HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 1996-11-06
A ,fi7e,{
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF TIBURON
1101 TIBURON BL YD.
MEETING DATE:
MEETING TIME:
CLOSED SESSION:
NOVEMBER 6, 1996
7:30 P.M.
7:00 P.M.
PLEASE NOTE: In on:Ierto give all interested persons an opportunity to be heard, and to ensure the presentation of all points of
view, members of the audience should:
(1) Always Address the Chair; (2) State Name and Address; (3) State Views Succinctly; (4) Lim~ Presentations to 3 minutes; (5) Speak
Directty into Microphone.
In compliance wtth the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Town Hall
(415) 435-7373. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to
this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA nle II)
A. ROLL CALL
B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If any)
C. INTRODUCTION OF NEW TOWN EMPLOYEES
. DAN GONZALES - RESERVE OFFICER
. RON BRINDLEY - COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER
D. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Please confine your comments during this portion of the agenda to matters not already on this agenda, other
than items on the Consent Calendar. The public will be given an opportunity to speak on each agenda item
at the time it is called Presentations are limited to three (3) minutes. Matters requiring action will be
referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or Staff for consideration and/or placed on a
future meeting agenda.
E. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS. COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES
F. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONFERENCE - (Councilmember Hennessy)
G. CONSENT CALENDAR
The purpose of the Consent Calendar is to group items together which generally do not require discussion
and which will probably be approved by one motion unless separate action is required on a particular item.
Any member of the Town Council, Town Staff, or the Public may request removal of an item for discussion.
1) TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES - No. 1098, Oct. 2,1996 & No. 1099, Oct. 16, 1996-
(Adopt)
2) TOWN MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY - (Receive)
3) ACQUISITION OF HARROMAN PROPERTY - SIGNATURE AUTHORITY FOR
CLOSING DOCUMENTS - (Adopt Resolution)
4) DENIAL OF APPEAL BY AL & YVONNE MARTENS RE: 98 SUGARLOAF DRIVE-
(Adopt Resolution)
5) 1996 AYALA DAY COMMITTEE - APPRECIATION - (Adopt Resolution)
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6) NEW TOWN HALL & POLICE FACILITIES
A) Progress Report by Building Advisory Committee
B) Police Facility Program & Design Status
C) Building Advisory Committee Composition
D) New Town Hall Security & Fire Alarm System
7) FLOOD PLAIN PROPERTY ADJACENT TO NEW TOWN HALL & LillRARY -
Parks & Open Space Commission Request for Funding to Hire Landscape Architect
H. PUBLIC HEARING
8) APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL FOR DOG TRAINING FACILITY DECISION/HOME OCCUPATION
PERMIT - (35 Hacienda Drive; Janice Kase, Owner/Appellant - AP# 39-012-04)
I. NEW BUSINESS
9) HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM- Authorize Marin County Solid
Waste JPA to Implement Program - (Resolution)
10) TAXICAB TRANSPORTATION SERVICES - Approve Participation in Countywide
Mandatory Controlled Substance and Alcohol Testing Program - (Resolution)
J. COMMUNICA nONS
K. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
11) COUNTYWIDE RADIO SYSTEM FEASillILITY STUDY - Status Report - (Chief of
Police Herley)
12) NEW BEGINNINGS CAMPAIGN - (Hamilton Reuse Plan - Year-Round Residential &
Job Training Center for Homeless Adults)
13) PURCHASE OF BMR UNITS AT PT. TillURON MARSH - (Oral Status Report by
Town Manager)
14) TOWN ENGINEER'S ORAL STATUS REPORTS-
A) Elephant Rock Rehabilitation
B) Main Street ADA Issue
C) Downtown Municipal Ferry Dock Realignment
15) DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE - (Oral Report by Town Manager)
L, ADJOURNMENT
Future A 'Zenda Items -
Mayor & Vice Mayor Election - (November 20)
Corinthian Island Steps - (November 20)
Adopt Amended Application for Ferry Dock Realignment - (November 20)
Heritage & Arts Commission Proposal for Temporary Outdoor Art Exhibit at Shoreline Park -
Adopt Amended County Animal Control Ordinance -
NOTICE OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR HOLDING
CLOSED MEETING OF THE TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 54950 et seq., the Town Council will hold a
Closed Session. More specific information regarding this meeting is indicated below:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Section 54956.9a)
Name of Case: Gilbert Kucera, MD.. et al v. Tiberio Liua
(Marin County Superior Court No. 162731)
Name of Case: Harroman Comoanv. Inc. v. Town of Tiburon. et al.
(Marin County Superior Court No. 160899)
United States v. Stoneltill and Brooks
(N.D. Cal. No. 432-44fU.S. Court of Appeals No.
95-17019/ D.C. No. CV-95-43244-0MP)
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
~# /c.a)
lJ.~'.,."
1.': ~.
&( /'. ,"'
~"'g'i
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Wolf called the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon to order at
7:39 P.M. on Wednesday, October 2, 1996, in Council Chambers, 1101 Tiburon Boulevard,
Tiburon, California.
A. ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCll.MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
EX OFFICIO:
Ginalski, HeMessy, Thayer, Thompson, Wolf
None
Town Attorney Danforth, Chief of Police Herley,
Planning Director Anderson, Finance Director
Stranzl, Town Engineer Mohammadi, Town Clerk
Crane
B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If any)
Mayor Wolf announced that the Morales v. Town of Tiburon lawsuit had been settled for
$20,000, and that no action was taken on the other item discussed [Innisfree Companies v. Town
of Tiburon.]
Co PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
None.
D. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS. COMMISSION & COMMITTEES
1. Finance Advisory Committee - Formally establish Committee/Approve Goals & Structure.
Councilmember Ginalski asked to move the item to allow comments on the Budget Review
Process (Item No.4) first. Mayor Wolf said Item No.4 concerned only technical aspects of the
Town's budget and did not pertain to operations. Councilmembers Thompson and Thayer
concurred that they were two separate issues but agreed to hear the item after No.4.
F. CONSENT CALENDAR
2. Quarterly Update on FY 1996-97 Budget Adjustments - (Resolution).
3. Acceptance of Grant Deed - 11 Marsh Road - (Resolution).
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To Adopt Consent Calendar
Hennessy, Seconded by Ginalski
AYES: Unanimous
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 2, 1996
I
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4. Budget Review Process - Direct Town Manager & Department Heads to Study Department
Operating Budgets for Cost Savings.
Mayor Wolf said the committee previously appointed to study consolidation of police services had
been disbanded, and that Town Staff would come back to Council with a report about how to
further save money in the Spring, prior to the adoption of the next fiscal year budget.
Councilmember Ginalski suggested that it be specifically set forth that "we are not interested in
consolidating our police force with the County" in order to put the issue to rest.
During public hearing, Bill McKee, Point Tiburon, asked whether only the Department Heads and
Town Manager would be studying cost saving measures [rather than a committee].
Mayor Wolf answered affirmatively.
Hearing returned to Council.
Vice Mayor Thayer said he was tired of the controversy [concerning the police issue] and said it
was "absolutely manufactured and pulled out of thin air." Thayer stated that the Town should be
able to study anything it wanted because that was "what we ordinarily do anyway." He said the
only reason the item was on the agenda was because the Council had voted to continue the matter
to a later date.
Councilmember Thompson said the proposed police study was the Town [Council]'s attempt to
see how to make the taxpayer's dollars go further.
Councilmember Hennessy said she was the one who made the original motion to disband the
committee (charged with looking into consolidation with the Marin County Sheriff's Department).
She said the Town should look into possible cost savings and mergers with any department.
Hennessy said she had also suggested the possibility of sharing a detective with Belvedere. .
Mayor Wolf said the only reason the item was on the agenda was because the original motion said
it would be reconsidered on October 2. She confirmed that it was Town Staff's job to study cost-
saving ideas.
Mayor Wolf returned to Item No. I--Finance Advisory Committee.
Mayor Wolf said she and two Tiburon residents, Tom Leahy and Howard Robin, had met with
Town Manager Kleinert to discuss ways to present the Town's budget so that it was a more
workable document. Wolf said both Leahy and Robin had worked for or currently worked for
Arthur Anderson and had many years of experience with financial statements.
,L
Vice Mayor Thayer said he understood the committee would create a new budget format which
the Town Staff would utilize. Finance Director Stranzl said that the current fiscal year budget
format would not change but that a new format could be used the following year.
Charlie Higgins, residing off of Lyford Drive, said he had not spoken earlier during public
comment because the people in the audience did not understand what was going on with the
police study. He stated that the process was very disconcerting.
Mayor Wolf said the Committee was disbanded on August 7. Vice Mayor Thayer said "there will
be no [police] study."
Higgins withdrew his comments.
MOTION:
Moved:
To Appoint Leahy and Robbins to the Finance Advisory Committee
Wolf, seconded by Thayer
Councilmember Ginalski asked why there had been no interview process and said he wanted to
ensure that active citizens were on the committee and could have their concerns addressed. He
also questioned the meaning of the secondary goal of the committee of "periodic review and
recommendations of budget process and policies."
Vice Mayor Thayer said the idea [of the Finance Advisory Committee] had been Mayor Wolfs
goal for over a year, and the purpose of the committee was to focus on a specific kind of
information, for example, flow charts. Thayer said it was important to have people on the
committee who had a particular kind of expertise but stated he would be happy to interview other
candidates if they had this expertise.
Mayor Wolf reiterated that it was a technical committee which would look into how to state
information on the budget. Councilmember Hennessy said it would not be another "FORC"
[Financial Oversight & Review Committee].
Finance Director Stranzl said instead of a budget format the Town would develop more of a
"Town Financial Report" which would explain what was going on with the Town's resources.
Mayor Wolf called a vote on the Motion:
AYES:
NOES:
Hennessy,Thompson, Thayer, Wolf
Ginalski
~
5. Downtown Ferry Dock Realignment - Review Town Engineer's Conceptual Plan.
Town Engineer Moharnmadi presented three drawings which were alternatives to the plans
presented at previous hearings (in 1995). Drawing No.1 reduced the size of the dock but still
encroached on Town property; Drawing No.2 changed the point of access and moved it closer to
Tutto Mare restaurant; Drawing NO.3 would move the dock entirely onto a parcel owned by
Zelinsky/Abrams with a 60' clearance from the Angel Island dock. Mohammadi said the latter
alternative would have the least view impact for Point Tiburon residents.
Moharnmadi said if Council approved his continued work on the project, the next step would be
to meet with the Pt. Tiburon Property Owners' Association and Zelinsky to explore the options
and develop more information.
Mayor Wolf said the 60' clearance was the minimum clearance needed between the proposed
dock and Angel Island Ferry dock.
In response to a question from Vice Mayor Thayer, Town Engineer Mohammadi said the Angel
Island Ferry dock was over 100' in length and that the proposed dock would be a little shorter
than that.
In response to a question from Councilmember Hennessy, Moharnmadi said the proposed barge
[dock] fenders were no more than 7' off the water and the barge itself would be no higher than 3'
off the water.
Councilmember Ginalski asked ifthere were docking rights and privileges attached to the tide lots
in front ofTutto Mare. Mohammadi said if there were, he thought they could an easement could
be negotiated with the property owner (Zelinsky).
Councilmember Hennessy asked that the walkway in front of Guaymas restaurant which was
dedicated to Councilmember Thompson's father be preserved.
During public hearing, Tom McCleran, 303 Paradise Drive, Pt. Tiburon, said it was the position
of the Bayside Homeowners' Board to get a clear statement of intent from the Town not to
convert any of the land [deeded by Innisfree to the Town] to any other use (other than that
specified by the deed), and that proposals 1 and 2 were not good for that reason. He stated that
the proposed dock was seven times the size of the existing dock and there would be problems
with docking the ferry and the narrowness of the Corinthian Yacht Club access.
Bill McKee, Pt. Tiburon, said the unknown size of the barge was still an issue, and said that
housings, awnings, and wind breaks, which had not yet been discussed, would block the views.
Council said these items were not being considered tonight. Town Engineer Mohammadi said he
would not have a more detailed design until after he met with Zelinksy, Pt. Tiburon residents, and
other interested parties.
~
Councilmember Hennessy encouraged the residents of Pt. Tiburon to keep an open mind and said
that it would be safer for the ferry to be able to dock in the open space lots.
Councilmember Ginalski said the intent of the original proposal was to alleviate paying Zelinsky a
montWy fee (for the current dock location) and ADA considerations. He said Alternates No. 1
and 2 did not work and that Alternate NO.3 would be on Zelinsky's property.
Ginalski also cited Land Use Element 15 of the Town's Zoning Ordinance which regulates traffic.
He said the new proposal was "creating a boat parking lot, and would invite more and larger
boats. "Ginalski said that any change to the General Plan should be placed on the ballot.
Vice Mayor Thayer stated that he did not want to change the character of the Town. However,
he said he was willing to explore alternatives and that it was only prudent, especially when
funding was available. He said it was important to have ferry access for the future, especially
since there had already been two major disasters in the area, the Loma Prieta Earthquake and the
closures of Highway 101 due to mudslides, both of which had created major transportation
problems.
Thayer said he was delighted that Town Engineer Mohammadi was willing to work on the project
and with the interested parties to find a solution.
Councilmember Thompson said he had voted against the project originally because the dock was
too big and it would have encroached into Town open space. He stated he was happy that
progress was being made but that the (proposed) dock was still too long.
Thompson said ADA (American's with Disabilities Act) was a moral obligation, and that ferry
traffic would increase but that it was a good choice of transportation for the future. He
encouraged Town Engineer Mohammadi to build a coalition with the interested parties.
Mayor Wolf said she concurred with her fellow councilmembers, but said she would prefer a safer
clearance, especially during difficult weather.
Council directed Mohammadi to proceed.
6. New Town Hall Facilities--Continued Discussion of Change Orders.
A majority of Council rejected the proposal for air conditioning (estimated cost of$35,000).
Chair Wilson said the contract currently included refrigerant piping in the building, but that
concrete pads, cooling coils and the condensers would have to be purchased if NC were to be
added later. Councilmember Hennessy continued to urge installation of the NC up front.
Council limited the proposed security system to the installation of some wiring and possible
motion detectors. Bruce Ross said the project architect thought the proposal before Council was
o
"monumental overkill" and recommended looking at other sources.
Council agreed to defer the installation of the Wood Slat Acoustic Tile in the Council Chambers
(estimated cost $26,500). Wilson said the cost might go down jfit were installed later, separate
from the construction contract.
Councilmember Ginalski asked about a letter to the editor in the Marin Independent Journal
which claimed the project was $400,000 over budget. Project Team member Wilson said Council
was aware that the contract was $80,000 over the architect's original estimate, and that Council
had previously approved a $125,000 contingency. He said the project was not over budget and
had not used all of the contingency funds.
Mayor Wolf asked for a future report showing how much of the contingency fee remained after
taking into account the currently-approved change orders. Wilson said the items still outstanding
were: furniture, millwork, security system, sound system, wiring for telephone and computers,
landscaping and irrigation, and architect and inspection fees.
H. PUBLIC HEARING
None.
I. NEW BUSINESS
7. 1996-97 Town Budget Adjustments. Council agreed to approve the purchase ofa Steam
Cleaner for Public Works in the amount of $4,020, cost to be shared equally with Richardson Bay
Sanitary District. Council also approved a budget allocation of an estimated $3,800 for the
Planning Department to participate with the County in an orthographic and GIS mapping project.
MOTION:
To adopt Resolution Authorizing Participation in the Countywide
Mapping Project through the Marin Street Light JPA
Thompson, Seconded by Thayer
AYES: Unanimous
Moved:
Vote:
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To join with Richardson Bay Sanitary District to Purchase a Steam Cleaner
Thompson, Seconded by Hennessy
AYES: Unanimous
J. COMMUNICA nONS
8. Letter to Town Council from Vista Tiburon Property Owners' Association. Council directed
Town Staff to continue to enforce the agreement already in place which required the Association
rather than individual homeowners to maintain the grove of trees in question. Planning Director
Anderson said the Town had the authority to require that tree work be done and lien the lots if the
Association's work was not up to par. Council also directed Anderson to send a letter to the
Association clarifying and reiterating the agreement.
b
K. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
9. Sale of Red & White Fleet to Blue & Gold Fleet. Council discussed an article in the SF
Chronicle which noted the Attorney General's office had objected to the pending sale of Red &
White fleet to Blue & Gold. While noting that it could not interfere in a private business
enterprise, Council agreed to send a letter to the PUC stating the Town's interest in maintaining
ferry service to Tiburon.
L, ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Wolf
adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m., sine die.
NICKY WOLF, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
:j
_4,.~
:"
:: la
..........._~
/
--- --Z
~ ~ 1(6)
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
DR4J:r
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Wolf called a special meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon to order at
7:30 P.M. on Wednesday, October 16, 1996, in Council Chambers, 1101 Tiburon Boulevard,
Tiburon, California.
A. PROCLAMA nON - MAYOR FOR THE DAY
1) Mayor Wolf introduced Mackenzie O'Donnell, Fourth Grader at Bel Aire School, and read a
proclamation in her honor, and also declaring her "Mayor for the Day" in Tiburon.
B. SWEARING IN CEREMONY
Mayor Wolf steeped down and Miss O'Donnell was sworn in as Mayor Pro Tempore by Town
Clerk Crane.
C. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
EX OFFICIO:
Ginalski, Hennessy, Thayer, Thompson, O'Donnell
None
Town Manager Kleinert, Town Attorney Danforth,
Chief of Police Herley, Lt. Aiello, Planning Director
Anderson, Associate Planner Borba, Town Clerk
Crane
D. PUBLIC OUESnONS & COMMENTS
None.
E. PUBLIC HEARING
1) Proposal for Foal at Blackie's Pasture. Mayor O'Donnell said she thought it would be a good
idea to "bring back Blackie" in the form of a foal at the pasture. She proposed that volunteers
from the Children's Animal Care Center and 4-H Club could care for the foal.
Councilmember Thompson said it was a great idea and that Blackie was a symbol of the
community.
Vice Mayor Thayer said it was a great idea but proposed a small foal sculpture instead. Mayor
O'Donnell said it was not like the "real thing."
Vice Mayor Thayer recommended that the Planning Commission give the proposal further study.
Councilmember Ginalski said the Heritage & Arts Commission should also study the idea.
Town Council Minules No. 1099
October 16, 1996
1
Councilmember Hennessy said the Parks & Open Space Commission should be included,
particularly since they had been involved in the previous proposals for Blackie's Pasture.
MOTION:
To refer the proposal for a Foal at Blackie's Pasture to the appropriate
Commissions and Town Staff for further review.
Moved:
Vote:
Hennessy, Seconded by Thayer
AYES: Unanimous
F. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon, Mayor Pro
Tempore O'Donnell adjourned the special meeting at 7:45 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Wolf called the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon to order at
7:46 P.M. on Wednesday, October 16, 1996, in Council Chambers, 1101 Tiburon Boulevard,
Tiburon, California.
A, ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
EX OFFICIO:
Ginalski, Hennessy, Thayer, Thompson, Wolf
None
Town Manager Kleinert, Town Attorney Danforth,
Chief of Police Herley, Lt. Aiello, Planning Director
Anderson, Associate Planner Borba, Town Clerk
Crane
B, ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If any)
Mayor Wolf said that no action had been taken in closed session.
C, PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Henry Herold, 6 Marsh Road, asked Council to correct a Staff Report that he claimed was
personally damaging to him regarding the trimming of trees at Pt. Tiburon Marsh. Councilmember
Hennessy said that Mr. Herold had a civil suit against the Marsh Homeowners' Association and
that it was not within the Council's purview to get involved in this litigation.
D. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMISSION & COMMITTEES
Mayor Wolf said Marylyn Siewert had applied for reappointment to the Planning Commission for
a third term. Wolf said there were candidates who had been previously interviewed and other
residents who were interested in the position and suggested scheduling interviews.
Councilmember Thayer said there was no need for interviews and that Marylyn had done a
splendid job. Town Attorney Danforth said the discussion should be agendized. Mayor Wolf
directed that the item be placed on the November 6 agenda.
Town Council Minutes No.1 099
October 16,1996
2
E. COUNCIL, COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Ayala Day - Belvedere Sports Challenge. Councilmember Hennessy reported that there were
sufficient volunteers and that $4,000 worth of raffle tickets had been sold. Councilmembers
Thayer, Ginalski and Thompson said they would represent Tiburon at the Volleyball game.
F. CONSENT CALENDAR
Council added Item No.9, Downtown Parking Counts Study Results for 1996 - Receive.
2) Town Council Minutes No. 1097, September 18, 1996 - Adopt.
Mayor Wolf made a correction to p. 7, discussion of FY96-97 budget. Councilmember Hennessy
said former Councilmember Ellinwood was not a former Mayor as stated in the Minutes. She also
added a sentence stating her continued support of air conditioning for the new Town Hall.
3) Determination of Appeal for Building Permit for 185 Gilmartin Drive - Adopt Resolution.
4) Amicus Curiae Requests - Ehrlich v. Culver City; Edwards v. City of Santa Barbara _
Recommend Approval.
5) Traffic Safety Committee Minutes - September 24, 1996 - Receive.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt Consent Calendar, as amended.
Hennessy, Seconded by Thayer
AYES: Unanimous
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7) COPS (Citizen's Option for Public Safety Program) - Proposed Use of Grant Funds.
Chief of Police Herley said the new proposal for laptop computers would allow the Tiburon
Police Department to join a countywide program and computerized record system. He said it was
a better use of the funds than the in-car video cameras previously proposed.
ChiefHerley said the proposal called for six computers--three in cars, one spare, one in the Police
Station and one to the Detective. Lt. Aiello said the access fees would be less than $1200 per
year.
Councilmember Thompson said he was disappointed because he thought the video cameras were
an excellent idea.
MOTION:
To adopt recommendation for use of COPS funds to purchase laptop computers
and to join the County records system.
Moved:
Vote:
Ginalski, seconded by Hennessy
AYES: Ginalski, Hennessy, Thayer, Wolf
NOES: Thompson
J. COMMUNICATIONS
11) Town Hall Security System. ChiefHerley said he thought the proposal by Security Alarm
Company for the new Town Hall was appropriate and a very low price for the security of public
Town Council Minutes No. 1099
October 16, J 996
3
records and office equipment.
Mayor Wolf said the Council was concerned about the possibility offalse alarms. ChiefHerley
said that if people were properly and the system was installed properly, there should not be a
problem. He also said the type of security system proposed was helpful to officer safety as the
monitors pinpointed precisely were a break-in would be occurring.
In response to a question from Council, Town Manager Kleinert said there had not been any
break-ins at the (current) Town Hall, but said the building was located next to the Police Station
whereas the new one would not be.
Councilmember Ginalski said Council had previously approved the wiring for the system and two
motion sensors and was concerned about authorizing funds for the new Town Hall in a piecemeal
fashion.
Councilmember Hennessy recommended securing the Staff work areas, so that commissioners
coming in and out of the building to pick up their packets after hours would not set off the alarms.
MOTION:
To approve the proposal of Security Alarm Company as presented, customized to
Staff Areas.
Moved:
Vote:
Hennessy, seconded by Thayer
AYES: Hennessy, Thayer, Wolf
NOES: Ginalski, Thompson
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6) Discussion of Senior Housing Options at Ned's Way. Councilmember Hennessy introduced
real estate developer Skip Berg. Berg said his goal was to inform the Town Council how to make
a deal in the Town's own financial interest. He said a buyer looks for weaknesses in a seller who
is pressed or uninformed.
Berg valued each of the 25 lots at $60,000 for a total revenue of$1.5 Million. He said the Town
would become the banker and joint venturer in development of the project, and would pay off the
money it advanced first to the construction loan, then the land, and finally it would split the profits
with the developer of the project.
Councilmember Thompson said the proposal was a "real world plan" but that the Town needed to
come up with the cash to build the police station first.
Mayor Wolf said if the Town used Redevelopment Agency funds to subsidize seven low-income
units, it would reduce the profits of the Town to $900,000. Town Attorney Danforth said the
Town could borrow against the money without interest for up to 18 months.
In response to a question from Council, Berg said the proposal did not include development of
Town Council Minutes No.1 099
October 16, 1996
4
common areas, but that the units would contain "top of the market" appliances.
Councilmember Hennessy said the proposal was her response to the idea of selling the land to a
developer and asked Town Attorney Danforth whether the Town could do so.
Danforth said that making a profit for the Town was not precluded as long has it had a greater
purpose. Danforth said a question remained whether the proposal followed the mandate of the
ballot measure to build a police station or whether developing the senior housing first would
defer the Town's ability to do this. She said more research was needed on both issues.
Skip Berg said there would be no long-term debt since the Town could pay off the loan as the
units were sold.
During public comment, Larry Livingston, Senior Housing Advisory Committee ("SHAC")
member, asked whether the construction cost figures were adequate to cover community facilities,
landscaping and enclosed parking.
Berg said the proposal did not include underground parking, but if added, the profits would fall
$300,000 - 400,000.
Councilmember Thayer expressed concern about referring the Berg proposal to SHAC since that
committee had insisted in the past that the project needed 75 units to be profitable.
SHAC members Livingston and Hank Bruce both said they would like to hear Berg's proposal
and stated that Chair Smith had been positive about it, as well.
Kam Shadan, Design Review Board member, said the proposal was "noble" but thought the build-
out costs would be higher than $100 per square foot. He also questioned whether the Town
would be able to realize its profit in 18 months because of the risk of 100% financing. He
suggested that the Town be a limited partner and not assume so much risk.
Council thanked Berg for his work and asked him to meet with SHAC, and for SHAC to come
back to Council as soon as possible. Town Attorney Danforth suggested that the Town give the
land to the Redevelopment Agency and let the RDA, which she said had more flexibility, do the
deal.
Mayor Wolf directed Staff to do more research and look closely at the numbers.
H, PUBLIC HEARING
8) Appeal of Design Review Board Decision for an Addition Requiring a Variance and Floor Area
Exception - 98 SuglarloafDrive. Associate Planner Borba said the Applicant, Georgia May, had
received approval for the addition in July and September, 1996. She said the Appellants, Mr. &
Mrs. Martens, had no permit applications yet for construction on their lots.
