HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2004-10-06
:
Q
.
TOWN OF TISURON
Regular Meeting
Town Council Chambers
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
October 6, 2004
6:30 PM - Closed Session
7:30 PM -Meeting
ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need speciai assistance to
participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Cierk at (415) 435-7377, Notification 48
hours prior tathe meeting will enabie the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
. ,accessibility to this meeting. '
AVAilABILITY OF INFORMATION
Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town
Hall and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall. Agendas and minutes
are posted on the Town's website, www.ci.liburon.ca.us.
.
Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats,
or disability-reiated modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable
individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please send a written request,
including your name, mailing address, phone number and brief description of the requested
materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the
meeting. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above address.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide
testimony on these Items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described later In
this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public
Hearing(s).
TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA
While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda, it reserves
the right to take items out of order, No set times are assigned to items appearing on the Town
Council agenda, .
.
~l2.J~~
CIr;
"
Agenda - Town Council Meeting
October 6, 2004
Page 2 of 4
.
AGENDA
CLOSED SESSION
Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 54950 et seq., the Town Council will hold a closed session.
More specific information regarding this meeting is indicated below:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Section 54956.9(a))
Claim No. E200405A0326-00-se\37 AA404490
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
(Section 54956.9(c))
Initiation of Litigation - Case name withheld because disclosure would jeopardize existing settlement
negotiations
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Councilmember Gram, Councilmember Slavitz, Council member Smith, Vice Mayor Berger, Mayor Fredericks
. 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 vour comments to no more than three (3) minutes,
PRESENTATION
Statewide Initiative Proposition 1A - Amy O'Gorman, League of California Cities
CONSENT CALENDAR
1, Approval of Town Council Minutes - September 15, 2004
2. Approval of Town Council Minutes - September 29, 2004
3. Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services - Adopt Town Investment Summary for
August 2004
.
4.
Recommendation by Town Clerk - Ratification of Reed Union School District Appointment of
Library Board Liaison
')
.
.
.
. Agenda - Town Council Meeting
October 6,2004
Page 3 of 4
5. Recommendation by Town Manager - Support for Local Government Agreement Proposition 1A
a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
In Support of Statewide Proposition 1A
6. Recommendation by Town Manager - Support for Measure A - "Transportation Authority of Marin
Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance"
a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Supporting Measure A on the November 2, 2004 Ballot-
"Transportation Authority of Marin Transactions and Use
Tax Ordinance"
7. Recommendation by Town Manager - Resolution Commending Belvedere-Tiburon Joint
Recreation Committee Director Barbara Creamer Upon Her Retirement for 15 Years of Outstanding
Service to the Community
8, Recommendation by Planning Manager - Request by Marin County Department of Public Works
for Fee Waiver to Install Fence at Pamela Court Pump Station Site
9. Recommendation by Director of Community Development - Approval of Future Annexation
Agreement
Property Address:
Owners:
Assessor Parcel No.
3535 Parad ise Drive
Young & Hartnett Trust
58-032-08
PUBLIC HEARING
1 O,Report by Planning Manager - Appeal of Design Review Board Decision to Deny a Site Plan and
Architectural Review Application to Modify Previously Approved Plans to Legalize Construction of an
As-Built Addition to an Existing Single-Family Dwelling
Property Address:
Applicants/Appell ants:
Assessor Parcel No.:
100 Lyford Drive
Fred and Rhonda Soofer
58-222-14
11. Recommendation by Planning Manager - Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report for
Parente Precise Development Plan
Property Address:
Applicant:
Owners:
Assessor Parcel No,:
End of Parente Road and End of Antonette Drive
Tom Newton/Planning Advisory Corporation
Amerippon, Inc.
38-111-16
REGULAR AGENDA
12, Recommendation by Director of Public WorkslTown Engineer - Proposed Solar Panels at Town
Hall
13, Recommendation by Director of Public WorkslTown Engineer - Design for Permanent Restroom,
Facility at South Knoll Park
14. Recommend~tion by Director of Community Development - Revised L~ndslide Mitigation Policy
Agenda - Town Council Meeting
October 6, 2004
Page 4 of 4
',!
.
15, Report by Town Manager- Discussions with the Tiburon Peninsuia Club Representatives
Concerning Potential Use of Property
16, Report and Recommendation from MERA Sub-Committee - Authorize Continued Negotiation and
Terms of Proposed Agreement for Substitute Site for Mt. Tiburon
COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION REPORTS
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Town Council Weekly Digest - September 17, 2004
Town Council Weekly Digest - September 24,2004
ADJOURNMENT - In Memory of Ed Zelinsky
FUTURE MEETINGS & AGENDA ITEMS - Note: These items are tentative until thev aDoear on the final
aoenda
October 9, 2004
. Homeowner:s Summit with Town Council
October 20 2004
. Jr. Recreation Department - Annual Report
. Pilgrim Heights Undergrounding of Utilities District - Accept Petitions and Boundary Map
. Rotary Club Proposal for Installation of Binoculars at Shoreiine Park
. COPS Spending Program
. County-wide General Services JPA
November & December
. Tiburon Glen Precise Developm.ent Pian
. Revised Street Impact Fee Schedule
. Raccoon Lane Undergrounding Project - Reaffirm Resolution of Intention
. Proposed Erosion and Siltation Control Ordinance
. 3'" Quarter FY Budget Report
. 2003-04 Audit Report and Adoption
.. Transfer of Reserves
. Adoption of Updated Personnel Rules and Reguiations
. Trestle Glen Bike and Pedestrian Path Improvements - Plans and Specifications
. Annual Meeting of Tiburon Redevelopment Agency
. Lyford Cove Undergrounding District - Public Hearing and Ballot Count - (November 17)
. Election of Mayor/Vice Mayor - (December 1)
. Town Holiday Party - (December 15)
.
~
:0
D' . \!;-~.'. ra....y.a. ,
. ~\" lr
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Frederic ~~e
on Wednesd ,September 15, 2004, in
Tiburon., Ca ornia.
. g of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m.
wn Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard,
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Berger, Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz, Smith
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO:
Town Manager Mcintyre, Town Attorney
Danforth, Director of Community Development
Anderson, Advance Planner Bryant, Director of
Public Worksffown Engineer Echols, Chief of
Police Odetto, Director of Administrative Services
Bigall, Administrative & Financial Analyst Stott,
Town Clerk Crane Iacopi
CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
(Section 54956(a))
Zack et al. v MERA el al.
Fenster v. Town Council, Planning Commission & Library Agency
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
(Section 54956. 9(b))
Bargaining Unit:
Negotiator:
Tiburon Police Association
Town Manager
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. IF ANY
Mayor Fredericks aid that no action had been taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
Town Council Minutes # /7-2004
September /5, 2004
Page /
~
'!.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approval of Town Council Minutes - August 18, 2004
2. Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services - Adopt Town Investment
Summary for July 2004
,
.,
3. Recommendation by Director of Public Worksffown Engineer - Authorize
Agreement w/ Kimley-Horn Engineering Services for Plan to Create Merge/Acceleration
Lane at Reed Ranch Road and Possible Improvements to Trestle Glen Intersection
4. Recommendation by Director of Public Worksffown Engineer - Award of Contract
for 2003-04 Drainage Improvements
5. Recommendation by Advance Planner - Adoption of General Plan Annual Report
6. Recommendation by Director of Public Worksrrown Engineer- Amend Storm Water
Runoff Impact Fee
a)
A Resolution ofthe Town Council
of the Town ofTiburon Amending the
Stormwater Runoff Impact Fee
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 6, above.
Slavitz, seconded by Berger
AYES: Unanimous
ABSTAIN: SlavitzJSmith, August 18 minutes
PUBLIC HEARING
7. Recommendation by Director of Public Works/Town Engineer - Lyford Cove
Undergrounding of Utilities Assessment District
a) A Resolution ofthe Town Council of the Town ofTiburon
Preliminarily Approving Engineer's Report and
Directing Related Actions
Lyford Cove Neighborhood Organizers Liz Bird and Joan Lombardo gave the Council some
background on the undergrounding effort that had first started 20 years ago. They said that in the
Fall of 2002 there seemed to be enough interest to start anew. The organizers said that the
Stewart Drive project had been their model and that although they had started small the proposed
district had grown from about 50 homes to 228, or the whole ofthe Lyford Cove area.
Town Council Minutes # 17-2()()4
September 15. lOI!4
Page 2
r ' ,
:4
Ms. Bird and Ms. Lombardo said that they had obtained petitions in favor of the district from
almost 70% ofthc affected rcsidents in May of2003. In addition, they collected $130,000 from
the proponents in order to begin the engineering work. They noted that this community
improvemcnt would not only enhance the enjoyment ofthc strects and thoroughfarcs of the
Lyford Cove area but would improve the safety and reliability of the power service delivery.
'. They said that the lower interest rates and other economic factors also led to the timeliness of the
. decision to move forward with the district at this time.
Ms. Bird and Ms. Lombardo said that the engineers had carefully researched every parcel in the
district. They said that all ofthc transformer boxes ~ould be undergrounded so that there would
be no above ground facilities or a need for encroachment permits over any private property. They
also noted that new strect lights were being considered that would be shaded and that scveral
design were being looked at.
Ms. Bird and Ms. Lombardo thanked Harris & Associates for their work in preparing the
preliminary engineer's report and also thanked the Town Staff for their dedication and liard work,
Joan Cox, District Engineer (Harris & Asssociates) described the project. She said the it would
include the removal of all above-ground vaults and poles and would result in the undergrounding
of all wires within the boundaries of the district.
Ms. Cox said that the total cost to fimd the project was $4.26 million which did not include
private servicc connections [a cost to be borne by the individual property owners).
She then describe the benefit assessment methodology. Ms. Cox said that they had looked at the
existing conditions ofcach parcel and had determined to use the "highest and best use" (of either
the existing or potential development) of that property to which benefits points were assigned.
Ms. Cox said that the aesthetic's factor was rated the same for all properties, regardless of
existing vicw corridors, since it was deemed that views were both uphill and downhill in nature.
She said that each parcel was then assigned one benefit point for aesthetics.
Vice Mayor Berger asked for clarification of this point and whether any consideration was given
to those properties without poles or wires in their existing view corridor.
Ms. Cox said that view qualities were hard to define. She reiterated that everyone had some sort
of view, whether it was upon ingress or egress from their property, or uphill or downhill. She
said that all of the homes in the area had "gorgeous views," which resulted in high property
values. Shc said that the most important thing was to bc able to defend the assessment formula in
court and noted that some engineers had been challenged in court and lost when they assigned
benefits based on differcnt types of views.
Town Council Minutes 1/ 17-2004
September J 5, 2004
Page 3
J
Ms. Cox described the other factors of the benefit formula:
--Improved Safety Benefit was given onc point per parcel;
--Improved Service Reliability was given one point per single family residence and. 7 point for,
multiple dwelling units based on the analysis presented in the PG&E design manuaL
The combined points lor "highest and best" use factors, plus aesthetics, salety, and reliability,
resulted in an estimated asscssmcnt of$18,313 fiJr single family residence; $16,482 for
condominiums; $20,755 for duplex.
Engineer Cox also noted that properties in two previous undergrounding districts, Linda Vista
and Mar East, which were now included within the boundaries of the larger district would receive
reduced benelits duc to tbcir prcvious participation.
Finally, Ms, Cox said that if the Council adopted the preliminary cngineer' s report and determined
to move jarward with thc district, ballots would be mailed on September 24 which would be
opened at a public hearing on November 17. She said that a majority vote, weighted by
assessment value amount, would be needed to larm the district, and that the Council would have
the .final say, after the votes were counted, whether the district would be larmed.
Ms. Cox also said that there would be a 30-day cash discount period in which individual property
owners could payoff their assessments, and then bonds would be sold to lund the district, with
the first a.~sessment appearing on the property owner's September or October 2005 tax bill.
Mayor Fredericks asked for an estimate of the annual assessment. Ms. Cox said that it wa.' about
10% [of the total assessment].
Mayor Fredericks stated that the Council was being asked to adopt a resolution approving the
preliminary engineer's report and nothing further at this meeting.
Councilmember Smith asked how a $358,000 contingency had been calculated (page 4 of the
rcport). Engineer Cox said that it was a construction plus incidcntals contingency, totaling
approximately 13% of the project cost. Smith asked ifthis number was based on prior
construction or undcrgrounding experience.
Town Engineer Echols said that a typical construction contingency was 10% but that the
enginecrs had taken a conservativc approach duc to the incrcascd uncertainty of the condition of
roads and infrastructure in old Tiburon.
Councilmcmber Gram confirmed that the Town had typically adoptcd a 10% contingency.
TcTwn Council Minutes # J 7 -2(}(}4
Sel""mher /5, 20()4
Page 4
r"
~
,
Vicc Mayor Berger asked if "creative ways" to fund assessments had been explored.
Bond Underwriter Mark Pressman said that they had tried to keep the assessments to about $100
per month in the Beach Road [Belvedere] and Stewart Drive projects, had bond issues of 25 and
27 years, respectively. He stated that he tried to keep all the options."open" until the construction
bids came in. He also agreed that the engineer's report had a lot of "hedge" and "fut" built into it,
otherwise, the district would have to be formed all over again if the assessments proved to be
greater than estimated. He said that the numbers would be refined prior to the election [ballot
count).
The Vice Mayor said that there were some people on fixed incomes and that the Council had been
told "early on" that there would be creative ways to finance the assessments.
Mr. Pressman said that, in working with previous districts, they had tried to be sensitive to those
needs. He said that some residents might qualifY for a tax deftmnent, based on income, or that
there were other tools, such as reverse mortgages, which could be employed. He also stated that
in Stewart Drive, funding was made available on a first-come, first-served basis for a few property
owners who could not afford to cover the cost ofthe lateral connections, which could range from
$1,000 - $4,000. However, he noted that at this time no provision had been made for laterals in
the Lyford Cove project.
Vice Mayor Berger asked if this might be included. Mr. Pressman said that the subject would be
discussed before the next public hearing. He said that in Belvedere, for instance, some neighbors
paid for others who could not afford it. He said that this was a community project and that the
"community" would try to address these issues, but that it was hard to address them until the "real
numbers" were available.
Mayor Fredericks opened the public hearing.
Lauren Stotter, Vistazo East, asked how [timing of! the undergrounding and conversion would
take place. Mike Cooper, District Engineer (Harris & Associates), briefly explained the
conversion process from the pole to the house to the underground service.
Mayor Fredericks closed the public hearing.
Couneilmember Slavitz congratulated the organizers on their eflorts and said that this was a
"great moment."
Vice Mayor Berger said that he was comfortable with the process, even though through his
experience on the Design Review Board, he had come to analyze views based on the [Town's
Hillside and Design Guidelines] definition of "significant views from significant rooms."
Town Council Minutes # I7-2004
September /5, 2004
Page 5
~
,
Councilmcmber Smith said that he was '"encouraged" by the formula employed in thc engineer's
rcport and that a large scgmcnt ofthc population seemed to favor the district which would be a
'"tremendous benefit" to the area. He thanked the organizers, Liz and .loan, and noted that in his
neighborhood, the residents '"sit in th~ dark fi)r wecks every wintcr."
Mayor Fredericks confirmed that it was up to the residents within the district to decide whether it
should be formed or not, but that the benefit formula was based on a legally defensible point of
view.
MOTION:
To adopt the Resolution adopting the Preliminary Engineer's Report for the
Lyford Cove Utility Undergrounding Asscssmcnt District
Berger, seconded by Smith
AYES: Unanimous
Moved:
Votc:
8. Report by Advance Planner - General Plan Update: Goal, Policy and Program
Refinement - Noise & Safety Elements Issues Paper
Advance Planner Bryant gave the report. He said that no significant issues had emerged at the
PIanning Commission hearing on the final two elements of the General Plan review, and that the
Council was being asked to endorse the recommcndations contained in the Noise & Safcty
Elements Issues Paper.
Bryant said that the first recommendation was to delete the policy from thc General Plan that
called for adoption of a Town noise ordinance. He'said that the Town Council had taken a
different approach in recent years by limiting noise based on source rather than decibellevcl and
that this approach had seemed to work.
However, he said that the Planning Commission and the public had requested that the Town
consider expanding the ban on ga~-powered leafblowers to include the areas around the Town's
hotels, and also to consider limiting the use of cleaning equipment at the two markets during early
morning hours.
Advancc Planner Bryant said that if the Town Council chose to pursue thesc suggestions, that
they be done through amcndmcnts to the Municipal Code since both suggestions were too specific
for inclusion in the General Plan.
With regard to thc Safety Element, Bryant said that some policies in the current General Plan
were statements of specific strategies used by the Town during the development and
environmcntal review process to ensure that thc possible impacts of hazards were adequately
addrcssed. While the Town would continue to implement these strategies, Bryant recommcndcd
that theses policies be refined in language more suitable to the General Plan.
Town Council Minutes # /7 -]()(}4
September /5, 2004
Page 6
J
In addition, the Advance Planner said it was recommended that the scope of the Safety Element
be expanded to addrcss community policing and emergency preparcdness.
Bryant said that thc Planning Commission had observed that approximately a third of the Town's
operating budget was designated .for police services and had suggested that the Town look for
ways to integrate services with neighboring jurisdictions to reduce costs. He noted, however, that
this maller was outside of the scope of the General Plan.
He did recommend that the scope of the Safety Element be expanded in support of police
department crime prevention and in the area of emergency preparedness, which had become more
sophisticated over the last 10 years. Specifically, he recommended that the Emergency
Operations Center and Emergcncy Plan be kept up to date.
Mayor Fredericks opened the public hearing.
Rogcr McKee, resident of Bel Air, said that as newer, larger homes were built, resulting in less
space between homes, new equipment (such as air conditioning or hot tubs) had not been
anticipated by earlier Design Review Boards and that there were no provisions in the Town Code
or DRB guidelines for review of these "noisy" elements.
Mr. McKee pointed out that there were ways to mitigate the effects of such installations, such as
not placing them "right next to" a neighboring home, and he suggested that the Town address this
issue in one way or anotber.
Mayor Fredericks said that pool and spa pumps might also be included in tbis catcgory.
Jerry Riessen, 616 Ridge Road, suggested adding garden fountains to the list.
With regard to the Safety Element, and in particular, landslides, Riessen said that the
recommendations put forth in thc Issucs Paper (on page 33) sounded liked the language was
being "softened" and less specific. He said that slides were an important issue that the Town
should be concerned about and that any softening oftbe language might lead to "stretching" by
developers.
Mr. Riessen suggested that the Section SE-S (above) not be modified per Stafr recommendation.
Further, Mr. Riessen said that Staft's recommendation to delete SE-6 (concerning no building on
slopes greater than 40%) because it was now covered in the Open Space Element, was a safety
issue, as well, and should be included in both elements.
Betsy Little also expressed her concern about the importance of preventing slides. She said that
sbe had found a statistic which showed that most slides occurred on slopes of 34-37% so that she
concurred with Mr. Riessen that the reference be left in the Safety Element. She said that because
she lived near a potcntial slide, it was a comfort to her, as a "layman," to have specific language
included in thc General Plan.
Town Council Minutes # 17-2004
September 15. 2004
Page 7
~.
Joanna Kemper, 1911 Straits View Drive, said language should be added to ensure that
developers would be "guided away from" developments in unstable areas,
Andrew Thompson, 18 Southridge East, said that he thought the public in general did not know
that thc Town had banned ga~-powered leaf blowers in residential neighborhoods and that it
should be published in the Ark and Town's newsletter. He also suggested that a card could be
printed up that was in both Spanish and English.
Mayor Fredericks closed the public hearing.
Couneihnember Smith asked if comments contained in a letter from Planning Commissioner
Collins would he included in the final draft. Advance Planner Bryant said that they would.
Councilmember Smith agreed that any police department merger should not be included in the
General Plan. He said that he also liked the broader language, recommended by Stall; concerning
landslides. However, he said that he understood Ms. Little's comments because he lived nearby.
Vice Mayor Berger said that while it made sense to limit development near unrepaired landslides,
that in HlCt, as a result of the [Town's] review process, unstable soils and landslides often were
repaired. He cited the example of the old Strawbridge property in old Tiburon.
Councilmember Slavitz said that he agreed that some of the language contained in the current
Plan was important for a number of reasons. He recommended that the specific language of SE-I
& SE-5 be left in because they seemed to be more informative and deseriptive of the Town's
direction. In addition, he said that the specifics clearly "meant something" to people.
Vice Mayor Berger a~ked if the new language could be "re-crafted" somehow to include these
comments.
Mayor Fredericks said that there were two differences between the old and new language
Iconcerning slides].
1) She said the old policy specifically named "geological haz.ards," while the new policy
language included "everything."
2) She said the phrase "to the maximum extent feasible" was in the rest of the General Plan
and suggested that the element include "the whole range of hazards" to be mitigated "to
the maximum extent feasible."
Couneilmember Smith commented that "our policies aren't broken," and agreed with the Vice
Mayor that experience had shown that development on unstahle properties could actually make
them more stable. He said that obviously, on larger properties, developers would be steered away
from developing on unstable areas and he said that he liked the semantics proposed by Staff.
Town Council Minutes # 17-]004
Septemher /5. 2tlO4
Page Ii
y
.'
Councilmember Gram said that the new terms were consistent with the provisions of State law
(CEQA) and that was helpful because "we know what they mean." Howevcr, hc suggested that
thc phrasc "to the maximum extent fea~ible" might be added.
With regard to noise, Gram said he agreed with Mr. McKee that the Planning process did not take
pools and spas into consideration and that somehow they should be.
Vice Mayor Berger said that the City of Belvedere had established a policy preventing the
in~talJation of [outdoor 1 AlC units over 65 decibels,
CouncilmemberSmith said he agreed with Couneihnember Gram, as long as the review process
did not require a permit (as a result).
Director of Community Development Anderson said that there was currently not much Statl"
could do regarding air conditioning units under The Town's current architectural review and
design guidelines. He noted that it could be looked into further if there was Council conscnsus to
do so
Mayor Fredericks joked that pcrhaps the Town could just increase the sctbacks between homes.
She also mentioned that she had been told that there was minimal fireflow (water pressure) in old
Tiburon due to the slopes. Advancc Planner Bryant said that the Fire Department wa~ awarc of
the problem but said that they didn't havc an answer for it at the moment.
Council directedStafi"to rework the Noise and Safety Element language as discusscd and to look
into a review process for "noisy elements" such as air conditioners, ctc.
REGULAR AGENDA
9. Recommendation by Advance Planner - Adoption of Solar Panel Policy
Advance Planner Bryant said that the Town Council had expressed its support of adopting a solar
panel policy for private projects and for the Town to improve energy efficiency and reduce
resource consumption in Town-owned facilities. Staff was directed to develop a solar panel
policy tor adoption prior to the Town moving forward with any solar panel project for Town Hall.
The proposed policy, according to Bryant, had three o~iectives:
1. to provide an incentive to use solar technology;
2. to provide design guidelines for the use of solar panels, and
3. ,to formalize the design review process for the installation of solar panels.
With regard to the first point, the Advance Planner said that Staff believed that waiving building
permit fees would be the most effective way to encourage the installation of solar panels. Hc said
Town Council Minutes # 17-]004
September 15. ]004
Page 9
~
'.
that the cost to the Town would be minimal, as solar panels only represented about 1 % of the
total building permit revenue per year.
With regard to No.2 above, Bryant said that solar panels should be integrated into the design of a
building and, when possible, should be placed in areas less visible to public streets. Specifically,
roof-mounted panels should match the roof pitch and be placed flush with the surfacc of the root;
ground-mounted panels should be screened /Tom view through careful placement and/or the use
oflandseaping, fencing or walls.
Finally, Staff recommended that applications for ground-mounted panels should be reviewed by
the Design Review Board (No.3 above) with regard to the aesthetic impact of these panels, while
roof-mounted panels could be reviewed (and approved) by Staff
Council concurred with these recommendations with a few questions and comments.
Mayor Fredericks asked whether roof-mounted panels might result in a roonine being higher than
30 feet, which would require a variance.
Director of Community Development Anderson said that ifa (roof-mounted) application resulted
in controversy, or needed a variance, that would trigger an automatic review of the application by
the DRB.
Vice Mayor Berger wondered ifit would ever be possible for an applicant to install roof-mounted
panels and then ask the Town to deny a theoretical building application (of a neighboring
property) on the basis that it prevented his pancls /Tom receiving sunlight.
Director Anderson said that such an applicant might have some sort ofrecourse Under the [State]
Solar Rights Act, as well as civil remedies.
Mayor Fredericks opened the public hearing.
John Kern, Stewart Drive, said that he supported the installation of solar panels and that the
Town should encourage and "push" the policy as much as possihle. He said that the Romberg
Center had installed them on their conference center and now had a power surplus. He said that
being on the cutting edge would put the Town "on the map".
Andrew Thompson, 18 Southridge East, said he was also a proponent of the solar panel policy
and the Federal "1,000,000 roots" program. He said that people were "tired offees" and that it
showed the Council's leadership not to charge a fce.
Thompson said that while the Vice Mayor's concerns were thoughtful, the chances were "small"
of anything like that happening.
Mayor Fredericks closed the public hcaring.
Town Council Minutes # 17-2004
September /5. ]004
Page 10
D
'1
I
Councilmemher Smith commented that the Solar Rights Act did indeed limit the authority oflocal
governments to restrict the installation of solar panels.
Smith said that ground-mounted panels should be discouraged; that, in his opinion, they were
"ugly," and resulted in a detacto increase in house size and an actual.increa~e of impervious
surface. He said that this trend had "perturbed" him.
Councihnember Smith suggested that the policy should be amended to "encourage" roof-mounted
panels, where feasible. Council concurred.
In response to a question from Councihnember Slavitz, Vice Mayor Berger commented that if
solar panels fo 1I0wed the roofline of a house, they were "innocuous" and would not need a
hearing for design review.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt policy, a~ amended.
Gram, seconded by Slavitz
AYES: Urllinimous
COUNCIL, COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION REPORTS
MERA Siting Negotiations - Mayor Fredericks
Mayor Fredericks said that Councilmembers Gram and Slavitz, as members of the Council's legal
subcommittee, had represented the Council and had done a fine job. However, she said that it
was now necessary to appoint an actual negotiating team in order to represent the Town in the
current negotiations with MERA and the Mt. Tiburon neighbors.
Mayor Fredericks said that the action should be heard as an urgency item because the Town had
only found out after the agenda was published that certain actions needed to be taken prior to the
next MERA Board meeting (which would fall before the next Council meeting).
She recommended that she and Vice Mayor Berger be appointed as negotiators to "pinch hit" for
Councilmembers Gram and Slavitz.
MOTION:
To hear the item as an urgency item and to appoint Fredericks and Berger as the
, new negotiating team.
Slavitz, seconded by Gram
A YES: Unanimous
Moved:
Vote:
Mayor Fredericks said that the goal was to keep the MERA antenna out of residential
neighborhoods, although she stated that the reality was that it might not be possible due to MERA
Board actions or financial considerations. However, she asked the Council for authority fllr the
team to move forward with the negotiations.
Town Council Minute" # 17-2004
Septemher 15.2004
Puge 11
:
~
\
Moved:
Vote:
To authorize the team to make the best financial decision possible in the
negotiations.
Smith, seconded by S lavitz
AYES: Unanimous
MOTION:
On another matter, Couneilmember Slavitz said that the Tiburon Peninsula Expansion Plan was
moving Illrward and he suggested that Town Staff work with the TPC on a joint use proposal.
Couneilmember Smith said that the Richardson Bay Regional Agency had been very successful in
getting rid of derelict boats along tbe shoreline.
Mayor Fredericks said that she would be sworn in on September 17 as the North Bay Division
President of the League of California Cities.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Town Council Weekly l>igcst - August 20,2004
Town Council Weekly Digcst - August 27, 2004
Town Council Wcckly I>igest - September 3, 2004
Town Council Weekly Digest - September 10, 2004
AD./OlJRNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon, Mayor
Fredericks adjourned the meeting at 9: 13 p.m., to the next regular meeting scheduled flJr
Wednesday, October 6, 2004.
ALlCE FREDERICKS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOrI, TOWN CLERK
Town COllncil Minutes # /7-2()()4
Septemher 15, 2004
j'agc 12
:rklt- M,. ~
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
r[l);j:\ P; r"" ~
~,i' IJ;~ l'~~, It N
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Fnider' s called ~I-~' g of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 6:20 p.m
on Wednes y, September 29, 2064, in T wn Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard,
Tiburon, C . omia.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Berger, Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz, Smith
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO:
Town Manager McIntyre, Town Attorney Danforth
REGULAR AGENDA
I. Report and Recommendation from MERA Sub-Committee - Authorize Continued
Negotiation and Tenns of Proposed Agreement for Substitute Site for Mt. Tiburon
The Council reached had informal majority consensus to proportion the cost between and the
Town and Mt. Tiburon neighbors (2/3) and MERA (1/3), but felt that a flat offcr amount was too
generous and did not encourage MERA to engage in value engineering.
The informal ~iority concluded that a reasonable estimate of costs pertaining to relocation of the
antenna (total capital as well as permitting costs) would be close to $600,000.
Council gave direction to the Town Manager for the MERA Board meeting on September 30:
. Indicate the Council's interest in making a reasonable contribution toward relocating the
antenna;
. Request a firmer, credible cost estimate for planning, building, operation and maintenance
in order to give the Council better information on which to base a decision regarding a
contribution amount.
Council also gave direction on other conditions of the continuing negotiations:
. Indemnification ofMERA by the Town was not an option for either permitting issues,
contract issues, tort liability or construction; ,
. The Town's flat contribution is a ceiling and Town would not pay for cost overruns;
. Limit on Town's responsibility for [new] lease in tenns of both the percentage paid (if
any), and duration of Town's responsibility for the lease;
Town Council Minutes # 18-2004
September 29, 2004
Page I
. Other matters of concern to be explored at a future meeting.
Item continued to October 6, 2004.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor
Fredericks adjourned the special meeting at 8:00 p.m., to the regular meeting scheduled for
October 6, 2004. '
"
ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Town Council Minutes # /8-2004
September 29, 21/(/4
Page 2
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
"3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. .......
TO:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council .
FROM:..'
Heidi ,Bigall, Director of Administrative Services
SUBJECT: Monthly Investment Summary - August 2004~
MEETING DATE: October 6, 2004 REVIEWED BY:
. . . ... . . . . .. .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. .....
TOWN OF TIBURON
Institution/Agency
Investment
Amount Interest Rate
Maturity
State of California Local Agency $9,312,340,77 1.672% Liquid .
Investment Fund
(LAIF)
,
Bank of Ame'rica Other $100,000 1.75% May 2005
Total Invested: $9,412,340.77
TlBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Institution/Agency
Investment
Amount Interest Rate
Maturity
State of California Local Agency $910,942.14 1.672% Liquid
Investment Fund,
(LAIF)
Bank of America Other $0 .
Total Invested: $910,942.14
Notes to Table Information:
State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): The interest rate
represents the effective yield for the month referenced above. The State of California
generally distributes investment data reports in the third week following the month
ended.
Acknowledgment: This summary report accurately reflects all pooled investments of
the Town of Tiburon and the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency, and is in conformity
with State laws and the Investment Policy adopted by the Town Council. The
investment program herein summarized provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet
, next month's estimated expenditures,
, .
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT.
AGENDA ITEM ~
o
.
~o'''~:;.~o
~/,o
0/ ',1-
....,' .....
0- 'i;'-~,=:-
~\".:'
.'~.
,
o
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TO:
MAYOR FREDERICKS AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
FROM:
TOWN CLERK DIANE CRANE IACOPI
. SUBJECT:
RATIFICATION OF REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT LIBRARY
LIAS ION
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 6, 2004
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND
RECOMMENDATION
That the Town Council ratify the appointment of Lori Buckley as Reed Union School District
"parent liaison" to the Belvedere-Tiburon Library Board of Directors, for a two-year term,
beginning July 1, 2004. 1/l t7 tZ /
I ;,flj .
/' / J'h-f 2-c:-d}/Vt
Diane Crane lacopi, Town Clerk
EXHIBIT
. September 8, 2004 letter from Christine Carter
09/15/2004 13:12
4153840890
REED SCHOOL DJ5T
l-'Aut. l;:J;';:
iW.......:".,t
z .r " ", .-
c: S1-
~ ,~
~.. .
to. reaC'"
REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
277.AK;'Hf~nWay. Tiburon,CAQ4920. Icl:41$.381.1112' f!\x:415.3e4,ORt){)
Board of Tru5t~es
M{'Hill Boyc('
. Cr>H"~ ll\ringslon
Robel! W('ifu~tg
L.'lllffl Wi'~un
Jl'IfWinkh:r
, Chris line M. Cilrter
S~q)(,lin{cnd~n'
September 8, 2004
John C. hid.
. ~hJ5in~)~ M,ln"Ber
Mr.. Alex McIntyre
Town Manager
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Aooolotmeol of Reed Union Sehool District LIbnrv Liaison
Dear Town Manager McIntyre:
The Reed Union School Board of Trustees h.ighly recommends that Lori Buckley be
appointed for a two-year term (July 1, 2004-June 30, 2006), as the new parent Library Liaison
between the Reed Union School District and the Belvedere- Tiburon Library Agency Board
On behalf of the Board of Trustees, I hope you will give serious consideration to this'
request.
Sincerely,
~~.
Christine M. Carter
Superintendent
CMC/sn
Cc: L. Buckley
D. Mas50lini, Belvedere- Tiburon Library
Town of Tiburon
STAFF'REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
5
,
. . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '.' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,r.;:. .
TO:
FROM:
Mayor and Members of the Town ~
Alex D. Mcintyre, Town Manager ~
SUBJECT:
Endorsement of Proposition 1A
MEETING DATE:
October 6, 2004
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
, Bac>kground and Discussion
Proposition 1 A, a constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by the Legislature as part of the
2004-05 budget agreement, would fundamentally change the fiscal relationship between the
State and local governments, Proposition 1A limits the State's ability to reallocate local
revenues in order to achieve State policy goals and requires the State to reimburse local
governments for mandated programs and services on a timely basis. Proposition 1A is
'supported by the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, the
California Special Districts Association and Governor Schwarzenegger.
In brief, Proposition 1A would amend the state Constitution to:
. Allocate revenues from current VLF rate and require the State to reimburse counties and
cities for losses due to any future VLF rate decrease;
. Prohibit the Legislature from reducing the share of property tax revenues allocated to any
county, city or special district below the level required on November 3, 2004; ,
. Suspend state-imposed requirements ("mandates") on counties, cities, and special
districts in any year in which the state does not fully reimburse local governrnents for the
'costs of fulfilling the requirements.
Attached are a number of documents provided by the Yes on 1A campaign, setting forth
arguments in favor of this measure. The arguments in favor of constitutional protection for local
government revenues are well-known to the Town Council, as these issues have been in the
forefront of Council's budget deliberations for several years. Earlier this year, the Council
passed a general resolution in support of constitutional protection, but not any specific measure,
At the bottom line, Proposition 1A prohibits the State from raiding local government revenue
sources in future years. Specifically, the State may borrow only twice in 10 years, and not
before full repayment of the VLF Backfill Gap borrowed last year, and only in demonstrable State
budget emergencies.
If Proposition 1A does not pass California local governments will find themselves subject to
those interests in the State Legislature who believe that all local government revenue collected
in California should be controlled and allocated by State government rather than by locally
elected officials. The continued deterioration of local control over local spending priorities will
surely continue unabated if Proposition 1A does not pass.
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
,
. . . . . . . . ,". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finally, Proposition 1A replaces the need for Proposition 65, Proposition 65 was put on the
ballot earlier this year before this historic agreement with the Governor and the Legislature was'
'reached. Proposition 1 A is a more flexible approach with broad, bipartisan support of the
legislature,' All of the official proponents of Proposition 65 are now supporting Proposition 1A
instead of Proposition 65.
If both measures pass and Proposition 1A receives a greater number of votes, none of the
provisions of Proposition 65 will take effect. If both measures pass, but Proposition 65 receives
more votes, then the tax shift included in the 2004-05 budget agreement would be prohibited but
other details common to both measures will need to be sorted out by a constitutional committee
and/or the courts.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Town Council approve the attached resolution endorsing
Proposition 1A.
Exhibits
1 - Draft Resolution
2 - Proposition 1 A - Questions & Answers
September 27, 20C
Page 2 of 2
wwffi~V
EXHIBIT NO..-1-
~
,
RESQLUTION NO. XX-2004
".."l:'.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
. IN SUPPORT OF STATEWIDE PROPOSITION 1A
WHEREAS, state government currently seizes more than $5.2 billion
annually in local property tax funds statewide from cities, counties and special
districts, costing local governments more than $40 billion in lost revenues over
the past 12 years; and '
WHEREAS, these ongoing shifts and .raids by the State of local property
tax funds and other funding dedicated to, local governments have seriously
reduced resources available for local fire and paramedic response, law
enforcement, public health and emergency medical care, roads, parks, libraries,
transportation and other essential local services; and
WHEREAS, these funding raids also add pressure for local governments
to increase fees and taxes to maintain basic local service levels; and
WHEREAS, this drain of local resources has continued even during
periods when the State's budget has been overflowing with surpluses; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 1A is an historic measure that will appear on the
November 2004 statewide ballot that would limit the State's ability to take and
use local government funding; and
WHEREAS, by protecting local government funding, Proposition 1A will
protect local public safety, healthcare and other essential local services; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 1A will NOT raise taxes and, in fact, will help
reduce pressure for local fee and tax increases by limiting state raids of local
government funding; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 1A does not reduce funding for schools or any
other State program or service, and Prop 1A was carefully written to allow
flexibility in the event of a state budget emergency; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 1A is supported by a bipartisan, diverse coalition
including Governor Schwarzenegger, Democrat and Republican legislative
leaders, local government officials, public safety representatives, healthcare,
business, labor and community leaders;
,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Tiburon Town Council
does hereby express strong support of Proposition 1A, the statewide ballot
initiative that will prevent the State from further taking local government
revenues; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution will be sent to
"Yes on 1A-Californians to Protect Local Taxpayers and Public Safety, 1121 L
Street, No. 803, Sacramento, CA 94814 (Fax: 916-442-3510).
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Tiburon on October 6, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
'i
Revised: 7/29/2004
PROPOSED LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT
Current Law Prop 65 Agreement Statutory/
Constitutional
"
Currently at 2% Reduced to 0:65%"statutorily Statutory
and property tax backfill
provided between 0,65% and
2%
Backfill if VLF ,None Backfill Backfill provided if rate Constitutional
Reduced provided if rate reduced below 0,65%
reduced,
Increases in VLF No change Constitutionally guarantees Constitutional
Rate from current 0,65% for cities and counties,
law.
VLF Gap Loan Statutorily Statutorily required in 2006- Statutory
Repayment required in 07. No future property tax
2006-07 unless loan/suspension if unpaid,
voters chan e.
None, Cities, City, county, special district. Constitutional
Legislature counties, No further protections for
may reallocate special districts RDA beyond existing
at will to ERAF and RDAs provisions of Art. 16, Sec, 16
and among of state constitution.
a encies,
Reallocation Legislature With voter Local share (non- Constitutional
Among Local can reallocate approval. school/ERAF) may be
Agencies by simple reallocated by 2/3 votes to
majority vote, other local govts, In a county,
including to Legislature may not
ERAF or other reallocate to increase school
state fund. ' or ERAF share, Reallocation
of property tax may not be
done to support state-
mandated ro rams,
Suspension None. May None Beginning in 2008-09, if Constitutional
Trigger take Governor proclaims
permanently at "significant state fiscal
will. hardshi ."
Suspension Vote Simple Voter approval' 2/3rds vote - separate bill Constitutional
Needed majority to providing for repayment.
take
permanently-
no re a men!.
Suspension Limits None, May None, --No more than 2 times in 10 Constitutional
take years.
permanently at --No loan until VLF Gap loan
will. and previous suspension
loan paid.
--Cap of 8% of local share of
property taxes ($1.3 billion
toda
Repayment terms No provision None. Legislature must pass a Constitutional
for repayment. statute to fully repay loan with
interest (as provided by law)
within three fiscal ears,
Protection
Reallocation
Scope--
Consequence of
Nonpayment
Mandate Definition
,,;.,:>>
, '.FI~'
Current Law
None_
Legislature
may reduce
rate or change
method of
distribution,
Prop, 57 triple
fiip Yo cent
saies tax not
protected
May be
allowed, Law
unclear,
Prop 65
Yes, unless
voters change,
If voters
approve,
,
Agreement
Statutoryl
Constitutional
Protects the rate and method Constitutional
of distribution of the local
Bradley-Burns sales tax and
Transactions and Use Tax,
Guarantees payment of
property tax backfiii for Prop,
57 sales tax Yo cent
suspension, Aiso guarantees
return of Yo cent Bradiey
Burns sales tax when Prop
57 bonds retired,
None Constitutional
None
Constitutional
State may shift
costs to local
governments
without
triggering
reimbursement
requirement.
Suspended at
discretion of local
agency
Statute imposing mandate is
suspended if no state funding
except for specified
employee rights and benefits,
Applies only to city, county,
s ecial district mandates,
Clarifies mandate definition to
include cost shifts from the
state to locals,
State may shift
costs to local
governments
without
triggering
reimbursement
requirements or
suspension
vote
re uirement.
'\\',!HHY0bl!JNifAR;tiiRR0RER1W/SAl!!ESiTAXtEXCfI;tI;NGESI';-;;"';i.:i ':\ii';111:;~i:!H
None None Legislature may approve a
statutory framework for
voluntary exchanges of
ro ert tax and sales tax,
Constitutionai
Constitutional
2
Revised 9/7/04
EXHIBIT NO. ~
I
~ ~ ~FEc~~~~
~CITIES
1400 K Street, Suite 400. Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916,658,8200 Fax: 916,658,8240
www.cacities.org
Proposition 1A - "Protection of Local Government Revenues":
Constitutional Protection for Local Government Revenues
Questions and Answers
Senate Constitutional Amendment No, 4 (SCA 4) enacts substantial reforms to
the legislature's ability to raid the local government shares of the property tax,
sales tax and vehicle license fee to pay for state programs, It will appear on the
'November 2,2004, general election ballot as Proposition 1A and be entitled'
"Protection of Local Government Revenues",
This document contains key questions and answers about this important ballot
measure, which is strongly supported by the League of California Cities,
PROPERTY TAX
Background: Proposition 13 reduced the property tax rate to $1.00 per
$100 of assessed valuation, This single rate replaced the multiple property
tax rates imposed by local governments prior to Proposition 13. The
revenue from the $1.00 rate is shared in each county by the county, the
cities, the special districts, and the schools. Each jurisdiction's share of
the $1.00 rate was based originally upon the property tax rates in effect
prior to Proposition 13. The shares have been modified over the years by
the Legislature.
1. What's the basic protection for the property tax in Proposition 1A?
Proposition 1A will end the practice of state raids on local property tax, by
allowing only two loans within a 10 year period - and those may occur only if the
state meets certain criteria,
Specifically, Prop, 1A prevents the Legislature from reducing the combined
property tax shares of cities, special districts, and the county, except to borrow
the funds on a temporary basis to address a "severe state fiscal hardship". If, for
example, on November 3, 2004, the property tax shares of cities, special
districts, and the county of the hypothetical "California County" equaled 60% of
property taxes collected in that county, the Legislature cannot pass a law that
reduces the percentage below 60% except to respond to a significant state fiscal
problem, Additional restrictions are:
8/4/2004
1
-,
Revised 9/7/04
. The 2003 VLF GAP Loan must be repaid before borrowing could occur;
. The loan could only occur twice within a 10 year period;
. The loan ("the total amount of revenue losses") must be repaid with interest
within 3 years, and prior loans must be repaid before borrowing could occur a
second time within 10 years;
. The amount of the loan is limited to no more than 8% of the total amount of
property tax allocated to cities, counties, and special districts in the previous
fiscal year; and
. The reduction could only occur with a 2/3 vote of the Legislature.
2. Can the Legislature continue to reallocate property taxes on the local
level?
Yes, but with a significant new restriction on that ability. Since the passage of
Proposition 13, the Legislature has had the power to reallocate property taxes
among local governments, but its major experience with this over the last 25
years has been to allocate city, county and special district shares of the property
tax to schools through ERAF and reduce state general fund support for schools.
Proposition 1A would prevent future transfers of local government shares to
schools (except on a temporary basis, when the funds may be borrowed, as
explained in questions 1 and 4). However, the state retains the authority to
transfer property taxes among cities, counties, and special districts with a 2/3
vote of the Legislature. Under current law, the state can make this type of
transfer with a majority vote of the Legislature.
3, Could the state reallocate property taxes in order to fund a state
mandate?
No. The amendments to Section 6 of ArticleXl1I B of the state constitution
specify that, "Ad valorem property tax revenues shall not be used to reimburse
local government for the costs of a new program or higher level of services."
