HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 1997-08-06
/!A1ff&(
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BL YD.
MEETING DATE:
MEETING TIME:
CLOSED SESSION:
AUGUST 6, 1997
7:30 P.M.
7:00 P.M.
PLEASE NOTE: In order to 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) limit Presentations to 3 minutes; (5) Speak
Directly into Microphone.
A. ROLL CALL
B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If any)
C. PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Please confine your comments during this portion a/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 Staffforconsideralion and/or placed on afuture meeting
agenda.
D. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
E. CONSENT CALENDAR
The purpose of the Consent Calendar is to group items together which generally do not require discussion and
which will probab(v be approved by one motion unless separate action is required on a particular item. Any
member of the Town Council, Town SlajJ. or the Public may request removal of an item for diSCUSSIOn.
I) TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES, #1116, June 18,1997; #1117, July 2, 1997; #1118, July 16,
1997 - (Approve)
2) WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE COVERAGE OF TOWN EMPLOYEES
AND VOLUNTEERS - (Adopt Resolution)
3) PROPOSITION 218 - Request by County of Marin for Agreement for Collection of Special
Taxes, Fees, Charges and Assessments - (Approve)
4) MONTHLY POLICE STATISTICS - June, 1997 - (Accept)
5) OLD LANDING ROAD AREA - Request by Winter Properties (AP#38-162-51) for Town
to Waive Dual Annexation Policy for Purposes of Processing a Lot Split Application -
(Accept Lands & Development Subcommittee Recommendation)
6) NEW TOWN HALL - Interior Improvements - (Accept Town Manager's Report)
F. PUBLIC HEARING
7) APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION Re: Approved Plans for Chimney
Caps and Color Modifications at lOSt. Bernard Lane - Mr. & Mrs. Allan Fingerhut, Owners;
Hill Haven Homeowners' Association, et a!., Appellants - (Continuedfrom July 16)
K. ADJOURNMENT
16) PARKS & OPEN SPACE RECOMMENDATIONS Re AYALA DAY, (Planning Director)
J. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
15) REQUEST BY MMWD FOR PUBLIC MEETING Re Installation of Water Tank at Spring
Lane - (Planning Director)
14) LETTER FROM SAUSALITO COUNCILMAN PAUL ALBRITTON Re Cost Sharing of
July 4 Fireworks, (July 21, 1997)
I. COMMUNICATIONS
13) MEMORANDUM TO TOWN COUNCIL FROM TIBURON PENINSULA RECYCLING
COMMITTEE - (July, 1997)
H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
12) HARROMAN PROPERTY - Authorize Execution of Documents concerning Payment on the
Note and Conveyance of Property to the Marin County Open Space District - (Adopt
Resolution)
11) DONAHUE BUILDING - Landmark's Society Restoration and Repair
G. NEW BUSINESS
10) 110 1-1182 TIBURON BOULEY ARD - (Reed Union School DistrictIBelvedere- Tiburon
Child Care Center/Town of Tiburon)
A) Quitclaim Deeds
B) Amendment to Agreement
9) NEW POLICE BUILDING PROGRAM -
A) Ordinance Establishing Planning Procedures for Proposed Police Station at 1101
Tiburon Boulevard - (Second Reading & Adoption)
B) Further Review of Schematics & Submittal and Authorization to Proceed with Design
Completion and Working Drawings - (Building Advisory Committee)
C) Environmental & Design Review Status/Comments - (Planning Director)
D) Report Regarding RUSD Slope Easement, Project Scheduling and Funding - (Town
Manager)
8) APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION denying Minor Subdivision No
69602 at 885B, C & D Tiburon Boulevard (Lot Split) - AP#55-261-1 I; Dixon and Sharon
Power, Applicant/Appellant
A) Reconsideration of Decision Upholding the Appeal
B) Adoption of Resolution Upholdng the Appeal
Future Af!enda Items
--[nterviews for Library Board of Trustees - (August 20)
--Downtown Task Force, Terry Koenig, Chair, (August 20)
--Request for Extension to Amend Agins v. Ciry ofTiburon Settlement Agreement' (August 20)
--Appeal of Design Review Board Decision re: Proposed additions and variance at II Reed Ranch Road, Mr. & Mrs. Lehr,
Applicants; L. Didi Maillard, 13 Reed Ranch Road, Appeflant - (August 20)
--Appeal of Planning Commission Decision denying Minor Subdivision No. 69702 at Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran
Church, 9 Shepherd Way, (September 3)
DATE OF MEETING: AUGUST 6. 1997
NO. 11-1997
DATE POSTED AUGUST I 1997
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:
The Innisfree Companies v. Town of Tiburon
(Marin County Superior Court No. 168505)
.1--kM. #0 ---L
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
DRAt=T
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Hennessy called the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon to order
at 7:35 p.m, on Wednesday, June 18, 1997, at Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard,
Tiburon, California,
A. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
EX OFFICIO:
Hennessy, Thompson, Thayer, Wolf, Ginalski (7:45
p.m.)
Town Manager Kleinert, Town Attorney Danforth,
Chief of Police Herley, Planning Director Anderson,
Town Engineer Barmand, Town Clerk Crane
B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION IIf any)
Mayor Hennessy said Council gave direction to legal counsel to continue negotiations,
C. PUBLIC OUESTIONS & COMMENTS
John Hoffmire, speaking as a member ofBlackie's Brigade, said the plaque honoring Sam
Shapero was not properly placed and said he would like to have it moved to a large rock on the
right-hand side of the path coming from the parking lot, near the bridge, at Blackie's Pasture,
Council agreed to agendize the matter.
Larry Smith, Tiburon Peninsula Foundation, presented a check for $100,000 from the Last
Chance Committee and Landmarks Society in repayment of a loan made by the Town toward the
purchase of Jay and Harroman properties, Mayor Hennessy noted that the check would be placed
in the Town's Open Space Fund.
D. COUNCIL, COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Town CouncillProperty Owners' Association June II Workshop Vice Mayor Thayer
reported that the meeting was attended by representatives of approximately seven homeowners'
groups and was a success.
E. CONSENT CALENDAR
2. Town Council Minutes #]]]], April ]6, ]997; #]] ]2, May 7, ]997; #]] ]5, June 4, ]997-
(Adopt).
3. Monthly Police Statistics - May, 1997 - (Receive).
4. Acceptance ofImprovementslNotice of Completion of New Town Hall- (Adopt Resolution).
5. Opposition to Government Cost Savings and Taxpayer's Protection Amendment Initiative-
(Adopt Resolution)
6. Request to Join Amicus Brief: Rider v. San Diego - (Approve)
Town Council Minutes #1116
June 18. 1997
1
7. State of Cali fomi a Surplus Property Program - Authorize Town's Participation and Agent-
(Adopt Resolution).
8. Minutes of Traffic Safety Committee Meeting, June 3,1997 - (Accept).
9. Sprint Antenna Lease at Town Hall - (Authorize Town Manager to finalize negotiations and
execute lease).
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt Consent Calendar.
Thayer, Seconded by Thompson
AYES: Unanimous
F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10. Senior Housing Advisory Committee -
A) Progress Report
B) Town Redevelopment Subsidy
C) Consider Conversion of Marsh Unit to Very Low Income Status
A) SHAC Chair Larry Smith said the committee would come back to Council on July 2 with a
recommendation concerning selection of a developer.
B) Councilmember Ginalski asked Town Attorney Danforth to render a legal opinion about the
propriety of moving money out of the Town's Redevelopment account to pay the developer [to
subsidize the project].
Town Attorney Danforth responded that if the Town were to sell the property to a developer for
the worth of 25 market rate units and to pay the developer a subsidy on that basis, it would be
proper.
C) Mayor Hennessy recused herself Council concurred that the Town had a commitment to
provide low income housing and that the purchase of an additional unit at the Marsh complex
would help meet those goals, Town Manager Kleinert said some of the Marsh property owners
had expressed concern about having very low income housing units in their complex. Vice
Mayor Thayer said the same concerned had been expressed about The Hilarita but it had worked
out fine.
MOTION:
To approve Acquisition and Conversion of a Unit at the Pt, Tiburon Marsh
Complex for Very Low Income Rental.
Moved:
Vote:
Ginalski, Seconded by Thompson
AYES: Unanimous
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Hennessy
II. Las Palmas Way - Request for Renaming of Private Road and Utility Easement at 855-891
Tiburon Boulevard - (Kent Allen, Applicant).
Town Council lv1inutes #1116
June 18. 1997
2
Mr, Allen said none of the neighbors were opposed and that one real estate appraiser said it
would enhance the property values to have a street address separate from Tiburon Boulevard,
Also, according to Allen, it would be easier to locate these addresses by police, fire and the
public,
MOTION:
To adopt Staff Recommendation to allow the street to be designated
"Las Palmas Way".
Moved:
Vote:
Wolf, Seconded by Ginalski
AYES: Unanimous
12. Downtown Main Street Traffic Enforcement - Consider Implementation of Certain
Suggestions & Recommendations from Joint TiburonIBelvedere Council Workshop - (Report of
Traffic Safety Committee, June II, 1997).
Chief of Police Herley presented the Committee's recommendations, Council deferred taking
action until the recommendations had been reviewed by the City of Belvedere.
Item postponed.
G. NEW BUSINESS
13. Town's Interim Standards & Criteria re: Wireless Communication Facilities - (Consider
Proposed Amendments).
Council discussed the proposed amendments, recommended by the Planning Commission. Town
Attorney Danforth responded to a comment by Councilmember Ginalski and said the Town would
be in a much stronger position to have an independent consultant determine alternative sites.
MOTION
To adopt amendments to Town's Interim Standards & Criteria re:
Wireless Communication Facilities.
Moved:
Vote:
Thayer, Seconded by Hennessy
AYES: Unanimous
H. PUBLIC HEARING
14. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Re: Conditional Approval of Expanded Parking
Area at Congregation Kol Shofar, 215 Blackfield Drive - AP#38-35 I-54 - (Applicant:
Congregation Kol Shofar).
Planning Director Anderson said three conditions of approval were being appealed by Kol Shofar:
I) Planning Commission's decision to close the exit onto Reedland Woods Way due to
neighborhood disruption;
Town Council Minutes #1116
June 18, 1997
3
2) Two-way connector road to be created between the lower lot and the middle lot;
3) Narrowing of the existing exit to 16 feet (to allow for only one car at a time to exit onto
Reedland Woods Way).
Anderson said the grounds of appeal were:
1) Closing the driveway would create a dangerous condition - [Anderson noted that the
Town Engineer's testimony did not support this];
2) The burden placed on the users of the lot were greater than the burden of the residents;
3) Unnecessary costs were being imposed for construction of a new connector road;
4) The conditions imposed discouraged people from coming to the Synagogue - [Anderson
said the Commission was concerned about land use and compatibilities only].
Councilmember Wolf asked the Town Engineer whether his original recommendations for the
Negative Declaration asked for the upper driveway to be one-way to reduce the traffic impact on
Reedland Woods Way.
Town Engineer Barmand said his main concentration was on making the driveway "no entry"
from Reedland Woods Way, and to make access from Via Los Altos two-way to alleviate traffic
from Reedlands.
Council heard testimony from the following individuals representing the Applicant! Appellant:
--Charles Wisch, President of Congregation Kol Shofar
--Stan Dek, Chairman of the Kol Shofar Building Committee
--Mr. Kurtzmann, architect for Congregation Kol Shofar
Council heard testimony from the following residents who opposed the appeal:
--Lee Carson, 30 Reedlands Wood Way
--Lisa Kaslik, 20 Reedlands Wood Way
--Susan & Dennis McQuaid, SO Reedlands Wood Way
Mr. Wisch rebutted some of the arguments presented by the neighbors by stating that they had
been invited to participate in the long planning process. He also disputed their concerns about
safety due to increased traffic onto Reedland Woods Way.
Council member Ginalski expressed grave concern to Mr. Wisch about the contention in NO.4 of
the Appeal questioning the denial offreedom of religion. Wisch said that a Staff report proposed
a cap on the membership, and Planning Commissioner Greenberg's alleged support of this
proposal were the basis for his grounds of appeal, but noted that safety and other concerns were
the more compelling reasons for the appeal.
Town Council Minu'es #1116
June 18, 1997
4
Councilmember Ginalski asked that Ground No.4 of the appeal be withdrawn,
Mayor Hennessy opened the public comment period, and the following individuals spoke:
--Leslie Kane, 40 Reedlands Woods Way (supported appeal)
--Pamela Farrell, Corte San Fernando (opposed appeal)
--Julie Jacobs, 7 Upper Cecilia Way (supported appeal)
--Barbara Rowe, pastor at Westminster Presbyterian Church, read a letter from her Board in
support of the Kol Shofar appeal.
--Doren Gluck Canter, resident of Strawberry (supported appeal)
--Fred Richovich, address unknown (supported appeal)
--Paul Schrier, Planning Commission Chair, said the Commission found the "cap" idea was not an
appropriate way to limit the use pennit, and that it was in no way discussed in relation to the
parking lot.
Mayor Hennessy closed the public hearing.
Planning Director Anderson reviewed the history of the approval of the parking lot dating back to
1985. Anderson said in 1990 and 1991 the EIR for the Vista Tiburon development said that
traffic would not exceed the current amount on Via Los Altos and that the access road was
understood to be a service road for deliveries, as well as handicap access.
councilmember Thayer said that the lower lot used to be a paved playground for the middle
school and was now being used for a different purpose; therefore, it was appropriate for the
Planning Commission to find trade-offs in their decision to accommodate competing interests,
Councilmember Ginalski said he could find no arbitrary or capricious actions by Staff or the
Planning Commission which would justify a reversal of the decision.
Ginalski reiterated his concern about the constitutionality issue (Appeal Item No.4) and said such
a serious allegation should be withdrawn.
Councilmember Wolf said she lived near two churches and stated that although the traffic was an
inconvenience, the churches served an important function in the community. However, Wolf said
the neighbors had a valid argument in saying they understood the access road to be only a service
road when they bought their houses or lots.
Wolf said she would vote in favor of closing off the upper driveway and making the connector
road one-way, and that Reedland Woods Way should have parking on one side of the street only,
Councilmember Thompson encouraged Kol Shofar to seek creative solutions to their parking
problems, and gave examples of St. Hilary's "stacking" cars, and the shuttle from Del Mar School
operated by Community Congregational Church,
Town Council Minu'es #1116
June 18. 1997
5
Mayor Hennessy said she agreed with councilmember Wolfs recommendations, but would
concur with the Town Engineer's recommendations regarding a two-way access onto Via Los
Altos and a narrower driveway onto Reedland Woods Way,
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To Deny the Appeal of Congregation Kol Shofar.
Thayer, Seconded by Ginalski
AYES: Thayer, Ginalski
NOES: Hennessy, Thompson, Wolf
Motion failed; Council continued their discussion.
Mr. Wisch said Congregation Kol Shofar would be willing to withdraw NO.4 of the Appeal, and
would go along with the two-way and width requirements of No, 3 of the Conditions. In
addition, Wisch said they would undertake an affirmative education program with their members
about being "good neighbors" with regard to parking and traffic issues.
MOTION:
To Uphold the Appeal by Eliminating Conditions No.1 & 2, and to adhere to the
Town Engineer's original requirements.
Moved:
Vote:
Wolf, Seconded by Hennessy
AYES: Hennessy, Thompson, Wolf
NOES: Ginalski, Thayer
15. Appeal of Issuance of Conditional Certificate of Compliance for Parcel Adjacent to
Blackfield Drive (AP#38-351-51) - Appellants: The Atkinson Family, 200 Blackfield Drive; The
Boles Family, 210 Blackfield Drive; The Farrell Family, 6 Corte San Fernando; The Shooshtarian
Family, 4 Corte San Fernando.
Planning Director Anderson said the parcel in question was formerly a portion of the railroad
right-of-way, and at 32,000 square feet, was larger than the other parcels in the area, Anderson
said a denial of the permit could only be based upon grounds of public health and safety, and the
Town Engineer had determined that there could be safe entry onto Blackfield Drive. Staff
recommended denial of the appeal.
Marcel Ross, one of the neighbors who had been out of the country and therefore had not joined
the appeal, asked Council to postpone a decision until one of the boundary lines of the parcel
could be checked and all parties advised as to its status.
Reilly Atkinson, 200 Blackfield Drive, said he had no previous knowledge that the lot could be
developed and said the proposed lot was on a blind curve of Black field Drive and [ingress/egress]
would be a safety hazard.
Pamela Farrell, Corte San Fernando, concurred,
Town Council Minu'es #1116
June 18. 1997
6
Logan Boles, 210 Blackfield Drive, said the houses were sited in the area because no development
was planned for the railroad grade.
Dr. James Farrell, 6 Corte San Fernando, said he had been told that the lot was a railroad right-of-
way which was to be left open for fire equipment, and that a driveway opening onto a blind curve
would cause accidents.
Mohammed Shooshtarian, 4 Corte San Fernando, said he had been told the lot was open space,
The Applicant, represented by Ali Majlessi of Marin Development Inc., said he would be happy to
work with the neighbors in resolving any issues of privacy and siting.
Mayor Hennessy closed the public hearing.
In response to a question from Councilmember Ginalski, Planning Director Anderson said the lot
in question was the last one from the old railroad right-of-way, and that several others had already
received certificates of compliance.
In response to a question from Mayor Hennessy, Town Engineer Mohammadi said a full soils
report would be required for the lot, and other information concerning drainage and line of sight,
not normally required at the certificate of compliance level, was also being requested by the
Town.
Councilmember Wolf said the lot line question raised by the neighbors had no impact on whether
or not the lot was viable, Councilmember Thayer and Mayor Hennessy concurred that there was
no legal alternative to deny the issuance of the certificate, Councilmember Ginalski said he was
troubled by the lot line question and was reticent to move forward,
Planning Director Anderson said the Town would not record the lot until the owners of the
property and Mr. Ross agreed upon the lot line.
MOTION:
To Deny the Appeal of Issuance of Conditional Certificate of Compliance for the
Parcel Adjacent to Blackfield Drive, AP#38-351-51.
Moved:
Vote:
Wolf, Seconded by Thayer
AYES: Unanimous
I. COMMUNICA nONS
16. Memorandum from Chief Herley Re: Rotary Recognition of Officer Michael Mourgos, dated
June 10, 1997.
Council gave Officer Mourgos a "hip, hip, hooray," and commended Mourgos on doing a fine
job.
Town CouncilMinu'es #1116
June 18, 1997
7
17. Letter from Belvedere- Tiburon Landmarks Society Re: Dedication of Portion of Upper
Esperanza, dated June 9, 1997,
Town Engineer Barmand said the road was substandard and would take a lot of money to bring it
up to acceptable standards, Barmand said the Traffic Safety Committee had told the neighbors
that if they improved the road, only then would the Town consider acceptance,
Council accepted Barmand's report and concurred with the recommendation of the Traffic Safety
Committee.
J. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
18. Proposal for Holiday Craft Faire at Town Hall- Memorandum from Joan Miranda to Town
Manager, dated June 13, 1997.
Council had no objections to the proposal, scheduled to take place on Saturday and Sunday,
November 8 & 9, 1997, in the Council Chambers and Community Room.
K. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor
Hennessy adjourned the meeting at 11: 10 p.m., sine die,
THERESE M. HENNESSY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
Town Council Minu'es #1116
June 18, 1997
8
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
Ljp~ No
DIl4FY
I
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Hennessy called the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon to order
at 7:40 P.M., on Wednesday, July 2, 1997 in Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard,
Tiburon, California.
A. ROLL CALL
PRESENT
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Ginalski, Thompson, Wolf, Vice Mayor Thayer,
Mayor Hennessy
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
None
EX OFFICIO
Town Manager Kleinert, Town Attorney
Danforth, Town Planning Director Anderson,
Town Engineer Barmand, Finance Director
Stranzl, Acting Recorder Sandy Sherwood
B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION
Mayor Hennessy said Council met in closed session and reached agreement regarding Worker's
Compensation Claim SF0397174 for applicant Police ChiefHerley and settlement for $13,937.
There was also discussion on Innisfree's lawsuit against the town.
C. PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Mayor Hennessy announced that Agenda Item II would be heard out of order
H. PUBLIC HEARING
II.
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION Re: Denial of Permit for
Spring Antenna at 145 SugarloafDrive - Sprint Spectrum L.P., Applicant and
Appellant.
Gary Giacomini, representing Sprint, said Sprint formally withdrew their application. He had
recommended Sugarloaf Drive as an ideal site and was surprised when the Town did not want it.
While he still felt it was a perfect site, Giacomini said Sprint does not go where they are not
wanted He noted it is disappointing that 60 to 75 percent of the residential constituents will not
have service; however, Sprint will remain ready to extend service to the resident constituents.
D. COUNCIL, COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES # f 111
7/02/97
1. PARADISE DRIVE VISIONING PROCESS
Town Manager Kleinert referred to Planning Director Scott Anderson for an update of the June
16 program at the Romberg Center. Planning Director Anderson said the meeting was about land
use and there was a lot of public input. The process is not expected to end until March 1998
when the County Planning Staff will attempt to find consensus on how to deal with issues along
Paradise Drive and draft a policy document for the Board of Supervisors.
2. ROMBERG TffiURON CENTER
Bob Ohrenschall, Board Chairman, and Lisa Arch, Director of the Romberg Center, wanted the
Council to know what they do and that they are a local resource. The Center is a world class
research center, and they are a satellite field station for San Francisco State University. They
wanted to reach out to and involve the community in their. programs.
Mr Ohrenschall asked how the community felt about putting a Sprint tower in the area.
Mayor Hennessy said the Council had adopted Interim Standards on this issue and the Planning
Department could assist them with their specific questions
E. CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION:
To approve the Consent Calendar consisting of the following items:
3. TOWN MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY - As of May 31, 1997
4. ESTABLISH SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE FUND-
Pursuant to Chapter 134, Statutes of 1996 - (Adopt Resolution)
5. APPROVAL OF DESIGNATION OF "LAS PALMAS WAY" AS A PRIVATE
STREET - (Adopt Resolution)
6. AMENDMENTS TO INTERIM STANDARDS & CRITERIA FOR THE
REGULA TION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES - (Adopt
Resolution)
7. DENIAL OF APPEAL BY BOLES, ET AL. FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE - Parcel adjacent to Blackfield Drive - Mary Alice
Deffebach, Owner - (Adopt Resolution)
Moved.
Vote:
Thayer, Thompson
AYES
NOES:
Unanimous
None
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #
7/02/97
2
F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. DETERMINATION OF BUILDING PERMIT REACTIVATION FEES; 50 Del Mar
Drive, Jonathan Wu, Applicant
Scott Anderson, Planning Director, reviewed the Staff report for the CounciL Council had
previously granted a 6-month extension to Mr. Wu without payment of any fees. Now the
Building Permit is nearing its expiration date and needs to be reactivated or reissued as a new
permit The Building Official recommended a fee of$4,4S3.11 to be assessed for the reactivation
of the Permit in accordance with the Ordinance. Staff recommended Council accept that
recommendation and assess that fee.
Don Mascal, 115 Rock Hill Road, has lived there since 1975. He reviewed the history of this
project and its impact on his property and the neighboring properties and asked that it be
completed.
Larry Heyman had minor problems with this project. He wished the Town Council and Board of
Review would monitor the agreement
Mayor Hennessy said the issue before the Council was whether or not to reassess fees. She
directed Staff to see if they were in compliance.
Councilmember Thompson said they wanted to get the project done as soon as possible.
Councilmember Wolf said when Council renewed this project for six months, they knew that time
would not be adequate to complete the project. Mr. Wu is doing all the work himself and not
trying to prolong the project She felt they should give Mr. Wu a small break on the fee
Vice Mayor Thayer recalled that Mr. Wu had been building houses like this for 15 to 20 years
The craftsmanship is excellent but one of the reasons for communities having time limits on
permits is to encourage builders to finish the job and stop the disruption to neighborhoods
Councilmember Ginalski reiterated those comments. He said this project was being dragged out
in violation of the statute. When this was before the Council last time, they granted him an .
extension because he was experiencing difficulty and it was the proper thing to do. He noted
there were other problems regarding storage on the property also. He felt it appropriate to ask
Staff to monitor this project and make a recommendation to Mr. Wu regarding storage,
scaffolding and unconstructed projects and provide Staff with a status report He supported the
motion.
Councilmember Wolf said they seriously misled Mr. Wu at the last hearing because they did not
indicate that in six months he would have to finish or pay the fees They indicated that in six
months they would reconsider what an additional fee amount should be.
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #
7/02/97
3
Mayor Hennessy agreed with Councilmembers Ginalski and Thayer.
Motion: To accept Staff's recommendation to assess Building Permit fee.
Moved:
Vote:
Thompson, Thayer
AYES:
NOES:
Thompson, Thayer, Ginalski, Mayor Hennessy
Wolf
9. DETERMINATION OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL of the Planning
Commission's Decision to Approve an Amendment to the Kol Shafar Synagogue
Conditional Use Permit to Expand the Paved Parking Area; 215 Blackfield Drive; File
# 1960 1 - (Consider Adoption of Resolution and Making of Findings to Delete Mitigation
Measure)
Mayor Hennessy said the only issue before the Council was to memorialize the decision made at
the last meeting. The only persons that could reconsider this item were ones on the prevalent side
of the vote. She read the mitigation measure and asked the Council whether they wanted to
reconsider this item.
Council members Thompson, Wolf and Mayor Hennessy said they did not want this item reopened
for consideration.
Scott Anderson, Planning Director reviewed the Resolution which was an adaptation of what the
Planning Commission had approved, The Resolution eliminated the two conditions opposed by
the Planning Commission, one which was the closing of the upper exit driveway and the second
was the conversion of the proposed connector driveway into a two-way connector driveway.
Council member Ginalski asked Town Engineer Sia Barmand ifhis opinion as a professional
engineer was that the road should be two-way
Mr. Barmand said a two-way connector road is a better solution to the problem.
Karen Nygren, 20 Paseo Mirasol, disagreed with the decision to approve this project.
Barbara Brown Hardey, Reedland Woods Way, had been in favor of the project but felt it would
be a tragedy if someone was hurt.
Michael Rex, architect, representing homeowner's on Reedland Wood Way, requested that
Council ask the applicant to request a 30 day Continuance and for the Council to reconsider their
Resolution and have further public dialog.
Ken Kurtzman supported the Resolution.
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #
7/02/97
4
Dennis McQuaid, 50 Reedland Woods Way, asked the Council to consider other alternatives.
Charles Wisch, President of Congregation Kol Shafar, asked the Council to support the
Resolution.
Mayor Hennessy asked Mr. Wisch if the congregation would be willing to talk with the neighbors
regarding traffic patterns and perhaps monitoring patterns,
Mr Wisch said they were willing and had a letter to that effect ready to be sent to each resident of
Reedland Woods Way.
Julie Jacobs, 7 Upper Cecilia Way and a member ofKol Shafar, was concerned with safety issues.
Logan Boles, 210 Blackfield Drive, was concerned about traffic hazards increasing,
Mr Nash, a member of the congregation and professional planner, said a traffic control plan
needed to be developed.
Lisa Kaslic, 20 Reedland Woods Way, wanted to have the issue referred back to the Planning
Commission.
Mayor Hennessy reiterated that before the Council was the Resolution memorializing the decision
made at the last meeting.
Council member Wolf moved to adopt this resolution.
Vice Mayor Thayer noted that comments had included willingness to communicate within the
neighborhood. He suggested deferring the Resolution for 30 days to allow neighborhood
discussion.
Council member Ginalski echoed and expanded upon Vice Mayor Thayer's comments. He
referred to comments in the Staff report about mitigation measures. He was concerned from a
legal standpoint that language was not in the public's hands and he had not had an opportunity to
review it. He suggested taking the issue back to the Planning Commission for study and
development of a traffic flow plan.
Councilmember Wolf did not believe a neighborhood/congregation dialog was tied to this
Resolution. It would take place regardless of the resolution The issue is regarding a two-way
versus a one-way connector She noted that the Town Engineer's report included subjective
suggestions. There is no evidence that cars turning right could create a traffic problem
Councilmember Thompson supported asking the Kol Shafar congregation to work with the
community.
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #
7/02/97
5
Mayor Hennessy said she had great faith in the synagogue working with the neighbors. Council
had determined there was to be a one, way connector road. There was no reason why it couldn't
be one way into the lot before the service and one way exiting the lot after the service.
Vice Mayor Thayer said that by deferring this for thirty days the neighbors and congregants could
discuss their concerns and come back with modifications and create a stronger Resolution.
Council member Ginalski felt this Resolution should not be approved at this time,
Moved:
Vote:
Wolf, Thompson
AYES:
NOES:
Wolf, Thompson, Mayor Hennessy
Ginalski, Thayer
G.
None.
NEW BUSINESS
H.
PUBLIC HEARING
10.
A
B.
NED'S WAY SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT - 1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Senior Housing Advisory Committee Report & Recommendation
Council Selection of Developer
Scott Anderson, Planning Director, reviewed the Staff report for the Council. He said on June 24
the Senior Housing Development Committee voted without dissent to recommend the firm of
Berman and Feldman to be selected as the developer of the Senior Housing Project at Ned's Way.
He explained the process for determining that recommendation.
Larry Smith, Chair of the Senior Housing Development Committee, reviewed the process the
committee had employed to reach their decisions and agreement. They felt this firm presented an
example of outstanding team work in developing the concept.
Councilmember Ginalski asked about the financial situation regarding what level of contribution
would be expected and what compensation would be received.
Mr Miller said they had hoped to deal with the financial aspects at the special meeting. However,
the Mayor and Council member Wolf asked the committee to meet with the developer to focus on
the issue oflow income housing and the various scenarios available to them. They would then
make a recommendation to the Council.
Mayor Hennessy noted that the Council was deciding upon the developer
Councilmember Ginalski said perhaps discussion on how they were going to use the Town's
money on this development would be appropriate.
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #
7/02/97
6
Mr. Miller said they could do that.
Councilmember Wolf said the developer presented one scenario and the committee is going to
explore other scenarios. Those scenarios were not critical to the financial issues.
Mr, Miller explained the elements of the financial equation.
Councilmember Ginalski asked if there were any requests for money from the RDA accounts,
Mr. Miller said the answer was a qualified yes,
Councilmember Wolf explained how the appropriate amount of space was arrived at.
Richard Hinkle, Tiburon, asked about square footage for affordable housing.
Mayor Hennessy said they were considering selection of a developer and affordable housing
would be discussed at the next Council meeting which would be a special meeting to discuss this
topic.
Councilmember Wolf explained the difference between the developers' proposals,
Nancy Noble, 2 Malvino Court, recommended that the Council sure that the contract with the
developer have a clause permitting the town to get out of the relationship should the economic
proposal not be acceptable.
Mayor Hennessy noted the Council was not entering into a contract but choosing a developer.
Councilmember Thompson moved to accept Chair Smith's report, to ratifY the selection of
Berman Feldman as the developer for Ned's Way and to direct Staff to proceed with steps to
further the sale of the Ned's Way Property.
Councilmember Ginalski commented that the issue of payment is very important.
Moved
Vote:
Thompson, Wolf
AYES Unanimous
NOES: None
Town Manager Kleinert asked for clarification of whether the Council wanted to have a special
meeting,
C. Town-initiated Applications to Change the General Plan Land Use Designation from "P"
to "RMP-17" (To Accommodate a Future Senior Housing Project);
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #
7/02/97
7
Consideration of Dr aft Mitigated Negative Declaration; Town ofTiburon,
Owner/Applicant; AP #58,151-23
Jayni Allsep, Planner, reviewed this item for the Council.
Mayor Hennessy asked if the City had entered into agreement with Hilarita regarding primary
access and suggested the agreement be clear. She also suggested they contact calTrans regarding
a right turn lane on Tiburon Boulevard.
Councilmember Ginalski commented on language of the Resolutions,
Motion:
To Adopt Resolution for Town of Tiburon adopting change to General Plan for
the former Tiburon Town Hall site.
Moved' Wolf, Thompson
AYES
NOES
Unanimous
None
Motion: First reading of the Ordinance by Title Only.
Moved: Wolf, Thompson
AYES
NOES
Unanimous
None
Mayor Hennessy read, "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Rezoning
Certain Property From P (Public/Quasi-Public) District to RMP-17.0 (Residential Multiple
Planned District) and Granting a Density Bonus to Permit a Senior Development with up to 25
Units. 1155 Tiburon Boulevard, Portion of Assessor Parcel #58-151-23.
Moved: Thompson, Wolf
Vote:
AYES:
Councilmember Thompson, Wolf, Ginalski, Thayer, Mayor
Hennessy.
None
NOES:
12. APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION Re Approved Plans for
Chimney Caps and Color Modifications at 10 St. Bernard Lane - Mr. & Mrs. Allan
Fingerhut, Owners; Jared Polsky & Associates, Applicants; Ms. Roads, 315 Ridge Road;
Hill Haven Homeowners' Association, Jerry Reissen, 616 Ridge Road; Mr, & Mrs.
Ronick, 300 Ridge Road; Dr. & Mrs. Cavalieri, 347 Ridge Road; Mr. & Mrs. Stucky, 408
Ridge Road, Appellants
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #
7/02/97
8
Planning Director Scott Anderson reviewed the appeal process, Associate Planner Borba
reviewed the staff report for the Council. The two specific areas of the project that the neighbors
were appealing were the color and the chimney caps. Staff recommended the Council deny the
appeal.
Planner Borba indicated the proposed colors and the approved colors.
Sandra Stucky, 409 Ridge Road, explained in detail why she thought the Design Review Board
erred in allowing the Fingerhut's changes to their original plan. She opposed the colors, design,
size of the house, and landscaping,
Ralph Cavalieri, 347 Ridge Road, opposed the Design Review Board decision because of changes
to the size of the chimney caps which impact their views and the changes in colors.
David Ludwig, architect for the project, explained how Mr. Fingerhut made his decision about the
color for his house and why he changed it. He said they felt that they were, in general terms, in
the Town's interest. He said they went ahead with the change and were aware that the proper
procedure was to go back to Staff for approval of the change. They didn't get approval because
the process had become so lengthy and so unpleasant and they hoped the colors would be close
enough to the original colors to be accepted. He also eXplained the thinking of the design which
included the chimney caps in the context of the entire project.
Mike Howland, landscape architect, eXplained how the planting would soften the house's effect.
Mr. Ludwig said Mr. Fingerhut was willing to go with no covering on the chimney.
Vice Mayor Thayer asked ifMr. Ludwig felt the views of neighbors had consequence in reference
to his design. Mr. Ludwig said they had consequence.
Dana Dworin, 1800 Vistazo West, was thrilled about the house and supported the Fingerhut's
home.
Me! Ronick, 347 Ridge Road, said color was subjective but he was looking to the Council to
uphold the Design Review Board's guidelines.
Charles Lawson, 180 I Lagoon View, read a letter from the Hillhaven Property Owner's
Association which unanimously agreed that the plans should be as originally approved.
Bob Heymer, lives in property adjacent to the Fingerhut property, spoke in favor of the project as
it stands.
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES # 7/02/97
9
Alan Fingerhut, property owner, explained that as new members to the community they wanted to
be good neighbors. He explained his desire to blend the architecture with the needs of the
neighborhood.
JiIl Heymer, 4 St. Bernard Lane adjacent to the Fingerhuts, supported this great house.
Dr. Cavalieri rebutted comments about photographs taken from his home showing obstructed
views.
Mrs. Stucky said she did not want the Town endorsing the color scheme.
Councilmember Wolf asked what procedure could be used,
Mr. Anderson said if the Council wanted time for a mockup to be prepared, they could not make
a decision. He did not think there was a requirement that the Council make a decision the first
time they heard an appeal. The Town Attorney pointed out it was cleaner to approve both parts
of the appeal at once,
Councilmember Thompson said he understood Mr, Fingerhut's fiustration with the process but he
supported the process to protect everyone's rights, He liked the house but said the colors create a
contrast that attract attention, He referred to the HiIlside Guidelines. He noted that they could
repaint the house later if they wanted. He recommended they stick with the spark arrestor
because the chimney caps did affect views.
Council member Ginalski lives at 1828 Vistazo West and also served on the Design Review Board.
The issue of the appeal regarding the color has to do with process. When the architect said he
was aware of the process but he felt it lengthy and unpleasant, that was saying that the process is
not important to him, He said he did not believe that was the correct course of action. He said
design by piecemeal was not appropriate and it was wrong to apply colors without a permit. He
wanted to see a mockup of the chimney caps. He thought it was appropriate for the chimney caps
to go back to Design Review for their analysis.
Vice Mayor Thayer said his thoughts did not materiaIly differ from what had been expressed by
Councilmembers Thompson and Ginalski. He told the Fingerhut's he was delighted they were in
Tiburon He explained the planning and design process in Tiburon and said it was not a personal
situation. He would uphold the appeal on the color and remand the spark arrestor back to Design
Review for final resolution.
Council member Wolf said she wasn't convinced the spark arrestor needed to go back to Design
Review She appreciated Dr. Cavalieri's willingness to consider a mockup. Regarding the colors,
Wolf said everything was subjective and she understood the architect's desire to have the correct
color. She did not support design review for colors. She said the neighbors felt betrayed and the
Council had to uphold the pact they had entered into.
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #
7/02/97
10
Mayor Hennessy commented on the lengthy design review process in Tiburon, She said they had
to uphold the process and the Fingerhut's disregard for the process and the colors that had been
approved was a slap in the face to the procedures. She would uphold the appeal and remand the
spark arrestor back to Design Review She did not think it was up to the Cavalieri's to prove that
their view was obstructed.
Mrs. Stucky said the brown colors were acceptable but the green was not and she did not like the
contrasting stripes.
Motion: To uphold the Appeal, reverse the Design Review Board's decision on the issue of
color, and remand the chimney cap issue to Design Review Board.
Moved: Ginalski, Thayer
AYES:
NOES:
Ginalski, Thayer, Hennessy
Wolf, Thompson
I. COMMUNICA nONS
There were none.
J. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
13. CHILD CARE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS STATUS
Town Manager Kleinert said the Child Care Center improvements were proceeding and it was
time to talk to the Reed School District about the abandonment of the easement.
K. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon,
Mayor Hennessy adjourned the meeting at II: 10 p.m., sine die.
THERESE M. HENNESSY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
ROBERT L KLEINERT, TOWN MANAGER
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES # 1117
7/02/97
II
J-(p~ J/o. --l-
DRA'=T
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Mayor Thayer called the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon to
order at 7:35 p.m. on Wednesday, July 16, at Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard,
Tiburon, California.
A. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Ginalski, Thayer, Thompson, Wolf
Hennessy
PRESENT EX OFFICIO
Town Manager Kleinert, Town Attorney Danforth,
Planning Director Anderson, Finance Director
Stranzl, Lt. Aiello, Town Clerk Crane
B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If any)
None.
C. PUBLIC OUESTIONS & COMMENTS
None.
D. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. LAFCO July 13 Meeting. Vice Mayor Thayer reported that an item concerning annexation of
Old Landing Road to the Town would be heard by LAFCO on September 4.
2. BLPOA July 8 Meeting. Council member Thompson said a meeting had been held with Town
officials and members of the Belvedere Lagoon Property Owners' Association (BLPOA)
regarding their concerns about drainage and run-off from construction of the proposed Police
Station and Senior Housing project.
3. Marin Public Safety Communications System, July 9 Meeting. Councilmember Wolf said
some of the questions raised by public officials had still not been answered but an agreement had
been reached to move forward and apply for the frequencies. Wolf said the work could be done
in phases, and that the current estimate for Tiburon's share was just under $300,000, assuming
that not all jurisdictions would participate. Wolf also said a 20-year, low rate loan had been
discussed as a way to pay for the overall improvements.
E. CONSENT CALENDAR
4. Call for Council Election on November 4, 1997 - (Adopt Resolution).
5. Request for Consolidation and Authorize County Clerk to Render Services for November 4,
1997 Election - (Adopt Resolution).
6. Reaffirm Town Council Policy regarding Cost of Candidate's Statement of Qualifications -
(Adopt Resolution)
Town Council Minutes #/118
July 16.1997
1
7. Request to Join Amicus Brief Landgate v, California Coastal Commission (Cal. Supreme
Court No. S059847) - Approve.
8. Upholding of Appeal of Design Review Board Decision Re: Approved Plans for Chimney
Caps and Color Modifications at 10 St. Bernard Lane - Mr. & Mrs. Allan Fingerhut, Owners; Hill
Haven Homeowners' Association, et aI., Appellants - (Adopt Resolution),
9. Hillhaven Utility Undergrounding District - (Approve Staff Recommendation for Final
Distribution of Surplus Funds).
Council removed Item Nos. 8 and 9 from Consent Calendar.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
Absent:
To adopt Consent Calendar, as amended above.
Ginalski, Seconded by Thayer
Unanimous
Hennessy
H. COMMUNICA nONS
16. Request for Reconsideration of Conditions of Approval of Minor Subdivision at 2225 Vistazo
East, January 5, 1984 - (Letter from Christopher Armstrong to Council member Ginalski, dated
July 1, 1997).
Councilmember Ginalski asked for public hearing on Item No. 16. He said he had received this
correspondence from a resident on Vistazo East and thought it appropriate to ask Council to
consider directing the questions raised to the Planning Commission for review while the project
was going through the Design Review process
Ginalski said the neighbors were unclear about the impact of the subdivision and were concerned
about the widening of the road. They felt that the developer [Frankovich] should bear the cost of
improvements to the (private) road. Mr. Armstrong also suggested improvements be considered
to fire and sewer infrastructure in the area at the same time.
Planning Director Anderson clarified that off-site improvements were not part of the design
review process but that they would need to be done before the building permit is issued. He said
the Town Engineer would review the plans, along with the Fire District, but that the Planning
Commission would only be involved if another [different] application was filed.
Town Attorney Danforth said Frankovich's application would have to comply with the
[subdivision] map conditions and noted that the neighbors would prefer not to increase the width
of the street as required by one of the conditions. Danforth said the Council could refer the
matter by consensus to the Planning Commission or let the process run its usual course.
Vice Mayor Thayer said the burden would be on Frankovich to see ifhe wanted to bear the cost
of improvements or ask for a change to the application.
Council deadlocked on the question of whether to refer the matter to the Planning Commission.
Town Council Minutes #1118
July 16, 1997
2
F. PUBLIC HEARING
10. Consideration of Request to Build Target Range at 185 Gilmartin Drive. Council noted that
Mr. & Mrs, Kiritchenko had withdrawn their application.
II. New Police Building Program -
A) Status Report - (Building Advisory Committee Chair Wilson)
B) Architect's Presentation of Schematics - (Eric Glass Associates)
C) Ordinance Establishing Planning Procedures for Proposed Police Station at 110 I Tiburon
Boulevard - (First Reading by Title Only),
C) Planning Director Anderson said the ordinance was the same streamlined procedure used for
Measure M and the new Library and Town Hall,
MOTION
Moved
Vote:
To read Ordinance by Title only.
Thompson, Seconded by Wolf
AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: Hennessy
Vice Mayor Thayer read, "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon
Establishing Planning Procedures for the Proposed New Tiburon Police Station at 1101 Tiburon
Boulevard."
MOTION:
Moved
Vote:
To pass first reading of above Ordinance.
Thompson, Seconded by Thayer
AYES Ginalski, Thayer, Thompson, Wolf
ABSENT Hennessy
A) Building Advisory Committee Chair Jim Wilson said Architect Eric Glass had proceeded with
the schematic drawings and the committee had complied with Council's direction to reduce the
size of certain areas to meet a target of 6600 square feet overall. Jim said the drawings, which
now included an Emergency Operations Center at approximately 677 square feet, a Lieutenant's
office at 121 square feet, and two processing rooms--one at 40 square feet and the other at 104
square feet, brought the total square footage to 6647,
Wilson said the architect had also used Adamson as his cost estimator.
B) Architect Glass went over the drawings with Council and explained some of the design
features. He said the cost to construct the proposed building was estimated at $1,461,518,
including a 10% contingency fee. Road improvements and construction managementcosts were
not included.
Council member Wolf asked whether the processing rooms were in fact holding cells. She said
they should be interview rooms only because the Town did not want to incur the liability of
providing holding cells. Architect Glass replied that the processing rooms would not meet Board
Town COllncillvfinraes # J J 18
JI/(V /6. /997
3
of Corrections standards to designate the building as a detention facility, However, he said
processing rooms should have furniture and fixtures which were resistant to vandalism and
damage. Wolf said there should be access to toilets from both rooms,
Wolf also asked whether a closed circuit TV system was needed in the building. Glass said it was
recommended but not "cast in stone"
Councilmember Ginalski asked Architect Glass if the project was capable of being built without
the improvements to Tiburon Boulevard or Ned's Way. Glass said he believed so. Ginalski asked
the Town Finance Director to provide costs for this aspect of the project since they were not
included in the Adamson bid. Glass clarified for Councilmember Ginalski that the radio and fire
alarm systems were included in the bid, along with the conduit for the closed circuit TV.
Council member Ginalski also asked for price estimates for furniture and all other costs related to
the new Police Station, and for the reports to be provided to Council on a monthly basis. Finance
Director Stranzl said a record could be created once Council authorized certain costs, and that the
only cost so far that had been authorized was the fee for the schematic drawings
Architect Glass said his fees for design development through construction documents would be
approximately $100,000, not including the previously approved $25,000 for the first phase of the
schematic design. Glass estimated project management fees at $33,000, for a total architect's fee
of $150-$180,000.
Councilmember Wolf asked Mr. Glass to think about ways to reduce the project cost by
$100,000, and to provide Council with a list of suggestions.
During public hearing, Karen Nygren, Paseo Mirasol, asked whether the width of the [old Town
Hall] driveway was adequate for increased circulation. Architect Glass said the road would
actually be widened by three feet to approximately 25 feet as a result of the project. Planning
Director Anderson suggested pushing back the upper entry five feet to widen the road to 30 feet.
Councilmember Thompson thanked the Building Advisory Commi' ~e and commented how
exciting it was that the project was coming together
Vice Mayor Thayer said Council would look for a response from the architect for ways to reduce
the project cost and to study ongoing costs for the associated elements.
12. Proposed Senior Housing Project at Ned's Way-
A) Ordinance Rezoning Property - Second Reading and Adoption.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To read Ordinance by title only.
Wolf, Seconded by Thompson
AYES: Unanimous
Town Council Minu,es #1118
July 16,1997
4
Vice Mayor Thayer read, "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Rezoning
Certain Property from P(Public/Quasi-Public) District to RMP-17.0 (Residential Multiple Planned
District and Granting a Density Bonus to Permit a Senior Housing Development with up to 25
Units. 1155 Tiburon Boulevard (portion of Assessor Parcel #58-151-23)."
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt Ordinance Rezoning Property for Senior Housing Project.
Thompson, Seconded by Wolf
AYES: Ginalski, Thayer, Thompson, Wolf
ABSENT: Hennessy
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
8. Upholding of Appeal of Design Review Board Decision re: Approved Plans for Chimney Caps
and Color Modifications at 10 SI. Bernard Lane - Mr. & Mrs. Fingerhut, Owners; Hill Haven
Homeowners' Association, et aI., Appellants - (Adopt Resolution).
Town Attorney Danforth said Council could reconsider its decision concerning the color issue
since it was not known until after the public hearing that the neighbors would consider a
modification to the color scheme Council agreed to reconsider if both parties signed a petition or
agreed in writing to a modification and presented it to the Town
MOTION:
Moved
Vote:
To reconsider adoption of Resolution until next meeting in order to allow
Applicant and Appellants time to agree on a color pallette.
Thayer, Seconded by Wolf
AYES: Thayer, Thompson, Wolf
NOES: Ginalski
9. Hillhaven Utility Undergrounding District - (Approve Staff Recommendation for Final
Distribution of Surplus Funds) Finance Director Stranzl said Staff had concluded that no double
billing (or payments) had been made, and that a distribution was needed before September in
order to afford the homeowners some tax relief
Fred Hannahs, 440 Ridge Road, said the homeowners should be advised of what portion of the
surplus was interest (or taxable income). Town Attorney Danforth said it was possible to break
out the difference but that the Town was not in a position to give tax advice.
Finance Director Stranzl said that once a release was signed by the homeowners, a distribution
could take place. Town Attorney Danforth said that the "disputed" funds would ultimately be
disbursed either to the homeowners or claimants [to the bankruptcy of the contract, Mawn).
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt Staff Recommendation to Distribute Surplus Funds.
Thompson, Seconded by Wolf
AYES Unanimous
ABSENT: Hennessy
July 16. 1997
5
Town Council Minules #1118
13. Fiscal Year 1997-98 Budget Program - (Revisions to Previously Adopted Two-Year Tiburon
Municipal Budget). Finance Director Stranzl said there had been changes in the projected
revenue to the Town due to an increase in the PERS surplus from $30,000 to $62,000, and
increases to the Real Estate Transfer Tax, permit fees, etc. for a net increase of3% overall from
$3,326,000 to $3,428,000.
Council agreed to defer further discussion to the August 20 Council meeting.
14. Town Employee Compensation Program - (Non-represented employees). Council said some
issues were being referred to the Finance Committee and a report would be heard in closed
sessIon.
H. COMMUNICA nONS
15. Special Event Permit for Use ofMcKegney Green - June 6, 1998 - Benefit for Special
Education of Marin County - (Submitted by Bill McLaughlin).
Council discussed whether there should be charge for the use of the Green and concluded that
guidelines were needed since it was a potential source of revenue to the Town Town Manager
Kleinert said it was not anticipated that there would be a charge for the benefit being proposed
MOTION
To approve Special Event Permit for June 6, 1998 Special Education
Benefit at McKegney Green.
Wolf, Seconded by Thompson
AYES Unanimous
ABSENT: Hennessy
Moved:
Vote:
I. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
17. Public Use of Council Chambers - (Memorandum from Town Clerk Crane to Town Manager
Kleinert, dated July 10, 1997).
Town Manager Kleinert said a use policy was needed for both the Chambers and McKegney
Green. Kleinert detailed the requests to date for use of the Chambers. He noted that although
there had been no formal request, it had been suggested by Councilmember Wolf to use the room
for Country/Western dancing. There followed a brief discussion about whether scuff marks could
be easily removed from the parquet floor.
Deirdre McCrohan, The Ark. asked whether the room could be used as a election forum
[candidate debate].
III
III
Town Counci/Minutes #1118
July 16, 1997
6
J. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Vice Mayor
Thayer adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m., sine die.
RUFUS G. THAYER, VICE MAYOR
ATTEST
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
Town Council Minutes #1118
July 16, 1997
7
Subject:
August 6, 1997
,J..
TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
WORKERS' COMPENSATION & INSURANCE - VOLUNTEER WORKERS,
ADOPT RESOLUTION DESIGNATING VOLUNTEERS AS EMPLOYEES
OF THE TOWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH LABOR CODE SECTION 3363.5
,
"11'" OF T'~<- ~
,if -'I'.' ,~O
_(,. :~:,;,i'p{;: ,,~
(l,'-' . \I." ",.. "',..--
vi',,>~, "'j .~_;: ~ j:?~"
~. 0 -". '-';"" ...'"
l?"lIA \~v"...
" ..
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
Meeting:
Item:
To:
From:
Discussion:
This item is for adoption of a resolution which would permit the Town to designate or deem
volunteer workers as employees, in accordance with the provisions of State Labor Code Section
3363.5. It is the opinion of the Program Director of the Town's Workers' Compensation
Insurance Program that adoption of this resolution would limit the Town's liability, in the event of
death or serious injury to volunteers, to the legal remedies provided in workers' compensation
laws. Additionally, our Liability Insurance Program (ABAG PLAN) has informed the Town that
it will no longer provide liability coverage for member cities in connection with volunteer services.
Adoption of this resolution would provide necessary coverage for the Town while volunteers
services are provided, and also serve to limit the potential liability associated with use of volunteer
workers.
Recommendations:
Town Council adopt the the draft resolution "Designating Volunteers as Employees of the Town
in Accordance with Labor Code Section 3363.5," for purposes of workers' compensation and
Insurance.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON DESIGNATING
VOLUNTEER TOWN WORKERS AS EMPLOYEES OF THE TOWN
FOR PURPOSES OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE
WHEREAS, California Labor Code Section 3363.5 (a) provides that persons who perform
voluntary service without pay for a public agency shall be deemed employees of that agency for
purposes of workers' compensation and insurance while performing such service, upon adoption of
a resolution by the governing body of the agency so declaring: and
WHEREAS, Labor Code Section 3363.5 (b) defines "voluntary service without pay" to
include services performed by any person who receives no remuneration other than meals,
transportation, lodging or reimbursement for incidental expenses; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire and intent of the Town Council to encourage voluntary service
to the Town and to provide workers' compensation coverage for persons performing such voluntary
service, as authorized by the Labor Code Section 3363.5.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon as
follows:
Persons who perform voluntary service without pay for the Town of Tiburon, as
designated and authorized by the Town Manager of the Town of Tiburon, or his
designees, are deemed to be employees of the Town of Tiburon, for purposes of
Labor Code, Division 4. Workers' Compensation and Insurance (Labor Code
Sections 3200 et seq) while performing such service.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon
on, , 1997, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
THERESE M. HENNESSY, MAYOR
TOWN OF TffiURON
ATTEST:
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
7~ 38- I 99. 3 , 43P~:
FROf,1 tvlAR If'J CNTY t.,UD r TC~ 415 499 3785
P.2
T~~ 11 3
TOWN OF TIBURON
AGREEMENT FOR COLLECTION OF SPECIAL
TAXES, FEES. CHARGES AND ASSESSMENTS
The COUNTY OF MARIN, a political subdivision of the State of California, acting by and
through the AUDITOR-CONTROLLER OF TIlE COUNTY OF MARIN, hereinafter referred to
as "County" and the Town, a municipal corporation organized under the law of the Stare of
California, hereinafter referred to as "Town", agree as follows:
Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, County agrees to collect on the
County taX rolls the special taxes. fees, charges and assessments imposed by Town or each
zone or irnprovement Town exercises control over.
2 To"",,, agrees to notify the Auditor-Controller by such date as set by the Auditor for each
fiscal year. the Assessor's parcel numbers and the amount of each special tax, fee, charge or
assessment to be collected.
3. County may charge fees established by the County Board of Supervisors for collection of the
special tax, fee, charge or assessment that is to be collected on the County tax rolls by the
County for the Town. Such fees shall be limited to the costs of services provided.
Calculation of such fees shall be made available to tile Town on request.
4. Town believes that the taxes, fees, or assessments imposed by Town and colleered pursoant
to this Agreement comply with all requIrements of law, including but not limited to Articles
XIIIC and Xllln of the California Constitution (Proposition 218).
5. Town hereby releases and forever discharges and agrees to defend, indemnifY and save
hann1ess County and its officers, agents and employees (hereafter "County") from any ..nd all
cl:!ims, demands, liabilities, costs and expenses, damages, causes of action, and judgments, in
any manner arising out of County's action in cormection with the application of Article
XIlIC and Article XmD of the California Constitution which may arise out of the collection
and placement on the roll of the special tax. fee. charge or assesSr.1ent or any action by Town
in estabhshmg a special tax, fee charge or assessment which county collects for Town,
provided, however, Town shall not be responsible for any administrative or clerical errors or
omissions made by the County or its officials in the collection or placement of any such
taxes, assessments, or fees on the roll. As to such collection of such fees, charges, taxes, or
assessments or p]acemcnt of them on the roll, County and its officials shall retain all
immunities provided them by law.
6. Notwithstanding any provision of law, Town agrees that the Auditor-Controller may withhold
from the next property tax distribution any amount the County is unable to collect on an
assessment, special tax, fee, or charge that is determined by a count of competent jurisdiction
to violate Proposition 2]8 (Articles XIllC and xmn of the California Constitution). This
provision is intended to avoid aU County li"bility for such special taxes, fees, assessments or
charges under the Teeter Plan by allowing the Auditor-ControUer to reverse and charge back
Teeter Plan advances for such special taxes. actUal fees, assessments or charges.
7. Town agrees to the following with respect to any legal challenge arising as a result of
collection enforcement in connection with the application of Proposition 218 by tax sales
k:gi ven\agr~ement\07'30i97
~ .....J.;: ~ '
,=;':::JII ivi,w,::,lr'J l..-,'!:" MuC'l, ~~ 41:.) ......SS .:,~'85
p ~
made pursuant to Division 1. Part 6 of the Revenue and Ta.xation code of the State of
California.
(a) Town shall defend and/or bear the cost of defending any legal action as may arise, a.'1.d
(b) That lf collection cannot be legally enforced through tax sale, the levy or charge shall be
canceled as a lien against the property pursuant to the provisions of the Revenue and
Taxation Code 4946 or any other appropriate provisions ofiaw.
~. Town ,hall not assign or lIansfer or attempt to assign or transfer this agreement or any
interest herein without the consent of the County which shall not be unreasonably withheld.
9. This agreement shall be effective for the ]997-98 fiscal year and shall be automatically
renewed for each fiscal year thereafter unless terminated as hereinafter provided.
10. fruler party may terminate this agreement for any reason for any fiscal year by giving written
notice thereof to the other party on or before the May 1- prior to the fiscal year for which
termination is to be effective.
11. County's or Town's waiver of breach of anyone term, covenant, or other proviSion of this
agreement, is not a. waiver of breach of any other term, nor subsequent breach of the term or
provision waived.
12. The person Signing this Agreement for Town or County represents that the Town or County,
through 1[S governing body, has authoriz.d himlher to sign this Agreement on behalf of the
Town or County.
Dated:
Town.
By'
Dated:_
MARIN COUNTY
By:
Auditor-Controller
k:livenll\gt'''cment\lJ7: JOlm
Tiburon Police Department
Comparative Statistics
June 1996 - June 1997
.w. jJfl fu.tlIllit!! JM JDl llitl1 llitd
Part I Crimes 17 14 86 65 ARRESTS
Part II Crimes ..li .Jl l.8t ill.
TOTAL 43 37 275 m Adult - Felony 1 3 5 14
Adult - Misdemeanor 16 9 88 59
Part I - Cleared 7 5 24 28 Juvenile - Felony I I 2 8
Part II - Cleared .l.O..Ji III ~ Juvenile - Misdemeanor -.! -1 JL --1L
TOTAL 27 20 142 137 TOTAL 22 14 108 92
Drunk Driving Arrests 7 5 25 18
CRIMES AGAINtT PERSONS
16 18 TRAFFIC COLLISIONS
Assault 4 4
Robbery 0 0 I 0 Injury 2 2 6 6
Rape 0 0 I 0 Non-Injury ..4. 1- -1!L .lL
Homicide ...2... ...2... ...2... ...2... TOTAL 6 3 36 27
TOTAL 4 4 18 18
CITATIONS ISSUED
Moving 110 74 767 391
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Parking .lli.. JR 14!..L lm
TOTAL 620 611 3178 2468
Burglary - Residential 0 0 7 6
Burglary - Commercial I 2 3 5 ACTIVITY
Burglary - All Other 1- ...2... .J... --L
TOTAL 2 2 16 12 Calls for Service 524 462 2870 2594
Theft - From Auto 2 0 14 4 PROPERTY
Theft - Grand 3 3 13 13
Theft - Petty 5 5 24 18 Property Stolen 7,104 6,245 60,781 62,035
Theft - GT A ...2... ...2... .l... -D... Property Recovered 224 44 8,145 9,709
TOTAL 10 8 51 35
TIBURON POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY RECAP
JUNE 1997
Officers responded to a Domestic Violence call on Southridge East. Upon arrival, both the
husband and wife were bleeding from head injuries. The wife was taken to Marin General
Hospital for stitches, and her husband was taken to Jail after treatment for his wound.
A bomb threat made to a local merchant. The caller stated to a merchant that a bomb
would go off at a store at the Cove Shopping Center. The area was evacuated and
searched, but an explosive device was not located. Through investigating with merchants
a suspect was developed. He was interviewed and admitted to making the threat. He also
confessed to several others! This case has been sent to the DA's office for prosecution.
While on patrol at 2 am, a graveyard Officer saw a man working on a car on Juno Road.
The officer recognized the subject as being on probation, with a search clause, for prior
narcotics arrests. The subject got into a scuffle with the Officer when the Officer tried to
search him. He was subsequently arrested for resisting arrest.
Officers assisted the Sheriffs Office on a shots fired call. A worker on Cypress Hollow
heard a "whiz" and a bang, followed by a bullet landing in the side of a house under
construction. From the trajectory, it was detennined that the shot was most likely fired from
the Circle Drive area. An extensive search was done by both agencies, including the
Sheriffs office use of volunteers with metal detectors, but the responsible was not located.
Early in the morning, Officers were sent to the Recreation Center at Tiburon Hill
Apartments. Officers located four people, three men and a woman, asleep in the building.
All four subjects were arrested for trespassing. Two were issued citations to appear in
court, one was booked as he had outstanding warrants, and one juvenile was taken to
Juvenile Hall.
A resident reported to police that on two separate occasions, someone had used her credit
card to purchase food and goods in Marin City.
A resident of Tiburon was arrested on a felony warrant issued by a Marin County Judge
for hit and run causing injury. The subject did not resist and was booked into jail.
The Director of the Library reports that a disgruntled ex-employee has been sending hate
letters over the libraries e-mail system through the Internet. The subject has been warned
to discontinue.
Two students at Del Mar School got into a confrontation during a ball game where one boy
was pushed. He retaliated and threw a piece of glass back at the boy who pushed him,
causing a cut on the back of the first boy. All parties were counseled and parents
requested no further action be taken at this time.
An unsupervised juvenile party on Circle Drive got out of hand when the juvenile hosting
the party left to look for another party. When the resident returned home, $4,000.00 worth
of stereo's, camera's and jewelry were missing. Several suspects have been developed
and this case is still under investigation.
One of our Community Service Officers, while doing parking enforcement, noticed a billy
club on the front seat of a car. He called for Officers, who contacted the driver when he
returned to the car. He was booked into jail for possession of a deadly weapon and
possession of marijuana.
A resident on Paradise Drive reported that two checks he had mailed had been stolen,
"washed" and cashed the next day. His loss was over $3,000.00. After investigation, a
suspect was developed. This case has been forwarded to US Postal Investigators.
Officers investigated a Domestic Violence call where the husband, had threatened to shoot
his wife and six year old son. This case has been submitted to the District Attorney's office
for prosecution.
An Officer on patrol noticed a large amount of smoke coming from an area on Hilary Drive.
He contacted four juveniles who admitted to lighting smoke bombs. The officer also located
a set of brass knuckles on one of the juveniles. He was cited to appear, with his parents,
when notified by our Department's Juvenile Officer.
Prepared by Sgt. Judd
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
Po/ice Department
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Lieutenant Tom Aiello
Sergeant David M. Hutton
June 1997 Assist Outside Agency Statistics
July 12, 1997
.
..~ ~ OF-'I
~"0~
'0 1>
~ ....~o
_I~ :.~/.;;.J>"" ,~
'.v > ,\-
(/ t - ",'"
~~o __:.,. {-_ ,,"l
~rvlA \l'IoV" "'...
,
.
The following is an account of the Assist Outside Agency Statistics for our Department for the
month of June 1997, as requested by the Town Council. The report is divided by watch.
WATCH 1
Assist to Belvedere PD 9
Assist by Belvedere PD 0
Assist Marin County SO 0
Assist All Others 0
WATCH 2
Assist to Belvedere PD 2
Assist by Belvedere PD 0
Assist Marin County SO 1
Assist All Others 4
WATCH 3
Assist to Belvedere PD 3
Assist by Belvedere PD 5
Assist Marin County SO 0
Assist All Others 2
cc: ChiefHerley
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE: 8/6/97
~
To:
From:
Subject:
TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR *'
RECOMMENDATION OF LANDS & DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
CONCERNING REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF ANNEXATION FOR WINTER
PROPERTY ON OLD LANDING ROAD
7/31/97
Date:
BACKGROUND
On July 29, 1997, the Lands and Development Subcommittee (Councilmembers Ginalski and
Thompson) of the Town Council met to discuss a request by Marin County concerning the
Town's position on "waiving" a desire to annex certain property owned by Winter Properties on
Old Landing Road. The meeting was attended by approximately 20 interested persons, mostly
from the Old Landing Road area.
Essential background material, analysis, and staff recommendations are contained in the staff
report to the Lands & Development Committee attached as Exhibit A.
After hearing from all interested persons, it was the unanimous recommendation of the
Subcommittee to not waive any annexation desires or opportunities with respect to this property,
and to send a letter to Marin County urging that the property be required to armex to the Town of
Tiburon prior to approval of any substantive land development applications by the County.
The attorney for Winter Properties, Neil Sorensen, has submitted a letter (Exhibit B) requesting
that the Town Council postpone discussion of this matter until its September 17, 1997 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
1. That the Town Council accept the recommendation of the Lands and Development
Subcommittee and direct that an appropriate letter be forwarded to Marin County over the
Mayor's signature.
2. IfLAFCO does not vote to annex the property on September 4, 1997, then the Town
Council should review the matter once again.
EXHffiITS
A. Staff Report toLands & Development Subcommittee dated 7/23/97.
B. Letter from Neil Sorensen requesting postponement of the item to September 17, 1997,
along with Staff response.
C. Reduced map of proposed lot split. Wintertc.rpt
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
MEETING DATE: 7/29/97
To:
From:
Subject:
LANDS AND DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF ANNEXATION: WINTER PROPERTY, OLD
LANDING ROAD
JULY 23, 1997
Date:
BACKGROUND
Winter Properties owns a 1. 53 acre parcel ofland at the intersection of Old Landing Road and
Paradise Drive. The parcel is currently in unincorporated Marin County, but is part of the "Old
Landing Road Reorganization" application which has been pending final Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) action since June, 1995.
Mr. Winter currently has on file with the Marin County Community Development Agency an
application for lot split (plans attached for subcommittee members). Policy CF-1.4 of the Marin
Countywide Plan states as follows:
Development of Unincorporated Land. Prior to development of vacant unincorporated
lands within an urban services area, the unincorporated territory should seek armexation to
the city, unless the city signifies that it does not desire to annex the lands at that time.
In order to meet this policy, the County asks applicants to submit a letter from the affected city
concerning a development application. Traditionally, the question of whether to waive or defer
armexation has been posited to the Lands and Development Subcommittee of the Town Council
for a recommendation to the full Town Council.
PROPOSAL
Mr. Winter desires to subdivide his parcel into two lots of approximately 3/4 acre each, and has
been pursuing this subdivision since 1995. Because of the uncertain fate of the Old Landing Road
Reorganization application pending before LAFCO, Mr. Winter was in the unusual position of not
knowing with which jurisdiction (Town of Tiburon or Marin County) he should file his lot split
application.
EXHIBIT NO.
A
Page 2
July 23, 1997
In June 1995, LAFCO deferred making a decision on armexation of the Old Landing Road area to
the Town of Tiburon for one year (until June 1996). In July, 1996, LAFCO again deferred
armexation for another three months, and in September of 1996, again deferred a decision until
July 1997. In October, 1996, Mr. Winter and his representatives met with Town Staffand
Councilmember Thayer regarding his proposed lot split. Please refer to the letter from Neil
Sorensen dated July 10, 1997, attached as Exhibit 1.
Town Staff has no written notes from that meeting. It is the Planning Director's recollection that
at the time of the meeting, Town representatives were of the opinion that LAFCO would continue
to defer a decision on the Old Landing Road matter for a lengthy period of time, or decide not to
armex the area to Tiburon, either of which would allow Mr. Winter to receive a final decision
from Marin County concerning an application for a lot split. In any event, the Town took no
formal position at the time, and the matter was never taken up by the Lands and Development
Subcommittee, nor was any letter sent by the Town to the County.
Subsequent to October, 1996, Winter Properties filed an application for lot split with Marin
County. For a variety of reasons, the application has not moved forward expeditiously, and has
just been deemed "complete" by the County. An initial study has not yet been prepared, and a
decision on the tentative map for the lot split appears some months away. According to Mr.
Sorensen's letter, Winter Properties has expended considerable funds (approximately $28,000) in
processing the application to date.
In July, 1997, LAFCO indicated its intent to make a final decision in September, 1997, concerning
armexation of the Old Landing Road area to the Town of Tiburon. Shortly thereafter, the County
Planning Department requested that Mr. Winter supply a letter from the Town formally waiving
annexation for the purpose of processing the lot split. Town Staff was contacted shortly
thereafter by Mr. Winter's attorney and the County Planning Department, both seeking such a
letter. The matter is now being referred to the Lands and Development Subcommittee per the
Town's usual procedures (see Exhibit 2).
It appears that the underlying goal of Winter Properties is to complete processing of its lot split
application with Marin County, or should annexation occur subsequent to the Tentative Map
approval, ensure that the Town of Tiburon would honor that approval and record a parcel map.
Mr. Winter does not oppose annexation to the Town ofTiburon, once a parcel map has been
recorded.
TOWN ACTION ON PREVIOUS REQUESTS FOR WAIVER
The Town's general plan goals and policies call for annexation of all unincorporated territory
within the Tiburon Planning Area/Sphere ofInfluence. There is flexibility within those policies
Page 3
July 23, 1997
whereby the Town can make exceptions, although such exceptions are rare. For example, in
recent years the Town did send waiver letters in response to requests by the Kilgore and Smith
families for lot splits. However, the circumstances surrounding those actions were considerably
different in that there was no "pending" armexation of those properties to Tiburon. Annexation of
the Smith and Kilgore properties would also likely have brought into Tiburon lengthy stretches of
Paradise Drive, which posed an economic question which the Town was not prepared to deal with
at the time. The Old Landing Road armexation does not include any portion of the Paradise Drive
roadway being armexed to Tiburon.