Town Council Minules No. 1099
Oclober 16,1996
5
Borba said the FAR exception was only 88 square feet. She said the Design Review Board had
no major concerns but that the Board had asked the applicant to make a compromise so that both
parties could share the view in question. She further stated that the Board found the addition
was in scale with the site and surrounding properties and was substantially in conformance with
the Town's Hillside Guidelines.
AI Martens, owner of97 Sugarloaf, said he had offered four compromises to Mrs. May and that
he would still like to see the addition pushed back.
Hank Bruce, Architect representing the Martens, said his clients did not want to thwart or prevent
May's design goals, but instead sought a compromise. Bruce said he had concluded that the
Martens had legitimate concerns with the proposal and that he was perplexed by the Design
Review Board decision. Bruce stated he thought the decision did not meet the tests needed to
grant a variance under the Town's zoning ordinance, including special circumstances and
unnecessary hardship. He said there were other practical alternatives and existing vegetation
which could screen the project. He said May's proposal relied on building in the front yard set-
back and the FAR exception would be okay if the addition were relocated. Bruce also said that
[Design Review Board member and architect] Miles Berger had agreed with him on these points.
Bruce urged Council to uphold the appeal if the findings for the exceptions could not be made and
because further compromise was possible.
Councilmember Thompson noted that Miles Berger did not vote on the project in question
because he was working on a project next door.
Michael Heckmann, architect representing Georgia May, said his client wanted the addition in
order for her son and daughter to move in with her. He showed Council various drawings which
demonstrated that the view blockage in question was to the North of the Martens home, and was
a secondary view from the back of the house. Heckmann said that Mrs. May had made
compromises during the approval process but that the addition was not adverse. He further stated
that the Martens property actually looked over the addition.
Kam Shadan, Vice Chair of the Design Review Board, confirmed the Board found no major
problems with the project but had wanted the neighbors to work out a compromise. In the
second hearing on the project, Shadan said the Board approved the project on a 3-0 vote, with
Miles Berger abstaining.
With regard to the views, Shadan said the Town's guidelines state they should be preserved
"within reason," and that some views might be impacted when new buildings are constructed.
While recognizing the value of views to the value of a property, Shadan said in this instance he
thought it was a small compromise to be made to be neighborly.
Hank Bruce rebutted by saying that the Martens purchased their property not just to look at views
from the South and that alternatives still existed.
Town Council Minules No. 1099
October 16, 1996
6
Mr. Martens said that they had offered solutions but were turned down. He further stated that he
had limited his own project to preserve other neighbors' views.
Hearing returned to Council.
Councilmember Ginalski wondered whether there was any problem with increasing a non-
conforming use. Planning Director clarified that it was a structure, not a use, and the Design
Review Board had the authority to grant a variance.
Vice Mayor Thayer said the situation demonstrated just how "tissue thin" questions of view
blockage and rights of view were in Tiburon. He said the Design Review Board members were
experienced and had exercised appropriate judgement and had tried to preserve the view interests
of all parties. Thayer said he would vote to deny the appeal.
Councilmember Thompson said that based upon his tour of the Martens' lot, the addition would
only block a small view segment from Richmond to El Cerrito, and that he would vote to deny the
appeal. He suggested that Mrs. May cut a grove of pine trees that blocks other views. Mrs. May
said she had offered but that her neighbors had not taken her up on her offer.
Councilmember Ginalski said everyone had worked hard on the compromises and he would vote
to deny the appeal.
Councilmember Hennessy said Mrs. May had the right to develop her property the way she saw
fit and that she did not approve of neighbors making suggestions.
Mayor Wolf said she would also vote to deny the appeal.
MOTION:
To deny the appeal of the Design Review Board Decision for an Addition
Requiring a Variance and Floor Area Exception at 98 SugarloafDrive; Staff
To Prepare Resolution of Findings.
Moved:
Vote:
Thayer, Seconded by Ginalski
AYES: Unanimous
I. NEW BUSINESS
10) Wireless Communication Facilities - Consider Planning Commission Recommendations and
Temporary Moratorium. Planning Director Anderson said that there was an explosion of growth
in the industry and that the traditional approach of reviewing applications for antennae on a case-
by-case basis no longer worked without some kind of guidelines.
Anderson said the Planning Commission supported formulation of countywide guidelines for the
installation of such facilities, and that the Town should support the new technology but ensure
that the Town's appearance guidelines and safety of its citizens were enforced. Anderson further
stated that the Commission supported the moratorium which it thought would be passed by the
Town Council Minutes No. 1099
October 16, 1996
7
County Board of Supervisors, and in fact had been voted down the previous day.
Councilmember Ginalski asked ifthere would be a problem if the Council dissented on a County
decision. Town Attorney Danforth answered negatively.
In response to a question from Council, Planning Director Anderson said there were two
applications currently pending--one for an antenna on the water tank on Sugarloaf, and two
antennae proposed at the end of Via Los Altos.
During public hearing, Heinz Lump, representing Sprint, said the latter two applications belonged
to his company and were not yet complete. He said Sprint's primary goal was to locate antennae
on tanks, not in residential areas. He further stated that the issues of health and safety had "been
studied to death" and that a moratorium was not necessary because issues could be resolved by
working with the County and Town Staff.
Lump said that the Planning Commission had done an excellent job in developing policies, and
that Commissioner Greenberg had thought through the issues very well.
Hearing returned to Council.
Councilmember Thompson said he was not in favor of a moratorium and stated that he did not
want to send a message to companies that they cannot get anything done in Marin County.
Vice Mayor Thayer said he was in favor of sensible planning and concurred with Commissioner
Greenberg's comments to "call a halt to piecemeal installation in the absence ofa Countywide
Plan." Thayer said it would not accomplish a lot to have a Town moratorium if the County
Supervisors had voted against it, but urged the Town Staff and Commissions to study the
situation carefully because a piecemeal sale would be neither aesthetically nor economically
favorable to the Town.
Councilmember Ginalski said that as Tiburon' s representative to the Countywide Planning
Agency, he concurred that the issue required Countywide planning. He further stated that if
approvals were made, the Town should require applicants to comply with future County or Town
requirements. Ginalski said he would vote in favor ofa moratorium.
Councilmember Hennessy said she would support a temporary moratorium.
Mayor Wolf said she would not support a moratorium and that the Planning Commission was able
to handle the current applications which would not impede the ultimate "grand plan."
MOTION:
To Adopt Planning Commission Recommendations stated in the
Town Council Staff Report, as follows:
Town Council Minwes No. 1099
October 16, 1996
8
That the Town Council support the efforts of the Planning Directors and
MCPA to develop guidelines or regulations (or a unified planning
approach) for review of wireless communications facilities.
That the Town of Tiburon support the technology being provided, while
using its regulatory authority to ensure appropriate location, appearance,
and safeguards with respect to WCF's.
That the items included in Commissioner Greenberg's memorandum of
10/9/96 (Exhibit D [attached]) be addressed during the policy development
process.
Moved:
Vote:
Thayer, Seconded by Thompson
AYES: Hennessy, Thayer, Thompson, Wolf
NOES: Ginalski
K. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
In response to a question from Town Manager Kleinert, Council indicated its desire to continue to
receive monthly police statistics on the Consent Calendar.
Mayor Wolf said that October 24 was United Nations Day and asked that a UN flag be flown that
was being presented to the Town.
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon, Mayor Wolf
adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m., sine die.
NICKY WOLF, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
Town Council Minutes No. 1099
October 16, 1996
9
....~ '.,
'..:'~~
;.:':::~"":~'" :::;= ;.: ;:\.,; l-~O~J
OCT - 9 1996
TO:
FM:
DATE:
RE:
Planning Commissioners & Staff
Randy Greenberg C:;:' ;:T:I ;:f'f, Or-
10/9/96 ('L,~."..r.'. " .'" ._, ~'-'I:-"-
\J . '~'-/L:!..'..JI"";\, ;t:CJ'
Issnes to be addressed in telecommnnications policv - amonl! others:
1. Protectionlmigitations for visual impacts
2. Fail-safe policy to allow quickly stopping transmission if health findings indicate
meaningful threat.
3. Require updating with new, improved technology (lower visual impacts, lower EMF's,
sharing of transmission facilities between providers)
4. Cooperative effort with providers to understand their needs for a countywide system -
in terms of placement, frequency of placement, ht., etc.
5. If a Countywide plan could be created and adopted by all cities and the County, permit
fees and any facility revenue should be shared by all, from all installations. This is
because the systems and benefits derived from telecommunications systems are shared
throughout the County. Revenues should be earmarked for related telecommunication
items, i.e. city web page technical support, hardware, etc.
6. Importance of coordination with other cities and the County (Countywide Planning
Agency might be appropriate vehicle)
. to avoid duplication of services
. to avoid unnecessary exposure to EMF's
. to make easier servicing of telecommunication facilities
. to make easier access to telecommunication facilities
. to generate revenue to allow for independent oversight and study
. to enhance negotiating ability with providers
7,
< , I ..h (h_-, ~K S-h...i7 +~,(./J,'" '- ~ ({ ut.,j t.-'; ~~
..-J "\J'-'h..~~}(... ~ I
.-(-k (Jt ,-~; +.
.
emfant96.3
~XHIBIT NO.--D-
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
To:
From:
Subject:
TOWN COUNCIL Meeting:
FINANCE DIRECTOR Item No:
MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY STATEMENT
AS OF AUGUST 31,1996
NOVEMBER 6, 1996
:<
1. TOWN OF TffiURON
Institution! Agency
Amount
Interest Rate
Maturity
State of California $6,749,490 5.566% Liquid
Local Agency Investment
Fund
Total Invested: $6,749,490
2. TffiURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Institution! Agency
Amount
Interest Rate
Maturity
State of California $958,261 5.566% Liquid
Local Agency Investment
Fund
Total Invested: $958,261
Notes to tables:
. State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LA1F) - The interest rate represents the
effective yield for the month referenced above. The State generally distributes data reports in the
third week following the month ended.
. Acknowledgment: This summary report accurately reflects all pooled investments of the Town of
Tiburon and the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency, and is in conformity with State laws and the
Investment Policy adopted by the Town Council. The investment program herein summarized
provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet next month's estimated expenditures.
BY:
~~
Richard Stranzl, Finance Director
October 16, 1996
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: November 6,1996
FROM:
TOWN ATTORNEY
ITEM NO.
3
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS
RELATING TO THE ACQUISmON OF THE HARROMAN PROPERTY AND
AFFIRMING THE VALIDITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
COVERING A PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BACKGROUND
On January 15, 1995, the Town of Tiburon, the Marin County Open Space District and the
Harroman Company, Inc., entered into an agreement for the purchase of the 102 acres commonly
known as the Harroman Property. The seller was and continues to be represented by a court-
appointed receiver, John Collette. Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, the sale price
of the land is $6,800,000. At close of escrow, the seller is to receive $3,500,000 in case, a
promissory note for $3,300,000 and, as security for the promissory note, a deed of trust on a
portion of the Harroman Property (described in the Purchase Agreement as the "Developable
Area") and a Development Agreement that would allow the seller to develop fourteen lots on the
Developable Area in the event that the Town defaulted on the note and the seller reacquired the
Developable Area. In addition to the property, the Town will receive a dismissal with prejudice
of the seller's lawsuit against the Town, Harroman Company, Inc , v. Town of Tiburon.
As provided by the Purchase Agreement, the Town approved a Precise Plan and Development
Agreement for the Developable Area on May 23, 1995. Under its terms, the Development
Agreement became effective on June 23, 1995. The Development Agreement was executed on
behalf of the Town by then-Mayor Andrew Thompson and held, all parties contemplating a quick
closing. However, the close of escrow on the property was delayed for a substantial period of
time by the institution of litigation against the federal receiver by the principals of the seller. The
plaintiffs in that action obtained a stay from first the federal District Court and subsequently the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs' claims have been rejected by both the District
Court and the Court of Appeals and on October 16, 1996, the lower court ordered the receiver
to proceed with the sale of the Harroman Property.
ANALYSIS
The title company for the transaction, First American, has requested that the closing documents,
including the Note, Deed of Trust and Escrow Instructions, be signed by the mayor in office at
the close of escrow. Accordingly, the recommended resolution would authorize whichever
council member holds the office of mayor on the date of close of escrow to sign the necessary
documents. In addition, the title company has requested that the Development Agreement be re-
executed. This is because Section 5.11 of the Development Agreement provides for its automatic
termination within six months of its date unless title to the Developable Area had passed to the
Town. The date referenced in Section 5.11 is unclear. It does not appear to be the effective date
of June 23, 1996, because the Development Agreement was not signed on behalf of the Town until
November 1, 1995, which would have left very little time to close. Further, in light of the delays
imposed by the litigation, use of the effective date would render the Development Agreement
completely ineffective as security for the Town's performance under the promissory note.
It is most consistent with the intent of the parties that the date referenced would have been the date
of execution. The Agreement apparently never was fully executed. Accordingly, the
recommended resolution would clarify the ambiguity as to dates and authorize the re-execution
of the Development Agreement.
RECOMMEND A TION
It is recommended that the Council adopt the resolution authorizing the execution of the closing
documents for the acquisition of the Harroman Property on behalf of the Town.
EXHIBITS
1. Draft Resolution with Certificate of Acceptance
I
2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TffiURON
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE
ACQUISITION OF THE HARROMAN PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF THE TOWN OF
TffiURON AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE VALIDITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT RELATING TO A PORTION OF SAID PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon approved an agreement (the
"Purchase Agreement") for the purchase and acquisition of that certain property commonly
known as the Harroman property on January 15, 1995, with Pine Street Management Company, a
California Corporation doing business as the Harroman Company, Inc. ("Seller"); and
WHEREAS, the Purchase Agreement provided for the Town, together with the Marin
County Open Space District, to acquire the Harroman Property for a purchase price of six million
eight hundred thousand dollars ($6,800,000); for the Town to give the Seller at close of escrow a
promissory note in the amount of three million three hundred thousand dollars ($3,300,000) as
partial payment of the purchase price ("Note"); and for the Note to be secured by a Deed of Trust
on that portion of the Harroman Property defined in the Purchase Agreement as the "Developable
Area" and by a Development Agreement which would allow the Seller to develop fourteen
parcels on the Developable Area in the event that the Seller reacquires the Developable Area in
fee by foreclosure under the deed of trust or deed in lieu of foreclosure; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the parties was that the Town, acting in conjunction with the
Marin County Open Space District, would acquire the Harroman Property for use as permanent
public open space and also obtain dismissal with prejudice of that litigation known as The
Harroman Comoany. Inc. et al v. The Town ofTiburon, et al;
WHEREAS, the Note provided for payment of the principal on or before March I,J997;
and
WHEREAS, on May 23,1995, by Ordinance No. 414 N.S. and Resolution NO.3093 and
Resolution No. 3094, the Town Council approved the Development Agreement and other land
use approvals mandated by the Purchase Agreement, which Ordinance took effect on June 23,
1995; and
WHEREAS, to ensure that the Development Agreement and related development
approvals would not be implemented unless the Harroman Property was first conveyed to the
T own pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, Section 5.11 of the Development Agreement
provided for automatic termination of said Development Agreement and other specified related
land use approvals if title to the Developable Area were not conveyed to the Town within six
months after the date of the Development Agreement; and
Town Council Resolution No.
November 6, 1996
1
WHEREAS, at the time the Development Agreement was approved by the Town Council,
the version of the Development Agreement so approved was not dated, it being the intention of
the parties that the document would be executed and dated on or shortly before consummation of
the purchase transaction (although such intention did not affect the effective date under Section
1.01 of the Development Agreement for purposes of determining the duration of the term); and
WHEREAS, at the time that the Town approved the Purchase Agreement and the
Development Agreement, both parties assumed prompt completion of the transfer oftitle to the
Harroman Property to the Town; and
WHEREAS, thereafter, the transfer of title was impeded for a substantial period oftime
by circumstances beyond the control of the parties, i.e., the institution oflitigation challenging the
Purchase Agreement and the imposition of court-ordered stays mandating the delay in the transfer
which delays have caused unforeseen difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the
Purchase Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a mandate remanding the matter to
the District Court on August 1, 1996 and on October S, 1996, the District Court ordered the
Seller to proceed with the transaction, which order was received by the Seller on October 15,
1996; and
WHEREAS, the parties still desire to complete the transaction generally in accordance
with the terms of the Purchase Agreement and to transfer title to the Harroman Property to the
Town in the near future; and
WHEREAS, by reason of the above-described unforeseen delay, the parties have agreed
to cooperate to use their best efforts to achieve the parties' intentions and to take such actions as
are necessary to complete the transaction and to effectuate their intentions in entering into the
Purchase Agreement and the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, in light of the above-described intentions of the parties, and based upon the
language and purpose of the Development Agreement (including Section 5.11 thereof), and upon
the above-referenced need to read the Development Agreement and other documents relating to
the purchase in a manner that reflects the intentions of the parties, the Council finds and
determines that (i) the Development Agreement can and should be executed and dated as of a
date coincident with or shortly prior to consummation of the purchase transaction, without regard
to the date of its approval or the effective date of the ordinance approving it, and (ii) the ISO-day
period referenced in Section 5.11 of the Development Agreement means and refers to a period of
ISO days beginning on the date of the fully executed Development Agreement (without regard to
the date the Town approved the Development Agreement or the effective date of the ordinance
approving it); any other interpretation would be contrary to the purpose and intention of the
parties to complete the transaction described in the Purchase Agreement and to ensure that the
Development Agreement and the development approvals referenced therein are in full force and
effect if and when the Developable Area is conveyed to the Town; and
Town Council Resolution No.
November 6, 1996
2
WHEREAS, the Town expressly acknowledges that the Seller will rely on these findings
and determinations regarding the Development Agreement, and that Seller would not be willing to
consummate the sale at this time without these findings and determinations by the Town that the
Development Agreement and the development approvals referenced therein are valid and in full
force and effect and will be valid and in full force and effect on the date Seller conveys title to the
Town; and
WHEREAS, the parties intend to close escrow and transfer title to the property as
promptly as possible; and
WHEREAS, state law provides that the deed to the subject unit shall not be accepted for
recordation without the consent of the Town evidenced by its certificate or resolution of
acceptance attached to or printed on the deed or grant; and
WHEREAS, close of escrow will require execution of the Note, Deed of Trust and
Development Agreement on behalf the Town and of other, related documents, including, without
limitation, a Certificate of Acceptance of the property; Estoppel Certificate addressed to Seller,
and the Buyer's Escrow Instructions; and
WHEREAS, the acquisition and acceptance of the Harroman Property will benefit the
residents of Tiburon:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
that the Mayor in office at the close of escrow to the Harroman Property is authorized to accept
conveyance of Harroman Property and execute and deliver all documents necessary to
memorialize said acceptance and accomplish the conveyance, including, without limitation, the
Note, the Deed of Trust, the Development Agreement and Buyer's Escrow Instructions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on November 6, 1996 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NICKY WOLF, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
3
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
(Pursuant to Government Code 927281)
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the Grant Deed dated
from the Pine Street Management Corporation, a
California corporation, doing business as the Harroman Corporation, to the Town of
Tiburon, a California Municipal Corporation, is hereby accepted by the undersigned
officer or agent on behalf of the Town of Tiburon pursuant to authority conferred by the
Resolution No. of the Tiburon Town Council dated November 6, 1996; and the
grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.
Dated:
By
ANN DANFORTH, Town Attorney
Town of Tiburon
RESOLUTION NO.
J/e.-- tri
f'I
Uj~J'-?
.~
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF TIBURON REGARDING THE DENIAL OF AN APPEAL
BY AL AND YVONNE MARTENS OF THE ISSUANCE OF A
FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION AND VARIANCE FOR
98 SlJGARLOAF DRIVE (GEORGIA MAY OWNER)
WHEREAS, on July 18, 1996, the Design Review Board held a public hearing to
consider the approval of a proposed building addition at 98 Sugarloaf Drive, which
required a floor area exception and variance permitting encroachment into the front yard
setback; and
WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony and considering the application, the
Board continued the item to allow the applicant and her neighbors to attempt to reach a
compromise; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 1996, the Board held the continued public hearing,
based on revised plans for a reduced addition and after public hearing and discussion,
approved the project, with the necessary floor area exception and variance, making the
findings set forth in the Town Council staff report by Associate Planner Irene Borba dated
October 10, 1996; and
WHEREAS, on September 30, 1996, Al and Yvonne Martens filed an appeal of
the Board's decision to grant the floor area exception and variance, claiming that the Board
had not properly make the findings required for such approvals by the Town's Municipal
Code and based further on the project's alleged inconsistency with the Town's Hillside
Design Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the appeal came before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on
the October 16, 1996, at which time the Town Council held a duly-noticed public hearing
on the appeal; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 1996, after hearing all testimony and reviewing all
documents in the record, the Council concurred with the findings made by the Board, as
set forth in the Town Council staff report by Associate Planner Irene Borba dated
October 10,1996, which findings are incorporated herein by reference; and;
WHEREAS, based on the above findings, the Council determined to reject the
appeal by Al and Yvonne Martens.
~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon to memorialize that the appeal of Al and Yvonne Martens was denied on
October 16, 1996.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town
of Tiburon on November 6, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NONE
NICKY WOLF, MAYOR
Town of Tiburon
ArrEST:
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
2
~#S-
RESOLUTION NO.
D.;-.,.
il~~l
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TmURON
EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO THE
MEMBERS OF THE 1996 AYALA DAY COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, October 19, 1996 marked the revival of the Community celebration
and picnic known as "Ayala Day"; and
WHEREAS, Ayala Day 1996 had a special purpose in that it was an opportunity to
raise money for the new Town Hall furniture and amenities fund; and
WHEREAS, the celebration could not have taken place without the many hours of
hard work, creativity, planning and execution on the part of the Ayala Day Committee
members;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon expresses its sincere appreciation to the 1996 Ayala Day Committee members
Janice Dodghson, Brain Sullivan, Wayne Snow, Becky Pringle, Heidi McVeigh, Cindy
Marquis, Joan Miranda, Michelle Hershy, Terry Hennessy, Tiburon Public Works
Department, Tiburon Police Officers' Association, Tiburon Police Explorers, and the
Tiburon Heritage & Arts Commission; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Ayala Day Committee members embody
the spirit of dedication and community spirit which makes the Town of Tiburon a great
place to live.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council on
November 6, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NICKY WOLF, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
RESIDENTIAL
J:tv-v -F- ~ ~ D'
I
COMMERCIAL
F'
ALERT ALARM CO.
SUPERVISED BURGLAR ALARM AND FIRE ALARMS
CENTRAL AND LOCAL CONTROL SYSTEMS
25 EVERGREEN AVENUE . MILL VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 94941 . ALL HOURS: 383-5300 . FAX 383-0613
Bob Kleinert
Town Manager
Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
[Ri~(C~O\w[g[g
OCT 2 ... 1996
TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICl
TOWN OF TIBURON
Re: Security and Fire Alarm
New Tiburon Town Hall
October 28, 1996
Dear Bob,
I thought it may help if I summarized my thoughts and recommendations for the burglar
alarm system as per my meeting with Hal Edelstein and Jim Wilson.
With cost-effectiveness in mind, I have recommended a perimeter alarm system which
includes: a) all perimeter doors, b) all 43 of the most accessible window (all being
only on the ground floor) and c) five second floor interior doors (to the Recreation
Department offices and to two storage areas).
Since approximately half of the overall cost is in contacting the windows let me explain
why I believe you should consider including them:
1. When an intruder pries a window open by 112" and sets off the alarm slhe will
typically immediately flee (having done no serious damage nor stolen anything since
s/he is still outside the building.) Should slhe be detected by a motion detector slhe,
by definition, will already be inside the building and will probably vandalize and/or
steal on hislher way out.
2. When the alarm is being turned on at night, the touchpad will clearly indicate which
(if any) windows have been left open. This will save staff considerable time - daily - in
not having to check all the windows, as the alarm system will indicate for them which
windows are open. On the other hand, windows not protected and left open are a
clear invitation to a potential thief.
,.
I have also recommended a single motion detector in the General Administration area
to cover access to the offices from a break-in elsewhere in the building. In addition, I
have included a (separately operated) alarm and access for the Recreation
Department and special protection for the Public Documents storage area on the
second floor.
One of the several alternatives we discussed was in not contacting the windows but
rather increasing the area of detection in the interior by using additional motion
detectors to cover the (four ?) major areas of greatest concern.
The system proposed further includes two fixed "panic" buttons, one in the Council
Chambers and one at the main front counter. When pressed these buttons will quickly
summon the police, who will know, in advance, that there is an urgent problem, and its
location.
Total costs can range from a low of $0 for the installation and up to $130 monthly, for a
period of time (dropping to $55 a month, thereafter) or from $1600 to $3000 for the
installation and $55 a month,for the entire building, to cover 24 hour monitoring, lease
and service (including parts and labor).
Should you wish to "prewire" the building and not install a system at all, such would
not reduce your up-front costs very much, as the installation charges which we quoted
are basically for the labor involved. Nevertheless, we could "prewire" the system we
proposed for $2000. Completion of the installation of the system at a later (within 6
months) date would be $745.
However, you may be interested to know that the system which I proposed can have
wireless contacts and/or motion detectors added to it at any time in the furture. A
"prewire" is, therefore, not really necessary but is somewhat more expensive.
Should you not want to do the prewire, with the thought of possibly installing a
wireless system in the future, the minimal prewire that must be done now would cost
only $150, but the additional differential of installing wireless equipment would
increase the total cost of the burglar alarm installation by $1750 for a total of $4495.
The monthly charges would be an additional $7 to cover the higher maintenance
costs.
The monitoring of the fire alarm system requires the installation of a Commercial Fire
Alarm communicator panel which we would monitor the buiilding for fire alarm signals
from your smoke and heat detectors, as well as the sprinkler waterflow system and the
pull stations. The panel will also send us daily "test" signals to ensure proper
communication as well as trouble and/or supervisory signals. The cost for installation
of this panel is $495 and the monthly charge of $49 also includes our regular
quarterly testing of the alarm system.
.
Should you install both systems now, at the same time, we can lower our monthly
charges by $5 for a combined $99.
I very much look forward to serving the Town and hope that I have clarified some of the
reasons for my recommendations.
Please give me a call if I can answer any questions you might have.