4. Does Proposition 1A allow the state flexibility to respond to a significant
state fiscal problem?
Yes, by allowing the state to borrow local property tax if it first meets the criteria
identified in Question #1. Beginning in the 2008-2009 fiscal year, if the state has
already paid cities and counties the amount owed from the 2003-04 VLF Gap'
Loan (est. $1,22 billion), the governor may issue a proclamation that declares
that there is a "severe state fiscal hardship" that requires the state to temporarily
suspend Proposition 1 A's basic protection for the property tax, Next, the
Legislature must first adopt a statute with a 2/3 vote that contains a suspension
of the basic protection for that fiscal year only. Then it must adopt a separate
statute that requires the state to repay cities, counties, and special districts the
total amount of property tax loss caused by the suspension within three years,
8/4/2004
2
"
,
Revised 9/7104
5. What will suspension of the property tax protection in Proposition 1 A
allow the state to do?
During the one-year period of a suspension, the state can take property taxes
from cities, counties, and/or special districts ("local agencies") and transfer them
to the schools or to some other agency that operates within the county in which
the property taxes were generated. This transfer will reduce the protected
property tax percentage. However, the reduction may not result in a property tax
loss that exceeds 8 percent of the total amount of property tax allocated to cities,
counties, and special districts in the previous fiscal year. Currently this
percentage is the equivalent of roughly $1.3 billion.
6. When will 'local agencies be repaid if property tax is taken during a
suspension period?
No later than the end of the third fiscal year following the fiscal year to which the
reduction applies. For example, if the reduction applies in the 2010-11 fiscal
year, then repayment must occur no later than June 30 of 2014. Repayment will
be for the "total amount of revenue losses" including interest.
7, Can the Legislature suspend the Proposition 1A protection each time
there is a "severe state fiscal hardship?"
No. Suspension of the protection may only occur twice in a ten-year period; and
only if the VLF Gap Loan amount has been repaid; and only if any prior
suspension of property tax has been repaid with interest.
8. Why was the redevelopment property tax increment not explicitly
protected in the final version of SCA 4?
It was the opinion of key legislators and legislative staff that Article 16, Section 16
of the state constitution, already protects the redevelopment property tax
increment. Further, the Governor insisted on the inclusion of language in the
ballot arguments for Proposition 1A that declares that the redevelopment
increment is already protected by the state constitution,
SALES TAX
Background: The sales and use tax laws allow cities and counties to
impose the basic 1 % sales tax as well as a variety of other use taxes such
as taxes for transit, jails, open space, etc. The basic 1% rate is distributed
back to the jurisdiction in which it was collected. Both cities and counties
may increase the sales and use tax by one-quarter cent for general
governmental purposes with a majority vote. Last year the Legislature
8/4/2004
3
,
Revised 9/7/04
suspended one-quarter cent of the basic 1% sales tax until the state's fiscal
recovery bonds are repaid.
1. What's the basic protection for the sales and use tax in Proposition 1 A?
Proposition 1 A prevents the state from borrowing or taking local sales and use
taxes. While the measure allows the state to borrow local property shares after
meeting specific criteria, Prop. 1A does not allow the state to reduce the current
funding that local governments receive from sales and use tax or require.that
sales tax revenues be distributed based upon population rather than the location'
or in any other way restrict a city or county from imposing sales and use taxes in
accordance with existing law.
2, What about the current suspension of one-quarter cent of the sales tax
occurring as a result of the passage of Proposition 57? Does Proposition
1 A require the suspension to end when the fiscal recovery bonds are
repaid?
Yes, Proposition 1A prevents the state from extending the period during which
the one-quarter cent is suspended; from failing to pay the property tax backfill
during the period of suspension; and from failing to restore the full sales tax rate
when the bonds are repaid. '
3. Can the state take any action that affects the sales and use tax?
Yes, It gives the Legislature the authority to authorize two or more local
agencies within a county to exchange property tax and sales tax but only if the
governing bodies of each of those agencies approves a locally-negotiated
exchange agreement. Voter approval is not required to make the exchange,
Additionally, the Legislature can change how sales tax is distributed if the change
is required by federal law or to participate in an interstate agreement that
addresses payment of sales tax.
VEHICLE LICENSE FEE
Background: The constitution currently guarantees all VLF revenue to
cities and counties. No particular amount of revenue is guaranteed,
however, because the amount depends upon the VLF rate that is set by the
Legislature. The current VLF rate is 2%. Over the past several years, the
Legislature has reduced the portion of the 2% rate paid by the taxpayer and
made up the difference to cities and counties through a backfill of state
general funds. During this fiscal year, cities and counties have not
received a backfill of state general funds even though the taxpayer is
paying only 1/3 of the 2% rate (0.65%), Under Proposition 1A, cities and
8/4/2004
4
.J/t A..,Ak . ("
-
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
SUPPORTING MEASURE A ON THE
NOVEMBER 2, 2004 BALLOT - "TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY OF MARIN TRANSACTIONS
AND USE TAX ORDINANCE"
WHEREAS, over the last several months, the Transportation Authority of Marin
(TAM) presented to, and received approvals from, the Board of Supervisors and all City
and Town Councils of Marin for the Final Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan,
Subsequent to these approval actions, the Final Expenditure Plan was adopted formally
by TAM on June 24, 2004 as part of TAM Ordinance 2004-01. TAM Ordinance 2004-01,
also known as the TAM Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance, is intended to impose and
collect in Marin a 0 ne-half of 0 ne percent transactions and use tax for transportation
purposes beginning April 1, 2005, or as soon thereafter as the tax may be lawfully
imposed; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 180201 , TAM
has requested the Board of Supervisors to call for a special election to be held on
November 2, 2004 and submit a measure to the voters of Marin for their approval which
would, if so approved, authorize TAM to impose the one-half of one percent transactions
and use tax for a period of 20 years, issue limited tax bonds to finance the transportation
programs set forth in the Expenditure Plan, and set an annual appropriations limit of $50
million, Being a special tax, the ballot measure would require 2/3-voter approval in order
to pass; and
WHEREAS, if approved by the voters, approximately $331 million would fund
over the course of 20 years transportation improvements as follows: Local bus transit -
$182,4 million, or 55 percent; Fixing local roads, bikeways and sidewalks - $87.8 million,
or 26,5 percent; Traffic improvements to ease congestion and provide safe routes to
schools - $36.5 million, or 11 percent; Closing the car-pool gap on Highway 101 through
San Rafael and Central Marin - $24,9 million, or 7.5 percent; and
WHEREAS, a transportation sales tax is one of the few tools available to Marin
for generating local funds for transportation projects. Becoming a "self7help" county is a
critical step towards increasing our share of regional, state, and federal funding, as well
as helping the County to achieve its "transportation independence." Voter approval of a
transportation sales tax ballot measure would ensure stability and improvement to the
future of transportation in Marin, providing funds to maintain and enhance current
transportation programs that will be reduced, eliminated, or delayed without a new
source of funding; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Tiburon Town Council
endorses Measure A a nd urges t he people 0 f the Town 0 f Tiburon to vote" YES" 0 n
Measure A on the November 2, 2004 Ballot - Transportation Authority of Marin
Transactions and Use Tax Ordinance.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Tiburon on October 6. 20Q4 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI >
Town Clerk
,
ALICE FREDERICKS
Mayor
~P,.1
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2004
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON COMMENDING BARBARA CREAMER
UPON HER RETIREMENT FOR 15 YEARS OF OUTSTANDING
SERVICE TO THE TIBURON COMMUNITY
WHEREAS, in 1988 Barbara Creamer joined the It, Recreation Department as its'
Director and served faithfully in that capacity for the last 15 years;
WHEREAS, through her hard work and efforts, Barbara "grew" the department to what it
is today-a permanent office, space and facilities, three full-time, four part-time, and 25
"seasonal" emplqyees, with anarinual budget in excess of$850,000;
~.,-" -
WHEREAS, during her tenure, Barbara developed and expanded the popular summer
, camp program, which now includes the Angel Island Adventure Camp, Camp Miwok and
Paradise Park; introduced cultural programs such as The Studio Dance Programs, which offer
comprehensive ballot training for boys and girls from ages 3 through I I and beyond; and created
innovative programs such as the annual "FatherlDaughter Dance" and the Jolmny Moseley Ski
Club;
WHEREAS, under her tutelage and care, Barbara doubled the gross revenue of the
community's youth programs;
WHEREAS, Barbara worked closely the members of the Jt. Recreation Committee in
order to accomplish these goals, along with the city managers of Belvedere and Tiburon, and for
many years served on the Reed Union School District Strategic Planning Committee;
WHEREAS, Barbara is best known for her energy and enthusiasm that she brings to all
her projects and programs;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon
does hereby express its sincere appreciation to Barbara Creamer for her 15 years of dedication
and outstanding public service to the Tiburon community, and extends its best wishes to her and
her husband Jeff, daughter Kirsten, and son Bret for a continued happy, involved life upon her
retirement as Director of the Belvedere-Tiburon Jt. Recreation Department.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a reb'Ular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon held on October 6, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Berger, Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz, Smith
ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
..
.
I
.... ~/9J...r!~'Y<fl".
4\., ".0
'(i.., \:-
T;~- ~~I'
'?'~~I
r.;.\\..~~/::
('-;.'.r;:~~<:\
.~ ~N1A--lt,j,'(.' ".
,
.
AGENDA ITEM Y
TO:
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT
DANIEL M. WATROUS, PLANNING MANAGER
REQUESTED FEE WAIVER FOR SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW APPLICATION BY MARIN COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ~
OCTOBER 6, 2004 REVIEWED BY:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .....
FROM:
MEETING DATE:
SUMMARY
Ori September 15, 2004, the Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
submitted a Site Plan and Architectural Review application to construct a fence around an
existing pump station located along Tiburon Boulevard near Pamela Court. As a public agency,
the District has now requested a waiver of the $215,00 fee paid for this application,
Town policy requires Town Council approval of any fee waiver for a public agency. The
requested waiver would be consistent with others previously approved by the Town Council,
and Staff supports this request.
RECOMMENDA TION
Waive the fee associated with the subject Site Plan and Architectural Review application, and
direct Staff to process a refund to the Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District.
EXHIBIT
1, Letter from Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, dated
August 30, 2004
~
~
;;
~
. ~
-...----- ~
..~.'-~...~..,::~,:~
COUNTY OF MARIN
www.co.marin.ca.us/pw
ADMINIST'RA1l0N
415/499-6570
.
ACCOUNTING
415/499-7877
.
AIRPORT
451-A AIRPORT ROAD
NoVAlo, CA 94945
415/897-1754
FAX 415/897-1264
.
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
415/499-6576
FAX 415/499-3250
CAPITAL PROJECT>
415/499-7877
FAX 415/499-3724
ENGINEERING & SURVEY
415/499-7877
FAX 415/499-3724
COUN1Y GARAGE
415/499-7380
FAX 415/499-3738
lAND DEVELOPMENT &
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
415/499-6549
PRINTING
415/499-6377
FAX 415/499-6617
COUNTY PuRCHASING AGENT
415/499-6371
. COMMUNICATION MAINTENANCE
415/499-7313
FAX 415/499-3738
REAL ESTATE
415/499-6578
FAX 415/446-7373
ROAD MAINTENANCE
415/499-7388
FAx 415/499-3656
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
415/499.6528
TRANSIT DISTRICT
415/499.6099
FAX 415/499-6939
W AbTE MANAGEMENT
415/499-6647
FAX 415/446.737]
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORI<S
p, 0, Box 4186, San Rafael, CA 94913-4186.415/499-6528' FAX 415/499-3799
Farhad Mansourian, RCE
Direclor
August 30, 2004
.. ~"','" i'l :'r~: ::~"l
;:CJ~-:l .,;.'.1 \<' ,~.....).",
~ "":0.,... .... ..~
Mr, Daniel M. Watrous
Planning Manager
Town of Tiburon Planning Dept.
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
c.:",,'~',i ::.. ~ir:~Ji
',) t. r' :~ J ,'~_ j~. I ,
-- ,...", ,....:..,C!l'~
PUl..\,:\\m~i-.:;, 1)1 ,'I,~,.~ I
'T(iVn.j ,'Jf Ti['J)RU~,
Re: Request to Waive Fees for Pamela Court Pumb Station Site
Improvements DesiQn Review
Dear Mr. Watrous,
The Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
respectfully requests that the normal fee of $215.00 for a Minor Alteration
to an Existino Buildino/Develooed Lot be waived for this application,
ck Curley
ssistant Engineer
Marin County Flood Con rol &
Water Conservation District
415-499-3051
jcurley@co,marin,Ga,us
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM L
t;
Town of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TO:
FROM:
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~
FUTURE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3535 PARAD'SE DRIVE, YOUNG AND HARTNETT TRU~ER
AND APPLICANT; APN 58-032-08
OCTOBER 6, 2004 REVIEWED BY:
SEPTEMBER 28, 2004
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:
REPORT DATE:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BACKGROUND
The applicants reside in a home with a failing septic system in the unincorporated
Paradise Drive portion of the Tiburon peninsula, As the property is nowhere close to the
Town limits, but is in immediate need of hooking into the public sewer system, the
owners have filed an application with the Marin Location Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) for annexation to the sanitary district without immediate annexation to the
Town of Tiburon. The standard procedure in such instances is for the property owner to
enter into a future annexation agreement with the Town,
In the last few years, the Town Council has approved approximately 28 future
annexation agreements with developed lot owners in the Paradise Drive/Teaberry Lane
vicinity. The agreements allow lots to hook into the public sewer system maintained by
Sanitary District #5 without concurrent annexation into the Town of Tiburon, but prevent
the owners from protesting or opposing any future annexation effort by the Town,
ANALYSIS
The subject property is located at 3535 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
draft agreement is attached as Exhibit 2,
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council approve the Agreement and authorize the Town
Manager to execute it.
EXHIBITS
1, Vicinity map showing subject property.
2, Draft agreement with 3535 Paradise Drive owners,
1
0 . . Z
I :s: ",
'T1
~~
' n
-
en
n
0
..
o
(f)
--
v ( c, "-. + / lYL,.~
"3.,.-0 c D\-,,-r', ;..:",-Oi;;v-<,
......).:J.::.J .......
EXHIBIT NO.' 'I
APN NO, 58-032-08
Recording Requested By:
TOWN OF TIBURON
Return to:
Director of Community Development
Town ofTiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd,
Tiburon, CA 94920
This document is for the benefit of the Town of Tiburon.
.
DOCUMENT TITLE
AGREEMENT REGARDING
ANNEXA nON OF REAL PROPERTY
COMMONLY KNOWN AS
3535 PARADISE DRIVE
TO THE TOWN OF TIBURON
EXHIBIT NO.~
AGREEMENT REGARDING ANNEXATION OF REAL PROPERTY
TO THE TOWN OF TIDURON
This Agreement is made and entered into this _ day of , 2004 by and
between the Town ofTiburon, a municipal corporation, ("Town" hcrcafter) and The
Shari M, Young and Robert.l. Hartnett,.Ir. Trust ("Owner" hercafter) and is based upon
thc following facts:
(a) Owner holds title to that certain real property ("the Property" hereaftcr) described
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and shown for illustrative purposes only on the
attached Exhibit "B"; and
(b) Owner desires to connect to the public sewer system provided by,Sanitary District
No,5, As a result of the Marin Loeal 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 reeognizes 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 future, the Town may desire annexation,
(c) The Town has agreed to defer annexation of the Property and recommend such to
the Local Agency Fonnation Commission on the conditions set forth in this
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES
HERETO AS FOLLOWS:
1, Owner agrees on hehalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns that, in the
evcnt any futurc 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, lcased, rented,
used and occupied subject to the provisions of this Agreement and that the
obligations undertaken by Owner hereunder shall be binding on all paliies having
or acquiring any right, title, or interest in the Property,
2
,'>
,
OWNER:
Shari M.Young, Trustee
j
The Shari M. Young and Robert J. Hartnett, Jr. Trust dated May 23, 2003
" OWNER:
Robert J. Hartnett, .Ir., Trustee
The Shari M, Young and Robert J. Hartnell,.Ir. Trust dated May 23, 2003
TOWN OF TIBURON:
By:
Alex McIntyre, Town Manager
ATTEST:
By:
Diane Crane Iacopi, Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
,/'~ ?'J /' _~
t:r',t'/1 tI /t..----
Ann R, Danforth, Town Attorney
Attachments: Exhibits "A" and "B",
3535 p:lradise :l11ncx.doc
,
.,
,
EXHIBIT "A"
All that cenain real propeny situate in the County of Marin, State of California, described as
follows:
PARCEL 1, as shown upon that cenain map entitled, "Parcel Map, Land Division of the Lands
of Othell Mallouf, et ai, Book 2190 of Official Records, ,at Page 293, Rancho Cone Madera Del
Presidio", filed for record April 24, 1968 in Volume 2 of Parcel Maps, at Page 78, Marin
County Records.
EXHIBIT "B"
5v-LiecJ frape('fy
3535 Pa.(-t,j,,;se (Ji'~ v-e..
(01 -,11833)
[058-032-13]
,)
,
)'
)'
,
1
LANDS OF KOPSTEIN
(01-70142)
'- ,-' [058-032-05]
LANDS OF KOPSTEIN ~ '
(01-70142) , '-
[058-032-14] 7
4'63'
0"
<10 1S'W
.1S'
(98-56957)
[058-100-09]
/~
/
(
TPOB
, C't~
s1\'~:'~' ~'
\~~.'l.'O ___ '--' , ~
---- '
---
---
S46' 49'00"E
1 0.67'
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM ~
.
.
'> "".~91....I~!t~.f' ~.
.J~..~ ~}
"\:0-.., ~~~s..^'::7,....
...,..;~~~b.'Q
....b.~~.....
..' ~;"'IA-\tfc..- ".
,
.
Town of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TO:
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:
DANIEL M. WATROUS, PLANNING MANAGER
100 LYFORD DRIVE
APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TODENY A SITE
PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR THE
MODIFICATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS TO LEGALIZE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN AS-BUILT ADDITION TO AN exiSTING
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, WITH A FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION
. OCT<>>3~.,2.~.......... .~~E~~BY~
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PROJECT DATA
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL:
FILE NUMBER:
OWNERS/APPELLANTS:
APPLICANT:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
DATE COMPLETE:
1 00 LYFORD DRIVE
58-222-14
704087
FRED AND RHONDA SOOFER
JOHN LUNDY & LINCOLN MALIK (ARCHITECTS)
31,280 SQUARE FEET
RO-2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-OPEN)
M (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
C
JUNE 11, 2004
BACKGROUND
On August 5,2004, the Tiburon Design Review Board adopted Resolution No. 2004-04 (Exhibit
6) denying a Site Plan and Architectural Review application to modify previously approved plans
to legalize construction of an as-built addition to an existing single-family dwelling on property
located at 100 Lyford Drive, with a floor area exception. The applicant has now appealed this
decision to the Town Council.
PRO~CT DESCRIPTION
An application was filed for Design Review approval for the modification of previously approved
plans to legalize construction of an as-built addition to an existing single-family dwelling on
property located at 100 Lyford Drive. The property is developed with a two-story residence,
One new bedroom, a bathroom and a storage area have been constructed on the lower level of
the house,
STAFF REPORT
.
I
.... ~_9L!!I!_(; I.
.- -~~~~~
~;trl.;
...."';-:~::<o,
." -9NIA-'~'(.' ".
,
.
Town of Tiburon
The requested 265 square foot addition would bring the total floor area of this property to 5,726
square feet, which is 598 square feet greater than the floor area ratio for a lot of this size. A
floor area exception is therefore required,
PROJECT HISTORY
Five previous applications (Files # 299006, 299034, 200030, 20115 & 20231) have previously
been approved by the Design Review Board to construct several additions to the existing house
on the site. As the original house was constructed to a height of more than 30 feet, each of the
applications included a request for excess building height, as the proposed additions followed
the alignment of the original structure. The last four applications also included floor area
exceptions, which have gradually increased the floor area of the house to the presently
approved total floor area of 5,461 square feet.
The first three applications involved additions to the southern (right) side of the house. in 2001,
an application (File #20115) was approved to construct a family room above a portion of an
existing deck at the northern end of the house, with an exercise room beneath. The application
approved in 2002 (File #20231) further extended this upstairs family room to cover the
remainder of the deck, Each of these last two applications indicated that the area beneath the
deck would be enclosed, but no improved floor area was indicated in this space leading down to
natural grade,
The construction project associated with these previously approved applications has been
underway since 1999, In each instance since the first approved Design Review application, the
applicant has requested to make changes to the originally approved plans that modified the
most recently approved plans, In each instance, the Design Review Board determined the
proposed change to be relatively minor in scope, and therefore approved each of the previous
applications, '
In early 2004, the applicant approached Planning Division Staff to ask about the feasibility of
enclosing an area beneath an existing deck into additional living space. At that time, the
applicant was advised that such an addition would require Design Review approval, and may
have difficulty being approved, due to the need for another floor area exception, and given the
history of repeated requests to modify this project,
As the construction project appeared to be nearing an end, the Building Official requested that
the applicant submit a set of plans indicating the as-built conditions on the site, due to the length
of time taken to complete the project and the number of changes made during construction,
The as-built plans submitted indicated that the area beneath the deck had been enclosed and
turned into habitable space. This is the area requested to be legalized under the Site Plan and
Architectural Review current application,
REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
The Design Review Board first reviewed the current application at its July 1, 2004 meeting, At
that time, concerns were raised by the Design Review Board about the need for the proposed
October 6, 200l
page 2 of 6
STAFF REPORT
.
I
." ~5,.L!_1~_v ,.
0_ ~!:.'1'~~i _
",,~~~,'
1>,;~};= ~~~
""o-.~_.'....
.' 1i'......I.A,-\~C.. '.
,
o
Town of Tiburon
addition, noting that other structural solutions could be found to support the floor area above,
The Board also expressed concerns about the unpermitted nature of this addition, noting that
the applicant had been aware of the required Design Review process for changes to the project.
The applicant did not appear before the Board at that meeting, later citing traffic difficulties that
delayed his arrival until after the meeting had ended, The Board then voted unanimously (3-0)
to direct Staff to prepare a Resolution denying the application,
On August 5, 2004, the Design Review Board considered the adoption of the resolution denying
the application, At that time, the applicant was allowed to make a presentation regarding the
application, The Board considered the information presented by the applicant, then adopted
Resolution No, 2004-04 (4-0-1, Bird abstained), On August 16, 2004, the appellant filed a
timely appeal of this decision.
BASIS FOR THE APPEAL
There are six grounds upon which the appeal (Exhibit 1) is based:
Ground #1 The subject addition would not be inconsistent with the intent of the
Tiburon floor area ratio guidelines.
Staff Response: Section 4,02.08 of the Tiburon Zoning Code (Floor Area Ratio Guidelines)
states that the intent of the floor area ratio guideline is to "discourage overbuilding of property,
as often occurs with 'tear-downs' and extensive remodel/additions on infill sites," As stated in
Resolution No, 2004-04, the Design Review Board found that "the gradual increases in floor
area represented by this and the five, previous Site Plan and Architectural Review applications
associated with this project mask a much larger overall increase in floor area as a series of
smaller residential additions." The floor area of the house has increased from its original size of
4,340 square feet, to approved floor areas generally escalating to 5,100 square feet (File
#299006, approved 4/15/99); 5,510 square feet (File #299034, approved 10/7/99); 5,355 square
feet, (File #200030, approved 7/20/00); 5,423 square feet, (File #20115, approved 6/21/01); and
5,461 square feet (File #20231, approved 10/17/02), The current application would bring the
total floor area for the house to 5,726 square feet, which would be 598 square feet above the
floor area ratio for a lot of this size, and 626 square feet larger than the original size of this
construction project. This would appear to represent an "overbuilding" of the subject property
associated with an ongoing and an "extensive remodel/addition on [an] infill site," which would
be inconsistent with the intent of the floor area ratio guidelines,
Ground #2 The required findings can be made to support the requested floor area
exception,
Staff Response: Section 4.02,08 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance (Floor Area Ratio Guidelines)
states that "residential construction in excess of the floor area guidelines may be granted
[emphasis added] through a floor area exception" if findings can be made if the applicant has
demonstrated that the visual size and scale of the proposed structure is compatible with the
October 6, 200~
page 3 of 6
STAFF REPORT
.
I
-:-, ~c9.L~~!tlJ~".
0- ~(~Cf -
~\{~.'ir
"'/,;.;g:~;.;:"
.' .q;';'/~-rt4(.. "'.
.
o
Town of Tiburon
predominant pattemestablished by existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood; and
has demonstrated that the proposed structure is compatible with the physical layout of the site,
Residential construction also requires approval of a Site Plan and Architectural Review
application consistent with the Guiding Principles in the Review of Applications contained within
Section 4,02,07 of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 4,02.07 (d) [Floor Area Ratio] states that the
Design Review Board shall consider "the relationship between the size and scale of
improvements and the size of the property on which the improvements are proposed." The
Design Review Board determined that although the findings for the floor area exception could
be made, the project would be inconsistent with this requirement, as the requested floor area
would result in an inappropriate relationship between the size of the house and the size of the
property, '
Ground #3 The previously approved plans for the project included the enclosure of the
subject addition.
Staff Response: The plans submitted and approved under the two most recent applications
(Files #20115 and #20231) prior to the subject application include a description on the lower
floor plans in the vicinity of the subject addition that the area would be a "lath enclosed 'structure
below existing deck." These plans do not indicate the presence of a floor or slab at the bottom
of this enclosed area, and the elevation drawings submitted with these applications clearly
indicate a sloping grade in the area of this addition,
The Tiburon Zoning Ordinance defines floor area as including areas "capable of being used or
finished for habitable space," In order to meet this definition, the area must meet Uniform
Building Code occupiable ceiling height requirements; be covered by a solid, weatherproof roof
or floor; have at least 50 percent of the vertical area around the space be closed; and be
supported on a structural floor or slab capable of sustaining floor loads, The enclosed area
previously shown on the approved plans meets the first three of these requirements, but never
indicated the presence of a structural floor or slab. Therefore, this enclosed area did not meet
the Town's definition of floor area, and this floor area was never approved by the Design Review
Board, Now that a finished floor has been added by the appellant, this unpermitted space
meets the definition of floor area,
Ground #4 There is no evidence that the applicant "flaunted the process" or that the
project is an example of "size creep."
Staff Response: The Design Review Board felt that the applicant was fully aware of the
requirement for Design Review approvals for any changes in floor area to the house, as
evidenced by the number of previous applications submitted for various modifications to the
originally approved building plans. Given that permit history, the Board felt that it was
inexcusable for the applicant to create more floor area for this house without first obtaining
Design Review approval.
The Design Review Board has recently become more concemed about a phenomenon that the
Board has referred to as "size creep," This term has been used by the Board to indicate a
October 6, 200~
page 4 of 6
STAFF REPORT
.
I
" ~_9Ll(~~~ ~.
..1~..:a ~) -
i'"'\~E~i':l'
?(';~; ~,~'O
;:0.','-..:.'-=-= ,-,
...o4.\i~'C:. ...:.
,
.
Town of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
building project that has grown gradually in size, with each individual request seeming small
enough to be relatively innocuous, but eventually ending up with a much larger house size, In
some cases, this gradual approach is used to eventually reach a house size that would not have
been acceptable if made as part of the original Design Review application. The gradual
increase in size previously described, from 5,100 square feet to the currently requested 5,726
square feet, clearly meets the Board's definition of "size creep,"
Ground #5 The applicant's absence from the July 1, 2004 Design Review Board
meeting deprived him of due process and the opportunity to be heard by the Board,
Staff Response: The Zoning Ordinance does not require that the applicant needs to be present
for the Design Review Board to consider and deliberate upon an application. The Board
determined that it had adequate information necessary to make a decision upon the application,
and directed Staff to prepare a resolution denying the subject application,
The adoption of the resolution denying the application at the August 5 meeting was a consent
calendar item, during which the Board is not required to take public testimony. However, out of
fairness, the Board allowed the appellant to speak at considerable length prior to a motion being
taken on the resolution, Therefore, the appellant was provided due process and the opportunity
to be heard by the Board prior to a final decision being made on this application,
Ground #6 The finding of the Design Review Board that other design solutions are
available to provide the necessary structural support for the addition above is
unsupported by evidence in the record and is not relevant to this decision.
Staff Response: The Design Review Board is not charged with coming up with design solutions
for an applicant if an application is found to be unacceptable. Instead, the Board usually
provides feedback on any potential concerns or problems with the application, and allows the
applicant to determine how best to address those issues,
The appellant brought up the need for structural support as for the floor above as a rationale for
the approval of this addition, The Board correctly determined that there are other means of
providing structural support for an addition that do not involve the creation of additional floor
area below. It should also be noted that the addition above that requires this support was
included in two phases as part of the last two previous Design Review approvals for this project;
this is a self-created hardship, and a situation that can be physically remedied without the
creation of additional floor area for the house,
CONCLUSION
The Design Review Board followed the guidelines for Site Plan and Architectural Review in its review
of this project. The Board determined that that the floor area increase requested was inconsistent
with the intent of the floor area ratio guideline to "discourage overbuilding of property, as often
occurs with 'tear-downs' and extensive remodel/additions on infill sites," as the gradual increases in
floor area represented by this and the five previous Site Plan and Architectural Review applications
associated with this project mask a much larger overall increase in floor area as a series of smaller
October 6. 200l
page 5 of 6
STAFF REPORT
.
I
., .'. OW.le" ".
4\~/ -....._~
.J~.~: _
I~ ~ ;.BB'I
~\~ ~~i?
(''')'2"~~'o
.' O~N~tiL'''''.
,
.
Town of Tiburon
residential additions. The decision of the Design Review Board is supported by visits to the subject
site and the adjoining property, as well as evidence in the record,
RECOMMENDA nON
1) That the Town Council indicate its intention to deny the appeal; and
2) That the Town CO\lncil direct Staff to return with a Resolution denying the appeal, for
adoption at the next meeting,
EXHIBITS
1, Notice of Appeal
2, Application and supplemental materials
3, Design Review l;loard Staff report dated July 1, 2004
4, Minutes of the July 1, 2004 Design Review Board meeting
5, Minutes of the August 5, 2004 Design Review Board meeting
6, DesigO Review Board Resolution No, 2004-04
7, Submitted plans
October 6. 200~
page 6 of 6
,~:>>f.= ("", r=: !~'.'v,fF::r\:
~ ~'--"".I'......" ,.. _...."
TOWN OF TmURON
/\;.J(:; I (~ Z[)04
, NOTICE OF APPEAL
PLANI'lIf'!G DiViSION
TO\i'JN OF' TI8Ui:<OI\l
~r;:'/I'M"'"~lil'r::n
lrFlj U~~~~6n '(1/ fi;;,IY....
APPELLANT
we:: 16 2004
Nwne: Mr. Fred and Mrs. Rhonda Soofer
, Address:
100 Lyford Drive, Tiburcin, CA ,94920
"::wr.J f\'1N0/:,GtG::; nr::iCl;
TOWN 0:2 T:;;~;r.:,UU
Telephone: (415) 435-5580 (Work)
c(Home)
, ACTION BEING APPEALED
Body: 'Design Review Board
Date of Action: August 5, 2004
,Nwne of Applicant: 'Fred and Rhonda Soofer
N fA I. , 'Design' Reyiew Request for Variance
ature 0 pp IcatlOn:
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
(Attach additional pages, if necessary)
See attached
Last Day to File: ;;:;---/1:,-('. If Date Received:
Fee Paid: (jj!(()O/ t€:c 3,<;jf{; Date of Hearing:
g-/h-O~
[JrJ c ~, bDY
January 2004
EXHIBIT NO.
1. r of I ()
Attachment to Notice of Appeal
Fred and Rhonda Soofer
100 Lyford Drive
Grounds for Appeal
Fred and Rhonda Soofer, 25 year residents of Tiburon and
Lyford Drive appeal the Design Review Board's decision of August
5, 2004 denying approval for minor revision to the Town's
previously granted design review approval.
On July I, 2004 the Tiburon Design Review Board considered
the application for variance additions of four Lyford Drive
accessed properties, 222 Roundhill Road, 94 Mt. Tiburon Court,
138 Lyford Drive and 100 Lyford Drive.
At the meeting of cJuly I, 2004, the application for approval
and addition to 222 Round Hill Road was approved, granting
permission for an additional 814 square foot garage. 'The
application for 94 Mt. Tiburon Court was approved allowing
construction of additional space and a height variance. The
application for 138 Lyford Drive was approved for a 555 square
foot garag~, bringing the total variance to floor area
regulations to 2,760 square feet. The application for 100 Lyford
Drive was denied.
Because of a minor automobile accident in the East Bay, Mr.
Soofer was delayed from attending the meeting of July I, 2004,
and when he arrived at Town Hall at approximately 8:20 p.m. the
meeting had been adjourned at 8:10 p.m, and'Mr. Soofer's
application was denied.
At the July I, 2004 meeting members of the design review
committee expressed a belief that the "applicant showed little
interest in the process and/or was "flaunting" the process. Mr.
Soofer was not present at the meeting to respond to these
remarks. He respectfully disagrees with the Design Review
Board's comments and analysis of the situation although he
understands how the Board might have arrived at this conclusion
based on his unexpected failure to appear at the hearing.
In fact, the record will clearly show that the Soofers, at
all times have carefully followed the design review process,
appearing regularly and properly before construction to gain
approval from the Town before constructing additions to the
property and paying over $30,000 in application fees, including
$1,250 for the present design review application.
The staff report prepared for the 100 Lyford Drive
application correctly observed that the location of the proposed
EXHIBIT NO.
P. '2 6r- 10
Attachment to Notice of Appeal
Page 4
In addition, it should be stressed that of the area involved
(some 265 square feet)' the approved plans already approved
enclosure of this area and also approved the present use of one-
half of tne area for storage. Therefore, what is basically
involved, is approval of some 132 ~ square feet of ,the previously
enclosed structure for the uses set forth in the proposed
application.
In summary, this appeal is from the denial by the Design
Review Board for approval of "use" of some 132 ~ square feet for
a bathroom area, an area which has previously been approved for
enclosure and which does not in any way affect the overall
appearance of the property ,from a mass and size standpoint.
Contrary to the impression of the Design Review
Board, the applicant has not "knowingly" flaunted the system nor
has he attempted to show any disrespect because of his failure to
appear at the subject hearing.
The disapproval of this minor addition of 132 ~ feet to this
structure is in stark contrast to the approvals given to the
three other Lyford Drive accessed lots that were on the agenda at
the same time one of which received approval for an additional
2,765 square feet of construction.
Specific Grounds for Appeal
1. The Board purported to deny the application on the
grounds that the application failed to demonstrate compliance
with the guidelines referenced in Section'4.02.07of the Tiburon
Zoning Ordinance and that granting of the request would be
"inconsistent with the intent of the floor area ratio guideline
to discourage overburdening of the property -- as the gradual
increased in floor area represented by previous site review
applications -- mask a much larger overall increase in floor
area."
In fact, as the staff report presented to the Board noted
and the evidence establishes, the subject addition fills in an
area that was once beneath'a deck and is now enclosed per
approved plans. Thus, the change in the "visual sizew of the
proposed structure is insignificant and non-existent, as the
subject addition simply "fills in" an area that was once beneath
a deck which is' already enclosed by an approved enclosure
authorized by previous approvals.
EXHIBIT NO.--L
~ 5""? iu
Attachment to Notice of Appeal
Page 5
As a result, the addition would not significantly alter the
size and scale of the building particularly as viewed from other
properties in the vicinity. Thus, the requested addition does
not constitute "overbuilding" of the property and/or "mask" a
"much larger overall increase" in floor area as found by the
Design Review Board.
2. Section 4.02.08 of the Tiburon Zoning Code stat~s that
the Design Review Board may grant exceptions ,to the required FAR
ratio if it makes the followina two findinas:
(1) The applicant has demonstrated that visual size
and scale of the proposed' structure is compatible
with the predominant pattern established by
existing structures in the surrbunding,
neighborhood; and
(2) The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed
structure is compatible with the physical layout
of the site.
The scale of the proposed structure is compatible with the
"predominant pattern" established by existing structures in
surrounding neighborhoods, as verified by letter's in the file
from all affected neighboring properties and the size of other
Lyford Drive access properties being built and approved by the
Design Review Board including three sites considered by the
Design Review Board on July I, 200.4.
As the staff report noted, and as the evidence establishes,
this subject addition only fills in an area that was once beneath
a deck. Thus, this addition also not change the relationship of
the structure to the physical layout of the property.
Thus. the record establishes that the two required findings
under Section 4.02.08, Exception to the Required Floor Area
Ratio, have been met and do exist.
3. The approved plans for the project already approved
enclosure of the space involved;
4. There is no basis for the Design Review Board's
assertion that the applicant has "flaunted the process" and/or
that the project is an example of "size creep;"
EXHIBIT NO.
'P. (" Me. lu
Attachment to Notice of Appeal
Page 6
5. The applicants' excusable absence from the meeting on
the Design Review Board's consideration of the matter in the
abbreviated meeting of August 5, 2004 deprived the applicant of
due process and reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard.
Horn v. Count v of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 165 Cal.Rptr.
718;
6. The Design Review Board's finding that the "design
solutions" available to provide "necessary structural support"
,for the floor above without creating new or potential floor area
is unsupported by the evidence, and/or is not relevant or
supportive of the Town's action:
7. The Design Review Board's finding that the floor area
request would be "inconsistent" with the intent of the floor area
ratio guideline to "discourage overbuilding of the property" is
not supported by the evidence as the Town has already granted
approval for enclosure of this space and enclosure of this space
does not constitute "overbuilding".
8. There is no basis for the Design Review Board's finding
that "gradual increases" in floor area represented by five
previous site plan and archit~ctural,review approvals, "masked a
much larger overall increase in floor area," as the overall
increase in floor area has not significantly deviated or
enlarged.
9. There is no basis for the Board's finding that the
applicant has "failed to demonstra,te" that the visual size and
scale of the proposed structure is incompatible with the
predominant pattern established by existing structure in the
surrounding neighborhood.
In fact, the evidence demonstrates that the actual size and
scale of the proposed structure is compatible with the
predominant pattern of existing structures in the neighborhood
and is, and was, consistent with approvals given by the Design
Review Board that same night for increases in size and scale of
other similar properties;
10. There is no factual basis for the Board's determination
that the applicant "has not demonstrated" that the proposed
project was not compatible with the physical layout of the site
including the scale of trees, rock, outcroppings and dimensions
of, the lot.
EXHIBIT NO.
r. ., C>,':. /6
Attachment to Notice of Appeal
Page 7
As noted by the staff the subj ect lot coverage i,s "not out
of proportionH and it cannot be established that the proposed
structure is "out of conformityH with the c~aracteristics of the
site including trees, rock outcroppings, stream courses, land
forms and the dimensions of the lot.
11. The proposed addition would not significantly alter the
visual size and scale of the dwelling particularly as viewed from
other structures in the vicinity as the staff report noted.
12. The decision of the Design Review Board is not
supported by the findings made, the findings made are not
supported by substantial evidence in the record and/or the
evidence cited and relied on by the Town in support of the
findings and decisions are either irrelevant, or fail to support,
the findings made. (Tooanqa Assn. for a Scenic Communi tv v.
Countv of Los Anqeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 113 Cal.Rptr. 836.)
This appeal is based on and incorporates by reference as
if fully set forth herein the following:
A. The Design Review staff I'eports of June 17, 2004 and
August 5, 2004;
B. The Town of Tiburon's June 11,2004 "Notice of
CompletionH of site plan and architectural review' application;
C. The previously approved plans for the project including
all architectural plans;
D. The Town's previous approvals of applications 299006,
90034, 20030, 20115 and 20231;
E. The minutes of the Tiburon Design Review Board of July
1, 2004 and August 5, 2004;
F. The complete plan sets maintained by tbe Town relative
to the property at 100 Lyford Drive;
G. The letters of approval from the various neighbors
delivered to the Design Review Board, together with all
attachments; and
H.
2004.
Tapes of the hearings of July 1, 2004 and August 5,
EXHIBIT NO.
p, 5 O'F (0
Attachment to Notice of Appeal
Page 8
Appellants request the appeal be processed and set for
hearing on the next available date for hearing before the Town
Council.
If additional information is required which will be of
assistance to the handling of the appeal, appellant would request
notice.
Respectfully submitted,
Peter B. Brekhus, Attorney for
Appellants Fred and Rhonda
Soofer
soofer\notice.of.appeal.wpd
EXHIBIT NO,
.1>, CZ OF {0
'/2004 ] 4 :57 FAX 510 487 1814
PLAST1KON
..__....~.
r"'<....1
~- \~... . -,.,.----l:.--~~-
, TOWN OF1}[\UC?_:'/
. ' ,
. '
nf &- l~ 3f.!:i.~~d:
1_' Th':l;e pto.ilS co orm w.~.
~'~ R9v19wdaI9d: ',... ' ,
.-J ~.,
~
-~~---
+&
..
,
&:.
, ,
----4----,..
'+ ' ..',,'
"'-i .~---,-:---'-
,"I,' II"; .' ... ,I"
,.,,-~. I I i I
, '.1!J" t 11 I ;
" ','-::<it' i I I:'
"'~ ~ { ~ii: &. _ I
.. ;: , 1 ..;,c/:.Q5u.\P.'tMi1'.iiJ.. ." ,I
, " II ,',' ,,r
" 'I" ' II ;;.~1D:m-at\-1 ' .
."., " " I " ',',' ' ~""::'~:t~ r
~"/" '~"L----1J~---:--~ -,
\!l ',' - ~ - 'r - - - - - - - .. '
" -,:1 " II ' ./ 'I
.:~ tI ...... I
'-', , " , II o",
III ~! ':"
II " I '
I : '. 1'1 " '.
I II I
I . 1'1 .1",
I
II, : I
'., 'II I'
/.'
I
.
~
JrJ
lW
~,
'wt~.:..
,.,,~
-
--- ~
EXHIBIT NO.
.f. I D L'F {O
I4i 002
-'!5 .
'Z'~~J
.= '~
O~
~ "
~o
Q)N
'..'-~~lt'>
,', :> 0'0...,
<';' ~ c\:SO
o 'E:A
0""
..:s,.
~ <il~..,.
rA U ..,. '7
o g~~
o !3 d.o
" ,rl'\' .0... 00 on
\I~. U1 0
, E-< on'll:
, 'Ol::l.' t~,."
'1:: "i-<l;
;.g~ ~ ':
~ .. I .......... -10-4 CD
, ,',,'.~~g
" Q)".<:l
, f-I .... c::>.
cili. i "0'0 I
" '~~'
''I :
"
, 'P1aQ~~
., .'..... .
-r ," '.
~- ~~1;$-~aJ.,'~
-, ~,_., :,..
:. ~_:.~~..
P ,
'6
~ ? (; ~~,,'" "~15
- ~..'-~.I .1
j..."
/1
EXHIBIT NO, L-
t'. iC.eV
r~~ ~:;:"C r.~ ~\!l':';)
TOWN OF TIBURON
,LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
TYPE OF APPLICATION
o Conditional Use Permit
o P'ecise Development Plan
o Conceptual Master Plan
o Rezoning/Prezoning
o Zoning Tex.t Amendment
o General Plan Amendment
~ Design Review iORBl 0
o Design Review (Staff lavell 0
e~ari,mce 0
o
o
o
o Sign Permit
o Tfee Pelm\t
o
Underground Waiver
\.1:.;:'1' j1, g ::i]iH
,'I,i\',!I'::il;:ii'.'IV::Ji;":r'l
\'.':I'.I,n' 1':,',\1::,:1111
Tentative Subdivision Map
Final Subdivision Map'
Parcel Map
Lot Line Adjustment
Certificate of Compliance
Other
APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION
SITE AI)l)RESS:
PARCEL NUMIIER:
{CJ<::,' Ce, ~ 1)...(;<:.- T;i',\Jlc.~)
Sf> ,-21-2-,,-,-[,--\ '
APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner)
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY/STATE/ZIP:
PIIONE NUMBER:
PROPERTY SIZE: :51 2. 1\0 d
ZONING:
FAX
ARClIITECTIDESIGNER/ENGlNEER: jG.~" Le, ""},, / (_,cloL'i MAL",'t,
MAILING ADDRESS: '7'7<;" ~l ~".lL..~ (l''''~';h'j \ '
CITY/STATE/ZIP: ~{J l!.\eu~...rP'jA 'SCf'Sc:~("'f
PHONE NUMBER: h7n 7~'t,- '821", FAX
I"lellS(1 ilUlicate witlt all asterisk (*) persons to whom corres/lolldellce should be 'selll.