ANALYSIS
The applicant sees this primarily as an issue offaimess, economics, and being caught in a "Catch-
22" position by LAFCO's indecision on the Old Landing Road annexation question. Staff agrees
that the situation is unusual and awkward, but also notes that land development is a high risk
business, especially in Marin County, and proper timing of applications can be a critical element in
risk assessment for development projects.
One question which may arise is whether a lot split application filed with Tiburon would end in a
significantly different result that a lot split application filed with Marin County. Town Staff
cannot answer that question, but would note that while the development standards of the Town
and County are similar, they are not identical, and the application of general plan policies may
differ. Also, the lot split application decision is made at the staff level at Marin County, it is
made at the Planning Commission level in Tiburon.
Circumstances have clearly changed since October, 1996, when annexation of the Old Landing
Road area to Tiburon appeared to be distant at best. It now appears that a definitive decision by
LAFCO on this matter is likely to be made on September 4, 1997.
OPTIONS
The Town has two clear options with respect to the request:
1. Agree to the request and send a letter to Marin County waiving the armexation
policy for the purposes of processing this particular lot split application llJlli agree
to honor any tentative subdivision map approved by the County, in the event a
parcel map has not been recorded at the time of annexation, should it occur.
2. Decline to waive the annexation policy and send a letter to Marin County urging
that the property be required to annex to Tiburon prior to approval of any
substantive land development applications by the County in accordance with Marin
Page 4
July 23, 1997
Countywide Plan policies, with the understanding that ifLAFCO makes a final
decision DQ1 to armex the Old Landing Road area to Tiburon, then the Town will
waive its objections to County processing.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend to the Town Council that Option No.2 be pursued. IfLAFCO fails to make a
decision on September 4, 1997, the matter should be reconsidered by the Town Council.
EXHIBITS
1. Letter from Neil Sorensen to the Town dated July 10, 1997.
2. Letter from Town to Marin County Community Development Agency dated July 14,
1997.
3. Application form filed with Marin County.
~
LAW OffiCES OF
100 SMITH RANCH ROAD, SUITE 306
SAN RAFAEL. C':"UFORNIA 94903
NEIL SORENSEN
TELEPHONE 415 499-8600
FACSIMILE 415 499-0140
July 10, 1997
""
I""!'~-
,.,., ,,\,~,"l
. .,7""'1)
~'! ,
". .
Scott Anderson
Planning Director
Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Winter Two Lot Land Division
Assessor's Parcel 38-162-51
Dear Scott:
This letter will confIrm our telephone conversations of the last few days
regarding the Winter land division and the Town's waiver of the dual annexation
policy. As further background to our conversations, I have set forth some of the past
history of this matter.
Backjp"ound
As you know, Marty Winter, Tracy Ferguson and myself met with you and Bob
Kleinert on October 16, 1996 to discuss the Town's waiver of the dual annexation
policy with respect to this application. This meeting occurred shortly after the LAFCO
meeting of October 3, 1996, where Tracy Ferguson appeared and addressed LAFCO
with respect to this application. As stated in the LAFCO minutes for that date (copy
enclosed), Ms. Ferguson advised LAFCO that the Winter lot split application had been
on hold for one year waiting for resolution of the Old Landing Road reorganization
issue. At that meeting, Ms. Ferguson advised LAFCO that Mr. Winter was in a
"Catch-22" position, and that he did not know whether to submit his application to the
Town or the County because of the pending annexation of the Old Landing Road area.
As noted in the LAFCO minutes:
EXHIBIT NO.
!
. j -e-
'-.'j
I
Scott Anderson
July 10, 1997
Page 2
"The Commission concluded informally, based upon the
conclusions of the Tiburon Planning Director as reported
to the Commission by Temporary Chair Thayer, that
since the zoning requirements for the County and the
Town of Tiburon are the same, this application should be
submitted to the County and could be "grandfathered" in.
Temporary Chair Thayer agreed to intercede with the
Tiburon Planning Department on behalf of Ms. Ferguson
and the property owners in order to clarify their position
and to promote action. "
At our meeting on October 16, 1996, it was my understanding that Planning
Staff and the Town agreed that Mr. Winter should proceed with his application through
the County. It was also my understanding that the Town would notify the County
Planning Department that the dual annexation policy would be waived as to the Winter
property and that the application could proceed. Apparently this did not happen.
Submittal of Application to County
Subsequent to our October 1996 meeting, Mr. Winter submitted his application
to the County Planning Department for the two lot split. As part of that submittal, he
paid over $8,200 in application fees and has incurred an additional $20,000 in fees to
consultants to support the application (engineers, geotechnical experts, archaeologists).
If Mr. Winter is now required to process his application through the Town of Tiburon,
a great deal of this expense may be wasted. Certainly, the application fee portion of
these expenses may be lost.
As you may know, Mr. Winter does not object to the annexation of his property
to the Town and has signed a consent to annexation as part of the LAFCO process.
However, now that he has started his lot split application in the County and incurred
approximately $28,000 in costs and expenses, it would make no sense to stop the
process partway through and require him to now apply to the Town. Once his two lot
land division application is approved, and the parcel map is recorded, Mr. Winter
would have no objection to annexing the property to the Town.
Scott Anderson
July 10, 1997
Page 3
Under separate cover, you should be receiving a copy of the lot split tentative
map from CSW/Stuber-Stroeh. It is my understanding that the County has previously
transmitted this map to you as part of their processing of the application. It is requested
that you take whatever action is necessary in order to provide the County with notice
that this application can continue to proceed through the County process.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.
s~~
NEIL SORENSEN
NS/nw
Enclosure
cc: Marty Winter
Tracy Ferguson
Robert Kleinert, Town Manager
WINTER.5
JUH-Q3-97 a3:03 PM L~-~~
4t!"l....qq.-;193
P.et
Marin LAFCO Minu~e
October 3, 1996
Page 2
Co.roepl.
....",.
post..n- Fax Note
.
7671
F",.
C9Jlll.~nt. Cal.Qw;lar It.el1l6.
.1. J\p:p.,.......v:"t, r"I...f-R,Agll'lIl"," 'i.=:.e.tina M':i,n\lt;e=...-Alla'll~t ~ ._.l9.$tG'.
Mis Moore - Ware to approve minutco ~c circulcttcd,
lI.yes:
Commis:.sioC".crs alanchfiald, K:r.e::,,>s, Moore,
Thayer and t-i'.:.rc
Nccs:
None
1\bst.4l.in:
Commission,::rs I3ar.ner and Heller
~_iCAd H~ari~~Ltema
2. "~ld Lan~ins-Fo~d Reoraqn~ation"
The Executive Of[ice~ outlined her. report.
Temflora~-y cnnir Thaye::.' stilted that nei~hcr Robert Kleinert,
Tibu~on Town ME\no.gcr, nor Scott 1U1derson, Tiburon Planning Director
wa.:J tn c'fl::tendance. He offered to "4elay necessary informiltion 1:0 the
Town on their behalf. Thayer continued that:. .in l\ugus~ a mccciug waG
held between the residents of Old Landing Road (15 residents
attcnuedl and oeveral members of the Town of Tiburon staff. Thayer
~ummarizF.!d the nlcecing and stutcd that: the productivity of the
meeting led to the sending of a l"tt~r by t:he Town of Tiburon to
LAl'CO reque~tj.ng th<lt the Old Landing Road annexation d"adline be
extended to Ju~e ~, 1997,
The hearing was then dccl<Jrcd open 1.:0 t:.he p'..:.blic.
Peter M~ync, propcrCy owner and member. or t:he Steering-
Committee, confirmed ~ynopsis of meeting. He st.;'J,tcu Lhi".ll: :J Lol1ow-uf:
meeting i:J ccl1edulcd for Ocl.:.obcr. He j~xpT.e::;Gec! hiG appr.ecia.tion of
commissioners Richard..::on and Thaye.r for their assis~Cl.ncCE! wi.th this
matter:.
S~veral residants Etated their
To\vn of Tiburon. The!lt~ includt::!u.
gove~nmer~.t and to the pOGr.:Lhili~:y oE
ob:ecti.one
object.i..OL1D
addit:~.cn::".l
to annexat: ion to the
La ClLlt.JUll.:!L" 1 ,,"l)'e,,' oi:
propp.:r.t:y l:,'":! xC"! !"l .
CLZNPA\mlnOct.'61
.--'~--- --'--'--'
,"
_._..__ _-:~!'I_-:.~:'3.-:'?-':_J':!9~._~';J_:52 TRACY
JU::-~3-37 03:e4 ~M LAFcr
FERGUSON
415 454 3360
41~49'9610"!
P~02
P.O:
Mari~ LA:CO Mi~~~es
Octol.:'~r 3, 199G
page 3
non Sutton, r.e9ide~~ of paradise c~~ve,
regGrd::.:-"g th~ timing o~ l:i:..~ appl:,cOf'.:"cll ~:-;
Ln~ld~ng Rond Rcorqonizacio~.
req',;ascec.
rc1..t'l.t.icn
c~ar:.:::..ca':.io:"..
L'CO r".- C:c.
The B:-:eeu';i.v" of:iGe:c ::;~atcd t~o,': t'!::", s.,t\:or. haC. ,,'~br-,"..\::.r;c.: :<."
applisat.ion by e~"'c dc,:tdli~...c fOl: t~'" 1'8'!"Cl~)"':::: meGt;.'<i. I". is
currer'.':ly being proo.:>ssec. by LI\FC::J and i,'" schedl.lc.'!c. e~"l LAFC:C' ~
NcveTbe~ 7, 1996 agc~c~.
7:raoy "e:::g1,1'-'O:1, plar'.,.,ing eOr'.sult;9.:-.':, scar.et.' :-."'~' ee:'.Ger::"
regacdinS her eli<?-!\::;' property d.:)ve".ct'rr.e:".t. applic:t':i:>n. 1'n=
p::-ope,':Y is 10c.:>.:"'(; on t.he s-:.utheast oo"ne" a: Par<:ldi.so"' Jrive and C:,j
Landin; Roar]. This a??:.ication 11a.; bee:J. e:1 bcl.d for 0:',0"' y"'3r bee;',".:.;;;
of the Old Landing Road/D'.!al l'u"1ne;(ac:,~~. ~s~'~e. Sh,:, rcq::",s~'cj
considerG':iO:'l of her ollen':s' posi~ie:-. ar.d s'.1ggeseioT'.s r",gardbz ha\o:
to preceed wieh this a?plic~tion.
The COl':\ll',i5Sion ccr.eluded inform<tlly, based en the c:)llelu~ .i.cr.s C;.
elle Tibc:ron plunr.ing Director as re:;Jo,,"';erl tc the CCI":,,~s::;io'" ~::
Tempo:::ary Ch"ir Th,~ye", l;hat since the zO:1i1'g :cc~ire"'011::" :~:: t:\e
Couney and ehe To'..m of 7iburon are the ::;a",e, tni!: appc.ication "hou:":1.
be submieted l;0 tho co'-'nty and could. be "grllndfal:herNi" I.J:.
Tempornry Chair Thayer agreed to i"tet'co<~'-' with ene ':"ib'~rcn ?::'a:m:.ng
Dep,:lrtment on behalf of MG. Fargur.On and 'o::e prope:l:ty o_m...':[' in oree:-
to clarify their poci': ior. or'.d to p:-:omote ac':.~,on.
~a~'ng waD closed.
]I,:I:C" ::;ome disc'"o::;;:.C:l reg"rc!i:l';J th-o r.i!Jt.ory 0 ~ t11e Oed f.,i'\::dir.s
ROAd RCo"g.~n:i.z"'t.ion, tb: Comrnin!:io!l dj.rected Stllfi~ 1:0 kee" ":1is
matte:- 0:-. the agend,). to infc-,:'" the Ce"',,..;." ",ie,r. as we)]. as ::00 ""blie.
Mis K~'eG~: _ Moo:c'c tk;~ :ho Com...i~,s~o~. "do?': St.a:: ;':",o""',,"end,,-I:' ~r.
He; t.h,",~: the Corr.:ni~r.:i.on e:~tcnd the tic-.'c limit. fo,- Tc',::"'. '1;-,.n.:,:.''''::'01.
npeci.:icd in Re601utio:,,. 95-0S nnd req:.esC-::d by ehe '1''0'..", of T~c:'~""~'
t.0 J1.1:'.c 1, 1997.
Approv~d un.:tnil~;(':;lJ.sly.
H.Qn~Qt-; ced Ji!:il1:'-:~.ng "'!:~cm!:
!L:~:::lk\""il"'.c:l<,;t.. j)Gl
~ - - ~ - . . ~ . - - - - ~ - - - - - - .
,.-,A.
TOWN OF TIBURON
[FlliLlE ~@[fJW
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435-7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
Planning & Building Department
July 14, 1997
Andrea Fox, Plarmer
Marin County Community Development Agency
3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 308
San Rafael, CA 94903
RE: WINTER TENTATIVE MAP; OLD LANDING ROAD; TM 97-302
Dear Andrea:
This letter is in response to your telephone request oflast week concerning processing of the
above-referenced application. A reading of Mr. Sorensen's letter dated July 10, 1997 (which was
copied to you) has jogged my memory relative to the disposition of this application vis-a-vis the
County's policy regarding project referrals to Tiburon.
I agree that Mr. Sorensen's conclusion as to the position taken by the Town in October, 1996, as
summarized in the LAFCO minutes of October 3, 1997, is essentially correct. It seems clear to
me now that both the Town and the applicant's planner, in October 1996, were of the opinion that
the tentative map application would be acted upon, and a parcel map recorded by the County,
before LAFCO reached a final decision on whether to armex the Old Landing Road neighborhood
to Tiburon. This is why the Town had no comment on your previous referrals of this project, as
the matter of its immediate processing had already been decided through LAFCO' s extended
delays in addressing armexation to the Town.
For whatever reason, Mr. Winter's application does not appear to have moved through the
development review process with particular alacrity, and action by the county on his application
does not appear imminent. However, it appears that a decision by LAFCO regarding armexation
to Tiburon of the Old Landing Road neighborhood is imminent, and may occur on September 4,
1997.
Given the change in circumstances, it seems appropriate that the Town's Lands & Development
Committee take a formal position on the matter of application processing. I am in the process of
setting a meeting date for this Committee, and will advise you of any action taken.
Please call me at 435-7392 should you have questions.
1
EXHIBITNO,~
r;;~~
Scott Anderson
Planning Director
cc: Neil Sorensen, Esq.
Marty Wmter
Robert Kleinert, Town Manager
Town Council
2
-..
Marin County
Community Development Agency
Mark J. Riesenfeld, Ale?, Director
TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
Department of Public Works (DPW), Land Use & Water Resources
Local Agency Formation Commission
Sanitary District #2
Marin Municipal Water District
Tiburon Fire Deparunent
Tiburon Planning Department
FROM:
Andrea Fox. Planner '''---'--1--'--''.-
DATE:
December 23, 1996
r- "'~We.O
,,'cr' "j 1996
uL'-...J l...
SUBJECT:
Winter Properties DP 97-300 & TM 97-302
Assessor's Parcel #038-162-51
Old Landing Rd.. Tiburon
, .,F TIBURON EPT.
,. ..... i\."UIl.DINGD .
FW...,,,...'1";& ...
APPLICANT: Tracy Ferguson
145 San Marino
San Rafael, CA 94901
(415) 455-0726
DECISIONMAKER FOR THIS APPLICATION
Deputy Zoning Administrator
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Precise Development Plan and Tentative Map
approval to divide an existing vacant 66,585 square foot property into two separate residential parcels.
Proposed Parcel 1 would be approximately 34,053 square feet in size while proposed Parcel 2 would be
approximately 32,532 square feet in size. Access to the proposed parcels would be provided by Old Landing
Road. No residential development is proposed at this time however, the applicant has submitted a schematic
site plan depicting the location of where future development may occur. The subject property is bound by
Paradise Drive along the southern and western property lines and Old Landing Road along the northern
property line.
Zoning on the subject property is BFC-RSP-2.18 (Bayfrolll Conservation, Single-family Residential, 2.18
dwelling units per acre maximum density).
COMPLETENESS OF THE APPLICATION:
Please inform stuff in writing whether this application contains the information yoa need to make a
recommendation on this proposal. If it does not contain sufficient information, please specify the information
you need. You may not be able to request additional information later in the process. Your comments on the
completeness of this application must be received in this office by January 10, 1997.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
EXHIBIT NO. 3
Staff has made a preliminary determination that this project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act according to Section 15315, Class 15 of the 1992 CEQA Guidelines
3501 Civic Center Drive, #308 - San Rafael, California 94903-4157, Telephone 1415) 499-6269 - Fa_x 14151499-7880
- .
'.
MERITS OF THE PROJECT:
If the application is complete. and no Envirorunemal Impact Report is to be prepared for the project. please tell
us your commems on the merits of the proposal. Please indicate whe'her the project conforms to the laws and
policies you use to evaluate the project anc recommend changes or conditions that you deem necessary based
on your evaluation. These comments must be received in this office by January 10. 1997.
cc: Marin Coumy Fire Depr.
Wimer Properties
Ar;mpr:formsiternp/afwi nttr. doc
Page #2
"'!"..
\.f)
-: ~
>- - :::;
_ >-Cl...
co <( >-9
2...,,>-
o 3GJ~
UJ cc vOW
~ ~r:::;a:
~ tcl ~~
u..J ~ ~
c:: J:j ::E
TYPE OF APPd(:A nb,\-;;
Marin County
Community Development Agency
Mark J. Riesenfeld, Ale?, Director
ZONINGIDEVELOPMENT APPLICA nON
( ) COASTAL PERMIT ( X) PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
( . ) DESIGN REVIEW ( ) REZONING
( ) MINOR DESIGN REVIEW ( ) SECOND UNIT USE PERMIT
( ) DESIGN REVIEW EXEMPTION ( ) SIGN PERMIT/REVIEW*
( ) FLOATING HOME EXCEPTION* ( ) USE PERMIT
( ) GENERAL PLAN/COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT ( ) V ARlANCE*
( ) MASTER PLAN ( ) TIDELANDS PERMIT
*Requires Supplemental Application/lnformation
Date Received:
Receipt No:
Received by:
Planner Assigned:
Concurrent Application:
Reviewing Authority:
STAFF:
FEES:
Permit:
Permit:
Cat. Exempt:
Initial Study:
Other:fM
.$ ?;70
~'-I~
Total:
(Make checks payable to: Marin County Planning Department)
)
Hearing: () Non-Hearing: ( )
Assessor's Parcel No. 0'3'2,-) ~::J.- 5/
Application No.(s): DP 17 - 300
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (Please type or rint legibly)
I. Assessor's Parcel No(s): t:'38-/~2-/~1';?~4- Zoning:
2. Project Address: Lf'L h ~AA/.b/A./';' A': /"> City/Zip:
3. Property Owner: W/N7E;(, t"/(o"l'Z'JtiL-r/;e-<;; Phone:
4. Owner's Address: 2. t1t:' ;P07~E I<'d A v~ City/Zip:
5. Applicant: 7"e/fCY ,Pdr~~pA;- Phone:
(if different from owner)
6.
Applicant's Address: /"?'"5 .>:.1/ /V ~ ~~~
.B~c-A?.sP :JIlt
'7/,/1r K A::: t:?A/
E0 3-6/7/
S # A,; ~-~.A A./ L./ _f" t: /? '1'1/ "3
~/S- ~S 5"- ~7z.";:"
City/Zip: S.P/l; ,e.,Q,d?.t:t-7'z 9~q
,
7. All correspondence will be sent to the applicant. Please indicate any others to receive correspondence.
Name /VI'<-- Address:
8. Description of Application: (specifically describe what you wish to accomplish)
jC)/V/PE .A,v FJr/'57/^,,4. v.oC' ,c-94,.;-"'7 ,b,b, S9"{; S.rt. L.PT
./ N--:T LJ 7" U CJ S p ,0 ~ R "'1 -r ~ ~ P.' ~ /7"J A;: A/7 ./ .8-7
/' -"/.J< c.,="" <:
3501 Civic Center Drive, #308. San Rafael, CA 94903-4157 - Telephone (415) 499-6269 - Fa;d415) 499-7880
r fO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (continued)
I
9 Stale of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (C.G.c. S 65962.5)
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5(e), before a local agency accepts as complete an
application for any development project, the applicant shall consult the latest State of California Hazardous Waste
and Substances Sites List on file with the Planning Department and submit a signed statement indicating whether
the project is located on a site which is included on the Lis!.
Statement: 1 have consulted the latest State of California Hazardous ~s~nd Substances List on file with the
Planning Deparnnent, and 1 have determined that the project site is I D circle one) included on the List.
Date ~f List consulted:
S~'Jrce of the listing: (To be completed ollly if the site is included on the List)
SIGNATURE:
I hereby certify that I have read this application form and that to the best of my knowledge, the information in this
application form and all the exhibits are complete and accurate. I understand that any misstatement or omission of the
I requested information or of any information subsequently requested snail be grounds for rejecting the application,
deeming the application incomplete. denying the application, suspending or revoking a permit issued on the basis of
these or subsequent representations, or for the seeking of such other and further relief as may seem proper to the
County of Marin.
~~fc;-(~~,
Signature of Pro~ Owner(s)
~...~,,~~.,~
Signature of A icant
1 hereby authorize employees of the County of Marin to enter upon the subject property, as necessary to inspect the
premises and process this ,application.
/.~~~~
Signature of Property wner
1 hereby authorize the Planning Deparnnent to reproduce plans and exhibits as necessary for the processing of this
application. Multiple signatures are required when plans are prepared by multiple professionals.
Si;~tn!r~
Signature of Plan Preparer
The property involving this permit request may be subject to deed restrictions called Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) which may restrict the property's use and development. These deed restrictions are private
agreements and are NOT enforced by the County of Marin. Consequently, development standards specified in such
deed restrictions are NOT considered by the County when granting permits.
You are advised to determine if the property is subject to deed restrictions and if so, contact the appropriate
homeowners association and adjacent neighbors about your project prior to proceeding with construction. Following
this procedure will minimize the potential for disagreement among neighbors and possible litigation.
Is~~i~~
FORMS; APPS,'ZON-DEV. DOC
; Re\ 04:2Q/9h)
Pagell2of2
LATE (hAIL
July 25, 1997
RECEIVED
TOWN OF T1BUF10N
.JUl 2 B 1997
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOFMENT
Francine Halberg
Terry Kessler
24 Old Landing Rd.
Tiburon Ca. 94920
Scott Anderson
Planning Director
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
Dear Scott,
Thank you for your interest in preparing the best plan for Old Landing Road. We
believe that there needs to be a coordinated approach to both community services
and development. We are very concerned that the Winter's property is not actualy
suitable for two lots because of slide damage. We would like Tiburon's input
on this issue We appreciate knowing that the Tiburon Planning Commission will
review development in our wonderful little area with the idea of preserving it to
the greatest extent possible Weare therefore opposed to any exception to waive
dual armexation policy.
In summary, we do not support Mr. Winter's proposal for a lot split or for
waiving dual armexation policy.
Sincerely,
t:\htb-~~
( .
11/WO((vy1,~~
Francine Halberg
Terry Kessler
cc Councilmen Ginalski and Thompson
7- 3(1-: '~9-, I (! 01 At
FRO~' SOREI~SE~, Ifll~IA~. .1 5.19912 I .00
::>_2
~
( ... VI ':) f FIC!;:;i 0 F
'0':; ~!"'ITH ~AJ-.:004 O!O...,O. ~i,..ll!: Joe
Sol...t-i ~ArA~L, C:ALlfO~NIA 9.lCJOJ
NEIL SORENSEN
Te..EP~ONE &',5 4<;Q-8600
"AC$IMllE "'5 499-0140
July 30, 1997
Scott Anderson
Planning Director
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
ReCEIVED
TOWN OF Tt6URON
JUl 3 0 1997
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY ni=VELOPMENT
Re: Winter Hearing at Town Council
Dear Scott:
I will be on vacation next week and part of the following week and will not be
able to attend the August 6, 1997 Town Council meeting. Additiooally, I have a
scheduling conflict regarding the Council's second meeting in August and will not be
able to attend that meeting either, I would request that this matter be put over to the
second meeting of September.
Please let me know if there is a problem in continuing this item.
Sincerely,
NEIL SORENSEN
NS/nw
cc: Marty Winter
WlNfER.9
EXHIBIT NO.
8
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920. (415) 435-7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
Planning & Building Department
July 31, 1997
Neil Sorensen, Esq.
100 Smith Ranch Road, Suite 306
San Rafael, CA 94903
RE: WINTER LOT SPLIT: REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF ITEM FROM
8/6/97 COUNCIL MEETING TO 9/17/97
Dear Mr. Sorensen:
I am in receipt of your request to postpone Town Council discussion of the above-referenced
item. It is not the practice of Town Staff to unilaterally postpone the recommendation of a Town
Council Standing Committee to the full Council.
However, your letter requesting a postponement will be forwarded to the full Town Council for
its consideration at the meeting of August 6, 1997.
If you have questions, please call me at 435-7392.
Very truly yours,
llrLL~
Scott Anderson
Planning Director
cc:
Town Manager
Town Council
Sorensen.ltr
/
-'
\~
1..~
Ill<;
~
?
\)
~- - -
~1--.1'rIII7ruf. ----
,< ,. "i' dI-""'- ~
,,~ ,/ ---------==----
,1' .. .~. ~~//' l----..::::::.~'.-- "'",
" ' _ _ J _ \ _ - ,~ -...... fI"'D
. / _ _ ~ _ -'," ~~".
i /- , --- ,..' '. <:
__'~' l~-
~~~ "--~~,'~
"(~ ,/::_-~ 'L
,. '
,
,
/"
i~" !
'\.\..i /(
\ ~~ ~
\ \ \ \ "i jil
II \ I' \
'I~ \ \\\ II i;
\' .,..-,J " I ~
\~~"\ \\,\ ~
.\; \' b
\1W\ ,.
,\.\\ \. "'. nAi !
, ~ "1 . k' /.;-
\ \ ,I J- - j
\-- / -'I _'<-- / - .e / -
\ ' \ ,~> i;'--<,
\ .--.:_t-~
\/i; \..---
X-~- .
\.
"
,~
'\
""C
>
JJ
>
o
CIl
m
"
"
,
,
\ in
\ I'"
, '
/
,
,
\
\
,
,.
\;!~. ".,'
\-P:.i-'~'\
Ii ~ ill
;6ii
.'..s-"'....
". . ;'.~ .
... ",)":.'.
Dfllo,,12
\~
!'
~1
,
,
,
,
,
(
i\
I
,
,
\
\:
J
.\ ...
\!
\
I
r--------.-------
I
i
!
\
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
, '
, '
, '
, '
\ "
"
\ "
"
,
\~
~;
I
\
\
,
,
\
I
\
>)
,
,
\ \
\ I'!
\ 1<::
\\ -
\ ~,
,
\
"
\\ '
"\ ~2C!nBlTNO
~ '
,
\ (-~---- ,.-
,
c
\
(!!Y
July 25, 1997
i~\ ;',~ ,~ jc~ q \\ ;- r.=:: ,--..
:'...IJ'i!"~L7iC:: U \V/lF 10\
;.~, - -" ~ '=/1 .
II :' I
'.,ll IWI
JUl 2 ., '-'
- ,
Francine Halberg
Terry Kessler
24 Old Landing Rd.
Tiburon Ca. 94920
TOVVi'l ;"i;;';.'iA'.;;ci-rs OFciCE
TOW,) C:= TiBURON
Mark Ginalski
Councilmember
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
Dear Mark:
Thank you for your interest in preparing the best plan for Old Landing Road We
believe that there needs to be a coordinated approach to both community services
and development. We are very concerned that the Winter's property is not actualy
suitable for two lots because of slide damage. We would like Tiburon's input
on this issue. We appreciate knowing that the Tiburon Planning Commission will
review development in our wonderful little area with the idea of preserving it to
the greatest extent possible Weare therefore opposed to any exception to waive
dual annexation policy
In summary, we do not support Mr. Winter's proposal for a lot split or for
waiving dual annexation policy.
Sincerely,
RECE~VED
TOWN OF TI8URGi\1
~~'\0~t[bcfl1~ lu~
.jUl 3 0 1997
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOF,V.ENT
Francine Halberg
Terry Kessler
cc: Councilmember Thompson
Planning Director Anderson
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO. 1p
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN MANAGER
NEW TOWN HALL INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS
AUGUST 6, 1997
BACKGROUND
All Interior cabinetry, shelving, and media boards for the new Town Hall will soon be
completely installed. There is now obvious interest in displaying various artwork, maps, historic
documents, etc. at Town Hall, primarily in the public areas. This type of interior artwork and
displays should be done in an organized and proper manner
RECOMMENDATION
The Heritage & Arts Commission be assigned the responsibility of screening and
determining which artwork or wall displays are appropriate, and where in Town Hall they would
best be located. This includes both permanent and temporary displays.
The Town currently has framed photographs offormer Mayors, a framed display of when
the Town was incorporated, several large, framed photographs and numerous plaques and other
memorabilia.
R.L. Kleinert
Town Manager
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
ITEM NO.: 7-
FROM:
ASSOCIA TE PLANNER BORBA
MEETING DATE:
AUGUST 6, 1997
SUBJECT:
RECONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL DECISION TO
UPHOLD THE APPEAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD DECISION TO APPROVE MODIFICATIONS TO
APPROVED PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 10 ST. BERNARD LANE
At the July 2, 1997, Town Council meeting, the Council voted 3-2 to uphold the above
referenced appeal and require compliance with the color palette originally approved by the
Design Review Board on July 6, 1995. The Council remanded the issue of the new chimney
caps to the Board with a directive that the Board consider physical mock-ups of the new
chimney caps, and alternatives that could minimize their visual intrusiveness.
At the July 16, 1997, Council meeting, the Council voted 3-1 to agendize the matter for possible
reconsideration at its meeting of August 6, 1997. The Council indicated that if the applicant and
the appellants could agree upon a color palette, then the Council might, following public
testimony, consider changing its prior decision.
Staff spoke with Mr. Fingerhut on July 29, 1997, to determine if any progress had been made in
reaching agreement with the appellants. Mr. Fingerhut stated that he has not been able to reach
an agreement with the appellants regarding a revised color palette.
RECOMMENDA nON
1. If prior to the meeting, the applicant and appellants have presented to the Town evidence
of agreement concerning the color palette, then the Council should hold a public hearing
on the reconsideration of the item, and determine whether to approve the agreed upon
palette,
Q[
2. If there is no evidence of agreement, the Council should delete the reconsideration item
from the agenda and move the Resolution to the Consent Calendar for adoption.
Town of Tiburon
Council Staff Report
8/6/97
I
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF TIBURON REGARDING THE UPHOLDING OF AN
APPEAL BY MICHELE ROADS, THE HILL HAVEN
PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, MEL & RUTH
RONICK, DR. RALPH & DIANA CAVALIER! AND
WILLIAM & SANDRA STUCKY OF THE APPROVAL OF
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S APPROVAL OF A CHANGE TO
APPROVED PLANS FOR 10 ST BERNARD LANE (MR. &
MRS ALLEN FINGERHUT OWNERS)
WHEREAS, on May 18, 1995, the Design Review Board held a duly noticed
public hearing regarding the site plan and architectural review of a proposed single family
dwelling at 10 St. Bernard Lane, proposed by Jared Polsky, Architect ("Applicant") on
behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Allen Fingerhut ("Owner"); and
WHEREAS, said hearing was continued to June 15, 1995 and later to July 6, 1995,
to allow modification of the plans in response to comments from the Board, which
modifications included the reduction of design features, such as the building's tower and
chimneys, that added to the massive appearance and potential view blockage of the
structure; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 1995, after closing the public hearing, the Design Review
Board approved the proposed dwelling with conditions; and
WHEREAS, in recognition of the visual prominence and imposing appearance of
the proposed dwelling, said approval conditions imposed certain design restrictions and a
limited color palette for the exterior of the building; and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 1996, the Design Review Board held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider certain modifications to the approved plans that had been
requested by the Applicant and Owner, which requested modifications included the
addition of chimney caps; and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 1996, after closing the public hearing, the Board
approved some of the requested modifications, but denied others that it found would
increase the visual intrusiveness and potential view blockage of the structure, which denied
modifications included the addition of chimney caps; and
WHEREAS, as the project neared completion in 1997, Town staff received several
complaints from neighbors that the structure had been painted with a palette of colors that
did not comply with the palette approved by the Design Review Board, the effect of which
noncompliance was allegedly to increase the visual prominence and intrusiveness of the
home; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 1997, the Applicant filed an application for certain changes
to the Board's approval of the project, including a modified palette reflecting the colors
with which the Owner had already painted the structure and adding chimney caps; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 1997, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the proposed modifications to the previously approved plans and approved the
application with conditions; and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 1997, Michele Roads, the Hill Haven Homeowners
Association, Jerry Riesen, Mel and Ruth Ronick, Dr. Ralph and Diana Cavalieri and
William and Sandra Stucky filled an appeal of the Design Review Board's decision insofar
as it approved a new color palette and chimney caps; and
WHEREAS, said appeal alleged that the new color palette violated the Town's
Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines in that it permitted colors that were not earth
tones, were not harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and would stand out
in sharp contrast with natural earth color or vegetation on the site and other development
in the area and would further maximize the project's intrusion on the neighborhood, and,
as a result of these problems, would increase the adverse visual impacts of the project on
the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, said appeal further alleged that the Board's approval of the new
chimney caps also violated the Town's Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines in that
the Board had lacked sufficient information to evaluate the potential adverse impact of the
chimney caps on the height and bulk of the chimneys and the potential for view blockage
and visual intrusion; and
WHEREAS, the appeal came before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on
July 2, 1997, at which time the Town Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on the
appeal during which hearing the Applicant and Owner admitted that they were aware when
they painted the project that the colors used did not comply with the palette previously
approved by the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, on July 2, 1997, after hearing all testimony and reviewing all
documents in the record, the Council determined that the approval of the new color palette
and chimney caps violated the Town's Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines, for the
reasons set forth in the appeal; and
WHEREAS, based on the above findings, the Council determined to uphold the
appeal by the Appellants, require the Applicant and Owner to comply with the color
2
palette originally approved by the Design Review Board on July 6, 1995 and remanded the
issue of the new chirrmey caps to the Board with a directive that the Board consider
physical mock-ups of the new chimney caps, and alternatives that could minimize their
visual intrusiveness (a vote of 3 - 2, with Mayor Hennessy, Vice-Mayor Thayer and
Councilmember Ginalski voting to uphold the appeal and Councilmembers Wolf and
Thompson dissenting).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon that the appeal of Michele Roads, the Hill Haven Homeowners Association, Jerry
Riesen, Mel and Ruth Ronick, Dr. Ralph and Diana Cavalieri and William and Sandra
Stucky is hereby granted based on the findings and determinations set forth in this
resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town
of Tiburon on July 2, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
THERESEM. HENNESSY, MAYOR
Town of Tiburon
ATTEST:
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
3
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO. /(,4)
MEETING DATE: 8/6/97
TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR r
1101 TffiURON BOULEVARD; ORDINANCE ESTABLISIllNG
STREAMLINED PROCESSING PROCEDURES FOR THE PROPOSED NEW
TffiURON POLICE STATION (2ND READING AND ADOPTION)
JULY 31, 1997
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
BACKGROUND
At its meeting ofJuly 16, 1997, the Town Council held first reading of the above-referenced
ordinance. The matter now comes before the Council for second reading and adoption.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance.
2. Move to read by title only.
3. Hold second reading of the ordinance.
4. Adopt the ordinance by roll call vote.
EXHIBITS
A.
Draft ordinance.
lpolice\2ndread.rpt
ORDINANCE NO. N.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON ESTABLISHING
PLANNING PROCEDURES FOR THE PROPOSED NEW
TIBURONPOLICE STATION AT 1101 TmURONBOULEVARD
The Town Council of the Town ofTiburon does ordain as follows:
SECTION I
PURPOSE
The Town ofTiburon is proposing to build a new police station at the corner of
Ned's Way and Tiburon Boulevard. Under the Town's zoning ordinance, this project
would require conditional use permit approval from the Planning Commission and site
plan and architectural review approval from the Design Review Board, without any review
or input from the Town Council. However, the Town Council is adopting this ordinance
for the purpose of establishing more streamlined planning procedures for approval of this
major public investment. This ordinance exempts the new police station from the Town's
zoning ordinance while establishing review procedures for the project. The purpose of
this ordinance is to streamline the project's review process in order to reduce public costs
of the project while preserving the public input process by making the Town Council the
sole decision-making body for the project.
SECTION 2
EXEMPTION FROM ZONING ORDINANCE
The new Tiburon police station proposed for the corner of Ned's Way and
Tiburon Boulevard shall be exempt from all provisions of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance,
TiburonMunicipal Code Chapter 16.
SECTION 3
REVIEW PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED
Plans for the new Tiburon police station shall be reviewed pursuant to the
following procedures:
(A) The Town Council shall hold one or more public meetings to review and
approve schematic site/circulation plans, architectural drawings for the project, and final
working drawings and specifications prior to bidding for construction.
(B) The project is subject to CEQA and the necessary environmental review
shall be conducted at the appropriate states of the project.
EXHIBIT NO.
A
Ordinance No. _, Adopled
1
(C) At any time during the process, the Town Council may, as deemed
appropriate, refer the project to the Planning Commission, Design Review Board, or any
other Council-appointed Committee for that body's input or analysis. Such referrals shall
be advisory and not binding on the Council.
(D) Prior to any work on the site, the project shall be reviewed by the Town's
Building Official and a building permit issued.
(E) The project shall be exempt from all Town fees.
SECTION 4 SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of the court of competent
jurisdiction, such section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase shall be deemed severable
and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The Town
Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance,
any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any
one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be declared invalid
or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5
EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of
passage and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage a copy of the
ordinance shall be published with the names of the members voting for and against it at
least once in a newspaper of general circulation published in the Town ofTiburon.
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council held on
, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Tiburon on --' by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
THERESE M. HENNESSY, MAYOR
TOWN OF TffiURON
ATTEST:
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
Ordinance No. _, Adopled
2
7-25-;997
,-,:3.3PH
Fr;~Ot.1 GLASS AP.CH I TECTS 707 544
25141/t~# 1 (13) p
-
<~";i~;,.!:,,':;:t~":~;~;f.j~
~~;~:~;d' :: ~:f: ':i;~: .~~~!
:i,~~~,ti~i~~~~~:1
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
To: Jim Wilson Date: July 25, 1997
Firm: Project Tiburon Police Department
From: Eric M. Glass, AlA FAX No: (415) 435.8368
Subject: Cost Reduction Options
Number of Pages Being Transmitted (including This Cover Sheet)
2
Pages
DescriptIon:
Glass Architects' Cost Reduction Options dated 7/25/97
Remarks:
Jim:
The attached list represents every reduction we could think of that we felt was at all reasonable. We
have attempted to list the revisions somewhat in order of preference with the least offensive revisions
appearing first. There are several items on this list that we are definitely against and DO NOT
RECOMMEND, these items appear last on the list, particularly items #12 through 15.
Call me if you have any questions.
Eric
~v~. .
. ., -'.,.
-- ----~--_.-
.- -.....
. ~
.. ---, ,--- '--~--:-~--~'-, "
-.- -- .... --..--'
--~---._--~--_._--------
.
If you should not receive all of the pages IOdicaled above, please call: (707) 544-3920
GLASS AJlCHlrEC~ . 20J E Street. Suite 100 . Sonto ROIQ, COliltlrnio 95404 . (707) 544..3920 . "AX (707) 544.2514
7-25.- ! ~,~.:: -," - 634i=+1
F;;.U-1 C.LA~;:; A~:CH I TEeTS 707 544 251 J.
July 25, 1997
TIBURONPOUCESTATION
TIburon, California
COST REDUCTION OPTIONS
Reduction Opt/on
1. Delete Fuel 011 Piping and Spaciallies for Generator
2. Delete Landscaping and Irrigation
3. Change Tile Finish to Vinyl Wallcovering in Locker Rooms
4. Change Tile Flooring to Sheet Vinyl
5. Standard Intenor Doors (37 @ $850)
6. EVidence Room & Storage Shelving, Relocate Existing
7. Interior Signage and Graphics
8. Reduce 136 Fixtures to 1 22
9, Deleta Pedestrian Steps and Railings at Steps
10. Change Split-face Masonry Wall 10 Security Chain Link Fence
1 1. Reduce Deplh of Entry Canopy
12. Reduce Overhang from 48' to 24'
13. Changa Fiber Cement Shm91es to Fiberglass Shingles
14, Delete Wood Trellis and Trellis Columns
15. Delete Say at Say Windows
Total
General Conditions. Overhead & Profit (21%)
GRANO TOTAL
P.2
Gl~~~
ARCHIHCT$
Reduction Value
$6,500
$11,750
$3,000
55,000
$3,700
$17,680
$2,000
$3,600
$11,500
$7,700
$1,200
$5,700
$14,500
$6,060
$3,200
$103,090
$21,649
$124,739
~~----
:) -.'
!.
"
j - ~ I
L ~'.~==- .::~~:~-~--=-~-::::.-::)
.. -~. .- -
--------------------
GLASS ARCHlTEUS 200 E S",,:. SUi:e 100. S,n:, Rosa, (,llfor1l, 9540'. TEL (707) 544-3J20 FAX (;07)544.2514
C/)
m
()
o
z
o
."
r
o
o
;0
""0
~
Z
"'-
co
:
II
." -
;; t
S ii
.
J!
~ <;
- ,
.,
.
~
,
: ~:,"'-= t:""':':..l
.- -
: L-~ C- ~~
; t'-; c:: c.- =?;'"
"..1 r- ~~
1_< -_...
1 " .!
, I ~_, N __
: --; ~._.~ '=:J
: .-j --:. ;::::: ;'
, : ~ Ci ;2:::J '
:l,~ --J !-:;,'
1 -, 1_'
rr ::-.-
". '""');;; 1'1".:
W .W,' ~ !Lr:
m ,I ,=~ .
] Li Z
//v--~'"
.<~_/ ~ ."~
---.!/ ' P, '''1' .r~':':\..
'iT'}, ,d"u.~'.~.'.. ..,:::". -'j I.. . I. _.,i\
'I . L) 'c;:::'^'A.j-i (' , !'f-Il ~., \..
'LL · > <::d. \A! '=' ' I' 'I~'i (\ ',I! \.
, ~ /\ l"f. I ~' tl :;----1"' I \
.. . I ---' . \.' r:1 . ~' ,
. J1' i- il :: \
,/ F'; , '-'-.......\ _ n-,-,-,[Ij
i rt= L.L.L..--ill
~ i{J) ~ I 1)
:,j IT! r=' I
-;:::- {\ -,
--{ r-/ rn I:c
,~, !~JI 'i~ IC,~,: ~'f i..~I;
~ --r-n~nll! '= ='
:L J!o (\1 ~. ~
'...J (f\ /,' Q --t '--.:
~'-; .; ~3:rn
r, ,/.>'~:..:::: -.. 1..- n<-
5)6 >( -:2m '. ('b
~ ~~, ~
,I . 7<J ~JI
}------------- V rm" ();', I ~
" ("> '. f --", '. - \. J
,'~ C'J -, I - ,..... r _
- -r) (, I f":>rnr .........,.........
:i',: ~\~
u,J \
Ic-----,:h-~.::,J'I- 19
:(' I W ~ ' I:
i " ~~~r.J
'~r, ~
1 \. =:
,
, ~"
,
- ,
~ i
C i
i
i
.-i
-:n-
I' I ll~
~~_ ',)I~ ILl_>
: 1Ir\' , 'ti-
II '\MI
~
, "
,
1/ \11
III v
,
,
r ;.
~
'!
tlJ
",' C"l
.J.~
0:>'
t:"\
m
, __u
(">
()
",;<J
-;ll
'-.) Q
a
;<J
I:'
I'
~n
I
\\",.
c -- r" ,~~ ~\ "J1.
! ;j?~ JI
! : .-' -1"--)' I
,i-" L I
, \}- \.1 ___M
: (< ~ \,
,,,,,.::-:C:;"--~
~;~ ., iO
I [JJ]=. ".' -*~+-
! "! "
"I ====" .-
'! ~Z'i
'i ~'J ..Q...:::I
.....,'~
,""",)I5n.
r(-1~ R"'.... ,//
,L 1 . ~..... I
~...:.. ,:""""'1 '=.. !
'-
--___J
"
\
-C-_' ,
" . i
I ,II
~~
,
ClQ
C,
I
ri
\..; {\
::co
i..'. ;u
CJ
l,'
I..==r-,
~!
B~I
"
~
-=:.,.,=
1-,-:1
L,
'["
,I ,;
, ,
r----1
"I"
i~l_F
'-L..
"I' .
'\',- .
\.
()i!1'-
,~~ I,
1==
i
/
'r='
, I
T.I
,
:so
;~ 0---
-.. I. " ~
~""'..(1 -P ~
. '"
"ffL
:"":'-~ U
td
tjriF1: I'
'k -I
~
-<"
"'QJ
'-. III
no
L
~' ,7-----
-'
",
I \
cr==
------::1
~
~.I! ,
l-
~~
, ,
-I
!
~
/ I
i~
'-
!~
~
11 I, I
:== ~'
1.1....
-"-0.-'
1/'---
::: I
'"."-J.'
..J .', I
i\L:~
;en:> (~~
r', ",'~'ffi;
'"-_. \.: nNiL;o
~~'~~
, ",",n -ir7l !
n," ~;~:0.~ '1
1 l, -<
.t,- " I.',
\1, ~ id !
''L-.. .. I
'. .~
~
II'
,
~
'~
---,
1"'- I
.. !
11'(-: .
\--..;.
u'
-;
I.,' ()
.-, Xl
::::...
Q
m
I
1
I
i
" .....,
// "
~/ I
!,-
'Ii
", 1
"t;
I
'l
:=1'
,., I'
'~,-_- ;
I
II
11-~:::<11
'I
1
''>S
//.
. . ,
-"'~~~.s..<;/
.:\..~ j
I'd
V l SC: VVS LOL S1.J31. I HJ<J1;r SS1;rlCl IIO<J.:J
HdLV'S L661-SC:-L
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEMNO.1CC. )
MEETING DATE: 8/6/97
To: TOWN COUNCIL
From: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR S4--
Subject: NEW POLICE BUILDING PROGRAM: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS &
OPTION FOR DESIGN REVIEW
Date: AUGUST 1, 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
Town staff has begun work on an Initial Study for the proposed new police station at 1101
Tiburon Boulevard. It is not yet known whether a Negative Declaration or an EIR will be
required, primarily because of hydrology issues. However, given the small size of the police
facility, which is at 6,700 sq. ft. is only 70% as large as the new Town Hall building, and the fact
that voters approved construction of a new police facility at that location, it seems reasonable that
a mitigated negative declaration is achievable if the hydrology issues can be mitigated as part of
the project design and implementation.
Hydrology Concerns
The Town has long been aware of drainage and flooding issues in the vicinity of the project, near
the mouth of the Reed Drainage Basin. Lagoon Road in the City of Belvedere currently
experiences some flooding during extended heavy rains, as does the Tiburon BoulevardlNed's
Way intersection. This appears to be primarily due to inadequate drainage facilities immediately
down slope from the Town's Ned's Way property, in the Highway 131 right-of-way and across
the multi-use path in the City of Belvedere. Both the Police Building and the Ned's Way senior
housing project are likely to contribute increased runoff, as are any other projects upstream from
the inadequate drainage facilities. The Belvedere Lagoon Property Owners Association (BLPOA)
is already on record urging the Town to correct drainage deficiencies (as well as address water
quality issues) before approving any new projects which would add to the existing problems (see
Exhibit 1).
The recently adopted mitigated negative declaration for the Ned's Way Senior Housing general
plan amendment and rezoning project identified hydrology impacts as potentially significant unless
mitigated, and required that they be mitigated Il.!im to construction of additional impervious
Tiburon Town Council
SlaffReport
8/7/97
1
surface on the Town-owned property. The adopted mitigation was as follows:
"Existing drainage facilities in the vicinity, including storm drains, culverts, and sediment
basins shall be modified to ensure that the discharge generated by the 100 year storm
event can be accommodated. Improvements to the drainage facilities would need to
consider the cumulative buildout of the area.....".
Town Staff has concluded that a study of the Reed Watershed Drainage Basin is essential to
identifying the extent of the problem and formulating adequate mitigation measures. Time is of
the essence in completing this drainage study, if the Police Station is to begin construction within
the next year.
Staff recommends that the Town Council be prepared to authorize such a study at this meeting. It
is likely that the costs of the study could be shared between several entities who are affected by its
outcome, including other project applicants, the City of Belvedere, and the BLPOA. The Town
Engineer should be able to provide a ball-park estimate upon which to establish a not-to-exceed
figure for immediate authorization.
Cumulative Impact Analysis
The extent of firm knowledge concerning a proposed senior housing project will affect the depth
of the "cumulative impact" analysis in the environmental document prepared for the new police
station. If detailed applications and drawings are on file for a senior housing project, fewer
assumptions and more hard data will be available upon which to perform the cumulative impact
analysis for the police station project.
DESIGN REVIEW OF POLICE FACILITY PLANS
The ordinance adopted by the Town Council establishing planning procedures for the police
station includes the option of referring the project to any Board or Commission of its choice.
Previous design plans for the police station have included review by Design Review Board
members, either formally or informally. A courtesy review would not cause any delay in approval
of the project, given the time frame necessary to complete the environmental review. Staff
recommends that a courtesy review of the plans before the full Design Review Board be
scheduled at the first appropriate opportunity.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize a not-to-exceed figure for preparation of a drainage study for the Reed
Watershed, with Staff to work out a cost-sharing plan with other affected parties.
Tiburon Town Council
SlajJ Report
8/7/97
2
2. Schedule a courtesy review of the new police facility plans before the Design Review
Board at the first appropriate opportunity.
EXHmITS
1. Letter from BLPOA dated July 28, 1997.
\policclenvstat. rpl
Tiburon Town Council
SlaffRepart
8/7/97
3
-
.
lFO!L~ ~@[P:>W
BELVEDERE LAGOON PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
July 28, 1997
RECE\VED
TOWN OF T\13Uf-~ON
J\.ll '2. 9 \991
OEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENT
POST OFFICE BOX 465
BELVEDERE. CA 94920
(415) 435-0285
\\0
\'1.0
'."0
:-\0
4/]
4-,,0
-'"
-, -:
--
A CORPORATION
Mr. Scott Anderson
Planning Director
Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Initial Comments of the Belvedere Lagoon Property Owners
Association ( BLPOA ) on Proposed Tiburon Police Department
Facility
Dear Mr. Anderson:
The BLPOA has received the Referral/Comment Sheet, dated July 14, 1997,
with regards to the construction of a new Tiburon Police Department facility
at 1101 Tiburon Boulevard. Are comments are as follows:
1) Completeness of Application: We have been provided with a site plan,
elevations and floor plans for the proposed project. As previously stated in
our letter to you dated May 28, 1997, the BLPOA's main concern is that proper
measures be taken during site preparation and construction to prevent erosion
and pollution from entering the storm water culverts that drain into the
Belvedere Lagoon, and that the project not increase the impervious area that
increases the amount and velocity of storm water draining into the lagoon.
The site plan does not indicate any additional or improved drainage culverts
that would drain the site away from the lagoon. It appears that the proposed
project, along with the proposed Senior Housing project, would substantially
increase the impervious area that drains into the lagoon. The BLPOA has
notified the Town of Tiburon of our concerns that storm water runoff from
the Tiburon hills has reached a critical stage which will cause flooding of
lagoon property if a proper storm water diversion system to Richardson Bay is
not constructed. We are also concerned that the new landscaping will cause
fertilizer and debris to drain into the lagoon. This issues must be addressed
for the BLPOA to be supportive of a development plan for the site.
2) Environmental Impact: Our environmental concerns are stated above.
Suggestions include the limiting the grading of the site to the period between
April 15 and October 15, siltation traps and ponds to collect siltation and
EXHIBIT NO.
I
pollution, and "winterization" of the construction site during the winter
months. The Town of Tiburon should also work with the BLPOA and the City of
Belvedere to improve the effectiveness of the siltation pond through which
the storm water runoff from the Reed School Watershed passes before
entering the lagoon, The culverts that parallel both sides of Tiburon Boulevard
need to be improved and maintained to prevent the build-up of debris. We
request that the EIR address the impact of pollution and runoff to the lagoon
due to the proposed development. Any increase in water runoff and / or
pollution into the Belvedere Lagoon due to the proposed project is
unacceptable to the BLPOA and its members,
3) Merits of the Proiect: The BLPOA feels strongly that the only way to
protect the lagoon property from flooding due to storm water runoff from the
Reed School Watershed, including the subject site, is for the Town Of Tiburon
to provide for a storm water drainage system that allows runoff from the
site, and the Reed School Watershed, to bypass the Belvedere Lagoon and be
diverted directly into Richardson Bay. We strongly oppose any new
development in the Reed School Watershed, including the subject property,
that increases the rain water and pollution runoff into the culverts that drain
into the Belvedere Lagoon.
We respectfully submit this comments as part of our ongoing dialog with the
Town of Tiburon regarding its responsibility to upgrade and maintain the
storm water drainage system from the Reed School Watershed. Please let me
know if you require any addition information.
~~,
Michael Jenki s
BLPOA Vice P~esi
435-8810
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO. (0 (A) (t;)
MEETING DATE: 8/6/97
Date:
TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
1101 & 1185 TIBURON BOULEVARD: QUITCLAIM DEEDS AND AMENDED
AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF TlliURON, REED UNION SCHOOL
DISTRICT & BEL VEDERE- TlliURON CHILD CARE CENTER
7/31/97
To:
From:
Subject:
BACKGROUND
One of the many steps prerequisite to construction ofa new police facility at the comer of
Tiburon Boulevard and Ned's Way involves land transactions and modifications to prior
agreements reached between the Town, Reed Union School District (RUSD), and the Belvedere-
Tiburon Child Care Center (BTCCC). Preliminary discussions with RUSD occurred prior to the
June 1995 election, at which Tiburon voters overwhelmingly supported construction of the new
police station at the proposed location. At that time, the RUSD Board of Trustees indicated that
if the voters supported the police station measure, RUSD would cooperate with the Town to
implement the project.
The objective for this meeting is for the Town Council to approve the draft documents relating to
RUSD and BTCCC and authorize the submission of those documents to their respective
governing Boards for action.
THE APPROACH
The following approach, as generally set forth back in 1995, is still being proposed:
. RUSD and BTCCC will release and quitclaim any and all rights to the portion of
the current Town-owned property on which the Police Station would be
constructed. At present, RUSD has "playground use" rights over some of this site
from a 1978 agreement.
. The Town will quitclaim to RUSD the portion of the current Town-owned parcel
which approximates the area used by the BTCCC. In doing so the Town will
reserve a small portion, approximately 400 sq. ft., of that land nearest the BTCCC
play area wooden bulkhead) for slope easement purposes.
Tiburon Town Council
Slaff Report
8/6/97
1
. The Town, RUSD, and BTCCC will amend their prior agreements from 1978,
1987, and 1994 to reflect the change in ownership and other circumstances.
This approach is seen as beneficial to all three directly involved parties, as well as to the Peninsula
overall. All three parties have continued to work cautiously but cooperatively toward reaching
agreement on the necessary transactions.
A drawing will be available at the meeting depicting the areas to be quitclaimed, and the area
reserved for a slope easement. A draft of an amended agreement between the Town, RUSD, and
BTCCC is attached as Exhibit 1. The amended agreement sets forth the quitclaim provisions and
essentially transfers all Town rights and obligations from the prior agreements to RUSD, which
would own the property on which the BTCCC is located. The Town's "scholarships" to the
BTCCC would be retained for a period of twenty (20) years.
The ad hoc subcommittee (Councilmembers Thayer and Ginalski) appointed to work with the
BTCCC and RUSD regarding the new police station met with representatives of both
organizations on July 24, 1997. Several points of possible dispute were discussed and seemingly
resolved during the course of that meeting, in order that the new police station move forward.
The recommendations of the subcommittee were as follows:
1) The Town will grant access rights to RUSD over the roadway leading from Ned's Way
to Reed Elementary School as part of the parcel map creating the proposed senior housing
project site. Granting of these formal access rights was apparently overlooked during the
original 1978 purchase of the property from RUSD by the Town ofTiburon. The
Tentative Subdivision Map approved by the Planning Commission on July 23, 1997 shows
these access rights being created. Town Council approval and subsequent recordation of
the parcel map would finalize the granting of access rights.
2) The Town will be flexible with parking for BTCCC as it seeks to expand its enrollment,
triggering a zoning ordinance requirement for two additional parking spaces. It appears
that one space can be gained by re-working of the existing drop-off area in front of the
child care center; another space could be made available through appropriate time-limited
signage on a shared basis with the Police Station. Town Staff sees this minor issueas
being easily resolved through one or both of the above steps. The issue of who pays the
costs associated with changes to the drop-off area is unresolved. Cost estimates may be
available by the Council meeting.
3) The Town would pay for the six foot fence to be located at the top of the slope of the
slope easement area (approximately three feet distant from the wooden bulkhead
surrounding the child care center play area). The Town would also maintain the area of
the slope easement, which would be planted with landscaping.
Tiburon Town Council
Slaff Report
8/6/97
2
4) The Town would refund planning and building fees paid by the BTCCC for the recent
replacement of its portable building. These fees total $2,898.00. The Town would also
waive upcoming use permit fees for expansion of the enrollment at the facility from 55 to
70 children. Staff estimates these processing fees to be approximately $900.00. The
Council has the authority to waive fees for non-profit organizations upon request.
5) The Town would allow occupancy of the child care center building now under
construction without complete installation oflandscaping, with the understanding that the
approved landscaping would be installed shortly thereafter.
Planning Department Staff wholly supports the recommendations of the subcommittee.
FUTURE ACTIONS NEEDED
The BTCCC Board of Directors will meet on Monday, August 4, 1997, and may not meet again
until September. The draft amended agreement has therefore been forwarded to the BTCCC
legal counsel for review, and is likely to be discussed at the August 4th meeting.
The RUSD Board of Trustees will be meeting on August 19, 1997. Town staff is working with
RUSD staff to ensure that Town ofTiburon matters relating to this project are on the agenda.
The Town Council should appoint a representative or representatives to attend this meeting.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the Town Council accept the recommendations of the subcommittee.
2. That the Town Council approve the draft documents for submission to RUSD and
BTCCC.
3. That the Town Council appoint appropriate Council and staff representatives to attend the
August 19th RUSD Board meeting.
4. That the Town Council authorize Town Staff to use its best discretion in resolving any
minor outstanding issues with RUSD and BTCCC.
5. That the Town Council tentatively place on its August 20, 1997 agenda the appropriate
documents for final action.
EXHmITS
1. Draft amended agreement and land lease between Town, RUSD, and BTCCC.
lpolicelquit.rpt
Tiburon Town Council
Slaff Report
8/6/97
3
n' r~) Iii, .'.
~~/ U u fr\\ U
AGREEMENT TO AMEND LAND LEASE AND USE
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE TOWN OF TmURON,
THE BELVEDERE/TIBURON CHILD CARE CENTER
AND THE REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
-l r
~
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this _ of August, 1997, by and between the
TOWN OF TIBURON ("Tiburon"), the BELVEDERE-TIBURON CHILD CARE CENTER
("CCC") and the REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT ("District").
RECITALS:
A. Tiburon is the owner of certain real property situated in the Town of Tiburon
("Town Property") described in Exhibit "A."
B. Tiburon, District and CCC have entered into a series of agreements pursuant to
which District and CCC are entitled to the use of the Town Property for
playground and child care center purposes respectively, The first such agreement,
between Tiburon and District was dated February 29, 1978, and was amended by
an agreement dated September 30, 1987. Subsequent agreements between the
aforesaid two parties and CCC or CCC's predecessor in interest, the Belvedere-
Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee, were dated August 31, 1987 and
November 4, 1994. The aforesaid agreements between the parties, and any and
all other agreements and instruments creating an entitlement to use the Town
Property, are collectively referenced herein as the "Prior Use Agreements."
C. As a result of the Prior Use Agreements, District and CCC are using a portion of
the Town Property, which portion is described in Exhibit B (the "Transfer
Property"). The remaining portion of the Town Property is not being used by
District or CCC and is described in Exhibit C (the "Released Property"),
D. The Parties now agree that it will be their mutual benefit to modify the Prior Use
Agreements such that the District will obtain ownership of the Transfer Property
in consideration for the Town regaining the ability to use the Released Property for
other public purposes, all as set forth herein,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY AGREED that the parties enter into this
Agreement to Amend the Prior Agreements based on the following covenants and conditions:
1. Tiburon shall convey all of its right, title and interest in the Transfer Property to
District by quitclaim deed in a form substantially similar to that set forth in
Exhibit D. CCC shall retain its right to use the Transfer Property as set forth in
the Prior Use Agreements. Except as otherwise provided herein, District shall
assume all of Tiburon's rights and obligations under the Prior Use Agreements
EXHIBIT NO.
\
with respect to the Transfer Property, which rights Tiburon hereby releases and
assigns to District and from which obligations Tiburon is hereby released.
2. The District and CCC hereby release, waive and relinquish to Tiburon any rights
to use, occupy or enjoy the Released Property under the Prior Use Agreements.
District and CCC shall memorialize this release in recordable form by executing
a quitclaim deed to the Released Property in the form set forth in Exhibit E.
3. The use of the Transfer Property shall be subject to all normally applicable Tiburon
regulations and policies governing land use and development in the Town of
Tiburon.
4. Under ~9 of the Land Lease and Use Agreement between Tiburon, District and the
CCC dated November 4, 1994, CCC is required to offer and maintain a
scholarship program to the children of Tiburon employees, CCC shall continue
offering and maintaining this program to the children of Tiburon employees for a
period of twenty (20) years from the date of this Agreement.
5. Except as otherwise set forth herein, and except as they may have expired by their
terms, the Prior Use Agreements shall remain in full force and effect.
6. This Agreement includes the following Exhibits, which are attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference:
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Town Property
Transfer Property
Released Property
Form Quitclaim Deed from Tiburon
Form Quitclaim Deed from District and CCC
DATE
REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
DATE
BELVEDERE-TIBURON CHILD CARE CENTER
DATE
TOWN OF TIBURON
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DATE
TOWN ATTORNEY, TOWN OF TIBURON
~\ fB) /('
. , r-, .",
IL 'uLrUU
~~ ~
2
! F"==1
ir..J
, i
U
Drafted 2/11/94
Recording Requested by:
Diane Crane
Town Clerk of the Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
APN#
QUITCLAIM DEED
The Town of Tiburon, a municipal corporation ("Grantor"), hereby quitclaims to the
Reed Union School District all right, title and interest which it may have in and to the real
property situated in the Town of Tiburon, Marin County, California, which is more
particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has subscribed its name this _ day of
,1997,
Town of Tiburon
QUITCLAI.RUS
I~\\
, ,
I
~ r~
I F-<~
,: \ \
t.-
c. ~ :_J U ~
'~
-11-
, ,
U
, >
Recording Requested by:
Diane Crane
Town Clerk of the Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
APN#
QUITCLAIM DEED
The Reed Union School District and the BeIvedere-Tiburon Child Care Center
("Grantors"), hereby qnitc1"irn~ to the Town of Tiburon, a municipal corporation, all right,
title and interest which it may have in and to the real property situated in the Town of
Tiburon, Marin County, California, which is more particularly described in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has subscribed its name this _ day of
,1997.
Reed Union School District
Belvedere- Tiburon Child Care Center
QUITCLA2.RUS
Ir--\\ F',
.,' ,l..__
f~
r ~-
. c=:-?
L
L L.:. ,_
'U.
. j,
'"'"
u
...
TOWN OF TmURON
STAFF REpORT
Tf~ -# 1/
To: TOWN COUNCIL
From: DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER
Subject: HERITAGE & ARTS COMMISSION REVIEW OF
PROPOSED RESTORATION OF THE DONAHUE BUILDING
1650 PARADISE DRIVE
Date: AUGUST 1, 1997
BACKGROUND
The Belvedere- Tiburon Landmarks Society is requesting permission to conduct restoration work
on the Donahue Building, located at 1650 Paradise Drive. The restoration work includes changes
to the current exterior of the building, for which an application has been submitted to the Design
Review Division for Site Plan and Architectural Review.
Due to the historic significance of the Donahue Building, this application was submitted to the
Heritage & Arts Commission for review and comment at their July 29, 1997, meeting. At that
meeting, the Commission commended the Landmarks Society for their efforts, and stated that the
proposed restoration would help preserve the historic character of the building. The only change
requested by the Commission was to investigate the possibility of restoring one of the original
rectangular bathroom windows on the east side of the building.
The request will now be reviewed by the Administrative Panel of the Design Review Board. The
Landmarks Society has indicated that they hope to begin work on the restoration some time in
August.
RECOMMENDATION
Subject to timely review and approval by the Design Review Board Administrative Panel, Staff
recommends Council's approval and authorization for the Landmarks Society to proceed with
their proposed repair and restoration work.
TrnURONTOWNCOUNC~
JULY3!. 1997
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
(J-
To:
From:
Subject:
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN ATTORNEY
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS
NECESSARY TO REPAY THE OUTSTANDING PROMISSORY NOTE ON
THE HARROMAN PROPERTY AND CONVEY THE PROPERTY TO THE
MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
August 6, 1997
Date:
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.
Pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement, the Town and the District closed escrow on the
property on December 5, 1996, The total purchase price of the land was $6,800,000, in exchange
for which the Town received title to the property and a dismissal with prejudice of the seller's
lawsuit against the Town, Harroman Company, Inc ,v Town of Tihllron. At close of escrow,
the seller received from the Town a Promissory Note for the $3,300,000 unpaid balance of the
purchase price, Most of the property was transferred at that time to the District. However, a
portion of the property was retained by the Town and subjected to a Deed of Trust and
Development Agreement as security for the Promissory Note.
Under an extension of the Promissory Note granted by the seller, the Promissory Note is due on
September 1, 1997. On June 3, 1997, the voters approved the Creation of Community Facilities
District 1997-1 (CFD 1997-1). This approval enables the District to issues bonds to raise the
balance owing the seller under the Promissory Note, including the interest that has accrued on the
note,
ANALYSTS
According to Eric Luder of the County's Real Estate Section, the bonds will issue on
August 20, 1997, allowing repayment of the Promissory Note on or about August 27, 1997.
When the Note is paid, the seller will reconvey the Deed of Trust to the Town and the Town will
convey the remaining property to the District. To insure that the transaction proceeds in a timely
fashion, the Council should authorized the execution of the necessary documents at this time.
These documents include a certificate of acceptance of the reconveyance of the Deed of Trust and
the Grant Deed conveying the property to the District.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council approve the resolution authorizing the transfer of the remaining property to the
Marin County Open Space District and authorizing the Mayor to execute the grant deed, certificate
of acceptance and any other documents necessary to repay the Promissory Note, obtain the
reconveyance of the Deed of Trust and convey the property to the District.
EXHIBITS
Resolution
Draft Grant Deed
Form Certificate of Acceptance
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF TIBURON AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE
DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE
PROl\flSSORY NOTE FOR THE ACQUISmON OF THE
HARROMAN PROPERTY AND THE CONVEYANCE OF
THE PROPERTY SECURING THE NOTE TO THE MARIN
COUNTY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon approved an 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 the Marin County Open Space District
("District"); and
WHEREAS, the Purchase Agreement provided for the Town 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 a portion of the Harroman Property (Remaining
Property) and by a Development Agreement which would allow the Seller to develop fourteen
parcels the Remaining Property; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the parties was that the Town and District, would acquire the
Harroman Property to be owned and maintained by the District as permanent public open space
and also obtain dismissal with prejudice of that litigation known as The Harroman Company Inc
et al v the Town of Tiburon. et al;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, on December 5, 1996, the parties closed
escrow on the property, at which time the Town executed the Promissory Note payable to the
Seller in the amount of $3,300,000, and the Deed of Trust and Development Agreement, accepted
conveyance of the Harroman Property from the seller and conveyed all of the Harroman Property
except for the Remaining Property to the District; and
WHEREAS, the Promissory Note provided for payment of the principal on or before
March 1, 1997 which payment date was subsequently extended to September 1, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Town and District are now preparing to pay the remaining balance owing
on the Purchase Price for the Harroman Property, after which seller will reconvey the Deed of
Trust to the Town and the Town will convey title to the Remaining Property to the District; and
WHEREAS, state law provides that a deed conveying an interest in land 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 Grant Deed to District and of
other, related documents, including, without limitation, a certificate of acceptance of the
reconveyance of the Deed of Trust; and
WHEREAS, the payment of the Promissory Note, reconveyance of the Deed of Trust and
conveyance of the Remaining Property to the District to maintain as permanent open space will
benefit the residents of Tiburon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
that the Mayor is authorized to accept re-conveyance of the Deed of Trust and execute all
documents necessary to memorialize said acceptance and accomplish the conveyance to the
District, including, without limitation, the Grant Deed.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on August 6, 1997 by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
THERESE M. HENNESSY, MAYOR
Town of Tiburon
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE, TOWN CLERK
2
JUL :::::: ":l" 1J9:48
P .,
.~
RecotdlOg Reque>ted by:
Marln County Opc:Jl Space DIStrict
WHrN RECORDE:D RlITVRN TO:
Reul &late Section
Oepatllnent of Public Works
P,O, Box 4186, Civic Ceole' Branch
San Rar"'l. CA 94913-4186
AI1elllion: e,ic K. Lueder .
1'4 TCo O<ter No. 19231 'CD SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
!\PN: 58-45Q.iJ1
GRANT DEED
TOW:-I OF TIBURON, a municipal corporation,
hereby GRANT(S) to
MARTh" COUNTY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, a public district of the Slate of California,
the real property in the, Town of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, described as follows:
REFER TO EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY REFERENCE MADE A PART
HEREOF,
Dated:
Town ofTiburon
By
Its
jUL Cb .',J" 1.j~:4d
P.3
:JESCRIPTICN
,.