Sincerely yours,
~~~
Davi~eyer
President
:Ije~ 1!Ja~ 1-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
DATE: I /- 0~9 (P
FROM: PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
SUBJECT: FLOOD PLAIN PROPERTY - REQUEST FUNDS TO HIRE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT
BACKGROUND
For the past several months the Parks & Open Space Commission has considered improvements
to the Town's Flood Plain property adjacent to the New Town Hall and Library. Initial
discussions centered around a conceptual plan prepared by Bruce Ross. At their regular meeting
of October 8, 1996, the Commission took public testimony on the development of this property.
The Commission unanimously recommended approval by the Town Council to obtain a landscape
architect to work with the Commission on the final plan. The Commission further recommended
a list of priorities for the development, which include, in no particular order: flood water
retention, safety, plaza or other similar public space, passive recreation, path on Mar West,
privacy for Marsh condominium owners, noise factors, designated usage for the area near the
Library and Town Hall, access paths to Town Hall and Library, no attractive nuisances,
maintaining views [Town Hall & Library] and unifYing public space.
RECOMMENDATION
The Commission realizes the Flood Plain funds are currently the subject of litigation, and
understand it is Council's decision as to whether these funds be expended at this time. Should
the Council desire to proceed, the Commission recommends that funds be allocated to hire a
landscape architect to work with the Commission on a final plan. The Commission did not
discuss a particular amount that should be allocated. For reference, $2,500 was spent in 1993 to
develop the previously approved conceptual plan.
EXIDBITS
1. POSC Workshop Minutes, No. 144, August 13, 1996
2. Draft POSC Minutes No. 145, October 8, 1996
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION,
PARKS & OPEN SPACE WORKSHOP MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
POSC Chair Eth called the special joint meeting of the Town Council, Planning Commission and
Parks & Open Space Commission to order at 7:35 P.M., Tuesday, August 13, 1996, in the Town
Council Chambers, 11 0 1 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, CA.
I. ROLL CALL -
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Ginalski, Thayer, Thompson, Wolf
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Greenberg, Sadrieh, Schrier
PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMM: Snow, Wiviott, Rony, Canter,
Sullivan, Ferro, Eth
EX-OFFICIO: Town Manager Kleinert, Town
Engineer Moharnmadi, POSC
Secretary McVeigh
II. PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
There were none.
III. WORKSHOP
MAR WEST FLOOD PLAIN PROPERTY
POSC Chair Eth reported the purpose of this meeting is to solicit ideas from the
Commissions, Council and the public for the development and uses of the Town's Flood
Plain property. He then gave a brief summary of the POSC discussions on the matter.
Town Manager Kleinert reviewed the history of the funds for the Flood Plain
improvements, noting the developer of the Pt. Tiburon project, The Innisfree Company,
deposited $142,800 with the Town to complete final grading the landscaping of the
subject property. These funds are restricted and have accrued $132,000 in interest since
deposited in 1985. Of the interest earnings, $125,000 has been earmarked for other
purposes. The interest earnings are not restricted to be used on the Flood Plain
improvements or maintenance. Responding to Commissioner Snow, Kleinert stated all, or
a major portion, of the restricted funds should be spent before the Town uses any of the
interest earnings. Kleinert then briefly eXplained a claim has been filed against the Town
POSC MINUTES No. 144
August 13, 1996
1
~
by the developer for the return of these funds.
Secretary McVeigh presented a summary of the November 1995 community survey on
uses for the Flood Plain property. Based on a weighted formula of the choices given,
residents preferred the property be developed as follows: Open Space/Benches, 29%;
Wildlife Viewing Platform, 19%; Picnic Tables/Grass, 14%; Grass/Irrigation, 10%.
Town Engineer Mohammadi reviewed the Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin (SASM)
easement that runs along the property line between the Town Hall/Library site and the
. flood plain. He reported that no direct load may be placed on the line, so the plaza as
presented would have to be bridged over the easement. In response to Mayor Wolf,
Mohammadi noted the pathway no longer needs to be raised to increase holding capacity
on the property. The capacity issue has been resolved by raising the berm along the path.
In response to Commissioner Sadrieh, Mohammadi noted the SASM lines are
approximately 7' below grade and large tree roots may present a problem to the lines.
Councilmember Thayer noted that pathway runs into the neighboring residential units and
questioned if the pathway should terminate at the Angel Island parking lot. He asked if
landscaping could be installed to delineate the private property from the Flood Plain.
Town Manager Kleinert suggested the pathway have off-shoots to the Library and Town
Hall properties.
Commissioner Rony questioned who has jurisdiction over the marsh and if the General
Plan calls for any buffer zone around the marsh. Mohammadi responded the Town owns
the marsh and is not aware ofa buffer zone requirement. He noted it is 280' - 300' from
the edge of the plaza to the marsh.
Councilmember Ginalski questioned if the Flood Plain is to hold the waters from a 100
year or 500 year storm? Mohammadi replied a 100 year storm. Responding to Ginalski,
Mohammadi noted the "V" ditch could be narrower than its current width..
Commissioner Greenberg questioned if drainage from the Martha property was taken into
consideration in regard to the width of the drainage ditch. Mohammadi noted the drainage
ditch will not be impacted by the Martha property.
Mayor Wolf reported on a November 1995 joint workshop meeting of the Council and
Planning Commission where they discussed the overall site. The Plaza was originally
planned to be in the front, but when the Town Hall and Library building were moved away
from each other the Plaza could no longer fit in front. It was decided the Plaza would be in
the rear on the Flood Plain. She then reviewed Bruce Ross' preliminary plan for the Plaza.
She reported she met with the Town Hall and Library architect Mark Schatz at the
Library, and from a sitting position the Plaza will not block the view of St. Hilary's. She
did recommend that when a plan comes forward, story poles should be erected.
POSC MINUTES No. 144
August 13, 1996
2
~
Commissioner Sadrieh asked if a play structure was being proposed. Chair Eth stated the
Parks & Open Space Commission has not come to any recommendations at this time.
In response to Commissioner Rony, Commissioner Schrier noted there is no buffer
requirement in the Town's General Plan for the marsh, but the Army Corp of Engineers
requires a 100' buffer from wetlands.
Councilmember Thayer stated the results of the community survey are not surprising and
he strongly suggested the POSC proceed slowly with a plan, bearing in mind the results of
. the survey. He feels moving the Zelinsky Plaza on to the Flood Plain is an excellent
solution to not being able to have the plaza in front of Town Hall. He urged the private
and public property be delineated with landscaping and that the sewer easement must to be
accommodated.
Mayor Wolf noted the property is very peaceful and should be landscaped to discourage
people away from the neighboring condos and the marsh. She urged the area be kept
natural and tranquil. She recommended the POSC decide what uses the property can
accommodate and when there is a good outline she recommended Bull Stockwell
architects get involved in the planning process.
Commissioner Schrier recommended as the POSC develops ideas for a plan, that they be
run by the Town Attorney. He noted the Planning Director's memo indicates no active
recreational uses are permitted on property designated as Open Space. He expressed
concern with all the development that is taking place in the area and urged the
Commission to channel traffic away from the marsh. He also recommended the POSC be
clear with the CEQA requirements.
Mr. Gary Appleman, speaking on behalf of the Pt. Tiburon HOA, requested that definition
of the private and public property line be included in the plan. His members will be
directly impacted by any plan and they would like the area kept as natural as possible and
the people be discouraged from wandering behind the marsh units. He questioned if there
was an easement requiring the condo parking lot remain open?
Councilmember Ginalski recommended the following questions be answered: 1) is there a
easement that requires the marsh condo parking lot remain open to the public, 2) is there a
project under CEQA, 3) the legal issue as to what the funds can and cannot be used for, 4)
what are the set backs, and 5) is this project an appropriate issue for discussion as the
funds have a claim again them.
Commissioner Sadrieh feels the Flood Plain property is a transition area from the
Library/Town Hall to the marsh and feels the area dictates a very passive nature.
Council member Thompson expressed concern with view blockage by the plaza and the
POSC MINUTES No. 144
August 13, 1996
3
-
public path leading into the marsh condo parking lot. He would like to see landscaping
define the public and private property.
Commissioner Greenberg expressed concern with the retention capabilities of the marsh,
which came close to the condos and library site this winter. She is concerning with taking
the path from private parking to more used public parking. She questioned if decking
could be used for the plaza, as it could be ended and would not encourage people into the
marsh. She encouraged access off the path to the library and Town Hall. She does not
feel bocce ball is an appropriate use on the property. She questioned if the plaza needs to
. . accommodate emergency vehicles to make the parking lot loop.
Commissioner Schrier would like the Flood Plain landscaping plan in place by the March
1997 Town Hall completion date. He does not feel the claim against the funds should
slow down the process.
POSC Chair Eth noted one issue that has not been brought up is constructing a path
paralleling Mar West to the TPC.
Maureen Mickel, 45 Harbor Oak, noted she looks down at this property and hears
everything that takes place. She requested the pose consider the noise impact of any
uses on the property. She supports a path along Mar West to the TPC.
~
Linda Tomback, Marsh condo owner, expressed concern with children wandering up to
the marsh. She also does not want to see anything done that would erode the flood plain
retention capacity.
Jane Rey, Marsh condo owner, requested the condo property be delineated from the Flood
Plain by a fence. She noted the walkway needs to remain open for safety vehicles.
Karen Nygren, Paseo Mirasol, noted if the Zelinsky Memorial is used as a community
gathering area, regulations will have to be adopted. She noted toxins were discovered
along Mar West when the Town considered a pathway several years ago.
Barbara Matthews, Manager of the Tiburon Peninsula Club, reported in 1983 the Club
deeded to the Town 2.3 acres of property near the marsh. At that time one of the
concessions was that a safe path area along Mar West would be created. In 1992 there
was another push to get the path installed. She urged that the Flood Plain plan include a
pedestrian/bicycle path along Mar West toward the Club. She noted that if the Club
relocated portions of Mar West in the future, it would not affect the pathway.
Martha Proctor questioned if there was a time limit on the use of the $142,000. Manager
Kleinert reported there is no time limit, but the Town would like to move this project
along.
POSC MINUTES No. 144
August 13, 1996
4
5
August 13, 1996
POSC MINUTES No. 144
Being no further business of the Parks & Open Space Commission ,Chair Eth adjourned
the meeting at 9:50 PM.
III. ADJOURNMENT
Tiburon Ridge Trail - Commissioners Rony and Sullivan
Belveron Mini Park - Commissioners Snow and Wiviott
Multi-Use Path - Commissioners Ferro and Canter
Chair Eth requested volunteers for two member sub-committees for the Tiburon
Ridge Trail Improvements, Belveron Mini-Park, and Multi Use Path Repairs. The
following were appointed:
2. Parks & Open Space Commission Sub-Committees
Commissioner Wiviott had no report at this time.
1. Marin Community Foundation Community Facilities Survey
II. BUSINESS ITEMS
to approve minutes No. 143 ofJuly 9, 1996 as submitted
Ferro, Seconded by Snow
AYES: Unanimous
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
REGULAR PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MEETING
Being no further comments, the Workshop session was adjourned at 9:30 PM.
Nat Marans, Spanish Trail, expressed concern with parking for users of the area.
Carol Forrell, Library Committee, noted the library was designed with views towards the
hills and expressed concern that the Zelinsky memorial may block those views.
Alan Littman, Library Committee, noted he would like to see the area quiet and peaceful
and does not want the view ofSt. Hilary's taken away from the library. He would also
like children to have a safe way to bike to the library and supports a Mar West path. He
urged the Parks & Open Space Commission decide what it wants done on the property
and then ask the Town Attorney ifit is legal.
1
10/8/96
POSC MINUTES NO. 145
Linda Tomback, Marsh Road, expressed her strong objection to the use of the flood plain
funds for the development of a path along Mar West, which she feels would serve a
privileged few.
Commissioner Eth noted the Commission would like to hear from the public what the
priorities should be for the improvement of the Flood Plain property.
1. FLOOD PLAIN PROPERTY
IV. BUSINESS
There were none.
ill. PUBLIC OUESTIONS & COMMENTS
to approve minutes No. 144 of August 13, 1996 as amended
Snow, seconded by Eth
AYES: Unanimous
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
The Commission requested that the following be incorporated into Minutes No. 144,
under the Flood Plain item "In response to Commissioner Canter, Town Engineer
Mohammadi state a survey has been done to detennine the property line between the
condos and the Flood Plain property".
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Secretary McVeigh
EX-OFFICIO:
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Snow, Wiviott, Ferro, Rony, Canter, Sullivan, Chair
Eth
1. ROLL CALL
Chair Eth called the regular meeting of the Parks & Open Space Commission to order at 7:35
PM, Tuesday, October 8, 1996, in the Town Council Chambers, 1101 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon,
CA.
CALL TO ORDER
MINUTES NO. 145
PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
Bruce Ross requested the berm installed on the South side of the pathway behind the
Town Hall and Library be moved to the North side, which will create a barrier between
the users of the path and the marsh. Regarding the Zelinsky plaza he feels a trellis is more
desirable than trees to provide definition to the plaza. He feels trees will create a
maintenance issue, a trellis will compliment the trellis system in front of the two buildings,
and a trellis will define the plaza immediately and is controllable. Responding to
Commissioner Sullivan, Bruce Ross stated a trellis will not interfere with any views the
Library may have of Old St. Hilary's. He noted the top of the trellis would be 8-9' with a
90' radius.
Carol Forell, Library Committee, requested the Commission contact either their
construction manager or architect to determine if they feel a trellis will block their views.
Commissioner Rony expressed concern the plaza is to be constructed on Town Open
Space, and the Town's Zoning Ordinance prohibits any structures on Open Space.
Jim Wilson, Building Advisory Committee, feels it is a good idea to move the berm along
the walking path to the other side. He noted behind the marsh condos there is a storm
drainage system that will adequately handle water from a 100 year storm.
In response to Chair Eth, Bruce Ross indicated the berm along the pathway would form
around the back side of the plaza. Jim Wilson recommended the pathway have off-shoots
to the Library and Town Hall.
Commissioner Rony questioned flooding of the marsh condos during heavy rains and high
tide. Linda Tomback noted there is no problem with flooding as long as the drainage
culvert is kept clear. She noted residents at times have to clear the pipeline during the
rwny season.
Martha Proctor, Marsh Road, noted she would like to have screening of the cars that park
in the Zelinsky parking lot.
Chair Eth questioned the Commission if they feel a landscape architect should be retained
to work with the Commission. Commissioner Canter would like to contact several
architects and request photos of work they have completed, in particular plazas, court
yards and terraces.
MOTION:
to request funds from the Town Council to hire a landscape architect to
render design options on the flood plain property
Moved:
Canter
The motion died due to the lack of a second.
POSC MINUTES NO. 145
10/8/96
2
Commissioner Rony requested the Town Attorney's definition of structure.
Chair Eth feels the priorities for developing this property are: Flood control, which has
been adequately addressed; the Zelinsky memorial plaza, in which the design should keep
in mind the peaceful and tranquil nature of the area.
Barbara Matthews, Tiburon Peninsula Club, reported the Club is willing to continue the
pathway along Mar West on their property when the Club's expansion takes place.
Commissioner Wiviott suggested a cost sharing plan for the condo delineation and Mar
West pathway.
Other priorities discussed for the development of the property were: safety, maintaining
views, plaza design, access from the path to the Town Hall and Library, does the current
path have to lead to the marsh condo parking lot, not creating any attractive nuisances,
passive recreation as opposed to active, path along Mar West, enhancing privacy of Pt.
Tiburon homeowners, path landscaping, establishment of a buffer for the marsh,
maintaining views, and noise.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
that the Parks & Open Space Commission requests approval from the
Town Council to obtain a landscape architect for the Flood Plain area and
that the following items be addressed: Flood retention, safety, plaza or
other similar public space, passive recreation area, path on Mar West, Pt.
Tiburon HOA have their privacy and noise factors be respected, designate
usage for the area near the library and Town Hall, access path near Town
Hall and library, no attractive nuisances, maintaining view, and unifying
public space
Snow, Seconded by Sullivan
AYES: Unanimous
that the above motion was delivered with no particular priority attached to
them
Rony, Seconded by Canter
AYES: Unanimous
POSC MINUTES NO. 145
10/8/96
3
TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:
REPORT DATE:
ITEM NO.: s--
11/6/96
11/1/96
FROM:
SCOTT ANDERSON, ~
PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO MODIFY THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF A DOG TRAINING HOME
OCCUPATION PERMIT; 35 HACIENDA DRIVE; JANICE KASE,
OWNER AND APPELLANT
BACKGROUHD
On September 18, 1996, the Planning Director issued modified
conditions of approval on a Home Occupation Permit for dog
training at 35 Hacienda Drive. The permit had originally been
issued in 1994. The modified conditions of approval were based
upon specific direction from the Planning Commission, which
considered the item at two separate meetings in August and
September of 1996. On September 30, 1996, the home occupation
permit holder appealed the imposition of the modified conditions
of approval. The appeal form (and the Town's acknowledgement of
receipt) are attached as Exhibit A; the modified conditions of
approval are attached as Exhibit B.
Please note that the appeal form also attempts to appeal the
Planning Commission's denial of a conditional use permit
application to establish a dog kennel at the subject property.
That appeal was not filed in a timely manner, was not accepted,
and is not the subject of this hearing.
HISTORY
A brief chronology of the matter is presented below:
. December 8, 1994: The Planning Department issues a Home
Occupation Permit for "dog training with incidental
overnights" to Janice Kase at 35 Hacienda Drive. The permit
application stated that there would be no employees other
than the applicant, and only "one or two persons a week
possibly coming to my residence". The approval was made
subject to provisions of section 4,10.00 of the Zoning
Ordinance (see Exhibit C).
. January, 1996: Town Staff becomes aware (through a Marin
Independent Journal article) that a dog kennel operation is
TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
".....
1
apparently being run out of 35 Hacienda Drive. Nine dogs
were confiscated from the residence by Marin County Animal
services in late December, 1995. On January 2, 1996, the
Town sends a letter (Exhibit D) to Ms. Kase directing her to
immediately stop the dog kennel use and advising her of her
option to apply for a conditional use permit should she
desire to attempt to legalize the kennel use.
. March, 1996: A conditional use permit application is filed.
. June 26, 1996: The Planning Commission holds a public
hearing on the conditional use permit application.
Extensive public testimony is received. The Commission will
eventually vote to deny the conditional use permit
application on September 11, 1996. The only action taken at
the meeting relative to this appeal is that the Commission
directs Staff to agendize a review of the home occupation
permit for August 28, 1996 to consider possible modification
or revocation.
. August 28, 1996: A pUblic meeting is held by the planning
commission to discuss the home occupation permit review.
The staff report and minutes for this meeting are attached
as Exhibits E and F. The Commission directs staff to return
on September 11, 1996 with a draft resolution revoking the
home occupation permit.
. September 11, 1996: The Planning commission holds another
public meeting to review the home occupation permit, and
decides to modify its conditions of approval rather than
revoke the permit. Please refer to Exhibits G and H for the
staff report and minutes from that meeting. Planning
Department Staff is given specific direction to finalize the
modified conditions, as set forth by the Planning
Commission, following consultation and refinement by the
Town Attorney.
. September 18, 1996: The modified conditions of approval are
issued by the Planning Director.
. september 30, 1996: A timely appeal of the modifications to
the home occupation permit conditions is filed.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The appeal form asserts the following:
1. That modification of the home occupation permit was an
abuse of discretion and based upon information that was
inaccurate with respect to the facts and the meaning of
the applicable ordinance.
nsuRON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
"""'"
2
2. That the Town is estopped from modifying the home
occupation permit based upon the circumstances of its
issuance and the applicant's reliance over two years.
No supporting information or additional
claims is contained within the appeal.
response will be brief.
description of these
Therefore, the Staff
Apneal Ground No.1
. Abuse of Discretion. Town Staff does not believe that the
modification to conditions of approval for the home
occupation permit was an abuse of discretion. The
modification and/or revocation of a zoning permit is a
justifiable exercise of the police power when it has been
determined that the conduct of a use is not in accordance
with regulations and/or conditions of approval. The
Planning commission reached this conclusion following public
hearings on the matter.
. Inaccurate Information. No description of the purported
inaccurate information is provided with the appeal. In any
dispute, opposing parties often have different
interpretations of what constitutes "fact". The Planning
Commission heard testimony from all interested persons on
this matter, and reached its conclusions after careful
consideration.
. Meaning of the Applicable Ordinance. No specific reference
is provided in order for Staff to respond to this assertion.
This could refer to the inherent limitations on a home
occupation permit, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance.
section 4.10.01 of the Zoning Ordinance defines a home
occupation as follows:
[AJny use which is conducted entirely within a dwelling
and carried on by the inhabitants thereof, is clearly
incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for
residential purposes, and does not change the character
thereof or adversely affect the uses permitted in the
residential district in which it is located....
The Planning commission found that the use as it was being
conducted did not conform to these definitional limitations
and was clearly having adverse impacts on the surrounding
residential uses. The Home Occupation Permit section of the
Zoning Ordinance is attached as Exhibit I.
TlBURON TOWN' COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
"....
3
2, That the Town is estopped from modifying the home
occupation permit based upon the circumstances of its
issuance and the applicant's reliance over two years.
No supporting information or additional
claims is contained within the appeal.
response will be brief.
description of these
Therefore, the Staff
Apneal Ground No.1
· Abuse of Discretion. Town Staff does not believe that the
~odification to conditions of approval for the home
occupation permit was an abuse of discretion. The
modification and/or revocation of a zoning permit is a
justifiable exercise of the police power when it has been
determined that the conduct of a use is not in accordance
with regulations and/or conditions of approval. The
Planning commission reached this conclusion following public
hearings on the matter.
. Inaccurate Information. No description of the purported
inaccurate information is provided with the appeal. In any
dispute, opposing parties often have different
interpretations of what constitutes "fact". The Planning
commission heard testimony from all interested persons on
this matter, and reached its conclusions after careful
consideration.
. Meaning of the Applicable Ordinance. No specific reference
is provided in order for Staff to respond to this assertion.
This could refer to the inherent limitations on a home
occupation permit, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 4.10.01 of the Zoning Ordinance defines a home
occupation as follows:
[A]ny use which is conducted entirely within a dwelling
and carried on by the inhabitants thereof, is clearly
incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for
residential purposes, and does not change the character
thereof or adversely affect the uses permitted in the
residential district in which it is located....
The Planning commission found that the use as it was being
conducted did not conform to these definitional limitations
and was clearly having adverse impacts on the surrounding
residential uses. The Home Occupation Permit section of the
Zoning Ordinance is attached as Exhibit I.
T/BURON TOWN COUNCIl..
STAFF REPORT
"....
3
~ppeal Ground No.2
. Legal Estoppel. The Planning Commission concluded that the
approved home occupation use for dog training had
degenerated into a dog kennel operation clearly beyond the
scope of a home occupation as set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance. Town Staff believes that the modification and/or
revocation of a zoning permit is a justifiable and proper
exercise of the police power when it has been determined
that the conduct of a use is not in accordance with
regulations and/or conditions of approval on the permit. In
any event, no evidence to support claims of legal estoppel
has been provided with the appeal.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Town Council deny the appeal and direct Staff to return
with a resolution memorializing the decision.
EXHIBITS
A. Appeal form received September 30, 1996.
B. Letter dated September 18, 1996 setting forth amended home
occupation permit conditions.
C. Original home occupation permit issued December 8, 1996.
D. Letter to Janice Kase dated January 2, 1996.
E. Staff report to Planning Commission dated August 28, 1996.
F. Minutes of Planning commission meeting of August 28, 1996.
G. Staff report to Planning commission dated September 11,.
1996.
H. Draft minutes of Planning commission meeting of September
11, 1996.
I. Home Occupation Permit section of Zoning Ordinance (4.10).
J. Letter dated October 31, 1996 from neighborhood residents.
35hacapp.rpt
TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
,,-
4
l~jI.f.-
':-:-;~..:;,::'" . ':.,..,~. ~.
,{~#t41Yf~
. . :~,~<.(.'~;r."J"",~ .~<..
, .~.'}""
,_!t. APPELLANT
i~,'t' .
~;:,JfJ~' Nam~:c .. Janice A. Kase
. ~r:'<.
i"~'
~tlC\
r
(
TOWN OF TIBURON
[Ri~~~O'W~[g)
SEP 3 0 i996
TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
P~""'-'"~I/r:::D
SfP 3 G 1~),
NOTICE OF APPEAL
FL:-.. r~,~Jp.E TlSURON
"~"" .,',. , I,,, 'l"~-
- "--" .... DEpt
Address:
35 Hacienda, Tiburon, California
94920
Telephone: (415) 435-2196
(Work)
(Home)
ACTION BEING APPEALED
Body: Planninq Commission
Date of Action: September 11, 1996
Name of Applicant: Janice A. Kase
Nature of Application: Application for conditional use permit
'~~..'..
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
(Attach additional pages, if necessary)
Denial of conditional use germit and modifi~Arion of homp
occupation permit were an abuse of discretion and were based
upon information presented that was inaccurate with respect
to the facts and the meaning of the applicable ordinance.
In addition, the Town is estopped from modifying the home,-,
occupation perm1t based upon the c1rcumstances or 1tS 1ssuance
and the applicant's reliance over two years.
o tvfl
().A f~~:( J'-'
, {''I r' (C"'r'"l
\:J . , / /
'L/v'-/\<.t(
:;~~
.... ".",.....~#h..... ..,
.1.l.o:, ,-.
4~...~'....._.__-..........._....
Fee ($300.00) Paid: q ho/qe,
Date of Hearing:
q !1,o('7&/fi11 ~
1/ If. /1~
Last Day to File: September 30, 1996 Date Received:
January 1996
~
EXHIBIT NO, A
1.,
~
[
(
~
I
,
"\
PJanninr; & Building Department
11~S TIBURON BOULEVARD. T1BURON . CAL1FORNIA 94t12n . (4151 ~';'iq373
FAX (415)-U5-2438
.':;\V'J OF TIllURON
October 4, 1996
Ms. Janice Kase
35 Hacienda Drive
-:-iburon, CA 94920
::u;. APPEAL OF TOWN DECISION REGARDING 35 HACIENDA DRIVE
Dear Ms. Kase:
The Town of Tiburon is in receipt of your Notice of Appeal filed September 30, 1996, concerning
uses at 35 Hacienda Drive. It appears that the Notice seeks to appeal both the denial of the
Conditional Use Permit application and the modifications to the Home Occupation Permit.