. IlIUEI' ImSCRlPTlON OF I'ROPOSED I'ROJECT (altaeh separate sheet if IIceded):
~^, c;.Jtcl( Q. ~-k-
I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application fur
;'\PI)rQval of the plans submitted and made a part o~ this application in accordance witll the provisions of the Town
Ordinances, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best. of my knowledge and
belief,
I understand that the requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town
grams the clpproval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a th\rd party, I w\\\ he
rcspOJlsilJle tor defending agaillst this challenge. I therefore agree to accept this responsihility for defense allllc
request of the TOWII and also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs, claims or
liabilities arising frolll the approval, including, without limitation, any award of atlorneys fees that might result
from the third party challenge.
Signature:
c
~(Jb .<:-"
letter from owner)
Q,
(I f other than
Date:~
DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM REcErvET>
\' D Z004
Please fill in the information requested below (attach separate sheet as needed):
1. Briefly describe the pro osedproject: e . Vc
-(-r,.;. 'p, 10,' tt"
S
z
u
2, Lot area in square feet (Section 1,05,12.): 31, 2'RO $
3, Proposed use of site (exam Ie: si
Existing ,
Proposed
Zoning: r2.iJ .- 2-
4, Describe any changes to parking areas including number of parking spaces, turnaround or maneuvering areas,
1\,)C'i do: VI 5 f'-,
Yards
(Setbacks from property
line)(Section 1,05.25)'
Front S ft.
Rear '7 ft.
Right Side G ft.
Left Side 5 ' ft.
Maximum Height I "
(Section 5.06.07)* 3~'4 ft.
Lot Coverage 4345
(Section 5,06,08)* sq.ft.
Lot Coverage as 13. '51
Percent of Lot Area ,%
Gross Floor Area 54 fc,{
(Section 1,05.06)* sq.ft.
-)
ft. ft. ft: ft.
ft. ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft. ft.
"
ft. 34--4 ft. ft. ft.
sq,ft 1WV LfLi7~q.ft. sq.ft.
' sq.ft.
% 1$.&1 % L4', .3 % (frO %'
ST2b
sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft.
CJ
,.;'.
g
yJ
2k,S
.Section numbers in parentheses refer to specific provisions or definitions in the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance,
DESIGN Rt\~EW SUPPLEMENTAL ApPLICATION FORM
4/99
EXHIBIT NO. '2
Y '2- oe~
TGWN or TmUIlOC:
May 23, 2004
RECEIVED
Design Review Staff
Mr. Dan Watrous
Manager
Town of Tiburon,
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
2, t:: 2'JD:1
PLAN~,J1NG DIVISION
TOVI.'N OF TIGUF:Of\:
Reference: 100 Lyford Drive, Tiburon
Dear Mr. Watrous
In reference to the above property, and my brief meeting with you at the Town of
Tiburon on May lOth, I would liketo once again express my apology for not approaching
the design review board for approval for the area under consideration prior to showing it
to the building department.
After the approval of the design review and upon submission of plans to the city and its
subsequent approval, the deck that was going to be converted to a family room, was
partially demolished for construction. When the structural engineer, Dr. Lincoln Malik
inspected the site, he indicated that the deck could not be appropriate for such
construction. He therefore, instructed appropriate walls to be built from the foundation to
the roof, added another foundation connecting the North south foundation and added
sheer wall to all these areas. Please note the structural drawing before the construction,
and after the instructed changes. The additional shear wall subsequently resulted in
enclosure of the area which originally was shown Y:. as storage and the other Y:. as an open
area enclosed with lattice covering. This area is 265 square feet and was not in the
original allowable floor coverage.
Upon completion of the area and subsequent application of sheer wall, the open area was
enclosed as well. It was only at that time that we decided to utilize about 130 Square feet
of this area for a bathroom, and use the other half for storage as was in the plan.
Furthermore, if we wanted to enclose all the four sides of this area, the southern wall
would have been a very tall wall (over 20 feet), which would have added to the mass of
the house without a break. Unfortunately, not realize that the use of this area which is
under the family room, and does not affect the footp1jnt, nor the elevation of the building,
and could not be accessed from another area, constituted as an encroachmcnt on the
Design Review's area allowance, we planned for a bath room in the said area, and I
personally showed that area to Mr, Dean Bloomquist of the city of Tiburon, Upon his
inspection he asked us for an as built set of plans with elevation, and submitted them to
the design review for comment. I have to say that in the last two years of this remodeling
there have been many changes inside the periphery of the building as we had to rebuild
area after area for rot and other structural inadequacies of 1963 building. The foot print of
the building, as was approved by Design Review Board, has not been changed an inch.
EXHIBIT NO.
~,
L
~ of L1
We would also like to ask if it is possible to add glass enclosure around a stucco deck on
the West side ofthc building. This deck is an egress for the master bedroom, bedroom
number 2, and office/library, This area is not intended as a living area and the request for
glass enclosure is for wind protection.
Sincc this rcmodeling so far has taken two years and we havc not even sheet rocked the
house yet, I would kindly like to request a visit to the site by yourself, or a staff member,
to observe the situation, and advise us as what we have to do at this conjecture with these
two areas. Once again 1 apologize for not going to the design review first, and 1 hope that
after reviewing the plans and a visit to the site you would consider the addition of the
bathroom.
1 am attaching a set of plan for the area of question for your reference.
Thank you in advance for your kind consideration and resolution to this matter.
Sincerely
~dS(~~~
Owner
EXHIBIT NO.
'Z.
V, Lj Dr- 'i
Town of Tiburon
..
.
,
." ~9LIt(lu -.,.-
~(:..'::J _
I~~~:
('\',~~~I
'V,~~~'....
<,,,;.~~.Io.'O
.; c.9fv~tft'..... "'.
,
.
STAFF REPORT,
AGENDA ITEM 04
TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
FROM: PLANNING MANAGER WATROUS
SUBJECT: 100 LYFORD DRIVE; FILE # 704087
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR THE MODIFICATION
OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS TO LEGALIZE CONSTRUCTION
OF AN AS-BUILT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING, WITH A FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION
MEETING DATE: JULY 1, 2004
. . . . . . . . ., ..........................
PROJECT DATA:
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL:
FILE NUMBER:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
DATE COMPLETE:
100 LYFORD DRIVE
58-222-14
704087 '
FRED AND RHONDA SOOFER
JOHN LUNDY & LINCOLN MALIK (ARCHITECTS)
31,280 SQUARE FEET
RO-2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-OPEN)
M (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
C '
JUNE 11, 2004
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in
Section 15301,
PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the modification of previously approved
plans to legalize construction of an as-built addition to an existing single-family dwelling on
property located at 100 Lyford Drive. The property is developed with a two-story residence, A
new bedroom, bathroom and storage area have been constructed on the lower level of the
house,
The current application would not change the approved lot coverage for the site, The requested
265 square foot addition would bring the total floor area of this property to 5,726 square feet,
which is 598 square feet greater than the floor area ratio for a lot of this size, A floor area
exception is therefore requested,
EXHIBIT NO.
'2
~
.-
.
I
." ~ 9t-V/Ju ,,-
i~G: -
~~,-!l./~
"'6'~;<-"'"
.t.~"'.
,
.
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A color and materials board has not been submitted, as the proposed addition would match the
colors and materials of the existing house.
BACKGROUND
Five previous applications (Files # 299006,299034,200030,20115 & 20231) have previously
been approved by the Design Review Board to construct several additions to the existing house
on the site, As the original house was constructed to a height of more than 30 feet, each of the
,applications included a request for excess building height, as the proposed additions followed
the alignment of the original structure, The last four applications also included floor area
exceptions, which have gradually increased the floor area of the house to the presently
approved total floor area of 5,461 square feet.
The first three applications involved additions to the southern (right) side of the house, In 2001,
an application (File #20115) was approved to construct a family room above a portion of an
existing deck at the northern end of the house, with an exercise room beneath, The application
approved in 2002 (File #20231) further extended this upstairs family room to cover the
remainder of the deck, but left the area beneath the deck unenclosed,
The construction project associated with these previously approved applications has been
underway since 1999,' In each instance since the first approved Design Review application, the
applicant has requested to make changes to the originally approved plans that modified the
most recently approved plans, In each instance, the Design Review Board determined the
proposed change to be relatively minor in scope, and therefore approved each of the previous
applications.
In early 2004, the applicant approached Planning Division Staff to ask about the feasibility of
enclosing an area beneath an existing deck into additional living space, At that time, the
applicant was advised that such an addition would require Design Review approval, and may
have difficulty being approved, due to the need for another floor area exception, and given the
history of repeated requests to modify this project.
As the construction project appeared to be nearing an end, the Building Official requested that
the applicant submit a set of plans indicating the as-built conditions on the site, due to the length
of time taken to complete the project and the number of changes made during construction,
The as-built plans submitted indicated that the area beneath the deck had been enclosed and
turned into habitable space, This is the area requested to be legalized under the Site Plan and
Architectural Review current application,
ANALYSIS
Design Issues
The existing structure is situated downslope from Lyford Drive, The previously approved
additions are situated generally to the south side and to the rear of the existing structure, The
proposed addition would be situated to the rear of the house, adjacent to a portion of the
EXHIBIT NO. '3
July 1, 2004
page 2 of'
STAFF REPORT
Town of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
recently approved addition. The location of the proposed addition would only be minimally
visible to any other properties along Lyford Drive, and would only marginally add to the overall
mass and scale of the house when viewed from below along Vistazo West Street.
The most recently approved lower floor plan included four bedrooms, four bathrooms, a
den/office and a laundry room. The proposed enclosure resulted in one additional bathroom,
additional closet space and a small storage room. One of the previously approved bathrooms
has been reconfigured to lead directly into the den/office; it also appears that a closet has been
added to this room, in essence allowing the creation of a ,fifth bedroom.
The applicant has indicated that the subjed area beneath the family room must be enclosed to
provide structural support for the room above, Staff believes that other structural options are
available that would not require the enclosure of this space, Fulther, the need for increased
structural support is a direct result of the 2002 request to convert the remainder of an existing
deck into a larger family room. However, If this area is left open, there is a reasonable potential
that this space will be enclosed at a later date.
This house is a classic example of a phenomenon often referred to by the Design Review Board
as 'size creep," Three separate applications gradually increased the size of the southern end of
the residence, and then the extent of the northem portion of the house gradually increased in
size. The size of the house has steadily increased, from its original'size of 4,840 square feet to
its current condition with 5,726 square feet. Each of the last four Design Review applications, '
including the current one, have requested relatively minor floor area exceptions, but the
currently requested total floor area would now reach 598 square feet more than the floor area
ratio for a lot of this size. The Design Review Board should determine whether the requested
floor area exception is justified, or simply represents one addition too many for this house.
Zoning
Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in conformance with the development
standards for the RO-2 zone with the exception of the previously noted request for a floor area
exception.
Section 4,02.08 of the Tiburon Zoning Code states that the Design Review Board may grant
exceptions to the required floor area ratio requirements if it makes the following two findings:
1, The applicant has demonstrated that the visual size and scale of the proposed
structure is compatible with the predominant pattern established by existing
structures in the surrounding neighborhood; and
2. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed structure is compatible with
the physical layout of the site, The characteristics include, but are not limited to,
the scale of trees, rock outcroppings, stream courses, land forms, and the
dimensions of the lot.
EXHIBIT NO.
~
J~ly 1, 2004
page 3 Oft(
STAFF REPORT
.
I
." 't9W~~".
.. ~:.:., " .~~, -
I;:;:'~~
("\~2~.'
"..;\:.}- ,~~::
rO~~~"
." +"""1\"1"'''. '.
,
.
Town of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
As described above, the subject addition fills in an area that was once beneath a deck and is
now beneath another portion of the house, As a result, this addition would not significantly alter
the visual size and scale of the dwelling, particularly as viewed from other properties in the
vicinity, This addition would also not change the relationship of the structure to the physical
layout of the property.
From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the
findings for the requested floor area exception.
Public Comment
No comments have been received regarding the subject application,
RECOMMENDA nON
The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 4.02.07
(Guiding Principles) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) as speCified in Section 15301. If the Board agrees
with Staff's conclusions that the requested floor area is one addition too many for this house,
Staff should be directed to prepare a resolution denying the application. If the Board determines
that the subject addition is appropriate, Staff recommends that the attached conditions of
approval should be applied,
ATTACHMENTS
1, Conditions of approval
2. Application and supplemental materials
3, Submitted plans
EXHIBIT NO.
'5
July 1, 2004
page 4 of~
4.
100 LYFORD DRIVE
SOOFER, ADDITIONSN ARIANCE
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the modification ,of previously-
approved plans to legalize construction of an as-built addition to an existing single-family
dwelling on property located 'at 100 Lyford Drive, The property is developed with a two-
story residence, A new bedroom, bathroom and storage area have been constructed on "
the lower level of the house, The current application would not change the approved lot
coverage for the site, The requested 265-square-foot addition would bring the total'floor
area of this property to 5,726 square feet, which is 598 square feet greater than the floor
area ratio fora lot of this size, A floor area exception is therefore requested
There was no applicant present and no public comment
Boardmember Teiser stated that this application is inappropriate in that applicants
knowingly flaunted the Town's design review process even after being advised by Staff
that the design review approval was required, Irrespective of any variance requests, he
said that he would deny the application,
Boardmember Figour stated that he cannot tell if this was a deception or
misunderstanding on the part of the applicant. He concurred with Boardmember Teiser,
stating that the applicant showed little interesi in the process, He stated that the addition
was an unattractive extension to the house, and that he could not support the application,
Chair Beales stated that the project has been going on for five years and that this was the
sixth design review request for the project and yet another increase in area, He felt that
the applicant was flaunting the process He said that the applicant was not naive and had
been before the Board previously, He stated that there was no justification for the
request, as there were other design alternatives to the structural problems described by the
applicant
M/S, Teiser/F'igour (passed 3-0-2) to direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the
application.
, TIBtJRON D.R.B.
711104
EXHIBIT NO.
L/
6
MINUTES #13
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MEETING OF AUGUST 5, 2004
The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Beales,
A. ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Beales, Boardmembers Bird, Figour, O'Donnell and Teiser
Ex-Officio:
Planning, Manager Watrous, Assistant Planner Krasnove and
Minutes Clerk Flanagan
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one spoke during this time,
C. STAFF BRIEFING
Planning Manager Watrous introduced new Assistant Planner Kris Krasnove. He noted
that the item for 48 Red Hill Circle was continued to August 19,2004,
Boardmember Teiser asked about correspondence that the Board had received regarding
7 Audrey Court, Planning Manager Watrous reported that a Staff-level Desih'll Review
application on this project was noticed for all lots within 100 feet, approved by Staff, and
is under construction, Since it has been under, construction, 'a neighbor has objected to
the raised the roofline; however, that neighbor had not raised conccrns during the review
ofthe application, He noted that the letter had been sent by another neighbor who is
more than 100 feet away; he had viewed the house at 7 Audrey Court from this nearby
property and had determined that the view impacts are consistent with the Hillside
Design Guidelines, He said that no action is needed by the Board regarding this letter.
D, CONSENT CALENDAR
1.
100 LYFORD DRIVE
SOOFER, RESOLUTION OF DENIAL
On July 1,2004, the Desil,'ll Review Board considered a request to modify previously-
approved plans to legalize construction of an as-built addition to an existing single-family
dwelling on property located at 100 Lyford Drive, with a floor area exception, After
considering the application, the Board directed Staff to prepare a resolution denying the
application,
Fred Soofer, applicant, apologized for his absencc at the July 1 hearing, and discussed his
project. Hc stated, also, that the project was not a creeping expansion, but rather the
rcsult of other aspects of the construction on thc house,
TIBURON D.lUI,
08105/04
EXHIBIT NO. 5
1: jCle3
1
Boardmember T eiser stated the Staff report indicates thatthe applicant had discussed the
subject addition with staff prior to proceeding with construction. Mr. Soofer responded
that he had spoken to Associate Planner Lynch about a different possible addition to the
house, Planning Manager Watrous stated that Associate Planner Lynch had indicated that
he had discussed the subject addition with Mr, Soofer, and had advised him that Design
Review approval was needed for the addition.
Mr. Soofer stated he told Staff that he would remove the improvements within the
addition, but was told that the area would still be classified as floor area. H c said that the
neighbors do not oppose the project.
Chair Beales asked if the area of concern is under a previously approved addition.. Mr.
Soofer responded that the area above ,the room had previously been approved as pari of
the overall project.
Boardmember Figour asked if the infill deckat the other end ofthe house was permitted
to be enclosed, Mr. Soofer responded that this is still an open deck, 'He said that he
wanted to install windows to make that deck into a solarium. He said that the top of the
deck is enclosed and the area is not heated,
Chair Beales noted that when permission was l,'I"anted to expand the house onto the deck
above the subject addition, there were no plans for anything to be built in the lower space.
He stated that if the applicant had asked to fill in the space beneath at the time the
extended room was reviewed, the Design Review Board could have better evaluated it at
the time, Mr. Soofer replied that ifhe had known that the house would evolve in this '
fashion, he would have presented all of the additions at one time.,
Boardmcmber Figour asked about the structural reasons for thc subject addition, Lincoln
Malik, structural engineer for the project, stated the reality of the project is there arc
many windows on one side and not many areas that can have shear walls. He described
the difficulty in desil,'Iling appropriate diaphragm and shear walls for this house, He said
that it would be difficult to make the house comply with building codes if the shear walls
and diaphragm were not installed,
,Boardmember Figour stated he was involved in at least two prcvious hearings for this
property and stated that he was more confused about the building after tonight's
discussion. He said that he would be willing to take a look at thc house again, He
thought the application pertained to a different area of the house, but that he understood
now which area was being discussed.
Chair Beales stated that the need for it structural solution did not necessarily require that
the enclosed space be improved.
Boardmember Teiser stated that a lot of changes had been made by the choice of the
applicant, including chanl,>1ng the roof from shingles to a tile roof that caused a need for a
structural change to carry the extra load, He felt that this property has been a (''feeping
TlBURON n.R.B.
OS/OS/I14
EXHIBIT NO.
r
5
2bf3
2'
'design in that every time the owner wanted a different feature or look, he kept returning
to the Design Review Board. He felt that enough is enough.
Boardmember Bird stated that she would abstain as she was absent from the previous
meeting regarding this application, and she had been unable to visit the site,
Boardmember O'Donnell stated that he had visited the site, and found this to be a typical
scenario, He said that while the Board wants people to make improvements to their
homes, this is a community process, and the Town guidelines are for everyone. He said
that the project has gone on too long, which was not fair for people in the neighborhood,
Boardmember Figour asked if the Board should give any guidelines as to how this should
be abated. Planning Manager Watrous stated that the space could not be enclosed and
would have to be opened up to not count as floor area,
MIS, Teiser/O'Donnell (passed 4-0-1, Bird abstained) to adopt the resolution
denying the subject application.
TIBUROJ\' D.R.B.
08105/04
EXHIBIT NO. S-
~ ':,~~'
3
,
WWNCLERK
ZQlAlNDFII6lIIiON
Rhonda and Fred Soofer
100 Lyford Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415)435-5580
31:.---4
rn~~
!!l:;....eZ
-
ZrT1n
~3I:g
~~~
rn..--r-
o =M=
+\"G
c -
-.c,
;)
~~~~rJ~~
OCT 0 42004
September 30, 2004
City Council
Town of Tiburon
1550 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
..
Re: Appeal from Denial of 100 Lyford Drive
October 6, 2004 Town Council Meeting
Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council:
I write to provide you with information concerning the
appeal on 100 Lyford Drive scheduled for October 6, 2004 that
involves the denial of a variance for a minor addition to our
house.
Although our formal appeal contained a number of
different arguments, the basis for our request is simple.
Approval of the addition will not significantly affect the
overall ~appearance- of the house nor its size and bulk.
Enclosed are photos of the house showing what it would
look like if this application is approved and what it would
look like if it is not approved. As you can see, there will
be no visual change in the appearance of the house if the
variance is granted or denied. Approval for use of this
space for ~storage- areas already have been ~pproved and all
we are seeking is retroactive approval for use of one-half of
the space for ~non-storage purposes.-
I believe our request for the variance is reasonable and
modest. It is supported by all neighboring properties. It
is not out of line with approvals granted for other Lyford
Drive variances, including approval granted for 2,760 square
.'
,
"
City Council - Town of Tiburon
September 30, 2004
Page - 2 -
feet of additional construction at 138 Lyford Drive granted
on the same night our m~tter was heard.
As can be seen by the Staff Report prepared for the'
meeting of the Design Review Board, our contention that the
application will not significantly alter the overall
appearance of the project nor its size and bulk was shared by
the staff as indicated in their Staff Report for the Design
Review Board for the matter in which they came to the
conclusion that "From the evidence provided, staff believes
there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for
requested floor area.",
Very truly yours,
o
Fred Soofer
" ")
,,,),,A- /
C\ -)' 0".... \
(J(t,vt, ,J Encl~sures:
S\)~)'.Jff
Photographs
Staff Report dated June 17, 2004
Letter from" nearby property owners
soofer /1 trJtown. 01
-.
May 23, 2004
RECEIVED
Design Review Staff
Mr. Dan Watrous
Manager
Town ofTiburon,
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
." '.' 2 [: 2;~,~:4
PLANNING DIVISION
TOW" OF TIBIJRON
Reference: 100 Lyford Drive, Tiburon
Dear Mr. Watrous
In reference to the above property, and my brief meeting with you at the Town of
Tiburon on May lOth, liiWo:iildiilike-,tQfonce'agiiiJJlcxpress'iiif"ijioloGY;ifOi',not::appioiiCliing}
$e\desi.gnffiMew!ooard~r,~;f6i"tlieTiifCiLiliidero11OiiSi1leilltion'"',.,~~gwitig,it,
;"'+~\Iie'":J:'''''I..-:I'',''''~''':'';I"",'''r'''''',,~-'''''_. +..., ' ~~;t""1'!;iJJ-~'fr1,._~ar..j":+:~~
'<:.:1lt;J: ium umg^UepartftiellL.:.',zJ:" ' .. ,,~ """,",,,q;!'
After the approval of the design review and upon submission of plans to the city and its
subsequent approval, the deck that was going to be converted to a family room, was '
partially demolished for construction. When the structural engineer, Dr. Lincoln Malik
inspected the site, he indicated that the deck could not be appropriate for such
construction. He therefore, instructed appropriate walls to be built from the foundation to
the roof, added another foundation connecting the North south foundation and added
sheer wall to all these areas. Please note the structUraI drawing before the construction,
and after the instructed changes. The additional shear wall subsequently resulted in
enclosure of the area which originally was shown Y, as storage and the other Y, as an open
area enclosed with lattice covering. This area is 265 square feet and was not in the
original allowable floor coverage.
Upon completion of the area and subsequent application of sheer wall, the open area was
enclosed as well. It was only at that time that we decidedto utilize about 130 Square feet
of this area for a bathroom, and use the other halffor storage as was in the plan.
Furthermore, if we wanted to enclose all the four sides of this area., the southern wall
would have been a very tall wall (over 20 feet), which would have added to the mass of
the house without a break. Unfortunately, not realize that the use of this area which is
under the family room, and does not affect the footprint, nor the elevation of the building,
and could not be accessed from another area., constituted as an encroachment on the
Design Review's area allowance, we:plannedtforiii'.1:liitll;mom.;m':the'sliia'8reii;'iifiii"I"""
~f'<""o-;;-afty:-~nu wca'tlmt'i!l'i'ea':ttiHlifr:;'Delili:i,'Bi06mquistoof"the'city"of..Toibtifuri: .Upon"his
inspection!he:asked'US',fuj-,art'IfS'built'set1ofplans ,with, elevatiori;::and'sub rriitted ,them .to
:,the.design'review.foricomment. I have to say that in the iast two years of this remodeling
there have been many changes inside the periphery of the building as we had to rebuild
area after area for rot and other structural inadequacies of 1963 building. The foot print of
the building, as was approved by Design Review Board, has not been changed an inch.
'/2004 14: 57 FAX 510 487 ISH
PLASTlKON '
'../
.' '.. 1
rllbif-I'J" . ,'" ,.'
" '
';'=::'"":::~
' ", ,RlIvtBwdatBd: :.., ' :
t': D~<: '.
~,
.~
""'_OC
"
~h',,,:,,,~,,,,__,,
"
f
,.
."4.,,~:-~:;;..,.,,1""
~..
+~
-.
,
:.:.,..
.
,&,
'.
,\
,
--'-
,
:...._1_
.'., "
J
~ "",~t
,':s j.
:>< 'it.
, 1'" ,- ,I 1,-' "."'_
, " ,_ _ _' _ .! L '- _ _ _ _ .~.
, ", /;,~ ': L_7--t r.---'-"--..::. _I.
~ . -.,il ' II' / 'I
'I~ 1 ~. I
'", , 11 /' ' , :
41 1 ~:I
II ',' I
I :" '. 1"\ ' " ' ,
I II 1
I , I I " " :1',
I;' 1'1, :"
,',r "II' I
f,",
".
wu_
"
)tJ '
l-.I
~...,..,
,~.:..
~,~
",
-
I
-~\,.
Iii] 002
(
, ,-'5 i
,Z~~t
,'=~~ .'~
'0 g
~ r-
.,t.f'
G:i"~
,'n .
"
~~
Q'I
"<t",
0'1,.,
",0
0._\0
" e.,;
0'"
",~"t
'~ 'iiil~....
~ t..1...."
o g~S
o !:ld";'
"'Cf.)~:::g
. E-< "''II:
'= GO"; ~
o...f5'9' ,
.; '~'" ;; ~ ':
, ........, ... ..
~,..-. c c:I
,j l1) ~i!
I ;...c-........,~I
-IL) C
~:=: '
"
?t.
, ,
"
"
.
..'~.,
, "'".,..."..,
.... -~
... '..
. ...,..
~-' -i~t1.':>~
.
-"-
,-;;:"
-- -..'
" '
."ti:?
'~'c=J .
- ?t. ~t;~ fIfT'S,' ,
~i
.
.
.
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM-1l
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:
PROJECT DATA
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF TOWN COUNCIL
DANIEL M. WATROUS, PLANNING MANAGER/ENVIRONMENTAL
COORDINATOR
FILE #39902: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) FOR A
PROPOSED FIVE LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PARENTE
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN); pARENTE ROAD/ANTONETTE DRIVE;
AMERIPpON, INC., OWNERS; ASSESSOR'S PARCEL N~111-16
OCTOBER 6,2004 REVIEWED BY:~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Address:
Assessor's Parcel Number:
File Number:
Lot Size:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Current Use:
Owners:
Applicant:
Date Complete:
End of Parente Road and End of Antonette Drive
38-111-16
39902
10,3 Acres
Low Low Density Residential (0.5 dwellings/acre)
RPD
Vacant/Undeveloped
Amerippon, Inc
Tom Newton/Planning Advisory Corporation
July 1, 2000
BACKGROUND
An application has been made for approval of a precise development plan (the Parente Precise
Development Plan, File #39902) to subdivide a 10,3 acre parcel into five lots, The precise
development plan would provide for the development of a single-family dwelling on each of the
five lots.
An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for this project. The Draft EIR has been
circulated, and comments on the DEIR were received at the October 24, 2001 Planning
Commission meeting, On November 28, 2001, the Planning Commission accepted the DEIR as
being prepared in conformance with CEQA and the Town's local CEQA Guidelines, and
directed the consultant to prepare the Final EIR and respond to comments,
The FEIR has been prepared, and has previously been distributed to the Town Council. On
July 14, 2004 the Planning Commission considered recommending certification of the FEIR to
the Town Council., After receiving public comment, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 2004-07 (4-0) to recommend that the Town Council certify the FEIR.
\l.
.
.
.
Town of Tiburon
. STAFF REPORT
.
,
." ~ 9L_!:!~v ~.
~/ -..to
"(.. \~
._ 'I*, ~i. ~
I~,~~/
\,\~ ~ ~/~
"',\~-,-~/o.'O
~6"'-"~-/"
..' 1i',vi"A"i"iic., ....
,
.
,.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FEIR CONCLUSIONS
The FEIR identifies two significant unavoidable impacts of the project which could not be
eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation measures identified in
the EI R:
. The project would be inconsistent with Tiburon General Plan policies by eliminating
potential prime open space on Ridgeline 0 and substantially altering views of potential
open space; and
. The project would be inconsistent with Tiburon General Plan policies to minimize grading
on the property,
In addition, the EIR identifies the potential for significant environmental impacts in the following
categories that can be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation
measures:
.
Geology and Soils
Hydrology
Biological Resources
Traffic
Aesthetics
Noise
Air Quality
PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING
The Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines, revised November 6, 2002, require the
Town Council to consider and certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report has been
prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and that this document reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Town,
This decision is necessary prior to consideration of the merits of the project,
The FEIR, which is composed of the Draft EIR and the Response to Comments document,
discloses the environmental consequences of approving and implementing the five-lot
residential development proposed by the applicant. The FEIR also identifies mitigation
measures and alternatives to the project that would substantially lessen the environmental
effects of the project, but would not reduce them to less than significant levels. When compared
to the DEIR, the FEIR does not reveal any new significant impacts, any substantial increase in
severity of impacts, or other information that might warrant recirculation of the DEIR. Based on
the conclusions in the EIR, the town could not approve the 5-lot project without making ''findings
of overriding considerations" due to remaining significant adverse impacts after mitigation. It is
the Staff's recommendation that the Town Council certify the FEIR.
.
It should be noted that certification of the FEIR does not approve the project proposed by the
applicant or any alternative discussed in the FEIR. Once the FEIR has been certified, public
october 6, 200l
page 2 of 4
"
.
.
.
Town of Tiburon
. STAFF REPORT
.
.
." ~_9Ll~[tJ.I .,.
._ i;.T~ ;;~
~\0.-~.~"~
('~:::=;:"_~~/o,'Q
c-~~/'
./ :.{>......./A-lti-(.. '.
,
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
hearings will be held to discuss the merits of the application prior to a decision on the Parente
Precise Development Plan itself. As noted above, the applicant has indicated an intention to
redesign the project to reflect a lower density development altemative that would respond to
environmental effects identified in the EIR. This is common practice employed when project
changes are too substantial to be performed through added conditions of approval.
Once the applicant submits a revised project design, Staff will review the submitted plans to
determine the appropriate method of performing additional environmental review, most likely an
addendum>or a supplement to the certified EIR.
PROCESS
The remainder of the process for the review of the Parente Precise Development Plan
application is described as follows:
. The Town Council certifies the EIR;
. The applicant submits a revised project design responsive to impacts identified in
the certified EIR;
.
.
An addendum or supplement to the certified EIR is prepared and released;
. The Planning Commission commences review of the project merits while
considering the conclusions of the certified EIR and any addendum or
supplement to that EIR, and makes a recommendation to the Town Council
regarding the project; ,
. The Town Council commences review of the project merits and takes final action
on the application.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending
that the Town Council certify the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Parente Precise
Development Plan.
EXHIBITS
.
1.
2,
3,
4,
5.
6.
7,
Draft Resolution
Planning Commission Staff report dated October 11, 2000
Planning Commission Staff report dated October 24, 2001
Planning Commission Staff report dated November 28, 2001
Planning Commission Staff report dated July 24, 2002
Planning Commission Staff report dated August 28, 2002
Planning Commission Staff report dated July 14, 2004
October 6, 200~
page 3 of 4
.
.
.
Town of Tiburon
. STAFF REPORT
.
.
Of 1/8& .
.- (./~;j -
("'-t;;.~~/
?;tz;-~~~~
e' f{^tIA Tt~(.. ".
~\
,
.
,
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8. Minutes of the October 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
9. Minutes of the October 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting
10. Minutes of the November 28, 2001 Planning Commission meeting
11, Minutes of the July 24, 2002 Planning Commission meeting
12, Minutes of the August 28, 2002 Planning Commission meeting
13. Minutes of the July 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting
14, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2004-07
15, DEIR and FEIR (previously distributed)
.
.
October 6. 200L
page 4 of 4
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR)
FOR THE PARENTE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PD #4)
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO, 38-111-16
WHEREAS, the Town council of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows:
Section 1. FindinQs,
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmentallmpact Report (DEIR) evaluating the proposed
Parente Precise Development Plan has been prepared and was transmitted by the Town of
Tiburon to all concerned parties for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the DEIR was given as required by law; and
WHEREAS, written comments on the DEIR were accepted from the public from October
9, 2001 to November 8, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and accepted testimony on
the DEIR on October 24, 2001; and
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2001, the Planning Commission directed that responses to
comments and a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) be prepared; and
WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been addressed in the FEIR for the
Parente Precise Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and
received testimony on the Parente FEIR, and adopted Resolution No, 2004-07 recommending to
the Town Council that the FEIR be certified; and
WHEREAS, the FEIR was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act and the Town's local CEQA Guidelines; and
WHERAS, the Town council held a publicly noticed public hearing on the FEIR on
October 6, 2004, and heard and considered the FEIR and received public testimony; and
WHEREAS, the FEIR identified certain potentially significant adverse effects on the
environment caused by the project; and
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO,_
OCTOBER 6, 2004
1
EXHIBIT NO. ~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Parente Final Environmental Impact .
Report:
1, Consists of:
a, Parente Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated July 2001; and
b, Parente Final Environmental Impact Report, dated June 2002.
2, Is hereby certified by the Town Council to have been completed in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and local CEQA guidelines,
3, Has been presented to the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, which has
reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR.
4, Reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Town Council.
5, Is hereby adopted as the Environmental Impact Report for the Parente project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on October 6, 2004, by the following vote:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
.
AYES:
ABSENT:
ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
H :dwatrouslresolutionslPC39902, FE IR ,resolution ,doc
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO,
OCTOBER 6, 2004
2
.
EXHIBIT NO.
.
.
.
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
To:
From:
Subject:
PLANNING,COMMISSION
DANIELM. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER
PARENTE DRIVE: SCOPING SESSION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT
REPORT (EIR) TO BE PREPARED FOR A PROPOSED FIVE LOT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (AMERIPPON, INC.)
Report
Date:
Meeting
Date:
OCTOBER 6, 2000
OCTOBER I 1,2000
PROJECT DATA
Address:
AP Number:
File Number:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Property Size:
Current Use:
Owner:
Applicant:
Date Complete:
End of Parente Road and End of Antonette Drive
038-111-16
39902
Low Density Residential (0.5 dwellings/acre)
RPD (Residential Planned Development)
10.3 acres
Vacant
Arnerippon, Inc.
Phillip MosslNeil Sorensen
July 1,2000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves the securing of all zoning, building, and subdivision entitlements
for the subdivision ofa currently undeveloped 10.3 acre site into five single-family residential lots,
and the construction of homes and ancillary residential improvements thereon. Lot I would have
an area of2.01 acres; Lot 2 would have an area of2.01 acres; Lot 3 would have an area of2.00
acres; Lot 4 would have an area of2.05 acres; and Lot 5 would have an area of2.10 acres.
TlUlJRON PLANNING COMTSSION
OCTOBER II. 2000
STAFF REPORT
EXHIBIT NO. 2-
The site consists of a irregularly-shaped parcel located toward the northern end of the Tiburon .
Peninsula. The property slopes down from Ring Mountain above the site down toward Panulise
Drive, with a north to south slope of20% to 30%. Access would he provided to the site from a
private driveway serving all five proposed lots leading to an extension of Parente Road and
Antonette Drive, both of which connect to Paradise Drive. '
Vegetation on the site consists of native grasses, scattered brush and a grove,oftoyon, bay and
canyon live oak trees. No wetlands areas exist on the site. Landslide complexes exist in the
northwest corner of the site and in the drainage area crossing the southernmost portion of the
property. Four separate watersheds on the site drain to the north and southeast of the property.
Various residential developments surround the subject property, including portions of the Lands
of Kahn, Ring Mountain, and Taylor Road subdivisions, along with individual lots along Parente
Road, Antonette Drive and Paradise Drive. These areas consist of detached single-family homes.
, The Parente Precise Development Plan is the primary entitlement for this project under CEQA
and all other permits will be trailing permits as defined by CEQA. The Precise Development Plan
would establish the following building envelopes and other planning limitations for the future lots:
Lot I would he situated in the lowest, northeasterly portion of the site, with a
centrally located 5,938 square foot primary building envelope; a 20,097 square
foot secondary envelope would he established around the primary building
envelope.
.
Lot 2 would he situated immediately to the west of Lot ], and would have a 6,052
square foot primary building envelope in the southern portion of the lot; a 2] ,3 ] 0
square foot secondary envelope would be established around the primary building
envelope.
Lot 3 would he situated in the northwest corner of the site, with a 7,172 square
foot primary building envelope located in the southeast corner of the lot; a 30,663
square foot secondary envelope would he established around the primary building
envelope.
Lot 4 would be situated in the southwesterly corner of the site, with a 7,202
square foot primary building envelope at the northeast corner of the lot; a 26,909
square foot secondary envelope would be established around the primary building
envelope.
Lot 5 would be situated in the southeastern portion of the site, with a 5,259 square
foot primary building envelope on the northern portion of the lot; a 24,93 I square
foot secondary envelope would be established around the primary building
envelope.
'rIBURON PLANNING COMISSION
ST AFF REI~)RT
OCTOBER 11,2000
2
.
EXHIBIT NO.Z-
. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
.
.
The applicant has prepared a series of studies which analyze the existing environmental conditions
ofthc property, estimate some of the impacts ofthe proposed project, and propose mitigation
measures to address these potential impacts. These studies include analysis ofthe geology,
hydrology, biology, archeology, traffic and acoustics of the site and the proposed project. Copies
of these preliminary studies are available for review at the Planning Department. '
Using these studies and other information presented by the applicant, Staffhas determined that
the magnitude of the potential impacts caused by the proposed project would be best evaluated by
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR would likely focus on the
following issues:
, Geolo~ical: As noted above, landslide complexes exist in the northwest corner of
the site and in the drainage area crossing the southernmost portion of the property.
Improvements necessary to mitigate these landslide areas and other soil conditions
shall be evaluated.
Traffic and circulation: The connection of the proposed private driveway serving
the project to Antonette Drive and Parente Road, and the additional traffic caused
by the proposed project along these streets and Paradise Drive, needs to be
evaluated for potential safety and traffic level impacts.
Aesthetics: The appearance of the five future homes on the site shall be evaluated
from the existing neighborhoods surrounding the site.
Drainage: Drainage from the four separate watersheds on the site shall be
evaluated for downstream impacts between the subject property and San Francisco
Bay.
Most of the other potential impacts which may be caused by the proposed project would likely be
those typically associated with the construction of a 5-unit housing project.
The EIR will provide a thorough analysis ofthe existing conditions and review of the information
prepared by the applicant. Other potentially significant impacts would also be analyzed within the
EIR, but in less detail. Studies provided by the applicant will be peer reviewed by the EIR
consultant or his subconsultants.
ROLE OF THE SCOPING SESSION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Town of Tiburon Environmental
Review Guidelines describe the procedures for the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report. To insure that the EIR addresses all pertinent environmental issues related to the project,
TlBURON PLANNING COMISSION
STAFf REPOIU
OCTOBER 11,2000
3
EXHIBIT NO. "2.-
CEQA provides for scoping sessions to be held at the beginning of the review process. The .
scoping session helps to identiJy the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures and
significant effects to be analyzed in depth by the ElR. The scoping session is set at a public
meeting to solicit input from the Planning Commission and the public regarding how these issues
'are addressed in the EIR. '
To be included within the seope ofthe EIR, CEQA requires that substantial evidence be presented
which supports a fair argument that potentially significant impacts would be caused by the project.
Speculation about potential impacts which is founded upon hearsay, conjecture and/or other
unsubstantiated evidence cannot be used to require study of additional areas by the EIR.
Once the scoping session is completed, work will conunence on the EIR. The Town has selected
a consultant (Leonard Charles & Associates) to prepare the EIR, and continue with the CEQA
process for this project. Mr. Charles or his representative will be present at the scoping meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff reconunends that the Planning Commission conduct the scoping session, take public
testimony on this item and give direction regarding the issues to be addressed in the
Environmental Impact Report to be prepared for the proposed project.
EXHIBITS
.
I. Environmental Data Submission form
2. Vicinity map
3. Site plan
H:dwatrouslrcportsIPC39902.scoping,doc
TlllURON PLANNING COMISSJON
STAFF REPORT
OCTOBER II, 2000
4
.
EXHIBIT NO.
Z--
.
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
PLANNING COMMISSION
DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER
FILE #39902: REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT FOR
THE PARENTE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PD #4) TO CREATE FIVE
BUILDING SITES ON A 10.3 ACRE PARCEL; PARENTE ROAD/ANTONETTE
DRIVE; Amerippon., Inc., owners; Phillip Moss/Neil Sorensen., applicants; Assessor's
Parcel No. 38-111-16
To:
From:
Subject:
Report
Date:
Meeting
Date:
OCTOBER 19,2001
OCTOBER 24, 2001
. PROJECT DATA
Address:
Assessor's Parcel Number:
File Number:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Property Size:
Current Use:
Owner:
Applicant:
Date Complete:
.
BACKGROUND
End of Parente Road and End of Antonette Drive
038-1I 1-16
39902
Low Density Residential (0.5 dwellings/acre)
RPD (Residential Planned Development)
10.3 acres
Vacant
Amerippon., Inc.
Phillip MosslNeil Sorensen
July], 2000
An application has been filed by Amerippon., Inc. for a Precise Development Plan for development
ofa 10.3 acre parcel into five (5) single-fumily residential lots. The project is located toward the
northern end of the Tiburon Peninsula. The property slopes down from Ring Mountain toward
Paradise Drive, and would be accessed from Parente Road and Antonette Drive, both of which
connect to Paradise Drive.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
DEIR ST AI'F RlJPORT
OCTORER 24.2001 FILE #39902
I
'3
EXHIBIT NO.
A draft environmental impact report (DEIR) has been prepared for this project by the firm of .
Leonard Charles and Associates, and is currently being circulated for public review and comment.
The comment period is currently scheduled to conclude on November 8, 2001, at 5:00 p.m.
Written comments may also be submitted at the hearing (forms will be provided). At the
conclusion of the comment period, the consultants will respond to all oral comments made to the
Planning Commission as well as written comments submitted during the comment period.
ANALYSIS
Purpose of the Planninl! Commission Hearinl!
The primary purpose of this public hearing is to receive public testimony concerning the contents
ofthc Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project. The applicant will also have an
opportunity to address the Planning Commission at this hearing concerning issues related to the
DEIR. Speakers are encouraged to express their views on the adequacy ofthe DEIR. Comments
should focus on the sufficiency of the DEIR in discussing possible impacts on the environment,
ways in which adverse impacts might be minimized, and alternatives to the project. Following the
conclusion of the public testimony, the Planning Commission should provide comments on the
DEIR.
A separate public hearing will be held to address the issue of whether the DEIR has been prepared
in conformance with CEQA and adequately addresses environmental impacts. This hearing will .
be held following closure of the public review and comment period.
I n addition, a hearing or hearings will be scheduled for consideration of project merits by the
Planning Commission. This hearing will be held following the release of a Final ElR (FEIR)
which will contain the responses to comments on the DEIR.
Reference copies ofthe DEIR may be reviewed at the Town Planning Department or at the
Belvedere- Tiburon Public Library during business hours.
Proiect Description
The project is the proposed approval of a precise development plan (the Parente Precise
Development Plan, File #39902) to subdividc a 10.3 acre parccl into five lots. The precise plan
would provide for the development of a single-family dwelling on each of the five separate lots on
thc site. Lot I, on thc lower, northernmost portion of the site, would have an area of2.01 acres;
moving generally to the southwest and upslope, Lot 2 would have an area of2.01 acres; Lot 3
would have an area of2.00 acres; Lot 4 would have an area of2.05 acres; and Lot 5 would have
an area of2.10 acres.
The site consists of an irregularly-shaped parcel located toward the northern end of the Tiburon
Peninsula. The propcrty slopes down from Ring Mountain toward Paradise Drive, with "a north to
T1BURON PLANNING COMM1SSION
DEIR STAFF REPORT
OCTODER24,2001 FILE #39902
2
.
EXHIBIT NO. :3
.
.
.
south slope of20% to 30%. Access would be provided to the site from a private driveway
serving all five proposed lots leading to an extension ofParentc Road and Antonette Drive, both
of which connect to Paradise Drive.
Vegetation on the site consists of native grasses, scattered brush and a grove of toyon, bay and
canyon live oak trees. No wetlands areas exist on the site. Landslide complexes exist in the
northwest corner of the site and in the drainage area crossing the southernmost portion of the
property. Four separate watersheds on the site drain to the north and southeast of the property.
Various residential developments surround the subject property, including portions ofthc Lands
of Kahn, Ring Mountain, and Taylor Road subdivisions, along with individual lots along Parente
Road, Antonette Drive and Paradise Drive. These areas consist of detached single-family homes.
The Parente Precise Development Plan would establish building envelopes and other planning
limitations for the five proposed lots. 'The proposed limitations for these five lots are described as
follows:
Lot 1 would be situated in the lowest, northeasterly portion ofthe site, with a
centrally located 5,938 square foot primary building envelope; a 20,097 square
foot secondary envelope would be established around the primary building
envelope.
