HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 1998-09-02
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BLVD.
MEETING DATE:
MEETING TIME:
CLOSED SESSION:
SEPTEMBER 2, 1998
7:30 P.M.
7:10 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 Vrews Succinctly; (4) Lim~ Presentations to 3 minutes; (5) Speak Directly into
Microphone.
A. ROLL CALL
B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If any)
C. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Please confine your comments during this portion of the agenda to matters not already an this agenda, ather than items an
the Consent Calendar. The public will be given an opportunity to speak an each agenda item at the time it is called.
Presentations are limited to three (3) minutes. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission,
Board, Committee or Staff far consideration and/or placed on aftture meeting agenda. :
D. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
I) BUILDING ADVISORY COMMITTEE - New Tiburon Police Station - (Status Report - Chair Jim
Wilson)
E. CONSENT CALENDAR
The purpose of the Consent Calendar is to group items together which generally do not require discussion and which will
probably be approved by one motion unless separate action is required on a particular item. Any member of the Town
Council, Town Staff, or the Public may request removal of an item for discussion.
2) TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES - #1147, August 24, 1998 - (Adopt)
3) MONTHLY POLICE STATISTICS - July, 1998 - (Accept)
4) MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY - July, 1998 - (Accept)
5) MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM - (Adopt Management Incentive Program and Benefit
Schedule - Resolution)
6) AMICUS BRIEF REQUESTS - a) Lim v, City of Long Beach, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
No. 98-55915; b) Lindsey v. Tacoma-Pierce County, No. C97-5076RJB (W.D. Wash 1997) (Appeal
Pending, Ninth Circuit) - (Approve)
F. NEW BUSINESS
7) STREET REPAIR PROGRAM - (Authorize Award of Contract for Street Maintenance Project No.
98-SM-OI - Portions of Bel Aire, Be1veron & Raccoon Lane)
8) TffiURON BL YD. MEDIAN LANDSCAPING PROJECT - (Authorize Funding Participation)
G. PUBLIC HEARING
9) APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING APPLICATION TO AMEND
NORTHWESTERN PACIFIC PRECISE PLAN - For Addition of Approximately 4,852 square feet of
Office Space at Pt. Tiburon Plaza, 1701 - 1751 Tiburon Blvd., AP#59-161-07 _ Stan Cook!Pt.
Tiburon Plaza, Inc., Applicant/Appellant - & Consider Adoption of Negative Declaration-
(Resolution)
H. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
10) DOWNTOWN BUSINESS TASK FORCE REPORT - (Schedule September Jt. Hearing with
Belvedere City Council)
I. COMMUNICATIONS
11) SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT - (Block Party on Vistazo West, September 5, 1998)
J. ADJOURNMENT
Future Af!enda Items -
Downtown/Main Street ADA Traffic Committee Report - (September 16)
New Chapter 3AofTown Municipal Code Governing Town Contracts & Purchases - (September 16 _ First Reading)
Amend Section 25-3 ofTown Municipal Code Re: Amplified SOWld - (September 16 - First Reading)
Authorize Elephant Rock Repair Contract - (September 16)
Town Financial Update - (September 16)
Tiburon Redevelopment Agency Annual Report - (September 16)
BellTiburon Library Agency Agreement (September 16)
DATE OF MEETING: SEPTEMBER 2 1998
NO. 17-1998
DATE POSTED: AUGUST 28_ 1998
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 infonnation regarding this meeting is indicated below:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Section 54956.9a)
Name or Case:
Connallv. et aL v. Main Street Businesses
(USDC No. C-95-00875)
DATE OF MEETING:
Julv 15. 1998
No. 15-1998
DATE POSTED:
Julv 10. 1998
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 LABOR NEGOTIATOR
(Section 54957.6)
Agency Negotiator:
Austris Rungis
A.
Employee Organization:
MAPE (Marin Association of Public
Employees)
B.
Employee Organization:
TP A (Tiburon Police Association)
2. CLAIM AGAINST THE TOWN OF TIBURON
(Section 54956.95)
Claimants: Kent & Vicki Logan
;1( 2-[4--
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BLVD.
