the nearly 10,000 sq. ft. multi-purpose room.
As Kol Shofar's lead attorney gave his closing remarks, he posed the question,
pompously pedantically and dictatorially, that the FEIR "MUST' be approved because
after two long years of work, the architect, the consultants and the town's advisors
couldn't all possibly be wrong.
I submit, that most certainly, they not only could be wrong, they are indeed wrong in this
matter. Kol Shofar's attorney states that approval of the FEIR and the Kol Shofar
Expansion should be reviewed based on the facts. I couldn't agree more. I see the
following facts as most relevant in your decision-making process:
1) Alternative 7 is only a slightly less offensive proposal than its antecedents with
respect to maintaining peaceful and quiet neighborhood conditions in the area. In
other words, Alternative 7 has somewhat watered down schedules with respect to
attendance levels and number of participants. What is glaringly absent is any
discussion of the continued objectionable noise level to be expected from these
gatherings as well as traffic problems and the still inadequate parking on site for
these events.
2) The size and proposed use patterns of the multipurpose room are not only NOT
IN KEEPING WITH THE TOWN PLAN they are an affront to it. Think about it.
A room with larger seating capacity than the Mill Valley Recreation Center and
nearly as large as the Marin Civic Center Auditorium, in A RESIDENTIAL
AREA!
3) While Kol Shofar admits that the multi-purpose room will only be used for
religious purposes three days per year, the "new additional activities" as named
but not identified in the FEIR are not discussed in any detail. While estimates of
several hundred people is common at these events and estimates of cars
people/vehicle are "guestimated", this is mere speculation. In addition we know
EXHIBIT NO. S L
that the "cut off times" do not include clean up and exiting time. To get several
hundred people out of the facility, into cars and driving through the neighborhood
will certainly require considerable additional time not to mention the expected
post event conversations and visiting outside next to our homes. In this
information vacuum, how can the neighbors possibly approve or object to that
which has not been outlined? How can the Planning Commission possibly
evaluate the multi-purpose room as it is currently proposed, with any objectivity?
What we do know is the facility is not being considered for merely sporadic use.
Its cost dictates frequent and increasing use to justify the multi-million dollar
investment.
4) Finally, 3,000 square feet of new classroom space has been proposed. Given the
fact that several thousand square feet of classroom' space is not only currently
available but rented out to Ring Mountain Day School Monday through Friday, it
calls into question whether new classroom space is needed at all. Has an
alternative solution even been explored for Kol Shofar to use it's own existing
classroom space for its proposed future needs?
In closing, Ie me stress again, something that has often been voiced. Our neighbors
support Kol Shofar's presence, their right to pray and need to gather. IT IS THE
PARTIES AND NON-RELIGIOUS GATHERINGS THAT WILL DISTURB OUR
PEACEFUL NEIGHBORHOOD AT NIGHT TIlAT CONCERNS US. INDEED,
MANY OF US HA VB YOUNG CHILDREN, WHOSE SAFETY WilL BE PUT AT
FAR GREATER RISK DUE TO THE INCREASED TRAFFIC ASSOCIATED WITH
TIlE PROmCT SHOULD IT BE APPROVED IN IT'S CURRENT FORM. AS WELL,
WE ALL WANT A QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD AFTER DARK FOR OUR OWN
SLEEP AND THE SLEEP OF OUR YOUNG KIDS WHOSE BED TIMES ARE
ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION WELL BEFORE 9PM.
Many thanks for your careful and reasoned deliberation on this complex matter and I
sincerely hope and urge you to keep the rights of our neighbors in mind while you are
inevitably pressured to accede on the basis of inappropriate and inapplicable religious
freedom arguments.
Respectfully,
rrdlc
Peter A. Stock
30 Reedland Woods Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
415-389-1780
ChrisUanna Seidel & p'eter Stock
30 Reedland Woods Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
Tiburon Planning Commission and Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
[0) ~CC~~~~fR\
~ MtV - A 2000 ~
May 4, 2006
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Re: Kol Shofar Final EIR and Conditional Use Permit Application
Dear Tiburon Planning Commissioners and Council Members,
1. Traffic:Traffic studies have not been performed for the newly proposed Alternative 7
in which the entrance is changed back to Via Los Altos. The FEIR traffic analysis says
that "this proposal would operate safely without impacts" but no traffic studies for
Alternative 7 are provided to support this opinion. In addition, the parking lot layout is
still undefined, as the planning staff has asked the architects to take a closer look at the
parking layout to gain additional spaces. Given parking is such a significant issue; it is
hard to imagine they haven't taken a good hard look. There are no internal circulation
studies and the number of additional cars parked on-site due to valet parking efficiency
has not been proven. Kol Shofar claims they can improve parking efficiency by 800/0.
The EIR says they believe it can only be increased by 300/0; These large discrepancies
need to be resolved prior to approval. .
2. Traffic: On p. 7 of the staff report it says, " Unquestionably, the number of new traffic
trips that would be generated by the proposed Kol Shofar expansion is much larger than
other recent projects referring to St Hilary's Church, The Tiburon Peninsula Club, and.
the Belvedere Tennis Club. This magnitude of traffic in a quiet residential neighborhood
is out of character and poses significant safety impacts for the residents. We hope that
the Planning Commission will deny this project as currently proposed and ask the
applicant to downsize the facility so it is more compatible with the neighborhood and to
have the large member-sponsored events off site, as the preponderance of these have
for the last 20 years and could into the future. We are here tonight to ask you to protect
our neighborhoods and keep them safe for our children.
3. Traffic: The question of whether the left-hand turn lane on Tiburon Boulevard has be
extended remains unresolved. The EIR defers the problem to Caltrans to be studied at
a later date, possibly after the project is built. As stated in the FEIR, "3.3-A.1 Tiburon
Blvd. IBlackfield Drive intersection shall be monitored by the project sponsors and Town
engineer for eastbound left turn lane congestion and capacity during the first year of use
of the multipurpose room and following completion of building remodel and building
addition development. Monitoring standards shall be those specified by Caltrans." This
is unacceptable. This is a safety issue that must be decided before the facility is
approved.
EXIllBIT NO.! W\
4. Parking: Does the parking comply with town standards as Alternative 7 claims to?
There are just enough parking spaces to meet the requirements of the sanctuary,
however, undoubtedly there will be children's' programs running concurrently with
.services and potentially other programs as well. On-site parking needs to accommodate
overlapping uses, which appears not to be the case. Until the applicant properly defines
the uses of the building, the number of parking spaces required will remain unknown.
Parking is a key issue as witnessed at the April 24th PC meeting bya number of
residents registering concern from Vista Tiburon HOA and Bel Aire HOA. The parking
receipt mitigation was deemed unwieldy and too difficult to monitor by the staff. 1;he "no
parking signs" recommended by staff as the alternative is currently employed on High
Holy Days and only serves to push the traffic into other neighborhoods. The FEIR has
no viable solutions to solve the parking problems and the town planners only defaulted
to the existing and ineffective solution.
Furthermore, the turn-arounds in neighborhoods, which was deemed a significant and
unavoidable impact, is stated to be mitigated by returning the main entry to Via Los
Altos. Turn arounds result from lack of parking space on-site, not from the current or
proposed (which are one in the same) circulation pattern. . As a result the significant and
unavoidable impact of turn-arounds remains unmitigated with the danger being that
some child or other pedestrian could be injured or killed. The EIR states that with the
increased traffic volume generated by the project, pedestrians will have to act more.
defensively; however many of the pedestrians in these . neighborhoods are children and
elderly people. They are not defensive thinkers by nature. The safety and welfare of the
neighborhood would be greatly compromised.
5. Use: Many of the proposed "new additional events" as identified in the FEIR, occur on
the weekends and in the evenings when families are at home. Weekends and evenings
are peak times for residential use and the proposed expansion use would cause an
irreconcilable conflict between the neighbors and Kol Shofar.
6. Use: The "new additional events" are responsible for the majority of the proposed
traffic and are primarily member-sponsored event, not religious functions. The
neighbors have no contention with Kol Shofar honoring their religious functions;
however, these added events and parties would result in unsafe volumes of traffic and
congestion, inadequate parking and significantly increased noise levels i~ a typically
quiet neighborhood. These events should be held off-site in a more appropriate location.
7. . Kol Shofar's presentation of Alternative 7 at the April 24th meeting included this sheet
of facts:
1. Fact: Reasonable compatibility with the surrounding single-family residential use.
2. Fact: Consistency with Town General Plan Policy and Environmental thresholds.
3. Fact: Consistency with the regulations of the governing RO-1 Zone District.
4. Fact: Project meets Kol Shofar goals and objectives.
However, these are the facts viewed from the perspective of the surrounding
neighborhood regarding Alternative 7:
1. Fact: Incompatibility with the surrounding single-family residential use. The proposed
facility is in close proximity on all sides by residences. Consistent use of the facility from
early morning until late at night throughout the week and weekends causes noise, traffic,
health, safety and welfare issues for the neighbors.
2. Fact: Inconsistency with Town General Plan Policy and Environmental thresholds.
As our TNC lawyer asserts: The Draft EIR included a review of the Project in
relationship to the General Plan then in effect; and the Final EIR now includes a review
of the Project in relationship to the new Tiburon 2020 General Plan. However, despite
the fact that some of the language in Tiburon 2020 is identical to the old General Plan
(or conceptually the same), the Final EIR concludes in some instances that the Project is
consistent while the Draft EIR concluded it was not. There is no explanation presented
for this about-face.
The following are examples of these unexplained contradictions between the Draft EIR
and Final EIR. The conclusion ot-Project inconsistency in the Draft EIR was changed
without explanation to Project consistency in the Final EIR:
a. Both OSC-2 in the old General Plan and LU-5 in the new Plan contain the
same language: "New development shall be in harmony with adjacent
neighborhoods and open spaces." Compare Draft EIR at 130 with Final
EIR at 9.
b. Policies C-C in the old and new General Plans have virtually identical
language: "To maintain all existing, as well as to design all future,
residential streets with consideration of residents' safety, cost of
maintenance, and protection of residential [quality of life]." Compare Draft
EIR at 133 with Final EIR at 16.
c. Old OSC-11 and new OSC-35 contain identical language: ".. .grading
shall be kept to a minimum and every effort ... made to retain the natural
features of the land including...trees...." Compare Draft EIR at 131 with
Final EIR at 13.
d. d. The Draft EIR also made findings of inconsistency with the Town
Zoning Code which conflict with the- Final EIR's findings of consistency
with certain policies in the new General Plan. For example, the Draft EIR
found that the Project was inconsistent with subsection (d) of Section
4.02.00 (Site Plan and Architectural Review) because "[t]he proposed
non-residential buildings and parking facilities are out of character with
surrounding residences." Draft EIR at 136. Yet, the Final EIR concludes
that the Project is consistent with new LU-H requiring the Town "[t]o
protect and preserve existing neighborhood character and identity" (p. 8)
and consistent with new LU-13 calling for the pre~ervation of
"neighborhood character" (p. 10). Yet, again, there is no explanation for
these contradictory findings.
e. e. The Draft EIR further found that the Project was inconsistent with
provisions in Section 4.04.00 relating to CUP's, including separate
requirements that the location of the Project be "properly related to the
development of the neighborhood as a whole" and "reasonably
compatible with the types of uses normally permitted in the surrounding
area." (p. 137). Yet, the Final EIR found that the Project was consistent
with new LU-1 requiring that developments be "compatible with
surrounding neighborhoods." F.
f. Most confounding is the conflict in the findings regarding the Project's
consistency with Town parking requirements. The Draft ErR found the
Project inconsistent with the parking requirements in Zoning Code 9
5.08.04 because "the project would not include sufficient spaces to meet
these criteria." (p. 138). On the other hand, the Final EIR finds that the
Project is consistent with new Goal C-I "to provide adequate parking." .
3. Fact: Inconsistency with the regulations of the governing RO-1 Zone District
because large, late night events and consistent, intensive use of the site from TAM until
9 or 10 PM daily with late use of the site 300/0 of the weekends per year is not the spirit
and intent of this zoning law. This proposed project is used more like a community
center (that does not include the surrounding community) than a religious facility or
school.
4.Fact: The project does not meet neighborhood's goals and objectives of maintaining a
neighborhood that is safe for children and supportive of our families and our local
community.
What Kol Shofar states so boldly as fact is a matter of opinion and interpretation of many
conflicting statements in the EIR documents.
8. Use: With the expansion of the facility, the building will be used in new ways. Even
existing activities take on a new character within a bigger, modernized space. The
existing CUP needs to be examined and revised to ensure compatibility between the
neighborhood and Kol Shofar. Kol Shofar has vehemently protected the existing CUP,
but as the neighbors have stated Kol Shofar does not have nearly enough parking for
their Saturday, Sunday and special events currently. With an update of the facility,
problems that the neighbors have brought to the attention of Town officials in the 2004
CUP hearing needs to be addressed, most had to do with parking and traffic. Clearly
the parking impacts will not be rectified by 22 additional spaces. The parking issues
need to be addressed now in the planning phase, not after the facility is built.
Why has the staff choose to leave the massive facility untouched in the EIR alternatives
and limit the use through a CUP? Each of the alternatives in the EIR lay within a narrow
spectrum of limiting use and hours through the amendment of the CUP~ For instance,
alternatives could have included scenarios such as reducing the size of the multi-
purpose room or: deleting it and erecting a tent to me.et the 3 day need for a large
capacity space over the High Holy Days; having some or all of the adult classes off-site
on weekdays so as not to disturb the residences week nights until 9 or 10 PM. One
could argue that classes are an existing activity; however, the proposed activities
outstrip the current schedule and appear to significantly escalate nighttime noise, traffic
and lighting. No alternative in the EIR addresses the idea that multipurpose room could
be scaled back and additional parking created in the upper lot. ,A road could be graded
in between the lower lot and the upper lot and the dangerous entrance to the upper lot
closed off. Furthermore, has the possibility of Kol Shofar reclaiming the classrooms they
rent to Ring Mountain been explored rather than constructing additional square footage
for classrooms? The two issues: the capacity of the facility must be balanced by enough
on-site parking. This project must be self-contained especially due to the intensity of
use.
Would the community of Tiburon be better served by suggesting Kol Shofar create two
campuses within Tiburon to defuse the traffic, noise and congestion that accompanies
one central location? It appears they are trying to do too much on a difficult site
entrenched in a densely populated community. The conflict in land use between
neighbors and the Temple demands another alternative be found.
9.Use of the Facilities: The "Annual Use atKol Shofar" for Alterative 7 on p.4 of the
staff report is ambiguous. It states," Wednesday Night: Th~ Synagogue is currently used
for Adult Education from 7-9 PM, 30-35 weeks during the 'School Year with 30-50 people
at each program. It is also used for Jewish High School on this night serving about 80
teen-agers during the same hours. This use is unchanged." How many programs will
be running concurrenUy with 30-50 people attending? 30-50 people at each program is
vague and implies more than one program would be scheduled on Wednesday night.
What is the total number of people on Wednesday nights; and for that matter, each night
of the week and what are the resulting impacts? Although the type of activity is
unchanged, the scale appears to have increased which needs to be addressed in the
new CUP conditions.
No times are given for activities on Tuesday and Thursday nights. This should be
clarified.
"Congregational dinners for 50-75 people after services 1-2 times per month until 10
PM." In other documents they site 100 people. There is a big difference between 12
and 24 dinners per year for the neighbors; there is a high degree of variability in the
number of events. And what if more than the maximum number show up for dinner or
what if this event becomes extremely popular and say 200 people express the ~esire to
attend. Is an activity like this allowed to grow beyond the estimated numbers given in
the CUP and who will monitor these numbers? The closing time is stated as10 PM,
however, the noise from clean up will continue until at least 11 PM for the adjacent
neighbors.
"In addition to the above (Friday night dinners), we have proposed in our application that
the Synagogue will be used for member-sponsored Friday night dinners 12 times per
year with 75 (3 events). 100 (6 events), or 150 (3 events) people present." This is 25% of
the annual Friday night usage and cumulative 750/0 of the Fridays each year will have
events until 10 and 1 hour later if clean up is included.
9. Noise/Use: As Don Dana, a land use lawyer in San Francisco, says, the closing time
presented by Kol Shofar is not the time the noise will end, that is when the noise begins.
People leaving the building, chatting, slamming car doors, in addition to the sounds of
clean-up crews wheeling heavy band equipment and catering paraphernalia out of the
facility. These are particularly loud and disturbing noises late at night.. Cleanup should
be included so that lights are out and the site is quiet by the proposed 11 PM and 9 PM
curfew on weekends.
10. Noise: While Kol Shofar claims the annualize Ldn is below 60 dB with Alternative 7.
the noise at night is above acceptable levels in a residential neighborhood. To look at
the average noise per year is inconsiderate of the neighbors/families affected by Kol
Shofar's nighttime activities. Please consider this in creating a CUP in which the curfew
is no later than 8 PM on weekends.
There are too many unresolved issues to certify the FEIR and too many unknowns to
craft a meaningful CUP. Please recirculate the FEIR after a wider range of alternatives
have been explored that meet the needs of the neighbors as well as the applicant. It
appears in this process that the needs of the applicant have been driving the alternatives
with less consideration given to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Christianna Seidel
Scott Anderson
LATE MAIL # J
From:
It:
John Leszczynski fiohn@skakous.com]
Thursday, May 04, 2006 3:24 PM
MBerger@ci.tiburon.ca.us; AFredericks@ci.tiburon.ca.us; JSlavitz@ci.tiburon.ca.us
Scott Anderson; Dan Watrous
Kal Shofar Application far Expansion
~ ~M~ ~:,: lE ~
.I:
Cc:
Subject:
Tiburon Councilmembers:
Ata minimum, if you are predisposed to approve the Kol Shofar
Expansion, I urge you to include a PROHIBITION of on-street parking in
the neighborhoods surrounding the facility, and especially for the Bel
Aire residential area. This prohibition should take the form of an
enforceable Town of Tiburon Ordinance as a condition of approval.
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
The reasons that you should include this prohibition are:
1. The expansion application is seriously flawed in that Kol Shofar
UNDERSTATES the number of people that might attend their events.
Therefore the EIR's are based on Kol Shofar's unenforceable "promises"
of the number of events and number of people likely to attend,
particularly in the evenings.
2. The only solid, undisputed, verifiable, legal number to be used in
such an application should be the TOTAL capacity of the Multi-Purpose
Room/lobby: 898 people. At 2.5 people per car (Kol Shofar's ratio), this
~ns a potential total of 360 cars for an event (at a minimum, not
.nting the sanctuary, courtyard, etc). If we accept their number of
~l-site parking spaces available in the future as 139 cars, then there
will be 221 cars looking for a place to park, at a minimum.
3. The Bel Aire neighborhood has level streets and is the closest and
most convenient place for guests to park. I did a study wherein I found
that we have available about 490 TOTAL spaces on our streets for
parking. I also found that we have about 200 cars parked on our streets
on any given Friday or Saturday night. This leaves room for about 290
additional cars, suggesting a near solid wall of cars snaking through
our neighborhood on such nights. And there is NO legal impediment
against this right now.
4. Therefore ALL EIR reports to date are seriously flawed in that they
do NOT consider the impact of parking in the Bel Aire neighborhood. It
is unfair the the Bel Aire neighborhood become the "default parking lot"
for the new Kol Shofar facility.
5. Also, much to my amazement, when I attended the last meeting at Reed
School Multi-Purpose Room (there's NO kitchen there!), it became clear
from statements made by officials of Kol Shofar, supported by speakers
from other congregations in the Bay Area, that membership levels were
"shaky". It seems that it was far from certain that any of the Bay Area
congregations would succeed in the future! At first glance this would
seem to sustain Kol Shofar's claims about the number of attendees per
~t. However, other implications could be drawn:
In lieu of increasing membership, and possibly facing a fall in
membership, Kol Shofar needs to bring in revenue by attracting MORE
people to more EVENTS, thus the "need" for fee-based IIcelebratory"
1
events like Bar and Bat Mitzvahs (sp?), wedding receptions, etc.. Hence
the need for kitchens, audio and lighting infrastructure for bands,
etc. A "commercial" enterprise by another name: Multipurpose Room. OR. ...
b. The Kol Shofar congregation disbands despite the attempt at revenue
enhancement, and another organization takes over the site with a
i'grandfathered" facility for 898 people approved, in essence, as a
"commercial" facility! What then?
6. Finally, it's been my experience over the last half-century, growing
up in Brooklyn and New York.City (yes, two different places!), and
having lived/visited in many different areas of the country, that
religious ceremonies lIve attended were always held in a religious
"sanctuary" (be it temple or church or mosque), and the subsequent
celebrations held at off-site, commercial halls. Never have I attended
such a celebratory event in the same place. ..as Kol Shofar is purposing
to do. It is disingenuous in the extreme to shroud the argument for a
fee-based commercial enterprise within an argument for "religious
freedom" as the good rabbi tried to do at the last meeting.
So, I implore you -to help the residents of Bel Aire preserve the safety
of our children, the quality and quiet of our nights, and the value of
our homes by, at a minimum, prohibiting on-street parking for these
types of Kol-Shofar events. And it wouldn't hurt to deny the approval
of kitchen facilities, either, now that I think about it.
Best regards,
JOHN LESZCZYNSKI
318 Karen Way
Tiburon, CA
2
LATE MAfl # cl
John and Karen Nygren
22 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburon, CA 94920
May 4, .2006
~ ~ ~ ~4~:lE ~
td r" \/
f~, PLANNING DIVISION
~j~~ . TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Planning Commission and Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 2006 --
Dear Tiburon Planning Commissioners and Town Council Members,
Kol Shofar, since 1985, has not and currently does not adhere and comply with its
Conditional Use Permits. It is unrealistic to believe, with this established pattern of
noncompliance, that they will do so in the future.
· The Congregation and its members. have repeatedly shown that they do not use
the shuttle program that is required by their existing CUP as a means to mitigate
the impacts of on street parking. This has been documented by photos
submitted to the Planning Commission over the past few years.
· The Congregants continue to park on the neighborhood streets, wh~n on site
parking is required and parking spaces remain available in their parking lot.
· The liaison ~esignated by Kol Shofar, required to communicate with the adjacent
neighbors, offers no significant communication. In fact, it has been noted, the
synagogues appointed liaison has been rude to several of the neighbors when
asked questions about their activities. The neighborhood has limited knowledge
about the activities of the Congregation due to the existing and continued lack of
communication.
· Kol Shofar does not restrict exterior noise as required in their current CUP.
Just this past week, neighborhoods again needed to call the police to complain
about loud outside noises coming from the temple. Basically they are flaunting
the requirement of the existing CUP at the same time they are requesting an .
expanded new CUP.
· There is no evidence that Congregation member's car pool. Kol Shofar requests
that members should car pool, but this condition has not proven to be affective.
We have serious concerns regarding the Resolution No 2006 _ which staff has
proposed for Approving the Conditional Use Permit for Kol Shofar Synagogue, (AP 38-
351-34) File #10404.
Section 1. Findinas:
The mitigation measures suggested for Alternative 7, and to be incorporated into the
CUP, do not mitigate impacts by the proposed new use to a level of insignificance. They
have been found to be inadequate, inaccurate or contrary to Tiburon's General Plan
Goals, Policies and Zoning Codes.
We strongly disagree with the Findings "0" of the resolution where it states by merely
reducing the number of events that the significant noise impact will be reduced to a level
less than significant. In the April 24th staff report, the EIR consultant, Leonard Charles
and Associates in fact stated on page 5, Uthat CEQA Guidelines state Uthat a noise
impact may be considered significant when there is, a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project." Thus, Finding number D on page 2 of the staff CUP resolution for Alternative 7
is invalid. Merely reducing the hours of use for the new uses proposed for the CUP are
an increase above existing levels.
Finding number E, Page 2 of the staff CUP is invalid, since traffic impacts at Blackfield
Drffiburon Blvd, on street parking in the: neighborhoods, and safety from turn arounds in
the neighborhood streets have not been reduced to a level of insignificance. The
mitigation measures that the Town uses to make its conclusions, as we've mentioned
and documented in previous letters, have shown to be inadequate, inaccurate and have
not mitigated the impacts of the project and thus the CUP. The EIR consultant's and
staff's analysis and conclusions have been illogical and contradictory.
Finding E. page 2, is invalid. The project is not consistent with a multitude of the Town
General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. We have detailed these inconsistencies in
previous letters. To name only two of many; the project is not in harmony and is
incompatible with the neighborhood and does not meet the on site parking requirements
of the Tiburon Parking and Loading Code.
Finding G is invalid. A facility to accommodate over 1,500 attendees and includes a
multipurpose roomllobby for 898 people, is not properly related to the development of
the surrounding very residential neighborhood as a whole and not reasonably
compatible with the types of uses normally permitted in the immediate surrounding area.
Finding G is an extremely illogical conclusion for the Town to make, particularly when
the mitigation measures relied on to make these conclusions and create the conditions
of approval are based on a DEIRlFEIR and. staff reports which are inadequate,
inaccurate, and inconsistent.
Finding H is invalid. It concludes that the synagogue and day school uses remain in
substantial compliance with the spirit and intent of the original 1985 conditional use
permit, as well as amended permits. The intent of the original use permit, granted to Kol
Shofar in 1985, was part of the development agreement of the Vista Tiburon Vested
Master Plan. This CUP associated with this development agreement stated the
congregation's maximum number of members would be caped at 320. There are now at
600 members units = 1,860 members. Former Tiburon Mayor, Larry Duke, who
negotiated the initial CUP along with the development agreement, has submitted a letter,
included in the April 24th packet distributed to the public, stating the proposed CUP is
NOT in keeping with the original intent of the CUP and his negotiated settlement
agreement with Kol Shofar.
Section 2. Prior Resolutions SUDerseded.
The wording of superseded previous resolutions fails to mention the original 1985
Conditional Use Permit that was approved along with the Vista Tiburon Vested Master
Plan.
a. If the 1985 CUP remains the basis for this new CUP and is not voided, the
intent of the original master plan and Conditional Use Permit should be
honored by the Town.
b. The proposed 2006 - resolution incorporates the1997-17, 2001-07, and 2004-
10 CUP's. These Conditional Use Permits applied to the existing facility.
2
The new CUP shall apply to the proposed new facility and its uses as well as
the existing facility. We continue to state, that due to the fact that a new CUP
will condition the existing as well as new facility and uses, the DEIR and
FEIR, in order to adequately discuss and mitigate the impacts of the entire
use, need to be cumulatively studied and analyzed~ This has not been done.
Thus, the DEIRlFEIR are inadequate and a Conditional Use Permit which
conditions and regulates the use of the entire facility, without having studied
the entire project, does not meet the requirements of CEQA fora certifiable
document. In turn, until such time, the previous CUP cannot become null and
void and a new CUP must not be approved. The existing use permit must
remain in place.
Section 3. Conditions of Approval:
1. The impacts of the proposed new multipurpose room, classrooms remain
significant and not mitigated to a level of insignificance. The addition of the new
facilities should be denied. The significant impacts of the massive size of a facility
accommodating an additional 898 attendees beyond the existing capacity and a
500/0 increase in classroom space is not compatible and not in harmony with the
existing neighborhood. The impacts of such a facility have not been proven to be
reduced to a level of insignificance. We do believe the Conditional Use Permit
should only allow for remodeling of the existing facilities and improving the
related parking. Tiburon's population is approximately 8,700 residents. To give
a perspective of the size of this project, what this facility will be able to
accommodate, if approved, is approximated 20 % of Tiburon's population with
parking for only 139 cars. This project is totally and undeniably incompatible with
Tiburon's General Plan Goals, Policy's and Goals.
2. We believe the existing CUP which allows for 100 students is the appropriate
size for the school. The CUP should not be allowed to increase to 150 students.
One hundred students has been the long established and promised number as
determined for the 1985 CUP. There is no compelling reason to expand to 150
students. If Kol Shofar desires to have its own school, the CUP should state that
it allows Kol Shofar to replace its tenant, the Ring Mountain Day School, for its
own use of 100 students.
3. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is inadequate and inaccurate.
Numerous listed mitigations have been found to not mitigate the impacts of
noise, traffic, safety, parking, as well as other noted impacts to a level of
insignificance. The Town continues to ignore our requests'to include in the DEIR
and FEIR adequate and accurate information regarding the cumulative affects of
the entire facility, project, and the interior parking lots drculation plan in relation
to traffic impacts on and off site. We strongly believe it necessary that the Town
revise the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, so that it accurately and
adequately offers mitigations that reliably reduce the impacts of this project to a
level of insignificance. The Planning Commission, Town Council as well as staff,
should carefully review each mitigation in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for its accuracy and adequacy prior to adoption. You will find
numerous of its mitigations and monitoring measures to be inadequate or
inaccurate or/and lacking in detail.
3
4. Numerous mitigation measures, that are suggested to be incorporated as
ongoing conditions of approval, are and have been unworkable and inadequate
to mitigate the impacts on the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
a. The "Resident Traffic Only" or similar sign as welf as "No Parking" signs
are only a small step in the direction of limiting on street parking or
turnarounds in the neighborhood streets. Basically the "No Parking" signs
might protect the immediate residents from on street parking, but in turn,
forces on street parking further into other areas of the neighborhood. .
Even the residents of the Bel Aire, Tiburon Hills and La Cresta
neighborhoods have complained about the traffic and on-street parking
and unsafe turn arounds in their neighborhoods by Congregation Kol
Shofar attendees. (This traffic impact has not been studied or mitigated in
the DEIRlFEIR) The CUP should comply with the Tiburon Parking and
Loading Zoning Code and require all parking on-site, as well as follow the
other Parking requirements listed in the Parking and Loading Zoning
Code. In addition, there is no real protection to the residents of the
neighborhood without continuing police enforcement that insures
compliance by Congregation members.
b. We continue to disagree that the parking layout plan for the new and
revised parking lots be deferred to the Design Review stage of the
project. We strongly believe that the traffic analysis is inadequate and
inaccurate without a parking layout study included in the DEIR. If the
Planning Commission continues on the path of approving this CUP, it
should at least require that the lower parking lot's redesign should take
into account the new circulation pattern created by the new upper parking
lot and circular drop off site, school access and interior driveway. This
circulation plan should be included as well along with the parking layout.
This parking lot should be designed not only to accommodate the number
of cars required by the CUP, but also to insure there is an unhampered
flow of traffic within the parking lot. If necessary, to achieve this safe and
easy flow of traffic, the required number of parking spaces might not be
achievable. If so, the 250 cap of attendees for events must be reduced to
match the reduced number of available parking spaces.
c. There is no definition as to what is considered a "large event" when doors
and windows should be closed in the multi-purpose room. The CUP must
give a number for clarification. As stated, small events will not be
required to keep their doors and windows closed. This is not a sufficient
mitigation. Small events of singing, teen activities, movies, parties and
people talking loudly can have a significant noise impact on the
neighborhood as well as large events. Thus, doors and windows of the
multi-purpose room should be required to remain closed at all times, no
matter what the size of the event or activity.
d. This condition should remain as written.
e. Outdoor use for the courtyards should not be permitted. If allowed it
should be limited to no more then 5 or 6 adults at one time. If children or
teens are to use the courtyard, they should be accompanied by an adult
to guarantee that they will talk in soft voices.
The facility should only be rented to congregants, and not friends of the
congregants. It is common practice for a friend of a facility to ask a
member to sponsor them, so they in turn can use a facility. Thus,
wording that prohibits congregants from sponsoring a friend or
4
nonmember from renting the facility for public or private parties should be
included in the CUP.
f. The parking lot lighting shall be required to be on timers and turned off
every day at 9 or 10 PM. Saturday's and Sunday's should not be
exempted from this requirement to insure residents are not disturbed by
late night uses of the facility. This is the same requirement as the Tiburon
Peninsula Club. The High Holiday's as stated in the existing CUP should
be the only exception.
5__ Kol Shofar should not be allowed to expand its uses to Saturday and Sunday
nights for reasons previously stated in our letters to the Town.
a. All functions should be conditioned for time and use as stated in the
existing CUP. The existing CUP times and days of use should remain as
the stated maximum. There should be no new uses on Saturday or
Sunday evenings.
b. The maximum number of people on site in the existing. as well as. new
soaces should not exceed 250 so that there will be. adequate on site
parking. Limiting the capacity to only 250 for new events causes the
Congregation to be out of compliance of the Parking and Zoning Code.
The 250 should cumulatively be applied to activities as well as events.
This 250 cap should be applied to the total use of the facility at one time
to insure the impacts of the synagogue are mitigated to a level of
insignificance and adequate on site parking is available.
6. The day school should remain at 100 children as was established and promised
in the original 1985 CUP. The cumulative impact of an additional 50 students
along with all the other requested expanded uses is significant. . These
cumulative impacts have not been studied, or mitigated in the DEIR. Traffic
circulation, pick up and drop off sites, additional noise from outside activities and
other impacts related to the school's activities have not been adequately
addressed and mitigated to a negative impact for a 50% increase of students.
The CUP should include mitigations and set requirements for the sehool
activities, even if there are 100 or 150 students. These details are missing in the
staff's proposed CUP.
7. Kol Shofar must continue to hold split services for the High Holy Days. Doubling
the size of attendees to 1,624 is FAR in EXCESS as to what the neighborhoods
can safely accommodate without significantly jeopardizing its quality of life and
the community as a whole. The traffic control measures I,isted currently are
unworkable and found to be unreliable.
a. The shuttle service has been documented by the community to not be
used by the Congregation and does not mitigate significant impacts of the
existing split services. It is totally illogical to consider the shuttle service
as a solution for a single service. A shuttle service will only work as a
mitigation measure if there is a penalty for members who do not use this
service and instead park on the neighborhood streets when parking is no
longer available in Kol Shofar's parking lots.
b. The entire Bel Aire neighborhood, Reedland Woods, Tiburon Hills, La
Cresta, Ring Mountain and other adjoining neighborhoods are
significantly impacted by the High Holy Day services. A courtesy mailer
to only the Vista Tiburon Subdivision is totally an inadequate way of
noticing the community of the High Holy Day services. The impacts of
5
Kol Shofar are felt far and wide. All surrounding neighborhood~ should
be notified by a courtesy mailer.
c. "Resident Traffic Only" addresses the traffic impacts to a very limited
segment of the community significantly impacted by the High Holy Day
services. Such signs should be placed around all the various
neighborhoods.
d. No parking signs for Kol Shofar attendees should be placed on all
neighborhood streets, not only the Reedland Woods Way. By placing
these no parking signs only on Re'edland Woods Way, it forces parking in.
other areas of the neighborhood. There should be no preference given to
one neighborhood over another regarding no parking requirements on
residential streets surrounding Kol Shofar.
e. Shuttle service should be a requirement for all attendees that are unable
to park on site. On street parking in the neighborhoods should be
prohibited. This requirement would be in compliance with the Tiburon
Parking and Loading Code.
f. Professional traffic control personnel should be required for the High Holy
Days. More then one person should be required. The Karen Way and
Blackfield Drive intersection, and Via Los Altos and Blackfield intersection
as well as the stated Blackfield and Reedland Woods Wayintersectioh
should have professional traffic control personnel. These controllers
should be in place % hour prior to a service as well as at the conclusion of
the service.
g. Large events other than the High Holy Day events should not exceed
250. If any event or activity exceeds 250, the Tiburon Police should be
notified as well as the neighborhood; traffic control personnel as well as
shuttle service must be required to eliminate on street parking and safety
issues related to traffic circulation in the neighborhoods. Kol Shofar
should be required to reimt;>urse the Tiburon Police Department for its
employees' time in regulating uses at the Synagogue.
8. The educational program proposed for Kol Shofar is well meaning. It should
emphasize the requirement relating to the fact that there shall be no on-street
parking allowed by the Congregants. There should be a penalty, such as a
parking ticket, if Congregants are found to park on neighborhood streets.
Without a penalty, the educational program is purely advisory and with no "teeth".
Previous history of Congregants of Kol Shofar has shown that its "educational"
program has been ignored and not adhered to by its members.
9. The signage plan should be included and coordinated with Condition 4b.
Signage should be part of the circulation plan and included in the Design Review
process and not left only to staff and the Town Engineer for review and approval.
10. Exterior amplified sound should only be approved, as in the existing CUP; the
annual Sunday School closing. No other event shall be allowed to have amplified
exterior sound. The Town should not be able to have the ability to offer a Special
Event Permit for amplified sound. This is contrary to the mitigations to reduce
the noise impacts to a level of insignificance to the residents.
11. Due to the change in the circulation pattern, Ring Mountain Day School will no
longer be using its existing rear driveway and parking area for pick up and drop
off of students. Language should be added to this section that a pick up and
6
drop off program be reviewed by the town to insure safety to the students and
community. The tenant should also coordinate its parking needs and layout with
the synagogue's parking lot proposal. The school should not be in session at the
time of an event or activity which requires use. of all the 139 parking spaces or
250 attendees. This would not allow for adequate on site parking for uses of the
school staff and their activities.
12. Previous use permits have required Kol Shofar to designate a person to act as
the official contact person for the surrounding neighborhoods. This condition has
not been successfully adhered to. In order to improve this condition, a
requirement should be made of the synagogue that they notify, by mail, the Vista
Tiburon, La Cresta, Reedland Woods Way, Tiburon Hills and Bel Aire
neighborhood residents the contact information of the official contact person for
the synagogue. This should be updated, and mailed to these residents, at least
on an annual basis, or at such time when there is a change of the d.esignated
contact person by the synagogue.
13. Kol Shofar has been remiss in maintaining the landscaping and vegetation of its
property. The Town should monitor the appearance and require maintenance of
the grounds of Kol Shofar as well as insure that the Eucalyptus trees on the
property are safe. Currently there is a fire hazard from the excessive amount of
Scott Broom on the Synagogue property as well as multitude of twigs and
Eucalyptus leaves and bark lying on the ground all around the property.
14. Agree with this condition
15. The CUP review and renewal should be conducted in a publicly noticed meeting
on a yearly basis and not kept at a staff level. The neighborhood unfortunately
has not been adequately notified and involved in the review of the annual CUP.
Because of this, the staff and Town have not been aware of the concerns of the
neighborhoods.
16. The annual report should be submitted to the surrounding neighborhood~ as
well as staff, 45 days prior to review, so they, as well as town staff, are able to be
informed about the events and activities of the synagogue.
17. Agree with this condition.
Thank you for considering these suggestions for the Congregation Kol Shofar
Conditional Use Permit. '
Yours truly,
John Nygren
Karen Nygren
7
Page 1 of 1
Scott Anderson
LATE MAil # J.
,
From:
Sent:
To:
Aviva Boedecker
Friday, May 05, 20062:27 PM
Scott Anderson; Dan Watrous
Cc: I
Subject: Kol Shofar
--
To the Tiburon Planning Commission:
Like other religious institutions, Congregation Kol Shofar is the site of a breadth of programs, including
worship services, religious school, Homeless Coalition luncheons, lectures and other adult education
activities, and congregants' life cycle events, such as bar and bat mitzvahs. The primary purpose of the
proposed new multi-purpose room is to accommodate these long-existing programs. The synagogue is
not a "party" facility or "catering hall," and it is not a venue that is or will ever be available to the
general public.
Currently, because of the inadequate gathering space, people tend to drift outside for conversation and
some activities, such as bar and bat mitzvah lunches, are held outdoors whenever the weather permits
(even when it is unpleasantly hot). Even so, the amount of noise these make is no more than is produced
by unamplified voices. On our Sabbath we do not use electronic devices and we do not have music of
any kind (except the blessings over the food, which we sing) at these 'Kiddushes.' Our customs will not
change with the availability of the new multi-purpose room, but any noise that does occur in conjunction
with these events will actually be reduced, as they will be indoors.
Neither do we use amplified music during our religious services or at any time from Friday at
sundown until Saturday evenings -- we do not even have an organ or a choir! Since we do not currently
have a facility for 'parties' at Kol Shofar, and therefore do not now have bar and bat mitzvah or wedding
celebrations there, I suspect that the loud music some neighbors claim to hear actually emanates from
elsewhere in the area and not from Kol Shofar.
And, it is important to consider that even our "parties" that are currently held elsewhere (including the
Belvedere and Strawberry recreation centers, also in residential areas) but will sometimes take place in
the new Kol Shofar facility, are not parties in the conventional sense with their attendant noise and
rowdiness. Kol Shofar "parties" are always linked to a religious observance or milestone. They are
family events, with adults and kids celebrating together. '
I hope that the Planning Commission will recognize that a strong and vibrant family-oriented
community includes religious institutions and appropriate facilities for them, and will approve
Congregation Kol Shofar's proposal for a comfortable space for our ongoing religious and community
activities.
A viva Shiff Boedecker
113 Jefferson Drive
Tiburon
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
5/5/2006
/<'''j ~ j }/() (}hA · 'i fLrf 06
" he-. }/lqpo M {I a--v ';:> J 'J ~ eXf?41 EATE-MAIL #e::' .
/ (L'h-1 a A~A1I' rk-1L I ~d h rnr7-e 0 uJl1~ /
be ! (}/~ e.- /J /11 ce / fiSC; ~ [) ;{ t( yf" Aa/~{ /1A.ee
e!IIPIA/:/}L- --ReAP-. <jJeY a/~.e !{) ~ (,jJy 0. f~(!{('.erl
../Lt7,. /J /' ck'7L ~;JJ Co?>1?Y7t/'l1/ ~ ./l-ea-i~d /JCi/tU- d /lm,JZ 12
( I 1/ cJ r; ()
~CJ C/1 ;J{j/ff1G . :
f) UA e OU) tyYeaoe do 7ltJ ( ~ {/(of
fA; I I I~ c A~f tJeJ <Attft! c I ?'71c:t /f1 0 u)e~-.: ~j
CLeI c1~ i ~1 oJ: wed! e~J {4le! (!J{ I aei VI ;; ~ ,~ D
t9 W 1/)) ~ h--k S/;dii~. !fJ..e o//jd Co ~
a .' / ,I - I ~//) / /1 ,if / / /}
I fA e c / CL '1-<:: W II CC"Y ..::Ff:i1: Y /7 a t/E' 177 <J 'I-t d (j of/
'f~jf((1 io /f}ar'n 'Invc{Ja{ ffe/e)<jJ-en<J~ J;(;~<J.
J) J ' ()
, aU /J i~L 3. i:VlC ~ (C ~ ~ VI ~ ~
/j () <~ ?l7.{ Ya a IJ f" " A 2006 L
~--/:). 1/1 /} · . / .. PLANNING DtV!SION I
:) 'f k 0[1 A e ~ 0 Lb1 J L-- ' WN OF TIBURON _J
I 1/,
Scott Anderson
LATE MAll #;1.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ricardo Romagosa [r _romagosa@yahoo.com]
Saturday, May 06, 2006 9:45 AM
Scott Anderson
Kol Shofar
~ ~M~~::~~
Dear Scott Anderson,
As owner of 128 Blackfield Drive in Tiburon, I wish to
voice my objections to the Kol Shofar expansion.
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
I am not opposed to the members of the congregation, only
their cars. Remodeling their facility is reasonable, the problems their proposed
expansion cause are unacceptable.
I am shocked and dismayed that the Bel-Aire neighborhood is
not considered in any of the Environmental Impact Reports
for the Kol Shofar expansion. Blackfield, especially the
100 block on which we live, is MOST impacted by the
expansion. The traffic and noise caused by the increased traffic will definitely impact
us. The temple's lack of adequate parking, for the size of the expansion, will also
impact us.
The speeding on our street is already out of hand. In
January we wrote to Tiburon Police to help with speed enforcement, but there has been no
noticeable effort on their part to help. Because our street is wide, straight and flat
drivers feel encouraged to speed. However, this is a residential neighborhood. Many
children ride their bicycles and play in the neighborhood. The speed with which some
vehicles travel is simply not safe for children or anyone else. Increased traffic as a
result of Kol Shofar's expansion will only make matters worse.
The sound of accelerating vehicles keeps us up at night.
Impatient drivers honk at others. Pulling into or out of
our driveway is challenging because of the current number
of cars. Drivers wont slow down.
This used to be an extremely quiet neighborhood. I know
since I grew up here and have lived in this house off and
on since 1971. Our greatest wish is to raise our young son
in a safe neighborhood. The traffic and noise negatively impacts the experience of living
in this beautiful area.
Already, I have noticed the problem peaks from about 6pm - midnight. Friday nights are
the worst, with drivers rushing to get home and rushing to gp back out again.
These houses were designed with street facing bedrooms.
Our ability to sleep comfortably is already impacted.
I am vehemently opposed to increased nighttime activities
at Kol Shofar. If there must be an increase in traffic it should be during daytime hours.
The project's parking proposal is absurd!
If the new multi-purpose room with lobby has a total legal capacity of 898 people. This
translates to approximately 360 cars arriving for Kol Shofar events particularly on
weekend nights. If on-site parking is only 121 cars that means a net 239 cars will be
cruising our neighborhood looking for a place to park. If they are increasing the
capacity they MUST provide adequate parking, equal to their capacity. Counting on Bel-
Aire to be their overflow is ridiculous and highly offensive.
There is no legal impediment, enforceable by the town, to prohibit Kol Shofar guests from
using our neighborhood as a default parking lot.
1
My family and I ask that you pass an ordinance to prohibit parking on neighborhood streets
for Kol Shofar events.
Passing the ordinance is insufficient if it is not
~~forced, as the 25 mph speed limit is not enforced.
.0 help control the speed we ask that you install speed
bumps along Bel-Aire streets, especially Blackfield.
We ask that night time events at Kol Shofar go no later
than 8pm. Many children, including our toddler, are going
to bed at 8. It is not unreasonable therefore to restrict heavy traffic flow to end at
that time.
I work business hours Monday through Friday and look
forward to the quiet enjoyment of my residence. This
proposal threatens my ability to do so, and that is why it
is so infuriating. We have worked hard to achieve a home
in quiet Tiburon. If we had wanted the hassles of traffic, noise and parking we would
have decided to live in San Francisco where both my wife and I work. This is a
residential neighborhood. I need not explain the value of such. The property values
reflect it. If we lose our quiet home, moving somewhere that values neighborhoods is not
out of the question.
Thank you for listening,
Ricardo Romagosa
128 Blackfield Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> ~tp://mail.yahoo.com
2
LATE MAIL # ~
Skip & Ellen Smith
24 Via San Fernando
Tiburon, CA 94920
Tiburon Planning Commission
Town ofTiburon
Via FAX (415) 435-2438
May 5, 2006
Re: Conditional Use Permit/Congregation Kol Shofar
Dear Tiburon Planning Commissioners:
As members of the Tiburon Peninsula Club and as a
member (Ellen) of the TPC House & Grounds Committee,
it has come to our attention that the Town ofTiburon's
Regulatory/Pennit Constraints for the TPCs Conditional
Use Permit for their Renovation Project states the following
restrictions:
· Indoor events & use of meeting rooms shall be permitted
only until 9:00 PM on ANY day of the week.
· Outdoor events shall be permitted only until 8:00 PM on
ANY day of the week.