, Lot 2 would be situated immediately to the west of Lot I, and would have a 6,052
square foot primary building envelope in the southern portion of the lot; a 2 1,3 I 0
, square foot secondary envelope would be established around the primary building
envelope.
Lot 3 would be situated in the northwest corner of the site, with a 7,172 square
foot primary building envelope located in the southeast comer of the lot; a 30,663
square foot secondary envelope would be established around the primary building
envelope.
Lot 4 would be situated in the southwesterly corner of the site, with a 7,202
squm:e foot primary building envelope at the northeast corner of the lot; a 26,909
square foot secondary envelope would be established around the primary building
envll}flpe.
Lp~ S would be situated in the southeastern portion ofthe site, with a 5,259 square
fppt primary building envelope on the northern portion ofthe lot; a 24,93 I square
foot secondary envelope would be established around the primary building
envelope.
TlRtJRON PI,ANNJNG COMMISSION
DElR STAFF REPORT
OCTOBER 24, 200t FILE #39902 3
EXHIBIT NO. 3
Access would be provided to all proposed lots from a 20 fool'wide private street extending from .
thc cul-de-sac at the end of Antonette Drive. The private street would curve around the building
envelope for Lot I; curve to the west below the building envelope for Lot 2; curve south between
the building envelopes for Lots 2 & 3; then end in a cul-de-sac at the intersection of Lots 2,3,4
& 5" Previous review by the Tiburon Fire Protection District indicates that the width, slope and
turnaround area for this private street appear to be acceptable.
The proposed street may be offered for dedication to the Town ofTiburon as a public street. At
this time, the Town is not inclined to accept such an offer of dedication, particularly for a street
that is only accessiblc via two other private streets (Antonette Drive and Parente Road). It is
recommended that the project be reviewed with the understanding that the proposcd strect would
be private, with the issue offuture dedication to be resolved between the property owner and the
Town. Offers of dedication of public streets are irrevocable and may be accepted at any time
once the offer is made.
To illustrate the potential housing construction on each of the proposed lots, the applicant has
submitted conceptual plans for five houses which would meet the criteria for the proposed precise
development plan. Although these plans are conceptual in nature, and would require subsequent
approval by the Design Review Board, the plans are probably representative of the type of
construction which would be expected for each lot, given the building envelope constraints
proposed.
Summary of Kev DEIR Findine:s
.
Geologv
The geotechnical report prepared for this application indicated the presence of several landslide
deposits on the site. The DEIR recommends mitigation measures that would allow the
residences, street and other project improvements to be constructed without resulting in
significant impacts,
The DEIR concludes that the project as proposed would be inconsistent with Policy OSC- I I of
the Open Space and Conservation Element of the Tihuron General Plan, which encouragcs that
grading be minimized in order to maintain existing landforms. This Element identifies Significant
Ridgeline 0, which traverses the center of the subject property from southwest to northeast. The
location of the proposed street and residences along this ridgeline would involve construction
work that would be inconsistent with the direction of Policy OSC-l I to "minimize grading." The
DEIR concludes that the only feasible mitigation measure for this potentially significant impact
would be to approve a project alternative that reduces the number of residences and changes their
locations on the site.
TIBURON PLANNrNG COMMiSSION
DEIR STAFF REPORT
OCTOHER 24. 2001 FILE #39902
4
.
EXHIBIT NO.
3
. Hydrology,
Four watersheds have been identified by the hydrology report prepared for this project. Although
there is the potential for increa~ed water runoff and erosion as a result ofthis project, the DEIR
recommends mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.
Biology
No special status species of plants or animals, and no wetlands or sensitive natural communities
have been found on the project site. Potential loss of vegetation or wildlife habitat that would be
caused by the construction of the proposed project can be mitigated to less than significant levels
through the implementation of mitigation measures recommended by the DEIR.
Traffic
The traffic study prepared for this project estimates that a total of 50 trips per day would be
generated by the proposed project. This projected increa~e in traffic would not have a significant
impact on any nearby streets, and all intersections in the vicinity of the project site would continue
to operate at level of service (LOS) C or better. The DEIR recommends the implementation of a
construction traffic control plan to mitigate any potential construction traffic impacts.
.
The DEIR concludes that the intersection of Parente Road and Paradise Drive is a dangerous
intersection, with inadequate line of sight fur vehicles turning left out of Parente Road. The DEIR
recommends that either Antonette Drive be used as the sole access for the project; or that Parente
Road be used only for access to the project from Paradise Drive, with Antonette Drive used for
project egress. Recommendations are also made to widen Antonette Drive; the DEIR concludes
that this widening can be accomplished without changing the character of the surrounding
neighborhood, but recognizes that this is a subjective conclusion that may not be held by all
residents living in that neighborhood.
Aesthetics
Views from nearby residences and more distant neighborhoods, along with some views from the
Ring Mountain Open Space Preserve, could be affected by the construction ofthe proposed
project. A headlight study indicates that one nearby residence immediately north of the project
site (4885 Paradise Drive) could be impacted by headlights from vehicles travelling along the
private street for the project. The DEIR recommends mitigation measures that would reduce
each of these impacts to less than significant levels.
The DEIR concludes that the project as proposed would be inconsistent with Policy OSC-5 of the
Open Space and Conservation Element of the Tibur6n General Plan, which states that "to the
maximum extent feasible, all new development shall be located well below [significant]
ridgelines," As previously noted, Significant Ridgeline 0 extends through the center ofthe subject
.
TIBIJRON PLANNING COMMISSION
DElR STAFF REPORT
OCTOBER 24, 2001 FILE #39902
5
EXHIBIT NO.
3
property, and the proposed project would place homes and a street on and near this ridgeline. .
The DEIR again concludes that the only feasible mitigation measure for this potentially significant
impact would be to approve a project alternative that reduccs the number of residences and
changes their locations on the site.
Noise
Construction noisc associated with the' project could affect scveral nearby residences. The DElR
rccommends mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.
Air Oualitv
Fugitive dust from the construction of the proposed project could adversely affect the air quality
of nearby homes, but can be mitigated to less than significant levels through the implementation of
mitigation measures recommended by the DEIR. The number of traffic trips generated by the
project in the future would not be large enough to result in a measurable deterioration oflocal air
quality.
Public SerVices
Water supply, school capacity, police services and sanitary sewer capacities are adequate to serve
the proposed projcct. The Tiburon Fire Protection District can supply adequatc fire protcction .
services to the project, although a variety of mitigation measures are recommended by the DEIR
to improve the ability ofthc Dre district to successfully fight fires on the property.
Land Use
As previously noted, the DEIR concludes that the proposed project would be inconsistent with
several Tiburon Gencral Plan policies that encourage development that minimizes grading to
preserve existing landforms and protects Town-identified ridgelines.
Diagram OSC-3 of the Open Space and Conservation Element identifies the subject property as
"potential open space." The DEIR evaluates the potential for "prime open space" on the site, and
notes that several of the defining characteristics of such open space, including the presence of a
sccondary ridgelinc, greenbelt potential, and open space views, are prcsent on the subject
property, The DElR oncc again cOlicludes that the only feasiblc mitigation mcasure for this
potentially significant impact would be to approve a project alternative that reduces the number of
residences and changes their locations on the site.
Other Factors
The DEIR notes that the proposed projcct would require the expenditure of energy, and
recommcndsa number of energy-saving measures. The DEIR concludes that the project would
TIBURON PI,ANNING COMMISSION
IJEIR STAFF REPORT
OCTOIJER 24. 2001 FILE #39902 6
EXHIBIT NO. S
.
.
.
.
not directly induce substantial growth in the area, and that the project plus other development in
the area would not result in any new significant impacts beyond those identified with the project
itself.
Proiect Alternatives
The DEIR identifies five feasible project alternatives to the proposed project and the proposed
project with the recommended mitigation measures. These alternatives would involve the
development of the property with one, two, three or four residences, or the relocation of five
residences elsewhere on the site. In general, the DEIR concludes that the fewer homes on the
site, the less impact to open space and grading.
Significant Unavoidable Impacts
The DEIR identifies two (2) significant unavoidable ("SU") impacts of the project which could
not be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation measures identified
in the DEIR:
I. The project would be inconsistent with Tiburon General Plan policies by
eliminating potential prime open space on Ridgeline 0 and substantially altering
views of potential open space; and
2.
The project would be inconsistent with Tiburon General Plan policies to minimize
grading on the property.
Comment letters received as of the date of this report
As of the date of this report (October 19, 2001), comment letters regarding the DEIR have been
received from the Marin Municipal Water District and the Marin County Department of Public
Works.
Future Action Items for this Hearinl!:
The Commission will need to schedule a public hearing, following the close ofthe comment
period, at which it will determine whether or not the DEIR has been prepared in confonnance
with CEQA. At that hearing, the Commission may either:
I. Accept the DEIR as being prepared in confonnance with CEQA and the Town's
local CEQA Guidelines, and direct the consultant to respond to comments; or
2. Find that the DEIR was not prepared in confonnance with CEQA and continue the
matter pending receipt of additional information necessary to achieve such
confonnance.
TlBURON PLANNING COMM1SSION
DEIR STAFF REI'ORT
OCTOBER 24, 2001 FILE #39902 7
EXHIBIT NO. :3
:RECOMMENDA nON
1. At the conclusion of the Staff report, the Planning Cummission should receive
testimony from the applicant and the public on the DElR. Following the
conclusion of public testimony, Commissioners shuuld provide their verbal
comments on the DETR.
2. The Commissiun should then continue this matter to the regular meeting scheduled
for November 28, 2001, for a determination as to whether the DEIR was prepared
in conformance with CEQA.
EXHIBITS
1. Environmental Data Submission form
2. Letter from Marin Municipal Water District, dated October 9, 2001
3. Letter from Marin County Department of Public Works, dated October 9,2001
4. Project plans
TlRURON PLANNING COMMISSION
DEIR STAFF REPORT
OCTOBER 24. 2001 FILE #39902
8
EXHIBIT NO. 3
.
.
.
.
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
To:
From:
Subject:
Report
Date:
Meeting
Date:
ITEM NO.
PLANNING COMMISSION
DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER
FILE #39902: REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE PARENTE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PO #4) TO CREATE FIVE
BUILDING SITES ON A 10.3 ACRE PARCEL; PARENTE ROAD/ANTONETTE
DRIVE; Amerippon, Inc., owners; Phillip MossfNeil Sorensen, applicants; Assessor's
Parcel No. 38-1 I 1-16 (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 24,2001)
NOVEMBER 21, 2001
NOVEMBER 28, 2001
. BACKGROUND
An application has been filed by Amerippon, Inc. for a Precise Development Plan for development
ofa 10.3 acre parcel into five (5) single-fumily residential lots. The project is located toward the
northern end of the TiburonPeninsula. The property slopes doWn from Ring Mountain toward
Paradise Drive, and would be accessed from Parente Road and Antonette Drive, both of which
connect to Paradise Drive.
A draft environmental impact report (DEIR) has been prepared for this project by the firm of
Leonard Charles and Associates, has been circulated for public review and conunent. The
conunent period concluded on November 8, 2001. At the conclusion of the conunent period, the
consultants will respond to all oral conunents made to the Planning Commission as well as written
conunents submitted during the conunent period.
Public comments on the DEIR were received at a public hearing held at the October 24,2001
Planning Commission meeting. After receiving testimony, the public hearing was closed, and this
item was continued to the November 28, 2001 Commission meeting,
.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
DEIR STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 28. 200 I FILE #39902
I
EXHIBIT NO. 4
ANALYSIS
Pumose of the Plannlnl!: Commission Hearinl!:
The primary purpose of this public hearing is to receive comments from the Planning Commission
on the DEIR. These comments should address the issue of whether the DEIR has been preparcd
in conformance with CEQA and adequately addresses environmental impacts.
After the DEIR has been found to be adequate, a hearing or hearings will be scheduled for
consideration of project merits by the Planning Commission. This hearing will be held following
the release of a Final EIR (FEIR) which will contain the responses to comments on the DEIR.
Reference copies of the DEIR may be reviewed at the Town Planning Department or at the
Belvedere- Tiburon Public Library during business hours.
Public Comments
Public comments that have been received in writing and at the October 24th meeting centered
around the following issues:
Traffic and construction impacts on Antonette Drive
Landslide potential and the need for repairing existing landslide deposits
Potential drainage impacts on downslope properties
Dangerous traffic conditions at the intersection of Parente Road and Paradise
Drive
Evaluation and protection of prime open space on the property
Potential visual impacts from neighboring properties and the Bay
Consistency with the character of surrounding residential neighborhoods
Adequacy of on-site parking
Potential traffic impacts at the intersection of Paradise Drive and Trestle Glen
Boulevard
Lack of information on potential retaining walls on the site
Amount of grading required for the development
TIBURON PI,ANNINO COMMISSION
DElR STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 28. 2001 FILE #39902
2
EXHIBIT NO.
Lf
.
.
.
.
.
.
Summarv of Kev DEIR Findinl!:s
The key DEIR findings were summarized in the previous Staff report for this project. As
previously noted, the DEIR identifies two (2) significant unavoidable ("SU") impacts of the
project which could not be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through
mitigation measures identified in the DEIR:
I. The project would be inconsistent with Tiburon General Plan policies by
eliminating potential prime open space on Ridgeline 0 and substantially altering
views of potential open space; and
2. The project would be inconsistent with Tiburon General Plan policies to minimize
grading on the property.
Action Items for this Hearinl!:
At this hearing, the Commission will need to determine whether or not the DEIR has been
prepared in conformance with CEQA. The Commission may either:
I.
Accept the DEIR as being prepared in conformance with CEQA and the Town's
local CEQA Guidelines, and direct the consultant to respond to comments; or
2.
Find that the DEIR was not prepared in conformance with CEQA and continue the
matter pending receipt of additional iTIformation necessary to achieve such
conformance.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission should provide verbal comments on the DEIR and determine whether
the DEIR was prepared in conformance with CEQA. If the Commission accepts the DEIR, the
planning consultant should be directed to respond to comments and prepare the FEIR. If the
Commission determines that the DEIR was not prepared in conformance with CEQA, the
Commission should give direction regarding additional information necessary to achieve such
conformance.
EXHIBITS
I. Letter from J. Dennis McQuaid, dated November 7,2001
2. Letter from Gerri Javor, dated November 7, 2001
3. Letter from California Historical Resources Information System, dated November 7, 200]
TlBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
3
DElR STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 28,2001 FILE #39902
EXHIBIT NO, Lf-
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDAITEM E2
.. . . .. . . ... ... . .......... . ..... ......... . . .
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DANIEL M, WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT:
FILE #39902: PARENTE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PD #4) TO
CREATE FIVE BUILDING SITES ON A 10.3 ACRE PARCEL; PARENTE
ROAD/ANTONETTE DRIVE; AMERIPPON, INC., OWNERS; PHILLIP
MOSS/NEIL SORENSEN, APPLICANTS; ASSESSOR'S PARCEL No,
38-111-16
MEETING DATE: JULY 24, 2002
SA
REVIEWED BY:
.. . ....... ..................
PROJECT DATA
Address:
Assessor's Parcel Number:
File Number:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Property Size:
Current Use:
Owner:
Applicant
Date Complete:
End of Parente Road and End of Antonelle Drive
038-111-16
39902
Low Density Residential (0.5 dwellings/acre)
RPD (Residential Planned Development)
10,3 acres
Vacant
Amerippon, Inc,
Phillip Moss
July 1, 2000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is the proposed approval of a precise development plan (the Parente Precise
Development Plan, File #39902) to subdivide a 10.3 acre parcel Into five lots. The precise
plan would provide for the development of a single-family dwelling on each of the five lots,
Lot 1 , on the lower, northernmost portion of the sile, would have an area of 2,01 acres; Lot 2
would have an area of 2.01 acres; Lot 3 would have an area of 2.00 acres; Lot 4 would have
an area of 2.05 acres; and Lot 5 would have an area of 2.10 acres.
The site consists of an irregularly-shaped parcel located toward the northern end of the
Tiburon Peninsula, The property slopes down from Ring Mountain toward Paradise Drive,
with a north to south slope of 20% to 30%, Access would be provided to the site from a
private roadway that would be installed as an extension of Parente Road and Antonelle
Drive, both of which connect to Paradise Drive.
Vegetation on the site consists of native grasses, scallered brush and a grove of toyon, bay
and canyon live oak trees, No wetlands areas exist on the site, Landslide complexes exist in
the northwest corner of the site and in the drainage area crossing the southernmost portion of
the property. Four separate watersheds on the site drain to the north and southeast of the
property,
Various residential developments surround the subject property, including portions of the
Lands of Kahn, Ring Mountain, and Taylor Road subdivisions, along with individual lots along
EXHIBIT NO.
.
.
.~ 0 F. r lit ".
/~".o
..... "'1.
.- .',-.,.,', ,-" >. .:' ,'...
,....,' ---', ,'. -..',>"
'9",', " '-, .."
(" ." .,.<,
.......-. '... ....
..... OIi';';i4"\~c.
,
.
.
.
.
5
Parente Precise Development
July 24, 2002
1.of 17
. Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
.
.
E2
AGENDA ITEM
... .. .... . .............. ...... .. ...........
Parente Road. Antonette Drive and Paradise Drive, These areas consist of detached single-
family homes,
The Parente Precise Development Plan would establish building envelopes and other
planning limitations for the five proposed lots, The proposed limitations for these five lots are
described as follows:
. Lot 1 would be situated in the lowest, northeasterly portion of the site. with a
centrally located 5.936 square foot primary building envelope; a 20,097 square
, foot secondary envelope would be established around the primary building
envelope,
. Lot 2 would be situated immediately to the west of Lot 1, and would have a 6,052
square foot primary building envelope in the southern portion of the lot; a 21 ,310
square foot secondary envelope would be established around the primary
building envelope.
. Lot 3 would be situated in the northwest comer of the site. with a 7.172 square
foot primary building envelope located in the southeast comer of the lot; a 30,663
square foot secondary envelope would be established around the primary
building envelope,
. Lot 4 would be situated in the southwesterly comer of the site, with a 7,202
square foot primary building envelope at the northeast comer of the lot; a 26,909
square foot secondary envelope would be established around the primary
building envelope,
. Lot 5 would be situated in the southeastern portion of the site, with a 5,259
square foot primary building envelope on the northern portion of the lot; a 24,931
square foot secondary envelope would be established around the primary
building envelope.
Access would be provided to all proposed lots from a 20 foot wide private street extending
from the cul-de-sac at the end of Antonette Drive, The private street would curve around the
building envelope for Lot 1 ; curve to the west below the building envelope for Lot 2; curve
south between the building envelopes for Lots 2 & 3; then end in a cul-de-sac at the
intersection of Lots 2, 3, 4 & 5. Previous review by the Tiburon Fire Protection District
indicates that the width, slope and turnaround area for this access appear to be acceptable,
The applicant has indicated an intention to offer the proposed street for dedication to the
Town of Tiburon as a public street, At this time, the Town is not Inclined to accept such a
dedication, particularly for a street that is only accessible via two other private streets
(Antonette and Parente Drives), It is recommended that the project be reviewed with the
understanding that the proposed street would be private, with the issue of future dedication to
, be resolved between the property owner and the Town as ,part of the subdivision process,
To illustrate the potential housing construction on each of the proposed lots, the applicant has
submitted conceptual plans for five houses which would meet the criteria for the propOsed
precise development plan, Although these plans are conceptual in nature, and would require
subsequent approval by the Design Review Board, the plans are probably representative of
EXHIBIT NO.
5
Parente Precise Development
July 24, 2002
20117
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
E2
the type of construction that would be expected for each lot, given the building envelope
constraints proposed,
Each of the proposed homes would have a two-story design, with a maximum height of 30
feel. The maximum permitted 1100r area for the five lots would range in size from 4,795 to
5,590 square feet, with additional garage space of 772 to 960 square feel. The homes are
proposed to be designed with stucco exteriors and tile roofs, The applicant proposes to use
a color palette of "earth harvest tones," including brown, beige, green, ochre and burnt
umber.
As noted above, each lot is proposed to include a primary building envelope for the
construction of the residence, and a secondary building envelope for construction of
recreational amenities, The area on each lot outside the secondary envelope would be
designated as private open space, This open space area is intended to remain in a natural,
undisturbed condition, with an open space easement dedicated to the Town to protect these
spaces, Fencing on the site would be limited to the boundaries of the secondary building
envelopes,
ZONING ORDINANCE CONFORMANCE
Section 4.08,04 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance sets forth the following principles to be
evaluated in the review of Precise Development Plan applications:
(a) Significant open space shall be preserved, through dedication or other
means acceptable to the Town, consistent with policies of the Open Space
and Conservation Element of the Tiburon General Plan.
The lOCation of the proposed building envelopes would leave well over half of
the site in an open condition, The area outside of the primary and secondary
building envelopes is intended to be preserved as private open space. A
total of 60,5% of the total area of the subject property would remain
undisturbed by either the building envelopes or the proposed roadway,
The proposed precise development plan does not specify the method which
would be utilized to preserve this open space, although the Planning
Commission has often required that 'open space easements" be conferred to
the Town over portions of the privately-owned lots located outside the
building envelopes, Specific language needs to be drafted specifying what
improvements, if any, would be permitted outside of the proposed building
envelopes; a copy of a recently adopted open space agreement containing
such language is attached as Exhibit 1 0, Staff does not recommend
dedication of land in instances such as this project, where the remaining
open space is small and is not directly connected to other dedicated open
space areas.
(b)
Preservation of natural features of the land shall be achieved to the
maximum extent feasible through minimization of grading and sensitive site
design. Features worthy of preservation include ridgelines, prominent knolls,
desirable native vegetation, trees, significant rock outcroppings, water
courses. and riparian corridors,
EXHIBIT NO.
.
.
.
5
Parente Precise Development
July 24, 2002
3 of 17
. Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT'
AGENDA ITEM
E2
. ..... .......... .. . . .. ..... .......... . .... ... ...
Secondary Ridgeline 0, identified by the Open Space & Conservation
Element of the Tiburon General Plan (as shown on Exhibit 9), traverses the
center of the subject property from southwest to northeast. The location of
the proposed street and residences along this ridgeline would involve
construction work that would not minimize grading or represent sensitive site
design that would preserve this natural feature to the maximum extent
feasible,
The resource conservation report prepared for this project found that there
were no special status species of plants or animals, and no wetlands or
sensitive natural communities on the project site.
The property consists of non-serpentine soils, and therefore there are no
serpentine grasslands on the site. The EIR has identified one significant tree
on the site that is intended to be removed; the EIR recommends that this 30
inch diameter live oak tree on Lot 5 be preserved, Although there are four
separate watersheds on the site, there are no significant water courses on
this property, There is no riparian habitat and no identified wetlands on the
property,
.
(c)
Slopes created by grading should not exceed 30 percent, Final contours and
slopes should renect natural land features,
No proposed slopes on the property would exceed 30 percent. The
proposed street would follow the contours of the ridgeline. The location of
the building envelopes adjacent to the ridgeline would not result in contours
or slopes that differ significantly from the natural land features.
(d) Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve view corridors, mature
trees, rare plants, significant native nora and fauna, areas of historical
significance, access corridors, and habitats of endangered species,
The EIR states that open space views would be lost or significantly altered
from a portion of the Ring Mountain Open Space Preserve, the 6 residences
nearest to the site, residences in Paradise Cay, and a few other homes in
more distantlocalions. The EIR recommends moving the future residences
on Lots 2, 3, 4 & 5 downslope away from Ridgeline 0, and that the future
house on Lot 1 be relocated or reduced in height to avoid blocking the view
of San Francisco Bay from the home at 4885 Paradise Drive,
As noted above, there are no rare plants, significant flora and fauna, or
habitats of endangered species on the site. The EIR has identified one
significant tree on the site that is intended to be removed; the EIR
recommends that this 30 inch diameter live oak tree on Lot 5 be preserved,
There are no areas of historical significance or established access corridors
across the site.
.
(e)
Location of development well below ridgelines shall be achieved, in
accordance with General Plan and ather policies,
EXHIBIT NO.5
Parente Precise Development
July 24. 2002
4 of 17
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
E2
. .. .. . . .. . . ... .. ....... .. .. . - . .............
, As previously noted, Secondary Ridgeline 0 traverses through,the center of
the subject property, Much of the proposed street, the proposed primary
building envelopes for Lots 1, 2 & 3, and the proposed secondary building
envelopes for Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 extend across this ridgeline, The proposed
building envelopes for Lot 5 extend to within approximately 50 vertical feet of
this ridgeline,
None of the proposed homes or the proposed street wouid be situated
significantly below Ridgeline 0, However, the location of this ridgeline on the
subject property leaves relatively little developable area that could be
reasonably accessed without some construction either on or in the immediate
vicinity of this ridgeline, '
(f) Prominence of development and construction should be minimized by
appropriate location of grading and placing of buildings so that they are
screened by wooded areas, rock outcroppings and depressions in
topography or other features,
This property offers few opportunities to screen development through
topography or use of natural features, The location of Secondary Ridgeline 0
through the middle of the site makes most of the property visually prominent
from nearby residences, However, the placement of the proposed street and
building envelopes either direclly on or very close to this ridgeline is
inconsistent with the direclion to minimize the prominence of development
and construction on the site,
The applicant has presented a table (EXhibit 7) that contains proposed future
house sizes for each lot, as follows:
. Lot 1 would have 5,355 square feet of living area and 880 square
feet of garage space;
. Lot 2 would have 5,002 square feet of living area and 772 square
feet of garage space;
. Lot 3 would have 5,590 square feet of living area and 840 square
feet of garage space:
. Lot 4 would have 5,457 square feet of living area and 853 square
feet of garage space;
. Lot 5 would have 4,795 square feet of living area and 960 square
feet of garage space,
The Commission may wish to address the whether the potential size of the
homes which could be constructed on each of these lots would be
compatible with the generally smaller size of other homes in the immediate
vicinity, By comparison, the Town's floor area ratio limits would permit an
8,000 square foot house and 750 square feet of garage space on each lot.
EXHIBIT NO,
.
.
.
Parente Precise Development
r' July 24, 2002
2.. 5 of 17
. Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
E2
.. ... . . .......... . .. . .. ...... . .......... ...
In recent approvals, the Planning Commission and Town Council have
limited the size of houses in new subdivisions to levels below the default floor
area ratio otherwise determined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, In the
most recent example, the Tiburon Court Precise Development Plan limited
the future floor areas for three homes to 4,300 square feet and 600 square
feet of garage space, for a project with lot sizes ranging from 2.16 to 5,56
acres. .
Color and material guidelines are usually adopted as conditions of approval
on a Precise Development Plan, normally specifying medium-te-dark earth
tone colors and materials that blend with the natural environment These
guidelines are then used by the Design Review Board during its review of
any homes eventually proposed on the site.
Due consideration shall be given io avoidance of areas posing geological
hazards.
(g)
.
The geotechnical report prepared for this application indicated the presence
of several landslide deposits on the site, These deposits are generally
situated on the northem and southern portions of the site, outside the
proposed building envelopes for Lots 2, 3, 4 & 5. The EIR recommends
mitigation measures that would allow the residences, street and other project
improvements to be constructed without resulting in significant impacts,
These mitigation measures include avoidance of the landslides as
construction areas, and further evaluation and repair of the landslide
deposits,
(h)
Minimization of significant adverse impacts, as detailed in the Environmental
Impact Report, if one is required.
The Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project found that almost
all potentially significant environmental impacts which would be caused by
this project can be mitigated to less than significant levels, The EIR identifies
two significant unavoidable impacts of the project which could not be
eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significantlevel through mitigation
measures identified in the EIR:
. The project would be inconsistent with Tiburon General Plan
policies by eliminating potential prime open space on Ridgeline 0
and substantially altering views of potential open space; and
. The project would be inconsistent with Tiburon General Plan
policies to minimize grading on the property.
(i) Roads shall be designed for minimum slopes, grading, cut-backs and fil/.
Narrowing of roadways may be allowed to reduce grading, retaining walls,
and other scarring of the land,
.
EXHIBIT NO.
5
Parente Precise Development
July 24, 2002
60117
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
E2
AGENDA ITEM
... ........... .. ........ ......... .... ..... ..
This proposed roadway slope and width would meet the minimum standards
acceptable to the Tiburon Fire Protection District and the Town Engineer.
The applicant estimates that construction of the street and the extension of
Parente Road would involve extensive grading, with a total of 4,364 cubic
yards of cut and 753 cubic yards of fill required, The street alignment, in
particular, would appear to be inconsistent with direction to design the street
to minimize necessary grading, '
(j) Proposed arrangement of residential units and design of circulation system
shalf provide harmonious transition from and be compatible with, neighboring
development and open space, Monotony in design shalf be avoided,
The alignment of the proposed building envelope for Lot 1 would roughly
center the future house on this lot between the location of existing residences
on either side of the property, with setbacks from 70 to 100 feet between the
future and existing homes. The future homes on the other four lots would
have more substantial setbacks from nearby homes, with a separation of at
least 170 feet between the primary building envelopes and any other
residences in the vicinity. The location of the proposed building envelopes at
different elevation would help avoid monotony of design.
The EIR has determined that the intersection of Parente Road and Paradise
Drive is unsafe, with deficient sight lines to and from the north, The EIR
recommends that all traffic from the proposed project instead utilize only
Antonelte Drive, where sight lines at the intersection with Paradise Drive are
more than adequate, The EIR also recommends improvements to Antonelte
Drive, which is currently a private street, to meet Town standards for a public
street.
Concerns were raised during the review of the EIR for this property regarding
potential impacts on neighboring residents from the headlights of vehicles
using the proposed street. The EIR recommends installation of landscaping
or fencing at appropriate locations along the street that would mitigate these
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Parking for the individual homes is limited to the provision of 3 or 4 garage
spaces for each residence and additional parking on the driveway apron in
front of each house, No parking is currently proposed along the street
serving the project, The Planning Commission should require additional
common overflow parking to be provided along the roadway or in some other
location to handle additional parking demand during times when individual
homeowners have parties or host other events requiring more parking than
can be handled on-site,
(k) Adequate consideration shalf be given to the need for privacy and with
minimum visual and aural intrusion into indoor and outdoor living areas from
other living areas.
As previously noted, the EIR states that the proposed project would impact
the views from many nearby homes, However, the project would not appear
EXHIBIT NO.
.
.
.
Parente Precise Development
1"'.- July 24, 2002
::::J 7 of 17
.
.
.
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
E2
AGENDA ITEM
....................... ...................... ........ ..... ... ... . ..
to create privacy impacts or significant visual intrusion into the indoor and
outdoor living areas for most homes, The EIR notes that the existing
residence at 4885 Paradise Drive would be most affected, with vehicles
passing approximately 60 feet from this home, and the future houses on Lots
1 & 2 clearty visible from decks and windows,
The EIR notes that noise from the construction of this project could result in
significant impacts on surrounding homes, but recommends mitigation
measures that would reduce the noise to less than significant levels,
Although future traffic on the proposed street could cause noticeable noise to
nearby homes (in particular the residence at 4885 Paradise Drive), the EIR
determines that this noise would not be significant.
(I) Improvements shall be placed so as to minimize intrusion of noise on nearby
areas,
The proposed residential building envelope setbacks from the side property
lines should provide an adequate buffer to avoid intrusion of noise on
surrounding homes,
(m)
Landscaping shall be designed so as to result in the /east possible
disturbance of natural and/or open areas and shall be compatible with the
natural setting, Consideration shall be given to fire protection, water
conservation, protection of views and trail areas, and buffering of noise.
Landscape palettes have been prepared for each of the 5 proposed lots,
Trees proposed to be planted on each lot include Coast Live Oak, Westem
Redbud and Califomia Bay trees, Additional shrubs and ground cover are
proposed, but would normally be reviewed in more detail during the Design
Review process for each future home,
The submitted landscape palettes indicate the planting of trees and shrubs
outside the proposed primary and secondary building envelopes for each 101,
the Planning Commission should determine whether the areas outside these
envelopes should be left in a native condition, The proposed landscaping
plans could encourage future homeowners to install other inappropriate
plantings in private open space areas, and otherwise begin to treat private
open space area's as extensions of the yard areas around each house, The
adoption of the language within the Town's typical open space easement
agreement, as previously mentioned, would also prevent such planting within
the private open space areas,
(n)
Utilities shall be underground and street lights, if needed, shall be of low
intensity and low in profile,
No streetlights are proposed for this project. Low level driveway
downlighting would be appropriate, and would be reviewed by the Design
Review Board during its review of any homes eventually proposed on the
site,
EXHIBIT NO.
Parente Precise Development
~, " July 24, 2002
-, 8af17
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT'
E2
AGENDA ITEM
(0) Materials and colors used in improvements shall blend into the natural
environment to the extent reasonably possible,
This is a standard condition of approval for planned developments in'Tiburon,
As previously described, the applicant proposes to use a color palelle of
"earth harvest tones" for future house on the site, including brown, beige,
green, ochre and burnt umber colors.
(p) Consistency with other goals and policies of the General Plan Elements shall
be demonstrated,
See the General Plan discussion below.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The following section addresses the policies of the Tiburon General Plan that relate to this
proposed project:
land Use Element
In Planned Residential Districts, new development should be located on the
least environmentally sensitIve and least hazardous portions of vacant land
wherever feasible to promote sound land development and planning
practices, Special emphasis shall be placed on keeping ridgelines open and
unobstructed to the maximum extent feasible.
The proposed project would site the street and future homes away from the identified
landslide deposits on the site, and would not impact any sensitive biological areas,
LU-12
As previously noted, much of the proposed street, the proposed primary building envelopes
for Lots 1, 2 & 3, and the proposed secondary building envelopes for Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 extend
across Secondary Ridgeline 0, The project design would therefore be inconsistent with the
direction to keep this ridgeline "open and unobstructed to the maximum extent feasible."
LU-16
The Town shall strive to preserve to the greatest extent possible feasible
wildlife habitat in the open ridges, shoreline, marshes, mudflats, and other
biologically sensitive areas,
The proposed project would retain much of the site as undeveloped private open space,
including the more heavily wooded areas on the property that would continue to be available
to wildlife, The EIR notes that the development along the ridgeline would remove some
habitat used by deer and other wildlife,
LU-17
Future land use decisions shall be consistent with Diagram LU-3, Proposed
Land Use. However, the densities and intensities specified in the Land Use
Element are maximums,., which may not be achieved if other standards of
the general plan pertaining to environmental, physical or offsite constraints
such as steep slopes, soil instability or limitations on necessary infrastructure
require lower densities or intensities,
.
.
.
EXHIBIT NO.
5
Parente Precise Development
July 24, 2002
9 of 17
. Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
.
.
E2
AGENDA ITEM
. " .. . .... ... .... .. . . ... ... ......... . ... ...
Diagram LU-3 of the Land Use Element designates the subject property for Low Density
Residential Development, with a maximum density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre. This
density is echoed by Table 1 of the same element, which designates a maximum
development potential of five dwelling units for this currently vacant 10,3 acre parcel.
The project, as currently designed, is inconsistent with several general plan policies relating
to the preservation of ridgelines and minimizing grading on the 'property, Therefore, the
maximum allowable density of 5 homes for this site may not be achieved in order to comply
with these general plan policies,
Ocen 50ace and Conservation Element
OSC-t
Open Space. The Town has long been favored with large amounts of
undeveloped land and open water providing a sense of open space, This
character should be protected to the maximum extent feasible,
The proposed project would place new development on the most prominent portions of the
site along Ridgeline O. Areas proposed to be devoted to open space would be located on
generally lower elevations south and northwest of the ridgeline, The proposed development
pattern ,would be inconsistent with this policy, as the open space character of the site would
not be protected to the maximum extent feasible.
Diagram OSC-3 of the Open Space and Conservation Element designates the entire subject
property as potential open space, This element also contains criteria for evaluating potential
open space to determine if this land qualifies as "prime open space," Prime open space is
defined as "that open space which because of its characteristics and attributes is worthy of
protection to the extent such protection is feasible," This definition further includes specific
characteristics to be used in determining whether a property should be classified as prime
open space,
The Final EIR for this project includes a detailed analysis of the criteria used for
determination of prime open space, Although the FEIR determines that the site does not
include most of the characteristics for prime open space, the report concludes that "the
project site is prime open space because it contains significant visual resources and a
significant ridgeline." The FEIR also states, however, that the ultimate consistency with these
criteria must be determined by the Planning Commission and Town Council.
OSC-2
Growth. While accommodation of growth is an accepted reality, it should be
so directed as to preserve and enhance views, ridgelines, significant
vegetation, habitats and environmentally sensitive areas to the maximum
extent feasible, New development shall be in harmony with adjacent
neighborhoods and surrounding open space areas,
As previously noted, the proposed project would place new development on the most
prominent portions of the site along Ridgeline O. Open space views would also be lost or
significantly altered from a portion of the Ring Mountain Open Space Preserve, the 6
residences nearest to the site, residences in Paradise Cay, and a few other homes in more
distant locations. The size and visual prominence of the future houses on this site would not
appear to be in harmony with the development pattern of the adjacent neighborhoods and
surrounding open space areas.
"
Parente Precise Development
5' July 24, 2002
EXHIBIT NO. 100117
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
E2
AGENDA ITEM
OSC-3
Outward Views, Property owners cherish their views, New structures and
associated landscaping should be situated or kept low to avoid interference
with existing outlooks,
OSC-4
View Corridors, Principal inboard and outboard vistas should be defined and
development should be located to protect such vistas to the maximum extent
feasible.
See discussion under Section 4.08,04 (d) above,
OSC-5
Ridgelines, Undeveloped ridgelines have an overriding visual significance to
the Town, To the maximum extent feasible, all new development shall be
located well below the ridgelines, In addition, the following ridgeline
guidelines shall be applied to the Tiburon Ridge,
Development should be set back 150 horizontal feet to either side of
the Tiburon Ridge,
To the maximum extent feasible, development should not break the
Tiburon Ridge as viewed from the opposite side (from the line of
sight to the highest elevation),
No development shall be allowed within 50 vertical feet of the major
ridgeline, measured from the highest point of a structure.
If this policy prevents all reasonable use of the property, encroachment into
the setbacks may be allowed provided that structures are limited to a
maximum of one story of 15 feet in height.
See discussion under Section 4.08,04 (e) above
OSC-9
Private Open Space, In all projects, the Town should encourage the
provision of private open space where public open space would result in
public spaces which are not readily accessible or for other reasons are not
readily useable by the public,
The proposed project would designate approximately 5,5 acres of land as private open
space, The EIR concludes that the areas designated as private open space are "not
particularly useful as public open space since [they are] located primarily on lower and
steeper portions of the site," The northwest comer of the site is adjacent to the Ring
Mountain Open Space, and therefore a connection could conceivably be made between open
space on the subject property and the adjacent open space, Currently, access to this portion
of the Ring Mountain Open Space is provided at an entrance at the end of Taylor Road,
which includes a large cul-de-sac for parking purposes and a well-marked and gated entry
point. Trails leading from this established entry lead to areas near the project site, There
does not appear to be a significant need for an additional public pathway leading to this
portion of the adjacent open space area, However, the Planning Commission should
evaluate whether such a connection between the adjacent open space and other properties
below would serve a substantial public purpose,
EXHIBIT NO.
.
.
.
s-
Parente Precise Development
July 24, 2002
11 of 17
.' Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
E2
. . .......... . . .. ..... ....... .. .. . ......
. The project would be inconsistent with Tiburon General Plan policies by eliminating
potential prime open space on Ridgeline 0 and substantially altering views of
potential open space; and
. The project would be inconsistent with Tiburon General Plan policies to minimize
grading on the property,
In addition, the EIR identifies the potential for significant environmental impacts in the
following categories:
Geology and Soils
Hydrology
Biological Resources
T rafflc
Aesthetics
Noise
Air Quality
The potential impacts for several of these categories have been discussed previously in the
Staff report presented to the Planning Commission for the October 24, 2001 meeting (Exhibit
2). The EIR has recommended mitigation measures for all other potential environmental
impacts that would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.
.
ANALYSISflSSUES TO BE RESOLVED
The EIR includes analysis of several "alternatives" to the project as proposed, These
alternatives include the potential for reducing the number of homes to be developed on the
site, and moving the location of the homes further downslope on the property, The reduced
density and lower elevations would likely reduce the amount of grading necessary to
" construct the roadway further up the site, As the precise building envelope locations for a
reduced number of residences have not been clearly established, the potential visual and
privacy impacts of a lower density project alternative cannot be accurately estimated at this
time, The EIR concludes that 'the fewer the number of residences, the less the impact to
open space and grading."
The applicant has indicated that the reduced densities recommended by the EIR would not
necessarily result in significant improvements to the amount of grading required for this
project. To illustrate this point, the applicant presented an estimate of the grading required to
accomplish the 3-unit project alternative identified in the EIR (ExhibitS), The applicant
estimates that the grading needed to construct the roadway for the 3-unit project would
involve 2,010 cubic yards of cut and 19 cubic yards offill (in comparison to the 4,364 cubic
yards of cut and 753 cubic yards of fill required for the project as currently proposed); this
would reduce the net amount of grading for the project by 1,620 square feet. However, the
estimates also indicate that the development of a proposed Lot 1A would require 1,375 cubic
yards of cut and no fill, and Lot 1 B would require 9n cubic yards of cut and no fill; in
comparison, the most grading required for any of the currently proposed lots would be the
735 cubic yards of cut (and no fill) for Lot 3,
.
EXHIBIT NO.
Parente Precise Development
5- July 24, 2002
14 of 17
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
E2
AGENDA ITEM
............. ..... .......... ..... . .........
The applicant contends that the net grading required for the 3-unit project altemative would
decrease only 192 cubic yards from the net grading required for the 5 house project as
currently proposed (from 4,649 cubic yards to 4,457 cubic yards), However, the total amount
of grading required for the 3-unit alternative would be reduced from 6,341 cubic yards of cut
and 1,692 cubic yards of fill (8,033 cubic yards total) to 4,558 cubic yards of cut and 101
cubic yards of fill (4,659 cubic yards total), This alternative would therefore reduce the overall
amount of grading required for the project by 3,374 cubic yards, a reduction in grading of
42,0%,
The pertinent guidelines and policies of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and the Tiburon
General Plan encourage projects that minimize grading in general, rather than simply
balancing cut and fill for a project. The intent of these policies is to encourage projects that
work with the natural physical characteristics of a site, and discourage project designs that
allemptto reshape the property to suit the desires of the developer, The reduced density
project altematives, and/or reductions in the sizes,of the homes permitted for each lot, would
therefore be clearly more consistent with these policies than the project as currently
proposed.
CONCLUSION
The subject application as presented has resulted in a proposed precise development plan
for this property that is incorisistent with Precise Development Plan principles and General
Plan policies, The proposed roadway and building envelopes have not been sited on the
property to minimize excessive grading or view impacts on neighboring properties, Although
the EIR determines that all other potential environmental impacts can be mitigated to less
than significant levels, the project would be inconsistent with several significant general plan
policies and the guidelines for such development contained within the Tiburon Zoning
, Ordinance,
The EIR suggests that reduced density project alternatives could be designed that would be
more consistent with these policies and guidelines, The EIR does not designate a preferred
alternative, but states that "the fewer the number of residences, the less impact to open
space and grading, Staff believes that the three-lot alternative would substantially reduce the
grading and view impacts resulting from the project, while allowing a reasonable level of
development for this 10.3 acre property,
The Planning Commission should carefully examine the project as proposed and determine if
reduced density project designs should be pursued that would address these concems, If
such reduced density is desired, the Planning Commission should direct the applicant to
prepare a revised project design with lower density, If the applicant does not wish to prepare
such a revise plan, the Commission may instead direct Staff to refine the building envelopes
and other zoning criteria within the parameters of the preferred project altemative,
EXHIBIT NO.
.
.
.
. Parente Precise Development
'5 July 24, 2002
15 of 17
.
.
.
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
E2
AGENDA ITEM
........... ..................... ...................
FUTURE ACTIONS REQUIRED
The Planning Commission's approval of this project would be a recommendation to the Town
Council. Should the Commission vote to deny the project, that action would be final unless
appealed to the Town Council. If the Precise Development Plan is approved by the Town
Council, subsequent Town permits would include a Tentative Subdivision Map, Parcel Map,
Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for each residence, and building permits for each
residence,
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on this item and
indicate its intent to:
1. Recommend to the Town Council certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report;
2.
Recommend to the Town Council adoption of the thr8e'-lot alternative to the
project as being environmentally superior to the proposed project and being
more consistent with General Plan policies,
3, Recommend to the Town Council that either a statement of overriding
considerations be prepared and adopted in order to approve the thr8e'-lot
alternative despite remaining'significant adverse impacts on the environment
even after implementation of all mitigation measures; or find that the approval
of the thr8e'-lot altemative would reduce all potential impacts on the
environment to Iess-than-significant levels after implementation of all
mitigation measures
4, Direct Staff to return with Resolutions to this effect,
Given the above, the Planning Commission should either.