MEETING DATE:
MEETING TIME:
CLOSED SESSION:
SEPTEMBER 2, 1998
7:30 P.M.
7:10 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) Um~ Presentations to 3 minutes; (5) Speak Directly inlo
Microphone.
A. ROLL CALL
B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If any)
C. PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Please confine your comments during this portion afthe agenda to matters not a/ready on this agenda. other than items on
the Consenr 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. Matlers requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission,
Board, Commillee or Staff for consideration and/or placed on ajU/ure meeting agenda. .
D. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
1) BUILDING ADVISORY COMMITTEE - New Tiburon Police Station - (Status Report - Chair Jim
Wilson)
E. CONSENT CALENDAR
The purpose of the Consent Calendar is to group items together which generally do not require discussion and which will
probably be approved by one motion unless separate action is required on a particular item. Any member of the Town
Council, Town Staff. or the Public may request removal of an item for discussion.
2) TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES - #1147, August 24, 1998 - (Adopt)
3) MONTHLY POLICE STATISTICS - July, 1998 - (Accept)
4) MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY - July, 1998 - (Accept)
5) MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM - (Adopt Management Incentive Program and Benefit
Schedule - Resolution)
6) AMICUS BRIEF REQUESTS - a) Lim Y. City of Long Beach, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
No. 98-55915; b) Lindsey Y. Tacoma-Pierce County, No. C97-5076RJB (W.O. Wash 1997) (Appeal
Pending, Ninth Circuit) - (Approve)
F. NEW BUSINESS
7) STREET REPAIR PROGRAM - (Authorize Award of Contract for Street Maintenance Project No.
98-SM-Ol - Portions of Bel Aire, Belveron & Raccoon Lane)
8) TIBURON BL YD. MEDIAN LANDSCAPING PROJECT - (Authorize Funding Participation)
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
HAv /fA. 2-
Db
- ~r4,,)-
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Matthews called the special adjourned meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at
6,12 p.m. on Monday, August 24, 1998, at Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard,
Tiburon, California.
A. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS,
ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS,
Bach, Gram, Matthews
Hennessy, Thompson
PRESENT, EX OFFICIO:
Town Manager Kleinert, Town Engineer Barmand
B. PUBLIC OUESTIONS & COMMENTS
There were no public questions or comments.
C. NEW BUSINESS
1) AGREEMENT BETWEEN MARIN COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE FOUR &
TOWN OF TIBURON - (Indemnification and Maintenance of Streets, Stormwater, and
Drainage Structure Improvements to be installed within the Bel Aire Area of Tiburon by
Flood Control District 4)
Town Manager Kleinert summarized the Staff Report, indicating that the County of Marin was
primarily requesting agreement by the Town of Tiburon for indemnification and for future
maintenance of the streets, stormwater and drainage improvements to be installed by County
Flood Control District 4 within the Bel Aire area of Tiburon.
Council inquired as to the Flood Control District Engineer's cost estimate for the proposed
drainage improvements. Town Engineer Barmand estimated the cost between $900,000 and
$1,000,000.
Council inquired as to what would happen if the bids came in more than the estimated cost.
Barmand indicated that if the bids exceeded the $1,000,000 construction cost limitation, the
project would have to go back to the Flood Control District Advisory Board for additional
funding considerat~on or reduction in the size and scope of the project might be reduced.
Mayor Matthews asked for public comment.
Several Bel Aire residents in attendance spoke in favor of the proposed project. Some residents
had some questions pertaining to the type of drainage improvements and which streets are
included in both the drainage project and the Town's street overlay project. Some concerns were
expressed regarding future maintenance of the proposed improvements and ongoing maintenance
of the East Drainage Ditch.
Town Council Minutes #1147
August 24, 1998
Page 1
MOTION:
That Council approve the proposed Agreement between Marin County Flood
Control Zone Four and the Town ofTiburon and to Authorize the Town Manager
to Execute the document for submittal to the Marin County Board of Supervisors
for approval at their regular August 25, 1998 meeting.