· Amplified music at events on the subject property shall
not be played before 8:00 AM on week days and 9:00
AM on weekends, and not after 6:00 PM on weekday
evenings or past 8:00 PM on weekend evenings.
· Club facilities shall not be rented out, leased or offered
for use to non-members.
· Meeting space capacities: Main Room dining 93 &
Assembly 200.
~>2. d
8~v2g:v:Ol
.L86SS~t7Slv
OH:WO~~ SV:90 9002-8-^~W
· .The Tiburon Peninsula Club has approx. 600 members
(not including their families) with a 2 yr. waiting list.
As long standing members of the community, we
believe that the Planning Commission should apply the
same conditions of use on Kal Shofar that has been
consistently applied to the Tiburon Peninsula Club which
sits in a similar acoustical bowl surrounded by residential
housing.
Thank you for your time and attention on behalf of the
Town.
Sincerely,
Skip Smith (E. Payson)
Ellen Smith
435-5998
~/[.d
8[l72S[l7:01
L86SS[bS~l7
OH:WO~~ 9l7:90 9002-8-^~W
Richard A. Holway
42 Paseo Mirasol~
Tiburon, CA 94920
LATE MAIL # c:2
To: Town ofTiburon, Planning Commission
Subject: Kol Shofar Expansion Project
Conditional Use Permit ~i.I~4)
From: Richard A. Holway Y' r
Q.'
May 5, 2006
This letter is to again go on record as opposing the construction of a new
multi-purpose room at the Kol Shofar.
The Town ofTiburon General Plan dated September 2005 provides many
land use goals. Among these goals are:
I. To provide an orderly balance of public and private land uses...
2. To preserve the character of the Tiburon peninsula...
3. To protect the health, safety, and welfare of the conununity ...
4. To protect and preserve existing neighborbood character ...
Among the General Plan's land use policies are:
1. To limit the type and amount of uses within the Town to those
compatible with the nature, character, and image of the Town as a quiet,
small-to\vn residential community ...
2. New development to be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods ...
The key word in the previous two paragraphs is harmony, which is defined
in the dictionary as "agreement, accord, a consistent, orderly or pleasing
arrangement of parts, congruity etc." '
The expansion project and the resulting Conditional Use Permit do not
meet the test of this definition.
The Environmentalltnpact Statement and the Staff Report of the Pla.nning
Commission point out that there are significant and unavoidable impacts
of the project. These impacts will disturb the character of our residential
neighborhood.
During the past twenty years, the Kol Shofar has been both welcomed and
supported by the local residents, and there has been an appropriate balance
between the needs of the residential neighbors and the synagogue. Granted,
the facility does need renovation and the neighbors both understand and
support the basic renovation. However, the increased impacts of the
expanded facility combined with increased weekend and evening usage will
upset the harmonious balance that has existed for the past several years.
The planning staffhas proposed going ahead with the project and mitigating
the impacts _by placing usage caps in the Conditional Use Permit in order to
limit nighttime and weekend use. First of all, the usage suggested in
proposed alternative number 7 is significantly greater than existing usage
and by itself, does not mitigate the impacts Secondly, Caps would not
work:
1. Caps are easy to ignore.
2. Caps are difficult to monitor.
3. Caps are easy to amend (look at the record of amendments
since the Synagogue's initial entry into the neighborhood.)
Rabbi Darby indicated during the April 24th hearing that the sole reason for
the multi use room is to be able to have a single service on the three holy
days. Others have documented to the planning commission that this is a bit
of an exclusive need because many synagogues have multiple services; and
in fact, Kol Shofar must have realized the need for multiple services when
they purchased the facility. The issue here is should tbe neigb bors be
penalized (impacted by services of 1500 or more) for the synagogue to
have the luxury of a single service? The overflow parking needs will be a
hardship particularly for the Bel Aire residents. (I don't believe this subject
was covered in the Environmental Impact Report.) Alr~ady, Bel Aire
residents have been particularly hard hit by increased traffic because the
school district significantly reduced busing to Bel Aire school. They are hit
hard twice a day for drop-offs and pick-ups. The proposed project would
add weekends/nights to the traffic woes along with the expanded (single
service) impact of the three holy days.
My wife and I have lived in our home for 30 years, and we love Tiburon and
our neighborhood very much. We are very concerned that the expanded
usage of the proposed new facility will disrupt the balance and harmony that
exists today with a resulting change in the character of our neighborhood.
Dear Neigbbors~
RilLDIJASSER
~\'j' I')
~f +0
I i
N.D.
(415)381-1699
p.2
MAY 08 2006 8:49AM
March 2006
~
ITf
Ie-/fr---r~l' )'A.y-lv".
Ni)hfAT~MA'L #~
OVer the past .2 years. m bas been spoken about Kol Sbofar.s proposed renovation
project. With the release month ofKol Shofar.s Final Environmental.Impact Report,
(Final EIR) it is impo for all our neighbors to lUlderstand the facts about Kol
Shofar's plans. Thank you r taking the time to read the following FAQ's and we look
forward to meeting you at Neighborhood Open House (see below).
1. Why ill KoI ShofJ eeking to remodel its facility?
Our commmrity J en livulg in a poorly constructed former junior high school,
built in the 1960's, ~ at is today literally falling apart. We wish to renovate so We
_,---- ___--~l!Il ~~llle to~.t ~te IlJ!d practi~our ttJidiljon =--~ as. ~done aL-~--- ---- --
215 Blackfield for e past 20 years - in a safet comfortable and befitting setting.
The only net ad . . . sting property will be a multi purpose room which
will house th asion nd observances that have long been a mainstay of
Kol Shofar ces, religious observances, life cycle events, classes and
lectures. I ! JV~V.H- hit I ~ ''.j hN I~ f fJo;v- f'..Lf
2. What ill SPec:ifical~proposed in the renovation? I, ke i'? frvf 0,$ e,-(
. Remodelo' main sanctuary (the fonner school auditorium). into a fitting
worship sp e .
. Add 4 elas ooms to replace the 4 lost due to the sanctuaIy redesign
. New 4,50 useable square foot multi purpose room for religious,
educational d life cycle events (with 4,500 square feet in the rear for
kitchen, res ooms~ furniture storage and janitorial)
. 22 additio on-site.parking spaces
. Improved ffic circulation and eradication of the existing gated delivery
roadway 0 of Reedland Woods Way
. Re-landsca 'ng to add additional greenery and burros and deploy new
. outdoor lig ing -~. all with an eye to dramatically reducing li~t and noise
intrusion
. No. Our synagogu is a community of fellow Marinites who gather to observe and
celebrate. our fai and tradition~ . together. This project is being undertaken to
serve and rese e our current membership at a time when synagogue
membership is kedly declining nationwide. and Kol Shofar's membership has
remained flat for the past 6 years. The specter of nearly a thousand members
routinely on-site cupying our remodeled facility is baseless and bears no link
whatsoever to ourongregational reality.
3. Will the reDovati Dot bring in hundreds of additional members and add to
traffic woes?
HRY 08 2006 8:49AM
R GOLDWASSER H.D.
(415)381-1699
p.3
- -'" J~,:_....
~. I "
: -.j:" .
!
j:
,:
4. Won'~t the 8dd~IOD 0
weekend; parties~i wbi~
problems? I .
F>&\-V/BCft frt--ttzvP'h '} . _~~C hr' ~ n"'
-tW. >ort'rC{.r,tIU''1 . flA.rI"~I..e(~: ~~v~.
a multi-purpose room mean dozens 'if evenmg'
will rOD late and generate noise, traffie aDd safety
5. Will KotShofar ent out its multi purpose room to non-members?
Emphatically NO\Our. original April 2004 application to the ToWn for this proJ.' ect
stipulated that th multi purpose room would be for the sole use of Kol Shofar
members. .
6. Traftie'ca~ be a ~athe - won~t tbb renova~oD 'm8ketbing~ worse? .
. . . .
No. It is impo to understand that this project is'all aboUt enabling Kot'Shofar
. . to c~nduct essen . lly the very same community traditions and affairs' it has
A; l"':r q dertaken unevetfuJl~ in the neighborhood for the. past 20 years - but in a more
/tq', ~'L-. uitabIe home. Studies of synagogue renovatIon have repeatedly shown
rJi"V "1evV~ I enovation does ot attract an increase in co e ; moreover, there will be
l) 11\.'1 ~"t,."'I oilly a small mcr ment in weekend evening activity, Please bear in mind a few
,^ll (It(\. key consideratio : Kot Shofar's principal use is on the Sabbath, Saturday
,,~ ~rl1"l mornings, for r igious services and OD Sunday mornings for religious school.
v.e' 1I.ti..' _ Thc:s.e .arenot~ tIaffic ~~~I ~!:f~_s-~~~~dule d~ ~~~IIl'~.:n'ith t1te_-----
',,~ -..,?-- e . e or mormng anu evenmg commute times. .t. ennOle,
\ . ll1 K01 Shofar c ently, and for many years has been, reqUired to provide traffic
t\ S ,.,.r.f ': control at I e nts at its. site - that conditio~ will remain in effect.
~ G'\ 1$ W- q Do.. y > tI,'4I ~ ( tv. '/1 ·
o P 'l'(J \) (J\ ents - kindly' dire.ct to Mark Levy; Executive Director, 388-
p olshofas.org
I.
II
i
'" EXPERIENCE OUR KOL SHOFAR COl\fMUNITY
l\mET OUR PROJECT TEAM LEADERS t
JOIN US FOR LOX & BAGELS
NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN HOUSE
SUNDA Y MARCH 26
11:00 - Noon
HAY 05 2006 4:44PM
R GOLDWASSER M.D.
(415)381-1699
MBY 05 2006 4:47PM
R GOLDWASSER M.D.
/!f,i\\::;;I:~:~:%:'
<,ll~~{ii1Ei:~~y ,"
.}~>,C:'. ~::S~t!i~~~ian.. d@~er the years .W.O' bad.
,~> ',. ~:~-'~~~-.>number,of times. It meant a
l
;;.!-:~;t~;;:~ ~,.-!<~~j~":t#tell'tbe:stofy of-our fr~' dam,
rt";-;,-, < ~...\~~.~i ~':...::... ...::;:>.~-.~ ' ~ ' .
:r-~~{~~.:.:.~~"p.,., -~. ~~~'101"m>.tl).e ma~ for till t see_
f~~':-, :-;H-i~y;H~i..:ool1ma:ADya. and decl~e: .'Le~ all who
'~-,*;,:~>'~~rh\i~gry"c(}me:and eat, let. all who ar~ in.,n~d
.. '. ' . . .!
(415.)381-1699
p.6
" . . ~ . -. . -. '... . ~ . . . .. .. L .:'J~-.'.'..':\Dt{:.J~1~.~\1"r.~. .~~.: ~~.:;..,~:.I..~.. ~,'.\i.~.:>:: ~., ~".~:
KOt HA~"; 'I,;i'~4r~fE:~,:~~,j;'i.,' ;',
,/
/
/
'.
Stephan C. Volker
Joshua A.H. Harris
Mamie E. Riddle
Law Offices of
STEPHANC. VOLKER
436 14th Street, Suite 1300
Oakland, California 94612
Tel: 510/496-0600.:. FAX: 510/496-1366
e-mail: svolker@volkerlaw.com
10.356.01
(
May 8, 2006
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Airbill No, 8391 3339 9515
Planning Commissioners
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, California 94920
Re: FURTHER COMMENTS OF TIBURON NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION
ON THE KOL SHOFAR ALTERNATIVE 7 PROPOSAL AND RELATED
STAFF REPORT DATED MAY 10, 2006
Hearine: Wednesday~ May 10~ 2006
Dear Commissioners:
Enclosed please find the original and eight copies of a further comment letter authored
by Stephan C. Volker and eight copies of comment letters authored by Arul Edwin and
Richard Carman pertaining to the above-captioned matter. Please disburse these documents to
each member of the Planning Commission and as is otherwise appropriate.
You will also find a separate set of one copy each of the above authored letters in order
that you may stamp each as received and return them to us by means of the enclosed self-
addressed, stamped envelope.
Thank you for your courtesy and assistance.
:taf
Enclosures: As stated
Stephan C. Volker
Joshua A.H. Harris
Mamie E. Riddle
Law Offices of 10.356.01 ~
4~~~~~~t,ru~t~~i~) lATE MAIL # 0('
Oakland, California 94612
Tel: 510i496-0600 .:. FAX: 510/496-1366
c-nlail: svolker@volkerlaw.coD1
May 8, 2006
~ ~M~ ~: 2: ~ ~
Planning Commissioners
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, California 94920
.~
;~~: PLANNING DIVISION
.. . TOWN OF TIBURON
Re: FURTHER COMMENTS OF TIBURON NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION
ON THE KOL SHOFAR ALTERNATIVE 7 PROPOSAl; AND RELATED
STAFF REPORT DATED MAY 10, 2006
Dear Commissioners:
The Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition (the "Coalition") respectfully sublnits the
following additional comments on the KoI Shofar Final Environmental hnpact Report:
Alternative 7 Analysis ("Alternative 7 Analysis"), dated April 18, 2006, and related Staff
Reports dated 1\1ay 10, 2006 and April 24, 2006. Alternative 7 creates substantial new impacts
by increasing the number and duration of evening events. It falls to rectify critical flaws in the
previous environmental analysis. Because this new alternative creates new, potentially
significant, unstudied impacts, it requires additional enviromnental review and recirculation of
the EIR.
EIR RECIRCULATION
Alternative 7 proposes twelve new Saturday events extending "until 11 p.m. plus
cleanup" and fifteen new Sunday events lasting "until 9 p.m. plus cleanup." This alternative
proposes that four of the Saturday events and three of the Sunday events allow up to 250
attendees. The balance of the new events would range in size from 100 to 200 attendees. These
substantial changes to the Project pose new, potentially significant impacts on the environment.
These impacts require further study and mandate recirculation of the EJ~ for full public review
and cOJnment.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The latest subnlission of a completely ne\v alternative that claims to decrease all of the
previously significant impacts to insignificance defies CEQA's call for a consistent and clear
Project description. This alternative's substantial increase in the number and duration of
weekend evening events, coupled \\rith the applicant's dizzying array of previous
reconfigurations of the parking lot circulation plan, descriptions and numbers of events, and on-
and off-street parking proposals, exacerbate an already imprecise and unstable Project
description. "An accurate~ stable and tinite project description is the sine qua non of an
Planning Commissioners
Town of Tiburon
May 8, 2006
Page 2
informative and legally sufficient EIR." County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 7 I
Ca1.App.3d 185, 193; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center ~ Coullty of Stan isla us
(1994) 27 CaLAppAth 713, 730. ~'[O]nly through an accurate view of the project may affected
outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental
costs, considcr mitigation measures, assess the advantages of terminating the proposal (i.e., the
~no project' alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance." County of IJ1Yo, supra, 71
Cal.App.3d at 192-193. This Project fails these tests.
Alternative 7 further compounds the confusing history of incessant shifts among
diffcrent Project descriptions in this case. Confused by this Project's chameleon-like character,
the public has repeatedly requested clarification of its features. For example, neighborhood
residents Timothy Metz and Jennifer Jorgensen submitted a Inatrix to this Commission
requesting clarification of the existing usage in Kol Shofar's existing facilities, together with
projected maximum usage of those facilities in the future, in addition to clarification of the
Project's particular usage patterns and magnitudes. Instead of embracing this reasonable request
from the public for clarification of the existing and projected usage ofKol Shofar's existing
facility as well as usagc information for the expanded facilities it seeks, Kol Shofar's attonley
flatly refused: "the Congregation declines to com.plete tbe matrix mentioned by Mr. Metz.'~
Mr. Ragghianti's decision to engage in stonewalling is fatal to this Project. His excuse~
"that the Planning Commission's consideration of the current CUP .application is not a proper
forum for re-considering the existing CUp~H draws a red herring across this Commission's
deliberative process. It is fundamental that "[b]efore the impacts of a project can be assessed
and mitigation measures considered, an ElR Inust describe the existing environment. It is only
against this baseline that any significant environment effects can be determined.'~ County of
Amador v. EI Dorado County JYater Agency (1999) 76 CaLApp.4th 931, 952. Without knowing
the cxisting usage pattern, and understanding the incrcases in usage that may take place under
Kal Shojar~ s existing conditional use pennit, it is impossible to fairly ~ssess the impact of the
further increases in usage that would be pemlitted under the proposed Project. It is settled law
that "an ElR must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion or other
action if: (I) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future
expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the
initial project or its environmental effects.n Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San
Francisco, Inc. l~ Regents of the Universi~y of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 396. Unless
and until Kol Shofar provides this essential information to the public, its Project cannot be
approved consistently with CEQA's requirements.
Planning Commissioners
Town ofTiburon
May 8, 2006
Page 3
TRU"FIC
The Town ~ s staff reports claim that '~by reducing the number of new events and the
maxinlum number of people that would attend the new events [conlpared to Alternative 6]~
Alternative 7 would reduce noise, parking and traffic impacts to a less than significant level. H
~A.pril 24 Staff Report at page 4. We do not believe the record supports this clainl. As
documented further in the COnllnents frOln tbe Coalition's traffic engineer, Arul K. Edwin, the
impact on traffic of al1o\\1ing t\velve Saturday night ~vents to last until 11 p.m. rather than 9
p.m. nlay be significant for several reasons. First, introducing a massive pulse of traffic at 11
p.m. on a Saturday night will have a substantially greater impact on existing traffic conditions at
that hour~ than would a similar pulse of traffic occurring two hours earlier, at 9 p.m. Neither the
Alternative 7 Analysis nor the draft and final EIRs, provides baseline information respecting the
traffic levels present at 11 p.m. versus 9 p.m. on Saturday evenings. The likelihood of accidents
resulting fi'oln this Jate-night surge of traffic is also greater than it would be for 9 p.ln., because
motorists are generally less alert in the late evening after the time when most would usually
retire for the night.
The Town's Alternative 7 Analysis erroneously speculates about Caltrans' future
assessment of this Project's impacts on the Tiburon Boulevard/Blackfield Drive intersection.
Rather than conduct the required assessment of the Project's impact on the Tiburon Boulevard/
Blackfield Drive intersection, staff engages in \vishfuJ thinking that Hthe impact might be less
than significant with no mitigation required" "[b Jased on the Caltrans review~' \vhich has not yet
taken place. \-Vithout Caltrans' assessment, or the T<Jwn' s independent further review, it is
hnpossible to predict the significance of the impacts, much less the efficacy of potential
nlitigation measures,
The Town sidesteps assessment of potentially significant traffic and parking impacts by
engaging in further speculation that the eliInination of parking lot ingre~s via Reedland Woods
Way "would reduce traffic congestion on Reedland Woods vVay and at the Reedland Woods
\Vay/Blackfield Drive intersection." ld. at 6. The record does not support this claim.
A.ltemative 7 would add twelve late-night traffic events on Saturdays, and fifteen evening events
on Sundays. The addition of the very substantial traffic associated with these large events
\vould increase~ rather than "reduce," congestion on Reedland Woods Way. Drivers unfanliliar
with the proposed parking lot circulation pattern at the Kol Shofar parking lot might turn onto
Reedland Woods Way trolll Blackficld Drive seeking to enter the parking lot from Reedland
Woods "Vay. Those drivers would then need to make a V-turn or T-turn on Reedland Woods
Way to return to Blackfield Drive. Tunl-arounds on this quiet residential cul-de-sac would
potentially have a significant impact on vehicular and pedestrian safety on that street,
particularly in light of the substantial number of young children who reside there.
Planning COlnmissioners
Town ofTiburon
May 8. 2006
Page 4
The addition of these twenty-seven significant evening events would also create
congestion on Via Los Altos, the street that Kol Shofar proposes as the sole access point for on-
site parking. The additional traffic congestion on this street would tend to create similar turn-
around scenarios on other local streets, as drivers who are turned away from a full parking lot at
Kol Shofar, or seek to avoid the line of cars turning left from Blackfield Drive onto Via Los
Altos, seek out other streets in the neighborhood for parking. Where parking is unavailable
within a reasonable distance, these drivers can be expected to make V-turns and T-tums on
these other streets, creating lIDsafe conditions for vehicles and pedestrians alike.
The three nlitigations proposed in the Alternative 7 Analysis for the additional
traffic/parking conflicts on surrounding streets are likewise speculative and completely
unproven. The first of these Initigations, that "Kol Sh.ofar shall place signs along its frontage on
Via Los Altos, BJackfield Drive and Reedland Woods Way stating that people attending events
at Kol Shofar need to park on-site and not on residential streets," may cause tunl-arounds by the
attendees who had intended to park along these streets until they observed these signs. Visitors
arriving at night or in the rain may not see these unexpected signs at all. Others may choose to
disregard the signs, since there is no proposed enforcement nlechanism to dissuade them fron1
doing so.
The second proposed mitigation likewise poses more questions than it answers. This
mitigation proposes that '''Kol Shofar shall require that all invitations and notifications of these
new weekend events include a note infoffiling people there to park on the site and not to park on
residential streets." Id. at 7. This mitigation rests on assumptions that remain unproven; (1)
. that all drivers will relnenlber and comply with this request; (2) that there will be adequate room
to accommodate them within the on-site parking lots; and (3) that they will not attempt to park
elsewhere if traffic backs up at the Via Los Altos ingress point. Because the demand for
parking depends on the vehicle occupancy rate, which necessarily varies from event to event,
the proposed on-site parking may prove insufficient.
Third, the Town poses a monitoring program covering ~'up to four events the first year
after project completion" to assess the efficacy of the foregoing mitigation measures. But
studying the effectiveness of these measures after the fact is akin to locking the barn door after
the horse has been stolen. To be effective, nlitigatio~ nleasures must be certain and enforceable.
Sundstrom l~ County ofA4endocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 306-308. H[T]he CEQA
process demands that mitigation measures timely be set forth, that environmental information be
complete and relevant, and that environmental decisions be Inade in an accountable arena." Oro
Fino Gold Mining Corporation v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 CaLApp.3d 872, 884-885.
Deferring evaluation of speculative mitigation tueasures to vague future monitoring efforts plainly violates CEQA's requirelnent for certainty and enforceability before project approval.
Planning Conlmissioners
Town ofTihuron
May 8, 2006
Page 5
In summary, it is clear that Alternative 7 is a substantial change in the Project that poses
potential significant impacts on traffic. Yet no additional professional analysis of the impact of
these changes on traffic has been conducted. Instead, staff proposes speculative mitigation
Ineasures of dubious enforceability whose efficacy may never be known. The public is entitled,
and CEQA denlands, a proper analysis of and mitigation for these impacts,
NOISE
Alternative 7 would increase nighttime noise in a quiet residential neighborhood. The
precise extent and impacts of this increased noise have not been adequately assessed. As
Richard Cannan, the Coalition's noise expert, points out in his separate comment letter, the
analyses conducted by the Town and Kol Shofar's consultant utilize erroneous methodology.
They relied on an inappropriate matrix, uLdn," \vhich is designed to assess the impact of steady
traffic noise, rather than intermittent disturbances such as the nighttime events that would be
allowed under Alternative 7. By averaging the loud noises associated with crowds departing
Kol Shofar at 11 p.m. over the noise level during the remaining 23 (quiet) hours of the day, the
Town and Kol Shofar have trivialized the actual impact of these events. Sweeping the problem
under the nlg does not suffice under CEQA.
Likewise, the Tov.'U's facile conclusion that the potentially significant noise from these
events is "unavoidable" ignores obvious nlitigation measures such as requiring that all vehicular
parking take place ofT-site in concert with an appropriate shuttle bus service, or simply requiring
that the events terminate at an earlier hour.
Because the Town has failed to conduct an adequate noise assessment of the impacts of
Alternative 7, this Project cannot be approved consistently with CEQA.
Ol\'llTTED ALTERNATIVES
Consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives is the "linchpin" of a proper CEQA
analysis. Contrary to this principle, neither the draft and final EIRs, nor the Alternative 7
Analysis, examines a reasonable range of alternatives. Most importantly, the Town has failed to
examine ofT-site locations in the rigorous manner required by CEQA. No locations outside of
the Town have ever been considered~ even though a sizable proportion - perhaps a majority - of
Kol Shofar's congregation resides outside the Town. Furthermore, potential alternate locations
within the Town were summarily dismissed without careful consideration, even though several
of these locations would pose fewer or no impacts on quiet residential land uses such as those
that literally sunound Kol Shofar's current site. Although the public has repeatedly requested
consideration of altenlate sites, and has requested the Town~s consideration of altenlative
configurations of Kol Shofar's physical facility and proposed patterns of usage, these requests
have fallen on deaf ears. Unless and until the Town conducts an adequate assessment of
alternatives, it cannot approve this Project in compliance with CEQA.
Planning Commissioners
Town ofTiburon
May 8, 2006
Page 6
CONCLUSION
As the foregoing discussion makes clear, tbe Town's assessment ofKo] Shofar's
proposed Project, and in particular, its review of Alternative 7, are plagued by significant flaws.
Unless and until they are rectified, the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition respectfully requests
that this Commission deny Kol Shofar's application.'
Re ~~uny SUbmcJJ ~
STEPH C.VOLKER
Attorney for Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition
SCV:taf
Planning Commission
1055 Corporate Center [ Town of Tiburon
Suite 300 1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Monterey Park, CA Tiburon CA 94920
91754-7668 '
323.260.4703
fax: 323.260.4705
. .
koala@katzoldtsu.com
www.ka1zoldtsu.com
San Diego
619.683.2933
fax: 619.683.7982
Tustin
714.573.0317
fax: 714.573.9534
Ontario
909.890.9693
fax: 909.890.9694
Oakland
608]707
.. Katz, Okitsu & Associates'
~.... Planning and Engineering
LATE MAIL #~.
May 8, 2006
Re:
Supplemental comments of Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition on the
traffic impact analysis included in the Altemative 7 proposal for
the Kol
Shofar Condition Use Permit Final Environmental Impact
Report
Dear Commissioners:
I am a traffic engineer with over 25 years' experience in the study, assessment
and mitigation of transportation issues and impacts. My resume is enclosed. I have
been retained by the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition to provide supplemental
comments on the Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) Alternative 7 Analysis prepared by Leonard Charles and AssoCiates
and dated April 18, 2006 ("Alternative 7 Analysis"), and related Tiburon Staff
Report prepared by outside consultant Lisa Newman and dated April 24, 2006
(" Staf( Report"). I have reviewed the project materials including the Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Reports and related Town staff reports, conducted an
inspection of the Kol Shofar site, and observed traffic' and parking patterns in the
vicinity of the project. Based thereon, I have the following comments on 1(01
Shofar's proposed Alternative 7.
1(01 Shofar's proposed Alternative 7 represents a change in the project that
poses potentially significant impacts on traffic. The Alternative 7 Analysis states
I
that Alternative 7 reduces the level and number of new nighttime events from those
proposed in Alternative 6. However, Alternative 7 includes 12 new Saturday night
events with a range of 150-250 attendees lasting until 11:00 p.m., and a total of 15
new Sunday events with a range of 100-250 attendees that would last until 9:00
p.m. These events pose additional traffic impacts that have not yet been, and must
be, assessed. The Tiburon Staff Report prepared by Ms. Lisa Newman states that
"by reducing the number of new events and the maximum number of people that
would attend the new events [compared to Alternative 6], Alternative 7 would
reduce noise, parking and traffic impacts to a less than significant level." Staff
n Katz, Okitsu & Associates
....... Planning and Engineering
Report at page 4. However, neither the FEIR (which does not examine Alternative 7),
the Alternative 7 Analysis, nor the St~ff Report provides data and analysis to support
this conclusion, as I explain below.
The Alternative 7 Analysis discloses that it increases the duration of weekend
events, allowing twelve new Saturday events to last until 11 p.m. rather than 9 p.m. as
specified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR"). Id. at p. 2. The impact
on traffic of allowing twelve Saturday night events to last two hours longer may be
significant, for several reasons. First, the level of traffic at 11 p.m. on a Saturday night
is typically significantly less than the level at 9 p.m. Thus, allowing additional traffic at
. 11 p.m. would have a more significant impact on existing conditions than would
allowing the same pulse of traffic at 9 p.m. Second, the frequency of accidents per
~umber of vehicle trips is potentially greater at II p.m. than it is at 9 p.m., for the
simple reason that drivers are typically less alert when they are driving past the time
when they would have normally retired for the evening. This last point applies not only
to the attendees at these events, but also to neighborhood residents who are not
expecting a surge of traffic so lat~ in the evening. Third, during the summer months
when twilight extends until 9 p.m., there is less natural light available to aid drivers at
II p.m. than there would have been at 9 p.m., thus increasing the frequency of
accidents, all other factors being equal.
The Alternative 7 Analysis speculates about Caltrans' likely assessment of and
reaction to potential mitigation measures to reduce the adverse impacts on the Tiburon
BoulevardIBlackfield Drive intersection of the twelve new Saturday events and fifteen
new Sunday events proposed in Alternative 7. It states that "[b ]ased on the Caltrans
review (which would occur at the final design phase of the project), the impact might be
less than significant with no mitigation required or potentially significant with lane
lengthening and/or changing the signal phase required to reduce the impact to a less
than significant level.>> Id. at 3.
The problem with this speculation is that it presumes that Caltrans will find that
the methodology and analysis employed by the Town and the project sponsor are
appropriate and adequate. In my experience, it is imprudent to presume to forecast
Caltrans' future assessment of the additional traffic impact created by Alternative 7.
Caltrans might, for example, determine that additional data and analysis, or even a
different methodology, might be appropriate or necessary. Additionally, Caltrans might
impose or require other alternatives or mitigation measures not yet assessed by either
the Town or }(ol Shofar. Had Alternative 7 b~en included within the DEIR submitted
to Caltrans as part of its normal inter-agency review of this project, then these
n Katz, Okitsu & Associates
~... Planning and Engineering
unnecessary uncertainties with regard to Caltrans' assessment and design standards
could have been avoided.
The Alternative 7 Analysis concludes that the elimination of parking lot ingress
via Reedland Woods Way' Uwould reduce traffic congestion on Reedland Woods Way
and at the Reedland Woods WaylBlackfield Drive intersection." ld. at 6. It also states
that .. [t ]he additional traffic that would use Via Los Altos to access the parking lot
driveway would not substantially affect the Via Los A1toslBlackfield Drive intersection."
ld. However, neither of these statements is supported by any data or analysis.
Contrary to these conclusions, I would expect that the addition of twelve late-night
traffic events on Saturdays, and fifteen evening events on Sundays, would increase,
rather than "reduce," uthe amount of activity and congestion o.n Reedland Woods
Way" and might very well "substantially affect the Via Los AltosIBlackfield Drive
intersection. "
I reach thIS conclusion for several reasons. First, drivers unfamiliar with the
parking lot circulation pattern at the principal Kol Shofar parking lot might turn onto
Reedland Woods Way from Blackfield Drive seeking to enter the parking lot from
Reedland Woods Way. This likelihood is increased by the fact that traffic entering the
main parking lot from Via Los Altos would. tend to back up toward Blackfield Drive,
potentially discouraging drivers from making a left turn onto congested Via Los Altos.
Once these drivers discover they cannot enter the parking lot from Reedland Woods
Way, I would expect that many of them would attempt to make a V-turn or T-turn on
Reedlan~ Woods Way to return to Blackfield Drive. Turnarounds on Reedland Woods
Way, a quiet residential cul-de-sac, would potentially have a significant impact not only
on traffic on that street, but also on pedestrian safety.
The additional congestion on Via Los Altos created by these twelve new
Saturday night events, and fifteen new Sunday night events, would tend to create
similar turnaround scenarios on other local streets, as drivers who are unfamiliar with
the parking lot pattern at Kol Shofar (or who are turned away from that parking lot as
it becomes congested or full), will seek out other streets in the neighborhood for
parking, resulting in unsafe turnarounds on those streets as well.
Although the Alternative 7 Analysis anticipates that U [ 0 ]ther mitigations would
be required to address the traffic safety impact of people turning around on residential
streets," none of the mitigations discussed has been tried and proven effective here or
elsewhere. The original "parking receipt mitigation" proposal has been rejected,
because U[u]pon further review, Town staff considers such a program unwieldy (i.e.,
difficult to manage and monitor)." ld. at 6. The three alternate mitigations proposed
n Katz, Okitsu & Associates
.,..~ Planning and Engineering
to replace the rejected "parking receipt mitigation" program suffer from the same
uncertainties regarding their potential efficacy.
The first of these mitigations, a proposal that "1(01 Shofar shall place signs along
its frontage on Via Los Altos, Blackfield Drive, and Reedland Woods Way stating that
people attending events at 1(01 Shofar need to park on-site and not on residential
streets," will likely prompt turnarounds by the attendees who attempt to park along
these streets but are dissuaded by these signs from doing so. Conversely, visitors
arriving at night who do not notice, or are unable to read the signs (as might occur in
the rain or darkness), may park at these forbidden locations inadvertently. Others may
simply disregard the signs if there is no obvious el1-forcement mechanism present.
The second mitigation proposed is that uKol Shofar shall require that all
invitations and notifications of these new weekend events include a note informing
people there to park on the site and not to park on residential streets." ld. at 7. Such a
mitigation measure assumes that all attendees will read and comply with the note, that
there would be sufficient room on site to accommodate all of the attendees at these
events, and that if traffic is backing up on the Via l.os Altos ingress point, frustrated
attendees will not attempt. to park elsewhere (particularly if there is no obvious
enforcement mechanism in place to prevent them from doing so). These assumptions
may not be borne out in practice. Furthermore, in any event the parking improvements
may not accommodate all the attendees' vehicles, as the vehicle occupancy rate will
necessarily vary with each event. Additionally, neither 1(01 Shofar nor the Town has
made any explicit adjustment for Americans with Disability Act ("ADA") compliance in
the proposed parking facilities, an omission whose correction may reduce their
presumed capacity.
The third proposed mitigation, that "[t]he Town shall monitor, at the
applicant's expense, up to four events the first year after project completion to
determine whether people are parking on the street during these new events," appears
likely to be ineffectual for several reasons. First, only a maximum of four, out of the
twenty-seven new evening events, would be monitored. Second, monitoring the
efficacy of the first two mitigation measures might merely confirm that they are
ineffective, in which case the adverse impact on traffic and 'pedestrian safety would
have alrea4Y occurred. To be effective, mitigation measures should avoid, rather than
merely confirm the existence of, a project's adverse effects.
For the foregoing reasons, the mitigation measures suggested in the Alternative 7
Analysis are neither certain, effective, nor enforceable. Consequently, they do not
provide a basis for the conclusion that "the alternative reduces parking and traffic
impacts." ld. at 2.
n Katz, Okitsu & Associates
~... Planning and Engineering
Finally, I wish to comment on Table I submitted by Kol Shofar in support of its
Alternative 7 proposal (Exhibit 2 to the staff packet for the May 10 hearing). This
table is misleading in four respects. First, it omits the trips. generated by the existing
Kol Shofar facilities. Second, it omits the trips that may be generated by full utilization
of the existing Kol Shofar facilities as allowed under its current conditional use permit.
Third, it speculates as to existing use by Reedland Woods Way residents rather than
simply providing actual usage figures. Fourth, it fails to distinguish daytime from
nighttime use. Nighttime traffic use by 1(01 Shofar's proposed new evening events will
generate far more nighttime traffic than does existing residential use of Reedland
Woods Way.
In summary, K~l Shofar's proposed Alternative 7' is a substantial change in' the
project that poses potentially significant impacts on traffic. Neither Kol Shofar nor the
Town has conducted an appropriate analysis of those impacts and alternatives or
mitigation measures to reduce them to insignificance. Accordingly, in my best
professional judgment, I conclude that Alternative 7 does not reduce this project's
potential for significant adverse impacts on traffic, parking, and pedestrian safety.
Respectfully submitted,
~
AmI 1<- Edwin
aedwin (ii) ka tzo kitsu. corn
WILSON, WWlkEt I~.
ACOUSTICAL AND VlBRATlON CONSULTANTS
~ ~i'~ ~ : :s~ ~
r ~
G DIVISiON
F TIBUhON
'DII: (510) 658-6119
ft;z: (510) 652-4441
r.-II:~
Web: www.wIaI.c&1'D
May 8, 2006
Planning Commissions
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Subject:
Supplemental comments of Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition on the
traffic impact analysis included in the Alternative 7 proposal for the
Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit Final Environmental Impact Report
Dear Commissioners:
I am an acoustical consultant with 21 years of experience evaluating environmental noise impacts
and assessing strategies to avoid, reduce or mitigate noise from human activity including land use
developments and associated traffic and human occupancy and use. I am a Principal in the
acoustical consulting fmn of Wilson, Thrig & Associates (''WIA''). Founded in 1966, WIA offers
a complete range of professional services associated with acoustics, and noise and vibration control.
I have been retained by the Tiburon Neighborhood Council to examine the adequacy of the Town's
assessment of the noise impacts of the Kol Shofar project, as modified by Alternative 7 proposed
by Congregation Kol Shofar in April, 2006. I have reviewed the Draft and Final EIRs, the Town
Staff Reports, and public comments on this project. Based on my review of these materials and my
professional background in noise assessment and mitigation, I have the following comments.
Alternative 7 was proposed by Congregation Kol Shofar for the Town of Tiburon as a proposed
modification of its Final EIR for Kol Shofar's Conditional Use Permit' application in April 2006.
Alternative 7 proposes twelve new Saturday evening events of varying maximum attendance (four
with 250 attendees, four at 200 and four at 150) and fifteen new Sunday evening events (three with
250 attendees, five at 200, four at 150, and three at 100). The proposed Saturday new events would
continue "until 11 p.m. plus cleanup," and the Sunday events would continue "until 9 p.m. plus
cleanup." Alternative 7 Analysis prepared by Leonard Charles and Associates for the Town of
Tiburon, dated Apri118, 2006, at page 1. According to the Alternative 7 Analysis, "the applicant's
noise consultants. . . . have concluded that the new proposed Alternative 7 would reduce the noise
impacts from new nighttime events to a less than significant level." Id. at 5. Based on my review
of the relevant materials, in my professional judgment this conclusion is not supported by adequate
methodology, analysis, and data. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons.
WILSON, IHRIG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2
Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition
1. The impact of developing an unimproved parking lot (now a meadow) to a paved parking lot,
a change which will increase noise due to the new hard surface, has not been adequately
assessed.
2. The correlation between Ldn and speech and sleep interference on which the Draft and Final
EIRs is based (see Draft EIR at page 76) is not appropriate for assessment of intenruttent noise
such as the late-night events proposed in Alternative 7. Rather, Ldn is the appropriate
methodology for assessment of the impact of steady traffic noise on speech and sleep
interference.
3. The Alternative 7 Analysis appears to rely on the Draft and Final EIRs' use of Ldn as a
predictor of human annoyance. This is a methodological error. Ldn is not a predictor of
annoyance for intermittent and/or infrequent noise events such as the Saturday and Sunday
evening events proposed here. Ldn trivializes occasional noises, and is appropriate only for a
relatively steady ambient noise environment.
4. The underlying data utilized by Kol Shofar's noise consultant, Charles M. Salter Associates,
is inappropriate for the noise assessment needed here. Of the three ambient measurements by
Salter, two included temporal events and none fully nor adequately documented the
background environment at times when there are no services or other events at the site. (See
DEIR at 76.) The Draft and Final EIRs are inappropriate for use in assessing the noise impacts
of Alternative 7 because the events assessed in the Draft and Final EIRs do not have the same
time, day, and duration characteristics as events proposed in Alternative 7. Ambient
measurements must characterize noise at all times that proposed events and services may take
place, rather than simply at random times or when a few previous events occurred. Because
the Draft EIR provides only an incomplete characterization of the existing environment, its
analysis is inappropriate for use in assessing the impacts of Alternative 7.
5. Neither the Alternative 7 Analysis, nor the previous Draft and Final EIRs, adequately assessed
the fact that noise from parking lot activity during large-scale individual events, where cars
starting, doors shutting, and people talking are multiplied in their frequency and thus their
apparent intensity, is not similar to a "typical" neighborhood noise. Yet the Alternative 7
Analysis and its underlying Draft and Final EIRs, rest on this inappropriate assumption. (See
Draft ElR at 82.),
6. The maximum hourly average noise level ("Leq") employed by Kol Shofar's noise consultant
does not adequately characterize the effect of parking lot activity (See Draft EIR at 82.) The
noise effect of parking lot activity late at night, as would occur during the weekend events
allowed under Alternative 7, has not been quantified sufficiently for its assessment for this
project. Substantially more observations of previous events, and substantially more ambient
noise data, are essential to adequately characterize the impact of these evening weekend
events. The type and intensity of noise that likely would occur with these late night events is
unlike typical neighborhood noises at that hour and therefore it is inappropriate to use Leq, and
nonsensical to use Ldn, as Kol Shofar's consultants have done. (See Draft EIR at 85). Because
Ldn averages noise levels over 24 hours, in quiet neighborhoods as is the case here the noise
WILSON, IHRIG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3
Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition
impact of activity that lasts only a couple to a few hours is substantially understated by this
measure. In effect, Kol Shofar's consultant is taking credit for the fact that this neighborhood
is quiet the rest of the time in order to trivialize the significant impact of late night noise from
these events on the surrounding neighborhood.
7. Both the Alternative 7 Analysis and the underlying Draft and Final EIRs assume mistakenly
that the potentially significant noise from this facility is "unavoidable." This statement
overlooks obvious mitigation measures such as moving all attendee parking to off site locations
in combination with a shuttle bus service, or terminating the events earlier in the evening.
8. Neither the Alternative 7 Analysis nor the underlying Draft and Final EIRs employs an
appropriate noise metric. The noise metric that should be used is the maximum level of noise
generated, how often it will occur, and how, audible it will be at various neighborhood
locations in order to determine annoyance - primarily conversation- and sleep-disturbance -
for late night events. The Draft EIR fails to address this in a quantitative manner. (See Draft
EIR at section 5.2.) Appendix E of the Draft EIR employs an even less simple metric by
"annualizing" the Ldn for the parking lot noise. In light of the short period of time during
which parking lot noise occurs, it is highly inappropriate to "annualize" these events. Doing
so trivializes their impact on the neighqorhood, and takes inappropriate credit for the fact that
the background noise environment for this residential location is very quiet.
9. Neither the Alternative 7 Analysis nor the underlying Draft and Final EIRs disclose anticipated
noise levels during late night parking lot activity at specific residential locations. Such a
disclosure is essential for meaningful evaluation of the impact of Alternative 7 on the
surrounding residences during the late evening.
10. Neither the Alternative 7 Analysis nor the underlying Draft and Final EIRs considers the
possibility, if not the likelihood, that during these evening events, doors or windows on the
proposed facility may be opened in order to provide fresh air for attendees, facilitate the
movement of attendees in and out of the facilities, or to communicate with attendees who are
meeting in the surrounding patios and gardens. Conditions where doors or windows are
opened, including open windows of the adjacent residences should be, but have not been,
modeled to provide this information. Without this information, it is impossible to assess the
magnitude of the potential adverse noise impacts of these late-night events on the surrounding
neighborhood. '
11. Likewise, neither the Alternative 7 Analysis nor the underlying Draft and Final EIRs (and their
Appendix E) provide a quantitative modeling of noise levels that may be expected at night
during these evening events, compared with existing conditions at the same time of day/night.
The ambient noise levels presented in the EIRs either fail to address the relevant time periods,
or are so generalized as to be nearly meaningless. Because of these omissions, there is no
adequate assessment of the impact on the surrounding neighborhoods of these late night
activities. Instead of relying on time-weighted averages, which understate the impact of these
events, the EIR should be revised to model the impact of these events compared to existing
WILSON, IHRIG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
4
Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition
conditions during late evenmg at specific residential locations In the surrounding
neighborhoods.
For the foregoing reasons, in my professional judgment, the Alternative 7 Analysis' conclusion that
"the 11 p.m. ending time for these twelve [Saturday] events would still achieve a less than
significant impact given the other reductions encompassed in Alternative 7" is not supported by
existing data and analysis. Id. at 6. Based on the information presented, it appears that just the
opposite is true: the new Saturday and Sunday events allowed under Alternative 7 are likely to
generate significant noise impacts on the surrounding, otherwise quiet, residential neighborhood.
Very truly yours,
WILSON, IHRIG & ASSOCIATES, INC,
~
Richard A. Cannan, Ph.D.,P.E.
Principal
RAC:bdm
WilSON, IHRIG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ACOUSTICAL AND VIBRATION CONSULTANTS
5776 BROADWAY
OAKLAND, CA
U.S.A. 94618-1531
Tel: (510) 658-6719
fax: (510) 652-4441
E-mail: info@wiai.com
Web: www.wiai.com
RICHARD A. CARMAN, Ph.D., P.E.
Education
Ph.D. (1986); M.S. (1980); B.S. (1969) in Mechanical Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
Registration
California: Professional Mechanical Engineer, License No. 16916
Experience
Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc. (1981 to Present)
Principal
Professional experience includes acoustics, noise and vibration for rail transportation systems,
micro-electronic manufacturing facilities, research laboratories, and building design. He has extensive
experience in rail transit noise and vibration impact evaluation and control. His other projects have
included site evaluation for vibration sensitive micro-electronics facilities and biological research
laboratories, computer analysis and engineering design support for building structures to minimize
vibration and noise transmission. He has also been involved in acoustical evaluation and design
recommendations for office buildings and passenger terminals, field measurement of sound transmission
characteristics of building elements, noise control design for industrial facilities, measurement and
evaluation of construction noise and vibration, environmental noise evaluation for quarries, and forensic
investigations involving expert witness testimony. Dr. Carman has presented many techllical papers at
major conferences throughout the world, and is the author of Chapter 9 - Acoustics and Vibration in
"Building Types for Transit Facilities."
EDS Nuclear, San Francisco (1973 - 1976)
Senior Engineer - COIisultant in the field of nuclear power plant design.
Mechanics Research, Inc., Los Angeles (1972 - 1973)
Member of Technical Staff - Consultant in the field of structural dynamics.
Litton Ship Systems, Culver City (1969 - 1972)
Naval Architect - Responsible for dynamic qualification of shipboard equipment.
Professional Associations
Member, Acoustical Society of America
Member, National Council of Acoustical Consultants
Member, Association of Environmental Professionals
Member, The American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association
Member, The New York Society of Professional Engineers
TINA A mOMAS
JAMES G. MOOSE
WHl1MAN F. MANLEY
ANDREA K. LEISY
Telephone: (916) 443-2745
Facsimile: (916) 443-9017
E-mail: info@rtmmlaw.com
http://www.rtmmlaw.com
~: ~ ce. [E ~ ~.. .~7. [~! Ir-;;\
,,' (\ r)r.ly' IUJ
o ~UJC t'J
[", PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
JENNIFER S. HOLMAN
TIFFANY K. WRIGHT
ASHLE T. CROCKER
SABRINA V. TELLER
MICHELE A TONG
MEGHAN M. HABERSACK
AMY R. HIGUERA
HOWARD F. WILKINS III
CARRIE A ELLIS
CATRINA L. FaBIAN
MEGAN M. QUINN
REMY, THOMAS, MOOSE and MANLEY,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MlCHAEL H. REMY
1944 - 2003
455 CAPITOL MALL,SUITE 210
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
BRIAN 1. PLANT
JOSEPH J. BRECHER
OF COUNSEL
May 5, 2006
Honorable Chairman John Kunzweiler
Planning Commissioners:
Vice-Chair Jim Fraser
Al Aguirre
Richard Collins
Emmett O'Donnell
Town ofTiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, California 94920
LATE MAIL #c::J.
