The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Agd Pkt 2005-03-30 A1 6) k- .f TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 March 30, 2005 Special Meeting 7:00 P.M. ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435-7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall. Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town's web site, www.ci.tiburon.ca.us. . Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the meeting. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above address. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s). TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda, it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items appearing on the Town Council agenda. Agenda - Town Council Meeting March 30, 2005 Page 2 of 2 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Gram, Councilmember Slavitz, Vice Mayor Smith, Mayor Berger 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. PUBLIC HEARING 1. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: TlBURON 2020 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT - Take Public Comment and Provide Direction to Staff on Necessary Changes to Prepare General Plan for Adoption ADJOURNMENT To the next regular meeting scheduled for Wednesday, April 6, 2005. Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM ~ t' . . . . 110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUBJECT: Mayor and Members of the Town Council Kevin Bryant, Advance Planner ~ General Plan Update: Review of Public Review Draft, Tiburon 2020 TO: FROM: MEETING DATE: March 30, 2005 REVIEWED BY' AnM ... .................. ...... ..... ............ BACKGROUND On February 7, 2005, the Community Development Department released the Public Review Draft of the updated General Plan, Tiburon 2020. Following the release of the Public Review Draft, the Planning Commission held four meetings to take public comment and to review the Draft. While considering public comments, the Planning Commission thoroughly reviewed the Draft Tiburon 2020 page by page and provided recommended changes for the Town Council's consideration. The Planning Commission has thoughtfully and commendably completed its work on the Public Review Draft. Concurrent with this review of the Public Review Draft, the Town's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) consultant team is completing its administrative draft of the EIR. As of this report, the Draft EIR is scheduled to circulate for public comment starting at the end of April. None of the changes recommended by the Planning Commission will require a re-write of the Draft EIR. The Town Council, as the policy-making body of the Town, is free to make changes to the Public Review Draft of Tiburon 2020. It should be noted, however, that major changes to the Draft General ,Plan may require a re-write to the Draft EIR and a delay in adoption schedule. Steps to Adoption. Following the Town Council review of the Public Review Draft, Staff will prepare a Final Draft of Tiburon 2020. During the same period, April- July, the Draft EIR will be circulated and at least one hearing will be held before the Planning Commission to take comments on the Draft EIR. The Town will then respond to all comments submitted and publish the responses as a Final EIR. The final step in the adoption process will be for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and recommend that the Town Council certify the EIR and adopt the General Plan, Tiburon 2020. The Town Council will then act on the Commission's recommendation. STAFF REPORT '\ Town of Tiburon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II . . II . . . . . . . . . . . . I . OBJECTIVES OF TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Staff has recommended the Special Meeting of the Town Council for the following reasons: . the Public Review Draft Tiburon 2020 is the first time the entire updated General Plan has been presented as a complete document; . the Planning Commission has made recommendations for changes to proposed policies and new policies (See Exhibit B); and . Staff requests that the Town Council provide direction to Staff about any necessary changes (major or minor) required to make Tiburon 2020 ready for adoption. At this Council meeting, Staff will provide an introduction to the Public Review Draft which will include: . a review of the issues that were raised during the Goal, Policy, and Program Review and Refinement stage of the Update process; . . the direction that the Town Council provided on those issues; . how those issues are addressed in Tiburon 2020; and . highlights of the comments provided by the Planning Commission. ISSUES DISCUSSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Unlike during the Goal, Policy, and Program Refinement stage of the General Plan Update, when the Planning Commission and public raised a number of substantial policy questions on which the Town Council was asked to provide direction, the Planning Commission's review of the Public Review Draft Tiburon 2020 has not presented a large number of new and significant issues. Below are the policies that were the subject of the most in-depth discussion of the Commission, along with their policy recommendations. Because the Planning Commission did wrestle with these policies, the Town Council may want to pay special attention to them. Open Space & Conservation Element Policy OSC-4: Permanent Protection of Open Space. Policy OSC-4 of the Public Review Draft is based on a policy in the 1989 General Plan which stated, in part, "it shall be guaranteed that publicly-owned open space parcels will not be traded or sold." Staff included in the Public Review Draft an additional sentence: "Where clear public benefit can be demonstrated, small portions of public open space may be used for other purposes, provided that the open space character of the land would remain predominant." This was included in the policy to provide some flexibility for extraordinary circumstances where a clear public benefit can be realized by using a small fraction of open space land for another public purpose. March 30. 2005 page 2 of 5 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT " . . .. .. .. .. .. .. III .. .. III .. .. .. .. .. .. " .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. " .. .. .. .. .. III. .. .. .. " .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. " " The Planning Commission discussion included a number of alternatives for modifying the policy as drafted in the Public Review Draft. 1. Clarify the public benefit criteria by making it a "clear and overriding public benefit". , 2. Include in the policy a provision which would require that an equal amount of open space land be provided to off-set any loss - keeping the amount of public open space constant. 3. Delete the sentence allowing for the use of any open space land for non-open space purposes. The Planning Commission recommended the third alternative. The Commission reasoned that the protection of open space is of paramount concern and that it should be extremely difficult to use open space for other purposes. They believed that the General Plan should not provide an opening that could result in the loss of open space. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended that the policy read: OSC-4: Public or private open space shall be permanently protected. It is the Town's general policy that publicly-owned open space land will not be traded or sold. Downtown Element Proaram DT-i: Completion of Waterfront Promenade on Main Street. This topic was first raised in the Planning Commission and Town Council review of the Downtown Element Issues Paper. Responding to Town Council direction, Staff included a modified program in the Public Review Draft Tiburon 2020 which added the language - "when changes in use and construction of substantially redesigned new buildings allow, the Town should pursue" - to the program to complete a promenade from the Ferry Plaza to the Corinthian Yacht Club. During the public meetings, the Planning Commission worked with Steve Sears, the owner of Sam's Anchor Cafe, and Jim Wheary, the owner of the Sam's property, to further refine the program. The concern of Mr. Sears and Mr. Wheary is primarily that the program will be used by either the Town or BCDC to require the installation of a promenade over Sam's deck as a condition of any permit to renovate Sam's. The Planning Commission agreed in principle that as long as Sam's remained in business and the deck provided the public a place for clientele to gather and enjoy the waterfront, that no promenade should be required which would have a negative impact on their business. However, the Commission did not want to abandon the possibility of a complete waterfront promenade. The Planning Commission recommended that Program DT-j be deleted from Tiburon 2020 and replaced with a new policy: March 30, 2005 page 3 of 5 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT ~ . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DT -33A: When changes in property use and construction of major additions or substantial redesign of new buildings allow, the Town should pursue the opportunity to provide increased pedestrian access to the waterfront along Main Street. Circulation Element Goal C-C: Residential Streets. This goal, as written in the Public Review Draft, is "to maintain all existing, as well as to design all future, residential streets in a manner which limits speed and noise, in an attempt to maintain the livability of the streets." The Planning Commission discussed this goal in conjunction with the roadway and classification discussion on page 5-6 of Tiburon 2020. The 1989 General Plan divides local streets into residential sub-collector streets and local streets, and provides average daily traffic numbers for these classifications. Neither is mapped in the 1989 General Plan. The Public Review Draft of Tiburon 2020 uses functional descriptions and typical average daily traffic numbers provided in the State General Plan Guidelines. The Planning Commission was concerned that the daily traffic volumes shown for local streets in Table 5.5-1 would provide a false impression that volumes up to 2,000 vehicles per day would be acceptable for all neighborhood streets. Goal C-C of the 1989 General Plan makes reference to limiting traffic volumes as a component of maintaining the livability of neighborhood streets. Some members of the community expressed a belief that Goal C-C of the 1989 General Plan, in conjunction with the traffic volumes identified in the 1989 General Plan, could be used to limit development and/or traffic on streets (Exhibit D). Staff does not support this point of view. To address the issue, the Planning Commission recommended that the Daily Traffic Volume column of Table 5.5-1 be deleted, since identifying typical traffic volumes is not required in a general plan. The Planning Commission also recommended that Goal C- C read: c-c: To maintain all existing, as well as to design all future, residential streets with consideration of a combination of residents' safety, cost of maintenance, and protection of residential qualities. Other Comments. The Planning Commission, through its page by page review of the Public Review Draft, has reviewed the comments compiled in Exhibit C. Exhibit 8, Planning Commission Recommended Edits, includes public comments that the Planning Commission deemed appropriate for inclusion in the General Plan. March 30, 2005 page 4 of 5 STAFF REPORT Town of Tiburon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "CURRENT" DRAFT OF TIBURON 2020 Staff considers the "current draft" of Tiburon 2020 to be the February 2005 Public Review Draft with the changes identified in Exhibit B. Staff requests that the Town Council use this "current draft" as the basis for direction. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council review the Public Review Draft Tiburon 2020 in its entirety, taking into consideration the recommendations for changes provided by the Planning Commission and presented in Exhibit B, and provide direction to Staff about any modifications to goals, policies, programs, supporting text, or diagrams that would be necessary to adopt Tiburon 2020. EXHIBITS . A. Tiburon 2020 Public Review Draft, February 2005 (previously distributed to the Town Council). B. Planning Commission Recommended Edits C. Comment Letters Received by the Planning Commission D. Letters Concerning Circulation Goal C-C E. Planning Commission Minutes S:\Administration\Town Council\Staff Reports\2005\General Plan Special Meeting 3-30.doc March 30, 2005 page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT B TIBURON 2020 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GOAL, POLICY, AND PROGRAM Planning Commission Recommended Edits March 2005 Following are Planning Commission recommendations for edits to Goals, Policies, and Implementing Programs of the Public Review Draft of Tiburon 2020. Recommended edits are provided in the underline strike through format. Page numbers are from the Public Review Draft Tiburon 2020. These edits are considered by Staff to be minor in nature. These edits help to clarify the meaning and intent of the Goals, Policies, or Programs. LAND USE ELEMENT Pa e 2-13 2-13 2-14 2-14 2-14 2-16 . Land Use Element Goal, Polic or Pro am LU-Al (New): To protect the health, safety, and welfare of the communi . LU-D: To classify present land uses and to propose future land uses within environmental constraints and consistent with within the ability of the land and related infrastructure, streets, utilities, public services and other facilities to su ort such land uses. LU-F: To provide rhm: facilities that encourage use of the shoreline compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with balancing the objectives of preservation of shoreline resources while also maximizing public access to the waterfront where not in conflict with other ublic uses or with rivate uses which are of ublic benefit. LU-G: To protect, preserve, and enhance existing neighborhood character and identi . LU-3: The Town shall strive to preserve to the greatest extent feasible wildlife habitat in the open spaces, shoreline, marshes, mudflats, woodlands, and other biolo . call sensitive areas. LU-12: Nei hborhood character, which is defined b redominant . TIBURON 2020 Town ofTiburon Public Review Draft General Plan March 2005 Goal, Policy, and Program Recommended Edits Page 1 Pa e 2-16 2-16 2-17 2-17 2-17 2-17 2-17 . Land Use Element Goal, Polic or Pro am architectural styles, type of buildings, building heights, mass, aHd setbacks, landscaping, and natural characteristics, shall be of material consideration and preserved in all construction projects, including remodels and additions, to the maximum extent feasible. LU-14: RemodelsL af14 tear-down/rebuilds, and new construction shall be compatible with the design, size, and scale of existing dwellin s in the surroundin nei hborhood. LU-15: Re-subdivision of vacant legal lots and existing built-upon lots shall be discouraged unless the following criteria are met: Safe, convenient, and acceptable access and circulation can be provided, especially in areas where narrow, curving, or otherwise substandard streets predominate. All newly-created lots have a slope of less than 30 percent. Development would avoid ridgelines, knolls, or other prominently visible areas. Consistency with General Plan, Zoning, Subdivision and all other Town regulations is demonstrated. Proposed lot sizes and density are compatible with the surrounding pattern of development. Sensitive treatment of trees and other significant natural features can be achieved. All required infrastructure can be provided to the site. No driveway shall serve more than three units. A public or private roadway, meeting Fire District and Town standards, must be provided if more than three units are to be served. Sufficient on-site arkin is rovided. LU-17: The Town shall encourage home occupations in residential areas that are clearly incidental to primary residential uses and do not adversel affect the nei hborhood. LU-19: Wireless communications facilities are strongly discouraged from locating in residential or open space areas, or near schools or da -care facilities. LU-19A (New): Wireless communications facilities shall be required to minimize visual im acts to the maximum extent feasible. LU-20: The Town shall support a diversity of commercial uses to serve the sho in and service needs of the communi . LU-21: The Town shall encourage the addition of under-represented retail and service categories to enhance shopping and service o ortunities for Tiburon residents and to increase sales tax revenues. . TIBURON 2020 Town ofTiburon Public Review Draft General Plan March 2005 Goal, Policy, and Program Recommended Edits Page 2 Pa e 2-19 2-20 2-21 Land Use Element Goal, Poli or Pro am LU-26: The Town recognizes that the unincorporated Paradise Drive area is an "island" completely surrounded by the Town of Tiburon and that the area is functionally a part of Tiburon, and therefore supports the annexation of the area into Tiburon at such time as annexation is economic all rocedurall and otherwise viable. LU-32: The Town supports the LAFCO's Dual Annexation Policy, including longer term implementation through future annexation a eements when immediate annexation is not a ro riate. LU-e: The Town, in conjunction with LAFCO and the County of Marin, shall conduct a study to establish the true cost and other implications of annexing Paradise Drive and work to create with the County of Marin and LAFCO a viable financing plan which would make annexation of properties in the Paradise Drive area feasible and fisc all acce table to the Town. OPEN SPACE & CONSERVATION ELEMENT 3-3 3-4 3-4 o en S ace & Conservation Element Goal, Poli or Pro am OSC-B: To provide and permanently preserve as much open space as possible to protect shorelines, open water, wetlands, significant ridgelines, streams, drainageways, riparian corridors, steep slopes, rock outcroppings, special status species and their habitat, woodlands, and areas of visual importance, such as views of and views from 0 en s ace. OSC-l:The Town shall strive to permanently preserve through setbacks, dedication, purchase, easement, .or other appropriate means exceptional structures, sites, open space and sensitive environmental resources. The Town shall strongly encourage the permanent protection of open space through: conveyance of fee title to an appropriate government agency or land trust; by easement; deed restriction; or other a ro riate mechanism acce table to the Town. OSC-3: The Town shall strive to secure, through trail easements that connect to other public trails or through other appropriate mechanisms, public access to those portions of open space land most appropriate for public use which are most usable and have the . . 3-5 OSC-4: Public or private open space shall be permanently protected. It is the Town's general policy that publicly-owned open space land will not be traded or sold. Where clear public benefit can be . TIBURON 2020 Town ofTiburon Public Review Draft General Plan March 2005 Goal, Policy, and Program Recommended Edits Page 3 3-5 3-5 3-6 3-6 3-7 o en S ace & Conservation Element Goal, Polk or Pro am other purposes, provided th-at the open space character of the land . . OSC-5: The Town hereby establishes a goal that a minimum of 50% of the area of lands designated as Planned Development - Residential shall be reserved as ermanent 0 en s ace. OSC-6: The Town prefers clustering of lots in new subdivision design to maximize the preservation of open space to the greatest extent feasible. However, where the Town determines that a superior project would better conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan result, "estate lot" type development (i.e., large homes on large lots) may be considered. Easement, deed restriction, or other appropriate mechanism acceptable to the Town shall be used to reserve 0 en s ace within common areas or individual lots. OSC-I0: New Development and the construction of buildings and yard improvements associated with fleW development, including landscaping and trees, shall be set back a minimum of 150 horizontal feet of either side of Tiburon Rid e. OSC-II: New Development and the construction of buildings and yard improvements associated with fleW development, induding landscaping and trees, shall be set back a minimum of 50 vertical feet of either side of Tiburon Ridge, measured from the highest point of the roofline of a structure or tree. OSC-12: Development shall be set back from Significant Ridgelines. Setbacks shall be based on an evaluation of the following characteristics: local and regional visual prominence, ability to connect to existing or potential open space, potential to act as a neighborhood separator, views of and views from, length, height, presence of trees, presence of unusual physical characteristics, highly visible open slopes, significant vegetation, sensitive habitat, special silhouette or back-drop features, difficulty of developing or accessing, and integrity of the ridgeline land form. Horizontal and vertical setbacks from Significant Ridgclines shall not be required to exceed . . 