Please be advised that the appeal period for the Conditional Use Permit denial expired on
September 23, 1996 (see attached letter), and cannot be accepted for processing.
However, the appeal was filed in a timely manner for the Home Occupation Permit modification,
and this item will be scheduled for a hearing before the Town Council on November 6, 1996.
Please call me at 435-7392 should you have questions.
Very truly yours,
o "" I} ,1
h-,--,-;ft; (l,~,_#:~~
Scott Anderson
Planning Director
Kennel3.1tr
cc: Mark 500tt
~
~ i
~. ~,,(f<,
;~~i{ .,
f"
c
(
'.
1155 TIBlRO:-i 80ULEv..\RD . TIBL'RO:'1 . C.-\LIFOR.'HA <)4q~O . <1(5) J.15-i37)
FAX iJ15) JJS.2.0/l
TOWN OF TIBURON
t
~
VIA FAX
Planning & Building Department
September 12, 1996
Mr. Mark Scott, Esq
524 Sausalito Boulevard
Sausalito, CA 94965
RE: 35 HACIE:-IDA DRIVE: CUP AND HOl\IE OCCUPATION PERMIT ITEMS
Dear 11r. Scott:
This is a follow-up to our brief discussion last evening subsequent to the decisions of the Tiburon
Planning Commission on the above referenced matters.
The action of the Planning Commission to deny the Conditional Use Permit application was made
last night by the adoption of the Resolution (without amendment) that was included in the Staff
Report. The 10 day appeal period for that decision began today and ends on lvfonday, September
23, 1996, at 5 :00. The tenth day is a weekend day, so the period is extended through the next
working day.
The action of the Planning Commission relative to modification of the Home Occupation Pennit
conditions will not be final until such time as r have prepared and sent to you a letter setting forth
the final conditions as determined through consultation with the Town Attorney. Once I have
sent you (and the applicant) that letter, the 10 day appeal period will commence. I expect the
letter to be prepared sometime early next week.
ll~
Scott Anderson
Planning Director
cc: Ian Kase
J5hacic:nd.lu
~
..
i':
,
~j.
;'.
,i.t
,~
. ,
(
(
TOWN OF TIBURON
.~.".
\ :.(f~
~. fUN
IISS TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (..U514='S-1373
FAX (415)435-2438
Planning & Building Department
September 18, 1996
Ms. Ian Kase
35 Hacienda Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DOG TRAINING HOME
OCCUPATION PERMIT AT 35 HACIENDA DRIVE; FILE #HOP 94-27
Dear Ms. Kase:
At its regular meeting of September 11, 1996, the Planning Commission held a hearing and
provided direction to Town Staff for modification of the conditions of approval under which the
above-referenced Home Occupation Permit is allowed to operate. As determined by the Planning
Director and Town Attorney following the direction of the Planning Commission, the approved
modified conditions for operation of Home Occupation Permit No. 94-27 are now as follows:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Hours of operation of the dog training home occupation use shall be limited to Monday
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
2. The maximum number of dogs permitted on the property at anyone time as part of the
home occupation use shall be two (2).
3. The keeping of up to one (I) dog overnight for training-related purposes is permitted.
4. The dog training use shall be conducted entirely within the dwelling, or at suitable off-site
locations such as parks.
5. Dogs associated with the home occupation use must be kept indoors unless the permit
holder or the employee is on-site to supervise them.
6. The home occupation use shall be limited to one or two persons per week visiting the
residence. No significant additional traffic shall be created in the neighborhood.
~
EXHIBIT NO. B
1
. ,
(
(
7. One additional on-site parking space beyond that required for the single family residence
and approved secondary dwelling unit shall be provided and clearly marked.
8. No more than one non-resident person shall be employed. If such person is employed,
then an additional on-site parking space, beyond those required in Condition #7 above,
shall be provided and clearly marked.
9. No material may be stored, and no equipment used which is hazardous or visible or
audible from outside the building or otherwise creates a nuisance.
10. There shall be no display of goods visible from the exterior of the building; and no signs
may be placed on the building or property.
11. Visitors to the site in association with the dog training use shall not block or impede safe
and easy access (including emergency vehicle access) down the common driveway leading
to the site, but shall park in the clearly marked space(s) described above.
12. Any required permits from the Marin County Animal Services or other agencies shall be
secured prior to commencement of the use.
13. Prior to commencement of the Home Occupation use, the permittee shall be required to
sign, have notarized, and file with the Town of Tiburon Planning Department a statement
reading substantially as follows:
I, Janice Kase, hereby acknowledge that I have been granted a temporary Home
Occupation Permit for dog training that will automatically expire 180 days from
the date of issuance. I hereby waive any right that I might have to notice or further
hearings prior to said automatic expiration. I further acknowledge and accept that
the Town ofTiburon has granted me this Home Occupation Permit based on a
finding that the exercise thereof is consistent with the Town of Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance only for a period of no more than 180 days and only if exercised in full
conformity with all conditions imposed thereon by the Town ofTiburon; and that
the Town ofTiburon further found that exercise of the Home Occupation Permit
for a period exceeding 180 days, or without full compliance with all conditions
imposed thereon by the Town of Tiburon, would adversely affect the permitted
uscs in the residcntial district and therefore would be inconsistent with the Zoning
Ordinance.
This decision may bc appcalcd to the Town Council within 10 days of the date of this Ictter, or by
September 30, J 996. Appcals must be filed on the prescribed form and submitted to the Town
Clerk along with the $300.00 filing fee.
2
(
(
];;"~
Scott Anderson
Planning Director
cc: Mark Scott, Esq.
Town Attorney .
Town Manager
Planning Commission
\sconlhop94.27.1tr
/
3
,'..
......
(
(,
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
TO: SCOTT ANDERSON DATE: September 19, 1996
PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: ANN R. DANFORTH
TOWN ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: Amendment of Home Occupancy Permit
Janice Kase, Permit Holder ~
BACKGROUND
In response to the direction of the Planning Commission, you have asked me the following questions
regarding the proposed modification of the subject Home Occupancy Permit:
1. Can the Planning Commission impose a condition on the amended permit allowing the
applicant to keep no more than one dog not belonging to the residents of the house overnight?
2. Is it appropriate to condition the permit to require that all dog training activity be conducted
within the dwelling or suitable off-site locations?
3. Can the permit be conditioned to expire in six months?
ANALYSTS
1. The Zoning Ordinance defines a Home Occupation as, among other things, a use that does
not change the character of the residential dwelling or adversely affect the residential uses permitted
in the district. If the Planning Commission has determined that allowing more than one outside dog
to stay overnight would change the residential character of the dwelling or adversely affect other uses
in the area, it should impose the proposed condition.
KASEDOGS.PER
1
---
,... ,,, ."l..
(
c
2. By definition, a Home Occupation is a use conducted entirely within a dwelling.
Section 4.10.01 of the Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, it is appropriate to require the applicant to
conduct all dog training and other activities related to the use within her dwelling or off-site.
3. As noted above, the Zoning Ordinance defines a Home Occupation as, among other things,
a use that does not change the character of the residential dwelling or adversely affect the residential
uses permitted in the district. It is my understanding that the Planning Commission has determined
that the proposed use does not meet this definition as a permanent use but is consistent with it as a
short term activity lasting for no more than six months. Accordingly, the six-month termination
provision is appropriate. To minimize future problems with enforcement, the applicant should be
required to sign a statement reading substantially as follows:
I, Janice Kase, hereby acknowledge that I have been granted a
temporary Home Occupation Permit that will automatically expire six
(6) months from the date of issuance. I hereby waive any right that I
might have to notice or further hearings prior to said automatic
expiration. I further acknowledge and accept that the Planning
Commission has granted me this Home Occupation Permit based on
a finding that the exercise thereof is consist ant with the Town of
Tiburon's Zoning Ordinance only for a period of no more than six
months and only if exercised in full conformity will all conditions
imposed thereon by the Planning Commission; and that the Planning
Commission further found that exercise of the Home Occupation
Permit for a period exceeding six months, or without full compliance
with all conditions imposed thereon by the Planning Commission,
would adversely affect the permitted uses in the residential district and
therefore would be inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
If you have any further questions, please call me at Extension 370.
~~
. ANN R. D ORTH
Town Attorney
KASEDOGS.PER
2
---
- \ \ /( rr\
-- \
,.
.,-- ( , . .::.;..-
-~
'. -
..
TOWN OF TIEURON
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION FOR HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT
****************************************************************~*******
2.
PROPERTY OWNER:
'-75
--JQrt
t~
-; c;- J{ar ~
-yl0~dft-
(H~ -Cf?s-'" .:zlqC
l)v.
1.
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
CITY. STATE. ZIP:
D~'
QClC??-0
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER:
3. APl'LICANT:
(other than owner)
ADDRESS:
4. BFTFFLY DESC1UBE '!:HE TYPE OF BUSINESS WRICS WII.L BE OPERATED IN
'!:HE HeME. PLEASE INCLUDE '!:HE NAME OF BUSL'lESS. NUMBER OF
EMPLOY"..ES, AND WHETHER OR NOT ANY PUBLIC WILZ. BE CCMnlG TO TEE
RESIDENCE. . 1/,
f...Y~ -
e
.,;;
c~
5. SIGNATURE:
************************************************************************
DO NOT WRIT.:: BELeW THIS LINE
'.
DE?AR~'lT PRcaSSL"G L'lFCRI-'.ATICN
llpl'liq,tJ,9n No.:
Fee: ~ 51>
Date Received: t
Received By: 0/
Receipt i: ~
lit) 7 '1-.2 7
.k':, .... ~.
.
Date Deemed CCllIPlete:
Act~q B~
Ac~~on:
C~ticns of Approval:
~ -t./c.cc.>
12./t/9~
a.:~ 4,~"'..t.d -Iz, ab ~~J (~~
'f ~~., -r~c:1....,~.
/
~ Y...B",-h_
~~-.r-.4J'~
~~.r>/"T'I-
'.'
~
'EXHIBIT NO.C
(
(
l
Tiburon Town Code Chapter 16: Zoning
CHAPTER 4: ZONING PERMITS
SECTION 4.10.00. HOME OCCUPATIONS.
4.10.01. Definition.
A Home Occupation is any use which is conducted entirely within a
dwelling and carried on by the inhabitants thereof, is clearly
incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential
purposes, and does not change the character thereof or adversely
affect the uses permitted in the residential district in which it
is located, may be permitted in any residential zone.
4.10.02. Application and Fee.
Application for a Home Occupation Permit shall be made pursuant to
the provisions of Section 3.01.00 , and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate fee.
4.10.03. General Criteria.
Home Occupations shall be limited to the following uses:
dressmaking, sewing, millinery, small handcraft, art work, artists
and sculptors studio activities, the office of a musician, tutor,
writer, architect, physician, technical advisor, attorney,
insurance agent, and any other uses which may be determined by the
Director or the Commission to be of the same general character as
the above occupations, and not objectionable or detrimental to the
zone in which located.
Home occupations shall meet the following requirements:
(a)
No significant additional traffic shall be created in
the neighborhood.
One additional off-street parking space beyond that
required for the residential use shall be maintained.
(b)
(c)
No more than one non-resident person shall be employed,
at which time an additional off-street parking space
shall be required beyond that required by (b) above.
(d)
No material may be stored, and no equipment used which
is hazardous or visible or audible from outside the
building or otherwise creates a nuisance.
(e)
There shall be no display of goods visible from the
exterior of the building, and no signs may be placed on
the building or property.
Ordinance No. 360 N.S.
Effective 12/26/90
Page 155
~
.~
(
(
l
Tiburon Town Code
Chapter 16: Zoning
CHAPTER 4: ZONING PERMITS
The Commission or Director may impose any conditions on the home
occupation which are warranted by the type of activity. All per-
sons conducting businesses from their homes are required to have
a valid Business License from the Town of Tiburon.
Ordinance No. 360 N.S.
Effective 12/26/90
Page 156
---
~-.;...:-,.~ -1.
".~ .:,',.
.
TOWN OF TIBURON
{.
_.
1155 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435-7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
Planning & Building Department
January 2, 1996
Ms. Jan Kase
35 Hacienda Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: . UNAUTHORIZED DOG KENNEL USE AT 35 HACIENDA DRIVE
Dear Ms. Kase:
It has come to the attention of this department that you are operating a dog kennel at your
residence at 35 Hacienda Drive. "Kennel" is defined in the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance in Section
1.05.11, attached for your reference.
Please be advised that kennels are "conditional uses" in the RO-I zoning district in which you
reside, and that a Conditional Use Permit must be obtained from the Town prior to establishment
of any kennel use.
Our records indicate that there is no conditional use permit for a kennel use at 35 Hacienda Drive.
Your Home Occupation Permit, granted in 1994, does not authorize anything beyond "dog
training with incidental ovemights....one or two persons per week possibly coming to my
residence". This is not consistent with your kennel operation as described by the Marin Humane
Society.
You must immediately stop using your property as a kennel, or face serious fines and/or criminal
prosecution from the Town.
Should you wish to apply for a conditional use permit in order to legally establish such as use, the
forms are enclosed. Please contact Dan Catron, Associate Planner, at 435-7393 should you have
questions or wish to pursue legalization of the kennel.
Cordially, a
() ;7, / /.
~ ."'-O{.;~'-
Scott Anderson
Planning Director
cc: Town Manager
cr>a;lcatron, Associate Planner~
John Sharp, Town Attorney
\scott\kennel.Itr
~
EXHIBIT NO.~
"
.
(
(
PLANNING
COMMISSION
STAFF
REPORT
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING DATE: 8/28/96
FROM:
SCOTT ANDERSON,
PLANNING DIRECTOR
ITEM NO.:
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR DOG TRAINING; 35
HACIENDA DRIVE; JANICE KASE, OWNER AND PERMIT HOLDER
BACKGROUND
Address:
AP No.:
File No.:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Property Size:
Subdivision:
Current Use:
35 Hacienda Drive
39-012-04
HO 94-27
ML (Medium low density residential)
RO-1 (40,000 sq. Ft. minimum lot area)
1.25 acres
None; but located in Tiburon Ridge Association
Single family residential with approved secondary
dwelling unit
Owner: Janice Kase
Applicant: Janice Kase
Date Complete: NA
Permit Streamlining Act Deadline: NA
BACKGROUND
The Tiburon Zoning ordinance defines "Home Occupation" as
follows:
The conduct of an art or profession, the offering of a'
service, the conduct of a business, or the manufacture of
products, in a dwelling by the inhabitants thereof, subject
to the regulations contained in Section 4.10.00 of this
Ordinance.
Section 4.10.00 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance is attached as
Exhibit 1. Prior to 1991, no zoning permit or Town review was
required to establish a home occupation. A business license was
required, however. Since, 1991, the Town has issued
approximately 125 home occupation permits, or about 23 per year.
To Staff's knowledge, this is the first home occupation permit
which has required formal review due to neighborhood complaints.
TlBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
1
STAFF REPORT
......,
EXHIBIT NO. E-
(
(
In general, home occupations are not noticeable from outside a
residence. Most home occupations consist of a room in the house
where an office is used or a handcraft takes place. Equipment
involved usually involves a desk, telephone, fax machine, and so
forth. Often a non-commercial vehicle (car or mini-van) is
-, involved. In the increasingly electronic modern world, home
occupations are flourishing and are seen as one method to reduce
traffic congestion on major roads. Potential problems with home
occupations are additional traffic generation in neighborhoods,
unforeseen impacts on the neighborhood or on surrounding
properties, potential abuse of the permit conditions, or
expansion of a home occupation use beyond the intended
parameters.
In December, 1994, the Town approved a Home Occupation Permit for
"dog training" at 35 Hacienda Drive (see Exhibit 2). A business
license for the same use was subsequently issued. In January,
1996, the Town became aware that a dog kennel operation was being
conducted on the site, and the operator was instructed to cease
this unauthorized use. In June, 1996, the Planning Commission
considered a conditional use permit application to legalize the
unauthorized kennel use. Following that meeting, staff was
directed to return on August 28, 1996, with a draft resolution
denying the conditional use permit application; and to agendize a
review of the home occupation permit for the same meeting.
ANALYSIS
In order to assure consistency with the spirit and intent of the
Town's Home Occupation regulations, Staff believes that the
allowed parameters of the dog training use should be better
established in the conditions of the permit. In this instance,
the standard conditions listed in Section 4.10.03 are not
adequate, and additional conditions "which are warranted by the
type of activity" should be imposed as allowed by that same'
section.
The following additional conditions are suggested for the
Commission's consideration:
1. No overnight keeping of dogs or other animals not belonging
to the residents of the house is permitted.
2. The dog training use shall be conducted entirely within the
dwelling, or at suitable off-site locations such as parks.
3. No employees are permitted.
4. The use shall be limited to one or two persons per week
visiting the residence in association with the dog training.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
""'''''''
2
(
(
5. Visitors to the site in association with the dog training
use shall not block or impede safe and easy access
(including emergency vehicle access) down the common
driveway leading to the site.
6. Hours of operation involving dogs at the site shall be
limited to 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Saturday.
7. Any required permits from the Marin County Animal Services
or other agencies shall be secured prior to commencement of
the use.
-'
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning commission hear from interested persons,
consider the matter, and impose additional conditions on the Home
Occupation Permit as it deems appropriate.
EXHIBITS
1. section 4.10.00 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance.
2. Home Occupation Permit No. 94-27.
\scott\35hacien.rpt
TlBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
""'''''''
3
~
(
(
(
Tiburon Town Code Chapter 16: Zoning
CHAPTER 4: ZONING PERMITS
SECTION 4.10.00. HOME OCCUPATIONS.
4.10.01. Definition.
A Home Occupation is any use which is conducted entirely within a
dwelling and carried on by the inhabitants thereof, is clearly
incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential
purposes, and does not change the character thereof or adversely
affect the uses permitted in the residential district in which it
is located, may be permitted in any residential zone.
4.10.02. Application and Fee.
Application for a Home Occupation Permit shall be made pursuant to
the provisions of Section 3.01.00 , and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate fee.
4.10.03. General Criteria.
Home Occupations shall be limited to the following uses:
dressmaking, sewing, millinery, small handcraft, art work, artists
and sculptors studio activities, the office of a musician, tutor,
writer, architect, physician, technical advisor, attorney,
insurance agent, and any other uses which may be determined by the
Director or the Commission to be of the same general character as
the above occupations, and not objectionable or detrimental to the
zone in which located.
(
Home occupations shall meet the following requirements:
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
l
(a)
No significant additional traffic shall be created in
the neighborhood.
One additional off-street parking space beyond that
required for the residential use shall be maintained.
No more than one non-resident person shall be employed,
at which time an additional off-street parking space
shall be required beyond that required by (b) above.
No material may be stored, and no equipment used which
is hazardous or visible or audible from outside the
building or otherwise creates a nuisance.
There shall be no display of goods visible from the
exterior of the building, and no signs may be placed on
the building or property.
Ordinance No. 360 N.S.
Page 155
Effective 12/26/90
--~
EXHIBIT NO.~
--.
(
l
(
(
(
Tiburon Town Code Chapter 16: Zoning
CHAPTER 4: ZONING PERMITS
The Commission or Director may impose any conditions on the home
occupation which are warranted by the type of activity. All per-
sons conducting businesses from their homes are required to have
a valid Business License from the Town of Tiburon.
~
Ordinance No. 360 N.S.
Effective 12/26/90
Page 156
~
~~~;. J" ..~.,'
': T".
...... -.
.'
\
\
\
....-...
--(Ie
(r)
(
,.
"-
'.
...
, TOWN OF TIEURON
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPART.1ENT
APPLICATION FOR HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT
.****....*******************************************************~*******
~~
MAILING ADDRESS: -; c;- J-{O..r ~
ri0~fff
<I{~ -Cf=:,S;- r .:;...LqC
1.
"
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
-;;s-
..JQV\
,'"Dr.
2.
PROPERTY OWNER:
CITY, STATE, ZIP:
bv.
q(jy>"2-0
PHONE NlOOlER:
3. APPLICA.TI:
(other than owner)
ADDRESS:
4.
BPT"7LY DESC.'U3E tEE TYl'E OF BUSDlESS WHIG WI!.T. BE OPE:\A~D L.'!
TEE HOME. PLUSE maUDE TEE NA.'!E OF BUSDlESS. NUMEE3. OF
EMl'LO~..ES, A.'!Il WHE'niE.."l. OR NOT ANY PlnlI;IC WI!.:. BE COM.-'ryG TO T'-..:E
RESIDENC:: .
e
'/h.
<;;:~
CIF
5 . SIGlA-."".JRE :
CO NOT WRIT.:: BEI.CW TEIS LDIE
,
***********w*~*************************************~********************
. DE?A."'~'lT l?RCC::SS~'!G L.'lFORHATION
AppliC'ilt~n Nc.: /It) 7 71-.2 7
Fee: Ji 5'"
Date Received: f//I'
Received BY::-fJ .H:" 'd ~"
Receipt It: J!;.A::. ·
Date Deemed C::mo1ete: 12-/t/9r
Acting BC~: 5-r~
Ac~:..cn: ~
C::~;':icns of Approval: CL--~ 4~<h,,~d * a.-b ~~J <.~<
~ ";./0. Oc> If ~~l'" L..:.. a...-,~ .
~ y,O",..h_
~r~"L/-P~ .'
"~~/"i'<I-
EXHIBIT NO. c1
(
c~~
R'r= ~r.:~'fIED
AUG 2 3 1996
August 16, 1996
Tiburon Planning Commission
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
TOWN OF TIBURON
FLA;\NI~G & CW!..DIN3 DEn
RE: Home Occupation, 35 Hacienda Drive, Tiburon
The undersigned neighbors in the area of 35 Hacienda Drive, Tiburon, would like to restate
and clarify their opposition to the sanctioning of any commercial venture, especially a
kennel, in our neighborhood. We request that the members of the Planning Commission
strictly limit the Home Occupation permit at 35 Hacienda Drive to prohibit the boarding of
dogs overnight. Home Occupations by definition are limited to uses "conducted entirely
within a dwelling and carried on by the inhabitants thereof..." (Tiburon Town Code
Section 4.10.0 I ). We are advised by legal council that this limits Home Occupations to
activities that take place entirely within the walls of the home. Examples given in the Town
Code include dressmaker, small handicraft, artists studio activities, tutor, writer, etc. A
dog kennel, even limited in size, clearly does not fit the same criteria. In fact, the Humane
Society specifically requires that facilities for boarded dogs be outside the home.
Any such commercial use would have a negative impact on surrounding property values
and may make it difficult to refinance or sell homes in the area. We have been advised by a
State Certified Real Estate Appraiser that appraisers are required to research and report any
commercial uses in a neighborhood to perspective mortgage lenders. Homeowners may
also be required to disclose any neighborhood nuisances to perspective buyers. Who would
be liable for losses in property value due to such an activity?
The Planning Commission has a responsibility to protect the integrity of our residential
neighborhoods and not allow them to slowly deteriorate into quasi-commercial areas with a
reduced quality of living. As pointed out by Planning Director Scott Anderson at the June
meeting when 35 Hacienda applied for a Conditional Use Permit (which was denied), "We
are clearly dealing with an illegal business." It was a little chilling to hear one commission
member state that, "I don't think six dogs would be any worse than four dogs personally,"
when Mr. Anderson clearly stated it was illegal to board even one dog as part of a
business.
We thank all members of the planning commission for strictly enforcing the laws of our'
community and protecting the integrity of our neighborhood. This is not a political issue.
It is more fundamental than that. The fact that several dozen people from other
communities would like to board their dogs next door to us should carry no weight
whatsoever. They do not live here. We do.
Respectfull y,
~ ~I'
~~.~ I Sb ~tJy. {;4:4;~-
au' - [, u/"~ftt<'" fl..'
~q.A./~~27 /~Dfi-' ~
~'t~~ j~~vb-'rjl. ~~
erA r;:.,; ~ d-.l iMF/<=:7-t::> ~O
/1'("....'.1, 1''7.
~UE,
(,,-1
(
c r:;;Jd6 1tvai1
RF~r:~"IED
AUG 2 3 1996
August 16, 1996
Tiburon Planning Commission
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
TOWN OF TIBURON
1'l.Ai\~lIf'!G & CU:LDING DE?T.
RE: Home Occupation, 35 Hacienda Drive, Tiburon
The undersigned neighbors in the area of 35 Hacienda Drive, Tiburon, would like to restate
and clarify their opposition to the sanctioning of any commercial venture, especially a
kennel, in our neighborhood. We request that the members of the Planning Commission
strictly limit the Home Occupation permit at 35 Hacienda Drive to prohibit the boarding of
dogs overnight. Home Occupations by definition are limited to uses "conducted entirely
within a dwelling and carried on by the inhabitants thereof..." (Tiburon Town Code
Section 4.10.01). We are advised by legal council that this limits Home Occupations to
activities that take place entirely within the walls of the home. Examples given in the Town
Code include dressmaker, small handicraft, artists studio activities, tutor, writer, etc. A
dog kennel, even limited in size, clearly does not fit the same criteria. In fact, the Humane
Society specifically requires that facilities for boarded dogs be outside the home.
Any such commercial use would have a negative impact on surrounding property values
and may make it difficult to refinance or sell homes in the area. We have been advised by a
State Certified Real Estate Appraiser that appraisers are required to research and report any
commercial uses in a neighborhood to perspective mortgage lenders. Homeowners may
also be required to disclose any neighborhood nuisances to perspective buyers. Who would
be liable for losses in property value due to such an activity?
The Planning Commission has a responsibility to protect the integrity of our residential
neighborhoods and not allow them to slowly deteriorate into quasi-commercial areas with a
reduced quality of living. As pointed out by Planning Director Scott Anderson at the June
meeting when 35 Hacienda applied for a Conditional Use Permit (which was denied), "We
are clearly dealing with an illegal business." It was a little chilling to hear one commission
member state that, "I don't think six dogs would be any worse than four dogs personally,"
when Mr. Anderson clearly stated it was illegal to board even one dog as part of a
business.