All (hat cetr.).n real o:ocer!V Situate \'" :"'e COl./nrv ct Malin. State 01 CJfifcrOla. cescnCl!O as follows:
P.4.ACEL 1 as $.",own on tne mAP entItled 'Pafcel Map OIVl$lon ot La:>os ot Pine Su...., Management
COfPontlon, . Calitorn,a corporatIon. Successor ov Marger to ttle Hertoman C:lmoanv. ItIC......
cofpOratlon 1080.0R'24 ano 1427.0R,41 7 Town ?uron. Californa'. :iI8<1 W;:::JtJ8E:7t.:::J ,
1996 11\ 8oo~ ;l. I. of Pa,cII MillS. 1101198,1) . Ma,m CounfV RecOfdS.
TOGETHER WITH Ine IS In apputtenonea ,neteto. the flgnt to offet s.w.... w'W Of Otnel otditv
,motovo",ents lno faclhties tor dedIcation to SIMItV Oistflct /'10. 5. Mann Mu",Ctoal WaW Oistnct QIf
any 0'_ Governmental Agency or ","hlV PlOVld.,.
ALSO TOOeTHER WITH, fOf the oenalit of Parcell, an enament 01 ,ndetetmlnete IoClltlOn for -
PUtPO$l of InstillatIon and matntenanca of Wlter Iin8$ aNl faCilities. wat., main OXtel\$lOn _ w_
s.....rces. as feQulreO OV the rown of TibUlon 'tIIl" s~fied by tl\4 Mann MUlllcmal W1ItH DistnCL
ALSO TOGETHER WITH. for the benetit ot Parcell, an e..eMan, of indlle",,,"",a IoczOOn to<" tN
pUfDQS8 of installatlon and maintenance 0'1 ..anltatV' $eWe' IlMS ana faCilities. SaMarv seWet' m.,
elCl:O""1Of\S and Jlf\lt&rV .awlt SlMC... .. reQuited bV tn. Town 01 Tlburon and as .oeesfied bv
S8IIItJf"l Di.UlCt No. 5 of Marin CountY.
AlSO TOGEnlER WITH. for the benefit of Pan:el 1, easlmenu of ind.um-nnalt Io~ fOt' _
Pl,Il'C)o.. of grldinq. .ut1aca lnos sUDsurfal;ll dtlfnaqe and COI'IStr\lctlOR of sueet IfIlpfO'o/amentS. ...
t-ured bv \lie Town of Tiburon.
ALSO TOGETHER WlTIi, lor the benefit of Parcel 1. a_ents of indetOtmn''''' IoQtIons fOt IN
ouroo.. 01 9tadinq. craiN<,it Ind lIoonstrUctlon of gOOlOqlCll1y uf\SUllla laMels as IIIllV be te<lUll'8l1 Ul
lit r~1ItId Of Imofoved.
AlSO TOGETHeR WlT1-l. 1011hl bane IiI of Pllcel 1, an ....ment ~ f..t In wKltll 01 In<Satem\InIte
lOC.lluon fOf Iha Durooses of the 'nStallatlon. eonstrucnon ana mamtenance 01 fife and emf;tgenc:v
vehiCllI~ aecus. Ind for the pur pOle 01 jnstaUallon Ind malnlenance ot PUDUC ulu,nes. 1$ tl<lUltllO OV
the Town Of Tibuton Of Other govern"'.ntal Igono'es Of utIl1lV ptOVlOelS,
Al.$O TOaETl-lER WITIi, 'Of Ifle beneii! o~ Pit"'" 1, an aueManl 40 leet In wtdtl1 oy" tria elOCU\<l
graded roaow.... btnM lOf tM DUrOOn at ,nnanlttcn, constl\lC"OOll ana malnten./'IClI of fir. _
.",etQenev venicUI,ar acr;:1!$S and for tne puroose of inSlalliltion BOO tnalntena0C8 of OUblJc; utIiiti... .-.d
alao rC:l.lIVtr"19 oddjtional ea$omena of indetermln.ate JOcatIOn.s for tn. bel"H!lhl of Parea 1 for the
PurDose of Iccess. InnlUlticn. com1NCuon' lna mUlntenanoa of slit 'UOS. all as reQlJlleo by tn. Town
of Tiburon or otne. <:lovemmental agencl.lqt IiUUtV IlrOY1<lerl.
SChedule 1
DRA~T
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 ; and the
grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.
Dated: ~ :6.~./-?,; /9P~
By ~~~in/ ~7
MAYOR
Town of Tiburon
YIeJ./1!: (3
TO
Tiburon Town Council
Mayor Hennessey, Council Members Thayer, Ginalski, Thompson and
Wolfe.
FROM:
Members, Tiburon Peninsula Recycling Committee,
Polly Smith, Chair, Marcia Felton, Romney Fennel, Dan Harris
John Kern, and Mimi Levison
DATE:
July, 1997
RE:
Recommendations For Increasinl!: Recvclinl!: Efforts
At a meeting of the Tiburon Peninsula Recycling Committee, members discussed with
City Managers Bob Kleinert and Ed San Diego, Councilmember Andrew Thompson,
and Rick Powell of the Mill Valley Refuse Service (MVRS), several ideas which we
think could decrease both the amount of garbage disposed of from our communities and
related costs to peninsula residents. We are writing to both Belvedere and Tiburon
councilmembers with suggestions reflecting this discussion.:
We believe pricing mechanisms, through the franchise process, can provide effective
incentives that will help reduce the volume of waste now generated by our residents.. As
you know, state law requires a 50% cut back in waste disposed by the year 2000. All of
us--and that includes the Councils--must work toward achieving this goal which will be
difficult for all of Marin to achieve. Our suggestions for Tiburon include:
· Offer a reduced rate for residents who wish --and are able to-- use a smaller (20 gal.)
garbage can. Rick has indicated his willingness to implement this incentive soon.
Residents can view the modest decrease in cost as an otTset to the green can charge.
· Charge a higher rate for more than one can of garbage picked up per week, one that is
high enough to make a difference. We think that often the filling of several cans is
due to habit and could be avoided. Increased pricing for multiple can use, similar to
the progressive levels for utility and water rates, can work as a deterrent to
excessive waste disposal and result in a reduction of garbage or reuse where feasible.
. Provide only one pick UP per week in future contacts with the MVRS. Only a modest
number of residents now have twice weekly garbage service. Everything possible
should be done to discourage twice weekly garbage pickups on an ongoing basis.
Residents can always request a special pickup because of unusual circumstances
. For the commercial sector, we urge Tiburon to ask that recycling bins are placed in
areas such as behind ARK Row or by the ferrv, primarily for the disposal of
cardboard--a big waste problem downtown. The bins could be accessible by key in
order to prevent the commingling with public refuse.
· Continue to work with the Belvedere/Tiburon Chamber of Commerce and with us,
urging solutions to recycling problems especially in visible areas such as restaurants,
and offering the Town of Tiburon's help in any way that may be practical.
· In future negotiations with the MVRS. find wavs to reward those who recycle from
non recyclers and explore methods to implement the use of incentives and
disincentives. These should be encouraged and promoted through the rate structure
as much as is feasible.
· In addition. recognize a business that is recycling well with an award and publicity at
a Council meeting. The Committee would be pleased to nominate candidates.
· For events to be held in Tiburon that may generate trash, require as part of the permit
application that a plan for implementing recycling of glass, plastic and cans be
i ncl uded.
We enclose a copy of a letter sent from the Recycling Committee to all Tiburon
homeowner groups. In the fall, too, we will be sending you a proposed resolution for
your consideration regarding policies on purchasing, source reduction, waste prevention
and recycling. Committee members hope to meet with you at that time to discuss these
Issues.
Thank you for this opportunity to express our views.
.
-
TlBURON RECYCLING COMMITTEE
C/O TIBURON TOWN HALL
1505 TIBURON BLVD., TIBURON, CA 94920
May 13,1997
Sampll.
J..6..1nr
Ms. Carolyn Sykes
Marinero Condominium Homeowners Association
28 Marinero Circle, #25
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Neighbor:
This letter serves to introduce the Tiburon Peninsula Recyclinq Committee to YOU and
your members. and to seek your support and assistance.
We were formed by the City of Belvedere and Town of Tiburon to assist them in finding ways to
increase recycling efforts in our communities. State law, known as Assembly Bill 939 and which
was codified in 1989, mandates a 25% cutback in garbage sent to the landfills by 1995 and a
50% cutback by the year 2000. (The base year was the volume of garbage in 1990.) Under the
law, failure to meet these goals could result in substantial fines levied against municipalities that
are unable to achieve the required cutbacks. These fines could be as much as $10,000 per day.
The law prompted a flurry of recycling centers, curbside recycling pick-up and many educational
activities. Much less was done to promote the reduction and/or reuse of materials that now go to
the landfills. While about 26% was diverted by 1995 throughout Marin County, this success is
sweet but brief. We've tried all the "easy" solutions first, but still have a long way to go to meet
the required 50% diversion rate which is just three short years away.
Our Committee wants to work with homeowners associations, the Chamber of Commerce, local
restaurants, schools - everybody -- to reduce the amount of waste we produce. One bright spot
is the popular green can program which is diverting yard waste that is re-used extensively as
compost for agriculture. We thank you for your response and participation.
'lve hope future programs will offer more opportunities for reduction and reuse as well as
recycling. In order to achieve our purpose, it is absolutely essential that we have the support of
homeowners like vour aroup. We solicit your opinions, suggestions, criticisms, ideas,
encouragement and influence in the task ahead. And we want you to challenge your residents:
Challenge the few who use two or three cans per week to reduce to one; encourage your
members to shop "smart" with recycling in mind -- it can save money, too; urge residents to try
backyard composting and encourage your children by example and through educational
programs
Together we can make a difference and help make our environment and the world a better place.
Thank you. Let us hear from you.
Polly Smith, Chair, Marcia Felton, Romney Fennell, Daniel Harris, Jack Himmelwright, John Kern,
Mimi Levison
REDUCE,REUSE, RECYCLE
CITY 0 F SAUSALlTO
TieL-IF Ii
420 LITHO STREET . PO. BOX 1279
SAUSALlTO . CALIFORNIA 94966
TEL (415) 289-4100 . FAX: (415) 289-4167
i ", i ',~ .
U: ;:';, :~~--".' "--- c
! U
""::=i; II
.' 'J
d
Mayor Therese Hennessy
Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
OJ"!". .:. :-..
u_ C. <. ;:c:"
TO\\j'.l ;-'i;';~!\;'\,~Z::~ :~ C,=c:CE
T;:\-~ii\J Of: T:2>./- i~
July21,1997
Dear Therese:
This is a letter from the citizens of Sausalito to the Tiburon Town Council
requesting that Tiburon and Belvedere join in contributing toward the 1997 4th of
July Fireworks display. (I have forwarded the same request to Mayor Steger
Johnson.)
Sausalito has produced fireworks displays in both 1996 and 1997 that
have been enjoyed by our three communities. The displays cost slightly less
than $20,000 per year. Last year all of the required funds were raised privately.
This year we find that we are about $4500 short in covering our costs for the
1997 display. If these three communities pitched in $1500 each we would cover
the expense for 1997 an be assured of a fireworks display in 1998.
This seems like a very small amount for a wonderful program that is
enjoyed by tens of thousands of our residents and businesses. Please join us in
this All American celebration.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Paul B. Albritton
100% recycled paper
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.l/O
MEETING DATE: 8/6/97
To: TOWN COUNCIL
From: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR r
Subject: AYALA DAY CELEBRATION: RECOMMENDATIONS OF PARKS & OPEN
SPACE COMMISSION
Date: AUGUST 1, 1997
BACKGROUND
Attached is an excerpt (Exhibit 1) of the Parks & Open Space Commission (POSC) minutes of
June 10, 1997, where the subject of an Ayala Day Celebration is discussed.
The POSC recommended major changes to this community celebration, including renaming the
event, relocating the event (from South of the Knoll), possibly scaling back the event, and
developing an advisory board to organize the event.
Parks and Open Space Commissioner Kurt Obermeyer is expected to be in attendance at the
Council meeting to represent the POSC.
Given the lateness in the year, it seems unlikely that a successful Ayala Day could be brought
about in 1997. The previously discussed date (for September, 1997) was only two weeks
separated from the annual Chili Festival. The Town also held a major public celebration in May
for the new Town Hall grand opening.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Town Council consider canceling Ayala Day for 1997; accepting the recommendations
of the POSC concerning such future events; and work toward appointing an advisory board to
organize a reformatted community celebration in 1998.
EXHIBITS
1. Excerpt from POSC minutes ofJune 10, 1997.
Ayala.rpt
Chair Eth. stated it is clear the Commission wants the control panel screened and
recommended that Assistant Public Works Superintendent Dave Davenport look into the
proper screening and the condition of the soil in the park. The Commission suggested that
Mr. Davenport attend the next Commission meeting to discuss the screening and park
improvements.
2. RELOCATION OF SAM SHAPERO PLAQUE INBLACKIE'S PASTURE
John Hoffinire reported that the late Sam Shapero was the third Town Treasurer and
developed the Tiburon Knolls and Del Mar subdivisions. In an effort to save Blackie's
Pasture, Mr. Shapero formed the Tiburon Peninsula Foundation and personally paid for
1/3 of the cost to purchase the pasture. The Foundation raised the second 1/3 and the
Town paid for the final 1/3. One condition at the time of the purchase was that there
would be a memorial to Sam Shapero for what he had done to help acquire Blackie's
Pasture, and that this involved a plaque on a pedestal. Mr. Hoffinire was told the plaque
was installed, and was surprised to find it under the handrail on the Bridge. He reported
that Town Manager Kleinert has confirmed that the plaque was approved and agrees that
it should be placed on a large rock to be located on the right side of the Bridge. Mr.
Hoffinire stated that he and Superintendent of Public Works Tony Iacopi have picked out
a rock and that the Public Works Department will install the plaque. Mr. Hoffmire
requested that the Commission approve the plaque relocation which will honor Sam
Shapero properly.
In response to Commission Sullivan, Hoffmire indicated the rock is 3' high and 2-1/2'
wide.
Moved:
Vote:
that the Sam Shapero plaque be relocated to the right of the Bayside
footbridge in Blackie's Pasture
Sullivan, seconded by Zender
AYES: Unanimous
MOTION:
) 3.
AYALA DAY
The Commission discussed all working together on the Ayala Day Committee, but
recommended that a Councilmember be in charge of the Committee. They also
recommended that representatives of the Homeowners' Associations be involved. The
Commission also suggested renaming the event "Tiburon Community Picnic" and that
Blackie's Pasture be used as it is more visible.
Chair Eth recommended the event be scaled down, renamed and an advisory board help
with the planning.
Tiburon Parks & Open Space Commission
Minules No. 151
June 10,1997
3
EXHIBIT No.L
;t(A/f/~
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
To: TOWN COUNCIL
ITEM NO.
rf
From: DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER
Subject: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A
REQUEST TO DIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS
MINOR SUBDIVISION #69602 - 885 B, C & D TmURON BOULEVARD
Date: AUGUST 6, 1997
APPLICANT/APPELLANT - DIXON AND SHARON POWER
PROJECT DATA:
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
FILE NUMBER:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
LOT SIZE:
CURRENT USE:
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
DATE COMPLETE:
CEQA EXEMPTION:
BACKGROUND:
885 B, C & D TmURON BOULEVARD
55-261-11
69602
R-l (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
MEDIUM IDGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
41,569 SQUARE FEET
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND DUPLEX
DIXON AND SHARON POWER
SAME
DECEMBER 1, 1996
DECEMBER 1, 1996
On May 28, 1997, the Planning Commission denied a Minor Subdivision application to divide one
parcel into three lots on property located at 885 B, C & D Tiburon Boulevard. The applicants,
Dixon and Sharon Power, have now appealed the Commission's denial to the Town Council.
TQ""U ofTihurcn
Staff Report
8/6/97
tc69602.apl
Page 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposal involves the subdivision of one parcel into three lots for property located at 885 B,
C & D Tiburon Boulevard. This property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling and
a duplex. Both structures were constructed prior to incorporation of the Town of Tiburon. The
use of the property is legal nonconforming.
The site has an area of 41,569 square feet (0.95 acres). The proposal would create three separate
lots. The single-family dwelling would be situated on an 11,324 square foot lot (Lot 1). Lot 2,
which would contain the duplex, would have an area of 10,245 square feet. The third lot would
have an area of20,000 square feet, and could be developed with a single-family dwelling of up to
4,000 square feet in size in the future.
As shown on the originally submitted plans (Exhibit 11), the two existing buildings on the site
have access to Tiburon Boulevard by utilizing a private street (recently named "Las Palmas Way")
which serves 10 other neighboring parcels. Access to the proposed Lot 3 was originally proposed
to be provided from Stony HilI Road to the north by a 540 foot long driveway within an existing
access easement extending across an undeveloped 5.6 acre parcel to the north. This parcel is
referred to as the "Tai" property in the Tiburon General Plan. Future development of the Tai
property, with up to six lots, would either need to be designed around this driveway or provide
alternate access for Lot 3.
REVIEW BY THE COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission reviewed this application at its April 9 and May 14, 1997, meetings.
The Commission's review centered on issues of access, land use compatibility, density and views.
The length of the proposed driveway to Lot 3 and its path through undeveloped property raised
concerns about the appropriateness of this access for a single additional dwelling. Questions were
also raised about the availability and condition of Las Palmas Way and the safety of turning
movements at its intersection with Tiburon Boulevard.
Comparisons were made between the proposed lot sizes and those of other parcels in the
surrounding area. Although the sizes of the proposed Lots 1 & 2 were consistent with many of
the neighboring parcels along Tiburon Boulevard, most of the parcels to the north of the site are
much larger than any of the three proposed lots.
The fact that three dwelling units already existed on this property, and that a fourth would be
created, raised concerns about the overall density of development on the site. The Commission
suggested that a total of three dwelling units could be appropriate for the entire site, but that four
units would overcrowd the property.
Town ofTihuroo
Staff Report
8/6/97
tc69602.apl
Page 3
Consideration was given to the impact of the house which would be constructed on the proposed
Lot 3 on the views of the neighboring house located at 1 Owlswood Road. This adjacent home
has views to the west of Richardson Bay which could be obscured by the construction of even a
low profile home on the proposed Lot 3.
At the April 9, 1997, meeting, the Planning Commission continued the item to the May 14
meeting, with the following direction to the applicant:
Access to the proposed Lot 3 from Stony Hill Road was totally unacceptable at
this time; therefore, acceptable access from Tiburon Boulevard was to be
established. The nature of any improvements to the private street serving the site
were to be detailed, and the plans reviewed by the Tiburon Fire District.
A building envelope was to be established for the future home on Lot 3. The
envelope was to be created to minimize the view impacts on neighboring residents,
and respecting setback and drainage requirements. Story poles were to be erected
around this proposed envelope, colored at the first and second story elevations and
with string tied between the poles to give a better idea of the bulk of the house.
Details were to be provided of the existing and proposed size of the structures on
the proposed Lots 1 & 2.
The construction of another dwelling on the property would require the conversion
of the duplex to a single-family residence.
The applicant submitted revised plans for the project prior to the May 14 meeting (Exhibit 12).
These plans showed the access to the proposed Lot 3 from Las Palmas Way (see Exhibits 24 &
27). The revised site plan showed the location of a garage on Lot 3 which could be served by a
driveway connecting to Las Palmas Way, with the future possibility of taking access from Stony
Hill Road across the Tai property. The submitted plans indicated that vegetation at the street
entrance would be trimmed to provide better visibility for traffic turning onto Tiburon Boulevard,
but proposed no other specific improvements to Las Palmas Way. The Tiburon Fire District
reviewed the revised plans, and found them to be generally acceptable, if certain improvements
were made.
Story poles were erected on the proposed Lot 3 at the boundaries of the building envelope for a
future house on this parcel. The applicant revised the locations of the poles after evaluating their
original position with the neighbors at 1 Owlswood Road. Although the proposed building
envelope pushed the future house site into the northwest corner of the site, the poles were still
clearly visible from the indoor and outdoor living areas of the neighboring home.
T 0""11 ofTiburoo
St:Uf RqJort
8/6/97
tc69602.apl
Page 4
A summary was also presented for the sizes of the existing structures on the site (Exhibit 21).
The single-family home currently has 1,031 square feet of floor area, with plans for a 600 square
foot addition submitted for Design Review approval, and another 400 square foot addition
anticipated in the future. The duplex has 3,000 square feet of floor area, with no plans for any
additions. No plans were required to be submitted for the potential conversion of the duplex.
The proposed home on Lot 3 would be 4,000 square feet in size, with an additional 500 square
foot garage.
Public testimony was received at each of the Planning Commission meetings regarding the
proposed subdivision. The primary objections came from the residents of 1 Owlswood Road,
whose concerns centered on view impacts and density concerns. A petition was submitted which
was signed by 28 neighboring residents opposing the requested subdivision (Exhibit 19).
On May 14, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised plans and heard additional
public testimony. The Commission concluded that the application was inconsistent with the
Town's policies regarding re-subdivision of existing developed lots. General Plan Policy LU-
19(e) discourages re-subdivision of existing developed lots unless the "proposed lot sizes and
density are compatible with surrounding pattern of development and the characteristics of the
subject property are comparable with those of surrounding properties." The density which would
be created by the development of a house on the proposed Lot 3, combined with the existing
single-family home on proposed Lots I and the existing duplex on proposed Lot 2, was found to
be incompatible with the density ofthe surrounding neighborhood. General Plan Policy LU-19
(a) further discourages re-subdivision unless "acceptable access can be readily provided." The
accesslegress via Las Palmas Way was not considered appropriate for the development of a new
single-family home. General Plan Policy LU-3 states that "the Town shall closely consider the
environmental constraints ofland through the development review process in determining the
location, type, and density of development." Story poles erected to illustrate the location of a
potential house on the proposed Lot 3 revealed that the revised building envelope for the
proposed Lot 3 would still result in the development of a house which would have significant
view and privacy impacts on surrounding residents. Because of the incompatibility with these
policies, the Planning Commission could not make the findings required by Section 14-3.6 of the
Tiburon Subdivision Ordinance to approve a Minor Subdivision. These policies and required
findings are attached as Exhibit 8. On this basis, the Planning Commission denied the requested
subdivision, as set forth in Resolution 97-11 (Exhibit 2).
BASIS FOR THE APPEAL:
The applicant's appeal (Exhibit I) of the Planning Commission's decision centers on four of the
findings which were made in denying the Minor Subdivision:
Tov.n ofTihuroo
~'tatf Report
8/6/97
tc69602.npl
Page 5
1. Inconsistency with General Plan Policy LU-19 ( e) l"Re-subdivision oLexisting legal lots
shall be discouraged unless. proposed lot sizes and density are cOlllPatible with
surrounding pattern of development and the characteristics of the subiect pro,perty are
cOII1Parable with those of surrounding properties. ")
The appeal contends that the lot sizes for proposed Lots 1 & 2 are consistent with those
of the parcels to the south of the site, and that the proposed Lot 3 is similar in size to
other parcels to the north. The appellant was originally reluctant to convert the existing
duplex to a single-family home, and asked the Planning Commission at the May 9 meeting
to allow the duplex to remain for at least five years. The applicant has now agreed to this
conversion, keeping the number of dwelling units on the site at three. The appeal states
that this would make both the lot sizes and density comparable to that of the surrounding
area.
Response:
The subject property lies in a transitional area between the smaller parcels along Tiburon
Boulevard and the larger parcels on the hillsides above the site. The size of the proposed
Lots 1 & 2 are similar to those of the parcels to the south. Although many of the larger
parcels to the north and east of the proposed Lot 3 are similar in size, many others have
sizes ranging from 25,000 square feet up to over an acre, which are substantially larger
than the 20,000 square foot area proposed for Lot 3.
The site is in a transitional location between neighborhoods of smaller and larger parcels.
However, most of the nearby homes on larger parcels are situated in lower density areas
than that of the subject property, and do not include lots developed with duplexes.
Converting the duplex to a single-family home would make the density of the property
more comparable to that of these surrounding areas.
2. Inconsistency with General Plan Policy LU-19 (a) ("Re-subdivision of existing legal lots
shall be discouraged unless...accel1table access can be readily provided ")
The appeal states that the revised access for the proposed Lot 3 utilizing Las Palmas Way
was considered to be acceptable to the Tiburon Fire District and was supported by Staff in
its May 14 report to the Commission. The appeal also claims that there was no consensus
amongst the Planning Commission regarding the inappropriateness of this access.
Response:
The Planning Commission determined that even though the access to the proposed Lot 3
via Las Palmas Way was preferable to the long driveway leading to Stony Hill Road, this
T O\ND ofTibW'oo
Staff Report
8/6/97
tc69602.apl
Page 6
access was still not appropriate for the construction of a new single-family home on this
site. Staff acknowledged in the May 14 report (Exhibit 4) that the use of Las Palmas Way
provided more direct access to Lot 3 than the driveway leading to Stony Hill Road.
However, Las Palmas Way is poorly maintained, and provides, at best, indirect access to
Lot 3. To reach this site, vehicles would need to follow a zig-zagging path which cuts
across not only the proposed Lots I & 2 but also another private parcel before reaching
Lot 3. This type of access is not consistent with that provided for the other new homes on
larger parcels to which the proposed house for Lot 3 is being compared.
In addition, the Planning Commission noted the difficulty in making left turns onto
Tiburon Bonlevard from the end of Las Palmas Way. This current situation was described
as dangerous, and would again not meet the standards that are customarily expected for a
high quality new single-family residence in this area.
3. Inconsistency with General Plan Policy LU-3 ('The Town shall closely consider the
environmental constraints ofland through the development review process in determining
the location. type and density of development. ")
The appeal claims that the view and privacy concerns raised by the Planning Commission
and the neighboring residents of I Owlswood Road are not significant. The story poles
erected at the request of the Commission at the boundaries of a reduced building envelope
for the proposed Lot 3 represent a volume larger than that which would be occupied by an
actual house on the site. Further, the views from the neighboring house which would be
impacted are described as "a partial, secondary view to the west of a neighbor's tree and
an occluded view ofMI. Tam."
Response:
The Planning Commission spent much of its deliberation on this project discussing the
potential view and privacy impacts which would be caused by the construction of a single-
family house on the proposed Lot 3. The story poles were most visible from the living
room and breakfast nook of the neighboring house, and from a patio area bordering the
subject property. The Commission felt that the proposed house would seriously impact
the privacy of the neighbors by visually intruding into these more personal residential
sp aces.
The heightened visibility of the future house from the adjacent property would also
diminish a significant portion of the existing views enjoyed by the neighboring residents.
The house at 1 Owlswood Road does not possess sweeping views of Richardson Bay and
other areas to the west, but rather has what is described by these neighbors as a 45 degree
view. Principle 7 (E) of the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines (Exhibit 9) states that "a
TO\\n ofTiburm
Staff Report
8/6/97
tc69602.apl
Page 7
wide panoramic view can accept more view blockage than the smaller slot view." The
Planning Commission found that the intrusion of the future house into the already
restricted view of the neighbor's house would result in an unacceptable view blockage for
these residents. There was some discussion about limiting the house on the proposed Lot
3 to one story in height to reduce these view impacts, but the applicant indicated that such
a house was not desirable, as the house would not have the same views enjoyed by most
of the surrounding homes.
It is strongly recommended that all Council members view the story poles from the house
at 1 Owlswood Road to ascertain for themselves the extent of privacy impacts and view
blockage which would be caused by the construction of a house on the proposed Lot 3.
4. The proiect would not promote the public health safety. or welfare. nor on balance further
the goals and policies of the General Plan with re&1)ect to re-subdivision of already
developed lots
The appeal states that there is no evidence on the record that the proposed project would
be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare. The drainage, biological and
geotechnical reports prepared by the applicant address safety concerns, and contain
mitigation measures that would insure that the project would not have any significant
impacts on neighboring properties. The appeal also contends that the project would
provide a public benefit by making improvements to the existing private street and
increasing the Town's property tax base.
Re&1)onse:
The Planning Commission determined that the project would not be an overall benefit to
the Town ofTiburon and would not be considered "good planning" under current policies
and planning principles. The Commission concluded that the proposed lots were too
small, and their eventual ultimate development would overcrowd this site. Vehicular
access to the subdivision would clearly be substandard. Combined with the view and
privacy impacts which would be caused by the construction of a house on the proposed
Lot 3, these concerns were deemed to be inconsistent with the policies of the Land Use
Element of the Tiburon General Plan for the resubdivision of existing legal lots.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. Deny the appeal.
2. Direct Staff to return with a Resolution memorializing the action of the Council.
Town ofTihurrn.
Staff Report
8/6/97
tc69602.apl
Page 8
EXHTRITS:
1. Notice of Appeal filed July 9, 1997
2. Resolution No. 97-11, denying Minor Subdivision No. 96902, dated May 28, 1997
3. Planning Commission Staff report dated April 9, 1997
4. Planning Commission Staff report dated May 14,1997
5. Minutes of the April 9, 1997, Planning Commission meeting
6. Minutes of the May 14, 1997, Planning Commission meeting
7. Minutes of the May 28,1997, Planning Commission meeting
8. Selected portions of the Land Use Element of the Tiburon General Plan and Section 14-
3.6 of the Tiburon Subdivision Ordinance
9. Principle 7 (E) of the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines
10. Application form and additional submittal information
11. Site Plan dated December 13, 1996
12. Revised site plan and driveway access plan dated May 7, 1997
13. Letter from Dr. Ann-Marie Meagher, M.D., dated February 23, 1997
14. Letter from Leroy L. and Elizabeth H. Little, dated March 10, 1997
15. Letter from Kent N. Allen, dated March 11, 1997
16. Letter from John and Ann Gigounas, dated March 11, 1997
17. Letter from Julien LE. Hoffinan, M.D., and Kathleen W. Lewis, M.D., dated March 24,
1997
18. Letter from Allan N. Littman, dated March 25, 1997
19. Petition opposing the proposed request, dated March 28, 1997
20. Letters from Dixon and Sharon Power, dated April 4, 1997
21. Additional submittal information dated May 2, 1997
22. Letters from Dixon and Sharon Power, dated May 5 & 6, 1997
23. Letter from Earth Science Consultants, dated May 5, 1997
24. Letter from Fred and Ruth Mantegani, dated April 28, 1997
25. Letter from Lam Odland, dated May 7, 1997
26. Letter from Leroy L. and Elizabeth H. Little, dated May 9, 1997
27. Letter from Fred and Ruth Mantegani, dated May 9, 1997
28. Letter from Dixon and Sharon Power, dated May 10, 1997
29. Letter from Frank Bonardi, dated May 13, 1997
30. Letter from Charles 1. Gallagher, dated May 14, 1997
31. Draft Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration
32. Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan
C:\REPORTS\TC69602.APL
T ov.n of Tiburoo
Staff Report
8/6/97
tc69602.apl
TOWN OF TIBURON
cc: ;2/0
I?:;O
p~-~"~:eD ~
,Ji,>: 9 1'/:';
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TC".N~,J Oi= Tl8URON
F=-'~ ::~::":3 3. BU:l..DING DE?T~
APPELLANT
Nmne: Dixon and Sh~rnn Pnwpr
Address: 885B Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon CA 94920
Telephone: 41 S- Ii S 0 q
(Work)
(Home)
ACTION BEING APPEALED
Body: Planninq Commission
Date of Action: May 28, 1 997
Name of Applicant: Dixon and Sharon Power
Nature of Application: Minor Subdivision
GROlJNDS FOR APPEAL
(Attach additional pages, if necessary)
SEE ATTACHED
Last Day to Fi!e:
Date Received: ~." t::l 97
D""fH""",~a..0 ((" {1 'Ft-
EXHIBIT NO, r
~ 'O~t.#
Fee ($300.00) Paid:
January 1996
.".^
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Dixon and Sharon Power
Minor Subdivision #69602
June 4, 1997
The appellants believe that the findings made by the Planning Commission on May
28, 1997 to deny the proposed minor subdivision are not supported by the facts in
the record and should be brought before the Town Council for review. Specifically,
the grounds for the Planning Commission decision to deny Minor Subdivision
#69602 are as follows:
1. Planning Commission Finding #1: Consistencv with General Plan Policy
LU-19(e) which discourages re-subdivision of existing developed lots unless
the "proposed lot sizes and density are compatible with surrounding patterns
of development..."
The proposed lot split would create two lots of 11, 324 square feet and 10, 245
square feet in the southern portion of the property and one lot of 20,000
square feet in the northern portion. The lower lots (each around one quarter
acre) would conform in size to existing lots located south of the property. The
upper lot would be compatible with the existing pattern of lots which become
larger as one moves up the slope.
The Staff Report of May 14, 1997 states that "if the duplex were converted to a
single-family home, questions regarding the density and overburdening
caused by development of the site would be answered. It...would be more
consistent with the present and future development of surrounding properties
than the four units originally proposed. ...[T]he lowered density of the revised
plans would appear to bring this proposed subdivision into consistency with
the land use policy." [Refers to LU-19(a,c)]
Thus the record indicates conformity with this General Plan policy. The
appellant is willing to convert the duplex to a single family unit and stated this
at the April 9, 1997 Planning Commission meeting (refer to Draft Planning
Commission minutes, April 9,1997, page 27).
2. Plannina Commission Findina #2: Inconsistencv with General Plan
Policy LU-19(a). Policy 19 further states re-subdivision of existing lots should
not be considered unless "acceptable access can be readily provided." The
Planning Commission found that the existing access was not considered
appropriate to a new single family home, citing the road was indirect and
poorly maintained.
The Staff Report of May 14 states that "[t]he Tiburon Fire District has reviewed
the revised plans. Some improvements may be necessary...but...if these
improvements are constructed, then access to the site via the private street
would be acceptable." The Staff Report further states... "[t]he modified
access...would appear to bring this proposed subdivision into consistency with
this land use policy." [Refers to LU-19(a,c)].
The findings in Resolution 97-11 states the Planning Commission... "noted the
existing difficulty of making left turns onto Tiburon Boulevard from the private
EXHIBIT NO. I. p, '2. oF'l
street, and noted that an additional unit would exacerbate the problem." A
review of the written and oral record reveals one Planning Commissioner
believed access off of Tiburon Boulevard was "horrendous;" and two Planning
Commissioners indicated Tiburon Boulevard was the preferred access to the
applicant's property (Draft Planning Commission minutes, April 9, 1997,
pages 23, 24, and 25).
The record does not indicate Planning Commission consensus that Tiburon
Boulevard, with improvements, is not an acceptable access to the property.
Also the record indicates the access is acceptable to the Fire Department with
installation of certain improvements.
3. Plannina Commission Finding #3: Inconsistency with General Plan
Policy LU-13. ",..the Town shall closely consider the environmental
constraints of land through the development review process in determining
the location, type and density of development." Finding #3 further states... "the
development of a house ... would have significant view and privacy impacts on
surrounding residents."
The appellant submitted several environmental reports which cleared the
property of any biological concerns; geotechnical concerns were deemed
mitigatable with standard engineering practices.
Regarding view irnpacts, the April 9, 1997 Staff Report and the Draft Planning
Commission minutes of April 9, 1997 state that in order for the Commission to
fully understand the view impact, story poles should be erected. The
appellant complied with that request.
The May 14, 1997 Staff Report states that "...the proposed house would still
impact the view and privacy of the existing residents." Apparently this
statement was based on a site visit by staff to the home of the only neighbor
whose view crosses the property. This neighbor is located at 1 Owlswood
Road. The statement of impact appears to be based on the viewability of the
story poles from inside and outside the subject home.
Based on oral commentary at the May 14, 1997 meeting, the Planning
Commission did not voice a consensus on view impacts. Three
Commissioners did not mention view impacts in their closing remarks; one did
express significant concerns with view and privacy issues.
It is important to remember the story poles do not outline a building , only a
building envelope. The record stated that the view of most concern to the
adjacent neighbor at 1 Owlswood Road was "their water view." At the
subsequent Planning Commission meeting, the resident of 1 Owlswood Road
stated ... "the proposed house will take away 10% of their view which is only
45 degrees now." (Planning Cornrnission minutes, May 14, 1997). [It is noted
for the rGlcord that with the exception of the residents at 1 Owlswood, none of
the other petition signers came to the public hearing to express concern about
view impacts to their homes specifically resulting from development of
proposed Lot #3.] It is also noted that the residents at 1 Owlswood Road are
the only residents whose view crosses proposed Lot #3.
The appellant disagrees with the Planning Commission Finding #3 which
states the view impact is significant since there is no evidence in the record
EXHIBIT NO. I --p, '3 OF 4
which substantiates this claim. The view in question is not the primary view of
the water, which would be entirely preserved, but is a partial, secondary view
to the west of a neighbors tree and an occluded view of the Mount Tam ridge.
4. Plannina Commission Finding H of resolution 97-11: public health, safety
and welfare would not be promoted nor would the goals of the general plan
be furthered by the proposed re-subdivision.
There is no evidence in the record that the project would be detrimental to
public health, safety and welfare. The project geotechnical report did not find
any conditions that would adversely affect either the project site or adjacent
properties. The report recommends some standard engineering resolutions to
address concerns about drainage. The project would contribute to public
welfare by improvements to an existing access road, and an increase to the
property tax base of the Town.
It is the appellants' hope that the Town Council will carefully re-view the facts on
this project and uphold the appeal. The appellants have worked in the spirit of
compromise per the Town's Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings. To this end, they
have accepted the deferment of an access easement to which they have legal
title; agreed to convert the duplex at substantial cost to them; given up 80% of
their lot as a possible building site; reduced their building envelope by 30% and
agreed to make design concessions in order to accommodate maximum view
protection for their neighbor at 1 Owlswood Road.
The appellants continue to seek ways to make this project work for all parties
involved and trust the Town Council will carefully examine the issues and the
evidence at hand.
EXHIBIT NO. ,
~ y OF'"
fFllfL~ ~(Q)~W
~
RESOLUTION NO, 97-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TffiURON
DENYING A TENTATIVE MAP FOR A 3-LOT SUBDIVISION
AT 885 B, C & D TffiURON BOULEVARD
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO 55-261-11
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town ofTiburon does resolve as follows:
Section 1. Findings
A On August 8, 1996, the Town ofTiburon received an application for a Tentative Map to re-
subdivide the 0.95 acre subject property into 3 lots (Application /;169602). The application
consists of the following:
1. Application Form received August 8, 1996
2. Revised Tentative Map received May 7, 1997, prepared by Bracken & Keane
3. Revised Drainage Study prepared by Bracken & Keane, January, 1997
4. Geotechnical investigation prepared by Earth Science Consultants, April 6, 1996
5. Biological Reconnaissance prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., October 30, 1996
C. The Planning Commission held duly-noticed public hearings on April 9, 1997, and May 14,
1997, and heard and considered testimony from interested persons.
D. Applicant originally proposed access to the proposed new residence via a 540 foot long
driveway extending across a large undeveloped property from the terminus of Stony Hill
Road The Planning Commission found this access unacceptable for reasons set forth in the
Staff report of Apri19, 1997, and the applicant modified the project to derive all access from
Tiburon Boulevard.
E. At the meeting of April 9, 1997, the applicant was directed by the Planning Commission to
make other modifications to the proposed plans in an attempt to address serious concerns
related to view blockage, density and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. In
response, a building envelope was proposed for the proposed Lot 3 which was further away
from nearby residences on Owlswood Road and story poles were erected to depict a typical
house on Lot 3. The applicant still proposed to maintain the duplex on the proposed Lot 2,
creating the potential for a total offour dwelling units within this subdivision.
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 97- 11
May 28, 1997
1
EXHIBIT NO. 2
~...<( fR 3
~
F. The Planning Commission finds, based upon application materials and analysis presented in
the April 9 and May 14, 1997 Staff Reports as well as visits to the site, that the proposal is
inconsistent with goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan specific to further subdivision
of already developed property described below:
1. General Plan Policy LU-19( e) discourages re-subdivision of existing developed lots
unless the "proposed lot sizes and density are compatible with surrounding pattern of
development and the characteristics of the subject property are comparable with those
of surrounding properties." The density which would be created by the development
ofa house on the proposed Lot 3, combined with the existing single-family home on
proposed Lots I and the existing duplex on proposed Lot 2, would be incompatible
with the density of the surrounding neighborhood. The nearby parcels on Owlswood
Road and above the site, which most closely resemble the characteristics of the
proposed Lot 3, are generally larger than this proposed parcel, and situated within
lower density surroundings. The Planning Commission concluded that construction
of a residence on Lot 3 would loom over the existing duplex and create view blockage
from an existing residence on Owlswood Road.
2. General Plan Policy LU-19 (a) further discourages re-subdivision unless "acceptable
access can be readily provided." Although the applicant has received permission to
access the proposed Lot 3 via the private street leading to Tiburon Boulevard which
currently serves the rest of this property, this access is not considered appropriate for
the development of a new single-family home. The indirect and poorly maintained
access provided by this private street would be incompatible with the character of a
new home on the hillside area of the proposed Lot 3. The Planning Commission
noted the existing difficulty of making left turns onto Tiburon Boulevard from the
private street, and noted that an additional unit would exacerbate the problem
3. General Plan Policy LU-3 states that "the Town shall closely consider the
environmental constraints of land through the development review process in
determining the location, type, and density of development." Story poles were
erected to illustrate the location of a potential house on the proposed Lot 3. These
gory poles revealed that the revised building envelope for the proposed Lot 3 would
still result in the development of a house which would have significant view and
privacy impacts on surrounding residents.
4. Section 14-3.6 of the Tiburon Subdivision Ordinance requires that the Planning
Commission make findings in approving a Minor Subdivision related to consistency
with the Tiburon General Plan and the suitability of the site for the proposed density
of development. As stated above, the proposed subdivision would be contrary to the
.General Plan policy specifically addressing re-subdivision of already developed lots.
Further, the size of the site results in proposed parcels that would be smaller than
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 97- 11
May 28.1007
2
'-~vlTrBlrr NO 2
.e..iV::L ~ .
P. 2. ~ 3
those in other nearby developments, resulting in a density of proposed development
which is inappropriate to the surrounding area.
~
G. The Planning Commission finds that the current density of the subject property, developed
with a duplex and a single family dwelling, is an appropriate and reasonable level of
development for the property and is in keeping with the characteristics of the site and the
surrounding neighborhood. This denial does not deprive the owner of a reasonable economic
use of the property.
H. The Planning Commk'iion finds that the project would not promote the public health, safety,
or welfure, nor on balance further the goals and policies of the General Plan with respect to
re-subdivision of already developed lots.
Section 2 Denial.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the Town of
Tiburon does hereby deny the proposed Tentative Map application for the reasons set forth above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town
ofTiburon on May 28, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Greenberg, Klainnont & Schrier
Berger & Sadrieh
Pa-Jt~
PAUL SCHRIER, CHAIRMAN
TlliURON PLANNING COMMISSION
ilt/L~A9~
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
PC69602d.res
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 97-11
May 28. 1997
3
. -;:'UBIT NO. 2-
~. 3 OF J.
,--
TOWN OF TmURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
s-
To: PLANNING COMMISSION
From: DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER
Subject: DIXON AND SHARON POWER, 885 B,C & D TffiURON BOULEVARD
MINOR SUBDIVISION #69602
REQUEST TO DIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS
Date: APRIL 9, 1997
PROJECT DATA
Address: 885 B, C & D Tiburon Boulevard
APNo.: 55-261-11
File No.: Minor Subdivision #69602
General Plan: Medium High Density Residential
Zoning: R-l (Single-Family Residential)
Property Size: 41,569 square feet
Current Use: Single-family dwelling and duplex
Owner: Dixon and Sharon Power
Applicant: Same
Date Complete: December 1, 1996
Permit Streamlining Act Deadline: May 5, 1997
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal involves the subdivision of one parcel into three lots for property located at 885 B,
C & D Tiburon Boulevard. This property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling and
a duplex. Both structures were constructed prior to incorporation of the Town ofTiburon. The
duplex is a legal nonconforming use.
The site has an area of 41,569 square feet (0.95 acres). The proposal would create three separate
lots. The single-family dwelling would be situated on an 11,324 square foot lot (Lot 1). Lot 2,
which would contain the duplex, would have an area of 10,245 square feet. The third lot would
have an area of20,000 square feet, and could be developed with a single-family dwelling of up to
4,000 square feet in size in the future.
TlmJRON PlANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
APRIT.. 9,1997
EXHIBIT NO.3-
'P. , CF 7
Page 2
ANALYSIS
Nonconforming use status
The proposed subdivision would not alter the nonconforming use status of the existing duplex.
The nonconforming use of the property would be changed from the current condition involving
three dwelling units on a single R-llot to a situation in which the single-family home becomes a
permitted use on Lot 1 and the duplex is a nonconforming use on Lot 2. The reduced area for the
lot upon which the duplex is situated (from 41,569 square feet for the existing parcel to a
proposed lot size of 10,245 square feet) does not alter the reason for the nonconformity (that is,
too many dwelling units on an R-llot). If anything, the level of nonconformity is reduced, by
having only two units on a single lot instead of the current three units.
Property access
The two existing buildings on the site have access to Tiburon Boulevard by utilizing a private
street which serves 10 other neighboring parcels. The agreement which provides this access does
not permit any additional homes on this site to use the private street. Access to the proposed Lot
3 would be provided from Stony Hill Road to the north by a driveway within an existing access
easement extending across an undeveloped 5.6 acre parcel to the north. This parcel is referred to
as the "Tai" property in the Tiburon General Plan. Future development of the Tai oroperty, with
up to SL"'( lots, would either need to be designed around this driveway or provide alternate access
for Lot 3.
A 540 foot long driveway would be constructed to serve the future house on Lot 3. The length of
this proposed driveway raises concerns about emergency access to the future house on Lot 3.
Fire and police officials have requested that the driveway have a minimum width of 12 feet, a
maximum grade of 18% and a turnaround at the end for emergency vehicles. In addition, the
al ;>licant is proposing to construct two Cat turnouts along the length of the driveway, each of
which widens the driveway to 16 feet for a 40 foot long portion.
Slope conditions
The site has a varying slope, with the upper portion of the property having a greater slope than
the lower portion. The existing buildings are situated on the lower, less sloped areas of the site.
The proposed Lot 3 would occupy the more steeply sloped portion of the site, which has a slope
of approximately 20%. Although the proposed Lot 3 does not have a severe slope, the grade of
this portion of the site is more consistent with that of surrounding hillside parcels than the flatter
areas contained within proposed Lots I & 2. These two proposed lots are more similar to other
parcels along Tiburon Boulevard which have more minimal slopes.
TIBURON PlANNING COM:MISSION
STAFF REPORT
APRIL 9. 1997
EXHIBIT NO. '3
P. "2.~ 7
Page 3
Geotechnical concerns
The slope and other physical conditions of Lot 3 create potential geotechnical and drainage
concerns for the development of this proposed parcel. A geotechnical investigation of the site
was performed by a consultant hired by the applicant (Exhibit C of the Draft Negative
Declaration, attached as Exhibit 2). Ibis investigation encountered evidence oflandslide deposits,
but made detailed recommendations for improvements to be completed as part of any future
construction on this property. These recommendations included deeper and well-reinforced
drilIed pier and grade beam foundations to a minimum depth of 20 feet, engineered retaining walls
for all permanent cut slopes, a deep trench sub drain system, and minimized site grading, cutting
and filling.
Drainage concerns
A drainage study was also prepared for this project (Exhibit D of the Draft Negative Declaration).
The projected runoff from the watershed on which site is located would increase by 2.1 % after
construction of a single-family dwelling on Lot 3. In the case of a 100 year storm, the projected
water flow from this entire watershed could still be handled by the existing concrete box culvert
crossing Tiburon Boulevard below the site. A series of catch basins and storm drain pipes are
planned to be installed along the proposed driveway to the northeast comer of Lot 3. A new
drainage easement is also proposed along the southern property line, eventually emptying water
from the site into the natural winter season creek located on the adjacent parcel to the southeast.
Several neighboring property owners have expressed concerns with the addition of this storm
water to the existing creek, due to fear of erosion and flooding.
View concerns
The development on the proposed Lot 3 would likely result in view concerns for one adjacent
home, located at 1 Owlswood Road. Ibis adjacent home has views to the west of Richardson
Bay which could be obscured by the construction of a home on Lot 3. These view lines run
across the middle of the proposed Lot 3, and would be impacted by the construction of even a
low profile home on this adjacent parcel. Other homes below the proposed Lot 3, including the
existing single-family home and duplex on proposed Lots I & 2, would have their views up the
surrounding hillside somewhat compromised by the construction of a house on the upper lot. The
precise view impacts are difficult to determine at this time, as the applicant has not yet installed
story poles for any home on Lot 3.
TillURON PlANNING CQlvfMISSION
STAFF REPORT
APRIL 9.1997
EXHIBIT No.3
p. ~ of 7
Page 4
Public comments
Letters have been received from several neighboring property owners objecting to the proposed
subdivision, along with a petition signed by 28 local residents. These residents have expressed
concerns that the project would result in problems related to soil stability, drainage and pollution
runofl; dust, light and glare, view blockage, and aesthetics. Most of these concerns stem from the
feeling that the addition of one more house onto this property would constitute excessive
development of the site.
General Plan Consistency and Zoning Compliance
The current R-l zoning and Medium High Density Residential General Plan designation for this
property would theoretically allow the development of up to four homes on a parcel of this size.
Most of the nearby parcels with these designations have lesser slopes and are located closer to
Tiburon Boulevard, much like the existing dwellings on the subject site; parcels the size of the
proposed Lots 1 & 2 in this area could support one dwelling unit each. The more heavily sloped
property contained on the proposed Lot 3 is more similar to the RPD and RO-2 zoned areas to
the north and east of the site; these designations would generally allow a total of two dwelling
units on a parcel the size of the entire subject property, or one dwelling unit on a parcel the size of
the proposed Lot 3. In essence, the applicant is proposing a subdivision which would allow a
total of four dwelling units on property with characteristics which would normally permit only
three units (one on each of the three proposed lots).
The Tiburon General Plan also stresses that the physical constraints of a site should be considered
in the evaluation of projects such as this. Land Use Policy LU-3 states that "the Town shall
closely consider the environmental constraints ofland through the development review process in
determining the location, type, and density of development." Further, Land Use Policy LU-19
(a. & e.) states that "resubdivision of vacant legal lots and existing developed lots shall be
discouraged unIess...acceptable access can be readily provided [and] proposed lot sizes and
density are compatible with surrounding pattern of development and the characteristics of the
subject property are comparable with those of surrounding properties." The slope and access of
Lot 3, along with the characteristics of parcels near the site, would therefore discourage the
density of the proposed subdivision.
The existing duplex is a legal nonconforming use, and would remain so on the proposed Lot 2.
The building setbacks indicated for the proposed Lot 3 are consistent with those required by the
R-1 zone.
Staff has previously discussed the potential for conversion of the existing duplex to a single-family
home (or even a single-family home with an attached secondary dwelling unit). Unfortunately, the
TffiURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
APRlL 9. 1997
EXHIBIT NO. 3
P,YtJPI
Page 5
building was constructed as a true duplex and conversion is not a practical option, according to
the owner.
Environmental Status
An initial study/draft mitigated negative declaration was prepared for this project and released for
public comment on February 14, 1997. The initial study/draft mitigated negative declaration is
attached as Exhibit 2. The public review period ended on March 12, 1997. Three letters and the
previously mentioned petition were received regarding the negative declaration, although only one
letter was received before the end of the review period.
The initial study identified the potential for significant environmental impacts in the following
categories:
Geologic Hazards
Air Qualiry
Water Quality
Noise
Emergency Evacuation Plan
Aesthetics
Mitigation measures and a draft mitigation monitoring program (Exhibit 3) have been developed
which would reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts to less-than-significant
levels. The mitigation measures related to geotechnical, drainage and emergency services impacts
have been previously described.
Tiburon Subdivision Ordinance
Section 14-3.6 of the Tiburon Subdivision Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission make
the following findings in approving a Minor Subdivision:
a. Plan Consistency. As stated above, the proposed map is inconsistent with the
General Plan policies which state that resubdivision oflots shall be discouraged
unless acceptable access can be readily provided and the proposed density is
compatible with the surrounding pattern of development.
b. Design or Improvement. The approval of another home on this property, with its
sloped area and lengthy driveway, would be inconsistent the General Plan policy to
closely consider the environmental constraints ofland in determining the location,
type, and density of development.
TillURON PLANNlNG COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
APRIL 9.1997
EXHIBIT NO. '3
? '5 rK7
......
Page 6
c. T)(pe of Development The slope of the proposed Lot 3, along with the
geotechnical and drainage concerns previously addressed, appear to make the site
physically unsuitable for the type of development proposed.
d. Density of Development The slope, geotechnical and drainage concerns for this
property make it physically unsuitable for the proposed density of development.
e. Fish or Wildlife. The biological study prepared for this site, included in the Draft
Negative Declaration, found no endangered wildlife or vegetation on the site, and
the project is therefore unlikely to cause substantial environmental damage to these
resources.
f Public Health. The design of the proposed subdivision has no characteristics that
would cause significant public health problems.
g. Access. The access to the proposed Lot 3 would utilize an existing access
easement across the Tai property. The subdivision would not conflict with other
access easements in the area.
h. Dedications. There are no land or improvements which are proposed to be
dedicated to the Town as part of this project.
I. Discharge of Waste. The proposed house on Lot 3 would be required to hook up
to a sewer system, in conformance with the requirements of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board. A letter received from the Sanitary District No.5 of Marin
County (Exlnoit II) stated that more information is necessary regarding the private
sewer line that this house would hook up to before permits for this connection can
be issued.
J. Regional Housing Needs. The subdivision of this property to allow the
construction of a new single-family home would be compatible with the need to
construct additional housing within the South Marin region.
As reviewed above, not all of the required findings can be made for this proposed subdivision.
CONCLUSION
The applicant has worked diligently and in good faith to make this project conform as much as
possible to Town regulations and ordinances. However, after careful consideration of all
TIBURON PlANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
APRU. 9,1997
EXHIBIT NO, 3
P. (P ()f 7
.
Page 7
information received, Staff finds itself unable to recommend approval of the project for the
following reasons:
1. The development of a single parcel which must be accessed by a very long
driveway which bisects a large, undeveloped property which has yet to be master
planned is not consistent with sound planning principles.
2. The addition of a fourth residence to this property would overburden the site,
causing potential drainage and geological problems.
3. The property is already utilized for three dwelling units. The denial of this
subdivision would not result in any takings or deprivation of use for the property
owner.
4. The subdivision of this land to allow a fourth dwelling unit would result in an
inappropriate level of development which is inconsistent with the present and
future development of surrounding properties.
5. The proposed subdivision does nothing to promote the public health, safety and
general welfare, nor on balance furthers the goals and objectives of the Tiburon
General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take public testimony on this item.
2. If the Commission concurs with Staff's position as set forth in this report, the Commission
should indicate its intention to deny the application, and direct Staff to return at the next
meeting with a resolution forma1izing the denial.
3. If the Commission chooses to approve the project, it should:
a. Adopt the Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and
b. Direct Staff to prepare a resolution of approval for adoption at the next
meeting.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
APRIL 9.1997
EXHIBIT NO. 3
~'!?f7
TOWN OF TmURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
6
To: PLANNING COMMISSION
From: DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER
Subject: DIXON AND SHARON POWER, 885 B,C & D TffiURON BOULEVARD
MINOR SUBDMSION #69602
REQUEST TO DIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS
CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 9. 1997 MEETING
Date: MAY 14, 1997
BACKGROUND
The proposal involves the subdivision of one parcel into three lots for property located at 885 B,
C & D Tiburon Boulevard. This property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling and
a duplex. The proposal would create three separate lots. The single-family dwelling would be
situated on Lot 1, while Lot 2 would contain the duplex. The third lot would have an area of
20,000 square feet, and could be developed with a single-family dwelling in the future.
The Planning Commission considered this request at the April 9, 1997, meeting. After reviewing
the proposal, the Commission continued the request to the May 14, 1997, meeting, with the
following direction to the applicant:
Access to the proposed Lot 3 from Tiburon Boulevard should be established. The
nature of any improvements to the private street serving the site should be detailed,
and the plans reviewed by the Tiburon Fire District.
A building envelope should be established for the future home on Lot 3. The
envelope should be created to minimize the view impacts on neighboring residents,
and respecting setback and drainage requirements. Story poles should be erected
around this proposed envelope, colored at the first and second story elevations and
with string tied between the poles to give a better idea of the bulk of the house.
Details should be provided of the existing and proposed size of the structures on
the proposed Lots 1 & 2.
The duplex shall be converted to a single-family residence.
TffiURON PlANNING COMMISSION
Sf AFF REPORT
MAY 14, 1997
EXHIBIT NO. 4
P. l oPe.(
Page 2
ANALYSIS
The applicant has now submitted the revised plans for the project. The plans show the access to
the proposed Lot 3 from Tiburon Boulevard via the private street which currently provides access
to the homes on this site. The applicant has submitted a letter from Fred and Ruth Mantegani
granting access across this street to the proposed Lot 3. However, the letter states that this
access would terminate upon development of the Tai property to the north of the site. The
revised site plan shows the location of a garage on Lot 3 which could be served by a driveway
connecting to the private street, and then later converted to use the access across the Tai property
to Stony Hill Road.
Staff feels that this arrangement is unacceptable. The eventual development of the Tai property
may not necessarily create an access opportunity for the proposed Lot 3 that allows adequate
circulation for both parcels. The appropriateness of the access from the Tai property should be
evaluated when that site is developed, and not automatically approved at this time.
The Tiburon Fire District has reviewed the revised plans. Some improvements may be necessary
to increase the turning radius at the corners of the driveway leading up to Lot 3 to allow fire
apparatus to make these turns. The 19% grade shown for a portion of the proposed driveway is
steeper than that normally allowed by the Fire District, but could be acceptable if improved with
grooved paving or other non-slip surfaces. As previously required, a hydrant should be installed
at the some point on the site, possibly at the entrance to Lot 3. The Fire District has indicated
that if these improvements are constructed, then access to the site via the private street would be
acceptable.
A plan has been submitted showing some of the improvements proposed to the private street.
The plan indicates that vegetation at the street entrance would be trimmed to provide better
visibility for traffic turning onto Tiburon Boulevard. No other specific improvements to the street
are indicated on these plans.
Story poles have been erected on the proposed Lot 3 at the boundaries of the building envelope
for a future house on this parcel. The applicant has revised the locations of the poles after
evaluating their original position with the neighbors at 1 Owlswood Road, whose views would be
most directly impacted by the construction of this house. Staff has viewed the story poles from
this neighboring home, where the poles are clearly visible from the indoor and outdoor living
areas of these residents. Staff believes that, even within the revised building envelope, the
proposed house would still impact the views and privacy of the existing residents.
A summary has been presented for the sizes ofthe existing structures on the site. The single-
family home has 1,031 square feet of floor area. Plans for a 600 square foot addition have been
TIBURON PlANNING COMl\lllSSION
STAFF REPORT
MAY 14, 1997
EXHIBIT NO, tl
f. 2- oF""
Page 3
submitted for Design Review approvaL and another 400 square foot addition is anticipated in the
future. The duplex has 3,000 square feet of floor area, with no plans for any additions. No plans
were required to be submitted at this time for the potential conversion of the duplex. The
proposed home on Lot 3 would be 4,000 square feet in size, with an additiona1500 square foot
garage.
The revisions made by the applicant address a number of the concerns previously raised by the
Planning Commission and Staff. The use of the private street to provide more direct access for
the proposed Lot 3 to Tiburon Boulevard eliminates the concerns raised by the long driveway to
Stony Hill Road previously proposed. If the duplex is converted to a single-family home,
questions regarding the density and overburdening caused by development on the site would be
answered. The subdivision of this land, while maintaining the current number of dwelling units on
the site, would be more consistent with the present and future development of surrounding
properties than the four units originally proposed.
The potential house on Lot 3 could still have negative effects on nearby homes. Although these
issues are often addressed more fully during the Design Review process, the envelope proposed
by the applicant creates the potential for a house which could have significant view and privacy
impacts on neighboring residents
Land Use Policy LU-19 (a.& e.) of the Land Use Element of the Tiburon General Plan states that
"resubdivision of vacant legal lots and existing developed lots shall be discouraged unless...
acceptable access can be readily provided [and] proposed lot sizes and density are compatible
with surrounding pattern of development and the characteristics of the subject property are
comparable with those of surrounding properties." The modified access and lowered density of
the revised plans would appear to bring this proposed subdivision into consistency with this land
use policy.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take additional public testimony on this
item
2. If the Commission concurs with Staff's position as set forth in the previous report, the
Commission should indicate its intention to deny the application, and direct Staff to return
at the next meeting with a resolution formalizing the denial.
3. If the Commission determioes that the revisions to the proposed plans are appropriate and
chooses to approve the project, it should:
TIBURON PlANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MAY 14, 1997
EXHIBIT NO. t..I-
v. 3 of 4-
Page 4
a. Adopt the Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and
b. Direct Staff to prepare a resolution of approval for adoption at the next
meeting.
EXHIBITS
1. Additional submittal information dated May 2, 1997
2. Letters from Dixon and Sharon Power, dated May 5 & 6, 1997
3. Letter from Earth Science Consultants, dated May 5,1997
4. Letter from Fred and Ruth Mantegani, dated April 28, 1997
5. Revised site plan and driveway access plan dated May 7, 1997
C:\REPORTSIPC69602A.RPT
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORr
MAY 14, 1997
EXHIBIT NO. 4
~ 401=- 4
a revised Draft EIR analyzing those issues and other issues that have come up during the public
comment period be prepared and circulated for public review and comment. Motion carried 5-0.
The Commission took a five minute break during which Chair Schrier excused himself for the rest
of the meeting. Vice-Chair Greenberg reopened the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
4. 215 BLACKFIELD DRIVE: CONDffiONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO
EXPAND PAVED PARKING LOT AREA AT CONGREGATION KOL SHOFAR.
MIS SadriehlBerger to continue without discussion to the April 23, 1997, meeting (3-0-1 abstain)
PUBLIC HEARING
75.
885 B, C, & D TIBURON BOULEVARD: MINOR SUBDIVIS~ON #69602, REQUEST
TO DIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS; DIXON AND SHARON POWER,
owners and applicants; Assessor Parcel No. 55-261-11.
Senior Planner Watrous presented the Staff Report. This proposal subdivides a one acre parcel
into three lots: one of 11,324 square feet, which currently has a single family dwelling; one of
10,245 square feet which has a duplex; and the remainder of 20,000 square feet for a single family
dwelling. The two existing buildings have access onto Tiburon Boulevard, while it is being
proposed the new Lot 3 be accessed from a 540' driveway north of the property from Stony Hill
Road along an existing easement. The property has varying slopes, with Lots 1 and 2 being flatter
and similar in slope to neighboring properties along Tiburon Boulevard, and Lot 3 with
approximately a 20% slope being more similar to surrounding hillside parcels. There are
geotechnical concerns for Lot 3 investigated by the applicant's consultant. Because of evidence
of landslide deposits, there were recommendations for deeper and well-reinforced drilled pier and
grade beam foundations, engineered retaining walls, a subdrain system, and minimized site
grading. A new drainage easement is also proposed along the southern property line, eventually
emptying water from the site into the natural winter season creek on adjacent parcel to the
southeast. The view concerns are mainly for the occupants of 1 Owlswood, and to a lesser degree
other homes below Lot 3. There have been letters and petitions received, which raised concerns
about soil stabijity, drainage, light and glare, dust, view blockage, and aesthetics. Most feel this
constitutes an excessive development of the site. The current R-l zoning does allow four parcels
on a lot this size, but in most cases this would result in three lots because of the site constraints.
The General Plan states that physical constraints should be considered in evaluation of projects
including "acceptable access" and density compatible with surrounding development. In this case
access can be provided from Stony Hill, but the question is whether the length of the driveway
is acceptable.
Staff does not recommend approval of this project as access is via the long driveway, the fourth
residence overburdens site with potential drainage and geological problems, denial would not
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRlL 9. 1997 MINUTES NO. 768
9
EXHIBIT NO. 5
p. t Or 7
result in takings or deprivation, and the level of development is inconsistent with the surrounding
area. Staff recommends that the Commission take testimony and deny the application.
Berger asked whether no funher access provided through the existing accessway means that no
more than three units could exist on the site, so that if the duplex were converted to a single-
family dwelling Lot 3 could be accessed from Tiburon Boulevard. Watrous replied the applicant
may know the specific language and the access agreement could be amended. Berger commented
that at some point someone thought the long access across the Tai property was necessary, since
the easement is there, yet we don't think that building it is a good idea. He wondered whether
staff would approve access once the Tai property was built. Watrous replied that the actual
arrangement would be altered to fit the Tai development plans, but that it is incumbent upon them
to provide access. Just because access is available, doesn't mean it should be developed.
Anderson advised that this property has more than one access to a public street. It is up to the
Plarming Commission to decide which one, or both, is appropriate, but 'it does have access from
Tiburon Boulevard and the easement across the Tai property.
Sadrieh stated that the Town has restrictions on access to certain streets and wondered whether
there were any on Tiburon Boulevard. Watrous replied that a private driveway is legitimate
access. Klairmont asked whether a left turn can be made from Tiburon Boulevard and he replied
it can.
Greenberg asked whether the drainage study considered the impact of developing the Tai property
or just the house and driveway, and what was the Commission's obligation to the Tai property.
Watrous replied that the study considered just the house and driveway and no study had been done
on the adjacent property as that would be entirely speculative at this time, Anderson stated that
there was no obligation to the other property at this time, and Greenberg replied except to consider
the cumulative impacts, She asked whether the shed on the property was permitted, and Watrous
replied everything on the property was there prior to incorporation of the Town. She wondered
about the story poles, and Anderson thought they were up for a Design Review application, but
the applicant could confirm that.
Greenberg wondered whether on Lot 3 the size of the setbacks and subdrains were setting up an
impossible situation and Watrous replied that the envelope was not being approved, that the plans
just represent zoning requirements. The Commission could set parameters on Lot 3. She
commented that the Littman letter stated that the setbacks are not as shown and Watrous replied
that with just a visual check, they seemed accurate.
Greenberg observed four areas of soil collapse on the property and wondered about their
significance. Watrous speculated that it could be indications of slides, and the geotechnical report
listed improvements to be done on the property. Berger suggested that it may only be rotted tree
stumps and not seismic in nature.
T1BURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 1997 MINUTES NO. 768
10
E~XB.TBIT NO. 5
r. 2. OF 7
Berger asked how the 20,000 square foot lot compared to the RO-2 and RPD specifications.
Watrous replied that the RO-2 zone has a 20,000 square foot minimum and RPD varies, but in
that area half acre and up is normal, so 20,000 square feet would not be incompatible for that site.
Discussion was opened to the public.
Dixon Power, applicant, clarified that the "sink holes" are just where the soils engineer dug with
a backhoe to get his readings about a year ago. As to the Littman letter mention of setbacks, he
felt the letter said that the single family dwelling does not have proper setbacks, but the duplex
does. Mr. Power felt that this was an easy application for the Commission to approve as there
was only one neighbor with an affected view, all reports on feasibility of the project have come
back positive, the easements were all in place, and the stability issue has been resolved. He felt
that if he built on the upper north corner of the property, the issue of the Little's view would be
resolved. Concerning stability of the property, he stated that there are a lot of other properties
with the same terrain and another larger house up the hill seems stable, The technical problems
with Lot 2, a non-conforming duplex which was built in 1950 before the zoning ordinance,
should not be the cause of denial. If changed to a single family dwelling, the effect would be
reducing his property value and throwing one family out on the street in a town that is very short
on housing, He mentioned the letters and petition received and his reply which refuted the issues
brought up in those letters. He hoped the Commissioners would take the time to read his reply
and noted that the letter from Drs. Hoffman and Lewis summed up his feelings after working four
years on this project.
Greenberg asked how big the existing single family house would be when expanded. He replied
that was what the story poles were for, that it currently is 950 square feet with 600 square feet
added for a total of 1,500 square feet altogether with the carport. She asked if he had an update
on the sewer information. He replied they have the easements and would put in new 6" diameter
lines, and that they would not use the old lines. Greenberg also asked about the discrepancy
between the LSA survey done in October finding no hydric problems, but Earth Science coming
in April and finding seepage. He stated that there is one spot greener than the rest. Earth Science
came in after a big rain, but the area does dry out and is dry now.
Sadrieh askeawhether he had explored access through Tiburon Boulevard. He replied that he
could get the access, but he would not want to lose the other easement. If the Tai property were
ever developed, he would want access from there, If the project were approved with access from
Tiburon Boulevard, he would design a convertible garage to be able to switch the access if
possible.
Ann Gigounas, 840 Stony Hill Road, felt they have a legitimate concern about the very long
driveway as they don't want a driveway with no houses. She feels that it makes more sense to
access the house from Tiburon Boulevard and then if the Tai property is developed, she is more
comfortable with access from Stony Hill when there are houses all along the drive. Her purpose
T1BURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 1997 MINUTES NO. 768 II
EXHIBIT NO. S-
p. 3 Of7
.
is not to deny a legitimate proposal, but feels it is a foolish way to go before that whole hillside
is developed.
Fred Salanger, Owlswood, feels that view concerns affect other houses. Many have properties
that depend on the view and to hurt anyone's view is bad for everyone. This Commission
historically protects views and it is important that this view be protected as well. Secondly, he
was concerned about the amount of additional pavement going in on the property, estimated at
6,800 square feet, and felt that was a lot of coverage. Berger stated that it was really on the Tai
property .
