Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2002-11-06 ., TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 November 6, 2002 Ii{ 2J/V. (}tT)r ~/ 6:30 PM - Closed Session 7:30 PM - Regular Meeting ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435-7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere- Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s). TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda, it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items appearing on the Town Council agenda, AGENDA CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNCIL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Section 54956.9(a)) Howard Zack, Diane Zack v, MERA and Town of Tiburon MERA v, Town of Tiburon and Dean Bloomquist Citizens for Open Process in Antenna Siting (COPAS) v. MERA and Town of Tiburon Tiburon Residents (TRAUMAS) v. Town of Tiburon and MERA Xanadu v. Town of Tiburon CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNCIL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Section 54956,9(b)(3)(C) Claimant: UDI-Tetrad J.;. \. , Agenda - Town Council Meeting November 6, 2002 Page 2 of 3 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLLCALL Councilmember Berger, Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Thompson, Vice Mayor Slavitz, Mayor Gram ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. IF ANY ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council on any subject not on the agenda may do so now. Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action tonight on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Town Council meeting agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes, CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion unless a request is made that an item be transferred to the Regular Agenda for separate discussion and consideration, Any item on the Regular Agenda may be moved to the Consent Calendar. 1. Approval of Town Council Minutes - October 16, 2002 2. Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services - Accept September 2002 Town Investment Summary 3, Recommendation by Town Attorney - Request to join Amicus Briefs a) San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill b) City of Long Beach v, State of California Dept. of Industrial Relations c) Robert Shiell v, County of Los Angeles (County of Los Angeles Petition for Supreme Court Review) 4. Report and Recommendation by Director of Community Development - Results of 2001 Downtown Parking $urvey 5, Recommendation by Director of Community Development - Accept Future Annexation Agreement a) 3499 Paradise Drive (Kopstein) - AP No.58-032-05 & 14 REGULAR AGENDA 6, Recommendation. by Director of Community Development - Update of Town of Tiburon's Local CEQA Guidelines 7. Recommendation by Chief of Police - County-wide Prohibition on Personal Watercraft ,-~ Agenda - Town Council Meeting November 6, 2002 Page 3 of 3 COUNCIL. COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Town Council Weekly Digest - October 18, 2002 Town Council Weekly Digest - October 25, 2002 ADJOURNMENT UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS & EVENTS · Annual Performance Evaluation of Town Attorney and Town Manager - (November) · Certification of Vote of November 5, 2002 General Municipal Election - (November) · Appeal of DRB conditional approval for construction of two single family dwellings at 2355 Paradise Drive - AP No. 59-201-49; Eugene Aureguy, ApplicantlWallace and Susan Quinn and Robin Moore, Appellants - (November 20) · Amendment to Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan - 120 Rancho Drive; Joseph and Suan Ahern; Applicants - (November 20) · Ratification of Ordinance revising Title 24 part 9 of the California Code of Regulations, the 2001 California Fire Code and the 2000 Uniform Fire Code - (November 20) · 375 Taylor Road - Request for Extension of Time to file Precise Development Plan - (November 20) · General Plan Update - (future agenda) · Approval of Parcel Map (Winters) - (future agenda) · Proposed Grading Ordinance - (future agenda) · Reorganization of Town Council - (December 4) · Festival of Trees - (December 7) · Town Holiday Party - (December 20) TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES rkfkJA.L D~"{ArT '-. .' '" .~ " CALL TO ORDER . Mayor Gram ca ledfueregUJar eeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesda , October 16,2002, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, Califl . a. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz, Thompson Berger PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager McIntyre, Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Administrative Services McVeigh, Director of Community Development Anderson, Senior Planner Watrous, Town EngineerlDirector of Public Works Echols, Chief of Police Odetto, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi CLOSED SESSION CONF~RENCE WITH LEGAL COUNCIL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Section 54946.9(a)) Citizens for Open Process in Antenna Siting (COPAS) v. MERA and Town ofTiburon Howard Zack, Diane Zack v. MERA and Town ofTiburon Tiburon Residents (TRA UMAS) v. Town ofTiburon and MERA Xanadu v. Town ofTiburon INTERVIEWS - Heritage & Arts Commission Vacancy . Patricia Navone, 2200 Paradise Drive . Ronald Lincoln, 17 Juno Road ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. IF ANY Mayor Gram said that no action was taken on the items discussed in closed session. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. Town Council Minutes # 25-2002 October 16, 2002 Page 1 ~:....'~ -, r '. PRESENTATION . Presentation by CAL/TRANS representatives regarding Southbound Off-ramp Widening and Installation of Sound Wall at U.S. Highway 101 and State Route 131(East Blithedale) Interchange Mr. Saaid Fakharzadeh ofCAL/TRANS gave the Council an update on the proposal to add a lane to the southbound off-ramp and construct a soundwall at the Highway 101/East Blithedale interchange. He stated that studiesliad shown that there were 2.39 accidents per million vehicles in the vicinity of the off-ramp which warranted the addition of the lane by reducing the queue "upstream" and by increasing the capacity of the off-ramp. Mr. Fakharzadeh said that similar presentations would be given in Mill Valley on October 21 and to the Board of Supervisors on October 22. The proposal for the construction of a soundwall at the interchange was warranted by CAL/TRANS guidelines and FHW A policy for noise abatement, according to Fakharzadeh. CAL/TRANS guidelines require a 5 decibel decrease and must also meet certain cost requirements to be feasible. He saidthat a soundwall would not be warranted on the eastside interchange, based on the same cost ratio factors. Mr. Fakharzadeh said that a decision was needed on whether to build the soundwall on the "hinge point" or right-of-way, before the project could proceed. He showed the Council and the . public photo simulations of both wall placements, which would be either 14 or 16 feet tall. The wall in the GAL/TRANS right-of-way appeared lower due to the 8-10 foot drop-off to the west of the off-ramp. Mr. Fakharzadeh said that a standard lO-foot wide shoulder was required by CAL/TRANS. Mr. Fakharzadeh showed a comparison of the benefits of the soundwall in the two different locations. Decibels would be reduced by five in the right-of-way location, but would be greater in the "hinge" location; the ability to perform road maintenance would be more difficult at the "hinge" location but would be "stattisquo" if the wall were located in the right-of-way; "security" would be status quo if the wall were at the right-of-way while "dead space" would be created if the wall was placed on the "hinge." Fakharzadeh also discussed (three)funding sources and said that the total project cost would total $5.8 million. He said ifthe projectwas approved in Spring 2003, construction would start in 2005. Mr. Fakharzadeh said that construction ofa soundwall could reduce decibel levels from 61-76 to 59-74 at the first row of houses. He said that the right-of-way location would result in 50-63 decibels while the "hinge" location would reduce the noise levels to 48-64 decibels. Town Council Minutes # 25-2002 October 16. 2002 Page 2 .- , He said that the area qualified for a soundwall even if the widening of the interchange was not being proposed, and in fact, had started simply as a soundwall project in 1989. After the Loma Prieta earthquake in that year, funding for such projects dropped off but with the passage ofSB 45, such projects were. now under the authority of the local Congestion Management Agency. According to Mr. Fakharzadeh, the East Blithedale project was one of four that qualified for current funding in District 4. He said that CAL/TRANS would prefer the right-of-way location to the "hinge" location and that a final decision was needed. In response to a question from the public, Mr. Fakharzadeh said that CAL/TRANS would need a temporary easement to undertake the construction of a soundwall in the right-of-way location but that no condemnation of property was contemplated. Mr. Fakharzadeh also answered a question from Council and the public concerning the starting point of the additional lane. He responded that it would begin "south of the flashing light" on southbound Highway 101. He was also asked what the public reaction had been of the homeowners in the vicinity. Mr. Fakharzadeh said that CAL/TRANS had received a petition from residents saying that they wanted a soundwall. In response to a question from Vice Mayor Slavitz about whether soundwalls actually conducted sound rather than deflected it in some situations, one of Mr. Fakharzadeh's team said that perception was a myth and that studies showed that weather conditions and wind could affect the distance noise traveled, rather than being conducted by a wall. Slavitz asked if other mitigations other than a soundwall, such as "rubberized pavement," could be pursued. Mr. Fakharzadeh said that the Federal Highway Administration did not recognize such use as a noise reduction technique but said that all the lanes of the highway would have to be paved in this material in order to it be effective. Councilmember Thompson discussed the dangers of traffic backing up in the configuration of the the current off-ramp, and he said that improvements were needed in addition to another lane on off-ramp. He suggested a right-turn lane on to East Blithedale through a vacant strip ofland adjacent to the intersection into which traffic could merge without being required to stop at the light. Mayor Gram opened the public hearing. Karen Nygren, Pas eo Mirasol, said that exceptions and variances to CALlTRANS policy could provide an option to preclude construction of a soundwall in that location. She said that there had been significant opposition to such construction in the 80's. She said that the real problem was the traffic backing up on the freeway off-ramp, as well as traffic congestion on East Blithedale itself, which required further study. Town Council Minutes # 25-2002 October 16,2002 Page 3 Ms. Nygren said that residents of San Rafael disagreed with the CAL/TRANS conclusion about "reflective noise" from soundwalls and said that the residents in Mill Valley might concur. Ronald Lincoln, Juno Road, said that the aesthetics in this area were so pleasant and that the construction of a soundwall would be a "blight." A resident of 5 Plaza Drive in Mill Valley, said that the homes in that area were "set down" and suggested that perhaps CAL/TRANS could build a six-foot soundwall on top of a retaining wall in lieu of a 14 or 16- foot soundwall to achieve the same effect. Mayor Gram closed the public hearing. Vice Mayor Slavitz said that no soundwall was the best alternative and that it would be "a crime" to remove all the trees in the area for construction of a wall. However, he encouraged the CAL/TRANS delegation to obtain community input in Mill Valley. Councilmember Fredericks said that she would prefer no wall, but noted the geometric reduction of noise by the construction of a soundwall which she said would be significant. Councilmember Thompson said that "our" concerns should be secondary to those of the . , immediate neighbors. However, he encouraged CAL/TRANS to determine whether another lane was really needed and whether an alternate design utilizing a right-turn merge lane would suffice. Mayor Gram concurred with the sentiments of his fellow councilmembers and thanked Mr. Fakharzadeh and the CAL/TRANS delegation for their presentation. APPOINTMENTS TO TOWN BOARDS. COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES . Heritage & Arts Commission - One Vacancy Council commented on the excellent qualifications of both candidates that they interviewed. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To appoint Patricia Navone to the Heritage & Arts Commission Slavitz, seconded by Fredericks AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Berger CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Town Council Minutes - September 18, 200L 2. Approval of Town Council Minutes - October 2, 2002 Town Council Minutes # 25-2002 October 16, 2002 Page 4 .. 3. Recommendation by Senior Planner - 2120 Mar East; Deny Appeal without Prejudice a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Denying an Appeal by Fani and Gary Hansen of a Site Plan and Architectural Approval for a Construction of a new Two-family Dwelling Located at 2120 Mar East Street AP No. - 59-181-90 4. Recommendation by Director of Community Development - Adoption of Permanent Construction Debris Recycling Program a) A Resolution of the Town Council ofthe Town of Tiburon Establishing a Construction and Demolition Debris Policy for Applicable Building Permits 5. Recommendation by Chief of Police and Director of Administrative Services - COPS Grant and Spending Plan a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Approving an Expenditure Plan for the Utilization of Supplemental Law Enforcement Funds (COPS Monies) Received in Fiscal Year 2002-2003 6. Recommendation by Town Manager - Request from Chamber of Commerce for Funding of 2nd Annual Holiday Parade & Festival of Trees 7. Recommendation by Heritage & Arts Commission - Placement of Mayor's Trophy in Town Council Chambers MOTION: Moved: Vote: To approve Consent Calendar Items 1 through 7, above. Fredericks, seconded by Slavitz AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Berger ABSTAIN: Slavitz (October 2,2002 minutes) REGULAR AGENDA 8. Recommendation by Director of Public Worksffown Engineer - Affirm Appointments to Skatepark Task Force Town Engineer Echols asked for confirmation of the proposed appointments, which included representatives from the following Commissions and Town Council: Town Council Minutes # 25-2002 October 16, 2002 Page 5 Miles Berger, Town Council Barbara Creamer, J1. Recreation Committee Jim Fraser, Parks & Open Space Commission Bill McLaughlin, Design Review Board Paul Smith, Planning Commission Vice Mayor Slavitz said that he had become aware of some controversy surrounding the Design Review Board representative and suggested that Chair Mike Figour be appointed in lieu of Boardmember McLaughlin. Councilmember Fredericks concurred and said it that because the skatepark issue itself was controversial, it would be better to have task force members who were not controversial. Councilmember Thompson said that he did not want the task force to use up a lot of Staff resources and time for a proposed project that would serve only "a thin sliver of population." However, he said the task force should remain "focused" in its review. Mayor Gram concurred with the Vice Mayor and Councilmember Fredericks-that the task force did not need a perception of controversy surrounding it. He asked if Chair Figour would agree to serve, if asked. Mayor Gram opened the matter to the public. Anne Goggio Cohn, leader of the committee for a skateboard park, said she had raised the issue concerning the appointment of Boarmember McLaughlin. She said she felt that it was important to have a "fair and objective review" and that anyone who had publicly stated their opposition to the project should recuse themselves. John Nierenstein, skateboard park committee member, said that he did not know the appointee in question but said that he agreed with Ms. Cohn and would defer to the Council's judgment on the Issue. MOTION: To affirm the proposed appointments list with the exception of the Design Review Board appointee; to appoint Mike Figour in lieu of Bill McLaughlin, pending his acceptance of the appointment. Slavitz, seconded by Fredericks AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Berger Moved: Vote: PUBLIC HEARING 9. Recommendation by Senior Planner - Approval of Precise Development Plan Amendment to Revise Rear Portion of Building Envelope at 46 Via Los Altos to Construct a Swimming Pool Town Council Minutes # 25-2002 October 16, 2002 Page 6 .. Scott & Susan Kisting, Applicants Ring Mountain Precise Plan AP No. - 34-012-53 Senior Planner Watrous said that the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval of an amendment to the precise development plan to expand the building envelope in order to construct a swimming pool. He said that the Commission recommended that the proposed expansion area be approved as a secondary building envelope and that the new envelope be situated no further than five feet from the rear property line. Council waived further discussion.. Mayor Gram opened and closed the public hearing. There was no public comment. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To approve the amendment and adopt accompanying resolution of findings. Thompson, seconded by Fredericks AYES: Unanimous COUNCIL. COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilmember Fredericks gave a brief report on a brochure being distributed by the Congestion Management Agency. Councilmember Thompson asked that a hearing on the County jet ski ordinance be agendized. Town Manager McIntyre said it would come before Council on November 20. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Town Council Weekly Digest - October 4,2002 Town Manager McIntyre reported on the Pt. Tiburon Marsh Maintenance Program and said that a memo outlining next year's plan would appear in an upcoming Digest. The Town Manager also reported a State take-away from RDA in amount of $34,000. Town Council Weekly Digest - October 11, 2002 Town Manager Mcintyre noted correspondence from Staff regarding a drainage issue on Porto Marino. He stated that he would be out of town until October 29 and that Director of Administrative Services McVeigh would be in charge during his absence. Town Council Minutes # 25-2002 October 16, 2002 Page 7 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Gram adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m., sine die. ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK TOM GRAM, MAYOR Town Council Minutes # 25-2002 October J 6, 2002 Page 8 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM :l . 1 . oJ- .-1.(~(j ~. ~/ ,,~o ~( ~=\: ~. .~ ~l~i~~J .~ O~NIA-\~ . , . TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council FROM: Heidi McVeigh, Director of Administrative services~ SUBJECT: Monthly Investment Summary - September 2002 MEETING DATE: November 6, 2002 REVIEWED BY: AD TOWN OF TIBURON I nstitution/ Agency Investment Amount Interest Rate Maturity State of California Local Agency $7,966,350.750 2.604% Liquid Investment Fund (LAIF) Total Invested: $7,966,350.750 TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Institution/Agency Investment Amount Interest Rate Maturity State of California Local Agency $749,965.95 2.604% Liquid Investment Fund (LAIF) Bank of America Other $0 Total Invested: $749,965.95 Notes to Table Information: State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): The interest rate represents the effective yield for the month referenced above. The State of California generally distributes investment data reports in the third week following the month ended. ' Acknowledgment: This summary report accurately reflects all pooled investments of the Town of Tiburon and the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency, and is in confQrmity with State laws and the Investment Policy adopted by the Town Council. The investment program herein summarized provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet next month's estimated expenditures. Heidi McVeigh cc: Town Treasurer August 13,2002 1 of 1 LAIF Performance Report Page 1 of 2 . Phil Angelides, State Treasurer ~ Inside the State Treasurer's Office ~ Local Agency Investment Fund LAIF'Performance Report --.';: '_.'::--'---."",-- - :::-:;';-,~-=-=-.' _-=-:;~~~.::-, :--:;_..~. '_:::~=- - R_E?P~rtirl~l; ~'~t~~..::- . - --.: :-: ~. --.~. ..-; -:1 Ol1_6!0_~ _u H:-:::_ _: - u-. - _u ___._u _ _~_ n ---.---- ~: n ._. .,.,.. ...' ... . -0'_ .Effectiv.e Date:.,. 10/15/02 . - ---. __.._=._u.C_ -.' --~.::..:..~-,:: ::-~'--:'-::' .:".':.;''-,:::,u . 'Q-':::u=:a'~rt:e~'r.-'Y:'I-e::I'd-,~.':-'::;:::-=:' . _:'..H': .-:-;';'~ 2'-'.-:-5'7"O;/O'::-;;';'~':- ,~'. :.....:. ~~~.... - . "~ - . ,".. ...:.... ~_. -= ,~, -~~ . I( ..----'':""';.--- -.....,...__.""'--..-:-~~ ,.,.......,...-~-:;-......;"- ~'~":'..._'-'--- ......,._.._~- ---,,-:,. Daily: 2.57% Year: . 2.63% Life: 189 Quarter Ending 09/30/02 Apportionment Rate: 2.63% Earnings Ratio: .00007199563637577 Fair Value Factor: 1.005020041 Monthly Average For September: 2.604% Pooled Money Investment Account Portfolio Composition $44.6 Billion 9/3)/02 Loans 13.12% Reverses -0.23% Treasuries 15,47% Corporate Bonds 5,34%' Mortgages 0.01% . Treasuries o Mortgages EiI Agencies . CD'sJ8N's Agencies 0 Time Deposits 18,65% 13 Bankers Acceptances Commercial Paper 23.40% . Repo . Commercial Paper' , o Corporate Bonds 13 Loans . Reverses http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/laifi.performance.htm 10/21/2002 ," RICHARD RICHARDS (1916-1988) GLENN R, WATSON ERWIN E, ADLER DAROlD 0, PIEPER STEVEN L. DORSEY WilLIAM L. STRAUSZ MITCHEll E, ABBOTT GREGORY W, STEPANICICH ROCHELLE BROWNE WilLIAM B, RUDEll QUINN M, BARROW CAROL W. lYNCH GREGORY M, KUNERT THOMAS M, liMBO ROBERT C. CECCON STEVEN H, KAU FMAN N GAfr:' :::. G4.N:; IOH N I, HARRIS KEVIN G, ENNIS ROBIN 0, HARRIS MICHAEL ESTRADA LAURENCE S. WIENER STEVEN R, ORR B, TILDEN KIM SASKIA T, ASAMURA KAYSER O. SUME PETER M, THORSON JAMES L. MARKMAN CRAIG A. STEELE T, PETER PIERCE TERENCE R. BOGA LISA BOND JANET E, COLESON AMY GREYSON DEBORAH R, HAKMAN WilliAM p, CURLEY III 0, CRAIG FOX ROXANNE M, DIAZ ELANA A, LU BER CHANDRA GEHRI SPENCER ROBERT H. PITTMAN ROY A. CLARKE ERIC M. ALDERETE MICHAEL F. YOSHIBA REGINA N, DANNER PAULA GUTIERREZ BAEZA PETER K. KIM TERESA HO.URANO OWEN p, GROSS ALEXANDER ABBE TOM K. ARA CARRIE H, AHN EFFIE K. TURNBUll ERICA KYLE WilliAMS ELIZABETH A, SU lLlVAN MICHAEL P. COYN E ROBERT WATSON PATRICK K, BOBKO MARK E. MANDEll JULIET E, COX GEORGE M. YIN SONALI SARKAR JANDIAl KELLY 1'\. CASiLLAS DAVID M, SNOW OF COUNSEL HARRY L. GERSHON MARK L. LAM KEN SAYRE WEAVER WilLIAM K, KRAMER JIM G, GRAYSON SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE TELEPHONE 415,421.8484 FACSIMilE 415,421.8486 ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE TELEPHONE 714,990.0901 FACSIMilE 714,990,62)0 I~~~~ RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON ~~[. ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATiON ----10 '~3~ J--;e:/vv lUu- -X... 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Roor, Los Angeles, California 90071-3101 Telephone 213.626.8484 Facsimile 213.626.0078 October 17,2002 Ann R. Danforth City Attorney 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill Dear Ms. Danforth: I write to encourage your City to join the amicus curiae brief which I am preparing to file on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support of the City of Morgan Hill ("City") in San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 02-15693) (appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of California Case No. 01-20857). Appellant San Jose Christian College purchased former hospital property in the City of Morgan Hill "on spec", intending to use the site for a college campus, and applied to the City to re-zone the property. The City denied the application for two reasons: first, the City concluded that rezoning ofthe property was inappropriate because the subject site is the only property in the City currently zoned for hospital use, and second, San Jose Christian College failed to comply with the requirements of CEQA. San Jose Christian College initially filed an action in Superior Court, but dismissed it to pursue a federal court action San Jose Christian College then filed an action in U.S. District Court, challenging both the City's zoning ordinance and the City's denial of the re-zoning application under the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIP A). Under RLUIP A, "no government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise" of a person, assembly, or institution, unless the regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government purpose. 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(a)(1). On March 8, 2002, the District Court entered summary judgment for the City. The Court held that the City's zoning ordinances are laws of general applicability and do not need to be justified by a compelling government interest even ifthey RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON Ann R. Danforth October 17, 2002 Page 2 incidentally burden a religion or religious practice, and that a rational basis level of scrutiny was appropriate. In addition, the Court found that San Jose Christian College had fail,ed to demonstrate that the denial of their application placed a substantial burden on their religious exercise as required by RLUIPA. 42 U.S.C. ~ 2000cc(a)(1). Quoting from the legislative history of RLUIP A, the court concluded that RLUIP A "does not provide religious institutions with immunity from land use regulation." Senate Legislative History, at 27. The City of Morgan Hill's brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, which will be filed byJohn Ramirez and Jeffrey T. Melching of Rutan & Tucker, LLP, will explain in detailwhythe District Court's ruling should be upheld under the facts. The amicus brief we are preparing will supplement the City's brief emphasizing that RLUIP A is intended to prevent discrimination against religious expression and institutions, not to exempt religious institutions from neutral land use regulations or environmental regulations under CEQA, and that interpreting RLUIP A to forbid any zoning or land use restrictions on religious institutions would strip local governments and planning commissions throughout the State of California to engage in their historic power to reasonably regulate land use ~or the public welfare, and make federal courts in essence !'super zoning bodies." An am~cus brief will also be filed by the American Planning Association in support of the City's position. We will file our application for leave to file an amicus brief, with the amicus brief attached, no later than Thursday, November 7,2002. Accordingly, if your City wishes to add its name in support of the amicus brief, please notify me in writing such that the notification reaches me no later than Monday, November 5,2002, by 5:00 p.m. Alternatively, if this timetable is not convenient for your City Council, you may wish to telephone me, or send an e-mail to me, as late as noon on the filing date, and send written confirmation thereafter. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesi'tate to contact me Very truly yours, tktJ ~mO Amy Greyson cc: John Ramirez, Esq., Rutan & Tucker, LLP Jeffrey T. Melching;, Esq., Rutan & Tucker, LLP 99904\0228\710129,2 TAN CKERj ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 611 ANTON BOULEVARD, FOURTEENTH FLOOR COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626-1931 DIRECT ALL MAIL TO, POST OFFICE BOX 1950 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92628-1950 TELEPHONE 714-641-5100 FACSIMILE 714-546-9035 INTERNET ADDRESS www.rutan.com Direct Dial: (714) 641-3413 E-mail: kjenson@rutan.com Ann R. Danforth Town Attorney 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 JAMES R. MOORE" PAUL FREDERIC MARX RICHARD A. CURNUTT JOHN B. HURLBUT, jR MICHAEL W. IMMELL MILFORD W DAHL IR THEODORE I. WALLACE, JR,. JOSEPH D. CARRUTH RICHARD P. SIMS JAMES 6. O'NEAL ROBERT C. BRAUN THOMAS S. SALINGER' DAVID C. LARSEN" CLIFFORD E. FRIEDEN MICHAEL D. RUBIN IRA G. R1V1N' JEFfREY M. ODERMAN" 5T AN WOLCOTT ROBERT 5 BOWER MARClA A. FORSYTH WILliAM M. MARTICORENA JAMESL MORRIS MICHAEL T. HORNAK PHILIP D. KOHN JOEL 0 KUI'ERBERG STEVEN A. NICHOLS A.W. RUTAN (1880-1972) THOMAS G. BROCKINGTON EVRIDIKI {VICKI I DALLAS RANDALL M. BA8BU$H MARY M. GREEN GREGG AMBER MICHAEL F. SITZER THOMAS J. CRANE MARK B. FRAZIER PENELOPE PARMES M KATHERINE JENSON DUKE F. WAHLQUIST RICHARD G. MONTEVIDEO LORI SARNER SMITH ERNEST W. KLATTL IB KIM D. THOMPSON IAYNE TAYLOR KACER DAVID B. COSGROVE HAN$VAN L1GTEN STEPHEN A. ELLIS JEFFREY WERTHEIMER ROBERT 0 OWEN ADAM N. VOLKERT IEFFREY A. GOLDFARB F KEVIN BRAZIL LAYNE H. MELZER l. SKI HARRISON October 28, 2002 T/el^^-iJa. M4 JAMES B. TUCKER. SR. (lBB8-19501 LARRY A. CERUTTI CAROL D. CARTY PATRICK D. McCALLA RICHARD K. HOWELL JAMESS. WEISZ. DAVID H. HOCHNER A. PATRICK MUNOZ ROBERT D fiSH S. DANIEL HARBOTTlE PAUL J. SIEVERS JOSEPH l. MAGA, III KRAIG C KILGER KENT M. CLAYTON STEVEN J. GOON DOUGLAS ). DENNINGTON MARTIN W TAYLOR DAN SLATER MARK I. PAYNE MARK BUDENSIEK fREG A. IUlANDER TODD O. LlTFIN KERRA S. CARLSON CRISTY LOMENZO PARKER JEFFREY T. MELCHING DAVID I. ZOETEW(Y MARLENE POSE \URGENSEN CARISSA K. PEREZ ANDREW E. AINSWORTH SETH L. HANSON ALEJAr~DRO S. ANGULO ANTHONY L BE^UMON CHAD w. FIRETA(; ARON O. HANSEN MARC lUESEBRINK DAMON D. MIRCHEfF lONA LAYMON CATHERINE M. OH POORNIMA JAYAPRAI(ASH APRil lEE WALTER KAREN HIZABETH WAL TER NATALIE SIBBAlD DUNDAS JOHN W. HAMil TON, JR. IOHN A. RA.MIREZ PHIUP J. BLANCHARD TERENCE J. GALLAGHER DEJA M, HEMINGWAY DENISE L. MESlER w. ANDREW MOORE CHARLES A. DAVENPORT, III RICHARD D. ARKO MARK M. MAlOVOS . NIKKI NGUYEN SANDRA P. THOMPSON JENNIFER S. ,ANDfRSON IOHN r BRADLEY ALUSON LEMOINE-BUI KAREN L. KEATING T. lAN NGUYEN USA NICHOLAS NEAL MARK J. AUSTIN ROBERT H. MARCEREAU STEVEN W. BURT NOAM I. DUZMAN MITCH MllSlElN Of COUNSEl: LEONARD A. HAMPEL EDWARD D. SYBESMA JR SEf"ATOR DI(I( ACKERMAN DAVID!. GARIBALDI, III WilLIAM J. (APlAN MARTIN FESSENMAIER" .A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION "PA1ENT AGENi fij)~@~~w~rm U1J nr.r 3 0 2002 lW TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFiCe TOWN OF TfBURON . Re: City of Long Beach v. State of California Department of Industrial Relations - Second District Court of Appeal - Civil No. B159333 - Request to Join Amicus Brief Dear Ms. Danforth: , I am writing on behalf of the California League of Cities to encourage your City to join the amicus curiae brief that I am preparing to file in support of the City of Long Beach ("Long Beach") in City of Long Beach v. State of California Department of Industrial Relations (Second District Court of Appeal, Case No. B159333). The League of California Cities' Legal Advocacy Committee and the League's Board of Directors urge you to give your City's support to this brief, which is critically important to charter cities. In this appeal, the Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR") is arguing that the prevaiiing wage requirement of Labor ;Code section 1720 is a mutter of staiewid~ conc~m chaI cannot be overridden by charter cities. The trial court disagreed, and ruled iIi Long Beach's favor on this point. The DIR is pursuing this issues as well as others issues in its appeal to the Second District Court of Appeal. . The background to the dispute is as follows. Long Beach leased vacant land to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ("SPCA"), pursuant to which the SPCA was to construct an animal shelter. A portion of the SPCA facility was to be used by Long Beach's Animal Control Bureau. Long Beach provided a grant to the SPCA for this purpoSe. . The grant was used by the SPCA for costs preliminary to construction, such as design, insurance, attorneys' fees and consulting costs. The DIR determined that the SPCA facility was a public works project requiring the payment of prevailing wages pursuant to Labor Code section 1720(a). Long Beach filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate challenging the DIR's decision, and Judge Yaffe ruled in Long Beach's favor. The State has appealed. 1191099999-0071 338143.01 .10/28/02 TAN t, CKER~ ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ann R. Danforth 'October 28, 2002 Page 2 This case is of great iinportance to all California charter cities. The trial court's ruling reinforces charter cities' authority over municipal affairs. Judge Yaffe has ruled correctly that the prevailing wage law, a general law, does not apply to public works involving charter cities. TheDIR is arguing that, despite existing case law to the contrary, the Legislature has moved toward a statewide enforcement system, and that the public works coverage issues can no longer be considered a local concern. The amicus brief will address the single issue of whether prevailing wage requirements remain irtappli::::ablcw charter cities. We plan to file our application for leave to file an amicus brief, with the brief attached, . on November 20,' 2002. Accordingly, if your City wishes to add its name in support of the amicus brief, please complete the attached authorization form and transmit it to the undersigned by the close of business on November 19, 2002, if possible. If your City would like to support this effort but it is not possible for you to obtain the necessary authorization by that date, please provide the authorization as soon after the filing as possible and I will notify the Court of Appeal of the adqitional cities joining the brief in a post- filing letter. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Should you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP (17. K~- . M. Katherine Jenson Member of the Legal Advocacy Committee League of California Cities 119/099999-0071 338143.01 atO/28/02 10-Z3-0Z lZ:38pm From-BERGMAN DACEY T-343 P,03/06 F-3Z6 Lkfvc AJo Jf ) GflEGOFlY 11.1, BERGMAN JOHN P DACEY RoeeRT 11.1, MASON III JOMN v TAMBOREL.L.I OAPMNE M. ANNEET MICH~E M GOL.CSMITM MA~EW R HICKS JORGE J. lUNA PAUL. v. IilA'l'BuRN MARK W WA'TeFlMAN NA'Tl1AN A. RI!lEFl50N PA9CAL ElENYAMIIIU BEn1 O. CORRIEA HEATHER l. WAL.KER DANA M. LAWSON MARK A. MIL.L.ER JAMES S. I"IUllL GINA MARIE S, ONG LAW OFFICES OF BERGMAN & DACEY, INC. OF CIJUNSEl AlAN H. MITI1iL.MAN MARK K, K1TABAYASHI 106eo WilSHIRE BOUL.EVARD SUITE 900 L.OS A"'GE~ES. CALIFORNIA 90024-.1101 1'El.EPHONE: 13101470-6110 TElEPHONE: 14151 334-0444 TELEFAX: (3101474.0931 RICHARD V, GOOINO 11929.2(01) I.L.ClYD A. BERGMAN (1923.19941 October 22. 2002 OUR ALE NO. 1 047. 1 0 Re: Robert Shiell, et al. v. County of Los Angelc!s, et aL Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC 208582 John Holmgren, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et a/. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. Be 240954 California Supreme Court Case No. 8110..54 To Whom It May Concern: Our firm represents the County of Las Angeks and the Office of Los Angeles County Counsel ("County") in a number of class action cases involving the claims of contract provider/temporary agency employees for entitlement to government positions without satisfying the mandatory civil service/merit system process. The County recently filed a Petition for Wril of Mandate to prevent the trial court's challenge to the County's Civil Service process. but the Petition was summarily denied without comment on October 3,2002. I am contacting you to determine whether your agency is interested in filing an amicus curiae brief to ~xpress your agency's concerns with the trial court's ruling and/or to urge the California Supreme Coun to accept the County's Petition for Review. Such a communication from you will accomplish two objectives. First. we can demonstrate to the Supreme Court the potential widespread impact of the ruling, which may make the Supreme Court more likely to grant review. Second, you can protect your agency' s interests while substantially assisting the County in arguing against the trial court's ruling (discussed below). I urgl: you to support the County's effort to prcBcrve the integrity ",nd independence of public employment systems throughout the state. A:\"'1' AMICUS CUltlAEJ,wp4 10-23-02 12:38pm From-BERGMAN DACEY T-343 P,04/06 F-3Z6 October 22, 2002 Page 2 On June 21, 2002, the trial coUrt in the abovc;-entitled mauers issued a ruling on an important issue that may significantly impact the way public: entities throughout California provide governmental services. . Rejecting the County's position, the trial court ruled that: (1) The Separation of Powers doctrine, which prohibits courts from interfering with public entities' legislative and bttdgetary decisions such as the number, compensation, tenure, appointment and conditions of employment for their employees, dpes not prevent individuals from bringing claims alleging entitlement to public employment without regard for the public employer's civil service or merit-based system of employment. This ruling comes in one of a number of rc;cent lawsuits in which employees of contract service providers, consultants, 8nd/onernporary workers have sought to erode the statutory foundations of public employment by seeking permanent I)r civil service status, together with its rights, benefits, and protections, without participating in th~~ competitive hiring process. Under the trial court's ruling, plaintiffs may ask courts to effectively Imter a public agency's board room and create otherwise unbudgeted, permanent positions to which those plaintiffs seek to be appointed, despite their lack of compliance with any civil service or merit-based qualification, examination, or certification procedures. Specifically, the County in Shiell and Holmgren is faced with situations in which individuals employed by a non-profit public benefit corpc,ration, and contract service providers, respectively, have failed to apply for or take civil service ~xaminations (in some cases for over a decade) but now claim that they are "de facto" employees of the County and are entitled to the status, grade, pay, benefitS and protections accorded to the County's civil service employees. The trial court detennined that the Separation of powers doclnne did not apply, i.e., the legislative authority granted to California's public entities to establish and maintain civil service or other merit- based systems ofemployment may be uswped by a judicial determination based on common law l1otion5 ofemployment. TIle trial court's rul~ng, if not overturned by the Supreme Court, may result in significant numbers of Individuals seeking to "cut in line" and obtain salary and benefits from public agencies throughout the State on a retroactive and prospect ive basis, despite those workers' failure to comply with established mandatory statutory requirements for public employment. To prevent this erosion of fundamental public employment tenets, the County has filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court seeking review of the trial court's decision (a copy of the Petition is A:\..,. AMIC\JS CUlUAI!).WFII 10-Z3-0Z lZ:39pm From-BERGMAN DACEY T-343 P,05/06 F-3Z6 October 22,2002 Page 3 attached for your review). The County believes the trial cou.rt's ruling is wrong for several reasons: . It fails to recognize the fundamental distinction between private and public employment in California: . It fails to recognize that common law factors do not establish aright to public employment in California: . It fails to recognize that the Separation of Powers doctrine prohibits judicial interference with public agencies' legislative and budgetary actions, including adoption and maintenance of civil service systems of employment and ability to contract for governmental services:, and . It fails to recognize that equitable principles cannot be used to circumvent legislatively mandated civil service employment systems or undermine policies behind merit-based public employment. If you are interested in providing amicus support, please note the following: 1. We have attached a sample letter for your reference. We have included some of the more significant points that have been raised to date, both in the proceedings below and in discussions with other agencies. Please feel free to use the attached exemplar as you see fit. 2. Please use your agency's letterhead or your counsel's letterhead, whichever is appropriate. 3. The letter should reference The County of Los Angeles and The Office of Los Angeles County Counsel v. Superior Court, Supreme Court No. S 11 0654. 4. Your letter should be served by your (Iffice on each party to this action. A list of the parties and their counsel is attached. 5. The letter brief should be filed as soon as possible, and addressed to the Honorable Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Associate Justices, California Supreme Court, 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102-3600. A:\wP AMIC\IS CUnJAU....p,1 10-23-02 12:39pm From-BERGMAN DACEY T-343 P,06/06 F-326 October 22, 2002 Page 4 Because time is of the essence, please directly contact Gregory M. Bergman. Esq.. or Mark' K. Kitabayashi, Esq., at (310) 470.6110 (email: gbergman@beremandacey.com. or mkitabayashi@bergmandacey.com) if you have any questions or wish to be involved. Very truly yours, GREGORY M. BERGMAN MARK. K. KIT ABA Y ASH I GMBIMKK:acg EncIs. A:\"'~ AMICUS CUIU^E~,.wpoI -- 10-23-02 12:38pm From-BERGMAN DACEY T-343 P.01/06 F-326 GREGORY M, BeRGMAN JOHN P. DACEY AOElERT M. MASO~ III JOHN V. TAMBOAE~LI OAPI-tNE M ANNEET MICMELE M. GO~O:lMI1'H MAmiEW R. ~ICK9 JDRC:E J, l.UNA PAUL II, RAYBURN MARK W. WATER",..N NATHAN A REIERSON PASCAL BEN'(AMINI SETI-4 0 cOARIEA HeATl1ER L WALKER DANA M, L.AWSON MAIlK A, MIL.LER JAMES S. HULTZ: GINA MAfllE 3, ONG LAW OFFICES OF BERGMAN & DACEY, INC. 108BO WIL.SHIRE: BOULEVARD SUI1E SOO LOS ANGEL.ES. CALIFORNIA 90024.4101 TELEPHONE: (3101 470-6110 rE;I.EPHONe: (4 Hi] 334.0444 rELEFAX: 13'01474-0931 OF COUN:lEL ALAN 1'\, MITl"fLNAN MAAIC IC:, KITABAYASHI RICHARD V, GOCINO 11929.20011 LI.OYO A. &eRGMAN (1923-1!l941 October 22, 2002 OUR FlL.E NO, FAX TRANSMJTTAL FORM 1047.10 FROM: Megan Webb OPERATOR: DESTINATION: NAME: Ms. Ann Danforth FIRM: Town ofTiburon FAX NO: 415/43~ ~ 31 NUMBER OF PAGES '(INCLUDING TRANSMIrr AL FORM) : 6 IF YOU EXPERIENCE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL US AT (310) 470-6110. REMARKS: Ann, as you requested, a copy of our letter summarizing the issues in the Shiell.Holmgren ' matter' follows. We would be extremely grateful to have the Town ofTiburon on board. IfI can provide any other assistance please let me know. Additionally, please feel free to This message is intenaed only for thu use of the Individual or entity to which it is addressed. and may contain Infonnation that Is privileged. confidential and exempt from C1I!1CIOsure under the appllcatlle law. If the:: n::aoer of thIs mo:solllgo la nollho ir'ltar'lded recipiar'lt, or the "mplOYO<) or agllnl respO(\sible for delivering the message to the Intended recipient. you are hereby notified that any dissemination. distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you nave received this communication in error. please notify uS Immediately by telephone and 'twm the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank You. 10-23-02 lZ:3Bpm From-BERGMAN DACEY T-343 P,02/06 F-3Z6 call the attorney handling this matter, Mark Kitabayashi, at (310) 470-6110 or to email him at mkitabayashi@bergmandacey.com. Thank you again for your consideration. DRAFT Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102-3600 Re: The County of Los Angeles and The Office of Los Angeles County Counsel v. Superior Court Supreme Court Case No. S110654 Dear Chief Justice and Associate Justices: Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 28(f), I am writing on behalf of the Town of Tiburon to-respectfully urge the Court to grant the pending Petition for Review of the County of Los Angeles and the Office of Los Angeles County Counsel (collectively, the "County"), Like the County, our agency utilizes contract service providers, consultants and temporary workers on a regular basis. The County's Petition raises issues of public policy that are of great importance to our agency --.,. whether employees of private contract service providers and temporary staffing firms who render needed services to our agency but who are not hired through our constitutionally-based, legislatively-mandated procedures are entitled to the rights, benefits, and privileges of public employees utilizing "common law" principles. The Petition also 'challenges a court's ability to interfere with our normal budgetary process, which could cause an enormous, unanticipated financial impact to our agency and other public entities. We concur with the County's concern that courts are overextending their authority in violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine by attempting to designate as Civil Service employees those who have not complied with the mandatory hiring process. . Consequently, we agree with the County that the trial court's decision to recognize the rights and benefits of persons who have not been hired through the civil service/merit selection system will substantially undermine the integrity of the public employment process. Honorable Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Associate Justices October 30,2002 Page 2 Moreover, the trial court's unprecedented determination that contract service providers and third party consultants are de facto common law employees of a government agency will impose significant fmancial, economic and administrative burdens on our agency. For example, the court's ruling imposes significant administrative burdens. For example, such a decision would allow those who have not gone through the [civil service/merit system] process to "cut in line," creating havoc with our existing merit/promotion system of advancement. creates severe financial burden because our agency has not factored into its budget the cost of providing retroactive pay and benefits to workers supplied by private staffing and consulting firms. Furthermore, the courts will effectively pre-empt the legislative budgetary function of a local agency by unilaterally and improperly designating who may be employees of the agency. impedes efficient and cost-effective use of temporary labor to meet immediate critical needs. creates an unprecedented penalty for the use of temporary labor from third party staffing and consulting firms for legitimate purposes. For all these reasons, we urge the Court to grant the County's Petition and address the important issues it raises. Sincerely, Ann R. Danforth T own Attorney Clerk of the Court Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Division 1 300 South Spring Street 2nd Floor, North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90012 Hon. Charles W. McCoy Los Angdes County Superior Court Dept. 308 (CCW) 600 S. Commo~wealth Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90005 SERVICE LIST David F. Stobaugh, EsqJStephen K. Strong, EsqJBrian 1. Waid, Esq. Bendich, Stobaugh & Strong, P.C. 900 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, W A 98164 Steven 1. Kaplan, Esq. Rottman Kaplan LLP 9350 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Lee Cotugno Mark Kalisch Kalisch, Cotugno & Rust, LLP 9606 Santa Monica Blvd. Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Charles Goldstein, Esq. Goldstein, Kennedy & Petito 1880 Century Park East, Suite 1018 Los Angeles, CA 90067 '--- Page 1 of 2 Gregory M. Bergman, Esq. Mark K. Kitabayashi, Esq. Mark W. Waterman, Esq. BERGMAN & DACEY, INe. 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Elwood Lui, Esq. Philip Cook, Esq. Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue 555 W. Fifth Street, Suite 4600 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1025 Nowland Hong, Esq. Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. 300 South Grand Ave., Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Page 2 of 2 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council Kevin Bryant, Advance Planner Downtown Fee Parking Lot Counts for 2001 ~ November 6, 2002 REVIEWED By:-D- FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. ................. BACKGROUND As part of the ongoing monitoring of parking capacity in Downtown Tiburon, the Town Council directed in 1995 that annual summertime parking counts be conducted for the four major pay parking lots. The original purpose of the parking counts was to assess the adequacy of overall parking spaces in the Downtown area. This issue was particularly pressing during consideration of the new Library and new Town Hall projects, when concerns were raised that constructing the two buildings on a former pay parking lot would lead to a parking shortage. The counts had been done for each consecutive year from 1995 to 1999. In 1999, the Town Council directed that parking counts be conducted every two years instead of every year. In 2001, weekend counts of the four major pay parking lots were conducted from Memorial Day Weekend through Labor Day. The counts were conducted in the mid-afternoon on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday holidays, which previous studies had indicated were the busiest times, The four major pay parking lots are: the Tiburon Boulevard Lot (formerly the Mar West Lot), the Beach Road Lot, the Main Street Lot, and the Point Tiburon Lot (see Figure 1). Figure 1: Downtown Fee Parking Lots FINDINGS These findings are based on the annual parking counts conducted over the last several years. The 'information has not been correlated with any other information, such as the economic performance of downtown merchants or ferry ridership, and therefore provides data related only to the use of the four pay parking lots on summer weekend afternoons. STAFF REPORT Town of Tiburon 1. The average number of cars parked in the four downtown. pay lots continued to drop in 2001 from the recent peak of 1998 (see Table 1). Table 1: DOWNTOWN PARKING TOTALS 1995 - 2001 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 TOTAL CAPACITY 702 662 662 662 662 662 FULL-LOT DAYS 54 18 38 46 19 12 TOT ALAVERAGE CARS IN LOTS 617 517 573 575 523 492 PERCENT OF TOT AL CAPACITY 88% 78% 87% 87% 79% 74% PERCENT CHANGE -16% 11% 0% -9% -6% The Beach Road Lotsaw a 21 percent reduction over the 1999 use, with an average of 70 cars parked in the lot in 2001, down from 89 cars, The Tiburon Boulevard Lot located next to Town Hall saw a 16 percent drop in use, after being the only one of the pay parking lots to increase use between 1998 and 1999. The Tiburon Boulevard Lot had an average use of 32 cars iri 2001. The Point Tiburon Lot lost saw only a 3 percent decrease in use, with an average of 211 cars in 2001. Finally, the Main Street Lot had a minimal increase in average use from 178 cars to 179 cars. The comparison of parking use in the four lots is shown in Exhibit 1 , The 2001 counts are provided in Exhibit 2, 2. The number of times that individual lots were full (over 95 percent of capacity) continued to decrease from the recent peakof1998. In 2001, only the Main Street Lot and the Point Tiburon Lot had days which the lot was full, with seven and five for the Main Street and Point Tiburon Lot, respectively. 3. As in previous years, at no time on days parking counts were conducted were all four lots full at the same time. There were two days when the two busiest lots, Main Street and Point Tiburon, were full on the same day. 4. The two lots that did get f~1I in 2001, the Main Street Lot and the Point Tiburon Lot, were full only abQut one-:quarter ofthe days counts were taken. Time has shQwn that the capacity reduction of the Tiburon Boulevard parking lot from 120 spaces to 80 spaces due to construction of the Belvedere-Tiburon Library and Town Hall has not had an adverse impact on the [)owntown parking supply. Furthermore, an increase in the use ofthe pay parking lots could no longer be attributed to the Town Hall and Library, which have been open for over five years'. Staff reports and analysis for the 1995-99 parking lot counts are available from Staff upon request. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council discontinue the parking c;:ounts. November 6, 2002 page 2 of 3 Town' of Tiburon , STAFF REPORT EXIDBITS 1. 2001 Downtown Tiburon Parking Counts 2. Comparison of Downtown Parking for 1995 - 2001 November 6, 200~ page 3 of 3 ",2001CD()WNT:.O\ftlN'FIE1Oa.O~tB~R~I:~<s~:o~;~m Day Date Main Street Point Tiburon Beach Road Tiburon Blvd. Sat OS/26/2001 188 203 84 25 Sun OS/27/2001 171 219 81 38 Mon1 OS/28/2001 191 228 93 31 Sat 06/02/2001 186 195 79 29 Sun 06/03/2001 no count Sat 06/09/2001 177 190 100 63 Sun 06/10/2001 188 194 51 46 Sat 06/16/2001 174 255 102 60 Sun2 06/17/2001 159 193 71 36 Sat 06/23/2001 175 213 83 48 Sun 06/24/2001 no count Sat 06/30/2001 188 253 107 27 Sun 07/01/2001 205 216 ~ 81 38 Sat 07/07/2001 194 230 78 45 Sun 07/08/2001 182 222 41 31 Sat 07/14/2001 192 288 71 23 Sun 07/15/2001 187 176 51 20 Sat 07/21/2001 173 214 72 19 Sun 07/22/2001 157 166 47 30 Sat 07/28/2001 166 198 53 26 Sun 07/29/2001 197 196 49 24 Sat 08/04/2001 210 184 37 14 Sun 08/05/2001 no count Sat 08/11/2001 no count Sun 08/12/2001 no count Sat 08/18/2001 159 256 81 36 , Sun 08/19/2001 167 189 76 19 Sat 08/25/2001 no count Sun 08/26/2001 148 160 52 9 Sat 09/01/2001 178 225 65~ 41 Sun 09/02/2001 150 203 47 24 Mon3 , 215 09/03/2001 191 68 32 Bold = Full TOTAL 4653 5481 1820 834 AVERAGE 179 211 70 32 SAT AVG 182 223 78 35 SUN A VG 174 194 59 29 1, Memorial Day 2. Father's Day 3, Labor Day Exhibit 1 l- e 00 ..J 0) Cl 0) < .... e a::: J: ..... U 0) < 0) w .... II) ,~. C) '':z ,:.:':.:-S2-~,::,::;:i 0::" " '<(" ;c.. <;:Z ".s: .,'~...', z::" S:I- 0:' g ~:1. ~ 00 OP < ~ Z.' ~ .... ,;0 ..J ';:'Cf) 5 .0::: II) ..... <(; Z ~ .c... e .... :!:' a::: OP => o II) i= CD 0) 0) .... .... o o N 0) 0) 0) .... CD 0) 0) .... 10 0) 0) .... .... o o N 0) 0) 0) .... 10 0) 0) .... o '<t .... o '<t .,- o '<t o '<t .,- o '<t .,- o '<t .,- o 00 o 00 o 00 o 00 o 00 o N >- !:: U < a.. < U l- e ..J o '<t CD '<t .,- o o o o o Z ..J en ..J a::: => < LL U en W w C) ~ ~ w > < o ..... 0'> 00 N o CD .,- .- .,- 0'> CD .- .,- N C") 00 C") ..... N 0'> o C") 00 t- 1->- zl- I-w(j eu< ..Ja:::a.. w< a..u ::,g o o L() ~ o '<t CD ~ o C") t- ~ o C") 00 ~ o L() CD ~ o C") 00 ~ o o '<t ~ o co '<t ~ o '<t C") ~ o '<t N ~ o co C") ~ o L() CD ~ o .- N I ~ o C") .,- I ~ o N .,- I ~ o t- N ~ o N N I ~ o CD .,- I ~ o .,- '<t ~ o N '<t ~ o t- C") I ~ o N CD I w C) z < J: U I- Z W U a::: w a.. co t- 0'> L() o co .- o '<t o .- o .- co o t- N .,- C") co 0'> 0'> '<t o 00 N .- L() C") 0'> N 0'> C") CD C") t- N 00 N '<t N L() CD N L() C") co t- .- 00 >-W <C) ~~ =>w 1-> ~< w C) ~ w > < >- < Cl z => en .... .- .,- ~ ~ C") '<t 0 '<t L() 0 0 N 0'> 0 .,- co C") N N N co I N .,- 0) .- co ~ ~ .,- L() 0) 0 0 0 0) '<t .,- .,- 0 C") N .,- .... N N 0'> .,- N N I l- e ..J 00 .,- 0 ~ 0 0) L() 0 ~ .,- z 0) '<t N L() '<t 0 L() L() e .... N N 0 N N N a::: .- => II) i= ..... ~ ~ I- 0) .,- 0'> L() 0 0 N '<t Z 0) '<t .,- '<t N .,- L() '<t .... N N 0 .,- N N 0 .,- a.. CD .- 0 ~ ~ L() CD 0) '<t .,- N 0 0 0 C") 0) .- .,- '<t .... N N 0'> I N N 10 .,- 0 ~ C") t- O) t- o 0) '<t .,- C") L() .,- C") .... N N 0'> N N .... .,- 0'> ~ ~ N '<t 0 0 0 0 t- t- O'> 0 00 t- N N .,- 00 .,- .,- .,- 0) .,- co ~ ~ CD co 0) 0 00 t- o 0 t- t- O) 0'> 0'> .... N .,- 00 I .,- .