Re: Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit
Dear Commissioners:
You have heard a significant amount of testimony regarding Kol Shofar's
application for a conditional use permit to construct a Multi-Purpose Room at its existing
facility. Because we will have a limited amount of time to speak at the May 10, 2006
hearing, we would like to take this opportunity to explain a few l;>asics about the project
and respond to some of the issues that have been raised.
The Issue Before the Planning Commission
At the April 24th hearing, the Planning Commission heard numerous comments
regarding the potential growth of the congregation and the impacts of existing events.
We take this opportunity to briefly describe what is currently before the Planning
Commission for consideration.
Ko] Shofar has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a Multi-Purpose
Room, construct additional classrooms to replace those lost due to the Multi-Purpose
Planning Commissioners
Town ofTiburon
May 5:> 2006
Page 2
Room, and to add 22 parking spaces. (See attached Exhibit I which graphically displays
the proposal.) All that is currently under consideration is an application for a building,
which - in and of itself - will have very minimal environmental impacts. As part of the
. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) took the environmentally conservative approach of estimating the n~mber of new
events that could potentially be facilitated by the construction of the Mu1ti-P~rpose
Room.
KoI Shofar has not asked for an amendment to the existing CUP to add events. In
fact, the existing CUP contains no limits on the number of events, weekend evenings or
otherwise, that can occur at Kol Shofar's facility. The current CUP expressly states that
there are no restrictions on outdoor activities after dark. The only current restriction is
that parking lot lights be turned off at 11 p.m. Thus, the practical result of denying the
current CUP application is that new events could occur without limitations, but approval
of the current CUP application will limit potential new events.
Existing Events
There have been many requests for more information on the existing events at the
facility. Kol Shofar has done its best to provide this information to the Town and the
public throughout this process. Attempts to simplify the information have been rejected
as not providing enough information, while attempts to provide detailed information have
been rejected as being confusing or inaccurate. We direct you to the following
documents, all of which have been previously submitted to the Town, for information on
existing events: (1) Table 1 of the Draft EIR, and related discussion; (2) a narrative
discussion of annual use at Kol Shofar, submitted for the April 24th staff report; and (3)
an additional narrative of Multi-Purpose Room usage submitted to Scott Anderson on
May 5,2006. (These three documents are attached as Exhibit 2.) We believe that further
exploration of the existing uses would be unnecessarily burdensome on the applicants and
would provide very little helpful information.
Kol Shofar is not contending that the extent of existing events is irrelevant to the
Planning Commission's consideration. Rather, the extent of the existing events
constitutes the "baseline" against which the project's impacts have been measured in the
EIR. We do object, however, to suggestions from project opponents that the
consideration of the current CUP application is the proper forum for placing limits on
religious activities that Kol Shofar has carried out for the past 22 years that it has
Planning Commissioners
Town of Tiburon
May 5,2006
Page 3
occupied the site. As stated above, the current CUP application is related to existing
religious activities only in the sense that it will provide the congregation with a suitable
facility for worship. Whether the current CUP application is approved or denied, these
activities will continue to occur, as they have for years.
The Need for the Facility
The opponents of the project would have you believe that Kol Shofar is proposing
this modest expansion of its facilities in order to host "raucous parties." We hope the
testimony you heard from Rabbi Darby and the members of the congregation ,dispelled
this notion. Kol Shofar needs this facility to accommodate the religious needs of its
existing congregation. The Multi-Purpose Room will allow the congregation to hold a
single service during the High Holidays, rather than splitting services. It will also allow
the congregation to hold events or activities that currently occur in a more comfortable
setting.
And, of course, the Multi-Purpose Room will allow members of the congregation
to hold certain life-cycle events on site, rather than elsewhere. But it is simply not fair or
accurate to label these events as "raucous parties." These are multi-generational family
events. They are dignified and contained, for they are occurring on synagogue grounds
and they are linked to a religious observance. The life-cycle events that could be
accommodated by the Multi-Purpose Room are no more rowdy than the events that have
occurred on the site for the past 22 years with very few complaints.
The Growth Issue
The Planning Commission heard many comments from project opponents
demanding that the EIR for the CUP analyze the potential growth of the congregation.
Two points merit special attention. First, project opponents who argue that the EIR
ignores the issue of growth are flatly wrong. The Draft EIR included a detailed analysis
of the past trend in congregation size and the Final EIR further explained that
assumptions about future growth were speculative.
Second, the substantial evidence before the Planning Commission is that it is more
likely the congregation will be smaller in the future. This conclusion is based on analysis
of the various factors which affect an individual's determination of whether to join a
particular congregation. (See letter from Bruce Phillips submitted to the Planning
Planning Commissioners
Town ofTiburon
May 5, 2006
Page 4
Commission on April 24.) Of course, whether the congregation has a nice place to hold a
b'nai mitzvah has little to do with this decision. For this reason, the EIR appropriately
declined to assume the congregation would grow and did not analyze growth as a
potential impact resulting from the project.
Alternative 7
Many project opponents at the April 24th hearing decried Kol Shofar's attempt to
reduce the project's impacts by proposing Alternative 7. They demanded more time to
review the proposal 'and similarly argued that the proposal constituted a significant
change in the project requiring recirculation of the EIR. There is nothing complex about
Alternative 7, and its proposal certainly does not require recirculation of the EIR.
Alternative 7 is the same as the proposed project with two simple modifications.
First, Alternative 7 would reduce the number of Saturday and Sunday evening events
from that originally proposed, and would limit attendance at those events. Second,
Alternative 7 revises the circulation plan to substantially reduce the number of
"turnarounds" in the street. The net result will be a reduction in potentially significant
impacts.
Thus, CEQA does not require another round of environmental review. CEQA is
clear that an EIR should be recirculated only when substantial changes in a project would
result in a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously
identified significant impact. (pub. Resources Code, & 21092.1; CEQA Guidelines, ~
15088.5.) The courts have emphasized that the CEQAprocess is meant to result in
changes to a project that benefit the environment.] Furthermore, it is hard to imagine
what possible purpose a further round of environmental review.would serve. The
changes in the project proposed in Alternative 7 embody a CEQA success story - change
in the project for the benefit of the environment - not a basis for recirculating the EIR.
I; See, for example, Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221
Cal.App.3d 692, 736-737; River Valley Preservation Project v. Metropolitan Transit
Development Board (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 154, 168, fn. 11; Concerned Citizens of Costa
Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Ca1.3d 929, 936.
Planning Commissioners
Town ofTiburon
May 5, 2006
Page 5
Event Timing
Project opponents have suggested that the Planning Commission should require
that new Saturday evening events should end at 10 p.m. or even earlier. We emphatically
disagree that such a limitation is appropriate. First, the existing CUP places no limits on
when events must end. The only limitation that even suggests an end time for events is
the requirement that parking lot lights be shut off at 11 p.m. Nor is there any evidence in
the EIR that such a restriction is necessary, as the EIR has concluded that Alternative 7
will not have any significant noise impacts.
Such a condition hardly seems justified. The project as proposed in Alternative 7
is fully consistent with the Tiburon General Plan. The General Plan has goals to "ensure
that residential areas are quiet," to "eliminate or reduce unnecessary, excessive and
offensive noises from all sources," and to "minimize the exposure of community residents
to noise through the careful placement of land uses." (Noise Goals N-A, N-B and N-C.)
These goals are effectuated by policies, and Policy N-I in particular, which provides:
The Town shall use the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
contained herein to determine where noise levels in the community are
acceptable or unacceptable. (Emphasis added.)
Thus, the Town's own General Plan sets forth the exclusive means for determinil1g
compatibility and the EIR has demonstrated this project satisfies this criteria. Keep in
mind that the noise metric applied by the Town's guidelines (CNEL and Ldn) account for
increased sensitivity to noise at night. Thus there is no justification for stripping back the
allowed hours for events.
Mitigation Measures
In general, Kol Shofar is supportive of staff's recommendations for approval of the
project. Kol Shofar, however, requests changes to two proposed mitigation measures.
The first is mitigation proposed at the intersection ofTiburon Boulevard and
Blackfield Drive (Mitigation Measure 3.3-A.l to 3.3-A.4). Although the Draft EIR
concluded that all intersection levels of service would remain at acceptable levels with the
addition of the project's traffic, the EIR preparer nevertheless concluded that traffic
arriving at the facility for a 300-person event on a Saturday night could cause the
Planning Commissioners
Town ofTiburon
May 5,2006
Page 6
intersection queue length to be exceeded. The Draft EIR recommended mitigation which
appeared to Kol Shofar to go well beyond standards of fairness and constitutionality.
Although even under a worst-case scenario, using the modeling prepared by Crane
Transportation Group, the intersection might back up only occasionally (large Saturday
events) and only for a few minutes (beginning of the peak hour), the EIR sugested that
Kol Shofar should be obligated to make permanent improvements to the intersection. The
alternative was to completely eliminate Saturday night events. These requirements go
well-beyond the impacts of the project.
In an.attempt to avoid the need to implement this burdensome mitigation; Kol
Shofar voluntarily reduced the proposed number of Saturday events, and reduced the
number of attendees at these events. Further analysis was conducted by Robert Harrison
which uncovered a critical omission in the Crane Transportation Group's analysis. The
signal at this intersection is traffic actuated - which means the left turn light stays green
when there is more traffic in the turn lane. When this factor is included in the traffic
modeling, the analysis shows that even with 300 people in attendance, the intersection
queue length would notbe exceeded. Even if the queue length is exceeded, it will happen
so rarely that the impact should not be considered significant.
Nevertheless, the EIR still proposes to find this impact significant and impose an
overly burdensome and unfarr mitigation measure. We urge the Planning Commission to
take a more reasonable approach and fmd that due to the reduction in the number of
Saturday events and the limits on attendance at those events this impact will not be
significant. Similarly, we believe the more reasonable conclusion is that the project will
not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
The other mitigation measure that Kol Shofar believes is excessive applies to
parking. Mitigation Measure 3.3-B.4, as set forth in the Final EIR requires Kol Shofar to
develop 7 additional parking spaces on the project site. This mitigation was imposed as a
result of concerns regarding the line of sight at the upper driveway off of Via Los Altos.
The Final EIR proposed mitigatiop restricting the use of the driveway, which in turn
would reduce the number of parking spaces available to visitors to the site.
The Final EIR therefore proposed adding the mitigation measure requiring 7
additional parking spaces. The Final EIR also noted, ho\vever, that these additi.onal
spaces would not be necessary if attendance at new events was limited to 264 people.
Planning Commissioners
Town ofTiburon
May 5, 2006
Page 7
Since Kol Shofar has proposed limiting attendance at new events to 250 people, the
mitigation measure requiring 7 additional spaces is not necessary. But staffhas gone
even further, requesting that the Planning Commission impose a condition requiring the
creation of even more parking spaces, if feasible. Because Kol Shofar has already limited
attendance at new events the requirement to add parking spaces is completely
unnecessary .
We hope that this information helps to clarifY the issues for the Planning
Commission. We will be happy to answer any questions at the May lOth hearing.
page 1 ot 1
Dan Watrous
LATE MAil # z
From: Wilson, Grover, CDEV [GWilson596@worldsavings.com]
Sent: Monday_ May 08,20065:23 PM
To: Dan Watrous
Subject: Kot Shofar Expansion Request
f)~ ~9~ :: ~ ~
PLANNING DIVISION
TOVVN OF TIBURON
Please forward this email to the correct Town of Tiburon official handling the above request. I wou I e 0 voice
my concern and objection to Kol Shofar-s planned project as it stands today. One thing which I have not read
anywhere is that I believe Kol Shofar's building used to be a Tiburon school and thus it was used much Uke Bel
Aire School is today. I am not aware of any issues, concerns or variances associated with Bel Aire School
because it is used as a school and not come other purpose. I trust the Town will reach a satisfactory conclusion
on this matter.
*****************************************************************************
If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify
the sender immediately. The contents of this e-mail do not amend
any existing disclosures or agreements unless expressly stated.
*****************************************************************************
5/9/2006
Arul K. Edwin
5234 Savendish Co~rt
San Jose, CA 95136
Phone 408.608.7707
Email: aruledwln@sbcglobal.net
Education
Degree
M. S., Civilrrransportation Eng.
M. Eng., Civilffransportation PIng.
M. Eng., Highway & Airport Eng.
B. Eng.~ Civil Eng.
Additional Traioiol!
Certificate, Value Engineering
Certificate, Management
Certificate, Frontline Leadership
Certificate, Contracts Management
Certificate, The Negotiating Edge
Certificate, Business Presentation
Business Development Overview
Managers as Career Coaches
Marketing for .Managers
Marketing of Services
Advanced Project Management
PM Pre-Selection Process
Career Planning and Development
Negotiating and Contracting
Project Management Tools
Effective Interviewing
~
[E ~ [E ~ W [E I:,'~\
':L"
I !!
, , 9 2006 ll:J
RESUME
School
University of California, Berkeley, Aug. 85 to May 87
National Univ. of Singapore, Singapore, Ian 83 to Jul 85
Bangalore University, India, July 78 May 80
Bangalore University, India, Sep 73 to Aug. 78
California- Dept. of Transportation, California; July 1990
Penn State University, Pennsylvania, Sept. 1992
Bechtel Corp., San Francisco, November 1992
Bechtel Corporation, San Francisco, May 1991
Bechtel Corporation, San Francisco, March 1993
Bechtel Corporation, San Francisco, Dec~1991
Bechtel Corporation, San Francisco, 1992
Bechtel Corporation, Boston, September, 1996
Golden Gate University, San Francisco, 1993
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1996
Bechtel Corporation, October, 1997
HNTB Corporation, May 2001
HNTB Corporation, February 2002
HNTB Corporation, Sep. 2003
HNTB Corporation, Jan. 2004
HNTB Corporation, Jul. 2004
Professional Activities
Member Institute of Transportation Engineers
Member Society of Civil Engineers
Member, India Roads Congress
A wards
Special Performance Award, Bechtel Corporation (SCCTA Measure A Value Engineering), 1992
Award of Merit, Santa Clara County Traffic Authority, 1993
Employee Performance Recognition, Central Artery/Tunnel Project, (Downtown Boston Traffic
Management/Coordination during construction- Cl1 Al Contract Ramp E Relocation) August 1996
Employee Performance Recognition, Central Artery/Tunnel Project, (Downtown Boston Traffic
Management/Coordination during construction-C15A1 & A2 Contracts Traffic Plan Design) May 1997
A ward for Innovative Program Management, Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County, (Maude-
Middlefield Interchange Project), September 1997
Publications
Traffic Delays at Signalized Intersections, M. E. Thesis, Bangalore University, India, 1980
Parking Analysis for Rock Ridge Area, University of California, Berkeley, 1987
Reliability of Bus Services in Singapore, M Eng. Thesis, National University of Singapore, 1985
Maintenance of Traffic During Construction: A Value Engineering Approach, National V.E
Conference, AASHTO, 1996
Design for Increased Traffic Mobility and Safety, International Conference, Prague, 1996
Planning and Implementing Large Infrastructure Projects: A North American Experience,
International Workshop on Transport Planning and Implementation Methodology for
Developing Countries, Bombay, India, 1996
Emplovment Historv
Katz., Okitsu & Associates
Vice President, 05/01/06 onwards
T JKM Transportation Consultants
Associate / Branch Manager, 03/05-04/06.
HNTB Corporation
Highway/Traffic Design Manager, 02/00-02/05
Bechtel Corporation.,
Project InfrastructureP1anner, 06/95-01/00
Supervising Transp. Engineer, 02/92-06/95
Senior Transportation Engineer, 08/89-02/92
Dowline Associates.. Oakland.. California
Engineer Associate, 01/88-07/89
CH2M Hill., San Jos~ California
Transportation Engineer, 05/87-12/87
Institute of Transportation Studies.. University of California" Berkelev
Research Assistant, 08/85-05/87
National University of Sineapore" Singapore
Research Scholar, . 12/83-05/85
Central Road Research Institute" New Delhi" India
Senior Scientist, 03/81-06/83
Banealore University.. Banealore't India
Lecturer in Civil Engineering, 09/80-03/81
Lecturer in Transportation Eng., 06/83-12/83
Proiects
'-405 Conaestion Relief and Bus RaDid Project Desian-8uild Proaram (Washinaton
State DOn -current proiect (Aua 2003 to February 200S) .
· Preparation Traffic Design Deliverables and RFP language for Design-Build
Project (Signing, Pavement Marking, Traffic Signals, Intelligent
Transportation Systems)
· ITS Equipment Procurement Assistance
· Development of evaluation criteria for RFP scoring
· Coordination of RFP preparation of all technical elements
· Development of scope/cost/schedule for traffic engineering deHverables
· Analysis of 1-405 Corridor Accidents
Santa Clara County Measure A+8 (VTA/CALTRANS) TransDortation Improvement
Proaram: (Feb 2000 to Aua 2003)
· Managed sub-consultants, Performed scope/cost/schedule control
through project control procedures and trend meetings
· Developed PS&E for state Route 87 HOVLane widening project (SR 87
from Route 85 to Julian Street)
· Developed the Purpose and need section of the Environmental
Document
· Provided transportation planning/traffic engineering support to
environmental studies
· Developed mitigation measures for embankment settlement repairs.
· Provided Coordination with Coltrons District 4 and the City of San Jose.
· Performed Alternatives Analysis
· Performed Traffic Forecasting and Traffic Operations Analysis for all
Measure A+B contracts.
· Obtained approval of traffic forecasting and traffic operations studies
from Co/trans District 4 and the City of San Jose.
· Prepared the Project Study Report for SR 87 South Auxiliary lane project
Central Artery/Tunnel Proiect (Massachusetts DOn 80ston: (Jan. 1994 to Jan.
2000)
· Planned and designed traffic elements such as traffic management
plans, incident management plans, signing and traffic signal timing plans
for maintenance of traffic during construction for the downtown Boston
and Area I'!orth of Causeway in Boston
· Developed long range traffic staging options to maximize construction
zones and minimize, traffic impacts.
· Evaluated and approved contractor proposed traffic design changes
· Provided coordination between the City of Boston and the Project to
obtain approval of project's major traffic changes such as relocation of
freeway ramps and realignment of arterials.
· Performed presentations to the local community on traffic issues
· Provided coordination with business owners on traffic staging issues
Santa Clara County Measure A Transportation Improvement Proaram: (Dec. 90
to Jan. 94)
· Performed transportation planning/traffic forecasting, traffic operations
analysis for the entire program, (SR 237, US-l Oland SR 85)
· Developed PS&E for 3 major interchanges (SR 237/lanker Road, SR
237 jNorth First street, SR 237/Maude Avenue - Middlefield Road),
· Coordinated with Caltrans and local agencies on planning and design
Issues
. Performed Value Engineering & Alternatives Analysis for two major
interchange development on SR 237
. Made Presentations to local communities on traffic issues.
BART ExDansion Proaram (BARn to North Concord, Dublin/Pleasantonand Warm
Sprinas Extenslons:(Auaust 89 to November 90)
. Served as member of the BART Station Design Team
. Performed traffic circulation Planning for BART Stations
. Designed BART station parking lots and all inter-modal transfer facilities
. Developed Criteria for traffic circulation and parking facility design
National University of Sinaooore - Research oroaram on Sinaaoore Bus Service
(Dee 83 to Aua 85)
. Conducted Travel Time, Headway and Reliability Study
· Performed Statistical Analysis
. Conducted Bus Passenger Surveys
. Formulated Recommendations to Improve Bus Service
Other Proiects
. San Pablo Street Signal Coordination and timing plan development.
· Ygnacio Valley Road Signal Coordination and timing plan development.
· Transportation circulation plans development for the city of Mo.desto.
· Traffic Impact Studies for industrial and residential developments, San
Jose, California. '
· Traffic Management Plan Development for bridge maintenance program,
Santa Clara Valley Water District, California
· Rural Road Passing Lane Study, Stanislaus county, California
· Concrete ~avement overlay design project, New Delhi, India.
· Airport Runway Design project, Kanpur, India.
· Public Transit Reliability Study, Singapore.
MAY 05 2006 4.
" ' i .43PH d,LDWASSER H. D.
I, ATE MAIL #.s COVER SHEET
1
,
TO:
;
\'. h fltY "'" ~ ('" Y1 fl ' J (' Cf\'1'\ >'V' .>> . '-'-1
~~ 'CoVlV\c.f
FAX:
~y0-
yi>~ 2'1'3g'
!
. ~
;
;
FROM:
Richard C;oldwasser, M.D.
FAX (4~5) 381-1699
Phone (~15) 381-1690
pages inCludi~g this.
, j
I
I
!
,(
(415)381-1699
p. 1
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
CoddeDtiaItr Notiee:
'!be docwnlll1t (s) IlCCOIlIpmying lilis II may contain private, confidential info!lll&lionwbich is legally privileged.
The information js intended only for e use of lile intended recipient 1l3IIIed above, If)'Ou are DOl the intended
m:ipieol.)'OlI "'" hereby ootificd lhat Y disclosure. copying, dislribution. or me laking of any action in rolilJllco on
the: contenlll of 1hi. teJeeopied informatl n is strictly prohibited. If you bave recaWed. this fAX in enor, please notify
me bytdepkOlle (41S) 381.1690 10 for 1M return of the: original doellmenllo me.
(U: r::-ar.,y- R.Y tf<-~ f> c > !Iv F1-f{
I
I
I
I
i
!
i
HAY 05 2006 4:43PM R GOLDWASSER M.D.
(415)381-1699
. chard Goldwasser, M.D.
e . d Adolescent and Adult psychiatry
65 'Redwood Highway, Suite 261
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Telephone (415) 381-1690
I Fax (415) 381-1699
I
I
~/>/",
. T, b ~ p , ,. Y) ~ 11"-/ c I"Y1 . ~ s-. - ~
~ T"V\fY\ COlA c.'{ ~k
F;l-x '13r- 2~3 ~
~~ ~~l SkdfP..r
fr ffl ~ ~~fV1ytJ"cI\f
h
t>1 cI- : v.' I- ,'-l? f
D~4.V T D '-'&Iv, [,.eV\
tJ/f-
~
Afy.~J
2 Y ~f)~/
,
'f~ ..e
tit''' ,,' f..:cfV\ h7 '" .e "Ji. b <Yr5
> V\ V rlF Vt Y\crl, riJ- /&-1 ~ ~cJ ~r (
v'\kvfr~ (11 fk.t > ;J'V1 ,- r.- ~ ~ 1"\ t
'5
OV~ l.V (W1I;ig
(rc/YY)
VY\ t:J1 Y\ I
lW~" t'lfr<"di
'; vY'1f g1 cr ~
hrl",,~ -k>
f t! R.
e >< ,"~ f ';,?-
c dYy\. fYI rAn. ry I ~
{{fAwJ
~
C <fY1C- (fI'1 f" -
V1 of- tv,' 1k yf-C1 YId :;.. cl'
b r '~)f.t:J >h ~;;,y YlcJ
rY\ '~i O\}' /\91-
, en-- V
"c '-4 vY1 e-~ 1- I~ /7. III 0 r'.> R
t:'^'" f,^,J'j
-rho1T
q ,,~t-tJ
"
I vrfb
7
c, c) 5€y
p.2
I"
(415) 381 -'1699
p.3
MAY q5 2006 4:44PM R GOLDWASSER M.D.
~ r'\R-"J~ ~ \J "elr
b, -f1A F e I "'J
"" cce(> f VV\ 7 I i r/, P. f, M
J
h ~ c/:'1 VI rl d'r
-4v ?6YI J Yj .. VI ., /'
A ~ If di V'r:rr-e ()1 Y'\ /
-',v\..(,7 .
~ > 'f" o'1J '" J"-e. )
1M? fL"'~b; q"fl...',,,J,,, '111111 how WI"~~
k.. I.v '" v'\ ~ <1 I > ; "'J U -' e.r v :- 0 t:n- '14 J./ ') ~
I
fl..,/:)""'!? I'I(( w~ ~ .cY'"I/!1 v>\2f
r r ' :,:: ~:b w' J"tV, k '" ~ ~wld ;J -t " "' .f-
~ /I B..." / Bvrt dl.lI" ~ f"'r"+-'~ f ( ...,,1..,. c~ M{
VI;! (..( 1,'.7' .o...J UY' ~ VI. C "..'/.' M..f. +1/' '" c j., ""^J )
tI\( -l. ~5,r ,PY1 (f\-~ Y\..T pr~cJY\ t..e ~ A
f'Vl.r~ff11
\
C011V Lv.> 01 j ,-clYt,J
~ v't/e
C- (' V~
CoY-.Jr~ rAf-~~
PI J " t'~ t
Wl.,{ PI
1 ~J Cl"Y)
~~l~ '1.Lp.
( i v1 C n--rec+ 11 ~
\ 011 ~ -; >1' 'F 'c PI VI r .-- f !e",s:t?
to C cfVY'J? ']v ,v\ '1
~
PV/Vlr
"~5"~
~r
3<r fcll5~
yo (YVl
f/lf
..,1--", + ~ I?--Jb; r J (/I r/I) t, f<ir , PI '" I
,. r Jr.~+'~ ~ 0"', "I....-E' h ,w:{J
fJ "r I B <t t frt .-17.+'''.[1 4 ,)' W.ef ~
.f- f.e +- '''( .{:sr ~ rlN"'f .-M I
u>1c k1~7 -rf;I'f 's /'to!- dme
~ /)'Jh IJ.,lj",,/>,, jf~r';?
M~~ 95 2006 4:44PM
€.1I.e-y'] b <> ,),
~5 ~
R GOLDWASSER M.D.
~ pO\ ~(f-y-,\';
:\Alt-~ -f\ifp/~ ~a~_
~ C'1v re.'J ",'f-..~s Y't~eJ>
I
w,~ 16e.~ Vlf.'J,2.....~,~
I
~t
\
e~, 5 t-I-~
'.r~ t '
(415)381-1699
p.4
G" "f ~C't l-
f
(!",V1
~
af ~
t'l4\ Y17
o.f 1M. '1 C
f'l- ,-V ~+e [1
le~)r
~ > 7 y'\ "J <> w, >~f w,+4 -A - 'b
IV\R Nr'J/.-t. th-f'
fi.IU--d; (.. ,r/ r)""-'t? , \AV\~ ~ /', hvtr<IVI
~~ P1tV\c).
5,;"~-el ,
~()\V.(
cern J r 1 '" r'l '1:5
Or r'lo( P ., ~ 1"<)7
~ -r"
e-~fv-~'5T e-.jJ
- ~~ ~ArL
LIe,,- to (?1 t f11 VJ 4:::
f. rU CJ? f-
.--'t
May 5, 2006
LATE MAil # ?-
~DV~cc~u~~U
11ft 9 too6 I~
Tiburon Planning Commission
1505 Tiburon Blvd,
Tiburon, CA.94920
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF 1\BURON
THIRD LETTER IN OPPOSITION TO CURRENT KOL SHOFAR EXPANSION
Dear Planning Commission,
As landlords of251 Karen Way Tiburon directly across the street from Kol Shofar and
longstanding 160 Leland Way residents. we were dismayed to discover that Bel Aire
neighborhood is not mentioned in the current EIR report.
Bel Aire residents significantly suffer from the Congregation's parking when major
events occur. As it stands now, every single spot on Blackfield Drive and Karen Way is
taken. Residents can't park in front of their own homes. Bel Aire has become the default
overflow for the congregation.
Tbe expansion plan has yet to realistically address Kol Shofar's accommodation of such
a population influx. Over 266 cars will roll into our neighborhood because of the lack
of parking. A new monster building which allows hundreds of people weekly party
activities truly injures Bel Aire residents~ and radically devalues our properties.
We have yet to see the Congregation's parking shuttle plan. Will the congregants park in
the Cove shopping area? That parking lot is about one half the size of what is needed to
accommodate such an auditorium.
Pedestrian access around Blackfield Drive and Karen Way is highly susceptible to the
dangerous curved hill in front of the facility. Are there plans for another stop sign or light
in front of a much-needed crosswalk so people won't be hit by cars when they cross the
street?
This plan is a nightmare. Why can't Kol Shofar be good neighbors?
S incere)y ,
~ ~;J~ ~
Pm and Fred Starr
160 Leland Way
Tiburon, CA. 94920
415-381-0169
Christianna Seidel
30 Reedland Woods Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
LATE MAIL ,?-
,
Tiburon Planning Commission and Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
~ ~cc~nWfE~
. nrv""", I
q /; il'n L./
v !..c,',)V
May 9, 2006
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Re: Kol Shofar Final EIR and Conditional Use Permit Application
Dear Tiburon Planning Commissioners and Council members,
In Exhibit 1 of the Staff Report for the May 10th meeting entitled, "The Multi-Purpose
Room Usage", Kol Shofar states "Many of those described functions have been going on
for years at the Synagogue. Few are new and only those that are new are the subject of
the EIR for the CUP currently before the PC." Kol Shofar goes on to say, "with the
exception of those functions described below as new, all events currently take place at
Kol Shofar. and have for years. although in a drastically inadequate space." That is
exactly the point the neighbors have been trying to make and that is: Kol Shofar has in
recent years been limited by the space constraints of the building. With the vast increase
in square footage of the facility, the events and activities will take on new proportions
and new meaning. Twenty years ago the Congregation was awash with space when it '
served 220 families. The site was well suited to their needs. They co-existed with the
neighborhood since they were a small entity with small impacts. The original CUP was
based on a promise of growing no bigger than 350 families. This CUP has been amended
over the years in an effort to maintain peace in the neighborhood, but with the "drastic"
increase in space not only are the new events large and overbearing in a residential
neighborhood, but the existing events and activities have the potential to become equally
large and overbearing. Because these existing events and activities are religious in
nature, no caps exist now or will in the future. The neighborhood is extremely vulnerable
to the impacts of increased use and volumes of people over which the town will have
little control once the facility is built. The only way to limit potential significant impacts
from occurring in the future is to limit the facility itself. If the Planning Commission
allows the multi-purpose room as proposed, it will have set in motion great negative
changes to our neighborhood and establish an environment for the erosion of the General
Plan.
The fact that Kol Shofar declined to fill out the matrix of usage of its facility indicates the
intent to remain opaque about specific use of the site. Without full knowledge of
overlapping uses, or in other words the number of rooms used simultaneously, the
amount of parking cannot be sufficiently determined. It is in Kol Shofar's best interest to
withhold this information unless the Town or Planning Commissioners require them to
divulge it. Tim Metz provided a matrix for Kol Shofar to fill out in an effort to clarify the
situation and we respectfully ask the Town to pursue the matrix since it provides
necessary information for the decision making process.
Exhibit 3b of the Staff Report for the May 10th meeting entitled "Showing the Annual
Number of trips generated by the Proposed project", makes a faulty companson between
all car trips per residence per year on Reedland Woods Way versus car trips generated by
weekend "events" at Kol Shofar. IfKol Shofar chooses to make a traffic comparison
between the neighbors and the Synagogue, they need use equivalent time frames to show
all trips to the synagogue annually as they have for the neighbors, not just the weekend
event trips.
Sincerely,
Christianna Seidel
May 5,2006
Design Review Board
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Design Review Board:
LATE MAIL , 2-
\0) ~~~n~~~
IIrU 9 2(0) i~
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN O~URON
We are opposed to an expansion ofKol Shofar in our Bel Aire community.
Sincerely,
~;y~
Heather & Chadd Hermann
133 Leland Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
Note: please exclude us from all mailing lists - thanks.
05/09/200b 21:54
4153834927
CPERRYACFNEWSOURCE
PAGE 01/01
Planning Commission
Town of Tiburon
May 9, 2006
LATE MAIL #~,
~[E(C[E~
A,'...... fi , - r.
~t1 {.~' I 0 iOOb
~,_.-
~..~, .
~'1t
"ii~:i~'; PLANNING DIVISION
d '. TOWN OF TIBURON
Dear Commission:
My husband and I have carefully considered all the information we can obtain about the
Kol Shofar Expansion Project. We must go on record as opposed to the project because
all things considered, it is just excessive for this small, residential neighborhood: too
many events, going too late, too ,much activity and too many people coming and going. It
will alter our neighborhood and '.ve want to keep it residential and quiet.
I am sorry because I know that the synagogue is trying to do the right thing and serve
many people, but it is just the wrong place to do it. We are unable to come to the meeting,
but we want our voices to be heard.
Cynthia Perry
Bruce Sievers
79 Claire Way
Tiburon, Calif 94920
415-383-3501
FlATE MA\L# ~.
Members of the Town Council and the Planning Commission
Tiburon, CA, 94920
Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners:
We have owned our house on Paseo Mirasol since 1976. In the early
years, when the town approved the sale of the old Reedland Woods
School to Congregation Kol Shofar, the transaction had the general
approval of the surrounding households. Since that time, Kol Shofar has
been a good neighbor, and the relationship between the congregation
and the neighborhood has been amicable.
Until now. Kol Shofar's proposal to expand their facility by more than
10,000 square feet is excessive. We stand in complete opposition to the
project, and request that the town deny it Our reasons are as follows:
1. The General Plan states that any new development must be in harmony
with the character of the existing neighborhood. The enormity of the
project, with its attendant religious and social gatherings, will inevitably
disrupt the peace and quiet of Tiburon Hills.
2. The extra cars will present safety hazards and parking problems in the
neighborhood.
3. The EIS has acknowledged the unacceptable impact of both of these
factors on the adjacent areas.
4. Kol Shofar, in response, has offered some mitigations in llAltemative 7.-
These would set a slightly smaller limit on the number and ending time of
evening social gatherings. They would provide more parking spaces on
site. Clearly these are impractical -- we know that caps are easy to ignore
and difficult to enforce. In our opinion, the extra parking spaces will not
make a significant dent in the parking problems.
5. The congregation spokespeople say they must have the additonal
space in order to accommodate their full membership once a year when
they celebrate the High Holy Days. This does not strike us as a reasonable
cause to build a new structure of such staggering dimensions.
6. Finally, we ask the question: do we really want to set a precedent in this
community - one which would allow a gathering space for 1,SOO people?
We request that the Planning Commissioners and the Council members
look very hard at the disruptions that the Kal Shofar project would cause -
to the character of the neighborhood, to the safety of our residents and to
the problems of cars parked on the roads.
Thank you for your attention.
" Si~rr~~~
~~
Sally and Steven Schroeder
LAIEaMAIL#~.
~ ~M~~::~~
Page 1 of2
I
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Metz, Tim [tmetz@mountainhardwear.com]
Tuesday, May 09,200611:04 PM
Dan Watrous
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
john.t.kunzweiJer@accenture.com; Scott Anderson; Christy Seidel; Kurt Kaull;
svolker@volkerlaw.com
Subject: Completed Kol Shofar Facility Usage Matrix
Importance: High
Hi Dan,
Since Kol Shofar did not fill in the Excel template that I submitted last week, I took the information that
they provided and incorporated it into the Facility Usage Matrix myself. I think that once you review it, a few
details will become abundantly clear:
1. Kol Shofar has proposed a facility that would be used, as currently,stated, in an incredibly inefficient
manner every day of the week. You will see that the only time the multi purpose room is being specifically
used is for Coalition lunches, new events and High Holidays. During those same time periods other large,
existing portions (in addition to the main sanctuary) of the facility are sitting dormant and could easily
accommodate those events and activities instead.
Question 1: Why does Kol Shofar need the multi purpose room when they can configure the existing
facility in a much more efficient manner to make better use of the abundant space they already have within
the current building? Every day of the week, the facility has many unused spaces.
Question 2: What will be the impact on the neighborhood when Kol ~hofar decides to more fully utilize
the multi purpose room and the other unused rooms within the facility?
Question 3: What happens when Kol Shofar's congregation grows? What additional activities and
events will be needed for the growing congregation? Even Kol Shofar's experts contradict themselves
when discussing decline in the 2000-2001 National Jewish Population Study...
A few Conservative officials challenged the very notion of a drop in membership.
"1 don't see this as a decline," said Jerome Epstein, executive vice president of the United Synagogue of
Conservative Judaism, a union of 800 synagogues. "We're just getting a smaller percentage of the pie.
When the unaffiliated are choosing a place, if they're intermarried, they may choose a Reform
congregation. "
Epstein added: "If the survey is correct, that also means only one-third of intermarried Jews raise their
children as Jewish. If that's the case, rm not sure at what expense [the Reform movement] grew. "
The relative growth of Orthodoxy, Epstein said, had also eaten away at the Conservative percentage.
Orthodoxy's apparent expansion, he added, may simply reflect past undercounts of its members.
Robert Wexler, president of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, also questioned the figures. "1
cannot account for 10%, " said Wexler, whose institution houses a Conservative rabbinical school. "That
seems like a lot of Jews in 1 0 years. "
- Forward, 9/19/2003
http.:.Ifwww.forward.com/issu.es!2003J03..09.t9/news4~conse.rvative.html
2. You will see that there is not a single day of the week when the proposed new classroom wing is being
used or is needed. Any proposed activities can be easily accommodated within the existing facility. Notice
that the Annex, which has classroom/meeting room space for 80 people is never specifically mentioned in
5/1 0/2006
Page 2 of2
~ny of the uses.
Question 1: What specifically is the new classroom wing being used for?
Question 2: If an activity I placed into another space is really supposed to happen in the classroom wing,
what is the space that I put the activity into going to be used for? Look at the spaces and their stated
capacities. I did not "overbook" spaces when I filled in the matrix. If an activity is moved to either the multi
purpose room or the classroom wing, there will be large vacancies in other spaces in the facility.
Question 3: What specifically is the Annex going to be used for? It holds at least 80 people. That is a
lot of space to leave dormant.
3. Every day of the week, there are large portions of the current and proposed facility that are not being
used. If they are being used, their use did not merit mention, so the use must be very light.
Question 1: Did Kol Shofar document all of their activities? Are there additional impacts that have not
been documented?
Question 2: If Kol Shofar did document all of their activities, they have a lot of room for growth in
activities within the facility. What will be the impact of an expansion of events and activities to match the
facility capacities?
I would like the attached copy of the Usage Matrix and this e-mail submitted as part of the Late Mail in the public
record for tomorrow's Planning Commission Meeting. I will also be providing color copies of this matrix for review
by each Planning Commissioner as well as yourself and Lisa at tomorrow's meeting. Please share this e-mail and
attachment with all other Planning Commissioners and any other interested parties.
I look forward to seeing you and everyone else at tomorrow's meeting.
Best regards,
Tim
5/1 0/2006
"
2-
Ch
::r
o
!!
'11
..
g
~
C
..
..
lQ
.
~
.-
Q.
S"
0"
'<
~
Z
o
)c
iii"
r
.
~~~~
~~~Q.
:bOO
2:s!f
~Qth
'< 5'~
:b S:
g,~
<
~
1J,.,%,."",I,,.
~:'"
noon
Qi"i>>iDir
'" '" '" '"
'" c.o '" '"
g 8 g g
333 3
ln~; ~ ~
<:)f.:)(;3f.:)
0000
~~~~
g ~ ~ ~
~~'l:)~
~.!~~
"
(;
"0
o
..
.
Q.
o
.-
..
..
(;
o
3
~
~
lQ
~b~~~
ii~~~~
=:1~ggg
:~l!i~~
~ji\)i\)i\)
-0"'''''"''............
Q)I\:) ~ ~ .....
""" 07 "0 "0 ~
O)~g~
~}!}
"0
~
~
o
"0
~ 8
,~
~~
8
...
*
...
o
<:>
...
!
i
..
!
8
..
!
<:>
8
...
~
~
<:>
o
'i>
~
~
~
I
g
...
*
...
8
!
g
..
f
g
...
*
Ot
g
...
!
g
...
!
8
!
o
<:>
..
!
8
..
!
<:>
8
<:>
;
;
I
~
"
(;
"0
o
..
.
c.
~
~
"
c
-a
o
..
.
m
s..
ii
S"
W
3:3: ~
:t :t S"
~S: IQ
IQIQ ~
~~
o 0 ~
o 0 .
33 )C
.. Q;
I\) .... 0
~~ "0
00 ~
II ~
~~
-!:.!
Ot co
! 2
g 0
... ij)
!
C>
C>
~
!
g
...
*
...
C>
<:>
~
~
<:>
C>
..
*
~
8
..
!
~
8
...
~
~
i
!
~
I
8
...
!
8
!!
!
g
~
t
g
~
,
~
8
Ot
!
8
...
*
...
8
~
!
i
..
!
8
..
!
~
8
...
<:>
;
;
~
!t
Ii
;{
!
o
00
..
!
8
..
!
C>
8
...
~
~
o
C>
...
!
8
!
8
C>
~
~
00
~
~
;{
c:ooooo
trii'ii'iDiDiD
Q1l:~l::l:
~ggggg
~33333
"i~tl!i~~
i~~~~~
""""i"i"i"i"i
.g.g.g.g.g
~~~~~
,.. i
8
- -
..
;;o;u;u;u;u;;u,
il!!!i;
Ii' Ii, Ii Ii' ~..' Ii 8
- ~ ~.. ~', ~,. ; ~. :-
g8[8&8~
~~~;;;;~!
:;q;: ~ ~~~ ~
~~N~;;;Ng
-~~~~~~-
~~~~..~
iiffif!
i! ~o.~
-'
I ~
. ,..,. I ~
.'.., ...,1 ~
.,'. I 8
!
8
0(')(')(')
ii'"iDiDO
!:l:l:~
aaa~
0000
3330
...3
(41\)......<:)
f:) - (;) (;) c
o oo~
~~~.
llil
..!....!.~
...
!
8
0
Ot ~
! ~
g ~
...
,
~
8
...
!
g
..
00
t
g
- -
~
;u ~ l ;;u !
i g ~.,' I.'
l5" l5" ~
i Ii c: c: 8
i ..
g ~. ~ - -
[ ! [ [ ~
.. co .. .. ~
... ~ ~ ~
~ g
N N N N
~ ... ... ... - -
is' 0 0
.~ 8 ~ ~ ...
i 0 i 0
I l 'i>
i I
". - -
. ~
.- I
;
; 8
!
8
!!
!
8
..
0
t
g
...
,
~
8
Ot
!
g
..
*
~
8
!
g
..
,
..
8
..
!
00
&
...
<:>
0
~
8
;
~
~
i9:
;{
!
o
<:>
...
!
g
..
o
t
g
...
o
t
8
Ot
!
8
..
!
8
...
!
g
i
8
..
!
<:>
&
...
<:>
;
...
;
~
I
;{
m
)C
~
S"
lQ
~
Q.
3
S"
~
!!t
<'
.
~
::J
IQ
.......
~
~~~~~~&~Q~
:::l:l:!:~iil~a
aaaaaal~!!.i
~~~~~~~~~~
!~tl!i~~~"i~~
t\)~~1\)t\)~t3~8~
0. 0.070. 0. 0. 1\)<D1!..
"O"O"O~"O"2O)"""~o
~~~~~.g"i }
~~~~~~~
..!!.
I
8
-
..
l.llllll lli'
!ftfltf Illi
~~;~~~~-;I':-
!!!!!!! !!!;
~~~~~~~~~~i
2 ~- ~ ~ ~ e 2 - i ~. B- -
~~~~~~~ ~-~:...
8gggggg8g8~
1111111 III f
- -
.'..,.. I
i 8
"
-
m
lC
~
S"
lQ
~
t)
c
~
lD
s..
ii
S"
lQ
o
ro
o
~
~ri
'ij)
~F
8
.
,
...
i
!
8
...
!
8
en
c
:;:,
Co
.
'<
!
8
..
f
g
...
!
8
i
8
..
!
8
!
o
00
!
8
..
!
<:>
8
...
<:>
~
g
;
I
Ii
;{
May 9, 2006
LATE MAil # Z-
~ ~ ~ h "n \;~.r;~.,,".~","
~u;:; ~ u;:; U LI --J,ll \\
II! I'
n ""'J' iU!
i,} ,. . .,.'. L)
PLANNING Of VISION
TOWr~ OF TIBURON
Town of Tiburon Planning Commission and Town Council
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Congregation Kol Shofar Final EIR and Conditional Use Permit Application
and Alternative 7
As a resident and member of the Vista Tiburon Homeowners Association (and a member
of the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition (the "TNC")) Jiving at the corner of Via Los
Altos and Vista Tiburon (38 Via Los Altos), my house backs up to and looks directly
down on the Congregation KoJ Shofar ("KS") property. For some strange reason that I
can only chalk up to another error and omission by the Town EIR, my house address is
never cited by the Town EIR consultant as one on the 20 residences most meaningfully
impacted by the Kol Shofar project-as the crow flies, my house is probably the third
closest to the proposed cite of the controversial "Multi-Purpose Room".
On the eve of a decision by the Tiburon Planning Commission, I find myself again
wanting to reach out to the Commissioners and beg for some "common sense" amid a lot
of rhetoric. It is really important to try to strive, at this point in time, for simplicity
amongst the complexity and focus on threshold, common sense and pragmatic issues,
looking similarly for common sense, pragmatic solutions. It is not a time to just cave-in
to compromise or adopt a "split the difference" mentality, or even give in to the inertia of
a project that has been out there pushing along for a long time. Instead, it is a time to use
common sense to make the hard but right decisions for the town and the community,
which for many of us who have a long tenn mentality about living in Tiburon at our
current residences, will be lasting and quite impactful.
In that vein, several issues, simplified in their articulation, come to mind and they an
relate directly to this controversial "Multi-Purpose Room." These issues are:
I. Does the "core need" articulated by the Temple's rabbi really require a permanent
structure?
2. Is the weekend usage planned for this "Multi-Purpose Room" consistent or
inconsistent with the Town of Tiburon's General Plan?
3. Are the planned weekend uses for this "Multi-Purpose Room" religious in nature
or more social (partying) in nature?
4. Are the proposed hours of usage of this "Multi-Purpose Room" supportable by
precedent exhibited elsewhere in the Town ofTiburon?
5. Is the large footprint (i.e. the significant square footage) of this "Multi-Purpose
Room" reaHy needed when alternatives to the stated "core need" are considered
and when the square footage needs for suggested ancillary uses (parties) and other
possible reconfigurations of the Temple's overall space are accounted for?
Issue 1: Does the "core need" articulated bv tbe Temple's rabbi reaDy reouire a
permanent structure?