Fred Mantegani, 893 Tiburon Boulevard, stated he has lived her for 50 years and there has never
been a slide problem in the area, although there is some runoff with rain. It sounds as though the
main problem is with the easement and he and his family have agreed to give Mr. Powers the
easement to come in from Tiburon Boulevard. Greenberg asked if he knew the history of the
Stony Hill easement and he thought it was supposed to go across the creek. He may have a map
and will try to locate it for the Commission.
Roy Little, 1 Owlswood, stated that the Staff summary represents their feelings. Their most
important concern is with density. While the proposal is legal, it is not commensurate with the
pattern in this neighborhood. Their view is the one that is most impacted. They currently look
over the duplex, so anything built there would impact their view. They cannot imagine a home
that would meet the criteria without obstructing their view and still be saleable. He commented
that the last thing they want to deal with is a situation like Trestle Glen. He felt their letter
responded to all the issues, that this was not a case of "I've got mine.." as he previously
recommended another home close to his, but that the density of this property is not suitable for
this location.
Betsy Little, 1 Owlswood, submitted pictures to the Commissioners so they could see their view.
They built a fence to shield their view of the duplex and its rather unsightly carport, and are
nervous about the installation of another carport. They are not opposed to a building going in,
but are worried about their water view as that is why they bought this expensive house in Tiburon.
She submitted three extra names for the petition, for a total of 31 signatures from the
neighborhood, 'opposing this development. She also commented on the geological study. Their
house was already built when they bought it and there had been many geological studies done for
it on flatter slope than this proposed house. When the weather changed from drought to rain,
incredible amounts of water came into the downstairs of their house. She feels that in spite of all
the studies, there is seepage in that hill. She agrees with the Staff report, 10 of the 31 petition
signers see the house, and she is sure there are drainage problems. She confirmed that all names
on the petition were of voting age.
Mr. Power, applicant, responded that if he were in the Little's shoes he would be concerned, but
thinks they can come to a compromise. There is 5-6000 square feet of buildable space left. He
12
TtBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 1997 MINUTES NO. 768
EXHIBIT NO. '5"
p.,~ OF 7
could site house with a 2,200 square foot footprint in that area so that the best opening of their
view would be left. The other 10 people do not have water views, so he wouldn't be taking from
them. He disagrees that they could see the house. The question is how to weigh his rights to
build with their right to a view. When buying property one always realizes that an empty property
can be built upon.
Vice-Chair Greenberg closed the meeting to public comment at 10:35 p.m. and suggested the
Commissioners focus on conceptual rather that design issues.
Sadrieh felt that this application needs to be split into two areas: acceptable access, and
compatibility to surrounding area and density. Regarding access, if it is from Stony Hill, it should
be looked at as a Master Plan with the Tai property. So presently the preferable access would be
from Tiburon Boulevard, but if a Master Plan extends the road, then look at that on its own merit.
The property is zoned for three dwellings and there are already three residences there, but of a
modest scale. If this was addressed as three structures, not dwellings, then that third structure
should be less square footage than usually allowed and would be compatible with the
neighborhood. This would more appropriately deal with the density issue. For the view impact,
it is very necessary to determine a building envelope with story poles which could be tested with
the neighbors' views in mind. Those setbacks could also be looked at with drainage in mind. He
was concerned with further traffic to the lower road and thought some improvements should be
installed to upgrade the approach as a condition of approval.
Klairmont agreed with Sadrieh on the views, that we could understand the impacts better with
story poles. She thought the Stony Hill entrance was impossible at this time, that we need written
confIrmation that the lower access is available, and agreed that the lower road should be upgraded.
Regarding density, she doesn't know the square footage of the Owlswood homes, but knows that
up higher the houses are larger and wonders which areas are being compared.
Berger agreed with Sadrieh and discussed the lot sizes. He calculated the prospective sizes of lots
on the Tai property as almost twice as large as the proposed 20,000 lot, so the proposed size of
this transitional Lot 3 seems to be reasonable and compatible with the size of lots as they go up
the hill. He did not like the long driveway, but felt the Tiburon Boulevard access was better and
that improvements should be included. When changing the use of an older building, the applicant
is often asked to upgrade its code compliance in some way. He liked Sadrieh's idea of a smaller
building envelope as one means to do this, but thought another way would be to look at the total
property and change the use and zoning, and convert the duplex into a single family dwelling,
Then there are just three families using the access road, not four. He was also concerned about
the views from the subdivision, and an adequate study of the views should be done so a
compromise may be reached with the neighbors. There is no reason one person's view should be
sacrificed. He thought the smaller size and conversion of the duplex would help the view
problem.
13
EXHIBIT NO. ~
P.,!5"oF7
TtBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 1997 MINUTES NO. 768
Sadrieh mentioned that part of the General Plan was to encourage affordable housing and changing
the duplex goes against that. Berger thought that the smaller size lot is a better transitional size
and better as regards the views.
Greenberg stated she would follow Staff's recommendation of denial. She felt that just because
something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. The access onto Tiburon Boulevard is
horrendous and would mean more houses off little driveways and increased traffic in the area.
She felt that all the single family applications along Tiburon Boulevard were being done piecemeal
and people are always looking to maximize their profIts. If the other Commissioners did not
agree, then she thought some of the suggestions made were very good. Approval would not be
possible until the story poles were in as she did not want to be approving the right to build houses
that block views. The reason for the long easement is not known, but that is irrelevant as it is
more appropriate to access from below. She felt the improvements were an excellent idea. She
thought the applicant could come back with a plan for two lots, which still raises the value of the
property. If the current plan was approved, she feels the duplex would have to be converted to
single-family. Otherwise, the density sets a bad precedent. This would at least be consistent with
the zoning for the area. On the other hand, she liked the idea of the duplex because of affordable
housing, which is more compatible with the neighborhood than putting up a million dollar house.
Berger stated that it is possible the footprint on the duplex lot would be 2,000 square feet and the
smaller size would be better for the views. Sadrieh and Klairmont agreed they were not thinking
of a huge house on that lot.
Watrous stated that if continued, the application would require a 90 day extension, as the
streamlining deadline is May 5 and the applicant would need to agree.
Anderson clarified that access from Tiburon Boulevard would constitute a new project. Staff
would have to get information from the fIre district and engineer, etc., and there would be other
work to do including proof of legal access.
Greenberg asked for confirmation that there was not agreement for a two lot split. Asked to
clarify her position, she stated that if the three lot split is denied, the applicant might come back
asking for a two lot split. In trying to look ahead, she felt that in time larger homes would be
built on these lots, so if there are only two lots, that would limit the density. Klairmont also was
not certain about the jump from one to three lots. Berger stated that constraints for building
envelopes could be set on all three lots.
No consensus was reached on a two lot split. A continuance was suggested to allow the applicant
time to redesign with Commissioners' suggestions in mind. The applicant agreed to a 90 day
extens ion.
Sadrieh summarized the Commission's suggestions:
. establ ish access to Tiburon Boulevard
TtBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 1997 MINUTES NO. 768
14
EXHIRIT NO. S'
f. "OF7
, .
. establish story poles to determine building envelopes, height and square footage to study view
impacts on neighbors, color coded for stories, with strings tied one to the other to see view
blockage
. setbacks relating to drainage should be taken into consideration
. indicate improvements to the common driveway
. convert duplex to single family to comply with zoning
. provide information on the size of the existing and proposed development
Greenberg reopened public comment to allow the applicant to ask questions. She explained the
90 day extension. Berger explained that as the project was, it would be denied. The continuance
would allow the applicant time to comply with suggestions that would make the project feasible.
The applicant felt he would be deprived of substantial value if the duplex were converted to single
family. He doesn't see the point of 2 lots instead of 3. Greenberg asked if he would convert the
duplex if that were the basis of approval and he replied he reluctantly would. He was asked to
leave the story poles up for the addition to the existing house.
MIS BergerlSadrieh to continue to May 14 to allow time for applicant to return with a plan that
will reflect items listed above. (4-0)
Greenberg commented that the applicant had just planted redwoods on the property and that they
needed to be permitted or removed as they will create greater view blockage than the proposed
new house.
COMMISSION BRTRFING
Commissioner Sadrieh reported on the ADA Main Street Workshop. There were two plans
presented: both widen the sidewalks to 8'; one plan has a one-way street with parking; the other
a two-way street with no parking; neither have ramps or handrails. There would be no curbs on
the 8' sidewalks, but planters or bollards instead. The one-way plan is not favored by the
residents of Corinthian Island. The two-way is opposed by the merchants because of the loss of
parking and unloading space. After the meeting he talked with the Town Engineer and asked
whether they had considered retaining the 5' sidewalk. It had been decided that wouldn't work
because of the level of gradation needed between the stores and the street, the impossibility of two
wheelchairs passing (although not required in the lawsuit), and the feeling that the 8' sidewalk
provided a better drainage catchment area. Sadrieh thought that if there was a 3" curb and the
area flattened the catchment would be the same or better. So the technical problems were solved
allowing for a third option, This would have 5' sidewalks, two-way traffIc, and parking, but raise
the sidewalk and raise the street, which seems to solve all the problems. There was concern,
however, with traffic safety because of the narrow sidewalk. A wider sidewalk may alleviate the
problem and he questioned the wisdom of planters and bollards. The third option has the blessing
of the handicapped official and will go before the Town Council on April 13th.
TtBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 1997 MINUTES NO. 768
15
EXHIBIT NO. 5""
P.~? OF7
6. 885 B, C, & D TIBURON BOULEVARD: MINOR SUBDIVISION #69602, REQUEST
TO DIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS; DIXON AND SHARON POWER,
Owner/Applicants; Assessor Parcel No. 55-261-11. (Continued from 4/9/97)
~
Senior Planner Watrous stated that this application for subdivision was continued from the 4/9/97
meeting when the applicant was given directions for several changes. The new plans show access
from Tiburon Boulevard with a letter of permission for the access, and Fire District approval.
It shows improvements to the private street and the story poles have been put up with input from
the neighbors. Staff recommended the Commission take testimony and direct Staff to return with
a resolution for approval or denial.
Chair Schrier opened the discussion to the public at 11:00 p,m.
Applicant Dixon Power stated that he has gone to great lengths to comply with the Commission's
requests. The access to Tiburon Boulevard was granted by the owner. He put up the story poles
after several consultations with the Littles and has accepted a 30 % reduction in the possible square
footage of his proposed house to afford them the greatest view. His house now would be 150'
from their kitchen, but privacy would be maintained with landscaping. He provided photos taken
from the Little's deck showing that their entire water view would be preserved, while over 80%
of his lot cannot be built upon. He felt that people recognize when buying in a residential area
that neighbors will build on empty lots. He has complied with the drainage requirements and
improvements to the driveway. He requested that he be allowed to retain the duplex, if not
permanently, for at least 5 years, as the conversion would be costly to them, it has the appearance
of a single family dwelling, and the general plan recommends retaining existing low cost units.
He felt that the size of the proposed house is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Roy Little, 1 Owlswood Road, stated that they still felt this proposal created an unseemly increase
in density for this area, especially with the duplex. The size of the proposed home has an impact
on their privacy and view. While Mr. Power has been most cooperative, it is not easy for them
to make a quick decision on something that will be there forever. This house will be a presence
to them all the time, driving up to their house, in the kitchen and dining room, and from the deck.
The problem seems to be the height and perhaps they could support a home that would be lower.
.
Betsy Little, 1 Owlswood Road, also had photos taken from their deck. She commented that the
letter from Mr. Bernardi, resident of the duplex, referred to units not families and they were
concerned about the number of families on the property. The building was not finished out as a
duplex until the 1970's, so it has not been a duplex since the 1950's. She stated that they have
tried to be fair about the views, but the proposed house will take away 10% of their view which
is only 45 degrees now. The current proposal has too much impact on them, and the square
footage is not like the rest of the neighborhood. She also felt the turn onto Tiburon Boulevard was
horrendous. _
TtBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14. 1997 MINUTES NO. 770
8
"'XHIBIT NO. ~
1>. I oF '2..
Mr. Power rebutted stating that landscaping will hide the building, the 10 % view lost is the
pooresI part, everyone will move out of the duplex during conversion so both families are
displaced, and that the story poles are not the house, just the box,
~
In response to questions from Berger, Mr. Power stated that he would be less inclined to build a
one-story house as they bought the property for the view, and that the landscaping would be
designed so as not to further obstruct the view,
Discussion was returned to the Commission at 11:35 p.m.
K1airmont stated that her reaction to the story poles was that this would be a really large building
that sits almost on top of the duplex. She hated to see the loss of the duplex and felt further
improvement of the road was needed. She felt there should be a stipulation for Tiburon Boulevard
only access.
Sadrieh also wanted permanent access from Tiburon Boulevard, and was undecided about the
duplex. He felt the height was an issue and perhaps one story would be better, and that the street
improvements could be enhanced.
Schrier agreed with Staff that the three lots are too small and too dense and is against lot splits if
there are problems. He did not want to lose the duplex,
Greenberg felt that the three lots crowd the property, The story poles framed Mt. Tamalpais and
she didn't think any view should be lost. As the kitchen and deck are used a lot, this house would
have a great impact on the Littles. She also felt that the impact on the duplex is great, that it was
a substandard driveway, and was concerned about the drainage problems.
Berger liked that the neighbors had worked together to try to solve this issue, but felt that the
house is too big and property too dense. He would require one-story for approval.
Schrier asked Greenberg if the Littles had approved the project, would she support the request.
Greenberg replied that she would still deny as she expects in the future the three small lots would
end up with three large houses on each and this doesn't fIt the area.
M/S Schrier/Greenberg to deny the application and direct Staff to return at the next meeting with
a resolution formalizing the denial. (3-2 with Sadrieh and Berger opposed.)
TtBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 1997 MINUTES NO. 770
9
EXillBIT NO. It>
p, '2.. cF 2.
;.
UNFINISHRD BUSINESS
3. REVIEW OF CONDmONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A SYNAGOGUE AND
DA Y SCHOOL IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, 215 BLACKFIELD DRIVE; Assessor's
Parcel No. 38-351-34 (Town-initiated) (Continued from 4/23/97)
Planning Director Anderson explained that the Commission last discussed this item on February
26, 1997, when the applicant was asked to return with suggestions for standards and criteria which
the Commission would consider during formulation of revised conditions of approval for the use
permit. These were received on May 23 in time to include as an attachment to the Staff Report.
He recommended that the Commission consider the materials submitted and provide direction to
Staff concerning possible conditions of approval to be attached to the conditional use permit and
to return with a draft Resolution.
Chair Schrier was pleased that the Temple had provided information, but felt it would be better
to deal with this issue after the appeal was heard on the parking lot item. Other Commissioners
were concerned about the people in attendance for this item, but the interested public members
assured the Commission that they would return if the item was continued.
M/S Greenberg/Sadrieh to continue without discussion to the July 23, 1997 meeting. (4-0)
Commissioner Klairmont arrived at the meeting.
/" 2.
Resolution denying 885 B, C, & D TIBURON BOULEVARD: MINOR SUBDIVISION
#69602, REQUEST TO DIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS; DIXON AND
SHARON POWER, Owner/Applicants; Assessor's Parcel No. 55-261-11.
There being no one from the public or applicant to speak, Vice-Chair Greenberg made a
correction to fInding G to delete "three dwelling units" and replace with "duplex and single-family
dwelling" to remove the implication that there would be approval for three structures.
M/S Greenberg/Klairmont to adopt the Resolution as revised denying the application. (3-2)
Berger, Sadrieh opposed,
Commissioner Sadrieh commented that his vote did not endorse the application as submitted, but
felt he could have supported an application which limited the dwelling to one story.
Commissioner Berger concurred,
TtBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 28, 1997 MINUTES NO. 771
2
TTT'RIT No.-2-
TIBURON GENERAL PLAN
LU-3. The Town shall closely consider the environmental
constraints of land through the development review process
in determining the location, type, and density of
development.
LU-4. The Town recognizes and wishes to preserve its bay
and waterfront as significant resources and shall closely
consider the sensitivity of its coastal environment through
the development review process, and shall encourage public
access to the waterfront.
ANNEXATION POLICIES
LU-5. Paradise Drive Area South of Trestle Glen.
Annexation of property in this sub-area should be based on
resident/property owner interest, cost/revenue implications
of specific annexation requests, and provision of Town
services to the property. Annexation of property in this
area to the Town should be required prior to the approval of
specific development projects. Annexation requests may be
processed by LAFCO concurrently with development
applications by the Town. Sewer, water and other essential
infrastructure must be available to serve new development by
the time new development is constructed.
LU-6. Paradise Cav & Vicinitv. Annexation of property in
this sub-area should be based on resident/property owner
interest, cost/revenue implications of specific annexation
requests, and provision of Town services to the property.
Total annexation of this sub-area is not anticipated to
occur prior to 1995. At such time as annexation of property
in this area is imminent, the Town should pre-zone the
property consistent with this General Plan.
LU-7. Strawberrv/Eaqle Rock/Bav Vista. Annexation of
property in this sub-area should be based on
resident/property owner interest, cost/revenue implications
of specific annexation requests, and provision of Town
services to the property. Total annexation of this sub-area
is not anticipated to occur prior to 1995. At such time as
annexation of property in this area is imminent, the Town
should pre-zone the property consistent with this General
Plan.
LU-8. The Town shall coordinate with LAFCO to study the
current sphere of influence (SOl) and possibly modify the
SOl boundary where inconsistencies occur with the Town's
Planning Area boundary.
.
I
'../
Adopted 9/28/89
LAND USE ELEMENT
PAGE
5
EXHIBIT NO.~
P. f~5
TIBURON GENERAL PLAN
Special emphasis shall be placed on keeping ridgelines open
and unobstructed to the maximum extent feasible.
LU-13. The Town shall adopt by reference Bay Conservation &
Development Commission (BCDC) policies on filling of the bay
and shoreline public access.
LU-14. The Town shall regulate the type and amount of
commercial uses within the Town to those which are
compatible with the nature of the community as a low-density
residential and village commercial area.
10-15. The Town shall carefully regulate insofar as
feasible commercial recreation and destination tourist
facilities to preserve the low-density residential and
village character of the community and to allow the local
residents to enjoy the convenient use of harbors,
shorelines, local transportation and parking facilities.
LU-16. The Town shall strive to preserve to the greatest
extent feasible wildlife habitat in the open ridges,
shoreline, marshes, mudflats, and other biologically
sensitive areas.
10-17. Future land use decisions shall be consistent with
Diagram LU-3, Proposed Land Use. However, the densities and
intensities specified in the Land Use Element are maximums
(except for state-mandated bonuses for affordable housing or
other density bonuses specifically provided for in the
Housing Element) which may not be achieved if other
standards of the general plan pertaining to environmental,
physical or offsite constraints such as steep slopes, soil
instability or limitations on necessary infrastructure
require lower densities or intensities.
10-18. Sewer, water and other essential infrastructure
improvements must be available to serve new development by
the time new development is constructed. Developers shall
participate in the funding of expanded infrastructure.
LU-l9. Re-subdivision of vacant legal lots and existing
developed lots shall be discouraged unless the following
criteria are met:
[ a.
Acceptable access can readily be provided.
b.
All newly-created lots have an average slope of
less than 30%.
,
'-/
Adopted 9/28/89
LAND USE ELEMENT
PAGE
8
EXHIBIT NO..-R-
1>. 2. ~ 5'
TIBURON GENERAL PLAN
c.
Development could avoid ridgelines or prominently
visible areas.
d.
Consistency with general plan, zoning and
subdivision ordinances, and any applicable
specific plans, is demonstrated.
[ e.
Proposed lot sizes and density are compatible with
surrounding pattern of development and the
characteristics of the subject property are
comparable with those of surrounding properties.
f. Sensitive treatment of trees and other significant
natural features can be achieved within the
proposed lotting pattern.
g. All basic services can be provided to the site,
including sewer lines.
h. New homes can be accessed by a driveway. No
driveway shall serve more than three units.
LU-20. The Town may review this general plan annually and
may revise the plan every five (5) years as necessary to
ensure the relevance of its goals, policies, and programs;
and to monitor progress in the implementation and
effectiveness of the plan.
LU-21. The Town shall adopt and enforce design guidelines
for all new development.
LU-22. The Town shall adopt housing size limitations for
residential development as part of the Zoning Ordinance for
reasons detailed in Open Space and Conservation Policy OSC-
6, Quality. Possible methods include, but are not limited
to, floor area ratios, coverage, height, bulk, and square
footage limits. The Town may also consider adopting
provisions under which allowable floor area ratio would
decrease as slopes increase.
LU-23. The Town shall encourage the state to develop the
Angel Island state Park in a way which protects the natural
character and historic resources of the island.
o
LU-24. The Town shall encourage the County to approve
development within the Tiburon sphere of influence which is
compatible with adjacent development in Tiburon.
LU-25. If an existing commercially-designated building is
destroyed by fire or other act, the building may be rebuilt
Adopted 9/28/89
LAND USE ELEMENT
PAGE
9
EXHIBIT NO.~
P. 3 bF 6"
(I) Aooroval Bv InacIion. If the Review Authority does not approve or disapprove the
tentative map within the prescribed time, or any authorized extension thereof, the tentative
map as filed shall be deemed to be approved, insofar as it otherwise complies with all
applicable requirements and rulings, including but not limited to this chapter, the Tiburon
Zoning Ordinance, the Tiburon General Plan, other ordinances of the Town of Tiburon,
the State Subdivision Map Act, and Sections 65952.1 and 65956 of the Government Code.
Section 14-3.6 Review Findin!!s. Prior to approving an application for a tentative map, the Review
Authority shall frod that all of the following are true:
(a) Plan Consistenev. That the proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and any
applicable Specific Plan or Precise Development Plan;
(b) Desil!D or Imorovement. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Precise Development Plan or Specific
Plan;
(c) Tvoe of Develooment. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed;
(d) Density of Develooment. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development;
(
(e)
Fish or Wildlife, That neither the design of the subdivision nor any proposed improve.
ments is likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
(f) Public Health. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvement is not likely to
cause significant public health problems;
(g) ~,That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements acquired by the public aI large for access through, or use of property
within, the proposed subdivision;
(h) Dedications. That any land or improvement to be dedicated to the Town is consistent with
the General Plan;
(i) Enerl!V. Except for Minor Subdivisions, that the design of the subdivision provides, to the
extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivi-
sion, as required by Government Code 66473.1;
'--
Subdivision Ordinance 5/5/93
14-3-7
Tentative Maps
EXHIBIT NO.~
~. 1./ a.= 5
,r---"'~-==---:-~",==-:=_=-~-.::_-""'-'-"''''__'~~==-' =-=~~':::_-:".':":::-'---~
..... -...._.~__._.-,-.,:"'T-,,-_--"O-~-~~___':"~"'.""__.,.
...._~-_._,..,._..: '.'.-
G)
Dischar~e of Waste. That the subdivision will not violate eXlSUng waste discharge
requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, as required by
Government Code 66474.6; and
t-.""
\
(k) Relrional HousiDlZ Needs. That the proposed subdivision is compatible with the housing
needs of the region, the public service needs of residents, and available fIscal and
environmental resources.
Section 14-3.7 Exoiration Date. A tentative map which has been approved or conditionally approved shall
expire thirty-six (36) months after the date of its approval or conditional approval, The Review Authority
may grant an extension of the expiration date for a period or periods not to exceed three (3) years.
Requests for extensions shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Director prior to the expiration date.
Upon submittal of an application by the subdivider to extend the expiration date of a tentative map, the
expiration date shall automatically be extended until the application is acted upon by the Review Authority.
If the Review Authority denies a subdivider's application for extension, the subdivider may appeal the
decision within ten (10) days after the denial.
Section 14-3.8 Amendment of Annroved Tentative Mans. If, after the expiration of the appeal date, a
change in condition affecting the proposed subdivision occurs which renders a condition of approval of the
tentative map unreasonable or arbitrary, the Review Authority may, upon written application of the subdivi-
der or owner, eliminate or amend such condition. This section shall be applicable only to conditions of
approval, not to amendments to the face of the tentative map itself.
(a)
Annlications. Applications for amendment shall set forth the facts showing the change in
conditions affecting the proposed subdivision which have occurred since the approval and
the condition which has become arbitrary or unreasonable as a result of the changes.
Applications shall be subject to a fee as established by the Town Council.
i'",
(b) Review Procedure. Review of the application shall be the same as the review of the
tentative map. The Review Authority shall confme its review to consideration of, and
action on, the proposed modification.
Subdivision Ordinance 5/5 /'l3
14-3-8
Tentative Maps
EXHIBITNO.~
'P. SOFS
l~
ffi ill I
~ ~Ji
c: ')i
- "'-I
CY ,
<;S:! C'~ I
ruA
~ \-J
{5'-J "
T ~j .{l
ill :tl~ I
0-..
-.l\"l
~lU~
-<)~,0
~ ~I?il
\ll".--ll
-(I
). - -
.~ 0 ~ {11
<{~ ill I
-J.: Y- }- j
-,' I
-~'.> - \
:; (' -.J
O"j \- _ -.l -.l
"j1llU)
ffi~~
J.I:
&.sn
o ".....
,,{\
\- ~ 1ll
-J: \-' -1
..{ .-
l-4:~
Q,'-(\ill
o :) -I
~ ..{ .)--
~(l()
- I
- € &1
, ~- ill I
IL <i "
04:'-.l
U'l -' j
..{ II.! ..J i
.Yg}~!
-0c:&i
o ~l
,--1 >'I
i& I
" ..:....\, f
~ .~I<.\
Q~j~
'.
_. .. - >
-~.._-......;--..- - _..~~-
~~., ,-~-~~,,;;.-.
.,,-_._r_
.~
(
1<-
I 'y:.
I /
(. /
'--L._
I
\
i
{
~I
, I
ill
"I
h
,-;
4!
-rl
~I
\-~
III
o
<.
~
u
(J
_.1:
&1
~I
10
111
~
(J
:(
I
I
! ~ '
( / "
'. /
)l
( ""L___
I r
':I
,.....
-r~.I
.(Il--
"'JI\-
_f.''\
,~
T'ul
\U'~
-:r-J
\;14:
-{l
I
,\-
:.{\
1-
i~
II.l
I>
, :>:-
:~
:lL
1-;-
I
.
,Q
W
...
_. (,)
ICI)W
: II.
,WII.
iZ<
-1_
...I~
Uf"
O~
--
:)>
II.
o
Z/R
00
-...
Cl)z
W<
O:r:
...
.ZW
. '0 a:
a:O
:)::l;
,all!:
,- I~
.~~,
- J: ~.:,-=-=-
. '-'-" .-.--
..-~~ -_;.=,~_,_ _~_L..r-=-~~
~
~
E-;
I-l
e3
~
f;il
\-
J~ :1
~~
\--
\-
- r-
L~
OID
0.J
-.,)
fu<
~~
~
I
I
l I
'~
.
...~ .
3:'
},-j--
~"
lL:-
\=->
::; ill'
~>
.
~l
-'~.:..:~-~-,'.:.-:-":'_;:::::::::::-::_::--:":--'
.""-'-.-.'--"---T
:---- .....-... - - -
;::-~=-o...::~:,:::,:::'-~-""r.-....-~.:::.:"~;"~--'~~."7",~..:..t...,~:::- __ ___
........
- .- '- -.-.- ....;. -
.Q.
It)
C? C')
_0
ir:
o
IZl
:
"
jjj
Z
W
:r:
...
a:
o
II.
~
W
...
IZl
o
a:
Q.
...
Z
<
o
!&
z
S!
U)
<
U)
W
U)
::::l
<
(,)
...
-
,.,.. .'._~"'+r ~- '''-:"::-''':..~-:-..':,~,-_..,.,'.."'7'--..
- -- ------~,.._-~
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
TYPE OF APPLICATION
o Conditionat Use PermIt
o Conceptual Master Plan ).. Tentative Subdivision Map
o Variance
o Precise Development Plan 0 Final Subdivision Map
o ll:ezoning/Prezoning
o Sign Permit 0 lot Line Adjustment
o Oesign Review
o Wel t penni t 0 Tree Perm; t
o General Plan Amenanent
o Zoning Text Ame!"dnent 0 Parcel Map
o Underground waiver
o Certificate of CarpLiance 0 Other
APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION
L
Assessor Parcel(s):
S5-Z,.r./-1I
2.
Zoning: L- I
General Plan Designation:
3. Property Address: S&S" S "7t&u--.. 61.vO,
4. Property Owner Name:j)\)(Dt.:l ~ SAA~ (>Oweg"
Mailing Address: t!:l35' 15 716U/W4J -S,vO.
City, state, Zip: '1i'kv~ 94-":>t-?>
Phone Number: ~(" '("~ FAX Number: 4~~ "81"3
5. Applicant Name: '"S~ E-
Mailing Address:
city, state, Zip:
Phone Number:
FAX Number:
6. Property size:~ /.5"'-":> JJ.rL
.
7. Please briefly describe the purpose of the application (what you want
to accomplish, attach separate sheets if needed).
MIUWL SU6bt\JIS/~ - ."Tb
5 '-aT'S
Signature:~ lQ.~_
8.
-X-Owner
____Applicant (must have signed letter from owner)
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
DEPARTMENTAL PROCESSING INFORMATION
Application No.: (., q G o.:L Fee DepoSit:~O
Date Received: '3/<1;1 q0 ~v'<<-is,k,\l.R 111.1% ~~ Received BY:~
Date Deemed comp;ete:L<. q/t HC, I J./; Iq:. I. J '. ,; ,.... By: s;4,
f1.
Acting Body:
Action:
Conditions of Approval or Comments:
r'::_.'~ ,'.. ');'.! ,,-,," .......1: I
,
Resolution or Ordinance #:
.~
EXHIBIT NO. 10
'P. I OF ~----
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SUBMISSION
PROJECT INFORMA TION
p"':"~env~O
.8.UG 0 8 19~1b
June 18, 1996
Applicants' name: Dixon and Sharon Power
Applicants' address: 885 B Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
TOV,f;;J or: TIEURON
F:.}~,;'~:'~::'~G ~ C~;~!J::\:~ DE?T.
Telephone: 435-6509
Project #
Assessor's Parcel # 55-261-11
Type of approval sought: Minor subdivision
Location of project: see enclosed map
Size of property: 41, 580 sq. ft.
Present and previous use: One single family and one duplex
Existing zoning: R-1
General description of project: The intent of the project is to subdivide
this single lot into 3 lots. One lot would contain the present residence
of the owners, one lot would contain the existing duplex units and the
final lot would be sold or developed into a single family dwelling.
There is no major activities contemplated at this time. Currently the
structures on the property cover approximately 2560 square feet
habitable space and another 450 square feet for carport, garage and
shed. Upper portion of lot is open space and is presently covered with
weeds.
Other agencies of Town departments which will require approval:
Water dept. and Fire dept.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Topography is sloped with approximate average slope of 19% and no
significant features
EXHIBIT NO.J..c:L
\>. 2. OF ~
A geological study was initiated by the owners and the following
conclusions are submitted here: "It is our opinion that the proposed
development is feasible from the geotechnical engineering standpoint
if performed and maintained in accordance with our recommendations"
The geologic type encountered by soils engineer varied from sandy silt
at surface of test holes to serpentine and sandstone at base of test
holes. The geotechnical investigation did not encounter any evidence
of landslide deposits.
The geological engineers used for this study where Earth Science
Consultants.
This project will have no impact on the air quality.
There are no hydrologic features within the property. There is a creek
that runs through the adjacent property into which our storm runoff will
empty.
Water quality should be unaffected.
The biology of the property is as follows: Many fruit trees in proposed
lot #1 otherwise there is an oak tree, 5 pines, 5 small and recently
planted redwoods and lots of smaller bushes. Proposed subdivision
leaves all of the above trees and bushes undisturbed.
The area has noise from Highway 131 but this noise is not very
significant due to set back of the property form the road.
The lot is not seen from the roadway and is surrounded by single
family dwellings on 2 sides and another undeveloped lot on 2 sides. It
is near the base of the hill and hence no ridge lines or view corridors
will be impacted. If a structure where to be built on the upper portion of
the property the neighbor on the south east corner could have their
view compromised. (It is unlikely that this would become a problem
since it is the least desirable portion of the proposed lot in which to
build on.)
There is no plan at this time to grade the property.
There are no known archaeological/cultural resources located on or
within 300 yards of this site.
The property is located in area which is predominately single family
homes
The circulation patterns will not be effected by this project. The upper
lot will be accessed by an existing driveway easement located on the
neighboring property and exiting onto Stony Hill Rd.
EXHIBIT NO. to
p. 3 of (,
~r:"""'""->""""'.''!'fT~n~
0' '--
~1 Jr. f) 2 I....~-.
~- ~
-\-,~./,:.'~'~ 0:: TlSUHON _._.
r.::.... ~. ~.; ~:: :~ .:;. c;..:~:..:):~~:: C~.'" i.
Utility easements have been created for water, gas, electric and
sewage. Public service is accessed through driveway easement
(approx. 400 feet long). The 2 proposed lots located at the lower end
of the property will retain their presently existing driveway access off of
TIbtlmBrSIDd. health and safety issues to speak of.
IMPACTS
There are no adverse impacts which are apparent at this time.
MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES
Not applicable
CERTIFICA TION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached
exhibits present the data and information required for this initial
evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and
information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief. .
Date
,p /t.~/,(,
Signature ~cPll---
-::"'~"""~PV~D
AUG 0 B 1~%
TG\N~ 0:: TIBURON
r.;:.J...:~:'~:: ~~ &. C~:~~l~:;; CE?T.
EXHIBIT NO.--1.CL
'P. t.I of c-
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR
APCL!=ATrOi'! FCI~ MINOf~ SUBDlvISIOrl
::;~ :-
~2t~
'':;';''~~d{'
--- -2,e-
]:3"1_ .".
Town of Tl~UrOt' 1"own ~ajl
11~5 Tituron 21vd
Tiburon, CA 94920 (415) 435-0956
fi(?c.
------------------------------------------------------------
Add.-ess;LoC<'ti'~n of S, te:-8.M 7I~ Ib-t..-vO
Site AP !'Iumoers(s): 55 -2G::./-/(
2:01'12:._ !<..-/ General Plan Land Use Category:
Property a,mer (PO): D/xoN'~ :5R&oAJ PON&e...
PO I'railing Address: 885 B 71t!nJ~ B(...//1).
PO Dayt ime PhonE?: 4~S- ~5 O:J
"*
)
C i'/ i 1 Erg i r.eer (CE): J;3lZ..C>crF-I<{ '7 ~E
CE 1"1" i 1 i 1'19 Add,ess:. ".l ~/ D ~M fj/SE
CE Davtime Phone: 0]2.1-8801
50 i 1 sEne; i neer (SE): 13&77.l 5C/b~C-E C.o/!/Wt..T41f7j
1)1'(. - S I//:n=!j - t:..oe:7E C14 f)GtUJ
'9'fOJ2S
5E '~Iailinq I'.do,2ss:PO, 8z>x '34/0-5tJJJ eAr~L.- Q+'7Il...-3410
-~ Da.....time oi-on,,: :3B.3- 0')3\
Su;-'.'evor (S i: VI> V I D JU,diJ!:3-
S I"'ai 1 in9 Address: $/),..,Z; AS CIVIl..- G?0(.,I,J~
5 O.:>ytime Phone:. o;Z1 880f
Please marl( with an * to whom correspondence shoulrl be ~ent.
I, the underslgn~d owner (or authori=~d ag~nt t~ith ~ :~tt~r
of apcroval frcm the pr~oel-t\' OlrJner stc;J.ting that =a~:= .3.C1S'1lt;
may act on owner's behalf) of the orooertv hereill ~2sc'-ibed.
her~bv make acplicatian in accordance WIth the orovisiollS cf
the TC\'Jn Ordin3nce. 3nd ! ':..~reby c:e:i:iT,/ that t-'"1<;, l'""!'fcrm.:.1-
ticn given is ~rue ana correct to the best of my ~:T'owledqe
and belief. (] ~
Sigr.atu...: tJ+- (-.0- / ~ C,~t'?: _ 1/Z,b/9.f?.__
EXHIBIT NO...J.Q...
'to '5 oF "
Mine, 5L:tdivi~ion Apc:Jic:ation JO/gq
P"Cle 4-
SP2Ci.T'iC .:.nt"O:"/Tlc.1tlO;-' O!~ ~.h~ f:'-CPlJs€::>d :,t::lOI- ~~...bC:'.'~':.:l\)n j,5 35
fa ~ 1 Ul'.''S:
l . iota 1 si tt:- ..:lre-a. in ~;L.'U2!e Tf?et : 4 ISfo t>; ir ,~.c r ''?s : :..'3Sj'
,
2. PT""O~:::;=-~d :'Jarcc:l ! :3.rea " SOl . ft . : /L 32.1 l1i. ,.;,=T'",~s : . u,o
...-
3. Pr-c;pc::;ec F)~:f:el '" a.r:211 :r1 SOl . ft . : ~1( ~n ~C~'.:.'-' : - 2-3 S-
't, PrcD::Jsed Parcel 3 area In SOl . ft . : .2R ,OO'D in --r~-' . 4S'~
, ~'- --='.--
'5. ProD~s~d Parc~! " area in sq.
'ft.: ,,-',-3Cr2=:
6. E"is~:n9 use of site: ONe 5iNCL-E FLJHIiY" ONE Dvf'L1<'
7. ProDose::1 else of sit",: ONe 5INC.t../r F/.1I'-1/~Y. ONe w;?U7
8. DescrIbe crcvislons fer the foll::Jwing:
l.J3ter servIce: ::J.arcei ! _
r=- '1-1 <, 11I'.j(,
Parcel 2 - __C>'!STIIJ(,
Parcel 3 - _ ~A5e:1l1&JT- S56 EAiL-vr/5Gf)
Parcel 4 -
Fire Protectionl_I.lC.c...e-S5 I/fJP61 tAJr VI/.) c,-;'ZNy,(jli.<../?/). - ~7D I~o \,
IZIwJ/JR..05-DN 81.1 Y AItR Peo~7?o-J .o/5Pt4c..T _. ___ ___
r
Storm Drainage: _ ~FOe ~'/iiii? ~c::;>V Z>7/.J/N/.JCdE ;::'C/.J,,) f
PMU "ll N -1;z.r eAJ":i.6H.G?<.J7
Seevaqe Di,;posal: fi)(/.57,1..v~ - ~5C: G',...e..~ ~~~_
Other Uti 1 i ties: pX/C?,I"v{, - SeE p;;..vz:.~ e-4~
----
9. Other certinent informatlcll:
--~'-
BXlliBIT NO. 10
'P. (p OF VJ
f'linor SuDdivi..iCJn Appllca~ion lo/tl'
Paqe oS
~.,
'~
------ ~
--
---~ ".f? ~
- ___ ~. =--"- "'" I ~
/"".:---- . 8 -. - C~_ "",Co\! ~"I ,I
'." ---::,.. J... ~,' ~ ~
"- :. . - -, b'2t N;'\ (T'Tr)
~~--~.:.~ -..- ~~ I'
I -- . .,~~---_. -'~:IJ.;:.;.'I/'Cl~ .
. t r. I / r--.::.....-.-.. ../",..~' ~,."""'.., _vcr,""" .' '"
.,(.i \\/ ~___.'-___ ----A ~I.w-:::~r~ \..T'-:;~~- c,rc:p..t-iJ~II-J~e,(..,t'.)~f'l"'..h" i.'I~"
'1:: y -- ~)~ 'e;.<:Aur ~-ON 'lO'l!::oeI ..~..
~ / \ \' ~~~:" (" '\ \ir--~ ' f~1t1i~~ WHe.t.L~ \~.~
",/.~ :e'1' "''''''",eoc,..,.rOl-l ",\ \ \'~ -/.... / \ i~". ' .,,^,,',Y
. TO - pec,..""", \ I \.. '! ..,lo),i
( "'111'1 1-1ou:?e.('1"1f") . " I ,.'( (~ _"".
,.j ,\ _ ... . .... L--~"'t;.,W' ,',\ \ /I\~. ~L
~ \.. L..OT3 '\ .~"-
l",\ t.C,O=_ \\. )\.c'."C'C2/"W''''''''''''''''''
,~ : ':-t" %};. '\ '( . 1 ,?
,-; i"l "\.~J_/-~/--""'J<. ~'':! .A' \., .1.
"I! \ ~'."'" eo€1'~'''... ~ /' V\H~. ."t'",'-- \::;~\.."."
'l:.I~. ,-'I..I!--I~ - 't-~ ( _._ __'~-' /~tl \\.\",
,,'. ..- ... . \.
')!. \ \ "'-1Jc. ' V c'ou.> . j;.. .-/. '\
\ --- ;~-- ..:- ' \.
-. -- -- - -...=;.......;:: / w,,/
--==--r-' ~ L.---- .- ''':--:: -r~~... - ~ .
, ~ -- -- . ~,.- --
:'.o-r----- -- ..,.~ _: _ ;4itP' ~v u -:.-. _ .) r:;;-:; ~'- ,'< ~
~ -If';;---- --- _/ ~ IlI"',", ' '...
~. ..<",-;-,"".,<i~-'-I-~ Ii' // ':":". ------:../'i{..J"
\! .-r--...... ....- ^r~--<."e' <
\ .., ,-- I ,:;" ,- ":"/ ~ i "'_"&1 """'~
""'~\1 \ ..1. t...or \ .; If; Cr"',
,;j\ \-~ I ! .~l """"$
". :1,. t~ L-- ~I: I <ii ';- II,~~..". ji! ...;' - :..v
Lj LOT '2 I' I-j J...,;:!
~.lL IO,2A"!5' ~ "New ~I'::.~ 1'::, I
,.," _ I ~~.(I";') i ~(jJ
I ~'~:--- , Ulf:: !""",_,
c I' ,'~ , '~--_.f,,;.,'
;' I \ ~ ---------"/1.. ~~,~ ~.;... -- ,.::~~ I..~,..
."~ ..L.~,. .~ t!!-- .......----::
~ I,.' i~-
"J f4.S~'SZ"e:. ~ " ..It^-- .f/ ;
2024'0' '-. a'~~~=--__~~--;':,-,,~.- I''!!,.. I"".... I ~-,,-=-,_..-r
.". .~-;( __:-----tC7~;--=:==:c-',; ;-'-~;rl.~6-....:'.f .:'. " ,
"~~ -. N.~.Cb''20',J I ~)',.J_"'f1':.IL'Jll'll1-t
'/:,/~.j;1z>" t..l4ca25....., 'T.bNeNh~~.AI-J"'tr~fC~ ~_("W')
'.&~j /.
1?a,.,:/ J ~""I'1f_>Je'" "^""'.
."- / _~___- ",""v_ ^ ~__
--:..: ~IC':'"
.,.~ ., 1)"-,i...l\..
.. ,
~
.~,
.'.
T
j
,~JNe.w ~(N~ ~6.
.,
'"
i-'-
..
-:;;:~1
-:?':.i~f~;.
"',-11-'
..':i.i~
~
'---J:~~~
.;t,.>.,;;.,.",!::
t_.>.,
fi.
\
..
pl,A 1--1
EX-BIBIT NO. II
'P. I ~I
~ z: \
.J'
\
\
l!i'
\ !Q I
L__-~_--L~
~
~
~
)o~
~~
0-
.z
~j\
Il!i"'
_, ,r\
. ,..,.""
i .,~..... ..
...<:~~
.,..,~.~
"J ..
(\I
'. ,_.~
.~
g
....( J~-,./<.
.~
. i . I .
, "/
---
--
~
1-
.--/
i
I
. ~J
.....,
. ~
-.
n
:Joe;
.,,<>-
:0"
CD<
.. m
-.
...::1
",::T
~W
....-
o CO
. C7' 5
z'"
on
. ~c
",::I
CD"
. ., c
....::;
CD'"
",a
.
~\l
~~
.~
~~
~
~
~
_ 1(9 ~~
\1---\ \ \---11
\-h"~ ~r\"\ ~~i :",
\,-L --=- \ ~ I
\ :~ b 1 \ \l' I
I~' 9; \ \.. I
,- \ ,,'" I j
L-=-}--~ '\. '~J J
><J'.
-
. .......
EXHIBIT NO...M-.
<p, '1.~f-1
: :~;~-~;;.:'- . ;.:..
~
r~
~ ..
f,--
,
f ..til'.....,. .,
f:'-~
r ,'''Ai':
L- '1 ~:......
,
1OU-,-
i'-.;":.::::?,
NAMES AND AOORESSES OF He
V !GlN IT-(
~\....e..' t" -::. ice
HAP
t
',.-..
~
- I' .
(~I'JD{N9 ~~lJc.T!)IZ..IUo)
, .
...
B.
C.
o.
E.
F.
G;
Alrred.ai!d Ruth Mantiganl
Alfred indRuth ~ntiganl
Phyl....... R1tvoc. Trust,
FraodaM..~wr Tr.. 5 M.::l
CharMIa-L-Dd Ilene McLaL.
-Juli." Hptf!ft.IH' Gld Kathy
\:Ilile.o:J-owtowooo P
L8roY.~~~x.;.<:.,.
- ~~r}>, ~;;
''':1;;''''. .
:~~~'~.:
,;-;-,.."'--'
EX~II)~n' No.1L
1', ? DY7
'-
. ..
. ~ ~~
l .
I' - ~
l' - "
, -............i.,.,.....,
t--::.....::::-......'~-~
,
i
r-"lt!~,
,~~~~'.._~ - ----
. ,,'Mt:.
L-OGATlON
~"-;:0.
\v\AP
NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF HOMES WITHIN 100 FOOT RADIUS
iAP
,'~;r..
-~
(~~O{~~ooz.Uc-TL~)
, .
A.
B.
C.
.D.
E.
F_
G.
~ . "".~~ .;:._~
Alfred and Ruth Mantigani, 885 Tiburon Blvd.. AP No.55-26t:2S",,_ ~<"',
Alfred and Ruth Mantigani. 893 Tiburon Blvd.~ AP No. 55.261-24 .
Phyllis Ware RIlvQC. Trust. 7 Mac Annan Ct.. AP No. 55-261-19
.Francis M. "Haver Tr.~ 5 Mac Annan Ct., AP No. 55.261-20
_ Charles L and Irene Mclaughlin, 3 Mac Annan Ct.. AP No. 55-Z61-21
-Julian Hoffman and Kam.,. LeiNis, 925 Tiburon Blvd.. AP No. 58'121.15
. Leroy Lil1Io; 1. Owlswcod Rd.. AP No. 58.121-06 -
T" 'L--r--' T'I' "''''0 JL
L.:~LL...b1.. l~J. .
r. c.J OF 1
'?"~'
-~.. ...
i11Ii;'jj'ti' ".
h1ii!.t;,.~G
. I !._: e." :i~_.
- 1- ,-.
i[i3iii"i,:~
;7 .:",~;';;l:
~.~~ii : I
~1~:;~li~
n ~
~ :<
o i
(')
<
,...
m
Z
Cl
Z
m
(') m
> "
,... en
." go
o ,...
" >
Z Z
> 0
en
c
"
<
m
'"
o
:0
en
OJ
:r:J
>
C'l
"
m
z
ll<>
"
m
>
z
m
o
~
m
o
>
~
~
~
o
<
m
o
~
~
~ b~-1
!;; -l)>(\l
>- zz:
~ .:~}!
z:... -;
~~<
({\
!~ '
QZ~
~ ~ ~f. i
tl\~)>-
z _ z
~~& .~
. ~:'.~~.
~~.<~ ,.,..;.;~..:,.~
, '.:~.:'.S...:,,~ ':~1-1hJ,
<~: fi'"4 (....~:.. ~I"
J:1.7-'~ ...~;JO..>';"<l'''_'';>>'_';.'.'C'';'' '."""~'~""_" .
.;'J;:'V '";'<:'P~2''--s.-~''' '~~".:t~;:- r~ -:;;"~.,;,:
':~:;~~f~M;~~:-...~~/~7;-~r_ ~:
~~,~~. -~;'5"..":t~~.~.....:_f'.~"';'-~:'"~' _\."_-'/:
..:..:;.;a.....:....._ .:.........:... . . .. ~.__L.... . .",. ."L..-
m
I
m
m
~
<S'
::t.
~ 0
~E
~.-~..~'-'..
."'..
~
'~".'
J
.:"
li' ~
c i-
F! ."
..
a
!!.
>
iii
..
om
SiD
c <
3 ~
o
"
~
..
iii
:j'
."
co
!
"ll
~
~~
lilz
"0
~."
6g
_c
Z"
lilO
OZ
~
..
"
c.
."
..
~
co
c.
o
"
..
"
>
'"
~
c:
3
co
c.
'"
,."
C">
:u
m
C')
iTI
<
m
c
.....
;0
""
<r'
;_.J'
~
.,
"
...
-
<n
'"
<D
en
.0
C
..
iii
."
co
co
~
:!!
iii
."
~
o
~
...
S
Q
?
!
~
..
"0
o
;;
s
o'
"
o
u;'
~
n
~
~
..
;;
<
Iii"
Q
"
n
.
'"
;;
<
i>>
"
o
3
n
...
CT
i>>
<
;;;-
Q
"
C
"
c.
co
.a
o
c:
"
~
~
9; \
I ~
L \_~
- ::r=
"J'_
l "" /
" " J
~'-
I
I
I
j
0}
;;
'0
::r
o
"
..
;: -"
~-
n'
.."
...
.~''b.
3 ;.'
c. ;:
CI--'
0-....
MO~. '
C
"
C.
,',.
/'!S'
Q
"
~
go
m
Ii"
g
g:
:<
."
..
"
:;;
~~. 5:
Q
..
~.
QO
m
a"'~
n;
C.
"
c.
co
~
CD
~
o
c
"
eo
en
..
l;
"
CD
ell
C
u;'
'0
o
~
~
>
~
..
ell
...
..
!l..
..
."
"
n
!!.
z
?
QO
en
c
CT
c.
<'
c:
~
:E
"
~
N
o
"
5"
'!'!
."
o
'0
o
..
co
c.
C
M
CD
m
x
..
~
3'
CD
C
..
ell
o
l;
"
ell
~
m
"
to
3'
ell
~
en
c
'0
'0
~
;::
~
5",
;::
c
"
n'
-0
!!.
:E
..
S..,-
~
en.
0>
.;!.
;;
<"
o
~
.' i':~~
Q'I...
. .,
~'-.
'"
'"
N
0>
-
.
-
-
-<"'0
&' co-'
c: UT ~
a a:I:::I
.~ ::f ci'
~g-~
,~co
o ~
<D ".
~~
N<
O!,,-
:t)
ell
~
c:
ell
a
~
:t)
ell
M
c:
ell
a
.~
'"
-.."
'0.'
w. .'.....; '-.
~c '-'"
"
~...'..
.
EXHIBIT NO.-11-
f>"S oF-7
7
\-\
~I::-- _:
"
,
\ ~.
~ I ~ ,
. .1' \ \
II: " \
~ \ . \ \ ",' I
I".' '; ~ II \ \ \ .7:
~ 1, \ \ \ I' \\1
1 \ \ II ~~
1 . '.\\ \",. .j
"i ,;.' J \'~
'\, \' 'I . \
\\\'.. '\ \
'w' . ~\J \
\~ ~ . r I., :z ~ ~
JI".. '1' ~1 I
! :~~ ..:' \\,...... 0. ~
l I ' I'
~ 'tt_~., ,\ 1\,\ '! \ \
i 'I \ '! -l '. . ii,' '.1
. 1\\ \ I ,\ i.
'. I' \ '.1'
[" I\...~..\'\\
,.\ '~! ~I\ I \ii\l\'
~I! 1,' i ,\ \' r;l.d
'. ill I il' I f [\ j .:'i1
W ,:~ ai, ! if I.; !111 }:'
<.. ;'!I/I r I'.. [' r ,'s..,
~~r , q d' I .' 'Il' i
l' (,\ /. j /1. t,---.'
a~ II ".\.; '.- -- 'I' I II .~
~ r- .1.. _ ._ ~ '_: ~ ~
i Jt '/ . I .!------..
. t~. , , _: .
~ Ii".' t \
ti~ It : I;i
. It i I~; r r.1.
1\, : ! I'" 6' ~\. ~
; ~~!" ' i i t; fl i
I
I .
l~ I .
,. ~ I
-r /
l -
, .
. ,
I .'-
.'~ J ,
...
"
"
"
-
,-
",
..
;:1~:t~~.:."
.::'.o','.bqi~~~',%
\,r"M.~.P\'
"H,'; ~. ~1
.. '''''\,~r' ~.
; ." l E~!
h"H.JI
S 1;'1> t ~,
I,) G \I f
f~~ [ <3l.
.'. l 3~'~
t~B ~ !8~(
2
.0
:;..;~-:.l-
~~\
'ii\~~,
1~:~~~11.~~.
C;":-
~. l ~
,.."
J".-,"
:"iCf-,.q:
;~~~
~~'t'
:tJ~E:~
.;i,~.,~
.,j,w;.
,)~,\.~ ).
:,,r"''t;, :1
.... III
:-,.-. ~
D
~
EXHIBIT NO. II
p. l# rF 7
_.-
I,; ;:. \ I
I
I
\~~
~ Ii
.\ \;~.
.. ,- \
\
. \
I
i-
I
I
,
Ii
~i\i
'2:
~
~.~
~
~
'''1-
:,,"-'-:.-
:-:. ;:1'1'
I
,
i-
Ii
:{i
I I
, I
I, n____~__
1 --.----.
I
i
r~I:1
I ,.
I
,
I
i
I
1,'lliilliil. ,
,!!!'\'I'II,r i-
,h. II
1', n
.
,
. ..
. i~
l,"~
.. z
, 0.....
Bf;\
-,- ...~.. ~
--I"
!-
i
f
r
I"
. I
j " I
----r.._-_J
'~
I~
,
~ "',' :
'if.
...,~$'\'
.,.11";
';t! .'
f., .
Ex::rnBIT NO...l.L-
p.7 of 7
.-
I::~ ::
~ ~i~:!~
! ;!;;61,
, ""l"
i 110' I;
! IIH,!
7 , -i! h
~ i ilidi;
~< ! Ui'!ii
~" i tll!~li
i mUll
I
J
I :
'I If II !
I I I i
if I ; i f I II ;
l~ I" jl i d " ! II
ll' :Jj: I I . i j j I ~ I.
Ail h! ~ ; f 1
· ....'! 1 !
I J !!!lhpJ!
! I fullliL!!1
~
<
"j
......."'.
. r
~
" ~
,
~
,
~
I
f r~<>,~ -'I ; - ~
J' 'i, '~.J
i; \ ~~
. +- ~ -t'-Y1 ~~
:1 \ L-ZJ
I' ~ -
L--- _.
-
~
~
9
~!
~i
r..
..:
2:,
--::::;; ~
-- I ' ~
~:r ~i .~:
I fl T\
,~I- i:~\ ' 4"1
~;
i! .. --~..J ~1
~- I
i
t
:r
i~~ I !
'" ~ t~~ 01 ~ ~ !
' ~~c ~.. '. 4 i-
~f . _ !~
i.~; ,t ( i. ...,
d;~ s;i ! n ,.:- K
,~ ~m ai' > c '- / I _ __,
, ., 1. ~,/! ~
o"5~~ f~i' .""':'
;, W" I'
I " : '~ '" ~ '1\1 ....~~ \n
i JU1- '\.. '~I' _t .~
' '" '~, "."'" I, .! " ,
; ~ '. tl:' i ii" 1. ' '. '~" \ ~
. ~ t! ~~.' ,,-il! \ \ ~ J~
I' ; ~ g r"- 05
· '.9~ I .;;... ~~~\~ ~~
' , "'I . -~~"'., II
if ,<; ~: L\ L,r; 1 \, :\ II'~~: !,i.1 ! ~l
;; !., :1 fi \ {12t1i : I. f ,.;:,,~- It' d!
~1 _". .:,! In. \'\ ~l. "----:1 . .. .- ----.J. _ f' f~
""', } 'r.:.~ _ ''\-0
'!" ,[ I . ..'.-c-.... .'~ " :
\ I ~'''__.., ~ "-
"i\ ' _ -., '", ' ',- '"
,1)- ji I ., '"',
i. t~
L-~.~. Ii Ii
i
2'~
~$
t
----
~ '
'.,.
~ ~;~
;; E~
~~g S!
F9~
~< 1::1
~&~l'
~~Oltl
H"i"
~ J
,: ,
'"', I
:n:
C~
I): ;,
I . I:f.!
I , '".
:!l:'"
,.......
';.. "
f
,[
I
f
'1
;
!
-I
g
jl
!!
'I
h,
~N
00.
z~
E-;-
H
I=QA=
H
:r
~
l
, "
:
.
; ,
.
r
t
,"
l't.
UJ
c.::
8-.",
r<:~~
.J(.
~:'''j
~:j
f"".... '~I. CJ
0,:;
Q :::
Ui
"'"
...
-
L'
t
l!
a..
7,~
~>-,~
1-:, ,
,
~::=-
.j
~
. -.., -'--r--
. - c
- '" N !
I,"J J~:1'<:lll '" ~
'-' ",
~ ," r- -
-&;I NOd -::l~ '7<l1"l><t1 h
" ?J -
~7?V )...\","!':;;lAlc:'Cl \.:;oN 1101)(3 . j ! ~ I
- . . . <;
-
~
~
% "
i I~'
4.
~ ~.
3~~
>"'-7_
&~~
sr:~
~f~
~~~
::~~
f, .
i=j-t
"ii:f
~<l~
~t~
t:.t..~
d ,r f/..---
E~ .///
~~:; ~/ '/;/[)
~A~ ~ _'
"I.' ~A
~c.~ Q~-l,t:.~-! < . "> D
"-~ f ( -~ /
~H: ...,;! -,r-_-{.r.__..__
I f -..__
\ ' I
___ '\, T I
- "
~-,.,- I
~ -
--------
'Q,\--.c-.
"
f'i::;",() -
'9!-L
'----.. .
"-
r-'
.....~,
~-~
"'-'.
r-~
I :_____-.
Ie::.. ~----:
":: ' :
;'r- r- ___.J
:": )'
'_'" ....._J
-\., -
~
:;:
t'
~
~
~
".
i~.7
/'""...-)
, r-
,"" I
I~'
I.. .,,'
-J
r--,
,-
'"
.'
r.
~-' j
Q zC
0.:"
~' .- ~.~~
.. ~~j
"" :-- ...... ~j
""
l..' c~~~
t >- ::~, "j
EL <: .'
--:;: U
a: !- ,
,
i
..
~('J
Ou.
Zo
E-lN
H
j::CI~
H
~
f-l."
V
[-
~
~ B
~
~, . ~
~ I
Ii I
-!" ~
February 23, 1997
j:.t~ "'"
...
(;" -f~,~
I f8 A,'''''
c' . r.....
f;"o 7:.... ...') I\.
.......- .. .....V'v:.. .".;
'.". <". i~ ;""\
....(~' ~I....,;:: ')':',.)
....r-,. '....."1"
....~..::.~ ":r?C
.....~:.- At
~.::: ,...,,..,
.......::.":.7;
Mr. Daniel M, Watrous
Senior Planner
Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Proposed minor subdivision at 855 B,C,and D Tiburon Blvd.
Parcel # 55-261-11, Sponsored by Dixon and Sharon Power
Dear Mr. Watrous:
I oppose further subdivision of this lot on which there are three dwellings to another lot
which would allow another one or two dwellings. I would consider this division to allow
excessive development of this lot.
I object to the long driveway and retaining walls across currently vacant, open land.
The dust during the construction would be a health hazard to me and my family at 951
Owlswood Lane because we have a severe allergy to dust.
Run-off from the site has the potential for carrying more pollutants into our bay.
Sincerely,
1 /7. ../> /'
{t/v1\ - '/Jv~;/)~~
Dr. Ann-Marie Meagher, M.D.
951 Owlswood Lane
Tiburon, CA 9492"0
A-.}.
EXHIBIT NO.E-
~
,.'
..<.
~'"
.~""
.~, .p.
;,,~( .- -'~
..' ....""
" ! <1 .~..#
-!CV1E
",:~,'.~JVC .
.........0 ,-. ,-,..
~ ".' "'';.
~'-~" o".:V)';
".:l', ro..
'I~!"" 'V
~.,.......
-"'.~
LEROY L. AND ELIZABETH
ONE OWLSWOOD ROAD
TIBURON, CA 94920
H. LITTLE
March 10, 1997
Mr. Daniel M. Watrous
Senior Planner
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Subdivision Proposal at 885 B,C and D Tiburon Blvd.
Parcel # 55-261-11
Dear Mr. Watrous:
We are responding to the Draft Negative Declaration/Initial
Study regarding the captioned proposal. We are very much affected
by this matter because we live in a home which immediately borders
the parcel to the East and North.
We do not believe the facts of the matter support a negative
declaration regarding the subdivision, Indeed, and as outlined
below, we believe there are many highly problematic aspects to the
proposed subdivision which are glossed over in the draft
declaration, and feel strongly that there are environmental, health
and aesthetic issues which must be adequately resolved before
development takes place. Specifically:
1. The support materials are confusing.
build one house or two?
Is the proposal to
2. There are currently three families living on the 20,000
foot parcel. The addition of another family (or two!) is excessive
in light of building and development patterns in Tiburon over the
last decade. This density definitely does not fit the surrounding
neighborhood.
3. Paragraph 3E regarding pollution and discharge is
inadequate. Pollution from discharge will be harmful and
continuing after construction as the runoff from four families
flows downhill and into the adjacent stream. There is already
evidence of ongoing pollution of the stream from fertilizer runoff
which promotes growth of scum and algae.
4. Paragraph 7 regarding light and glare
address continuing light and glare after
additional large house will compound problems
the parcel.
does not adequately
construction, An
already existing on
5. Paragraph 12 regarding supply and demand of housing stock
EXHIBIT NO. 14
~. I CA= 2,
ignores the real possibility that the addition of a fourth family
residence on the parcel will reduce demand (and value) of existing
houses in the immediate neighborhood.
6. Paragraph 17 regarding dust inadequately analyzes the
harmful effect of dust on neighborhood residents. You have already
been notified of severe dust allergies affecting a neighborhood
resident, Dr. Meagher. Our son also has severe allergies to dust
and airborne pollutants, in turn exacerbating a lung condition.
7, Paragraph 18 regarding views and esthetics is completely
unacceptable. There is no comfort that a house (or houses) will
actually not interfere with views from the East or Northeast, which
are the only water views we currently enjoy. We find that this
paragraph is shallow, self-serving and presumptive that any future
construction will be unobtrusive. That can't be determined from a
draft proposal like this.
8. We note in plot drawings that our setback will be reduced
from 25 feet to 15 feet. This is yet another example of disregard
for existing development standards in Tiburon.
9. We believe that the owners of the property will also have
a financial interest in its development, and would like assurances
that the environmental and engineering studies are arm's length.
Additionally, some of the houses bordering the Tiburon Avenue side
of the property are owned by buyers or sellers of the parcel or a
are relatives of those parties.
10. We are very concerned about the stability of the hillside
abutting the property. Slides are a definite concern.
11. The local area abounds with valuable wildlife:
foxes, California quail and, yes, owls. They are a delight
who live here, and additional development will only serve to
this valuable element of life in Tiburon.
deer,
to all
lessen
In summary, we oppose the subdivision and the attempt to
approve it via a mitigated negative declaration. This proposal is
inadequate. A complete rethink is needed, and with it an
Environmental Impact Report.
Yours truly,
\
~
'~A- '\ I~. /11
r(, .'" II .-,
~~. -;J.'
c-
LXTEBIT NO.-.R
~. '2.. OY '-
U;lHV . N .U;l)J:
~ I .ON .LI8IHX3:
)(Jr/lJ,
'A[;l~u{S
'noA )[mql
'SUl;lJUOJ lO suonSdnb Am ;lAl'!q nOA P ;lW [reJ O. ;l;llj [;l;lj ;lSl'!;l[d
'UOnJlll.SUOJ ~U1lnp AIreP;lds;l 'Al'!M;lAPP
~UO[ l'! qJns jO .u;lwdO[;lA;lP O. ~II1W[;ll SW;l[qOld AnmJ;lS pm A.;lFS (t
SUl;lJUOJ Il'!.U;lWUOl1AU[ ([
AnSU;lp ;lwWnm (7.
SUOSl'!;ll sno1Aqo lOj . "31I1.S;ll nos (I
:0. P;l.~wH .OU .nq 31I1pnpU1 s;lnss~ l;lqlo 3uoare '.:)'edw1/sUl;lJUOJ [l'!lU;lWUO.f!AU;l
lOj P;lM;l1A;ll 51 reSOdOld s1ql wq. ;lWn qJns !pun ;l3ul'!qJ AUl'! o. p;lsoddo
;lIe sloqq3~;lu mo jO l;lq.O rel;lA;lS S'e [[dM S'e I pUl'! ;lJ1M AW '.u10d S11P W
"SpooqlOqq~1;lU .JunS1P OM) ;lS;lq. U1 ;ll;lq. ;lP1S;ll
Apl'!;llre OqM sn jO ;lSOq. S'e II;lM S'e lU;lWdO[;lA;lP ;llmnj Ire snns .S;lq nq. "mId
l;l.Sl'!W" l'! n~m3lO o. .U;lpllld ~ A[UO p[nOM n nq. ;lA;l1[dq I 'UOn1PPl'! uI
'pll'!A;l[nOa uomqu WOlj SS;lJJl'! WOl] .ij;lU;lq II;lM Sl? .snf rreJ p;lqpJS;lp
AU;ldOld ;lq. nq. ;lA;lr[dq I 'Al?M;lA1lP 3uo[ l? qJns jO .u;lwdo[;lA;lP ;lq. qnM ;l;ll3l?
NU up I 'reSOdOld S11P Aq p;l.J;ljjl? Apl'!;ll3 ~ WM ll?q. SP001:[loqq31;lU .JUnSW
OM. ;lIe ;ll;lq. nq. 51 UOnd;lJl;ld AW 'sn ;lAOql'! Wq ;lq. UO lU;lwdoI;lA;lP ;llmnj
Irel;lAO [l?m ;lq) O. Spre3;ll1{nM ;lAl?q WM n .J;ljj;l ;lq. .noql? p;lUl;lJUOJ Apl?;ll~ are
I 'pW'lI IHH A;lums jO pU;l ;lq. .l? Al?M;lAPP p;lsodOld ;lq. MOM .U;lP1S;ll l? SV
(tbi(l ':ole8S ma
(f) g Vf\'1j (Noog I L 5blB A.l;ldold pm Al?M;lApa jO )U;lwdO[;lA;la :;l'lI
OZ6t6 VJ 'uomqu
uomqu jO WAOI
U01SS1WWOJ 3lI1um[d uomqu
UO~lil~Hv ~ 'JW
(,I02J.itl/'1l l~[Nb'CI
'lC:30 Si\::c-::n3 'J :."";' .~' ", ",-_'
NOtlmll:lO Nir;bi. .. .~
L 6 6 [ '[ [ qJl'eW
I ~ " I ? ! """';1':
",'; LJ t ',,.' r~
OZ6t6 VJ 'uomqu
9 [5 Xoa ;lJUJO .SOd
U;l[IV 'N m;l)J: 'JW
tr-~~
1!o.Ii:J11I~~<J;:jCi
.~
'i')
Daniel M. Watrous, senior planner
Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
. . '.. .~;~>\~C'k.,~
840 Stony Hill Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
March 11, 1997
Dear Mr. Watrous:
We are protesting the Mitigated Negative Declaration finding connected with the proposed
project at 88S 8, C, & D Tiburon 8Ivd., Marin County Assessor Parcel No. S5-261-11. We
feel that it will have a large. and heretofore unaddressed, impact on the properties located on
Stony Hill Road, especially the houses at 840 and 820 Stony Hill.
1. Since the proposed driveway to the property will come off of the current end of Stony Hill
Road and run across now vacant property 540 feet (the approximate length of Stony Hill Road,
itself), it is obvious that the residents of Stony Hill Road will be subject to whatever vehicular
traffic the driveway can hoid during and after the building phase.
2. Car lights and noise of cars traveling to and from the property will affect the use of the
master bedroom suite and bath area at 840 and the pool area at this address.
3. Parking for parties at the new development has not been addressed in the report. Will the
overflow and subsequent noise impact Stony Hill Road residents? It seems likely.
4. The proposed driveway will also be an inviting place for "parking" in the social sense of the
word and could increase the possible fire danger in the area. There has not been vehicular access
(other than emergency) into those grasslands.
5. Increased access to the uninhabited property also poses potential danger of hit and run
burglary to our properties which will be more accessible from the south side without any
neighborhood resident protection.
6. Mr. Paul Fang, representative of the parties who own the land over which the road will go,
has stated that he is unaware of these plans. What is the reaction of these owners to the
proposal? How will it impact their plans for building, if any?
These are not aU the questions which arise from this application. We will be bringing up more
matters before the April 9 healing. Currently, our particular concerns are not with the actual
building site which we cannot see from Stony Hill. However, this does not negate our concerns
for the area between it and us. The connection of Stony Hill to areas quite far away brings up the
entire matter of a Master Plan for the whole hillside. It seems obvious that before any negative
declaration is made, before any permits are issued, before any building is begun, a plan for the
entire area needs to be carefully considered along with a possible EIR.
ncerely, lL-~ ~~
n and Ann Gigounas - 840 St~IiR-;';d' - ~ -
~~.~~dJ~
~~:
~ ~ 'i~ ~- i'etO ~}j;~~.
~ ll...J. 7)~ ~ - f<-'S ~~ ~
..jJa.u.L~- 'n1~W. -~ ~
EXHIBIT NO.~
.f.>. ~ """
' "'-,.'1
. If....!')
~ { A ,~. J .... _
il,;,,'} r OJ'
", i <I. .0
,i
925 Tiburon Boulevard,
Tiburon, CA 94920-1525
March 24,1997
The Members,
Design Review Committee,
Town Hall,
1155 Tiburon Boulevard,
Tiburon, CA 94920
1,'.