We thank all members of the planning commission for strictly enforcing the laws of our-
community and protecting the integrity of our neighborhood. This is not a political issue.
It is more fundamental than that. The fact that several dozen people from other
communities would like to board their dogs next door to us should carry no weight
whatsoever. They do not live here. We do.
Respectfully,
< ~I'
~~~ ,5b~tn--. ~~_
Cfa~~ '.~ 27 I~' D.A-' 6- UI'}:Y7>~~k <<..t
~,~ I' I ( , ('. If~/~
f(~'t~~--- j":i-~~ 'JL ~~
erA c:v~~ d-.l/!b</FIO-b ~O
/1'1'''< ...'.1, f'?
~.:.uo;,
t-l
.'
(
(
IrDlLfE @@(P))f
agenda descriptions for the item.
The Commission discussed at length the logistics of how it would
approach changing its focus from a resolution of denial to a
resolution of approval, and from approving a Home Occupation
Permit to approving a Conditional Use Permit.
Additional questions were directed at Staff and responses were
given.
Schrier summarized what he thought the Planning Commission would
like to see from Staff. He said that the Commission would like
to look at a Conditional Use Permit that would be limited in
duration, with a number of conditions attached that would address
the concerns that were raised, with a stipulated agreement by the
applicant that would expire on a date certain. He said that he
would like some feedback from the Town Attorney on the
enforceability of this stipulation.
Siewert concurred with Schrier's summary of the Commission's
direction to Staff.
Greenberg agreed that she would like some legal advice on the
duress issue as well as the enforceability of that kind of
stipulation.
It was moved, seconded, and unanimously carried to continue this
item to the September 11, 1996, Planning Commission meeting.
Staff was directed to return with a draft resolution of approval.
NEW BUSINESS
V 3.
35 HACIENDA DRIVE: REVIEW OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR DOG
TRAINING; Janice Kase, owner and permit holder.
Anderson stated that at its meeting on June 26, 1996, the
Commission directed Staff to agendize the review of this Home
Occupation Permit which was issued in 1994. He said that this
was to include Staff's suggestions on what might be appropriate
conditions that would keep the Home Occupation within the realm
of what Staff considers to be Home Occupation Permit limitations
as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff has also provided the
Commission with some background information on the number of Home
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 1996 Minutes No. 758
3
EXHIBIT NO. F
~
(
(
Occupation Permits which have been issued by the Town in recent
years. The suggestions that Staff put forth are Staff's vision
of what the limitations, normally associated with a Home
Occupation Permit of this type, should be within the confines of
the Ordinance.
Schrier asked for a presentation by the applicant.
Mark Scott, attorney representing the applicant, said that at the
June 26, 1996, Planning Commission meeting there was direction to
Anderson to come up with some recommendations as to how the Home
Occupancy Permit could be modified and expanded to allow Ms. Kase
to operate her business the same way she might be able to under a
Conditional Use Permit. He said that when he received the
packet, it was not a recommendation to expand or to utilize the
Home Occupation Permit in order to let her to continue to operate
under the permit that she had, but rather to impose restrictions
on what she was already able to do under her Home Occupation
Permit.
Mr. Scott said that, in light of the information in the Staff
Report, he and Ms. Kase request that this item, along with the
previous item, be continued.
Mr. Scott questioned the validity of the standard conditions
listed in Section 4.10.03 of the Zoning Ordinance for Home
Occupations and the additional suggested conditions listed in
the Staff Report.
In order to clarify any misunderstanding, Anderson stated that a
kennel is any boarding of any number of animals, even one. He
said that the Home Occupation Permit is not intended to have any
boarding associated with it. He mentioned that an entirely
different type of land use permit is required when boarding
animals. He stated that it is really a Conditional Use Permit,
not a Home Occupation Permit, that is appropriate for the use
being operated.
Janice Kase, owner/applicant, addressed all of the hostility she
feels from the neighbors. She said that she wants to have her
business.
Schrier opened the public hearing.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSIoNIMINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 1996 Minutes No. 758
4
(
(
Occupation Permits which have been issued by the Town in recent
years. The suggestions that Staff put forth are Staff's vision
of what the limitations, normally associated with a Home
Occupation Permit of this type, should be within the confines of
the Ordinance.
Schrier asked for a presentation by the applicant.
Mark Scott, attorney representing the applicant, said that at the
June 26, 1996, Planning Commission meeting there was direction to
Anderson to come up with some recommendations as to how the Home
Occupancy Permit could be modified and expanded to allow Ms. Kase
to operate her business the same way she might be able to under a
Conditional Use Permit. He said that when he received the
packet, it was not a recommendation to expand or to utilize the
Home Occupation Permit in order to let her to continue to operate
under the permit that she had, but rather to impose restrictions
on what she was already able to do under her Home Occupation
Permit.
Mr. Scott said that, in light of the information in the Staff
Report, he and Ms. Kase request that this item, along with the
previous item, be continued.
Mr. Scott questioned the validity of the standard conditions
listed in Section 4.10.03 of the Zoning Ordinance for Home
Occupations and the additional suggested conditions listed in
the Staff Report.
In order to clarify any misunderstanding, Anderson stated that a
kennel is any boarding of any number of animals, even one. He
said that the Home Occupation Permit is not intended to have any
boarding associated with it. He mentioned that an entirely
different type of land use permit is required when boarding
animals. He stated that it is really a Conditional Use Permit,
not a Home Occupation Permit, that is appropriate for the use
being operated.
Janice Kase, owner/applicant, addressed all of the hostility she
feels from the neighbors. She said that she wants to have her
business.
Schrier opened the public hearing.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSIO~HINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 1996 MinuCea No. 758
4
(
(
Jean Bonander, 56 Hacienda Drive, stated that she does not want
to deprive Ms. Kase of her livelihood, but the livelihood she is
engaged in is, in part, a kennel business which is not permitted
in a residential neighborhood. She feels that the conditions in
the Zoning Ordinance for a Home Occupation as well as the
additional ones listed in the Staff Report are appropriate. She
asked the Commission's consideration of how enforcement will
occur to ensure that the conditions are upheld. She said that
the Marin County Animal Control Ordinance prevents any resident
from keeping or maintaining three or more dogs on the premise
without a kennel permit. She urged the Commission to uphold
Staff's recommendations.
Barry Jones, 75 Hacienda Drive, stated that there is no hostility
toward Ms. Kase regarding this issue. He said that no one wants
her to move, but the neighbors don't want a commercial operation
in the neighborhood. The barking dogs are an on-going problem.
Frank Mulberg, 66 Hacienda Drive, said that he agrees with the
neighbors who already spoke. He said that the applicant exceeded
the bounds of the Home Occupation Permit as it was originally
issued. However, he said that the neighbors are not against the
issuance of a Home Occupation Permit within the confines of the
Zoning Ordinance. He supports Staff's recommendation.
There being no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was
closed at 8:43 p.m.
Schrier asked if the dog training takes place outside andMr,.
Scott replied that the dog training takes place inside the house
and outside in the backyard.
Mr. Scott stated that he disagrees with Mr. Mulberg's
interpretation about Home Occupation Permits.
Siewert feels that a Conditional Use Permit is a better tool to
use in this case.
Schrier would like to see a revocation of the Home Occupation
Permit, because the dog training is being conducted outside of
the dwelling. Because of this, Schrier feels that Ms. Kase
cannot comply with a Home Occupation Permit.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 1996 Minutes No. 758
5
(
(
Greenberg said that all of the
conditions makes it very clear
not the proper vehicle to use.
issues that have been raised about
that the Home Occupation Permit is
Schrier asked for direction from Staff.
Anderson stated that the Commission is within its rights to
revoke the Home Occupation Permit based on non-compliance, as it
was described on the application and in terms of conformance with
the Ordinance. However, that would leave no permission for the
applicant to continue the operation.
Anderson said that an alternative to that would be for the
Commission to direct Staff to prepare a Resolution for the next
meeting for revocation of the Home Occupation Permit, which would
be a separate agenda item from the Conditional Use Permit item
that the Commission has already asked Staff to place on the
agenda.
It was moved, seconded, and unanimously carried to continue this
item to the September 11, 1996, Planning Commission meeting.
Staff was directed to return with a draft resolution revoking the
Home Occupation Permit.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. 4741 PARADISE DRIVE (FILE #19607): CONSIDERATION OF A
. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED
SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT ON AN EXISTING DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL
LOT IN THE RO-2 ZONE. Gee Kampmeyer, owner/applicant;
Assessors Parcel No. 38-091-19. (Resolution)
Contract Planner Allsep stated that this item is a request for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow a detached Secondary Dwelling
Unit. The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit is to be 700 sq. ft.
in size, which is the maximum size allowed. It consists of one
bedroom, one bathroom, a kitchen, and a living room. She said
that two required parking spaces for the Secondary Dwelling Unit
are provided, in addition to the existing parking that is
available to the primary unit. The parking for the Secondary
Dwelling Unit has been revised since the original plan. The
revisions were made based on comments from the Town Engineer, who
had concerns about the back-up space and possible conflicts with
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSIONlMINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 1996 Minutes No. 758
6
.
(
(
Greenberg said that all of the
conditions makes it very clear
not the proper vehicle to use.
issues that have been raised about
that the Home Occupation Permit is
Schrier asked for direction from Staff.
Anderson stated that the Commission is within its rights to
revoke the Home Occupation Permit based on non-compliance, as it
was described on the application and in terms of conformance with
the Ordinance. However, that would leave no permission for the
applicant to continue the operation.
Anderson said that an alternative to that would be for the
Commission to direct Staff to prepare a Resolution for the next
meeting for revocation of the Home Occupation Permit, which would
be a separate agenda item from the Conditional Use Permit item
that the Commission has already asked Staff to place on the
agenda.
It was moved, seconded, and unanimously carried to continue this
item to the September 11, 1996, Planning Commission meeting.
Staff was directed to return with a draft resolution revoking the
Home Occupation Permit.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. 4741 PARADISE DRIVE (FILE #19607): CONSIDERATION OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED
SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT ON AN EXISTING DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL
LOT IN THE RO-2 ZONE. Gee Kampmeyer, owner/applicant;
Assessors Parcel No. 38-091-19. (Resolution)
Contract Planner Allsep stated that this item is a request for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow a detached Secondary Dwelling
Unit. The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit is to be 700 sq. ft.
in size, which is the maximum size allowed. It consists of one
bedroom, one bathroom, a kitchen, and a living room. She said
that two required parking spaces for the Secondary Dwelling Unit
are provided, in addition to the existing parking that is
available to the primary unit. The parking for the Secondary
Dwelling Unit has been revised since the original plan. The
revisions were made based on comments from the Town Engineer, who
had concerns about the back-up space and possible conflicts with
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION'"MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 1996 Minu~e8 No. 758
6
"
r
(
(
PLANNING COMMISSION ST AFF REPORT
FROM:
PLANNING COMMISSION
SCOTT ANDERSON, <;kc--
PLANNING DIRECTOR
MEETING DATE: 9/11/96
ITEM NO.: d...
TO:
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING
UNAUTHORIZED KENNEL USE AT 35 HACIENDA DRIVE; JANICE
KASE, OWNER AND APPLICANT; ASSESSOR PARCEL 39-012-04
BACKGROUND
At its August 28, 1996, regular meeting, the Planning commission
considered adoption of a resolution denying the above-described
application. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Commission
directed staff to return with an additional draft resolution, for
consideration by the Planning commission, which would approve a
dog training and kennel use for a temporary (180-day) period of
time.
A draft resolution of conditional approval is attached as Exhibit
1. A draft resolution of denial is attached as Exhibit 2.
The Town Attorney has reviewed the draft resolutions and
revisions have been incorporated. The Town Attorney is satisfied
that the "temporary" nature of this particular approval is
reasonably enforceable by the Town.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Department Staff continues to recommend that the
application be denied based upon incompatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood.
EXHIBITS
1. Draft Resolution granting conditional approval of the
application.
2. Draft Resolution denying the application.
\scott\kennel.rpt
TlBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
D!1MICl
1
EXHIBIT NO.
G
"~
"
(
(
~,n,' fD) '1\\ ,~
II ' . ~ , u u-'
~; u u
RECORDING REQUESTED
RETURN TO:
Tiburon Planning Department
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
RESOLUTION NO. 96-(draft)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TffiURON
APPROVING A TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A DOG
TRAINING AND DOG KENNEL FACILITY AT 35 HACIENDA DRIVE
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO 39-012-04
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town ofTiburon does resolve as follows:
Section I Findin~s
A. The Planning Commission has received and considered an application filed by Janice Kase
to maintain a dog training and kennel facility in her home at 35 Hacienda Drive, The
application consists of the following:
1. Application form received March 14, 1996
2. Plans received May 28, 1996
The applicant has since agreed to modify the application such that the permit would be
issued on a temporary basis only. '
The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of this resolution.
The record includes the Staff Reports, minutes, application materials, and all comments
and materials received at the public hearing.
B. The applicant has been operating a kennel for a period exceeding one year and has
requested a temporary conditional use permit to allow time to move business to a more
appropriate location.
C. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on June 26, 1996 and heard
and considered testimony from interested persons. The matter was discussed at additional
meetings held on August 28, 1996 and September II, 1996.
D. The Planning Commission finds that the project is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelincs.
E. The Planning Commission finds, based upon the application matcrials and analysis
provided in the June 26, 1996 Staff Report and upon other information contained within
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-draft
September 11, 1996
EXHIBIT NO.
,.
(
(
r (5) fj\
: ; i;'"
L), tl U
~
~ ....-- j
, '
:l.
RECORDING REQUESTED
RETURN TO:
Tiburon Planning Department
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
u-.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-(draft)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
APPROVING A TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A DOG
TRAINING AND DOG KENNEL FACILITY AT 35 HACIENDA DRIVE
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO 39-012-04
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town ofTiburon does resolve as follows:
Section I Findings
A. The Planning Commission has received and considered an application filed by Janice Kase
to maintain a dog training and kennel facility in her home at 35 Hacienda Drive. The
application consists of the following:
1. Application form received March 14, 1996
2. Plans received May 28, 1996
The applicant has since agreed to modifY the application such that the permit would be
issued on a temporary basis only.
The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of this resolution.
The record includes the Staff Reports, minutes, application materials, and all comments
and materials received at the public hearing.
B. The applicant has been operating a kennel for a period exceeding one year and has
requested a temporary conditional use permit to allow time to move business to a more
appropriate location.
C. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on June 26, 1996 and heard
and considered testimony from interested persons. The matter was discussed at additional
meetings held on August 28, 1996 and September II, 1996.
D. The Planning Commission finds that the project is exempt from the requiremcnts ofthc
California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelincs.
E. The Planning Commission finds, based upon the application matcrials and analysis
provided in the June 26, 1996 Staff Report and upon other information contained within
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-draft
September 11, 1996
EXHIBIT NO.
(
(
the official record, that the project as conditioned as a temporary use is reasonably
consistent in the short term with the Tiburon General Plan and is in compliance with the
Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and other applicable regulations. The Commission notes that
the applicant has voluntarily agreed to a temporary permit which will automatically
terminate 180 days after approval and specifically finds that continuation of the use
beyond the 180 day period would be inconsistent with the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and
Tiburon General Plan regarding compatibility with surrounding development.
Section 2 Approval
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the Town of
Tiburon does hereby approve the Conditional Use Permit (File # 19602), to maintain a temporary
dog training and kennel facility at 35 Hacienda Drive subject to the following conditions:
1. This Conditional Use Permit allows the establishment of a dog training and kennel facility
boarding of up to six (6) dogs overnight as described in the application materials. This use
shall be accessory to the principal residential use ofthe property, and shall not commence
until all pertinent conditions have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Planning
Department.
2. The permittee shall provide a minimum of two (2) on-site parking spaces specifically for
patrons of the business. The required parking spaces shall be clearly designate and shall
not interfere with access to or egress from the property or surrounding properties.
3. The permittee shall comply with all requirements of the Marin County Animal Services
agency (MCAS) as outlined in its letter dated 4/2/96, attached hereto as Exhibit I. This
includes securing a Commercial Animal Establishment Permit prior to the commencement
of the use, and ongoing compliance with the terms of said permit.
4. Noise from barking dogs shall be effectively controlled so as to not disturb the
surrounding residential neighborhood. Methods of noise control and animal confinement
shall be addressed in the Commercial Animal Establishment Permit issued by MCAS.
5. The permittee shall comply with all requirements of Marin County Environmental Health
Services as outlined in its letter dated 3/26/96, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
6. Applicant shall sign a document prepared by the Tiburon Town Attorney acknowledging
the temporary nature of the conditional use permit and agreeing to terminate the use six
months after approval, and furthcr agreeing to waive any rights to further hearings prior to
automatic expiration of the conditional use permit and termination ofthc use.
7. The Town reserves the right to amend or revoke this Conditional Use Permit for causc, in
accordance with adopted regulations of the Town.
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 96.dran
September 11, 1996
--
(
(
8. This Conditional Use Permit shall be valid for 180 days following approval and shall then
expire and become null and void.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on ---' by
the following vote:
,AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
PAUL SCHRIER, CHAIRMAN
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
\scott\pcl9602.res
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-draft
September 11, 1996
~'
(
~
l
RESOLUTION NO. 96-(draft)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LEGALIZE AN EXISTING
UNAUTHORIZED DOG KENNEL FACILITY AT 35 HACIENDA DRIVE.
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO 39-0]2-04
. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town ofTiburon does resolve as follows:
Section I Findings
A. The Planning Commission has received and considered an application filed by Janice Kase
to legalize an existing unauthorized dog kennel facility at her residence located at 35
Hacienda Drive in the RO-I zoning district. The application consists of the following:
L Application form received March 14, 1996
2. Plans received May 28, 1996
The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of this resolution.
The record includes the Staff Reports, minutes, application materials, and all comments
and materials received at the public hearing.
B. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on June 26, 1996 and heard
and considered testimony from interested persons. '
C. The Planning Commission has found, based upon the application materials and analysis
provided in the June 26, 1996 Staff Report, and upon testimony of affected neighbors,
that the unauthorized use has caused unavoidable adverse impacts to the surrounding
residential neighborhood, and would continue to do so iflegalized. These impacts include
additional traffic generation, disruption of neighborhood conditions, and noise from
barking dogs. The Commission further finds that it would not be possible to eliminate
these impacts because of the essential nature of the proposed use and the particular
topographic circumstances of the vicinity and its proximity to neighboring residences.
D. The Commission finds that for these reasons the proposed use is not properly related to
the development oflhe neighborhood as a whole and will serve as a disruptive influence
within the established neighborhood. Because of the unavoidable noise and traffic impacts
associated with the use, the Planning Commission found it to be incompatible with the
types of uses (residential) normally allowed in the RO-l zone,
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 96-draft
September 11, 1996
~
EXHIBITNO. c2
.' .
(
(
Section 2 Denial
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the Town of
Tiburon does hereby deny the Conditional Use Permit application (File # 19602) to legalize an
existing unauthorized dog training and kennel facility at 35 Hacienda Drive based on the findings
stated herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
September 11, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
PAUL SCHRIER, CHAIRMAN
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
C:\SCOTI\KENNEL2.RES
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 96.draft
September 11, 1996
(
(
~ 1l2ad
'.l(aren Jones
75 Jiadentfa 'Drive
'li6uron, Ol 94920
~~.("IIoo__"~tJr:.-ft
ft',:: ~-"I~ \':.' ~JJ
9/9/96
SEP 9 1996
Tiburon Planning Commission
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
TGWN OF TIBURON
FU'\;\N!NG C. eU:!..DfNG CEPT:
Dear Planning Commission Member,
After listening to the August 28 meeting, I thought it was important to
address an issue that has been mentioned several times by board members _
that denying Jan Kase a permit to operate a kennel and training facility
might keep her from earning a livelihood. Jan has many options.
I-She can go right on operating her invisible fence
company.
2-She can continue to train dogs minutes from her home
at anyone of our parks or open space areas.
3-She can continue to care for people's dogs and train
them in their home.
The only thing she cannot do is train and board dogs at her home, which
she should never have been doing in the first place.
Please follow your staff's recommendation. This kind of business does not
belong in a residential area. I'm sure your neighbors would not like a _'
business of this kind in your neighborhood and for good reason. On Jan's
behalf, I know she has tried her best to make her business fit it, but the fact
is it just doesn't.
Sincerely, '
~1l~1~~
Karen Jones
~
1
/"'f
(
(
f'I~~I""'\___"l~ "rrnDJ
."~' '-~, . ,", j ".\ 'II "'" \1 '
u' . ',', ',,'.'
FRANK I. MULBERG
"["Q 1 " 1096
'J I lJ ~
September 5, 1996
ATTORNEY AT LAW
e~l5 REDWOOD HIGHWAY, SUITE _ 300
MIL.L. VALLEY, CALIFORNIA g4941
PHONE (41!5) 388.0605
FAX (41!5) 388-6929
TOVlN 0:= T!8URCN
~:"'('.:'~~~;:~3 ~ CU:~D:~3 DE?T.
Scott Anderson
Planning Director
Tiburon Planning Dept.
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Copy via facsimile
435-2438
Re: 35 Hacienda Drive
Opposition to Dog Kennel Conditional Use Permit
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I am a resident of 66 Hacienda Drive, Tiburon, California and am opposed to the issuance of any
conditional use permit for a dog kennel, temporary or otherwise, at 35 Hacienda.
As I indicated during our recent telephone conversation, I am outraged at the manner in which the
members of the Planning Commission have failed to follow their findings that a commercial kennel
is an inappropriate use in a residentially zoned neighborhood.
The Commission has acted in an inconsistent, arbitrary and whimsical manner with respect to its
handling of the Kase Application for a Conditional Use Permit for 35 Hacienda. At the hearing
on June 26th, 1996 the Commission, unanimously, made a finding under the ordinance that a
kennel use was inappropriate for the neighborhood and, directed Staff to return on August 28th,
1996 with a draft resolution denying the proposed use. What is odd is that at the hearing on
August 28th, 1996 the Commission, without any discussion concerning the language of the
resolution as to whether or not it was consistent with their prior findings, instead, wrestled with
whether or not it should even vote on the resolution. Finally after about 15 minutes of confusion
as to what to do a vote was reluctantly taken and the resolution denying the proposed use was
voted down (3-2) and Staff was directed to return on September 11th, 1996 with a draft
resolution for a Conditional Use Permit approving a limited dog kennel use for a period not to
exceed 6 months.
At the same hearing on August 28th, 1996 the Commission, unanimously agreed that the
applicant violated the existing Home Occupancy Permit for dog training, and that such permit
should be revoked. However, here also, without explanation, the Commission decided to
continue this matter to September 11th, 1996,
It is clear from the findings of the Commission that the applicant can neither qualify under the
respective ordinances for either a Conditional Use Permit or a Home Occupancy Permit to
operate a kennel in a residential neighborhood,
,
}
,.I
c
(
Mr. Scott Anderson
Tiburon Planning Dept.
September 5, 1996
Page 2
However, despite these findings the Commission, apparently out of sympathy for the applicant
and in order for her to continue to utilize her property for income producing purposes, decided to
calendar a vote on a resolution that a Temporary Conditional Use Permit is appropriate. This is
oxymoromc.
If the applicant does not satisfY the requirements for a Conditional Use Permit under the
ordinance, how can she satisfY the requirements for a Temporary Conditionai Use Permit? If the
Commission, out of compassion, wants to issue a Conditional Use Permit to which Applicant is
not entitled to under the ordinance, then the property rights to be received by the Applicant are
property rights being taken from the affected residential properties. It appears that an improper
"Taking" will occur unless the Commission changes its present direction.
Based upon research in the community related to property values, the existence of a commercial
kennel in a residential zoned area will cause a reduction in value to the residential properties in the
area, while correspondingly, result in an increase of value to the kennel property because of its
income producing nature. Therefore, I hereby request that before the Commission take any action
to approve a kennel use for the applicant, that the Town Attorney be consulted and opine as to
whether or not this proposed action of the Commission is an uncompensated "Taking" and
violative of the Due Process Provision of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Very truly yours,
Fr I. Mulberg
FM:lb:mg
.." "
.
(
10./2 >>-l.4if
(
September 4, 1996
Mr. Scott Anderson
Tiburon Planning Director
Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
h'1~,0~ry~~n:r;":\
\ ~:!:dJ
SfP 0 :j 19%
~. ..!O'N,\JO;=TI~{'''O''
_-. "_' "rz.\I~., ......In 1\1
- ..~,...~:;,;] \.i !:U" '""101..... r""e,..,
._-'..\..::.....-....!
Re: All About Dogs
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I write on behalf of Ian Kase and All About Dogs. I am a dog owner whose dog has had
the considerable benefits of staying with Ms. Kase. I cannot be present on September 11
when the Planning Commission meets to consider various issues concerning All About
Dogs.
Dog owners are a significant part of our community and as such, should have the same
opportunities to fulfill their specialized needs as, for example, groups as diverse as
parents and automobile owners. Parents and automobile owners can fmd all sorts of
establishments that cater to their needs of caring for their children or automobiles. The
same should be true for dog owners.
Certainly, Tiburon is sufficiently enlightened that it recognizes and accepts the challenge
of addressing the needs of all its residents and neighbors, whether they be parents,
automobile owners, dog owners, or any other group with specialized needs. Accept this
challenge for dog owners; don't ignore us.
All About Dogs provides an important community service for a significant part of your
constituency. Indeed, All About Dogs is unique in the entire Bay Area in providing such
excellent care for the animals that are fortunate enough to stay there. The dogs enjoy a
positive, productive experience in a quiet, serene setting.
In the next four months I will have a need for Ms. Kase's services on at least three
occasions. My first request is that you and the PlaIllling Commission find a way to allow
Ms. Case to continue operation in her present location. It is difficult for me to understand
why this would not be possible in view of the fact that All About Dogs provides a
valuable community service and is not disruptive to the neighborhood. But if the
Commission determines it is not possible for her to continue permanently, then I ask that
you allow her to continue in business temporarily for the next six months so she will have
the opportunity to find an altemative location while still providing the valuable services
that so many of us need.
-
,"'-f'
.
(
(
k-fJ2 1;~ii!