- l- e 00 .,- CD ~ 00 L() ..J 0) t- o ~ 0) 0 .,- 0'> co 0 co 0 I- .... N .,- 0'> N .,- N W W a::: I- en ..... ~ ~ .,- C") .,- co Z 0) 0 C") (J) 0 0 0'> (J) <( 0) N .,- CD 0 .,- .... .,- 0'> .,- .- ~ CD .,- CD ~ ~ 00 L() 0) 0 CD t- o 0 CD co 0) co 0'> '.... N .,- co I .,- .,- 10 .,- C") ~ 0 t- O) 0 N (J) 0 (J) 0'> 0) N CD .... N .,- 0'> .,- .,- Z W W >- C) C) !:: ..J en z ~ ..J a::: I- ~ < ~W u => < Z J: W < LL Ul- Wu U ClC) > a.. a:::~ < en we u< I- < W C)..J a::: a.. z =>w >- U ~ ~ w< w 1-> < I- i= a..u U ~< Cl e w a::: z ..J > W => < a.. en N - ;Q .J:: X UJ STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 6 Town of Tiburon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REPORT DATE: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL SCOTT ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT~ FUTURE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3499 PARADISE DRIVE; EMANUEL KOPSTEIN, OWNE~ APPLICANT; APN 58-032-05 & 14 NOVEMBER 6, 2002 REVIEWED BY. OCTOBER 31,2002 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: . . . . . . . .. ........................................ BACKGROUND At its meeting of June 5, 2002 the Town Council received a report on Par~dise Drive annexation issues and was informed that numerous properties in the Teaberry Lane vicinity of Paradise Drive would be filing shortly for "future annexation agreements" that would enable them to hook into the public sewer system without immediate annexation to the Town of Tiburon. The Town Council, after discussion, agreed that it would continue to process and approve such agreements. Since that time, the Town Council has approved approximately 21 "future annexation agreements. At this time, Staff has only one additional request pending (not including this one). ANAL YSIS The subject property is located at 3499 Paradise Drive, near Paradise Beach County Park, but upslope from Paradise Drive (see Exhibit 1). As the property is far from current Town boundaries, it is an ideal candidate for a future annexation agreement. The owner-executed agreement is attached as Exhibit 2. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council approve the Agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute it. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity map showing subject property. 2. Agreement with 3499 Paradise Drive owners. \scott\3499paradise annex tcreport.doc.dot .l_" . . -0 C5'j, '} F" 10 ~~ -t~ EXHIPIT~;O. I w ^ j;"'":,,,"'JO-;;Y.:';'''''"''' -, ~ " ~~ o - en o o .. - - : - . ,.;- ---~ ._-,----"-' --.. APNNO. 58-032-05 & 14 Recording Requested By: TOWN OF TIBURON Return to: Director of Community Development Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 This document is for the benefit of the Town of Tiburon. DOCUMENT TITLE AGREEMENT REGARDING ANNEXATION OF REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 3499 PARADISE DRNE TO THE TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIEIT ~;O.:J.. '- AGREEMENT REGARDING ANNEXATION OF REAL PROPERTY TO THE TOWN OF TIBURON ()~ This Agreement is made and entered into this ~ day of October, 2002 by and between the Town of Tiburon, a municipal corporation, ("Town" hereafter) and Emanuel Z. Kopstein-fl'" -1 r .I TT f I m ("Owner" hereafter) and is based upon the following facts: (a) Owner holds title to that certain real property ("the Property" hereafter) described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and shown for illustrative purposes only on the attached Exhibit "B"; a..'1d (b) Owner desires to connect to the public sewer system provided by Sanitary District No.5. As a result of the Marin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) dual annexation policy, Owner would be required to annex to the Town of Tiburon concurrently with annexation to the Sanitary District unless the policy is waived. Town recognizes that at this time, annexation of this non-contiguous property would result in inefficient provision of Town services to the property, but that at some point in the f\lture, the Town may desire annexation. (c) , ' 'The Town has agreed to defer annexation 0 f the Property and recommend such to the Local Agency Formation Commission on the conditions set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY A.1'ID BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS: 1. Owner agrees on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns that, in the event any future proceedings for the annexation of the property to the Town shall be initiated by the Town, Owner shall neither directly nor indirectly oppose nor protest such annexation. 2. Owner agrees that his obligations hereunder shall run with the Property and that the Property shall be held, conveyed, hypothecated, encumbered, leased, rented, used and occupied subject to the provisions of this Agreement and that the obligations undertaken by Owner hereunder shall be binding on all parties having or acquiring any right, title, or interest in the Property. ' 2 Q"~rr:R-: Cavy Kopot'1in TOWN OF TIBURON: By:' Alex McIntyre, Town Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: , By: Ann R. Danforth, Town Attorney Attachments: Exhibits "A" and "B". ~ ~.1V \8 I'd. OOd- Defer annex agr6,doc 3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT /0 -I ?- tJ d- , before me, I..- 11' ~iI~/"k.56~l Name and Title of Officer (e.g" 'Jane Doe, Notary Public") €-WLa.J1.J<-~(z.k" ~ s.r~;J/] , . , Name(s) of Signer(s) 5personallY known to me o proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence State of California County of Il{tf./~ On Date I I I I' - I personally appeared I, I I' i' r~ ~ - ~ - ~ - - - - - -l i) LYNN HENRIKSEN . Commission It 1216576 _ ' z ~ ... , ' Notay ?1JbI1c - Canfcmia ~ t.:; . """" county 1 - ,,~~~":~~~~ I' Place Notary Seal Above } ss to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Though, the information below is not required by law, may rove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and re ment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: I' Document Date: Signer(s) Other Than NamedAbove: I' Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: o Individual o Corporate Officer - Title(s): o Partner - 0 Limited 0 General o Attorney in Fact o Trustee o Guardian or Conservator o Other: Signer Is Representing: I' Number of Pages: ~ 1997 National Notary Association' 9350 De 5010 Ave" PO, Box 2402' Chalsworth, CA 91313.2402 Prod, No. 5907 Top of thumb here Reorder. Cail Toil.Free 1-800-876.6827 ~ ~ i I I I I I I I ~ I I ) ~ ) '1 ) ~J EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL ONE: BEGINNING at a point in the southeasterly line of that certain parcel of land described in deed executed by Thomas B. Deffenbach, Sr., et al to Paradise Cove Realty Company, a corporation, recorded August 28, 1952 in Book 761 of Official Records at page 46, Marin County Records, distant thereon South 29. 35' West 122.18 feet from the intersection thereof with the Southerly line of Paradise Drive; thence leaving said Southeasterly line North 73' 40' East 212.53 feet, South 28. 07' East 157.25 feet and North 31. 35' East 98.42 feet to the said Southerly line of Paradise Drive; thence along said Southerly line south 28. 09' East 46.31 feet; thence leaving said line South 31. 35' West 212.04 feet to the Northerly line of that certain parcel of land described in deed executed by Thomas B. Deffenbach, et al to the United States of America; recorded December 20, 1944 in Book 469 of Official Records at page 454; thence along the last referred to parcel South 71. 43' 30" West 37.17 feet, North 63. aI' West 83.22 feet, North 26. 58' 45" East 47.50 North 63. 01' 15" West 185.00 feet and South 26. 58' 45" West 100.00 feet to the most westerly corner of said parcel; thence leaving said parcel North 63. 01' 15" West 25.15 feet to the Southeasterly line of the hereinbefore referred to Paradise Cove Realty Company parcel; thence along said Southeasterly line North 29. 35' East 162.07 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL TWO: A DRIVEWAY EASEMENT of the uniform width of 10 feet lying Southeasterly of and contiguous to the southeasterly line of that certain parcel of land described in deed. executed by Thomas B. Deffebach, Sr., et al to Walter B. Conner, Jr., recorded September 8, 1953 in Book 824 of Official Records at page 66. PARCEL THREE: BEGINNING at the Actual Point of Commencement of Parcel A of Parcel Three described in a deed recorded March 16, 1960 in Book 1352 of Official Records of' Marin County at Page 295; thence North 26. 58' 45" East 47.50 feet; thence North 63. 01' 15" West 185.00 feet; thence South 26. 58' 45" West 100.00 feet; thence South 63. 01' 15" East 185.nO feet; thence North 26. 58' 45" East 27.50 feet; thence South 63.01' 15" East 93.79 feet;'thence Nqrth 71.43' 30" East 17.95 feet; thence North 31. 35' East 38.78 feet to the most Westerly corner of the lands of Hsu described in a deed recorded May 29, 1981 as Document No. 81-23735; thence South 71" 43' 30" West 37.17 feet; thence North 63. 01' 15" West 83.37 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL FOOR: A non-exclus~ve easement tor access and utilities over, under, and across a strip of land 10 feet in width lying southeasterly of and adjoining the following described line: BEGINNING at the most Westerly corner of the parcel of land described in the deed to Hsu recorded May 29, 1918 as Document No. 81-023735, Marin County Records, and running thence S 31' 35' W (S 31. 33' WI 38.78 feet, to the Southerly line of the parcel described as Parcel B of Parcel Three in the deed recorded March 16, 1960 in Book 1352 of Official Records at Page 295, Marin County Records. EXHIBIT "B" 0) a .. (J) / .~ r- / P) a ...... , 1\ ~ 0) )>/': a 0) -00 .. z-o a au) .. U1M (X)- IZ \ 0 ~ ~ ~ I~ \ ~ ~ cr. \~ )>/,: -> ~ "'DO ~ o~ \-; Z"'D "0' 0 \ 0) \ OUl <.r~ 0 ~ I\,% \ Cf) (JlM 1'1 co- IZ - ' 0 ~\ ~ -+-~ \ \ ~ 0 I \ (Jl I \ J \ I ) / / I / I I / / / I / .-/ / ./ I :E )> /././ /./ -00 ~~~~o ZI ::::0 ././ ~S\\5 0- ()1Ul ;~~C> (X)-1 G) ISi OUl ./ 0J1'l / IZ ~ ~: \ STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM I; i, Town of Tiburon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FROM: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL SCOTT ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT W-- UPDATE OF TOWN OF TIBURON'S LOCAL CEQA GUID~'~tS NOVEMBER 6, 2002 REVIEWED BY:~ OCTOBER 31, 2002 TO: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: REPORT DATE: . . . . . . . .. ........................................ BACKGROUND State law encourages the adoption by local agencies of "local CEOA guidelines" to tailor the State CEOA Guidelines to local processes and needs. The Town of Tiburon originally adopted local CEOA guidelines in 1978; and conducted wholesale revisions in 1991. The 1991 (current) version is attached as Exhibit 4 for reference purposes. Since 1991, legislative amendments and case law interpretations have incrementally but cumulatively altered CEOA in significant ways. Furthermore, after decades of rulings to the contrary, recent court decisions have begun to penalize agencies who do not complete and certify EIR's, or adopt negative declarations, within specified time periods following an application being deemed "complete". In the past year, the Town of Tiburon has been the defendant in two such cases, one involving the Tiburon Court project negative declaration and the other involving the Tiburon Glen project EIR. The recent court decisions have galvanized the need to update the Town's local CEOA guidelines in order to expedite the process and minimize confusion and conflict with current CEOA laws and court rulings. ISSUES As was common with local CEOA guidelines of that era, the Town's 1991 version attempted to "summarize and distill" the major points, timelines, and procedures from the State CEOA Guidelines in a much shorter document. Those local guidelines also included numerous CEOA forms and notices that at that time were not readily available to applicants or the general public. As the CEOA process has become increasingly litigious and complex, serious flaws in the "summarize and distill" approach have appeared. The CEQ/\ process is too complex and changes too rapidly for this approach to be successful given a small town's limited resources, and Town Staff no longer believes that a summarized local guideline document represents a prudent or viable option. Town Staff favors a more streamlined approach that "augments or clarifies" State CEOA Guidelines only in places deemed important to the Town, but otherwise adopts the State CEOA Guidelines intact, so as to reduce the instances of confusion or conflict that have recently led to delays and/or litigation. Town. of Tiburon STAFF !tlEPORT . ....... .~u.. ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS The proposed amended local CEQA Guidelines document is attached as Exhibit 2. As this is a wholesale rewrite of the prior guidelines, it was not possible to produce a red-lined copy. The proposed version is much shorter than the old one, mostly through the deletion of Appendices that contained standardized CEQA forms now widely available through the internet. The local CEQA document is intended to be used exclusively as a supplement to the State CEQA Guidelines handbook (which is approximately 150 pages in length), and not as a substituteforit. Provisions of the local guidelines seek only to "supplement", "augment", "clarify", or "amplify" provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines, and to tailor CEQA-related procedures to the specific operations of the Town of Tiburon. . Nearly all passages deleted from the prior local CEQA document are duplicative of text or definitions contained within the StateCEQA Guidelines. These passages should be referenced in full by Town Staff, rather than relying on a summary that may leave out critical information. All major provisions concerning the Planning Commission remain in place. These include: 1. Hearing and deciding appeals of the Environmental Coordinator's decision to require preparation of an EIR. 2. Hosting the scoping meeting prior to preparation of an EIR. 3. Adopting negative declarations or certifying EIR's prior to project approval for applications over which the Commission has decision-making authority. 4. Reviewing and making recommendations to the Town Council regarding negative declarations or EIR's for applications over which the Commission is an advisory body to the Town Council. , 5. Considering the adequacy of the Draft EIR at a public meeting held following the close of the public comment period. The Town Council's role remains es~entially unchanged, except that certain CEQA decisions and determinations not previously appealable are now appealable to the Town Council. Staff believesthese procedures are essential to maintain the Town Council's ultimate control over certain CEQA decisions made by the Town. REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission reviewed the draft revised guidelines at its meeting of October 23, 2002. The Commission voted. unanimously to recommend adoption of the revised local guidelines to the Town Council. The' Commission requested two substantive changes, involving the "review for exemption" portion of the document (p.4), and provision of notice to additional persons. In response, Staff revised and augmented these sections to address the Commission's concerns. Draft minutes from the Planning Commission meeting are attached as Exhibit 3. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 6,2002 2 .' STAFF REPORT .' Town of Tiburon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS Adoption or amendment of these guidelines is not a project under CEOA. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt the resolution (Exhibit 1) adopting revised Local CEOA Guidelines for the Town of Tiburon. EXHIBITS 1. Draft Resolution of adoption. 2. Draft Revised Local CEOA Guidelines (2002). 3. Draft minutes for 10/23/2002 Planning Commission meeting. 4. Current Local CEOA Guidelines (1991). \scotl\local guidelines update tcreport.doc TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 6, 2002 3 .' RESOLUTION NO. ,-2002 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING REVISED LOCAL CEQA GUID~LINES PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has previously adopted local environmental review guidelines pursuant to Section 15022 ofthe State CEQA Guidelines, said local guidelines having been most recently amended on February 6, 1991 through adoption of Resolution No. 2671; and WHEREAS, the Town has determined that its local guidelines are in need of updating to reflect changes in the law and in the State CEQA Guidelines since 1991; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and provided comments on the draft revised guidelines at a public meeting held on October 23,2002; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed and considered the draft revised guidelines at a public meeting held on November 6, 2002 and has heard and considered all testimony received at said meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby adopts revised local CEQA guidelines as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A". Said adoption is effective immediately and supersedes all prior local CEQA guidelines. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on ,2002, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: TOM GRAM, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK \scott\ceqa\local guidelines reso,doc Tiburon Town Council Resolution No, ---2002 --/--/2002 EXHIBIT No.1 TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES Draft 10/24/2002 (Pursuant to Section 15022 of the State CEQA Guidelines) EFFECTIVE _, 2002 Town Council Resolution No. EXHIBIT NO. J TABLE OF CONTENTS GUIDELINES PAGE 1. General Information....................................................................................... ............ 2 A. Application ....................................................... ................................................ 2 B. Fees............ ....................................................................................................... 2 II. Definitions........................................................................................... ....................... 3 IV. Environmental Documents and Procedures....... ........ ....................... ......................... 4 A. Review for Exemption................................................................. 4 B. Notice of Draft Negative Declaration............................................................... 4 C. Adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration......... 5 D. Environmental Impact Report Process ............................................................. 6 E. Mitigation Monitoring Programs. ...... ................................................................ 10 APPENDICES A. Ministerially Exempt Proj ects.................................................................................... 11 B. Guideline of Procedures for EIR Preparation ............................................................ 12 C. Environmental Data Submissions ..................................................... ......................... 15 Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines: Draft 10/24/2002 i 1. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Application 1. These local guidelines are applicable to any public or private project subject to a permit or approval from the Town of Tiburon. They are consistent with the State of California Resources Agency Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA Guidelines"). In the event that the State amends the CEQA Guidelines so as to create substantive inconsistencies with these local Guidelines, the State CEQA Guidelines shall control. 2. Except as expressly set forth herein, the Town of Tiburon hereby incorporates by reference the State CEQA Guidelines commencing at Section 15000 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, as most recently amended. 3. These local guidelines set forth definitions, procedures and criteria to be used by the Town of Tiburon in implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 et. seq.) and may be cited as the "Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines." These local guidelines contain only those provisions that are necessary to tailor the general provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines to the specific operation of the Town of Tiburon. Section numbers contained within this document refer to sections of the State CEQA Guidelines, current as of the adoption of these local guidelines. These section numbers are subject to change from time to time, and are included herein for reference purposes only. 4. The Town of Tiburon encourages the preparation of environmental documents early in the planning process to promote environmentally sound design and to allow early recognition of environmental constraints and opportunities. The Town specifically encourages project applicants to consult with staff prior to formal submission of plans. To the extent feasible, environmental review procedures shall be integrated with other project approval procedures to avoid excessive delays. B. Fees The Town of Tiburon will charge and collect reasonable fees (as set forth by Resolution of the Town Council) to recover costs incurred by the Town in preparing or implementing environmental documents not covered in contractual agreements with consultants. These fees include, but are not limited to, the following: - 2 - 1. A fee to recover costs of preparation of the Initial Study (and Negative Declaration where one is issued). 2. A fee to recover Town staff time spent administering environmental document contracts with consultants. 3. A fee to recover costs of processing appeals. 4. A fee to recover costs of implementing Mitigation Monitoring Programs. 5. In addition, the Town may charge and collect a fee from members of the public for the actual cost of reproducing a copy of an environmental document requested by the member of the public after the initial supply of copies required by the EIR contract has been exhausted. 6. A fee to cover state-mandated Fish & Game Department review fees. II. DEFINITIONS The following definitions are adopted to supplement definitions found in Article 20 of the State CEQA Guidelines: Environmental Checklist: An inclusive list of environmental effects used as a format for findings of significance (or insignificance) that is included in the Initial, Study fot use by the Environmental Coordinator to determine whether or not an EIR is required. Copies of this form are available at Tiburon Town Hall. Environmental Coordinator: The person appointed by the Director of Community Development as the primary supervisor over the environmental review process for a project. The duties of the Environmental Coordinator include, without limitation, evaluating the Initial Study so as to determine whether or not a project will have a significant effect on the environment; determining whether or not an EIR must be prepared; consulting with other public agencies and the public regarding the environmental impacts of projects; interpreting and clarifying these guidelines as necessary; and advising the appropriate Town body (pursuant to S 6(b) of these guidelines) whether recirculation of a Draft EIR is required. In the absence of the Environmental Coordinator, or when the pnvironmental Coordinator will act on the project in another capacity, or for other good cause, the Director of Community Development may appoint an alternate Environmental Coordinator. Environmental Data Submission: Information submitted by the project applicant that describes the nature of the project and the changes it could produce in the environment. This information is used to assist with the preparation of the Environmental Checklist. (A typical format for an Environmental Data Submission is provided in Appendix C.) Lead Town Department: A department of the Town of Tiburon that has the responsibility for carrying out a public project or recommending approval or denial of a private project. The Lead Town Department is usually, but not always, t~e Community Development Department. Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines: Draft 10/24/2002 3 m. ENVIRONMENT AL DOCUMENTS AND PROCEDURES A. Review for Exemption The following provisions are added as procedural clarifications of Section 15061 of the State CEQA Guidelines with respect to determinations of CEQA exemption. 1. In addition to the exemptions referenced in Section 15061 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Lead Town Department should consult the list of locally-identified ministerially exempt projects, as set forth in Appendix A, during the initial review for exemption. 2. The Lead Town Dep'artment shall then make a preliminary determination as to whether a project is exempt from CEQA. The decision-making body shall finalize this preliminary determination prior to approving a project. The Lead Town Department's preliminary determination is not appealable, but may be raised as an issue during review of the project by an advisory body or the decision-making body. 3. If an advisory body, or a decision-making body other than the Town Council, determines th(it a project preliminarily determined by the Lead Town Department to be exempt from CEQA is, in fact, not exempt from CEQA and that an Initial Study must be prepared, that decision may be appealed to the Town Council in writing, along with the required filing fee, within five (5) days of the decision. 4. Appeal of the determination of non-exemption shall suspend any further consideration of the project until a decision on the appeal is made by the \ Town Council. If an appeal is filed, public notice of the Town Council hearing shall be provided in the same manner as was provided for the hearing before the decision-making body. B. Notice of Draft Negative Declaration To amplify the minimal notification requirements of Section 15072 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Town shall perform the following noticing for all Draft Negative Declarations, including Draft Mitigated Negative Declarations: 1. For projects of Town-wide application, the Lead Town Department shall publish a notice at least one time in a newspaper of general circulation; a notice shall be mailed to all homeowner associations, as shown on the homeowner association list maintained by the Enviroiunental Coordinator; and a notice shall be posted on a public bulletin board outside the entrance to Town Hall. Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines: Draft 10/24/2002 4 2. For localized projects without Town-wide application, the Lead Town Department shall mail a notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the project boundaries as such owners are shown on the latest equalized assessment rolls; the Lead Town Department shall mail a notice shall be mailed to affected homeowner associations, as determined by the Environmental Coordinator; and the Lead Town Depart?1ent shall post a notice on a public bulletin board outside the entrance to Town Hall. 3. The Town should make reasonable (but not exhaustive) efforts to notify other affected parties not listed above, such as renters and leaseholders. 4. Notice shall be provided to all organizations or individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing. C. Adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration The following provisions are added as procedural clarifications of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 with respect to adoption of Negative Declarations or Mitigated Negative Declarations. 1. Any advisory body of the Town making a recommendation to the decision-making body shall consider the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration before making its recommendation. 