The first major issue (and it is quite major because the planning commission should
arguably not even get past the issue to consider other issues) is whether this "Multi-
Purpose Roo~" which is so controversial, is really needed by the applicant, or are there
other alternatives the applicant can pursue to satisfy its stated "core needs." It is clear to
everyone who has been a witness that the rabbi has stated in no uncertain terms that the
reason he and the Temple "need" this 10,000 square foot "Multi-Purpose Room" is to
accommodate the 2 main high holy days and 3 services on these 2 days out of the year
(see Exhibit A, Table 1 where the three 1500 attendee events of Rosh Hashanah First
Day, Yom Kippur Day and Yom Kippur Night are listed-these are the 3 services over 2
days). Were it not for these 3 services over only 2 days, the rabbi would readily admit, as
he has by implication, that he doesn't need a building so large. He is quite defiant in his
statements and tone about his seeming "entitlement" to conduct these 3 services in the
way he desires. While this tone has put-offmany of the neighbors, let's say, for
argument's sake, his "desires" are sound and well-founded-the obvious question then
arises, amongst all the related controversy attendant to this "Room", whether he really
needs this very large and permanent building for just 3 services over just 2 days out of the
entire year when there are satisfactory and widely used other alternatives employed for
these 3 services by his fellow rabbi locally and nationwide. This notion of other
acceptable alternatives for these 3 services (which is the stated "core need" for the Room)
really needs to be considered carefully by the Planning Commissioners, especially when
the ancillary impacts to the neighborhood that result from the "non-core usage" of the
large building (i.e. the weekend parties) are so controversial and clearly out of character
with the Temple's immediate residential surroundings. If the rabbi and the Temple want
to insist on needing to have all the congregation members able to attend together these 3
services on only 2 days of the year in order to abide by the desired tenants of the faith
(though this practice, practically speaking, has been questioned when surveying other
Temple practices 10caHy and nationwide), we would ask the rabbi to respect the other
side of the controversy and show compromise for a less permanent home for the 3
services. Given the upheaval being caused in the neighborhood and community by this
"Multi-Purpose Roo~" that seems like a logical and fair-minded solution. A "Tent"
solution still acceptably satisfies the "core need" the rabbi has so forcefully stated (as
demonstrated this past weekend by the very nice, but temporary T eot that occupied the
space where a "Multi-Purpose Room" would permanently stand) and avoids putting
permanently in place the structure that then becomes the source of and leads to all the
further neighborhood controversy, i.e. usage for the "Room" that is admitted by the rabbi
to NOT be the main reason for the structure, but whose ancillary usage is at the core of
the problems of the neighbors related to late night parties, unacceptable hours and days of
usage, and noise, traffic, parking and safety concerns. So, as summary for this first major
issue, this "Multi-Purpose Room" is not really needed by the rabbi and the Temple in
order for it to achieve its core goal related to the 3 services because there is another less
impactful way to achieve the core goal, and this is especially the case when it is
considered that we are talking about a core goal that relates to only 2 days out of the year.
Issue 2: Is tbe weekend usa2e Dlanned for this "Multi-Purpose Room" consistent or
inconsistent witb tbe Town of Tiburon's General Plan?
A second major issue the Planning Commission is grappling with relates to the
consistency or inconsistency of the proposed project with the Town ofTiburon's General
Plan. If common sense and simpHstic thinking don't prevail regarding the fITst major
issue above, common sense and a simple reading of the General Plan must prevail when
the words and intentions of the Town's General Plan are carefully considered vis a vis
this project. It is especially instructive to listen to the voice of the town consultant Lisa
Newman through her Written words in the staff report and her oral statements to the
Planning Commissioners in the meeting sessions as she has clearly and explicitly
signaled to the Planning Commissioners that this is an area where the Commissioners
really need to be careful and where they need to make some well reasoned and
considered, logical and interpretive judgment-calls as to what the General Plan says and
what this project means relative to that General Plan. The Commissioners are among the
gatekeepers responsible for upholding and enforcing the core fundamentals of the
General Plan. To quote her statement and counsel to the Commissioners at the April 24,
2006 meeting, the consistency or inconsistency of the Kol Shofar project relative to the
Tiburon Town General Plan "is at the crux of the Commissioners deliberations and
decision." We agree emphatically with Lisa's advice and believe the considerations of
this project don't make it past the deliberations and conclusions associated with the Town
General Plan. Again, a simple look at the words Lisa includes as Exhibit 3 to her May
10, 2006 meeting StatfReport where the Town General Plan Goals and Policies are laid
out, is very instructive, The analysis is as follows: in a neighborhood where current
Saturday and Sunday evening activity, noise, traffic, parking, safety issues, etc betWeen
6pm and 12am on Saturdays and 3pm and 10pm on Sundays is nil, compare that to the
proposed project activity of a total of 27 weekend evenings (over 25% of weekend nights
and over 50% of weekends) during these same hours where bar and bat mitzvahs and
weddings will be occurring with between 100 and 250 attendees and then overlay that
proposed activity during those hours on those days in the heart of a quite residential
neighborhood against the following Goals and Policies of the Tiburon General Plan:
LU-D "... ensure that all land uses. . . enhance the small-town residential image
of the community and the village-like character. . . "
LU..H "To protect and preserve existing neighborhood character and identity."
LU-I "To encourage intensity of development, density and. . . sizes. . . that are
consistent and compatible with surrounding neighborhoods."
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 . . . "
c-c "To maintain all existing. . . streets with consideration of. . . protection of
residential quality of life."
N-A "To ensure that residential areas are quiet and that noise levels. . . remain
within acceptable limits."
LU-5 "New development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods. . . "
[For some reason, Lisa Newman excluded this important policy statement.]
The town EIR consultant attempts to argue that the "Multi-Purpose Room" is an
extension of the established use of the property for school and church purposes so that the
project is not going to change the identity or character or harmony of surrounding
neighborhoods, and is therefore consistent with the Town's General Plan. We strongly
believe this finding is factually wrong and linked to common sense when the words and
intentions of the General Plan are carefully considered alongside the specifics of this
project. How can weekend and evening parties late into the weekend evenings be
seriously considered "extensions of school or church purposes"? It's a ridiculous finding
that has no merit and is easily subject to challenge. So to drive home this point,
weekend evening parties in a 10,000 sq ft room late into the night: are not "in harmony
with adjacent neighborhoods", do not "ensure residential areas are quiet and that noise
levels remain acceptable", do not "encourage density and size that are consistent and
compatible with surrounding neighborhoods", and are not "compatible with the nature,
character and image of the Town as a quiet, small-town residential community." I do.not
see how any other conclusion can be reached on this issue.
So to conclude this second major issue, the project as proposed under Alternative 7 is
inconsistent with the Tiburon General Plan in numerous respects and should therefore not
be approved on those grounds.
Issue 3: Are tbe planned weekend uses for this "Multi-Purpose Room" relieious in
nature or more social (Dartvin2) in nature?
It is uncontroversial and important to note that these bar and bat mitzvah and wedding
events have a religious ceremony element to them (which does and should occur at the
temple), but also a non-religious social party element of the activity, which very, very
frequently, both locally and nationwide, does not take place, nor is it required by the
religion to take place, at the religious facility. This is a critical d~-linking of the religious
and the social aspects of the life cycle event. Stated simply, the parties do no need to be,
and very typically are not, held at the religious facility and when the extent of the usage
of the "Multi-Purpose Room" associated with these parties is considered alongside all the
controversy and issues the "Multi-Purpose Room" is causing for the neighbors, the
logical conclusion is to cut out the unnecessary activity that is causing so much difficulty.
Issue 4: Are tbe proposed bours of usa2e of tbis "Multi-Purpose Room" supportable
bv orecedent exhibited elsewbere in tbe Town ofTiburon?
This is probably the most obvious and blatant place where Tiburon's Town philosophy
and basic common sense are being disregarded amongst the emotion and confusion being
churned up by this ever changing synagogue "Multi-Purpose Room" proposal. Lisa
Newman lays it right out there for the Commissioners to contrast on the top of page 7 of
her April 24 meeting date Staff Report. Look at the hours of usage of other Tiburon
situations where institutions are adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The facts are
striking and simple and obvious. Probably most relevantly and the most similar
comparable, The Tiburon Peninsula Club is limited in indoor social events to 9pm on any
day, outdoor social events are limited to 8pm on any day and amplified music is only
allowed up until6pm on weekdays and 8pm on weekends. Also, relevantly, the Tiburon
Town Friday night Main Street summer events must be wrapped up, I understand, by
9pm. For this Temple applicant to be seriously requesting usage of this Room for parties
up until 11 pm, with cleanup carrying on another I-I ~ hours until 12-12:30am for even
one night a year, let alone 12 nights, is egregious and not supportable anywhere else in
Town. The same conclusion can be drawn for the proposed Sunday night events where
the "lights-out" curfew after cleanup is proposed to be 10-1 0:30pm. And you wonder
why emotions are running high and trust to work together as "good neighbors" is low?
Tips shows, in my mind, a very blatant disregard for the neighbors and their
surroundings, which they highly value. :u: in the unfortunate circumstance where, a
Multi-Purpose Room of some form is approved, the neighbors are united and adamant
that all events should be over and cleanup concluded by 9pm on any day. This is entirely
reasonable and logical and is strongly supported by other precedent elsewhere in town.
Many of the neighbors can not imagine the rationale that would be given for any outcome
more onerous to them than that. In fact, why this applicant would even be allowed to
entertain being able to operate under different conditions than others has never been
made clear.
Issue 5: Is tbe lan!e footprint (i.e. tbe si2nificant square foota2e) of this "Multi-
Purpose Room" reallv needed when alternatives to the stated "core need" are
considered and when tbe square footae:e needs for SUe:2ested ancillary uses (parties)
and other possible reconfi2urations of the Temple's overall space are accounted for?
Common sense dictates to me that, if the very logical conclusion is reached that for 2
days and 3 services a year a temporary versus permanent solution can be adopted (i.e. no
need for a large permanent multi-purpose room for high holy days because a more
temporary solution is deemed just fme to meet "core needs"), then it follows logically
that there is no need to house upwards of 1500 people in a permanent structure and there
is no longer a need for a Room that is 10,000 square feet in size. This begs the obvious
next question whether, if needed at all, a much smaller, scaled-down structure is the
pragmatic and prudent solution. Assuming the hours of usage are as fairly above, you
surely don't need a Room the size being proposed to house the 100-250 attendees
suggested for these Lifecycle events. A structure stipulated to be much smaller would
seem the obvious conclusion.
One last observation I would like to make at this stage. Take a look at how long this
process is taking. I don't follow situations like this frequently, but 2 years since initial
application seems like a long time. And with all the numerous changes and fits and
starts, it has really seemed to painfully drag out. Why is that? Could it be because this
project is just not right for its surroundings and an attempt is being made to force a square
peg into a round hole? Just because this project application has taken a long time,
doesn't mean it should be approved. To the contrary, the fact that it has taken so long
highlights the incompatibility of the project with its surroundings and the overreach that
has occurred throughout that has now taken up so much time and money of the town and
a small group of citizens. At many levels, the Planning Commission needs to rule against
this project, some of the most fundamental and common sense reasons having been laid
out here. Ruling for this project opens the floodgates in Tiburon on many levels and the
process and approach followed the last 2 years by this applicant can not be rewarded and
encouraged. Pragmatism and a keen awareness on the part of the Planning
Commissioners should signal to them what is going on here as the "ask for the sky"
initial application has been slowly and methodically whittled down further and further in
order to slip in under some CUP restrictions, for a project that has been in jeopardy of
getting approved at numerous turns. Weare quite worried about a fundamentally and
philosophically bad project being approved at some seemingly acceptable minimal level
initially, only to every year, have its CUP chipped away at so that eventually something
much larger in scope and purpose becomes our reality. Please spare this group of
intelligent and committed neighbors from being the little guy that is slowly and
methodically marginalized during every yearly CUP amendment cycle.
Thank you for the opportunity to communicate my views to you at this point on this
important and highly personal topic.
Sj(~f#~
~~rtlI<la~ \
"
[D) lE (C [~ ~ VI lE i' ,.1
["U MiN I 0 200l ~I
;t~ih PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
f
.".
wUr~MAlLJJ ~.
230 Blackfield Dr.
Tiburon. Ca 94920
May 10, 2006
Town of Tiburon Planning Commission
And Town Council Members
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Congregation Kol Shofar expansion
I am writing to address the concern I have regarding Kol Shofar's expansion request. As
a direct, affected party, (we are across the street) we live with the broken promises and
endless CUP revisions that are disintegrating the character of this neighborhood like the
ocean wears away the shore.
Up to this point the CUP and project descriptions have been moving targets, and while
this is part and parcel of the process, the great differences between the original proposals
and alternatives, and what has finally been proposed as alternative7, have made it very
difficult for an ordinary citizen to understand and subsequently comment on this project.
The final description is cryptic and thus difficult to "see".
In my mind it still is not clear if this CUP regulates all uses, new and old, or if it meshes
with the old CUP as an add-on. The parking and traffic mitigations mentioned in this
resolution for a new CUP , seem to apply to all new and existing events or combination
of events with 250 or more participants. Does this mean that, since the Saturday services
(350 people) and Sunday school (350 persons) are both over 250 and the lunches
following are also, that all day Saturday and all day Sunday our neighborhood will have
"Resident Traffic Only" signs and "No Parking" signs? Where will my guests park? And
how will I designate them as "residents"? This mitigation will do nothing but create
confusion. The staff report mentions Blackfield Dr. as one of the required locations for
this mitigation, but Blackfield Dr .is not mentioned in the resolution.-CUP.
Mitigating a lack of parking by disallowing on street parking in the immediate
neighborhood will not resolve the permanent lack of parking spaces in the Kol Shofar
parking lot. Rather it will simply push the on street parking problem form my driveway
into my neighbor's driveway. At the alternative 7 figure of2 persons per car, Saturday
\ . '?
..
services, 350 people will require 172 spaces, and the parking lot will have a total of 139.
Where will the additional parking spaces come from? These are needed for old uses, that
are currently not mitigated, and routinely impose on the patience and tolerance of the
neighbors. Since these old uses are for a short period of time and only on weekend
mornings, we have not complained. But this new project is a quantum increase in
intensity.
Basic questions remain unclear. Are old uses over 250 included? Are the figures for
mitigation cumulative? Why haven't cumulative -new and old at the same time-impacts
been studied? What gets mitigated? How will the mitigations be monitored week to
week? Alternative 7 and the CUP are not clear.
The on street parking problem exists in part due to the poorly engineered parking lot
itself. While the new alternative7 does return the street circulation to a safer pattern, it
does nothing to address the in- parking lot bottleneck. If the new drop-off circle is
allowed to continue, this will tie up the in- parking lot circulation to the point that no
person will want to go near the parking lot to avoid the in lot traffic jam, and will
subsequently park on the street. This will occur both at the beginning and at the end of
events. And , if a fleet of shuttle vans are coming and going from a remote lot, as
required in the mitigations, this will only add to the bottleneck. Neither the DEIR nor the
FEIR nor alternative 7 have studied or discussed this.
An additional problem that stems from the parking lot, is the phenomenon of driveway
turnarounds, or in the case of upper Blackfield Dr., unsafe u-turns on a blind curve. I
witness these on a weekly basis. Tuning a blind eye to this problem will create an
accident corridor. This may not seem critical on paper, but in real life it is very scary. I
have a front seat. I fear that I will hear the screech of brakes, the crunch of metal and the
tinkling of glass. Mine will be the hands that are shaking as I dial 911 and rush to help. I
will see the broken bodies of the children. Be notified: this problem exists, it is
dangerous, and terribly unsafe. Adding more opportunity for this to occur by not
addressing the parking problem in a permanent way, would be an rmforgivable error.
To allow this exponential change in an inner, garden neighborhood is to disregard the
rights of the citizens who bought homes here, reasonably expecting the congregation to
remain in- character. This hall addition, facility remodel and the addition of a second
school, irreversibly changes the character of the congregation and the neighborhood. The
scale is not in keeping with the surrounding area. This permanent addition of a facility to
host 1500 people at a time, even if its use is regulated to a third of capacity 99.9% of the
time, still creates permanent, unending problems such as significant and unavoidable
noise, (per the DEIR , FEIR )a permanent parking deficit, ( no permanent, workable,
enforceable mitigation) an unsafe traffic load on the single ingress and egress artery (
Tiburon Boulevard and Blackfield Dr.) and worst of all, creates an accident corridor
with the driveway turnarounds. ( documented in the DEIR and unmitigated.) No other
club, society or business group has been allowed to impose on the surrounding
neighborhoods with this level of intensity or use. Kol Shofar is a special space, suitable
t) . :- ..
Ol;.
to worship and fellowship~ to contemplation and education. Weare stewards of this
world, and need to proceed with reason and an eye to the future. I hope we will not
burden the future with shortsighted and quick answers to complex questions, leaving
them a legacy of problems.
This addition is tearing apart our neighborhood. It allows one group to grow at the
expense of another. These objections are not to some imaginary future use. Rather they
are based on first hand observations of the current use, and are to the stated, intended
future use of the facility. Community Center size parties, banquet size kitchen, and county
wide services and programs, are just more than we can handle and continue to enjoy the
life we reasonably expected to have in Tiburon.
Sincerely, M '
~"//fi.' :I /a '~~ " ,. .i:L/~- ~
-~ ~~. ,
~ " ; J
'" / I
~,.
~ c ~ u ~)'-l;
MARGARET KIRBY
~
J 0 2006
~i
LATE MAIL #;..,
230 Blackfield Dr
Tiburon, Ca 94920
j/
.~t~:.:~\,
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF rlSURON
May 10,2006
Town of Tiburon Planning Commission
1 50S Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
And Town Council Members
Attached is an invitation that was hand delivered to the surrounding neighbors by
Kol Shofar, inviting us to tour their facilities. I am very grateful for this chance to
better understand my neighbor, and understand their needs and reasons for this
expansion. I appreciate this gesture. I was personally unable to attend, but my
husband did, and found it very informative.
Please add this to the file regarding the expansion.
Sincerely, '
1/ a~/
441t1;/1 cl:s r,-
. )
,.1ne JeWlSn weeK
Page 1 of 4
@;CliCkH ere to Print
TheJewish Week
. .. SERVNG tHE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF GRWD NEW YORK
(12/09/2005)
Conservative Leaders Call For New Openness
Gillman says drop halachic constraints; Epstein calls for aggressive
outreach to intermarrieds.
Gabrielle Birkner - Staff Writer
Boston
Responding to perceptions that
Conservative Judaism is spiritually
listless and on the decline, a major
thinker in the movement called this
week for it to acknowledge that it is
not bound by halacha, or Jewish law.
In calling for a new vision at the United Synagogue of Conservative
Judaism's biennial in Boston, Rabbi Neil Gillman, professor of Jewish
philosophy at the Jewish Theological Seminary, argued that calling itself
a halachic movement is intellectually dishonest and has failed to inspire
increased religious commitment of congregants.
"We have to be open and honest, and try to project a religious vision, a
theological vision," Rabbi Gillman told The Jewish Week.
Conservative Jews should instead distinguish themselves from other
liberal movements by their liturgy, their ritual practice and their loyalty
to Conservative Jewish institutions, he said.
Rabbi Gillman in his keynote address also stressed the healthy tension
that exists within a Conservative Jew - between history and
modernity, between the letter and the spirit of the law, between
wanting answers and embracing ambiguity.
Articulating a new vision will depend in large part on the person chosen
to succeed outgoing JTS Chancellor Ismar Schorsch, according to Rabbi
Gillman, who sits on the selection committee.
His comments at the unusually charged convention - a four-day event
attracting about 700 rabbis, educators, and congregational
professionals and lay leaders - reflected the movement's struggle to
define what it means to be a Conservative Jew in the 21st century, as it
has seen its numbers drop (from 43 percent of affiliated Jews 15 years
ago to 33 percent now) and its ideology challenged from within.
Rabbi Gillman said there is little difference between the religious
practice of Conservative and Reform Jews outside the synagogue, and
that "if we are a halachic community, it has to be because we want to
be, not because we have to be. Then we have to explain why we want
to be, and we have done neither."
Others ~bjected strenuously.
"He deconstructed everything and offered nothing, spiritually speaking,"
observed Rabbi Michael P. Singer of Temple Beth David in Palm Beach
Gardens, Fla. "I couldn't disagree more with Rabbi Gillman," he said,
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent. php3 ?artid= I I 773&print=yes
05/1 0/2006
j The Jewish Week
Page 2 of 4
asserting that "the idea of Conservative Judaism is to move our
members toward an understanding of halacha, n which he called "the
link to the past, present and future."
Though Rabbi Jerome Epstein, executive vice president of the usa,
told delegates "we must not react defensively to the Orthodox or the
Reform" in seeking to fortify Conservative's centrist stand - bound by
halacha but open to change - events at the conference suggested
otherwise, including his own call for a more aggressively welcoming
attitude toward gentiles married to Jews, with conversion as the goal.
(See story below.)
In response to Rabbi Gillman's remarks, Rabbi Epstein asserted that
"halacha is the mainstay of the movement, and our decisions are based
on halacha. That doesn't mean they are entirely consistent," he added.
"They're grappled with."
He noted that "if not for halacha, we would vote on the gay and lesbian
issue tomorrow," a reference to a major dividing line within the
movement about whether to allow gay and lesbian rabbinical students.
While a large majority of current rabbinical students oppose the current
policy not to allow gays and lesbians in the program, Rabbi Schorsch
has held off challenges, and it is widely believed the next chancellor will
review the situation.
The current policy "makes no sense," a leading Conservative rabbi
observed, noting that it allows for gay rabbis in the field to continue in
their pulpits but bans gays from entering rabbinical school. "It's a 'don't
ask, don't tell ... too soon' policy," he said, and inconsistent.
Another challenge that emerged at the biennial was over the
movement's allowing non-egalitarian synagogues to continue to
affiliate.
An address by Rabbi Menachem Creditor, the spiritual leader of Temple
Beth Israel in Sharon, Mass., became an unlikely focal point of the
conference when, after urging the movement to ordain gay clergy, he
said that allowing non-egalitarian synagogues under the Conservative
umbrella was immoral and tantamount to "institutional misogyny."
The comments garnered rousing applause and a standing ovation from
some audience members, but was resented by many conference-goers
from Canada, where a large concentration of more traditional, non-
egalitarian synagogues are situated.
Paul Kochberg, president of USCJ's Canadian region, said Rabbi
Creditor's comments were "devastating," adding, "For him to stand up
in front of the crowd and preach that there is no room in the movement
for non-egalitarian synagogues that have decades and decades of
tradition in the Conservative movement is repugnant, offensive, hurtful
and entirely out of place."
About 10 percent of the nearly 700 Conservative synagogues in North
America place limits on women's participation in synagogue, according
to Rabbi Epstein, USCJ's top professional.
Some conference-goers grumbled that the non-egalitarian Conservative
congregations should be forced to secede from the USC] in light of
Rabbi Creditor's remarks. Those fears were allayed when Rabbi Epstein,
in a plenary session, reaffirmed the movement's commitment to
pluralism.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent. php3 ?artid= 11773&print=yes
05/10/2006
.1ne JeWISn WeeK
Page 3 of4
"As long as I am the leader of United Synagogue, there will always be
egalitarian and non-egalitarian," he said in an interview.
Rabbi Creditor, the founder of Shefa: The Conservative Jewish Activists'
Network, stood by his remarks.
"We've been so afraid to lose anyone that we don't air our passionate
beliefs," said. "We have to begin the process of self-definition, even if
that means our tent is a little bit smaller, but maybe more secure and
more purposeful."
The vast majority of conference attendees were well into middle age,
underscoring the movement's efforts to bring into the Conservative fold
Jewish young adults. During one session, devoted to engaging and
retaining Jewish young adults, Jackie Saltz, who as the founder of the
USCJ alumni association said recent focus groups have shown that
Conservative-reared 20- and 30-somethings long for the intense Jewish
communal experiences they had at day school or summer camp or on
youth group excursions.
"We've created a schism," Saltz said, referring to a perceived dearth of
programming for Jewish young adults. "We are not providing Jewish
experiences equal to what they had in United Synagogue Youth or
Camp Ramah," the Conservative movement's network of summer
camps.
But sometimes it's not a lack of outreach or programming that accounts
for declining numbers, said Rabbi Harold Kushner, the best-selling
author of "When Bad Things Happen To Good People," a featured
speaker.
"We're at a point, not just in religion but in society, when people are
moving out of the moderate center to the extremes," Rabbi Kushner
said in an interview. "It's nothing we're doing wrong. It's just hard to
be a moderate."
Speaking to several hundred people at the conference, he outlined what
he described as the four pillars of Conservative Judaism: an emphasis
on community rather than shared theology; fearlessness in the face of
truth; the idea that life is a quest for holiness; and the primacy of
history in shaping Conservative Jewish practice.
Then he simplified his theory, adding, "My definition of a Conservative
Jew is someone who knows Tu b'Shvat is on Feb. 13 and that the Super
Bowl is on Feb. 5, and wants to take part in both celebrations."
Despite much discussion about declining numbers, some attendees
were optimistic about the future.
"I don't think numbers tell the whole story," said conference-goer
Elizabeth Pressman, a member of Temple Emunah in Lexington, Mass.
"In many ways the movement is much stronger. Our day schools are
growing, and more of our young people are versed in [text] study. But
what the movement does need to do is articulate what it stands for." n
Here is a list of other articles in this section
. A Dead Shul Lives Online
Rescued Washington Hts. prayer books spark memories,
thanks to Internet.
· A High-_M_aintenance American_Dream
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3 ?artid= I I 773&print=yes
05/1 0/2006
. The Jewish Week
Page 4 of4
Russian emigres who bought co-ops call on attorney
general to investigate their corruption claims.
. BREAKI.NG_N_E-'NS.;m.Ne.w....E~trQruQVJ~LEte.lsjstQJ:l...M.iddJeu.EaustPro9.ra.m
Rabbis from across spectrum slam 'grossly unbalanced'
program; Avi Weiss pulls out.
. Early Planning FQLOlmertVisit
Big dose of U.S. aid for West Bank pullout could be
stumbling block.
. Former AIPACers Get Personal
. FromCha p paquaTo. Chad
Westchester rabbis and their congregants rally to save
Darfur.
. Jewish Task . Forc:eTo AidlsraelLArabs
Addressing 'neglect' of minority is more crucial than ever,
say leaders at conference here.
. Je.wls.rr..We.ek..Ia.ke.s.WIitto9_HooOLS
First place for general excellence, in-depth reporting in
New York Press Association contest.
· KeepJngIh.euFJam.eu_6urnin9
L.1. firefighters inaugurate new chapter of Ner Tamid
fraternal society.
· MQvJnguIQThe_'.Burbs
Manhattan's Solomon Schechter High merges with New
Jersey counterpart; will New York kids cross the Hudson?
. NeverAgain~fQrDarfur
They came wearing knitted kipot, black hats and T-shirts,
representing every religious stream of Judaism and every
political point of view. But what comes next remains an
open question.
. Paul Spiegel,GermanJewish Leader
Head of the community succumbs at 68.
· Retre.atAndAdvanc.e
As funky Elat Chayyim closes its doors, some wonder if it
will be replaced by a more upscale Jewish retreat center.
· Sat.m.ar..6roth.ersSeek.u'Self::Fu.lfilJi.Og_eroQ.h.e_c'i.'
Getting word out to media seen as strategy for rivals to
win political support.
· Ih~u.B.eue.LAt_ThuemEJ](LQtIhJ=mTunneJ
· TirsLStep~uTQwardEd.uucatiQDmCredit
Advocates of state-sponsored tuition break see victory in
school-age relief; Bloomberg Jewish liaison stepping down.
<9 2000 - 2002 The Jewish Week, Inc. All rights reserved. Please refer to the leg9LnQtiq~
for other important information.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3 ?artid= 1 I 773&print=yes
05/10/2006
IDe JeWISh WeeK
Page 1 of2
~ClickHeretQ..Print
TheJewish Week
.. SERVING tHE JeWtSH COMMUNITY OF GREATER NEW YORK
(12/02/2005)
Outreach All The Rage
Debra Nussbaum Cohen
Is a new era dawning in the way
American Judaism's religious
movements deal with interfaith
families?
In his speech last week at the Union
for Reform Judaism's biennial
convention, Rabbi Eric Yoffie called
for more emphasis on conversion -
an almost radical move for the
leader of the movement considered
most accepting of interfaith couples.
And next week the United
Synagogue for Conservative Judaism will hold its own biennial
convention, in Boston, where Rabbi Jerome Epstein, the group's
executive vice president, will issue a call to go beyond being welcoming
to non-Jewish spouses. He'll kick off what is being touted as a wide-
ranging new initiative to be more proactive in involving them in
synagogue life and in the raising of Jewish children.
The Conservative movement is facing a shrinking and aging
membership but has long maintained a policy of focusing on conversion
of non-Jewish spouses - a position seen by some as discouraging the
membership of interfaith couples.
"Unless we face the reality today, if we don't do an effective campaign
to inspire the children," of interfaith couples to want to be Jewish, "we'lI
lose an entire generation," Rabbi Epstein told The Jewish Week.
In recent years, his thinking on the subject has changed. "Though in
1986 I talked about only doing kiruv [outreach] or promoting
inmarriage, about doing one or the other, I have since found that we
can do both," he said.
"We just haven't had the will to do both. It is now incumbent upon us
to do so because if we ignore the challenge and opportunity presented
to us by the intermarriage rate, then we're blind."
Even now, said Rabbi Charles Simon, executive director of the
Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs, whose group has taken the lead on
the outreach issue in the Conservative movement, it isn't clear whether
the United Synagogue initiative is proactive enough.
Nonetheless, "I'm delighted that United Synagogue has reversed [its]
position and decided to take this on," he said. "Within the Conservative
movement three years ago kiruv was not on the agenda. Now
everybody's talking about it."
Even a leading Modern Orthodox rabbi has entered the mounting
conversion conversation.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent. php3 ?artid= I I 734&print=yes
05/10/2006
The Jewish Week
Page 2 of2
In his new book "Choosing to be Jewish: The Orthodox Road to
Conversion" (Ktav), Rabbi Marc Angel of the Upper West Side's Shearith
Israel/Spanish-Portuguese Synagogue, decries the current attitude
among Orthodox rabbis discouraging potential converts.
"The attitude in the Orthodox community has been to raise the bar to
conversion as high as possible," he says, by requiring people to live for
a year or more as fully observant Orthodox Jews before they actually
become Jewish.
"If people are looking for a way into Judaism, we should be on the front
lines of welcoming them" even as there is no compromise on requiring
that the conversion be according to Jewish law.
Here is a list of other articles in this section
· Cen.s.ureulsIa.eJ.~s._LJe.berma.n.,.Says...Jewi.sb._GrQUQ
· ID.f~s._LQw..Riders
· Iran LeaderReaches OLJtAs . BushTalksTough
· le.wisb_..BJkers_WJth.1LCa.lJ.s.e
. Knesset Ponders Draft Constitution
. PQll;._.Isra.eJLlews. WanLArabs_O_ut
. Reform Calls For Medicare Extension
· Sab.eel..HQOQLQu_estLQued
· W.e_b__Site..Ieac.::besuAbQutlewish.Pise.ases
. Yiddish Actress Dies At 99
<9 2000 - 2002 The Jewish Week, Inc. All rights reserved. Please refer to the J~9glJ1Q.ti.c.e
for other important information.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent. php3 ?artid= I 1734&print=yes
05/10/2006
... J.J.'V oJ '" ,." J.~ll "" '-''-'^
rage 1 01 4
~ClickHere to Print
TheJewish \Yl eek
SEIIVING THE JEWISH <;OMMUI\l1TY~U NlW YORK
(04/14/2006)
Reach Out And Convert Someone
Brandeis professor urges Jewish community to push harder for
intermarried gentiles to officially join the tribe.
Stewart Ain - Staff Writer
The dramatic new push by the
Reform movement towards the
conversion of gentiles who are
married to Jews is "on the right
track" but is not going far enough,
according to the author of the first
qualitative study of the issue.
The author, Brandeis University sociologist Sylvia Barack Fishman, told
The Jewish Week that she believes conversion should be the ultimate
objective of outreach to intermarried couples.
"It is not a silver bullet, but it opens the way to more connections to
Judaism, whereas intermarriage opens the way towards a drift away
from Judaism on the part of the couple," Fishman said. "When you
convert, you are more likely to have more Jewish friends and give your
children a Jewish education and get involved in Jewish adult education
programs. And your children are more likely to identify as Jews and to
marry Jews."
Conversion, she argued, "should be the eventual focus and ultimate
goal. I believe in conversion as a process; I don't think it happens
overnight. But the people who are running these [outreach] programs
should have in their minds a formal connection to Judaism as the
eventual goal. '" Conversion is the single best outcome of a mixed
marriage. "
But Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, said
flatly that such a direct approach "is a mistake - it won't work." He
maintained that although conversion should be considered in outreach
efforts, "it can't be the whole agenda from the first contact."
"Our approach is that we want intermarried couples in the synagogue,
involved in Jewish life and raising Jewish children," he said. "I said in
my biennial sermon [last November] that in my view it would be helpful
if we were more aggressive in promoting conversion, but balanced with
the fact that we have to embrace non-Jewish spouses and encourage
and praise them for their willingness to raise Jewish children.
"In the real world we all know that there are some people who are
going to be open to conversion, others who will not be open and others
who eventually will be, but not now. The key is for rabbis and others to
be sensitive to these distinctions."
Fishman's three-year study, written for the American Jewish
Committee, was based on 103 interviews with Jews and their spouses
who were not born Jewish, including 37 of whom converted to Judaism.
She said she found that many of the latter were "on the way to
becoming Jewish before meeting the Jew they would marry," and that
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent. php3 ?artid= 123 20&print=yes
0511 0/2006
Ine JeWISh Week
Page 2 of4
some were "waiting to be asked to convert."
The role of the rabbi can be significant, Fishman said, noting that rabbis
who downplay conversion for fear of offending other congregants or
undermining the congregation's outreach efforts to other intermarried
couples "may be actually discouraging a potential convert." And she
said it is important that the conversion be celebrated when it occurs,
and that the couple thereafter should blend in with the rest of the
congregation.
"Converts tend to be much closer [to the Jewish community] ... than
mixed-marriage families," Fishman observed.
She pointed out that more than one-third of American Jews are
intermarried, that half of all Jews today marry non-Jews and that less
than 20 percent of non-Jewish spouses convert to Judaism. As a result,
1.5 million children have one Jewish and one non-Jewish parent.
Fishman added that she believes in outreach efforts "to everyone, but
we should not distort Judaism for the purpose of attracting people who
are practicing two religions."
Rabbi Kerry Olitzky, executive director of the Jewish Outreach Institute,
disagreed with Fishman's approach however, arguing that "promoting
conversion is not an outreach strategy."
"I believe that if conversion is the primary goal of outreach - which is
the way it is being currently positioned by various leaders - it is
disingenuous," he said. "If people come into our community and like
what they see, hear and feel, they will be motivated to convert and I
will be happy to work with them in order to do so. However, if we really
want to talk honestly about conversion, let's lower the barriers to
conversion - the [conversion] courses and books should be free and
offered more frequently, and the use of the mikveh should be free."
Rabbi Olitzky pointed out that only 18 percent of intermarried couples
belong to synagogues. Thus, he said, the "majority of intermarried
families have not yet engaged with the organized Jewish community."
Paul Golin, his group's associate executive director, suggested that the
Jewish community's desire to promote conversion stems from its
concern that the Jewish population is shrinking.
"I think that is the wrong reason" for promoting conversion, he said,
adding that the emphasis instead should be on the individual and the
impact conversion would have on his or her life.
Rabbi Jerome Epstein, executive vice president of the United
Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, said he agreed with Fishman's
approach that conversion has to be the "focus" of outreach efforts.
"It has to be in the long-range strategic plan," he said. "I'm not talking
about manipulating [people]. I want to make them feel comfortable and
educate them, with my goal eventually to raise that person to the point
of wanting to convert."
Although both the Reform and Conservative movements advocate
reaching out to intermarried couples, Rabbi Basil Herring, executive
vice president of the Orthodox movement's Rabbinical Council of
America, said his congregations do not believe in outreach but do
welcome intermarried couples if the non-Jewish spouse expresses an
interest in converting. He said a man who marries a non-Jewish woman
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3 ?artid= 12320&print=yes
05/10/2006
.1 U~ J~ VV Ji:>H VV ~~1\.
Page j 01"4
would not be permitted to join most Orthodox synagogues "because the
next thing you know he will want a seat for the High Holy Days and to
bring his children to the synagogue for the Purim and Chanukah parties
and the youth group - and everyone would think they are Jewish."
According to Jewish law, only children born to Jewish mothers are
considered Jewish. However, in the 1980s the Reform movement
adopted a policy of "patrilineal descent," recognizing as Jewish the
children of a Jewish father and gentile mother - assuming the children
are given an exclusively Jewish upbringing.
"If the intermarried couple feels the need to raise their children as
committed Jews, we are not going to snub them" when the non-Jewish
spouse seeks to convert, Rabbi Herring stressed. "But they have to be
sincere and have a readiness to do - to keep Shabbos ... and to [have]
a fundamental commitment to keeping a Jewish life."
Asked about the Conservative movement's recent decision to accept
"patrilineal" Jewish children into its religious schools and summer
camps - provided the family agrees to convert the child before his or
her bar or bat mitzvah - Rabbi Herring said that although it is possible
the child would maintain a Jewish lifestyle, it is not likely.
"How does a child convert in a way that is a real conversion if he is not
eating kosher food and is not likely to be shomer Shabbos [observing
the laws of the Sabbath]?" he asked.
Rabbi Epstein, however, defended the policy change, saying it stems
from the belief that there is a chance to influence the teen.
"If they are involved in religious education and observe some mitzvot
and have a bar or bat mitzvah, I have a chance of educating them and
we want to help them grow," he said. "It's designed to encourage
Jewish children to live a Jewish life and to encourage the family to have
one religion. I recognize that some will never do it, but that doesn't
mean I shouldn't continue to try." n
Here is a list of other articles in this section
. A Man's Touch
· Abduction Aogst
Incidents in Borough Park, Lakewood have areas uneasy as
cops probe possible connection.
· An Attorney Who Never Says Nyet
· Chernobyl'S ForgottendChildren
Twenty years later, the fallout continues, and a Chabad
charity is struggling to help Jewish kids escape the
carcinogens and create new lives in Israel.
. From MineolaToAlbaoy?
Appearing before Jewish educators, gubernatorial candidate
Thomas Suozzi says he supports restoring position of
commissioner of non-public education.
. If You Rebuild It...
Westchester teens lend a much-appreciated hand in
Katrina-ravaged New Orleans and Baton Rouge.
. Just How Dangerous Is Israel?
Jewish leaders see a safe place, State Department doesn't.
· Ne\^LFu rQLQverEieldstQn~sJs raeLPr:ognlill
Now, left joins right to slam unbalanced' Mideast program.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent. php3 ?artid= 123 20&print=yes
05/1 0/2006
The Jewish Week
Page 4 of 4
. Rebel Yell
Refugees from the chasidic world are suddenly all the rage,
but it's not just outsiders who are interested.
. Sister Rose: A Woman of Valor
Remembering a nun who tirelessly fought Catholic anti-
Semitism.
<9 2000 - 2002 The Jewish Week, Inc. All rights reserved. Please refer to the!~ggLQ.QtJCJ~
for other important information.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent. php3 ?artid= 123 20&print=yes
05/1 0/2006
~
0-
N
.::;
V')
-c
10
8
N
~
V')
~
o
iii
:s
g
II)
.c
~
~
g.
.c
J. - Conservative rabbis here defy movement's ban on gay nuptials (print view)
Page 1 of5
j.
http://www.jewishsf.com/conten t/2-0-
1m odule/displaystory /story _id/15812/format/htmlledition _id/308/displaystory .htm I
r
Conservative rabbis here defy movement's ban on gay nuptials
ALEXANDRA J. WALL
Bulletin Staff
When Amanda Abarbanel-Rice told family members a Conservative rabbi would officiate at her
nuptials, their reaction -- especially her grandmother's -- was "Wow! Are you sure?"
Since when have Conservative rabbis blessed unions between two women?
"I didn't quite realize what a big deal it was," the Berkeley resident said.
But big deal it is. The Conservative movement is explicit that its rabbis should not officiate at gay or
lesbian unions. Yet a rabbi who transgresses will not be expelled from the movement's rabbinical
organization, which is the penalty for rabbis who participate in interfaith weddings.
Bay Area Conservative rabbis, no doubt, have taken that into account in their decision to perform gay
nuptials. But perhaps the biggest reason Bay Area rabbis are trail-blazers results from the large gay and
lesbian population here.
The majority of them, it seems, are choosing to follow their consciences to push forward an idea whose
time, they believe, has come.
~-
~
Of the 12 local Conservative rabbis interviewed for this story, only two said they felt bound by the
movement's restrictions and would not officiate at same-sex unions until the movement changed its
policy.
F our have already officiated at same-sex unions, and two will do their first in the coming months. Four
said they most likely would, if asked.
When Rabbi Alan Lew of San Francisco's Congregation Beth Sholom wed Abarbanel-Rice to her
partner Lisa Zeiler in November, it was the first same-sex union he performed.
However, Lew announced his willingness to do so three years ago. ItHalachah requires you to break it
when you feel there has been a significant change and people are being hurt as a result," he said. "I
recognize that in performing this wedding, I circumvented the halachic process of the Conservative
movement, but 1 felt morally bound to do so."
The reason for the dissent among Conservative rabbis is the biblical verse from Leviticus, 18:22, which
states: "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence.1t
As the Conservative movement considers itself bound by halachah, there is little way around the verse in
question.
But as some rabbis point out, the Hebrew word toevah, which is often translated as "abomination," in
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story _id/15812/format/print/e... 05/10/2006
j. - Conservative rabbis here dety movement's ban on gay nuptials (print view)
Page 2 of5
addition to "abhorrence," is also applied to those who eat non-kosher food, those who worship idols and
those who falsely weigh items for sale.
Rabbi Ted Alexander of San Francisco Congregation B'nai Emunah concurred with Lew, saying that the
times have changed since that verse was written. Alexander, who believes "people are born this way or
acquire it before they are 5 years old," will perform his first same-sex union later this spring.
"This is the way God has created them, and if God has created them this way, I'm willing to give them
the blessings," he said.
Furthermore, he added, "anyone who has any hesitation to give blessings to same-sex people should not
say the Sabbath psalm, 'How great are your works, oh God,' because that includes everybody."
Nationally speaking, rabbis like Lew and Alexander are in the minority among their Conservative peers.
Rabbi Elliot Dorf:f, rector and professor of philosophy at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles,
estimates that only about 15 to 20 Conservative rabbis in the country will perform a same-sex ceremony.
Since several of them are in Los Angeles, that means the overwhelming majority are in California.
"I do think San Francisco is on the cutting edge of this," said Rabbi Lavey Derby of Tiburon's
Congregation Kol Shofar as well as the president of the Northern California Board of Rabbis. Derby will
perform his fust same-sex ceremony later this spring, and said he "was delighted to be asked."
Dorff has emerged as one of the most vocal proponents within the Conservative movement in favor of
performing same-sex unions. As vice chair of the Conservative Movement's Committee on Jewish Law
and Standards, "I've written about 15 rabbinic rulings for the law committee and all have gotten
Jnanimous support," he said. "But on this issue, I'm way out on the left end."
The Reform movement takes no such position, leaving it up to the individual rabbi to decide, much as
they do in performing an interfaith marriage.
But for Conservative rabbis, it's a stickier issue. For the most part, they maintain gays and lesbians must
be fully integrated into the fabric of their congregations, but sanctifying their unions is crossing a line.
"On one hand, we know deeply of the pain of being excluded," said Conservative Rabbi Sheldon Lewis
of Palo Alto's Congregation Kol Emeth. "On the other hand, we want to be reverent towards our
tradition. "
While Lewis acknowledged the important role gays and lesbians have in his congregation, he said, "I
have great respect for those [rabbis] who act in accordance with their consciences, but I'm not there yet.
I may be among those who will lobby for change, but until the movement changes, I can't do it."
Rabbi Daniel Pressman of Congregation Beth David in Saratoga agreed with Lewis, saying "I don't
condemn those who are doing it, but I'm not comfortable doing it myself."
Rabbi Joel Meyers, executive director of the national body of Conservative rabbis, the Rabbinical
Assembly in New York, said, "There is a certain freedom that rabbis have" on this issue.
l\Jevertheless, "I don't investigate my colleagues or watch what they do. But if there is something that
bears following up, we will follow up and talk about it. But we wouldn't take any further action."
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story _id/l58 12/formatJprintJe... 05/1 0/2006
j. - Conservative rabbis here defy movement's ban on gay nuptials (print view)
Page 3 of5
Such disapproval though, actually is a sort of tacit approval, some rabbis believe.
"It is not the preferred route of the Conservative movement," Rabbi Leah Sudran of Congregation B'nai
Israel in Petaluma said, "but if it's not permitted, then sanctions would be taken, so it is permitted."
So far, Sudran has not been asked to perform a same-sex union, but she would.
Rabbi Amy Eilberg, who lives in Palo Alto and is the first woman to be ordained a Conservative rabbi,
said that when she sat on the Conservative movement's committee on human sexuality in the early
1990s, Dorff's argument made sense to her. She officiated at a ceremony between two women shortly
after.
"First we ask them to reject promiscuity and embrace monogamous relationships and then, when they
ask us to sanctify them," the movement says no, she said. "If I support long-term committed
relationships among [gays and lesbians] as I do among heterosexuals, I can't say [the relationship] isn't
holy. "
Rabbi Stuart Kelman of Berkeley's Congregation Netivot Shalom undertook a study of the issue back in
1995, when he was first asked by a lesbian couple for an aufruf at the synagogue. (The celebration
involves a blessing on the Shabbat preceding the wedding.) Kelman has performed one same-sex union,
but hasn't done more, simply because he hasn't been asked.
"I think some gay and lesbian couples may be upset with me, because I don't call it a marriage," he said.
"I don't call it kiddushin."
Kiddushin has no English translation but it means a sanctified Jewish marriage between a man and a
woman. For two men or two women, Kelman prefers the term brit rayut, which he defines as a covenant
of love.
What the rabbis who will perform same-sex unions disagree upon most is whether a same-sex ceremony
can be considered kiddushin.
Kelman explained that he made certain adjustments to the ceremony he performed, using a sukkah-like
canopy rather than the traditional chuppah, and changing the language of four of the seven blessings.
Rabbi Jonathan Slater of Congregation Beth Ami in Santa Rosa said he had never been asked to perform
a same-sex union. However, "I believe some sort of ceremony is not only appropriate but necessary."
But like Kelman, he made distinctions such a ceremony and a heterosexual wedding. "It wouldn't be
called kiddushin," he said.
Rabbi Nathaniel Ezray of Temple Beth Jacob in Redwood City made some minor adjustments as well,
when holding an aufruffor Janice and Marti Sands-Weinstein of Redwood Shores in December.
"I asked for God to bring blessings upon this couple, but I did not use the word 'wedding,'" Ezray said.
"I used 'commitment' to keep peace in the congregation."
Ezray's decision to hold the aufruf at the synagogue was only done after he consulted its members as
well as his colleagues.