3-7 OSC-13: Roads and utilities constructed along the Tiburon Ridge or Significant Ridgelines shall be strongly discouraged from crossing the Tiburon Ridge or Significant Ridgclines. If no other vehicular access is viable, crossing of ridges shall be minimized and shall be as near to er endicular to the rid eline as ossible. OSC-17: Development shall not encroach into sensitive wildlife habitats, limit normal ran e areas, or create barriers to wildlife that 3-9 . TlEURON 2020 Town ofTiburon Public Review Draft General Plan March 2005 Goal, Policy, and Program Recommended Edits Page 4 3-11 3-14 3-15 3-15 3-15 3-15 3-16 3-16 3-16 3-16 . o en S ace & Conservation Element Goal, Polk or Pro am cut off or substantially impedes access to food, water, or shelter, or cause damage to fisheries or fish habitats. Access to environmentally sensitive marshland and adjacent habitat shall be restricted, especially durin s awnin and nestin seasons. OSC-22: In its review of applications for development, the Town shall . require open space buffers of at least 50 feet on each side of the top of the bank of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams on properties less than five acres and of at least 100 feet on each side of the top of the bank on properties greater than five acres, to minimize disturbance of natural vegetation and maintain the environmental and scenic attributes of the corridor. Where modification of corridors is required for flood control or crossings, such modification shall be made 4eRe in an environmentally sensitive manner that enhances, re laces or retains ve etation. OSC-27: The Town shall strongly discourage development on slopes exceedin 40% wherever ossible. OSC-29: Open space views from key roadways, including Tiburon Boulevard, Trestle Glen Boulevard, and Paradise Drive, shall be rotected throu h the entitlement rocess. OSC-31: The preservation of visual qualities, views, and the view potential of the natural and built environment shall be a major consideration of the Town in an develo ment ro'ect review. OSC-33A (New): To protect natural habitat, natural wooded areas shall be reserved to the maximum extent feasible, OSC-34: To the maximum extent feasible, grading shall be kept to a minimum and every effort shall be made to retain the natural features of the land including ridges, rolling landforms, knolls, vegetation, trees, rock outcro in s, and water courses. OSC-36: Where grading is required to stabilize areas of geologic instability, its natural vegetation and habitat shall be restored to the graded area to the maximum extent feasible shall be returned to the OSC-38: Slopes created by grading shall not exceed 30% wherever possible. Final contours and slopes shall reflect natural land featuresL includin natural ve etation. OSC-38A (New): The visual impact of retaining walls and similar engineering elements shall be reduced to the maximum extent feasible. OSC-b: The Town shall review development applications submitted with the Coun within its s here of influence and areas of interest . TIBURON 2020 Town ofTiburon Public Review Draft General Plan March 2005 Goal, Policy, and Program Recommended Edits Page 5 3-21 3-23 3-24 o en S ace & Conservation Element Goal, Polic or Pro am submitted to the County in order to encourage conformance with Town policies, including minimizing the visual impact of develo ment on surroundin hills visible from Tiburon. OSC-52A (New): Through implementation of Circulation Element policies, reduce the number of single-occupant vehicle trips and the cumulative emissions that result from auto use. OSC-60A (New): Existing homeowners' associations should be encouraged to become active in the elimination of invasive, exotic s ecies. OSC-e: Revise the Town's water conservation ordinance when te reflect chan es in MMWD's water conservation ordinance re uire. DOWNTOWN ELEMENT Pa e 4-4 . 4-4 4-5 4-5 4-5 4-6 4-6 Downtown Element Goal, Poli or Pro am DT-B: To enhance Downtown's role as the commercial and service center of Tiburon while promoting new resident-serving -ases and visitor-servin uses and facilities. DT-D: To improve and enhance pedestrian and vehicular connectivity throu hout Downtown. DT-G (New): To facilitate convenient arkin to serve all uses. DT-l: The Town shall promote a clean, well-maintained Downtown area that serves the commercial and service needs of the community and is an aestheticall leasin, friendl ,and desirable destination. DT-3: Actively promote the establishment of a commercial strategy for drug store with pharmacy in Downtown. ~ Encourage the upgrading of the Tiburon Lodge motd and/ or . ., DT-6: The quality of residential neighborhoods within and adjacent to Downtown shall be preserved with regard to unreasonable noise, traffic, visual and other impacts, with the understanding that such impacts are generated to a greater extent in Downtown commercial areas than in generat-c greater impacts than exclusively residential areas. DT-9: Minor floor area additions to properties exceeding FAR limits may be approved without the need for a General Plan or Zoning Ordinance amendment. Minor floor area additions are those that do not add demand for parking as defined in the Parking and Loading section of the Zonin Ordinance, and do not increase traffic . TIBURON 2020 Town ofTiburon Public Review Draft General Plan March 2005 Goal, Policy, and Program Recommended Edits Page 6 Pa e 4-7 4-7 4-11 4-12 Downtown Element Goal, Poli or Pro am generation. A finding must be made that there will be no material adverse effects from the antin of the minor floor area addition. DT-13: The Neighborhood Commercial land use designation shall permit primarily resident-serving commercial uses and residential uses, and shall strongly discourage tourist oriented uses. The maximum allowable intensity for lands designated Neighborhood Commercial is an FAR of 0.37, except where a Transfer of Intensity is a roved consistent with Polic DT -10. DT 15: Remaining development potential under the Point Tiburon Precise Plan ell used) should be confined to the existing unfinished floor area on the second level of the building at 17011799 Tiburon Boulevard. DT-e: Facilitate the preparation of an economic and revitalization strategy for Downtown, including guiding the a special study to guide long-term future improvement of the four comer properties at the intersection of Tiburon Boulevard and Beach Road and adjacent sites. DT-33A (New): When changes in property use and construction of major additions or substantial redesign of new buildings allow, the Town should pursue the opportunity to provide increased pedestrian access to the waterfront along Main Street. lJ+-.ft When changes in use and core;truction of substantially redesigned new buildings allow, the Tovm should pursue the completion of a Downtown waterfront promenade along the full CIRCULATION ELEMENT Pa e . 5-5 Circulation Element Goal, Poli C-C: To maintain all existing, as well as to design all future, residential streets with consideration of a combination of residents' safety, cost of maintenance, and protection of residential qualities ift-a manner which limits speed and noise, in an attempt to maintain the 5-5 C-H (New): To cooperatively plan for the maintenance and im rovement of Paradise Drive. C-I (New): To provide adequate parking throughout the Planning Area. C-J (New): To rovide facilities and incentives to encoura e non-auto 5-5 5-5 . TlBURON 2020 Town ofTiburon Public Review Draft General Plan March 2005 Goal, Policy, and Program Recommended Edits Page 7 Pa~e Circulation Element Goal, Policy or.Program travel throuQ"hout the Planning Area. C-4: In connection with the ridgeline policies of the Open Space & Conservation Element, the Town shall ensure that no new streetsL eI 5-7 driveways, or utilities are installed created along or over the Tiburon Ridge or Significant Ridgelines except for the use of emergency services, or where no other access is viable. C-8: In conjunction with Land Use Policy LU-18, the Town shall 5-7 encourage overhead utility lines to be placed underground along Tiburon Boulevard, Paradise Drive, and Trestle Glen BoulevardL workinQ" with the County of Marin where aoolicable. C-l4A (New): To provide a more attractive entrance to Downtown, 5-8 the informal parking area on Tiburon Boulevard near Lyford Drive should be beautified while maintaining as much oarking as nossible. C-15: The Town shall work with the County of Marin and LAFCO to. 5-8 ensure that Paradise Drive provides safe and reliable access to the northeastern side of the Tiburon Peninsula for all users. C-18: New driveways and roadways intersecting Paradise Drive shall 5-9 be kept to the minimum number possible and be situated in safe locations. To meet this objective, to the extent feasible, multiple residences shall be served bv a sinQ"le access from Paradise Drive. C-b: The Town's traffic model shall be used to periodically review the Town's traffic mitigation fees to ensure that they are based on current 5-9 information and that they are adequately capturing the cumulative impacts of new and proposed projects on the roadways in the Planning Area. The Town shall update its traffic mitigation fees as necessary. C-22: Bicycle facilities, including bike racks, shall be included as part 5-11 of new public and commercial projects, particularly in Downtown Tiburon. C-25A (New): The Town shall monitor the Multi-Use Path and 5-12 consider periodic improvements which would enhance the safety of all its users. SAFElY ELEMENT 6-3 Safe Element Goal, Polic or Pro am SE-B: To identify hazardous areas and to discourage to the maximum extent feasible development of areas subject to hazards including, but not limited to, geotechnical problems, unstable slopes and flood- rone areas . TIBURON 2020 Town ofTiburon Public Review Draft General Plan March 2005 Goal, Policy, and Program Recommended Edits Page 8 6-7 6-7 6-8 6-10 6-13 Safe Element Goal, Polic or Pro am SE-6: The Town should actively encourage flelp owners of developed property to recognize their social responsibility to repair or improve unstable slopes, install drainage facilities, and take other measures that ma reduce otential safe hazards. SE-7A (New): Development located below or in the path of gullies which are highly susceptible to debris flow mudslides shall be strong discoura ed. SE-13A (New): The Town shall track sea level rise predictions for San Francisco Bay and, should rates of sea level rise accelerate, the Town shall amend its flood control policies accordingly in coordination with other regional and federal authorities (e.g., BCDC, Army COE, FEMA). Such amendments would potentially include revised finished floor elevations for habitable structures, as well as revised runu elevations associated with earth uake- enerated tsunamis. SE-16: New development within areas of insufficient peak load water supply shall contribute to the construction of a new, or upgrading of an existing, water delivery system to meet requirements for minimum fire-flow . SE-f (New): The Town shall use its best efforts to disseminate emer enc re aredness information to the communit . NOISE ELEMENT Pa e Noise Element Goal, Polic or Pro am N-3: Environmental reviews (environmental impact reports, initial studies/negative declarations) of projects within the Tiburon 7-3 Planning Area will be required to should, where appropriate, include an acoustical analysis of the project's potential to cause a noise im act. PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT Pa e 8-7 8-7 . Parks & Recreation Element Goal, Polic or Pro am PR-9: The Town shall continue to increase, enlargeL and enhance its network of ublic trails within the Tiburon Plannin Area. PR-b: The Town shall examine development applications for the existence and potential creation of easements and/ or trails that connect or continue to allow public access to shoreline, recreation and open space areas; Town Staff shall monitor construction with a view toward the successful creation and/ or maintenance of such easements TIBURON 2020 Town ofTiburon Public Review Draft General Plan March 2005 Goal, Policy, and Program Recommended Edits Page 9 8-8 and/ or trails. PR-12: Recreation programming should be responsive to and serve the needs, interests, and desires of the entire community as a whole. HOUSING ELEMENT None. . \. TIBURON 2020 Town ofTiburon Public Review Draft General Plan March 2005 Goal, Policy, and Program Recommended Edits Page 10 LATE MAtl # , Richard B. Collins 660 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, California 94920 Telephone 415 789 5205; Fax 415 789 5206 RECEIVED MAR 0 9 2005 TO: Town of Tiburon Planning Commission FROM: Richard B. Collins PLANNIN ~ TOVvN OFG DIVISION TlBURON DATE: March 8, 2005 RE: Comments: Tiburon 2020 - Public Review Draft of the General Plan Congratulations to the Planning Staff for developing a comprehensive and well- crafted draft General Plan that not only captures the message sent to the Town from so many of our residents that participated in the process, but also for having made significant evolutionary improvements over our existing General Plan. Special 'kudos to Kevin Bryant for his perseverance and patience. The time and focus that has been allocated to this project by Staff has not gone unnoticed. The following comments and suggestions are submitted in addition to telephonic grammatical comments previously given to Kevin Bryant. LAND USE 1. P.2-5. Consider adding the words "and consistency" after "compliance" in 3rd line, of the initial paragraph, and also adding a reference to circulation. It is suggested that the underline of the word "maximum" in the 4th paragraph be deleted. That word is not underlined elsewhere. 2. P. 2-12. It is suggested that the word "slightly" in the 4th line of the initial paragraph of 2.3 (General Plan Buildout) be deleted. That word could give rise to different interpretations. 3. P. 2-13. Although we are aware that the authority to legislate locally derives from State law providing for the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, it may well prove to be useful to either provide a separate Land Use Goal that provides for ensuring the health, safety and welfare of the Town's residents, or to include such language in LU-G at Page 2-14, where LU-G could be modified to: "To preserve and enhance existing neighborhood character and identity, and to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Town's neighborhoods". LU-D: The land uses are already classified in the GP, and it does not appear that "classifying" land use is an appropriate goal. It is suggested that this goal begin with the words "To propose.......(and that the word "within" be replaced with the words "consistent with). 1 _if/if.' . EXHIBITL (~- 4. P. 2-14. LU-F: Is it the Town's responsibility to "plan facilities"? Consider deleting the words "To plan" and replacing them. with "To ensure that all planned" .... 5. P. 2-16. LU-1sa: Consider adding the words "and circulation" after the word "access" . LU-1Sd: Consider adding the word" all" before the word" other" . LU-1Se: Consider adding the words "and footprints" after the word "density". 6. P.2-17. LU-17: Randy Greenberg's item #7 comment about LU-17 is endorsed with the addition of the words "and circulation" after the word "traffic" LU-19: This policy should be beefed-up and expanded at a minimum to (i) state that WCF's are "strongly" discouraged, (ii) include a reference to "co- locations", and (iii) provide for coordination by the Town with other public agencies in the implementation of this policy, including, but not limited to notifying other public agencies, where applicable, of this policy. 7. P. 2-18. Annexation. It is suggested that the 2nd sentence of the initial paragraph be revised to state: "Figure 2.5-1 reflects the location and identity of these two areas as Eagle Rock Bay Vista and Paradise Drive." 8. P.2-19. The first paragraph of this page (following the carry-over paragraph from P. 2-18) is written in a negative context. The following substitute paragraph (or words to that effect) is suggested: "However, with annexation the cost of maintaining Paradise Drive would be an enormous and unaffordable drain on the Town's General Fund. Therefore, the Town will need the cooperation and assistance of Marin lAFCO and the County of Marin to develop a financing plan which will guarantee the Town's continuing financial ability to provide or maintain critical public services, including, but not limited to, road maintenance and adequate drainage and other facilities for Paradise Drive." . LU-26: Inasmuch as the Dual Annexation Policy as that of lAFCO, and assuming that it's in the Town's best interest to have its own independent annexation policy, it is suggested that the words "economically, procedurally and otherwise" before the word "viable", so that sight is not lost on the fact that annexation must be affordable by the Town, etc. 9. P. 2-21. LUe: It is suggested that the words "and other implications" be included after the word "cost", and that the words "economically, procedurally and otherwise" before the word "feasible". OPEN SPACE 1. Should the title of 3.3 include the "acquisition", and should there not be a stated goal about the acquisition of additional open space in the future, taking into consideration of course, the maintenance and other issues included in the preservation policies? P.3-4. OSC-1: It is suggested that the word "strongly" be included before the word ""encourage" in the 2nd sentence. 7 OSC-3: Consider replacing the word "highest" with the word "significant". 2. P.3-5. OSC-4: Randy Greenberg's item #11 comment about old CbC-4 is endorsed as to view corridors. Her comments. in her item #15 about a;c 4 are also endorsed as to distinguishing between purchased open space and donated open space, and, as to the requirement for replacement of donated open space where it is overwhelmingly demonstrated that use of small portions of such open space is to used for a purpose that is of a "clear and overriding public benefit", etc. This goal should be written to clearly ensure that there will be no diminution of the totality of the open space, notwithstanding a use of a small portion of donated open space for a legitimate public purpose that meets the strict criteria established by this goal. OSC-6: Randy Greenberg's item #17 (second paragraph) comment is endorsed, as is her concern over questions that might arise over the use of the word "superior" for a project. Consider using the word "appropriate" in place of the word" superior" . The 2nd sentence of the lead-in paragraph to the Open Space Continuity Policies appears to be a bit awkward and should be clarified or the context changed, etc. It is suggested that the 3rd sentence be changed to: "The scenic quality of the open space is also preserved when large tracts of land are uncluttered by development" . Ridgeline Policies. Consider substituting the words "most significant" for the word "highest" before the word "value" in the last line of this paragraph. Randy Greenberg's item #18 suggestion that the concept of "regional" scenic value be added to this paragraph is also endorsed. Although there are numerous references to the term in the Open Space element, there does not appear to be a clear definition of the term. "Significant Ridgeline( s)" . This term should be defined and cross-referenced to Figure 3.3.1. 3. P.3-8: CbC-14: This policy should be expanded to include other water-oriented activities such use of kayaks, canoes, walking, etc. 4. P. 3-10. Streams and Riparian Corridor Policy. Randy Greenberg's item #19 comments are endorsed. 5. P. 3-24. OSCe: Should this implementing program include a reference to a continuing policy of considering revisions, when applicable? 6. The suggestions and recommendations contained in correspondence dated March 8, 2005, from members of he Last Chance Committee are meritorious and should be given consideration. DOWNTOWN 1. P. 4-1. It is suggested that the term "suburban-style" be deleted from the 4th paragraph from the top of the page. The term doesn't appear to be necessary and no doubt has a different meaning to different people. ~ ( Downtown Planning Areas. It is suggested that the words "consist of" be substituted for the words "can be dived into" in the paragraph at the bottom of the page. ' 2. P.4-2. Suggest that the term "suburban-style" be deleted in the second line at the top of this page. Figure 4.1.1. Why are the commercial uses in Point Tiburon not reflected on this Figure with a color? It is also noted that the Caprice Restaurant property is not reflected on this Figure with a color. Is this because the Caprice Restaurant is in a residential zone and operating under a conditional use permit? It is also noted that the land where the Corinthian Yacht Club is located is also not reflected on this Figure with a color. 3. P. 4,..4. 