2. The decision-making body for the project (which may be a Staff member or an appointed or elected body) must adopt a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration before approving the project: If the decision-making body disapproves the project, no CEQA findings or determinations need be made. 3. Ifa decision-making body other than the Town Council adopts a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration, that decision may be appealed to the Town Council in writing, along with the required filing fee, within ten (10) days of the decision. 4. Appeal of the adoption shall suspend any further consideration of the project until a decision on the appeal is made by the Town Council. 5. If an appeal is filed, public notice of the Town Council hearing shall be provided in the same manner as was provided for the Notice of Draft Negative Declaration. Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines: Draft 10/24/2002 5 J D. Environmental Impact Report Process 1. Decision to Prepare an EIR The following provision assigns responsibility for the decision to prepare an EIR in clarification of Section 15081 of the State CEQA Guidelines. It also establishes an appeal process for such decisions: If the Environmental Coordinator has determined that a project may have a significant impact on the environment, a Draft EIR shall be prepared. This decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission in writing, along with the required filing fee, within ten (10) days of the decision. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be final. Notice of the appeal shall be provided in the manner required for a Notice of Preparation as set forth below. All time elapsed during the course of the appeal shall be considered a suspension of the time periods pursuant to Section 15109 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 2. Public Scoping Session The following provision requires the holding of a public scoping session and assigns the Town body responsible for holding such sessions, in clarification of Section 15083 of the State CEQA Guidelines: The Planning Commission shall host a public scoping session once the decision to prepare a Draft EIR is finalized. This scoping session should be held during the 30-day response period for the Notice of Preparation. Failure to achieve a quorum of the Planning . Commission shall not prevent the public scoping session from proceeding. 3. Notice of Preparation In addition to notification required by Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Town shall also perform the following notification of the Notice of Preparation for an EIR. a. Notification shall be published at least one time in a newspaper of general circulation. b. Notification shall be mailed to all property owners within 300 feet, as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. Town ofTiburon Environmental Review Guidelines: Draft 10/24/2002 6 ~ c. Notification shall be mailed to all affected homeowner associations, as determined by the Environmental Coordinator. d. Notification shall be mailed to all interested groups and agencies as shown on the NOP Distribution List maintained by the Environmental Coordinator, or as otherwise determined appropriate by the Environmental Coordinator. e. Notification shall be posted on the bulletin board outside the main entrance to Town Hall. f. The Town should make reasonable (but not exhaustive) efforts to notify other affected parties not listed above,' such as renters and leaseholders. g. Notice shall be provided to all organizations or individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing. 4. Preparation of EIR The following section clarifies for the Town of Tiburon's purposes provisions of Section 15084 of the State CEQA Guidelines regarding who may prepare an EIR: In the case of a public project, the EIR may be prepared by Town staff or an independent co~sultant selected by the Town. In the case of a private project, the EIR shall be prepared by an independent consultant selected by the Town. The applicant shall be informed of the Town's Guideline of Procedures for EIR Preparation as set forth in Appendix B. The contract with the EIR consultant shall contain specific deadlines for each step in the EIR process, so as to facilitate completion of the EIR within the timeframes provided by CEQA. 5. Notice of Draft EIR Availabilitr To amplify the minimal notification requirements of Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Town shall perform the following noticing of the availability of a Draft EIR, at roughly the same time as the Notice of Completion is sent to the State Clearinghouse, by the following methods: a. Notification shall be published at least one time in a newspaper of general circulation. b. Notification shall be mailed to all property owners within 300 feet, as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines: Draft 10/24/2002 7 c. Notification shall be mailed to all affected homeowner associations, as determined by the Environmental Coordinator. d. Notification shall be mailed to all interested groups and agencies as shown on the NOP Distribution List maintained by the Environmental Coordinator, or as otherwise determined appropriate by the Environmental Coordinator. e. Notification shall be posted on the bulletin board outside the main entrance to Town Hall. f. The Town should make reasonable (but not exhaustive) efforts to notify other affected parties not listed above, such as renters and leaseholders. g. Notice shall be provided to all organizations or individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing. h. Notice shall specify the date set for the public meeting to consider the adequacy of the Draft EIR. 6. Evaluation and Response to Comments; Preparation of Final EIR The following procedures are adopted to augment and clarify for the Town of Tiburon's purposes provisions of Sections 15088, 15088.5 and 15089 of the State CEQA Guidelines: a. After the public review period is completed, the EIR consultant shall immediately begin preparing response to comments. b. The advisory body (or if there is none, the decision-making body) shall hold a public meeting, at which it shall hear and consider the recommendation of the Environmental Coordinator as to whether "significant new information" that would require recirculation has been received during the public comment period. If not, then the Final EIR shall be completed and released. For purposes ofthis section, "significant new information" shall mean information that requires recirculation under the applicable CEQA Guidelines. c. If recirculation is required pursuant to S 6(b), the recirculation process shall commence in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. d. The applicant shall be notified of the decision to require recirculation of the Draft EIR immediately. Any necessary information required of the applicant to complete the Draft EIR in Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines: Draft 10/24/2002 8 conformance with CEQA shall be provided as expeditiously as possible. e. Any decision by an advisory body regarding recirculation of the Draft EIR is appealable to the Town Council within five (5) days of the decision. Said appeal shall be heard at the next feasible Town Council meeting, notwithstanding any adopted Town policies or' regulations concerning appeals to the contrary. c f. Neither an advisory nor a decision making body should hold a hearing on the project's merits before the Final'EIR is released, except in (a) unusual circumstances as determined by the Environmental Coordinator (b) where an advisory body determines, based on the evidence in the record, that it should recommend disapproval of a project; or (c) where a decision-making body determines, based on evidence in the record, that it should disapprove a project. 7. Contents of a Final EIR In addition to the contents of a Final EIR as specified in Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, any Final EIR prepared by or for the Town of Tiburon shall contain a draft Mitigation Monitoring Program. 8. Certification of a Final EIR The following provisions are added as procedural clarifications of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 with respect to certification of a Final EIR: a. If the Planning Commission or the Design Review Board is the decision-making body on a project, the Commission or Board must review, consider, and certify the Final EIR at a public hearing before approving the project. If the Commission or Board disapproves the project, no CEQA findings or determinations need be made. b. If the action of the Planning Commission or Design Review Board on a project is advisory to the Town Council, the Commission or Board shall consider the Final EIR in making its recommendation on the project to the Town Council. c. If the Town Council is the decision-making body, it shall review, consider, and certify the Final EIR at a public hearing before approving the project. If the Town Council disapproves the project, no CEQA findings or determinations need be made. Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines: Draft 10/24/2002 9 d. Any person may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission or Design Review Board or other decision-making body to certify a Final EIR to the Town Council. Appeals must be in writing specifying the issues of EIR adequacy being appealed, and shall be filed, along with the required filing fee, within ten (l0) days ofthe decision. Appeal of the Final EIR certification shall suspend any further consider~tion of the project until a decision on the appeal is made by the Town Council. E. Mitigation Monitoring Programs The following section augments Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines with respect to mitigation monitoring: 1. Implementation a. A Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be part of any Final EIR prepared by or for the Town of Tiburon. b. A Final Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be adopted with all project approvals for which an EIR has been certified by the Town of Tiburon. c. Adopted Mitigation Monitoring Programs shall be distributed to all agencies or parties with monitoring or review responsibility defined in the Program. 2. Responsibility a. Requirements of the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be made conditions of project approval and shall be treated in a like manner to all other conditions of approval. As such, failure to comply with those conditions would have a direct bearing on the provisional rights of the discretionary permit granted in the same manner as other conditions of approval. b. Overall compliance shall be coordinated by the case planner unless otherwise indicated in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. c. The Town's efforts shall focus on monitoring, not reporting. A memorandum shall be prepared by the case planner, upon completion of the implementation of all mitigation measures, for inclusion in the project file to document satisfactory completion of the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines: Draft 10/24/2002 10 APPENDIX A MINISTERIALL Y EXEMPT PROJECTS Pursuant to Sections 15022 and 15268 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the following actions are considered by the Town of Tiburon to be ministerially exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act: 1. Issuance of building permits, including electrical, mechanical, plumbing, swimming pool and re-roofpermits; but not including grading permits if said grading has not received any required zoning permit approval. 2. Issuance of business licenses. 3. Approval of parcel maps and final subdivision maps, and approval and execution of subdivision improvement agreements. 4. Approval of individual utility service connections and disconnections. 5. Demolition permits not involving properties or structures of historic or cultural significance. 6. Annual or other periodic review or renewal of permits or licenses for existing and continuing uses and activities not involving new construction. 7. Issuance of Certificates of Compliance and Conditional Certificates of Compliance. 8. Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. 9. Lot line adjustments between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels where a greater,number of parcels than originally existed are not created. 10. Execution of street improvement agreements. 11. Acceptance of offers of dedication, deeds and/or grants of easement. 12. Variances involving yards (setbacks), lot coverage, or height when associated with construction, remodeling, reconstruction, or addition to a single family dwelling or two-family dwelling in an established neighborhood, and when located in an area where there are no sensitive environmental resources. 13. Any other actions which the Environmental Coordinator finds to be comparably ministerial to the foregoing list. Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines: Draft 10/24/2002 11 APPENDIX B GUIDELINE OF PROCEDURES FOR EIR PREP ARA TION When the Town has determined that a project will or may have a significant effect on the environment, the Town shall prepare or cause to have prepared an Environmental Impact Report. The following procedural guidelines are set forth to assist applicants, staff, and consultants. A. POLICY: The Town of Tiburon's policy is that for public projects, either Town staff or a Town-selected consultant shall prepare an EIR. For private projects, a Town-selected consultant shall prepare the EIR. B. SELECTION: The Town will select and retain an EIR consultant in accordance with the contracting procedures set forth in the Town's Municipal Code for contracts for services. The Town will select a consultant primarily based on their professional expertise (as indicated by, without limitation, past work for the Town, references, and any proposal that may be submitted); ability to perform the work in a timely fashion; and at reasonable cost. The Environmental Coordinator shall maintain a list of environmental consulting firms and may select any firm from the list. C. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: Where possible, the Lead Town Department shall prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) to prepare an EIR. The RFP shall be mailed to at least three firms on the Environmental Coordinator's list of EIR consultants. Consultants shall have at least ten (10) working days from the date the RFP is postmarked to respond with a written proposal. Any submitted proposal should show that the EIR will provide the Town decision-makers with an accurate and complete report that meets the requirements of State law and these guidelines and provides sufficient information to reach a decision on the project, all in accordance with the timeframes established by CEQA. Any RFP request will include a copy of the Town's standard Services Agreement. The Environmental Coordinator determines that the use of an RFP process will jeopardize compliance with legal time deadlines, or otherwise conflicts with the Town's interest, the Coordinator may use an expedited selection process as allowed by the Tiburon Municipal Code. D. REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSAL: Any proposal submitted in response to an RFP must include the following minimum requirements: 1. The names and qualifications of all persons who will be working on this project including all subcontractors. The proposal must identify a contact person in charge of the preparation of the EIR. 2. A detailed estimate of the number of hours each of the above-named persons will contribute to the total report, the areas on which they will be working, and their hourly rate. Town ofTiburon Environmental Review Guidelines: Draft 10/24/2002 12 3. The costs of the consultant attending a maximum of three to four public hearings (and possibly a scoping session). 4. An estimate of all clerical costs including typing, reproduction and binding in preparation of the Administrative Draft, Draft, and the Final EIR's. 5. Based on the above, a total fixed bid price for preparation of the EIR. 6. The date on which work can commence and the number of weeks required to finish the Draft and Final EIR, including time for staff review of the administrative draft and preparation of responses to comments on the Draft EIR. 7. A listing of previous EIR's prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pertinent to the project in question. 8. Compliance with any additional requirements set forth in the RFP. 9. A statement attesting that there is no current or foreseeable conflict of interest on the part of the EIR preparer relative to the project being analyzed, its owners, applicants, or representatives. E. EV ALUA TION OF PROPOSAL 1. Upon receipt, the Lead Town Department shall evaluate each proposal based upon Town policies and these guidelines. 2. The Lead Town Department shall provide the applicant with copies of all proposals. After discussion with the applicant, the Lead Town Department shall select the consultant who will perform the work. The decision to accept any proposal shall be made not later than thirty (30) calendar days after the deadline for proposals to be submitted. Consultants whose proposals have not been accepted shall be so notified. 3. When the consultant has been chosen, the applicant must, within ten (10) calendar days of said choice, deposit with the Town the full amount of the consultant's total bid figure for services, along with any administration fees required by the Town's adopted fee schedule. The Town of Tiburon will then execute a contract between the consultant and the Town on contract forms provided by the Town. F. FORMAT FOREIR 1. The information contained in an EIR, including technical data, maps, plot plans and diagrams shall be presented in such a manner as to permit full assessment of significant environment impacts by reviewing agencies and the public. Use of clear and descriptive graphics is especially encouraged. Placement of highly Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines: Draft 10/24/2002 13 technical or specialized data should be provided in appendices. 2. EIR's shall be produced on 81/2X 11 inch paper and reproduced on both sides. They shall be bound so as to allow revisions and additions to be incorporated. 3. The EIR shall be prepared using a systematic, well-documented approach. The EIR shall reference all documents used in its preparation including a citation to the page and section number .of documents used as the basis for any statements in the EIR. All EIR sections written by someone other than an employee of the consultation firm shall be credited'to the appropriate author(s). 4. The EIR should discuss environmental effects in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. Effects dismissed in an Initial Study as clearly insignificant need not be discussed further unless the Town subsequently receives information inconsistent with the finding in the Initial Study. 5. The EIR shall include standards for determining the significance of each type of impact and a justification of those standards. Where possible, the standards of significance shall be derived from the Town's current General Plan. 6. If, after thorough investigation, the Town or consultant finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, thereport should note this conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. 7. An EIR may incorporate by reference all or portions of other documents that contain information relevant to the EIR. The incorporated document shall be available to the public at Tiburon Town Hall. Where an EIR uses incorporation by reference, the incorporated part of the document shall be briefly summarized in the EIR. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. In general, an EIR analysis section should not exceed 150 pages. Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines: Draft 10/24/2002 14 \ APPENDIX C ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SUBMISSIONS Any applicant seeking approval from a decision-making body in the Town for a project that is not ministerially or categorically exempt or of an emergency nature must submit sufficient information to enable staff to complete an Initial Study to be used by the Environmental Coordinator to determine whether an EIR must be prepared or whether a negative declaration may be issued. Project applicants shall provide the following information in the format indicated in an accompanying text entitled "Environmental Data Submission" to be submitted at the time an application is filed. The Environmental Data Submission and project application materials have separate purposes and separate requirements. One document may not simply refer to material contained in the other; the Environmental Data Submission must give an adequate description of the project for environmental review purposes. Any ultimate anticipated development on the project site. If there are phases to the project, the submission may discuss them by phase so long as a cumulative impact discussion is also provided. .J This outline is intended to serve as a guide to preparers of Environmental Data Submissions. The Department of Community Development may require additional information. Department of Community Development staff will use this outline to determine the completeness of an Environmental Data Submission. Some projects may require additional information in order to evaluate possible environmental impacts. Some types of projects may not require the level of information regarding environmental setting indicated. Questions should be directed to the Department of Community Development staff. The Environmental Data Submission is divided into four distinct sections: 1) project information; 2) environmental setting; 3) impacts; 4) mitigation measures and alternatives. These sections must be presented separately. Information sources should be cited wherever possible. li'l, Town of Tiburon Enviromnental Review Guidelines: Draft 10/24/2002 15 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SUBMISSION A. Proiect Information 1. Applicants'Name (owner or legally authorized party in interest): Address: Telephone: Fax: E-Mail: 2. Person preparing this submission: Address: Telephone: Fax: E-Mail: 3. Project Number(s): 4. Assessor's P~rcelNo(s): 5. Type of approval(s) sought: 6. Location of project (attach vicinity map): 7. Size of subject property: ,.>_.~ fl,il'l!\ ~~ . 8. Present and previous use of site or structures: 9. Existing General Plan and Zoning designations; any applicable Master and/or Precise Plans applicable to the site: Town ofTiburon Environmental Review Guidelines: Draft 10/24/2002 16 10. General description of project: a. Intent of project (be as specific as possible; include goals for applicant and community, proposed uses, number and size oflots, etc.). b. Map showing use(s) to which land will be put (may be a duplicate of a map exhibit submitted with project application). c. Major activities contemplated and their sequence (construction-related and permanent). d. Indicate: amount of area covered by structures, permeable surfaces, landscaping and natural open space; number of floors, floor area, employees and shifts for commercial projects; and types and numbers of units for residential units. 11. Other agencies or Town departments from which permits or approvals will be required, specifying type and granting body. 12. A map showing the location of the project with relation to adjacent streets shall be included for site specific projects. B. Environmental Setting 1. Topography: Average slopes, significant topographic features. 2. Geology: a. Geologic type. b. Slope stability (landslides and debris flows, size and extent; is repair of landslide proposed?) c. Seismic hazards (tsunami, liquefaction, ground shaking, subsidence, etc.) 3. Air Quality: Exposure to or generation of air pollutants or odors. 4. Hydrology: Existing hydrologic features - streams, marsh, by, lake, etc; drainage patterns; flood zones (see Flood Insurance Rate maps available in Tiburon Planning Division) and any alterations proposed. 5 . Water Quality; percolation rate if known, depth of groundwater if known, any wells in the area, quality of any surface water and any sources of contamination (such as parking lot runoff) existing in the vicinity of or resulting from project. 6. Biology: Major plant types, known habitats of special status flora or fauna, and identification of all trees by species and trunk circumference two feet above the ground. Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines: Draft 10/24/2002 17 7. Noise: Any significant noise generators in the area. How do noise levels for the proposed use compare with Tiburon General Plan Noise Element Guidelines for the proposed use? 8. Visual/Scenic Resources: Is the site a scenic resource, either by itself or as a part of a larger area resource? Describe visual characteristics including impacts to ridgelines, view corridors, and adjacent property views. Will the project create substantial sun shadow, light intrusion, or glare problems? 9. Grading: If the project requires grading, how many cubic yards? Will it be balanced on-site and, if not, where will it be deposited or obtained? If there is grading, provide a cut/fill map and, if it is unbalanced, a map delineating the borrow and/or deposit site and haul route. 10. Archaeological/Cultural Resources: Is this an area of archaeological sensitivity? If so, or ifthere is a known archaeological site within 300 yards, an archaeological reconnaissance should be included in the Environmental Data Submission. Are there cultural/historic or prehistoric resources on or adjacent to the site? 11. Population and Housing Characteristics: Is the site adjacent to a populated area? What are the housing characteristics of the adjacent area? 12. Circulation: Circulation patterns, latest traffic counts available, alterations in existing or proposed street improvements of the Town, availability of public transportation, pedestrian and bicycle trails. 13. Public Service and Utilities: Availability of public services and infrastructure to serve site. Distance and/or response time to sewer, water, gas, electricity, police fire, parks; method of sewage disposal proposed. 14. Health and Safety: a. Identify any flammable, reactive or explosive materials to be located on site (including pressurized tanks). b. Indicate distance to nearest high fire hazard (i.e., brush, stored flammable, etc). c. Identify any proposed use storage or production of hazardous materials and procedure for disposal. d. Identify disposal procedures for all waste products. Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines: Draft 10/24/2002 18 ,\ e. Indicate distance to nearest sensitive receptors (i.e., schools, hospitals, residences) if there is a potential hazardous emissions source proposed or vice versa for proposed sensitive receptor. C. Impacts Provide a preliminary estimate of impacts from the proposal on any of the topic areas listed above, considered over the life of the project. The discussion must document specific environmental topic areas impacted, the nature of the impact and the relative measure of the severity of the impact. D. Mitigation Measures and Alternatives 1. Identify mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the project design to lessen or eliminate (specify which) potential adverse environmental effects. These measures should be distinguished from mitigation measures which could be part of the proposed project, but are not. The description should include a discussion of the implementation and monitoring procedures anticipated. 