Moved:
Vote,
Gram, Seconded by Bach
AYES: Bach, Gram, Matthews
ABSENT: Hennessy, Thompson
D. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon, Mayor
Matthews adjourned the special adjourned meeting at 6:45 p.m., to September 2, 1998.
HARRY S. MATTHEWS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
Town Council Minutes #1147
August 24, 1998
Page 2
~L/eM;fJo. 3
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
Police Department
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Members of the Tiburon Town Council
Peter G. Herley, Chief of Police
Statistical Overview - July, 1998
August 10, 1998
Attached is the monthly statistical overview of police activity for the month of July, 1998 and
comparative statistics for the same month last year. Also included is a brief summary of various
interesting incidents requiring police action.
PETER G. HERLEY,
CHIEF OF POLICE
\LAA~~
by: Lieutenant Aiello
Tiburon Police Department
Comparative Statistics
July 1998 - July 1997
7/98 7/97 7/98 7/97
Part I Crimes 12 II ARRESTS
Part II Crimes ~ .li
TOTAL 28 36 Adult - Felony I I
Adult - Misdemeanor 3 7
Part I - Cleared 5 2 Juvenile - Felony 0 0
Part II - Cleared Jl .li Juvenile - Misdemeanor -L ..9-
TOTAL 16 27 TOTAL 6 8
Drunk Driving Arrests 0
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
TRAFFIC COLLISIONS
Assault 2 2
Robbery 0 0 Injury 2 0
Rape I 0 Non-Injury J.. 1-
Homicide ..9- ..9- TOTAL 6 3
TOTAL 3 2
CITATIONS ISSUED
Moving 94 79
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Parking 228 Ml
TOTAL m 540
8urglary - Residential 2 0
8urglary - Commercial 0 3 ACTIVITY
Burglary - All Other .1 ..9-
TOTAL 3 3 Calls for Service 480 463
Theft - From Auto I 0 PROPERTY
Theft - Grand 3 4
Theft - Petty I 2 Property Stolen 66,843 10,062
Theft - GT A ...L ..9- Property Recovered 44,001 0
TOTAL 6 6
TIBURON POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY RECAP
July 1998
Officers were called to a vacant residence at 145 Avenida Miraflores after someone spray
painted Mexican political slogans on the walls. Extra patrol was requested.
A Neds Way resident requested a Battery report after reporting that a neighbor had pushed
her two days earlier. An investigation was unable to substantiate the allegation and the
victim declined to make a citizens arrest so the case was closed.
A runaway juvenile report was taken after the parents of a 17 year old female reported her
missing. She was located the next day at her job in Sausalito and the family was referred
to counseling.
Fourth of July went smoothly for the Police Department this year. There were some minor
fireworks violations and the normal traffic problems, but it was orderly and no arrests were
made.
A housekeeper on Turtle Rock reported that her 3 nieces, who had been invited over to
visit while the residents were out of town, stole the residents car and were missing. The
next day the girls and the car were located in Union City. The resident declined to press
charges at the time. About two weeks later the girls stole the car again when the aunt was
visiting them in Union City. The girls were arrested in the car in Union City and now face
charges in both counties.
A purse was stolen from the trunk of a vehicle parked at Blackies pasture. Credit cards
and cash were taken.
Five reports of mail theft were taken during the month from various locations in Town. A
joint investigation by Tiburon P.O. and the U.S. Postal Inspectors will be conducted.
Three 14 and 15 year old juveniles entered a residence on Claire Way and stole blank
checks. One of the juveniles forged a check and cashed it at a local bank. He then
became scared and threw the money away. A father of one of the boys learned what
happened and reported it to the police. The boys confessed and were cited to Marin
Juvenile Probation.
A Tiburon man was arrested at the Cove Shopping Center for domestic violence (a felony)
and for violating a restraining order after an altercation with his ex-wife at that location. He
was booked into county jail.