4.3 Downtown Goals. We do not have a parking goal as one of our downtown goals. In fact, there is very little discussion about parking. Consideration should be given to independent goals, policies and programs for parking, such as a Town parking management program, references to development of land uses for parking and parking standard and regulations, discussion about shared parking facilities, and the encouragement of low visual impact, well-screened and landscaped centralized or clustered parking,etc. DT-D: Consider adding the words "and vehicular" after the word "pedestrian". 4. P.4-5. 4.4 Downtown Land Use. Is there such a perceived significant need for a drug store such that a drug use is singled out in our general plan? Although it is assumed that many residents would like to have the convenience of a local drug store, is it appropriate to single out only one particular use that the Town not presently have? For example, we do not single out medical or dental uses and there are many that would no doubt find it convenient if such services were available in the downtown area. DT-l: Consider adding the words "serves the commercial and service needs of the community" after the word "that" in the second line. DT-5: Consider adding a reference to "parking" somewhere in this policy. 5. P.4-6. DT-6: It is suggested that the last two lines of this policy be changed to the following: "that such impacts are generated to a greater extent in Downtown commercial areas than do exclusively residential areas." DT-7: It is suggested that this policy be modified along the following lines: "To preserve and enhance the unique character of the Downtown area, existing buildings may be reconstructed to the same FAR as exists, or as, in the judgment of the Town, may be appropriate to the circumstances, provided that the resulting building substantially conforms to the guidelines of the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook, and, if the FAR is increased, provided further, that such additional parking as is necessary is provided without otherwise diminished the then existing stock of parking available in the Downtown area." 7. P.4-6. DT-lO. Consideration should be given to explaining what a "Transfer of Intensity" means. If it is a term of art in the planning world, the same might 4 r-oo ( /r, ( not be true of others. This policy should be more Randy Greenberg's item #11 comment about old OSC-4 is endorsed as to view corridors. reader-friendly. 8. P. 4-7. DT-ll. As an adjunct to not permitting drive-through restaurants discouraging restaurants that primarily offer fast food and/or take-out services, consider whether all or a part of the following language might be appropriate for this or other policies: (i) "Limit the number of business uses in the commercial district selling food for immediate consumption by pedestrians, including restaurants, bakeries, delicatessens and specialty food stores to reduce the generation of litter and food material on public right-of- way and to help maintain a reasonable balance of mix of uses;" (ii) "Encourage outdoor eating areas that are in character with the design and ambiance of the commercial district, do not adversely impact adjacent uses, interfere with pedestrian or vehicular circulation, or result in a net mcrease in the amount of restaurant seating;" (iii) "Control and reduce where possible the number of business uses that are found to be out of proportion with a balanced mix of uses necessary to protect the village character of the downtown area and the economic objectives of the community;" and (iv) "Establish methods that will result in prohibiting or limiting, reducing or eliminating certain uses including, but not limited to T-shirt, and certain tourist-related gift and other similar shops". 9. P.4-12. DT-J: In addition to the language suggested by several commissioners and by the owner of Sam's Restaurant, consider the following modification to the presently proposed language' of this policy: "When complete changes in the use and construction of substantially redesigned new buildings not occasioned by casualty or other involuntary causes, and which do not materially adversely affect the operation, viability or income of the businesses operated hereon or the fair market value of the properties allow for it, the Town should pursue the completion of a Downtown waterfront promenade along the full length of Main Street from Ferry Plaza to the Corinthian Yacht Club". CIRCULA TION 1. P.5-5. Circulation Goals. Consider including a separate and distinct "Paradise Drive Goal" that speaks to the unique issues of that major Town thoroughfare. Should consideration be given to a separate and distinct goal for the potential widening of Tiburon Boulevard from Trestle Glen to Downtown over time? This would not appear to be in conflict with C-11 at P. 5-8 which states that "Tiburon Boulevard should retain its existing rural highway character", because Tiburon Boulevard is four lanes from Highway 101 to Trestle Glen. Consideration should also be given to include the suggestions contained in items #21 and 22 of Karen Nygren's correspondence dated February 28, 2005, as well as to retaining the old General Plan's Classification of Routes included with her correspondence. A parking goal should also be included here. 2. P. 5-6. Consideration should be given to including a daily traffic volumes for neighborhood streets notwithstanding the fact that staff has advised that they are not considered thresholds for the purpose of Table 5.5.1. ::; 3. P.5-7. It's important that we maintain the circulation and safety standards of our neighborhood streets, and therefore, we should consider retaining Circulation Goal C-Cfrom our existing General Plan (or words to that effect). A policy for the installation of a traffic signal or boulevard stop sign at the intersection of Trestle Glen and Paradise Drive .should be considered. 4. P.5-8. Tiburon Boulevard Policies. Notwithstanding the fact that the property on both sides of Tiburon Boulevard at Lyford is owned by CalTrans, it is used as a parking lot and gives the appearance to the entry to our Downtown area of a .used-car lot. The vehicles parked there are sometimes left for days, are dusty, and, create safety hazards with vehicles exiting from those areas. It gives our Town's front porch an unsightiy appearance. We need a policy to deal with this area and to clean it up over the long-term. Paradise Drive Policies. Should methods of funding be considered as a policy under this section? 5. P. 5-11. Bicycles and Pedestrian Policies. Is this the place to identify and address the multi-use path bicycle and pedestrian safety issues and to address the implementation of safety procedures, or should it be addressed in the Safety Element. Consideration should be given to such a discussion somewhere in the General Plan. 6. P.5-13. Ferries. There appears to be a glitch in the reference to "twomorning trips from the Ferry Building to Tiburon...." in the ]1h line of the 2nd paragraph of this page. Should the references not be reversed? 7. P. 5-16. Parking. It is noted that only the Downtown Area is addressed regarding parking. Should Blackie's Pasture, the shoulders areas of Tiburon Boulevard at Lyford and other areas of Town where parking occurs (other than general street parking) not be addressed as well? 8. P. 5-17. Interagency Coordination. Is this not a good place to make reference to WFC's and interagency coordination as to the Town's policy against location and co-location of WCFs in residential neighborhoods? 9. P. 5-18. Proposed Circulation Improvements. Is this a place to include discussion about the widening of Tiburon Boulevard and a traffic control device at the intersection of Trestle Glen and Paradise Drive? 10. Consideration should also be given to the following general issues that could be included in our policies: (i) A prohibition of removal of significant trees within public rights-of-way except when required for health and safety; (ii) Preserving and enhancing the qualities that contribute to the residential character of the community, including quiet neighborhoods, low levels of illumination, lack of nighttime activity, safe environment, pedestrian use of streets, and maintenance of property values by mitigating the adverse impacts of high volume through-traffic; (iii) A continuing review of in-lieu parking regulations or policies; (iv) Investigation of methods of raising revenue to finance parking facilities; (v) Consideration of a parking management program for the Downtown Area to provide for the needs. of residents, employees and visitors in the most appropriate locations in the Downtown h area; and (v) An overall parking strategy for the Town that integrates other types of transportation (transit, carpools, pedestrian and bicycles, etc.) as preferable to the approach of just supplying more parking. In cases where provision of more parking is deemed appropriate, design and scale muse be foremost considerations in order to preserve the character of the Town. SAFETY 1. P.6-3. SE-B: Randy Greenberg's item #24 is endorsed including consideration of inserting old OSC-D language to identify hazardous areas. 2. P.6-7. SE-6: Consider changing the word nhelp" to "actively encourage". 3. P.6-11. Emergency Preparedness Policies. This is an extremely important element and should be publicized. The Emergency Operations Plan (nEOP") itself should be distributed to local residents and it should be updated frequently. Consider discussing fire hazards, earthquake, tsunami., etc., in the document, and addressing the fact that greater awareness of safety needs of older people is necessary given our Town's demographics. The document should also address the possible examination of all existing utility lines in relation to earthquake preparedness to determine their ability to survive fault movement and to ensure that adequate emergency water supplies are established and maintained. Consider requiring water, gas and electric lines to be equipped with shutoff devices that utilize the best available technology for quick shutoff consistent with providing reliable service. Does our lDP identify, and evaluate specific facilities that would be needed to respond to major disasters and their capacity to survive a major disaster? Does our EOP provide a basis for the conduct and coordination of operations and the management of critical resources during emergencies. Should our EOP not contain evacuation routes and maps to all public facilities, ete., The foregoing may well not be applicable with specificity to the General Plan, however, at a minimum our General Plan should speak to specifics and should advise where residents can. obtain a copy of our lDP. Our policy should be to use our best efforts to make the public aware of our lDP. NOISE 1. P.7-3. N-A: "acceptable limits" should be defined. N-D: Is this a realistic goal? If so, should we have a policy that describes how it might be done? 7 P ARKS AND RECREATION 1. P.8-6. Park Facilities Policies. Does PR-3 conflict with the Open Space Goals? Consider including an overlay map (Figure) that reflects the prospective parkland parcels and potential land for acquisition for parkland much the sale as the affordable housing overlay? 2. Angel Island should be added to Figure 8.1.1. HOUSING 1. P. 9-56. Housing Goals. There is no reference to the funding aspects of affordable housing. Consideration should be given to references to identifying funding sources and to implementing the creation of revenue to enable the concept of affordable housing to become a reality. Specific goals regarding funding and implementation should be considered. There are references to the same in the Programs included in the Town's Leadership Role, but not in our Goals. Randy Greenberg's item #30 is endorsed. GENERAL 1. The Figures should be numbered and a table of the Figures ("Table of Figures/Maps") should be included so that they can be readily located. The identification of the maps as "Figures" is confusing. Is there a reason that they cannot be referred to as "Maps", since that is what they are? Consider numbering the pages of Table of Contents as "i", "ti" and "ill", the List of Tables as "iv" and "v' and the List of Figures/Maps as "vi". ~ John Kunzweiler 16 Norman Way Tiburon, California 94920 iohnk@accenture.com r1AR 0 1 2005 T()V'/~' ",._. ~)I\/iSl(ji~ 1"/ v," II'"" . t:~L.!i-\(JN Tiburon Planning Deparhnent Attention: Kevin Bryant, Advance Planner Re. Comments on the Town of Tiburon, Public Review Draft, General Plan, Feb. 2005 The Planning Staff and particularly Kevin Bryant should be complimented on an outstanding job of 1. Building on the legacy of the prior General Plan 2. Reflecting the evolving interest of our community 3. Applying sound planning principles. Thank you! . Following are my comments: General 1. Please include Norman Way (my street!) on the maps. This begs the question of whether other streets are missing. Suggest a quick audit for accuracy. 2. I ask that you re-consider the 40% designation for steep slopes. I recognize that slope steepness measure is trying to accomplish several things, but a key concern is that of landslides, and as the GP reports, landslide exposure for unimproved areas starts at the 30% mark. Land Use 1. Does the term" significant ridgelines" always include both primary and secondary? This is a key planning element and should be clear. I also assume that Tiburon Ridge is in its own category. 2. LU-15 c.: Should be consistent on the ridgeline term ...significant, primary or secondary, or all of the above? 3. LU-19: Consider addressing the need to ensure wireless facilities also have minimal visual impact. 4. LU-26: Last sentence address annexation" at such time annexation is viable." Does this conflict or confuse the more clear intent of the Dual Annexation Policy? Seems we should reference and stick with one policy (Dual Annexation Policy) and avoid the vagueness of "viable". LATE MAIL # 5. LU-32: Not sure exactly what the paragraph means. The concept of "longer term annexation" needs to be clarified. 6. LU-38: Should we state a maximum timeframe of say 15 years for revision? Open Space and Conservation 1. Table 3.3-1: Is there specified an update cycle (annually?) for this table? 2. OSC-4: I think it is fine as written -Nygren's letter asked for deletion of the last sentence. I think it needs to stay in -this will be an issue for the Library expansion and personally, I believe we will need to balance interests on that specific matter. 3. OSC-36: I agree with Nygren's suggestion 4. OSC-??: I believe we need to address the role (size, bulk, mass) of walls and other mitigation measures in this section. Consider saying Ii. . . walls and other retention devices over 6(?) feet are discouraged..." Also suggest adding that such walls and retention devices be designed to have minimal visual impact through texturing, planting etc. 5. OSC-56, 57: Suggest we add some teeth to these points. I believe the County has a document outlining green building principles/techniques. If that's right, we many want to reference that document and recommend implementation over a reasonable period of time. 6. OSC-60: Recommend we expand this point to include all residents and ROA's. To truly eliminate invasive species, all areas need to participate and cooperate. 7. OSC-k: specifically state that green principles become part of the DRB review. Downtown 1. DT-4: This point is a bit dated as the Tiburon Lodge will be updated. That said, we need to be careful about encouraging the establishment of additional lodging. Suggest we qualify this point with" ...as demand justifies...." or something like that. 2. DT-7: I want to tread carefully on this point....FAR's for downtown. We may want ot revisit this issue as thinking about downtown development evolves. Depending on what is done about parking, we may be able to increase FAR's to achieve a better multi- use plan far downtown. This point is related top DT-l0 and DT-13. 3. DT-j: The promenade. I disagree with the current wording "...the Town should pursue the completion..." We need to be careful about unintended consequences... .sam's owners .are very concerned (rightfully?) about how the BSDC will interpret this element of our GP. There are also some pretty clear property restrictions that make such a promenade (currently) impossible. Additionally, there is some risk that a promenade can have a disruptive impact for the restaurants (pedestrian traffic across decks, view blockage for seated patrons etc). Reviewing the 2003 Town Council notes on this matter, I tend to support the 2nd" issue" posed by the Town Council: /I Or should a middle course be charted that would encourage additional public access where it can reasonably be accomplished without serious detriment to property owners or businesses?" Though I might go further as delete the word /I serious." This position also eliminates the requirement that the access be contiguous -which it is not now at the old Tiburon Tommy's / American Response " sites. Circulation 1. C-C: Add safety and parking to the list of goals (Nygren letter). 2. Table 5.5-1: Regarding the Local Daily Traffic Volume set at <2000. Here's the issue.. .2000 trips is a very high number for, my guess, 90+ % of our Local streets. However, there are certain local streets where traffic is an issue due to them being feeders to schools or churches (e.g. Hillary Drive, and the small circle that serves the entrance to Kol Shafar. If we leave the designation threshold too high (e.g. 2000 trips) people will be concerned that their neighborhood could be transformed into a relatively higher traffic area. On the other hand, we need to recognize that certain Local streets carry a dual purpose of serving both the residents and patrons of these large facilities. I do not have a specific recommendation here... .but we need to give this some additional thought. 3. C-2: How is the" pro rata share" calculated? This may be a big issue on Paradise Drive developments. 4. C-4: Recommend we expand to include" other construction" -such as water pipes, transmission lines etc. 5. C-8: Recommend we add something to the effect of " ... working with the County, where applicable..." In the case of Paradise Dr., the County allowed the cable provider to place poles down the road withno consultation of the residents. 6. C-15: Recommend the addition of ".. .for all users." At end of sentence. 7. C-18: Recommend we add".. . shall encourage that access points serve multiple residences (not 1:1). . ." 8. C-b: Recommend we expand wording" .. . capturing the cumulative impacts of new and proposed projects..." 9. C-22: Recommend we expand wording".. .as part of new public and commercial . " proJects.. . 10. General: Is it possible to propose the continuation of Class II, Proposed Bicycle route from the end of Blackie's parking lot, along Beach Road, through the intersection of Tiburon Blvd and Blackfield and then on Tiburon Blvd up to 101? Tiburon Blvd currently has sufficient shoulder space for cycles on both sides. This could be the beginning of a good connector route to Mill Valley and then on to Sausalito and Corte Madera. This is a heavily traveled route and one which the City bicycle rental shops send their customers (who return to the city on the Tiburon ferry). Safety 1. SE-6: At what point can the Town require homeowners of developed properties to make repairs/improvements? The term "help" in the first sentence seems too.passive. 2. SE-7: At a minimum, recommend qualifying the statement that develop be discouraged on slopes of 30% or greater in mudslide/landslide areas. .r 3. General: Do we need a point to encourage some kind of Town or better yet, County- wide effort to understand tsunami risks and mitigations. We are right on the water and this is an earthquake-prone area... 4. SE-16: Recommend being more specific stating that new developments contribute to whatever is necessary to meet "requirements of minimum fire flow." 5. General: I'm afraid to ask this one... .but do we need to add points here for Homeland Security related matters, terror alerts, bio terrorism etc etc?? Noise 1. Table on page 7-2: Recommend we add a line item for public and private recreation facilities (tennis courts, swimming pools, basketball coutts etc). Parks and Recreation 2. PR-B: The point specifies that we accommodate the "recreation needs of the community." Recommend we expand that to include visitors so that we acknowledge other users, such as the growing number of cyclist who visit Tiburon. 3. PR-7: Is the establishment of a small craft launching facility feasible given the private ownership of most/ all viable locations? Housing 1. Table.9.5-3: The asteric on the Units column states (Unit totals are approximate..." Is this not actually the maximum allowable number? We need to be careful here as some developers memorialize this number as a "right." (I need to spend more time on this section) ~;;. fE:' C:~ E N V E D Comments Regarding Town of Tiburon Draft General Plan Update From Karen Nygren 22 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon February 28,2005 rES 2 B Z005 FJLf\Ni\Jif',}t_: 0'\ Iln.,..... T~.'" ^ ' -". .. I " Il."