2. Provide a discussion of alternatives to the project location or design. Also provide a brief discussion of significant impacts of alternatives, if different than project impacts. E. Certification 1., Attach the following statement as part of the submission: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date: (Signature) For: Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines: Draft 10/24/2002 19 D) (;,', ,- -I ~tr ~~U-~ ~ ... _._______ ____...J DISCUSSION ITEMS 5. LOCAL CEQA GUIDELINES UPDATE: REVIEW AND COMMENT ON PROPOSED UPDATING OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON'S LOCAL CEQA GUIDELINES Director Anderson stated that State CEQA guidelines encourage local communities to adopt their own guidelines to supplement and emphasize local ways of doing business; stated these local guidelines were last revised in 1991 and the law has changed in significant ways since then; in recent months the Town has been the defendant in more than one case over CEQA; Council - directed Staff to revise the Guidelines, secure the comments of the Planning Commission, and then the Council will review and probably adopt them on November 6, 2002. Anderson noted that the revised guidelines supplement portions of the State Guidelines, rather than attempt to distill them into a shorter document. Staff has streamlined the local guidelines, primarily by eliminating many of the standardized forms that are now available on the internet, but were not so available back in 1991. Staff believes that this approach is the best currently available and will reduce the potential for litigation as well as being easier for Staff, applicants, and the public to actually use. There was discussion regarding whether there was an appeal process when a project has been determined categorically exempt by Staff, but the public or a decision-making body disagrees. Chairman Smith noted that this situation had arisen in the City of Mill Valley and had led to litigation. The Commission requested that Staff consider this concern and add their thoughts to this topic prior to submittal to the Town Council. Director Anderson responded that there are time considerations involved, but that Staffwill attempt to create such a procedure before the local guidelines are forwarded to the Town Council. Commissioner Greenberg asked who used the local guidelines. Director Anderson explained that these guidelines are primarilyused by Staff during the processing of every Negative Declaration and EIR, but that applicants occasionally request copies so that they understand the local CEQA procedures. In response to a request by Commissioner Greenberg, Director Anderson stated he would add language regarding the sending of CEQA notices to any interested party who has filed a request with the Town for such notice. M/S, Greenberg/Stein, (5-0) to forward the above comments to the Town Council. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 2002 MINUTES NO, 869 5 EXHIBIT ]\:0.3 ~ ;.<~ ) , c ," ' ;'t " ..,;,;:>. I. , I . . TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES ',0 (Pursuant to Section 15022 of the State Guidelines) . EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 6, 1991 Town Council Resolution No. 2761 '\ .' Lf- EXHIBIT !';O.. , ~~::- \ RESOLUTION NO. 2761 \ A RESOLUTION OF THE TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL ADOPTING UPDATED LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES AND SUPERSEDING ALL PREVIOUS LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has adopted local environmental review guidelines pursuant to section 15022 of the State CEQA Guidelines, said local guidelines having been most recently amended in 1978 by adoption of Resolution No. 993; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the Town's local environmental review guidelines are in need of updating to reflect changes in the law since 1978; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the draft updated local environmental review guidelines prepared by Planning Department Staff and has recommended approval by the adoption of Resolution No. 91-2 on January 9, 1991. NOW, THEREFORE, the Town council hereby adopts revised "Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines", attached to and made a part of this Resolution. Town Council Resolution No. 993 (the previous Town Environmental Review Guidelines) is hereby superseded. PASSED 'AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town council of tlie Town of Tiburon held on February 6, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCTLMEMBERS: Coxhead, Thayer, Kuhn NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Logan, Friedman PETER B. LOGAN, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: THERESE M. HENNESSEY, TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON 1 /,-, A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. TABLE OF CONTENTS GUIDELINES I. General Information . . . . . . A. B. C. Application . . . . . . . . . . Policy . . . . . . . . . . . Fees .. ... . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . II. :~efinitions . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .,. . . III. Environmental Documents and Procedures . A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Preliminary Review . . . . . . . . . . . Review for Exemption . . . . . . . . . . Initial Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . Determining Significant Effect ... Negative Declaration ProceSs . . Environmental Impact Report Process Mitigation Monitoring Program . . . . . . . . APPENDICES ,Ministerially Exempt Projects . . . . . . . . . . Categorically Exempt Projects . . . . . . . Notice of Completion Form . . . Notice of Determination Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notice of Exemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental Data Submission . . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental Checklist . . . Procedures for EIR Preparation for the Town of Tiburon Resolution Certifying Completion of EIR's Notice of Preparation Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notice of Preparation of a Negative Declaration . . . Notice of Initial Study . . . . . . . . . CEQA Process Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . Mitigation Monitoring Checklist . . . . . ~-.e"':' PAGE 1 1 1 2 3 6 6 6 7 8 9 13 20 21 22 24 27, 28 29 34 43 46 47 48 49 50 51 -~ I. GENERAL'INFORMATION A. Application 1. These guidelines are applicable to any public or private project subject to a permit or approval from the Town of Tiburon. They are consistent with the state of California Resources Agency Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). '2. The Town of Tiburon hereby incorporates by reference the state CEQA Guidelines prescribed by the Secretary for Resources as most recently amended. " . 3. These guidelines set forth definitions, procedures and criteria to be used by the Town of Tiburon in implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code, sections 21000 et. seq.) and may be cited as the "Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines." These Guidelines contain only those provisions which are necessary to tailor the general provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines to the specific operation of the Town of Tiburon (15022[d]). section numbers contained in parentheses refer to sections of the state CEQA Guidelines which relate to local provisions. ) B. Policy 1. CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible. a. In regulating public or private activities, agencies are required to give major consid- eration to preventing environmental damage. b. A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alterations or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment. 2. In deciding whether feasible, an agency may environmental, legal, factors. changes in a project are consider specific economic, social and technological T~ OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6/91 1 CEQA recognizes that in determining whether and how a project should be approved, a public agency has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental and' social factors and, in particular, the goal of providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian. An agency shall prepare a statement of overriding considerations (15093) to reflect the ultimate balancing of competing public objectives when the agency decides to approve a project that will cause one or more significant eff~cts on the environment. 5. The Town of Tiburon encourages the preparation of environmental documents early in the planning process to promote environmentally sound design and to allow early recognition of environmental constraints and opportunities. The Town specifically encourages project applicants to consult with staff prior to formal submission of plans. To the extent feasible, environmental review procedures shall be integrated with other project approval procedures to avoid excessive delays. 4. '. . ',' C. Fees .J 3. The duty to prevent or minimize environmental damage is implemented through the findings required by Section III F7 of the Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines (15091). The Town of Tiburon will charge and collect reasonable fees (to be approved by the Town Council) to recover costs incurred by the Town\in preparing environmental documents not covered in contractual agreements with consultants as follows: 1. A. fee to recover costs of preparation of the Initial Study (and Negative' Declaration where one is issued). 2. A fixed fee to recover costs of processing appeals. 3. A fee to recover costs of implementing the Mitigation Monitoring Program. 4. In addition, the Department of Community Development shall charge and collect a fee from members of the public for the actual cost of reproducing a copy of an environmental document requested by the member of the public after the initial number of copies provided inEIR contract have been distributed. TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6/91 2 II. ..----. -,.;,Q. DEFINITIONS section numbers in parentheses refer to definitions in the state CEQA Guidelines incorporated by reference. A. Words/Terms Beainnina with "A" Applicant (15351) Approval (15352) C. Words/Terms Beainning with "C" '. . California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (15343) Categorical Exemption (15354) (A list of projects considered categorically exempt is included in Appendix A. ) Cumulative Impacts (15355) D. Words/Terms Beainnina with "0" Decision-making Body (15356) Discretionary project (15357) E. Words/Terms Beainnina with "E" . Effects (15358) Emergency Project (15359) Environment (15360) Environmental Checklist An inclusive list of environmental effects used as a format for findings of significance, or insignificance which is included in the Ini tial study for use by the Environmental Coordinator for a determination of whether or not an EIR is required (see Appendix G for format). Environmental Coordinator - The person appointed by the Community Development Director for the purpose of evaluating the Initial study so as to determine whether or not a project will have a significant effect on the environment and whether or not an EIR must be prepared. In the absence of the Environmental Coordinator, or when the Environmental Coordinator will act on the project in another capacity, an alternate Environmental Coordinator, as appointed by the Community Development Director, shall evaluate the Initial study. TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6/91 3 -~ Environmental Data Submission - Information submitted by the project applicant describing the nature of the project and the changes it could produce in the environment to be used as the basis for preparation of the Environmental Checklist. (The format of .the Environmental Data Submission is provided in Appendix F.) Environmental Documents (15361) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (15362) . Environmental Impact statement (15363) ,F: Words/Terms Beqinninq with "Fit Feasible (15364) I. Words/Terms Beqinninq with "I" Ini tial study - A preliminary environmental analysis consisting of the Environmental Data Submission and the Environmental Checklist, to be used by the Environmental Coordinator to determine whether an EIR of a Negative Declaration must be prepared or to identify significant environmental effects to be analyzed in an EIR. J. Words/Terms Beqinninq with "J" . Justification by Law (15366) L. Words/Terms Beqinninq with "L" Lead Agency (15367) Lead Town Department - A Town department which has the responsibility for carrying out a public project or recommending approval of a private project. Local Agency (15368) N. Words/Terms Beqinninq with "N" Negative Declaration (15371) Notice of Completion (15372) format. ) Notice of Determination (15373) - (See Appendix D for format. ) (See Appendix C for Notice of Exemption (15374) - (See Appendix E for format) Notice of Preparation (15375) -(See Appendix K.) TOWN OF TISURON ENVIRON~ENTAL REVIE~ GUIDELINES 2/6/91 4 .~ P. Words/Terms Beqinninq with "P" Person (15376) Private Project (15377) project (15378) Public Agency (15379) R. Words/Terms Beqinninq with "R" '. . Rare or Endangered Species (15380) Responsible Agency (15381) S. Words/Terms Beqinninq with "s" Shall or Must - Identifies a mandatory statement which agencies and applicants are required to follow. significant Effect on the Environment (15382) State Agency (15383) Substantial Evidence (15384) T. Words/Terms Beqinninq with "T" Tiering (15385) Trustee Agency (15386) U. Words/Terms Beqinninq with "U" Urbanized Area (15387) TOWN OF TlBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE\I GUIDELINES 216191 5 -~ III. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND PROCEDURES . "\'" A. preliminarv Review (15060) 1. When the Town receives applications for permits or other entitlements they are reviewed for completeness. During this review, the Town will examine the project for environmental issues that might require the preparation of an EIR or additional explanation by the applicant. Request for additional explanation may be made as part of the review for completeness. '. . 2. The Town shall ?begin the formal environmental evaluation of the project after accepting an application as complete and determining that the prbject is subject to CEQA. Accepting an application as complete does not limit ,the authority of the Town to require the applicant to submit additional information needed for environmental evaluation of the project. B. Review for Exemption (15061) 1. As part of the preliminary review of a project, the Town shall determine whether a particular activity is exempt from CEQA. ,'. 2. possible exemptions from CEQA include: a. The activity is not a project as defined in section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 'b. The project has been exempted by statute, including but not limited to ministerial and emergency projects (see Article 18, commencing with section 15260 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and Appendix A of these Guidelines) or by categorical exemption (see Article 19, commencing with section 15300 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and Appendix B of these Guidelines) . c. The acti vi ty is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment, it is\not subject to CEQA. TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE~ GUIDELINES 2/6/91 6 -....",. 3. If the Town determines that a project is exempt, the Town or the applicant may file a Notice of Exemption after the project is approved as provided in section. 15062 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The format for this Notice is contained in Appendix E. C. Initial Study (15063) 1. If a project is not exempt, the Town shall conduct an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the Town can determine that an EIR will clearly be required for the project, an Initial Study may not be required by the Environmental Coordinator. All phases of project planning, implementation and operation must be considered in the Initial Study. 2. The applicant shall provide an Environmental Data Submission including a description of the project and a brief statement of expected environmental consequences. The format for this information is contained in Appendix F. The applicant may also submit any additional information to aid in the determination of environmental impacts. The Environmental Coordinator may request, and the applicant shall provide, any additional information needed to prepare adequate environmental documents. Such information may be necessary and required after the application has been accepted as complete. 3. Based upon the Environmental Data Submission and other data which may be available, the staff member assigned to the project will complete the Environmental Checklist using the form provided in Appendix G. The Environmental Data Submission and the Environmental Checklist comprise the Initial Study. 4. As soon as it is determined that an Initial study will be required, the Town shall consult informally with all Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies responsible for areas affected by the project to obtain their recommendations as to whether an EIR or Negative Declaration should be prepared. This consultation may be by phone contact or letter. T~ OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6/91 7 .~ 5. During the preparation of the Initial study, the Town may consult with the applicant to determine if the applicant is willing to modify the project to reduce or avoid the significant effects identified in the Initial study. D. Determininq Siqnificant Effect (15064) 1. On the basis of the Initial study, the Environmental Coordinator shall determine if t~e project may have significant environmental impacts and shall enter such determination in the space provided at the end of the , Environmental Checklist. The Environmental Coordinator shall also determine if there are mitigation measures which will reduce or eliminate significant impacts. a. The determination of significant effect on the environment shall be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. b. In determining whether an effect will be adverse or beneficial, the Town shall consider the views of the public. If there is an anticipated substantial body of opinion that does or will consider the effect to be adverse, the Town shall regard it as potentially adverse. Before requiring an EIR, the Town shall determine whether the environmental change may be' substantial. c. In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect, the Town will consider primary and secondary or indirect consequences. ( d. Economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. Mi tigation measures can be proposed by the applicant, Town staff or the Environmental Coordinator, but in all cases the applicant's willingness to adopt them shall be set forth in writing if they are to be considered included in the project. T~ OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6/91 8 ,.....:::." 2. When the Environmental Coordinator determines that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment, a Draft Negative Declaration shall be prepared. 3. When the Environmental Coordinator determines 'that there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, then an EIR shall be prepared. 4. After the application has been accepted as complete, the Environmental Coordinator shall decide within 30 days whether an EIR or Draft Negative Declaration shall be prepared for review by Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, recommending and decis~on-making bodies, and the public. This time limit may be extended by the Town only with the consent of the applicant for a maximum of 15 days. (15102) '. . E. Neaative Declaration Process 1. A Draft Negative Declaration shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either (15060) : a. The Initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the ,environment, or b. The Initial study identified potentially significant effects but: 1) Revisions to the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed Negative Declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and 2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. . 2. A Draft Negative Declaration shall consist of a copy of the Initial study documenting the findings of no significant impact and a TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEY GUIDELINES 2/6/91 9 -0I1"'t:-'=- description of mitigation measures, if any, and the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program included in the project. (15071) 3. Notice of Draft Negative Declaration shall be provided as follows: a. Notice Period .\. . ,'. 1) The Notice of Draft Negative Declaration shall specify that for any action requiring staff approval only, no final approval will occur prior to the expiration of twenty-one (21) calendar days from the date of the Notice. If the Notice is mailed, the 21 days shall commence as of the date of postmark. If the Notice is published, the 21 days shall commence as of the date of publication. If the Notice is posted on the project site, the 21 days shall commence as of the date of posting. (Format of the Notice is provided in Appendix K. ) 2) If the proj ect requires review by state agenc~es through the state Clearinghouse, no final action on the project shall occur prior to the expiration of 30 calendar days from th~ date of the notice unless a shorter time period is approved by the state Clearinghouse. (15073(d)) 3) Notices for items requiring public hearings shall include notice of hearing for both environmental and project review and be subject to the same time period unless a longer period is required by Section 2) above. Such combined notices shall ,apply to, but are not limited to. Town Council hearings, Planning Commission hearings, and Design Review hearings. b. Publishing, Mailing and posting of Notices 1) For projects of Town-wide application, a notice shall be placed TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6/91 10 . . at least one time in a newspaper of general circulation and shall be posted on a public bulletin board outside the entrance to Town Hall. (15072) ; .For site-specific projects, a notice shall be mailed to owners of property within 300 feet of the project boundaries, as such owners are shown on the latest equalized assessment rolls; and affected homeowners I associations (15072); 3) For all projects, Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies and every other public agency with jurisdiction by law over resources affected by the project shall receive a copy of the notice with the Draft Negative Declaration. When one or more state agencies will be a Responsible Agency or a Trustee Agency, the Town shall send copies of the Draft Negative De c 1 a rat ion to th est ate Clearinghouse for distribution to state agencies (15073[b]); 2) 4) For all projects, notice shall also be given to all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice (15072[1]); 5) The notice shall specify that the time period indicated is for public comment, indicating time and place of any scheduled public hearings or meetings, the nature and location of the proposed project, and address where draft documents are available for'review. 4. The Town shall have a maximum of 105 days from the date of acceptance of a project application to complete a Negative Declaration, if the Town finds the project to have no significant effect on the environment or that potentially adverse impacts are mitigated to a point where no significant impacts would occur. This time limit may be extended by the Town only with the consent of the applicant for a maximum of an T~ OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE~ GUIDELINES 2/6/91 11 -~-::. additional 75 days. completion of a Negative Declaration within a ~05 day period shall include the preparation of an Initial study, public review, and the preparation of a document ready for approval by the decision-making body. Completion wi thin the ~05 day period need not include the approval of the Negative Declaration by the decision-making body. (~5~07) 5. consideration and approval of a Negative Declaration. a. Prior to approving a project, the decision-making body shall consider and approve the Negative Declaration. Where an advisory body such as the Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation on a project to the decision-making body, the advisory body shall also review and consider the EIR or Negative Declaration.(~5074) b. The action of the decision-making body to approve the Negative Declaration may be appealed to the Town Council in writing within ten (~O) calendar days of the date of action. If the tenth day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, the appeal must be filed by 5 p.m. on the next work day. ' The grounds for appeal shall be limited to the following: ~) That it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 2) That there is serious public controversy concerning the environmental effects on the project. (~5064 (h) (2) If an appeal is filed, public notice shall be handled in accordance with section IIIE3 of these guidelines. c. A few statutes require agencies to make decisions on permits within time limits T~ OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE~ GUIDELINES 2/6/91 ~2 , . that are so short that review of 'the project under CEQA would be difficult. To enable the Town to comply with both the permit statute and CEQA, the Town shall deem an application for a project "not received for filing" under the permit statute or ordinance until such time as progress toward completing the environmental documentation required by CEQA is sufficient to finish the' CEQA process within the short permit time limit. In any case, the document shall be completed or certified and the decision on the application made within one year from the date it was accepted as complete for CEQA processing. This one year time limit may be extended once for up to 90 days upon consent of the Town and the applicant. d. After the project for which a Negative Declaration has been prepared is approved, the lead Town department shall prepare a Notice of Determination as provided in Appendix D.) e~ Should the Negative Declaration contain conditions for mitigation of an impact, the Notice of Determination shall so indicate along with the adoption of a mitigation monitoring program. F. Environmental Impact Report Process 1. Decision to Prepare an EIR If the Environmental Coordinator has determined that the project may have a significant impact on the environment, a draft EIR shall be prepared. If the applicant disagrees with this determination, or wishes input from the Planning commission on the scope of the EIR, a public hearing may be requested before the Planning commission with notice provided pursuant to IIIF3 of these guidelines. A decision by the planning commission to prepare an EIR is appealable to the Town council in the manner prescribed for Negative Declarations. 2. Notice of preparation a. Immediately upon determining that an EIR is required for a project, a Notice of preparation (see Appendix K) for the TOYN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE~ GUIDELINES 2/6/91 13 /-. ' \.~~ project Draft EIR shall be mailed to all property owners within 300 feet, affected homeowners' associations, all Responsible Agencies and to those Trustee Agencies responsible for natural resources affected by the project, with a copy to the State Clearinghouse. The Town shall make reasonable efforts to notify other affected parties not listed above, such as renters "and leaseholders. . . Copies of the Notice of Preparation shall be sent to Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies by certified mail or by other method of transmittal which provides a record that the notice was received. (15082) ( 3. Scope of an EIR The Town shall utilize the information contained in the Initial Study, responses to the Notice of Preparation and any meetings held to discuss the environmental effects of the project when establishing the scope of an EIR. (15082, 15083) ',' In the case of a public project, the Draft EIR may be prepared by Town staff or an independent consultant selected by the Town. In the case of a private project, the draft shall 'be prepared by an independent consultant selected by the Town. The applicant shall be informed by the lead Town department of procedures .involved in the selection and payment of such consultant (see Appendix H) . (15084) 5. Public Review of Draft EIR 4. a. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the lead Town department shall file a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse (see format in Appendix C). The lead department shall deliver copies to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to State agencies and shall deliver copies directly to all other Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, or other agencies and Town departments which exercise authority over the resources which may be affected by the project. (15085, 15086) Review periods for Draft EIR's will be not less than 30 and not T~ OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE~ GUIDELINES 2/6/91 14 .~ more than 90 days from the date of public} notice. -.- b. Review periods for EIR's which have state agencies as Responsible Agencies shall be at least 45 days unless a shorter period is approved by the state Clearinghouse. c. The public shall be notified of the existence of Draft EIR's and the start of the review period at the 'same time as the Notice of Completion is sent to the state Clearinghouse by one of the following (15087) : 1) Publication of the Notice 'of Completion in a newspaper of general circulation. 2) Noticing of owners of property within 300 feet of the outside boundaries of the project site, and affected Homeowner's Associations. 3) posting of a notice on bulletin board outside entrance to Town Hall. a public the main 4) All notices shall specify the date set for public hearing on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. d. After the public review period is completed, a hearing to assess the adequacy of the Draft EIR shall b~ conducted by the Planning commission. A merit hearing on the project shall not be conducted until the Final EIR is completed. '=ji~~pUblic hearings, members of the public may express their views on the adequacy of the Draft EIR orally or in writing. Submission of comments in writing is encouraged. Reviewers should focus on the sufficiency of the EIR in discussing possible' impacts upon the environment, ways in which adverse effects might. be minimized, and alternatives to the proj ect . . f. Upon completion of the public hearing;-e e Planning Commission shall either accept the Draft EIR, if it is determined to be T~ OF TIBURON ENVIRON~ENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6/91 15 '. . \, ~~";:~ in conformance with CEQA Guidelines and the requirements for a Draft EIR stated herein, or ~ove continuance of the hearing pending receipt of additional information ~~~ary ~Q_a~eve such confoEIDancE:.: Upo~~;'acceptance of--=the Draft 'EIR, the :plarining Commission shall then establish a 'reasonable period of time, not to exceed 45 ""days I in which t9 allow completion of the Final EIR in the manner prescribed herein. Acceptance or continuance of the Draft EIR (as opposed to certification of the Final EIR) is not an appealable action. 6. Final Environmental Impact Reports ;"~-;':"~..~.,_:,",-"" ;;.,:__:,'3:::_,," "..'-' a. The Final EIR shall consist of the following: 1) The Draft EIR, revisions thereto; including all 2) Copies of all written responses summary of verbal responses. will include the minutes hearings on the Draft EIR; and a This from I 3) The lead Town department and/or Consul tant ' s responses to comments received on the Draft EIR; 4) Any modification or additional data which the Planning commission deems necessary to provide an adequate environmental review of the project. 5) A Mitigation Monitoring Prog~am. , b. certification of Final EIR (15090) 1) The Final EIR shall be considered by the Planning Commission at its public hearing on the merits of the project. If approval of the proj ect application is final at the Commission level, the Planning Commission shall certify completion of the Fina.l EIR before taking an action on the project (see Resolution certifying Completion, Appendix I). If the action of the Planning Commission is advisory to the Town Council, the Commission shall T~ OF TIBURON EMVIRONMENTAl REVIE~ GUIDELINES 2/6/91 16 " - ~~ consider the Final EIR in making its recommendation. The Town council' shall certify the final report prior to its action on the project. 2) When a decision-making body wi thin the Town other than the Planning commission or City council, has final approval authority over a project, that body shall consider the Final EIR before taking action on the project. 3) Any person may appeal to the Town council the decision of the Planning commission or other decision-making body to certify the Final EIR. Appeals must be in writing specifying the issues of EIR adequacy being appealed, and shall be filed with the required filing fee within ten---rrO) working days following such deeis.ton. 4) Appeal of the Final EIR certification shall suspend any further consideration of the project until a decision on the appeal is made by the Town council. 7. Findings and Action on Project a. The Town shall not approve or carry out. a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant effects of the proj ect unless the approving body makes one or more of the following written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a statement of the facts supporting each finding. ~~ 1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the Final EIR. /"'0, \ C'~ /.....,./. ",,<" I · y, -11 V,... 2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE~ GUIDELINES 2/6/91 17 '. . ,'. \ (\ / C~ r ~ r. -~;,p. and should be adopted by such other agency. 3) Spec if ic economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. rb. The findings required by 1) through 3), above, shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c. The finding in subsection 2) shall not be made if the Town has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with iqentified mitigation measures or alternatives. d. The Town shall not decide to approve or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless either (15092): 1) The project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment, or 2) The Town has: z a) Eliminated or substantia~ly lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible as shoW'n-.-_in findings under (Section IIIF7a- (15091), _------ a:na- "--- __________ -;?-. , Determined that any remaining significa~t effects on the environment found to be unavoidable under Section IIIE7a (15091) are acceptable due to ~.-..----..... overriding concerns~s described -: ---_.under Section IIIF7f:'-C 15093) . ". <"'" ----------~ ~with respect to-i'-project which includes housing development, the Town shall not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure if it determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation measure available that will provide a comparable level of b) ',--- ... '- ....,,---.... e. TOYN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6/91 18 -""!"t~ mitigation. (15092c) f. Where the Town.allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the ,Final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the Town shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. This shall be called a statement of overriding Considerations. (15093) .... .. g. When the Town of Tiburon is the Lead Agency, it shall have a maximum of one (1) year from the date of acceptance of a complete application to' process the necessary and appropriate environmental documents as set forth in these guidelines. Where a proj ect requires more than one application, each application shall be subject to a separate one year ~ period for approval or disapproval, based upon the date of acceptance of each completed application. This time limit may only be extended once upon consent of the applicant and the public agency for a maximum of 90 additional days. , ,. h. A few statutes require agencies to make decisions on permits within time limi.ts that are so short that review of the project under CEQA would be difficult. To enable the Lead Agency to comply with both the permit statute and CEQA, the Lead Agency shall deem an application for a project not received for filing under the permit statute or ordinance until such time as progress toward completing the environmental documentation required by CEQA is sufficient to finish the CEQA process within the short permit time limit. (15111) i. After/ the proj ect for which an EIR has been prepared is approved or disapproved, the lead Town department shall prepare a Notice of Determination. The Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County Clerk. If discretionary approval is needed for a state agency, the Notice shall also be filed with the Office of TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE~ GUIDELINES 2/6/91 19 ---.;:. Planning & Research. Filing of the Notice shall be within five (5) working days of the date of the approved action. (15094) (The format for the Notice of Determination, including the statement of findings, is provided in Appendix D.) j. The filing of the Notice of Determination wi th the County Clerk starts a 30 day statute of limitations on court challenges to the action of the project under CEQA. G. MitiqationMonitorinq Proqram '. . 1. Implementation a. A Mitigation Monitoring Program in a format indicated 1n the Environmental Review Guidelines, Appendix H, section E8, shall be part of the approved Final EIR. b. That adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be distributed to all agencies or parties with review responsibility def~ned in the Program. 2. Responsibilit~ a. Requirements of the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be made conditions of project approval and shall be treated in a like manner to all other conditions' of approval. As such, failure to co~ply with those conditions would have a direct bearing on the provisional rights of the discretionary permit granted in the same manner as other conditions of approval. b. Overall compliance shall be coordinated by the case planner unless indicated in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. c. A report shall be prepared by the project coordinator - upon completion of the implementation of all mitigation measures, indicating the. specific compliance measures undertaken and the required review approvals received.' The report shall include the checklist included as Appendix N. Approval of the report identifying completion of all mitigation measures by the Town fulfills the Town's monitoring requirements with respect to Public Resources Code section 20181(a). T~ OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE~ GUIDELINES 2/6/91 20 ~ APPENDIX A MINISTERIALLY EXEMPT PROJECTS Pursuant to section 15268 of the State Guidelines, the following actions are considered to be ministerially exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act: 1. .'.' Issuance of building permits. 2... , 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. " Issuance of business licenses. Approval of final subdivision maps. Approval of individual utility service connections and disconnections. Demolition permits not involving properties of historic or cultural significance. Issuance of swimming pool permits. Annual renewal of permits or licenses for existing and continuing uses and activities not involving new construction. 8. Approval of final parcel maps. 9. Approval of records of survey. 10. Approval of certificates of inspection. 11. Execution of SUbdivision improvement agreements. 12. Execution of street improvement agreements. 13. Acceptance of offers of dedication. 14. Acceptance of deeds. 15. Issuance of a grading permit for a single family detached dwelling or swimming pool on existing lots. 16. Any other actions which the Environmental Coordinator finds to be comparably ministerial to the foregoing list. T~ OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE~ GUIDELINES 2/6/91 21 ~~ APPENDIX B CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PROJECTS Pursuant to Article 19 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the projects listed below are to be considered categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Definitions of these categorical exemptions may be found in the State CEQA Guidelines under the sections listed. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. 15301. 15302. 15303. 15304. 15305. 15306. 15301. 15308. 15309. 15310. 15311. 15312. 15313. 15314. 15315. 15316. 15317. Existing Facilities Replacement or Reconstruction \ , New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Minor Alterations to Land Information Collection Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources. Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment Inspections Loans Accessory structures Surplus Government Property Sales Acquisition of Lands for wildlife Conservation Minor Additions to Schools Minor Land Divisions Transfer of Ownership of Land in Order to Create Parks Open Space Contracts or Easements T~ OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6/91 22 15318. 15319. 15320. 15321. ' 15322. 15323' : 15324. 15325. 15326. 15327. 15328. 15329. ~~'"=- Designation of Wilderness Areas Annexations of Existing Facilities and Lots for Exempt Facilities Changes in Organization of Local Agencies Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies Education or Training Programs Involving No Physical Changes Normal Operations of Facilities for Public Gatherings Regulations of Working Conditions Transfer of Ownership of Interest in Land to Preserve Open Space Acquisition of Housing for Housing Assistance Programs Leasing New Facilities Small Hydroelectric Projects at Existing Facilities. Cogeneration Projects at Existing Facilities T~ OF TIBUR~ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6/91 23 APPENDIX C Notice of Completion Mail/a: Stale Cle:uinghouse. 1400 Tenth Street. Sacr:unenIO. CA 95814 916/445-0613 Project TItle. Lead Agener- SlI'eel Address: I SCH# ...,;:::. s.. NOTE b.ID_ ,. Zip: Conl.'lCl Penon: Phone: COWlty: . CIty: ----------------------------------------- Project Location COWlty: .. . ClOSS Srreets: Assessor'. Pm:el No. Within 2 Miles: Slala Hwy II: Airponr. CitytNe=sl Community: Section: Twp. Wa""","yo: Railways: Sehools: Tow Acres: Range: _ Base: Document Typ. ---------~------------------------------- CEOA: oNOP o Euly Cons o Neg Dee o Duf. Em o SUl'Plemenl/Subsequenl o EIR,(Prior SCH No.) oOtller NEPA: o Nor Other: OEA o Dr.ft E!S o FONS( o faint Document o Fino! Document oOtller ---------~~------------------------------ Local Action Typ. o General Plan Upd21e o General Plan Amendmenl o General Plan Element . o Community Plan o Specifie Plan o M asler Plan o Planned Unit Oenlopment o Site PIon o Rezone o Prezone o Use Pmnit o Lmd Division (Subdivision. Parcel M.p, Tr:acl ~f3p. etC.) Development Type o Residenti;l: Uniu_ ACTU_ o Orliee: Sq,ft,_ ACT';&,_ employ.n_ 0' Commercial:Sq,ft. _ A,,!-u_ employ.u_ o Indusrrial: Sq,ft,_AcTa_employ.u_ . 0 Educ'liond o Recreational ,'. o W.ler Facilities: Type o Transporution: Type o Mining: Minerai o Power: Type o Was", Treaonenc Type o Ha.urdous Wur.e:Type ,0 Other: o Anneution o Redevelopment o Coasw Pmnit o Other MGD_ lVe,u_ ---------------------~------------------- Project Issue. Discussed In Document o Aestlletic;/Vista! o Agricultural Land o Air Quali<y o Archeological/Hisltlrical o CoasW Zone o Dnin.gelAbsol'plion o Economic/Jobs o Fiscal o flOod Plain/Flooding o Foren LandIFire Ha=d o GeologicJSeismic o Minerals o Noise o Poput&1i<mIHousin, B:lIonce o Public S.",icesiFacilities o Re=l1ioniP:uks o SehoolsiUniv....iti.. o S"I'lic Syorams o S_er Capacity o Sail Eru.iot1lCampsctian/Gt2Zling o Salid Waste o ToaiciH:u.:udous o Tnilic/C"m:ul.tion O'V.geution o W.tC't Quality o WalC't SUl'P1y,croundwlZer o Well>ndIRipor;>n o WildliCe o Growtll Inducing o Landuse o Cumulative EITcclS o Otll... ----------------------------------------- Pr.sent Land U..lZonlnglCeneral Plan U.. p,.oJect De.crlptlon ----------------------------------------- NOTE: C1..nnghauS4..,;1I ulipl idcnti!ialian numbon Car .11...... projects.IC .SCH numbera1zudy ui...Carl projeet(..&. Cram I Noticeo(~ ... prnious dra(1 document) plcase !ill it in. Rni.wJ October 1m TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES ;. 2/6/91 P. 24 APPENDIX C Reviewing Agencies Checklist (conte) _Resources Agency _Boating & w~ys . _Coasl.al Commission -,--Coasl.al Conservancy _Color:ldo River Board ',' _Conservation _Fish & Game _Foreslrj' _Orfice of Historic Preservation _P:1r1cs & Recre:ltion _Reclamation . _S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission _Water Resoun:es (DWR) BusIness, Transportation & HousIng _Aeronautics _California Highway Patrol _CALTRANS Disuict If_ _Department of Transportation Planning (he:ldquaners) _Housing & Community Development _Food & Agrlcullura Health & Welfara _Heakh Services State & Consumer Services _Gener.tl Services _aLA (Schools) KEY 5 ~ Document sent by lead agency X ~ Document sent by SCH .t. ~ Suggested dislribution Environmental Affairs _Air RcsOlU'Ccs Board _APCDfAQMD _California Was~ Management Board _SWRCB: Clean W=r GrantS _SWRCB: Della Unit _SWRCB: Wa~r Quality _SWRCB: Wa~ RightS _Regional WQCB If_ Youth & Adult Correctlons _Corrections Independent CommIssions & Offices _Energy Commission _Native Americ:uJ Heritage Commission _Public Utilities Commission _Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy _S~ Lands Commission _Tahoe Regional Planning Agency _Other Public Review Period (to be ruled in by lead agency) --------------------~---~--~-----~------- Sl.:Irting Date Sign:ltUfC ----------------------------------------- For SCH Use Onlyt TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES Lead Agency (Complete il applicable): Consulting Finn: Address: City/State/.Zip: Contxt: Pllonc: L-.) Applicant: Adtlress: City/SlalClZip: Pllone: L-.) Ending Date Da~ O:l~ Received 31 SCH Da~ Review StartS Da~ to Agencies Da~ to SCH CIf2r:Jnce Date Notes: R~d Oc:tDb6 19a9 " 2/6/91 P. 25 ..-..it:~ APPENDIX C (cont.) LOCAL REVIEWING AGENCY CHECKLIST Town Manager Town Engineer Town Attorney Police Dept. Recreation Dept. .Tiburon Fire Dist. Alto Richardson Fire Dist. Richardson Bay sanitary Dist. Sanitary District No. 5 Sanitary District No. 2 Marin Municipal Water Dist. Marin County Health Dept. County Flood Control Dist. Pacific Gas & Electric Building Dept. Public Works Dept. Viacom Cablevision Mill Valley Refuse Golden Gate Bridge Hwy/Trans. District Marin County Transit District == Tamalpais School District Metropolitan Transportation Commission Regional Water Quality Control Board B.A.A.Q.M.D. (Air Quality) Strawberry Design Review Board Town of Corte Madera City of Mill Valley Pacific Bell Marin County PIng. Belvedere PIng. Reed School Dist. Caltrans Army Corps of Eng. B.C.D.C. u.S. Postal Office Other, inc. Home Owners Assns. TOWN Of TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6191 26 APPENDIX D Notice of Determination To: _ Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street. Room 121 Sacramento. CA 95814 From: (Public Agency) (MdrruJ County Clerk County of @" . . . " . ~-..." ~' , .. .... Subject: Filing of Notlca of Determination In compllanca with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project TItle State Clearinghouse Number (If submiued to Oearinghouse) Lead Agency Contact Person Area CodelTelephonelEx~nsion Project Location (include county) Project Descrll]tlon: " This is to advise that the has approved the above described project on o Uoad A,...cy 0 Responsible A,cncy and has made the following de~nninations regarding the above described project: (OalO) 1. The project (Owill Owill not} have a signific:lllt effect on the environment. 2. 0 An Environment:1.l Impact Report was prepared for this project pursu:1llt to tile provisions of CEQA. o A Neg:1tive Declaration was prepared for tIlis project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation me:lSures (Owens Owere nOLI made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Consider.ltions [Owas Owas not) adop~d for this project. 5. Ftndings (Owen: Owere not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that tile final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approvaJ i.! av:lilable to the Gener.tl Public at: Signa/rue (Public Agency) DatI! Tit/I! D:tte received for filing at OPR: It..... Oc,,*, 19&9 TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES '2/6/91 P. 27 - APPENDIX E Notice of Exemption ... To: 0 Office of Planning and Rese:m:h 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 SaCr:lmento, CA 95814 From: (Public Agency) (Addruzl o Cowlty Clerk County of e'~'."'" 'st~: . .'..e.... , . Project nUa: Project Location. Specific: Project Location ~ Clty: Description of Project: Project Location. County: Nama of Public Agency Approving Project: Nama of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Exempt Slalus: (c~cJr. Ofll!) o Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268); o Declared Emergency (Sec. 2108O(b)(3); 15269(a)); o Emergency Project (See. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)); i o Ca~goric:LI Exemption. Sla~ type and section number. o Sl:lwtory Exemptions. Slate code number: Reasons why project Is exempt: Lead Agency Contact Person: Azea Codefl'elephonelExu:nsion: Ir filed by applic3nt: 1. Auach cenified document of exemption finding. 2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? 0 Yes 0 No Signature: Date: Title: o Signed by Le:Id Agency o Signed by Applicant Date received for filing at OPR: R~ Oc,.1949 " TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6/91 P. 28 --=- APPENDIX F ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SUBMISSIONS Any applicant seeking approval from a decision-making body in the Town for a project that is not ministerially or categorically exempt or of an emergency nature as def ined herein must submit sufficient information to enable staff to complete and Initial study to be used by the Environmental Coordinator to determine whether an EIR must be prepared or whether a negative declaration may be issued. Project applicants shall provide the' following information in the format indicated in an accompanying text entitied "Environmental Data Submission" to be submitted at the time an application is filed. The Environmental Data Submission and project application materials have separate purposes and separate requirements. One document may not simply refer to material contained in the other; the Environmental Data.Submission must give an adequate description of the project for environmental review' purposes. Any ultimate anticipated development on the project site or adjacent property under the same ownership must be included in the discussion. If there are phases to the project, the submission may discuss them by phase so long as a cumulative impact is also provided by each phase analyzed. ~,This outline is intended to serve as a guide to preparers of Environmental Data Submissions. It does not guarantee that no additional information will be required. This outline will be used by the Department of Community Development staff to determine the completeness of an Environmental Data Submission. Some projects may require additional information in order to evaluate possible 'environmental impacts. Some types of projects may not require the ~level of information regarding environmental setting indicated. These include some test amendments and some minor projects. Questions should be directed to the Department of Community Development staff. The Environmental Data Submissio~ is divided into 'four distinct' sections: '1) projectlnformation'J 2) environmental setting;) ;.3)) ~impacts\; and 4) Dtitigation measures and alternatives. It is important that these sections not be mixed. Where appropriate, information sources should be cited, as well as the source of any subjective options. T~ OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE~ GUIDELINES 2/6/91 29 A. -..;,;>. ENVI:RONHEHTiLTDATA'''ii't1BHiSSI:~ proiect Information 1. Applicants' Name (Owner or legally authorized part in interest) : Address: _. Telephone: 2. Person preparing this submission: Address: Telephone: 3. Project Number(s): 4. Assessor's Parcel No(s): 5. Type of approval(s) sought: 6. Location of project (attach vicinity map): 7. Size of subject property: 8. Present and previous use of site or structures: 9. Existing zoning, General Plan designation and any applicable policies, master plans and/or specific plans for site and surrounding areas: 10. General description of project: a. Intent of project (be as specific as possible; include goals for applicant and community, proposed uses, number and size of lots, etc.). b. Map showing use(s) to which land will be put (may be a duplicate of a map exhibit submitted with project application). c. Major activities contemplated and their sequence (construction-related and permanent) . d. Indicate: amount of area covered by structures, permeable surfaces, landscaping and natural open spacej number of floors, floor area, employees and shifts for commercial projects; and types and numbers of units for residential units. TOYN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6/91 30 -..,,;;!o. 11. Other agencies of Town departments which permits or;. approvals will be required, specifying type and granting- body: I 12. A map showing the location of the project with relation to adjacent streets shall be included for site specific projects. B. Environmental settinq 1. Topography: features. Average slopes, significant topographic '. . 2. Geology: a. Geologic type. b. Slope stability (landslides and debris flows, size and extent; is repair of landslide proposed?) c. Seismic hazards (tsunami, liquefaction, ground shaking, subsidence, etc.) 3. Air Quality: Exposure to or generation of air pollutants or odors. , ,4' . 4 . Hydrology: Existing hydrologic features streams, marsh, by, lake, etc; drainage patterns; flood zones (see Flood Rate Insurance map available in Tiburon Planning and any alterations proposed. 5. Water Quality; Percolation rate if known, depth of groundwater if known, any wells in the area, quality of any surface water and any sources of contamination (such as parking lot runoff) existing in the vicinity of or resulting from project. 6. Biology: Major plant types, known habitats of endangered 'flora or fauna, and identification of all trees by type and circumference at two feet above the ground. 7. Noise: Any significant noise generators in area, existing noise levels (for sites along Highway 131 (Tiburon Blvd.) information is available in the Tiburon Planning Development. For estimates of noise based on traffic, see the 1989 Tiburon General plan). How do noise levels for the proposed use compare with Tiburon General Plan Noise Element Guidelines for the proposed use? TawM OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6/91 31 -...,.,. 8. Visual/Scenic Resources: Is the site a scenic r~source, either by itself or as a part of a larger area resource? , Describe visual characteristics including impacts to .", ' ridgelines, .view corridors, and adj acent property views. _.'.:<;' will the project create substantial sun shadow or glare . problems? 9. Grading: If the project requires grading, how many cubic yards? will it be balanced on-site and, if not, where ~ will it be deposited or obtained? If there is grading, provide a cut/fill map and, if it is unbalanced, a map delineating the borrow or deposit site and haul route. 