1, Offer the applicant an opportunity to redesign the project within the
parameters of the three-lot alternative and return for final Planning
Commission action; or
2, Direct Staff to refine building envelope and other zoning criteria within the
parameters of the three-lot alternative and return with this refined project for
Planning Commission consideration and a draft resolution containing
conditions of approval and mitigation measures,
EXHIBIT NO.
Parente Precise Development
~ . July 24, 2002
16 of 17
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
E2
. . . . .. . ...... . .. . . .., . . . . .. . ..... . .,. . .....
EXHIBITS
1, Application form and supplemental information
2, Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 19, 2001
3, Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 21, 2001
4, Minutes of the October 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
5, Minutes of the October 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting
6, Minutes of the November 28, 2001 Planning Commission meeting
7. Tables of Lot and Future House Characteristics
8, Grading estimates for 3-lot project alternative
9, Portion of Significant Ridgeline Map
10, Grant of open space easement adopted for High Meadow Lane Precise Development
Plan
11, Leiter from Dennis McQuaid, dated July 16, 2002
12, Proposed plans
.
.
.
Parente Precise Development
L.. July 24, 2002
/ 17 of 17
EXHIBIT NO.
. Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
.
.
AGENDA ITEM E2
, '
.. .. .. .. . .... . . . . ... . ... .................
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DANIEL M, WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT:
FILE #39902; PARENTE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PO #4) TO
CREATE FIVE BUILDING SITES ON A 10.3 ACRE PARCEL; PARENTE
ROAD/ANTONETTE DRIVE; AMERIPPON, INC., OWNERS; PHILLIP
MOSSlNEIL SORENSEN, APPLICANTS; ASSESSOR'S PARCEL No.
38-111-16
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 28,2002
SA
REVIEWED BY:
.. ., .. ..... ....... . .. ....... . ... . ... .. ..
BACKGROUND
The project is the proposed approval of a precise development plan (the Parente Precise
Development Plan, File #39902) to subdivide a 10.3 acre parcel Into five lots, The precise
plan would provide for the development of a single-family dwelling on each of the five lots.
An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared forthis project. The Draft EIR has been
circulated, and comments on the DEIR were received at the October 24, 2001 Planning
Commission meeting. On November 28, 2001, the Planning Commission accepted the DEIR
as being prepared in conformance with CEQA and the Town's locel CEQA Guidelines, and
directed the consultant to prepare the Final EIR and respond to comments.
The FEIR has been prepared, and has previously been distributed to the Planning
Commission, As previously noted, the FEIR Identifies two significent unavoidable impacts"of
the project which could not be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-signiflcantlevel through
mitigation measures identified in the EIR;
. The project would be inconsistent with T1buron General Plan policies by eliminating
potential prime open space on Ridgeline 0 and substantially altering views of
potential open space; and
. The project would be inconsistent with T1buron General Plan policies to minimize
grading on the property.
A hearing was held regarding the FEIR and the merits of this project at the July 24, 2002
Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, the Commission took testimony from the
applicant and several surrounding property owners regarding the proposed project. The
applicant presented information from an economic report analyzing the potential
development, and stated that reducing the density of the project to three lots would not be '
economically feasible, Concems were raised by neighboring residents regarding potential
visual impacts of the project; protection of designated ridgelines on the site; potential traffic
and safety issues; and potential drainage problems.
The Planning Commission reviewed these comments, and concluded that the project as
currently proposed would be inconsistent with the Tiburon General Plan policies as described
in the FEIR. The Commission further conciuded that reducing the density of the project from
EXHIBIT NO.
.
,
." Of_ II, .
/~'~ . ~~
....1'_ ".._.7-
';..;' :".'0, . '",:',:':~ ....
,....;~_., ' - ,,' ,~:','c.'"
.' oo\',..(~'-;;"'c..-""".
l
Co
August 28, 2002
1 of4.
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
E2
.......... . '" .... ...... . ..... ... ... . . .....
five lots to three lots would substantially mitigate these potential impacts. The Planning
Commission also asked a number of questions regarding the economic report prepared for
the project: the applicant's representative indicated that the preparer of the report would be
present at a subsequent meeting to answer these questions,
The Planning Commission asked the applicant to retum with a revised 3-lot design for the
project. The applicant's representative indicated that he would consult with the property
owner about preparing a 3-lot design, but requested a continuance to the August 28, 2002
meeting in case the property owner did not agree to the 3-lot alternative,
Since that time, the applicant's representative has indicated to Town Staff that the property
owner wishes to proceed with the project design as currently submitted, The original project
design for development of 5 lots on the site therefore remains unchanged,
ANALYSIS
As noted in the previous Staff report for this project, the EIR includes analysis of several
"alternatives" to the project as proposed., and concludes that "the fewer the number of
residences, the less the impact to open space and grading," An examination of grading
estimates prepared by the applicant for the 3-lot alternative indicated that the total amount of
grading required for the project would be reduced from 6,341 cubic yards of cut and 1,692
,cubic yards of fill (6,033 cubic yards total) required for the current project design, to 4,556
cubic yards of cut and 101 cubic yards of fill (4,659 cubic yards total) for the 3-lot alternative,
This alternative would therefore reduce the overall amount of grading required for the project
by 3,374 cubic yards, a reduction in 9rading of 42,0%,
At the July 24, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission determined that the subject
application as presented has resulted in a proposed precise development plan for this
property that is inconsistent with Precise Development Plan principles contained within the
Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and inconsistent with General Plan policies. The proposed
roadway and building envelopes have not been sited on the property to minimize excessive
grading or view impacts on neighboring properties, Although the EIR concluded that all other
potential environmental impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels, the project
would be inconsistent with several significant general plan policies and the guidelines for
such development contained within the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, The Commission
therefore determined that a project alternative that would reduced the project density to 3 lots
or fewer, possibly coupled with reductions in the sizes of the homes permitted for each lot,
would substantially reduce the grading and view impacts resulting from the project, would be
clearly more consistent with these policies than the project as currently proposed, and would
allow a reasonable level of development for this 10,3 acre property,
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As noted above, a Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and has previously
been distributed to the Planning Commission, At the July 24, 2002 meeting, the Planning
Commission reviewed the FEIR and identified two additional items to be addressed before a
recommendation for certification of the FEIR could be made,
A request was made for the EIR consultant to further discuss with Marin County Planning
Staff how Marin County policies regarding development near ridgelines would apply to this
project. The EIR consultant has prepared a letter (Exhibit 3) summarizing his discussions
EXHIBIT NO, Co
.
.
.
August 26, 2002
2of4
.
.
.
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
E2
. . . .. . . ... .......... . .. .. .. . .. .. .... . ......
with County Staff, In general, the County policies would not allow homes to be developed
along a ridgeline, and homes located near ridgelines would need to be sited so that the
rooftops do not extend above the ridgeline. County staff also indicated that further analysis of
the how the County policies would apply to the subject property would not be possible without
substantial additional effort and cost to the Town,
A second request was made for more detailed grading analysis of a 3-1ot development
alternative for this project, As the applicant has declined to design such a project alternative,
the EIR consultant does not have the detailed project design necessary to prepare any
additional grading estimates for this alternative at this time,
CONCLUSION
The applicant's refusal to revise the design of the proposed project to reduce the project
density as requested by the Planning Commission leaves the Commission with several
options regarding this application: '
1,
The Commission may direct Staff to refine the building envelopes and other
zoning criteria within the parameters of the "3-lot alternative," as analyzed
and generally described in the EIR. This would involve preparation of a
revised conceptual project design for development of the property with three
homes at lower elevations on the site, with other parameters (e.g, building
envelope sizes and locations, house sizes, fenceable areas, etc.) as
directed by the Planning Commission; or
2, The Commission may direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the project
as currently proposed due to its inconsistencies with policies of the Tiburon
Zoning Ordinance and the Tiburon General Plan. The resolution would also
convey that the applicant declined an opportunity to revise the project along
the lines indicated by the Planning Commission,
Historically, the Planning Commission has chosen to give project proponents every
opportunity to redesign projects to address concerns raised during the review process rather
than denying an application outright. If after hearing additional testimony from the applicant
and other interested parties the Planning Commission still believes that a reduced density
project alternative is preferable, the Commission may again ask the applicant to redesign the
project. If the applicant again refuses to redesign the project, the Commission would be
faced with the two options described above.
FUTURE ACTIONS REQUIRED
The Planning Commission's approval of this project would be a recommendation to the Town
Council. Should the Commission vote to deny the project, that action would be final unless
appealed to the Town Council. If the Precise Development Plan is approved by the Town
Council, subsequent Town permits would include a Tentative Subdivision Map, Parcel or
Final Map, Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for each residence, and building
permits for each residence,
EXHIBIT NO.
~
August 28, 2002
3 of 4
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
E2
. . . ............. . ........... .... . ....... ...
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1, Confirm with the applicant that he declines to redesign the project in
accordance with Commission direction provided at the July 24, 2002
meeting, '
2, If this is confirmed, direct Staff to either:
a, Prepare a resolution denying the application as submitted due to its
inconsistencies with pertinent policies of the Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance and the Tiburon General Plan, and take no action on the
EIR; or
, b. Return with a resolution recommending conditional approval of a
precise development plan based on the 3-lot alternative as analyzed
and generally described in the EIR, and recommending certification
of the Final EIR to the Town Council.
EXHIBITS
1,
2,
3,
Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 24, 2002
Grading estimates for 3-lot project alternative
Leiter from Leonard Charles, dated August 22, 2002
EXHIBIT NO.
G
.
.
.
August 28, 2002
4of4
e
.
.
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM ~
~ ~ .QI rt,,!u J
0- ~(:.'.' =' ,~:~ _
("I .~. .~-~ -:~~;?2'
1';~~;J~~~~
.... Ii'l\rlAIt-lC.' ~.
,
o
0" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PLANNING COMMISSION
DANIEL M. WATROUS, PLANNING MANAGER/ENVIRONMENTAL
COORDINATOR
FilE #39902: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) FOR A
PROPOSED FIVE lOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PARENTE
PRECISE DEVElOPMENT PLAN); PARENTE ROAD/ANTONETTE DRIVE;
AMERIPPON, INC., OWNERS; ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 38-111-16
MEETING DATE: JULY 14, 2004
REVIEWED BY: SA
. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . '.0' . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
PROJECT DATA
Address:
Assessor's Parcel Number:
File Number:
, Lot Size:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Current Use:
Owners:
Applicant
Date Complete:
End of Parente Road and End of Antonette Drive'
38-111-16
39902
10.3 Acres
, Low Low Density Residential (0.5 dwellings/acre)
RPD
Vacant/Undeveloped
Amerippon, ,Jnc
Tom Newton/Planning Advisory Corporation
July 1, 2000
BACKGROUND
An application has been made for approval ofa precise development plan (the Parente Precise
Development Plan, File #39902) to subdivide a 10.3 acre parcel into five lots. The precille
development plan would provide for the development of a single-family dwelling on each of the
five lots. '
An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for this project. The Draft EIR has been
circulated, and comments on the DEIR were received at the October 24, 2001 Planning
Commission meeting. On November 28, 2001, the Planning Commission accepted the DEIR as
being prepared in conformance with CECA and the Town's local CECA Guidelines, and
directed the consultant to prepare the Final EIR and respond to comments.
The FEIR has been prepared, and has previously been distributed to the Planning Commission,
The FEIR identifies two significant unavoidable impacts of the project Which could not be
eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation measures identified in
the EIR: '
EXHIBIT NO. --7
STAFF REPORT
.
,
.. ~.9L..!I~'lJ<9~.
.- ~;;E~<;;t -
~':" ~ ="="E'~
<,/;~~~\~b
.~ o.9.....I-:.~;l-i.i. ,It.
,
.
Town of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. .
. The project would be inconsistent with Tiburon General Plan policies by eliminating
potential prime open space on Ridgeline 0 and substantially altering views of potential
open space; and
. The project would be inconsistent with Tiburon General Plan policies to minimize grading
on the property.
In addition, the EIR identifies the potential for significant environmental impacts in the following
categories that can be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation
measures:
Geology and Soils
Hydrology
Biological Resources
Traffic
Aesthetics
Noise
Air Quality
A hearing was held regarding the FEIR at the July 24, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. At .
that meeting, the Commission took testimony from the applicant and several surrounding
property owners regarding the proposed project. The applicant presented information from an
economic report analyzing the potential development, and stated that reducing the density of
the project to three lots would not be economically feasible. Concerns were raised by
neighboring residents regarding potential visual impacts of the project; protection of designated
ridgelines on the site; potential traffic and safety issues; and potential drainage problems.
The Planning Commission reviewed these comments, and concluded that the project as
currenUy proposed would be inconsistent with the Tiburon General Plan policies as described in
the FEIR. The Commission further concluded that reducing the density of the project from five
lots to three lots would substantially mitigate these potential impacts. The Planning Commission
also asked a ,number of questions regarding the economic report prepared for the project; the
applicant's representative indicated that the preparer of the report would be present at a
subsequent meeting to answer these questions.
At that meeting, Commissioner Stein requested that additional grading information be provided
in the FEIR regarding a 2 or 3 lot project design, based on the applicant's contention that such a
design could conceivably necessitate more grading than the original 5 lot project design. ,Since
that time, the applicant has requested that the FEIR be considered for the 5 lot subdivision only,
, The project representative who had made the claim regarding the amount of grading needed for
the reduced density alternative is no longer associated with the project; the current project
representatives have made no such statements regarding these previous grading estimates.
This would therefore eliminate the need for the FEIR to include the additional grading
information requested by Commissioner Stein.
.
EXHIBIT No.7
July 14. 2004
page 2 of 5
.
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
.
,
" ~ g.LJI.8(; ".
;~St
~),.~iJ,~~
.l'o-:-:-~."
.." ~^,IA" i"i'-l(.' '.
,
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Planning Commission asked the applicant to retum with a revised 3-lot design for the
project. The applicant's representative indicated that he would consult with the property owner
about preparing a 3-lot design, but requested a continuance to the August 28, 2002 meeting in
case the property owner did not agree' to the 3-lot alternative.
At the August 28, 2002 meeting, the applicant requested a further continuance to explore
alternatives to the five.lot project. Considerable time passed without a response from the
applicant, despite repeated inquiries from Town Staff. On October 3,2003, the Town sent a
letter to the applicant indicating that the application would be considered withdrawn unless
revised plans were received within a reasonable period of time. The' applicant responded at that
time that their intention was to continue working on revised plans to address the concerns
raised by the Planning Commission.
On May 17, 2004, a letter was submitted on behalf of the property owners indicating that a new
project management team had been hired. The applicant requested a hearing to consider
certification of the FEIR for thEi project. The applicant has also indicated an intention to submit
revised plans for the project at a lower density once the FEIR is certified in a manner that would .
be responsive to the impacts identified in the EIR and by the Planning Commission.
. PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING
The Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines, revised November 6, 2002, require the
Planning Commission, acting as an adviSOry body to the Town Council, to consider the Final
Environmental Impact Report in making its recommendation on the project to the Town Council.
The purpose of this meeting is to accept final public comment on the FEIR and consider making
a recommendation to the Town Council that the FEIR be certified as having been prepared in
compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that
this document reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Town. This decision is
necessary prior to consideration of the merits of the project. .
The FEIR, which is composed of the Draft EIR and the Response to Comments document,
discloses the environmental consequences of approving and implementing the five-lot
residential development proposed by the applicant The FEIR also identifies mitigation
measures and alternatives to the project that would substantially lessen the environmental
effects of the project, but would not reduce them to less than significant levels. When compared
to the DEIR, the FEIR does not reveal any new significant impacts, any substantial increase in
severity of impacts, or other information that might warrant recirculation of the DEtR. Based on
the conclusions in the EIR, the town could not approve the 5.lot project without making ''findings
of overriding considerations. due to remaining significant adverse impacts after mitigation. It is
the Staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission should recommend that the Town
Council certify the FEIR.
.
It should be noted that certification of the FEIR does not approve the project proposed by the
applicant or any alternative discussed in the FEIR. Once the FEIR has been certified, publiC
hearings will be held to discuss the merits of the application prior to a decision on the Parente
Precise Development Plan itself. As noted above, the applicant has indicated an intention to
EXHIBIT NO. '7
July 14, 2004.
page 3 of 5
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
redesign the project to reflect a lower density development altemative that would respond to
environmental effects identified in the EIR. This is common practice employed when project
changes are too substantial to be performed through added conditions of approval.
.
,
iz~
[t~".. ~ --".~,:
.- ,,* ' '
,;:::; -.. ~~--'-
,,^ ,,' ,," ~.-^ ~ .
?;;}~;~}i~" -
." o~;,/~~/>"""'-"'o,
III 1'f,I.c.- ".
,
.
Once the applicant submits a revised project design, Staff will review the submitted plans to
determine the appropriate 'method of performing additional environmental review, most likely an
addendum or a supplement to the certified EIR.
PROCESS
The remainder of the process for the review of the Parente Precise Development Plan
application is described as follows:
. The Planning Commission recommends certification of the EIR to the Town
Council;
. The Town Council certifies the EIR;
.
The applicant submits a revised project design responsive to impacts identified in
the certified EIR;
.
. An addendum or supplement to the certified EIR is prepared and released;
. The Planning Commission commences review of the project merits while
considering the conclusions of the certified EIR and any addendum 'Or
supplement to that EIR, and makes a recommendation to the Town Council
regarding the project;
. The Town Council commences review of the project merits and takes final action
on the application.. .
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending
that the Town Council certify the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Parente Precise
Development Plan. .
EXHIBITS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Draft Resolution
Planning Commission Staff report dated October 11, 2000
Planning Commission Staff report dated October 24,2001
. Planning Commission Staff report dated November 28,2001
Planning Commission Staff report dated July 24, 2002
Planning Commission Staff report dated August 28, 2002
EXHIBIT NO. 7
.
July 14, 2004
page 4 of 5
.
.
.
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
.
'- .
. ~"'Ll>~.tj" ~
~'''/''"~('1-
...0........ "
.- c:!~~; -
,,~rlj~,
.J 0-9ivtA""lt1(.' .
,
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . .
7. Minutes of the October 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
8. Minutes of the October 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting
9. Minutes of the November 28, 2001 Planning Commission meeting
10. Minutes of the July 24,2002 Plaiming Commission meeting
. 11. Minutes of the August 28, 2002 Planning Commission meeting
12. DEIR and FEIR (previously distributed).
EXHIBlTNO. 7
July 14, 2004
page 5 of 5
developer if they apply to the development. He felt that safety was an issue for a bike path, as
this was a major corridor, especially on weekends. Two new streets make bike paths morc
necessary. He had been on Mercury' Avenue and Juno Road to get a feeling for how houses
could be built there and not have a devastating impact. There is nothing in the General Plan
that says use it or lose it. Owners have every right to develop. Some development will occur
and some view impacts will occur, but the General Plan limits what can be built. He suggested
a 20-foot height limit of one to one-and.a.half stories. Mr. Malott's suggestion of larger
building envelope for lower homes made sense. Three larger envelopes with lower homes
would begin to be equitable. He noted that there are large homes in Tiburon with massive
fronts and no screening and he felt that was a mistake. Screening should be required to help
hide the impact of the structures. The Turtle Rock Court homes are lovely, but should not be a
model for these projects. On the drainage, he felt the bypass was more expensive, but would
do less. They should not rely on a shuttle to solve the parking situation, but should have
additional parking in a shared area.
Chair Slavitz stated that the parking had to be adequate to not burden Turtle Rock_ Court and
Juno Road. The sidewalk, bike path, and crosswalk were all needed as a traffic safety issue.
He agreed with a 50 or 6O.foot setback from Trestle Glen Boulevard. This bike route is used
all the time. He mentioned the Paradise Visioning Plan's goal was to maintain the rural quality,
which was great, but there needs to be improved safety for bikes and pedestrians. He wanted
smaller houses and thought it was better to spread out on bigger envelopes. The development is
more visually compact. The developer does have a right to build, but he should find the best
way to do that. He would remove Lot #3, minimize fencing, reduce outdoor lighting, and put
up story poles for the middle and corners of each house to help everyone visualize the project.
Commissioner Berger thought the sidewalk should be on the Belveron side and the other side
kept natural. The landscaping bordering these projects should enhance the natural environment.
M/S Berger/Stein (5-0) to continue to October 25. 2000, to allow time to prepare revisions,
and schedule together with the Lower Trestle Glen project.
The Commission recessed from 10: 10 to 10:20 p.m.
3. END OF PARENTE ROAD AND END OF ANTONETTE DRIVE: PARENTE
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCOPING
SESSION; PROPOSAL TO CREATE FIVE (5) SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON 10.3 ACRES OF LAND; Amerippon, Inc., owner;
Assessor Parcel No. 38-111-16.
.
.
Senior Planner Watrous stated that this is the first of a series of public hearing for this Precise
Development Plan. The Scoping Session for the ElR is intended to take comments as to the
items to be included in the EJR, and not the merits of the project. Mr. Watrous described the
project as five lots along a new road created by connecting Parente Road and Antonette Road.
The applicant had prepared a series of studies on geological, traffic and circulation, aesthetics, .
and drainage. The Town had hired Leonard Charles as the EI R Consultant and he was present
TIHU\{ClN PLANNING COMMISSION
9
MINUTE..'! NO. X33 OF Oci'ClBEI\ 1]. 200n
EXHIBIT NO. 'Q> ? i or"(
.
.
.
to answer questions. To be included within the scope of the EIR, CEQA requires that
substantial evidence be presented which supports a fair argument that potentially significant
impacts would be caused by the project. Mr. Watrous stated that notices had been sent to all
the neighbors within 300 feet. There are others who had expressed interest that inadvertently
had not been noticed. Their names will be added to the list for future notices. They can still
submit letters and comments.
Vice-Chair Stein slJlted that he noticed that the Paradise Visioning SlJItement was not included
in the packet, and he hoped that the ElR Consultant could review that document. Mr. Watrous
. said he would make it available. That statement is not for this area, but the principles should be
reviewed.
Discussion was opened to the public at 10:30 p,m.
Randy Greenberg noted that the Paradise Visioning Statement covered both the incorporated
and unincorporated areas.
Phillip Moss, applicant and owner representative, clarified that the roadway is intended to be a
dedicated street, not a driveway. Mr. Watrous stated that the street would be offered to the
Town for dedication and it was up to the Town to accept the street or not.
Gerri Javor, POBox 10165, said hers was the closest house to this property and had received
no notice. She was concerned about the road and how it would impact the neighbors. She noted
that there were about 30-40 eucalyptus trees there that create a wind barrier and wanted those.
preserved. With five large homes of 6-7,000 square feet each, the number of cars and service
vehicles is a concern, as is the dust created during construction. The close proximity of the
access road off the private drive comes right to her pool and bedroom windows, so noise was
an issue. She wanted to preserve the peaceful life, open area, and wildlife there. The drainage
plan should include that which goes into the bay. She wondered whether they had considered
an alternate location for the road. This comes so close to the homes, perhaps the other side of
the site would be possible. There has been an increase in traffic on Paradise Drive in the last
few years, and this project, together with the two on Trestle' Glen Boulevard will add to that.
The number of cars and bikes on the weekend is a concern, and this project crcates a
dangerous entrance onto Paradise Drive.
Lynn Payne, 120 Antonette Drive, slJlted that if Parente Road becomes public, then Antonette
Road would also. Mr. Watrous said the Town would have to consider that. Ms. Payne said the
drainage there was an issue as the backyards flood and there are slides.
Carroll Madsen, representing Louise Thompson of 4697 Paradise Drive, stated that Ms.
Thompson owned 3.3 acres next to the Parente property that was landlocked. He said she
wanted to be able to get to her property and the only way to it is through the private road. Mr.
Watrous said he has discussed this matter with the applicant, but they have not made such a
connection part 'of the appl ication.
TIHlJI{ON PI,ANNING COMMISSION
10
MINUTES NO. ~D3 OF OCTOnEI{ ] 1,2000
EXHIBl'T NO. -g r? oF- 'i
Susan Gause, 325 Taylor Road, stated that she and housemate Nancy Kuhn wanted to be sure
the natural state of the land is maintained. They have five acres of open space with the house .
on ol)eacre. Drainage work had been done on their property, as well as slide repair. They
were concerned about the project creating further landsl ides on their property.
.Iim Malott, 987 Tiburon Boulevard, said there should be a dedicated open space easement
from th is property.
.Ioel Levine, 201 Taylor Road, stated that he wanted to be sure they would keep the charactcr
of the area, as it was next to Ring Mountain and lots of open space. He thought that a five-iot
subdivision was not compatible, and should be considered carefully.
Richard Payne, 120 Antonette Drive, stated that he thought there should be a more
comprehensive map. He had. concerns about the 18" culvert going across the property 10
Paradise Drivc, as there was a lot of water there.
Randy Greenberg, Paradise Drive, stated that there was very little information provided on the
maps, etc. She thought there should be a view analysis from Ring Mountain. With a pavement
20 feet wide, parking would be a big issue, and that needed to be mitigated. Cumulative
impacts should be addressed if access is provided to the adjacent property.
Cosmo Fraser, 207 Taylor Road, stated that he wanted to bc sure the character of the open
space was maintained, and that thc slide area was addressed. The road should not go on the
ridgeline, and there should be proper runoff, drainage, and landscaping.
.
Ken Hicken, 4883 Paradise Drive, stated that he felt that the way the road was configured for
Parente and Antonette Drives, the logical way for people to go will be on Antonette Drive.
This street will bear the brunt of the ]5 cars or so. The entrance at Parente Drive is a bad one,
so people will go to Antonelle Drive. He did not think that street could handle the construction
traffic.
Phillip Moss stated that concerning the adjacent property, the other developer approached him
to buy the Thompson property. They have refused an offer of up to one million dollars to
provide a connection to the Thompson property, and will not extend their roadway to this
adjacent property.
Discussion was closed to the public at 10:55 p.m.
Commissioner Fredcricks stated that she wanted to he sure the E1R dealt with the ridgeline and
access to the open space.
Commissioner Berger stated that it should cover traffic and noise factors, and the fact that cars
are louder when going uphill. The driveway should be set back 20 feet from adjacent
properties, and a headlight analysis should be performed.
.
TlIHJRUN PLANNING COMMISSION
11
MINllTES NU. X33 OF OCTOBER' 11. loon
EXHIBIT NO. 'E9 p. '3 ifF L(
.
.
.
Vice.Chair Stein stated that they needed better charts and maps to see how this project relates
to Ring. Mountain and the rest of Paradise Drive. He felt that the street layout was substandard
going onto Paradise Drive, and that access to Paradise Drive needed to be looked at closely.
The circulation pattern should be more rational.
Commissioner Snow stated that the size of the road should be looked at, as concerns the
adjacent property owners.
Chair Slavitz stated that parking is also an issue. He noted that all these new projects create an
. .
incremental traffic problem, and thought the cumulative traffic problem should be evaluated.
Senior Planner Watrous stated that he gave the EIR consultant all other development potential
in the area, so he has all the information on the vacant land and will take that into
consideration.
Commissioner Berger stated that this property has a rural environment, but right next to it is a
dense development with ten houses. He wanted to see a bigger view of the area.
V ice-Chair Stein stated that in the Paradise Visioning Statement, the rural character was due to
homes being hidden by landscaping or the terrain.
Chair Slavitz stated that the connection to the open space should be maintained.
Gerri Javor stated that the cumulative impacts should include the affordable housing next to
Taylor Road and the assisted living facility in Corte Madera. .
DISCUSSION ITEM
4. DRAFT SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION REGARDlNG THE DENIAL OF ST.
HILARY'S CHURCH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLlCA TJON
Senior Planner Watrous stated that this was a summary of the Commission's comments from
the August 9th meeting that would be forwarded to the Town Council for thciruse in the appeal
process.
Vice-Chair Stein stated that he did not agree that a consensus was reached on these issues, and
perhaps it should say "the majority view" instead.
Chair Slavitz stated that he liked the distillation of where the Planning Commission was at the
end of all the discussion.
Vice-Chair Stein thought it was a bad idea, because it was impossible to distill all the
discussion that occurred and there were too many different opinions.
TlBlJRON I'LANNING C(lMMISSlflN
12
MINUTES NO. KB OF OCTOBER 11. 200(1
EXHIBIT NO. "i (, L/ u- y
PUBLIC UEAI{INGS
.
3. HEVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONME:NTAL IMpAC'r REPORT FOR TilE
PARENTE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (I'C#4) TO CRE:A'rE' FIVE
BUILDING SITESON A 10.3 ACIZE pAHCEL; pAIHcNTE IWAIl/ANTONETTE
IlRIVE; AlllerippolI, IIIL, oWllers; Philip [Vloss/Nt'.il Sorellsell, appliC:lIIts;
Assesso r' s Pa reel No. 3S-1 I 1- I (i
Scnior Planner WatJ'Ous explainedlhat the purpose of the hearing was 10 obtain public commelll
on the adequacy oftl1e EIR and nOI on the' merils of the projecl, since Ihose will be addressed at a
separate hearing. The COllllllenl perior! Dll the DEIR will end on November 8, 200 I. Explaining
the location on a site plan, he SlllnllHlrized the propos':ll by stating that the Precise Development
Plan would eSlablish building envelopes [,',1' live homes on five 101s. The site is covered witb
native grasses, sc,ll1ered brush, ,Jill! S(Hn(~ clcldiliollal trees, but 1\0 ,.vell;ll1(ls. Some or he key
findings oflhe DEIR rellllc 10:
.
Geology - The presellcc uflallClslide deposits ollllw site, [')1' which IIIitigaliollll1easures have
been recommended so thai developmenl clln he constructed wilhoul resulling in significant
impacls.
.
Because 0[' Ihe location or the proposed residcllces allcl SII'Cet, Ihe DEIR does conclucle Ihal
the project \voldd he incollsis!Clll \vith Policy OSC-ll which encourages Ihat grading be
mini'lllizcd to Ilmilllain c:-.:isling j(\llclrnrll1:~, (lIlcllhcrcfore, i:-; c(ll'lsiclcrec! {\ significant illlpllCl.
The DEIR cOllcludes thlllthe only f'e,lsihle rniligatioll Ic,rlhis signiflCilllt impact IS 10 approve
a project allCm,l1ive. that reduces 111e llliIYlIH.:I" (\!lei rcloC<ltes the. r~si(kllces,
. .
.
.
Hydrology - FOUl' walersheds h<iVC I"'.c:n idc11Ii[',ed al the Slle. 1\llhough Ihe potentilli ror
increased \Naler rUlloffancl erosioll (;Aists, rnitigation Ineasures \0 redllce these irnp:'lcts to less
lh,ll1 signific;:lJ11 levels h,lve been I'l'.culllllleIlcJccl.
.
Traffic - Although no significant illlpHC1S were iClentirlCc! on (Ill)' Ilcclrby intersections 111
tcrms or level 0[' service, lhe DI~II\ cl.lllclllrled thai the illlcrscclion or !'arentc Ro"d and
Parf,dise Drive was d"ngerous. Thc:rcllll'l', il is reeonllncnc!ec!tllill AnlOllellc Drivc be used as
the sole access, or Il1l1t Pilrelllc lZo<ld onll' he used for <lccess 10 the project from P"rildisc
, .
Drive with .L\lltoncne Drive used I'm l'gl'CSS
.
Aeslhetics - The projecl WilS deellled 10 be illconsistellt with Policy OSe-5 of Ihe Open
Space ilnd C:onservlltioll Elclllellt which Slales thai to the' e.\[CllI feasihle, fill new
developnlcn[ be located well below ridgelilles. The DEIR cOllcludes thlll lilt: olllv ['easiblc
mitigiltioll would be to llpprOVl'. (I pr()J(~Cl ::iltcrl1allve reducing the IlLlI'llbci" or residellces and
changing their IOUI! ion,
.
Noise - rvlitigcllion llleaSlIres to minimIze consll-uclioll noise !lave been rccolll1l1ctlclccl.
.
Land Use - Ihe projecl W,lS deellled inconsistent with OSe-:i 01' Ihe Open Space IInd
C:onscrvlllion [IGIIlCIlI, which idenli['les the subject prapei'ly 'IS "potentilll open space" The
.
TIHUI(( ll\' 1'1..'\0: ~'IN( r C( );\1 ;-.IISSI();',
(JC']'(lBI';J{ 2.1. :WIJI O'j _
EXHIBIT NO.~ l
(I
l (,JI- .3
~,Il\'l: I"j.:-,> ;..:(). ~.~ I
.
.
.
recommended mitigatioll 1l1e(lSUrC is to ~lpprove a project alternHtive reducing the number of
residences and changing their l(Jemie)!l.
Mr. Watrous concluded by reeol1lnlellClin" tl1<11 lollowin" the conclusion of public testimony, the
hearing be closed, Commissioners provide verbal comments, and this matter be continued to the
meeting of November 28. 200 I IllI' deterlllination as to whether the DElR was prepared in
conformance with CEQA.
The heal-ing was openedtll public leslil1l11ny.
Michael Zischke, legal cllunsel Illr the "pplic<lnt, informed the COlTlmission that the "pplicant
would try to resolve. CIS lII"ny of the issues CIS possible early in Ihe process, but Ihat they would be
submitting their comments on the DEIR in writing. He then look issue with some of the
conclusions of the DEIR, nol with respeel to its adequ"cy, hut with the way the conclusions are
stated. The DEIR singles out the subject propel'll' to be treated dilTerently than other propenies
similar in size in the vicinity. The conclusions on geology and grading are an example, since the
DE1R questions the amount of grading and its consistency with the General Plan. He said that
the type of grading required lor the subject project is similar to Ihe Iype of grading that would be
required for surroundin" propenies. In his opinion, the proposed project is consistent with the
Town' General Plan and zoning oCthe site, ill1d is cornpatible with tile sLJIToundillg character.
In response 10 Ch"ir Stein, Mr. Zischke sr:lled that they would be expanding on their comments
regarding the zoning and density ol-the projl'ct, in terms of compliance with the Town Plan and
current Open Space design"t ion.
Discussion was opened to the public :It l):20 p.m.
Richard.Payne, 120 AntoneueDrive, summarized his previously submiued letter, that had been
revised, commenting on the j~1ct that the DEIR document j~\i1s 10 acknowledge the deteriorated
conditions 0[' Antonette Drive, which would he exacerbated by construction tral'fic. Noting the
potentiallandslidc, slippage, and water probkms related 10 the proposed excessive grading, Mr.
Payne pointed out the project's ineonsislency with Policy OSC-II, which encourages that
grading be minimized 10 maintain existing L:lllclforms. He agreed that mitigation 10 this concern
would be to reduce the number of' units. I-le concluded by pointing out that increasing runoff in
watersheds 1,2, and J will result in m<ljor Ilooding to his propeny
Michael O'Donnell, 4879 Paradise Drive, stated that Parente Road was one of' the most
dangeroLls rCHlcls ofT Par::ldise Drive given its ctliglll11enl.
Joanna Kemper, Last Chance Committee, stated that since the DEIR clocs recognize that the
subject propeny has clements associated with prime open space: the General PI<n1 policies should
be upheld. She asked Ilwt vlsu:11 impacts, nlll just from Tiburon, but "Iso li'om the bay, be
addressed. In her opinilnl. the. properly oWller should be required to repair any landslides ifthey
occur as a result of' lhe project. Silt concluded by asking th(\1 starr consider providing C0I11111011,
homeowner private opeJl space rather lhall gri.ll1ting open space ['or each oj'the hennes.
TlBl)l{()N 1'1 .'\NNI~(; C().\I;..IISSI()\' ..\II~l,TLS \'(). ~.~I I )t"T())WI~ :l.:J. :::(J(I)
EXHIBITNO.~7 p_ 2oF3"
Walt Bilofsky, 4304 I'aradise Drive, shared the concern regarding safety at the Parente
Road/I'aradise Drive intersection, and ,Isked th,li the cumulative impacts of the pending Paradise .
Cay project he takell into cOll.,ider'ilion H,: Iloled tllat althclIlgh his pl'openy was IIOt within one
of the watersheds to he impacted, based 011 P,ISI personal expel'ience drainage should he earefullv
considered, paniculal'iy directly to tilt east ufthe' subject propeny
C. R. Bricea, 145 Antonelle Drive, noted thai the conclusion of' engineering studies done on his
property. indicate that soil stability is a eoncci'I1. Therefore, his conCerns related to potential
landslides and privacy intrusion hased on the location of the pi'Oposed homes
Lynn PaYI1(:, 120 Anlonet'le Drive, rend (1 Ictter from a neighhor sharing the concerns raised by
Mr. Payne. She then stated that turning left f'ron; Antonelle Drive onto I'aradise Drive was very
- -
dangerous given the alignment or the roael.
The public hearing was closed at 9::;5 p.m.
Commissioner Fredericks asked thill ,III ;Iccurate and consistent nlllnber of truck trips for
removing excess soil be provided.
Commissioner Smith asked thai gcotccllllieal information, In tel'ms or potential landslides and
impacts ofT site, be eXllilncledupon.
Chair Stein asked that any potential prime open space areas be identified. The extent of such
prime open space would have potenli,1I illlp;lels on density ,Ind the pl'oject alternatives to be
considered. He expl'essed conCel'llllwl the: DI::IR did not adequately ,Iddl'ess the proposed size of
homes 01' the potential elimimllion of' pl'ime 'open space. /\Ithough the amount of open space
would dictate the density allowed, the ElIZ does not pl'ovide guidance. He asked that expen
testimony I'egarding the uniqueness 0[' 111l: pl'Opel1y as open space be ev,lIuated, and that this
information be provided prior to finalizing the EIR.
.
M/S FrederickslBerger (4-0) to continn,' this matter to the hearing or November 28, 2001,
for determination as 10 whether the DEll< was prepared in conrormance with CEQA.
A D.lOIJRNIVII<:NT
Having no furthel' business, the Commission cld.lOllrned at 9:'15 p.m
Jdt--2J.1k-
STEVE STI::IN, CHAI'RMAN
Tihurol1 Planning COlll111ission
ArrEST: . . ()I
(' /
'J! ~(); / !
\../ ) (::..J(J....) wn.)\..i0""";';:'<1/'o-..-,
seefrT /\NDERSON. SECRETAlZ \'
10240lpcmin.doc
.
TIIIlIIWN I'L/\NNI.'" CII.\I\IISSIII~ \IINI'TI'S Nil S;I IICTIIIWI< 2'1. 211111 X
EXHIBIT NO. ft, . P. :;'oic:3
.
.
.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 2108 & 2110 MAR EAST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #110106 REQUEST TO
CONSTRUCT A PIER AND BOAT DOCK: Raymond and Sandy L'Henreux,
owners: Hank Bruce, applicant. Assessor's Parcel No. 59-181-12 and 59-18.1-34
Senior Planner Watrous explained that the proposed application was similar to the ones recently
approved on adjacent properties. One of the differences is that the proposed dock wouid be at an
elevation six inches higher than the recently approved piers, but would not extend further into the
bay. He recommended that after taking public testimony, the Commission adopt the draft
Resolution granting conditional approval of thc project.
In response to Commissioner Snow, Senior Planner Watrous stated that the proposed pier and
dock have been reviewed as part of the Design Review process for other construction on the
property. However, the Commission can raise any concerns regarding the physical design.
Chair Stein opened the hearing to public comment at 7:35 PM
Hank Bruce, project architect, offered to answer any questions they might have regarding the
application
Chair Stein closed the hearing to public testimony.
In response to Commissioner Berger, Senior Planner Watrous stated that the statement in the
staff report regarding a boat lift to store a large boat above water level related to a problem faced
at a pier on Paradise Drive where there a boat was stored at a higher elevation with a mechanical
hoist for extended periods of time, thereby becoming a visual distraction.
Mis Berger/Snow, (3-0), to adopt the draft Resolution granting conditional approval of the
project.
3. CONSIDER ADEQUACY OF DRAJ<'T ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE PARENTE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PD#4) TO CREATE
FIVE BUILDING SITES ON A 10.3 ACRE PARCEL: END OF PARENTE
ROAD/ANTONETTE DRIVE: Amerippon, Inc., owners: Philip Moss!Neil
Sorensen, applicants: Assessor's Parcel No. 38-1J1-16
Senior Planner Watrous stated that the Planning Commission held a hearing on this matter on
October 24, 2001 to take public comment on the DEIR. After receiving testimony, the hearing
was closed and the item was continued to this hcaring. Thc public review comment period
closed on November 8,2001 and a summary of the issues raised is included in the StafTReport
The two signifIcant unavoidable impacts project idcntified in the Draft EIR relate to consistency
with the Tiburon General Plan Policies regarding potential prime open space and grading.
Should the Commission determine that the DEIR has been prepared in conformance with CEQA
Guidelines, the consultant should be directed to prepare a response to comments and prepare the
Final ElR. If the Commission finds that the DEIR has not been prepared in conformance with
CEQA, this matter should be continued in order to obtain additional information. Although
TIIRJROJ\' PI.^NNINC, COl\1!\11SSI0N
2
MINUTES NO. X54 or J\'OVEMI1.ER 2l( 2(J()]
EXHIBIT NO. IrQ' f. I OF-I...(
some items have been identified as needing additional information, staff found that the DEIR had .
been prepared in conformance with CEQA. Therefore, it was recommended that the
Commission accept public testimony, provide comments, and determine that the DEIR is
adequate.
In response to Chair Stein, Senior Planner Watrous stated that unless the Commission found new
information that would lead to the finding that there may be other significant impacts that were
not identified, additional changes or alterations to the document would not trigger recirculation
of the DEIR
Chair Stein opened the hearing to public comment at 744 p.m.
Christian Marsh, representing Amerippon, stated he was present to respond to any questions.
Joanna Kemper, Last Chance Committee, stated that they were very pleased that an analysis of
the prime open space on the parcel was conducted, particularly since it confirms the existence of
prime open space. She then asked that an overlay be provided showing the local ion of the
homes in relation of the ridgeline to better depict what the homes will look like once they are
developed She concluded by stating that adhering to the objective of providing ISO-degree
views for the homes would narrow down the possibilities of alternative layouts.
Chair Stein closed the hearing to public comment at 747 p.m.
In response to Commissioner Berger, Consultant Leonard Charles stated that the DEIR did not .
address the structural adequacy of other roads that may be impacted during construction. Since
the project proposal was to use Parente Road, the adequacy of Antonnette was not analyzed.
Commissioner Berger then stated that further examination would be beneficial to community
members. Therefore, he suggested that some discussion regarding roadway adequacy be
included in the DEIR, at least in general terms. Commissioner Berger also asked that references
to general plan elements regarding greenbelt areas be included He suggested adding discussion
regarding open space contiguity in order to emphasize its importance
Commissioner Snow acknowledged the information included in the DEIR, and concurred with
Commissioner Berger
Chair Stein agrecd that every conceivable alternative had been provided. However, he found that
not enough information regarding the most feasible alternative had been provided For example,
five units on the ridgeline would create some unavoidable impacts However, siting five or less
homes off he ridge may avoid the unavoidable impacts, but could create others such as increased
grading. Therefore, he would need an analysis regarding the amount of grading required for
three homes off the ridgeline. Consultant Charles stated that it would be feasible to provide such
analysis, but would have to he discussed with staff because it was not within the scope of work.
Chair Stein noted the Marin County Planning Community Development Department's
comments indicating that the County's criteria for preservation of open space were stronger than
Tiburon's. Based on the strength of their comments, and the fact that County open space abuts
the subjeet property, Chair Stein stated that their comments deserved a response.
.
T1HURON PLANNING C():-dl\1ISSI0~
:;
l\HNUTI.;S NO. X:;-j OF NOVI;;l\lHEJ.:. 2:-1. 'ZOO]
EXHIBIT NO. Ie P Z_()F'(
,
.
.
.
Consultant Charles recommended to simply recognize the County's comments Since the County
has no jurisdiction over the project, there is no requirement to assess the project under the Marin
Countywide Plan. Therefore, although the County's concerns were recognized, a specific
response on the accuracy of their comments was not provided.
In Chair Stein's opinion, the County's letter deserved more ofa response, particularly because of
the annexation requests that are continuously made from properties along Paradise Drive.
Whether annexation takes place or not, the Town always has the opportunity to comment.
Therefore, Chair Stein felt that the same respect and acknowledgement should be given to the
County. .Furthermore, Chair Stein found that if the County's constraints were stronger than
Tiburon's, not only should their comments be acknowledged, but reflected in the Final EIR to
provide a better understanding of the rationale for such strong criteria
.1.,
Commissioner Berger agreed that acknowledgement of the County's comments was appropriate.