\I~ IN ~J~ .,IN n;:: TJi:J"" u;." v ,., , . "~ON The following are suggested additions, corrections or changes that I believe should be incorporated into the Tiburon 2020 General Plan Update. I. All figures/maps should include Norman Way. Currently this important street has been omitted from all maps. 2. Angel Island,which is part ofTiburon's Sphere, should be included in at least one figure/map. Suggest it is shown in Figure 8.1-1 Park and Recreation Land. Land Use Element 3. Page 2-4, Table 2.2-2, Characteristics of Planned Development Residential Properties should include along with Steep Slopes the category of unstable soils/slope stability/ or subject to slides. This would make the Table consistent with the language used throughout the document when you refer to steep slopes >40%. 4. Page 2-5, paragraph 4 needs more clarity in the discussion of maximum allowable density. It should be emphasized, so there is no misunderstanding that the stated densities will be determined during EIR and project review process and the numbers stated are only up to maximum allowed. 5. Pages 2-5 through 2-10 describe the properties with Planned Development- Residential designation. Include in the descriptions the discussion of land slides or unstable soils. 1bis should be in addition to the mention of steep slopes. Open S?ace & Conservation Element 6. Figure 3.3-1 Open Space Attributions should show the ridge trail beginning at Via Los Altos. Currently, it only shows it beginning at Tanfield Rd. 7. OSC 4, page 3-5 states that "Public open space may be used for other purposes, provided that the open space character of the land would remain predominant." I believe this sentence should be deleted since the voters voted for the land to be used for open space and no other purpose. They expect their open space to be protected as permanent open space. If this wording is to be included in the 2020 Plan, then please add wording that the use of public open space land can be only be changed by a majority vote of the Tiburon residents. 8. Page 3-15, Tree policies. Please expand the description of trees to include the value of oak woodlands and native forests. Preservation of a stand of trees requires a discussion that goes beyond the maintenance of individual trees. Stands of trees are a habitat resource and home to many other natural resources. They stabilize the soils, reduce run off and are of great aesthetic value. They should be protected and preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Projects and home sites should be designed to avoid disturbance of this valuable natural resource. 9. Page 3-15, create a new OSC-33A. There should be a policy that discusses preservation of wooded areas for their importance of habitat preservation and their natural resource value. 10. Page 3-15, OSC34, Strengthen the wording in this policy to state grading will be limited to the maximum extent feasible. 11. Page 3-16, OSC-36, Add the thought that where grading is required it should be returned to the appearance of not only its natural landform but also its habitat and natural vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. 12. Page 3-16, OSC-38, Please clarify what you mean by "slopes should reflect nllturalland features". Does this refer to vegetation, rock outcroppings, etc? 13. Page 3-21, Should add another OSC policy, OSC-52A. There should be a discussion about air quality impacts from air particulates beyond Spare the Air Day. There should be a policy that states we promote clean air by encouraging alternative fuel vehicles and smooth traffic flow along Tiburon Blvd. Downtown Element 14. Page 4-6, Figure 4.4-1, affordable housing overlay should be expanded to include the site of Sharks Deli as a location for Neighborhood Commercial use. It's a perfect site for housing on the second floor over a commercial use. IS. Page 4-12, DT-34. Delete the reference to structure parking. A 2 or 3 story parking structure would not be in keeping with Tiburon's village character. No other Marin city or town, other then San Rafael has parking structures. I believe Tiburon residents do not want to promote the amount of traffic and visual quality that comes with a parking structure. Circulation 16. Page 5-4. Add to the discussion of the Sales Tax Expenditure Plan that the funds also are to be used for Safe Routes to Schools, pedestrian and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)) improvements. (They are not to be used for pot hole repairs) 17. Add a policy that states that the Town shall consider working with the Marin County Transit District to develop a local shuttle program. (Within 18 months, the GGTHD service may no longer provide local transit service.) 18. Page 5-5. C-D mentions speed and noise, as a residential circulation issue. There is missing from the Circulation Element a discussion of traffic volumes, parking and safety concerns in residential neighborhoods. A policy should be included that addresses these issues. 19. Reference to, Page 5-6. Table 5/5-1: Attached you will fmd two pages from the Adopted 1994 General Plan Circulation Element. Please note that the Classification of Routes/Roadway Designations have changed considerably in the Draft 2020 General Plan from the 1994 Plan. In the 1994 Plan, Local Streets were designated to carry less than 500 vehicles per day. In the 2020 Plan Local Streets daily traffic volume is < 2,000. The 1994 plan there is a category for a Residential Sub-Collector Streets which would not have ADTs (Average Daily Trips) higher then 1,000 vehicles per day and the Collector Streets would be limited to 2,000 vehicles per day. There needs to be added to the 2020 Plan Roadway Designations reference to Residential Neighborhood Streets that carry less then 500 cars per day. This is the norm for most of the neighborhoods in Tiburon. To lump all the residential streets in the <2,000 daily trip category does not reflect our community roadway system and will make it difficult to communicate Tiburon's thoughts during development proposals. The Circulation Element should not only reflect MTC's categories to receive funding for projects. There also needs to be a policy that discusses Tiburon's circulation goals for streets carry <500 trips per day. 20. Suggested Roadway System & Traffic Standards Policy for Page 5-7 of the Circulation Element should include the wording from the 1994 Plan, Page 3, C-C of the Circulation Element: "To maintain all existing, as well as to design all future, residential streets with consideration of a combination of residents' safety, cost of maintenance, protection of residential qualities, and efficient use of land by limiting traffic volumes, speed and noise in an attempt to maintain the livability ofthe streets." Please add this to the 2020 Plan. 21. Page 5-6, Definitions for the components of the street system should contain more information to clarify their appearance and function. Please refer to the descriptions used in the 1994 Plan. For example, it mentions that local streets (As I suggested to be called Residential Neighborhood Streets) are two-lane facilities. 22. Page 5-6, Table 5.5-1. Please include in the Table Backfield Drive under Function Level. It's an important primary street in Tiburon and its function level should be designated. . 23. Traffic analysis of capacity for Tiburon Blvd has been analyzed by using Level of Service (LOS) at intersections along Tiburon Blvd. I believe that Tiburon' residents have become extremely frustrated with the increased time it takes to get from one intersection to another. Thus, I believe there should be an analysis of the AM and PM peak time delays along specific roadway segments of Tiburon Blvd.; weekend as well as weekdays. Particularly what will be the increase of wait/delay time traveling westbound between Gilmartin and Trestle Glen at final build out of the 2020 General Plan. I do not believe only an intersection LOS is adequate to analyze the traffic impacts to Tiburon residents. The community as well as Town should have this information to make an informed decision when evaluating the Land Use Element in relation to the Circulation Element. The EIR should state what they believe is an acceptable wait time for Tiburon residents on Tiburon Blvd and suggest mitigation measures to improve this delay. Thank you for considering my suggestions to the Draft Tiburon 2020 General Plan. Yours truly, Karen N~re~ ~ ~~ /tZ-. /...//~ #t1 TIBURON GENERAL PLAN CLASSIFICATION OF ROUTES The classification of routes is an organizational concept for proper planning, but does not necessarily reflect the actual capacities of streets within the Planning Area. The Planning Area has numerous streets with less than normal capacity because of steepne9s, narrowness, poor sight-lines, or other factors. with few exceptions, the streets in the Tiburon Planning Area are local streets. For the purposes of this Element, thoroughfares which would generally fall into the category of freeways, major arterials, minor arterials, and collector streets, are depicted on Diagram C-l, street System. All other streets would generally be classified as sub-collectors or local streets. Freewav (U.S. Hiqhway 101) A limited access facility, with dual lanes divided by a median and having no at-grade intersections or curb cuts to adjoining land uses. Access to these facilities is usually only at interchanges and volumes range from 50,000 vehicles daily to over 200,000 vehicles daily. Such facilities are usually owned and operated by a State agency (Caltrans). .~ Arterial Street Principal Arterial Street (Tiburon Boulevard from U.S. Highway 101 to Trestle Glen Boulevard). Principal arterial'streets connect major activity centers (e.g., Downtown Tiburon and Strawberry Shopping Center) within the urbanized area. Principal arterial streets provide direct access to abutting land and carry local traffic and SUb-regional traffic. These facilities carry traffic in the range of 25,000 to 50,000 vehicles daily. Principal arterials connect with other principal arterial streets and freeways and are usually multi-lane, divided facilities. Minor Arterial Street (Tiburon Boulevard from Trestle Glen Boulevard to Downtown Tiburon, all of Trestle Glen Boulevard and all of Redwood Highway/Frontage Road). Minor arterial streets augment the principal arterial street system. These streets provide greater access to abutting land and usually carry more locally oriented traffic than does a principal arterial street. They provide the intra-community continuity that the primary arterials do not. Minor arterial streets carry traffic in the range of 10,000 to 25,000 vehicles a day. They can be two-lane or multi-lane facilities with intersection turn lanes and/or continuous two-way, center left-turn lanes. Minor arterial streets connect with other minor arterial streets and with principal arterial streets. Circulation Element Adopted November 16, 1994 14 TIBURON GENERAL PLAN Collector street Collector streets collect traffic from the local street system and channel it to the arterial street system. Collector streets serve residential and commercial neighborhoods. Collector streets carry traffic in the range of 2,000 to 12,000 vehicles a day and are usually two-lane facilities. These streets carry mostly traffic generated from within neighborhoods or d1stricts they serve but can carry some through traffic from outside of the immediate area as well. Curb cuts (driveways) should be minimized on all collector streets. Commercial Collector street. Commercial collector streets serve primarily land uses which are commercial in nature. They tend to have higher ADTs than residential collector streets. Residential Collector Street. Residential collector streets are residential streets and serve primarily land uses which are residential in nature with very few curb cuts (driveways) serving adjacent land use. Residential collector streets should be limited to 2,000 vehicles per day. Residential Sub-Collector Street Residential sub-collectors streets are residential streets that serve the function of collector streets in residential neighborhoods. Curb cuts (driveways) to adjacent land uses are permitted. These streets tie local streets to collector streets. Direct connections to arterial streets should not be permitted. Residential sub-collector streets should not have ADTs higher than 1,000 vehicles per day. Local Streets Local streets serve adjacent residential or commercial property. All streets not otherwise classified are local streets, carrying traffic from the immediate land use. Local streets are two-lane facilities and carry less than 500 vehicles per day. Through traffic from outside the immediate neighborhood should not use local streets. Local streets should connect to sub-collector and collector streets and should not connect directly to arterial streets. TRANSPORTATION SETTING The entire Bay Area is characterized by a lack of access between the nine counties due to the area's dependence upon bridges. Marin County is only accessible by vehicle from the south,via the Golden Gate Bridge and from the east from the Richmond-San Rafael Circulation Element Adopted November 16, 1994 15 ... ~ LATE ~,AIL # · P.fCfIV<2lJ i'JAR To: Tiburon Planning Committee 08 2DD5 FroI?: Jerry Riessen and Joann~ Mason Kemper, Last Chance COmm}~~:I:VC' 01'1/') Subject: Comments on Draft Tlburon General Plan 2020 uf. 7"i8(jR~~N Date: March 8, 2005 As we have said at public meetings, we are very pleased with this document. Our comments here are mostly editorial. 1. p3-1, last line on page, ".. . made up of all large undeveloped properties.." 2. P. 3-1 Open Space and Protected Resources We recommend that the general plan acknowledge Angel Island as a protected natural as well as historic resource. 3. P. 3-3. Goal OSC-B. Suggest adding to "areas of visual importance" the words "such as views of and views from open space" and also adding "woodlands" to the list 4. P.3-4 3.3 Prime Open Space Preservation The OSC Element should clearly describe how the process of preserving open space will occur. Page 8 of the 1989 General Plan says: "Landowners are encouraged to design their projects to maximize protection of the open space areas with the characteristics and attributes described herein to the maximum extent feasible. The Tiburon Town Council and Planning Commission shall ultimately determine the appropriate development entitlements and the legally permissible form and amount of open space dedication at such time as development entitlements are decided. .." [emphasis added] OSC 1 We recommend that the last sentence be reinserted into OSC-1 or into implementing policy that permanently protects Open space. This language indicates that once approvals have been issued and permits granted, and a portion of the land has been converted to permanent open space (public or private), that part of the process comes to a close. There will be no extensive revisions of building envelopes, no further subdivision, no reapplications to use land that was not part of the original development plan, either for secondary units, or additional estates (based upon changed economic or demographic circumstances.) , The new General Plan discussion about prime open space and its importance to the Town, as well as added policy language regarding each prime open space attribute and characteristic is valuable. However, we are concerned that the Plan's existing language, which states that "landowners are encouraged to design their projects to maximize protection of open space areas" (emphasis added) that contain the characteristics and attributes set forth in the General Plan, is too weak and will not achieve the Plan's desired objectives. The OSC Element must provide unambiguously that the Town will protect in perpetuity, to the maximum extent feasible, land with the characteristics and attributes of prime open space. Where appropriate, the Town shall require that private land owners, while retainingfee title over their property, grant to a land trust or land conservancy a permanent conservation easement over that portion of the property to be preserved in perpetuity as open space. The easement will be recorded with the County, which will reduce any concern that it will not be lost or forgotten. The conservation easement will appear on any title search of the property, which should be a required submission by the property owner as part of any development application to the Town or County. Requiring that the Town be named as a third party beneficiary, with authority to enforce the conservation easement, would provide additional protection for the open space 5. p3-4, section 3.3 Prime Open Space Preservation. The list of prime open space characteristics is needed. It is not clear that everything in section 3.3 is prime open space. 6. p3-5, OSC-4. Open Space acquired by public funds can not be sold or traded. Let the public vote to sell or trade it (voting can always change things and need not be stated-don't encourage it). Open Space lands acquired otherwise should allow only very restricted other use, certainly requiring "open space character to remain very (90%) predominant" or require trading for land of similar open space value or require acquisition of land of similar open space value. 7. p3-5,OSC-5. It should be a "minimum of" 50%. Where valuable environmental attributes exist, the Town should protect open space to the maximum extent possible. 8. p3-5,OSC-6. Since "clustering" versus "estate houses" gets decided on what produces the "superior" project, some guidance is needed. Future decision makers need some insight into our thoughts. Since ridgeline protection is the highest environmental attribute, it should be noted as most important in determining "superior." 9. p3-6. OSC 10 & 11 In the language as proposed, The word "new" has been added. "New development and the construction of buildings....shall be set back a minimum of 150 horizontal... 50 vertical." In fact this language new development and construction of buildings occurs a number of times . With the large amount of tear downs and bigger building "remodels" we suggest either omit the word "new" or clarify to add that where existing structures change their footprint in the course of remodeling or rebuilding, every effort shall be made to increase setbacks from the Tiburon Ridge to more nearly conform to the setbacks required of new construction.. 10. p3-7. OSC-12. There is a lot of confusion between "significant ridges" and "secondary ridges" here and throughout the Open Space section. "Horizontal and vertical setbacks from Significant Ridgelines shall not be required to exceed those for the Tiburon Ridge." This is a confusing sentence in OSC-12 and it seems to limit protection of open space. Perhaps rewrite. 11. P.3-10. Streams! Riparian Corridor policy. Recommend adding language to explain the value of this resource and why the setbacks are so important. 12. P. 3-15, Consider adding language to educate the public about the value of woodlands and tree stands, as you have done elsewhere on other topics. 13. P. 3-15, OSC 34, Grading. Add that grading will be limited to the maximum extent feasible. 14. p.3-16. OSC-a. Text refers to an "environmental assessment process" ["EA"] used at the County level. We recommend that language be inserted to explicitly state that the environmental assessment (EA) is not intended to replace an EIR. 15. Circulation. Circulation talks at length about Level of Service (LOS). The General Plan also needsto discuss concerns for "Quality of Life" issues when discussing impacts of large construction projects. Narrow streets gridlocked because of large construction vehicles can create safety problems as well as thirty minute delays. Such concerns must be addressed for all large projects. LAl f: IVIAI L It /. ...,'tt:.c"""'~'" w,....r."'V. t'. ,I-, 1\""" \1' ^[:- ":" "'~ 1Mo..., ~ ...."'~:" TO: FM: ' DATE: RE: Tiburon Planning Commission Randy Greenberg 217/05 Comments on 2/05 Draft General Plan 2020 MAR 0 7 2005 PLANNING DIVISION TOWN OF TIBURON The suggestions below are mostly minor edits. I have placed an asterisk (*) in front of the ones I believe involve policy issues which the Planning Commission may want to,address. For the others, I am content to have staff accept or reject my suggestions. Overall, the content, organization and clarity of the document are a real improvement over our previous, excellent General Plan and the authors are to be congratulated. Land Use Element 1. [after p. 2.2] Figure 2.2-1. Starting on 2-5, each undeveloped property is described and specific densities are given. The legend on 2.2-1. next to the PD-R items should indicate the page location of actual density assignments for the undeveloped parcels = Sec. 2.2, p. 2.5+. 2. P.2-4. The heading for this list should make clear thatthese are the remaining undeveloped PDR's. The asterisk explanation at the bottom should include a statement that they are within the Town's SOL Also, there should be a reference on this page that the location of the undeveloped PDR properties listed can be found on Figure 2.2-1. In addition, I would like to see pages 2-3 and 2-4 reversed. Even as one very familiar with these properties, I was at a loss when the information on p. 2-4 did not immediately follow Fig. 2.2-1. 