10. Archaeologic/Cul tural Resources: Is this an area of archaeologic sensitivity? If so, or if there is a known archaeologic site within 300 yards, an archaeological reconnaissance should be included in the Environmental Data Submission. Are there cUltural/historic or prehistoric resources on or adjacent to the site? 11. Population and Housing Characteristics: Is the site adjacent to a populated area? What are the housing characteristics of the adjacent area? 12. Circulation: circulation patterns, latest traffic counts available from Tiburon Planning Department, alterations in existing or proposed street improvements of the Town, availability of public transportation, pedestrian and bicycle trails. 13. Public Service and utilities: Availability of public services and infrastructure to serve site. Distance and/or response time to sewer, water, gas, electricity, police fire, parks; method of sewage disposal proposed. 14. Health and Safety: a. explosive (including Identify any flammable, reactive or materials to be located on site pressurized tanks). b. Indicate distance to nearest high fire hazard (i.e., brush, stored flammable, ete). c. Identify any proposed use storage or prOduction of hazardous materials (as identified in the California proposition 65 legislation) and procedure for disposal. d. Identify disposal products. procedures for all waste T~ OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE~ GUIDELINES 2/6/91 32 -...,,"'" e. Indicate distance to nearest sensi ti ve receptors (i.e., schools, hospitals, residences) if there is a potential hazardous emissions source proposed or vice versa for proposed sensitive receptor. c. -Im~acts Preliminary estimate of any action proposed that could cause adverse impact upon any of the features listed above when considered over the life of the project. Discussion must document specific environmental features impacted, the nature of the impact and the relative measure of the severity of the :_' ;'imp~ct. ' ..1'~~_' ,-.,-. D. Mitiaation Measures and Alternatives 1. Mitigation measure that have been incorporated into the project design to lessen or eliminate (specify which) potential adverse environmental effects should be described. These should be distinguished from mitigation measures which could be part of the proposed proj ect, but are not. The description should include a discussion of the implementation and monitoring prqcedures anticipated. Discussion of alternatives to the project location or design. Brief discussion of significant impacts of alternatives, if different than project impacts. 2. E. certification ( 1. Attach the following statement as part of the submission: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date: (signature) For: T~ OF TIBURON E~VIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6/91 33 ~~ APPENDIX G ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (To be completed by ~t~~ as part of the ~~1~l~'~~~~4~ Date: staff Member: A. PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project Number(s): 2. Location: 3. Parcel No(s): B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Provide an explanation for all "yes", and "maybe" answers in the space given or on an attached sheet together with recommended mitigation measures. "No" answers may also need some explanation, in unusual instances. 1. Geotechnical. will the proposal result in: Yes Maybg NQ N/A a. Substantial excavation, filling, displacement or other disturbance of the soil? b. Substantial erosion or siltation? c. Introduction of substantial amounts of chemical, gaseous or radioactive materials into the natural environment (including fertilizers, pesticides, etc.)? d. Substantial changes in topography or physical features such as hills ridges or rock outcroppings? e. Location in an active or potentially active fault zone? f. Location in an area having major slope instability or major landslide(s)? TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEY GUIDELINES 2/6/91 34 Yes g. Location in an area with high subsidence, groundwater level or hydrocompaction? 2. Air. will the proposal result in: . a. . Substantial air emissions or 'deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? / c. Generation of fugitive dust? 3. Water. will the proposal result in: I.. .a. Substantial alteration of existing absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? b. Substantial alterations to the ponding or course of flow of '; flood waters? Co; Exposure of people or property to water-related hazards? d. Substantial change in the composition, quantity or flow characteristics of groundwater? e. Adverse effects upon the quality of any surface body of water? f. Exposure to high mud flow, erosion or debris deposition. 4. Fire/Police. will the proposal result in: a. Substantial increased potential for destructive fires within natural areas? b. A substantial reduction in the level of fire safety? Mavbe TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6191 ,-!!:!> No N/A, 35 . Yes c. -Location in a high fire hazard area or area with inadequate water and/or pressure to meet fire flow standards? d. Location in a high fire hazard area with more than 75 units on a single access or served by inadequate access due to length, width, surface materials, ;,'turn-around or grade? staffing or response time problems from the fire and/or police station? e. f. special fire or law enforcement concerns? 5. Biota. will the proposal result in: a. Substantial 'change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants or '~nimal~ currently present or likely to occur at any time throughout the year? b. Reduction in number of any unique, rare or endangered plants or animals or communities of such? c. Introduction of exotic plants and animals to the detriment of native species? d. Substantial reduction in prime agriculture acreage or use? e. Substantial deterioration to existing wildlife habitats? 6. Noise. will proposal result in: a. Significant increase in existing ambient noise levels? b. Exposure of people to high single incident noise generators? Mavbe T~ OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6/91 ....,;;:0. ;". H2 N/A 3E -~ ./;.-. Yes Mavbe No N/A 7. visual/Scenic Resources. will the project result in: a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? - b. Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? -, c. Substantial sun shadow or :' glare problems? - d. Disharmony with adjacent uses because of height, bulk or other features? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned use of _. an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in a substantial _ increase in the rate of use or :. depletion of any natural resource? 10. Transportation/Circulation. will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional traffic such that existing levels of service will deteriorate? c. Increase in traffic hazards? d. Limiting the possibility for future transportation system improvements or expansions? e. Reduced means of escape or evacuation in an emergency? f. Increased parking problems? 11. Public Services. will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services? T~ OF TIBUROM ENVlROMMENTAL REVIE~ GUIDELINES 2/6/91 3 ,1. 12. utilities. will the proposal have a significant effect upon utility systems including unanticipated demands on those systems? 13. Community. Will the proposal result in: a. Significant public controversy :.' related to an environmental issue? b. significant displacement of people or the disruption of established neighborhoods? - c. Creation of unanticipated demands on delivery of health or social service? d. Will the proposal affect housing or create a demand for additional housing? e. Significant reduction in land available for affordable housing? 14 Enerqv. will proposal result in: a. Inefficient utilization of energy? b. Substantial increase in demand on existing energy sources? 15. Archaeoloqical/Cultural. will the proposal result in potential alteration of a significant paleontological, archaeological, historical or cultural site, structure, object or building? 16. Growth Inducing. will the project result in an inducement to growth in the surrounding area? Yes Maybe TOWN Of TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEY GUIDELINES 2/6/91 -~ No N/A 3~ 17. Human Health. will the proposal result in the creation of a potential health hazard or the exposure of people to potential health hazards including the use, production, storage or disposal ' of any hazardous materials or pressurized tanks? 18. Plan Conformity. a. Is this proposal inconsistent with the policies and intent of the Tiburon General Plan? 19. Mandatorv Findinqs of Siqnificance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to '. eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare of endangered plant or animal, or eliminate import~nt examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? t;,,,~ b. Does the project have a potential to' achieve short-term, "to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c~' Does the proj ect have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, current projects and probable future projects). Yes Maybe T~ OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6/91 ,...,~ No N/A 3 ~:::. Yes l1avb~ No 'tlJ..b. . o. d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirec~ly? C. Questions answered "yes" or "maybe" by staff in the above listinl constitute a recommended finding of significance until the Environmenta Coordinator makes his/her determination. Modification of finding: required by the Environmental Coordinator must be noted in thl checklist. , D. DETERMINATION (To, be filled out by the Environmental Coordinato: following his/her evaluation of the Initial study) On the basis of this Initial study: 1. It is found that the proposed project WILL NOT have a significan' effect on the on the environment and a DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATIOI will be prepared by the lead Town department. 2. It is found that although the proposed project could have. significant effect on the environment, th~re will not be significant effect in this instance because feasible mitigatio, measures exist for impacts identified as significant in the Initia . study.' These measures are: . ~ '(or a. Reflected in revised exhibits submitted for aRproval by th applicant. ' ,.. b. Described in statements attached with the written concurrenc of the applicant as to their feasibility and acceptance. Based on the foregoing, a DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION will b prepared. 3. It is found that the proposed project MAY have a significant effec on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required By: Date: Environmental Coordinator TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE~ GUIDELINES 2/6/91 40 -~ 1) Additional explanation of factors. 2) Recommended mitigation measures. .' ..- ....r~'" TOWN OF TlBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVI~ GUIDELINES 2/6191 41 ,..,,;:>. '. . staff Member: " TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEY GUIDELINES 2/6/91 42 --.;:>0. 1 APPENDIX H PROCEDURES FOR EIR PREPARATION When the Town has determined that a project will or may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead Town shall prepare or cause to have prepared an Environmental Impact Report. The following procedures shall govern preparation of an EIR by a consultant or lead Town department. A. POLICY - It is the policy of the Town of Tiburon to select a consultant to prepare EIR's for all private projects. The " Town will select a consultant on the basis of appropriate costs as well as demonstrated capability to perform the tasks outlined in the "Request for Proposal." Proposals should show that the EIR will provide the Town decision-makers with an accurate and complete report that meets the requirements of state law and these guidelines and provides sufficient information to reach a decision on the project. B. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - The lead Town department shall prepare ,_ a "Request for proposal." This request shall be mailed to at _ least three firms on the Town approved list of EIR consultants. Consultants shall have at least ten working days from the date of the "Request for Proposal" is postmarked to respond with a written proposal. . C. REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSAL - The following minimum requirements must be met by any consultant submitting a proposal pursuant , to the above request: 1. The names and qualifications of all persons who will be working on this project including all subcontractors. The lead contact person should be identified. 2. A detailed estimate of the number of hours each of the above-named persons will contribute to the total report, the areas on which they will work, and their hourly rate. 3. The costs of the consultant attending a maximum of three to four public hearings including a scoping hearing and hearings on. the Draft and Final EIR's. 4. An estimate of all clerical costs including typing, reproduction and binding in preparation of the Administrative Draft, the Draft and the Final EIR's. 5. Based on the above, a total fixed bid figure for preparation of the Draft and Final EIR's. 6. The date on which work can commence arid the number of TOWN OF TIBUROH ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEV,GUIDELINES 2/6/91 43 I ~~ weeks required to finish the Draft EIR, including. time for staff review of the administrative draft (not longer than 15 working days.) 7. A listing of previous EIR' s prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pertinent to the project in question. 8. Compliance with any additional requirements set forth in the "Request for Proposal." D. ~VALUATION OF PROPOSAL 1. The lead Town department shall evaluate each proposal based upon Town policies and these guidelines. 2. The lead Town department 'shall provide the applicant with copies of all proposals. After discussion with the applicant, the lead Town department shall select the consultant who will perform the work. The decision to accept any proposal shall be made not later than thirty (30) calendar days after the deadline for proposals to be submitted. Consultants whose proposals have not been accepted shall be so notified. 3. When the consultant has been chosen, the applicant must, wtthin fifteen (15) calendar days of said choice, deposit with the Town the full amount of the consultant's total bid figure for services. The Town of. Tiburonwill then execute a contract between the consultant and the Town ,on contract forms provided by the Town. E. FORMAT FOR EIR 1. The information contained in an EIR, including teqhnical data, maps, plot plans and diagrams shall be presented in such a manner as to permit full assessment of significant environment impacts by reviewing agencies and member of the public. Use of clear and descriptive graphics is' especially encouraged. Placement of highly technical or specialized data should be provided in appendices separated from the main body of the EIR. 2. EIR's shall be produced on 8~xll inch paper and reproduced on both sides. They shall be bound so as to allow revisions and additions to be incorporated. 3. The EIR shall be prepared using a systematic, well documented approach. The EIR shall reference all documents used in its preparation including a citation to the page and section' number of documents used as the TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6/91 44 -.'!.~'~ basis for any statements in the EIR. All EIR sections written by someone other than an employee of the consultation firm shall be credited to the appropriate author(s) . 4. The EIR should discuss environmental effects in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. Effects dismissed in an Initial study as clearly insignificant need not be discussed further unless the Town subsequently receives information inconsistent with the finding in the Initial study. :'5. If, after thorough investigation, the Town or consultant finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the report should note this conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. 6. An EIR may incorporate by reference all or portions of other documents which contain information relevant to the EIR. The incorporated document shall be available to the public at the lead Town department office. Where an EIR uses incorporation by reference, the incorporated part of the document shall be briefly summarized in the EIR. '. ....:>~ - 7. 8. The discussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish between the measures which 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. 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. 9. Changes in the Draft EIR required through the public hearing process shall be highlighted by means of underlining or different type face in the Final EIR. Unless required changes are minimal, rewriting of the Draft EIR will be required. Comments and additional information required for inclusion in the Final EIR shall be included as an addendum'to the EIR. Responses to comments shall be incorporated into the text of the EIR and keyed to the list of comments. TOUM OF TIBURON ENVIRON~ENTAL REVIEY GUIDELINES 2/6/91 45 ,...."... -< APPENDIX I I RESOLUTION CERTIFYING COMPLETION OF EIR RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION (TOWN COUNCIL) OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON CERTIFYING THAT THE FINAL EIR FOR THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE.' WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has caused to be prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the Project, a proposal project loc~ted on acres of land and within the Town of Tiburon. WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the Guidelines as promulgated by ,the state Secretary of Resources and the procedures for review asset forth in the Town of Tiburon EIR Guidelines (all as most recently amended); and ( WHEREAS, copies of the Draft EIR have been distributed for review by affected public agencies; and WHEREAS, as the Planning commission of the Town of Tiburon has considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report, has held a public hearing thereon, and has reviewed the responses to said DraftEIR. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning commission (Town Council) of the Town of TiburOn does hereby certify that the Final EIR on the. Project has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the State and the Town Guidelines. . . . . . . Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning commission (Town Council) of the Town of Tiburon held on the day of 19 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: TOYM OF TIBURON EMVIRONMENTAL REVIE~ GUIDELINES 2/6/91 46 ,.,...;;>. APPENDIX J NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT subject: Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Title: state Clearinghouse No: Project Applicant: The Town of Tiburon will be the lead agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report to the project identified above. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The' .project: description, location and probable environmental effects are contained in the attached Environmental Data Submission and Environmental Checklist {the 'Initial study). Due~~o the time limits mandated by state law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days of this notice. ' Please send your response to the Tiburon Planning Department, 1155 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California, 94920. We will need the name and telephone number of a contact person at your agency. Sincerely, Director of community Development Telephone: (415) 435-0956 cc: state Clearinghouse TCl'JN OF TIBURON ENVIRON"ENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES '2/6/91 47 ~~ APPENDIX It NOTICE OF A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice is hereby given that a Draft Negative Declaration is available for review in the Tiburon Planning Department, 1155 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, for the following project. Project Title: Type of Application: Location of Project: The will consider adoption of the Negative Declaration on , at p.m. in the , Tiburon. The adoption of the Negati ve Declaration would indicate the proj ec;:t would have no significant effect on the environment. The may also consider requiring an Environmental Impact Report for the project, if significant environmental impacts might result from the project. Inquiries regarding the Draft Negative Declaration should be directed to: at (415) 435-0956, or to the Tiburon Planning Department, 1155 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California, 94920. TowN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEY GUIDELINES 2/6/91 48 .~,l; ",-. APPENDIX L NOTICE OF INITIAL STUDY TO: Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies SUBJECT: Notice of Initial Study PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT APPLICANT: The Town of Tiburon is conducting as Initial study to determine whether an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration will be required for the proposal The project description, location and probable effects are contained in the attached Environmental and Environmental Checklist (the Initial Study). \ We request your identification of any concerns to your agency' raised by the proposed proj ect. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response is requested at the earliest possible date, but not later than 45 days after the date of this notice. If you '.recommehd mitigation measures as a condition of approval, please indicate your recommendation for monitoring procedure. environmental Data Submission Please send your responses to the Tiburon Planning Department, 1155 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California, 94920. Sincerely, Jack Lohman Director of Community Development cc: State 'Clearinghouse T~ OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6/91 49 ,- APPENDIX M C!QA PROCESS F1.0Y CHART . . - Not · project - - - - - - l I =>-l I I I I I St. tutory uemptlon - CUesoric.aJ exemption Public asency evaluates project to dete"" me if the.... II a possibility that the project m.y have. siS- niflcant effect on environment No possi~le si&nifkant _ _ effect ""..ible sl!P'ifleant effect Determin.tlon of lead asency ..here more than I public "Seney il Involved Le.d agency Lead .sency pr_es initi~ study Public ",view period Decision makin~ body considers final EIR or ~atl"" Deel...tl prepared by lead' .sency Findins" on leasibility ot reducing or .....dlng ,i!P'illcant envlron- ment~ effects Non. This flow chart il intende<l merely to 111l..t""e the EIR process contempl.ted by th...e Cuidel;".... The I.niluage cont.ined in the Cuidellnes cont",11 In c.... 01 discrepancies. RevlsedfEffteCtive January 198' T~ OF TI8URON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE~ GUIDELINES 2/6/91 50 ~~ .. - ',' . '1-- APPENDIX H MONITORING PROGRAM (Case Name and Number 1. MITIGATION MEASURE (from Negative Declaration): 2. JUSTIFICATION (from Initial Study): 3. TRUSTEE AGENCIES JURISDICTION YesNo Department of Fish and Game States Land Commission State Department of Parks and Recreation University of California OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES , 4. MONITORING AGENCY/FIRM: 5. PROCEDURE - STEPS TO COMPLIANCE (unique to each project) A. B. C. D. Etc. 6. COMPLIANCE monitor) A. B. C. D. Etc. 7. COMMENTS: 8. Fees: (each procedure step to be signed off and dated by Receipt # Date: Rec I d By: Prepared By: Date: \ceqa\ceqaII2.frm TOUM OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES 2/6/91 51 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM f ~., Town of Tiburon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council FROM: Matthew C. Odetto, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Anticipated Impacts to Implementing a Ban on personal~er~rafts November 1, 2002 REVIEWED BY:~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MEETING DATE: Background On October 26, 1999, the Marin County Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance (Ordinance No. 3302) prohibiting personal watercraft from the navigable waters within the County's jurisdiction. However, the County did not implement the Ordinance because of litigation filed to challenge the ban. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal upheld the ordinance and, on October 16, 2002, the California Supreme Court declined to review the Court of Appeal's decision. Accordingly, the Ordinance now stands approved by the court as valid. The County has requested that other local governments in Marin County with navigable waters adopt a similar ordinance. A copy of the County's Ordinance is attached. Analysis The Town of Tiburon has approximately twelve miles of navigable waterway stretching from Red Rock Island adjacent to the Richmond Bridge including portions of the San Francisco Bay and Richardson Bay. Presently, the Tiburon Police Department does not actively enforce laws on our waterways. There are currently three law enforcement agencies in Marin County with the capability of enforcing such a ban on personal watercrafts. Those agencies are the US Coast Guard, the Marin County Sheriff's Office and the San Rafael Police Department. The US Coast Guard's primary mission is boating and waterway safety with an emphasis on rescue. It is unlikely that a federal agency would enforce County or Town local ordinances. The Marin County Sheriff's Office currently has two boats available with an additional two watercrafts (Jet Skis) that provide law enforcement duties to the more than 86 miles of waterways within their respective jurisdiction. The Marin County Sheriff's Office already assists the Town with policing our territorial waters on such occasions as Opening Day on the Bay, Fleet Week and the occasional Regattas associated to the Yacht Clubs. With its present configuration, the County would be hard pressed to extend enforcement to the Town's waterways. The San Rafael Police Department currently has one boat available for law enforcement for its waterways. The boat primarily patrols the area of San Pablo Bay and the adjacent areas such as the San Rafael Canal. Town of Tib~~on STAFF REpORT t'; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -,. . . . . Anticipated Impacts to the Town of Tiburon I have several concerns to note with respect to the Town's adoption of an ordinance similar to the County's. It is important to note that over the past two years, I am unaware of any compl,aints on personal watercraft on the Bay or within the Town's jurisdiction. In order to enforce such an ordinance, the Tiburon Police Department would need a boat. The vessel must be of an appropriate size and properly equipped to navigate within the bay waters. Properly equipped, such a vessel would likely range in price from $50,000 to $90,000. In addition, the Town of Tiburon currently does not have any municipal facilities equipped to dock such a craft. The San Francisco Yacht Club, the Corinthian Yacht Club and the Tiburon Yacht Club are privately owned. In addition, it is not an unlikely scenario that, through enforcement of such a ban, a water craft vehicle may be seized. The Town of Tiburon does not have an adequate storage facility. In addition, a minimum of two Police Officers would be needed to operate the vessel. The Police Department currently does not have the training or the staff to absorb these additional duties. Depending on the extent of enforcement, the annual cost to operate this additional level of enforcement could be in excess of $180,000. However, the cities of Belvedere, Mill Valley, Corte Madera, Larkspur and Sausalito face similar problems with waterway enforcementof such a ban. If those agencies choose to adopt the proposed ban, the Town might be able to achieve economies of scale in jointly enforcing the waterways. Recommendation Given the lack of complaints of personal watercraft use in the Town's waterways and the significant costs associated with enforcement, I recommend that the Town Council not introduce a ban on personal watercraft at this time. Attachment Page 2 of 2 OCT 30 2002 4:5SPM THE TOWN OF TIBURON 4154352438 p.2 : " . . ).. ".'