A report was taken after a cell phone was stolen from an unlocked vehicle on Hacienda Dr.
A speeder who tried to evade the officer was arrested after it was determined that he was
driving on a suspended license and that he had an outstanding warrant from the Marin
County Sheriff's Office. His car was impounded.
A major investigation was initiated after a Janet Way resident reported being raped by a
career criminal who's crime spree brought him to Tiburon. With assistance from the F.B.I.,
and other law enforcement agencies, the suspect was tracked to Southern California where
he was arrested. Sgt. Laura Judd brought the suspect back to Marin where he was
booked into Marin County Jail. The suspect faces life in prison if convicted on the Tiburon
charges plus he also faces charges for alleged crimes in other jurisdictions.
A report and investigation were initiated after a residential burglary occurred on Redhill
Circle in which jewelry was taken.
Extra patrol was requested after a vacant residence on Leland Way was broken into and
vandalized.
A stalking report was taken after lit candles and other items were left on a Gilmartin
residents front porch and at his business office. The victim is in the entertainment industry
and the suspect apparently wanted to get his attention to have him listen to a demo tape
of his music. The suspect was contacted and it appears that the activity has stopped.
A vehicle stolen in San Rafael was located on Harriet Way and was returned to its owner.
The vehicle was unoccupied and no suspect was located.
Tiburon officers assisted the F.B.I. in the arrest of a Tiburon man on federal charges
stemming from an interstate stalking case. The man was booked in San Francisco and
posted bail.
Fireworks were confiscated from 2 juveniles and they were released to their parents after
the were contacted at Bel Aire School on July 25'h.
A residential burglary occurred on the 4000 Block of Paradise Dr. The front door was
forced open and approximately $2,000 worth of jewelry was taken. An investigation is
under way.
A citizen turned in a marijuana plant that was found in his neighbors garden amongst his
tomato plants. The citizen was taking care of the garden while the residents were out of
town and someone appears to have slipped the plant in while the residents were away.
Officers were unable to determine who placed the plant there. It was confiscated and
destroyed.
An officer received a minor injury during a traffic stop when the driver of the stopped
vehicle failed to set his parking brake and his car rolled backwards into the officer's car.
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
Police Department
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Lieutenant Tom Aiello
Sergeant David M. Hutton
July Assist Outside Agency Statistics
August 20, 1998
The following is an account of the Assist Outside Agency Statistics for our Department for the
month of July 1998, as requested by the Town Council. The report is divided by watch.
WATCH 1
Assist to Belvedere PD 4
Assist by Belvedere PD 4
Assist Marin County SO 0
Assist All Others 0
WATCH 2
Assist to Belvedere PD 4
Assist by Belvedere PD 2
Assist Marin County SO 1
Assist All Others 5
WATCH 3
Assist to Belvedere PD 6
Assist by Belvedere PD 7
Assist Marin County SO 0
Assist All Others 3
cc: Chief Her1ey
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
Meeting:
To:
From:
Subject:
September 2, 1998
Item:
CONSENT # tf
TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY REPORT -
AS OF THE MONTH ENDED JULY 31, 1998
TOWN OF TIBURON
Institution! Agency
Investment
Amount
Interest Rate
Maturity
State of California Local Agency $6,002,421 5.652% Liquid
Investment Fund
(LAlF)
I T otaI Invested:
$6,002,421 I
TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Institution! Agency Investment
Amount
Interest Rate
Maturity
State of California Local Agency $99,265 5.652% Liquid
Investment Fund
(LAlF)
Bank of America Other $0
I T otaI Invested:
$99,265 I
Notes to table information:
State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): The interest rate represents the effective yield for the
month referenced above. The State of California generally distributes investment data reports in the third week
following the month ended. (As received August 24, 1998.)