3. p.2-9. "PD-R-p (Pan-Pacific Ocean)*: This 17-acre parcel is steeply sloping and is west-facing, consisting mostly of grassland. Above it is recommended that approximately one acre of the property be designated with an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO)." The reference to the "above" recommendation is unclear. A Table or page # reference should be given to the recommendation referred to. 4. p.2-14. LU-3. I suggest explicitly including "woodlands" in the list of areas. 5. p.2-16. LU-12, type of buildings, building heights, mass, setbacks, landscaping, 6. p.2-16. "LU-14: Remodels, tear-down/rebuilds and new construction shall be compatible with the design, size, and scale of existing dwellings in the surrounding neighborhood. *7. p. 2-17. "L U -17: The Town shall encourage home occupations in residential areas that are clearly incidental to primary residential uses and do not create parking problems and traffic issues." Although this is implied elsewhere, I suggest explicitly stating it here to give greater import to this issue. 8. P.2-18. "The Tiburon Planning Area includes two distinct Annexation Areas, which are also within the Town's Sphere oflnfluence and currently under County jurisdiction." I 3/7/05 GP comments, R. Greenberg Page 1 of5 suggest the new language for clarity - a lot of people in the largely incorporated west side of Tiburon don't understand annexation issues or what kinds of property they affect. 9. Figure 2.5-1. This figure is confusing. There should be an explanation of the meaning of the dot-dash lines in the legend. In addition I find it hard to follow these dot-dash lines and figure out what is intended- especially for those areas that extend into water. . 10. p.2-20. LU-29: Timing of annexation of property shall be determined, or recorded future annexation agreements shall be required, early in the development review/entitlement process. Suggest adding a comma after "required" for ease in reading. *11. Old 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." This policy and the whole issue of views are covered in OSC 28-32, which is appropriate. However, I believe that some summary statement should be included in the LV element. While views relate to open space issues, they are also very relevant to Land Use and should be mentioned in this section (and possibly cross-referenced to the appropriate OSC policies). Open Space Element 12. p. 3-1 Box. Tiburon Ridge Trail. "Over the course of more than 30 years, the Town has created..." Suggest edit in order to eliminate using the word "over" twice. *13. p.3-3. OSc-B. Suggest adding "woodlands" to the list. *14. p.3-4. OSC-3: "The Town shall strive to secure, through trail easements that connect to other public trails or through other appropriate mechanisms, public access to those portions of open space land most appropriate for public use. "I suggest this change because the current language - "most usable and highest value to the community" - raises issues that may conflict. Indeed, areas that are especially environmentally sensitive have very high value to the community, but are often not appropriate for public use. *15. p.3-5. OSC-4. The 3rd sentence in this policy is a problem. I understand that the library is a current issue which language in this policy may be designed to address. I feel the current language invites controversy. As the PC discussed~ one person's "clear public benefit" is someone else's nightmare. First, I think a distinction can be made between publicly purchased open space ["OS"] and donated OS. It is clear to me that publicly purchased OS should not be traded or sold. To do so would be a breach of the public trust. Donated OS may allow for some discretion, depending on legal requirements of the donation. I do think that if a determination is made that it is appropriate to build on some or all of a parcel of donated OS, that other OS, of similar value, must be provided. This guarantees that there will not be a reduction in our OS over time, which is reassuring. Because of the difficulty in acquiring property for trade, such a provision will discourage, but not make impossible, efforts to use donated OS for controversial building or recreational uses. We should keep this policy as tight as possible to ensure a diminishing inventory of open space over time. 317 i05 GP comments, R. Greenberg Page 2 of5 *16. p.3-5. OSC-5: The Town hereby establishes a goal that a minimum of 50% of the area of lands designated as Planned Development. I think the addition of "a minimum of' is important, and accurate. As staff has pointed out, we usually get considerably more than 50% in practice. Having a defined goal of 50% sets the standard much lower than historical practice and is misleading to potential developers. *17. p.3-5. "OSC-6: The Town prefers clustering oflots in new subdivision design to maximize the preservation of open space to the greatest extent feasible. However, where the Town determines that a superior project would result, "estate lot" type development (i.e., large homes on large lots) may be considered. Easement, deed restriction, or other appropriate mechanism acceptable to the Town shall be used to preserve open space within common areas or individual lots. " This language gives the Town appropriate flexibility. However, it should be amended to clearly state that such "estate lot" development could only be considered where such development would have low visual prominence (both locally and regionally). Other applicable standards should also be explicitly stated. Such clarification would be helpful for landowners wishing to subdivide property and further act to discourage sprawling development plans. However, the Town may consider "estate lot" type development (i.e., large homes on large lots) where it determines such development would be in the public interest,. [The use of "superior proj ect" raises questions. . .. "superior" from whose point of view? And just what is the meaning of "superior"?] Such estate lot development should only be considered where the development area has low visual prominence, both locally and regionally, [list other standards]. *18. p.5-7. OSC-12. "...Setbacks shall be based on an evaluation of the following characteristics: visual prominence (both local and regional),.. ." The spine of the peninsula is an important defining geographical characteristic. It is visible :from large portions of the greater Bay area and has significant regional value. This regional aspect of visual prominence should be explicitly recognized in our policies. *19. p.3-10. Streams & Riparian Corridor policy. The language here understates the value of this habitat. In the old GP, OSC, p. 11, there is language that better portrays the especially high value of such areas. I would suggest at least incorporating the old language: "Riparian corridors are irreplaceable and should be protected because..." Because of its educational value, I would prefer that we insert something along the lines of the County's 2/04 draft countywide plan ("CWP", p. 2-9) language explaining these areas: "Riparian Habitat. Streams convey, filter, and store sediment and nutrients, and their floodplains are important for recharge of groundwater aquifers and flood prevention. They also provide critical wildlife movement corridors between important habitats for both aquatic and terrestrial species. Ephemeral channels are important for maintaining healthy watersheds. Perennial and intermittent streams provide fish migration routes. Intermittent and perennial streams provide spawning and rearing habitat. Riparian vegetation is essential to proper functioning of stream systems.. . . Woody vegetation ... stabilizes streambanks and floodplains [and] provides protective cover for wildlife... Herbaceous vegetation helps stabilize streambanks and filters and traps sediments and pollutants:" 3/7 /05 GP comments, R. Greenberg Page 3 of5 20. p.3-16. OSC-a. Text refers to an "environmental assessment process" ["EA"]. I think this should be defined in some way. It is not clear to me (even in the County) how the EA fits into the traditional Initial StudylNeg DeclEIR sequence or its exact function.. 21. p. 3-22.. Green building policies. Under the 3rd bullet, consider: "Conserving/recycling resources during the building process." Downtown Element *22. p. 4-12. DT -j. Waterfront promenade. I note that this item does not have the weight of a goal or policy. It is an implementation program that mayor may not be achieved. In my view, it is a desirable program, and should not be changed. The current language does not force or require such an installation, but will encourage consideration when major rebuilding occurs. I also support the addition of the new language offered by the owner of Sam's to encourage access to the waterfront from Main St. This will encourage consideration of such access either in addition, or as an alternative, to the promenade where it cannot reasonably be achieved. These two options should help to satisfy BCDC requirements for waterfront access. Circulation Element *23. p. 5-8, c-9. This says that while gated subdivisions are strongly discouraged, it makes the point that the policy does not apply to individual lots. So what is the policy with regard to single lots and gates? While I don't believe gates should be prohibited outright, I believe that there should be a policy generally discouraging these as well. For instance, gates fronting individual lots along Paradise Dr., which is narrow and winding, create safety problems for through traffic. There are many other such roads in Tiburon. In addition, the consequence of not having a policy is that, over time, large parts of Tiburon are likely to become gated. Is this what we want? . Safety Element *24. p. 6-3. SE-B & SE-l. Old OSC- D states: "To discourage to the maximum extent feasible development of areas subject to hazards including, but not limited to, geotechnical problems, unstable slopes and flood-prone areas." SE-B and SE-1, taken together, appear to address the same issues, but I believe are not as strong a statement as the old goal. Over the years, old OSC-D was an invaluable tool in directing the location of new development. "Guiding" does not carry the same weight as "discourage to the maximum extent feasible." I would recommend rewriting SE-B to state: To identify hazardous areas and (insert old OSC-D language as above). 25. p. 6-4. top para. 3rd line. "...they are the cause of the varied [or diverse or multi- faceted] - and potentially. . . " 26. [after p. 6-6) Figure 6.3-2. There should be a definition of "surficial deposits" in the legend. I note that areas of Franciscan Melange are not explicitly covered in any of the maps (see old GP diagram S-2) and they do not seem to be completely covered by 3/7/05 GP comments, R. Greenberg Page 4 of5 landslide and source information data. Should this hazardous material be called out on one of the Figures? *27. p. 6-6. Debris Flow Mudslides. According to the discussion here, such slides occur almost exclusively on slopes between 30-40% along long narrow gullies. This raises the question of whether we should include a policy explicitly and strongly discouraging building on such slopes which are located below or in the path of such gullies. Such language could be added to SE-7 and OSC-27 which discourage development on slopes of 40%+. I think such language would be a helpful heads-up to planners and applicants. While it is true we require newly created slopes not exceed 30%, we don't explicitly remind ourselves of debris flow slides hazards from above and possibly offsite. We do allow building on existing slopes of 30% - 40%, and I feel that a reminder of the possible hazards associated with this degree of slope would be helpful. *28. p.6-7. Flooding. I don't know if the FEMA standards (see SE-8, p. 6-8) anticipate rising sea level. If they do not, I think the GP should address it. The 2/04 draft Countywide Plan (p.2-67) includes a discussion of rising sea level. It states: "Globally, sea level has risen 4-8 inches over the past century. The EPA estimates that the sea level is likely to rise 2 feet along most ofthe West Coast by 2100. According to the San Fraricisco BCDC, current best available science suggests sea level could rise locally by up to half an inch per year." It seems to me that this forecast has implications for flooding potential and Tiburon planning. Several properties capable of subdivision are located along the shoreline and we can expect rebuilding permit applications for many of the aging units located along the Tiburon shoreline. I think we should anticipate the rise in sea level and perhaps include a policy to anticipate this issue if FEMA standards do not already anticipate it. Parks & Recreation Element 29. Diagram LU-6, old GP, showing the development plan for Angel Island is not in the new Draft. Please consider including it in the Parks and Recreation element. Housine: Element 30. [after p. 9-76]. Figure 9.9-1. Should the word "Affordable" be inserted in the title? Other 31. Figures (fold-out pages). These should be assigned page numbers. Without page numbers, they are difficult to locate (I note that page numbers were hand printed in the old GP .) In addition, there should be an index of the Figures, with page no.' s, after the index of Tables, at the beginning of the document. 32. Spacing issues. To achieve text justification, some words in some lines are very spread out, making reading awkward. This is especially true where text appears next to inserted tables. This should be corrected. Some examples: p. 2-1, 2-10, 2-11, 2-16(LU- 12),3-1,3-3,2-18 (box), 3-7, 3-10, 3-21, 3-23, and 8-6. In addition, spacing between lines near boxed text is sometimes awkward. This should be corrected. And finally, some boxed text is placed far outside the margins, resulting in an unprofessional look (p. 2-12 and 2-16 for example). 3/7/05 GP comments, R. Greenberg Page 5 of5 _._.._._.~..""_____..~._+__..~__.. __,...."'.,__~..."___.'__.__..___.__.___"_._._.__'_' .,.___..__,..______'__..__"._'. ..~_..,...___."'...__.._.,.~..___~_____~..__..~.""_._.m.__.__.._..__._.._._.~...",.____.___...___.____.__._.__..,_...-._._.._._-.--"_.__.,..-.....-~---._".,......,,- Kevin Bryant From: Christy Seidel [ -If . R~ Monday, March 07, 2005 4:22 PM Kevin Bryant Joel Rovins; Eric Young; Kip Jones; Steve Sockolov; Paul Yenofsky; Doug Mack; Ellie Smith; Tiffany Boles; Ben Jacoby; coral kisselberth; Deborah Dasovich; Dennis Sakai; David Wong; Edward Baker; Hannah; Barbara Harney; Jennifer Mack; John Nygren; Kathy Smith; Jeanne Dana; Julie King; Margaret Lindsay; Lee Kranefuss; Mark Kasselick; Maryann Snyder; Marybeth Ursin- Smith; Nina Frank; Nancy Marty; Lisa Grinnell; Pam Hamamoto; Robert Ortalda; Robin Mattimore; Sally R Schroeder; James Winter; Susan Lee; Suzy Boles; Tom Frankovich; Ona Rotenberg; Yvonne Thurmond; Logan Boles; Christy Seidel; Peter Stock Subject: Circulation Goal c-c Sent: To: Cc: Mr Bryant, Edward Baker forwarded your message regarding goal c-c in the Circulation Plan. The new goal is considerably more brief and fails to mention some ver)' important concepts, namely, designing streets with the 'safety of residents' in mind, 'protection of residential qualities' and 'efficient use ofland by limiting traffic volumes'. These concepts mentioned in the existing circuhltion goal are pertinent to small residential streets which are a significant portion of the streets in Tiburon. Proposed Circulation Goal: "To maintain all existing, as well as to design all future, residential streets in a manner which limits speed and noise, in an attempt to maintain the livability of the streets." Existing Circulation Goal: "To maintain {Ill existing, as well as to design all future, residential streets with consideration of {I combination of resit/ents' safety, cost of maintemmce, protection of resitlential qualities and efficient use of laml by limiting traffic volumes, speed {Iml noise in an attempt to m{lintain the liVllbility of streets. " Please continue to reinforce the importance of the 'protection of residential qualities' in the new Town of Tiburon General Plan. Sincerely, christianna Seidel From: Kevin Bryant [mailto:kbryant@ci.tiburon.ca.us] Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 11:57 AM . To: ~...... [ " Subject: Tiburon General Plan Circulation Goal 3/7 /2005 To: Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 if.,. z;;;.' C"" I."~ ~ ", v ,...~ - t'~..... Ir:':,~ \d W~'U LATE MAIL#~ARo820~5 From: Tiburon Neighborhood Trust 30 Reedland W oods Way Tiburon, CA 94920 PI AN'I'" -', :::,. ,",II'I\... DIVISION TUvVN OF TlBURON Date: March 4, 2005 Dear Planning Commissioners, It has come to our attention that the proposed General Plan for Tiburon eliminates the section within the Circulation Plan that distinguishes streets with 500 car trips or less. Many neighborhood streets in Tiburon fall into this category. The number of daily car trips dictates the level of safety, hence the ability of families in a neighborhood to use the street as a communal space where people can comfortably walk with their dogs and children and, in some cases such as cul-de-sacs, where children can play. The character of the smaller streets could be jeopardized by lumping all streets with vehicular circulation of2000 car trips or less into the same category. For instance, Camino Alto in Mill Valley averages 2320 car trips per day. The planning and design issues for small residential streets are quite different than those for streets with 2000 car trips per day and therefore should continue to be distinguished as such in the 1994 General Plan. If the circulation policy is to be consolidated to the level of 2000 car trips or less for streets in the proposed General Plan, than the Town of Tiburon General Plan needs to acknowledge and protect the many quiet and residential streets throughout Tiburon by maintaining the current Circulation Policy in the 1994 General Plan, Page 3, C-C. It states "To maintain all existing, as well as to design all future, residential streets with consideration of a combination of residents' safety, cost of maintenance, protection of residential qualities and efficient use of land by limiting traffic volumes, speed and noise in an attempt to maintain the livability of streets." This paragraph is a critical guideline for future design as well as the maintenance of existing neighborhoods in Tiburon and thus it should be stated as a guideline in the proposed Town of Tiburon General Plan. We are concerned that the Town of Tiburon may jeopardize the quiet, residential character of its streets by omitting these guidelines that are in place in the current General Plan. Sincerely, 1,Lt.:1L"iLi.. ' ;,) (' n .tA...Vt1' ,,"1/t t~___ glli7I~' ~ l!uu:IlBlT J\,' " (d'- LATE f~AiL # /. To: Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 From: Joyce Holden 231 Blackfield Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 Date: March 4, 2005 To Whom It May Concern, F"'"'''J';''Y''''-''''D \;-0,,". I~ 't.,~ ~,..."", ' .,,_1," ... MAR 08 Z005 PLANNING DIVISION TOWN OF TIBURON It has come to our attention that the proposed General Plan for Tiburon eliminates the section within the Circulation Plan that distinguishes streets with 500 car trips or less. Many neighborhood streets in Tiburon fall into this category. The number of daily car trips dictates the level of safety, hence the ability of families in a neighborhood to use the street as a communal space where people can comfortably walk with their dogs and children and, in some cases such as cul-de-sacs, where children can play. The character ofthe smaller streets could be jeopardized by lumping all streets with vehicular circulation of 2000 car trips or less into the same category. For instance, Camino Alto in Mill Valley averages 2320 car trips per day. The planning and design issues for small residential streets are quite different than those for streets with 2000 car trips per day and therefore should continue to be distinguished as such in the 1994 General Plan. If the circulation policy is to be consolidated to the level of 2000 car trips or less for streets in the proposed General Plan, than the Town of Tiburon General Plan needs to acknowledge and protect the many quiet and residential streets throughout Tiburon by maintaining the current Circulation Policy in the 1994 General Plan, Page 3, C-c. It states "To maintain all existing, as well as to design all future, residential streets with consideration of a combination of residents' safety, cost of maintenance, protection of residential qualities and efficient use ofland by limiting traffic volumes, speed and noise in an attempt to maintain the livability of streets." This paragraph is a critical guideline for future design as well as the maintenance of existing neighborhoods in Tiburon and thus it should be stated as a guideline in the proposed Town of Tiburon General Plan. We are concerned that the Town of Tiburon may jeopardize the quiet, residential character of its streets by omitting these guidelines that are in place in the current General Plan. s~~ ~~ LATE iVIRII.. # /. To: Town ofTiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd if.,~ r:::;C"!""