- ....:. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 3501 CIviC CENI1!R DR., SuITll3,,. SAN RAPAEI., CAUFORNlA 9490~193 ThLEPHONl!: (US) 499-ml FAX (415) 499-3645 TOO (415) 499-9172 www.co.marin.ca.u5/bos THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF MARIN COUNTY October 23,2002 Ms. Diane L. Crane- lacopi Town Clerk, Town of Tiburon Tiburon, California 94920 Re: Marin County Ordinance Prohibiting Personal Watercraft (a.k.a. "Jet Skis" Dear Ms. Crane- lacopi: As you may recall, on October 26, 1999, the Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance (Ordinance No. 3302) prohibiting personal watercraft from the navigable waters over which the County has jurisdiction. At that time the Board of Supervisors also sent each of the then city or town managers whose jurisdictions included shoreline waters the attached memorandum requesting that each of your jurisdictions adopt similar prohibitions to provide uniformity and aid in the enforcement of the prohibition. However, due to the litigation that was filed to challenge the County ordinance, none of your towns and cities ultimately enacted similar ordinances. We are pleased to report that on Wednesday October 16, 2002, the California Supreme Court denied the personal watercraft coalitions petition to review the Court of Appeal decision upholding the County's ordinance against numerous constitutional and statutory challenges. Therefore, we believe the issue of the validity of such a prohibition _ if supported by relevant legislative findings such as those adopted by the County. has finally been resolved. (We also attach a fully executed copy of the County ordinance including those findings for your information). We are therefore renewing our request that your towns and cities adopt similar ordinances. David Zaltsman of our County Counsel's office (499-6117) has the entire record upon which the County based its decision on this important issue and is available to assist your staff in drafting a defensibie ordinance. Thank you again for your cooperation in this county-wide endeavor. Sincerely, a~~d~ CY~;~MURRAY' J President, Board of Supervisors Enclosures: Memorandum dated November 19, 1999 from Board of Supervisors Copy of Ordinance No. 3302 C M: d 5\02'022." .JeISkl.MERGEDoo-L TR VIOl PResiDeNT 2"" VIC".PRESlDEHT PIl.E51OtiNT CLERK r- ,'. , ~XTENDED PAGE 2.1 .' ~r . ~, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF MARIN COUNTY AoMINI5nIATlON BUluilNc 3501 ClYtc CINrEI DL, SuITl! 329 SAN BAM2l., CwIoRNtA 940903-4193 Tm..BMtoNa (41S) 499.7J31 PAX (415) 499-J645 TOO (415) 499-6172 h&tIl: Ilwari~/mcfb<s1 To: Ed San Diego, City Manager, Belvedere James H. Robinson, Town Manager, Corte Madera Jean Bonander, City, ~ager, Larkspur pon Hunter, City Manager, Mill Valley Roderick!. Wood, City Manager, Novato Rod Gould, City ,Manager, San Rafael Brock Amer, City Manager, Sausalito From: ::eL:~::a::~~ Re: Jet Ski Ordinance '. <::1 .~ Date: November 19, 1999 ,As you know, on October 26, 1999, the Board ofS,upervisors adopted an ordinance banning personal watercraft from navigable waters over which the County has jurisdiction. A copy of the adopted ordinance and a map prepared by our Public Works Department areenclos~d ror your infonnation. We ate requesting that all Marin cities and towns with waterfroIit areas adopt a similar . ordinance. This will provide uniformity throughout the County and aid in the enforcement of the ordinance. ' If yon have any questions about the ordinance, please contact .DavidZaltsman in our COlUlty Counsel's office at 499-6117. Thank you for your cooperation in this county-wide endeavor. cc: Board of Supervisor! Enclosures ~, JOHI\I'Kuss SAN RAPAa. lsr OISTIICT 2ND Va hIsRxNT '. HAa.oUJ C. BIIOWN SAN ANSEUolO , 2ND ~cr . PusIIlUfl' AHNI"t'n Roll ~U5AU1O 3m 0Isracr . v~ SnnlClrtKv Soul GaRcNIMO 4TH DlsrJUCr Cuu: . C>>mIlA. L MUUAY . M.uUC J. ltlESUlRLD NOVAtO StHCIsmcr .. '\" ORDINANCE NO. 3302 AN ORDINANce OF THE MARIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AMENDING CHAPTER 11.36 OF THE MARIN COUNTY CODe PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF BOATING WITHIN THE BEL MARIN KEYS COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT AND UPON NOVA TO CREEK AND THE REGULATION OF PERSONAL WATERCRAFT W1THIN ALL SHOREUNE WATERS AND ESTUARIES OF MARIN COUNTY 'The Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin does hereby ordain: SECTION I: LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS A. The Western or Ocean Shoreline of Marin County is home to a portion of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary as well as the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine 'Sanctuary. In addition, this shoreline is also covered in large part by the pt. Reyes National Seashore and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Each of these entities has banned, proposed banning or significantly restricted the use of "motorized personal watercraft" (PWC), arso designated as "thrill craft" within their territory. . B. These regulations were all adopted following public comment processes that resulted in extensive findings by the Agency with respect to the numerous and significant adverse affects PWC have on people, wildlife and the environment generally. ' National Marine Sanctuary, the Personal Watercraft Industry Association sued the National C. For example, following the adoption of Regulations by the Monterey Bay Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") which promulgated the Regulation. In ,upholding the Regulation, the federal Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit noted: The record is full of evidence that machines of this sort threatened the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. NOAA received written comments and testimony from marine scientists, researchers, federal agencies, state agencies, state and local governments, business organizations, and more than a hundred citizens on !he issue of regulating these machines. Everyone agreed-personal watercraft interfered with the public's recreational safety and enjoyment of the Sanctuary and posed a serious threat to the Sanctuary's flora and fauna. The ; Page 1 of 13 ~ '~ concept of a "sanctuary" entails elements of serenity, peace. and tranquility. Yet the commenters described instances of personal watercraft operators harassing sea otters and other marine mammals, disturbing harbor seals, damaging the Sanctuary's kelp forests. menacing swimmers, divers, kayakers. and. other recreational users. and generally disrupting the esthetic enjoyment of the Sanctuary. All concerned recommended either prohibiting personal watercraft outright or restricting them to specific areas in the Sanctuary. No one urged NOAA to do nothing about the problem. D. Similarly, the proposed Rule for the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary is buttressed by numerous studies and comments. A portion of the background for 'the proposed Rule is especially on point: The nearshore waters of the Sanctuary are particularly vulnerable areas where myriad marine invertebrates and algae reside, where bird rookeries and pinniped haulout sites are present. where many critical nursery and food source habitats for wildlife are located, and ,where many nearshore users of the Sanctuary's water tend to concentrate. The nearshore waters of the Sanctuary are also those areas most impacted by the operation of MPWC. Lawson's Landing; a current MPWC launch site. is situated at the largest pinniped haulout in Tomales Bay, and is also within a quarter mile of Walker Creek delta, where the highest concentration of wac.:ling and shore birds occurs in the Sanctuary, and where sea otters have been regularly observed. The nearshore waters of the Sanctuary are the areas most heavily used for recreation, canoeing, rowing, kyaking and swimming. These activities are often conducted very close to shore and may be dependent on calm waters. The ability of MPWC to go very close to shore (due to their shallow draft) and move in unpredictable ways may. be detrimental to the safety and aesthetic experience of those conducting these more benign recreational activities. NOAA believes that MPWC operation in . nearshore areas creates a user conflict that can be avoided ,by keeping MPWC offshore. E. In adopting a complete ban on PWC, the GGNRA also made extensive findings. However, these were summarized succinctly as follows: This prohibition is necessary to prevent adverse impacts and disturbance to wildlife such was waterfowl. sea birds and marine mammals. The loud, high speed nature and maneuverability of perSonal watercraft creates impacts to wildlife including interruption of activity. alarm and flights; avoidance and displacement; interference with movement; alteration of behavior; and nest abandonment. This prohibition is also necessary to avoid conflict with other visitor uses such as fishing, boating, kayaking, and boardsailing. The loud engine pitch and volume , '! Page 2 of 13 of noise are also disturbing to park visitors and intrude upon the opportunity for a quiet, peaceful park experience. ' The degradation of water quality due to unburned fuel emmissions (sic) from the two-stroke engines is also a concern. F. This Board, having reviewed the full administrative record including testimony from the public hearings leading up to the adoption of this ordinance concurs in the findings and conclusions reached by these federal agencies. eastern shoreline of Marin County stretches from Sausalito's boundary with the Golden Gate G. The situation is just as critical on Marin County's eastern shoreline. The National Recreation Area to the mouth of the Petaluma River. This area combines a 'remarkable amount of nature with cities and recreation, It is a favorite spot for hikers, kayakers, sailors" birdwatchers, bicyclists, and others to enjoy the outdoors. People from all over the world visit to view the unique and beautiful shoreline. Along with being a mecca for tourists and ' outdoor enthusiasts, the Marin shore hosts numerous important habitats for endangered, threatened, and sensitive species. The California Department of Fish and Gam~ has identified seven environmental sites of concern along this section of the shoreline. The::;e are 1) The Richardson Bay Marshes; 2) Paradise Cove; 3) The Corte Madera Marshes; 4) The Marin Islands; 5) The McNear's Beach Salt Marshes; 6) The China Camp Marsh; ,and 7) The . Petaluma River Marshes. Among the several species of concern in these areas, several are listed as either endangered or threatened. These include the Brown Pelican; the Salt Harvest Mouse; the California Clapper Rail; the Snowy Plover, the Peregrine Falcon and the California Least Tern. potential impacts of personal watercraft on birds, marine mammals and fish. PWG pose a unique threat to wildlife and wilderness areas because they are multiple impact machines. Wildlife biologists throughout North America have testified on the existing and ' Page 3 of 13 'I containing carcinogens and reproductive toxins, the raw emissions from this craft threaten to Because PWC's discharge tremendous amounts of unburned fuel and oil seriously damage aquatic ecosystems, and the wildlife that live within thern. PWC's are also a physical threat to wildlife because they: . typically travel at high speeds . can travel at high speeds in shallow water near islands and sensitive habitats . regularly change direction and speed without warning . emit high-pitched whining sounds . lack low-frequency, long-distance subsurface sound which would allow wildlife enough time to avoid collisions . change pitch and sound level with every maneuver cbnstantly changing noise or a highly maneuverable object. often does not occur. Richard Numerous studies reveal that "behavior habituation" to inconsistent stimuli, such as Osborne, the Curator of Science Services at The Whale Museum on San Juan Island, believes that "it is doubtfui that marine birds and mammals would every be abie to habituate to. or adopt to this characteristic of PWCs." million pounds of hydrocarbon pollution into US waters every year - the volume equivalent of H. Personal watercraft (PWC) are responsible for dumping approximately 44 over four Exxon Valdez spills. Two-stroke engines operate on a mixture of gasoline and oil, discharging 25% - 30% of this mixture unburned into the water. . An average two-hour ride on a PWC may dump three gallons of gas and oil into the water. ~ . The California Air Resources Board reports that a seven hour ride on a 100 horsepower PWC emits the same amount of pollution as driving more than 100,000 miles in a 1998 passenger car. Page 4 of 13 Studies from the University of Califomia at Davis and other !arge universities demonstrate that the pollution from the marine tWo-stroke motors is a serious threat to the environment. This includes threats to: . Human health due to pollution of drinking water . Fish populations (studies show enzymatic disturbances, genotoxicological effects and reproductive disturbances to trout, salmon and herring . Zooplankton populations at the base of the aquatic food chain ,I. PWC-generated noise is particularly disruptive and irritating to wildlife, marine recreationalists, as well as shoreline residents and wildlife enthusiasts. The intensity and frequency of PWC sound is one component of PWC noise which tends to disrupt nearby wildlife and humans. Personal watercraft produce noise levels in the range of 75-115 decibels per unit, cbmparable to that of a city street. The American Hospital Association recommends hearing protection for noise decibels exceeding 85 decibels. J.' The California Air Resources Board (CARB) recently concluded that marine two-stroke engines are one of the largest sources of air pollution in California. According to Mark Carlock of the CAARB, on a typical summer weekend day, such craft generate 777 tons a day of hydrocarbon emissions, an amount exceeding that of all 16 million light-duty passenger cars in the State. The majority of those emissions are by a relatively small number of PWC. created by the photochemical reaction of nitrogen and hydrocarbons. Ozone causes smog, in Of particular concern, two-stroke motors cause ground-level ozone, which is addition to respiratory effects such as coughing, chest pain, asthma, and shortness of breath. It affects people with cornpromised or developing respiratory systems, such as the elderly and children. Nitrogen itselfcan also harm human health. Page 5 of 13 .:. Two-stroke engines also emit extremely high levels of carbon monoxide (CO), a poisonous gas that reduces blood oxygen levels, causes headaches, nausea, and dizziness, PWC riders sometimes complain that after following directly be~ind another PWC, they feel faint and can lose control of their craft. Some marine engines have CO emissions of up to 1078 gramsIkW-hr, a level of over 300 times higher than maximum levels for a new automobile. Beyond their'human health effects, other negative environmental effects are also associated with ozone and nitrogen. For example, ozone injures plants and materials; and the . EP A estimates that excess nitrogen from two-stroke motors may be responsible for up to two billion dollars' annually in crop damage in the United States., (40 CFR Parts 89, 09, 91 October 4, 1996.) Nitrogen also contributes to the secondary formation of particulate matter in the form of nitrates, acid deposition, and, excessive growth of algae in aquatic systems. Particulate matter has recently been implicated as a human carcinogen, and is created at extremely high levels in jet skis. almost every other activity occurring in the same area. PWC destroy the outdoor experience for K. Finally, unlike other forms. of recreation, PWC have a negative impact on other recreationalists such as swimmers, surfers, windsurfers, kayakers, canoers, hikers, birdwatchers, fishers, and tourists by creating noise, hazardous conditions, congestion, and causing wildlife to flee. L Although safety concerns are not one of the bases upon which this Board can ~ regulate PWC pursuant to the Harbors and Navigation Code, this Board must share the concern expressed by other agencies: The safety record of PWCs shows' a disproportionate level of PWC accidents and injuries relative to the' numbers of this type of vessel. In California in 1996, 16% of all registered vessels were PWCs, yet PWCs were involved in 45% of all boating accidents and 55% of all injuries. In a report released in May 1998, the National Transportation Safety Board noted that while the overall number of Page 6 of 13 recreational boating fatalities has been declining in recent years, the number of PWC-related fatalities has been increasing. The majority of these accidents are attributed to rider inexperience and lack of skill, operation and use patterns, excessive speed, alcohol use, and conflicts with other vessels in congested use areas. SECTION II: Chapter 11.36 of the Marin County Code is hereby amended to read: CHAPTER 11.36 WATERCRAFT REGULATION Section 11.36.010 Section 11.36.020 Section 11.36.030 Section 11.36.040 Section 11.36.050 Section 11 :36.060 Section 11.36.070 Section'11.36.080 Section 11.36.090 Findings and purpose Definitions Speed limit Prohibited use of personal watercraft In Special Use Area State or Federally Funded Facilities Water skiing Swimmers Buoys Violation-Penalties SECTION 11.36.010 FINDINGS AND PURPOSE Local use regulation of watercraft in the waters of this state are authorized by Sections 268 and 660 of the California Harbors and Navigation Code in the areas of time-of-day restrictions, speed zones, special-use areas, and sanitation and pollution control. The provisions of this chapter with respect to boating within the Bel Marin Keys Community Services District and upon Novato Creek are intended to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to preserve the environment, and to protect the value, worth and enjoyment of the lagoons and waterways within Bel Marin Keys Community Services District and upon Novato Creek from damage due to noise and wave action caused by excessive speed, and to prevent injury to person or property as a consequence of boating ~ activities within said areas. Page 7 of 13 With respect to the prohibition of the use of personal watercraft within all shoreline waters and estuaries of Marin County, the purpose of this ordinance is to reduce existing conflicts and limit potential conflicts between uses of the shoreline waters and estuaries of Marin County, eliminate adverse impacts to the diverse and unusual species found in the shoreline waters and estuaries of Marin County, promote overall public safety, and decrease hydrocarbon pollution that is disproportionately caused by personal watercraft. Conflicts between uses have the potential to increase in the future because of . increasing use of Marin county's marine waters as well as use and development of shoreline areas. Examples of conflicts that currently occur in addition to fish, marine mammal and wildlife habitat disruption are those between personal watercraft and individuals engaged in water sports such as kayaking, windsurfing, swimming, and canoeing, due to the nature and design of personal watercraft including high maneuverability, high speed, ability to travel in shallow areas, ahd noise patterns that are unique and annoying. These same unique characteristics of personal watercraft also cause conflicts between shoreline uses in areas zoned for residential and open space activities., , SECTION 1.1.36.020 DEFINITIONS As used herein, the following terms have the following meanings: 1. "Personal watercraft" means a vessel, as defined in California Harbors and Navigation Code 9651(S), that is less than 12 feet in length; propelled by machinery, that is , . designed to be operated by a person sitting, standing, or kneeling on the vessel, rather than in the conventional manner of sitting or standing inside the vessel. 2. "Special-use area" means all or a portion of a waterway that is set aside for specified uses or activities to the exclusion of other incompatible uses or activities. !! Page 8 of 13 ". 3 "Vessel" means every description of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means' of transportation on water, except either of the following: (a) A seaplane on the water, (b) A watercraft specifically designed to operate on a permanently fixed course, the movement of which is restricted to a fixed tract or arm to which the watercraft is attached or by which the watercraft is'controlled. SECTION 11.36.030 SPEED LIMIT No person shall operate any motorized vessel upon the following areas of the lagoons and waterways in Bel Marin Keys Community Services District and Novato Creek, in excess of five (5) Miles Per Hour: 1. Novato Creek from the Triple Box Culvert at the entrance of the Bel Marin ~~ys community to one hundred yards downstream from the most easterly of the two locks; 2. Within a minimum of One Hundred Twenty-Five Feet (125) from the shoreline of all of the lagoons south of Bel Marin Keys Boulevard, or within a minimum of Two Hundred Feet from the shoreline of Laguna Bel Marin" and through the narrow channel connecting Sunset and Sunrise Lagoons to the entrance of Sunrise Lagoon. The board of directors of Bel Marin Keys Community Services District shall post Novato Creek and the lagoons and waterways specified above, with a five mile per hour speed limit notice. SECTION 11.36.040 PROHIBITED USE OF PERSONAL WATERCRAFT IN SPECIAL USE AREA (a) Use and operation of personal watercraft in the area designated in subsection (b) as a special use area is incompatible with competing uses and is therefore prohibited. ~ Page 9 of ~3 (b) For the purposes of this Chapter, the Special Use Area shall consist of all waters within the territory of the County of Marin accessible from a shoreline, or the farthest extension of the shoreline of Marin County as defined by its landmarks. The area is to include the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean from the'Sonoma County line to the Golden Gate Bridge and . the San Francisco Bay shoreline from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Marin/Sonoma County line at the Petaluma River. The Special Use Area includes but is. not limited to all Estuaries (Estero), rivers and bays within Marin County jurisdiction. !his Special Use Area shall also _ include a distance of 7 miles inland from the mouth of the rivers or navigable creeks. , In the event that another regulatory authority has exclusive jurisdiction over any of the shoreline of the Special Use Area, the Special Use Area shall begin at the boundary of the . shoreline under the jurisdiction of the County of Marin. (c) The' regulation contained in this Chapter shall not apply to any motorized vessel or personal watercraft owned, operated or controlled by the United States, any California State agency or by any local government agency within Marin County engaged in bona fide emergency or rescue operations or other operations conducted solely to protect public health and safety. SECTION 11.36.050 STATE OR FEDERALLY FUNDED FACILITIES If any officer, department or agency of the County constructs a recreational boat launch facility with funds provided pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 9504(b)(2), or other state or federal funds which require that personal watercraft be permitted, the responsible officer, department or agency shall designate, and the Board of Supervisors shall confirm by motion, an access corridor for personal watercraft from the facility and through the special use area. The responsible officer, department or agency shall notify the Office of the County' Administrator !t prior to entering into any commitment to construct any facility covered by this Section. 'i Page 10 of 13 " ~., .. "" ,I SECTION 11.36.060 WATER SKIING The following regulations and limitations shall apply in waters within the territory of the Bel Marin Keys Community Services District to water skiing: 1. No more than three boats shall tow water skiers on Sunrise Lagoon, and no mo~e than four boats shall tow water skiers on Sunset Lagoon, at any time. 2. Boats towing water skiers shall be limited to twenty-two feet overall length, measured from to stem to transom, in all lagoons where water skiing is allowed. 3. Water skiing is prohibited in the water surrounding the street of Cavella Cay, the waters bordered by the streets Caribe Isle, Bel Marin Keys Boulevard, and Del Oro Lagoon, and that portion of Laguna Bel Marin south of a line from the west end of the dock at 145 Caribe Isle and the east end of the dock at 60 Montego Key, as indicated on the water safety map which was attached to Ordinance 3028. All water skiing shall follow a counter clockwise pattern, and shall be limited to the designated ski areas; as shown on the Water Safety Map, attached as Exhibit A to ordinance .. . 3028, in Laguna Bel Marin, Sunrise and Sunset Lagoons; except that beginner double ski skiing shall be allowed in Unit 4 lagoons designated as Lagoons 4A and 4B on the Water Safety Map attached to Ordinance 3028. CHAPTER 11.36.060 SWIMMERS Swimmers in waters within the territory of the Bel Marin Keys Community Services District shall wear international orange swim caps when swimming beyond twenty-five feet from the dock face, or beyond fifty feet from the shoreline. Swimming shall not be allowed in areas which have been designated ski areas. ~ Page 11 of 13 , .1 ~, CHAPTER 11.36.070 BUOYS No buoy shall be placed in any lagoon or waterway within the territory of the Bel Marin Keys Community Services District except by permission of the Bel Marin Keys Community Services District board of directors. CHAPTER 11.36.080 VIOLATION-PENALTIES Any violation of this chapter shall be deemed an infraction punishable upon a first conviction by a fine of not more than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), and for a second conviction, within a period of one year, by a fine not exceeding Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00), and for a third or any subsequent conviction within a period of one year by a fine not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). SECTION III. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or held unenforceable in any application, including in case of state or federal preemption, this ordinance shall be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable and if rendered invalid or unenforceable due to preemption, such invalidity or unenforceability shall apply only during the period of preemption. This ordinance shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose. SECTION IV. This ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Classes 7 and 8, (14 Cal Code Regs SS 15307 and 15308). ~ Page 12 of 13 '......o:-~;.__.~-_..._._-_.._--_.. ..-_. , ' ,-'''OJ I r SECTION V. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect as of thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage, and shall be published once before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against the same in Marin Independent Journal, a newspaper of general circulation published in the County of Marin. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the , County of Marin, State of California, on the 26th day of October, 1.999, by the following vote: AYES: SUPERVISORS Harold C. Brown, Jr;, Steve Kinsey, John B. Kress, Annette Rose NOES: SUPERVISOR Cynthia L. Murray ABSENT: None . . ~kG~ Q, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AlTEST: c?!;:ff?-/I\ Page 13 of 13