, . ". !.:..~~;",~;~~~ 0',?/,
'-''-'' ...,'::"-1Ctv
-.....'l':,.:'.2"":;~
Dear Members,
We are writing this letter because we will be out of town on the 9th when
there is a hearing concerning the plans for building a house on a plot owned by Mr and Mrs
Powers. A petition to prevent the construction is being circulated by Mr and Mrs Little, of 1
Owlswood Avenue, and signed by several people who own homes on Owlswood Avenue.
We do not agree with the arguments set out in that petition, and wish to put forward
another point of view.
To our mind, most of the long list of arguments against the construction are
specious and should carry little weight. For example, the complaint that there will be noise
and dust during the construction is correct, but if it were to prevail there would never be
any construction. This disturbance of the peace is temporary, and will pass. There has also
been concern expressed that the building will weaken the hill and lead to landslides. That
seems to us to be a matter for the judgment of soil engineers. We should point out that
higher up on the hill is a large house with a large swimming pool that is potentially more
damaging to the land.
There are, however, three issues that do demand serious consideration. The first is
that the new house(s) will block the view of the bay for the Littles, and possibly for other
people who live on Owlswood Avenue. That needs to be determined, and it might be
possible to site the building so that minimal interference with sight lines occurs. We should
point out that when anyone buys a lot and builds on it, it is incumbent on them to find out
what changes might occur in the future that could interfere with their pleasure in their own
residence. If purchasers of a lot knew that there was the possibility of someone building on
an adjacent vacant lot and interfering with their view, then they should take that into
consideration at the time of deciding to buy the lot. If they did not know, then unfortunately
ignorance of the possibilities cannot be used as an excuse to prevent legitimate building. If
anything else were true, then no one would ever be allowed to build on the bay side of any
existing building.
The second serious issue asserted by the petition is that the new housing will
decrease the value of the surrounding lots. No evidence has been provided on this point.
The area being disputed is one where there are a number of old Tiburon houses, many of
them slightly dilapidated, and reached by a road in very poor repair. It seems to us that it is
just as likely that an improved road and a well designed house would add to, rather than
decrease, the value of surrounding properties. You should note that our house and the
Little's house are the only two houses on Owlswood Avenue that abut on the property in
dispute, and that it is in our own interest that the property values be maintained. We see no
reason why they should not be.
The third major issue is that a new building on this lot will decrease the natural
beauty of the area, and decrease the ability to see wild animals. This is undoubtedly true,
but there has to be a balance between building and keeping open space. When we fIrst
moved to 925 Tiburon Boulevard, there was no house where the Little's now live, and we
were dismayed when we found out that a house would be built there. This undoubtedly
made our house less closely related to the natural beauty of the area, but we recognized that
whoever owned the lot had a perfect right to build on it In fact, it is likely that all the
EXHIBIT NO. 17
P.tcPZ-
houses now occupied by residents of Owlswood Avenue who are petitioning to have this
building denied have substantially decreased the natural beauty of the neighborhood, and
some of the old time inhabitants of the region think that this is true. What we are seeing, in
fact, is the attitude that prevails among many people in Tiburon: "I've got my house, and
now no one else can have theirs."
We believe that the arguments put forward in the petition are with slight foundation,
and that issues of sight lines and soil stability could easily be worked out by professionals,
given some good will on both sides. We urge you to reject this petition.
Yours sincerely,
j~ ~L44L~ #~!U~
Julien I.E.Hoffman, M.D,. Kathleen W. Lewis, M.D.
EXHIBIT NO.JL.
P,2oF2.
Allan N. Littman
100 Rolling Hills Road
Tiburon, California, 94920
P~A,
''','''1>
,..,,,
, . ~"'~
<- >:',
/- .:<. >'~;;;"" . ...., ' -
'. ". ~~;;'0 ~~: li;"
-- ,.,....,......
..........::;-:I'rc.J
..,~~
'-,r::-....
..... ~7:
March 25, 1997
The Planning Commission
City of Tiburon
885 B, C and D Tiburon Boulevard
This land is now a single parcel on which a house and a
duplex have been built. The proposed application seeks approval
to subdivide the land into three lots, adding one single family
house to the existing structures and connecting that new house
to the nearest public street by a 540 foot road access. It also
seeks a mitigated negative environmental impact declaration.
There are zoning, setback, conditional use and environmental
impact problems with the application and it should be denied.
ZONING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SETBACKS
The land is zoned, R-1, which is single family residential-
only one family per lot. Mr. Watrous is checking to determine
when the structures were built. If one of the two existing
structures was built after the enactment in 1964 of the Tiburon
Zoning Ordinance, the present uses are illegal and the
application should be denied for that reason. Structures for
three families on one lot do not comply with R-1 "single family
residential" zoning because neither two residences for three
families nor one duplex is "single family" residential. See:
Tiburon Town Code s. 2.00-.02.
If both structures were lawfully erected under County
building permits before the Town of Tiburon was incorporated,
it is possible that there may be a non-conforming use. When an
application is made to subdivide a parcel which has a non-
conforming use, consideration should be given not only to
whether the non-conforming use should be continued. but whether
the density on the parcel should be increased. A non-conforming
use on a parcel of approximately 40,000 square feet is not the
same as a non-conforming use on a parcel of approximately 10,000
square feet. Moreover, it would appear from the map (Ex. A)
that there is less than the minimum 8 feet side setback on
proposed Lot 1, and there may not be compliance with set back
requirements on proposed Lot 2.
The owners have already received a benefit for 32 years in
having three families rather than one on a single family lot.
Placing the non-conforming duplex on a small lot within the
12473559
EXHIBIT NO. 19
~1~Cof
,
parcel and adding a single new lot and residence increases the
use and the density.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
There will be a significant environmental impact. See, Mr.
Watrous' report. The described mitigation measures cannot
reasoably be predicted to be totally effective, and a neutrally
prepared environmental impact report is a minimum requirement in
this matter.
The Geotechnical Report of April 1966 prepared by the
developer is not a neutrally prepared envviromental impact
report. Nevertheless, it reveals serious problems:
1. The reference to "two proposed new home sites. Ex.C p.3.
is an error.
2. The report reveals two very important general points,
which are widely separated in the report and need to be
considered together.
" [A] significant amount of water may percolate through
the upper portions of the topsoil materials, then flow
along the surface of the impervious soil layers or along
the surface of the bedrock. Therefore, our usual
recommendation on hillside and steeper slope construction
is to build in conformity with existing hillside grades and
not to excavate or cut into the various soil layers and
through the rock/soil interface into the underlying bedrock
materials. However, due to functional and aesthetic
reasons or requirements, there are many times when such
cutting. . is required. .It should be realized that
drainage waters will most likely be present in such areas
and will have to be accepted and/or dealt with as
required." Ex C. p. 31
The report recognizes the "variable and locally poor
subsurface conditions", suggests "a very strong and deep drilled
pier and grade foundation system", but also states that if there
is any lessening of the minimum requirements:
"our opinion that the proposed residential development
is feasible from the geotechnical engineering
standpoint should be considered to be revoked.", Ex.
C. p.ll.
Taken together these two statements mean that one of the
key factors in mitigation with respect to building on hillsides
is not being followed in an area of poor soil because there was
no other place to put an additional house on this parcel of
land. But, why must there be an additional house on the parcel?
Such reasoning is, in effect, an argument that the creation of
an environmental impact is its own mitigation. The simple
answer to it is to deny the application and avoid the
envirnomental impact proposed by this additional building.
12473559
EXHIBIT NO. t g
p, 2- of <.(
2.
3. The specific portions of the report reveal further
defects:
a) The mapped presence of landslide deposits is noted
with the observation that they were not obvious to the
investigators. Ex. C. p.6 Saying that they are not obvious (we
do not know whether this means obvious on the surface or through
the limited borings) is not equivalent to saying they do not
exist.
b) The site includes "highly expansive soil materials
and locally wet conditions", Ex C. p. 6 which must be dealt with
in a prudent manner so as to mitigate the natural site
conditions. Ex. C. p.6). This recognizes but does not solve a
problem.
c) It is recommended that the "proposed houses" be
placed on piers that have a minimum depth of 20 feet, and in one
area recommends that they be even deeper; that there be a trench
subdrain at least 12 feet in depth, and a special slough wall.
Ex. C. pp. 7,11,12 and 13. Such very long piers, subdrains and
wall emphasize the fragility of the soil conditions. The
recommendation that the piers be deeper than 20 feet in one area
does not indicate how deep, although it suggests the equipment
be capable of going down to 30 feet.
d) The recommendation that grading be kept to "an
absolute minimum", Ex. C. p. 8, seems to be inconsistent with
grading for a 540 feet road, a 12 foot deep trench and a slough
wall.
4. The report recommends that site drainage waters from
house, roof, patios, driveways and new access driveways be
collected and discharged into the adjacent natural southeastern
creek. Ex. C. p. 15. It also recommends that:
"the attorney for the developer and owner be
consulted to determine the legal manner of discharging
drainage at this site, It should be noted that
improperly discharged concentrated drainage may be a
source of liability and litigation between adjacent
property owners". Ex. C. p.31.
I believe that this is a reference to my property which
straddles the creek, but, in any event, such drainage will cause
erosion, and is not simply a matter of possible liability and
litigation between private parties, although that would be bad
enough. Applicant should not be permitted by the Town to
collect and concentrate drainage and run it over a neighbor's
property causing erosion on it. To do so would create an
environmental impact that the Town should prevent. If the town
were to permit such erosion, it would not only be derelict in
its duties to preserve the environment; it would itself be
liable for the injury.
In summary, this application seeks approval to subdivide a
site that has not conformed to Town Zoning for many years, for
the purpose of adding an additional building in an area of soggy
12473559
EXHIBIT NO. tg
1>. ~ (K- 4
J
unstable hillside on which it is dangerous to build, in which
the normal conditions of hillside alignment are not followed,
and on which it is proposed to construct 20-30 feet pilings, a
twelve foot deep train and a slough wall. The drainage itself
would erode neighboring property.
With respect to the application for subdivision, the old
principle of physicians, "first do no harm" applies. Even
though the duplex should not be on the lot at all, it would be
better to leave it there than to split the lot as proposed.
With respect to the proposed negative declaration, the purpose
of an environmental impact report is to have a competent neutral
source provide complete information to ensure that on a fragile
site such as this, already containing three dwellings on less
than an acre, there be a very careful appraisal of the
environmental damage likely from the proposal. In this case, we
have a partisan report. Nevertheless, the professionalism of
its authors is such that they have not failed to reflect at
least some of the facts, and those alone shows why a negative
declaration would be improper.
. YoUJ:" SIle.1lIY,
~~.d(c&
cc Mr. Watrousw
12473559
EXHIBIT NO. I g
p, ~ ()f LJ
~
(-f?>.i~ :fi G~
pe"~~~"~D
r.;;\n 2 3 i~;~-,
SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL AT 885 B, C, D TIBURON BL YD.
PARCEL NO. 55-262-11 c. . TCV!": U" T!,'URON
\" _. .- ~..::':': .: G;.:::....:=~;~:;, c:::;-:".
The undersigned oppose the subdivision and the attempt to approve it via a mitigated negative
declaration. A complete reevaluation is needed, and at a minimum an Environmental Impact
Report needs to be submitted.
1. The support materials are confusing. Is the proposal to build one house or two? Either
of which is objectionable.
2. There are currently three families living on the 20,000 foot parcel. The addition of
another family (or two!) is excessive in light of building and development patterns in Tiburon
over the last decade. This density definitely does not fit the surrounding neighborhood.
3. Paragraph 3E regarding pollution and discharge is inadequate. Pollution from
discharge will be hannful and continuing after construction as the runoff on Owlswood flows
downhill and into the adjacent stream. There is already evidence of ongoing pollution of the
stream from fertilizer runoff .
4. Paragraph 7 regarding light and glare does not adequately address continuing light and
glare after construction. An additional large house(s) will compound problems already existing
on the parcel.
5. Paragraph 12 regarding supply and demand of housing stock ignores the real possibility
that the addition of a fourth or fifth fumily residence on the parcel will reduce demand (and
value) of existing houses in the intmediate neighborhood.
6. Paragraph 17 regarding dust inadequately analyzes the hannful effect of dust on
neighborhood residents.
7. Paragraph 18 regarding views and aesthetics is completely unacceptable. There is no
COlII1Ort that a house (or houses) will actually not interfere with views. 540 feet is not a
driv-.y, but a road. The proposed "driveway" would be a longer distance than Stony
HilI/Gilmartin is already. The increase in traffic for both Stony Hill residents and neighbors is
unacceptable.
8. Setbacks from 25 to 15 feet are unacceptable.
9 . We believe that the owners of the property will also have a financial interest in its
development, and would like assurances that the environmental and engineering studies are at
arm's length. Additionally, some of the houses bordering the Tiburon Avenue side of the
property are owned by buyers or sellers of the parcel or relatives of those parties.
10. We are very concerned about the stability of the hillside abutting the property and the
likelihood of slides are a definite concern.
11. The local area abounds with valuable wildlife: deer, foxes, California quail and, yes,
owls. They are a delight to all who live here, and additional development will only serve to
lessen this valuable element of life in Tiburon.
PRINTED N
EI'2d~~
;/ L ':7/f~
ADDRESS .
I 0'- v <;~ Ai) n&t..Jb/o-..
/
2.
!t1f1I.V E. BDlJJ/.E$
9<Js OWls 00
3.
thl;eTd fEJtLPjUTTE~
945 MJl.SWtlOP
EXHIBIT NO. \q
~~. ( t1F 3
~
/
6
tI /4 S
7.
10.
U;\.~((a L J 1+ le
1-. '1r-JrJ od/q,...d
!- Cl.XY" O,l "".JJ
I () l.JJ 16i.-VOOC/ r:: 01
5" OWIS{)JC0~ ("(d'
5 OCvIJ(;j~ R,J) ,
11.
15
1
/() L9.. jr;. t.Uo<,('j J((:J!
6' Wu,c,/coi)
~ .& u<.D-I
/0 0 iA
8/s S /oltJ
J
-..., "
'- ". \1
22,
. ,c 'BYo 5'(0)3 )fill Rei '
9(J (" . U. f( p :j/&f.
23.
/
24. (
I L.L P-IJ
of
25.
f\ (( c( I.
'I
SlaW flLL y2lJ
EXHIBIT NO.~
P.2. OF 3
t)7.
d-2.
~
" ~ ~ ~ U~ .5 1JWJswmlI!.",~,
2\, \N ~ -56\'" M: .1'\,1601\<-, HI " ~
.'
EXHIBIT NO.-B-
'P. ~OF3
Oixon and Sharon Po.
Lfr~
flffrJ L
4 April 1997
J:I~.
-,
Daniel M. Watrous, senior planner
Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
.-11)'-'
.....; (
RE: Minor Subdivision #69602
..1':::;\;/,'1 ._
..._-.:'....., c,- 7'1'
"h...~ , Z "'-
-tool .'''f:;) .'
'- I' ~"..'
...... ,\ . ......,~..
- ~"::.jr.
Dear Mr. Watrous,
Thank you for the staff report on our subdivision project. We will use this letter
to address the conclusion reached in the staff report.
We are saddened by the unwillingness to recommend approval of our project.
We offer these assessments and possible solutions for each of the five reasons
given for the disapproval.
1. We would ask what good is an easement in this case. If the City of Tiburon
is to deny us the use of the easement that connects our property to Stony Hill
Road isn't it fair that we be compensated? This easement represents the only
means of access to our property. As such it has an intrinsic value which is
considerable. As a measure of our good faith we would be willing to forego
the final decision on the driveway configuration until the City of Tiburon
develops its' Master Plan for this area. There is already an existing dirt
driveway running in our easement (a driveway that we have used, cleared
and done maintenance on for the last three years). This driveway can be
layered with gravel so its temporary use will not create dust problems. If this is
acceptable it would alleviate the need to delay our projects' approval until
after a Master Plan is approved.
2. This configuration is legal, built with permits, etc. Why are we now being
penalized for the fact that these buildings were built before these zoning
ordinances existed? A look at the county maps for this area will verify that
many of the properties are built on what now would be defined as legal non-
conforming lots due to their size. As concerns the potential drainage and
geological problems these have all been solved in the soils report.
3. The statement that "denial of this subdivision would not result in any
takings or deprivation of use for the owner" is patently false. To deny us the
use of over half of our property is a very good example of "takings or
deprivation". There is also the fact that when we applied for a permit to add a
bedroom and bath to our home, which sits on proposed lot #1 we were
informed that the planning staff could not support this because we have three
residences on one lot! This would be a great example of a catch 22. There
are clearly four things taken from us by the denial of our project: 1. The use of
over half of our land 2. The use of our easement 3. We are unable to put an
addition on our house and hence are compelled to live in a barely habitable
&&5B Til>uron Blvd, . Til>uron CA 94920 . 415,435,6509 . 435,9&73 (FAX)
EXHIBIT NO. 2.0 '<'lOF'
Oixon and Sharon Po. "
900 square foot building 4. We are paying $8500.00 in taxes on land that, by
denying us its use, will have been substantially devalued.
4. Not true. See 2 above.
5. With the housing as scarce as it is in Marin every additional housing unit is
critical. Otherwise, the argument can easily be made that no private building
promotes the public health, safety and general welfare except in an area
where housing is scarce.
Thank you for the time and the effort that you have thus far put into our project. I
will be calling you to set up a visit before the town meeting this coming
Wednesday, April 9,
ID;reIY, /}
KJ (j'~
~~
Dixon Power
Sharon Power
&&5a Til>uro" alvd, . Til>uro" CA 94920 . 415,435.6509 . 435,9&73 (FAX)
EXHIBIT NO. 20 P.-Z~'
Oixon and Sharon Po,
LA-- -re-
ml1-/ L-
4 April 1997
RE: Minor Subdivision #69602
~~f";...
'.
.......
-1,')" ~,,,
.'1 ':4i/
;:-'" ]':.....1 8 j.<\
--:.: ~~~\t... #./
-".\J 'l Up: 7".
'" "",. leu"
-\""::'~:.:C,,,
I~\G 1"'\
J.:.oZ":i7;
Daniel M. Watrous, senior planner
Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Mr. Watrous,
We just received the Town of Tiburon staff report concerning our application for
the subdivision of our lot. We feel compelled to respond in detail to what are
erroneous, petty and inappropriate protests contained in the letters and petition
that are included with this report. We apologize in advance for burdening you
with such a lengthy letter but we feel that every one of these objections needs to
be addressed.
In this letter we intend to address specifically the salient points of the petition
and letters of protest. In the interest of space we will be referring to duplicate
responses by the identification of previously used paragraphs. Our responses
will be in the sequence that they appear in the subject letter/petition. Again, in
the interest of space, we will generally not be quoting the letter we are
responding to so it will be necessary to refer to said letters.
A) Letter from Dr. Ann-Marie Meagher (Exhibit NO.4)
1. The crux of this opposition is the existence of our duplex, This duplex is
legal non-conforming. The duplex was here before the existence of the
Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and we should not be penalized because of
subsequent changes in the law, What we propose in our subdivision
conforms to the required lot size as deemed appropriate for our zoning as
defined by the Tiburon Subdivision Ordinance.
2. The objection to a long driveway seems is a non-issue since the driveway
has existed since at least the 1940's when the previous owners father
purchased the land, The fact that this land has been overrun by scotch broom
does not change this. This is a simple fact which can be confirmed by a walk
across the said driveway with its grading and cuts.
3. Dust during construction is a sad fact of life. This problem is substantially
reduced by the Town of Tiburons' ordinance requiring building sights to be
watered down when excessive dust is present. In order for dust to actually
reach the authors residence it would have to travel across the ravine, past the
one rather large residence, across Owlswood Road, up the hill, beyond 945
Owlswood Lane and finally across Owlswood Lane. There is probably more
dust raised when Dr. Meager leaves or enters her own driveway.
&&5& Til>uron &Ivd. . Til>uron CA 94920 . 415,435,6509 . 435,9&73 (fAX)
EXHIBIT NO. 20 p.!3 oF-Cjf
Oixon and Sharon Po.
4. See E. Part 4 and F. 3. below. As noted in the drainage report, the amount
of runoff into the creek remains very close to the present amount or specifically
"the increase in runoff will be negligible".
I would also like to repeat the fact that the doctors, residence is situated at
such a remote distance from our property that we cannot conceive of how any
of her concerns can be relevant to our situation.
B. Letter from Lerov and Elizabeth Little (Exhibit NO.5)
This letter is addressed in the response to the petition.
C. Letter from Kent Allen (Exhibit No.6)
1. The driveway issue is addressed in A. 2. above.
2. Concerning the desire for a "Master Plan", this may be a sound idea but we
have no inside information as to how Mr. Ling, the owner of the 5 plus acre
parcel feels about this. Our real-estate agent did inform us that some years
ago Mr. Ling did try to develop this property. He eventually got so frustrated
with the system in place at that time that he gave up. It is our feeling that the
suggestion of a "Master Plan" is just a another artifact used to deny or delay
our project.
3. a. Soil tests have been completed and are included with the Staff Report,
b. Already addressed
c. See Biological Reconnaissance Report
d. This concern about safety due to a long driveway comes up elsewhere.
I'm at a loss to answer it. To me a long driveway poses no more a threat
then a road. Maybe a chain link fence and 24 hour armed guards? Or
maybe we could widen it and increase the traffic flow, but this might
offend the people on Stony Hill who are already worried about the
increase in traffic congestion that an additional unit will bring. I would
also offer as a suggestion that if this concern is so important than the
property owners abutting the lot to which we have an easement should
clear said lot of weeds and scotch broom so as to eliminate any shelter
that a scoundrel may secure himself in.
D. Letter from John and Ann Gigounas (Exhibit No.7)
1. From my observation of the condition of the road named "Stony Hill" I
assume it is a relatively new structure, built say, within the last 20 years. I also
think it is safe to assume that it was built to certain city and state specifications.
This being the case we feel that the road is up to the challenge of an
additional car or two. We also hope that the residents along Stony Hill Road
will survive the additional car or two.
2. When the property was purchased by John and Ann Gigounas I have to
assume that they were aware that the vacant lots next to them could and
would very possibly be built upon at some time in the future. I would humbly
&&5B Til>uron Blvd, . Til>uron CA 94920 . 415,435,6509 . 435,9&73 (fAX)
EX-BrBIT NO. 26 Po 4o~~
Oixon and Sharon Po.
suggest that the addition of curtains would go a long way towards solving this
potential threat.
3. This is a good one. I hadn't realized that Stony Hill Road was sovereign
territory. We have always assumed that streets were public and that, should
someone have a party, their guest could use these streets to park their
vehicles. Anyway, we are proposing to build a garage or car port on the
property.
4. I do not understand how" "parking ", in the social sense of the word", will
increase the fire danger. If fire danger is a real concern I would suggest
contacting the Owner of the property, Mr. Ling, and discuss clearing the brush
from it.
5. See C. 3. d. above. At this time there is no means in place for restricting
access to the lot owned by Mr. Ling, Paving what is now an existing dirt
driveway will in no way add or subtract from the present security level. This
concern would be best directed towards the property owner, Mr. Ling. He
might be persuaded to install a cyclone fence or at least allow the adjacent
owners to do so.
6. We feel that it is likely that Mr. Ling is aware that his property has an
easement running through it. This information is basic to a title report. In the
event that Mr. Ling or his representative would like to work together to develop
the property that our easement runs through we would be more then willing to
talk with them. The issue here though, seems to be about minimizing housing
units, traffic, etc. We cannot understand why John and Ann Gigounas are
interested in developing more vacant land.
We appreciate what John and Ann Gigounas have pointed out in the last
paragraph of their letter. They have pointed out a very interesting and almost
universal fact about themselves and the majority of the other petition
signers/letter writers, That is, that the actual building sight cannot be seen from
their property. This is very important to note because essentially this proves
that their protests are just a means of keeping us from the full benefit of our
property.
E. Letter from Allan Littman (Exhibit No. 9\
1. In regards to Allen Littmans' concern on the zoning ordinance. When we
bought the property 4 years ago we to were also concerned. To this end we
had our title company and real-estate agent do a thorough check. The result
was positive. The fact is, if this subdivision is granted it will reduce the non-
conformity by creating a lot with two non-conforming units as opposed to three
non-conforming units. Though I think the concern here is not really density
but, again, "I've got mine so to hell with everyone else". As to the set back on
lot 1 Mr. Littman should understand that this building was built before the
1940's and at that time there were no "set back" regulations, The building on
lot 2, according to my reading of the map (Exhibit 12), seems to have the
required set back.
&&5 a Ti~uron alvd, . Ti~uron CA 94920 . 415.435,6509 . 435,9&73 (fAX)
EXHIBIT NO. Zb P. ~t:J:,
Oixon and Sharon Po.
In regards to the paragraphs titled Environmental Impact Report. First I would
like to point out one mistaken assumption in Mr. Littmans' letter. He refers to
me, the owner/developer, as the preparer of the Geotechnical Report. All
reports submitted by me were done by licensed professionals, not myself.
These people have their professions and livelihoods on the line when they
sign and stamp a report, I think that Mr, Littmans' statement implying that
these professionals would skew the facts for our benefit is presumptuous and
offensive. (If we were after a bogus report do you think that we would have
accepted one that requires a foundation that cost about four times the cost of a
regular foundation?).
2. Part 1. The great conundrum surrounding the error in reference to the "two
proposed home sights" could be solved by simply checking the original
application. In this it clearly states one home sight is proposed.
Part 2. Mr. Littman goes on to quote general disclaimers to try and prove that
the hillside cannot accept an additional building. His argument in reference to
Exhibit C page 11 is valid if taken out of context, as it is in his letter. If you read
the reference page all it is saying is, if you do not follow our specifications we
don't stand behind the results. This is only logical. If you read further down
the page that Mr. Littman is quoting from you will see that the engineer allows
for the "lessening of the minimum requirements" if he is retained for
supplemental investigation! Mr. Littmans' arguments work only because he
takes them entirely out of the context they are presented in.
Part 3. a. The engineer had borings done all along the road and on the upper
lot. The engineer is trained to make judgments based on past experience. In
this case, since he cannot excavate the whole hillside he is using this
experience. This is what engineers are paid for. It should also be noted that
this "landslide zone" that is being referred to encroaches on many existing
houses in this area; houses that haven't slid.
b. It should be noted that the test bores were drilled right after a heavy rain
and this had an impact on the results. As concerns the "prudent manner"
argument, all of this is addressed in the road design.
c. This only indicates that we hired a very thorough engineer. As to the final
depth, the engineer has noted elsewhere in the report that he is to be present
during the boring to determine the final depth. The "fragility" of the soil is
addressed by the piers! This is more circular logic.
d. A considerable amount of the grading for the driveway has already been
done. (Possibly the majority of it.) As stated earlier, this driveway is many
decades old. As to the engineers notation that grading be kept to an absolute
minimum, this is standard language and just prudent. Of course grading
should be kept to a minimum!
Part 4. Drain water is always directed towards a stream or storm drain. This is
just general knowledge and, again just prudent. Mr. Littman uses veiled
threats of suit to the City of Tiburon and the engineers general disclaimer to try
and make his point. Our land presently drains into the said creek and has
&&5B Til>uron Blvd. . Til>uron CA 94920 . 415.435,6509 . 435,9&73 (fAX)
EXHIBIT NO. 2() ..-P. (,. CJF'
fJixon and Sharon Po.
.
done so for thousands of years. The City of Tiburon required a drainage
study. We paid for and submitted one. It concluded that the increase in runoff
was "negligible". More importantly though, if Mr. Littman had noticed that his
property is up stream from ours he might have concluded that erosion from our
property to his is unlikely.
In the conclusion of Mr. Littmans' letter he attempts a summation of the
geotechnical report. Mr. Littmans' summation seems pretty bleak: soggy
unstable hillside, dangerous to build, drainage that will erode the neighboring
properties, etc. The problem with this scenario is that it is, A an exaggeration,
B it fails to point out that each of these items are addressed in the report and C
all of these items are ubiquitous to this area and somehow all of these people
have managed to build homes here.
We appreciate the quotation found in the last paragraph, "first do no harm",
the implication being leave the sight as is. We are in complete agreement, in
fact we propose that all of the property encompassed by the Tiburon city limits
be returned to its rightful owners, the Indians.
Mr. Littmans property is located across the creek, a considerable way to the
east and high up on the ridge. We drove up to this property to observe what
effect if any our project would have on him. There is no view of our property
from his. When we stood on the upper most corner of our lot we could see a
piece of his roof and chimney! From our perspective the most that this
gentleman could see of our project would be a small portion of the proposed
driveway. Allowing individuals like Mr. Littman, who have no rational interest
in the outcome of our project, to dictate terms, seems like a form of abuse of
city resources. With this kind of precedent we can see a time when the City of
Tiburon will have to run special city wide elections before granting any
permits.
The need for an EIR has not been proven by Mr. Littman through his circular
logic or erroneous evaluations of the reports. Again, this is just another way of
trying to delay, add expense, and derail the project. The location of Mr.
Littman's property to ours is proof that his is just another selfish manifestation
of "I've got mine, to hell with everyone else".
F. The Petition, (Exhibit NO.1 0)
With the exception of the petitions' authors all of the signers have little or no
reason to be objecting to this project. We neither block their view or affect
them with noise, etc. beyond the initial construction. When we drove by the
homes of the people who signed the petition we were amazed at how remote
the majority of them were to our project. Many of the signers who have homes
on Owlswood are located on the other side of the hill! As to the homeowners
on Stony Hill Road we would have to build a seven story low rise in order for
them to even see our project.
1. See E. 2. Part 1
&&5B Tipuren Blvd, . Tipuren CA 94920 . 415,435,6509 . 435,9&73 (FAX)
EXHIBIT NO. '2-D P.7 ~ 't
Oixon and Sharon Po.
2. See E. 1. The Statement that the density does not fit the neighborhood is
false. Most of the lots to the west of the property are smaller then the size we
are proposing for our lot. The lot that we are proposing to split off (the one
that is causing so much protest) would be almost one half of an acre, this
conforms to or is larger then many of the lots in this area. The duplex was built
when this configuration was legal. To deny us use of it as a contingency to
approval would severely reduce the value of our property. Again, it's obvious
that this is really not a concern, just an excuse to deny us the legitimate use of
our property.
3. Our offending hillside presently drains into the creek. It has done so for
thousands of years. Nothing we are planning will add to the pollution. It is a
moot point since we are able to fertilize this area now as we would be able to
fertilize this area after building.
4. Some glare cannot be helped. This is one of the items taken into
consideration when the building design is evaluated, At that time this problem
is usually settled via some compromise.
5. "I've got mine..."
6. See A. 3.
7. I would propose that there is most likely many driveways in this town which
are longer then 540 ft, The fact that the proposed driveway is longer or
shorter than Stony Hill Road is of no significance. The increase of traffic
caused by one additional unit is negligible.
8. The specified set backs are derived from the City of Tiburon's design
guidelines. Mr. a(ld Mrs. Little should also note that any building would most
likely be situated on the north end of the lot in order to take advantage of the
view. This would leave the whole south end of the lot as open space,
9. See E. 1. second paragraph. The fact that the "buyers or sellers of the
parcel" own houses adjacent to the property is completely irrelevant.
10. See Soils Report. Landslides are a critical consideration to us, any slides
would have a devastating effect on the buildings already existing on the lower
portion of our property, It should be pointed out that any building would most
likely be situated on the north end of the lot, away from the Littles' property
and hence there would be even less likelihood of their being affected in the
event of a slide.
11. This objection seems odd considering the fact that most of the petitions'
signers have deer fences surrounding their property. We have always
maintained an "open pathway" approach to the local wildlife, accepting some
chewed up plants in exchange for their presence. We would propose
continuing to leave our property open to the local wildlife using deer resistant
planting instead of fences.
111l5a Til>uron alvd, . Til>uron CA 94920 . 415,435,6509 . 435,91173 (FAX)
EXHIBIT NO, '20- P. e' oP-C1'
Oixon and Sharon Po
This lengthy letter has addressed each and every item submitted by the
homeowners who voiced objection to our project. After going over each
objection carefully, we can find merit with very few. It is our opinion that the only
legitimate concem comes from the Littles, whose property is directly affected by
the development of our property, We can understand their concern. To that
concern we can only offer that if the subdivision ever gets approved and we are
in control of building the home we would work with them to make any building
as mutually amenable as possible.
We do not know what weight the letters and petition carry with this body. If they
are to be part of what you consider in your final decision concerning the destiny
of our property then we insist that you cull what are superfluous and petty
arguments. To this end we would advise you to drive to the signers homes and
observe their proximity to our project.
In summary we would like to reiterate some of the more outstandingly petty
objections that make up these protests: We have a petition that describes the
delight that the signers take in the local wildlife while most of these same
signers have enough fencing around them to keep them totally insulated from
any wildlife!; The petition objects to the legal setbacks while only one of its'
signers owns property that abuts ours; People complaining of dust that live on
the other side of the hill. Someone actually complaining that the light from our
car might shine into their home! We won't go on.
Finally, we would like to offer to any of these homeowners singly or as a group,
if they are truly serious about their desire to keep this land open space, that we
would be willing to discuss the purchase of our property with them for that
purpose.
Sincerely,
Dixon Power
Sharon Power
cc: Planning Commission City of Tiburon
&&5 B Til>uron Blvd, . Til>uron CA 94920 . 415,435,6509 . 435,9&73 (FAX)
EXHIBIT NO. ~ Pr.cy OF q
[)ixon and Sharon POwer
30 April 1997
~~~..."
"fJt,,,"
" .'.....~
. .~."jl
Daniel M. Watrous
Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Mr. Watrous,
.":"", 'r_
-<:._~t:~t ~,~ i~, ~ /~'
.-l...-:~v~c
.......~:, {v
...... '"\.....
'-...:..o::.~
'.
Here are the present floor areas and the proposed floor areas of our property:
885 C & D (Duplex). Present floor area is 3000 square feet, with a 300 foot
garage. There is no proposed change to this building,
885 B (One bedroom, one bath home). Present floor area is 1031 square
feet for the home and 475 square feet for the carport and shed. The proposed
addition which is currently in review at the building department will add a
master bedroom and bath and increase the floor area by 600 square feet. In the
future we hope to add a dinning room with an approximate square footage of
400 feet.
Upper lot. Proposed home: 4000 square feet plus 500 foot garage.
EXHlBIT NO..1L
'P. ( of S-
""5B "puren Blvd, . "puren CA 94920 . 415,435,6509 . 435,9"73 (fAX)
I'
II
,I
I
I
~ -
--=-
..; --
~"'GE 1
'..,-
--
I!'<JJI<,..tEY,'lfSIOfNT
&'. -
" I' ,,q;~i~', :;. n I -
, !UJ~'. I" IC~,....
" -_h~,_
-'. ""!t)J
CALlFORNIAPACIFICTITLE INSURANCE COMP.~Y " "
'":'. j-...... !\;'-;-
, "'-. '.. .: .:"?'~''.~ 0::: ~..
.... ~. ,.:." /1&:.;-
--.....:.:.":.~C'"
....'l.:.,:;,.....,
....-)-1.
SmRt!faallann~
A~F"lLlATE:D WITH
."'''.lEA..'.'''CI..'SIOf..'.........GfI
1017 FOURTH STREET
WM C HI.o.....aUI "SSISTAN' \,ClflUY
JOHN> 'lElfV!N,AS\ISlANTSfCl!TAn
SAN RAFAEL.CALIFOR.NIA
T(Ll"'''ON( GL.!:NWOOD "."27~
February 6, 1956
PRELIMINARY REPORT
ORDER No.
52138
A~erican Trust Compa~y
S2.:l ..n_nselma
CalifJrnia
Atte~tio~: r1~. Charles Tijeri~a
Ger..tle'ner:.:
In connection with this order the Company is prepared to issue a Policy of Title Insurance in
its usual form, as of the date of chis report, containing its standard exceptions and conditions, showing
title as herein set forth.
This report is issued without liability pending recording, final dosing and issuance of Policy in
accordance with instructions, and payment of premium.
,
.
I
I:
II;
I
.
..
,
)';
'If
I
,
,
'""S3T:;:D:
o~ Feb~~ary 2, 1955, at 8:00 o'clock A.~., in
G30:lG:2 :[J. SC~)_}E= E,:J.C. K.:~~:~Rll~.t. E. SCE2.ANI~
his ~ife, RS Jo~~t Te~a~ts
S"[EJEC~ ~O:
i'
.
I'
(1) ?8ssitle e~'f5ct of.?iS::t of i;.je.y p'ranted by Clotilda J. Reed
C21i~o~~i2 Ce~t~al G~s e~a Electric C Offi? any , 8. ccryO~ati8n,
~~G8~CeC A~~ust 15, 1903 i~ Liter 32 of ~eeds, at pa;e 332.
,
.
to
'i
[I,
.
.
"
'I~
I
.
.
~
I~
"
#
~
~
i
'"
t,:
~1
a
(.2)
?o3sic2.e e~.:"'ect of ~:..;-l:t o~ i:'FEY ,~~'ra:J.ted by Cl:)tilde J. 2eec,
to T-'=~,::,i~ :v:unici::2,1 ~;T~tter District, 8. puclic corp8ra-:io!1, re-
c~rdeG J~l7 1, 1021, in L~ber 22S of ~eecs, at pa€6 66.
c; )
?ossi.tlg e:"=.--ect ':Jt '?i,:,,!:t cf' ;,.Tey ;,:r2.nted by Clotilc.s J. ?eed to
~~3 ?&2~!~C T=le?h8ne~~nc Telesraph C~T~~ny, E ccrp8ration, re-
co~eet June 2~, 1924 i~ Liber 50 of official Records, at pege
"-:>7
-.;' t .
I'~O =:s :
C8U:-.!.ty 0-:-" LE.::,in t2..."'\8S f:::.:....
of ;~~.40 ~ave bes~ ~alQ.
-1~~ ~l.s0~1 VQ~~ lC~(_(~
..'..._u _ _'c;;,_ <I uc;;,... _ "./-" -"U
~S~ Eill N'J. 12329.
in tbe e..m::u.::."'c
EXIITBIT NO, 2.,
? Z~~
- -.~ I ~. "
,
I
DESCRI~i:ON:
...: ~.~~~
TEAT certain real property situate in the County or Marin, State of
Calif'ornia', de soribed as rollows:
PARCEL ONE :
BEGINNING at the most Southerly oorner of that certain parcel of land
"conveyed by Warren L. Bostick, et al, to Robert B. AiI'd, et ux, by
Deed recorded September 1, 1949 in Libel' 626 of Orficial Records, at,
'page 237, Marin County Reoords; and running thence along the Soutl;l.-'"
".,westerly line or said property, North 550 06' 20" West 193.98 feet:
thence leaving said line and running North 490 32' East 60.0 feet,
North 340 24' East 182.50 feet, and South 550 18' East 179.573 feet
to the Southeast'erly line or said AiI'd proper ty; running thence
along said line, South 340' 42' West 241.156 reet to the point or
beginning.
~OGE~R WITH an Easement over a 60.0 feat and a 50.0 foot strip
of land as desoribed in that certain Deed rrom Warren L.'Bostick,
et aI, to Robert B. Aird, et ux, recorded September 1, 1949 in
iri'llib:S:r_626 of Offioial Records, at page 237, Marin County Records.
,
-",. .
!.LSO SUBJECT TO AND TOGET:lliR WITH an Easement for roadway and
utili ty purposes over a LLO. 0 foot strip of land, the center line
being described as follows: BEGINNING at a point in the center
line of the above referred to 50.0 foot Easement distant North
360 3~.' ]J" West 203.724 feet from the Northwest corner of the
above described parcel of land and running thence South 420 12'
JO" East 288.741 feet.
EXCEPTING TB:ERJ:.~ROM 'AND THEREOUT that portion thereof described
in Deed rrom George W. Schrank et ux to Robert B. AiI'd et ux
dated January 11, 1955 and recorded February 11, 1955 in Libel'
920 of Official Re09rds, at page 320.
PARCEL TWO:
BEGINNING at a point on the Northwesterly line of that certain parcel
of land describeQ in the deed from Robert B. AiI'd, et ux to George W.
Schrank, et ux, recorded September 1, 1949 in Libel' 619 of Official
Records, at page 367, Marin Coumty Reoords, distant along said line
North 490 32' East 20.0 feet from the most Westerly corner ~~ereof;
thence from said point of beginning along said Northwesterly line, South
490 32' West 20.0 feet to said most Westerly corner, being on the South-
westerly line of the parcel of land described in the deed from Warren
L. Bostiok et aI, to Robert B. AiI'd, et ux, reoorded September 1, 1949
in Libel' 626 of Orficial Records, at page 237; thence along the South-
westerly line or the paroel or land de scribed in said last mentioned
deed, North 400 28' West 17.0 feet to a point; thence, leave said line,
Easterly in a direot line to the point of beginning.
BwR/cw
EXHIBIT NO. 2'
r. ~ of S-
,
'N
-
">'"
-','.:';'''-
..;
,,:. ~r'j.~:~+~'
.'.
-"--'''''.
.'.'.-' ....:....
.,- " ,.~:"" :. -". "'~'.':'
<:.:~,.~...'...;~~...,..~,.';.;.,'.c<;"~.':<, ;;:" ,.~:.,:" <
. ,.... ...... :.' .?~:"i.}?:?J,).. "";'> -,
. .".''';.-',,; .. j
'.;. ,.:,.... ./ '.'0' '/'
','1 ., <.'-' ,:~"'<-3>"/
.- .' '. ,/ '( '" '..
.:'.' ~"~~~~.'~'::r::i.:> i" ".:
. ,./~ ':~'<C,<.:- -"
./ {"':':\,}.: ,.
. /'. ()' .', /.:t:~.
;/ b r_....~< .
. - .~\._. ,- />"' '---,""'-':"~;~\'.
./ "'/'" :<.' . '-
'/ /~. "-
'./ '. '.-;
'I. ./. / '_"\~ \,
\../ . '/'\...
.~> ',,;\
.,: ,'::", /' .\ >.- \,..
'. " \..~
\ . '., ~':,
\ \, ,
\ 'I. \.
'I. \ .~
\ ',/.
,~ , .. ../', ",,\
V 'I. __/" ",,-G~\,
A',. '. \.~ .._/
'\: \. ~ '-:- - - - -
7 i'v\,: >~:~,~~~~ ~~
. "0,\
\ ;:.~-- ,:",'-_. .. '"'-';'" ,\ '. .
-\,. . ~ \I' ~~;:..",
-s:.- "\ . ~ V .\ O. ~~\.,
--". .01" '.,\IT' ~_,'
G' \ 'I. \ ~... ?,'
~ .\, ,
,~\
\ "Y,
\-:-\ .
'\
~. . \.
'\
,
\
'I.
,
\
\'
.,
-c
/
~
"
~-
'/'
"
F XC. l' TN''';
~-,., ~ ?
T~:'';;'' v. .-t.
3..20
\ \.
"
\
EXHIBIT NO. 2,.(
'P. &.( of S-
7XfS DI.o\G;';;A./'-l I;:;'
1-'0,',
LU:...:;.. i'~':.l"li
!-'Gk~...
v.-,:_ v. ~.HD IS N'.:n
,t., ~::.i, ;;.7 0-;: .,; .:;~
-...., '_.~.
r.......L..I...,
r ,
U~.
C1E.f<;:.'::r T_j
Sf\>1
Vw' ;'::~
\I i:.;. ,
--" .-
. -'
,'.D.
..
R/,.:,';:'::" :.....'...
"
~ , ",.
;:v
'DO ^
SAN "'AFAEL LAND TITLE COMPl,NY
~.
,,--- -'-) "'# -.<:.~,/:;
~,.~'./--J.-"/'.~ ~>-'b ~-
BY
P P. UL F. LEAT.l
Eana8er
B'11H/ C~J
EXHIBIT NO. 'Z I
'P. 5 /)~~
IMPORTANT NOTICE
A lender or purchaser for his protection must:
a. Inquire into the rights or claims of parties in possession, and possible easements or encumbrances not of record.
b. Examine and determine the exact boundaries and area of the property, the location thereon of improvements. and have
a survey made if necessary.
c. Determine whether there are any lienable claims for labor done or materials furnished.
d. Determine whether there are any pending proceedings for street or other improvements which may result in liens.
e. Determine whether there are any zone or set.back ordinance restrictions, or other Governmental regulations affecting
the property.
lJixon and Sharon Power
5 May 1997
Daniel M. Watrous
Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
r:t-~rt~r~,r~~
i . -L~
;' i" ~
RE: Story poles
" - .
" " .. ":- -1-!~i!;:1C~,J
:...:.. ~, =~.-~:...:<:~:... :::?T.
Dear Mr. Watrous,
This weekend I met with Roy and Betsy Little to work out what I hope will be a
mutually agreeable placing for the story poles. We worked together to maintain
a vista which includes the water and most of the Mount Tam ridge line. The
enclosed map lays out this latest configuration.
I had initially set the story poles closer to their property and higher. Upon
meeting with Roy and Betsy they expressed the opinion that their view was still
impacted and that the new home sight seemed to be "right in our back yard". I
recalculated the sight lines and moved the poles to their present location. In the
present location I have allowed very little extra space and severely reduced our
design potential. I bring this up in hopes that these story poles will be
understood as approximations, allowing us some latitude when the final
location is determined during the design review process.
Some information about the story poles. First, please note that since we do not
have a building plan at this time we have used the poles to define a space
within which a home can be built. The floor area that the poles define is more
than the allowable 4000 square feet since the final design has not been
determined. The total usable floor area defined by the story poles is
approximately 4800 square feet. This 4800 square foot area would apply if a
home was built that would fit exactly within the trapeziform shape that the story
poles define. This envelope could possibly define more floor area if a third or
split level were incorporated into the design. At this time our main object with
the story poles is defining and hence preserving the Little's view lines.
On the four tallest poles the day glow pink marks and accompanying string are
to approximate the second story floor level. The black marks below these show
where 15 feet below the roof line lies. The tallest pole on the northern end of
the property marks the 30 foot height limit. This pole would be the top of the
roof if a flat roof is used. If a pitched roof is built this pole would define the
lowest edge at the western end of the second floor roof and the ridge would be
higher. The three lower poles fix the limits for the front roof edge of the lower
floor. The lone pole near the base of the proposed lot is set to show the top of
the roof for a detached garage.
EXHIBIT NO. '2."2-
l>. I or;:. ~
~~5B n~uron Blvd. . n~uron CA 94920 . 415,435,6509 . 435,9"73 (fAX)
Oixon and Sharon Power
At the last meeting the Little's expressed the desire to maintain their water
views, I feel that we have clearly proved that this is possible.
rrcr~.Jv---
~n Power
EXHIBIT NO. Z '-
? "2-- oF ;.
&&5B Tll>uron Blvd, . Tll>uron CA 94920 . 415,435,6509 . 435.9&73 (fAX)
Oixon and Sharon Power
6 May 1997
Daniel M. Watrous
Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
~.""i""~-~ r-""':\
nr::".-"-- \ ';"~
.. ,
P. '.,..
..... ,
TOW:,' OF TI/;UFlON
F:-'....: ~;..:::~3. & C.~::"OlN~ DE.:::rr.
Re: Subdivision - 885 Tiburon Blvd.
Dear Mr. Watrous,
This is a follow-up on some other items that were brought up at the last planning
commission meeting concerning our property.
. The commission indicated that improvements to the common driveway
would be required, We propose that upon completion of the building on the
upper lot that we would resurface the driveway. It would be necessary to do
this work after the construction phase due to the damage that would be
caused to the road surface from the heavy construction vehicle traffic.
. You should have received a letter from my soils engineer Jay Nelson. He
has recommended a slight change in the configuration of the trench
subdrain system which will address the concern brought up by the planning
commission at our last hearing,
. The "illegal" trees have been donated to Green Gulch Farms and will be
removed soon.
If there is anything that I have forgotten to address please call me. As always,
Thank you for all of the assistance you have given us thus far.
Sincerep'
kLL ~~ ~4t-^^--
Dixon and Sharon Power
?XHIBIT NO. '2.2-
t>. '3 OF~
&&513 Til>uron Blvd, . Til>uron CA 94920 . 415,435,6509 . 435,9&73 (fAX)
EARTH SCIENCE CONSULTANTS
SOIL . FOUNDATION AND GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 3410/SAN RAFAEL/CALIFORNIA 94912-3410/ 141S13B3-093S
pl=~r::rvED
May 5, 1997
Job No. 962489
.,.
~ ' : . -, I
7 :';\1
-:::\r.~'_ c:: :[3URO~
c_ . ._.. -.2.... ~:"::_:<;\'3 D2?T.
Dixon Power
885-B Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Deep Trench Subdrain
Proposed Residence
885-B Tiburon Blvd.
Lots 3 and 4
Tiburon, California
This letter provides our geotechnical engineering opinion with
respect to a change in the location of the deep trench subdrain
as indicated on page 13 of our previous Geotechnical Investigation
Report of April 6, 1996.
We understand that planning requirements dictate that no site
disturbance can occur beyond about 8 feet of the sides of the
proposed house location. Therefore, it will not be possible to
extend the deep trench subdrain at least 20 feet on either side of
the projection of the house.
However, it is our opinion that an equivalent result will occur if
after the subdrain extends about 8 feet on either side of the
house, it turns downslope for the last 12 feet of the subdrain and
EXHIBIT NO. '2.3
'? t OF"L
,,'
885-B Tiburon Blvd.
Page 2 - May 5, 1997
thus will not have to encroach into the city mandated 8-feet
lateral set-back area in which no construction or improvements or
disturbance can occur.
Yours very truly,
EARTH SCIENCE CONSULTANTS
Jay A. Nelson
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
Civil Engineer - 19738, expires 9/30/97
Geotechnical Engineer 630
2 copies submitted
EXHIBIT NO. "2. ~
'R 2. OF 'L.
28 April 1997
,..,.
If''":~
.' ..........
....
".
-,
";','~.
Dixon and Sharon Power
885 B Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
;c..:.... .: ~~i:;~ c,:!~. ,
'-'-.":':'-:'.7-C'lv
"'';'''':::;r;-,
........l:
Mr. and Mrs. Power,
This letter grants you the use of the existing access road off of Tiburon Blvd. for any
future home built on the upper lot (lot no. 3 on surveyors map) of your property.
This access would be in effect until the "Tai" property is developed. Upon
development of the ''Tai" property access will revert to the existing easement
located at the upper side of your lot which ends at Stony Hill Road.
Sincerely, n
-:f~ -l1J~~I
Fred Mantegani '
~' ~
YYl' ,
C;' // /a.-F' 1%:/'
Ru Mantegani t
EXHIBIT NO. 2'-1
.
mR.0M1 wtJJlrous
Pla/717/ ^i fJmml<S5/~
~ bU/lfJll. Oa..
LATe: MA\ L-
-
-
...----...~..r~~
,. ,', \/ C I~'
~ _ ~.. T::.i;,c:~Ti::URON
\ ~ /ll;: tf)~us '-'-'-,;.:,C:"5J:~:J:NGDEPT.
~an:. tv#~ Vo cUf/reS5 I'1U.j <:!J;II7(~
CWLd. &Jf)flVJl'1 oo.u C/U /6/;'1i-/JAed - 685 fJdJ -'!/btLfi:m
~d. I. -A.d 2J. sAott./d. J....UnaiA. d.S t1'IU.. W.
~ dOn i1 V#ll/iL c.ILt. (Jm~ ~ k
sob _ ~/dt d. J4Yk; ..:3 ~ is -;I. 1:S ~ .:snztLU 90 ttR.M7Jl (HI tf it
.:3 ~ ~ aM t.d~ ~ ik ~a6~ / ~~~
cuu1 uaLtu 1 ~ ebl/'/'omd IJY aJ-lil. p~ & tXtJ/U/G
~tl u/J{fadt ~ ~ !J..tW../Jnr t:U-d ~O~
-to ~ tf'()jJo~ " fJUlilO"n ~tltU ..~.
tU1. C/lt U$L ibJt.~ t:I ()tVLsw~d R~ 0/
{)W!sUX()d !.Au tJ)tJU/d k ~tdr~d ~ tJ.-Li.w C/iut1J f~ -
1Ji,a 1M {)).t WU (J.t() I'Ottd ' ;r cJd.?d ~ tf.w.dafllllU/
is Mt vf1., /uq;'lf w/t/L tJtJ/1 8Uu.dttt.rb.-;l1 w~ k a.
~t1~ ~ dLt/r/~ 6h tM, ~(J/, /mfl'A~ ' &U.A...
fMW~ tu.-J. OtlA ~d u..W.us. .
~ c;tJU -/t;y tjOZlA ~ BldMdILt1>L
EXHIBIT NO. 25 ~/Y' ~
/J'liy 't 111f -%~~~ ~
L-ATE MAl L
~
-
May 9,1997
The Planning Commission
Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
11''''-('"'''''''0" '--!"";\
~..f'-'" '~,,' "'~.:_~
c ,
7,:;r';~ c:= Ti:::":RO:-..J
F~~.:,~;~;:-~2 ~ S;';::-O:;\8 DE?!.
Re: Subdivision: 885 B,C,D Tiburon Blvd.
Dear Planning Commission:
Although development plans for the captioned project have been substantially more
defined, we still have significant problems which prevent us from full support of Mr.
Power's subdivision proposal.
1) VIEW- Mr. Powers has placed story poles on the northwest corner of the
proposed lot which outline the envelope of the dwelling. He has consulted with us and
we participated in watching the poles go up. Although the current envelope is better
than previously proposed, our views to the west (The Headlands, part of Mt. Tam, as
well as sunsets) will be blocked, We cannot see how a two-story, 4000 square foot
house with a 500 square foot garage, which is what Mr. Powers wants to build, can be
designed so that our view to the west will not be substantially impaired. Our view to the
west is already minimal so any building has an impact on us,
Although we cannot do anything but suggest an alternative (if there even has to be an
alternative), it does seem to us that a one-story house could be built which provides a
good view. Perhaps a modification of the duplex would help (to include the conversion
of the duplex to a single family home and topping off some trees currently blocking the
proposed house's view.)
2) DENSITY- We continue to have major problems with the density proposed for the
project. Commissioners at last month's meeting even mentioned that" just because it
can be done, doesn't make it right," and another said, that it is "incompatible with the
pattern of development in the neighborhood," We ask you? Whose neighborhood are
we comparing? With Mr. Power's neighborhood, it is totally incompatible. The only
reason the proposed house is in our neighborhood is because it is looming over our
fence. The Hoffman residence has two families living in it, as does the duplex. No one
on Owlswood Road has more than one family living in a home. The 31 signatures from
residents on Owlswood Road, Owlswood Lane, and Shady Hill all oppose the density
issue. They also felt that a fourth residence would overburden the site and cause
EXHIBIT NO. 2(p
~. loFl.
drainage, geological, and health problems.
There are at least six tightly-spaced dwellings clustered closely around a small and
twisting driveway, and the proposed subdivision-absent of offsetting reductions in
density-would result in overcrowding and poor access not in keeping with surrounding
development and in being compatible with existing population and structure density as
we have today. There was no planning commission when Mr. Power's neighborhood
was established, which consists of smaller, one-story single family homes. Today we
have a planning commission to decide on future development of Tiburon. The lot is R-
1 zoned. Is this project really one that is in keeping with the goals and objectives of the
Tiburon General Plan?
(Photographs will be made available at the meeting of Mr. Power's neighborhood, the
story poles, our view, and our setting.)
3) PRIVACY- We purchased our house seven year's ago for the size, views, and the
unusual location it provides. You have been to see our setting- it is somewhat of a
nature preserve-private, bucolic, rustic. Now you immediately see the proposed
house's story poles are as you are walking to our front door. We live on the west side
of the house in the kitchen/family room. Now at our breakfast table we have company-
a proposed house that will join us. As we do the kitchen dishes, we are looking at a
house. We watched the sun fade last evening into the story poles. We would have a
house looking over our fence-there goes the privacy.
The Owlswood Road and Lane residents will all see this proposed giant house-
everyone sees it as they get their mail. They all feel it takes away from the rustic feel of
our neighborhood.
4) A C C E S S-onto Tiburon Blvd, is simply horrible. Our first experience was trying to
turn left there ourselves at seven o'clock in the evening--a non-commute time. It is
extremely unsafe.
SUMMARY- As the proposal stands today, with the envelope as outlined by the story
poles and the continued duplex occupancy, we cannot agree to Mr. Power's proposal.
We, however, are willing to continue working with him to see if a suitable plan which
meets his desires and does not unduly impinge on our enjoyment of Tiburon can be
achieved.
Yes, we are one voice bordering this proposed site but we feel we speak for a chorus
of other Tiburon property owners.
~ Very sin,cerely,_ V!,J,.-.
r<\) .c.l~iI~l.:\L..4 \.
'-- --:::) \, f ~ ~ 1,"-'"
Elizabeth H. Little LeRoy~: little III 1 Owlswood Road, Tiburon, CA 94920
EXHIBIT NO. 'Z.~
,. '2.. o~ -c-.
LItrE
/!)/fl/-
9 May 1997
/.':'1""
-,'........
"1 ...".,....':'-,
;'.,:1# '''Q~
, ! '1,4
..~( ".!Oi/;f" ~ />.
",,"."''',11
~..~~ :.,C,,-~...,
" e,-:2z}f.~o".
'~r-- v
'"a-
<:''''7:
Dixon and Sharon Power
885 B Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Mr. and Mrs. Power,
This letter grants you the use of the existing access road off of Tiburon Blvd. for any
future home built on the upper lot (lot no, 3 on surveyors map) of your property.
This access would be in effect until the "Tai" property is developed. Upon
development of the "Tai" property and approval from the City of Tiburon access will
revert to the existing easement located at the upper side of your lot which ends at
Stony Hill Road.
-r-.)
EXHIBIT NO.n
Oixon and Sharon Pc -r
LJ}}E 1)/}JL
10 May 1997
Q~,~~~71 ,~"':"~:)
!l ' '"_ ':"' ':.,,;)'
Tiburon Planning corrunission
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon. California 94920
_~. _ }::~A~rl\J G~ 112;URCN
i-_._:..~..';~ ~ s~:.. ~''\'...... 1"'I1::':"";!
_._ia/......:;: ~_._ .
Attention: Dan Watrous
Re: Rebuttal to late mail concerning the Subdivision of 885 B.C,D.
Tiburon Boulevard.
To the Planning Corrunission -
Regards. Since the time will be limited during the next meeting; we
would like to take this opportunity to respond to the 'late mail' from
Elizabeth and Leroy Uttle who say once again, that they are unable to
provide .full support for our proposal and to try, once again. to re -
enlist their approval through cooperation, compromise and an
enlightened sense of neighborhood.
The letter from Mr. and Mrs. Uttle first Wld primarily concerns
itself with the matter of a reduction to their View, their personal
ambience Wld their fear of loss of privacy. Let no one be deceived
this is the center qf their concern and not the other peripheral
matters that theu mention. those of neighborhood density and
automobile access.
THE VIEW - I presrune that by the time the Commission meets that
all of its members will have had a chance to observe the view from the
Little's property. The tallest story ooles that we set - block. at
maximum. but a sliver qf their veru restricted view of Mount
TamallXlis. The Headlands remain comp1etelll unincumbered bu anu Qf
our Drooosed buildinp. The shorter poles enclose an area that is
already blocked by another neighbor's tree - I shall produce
photographs at the meeting which c1earlu demnnstrate this.
EXHIBIT NO. 2.S
1>. l o~ ~
""56 fi~uron 6lvd, . fi~uron CA 94920 . 415,435,6509 . 435,9"73 (FAX)
It was bold and miaht be construed as inappropriate for Mr, and Mrs,
Uttle to suggest a wholly new building proposition for someone else -
i.e. to rrwdify our entire structural layout according to their personal
tastes and wishes. It borders absurdity at this point in time and in
this situation; further - it should be noted bV the Corrunission that
their structure is a 4,11 7 square foot buildina whose height is well
beuond the 30 foot limit. In addition. Mr. and Mrs. Uttle's mention
that we do rwt form part of 'their neighborhood' is preswnvtive on
their oart and does not reflect the factual truth - it really wants
neighborliness.
THEIR PRIVACY - This issue is overstated. A generous and well
planned landsca,ping desian would mitigate this obiection in its - for
rrwst practical purposes - full f01T1U.llation Our proposal would
impinge on, at maximum. 10 % of their sky view and the good
addition of high foliage and. trees may very well add to the country
ambience which they, and we, prize. It sholllrl be remembered that
Mr. and Mrs. Uttle are not alone in wantina orivacy and. pleasant
surroundings. Regarding the fact that they would see our proposed.
'home' when they are retrieving their mail does take this 'privacy
issue' to frivoUty, if not excess.
DENSITY - This sounds TTIl.lCh worse than it actually ever can or
could be. The land available in this neighborhood and, to the point,
our proposed structure - will change very Uttle either the look
[which may very well be improved] or the person and autorrwbile
count there. It cannot be taken as serious talk to suggest that the
addition of one building will arTWWlt to an intolerable density leveL
It is simply a fact of rrwdem life that some growth and change will
occur. The Planning Commission was set up to work with this in
mind - in an enlightened way - and not to cement, in place. the
status quo or the private wishes of a few.
ACCESS - The proiection found in the Little's Late Mail letter
regarding vehicular overcrowding is fundamentally flawed too. because
the residents of Owlswood Lane or Road. since they achieve Tiburon
Boulevard via a curoe. will always have some greater degree of
difficultu than other residents. Once again density and access are not
the center of this dispute. They are peripheral issues.
EXHIBIT NO. Zg
1'. "2. ~ '?>
LASTLY - The letter from La.ni Odland brands our proposal as a
'million dollar home' effort and is widely off the mark. The truth is
that we have no actual plans at this point in time as to the level or
kind of home that we shall build exr:ept that it will be as unobtrusive
and as environmentally soft and neighborhood friendlY as oossible.
The actual view of open land and water that Mrs. Odland cites as a
possible deprivation is. in reality. a view of our back yard and by that
measure we feel should not have grand relevance in your final
decision.
SUMMARY - It is our hove that Mr. and Mrs. tittle wUl aUow that
change in the modem world is inevitable. We believe that we have a
right as responsible citizens to: - in a fair. legal and considerate way
improve our cOrTUTlOn existence. No one will be iniured by the car~ful
addition of an environmentally sound and aesthetically pleasing home
stated with calrlllnted charm and Innrlscaped so that all the neighbors'
orivacy levels and Views will be orotected to the maximum.
We believe that our genuine efforts at compromise and
accorTUTlOdation have met the heartfelt but finally urifounded.
objections that have been raised by the neighborhood, and Mr. and
Mrs. Uttle in particular. and that our proposal should be fuUy
supported by them and the Town of Tiburon.
S~.~
~t,~
Sharon and Dixon Power
EX-HIBIT NO. ? ~
P.30F,3
I-Jt TE.
In If/ L-
-
~
~~~.,...
. .. ~~ t',...
May 13,1997, . ".~!j)
I,:'. '.
,. 1. \. I'
"'"'-. r;-.." "
r.......-:: .. ;-~'.',V o~""-
Tiburon Planning Commission; .. .. '.. ..:.; ;; ::.~ ! !'fYl'ic
........ "-', 'Jy
.....\..;,;f'"),....;.,
"-i;..';f..
I'm writing to you in support of Dixon Powers proposal to build a single family
home on his lot, while still being able to apply the grandfather clause to the
existing duplex. Since we live in one of the duplex's units, an unfavorable
decision would greatly effect the welfare of my family.
It took us a long time to find the right place to live. As you well know, rental
property is at a premium in Tiburon. My three children just love the area They
ride their bikes to school, they walk. across to the water, they walk. in the hills, and
they get to see a great variety of animals, The two biggest benefits for them are
the numerous friendships that they've developed with the neighborhood kids, and
the tons of space they have to frolic in. As a parent knowing that we live in a very
safe location goes along way to giving me peace of mind. Having to leave this
home would greatly aher their wonderful lifestyle.
My wife and I have lived in Tiburon for over 10 years, and have been heavily
involved in the community. I have been a member of the Tiburon Peninsula
Soccer League's Board of Directors for over 8 years and my wife has spent many
hours volunteering her time in the Reed School system. If we had to move out of
our existing home it would more than likely mean we would have to move out of
town, leaving all our friends and community involvement behind
As far as the density issue, I can only speak for my own situation. My children
have ton's of room to play and roam around. The addition of the new home on the
back lot wouldn't change much, since the kids hardly play in the lot
Having been a Fire Protection Engineer that has been involved in the code writing
process, I understand the importance of a good strong code book. I also understand
the intent in which the code book is written. A code is meant to be a guidance that
when applied should be tempered with common sense and with the "spirit" in which
the code was intended. I truly believe that Mr. Powers proposal meets that spirit.p
My involvement in the community has led me to know many wonderful and caring
people. Unfortunately, their are those who would stop at nothing to prevent
someone else from realizing their dream. I feel that this is the case here. Most of
the neighbors who have signed the petition against Mr. Powers can't even see the
property much less be impacted by it. Mr. & Mrs. Little have absolute nothing to
complain about, their just being selfish and petty. In fact if anyone should
EXHIBIT NO. zt:l
p. l ()F7-
complain it should be me! Their deck and back windows look right down into my
home.
,
I urge you to support Mr. Dixon's proposal. Not only would it prevent my family
from having to leave this beautiful community, but it is the right thing to do.
Through my friends in Tiburon I've heard many good things about the members of
the Planning Commission, rm confident that you'll make the right decision.
EXHIBIT NO.'Z c:y
'.1.. oFL
CHARLES J. GALLAGHER
8850 Tiburon Blvd., TlBURON, CA 94920
(415) 435.3333
,~""
'."')
'-,
"1~
'#~
~l)
May 1-+, 1997
.'
'..-
;,,' 1.1
-.' ;--'~.._.. ',. I,
'.'-~;' ~ C;:..., -
'::',:?.:/;.
".Y""'C
":,, 'It
,....:;-'"
'-...~"},
-,
Tibuwn Planning Commission
Tiburon. CA 94920
I am a tenant at the above address and I understand from my landlord, Mr.
Dixon Power, that there is some pressure to conven my housing to a single
family dwelling from the currently existing duplex apartment.
As a member of this community who is directly and negatively impacted by
slIch a decision. I request that this alternative not be considered
As a lJart-time single father who has lived on the Tiburon Peninsula since I n3
it would be vinually impossible for me to find alternative hOlIsing priced as
reasonably as the rent charged by Mr. Power. r am very involved in
community volunteer efforts and want to continue to be. However, with
housing a top priority my community service efforts would necessarily have to
be shi fted to income earning activities.
Except for the 35 % of the time, my son lives with me, I am the sole occupant of
one noor of this duplex unit. The family that occupies the other unit are also
very involved in community service. They are a family of five. If this were
converted to a single unit it would be not be unreasonable for more than the
present 6.35 occupants to reside within the square footage of the two units
combined into one.
The down-sizing alternative unfairly discriminates against contributing
members of the community who are willing to live tn more austere. reasonably
priced housing in Tiburon.
Sincerely,
C~ P{!~r
EXHIBIT NO. ~O
/
i
Town of Tiburon
Environmental Checklist Form
(Appendix G)
(To be completed by Staff as part of the Initial Study)
Date:
Staff Member:
February 14, 1997
Daniel M. Watrous, Senior Planner
A. Project Information
1. Application Number(s): Minor Subdivision #69602
2. Location: 885 B, C & D Tiburon Boulevard
3. Parcel No(s): 55-261-11
4. Project Sponsor: Dixon and Sharon Power
5. Specific Project Description: Request to subdivide one (1) parcel into three (3)
lots. The existing parcel is developed with a single-
fiu:nily home and a duplex. The proposed subdivision
would result in the house being situated on one lot,
the duplex on a second lot and a third vacant lot.
The third lot could be developed with a single-family
home, connected by a 540 foot long extended
driveway leading to a public street. This would
involve the grading and pavement of a driveway
across currently vacant, gently sloping land. To
shore up the slopes adjacent to the driveway, several
retaining walls will be constructed, including a 60
foot long, 2 foot high wall along the side of the
driveway, and two smaller curved retaining walls
where the driveway turns toward the garage.
Additional grading will be required for the
construction of the house proposed to be
constructed on the proposed third lot. Drainage
improvements will include the installation of
pipelines and a series of catch basins within the
TOWN OF TmURoN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES -INITIAL S11JDY CHECKLISf 1/97
1
EXHIBIT NO. '31
'('. t b~ \ \ '1
...".
extended driveway and a portion of the third lot,
exiting across a proposed drainage easement on an
adjacent parcel.
6.
General Plan Designation:
MH (Medium High Density Residential-up to 4.4
du/ac.)
7.
Zoning District:
R-l
8.
Surrounding land uses
and setting:
North: Vacant hillside
East: Single-family residential
South: Single-family residential
West: Vacant hillside
9.
Other Public Agencies
whose approval is required:
None
B. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
. A brief explanation is required for all answers.
. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the detennination
is made, an EIR. is required.
. ''Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact". Describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level.
Potenlially
~<.-r
hn_
Poleati.ay
SigBifiClllI
um... ""'_
Mi1igali01l Significanl
I:ll~rporated Impu
No
hnpoo<
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic su bstructures?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will require only minirnal grading to accomplish. No unstable earth conditions
TOWN OF TIDURON ENVIRONMENfAL REVIEW GUIDELINES -INITW- STUDY CIIECKLISf 1/97
2
EXHIBIT NO. 3 (
~. l- OP_\ 1'1
~.-.
or changes in geologic substructures will result (Source: Diagram S-2, Safety Element of the
Tiburon General Plan, 1989).
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction,
or over covering of the soil?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will result in the paving of an extended driveway to provide access to the
northernmost of the three new lots. The 540 foot long driveway will be 13 feet wide, with two 4
foot wide car turnouts (one 50 feet in length, the other 45 feet long) widening the driveway area to
17 feet at these points. Although the driveway will disturb some existing vegetation, Staff does not
consider covering of the soil to be a significant issue.