~ " ~\,t:.. cDvr::::W"',\ ....u Tiburon, CA 94920 MAR 0 8 2005 From: David Holden 231 Blackfield Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 PLANNIN'r' T ,':" DIVISION OWN OF TlBUf<ON Date: March 4, 2005 To Whom It May Concern, It has come to our attention that the proposed General Plan for Tiburon eliminates the section within the Circulation Plan that distinguishes streets with 500 car trips or less. Many neighborhood streets in Tiburon fall into this category. The number of daily car trips dictates the level of safety, hence the ability of families in a neighborhood to use the street as a communal space where people can comfortably walk with their dogs and children and, in some cases such as cul-de-sacs, where children can play. The character ofthe smaller streets could be jeopardized by lumping all streets with vehicular circulation of2000 car trips or less into the same category. ' For instance, Camino Alto in Mill Valley averages 2320 car trips per day. The planning and design issues for small residential streets are quite different than those for streets with 2000 car trips per day and therefore should continue to be distinguished as such in the 1994 General Plan. If the circulation policy is to be consolidated to the level of 2000 car trips or less for streets in the proposed General Plan, than the Town of Tiburon General Plan needs to acknowledge and protect the many quiet and residential streets throughout Tiburon by maintaining the current Circulation Policy in the 1994 General Plan, Page 3, C-C. It states "To maintain all existing, as well as to design all future, residential streets with consideration of a combination of residents' safety, cost of maintenance, protection of residential qualities and efficient use ofland by limiting traffic volumes, speed and noise in an attempt to maintain the livability of streets." This paragraph is a critical guideline for future design as well as the maintenance of existing neighborhoods in Tiburon and thus it should be stated as a guideline in the proposed Town of Tiburon General Plan. We are concerned that the Town of Tiburon may jeopardize the quiet, residential character of its streets by omitting these guidelines that are in place in the current General Plan. Sincerely,_ / /)--,;' t __________ -.,-' ~~'".,,/~"" To: Town of Tiburon Planning Commission 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 LATE MAIL # I. From: Christy Seidel & Peter Stock 30 Reedland Woods Way Tiburon, CA 94920 r-'-"""r-~" ,..~!l'\\ r{t:~,c~ It' t:U MAR 0 8 2005 Date: March 4, 2005 PL,,:,:',i\)!",J!r\!C:i DIVISION '~,i TihunON Dear Planning Commissioners, It has come to our attention that the proposed General Plan for Tiburon eliminates the section within the Circulation Plan that distinguishes streets with 500 car trips or less. Many neighborhood streets in Tiburon fall into this category. The number of daily car trips dictates the level of safety, hence the ability of families in a neighborhood to use the street as a communal space where people can comfortably walk with their dogs and children and, in some cases such as cul-de-sacs, where children can play. The character of the smaller streets could be jeopardized by lumping all streets with vehicular circulation of2000 car trips or less into the same category. For instance, Camino Alto in Mill Valley averages 2320 car trips per day. The planning and design issues for small residential streets are quite different than those for streets with 2000 car trips per day and therefore should continue to be distinguished as such in the 1994 General Plan. If the circulation policy is to be consolidated to the level of 2000 car trips or less for streets in the proposed General Plan, than the Town of Tiburon General Plan needs to acknowledge and protect the many quiet and residential streets throughout Tiburon by maintaining the current Circulation Policy in the 1994 General Plan, Page 3, C-c. It states "To maintain all existing, as well as to design all future, residential streets with consideration of a combination of residents' safety, cost of maintenance, protection of residential qualities and efficient use of land by limiting traffic volumes, speed and noise in an attempt to maintain the livability of streets. 1/ This paragraph is a critical guideline for future design as well as the maintenance of existing neighborhoods in Tiburon and thus it should be stated as a guideline in the proposed Town of Tiburon General Plan. We are concerned that the Town of Tiburon may jeopardize the quiet, residential character of its streets by omitting these guidelines that are in place in the current General Plan. /JZ 4'/[.( Christy Seidel & Peter Stock To: Town ofTiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 LA' "".',:"",: <"..,-,'.,.1:,', /;, ',',J.,' t, ' 1 1, . . ll\".. .:".... .0;', ,..,~: I t IJ'~r\H.. it · CJJ w.::: "'~ II""'" ~" 't"~ , H '" ....l...' rc- " Ii;, ".., ~ '~, -...... lli l:-lo.....:.._jj MAR 0 B 2005 From: Tiburon Neighborhood Trust 30 Reedland Woods Way Tiburon,CA 94920 PLANt\IlNG TOWN OF Date: March 4, 2005 Dear );llanning Commissioners, It has come to ouratterltiouthat the proposed. GeneralP1an.fQr Tiburon eliminates the section within the Circulation Plan that distinguishes streets with 500 car trips or less. Many neighborhood stIeeU in Tillmon fallinto this category. The number of daily car trips dictates the level of safety, hence the ability offiunilies in aneighborhood to use the street as a communal space where people. can comfortably wa~ with their dogs and children and, in some cases such as cul-de-sacs, where children can play. The character of the lmlaller streetscouldbejeopard17.edby 1nn'llingall streets with vehicular circulation of2000 car trips or less into the same category. For instance, Camino Aho in Mill Valley aver'lges 2320 car trips per day. Thep1tmnfugand..dysign issues for small residential streets are quite different than those for streets with 2000 car trips per day and therefore should continue to be di!rt'ingl)i~hed as such in the 1994 General Plan. If the circulation policy is to be consolidated to the level of 2000 car trips or less for streets in the proposed Gen.eral. ~thanthe-TOWD...ofT~n General Plan needs to acknowledge and protect the many quiet and residential streets throughout Tiburon by maintaining the current ClTculation Po1WyJILthe.1994 Genera! Plan, Page 3, C-C. It states "To maintain all existing, as well as to design all future, residential streets with consideration of a combinatiauofresidents.' softty, cost ofmaintenance, protection of residential qualities and efficient use of land by limiting traffic volumes, speed and noise in an attempt to main/ai.n..~ livability ofsueets.. " ThispaugQlph is a critical guideline for future design as well as the maintenance of existing neighborhoods in Tiburon and thus it should bestated-as..aguide1iue in.-theproposedTowu._~fTiburon General Plan. We are concerned that the Town ofTiburon may jeopardize the quiet, residential character of its streets b-yomitting.these gJJideTinestha1-areln..pta.r in the current General Plan. ' Sincer,7'e~y,;, //~" {;.> ,,'" ., ,- r- '-.'f,"" . // ~.",...:'--t._..,. ,,-' ,," t;,.;/ ',>",::,-;~~ Coral and Mike Kisseberth 6~ Reedland Woods Way Tiburon CA 94920 To: Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 LATE MAll uL 'if II~' ,"'''f'''-' .. un. \" . sa,.... .....L;ch/it;D From: James and Samantha Winter 220 Blackfield Dr Tiburon, CA 94920 MAR 0 8 2005 PLANNING DIVISION TOWN OF TIBURON Date: March 5, 2005 Dear Planning Commissioners, It has come to our attention that the proposed General Plan for Tiburon eliminates the section within the Circulation Plan that distinguishes streets with 500 ,car trips or less. Many neighborhood streets in Tiburon fall into this category. The number of daily'car trips dictates the level of safety, hence the ability of families in a neighborhood to use the street as a communal space where people can comfortably walk with their dogs and children and, in some cases such as cui-dc-sacs, where children can play. The character of the smaller streets could be jeopardized by lumping all streets with vehicular circulation of 2000 car trips or less into the same category. For instance, Camino Alto in Mill Valley averages 2320 car trips per day. The planning and design issues for small residential streets are quite different than those for streets with 2000 car trips per day and therefore should continue to be distinguished as such in the 1994 General Plan. If the circulation policy is to be consolidated to the level of 2000 car trips or less for streets in the proposed General Plan, than the Town of Tiburon General Plan needs to acknowledge and protect the many quiet and residential streets throughout Tiburon by maintaining the current Circulation Policy in the 1994 General Plan, Page 3, C-C. It states "To maintain all existing, as well as to design all future, residential streets with consideration ofa combination of residents' safety, cost of maintenance, protection of residential qualities and efficient use of land by limiting traffic volumes, speed and noise in an attempt to maintain the livability of streets." This paragraph is a critical guideline for future design as well as the maintenance of existing neighborhoods in Tiburon and thus it should be stated as a guideline in the proposed Town of Tiburon General Plan. We arc concerned that the Town of Tibufon may jeopardize the quiet, residential character of its streets by omitting these guidelines that are in place in the current General Plan. Sincerely, ~ ~ James Winter Samantha Winter 03/08/2005 12:07 4153885548 BOLES PAGE Ell Date: March 8, 2005 LATE MAIL #l RECEIVED To: Tiburon Planning Commission 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 Via FAX (415) 435-2438 MAR 0 8 2005 PLANNING DIVISION TOWN OF TIBURON From: L. Logan Boles 2) 0 Blacldield Dr, Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Circulation Element, Tiburon General Plan Dear Planning Commissioners: I moved from San Francisco to Tiburon in 1969, to enjoy the peaceful, residential naturt of this wonderful town. We have raised our three children in this community, Over the years there has been increasing pressure from developers of various stripes, to force onerous projects on the town which would degrade the town's peaceful residential nature. Thankfully concerned citizens have ACted to protect our Town, in spite of the developer's goals of increasing their financial gains", at Tiburon resident's loss! I am very concerned about the reported proposal to change the Circulation Element of the Tiburon General Plan, to permit a 400% traffic increase on our residential streets! While the proposed change would be of benefit to the developers who wish to run roughshod over our neighborhoods, I see no benefit to Tiburon residents, Please protect Tiburon residents by maintaining the current Circulation Element, which states: "To maintain all existing. as well as to design aI/future, residential streelS with consideration of a combination of residents' :;afety, cost of maintenance. protection ojresJdential qualities and efficient use of land by limiting traffic volumes, speed and noise in an attempt to maintain the livability of streets. " Yours truly, /~L9~ L. Logan Boles MINUTES NO. 906 PLANNING COMMISSION February 28, 2005 Special Meeting Town Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7: 1 0 p.m. Present: Chair Collins, Vice-Chairman Kunzweiler, Commissioners Fraser, Hermann & Snow Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director Anderson & Advance Planner Bryant ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: TIBURON 2020 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Advance Planner Bryant presented the staff report, providing a summary of the General Plan update process, and using a Power Point presentation, gave the Commission a detailed review of the major policy questions upon which the Town Council had previously provided direction. Chair Collins opened the item to public comment at 7:55 p.m. Steve Sears, owner of Sam's Anchor Cafe, voiced concerns about the waterfront promenade program (Program DT -j). He pointed out the physical difficulties of completing the promenade without causing severe financial hardship on his business and probably others as well. He suggested removing the program or modifying it to include a provision that there would be "no negative financial impact on any business that faced the water" . Jim Wheary, owner of the property on which Sam's Anchor Cafe is located, noted that ,Sam's is the oldest and most historically successful business in Town. He has no intention of making major changes to the property at this time, but if disaster strikes, changes might be required as part of any re-building. He echoed Mr. Sears' comments Tiburon Planning Commission Minutes No. 906 February 28, 2005 10f3 o EXHIBIT ;::, about the program as written and said that he believed that the program could not be effectively implemented because of physical difficulties of connecting a walkway through the affected area. Mr. Wheary presented two display boards showing the layout of properties along Main Street and specifically of his property. He said that extending the waterfront promenade across his property would be both impractical and financially detrimental. Chairman Collins asked about the boat berths in front of Sam's and whether they could be maintained in the event a promenade was constructed. Mr. Wheary said he thought it would not be possible. Commissioner Hermann asked if economic viability could be improved by construction of the promenade, would Mr, Wheary still object. Mr. Wheary responded that he did not see how it could be improved through construction of the promenade, especially given other regulations preventing new construction over water. Commissioner Fraser suggested that the policy could be removed but the concept kept in mind for the future. He felt that the promenade did not appear practical or to make common sense under the circumstances. He asked staff about the ramifications of deleting the program. Bryant responded that without a general plan policy or program, it would be difficult for the Town ever to complete a waterfront promenade. Vice-Chairman Kunzweiler thought the promenade would siphon off pedestrians from other businesses as well as Sam's. Randy Greenberg, Norman Way, said she supported the completion ofthe waterfront promenade and that such improvements are very popular wherever they exist. She did not believe that people would come to Tiburon only to walk on the promenade and not also patronize the businesses. Karen Nygren, Paseo Mirasol, referred the Commission to her letter, which she described at some length. She wanted volumes shown for local neighborhood streets as being lower than 2000 trips per day. She suggested describing local streets as carrying 0-2000 trips as a compromise. She said that prior Goal C-C had been deleted and should be restored. Commissioners questioned whether the street volume change would be material, or would simply add verbiage. Nygren also wanted parking and safety concerns added to the Circulation Element. She recommended that Policy OSC-33 be strengthened, and that OSC-36 also be strengthened. Tiburon Planning Commission Minutes No. 906 February 28, 2005 20J3 The Commission indicated that her letter provided sufficient detail for them to consider the suggestions between this meeting and the meeting scheduled for March 1 st. Joanna Kemper praised the Town staff for the good work and noted that she would be submitting a comment letter shortly. She asked about the future process, which Bryant described in response. Commissioner Hermann asked her if she believed that the Town had backed off extending the Tiburon Ridgeline [across the Martha Company property]; and if so, why? She responded that she believed that the Town had backed off and that potential litigation was probably the reason. Betsy Little, Owlswood Road, made several comments about various slope limitations found in the land use, open space and safety elements. She questioned whether they were consistent. She wanted a section added in the earthquake discussion of the safety element indicating that landslides and mudslides could be triggered by earthquakes. She wanted the Town to require private property owners to recognize their responsibility to repair unstable soils areas. She was concerned about liability and property damage and culpability, since landslide damage is generally not covered by insurance. She suggested that Policy SE-7 be changed to 30% from 40% if landslides are present. Karen Nygren added that p. 2-4, Table 2.2-2, should add landslides as a criterion to the list, and that landslide presence should also be added to the discussion of each PD- R property paragraph in the land use element. The public hearing was closed at 9:20 p.m. The Commission determined that it would provide its comments at the conclusion of the public hearing scheduled for March 1 st. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. RICHARD COLLINS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY Tiburon Planning Commission Minutes No. 906 February 28, 2005 30f3 MINUTES NO. 907 PLANNING COMMISSION March 1, 2005 Special Meeting Town Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Chairman Collins, Vice-Chairman Kunzweiler, Commissioners Fraser, Hermann & Snow Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director Anderson & Advance Planner Bryant ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: TIBURON 2020 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Chairman Collins announced that this was a continuation of the public hearing on the Draft Tiburon General Plan, and opened the item to public comment. Paul Grothe, owner of 1610 Tiburon Boulevard, expressed concern and opposition to Downtown Element policies that encourage parking lots to be located behind buildings. He believes that visible parking is important. If buildings are required to be pulled closer to the sidewalk, as suggested in the Plan, there will be no room for parking in front. This would be bad for tourism and patronage of businesses, he said. Vice-Chairman Kunzweiler asked if there was very good signage and a larger central parking lot, would that be an acceptable alternative. Mr. Grothe responded that it is better if people can park right in front of a business. Many people don't read signs. He believed that more housing Downtown was a good idea, and that no fast food outlets should be allowed. He stated that parking is aproblem on week-ends and that hiding parking lots behind buildings is not the answer. Tiburon Planning Commission Minutes No, 907 March 1, 2005 10f5 Commissioner Snow asked if Mr. Grothe was mostly concerned about tourists or local residents. Mr. Grothe responded that Downtown is not a great shopping area for locals, and that it survives on tourism. The Downtown should be more user-friendly. Evelyn Woo, Cecilia Way, wanted the one-story character of the Bel Aire neighborhood to be preserved. She wanted stronger language in the Plan to that effect. She believed that in Bel Aire Estates, the rear yard is an extension of the living area, and second story additions affect views and privacy in negative ways. Commissioner Hermann asked her ifthe Town's existing provisions with respect to single story neighborhoods were sufficient. Ms. Woo said the language is not strong enough to prevent two-story additions in Bel Aire. It is better for the Town to approve variances for people to expand outward rather than allow them to go upward. Ed McAuley, Claire Way, stated that Bel Aire Estates has a "standard" for expansion that keeps the roof profile the same. One recent second story addition deviates from this standard. He is concerned that more people will want to do this, and it will result in overly large homes that look down on the back yards of others and will ruin the privacy of the neighborhood. It would result in loss of light into yards, and loss of sky and ridgeline views, as well as being intrusive. He stated that lot sizes in Bel Aire are less than 10,000 square feet, and opposes large footprints in a small area. He wants the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum lot size to 7,500 square feet for the Bel Aire area, and prevent any variance findings that refer to zones or lots with larger minimum lot sizes than that. George Landau, SugarloafDrive, stated that he thought the Town's various ordinances dealing with noise should be referenced in the general plan. He also spoke about a dangerous section of Tiburon Boulevard [southeast of Trestle Glen Boulevard] where bicyclists should be discouraged from riding. He asked if there was any way to put up signs in both directions that would discourage people from riding there. He noted that it is mostly experienced bicycle riders who use it. He stated that he believed that there was a built-in conflict between views and trees in the Town's regulations, and asked if the general plan could address dangerous trees, undesirable trees, and the view ordinance. He believed that open space was well addressed in the draft plan, and that it is a "must" and should be so described in the plan since it is irreplaceable. Commissioner Fraser mentioned that the Town has a Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BP AC) that addresses issues such as the bicycle safety concern raised by Mr. Landau. He suggested that the BP AC would welcome his comments. Jim Wheary, downtown property owner, spoke regarding the waterfront promenade issue. He noted that consensus by the Planning Commission has been difficult to reach on this policy. He stated that he believed that the current policy tied the hands of future planners and officials and read aloud his proposed revised wording for the policy [Program DT -j]. Tiburon Planning Commission Minutes No~ 907 March 1. 