Acknowledgment: This summary report accurately reflects all pooled investments of the Town of Tiburon and
the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency, and is in conformity with State laws and the Investment Policy adopted by
the Town Council. The investment program herein summarized provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet
~-
Ric ard Stranz1, Finance Director
August 26, 1998
cc: Town Treasurer
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 2, 1998 ITEM:
TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
REVISED MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM
s
BACKGROUND,
This item is for approval of proposed revisions to the Town's Management Recognition and Incentive
Compensation Program, which was last revised in September 1981. The following Table sununarizes the
proposed revisions to the program resolution.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REVISIONS:
RESOLUTION SECTION
DESCRIPTION
4th Whereas
Delete Town Manager position.
Revise accrual schedule.
Revise conversion schedule.
Increase meal allowance.
Increase involuntary termination allowance.
Revised allowance structure.
Includes schedule for employee retirement medical
insurance allowance.
Section 1 a. Vacation Leave
Section lb. Vacation Leave Conversion
Section 4. Dinner Allowance
Section 5. Termination Allowance
Section 9. Medical/Hea1th Insurance
New
Section 10. Retirement Medical Allowance
New
Section 12. Salary Adjustments
Old
Section 10. Sick Leave
Includes procedure and timing for annual salary and
benefit review.
Renwnbered Section 11.
RECOMMENDATION:
Town Council adopt the attached resolution which incorporates revisions referenced above. (The lined-out
portions of the resolution reflect old language to be deleted.)
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Revised Resolution (August 26, 1998)
~<
R. Stranzl, Finance Director
1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNOL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.ll70
WHICH ESTABLISHED A MANAGEMENT RECOGNITION AND
INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, in January 1979, the Town Council established and adopted (Resolution No. 1032) a
Management Recognition and Incentive Compensation Program, in order to promote the development of a
stronger, more effective management team and a means of recognizing outstanding management performance
in all public service areas; and
WHEREAS, in September 1981, the Town Cotmcil amended the Management Recognition and Incentive
Compensation Program by adoption of Resolution No. 1170, and
WHEREAS, such a program enhances the professional growth of management personnel and promotes
a consistently higher level of service to the public; and
WHEREAS, such perfonnance encourages the retention of qualified department heads and supervisory
personnel, and strengthens their respective performance; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon management employees are defmed to mean the following positions:
Town Attorney
Finance Director
Planning Director
Chief of Police
Public Works Superintendent
T OnU ~1&~"5'-'1.
D""YII,.LI) TVVUl TI.""'~u1CJ.
P&k It R_H"ul~Vll Su:pci ,,1.\0J.
NOW, TIIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby
amend Resolution No. 1170 to read as follows,
lA. VACATION LEAVE.
In recognition of the fact that many top management personnel are recruited from outside the Town, that
the average tenure for those management personnel is substantially more than of non-management personnel, and
that at least three (3) years prior experience is required, the following vacation leave policy for management
personnel shall be implemented:
Management employees shall accwnulate vacation leave in accordance with the following vacation time
entitlement:
Set. y~.........
\TA111.. D.n.~
H'em-
10 \':\,;LU.;I
15 Duy.!l
18 D")'~
20 DaJ~
25 DUJ.;I (pIL&.;) LLI..L u.ddit~vllm day h..,J. ""u.""t )'-'UI. vf
.\C... v~" "vel 18 J\..&")
J '[\"QI,;)
5 '[ ('4B
Service
0-5 Years
6-15 Years
16+ Years
Work Dll)'s
15 Days
20 Days
25 Days
Upon termination of a management employee's service with the Town, such employee shall be paid a
Tiburon Resolution No.
. August 26, 1998
DRAFT-Pagel
Iwnp swn equivalent to hislher accrued vacation leave providing the employee has at least twelve (12) months
continuous service with the Town. Maximwn accwnulation of vacation leave is 40 work days, which is audited
annually on January 1st of each year.
lB. VACATION LEAVE CONVERSION.