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2 -O-Im odul el disp laystory I story _ id/ 15 812/format/print/ e. .. 05/10/2006
j. - Conservative rabbis here defy movement's ban on gay nuptials (print view)
Page 40f5
Among them were Rabbi Marvin Goodman of Peninsula Sinai Congregation in Foster City and Rabbi
Gordon Freeman of Congregation B'nai Shalom in Walnut Creek.
liMy gut feeling was that I would like to say I would do as he did," said Goodman. "But until you're
confronted with a real situation with real people, it's hard to make a real decision."
Others were more emphatic. Freeman said he would help create appropriate liturgy for any two people
wanting to enter into a covenantal relationship, whether they be roommates, business partners or a gay
or lesbian couple. "As long as they were both Jewish, I would be happy to help them."
In addition to explaining his own position, Ezray presented members of the Religious Practices
Committee with the various arguments on both sides. They backed him by six votes to one. The board
then voted 18-3. Ezray then sent out a letter to every congregant, explaining his decision.
"I wanted a process of education," he said. "I didn't want to rip the shul apart."
While a few congregants were disturbed by the aufruf, Ezray said, "I got scores of calls from people
who are directly impacted by this. So many people said they have gay family members or, if not, they
still supported this step."
Once the Sands- Weinsteins recognized that Ezray was doing something controversial, they asked him to
co-officiate at their ceremony, which had already been scheduled at Congregation Beth Am in Los Altos
Hills, with Rabbi Janet Marder. A Reform rabbi, Marder has been doing same-sex unions for years.
"We realized how he was really going out on a limb and the risk he was taking," said Marti Sands-
Neinstein. "We were then so touched that we wanted to honor him with co-officiating."
Although no member left the congregation over the news ofEzray's co-officiation, some members made
their displeasure very clear.
And while they may be in the minority, their thinking is still more in line with those at the helm of
Conservative movement.
When asked whether he saw the movement changing in the coming years, Joel Meyers of the Rabbinical
Assembly said that while he couldn't predict the future, "I don't see that happening.
"There are those who feel strongly that halachah should change and those' who feel equally adamantly
that it should not."
Adding that it was incumbent upon Conservative rabbis to make gays and lesbians feel welcome in their
congregations, he said that doing so is "quite different than saying there is halachic permissibility for a
marriage ceremony."
But others offered different opinions.
"I believe that it's our job to assert that this is Torah, this is halachah, this is a limb on the tree," said
Rabbi Rona Shapiro, the former D.C. Berkeley Hillel director. She is now director of education and
)utreach for Ma'yan, the Jewish Women's Project of the Jewish Community Center of the Upper West
.)ide in New York City.
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story _id/15812/format/print/e... 05/10/2006
j. - Conservative rabbis here defy movement's ban on gay nuptials (print view)
Page 5 of5
Shapiro has officiated at two Jewish same-sex unions, which she insists are weddings. "Eventually I'm
confident that Jewish law will catch up with us."
Derby agreed. "The Rabbinical Assembly as an institution is not on the cutting edge," he said. "It's not
anywhere near where the Conservative movement is or needs to go."
Other Page One Stories
When will Sharon hit back hard, Israelis ask
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story _id/15812/format/print/e... 05/1 0/2006
~ The JewIsh Week
~C/jck Here_ to Print
TheJewish Week
. SlMNG tHE JEWISH COMMUNnY OF GREATER t.w YORK
(06/24/2005)
Taking JTS Reins No Easy Task
With Schorsch stepping down next year, some say new chancellor
must alter Conservatives' vision to energize a struggling
movement.
Debra Nussbuam Cohen - Staff Writer
No sooner had Rabbi Ismar Schorsch
announced last week that he would
be retiring in a year as head of the
Conservative movement's Jewish
Theological Seminary than the
speculation begin to swirl on his
successor and what direction the
next chancellor should take to
revitalize a once-dominant denomination whose size and influence have
been diminishing.
"We defined American Judaism," said Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, dean
of the University of Judaism rabbinical school in Los Angeles, who is
among those being cited by JTS sources as a possible candidate to
succeed Schorsch.
"Being pro-Zionist, pro-democracy and pro-learning were all exclusively
Conservative values 100 years ago. Now they're owned by everyone,"
he said.
Observers say the Conservative movement, whose membership has
been shrinking in the past 15 years, must find a leader who can
articulate its central commitment to Torah but also shift its focus
toward a newly expansive, inclusive and inspiring vision for the
denomination.
JTS has long been the fountainhead Conservative institution and the
chancellor the movement's leading spokesman.
Schorsch's successor will be stepping into a role that lately has been
entangled in a thicket of contentious issues, among them a bruising
fight over who controls its Jerusalem campus, Machon Schechter.
There was also the news, first reported in December by The Jewish
Week, that JTS was facing tens of millions of dollars of debt. With part
of the debt alleviated by the sale of some Manhattan property, JTS
representatives say the institution is now on firm financial footing.
In addition, the next chancellor must confront the issue of ordaining
gay and lesbian rabbis, which has split the movement's leaders, largely
along generational lines, for 15 years.
In Israel this week, Schorsch was unavailable for an interview,
according to a JTS spokeswoman. In past interviews he has made it
clear that he opposes their ordination.
But the movement's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, which in
the 1990s ruled against the ordination of gay and lesbian rabbis, took
http://www.thejewishweek.comlnews/newscontent.php3 ?artid= 11 054%20&print=yes
Page I of4
05/10/2006
The Jewish Week
up the matter again recently and is slated to vote on it next spring. So
by the time the new chancellor begins his work, the issue may already
have been decided, said Rabbi Artson, a member of the law committee.
Overall, the most significant issue buffeting the movement continues to
be its shrinking size. While the Conservative movement was for
decades the country's largest, the most recent National Jewish
Population Study showed that it had shrunk as the Reform movement
had grown.
The 1990 NJPS showed a roughly even amount of constituents in the
Conservative and Reform movements. But a decade later, in the 2000-
01 NJPS, 26 percent of American Jewish adults described themselves as
Conservative, with 35 percent as Reform.
The later study also showed that nearly half of adult Jews raised within
the Conservative movement are no longer connected to it, with most of
them gone to Reform.
Schorsch's retirement next year, when he is 70, is also the first step in
what is likely to be a generational shift for the movement. The heads of
the three major arms of the denomination - JTS, the Rabbinical
Assembly and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which
represents congregants - all started their jobs in the mid-1980s.
And while the 65-year-old head of the RA, Rabbi Joel Meyers, said in an
interview from Jerusalem that he doesn't have any immediate plans to
retire, his 62-year-old counterpart at the United Synagogue, Rabbi
Jerome Epstein, said he would be stepping down in 2009.
"Twenty years ago when these guys were put in place, the movement
was looking for people who could calm everything down because of the
fractiousness of the fight over women's ordination," which at the time
had just been decided, said a well-placed source. "They succeeded.
Now it's so calm, you can barely see a pulse."
Several leading Conservative rabbis spoke of the need to enlarge the
vision of what Conservative Judaism can be.
"Our understanding of, and the way we try and teach commitment to
Jewish law, is one that has been in many ways too narrow," said Rabbi
Gordon Tucker of Temple Israel Center in White Plains, N.Y., another
name being tossed around as a potential candidate.
"The idea that there is a more expansive and multi-dimensional way of
thinking of halachic commitment is something we haven't dared to try
out and articulate to our public. To some extent that's held us back for
reasons I completely understand," he said.
"It's not easy to keep a big coalition together, but when the fear of
losing people on the margins begins to undermine some of the things
that constitute the unique contribution you have to make, it's time to
rethink that a little bit."
Rabbi David Wolpe of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles, another being
mentioned as a likely candidate for the chancellor's post, said the
foundation of the movement has been in scholarship and should be
there, "but the presentation of the movement suffers from being too
scholarly. "
"Presenting a Judaism of joy is much more powerful to people than
presenting a Judaism of defiant, rear-guard obligation," said Rabbi
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent. php3 ?artid= 11054 %20&print=yes
Page 2 of4
05/10/2006
The Jewish Week
Wolpe. "That is often the way that Conservative Judaism is seen."
Some observers are framing the needed shift in terms as one being
away from the intellect, which has always been the seat of the
Conservative denomination's strength, and toward a movement that
puts greater emphasis on the heart and soul of Jewish engagement.
"The question of merging the intellectual understanding of Judaism with
the emotional, spiritual side has always been a tension in the
movement," said Rabbi Meyers, executive vice president of the
Rabbinical Assembly. "It ebbs and flows depending on where general
culture is.
"Today there's a greater emphasis on the spiritual, on the heart side,
which we see in all religious camps. I agree that there's a need for that
in the movement," he said. "As much as we want to maintain our own
intellectual approach to understanding Judaism, faith can't be
intellectual alone. It has to have in it that emotional component, that
sense of godliness and mystery."
But not everyone at JTS agrees that component should be given greater
focus by movement leaders.
"I don't accept the rap of needing more heart and soul even for the
rabbinical school," said Jack Wertheimer, JTS provost and another of
the rumored potential candidates. "The strength of JTS has always been
its very strong academic orientation, and some would argue that JTS
ought to be true to itself.
"We're living in a Jewish community in which there is a bent now
toward anti-intellectualism with buzz words like 'community' and
'meaning' and 'spirituality.' Those are really not well defined," he said.
"If anything, we need religious leaders who will bring some rigor to the
way they approach the challenges facing the Jewish community."
Some cite another priority for the top of the next chancellor's agenda to
move the movement forward in a way that will engage more Jews:
outreach.
"There needs to be kiruv to affiliated but not fully committed
Conservative Jews to inspire people to greater commitment to
education and living halacha," or Jewish law, said the United
Synagogue's Rabbi Epstein in an interview from Jerusalem, where
movement leaders were attending Jewish Agency meetings.
But "we in the Conservative movement also have to develop kiruv to
the non-Jew, especially to the intermarried Jew," he said. "That's really
a major challenge for us. We have a task ahead in equipping our
leadership to do that, and the chancellor will have to help guide the
faculty to do that."
One of the Conservative movement's rabbis in training also cited that
approach as a key emphasis for Schorsch's successor.
"The new chancellor will need to articulate what it means to be a
Conservative Jew without alienating people," said Rachel Kahn-Troster,
president of the JTS Rabbinical School Student Organization, which
represents approximately 130 students.
Like other groups within the movement, the Rabbinical School Student
Organization is aiming for participation on the chancellor search
committee that is forming. As of Wednesday it was not clear whether
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent. php3 ?artid= 11054 %20&print=yes
Page 3 of 4
05/10/2006
~ The Jewish Week
they would be given a seat.
"I like to think that there's a place in the Conservative movement for
families which are intermarried and also for those people who have
become more religious," said Kahn-Troster. "I like to think we'll have
room for both. My fear is that one or the other group will get ignored.
We can't be afraid of the diversity.
"My hope is that the next chancellor will have that full vision of the
Conservative movement, which includes everyone who's in our
families," she said. "That might be a nice model for the movement." n
Here is a list of other articles in this section
. A Man's Touch
. AbductionAngst
Incidents in Borough Park, Lakewood have areas uneasy as
cops probe possible connection.
. An Attorney WhoNever Says Nyet
· Chernobyl'snfQrgottenChildren
Twenty years later, the fallout continues, and a Chabad
charity is struggling to help Jewish kids escape the
carcinogens and create new lives in Israel.
· From MineQla To Albany?
Appearing before Jewish educators, gubernatorial
candidate Thomas Suozzi says he supports restoring
position of commissioner of non-public education.
· It You Rebuild It..,
Westchester teens lend a much-appreciated hand in
Katrina-ravaged New Orleans and Baton Rouge.
. lust.HQwnD.angerQuslsnlsrael?
Jewish leaders see a safe place, State Department doesn't.
· Newfl.J.rQr_QYer...fiel(:tstQ!J~s..lsrael...Progra.m
Now, left joins right to slam unbalanced' Mideast program.
. Rebel Yell
Refugees from the chasidic world are suddenly all the rage,
but it's not just outsiders who are interested.
. Sister Rose: A Woman of Valor
Remembering a nun who tirelessly fought Catholic anti-
Semitism.
<9 2000 - 2002 The Jewish Week, Inc. All rights reserved. Please refer to the legaLoQtice
for other important information.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent. php3 ?artid= 11054 %20&print=yes
Page 4 of4
05/1 0/2006
Page I ofl
r",,'\;cGl()$,e.$Wi~drJw)",,:.~y]. ~"..";.,Se..lld<fo..l?rinte~i~,,l
t%~~~i<%~'ii1""-b!"'~~t~~~~~ ~~i;f,u..~~":.;r"~''\~i:iif~~~'. '#.&-;~
Article Launched: 4/30/2006 04:41 AM
Mill Valley schools equipped for rising enrollment
Don Speich
Marin Independent Journal
The Mill Valley School District's enrollment is expected to grow over the next decade, but for at least two or three years, there is
enough classroom space to handle the growth, says the district's top administrator.
District Superintendent Ken Benny said Friday that this means there is no immediate need to put a bond measure before voters
to finance the construction of new classrooms.
Because of an unexpected increase of 50 kindergartners this year, the district hired Enrollment Projections Consultant of San
Mateo earlier this year to determine, among other things, if the district, which had experienced enrollment declines between
1999 and 2004, might need to put a bond measure on the ballot in November to handle unanticipated growth.
The firm's study, which cost $21,000, says the district's enrollment, now 2,228 students, will grow by 46 in the fall, 106 in three
years and 144 in five years.
The study says that "recent and pending residential re-sales are the main factors in these enrollment increases."
Benny described the findings as "good news," even though "we're pretty much at capacity" in terms of classroom space.
However, he said the district would be able to handle the growth in the next couple of years with four to six portable classrooms.
After that, he said, a bond measure might be warranted.
The growth, according to the study, will happen in the elementary grades as well as at Mill Valley Middle School.
Kindergarten through fifth-grade enrollment could begin a gradual decline after 2010, the study says.
Read more Mill Valley stories at the V's Mill Vall~ city page.
Contact Don Speich via e-mail atdsDeich((j)marinij.com
http://www.marinij.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_ article.jsp?article=3 7699] 4
05/] 0/2006
EXHlBIT
)(
~)
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
/.
.......... ... ........ ............... ..... .... ......
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
LISA NEWMAN, PLANNING CONSULTANT
FILE #10404: REVIEW OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(FEIR) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED
EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING RELIGIOUS FACILITY AND DAY SCHOOL
(CONGREGATION KOL SHOFAR); 215 BLACKFIELD DRIVE;
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 038-351-34
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE: May 31,2006
REVIEWED BY: SA
.......... ...... .... .......................
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission heard additional public testimony on the Kol Shofar Expansion
project Final EIR and Conditional Use Permit application at its May 10, 2006, after which the
Commission closed the public hearing and deliberated on the FEIR and the merits of the
project.
After discussion, four of the five members of the Tiburon Planning Commission indicated that
they did not believe that they could approve the modified project presented by Kol Shofar
(Alternative 7). A majority of Commissioners also expressed the opinion that the EIR did not
need to be recirculated. The Commission established an ad hoc subcommittee to assist staff in
the preparation of a draft resolution or resolutions that could be forwarded to the full
Commission for consideration at a public meeting. At the May 10, 2006 meeting, Kol Shofar
representatives agreed to this approach.
On May 16,2006, Gary Ragghianti, Kol Shofar's attorney, contacted staff and advised that, after
considerable reflection, Kol Shofar had decided not to participate in further efforts before the
Planning Commission toward a conditional approval, but would prefer an "up or down" vote on
the project as presented at the May 10, 2006 hearing. '
Based upon the comments expressed by a majority of the Commission members at the May 10,
2006 meeting, Town Staff has prepared a draft resolution certifying the EIR for the project. This
resolution is attached as Exhibit 1. Staff has also prepared a draft resolution denying the CUP
application for the Commission's consideration. That resolution is attached as Exhibit 2. Draft
minutes of the May 10, 2006 Planning Commission hearing are attached as Exhibit 3.
ANAL YSIS
During its deliberations at the May 10, 2006 hearing, four of the five members of the
Commission commented that although the EIR provided a satisfactory analysis of the project's
potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives, the scale of the project,
as modified in Alternative 7, was too ambitious for the neighborhood and therefore was not X.
EXHIBIT NO.
STAFF REPORT
Town of Tiburon
.. ........ ..... ..... ......... ... ......... ..........
consistent with many provisions of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, most
Commissioners expressed concern that the project's net addition of 22 parking spaces was
insufficient given the scale of the expansion, the more than 27 proposed new weekend
nighttime events would expose neighbors to excessive noise and the closing time would be too
late for a residential neighborhood (10:00 PM, 11 :00 PM and 9:00 PM on Friday, Saturday and
Sunday nights, respectively, with an additional hour for cleanup), and that it would be too
difficult to monitor and regulate the CUP conditions and mitigations. In summary, the
Commission majority felt that the project should be scaled back to limit impacts on the
neighborhood and better fit within its setting.
Public Comments
Correspondence received subsequent to the May 10, 2006 hearing is attached as Exhibit 4.
Late mail received after completion of the staff report is attached separately.
Conclusion
Staff has prepared a draft Resolution for denial of the CUP application based upon the
sentiments expressed by a majority of the Commission at the May 10, 2006 hearing that the
scale of the project was incompatible with General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance
standards that seek to protect and enhance the residential community character. Staff has
included findings in the Resolution that seek to advise Kol Shofar about the types of project
modifications that might resolve these issues. The Commission should consider these findings
and advise staff of any modifications or additions that should be made to the Resolution.
The Town Attorney advises that the Commission provide an opportunity for public comment on
the draft Resolution to deny the CUP application since this document has not previously been
made public. The public hearing on the project was closed on May 10, 2006 and the only matter
before the Commission now is consideration of the draft resolutions. Thus public testimony may
be limited to the draft resolutions.
EXHIBITS
1. Draft Resolution Certifying the FEIR
2. Draft Resolution Denying the CUP Application
3. Draft Planning Commission Minutes of May 10, 2006
4. Correspondence received subsequent to May 10, 2006 meeting
a. John and Karen Nygren, May 21,2006
b. Wilma Schneider, May 21, 2006
c. Ron Brown, May 22,2006
d. Margaret Kirby, May 22,2006
e. Christianna Seidel, May 22, 2006
#I
May 31,2006
rJ8C1e 2 of 2
.
-
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
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 Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does
resolve as follows:
Section.L General FindinQs.
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 the availability of the DEIR was given as required
by law; and
WHEREAS, written comments on the DEIR were accepted from the public
from July 1, 2005 to August 15, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and accepted
testimony on the DEIR on August 10, 2005; and
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2005, after the close of the 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 FEI R was prepared in accordance with the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act 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, including
the FEIR Alternative 7 Analysis, and received public testimony; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that no significant new
information had been received that required recirculation of the EIR.
EXHIBIT NO. ,
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 2006-XX May 31, 2006
Page 1
Section 2. FindinQs of No Recirculation Requirement
The Planning Commission makes the following findings based on
evidence in support of its conclusion that recirculation is not required.
A. Reauirements under CEQA
Only if a lead agency adds "significant new information" to an EIR
subsequent to the commencement of public review and interagency consultation
but prior to final EIR certification, must the agency "recirculate" a revised EIR, or
portions thereof, for additional commentary and consultation. (Pub. Resources
Code, 9 21092.1; CEQA Guidelines, 9 15088.5; Laurel Heights Improvement
Association of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California
(1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112 (Laurel Heights 1/).)
The "significant new information" standard was clarified in Laurel Heights
/I. There the Gourt held that recirculation was only required when new
information was added to an EIR that changed it in such a 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 such an effect (including a
feasible project alternative) that project proponents have declined to implement.
(Laurel Heights 1/, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1129; CEQA Guidelines 15162, subd.
(a)(1 ).) The court reasoned that by codifying the "significant new information"
language, the Legislature did not intend to promote endless rounds of revision
and recirculation of EIRs. (Laurel Heights /I, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1132.)
Instead, recirculation was intended to be an exception, rather than the general
rule. (Ibid.)
Examples of how the "recirculation" standard should be applied are
included in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. For example, recirculation is
required when "a new significant environmental impact would result from the
project." (CEQA Guidelines, 9 15088.5, subd. (a)(1 ).) This section is particularly
relevant here, because Alternative 7 is a new alternative that proposes to reduce
the potential impacts associated with the project as compared to the project
initially proposed. Specifically, Alternative 7 is the same as the proposed Project
but with limits on the number of new events and a revised circulation plan.
(FEIR, p. 3.)
There is no basis for recirculating an EIR when changes in the proposed
project will only reduce impacts. (See Remy e1. 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.)
Here, Alternative 7 does not result in a significant change to the Project.
Indeed, Alternative 7 is the same as the proposed Project with two simple
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-XX May 31, 2006
Paqe 2
modifications: (1) the number of Saturday and Sunday evening events is
substantially reduced from what was originally proposed, and attendance at
those events would be limited; and (2) the circulation plan is revised to reflect
existing entry and exit patterns, reduce the number of "turnarounds" in the street,
and reduce project-generated left-turn movements onto Reedland Woods Way
from Blackfield Drive. The net result of Alternative 7, therefore, will be a
reduction in potentially significant impacts associated with the Project.
B. Substantial evidence supports the Town's decision to not recirculate
the EIR
Traffic
Commenters contend that recirculation of the final EIR is required
because Alternative 7 added new events with extended hours and increased
attendance to the EIR, which constituted "significant new information" within the
meaning of Public Resources Code section 21092.1. (Volker comment letter,
dated May 8, 2006.)
Contrary to what commenters suggest, Alternative 7 did not add new
events, or propose extended hours and increased attendance beyond what was
already proposed and analyzed in the Final EIR's discussion of the proposed
Project. (FEIR, p. 3.) Commenters confuse the fact that the number of events
associated with Alternative 7 is more events than what occurs under currently
existing conditions or the baseline; however, Alternative 7 actually proposes far
fewer events than what was proposed and analyzed under the proposed Project.
Proposing a new alternative that reduces the number of impacts identified for the
proposed Project does not constitute significant new information that triggers
recirculation.
Accordingly, despite what the commenters suggest; this is not a case
where the physical description or scope of the project has changed. Rather,
Alternative 7 merely minimizes the existing described environmental impacts
from the estimated increase in traffic circulation by proposing further reductions
in the number of allowed weekend events, the hours of those events, and the
attendance at those events. For example, the potential traffic impacts associated
with weekend events that were initially identified in the DEIR were based on a
conservative estimated maximum attendance of 300 people. (DEIR, p. 13, FEIR,
p. 3) Under Alternative 7, however, the applicant will limit attendance to a
maximum of 250 people, and this number of guests will only be allowed 4 times
per year. Thus, the minor modifications proposed in Alternative 7 do not reveal a
new or more severe adverse environmental impact warranting recirculation of the
EIR.
Similarly, the Draft EIR stated that "Increased numbers of turnarounds in
driveways or in front of homes and increased frequency of event-related
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-XX May 31, 2006
Page 3
turnarounds on these residential streets is considered by the EIR traffic engineer
to be a potentially significant safety concern." (Draft EI R, p. 67.) Alternative 7
includes two modifications to the project that will mitigate this potentially
significant impact further than what was originally provided in the Draft EIR.
Alternative 7 reduces the potential that people will "turn around" in the street by
revising the circulation and parking plan. According to the revised circulation and
parking plan, the Reedland Woods Way driveway would be an exit only, and all
guests would enter the site from Via Los Altos. Additionally, signs would be
posted at the intersection of Reedland Woods Way and along Via Los Altos,
directing visitors to follow this circulation plan. Rather than create new significant
impacts, as commenters suggest, Alternative 7's proposed modifications serve to
return the circulation plan to its existing entry and exit pattern, reduce the
potential impact of mid-street turnarounds, and reduce project-generated left
turns onto Reedland Woods Way.
Noise
Commenters contend that Alternative 7 would increase nighttime noise in
a quiet residential neighborhood and that the extent of such impact has not been
adequately assessed. (Volker comment letter, dated May 8, 2006.) Again,
commenters are inappropriately comparing Alternative 7 to the existing
environment, which is not the proper analysis when determining whether to
recirculate an EIR. As explained above, the proper consideration is whether the
changes in the project would create new significant impacts. Instead of
increasing events or their duration, Alternative 7 reduces the number of events in
a manner that reduces the impacts related to noise. As such, Alternative 7 does
not reflect significant new information that creates potentially significant new
impacts on the environment, and is not a basis for recirculation of the EIR.
Environmentally benign project changes are a desirable and foreseeable
byproduct of the CEQA process. (See Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of
Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736-737, citing County of Inyo v. City of Los
Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 199 (CEQA process is not designed to freeze
the ultimate proposal in the precise mold of the initial project; new and
unforeseen insights may emerge during investigation).) In short, a project must
be open for public discussion and subject to agency modification during the
CEQA process. (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District
Agricultural Association (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 936.) This is because the CEQA
process is meant to result in changes to projects that benefit the environment.
(See Id.) Consistent with this goal, Alternative 7 implementsCEQA's purposes
because it promotes an alternative that reduces impacts to the environment in
comparison with the project analyzed in the Draft EIR.
The substantial evidence discussed above adequately supports the finding
that no "significant new information" was added following the Town's
consideration of Alternative 7 that changed the EIR in manner that deprived the
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 2006-XX Mav 31. ?nnF;
Page 4
public of meaningful comment on a new adverse environmental effect or a new
alternative that was not implemented. Comments requiring the EIR to be
recirculated are, therefore, unfounded and inconsistent with CEQA.
Section 3. Certification of EIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Congregation
Kol Shofar Final Environmental Impact Report:
1 . Consists of:
a. Congregation Kol Shofar Draft Environmental Impact Report,
dated June 2005; and
b. Congregation Kol Shofar Final Environmental 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 Planning Commission to have been
completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act and local CEQA guidelines.
3. Has been presented to the Planning Commission of the Town of
Tiburon, which has reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Final EIR.
4. Reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning
Commission.
5. Is hereby adopted as the Environmental Impact Report for the
Congregation Kol Shofar expansion project (File #10404).
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a
Commission of the Town of Tiburon on
vote:
meeting of the Planning
, 2006, by the following
AYES:
NOES:
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-XX May 31,2006
Page 5
ABSENT:
JOHN KUNZWEILER, CHAIRMAN
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATTEST:
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-XX May 31, 2006
P:,H18 f)
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-DRAFT
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON DENYING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
FOR EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING SYNAGOGUE AND DAY SCHOOL AT
215 BLACKFIELD DRIVE AND ADOPTING FINDINGS SUPPORTING THE DENIAL
lAP 38-351-34)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as
follows:
Section 1:. Summary of Proceedinos.
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 ("Kol
Shofar" or "Applicant") with regard to its property at 215 Blackfield Drive (the
"Property"). The Application requested 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
(the "Multi-purpose Room") to the existing circular building; four new single-story
classrooms and a service room totaling 3,662 square feet; remodeling of the
existing building; paving of an existing unpaved overflow parking lot for a net gain
of approximately 22 parking spaces; and related lighting and landscaping
improvements. In addition, the Application requested an increase in the
maximum enrollment of the day school from 100 to 150 children, as well as
allowing new special and congregational event evening and other programs.
The existing facility contains 43,751 gross square feet of building area; proposed
additions would increase this figure by 310/0. The Application also requested new
and expanded use of the Property, as set forth in Table 1 of the Draft EIR.
The Application consists of, but is not limited to, 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
b. Traffic and Parking Study prepared by Robert Harrison Traffic
Engineers, dated April, 2004
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-draft 5/31/2006
'RXHTRI'1' NO. ~
c. Environmental Noise Study prepared by Charles M. Salter AssociatesJ
Inc'J dated AprilJ 2004
d. Lighting Study and Recommendations prepared by Architectural
Lighting DesignJ dated AprilJ 2004
e. Congregation Kol Shofar Use SummaryJ dated MarchJ 2004
f. Visual Impact Study prepared by Herman and Coliver ArchitectureJ
dated April, 2004
2. Project Plans (14 sheets) prepared by Herman and Coliver ArchitectureJ
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 18J 2004
5. Addenda to Environmental Noise Study prepared by Charles M. Salter
Associates, Inc., dated June 30, 2004 and August 18, 2004
C. On December H, 2004, the Planning Commission held a Scoping Session for
preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") on the Application.
In June 2005, the Town of Tiburon circulated the Draft EIR for public comment, and
on August 24,2005, the Planning Commission held a hearing on the Draft EIR.
D. On August 24, 2005, the Planning Commission authorized preparation of the Final
EIR and in February, 2006, the Town of Tiburon released a Final EIR, which
included responses to com"ments and edits to the Draft EIR.
E. After publication of the Final EIR, the Applicant submitted revisions to the
Application, set forth in the document entitled "Modified Use-Impact Analysis"
prepared by IPA, Inc., dated April 11 , 2006, with the stated intent of reducing
impacts identified in the EIR. This revised proposal, hereinafter the "Project",
was labeled "Alternative 7" for EIR purposes and analyzed by the EIR preparer in
the document entitled "Final EIR for the Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional
Use Permit Application: Alternative 7 AnalysisJ dated April 18, 2006. On April
24, 2006 and May 10, 2006, the Planning Commission held hearings on the
Project and on the Draft and Final EIRs.
F. At the May 10,2006 meeting, four of five Planning Commissioners indicated that
they could not support the Project based on, among other thingsJ inconsistency
with General Plan goals and policies and failure of the Project to conform to
Tiburon Zoning Ordinance standards and provisions. The Planning Commission
majority found the Project over-reaching in its scope, scale, and level of
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2006-draft
5/31/2006
2
intrusion, given its quiet residential surroundings. The Planning Commission
offered the Applicant a choice of either an "up or down" vote on the Project 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 meeting. The Applicant 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 Kol
Shofar did not wish to support such an approach and requested an "up or down"
vote on the Project.
G. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information in the
Draft and Final EIRs, the written and oral testimony presented to the Planning
Commission, and the Entire Record, as described in Section 2 below.
H. The Planning Commissions is charged with the responsibility of determining,
after a review of the Entire Record before it, whether or not the Project is
consistent with the Tiburon General Plan and is in compliance with the Tiburon
Zoning Ordinance and other applicable regulations. The Planning Commission
finds that based upon evidence in the record, the Project would be inconsistent
with numerous goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan, would not be in
conformance with standards and requirements of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance,
and would be incompatible and not in harmony with surrounding residential uses.
I. The Planning Commission finds, based upon the evidence in the Entire Record,
that the project is inconsistent with numerous Tiburon General Plan goals and
policies, and is not in compliance with provisions of the Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance because of parking deficiencies and the cumulative activity levels,
noise, disruption, and the sensitivity of the days and hours that these activity
levels would occur. The Planning Commission further finds that the Project is
incompatible with surrounding residential development; and would be materially
detrimental to the quiet enjoyment of people's homes and neighborhoods.
Specifically, the Planning Commission finds that the Project would be
inconsistent with Tiburon General Plan Land Use Element Goals LU-A, LU-B,
LU-C, LU-D, LU-H, and LU-I; with Land Use Element Policies LU-2, LU-6, and
LU-13; Circulation Element Goals C-C, C-D, C-F, and C-I and Circulation
Element Policy C-1 ; with Safety Element Goal SE-A; and with Noise Element
Goals N-A, N-B, and N-C. The Planning Commission further finds that the
Project is not in conformance with, or fails to comply with, Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance Sections 4.04.02 (a), (b), (c), (dJ and (e); Sections 4.04.03 (a)(1),
(a)(2), and (a)(3); Sections 4.04.03 (b)(1) and (b)(3); Section 5.08.04; Section
5.08.10; and Section 5.08.11.
J. The Planning Commission finds that although the EIR concludes that the Project
would not result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts on the environment
as characterized under the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-draft 5/31/2006 3
Commission disagrees with certain conclusions of the EIR based on evidence in
the Entire Record. Specifically, the Planning Commission received written
testimony from two acoustical experts stating that the Draft EIR's use of a 24-
hour average metric, "Ldn," to assess the impact of intermittent noise spikes
during the evening was not appropriate, as it trivializes short-term spikes in noise
by averaging them against the ambient noise levels during the rest of the 24-
hour period. The Final EIR acknowledges that arrival and departure noise levels
will reach 65 decibels, and that background nighttime noise levels in the
neighborhood are only 40-41 dBA. FEIR, p. 43. Thus, the short-term noise
impact at these evening events might reach 25 decibels above background
levels at 11 :00 p.m., a very substantial increase. Neither the Draft EIR nor the
Final EIR proposes any mitigation measure that would assure that the significant
spikes in late night week-end noise would be mitigated to achieve a level of
insignificance. The Planning Commission therefore finds mitigation measures
for Impact 3.4-B (Noise Impacts in Areas Surrounding the Project Site)
inadequate to mitigate the increased noise. In addition, the Planning
Commission finds that the mitigation measures specified for Impact 3.5-C
(Headlights on Vehicles Using the Driveway) are inadequate to reduce to
insignificant late-night week-end headlight intrusion into homes in the immediate
vicinity of the driveway and parking lot, as more fully set forth in Section 4 below.
The Planning Commission also finds that Mitigation Measure 3.3-C.3 (the
parking receipt program) proposed for Impact 3.3-C (Insufficient On-Site Parking
Resulting in Unsafe Turnarounds) is unwieldy, unduly difficult to monitor and
enforce, unlikely to be successfully implemented, and therefore infeasible. The
Planning Commission finds that the alternative mitigations put forth in Alternative
7 to address the Project's deficient on-site parking are insufficient to off-set the
basic problem of inadequate on-site parking, and simply spread or relocate
impacts into surrounding neighborhood streets. The first of these alternate
mitigations, that "Kol Shofar shall place signs along its frontage on Via Los Altos,
Blackfield Drive and Reedland Woods Way stating that people attending events
at Kol Shofar need to park on-site and not on residential streets," mayor will
cause unsafe turn-arounds by the attendees who had intended to park along
these streets until they observed these unexpected signs. Furthermore, visitors
arriving at night or in the rain may not see these unexpected signs at all. Others
may choose to disregard the signs, since there is no proposed effective
enforcement mechanism to dissuade attendees from doing so. The second
alternate mitigation, that "Kol Shofar shall require that all invitations and
notifications of these new weekend events include a note informing people there
to park on the site and not to park on residential streets," rests on three
unproven assumptions: (1) that all drivers will receive, remember and comply
with this request; (2) that there will be adequate room to accommodate them
within the on-site parking lots (a premise that would not be true where individual
vehicular occupancy by guests is at lower rates than the Applicant's projections,
and certainly during the High Holy Days and other events where attendees
greatly exceed on-site parking capacity); and (3) that attendees will not attempt
to park elsewhere if traffic backs up at the Via Los Altos ingress point to the
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-draft 5/31/2006 4
parking lot. The third alternate mitigation, the institution of a monitoring program
covering "up to four events the first year after project completion" to assess the
efficacy of the foregoing mitigation measures, would not itself prevent significant
unsafe turn-around impacts. Rather, it would document such impacts for the
purpose of developing additional mitigation measures. As such, this measure
would not itself prevent adverse traffic and parking impacts. The Planning
Commission finds that sufficiently increasing the on-site parking capacity would
bring the Project into Zoning Ordinance parking regulation compliance and is the
most logical mitigation, yet this approach was strenuously argued against by the
Applicant at the May 10, 2006 hearing.
K. The Planning Commission concludes that substantial modifications to the Project
above and beyond those put forth by the Applicant in Alternative 7 would be
necessary to secure Planning Commission approval, as discussed herein.
L. The Planning Commission hereby denies the Project and makes the following
findings in support of its decision, based on the Draft and Final EIRs, the written and
oral testimony to the Planning Commission, and the evidence in the Entire Record
before the Planning Commission.
Section 2. Entire Record: Document Description and Location.
The Record of Proceeding ("Entire Record") upon which the Planning Commission bases
its disapproval of the Project and its findings, actions and determinations regarding the
Project includes, but is not limited to:
1. 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.
2. All Staff reports, Town files and records and other documents, prepared for
and/or submitted to the Planning Commission and/or Town staff relating to
the Final EIR, addendums, and/or the proposed Project.
3. All written and oral testimony presented to the Planning Commission on the
Project.
The location and custodian of the Entire Record is the Town of Tiburon Community
Development Director, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California 94920.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2006-draft
5/31/2006
"5
Section 3. Material Elements of the Proiect.
The Planning Commission finds that the material elements of the Project that it finds
not approvable as proposed include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) The number (in excess of 27 total) and timing of new nighttime activities and
events on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights, including cleanup activities until
10:00 PM, 12:00 PM and 11 :00 PM, respectively (as documented in Table 1 as
revised through Alternative 7), with resultant noise in the vicinity, and a lighted
parking lot until at least the foregoing times;
(2) Potential or actual overlapping of activities utilizing the proposed 9,733
square foot Multi-purpose Room addition and the remodeled sanctuary, with a
resulting very large capacity far exceeding the capacity of the parking on the site
in violation of Tiburon Zoning Ordinance parking regulations;
(3) Increase in actual daytime and nighttime vehicular traffic, including increases
in unsafe U-turns, turnarounds by unauthorized use of private driveways creating
pedestrian safety hazards and unnecessary and unwanted headlight intrusion at
night into private homes in the neighborhood;
(4) Actual increases in noise levels from: existing uses utilizing the Multi-purpose
Room, new uses, traffic entering, parking in and exiting the Project's expanded
on-site parking lot in close proximity to homes, drivers and passengers exiting
and entering vehicles to go to and from existing and new daytime and nighttime
activities and events;
(5) Increased parking of vehicles on the neighborhood streets for various
reasons, including insufficient on-site parking capacity, the awkward and
inefficient design and circulation pattern of the proposed main parking lot, which,
in addition to the nuisance and inconvenience effects upon neighboring uses, will
violate Tiburon Zoning Ordinance parking requirements. .
Section 4. General Plan Inconsistencv
The Planning Commission finds the scope and elements of the Project, taken as a
whole, incompatible with surrounding residential development, based on noise, traffic,
traffic safety, light and glare, neighborhood character, and parking impacts and the
neighborhood disruption attendant thereto. Evidence in support of this conclusion is
provided in the Entire Record, both from experts and residents, which the Commission
finds both credible and convincing. The Planning Commission further adopts the
findings set forth herein.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2006-draft
5/31/2006
6
1 . Noise
The Project will generate substantial noise from events, particularly on Saturday and
Sunday evenings. The Project proposes twelve Saturday evening events with significant
attendance (four with 250 attendees, four at 200 and four at 150) and fifteen new Sunday
evening events (three with 250 attendees, five at 200, four at 150 and three at 100). The
proposed Saturday evening events would continue "until 11 :00 p.m. plus cleanup," and the
Sunday events would continue "until 9:00 p.m. plus cleanup." Clean up times are proposed
to last until midnight on Saturdays, and clean up on Sundays would last until 1 0:00 p.m.
This means that noise and lights from departing guests, vendors, and others; people taking
out supplies and/or removing tables and chairs; caterers carrying out equipment and food;
people talking outside; car and truck engines starting up; car doors slamming; and related
headlight glare and parking lot illumination would thus continue until midnight on Saturdays
and until 10:00 p.m. on Sundays. The Final EIR acknowledges that arrival and departure
noise spikes will reach 65 decibels, and that background nighttime noise levels in the
neighborhood are only 40-41 dBA. FEIR, p. 43. Thus, the short-term noise spikes during
these evening events might reach 25 decibels above background levels as late as 11 :00
p.m., a very substantial increase. These represent serious noise incompatibilities with
surrounding residences. For example, many neighbors have school-age children. These
children, who need to be in bed Sunday evening for school the next morning, would be
subject to sleep-disturbing noise and lights after they have retired for the night. Also,
residents in the Bel Aire neighborhood will be disturbed as cars exiting the facility travel
down Blackfield Drive at the end of an event between 11 :00 and 12:00 p.m. on Saturday
and between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. on Sunday. The residents of Blackfield Drive have
written letters and spoken publicly about the fact that many bedrooms face Blackfield Drive.
These neighbors will be disturbed at night by th.e increased noise, light and traffic of cars
traveling on Blackfield Drive to these new nighttime events.
This significant noise generation during normally very quiet times conflicts with Goals N-A,
N-B and N-C of the Tiburon General Plan Noise Element, which are set forth below:
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.
The Project would allow weekend evening events to occur on twenty-seven (twelve on
Saturdays and fifteen on Sundays) of the 104 weekend evenings each year, representing
260/0 of annual weekend evening, clearly a substantial proportion. Allowing such an
increase in nighttime noise and activity on more than one-fourth of annual weekend
evenings conflicts with the Tiburon General Plan Noise Element's Goals as noted above.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2006-draft
5/31/2006
7
2. Traffic and Traffic Safety
The Draft EIR identified unsafe turnarounds in neighborhoods and using private
driveways for that purpose as an existing safety hazard that would increase as a result
of the Project. "Increased numbers of turnarounds in driveways or in front of homes
and increased frequency of event-related turnarounds on those residential streets is
considered by the EI R traffic engineer to be a potentially significant safety concern." -
DEIR, p. 67. The Planning Commission has received substantial evidence from the
public confirming that existing events and activities at the existing Kol Shofar facility
have resulted in unsafe turn-arounds by guests driving vehicles to such events who
seek additional parking sites off-site or to avoid traffic congestion in the vicinity of the
Property. The Planning Commission also finds that the Project will bring substantial
additional traffic into the quiet surrounding neighborhoods at precisely the week-end
times when quietude is most desired and valued by residents.
The proposed substantial increase in the square footage on the Property, and proposed
increase in use of the Property, will result in substantial additional traffic generation,
particularly for large-scale events drawing hundreds of attendees. As the number of facility
users increases, so will the number of cars delivering them, and the number of
consequential unsafe turn-arounds in local driveways and streets. These turn-arounds
pose significant traffic hazards to vehicular and pedestrian safety, in conflict with the
Tiburon General Plan's Circulation Element, Circulation Goals C-C and C-F, Circulation
Policy C-1, and Safety Element Goal SE-A, which are set forth below:
c-c:
To maintain all existing, as well as to design all future, residential streets
with consideration of a combination of residents' safety, cost of
maintenance, and protection of residential quality of life.
C-F:
To minimize traffic congestion.
C-1:
Land use decisions shall take into consideration potential traffic and
circulation impacts.
SE-A:
To maintain a safe and healthy community.
3. Light and Glare
The extent of evening and nighttime activity proposed by the Project will result in unwanted
and unnecessary light and glare impacts on surrounding homes. The Draft EIR states that
"[h]eadlights on vehicles traveling west (uphill) on the new driveway, around the drop
off/turnaround, and into the new upper parking area could intrude off the site and possibly
shine into three residences on Reedland Woods Way and one residence on Paseo Mirasol
. . .. Vehicles using the turnaround would have headlights pointed at 20 and possibly 30
and 35 Reedland Woods Way. . .. Headlights on vehicles using the new parking area
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2006-draft
5/31/2006
8
could intrude into windows of homes at 20 and 30 Reedland Woods Way and one home to
the east on Paseo Mirasol. Headlight intrusion is a visual invasion of privacy and is
considered a potentially significant impact." DEIR, p. 106, emphasis in original. The
subsequent headlight intrusion study concluded that lights from vehicles on the site would
intrude into the sleeping quarters of t~e home at 220 Blackfield Drive and the home at 20
Reedland Woods Way.
The Final EIR included a "Headlight Beam Intrusion" report from the Project's architect
which concluded that, although headlight intrusion would occur at 220 Blackfield Drive, that
residence had been impacted by similar headlight intrusions in the past without complaint.
FEIR, p. 49. This report also concluded that "[h]eadlight intrusion at 20 Reedland Woods
Way may result at a distance of 100 feet from the light source to the home, concluding that
the diminished light intensity at that distance "will not result in. a nuisance and/or a
significant adverse impact on the environment." Id. This report concluded further that
although "the potential for light intrusion exists at the ground level of #35 Reedland Woods
Way, . . . an existing wood slat fence at the residence's rear yard will provide screening."
Id. Landscaping has been proposed as Mitigation Measure 10 for Impact 3.5-0 to reduce
the headlight impact on 220 Blackfield Drive. Finally, Mitigation Measure 3.5-C.1 requires
the Applicant to construct a berm and/or fence between the parking lot and 20 Reedland
Woods Way to block headlight intrusion.
The Planning Commission finds the foregoing mitigation measures insufficient to reduce
the impact of late-night vehicular headlight intrusion into the affected homes to a level of
insignificance. The fact that the home at 220 Blackfield Drive is already affected by
existing headlight intrusion does not mitigate the impact of the additional headlight intrusion
that this Project would cause due to the number and lateness of nighttime events. Instead,
it makes it worse. The proposal to plant landscaping between the parking lot and this
residence may reduce headlight spill into this residence, but the efficacy of landscaping to
reduce this impact to insignificance is uncertain both temporally and with regard to the
extent of the anticipated blockage. The Applicant's proposal to construct a berm and/or
fence between the parking lot and the residence at 20 Reedland Woods Way would not
prevent headlight intrusion into the second story (Le., the sleeping quarters) of this
residence. The proposed mitigation of the headlight intrusion into 35 Reedland Woods
Way - an existing fence - would not shield the second story (Le., the sleeping quarters) of
this residence from direct headlight intrusion. Since modern headlights are designed to
reach several hundred feet, the fact that the headlights intruding into 20 ReedlandWoods
Way would be 100 feet distant does not reduce their impact to insignificance.
These unnecessary nighttime headlight impacts on existing residences conflict with the
Tiburon General Plan's Land Use Element, Land Use Goals LU-B, LU-D, and LU-H, and
Land Use Policy LU-2, which are set forth below.
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
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No~ 2006-draft 5/31/2006 9
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.
Based on the Draft and Final EIR's, the subsequent light impact assessment, the
written and oral testimony and the Entire Record, the Planning Commission hereby
finds that the Project's nighttime weekend headlight impacts on nearby residences will
be significant and will materially intrude into the enjoyment of residents of neighboring
homes. The Project would permit substantial nighttime traffic in a quiet, secluded and
darkened residential neighborhood. The Project would allow scores of cars to enter
and exit onsite twenty-seven weekend evenings as late as 11 :00 to 12:00 p.m.
(including clean-up crews) on Saturdays and 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. (including clean-up) on
Sundays. Additionally, lot lights, which are to be on timers, would not be turned off until
the clean-up crews leave. These lights would be visible from neighboring homes.
Several nearby residences would be affected by late-night headlight glare into their
sleeping quarters. The mitigation measures proposed to reduce these impacts to
insignificance would not provide immediate nor complete blockage of anticipated
headlight glare into these homes. Subjecting these residents to potentially sleep-
disturbing headlight 'glare, particularly when coupled with the parking lot noise
discussed above, cannot be dismissed as immaterial or insignificant to the surrounding
neighborhood. These headlight impacts would conflict with several General Plan Land
Use Goals and Policies as cited above.