He felt that including the County's criteria for .preservation of open space in the Final EIR may
be beneficial when evaluating the merits of the project, but questioned whether inclusion of said
information would create any difficulties. Planning Director Anderson stated that it would not
create difficulties, but would be meaningless to apply the principles of the Countrywide Plan that
may have not even adopted at the time this property was created. It would be difficult to apply
another jurisdiction's policies and goals to a property under Tiburon's jurisdiction.
Chair Stein did not think it would be harmful to include said information. Commissioner. Berger
found that the harm might be to cloud information regarding the criteria for judging the project.
Commissioner Snow read the County's letter as simply noting that not only would the project be
in conflict with the County's policies, but also with the Tiburon General Plan, and not as asking
the Town to embrace the County's policies.
Chair Stein disagreed that including said information would not cloud the issue; he felt that it
would simply provide information regarding the County's reasoning.
In response to Commissioner Berger, Chair Stein clarified that he was suggesting to include
information regarding why and how the County arrived at their conclusion. Since the County
indicates that their policies are more environmentally protective. it would be helpful to know
what interests the County is seeking to protect because the Town may want to seek to protect the
same interests.
Commissioner Berger did not support including or using the County's Policies to evaluate the
project.
Senior Pianner Watrous stated that Chair Stein wanted to include the rationale for the County to
have more environmentally protective standards and not to evaiuate the project against their
standards. With that clarification, Commissioner Berger was agreeable to including said
information.
TIHUHON I'L^NNIN(; COJ\lMISS10N
:....11N\.iTES NO. X~'l OF NOVEt....IBER 2K 20{)]
EXHIBIT NO. Ie.
4
l
'2,',ey.
_",1..J
.'
i
Chair Stein stated that after reviewing the traffic section, he did not find a response to some of
the concerns raised, i.e., number of trucks using the road, adequacy of the road to support
construction equipment, and potential impacts to the levcl of service.
.
Senior Planner Watrous asked for more specificity, i.e., whether Chair Stein wished the EIR to
address actual construction impacts on traffic or perceived impacts by the neighbors. Chair Stein
questioned whether the methodology, which is typically used in traffic impact analyses, was
adequate since it did not address other impacts. Therefore, in his opinion, it was not appropriate
to indicate that there will be no impacts just because the methodology used has worked in the
past.
Senior Planner Watrous noted that even though neighhors may suffer noise problems by the
construction of a home, noise may not meet the standards of significance. Construction traffic
would fall in that category; it would be considered short-term irritation. Commissioner Berger
asked for examples of what said short-term irritations would be.
In response to Consultant Charles, Chair Stein stated that he wanted a grading analysis for a
three home alternative or as determined hy him.
Noting a letter from Ms. Greenberg, Chair Stein stated that a hetter analysis of the retaining walls
was necessary in order to identify their location and height. He also asked for a better site plan
depicting the size of the proposed homes. Senior Planner Watrous indicated that this information
would be obtained from the applicant. Chair Stein asked that the alternatives specify this
information .
Commissioner Snow asked for more information regarding fencing, and height of structures, In
terms of secondary envelopes.
Chair Stein noted a letter raising concerns regarding potential soil stability impacts resulting
from tree removal should road widening take place and asked that a response he prepared. He
also asked that information regarding potentia] stability impacts to ofT-site properties in case
grading is needed be included to the extent feasible
The Commission agreed that the items discussed above would not nse to a level triggering
recirculation of the DEIR, therefore, the document could be finalized.
MIS Berger/Snow, (3-0), to determine that the DEIR is adequate and was prepared in
conformance with CEQA and the Town's local CEQA Guidelines, and to direct the consultant to
prepare responses to comments, including those received at this hearing, and prepare the Final
EIR
.
TIBUROf\! 1'1 '^t>NING COt\! i'dlSSlOJ\'
1\t1NlJTI;:~ Nn. R~.l OF NnVEldlll':R 2X. 2001
EXHIBIT NO. It{(' P '--I6FL(
. PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. PARENTE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: TO CREATE FIVE BUILDING
SITES ON A 10.3 ACRE PARCEL; PARENT ROAD/ANTONETTE DRIVE;
Amerippon, Inc., owners; Phillip Moss, applicants; Assessor Parcel No. 038-1] ]-16
Senior Planner Watrous reviewed the Staff report, highlighting specific facts.
a. The plan would subdivide a 10.3 acre parcel into five lots for the development of a single-
fumily dwelling on each lot.
b. Landslide complexes exist in the northwest comer of the site and in the drainage area
crossing the southernmost portion ofthe property. Four separate watersheds on the site
drain to the north and southeast of the property.
c. Access would be provided to all proposed lots from a 20-foot wide private street
extending from the cul-de-sac at the end of Antonette Drive. Review by the Tiburon Fire
Protection District indicates that the width, slope and turnaround area of the proposed
access appears to be acceptable. The applicant proposes to dedicate this street to the
Town, however, the Town is not inclined to accept such dedication at this time.
.
d. A total of60.5% of the total area of the subject property would remain undisturbed by
either the building envelopes or the proposed roadway. The proposed precise
development plan does not specify the method which would be utilized to preserve this
open space.
e. Secondary Ridgeline 0, identified by the Open Space & Conservation Element ofthe
Tiburon General Plan traverses the center of the subject property from southwest to
northeast. The location of the proposed street and residences along this ridgeline would
involve construction work that would not minimize grading or represent sensitive site
design that would preserve this natural feature to the maximum extent feasible.
f. The EIR states that open space views would be lost or significantly altered from a portion
of the Ring Mountain Open Space Preserve, the six residences nearest the site, residences
in Paradise Cay, and a few other homes in the more distance locations. The EIR
recommends moving the future residences on Lots 2, 3, 4 & 5 downslope away from the
Ridgeline 0, and the house on Lot 1 be relocated or reduced in height to avoid blocking
the view of San Francisco Bay from the home at 4885 Paradise Drive.
g. The applicant estimates that construction of the street and the extension of Parente Road
would involve extensive grading, with a total of 4,364 cubic yards of cut and 753 cubic
yards of fill required. Only one significant tree and no other substantial vegetation are
.
TlBlJRON PLANNING COMMISSION MINLJfES OF July 24. 2002
Minutes No. 865
2
EXHIBIT NO'. It
? lo.~9
proposed to be removed, and the EIR recommends that this tree not be removed.
.
In conclusion, the EIR suggests that reduced density project alternatives could be designed that
would be more consistent with the Town's policies and guidelines. The EIR states that "the fewer
the number of residences, the less impact to open spacc and grading." Staff believes that a three-
lot alternative would substantially reduce the grading and view impacts resulting from the project,
while allowing a reasonable level of developmcnt fbr this 10.3 acre property.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold the public hearing; certify the Final ElR;
recommend to the Town Council adoption of the three-lot alternative as being environmentally
superior to the proposed project and more consistent with the General Plan policies; recommend
to the Town Council that either a statement of overriding considerations be prepared and adopted
in order to approve the three-lot alternative despite remaining significant adverse impacts on the
environment even after implementation of all mitigation measures, or find that the approval of the
three-lot alternative would reduce all potential impacts on the environment to less-than-significant
levels after implementation of al mitigation measures; and direct Staff to return with an
appropriate Reso lution.
Commissioner Stein asked if Staff had had any conversations with the developer with regard to
thcir opinion that therc were overriding circumstances to preclude the three-unit ahernative.
Senior Planner Watrous stated the applicant does not believe a three unit alternative would be
economically viable,
.
Phillip Moss, applicant and architect, made a slide presentation which depicted overhead views of
the site; habitat areas, slide areas and placement of building envelopes. He noted that the house at
4885 Paradise Drive was located within 10 feet oftheir property line; to keep the roadway away
from this house requires more grading, and they will landscape the roadway to prevent headlights
from disturbing those residents.
Mr. Moss explained that due to the limitations of the slope, geology and habitat, they clustered
the houses on the site. Lots 1, 3 and 5 would havc' one story on the upslope and two stories on
the downslope. He said that pushing houses down the site would require more grading. They are
trying to balance cut and fill on the site. He described various methods and modifications that
could reduce the amount of grading required for the project. He acknowledged that due to the
topography, views will be impacted from above and 4885 Paradise Drive.
In response to Chainnan Smith, Mr. Moss stated he believed the tree at the center of the property
would be saved; the tree in question would be in the front yard onot #5.
In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Mr. Moss stated the height of the one story element of
the homes would vary between 26, 24 and 22 feet.
TIHURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF July 24. 2002
Minutes No. 865
3
.
EXHIBIT NO.
14>
P. 20;= '1
.
.
.
In response to Commissioner Collins, Mr, Moss stated he believed the slide area in the northern
section of the site was the more dangerous of the two landslides on the site.
In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Mr. Moss stated they did not intend to repair the entire
slide area; an extensive repair would create more grading.
In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Mr. Moss said that they did not know whether they
would need additional pennissions or legal rights to widen the Antonette Drive roadway beyond
its current foot width. Commissioner Greenberg emphasized that the Commission needed to
know that infonnation.
Commissioner Greenberg noted that she believed it was the Town's policy that all slide areas need
to be repaired, and if that is the policy, then the grading numbers provided do not reflect that
repair. Mr. Watrous read from the Safety Element of the General Plan, Policy SE-8, regarding
repair of landslides. Mr. Moss stated that landslide repair was not included in their grading
calculations; their intent was to only improve the slides near the two proposed houses.
Leonard Charles, EIR consultant, stated that when the applicant gets to the design stage, they will
need a more detailed geological study. A brief discussion ensued regarding the need for more
detailed geologic infonnation.
In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Mr. Moss stated that if Antonette Drive was used and
Parente Road abandoned, the amount of grading would be about the same..
In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Mr, Charles stated the 1.76 acres ofhardscape
estimated was based on site plans submitted by the applicant; details of what would be included
had not been designed yet.
In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Mr. Moss did not know what the noise level would be
as a result of scoring the road in the areas where the grade is above 21 'Yo. Commissioner
Greenberg asked that the applicant provide these answers at the next meeting. Commissioner
Greenberg estimated that 650 feet of roadway would be scored, and noted that the sound
engineer had not addressed this issue,
Commissioner Greenberg noted that the rock 1ining of the proposed drainage ditch that would run
along the road would be a visual impact. Mr. Moss stated he thought an open ditch with natural
growth would be preferable to pipes, saying that it would create a visual sense of waterfalls.
Rocks could be placed in the ditch to slow the speed of water. He noted that northwest of
Parente Road, there is a large existing swale.
In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Mr. Moss stated he believed a fence of approximately
400 feet in length would be needed to shield neighbors; that he would work with them regarding
TlBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF July 24. 2002
Minutes No. 865
4
EXHIBIT NO.~ P 3 ()177
the fcnce height.
.
Michael Zischke, attorney, Morrison and Forrester, 425 Market Street, San Francisco, stated he
would rcsearch the easements that run with the land. He wanted to address three issues: (I) .
General Plan consistencies, (2) ridgeline policies; and (3) feasibility of alternatives. Hc believed
that development ofthis property with five lots was consistent with the General Plan policies. He
said that these policies need to be balanced and the Town can never meet all ofthe policies for
anyone project. He noted that the General Plan states that there is a continuing opportunity to
refine ridgeline analysis. He stated when you mitigate environmental impacts and determine
consistency with the General Plan, you have to discuss project feasibility. He stated that it is
important to consider that the project as proposed would preserve 60% ofthe open space and
minimizing grading as much as feasible. He stated that an economic report shows that five units
are economically feasible, and 4 units would be marginally feasible, but would not be acceptable
to investors, He stated that Staff's recommendation for three Wlits is not economically feasible,
Mr. Zischke believed that when one looked at the site, what is designated as Ridgeline 0 is more
of a slope than a ridge line; he said this is not part of the Tiburon Ridgc but a sloping hillside that
goes through the Parente property and does not connect different hills. He would like to work
with the Staff on the identified issues, and asked the Commission to not direct that a three-unit
project come back, but rather a project that will address issues within the five-unit density
proposed. .
Commissioner Collins questioned the Economic Report, including the rate of return figures and
what the 15% discount meant. Mr. Moss indicated that they will get more detailed answers to
these questions.
.
Commissioner Stein stated that he had a basic problem with the approach used in the Economic
Report. The report estimates a selling price of$3.5 million per house, which would be
approximately $650 per square foot ofliving space. He noted prices are going up and he believed
a $900 per square foot estimate might be more accurate. He noted that if that is true, then the
project would be feasible at three units.
In response to a question from the Commission as to whether the lot was being marketed as a 10
acre estate, Mr. Moss replied that one party had been interested in the property as one lot, but
that person is no longer interested. He stated that the property was never offered as a 10 acre
estate lot.
Mr. Zischke stated he would get answers from the people who prepared the Economic Report.
He said that CEQA includes cost in its definition offeasibility, and cost should be a factor for the
Commission to consider. He said that when a project alternative would take the project below the
cost of developing the property, it makes that alternative economically infeasible. He also stated
the Town has the right to purchase the property as open space. Commissioner Greenberg noted
TlBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF July 24, 2002
Minutes No. 865
5
.
EXHIBITNO.~ y.uP7
.
.
.
,
that given the environmental constraints, the Town could approve only one unit, as real estate is
speculative. She asked if the applicant expected there to be a guarantee ofretum, and Mr.
Zischke replied that there was no such expectation.
Chairman Smith stated since the economic feasibility of the project has been raised by the
applicant, he requested that the author of the Economic Report attend the next meeting to
respond to questions. Mr. Moss asked the Commissioners to prepare questions ahead of time so
the author can come prepared to the next meeting.
Chairman Smith opened the public hearing.
Joanna Kemper, 1911 Straits View Drive, Co-Chair of the Last Chance Committee, asked what
protection would be provided for primary open space. She asked the Commission to uphold
protections for open space contained within the General Plan. She emphasized that the Town has
identified a ridgeline on this property, and asked how many ways the General Plan can say "do not
build on ridgelines" or "stay away from ridgelines".
Chairman Smith noted the Commission had just been handed a flier that identified the property "as
10 acres to build your own private estate."
Stacy O'Donnell, 4879 Paradise Drive, stated that she was speaking for the Roediger, Hicken,
Ulshafer, Gambs, Levine and Javor families. She stated that they experienced flooding in the area
in 1988 and 1989, and they have experienced problems from the excavation of other houses
nearby. She said that the eucalyptus tree needs to be preserved to protect the Hicken and Javor
houses.
Lynn Payne, 120 Antonette Drive, referred to the EIR estimate of 50 trips per day on Antonette
Drive, and thought it was too conservative for 5,000-6,000 square foot houses. She did not agree
that site lines at entrance to Antonette Drive were adequate; she stated there is a curve with a
considerable dip in the road. She stated that Section E 1 of the Geotechnical Report refers to
slides and she stated the crevice referred to is their drairuige ditch which goes into an 18" culvert
on their property; during the winter months, this culvert could not take more runoff. She urged
the Commission to select the three-unit alternative.
Joel Levine, 201 Taylor Road, said that he looks down on the property. He noted that the house
at 151 Taylor Road is on the market for $7.5 million and three houses at that price would make
the three-unit alternative economically feasible. He did not believe that the Town needs to
consider whether someone can make a profit on a speculative property purchase. He asked that
the Commission site the houses lower on the hill to minimize impact on animals. He said that five
houses would look terrible looking down from Ring Mountain.
C. R. Bricker, 145 Antonette Drive, questioned how the applicants would control traffic. He also
TlBlJRON PLANNING COMMISSION MlNlITES or July 24. 2002
Minutes No. 865
6
EXHIBIT NO.~P. S-oF'1
stated that Parente Road was a dangerous intersection with Paradise Drive.
Christopher I-lamey, 80 Reedland Woods Way, also owner of property at 140 Antonette Drive,
thought these houses could only be seen from thc water. He thought that 2 acres per home was
generous. He noted that Vista Tiburon originally proposed 55 homes and was reduced to 22
homes, which is less than one per 2 acres. He noted that this proposal was between two existing
areas of homes and did not think it affected anyone.
Jeff Walter, ] 3] Taylor Road, ;iated their view to the southeast is of an empty hill. He stated that
if this project is built as proposed, thcy will see a box on the hill in front of them.
Barbara Hamey, 80 Reedland Woods Way, stated that open space is important to the community,
but this is a private piece of property. She suggested that ifpeople want open space they should
buy the property,
Phillip Moss wanted to clarifY some issues. He stated that the eucalyptus tree referred to was not
on their property. The large group of pines was also not on their property. They did have some
concerns regarding six trees along the slope area, stating that if the proposal is to cut the slope
back to 2: I, this might affect these trees. He stated that drainage is an issue. The applicant hired
a well known hydrologist to look at rainwater and drainage and he can be asked to study it
further. He stated that if culvert is inadequate they would havc to improve it as a part oftheir
agreement; he has looked at redirecting water on watershed from their site over to the other side,
and the possibility of a "V" ditch as a mitigation measure. He will bring their hydrologist to the
next meeting.
Richard Payne, 120 Antonette Drive, restated his and his wife's concerns about drainage toward
the J 8" culvert.
Mr. Moss stated they could put two restrictors on their site to control runoff.
Chairman Smith closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Stein noted that Town Resolution 2859 specifically addresses ridgelines and
delineatcs the Parente ridge on the map and includes specific findings. He read finding #J 3, and
quoted from the General Plan regarding undeveloped ridge lines and how all new development
shall be located well below the ridgelines. He noted that the General Plan gave extraordinarily
detailed instructions as to what to do and not do when developing ridgelines, and noted that
exceptions can be made if applicant was deprived reasonable use ofthe land. He congratulated
the consultant in preparing one of the best EJRs he had ever seen, but stated that he still had
questions he needed to address before he could certifY the Final EJR.
Commissioner Greenberg agreed with the ridgelinc policy; statcd she served on the Planning
T1HURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF July 24. 2002
7
Minutes No, 865
EXHIBIT NO. It>
.
.
.
?, b oF9
.
.
.
. Commission when this policy was adopted, and helped determine which areas were ridgelines.
She said that the Town greatly values its undeveloped ridgelines. She said that, based on
information in the EIR, Antonette Drive should be used exclusively; this access would not be
great, but would be better than Parente Road. She said the Towns needs to know the width of
the easement on Antonette Drive because if it is not sufficient to accommodate the traffic
generated by this project, the applicant needs to think about reducing the number of units. She
noted the grading amounts estimated are the minimum; the Town clearly did not have enough
information regarding the amount of earth work involved in other aspects of the project, including
slide repairs and retaining walls. She said that ifhouses are to be located on ridgeJines, the
structures have to be lower; 26' tall one-story homes are unacceptable.
Commissioner Collins agreed that Parente Road is a very difficult intersection. He also had
questions about the easement on Antonette Drive. He said that there might be alternatives
without building so much on the ridgeline.
Chairman Smith noted that the constraints of the slide areas, ridgeline, and soils stability, create a
difficult development situation, He said that the Commission is charged with the duties of
determining how to preserve ridgelines to the maximum extent feasible. He questioned the
economic feasibility analysis and said it needed further exploration. He agreed with use of
Antonette Drive for access, saying that it is unclear why there would be two different access
points when one is so dangerous. He said that it is crucial to know as much as possible about the
Antonette Drive easement. He said that hydrology and drainage are of particular concern,
particularly the suggestion of moving water from one watershed to another and balancing
drainage. He said that houses on the site need to be lower and stepped into the hillside.
In response to Chairman Smith, Mr. Watrous stated the Commission should specifY information
they needed to certify the EIR; if the Commission wants to recommend adoption of an ahernative,
there should be more feedback as to how that ahernative would be designed. He suggested that
the applicant return with the additional information on the design of the project and the EIR
consultant can return with more information.
Commission Stein asked the consultant to talk to Marin County officials and find out how County
policies about avoiding ridgelines, noting that the County and.the Town share this side of the
Tiburon Peninsula, He noted that the road requires most of the grading and the three-unit
alternative requires 42% less grading; would feel more comfortable with a complete analysis of
the grading required for 2 or 3 units. He also noted that it had been suggested by the architect .
siting units further down might require more grading; maybe the Commission needs to see a more
thorough development of that idea.
Mr. Watrous summarized his understanding that Commissioner Stein wanted a more fleshed out
grading estimate for two or three units; and wanted specifics as to the result of additional grading
created by putting the houses as far off the ridge as possible without impacting slide area.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINIITES 0]' July 24, 2002
Minutes No. 865
8
EXHIBIT NO. I b f. 7 Ck9
Commissioner Greenberg summarized the Commission's need for additional geotechnical .
investigation if the houses are moved down the site. She said it is likely that there would be
smaller houses and/or fewer houses. She also wanted to see smaller secondary envelopes,
possibly around 10,000 square feet. She would like to see transition landscaping on the plans,
with a visual transition to natural landscaping. She said that fencing should be limited to cover a
smaller area, and that brick pillars with the fencing takes away the sense of openness. She said
that the retaining walls and roadway should better fit into the natural landscaping. She would like
to see open space owned by a homeowners association instead of individual property owners, She
would like to see trail easement up to Ring Mountain, iffeasible, She noted that the Paradise
Drive Visioning Plan calls for a rural atmosphere and muted designs, rather than the stucco boxes
proposed. The Commissions needs design guidelines with fence details, color, and materials. She
noted that parking has not been addressed needs to be better understood. She also noted that the
tree on Lot 5 should be retained.
Commissioner Collins stated that moving homes down the slope is an alternative, if the landslide
areas are properly mitigated. He also thought that the homes should be reduced in size, and that
the Town might want to consider dedication of a trail easement.
Chairman Smith noted that the geotechnical and hydrology reports did not provide information
for the 2 or 3 lot alternatives, He thought that the 3-lot alternative is a step in the right direction,
but the Commission does not have the geological and hydrological information to know jfthe
alternative is feasible.
.
Consultant Charles stated that the applicant had the geology and hydrology reports prepared and
he was hired to peer review those reports. The project alternatives were not reviewed because at
that point the alternatives had not yet been identified. .
In response to Chairman Smith, Mr. Charles stated they could provide the Commission with more
information, but drainage information can be addressed as proposed by mitigation measures
identified in the ElR; similar mitigation measures could be designed for a 3 or 4 lot subdivision.
Hc stated that the main geologic constraints are on either side of the property; if the ConuUission
wishes to examine an alternative moving the houses down the site, then more geologic
information might be needed.
Commissioner Stein stated that eliminating Lots 4 & 5 and spreading out Lots 2 & 3 would
reduce the gradmg necessary for the road, but otherwise might not be the best design for the
project.
Commissioner Greenberg stated that moving units down further could increase view problems for
the house at 4885 Paradise Drivc. Shc said that the applicant should come back with a 3-unit
alternative.
TIBl./RON PLANNING COMMISSION MINln'ES OF July 24, 2002
Minutes No. 865
9
.
EXHIBIT NO. ,I~ t '0OFCf
.
.
.
In response to Commissioner Stein, Mr. Watrous stated Staff prefers to have the Planning
Commission direct the applicant to come up with the best design. He also noted the request for
detailed grading estimates for the 3-lot alternative.
. Chairman Smith asked if the applicant would be willing to submit an alternative design with 3 lots
or less. Mr, Moss replied that the property owner has to make that decision whether he feels a 3
unit redesign is warranted based on factors discussed this evening and economic feasibility.
Mr. Watrous suggested the Commission continue the item to a date certain; if the applicants for
whatever reason chooses to not submit a 3-unit proposal, Staff can attempt to define building
envelopes and Come up with a design that can be further evaluated, or the Commission can vote
on the 5-unit proposal
Mr. Moss asked the Commission to continue the item,
Chairman Smith asked the applicant to return with the additional information requested this
evening.
MIS, Greenberg/Stein (5-0) to continue the application to the August 28, 2002 meeting.
MIS, Greenberg/Stein (5-0) to cancel the August 14, 2002 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Having no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
PAUL SMITH, CHAIR.
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATTEST:
DANIEL M. WATROUS, SECRETARY
TIIlURON PLANNING COMMlSSION MINIJrES OF July 24. 2()02
10
Minute!'> No. 865
EXHIBIT NO.
I b r, I of 1
.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. PARENTE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: TO CREATE FIVE BUILDING SITES
ON'A 10.3 ACRE PARCEL; PARENT ROAD/ANTONETTE DRJVE; Amerippon, Inc.,
owners; Phillip Moss, applicants; Assessor Parccl No. 038-111-16
Chairman Smith opcned the public hearing.
Phillip Moss, applicant and architect, asked lor a 60-day continuancc. I-Ie stated that there were
othcr options tor them to look at other than the three lot proposal, and they have not had enough
time to prepare another proposal. He stated they needed to evaluate size and location of houses,
drainage, roadway, grading. etc.
In response to Chairman Smith, Mr. Watrous stated that ifthc revisions address the issues raised
in the EIR and by the Planning Commission and has lesscr impacts than the proposal evaluated in
thc EIR, the revisions would be considered part of the same application. If the revised project
design involves other issucs not addressed by thc EIR, additional analysis might be required. If
the applicant is making good faith elTorts to address comments made by the Planning
Commission at the last meeting, Staff would support a continullilce.
Joe Donahue, President of Residential Buildings Association in Sllil Francisco, stated that the
developer of this site rcqucsted information from him regarding thc association'srequcst to thc
State legislature to change how jurisdictions handlc land use. He anticipated that land usc
regulations will become totally, radically different as a result of such legislation.
.
Mr. Watrous stated a GO-day cxtension would place thc item on thc October 23rd agcnda if the
applicant is rcady. Staffwill send out additional notices to the neighbors to inform thcm ofthc
flnalized date. Mr. Watrous statcd also stated that ifthc intensity ofthc design is increased the
EIR would have to address those changes.
Chair Smith closed thc public hearing.
Dircctor Anderson stated that Staff would vcry carefully determine whethcr the new application
was a totally different application, and all necessary legal steps would be taken.
M/S Collins/Greenberg (4-0, Stein absent) to continue this itcm to the October 23, 2002
mceting.
.
TIrlU]{ON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF August 28. 2002
Minute:; No. 8M
2
EXHIBIT NO. Il-
.
.
.
In response to questions, Community Development Director Anderson stated that the
entire Richardson Bay Lineal Park was purchased with bond funds for open space and
recreation purposes. He said that the definition of "recreation" is relatively broad, and not
necessarily confined to "passive" uses, as has been suggested by some speakers. He
agreed that this issue was an ongoing source of community debate.
Commissioner Collins stated that the issues paper did not seem to have sufficient
information on funding. He felt that Judge Field seemed like an ideal place for additional
recreation uses. He said that the issue of bicycle safety along the Multi-Use Path needs to
be addressed. He suggested working with St. Hilary Church to use their new gymnasium
for programs. He also suggested having mentoring rooms tor seniors and students in thc
expanded library. .
Chair Snow stated that he was surprised to lcarn about the amount of recrcation uses at
Reed School, and was surprised that its expansion would leave little new space available
for these uses. He noted that one in ten people surveyed valued pedestrian and bicyclc
paths while one in 20 persons felt that there was a lack of teen recreation. He questioned
whether the term "fashions" in policy PR-IO should remain. He stated that the language
on passive use of Blackie's Pasture should be clearer. He said that how it is used and the
boundaries of Black ie's Pasture should be c1earcr. He said he had talked to some of the
users of the Multi-Use Path who would like to see the present uses maintained and not
changed. He asked that the sentence stating that "this space should be created as a marsh
reclamation area" should be deleted. He encouraged the Town to look for other space for
recreational facilitics near Downtown Tiburon.
Advance Planner Bryantnoted that the issues paper will be presented to the Town Council
at the August 4 meeting.
3. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) FOR A
PROPOSED FIVE-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PARENTE
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN); Parente Road/Antonelte Drive;
Amerippon, Inc., Owner, Assessor's Parcel No. 38-111-16
Planning Manager Watrous presented the Staff report.
Tom Ncwton, planning consultant for the applicant, stated that they intend to submit a
new plan with reduced density and homes in different locations, in response to issues
raised in the E1R. He said that the revised plans would be submitted in a month or so.
Chair Snow asked that all public comments be relative to the final EI R, noting that the
Commission had already received and reviewed the previous comments made on this
document.
Lynne Payne asked for information on the size for the secondary building envelopes. She
asked who had determined that the sight-lines at the intersection of Paradise Drive and
EXHIBIT NO. 13
e tCF 3
'l/buron Planning Commis.I'ion Minules No. 894 .July 14, 21104 4
Antonette Drive were adequate. She said that there is a blind spot when exiting from
Antonelte Drive onto Paradise Drive. She stated that the EIR should discuss liability l<lf
potential damage due to slippage on the properties below the site.
.
Geri Javor stated that everyone in that area is concerned about slippage of the slopes.
She said that pulling out from Antonelte Drive is dangerous, but exiting from Parente
Road was horrendous. She noted that Paradise Drive is inundated with bicyclists, who are
all over the road, and not only on one side.
There being no further public comment, the public comment period was closed.
Commissioner Collins stated that the EIR contained the information needed to be certified.
He said that the questions previously raised had been commented upon adequately in this
report. He said that the size of the secondary envelopes will be addressed at a later date.
Commissioner Kunzweiler asked if the ElR met the CEQA requirements regarding
evaluation of alternatives. Planning Manager Watrous responded that Staff's opinion was
that this section was adequate. Leonard Charles, EIR consultant, added that that the El R
captured the essence of the alternatives, which are subsets of each other. He noted that
the potential view and grading impacts could not be mitigated to less than significant
levels. He said that he could put more words in the alternatives section of the EIR to
describe each alternative in more detail, but that this would not add substantively to the
analysis of impacts, and the alternatives analysis meets the test of the CEQA requirements
as written.
.
Commissioner Kunzweiler added that the cumulative impacts, such as traffic concerns,
were reviewed on an incremental basis, and he questioned whether this was too much of a
piecemeal approach. He asked if the EIR, from a CEQA standpoint, contained an
adequate analysis of the cumulative impacts of projects on Paradise Drive. Mr. Leonard
responded that a project can be reviewed in terms of other projects in the pipeline or using
the General Plan build-out numbers. He stated that he had used the more comprehensive
figures for total build-out in the planning area and studied the critical intersections that
might be impacted from this project, such as Trestle Glen Boulevard and Tiburon
Boulevard. He said that the traffic generation numbers are so small that it is ditIieultto
quantity the possible effects on traflie safety.
Commissioner Fraser stated that the information provided in the EIR is adequate and
addresses issues brought forward. However, he was not convinced that the traffic and
safety issues have been properly addressed. He said that there is no room to expand
Paradise Drive, and it is hard to mitigate issues oftrafiic turning from either Parente Road
or Antonette Drive.
Chair Snow stated it was interesting to read the prior minutes and see how this process
has progressed. He said that it is obvious that there are lots of concern and public input
on the EIR and the project. He noted that all the Planning Commissioners are
EXHIBIT NO.
Tihuron Planning Commission
Minutes No. 894
July 14. 2()()4
)3
f, (HoP 3
5
.
.
.
.
recommending that the Final EIR be certified. He said that the potential impacts could
significantly change upon receipt of the revised plans, but those impacts would still be
addressed. He believed that the ETR meets the CEQA requirements, and recommended
that the document be certified.
MIS, CoIlins/KunzweiIer (passed 4-0) to adopt the draft resolution recommending to
the Town Couneil that the Final EIR for the Parente Precise Development Plan be .
certified.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p,m.
WAYNE SNOW, CHAIRMAN
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Scott Anderson, Acting Secretary
EXHIBIT NO. 13
t 90I:::~
"
Tihuron Planning Commission
Minute,<i No. 894
.Iu~v /4. 20/14
6
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-07
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF
A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE PARENTE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 38-111-16
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluating the proposed
Parente Precise DevelopmentPlan has beEln prepared and was transmitted by the Town of
Tiburon to all concerned parties for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the DEIR was given as required by law; and
WHEREAS, written comments on the DEIR were accepted from the public from October
9, 2001 to November 8, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and accepted testimony on
the DEIR on October 24, 2001; and
,
, .
WHEREAS, agency and public comments have been addressed in the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Parente Precise Development Plan; and
.
WHEREAS, the FEIR was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and .
1. That the Final Environmental Impact Report be certified to have been compieted
in compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act and all applicable
guidelines;
2. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section
15091, that the mitigation measures described in the FEIR are feasible, and
therefore will become binding upon the Town and affected landowners and their
assigns or successors in interest upon approval of the Parente Precise
Development Plan;
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2004-07
JULY 14. 2004
1
.
EXHIBIT NO.
IY
.
.
.
3.
That the Town Clerk be directed, after the Town Council adopts a resolution
formally.approving the Parente Precise Development Plan, to post a Notice of
Determination, together with a copy of this Resolution and its.exhibits and the
Resolution approving the Parente Precise Development Plan, in the Office of the
Town Clerk, to file such Notice with the County Clerk of Marin County, and, in
accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21152. to cause such Notice to
be posted in the County Clerk's Office. The Town Clerk shall accomplish all ofthe
above Notice requirements within five working days following adoption of the
Resolution formally approving the Parente Precise Development Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Planning Comrnission on
July 14, 2004, by the following vote: .
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: SNOW, COLLINS, FRASER AND KUNZWEILER
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
NOES:
ABSENT:
WAY E SNOW, CHAIRMAN
Tib ran Planning Commission
ATTEST:
l)~~
DANIEL M. WATROUS, SECRETARY
H:dwatrouslresolulionsIPC39902.FEIR.resolution.doc
TlIlURON PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOUfflON NO. 2004-{Drafil
JULY 14.2004
2
EXHIBIT NO._ I L{ -
Town ~fTiburon. 1505 Tiburon Boulevard. Tiburon, CA 94920 .l~ 415.435.7373 E 415.435.2438. www.tiburon.org'
e
Office of the Town Attorney
(415) 435-7370
September 22, 2004
VIA FACSIMILE (4]5-676-3000) AND U.S. MAIL
Christian L. Marsh
Stoel Rives, LLP
III Sutter Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94104
Re: Revised Application - Parente Project
Dear Christian:
As we discussed, this is to confIrm our agreement this morning regarding the
processing of the proposed amendments to the Parente Precise Development Plan.
e
We appreciate that your client, Amerippon, Inc., would like to modify the
proposed project so as to lessen its environmental impacts, without completely
restarting the Town's review process. The Town is willing to try to accommodate
this wish, however, we must ensure that the Town has sufficient information and
time to properly evaluate the revised project in accordance with California and
Town law. Accordingly, you and I agreed that Amerippon, Inc., would submit all
information required by the Town regarding the revised project. Community
Development Director Scott Anderson will contact project planner Tom Newton
shortly to discuss the required information.
After we have the information that we need, we will begin processing the revised
application as expeditiollslyas possible. As you know, the ToWn will:haveto
detemrine-wneth'er-the;L;~ document~ prep~ed-fortne origmal project :Ire
sufficient for the revised project. The Town's Community Development Director
will make the initial determination; however the ultimate decision in that regard
will rest with the Town Council, upon recommendation by the Town Planning
Commission. If the Town determines that a subsequent or supplement EIR is
required to analyze the revisions, that will inevitably extend the length ofthe
processing time.
e
We also discussed the applicability of the Permit Streamlining Act's time limits
for acting on the merits of a project for which an EIR has been certifIed.
Normally, the Act would require the Town to act upon the merits of the project
within 180 days of certification of the project EIR. However, I do not believe that
"
~~~}~!t~t
AI ic~n:A'ci~"/i'ck5
. . .;},!~i~\f1;(.,. . .
Mil~i;~ir~~lg~r
vrc'~~M~YOI
.;:.:~,t~il~;;':;;,:('f
. . . 4]~~)\;;~rifi:~. . .
c ou:~'Cirin~trib e r
. . . ~~Ii:~~~.2t;g~~~~. . .
J'.'.:~ 'f' f\i~~S' 1'<1''fd-;-';':,
C ,: llVlt.7.
Co~'~.'~~IWi?riibcr
. . . ~i~~~N'1':;f;t\~X{~. . .
piili!:S~iih
Coii"kfiIJ~~'niber
;![~I\il
:'(wr :~'.,lf'~i.,!_
,
~~:~~:, r:;:;
;,.
',{'';;''
.:?:ri~:;
'; (,:,;j~]:"i~s
::. ~;:":~~' ':;~
'./,
""
"
e
e
e
Mr. Christian 1. Marsh
Parente Proj ect
September 22, 2004
Page 2 of2
. those time limits apply where a project is significantly changed after the
certification of the EIR. I believe that there is little case or statutory authority on
this topic. To address this issue, we agreed that if the applicant submits a revised
proj ect, the l80-day period specified by the Permit Streamlining Act shall be
tolled until the Town Council has approved the completion of any additional
. environmental review of the revised project. After Council approval of the
. eilvironmental review, the ISO-days would begin to run, although we expect that
the Council would be able to make a decision' on the project well before the
expiration of that period,
Lastly, we discussed the certification of the EIR that the Town prepared to study
the original project. I understand that you wish the Town Council to certify this
document as soon as possible. I believe that Mr. Anderson plans to bring the EIR
to the Council during the month of October; he will discuss 'precise dates with
Mr. Newton.
I enclose a duplicate original of this letter. To document our agreement for our
files, I ask that you sign one original and return it to me. If you would care to
discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to call me at (415) 435-7370.
Sincerely,
~~d~
Ann R. Danforth
Town Attorney
cc: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development
Dan Watrous, Plarming Manager
On behalf of Amerippon, Inc., I aclrnowledge that this letter accurately reflects our agreement of
September 2,2004, re ing the processing of the Parente Precise Development Plan.
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM jf~
... .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . '.' .... . . . . . .. . .
TO:
Mayor & Members of the Town Council
Pat Echols, Director of Public Worksl Town Engineer@/
Proposal for Town Hall Photovoltaic Systern
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE: October 6, 2004
'. REVIEWED BY:
. ......... .... . . . . . . .."... . ...
.... .., . . . . . . .. . .
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
At the April 7, 2004 Town Council meeting, Cooperative Community Energy
(CCEnergy) submitted a proposal (Exhibit 1) and gave a summary presentation
regarding the deployment of a rooftop solar photovoltaic system for Town Hall. The
staff report and meeting minutes are attached as Exhibits 2 & 3. CCEnergy is a
buyer's cooperative and is currently under contract with the City of S ebastopol to
manage the City's Solar Sebastopol program. A summary of that program can be
found on the City's web site (http://www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us/solarsebastopol.shtml).
CCEnergy's proposal included two system options (23kW & 30kW). Because of the
structurai modifications and aesthetics and nominal additional power savings, the
30kW system was not favorably received. Staff recommended that the Council direct
staff to pursue further'analysis and design of the 23-kw system. The Council was
generally favorable toward the CCEnergy proposal, but elected to continue the item
until the Town developed a solar policy. Subsequently, staff has consulted public
agencies throughout California via e-mail regarding deployment of solar photovoltaic
(PV) systems on public buildings and facilities. Exhibit 4 provides a summary of e-
mail responses. Town staff also developed a solar policy that was adopted by the
Town Council at their September 15 rneeting.
Based on the e-mail responses from other municipalities, it appears that many have
already deployed PV systems on theirf acilities (including city halls) or are in the
process of deploying them.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Town Council provide direction to staff regarding further
analysis and design of the 23 kilowatt system.
EXHIBITS
1. Solar Power proposal for Tiburon Town Hall
2. Staff Report from April 7, 2004 Town Council meeting
3. Minutes from April 7, 2004 Town Council meeting
4. Summary of e-mail responses regarding public agency solar PV deployment
9/28/2004
1 of 1
EX.HIBIT 1..
::~
-D'...
~
Cooperative
Community
Energy
534 Fourth Street, Suite C
San Rafael, CA 94901
office: 415-457-0215
Town of Tiburon
Solar Power Proposal for Tiburon City Hall
Summary
,
To the Tiburon Town Council:
Here are some materials for your review in advance of the March 17 Town Council meeting.
I will be presenting two proposals for a solar photovoltaic energy system for the roof of the Town Hall: a
proposal for a 23 kilowatt system, and a proposal for a 30 kilowatt system. The difference between them
is that the 30 kW system adds some solar panels to the dormer in the back of the building. Due to
differences in the CEC and CPUC rebate programs, the 30 kW system gives more "bang for the buck."
I will present these proposals via a brief, 19-slide PowerPoint presentation, and explain some details of
the financial costs and benefits, as well as a broader picture of our energy Mure.
I am aware that aesthetic considerations are important for a project like this, SO some mockup
photographs are included in this advance packet. .
California has endured several periods of energy shortages and spiking power costs, and will likely be
seeing such events again. Everybody from the Govemor on down now seems to understand that self-
generated renewable power is going to be key to California's energy future. It behooves the Town of
Tiburon to help lead by example in supporting renewable power and energy efficiency.
Aside from the "green" reasons for generating one's own energy, solar power systems are also a very
attractive investment. These two proposals offer a 7 or 9% modified internal rate of return (respectively),
making them more than competitive with other low-risk investments such as government bonds. Although
it is not calculated or reflected in these proposals, a solar power system will also decrease air
conditioning costs in the summertime, by absorbing solar energy that would otherwise heat the building.
Perhaps the best reason to invest in self.;generated solar power is insurance against future spikes in
power cost. Power costs are going to continue to go up for the forseeable future. Currently, power cost
inflation is running about 3.3% a year in addition to normal inflation, but due to expected shortages, will
certainly be higher over the lifespan of the system. Global production of oil and gas is reaching its peak.
According to current best guesses, major global shortages of oil and gas are expected to begin
somewhere between 2007 (pessimistically) and 2015 (optimistically). For more information on Peak Oil
and Gas, see http://www.QeoloQie.tu-clausthal.de/Campbellllecture.html(More references available on
request. )
Solar power is a good investment today, but it's going to be a great investment for the future, and offer
shelter from surging energy costs.
I look forward to discussing these proposals with you at next week's meeting.
Regards,
Chris Neider
Field Rep, Marin County I North Bay
chrisnrcbccenerav.com
mobile: 415-497.7044
-
:::::
~
:::::
~
~
...
...
~
-
::::
-l::i
.....
~
-
~
-
'=
'"
~
"-
~
ct
;;...
~
~
~
...
...
~
c.
.-
...
-
...
....
...
...
-
...
...
-
a
~
"'
-
.....
.....
::::
~
~
';;:"
~
~
C.)
,.,(lUI"~;[}-.
:: ;:"
-..; ~ '\~..
",'>,' J ,I ~ \
c
o
en
.;::
co
c..
E
o
o
co
en
o
c..
o
....
Q..
Q)
"'C
CJ)
:>.
..c
Q)
"'C
CJ)
E
.s
III
>.
U)
~
C")
N
-
(I)
C
(I) >.
~ C
- 0
:; .!!?
..oc
oe
CD:::I
C"l..o
<OF
00_
....0
tA-c
.~ 3:
_ 0
WI-
g (I)
"C=~
..!!!O....
--
rn_N
-w....
wO....
COtA-
.
jij
III
o
a.
o
L-
0-
~
o
C")
-
(I)
C
(I)~
:55
"5 .!!?
..0 C
~e
C"l :::I
N..o
<OF
""'"_
NO
tA-c
.~ 3:
_0
WI-
g (I)
"'O;;~
(1)0....
CO::::M
-wN
wO....
COtA-
.
~
rJ)E
-01 16
.S: (I)
"
=(1)
:::I~
..0....
(I) (I)
~ 0
_:::I....
-"rn
o ~ (I)
?,€ "0 ~
..... C (I)
C"lrno..
>.w(j)
a."C"l
a.(I)(j)
:::I (I) -
WcLl)
>.tA-
:Q 01 >.
:::1......0
0(1)_
~5i:.a
.
(ij
o
'C
_tn 13
01(1)
.S: (I)
"
:=(1)
:::I~
..0.-
(I) (I)
~ 0
_:::I ....
-"rn
o ~ (I)
~"'O~
o C (I)
"","rno..
>.wo
a."C"l
a. (I) I'-
:::I (I) -
Wcl'-
>.tA-
:Q 01 >.
:::1......0
0(1)_
~5i:.a
.
~
()
<(
~
-
-
rn
~
C"l
o
00
tA-
~
rn
(I)
>.
(j)
.....
.=
-
Q)
W
:!::
....
.e
>.
rn
a.
"
:::I'
o
~
.
~
()
$
==
rn
~
I'-
(j)
I'-
tA-
(I)
:::I
rn
>
-
w
(I)
III
.
.
w
....
rn
(I)
>.
CD
.....
.=
-
Q)
W
:!::
....
.e
>.
rn
a.
:Q
:::I
~
.
c:::
c:::
~
?F.
I'-
o
E
--
. (I) ffi
..oN
" tA-
:::I"
o C
3: rn
w ....
01(1)
cE
'S: E
rn :::I
w w
>'(1)
Ol~
m~,-
C C (I)
Q) .- .....
'C
& ~.~
~;::: CD
(l)N~
>.......~
<( tA- ._
.
.
c:::
c:::
~
o
E
--
(1)1'-
..o~
" tA-
:::I"
o C
3: rn
w ....
g>~
'S: E
rn :::I
w w
>'(1)
e>~
(I) -....