2005 20f5 Steve Sears, proprietor of Sam's Anchor Cafe, stated that calling for the "completion" of the waterfront promenade in the Town's General Plan will give BCDC additional leverage to require force the issue when a permit is needed from that agency. The public hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m. Vice-Chairman Kunzweiler liked the wording suggested by Mr. Wheary. He stated that the general desire for improved coastal access is a good one, but that the wording does not need to be so specific. The realities of completing the waterfront promenade are daunting, and unintended consequences must be avoided. He thought the policy was worded too strongly and wanted much more flexibility instead. Commissioner Fraser agreed, saying that the Town should encourage more access to the bay, but not be specific. He emphasized a "strategic" approach rather than a "technical" approach in the phrasing, and recommended that the Planning Commission craft some new wording along those lines. Commissioner Hermann also liked Mr. Wheary's proposed wording, but expressed concern that the Town Council would simply keep the program "as is" ifthe wording becomes too weak. He was open to more general wording than currently proposed in the document. Commissioner Snow liked the staff recommendation contained in the Town Council staff report from May 21, 2003, especially the part about finding a "middle course". Chairman Collins concurred that it should be a more general policy. Bryant noted that the waterfront promenade is currently addressed in a program, and that perhaps a policy was more appropriate if the intent is to be more general. There was Commission consensus to substitute a policy for the current program. The various versions for proposed re-writes were collected by Advance Planner Bryant, who indicated that staff would return with revised wording at the Commission's next meeting on this topic. Chairman Collins suggested that the Commission address the letter February 28, 2005, received at the prior meeting from Karen Nygren. Advance Planner Bryant presented staff's recommendations on the several points raised in the letter. The Commissioners then individually provided their comments and suggestions for revisions in response to the letter for synthesis by Advance Planner Bryant. Commissioners unanimously expressed concern about the proposed wording of Policy OSC-4 regarding permanent protection of open space. They felt the policy "opened the door" for potential exploitation and possible conversion of open space for other uses Tiburon Planning Commission Minutes No, 907 March 1, 2005 3015 beyond what might be envisioned at this time. Chairman Collins suggested that, at the very least, any open space converted to another use should be required to be "replaced". There was a general discussion regarding using more cross-references in the general plan, or possibly including an index. Advance Planner Bryant said he would look into some options, but that all appeared to have shortcomings and would be time intensive. The Commission began review of the draft general plan with the Land Use Element. Commissioner Hermann stated he was satisfied with the draft element. Commissioner Fraser noted that a map depicting where remaining development potential was located on the Peninsula would be useful. Staff responded that an update on vacant lands, including a map, would be presented to the Commission at a future meeting. Commissioner Fraser questioned whether Policy LU-19 was adequate to address the Town's concerns with wireless communication facilities. Commissioner Hermann expressed concern that the Town's policies on wireless communication facilities might be ignoring the realities that such uses will continue to evolve and could soon be found in all households. Staff indicated that the definition of wireless communication facility used by the Town involved structures as well as radio frequency emissions, and would not likely apply to individual household use. Commissioner Fraser also expressed concern about the lack of a time-frame being specified in program LU-e regarding Paradise Drive annexation. Staff responded that a "prioritization" of program implementation is usually prepared immediately after general plan adoption, and this could establish a time frame. Commissioner Snow asked about the best way to implement goal LU-H regarding compatibility of construction in neighborhoods. He thought homeowner associations should playa larger role where they are active. Vice-Chairman Kunzweiler pointed out that the reference to ridgelines in Policy LU-15 was not specific. Bryant responded that he would review all references to ridgelines to ensure that it was clear which type or types ofridgelines [primary, secondary, etc.] were intended to be addressed by each policy. Vice-Chairman Kunzweiler suggested adding a reference to "minimizing visual impacts" with respect to wireless communication facilities in Policy LU-19. He also questioned use ofthe word "viable" in Policy LU-26, and suggested that "procedurally and economically viable" might be a more meaningful phrase. He clarified with staff about the "future annexation agreements" mentioned in Policy LU-32. Chairman Collins indicated that the Commission probably still had 2-3 hours worth of comments on the remaining elements yet to be covered. He suggested picking a follow-up date to continue the comments from the Commission. Tiburon Planning Commission Minutes No, 907 March 1, 2005 40f5 After discussion, it was moved, seconded, and approved to adjourn the meeting to March 10, 2005 at 7 :00 p.m., with the understanding that if that date did not work for Commissioners, a special meeting would need to be called. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. to an adjourned meeting to be held on March 10, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at Tiburon Town Hall. RICHARD COLLINS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY Tiburon Planning Commission Minutes No, 907 March I. 2005 50/5 MINUTES NO. 908 PLANNING COMMISSION March 9,2005 Special Meeting Town Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 3:40 p.m. Present: Chairman Collins, Vice-Chairman Kunzweiler, Commissioners Fraser, Hermann & Snow (arrived at 5:00 p.m.) Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director Anderson & Advance Planner Bryant ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: TIBURON 2020 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Chairman Collins announced that this was a continuation of the public hearing on the Draft Tiburon General Plan on March 1, 2005, and that the Commission would be proceeding through the document beginning with the Open Space Element, having completed its comments on the Land Use Element at the prior meeting. Chairman Collins opened the session to public comment. Randy Greenberg requested that the last sentence of policy OSC-12, regarding setbacks from secondary ridgelines, be deleted. Chairman Collins suggested that the "Figures" within the Plan be renamed "Diagrams", and that a List of Diagrams be included in the table of contents. The Commission proceeded to review the draft Open Space & Conservation Element on a page-by-page basis and made the following recommendations for revisions: ~ Policy OSC-4: Delete last sentence. ~ Policy OSC-5: Add "a minimum of' before "50%". Tiburon Planning Commission Minutes No. 908 (Special Meeting) March 9. 2005 lof3 ~ Policy OSC-6: Replace "superior" with something similar to "project which better meets the goals and policies of the General Plan". ~ Policy OSC-lO: Delete "new". ~ Policy OSC-l1: Delete "new". ~ Policy OSC-12: Delete last sentence. ~ Policy OSC-13: Include "utilities" along with roads. ~ Policy OSC-27: Add "strongly" before "discourage". ~ Policy OSC-29: Replace "development review" with "entitlement". The Commission suggested adding a policy to discourage excessive retaining walls, and a policy to encourage existing homeowner associations to also remove invasive species. It was noted that many of the written comments received from the public on this Element were beneficial. Staff was directed to include them as appropriate. The Commission moved on to its review of the Downtown Element. The following revisions were made: ~ P. 4-1: Delete reference to "suburban-style". .~ P. 4-4, Goals section: Add a goal relating to parking. ~ Goal DT-B: Replace "uses and limiting new tourist-based" with "and visitor- serving" . ~ Policies DT-3 and DT-4: Combine and address more generally as part of a Downtown commercial strategy. ~ Policy DT-13: Delete "and shall strongly discourage tourist-oriented uses". ~ Policy DT-15: Delete the policy. ~ P.4-8: Add a program regarding the strategic plan for Downtown. ~ Program DT-e: Combine with the new program regarding the strategic plan. ~ Program DT -j: Discussion was deferred until later in the meeting. The Commission moved on to review of the Circulation Element. The following revisions were made: ~ P. 5-5, Goals section: Consider adding a goal relating to Paradise Drive. ~ Goal C-C: Retain the wording of the existing General Plan Goal C-C except end it after the word "qualities". ~ Table 5.5-1 Roadway Designations: Delete the last column "Daily Traff.ic V olume" and add small examples of Local Streets. ~ Add a policy regarding beautification of the park and ride area near the Lyford Drive/Tiburon Boulevard intersection. ~ Policy C-8: Add "including working with the County of Marin". The Commission halted its review of the Circulation Element at Policy C-9 and returned to Program DT -j. Tiburon Planning Commission Minutes No. 908 (Special Meeting) March 9, 2005 2013 Jim Wheary and Steve Sears spoke on behalf of replacing this program with a new policy that more generically supports increasing pedestrian access to the waterfront. The Commission directed that Policy DT -j be removed and a new Policy DT -33A be created to read as follows: "When changes in property use and construction of major additions or substantial redesigns of new buildings allow, the Town should pursue the opportunity to provide increased pedestrian access to the waterfront along Main Street." At 7:30 p.m., the Commission adjourned its review until the end of its regularly scheduled meeting which was about to commence. The Commission returned to the General Plan review at 10: 15 p.m., but determined that due to the lateness of the hour, further discussion would not be fruitful at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. to an adjourned meeting to be held on March 23,2005 at 3:30 p.m. at Tiburon Town Hall. RICHARD COLLINS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY Tiburon Planning Commission Minutes No. 908 (Special Meeting) March 9. 2005 30!3 -; DRAFT MINUTES NO. 910 PLANNING COMMISSION March 23, 2005 Adjourned Meeting 3:30 P.M. Town Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California LATE MAIL # I CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 3:35 p.m. Present: Chairman Collins, Vice-Chairman Kunzweiler, Commissioners Fraser, Hermann & Snow Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director Anderson & Advance Planner Bryant ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: TIBURON 2020 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Chairman Collins announced that this was a continuation of the public hearing on the Draft Tiburon General Plan from the meeting on March 9, 2005, and that the Commission would be proceeding through the document beginning with P. 5-7 of the Circulation Element. Chairman Collins opened the session to public comment. There was none. The following revisions were made: ". Add a policy on P. 5-8 regarding the portion of Tiburon Boulevard near Lyford Drive (informal park and ride lot) for beautification as an entrance to Downtown. y P. 5-8, Policy C-15, added "for all uses" at the end of the sentence. ". Policy C-18, add a reference to multiple homes being served by a single roadway. ". Program C-b, add "and proposed" after new and "cumulative" before impacts. y P. 5-11, add a policy regarding bicycle and pedestrian safety committee and another policy encouraging alternatives to automobile travel. The Commission moved on to review of the Safety Element. The following revisions were made: Tiburon Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes No. 910 (Adjourned Meeting) March 23,2005 10f3 -; ~ P. 6-1, add a reference to Homeland Security responsibilities in the discussion of public safety agencies. ~ Goal SE-B, add text per the letter from Randy Greenberg dated 3/7/2005. ~ P. 6-6, modify the discussion of debris flow mudslides to reflect slopes between 25 and 40 degrees and include equivalent slope percentages. ~ Policy SE-6, change "help" to "actively encourage". ~ Add new policy regarding discouraging development in the path of debris flow mudslides. ~ P. 6-7 under flooding discussion, add language regarding tsunamis and rising sea levels. ~ Policy SE~16, replace "for fire~fighting purposes" with "to meet requirements of minimum fore flow". ~ Add a program to make the public more aware of the Peninsula's emergency preparedness plan and strategy. The Commission moved on to discussion of the Noise Element. The following revisions were made: ~ P. 7-2, add to the table a line item for tennis courts/outdoor recreation uses. ~ Goal N-A, substitute better wording for "acceptable limits". ~ Policy N-3, replace "should" with "will be required to". The Commission moved on to discussion of the Parks & Recreation Element. The following revisions were made: ~ Policy PR-9, add "increase" before enlarge. ~ Program PR-b, add "shoreline" after "recreation". ~ Policy PR-12, delete "as a whole". The Commission moved on to discussion of the Housing Element. The following revision was made: ~ P. 9-50, in the notes to the table, change "approximate" in the first line to "maximum". The Commission also wanted to convey their concern that seniors were being forced out of the community because of the high cost of housing. The Commission believed that creation of new affordable housing was important for changing this trend. The Commission commended Advance Planner Bryant on his exceptional work throughout the general plan update process and proposed that a resolution of commendation be drafted for consideration at the next meeting. Tiburon Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes No. 910 (Acijourned Meeting) March 23.2005 20f3 , .'.' Advance Planner commended the Planning Commission for their thorough review of the Public Review Draft and said that they can be proud of the legacy they have left the Town. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. ATTEST: SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY RICHARD COLLINS, CHAIRMAN Tiburon Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes No. 910 (Adjourned Meeting) March 23.2005 3013 ' Scott Pearson 40 Norman Way Tiburon, CA 94920 IVIAR 3 0 2005 March 29, 2005 Tiburon Planning Commission Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon, CA 94920 Attn: Kevin Bryant, Advance Planner RE: Comments to Tiburon 2020 General Plan Public Review Draft To the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission Staff: I wish to commend you on the superb work you have done in preparing the General Plan. I believe it reflects well the values of most Tiburon residents, as well as the character that makes our town such a special and unique place to live. I write to suggest a change to one item in the draft Plan: LU-19: Wireless communications facilities are discouraged from locating in residential or open space areas, or near schools or day-care facilities. As you doubtless know, cellular coverage in parts of Tiburon is poor to non-existent. We have no cellular coverage in parts of our home, and poor coverage along Paradise Drive. Cell calls are invariably dropped when crossing over Trestle Glen and when rounding the Peninsula from Paradise Drive to Tiburon Boulevard. By discouraging the location of wireless facilities in both residential and open space areas, you make it virtually impossible to improve the situation along Paradise Drive and Trestle Glen - since all land is either residential or open space. Today the problems that I write of are an inconvenience and a nuisance. But they will soon be much more. I have worked for over 10 years for America Online and its parent Time Warner. Based on my experience, I can say that we are at the dawning ofa revolution in wireless services that will dwarf in significance the advent of the internet 'that we have experienced to date. Wireless services that we cannot even imagine today will be essential aspects of modem life by the end of the General Plan period. By 2020, having weak or no wireless service will be at least the equivalent of having no broadband connection to~ay, and more likely t~e .equival.ent ofJ1~W...~o~~l~~f~Wte access or even no fixed-lme telephony or electncltyservlce I unn "UU.,\JIL LATEMAIL# ( MEETING DATE J-30.-or 1"!.1 in l.MI. Tiburon Planning Commission March 29,2005 Page 2 Therefore I urge you to consider a more flexible policy that will allow future planners to balance the advantages of wireless service with the reasonable health and aesthetic concerns of neighbors. For example, with respect to open space, why not permit wireless transmitters that are effectively concealed? And in residential neighborhoods, why not permit transmitters with the assent of neighbors within a certain radius? Keep in mind, wireless transmission facilities may look very different in ten or fifteen years. They may be much smaller and may emit different frequencies at lower power levels. Indeed, policy LU-19 could be interpreted as discouraging the WiFi transmitters that already exist in many Tiburon homes and schools. The General Plan extends fifteen years - a reasonably long time by most planning horizons, but several lifetimes in the world of computers and wireless data. I urge you to adopt a policy that gives the town more flexibility to adapt to a world of wireless services that we cannot yet foresee. Sincerely, Scott D. Pearson Jij) ~~ ~ ~ W~ rm lIlJ MAR 3 0 2005 W ,. General Plan Update for TC March 30, 2005 "tOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON Dear Fellow Council Members ,Below are changes I suggested to the GP Draft. Most are for clarity. Chances that reflect policy rather than clarity are marked with an octothorp (hash mark) Pg 1 -6: Table 1.5-1: 1. Table does not always show what the text interpreting - partially because age subsets are missing, partially because the table is arranged by percent changes that do not reflect differences in absolute #'s in all cohorts. a)e.g. Table does not show date for the cohort 45 to 54, yet text talks about predictions for 45 and up. b) e.g. Text talks about ages 15-44 shrinkage, but table does not show 15-partially because age subsets are missing Suggested Change: Correct or delete table. The text misses important data that the table shows: The percentage increase and often the absolute number of older folks is greater than that of kids. Drop outs are late teens and young adults? This reflects all of Marin County. Text should interpret the data more specifically: Suggested Change: If this demographie trend eORtmoos, A continuing increase in the number of youngest and oldest residents could have an impact......: #### 2 -14: LV -G: says to protect preserve and enhance existing neighborhood identity Why enhance? Sounds like that negates the other two verbs Suggested Change: Drop enhance LV-19pg2-17 Wireless Policy: The wireless facilities are located by someone, they don't locate themselves: Suggested Change: Wireless eammtmieatioRs faeilities Wireless Services are strongly discouraged from locating their facilities in residential or open space.... LV-19A: (NEW) Similar Suggested Change: Wireless services shall be required to minimize the visual impacts of their facilities to the maximum extent feasible. 5: r""~ m~ ~~ tirTI c:S:: ~> m..-- =-= tl' ...,.,!l d :E z n o c: z n - .... 