September 4, 1996
Mr. Scott Anderson
Tiburon Planning Director
Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
~~,0~ry'!I7~D
0-0
vt, 0 ,; 19%
Re: All About Dogs
r. . ,Tow,'j 0;= TI,~[ '''0''
a-- '- -"'I':'\.,f:.' ('I ......Ii-, HI
- "~'-".-.:J <l.. CU., 1"'\"1,... r"e
.--'.......;:.........?!
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I write on behalf of Jan Kase and All About Dogs. I am a dog owner whose dog has had
the considerable benefits of staying with Ms. Kase. I cannot be present on September 11
when the Planning Commission meets to consider various issues concerning All About
Dogs.
Dog owners are a significant part of our community and as such, should have the same
opportunities to fulfill their specialized needs as, for example, groups as diverse as
parents and automobile owners. Parents and automobile owners can find all sorts of
establishments that cater to their needs of caring for their children or automobiles. The
same should be true for dog owners.
Certainly, Tiburon is sufficiently enlightened that it recognizes and accepts the challenge
of addressing the needs of all its residents and neighbors, whether they be parents,
automobile owners, dog owners, or any other group with specialized needs. Accept this
challenge for dog owners; don't ignore us.
All About Dogs provides an important community service for a significant part of your
constituency. Indeed, All About Dogs is unique in the entire Bay Area in providing such
excellent care for the animals that are fortunate enough to stay there. The dogs enjoy a
positive, productive experience in a quiet, serene setting.
In the next four months I will have a need for Ms. Kase's services on at least tIu'ee
occasions. My first request is that you and the Planning Commission find a way to allow
Ms. Case to continue operation in her present location. It is difficult for me to understand
why this would not be possible in view of the fact that All About Dogs provides a
valuable community service and is not disruptive to the neighborhood. But if the
Commission determines it is not possible for her to continue permanently, then I ask that
you allow her to continue in business temporarily for the next six months so she will have
the opportunity to find an alternative location while still providing the valuable services
that so many of us need.
",./ ...
.
(
(
Please show this letter to all the Commissioners. I thank you and the Commissioners for
your consideration.
CC. Jan Kase
3.
35 HACIENDA DRIVE: REVIEW FOR POSSIBLE
REVOCATION OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR DOG
Kase, owner and permit holder (continued
1996). (Resolution)
rID [ffi ~ rFlr
MODIFICATION OR
TRAINING; Janice
from August 28,
Anderson stated that at its August 28, 1996, meeting the Planning
Commission directed Staff to return with a resolution revoking the
Home Occupation Permit. However, Anderson suggested that the
Commission may wish to consider modification of the Home Occupation
Permit as an alternative to revocation.
SChrier opened the public hearing.
Janice Kase, owner/applicant, asked the Commission why it is a
problem to board dogs overnight, as she would like to be able to
board five or six dogs on occasion. She said that sometimes she
needs to keep the dogs overnight as part of training. She
explained how a Hobbyist Permit allows the keeping of dogs
overnight and more.
Schrier told Ms. Kase that the Commission is not going to get into
a dialogue on something that it has already acted upon.
Mark Scott, attorney representing the applicant, gave his opinions
about each condition in the Staff Report.
Mr. Scott expressed his opinion that the average dog owner in
Tiburon has more rights than Ms. Kase does under her Home
Occupation Permit including the right to keep dogs overnight.
Karen Jones, 75 Hacienda Drive, stated that noise from the dogs is
reason enough not to allow the Home Occupation Permit. She said
that this problem has been going on for two years. She said that
Ms. Kase's business has had a far greater impact on her than any of
the other non-residential uses in the immediate area.
Jean Bonander, 56 Hacienda Drive, stated that she is very familiar
with the Marin County Animal Control Ordinance. She said that
according to that Ordinance, without a Kennel Permit, only three
dogs and puppies up to four months in age are allowed at a
residential dwelling.
There being no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 Minutes No. 759
2
EXHIBIT NO.~
[0) [ffi f%[F1[
closed at 9:10 p.m.
Sadrieh asked Anderson if the
this Home Occupation Permit.
reasonable in this case.
Commission can put a time limit on
Anderson replied that it appears
Greenberg asked Anderson on what basis could the Commission justify
putting specific time limits on this Home Occupation Permit.
Anderson replied that this could be done if the applicant agrees
prior'to issuance of the permit.
Schrier asked Anderson if the Commission can permit training
outside the dwelling. Anderson stated that he discussed the
definition of the Home Occupation Permit with the Town Attorney who
said that it appears that the training needs to occur within the
dwelling.
Anderson told the Commission that if it would like a more formal
opinion from the Town Attorney about how much latitude it has
regarding conditioning such things as training, he would do that.
He said that the Commission is not facing a statutory deadline on
the Home Occupation Permit, and since it has already made a
decision to deny the Conditional Use Permit, the issue of a
statutory deadline on that permit is also no longer an issue.
The Commissioners individually discussed their suggested conditions
for the Home Occupation Permit.
" Mr. Scott anticipates that this will be appealed to the Town
Council. He requested that the Commission issue the, Home
Occupation Permit on whatever conditions the Commission finds
appropriate.
The Commissioners discussed revisions to the conditions and they
are summarized as follows:
1. One dog may be kept overnight for training purposes above the
two that reside there.
2. Limit training outside to daylight hours.
3. One employee is permitted.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 Minutes No. 759
3
.---
4.
lQ) 1n1 /AHrlr
Keep condition as set forth in the Staff Report.
Keep condition as set forth in the Staff Report.
5.
6. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
7. Keep condition as set forth in the Staff Report.
8. 'Prior to the permit being granted, the applicant and the Town
would enter into a stipulated agreement where the permit would
automatically expire after 180 days from the date of issuance,
in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney.
9. Maximum number of dogs from the outside (client's dogs) at any
one time will be two.
10. Dogs must be indoors if no Staff person is on site.
11. Two parking spaces on site should be maintained for the
business.
At the Commission's request, Anderson suggested some changes to the
above revisions.
The Commission directed Staff to finalize these conditions after
the Town Attorney reviews the condition regarding outside dog
training and prepare it for the Chairman's signature.
~;fr'r:.:
Mis Greenberg/Sadrieh (3-1, Schrier opposed) to approve. the
modification of the Home Occupation Permit for dog training.
Chairman Schrier stated it would be his preference to revoke the
permit or have more restrictive conditions applied.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 Minutes No. 759
4
-
(
Tiburon Town Code Chapter 16: Zoning
CHAPTER 4: ZONING PERMITS
SECTION 4.10.00. HOME OCCUPATIONS.
4.10.01. Definition.
A Home Occupation is any use which is conducted entirely within a
dwelling and carried on by the inhabitants thereof, is clearly
incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential
purposes, and does not change the character thereof or adversely
affect the uses permitted in the residential district in which it
is located, may be permitted in any residential zone.
4.10.02. Application and Fee.
Application for a Home Occupation Permit shall be made pursuant to
the provisions of Section 3.01. 00 , and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate fee.
4.10.03. General Criteria.
(
Home Occupations shall be limited to the following uses:
dressmaking, sewing, millinery, small handcraft, art work, artists
and sculptors studio activities, the office of a musician, tutor,
writer, architect, physician, technical advisor, attorney,
insurance agent, and any other uses which may be determined by the
Director or the Commission to be of the same general character as
the above occupations, and not objectionable or detrimental to the
zone in which located.
Home occupations shall meet the following requirements:
(a) No significant additional traffic shall be created in
the neighborhood.
(b) One additional off-street parking space beyond that
required for the residential use shall be maintained.
(c) No more than one non-resident person shall be employed,
at which time an additional off-street parking space
shall be required beyond that required by (b) above.
Cd) No material may be stored, and no equipment used which
is hazardous or visible or audible from outside the
building or otherwise creates a nuisance.
(e) There shall be no display of goods visible from the
exterior of the building, and no signs may be placed on
the building or property.
l
Ordinance No. 360 N.S.
Effective 12/26/90
Page 155
EXHIBIT NO. r-
(
(
c
Tiburon Town Code
Chapter 16: Zoning
CHAPTER 4: ZONING PERMITS
The Commission or Director may impose any conditions on the home
occupation which are warranted by the type of activity. All per-
sons conducting businesses from their homes are required to have
a valid Business License from the Town of Tiburon.
Ordinance No. 360 N.S.
Effective 12/26/90
Page 156
-.. ,'... ~'.~
October 31, 1996
""',..,. ~,.,..". rl7"',"-
L"I".,--I -. .--..'1 (~,\JJ
Scott Anderson
Tiburon Planning Department
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
r':'1\! ru'; lL~,
,-, - \, I 1/1_
TOV,," 0:= T13URON
F:...r...;\: !:~~G 3. CU:~O::\!8 CE?T..
RE: Home Occupation, 35 Hacienda Drive, Tiburon
The undersigned neighbors in the area of 35 Hacienda Drive, Tiburon are strongly
opposed to the sanctioning of any commercial venture, especially a dog kennel in our
neighborhood. We request that the members of the Town Council uphold the Planning
Director's decision to modify the home occupation permit issued to Janice Kase at 35
Hacienda Drive. The modifications are necessary to prevent Ms. Kase from operating a
dog kennel as she has in the past. Home occupation permits by definition are limited to
uses "conducted entirely within a dwelling and carried on by the inhabitants thereof..."
(Tiburon Town Code Section 4.10.01). We are advised by legal council that this limits
Home Occupations to activities that take place entirely within the walls of the home.
Examples given in the Town Code include dressmaker, small handicraft, artists studio
activities, tutor, writer, etc. A dog kennel, even limited in size, clearly does not fit the
same criteria. In fact, the Humane Society specifically requires that facilities for boarded
dogs be outside the home.
Any such commercial use would have a negative impact on surrounding property values
and may make it difficult to refinance or sell homes in the area. We have been advised by a
State Certified Real Estate Appraiser that appraisers are required to research and report any
commercial uses in a neighborhood to perspective mortgage lenders. Homeowners may
also be required to disclose any neighborhood nuisances to perspective buyers. Who would
be liable for losses in property value due to such an activity?
The Planning Commission has voted to protect the integrity of our residential
neighborhoods and not allow them to slowly deteriorate into quasi-commercial areas with a
reduced quality of living. As pointed out by Planning Director Scott Anderson at the June
meeting when 35 Hacienda applied for a Conditional Use Permit (which was denied), "We
are clearly dealing with an illegal business."
We thank all members of the Town Council for strictly enforcing the laws of our
community and protecting the integrity of our neighborhood.
Respectfully,
~ ~"\ j=,~
LLke; ~"" \~~ O~.
q')CV\iAD .
<J: .n' Or\ n 1 (Ltd T~ rA~
o VC;:6f7[dCfl PJr1rb Dr - - cr
C?~ '-Ha.",,~
, 2 7 J./~, ,'. i Qo..., Iv. /./"..
l3a,:l7C/z-,</ 11:-- fiz'T!~-7l-~
Cl-.l.. vL. t/l. /..k. 'lw..<:- 1.- -
(T;;7 .~e':',-..'.-- ~ ,
I0-v~(j,:, ~{U)~&t'8
.'1 + &!.u:.f!..C~-(..~ JI:. 1,
~ 8<7f7cc1trif
/()-3/-Qr,
6- t.., A-P> e.-. C T
,_ T;:!1\.lA..,,8n~TNO. T
(9t1'~ rf?~
L5~~t}Y.
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO. 9
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN MANAGER
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM
November 6, 1996
BACKGROUND
In 1993, the State Department of Toxic Substance Control authorized the City of San
Rafael to operate a permanent "Household Hazardous Waste Facility" at an approved site. A
cooperative agreement was entered into by the City of San Rafael and the Marin Recycling &
Resource Recovery Association to operate the program.
Since November, 1995 the City of San Rafael and Marin Recycling have collectively
sponsored 12 Household Hazardous Waste collection events, The overall program has proven to
be cost effective and an efficient way to serve the rest of San Rafael.
The Marin Sold Waste JP A in conjunction with the City of San Rafael is proposing to
extend this program for all Marin municipalities except Novato, They are asking each jurisdiction
to adopt the draft resolution which will delegate the responsibility for Household Hazardous
Waste Management collection and disposal to the Joint Powers Authority.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Town Council approve participation in the program and adopt the draft
resolution.
The Managers of Southern Marin cities and towns have requested our refuse hauler (Mill
Valley Refuse Service) to explore the possibility of obtaining a permit and operating a Household
Hazardous Waste collection program in our area. The purpose of a disposal site in Southern
Marin similar to that of Nova to is to provide a facility that is more convenient for the residents
and to help ensure a more successful program,
RL Kleinert
Town Manager
Exhibits
--Description of Hazardous Waste Collection & Consolidation Facility
--Hazardous Waste Contributions Agreement Proposal
--Letter from Marin County Waste Management JPA & attached Resolution
DESCRIPTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION
AND CONSOLIDATION FACILITY
.f f The City of San Rafael, through Marin Recycling and Resource Recovery Association,
will provide the JPA and participating jurisdictions with 26 Household Hazardous Waste
Collection Events. The existing Battery, Oil and Paint Program will be available to
residents seven days a week. Conditionally-exempt small quantity generators (businesses
that generate small quantity waste) would be able to, by appointment, drop off specified
waste streams at a fee for service paid directly to Marin Recycling by the business user.
The Consolidation Facility located at Marin Recycling, 565 Jacoby Street, houses and
processes three categories of hazardous waste: Household waste, small quantity
generator waste and load checking waste. The physical site consists of seven pre-
fabricated safety storage-type buildings, a canopy area where latex paint is consolidated,
and a l,OOO-gallon aboveground storage tank for waste oil. One of the safety storage
buildings is utilized as a receiving area, consolidation area and laboratory. The other six
units are utilized for drum stcrage of collected waste. There is a separate small quantity
generator waste drop-off area where trucks are unloaded and lab inventoried and
consolidated separately from the household hazardous waste. A haz bin for prohibitive
waste found by Marin Sanitary personnel while load checking is also part of the facility's
operation. Confiscated waste or abandoned waste are separated in a stored haz bin until
the generator picks up the waste, or if abandoned (no generator), the waste is labpacked
and/or consolidated. The abandoned waste storage area would be made available to all
participating jurisdictions in the event of an illegal dump or an abandoned waste.
A receiving area for cars is established at the waste station at Marin Recycling facility.
After residency verification (usually by driver's license), a technician unloads the waste
onto chemical carts and rolls them into the sorting area. A concrete slab with
appropriate drainage underlies the entire facility. Wastes of unknown chemical's origin
are brought to the laboratory and analyzed. After wastes are removed the vehicles, the
vehicles exit the designated route. If special attention is needed, due to the type or
quantIty of waste brought to the facility, a special parking area is available for those
re.sidents. The unloading area and working areas between the storage units are provided
Wlth pre-engmee:ed portable hazardous spill containment sumps with a 770 spill capacity
for each and deSIgned to contain any accidental spill.
Wastes brought to the sorting area are identified by the chemical specialists and
segregated. by hazard class. Once hazard category is determined, technicians separate
out potenually useable ma~enals for the waste-exchange program. A waste-exchange bin,
whIch has secondary contamment, ample ventilation and shelving is used to store useable
consumer package products brought to the consolidation facility. Participants over 18
years of age are escorted to the waste-exchange bin by a facility employee and allowed to
choose any products to take home. This program is extended to participating
jurisdictions.
EXHIBIT NO. /
Several storage bays are set up for either labpacking, containerization or consolidation in
drums. Recyclable wastes are managed separately from other wastes consistent with the
Health and Safety Code. Drums are labeled. Paints, solvents and flammable and
combustible liquids and solids, not removed to the waste-exchange program, are
consolidated. The consolidation of any flammable waste is performed under a canopy
hood with mechanical exhaust ventilation. Product labels are reviewed, and a
compatibility test is performed before adding any wastes to the consolidated waste drum.
Waste oil is either taken by cart or hand to an aboveground tank and poured into the
top of the tank. This oil is also mixed with the oil collected in the Battery, Oil and Paint
Program. This double-wall tank is surrounded by a raised sump to assist in spill control.
Asbestos waste is received only from household origin and in quantities not to exceed 50
pounds, Asbestos received at the facility is required to be in approved asbestos bags and
sealed. Asbestos waste is stored in an approved roll-off bin with locking lid.
Aerosol spray cans are segregated by flammable/insecticide waste and containerized.
Caps and spray nozzles are removed and discarded. This prevents aerosols from
releasing gas during shipment. The containers are placed in DOT approved drums
without absorbent materials and labeled with completed DOT approved shipping labels
and hazard class stickers.
Compatible wastes, not eligible for consolidation, are lab packed. The absorbent material
used is non-reactive with the contents of the containers labpacked within the drums. An
inventory sheet is completed as the technician packs the waste into the drum. Once the
drum is full, the technician completes the necessary paperwork and generates the waste
manifest.
Drums are taken to one of six safety storage buildings which are equipped with
individual spill containment reservoirs beneath a grated steel floor system, Fume hoods,
air intake vents, fire sprinkler systems and interior shelving have been installed in the
chemical storage buildings. These storage units are bolted down to a reinforced concrete
apron, The drums are stored until picked up and transported from the facility by a
licensed waste hauler under supervision of the City of San Rafael Hazardous Materials
Division. All waste materials are stored in locked safety storage buildings during non-
business hours,
The property boundary is fenced and the entrance and exit gates are locked during non-
operating hours. High intensity light is used to illuminate the yard area of the
consolidation facility. Overhead explosion-proof lights are used inside the buildings.
EXhIBIT NO. /
Several storage bays are set up for either labpacking, containerization or consolidation in
drums. Recyclable wastes are managed separately from other wastes consistent with the
Health and Safety Code. Drums are labeled. Paints, solvents and flammable and
combustible liquids and solids, not removed to the waste-exchange program, are
consolidated, The consolidation of any flammable waste is performed under a canopy
hood with mechanical exhaust ventilation. Product labels are reviewed, and a
compatibility test is performed before adding any wastes to the consolidated waste drum.
Waste oil is either taken by cart or hand to an aboveground tank and poured into the
top of the tanlc This oil is also mixed with the oil collected in the Battery, Oil and Paint
Program. This double-wall tank is surrounded by a raised sump to assist in spill control.
Asbestos waste is received only from household origin and in quantities not to exceed 50
pounds. Asbestos received at the facility is required to be in approved asbestos bags and
sealed. Asbestos waste is stored in an approved roll-off bin with locking lid.
Aerosol spray cans are segregated by flammable/insecticide waste and containerized.
Caps and spray nozzles are removed and discarded. This prevents aerosols from
releasing gas during shipment, The containers are placed in DOT approved drums
without absorbent materials and labeled with completed DOT approved shipping labels
and hazard class stickers.
Compatible wastes, not eligible for consolidation, are labpacked. The absorbent material
used is non-reactive with the contents of the containers labpacked within the drums. An
inventory sheet is completed as the technician packs the waste into the drum. Once the
drum is full, the technician completes the necessary paperwork and generates the waste
manifest.
Drums are taken to one of six safety storage buildings which are equipped with
individual spill containment reservoirs beneath a grated steel floor system. Fume hoods,
air intake vents, fire sprinkler systems and interior shelving have been installed in the
chemical storage buildings. These storage units are bolted down to a reinforced concrete
apron. The drums are stored until picked up and transported from the facility by a
licensed waste hauler under supervision of the City of San Rafael Hazardous Materials
Division. All waste materials are stored in locked safety storage buildings during non-
business hours.
The property boundary is fenced and the entrance and exit gates are locked during non-
operating hours. High intensity light is used to illuminate the yard area of the
consolidation facility. Overhead explosion-proof lights are used inside the buildings.
EXfiIBITNO. /
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTRIBUTIONS
AGREEMENT PROPOSAL
The City of San Rafael and the Joint Powers Authority wish to expand this existing
permanent program to include those jurisdictions in Marin County outside the city limits
of San Rafael. This participation will occur through a Hazardous Waste Contributions
Agreement executed between the Marin County Joint Powers Authority and the City of
San Rafael. Marin residents will be able to use the Household Hazardous Waste Facility
for up to 26 events the first year of operation in contrast to the Office of Waste
Management's 3-4 events per year. In addition, the City of San Rafael will offer,
through Marin Recycling, use of the facility for continuation of the Battery, Oil and
Paint Program seven days per week.
For the Household Hazardous Waste Program, residents will be notified of the events
through the garbage hauler or other notification system, established and implemented by
the City of San Rafael and Marin Recycling. The facility will be open to collect and
receive household hazardous waste between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. No
appointment will be necessary.
For the Battery, Oil and Paint Program, the facility will be open and accepting materials
during hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., except for Sunday, hours 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
to collect and receive batteries, oil, paint, antifreeze, neon tubes and household batteries
from residents participating in the program.
Conditionally-exempt small quantity generators (businesses with small quantities of
specified wastes) will be able to participate as a condition of approval of the permanent
Household Hazardous Waste Facility, by dropping off small quantities of specified wastes
and charged a fee for service, This is a perk of operating a permanent facility and' has
no cost impact to the residents of the jurisdiction as it would be on a. fee for service basis
only.
EXHIBIT NO. 1-
Belvedere:
Ann Otter
Corte Madera:
James Robinson
County of Marin
Martin Nicbols
Fairfax:
Pbil Gorney
Larkspur:
Jean Bonander
Mill Valley:
Doug Dawson
Novato:
Pat Eklund
Ross:
Rabi Elias
San Anselmo:
Betb Pollard
San Rafael:
Rod Gould
Sausalito:
Brock Arner
Tibu ron:
Andrew Tbompson
MARIN COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
October 10, 1996
fR1~~~U'W~[Q)
OCT 1 5 1996
TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
TO: Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste
Joint Powers of Authority
Dear Board Member:
As you know, at your September meeting the JP A decided to contract with the City of San
Rafael to provide the household hazardous waste collection program for all municipalities
except Novato. San Rafael is preparing a contract for the JP A's consideration.
However, it has been noted the existing JP A Agreement does not contain the necessary
language to allow the JP A to enter into the household hazardous waste program.
Therefore, enclosed is a sample resolution drawn up by the JPA's attorney, Alexis
McBride from County Counsel's office, which you should have approved by your Council
~ or Board to proceed with this program. The Executive Committee has requested you take
( action on the resolution prior to the JPA's October 28, 1996 meetiI1g,---
In addition enclosed is a Staff Report, provided by Captain Forrest Craig from the San
Rafael Fire Department, describing the household hazardous waste program the City of
San Rafael will provide to the JP A.
The purpose of the enclosed Resolution and Staff Report are to keep process moving on
this program. The JP A' s attorney has indicated there may be contract issues to be
resolved before the JP A approves the actual contract with the City of San Rafael.
Please contact me should you wish to discuss these issues. It is requested you sent me a
copy of the Resolution once your Councilor Board approves it.
~1r'e:J4~
JikRaWles
Grants Manager
JR:aa:e\rawleslwj 10 I 06
Enclosure
ccs: Alexis McBride
Captain Forrest Craig
EXHIBIT No.3
Marin County Department of Public Works, P.O. Box 4186, San Rafael, CA 94913
Phone: 415/499-{j570 - FAX 415/499-3799
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE [COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS]
[ CITY COUNCIL]. APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING
THE [CITY MANAGER] [COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR] TO TAKE STEPS
NECESSARY TO DELEGATE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HOUSEHOLD
WASTE MANAGEMENT TO THE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the [County] [City of ] entered into a Revised
Joint and Solid Waste Agreement on July 1, 1996 in order to coordinate their power
and authority to implement integrated waste management programs which meet the
long term waste management need and requirement of AB939; and
WHEREAS, the operation of a household hazardous waste collection
program is also mandated by state law; and
WHEREAS, Section 6.2 of the Joint Powers Agreement (hereinafter
"JPA") allows that member agencies, may by formal action of their governing board
choose whether or not they wish to participate in and fund programs to be developed
the Authority; and
WHEREAS, the JPA has a Household Hazardous Waste Program which
it has developed in conjunction with the City of San Rafael and funding from the
haulers has been allocated;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE [COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS] [ CITY COUNCIL]:
Section 1. The Authority for the development and
implementation of a Household Hazardous Waste Program hereby delegated to the
JPA.
Section 2. Upon execution of the Hcusehold Hazardous Waste
Contract the Authority is hereby delegated full authority to act on behalf the [County]
[City of ] in all matters related to the collection of household
hazardous materials authority.
Section 3. If any clause, section, other part or application of this
Resolution is held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or
invalid, in part or application, it shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
or applications of this Resolution.
Section 4. The [County Administrator] [City Manager] shall keep
the [Board of Supervisors] [City Council] informed of actions taken pursuant to this
Resolution,and of developments relating to household hazardous waste regulation.
Section 5, All resolutions, ordinances or other prOVISions of
County law, or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed 0 the extent of
such conflict.
Section 6. If any clause, section,other part or application of this
Resolution is held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or
invalid, in part or application, it shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
or applications of this Resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors
of the [County of Marin] and [
City Council] held this
day of
, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
[CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS]
[MAYOR]
ATTEST:
Clerk
amc\waste.res
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO. /0
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN MANAGER
MANDATORY TESTING FOR TAXICAB DRIVERS
November 6, 1996
BACKGROUND
The State of California has mandated that all cities and counties provide a controlled
substance and alcohol certification program for taxicab drivers,
The County of Marin has adopted an ordinance which provides for testing of taxicab
drivers in conjunction with the issuance of a driver's permit. The Marin County Transit District is
the authorized agency to adopt the policies and procedures to implement this testing program,
The ordinance also provides that the County will serve as the lead agency in the implementation
of the required testing for any city within Marin County which has authorized the County to act as
the lead agency.
The Marin County Counsel's office believes it appropriate for cities to endorse their
participation in the program by adoption of a resolution.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Town Council adopt the Resolution Authorizing Participation in the County-wide
Mandatory Controlled Substance and Alcohol Testing Program for Taxi Drivers.
R.L. Kleinert
Town Manager
EXHIBITS
--Draft Resolution
--Marin County Ordinance pertaining to Taxicab Transportation Service
--Draft Policies and Procedures Pertaining to Issuance of Taxi Driver's Permits
and Drug and Alcohol Testing Requirements
'f
.I
RESOLUTION NO.:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN COUNTYWIDE MANDATORY
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND ALCOHOL TESTING PROGRAM FOR TAXICAB
DRIVERS PURSUANT TO SECTION 53075.5 OF CHAPTER 405 OF THE
GOVERNMENT CODE.