C C (I)
Q) .- .....
'C
(I) 0 .-
OlE3:
rn -- (I)
Ci3N~
>""'"-
<( ~.=
::R.
o
(j)
.
.
-
:::I
o
..0
rn
-
o
C
rn
01
(I)
'E
o w
o ....
C m
->.
(1)0
CC"l
rn Ci3
.... >
~ 0
00
~~
0....
~~
.
-
:::I
o
..0
rn
-
o
C
rn
01
(I)
E ~
o rn
o (I)
C>.
-0
(l)C"l
C ....
rn (I)
.... >
(I) 0
ll::o
00
" 0_
"SLl)
0.....
~~
.
c
o
3
.D
\=
....
o
~
o
f-
~
<8
o
's
0;
~
o
.li
a
'0
en
:::
..,.
..,.
o
';-
~
'"
,.
~
..,.
I
0.
o
'"
""
u
c;:;
~
o
""
U
Z
]
u
*-
.
::::::
~
~
...
...
:;;..
.....
~
...
...
~
:...
...
-
~
.-
Eo...;
'-
~.
-
",
'"
"
:::..
'"
:::;
?
?IS
...
~
:::
~
.0
....
:::
...
-
...
....
...
...
::::
d
~
;;:..
....
.....
~
:...
~
9..
~
d
,.1.' (,'r'~:...}-
,'\.. -
'-". "'-
-- ~
__ ~J: ,,>
-:;"/li1\
ro
I
e
3:
o
l-
e
o
.....
::s
.c
i-
Q)
..c
-
-
o
- E g
- G) .....
ftS .. Q)
:z: en ~
c ~ g
~enE
o .. Q)
I- ftS en
- >>
o CJ)
c en .~
o~::
.. ;> 0
::s .... ~
.a... 0
.- 0 ..c
I-t')o.
S
~
o
("I)
<.(
<=
e
~
.n
f=
~
o
<=
>
o
,.
~
<2
-
u
~
"8'
0..
~
-
~
<=
w
-
~
'0
if>
~
d
ga-
Dial
l~
~il;
~~!
ii;_
....
.- 1
~ lS~~
,!:lj ~iil~
;iB fiI Bo.
"
.,
0
c;-
1 ~
0-.
"T
~
.,
~ I
J - "-
~
0,:
'0
0;
:ll:
N ~
-+i ~
'0
$J 0;
z
~
'C
.n
U
. . a
T""" .. ~ b
~ .
ro
CJ)
0
0. i;
0 Bd
.....
ll.. ii ii -
. Rim
.
-
-
~
~
::::
:;..
-
~
::::
~
...
::::
~
....
~
.~
......
",::::'
.~
.~
:::..
~
'l':
~
~
~
::::
~
o
....
...
...
....
...
...
....
...
...
....
...
a
""'
~
-
......
....
~
...
~
~
a
~~:II!\}'
-' ,,"'\..
~"!ill\ '
..
~
o
~
ca
....
E
CD
..
en
~
tI)
..
ca
-
o
tI)
~
o
C")
Q) '+- C>
..ccoc
+-' .- ~ "0
"p"< Q) I- U ._
,","OQ)ct\:J
:J:JE..c..c
gUoQ)Q)
>c"P"<..c..c
'"' +-' +-'
.
I-
.E
en Q) ~ .U en
+-,..cenwc
>'C"O o..c 0
ct\:J:JuCi)en
<(t: EO 0 c Q) ct\
U Q) ct\ ~
.
c
o
S
.0
~
...
o
"
~
o
f-
-
.s
1)
'"
"8'
"-
@
-
'"
c
U.l
-
as
'0
'"
....
...
...
o
....
~
'"
'T
on
...
I
~
"0
0;
u:
-
'"
"0
0;
Z
~
'C
'"
U
A.'.
.'
-.
-
::::
::t:
-
...
=:
~
&.;;.
::::
~
;..,
::::
..Q
o-
F-;
,::;
......,
~
'"
"
~
~
ot
~
-.
~I.I
;..,
~
....
....
~
= E
~!
c ~
~U)
o ..
I- C\1
-
C 0
ou)
~i:
:e~
I-CW)
N
>.
c
o
-
o
o
....
C)
c
.0
J!:!
I
.c.
....
::J
o
oo
I
-
o
o
....
....
Q)
E
....
o
"0
Q)
.c.
....
Q).
oo
::J
....
o
C
"0
::J
o
~
N
co
oo
o
C-
o
....
a..
.
~I
!!I!i!-
I~I
~Ili
lli~
i:~i
-,..", ,..
,. ~_.
~ ~""
.~.R
~
TI:i
~ ~i.
11
5 i
! ~ .
:Ii " ~ 't
;, .
..
T ii
t ~
't -+i
:or
ad OJ
L
-
~ ~ L . ......
Rim -
.0
"
o
!3
.0
~
4-0
o
"
"
o
f-<
-
..s
g
;f'
>.
""
-
"
"
'"
l;
'0
en
o
t
.".
.".
o
....
r-'-
'"
"T
,,.,
.".
I
fr
IX
."
0;
0;:
~.
."
0;
:z.
]
u
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM ~
.. . . .. ....... . . . . . . . . .... .... . ..... .... . . . ..
TO: Mayor & Members ofthe Town Council
FROM: PatEchols, Directorof Public Works! Town Engineer~/
SUBJECT: Proposal for Town Hall Photovoltaic System ~.
MEETING DATE: April 7, 2004 REVIEWED BY:
.. . .. . .... .... .. . .. ......................
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
Over the past year, staff has been directed to explore energy efficiency opportunities
in an effort to reduce the Town' energy costs. During discussion of the General Plan
Open Space Element update at the March 31st Special Town Council meeting, the
Council endorsed the concept of promoting 'green' building construction. Several
months ago, Town. staff was contacted by Community Cooperative Electric (GGE)
regarding the Town's interest in solar photovoltaic energy systems. Staff met with
CCE representatives and CCE subsequently performed preliminary analyses to
estimate the costs/benefits of a Town Hall rooftop photovoltaic system.
CCE has prepared a summary proposal which evaiuates two alternatives: a 23-
kilowatt system and a 3Q-kilowatt system. As' CGE will explain' during their
presentation to the Council, two different systems sizes were evaluated because of
differences in available rebate incentives offered by the California Energy
Commission (CEC) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
The net cost to the Town would be between about $112,000 (23kW system) and
$123,000 (30kW system) and would supply between 31% (23kW system) and 40%
(30kW system) of the building electrical power needs. We estimate that either
system would likely pay for themselves within 20 years. The significant aesthetic
difference between the two proposals is that the 3D-kilowatt system would require
extending the rear dormer roof to allow the additional solar energy captu~e;
It should be noted that CCE's proposal is a preliminary evaluation of the
cost5/benefits and that additional analysis is necessary to refine the system design
(such as location of associated system equipment to interface with the building's
electrical panel and systems, possible structural reinforcement of the roof framing,
etc.). CGE is prepared to develop additional system design details if the .Council
recommends further exploration of the concept. Staff recognizes that aesthetic
impact of the dormer modification required for the 30-kW system would be significant
and likely doesn't justify the incremental efficiency that it may achieve. Accordingly,
staff would recommend pursuing the 23-kW system if the aesthetic impact of the
panels is deemed acceptable by the Council.
C><.HIBrT ~
4/2/2004
1 of 2
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
. .... ............... ... ......... . . .. . . .. . ..
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Town Council receive a presentation of a proposed Town Hall
photovoltaic system from Cooperative Community Energy and provide direction to
staff regarding further exploration and analysis of the 23 kilowatt system.
EXHIBITS
Solar Power Proposal for Tiburon Town Hall
Subject
April 2, 2004
2 of 2
EXHIBIT 3
Excerpt from April 7, 2004 Town Council meeting minutes
2) Recommendation by Director of Public Worksffown Engineer - Proposal for
Town Hall Photovoltaic System
The power point presentation by Chris Neider, representative from Cooperative
Community Energy of San Rafael, focused on the 23-kilowatl option contained in their
report to Council.
Councilmember Slavitz expressed concern over the long Icad time (19 ycars) to recoup
expenses associated with such an installation. Mr. Neider said that this was due to the fact
that public entities werenot eligible for the tax deductions that significantly shortened the
payback time in the private sector.
Councilmember Gram asked ifthc company had done installations for any othcr citics in
Marin County. Dan Pellegrini, President ofthe company, said that they had not, but said
they had signed contracts with the cities of Sebastopol, Davis, and Palm Springs.
However, he noted that none of these installations were complete.
Councilmcmber Berger talked about aesthetics, noting that a type of solar panel existed
that looked almost like a roof shingle. Mr. Pellegrini agreed but said that thc cfficiency
was not as great as the more commonly used panels, and that they were more expensive.
Mr. Neider added that they produced less than half the power of conventional panels.
Mayor Fredericks asked whether the Town Hall would need any structural reinforcement
for such an installation. Mr. Neider said that it would probably not, and noted that most
roofs can take three loads of shingles in terms of weight comparison.
Council also asked about the effect of winds on the installations. Mr. Pellegrini said that
the racking systems used by the company were also used in Hawaii and Florida where
125 mile per hour winds were not uncommon.
Mayor Fredericks opened and closed the public hearing. There was no public comment.
Mayor Fredericks asked about a site for peripheral equipment. Mr. Nelder said that there
were I I inverters and switches that took up the size of a one-inch sheet of plywood and
that the arca at the rear of the Town Hall would be adequate to housc the rest of the
equipment.
Town Manager Mclntyre said that the Council should consider whether it wanted to
move ahead in the absence of Town policy on residential or public installations of solar
panels.
\
I,
Director of Community Development Anderson said that although the Town had no
formal policy on the use of solar energy, the updated General Plan contained a provision
stating the Town would "encourage" its use. He also stated that State law limited the
Town's ability to regulate such installations.
In response to a question concerning existing' residential installations, Director Anderson
said that the only objections that had been received by the Town concerning solar
installations on private property were for. "ground mounted" rather than roof-mounted
installations. . -
Vice Mayor Berger said that "green policies" were good and should be pursued by the
Town. However, he said that solar installations should be subject to design review.
Mayor Fredericks agreed that it would be useful for the Town to "set an example" in this
area but that a policy should be developed fIrst.
CounciImember Gram said that eventually the Town should do more than "encourage"
solar energy by making it "easy to do;" however, he said he did not want to be "the frrst
guy on the block" todo it.
Councilmember Slavitz said that he too liked the direction in the new General Plan
toward "green practices" but felt that 20 years was too long for the Town to wait to
recoup its expenses.
Vice Mayor Berger said that he thought the proposed installation was okay as long as it
did not mar the Town Hall roof; that energy costs would only continue to rise and that the
Town should move forward with further study of the proposal.
Mr. Pellegrini said that the California Energy Commission grant funding was "ramping'
down" but should last through the end ofthe year. He said that the Town would be
eligible for an energy rebate once it had executed a contract.
Council directed Staff to develop additional cost information required for preliminary
engineering of such a system but stopped short of endorsing the installation at Town Hall
until such timc as a Town policy on solar energy had been adopted.
EXHIBIT 4
E-MAIL RESPONSES REGARDING DEPLOYMENT OF SOLAR PHOTOVOL TAlC.
SYSTEMS ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS
We arc now installing a 21 KW PV system on our Corporation Yard Equipment Maintenance roof. We have
recently completed a solar thermal system for one of our pools. We arc considering a PV system at our solid
waste transfer station.
We don't have enough roof space on our 'prominent 'buildings' fo make PV projects pencil out.
Neal DeSnoo, City of Berkeley
The Metropolitan Wastewater Dept of the City of San Diego has installed a 30KW system on a
warehouse/machine shop. The City has a system on a Police station and two office building. Tom Blair is
the contact for these three City sites so I will copy him on this email.
Tom Alspaugh
Senior Mechanical Engineer
Metropolitan Wastewater Department
We have a received a bid to install a pv system on the roof of our City Hall and we are the waiting list for
matching funds from the PUC. We hope to go ahead with the project in January when new grant funds
become available.
Vallejo has installed a system on their city hall and main library. SF has installed a system on thcir Moseone
Convention Center. Livermore has a system on a public building.
Peter Schultze-Allen
Environmental Analyst
City of Emeryville
The City of Livermore recently installed a 7SkW system on its City Hall Building. See attached photos.
Mike Irby
Associate Civil Engineer
The City ofSebastopol has installed solar arrays on our Fire Department and Corporation Yard buildings.
(Corp. Yard houses Public Works, Engineering and Planning Departments, and is in a well-traveled part of
town near the high school, and the Fire house also has Building Department, and high visibility at a main
intersection.) We are considering more PV systems on our Public Safety Building and Sewer Lift Station. If
your concern is aesthetic, I don't believe we have had any negative feedback on that score, or any other that
I'm aware of. I'd guess the only reason we haven't looked at one for City Hall is that the building isn't
suitable for some reason (size, exposure or structural consideration). Go for it!
Susan Kelly
Asst. to the City ManagerfEngineering Director
City of Sebastopol
We're going to be installing a solar array on our Recreation and Parks Building, I'm copying the director,
Andrea Lueker, on this email and she also may be able to assist you. Good luck on your project.
Bruce Ambo, AICP
Public Services Director
City of Morro Bay
In San Jose, the Santa Clara Valley Water District just installed a system that is very visually prominent.
Timm Borden
Deputy Director of Public Works
City of San Jose
The City of Santa Cruz has installed solar panels on the anneX building at city hall, the wastewater treatment
facility and recently at our corporation yard. The city hall annex has a pitched roof and yes it is visually
prominent. We actually installed a display across the street that provides information about the panels.
Mark R. Dettle
Director of Public Works
City of Santa Cruz
The City of Santa Cruz has installed 3 systems. One on City Hall, one on the Corp Yard and one at the
Wastewater Treatment plant (which is in the middle of town). The City Hall panels are on a second story
addition built in the 70's, not on the historic portion of City Hall. The panels can be seen from the sidewalk
on the other side of the street. We have installed a sign as required by one of the granting agencies about the
system at the sidewalk location. The panels are flush with the roof (30 degree approximately) so that they
blend aesthetically with the building. The roof is brown and the panels are blue and cover most of that part of
the south facing roof. We had to remove the tile roof in this area and install comp shingles so that the racks
could be attached.
The Corp yard panels are in an industrial area and are mounted almost flush with the flat roof on non-
penetrating racks. Dust from 2 concrete batch plants in the area seems to be a problem with productivity.
The WWTP panels are on a flat roof, but mounted on angled racks and sO are more prominent visually from
the adjacent strip park.
So far no complaints on the aesthetics.
Chris Schneiter
Assistant Director/City Engineer
The City of Rocklin is constructing a new Police HQ. Thc building was designed with photovoltaic cells on
the roof. Two people you might want to contact in the City of Rocklin are Pete Guisasola - Chief Building
Official or Mark Riemer - Director of Parks and Facilities.
It sounds as though many municipalities install PV systems on their rooftops at various buildings such as
City Hall/Admin buildings, etc. The City of Vallejo City Hall building has a rooftop system that was
installed by Powerlight Corporation. It was a non penetrating system that simply lies on the rooftop. Many
of these buildings havc parapet walls that hide the solar system from public view.
The City of Oroville has seveml buildings, including City Hall, the Police station, and the Fire station that
have visible solar panels on them. The panels blend into the building lines and are, for the most part, fairly
unobtrusive, but it would depend on the particular building's rooflines and orientation. .
Lane Green P. E.
City of Chico
Great timing! Our Council just last wcek approved a contract with Honeywell who is going to install a large
solar panel setup on our parking structure downtown. We have no previous experience either and staff has
some concerns. I will be very anxious and appreciative to see any information you get back from your query.
We did require in the contract that the provider supply structuml engineer certifications for any installations.
Jerry V. Jack
Interim Public Works Director
City of Cathedral City
The Town of Mammoth Lakes is in the process of hiring an architect to design our new 10,000 s.f. Police
Station and will be looking at LEEDS technology as requested in the RFP. We interview three firms on
Friday and look to start construction perhaps in the Summer of 2005 and finish the summer of 2006. Winters
here in Mammoth Lakes do not allow much construction during that season.
The Town Council has formed a Renewable Energy Task Force that has been active for over a year. I have
not been assigned to that task force, but I could put you in touch with folks who have that might provide you
with more information. Let me know if that would be of help. Members of our council are quite interested in
renewable energy and nearly stopped the award of a construction contract for our new Visitor's
BureaufWelcome Center on US Forest Service land at their meeting two weeks ago. Thank heavens clearer
minds prevailed, we would have lost some funding trom the Forest Service had they not awarded the
contract. That may have killed the project. The ground breaking ceremony was yesterday.
Pat Felt, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Town of Mammoth Lakes
The Novato City Council has directed that the RFPIRFQ for the new City Hall project address green
building/sustainable design opportunities which would include'the possible use ofPV panels integrated with
the building. The City Council has also directed that a Green Building/Sustainable Design Ordinance be
prepared/presented for consideration and adoption. The current intent is to have a draft fonn ofthe
ordinance to various interest groups for comment by mid October with a revised version to the City Council
by mid November. The objective is tohave an ordinance adopted in advance of the new City Hall project
design getting underway which would most likely start early next year. While this probably does not fit vert
well with your needs, I will sent you an electronic copy once the ordinance is adopted.
Regards,
Steve Wallace
City Engineer
City of Nova to
Brisbane has not yet installed the system, but during Council review of our City Hall Remodel project,
Council specifically directed staff to select an HV AC system that did not require roof-mounting of
equipment in order to preserve roof space for future installation of a PV system.
Once the City Hall Remodel project is 100%, we'll be working on a design-build RFP for the City Hall roof
PV system.
Randy Breault
City of Brisbane
" ,_,::-~~-:,W-:,--:' -:-l
. .1
CCEnergy - Confidential Document
.\_l:~i"-;,
~,+;i/F,' ~,
-:. ~"
~
Cooperative
Community
Energy
Cashflow Analysis for
Town of Tiburon's Energy Project:
A 23 kW Commercial PV System - Kyocera 167
Modules, SMA Inverters, Flush Roof Mount
to be installed at 1505'Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon, California 94920
This project will save
Doing nothing will cost
$209,880 over 30 years of operation.
$338,181' in additional energy bills over 30 years: .
Renewable Energy......
Utility Energy...............
$O.474IkW-hr projected i!l 30 ye~rs.
$0,090 per kW-hr
$0.142 per kW-hr
Installed Cost:
Total Rebates:
Net Cost:
-Member finances $113,230 at 4.25% for 10 years.
After-tax Internal Rate of Return is 12%.
( Cumulative Cost of Utility Energy
\ 0, 3 6
I $0
-$50,000
~$100,OOO,
4150,000
-$200,000 .
'-$250,000 .
k$300,OOO :
'$350,000 .
.$400,000 '
9
~
9/29/04rr1
:s:
)>
-
.--
=1=1= .
I>:;
d
\
~.
I
<::::,
-...t
, -
$182,839
-$69,609
$113,230
)
~
( Cumulative Savings with Project.
. 0 3 6 9
$250,000 .
18
21'
'24,
27
30
Year
12. '15
. $200,000 .
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000 .
'$0
-$50,000 .
'\
-$100,000 .
Cash flow projections. are based on assumptions about system performance and economic circumstances. Actual resufts may
vary. CCenergy gives no express or implied warranty of specific performance or savings.
CCEnergy - Confidential Document
Net Cash Flows
9/29/04
~ ,\.~
~
Cooperative
Community
Energy
Member Name: Town of Tiburon
Address: 1505.Tiburon Blvd'
Tiburon, California 94920
30 year nef cash flows, reported in faday's dollars With Project No Project
Member's gross business income after COGS $ 7,500,000 $ 7,500,000
Depreciation deduction,DDB method (100% of cost) $
Interest expense on 10 year 4.25% loan $ . (25,259)
Business electricity expense (tax deductible) $ $
Net Profit $ 7,474,741 $ 7,500,000
Federal taxes at 0% of net profit $ $
Federal tax credit: 0% of cost after rebate $
State taxes at 0% of net profit $ $
State tax credit: 0% of cost after rebate $
After tax income $ 7,474,741 $ 7,500,000
Reverse depreciation deduction $
Electricity Expense (not tax deductible) $ (881,063) $ (1.,219,244)
Principal payment on 10 year 4.25% loan $ (103,042)
Net business incorne $ 6,490,637 $ 6,280,756
Net business income with Project $ 6,490,637
Net business income without Project $ (6,280,756)
Net benefit with Project $ 209,880
Assumptions:
Member's income is $250,000 per year.
Member finances $113,230 at 4.25% for 10 years.
Federal Income Tax is 0% and State Income Tax is 0%.
Inflation is 2% per year.
Energy costs increase by 4.1 % per year.
Loan begins in March and Project benefit begins the following March.
"'d~_____
Cash flow projections are based on assumptions about system performance and economic circumstances. Actual results
may vary. CCenergy gives no express or implied warranty of specific petformance or savings.
CCEnergy - Confidential Document
Cashflow Details
9/29/04
~
Cooperative
Community
Energy
Member Name: Town of Tiburon
Address: 1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, California 94920
all cash flows are adjusted for inflation, and reported in loday's dollars
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Energy Savings/Cost - $5,401 $6,183 $6,436 $6,700 $6,975 $7,261 $7,558 $7,868 $8,191 $8,527
Tax Savings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Additional Income $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rebate Income $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ,!' $0 $0 $0 $0
."
Short-Term Capital $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Loan Payment: Principal $9.322 $9,528 $9,738 $9,953 $10,172 $10,397 $10,626 $10,861 $11,100 $11.345
Loan Payment: Interest $3,609 $4.329 $3,848 $3,366 $2,886 $2,405 $1,925 $1,444 $984 $482
Total Savings, this year -$7,530 -$7,675 -$7,149 -$6,619 -$6,083 -$5,541 -~4,993 -'1>4,437 -~3,873 -~3,300
_ _ ~~~~'!! ~a~~~ ";$7~~ ~~~~~ -$22,354 -$28,973 ~~,~; -$40,598 ,:~!5.:.2l!! ~~,~~ -$53,900 -$57,200
Cumulative Energv-Cost -$5,401 -$11,584 :$18.020 -$24-:720 -$31,695 .$38.956 -$46,514(-$54,383 -$62.573 :$7(iOo
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Energy Savings/Cost $8.876 $9,240 $9,619 $10,014 $10,424 $10,851 $11,296 $11,760 $12.242 $12,744
Tax Savings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Additional Income $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rebate Income $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $C
Short-Term Capital $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Loan Pavment: Principal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Loan Payment: Interest $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Savings, this year $8,876 $9,240 $9,619 $10,014 $10,424 $10,851 1 $11,296 1 $11,760 1 ~12,242 ; ~12,744
_ _ ~~~~~ ~~'l@~ -$48,324 ~~,.2.~~ -$29,464 ~19~~ -$9,027 $1,825 $13,121 $24,881 ~!:.1E $49,866
Cumulative Energy-Cost -$79:977 -$89,217 :$98.836 -$108,850 :$i19ir~ 4130,125 1:$'14;:421'i'-$153:Tht -$165,423 :'$17B.16'
Year 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Energy Savings/Cost $13,266 $13,810 $14.376 $14,966 $15,579 $16,218 $16,883 $17,575 $18,296 $19,046
Tax Savings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Additional Income $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 '$0 $0 $0 $0
Rebate Income $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Short-Term Capital $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Loan Payment: Principal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Loan Payment: Interest $0 $0 $0 . . $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Savings, this year $13,266 1$13,810 $14,376 $14,966 $15,579 $16,218 $16,883 $17,575 $18,296 1 ~19,046
Cumulative Savings ~3..:!~ ~~,~4~ 191.:32,8 ~!.!!~~ !J~,!.6~ $2,3!,:0!1 $~~~ ~~,~~ $.!.9~8~ ~2.!!.9.:!!'!2
Cumulative EnerQvCOst -$191,432 -$205,242 -$219,619 -$234,584 -$250,163 -$266,381 -$283,264 -$300,839 -$319,135 -$338,181
f..,.800
:\$1;600
'$1.400
Monthly "",200
Cash .".000
$800
Flow ['.'.800
.' $400
$200
)$0
. .-$200
~I'~~'.- ;--.---11-- 11-- -
- !- -<,-:-:-'-i- . . 11-
--'--.-'-.-.'-.-..- --- ----.-------
::1:::': I::: .:. :H1l:: :11: :: : -
CSavlngs:
Energy"'Tsx
II Loan Payment
Year
Cash flow projections are based on assumptions about system performance and economic circumstances. Actual resufts may vary.
CCenergy gIves no express or Implied warranty of specific performance or savings.
'\
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
/~
AGENDA ITEM
. . .., . ..... .. ....... ... .. .. ..... ....... . . ... ..
TO:
Mayor & Members of the Town Council
Pat Echols, Director of Public Works/ Town Engineer ri:...-
Proposed Permanent Restroom Near South of Knoll Park
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE: October 6, 2004
... ...................... ............. .. ......
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
The Town Council received a staff presentation at its August 4 meeting regarding a
proposed permanent restroom near the South of Knoll Park, replacing the existing
portable restroom along the Multi-Use Path. The staff report and meeting minutes
are attached (Exhibits 1 & 2). Several site altematives were presented. Based on
staff recommendation and public comments, the Council approved the third
alternative site located nearest to the South of Knoll playground. Pursuant to
suggestions made by Council member Berger, staff was directed to explore an
alternate design that would incorporate wood siding and detailing reminiscent of
Tiburon's historic past. Council member Berger provided some example photographs
(Exhibit 3) to staff for consideration.
Staff researched wood Siding options and associated costs. Examples of existing
facilities with cedar siding are shown on Exhibit 4. The additional construction cost
for cedar siding is about $2200. A cedar shake roof would add an additional $350.
Given the generally higher maintenance costs associated with wood siding (regular
painting), moisture exposure (dry rot potential) given the close proximity of the site to
the bay, and considering that proposed landscaping will screen the visibility of the
siding, staff concludes that it is not a desirable option. As an alternative, staff
proposes that a modified block wall design be utilized which would incorporate
historic roof eave elements similar to those depicted on Exhibit 3. Staff .created a
photo rendering of this alternative (Exhibit 5). The trim enhancements can be
constructed by Public Works staff at nominal cost (less than $500).
Upon approval by the Town Council, staff will prepare detailed plans/specifications
and anticipates that project will be constructed by Spring 2005,
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Town Council budgeted $17,000 in fiscal year 2003-2004 for this project. The
project was not reflected in the adopted fiscal year 2004-2005 budget. Further, the
engineer's estimate for the project is $42,000 (without the cedar siding) and will
require a budget amendment. . Staff will bring the budget amendment back to the
Town Council at the same time as the Plans and Specifications are presented for
consideration.
.
. '
t;?< ..
~~' 1
~~o\',' ...
.o-!~~".
,
.
101112004
1 of 2
-_H
r~
"
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT,
AGENDA ITEM
............0000.0...00000000000...0.......0.. .
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Town Council approve the design for a permanent
restroom facility as shown on Exhibit 5 and direct staff to retum with plans and
specifications and the requisite budget amendment in the near future.
EXHIBITS
1. Staff report from August 4,2004 Town ,Council meeting
2. Town Council meeting minutes from August 4, 2004
3. Historic photos
4. Photos of restrooms with cedar siding,
5. Updated photo rendering of proposed restroom
'0/112004
2of2
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
. . .,. .... .. . .. . .... .. .. . .... . ......
TO:
Mayor & Members of the Town Council
Pat Echols, Director of Public Worksl Town Engineer
Permanent Restroom Near South of Knoll
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE: August 4, 2004
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
The Town has planned to install a permanent restroom near the South of. Knoll for
the past several years. The project has been approved in concept by the Town
Council and was funded in the fiscal year 2003-2004 budget. The permanent
restroom will replace the existing portable facility located along the multi-use path
between McKegney Green and South of Knoll playground. It would be located
approximately 10 feet to the south of the multi-use path near the South of Knoll
playground as depicted on the site plan (Exhibit 1).
The proposed location was selected based on its close proximity to available
water/sewer facilities and the minimal grading required to construct the facility.
Exhibit 2 is a photo rendering of the proposed restroom structure. The existing
portable facility location was rejected because of the extra costs to
excavate/construct a large retaining wall and additional trenching required for sewer
and water line co~ne~tions.
The proposed facility is a pre-engineered single (unisex) unit manufactured by
Romtec, Inc. and is similar to the double unit adjacent to the Richardson Bay
Sanitary District facility near Blackie's Pasture. The structure footprint is 10.7 feet by
12.7 feet and the maximum roof height is 11 feet.
The proposed project has been reviewed by several Town commissions. The project
was favorably reviewed by the Parks & Open Space Commission on May 11 and
forwarded to the Design Review Board (ORB) for review and comments on July 1. A
summary of the Board's comments are provided as Exhibit 3. At its July 27 meeting,
the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee also expressed its support for the
proposed facility (see Exhibit 4).
In response to issues raised at the ORB meeting, staff has revised the site plan to
locate the restroom approximately 20 feet further south (toward the playground).
Exhibit 5 depicts the revised location. Existing vegetation, coupled with minor
landscape enhancements, would screen the facility from the view of residences on
Pine Terrace. ORB Boardmember Figour suggested a wood siding. This could be
implemented at an additional cost of $2,000. Staff believes that vegetative screening
around the structure would preclude the need for decorative wood siding.
E)(HIBIT .1
7/29/2004
1of2
~" ,
Town of Tibuton
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
... .. . .... . .......... ... ... ...... ... . . .....
Although the ORB commeriied that the facility should be located at the site of the
existing portable toilet, . staff believes this location is not desirable due to the
surrounding topography and associated extra costs that would be incurred to
construct the facility at that location. Harris & Associates have estimated that the
increased cost (additional utility lines/trenching, site grading, retaining wall, safety
fencing, etc.) would be on the order of $40,000. This is nearly double the estimated
cost of building the restroom near the playground, where no grading, retaining walls
or safety fencing would be 'needed). Even if cost were not an issue, staff believes
that the facility would pose' an attractive nuisance to youths using the existing
pedestrian path that traverses from the multi-use path up to Tiburon Boulevard.
Protective fencing would be needed to discourage people from climbing onto the roof
of the restroom or falling to the ground below.
Upon approval by the Town Council, staff anticipates that project will be constructed
in late summer or early fall.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Town Council budgeted $17,000 in fiscal year 2003-2004 for this project. The
project was not reflected in the adopted fiscal year 2004-2005 budget. Further, the
engineer's initial estimate for the project is $41,000 (without the cedar siding). If the
project is approved, the Town Council will be asked to approve a budget amendment
to fund the construction.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Town Council approve the plans for a permanent
restroom facility at the location shown on Exhibit 5. Council should also give staff
direction as to whether decorative wood siding should be part of the final design.
EXHIBITS
1. Site Plan dated May 2004
2. Photo rendering of new permanent restroom at South of Knoll
3. Memo dated July 2, 2004 summarizing DRB comments
4. Memo dated July 28, 2004 regarding BPAC support
5. Revised Site Plan dated June 2004
July 28, 2004
2 of 2
MEMO'
FROM:
PAT ECHOLS, TOWN ENGINEER
DANIEL M. WATROUS, PLANIIIING MANAGER .D[)
JULY 2, 2004
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD INPUT ON SOUTH OF KNOLL RESTROOM
The Design Review Board reviewed the design of the proposed perrnanent restroom for
the South of Knoll Park at its July 1, 2004 meeting. The Board's cornrnents on the
design are surnrnarized as follows:
1 . The restroorn should be rnoved to the location of the existing portable
toilet. The Board was syrnpathetic to concerns raised by the owners of
several hornes on Pine Terrace that the restroom would be too visible'
from these nearby residences. The Board also thought that the restroom
would be too visible from the park itself.
2. The current ternporary restroom location was preferable, even with the
necessary retaining walls. The Board stated that other structures in
Tiburon are usually encouraged to build into the hillsides in order to
reduce their visibility. It was suggested that sorne cost savings could
occur by designing the retaining wall to double as the rear of the building.
3. Boardrnember Figollr stated that a rustic exterior design would be rnore
appropriate for the restroorn. He suggested using wood siding, possibly
with an arbor, to accornplish this design.
4. Additional landscaping around the restroom was suggested. The Board
recalled that the plans for the restroom near Blackie's Pasture included a
landscaping plan, and noted that the vegetation helped to rnitigate the
visibility of that building.
Please let rne know if you would like more inforrnation on the cornments by the Board.
MEMORANDUM
.~
Town of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Pat Echols, Town Engineer ,
FROM: Kevin Bryant, Advance Planner
Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Staff Liaison
SUBJECT: Support for Permanent Restroom Facility at South Knoll Park
DA TE: July 28, 2004 .
. . . .. .............................................
At its meeting on July 27, 2004, the Bicycie/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) expressed its
support for the proposed permanent restroom facility at South Knoll Park. The BPAC agrees with
the need for a permanent restroom facility, as the Multi-Use Path is one of the most popular
recreational trails in Marin County. The someitimes heavy use of McKegney Green and South
Knoll Park also make a permanent restroom facility an amenity which will be of benefit to both
residents and visitor alike.
w
Z
0.. ,''1, \
'\/ \ 'o~ \
I \\ \ \'6
'\\.0. '\<10 \7,
" \\ \ \\,Y ~
<\ \\ \ \~ \ 7,
\'" . ''''\'\Y
\\ \. \ \ \ --z-
\\, , '--;...J
\,., 'v' \. >- \\>-::0
\'6"<7\ \ \0
\\\\\ \'\0. \
\ \\ \ \0 ,
\ i\ \'~.p
~ . \\.
\\\ .,s." J~
(\'~(~,-'<' \ , '"
\ "'I,I, L 0
\ \~:-,
, \','
~.~ '\<\.n '
~~ \:-\. ".j\ -',
a \ )\,::~\ .
/' \ ~:\<,\~>\ \',
\ '~. .~~ \,\
, \\~ \\ I,.
' '/ I '"
\ , '!,', \ , I .... '!;!w
\, 'i:i \\ I :...JX
'f.- \ \ \ \ I I <0
C,,p;-.,., d ! >Ol
\ \ \\ ~ ~~
,", \",~ ~
' '\\ 'V\'\ '~: "7':' i
'-, 4\ " "'" I
t; \: _ ",--..:
~ 'I' \ tl;:, '. J'
tQ w ~-'~ ,~~ ..ri
ill c: " ,..."' '" Z ,. , r. \
Q. 'i \ c:;.\ .~ OQ / /1- \ \
IS ~ ~ \ fo '~.1:i~ 8~/ ;1-;;\-." \ ',"
f" 6 0 I ~'. I,' w.' / i .. ii, i
" Z ~ \i \ 0.' I ,,,,,I... II I':
;:; GS ,. ., x/ l\'i~', I I
d '\\ \ ~i : i-'ll
' I Ii \ \ -"1"!
11,1, '1 ,___,_ II
\ \ ~! -- \ 1',\ \ 1 ! :,
i \ L-i~. \1 ~ \:
! \ 1\ I '" \1
,,,\,,' I.._j.,.~, 't'..,
-1--.n,- ,- W 'r
\~.- I ....LI; Ul i
\, \. I. \ ~ i ~ I
iell i! \ ~' z 4- I
i 1\ i \i 'i :< ~ ;
w, I Ii I lzUl ;
~if !,~ \'1 I =' I \
\U ell. c... \ I I 0 1 \
lil~1 1,\ '! ~ i ,
Lf I, I \\ \ ~
i! \i; :::
\ I i~1 x I,.,
I : w
\ I !\ \
\ \\ ':
' ,
i,
".,
w
u
<(
0::::
0::::
W
I-
'"
W
f5
"'
.~
~
'"
~
"'
x
w
\.
i
\
I
/\
,
\,
~\\.
~
~.
~
')<9 \
Y
is 0
I-Z "C(
I ~~ ~~
I Ww 0::>
i w~ :io
::I: \ 1;0 . ~ __JL
~ '''-~ffi._.--.. -'T::J
, ~ ~\1:i__~",-.__.
, " I
') i 1"
I ,
I
,
i
I
i
I
i
I
,
I
!
I
i :t
I'"
,
!
?:~
~~
"'z
Z
00
wu
"'
0<<
o.w
o~
8:",
I
i
i I
I I
! I
i I
i J
I ~
, "'
w ~
H
ill ~
, !
I
I
,
I
!
i
I
/1
\
I
I.
I
I
I
4J
!;(
::;
X
o
'"
11.
11.
<(
w
'"
<(
.
Vl
Z
o
~
u
o
-'
-'
-'
<(
I""
.41 ,
<:>u
zm
~u
~Ea
p..
>-..: .
(/) ~ 0:
W ~'-'
I-~
OGJ
Zg:
i
,.
1:i~
"'0
"'eo
""'
8l:it
"'
o
0.
o
'"
0.
0''':'':
ZN
~
'"
w
~
X
o
'"
0.
0.
<
'i:
~
~
~
~
~
z
~
0..
W
l-
ii)
0'
W
III
:;
W
a:
i
hi
~ ~
i
~i
.
~
10,
1-'
i ii
.
l'il
IMI Rt
~; ~
illllii
I!d~~
Q111O:
l..iYoI
EXHIBIT d-
,;
2. Recommendation by Town Manager - Budget Amendment for MERA Operating
Expenses Fiscal Year 2004-05
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To approve Consent Calendar ItemNos. 1 and 2, above.
Gram, seconded by Berger .
AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: Slavitz .
PUBLIC HEARING
3. Recommendation by Director of Public Worksffown Engineer - Proposed
Installation of Permanent Restroom Facility at South Knoll Park
Director Echols gave the report. He said that the Town had planned to install a permanent
restroom near South Knoll Park for the past several years which had been approved in concept by
the Council for the FY 2003-04 budget. He said that the permanent restroom would replace the
portable facility located along the Multi-Use path between McKe!,'lley Green and the playground
and would be located approximately 10 feet south of the path. He said that the footprint of the
building was 10.7 by 12.7 feet with a maximum roof height of 11 feet.
Director Echols said that the proposed project had been reviewed by the Parks and Open Space
Commission, thc Design Review Board, as well as the Bicycle Pcdestrian Advisory Committee.
all of whom had expressed support. He said that the Board had received comments from
residents of Pine Terrace who favored locating the facility farther away from their homes. Echols
. showed several photo-simulations of the original location, plus two alternatives, for the
Council's review and comment.
Director Echols said that Staff had recommended the original site because no grading or retaining
wall would be required, and it was the shortest distance to run a line from the existing sewer.
The second proposal would shift the restroom facility towards the existing playground and the
third site, the one favored by the Pine Terracc neighbors, was 30 feet back from the'second site.
Echols estimated that it would cost about $2,500 to extend the sewer linc to either site No.2 or
site No.3.
CounciJmember Smith commented that the Design Review Board had also discussed different
materials for the building, such as wood shingles.
Director Echols said that a wood fa9ade and shingles would add another $2,000 to the cost of the
project. He also noted that weather might require replacement of these materials in 10 years. He
stated, however, that there would be plenty of plant screening surrounding thc building which
would most likely preclude the need for special materials.
Town Council Minutes if 15-2()()4
August 4. 201!4
Page 2
./
.~
Mayor Fredericks said that she would support the No.3 location because it was less visible from
Pine Terrace and moved the activity away from the homes there.
Councilmember Smith suggested that because the alternate locations would not be as visible
from the Multi-Use Path, perhaps signage could be added to let'people know that there was a
restroom facility in the area.
Mayor Fredericks opened the public hearing.
Bill Tiedje, 30 Pine Terrace, thanked Director Echols for addressing the neighbors' concerns and
said that the No.3 location was the one favored by the neighborhood. He said that there should
. be adequate plant screening and asked .that the Council ensure, through a condition of approval,
that it would be maintained in the future.
Mayor'.Fredericks closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Berger agreed that Site No.3 was a preferable location.
With regard to the design of the proposed facility, Berger said that he would like to see
something "more special" to Tiburon's historic character. He showed Council and the public
. some black and white photos of old buildings formerly in or near that location, such as an old
dairy bam, a bunkhouse located at the Trestle, the Hilarita train station, and an old "out house."
He said that the proposed building, while serviceable, was "Forest Service-like."
Councilmember Smith also said he preferred Site No.3, as long as there was on-going
maintenance of the landscaping and the addition of signage. He said that he was "design
neutral."
Director Echols said that the proposed design matched the existing restroom facility at Blackie's
Pasture and noted that the cost of the prefabricated "kit" was $19,000. He said that alternate
designs could be provided to the Council at the time of approval to see if there was any interest at
that time.
Councilmember Gram concurred with moving the proposed facility to the No.3 location for an
additional $2,500, but cautioned against spending the extra money for a special design since there
were no funds as yet appropriated in the current year's budget for the project. In addition, he said
that the Town still faced budget take-aways from the State. In conclusion, Gram recommended
that the Council approve the current design and location for a cost of $40-$42:000.
Mayor Fredericks reiterated that she would favored the No.3 location, because it reflected the
desire of the neighborhood. and the existing design.
Town Council Minutes 11 15-2004
August 4. 2004
Page 3
"
MOTION:
To approve Site No.3 for the permanent restroom facility at South Knoll Park and
direct Staff to come back with plans for the project including the current design
specifications plus some design alternates for Council's approval.
Gram, seconded by Berger
AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: ShlVitz
Moved:
Vote:
4. Report by Advance Planner - General Plan Update: Goal, Policy and Program.
Refinement - Parks & Recreation Element Issues Paper
Advance Planner Bryant said that as part of the General Plan Update process, the Planning
Commission held ameeting on July 14,2004 to discuss the goal, policy and program suggestions
contained in the Parks & Recreation Element Issues Paper. After receiving input from the public
at that meeting, including from two members of the Parks & Open Space Commission, the
Advance Planner stated that there were three areas in which Staff now sought the Council's
comments and direction:
I) Blackie's Pasture - whether the area presented in the Issues Paper is the correct area to
designate for "passive recreational use";
2) Future of Town's Recreational Needs - whether to specify that a Master Plan for
recreational services be developed in collaboration with the City of Belvedere, Jt.
Recreation Department, and others;
3) Parks Improvement and Maintenance - whether to implement a Planning Commission
recommendation to create a special budget and funding sources for the above.
Council had the following comments and questions:
Item No.1:
Gram - What does "undeveloped area" mean with regards to Blackie's Pasture?
Bryant - No irrigation (like McKegney Green); left "as is," no buildings, paved paths, etc.
Gram - If irrigation well is successful, possibility of beautifying area?
Berger - Is it appropriate to hold special events there from time to time,such as the Millennium
Bonfire?
Item No.2:
Fredericks - Care must he taken in the use of demographics to project future needs.
Town Council Minutes If /5-2()()4
August 4. 2()()4
Page 4
EXHIBIT 3
HISTORIC PHOTOS OF FORMER TIBURON TRAIN STATIONS
HILARITA STATION
REED STATION
EXAMPLES OF RESTROOMS WITH CEDAR SIDING
EXHIBIT 4
:
"
,
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 1.!/:-
ri.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TO:
MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY:::~
DEVELOPMENT ~~
SUBJECT: LANDSLIDE MITIGATION POLICY: ADOPT REVISI~
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 6, 2004 REVIEWED BY: ~
FROM:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the meeting of August 4,2004 at the request of Town Staff
after receiving "late rnail" comments immediately prior to the meeting. Staff desired an
opportunity to review the comments in some detail with the Town's geotechnical
consultant. Please refer to adopted minutes of the August 4, 2004 meeting, attached as
Exhibit 1.
Having completed the detailed review of the comments, and accepted most of the
suggested wording changes as constructive and clarifying, Staff now brings the landslide
mitigation policy revision item to the Town Council for final action. As noted in the
original report, Staff believes that the revised policy provides a more current, consistent,
scientifically-based, and environmentally-friendly policy than the Town's current policy,
and that it should be adopted as soon as possible.
In response to Town Council questions at the August meeting, Staff provides the
following information:
. The determination of Risk Level A or B for a landslide is a technical judgment on
the part of experts. The revised policy vests the final determination with the Town
Engineer, relying heavily on the findings of geotechnical investigations and the
interpretations of the report pre parers and Town-retained peer reviewers.
. The policy is broad enough to apply to "major remodel" projects if the Town
Engineer believes that a potential landslide risk exists.
. This formalized landslide repair policy reflects a modernized but fairly well-
established approach to dealing with landslides. Many communities use this
approach, but few have it clearly spelled out on paper, as yet.
Staff has preliminarily determined that this action is exempt from provisions of the
California Environrnental Quality Act per Guidelines sections 15307 and 15308.
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
10/6/2004
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
'.
1) Finds adoption of the revised policy to be categorically exempt from CEQA
pursuant to sections 15307 and 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
2) Adopts the resolution adopting the revised landslide mitigation policy.