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
Explanation:
xx
The extended driveway and other proposed improvements will not significantly alter the topography
of the site or adjoining properties. An existing fire road occupies the alignment of the proposed
driveway.
d. The destruction, covering, or
modification or any unique geologic
or physical features?
Explanation:
xx
An inspection of the project site did not reveal any unique physical features. There are no unique
geologic features on or near the site (Source: Safety Element of the Tiburon General Plan).-
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on or off the site?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project has the potential to increase wind and water erosion of exposed soils during
construction, but after construction the proposed paving of the extended driveway should serve to
reduce wind and water erosion. Standard construction practices including regular watering of
uncovered soils will keep temporary construction impacts at less-than-significant levels.
TOWN OF TIDURON ENVlRONMElITAL REVIEW GUIDELINES -INITIAL STUDY CfIECKUST 1/97 3
EXHIBIT NO.~
? ~ l)~ If(
.....-
Po_UIy
Sipi&ut
Im_
PofeQliall.y
Sipificat
Un&.. J..,eqn_
Mitis_OIl Sipificu.1
llleorporated ImP*=t
N.
Im_
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of
beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition, or erosion which may
modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean
or any bay, inlet, or lake?
Explanation:
xx
The drainage study prepared for this proposed project estimated that there would be an increase in
discharge due to the proposed development of 2.1 % for the entire watershed around the site. The
civil engineer who prepared this study characterized this increase as "negligible." This marginal
increase in water runoff therefore will not affect any surface body of water (Source: Drainage study
prepared by Bracken & Keane, October, 1996).
g. Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as eartbq uakes,
landslides, mudslides, ground
failure, or similar hazards?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project is situated upon land identified by the Safety Element of the Tiburon General
Plan as containing landslide or debris flow deposits. Since the slope on this property is less than 30
percent, construction can occur if the structural integrity (e.g., pilings) for any proposed buildings
reaches beyond the depth of the deposit. A geotechnical report was prepared for this project which
analyzed the soils and seismic conditions on the site. This investigation did not encounter evidence
of landslide deposits, but made recommendations for structural supports and retaining walls to avoid
potential problems. The report also concluded that there is the possibility of strong earthquake
vibrations on the site during the useful life of the development, but that the proposed house and
driveway could be designed to withstand these forces (Source: Geotechnical Investigation
conducted by Earth Science Consultants, April, 1996).
Recommended Mitigation Measures
The following conditions should be applied to the Conditional Use Permit:
l.g.l. Pilings or other reinforcements to the structural integrity of the proposed house shall
be constructed beyond tbe depth of the rmderlying landslide or debris flow deposits
TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENT At REVIEW GUIDELINES -INITIAL STUDY CHECKLI~ 1/97
4
EXHIBIT NO. ~ I
f. L/ or-: Her
,--
PoteDbIIy
SipUi.:.a.t
bn_
Poleali."
Sipifi.::.t
""'- "",n..
Mi..... Sipifi_t
1lI~ ImpKt
N.
bn_
in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation
prepared by Earth Science Consultants.
l.g.2. All structural, architectural and mechanical details of proposed construction shall be
designed to resist earthquake groundshaking, as recommended by the prepared
geotechnical investigation.
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air quality?
Explanation:
xx
Short-term fugitive dust impacts could occur during construction on the site due to earth-moving
and other construction activities.
Recommended Miti~ation Measures'
The following condition should be applied to the Conditional use Permit:
2. a. 1. The site shall be watered during construction to reduce the impacts of such dust to
acceptable levels.
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed paving of the extended driveway will generate short term impacts from asphalt odors,
but Staff considers this temporary impact to be less-than-significant.
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture,
or temperature, or any change in
climate, either locally or regionally?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not have any effect on the climate of the surrounding area.
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENrAL REVIEW GUIDELINES -INITIAL STUDY CIIECKLIST 1/97 5
EXHIBIT NO.~
~. 5 tf-.H't
POleDti.o.y
Sip:ifi...r
1m,""
Polca.ti&ly
~I
Ua.Icu LeuTh..
Mi..... SipifiClllr
Jac:or1JOJalOlllinplC:t
..
1m_
a. Changes in currents, or the course
of direction of water movements, in
either marine or fresh waters, or wetlands?
Explanation:
xx
The Drainage study prepared for the proposed project estimated an increase in runoff during a 25-
year storm in the watershed surrounding the site of2. 1% as a result of the proposed development.
This increase will be insufficient to change the currents, or the course of directions of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters, or wetlands (Source: Drainage study prepared by
Bracken & Keane, October, 1996 [Revised January, 1997]).
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface run oft:
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will affect absorption rates and increase the amount of surface runoff for the
paved area of the extended driveway and any future building sites. A series of catch basins, ditches
and pipes will direct the drainage off the site via several newly established drainage easements to
a rock rip rap area for percolation. Staff does not consider the change in the amount of runoff to
be an significant environmental impact in this instance because of the small area involved.
c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not affect tbe course or flow of floodwaters.
d. Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body or wetland?
Explanation:
xx
The drainage study prepared for the proposed project estimated an increase in runoff during a 25-
year storm for tbe watershed surrounding tbe site of2.1 % as a result of this development. The civil
engineer who prepared the report described this increase as "negligible." This minor increase in
TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES -lNITlAL sruDY CHECKUST 1/97 6
EXIHBIT NO.3 I
f: ro t:f'J~4
.....'.
Po_dilly
Sipi6c:ut
......
Potea1ially
Sirgai6cu1
UaI_ LeuTha
Mi1iBalio. Sipi6ca.1
Iaoorpol'llCld laIp8CI
N.
......
nmoff would not be large enough to have a significant effect on the amount of surface water in the
water bodies into which this runoff will drain (Source: Drainage study prepared by Bracken &
Keane, October, 1996 [Revised January, 1997]).
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, including
but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen,
turbidity, or other typical storm water pollutants
(e.g. sediment from construction, hydrocarbons
and metals from vehicle use, nutrients and
pesticides from landscape maintenance)? XX
Explanation:
The drainage study prepared for the proposed project indicated that this development would result
in a "negligible" increase in stormwater runoff. Runoff from the site does have the potential for
carrying pollutants into the nearby bay (Source: Drainage study prepared by Bracken & Keane,
October, 1996 [Revised January, 1997]).
Recommended Mitigation Measures:
The following condition should be applied to the Conditional use Permit:
3.e.!. Project design and construction activities will utilize Best Management Practices as
descnoed in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook for
Construction Activity, March, 1993
f. Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of groundwaters?
Explanation:
XX
No activities are proposed which would have an impact on groundwaters.
g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or
TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELIN'ES .INITIAL STIIDY CHECKLIST 1/97
7
EXd.!BIT NO. 31
?, 7 OF'r~i
Potc!olially
SipJiCIDt
Imp,,",
Potc!oli.ay
Sisslific;ut
om... LouIlua
Mifi&aJiOB s<<nific:a.t
h1eorpotaeed Impact
No
Imp,,",
excavations?
Explanation:
xx
No activities are proposed which would have an impact on groundwaters.
h. Change in the quality of groundwaters
through infIltration of reclaimed water or
stormwater runoff that has contacted
pollutants from urban, industrial,
or agricultural activities?
Explanation:
xx
No activities are proposed which would have an impact on groundwaters.
i. Alteration of wetlands in any way?
Explanation:
xx
No activities are proposed which would have an impact on wetlands. A biological reconnaissance
of the site revealed a small (30' by 10') area of potential wetlands which contained several plant
species which occur in either wetlands or uplands areas. As the study found no evidence of wetland
hydrology conditions or soil characteristics, this area is not likely to be considered as a wetlands
area (Source: Biological study prepared by LSA Associates, October, 1996).
j. Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Explanation:
xx
The possible future addition of a single-family house would not result in a significant impact on
public water supplies.
k. Exposure of people or property to
water-related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves?
Explanation:
xx
TOWN OF TlBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES -INITIAL SI1.JI)Y CHECKLIST 1/97
8
E-:'>:J'T"PY1" N0 3l
...;.L__......;...........-. J,."U.
P: g b~JL'
POlallially
SipiJi~1
Im_
Potenlially
SipificaAI
um.. Lou11ua
Miti&alioa SipifiQllllI No
hl~ [m~ [mp.;:l
The proposed project will not expose people or property to water-related hazards.
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, and aquatic plants)?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not affect the diversity of plants. The construction of the proposed
extended driveway would involve the removal of some hillside vegetation, but would not
significantly reduce the amount of any particular plant species. The biological study prepared for
this project indicated that most of the plant species found on the site were non-native in nature, and
were abundant throughout the Tiburon Peninsula (Source: Biological study prepared by LSA
Associates, October 1996).
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare, or endangered species of plants?
Explanation:
xx
Investigation conducted as part of the biological study prepared for this project concluded that
special-status plant species are not expected to occur on the property (Source: Biological study
prepared by LSA Associates, October, 1996).
c. Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not introduce new plant species or present any barriers to the
replenishment of existing species.
TOWN OF TIDURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES -INITIAL STUDY CHECKIlST 1/97
9
11:X:::rIIBIT NO. '3_'
f. 't >!)F \l'1
~.
Potefttillily
~c:aat
1m""
potcnlially
~I
UnIeu Leu.tbaa
Mitic__ Sipi6caa.t
I1Ico~ Impu
No
1m""
d. Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not reduce the production of any agricultural crop.
e. Reduction in acreage of wetlands?
Explanation:
xx
There are no wetlands on the site, although a potential wetlands area was identified by the biological
study prepared for this project, but dismissed an actual wetlands site. The drainage study prepared
for the proposed project indicated that the increase in storm water runoff as a result of this
development would be "negligible," with no projected impacts on any surrounding wetlands areas
(Sources: Biological study prepared by LSA Associates, October, 1996, and drainage study
prepared by Bracken & Keane, October, 1996 [Revised January, 1997]).
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including
reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Explanation:
xx
The improvements associated with the proposed project will only remove a minimal amount of non-
native vegetation identified by the biological study prepared for this project. Staff feels that this
minimal impact on potential wildlife habitat will not have any significant effects on animal life
(Source: Biological study prepared by LSA Associates, October, 1996).
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare, or endangered species of animals?
Explanation:
xx
The biological study prepared for this project found no evidence of any species of unique, rare or
endangered animals on the site, and determined that the physical conditions of the property would
TOWN OF TffiURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES -INITIAL sruny CHECKUsr 1/97
10
EXHI'RIT NO. ~ I
--
f. I ~_l)'F t l't
PotcllUl!y
Sipi..6cant
1m,,,,
PoteAUDy
SipifiCllllt
Unleu l.ct.5Tha
MitipliOll SipiJiCllllt
IDcorpotated ImpKl
N.
Im_
not support any such species that occur elsewhere on the Tiburon Peninsula (Source: Biological
study prepared by LSA Associates, October, 1996).
c. Introduction of new species of
animals into an area, or result in
a barrier to the migration or
movement of animals?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not introduce any new species of animal. into the area. The
improvements associated with this project will not result in any barriers to the migration or
movement of animals.
d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Explanation:
xx
The improvements associated with the proposed project will only remove a minimal amount of
vegetation. Staff feels that this minima I impact on potential wildlife habitat will not have any
significant effects on animal life.
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will result in a short-term increase in noise from grading and earth-moving
equipment and other normal residential construction activities. Construction which occurs during
most daylight hours is not likely to increase ambient noise to significant levels for surrounding
residences.
Recommended Mitigation Measures:
The following condition should be applied to the Conditional Use Permit:
6.a.1. All construction activity shall comply with the Town's limitations on construction
hours to prevent notse impacts during nighttime.
TOWN OF TffiURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES -INITIAL SfUDY CHECKllSf 1/97
11
EXE-IIBIT NO..dL
~, ll._OF ~~'1
Potell.lillty
SipifiCUlI
1m,...
POkatially
SipifiQllI
u.J_ {.eqn,.
MilipliOll Sipifi~f
lAeorporaIed ImpllCf
N.
1m,...
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not expose persons to severe noise levels.
7.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce new light or glare?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not produce any new light or glare.
8.
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of the area?
Explanation:
xx
The area around the project site is developed primarily with detached single-family homes.
Detached homes are currently situated to the south and east of the subject property. The duplex
on one of the three proposed parcels is the only attached home in the vicinity. Other vacant parcels
surrounding the site are zoned for development with single-family detached houses. The proposed
project, therefore, which includes the construction of one additional single-family home, will not
alter the present and planned single-family residential nature of the area.
9.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in an increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
xx
Explanation:
The proposed project will not affect the rate of use of any natural resource.
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
TOWN OF T1BURON ENVIRONMENTAl. REVIEW GUIDELINES -INITIAL ''TUDY CHECKLIST 1/97 12
>;'YHTT-lTT Ji\TO 31
.J...:..!....}..!__~...~ ~ "4 .
p, - 12.- ~ i [,,-q
Pofe1l1ially
Significant
lm.""
Potenlially
~t
Unless l.eMThaa
MiliA_o. SisniliCIIII
mcotplmled Impact
N.
lm_
a.
A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, hut not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals,
or radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions?
xx
Explanation:
The proposed project does not include the use or storage of hazardous materials.
b. Possible interference with an
emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
Explanation:
xx
The Tiburon Fire Protection District has indicated that the design of the proposed project could
hamper the ability to fight any fires on the proposed third lot any future home (Source: Letter from
Tiburon Fire Protection District, December 14, 1996).
Recommended Mitigation Measures'
The following conditions should be applied to the Conditional use Permit:
10.b.!.
Access roads to each new lot shall be not less than 12 feet unobstructed
width with a maximum 18% grade; they shall be constructed with an all-
weather driving surface, capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire
apparatus and having a minimum of 13 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance.
10.b.2.
Access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with an approved
turnaround.
10.b.3.
Any gates shall be equipped with emergency fire access for fire apparatus.
1O.b.4.
An approved water supply, including water main and new hydrant, shall be
installed at the base of the driveway serving the lot accessed from Stony Hill
Road.
TOWN OF TffiURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES -lNITfAL sruDY ClIECKllSI' 1/97 13
E![F!TPTm1 "In 3'
- _...._............~_ J.~"-'.~
t, l~ OF H'(
~--
PotenliaDy
Sipific:aa.t
...'"
Polea1iaDy
Sipilicanl
UnI_ I.euTbll
Mi~aliOll ~saifiCIIIII
h1corp&taled Imp....
N.
Im,,,,
11.
Population. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or growth
of the human population of an area?
Explanation:
xx
The possible future addition of one single-family home will not alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth of the human population of the area.
12.
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing
housing, or create a demand for additional
housing?
Explanation:
xx
The possible future addition of one single-family home will not have a significant impact on the
supply or demand for housing in the area.
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Explanation:
xx
The traffic generated by the one additional single-family home would not result in significant
additional vehicular movement.
b. Effects on existing parking facilities
or demand for new parking?
Explanation:
xx
The construction of a single-family home will result in a marginal increase in parking demand.
Sufficient off-street parking will be required to be provided to meet this increase in demand.
c.
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
xx
TOWN OF TlliURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES -INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 1/97 14
EXHIBIT NO.~
~, L'j ()~ ~l9
.....'
PllleaUDy
SipifiClllt
Imp""
Plltenlillly
SipJicat
Unleu LcuTh_
MitipliOSl SipifiClllt
IDcorporved Imp.;t
No
Im_
Explanation:
The proposed project will not effect existing transportation systems. Traffic mitigation fees would
be collected upon issuance of a building permit for the new residence.
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Explanation:
xx
The extended driveway would route traffic from the additional single-family home to Stony Hill
Road. The circulation patterns for traffic from the existing single-family home and duplex on the
property would not be altered.
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail,
or air traffic?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not affect water, air, or rail transportation systems.
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians?
Explanation:
xx
The extended driveway would route traffic from the additional single-family home to Stony Hill
Road, rather than onto Tiburon Boulevard via the shared driveway utilized by the other residences
on the site. This different access is required by a recorded agreement which prohibits traffic from
the future house from utilizing the driveway leading directly to Tiburon Boulevard. Utilizing the
access to Stony Hill Road should reduce the potential for traffic hazards by directing outbound
traffic down Gilmartin Drive rather than out the other undersized shared driveway.
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas:
TOWN OF TffiURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES -INITIAL SfUDY CHECKUSf 1/97 15S
EXIE~IT NO. 31
?, -l5" of. H't
PoleaUlly
Sipi..6~t
Imp""
Poten.UIly
Sipifiamt
t.TIlMM r..es.n_
Mi...oa Sipificaat
lJIcorporakd lmp....
No
Imp""
a. Fire protection?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not affect fire protection services, but the extended driveway may serve
to provide additional fire access to nearby homes and undeveloped areas. The Tiburon Fire
Protection District has reviewed the plans (see letter dated December 14, 1996), and has indicated
a need for a turnaround at the end of the extended driveway and a fire hydrant and water main at
the base of that driveway.
b. Police protection?
Explanation:
xx
No law enforcement issues are foreseen for the proposed project.
c. Schools?
Explanation:
xx
The number of school children generated by the additional single-family home will not be enough
to have a significant effect on school services for the community.
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
Explanation:
xx
The addition of one single-family home will not result in a significant increase in the demand'upon,
or the supply of; parks and recreational facilities. Quimby Act fees would be collected from the
subdivision, if approved.
e.
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads or storm drain facilities?
xx
Explanation:
The drainage study prepared for the proposed project indicates that the additional runoff generated
by new development on this property will not exceed the capacity for the storm drain facilities
serving this site. The culvert on Tiburon Boulevard has a capacity to handle 164.6 cubic feet per
TOWN OF TIBlJRON ENVIRONMENfAL REVIEW GUIDELINES -INITIAl. SfUDY CIIECKLISI" 1/97
16
E7Hrr::\TT rrO 31
..,,:.U_.-__ 'l;l.
~. lip cPo I~"(
~.
Potalli.oy
5ip:iJicur
"p""
Polenli.oy
Sipificat
lTDIeu Leu~
MilisaliOll SiPfir;:at
InCOfJlO'Med Impacr
No
"p""
second (ds) of runoff; which is well above the estimated 103.3 cfs generated by a 100-year storm
from the watershed which contains the subject property (Source: Drainage study prepared by
Bracken & Keane, October, 1996 [Revised January, 1997]).
f. Other governmental services?
Exp Ianation:
xx
The project has no potential to affect the delivery of government services.
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not result in the use of excessive amounts of fuel or energy.
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new
sources of energy?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not result in the use of excessive amounts of fuel or energy or require the
development of new sources of energy.
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Water?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will require approval of a variance for water service by the Board of Directors
of the Marin Municipal Water District, because the proposed third lot is not fronted by a water
main. The water systems will not require substantial alterations to provide service to this property
TOWN OF T!BURON ENVIRONMENfAL REVIEW (,1!IDELINES -INITIAL S11.1DY CHECKLIST 1/97 17
EXHIBITNO. 3\
'f .I-:) DE.- \ l ~
Po1c:ati.ny
Sipi..6cat
Imp...
Polealially
SigDilicat
l.J1IJe:M LeAn...
Mi~atioa Sipifieaat
Inc:orponlled Impact
No
Imp""
(Source: Letter from Marin Municipal Water District, December 19, 1996).
b. Sanitary Sewer?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not require substantial alterations to existing sanitary sewer systems to
provide service to the one proposed house on this site.
c. Storm water drainage or storm water
quality control?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will have a marginal impact on stormwater drainage due to the increase in
impervious surfaces resulting from tlte construction of one single-family home and an extended
driveway. The drainage improvements proposed (catch basins, ditches, easements and otlter
improvements), will reduce tlte stormwater impacts to a less tltan significant level.
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
poten tial health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not create any unusual health hazards.
b. Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not expose people to any unusual health hazards.
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic vista or view
TOWN OF TffiURON ENVIRONMENfAL REVIEW GUIDELINES -INITIAL STUDy CIIECKLlST 1/97 18
EXI-iIBIT NO. '31,
y. tg D"fJ lC(
Pote:n1it1ly
Sipificaat
Imp"",,
Poteaually
Sipjicut
Unless LeaTh..
Miti&Mioll SigniJicanl No
m~ ~pu ~p~
open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project involves the future construction of a single-family home on a lot situated on
a slope above two other lots. These two other lots are developed with, respectively, a single-family
home and a duplex. The proposed home will be clearly visible only from the homes on the two
other lots of this subdivision. The view of the proposed house by other nearby homes would be
screened by existing vegetation to the north, east and west, and by the two other structures within
this subdivision to the south. Ifleft unmitigated, the presence of a new house above the other homes
within this subdivision could result in reduced vistas for these residents. The placement of the
proposed home and incorporation oflandscaping into its design should be thoroughly analyzed
before final approval is granted for this additional home.
Recomnlf'uded Miti~ation Measures:
The following condition should be applied to the Conditional Use Permit:
18.1. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for the proposed single-family
home, the building design and landscaping shall receive Site Plan and Architectural
Review approval pursuant to Section 4.02.00 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The
building and landscaping shall be designed so as to minimhe and effectively mitigate
visual impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhood.
19.
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
xx
The addition of one single-family home will not result in any significant impact on existing or
planned recreational facilities.
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES -\NTI'l1\I. STUDY CHECKLIST 1/97
19
TC--:T"IT'T')-m ~.-o .."
~~~. .:.....::.11 l'J' '. W)
P, l<{ d= ner
Poten1ilDy
SipiB_t
rm....
PoleIIUIJy
Sipificao.t
Unlao """..,
Milisalioa ~~I
r..ClII'pORkd Imp.;r
N.
rm....
of a prehistoric or historic
archeological site?
Explanation:
xx
No known prehistoric or archeological sites are located on the subject property.
b. Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not affect any historic or prehistoric structures or objects.
c. Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not affect unique ethnic cultural values.
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantiaUy
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project is limited in scope and does not have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
TOWN OFTIDURON ENVIRONMEIITAL REVIEW GUIDELINES -INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 1197 20
EXHI-qIT lTD. ~ \
?, z.o- t>~_-\\9
PotaaUlly
~t
1m....
POh:aUlly
Sipifi~t
Unl_ l.eHlba
MifiAalioa. SjpiJi~1
Iacorponled Imp.:t
N.
Imp"
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals?
(A short-term impact on the environment is
one which occurs in a relatively brief, defmitive
period of time, while long-term impacts will
endure weD into the future.)
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project, if approved, will not affect any long-term environmental goals.
c. Does the project have impacts which
are individuaUy limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may impact on
two or more separate resources where
the impact on each resource is relatively smaU,
but where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant?
Explanation:
xx
The alignment of the extended driveway couId conceivably affect the design of any development for
the property over which the driveway passes. The site-specific impacts of these design effects are
difficult to ascertain at this time. However, Staff anticipates that these impacts can be adequately
addressed during the review of any such future development plans, which could include realignment
of the driveway.
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Explanatioo:
xx
The project is a minor subdivision and coustruction of a single-family home aud extended driveway,
TOWN OF TIDURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (;UIDEUNES -INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 1197 21
1i':n:.TTr~,'11 Fl'O 3'
~......""'-............_....-- . 4
l 'zi ~ J\cr
which will not cause any substantial adverse effects on human beings.
m. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
(see each discussion item above for narrative
description of environmental impacts.)
IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a
significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
[ ]
I find that although the proposed project could
have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this
case because the mitigation measures described
on the attached sheet have been added to the
project. A NEGATIVE DECLARA nON WILL
BE PREPARED.
[X]
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant
effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ]
zltJ'l7
Date
'~
\ fil. ~,:>~
amel M. Watrous, Semor Planner
For Town ofTiburon. California
C:\ WPDOCSIPC69602.ISC
TOWN OF TffiURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES -INITIAL sruDY CHECKLIST 1/97
22
Q.X'kLIQI1"" )-.lb_}>' ~
~. '21- Or=- ,lY1
.....-.
EXHIBITS
A Proposed site plan dated December 13, 1996.
B. Biological study prepared by LSA Associates dated October, 1996.
C. Geotechnical report prepared by Earth Science Consultants dated Apri16, 1996.
D. Drainage study prepared by Bracken & Keane dated January, 1997.
E. Letter from Tiburon Fire Protection District dated December 14, 1996.
F. Letter from Marin Municipal Water District dated December 19, 1996.
TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GUIDELINES .INITW. STUDY CHECKUsr 1/97 23
E"~.TJ"..:r'TQTT :0'"0 31-
1~~.......1...;........:... i".
~. Z--~ OF-- 1\9
~-.
DOCUMENTS REFERENCED OR CONSULTED
1. Safety Element of the Tiburon General Plan, 1989.
2. U.S. Government flood Hazard Map, Community No. 060430 A, November, 1976.
3. California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook for Construction Activity,
March, 1993.
TOWN OF TIBURON ENVIRONMENT At REVIEW GUIDELINES .INITIAL SIUDY CHECKLIST 1/97
24
Ti'-:n~T"=;T'T' "1:-1"0 31
J..:J_~-1.............,_lo._ .~
1>, 2-Cf Of- II ?
,....
L-~ __~W ~\L \
I' ;~. ~~:~,:~: w:'\ (1'1r")
~ ,
I~~ e... ,J
---- ~'. CC~ "V.I C't-
, \" r:::" ~r" ,::- ~~ :;,:;~"
\----'~_ . ~c.,T I.....:
\" , --:J- ' . 1;'~r'''''-'''\' ,
\ :\ ''l~ '-7. \~ ~l"'"
I \ . \ ~.\/ / Lit ~
L r<<:.cp ~)I!- C_I~~ '\ . f. .>.
'1""~'.:QJ: ~ ?~re.- '\ \ \:
~ \ \ ~ ~
'\ \ ') n- ,;>' ;Je~ D"",,,'
/ ~\.. '\)< , ,9
_,-- 'E~~ ~,'Ck.>'- .~/\ (\\~.!... I
/' ~ '\ Y\}.N~ Ct
-:- '\' \ \ .
L'.----.-/ ,,/.\ \
~= ; - ~~'~-~/'%,
'--- -7; \.
-- .. \
_~~:_. J _~ ';" _! .~~.~~~;',~. ~"'.; .
fl<l>' I .,~, 1<;; ..' \
t.... \ ~ --........ fl,
"-~~--..',/~
.c.- r---:::::"'.F , '_ (
~~,' ----.:::~ '
.j',(J /
~." I
,~ I
'._!-i :.....:~
H<:' ~"/ jJJ ("-... ~
IItz
.,--1 /,,'!l I
~" .'
, . f :< co .
1I1r:: "
. ~"'_'
-.~'~
'~'~I'
--.~.
.'-
-.
'.1 r\\"!Q
ll:.-..-__._._
q l\
.1 H
..: :....
; \~I~""'I'-_
. \ ~". t':4e.. lo::AT1.or.,j
: ~ p::.l"-J.A..b'--CC~TrON
.1 TO'~C=~@
; NI"111 -\1oU0E:.'(1""lf') .
\ --.,.
. \/
'..c \ .-.0,000 $<=-
i~'''1 . ~ -
.... '--:'\' ~,~~?:
. i ~\
- I~ \. ~.~\.,;.. ~-~.,. F!:*.+o'~~.";}
I, '1. c -.,. ~:\~i;:?. . ~~
" r'
'0
~
1-. -- --
--r---.
~
....)..
\...OT 3
"
"-,;J.;
,/' -
'j.,....oJ..
Ide
-f..m..
I
'-1- "
I
~~ I
G' ~ \ I
'Ii :'\ C-------
\t~ J~~ I
. (0 r ,." I
~ -~
,'l.J .~ot: .~.. hI" / 'J __n_
~ . :'
f; , 1'-"
....:.' ...___.~.L.-I'
_ - . . ' ---::-~h'" .,c:,,';"'" /1' ' ._..
r:-<,--.-.--~-- ~ i.. i ----
// . - .-..::.-"_:~~
. ------~h::i~;-_=~.:--/ . I" :'3'6'
~. I.l__,-Ol:,' 20",,,, N~ ~ ,-~...,-:)....,...t'.
./ ,.,- f'I i (.6),,,.1...'7'::.';:.- ..... - - . .-
:/1 1
I. .... Nel-r~E':~.I''i'Jr; "",I.
-I ~~25'N' I li.l:;l' ~eNe~~. A~D UlILIT-f ~e.{-:.o'"
i +,
i -- ex\'1f. ~Ne1"- ~"'.
~ ~_____.___n
~. \ ~_::~''':_::~~; ~c'1.~j~:\,~~-
~
:-.a-;
- ---~ - ,..-'----
,
\:
, . (.. -.\" '.~'
.',
~
~.
~
..~
,
L.or \
II, :;.'24
'.
.,y~ ".
f
0/"
,:,:/1
",:-JE:l"'f~E;.~
''c ~.,,". (10;)
/."
j'
~. ~
/
r I
i \.
,
I;
._ .._..u._._
-....
"
.-'
-~
,
'1:~ _ 1
,
,..---:;-
,
I
,p
.
r
. --,-,-.-r
,
.,
'\
1/"'1
~:.:'~~
. c'
f.~ ACL.-E:.. ~_ -.-. I"'\~-l D
"1L-lT'" ~"""T
PI-A N
~...A.\..e.. 1"-20'
EXHIBIT NO. A-
l. I be: 2-
"-.f;;..
.'
-,,:
...a;:.~
.~~..'':
.~
'.~:
P"":'Ti--rT1:'1'i'Tl1' ~.T-~ ~-l
~~~.l.~.._)_::. -!. 4......,-1.
'P. 2..-S<~ \ l ~
';0
~'"
....
..
-...
. - ..
~,g u
a..J:: c"
. .. 0
c an ~
2!co~
Qcoi=:
..oo
'"
0"
-.
"'..
. ~<(
.Ou
: CD .
lIl:.!!~
~~~
~:~
~O'
~ ~ a
...,u
'0
3
e
.~
.
"
.
a
<
.
c
.0
i
.
:.
"
.
.
-
.
;;
~ ~
;;
i :.
.. 5
!
.
,
0'
en
..
..
"!
.
.
~ i
.,
.
<;
.. .
lEI U i=
~ ~
.~ ~
.. ;;
.
ii
.
.
o
;g
~;
wO
;;
"
:Q
~ ~ c
c E :l
: . ~
"ii ~ oS:
CI CD ii
'" '" :::;
~
.
2i
~
!
'2
.
en
-
..
'"
,;,
YO ..
.
.
"
~
u
.
..
~
~
"
D
,
en
..
,;
z
..
~
.
..
;;
~ :;
"
~ r ::
"E :; g,
c .. Q
N '" It
"'i ~
>. 0 _ a; iIi
Q. a.'~ ~ i: III
%5~.~~:
In&wgg5~
; i : ~ ~ ~ : E
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ! ~
~ I
ii
.
.
E
.
;;
.
.
.
.
.
..
-""
~
*
~
8-
~l
ri:..
~~
! r~"~', "~J-l
I '\ I '3 "j
I .l' I L Z <l \
I s \ - --J
I ~ \ r-~
! I :z t "" \..J '1 ~ 'I
I L___J \ L lJ
~ &)1--
,
.91
i I--'~. ---1 ~
! ~i \
~
--.-1 ,rt ~I
.sa - z. \ ~
I ~~
I \
, I ~~
\ ".
:z~
L- , -tl -"-
-" ~.
-
_.. -J -~
/-" ~~
ii:~
(J c.>
W ~
a:'"
~Ii
1;.
~!
~
~ j
u..
0 0
t.",. N
tL<
E-: .
~ p...
~
~
~
~
rzl
to1 ~-
. --
00
~~
~~
r::,~~
~:j ~
tj
r::;
:!cft~
i~
i:;:'
c..
~;!
~~.
.51.,.
cX.,-
.c"
i!!
w. .
~~
1:-
-1
if
~~~Ig~
J ~~ f--;'
~&~ ~~
I- :z-:.
;(0,\1- \I'
r-a~ ~I-
~5~ ~;
. .
.,
a:..'
o
>-
w~
z'"
<'"
w~<
"'z-
~<z
_~c
.Z *II ~
WUJ:i
"'c<
uW"
<~
"'-
"'~
w
~
;;
u
;.
.
e
>
~ e
~
! .
;.: !
. 0
.J!fUl'ill'
: I ; 11:'"
hlir~II1!
oar; :.,n
g. Il". 11
u!I..dl!
\
C
r
r
r
I
I
j
<'
e~-,r-:":'i""~~
/..- -., -'!;:~;Y
:' : 109'
\.J ; J 0
. _ !~V~_I\! c;: T!5UhCN
r=.....~'..;~.:,~li.::. Cl..:~!..C~~~:3 CE?1:
~1
f
i
l
,
"
~.
. ,.~:
. ?- ~ - ".
~
1
. t
C
L
L
L
L
BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE
POWER PROPERlY
TIBURON, CALIFORl"IIA
October 30, 1996
Prepared for:
Toby Power
885 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, 01. 94920
Prepared by:
/SA Associates, Inc.
157 Park Place
Point Ricbmond, 01. 94801
(510) 236-6810
/SA Project #TOB630
T;'-'r;-,T~Trn "~O iL
~'.... ".,- \' i" ,~.f"
-~--~_.- _ i .
-p, ?..l of tl i
EXHIBIT NO.~
~. l OF- I f.c,
~..
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
(
I
L
1
L ""
.""",:',",:'
'-i':'.:>-"_..
1
l
L
L
L
L
LSA Associates, /nc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION .......................................... 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
REGUIATORY CONTEXT .............................. 1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
California Department of Fish and Game . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
California Native Plant Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ..................... 2
SURVEY METHODOLOGY ................................... 4
RESULTS ................................................ 5
VEGETATION ....................................... 5
Lot 3 ........................................ 5
Access Road. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
WILDLIFE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
SENSITIVE HABITATS AND SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES ........ 6
Potential Wetland .............................. 6
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
Special-Status Plant Species ....................... 7
Special-Status Wildlife ........................... 8
OTHER RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
Flood Plain or Ponded Areas ...................... 8
Archaeological or Paleontological Resources .......... 9
Rock Outcrops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
Existing Trails ................................. 9
Knolls and Ridges .............................. 9
POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS ................................. 10
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. 11
LITERATURE CITED ................................. 11
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................ 11
APPENDIX A - Resource Conservation Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
I
l
l0/30/96(p,\TOB63O\BIOLOGY.RPT)
E--:~j:.:rT":','T' "VJ" 3 I
~~..:..____'.i-,- ':"j-- .~
t. '2...~ D~ tl(
:EXHIBIT NO. 15
~ 2..bF. (lP
ii
":....,,.
r
LSA Associates, Inc.
r
INTRODUCTION
r
This report presents the results of LSA Associates, Inc. (!.SA) reconnaissance
level survey of biological resources present on the Power property. The report
includes: 1) an analysis of plant communities and wildlife present on and
adjacent to the property; 2) an analysis of sensitive habitats and special-status
plant and wildlife species potentially present on the property; and 3) potential
constraints to development.
r
r
As part of their review of the project, the Town of Tiburon requires an
assessment of biological resources on sites proposed for development in order
to evaluate the potential for impacts to sensitive habitats and special-status
species. In addition, the Town of Tiburon requires the preparation of a
Resource Conservation Map that illustrates biological resources on the
property. This report also contains the Resource Conservation Map that was
prepared in accordance with the specifications provided by the Town of
Tiburon.
r
I
(
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
L
The Power property is located northeast of the junction of Las Palmas Road
and Tiburon Boulevard, approximately 350 feet north of Tiburon Boulevard,
in the Town of Tiburon, Marin County. The entire property totals 0.95 acre
and is proposed to be subdivided into three lots. Lots 1 and 2 currently have
existing homes and related structures. The undeveloped portion of the
property, identified as Lot 3, is roughly rectangular in shape and encompasses
approximately 0.46-acre. Lot 3, and the access road described below, is
presently undeveloped. Accordingly, LSA focussed our field biological
reconnaissance efforts on Lot 3 and the access road corridor.
L
L
L
The project includes an access road that extends approximately 540 feet from
the northeastern boundary of the property to the existing Stony Hill Road,
which encompasses approximately 0.35-acre. Surrounding land use includes
residential development to the southeast and southwest and open space to the
northeast and northwest. An un-named drainage is present approximately 40
feet southeast of the property boundary. Elevations on the property and
access road range from about 60 to 90 feet above sea level. The Resource
Conservation Map contained in Appendix A shows the above features and the
Lot 3/access road area evaluated in the field by LSA.
.:':~
l
L
L
L
REGULATORY CONTEXT
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
L
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over formally listed
threatened and endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act.
The Act protects listed species from harm or "take", which is broadly defined
L
L
1 0/30/96(P,\ TOB63O\BIOLOGY.RPT)
T,:1;r;--71~'rr i''T.Q. 3'
~_.....-__""";J. ~ _ j .
1
EXHIBIT NO. 13
1>:3 oft"
'P, '2..'1 DI; 11'1
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
(
(
t
l
l
[
l
l
LSA Associates, InCo
as to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect,
or attempt to engage in any such conduct". An activity is defined as a "take"
even if it is unintentional or accidental,
An endangered species is one which is considered in danger of becoming
extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range, A threatened
species is one that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future. In addition to endangered and threatened species, which are legally
protected under the federal Endangered Species Act, there are informal lists
of federal species of special concern. These include federal candidate species
(formerly category 1 candidates for listing as threatened or endangered) and
federal species of concern (formerly category 2 candidates for listing as
threatened or endangered). Federal candidate and federal species of concern
are generally afforded no protection.
California Department of Fish and Game
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has jurisdiction over
State-listed threatened and endangered species under the state Endangered
Species Act. The state and federal lists are generally similar, although a few
species present on one list may be absent from the other list.
The CDFG also requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement for the fiIl or
removal of any material from any natural drainage. The jurisdiction of the
CDFG extends to the top of bank and often includes the outer edge of riparian
vegetation canopy cover.
California Native Plant Society
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has developed lists of plant species
that they consider rare, threatened, or endangered plants in California
(Skinner and Pavlik, 1994). Although the CNPS is not a formal regulatory
agency, the species on their List 1B (plant species considered endangered in
California and elsewhere) and List 2 (plant species considered rare, threatened
or endangered in California, but common elsewhere) may warrant mitigation.
CNPS List 3 and List 4 plant species represent plants that require more
information to evaluate their status and which are of limited distribution,
respectively.
l
l
L
L
u.s. Army Corps of Engineers
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) is responsible for regulating the discharge of fill material into waters
of the United States. Waters of the U.S. and their lateral limits are defincd in
33 CFR Part 328.3 (a) and include streams that are tributary to navigable
waters and their adjacent wetlands. Wetlands that are not adjacent to waters
I0/30/96(p,\TOB63O\BIOLOGY.RPT)
Ti'-,~_'T.,:,. ''T' "1 -I <0 ? I
~.:..-",-:......-_...-.. .~
~,3b "O~ ll~
eXHIBIT NO. B
"P.- 4 DFI~
2
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
I
(
I
LSA Associates, ["eo
of the U ,S. are termed "isolated wetlands" and in many cases, are also subject
to Corps jurisdiction,
In general, a Corps permit must be obtained before placing fill in wetlands or
other waters of the U.S.. The type of permit depends on the acreage involved
and the purpose of the proposed fill. Fills of less than 10 acres are sometimes
covered by Nationwide Permits, in which wetland losses may be mitigated by
creation of compensatory wetlands (after minimizing loss to the extent
possible) and in which public review is not required, Fills of less than one-
acre may not require mitigation under a Nationwide Permit, An Individual
Permit is required for projects that result in more than a "minimal" impact on
wetlands. Individual Permits require evidence that wetland impacts have been
avoided to the extent possible and a review of the project by the public.
~
L
L
L
l
L
L
L
L
E~-TLTT""'IT 7\~O ":ll'
.,:."~...1.J."":'_.:).' _ .i. 'J' ..w..L-
P. 'bl ry;.. Il'1
-'t...TTBIT NO. :B
f. 5" OF J Co
3
l0/30/96(po\TOB630\BIOLOGY.RPT)
~'.."
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
I
[
LSA Associales, Inc.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Prior to conducting the survey on the Power property, the California Natural
Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 1996) and the Draft Environmental Impact
Report for the Marlnero Estates Precise Development Plan (!.SA 1993) were
reviewed for records of special-status plants and wildlife, as well as sensitive
habitats, that could potentially occur on the Power property, A survey of the
Power property was conducted on October 10 and 21, 1996. Vegetation
mapping involved walking random transects through the O.46-acre property
(Lot 3) and walking the entire length of the proposed access road. Plant and
wildlife species observed and potentially sensitive habitats observed were
recorded in field notes and mapped on a 1"=20' scale topographic map ofthe
property and the access road.
The October 10,1996 survey was conducted by an LSA wetland scientist (Ross
Dobberteen, Ph.D.) and the October 26,1996 survey was conducted by an LSA
wildlife/plant biologist (Don Schmoldt). The scientific names of plants
conform to those names published in The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of
California (Hickman 1993),
~
L
[
[
r
l
l
L
L
T:'\--rc.:r"T'T')-m "" ~O "2.1
~-,,"U':J.J.~;11 .l I . . iil. ..
p, 112.. OF tl~
EXHmIT NO. B
1>. ,fI OF If,,;,
4
l0/30196(PWOB63O\BIOLOGY.RP1)
.- .
f
r
r
[
r
r
r
[
1
[
L
L
[
L
L
l
l
L
L
llA Associates, J"c.
RESULTS
The project site was used for a commercial vegetable garden that was under
cultivation for a number of years until the 1960's, The proposed access road
follows an existing road bed that may have been created as early as the 1930's
that extends from the end of Stony Hill Road to the property. The existing
road has not been in use for many years (Dixon Power, pers. comm,),
VEGETATION
The undeveloped portion of the property, Lot 3, is surrounded by dense
stands of French broom (Genista monspessulana) to the northeast and
northwest, several large California buckeye (Aesculus californica) and a stand
of Himalayan blackberry (J?ubus discolor) at the southeast boundary, and
residential development to the southwest. A stand of coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) is present about 100 meters northeast (uphill) of the property. The
proposed access route is surrounded by dense stands of French broom on
both sides, with individual coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) shrubs present.
Lot 3
Vegetation on Lot 3 consists of non-native grassland, dominated by non-native
grasses including wild oats (Avena sp.), wildrye (Lolium sp.), barley (Hordeum
murinum) and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), with small stands of other
grasses including millet (Panicum milaceum), dog-tail (Cynosurus sp.),
nitgrass (Gastridium ventricosum), and pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana),
present.
Herbaceous plants present on the lot consist of individual and small stands of
non-native species including bristly ox-tongue (Pieris echioides), willow-herb
(Epilobium brachicarpha), common sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), tarplant
(Hemizonia congesta), mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), horseweed (Conyza
sp.), white cudweed (Gnaphalium luteo-album), and bull thistle (Cirsium
vulgare). Native species includes scattered individuals of umbrella sedge
(Cyperus eragrostis).
Shrubs consist of several small coYOte brush shrubs that occur individually on
the lot. A small dense stand of Himalayan berries is present at the
southeastern boundary of the property and a hedge of Solanum sp. has been
planted in the eastern corner of the site. Trees present on the site consist of
several sapling coast live oak, one sapling pine (Pinus sp.), and two sapling
coast redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens), all recently planted on the lot.
In the western portion of the site, there is small area within a very shallow'
swale, encompassing about 30 feet x 10 feet, where patches of hydrophytic
("water loving") plant species are present. This potential wetland area is
dominated by wildrye, a plant that occurs in both wetland and upland
~'~TT-'T'--:->"''f1 ~--:'"\ ~Il
-'-~--P:'33 ~6~'J'{;j
""XHIETT NO. B
r. 7 DF= IcP
5
l0/30/96(p.\TOB63O\BIOLOGY.RPT)
r
LSA Associates, [,.c.
r
habitats. The potential wetland also included individual and small stands of
hydrophytic species, including fiddle dock (Rumex pulcher), umbrella sedge,
common knotweed, willow-herb, and bristly ox-tongue. Other plants are
present in the potential wetland that more characteristic of non-hydrophytic,
upland areas. There was no evidence at the time of our survey of wetland
hydrology conditions, In addition, an inspection of the soil did not reveal the
presence of any hydric (wetland) soil characteristics.
r
[
[
Access Road
r
Most of the length of the proposed access road has been recently cleared of
vegetation for land surveying purposes. The road has not been used for some
time, as evidenced by the presence of French broom. Individuals of redstem
storksbill (Erodium circutarium), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), milk thistle
(Silybum marianum), tarplant, bull thistle, white cudweed, and French broom
(seedlings) are present in the cleared road bed. There are no trees present
along the proposed access road.
I
(
WIWUFE
L
Wildlife observed on and adjacent to the property include those species that
are adapted to shrub and grassland habitats, as well as to horticultural
plantings around residential dwellings. The limited diversity of plants and
plant communities on the property provides habitats for only a small number
of wildlife species. Wildlife observed, or evidence of their presence observed,
in the grassland, and on the proposed access road, were California towhee
(Pipilo crissalis), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), striped
skunk (Mephitis), and black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus).
Wildlife observed in the French broom stands adjacent to the property and
access road were wrentit (Chamaeafasciata), California towhee and white-
crowned sparrow. Wildlife observed in horticultural vegetation around the
residential dwellings, adjacent riparian corridor and in the stand of coast live
oak stand east of the site, were great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) (heard
only), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), northern flicker (Colaptes
auratus), western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), northern mockingbird
(Mimus polyglottos), white-crowned sparrow, house finch (Carpodacus
mexicanus), and lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria).
[
l
L
L
l
-
l
SENSITIVE HABITATS AND SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
l
Potential Wetland
l
In the northwestern portion of the property, there is small area within a very
shallow swale, encompassing approximately 30'xI0', where patches of
hydrophytic plants are present. This area could potentially be subject to Corps
jurisdiction. However, because of its small size and the long history of
L
l0/30/96(Po\ TOB630\BIOLOGY.RPT)
3 ,EXHIBIT NO. ].
;i;Z:c:~~~(l~\t~ 'f. ~ o.::=- If"
6
L
r
LS'A Associates, Inc.
r
disturbance to property, which includes use of the property for vegetable
production, the potential wetland may not be considered jurisdictional by the
Corps. The location of the potential wetland is shown on the Resource
Conservation Map (Figure 1 in Appendix A).
r
r
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
r
A review of the CNDDB (1996) and the Draft Environmental Impact Report
for the Marinero Estates Precise Development Plan (!.SA 1993), prepared for
the Town of Tiburon, indicates the potential presence of seven special-status
plant species and two special-status wildlife species in the vicinity of the
property and proposed access road.
r
[
Special-Status Plant Species
I
Special-status plant species that occur on the Tiburon peninsula that could
occur on the property are: 1) Tiburon Indian paint brush (Castilleja affinis
ssp. neglecta), which is listed federally as endangered, by the state as
threatened, and is a CNPS List 1B species; 2) Tiburon jewelflower
(Streptanthus niger), which is listed federally and by the state as an
endangered species; 3) Marin dwarf flax (Hesperolinon congestum), which is
listed federally and by the state as a threatened species, and is a CNPS List 1B
species; 4) Tiburon Mariposa lily (Calochortus tiburonensis), which is listed
federally and by the state as a threatened species, and is a CNPS List 1B
species; 5) white-rayed pentachaeta (pentachaeta bellidiflora), which is listed
federally and by the state as an endangered species, and is a CNPS List 1B
species; 6) Tiburon buckwheat (Eriogonum luteolum var. caninum), which
has no federal or state status; and is a CNPS List 4 species; and 7) Gairdner's
yampah (Perideridia gairdneri ssp. gairdneri), which is a federal species of
concern (formerly a federal category 2 candidate for listing as threatened or
endangered) and is a CNPS List 4 species. It has no state status.
l
L
L
L
L
The Tiburon Indian paintbrush, Tiburon jewelflower, Marin dwarf flax,
Tiburon Mariposa lily and white-rayed pentachaeta occur on serpentine
derived soils. Because of the absence of rock outcrops on and near the
property, the parent rock from which the soils on the property were derived
could not be determined during the course of the biological assessment. Two
small boulders of serpentine were found along the existing access road. These
rocks were loose and were presumably transported by humans to the access
road. Pebbles found in the top layers of soil on Lot 3 were not serpentine.
L
L
l
Because of extensive histOric disturbance to the property for agricultural
activities and the probable absence of serpentine derived soils, special-status
plant species are not expected to occur on the property.
l
l
::-:7~'-:-~".""'T "T~; ~ I
___.:o..._-'"____~ +~ .;.. "v.~
y. ~5" !;F It q
l<:XHIBIT NO. :B
p. q l>F I~
7
10/30/96(po\ TOB63O\BIOLOG YRPT)
L
I
LSA Associates, Inc.
r
r
Spedal-Status Wildlife
r
Special-status wildlife species that could potentially occur in the vicinity of the
property are two invertebrates, the Tiburon micro-blind harvestman
(Microcina tiburona) and the Opler's longhorn moth (Adela oplerella). The
Tiburon micro-blind harvestman is a federal species of concern (formerly a
federal category 2 candidate for listing as threatened or endangered). It has
no state status. The harvestman is known only from the Tiburon peninsula
and occurs under serpentine rocks in moist areas within open grassland.
r
The Opler's longhorn moth is no longer a federal species of concern, It was
formerly a federal category 2 candidate for listing as threatened or endangered
but was recently removed from this list. It has no state status. The larvae of
Opler's longhorn moth feeds on cream cups (Platystamen califomicus), a
native plant species.
r
r
The Tiburon micro-blind harvestman and Opler's longhorn moth are not
expected to occur on the property and proposed access road because of the
absence of serpentine boulders and the likely absence of cream cups, due to
extensive disturbances to the property.
(
I
OTHER RESOURCES
I
In addition to sensmve habitat and species of special concern potentially
present on the property and proposed access road, the Town of Tiburon
Planning Department requires an assessment of other noteworthy or unusual
site characteristics that may occur on the property and proposed access road.
The locations of these characteristics, if present on the property, are shown on
the Resource Conservation Map in Appendix A.
l
L
Flood Plain or Ponded Areas
1
There are no flood plains or areas where flooding or ponding occurs on the
property or proposed access road, The property is on the southwest facing
slope of a hill and there are no watercourses that drain onto or through the
property.
t
l
A drainage is present approximately 40 feet southeast of the property
boundary. Development of the proposed single residence on the property
would not directly impact the drainage. However, the project proposes to
install a "V" ditch and a storm drainage pipe which will outfall into the
drainage. Placement of a minor amount of rock rip rap (approximately 4 feet
by 4 feet) is proposed for the outfall site. Depending on the final design, this
construction may require a permit from the Corps for any work that may occur
within the drainage encompassed by the Ordinary High Water Mark. This
work may also require a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDl'G for
any activity within channel and banks. The work associated with the outfall
L
L
L
.-'----~-m ~ -- 3\
,. ., ./ :' .. .' . .' . ~ 'I . , '. .: '"
~~1....:_~...:.~'.:~.._ l{J.
r. ?cQ bF \l~
EXHIBIT NO. B
:po ID bF 1(0
8
I0/30/96(po\ TOB63O\BIOLOGY.RPT)
f
L
,..
r
r
r
r
r
r
(
[
I
I
I
L
L
L
L
l
LS'A Assockl.tes, lite.
installation in the drainage would meet the terms and conditions of permits
that are routinely issued by the Corps and CDFG, In general, the drainage is
not considered by LSA to be a valuable resource in terms providing functions
such as wildlife habitat and the overall work would be minor. Therefore, this
future component of the project is not considered to be a significant impact.
Archaeological or Paleontological Resources
The property has been extensively disturbed for many years. There is no
evidence of archaeological sites on the property, nor are there any
paleontological rock formations on the site,
Rock Outcrops
There are no rock outcrops on or adjacent to the property and proposed
access road,
Existing Trails
There are no trails on the property. The existing access road that extends
from Stony Hill Road to Lot 3 was apparently constructed several decades ago.
The road has not been in use in recent years, as indicated by the presence of
French broom in the road bed.
Knolls and Ridges
The property and proposed access road are on the southwestern slope of the
hill. There are no knolls, ridge lines, or other promontories on the property
that would provide long-range views,
l
L
L
--------- - -~, 3\
D.f' ...' ,,; : ',. ~
~~~.c-c-=-:p:'i7 '"'6F tl'1
EXHIBIT NO. i
1>. (I OF I~
9
l0/30/96(p,\T0B630\1l10LOGY.RPT)
;'
f
r
r
r
LSA ASSocuues, lnc.
POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS
LSA's biological assessment of the Power property found that no special-status
plant or wildlife species are expected to occur on the property and proposed
access road, because of disturbances to the property resulting from historic
agricultural activities. There are no unique physical features present on the
property or proposed access road.
I
r
r
[
I
[
L
L
L
L
L
l
L
L
L
Sensitive habitats on the property consist of one potential wetland in a very
shallow swale in the northwestern portion of the site, which contains patches
of hydrophytic plants. The presence of hydrophytic plants in the swale may
also be a function of historic disturbances to the property. The wetland area
could potentially be subject to Corps jurisdiction, Prior to construction, a
delineation should be conducted using methodologies described in the Corps
of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987),
which involves the examination, in greater detail, of the presence of
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil characteristics, and evidence of inundation
or saturation by surface water or ground water. If the area was considered by
the Corps to be jurisdictional, fill of the wetland meets the terms and
conditions of permits that are routinely issued by the Corps. In general, the
small wetland is not considered by LSA to be a valuable resource in terms
providing habitat for wildlife and sensitive plants, as well as providing other
recognized wetland functions such as nutrient transformation and flood
control. Therefore, this future component of the project is not considered to
be a significant impact,
:::~n-T:""':'"'"'i'"'1l 'T:""'i.J' 3 ,
'""'"""..:."'-_.....__......._J.._..... .i... .
r, ~ ~ Cl~ l\q
EXHIBIT NO. ~
P. fl. OF I (p
10
l0/30/96(Po\TOB630\B10LOGY.RPT)
~-.
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
I
I
I
I
L
[
L
L
l
l
l
L
LSA. Associates, Inc.
REFERENCES
UTERA1VRE CITED
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 1996. Special-status species
occurrences report for the USGS San Quentin, California, quadrangle,
California Dept. of Fish and Game, Natural Resources Division,
Sacramento, California.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experimental Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Hickman, J,C.(Ed), 1993. The Jepson Manual: higher plants of California.
University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
LSA Associates, Inc. (!.SA). 1993. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Marinero Estates Precise Development Plan. Prepared for the Town of
Tiburon. LSA Associates, Inc., Point Richmond, California.
Skinner, M.W. and B.M. Pavlik. 1994. Inventory of rare and endangered
vascular plants of California (5th ed.), Special Pub!. #1. California
Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Power, Dixon; owner of Power property, Tiburon, California.
~----~-~ ~-o 3\
i.r \{ J~_; , '.'" 'I' I '.' "
, '. ~ . :' ,I ! .
-..........--"-.-----.....-... J.. l' .
EXHIBIT NO. '!
p. I~ l>F I~
11
l0/30/96(po\TOB630\B10LOGY.RPT)
ll. 3q Or.:: Her,'.
r
f
r
r
r
r
r
(
I
I
l
1
1
L
l
l
l
L
L
LSA Associates, Inc.
APPENDIX A - Resource Conservation Map
l0/30/96(p,\TOB630\BIOLOGY.RPT)
----~-~ ~~'" 3l
~ ,/ L) ~ ~. ~ r I' .,\, f j
...L:J~~~...J."":'-_I...-... .i 1..,J,
p. 4C> {)F- ~l<t
EXHIBIT NO. E 12
? /'1 DF I~
~-.,
r
r
r
r
r
r
(
(
I
[
l
L
L
L
L
l
L 0
N
L LSA
L
09.3(}.96(TOB630)
1
-13
01.,
en(=) -~__ .jI \
~I:r . __ ~
I . .' _ <P
~~/ /'j i"r ~~ \
/" - ---' --. I ./ / / ./ /']
/" ..-/ .-/';"7;-+,',,,0. '/,e:;;,. .f ./ ,,/'
/ --- ~ __ .::;:z-_ _~ _ .
. / ~ .....---:::::::- --- /' -,/" .....-
,,/ ~~ // /" /--./"" /./ ,..----./
././ ../~~.//' / ...../ //-/''''/~. ..
- /' .------ -- /' / ./ ' /"./' 't
/.:..---- __..-/ / /"/ // /"'/,/' ./ t.
r -- .......--- ,/ /' / I f 1:
--- --- ...........-- // / / /
~ ------.~ -///::- -- /~//// / / \ ~
-- / --- / / /
~I 7--- / /' ___/ // // /'" /\
+./ -- 1...- ~.,///./ \
.. -- III ----;::...- _______ _______ /".- _____ !J,
--~ / /1--=---=r:-,- L' --- \
,'" --_...../ / ./ I /~--.J__ 7 YiE:]:5 )
;; ~ ~ ~ 0"""" 7"-><... om, 1_
.. -~/ ~ ---r--i /' // . ___ - I~'
~. - - . ~ - -..- 1./ ,.~ ,,/
,r-N- -." \......". -r // --
~ .......c..,...... ~ .'__
...,
1~;7 I /,.;-
1+'>;-./ f
~.I ~"';- : !
""i' r__ \/
f/ ,~-' ~;;'.: / r
~. '''' "', " -; . .",.- .;:F .'/ I I
I'. / (/;,,/ .1.
-~ l ~;P' / r I
/ ,;.. ~-, ---=.===--- .( I
~../ ....--<7'-==--
-" . . /
.:r ,,~."e. eA">E. .'
W~. 0'" 20~'" .,......Te.""" "1t4~ ~ ~'t0C'>.A,",e. . . ._
~
...
8'
~f'/ ~.
:>
;: ~
~._(
'" ----------
~
\.'
.1'..,
1.J40".2f;""" ,17.0'
Figure 1
~ POIenti:l1 Wetland
ScaI';Df,,' Resource Conservation Map for
o 4Qr:i;XHIBIT NO.~5B Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA
17'"')....,-,-.-:-"" ~.7~."2/ ~ '
.c,-'~2.'__~'._.1 i:I..). .;; T. l~ OF Ib . '.' .
P r '"i I DP I L'l ______ __,_
r
r
r
r
r
r
I
(
I
I
L
L
L
l
l
L
L ~
N
L LSA
L
i I ~~J I
(1l I "\ \ l I
g, I:. ~~. \ '--_../ l,f ,''-'''''-'i i """IT'( ......... I
~ +-,\ \ \ ': ~'-_/' /.:/ :r-H/~' .--~I
~ " - // ..-----/. .... ~13
~. "-i='_'__ ~ ~ _ . I~
S' '- .... .~ . t .!l
...... - .--..:..- -.: . :.:..
(JQ I -:""1 . ~" 1_.
~ '. . I,; _p:s
S . .. - / -I~
~ "'h:~. -=-----=-=---------1-::------: ?;.r--/:' ../ /-;::--;'::'::1
::c I -..... .~ ___~--- ~---" ,/ /' ,,/ ...." ./ ,i ~/ I
== T--.-:-:" -___ ----=-__--:---" ,..--_-r--7./ /~/ ",/-' :1
~ I -- __- ______ './ // ,............"" \ I
,-v I - __ ,....--.".."... I
o I ---:...__-- ~-.,/. /' ,/ I
.. I I
0. , ,
f ;/
I ,#'""""'1_
I ~/ ....-~'llooeI'N<:l<O _....... ~
~---'~.-,....
I -- ,...?" -
r-- __ ~,~ ...--:;
1
. I.
31
.. 1-.
;:;'
::T. ...
- .-
5' /.- .
(1l r--r--, I .. -. - __
. ----- .--,-- . . / '
~-----:;:' ...- ......-- '., "\..,, /' / ""
.' ./../ ...---' ...... - --_/: ..- "'-"'."''''' " , ' //' "
/ --...-- vi' ~ . .. ... I / / ...- ,
I --- ----' - /" /" ./
-- --- -- ------ // /' ./ / /
I __ --- ~ / " "ti /
I ...--:- --- .......-- ......' /'... -' /
I - __ ________ _________--".. ~,
I _.- 13
.- ~ I~
,",,0 ()
::T
o
0'
~
.....-.-10. poo.ow~ to Un IT1' ~ .
/ .' ..
.:1
'.1
Q9.30-96(TOB630)
Fi gure 2
li;YT.?T":'T,-n "''',^ 31
..r...:.._..........:.. '" ~ t-.., _ '"
--.-- ..........,.
p ( Lf2.- oF l\'1
o
40
Resource Conservation Map for
EXHIBIT NO. 15. 885B Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA
'P. I~ OF /10
Scale io feet
r
r
r
[
:f.~
r
[
'~~
(
.."
,!;:,
[
[
~
L
L
'.~
L
[
L
L
L
L
EARTH SCIENCE CONl:iULTANTS
SOIL . FOUNDATION AND GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERS
:,:""
~...,.....c..;, ,
:;'q~~~!..i~~::~
'.-.~' ~,
P. O. BOX 3410/sAN RAFAEL/CALIFORNIA 94912.3410/14151 383-0935
April 6.1996
Job No, 962489
Dixon Power
885B Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
1":ll!::[;'~~'H~!l"'Il
n~_ ,-' . ~rJ
AUG 0 8 l~'1b
TOWN OF TI8URON
F'!..~,lI:Il':G e. eu:!.D:XS DE?T.
Report
Geotechnical Investigation
Two Proposed Residences
885B Tiburon Blvd., Lots 3 & 4
Tiburon, California
lNTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation
we recently performed at the above site.
We understand that it is desired to construct a new single family
residence within the up~er portion of Lots 3 and 4, as shown on
the preliminary tentative map prepared by Bracken & Keane, Civil
Engineers-Land Surveyors. We also understand that it is desired
to construct a new common driveway about 400 feet in length from
the end of Stony Hill Road to the upper portion of Lots 3 and 4.
The purpose of our work was to perform a visual site observation
and reconnaissance of exposed surface features, review existing
soil and geologic data of the area, log representative exploration
pits, and provide our opinion in the form of conclusions and
recommendations as they relate to our specialty field of practice,
geotechnical engineering.
E",""T:::-r":,,,,.,, "TJ"" 31
~~...~__.-,-..:L l\. .
EXHIBIT NO.~
"P. I OF (07
'P. 4~ Df= ll. 't
r
r
r
[
r
r
l
r
L
[
l
~' .",.
i:. "..": :-,":".,. ~
. ,'( '~',
:.1(<
;!."f-,
[
L
L
L
L
L
,.-
Lots 3 anc. ,
Page 2 - April 6, 1996
Our scope of work included only subsurface conditions within the
actual proposed structures and did not include accessory areas
such as sidewalks, porches, decks, landscaping, garden and yard
areas.
"T'"":'~""T":''''m T',O 31
..ElJ~'U~_"_.;. ~ ..:..', .
EXHIBITNO. C-
"'? 2. ~ Co7
<p, 4~ of li'{
[
j
r
f
if
~
,:[.
'.'~ .~.
!
,t;,.,.
'f.
;t ..~.
1 '"
;! l ·
~ ~
~ - !,'r
,
,
I
~
i
l
i~.
flW
tl~ .
[
L
l
l
l
Lots 3 an
Page 3 - April 6 1996
SITE CONDITIONS
The two proposed new house sites are located upslope and north of
the existing older house at 885B Tiburon Boulevard, as shown on
Site Plan, Plate 1.
The area of Lots 3 and 4 slopes mildly downslope towards the
southwest with an inclination generalJy varying from about 6
degrees to 14 degrees. At the time of our investigation the two
lots were covered with grass with dense brush present on the
upslope and adjacent terrain. A small winter season drainage is
present a short distance to the southeast of the Lot 4 property
line. Located within the western portion of Lot 3 we observed an
apparent seepage and wet area.
Located in the lower porti~n of the greater property is an older.
one-story, wood frame, single family residence at 885B Tiburon
Boulevard that appears to have been constructed in the 1930's.
Located in the lower western portion of the greater property is an
existing two-story, wood frame structure known as 885C and D
Tiburon Boulevard that appears to have been constructed in the
1960's. We understand that the current owner has resided at the
885B residence for the last three years.
Extending from the end of the fairly newly constructed Stony Hill
Road is an older, rough-graded, rough dirt road varying from about
10 feet to 18 feet in width with an upper cut slope up to about 5
feet in height, with an inclination varying from about 1,25:1 to
1:5 (horizontal/vertical), that is steeper than the current
standard of cut slope construction of 2:1. Along the downslope
side of the old, rough-graded road, we observed an older fill
slope up to about 5 feet in height, with an inclination of about
1.5:1, that is also steeper than the current standard of fill
~------~- - -~ ..3.L
~':.< ,_' '_: -': 1 !\i,: .;}
..:.....J___-'-__._ __ ... . .........
? tf~ OF \lCl
EXHIBIT NO. C.
Y.3oPCo7
r
r
r
r
[
i.-
1."..
~r-.'..'i'-
......._0.
[
~'. .,.
:. -'-'-
1'";,
{",o,
J:
;~~~: ~ ::~ -
L ....
..'":. " ; '''.-~
r'
.tp...l ,;.'~";.,.,.,
" ;;"::1'-:'
'f;':
t.. ;". ~;:~'.'~."
r'... '-'..,:
".:
[
L
l
[
I
Lots 3 an<- ..
Page 4 - April 6, 1996
slope construction of 2:1. As the old roadway appears to have
been constructed many years ago, it was likely not compacted and
merely pushed in as was the common practice for rough dirt roads.
In the southeastern portion of the old rough road area remnants of
two parallel rough roads appear to be present. The alignment of
the old rough dirt road and the adjacent upslope terrain is
covered with dense brush except for a recently cleared swath along
the road about 8 feet in width.
The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by exploration
test pits at the locations shown on the Site Plan, Plate 1. Each
test pit was logged by our field geotechnical engineer who
recorded the various materials encountered. Logs of the test pits
are presented on Plates 3 through 7. The Unified Soil
Classification Chart which was used to describe the various
materials encountered is pr,esented on Plate 8. Backhoe
exploration test pits were selected as the exploration method so
as to permit continuous observation of the various soil and
weathered rock materials encountered in an in situ condition.
In order to help evaluate the expansion potential of the plastic
site soils, a Uniform Building Code expansion test was performed,
as shown on Plate 9. The expansion test revealed an exp~nsion
index of 137, which is classified as very high expansion potential
under Table 29-C of the Uniform Building Code,
Expansive soils are generally clayey or silty soils that are
relatively sensitive to changes in moisture content. Expansive
soils can shrink and swell significant amounts with changes in
moisture content resulting in the uplift movement and cracking of
lightly loaded foundation elements, concrete slabs, and flexible
pavement areas. In addition. expansive soils may lose
Ti""''C..c' '.''';'G 7-"'~ :3 /
..::....:.JL:-::...;..~~'-,'.;;..::.. :....I~'.
,-
EXHIBIT NO. G
y~ 4!o Dv lli
1>,4 oF (P,
r
,
:r
f
f
.';
1
t,..
'-.~
o.
'.[
f'
1
c
1
~- "
:~p
"
L
,,".
j:"
-~~J.t.:'
-'}'.. ,
N'';'. ."'"
~;if~~~\."f,.~
'~.~-);~~:;
;--,..:
"
;t
\
I
l
Lots 3 and 4
Page 5 - April 6,1996
considerable strength when wet, and moderately to heavily loaded
foundation elements may experience plastic nonrecoverable movement
each season.
We have found that expansive soils are common in many areas of
Tiburon in soil materials that have originated from upslope
weathered serpentine bedrock materials.
The subsurface conditions within Lots 3 and 4 appear to vary
considerably, varying from locally mOderately-shallow,
medium-quality bedrock to deeper, crushed and sheared poor-quality
bedrock, and deeper colluvial soil materials in the southeastern
portion of the property. Test Pit 2, in the upper central portion
of the property, encountered sandstone bedrock materials at a
depth of about 6.5 feet that became harder with depth. Test Pit
5, excavated in the lower central portion of the property,
encountered serpentine bedrock materials at a depth of about 10
feet that were closely fractured and highly weathered. However,
the subsurface conditions were poorer in the northwestern portion
of the property, Test Pit 1, in the upper northern portion of the
property, encountered crushed and sheared weak serpentine bedrock
materials at a depth of about 9.5 feet below the ground surface,
and it appeared to be a zone of ancient tectonic shearing. By a
depth of 13 feet, serpentine bedrock materials had become slightly
less weathered. In the lower western portion of the property,
Test Pit 6 encountered cruched and sheared serpentine at a depth
of about 15.5 feet that was completely weathered and appeared to
be a zone of ancient tectonic shearing. In the southeastern
portion of the property, Test Pits 3 and 4 encountered older
colluvial soil materials to the depths explored, which was 16
feet, The origin of the colluvial soil materials is probably
associated with the presence of the canyon bottom area and nearby
southeastern drainage.
T:'''''~~'''~"""",c-,", ~I
--:...:.~..::;...::...:-.-_ _.l... I ;: 'I ...;J
? 47 DFTt~
RXHIBITNO. L-
r. 5" oF (;7
r
.,
~-;
T
.~
-~d !
,',~:,:i~~_~
~,'J' ,;
;~::'-.rl:i
-
l
1-'"
t
1 .
, {,
,
."
.~ ',. <
, ;'~~}\'~:-~';.i:"
.. }fi r~"
j'r~.'~t
.,~.~.:.
,'.I'
~
1
L
;
L
l
L
L
Lots 3 ana 4
Page 6 - April 6, 1996
Test pits 7 through 10, that were excavated along the proposed
common driveway, generally encountered better conditions than in
the proposed building area, with the underlying closely fractured,
highly weathered to severely weathered serpentine and sandstone
bedrock materials encountered at depths of about 3.3 feet to 5
feet below the ground surface with only Test Pit 9 encountering
a somewhat deeper zone of soil materials with the surface of the
underlying poor Quality, very severely to completely weathered
serpentine bedrock that was crushed and sheared at a depth of
about 7 feet below the ground surface.