4. Neighborhood Compatibility
The Project proposes construction of two large buildings comprising a total of 13,395 gross
square feet. As described in the Draft EIR at Figure 5 and on page 132, most of this
additional space would be occupied by the Multi-purpose Room comprising 9,733 gross
square feet. This building would be substantially larger than any existing residence within
the neighborhood, and, when coupled with the existing and other proposed facilities, would
total 57,140 gross square feet, or over 1.31 acres of floor space. A total of 139 on-site
parking spaces are proposed to accommodate this square footage.
The Planning Commission, based on the Entire Record, finds that the Project poses
significant impacts on the surrounding neighborhood from increased noise levels,
additional light and glare, additional traffic, increased parking demand, and reduced
vehicular and pedestrian safety. Taken as a whole, these deleterious impacts are
inconsistent with the Tiburon General Plan goals and policies as set forth below, which are
intended to protect the character and quality of life of neighborhoods:
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2006-draft
5/31/2006
10
LU-A:
LU-C:
LU-D:
LU-H:
LU-I:
LU-2:
, LU-6:
LU-13
C-C:
C-D:
C-F:
C-I:
C-1:
To provide an orderly balance of _ public and private land uses within
convenient and compatible locations throughout the community.
To preserve the character of the Tiburon peninsula through control of the
type and location of development.
To ensure that all land uses, by type, amount, design, and arrangement,
serve to preserve, protect and enhance the small-town residential image
of the community and the village-like character of its Downtown
commercial area.
To protect and preserve existing neighborhood character and identity.
To encourage intensity of development, density, and house
sizes/architectural styles that are consistent and compatible with
surrounding neighborhoods.
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.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2006-draft
5/31/2006
11
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.
SE-A:
To maintain a safe and healthy community.
Based on the Draft and Final EIRs, the written and oral testimony and the Entire Record,
the Planning Commission hereby finds that the Project's deleterious effects on
neighborhood character are significant.
The Tiburon General Plan directs the Planning Commission to "protect the health, safety
and welfare of the community," and to "[t]o protect and preserve existing neighborhood
character and identity." Land Use Element, Land Use Goals LU-B and LU-H. To this end,
the Planning Commission is obligated 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. . .." Id. at LU-D and LU-2.
The Project conflicts with these Land Use Goals and Policies, and those of the General
Plan's Noise, Circulation and Safety Elements, in numerous, fundamental respects. Siting
a facility with the capacity to accommodate over 1,500 people, and with plans for large
evening events, in a quiet residential neighborhood, while providing only 139 on-site
parking spaces, clearly conflicts with the neighborhood character. Adjacent homes would
be subjected to nighttime increases in noise by as much as 25 decibels. Nearby
residences would be subject to headlight glare from scores of cars arriving and leaving the
facility on weekend nights. Neighbors would be subjected to worsening traffic, parking
congestion, and significant traffic hazards.
Taken in the aggregate, these adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood pose
unacceptable deleterious effects on the "existing neighborhood character and identity,"
creating conflict, rather than the required compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods,
and are inconsistent with the Tiburon General Plan. Id. at LU-I and LU-2.
Section 5: Zonina Ordinance Non-conformance
The Planning Commission, based on evidence in the Entire Record, finds that the
Project is inconsistent and does not conform to the findings necessary to approve the
Application, as set forth within Section 4.04.02 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, as
follows:
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2006-draft
5/31/2006
12
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 proximity of homes surrounding the site, the bowl-like topography in
which the site rests, the relatively narrow residential streets nearby, and
the relative quietude of the area surrounding the site create heightened
potential for impacts on the surrounding homes and streets during
otherwise quiet times for this neighborhood, especially on week-end
evenings and nights. The noise, lights, and traffic generated by the
Project would be incompatible with the quiet of the neighborhood during
the weekend evenings and night times during which the proposed new
events and activities would occur.
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 Project is 'lot compatible with the surrounding low-density residential
neighborhoods. The proposed nighttime events would have clearly
audible noise impacts on surrounding residences on Saturday and
Sunday nights when neighborhood quietude is most desired by residents
for their reasonable enjoyment and have a right to rely on peace and
quiet. While neighborhoods often bear a burden of noise and traffic when
a religious institution and/or school is in the vicinity, the frequency, time of
night, and scale and number of attendees of new activities and events
proposed for the site would unnecessarily intrude on the usual hours of
respite from that noise and traffic currently enjoyed by the surrounding
residential neighborhoods, and make the proposed project incompatible
with the types of activity and uses normally permitted in the surrounding
residential area.
c. Evaluate whether or not adequate facilities and services required for such
use exist or can be provided.
The area surrounding the Property currently experiences street parking
overflow on a regular basis as the total on-site parking capacity is
currently approximately 100 unrestricted spaces, according to the EIR
Appendix 0, with approximately 120 spaces total, including restricted
spaces. Events, or combinations of events, or any time at which more
than 250-275 people are on the site are likely to result in street parking
overflow onto surrounding residential streets. The Project would create
an additional net total of 22 parking spaces, far less than required by the
Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Multi-purpose Room, at 642
seats capacity, would require 161 additional parking spaces in accordance
with Sections 5.08.11 and 5.08.04(d) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2006-draft
5/31/2006
13
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.
Based on its review of the draft resolution of conditional approval (Exhibit
6 in the April 24, 2006 staff report), the Planning Commission concludes
that the Project as proposed is not approvable as explained above and
the Applicant has requested an "up or down" vote on the Project. The
Planning Commission is therefore proceeding with a denial and stipulation
of conditions of approval is inappropriate.
e. Determine whether the Town is adequcltely served by similar uses
presently existing or recently approved by the Town.
The Planning Commission concludes that the existing physical plant,
comprised of approximately 43,000 square feet of floor area on the
Property, does not need to be expanded by 13,395 square feet of new
floor. area additions in order to achieve the stated goals of adequately
serving the current needs of the membership. The Planning Commission
finds that other construction options exist that keep the scale of the
proposed improvements in better harmony with surrounding development.
The Planning Commission further finds that the Project is inconsistent with Section
4.04.03(a) (2) and (3) and Section 4.04.03(b) (1) and (3) of the Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance, which state that the following factors shall be considered in determining
whether or not any conditional use should be permitted in a specific location:
a. The relationship of the location proposed to:
2. Transportation, utilities, and other facilities required to serve it.
The proposed weekend nighttime events would increase traffic
levels on Blackfield Drive, Via Los Altos, and Reedland Woods
Way during traditionally off-peak hours in this low density
residential neighborhood. The 22-car increase in parking capacity
of the lot is not nearly sufficient to serve the increased parking
demand of the Project. Spillover parking on adjacent residential
streets would cause unsafe turnarounds, congestion and
inconvenience for local residents.
3. Other uses of land in the vicinity.
The Property is surrounded by low-density single family residential
neighborhoods, which would be negatively affected by the
increased noise, traffic, and activity levels caused by the proposed
additions and expanded use.
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-draft 5/31/2006 14
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 surrounding residential neighborhoods would be exposed to
increased noise levels from new activities within and outside the
proposed Multi-Purpose Room, including sounds from cars arriving
and departing from the new parking lot, parking lot conversation
and commotion, including loading and unloading of equipment and
items that celebratory events of substantial scale typically generate.
The 24-hour weighted noise averages calculated by the noise
studies for the Project do not address the peaks of noise to which
immediately surrounding homes will be exposed from the activities
and events proposed, but the EIR did acknowledge that noise spike
increases of up to 25 decibels could occur. The Planning
Commission finds that such noise spikes would result in audible,
noticeable, and inconvenient noise for the residents of several
surrounding homes, particularly during the weekend evening and
nighttime hours during which the new events would occur.
3. Probable inconveniences, economic loss, or hazard occasioned by
unusual volume or character of traffic or the congregating of a large
number of people.
The Planning Commission finds evidence in the Entire Record
supports a conclusion that as proposed, additional noise, traffic,
traffic safety, light and glare, and neighborhood incompatibility and
disruption caused by the Project would result in inconveniences
during previously quiet hours for the surrounding low density
residential neighborhoods.
The Planning Commission further finds that the Project is not in conformance with
Sections 5.08.04 (d) & (k), 5.08.10 and 5.08.11 of the Tiburori Zoning Ordinance, which
contain the following provisions:
a. Section 5.08.04(d). Place of assembly: one parking space for each 4
seats of maximum seating capacity; or one for each 40 square feet of
assembly area, whichever is more; and Section 5.08.04(k)(1). Child Care:
3 minimum, plus one for each 10 children over the first 15.
As indicated in DEIR Appendix D: Table 9, the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance
parking requirement is comprised of the following elements: 1) for the
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2006-draft
5/31/2006
15
4,500 square foot portion of the Multi-purpose Room that would provide
up to 642 seats: 161 parking spaces; for the 5,336 square foot remodeled
Sanctuary that would provide up to 550 fixed seats: 138 parking spaces;
for the remodeled 1,842 square foot Chapel: 46 spaces; and for the 150-
student Pre-School:" 18 spaces. The combination of uses yields a total
parking requirement of 363 spaces, far more than the 139 spaces
proposed for the existing lower and proposed new upper parking lots.
b. Section 5.08.10. Multiple Uses. Parking required for multiple uses shall be
the sum of the requirements for each individual use; provided that parking
spaces required for one use or time may utilize the same spaces required for
another use or time upon Commission approval, by means of appropriate
conditions, of said dual parking. The Commission shall not grant such
approval unless it is able to, and does, make the following findings:
(a) That the uses or times for which overlapping parking is being
requested do not have overlapping hours of operations sufficient to
result in a deficiency of parking spaces.
(b) That the parking lot in question is within a reasonable distance from
the uses for which parking requirements are to be overlapped.
Failure to abide by the conditions of the approval shall be cause for
revocation of such approval for all uses involved, regardless of previous
approvals.
The Planning Commission would have reasonable discretion to reduce
the combined parking requirement as described in subsections (a) and
(b), above. However, subsection (a) indicates that the reduction must be
based on overlapping uses not having overlapping times. The DEIR
provides an analysis of the overlapping uses on page 65 and concludes
that existing and proposed uses would utilize the Chapel, Multi-purpose
Room, and Classrooms at various times, as follows: 1) Saturday morning
services, an existing all year event, would involve the Sanctuary and Multi-
purpose Room for which the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance requirement is
299 spaces; 2) Saturday and Sunday evening new events would use the
Multi-purpose Room for which the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance requirement
is 161 spaces; and 3) Sunday morning Religious school, an existing all
year event, would use Classrooms, Sanctuary, Multi-purpose Room and
the Annex for which the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance parking requirement
would be 299 or more parking spaces. In summary, for these overlapping
uses, Tiburon Zoning Ordinance requirements range from 161-299
parking spaces where only 139 spaces have been proposed. The
Planning Commission finds this discrepancy too large to approve the
Project.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2006-draft
5/31/2006
16
c. 5.08.11. Change In Use: Additions and Enlargement. Whenever on any
property there is a change in use, or increase in floor area or in the number
of employees, or other unit of measurement specified above to calculate the
number of required off-street parking spaces, then additional off-street
parking spaces shall be provided on the basis of the increase in floor area or
number of employees, or in such other applicable unit of measurement. The
effects of additions, enlargements and changes in use shall be cumulative in
regard to off-street parking requirements.
The Project would be inconsistent with this requirement to provide
additional off-street parking spaces on the basis of the increase in floor
area. As calculated above, the combined parking requirement for the
remodeled and expanded facilities is 363 parking spaces and based upon
the overlapping uses proposed, it could be reduced to 299 spaces. The
proposed 139 parking spaces would not fulfill this requirement.
Alternatively, the propo'sed expansion represents an increase of 31 % of
the existing floor area, thus existing parking could be required to increase
by a comparable percentage or to a total of 153 spaces. The proposed 39
spaces would fall short of this reduced parking requirement by 14 spaces.
The Planning Commission finds that although it would be supportive of
some degree of reduction from the standards due to overlapping parking,
the discrepancy is too large to warrant Project approval.
Section 6. Denial of Application.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby
denies the application of Congregation Kol Shofar for approval of its proposed Conditional
Use Permit Project (File #10404) for the reasons set forth above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a
Commission of the Town of Tiburon on
meeting of the Planning
, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
JOHN KUNZWEILER, CHAIRMAN
Tiburon Planning Commission
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2006-draft
5/31/2006
17
lr;::;~\ r.~c~~. ';i.ec,
'/ ,1;1' ...~b~"f'!'" ,
MINUTES NO. 934 : I . ;; ~/, .:,' :;
PLANN~a~ ~~~~ISSIOt.h1 /rlJ fj' ijiJ .~-=::-i
Regular Meeting
Main Sail Ballroom, the Lodge at Tiburon
1651 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California
:C:C1ti'~::_1
- f
j.
D
_.._~~~.~----.,.".~
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Kunzweiler, Commissioner Aguirre, Commissioner Collins,
Commissioner Fraser and Commissioner O'Donnell
Absent:
None
Staff Present: Community Development Director Anderson, Planning Manager Watrous,
Planning Consultant Newman, and Meeting Recorder Williams
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING
Staff Updates:
Community Development Director Anderson noted that the May 24 meeting would be
cancelled and that the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for June 14, 2006
with the possibility of a special meeting on May 31, 2006.
Commission Information Items:
There were none.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. 4144 PARADISE DRIVE: REQUEST TO MODIFY PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PLANS TO CONSTRUCT A FIXED PIER AND FLOATING
DOCK; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #10602; Peter Paul, Owner; Noble
Consultants, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel Nos. 038-171-75 and 76
Planning Manager Watrous noted that the current plans were a modification of the plans
previously approved on May 16, 2006 that incorrectly showed the pier and dock location
outside the Tiburon town limits. The plans have been modified to place the pier and dock
within Tiburon. Planning Manager Watrous also noted that the design of the dock has not
changed and that there have been no complaints from neighbors. Planning Manager
Watrous finally recommended that the Planning Commission take testimony on the item.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of May 10, 2006
. ....~____.... ,1...-- 3
Scott Noble, applicant noted that the plans were modified to place the dock within
Tiburon Town limits and asked if anyone had questions.
MIS Commissioner Collins/Commissioner Aguirre (5-5-0)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2. 215 BLACKFIELD DRIVE: REVIEW OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) AND CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT PROJECT MERITS FOR A PROPOSED EXPANSION OF
AN EXISTING RELIGIOUS FACILITY AND DAY SCHOOL
(CONGREGATION KOL SHOFAR); Congregation Kol Shofar, Owner and
Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 038-351-34) (Continued from April 24,
2006)
Chair Kunzweiler noted that due to the number of speakers and time limitations only
twelve names would randomly be picked by the officer on duty to address the Planning
Commission.
Lisa Newman touched on two key aspects covered in the Staff Report; Alternative 7 and
the Multi-purpose Room. Ms. Newman reported that the draft Conditional Use Permit
incorporates the Alternative 7 version of Table 1 which identifies both new and proposed
events as the baseline for the new Use permit. Ms. Newman noted that the baseline
establishes the maximum numbers of attendees, days and times of "activities" and
"events" during the week. Ms. Newman also noted that in order to mitigate traffic and
noise impacts identified in the EIR, Condition #5 of the draft CUP limits the total
numbers of attendees for any new events to 250 people, and limits the times for new
weekend night events to 9:00PM for new Sunday events and] ] :OOPM for new Saturday
night events. When larger, existing events occur, Conditions #4a and #7 in the draft CUP
require specific traffic control measures be utilized. Ms. Newman also noted that the
proposed 9,733 square foot Multi-purpose Room is a large space that is intended for
lifecycle celebrations and to accommodate the entire congregation during High Holy Days
services. Although the space is sized to hold very large gatherings, the staff
recommendation to limit the maximum number of attendees at all newly proposed events
to 250 means that the facility would be "fully" utilized only on the High Holy Days, three
days per year when the proposed combined services would allow up to 1,500 people in
attendance at a combined service or 750 people per split service. Ms. Newman also noted
that the next largest gatherings, after the High Holy Days, are the existing services on
weekend mornings that are currently attended by up to 400 people. Ms. Newman further
noted that according to the FEIR Alternative 7 Table 1, the Multi-purpose Room would
be used for a number of smaller existing and proposed events each week, even though the
room would not be fully utilized. Ms. Newman noted that the list of activities/events
proposed for the Multi-purpose room as shown in Table 1 of Alternative 7 overlap. Ms.
Newman noted that staffhas not made a recommendation about the appropriateness of
the proposed size of the Multi-purpose Room, but has focused on use restrictions such as
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of May ]0,2006
2
setting caps on the number of attendees and the frequency and duration of such events,
which are linked to providing adequate parking onsite and minimizing noise impacts on
adjacent neighbors. Ms. Newman finally noted that if the Planning Commission
concludes that the sheer size of the Multi-purpose Room is not in character or harmony
with surrounding development, or is otherwise inappropriate for the residential setting, it
could choose to reduce the size on General Plan and Zoning policy grounds.
Commissioner Collins asked about two letters received on May 8 from the Tiburon
Neighborhood Coalition's traffic engineer and sound consultant that disagree with
Alternative 7 and whether they had changed the Town's EIR consultant's conclusions
about the FEIR. Leonard Charles responded that the conclusions of the FEIR analyses for
traffic and noise had not changed.
Ron Brown, immediate past President of Congregation Kol Shofar, spoke about traffic
measures that were put into place last Saturday during an event that had 700 attendees
and triggered CUP traffic control conditions. Mr. Brown noted that shuttle service was
provided, letters were sent to neighbors informing them of events, and parking was
provided at Tiburon Baptist Church. Mr. Brown presented photographs showing no
parking on residential streets.
Tiffany Wright, attorney for Kol Shofar, explained that the Conditional Use Permit being
considered was for a Multi-purpose Room, four additional classrooms, and twenty-two
additional parking spaces. Ms. Wright also noted that the current Conditional Use Permit
has no limits on events. She also noted that the only difference between Alternative 7 and
the proposed project is that Alternative 7 will have the same impacts to a lesser degree;
therefore any suggestion that more review is necessary really misses the mark as far as
CEQA is concerned. Ms. Wright finally noted that Kol Shofar requests the Commission
to reconsider mitigation measures regarding the Tiburon Drive and Blackfield Drive
intersection as it pertains to occasional back ups due to the project and that the applicant
add seven additional parking spaces. Ms. Wright noted that limiting new events to 250
people provides adequate parking.
Steven Volker, attorney for the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition, spoke of the very
substantial negative aesthetic impact of the seven hundred guest event and submitted
photographs of the tent that was the size of the proposed building. Mr. Volker noted that
the proposed building is very substantial and also submitted photographs taken at 10:53
AM on Vio Los Altos of cars making unsafe turnarounds on adjacent streets which would
be a significant safety hazard at night. Mr. Volker also noted that there seems to have
been fundamental gaps in analysis of this project and urged the Planning Commission to
take a close look at the process. Mr. Volker also noted that one key point missing in the
EIR analysis was the availability of alternate sites outside the town ofTiburon. Mr.
V olker asked the Commission to ask Kol Shofar to examine off site options. Mr. Volker
expressed there was a gap in the analysis with regard to establishing the maximum
permitted usage of the existing facility, maximum additional usage that might take place
in the existing facility, the EIR's failure to project reasonable growth in'the congregation
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of May 10,2006
3
size and facility usage in the future, failure of traffic analysis that was presented with
Alternative 7 to speak in certain terms about mitigations and the informality of some of
the mitigations, the sharp criticism from a noise expert with 20 years of experience who
stated that the Town's use of the LDN metric was inappropriate in this case.
The public comment period was opened.
Margaret Kirby, lives directly across from Kol Shofar, stated that she has been impacted
most by parking and noise and feels that the parking issue needs to be resolved in a
permanent way; signs are nice but will push the problem down the street. More parking is
needed onsite. Ms. Kirby also expressed that during the 700 guest event she could hear
specific voices in her backyard, people were walking the streets', and at night events
people would be walking through the neighborhood making noise.
Satoshi Tanaka, lives near comer of Blackfield Drive and Karen Way, expressed that a lot
was done to mitigate parking but there was no parking near his house for guests on
Saturday due to the 700 guest event at Kol Shofar. Peak noise is his main concern as well
as traffic safety at KarenlBlackfield Drive intersection where people are not observing
stop signs. He is not comfortable with the increase in traffic.
John Nygren expressed concern about monitoring and enforcement of the CUP. He finds
Alternative 7 confusing. If you are only looking at new events, how do you monitor the
existing ones? His big concern is creeping growth year-by-year. Events lasting until 11 :00
p.m. on Saturday nights are later than other facilities in Town and should be limited to
9:00 p.m.
Michael Rubenstein, member of Kol Shofar and resident of Tiburon for 28 years, stated
that experts agree Alternative 7 mitigates impacts and gave examples of parking
exemptions that San Francisco offers on weekends to support its citizen's religious life.
Betsy Rosenberg expressed that she has an environmental radio show and is also a
member of the Kol Shofar building committee expressed that the proposed facility will
have limited environmental impact.
Joel Rich, Kent Woodlands, member ofKol Shofar for 14 years noted that comments
made by the opposition are not accurate, as there are no homes near Tiburon Baptist
Church, the funeral of the husband of the former mayor was occurring at the same time as
the 700 guest event which added to the parking demand. Mr. Rich also noted that
synagogue has had no congregational growth in the last seven or eight years. Mr. Rich
reminded the Commission that Bar Mitzvahs are for 13 year olds and not adult parties.
Finally, Mr. Rich noted that the proposed building will be noise-secure and that during
evening and later events the windows will be closed as those events are held in the
winter. .
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of May ] 0,2006
4
Enid Rubin, lives two blocks from Kol Shofar and a member ofKol Shofar, noted that
there is not unanimous opposition to the temple in the neighborhood. Ms. Rubin noted
that she lives above Bel Air School, which has just expanded and there were no
community hearings or opportunity to give input. Finally, Ms. Rubin noted that Bel Aire
School has loud speakers that produce noise outside of the building and that there is lots
of traffic and night time events at Bel Aire School and no one complains about it.
Virginia Brunini, lives between Bel Aire School and Kol Shofar, noted that she doesn't
object to Kol Shofar, it's the size of the expansion and nmnber of cars proposed, not the
purpose of the expansion that is her concern. Ms. Bernini stated that she is also the past
President of the Neighborhood Homeowners Association. She noted that project would
overwhelm Bel Aire and asked the Commission to entertain a project that will contain the
parking within the project or provide shuttle to available parking.
Larry Duke, former Planning Commissioner, former Town Council member and former
mayor, submitted written comments and made points that in 1984 when he was Mayor he
clearly told Kol Shofar that the site was not appropriate for expansion. Mr. Duke also
noted that the Town worked hard with Kol Shofar fifteen years ago and that neighbors
were promised that they would be protected from any expansion.
Lee Kranefuss, lives immediately next to Kol Shofar, stated that his family bought the
home due to the walking distance of Kol Shofar but left Kol Shofar because of the
friction in the neighborhood. Mr. Kranefuss noted that chanting and s-inging is a positive
addition to the neighborhood, but the traffic and sounds of traffic are significant issues He
stated that the discipline shown in parking for last weekend's event is rare. Mr. Kranefuss
noted that he has offered to work with Kol Shofar on those issues. Finally, Mr. Kranefuss
questioned Alternative 7' s effectiveness and encouraged the Commission to think of the
area as a residential neighborhood.
Samantha Winter, lives across the street from Kol Shofar, stated that she is concerned
about the size of the Multi-purpose Room, suggested High Holy Days remain split or held
at an alternate location. Ms. Winter also suggested remodeling the existing square
footage and said that the tent was an eyesore. MS.Winter also feels like parking is an
issue as there are Kol Shofar members who park in front of her house. Ms. Winter also
stated that there is already a preschool with 100 children rented by Ring Mountain and
suggested that Ring Mountain find a new facility. Finally, Ms. Winter noted that events
after 9:00 PM are way too late in a residential area.
Susan Goldwasser, member ofKol Shofar, has three children lives in the neighborhood
and feels Alternative 7 represents an unnecessary expansion. Ms. Goldwasser noted that
events can be held off site or a portable tent could be set up. Ms. Goldwasser also noted
that parties are not religious events and can happen at alternative locations. She stated
that the neighborhood has been accommodating and doesn't need new traffic and noise
impacts. Finally Ms. Goldwasser noted that eighty percent of Kol Shofar congregants live
outside of Tiburon.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of May 10,2006
5
The public hearing was closed at 9:00 pm.
Commissioner Collins noted that existing facility has 10,000 feet of mechanical rooms,
and questioned if 10,000 feet was necessary. Mr. Brown noted that 6,000 feet of space is
in the attic above the ceiling and is only accessible by crawling.
Commissioner Collins also asked about Samantha Winter's comment regarding the new
preschool and Mr. Brown noted that the addition was in the original application and the
additional fifty students would be a Kol Shofar sponsored school in collaboration with
Ring Mountain who has the expertise to run the preschool.
Commissioner O'Donnell asked about amplified music that might result from evening
activities and Mr. Brown noted that they have been assured by architects that it is possible
to keep noise inside the building.
Commissioner O'Donnell asked ifKol Shofar has made the best effort to optimize
parking onsite and Mr. Brown noted that they are willing to do more to help mitigate
parking problems. Diane Zack noted that other measures that can be undertaken to
improvethe shuttle service and educating the congregation.
Commissioner O'Donnell asked ifKol Shofar was on its best behavior at the Saturday
700 guest event, or if the effort was in good faith and Mr. Brown noted that the large
event was the fIrst time the traffic mitigation had been put into effect.
Commissioner O'Donnell asked about goals and true plans for Kol Shofar growth five
and ten years down the road to which Mr. Brown replied the presented plans were not
building for growth.
Diane Zack noted that there is no five year plan and that the congregation is not planning
for growth.
Commissioner O'Donnell asked if the Conditional Use Permit being requested tonight
will be satisfactory in five years or will Kol Shofar come back and ask for an amendment,
to which Ms. Zack answered yes and that there is the possibility that the Conditional Use
Permit will evolve due to needs of neighborhood.
Commissioner Fraser asked if High Holy Days have been held at other locations and Mr.
Brown noted no as Kol Shofar is unable to find a location in Marin. Mr. Brown noted
that the only available place is the Veterans Auditorium which is used by R. Shalom. He
also noted that Kol Shofar has looked very carefully at other alternatives.
Commissioner Fraser asked about original Conditional Use Permit mentioned by former
Mayor Duke and Mr. Brown replied that there are no restrictions in the original
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of May 10,2006
6
Conditional Use Permit and that available documentation does not mention any
restrictions mentioned by Mr. Duke.
Commissioner Aguirre asked about the impact of traffic with the addition of a new
preschool and fifty new children, requested capacity of the Multi purpose room being that
there is no option to upon up the room to one large space and for clarification about
- events being held only seven months of the year.
Rabbi Derby explained the Jewish Law regarding the Sabbath. In response to
Commissioner Aguirre's inquiry as to why Kol Shofar hasn't found ways to hold events
according to Jewish Law prior, Rabbi Derby noted that for the last twelve to fourteen
years a task force has been assigned to locate space to no avail.
Chair Kunzweiler asked from CEQA standpoint what other alternatives were considered
and Tiffany Wright responded the availability of offsite alternatives was researched. Mr.
Brown also noted that a three year period was spent looking at alternatives.
Chair Kunzweiler asked about proposed site and size of the multi-purpose room and
lobby and Mr. Brown noted that the assembly space is 4500 square feet due to the High
Holiday and sit down dinner events and that the large lobby is a gathering point and will
be the lobby for the sanctuary as well.
Rabbi Derby noted that the driving need is to be able to seat 750 people theater style and
that the room enables the space to be divided into three parts.
Chair Kunzweiler asked about the four additional classrooms which is a net increase of
about 3600 square feet and Ms. Zack noted that the four classrooms will replace four to
be eliminated in the remodel that are currently under a balcony and have no windows or
natural light.
Chair Kunzweiler asked about plans for the annex building and Mr. Brown noted that the
existing building used as teen lounge, Ring Mountain, and a store room, and will continue
to be used for the same things.
Chair Kunzweiler asked about plan for project and where services will be held during
construction of the synagogue and Ms. Zack noted that sites have been identified for
rental during construction.
Chair Kunzweiler asked the size of tent erected last week, to which Ms. Zack noted 50' x
130'.
Commissioner Fraser asked if a facility could be built with some degree of flexibility
within the existing 43,000 square footage. Diane Zack replied no.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of May 10, 2006
7
Bob Herman, architect, noted that even if reconfigured into the existing shell, the number
of people and parking issues would be the same.
Chair Kunzweiler asked Tiffany Wright is she agreed that Table 1 is complete and Ms.
Wright replied that Table I is the best representation. Chair Kunzweiler noted that the
Table needs to be correct.
Gary Ragghianti, attorney noted that Table 1 is a comprehensive list of what is being
proposed and that he does not believe that what the congregation chooses to do in the
practice of it's religion is the subject of the Conditional Use Permit
Commissioner Collins asked Rabbi Derby about finding a place in Marin County that
would accommodate the needs of Kol Shofar and replied that they have looked but would
prefer to pray in their own synagogue.
Commissioner O'Donnell asked Mr. Volker about the six different neighborhood
organizations he represents and that comprise the Coalition and Mr. Volker responded
that the coalition is a group of thirty neighbors and that under the First Amendment
membership lists can't be questioned.
Commissioner O'Donnell asked Mr. Volker who is paying his bill and Mr. Volker noted
that the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition is paying his bill.
Tim Metz noted that all neighbors in the Coalition have sent in letters of opposition.
Kurt Kaull noted that the Coalition is comprised of a group of interested citizens pulling
to gether.
Commissioner O'Donnell asked who created the website and Edward Baker noted that he
created the website.
Commissioner O'Donnell asked Mr. Baker ifhe put the American Flag on the website
and Mr. Baker responded he did.
Commissioner O'Donnell asked ifhe put references about not being able to hear the
birds, children not being able to sell lemonade and the quote that also mentions that
"Town of Tiburon realtors have said that property values may go down" and Mr. Baker
responded yes.
David Holden noted that the group came together after the project was delivered to the
Town, decided to form a group, picked a name, opened bank account and that is how
group was developed. Mr. Holden noted that the group is comprised of thirty
homeowners and collected 175 signatures on the petition submitted on April 24, 2006.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of May 10,2006
8
Commissioner O'Donnell asked Mr. Volker about the acceptability of a tent. Mr. Volker
noted that photographs were taken of the tent to show a dramatic impact and to strongly
encourage the Town to consider the alternative of the tent as there wouldn't be large
events every day of the year.
Commissioner O'Donnell asked if Mr. Carmen the sound engineer visited the affected
homes in preparing his analysis and Mr. Volker noted that it is the Town's function to
perform the analysis of the affected homes; Mr. Carmen prepared a peer review of this
analysis.
Mr. Holden noted that both the Draft and Final EIR used peer review, as well as Kol
Shofar.
Leonard Charles noted that EIR noise measurements were done on the site.
Commissioner Fraser noted that local residents welcome the synagogue; welcome the
environment created and asked the Coalition for an ideal recommendation.
Brad Tardy, architect responded that project doesn't make sense and noted that he could
design a facility that could meet their needs within the existing footprint.
Kurt Kaull noted project has whittled down over time, but expressed concern about the
hours of usage and the multi-purpose room.
Mr. Volker stated that the utmost concern of the Coalition is that the Town stopped short
of examining locations beyond it's boundaries for alternate sites. Mr. Volker also noted
that if there are better locations in other communities that will not create such intense
conflict they should be examined. Mr. Volker finally noted that it is essential to look at
all alternative locations and suggested the possibility of splitting the annual events into
two or three different venues.
Chair Kunzweiler asked about the noise analysis methodology.
Lee Kranefuss responded that there have been a number of studies, by different
consultants regarding the range of impact and the weighting of noise. Mr. Kranefuss
eXplained about ambient nighttime noise levels and noted that in regards to the weighing
of noise the problem would only become worse.
Commissioner O'Donnell asked the Coalition if they were willing to grant allowances for
parking, noise and traffic on High Holy Days and the response was yes.
Commissioner Aguirre asked Mr. Charles to comment on the noise measurement, Ldn.
Mr. Charles responded that the Ldn is the standard way noise is measured in Tiburon and
found that noise increases in the in the parking lot would be a significant.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of May 10,2006
9
Commissioner Aguirre asked about addressing the neighborhood concerns that building
the facility and subjecting it to the certain requirements under the Conditional Use Permit
will not be sufficient over time to guard against increased uses in that facility, to which
Ms. Newman responded that the facilities haven't changed but the congregation has
grown over time. She noted that the use permit has been examined periodically and the
conditions of approval have evolved over time. Finally, Ms. Newman noted that Staffhas
tried to present something that could work and have reviewed the conditions that have
been in place, augmented those and put together a comprehensive set of conditions that
address the impacts, as well as building in a monitoring program. Ms. Newman finally
noted that an annual review is required and provides the Town the opportunity to measure
the success of conditions of approval.
Community Development Director Anderson noted that it has been the Town's
experience that other project's proposed uses and buildings that were perceived to cause
terrible impacts never materialized, but the monitoring and annual reviews are critical.
Mr. Anderson also noted that it has been the Town's approach.to deal with use intensity
versus the size of building.
Commissioner Aguirre asked about enforcing the Conditional Use Permit and Mr.
Anderson noted that a detailed monitoring program would require detailed information to
be submitted.
Commissioner Aguirre asked if the Conditional Use Permit were to be approved and
there are more events and traffic impacts are more significant than anticipated what is the
help for neighbors and Mr. Anderson noted that the Conditional Use Permit could be
reviewed and modified at any time.
Commissioner Aguirre asked for the threshold for calling for the review and Mr.
Anderson noted that the Town typically doesn't have those types of situations.
Commissioner Collins stated that this project is about two homes - the religious home for
Kol Shofar and the homes for those people who live in the neighborhood. He felt that the
project is too ambitious for the neighborhood. He said that the project would be
inconsistent with the zoning ordinance and the general plan and that he cannot make the
findings needed to approve the project as submitted. Commissioner Collins noted that he
has no difficulty with High Holy Days; however traffic safety, nighttime events on
Fridays and Saturdays and noise are main problems and are not in character with the
neighborhood. He said that the problems with cars turning around in the street and the
stacking at the turn lane on Tiburon Boulevard are important. He noted that the project
would increase the size of the Kol Shofar buildings by 300/0. Commissioner Collins noted
that he would be able to support the remodeling aspects of the project, the new
classrooms, and the modifications to the parking lot, but not the multi-purpose room.
Commissioner O'Donnell thanked all involved with the proposed project but noted that
he disagreed with Commissioner Collins. Commissioner O'Donnell characterized the
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of May 10,2006
10
lengthening of the left turn lane at Tiburon Boulevard and Blackfield Drive as foolish
when technology exists to accommodate the additional traffic with changes to the timing
of the signals. He stated that the notion that all Kol Shofar members would arrive at
events at the same time was ridiculous. Commissioner O'Donnell noted that the building
will be made noise secure and did not think that noise from religious activities would be
overly loud as people approach religious activities with respect. He noted that the
application for a gym at St. Hilary raised concerns about noise, but now that facility is a
great example of how a religious facility can fit in with the neighborhood. Commissioner
O'Donnell noted that with the exception of High Holy Days all the cars would fit in the
parking lot and there would only be a small overage on Saturday and Sunday services.
He acknowledged that there might be a traffic mess on Saturday s and Sundays, but he
said that even the neighbors recognize that that is an exception. Commissioner
O'Donnell stated that neighborhoods must learn to accept that these events are part of the
community. He stated that parking is always a problem in Bel Aire because people do
not park in their garages. He stated that the project would not change that situation
dramatically, and that the only times parking will be an issue there will be mitigation
measures to deal with it. He felt that the revised circulation plan is a great improvement.
He noted that the event on the previous weekend was a good example for the multi-
purpose room, as he felt that the tent was not an eyesore at all. He supported the
preschool expansion and felt that recirculation of the EIR was not necessary, as the
Commission has enough information to make its decision. Commissioner O'Donnell
also noted that requiring additional alternatives was unfair when the applicant has a site
that meets their needs. He stated that the use permit would allow for a small expansion of
activities, but would contain them. Finally, Commissioner O'Donnell noted that he
thinks religious institutions are as important as schools and downtown in maintaining a
viable, active and successful community.
Commissioner Fraser noted that he agrees with Commissioner Collins and that the
proposal is an ambitious project. He stated that 43,000 square feet is a substantial
facility, and that looking at the buildings as a clean sheet of paper should allow Kol
Shofar to come up with a better solution. Commissioner Fraser noted that he recognizes
the needs of the synagogue and community, but that the goal is to strike a proper balance.
As presented, he felt that the project conflicts with the general plan policies. He felt that
the issues are solvable, but need to be looked at differently. He found it telling that Kol .
Shofar could not find a facility in the entire county that can support their High Holy Days
services; he felt that if there is no such facility now, then maybe such a facility should not
be built at this location. Commissioner Fraser noted that he believes the EIR has
sufficient information to be certified, but that he is not in favor of the traffic mitigation
plan to put up signs that would push parking elsewhere. Commissioner Fraser also noted
that he doesn't think detailed and complicated monitoring programs are a wise approach
because impacts should be solved onsite. He encouraged Kol Shofar to go back to
drawing board to come up with a plan that balances the needs of the synagogue and the
community.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of May 10, 2006
I ]
Commissioner Aguirre stated that he respects the needs of Kol Shofar and tries to put
himself in the shoes of the neighbors and their need to preserve the character of the
neighborhood. He stated that not much from the St. Hillary project is relevant to the Kol
Shofar proposal, as the nature of a gym and its impacts on the neighbors is not
comparable. He agreed that there is no need to recirculate the EIR, stating that it is
absurd to think that providing an alternative that mitigates impacts requires additional
review. Commissioner Aguirre also noted that the two main goals of the project were to
host large evening celebrations and have space for High Holy Days. He said that the
initial request for 30 to 40 additional events clearly indicates that these events are part of
the purpose for the expansion. Commissioner Aguirre stated that these events are
fundamentally incompatible with the character of the neighborhood and contrary to the
general plan policy of for harmony with the neighborhood. Commissioner Aguirre stated
that he cannot support the project.
Chair Kunzweiler noted that he went back to the 1984 resolution for Kol Shofar. He
added that things change over time, and although he had no question about the sincerity
of Kol Shofar to live up to their conditions of approval, he was concerned that a large
facility is requested that will morph into something else over time. He was concerned
with a creep of increased usage, noting that use permits often change for very good
reasons. Chair Kunzweiler noted that there has never been a question that Kol Shofar
does not belong, but he felt that the project as proposed is out of character with the
neighborhood. He said that noise outside of buildings on weekend nights is an issue. He
said that if parking spreads into the surrounding neighborhood it will be a problem. Chair
Kunzweiler also noted that he supports the school expansion, and felt that the EIR did not
need to be recirculated. He felt nervous about projects with long lists of mitigation
measures. Chair Kunzweiler noted that the size of the multi-purpose room is the issue,
and that he would like to see the size adjusted, within reason.
Chair Kunzweiler proposed scheduling a May 31 or June 14 meeting to discuss the
findings of an ad hoc subcommittee of the Planning Commission who will come up with
a plan that the Commission as a whole could support. Chair Kunzweiler suggested that
the ad hoc subcommittee be comprised of himself and Commissioner Collins.
Commissioner Aguirre stated that a plan that might be acceptable to the Planning
Commission might not be acceptable to Kol Shofar.
Commissioner Collins asked whether Kol Shofar preferred a continuance or a yes or no
vote on Alternative 7.
Gary Ragghianti stated that Kol Shofar is interested in returning on May 31, and asked
that the resolutions be prepared for that date and that there be no more public hearing or
debate. Mr. Ragghianti also asked that Commissioner O'Donnell be part of the ad hoc
subcommittee.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of May ] 0,2006
]2
Mr. Volker noted that it is contrary to the law to prevent the public from commenting and
that it is appropriate that Chair Kunzweiler proceed with the ad hoc subcommittee that
has been appointed.
Chair Kunzweiler agreed that Commissioner O'Donnell would serve on the ad hoc
subcommittee in place of Commissioner Collins.
MiS, Commissioner Collins/Commissioner Fraser (passed 5-0) to continue the
hearing to a special meeting on May 31, 2006.
MINUTES
3. Special Meeting of April 24, 2006
4. Regular meeting of April 26, 2006
Due to the lateness of the hour, the Commission carried these items over to its next
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11 :45 p.m.
JOHN KUNZWEILER, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of May 10,2006
13
John and Karen Nygren
22 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburon, CA 94920
Tiburon Planning Commission and Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
~ ~M~ ~'~2:6~ ~
May 20, 2006
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Re: Additional comments Regarding Kol Shofar's Final EIR and Conditional Use Permit
Application
Dear Tiburon Planning Commissioners and Council Members,
Several new issues have been raised in the recent public meetings regarding Kol
Shofar's Conditional Use Permit Application that have not been studied, responded to or
mitigated in the DEIR or FEIR. The Planning Commission should be aware of these
prior to passing this application on to the Town Council. In order for the public and
decision makers to fully understand the impacts of this project, answers to these issues
and understanding their impacts must be addressed and mitigated.
1. Kol Shofar has just publicly stated that the High Holy Day services will not take
place in one large space, but instead two separate spaces. This is contrary to
what the Congregation has previously stated in the scoping for the DEIR and
DEIR parameters. They have said they "need" one large space to hold their
service at one time. This new revelation offers many new alternatives to address
the Congregations "needs" for accommodating their High Holy Day services.
This has not been discussed or studied in the DEIR/FEIR. This is a major new
issue that can significantly impact the proposed new Congregation Kol Shofar
Conditional Use Permit Application.
2. Congregation Kol Shofar has recently stated, during the public hearings, they
plan to have their own preschool in addition to the existing Ring Mountain Day
School. Will the school/schools have adequate playground space to meet state
requirements? Under California Preschool licensing requirement, for a 150 child
preschool, the school must have 11,250 square feet of outdoor play area space.
Does the existing use for 100 students as well as the proposed use for 150
students, along with the addition of the new multipurpose room, classroom
space, hardscape, courtyard. space, parking lots and etc. of the proposed new
Conditional Use Permit provide adequate space for this amount of outdoor play
area required by the state? Will the requested 50 new students be in addition to
the existing 100 students at Ring Mountain Day School so that Ring Mountain will
have 150 students? Will Kol Shofar preschool be for only 50 students and Ring
Mountain remain at 100 students? Does Kol Shofar plan to eventually replace the
Ring Mountain Day School with their own day school and thus have a Kol Shofar
School with a student population of 150? There is no discussion regarding this in
the DEIR/FEIR.
3. What are the new pick up, drop off and circulation plans for the day schools?
The existing rear parking lot and access to this lot on Via Los Altos will no longer
be available for the school's use under the proposed new Conditional Use Permit
due to the documented current unsafe traffic and circulation pattern for the
school. The new Conditional Use Permit has stated the closure of this rear lot for
school use as part of its mitigation measures. The schools will be required to u:: '0" 4"
- .L ,2., _)_ j " "';) . ,}, . -;-~~
the same entrance on Via Los Altos and exit on Reedland Woods Way as the .
other activities and events of Congregation Kol Shofar. How long will it be before
the school requests to use Reedland Woods Way for its entrance and' exit
instead of using Via Los Altos as its entrance? The impacts of the day school's
traffic, noise, parking and safety issues, in addition to the other activities and
impact of the Congregation, have not been cumulatively studied in the
DEIR/FEIR. What are these cumulative impacts and how should they be
mitigated?
4. On May 6, 2006, members of Congregation Kol Shofar held a large event where
they erected a huge tent to accommodate a Bar Mitzvah/Bat Mitzvah celebration.
The Congregation did not receive a permit from the town for this huge event,
since it is not regulated by the existing Conditional Use Permit. The
Congregation did use a shuttle service to accommodate off site parking for
guests who were unable to park in Kol Shofar's parking lot. The off site parking
lots were located at the Westminster Presbyterian Church along with the Tiburon
Baptist Church. Both of these churches are located on Greenwood Beach Road,
off of Tiburon Blvd. The neighbors along Greenwood Beach Road were
negatively impacted by an overflow of parking from these parking lots with people
as well parking on their local street. There were many cars driving up and down
Greenwood Beach Road looking for additional street parking so people could
take the shuttle to Kol Shofar. There were a large number of cars entering and
exiting onto Tiburon Blvd. from Greenwood Beach Rd.
Greenwood Beach Road is a narrow, residential street. The Marin Audubon
Society already has guests who frequently use Greenwood Beach Road to
access their site. On a regular basis, bicyclists and walkers use Greenwood
Beach Road to get to the Tiburon bike. path. Greenwood Beach also is used as
over flow parking from Blackies Pasture, particularly on weekends. If Greenwood
Beach churches are to be the designated location for over flow parking for the
shuttle service for Congregation Kol Shofar for large events, what are the
additional impacts on Greenwood Beach Road and its residents? Is it a safe
alternative or mitigation to move the parking and traffic impacts from the
neighborhood around Congregation Kol Shofar to another already impacted
Tiburon neighborhood? This has not been studied and appropriate mitigations
suggested in the DEIR. How will this additional traffic affect the intersection of
Tiburon Blvd and Blackfield Dr/Greenwood Beach Rd? The DEIR has already
identified this intersection as significantly impacted and required an extension of
the Tiburon Blvd. left turn lane. These additional traffic and safety issues must be
addressed to fully understand the impacts of the off site shuttle service
suggested as a mitigation measure in the DEIR. This ha~ not been included in
the DEIR/FEIR.
Thank you for allowing us to add these new concerns that the Congregation has recently
revealed that have not been studied or mitigated in the DEIR. .
Yours truly,
John Nygren
Karen Nygren
Page 1 of 1
Scott Anderson
From: Wilma Schneider
Sent: Sunday, May 21,2006 5:14 PM
To: Scott Anderson
Subject: re: Kol Shofar
To the members of the planning commission,
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
My husband and I have lived in Bel Aire since 1972. We have enjoyed and are still delighting in its quiet
neighborhood with families young and old. We witnessed the demise of the Middle School. Our children still
played soccer on the field for several years and then Kol Shofar came into our neighborhood. We were happy to
have a synagogue and day school move in to the space. A synagogue seemed like a church - services, classes,
lectures, lunches, an occasional concert etc. We never dreamed of a proposal to include receptions after
services lasting well into the late evening disturbing neighbors, parking problems and more to come. The
neighbors deserve better than a shrug of the shoulder or minimizing the effects on their lives - never mind their
outdoor lives on the weekend. Weal! agree that we want to live together in peace and harmony. How about
curtailing the late hours to 10 o'clock (lights out) and a guaranteed shuttle service to eliminate parking problems.
Bel Aire needs peace and harmony too.
Sincerely,
Werner and Wilma Schneider
EXHIBITNO..~~
5/22/2006
Tiburon Planning Commission and Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tibu ron, CA 94920
May 22, 2006
I6l [E CC [E ~ ~ [E fRI
If"U2 2 2000 ~
To the Planning Commission and Town Council:
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
We continue to be disappointed by the stream of misinformation that members of
the TNC are sending to the PC. The May 20 letter from John and Karen Nygren
is but one example of thoughtless communication intended to create the
impression that our application is somehow unclear. It isn't for those who take
the time to actually look at it and who are capable of reading and understanding
planning documents.