1 , 2-18 LU 23: waterfront access ... Isn't policy about public access??? Does BCDC really encourage piers on mudflats on private property with no access from public property? Suggested Change: add public to all reference to BCDC approved water or bay access 2-17: LU -21: We will not be adding categories, we will be adding businesses Suggested Change: encourage addition of under represented retail and service categories -businesses to provide shopping opportunities #####Re: other goal: To increase sales tax revenue ?: Encouraging under represented business may be at odds with increasing sales tax revenues. i.e pharmacy. Sales tax revenue shouldn't be the guide when choosing businesses: Pits town self interest in revenue against needs of the residents for certain business when those businesses (pharmacy, gas station) are not as successful as others (restaurants). Suggested Change: Leave out sales tax revenue. OPEN SPACE POLICIES OSC-3: Uses of access should be added since some uses may be the basis of conforming to other programs, of specific funding . SUGGESTED CHANGE: town will secure access to those portions of open space most appropriate for public use for recreation, connections within and between neighborhoods, access to alternate modes of transportation such as pedestrian and bicycle ways, ferries and buses, pedestrian safety in areas with substandard roads and general mobility in times of emergency. See Also Circulation Element on pg 5-11, C-J, PR-9 or Safety Element for other possible placement of the text suggested above #### OSC-4: Public or private open space shall be permanently protected. . .. Regardless of whether we include the possibility of an overwhelming public good or not, some open space may be required by law to allow some public use under some conditions. I suggest we take the high road and make a firm statement about our expectations. Depending on answer to above Suggested Change: delete last line: Whc1'e {;l dear p'blblic benefit 19'1f:l}' be ae19'l81tstraled.... 2 .- Water and shoreline development OSC 15 - With exception of piers and docks approved by BCDC... 1 )BCDC should not have the last word re use. Sometimes there are view issues surrounding personal use piers and docks mud flats in east Tiburon too? Private use should be distinguished from public. 2) It might be in the Town interest to allow a new structure over the bay on one part of the property in exchange for demolition or a public use of another part of the property over the bay. ' ##f:f### Suggested Change: Maintenance and replacement of existing structures built over the water shall be allowed. With the elf0eptioa. of piers and doeks appro'led by the Bay Ceft5ervatioa. aad Develepmea.t Commissioa. (BCnC), Expansion of existing structures or construction of new structures over the water shall be prohibited. Exceptions to be considered are a) a public or private pier or dock that is approved by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and b) if such expansion is the only way pedestrian public access along the bay can be provided on a part of the existing or new structure. OSC-17: Pg 4-5(report) :3-9: Suggested Change: change impedes to impede (if barriers is the noun the clause modifies. Anyway, cut and impede should match re 's' OSC - 29: protect through entitlement (?) Suggested Change: Substitute permitting for the word "entitlement" OSC38A:minimize impact of retaining walls: is this simply a requirement to plant along them, or, to minimize planning to need them? Suggested Change: The visual impact of retaining walls and similar engineering elements shall be reduced to the maximum extent possible by minimizing their use in the improvements on the land and requiring appropriate plantings on such elements. Programs Pg 3-16 OP: OSC B: confusing needs rewrite Suggested Change: The town shall review all development applications that are submitted to the County and are within the Town's sphere of influence or areas of interest in order to encourage....... Pg 3-22: Suggested change: last line end with a superfluous "and" or, put in a separate paragraph where it belongs to function as a conjunctive for the bulleted elements listed. Pg 3-23: OSC 60A 3 .. Unclear re whether this is about open space or private residences. In either case, I disagree with the approach. Giving HOAs seeming authority is a recipe for conflict. I suggest the more persuasive and clarified change below: Suggested Change: The Town should encoilrage HOAs to disseminate information about the harmful effects of use of invasive exotic species in landscaping and to provide opportunities for residents to organize to remove them on open space. DT ELEMENT DT 3 : Pg 6 (report) 4-5 GP Actively promote the establishment (?) Suggested Changed: development of a commercial strategy. Pg 4 -4: Fri Nite on Main shows interest in making downtown a community center. May be confused with Community Center project so, change: Suggested Change: "a center of community activity" DT 28: 4- 10: Strongly encourage sidewalk use Although examples are given, there are some uses that should be strongly discouraged--- a plethora of sidewalk vendors of tourist trinkets, ersatz art, spillage of retail goods out onto the sidewalk --. Specify the goal of providing the outdoor spaces. ###### Suggested Change: Retail storefronts, outdoor spaces for community gatherings and uses such as sidewalk cafes are strongly" encouraged in order to make strolling along Tiburon Blvd a stimulating and enjoyable activity DT - h pg 4-11: Installation of sign: Gallows area should not be only consideration. The Gallows area is the introduction to a civic center plaza in the next 20 years. (Library expansion: Zelinsky Park, Town Hall). Other locations could be beautified parking at the end of Lyford, or other side of the street, at Sharkeys, etc. Leave all possibilities open. Suggested Change: Consider installation of a Downtown Tiburon Entry Sign at an appropriate location. DT 35 pg 4-12: The Town will support ferry service providers and encourage the use of ferries to reduce traffic and parking demand in downtown refers to visitors. Ferry Commuters often use parking downtown, and we should provide it. Suggested Change: to reduce visitor traffic and parking demand downtown. DT -J: ..... Note PC change from a program to a policy 4 ##### Suggested Change: When changes in use and construction of substantially redesigned new buildings allow, the town should pursue the eompletioR of Ii Downtown '.va.temoRt promeBade all oppportunities for waterfront pedestrian access along the full length of Main St....etc. Substantially similar to PC suggestion. DT-M pg 4 -12: : Designate bus parking spaces in the Tiburon Blvd pay parking lot at 1525 Tib Blvd Are we paving someone elses lot? Designate bus spaces: no engine running? Suggested Change: with signage discouraging motors left running. DT-t:pg 4.12: Is there really actual or possible public access from Teather Park to Judge's field? If not: drop this. CIRCULA TION C-C: Pg 5 -5 PC recommended delete traffic volume table, change text. Suggested Change: add to end of sentence as PC edited it: . . . .residential quality of life. ** Pg 5- 6:Top paragraph: still refers to neighborhood streets as those that carry fewer than 500 vehicles per day: That overstates the neighborhood burden and implies that uses that increase traffic might be compatible. Suggested Changes: 1) drop all references to traffic volume in text 2) Acknowledge existence of and any policies that apply for substandard streets and limits on solutions in intro text on 5-5 and 5-6 5-11 Circulation Element: Bay Trail: There are also neighborhood paths and trails that hook up with Tiburon Blvd, downtown Tiburon, and the Bay Trail. These serve functions that fit various elements of the GP, but I suggest staff guide the placement to avoid redundancy. Suggested Change: (See also PR-9) detail may belong there also (See also OSC 3, Circulation: C-J? and Safety (?) Bay Trail The Bay Trail. . .. Tiburon Blvd to Paradise Drive. 8fld there are otoor tra:ils saeR as those teund... .eOllBeet to too Bay Tra.il. 5 Other Trails and Paths: There are other Trails such as those found on Ring Mountain and smaller paths winding to andfrom the Bay Trail through neighborhoods that connect ultimately to Tiburon Blvd. These trails serve uses for recreation, connections within and between neighborhoods, access to alternate modes of transportation such as . pedestrian and bicycle ways, ferries and buses, pedestrian safety in areas with substandard roads and general mobility in times of emergency. Pg 5-13: Acknowledge Blue and Gold is also an important link for bicylists who bike the Peninsula). Sometimes so full (Fri or Sat PM?) that passengers have to stand to make room for bikes. Bikes standing in random places. Suggested Change: PIz add: and serves as ,a cross bay connection for bicyclists. C.J (new): to provide facilities and incentives to encourage non auto pedestrian travel (See also pg 5-11 under Bay Trai~ Safety element, PR - 9, etc) Suggested Changes: add the following at the end of the line . . for uses including recreation, connection to neighborhoods and alternate modes of transportation, and safety. C-15: Why not safety going both ways? Can we ensure safety? And will it ever be safe for bicycles? SUGGESTED CHANGES: The Town shall work with the County of Marin and LAFCO to secure safe and reliable access to and from the northeastern side of the Tiburon Peninsula along Paradise Drive. SAFETY ELEMENT SE. 6: SOCIAL (?) responsibility to repair unstable slopes: responsibility to the community??? Town shouldn't be mucking in social responsibility: Suggested Change: Civic ##### Emergency: The Town shall consider the use of trails and paths to provide mobility in times of emergency. PARKS AND RECREATION Pg 8-3 Grammatical Correction: last parag, last sentence: dangling modifier. As private facilities (referring to the four commercial recreation facilities in previous sentence), neither the Town nor the Recreation Department. ... (does not modify the nouns it is nearest) Suggested Change: Neither the Town nor the Recreation department has any role in influencing the recreation amenities or programs offered by these private facilities. 6 PR -B Goals: pg 8.5: The statement promising adequate facilities to meet future parks and recreation needs: Does this deal with the realities of what is available? SUGGESTED CHANGE: to address the needs Policies: ##### PR-6 pg 8-6: Blackies passive and informal. Silent as to uses of So Knoll area, path along waterfront, lineal pathway Suggest Preserve the bay front for passive use where appropriate SUGGESTED CHANGE: : Shoreline area traversing path in front of McKegney Green to end of south of the knoll park to provide continuity from Blackies Pasture and bayfront area of So. of Knoll Park are for passive and informal use. PR - 9: pg 9 report: 8-7 GP: . Ifnot in OSC 3, Circulation under Bay Trail text, or Circulation: C-J? or Safety SUGGESTED CHANGE: Town will continue to increase its network of public trails within the Planning Area for recreation, connections within and between neighborhoods, access to alternate modes of transportation such as pedestrian and bicycle ways, ferries and buses, pedestrian safety in areas with substandard roads and general mobility in times of emergency PR-b: See also PR9, OSC 3, Circulation under Bay Trail text pg 5.,.11 , or C-J, or the Safety Element Suggested Change: .. . .creation of easements and or trails that connect or continue to allow public access to recreation and open space areas, to the Bay Trail and connections within and between neighborhoods, to alternate modes of transportation such as pedestrian and bicycle ways, ferries and buses and to provide mobility in times of emergency. 7 r'---'--~--"---'--------"----'----~--- --- -~~._-_...~-: ~ ~d.. ht 6.. A ., .i- .i" l' , '.' (> .., . r ~ .;" i" ,d rl .__1 II. ,__ _~S 4)0 j ~ ___8In ~p<<)n~()...~hip ()pp(()rtunitie~ " "Friday Nights on Main" is an event to showcase the Tiburon, Main Street Business District. This community street party provides a place forTiburon and Belvedere residents to renew old friendships and spend quality time with neighbors and friends. r---:-~-:---'------------------~- -----------------~-----~--- --'-, , ~.d ~. ht' .r-~'r I v . ~ r I' "I ' _~ II I BY u 18 _ I ~S 4JO , The Main ~vent .) v Iln- I I I ~-j -----' .._! ~ Every Friday Night . May 6th to September 30th . 22 D'ates ~ Main Street Tiburon, CA IFri BY ~i.hts 4Jni Main! lE~tlmated Attendanfte :~'~=~"2]~!2:~=.~,=:~":~.. . ..... ......:.'==~~.z:=I.:] " 1,000 per event . Estimated 22,000 for 22 dates = May to September " I IF .d~- , ~.i.ht ". , r ~ r . I .0 ~/ r""l1!li,l~ JJ ,.~/S, CJnuln T asrflet [)emu!!lrilPh i(: · T~buron and Belvedere Residents · Population 13,048 e Average Family Income $240,943 · Average House Value $1;,020;,572 · Income over $200k = 30030/0 f-- --------------,-- -,----------,------ --- -_co ~ .)d' , ~.ahb' 'M ~ .1 -, 'I j ( (. ' -", , " _J ,I_laY j I.!.;_j~ J,sJ ()n 'l/__ IJn ~p()n~()rr~hip Catea()lrle~ . Corporate - $22~OOO . Major - $11,000 . Benefactor - $5,500 e Media - $5,500 . Friend - $2,750 ~ e;d' .Jah' t' ~... OJ .1' - ;r'- ! r ; < . I'r I .', '., I ; ,.. ~'- i I ( ~ ~I~__!a, I_~J .".d_~, ()n j i __"oln (:()RrP()l'"ate 'p()nS()1f l8enefits · Promotional exclusivity in category · Logo or corporate name incorporated into advertising publicizing events (print, radio, direct mail, table tents) · Prominent signage placed on Main Stm and on all signs and banners during event · Tent and display areas on Main St. · Inclusion in program book · Reserved sponsor table · Website inclusion · Cross promotional opportunities · Public relations support -.h I - ] . 11 ~~__I . ~ 4)0 j aiD Maj()r- Sp()n~()rr fl3enefit~ · Logo or corporate name incorporated into advertising publicizing events (print, radio, direct mail) " Prominent signage placed on Main Stm and on all signs and banners during event · Tented booth · Inclusion in program book · Website inclusion · Public relations support r:.~' ~d' ~.ih 'M" j , v I ' o. . r ' "-.> r I ,,/ -. / I I I _ . r 1 - _ /' 1 ' r ' _J _JL_.,ilY, il.~~i ~~.J ()n d Y H_.illn l3enefafCt()ir SpUn~()1r l3eneOu · Logo or corporate name incorporated into advertising publicizing events (print, radio, direct mail) · Prominent signage placed on Main St. and on all signs and banners during event · Inclusion in program book · Website inclusion (._---------~.- -- -.-- ----..- dc" ,. 'h' t' ... 1.._1 III.,~,_JJX ()n , .iIln . . Media Sp()n~()rr l3eneftt~ · In-kind sponsorship, $5,500 equivalent media trade · Logo or corporate name incorporated into advertising publicizing events (print, radio, direct mail) · Prominent signage placed on Main Sts and on all signs and banners during event · Inclusion in program book · Website inclusion i 'ht M~in i :,1 _i J .",' / ___..1 !_: t=triend~ ~p()n~()~ lBenefit~ · Logo or corporate name incorporated into advertising publicizing events (print, radio, direct mail) · Inclusion in program book · Website inclusion T' \H' fEr- \ [-- I -- -, -, -_>!!I!/ \. [ By MARILYN KESSLER It was a blast! Main Str~~1 threw" party Friday night and everybody came, In fael, th~ estimate of the crowd was abont 1,0110 local residents. The street, closed off to traffic, was ov~rflowing with smiling tfiends who found their neighbors, their former tennis partners, m~mbers of their book groups and sometimes, people they hadn't seen in years. The evening had the feeling of a joyful reulIion. Ev~ryollc seem~d glad to see each other. Children and family dogs added spirit to the ev~nt. Th< weather eo- operat~d and the crowd was reluctant to le<tve when the party was supposed to end at 9 p.m, All of the downtown restaurants p<tnicipated, serv- illg food to patrons at outdoor tables, One restaurateur told fhe Ark that Friday night was the husieRt night he had seen since the restaurant oren~d some 25 years ago. Two groups provided mu;k 'IUd the talleRl sailor on earth charmed the children as he pa..<tded around on stilts. The ev~ujng was the first of the "Friday Nights on Main Street." Subseljuellt Friday nighl festivities will Cuntilluecl all puge 121> Selling in Belvedere? Videotape Your Sewer Line By PRISCILLA TRIPP The City of Belvedere will soon begin enforcing a ,requirement that property owners get their sewer lat- erals videotaped before selling. A property owner must provide to the Public Works Department a current video of the sewer line that runs between his house and the street before the property is sold or exchanged, The city will begin enforcing the requirement - part of an amended residential building records ordinance - on October I. Based on the information in the tape, the city may require repairs or changes to the line. The ordinance was amended because of problems with cracked and leaking sewer laterals resulting in health hazards. It is a way of identifying actual and potential problems. It is a common requirement in other cities, former building official Mark Nolfi told the city council a few months ago when it was first discussed. The requirement may be waived by the city for all or part ofa lateral if taping is technically unfeasible. If you have any questions about the process, call the city at 435-3838. II Main Street... j' <II ,Continued from page 1 be on September 24, then October I, 8 and 15. The event is free, but restaurants are charging for the food and drinks, Residents are also"velcome to bring their own picnics. . Community members, have been meeting since January each Monday morning to kick around ideas on how to get more local people downtown. The eve- nings are a result of these meetings. And if the rest of the Frj~~Y!lig!Jts are 'lI1Ythinglike lastFriday; the ide. was a' great one: As one reveler noted, "This is Tiburon's answer. to Belvedere's concerts in the park." The Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of Commerce and the Town ofTiburonare sponsoring the evenings; with former Belvedere mayor Connie Wiley and Tiburon's Mary Catherine Bach chairingthe events, See you on Main Street this Friday, from 5:30 to 9 p,m. II ".....:.'Tli~/.:AlteJ1:~.'.;"~ptesel1t Tlie;..~R~I~: 0f"~'if~it Jim ~~d .Howard Alienor :::tbe'B~lve~ereLaodConi" ' :\; p~~y,r~~~!ved;~beSpirit~f' <:M~rhi,A..w8~1I18_st Friday", ';,aJ. iI :lii,lic~eonsponsored r,:~YAb~,,)~a~* ' of JYIarin .i.'!":.:t1t~)<gr()l1~ds of :li,t.- c",viD~el1t . SCbooIfoiBoys. :'t~e Iiel ,reLaod Coni- ~Ii~{ riJ,:l;l_~\:"~"l)r~il.'!-" Novelllber,. ':,bYi,!,~e:;n~"IonPeilj~~uJ!I ..., . CItl\IlI~e~;, .of..ColtJ merce ;~~10a~\~jft~1~:1~i~;l~:'" "'I!'. .(;:(,~ '('.:' .' Open Water Race.;. <II Continuedfrom page 9 time with a time of20:23. "I just waited till the end to. kick it in and it worked out in my favor," said Carvin, who also claims this will be his last race. For Brooke. the day was not as lucky. She finished second behind Sara McLary, whose, strategy of swimming 'ahead with the men paid off. The local swimmer with the fastest time was again, Bill. Price of Belvedere, who not only received the Mayor's'Cup,.foi this.h'llnoriout'also;,received:a secoM", award from the Special Olympics for his ,commitment to the cause. Price not only funded the fees, training costs, and transportation costs, of bringing the nine Special , Olympians here, he also sent letters to. many friends asking them to help support this cause and personally raised $150,OOO! "While many dedicated swimmers, including many past National and, Olympic winners (swam) that cbilly [ 1/4 miles across the Bay. it is the Special Olympics swimmers who are,.;n my mind the most worthy. as they have overcome extraordinary ob- stacles to compete in this race," said Price. , It was also impressive to see the young, local swim- mers out there for the first time - both Victoria Brown (age 12) and Nick Patina (age 11) were first timers who finished 3" in their age group. Their advice for other kids who may want to try this next year? , .. "It's really fun and not as hard as it looks - except you swallow a lot of water" said Nick. "Vou should warm up before. Hadvised,Victoria." b~~ irs .e~sjer ,to k~~Pd'l.xt,8~lir.,4!.~~~I"t,i:~?,:,!~~,~n}:,~b~~~ff.b~.,:;~~~~r.X~!~!~~~~g~~.:,~ goo a t eenu.' ',.'"" ',', -," For anyone involved in the event, 'feeling so good in the end 'would sum up the whole experience! For' those who missed the event, Fox Sports Net was there covering the entire show and will be airing the broad" " cast four times: Oct 10 and Z4" at 4:30 p.m. and:Oc!. 13 and 21" at 7 p.m. It will be great to see Tiburon'through the camera lens and get a chance to see all tbe people involved in this terrific event.. 1I When you have fabric-care questions, Phil & Mary have, the answers. 'I ! . Speak to a professional net just a counter person . Same day service at no extra charge. Martha, Bennie,.Grace, and Deily (AKA, The Ro.ad Trip Girls), are like mast residents o.f the Springfield Place Retirement Cemmunity-active and full ef liie, And they're free to. de what they want 'because we pre. vide the necessities-housekeeping, scheduled transpertatian. planned greup activities. and tasty restaurant-style meals. So feel free to. step by and take a leek areund. We leve visi- ters. Assisted Living services available. At Marin Cleaners. We Are At Your Service. 12 THE ARK. SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 SPRINGFIELD PLACE Cl- A LIiISUIlIi c.., AUlIi"Mli:MT COMMU"'rY 101 South Ely Blvd. Petaluma . (-707) 769-3300 Lie. 496800799. (i)