Observation of the "Geology Map of the Tiburon Area," prepared by
Salem Rice and Theodore Smith of the California Division of Mines
and Geology in 1976, indicates that the site area, as well as the
terrain for a considerable distance to the northeast, is plotted
as being underlain by landslide deposits. l!:!owever, our
geotechnial investigation did not encounter any obvious evidence
of landslide deposits. However, the highly plastic expansive soil
materials and locally wet conditions must be dealt with in a
prudent manner so as to mitigate the natural site conditions.
D"~"~"'n ~ - -.. '"'>... (
~..:.~~~-=-".:..'~t i.-;J. ."J
EXHIBIT NO. c..
:Po (p DF (,1
f. I.{ € D~ It '1
r
[
('
:1
[
~j;;
(
"
it
~ i
I (
~ ~
" ("
~
~
~ -
. 1
.
f
1
,
1
J
,'"
....
. ".". ~
1
(
L
L
L
L
Lots 3 and 4
Page 7 - April 6, 1996
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation, our
principal conclusions in the form of geotechnical engineering
opinions are as follows:
1. It is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible
from the geotechnical engineering standpoint if performed and
maintained in accordance with our recommendations.
2. We recommend that in general the proposed development be built
to conform with the existing hillside grade as much as practical,
and cutting and filling generally be minimized as much as
practical so as not to upset the existing gross site equilibrium.
3. We recommend that the proposed houses be placed upon deeper
and well-reinforced drilled pier and grade beam foundations with
the pier holes generally extending to a minimum depth of 20 feet.
4. The site soil materials beneath the top soil zone exhibit very
high expansive soil properties with a Uniform Building Code
Expansion Index of 137. However, expansive soils are relatively
common in Tiburon.
5. In the upper portion of Lots 3 and 4, above the proposed house
building areas, a deeper trench subdrain at least 12 feet in
depth should be constructed so as to lessen seepage effects upon
the property and proposed structures, and help improve the
stability of the soil zone.
Specific recommendations are presented in the remainder of this
report.
~-~---- 3
'j' ""-" . ,...,-,"'"'" "c_.-, I
.L.;_-~:"'_~'._ J.. .i"'1',J.
'F. 4<1 DP U C(
1l:XHIBIT NO. C.
1. 7 oF (pI
r
r
r
,.
.;
r
-d;
t
"
J
4
1
l
'[
'.
'j
!t
,
1
t
1
,
~
Lots 3 and 4
Page 8 - April 6, 1996
RECOMMENDA nONS
Develooment Scheme - We recommend that the proposed development
be planned, designed, constructed, and maintained so as not to
impact upon, influence, surcharge, undermine, or in any way
influence adjacent land and development,
We recommend that, in general, the proposed development be built
to conform with the existing hillside grade as much as practical,
and cutting and filling generally be minimized as much as
practical so as not to upset the existing gross site equilibrium.
In the house site areas where cuts are made, they generally should
be fully retained with engineered retaining walls. Unretained cut
slopes remove lateral support from upslope areas and thus result
in a degree of slope steeper than the natural long-term angle of
repose of the hillside that increases the risk of sliding.
,~ '. '.... I
From many years of geotechnical engineering experience in Northern
California, we have observed that generally the larger the amount
of site grading that occurs within a project, the greater the risk
of long-term problems including sloughing, sliding, erosion and
maintenance.
i
I
l
Therefore, we feel that it is important to keep the site grading
at this project to an absolute minimum. Of course, we realize
that some grading will be required in order to provide the
driveway and parking area. However, the driveway and parking area
should be so located that the amount of cutting and filling
generally can be kept to a minimum.
I
L_
l_
L
~----~-- - -" ":2.1
.E:~'~-~~i:.i..!..:.l 1.'..] :....i. ~
Ti'3IT NO. c...
y. ~ OF ("
'P. 5b bF 1t'1
r
r
r
.~:
:~
r
''.;.;t
'Ji
I
~,
,[
i'
r
"
;[
i
I
~'
tl
.J
1
I
I
Lots 3 and 4
Page 9 - April 6, 1996
House Foundations - We recommend that the new houses be placed
upon deep and very strong drilled pier and grade beam foundations.
Because the subsurface conditions vary considerably over the
proposed two house building sites, the foundation recommendations
are based upon the poorest of the site conditions encountered.
We recommend that the drilled piers be a minimum of 18 inches in
diameter and be drilled to a minimum depth of 20 feet and be
placed upon no more than about 10 foot centers.
It is very important that all drilled piers should be connected
with grade beams in both the upslope-downslope direction and the
side-to-side direction. This requirement is because in the areas
of deeper soil the piers may be subjected to lateral soil creep
effects and the tie-back condition is necessary. Also,
interconnection is required under Section 1807.2 of the Uniform
Building Code, 1994 edition.
.'
The top 10 feet of the drilled piers should be assumed to provide
no vertical support. Below a depth of 10 feet a skin friction
value of 500 pounds per square foot for a dead load plus live load
may be used. Fifty (50) percent of that value may be used for
uplift.
t
l
l_
l
L
For resistance to transitory lateral loads such as wind or
seismic, a lateral passive pressure resistance of 100 pounds per
cubic foot, equivalent fluid weight, acting upon 1.5 pier
diameters may be used with the top 1 foot neglected. This may be
increased to 200 pounds per cubic foot, equivalent fluid weight.
acting upon 2 pier diameters below a depth of 10 feet,
,
--~----~; ~ -"" ~ I
E~;4..:..-:'_~~ _~'_L 1\ <...j. ~
g, 5lCF 11'1
EXHIBIT NO. C-
'P. c:r fF (g7
r
r
r
r
r
,
r
l
[
.,
~,
[
,
1
L
't
L
~l
I~~
1
t
1
,
[
L
l
[
(
Lots 3 and 4
Page 10 - April 6, 1996
The drilled piers should also be designed for lateral soil creep
forces of at least 50 pounds per cubic foot, equivalent fluid
weight, acting upon the top 6 feet of the piers upon 2 pier
diameters. The soil creep force may be resisted below a depth of
10 feet by passive pressure resistance of 150 pounds per cubic
foot, equivalent fluid weight, acting upon 2 pier diameters.
Because the clayey soil materials exhibit very high expansive soil
properties with a Uniform Building Code Expansion Index of 137,
all grade beams should be underlain by at least 4 inches of
low-crush strength void form type material such as Burke Void,
Nelson Void, Verticel void forming cardboard, or other low-crush
strength porous cardboard type material commonly used for
expansive soils that will allow the expansive soils to swell and
heave upward without affecting the above grade beams.
All piers should be poured promptly after drilling, and care
should be taken that the pier holes are straight and no
mushrooming or overbreak occurs at the top of the pier holes, as
mushroomed pier holes expose horizontal areas to potential adverse
expansive soil uplift effects.
Because wet conditions were encountered in Test Pit 6, including
significant caving from 1 foot to 9 feet below the ground surface,
we anticipate that the drilled piers in that area will have to be
promptly poured as they are drilled, and if caving occurs they
will have to be cased in the caving portion.
We would also recommend that the drilled piers extend at least 6
feet into the underlying very severely-weathered bedrock formation
so as to provide some settlement control. However, in Test Pits 3
and 4, that were excavated to depths of about 16 feet, only older
~------~ ~-"" 3/
Ej{ :--.....i....:-' _~' _:.' l".; \.";'.
f. 5'2... ~ Iter
EXHIBIT NO. C-
y. {O r:F ftJ7
r
r
r
r
-,
r
[
[
L
l
l
t
1
~'.
1
"~
.,
L
L
L
L
l
[
Lots 3 and 4
Page 11 - April 6, 1996
colluvial soil materials were encountered and not the underlying
very severely-weathered bedrock formation. Therefore, in that
area and in some local other areas it is likely that pier holes
greater than 20 feet in depth will be necessary. We, therefore,
recommend that the drilling rig used to drill the pier holes have
a single Kelly bar drilling depth capactiy of at least 30 feet.
The actual pier hole depths will be determined in the field by the
geotechnical engineer and may vary significantly across a specific
house~building area. In areas where the underlying bedrock
materials are of better quality, such as in Test Pit 2, the
drilled piers might be terminated as shallow as 6 feet into the
underlying bedrock formation. However, in the southeastern
portion of Lot 4, in the vicinity of Test Pits 3 or 4, piers
deeper than 20 feet would be necessary.
The above foundation recommendations for a very strong and deep
drilled pier and grade beam foundation system are based upon our
objective of mitigating the variable and locally poorer subsurface
conditions. Our opinion that the proposed residential development
is feasible from the geotechnical engineering standpoint is based
upon that the variable and locally poor subsurface conditions will
be mitigated by the use of a very strong and deep drilled pier and
grade beam foundation system. Thus, the designers of the house
and foundation should not reduce the minimum requirements as
indicated in this section of the report and as indicated on
Plate 10. If our minimum requirements are lessened, then our
opinion that the proposed residential development is feasible from
the geotechnical engineering standpoint should be considered to be
revoked.
The only manner in which the foundations could be of lesser design
would be for us to be retained to perform a supplemental
geotechnical investigation with exploration at the four corners
and middle of the actual proposed house, and written
recommendations provided by us.
-------~ ~ - '" "'2. I
~j-~~~..::..,lrl' .:.' j :'J. :."J
f. S"!l Op Ij'l
EXHIBIT NO. c..
f. " of "'7
r
r
r
r
r
r
~~
.
(
(
[
l
L
t
i-
t
~
l
L
L
L
l
l
Lots 3 and ..
Page 12 - April 6,1996
Special Slouqh Wall - On all hillside locations, including
hillsides of average stability, there is an irreducible risk that
the soil zone could experience sloughing or sliding during periods
of intensive or prolonged rainfall and/or earthquake ground
shaking. Another risk common to almost all downslope lots is that
the roadway fill embankment could slough or slide towards the
house. Therefore, to help mitigate this inherent risk, we
recommend that the upslope side of the house foundation be
extended at least 4.5 feet above the finish outside site grade.
This extended house foundation would serve as a slough wall and
should be of sufficient strength and reinforcement so as to resist
potential lateral slide effects. This slough wall should never be
backfilled, as its purpose is to restrain soil materials which
might tend to push the house off its foundation. The slough wall
should be designed for a lateral earth pressure of 90 pounds per
cubic foot, equivalent fluid weight.
T;'..'7......,...,.~.,." ~.-", 31
~~-:.....:i..!...:..:::.-..:... j~ l\:J.
'P, 54.~ Il'1
EXHIBIT NO. L-
'P. 11. OF (,,7
r
r
r
r
r
[
'"
.~io
[
[
L
L
L
1
;>1
.'
1
1
L
L
L
L
L
L
,.'
Lots 3 and 4
Page 13 - April 6, 1996
DeeD Trench Subdrain - Above the house area, probably within about
10 to 15 feet of the upper property line, we recommend that a deep
trench subdrain at least 12 feet in depth be constructed so as to
improve the stability of the site soil materials and lessen the
aggravating factor of underground seepage effects. The deep
trench subdrain should extend at least 20 feet on either side of
the projection of the house, as well as across the entire front
portion of the house. The deep trench subdrain should slope at
least 2 percent to drain, and hopefully be discharged into the
adjacent southeastern natural winter season creek,
~""';~~-.~-;:-f"'" 7:. 7,"\ ~ I
fl, "~.' _ ':; j "".;J ,;)
"'-"------ -... _ . -J,
EXHIBIT NO. c..
~. I~ DF /P7
p. 5"S- "OF.JJ. 'j
r
r
r
r
r
r
I
I
1
1
1
L
L
L
l
l
L
L
L
Lots 3 ana 4
Page 14 - April 6, 1996
Retaininq Walls - Within the two new residential lots we would
recommend that generally all permanent cut slopes should be fully
retained with engineered retaining walls, The retaining walls
should extend to the top of the cut slope area, plus provide at
least 6 inches of freeboard. Not extending the retaining walls to
the top of the cut slope and beyond the original ground slope
surface could result in future erosion, sloughing or sliding.
In areas of level backslope, retaining walls should be designed
for a lateral earth pressure of 45 pounds per cubic foot,
equivalent fluid weight. In areas with a 3:1 backslope
(horizontal to vertical), retaining walls should be designed for a
lateral earth pressure of 50 pounds per cubic foot, equivalent
fluid weight. In areas where the retaining wall backslope is 2:1,
then the retaining walls should be designed for a lateral earth
pressure of 60 pounds per cubic foot, equivalent fluid weight. In
areas where the lower part of the retaining wall is in reasonably
competent bedrock, then the portion of the retaining wall within
the underlying bedrock may be designed for a lateral earth
pressure of 30 pounds per cubic foot, equivalent fluid weight.
All retaining walls should be provided with back subdrains similar
to that shown on Appendix 2.
Retaining walls should be supported upon deeper drilled pier and
grade beam foundations similar to that used for the house
foundations. If retaining walls are necessary, then we should be
contacted so as to provide supplemental retaining wall
recommendations. For nonstructural site retaining walls that are
separate and detached from the house, a lateral passive pressure
resistance of 100 pounds per cubic foot, equivalent fluid weight,
acting upon 2 pier diameters may be used with the top 1 foot
neglected.
-~---- 3J
,.... .. ,--~-'""
..L.!~'""---~_~':.~'.l.' J..\:' J. .
P.. 5Jp ~ It'r
EXHIBIT NO. c..
?, l4 Or: lP7
r
r
r
r
r
r
I
I
I
1
L
L
l
L
l
l
l
L
L
Lots 3 ana 4
Page 15 - April 6, 1996
Draina~e - We recommend that all of the site drainage waters from
the house, roofs, patios, driveways, and new access driveway be
collected and discharged into the adjacent natural southeastern
creek via the drainage system as shown on the preliminary
tentative map. The beginning northwestern end of the new driveway
should discharge into the Stony Hill Road storm drain system.
Between the southeastern end of the new common driveway and the
southeastern property line of Lot 4, a 2 foot wide type "B"
concrete v-ditch should be installed in accordance with the
requirements of Drawing No. 260 of the Uniform Construction
Standards of the Cities and County of Marin that would end with a
catch basin and be discharged into the project storm drain system
as designed by the civil engineer. The purpose of this
approximately 60 foot long concrete-lined v-ditch is to intercept
surface waters flowing from the hillside above prior to reaching
the house site. Constructi~n of the new common driveway will tend
to intercept surface waters flowing from the hillside above.
R-~--.,,-- - -- 31
J' ,. , I. I r - ~;." 1" ; ,- \.
-.2.!...;."-:"::"'-..!.._~.:..L. -";'v".
'P, 57 DP llC{
Px'B:IBIT NO. C-
'P. 15'"cr ~7
r
r
r
r
r
r
[
(
L
L
l
1
;.;.' ~.
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Lots 3 and 4
Page 16 - April 6, 1996
Seismicity and Earthauake Hazards - Review of the State of
California Division of Mines and Geology "Fault Map of California"
indicates that the site is located about 9 miles west of the
Hayward Fault zone and about 8 miles east of the San Andreas Fault
zone, which experienced great movement in 1906.
Review of the publication entitled, "Maximum Creditable Rock
Acceleration from Earthquakes in California," prepared by R.
Greensfelder of the California Division of Mines and Geology,
indicates that the site and general area could experience bedrock
accelerations of 0.5g.
Therefore, it is our opinion that the site could be sUbjected to
strong earthquake vibrations at least once during its useful life.
We recommend that all structural, architectural and mechanical
details be designed to resist earthquake ground shaking. The
design engineer should emphasize the principles of continuity,
ductility and high energy absorption.
We trust this report provides the information you require. Please
call if you have further questions.
The following are attached and complete this report:
Plate 1 - Site Plan
Plate 2 - Driveway Plan
Plates 3 through 7 - Logs of Exploration
Plate 8 - Soil Classification Chart
Plate 9 - Expansion Test Results
Plate 10 - Foundation Details
Appendix 1 - Site Drainage
Appendix 2 - Subdrain Details
Appendix 3 - Wall Surcharge Details
E....,.".,..-.-"""'---, - -'" 3 I
'!..:..:.....:..-..:..l_i.:.,,_:~j. [:--!(.....).
p.~ OF ftCt
;';lXHIBIT NO. c..
P. [(P OF (P7
r
r
r
(
r
r
[
(
l
L
l
l
: .... . ~,'
-.".
L
L
l
l
l
l
L
Lots 3 ana .+
Page 17 - April 6, 1996
Appendix 3.1 - House Appendages
Appendix 4 - Fill Placement
Appendix 4.1 - Hillside Fill Details
Appendix 4.2 - Fill and Cut Slope Maintenance
Appendix 4.3 - Existing Older Cut and Fill Slope Maintenance
Appendix 5 - Effect Upon Adjacent Land
Appendix 6 - Construction Safety
Appendix 7.1 - Wind Loading
Appendix 8 - Land Maintenance
Appendix 8.1 - Earth Buttress Details
Appendix 9 - Limitations
Appendix 10 - Construction Observation
Appendix A - General Recommendations, Risks, Material Notes,
Responsibility, Limitations and Related Items
Appendix B - Section 832, California Civil Code
Appendix C - Concrete Slabs
Appendix G - General Foundation Notes
Appendix I - Nuisance and Liability for Land Condition
Appendix S - Sidewalks, Curbs, Patios, Etc.
Appendix U - Utility Trench Erosion Control
Appendix V - Vegetation Erosion Control
very truly,
Nelson
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
Civil Engineer - 19738, expires 9/30/97
Geotechnical Engineer 630
3 copies submitted
EXHIBIT NO. C.
R;~I~'~J;~2L P. n OF ~7
./"
Tut' ,.oN
I
I
0/ 1,0 t .
.f / (ot 3
. I
"
~ I '" Vr
~\ 6' - 160 5 I
i ~.~'0 -$-
~ ~ oYUpapl. /
~ .c weT a,.itq,
, ./
[
L
L
L EXHIBIT NO. C-
L E}J:-l:~~t~l:~. I~l 1>. 18 of lP7
L :106110. ,','fS' tlpp,.&: D,,!e I('S'N
r
r
r
r
r
r
(
l
(
L
I.
L.,,,,,,,.
?!C~>1'f:~~!!": . . '
~
~
\
....--
./
./
./
~/
/0 T; 6...,.,,^ /Jlv/.
(0
,
/
/
..---
- ...--
----
c..,....,tD
#88f'c<
,r
(of 2-
_,Sfo,y"
r'~"'L :r;.,.
~
/)
~/"t:'4
WOO,(
~C'ICI'Jl.
IIlfo
3 ,t)O ./
tot I( ~ J ./
/
./ ./'I,,/?Il.
/' <{ It/, Co.,,<
.. /
J 1,,0
---
...-
./
r ",'
,yl.ed......O I
I
./
-
,
,
(of I
I .1'to,.y ~
/I"'IS,
~;,.c... -IIJt)
/
--
-
...........
C"",ct),t
/
o
.
.
2.0
,
30
.
j .....IJI..
Sit... ,.01"....
88 f 8 r;6...,.Qlt (JI.,./.
7;6..,.""-,, CA.
,,0
f
1
,
,
,00
J J",o. /1
I ~."f.'
I .J"~Q,j()"
I ,
J ./Dra..n ".:;.Il.
,
I
,
yO'
.
Plate
I
r
r
r
r
r
I
[
[
I
I
L
L
I
L
L
L
L
L
,L
,.,
:/..6 AI". JoZ'{BJ
~
cl "
o-.~ \
III::! \ ""
}" ....
~~ I ~
~ '"""i\ k - -\--
I ~ 1 \
J 'il \ ~
. ,.... , "l
, 11 '- ;.<
,I" ~.-:
,,~I \ "
'- d' ." 1 .......;t-
01.1 'I\"~
~ It, ....
t'~ " ' · ~ ~
,~ I 1 ,
~II
I ~I
\ ~
...,. II ,q,' \
"'~ \ , I "
:' .
~-:. \,3~1
~ ~ '-y; 1-
,
,. 1\
\'"
" , I
\ I ,
"
, 1 \
, ,
I ~, \
I~ I
, ,
I , J
I ,
I ,
n, }'"":.7;:'T'f' 1'"Tn "'.1
----'---~ ...\v. :;
-..,
~, (Pl DF i1'?
,
o
...
.
~
\
\
I
,
~
, ~
~ 11
\l
'"'
o
af'P"~ Do./e '{.8'N
EY..HIBIT NO. L
:po l~ DF ~7
l)";vLw"''y 1'1...,,- Plate
88 r 8 r;h",(".I)/,,/.
r.. 6..,." "''- CA .2
r
r
r
(
r
r
I
(
[
L
l
1
..;~
l
L
L
L
l
l
L
Shear Strength (Ibs/sq ft)
o
o
~
,p
>10
00
{
00
~
00
\0
t8~ 71'.*
-
"* S~ tD~ :/.AM:
t8~ "7t:1'-
-
The I 9 of s bsurf, ce con it ions
show herei appli s only at the
speci ic bori gar te t pit 0 probe
locati non th date i dicated It may
not b repre entativE of sub urface
condi ions at other I cations and/or
other imes.
o
~
'if!.
~
'" -
5 c:
-:;~
,- c:
a a
::Eu
~
~
u
a. ~
~ -
.c::::' It)
-:; -= a..
>.. c: a.. E
o8~J;
o
e-v--+
5
10
15
o
5
15
....-.,..-----
"L~-:':".i..';:';'l.!.. L\~:"..).
EARTH SCIENCE CONSULTANTS 'D,._ Or;.
SOIL' fOUNDATION AND GEOWGI AL ENGINEERS (,IP
HCf
Job No. 1 ({ 2. Y 8 ?
_Ap .
Date '1,8'16'
LOG OF Tul'p;/- I
Equipmen t 13" c k ~ ".4-
Elevation ["x;sl'. Cr. Date <(.:;. 96'
DARK BROWN SANDY SILT (ML), soft,
- wet, with small rock fragments
(topsoil)
LIGHT GRAY BROWN SANDY CLAY (CH),
med. stiff, wet
Larger seepage @ 5.5'
Stiff @ 6'
Iff
Iff
GREENISH GRAY WITH PURPLE SANDY CLAY
(CH), stiff, moist, with chert &
serpentine rock fragments & zones,
crushed & sheared (apparent zone of
'- ancient tectonic shearing)
OLIVE GRAY SERPENTINE, crushed &
sheared with abundant slickensides,
very severely to completely weath-
ered (zone of apparent ancient
...... tectonic shearing)
OLIVE GREEN SERPENTINE, closely
fractured, highly weathered, low
:,hardness, friable, with severely
wea~~re~}~-7PJJ'1 ;0,"1' 2
Equipment /3a c,," -; ilL
Elevation ",,;,st, Gr. Date V' 3 .J'6
- DAAK BRG.N Sl\N)Y SILT (M..), soft, ~t, with
9I'aIl rock fragrents (topsoi I)
LIGHT GRAY BROWN SANDY CLAY (CH),
- med. stiff, wet
Stiff @ 2.5'
_ LIGHT GRAY BROWN SANDY SILT (ML),
stiff, damp, with angular sandstone
... rock fragments
GRAY BROWN FINE GRAINED SANDSTONE,
closely fractured, highly weathered,
low hardness (KJf-ss)
WN3 OBSERVED
NO FREt:. WAIER BOfIING 1<T TIME
IN TEST P!T O~T\Ol'\ HoWEVER.
OF INVESTIG~A-rER TABLE MAY
lHe GROUN~EEPAGr. MAY BE
RISE oF. URING nlE WINTER
oRESENT 0
EXHlEr c..
'- - . Z-O OF-~7
LOG 0 F r,u" P;" J I tl. 2-
885.0 r;",,,",,,, IJ/v/.
T;"",.".. c-4
, ,
PLATE
J
r
r
r
(
r
r
I
(
[
L
L
L
L
L
L
l
l
l
L Job No. ?6 ~ '18 5'
Shear Strength (Ibs/sq ft)
o
o
.;'
J'
~o
o
o
~
IB"
1/7",*
00
~
00
,0
~
~
., -
:; c:
- .,
~ -
,- c:
o a
~u
o
f
~;/I
I
~
'*.f~ tP~ :7~
tB~ 1'7t: .,.
I
F;I/
I
~
EARTH SCIENCE CONSULTANTS
SOIL . FOUNDATION AND GEOLO CAL ENGINEERS
Date '1,8. ?If
~
~
u
o..~
~ -
.c~ It)
.- ...c -
~ - 0..
>-. C 0. E
... It) OJ 0
000 V"l
o
LOG OF 701' "D.-,. 3
Equipment l3ack ~...l!-
Elevation Ex/sr. Cr. Date <t. 3.96'
5
-BROWN SANDY SILT (ML), soft, wet, with
rock fragments
-DARK BROWN SANDY SILT (ML), soft, wet
LIGHT GRAY BROWN SANDY CLAY (CH),
- med. stiff, wet
Stiff @ 3.5'
_BROWN & GRAY BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL-CH),
stiff, damp, with rock fragments
BROWN & GRAY BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL-CH),
,- stiff, damp, with abundant small
sub-angular & angular rock fragments
(older colluvium - Qco!)
With occ. 3"- 8" size angular marine
volcanic greenstone rock fragments
:'.~beyond 13'
10
15
(Bedrock formation not encountered)
LOG OF Ter; "o,'~ if'
Equipment l3oc~ ~..L
Elevation ["x/sf, Gr, Date >('.3 ..Po
o
, BROWN SANDY SILT (ML), soft, wet, with
small rock fragments
- DARK BROWN SANDY SILT (ML), soft,
wet, wi th rock: fragments
8" Boulder @ 2'
LIGHT GRAY BROWN SANDY CLAY (CH),
" med. stiff, wet
Stiff @ 5'
Small seepage @ 3'
BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL-CH), stiff, mois~
" with abundant small sub-angular &
angular rock fragments (older
colluvium - Qcol)
;7XIIIBIT NO. c..
P. 21 OF ~7
(Bedrock formation n0t encountered)
""'---:-7":"""i'"';1 ~ -,., 31
f. 03 of il'1
LOG 0 F 7'"u t P;I' J 3 ( 'I P LA T E
88511 r,'&",.." /J/,,/. -V
7:6",..... . c,'f
,
r
r
r
r
r
r
[
I
l
L
l
,1
.;.t:/
L
L
L
L
l
l
L
Shear Strength (Ibs/sq ft)
o
o
..,0
r?
...0
o
o
~
00
~
00
,0
t8. :7:*
1',
-
. The 09 of ubsurf ce co dition
shay n here h appll s onl~ at thE
spec fie bori 9 or t st pit r probe
locat on on t e date I dicate .Itma'
not e repre entativ of su surface
conc tions a other "cation and/o
othe times.
*S~c::Z'~y~
t8.~7t:*
o
~
~
!L-
v _
:; c
- v
~ -
.- c
a a
:=Eu
~
~
u
Cl.~
~ -
L-- ~ Q)
0:; -E a..
>- C Cl. E
'- Q) Q) 0
OOOV>
o
Pl:;;; a
f.i II
I
v
,; )Yc:r..f.,.
t...".../
'1-J-N
EARTH SCIENCE CONSULTANTS
SOIL - fOUNDATION AND GEOtO {CAt ENGINEERS
Job No. , 0 2. Y 8 J'
Date y. 8 - 96
LOG 0 F T u I /';" ,
Equipment /Jack ~o.....
Elevatian E"x/sr. Cr. Date <(- J - 96
-DARK GRAY BROWN SANDY SILT (ML), soft,
wet, with small rock fragments
(topsoil)
LIGHT GRAY BROWN SANDY CLAY (CH),
, med. stiff, wet
5 Stiff @ 3.5'
OLIVE GREEN SERPENTINE, closely
10 Iff -' fractured, highly weathered, low
hardness (KJf-sp)
hs Harder & less weathered @ 12'
15
WATER w/>S 06SERVEt)
~ ~;E PIT OR BORIN;o~~~~
OF E ~~~~~~~R TABLE MAY
TH 0 OF SEE('AGE MAY BE
~~ESENT' DURING TIlE WINTER.
LOG OF ferl /,,'1'" If"
Equipment /3ac~~".I/.
Elevation [''';51', Gr, Date Y". 3 .,96'
DARK GRAY BROWN & BROWN SANDY SILT
~ (ML-CL), soft to med. stiff, wet,
with small rock fragments
Seepage @ 1.8'
Significant caving from l' to 9'
5
....
LIGHT GRAY BROWN SANDY CLAY (CH),
stiff, wet
OLIVE GRAY GREEN SANDY CLAY (CH),
stiff, saturated, with very small
angular serpentine rock fragments
OLIVE GREEN SERPENTINE, crushed &
sheared, completely weathered
(zone of ancient tectonic shearing)
./
15
.....
y, "
;. ,:3/EXHIBIT NO. c... 'P. 'Z'L. oFCP-:
or- /I ~
LOG OF rv/' P;/'J $'(6
8850 r/6","o" /JIve/.
r;6",.... C'.4
, ,
P LA TE
5
~:'~== <IT I,l':~..J.
r
r
r
[
r
r
I
(
[
[
L
L
L
L
L
l
l
l
l Job No. I { 2.. '18 ~
Shear Strength (Ibs/sq ft)
o
o
~
,f
v.0
00
{
00
~
00
\0
18.4-
1/7",*
*.J~ t"~ ../~
t8~ 1/7t:1<
ThE log of subsur ace cc nditian s
she wn her in app ies ani at th~
SpE ilic bo ing or est pit :Jr prob~
lac tion on he date indicatE d.ltml1~
not be rep sentati e of s bsurlace
con itions t other locatio sandi r
oth rtimes.
:
o
~
'if-
~
., -
:; c
- .,
~ -
.- c
a 0
::Ev
~
~
u
o..~
~ -
c~ ClJ
.~ -:. a.
>- C 0.. E
.... Q) ClJ 0
ccc",
o
EARTH SCIENCE CONSULTANTS
SOil . FOUNDATION AND GEOlO CAl ENGINEERS
P,b
___Ap r:
Date V. 8 . 16
5
10
15
o
5
15
LOG OF Tul,.o;" ;)
Equipment /3"ck ~o..ct.
Elevation ex/sr. Cr.
Oote <(.3. 91f
-DARK GRAY BROWN SANDY SILT (ML),
soft, wet, with small rock fra~s
- GRAY,.BROWN SANDY CLAY (CH), med.
stiff, wet
- OLIVE GRAY GREEN SANDY CLAY (CH),
fSS stiff, damp, with serpentine rock
"' fragments
OLIVE GRAY GREEN SERPENTINE, intensely
fractured, highly to severely
weathered, low hardness (KJf-sp)
oeSEf\'JEO
w~iEf\ 'Np..$ G "I ilME
NO ff\EE M1' 01'1 BOf\IN \-IOVlE'-JEfl,.
ll< lESl ES1\G"iI~' l"al-E tJ./>.'<
0< \I'I\! '0 ",,,iEf\ ",< BE
~E. Gf\OUl'l SEt::!,,,GE MWltliER
f\ISt. ~~. OUfl,ING 11-\E
pf\ESE
LOG OF Te$1 ,0,',.. 8
Equipment l.3ac~~".J/.
Elevation ['''';,S1'. Gr. Oote V' 3 'Y6'
- GRAY BROWN SANDY CLAY (CH), soft, wet
_LIGHT GRAY BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL-CH),
med. stiff, wet, with rock fragments
.... Stiff @ 1..7'
GRAY BROWN FINE GRAINED SANDSTONE,
closely fractured, highly weathered,
low hardness (KJf-ss)
Harder, less weathered @ 3.5'
OBSEf\'JEO
",~iEfl, Wp..$ ING "I liME
NO ff\EE Ii 01'1 BOf'. 1-I0VlE\!Efl"
u< iESl :SilG"il01\ i~BI-E tJ./>.~
of IN\! NO ",,,iE M"'1 B
irlE. GI'\OU SEt::\~"GE WltliEfl,.
f\lSe O~ OUI'\ING 11-\E .
pl'\E.SEN
'XHIBIT NO. C.
P.?.3 C$lI7
*11'1
LOG 0 F ru l' p;, J , <. 8
8850 r;6,.ro", /)/t"/.
r:6u,,,.. C',of
,
PlATE
6
r
r
r
r
r
r
I
I
1
1
1
1
L
L
L
L
l
L
L Job No. 7{ 2.Y8~___Ap .
Shear Strength (Ibs/sq ft)
o
o
.,0
rP
>10
o
o
~
DO
-3
00
,0
tfJ.
/71'.*
*.r~ iP~:7~
tfJ..1cr4 "'7t: j<
The I 9 of s bsurfa e con jitions
show herei applie only at the
speci ic borir ~ or te I pit 0 probe
locati non th date ir icated It may
not b repre entative of sub urface
condi ions at other I( cations andlor
other imes,
o
~
l?...
.. -
:; c:
- ..
~ -
,- c:
o 0
::tv
~
~
u
a.~
~ -
.c- ~ fD
.-; -E. a.
>.. c a.. E
.... Cl) Q,) 0
C C C VI
o
...........,.
EARTH SCIENCE CONSULTANTS
SOIL . FOUNDA TlON AND GEOlOG CAt ENGINEERS
Date y. 8 . 76'
5
10
15
o
5
15
LO G OF lul,.D;". 7
Equipment 13 a c k ~ 0.Jl..
Elevation ex/sr. Cr. Date if. J. 96'
,DARK BROWN SANDY SILT (ML), soft, wet,
with small rock fragments
'BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL-CH), med. stiff,
wet, with small rock fragments
'LIGHT GRAY BROWN SANDY CLAY (CH),
, med. stiff, wet
LIGHT OLIVE GREEN SANDY CLAY (CH),
med. stiff, wet, with small serp-
" entine rock fragments
OLIVE GRAY SERPENTINE, crushed & :!I
sheared, very severely to completely
weathered, with slickensides (zone
oD ancient tectonic shearing)
WNS oasER'iED
I'lO fREE W,,1i:R BORING AT TIME
IN TEsT p{T OR at< HoWEVER.
OF \NVES~~~,.iR TABLE M~~
1)-IE GROU" ~ GE MAY
OF sEE, A WINTER.
RISE ' DURING 1)-IE
QRESENI
LOG 0 F len' ,0;,. NJ
Equipment J3oCk":"L
Elevation [""/st,C,,., Date Y'3.yO'
'GRAY BROWN SILTY ANGULAR GRAVEL (GP),
, loose, wet (old road surface)
DARK BROWN SANDY CLAY (GL), soft, wet
, Small seepage @ 0.5'
LIGHT BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL-CH), med.
\ stiff, wet _
Stiff @ 1.8', with angular sandstone
rock fragments
LIGHT BROWN FINE GRAINED SANDSTONE,
Closely fractured, highly to severe I)
weathered, low hardness, friable
(KJf-ss)
T7'-----~-~ -~" -::> I
,;: ,~' ,- .,,' -, ~ '; I :':'~ 'I ~
-.-.-..::........--------- -......,..
~, (ofo oP l/'l
EXHIBIT NO. C.
? '2.~ ~ lrI7
LOG OF ruJ' P;J'J 7.(10
885.0 T;"",o" /J/../.
7;6",.".. <4
, ,
P LA TE
7
MAJOR DMSlONS TYPICAL NAMES
I ow , .
Cll.Al>l ouvl!U , WIll c;u.oe:o GlAvtu. GlAvtl - lAND MIXMrs
U) _ ! GRAVELS WITH \,JfTU 01 'I-
NO ~INlS "OaLY GUotO GUvns, c;u.....n - SAND
~ ~ i OP MlxT\AlS
0" ,
cn~ ! MOl( fHAN H....L' SILlY GUvlLS, POOll'f GUD(O GUvU -lAND-
COAoIUI'IACTlOft'll GW
Z IS l.AIGU n1AN GUvtU WI'f104 SIlTMIXMD
Cl NO. ~ SU'V( SIlt ova 1:l'I.'INlS
... QC Q.A'I"'fY OlAvtLS, 'COllY GU.DlD GlAVtl. ~O.
z. CLAY "",XTUlU
<~ ~
a:: 3 sw .
(ll~ . . WILL GU.Oto lANDS, GU.Vfll Y SANDS
~ CllAN ""NOS .
...~ SANDS Wl~ llTTU 01
NO'INU 10.
U)Z SP .. IlOClt:LY GU.DtO SANDS, GUVlLlY SANOS
a::l .
8~ MOU ""'AN KAL'
COAlU "lAcnON ~lILTY ....NOS. """'LY ""'OlD ....NO. SILT
IS SMALUI J'HA,.. SANOS Wlnt MIXn..-U
NO. . SINt SIZl 0Yt1 12'1> 'INn
SC CLA'I"(Y :LANDS. I'oalY ouoe:o SAND - ClAy
M.lxn..u
cn~ .NaGANIC SILn AND YtlT 'IN( SANOS, loa
Wl 'lOlA:. SILlY 01 QAyfY 'IHI! $.4.NDS, 01
..J" CUYrV 'Iln WITH SLIGHT "'-'Unarr
-~ SILTS ..0 CLAYS ~ INaGANl' CLA..., Of' LON 10 MeDU"l"" fO\.ASnclty.
O.
U)z Cl GUoVtLLT CUY1, SANOY ClAY'S, SilTY CLAY1.
C~ LIQUID liMIT LESS TM4N .so lfAN CLAYl
"
Ol 1 r tl~1 QlCANIC C1.AY1 AND OIGANIC SllrY C1.AY1 Of'
...~ I I 'III lOw ".AsnCIT'Y
z~
-1
~~ WH ,NQtGANIC Illn, MlCACIOUS 01 CMA~OOVS
, 'IN! ~Ctt' 01 SilTY SOILS, (LAIne SiltS
~ SILTS '.0 CLAYS ~
...~ CH tHaCANIC CLAYS Of HIGH I'l..ASncl'TY.
~~ UQuID Ll,..,.' GItA.1!I rKAN ~ 'AT CLAY!
...- ~ OIGANIC CLAl"S Of Mfr>UJM TO HI~ "ASnoTY.
9 OH " OtGANIC $IL n
,
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PI :::: fI'U T ANO 0""" HICHL T OIGANIC SOIU
-
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
..V...Io"....... ,..,Ie
!AMPLE DESIGNATION
C3:l 1..111 .. CI."ill.etl." S..,I.
ST>lENGT>< n:sn
..,"\.""\.....,..........,, VAN( SH('" TlST
, .".'4
l-l....,...,,.
UNCONflNEO CO'''t(1$ION TUT
1000 (30.0) I
r r
Oluer SH(.... TlST 1000 (lO.OJ IX x )( )(I
CD - C........... . 0 .. r r I' I .[
M....... e...... ....::.:: ,..,
Su... H....I I. H.... '1.... (,.1)
TlIAX'Al CO"'HUSSION fUT
uu .. U..c.....lllle'.lII . U......I...
CU .. e.....ll..,.. _ U.....II..1Il
CO.. e.....I....... . O'e'....
1/2 0..1.... S IOU. (,.1)
,.......... c.."..., .,... 'u' 1'1
C.......l... S..... . 11] {,"I}
KEY TO TEST DATA
r:;y--===-::-:r::.c - --- 31
p, fo?
r:'XHIBIT NO. C-
'P. ZS of (q7
Date ((-8- plf
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
88,B r,'/',ao"
T/o"-ro1l.
,
CHART
/J/v'/,
PLA TE
EARTH SCIENCE CONSULTANTS
SOIL. FOUNDATION ANO GEOLO leAL ENGINEERS
ob No. '02.'18'
CA
8
r
r
r
[
r
r
[
(
l
l
l
L
L
L
L
L
l
L
30
28
26
24
22
20
c: IS
...
'-'
...
...
C-
16
c:
.2
'"
c: 14
0
CI.
"
W
0 12
0
I-
10
8
6
4
2
0
EXPANSION INDEX TEST CUSC 29-2)
(411 diameter x ,II Thick specimen, 144 pst surchorQe; 24 hr saTuration)
(90 percent relaTive compoction at optimum moisture per ASTM 1557)
Symbol
In i t i a I
Moisture
EXPANSION
INDEX
/37 (Ve,) I/,jA.)
Final
Moisture
Soring / Depth
~
P,"t i"'~ i'"
37.07,.
I/o D '7..
rUSC
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
VERY HIGH I
'*
--------JI:30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--------190
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------"150
LOW I
I
I
(EXPANSION INDEX) CLASSIFICATION
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
TABLE NO. 29-C-CLASSIFlCATlON OF EXPANSIVE SOIL
EXPANSION IHCEX
POTEHTIAL EXPANSION
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
0-20
21.50
51-90
91.130
Above 130
{FHA/HUD CLASSIFICATION
I
,
CRITICAL
,
I
I
,
I
,
HIGH
I
I
I
I
I
MODERATe:.
,
I
I
Lo'W
---
VERY LOW
,
t t
100 144
,
200
,
300
,
500
400
600
Confinin<;l Pressure (Pounds Per Square Foot)
~}?7-II.-.rl' I\T[Ji. "31
'P. (Q e:> DF=
.klb No 91 H' 8 P
Date I{.8.1';{
EXPANSION TEST RESULTS
885 8 T;6,,,.,,. /.JIll./'.
7:6..,...", C4
PLATE
EARTH SCIENCE CONSULTANTS
SOIL, FOUNDATION AND GEOLOGI L ENGINEERS
9
DOI,JNS LOPE
RECTION
113 TIES
(8" x 8"
@ '''ce
6 115 OR 4 116
BARS, EXTEND
TO 'TOP OF
GRADE BEAM
((; "aa".Jl. 00)
10'/.1;" .
~ GRADE BEAM
.".-
3 #5 OR 2 #6 BARS
TOP AND BOTTOM
l'
18"
J\1:".
. . .
TIES .# 3@ 7~.."
(7" XU" )
-4"VOIDFORM
,
18" DIA. DRILLED P!ER )( 20 Dee,o
')
1-- LAP SPLICE
~tf" FOR #5 BARS
'I~" FOR #6 BARS
- I
)
../
24" BENDS AT ALL
CORNERS & INTERSECTIONS
GRADE
BEAM -
TYPICAL FOUNDATION LAYOUT
1. RECOMMENDED MINIMUM FOUNDATION DETAILS FROM THE
CONCEPTUAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STANDPOINT.
HOWEVER, THE ACTUAL FOUNDATION DETAILS WILL HAVE
TO BE DETERMINED BY THE STRUCTURAL CIVIL ENGINEER.*
THE FOUNDATION SHOULD ALSO BE DESIGNED TO RESIST THE
MINIMUM LOADS AS REQUIRED BY THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE.
REINF. STEEL SHOULD BE #40 GRADE, ASTM A615-40 OR BETTER,
a.,r ...cfe<l'.
2.
3.
......
co
~
,
4. WOOD JOIST FLOORS SHOULD BE USED.
5. SOIL ENGINEER SHOULD PERIODICALLY OBSERVE DRILLING OF PIER HOLES.
6. FOUNDATION STRUCTURAL ENGINEER SHOULD OBSERVE STEEL & FORMS
PRIOR TO CONCRETE POURS.
.. Unless approved by
consul ta tion
geotechnical engineer with supplemental
EXHIBIT NO. C
f. ,. '2.7 oF ~I
Job No. 9~ 1 <fS 9
Ap r'
Dale: y. 8. 91f
FOUNDATION DETAILS
88f 8 ,:6u,.It /J1,,0I.
,:6",,,,, ("A
I
PLATE
EARTH SCIENCE CONSULTANTS
SOIL' fOUNOATlON ANO GEOlOG At ENGINEERS
10
r
r
r
[
r
r
(
(
l
L
L
L
L
L
L
l
l
l
l
A P PEN D I X 1
SITE DRAINAGE
Of great importance is providing adequate surface and subsurface
drainage as most hillside structures are generally prone to
drainage problems. Also, all site drainage waters should be
handled and discharged in a legal, prudent, reasonable and proper
manner so as not to create a nuisance, risk or hazard to this
property or adjoining properties.
We generally recommend that structures be equipped with roof
gutters and downspouts. All runoff waters including all
downspouts, patio, parking, and driveway drainage, and all other
drainage should be collected in closed pipes with periodic
cleanouts and/or concrete-lined V-ditches and/or catch basins and
discharged into the legal approved area storm drain system.
If the above is not totally practical or feasible, then all site
drainage waters should be discharged well away from all building
and foundation areas. Site drainage waters should be discharged
and well dispersed in such a manner so as not to result in
localized erosion or sloughing. Care should be used so that
drainage waters are not concentrated and discharged on downslope
or adjacent properties. site drainage waters should be wel~
dispersed in as natural a manner as possible and should not be
discharged in a concentrated manner if a legally-approved storm
drain system is not present.
Fill areas should be. graded so that storm water does not flow over
fill slopes.
Cut slopes should be provided with concrete-lined V-ditches about
5 feet above the top of the cut slope so as to prevent excessive
storm waters from flowing over cut slopes.
~~~----_. . -,..." "21
b~~~~~.:..r:~, l.~{,~j. ;)'
p. 70 DF lL9
1-1
AP PENDIX
EXHIBIT NO. c...
P. 2..8 f)t: (P7
1
SITE
DRAINAGE
r
r
r
r
r
r
I
I
[
L
L
L
L
L
l
l
l
l
L
It should be noted that moisture is usually present under most
hillside structures as surface and subsurface waters flow from the
area above the structure. Therefore, to reduce the amount of
moisture under a structure located on a hillside or at the base of
a hillside or higher area, it is usually required to construct
deeper subdrains and concrete-lined V-ditches immediately above
the structure, as shown on the Subdrain Details part of this
report.
During the next several years we believe it would be appropriate
to periodically monitor the site drainage to observe drainage
trends, and additional drainage measures may be required depending
upon the actual site drainage and land performance.
We also recommend that the attorney for the developer and owner be
consulted to determine the legal manner of discharging drainage at
this site. It should be noted that improperly discharged
concentrated drainage may be a source of liability and litigation
between adjacent property owners.
In those areas where legal area storm drain systems may not be
present, then site drainage waters should be handled in a
reasonable and prudent manner in the spirit of "Keys vs. Romley"
(64 Cal 2nd 396, 1966) and the associated "rule of reasonable use"
pertaining to surface waters as provided in the next three'
paragraphs.
"It is encumbent on every person to take reasonable care in using
his property to avoid injury to adjacent property through the flow
of surface waters, and any person so threatened with injury has
the equal duty to take reasonable precautions to avoid or reduce
actual or potential injury. Though failure to exercise reasonable
care may result in liability by an upper to a lower landowner,
where the actions of both are reasonable, necessary, and generally
in accord with reasonable care, the injury must necessarily be
borne by the upper landowner who changes a natural system of
drainage."
1-2
EXHIBIT NO. C.
.f. t.<t t>F <07
~':]~==.:,='~: 17-:>.
~. 7J at:: Il']
3J
r
r
r
r
r
r
I
I
I
l
l
l
l
L
L
l
l
L
L
"In an action to recover damages for the discharge of surface
waters from adjoining land, the question of reasonableness of
conduct is not related solely to the actor's interest, however
legitimate; it must be weighed against the effect of the act on
others. The issue of reasonableness is a question of fact to be
determined by considering all relevant circumstances, including
the amount of harm caused, the foreseability of the harm that
results, and the purpose or motive with which the possessor
acted."
"In land development problems, it is proper to consider whether
the utility of the possessor's use of his land outweighs the
gravity of the harm that results from his alteration of the flow
of surface waters. Where the weight is on the side of the one who
alters a natural watercourse, he has acted reasonably and without
liability; where the harm to the lower landowner is unreasonably
severe, then the economic costs incident to the expulsion of
surface waters must be borne by the upper owner. But if both
parties conducted themselves reasonably, then the courts are bound
by the old civil law rule."
The old civil law rule...is that "a person who interferes with the
natural flow of surface waters so as to cause an invasion of
another's interests in the use and enjoyment of his land is
subject to liability to the other."
Also, site drainage should be provided as necessary and maintained
and repaired as necessary so as to be in accordance with
California common and statute law and the more recent
interpretations of the "rule of reasonable use" pertaining to
surface waters, including: "Martinson vs. Hughey" (199 Cal App
3rd 318, 1988), "Weaver vs. Bishop" (206 Cal App 3rd 1351, 1988),
"Aalso vs. Leslie Salt" (218 Cal App 3rd 417, 1990), and
California civil Code Sections 1714 and 3479. "The old civil law
rule, under which a landowner was liable for any harm caused to
neighboring owners by an alteration in the flow of surface waters
~-------~ 31
.:' -' _" "_ ~ i l ~";':-:-)
..1......_____,_~__ .:...-i.
f,,2-cF U':l
1-3
EXHIBIT NO. c...
P. 3ocF~7
r
r
r
[
r
r
(
(
I
I
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
across his or her land has been qualified by the rule of
reasonable use. Under this rule, an owner modifying the flow of
surface waters can successfully defend a claim for damages showing
that his conduct was reasonable and that of the plaintiff was
unreasonable."
If good retaining wall performance is desired, such as in
habitable portions of the structure, then such retaining walls
should be very carefully waterproofed.
We recommend that provision be made for the relief of hydrostatic
pressure that might build up beneath any concrete floor slabs.
Adequate gravity outlets or weep holes should be provided so that
all portions of the drain rock beneath the concrete floor slabs
may drain. However, such weep holes or drain outlets should be
carefully located in such a manner that water will not flow inward
to beneath the floor slabs.
It should be realized that considerable normal runoff water from
prolonged and intense rainfall flows along the surface of the
ground. However, a significant amount of water may percolate
through the upper portions of the porous topsoil materials, then
flow along the surface of impervious soil layers or along the
surface of the bedrock because the bedrock is much more dense and
compact than the above soil materials. Furthermore, a small
amount of water may infiltrate through the various joints ,and
cracks within the underlying bedrock materials. Therefore, our
usual recommendation on hillside and steeper slope construction is
to build in conformity with the existing hillside grades and not
to excavate or cut into the various soil layers and through the
soil/rock interface into the underlying bedrock materials. Such
excavating penetrates and therefore intercepts natural drainage
paths, resulting in water and moisture falling from the cut.
However, due to functional and aesthetic reasons or requirements,
there are many times when such cutting into the natural earth-soil
and rock materials is required. However, it should be realized
that drainage waters will most likely be present in such areas and
will have to be either accepted and/or dealt with as required.
..,...,--.:-.'.--".'., -,':'-', ,.31
-----.----.--- -. '"-'" -
f. 73 O~ ;1:1
1-4
EXHIBIT NO. G
. r.~t OF C,7
r
r
r
r
r
r
[
(
[
l
L
L
l
L
L
L
The building designer and contractor should use special care with
respect to drainage considerations if the site development results
in cutting or excavating the soil or rock materials. Such cutting
may cut through and intercept natural drainage and seepage paths
and may result in considerable drainage waters flowing toward,
into or beneath the structure. Also, excavating in areas of level
or gentle slope may result in adjacent water seeping into the
ground and flowing towards the excavation.
Generally, under no circumstances should crawl space areas be
excavated below the adjacent site grades (such as to provide
adequate clearance for wood joist floors) unless the building
designer and contractor very carefully consider and provide for
drainage waters that might flow into and be trapped in the
foundation crawl space area and also consider potential higher
humidity and very good cross-ventilation.
The designer of the proposed structure and the contractor should
make sure that sufficient weeps or drainage holes are present
within the foundation elements inside the structure so that if
drainage waters should flow or infiltrate into the foundation
area, then they can easily flow out and away from the structure
and not pond or slowly seep into habitable areas.
The above site drainage recommendations are general in nature and
should be carried out by the house designer, contractor, owner,
and future owners to the fullest possible extent. However, from
many years of soil engineering experience within Northern
California, we have found that water and moisture below most
structures is relativley common. Therefore, we suggest that if
the owner desires assurance with respect to site drainage, an
expert in the field of hydrology and drainage should be retained
to prepare specific recommendations.
L
L
L
-~---'- -n ~ -, ""2 I
-~:_'~_":'_':",.::.'~~ 1'; :J. .:;)
~, 14 DF 1\'1
EXHIBIT NO. C.
~. 32. OF fit
1-5
r
r
r
[
r
r
r
(
l
l
l
l
l
L
L
L
l
l
L
A P PEN D I X 2
SUBDRAIN DETAII
LINED V-DITCH
12" COMPACTED SOIL CAP
WHERE THIN SUBDRAlN SUBSTITUTES
ARE REQUIRED, USE MIRAFl "JiVe.
MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT ~ \7
12"
RETAINING WALL OR
FOUNDATION ELEMENT
WALL SUBDRAIN
'Vb
Vb
DRAIN ROCK,
3/4" TO 1~",
& HARD
4" DIAMETER PERFORATE[
PIPE, HOLES DOWN, SLOF
2% MINIMUM TO DRAIN WI
CLEAN OUTS
USE FILTER CLOTH OVER
DRAIN ROCK OR USE CLASS 2
PERMEABLE MATERIAL INSTEAD
OF DRAIN ROCK (Cal Trans 68-1.025)
ALL SUBDRAIN & V-DITCH WATERS
FILTER CLOTH TO BE MIRAFI SHOULD BE COLLECTED IN CLOSED
SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE FABRIC PIPES WITH PERIODIC CLEANOUTS
& DISCHARGED INTO THE AREA STORM
140N OR EQUIVALENT DRAIN SYSTEM
t
4>
.....
* Plastic pipe ASTM-F-810 2.000 lb. cru
for average light residential use
12" COMPACTED
SOIL CAP
.....
-
DRAIN ROCK
'Vb\,
<1""
<Iv
b
h
USE FILTER CLOTH AROUND DRAIN ROCK
OR USE CLASS 2 PERMEABL~ MATERIAL
INSTEAD OF DRAIN ROCK
DEPTH VARIES - TO BE DETERMINED
BY THE SOIL ENGINEER DURING
CONSTRUCTION
TRENCH
SUBDRAIN
6
'7;';1
...
AV
** For deeper
use SDR-35
**
4" OR 6" DIAMETER PERFORATED*
PIPE, HOLES DOWN, SLOPE 2%
12"-18" MINIMUM TO DRAIN WITH CLEANOUTS
fills. higher walls, & larger residential projects.
heavy duty plastic pipe. ASTM 03034
4'
SUBDRAIN DETAILS
APPENDIX
EXHIBIT NO. c..
P. 33 Of: ~..,
2
'7'-~----:--n ~-'"' :::"'1
--'-""'-----....:..~-..:. .;..'~ .'-)....~...1-...
'V. I <;" r-= IIC
r
r
r
[
r
r
I
I
l
l
L
l
.-... ~'
[
L
L
l
l
l
L
WALL
A P PEN D I X 3
WALL SURCHARGE DE'! LS
LINE LOAD QL
PROPOSED NEW
RETAINING WALL
FOOTING
OF ADJACENT
STRUCTURE
PH RESULTANT
RESULTANT FORCE (PH) DUE TO LINE LOAD (QL)
APPENDIX
EXIITBIT NO. C-
"P. 3llOF- C,7
PH = 0.39 QL
SURCHARGE DETAILS
7:"1-cc.-"'-::-.-r;o ~.,..." -:2 I
..:-:...;........~~.........._.:... J.. ;_'. ;;,;)
'P. 7f; ~ if(
3
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
l
l
L
L
L
L
L
L
l
l
l
l
A P PEN D I X 3.1
HOUSE APPENDAGES
...."',.".
.
When minor appendages are required adjacent to the house
construction, such appendages should be structurally separated
.from the house with a 1/2-inch flexible joint or placed upon
foundations similar to the house foundations and designed to
resist expansive soil effects. If shallow foundation appendages
are attached to the house foundation, then, with time, such
appendages could experience uplift and settlement due to expansive
soil effects and could cause some stress to the main house
foundations.
HOUSE APPENDAGES
APPENDIX
3.1
~-~-~--~ - -"'" -:l. I
E~':.--_":"..::..~'..:.' l.',~ :...)'. ;J
EXHIBIT NO. c..
9. 35"" OF (P7
p, 17 CF WI
r
r
r
[
r
r
I
I
l
l
L
L
l
L
L
L
l
l
L
/
A P PEN 0 I X 4
FILL PLACEMENT
All fill placement should be prepared and placed in accordance
with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code, and in accordance
with the requirements as shown on Appendix 4.1 and as described in
Appendix H of this report. All fill materials should be moisture-
conditioned to at least 3 percent wet of optimum moisture content
at the time of fill placement due to the presence of expansive
soil materials.
It should be noted that even well-compacted fill, with time, may
settle up to 1/2 percent to 1 percent of its total thickness.
FILL
PLACEMENT
EX.:==.:.=? ITJ. 31
f. 7'6 OF LtC(
APPENDIX
EXHIBIT NO. C.
'P. 3,,0.= ~.,
4
r
r
r
r
r
r
[
l
l
L
L
L
L
L
l
l
l
l
L
A P PEN D I X 4.1
HILISIDE FILL DETl 5
ALL FILL SLOPES SHOULD BE ,-'ELL COMPACTED AND
LOOSE ~~TERIALS REMOVED. SLOPES SHOULD BE
PLANTED AND GOOD GRASS COVER ESTABLISHED
PRIOR TO WINTER RAINS
FILTER CLOTH. HlRAFI
l' HIN. /SUBSURfACE DRAINAGE FABRIC
/_ . OR EQUIVALEHT
3/4" TO 1 l/Z" 3' HIN., HIGHER DRAINS
ORAIN ROCK KAT BE REQUIRED BT
SOIL ENGINEER
4" DIA. PERFDAATED NEAVT
DUTY PlASTIC PIPE, HOlES
DOWN, SLOPE ZS TO DRAIN TO
DAYLIGHT, SOo-3S PIPE. ASTH
03034. 4" OF DRAIN ROCK BELOII
PIPE. 6- OIA. PIPE FOR lARGER
FILLS,
2' HIN.
TYPICAL KEY SUBDRAIN
SLOPE TOP OF FILL
INWARD AT LEAST 2% *
~ 2%
~
-
LEVEL BENCHES EXCAVATED INTO
BEDROCK OR FIRM STABLE MATERIALS
AS DETERMINED BY SOIL ENGINEER
APPROVED FILL MATERIAL FREE OF ORGANIC
MATTER SHOULD BE MOISTURE CONDITIONED
AS REQUIRED, SPREAD IN THIN LIFTS AND
COMPACTED WITH A SHEEPSFOOT COMPACTOR
TO 90% COMPACTION, ASTM D1SS7-70T(C)
2:1 MAX. SLOPE,
WALLS SHOULD BE
IF NECESSARY IN
RETAINING
USED AT TO
STEEP AREA
TOE OF FILL SLOPE
SHOULD "CATCH" IN
BEDROCK OR FIRM
STABLE MATERIALS I
DETERMINED BY SOli
ENGINEER
I
SUBDRAIN
TOPSOILS
, ' AND SLOPE.
DEBRIS
NOTE: SPECIFIC HILLSIDE FILL DETAILS WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE SOIL
ENGINEER DURING CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING KEYWAY OBSERVATION AND
PERIODIC COMPACTION TESTS.
* GENERALLY SLOPE FILL INWARD AT LEAST 2% SO TO FLOW INTO SITE STORM
DRAIN SYSTEM AND NOT OVER FILL SLOPE. A SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE
PLAN SHOULD BE PREPARED SHOWING SLOPING OF FILL SURFACE TO DRAIN.
ALsO, DRAINAGE SHOULD FLOW AWAY FROM STRUCTURE AND IMPROVEMENTS
AND NOT BE ALLOWED TO POND.
.
HILLSIDE FILL DETAILS
-~~----,..., .,,-~. 31,
_!h~:"'__"";""""".._ _.< ..:- ; -'.
f, ."}t OY tl tI
APPENDIX
EXHIBIT NO. <-
1>. 37 l>F (07
4.1
r
r
r
[
r
r
I
I
I
L
L
L
L
L
L
l
l
L
L
ALL FILL SW"lLD BE ;"ELL COMPACTED AND
LOOSE ~1ATERIALS RE \lED, BARREN AREAS SHOULD BE
PLANTED AND GOOD GRASS COVER ESTABLISHED
PRIOR TO WINTER RAINS
FILTER CLOTH, HIRAfI
" HIN. /SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE FABRIC
/_ OR EQUIVALENT
3/4- TO 1 1/2. 3' HIN.. HIGHER DRAINS
ORAIN ROCX: KAY SE REQUIRE.D BY
SOIL EHGINEER
.- OIA. PERFORATED H(AVY
DUTY PlASTIC PIPE. HOLtS
DOWH. SLOPE 21 TO DRAIN TO
DAYLIGHT, SDR-35 PIPE, ASTK
03034. C" Of' DRAIN ROCK BELOW
PIPE. 6" OJA. PIP( FOR lAAGER
FILLS.
2' HIN.
TYPICAL KEf SUBORAIH
ENGINEERED
RETAINING WALL
ON DRILLED PIERS
-
SLOPE TOP OF FILL
INWARD AT LEAST 2i. *
{
SUBDRAlN
,
LEVEL BENCHES EXCAVATED INTO
BEDROCK OR FIRM STABLE MATERIALS
AS DETERMINED BY SOIL ENGINEER
APPROVED FILL MATERIAL FREE OF ORGANIC
MATTER SHOULD BE MOISTUkE CONDITIONED
AS REQUIRED, SPREAD IN THIN LIFTS AND
COMPACTED \-nTH A SHEEPSF001 COMPACTOR
TO 90% COMPACTION, ASTM D1SS7-70T(C)
NOTE:
TOPSOILS
AND SLOPE
DEBRIS I
SUBDRAIN MAY BE REQUIRED I
IN SEEPAGE ZONES AND RAVINE ARE
I I
I I
HILLSIDE FILL DETAILS WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE SOIL
DURING CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING KEYWAY OBSERVATION AND
COMPACTION TESTS. I I
I I
I I
I I
DRILLED I I
PIER:......>rl I
1__,
SPECIFIC
ENGINEER
PERIODIC
. GENERALLY SLOPE FILL INWARD AT LEAST 21 SO TO FLOW INTO SITE STORM
DRAIN SYSTEM AND NOT OVER FILL SLOPE. A SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE
PLAN SHOULD BE PREPARED SHOWING SLOPING OF FILL SURFACE TO DRAIN.
ALsO, DRAINAGE SHOULD FLOW AWAY FROM STRUCTURE AND IMPROVEMENTS
AND NOT BE ALLOWED TO POND.
HILLSIDE FILL DETAILS
APPENDIX
4.1
'~==:::::::.:::':" = '''J. 31
"?- eo Of='- 1t'1
J"YJUBIT NO. C.
P. ~, of (,;7
r
r
r
r
r
r
[
I
[
L
L
L
f.
L
l
L
L
l
l
L
A P PEN D I X 4.2
CUT AND FILL SLOPE MAINTENANCE
It should be noted that with time most cut and fill slopes,
regardless of precautions taken, experience some erosion, raveling
and sloughing. Therefore, cut and fill slope maintenance should
be considered a part of hillside construction where cut and fill
slopes are present, and some periodic cut and fill slope repair
and maintenance should usually be anticip~ted by the owner in the
years ahead.
The frequency and amount of slope maintenance is generally greater
where the slopes are steeper and where the rainfall is heavier.
CUT AND FILL PEN D I X
SLOPE MAINTENANCE AP
L;=~==.~l.' ITJ.li.E.XHTI3IT NO. C
'Y. eL Of 11'1 m _ ,_.E~ 39 or: ~7_
4.2
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
[
l
l
l
l
,;., ;
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
A P PEN D I X 4.3
EXISTING OLDER CUT/FILL SLOPE MAINTENANCE
It should be noted that with time most cut and fill slopes,
regardless of precautions taken, experience some erosion, raveling
and sloughing. Therefore, cut and fill slope maintenance should
be considered a part of hillside construction where cut and fill
slopes are present, and some periodic cut and fill slope repair
.. and maintenance should usually be anticipated by the owner in the
years ahead.
The frequency and amount of slope maintenance is generally greater
where the slopes are steeper and where the rainfall is heavier.
EXISTING CUT-FILL
SLOPE MAINTENANCE
APPENDIX
EXHIBIT NO. C-
1>.'10 Of:. c,?
4.3
~."------~ -......, 31
~~~:~-~'.~'~' ~ ~ -J".
~, $S2-0v II'!
r
r
r
[
r
r
[
[
1
1
L
L
L
L
L
L
l
l
L
A P PEN D I X 5
EFFECT UPON ADJACENT LAND
During construction, the contractor should use considerable care
and prudence so as not to undermine or damage any of the
neighboring properties or adjacent structures.
In California, the California Civil Code provides for the rights
as well as the responsibilities for those who wish to develop
their properties by excavating. There are also rights as well as
obligations of neighboring property owners. In Appendix B, we
have provided a copy of Section 832 of the current California
civil Code.
EFFECT UPON
AD..JACENT LAND
APPENDIX
~~--~~-,~, ~-'''''''.2L- c...
:::,,-..::,,-,~,-~-' i. : -..J. , _, EXHIBIT NO.
~___J'- ~~~JJ 'iw___~~ oFJo..,
5
r
r
r
r
r
r
[
(
l
l
l
l
l
L
L
l
l
L
L
A P PEN D I X 6
CONSTRUCTION SAFETY
In order to construct foundations, retaining walls, subdrains,
fill keyways, etc., it is usually required to excavate temporary
construction slopes during the construction process. During
construction, the contractor should take appropriate care to
provide safe construction slopes so as not to endanger the workmen
who will be performing the work or others nearby, including
children who might be passing by or who are attracted by the work.
Therefore, all construction slopes and construction activities
should be carried out in accordance with accepted, safe, and
prudent procedures, and also in accordance with the State of
California Construction Safety Orders and O.S.H.A. requirements.
The contractor, and not the engineer, shall be responsible for the
means, methods, techniques and sequence of construction. The
contractor shall also be solely responsible for all safety
programs and procedures during construction.
The contractor shall provide adequate shoring and bracing of the
structure, cuts, and excavations as required during construction,
and shall maintain the shoring and bracing until the new permanent
structure can provide adequate vertical and lateral support for
the soils, bedrock and structures.
CONSTRUCTION
SAFETY AP PEND IX
~=~==,=::==~:; =:.::\ ~ EXHIBIT NO. C-
u___~8'1 o~ 11'1 ~.Cl2- r:F (07
~- --- - -- --- --_._----~-
6
r
r
r.
[
.,.....,
r:
r
[
I
l
l
l
L
"',-'f"
L
L
L
l
l
l
L
A P PEN 0 I X 7.1
WINO LOADING
It should be noted that the site is situated in a location that is
exposed to heavy winds. Therefore, while it is not within our
scope of work, we would still like to point out to the house
designer and structural civil engineer the importance of designing
and detailing and constructing the structure to resist heavy wind
.. load effects. The structure and the roof should be carefully
designed and constructed with adequate tie-downs, and especially
roof tie-downs.
"
~.'- - >
WIND LOADING APPENDIX 7.1
"";',",--~:-.,." ~_.~ "2> I EXHIBIT NO. c..
b-'~p~-i-c ~~~l'-~ 'P. q~ ~ f,7 - .
-~,-~ "-.. "----'--,--,._,-_.,---,-
r
r
r
r
r
r
I
[
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
l
l
L
....,
A P PEN 0 I X 8
LAND MAINTENANCE
,. ,"
Good periodic land maintenance should be performed as required.
All surface and subsurface waters and facilities should be
controlled and maintained to the fullest possible extent. Surface
sloughing, sliding or excessive erosion, should it occur, should
be promptly repaired as required.
It should be realized that just as a car and a house need periodic
care and maintenance, so does the land which is subject to the
continuing or intermittent natural forces of rain, gravity and
earthquakes. At almost all sites, topsoils and surficial soils
are especially in need of periodic maintenance.
In California, apparently a possessor of land is legally obligated
to reasonably maintain his land with respect to both man-caused
hazards and natural hazards so as not to endanger neighboring
properties. Additional details are presented in Appendix N.
provisions should be made for adequate post-construction erosion
control, and the "Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment
Control Measures" published by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (AGAG) should be followed and adhered to as
appropriate.
Troublesome slide zones may be repaired in a manner similar to
that illustrated on the Earth Buttress Details part of this
report, or by other approved methods.
Generally, it takes a few years plus passing through at least one
wet winter for post-construction drainage and erosion trends to be
established. Therefore, it may be required in the future to
provide additional or supplemental drainage and land improvements,
depending upon actual post-construction performance.
LAND
MA I NTENANCE A P PEN D I X
<__.::.::'~. = ~"J. '?JJ LXHIBI'l' NO. C.
f. g~ ~ ~q ." 44 oP lD7
8
r
r
r
[
r
r
;- 'h
[
[
L
L
l
,.l .
.. ....,
~r;,;.
L
l
l
l
L
L
EARTH BUTTRESS DETAI'-
"
fiLTER CLOTH, KlRAfJ
" MIN. /SUB$URfACE ORA1HAGE FABRIC
/_ OR EOUIVAlOcT
3/4" TO 1 1/2" )' KIN.. HIGHER DRAINS
ORAIM ROCK; HAY BE REQulREO BY
SOil [HGIH[[A
... OIA. PERFORATED HEAVY
DUlY PLASTIC PIPE, HOlES
DOWN, SLOPE Z1 TO DRAIN 10
DAlLIGHl. SDR-lS PIPE. ASI"
DJ03.. 4" or QUIM ROCK: BElOW
PIPE. '''CIA. PIP( Faa L)Jl:G(R
FILLS.
ALL FILL SLOPES SHOULD BE WELL
COMPACTED AND LOOSE MATERIALS
REMOVED. SLOPES SHOULD BE PLANTED
AND GOOD GRASS COVER ESTABLISHED
PRIOR TO WINTER RAINS
2' KIN.