1. Kol Shofar has never claimed that the synagogue needed one space for the
high holidays, merely enough space to have services for the entire congregation
at one time. Even a casual examination of the documents that have been
presented, or a short visit to the current facility would make it clear that opening a
single space to include the sanctuary and Multi Purpose Room is physically
impossible.
2. The application has, from its inception, included a request for an increase from
100 to 150 children in pre-school at Kol Shofar. Page 13 of the Draft EIR clearly
explains that Kol Shofar is requesting an increase from 100 to 150 students, and
those additional 50 students may attend either Ring Mountain or Kol Shofar. It is
absurd to suggest that the Environmental Impact of 150 children is potentially
different if those children are all in the Ring Mountain School as opposed to being
split between the Ring Mountain School and a Kol Shofar pre-school. As far as
the iss.ue of adequate space for these children to be housed in a licensed school
under California law, this is an issue to be dealt with between Ring Mountain, Kol
Shofar, and the licensing authorities. Should there be insurmountable problems,
the only effect would be to prevent the increase, leaving the current 100 children
in place.
3. Likewise, the circulation plan has been extensively studied within the context
of the EIR. The only change in circulation that has been proposed was the return
of the Reedland Woods Way driveway to its current, one-way, configuration.
This was a change made in response to past complaints by the Tiburon
Neighborhood Coalition, and their attempts to make this change into a large
issue are absurd. Kol Shofar would be happy to change the configuration back
to the 2 way configuration studied by the EIR and found to have no impact,
should the Coalition wish.
EXHIBIT NO. ltc-
4. The Town of Tiburon was adequately notified of our intention to .erect a tent on
the day in question, and the required inspection by the Fire Department was
carried out. The parking program put in place by the Planning Commission
under the existing CUP was carried out, including the l;jse of off-site parking and
shuttling. If there is further concern about the parking mitigation program for
large events, the appropriate time to consider that would be within the context of
scheduled reviews of the Kol Shofar CUP.
We will continue to point out the fallacies in the misinformation received by the
town from the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition.
Sincerely yours,
Ronald D. Brown
Immediate Past President
Congregation Kol Shofar
r;::------ ---- --- - ...-
~ ~ (~~~i:s III
MARGARET KIRBY
2~O Blackfield Dr.
Tiburon, Ca 94920
May 22, 2006
T own of Tiburon Planning Commission
And Town Council
150S Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Kol Shofar Expansion
In reviewing Alternative 7 again, I would like to know how the Town plans to monitor the
distribution of events. If a condition of building the project is to have so many events on
such days, with such and such number of attendees, how will this be tracked? We have a
list: 7 events of 250, and 9 of 200 and 8 on50, and 3 Of 100, some on Saturday until
12:00P.M. including clean-up, and some on Sunday until 10:00 P.M. including clean up,
how is this going to be monitored? How will the town know which is which? And what if an
event is slated and planned as a 200 event and 175 people show?
This has not been discussed, and leaves the town without a clear idea of the project.
In the public comments made at the last meeting, it was pointed out that these events would
be occurring during the 7 months around winter. Is this a fact? This is not included in any
document anywhere. This would be far more intense use than was previously alluded to.
This would amount to late night activity every Saturday, and every Sunday during the dark
winter months, which is precisely when the children have the most important part of their
school year, and most need their rest. Aside from the late hour, made more so by the
darkness of winter, the traffic hazards for parking and turnarounds are intensified by winter
rains.
This also needs to be clarified, because such intense use is not fair or safe in a family
environment.
Our neighborhood has been very tolerant and understanding of the congregations' activities
as evidenced by the lack of complaints. We are currently living at our limit, and this
proposed expansion will push the level of noise, light, and unsafe conditions to an
unreasonable level.
There are may ways to have single High Holy Day services. While we recognize the
congregation's new needs, These needs should be met while protecting the town-like
quality of life we reasonably expect in Tiburon.
Sincerely,
EXHIBIT NO. ltJ
Christianna Seidel
30 Reedland Woods Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
\
Tiburon Planning Commission and Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
~ ~~~~w[fi ~
2 2 2006
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
May 22, 2006
Re: Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit Application
Dear Tiburon Planning Commissioners and Council Members,
The proposal for the expansion of Kol Shofar is too ambitious for our neighborhood. The
two primary reasons, as stated by Kol Shofar and their Rabbi, for the addition are simple:
1) that the whole congregation needs to worship together on the High Holy Days, 2) that
they have Kiddush luncheons after the Saturday service for approximately 100 to 150
people. Where it gets complicated is what to do with the multi-purpose room the rest of
the year. That is where the conflict arises with the neighbors.
Is a multi-purpose room necessarily the best solution for these two "necessary" activities?
The neighbors strongly urge Kol Shofar to explore alternative ways- to meet these two
primary objectives. The neighbors have presented the idea of erecting a tent on the High
Holy Days as one alternative. The neighbors are not opposed to one service on High
Holy Days and the associated inconveniences that arise from the occasion if the rest of
, the year Kol Shofar maintains a level of use that is compatible with the rest of the
neighborhood. In addition, it come to light that Kol Shofar is forced to have two
concurrent ceremonies in the new facility due to the proposed architectural configuration.
The tent, the proposed multi-purpose room would house the other half of the service.
The tent solution works; it allows the congregation to expand for the special event
without setting up a dynamic of tension and conflict of land use throughout the year. It is
a win-win solution.
As for the Kiddus,h luncheons, the building could be reorganized to create a larger social
hall and kitchen to address the temple's needs. As pointed out by Brad Tardy in a recent
T own meeting, Kol Shofar's current 43,000 square foot facility has a capacity for over
1700 people. In addition, the annex at Kol Shofar has a significant square footage that
been repeatedly glossed over. Kol Shofar is proposing more space without looking at the
possibility of utilizing or renovating their existing facilities to meet their needs. The
renovation of the annex could potentially serve as a resource for additional classrooms or
a social hall.
'F.VHffiT'T' NO. ~ e.
i.., , .~. .h~. "'_ "_ "'a ,..~ - . ,_ .... .~'.. _". ,_. ....;..........,., . ;...,.....""""....,.
Kol Shofar's "dream" is to have a Jewish preschool along side the existing preschool thus
they are proposing a 3700 s.f. addition for 4 classrooms. At the Planning Commission
meeting, several commissioners voiced the opinion that there is a need for more
preschools; hence they viewed the addition of the Jewish preschool as a positive addition
to the community. But if Ring Mountain Preschool moves out during the
construction/remodel of Kol. Shofar, would they move back to Kol Shofar after a year or
two of renovation? No, they will want to permanently relocate and avoid the disruption
of two moves in a short period of time. That would leave the existing school space
vacant. Kol Shofar would end up with a school for 150 students, which is too large for
anyone preschool. With the addition of a large multi-purpose room and multiple
classrooms, the space could be far more than just a preschool and hence, far more
valuable economically. While the economics would be greatly rewarding for Kol Shofar
should this come to pass, the neighborhood would have more traffic, a greater level of
activity and' noise plus additional nighttime events. I urge the Town to limit the use of
the school to preschool use only. And secondly, does Kol Shofar really need to expand
the number of classrooms in the facility? Can they use part of the existing classroom
space for their preschool and reduce the size of a new incoming preschool (presumably
not Ring Mountain). I
Is the ratio of classroom space to playground space met in the proposed plan per the state
licensing board for preschools? Under California preschool-licensing requirements, a
150 children preschool must have 11,250 square feet of outdoor play space. The existing
playground has been consumed with proposed buildings. While the proposed plans do
not indicate the playground area, I believe Kol Shofar has indicated that it would be
located behind the annex. The grading plan shows a steep slope in the area behind the
annex. In addition, the eucalyptus grove is a home to scorpions. Many of the neighbors
surrounding the grove periodically find scorpions in their garages and homes. In the
woods, behind the annex: is this the best place to locate the one and only playground for
150 kids? Little focus or inquiry has been placed on the school expansion. I believe it
merits closer scrutiny prior to the approval.
Turnarounds in a residential neighborhood were identified in the EIR as a significant
impact resulting from the lack of parking on-site. Currently there are a number of
turnarounds on Saturday mornings with many ofKol Shofar's attendees parking on Via
Los Altos and Blackfield Drive. The current issue of parking and turnarounds, as well as
in the future, needs to be addressed in the planning phase. Westminster Presbyterian has
valet parking for all their Sunday services in an effort to keep their parking on-site. Kol
Shofar should be held to a similar standard, i.e. valet parking for their weekly services. If
the anticipated number of attendees is expected to exceed the number of cars that can be
parked on-site, the shuttle program should be activated.
The shuttle program would have to identify a parking area that met their capacity
requirements so that other neighborhoods in Tiburon would not be inconvenienced by the
overflow parking. Greenwood Beach Road was not happy about their neighborhood
being over-run by cars several weeks ago on a Saturday when Kol Shofar used the
Baptist Church's parking lot and street frontage for their shuttle service while other
events were already planned in that neighborhood that required parking. A suitable
venue for overflow parking needs to be established prior to approval.
Finally, the notice I received from the Town of Tiburon for the May 31 meeting
regarding Kol Shofar says," The applicant's stated intention for the proposed expansion
is 'to in1prove the site facilities to accommodate existing.. .religious and school programs
which allow for flexibility and opportunity to grow without substantial inconvenience to
the surrounding residential neighbors." The neighbors have repeatedly asked for studies
that would assess incremental growth and their associated impacts. Kol Shofar has
replied that the number of conservative Jews is on the wane, despite the near tripling of
their congregation in the last 20 years. This quote from the applicant clearly states their
intention to grow. The Planning Commission, Town Council, the surrounding
neighborhoods and Kol Shofar have no way to gauge the impacts of future growth on the
neighborhood at this time since there are no studies. All parties know the existing and
proposed facility has a significantly greater capacity than put forth in the EIR. The
numbers used in the EIR studies to document existing conditions do not show the existing
facility used at its maximum, nor do the projected numbers for the addition represent the
impacts of the building used to its fullest intent. Until we have incremental growth
studies, no one can assess Kol Shofar's intent to "grow without substantial inconvenience
to the neighbors". The neighbors remain firm in their position that to expand the 43,000
square foot facility by 30% without looking at future growth impacts associated with the
increase in building size on our neighborhood is short-sighted and irresponsible.
Sincerely,
Christianna Seidel
LATE Mh;~ ::-L
GREENWOOD BEACH HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION
400 GREENWOOD BEACH ROAD
TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920
PHONE; (415) 383-1386
FAX: (415) 383-5539
~ ~~~3~:6~~
MAY 22,2006
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION AND TOWN COUNCIL
TIBURON TOWN HALL
1505 TIBURON BLVD
TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920
RE; KOL SHOFAR'S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
HONORABLE GENTLEPERSONS:
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Our recent experience on May 6, in which Kol Shofar held a huge event
in which all guests could not be accommodated within the confines of their own
parking facilities, resulted in a very negative impact upon Greenwood Beach
Road and the entire surrounding areas of west Tiburon. In order to
accommodate their large parking problem, they apparently arranged for the
overflow of their guests to park in the lots of the Westminster Presbyterian
Church and Tiburon Baptist Church and along Greenwood Beach Road and used
shuttles to bus visitors to the Kol Shofar community center.
Unfortunately, this popular event coincided with a highly publicized public
event being held at Lyford House of the National Audubon Society on
Greenwood Beach Road at the same time, in addition to many people who park
their cars daily at the end of the cul-de-sac to use Blackie's Pasture,
These events, superimposed upon Greenwood Beach Road which is a
popular multi-use path for bicyclers, walkers, and joggers used daily by the
hundreds, if not thousands, of tourists from around the world, resulted in a
congested, chaotic, even hazardous conditions along the road. Non-resident
cars parked almost the entire length of this short street, blocked off driveways,
reduced visibility, and made it difficult for residents even to back their cars out of
their driveways safely without endangering themselves or others.
Another grave concern we have about Kol Shofar's present application is
should Tiburon Baptist Church and Westminster Presbyterian Church cancel
Kol's parking rights, where will they go? Will they be forced to park out on
Greenwood Beach Road?
Greenwood Beach Road is a narrow, charming, country road,without
sidewalks, ending in a cul-de-sac and its rural charm is greatly valued by all
residents who live here. But because of its limitations, we respectfully request
that, if approved, you limit the expansion of the Kol Shofar facility to the size of
the parking area that can accommodate the guests in attendance, rather than an
expansion that will negatively impact not only the Greenwood Beach Road and
Bel Aire areas but the entire western part of Tiburon.
Your consideration of our concerns will be greatly appreciated.
Respectfully yours,
FRM/s
FORREST R. MORPHEW,
President
Stephan C. Volker
Joshua A.H. Harris
Mamie E. Riddle
Law Offices of 10.356.01
STEPHAN C. VOLKER
436 14th Street, Suite 1300
Oakland, California 94612 /.
Tel: 510/4?6-0600 .:. FAX: 510/496-1366L A'TE MAI.L # .
e-maIl: svolker@volkerlaw.coml-\ ....
May 22, 2006
VIA e-mail, FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
sanderson@ci.tiburon.ca. us
Fax: (415) 435-2438
Scott Anderson
Community Development Director
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, California 94920
~ ~ ~ ~...~ ;~~l~1
PI.. /\~'!~, 11:-' .
Re: Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition's draft Resolution and Findings
Disapproving the Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit
Dear Mr. Anderson:
In accordance with a request that the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition received from
Planning Commission Chairman John Kunzweiler, we have prepared a draft proposed
Resolution and Supporting Findings denying the application of the Congregation Kol Shofar for
a Conditional Use Permit. We hope that this submission will prove helpful to you and your
staff.
Please call me if you have any questions.
cV~
Steph C. Vo er
Attorney for Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition
SCV:taf
cc: Dan Watrous (via e-mail and facsimile)
dwatrous@ci.tiburon.ca.us Fax: (415) 435-2438
Town of Tiburon Planning Commission (via e-mail and facsimile)
allPC@ci.tiburon.ca.us Fax: (415) 435-2438
Attachment: Draft Resolution Denying Application of Congregation Kol Shofar
for Conditional Use
/'
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
DENYING THE APPLICATION OF THE
CONGREGATION KOL SHOFAR
FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND ADOPTING FINDINGS SUPPORTING THE DENIAL
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 38-351-34
SECTION1-SUMMARYOFPROCEEDINGS
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2004, the Planning Commission held a Scoping
Session for preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") on the
Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit Project ("the Project"), in June 2005
the Town of Tiburon circulated the Draft EIR for public comment, and on August 24,
2005, the Planning Commission held a hearing on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2005, the Planning Commission recommended
preparation of the Final EIR and in February, 2006, the Town of Tiburon released a Final
EIR on the Project which included responses to comments and edits to the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, after publication of the Final EIR, the Applicant for the Project
proposed further modifications to the Project which have been labeled as Alternative 7,
and on April 24 and May 10, 2006, the Planning Commission held hearings on the
Project as modified by the Applicant and on the Draft and Final EIRs as amended; and
WHEREAS, following the close of the public hearing on May 10, after reviewing
the Draft and Final EIRs, the Conditional Use Permit Application, and the Project as
modified in Alternative 7, four of the five Planning Commissioners concluded and stated
they could not approve the Project because of its remaining significant environmental
impacts and conflicts with the Tiburon General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2006, in an attempt to develop 'further modifications to
the Proj ect to reduce its adverse impacts to insignificance and eliminate its conflicts with
the General Plan and the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission appointed a two-
member Subcommittee to discuss with the Applicant the development of a further
Alternative potentially involving a reduction in the size and impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, after conferring with the Applicant, on May 24, 2006, the
Subcommittee reported back to the Committee that its efforts to develop a further
Alternative that would reduce the Project's environmental impacts to insignificance and
eliminate its conflicts with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance were not
successful; and
- 1 -
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the
information in the Draft and Final EIRs, the written and oral testimony presented to the
Commission, and the entire record before the Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Project as modified in Alternative 7 still has significant
environmental impacts including impacts on neighborhood character, noise, traffic,
parking, light and public safety, and still conflicts with the General Plan and the Zoning
Code;
THEREFORE, the Planning Commission hereby denies the application of the
Congregation Kol Shofar for approval of its proposed Conditional Use Permit Project and
makes the following findings in support of its denial decision, based on the Draft ana
Final EIRs, the written and oral testimony to the Commission, and the evidence in the
entire record before the Commission.
SECTION 2 -DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
The Record of Proceeding ("Record") upon which the Planning Commission bases its
disapproval of the Project and its findings, actions and determinations regarding the
Project includes, but is not limited to:
1. 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.
2. All Staff reports, Town files and records and other documents, prepared
for and/or submitted to the Planning Commission and/or Town staff
relating to the Final EIR, addendums, and/or the proposed project.
3. All written and oral testimony presented to the Planning Commission on
the Proj ecL '
The location and custodian of the Record is the Town of Tiburon Community
Development Director, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California 94920.
SECTION 3 -PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Applicant has submitted a Conditional Use Permit Application for the expansion of
an existing religious facility and day school (Congregation Kol Shofar). The subject
property is a 6.94 acre site bearing Assessor's Parcel Number 38-351-34 located at 215
Blackfield Drive, and borders Blackfield Drive, Via Los Altos and Reedland Woods
Way. The site is surrounded by single-family residential neighborhoods.
,..,
The Land Use Designation of the Project site in the Town of Tiburon General Plan for
2020 (General Plan) is Medium Low Density Residential. The zoning for the site is RO-
1 (Single-Family Residential- Open).
The site contains 302,463 square feet of land area. The existing developed area is 57,353
square feet (including 43,751 gross square footage in existing buildings, as shown in
Figure 5, and discussed on page 132, of the Draft EIR). The Project would develop an
additional 46,334 square feet, including 13,395 gross square feet in new buildings, as
shown in Figure 5, and discussed on page 132, of the Draft EIR. The total of existing and
proposed development would equal 103,687 square feet, or 34 percent of the site.
SECTION 4 -SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN MITIGATED
TO A LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The Draft EIR, Final EIR, staff reports and the written and oral testimony before this
Commission have identified several significant environmental impacts which may result
from approval of the project. Although the modifications proposed in Alternative 7
change or lessen some of these impacts, significant environmental impacts remain
unmitigated to insignificance and, in several cases as discussed below, conflict with the
Town of Tiburon General Plan 2020 and Zoning Code.
The Planning Commission further adopts the findings contained herein.
1. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Significant Impact 1.1. The Project will add significqnt traffic to surrounding streets
and intersections.
Facts and Evidence
The Draft EIR states that the Project will add significant traffic to the signalized Tiburon
Boulevard/Blackfield Drive intersection and the unsignalized Via Los Altos/Blackfield
Drive and Reedland Woods Way/Blackfield Drive intersections. The additional traffic
would create a potentially significant impact on the Tiburon Boulevard/Blackfield Drive
intersection as currently operated because the 325-foot long eastbound left turn lane for
this intersection would not have adequate queuing to accommodate projected vehicle
queues during peak facility events. The Draft EIR proposed to mitigate this impact by
requiring the Project to fund the lengthening of the eastbound left turn lane at this
intersection by add,ing at least 150 feet of storage to the lane, subject to approval by the
California Department of Transportation (CaItrans). The Final EIR proposes an
additional option for mitigating this impact, by suggesting that the signal cycle at the
intersection be adjusted to allow sufficient time for left turns to clear the intersection on
weekend evenings, again subject to Caltrans approval.
- 3 -
Subsequent traffic analysis has questioned whether either of these mitigation measures
(left turn lane lengthening or signal sequence adjustment) would be necessary,
particularly in view of the Applicant's agreement to reduce the maximum attendance at
its weekend evening events to 250 people, and to reduce the number of such events.
However, Caltrans' review is still necessary to determine whether left-turn lane
lengthening or signal phasing adjustments might be required, and if they are, what
potentially significant impacts such changes might have on existing and projected future
traffic on Tiburon Boulevard and Blackfield Drive.
Finding
Based on the existing record, the Planning Commission hereby finds that this Project will
have a potentially significant impact on traffic at the Tiburon Boulevard/Blackfield Drive
intersection.
Rationale
All of the proposed mitigation measures require Caltrans review and approval. Because
Caltrans has not yet reviewed and approved any of the proposed mitigation measures, nor
alternatively determined that these mitigation measures are unnecessary, the Planning
Commission cannot rule out the possibility that the Project may have a significant impact
on traffic at the Tiburon Boulevard/Blackfield Drive intersection. The Project's
potential for significantly impacting the Tiburon BoulevardIBlackfield Drive intersection
poses potential for creating traffic congestion and unsafe traffic conditions which would
conflict with the 2020 General Plan Circulation Element, Circulation Goals C-B, C-C and
C-F, and Policies C-l and C-2, which are set forth below:
Circulation Goals
C-B: To provide safe and convenient movement of local residents and visitors
to their places of employment, shopping and recreation in the San
Francisco Bay Area.
C-C: To maintain all existing, as well as to design all ,future, residential streets
with consideration of a combination of residents' safety, cost of
maintenance, and protection of residential quality of life.
C-F: To minimize traffic congestion.
C-I: To provide adequate parking throughout the Planning Area.
Roadway System & Traffic Standards Policies
C-l: Land use decisions shall take into consideration potential traffic and
circulation impacts.
C-2: All new projects shall be required to pay a pro rata share of needed traffic
improvements in accordance with the burden created by such new
projects.
Impact 1.2. The Project will cause unsafe turn-arounds and parking congestion on
nearby streets.
Facts and Evidence
The Project is premised on the erroneous assumption that it need not provide adequate
on-site parking for foreseeable events. As the Draft EIR acknowledges, "[f]or events
where there is inadequate on-site parking or where on-site parking appears full, people
accessing the site will park on adjacent public streets . . .. However, this raises the
question of turnarounds in front of residences . . . ." DEIR, p. 67. "Increased numbers of
turnarounds in driveways or in front of homes and increased frequency of event-related
turnarounds on those residential streets is considered by the EIR traffic engineer to be a
potentially significant safety concern." DEIR, p. 67. The Planning Commission has
received substantial evidence from the public confirming that existing events and
activities at the existing Kol Shofar facility have resulted in unsafe turn-arounds by
guests driving vehicles to such events who seek additional parking sites off-site or to
avoid traffic congestion in the vicinity of the site. According to the Draft EIR, the Project
would increase the total development of the site by 34 percent, and the square footage of
building area by 31 percent. DEIR at Figure 5 and p. 132.
This substantial increase in the size of the facility is likely to result in much greater
usage, particularly for large-scale events drawing hundreds of attendees. As the number
of facility users increases, so will the number of cars delivering them, and the number of
consequential turn-arounds in local driveways. These tum-arounds pose significant
traffic hazards to vehicular and pedestrian safety, in conflict with the 2020 General Plan's
Circulation Element, Circulation Goals C-B, C-C, C-F and C-I, Land Use Element, Land
Use Goals LU-B, LU-D, LU-H and LU-I, and Policies LU-2 and LU-5, and Safety
Element, Goal SE-A, which are set forth below:
Land Use Goals
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.
- 5 -
LU-I: To encourage intensity of development, density, and house
sizes/architectural styles that are consistent and compatible with
surrounding neighborhoods.
Land Use Policies
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.
LU-5: New Development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and
open spaces.
Safety Goals
SE-A: To maintain a safe and healthy community
The Project would generate substantially more demand for parking than could be
accommodated on site. According to the DEIR, the Project would require 299 parking
spaces on site under the Zoning Code, but would provide only 139 spaces, less than 47
percent of the number required. DEIR, pp. 64-67. Consequently, "the Property would
not include sufficient spaces to meet [the parking] criteria." DEIR, p. 138. As a result,
the Project would force motorists looking for parking onto neighboring streets.
The mitigation measures initially proposed - allowing overflow parking on local streets,
prohibiting parking restrictions on some of these streets, imposing resident-only
restrictions on these streets, and potentially using shuttle buses, are either contrary to the
Zoning Code or ineffective. The Draft EIR assumes that at least 33 cars will park on
. neighboring streets. DEIR, p. 67. This conflicts with the Zoning Code, which requires
new development to provide required parking on-site or on a lot or parcel contiguous to
the proposed use, or on a separate, commercially-zoned parcel that is reasonably
convenient to the development. Zoning Code sections 5.08.01-.04 (discussed below).
Painting curbs red to prevent Project guests from using adjacent,streets unfairly penalizes
neighbors, because it prevents their guests from occasionally using these streets for
parking. The imposition of a resident-only restriction would likewise unfairly burden
residents by preventing their guests from parking on adjacent streets, and pose extreme
difficulties in enforcement (as many of the Project's large events would take place at
night, when resident-only signing would be difficult for guests to read, and would likely
generate additional tum':arounds by Project attendees attempting to comply with such a
restriction). A mitigation proposing the use of shuttles continues to be problematic, since
the Zoning Code restricts such off-site parking, and in any event no firm arrangements
have been made with any specific shuttle facilities and remote parking sites.
The additional mitigation measures that have been recently proposed to address the
Project's deficient on-site parking and are likewise of uncertain and unproven efficacy.
The first of these further mitigations, that "Kol Shofar shall place signs along its frontage
on Via Los Altos, Blackfield Drive and Reedland Woods Way stating that people
attending events at Kol Shofar need to park on-site and not on residential streets," may
cause turn-arounds by the attendees who had intended to park along these streets until
they observed these signs. Visitors arriving at night or in the rain may not see these
unexpected signs at alL Others may choose to disregard the signs, since there is no
proposed enforcement mechanism to dissuade them from doing so.
The second of these newly proposed mitigations, that "Kol Shofar shall require that all
invitations and notifications of these new weekend events include a note informing
people there to park on the site and not to park on residential streets," rests on three
unproven assumptions: (1) that all drivers will receive, remember and comply with this
request; (2) that there will be adequate room to accommodate them within the on-site
parking lots (a premise that would not be true where vehicular occupancy by guests is at
lower rates than the applicant projects, and during the High Holy Days and other events
that exceed on-site parking capacity); and (3) that attendees will not attempt to park
elsewhere if traffic backs up at the Via Los Altos ingress point. Because the demand for
parking depends on the vehicle occupancy rate, which necessarily varies from event to
event, the proposed on-site parking may prove insufficient.
The third recently proposed mitigation measure, the institution of a monitoring program
covering "up to four events the first year after project completion" to assess the efficacy
of the foregoing mitigation measures, would not itself prevent significant turn-around
impacts. Rather, it would document such impacts for the purpose of developing
additional mitigation measures. As such, this measure would not itself prevent adverse
traffic and parking impacts.
Even if these proposed mitigation measures were effective in curbing turn-arounds in the
immediate vicinity of the facility, motorists dissuaded from turning around by these
measures would likely penetrate even further into the surrounding neighborhood in
search of parking, resulting in additional, potentially significant impacts on traffic and
parking, and further dangerous tum-arounds.
Finding
Based on the Draft and Final ElRs, the written and oral testimony and the entire record,
the Planning Commission hereby finds that the Project's impacts on traffic tum-arounds
on neighboring streets will be significant. The mitigation measures proposed to date are
insufficient to assure that these potentially significant impacts will be mitigated to
insignificant levels.
Rationale
The Project proposes a substantial, 31-34 percent increase in the size of the Kol Shofar
facility. This significant increase in facility size will likely result in significant increases
in attendance at events and activities at the facility. Existing usage of the facility already
- 7 -
results in unsafe traffic hazards, including vehicular turn-arounds on neighboring streets.
The projected substantial increase in usage of the facility resulting from the proposed
increase in its size is likely to increase the number of such unsafe traffic tum-arounds.
The mitigation measures proposed to date do not provide assurance that unacceptable
increases in these traffic hazards will not occur.
Attempting to regulate future usage levels with a Conditional Use Permit "cap" on
attendance at events is an unproven and problematic approach. In the past, the
Commission has found such measures ineffective to prevent "CUP creep" - the gradual
erosion of usage limits over time. It is the actual size of the facility that ultimately
dictates its level of usage. The history of this facility confirms this point. The use of the
Kol Shofar facility has grown steadily since 1985, as the Congregation's membership has
tripled, from roughly 200 to about 600 member families. There is no cap on the
Congregation's membership, nor could this Commission ever impose one. As
membership grows in the future, so will usage of the site, up to the maximum capacity of
the facility.
2. NOISE.
Significant Impact 2.1. The Project will add significant noise to a quiet residential
neighborhood.
Facts and Evidence
The Project will generate substantial noise from events, particularly on Saturday and
Sunday evenings. As modified by Alternative 7, the Project proposes twelve Saturday
evening events with significant attendance (four with 250 attendees, four at 200 and four
at 150) and fifteen new Sunday evening events (three with 250 attendees, five at 200,
four at 150 and three at 100). The proposed Saturday evening events would continue
"until 11 :00 p.m. plus cleanup," and the Sunday events would continue "until 9:00 p.m.
plus cleanup." According to Exhibit H, Table 1 of Alternative 7, Kol Shofar plans to
clean up on Saturdays until 12:00 p.m. even though the event is to end at 11 :00 p.m. On
Sunday, clean up is to continue until 10:00 p.m. even though the event is to end at 9:00
p.m. This means that noise and lights from people taking out supplies, removing tables
and chairs, caterers carrying out equipment and food, people 'talking outside, car and
truck engines starting up, car doors slamming, and related headlight glare and parking lot
illumination would thus continue until 12:00 a.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 p.m. on
Sundays.
These are serious adverse impacts. For example, many neighbors have school-age
children. These children, who need to be in bed Sunday evening for school the next
morning, would be subj ect to sleep-disturbing noise and lights after they have retired for
the night. Also, residents in the Bel Aire neighborhood will be disturbed as cars exiting
the facility travel down Blackfield Drive at the end of an event between 11 :00 and 12:00
p.m. on Saturday and between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. on Sunday. The residents of
Blackfield Drive have written letters and spoken publicly about the fact that the
Q,
bedrooms of many of the homes in Bel Aire face Blackfield Drive. These neighbors will
be disturbed at night by the increased noise and traffic of cars traveling on Blackfield
Drive. This is a significant adverse impact to the Bel Aire/Blackfield Drive residents.
The noise impacts of these events have not been adequately addressed by either the Draft
or the Final EIRs, nor subsequently. The Draft EIR states that the "primary noise impact
associated with these activities would be the turnaround/drop-off and the parking lot and
traffic noise generated during the departure from the facilities, including people talking in
loud voices, setting and disarming car alarms, and closing car doors." DEIR, p. 86.
However, the Draft EIR acknowledges that "[ n]o measurements were taken to confirm
how noisy such conversations might be given nighttime ambient noise levels." DEIR, p.
86. The Draft EIR states that "noise levels as high 60 dBA may be periodically
experienced at the property line of35 Reedland Woods Way, or 9 dBA above the average
ambient noise level," utilizing the 24-hour average noise level of the neighborhood, 51
dBA. DEIR, p. 83. The Final EIR acknowledges that arrival and departure noise levels
will reach 65 decibels, and that background nighttime noise levels in the neighborhood
are only 40-41 dBA. FEIR, p. 43. Thus, the short-term noise impact at these evening
events might reach 25 decibels above background levels at 11 :00 p.m., a very substantial
increase (as increases in decibels levels are exponential).
The Commission received written testimony from two acoustical experts stating that the
Draft EIR's use of a 24-hour average metric, "Ldn," to assess the impact of intermittent
noise spikes during the evening was not appropriate, as it trivializes short-term spikes in
noise by averaging them against the ambient noise levels during the rest of the 24-hour
period.
Neither the Draft nor the Final EIR proposes any mitigation measure which would assure
that the significant spikes in nighttime noise would be mitigated to insignificance. For
this reason, both documents conclude that "the impact is considered to be significant and
unavoidable." DEIR, p. 89 (bold in original text); FEIR, p. 4.
This significant adverse impact on nighttime neighborhood noise levels conflicts with
Noise Goals N-A, N-B and N-C, and Noise Policy N-6 of the 2020 General Plan Noise
Element, which are set forth below:
Noise 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.
- 9-
Noise Policies
N-6: Hours of use of recreation and commercial facilities should be regulated to
minimize offensive noise to ensure compatibility between such facilities
and nearby residential areas.
Finding
Based upon the Draft and Pinal EIRs, the public and expert comments received, and the
entire record, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the Project's noise impacts will
be significant and will not be mitigated to insignificance by any mitigation measures
proposed to date. Even after mitigation, the substantial increase in nighttime noise from
the Project will conflict with the applicable Goals and Policies of the 2020 General Plan's
noise element.
Rationale
As the Draft and Pinal EIRs acknowledge, the Project's nighttime noise impacts are
significant and unavoidable. The Applicant's proposal to reduce weekend evening events
to twenty-seven (twelve on Saturdays and fifteen on Sundays) does not reduce this.
adverse impact to insignificance. Twenty-seven weekend evenings out of one hundred
four such evenings each year represents 26 percent of all weekend evenings - clearly a
substantial portion. Allowing such a significant increase in nighttime noise on more than
one-fourth of the neighbors' weekend evenings' conflicts with the 2020 General Plan
Noise Element's Noise Goals and Noise Policies as noted above.
3. LIGHT AND GLARE.
Significant Impact 3.1. The Project will impact the surrounding neighborhood with
significantly increased nighttime light and glare.
Facts and Evidence
The Draft EIR states that "[h]eadlights on vehicles traveling west (uphill) on the new
driveway, around the drop off/turnaround, and into the new upper parking area could
intrude off the site and possibly shine into three residences on Reedland Woods Way and
one residence on Paseo Mirasol . . .. Vehicles using the turnaround would have
headlights pointed at 20 and possibly 30 and 35 Reedland Woods Way. . . . Headlights
on vehicles using the n~w parking area could intrude into windows of homes at 20 and
30 Reedland Woods Way and one home to the east on Paseo Mirasol . . .. 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 three 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, emphasis in original. The
. 1,\
subsequent headlight intrusion study concluded that lights from vehicles on the site
would intrude into the sleeping quarters of the home at 220 Blackfield Drive and the
home at 20 Reedland Woods Way.
The Final EIR included a "Headlight Beam Intrusion" report from the Project's architect
which concluded that, although headlight intrusion would occur at 220 Blackfield Drive,
that residence had been impacted by similar headlight intrusions in the past without
complaint. FEIR, p. 49. This report also concluded that "[h]eadlight intrusion at 20
Reedlands Wood Way may result at a distance of 100 feet from the light source to the
home, concluding that the diminished light intensity at that distance "will not result in a
nuisance and/or a significant adverse impact on the environment." ld. This report
concluded further that although "the potential for light intrusion exists at the ground level
of#35 Reedland Woods Way, . . . an existing wood slat fence at the residence's rear yard
will provide screening." ld. Landscaping has been proposed as Mitigation Measure 10
for Impact 3.5-D to reduce the headlight impact on 220 Blackfield Drive. Finally,
Mitigation Measure 3.5-C.l requires the Applicant to construct a berm and/or fence
between the parking lot and 20 Reedland Woods Way to block headlight intrusion.
Although laudable, the foregoing mitigation measures do not appear adequate to reduce
the impact of vehicular headlight intrusion into the effected homes to insignificance. The
fact that the home at 220 Blackfield Drive is already effected by existing headlight
intrusion does not mitigate the impact of the additional headlight intrusion that this
Project would cause. Instead, it makes it worse. The proposal to plant landscaping
between the parking lot and this residence may reduce headlight spill into this residence,
but the efficacy of landscaping to reduce this impact to insignificance is uncertain both
temporally and with regard to the extent of the anticipated blockage. The Applicant's
proposal to construct a berm and/or fence between the parking lot and the residence at 20
Reedland Woods Way would not prevent headlight intrusion into the second story (i.e.,
the sleeping quarters) of this residence. The proposed mitigation of the headlight
intrusion into 35 Reedland Woods Way - an existing fence - would not shield the second
story (i.e., the sleeping quarters) of this residence from direct headlight intrusion. Since
modem headlights are designed to reach several hundred feet, the fact that the headlights
intruding into 20 Reedland Woods Way would be 100 feet distant does not reduce their
impact to insignificance.
These adverse headlight impacts on existing residences conflict with the 2020 General
Plan's Land Use Element, Land Use Goals LU-B, LU-D, LU-F and LU-H, and Land Use
Policies LU-2, LU-5 and LU-16, which are set forth below.
Land Use Goals
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
- 11 -
the community and the village-like character of its Downtown commercial
area.
LU-F: To preserve and protect Tiburon's VIews, scenIc environment, natural
beauty, and open space.
LU-H: To protect and preserve existing neighborhood character and identity.
Land Use Policies
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.
LU-5: New development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and
open spaces.
LU-6: 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.
Finding
Based on the Draft and Final EIRs, the subsequent light impact assessment, the writtep
and oral testimony and the entire record, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the
Project's headlight impacts on nearby residences will be significant. The mitigation
measures proposed to date are incolnplete and of uncertain efficacy.
Rationale
The Project would permit substantial nighttime traffic in a quiet, secluded and darkened
residential neighborhood. The Applicant proposes to allow scores of cars to enter and
exit on site twenty-seven weekend evenings as late as 11 :00 1'0 12:00 p.m. (including
clean-up crews) on Saturdays and 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. (including clean-up) on Sundays.
Additionally, lot lights, which are to be on timers, would not be turned off until the clean-
up crews leave. These lights would be visible from neighboring homes. Several nearby
residences would be affected by late-night headlight glare into their sleeping quarters.
The mitigation measures proposed to reduce these impacts to insignificance would not
provide immediate nor complete blockage of anticipated headlight glare into these
homes. Subjecting these homes to potentially sleep-disturbing headlight glare,
particularly when coupled with the parking lot noise discussed above, cannot be
dismissed as "insignificant." These headlight impacts would conflict with several
General Plan Land Use Goals and Policies as cited above.
1'1
4. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.
Significant Impact 4.1. The Project will cause significant impacts on the character of a
quiet residential neighborhood.
Facts and Evidence
The Project poses significant impacts on noise levels, light and glare, traffic, parking,
vehicular and pedestrian safety and visual and aesthetic quality. The first five of these
impacts - noise, light, traffic, parking and safety - are discussed above. The sixth
impact, on visual and aesthetic quality, likewise presents significant concerns. The
Project proposes construction of two large buildings aggregating 13,395 gross square
feet. As described in the Draft EIR at Figure 5 and on page 132, most of this additional
space would be occupied by a large Multi-Purpose Building comprising 9,733 gross
square feet. This building would be substantially larger than any existing residence
within the neighborhood, and, when coupled with the existing and other proposed
facilities, would aggregate 57,140 gross square feet, or over 1.31 acres of floor space.
These large buildings would be visible from throughout the neighborhood as well as from
the Ring Mountain Open Space Preserve, as documented on pages 100-102 of the Draft
EIR. Although the visibility of these large buildings would be softened by landscaping,
their impact on the neighborhood character would nonetheless remain significant when
compared with the existing residential land uses on the surrounding properties. And, as
the Draft EIR notes, "[t]he project would have potentially significant impacts to public
views from Ring Mountain Open Space Preserve and Reedland Woods Way," as well as
from Via Los Altos. DEIR, p. 102 (bold in original text).
The Project's impacts on neighborhood character are not limited to its new large
buildings. Because the Project would substantially increase the size of the existing
facility, it will result in substantial increases in visitor usage. Increased usage of the
facility will result in greater traffic as noted above, and a substantial increase in the
number of cars seeking parking on nearby streets during major events. The Draft EIR
assumes that the burden of providing parking for the Project's large events will routinely
fall on neighboring streets, including the placement of "about 33 cars. . . on-street along
. . . Via Los Altos and Blackfield Drive." DEIR, p. 67. The Commission received
substantial photographic documentation of the impact of large events at the existing
facility on neighboring streets, resulting in a congested, crowded ambiance in which cars
jammed both sides of the neighboring streets, leaving little or no room for guests of local
residents to park.
These parking impacts conflict with the Tiburon Zoning Code. The Zoning Code states
that parking for new developments shall be on-site. The Draft EIR acknowledges these
conflicts. "The proposed non-residential buildings and parking facilities are out of
character with surrounding residences." DEIR, p. 136. The Draft EIR notes, in
particular, that the Project conflicts with Zoning Code section 5.08.04, which regulates
parking, because "the Property would not include sufficient spaces to meet [the parking]
- 13 -
criteria." DEIR, p. 138. The Project provides only 139 parking spaces rather than the
299 spaces that would be required under Zoning Code section 5.08.04 (d), which directs
that for places of assembly, one parking spot shall be provided "for each four seats of
maximum seating capacity; or one for each forty square feet of assembly area, whichever
is more." DEIR, pp. 64-67. The Project would conflict with Zoning Code section
5.08.01, which states that "[a] new use, structural addition or alteration on [a] parcel shall
be allowed only if it does not increase or create a parking deficiency as determined in this
section. "
Likewise, the Project violates Zoning Code section 5.08.00, which governs parking and
loading and directs that "[n]o structure shall be constructed unless spaces for parking and
truck loading and unloading are permanently provided and maintained for the benefit of
residents, employees, customers, and visitors, within or outside of buildings or in
combination of both." Because the Project does not provide adequate on-site parking, it
violates Zoning Code section 5.08.02, which mandates that "required parking shall be
provided on the parcel or contiguous lot or parcel where the use is located [and] [fJor
non-residential uses, the required parking may be provided on another parcel providing
that the parcel is within the Town in a commercial zone and is reasonably convenient to
the subject parcel, as approved by the Town." Similarly, the Project violates Zoning
Code section 5.08.03 (A), which directs that "[t]he required parking stalls, loading berths
and parking aisles may not be located on any street right-of-way." Contrary to these
express prohibitions in the Zoning Code, the Project relies on off-site parking, including
neighboring streets, to accommodate high usage events on weekends and during the High
Holy Days.
As a result of this Project's significant impacts on noise, light and glare, traffic, parking
and vehicular and pedestrian safety, the Project's adverse impacts on the character and
aesthetic quality of the neighborhood are substantial. A visually intrusive facility whose
impacts are felt throughout the neighborhood both day and night, audibly as well as
visually, and physically through increased traffic and parking congestion and turn-around
hazards, clearly registers an overall significant impact on neighborhood character. These
pervasive and profound impacts of the Project on the quality of life, health, safety, quiet
enjoyment and welfare of its neighbors contravene substantial and fundamental Goals
and Policies of the 2020 General Plan. As explained above, t~e Project would conflict
with each of the following Goals and Policies of the Land Use, Circulation, Safety, and
Noise Elements of the 2020 General Plan:
Land Use Goals
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.
1 1
LU-H: To protect and preserve existing neighborhood character and identity.
LU-I: To encourage intensity of development, density, and house
sizes/architectural styles that are consistent and compatible with
surrounding neighborhoods.
Land Use Policies
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.
LU-5: New Development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and
open spaces.
Circulation Goals
C-B: To provide safe and convenient movement of local residents and visitors
to their places of employment, shopping and recreation in the San
Francisco Bay Area.
C-c: To maintain all existing, as well as to design all future, residential streets
with consideration of a combination of residents' safety, cost of
maintenance, and protection of residential quality of life.
C-F: To minimize traffic congestion.
C-I: To provide adequate parking throughout the Planning Area.
Roadway System & Traffic Standards Policies
C-l: Land use decisions shall take into consideration potential traffic and
circulation impacts.
C-2: All new projects shall be required to pay a pro rata share of needed traffic
improvements in accordance with the burden created by such new
projects.
Safety Goals
SE-A: To maintain a safe and healthy community
- 15 -
Noise 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.
Noise Policies
N-6: Hours of use of recreation and commercial facilities should be regulated to
minimize offensive noise to ensure compatibility between such facilities
and nearby residential areas.
Finding
Based on the Draft and Final EIRs, the written and oral testimony and the entire record,
the Planning Commission hereby finds that the Project's impacts on neighborhood
character are significant. The mitigation measures proposed to date are, for the reasons
stated above, insufficient to reduce these adverse impacts on neighborhood character to
insignificance.
Rationale
The 2020 General Plan requires this Planning Commission to "protect the health, safety
and welfare of the community," and te> "[t]o protect and preserve existing neighborhood
character and identity." Land Use Element, Land Use Goals LU-B and LU-H. To this
end, this Commission is directed 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 . . .." Id. at LU-D. To achieve these Land Use Goals, this
Commission must assure that "[n]ew development shall be in harmony with adjacent
neighborhoods and open spaces." Id. at Land Use Policy LU-5. '
The Project conflicts with these Land Use Goals and Policies, and those of the General
Plan's Noise, Circulation and Safety Elements, in numerous, fundamental respects.
Siting a facility with the capacity to accommodate over 1,500 people, and with plans for
large evening events, in a quiet residential neighborhood, while providing only 139 on-
site parking spaces - only a fraction of those required under the Zoning Code - clearly
conflicts with the neighborhood character. Adjacent homes would be subjected to
nighttime increases in noise by as much as 25 decibels. Nearby residences would be
subject to headlight glare from scores of cars arriving and leaving the facility on weekend
nights. Neighbors would be subjected to continuing and worsening traffic and parking
congestion and significant traffic hazards. Adverse impacts on traffic could extend as far
1 :~ __
as. the intersection of Tiburon Boulevard and Blackfield Drive, potentially impeding
traffic flow on Tiburon' s most significant thoroughfare.
Taken in the aggregate, these adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods pose
unacceptable cumulative adverse impacts on the "existing neighborhood character and
identity," creating conflict, rather than the required "harmony," with adjacent
neighborhoods. Id. at LU-H and LU-5. For these reasons, the Project conflicts with the
2020 General Plan. Accordingly, the Commission cannot approve the Project as
proposed.
SECTION 5 - CONFLICTS WITH THE 2020 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
CODE.
1. The Project Conflicts with the 2020 General Plan.
Facts and Evidence
The Project's conflicts with the 2020 General Plan are described and documented above.
Finding
The Project substantially conflicts with numerous, fundamental Goals and Policies of the
2020 General Plan. These conflicts are described and documented above. Each of these
conflicts prevents this Commission from approving this Project as proposed.
Rationale
Having found that this Project conflicts with the 2020 General Plan, this Planning
Commission must disapprove the Applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit.
Under applicable law, this Commission may not approve a Conditional Use Permit that
conflicts with the Town's General Plan.
2. The Project Conflicts with the Tiburon Zoning Code.
Facts and Evidence
The Draft EIR acknowledges that the Project conflicts with the following provisions of
the Tiburon Zoning Code:
1. The Project is inconsistent with Section 4.02.00(d), which governs site
plan and architectural review, because "[t]he proposed non-residential
buildings and parking facilities are out of character with surrounding
residences." DEIR, p. 136.
2. The Project contravenes Section 4.04.00, which protects neighborhood
integrity, because the Project is not "properly related to the development
- 17 -
of the neighborhood as a whole," and is not "reasonably compatible with
the types of uses normally permitted in the surrounding area." DEIR, p.
137.