WHEREAS, existing regulations required that every city and county adopt by
ordinance or resolution, a policy for entry into the business of providing taxicab services
and the establishment of, or registration of rates, for the provision of said taxicab
transportation service; and
WHEREAS, each city or county may levy service charges, fees, or assessments
in an amount sufficient to pay for the costs of carrying out said ordinance or resolution;
and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 46 approved by the Governor on August 10, 1995,
broadened the responsibilities of each city and county requiring implementation of a new
mandatory controlled substance and alcohol testing certification program of taxi drivers;
and
WHEREAS, the test for controlled substances shall conform substantially to Part
40 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and
WHEREAS, a test in one jurisdiction shall be accepted as meeting the same
requirement in any other jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, each city and the county believe it to be of benefit to establish one
lead agency to assume the administrative responsibilities for compliance with Section
53075.5 of Chapter 405 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, each city cetfies by adoption of this resolution their participation in a
countywide mandatory controlled substance and alcohol testing program for taxicab
drivers in Marin County, with the County of Marin acting as lead agency.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of
hereby resolves to participate in the Countywide
Mandatory Controlled Substance and Alcohol Testing Certification Program for Taxicab
Drivers as established by County of Marin Ordinance Section 5.48.000
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF MARIN AMENDING CHAPTER 5.48
OF THE MARIN COUNTY CODE
PERTAINING TO TAXICAB TRANSPORTATION SERVICE
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OFMARINDOFS HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Section 5.48.000 is hereby added to Chapter 5.48 to read as follows:
Section 5.48.000
Compliance Anthority.
Sections 5.48.070 thru 5.48.150 of this ordinance are added to comply with the
provisions of Chapter 405 of the Statutes of 1995, codified as Government Code ~53075.5.
SECTION II. Sections 5.48.070 thru Section 5.48.150 are hereby added to
Chapter 5.48 of the Marin County Code to read as follows:
5.48.070
Driver's Pennit Required for Employment.
Issuance of a driver's permit by the County of Marin or other local jurisdiction
within Marin County shall be a condition of employment, or an offer of employment, as a
taxicab driver. The driver's permit shall become void upon termination of such employment.
The driver's permit shall state name of the employer. The employer shall notify the County of
Marin upon termination of employment. The driver shall return the permit to the County upon
termination of employment. The Marin County Transit District ("Transit District") is authorized
to adopt policies and procedures to implement the provisions of this Chapter, subject to approval
by the Marin County Board of Supervisors. Said policies and procedures may include
inteIjurisdictional policies to allow the County to coordinate its policies with the Cities within
Marin County and for the County to act as the lead agency in implementing the testing required
by this ordinance for any cities within Marin County which elect to allow the County to act as
lead agency.
5.48.080
Mandatory Controlled Substance and Alcohol Testing
Required.
A mandatory controlled substance and alcohol testing certification program shall
be required for all taxicab drivers, pursuant to the policies and procedures adopted by the Transit
District referenced in Section 5.48.070 above.
1
5.48.090
Driver's Permit Requires Negative Test Prior to
Employment or Permit Renewal.
Drivers shall test negative for each of the controlled substances specified in Part
40 (commencing with Section 40.1) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, before
employment. Drivers shall test negative for these controlled substances and for alcohol as a
condition of permit renewal or if no periodic permit renewals are required, at such other times
as shall be designated. As used in this section, "negative test for alcohol" means an alcohol
screening test showing a breath alcohol concentration less than Two One-Hundreds Percent
(0.02%).
5.48.100
Procedures Substantially As in Part 40 of Title 49 of the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Procedures shall be substantially as in Part 40 (commencing with Section 40.1)
of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, except that the driver shall show a valid
California driver's license at the time and place of testing, and except as provided otherwise in
this section. Requirements for rehabilitation and for retum-to-duty and follow-up testing and
other requirements, except as provided otherwise in this section, shall be substantially as in Part
382 (commencing with Section 382.101) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
5.48.110
Acceptance of Tests from Other Jurisdictions.
A test from another jurisdiction shall be accepted as meeting the same requirement
in any Marin County jurisdiction. Any negative test result shall be accepted for one (1) year
as meeting a requirement for periodic permit renewal testing or any other periodic testing in that
jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction, if the driver has not tested positive subsequent to a negative
result. However, an earlier negative result shall not be accepted as meeting the pre-employment
testing requirement for any subsequent employment, or any testing requirements under the
program other than periodic testing.
5.48.120
Reporting of Test Results.
All test results shall be reported to the County, the taxicab leasing company of
record, if any, and in the case of a self-employed independent driver, to that driver.
5.48.130
Confidentiality of Tests.
All test results are confidential and shall not be released without the consent of
the driver unless required by law. No evidence derived from a positive test result pursuant to
the program, shall be admissible in a criminal prosecution concerning unlawful possession, sale,
or distribution of controlled substances.
2
5.48.140
Self-Employed Independent Drivers Responsible for Costs.
Self-employed independent drivers shall be responsible for compliance with, and
shall pay all costs of, this program with regard to themselves. Employing transportation
operators shall be responsible for compliance with, and shall pay all costs of, this program with
respect to their employees and potential employees, except that an operator may require
employees who test positive to pay the costs of rehabilitation and of retum-t.o-<Iuty and follow-up
testing.
5.48.150
Issuance of a List of Consortia Certified Pursuant to Title 49 of the
Code of Federal Regulations.
Upon the request of a driver applying for a Permit, the County shall give the
driver a list of consortia certified pursuant to Part 382 (commencing with Section 382.101) of
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations that the County knows offers tests in or near their
jurisdiction.
5.48.160
County May Levy Service Charges, Fees or Assessments.
The County may levy service charges, fees or assessments in an amount sufficient
to pay for the costs of carrying out this Ordinance.
SECTION m. PUBUCATION. This ordinance shall be and is hereby declared
to be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage and shall be
published once before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, with the names of the
supervisors voting for and against the same in the Independent Journal, a newspaper of general
circulation published in the County of Marin.
III
3
PASSED AND ADOPrED at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Marin, State of California, held on day of , by
the following vote:
AYES:
SUPERVISORS
NOES:
ABSENT:
CHAIRPERSON, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ATTEST:
CLERK
O:\dlz\ord.&W
4
.
DRAFT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
PERTAINING TO ISSUANCE OF TAXI DRIVER'S PERMITS
AND DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING REQUIREMENTS
In response to S8 46, signed into law as Chapter 405 of the Government Code,
detailed below are suggested policies and procedures which implement a Countywide
Taxi Driver Permit Program. The program serves the city and county jurisdictions
located within the geographic confines of Marin County, California.
Interjurisdictional Policies
The interjurisdictional policies establish that the County of Marin will serve as the
lead agency in this effort, and have been crafted to allow city jurisdictions the greatest
possible ease for participating in the program, Costs to the County are to be fully
reimbursed from fees paid directly by taxi drivers.
1. Local jurisdictions shall maintain any existing controls over taxi operation
as they may have already established by ordinance or resolution,
2. The County shall adopt by ordinance measures implementing Section
53075.5 of Chapter 405 of the Government Code establishing a
mandatory controlled substances and alcohol testing program for taxi
drivers (attached).
3. Cities shall pass a resolution authorizing their participation (attached),
4. The County shall be fully reimbursed for costs.
5. Initial program review by Marin Managers after six months. Thereafter,
review shall occur on an annual basis or as appropriate.
Countywide Taxi Driver Permit ProQram
1. All taxi drivers operating a vehicle for hire from a leasing company or
other taxicab transportation service entity located in Marin County shall
prior to employment and/or operation of a taxicab for hire possess a valid
taxicab driver's permit, issued by the County of Marin.
2. A valid taxi driver's permit shall be accepted by other cities in Marin
County as proof of compliance with relevant statute. The procedure for
obtaining a taxicab driver's permit shall be as follows:
a. Taxi drivers may be referred by their employing taxicab
transportation operators, leasing companies, or in the case of self-
.
employed independent operators, by themselves. Taxi drivers shall pay
a licensing fee of $125.00 for application for a taxicab driver's permit.
b. All applicants for a taxi driver's permit shall test negative for
controlled substances prior to issuance of a taxi driver's pdrmit. Also
drivers shall test negative for controlled substances and for alcohol as a
condition of permij renewal or at such other times as the County may
designate. In the event of a positive test a taxicab driver's permit will not
be issued to the applicant, or should the driver already posses a valid
permit that permit shall be revoked. A negative test for alcohol means an
alcohol screening test showing a breath alcohol concentration of less
than 0.2 percent. Procedures shall be substantially as in Part 40 of Title
49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, except that the driver shall show a
valid California driver's license at the time and place of permit application
or controlled substance testing.
c. In the event that an applicant withdraws the entry or initial
application prior to testing for controlled substances, the application fee
shall be returned to the applicant. If the applicant withdraws their initial
application after testing for controlled substances, no portion of the
application fee shall be refundable.
d. Tests from other jurisdictions shall not be accepted as certification
for entry or initial issuance of a taxicab driver's permit by the County of
Marin. Subject to 'the County's discretion, a negative test result from
other jurisdictions may be accepted for one year from the date of the test
as meeting the requirement for periodic testing or renewal testing, if the
driver has not tested positive subsequent to a negative result.
e. Applicants for taxicab driver's permits shall pay the application fee
in cash or by registered cashier's check at the time that they submit their
application.
f. The County shall supply drivers with a list of certified drug testing
facilities. The County shall only accept test results from facilities named
on the certified list.
g. Results from controlled substance or alcohol tests shall be
reported directly to the County, In cases where the driver is employed by
a taxicab transportation operator, results shall also be reported to the
employing entity, as well. In the case of self-employed, independent
drivers, the results shall also be reported to the permit holder.
h. All test results are confidential and shall not 'be released, to any
parties other than those detailed herein, without the consent of the driver,
unless required by law.
i. The taxicab driver's permit shall be valid for a two year time
period from the date of issue, assuming that the taxi driver tests negative
"
on any periodic tests conducted during the period. The permit shall be
revoked upon any positive test results and the taxi driver shall return the
permit to the County,
j. The fee for permit renewal shall be $125,00.
3. Taxicab drivers, taxicab transportation leasing companies, or other
taxicab transportation service entities shall be subject to a fine of $500 for
failure to comply with the provisions of County Ordinance No._.
I-i/vc IV!), II
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
TO:
ROBERT L. KLEINERT,
TOWN MANAGER
DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 1996
FROM: PETER G. HERLEY,
CHIEF OF POLICE
SUBJECT: COUNTY-WIDE RADIO SYSTEM - STATUS UPDATE
BACKGROUND
The radio system currently being used by law enforcement agencies in Marin County uses a system called "low band." While
this system had some benefits, it is antiquated to the point that in the very near future, "low band"equipment will neither be
designed nor manufactured. This causes a dilemma when radio equipment needs to be replaced. Continuous duty rated base
stations which we use are no longer being produced, forcing entities to stockpile old or used equipment for replacement.
Thus, even finding parts for repairing the system will become virtually impossible. The California Highway Patrol, the
largest law enforcement agency in the California using "low band" radio equipment, will be switching their radio system over
to a higher band -- one which the manufacturers are building.
The Marin County Sheriff's Department is currently conducting a large feasibility study to convert the entire radio system
for the Marin County (police, fire, medical, public works, etc.) to the upgraded radio system. Anv Marin County public
entity which does not participate in the upgraded system will, basically, be an island and not able to talk to the rest of the
county. To not convert would be a safety hazard to both the public and those who use radio communications.
CURRENT STATUS
On October 22, 1996, the Marin County Board of Supervisors approved the expenditure of $60,000 to hire a consultant (The
Warner Group) to develop "specifications" for a county-wide radio system. The anticipated completion date of the study
should be in January or February of 1997, The Warner Group's ability to complete the process hinges on the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). Currently, the FCC has frozen the UHF-T band frequencies reserved by the County
Public Works Department, which is in charge of the County Communications System, There is a possibility that the FCC
may release the UHF- T frequencies or assign other frequencies prior to the completion of the Warner Group's report. If
the frequencies are not released or new ones are not assigned, the entire county is, basically, "back to square one" according
to the Marin County Director of Communications, Bill McMurray.
If the needed frequencies are obtained and the specifications in the Warner Group's report are approv,ed, a RFP for vendor
selection will be released, perhaps in summer of 1997.
Neither Captain Tom McMains (Marin County Sheriff's Department) nor McMurray could provide a timetable past the
selection of vendors. Hard costs for individual agencies will not be available prior to the completion of the Warner Group's
report. The total cost of the county-wide system will possibly be in the range of $18-19 million. The total cost to Tiburon
and other cities of upgrading each's radio system is currently unknown. It is my understanding that the County is trying to
~ . ,OO"'. V=m ."" . """'" "" _" =~. ".,,_.
PETE
CHIEF OF POUC
10-' 29/ 35
11: lJ
'1QRl'"j HO:JSIN':':; RUTr-iORIT'/' ~ 415435243'3
~O.aa4
:;lJ2
,
.
I/e~ ;(}(), It
New Beginnings
Support today n Self-supporting tomorrow
October 4, 1996
Barbara Heller, President
Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers (MCCMC)
San Rafael City Hall
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94915
SUBJECT: New Beginnings Campaign Presentation to the MCCMC
Dear Barbara:
I am writing to request that members ofthe New Beginnings Campaign be given an opportunity
to address the Marin County Council of Mayors and Council members at its November 14
meeting. The purpose of our presentation is to solicit finaccial support from the county and
different cities and towns in Marin for the capital campaign to construct the Hamilton Service
Center (HSC). We come to the MCCMC with II $239,530 request which was supported by the
Marin City Managers Group at its September 26 meeting.
As you may already know, the Marin County Commission on Homelessness was established in
April 1991 by the COlmty Board of Supervisors, the Marin County Council of Mayors and
Councilmembers (MCCMC), the Marin Community Foundation, and the Marin Interfaith
Cowlcil to implement the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Report. Shortly after its
creation, the Commission established the New Beginnings Fund for the Homeless to seek
financial support to pursue lasting and productive solutions to homelessness. The New
Beginnings Fund is led by an all volunteer board of local business people. civic leaders and
concerned citizens.
At the end of December 1995, the Hamilton Reuse Planning Authority adopted a preferred reuse
plan for the Hamilton Air Force Base. This plan allows for the construction ofa year-round
residential and job training center for homeless adults on a 3.85 acre site adjacent to the
Commissary Triangle. This 80 bed facility \\ill offer a safe, encouraging aud supporti ve
atmosphere to homeless single adults from throughout Marin, and will provide the skills and
vocational training necessary for them to begin a process of recovery from dependent living to
independence and self-sufficiency. The new facility, which will open in October of 1997, will
replace the emergency winter shelter program which has been seeking a permanent home for
over 10 years. Homeward Bound of Marin (formerly the Marin Housing Center), a local non-
profit which has served homeless people in Marin for over twenty years, will develop and
operate the laciiity,
PO Box 10153, San RlIf..l, CA 94912.0153 (415) 456.7525
1a/29/3S
11' 11
'1AR I '-j HOUS I "~':; AJT -1DR I T y' ~ 4154 ]52438'
N8.334
~a3
",
"
Barbara Heller
October 4, 1996
Page 2
The $2.5 million HSC capital campaign is being jmplementet'll~ lNllw.lllllaiimiu!Ill; (/)).fmr$ll..4
has been raised to date through a combination of donations fJill1Jdfmnmlllti.lUl, mrpimUll:,:!ImIIlIl
business and individual donors. In light of the fact that the m-€ WIiiIlll'1'Oviillr;sitm:t'H:l!.mn itro....
and support services to homeless people from throughout Mlriili ~ '-1lI11 rcq!lWlliiqg1ihln
all of Marin's cities and towns, as well as the County ofMa.rihi,aihmSllIlJl.DDl~OlIll1JPli\P,.
have enclosed a suggested breakdown for funding based on 8RM'-mttr:off!\llhmit's'l1oguilafumJ!'mr
each locality (see Attaclunent I).
Please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions. WiLlholtdbl1wall:btlJ~.emh!ldnlilm
you regarding the November 14 meeting.
~~
Jean Taylor 7 ~
Co-chair
~~11Vt~
" "//.i)
I ..
iBob BI\1Il\l11iilli;
Co-chait
12.1';':'3/ ~'::'
11: 11
rlH!"<:'l''-l r-LU=,l:'-l,j >-l'_II-U~111 -+ 41~4j=,':::4"::d
U. ddq
lI"(.l...
.,./"
Hamilton Service Center Capital Campaign
Funding Request to the Cities, Towns and County of Marin
Suggested Pro-Rate of Local Share Based on PopulatlolJ
BELVEDERE 2,2!l2 0.9 $2,252
CORTE MADERA 8,589 3.6 $8,589
F AlRFAX 7,033 2.9 $7,033
LARKSPUR 11,621 4.9 $11,621
MILL V ALLEY 13,753 5.7 $13,753
NOVATO 46,505 19.4 $46,505
ROSS 2,244 0.9 $2,244
SAN ANSELMO 12,162 5.1 $12,162
SAN RAFAEL !l2,354 21.9 $52,354
SAUSALITO 7,648 3.2 $7,648
TIBURON 8,3?7 3.5 $8,397
UNINCORP. 66,972 28.0 $66,972
COUNTY
.Ii:~";.
.'
~
NEW BEGINNINGS - THE HAMILTON SERVICE CENTER
LBF_~mENTlAL & ~MPI.OYMENT TRAINING CENTRR)
QUESTION & ANSWER INFORMATION SHEET
How great is the problem of homelessness in Marin County?
The problem of homelessness in Marin County is just as great as in other counties
throughout the Bay Area including San Francisco. On a per capita basis Marin
has as many homeless people as San Francisco or San Mateo County.
What is the Hamilton Service Center (Residential & Employment Training
Program) and who is New Beginnings ?
The Hamilton Service Center (Residential & Employment Training Program) will
do much much more than provide housing for 80 people. It will also require
individuals to conunit to an action plan with short and long term goals. The
action plans and programs of the Center will enable the clientele to gain the skills
necessary to get a job and save the money required to move off the streets. For
example, the employment training will be in the areas of computers, food service
and landscaping. The Center is to be located on 3.85 acres at the old Hamilton
Air Force Base.
New Beginnings is a 100% volunteer organization founded by the County Board
of Supervisors, the Interfaith Council and the Marin Community Foundation to
raise the funds necessary to address the issues of homeless people throughout
Marin County. In the past year New Beginnings has focused its efforts on raising
the $2.5 million required to build the Hamilton Service Center (Residential &
Employment Training Program).
Why is the Hamilton Service Center (Residential & Employment Training
Program) needed in our community?
The Hamilton Service Center (Residential & Employment Training Program) is
needed because Marin County severely lacks the programs required to enable
people just like you and me to once again become an active and productive
member of our community.
What is unique about the Hamilton Service Center (Residential &
Employment Training Program) ?
The Hamilton Service Center (Residential & Employment Training Program) has
one focus - - helping those that can and want to be helped and enabling them to
live independently with dignity and pride in our community
~
What will the project cost and how much of every dollar donated will
actually go to the Hamilton Service Center (Residential & Employment
Training Program) ?
The acquisition of the land and the construction of the Residential and
Employment Training Center will cost approximately $2.5 million. One hundred
percent of every dollar donated will go to completing the construction of the
Center. And, 100% of every dollar donated will be matched 1:1 by the Marin
Community Foundation.
When will the Hamilton Service Center (Residential & Employment Training
Program) open?
After 8 years of planning, with your help construction of the Hamilton Service
Center (Residential & Employment Training Program) will begin in Spring of
1997 and open in the fall of 1997.
Why should you participate?
We've all complained that money is often thrown at the social problems of our
day without making a difference. A donation to New Beginnings and the
Hamilton Residential and Employment Center is a direct and undiluted way for
you to make a difference in your community. You can help by sending your
donation to New Beginnings, PO Box 10153, San Rafael, CA - 94912.
If you have any other questions please call 415 380 I118. Thank you.
Marin Independent Journal
~ .'
-----~--
Marin homeless agencies
pleased by steady progress
, ,'. NickY McIntyre of the Marin Continuum co-chairman Rob Si-
New shelter stili Housing Authority, who acts as re- !Don of the Human Concern Cenu:r
" source developer for a coalition of m San Rafael says groups as dl-
'. short $1 1 m'lll'lon 18 social service agencies called the v~~ as the Cenl;er for Independent
, Marin Housing and Services Con- LlVlng and Mann Abused Women
tinuum, was disappointed more Services all work together now to
federal money wasn't forthcoming. stretch grant dollars and staff time
McIntyre said the grant money as far as possible.
represents a new challenge: how to The Marin Housing and Services
use the $400,000 to leverage more Continuum set some priorities this
cash for the ambitious transitional , year. One of them was the new jobs
housing programs envisioned for ' for the homeless program.
Hamilton by service providers. Jobs for the homeless
The Housing and Urban Devel-
opment boss had a different spin on A new project aimed at pairing
the grant. homeless people with job counsel-
"We're giving thousands of ors and potential employers is look-
homeless people the chance to ing for its first permanent home
achieve the American dream, and near the San Rafael transit hub.
we'll save taxpayer money by re- The Marin Jobs Plus program
ducing the homeless population," should start late this fall with a
said Housing Secretary Henry Cis- small group of employers serving as
nerns of the $400,000 Marin grant advisers.
and grants to other parts of the Barbara Williams of the non-
country. profit agency Partners in Rehabili-
The $400,000 will go to what is tation says the job center is the
formally called the Hamilton Tran- housing and service continuum's
sitional Housing Collaborative brainstorm.
Program. The grant was among 266 The group plans to have an exec-
made nationwide totaling $675 mil- utive director for the jobs project
lion. hired by Oct. I, and "job counselors
The transitional housing pro- will be hired next."
grams are meant to aid homeless The federal grant that organizers
peojlle with "multiple needs" - in- hoped would help supplement other
cluding physical, mental, drug and money in place for the program
family problems - as well as peo- didn't come through last week.
pie with families. The agency needs a roof to call
Most homele.. are single men, its own "as close as po..ible to the
but "we continue to see an increase bus station" in San Rafael, Wil-
in the number of families with chil- Iiams said.
dren," said John Wilson-Bugbee, Private industry is stepping in.
head of Homeward Bound Marin. Representatives of Sears and the
Wilson-Bugbee's agency runs a Olive Garden restaurant chain, as
transitional housing program for well a county Human Resources
homele.. families and also runs the Department chief Laura Armor,
county's SO-bed "clean and sober" serve on the program's employer
shelter program at Hamilton Field advisory panel.
for single adults. There have been no formal place-
The agency is part of the 3-year- ments yet through the program,
old Marin Housing and Services which is producing a video to en-
Continuum, an umbrella group of courage employers to use the ser-
18 organizations that plans to use a vice when they make new hires.
coordinated application form and a The Hamilton Service Center's
computer database. winter homele.. shelter program in
Clients may then apply simulta- Novato plans to use Marin Jobs
neously for services ranging from Plus to help people in its "clean and
emergency housing to drug counsel- sober" shelter program fmd em-
ing. Some are bomele.., some 00- ployment.
abled, and some trying to get away "We found most people wanted
from abusive relationships. to work. The problem was fmding a
job," said shelter manager Bob
Puett.
By John R. Moses
Independent Journal reporter
Years of efforts to help the homele.. in Ma-
rin are beginning to payoff, homeless agency
executives say. _' . -. ~
Although much remains to be done and a
coalition still needs to raise more than $1 mil-
lion for a permanent homele.. facility, offi-
cials cite progress on a variety of fronts:
. As winter approaches, the homeless en-
rolled at the Hamilton Service Center's tem-
porary winter shelter will sleep under a real
roof this year. instead of the tent used in the
past. That's because an old warehouse is be-
ing converted into a dormitory this fall.
. At the same time, a new San Rafael-
based program will start matching homeless
people who want to work with employers and
job counselors.
. A fund-raising coalition announced it
has $1.3 million in the bank, but needs anoth-
er $1.1 million to break ground on a perma-
nent Novato facility to provide both shelter
and job training. The coalition is renewing its
drive to raise money.
. A $400,000 .federal grant approved this
weekend will- help rehabilitate and run some
of the 60 former military homes set aside for
homeless programs at Hamilton Field. Offi-
cial. had hoped for $2.2 million.
To donate
To donate to the fund for
building a permanent facility
for the homeless at Hamil-
ton Field, send a check pay-
able to New Beginnings,
P.O. Box 10153, San Rafael,
CA 94912-0153
Sunday, September 15, 1996 I
Dear citizens of Marin:
~
OUR COMMUNITY NEEDS your help. We
appeal to you to read this letter and meet its chal-
lenge.
When confronted with homelessnesa, many of
us experience great discomfort and do not know
how we can best help. We urge you to contribute
to a permanent solution, the Hamilton Service '
Center, a residential and employment center. One-
hundred percent of your donation will be matched
dollar for dollar by the Marin Community Foun-
dation, and 100 percent of your donation will go
toward building this center to belp our lesa fortu-
nate members of this community.
The Hamilton Service Center will provide hous-
ing and employment training for homeless people.
An advocate/counselor will work with each person
to identify his/her specific needs for aChie~' n
stable housing. Action plans will be devel
identifying goals, the amount of money to
saved each month, and specific types of job train-
ing. The variety of job-training programs to date
include computers, landscaping and food services.
There will also be access to related services in-
cluding classes in English as a Second Language
and continuing basic education, literacy, money
management, mail service, voice mail and laundry
services.
Quite often our encounters with homeless peo-
ple take the form of the man with a sign on the
sidewalk or the woman and child asking for your
spare change. While these types of encounters are
the most obvious signs of homelessness, they do
not paint an accurate picture of many bomeless
people in Marin. The fact is, on a per-capita ba-
sis, there are as many homeless people in Marin
as in San Francisco. Many homeless people are
like you and me. They are not drug addicts or
winos. It's the woman you see in the grocery store
who runs out of money because of a family mem-
ber's medical bills, or your neighbor from years
past who got laid off and has had a string of bad
luck.