EXHIBITS
1. Minutes of Town Council meeting of August 4,2004.
2. Current landslide repair policy.
3. Draft Resolution and revised landslide mitigation policy.
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
10/6/2004
..
f,
2
(~
.-
0;'
COUncihnember Gram said he agreed with Staffs recommendation that the General PIan.be
"general," not specific, in nature. He said that a Master Plan was for specifics and favored the
idea.
Gram said that one day a specific site would become available for a recreation center, but that
currently one did not exist.
Mayor Fredericks said that she Supported the study of specific recreation needs and a budget for
the MasterPlan process which would "maximize" community input while allowing the General
Plan to address the broader con<?epts.
Councilmember Smith added that he too favored launch areas for kayaks and canoes, but that
they should.be located closer to ,the downtown area; .
Vice Mayor Berger added that there was a need for.an additional restroom facility on the
waterfront near the Caprice Restaurant. .
, .
That concluded the discussion of the Issues Paper.
REGULAR AGENDA
''75,
'.Recommendation !Jy Director of Community Development and Director of Public
. WorksrrownEngineer'~Revisions to Landslide Mitigation Policy
. . .
a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon
Adopting a Revised LandslldeMitigation Policy
. Director Anderson said that the landslides and unstable soils were common on the Tiburon
Peninsula due to its history and topography. For decades, the Town maintained an informal
policy regarding the repair oflaridslides which was fonnalized in 2000, liCcording to Anderson.
He said that as the ."artlscience"of geotechriical engineering over the last few decades, Staff .
recommended that theTown's Iandslide.policy be revised to reflect the increased sophistication of
analysis and variety of mitigation features, which he spelled out in the .proposed update to the
policy:
Anderson said that the Town's current landslide repair policy focused on the "full repair and
elimination" of nearly all landslides, but he noted that the Town's preferred option when dealing
with potential landslides was one of avoidance, and this was addressed in the Town's General
Plan. When avoidance is neither feasible nor appropriate, the new policy establishes the.
. framework in which excavation or reconstruction might take place through the establishm~nt of
. different risk "levels:" . . .
Councihnember Smith asked for clearer definitions of the risk levels. .
Town Council Minutes # 15-2004
August 4, 2004
Page 9
EXHIBIT NO.
J
,''''''''
I
(.
"
Councilmember Smith also asked whcther the policy was broad enough to apply to re-model
projects and was told by Director Anderson that it was. Councilmcmber Gram added that he was
required to take mitigation mcasures on his [home] project in 1978.
. Councilmember Gram asked if the ToWll could only take action under the policy if a
[development] application was on file.
Anderson stated that the only time the Town could require mitigation was on private property.
Gram also asked whether any other cities or tOWllS had similar policies. Anderson replied that the
proposed policy was similar to one adopted by the City of San Rafael.
. Mayor Fredericks asked under what circumstances".would the policy prevent-the repair of a
landslide in order to avoid loss of natural resources: .
Director Anderson said that implementation of the policy might not be that severe but that it
might be that the solution lay in a different design, or a requirement to fix the landslide in order to
protect other areas, such as a ridgeline or endangered species habitat.
Mayor Fredericks opened the public hearing;.
Helen Lindqvist, 3 Cazadero Lane, asked how the T OWll wouid deal with potential slides outside
of its jurisdiction, such as the Easton Point property in order to protect Tiburon residents who
. lived doWll slope from the project.
Director Anderson said that the TOWllwould have numerous opportunities throughout the
development process [due to CEQA regulations] to comment and have input with the County's
. Planning Department.
Mayor Fredericks asked how the Lyford's Cove/Old Tiburon HomeoWller's Association could
received notice of County hearings on this and other projects. Anderson said that the Association
could bC'incIuded on the County's "club list" for this project if they asked for it.
Mayor Fredericks closed the public hearing.
Director Anderson said that the T OWll' s soils consultant had submitted a letter commenting on the
. proposed policy but was out ofToWll for the meeting. He said that Staffhad also received
comments from the public and he recommended that the Council continue the hearing in order to
allow Staff and Council to further review these item~.
Council continued the matter.
Town Council Minutes # /5-2004
August 4, 2004
Page 10
;'OWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TlBURON . CALIFORNIA 949:0 . (41::i18E3-9200
FAX (41.5) SUJ.2753
i
OFFICE OF THE TOWN ENGiNE~'~
Irving L. S1;hwar,:'_
MEMO
R-,,",'-"l' ."""';J
-< :~~ _..,....;. 1\ !I _...;
.. i'_-.",=-" ~.....,.:: ",J .__.:.,.
-- -. .----Fe15ruary-22:200U--- ----.--.-------
<:::'Revi5ed May 4, 2~
MAY 1 0 200\1
P~..~i;: ! ~:' ::-; ,- ': ~'..:;";' :'.~:>i i
TO:
Scott Anderson, Planning Director
ir;:, . :
.,
',c.,
SUBJECT:
. Robert Kleinert .
Ann Danforth
D9ll Bloomquist, . "
,;!'fan Watrous, . . ,., , . .' .' '. ....
.. IrvingL Schwartz,TownEngineer . 0' ....... .... '. .
. "//'-'
Repair of Landslides ... . ,.' .
ct:
FROM:
;.1-"_' .~:..,.~'.....":.:.,._'.~l"'",,",""",,.'6"___"""'"' 1...~,..__iI"'_""'f.r."'I';I.'I_.....;r_,_","'_'#"""",""","","/I..;I.",..."i."'''''' ....._,-...._;,;.,_"z.M'1P'.r."/""'....,.~._~," ....:;.o...;-.."'_..'....~.
For many years the Town of Tiburon, through its Town Engineer, Stanley Bala, had .a policv
regarding the repair of landslides which were made as requirements of development of .private.
property ....ithin the Town. Therefore, for both consistency and clariTY, the following information
regarding the repair of landslides. will berecornmended by ~e as' conditions of-approval for'
development of private property.
1. All landslides within the limits of the lot lines of a lot proposed to be developed excluding ar~as
outside of designated building envelopes shall be fully repaired or eliminated.
. .
2. All landslides within the limiis of any subdivision which may impact lots or public
improvements either inside or outside of the subdivision shall be fully repaired or eliminated.
3. All active landslides within the limits ofany subdivision, but outside of the actual lots shill b"
fully repaired or eliillinated.
4. All potential or inactive landslides located within the limits of a subdivision, but outside of
proposed lots, which do not represent a serious threat to dowrihill property either within t..'1e
subdivision or outside of the subdivision, shall be reasonably improved or mitigated.
All of the above is subject to the professional judgment of the Project Geotechnical Engineer, as well
as the Town Engineer and the ToWn's Geotechnical Consultant.
CORROSPOJOB
EXHIBIT NO. ..ti
,
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2004
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING A REVISED
LANDSLIDE MITIGATION POLICY
WHEREAS, landslides and unstable soils are common features
throughout the Tiburon Peninsula due to the nature of the area's geologic history
and characteristics of its soil complexes; and
WHEREAS, catastrophic slides on the Tiburon Peninsula have
occasionally resulted in considerable property damage and/or road closures (Red
Hill, 1963), or even loss of life (Dakin/Hsu, 1982); and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, the
Town Engineer of the Town of Tiburon has historically maintained a policy of
requiring the repair or elimination of landslides which have the potential to cause
serious damage or to risk the loss of life; and
WHEREAS, this landslide repair policy was formalized by the Town
Engineer in February 2000 and has been routinely used by Town Staff in the
processing of development applications, and
WHEREAS, Town Staff has concluded that as the "arUscience" of geology
and geotechnical engineering has evolved over the last few decades, the Town's
iandslide policy should be revised to reflect the increased sophistication of
analysis and variety of landslide mitigations which have resulted from that
evolution; and
WHEREAS, the Tiburon General Plan Safety Element sets forth the
several goals and policies related to hazardous areas (including landslides),
including but not limited to the following:
Goal SE-A: To identify hazardous areas and to guide development away
from hazardous areas.
Policy SE-2: Appiications for development shall provide substantial.
evidence (in the form of soils reports, grading plans, and
other documents) that the proposed development poses no
hazard to the project itself or other areas.
Policy SE-8: New development within the Town shall be required to
mitigate any threats to persons or property during the
development process by the rebuilding of unstable siopes,
TUJl/roll TVl1/f1 COUllcil
ResolutiOl/ No, X).;'-2004
--/--/211114
EXHIBIT NO.~
..,
installation of drainage improvements, installation of
vegetation, and/or other measures.
Policy SE-23:Require engineered supervision of construction in all
development areas having unstable or potentially unstable
slopes or substrate or to avoid developrnent of such areas to
the greatest extent possible after engineered study; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that this action is exempt from
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to sections
15307 and 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that adoption of the revised landslide
repair policy will promote the protection of natural resources, promote the
protection of the environment, promote the public health, safety, and general
welfare and is, on balance, consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of
the Tiburon General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council hereby
adopts a revised landslide mitigation policy as set forth in the attached Exhibit
llA".
PASSED AND ADOPTED ala regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Tiburon 'On ,2004, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
TihurrJII TaWil Council
Resolution No. XX-2(}{)4
--/--/20(J4
2
,
TOWN OF TIBURON
LANDSLIDE MITIGA TlON POLICY
GOAL
The Town of Tiburon shall require physical improvements to landslides and to potential landslide
areas necessary to secure the public health, safety and/or welfare, in instances where avoidance
of landslides is not feasible or appropriate. This policy sets forth the framework that the Town will
use to determine the type and extent of necessary physical improvements to landslides and
. potential landslide areas. The intent of such physical improvements is to substantially improve
slope stability or construct protective structures to mitigate the impacts of landslide movement.
APPLICABILITY
This policy shall appiy to all applications for Precise Development Plan, Major Subdivision, and
Minor Subdivision; and to Conditional Use Permit applications for the construction of any multiple
family dwelling (three or more units). This policy also applies to applications for Site Plan &
Architectural Review for a new dwelling on a vacant lot or parcel not created as part of a
subdivision recorded after June 23, 1964, unless the Town Engineer determines that there is no
potential for landslides on the property. This policy shall also apply to new single family residences
and major remodels if, in the opinion of the Town Engineer, a potential landslide risk exists.
REQUIRED GEOLOGIC MAPPING INFORMATION
At a minimum, any project subject to this policy shall submit a geologic map, at a scale suitable for
delineating existing landslides and/or potential landslide areas, prepared by a Registered
Geologist, Certified Engineering Geologist or Registered Geotechnical Engineer. The mapping
shall include a review of available published geologic maps and a site reconnaissance. For sites
with more complex geology (i.e. Franciscan melange {KJrm}, serpentinite {KJsp}, colluvium {Qc} on
steep, unstable slopes with landslides {QI5}, undocumented man-made fill, etc.), the geologic
mapping shall also include a review of historic and recent aerial photographs, and be
supplemented with preliminary subsurface exploration. The project geologic map shall identify,
locate and define the extent of active landslides', dormant landslides2 and potential landslide
areas".
POLICY
The required level of repair, improvement, or mitigation for the mapped landslides will depend on
the level of risk for damage to property and to existing or proposed improvements, as set forth
below:
. Risk Level A Mitigation
Risk Level A landslides include all active, dormant, or potential landslide areas having a high
risk of causing damage to structures and improvements, and: (1) are within 100 feet of any
designated building envelope; (2) have debris flow source areas where the flow path crosses
1 Landslides with visible geomorphic features that indicate instability within the last fifty (50) years.
2 Ancient landslides with poorly defined geomorphic features and no evidence of recent activity.
3 Areas where the soil type, groundwater conditions and topography are typically associated with landslides
and/or debris flows.
Town of Tiburon
Landslide Mitigation Policy
Adopted --1-- \2004
1
any building envelope or residential use area; (3) are active landslides that could affect
adjacent public or private property.
All Risk Level A landslides shall be repaired or avoided. Landslide repairs shall improve the
stability of a landslide to a level such that the calculated factor of safety' is at least 1.5 for static
conditions and greater than 1.0 for pseudo-5tatic5 (seismic) conditions. The improved stability
may be accomplished by various methods including: (1) excavation of unstable material,
installation of subsurface drainage and construction of a compacted earth fill buttress; (2)
design and construction of retaining structures; (3) de-watering; (4) removal of the entire
unstable landslide mass; or (5) other methods for landslide stabilization acceptable to the
Town.
Landslide avoidance requires that proposed structures and improvements are not located
within a Risk Level A landslide, or that they are set back an adequate distance from a Risk
Level A landslide as determined by a Registered Geologist, Certified Engineering Geologist or
Registered Geotechnical Engineer. Avoidance also requires that existing structures, property,
and off-site improvements will not be affected by future Risk Level A landslide movement.
. Risk Level B Mitigation
Risk Level B landslides have a lower risk of causing significant damage to property or
improvements within or outside the property than Risk Level A landslides. In most instances,
Risk Level B landslides would be those located in proposed open space areas or in areas
outside of any building envelope and any residential use area.
All Risk Level B landslides shall be improved or avoided. Landslide improvement requires
increasing the stability to a level such that the calculated factor of safety is at least 1.2 for static
conditions. Improvement may also include the construction or installation of protective devices
to protect structures, property, and improvements located downslope of Risk Level B
landslides. .
Landslide avoidance requires placement of structures and improvements an adequate distance
from the landslide, as determined by a Registered Geologist, Certified Engineering Geologist or
Registered Geotechnical Engineer, such that any future slope movement is not likely to affect
the structures or improvements.
All mapping, evaluation, analyses and design for repair, improvement or avoidance of landslides is
subject to review and acceptance by the Town of Tiburon and/or the Town's Geotechnical
Consultant. The Town Engineer shall have sole discretion to determine: (1) the Risk Level of any
landslide or potential iandslide; (2) whether a proposed project avoids an on-site landsiide or
landslides; and (3) whether proposed mitigation is adequate under this policy.
By adopting this policy, the Town Council does not intend to self-impose any liability for damages
to persons or property arising from any landslide features, slope stability failures or other land
movement.
4 The factor of safety is defined as the ratio Df the resisting forces to the driving fDrces. Slopes with a factDr of
safety less than 1.0 are unstable and a landslide will CDmmence. SIDpes with a factDr Df 1.0 are marginally
stable. The higher the factor Df safety, the mDre stable the slope.
5 The seismic acceleratiDn used in the p5eudD-static analyses shall be the maximum ground acceleration
determined from deterministic methDds, Dr the probabilistic ground acceleration that cDrrespDnds with a 10
percent chance Df being exceeded in 50 years.
Town of Tiburon Landslide Mitigation Policy Adopted --/--/2004 2
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
/,
FROM:
Mayor and Mernbers ..of the Town C~I
Alex D. Mcintyre, Town Manager ~.
:-:,,'
TO:
'>"'-'
SUBJECT: Meeting with Tiburon Peninsula Club
MEETING DATE: October 6, 2004
. . . . . . . . . 0" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . .
At its September 15, 2004 meeting, the Town Council asked me to explore the possibility of
acquiring use of portions of lands owned by the Tiburon Peninsula Club (TPC). The TPC owns
Judge Field (Exhibit A) and has submitted a development application to the Town to develop the
parcel as a part of a remodel and expansion of the Club facility.'
Presently, Judge Field has tennis courts and the balance of the unpaved portion serves as
overflow parking for the TPC. As submitted, the TPC plans to add one additional tennis court
and create a paved parking lot that will serve the Club facility.
Conceptually, the portiqn of land that the Town might have an interest in acquiring would be a
yet-to-be determined portion of the western limints of the lands between Mar West and the
Marsh. While not yet specified by the Town Council, the parcel of land in question could be used
for recreation/programming related activities. .It would serve as an ideal civic extension of the
proposed library expansion using the Marsh as a featured asset.
On September 23, 2004, I met with TPC General Manager Chris Horne and TPC President Mark
Cawdreyto discuss the Town's interest in acquiring the land. Both appeared receptive to the
idea and we explored several types of alternatives how the Town and the TPC might "partner" in
development of the Judge Field.
. Next Steps
It appears that continued discussions with representatives of the TPC would be appropriate and
that perhaps, the Town should better identify the piece of land in which it might have interest.
Once determined, the Town shouid seek an appraisal of the property.
Further, the Town Council might instruct staff to develop 8'list of potential uses which the Town
might be interested in developing on the site.
Recomrnendation
It is recommended that the Town Council direct staff for appropriate subsequent steps to take to
explore acquisition of portions of Judge Field from the TPC.
Exhibit
A - Site Map
,
.'
~
e
e
e
MARIN EMERGENCY RADIO AUTHORITY
27 Commercial Blvd., Suite C, Novato, CA 94949
Phone: (415) 883-9100 FAX: (415) 883-9155
October 5, 2004 .
Alex Mcintyre
Tiburon Town Manager
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
'Eburon, CA 94920
RE: Wolfback Ridge - MERA Site Costs
Dcar Alex:
!F1leCfE~VED
ocr 6 2004
TOW:~ MANAGEfiS OFFICf
TOWN OF TI8URON
Based on the Motorola contract, Richard and I estimate the cost to build a new alternate site at
Wolfbaek Ridge within the next six months to be $929,000.
This estimate is detailed as follows:
Equipment
Site Radio Equipment
Microwave Radios
Digital Channel Banks
Site FaultAlarm System
Prime Site Additional Equipment
Subtotal Equipment
Software Licenses and Programming
Equipment Installation and Integration
Site Preparation
Building Remodel, Air Conditioning,
Cable Trays, etc.
Tower, Foundation, Electrical
Generator and Fuel Tank
Subtotal Site
Other Expenses
Supplemental ErR
Pcnnits
Legal (ErR, Lease, Motorola Contract)
Subtotal Other
Estimated Total Project Cost
$268,000
188,000
38,000
23,000
25.000
$542,000
$ 19,000
$ 44,000
$175,000
40,000
25,000
$240,000
$ 70,000
4,000
10,000
$ 84,000
LATE MAIL # /0
$929.000
(0- ~ ~-(j 7
1J:\Govcrnmcntal So]uliolls\Shared\MERA\LcttL:rs\IJr-AMclntyrc-Wollback Site Costs,doc
i
Wolfback RidQe Site #2 Radio EQui,
e Equipment
SIMULCAST 28 CHAN REMOTE CONTROLLER
ENH: 12.5KHZ CHANNEL SPACING.
ADD: MANUAL, PRIME SITE CONTROLLER
ADD: ASTRO 2.0.3 MIXED MODE
ADD: 7 CHANNEL UPGRADE
, QUANTAR/QUANTRO FAMILY
QUANTAR/QUANTRO CONFIGURATION
ENH: SZ6809 ASTR CAI TRK QTAR
ADD: UHF 11 OW PA RANGE 1,2,3,4
AL T CONVERTER DC TO DC 48/60V HP
ADD: OPEN RACK MTD QUANTRO,7 1/2'
ADD: MANUAL, SERVICE
DEL: FUNCTIONAL MANUAL
ENH: REMOTE RSS CAPABILITY
ADD: GPS SIMULCAST
ADD: INTFC, WIRELlNE, 9.6 KB
QUANTAR/QUANTRO FAMILY
QUANTAR/QUANTRO CONFIGURATION
ENH: SZ6809 ASTR CAI TRK QTAR
ADD: UHF 11 OW PA RANGE 1,2,3,4
AL T: CONVERTER DC TO DC 48/60V HP
ADD: OPEN RACK MTD QUANTRO,7 1/2'
DEL: FUNCTIONAL MANUAL
ENH: REMOTE RSS CAPABILITY
_ ADD: GPS SIMULCAST
,., ADD: INTFC, WIRELlNE, 9.6 KB
QUANTAR/QUANTRO FAMILY
QUANTAR/QUANTRO CONFIGURATION
ENH: SZ6809 ASTR CAI TRK QTAR
ADD: UHF 11 OW PA RANGE 1,2,3,4
AL T CONVERTER DC TO DC 48/60V HP
ADD: OPEN RACK MTD QUANTRO,7 1/2'
DEL FUNCTIONAL MANUAL
ENH: REMOTE RSS CAPABILITY
ADD GPS SIMULCAST
ADD: INTFC, WIRELlNE, 9.6 KB
QUANTAR/QUANTRO FAMILY
QUANTAR/QUANTRO CONFIGURATION
ENH: SZ6809 ASTR CAI TRK QTAR
ADD: UHF 11 OW PA RANGE 1,2,3,4
AL T: CONVERTER DC TO DC 48/60V HP
ADD: OPEN RACK MTD QUANTRO, 7 1/2'
DEL FUNCTIONAL MANUAL
ENH REMOTE RSS CAPABILITY
ADD: GPS SIMULCAST
ADD: INTFC, WIRELlNE, 9.6 KB
QUANTAR/QUANTRO FAMILY
QUANTAR/QUANTRO CONFIGURATION
ENH SZ6809 ASTR CAI TRK QTAR
ADD UHF 11 OW PA RANGE 1,2,3,4
AL T: CONVERTER DC TO DC 48/60V HP
e ADD: OPEN RACK MTD QUANTRO,7 1/2'
DEL: FUNCTIONAL MANUAL
ENH: REMOTE RSS CAPABILITY
ADD GPS SIMULCAST
ADD: INTFC, WIRELlNE, 9.6 KB
.~,,',-;...
,I
QUANTAR/QUANTRO FAMILY
QUANTAR/QUANTRO CONFIGURATION
.. ENH: 8Z6809 A8TR CAI TRK QTAR
_ ADD: UHF 11 OW PA RANGE 1,2,3,4
AL T: CONVERTER DC TO DC 48/60V HP
ADD: OPEN RACK MTD QUANTRO,7 1/2'
ENH REMOTE RSS CAPABILITY
ADD: GPS SIMULCAST
ADD: INTFC, WIRELlNE, 9.6 KB
QUANTAR/QUANTRO FAMILY
QUANTAR/QUANTRO CONFIGURATION
ENH: SZ6809 ASTR CAI TRK QTAR
ADD: UHF 11 OW PA RANGE 1,2,3,4
AL T: CONVERTER DC TO DC 48/60V HP
ADD: OPEN RACK MTO QUANTRO, 7 1/2'
ENH: REMOTE RSS CAPABILITY
ADD: GPS SIMULCAST
ADD: INTFC, WIRELlNE, 9.6 KB
6 OUTLET AC POWER STRIP
CBCXBR
16 chan freq ref
PLUG
DC INJECTOR'PROTECTOR 30V
COAX PROTECTOR
1/2" CONNECTOR,N PLUG LDF PL TO
1/2" LDF HELlAX, POLY JKT, PER FOOT
LIGHTNING ARRESTOR ISURGE
RCVR MUL TICPLR
TERMINATION, 50 OHM
.1/2'.' LDF HELlAX, POLY JKT, PER FOOT
COMBINER, 3 UHF TRANSMITTERS
COMBINER, 6 UHF TRANSMITTERS
1/2" CONNECTOR, N PLUG' LDF PL TO
7/8" LDF HELlAX, POLY JKT, PER FOOT
7/8" CONNECTOR, N JACK (FEMALE)
7/8" CABLE GROUND CLAMP KIT
7/8" SNAP-IN HANGER KIT, 10PK
7/8" CABLE HOISTING GRIP
7/8" CABLE GROUND CLAMP KIT
7/8" CABLE GROUND CLAMP KIT
1/2" SUPERFLEX, POLY JKT, PER FOOT
1/2" CONNECTOR, N PLUG S-FLEX
CABLE WRAP, WEATHERPROOFING
1/2" LDF HELlAX, POLY JKT, PER FOOT
1/2" CONNECTOR, N PLUG LDF PL TO
7/16 DIN MALE CONN 1/2" SFLX
7/8" LDF HELlAX, POLY JKT, PER FOOT
7/8" CONNECTOR, N JACK (FEMALE)
7/8" CABLE GROUND CLAMP KIT
7/8" SNAP-IN HANGER KIT, 10PK
7/8" CABLE HOISTING GRIP
7/8"CABLE GROUND CLAMP KIT
7/8" CABLE GROUND CLAMP KIT
1/2" LDF HELlAX, POLY JKT, PER FOOT
1/2" CONNECTOR, N PLUG LDF PL TO
CABLE WRAP, WEATHERPROOFING
.. ANTENNA, 470-494MHZ. OMNI, 8DB, CWA
_ ANTENNA, 470-494MHZ. OMNI, 8DB, CWA
Radio Eqpt. T'olal:
(Note: 1998 Contract Prices)
e
e
e
Lyford's Cove Old Tiburon Homeowners' Association
98 Main Street, Suite 634
Tiburon, California 94920
October 6, 2004
RECE~VEI\Jl
OCT 6 2004
Town of Tiburon, Council
Mayor, Jeff Slavitz
Vice Mayor, Alice Fredericks
Councilmember, Paul Smith
Councilrnember, Tom Grarn
Councilmember, Miles Berger
TOWN MANAGERS omu
TOWN OF Tl8l!n:,iif
Re: MERAlTown Support for Relocation
Dear Honorable Council:
On behalf of the Board of Directors of Lyford's Cove Old Tiburon
Homeowners' Association ("LCOTHA"), I have been requested to urge the Council to
favorably consider the Town's monetary participation in attempting to find an alternative'
site for the MERA antenna now designated to be constructed in the residential portion
. of Mt. Tiburon. It is our belief that this would be rnoney well spent in light of the fact that
the Town Staff bears some responsibility for failing to recognize the construction as a
serious neighborhood issue and to notice the irnmediate area involved of the impending
construction.
It not only is appropriate for the Council to authorize Town funds to help
solve the problern, it is necessary. Our homeowner's association supports the efforts
of the Mt. Tiburon residents to find an acceptable solution to this serious problem.
Very truly yours,
~~ /-?,
~
~~
William M. Lukens, President
Telephone: (415) 435-2508
LATE MAIL#ft
( () / ~ -I) Y
LATE MAIL # /0
e
Brian F. Lantier
141 Sugar Loaf Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
~ ~~~IIW~ ~
OCT - 6 2004
TOWI~ CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
October 6, 2004
Tiburon Town Council
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Mayor and Council:
As MERA intends to build an industrial gradc antenna adjacent to the Zaek's home on Mt. Tiburon Rd.,
please do all that you can to insure that this site remains as an interim measure. If that requires a funding
commitment from Tiburon, please make such commitment meaningful. As MMWD's Board has been
waiting since 1997 to formally hear from Tiburon, please also notify MMWD that as our Wireless
Communications Facilities Ordinance has always discouraged location of antetUlae adjacent to homes,
Tiburon requests MMWD's cooperation by reserving all ofMMWD's real property in Tiburon residential
and open space areas for exclusive use by MMWD to conduct ifs core activities that are not subject to
Tiburon's CUPs. Cell phone service providers still covet certain Tiburon MMWD tank sites for antennae.
e
Seven years have passed since Tiburon misscd an opportunity that may well have resulted in the avoidance
of the MERA debacle on Mt Tiburon Rd. ln 1997, some Tiburon neighbors and I appeared several times
before MMWD's Board to protest MMWD's passive support for a Sprint antenna CUP application
proposed for MMWD's 145 Sugar Loaf sitc. MMWD's President Jared Huffman subsequently placed on
the record that the Board had never "heard from Tiburon on antennae matters" and that he would like to
hear Tiburon's persuasion directly. Of the current Town Council members, only Tom Gram would know
whether or not Richard Hill, Tiburon's alleged representafive on the MMWD Board, conveyed Jared
Huffman's rcquestto Tiburon's Town Council. Regardless, Ann Danforth, Town Legal Counsel, told me
then that she would recommend against such communication by the Council (despite the fact that in 1997
our Wireless Communications Ordinance Section IV.A. specifically stated that "Applications for new
wireless communications facilities should avoid sites located within or near residential areas... "). She
inexplicably argued that Sprint might sue the Town if the Council asserted that Tiburon preferred
MMWD's exclusive use of its own tank sites that are surrounded by homes, and hoped MMWD would
discourage third party CUP applicants.... Aller Sprint withdrew its application, this convoluted perception
of a litigation threat vanished, but neither Ann Danforth nor the Town Council attended to this important
matter, leaving MMWD to conclude that Tiburon "didn't care about antennae applications on MMWD
sites."
Sadly, the Zacks we will never know if their agony would have been avoided had Tiburon conveyed its
Ordinancc and persuasion to MMWD before the MERA JPA was formed in 1999. MMWD Board member
Jack Gibson told me that had Tiburon communicated, MERA would have been discouraged during its
initial negotiations for the Mt. Tiburon site, and undoubtedly, proactive discussion with Tiburon Council
members would have ensued. Hc knew that Motorola selected fhis site because it was a previously
approved Viacom antenna site (for a 20 ft high monopole-evidently removed before the Zacks moved in).
In hindsight, regardless of whethcr or not MMWD would have effectively influenced MERA to find an
altcrnative in 1999, it stands to reason that Dick Hill, Jack Gibson, and/or other MMWD Board members
would have enlightened our Town Council members. At the very least, Tiburon would have avoided the
liability it holds now for failing to properly promulgate MERA's DEIR to MMWD's Mt. Tiburon Rd.
neighbors!
Given this background, Tiburon's policy slatement to MMWD is long overdue! I implore you to act before
another industrial gradc antenna application from Sprint or a competitor appears at Town Hall.
e
Very truly yours.
Brian Lantier
/'--"-J'
,
~'.
~/~-'------''-----...~-
, '.
.. .. .-~.. ;-i.JlIi
.~~, \. . ~~,'
'.. \./.->\ ~g t-
L ,- l'\jf
l.~~,
I:,T\I,
; I Ii
Z ,\\'
JI
l
"-~"I
'. '.j [
!:>
1{.
/
\.
i
. itt
I,~
-1i
.I"F- -..,,'
1
r
\~
~ Z
. .
,..
.'~'
I
I
i Il>
\
\ .
\ .
\
\
\,
"
\..
]
I
f.'.
I
i
.19 .
'.!'
, ,.i
'I
.,
1\
i' ;/
,1\
!il>'
,
'1
I,
'I;
I
I
~rn
u' y
\j\
--1
~
,
i
I.
\
i\, ~ :
i~i
~irt : I
, ,
, ~
: I
I,
:.1
I
I] ~~
i
;"'1
j
1"
{
f;
f
.,
,
[11
~
<
"J:>:
-1'.
11--
O:()
~L
\'. "
. '..'
L'
,~ .
\
~L-X1'! I
;t~~
' ! i'Qill;
if<)1ii~
,lI':<' "'.
"~ ~~~c.
\:,!~.
..'~
,
" '.,
'di(li.
". ~r\'.i \..,~ ~'__-
'-r.. .,
ff?! ~.
1,,,.- ).
.I
\.
" .
'<II'!
'J I E;>
.., I'
',I . '.
'j .! ..
'."
. '. ~ ,
Zf.!;"FI. :
'l.~J!iff. )..../....f?>. .'
'~fh. I. 'I '..
" bt'JIj"
.(:J ~
"
19
" '.Blo"
19
.,
,
\ . . , .
\ ,.";,~':,...' " ..:
.' ',~ -' ~.
" . --.. -- . ',. ;
,~ .--/, '-----:-:-~ ....,.....'. . i"'_
'. "'"----'"7"'. . ". . . ",' ~_~.
.'.'
",'
~"rn" .
>.J\ . '.f
~ .'
...
..
is
;;. "il
"\J 6
.J
~
775 CAUGUl.IN CROSSlNG, RENO, NEVADA 89509
Pbone I F.. 775.-746-121.
Mm~
!rli ;>-'~i
-S., <}, '-I'
"'i'''' :r.
~ -.
" Fereydoon Soofer, Ow~er
100-Lyford Drive, Tiburon, California 94920
. phone415-435-5580, fax415-435-6035
AP # 058-222-14
,0---,1
__U__"__ t:;d,--- --- ....
0---,1
>-3
Z
o
~
-..-. ------.----.. '._-. .---"-"---. -.~_.._ .._.n__
_ L _._ "".'~
-.iu
9c;
<2
z?;
,-" ;;-;'0':1
:ri~
G-\':J
;;a . .
m
tj
m
~.
"'I",
;0-=-0
~~
c..>
c,
i
..
- \ -
) ~'
~t
. ~l ~
~r.
\
\
.)
, .
\
,
(,
,
1
.. .I
/
/
/
)
)
//
,
, 1
p t )
~'4..cw) . /
- /
. /
..-..... /
/~',-;.i-,
,~---/' "
-,--'
, I
f}>~ \
;i I
Il "'.
I..~.. I" ,t>> <
IIS~
i.
\:m i
, ,.-r.i~li' d!!
"~ \ /
. J ~\
. ~~~~
. I \ tf~ )
! I~ dt;t)
i \ ".,..$. /
I ..'---------
, .
1/>""-' .--
~jr .
~q i
;~~i'{ .
, ..~.
';'t:}
it
"
[}>
/'
~, ~./
/ --:'~"""'"
/'
gi>
,
\
1
~ '
'. \J ~
tI
j~
\
,
\,
....
d\
It II
ci I
/i I
. I
. If. lr,
/-.7!-...J'\
; ", j
1F
'"
." If ifP
..,
,..
Ii
"
1
\
-... \
,
1
I
/.
"
~lWr'. ~~~ ,,'tt. ~~~M
-;.:.c. R"-i 1') """>~-"..~
,0" II a~ g- ~;~~1f~
~. '-I" !,s',t.. "t:~';i!J
:i:; 411-.: :" '\~~f1~73
. -".---....~..
._~~-'/'.1J
:1~~'<1. +---~=.t.
: ~I!I. " 0'" J" '. i'~ "J
. ~ \'! /~ .D .~ t ~ ~. ' \ \
" 'i'/tl.1.1 . .' ,.Ii>_=:.==-::c.=:. ol .0 ~c ~ \ \
. ,! 'hi! I )
p'lri~ '[f ~
~ II (
Jf.l\~ I
ll' \~ /
."~ !~~
'\lW
i :'\
. '
r)
~
." -.'
.1 ~....,
" z .'
III
~'f
,,~,- . '
--:1-
~.'11
:,-r.: "'\
~\). .'. I,'
'i&:\:"~.." -;~-,..,..----c
'-\;Xl,lt.
IIP"~ '
....'
;fi~
l! [:'c.
~
",' .r
.":'. _J
.,-\
L' -
. ..) \' .
i~~; \,~.
:>: ~
",-.'"
8> IT
/-'-..-:/'~(I
~
"
~ il'
: ,I
I!\ ,
~ I{ ~ ;
"~X 1 i
'.,:hr.- ',~- ,- \:
~
/+/~ ~
/~4- (~~.
) ~'
, ..'
" 1...:1
\~~/
.,.,.
I',~ i ~' ~
\,iif
\. .~( ...'
\
"
,
.'" "\-
"il\"li...~,
\. ~\ ~;:'.
":-
\!f"I
\
,
\
',;-
. ^'
;"~, '-- /r ~~;.
'i' ,
'--.: I?>
4
".~' . ~
~
:'4 .
~.~.
~~:r
I. \il
f- ,~
. 1"
. ff'"
: ~. ~
it-.-
~"-R
Nj"c
..::..\ ".
. ~
'6:-'''' .
.. ?':;.
1\-,,",
I "
\
\
{
~
,
. .ti'-
-<
.'
"
. 'f~_~..~:::',~,.~A~i,\~l-"
.1'IILll', I"
n<j'~' :';0:'i,~f <f"" .
..... 8 /1"--'~13>m+.~
'l~I.:."..t'~l ........ ......~t.;'[,t.:''t.; '. .' .
..f: '" .A."'. '." "'~.. .' '.' ..... ....... ../'0,
_'~l-lir_, -, ,.-""- , . . ,.." '/:'" - -'
."~~..f. ...."'.''Z...'''''........\..'-. /'. ,. /~-"""" '~": '. '.'
. '(>'j:: ....""". . ,..,' ..' ...... ,
. "'t.....( "to' . .... '. ~.
fl~. ,,:, .' ifli'.. I
,,_~_%-:_~" - .. ,<_:... :-., - I
.J,\.......t..l? ",~ '.:
1'1' ....:..(~>l.;
~" ",-,~"
'i.1- .', \... ./1
~J". /-----
.\
\
: .
j
!
-~ "--...-
---..----_...........,-...._.:------------~---
~.~'-- -"\ - ---
EPU1l .
"O'l!'!\~
~r-f
..~
fw J.lll
~.- ~
"iJ' ~'" .-
~ . 0
. .~
. I<'
,7'
.' (Fereydoon.Soofer, oWner'
lOO Lyford-Drive. Tiburon:, California 94920 ':
.phone 415-435-5580. faX 415-4j"S-6035 .
~_#058':~~2-14
JOllNlt. LUN])Y
ARCHITECT
.' '7~!i CAUGHLIN CIlOS!DNG. RENO. NEVADA l':l~
!"ho.n~IFu'rnl:74!-S:Z~" .... I
i* ' ii?l* ~~~
~'Ij If ~ilflii!:
~t ! Ii ~.i! .., & A
~,!i ~-1:-s~ll~ II
;1:, 'i-'-~)5-~ I" ;l~:-
, ~,,: ,',!
... -' ,,~..'......
".. =~ 1!~
J -~:...;tp-~.t_
-: ~ !!Sl~..Y.~
w,1l:. ~ .~
.l \~~~(;~]1.
.,__~,--:,-.._.-,-----,---,l._-,~~.,---
--~-- ----"-------~--~--------------~--------------_.._._---
i ,- I ! I
0 !
'" ,
! '" I ~ 0 ~ I
CO z ~
0 ~
-.. 8
, ~
0 0
0 2
(j) co
-c
N AJ
)>
SO
z
Cl r' m!
~ ; I~
r= .- ~;; !.Q
8 :
~ F
B
I ~
o '"
b ~
~ ~
F
~ ~
~ j:'J
~ :<
~
~ ~
C; ~
ro '"
[; g
"
s0
'"
~ C
{
I?
':!1 ;;;
o
~
~ ~
g ~
0"
~ ~
~
U
'>;
~
.~
'"
'i'
~
"
'>;
..
0,
----- o~
@ C? 9 9
I~ 4"-.\ I . ;t I
10-8~~_;:~ -+--v,"_/-~~-v-v" ~-L
I '\. ~-vL____________________+_____J ~)-----8
, ' )
\ I
, : I
I : 1/
, -r
I /- i
I i
! --~
,
I i g !
t : ~~3 0 I
I i ~~~ L-~~/
, ': ~~-~~- I
--------------~-- "",,,",
~ro~
I i ~~ I
I :
~'
,~
I
<7
.~~
II
'\ I~
I ~
, ~
I '"
'"
Sl
.,
g
"
E;
~
..
..
'"
'"
r
o
::E
'"
'"
..,
r
o
o
'"
..,
:;0
)>
s::
z
G)
"
';
z
(
~J--/'-
&>
1;;;'"
~ :::.
-'>
~~
> ~
~ 0
~ ~
~ ~
<
~
1
I
I
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
I
I
\-
"
"
"
(El 2x12 Q 16"11
--^'-.-^--i::
"
, '
"
~ :~
1--.. - .- - \ \('1- --
",
"I
"'I
"I
"'I
",
"I
"
"
([) Lx12 D 16"
,
I,
I '
I "
, '
I
l'
~1
I
I
~z
~-;:
::<J~
,
,
I
I
I
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
I
\
I
,
I
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
(
,
,
I
,
I
I
r--
,
/
/
/
~
~
f--
(N) 2x10 U 16"
I
:3
~
--1
.,
(m-m---" Ii
~~~~
111~li
dldl
"Uti
HWI
. "lll
~ili >
~m~l
~ 2? ti
..- ~ O'l
~ Q
.; ~ ~
u - :;:
"b>Vl
~ ill ~
~"
;:>0>,:""
:;:::;{f)
,~ ~
- ,,-
..
~-v z;O-..j
-..J:J<ll(ll-..J
lJIO < C} lJI
I :::> DO
~<\I g - b'
'r~ f2 ,g
coo lJI :;:;
tv'" 0 ::l
_ W
. n
~
$
~. )> <-
~....... 0
~ () ::J
~::J:J
~=+=
m:;o
()
~
I
0"')>
o J 0-
J ~ <
~ ::} g
- (\l 0
o ~ <ll
::J S' (l
~<.O
"
.
,
c
:::>
D..
-<
~
z
~
!
&,:
t)~
,
'"
--8
"
,-
~-
--8
'~'-
-s;-8
(I,~
>
b:
ro
~.~
c..
n....-
0-.0
=:g-o
Oar
3::l':$,
i:i.~ ~
"-
~
t;, ~
N <.
o !"
:;0 -.,
m m
(I) -,
-.m
D.. -<
CD D..
:::> 0
() 0
CD :::>
Ul
o
o
-
1__ .
I?
~; ; l~
Q31 g
~SJ ~
z- Bi
~ ~ ~
~ ~ VJ
::IJ Z -l
OJ Z 0
qC"> rn
~ ~ ~
-..VJ ~
~ ~ 8
z ~ -
~ ~ ~
6 C? I;
.u~'
<;; '"
~o
~oo
;<g~
zBj
ii!.~
"n
~8
o ~I!
z :z ~
'"
~ -.. ~
~ ~ ~J
=E ~ ~
j!: g 0
~ VJ ~
<:) ~ <:)
::e C> ~
5 ~ ~
~ :z ~
M ~ >
p ~
p
(~
( T
'\, ~ ~ z
i'; I
n
'"
~ 8
~ ~ ~
g z <5 I
S 5 0
n r
'" CO
0
::;:
~ z
> Cl"".5i,
Iii z~ >
~I::I"'lW ~ (J)
o Z Ul "",' is''' z
n ()
>. ~ n& g
- ~~ ~~O'l,~ n W I
VJ<II:I:-l ::ae ,..,
~;;~ ,,~ CO
@zz Z C
-~. - 3'fi~ ~ r
on~ 0 ,..,
~ .!..;;j .. - -
g~>
~~~
) ~"
.1 I
~ ~7 .
U)
I
,
I u>
ill :ti
f'l-'l
zo
G)C
~z
Io
"'>>
;;-4
Z-
Gj ~
-lJ
,
&>
L~
o
8
I '
~ ~i
~
8
~
.
r~ w ~
<~
--
.
"
o
&>
-"
o
c
z
a
>
...
o
z
(J)
...
;u
,..,
z
C)
...
I
,..,
Z
Z
C)
"
r
>
z-
~
~
"
~I
~I
~:
W+-
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
I?
00
~?
"
::'-::<l- 82
VI""~~'"
~~~:-li~
~o~~:;;J~
o~H~5'>~;:j
~;:;:II:':g~~
~8~~
~z~
~5'>
. y~.)
16' 91. I
2 '
~__~ ~t: -~ t ';-0'
r -., ~~---.............--~
~i - r-, ------~ /~-
r;::'/ L -.l
lG-4j"
y
I
47-'Y
12'-i'.
~'"
-"..-,
~-
L __ _I
~-~
I?
I g
I ~
I ~
I
I
I &>
I
6:
f-' -1
I
I
'-i--'
~~-----V-~'---V
r
I
I
L
r
I
I
~
I
&>
'"
~
&>
r-t-'".
I $-
F'l== ___ "L~.~
I...... ~--
t-lI ~~~ U1
I ., C>~ F N......
I S~ 0' :.....
I .. ~
I Q ~
I .- ~
I f!! ~
I ~::E
I II'
I r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:~
I
I
I
I
L
.-.-,1'-:
,
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
I
I
I~
If
i ' .----r:
r____I___J ;---
,
I
I
~~- :.
~ 0 ~-
I
I
~-
~......
l'tH"
lli~il
l.lll 1
"I'it
!i Jll
~U~tf
~HW
g
Z
00
>
~
Sl
El>
~;""~::.:";'''-'.::~
~
'~t;1
~ g: Ol
OJ -
.~?-:e: II
. J
,0
Q ~
~ <0 ~ n I"'l)>
-J>. {II 0 =' D-
O' cr>"'" =' <.D <
~ _,' Ul 3.0
,~N Lfl ~ {{> :;
~ '~g~. [
~ {II'-;,g
:j~ ~~::j
l{'g d 6 ".
:;!'" g-' i{
1'~ fg ~
Wo '-" ::r
~>< 0 5'
~ w "
~
$.
~j L
'-' I^---.A.....
I
I
,j,
.-
-8
r ,
,
I
L
6-:
--9
~
~
~
't:
F
I?
~
~
g
w
li
,
"
J~
-- -(:'0
~.
__L..
I
~
~~
O'
,,' nt::-
ok
-e
I?
,^
~__ c;
;?iO-r;:, ----8
~r-
~*~
z.....fi'i
~ ~
_ ~,.J,
6:
--8
~ l>- <-
~ -0; 0
,O::r
;~::l
,,~
ro;o
~ ~.
~
0-4-
C -.0
~g-o
Odr
~::l-<
-' -
a ~
a.
;0 -.,
ro ro
(J) ....
-.ro
0. --<
ro 0.
:J 0
() 0
ro :J
'"
""
'"
'-'
o
o
,
".
!'
Ul
o
o
-+,
~
,--
C
:J
0.
--<
~