TYPICAL lET SUBORAIH
COMPACTED EARTH tlUTTRESS
COMPACTED TO 90% COMPACTION, ASTM
D1557-70T(C). IF ECONOMICALLY
FEASIBLE BUTTRESS MATERIALS SHOULD
HAVE A PLASTICITY INDEX LESS THAN 1~
FOR SMALLER SLIDES CAREFULLY PLACED
RIP-RAP MAY BE USED
DRAINAGE BENCH,
SLOPED INWARD
,~ 2:1 MAX. SLOPE, RETAINING WAL:
~ SHOULD BE USED AT TOE IF
~ NECESSARY IN STEEP AREAS
~"'-o....J1
TOE OF FILL SLOPE
SHOULD "CATCH" IN
BEDROCK OR FIRM
STABLE MATERIALS
SUBDRAIN - 3/4" to 1~"
DRAIN ROCK, 4" DIAMETER
PLASTIC PIPE,
HOLES DOWN, SLOPED 2% TO
DRAIN WITH CLEANOUTS
-
I
KEYWAY
SUBDRAIN
LEVEL BENCHES EXCAVATED
INTO BEDROCK OR FIRM
STABLE MATERIALS
1. SPECIFIC EARTH BUTTRESS SLIDE REPAIR DETAILS WILL
BE DETERMINED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER DURING CONSTRUCTION.
2. V-DITCH AND SUBDRAIN WATERS SHOULD BE COLLECTED IN
CLOSED PIPES WITH PERIODIC CLEANOUTS AND DISCHARGED
INTO THE AREA STORM DRAIN SYSTEM.
EARTH BU I I t-<1=..SS DETA I LS A P PEN D I X 8. I
.--'======~' ~_~=, -0 ~XIITBIT NO. c..
p. 87-0;; llCf ? c.;s- OF to7
,..--_._---~---_. -."--. -.----..........--..,.,-
r
r
r
[
r
r
[
I
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
A P PEN D I X 9
LIMITATIONS
We have endeavored to provide our best professional judgment and
opinion based upon engineering and geological education and
experience within the authorized scope of work. However, it must
be realized that there is an inherent and assumed risk in all
hillside construction. Also, subsurface conditions may vary from
those observed at the surface or exposed in subsurface
explorations, or conditions may change with time due to natural or
man-caused effects. Therefore, there can be no guarantee or
warranty, either expressed or implied, of the stability or
performance of this or any hillside site.
It should be realized that landsliding, mudflows and erosion are
continuing natural processes which gradually wear away land forms
and hills. The topsoil, subsoil and upper portion of the very
highly weathered bedrock can be susceptible to sliding, mudflow
and erosion, even on stable sites. Such inherent hillside slope
risks may be present during periods of intense and prolonged
rainfall which occasionally occur in Northern California, and/or
during earthquake vibT.ations. Therefore, it must be realized that
occasional unpredictable surface sliding and mudflowing and
erosion of the topsoil, subsoil and upper portion of the very
highly weathered bedrock materials have to be accepted as
irreducible risks and hazards of building upon or near the base of
any hillside or any steeper slope area throughout Northern
California and the Greater Bay Area.
l
l
l
L
Our scope of work is specifically limited to geotechnical
engineering considerations which are the limits of our field of
specialty practice. In this report, where we have provided
comments regarding other fields of practice such as structural,
drainage and landscaping considerations, these comments have been
made only to alert the client as to the importance of these
related fields, and the client should obtain advice from the
appropriate design professionals who specialize in these related
fields for more specific review and recommendations as required.
L I M I TAT IONS A P PEN D I X
=====C:-:::,_'=-::;,.A- EXHIBIT NO. C
l 8~ pF 11'1 P. 'I" Dr- CI-,
9
r
r
r
{
r
{
I
{
(
1
L
L
L
1
L
l
L
l
L
A P PEN D I X 10
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION
We recommend that we consult with your architect and structural
engineer during the preparation of the Site Development and
Foundation Plans. We should also review the final Site
Development and Foundation Plans for conformance with our
recommendations.
During construction, we should observe the drilling of pier holes
and/or footing excavations to confirm the anticipated subsurface
conditions and provide field recommendations for changed
conditions.
We should be given at least 10 working days tentative notice and
3 working days specific notic~ of all required construction
observations.
---. ------- ----, 31
j" __' '., -.1 . ,-' ..
. :.
..:...:...:~...._~-'- -- - . ""./ ,,-~
1'...~, Df'.1l:i..
APPENDIX
EXHIBIT NO. c...
,_~~ brJ,_,_ ____
10
c:oNSTRUCTION OBSERVATION
r
r
r
[
r
r
(
I
l
l
L
L
L
L
l
l
l
l
L
A P PEN D I X A
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS. RISKS. MATERIAL NOTES,
RESPONSIBILITY. LIMITATIONS AND RELATED ITEMS
1.0 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1.1 Structural and utility Trench Backfill - All structural
backfill and utility trench backfill within improved areas and all
other backfill where good performance is desired should be placed
in thin lifts, moisture conditioned as required, and compacted
with an approved compaction device to at least 90 percent
compaction, ASTM D1557-70T(C) Compaction Test Method. The soil
backfill should be moisture conditioned to at least 3 percent wet
of optimum where expansive soils are present. Backfill materials
should be on-site materials approved by the soil engineer or
select imported materials approved by the soil engineer.
Where compaction is being performed adjacent to retaining walls,
foundations, and other structural elements, care should be taken
so that the compaction device does not damage or over-stress or
vibrate the structural elements or adjacent land and improvements.
Also, the contractor should take care to allow a sufficient amount
of time for the concrete to achieve the minimum structural
strength prior to any structural backfill operations. This amount
of time will have to be determined by the structural engineer and
may vary from 7 to 28 days after the concrete pour, and may be
longer during the cold season of the year when it takes a greater
length of time for the concrete hydration process to occur.
1.11 utility Trench Seal - All utility trenches entering
buildings with a downward slope or a drainage or seepage flow
toward buildings should be backfilled with on-site impervious
clay-silt soils or lean concrete for a horizontal distance of at
least 3 feet near their entry points to the buildings so as to
provide a seal against subsurface water infiltration through
granular trench backfill below the building. Also, in sloping
terrain including roads, driveways, parking areas, yard areas,
open areas, etc., similar utility seals should be installed at 50
to 100 feet intervals so that utility trench granular backfill
will not inadvertently act as a subdrain and change and
concentrate natural and historical subsurface drainage flow in a
possible adverse manner.
1.2 Landscaoe and veaetation Restoration - At the conclusion of
the site construction, all barren and disturbed areas as well as
any graded areas such as cuts and fills should be adequately
seeded and planted with a variety of erosion-resistant grasses,
A-I
EXHIBIT NO. C-
~. 4t of (g7
,.--,-'-------- - _..~ ~ I
. ';' ',~.~
"'--.-..-----------.-.,"-,.'.--
'P, 90 of 11'1
r
r
r
[
r
r
(
[
L
L
L
L
L
l
l
l
l
L
L
and vegetation and growth established and maintained prior to the
start of the heavy winter rains. Also, numerous shrubs and trees
should be planted for longer range protection. Such long-range
landscape efforts should hopefully include numerous drought-
tolerant plants as well as fast-growing shrubs and trees.
During construction, adequate temporary interim erosion control
should be provided in accordance with the "Manual of Standards for
Erosion and Sediment Control Measures" published by the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
1.3 'Construction Season - We generally recommend that site
development and foundation construction and related work be
performed during the dry season of the year. If the work is
performed during the winter rainy season or shortly thereafter,
then the owner must accept the presence of higher earth hazard
risks and probable greater construction costs.
1.4 Future Construction and Imcrovements - We generally and
usually recommend that natural site grades be left in their
present condition and all site vegetation be left "as is" or
increased in density. Clearing or removing the site vegetation so
as to expose soil materials could result in future erosion and
sloughing. If it is desired to construct any new additions or any
significant yard improvements, then such improvements should
generally be built to conform with the existing hillside grades.
New cutting or filling could undermine and upset the existing site
equilibrium. All significant structural, yard and landscape
improvements should not be built without some consultation with
the appropriate design professionals, including architects,
landscape architects, soil and foundation engineers, and civil and
structural engineers.
1.5 Ground Water and Seecaqe Conditions - It should be realized
that ground water and seepage conditions may differ from that
observable at the surface and/or observed in test pits or test
borings. The ground water table will likely rise during periods
of intense and prolonged rainfall, and seepages may be present
during the winter months that may not be present at other times of
the year. If the owner desires accurate ground water and seepage
data, then observation wells should be installed by the owner and
monitored periodically.
1.6 Execution of Recommendations - This report, correspondence,
opinion, document or plants) has been prepared and issued to the
client with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the
owner and the contractor to fully execute and carry out to the
fullest extent the recommendations as provided in this report,
correspondence, opinion, document or plants).
Ex....l1IBIT NO. c..
A-2 'I
:::.:=:~::=_= =_ = '. = .~_ ~. <<.l of ~ 7
'(. 'i/ or-: 11'1
r
r
r
r
r
r
I
I
1
L
L
L
L
l
l
L
L
L
L
If,t~e recommendations presented in this report, correspondence,
op~n~on, document or planes) are not followed and carried out, the
client is warned that adverse site performance and problems may
occur including, but not limited to, surface and subsurface
drainage problems, erosion, sloughing, sliding, settlement or
creep effects, and associated litigation.
If the soil engineer is not retained to observe the final plans
and is not retained to observe the soil engineering work during
construction, then the client should take warning that poor
performance or problems may arise and we cannot be responsible for
any such poor performance or problems.
1.7 site Chanqes - The soil-geotechnical engineering opinions,
conclusions and recommendations as indicated in this report,
correspondence, document or planes) are based upon and were
specifically prepared for the site as it physically existed at the
time of our investigation or observation. Therefore, if the site
is in any way physically altered from the time of our
investigation or observation, such as by the placement of fill
upon the site or the excavation or removal of materials from the
site, or if similar physical changes occur on adjacent properties
so as to be close enough to influence this project or property,
then all of our opinions, conclusions and recommendations should
be considered null and void until we have provided written
supplemental soil-geotechnical engineering opinions, conclusions
and recommendations based upon a reevaluation of the changed site
conditions.
1.8 Codes and Ordinances - All present work and also future use
of the project shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building
Code, California civil Code, California common and case law, and
also in accordance with all local applicable codes, regulations
and procedures.
2 . 0 RISKS
2.1 Earth Construction Risk - The client should clearly
understand that there is an inherent and assumed risk of sliding,
earth movement, settlement, land subsidence, erosion and sloughing
in all hillside, excavation, or fill embankment construction
regardless of precautions taken, and no guarantee or warranty can
be made as to the results that may be obtained. Erosion and
sliding are common in the earth scene and are a part of natural
landscape forming processes even when man has not entered the
natural scene in any way. Also, there is a quite common risk of
the very slow downslope movement or creep of soil and weathered
rock materials in hillside, excavation and fill embankment
construction. Also, expansive soils can heave upward with great
force.
A-3
EXHIBIT NO. c..
r. 50 of CFl
-;-."--'-'-~'" ..,.., ~ "..., 31
't'~ Dr::' Wi
r
r
r
r
r
r
I
[
I
L
L
L
L
L
l
L
L
L
L
2.2 Earthauake Risk - It should be clearly understood that
California and especially the greater San Francisco Bay Area is an
area of higher seismic risk. It should also be realized that it
is generally economically not feasible to build totally
earthquake-resistant structures or land improvements that would be
resistant to any and all earthquakes. Therefore, it is possible
that if a large or close earthquake occurred to this site, the
site and structure and improvements and land could be damaged and
there is an irreducible and assumed risk associated with living in
a seismically active area such as California with many active
faults.
2.3 Hiqh Rainfall Risk - There is an inherent and assumed risk
of occasional high to very high rainfall for those that reside in
or near the coast range hills and mountains of Northern
California. Occasionally, periods of intensive and/or prolonged
rainfall may occur that may result in erosion, sloughing, sliding
and/or flooding. Sometimes 4 to 8 inches of rain may fall in one
storm or in one day. In 1981-82 and 1982-83, more than 70 inches
of rain fell in San Rafael two years in a row. In January of
1982, 9 to 15 inches of rain fell from one 29-hour storm. In
February of 1986, up to 25 inches of rain fell in one week.
3 . 0 MATERIAL NOTES
3.1 Concrete - Generally, and unless specifically modified by
the foundation or structural engineer, all foundation concrete
should be 5 sack minimum, 3/4-inch maximum aggregate size, with a
compressive strength of 3,000 p.s.i. @ 28 days. For pumped
concrete, additional cement content is usually required to achieve
a strength of 3,000 p.s.i.
3.2 Reinforcinq Steel - All reinforcing steel, unless otherwise
noted, should be '40 grade, have a yield strength of 40,000
p.s.i., and conform to ASTM Specification A6l5-40.
3.3 Uniform Buildinq Code - All materials and workmanship shall
be in accordance with the current edition of the Uniform Building
Code and also in conformance with generally accepted construction
practices.
4.0 CONTRACTOR'S AND BUILDING DESIGNER'S RESPONSIBILITY
4.1 Notice of Chanqed Conditions - The opinions, findings and
recommendations made in this report, correspondence, document or
planes) are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not
deviate significantly from those encountered by the test pits
and/or test borings and/or observed at the surface. Therefore, it
is the responsibility of the contractor to notify the soil
A-4
EXHIBIT NO. c..
-
r. 5'1 OF ~7
.,--,'--------'.-- - '-~ ~ I
---.------"- '- - . ---,'.
p.q; fJf= /1'1
r
r
r
[
[
r
[
(
[
L
L
L
l
l
L
l
l
l
L
engineer of all unforeseen or unanticipated subsurface conditions
encountered during construction; of particular importance are
springs and subsurface waters, weak and compressible soils,
abnormal hillside soil thickness, and the presence of landslide or
unstable materials or expansive soils.
4.2 Field Lavout - The contractor shall be responsible for all
layout, field dimensions and conformance with architectural,
structural and foundation plans. All layout shall be verified and
approved by the building designer and owner prior to construction
and concrete pours.
4.3 Notice of Construction Observations - The contractor shall
give the soil engineer 10 days tentative notice and 3 days
specific notice of all required construction observations.
4.4 Material certification - The contractor shall be responsible
for verifying, testing and certifying that all materials meet the
minimum specified and should make the use of a commercial
materials testing laboratory as required.
4.5 Conformance with Codes and Ordinances - The building
designer and contractor shall be responsible for verifying that
all building plans and layout are in accordance with all governing
building codes, and local regulations and ordinances, and commonly
accepted practices of personal and vehicular use and access.
5.0 JOB SAFETY
5.1 Safetv and Shorina - The contractor shall be responsible for
seeing that all work is performed in a safe and reasonable manner
with respect to both personal safety and property safety, and in
accordance with all governing safety regulations and commonly-
accepted safety practices. All work should be performed in
accordance with the Construction Safety Orders of the State,of
California Department of Industrial Relations and O.S.H.A.
regulations, CAL/OSHA. It should be noted that trenches and
excavations can be dangerous to workmen and the public due to
cave-ins and/or falling boulders. Adequate shoring or
construction slopes as indicated in the CAL/OSHA Construction
Safety Orders shall be adhered to. The contractor (and not the
engineer) shall be responsible for the means, methods, techniques
and sequences of construction.
5.2 Underaround utilities - The contractor shall carefully
verify the location of all underground utilities prior to starting
work.
A-5
EXHIBIT NO. C.
~. 5 z.. Of: (,7
...-,--------, - - ~ 3 I
fI, '14 Dr-: W}
.... . -. .
r
r
r
[
[
[
(
(
[
L
L
L
L
L
l
L
L
L
L
5.3 Protect Ad;acent structures - It shall be the responsibility
of the contractor to adequately shore and/or underpin and/or
retain and/or protect all existing adjacent structures, land,
utilities, roadways or other improvements during all site
construction as required by California Civil Code Section 832 and
California common law, and give adequate notice to all adjacent
property owners.
6.0 LIMITATIONS
6.1 Variabilitv of Subsurface Conditions - It should be clearly
understood that subsurface conditions are often complex and may
vary from those indicated by surface conditions or surface
observation or those encountered at test pit or test hole
locations. Also, the passage of time and natural and man-caused
effects may change subsurface and surface conditions at the test
pit or test hole locations. Therefore, it should be clearly
understood that the information and recommendations developed by
the soil-geotechnical engineer are only expressions of
professional opinion and are based solely on information available
to him at the time of the site observation and/or site
investigation and/or rendering of services within the authorized
scope of work and fee, and the soil-geotechnical engineer can make
no warranty, either expressed or implied, as to the findings,
opinions, conclusions, recommendations or professional advice.
6.2 Liabilitv of Soil Enqineer - It should be clearly understood
by the client that prOfessional persons such as soil engineers
sell services for the guidance of others in their economic,
financial and personal affairs and they are not liable in the
absence of negligence or intentional misconduct. The services of
experts such as soil engineers are sought because of their special
skill. When a person hires such a specialist, he is not justified
to expect infallibility, but can expect only reasonable care and
competence within the engineer's scope of work and fee
limitations. The client who hires such an expert purchases a
service in the form of prOfessional opinion and not insurance. A
soil engineer cannot be held liable on the grounds of strict
liability. (Swett vs. Gribaldo, Jones & Associates, 40 Cal. App.
3rd 573)
A-6
EXHIBIT NO. G
? 53 of (,7
-------,- - -" - - - 3 t
~. f(~ or:: Jl9
r
r
r
f
r
r
(
[
[
L
L
L
L
l
l
l
l
L
L
7. 0 LAND MAINTENANCE
7.1 Drainaae and Earth Reoairs - The proper control and
maintenance of surface and subsurface storm, seepage, irrigation,
and leakage waters and facilities is important to site stability
and should be provided to the fullest practical extent. site
drainage waters should be discharged into an approved legal area
storm drain system or fully dispersed as indicated by common and
statute law. Extreme care should be used so that storm waters are
not collected and not discharged onto neighboring property where
problems or damage could occur. Periodic land maintenance should
be performed as required including the repair of excessive
gullying and erosion, maintaining adequate dense vegetation cover
or equivalent on slopes, and the prompt repair of all erosion,
sloughing and sliding. When expansive soils are present, care
should be taken so that planting areas are only lightly irrigated
and not over-irrigated, and not saturated and water not allowed to
pond.
7.2 Responsibilitv of Ad;acent Propertv Owners - It shall be the
responsibility of all adjacent property owners to adequately
maintain and safely and properly develope their sites so as not to
affect this site. Of particular importance is for adjacent
property owners not to remove lateral support, and to maintain all
existing areas where lateral slope has been removed, and to
control drainage waters. In addition, adjacent property owners
should maintain their land so it cannot flow or slide onto this
site.
7.3 cut and Fill Slope Repairs - It should be noted that with
time all cut slopes and fill slopes generally deteriorate and
require some maintenance.
8.0 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
8.1 Drilled piers - Where drilled pier foundations are
recommended, they should be drilled with an approved drill rig of
sufficient drilling depth capacity and of adequate weight and
drilling pressure so as to penetrate well into the underlying
recommended bearing materials. All pier holes should be vertical
and plumb. piers should be poured promptly after drilling. Prior
to the pouring of concrete, all loose materials should be removed
from the bottom of all pier holes. This is especially important
for end bearing piers. In such instances, the contractor should
provide adequate casing for the protection of all workmen if they
are required to enter any underground pier hole. If, during
construction, wet or caving ground is encountered, adequate casing
shall be provided by the contractor. This casing shall generally
be removed in an approved satisfactory manner while the concrete
is poured. All pier holes should be poured in the dry and all
water should be pumped from the bottom of the pier holes prior to
concrete pours or approved tremie methods used.
A-7
VXHIBIT NO. C-
p. 51.[ CF ~7
....,-~------'-o -,"~. 31
-l. q(p of WI
r
r
r
f
[
r
r
(
[
L
L
L
L
L
l
l
l
l
L
8.2 Difficult pier Drillinq - It has been our experience that
occasionally on drilled pier projects it is not possible to drill
the drilled pier holes due to abundant boulders and/or hard or
erratic bedrock conditions. Therefore, the client should be
clearly warned that there is an inherent risk in all drilled pier
foundation construction and that added cost may be encountered at
such sites where drilled piers are recommended based on test pit
or test boring data or visual observation, but during construction
drilled piers cannot be drilled due to boulders or bedrock
conditions. In such cases, it may be required to excavate, either
with backhoes and/or hand excavation, larger deep spread footings
extending through various boulder materials and bottoming in
competent bedrock materails and/or relocating the building to a
new location and/or using an alternative foundation scheme and/or
using special drilling procedures including the use of a gad, spud
or boulder buster, hoe ram, blasting, or special drilling bits or
coring buckets.
8.3 Spread Footinqs - All spread footings should bottom in firm
or stiff soil or rock materials as' determined by the soil engineer
and shall be free of all loose materials and free of standing
water at the time of the concrete pour.
9.0 ENGINEER-CLIENT RELATIONS AND ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS
9.1 Soil Report for Client OnlY - Any and all reports,
correspondences, documents, planes), findings, opinions,
recommendations, specifications or professional advice provided
are intended for the sole and exclusive use of the client and
specifically for the named project within a reasonable time after
the rendering of the engineering services described in this
report. To avoid any misinterpretation or improper use of
information provided by the soil engineer, the client shall not
make any such information available to others nor disclose content
thereof (except to owners and future owners) without the specific
expressed consent of the soil engineer.
9.2 Adherence to Recommendations - The conclusions and
recommendations as presented in this report, correspondence,
document or planes) are based upon the assumption that the client,
contractor, owner and future owners will strictly adhere to these
recommendations to the fullest possible extent during both the
construction and future use of the project. A complete copy of
this report shall be fully disclosed and made available to the
first owner of the project and all subsequent owners during the
economic life of the project.
9.3 Enqineer's Scope of Work - The engineer's scope of work for
this soil report, correspondence, opinion, document or planes) is
outlined in the introduction of this document and is limited to
that specifically stated, and is dependent upon the size and
extent of the project, anticipated conditions, and the fee and
A-8
EXHIBIT NO. c..
p. 55" OF (P7
-_._~~::~.~:-' ~ .=~. 3\
p, q7 oi /('1
r
r
r
[
r
r
I
[
I
L
L
I
L
l
l
l
L
L
L
budget made available to the engineer by the client. During
construction, all construction observations made by the soil
engineer will be on an on-call basis and will be charged at an
hourly rate plus expenses, and are not included in the fee for the
soil report. It is the responsibility of the contractor to
adequately notify the soil engineer of all construction
observations.
9.31 Hazardous Materials or Wastes - The soil-geoteChnical
engineers's scope of work DOES NOT include toxic or hazardous man-
made and/or natural wastes or materials. The client would have to
consult with a speciality hazardous-toxic materials-environmental
consultant regarding this topic.
9.32 Corrosion - The soil-geotechnical engineer's scope of work
DOES NOT include an evaluation of the corrosion properties of the
soil. A corrosion engineer would have to be consulted regarding
this topic.
9.33 Tree Hazard - The soil-geoteChnical engineer's scope of work
DOES NOT include tree hazard evaluation. A qualified and
experienced tree expert such as a certified arborist or registered
forester would have to be consulted regarding this topic.
9.34 HvdrolOQV. Hvdraulics. and Flood Hazard - The soil-
geotechnical engineer's scope of work DOES NOT include hydrology,
hydraulics and/or flood hazards. A specialist in that field would
have to be consulted regarding this topic.
9.35 Landscape-Aqricultural Oualities - The soil-geoteChnical
engineer's scope of work DOES NOT include the landscape,
gardening, and/or agricultural qualities and properties of the
soil for vegetation growth. A specialist in that field would have
to be consulted regarding this topic.
9.4 Acceptance and Use of Soil Report. Payment for Soil Report.
and Construction Observations - The client, by accepting, keeping,
and/or using this report or correspondence or opinion or document
or planes), hereby obligates himself/herself/themselves to accept
and to agree to all of the total contents therein of the text,
plates, and appendices, and agrees to follow all recommendations,
and also to pay the soil engineer for the preparation of the soil
report, correspondence, opinion, document or planes), and to pay
for all construction observations called for by the client or his
agent or contractor.
9.5 Time Limit of Report - This geotechnical report,
correspondence, opinion, document or planes) is valid only for 3
years (unless updated and amended by the soil engineer) from the
date of issue, or until the occurence of a significant special
local event such as a larger earthquake, a very wet winter or very
large storm or significant changes on any adjacent land.
A-9
---~ - _.~ ..., \
....-.__._----~- , ; ;;;;
------..'. ._,....'~---
p, q g DF J I '1
EXHIBIT NO. C
p. 5(P OF {p7
r
r
r
r
r
r
(
I
I
L
L
L
--,.,"::
L
L
l
l
L
L
L
9.6 Construction continqencv/UnanticiDated Conditions -
Subsurface conditions commonly may vary between the various points
of exploration or from those observed from the surface and/or may
vary from those anticipated. Such variations, if encountered
during construction, frequently require additional costs to
satisfactorily complete the project. Therefore, we suggest that a
reserve contingency fund be available to deal with unanticipated
and unforeseen conditions.
9.7 Limitations and Liabilitv - Soil-geotechnical engineering
associated with soil, rock, and structures and improvements
thereon or therein is a very high risk-low compensation service,
and the fee of the engineer is very small in relation to the total
cost of the project. Also, the engineer receives no long-term or
lasting benefit from the project. Also, the engineer is not in
control of the work and is not the superintendent of the work.
The soil-geotechnical engineer is in the business of providing
geotechnical engineering opinions and is not an insurer.
Therefore, the total aggregate liability and indemnity of the
soil-geotechnical engineer for any actual design errors or
omissions or claims for damages arising out of the soil-
geotechnical engineer's services is limited to five times the fee
paid to the soil-geotechnical engineer. This total aggregate
limit of liability shall also apply to any claims of any sort from
future owners and/or users of the project and/or other parties.
A-10
r"-::---'-:--' ,~'"" "3 I
-CC~___ P." qq' ~i:)Fl
P.XHIBIT NO. c
P~'57 OF vi)
r
r
r
[
r
r
I
I
L
l
L
.L ;....
~ ' ' .
.~..,1.(:0~J>
, .'".,
I'
l_
L
L
L
L
A P PEN D I X B
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
SECTION 832
LATERAL SUPPORT FROM ADJOINING OWNER
Each coterminous owner is entitled to the lateral and subjacent support
which his land receives from the adjoining land, subject to the right
of the owner of the adjoining land to make proper and usual excavations
on the same for purposes of construction or improvement, under the
following conditions:
1. Any owner of land or his lessee intending to make or to permit
an excavation shall give reasonable notice to the owner or owners of
,adjoining lands and of buildings or other structures, stating the depth
to which such excavation is intended to be made, and when the excavating
will begin.
.2. In making any excavation, ordinary care and skill shall be used,
and reasonable precautions taken to sustain the adjoining land as such,
without regard to any building or other structure which may be thereon,
and there shall be no liability for damage done. to any such building or
other structure by reason of the excavation, except as otherwise provide,
or allowed by law.
3. If at any time it appears that the excavation is to be of greater
depth than are the walls or foundations of any adjoining building or
other structure, and is to be so close as to endanger the building or
other structure in any way, then the owner of the building or other
structure must be allowed at least 30 days if he so desires, in which
to take measures to protect the same trom any damage, or in which to
extend the foundations thereof, and he must be given for the same
purposes reasonable license to enter on the land on which the excavation
is to be or is being made.
4. If the excavation is intended to be or is deeper than the standard
depth of foundations, which depth is defined to be a depth of nine feet
below the adjacent curb level, at the point where the joint property 11n'
intersects the curb and if on the land of the coterminous owner there is
any building or other structure the wall or foundation of which goes to
standard depth or deeper then the owner of the land on which the excava-
tion is being made shall, if given the necessary license to enter on the
adjoining land, protect the said adjoining land and any such building or
other structure thereon without cost to the owner thereof, from any
damage by reason of the excavation, and shall be liable to the owner of
such property for any such damage, excepting only for minor settlement
cracks in building or other structures.
'--;'.~"---;--"'C--- ."~ 3 I
f ; ," : - , I ~ ',' ~ , : :
-~--------'- ..-', -,'.
p, 100 Dt== Il~
EXHIBIT NO. c....
P. 5goF ~7
r
r
r
r
r
r
I
I
L
L
L
L
L
l
L
l
l
l
l
A P PEN D I X ~
CONCRETE SLABS (EXPANSIVE SOIL CONDITIONS)
It should be noted that the upper portions of the site soils
are generally loose. and susceptible to settlement. It also
should be noted that the site soils are expansive.
Expansive soils are generally clayey or silty soils that are
relatively sensitive to changes in moisture content. Expansive
soils can shrink and swell significant amounts with changes in
moisture content resulting in the uplift movement and cracking
of lightly loaded foundation elements, concrete slabs and
flexible pavement areas. In addition, expansive soils may lose
considerable strength when wet and moderately to heavily loaded
foundation elements may experience plastic nonrecoverable move-
ment each season.
We generally recommend that concrete slab-on-grade floors not be
used for houses. We recommend that timber joist supported floor
systems be used. However, in garage areas concrete slab-on-grade
floors probably will be used. In concrete garage slab areas, one
of the following approaches should be used:
1) Around the entire perimeter of the garage slab, a 36 inch
deep grade beam or 36 inch deep footing as appropriate should be
constructed so as to constitute a moisture cutoff and thus maintain
a relatively constant moisture content in the slab subgrade area.
The existing soil subgrade should be excavated at least 12 inches
or more until relatively stiff soils are encountered. At least
12 inches of the soil subgrade that has been excavated should be
discarded. The exposed surface then should be scarified to a depth
of 6 inches, moisture conditioned to at least 3% wet of optimum and
then compacted to at least 85% compaction, ASTM D1557-70T(C) Com-
paction Test Method, The soil subgrade should be thoroughly wetted
L=-r-=:Ci~=~:' ~:G. '31 lfXHIBIT NO. c..
P, 10 I or- 119 'P. 59 of ~7.
r
r
r
r
r
(
I
r
I
L
L
L
L
l
l
l
l
L
L
so as to close all expansion cracks. Then at least 12 inches
or more of select, imported fill materials should be placed in
thin lifts, moisture conditioned as required and compacted to
at least 90% compaction. All select, imported fill materials
should be nonexpansive, have a plasticity index less than 12,
a liquid limit less than 25, be free of organic material~ be
free of rocks greater than 3 inches in size, yet have sufficient
fines so as to be relatively impervious. Floor slabs should also
be underlain by at least 4 inches of clean, free draining drain
ro'clc and an impervious, waterproof membrane. Concrete slabs
should be separated from all foundation elements by a 1/2 inch
flexible connection. The flexible connection between the foun-
dation elements and the slab will allow the slab to settle a
small amount without excessive cracking.
2) Another approach would be to excavate the existing expansive
site soils to a depth of at least 36 inches and at least 4 feet
beyond the perimeter of all slab areas. The excavated fill
materials should be discarded. The exposed soil subgrade should
then be moisture conditioned to at least 3% wet of optimum and
compacted to about 90% compaction, ASTM D1557-70T(C) Compaction
Test Method. The soil subgrade should then be thoroughly wetted
so as to close all expansion cracks. Select imported fill
materials should then be spread in thin lifts, moisture con-
ditioned to optimum and compacted to at least 90% compaction.
All select imported materials should be nonexpansive, have. a
plasticity index less than 12, a liquid limit less than 25, be
free of organic material, be free of rocks greater than 3 inches
in size, yet have sufficient fines so as to be relatively imper-
vious. The floor slab should be underlain by at least 4 inches
of clean, free draining drain rock and an impervious waterproof
membrane. Concrete slabs should be separated from all foundation
elements by a 1/2 inch flexible connection. This flexible connec-
tion between the foundatibnclements and the slab will allow the
slab to settle a small amount without excessive cracking.
""'=-2....---- --'-0 - - ~ 31
.,;~,------_._-- - ,'- ,.;... . ,-. .
'f, IC-z.... or- IIOf
'7''YJ-UBIT NO.
p. ~O /);:;
c.
~7
-
,.-
r
r
r
r
r
r
I
I
[
L
L
L
L
L
l
l
l
L
L
If the above concrete garage floor slab alternatives are not
economically feasible, then at the very least the contractor
should overexcavate and recompact the existing on-site soils
that are very loose within the garage slab area. Such recompac-
tion should include moisture conditioning to at least 3% wet of
optimum and compacting to at least 85% compaction. The resulting
floor slab should float with a 1/2 inch flexible connection
between the garage slab and the foundation elements. Prior to
the concrete pour the garage slab area should be thoroughly
flooded and saturated so that it will be in a fully expanded con-
dition and all expansion cracks closed. Also, additional slab
reinforcement could help reduce slab cracking. However, some
garage slab cracking, uplift and settlement should be anticipated.
C-3
EXHIBIT NO. C-
#). 'ft:>( OF(P7
-,.,:=:::=-:-=~~ = .::...,M '31
1/ / O~ /)F Jlfj
r
r
r
[
r
r
I
I
[
L
L
L
L
l
l
l
l
l
L
APPENDIX G
GENERAL FOUNDATION NOTES
All pier holes and foundation excavations should be promptly
pouTed after excavation. If it is required to leave pier holes
or excavations open, then they should be very securely and safely
covered so that children, small animals and people cannot fall
into the pier holes or excavations.
All pier holes should be dry and free of all loose materials at
the time of the concrete pour. If water is present in any pier
holes, then such water should be removed by the use of a commer-
cial sump pump or other approved method. If the pier holes experi-
ence any caving effects, then casing should be provided by the con-
tractor with the casing removed as the concrete pour is made. If
the rate of water and flow into the pier hole is such that it is not
possible to pump the pier hole dry, then special tremie-type pour-
ing methods should be used with the soil engineer present so that
appropriate inspection and recommendations can be provided.
The proposed structure and all site development should, at the
very minimum, be designed and constructed in accordance with the
minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code, latest edition.
In areas where wood joist floors are used, adequate crawl space
clearance should be provided. Also, all foundation crawl space
areas should be provided with adequate openings and ventilation
as required by the Uniform Building Code. All foundation crawl
space elements should be provided with access openings so that
they may be inspected and entered in future times as required.
--, ...... ...-., n. , .. n, "3 I
-+----.....-.-.- -. .'-"._-~
p, 104 O~ ll"f
BX-BIBIT NO. e-
'P. Co 2. bF CP7
r
r
r
r
r
r
I
(
[
L
L
L
L
L
APPENDIX I
NUISANCE AND LIABILITY FOR CONDITION OF LAND
3479. CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE - Nuisance deFined:
Anything which is Injurious to health, or is indecent or
oFFensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the Free use of
property, so as to InterFere with the comFortable enjoyment of
liFe or property. or unlawFully obstructs the Free passage or
use.,. in the customary manner, of any navigable lake. or river,
bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street,
or highway, is a nuisance.
3483. CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE - ContInuIng nuIsance; lIabilIty of
successIve owners for FaIlure to abate:
Successive owners. Every successive owner of property who
neglects to abate a continuing nuisance upon, or in the use of,
such property, created by a Former owner, is liable thereFor in
the same manner as the one who First created it.
364. RESTATEMENT OF TORTS, 2ND: CreatIon or MaIntenance of
Dangerous ArtiFicIal ConditIons
A possessor of land is subject to liability to others outside
of the land For physical harm caused by a structure or other
artiFicial condition on the land, whIch the possessor realizes or
should realize wil I involve an unreasonable risk of such harm, iF
(a) the possessor has created the condition, or
(b) the condition is created by a third person with the
possessor's consent or acquiescence while the land is in his
possession, or
(c) the condition is created by a third person without
the possessor's consent or acquiescence, but reasonable care Is
not taken to make the condition saFe aFter the possessor knows or
~hould know of it.
365.
RESTATEMENT OF TORTS. 2ND: Dangerous DIsrepair
l
L
L
L
L
A possessor of land is SUbject to Ilabil ity to others outside
of the land For physical harm caused by the disrepair of a
structure or other artiFicial condition thereon, iF the exercise
of reasonable care by the possessor or by any person to whom he
entrusts the maintenance and repair thereoF
(a) would have disclosed the disrepair and the
unreasonable risk Involved therein, and
(b) would have made it reasonably saFe by repair or
otherwise.
',======-, . . '?:> I
M.._._~
~, 105' DF- 11'1
1-1
EXHIBIT NO. C.
1'.(,3 oF ~7
,.-
r
r
r
r
r
r
I
[
[
L
L
L
L
L
l
l
l
L
L
366. RESTATEMENT OF TORTS. 2ND: Artlrlclal CondItIons ExIsting
When PossessIon Is Taken
One who takes possessIon or land upon whIch there Is an
existing structure or other artlrlclal conditIon unreasonably
dangerous to persons or property outside or the land Is subject to
lIabIlIty ror physIcal harm caused to them by the conditIon arter.
but only arter.
(a) the possessor knows or should know or the conditIon.
and
(b) he knows or should know that It exIsts without the
consent or those arrected by It. and
(c) he has railed arter a reasonable opportunIty, to
make it sare or otherwise to protect such persons agaInst It.
~-:-r~' .~,.._. .. -- --;--; """... -. ~ I
.., - - . , ..
__..o....-_~__ _ _ . ........ ___
-p. IO~ OP 11'1
1-2
8XHIBITNO. C
p. CcH 6F "'7
r
r
r
r
r
r
I
(
[
L
L
L
L
l
L
l
l
L
L
A P PEN D I X S
SIDEWALKS, CURBS, PATIOS, DRIVEWAYS, ETC.
(EXPANSIVE SOIL CONDITIONS)
It should be noted that the site soils exhibit expansive soil
properties and expansive soils can exert considerable uplift
pressures on concrete and paving areas which can .result in some
differential movement. It is generally possible to greatly
reduce or eliminate the expansive soil effects upon a house or
commercial foundation; however, such procedures are somewhat
costly. Therefore, at an expansive soil site the sidewalks,
curbs, patio areas, driveways, porches, decks, landscaping walls
and sinlilar minor development may be subjected to some uplift,
'cracking, movement and settlement and these effects may have to
be considered a part of building on a site where expansive soils
are present. Reducing or eliminating the effects of expansive
soils generally may not be economically feasible for most residen-
tial and commercial structures outside of the main structure itself.
However, if it is desired to reduce or eliminate the effects of
expansive soils on concrete and paved areas, we can provide
specific recommendations if you so request.
Such specific recommendations might include one or some combination
of the following: special and additional steel reinforcement; total
or partial removal of expansive soils and replacement'with select,
nonexpansive, compacted imported fill; limitation of the size of
flatwork areas; use of frequent flexible joints; lime soil treat-
ment; special drainage measures and/or placement on drilled piers.
However, unless thorough and probably costly measures are taken,
some movement and periodic repair and maintenance can usually be
anticipated at a site with expansive soils.
,-,-..--:.....:...',-0.. "", 31
_~.__._....__ n_ _ . '-.,.., ~____
p. 107 of ~ lcr
EXHIBIT NO. c..
1>. .CtJ~ OF ~7 -
r
r
r
r
','.'.,
[
(
I
[
L
L
L
L
.,,:.:;....
L
L
L
L
l
l
L
A P PEN 0 I X U
UTILITY TRENCH EROSION CONTROL
On hillside locations great care should be exercised in the
installation and backfilling of utility trenches. If utility
trenches are not well compacted and adequate erosion control
and drainage measures are not taken, the utility trenches chan-
nel water and lead to significant erosion and gullying.
All utility trenches should be backfilled as indicated in
Section 1.1 of Appendix A. In sloping areas, periodic erosion
control boards with stakes, jute slope protection matting,
spreading of straw, adequate vegetation planting and/or other
special requirements may be necessary depending upon the degree
of slope and Quantity of drainage runoff.
. .
In very steep areas or in cut slope areas, or in areas where
significant erosion has occurred in the past, it may be required
to cover the utility trench with grouted riprap or sacked concrete.
-.,-----.-------;--; - -. -" '-:l. \
. <.t
------------.- ~+, .~"._---
P. IcfO OF 119
-LImIT NO. c..
~!(,r,Or: (P7
r
f
r
I-
.
,
r
r
)~
[
[
[
L
L
L
[
L
l
l
l
L
L
A P PEN D I X V
VEGETATION AND EROSION CONTROL
Vegetation and Landscape Preservation - Site clearing should be
perfdrmed only where the actual structure will be located. and
outside of the actual structure building area we recommend that
all of the existing site vegetation be left in its natural condi-
tion. We strongly recommend against any general site clearing as
such general site clearing could result in barren areas that could
result in considerable erosion which could affect downslope prop-
erties and related development and streams.
Erosion Control - We recommend that prudent erosion control
measures be taken during and af~er construction, including limita-
tion of site disturbance outside the actual building area and
proper planting and vegetation restoration of all barren and dis-
turbed areas after construction. In the interim period between
planting and vegetation growth re-establishment, straw and/or jute
slope protection matting and/or staked redwood boards should be
used as appropriate to help limit erosion.
General Erosion Control - Provision should be made for adequate
post-construction erosion control and the "Manual of Standards
for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures" published by the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) should be followed
and adhered to as appropriate.
'~~==~~:_- :'. . .. .. D I
r~ lcA 01;' ll'i
EXHIBIT NO. c...
, 1>. G, 7 t>F (,7
.
DRAINAGE STUDY
885 TIBURON BLVD.
TIBURON
OCTOBER 1996
REVISED JANUARY 1997
(ADDED 100 YR. STORM CALC.)
BY
BRACKEN & KEANE
Civil Engineers & Land Surveyors
5710 Paradise Drive, Ste. 8
Corte Madera, CA 94925
(415) 927-8801
7--;'-'--",:-, --~ 2> t
~~-"-_.~~_.__...-... -., -,".
EXHIBIT NO. 0'
P. I OF g
P. 110 oF- Il't
BRACKEN & KEANE
Civil Engineers & Land Surveyors
5710 Paradise Drive, Sle. 8
Corte Madera, CA 94925
(415) 927-8801
October 7, 1996
DIXON POWER
885 B TIBURON BLVD
TIBURON CA 94920
RE: 885 TIBURON BLVD.
TIBURON
SUBJECT: DRAINAGE STUDY
Dear Mr. Power,
The following is our report on the study of the drainage conditions
on your property at 885 Tiburon Blvd. in Tiburon. The study was
conducted in accordance with your request.
The scope of work includes the following:
a) Hydrological study of the property in its present
condition, and after completion of proposed and future
improvements including the access driveway.
b) Hydrological study of total watershed contributing to the
existing drainage facility in Tiburon Blvd., using
available topographic information supplemented with a
site visit.
c) A hydraulic evaluation of the adequacy of the existing
recipient drainage facility in Tiburon Blvd. ' ,
d) Preliminary recommendations for drainage improvements if
needed.
General
The subject property is located at 885 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, CA.
The watershed
Tiburon Blvd.
acres.
contributing to the existing drainage structure on
below the subject property is approximately 80.6
Proposed new improvements within the property and servicing the
property are as follows:
a) New driveway access.
__ ~__~~.-:-:-:--:' = -'::-. 3t
p, III 01= 1I't
BXHIBIT NO.3L-
1>. 2- C>1== 8'
Dixon Power
October 7, 1996 Page 2
b) Future house (assumed).
c) Future hardscape (assumed).
Runoff from the entire watershed was calculated for existing and
post development conditions. Also, additional runoff added to the
watershed area due to the new driveway was calculated.
Hydrological and hydraulic computations are presented in the
appendix. The storm runoff was determined using the rational
method.
Available Data. ,Information. and Assumptions
a) Topographic survey of subject property January 1996 by
this office, scale 1" = 20'.
b) USGS topographic map 1954 (revised 1980).
c) Site examination by Bracken & Keane, September 1996.
d)
Drainage facilities collecting runoff
watershed areas are assumed to be adequate
do not contribute t~ subject watershed.
from other
and therefore
Discussion
The projected runoff for the entire watershed is as follows:
25 Yr. 100 Yr. Storm
Existing Condition
Proposed development and added watershed
82.9 cfs 101.2 cfs
84.7 cfs 103.3 cfs
Percentage increase in discharge due to
proposed new development
2.1 % 2.1%
The capacity of the existing concrete box culvert crossing Tiburon
Blvd. below subject property is calculated at 164.6 cubic feet per
second (cfs). This is sufficient for the projected 100 year storm.
The added area to the watershed due to the proposed driveway access
is 1.84 acres (2.3% of total watershed). The existing storm water
runoff condition for this watershed area consists of an informal
drainage system of hand excavated earth ditches and old steel pipe
draining around the properties on Mac Annan Ct. and Tiburon Blvd.
to a catch basin on Tiburon Blvd. The proposed driveway access
would eliminate a portion of storm water runoff entering this
system, thereby reducing the rainfall impact on the informal
drainage system.
'~:==_=~:'==-i = '.:'. 3\
p, 1/ 2-- ~ II~
EXHIBIT NO. 1)
i>. 3 ~ i'
Dixon Power
October 7, 1996 Page 3
Conclusions and Recommendations
The incremental flow in the drainage ways due to proposed additions
is, for practical purposes, negligible (a little over 2 percent).
No modification to the downstream storm system is recommended at
this time.
The new drainage system for the proposed property should be
designed or reviewed by a licensed engineer.
Should you have any questions or require additional information,
feel free to contact me at (415) 927-8801.
Sincerely,
Bracken & Keane
~1-""-----",,_,,-, _ .
--- - , , 3)
------- ~ ..:.. . '.~.. '
,?, 113 DF II '1-
EXHIBIT NO. \)
'P. tot OF e
,.
BY ..:~~.._OATF .....L
~CHKD. BV_..___DATE...._...___
!
_..'-t"
...!: 1
\1
~ .'{ .
SUBJECT _._....___......._...._...._..._..
...-.............
SHEET NO. ._._o_.OF.__
.JOB NO......._.._._____..
---.---.---..---..-....--..--...........
. ,
.-' +-:'1
t~
"-r ;
. ....,.. -.~. .,--,. ,-
..qt.,. ,
i1' I ' ·
":1. '". ,.
~ ! t J ~
tJ il f'
. ,/.' . ~ .
iliL';'.
.:.....,.. f- , : 1-
^~<l4-.i" 'f-';'
~ J._..!-i II ..' ,.,.
" i. '
r..~ ~ t ., .
t:tft:
. ;jJ-L' . ' .. .
." ~_.., I. . ; -
;,-tFrt-:.:..~-;;" ";
:. ~-':IJ .,.,
itH+', .'
'-; '! ~ I ; _; ; .
;:-r-;-J '::-.
~ . t '
.1
, i:i
, ' I' : .
'; 1
666 Tle;,UfZ.ot-J
illbVtz-oN ,
e;.LN 0
cAt.-\'f-of4.J IA
. ,
D12Al t-JAGze
erUD'L
. ,.\-/
,
,
,
AP?eNt>'~
: liLtJ ' , ; ~ : ;.: '
~ : LIt, f J ~ '( ~.::. ;
, : ;..~ .::: I ,
. ;-L:1' :.' , : .
_ :~ L~ _. _ ~., .
. ' l L :_ f ~ :.
'- I l. \
~;l
.;: i
.-;-i ' . ,
,;-H:
~.. , '
, ,
,
~l~
(f<DDW
ocrt9/!le,e... 19~b
~ tJAtz-\' (')q 7
100 \"1%-, O;1fOfZH CA~)
.; I
I'
pl. .
. ,;.
~ -.' .
- ,
'..~~
";-,
~
z
i
L
C
~
~
r:=....:.::...... :-~-: ~_.~ 31
~. ~.__._-
.p, lit.} O'P II~
EXHIBIT NO. \)
-
'Y.5~<a'
,
___l,.".. ; -n~ '...,I,dr
~. : 'i I . ~ .By_~._____OATE':I.J.~
~ ~~.t ' ;-.:CHKC. By__..._DATE...._......_._
. r i.J
SUBJECT ........_._...._..._...__...__._._ _..._...
SHEET NO. _..I..._o0F...?
JOB NO.lz.,_::92-~~
,....-..--
, --.----.-.-.-...................................
! ,;.
\.-.-r:
. ' fiT" ; : . H10f20 Lo6,j
[111 i, A, i'-'ATc.12-V\L-'
~t~mU"" i ~: ~;.<; e)~:>J~>J '~ ~~=~41%
'fJ '. ?Ie.NTATIVe., MAP ~ THI'? OP"Plc.e .u:..12-q'5-Z.~
. 1......'.'
'..\.I ~
l!: ,
, '-~.-'rrt:.-
.;' i ;.
. i . t; .'
- ~ t.f! . .
;;t~l ....
:,:; ."
.~~.,....-...,., . -
;": i
:. f
j
, ,.
,
-. j
';' !
:- 7 ~ .
..,,:,.,.;t-. .'
: ~ .
:'-; )
. :~. '): : : '., .
'1...1., ., '.:
". i:~ I .~._; : .: . _ i ~
. : Ii Llil,; : ; ~: .
',,It '.','"
! j ~._j_ ;. ~ 1._' ,
o .tLii :1 ~. ·
. ';:rl" ,.:'
" .
. :.)-: " .
" I
~ li I. :
'. ,-:-t..; I'
. ;. -t.tJ_~__. ....
;.j
. i!..
. t ~ l., - : '
,- - ~ 1 ' ,
",'
" I
,'. i
.:':1"
., J
. "-"
.1 .
; I.
,
,.
~
Z
C '"
~ :!.
~
C
n
~. Me.1t1ov
. 1<.v,NOF'F" l0 ~lLV/...ffl'e:.D ~P- z,.'5 A\JP'IOOYtz... .~
/. :.'
lJ&;I\W~AATIO~t.- t-1~t1oo ?12-11--kiIPI,...E:h,
. . . . WA-r~ . ~~ l-OC-ATe-v IN zofoJ-e II? Ff20H
t"fA'? II t" A t-J {) Zol--le. e;.2. FfiOH MAP II v"
(), CA\..;0UL.AT10N0': ,
'\
WAlefZ~~ ~ 8o.0Av. A?Pt:ZO>(I~-rE-L..--1
~ . ."
: lWU,~ UP A1Zi:::A (~D0 (lbV'D6t<?1 ~TID?lI::::rz:."...) = 2
. ~-'...
: r,
r:J;~.UWoR=- c.o~\G;I~trz?
: . ~ml\.JGt c.o~Dli!Ol-J0
e,.lJIL.-1 UP Arz.eA
~ecR GJ~t::.D 0t.0€'~
NI111 ~-AJ.JO ~l--le-~
IINi::::.. or:- CO~~TlZ-ATION
0=-0."'5" _ ,
0=-0,50
OV~L.-A-ND FWW
t%.,I+.:. 2. lll..->'Y1
~-y&?
1,...-- 1'-0501 107-::;. 2..7% VI=- 0.20
-t =- ( 2. i- 11d::t?)l 0.2..0 )-t.* = 17 lJI t N I
I ?1' o,z..7 .
cHkN I--.l e=.t- t====WN
1,...::. /800' V)-:=- IOolc>
n==-O.Olb
EXHIBIT NO. \) ,
'P. (p OF 8'. ,/
-~~=~~-=-~~~-'" ~..~ ~I-
~I.L~!'>.EjICl_ ___
,
. :b', . ' '0. 2l?: ' ,I f'
"...._~+-,_....__ -., - - I
-'! 't. '. By...:._Q._____DATE 4:.,
. L.:.L _I_I. .
....:. ,~ i ~HK.D. Sy7___DATE.._......__...
- , L." --l- " ~
SUBJECT __._.__...._.._.._..____._ ___._._ ./..__.___
!2- :;z
SHEET NO. _..,..._OF__'
JOB NO.________.
. . ~ t- _-------.-..-............---u......-..
. .'; I I
1:'.j V-: ~
..\....-r:: "
,- ~ 1.. ~. .' -
~'~;~! . ~ ;.:
',L I,
, \. ~.! - t '.
. ~ .. I . i'- ~
. "I
;>r~J-.: .
'.' I
,.t.t 11
~.;~l,;.~~i,.-.: -. ;
.: r ~ 'j. t . _ :
~-j'r ,1- :
:'rF;-T.~-: : .
"i,:l' . '
, ...
; . ~
:+71. ',.
; ;
.) , .
,;';1":;." .
'i ~ t~ ~J : : ; , : ; .
.~-ttr.i~' :T:'" ' I
'i':.t . ,
".: ;.r..,'
. . ~ ..: f
, I
" ,
.. i
I '"
..----! .
: ;
! .
, .
: i'
,
.... '\
. ~..' ..; -. .
~ _; t..._~ ... i .;,
"""".L.... ;.' I '
rilL.::::'..,
~~-.J- ._..!..~ : ~ -~ .
, ,It
. ' : -~. ~ ' :
',I. .
,-' !
'I' ,
- ~'1" ~: .
,I '
"-",-:' ,
" I
: ,
. I
: !
i
: J
;
:":-;-!-
. )'''-i' .., I .
'''--I .
.:H-!--i-. .. ~
..,:, I"""
z '---r-P~';'_h~.
E r I .
.. '. I
:. ; I
~
G, CAf.,0UL-AT/oN0 COI-JT.
{I =- ( 2-)! IBco)t. o. Ollo)i:*
:1;.1' 0,10
= 7 IvII N '
1i Nt::.. OF coWc..E;.l--tnz..,A"TlON
-t ... 17 + 1 ::;. 24 MI 1--.1,
'A20N ~.(~. zot-JE:. 1?
, 110'tl ::;. Z, ,Cf5 ('r'\/ hr, F-o 10 ='- 0.70
FIZOH DHAl2-1 II jZ....." j2.z.<;; ~ O. S2-
~NOFF--' f"-Ol2-' ~l0TIN<:4 COWOIIIOtJ'?
WlLA UP A9-E:A O.2l?~ 'BO,(o =- ZQ,10
U!-Jt t..'Wt20Ve.D A12--6\. 0,75>' fr::).(o ~ ~.45"
Q==-c..IA ','
'0100 :. ,'2..0&5 (2.0 .('51' 0.';5;+ 00.45" 0 .'5)) - 101,20 uFl?
'i' . QZ,S-. !,Coe, (20,t6~O,'?S+ bO,46JlO,eo) =-'e>Z.q4- ~
An~ t;BJE.-l-CF'E:.NE:J-.ir c.alDrrloWfL
,
, ,
. ~ I ' ; WA-~BD '~ At)PEJ) ,-An-az- OE:.V~E:.WT =
',: '1.B4-Ac.- (Z,?% oF -(OIAL NA1'"S2-0I1e.o) "
: i.
~VaoP~~ AT Se6 TIe:u!ZO~ ~ f'PoPf:;J2.Tj
'Wlf....t,. ll-J~~ &U/(.....T. UP NzeA I 'Pl2-IVE..NA\, .
tbU% I G::r~r:;.... 1 WAf....j?-~ I e:;r6..,
,~=-O,z'Z:;,k.
(:.ItA FaZ- ADDE-D NRr'E:42-0r/W;:
'.
Oz:s:,o.ED.,t /,G:;8)C /.~:. I ,z:n OF? L'=C=:::,~=-:-' ~.~C. 31
a'el:)=- 0,9''' Z. ,Cf5 }C I .fA- ~ I.B~ v~ ,?, i lit. oF- II"!
," " l~~~.~r~k~ ~~~$"C2b~;:o) '"' " 0,2.1 c.f?
.;' az.<;=- l,roB ltD.?? lO/?e;;-D.SO)=- O,170'F?
1"bI-A L- DUe.. iV 'O€>/E..L.OP€;.t---\eNT ~fJT) ADDeD'
WA1'"~WCD ~ 1.7'2- Cf=0~<;i "".'
." - 2,10 c.~IOO:' .' EXHIBITNO~ D
, ,'j)..., r-rO
:..~- ..'-.. OJ, '-'''Jf
- ':' ; i" BY __-.t.Lt==___DA T' :~. n_ .'
'I' .
,. ~ r' :,:.!CHKO. By____..._DATE......._.___
,
L i ;
~J"
"';-L.
:.n'I"
. _:'J
; ..~ : ! ~
: ;H~Ij L:, ~,
~'"r -fi,.L - ;-'.~ ~:. -: :-
,~..J t. , ": ': '
iiJl,n.
. , I
.., i
-.., 1
- ,~- f :
, '., 'j
'. I.. I
:-- ~ -' ; I '
~ 1 ! ' I
, i...__, __.....,~
. ~ I , ;
'. j
, ;
.
"--!;
,
. i.
,
_.: ,
': :
, '
. -.#. '.-. .
. I" I :1.
. _:. ;, '. ~ :;; . - - ~ : . .
, i.t.U..I.,
, : n; i;' :
,iJil:_ '
", ',1"::
.-,. , ,
: ,; ~: I
: I , '
:1',' .
, -i .-.1 ~ ~
i'
._....-.~,
,
. . ~-\
,::: I ,
, 1
.. : ~'} .
.n;";~,_,_,
,"j' ,
..~'
..'
z
ii
L
C
..
C
n
SUBJECT ...__.___._._._..._....___.. .....__ ,.__"'___
SHEET NO. ._~._OF__.~
JOB NO.__._._____
-...........-.---......--....-.-.-...----...-..--....--..-........--.--
......--..--...-...-----...-......-----..-.-...-.-----...--..----... ____A'
{;, cAL,Wc..ATlo!--)0 CO/J'T.
~f.J~ ~~ ~ ~1tz.E:.. WAT"EJZ.~-O WIL.-t.-
I W v\Z.~~ ej ~ , I % OV~ nte.- Pl2E-h€.N1"
ft.,ON ro~ A 25 YeAtz. qro~l-v\
EX\0ITI~ OAAIIJA61e.- ~ll,...ITlE:f?
e,x.l~ll-JG, CDI--l0rz.e::rE;. ~ c.vL....V~ olJ
TIP.? V~\-.1 ~Vt> <J Y-6 I
cQ =- /4S0 t A)( Ajp7"" x./?'!t.- n=- O.Ol? '8=-0.01 A0SU
h
Q=- IABk::>~ )C. 15" 0.'10 ~ 0./0 .:. /&/, b Ot=:-0 .
0,01 I'
/ b1-, b c>ps ' /0 ~ CAf'A6I1j' O~ eo)G-
OUl.)J~"I
C()L-V~.~I'1:7 Gfj2.~~ -n-tA1--l EX~TltJ~
: " '. tz.V!Jo~ (104.~ I e:a..~) ~~ Z.5-(eA~ ~H
i ., ~\D GJ~~ mA\-.l P~f'~ F2-U1-J0p;=-
'i '( 1b4-.0 '1 eAn) ~ 25 Y~fZ- ~iZ-N
~ c.<J u. V e.tZr cA'F'AC.IT"i I'? Goltz.eJ\Te.?- "i"+\~ ~':5r ItJ~
tz{)l-lOFF- C lo}.",> 101.'2-.) t==qZ. lOO1'fl-. ~TOI2-K
, A~P G.fl2-eA"IGP- ~ prz..opo~ ~lJo~
( l0f-. (p I> lO::'.=?) t==-cfZ.. (CO YF2-. 0TDF-tJI
-.-----~..~~ - .'~ ':l.l
;,'. '+', ,- ,',' \';" '. ;.J
~_._-~--._._-- -. .... '. '-~.
Y. II 7 OF- ll"t
EXHl1:>IT NO. 1>-
P. 8 or; ~
OSEMARY BLISS, FIRE CHIEF
TIBURON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
1679 TIBURON BOULEVARD, TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920
TELEPHONE: (415) 435-7200 FAX: (415) 435-7205
=-.<'" ,7
rPvl::",.'-""',
(;:::) 0 \ \:.::.J ' ,
V \';)) \.'\. u
14 D~mDer 1996
RECEmED
DEe 1 7 1996
Di..'Con and Sharon Power
885 B Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
TOWN OF TIBURON
PLANNING & BUILDING DEFT.
re: Minor subdivision of APN 55-261-II
Mr. and Mrs. Pov.~~
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed minor subdivision of APN 55-261-II at
885 Tiburon Blvd. The project will be required to comply with the following sections of the
Uniform Fire Code and Ordinance #IIj of the Tiburon Fire Protection District:
1.
2,
3.
4-
Access roads to each new lot shall not be less than 12 feet unobstructed
width with a maximum 18% grade; they shall be constructed with an all-
weather driving surface, capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire
apparatus and having a minimum of 13 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance,
UFC 10.203 '
Access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with an approved
turnaround. UFC 10.203
Any gates shall be equipped with emergency access for fire apparatus.
I recommend a Kl'JOX key system, bFc 10.302
An approved water supply (water main and new hydrant) shall be installed
at the base of the driveway serving Lot 3 (accessed from Stony Hill), _
UFC 10.401
All roadway and water requirements shall be completed prior to any sidewall construction on
the site. There is a fee for the review of this project, an invoice has been enclosed.
Please call me at my office, 435-7200, if you have any questions. Thank you for your attention
to this matter.
Sincerely;
Michael Ayers. Captain
Fire Prevention Bureau
\
cc: Dan Watrous
Bracken & Keane
"''',-----.--.. -~, '"2.1
I" - , " ...>
---____.~ _.~ .L . ....,.-.__
"P I He oF- It'\.
EXHIBIT NO. 6
PROTEcrlNG THE COMMUNITIES OF BELVEDERE AND TIBURON
.)
MARIN MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT
R~)F'VED
DEe 2 3 1996
TOWN OF TIBURON
PLANNING & BUILDING DEPT.
220 Ndlen Avenue
Corte Madera, CA 94925.1169
415.924.4600
FAX 415927.4953
December 19, 1996
File No. 244.1
Service No. 59636, 59637
Map No. N21-11
Daniel M. Watrous
Tiburon Planning Department
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: WATER AVAILABILITY - Minor Subdivision
Assessor's Parcel No.: 55-261-11
Location: 855 B, C & D, Tiburon Boulevard
Dear Mr, Watrous
Water is currently being provided to the above referenced parcel by service nos. 5936 and
59637. A=rding to District records, the purpose and intent of each of these services are
to provide water to a single-family residence. Lot 3, created by the proposed lot split, does
not have an allocation of water, nor does it meet the conditions for service as set forth by
the District. These conditions state in part: "the property must be fronted by a water main;
the structure must be within 125 feet of the water main". Service to this property will,
therefore, require approval of a variance for water service from the District's Board of
Directors, Should the District's Board of Directors grant such a variance, this property will
then be eligible for water service upon request and fulfillment of the requirements listed
below.
1. Complete a High Pressure Water Service Application.
2. Submit a copy of the building permit.
3, Pay appropriate fees.
4. Complete the structure's foundation within 120 days of the date of application.
5. Comply with the District's rules and regulations in effect at the time service is
requested.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Keith Vincent of our
engineering staff at 924-4600, extension 236.
Very truly yours,
'i;~ ~tl~.JN'~~_.,.._.___._". _.. '., 31
Project Manager :_h --.,.,.,.. .. - .. , ~. .~-
f, Il'f oF- IL~
EXHIBIT NO.J::.
KV:js
An Equal Opportunity! Affirmati~ Action Employn
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
DIXON AND SHARON POWER MINOR SUBDIVISION
FILE # 69602
885 B, C & D TffiURON BOULEVARD
Geologic Hazards
Mitigation Measure:
log.I. Pilings or other reinforcements to the structural integrity of the proposed house shaD
be constructed beyond the depth of the underlying landslide or debris flow deposits
in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation prepared
by Earth Science Consultants.
Implementation Procedure:
Construction drawings submitted by applicant for building permit must show proposed
structural integrity reinforcements acceptable to the Town Engineer. Responsibility of
Building Official to ensure plans contain this information and that it has been approved by
the Town Engineer. Actual installation of approved structural integrity measures shall be
confirmed by the Building Official prior to final inspection and sign off on the building
and/or grading permit.
Non-compliance Sanction'
No issuance of building permit if structural integrity measures are not shown on plans; no
final sign off if structural integrity measures not installed; halt construction; fines.
Mitigation Measure
1.g.2. All structural, architectural and mechanical details of proposed construction shaD be
designed to resist earthquake groundshaking, as recommended by the prepared
geotechnical investigation.
TTl'lplementation Procedure'
Construction drawings submitted by applicant for building permit must show proposed
structural integrity reinforcements acceptable to the Town Engineer and other mechanical
and architectural reinforcements acceptable to the Building Official, ResponSIbility of
Building Official to ensure plans contain this information and that structural integrity
reinforcements have been approved by the Town Engineer. Actual installation of approved
structural integrity measures and other mechanical and architectural improvements shall be
confirmed by the Building Official prior to final inspection and sign off on the building
and/or grading permit.
EXHIBIT NO. 31-
? I r::F ~
Non-compliance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit if structural integrity measures and mechanical and
architectural reinforcements are not shown on plans; no final sign offifthese measures and
reinforcements not installed; halt construction; fines.
Air Ouality
Mitigation Measure:
2.a.1. The site shall be watered during construction to reduce the impacts of such dust to
acceptable levels.
Implementation Procedure:
The Building lnspector shall observe the site during all inspections for evidence of watering
or fugitive dust.
Non-compliance Sanction'
Failure to comply with site watering requirements or observation of fugitive dust will result
in the issuance of correction notices, citations, a project stop-work order, or other available
enforcement methods.
Water Ouality
Mitigation Measure'
3.e.1. Project design and construction activities will utilize Best Management Practices as
described in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook for
Construction Activity, March, 1993.
Implementation Procedure:
BMP program to be approved by Town Engineer prior to issuance ofbuilding or grading
permits. Implementation ofBMP program shall be by the contractor, under review of the
Town Engineer.
Non-coD1Pliance Sanction'
Failure to comply with the approved construction BMP's will result in the issuance of
correction notices, citations, a project stop-work order, or other available enforcement
methods,
EXHIBIT NO. 3Z--
~, '2- t:>F 5'
~
Mitil:ation Measure:
6.a.1. All construction activity shaU comply with the Town's limitations on construction
hours to prevent noise impacts during nighttime.
Implementation Procedure:
Ensure contractor and any sub-contractors are aware of the Town's limited construction
hours, including those for use of heavy equipment. Building Inspector shall ensure that
these appear on the job card. Building Inspector and Police Department to enforce this
measure.
Non-compliance Sanction'
Police Department and/or Building Inspector to issue citations and/or halt construction,
Emerl:ency Re~onse
Mitil:ation Measure:
10.b.1.
Access roads to each new lot shaU be not less than 12 feet unobstructed width
with a maximum 18% grade; they shaU be constructed with an aU-weather
driving surface, capable of supporting the imposed loads of flTe apparatus and
having a minimum of 13 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance.
Implementation Procedure:
Construction drawings submitted by applicant for building pennit must show proposed
construction details of all access roads, including grade, width, paving materials and vertical
clearance. Responsibility of Building Official to ensure plans contain this information,
Actual construction of approved access roads shall be confirmed by the Building Official
prior to final inspection and sign off on the building and/or grading permit.
Non-colIlPliance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit if detailed access road plans are not shown on plans; no final
sign off if access road not properly constructed; halt construction; fines.
Mitigation Measure:
1O.b.2.
Access roads in excess of 150 feet shaU be provided with an approved
turnaround.
EXHIBIT NO. 3Z-
r, 3 D'P 5'
Implementation Procedure'
Construction drawings submitted by applicant for building permit must show proposed
access road turnaround acceptable to the Tiburon Fire Protection District. Responsibility
of Building Official to ensure plans contain this information and that it has been approved
by the Fire District. Actual construction of approved turnaround shall be confirmed by the
Building Official prior to final inspection and sign off on the building and/or grading pennit.
Non-compliance Sanction'
No issuance of building permit if adequate access road turnaround is not shown on plans;
no final sign off if turnaround not constructed; halt construction; fines,
Mitigation Measure:
lO.b.3.
Any gates shaD be equipped with emergency frre access for frre apparatus.
In1plementation Procedure:
Construction drawings submitted by applicant for building permit must show any proposed
gates. All such gates must show emergency fire access equipment acceptable to the Tiburon
Fire Protection District. Responsibility of Building Official to ensure plans contain this
information and that it has been approved by the Fire District. Actual installation of
emergency fire access equipment on gates shaD be confirmed by the Building Official prior
to final inspection and sign off on the building and/or grading permit.
Non-co1I1Pliance Sanction'
No issuance of building permit if any gates shown on plans do not include appropriate
emergency fire access equipment; no final sign off if such equipment not installed on gates;
halt construction; fines.
Mitigation Measure:
10.b.4.
An approved water supply, including water main and new hydrant, shaD be
instaDed at the base of the driveway serving the lot accessed from Stony Hill
Road.
Implementation Procedure'
Construction drawings submitted by applicant for building permit must show proposed
water main and hydrant acceptable to the Tiburon Fire Protection District. Responsibility
of Building Official to ensure plans contain this information and that it has been approved
by the Fire District. Actual installation of approved water main and hydrant shall be
confirmed by the Building Official prior to final inspection and sign off on the building
EXHIBIT NO. 31..-
9. 1./ OF 5'
and/or grading permit.
Non-compliance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit ifnew water main and hydrant are not shown on plans; no
final sign off if water main and hydrant not installed; halt construction; fines.
Aesthetics
Mitigation Measure:
18.1. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for the proposed single-family
home, the building design and landscaping shall receive Site Plan and Architectural
Review approval pursuant to Section 4.02.00 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The
building and landscaping shall be designed so as to minimize and effectively mitigate
visual impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhood.
Implementation Procedure:
The Tiburon Design Review Board shall review the submitted building and landscaping
plans to insure that visual impacts on surrounding residences are minimi"ed and effectively
mitigated. The Building official shall not accept plans for building plan check nor issue
building permits without verification that the proposed building has received Site Plan and
Architectural Review approval by the Design Review Board.
Non-compliance Sanction'
Building permits shall not be issued without proof of Site Plan and Architectural Review
approval; no final sign offiflandscaping and building is not completed in compliance with
said approval; halt construction; fines.
EXHIBIT NO. 32--
?, 5' 0':- 5"