Yet, in a county as affluent as Marin, we faIl
way short of providing shelter and services for
homeless individuals who have the desire to get
back on their feet. This is why an unprecedented
group of volunteers, civic organizations, religious
groups, businesses and foundations have been
!"orking together for eight years !-'> establish a res-
Idential and employment center, m Marin County:
the Hamilton Service Center. ' - - ,
The opportunity now ettists to make this project
a reality. The development of the center including'
construction and land acquisition, will ~ &p_
~roximately $2.5 million. Approximately $1.4 mil-
lion has already '-n committed. Aa part of this
the Marin Community Foundation is matching ,
1:1 for every dollar contributed by Independent
Journal readers.
~ we do not raioe the remaining $1.1 million,
thIS badly needed and well-planned project will
not happen. You can be a part of making the
Hamilton Service Center become a reality. It can
be your holiday gift, it can be your kid's lemonade
sales - it can be, because yo'!.~ _.
We all have a certain responsibility to contrib-
ute to our community. With your assistance, we
will begin construction on the center early next
year. In turn, the doors will open in October.
Don't forget - every dollar you give will be
matched by a dollar from the Marin Community
Foundation. We urge you to be a part of this. Join
us and others in completing the Hamilton Service
Center.
Sincerely,
Hal Brown Jr.
P1'f!8ident,
Board of Supervisors
Joe Stinnette
CEO, Fireman's Fund
Rev. Doug Huneke
President,
Marin Interfaith Council
Phyllis Pfeiffer
President and Publisher,
Marin Independent JourMl
Stephen M. Dobbs
President and CEO,
Marin Community Foundation
Jean Taylor, M.A.
New Beginnings
Bob Blumenfeld
Blumenfeld Theaters
Marin can lead
REV. DOUG HUNEKE
I SUPPORT THE efforts of New Beginnings
because they represent a fresh, countywide
bond of cooperation to address the concern
that the homeless and vulnerable have shelter
food and practical opportuni- '
ties for advancement. With
this solid partnership of gov-
ernment, business, religion,
philanthropy and the commu-
nity, Marin citizens will be
taking the important steps to
properly care for neighbors
who have faIlen on hard times
or for wbom life is over-
whelming.
When Marin County's civic,
business and religious leaders
succeed with the proposed
shelter and training programs, Marin will be a na-
tionalleader and model. We can do it in Marin
because we care.
Rev. Doug Huneke is president of the Marin
Interfaith Council and pastor of Westminster
Presbyterian Church in Tiburnn
Help them. believe in
~tomorrow and theDlselves
L - - :e- social services. As Thomas Peters, the
HANDING SPARE CHANGE to county's director of health and human
a panhandler doesn't do much to services points out, "Tied to the welfare
help the homeless. bill are ~ome very stringent time limita-
But building a permanent shelter that tions that will raise aid to new levels of
offers job training to singl~ ~dults who ' urgency, Particu1arl~ because the ~d
are clean and sober and WIlling to work ' we're talking about IS the most basiC _
can make a tremendous difference. cash and food assistance."
. Poor people who. are 8:ble to work Marin's poor and homeless want job
should get off pubhc assistance and find skills. They want to establish or re-es.
jobs. tablish their own independence. And the
That's why Congress passed the Wel- new service center can help as many as
fare Reform Act lB:Bt month. . . 80 to 90 adults not only find work again
That's why Mann must r81se $2.5 mil- but regain or reinforce their self-esteem.
lion. " That's only a small fraction of the
The Hanulton Sel'Vlce Center, pro- estimated 3 000 to 5 000 homeless in Ma-
posed for Hamilton Field in Novato, will riD; but it's'a start. '
give Marin's homeless adults a shot at The New Beginnings coalition has
economic independence. W~thout that raised about $1.4 million of the $2.5 mil.
chance, today's homeless will become to- lion it needs. Much of the remaining $1.1
morrow's tr~gedies. . million must come from people who
' Today, thiS page sho~cases not Just want to do something that will make a
the problem but a solution - the sh~l-. difference something that goes much
ter/job~training ce!l~er. .I~'s clearly WIthin further th:m a handful of spare change.
reach, if only Mann s cItizens can help The Marin Community Foundation
make it all possible. . has agreed to match, one-for-one, every
Finding work nowadays is next to un- dollar contributed to New Beginnings.
- possible when you haven't eaten in days, Writing a check is one way to ensure
don't have shelter, clean clothes, a place that Marin's homeless adults who are
where,you can be reached, or up-to-date ready and willing to work, have the sup-
job skills. . port, shelter and resources they need to
The new welfare bill goes into effect m get a job, to get back on their feet and.to
January for legal immigrants; in July for ,Pelieve in themselves. '
U.s. citizens. Those cuts, and the pe?ple
affected, may stran,gl~ Marin County s
It's opportunity
GRACE HUGHES
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND
' support for this program in particular is,
I'm convinced, not only good for the soul
but it's good for business - by increasing the
number of Marin folks who
live, work and buy in Marin
County.
The focus of the Hamilton
Service Center is to give those
who are willing to turn their
lives around an opportunity to
learn, re-train and become ac-
tive membel1l of the commu.
nity's work force.
I urge my corporste and
busine.. colleagues to partici-
Pate in this worthwhile en-
deavor. We can make a differ-
.~
.' ,c'J
..,. o,~
'4
ence.
Grace Hughes is CEO of Marin Airporter.
.
Give them hope
,KENNETH A. "KETU" JONES
IVING ON THE streets can be ve~ lonely,
Land isolation can become a way of life,
Family and loved ones are distant, most of
the time or no longer a part of your reality. It can
take years to become home- '
less, and you can lose your
dreams in a bottle or watch
them go up in ~ s,:"oke. of a
crack pipe. In thl8 SituatIon,
you need a beginning, some
kind of hope, a positive to-
morrow. 'de
The plan to have a resl n-
tial and job-devel~pme.nt cen-
ter at Hamilton FIeld 18 a
must if hopeless people are to
have hope again - a plac,e
where you can reach for life .
and receive help in your journey. Hdramil~dciliink
rovide the tools 80 a person can . eam
Pbout a different future. We must listen to our.
hearts and help this opportunity become a reahty.
Kenneth A. "Ketu" Jones is program director of
1f6;.., .
<t~
t;I'~,.
---
,>'
Hard work pays off
, Progress in building the coalition
of agencies helping the h.omeless,
getting grants and openmg new
programs came "after a lot of hard
work" said Wilson-Bugbee.
u~d for sure it's not without
pain. We had some very difficult
meetings. n
; Wilson-Bugbee .said cooP."ration
enables the agencIes to realize sav-
ings and become more efficient, as
well as nurture political clout that
speaks louder to local and federal
agencies than 18 individoal groups
do.
The involvement of the powerful
Marin Community Foundation
adds fInancial fIrepOwer to the co-
operative effort. The foundation -
which wants the continuum to suc-
ceed - provides grants to many of
the involved agencies.
A housing continuum report in-
dicates more Marin drug and alco-
hol detox beds are needed. Drop-in
shelter services are nonexistent for
people who are not in a "clean and
sober" drug or alcohol counseling
program.
Among the group's successes: a
$1 million federal grant last year to
expand for the next fIve yelUll the
Shelter Plus Care Program, a pro-
gram for people with severe mental
illnesses.
The Day Services Center at the
Human Concern Center in San Ra-
fael was another project the coali-
tion spearheaded. The center is an
intake point for homeleBS people
needing a wide variety of services,
as well as basics like a shower and
laundry facilities.
San Rafael's Human Concern
. CenterlRitter House and the No-
vato Human Needs Center are
, serving most of the estimated 2,000
to 3,000 homeless people in Marin.
Marin's homeless are defined as
'peOple who live in illegal campsitej;'
camp in state parks, live in vehicles
'or who camp out at the homes of
friends and relatives.
"Human Concern CenterlRitter
House executive director Rob Si-
mon reported 2,239 individuals reg_
istered at the Day Service Center
since September 1994. And in the
last two yelUll, the agency's service
, center bas provided 13,400 showers
and handled 5,000 loads of laundry.
)
Temporary shelter
While the drive is on to build a
permanent shelter, 80 homeless
people will be sheltered in a ware-
house this winter. Organizers are
finishing remodeling the building
at Hamilton Field for use next
month.
. The county and the Marin Com-
munity Foundation contributed
$123 000 each to make the empty
Building 829 warehouse inhabit-
able. th
"Thev won't have to listen to .e
flapping of the wind, and the raID
on the tent," said Puett, the shelter
manager. .
The warehouse is 50 feet wide
and 200 feet long - twice the. s~
of the old tent. But there ISn t
enough money to finish the whole
building, so about a third of it will
remain empty for now.
, With any luck, a permanent shel-
ter will rise on the lot next door'
sometime next year.
Drive to raise funds
There's $1.4 million in the bank
toward building Marin's first per-
manent county homeless 'shelter
and job training center for men and
women who want to learn a trade.
Fund-raisers say they have to
.fIDd another $1.1 million in order
to have a spring groundbreaking.
New Beginnings, a group spear- ,
heading the drive for a permanent
shelter, doesn't expect much help
from the~ public in raising the last
, $1.1 million. .
"We're worJrina' on some lD8Jor
donors" said Wilson-Bugbee of
Home~ard Bound Marin, the
agency that will manage the shel-
ter.
Wilson-Bugbee said he's realistic
about economics. "We're not going
~r:=::J million with $100 con-
The Marin Independent Journal
is working in cooperation with the
New Beginnings coalition, and is"
soliciting donations for the perma-
nent shelter and training center
through its editorial page.
JJ readers donated $800 follow-
ing a fund-raising pitch in Febru-
ary and March.
New Beginnings coalition mem-
bers include Fireman's Fund Insur-
ance Cos., theater owner Bob Blu-
menfeld and the Marin Interfaith
Council.
Contributions from JJ readers
will be matched by the Marin Com-
munity Foundation, another New
Beginnings member.
The new permanent shelter w!ll
include on-site businesses that will
employ residents and help support
the shelter.
Wilson-Bugbee said the shelter is
negotiating with the Marin Com-
puter Resource Center to have a
computer recycling and reconstruc-
tion workshop in the shelter to
teach computer maintenance skills.
The shelter would also run a
kitchen for culinary training and
po~ibly catering and landscaping
busmesses.
Residents at the shelter must
commit to work, either on or off the
shelter property, and save money.
People who can't work or are still in
the early stages of recovery from
substance abuse or mental illneBS
will not be admitted.
Fund-raising progress
A $100,000 check from Fire-
man's Fund Insurance Coso kicked
off the New Beginnings campaign
in January to raise $2.5 million for
the permanent shelter.
Following a fund-raising drive
and a $923,290 grant from the Ma-
rin Community Foundation, the
shelter construction fund had
about $1.3 million in June.
The fund bas $1,375,932 after a
summertime fund-raising slow,
down.
Said New Beginnings spokesman
Deanne La Rue: "Now we're back."
Hard work pays off
Progress in building the coalition
of agencies helping the h?meless,
getting grants and openmg new
programs came "after a lot of hard
work." said Wilson-Bugbee.
"~d for sure it's not without
pain. We had some very difficult
meetings."
; Wilson-Bugbee said cooperation
enables the agencies to realize sav-
ings and become more efficient, as
well as nurture political clout that
speaks louder to local and federal
agencies than 18 individual groups
do.
The involvement of the powerful
Marin Community Foundation
adds financial firepower to the co-
operative effort. The foundation -
which wants the continuum to suc-
ceed - provides grants to many of
the involved agencies.
A housing continuum report in-
dicates more Marin drug and alco-
hol detox beds are needed. Drop-in
shelter services are nonexistent for
people who are not in a "clean and
sober" drug or alcohol counseling
program.
Among the group's successes: a
$1 million federal grant last year to
expand for the next five years the
Shelter Plus Care Program, a pro-
gram for people with severe mental
illnesses.
The Day Services Center at the
Human Concern Center in San Ra-
fael was another project the coali-
tion spearheaded. The center is an
intake point for homeless people
needing a wide variety of services,
as well as basics like a shower and
laundry facilities.
San Rafael's Human Concern
Center/Ritter House and the No-
vato Human Needs Center are
serving most of the estimated 2,000
to 3,000 homeless people in Marin.
Marin's homeless are defined as
'peOple who live in illegal campsite$,"
camp in state parks, live in vehicles
'or who camp out at the homes of
friends and relatives.
Human Concern Center/Ritter
House executive director Rob Si-
mon reported 2,239 individuals reg-
istered at the Day Service Center
since September 1994. And in the
last two years, the agency's service
center has provided 13,400 showers
and handled 5,000 loads of laundry.
~
Temporary shelter
While the drive is on to build a
permanent shelter, 80 homeless
people will be sheltered in a ware-
house this winter. Organizers are
imishing remodeling the building
at Hamilton Field for use next
month.
The county and the Marin Com-
munity Foundation contributed
$123000 each to make the empty
Building 829 warehouse inhabit-
able.
"Thev won't have to listen to the
flapping of the wind, and the rain
on the tent," said Puett, the shelter
manager.
The warehouse is 50 feet wide
and 200 feet long - twice the size
of the old tent. But there isn't
enough money to finish the whole
building, so about a third of it will
remain empty for now.
. With any luck, a permanent shel-
ter will rise on the lot next door'
sometime next year.
Drive to raise funds
There's $1.4 million in the bank
toward building Marin's first per_
manent county homeless 'shelter
and job training center for men and
' women who want to learn a trade.
Fund-raisers say they have to
,imd another $1.1 million in order
. to have a spring groundbreaking.
New Beginnings, a group spear- ,
heading the drive for a permanent
shelterdloesn't expect much help
from the public in raising the last
$1.1 million.
uWe're working on some major
donors," said Wilson-Bugbee of
Homeward Bound Marin, the
agency that will manage the shel-
ter.
Wilson-Bugbee said he's realistic
about economics. "We're not going
,~raise $1.1 million with $100 con-
"tributions. "
The Marin Independent Journal
is working in cooperation with the
New Beginnings coalition, and is,
soliciting donations for the perma-
nent shelter and training center
through its editorial page.
LJ readers donated $800 follow-
ing a fund-raising pitch in Febru-
ary and March.
New Beginnings coalition mem-
bers include Fireman's Fund Insur-
ance Cos., theater owner Bob Blu-
menfeld and the Marin Interfaith
Council.
Contributions from LJ readers
will be matched by the Marin Com-
munity Foundation, another New
Beginnings member.
The new permanent shelter will
include on-site businesses that will
employ residents and help support
the shelter.
Wilson-Bugbee said the shelter is
negotiating with the Marin Com-
puter Resource Center to have a
computer recycling and reconstruc-
tion workshop in the shelter to
teach computer maintenance skills.
The shelter would also run a
kitchen for culinary training and
~ibly catering and landscaping
businesses.
Residents at the shelter must
commit to work, either on or off the
shelter property, and save money.
People who can't work or are still in
the early stages of recovery from
substance abuse or mental illness
will not be admitted.
Fund-raising progress
A $100,000 check from Fire-
man's Fund Insurance Coso kicked
off the New Beginnings campaign
in January to raise $2.5 million for
the permanent shelter.
Following a fund-raising drive
and a $923,290 grant from the Ma-
rin Community Foundation, the
shelter construction fund had
about $1.3 million in June.
The fund bas $1,375,932 after a
summertime fund-raising slow-
down.
Said New Beginnings spokesman
Deanne La Rue: "Now we're back."
I
"I
I, '
,'1.t1".
Ii'il
oili
'Ii Iii
II 'II i i ~ .
II:i
l'I,'I,i
Ii II
II ,"
Iii I!',
Ii:
III II
II::
II"
U Ii
Illii
Ili,i;
Iii";
Ilil!l'
IHlq
l~ltt"
ill;1
....""$1""'.....
r III ~, 21 11
'I 'I ~i ;i i
Sit"
~II 'I'
;-.I! :
lj'l,jU
W, !
I! !
! I
n
"!O;: U1
~~(j]~
n~
~!N
~Q 2~
&..~~
~; ~ ~ ~
;~ ~ 3m
~i ~ ~ ~
".,;,8(1)
r!~.~~
~:~ ~~
"
~:I:
;;i)>
"'s::
0_
'Cj
.:0
",z
"'en
zm
0:0
g<
z-
....0
:<m
00
"'m
Cz
Cl-i
"'m
~:D
@
~
":i."V-i....;g
ie;~~~jI!
~lD!e::m;!!
..~l!cil~
....l="'c:mN
i)>~~:;:g
UI;eil~:E:
i':~~~~
~~;:n:=!!'
-.pa~
;6fJl~
!!~i;;:
~~!;
00.
..t
.mo
I"~
m!;g
Om.
Ol;z
~, ~
. ~
. .
~ "
m
. .
~ '
.
':illlO"-t.-
-cm~>>o)>
:Jg:u;"08
nag!>>'"
~i-..,.",~~
~:::!i~~~
IoOC>>O\DC)
~~~ig~
1:S!:Ill~z
~iI~giil
-3n~Q~
. gso~
~~'~I
ClI!:;;~
;~=~
m05--1
QPO...m
:lE)C III 0
8!!~ll:
~~
~
~
!
,..
~
<\(
\ -. \1\
":ii..ffir- \ ':jc;1:!~
:;:~'!:~ ~-c::G1P:::!
n:;;:1: Cl -t:;ic:<
)>::j~ )> IoOOm
"'mQ:n~ ,... en l:g
i~a~ \ !o:g-l
lIJ~i:O~ '\, ::~:i~
!!lUOIIIO-C \ ..cgm:t:o
I~~e~ !jij;Z::J>
l2;;:o3;m ~J>~
->>:1:10:; - ~Jo
iJPlo" olo!'
5~~ , iI~
m!i;l -)> \
~~~ I '\
'J
":in)>();!l
~~~!i!.
~az~~
:;~c:~
;""'''0''
:~~2!
o(!o....
~Gt6~
,..,..~o
-:I"'""
I~~
.'
8.
%m
..il
5~=
. .
~ {l:
Q
.
~
.
':in:J:--"O"":J-1!1:
<ic:n~"O~J:'"
~!~;1j16~i
"'~~I::;;~;i1;
igg!j~g~~Q
!:!e"'2;;;"'","3:
~.r:!'1iii:ilil
...UI~UI:I>n(ll",
,...:1>2:(")('1'"'"
-i;!!Jj')g"':;;~
m~~~%~~ ~
im~1Ii-12~
a=s:..Z-4-1
8!~ ~~o
a~!" ill "
~::a ~
~~ .
~
I
i
.
~
i
.
,
'\
'\
'\
\
\
'\
\
II' .....
,...
j, I~
i,
j.
i
I
" I
11 I !
II I
!
i
Tti"n
f "
i: i ~ . t
!
i fA
fcn~
. c,
! "
,
lClgtf:l
= ~'!!.~
\?~; S!"
11 g.t
.. ~ ... 'l
.~~i
!:!I~ :r
i~ ~
~ ~ !'
~~
~l
;'
.
,
~ ;
Ii s:
d-
-!:j
o
~ z
;!! (Jl
Zm
O::a
0<
~-
...(')
:em
0(')
,. m
c z
Cl -l
:rJ m
~ :0
tl (')!
:- ...
.
"
//
;:Y
~
/if ~~
I ~I
<<'Ill
oJ t>:l <Jl Q12[~E 'Ij~?;~
n[!l?:Jl1~[d;lQ6'C\g, ~.
i n8'i~dC\1O
o~~"'~ .8.....5~"" 0::S ..::s. iil ~ ::s ~ > .... ~ e. g. OS. go g;
::s s: ::r ~. ... 9"2 .. 5. =:sp.p..;'<p..
g . ." e:::r.. "" ... g." ll::-< ~ 5. Sl g ~ ........;........ g ::;: ~
....29 (Jl:4-e,::S..e."" ""......... w..,"" "" ""?:~e.-1 ""~~ir
~ e. ~ a oc. ~ :4-~ g. Q ~ ~ ;."2 ~ ~ :4- ~ ~ ~ 'T1 a ....... g. 8' e.
..... . ~ ..
R 5' a::: a::s = n~-l'l) (f) '< "" 0 ....... ~"" e.:4-
'< "" "" "'< l:d "1 .... .... ~~~~ ej'>Q~
'" o 0 .... ~g,:4-] 10
Iii' .... (j)' ::r.
<: 8' 0 ~~ c ~ @" ::s ~ ""... g":4-::sOS
.. @ a ~ egs'" ~e-'lj~ ...tTl~.
~. .. ..... Kl n ~ ~
." ~ g. gj ; ()~l'l) g:g-I-t
...
0 .. 1ii'::T. i'O . n .. E. 5'
~ 0 ~ljf~ VI oq
::s
::T. ~ Iii' g
0
::s @ Iii'
....
01 0 01
b b b
"" "" ""
I I ~ ~~~"~ro I ~ ~~::J""00""b' :::~
~ ~ ~ 2l .... ~ ..... VI 00 .... .... ~~~~~~
.. ~... ~ S1'P~~!J' I ~~~i~~S~
13131313131313131313
~ ~ ....
~\ONao\~Q\010100 ~~o~""......... ~~""o""........o....""
~a..~~",,,,b;p.'-.Ja.. 'v '" 1Xl \0 b iv ~ '-.J /.;J 01 b;p. ~;r....
~ "" "" "" "" "".. "" "" "" "" o ~ ~ 'a'! ~ 'a'! qo ~~~~~~~~
"">
.. '"
~~
""..
0"'"
'" <:
",,0
",,-
~ 5
crre
... ...
!j''''
~. ..
"" ...
.. ::T.
cr. O.
0."
::s ..
~ g.
""::S
." S'
~~
g. ""
"" :ll
s~
~ S'
"""
:1. ..
e.~
'" ..
. ~
5'
:-oJ
o S' tTl
.... :r x
'"0 ~ 0-
(3 VI ~
'82~
lG ... VI
p..2'~
... .
r-.. VI
o ",.::;:
o ::s ..
"'." ..
:>:I'" x
o 0 ~
~ < ~
"" 9 i!!.
"".. 0
'" ::s ::s
g. Iii' g,
"" ... '"
IOjg g
" '" ~.
" t:;.::T.
." .. ..
o "" VI
iil." ~
.:;a ::So ""
::x::Slo
<ll8'rt
n... ...
o 0 ~
"2 9 9
... ." '8
.. -
::T. ~ "1
o .... Pl
::s o_'i
. ::s '<
?'
!J1
~ ~ tTl
.. .. ~
<: ... -
o ~ J::
E.o""
Po ~ ~
0" lG ...
It ..... 0
.... 0 ~
jg Q 0
r:: ro I-T\
~. "" @
Po g g
0' ~ <
l-I ..... ~
5.10 g.
~C'''''
~ t::: (t)
9' g: ~.
ai~'j'
n'*"....
",000
~~~
~Jl
~ g
...
g. ..
",,0-
~ 0
.. ~
::s
~
~
tTl
x
...
-
'"
""
..
VI
...
o
a
2
...
::T.
o
::s
....
S.
~
...
S'
""
o
...
...
ll>
."
[
~.
::T.
o
::s
...
o
VI
!'
~
!"
o >
....VI
~ ~
~ (Jl
!'T. ::s
<: 0
.. VI
"" ~.
~~
;;1 ('l'
!'T. ~
o ~
::s ..
... ::s
~ ~.
j' ~
8"~
Qe-
.0 9'
>."
... ..
-...
~ Iii'
~ a
!O !ii'
~
~
...
..
>
~
(Jl
::s
o
8'
x
,,'
o
...
~
t:;.
o
~
f!l
e-
~
""
~.
..
::T.
o
::s
~.
VI
i-
f'-
z
o
~
..
!'l
~
.. n
'< ~.
~~
..
9 ~
~ ""
",,>
~~
sR
<:'<
..."
.:;a~
8''''
!3 ~
.. ""
8"ro-
<: ..
.. ..
.. ..
VI ...
~..
er 0"
ll> ..
10lG
VI ""
. 0
::s
..
...
o
VI
~
~
o
<:
..
.:;a
n'if~
~~=~
u . ~..
1'< ~ ~
~ '"
:I: 11 -.
~ o' it
- " =l'
~ 1
'll =.
8
:1
Jj
.~
:-:.;.
-:';;~.
MIU
~~[
:~:;::
i~
~?-::.
;~
:~
fUll ni Uf
~.~. ~ ~!~~] ~
8 ~!!!l'~L~
a.~ ~f~o ~~
~" 0 Z'? ]....;;;
o = ::z:: - ....
ai ~"'l;1 g ~
~: !: '"1:1> ~
".0 R!~ '"
IlI::S - >
go )0 ~8
il i~ r ~
r~ ~.
5' 2
tOO !II ~.
. a
'W
II
1,\ 'I"~
:.~ . ~
o~ ~ 0 ~ ~~
J-i:HH[i UflU {{Iii [[~i [Hfl~ijfU
"'1 ~ -'2.~i :. 8'8 '~oi 8 ~8 ~[ ! ~ !~F F;
:::: ,,- Ii' a. -~_ a.::"a. V') 1:S" ~. ~ """l.....e :;.oR"
. . · oil ' f",)(,-8 -.)0 ..... ,... " .. '" C - )0 -"
'0 ~ ?; -'{!3'g~ n=-:=! . -l &.~c.-ez~
.:i!a' a ~::. _:~d .!:l h~~ ;.,2 ;.,~ ~.llH~.
~~ :g ~f !~~ ~'2~~ .~.~ q'g~r~~oa.
it 5' S a i. .''W ~ '" g. " .Si il, Z il, it ~ : g ~.;1'
K" ~ ~ 'TJ:I.:!?S Z.. Z'_I'"Z-nQ
l":" .. -. 0 '<.. I '< ....
'" .... ~H~ ~~ il ~"'~ (')"'~
{ i.. ;::..~e: 00 0,0-:>;0<
..::I n - n - () (').. () DO
E S' "'''';:: :>:.:i' :>:'''It=q'~ t=~
~ "'0.. 2 l ~o"-...
. . ial1'O 82. """l~ ~
8 '" 3 _. ~ Z _. Z
'l:i ~:ag aO g. ~~ -
l~f [~[3 if 2:
.!!3
"
~ "
+
l
IJ
~~:~:
:::::~
~1t1
::~::"
4!
tmml
"
I'
t
~
~
~
f
i~
~
[
l?
~
Ii'
t
~
~
~
f
:~
~
[
l?
~
Ii'