3. The Project conflicts with section 5.08.04, which regulates parking,
because "the Property would not include sufficient spaces to meet [the
parking] criteria." DEIR, p. 138. In particular, the Project conflicts with
section 5.08.04 (d), which directs that for places of assembly, one parking
spot shall be provided "for each four seats of maximum seating capacity;
or one for each 40 square feet of assembly area, whichever is more," in
contrast to the Project's provision of only 139 parking spaces rather than
the 299 spaces that would be required if calculated through the maximum
seating capacity ratio in the Code. DEIR, pp. 64-67.
In addition, the Project would contravene several other significant parking restrictions
within the Zoning Code, including:
4. Section 5.08.00, which mandates that' [n]o structure shall be constructed
unless spaces for parking and truck loading and unloading are permanently
provided and maintained for the benefit of residents, employees,
customers, and visitors, within or outside of buildings or in combination of
both."
5. Section 5.08.01, which states that "[a] new use, structural addition, or
alteration on such parcel shall be allowed only if it does not increase or
create a parking deficiency as determined in this section."
6. Section 5.08.02, which directs that "required parking shall be provided on
the parcel or contiguous lot or parcel where the use is located," unless for
non-residential uses, the required parking is "provided on another parcel
. . . within the Town in a commercial zone and is reasonably convenient to
the subject parcel."
7. Section 5.08.03 (A), which mandates that "[t]ht: required parking stalls,
loading berths and parking aisles may not be located on any street right-of-
way. "
8. Section 5.08.03 (F), which directs that "[l]arge paved areas shall be given
visual relief by the interspersion of landscaping within the paved area, as
well as around the perimeter," in contrast to the Project's parking lots,
which do not include landscaping within the paved area.
Finding
The Project conflicts with numerous provisions of the Zoning Code as described and
documented above.
Rationale
The Draft EIR acknowledges that the Project does not conform to the parking
requirements, among others, of the Tiburon Zoning Code. Additional conflicts with the
Zoning Code are documented above.
SECTION 6 - DISAPPROVAL OF PROJECT AND ADOPTION OF FINDINGS
The Planning Commission hereby approves the Summary of the Proceedings, Document
Description and Project Description as set forth in Sections 1 through 3, and adopts the
Findings of Fact and Rationales as set forth in Sections 4 and 5, of this Resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a
Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon on
following vote:
meeting of the
, 2006, by the
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
JOHN KUNZWEILER, CHAIRMAN
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATTEST:
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
- 19 -
Ma~ 31 OS 02:33p
Mind~ Canter
415-888-4444
p. 1
~i;~~a~~~~I~ Dr. LAtE MAil #
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
I
~. ~(C[EUVl~~
h L ;fOS It
\
I F'LLI:\],[\!\~!~ JJI\(:~19,N
! ___~_"_E~:,lL_~"Lt_lldu!\UI~
5/30/00
Rc: Kal Shofar
Dear Planning Commission:
The ElR for Ko] Shofar clearly sLates thai U1C adverse impact of noisc, traffic, and p:\rking CAN NOT be
mitigated,
I'm am~,zed that discussions arc still being held despite these findings,
I'm sure all of you live in a quiet neighborhood. I'm also sure that if you were faced with the prospect of a
huge events centcr being proposed in your neighborhood which would bring 1200-1500 cars that would
take up every parking space on your street, )'ou would oppose iL
Both Bell Markets in Tlburon don't gel 1200 cars a day in their parking lots.
Tiburon does not have an large events facilily. Why would you even consider an events facility of this
m:Jgnitudc and ad\'crse impacllo be bni H right in the middle of a QuiCl, residential neighborhood'!
The temple 1 belonged to always rented a large facility for the High HoJy Days services because it could
not accommodate the amount of people who wanted to ~ltend these services, Kol Shofar should do the
same,
The proposed events facility would not serve OUI community. Instead, it would bring in thousands of
people from outside our community for the benefit of Kol Shofar. '
Also. our neighborhood is zOlled for residential use NOT cornmercialuse.
Our quality of life would be changed forever.
I urge you to honor the ErR's findings. the very real concerns of our neighborhood residents towards
noisc. lraffic. and parking. and to votc this proposal down.
Y7/l;11 GM
Mindy Canlcr 1
Tiburon Parks and Opcn Space Commissioner
Former Presidenl, Bel Airc Homeowners Associiltion
20 YC.lr BI<1ckficld Drive resident
Tiburon Planning cLAti MAIL # I
1555 Tiburon Boulevard.
Tiburon, CA 94920
May 30, 20
~ ~~~u?:~~~
PLA~Nlr\JG DIVIS/ON
T Q~Vi.QLTI(1lJ13i2JL
Dear members of the Planning Commission:
I oppose the application of Kol Shofar for a Conditional Use permit, for reasons relating to off site
parking.
Offsite parking is mentioned only by reference in the application and its supporting documentation,
including the DEIR, but is silent as to the location, as well as the amount of such parking. The granting
of the Conditional Use permit without specifying these unknowns, would assume the right to offsite
parking, leaving only the question of location unresolved, thereby creating a host of problems that
should be addressed before approval, or even before consideration, of the application.
Section 5.08.00 of the Parking and Loading Code provides that in the event of inadequate parking at
the parcel where the Conditional Use is located, the required parking may be provided on another
parcel, providing that parcel is within the Town, in a commercial zone, and is reasonably convenient to
the subject parcel. l-\dJitionaliy the OWl1L:f of SUdl (HI' ::,lLC parKing lllust, JHlong olher things, covenant
to maintain the number of parking spaces so long as the Conditional Use is maintained within the
Town. This covenant must be recorded in the County Records, and shall create a servient tenement in
favor of the parcel where the Conditional Use is situated. Alternatively, the off site parking
requirement may be supplied by a lease of parking spaces, approved prior to establishment of the use,
and with the understanding that the loss of parking by such method shall be valid cause for revocation
of the Conditional Use Permit. The Code further requires definition of the physical layout of such
parking in a manner that is totally inconsistent with an unspecified or unidentified site. These are
serious, major requirements, requiring major commitments that are not only unmet, they are not even
addressed.
The identification of the location, or locations, together with the amount of off site parking (assuming
the requirements of the Parking and Loading Code had otherwise been met) would alert those citizens
whose interests were at stake of the potential effect of such activity, and allow them the opportunity to
exercise one of the most basic rights of the democratic process at the local level : Participation in the
decision making process. At that point, the issues of burdens on traffic, parking, congestion, property
values, conflicting activities, etc. could be presented and considered. Until off site parking is specific
in location and amount, these issues are speculative, and impossible to address or evaluate.
I respectfully submit that the Environmental Impact Report is fatally deficient, the application for a
Conditional Use Permit is fatally defective, and should be denied.
Respectfully,
Bruce Abbott
458 Greenwood Beach Road
Dan Watrous
LATE MAll # I
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
slh1 ipa@aol.com'
Friday, May 26,2006 2:10 PM
Dan Watrous
rdbrown18@comcast.net; zack5@sonic.net; gtraggs@rflawllp.c
Response to Metz Letter - Kol Shofar Parking Requirements
2 6 2006
RESPONSE TO METZ PARKING REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS - Kol Shofar
Dan, PLMJNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Thanks for a copy of the Metz late mail regarding parking requirements for the Kol Shofar
Conditional Use Permit application. Clearly he has done a clever analysis of the parking
demands for the proposed use. However, he has made some assumptions that the staff and
Planning Commission should be made aware of. Accordingly, please provide this email to the
Commission in their late mail.
First, I am sure Mr. Mets is aware that the baseline for the existing Kol Shofar uses and
parking on-site, on-street, and off-site for larger events was approved by the Planning
Commission in their last annual renewal of the current and valid Conditional Use Permit
which does not limit attendance at events. Secondly, Mr. Metz seems to flip flop between
v.That he c."lllS t-np Gl'?llDY'''>1 Pl.">,, ~t-:::>T'r!;-'Y'rl T"Y' -n:::>yv';'1r< "T.;t-l.....",,+- -'~'l Y'!"If'''Y'''''~~''''' t-,-, +-l.,,,. reD
pG.L-L'~_/ \^--,c;\...o.JuS0 L-~l2.Lc~":; i.l'--'J..iCII UJ.l......... L-.d.(; ~~'~0...LJ..:l..L... ..L...L;....,i..A..i..-vl.l LJV1-1..l.il~- LUUc oeCL.l.0il :J.0b.u4:tU;
and Section 5.0B.04(k) which he relies on to make his calculations. Finally, he ignores
the point that Town staff, the EIR consultant and Kol Shofar has made over and over in
their reports, that being that the PC has discretion on parking requirements where
multiple uses are proposed. This point is carefully and specifically discussed on page 16
of the Town's draft Resolution No 2006.
Given a careful analysis of overlapping uses and overlapping times presented in the EIR,
the Tiburon Ordinance requires a range of 161 - 299 parking spaces. Page 67 of the Draft
EIR states that "Per survey rate, the parking requirement could be 164 spaces", but strict
application of the code would require 299 parking spaces. The plan would provide 139 on-
site parking spaces, the EIR found that ample on-street parking exists for ov~rflow (33
spaces along the project site frontage of Via Los Altos and Blackfield Drive alone),
accordingly a total of 172 parking spaces will be available without parking in front of
homes. Off-site shuttle service and parking has also been proven to be feasible during
peak High Holiday Events. The Final ErR also noted that if total overlapping use did not
exceed 264 people on-site at anyone time the proposed 139 on-site parking spaces would be
sufficient. Kol Shofar has proposed limiting attendance at any new events to a maximum of
250 people.
Clearly the Towns Zoning Code provides for reasonable accounting of parking requirements
where multiple uses of a property are planned. If the Town ~trictly applied their codes
without reason, and used the clever accounting proposed by Mr. Metz, single family home
owners should perhaps be required to provide on-site parking for the occasional maximum
use of a home for a holiday party. In all fairness, the strict algorithms applied by Mr.
Metz in his analysis simply points out how flawed logic continues to be used to confuse
and obfuscate the process.
Scott L. Hochstrasser, President
IPA,Inc. (International Planning Associates)
42 Glen Drive, Suite B
Fairfax, California 94930
Office (415)459-6224
Fax (415)459-5810
Cell 415-419-4592
Scott L. Hochstrasser, President
IPA,Inc. (International Planning Associates)
42 Glen Drive, Suite B
1
LATE MAll # ,;)
May 23, 2006
r">> ---::---""'-"--';'" - .
~j'\ I ~ (c; I~c' ! ::\.'
I~ r---:--.....---.... .
f .~.._...~~....
L' (=' ':',(;c: iil ,Ii
~Ih!
PLANNING DIVISION ,,-,
TOWN OF TIBURON
Town ofTiburon
Tiburon Planning Commission
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Public Hearing for Conditional Use Permit at 2240 Centro East Street
Attn Dan Watrous, Planning Manager:
Our house on 172 Solano Street is adjacent to the lot at 2240 Centro East which is being
proposed as a construction staging area for the utility under-grounding proj eel. We will
be out of town during the scheduled public hearing on May 31, 2006 and are thus writing
this letter to voice our concerns and disapproval of the proposed use of the lot.
We have two small children under the age of 3. Sleep is precious in our home, the
children nap during the day and go to bed by 7 pm, thus noise is a big concern. At a
minimum, if the application is permitted, we would strongly encourage time cut-offs on
usage, both start time in the morning and ending time in the afternoon.
We're also concerned with privacy and pollution-both visually from the piles of
dirt/gravel and construction equipment as well as potential garbage accumulation from
the workers. I hope that the conditional use permit would require Maggiora & Ghilotti to
restore the property to a level at least consistent with its present condition.
Finally, as parking is at a premium and a constant point of contention in the
neighborhood, we are concerned about a number of construction company employees
utilizing neighborhood streets to park their personal vehicles during working hours
creating additional congestion.
Though we understand the convenience of the location for a staging area, we wouldn't
have chosen to live next to a construction yard and thus oppose the application. The lot
owner is clearly being compensated for use of his lot without having to face the
inconvenience, while we are being taxed - what compensation is the Town ofTiburon,
Maggiora & Ghilotti and the property owner offering the adjacent homeowners for
suffering through a year of aggravation and annoyance?
Since it appears approval is inevitable from the fact that Maggiora & Ghilotti has already
been preparing the lot for staging usage, we ask that the residents who live next to the lot
like us are afforded protection from intrusion in the form of strict usage guidelines and
stiff financial penalties to the property owner and Maggiora & Ghilotti for violating the
terms of usage. If the Town of Tiburon fails to implement adequate protection for its
residents, we will vigorously support any and all litigation to protect our property rights.
:~I
j. - Kol Shofar rejects suggestion to pare down project (print view)
j.
L~lE MAll #
\
i
..p:/Iwww.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/modu le/displaystorylstory _id/29255/format/htm II
jplay~tory .html
Kol Shofar rejects suggestion to pare down project
~. ~_~_lilll II
L--___J
PU\[\!f\JiNG DIVISiON
TOW!',! OF TIBUI~ON
by joe eskenazi
staff writer
Ron Brown knew the drill. This wasn't his first planning commission meeting and God knows it won't
be the last - this is Tiburon, after all.
The immediate past president of Congregation Kol Shofar and a member of the synagogue's building
committee sat in on the commission meeting May 10- and sat, and sat some more. When the meeting
broke up past midnight, no official vote had been taken, but a number of the commissioners seemed
amenable to reCOITlIneilG1Il';; j ll.
Brown's succinct answer: no thanks.
"There was a great deal of concern expressed by members of the commission that our plans were too
bitious or aggressive. What's the best way to put this? We humbly disagree," said Brown, who
actended the seventh planning commission meeting held in the past two years regarding the synagogue's
plans.
While no vote was taken, meeting No.8 is scheduled for May 31, and a vote is on the agenda.
Housed in a 1960s-era middle school, Kol Shofar has been struggling logistically since growing to more
than 600 member families. After years of searching fruitlessly for a larger site, the Conservative
synagogue instead unveiled plans several years back to add and redesign structures on its existing seven-
acre plot nestled in a secluded residential neighborhood. Along with ~nlarging the synagogue's
sanctuary, the plans call for four additional classrooms, a 4,000-square-foot multipurpose structure with
a seating capacity of 600 and additional parking and landscaping.
The large building and the specter of additional automobile traffic and noise in the area raised the ire of
around 30 synagogue neighbors, who formed a group called the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition and
hired a lawyer.
The coalition's attorney, Stephan C. Volker, did not returnj.'s calls as of press time.
http://www.jewisbsf.comlcontent/2-O-/module/displaystory/story_idl29255/format/print/displaystory.print (1 of 2)05/26/2006 4:02:36 AM
j. - Kol Shofar rejects suggestion to pare down project (print view)
Regarding neighborhood concerns, Brown utilized the "that's just Marin" argument.
"I think history would suggest [that] in any place in Marin there is this level of friction when anyone
proposes to build anything," he said.
Regarding noise and traffic concerns, he pointed out that Kol Shofar has funded an exhaustive
environmental impact report and employed specialists to bolster its claims.
The synagogue has worked out a complex agreement with the city regarding use on Saturday nights: The
future multipurpose structure would only be utilized on 12 Saturday nights a year, with a maximum
attendance of 250 on four of those nights, 200 on four nights and 150 on the last four.
Kol Shofar disputes the contention that larger quarters will bring in many more members.
"Suppose you live in an 800-square- foot apartment. If you get married and have two kids and move into
a 3,000-square-foot home, you're not moving with the intention to have a 12-person family," Howard
Zack, the co-chair of the synagogue's building committee, toldj. last year.
And while Brown said he's certainly willing to hear out the planning commission, he noted that its May
31 decision isn't binding. It's the town council that matters here.
"The planning commission is not the ultimate arbiter of this. Several years ago, St. Hilary's Catholic
Church went through a long and protracted battle to build a gym for CYO basketball. And their plan"
turned down, 5-0, by the planning commission and approved, 5-0, by the town council," he said.
"Large projects like the one at St. Hilary's and Kol Shofar tend to be more contentious and always end
up before town council."
Brown said Kol Shofar's project may run to $10 million or more, depending upon inflation. Barring
serious delays, he said he hoped shovels would be hitting the ground in 2008. In August of last year,
Zack and Kol Shofar Rabbi Lavey Derby expressed hopes ground would be broken sometime this year.
CopyrightJ, the Jewish news weekly of Northern California
http://www.jewishsf.comlcontentl2-O-/moduleJdisplaystory/story_id/29255/formatlprintldisplaystory.print (2 of 2)05/2612006 4 :02:36 AM
John and Karen Nygren
22 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburon, CA 94920
LATE MAIL j .1
Tiburon Planning Commission and Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
~ ~CC~::O~ ~
May 26, 2006
PL l'\~jN\NG DIVISION
Tov~jN._QF lJBURON
----r--..--.....-~._- ,,.
-
Re: Kol Shofar Resolution for Certifying FEIR,
Dear Tiburon Planning Commissioners,
Thank you for your time and efforts in deliberating the Kol Shofar CUP Application and
its impacts on our community. It's truly appreciated.
In reading the prooosed Reso1utirm ('f H")A Ph'1nhrq Commissir)"" ~srtif\/inJ the FEIR for
the Kol Shofar Synagogue Expansion Project {tlere is a significant disconnect and lack
of nexus with the Draft Resolution Denying the Conditional Use Permit Application for
the Expansion of an Existing Synagogue and Day School at 215 Blackfield Dr. and
Adopting the findings of supporting the denial. The Planning Commission must make
changes to the Resolution for Certification of the FEIR so that it is in conformance and
harmony with the Resolution for Denial. If it does not do so, the Planning Commission
and Resolution for Certification leaves the FEIR falsely claiming that the project has
mitigated the impacts to a level of significance. The FEIR would not give a basis for your
denial of the Kol Shofar Project as proposed.
The Resolution for Certifying the FEIR bases its rationale for certification on the point
that no new significant information has been added or needed to determine the FEIR is
adequate. Thus, there is no reason for recirculation. The Resolution goes on to use the
rationale that Alternative 7 does not reveal new or more severe adverse environmental
impacts warranting recirculation of the EIR. Thus, the FEIR is complete and in
compliance with CEQA guidelines. Alternative 7 states this alternative mitigates all
impacts to a level of insignificance.
There is no mention in the Resolution of Certification of the findings by the Planning
Commission that Significant Negative Impacts remain and have not been mitigated to a
level of insignificance as stated in the FEIR. There is no mention in the Resolution for
Certification that many mitigation measures suggested in the DEIR/FEIR have been
found to be inadequate to mitigate the impacts of noise, light, traffic, unsafe turn arounds
in neighborhood streets, parking, and lack of harmony and compatibility to the
neighborhood still remain significant.
\
The Planning" Commissions resolution for Denial of the CUP Application finds that the
project is inconsistent with numerous Tiburon General Plan goals and policies and is not
in compliance with provisions of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance because of parking
deficiencies and cumulative activity levels, noise, disruption, and the sensitivity of days
and hours and that these activity levels would occur. It further finds that the project is
1
incompatible with surrounding residential development; and would be materially
detrimental to the quiet enjoyment of people's home and neighborhoods. The denial
spells out the Land Use, Circulation, Safety, and Noise Element Goals and Policies as
well as the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance Sections which this project is not in conformance
with.
The denial also finds that the Planning Commission disagrees with certain conclusions
of the EIR based on evidence of the entire record. Specifically, it details the impacts
related to two acoustical experts relating to the spikes of noise verse averaging the
impacts of noise. Thus, the noise impacts discussed in the DEIR/FEIR remain a
significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.4 - B is inadequate to mitigate the increase
noise as stated in the FEIR.
The denial finds that the impacts from headlights remain a significant impact and have
not been mitigated to a level of insignificance. Impact 3.5-C is inadequate to reduce this
impact.
The denial finds that mitigation 3.3-C.3 for on-site parking and 3.3-C for insufficient on-
sitp n~rl.rinn rCH~' ,ltinn in I 'n<:,,?fa +, .rn ~...("" 'n~~ ;'7' l.nf0':H:-:hh
The denial finds that the alternative mitigations put forth in Alternative 7 to address the
Project's deficient on-site parking are insufficient to off-set the basic problem of
inadequate parking and simply spread or relocate impacts into surrounding streets
The denial goes on to state that other monitoring and mitigation measures suggested in
Alternative 7 related to parking would not prevent adverse traffic and parking i~pacts.
The denial states that substantial modifications to the Project above and beyond those
put forth by the Applicant in Alternative 7 would be necessary to secure Planning
Commission approval.
Prior to certification of the FEIR, the Planning Commission must include in its record for
certification that they have found that mitigation measures in the FEIR and Alternative 7
are determined to be inadequate. After hearing oral and written public testimony,
reviewing and considering the information in the DEIR and FEIR, reviewing professional
studies and reviewing the entire record, significant impacts remain unmitigated to a level
of insignificance and is contrary to what is stated in the FEIR.
Having said all of the above, we still believe there are a variety of impacts that have not
been studied and included in the DEIR. Prior to certification, these impacts should be
studied and mitigated. Some of these are:
· Impacts to homes and bedrooms on Blackfield Dr. between Karen Way and
Tiburon Blvd from late night noise, parking, traffic and air pollution
· Impacts to Greenwood Beach Rd residents relating to safety, traffic, on street
turnarounds and parking caused by the mitigation measure for the off-site
parking shuttle service program
· Study of an alternative mitigation for High Holy Day Services to be held
simultaneously at various off site locations, such as the Mill Valley Community
Center, or neighborhood church, as well as at the existing Synagogue
2
· Study and impacts of a 150 student day school having adequate playground
space to meet the California law for a licensed day school
· No pick up and drop off circulation plan and its related impacts and mitigations
for the new Kol Shofar or Ring Mountain schools with the closure of the unsafe
rear parking lot and associated unsafe egress and access
The Planning Commission has the option, at this time, of not certifying the FEIR, until all
the impacts are studied and mitigated.
If the Planning Commission decides to certify the FEIR, they must then include in their
Resolution of Certification the facts and findings regarding the impacts which the FEIR
has not been found to have mitigated to a level of insignificance. It cannot rely on
Alternative 7 as rationale for certification.
Thank you once again for your interest in preserving the quality of life of Tiburon's
residents and the time you take to do so.
Yours truly,
John Nygren
Karen Nygren
3
~ [E CC [E n7 [E In\
E.... '. ,) ',; nnf1('. l.ll.. ) )1
I "-. /,11 i,'\ l- , II
-~ C' '. \,) ~.! I
I ,
PL.A.!,j~.jIG)(J Dl\li~;!cir- i
TO \YfLQIJli3. :~~n.C'iL____j
LATE MAIL # /,
May 25, 2006
Rufus G. Thayer
158 Blackfield Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
415-381-2504
Tiburon Planning Commission
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Kol Shofar Environmental Impact Reports
It has just come to my attention that the reason no mention of the substantial impacts
on the Bel Aire neighborhood appear in the subject reports is because of a conscious
decision by our staff to exclude Bel Aire from the reports. Apparently the staff erroneously
believes there will be no significant impacts on Bel Aire caused by the Kol Shofar
expansion project.
It is clear there will be substantial impacts caused by increased traffic along Blackfield
Drive, including substantial noise as cars que at the stop signs at Cecelia and Karen Way
late at night, increased exhaust fumes near the bed rooms on Blackfield Drive, safety
issues and parking congestion all along Blackfield and along Karen Way. These issues were
discussed in my letters to you dated July 14, 2005, March 14, 2006 and April 14, 2006. At
the April 24, 2006 hearing I handed the Commission a set of photographs taken October
16, 2005, about 6pm, that shows parking plugged all the way up Blackfield Drive, on
Karen Way and Via Los Altos.
The conclusion by the staff that there will be no signicacant impacts on Bel Aire is
patently incorrect. These impacts must not be ignored. Unless this defficiencey is corrected
and the traffic related impacts on Bel Aire are reported, it does qot appear that the FEIR can
be deemed complete. . ~ 12/l4tY1
~:'~f L
J:.age 1 or j
Dan Watrous
LATE MAll I
From:
roJ ~CC~~~[E~
~ 2 6 2006 [!j
Metz, Tim [tmetz@mountainhardwear.com]
Thursday, May 25, 2006 6:36 PM
Dan Watrous; Scott Anderson
(Tiburon Planning Commission) John Kunzweiler; csla@comcast.net;
kaull@gryphoninvestors.com; KNygren@aol.com
Subject: Inaccuracies with the Parking numbers used in Kol Shofar Denial Resoluti
Importance: High
Sent:
To:
Cc:
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Hello Dan and Scott,
Please include this e-mail in the Late Mail and ensure that a copy of this gets to all Planning Commissioners.
I just finished reading the Kol Shofar draft resolution for denial and there are a couple of figures in the Parking
section that need to be corrected as they show inaccurate information. These numbers should be corrected on
the draft resolution so that the parking requirements are stated accurately for the record.
1) The parking requirpmprts p~r th~ r'q,...,p,?! PI"" t..,:"1<:-"V~ 0'l ""<"'~nn-.~"! 'Y03 ~~<::~.,C' h,m'? hp0n '1!1d8restimated.
The parking required by the General t".an Sfh,U,O d(;WahY lie 114 sfJdces ,see aniuysis belOW). Page 15
and 16 of the draft resolution states:
"Section 5.08.04(d). Place of assembly: one parking space for each 4 seats of maximum seating capacity; or one
for each 40 square feet of assembly area, whichever is more; and Section 5.08.04(k)(1). Child Care:3 minimum,
plus one for each 10 children over the first 15.
"As indicated in DEIR Appendix D: Table 9, the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance parking requirement is comprised of
the following elements: 1) for the 4,500 square foot portion of the Multi-purpose Room that would provide up to
642 seats: 161 parking spaces; for the 5,336 square foot remodeled Sanctuary that would provide up to 550 fixed
seats: 138 parking spaces;for the remodeled 1,842 square foot Chapel: 46 spaces; and for the 150-student Pre-
School: 18 spaces. The combination of uses yields a total parking requirement of 363 spaces, far more than the
139 spaces proposed for the existing lower and proposed new upper parking lots."
Based on capacities of assembly areas that could be used concurrently, these numbers should actually be:
. Proposed New Multi-purpose room (642 person capacity - 4500 sq. ft.) = 160 spaces required based on
seating capacity (113 based on sq. ft.)
. Proposed Expanded Sanctuary (550 person capacity - 5336' sq. ft.) = 137 spaces required based
on seating capacity (133 based on sq. ft.)
. Remodeled Chapel (150 person capacity - 1842 sq. ft.) = 46 spaces required based on sq. ft. (37 based on
seati ng capacity)
. Classrooms as proposed in Existing Main Building (150 person capacity - 3032 sq. ft.) = 76 spaces
required based on sq. ft. (38 based on seating capacity)
. Library as proposed in Existing Main Building (14 person capacity - 735 sq. ft.) -18 spaces required based
on sq. ft. (3 based on seating capacity)
. Classrooms as proposed in Existing Administrative Wing (90 person capacity - 1919 sq. ft.) - 48 spaces
required based on sq. ft. (22 based on seating capacity)
. Conference Room as proposed in Existing Administrative Wing (30 person capacity - 538 sq. ft.) - 13
spaces required based on sq. ft. (1 based on seating capacity)
. Classrooms as proposed in Existing School Wing (150 person capacity - 3612 sq. ft.) - 90 spaces required
based on sq. ft. (37 based on seating capacity)
. Library as proposed in Existing School Wing (15 person capacity - 887 sq. ft.) - 22 spaces required based
5/26/2006
Page 2 of3
on sq. ft. (4 based on seating capacity)
. Existing Annex (80 person capacity -1454 sq. ft.) - 36 spaces based on sq. ft. (20 based on seating
capacity)
. Proposed New Classroom Wing (120 person capacity - 2734 sq. ft.) - 68 spaces based on sq. ft. (30 based
on seating capacity)
= 714 spaces required per the General Plan
Note: If the minimum numbers are used. the total is still = 444 spaces reauired.
2) The parking requirements per the General Plan based on additional square footage are also incorrect. The
parking required by additional square footage should actually be approximately 271 spaces (an additional
151 spaces). The final paragraph on page 17 of the draft resolution states:
"Alternatively, the proposed expansion represents an increase of 31% of the existing floor area, thus existing
parking could be required to increase by a comparable percentage or to a total of 153 spaces."
The number here should actually be 157 spaces (120 existing spaces x 131% of existing building size = 157
spaces) using the resolution's existing figures and algorithms. However. this logic is extremely flawed because
using the existing parking (which is SIGNIFICANTLY less than what is required for the current facility) as a
baseline makes no sense. Any baseline for a square footage increase based parking requirement needs to take
. ~ .~ l ? ...., \ 1 -_ <' . ': ~ J. '. r--. lJ~",. r- ~ ~
current facility is well aoove its current parKing capacity, so uSing current parKing numbers as a oasellne onlY
compounds this issue.
I do not have existing building capacities for this analysis, but using the figures above give a close approximation.
The figures above (for the existing facilities) actually understate what the current parking requirements are since
some existing classrooms have been removed and since the proposed sanctuary capacity is actually less than
the current sanctuary capacity. Current building parking requirements should be:
. Proposed Expanded Sanctuary (550 person capacity - 5336 sq. ft.) = 137 spaces required based
on seating capacity (133 based on sq. ft.)
. Remodeled Chapel (150 person capacity - 1842 sq. ft.) = 46 spaces required based on sq. ft. (37 based on
seating capacity)
. Classrooms as proposed in Existing Main Building (150 person capacity - 3032 sq. ft.) = 76 spaces
required based on sq. ft. (38 based on seating capacity)
. Library as proposed in Existing Main Building (14 person capacity - 735 sq. ft.) - 18 spaces required based
on sq.. ft. (3 based on seating capacity)
. Classrooms as proposed in Existing Administrative Wing (gO person capacity - 1919 sq. ft.) - 48 spaces
required based on sq. ft. (22 based on seating capacity)
. Conference Room as proposed in Existing Administrative Wing (30 person capacity - 538 sq. ft.) - 13
spaces required based on sq. ft. (7 based on seating capacity)
. Classrooms as proposed in Existing School Wing (150 person capacity - 3612 sq. ft.) - 90 spaces required
based on sq. ft. (37 based on seating capacity)
. Library as proposed in Existing School Wing (15 person capacity - 887 sq. ft.) - 22 spaces required based
on sq. ft. (4 based on seating capacity)
. Existing Annex (80 person capacity -1454 sq. ft.) - 36 spaces based on sq. ft. (20 based on seating
capacity)
= 486 spaces currently required per the General Plan
Note: If the minimum numbers are used. the total is still = 301 spaces currently required.
Apply the 31% square footage increase to these numbers and there are 151 additional parking spots
required. Using minimum numbers, there are an additional 93 spaces required.
5/26/2006
rage j or j
Please consider this information as you review and discuss the resolutions before you.
Sincerely,
Timothy I Metz
50 Reedland Woods Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
5/26/2006
MAY 18 2000 10:47AM
R GOLDWASSER
:/ H. D.
I
i
F Ajx COVER SHEET
I
{415l381-169S
FAX:'
;
I
-( L.,ytfV) P b Y1 11' '^ j...- cr oYV' 1M ,j.r '"'1
I u
['tISJ L!J54 -7-'1'Ji
I
!
.J-
TO:
FROM:
Richard oldwasser, M.D.
FAX ( 15) 381-1699
phone ( 15) 381..1690
Y.
pages including this.
I
CoDilde-tIltIIty Nodee: I
'The documont (s) llCCOmpllflying this Ff\X may contain private, confidential information whicll is legally privileged,
Tho infonnation is intended only fot/bo use of the intended recipient named above, If you are not the intl:nded
m:ipiont, you are hereby notified that ~ disclosure, copying, dislribution, or the teking nf any action in reliance 00
the contenlll of this tolecopied infnrm~on is slrictly prohibit"". If you have ~ this FAX in error. please notify
lilt by teI:hone (415) 311.1690 to T.... e .fI>t the retUrn nfthe nriginBJ dOCUllleRt to me,
(4. (",,///-") <>1/-'7 ~ v/ >h .J{CAy f>1"'C/r.s,J ex-('01" 5N'vJ
I
P tu.fJl..1 cI ,'.sfY" t,,, 1 ~ .
MAY 18 2000 10:47AM R GOLDWASSER M.D.
(415)381-1699
p.2
f t' c "~r/ Co [J W(!.~ J' -V- 'Pt- tJ
58 fot.Jeo jM 1Y?\fcj
'l~ h ,,\,yVVl cA-C! [,1 ~ cO
Wlptl 1'7.2CJOC
i
I
I
j
I
I
I
7. h"y"", P It7t tl" r d C+- . 5P o'V)
0~ TovVV\ c~l~vtc, 1
r"',( '-I '35' ' '2.1{ 3'&1
I
I
~ :c a'h~v"J"'} 'f lee! S"h..(....--
~ VI c/ I ...e -f.. f ~ Y' S .. I'"Y)
I
I
P fuf'e. (t" fe r~ ~ c IriS ej /I 'J h /!-vI. ''/'''} f R.H"";>,
~ z,.o " ) f 2-<9 '" r ' C.OVI fyv>. 1'7 tv ~ "'-T
~bb.- G,v~[ D-fr1.'7 t'rJ11 ~ PIPfI')""''''l- ~;'7,s-.r.'0
.,f ~ f VI h/.'1 hu"'""Yl} rM }'VI 0\'1 /() I -rhe
f'1Y1"rJ'-I'i: ht> ~.ell >-4'v.-a.-J oi'.('f'.'k -{.,y
1 < ""''> ( I.",. I [.v... 5 f jY1 /.'1 )' fe..--Pr 2? b~ fe...n' r;1 '7 C (.. iA v- c t" I o>:J
'T /' ~ Vi r I1V\ ).
;t & <I I . -r1"l 1VI 'If cJV1
~Jcrr;e > p rtJ1'
+\I\,r t1 0 v cJ V\ Y\) ,>) C1f\
-tte
(" Yt J
jt )~0
t/Yl c r~~v.re.,S
pr-O(d5a,/ ,en1fJh(
r~vey>e . 7'''cI.e. >~CI:(:C"~
~4re.. Cltn5 q -4
L () ;- .;fl i-a J" .
p'(~CI~
MAY 18 2000 10:47AH R GOLDWASSER M.D.
I
~
EARLY SERV'iICES
5765/2004 High Holy bays iiJ
'ltii""";~
Please present this paS$ to the usher at Qach S8Nice\
5aturda~1 9/11 - Seliehot
Text Study with Rabbi Derby............................., 8:00 p.m.
Traditional Sellchol Service ............................... 11 :00 p.m.
Wednesday, 9/15. Erav Rosh Hashan~h
SeNlces ...................,..........................:.............. 8:00 p,m.
Thursday, 9/16 - Rosh Hashanah 1't D~y
Services...................... ..................sJQo a.m. . 1:30 p.m.
Sermon........ ................... ..................... ..... ...... ...1 0:45 a.m.
Tashlich Ceremony...,......... ........ ............ ............1 :00 p.m.
(Tashlich immediately after service @; Richardson Bay)
""N&W" Family Service:... .................. .2:90 p.m.. 3:15 p.m. \
(At Westminster Church) /
Friday. 9/17. Rosh Hashanah 2nd Day
serviC:-. (Kiddush following servICe).l.;.............9:~O a.m>.
Neshama Mmyan...........................,......10fOO a.m.. 1.00 p.m. ,
(At Westminster Church)
Shabbat Shuva - Friday, 9/17 & Saturday, 9/18
Kabbalat Shabbat Services ................................6:15 p.m.
Services - Saturday, 9/18................................9:15 a.m.
Friday. 9f24-ErevYom Kippur
Kal Nidre ...........................................;..... 5:45 - 8:15 p.m.
Saturday, 9/25 - Yom Kippur
Servlces.............................................B:OO a.m. - 1 :30 p.m.
Sermon.. ........... ," ......., ...... .................. ........ .......1 0:45 a.m.
Yizkor.......... ......... ........................... ...., ........ .......11: 1 0 a. m.
Mincha.... .................., ....... ............ .......... .......... ...4:50 p.m.
Neila .............. .......................... .... ............... ....... ..6: 15 p.m.
Shofar Soundlng..............................j........ ........7:26 p.m.
· NeW; ~~:~~';;i~:~~t;~;~. .... ...... .... .200.315 pm)
. Please leave parking area ASAP when services are over to
make roorn for late Services parking
. Please enter through the main entrance for all services. The
other auxiliary entrances will be dosejj.
. Please nole the map with the authorized parking areas on the
reverse side. 2
. Please observe all parking Inslructlons. 2 1
congregation Kol Shofar
215 Blackfield Drive. Tiburon, CA 94920
415-388-1818 I
(415)381-1699
p.3
..-
LATE SERVICES.
576412003 Hlgh..HolyDays
Please present this pass
to the u!lheratuch service I
fii...r?t.....i)...... .
W'~~'4f
SatUrday, 9/20
Traditional Selichct....... ..... .....,.. ........ ....... ....11 :00 pm
FridaYi 1/26
ErevRosh Hashanah... ......... ........... ....~.... .:..B:OOpm
Saturday, 9/21
\OSh ~ashanah1st[)ayServlces.............l:30-4:00 pm
Hesham!! Mln .' '. '. ....
.. . 1f1 Wee1mln.:'b~ceon..Tibu;t;;;..iiWT10:00.m
ennon...:,.".. ......... ... ................ .......... ........ ..;,..,,3;1.5 p.rn
S u,,!da~, ~!28
) ":', < {" .{ -"; :', ~;3 :'~ ~7 ""! ? <I'!, d :);:~ ~1
~::c:.-.-......::..::...........~..:.:....:...~.. '.': ~ .......... ~'. ~'.~'.'. ~:~:: :~:: :'. ~: :'~'.:: 1t~.~~:~
Tashlich Cerem ony.........;... ... ........ ......,... ...;.....2:00 pm
Saturday, 10/4
ShabbEd Shuva. ...,.... ,..;.......... ...................."...;9:15 am.
Sunday, 10is
Erev Yom Kippur
KoINldre.~............... ............. .............. ...9:0Q:.10:45 pm
Mo~~1~6 .
Yom KlpptlrServJces...............~... .:.~..... .....;,...2:15.-4:30 pm
Sermon;......... . . 3'00' pin
i~.:.:.:::.:.::::.:~;:.::~.~~~~:.:.~.:..::::~:.:::~~..~:}..~;~~;.0!~e
r Sounding...... ......... " ~...........,... ........ ..;..,.7-2B pm
· PI.... do notlrriwmore than 30 minutes befort. sWkes,o
per1clrcllot.. are cJear from . early service. '. .
· PIeaM em., thrOugh the main entranc:e for III servk:ee.Tt.
otheralPdllary entrancM wll. bect08ed. .
;. PIeaee notice ~ m~pwlththe aUthorized par1cl~ arenon
the ~rse aide.. . ';'
.. PIeeee"obMfW ,ell peitdn~InstNctlon.. ".925
I
l.
Congregation · Kal: Shofar
215 B~ Drtve,TJburon, CA ~
, 4150385-181'8
MAY 18 2000 10:47AM R GOLDWASSER M.D.
(415)381-1699
p.4
;' n ."'..
rI~ ....- fj--'. . ~ ""
I '/ _uuP;:;;;';;~~" \ ''-" '--Z (~~ !
~ /0/7! 0" ~~ \~7~~:::="""" i
,,,t?"H"f j"r~l.l )'~
~(I K!11 :
; 'II I ~--o" ""'J~ II!
g :~, . &:I MIDDlE LOT 1
l PAIQ-lG OK HUE
~ i~/"~~ 0:
- : . ~'\ \ I
~\ '" I ~ ) ~
. I, 4 ~lOT0 ~~\\ ~~~~ ;
,t i PARIltGOUfRE. r t;t. \;;/ ~~.:I>*~ --
l.! ~~ \ ~",~Q ~tP"
ll' I, ~. ~ ~,,~,{>.~ .Q.c.._........".
~. \<.y\'t:.\,O DR/v, ..... I ~
... e\y..~-- t:
"
i
I
I
I
Scott Anderson, Tiburon Director of Planning
and
Tiburon Planning Commission
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
~~~~~:;:~
May 12, 2006
Re: May 31 st Planning Commission meeting regarding Congregation Kol Shofar
Dear Mr. Anderson and Tiburon Planning Commissioners,
It has come to our attention that the specially scheduled May 31 st Planning Commission
meeting to review the Congregation Kol Shofar Conditional Use Permit falls on the
Wednesday following the Memorial Day long weekend. The timing of the May 31 st
meeting creates an unfair burden on the public since they will have an extremely limited
opportunity and ti:r::;- (C) . :1:;5 \\. ;'LJ.' ;,~>,\ Iy i(;vis..;d CunditiolialUse
Permit and related staff report regarding this project prior to this meeting.
Tiburon Town Hall will close by noon on Friday, May 26th as well as be closed all day
Monday, May 29th. Thus, a hard copy of the new Conditional Use Permit and staff report
will not be available to the public for review until May 30th, only one day prior to the
May 31 st meeting.
Many families and Tiburon residents will be out of town over the long 3 day Memorial
Day holiday weekend and not be able to review and comment on the changes related to
this latest version of the Conditional Use Permit even if they were able to obtain copies of
the report on Friday. While we are supportive of keeping the process moving along, in
light of the inadequate time frame, we request the meeting be rescheduled and/or
continued to a later date so there will be ample time for the public as well as decision
makers to be able to properly review and comment on a newly revised Conditional Use
Permit prior to the Planning Commission meeting and its potential adoption.
Thank you for your consideration.
On behalf of the TNC, sincerely,
Christianna Seidel
Cc: Dan Watrous
Page 1 of 1
Dan Watrous
From: regard [re2gard@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:58 AM
To: Dan Watrous
Subject: kol shofar expansion
f5) ~ CC [E ~ W [E ~I
If"U ! I 2006 l~
Dan Watrous
Tiburon Planning
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
The proposed expansion and in particular the increased use(multiple meetings week days and week ends every
week of the year)
will forever NEGATIVELY change the Bel Aire neighborhood.
My home at 11 Claire Way is approx 400 feet from the Kol Shofar sign at Blackfield and Los Altos
Presently Bel Aire is besieged with spill over parking about 10 times per year. When I say besieged, I mean there
is no parking
left on Blackfield, Karen Way, Claire Way and Leland. The entire neighborhood is full of Kol Shofar vehicles
similar to the
inner city of San Francisco, Chicago, New York etc. and this happens approx 10 times per year.
What they are proposing annually in the evening hours is 12 Sat., 5 Sun., 13 normal services, 31 Fri. and multiple
services. In addition the new class rooms will also escalate traffic during the daytime hours.
This is an increase of OVER FIVE FOLD from the present difficult parking and traffic impact.
Kol Shofar does NOT care of being good neighbors, but rather they only care about advancing their own agenda
at the expense
of the people around them. No matter what they say, their plan is to increase their facility and increase their
prestige in the
Jewish community with the focus on increasing their congregation.
They should be allowed to improve what is there, but NOT be allowed to increase size or hours of operation.
They could be required to bus people in from some central location that can accept all the extra cars. They could
lease Blackies Pasture
parking lot at nights(providing their own security)bus people in and Tiburon would benefit financially.
There many other ways they could be required to handle the parking and traffic in order to eliminate an already
difficult problem.
I si ncerely hope common sense will prevail.
Robert Gard
11 Claire Way
Tiburon
389-0505
5/11/2006
31 Via Los Altos
Tiburon
D Watrous Esq
Planning Manager
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon
~ ~CC ~I~:~ ~
11 May 2006
PLMJNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TISURON
Dear Sirs,
Kol Shofar Noise at 5;45 anI AloHuay (j l\-Jay 2vu6
For the record in respect of the CUP for the property, on Monday 8 May I was woken up
at 5:45 am by the noise of workmen dismantling the tent that had been erected on the Kol
Shofar site at 215 Blackfield Drive. The police were contacted and attended to the matter
by suggesting to the workmen they desist until a more appropriate time of 8:00 am.
Yours sincerely
Edward Baker
Page 1 of 1
Scott Anderson
From: Dan Watrous
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 11 :26 AM
To: aIlPC; Scott Anderson; npaplan@aol.com; 'Icharlesassociates@comcast.net'; 'slh1 ipa@aol.com';
'gtraggs@rfIawllp.com'; 'TWright@rtmmlaw.com'; svolker@volkerlaw.com; 'Ron Brown'; 'Howard
Zack'
Subject: FW: kol shofar expansion
~r~:'~~i
PLMmiNG DiViSiON \
TOWN ~)F TIBURON ~
Daniel M. Watrous
Planning Manager
Town of Tiburon
(415) 435-7393
-----Original Message-----
From: regard [mailto:re2gard@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:58 AM
To: Dan Watrous
Subject: kol shofar expansion
Dan Watrous
Tiburon Planning
The proposed expansion and in particular the increased use(multiple meetings week days and week ends every
week of the year)
will forever NEGATIVELY change the Bel Aire neighborhood.
My home at 11 Claire Way is approx 400 feet from the Kol Shofar sign at Blackfield and Los Altos
Presently Bel Aire is besieged with spill over parking about 10 times per year. When I say besieged, I mean there
is no parking
left on Blackfield, Karen Way, Claire Way and Leland. The entire neighborhood is full of Kol Shofar vehicles
similar to the
inner city of San Francisco, Chicago, New York etc. and this happens approx 10 times per year.
What they are proposing annually in the evening hours is 12 Sat., 5 Sun., 13 normal services, 31 Fri. and multiple
weekday
services. In addition the new class rooms will also escalate traffic during the daytime hours.
This is an increase of OVER FIVE FOLD from the present difficult parking and traffic impact.
Kol Shofar does NOT care of being good neighbors, but rather they only care about advancing their own agenda
at the expense
of the people around them. No matter what they say, their plan is to increase their facility and increase their
prestige in the
Jewish community with the focus on increasing their congregation.
They should be allowed to improve what is there, but NOT be allowed to increase size or hours of operation.
They could be required to bus people in from some central location that can accept all the extra cars. They could
lease Blackies Pasture
parking lot at nights(providing their own security)bus people in and Tiburon would benefit financially.
There many other ways they could be required to handle the parking and traffic in order to eliminate an already
difficult problem.
I sincerely hope common sense will prevail.
Robert Gard
11 Claire Way
Tiburon
389-0505
5/11/2006
Dan Watrous
~rom:
~nt:
J:
Subject:
leonard.land@comcast.net
Thursday, May 11, 2006 8: 16 AM
Dan Watrous
Proposed Kol Shofar expansion
~ ~ CC [~ ;~ ,:;tE ~
Dear Sir,
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Please be advised that not all the residents of the Bel Aire neighborhood are members of
the "Neighborhood Coalition." I live in the neighborhood and see no problem with the
proposed expansion of Kol Shofar. I disagree with the coalition's stance and they do not
speak for all the residents in the area.
There have been studies indicating that a house of worship actually increases the value of
homes nearby. Additionally, I feel that the other arguments (increased traffic, noise and
danger to children) hold very little merit.
Thank you,
Leonard land
275 Cecilia Way
Tiburon, CA
,
1