Management employees, after one (I) year's service with the Town, may request a portion of their
accrued vacation leave be converted to cash payment in any calendar year. Such request may be granted at the
discretion of the Town Manager, ouly during the month of December each calendar year, and based upon the
following schedule:
Ailci 1 1'-W. .,c. .~c"
I to 5 years service
6 + years service
=
7 dAy"
5 days maximum conversion
7 days maximwn conversion
2. HOLIDAYS.
The Town agrees to provide management personnel those holidays specified in the Governm~t Code,
and those proclaimed by the Governor of the State, the President of the United States, or the Mayor. When a
holiday falls on a Saturday, management employees shall receive an additional day of vacation; when a holiday
fall on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be observed. rlo~ bolida) 5 .t1.ulJ bG ~u ut""] ~.u" dU-ltili; tl.l"
t.,,,,,dl JGlt1, n~th the, 4ppL6.al oft:hc. T6nl1 ~hm46C.l. flodb.......6 b.v~dd]., ll~] not he 4CG~..d4U "",.Ld. '-'Ul.L:",d
fv.lnw.d to tll(,d(..Al"~ )C41.
3. EXECUTIVE LEAVE.
In recognition of the long hours required of personnel at the level of top management, including
attendance at numerous meetings outside regular working hours, the following executive leave shall be
implemented: .
Management employees may receive up to ten (10) days Administrative Leave annually, to be
awarded at the discretion of the Town Manager prior to being utilized. Administrative Leave
should be taken in increments of one-half (Yz) day or more, and shall be granted in proportion
to employee's annual utilization of accrued vacation. (When an employee attends a night
meeting or is required to work a late evening, helshe may arrive up to one (1) hour later than the
normal beginning working hours the following day.)
4. DINNER ALLOWANCE
All management employees ~ho 11." beyond tIl\. l:..u";'l., vi th" rlbUl-vu P""u.~.l.;)ulu u.ud w..... reQ,JJired to
attend night meetings or work after office hours beyond 7:00 P.M., may be reimbursed in an amount not to exceed
SW:OO lU.QQ for the purchase of dinner for that night This allowance applies to those management employees
who reside outside a ten-mile radius of the Town. Employee reimbursement is subject to the approval of the
Town Manager and must be accompanied by a restaurant receipt which shall include amount, date, meeting or
purpose, and employee's name.
5. TERMINATION ALLOWANCE.
In order to foster job security within a professional climate, management employees will be entitled to
severance pay when they are terminated from Town service; provided, however, that such employee has been in
the employ of the Town for at least three (3) years, and such termination is not for cause or for reasons listed in
Government Code Section 19572, the Town's Personnel Rules & Regulations, Section 6, or any employee who
voluntarily resigns from Town service for personal reasons.
Tiburon Resolution No.
. August 26, 1998
DRAFT-Page2
Management employees shall be covered by the following tennination allowance schedule:
Service
After:
3 Years
7 Years
10 Years
Work Weeks
I month
2 months
3 months
2"ccl..s
4n~L:,
6n~
This severance pay is in addition to any accrued vacation leave, unused at the time of tennination.
6. VEIDCLE USAGE/ALLOWANCE.
Management employees, to a far greater extent than other Town employees, are required to travel
throughout the Town, County, and Bay Area to fulfill their job requirements. This travel is frequently required
outside of nonna1 worlcing hours. In recognition of this employment requirement, the Town shall provide either
the use ofa Town vehicle or an automobile allowance, as provided in the Town budget. Implementation of Town
vehicle usage by Town employees shall be in accordance with the Town's Administrative Policies and Procedures
and is not intended for private use.
7. EDUCATION LEAVE.
In order to promote continued development of skills, knowledge, and abilities among the management
team of the Town, the Town Manager may grant time off to any management employee for education leave. Such
leave may be received in order to attend professional, technical, or managerial workshops, courses, conferences,
conventions, seminars, or related activities; including travel, expenses, registration, tuition, materials, or other
related costs or expenditures shall be provided for in the annual Town Budget and procedurally addressed in the
Town's Administrative Policies.
8. PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSIDP FEES.
Most management personnel are expected to maintain membership in appropriate professional
organizations. These memberships serve to acquaint the Town with current programs and procedures in these
professional areas by means publications and specific activities. The Town will include the costs of these
membership fees in the respective departmental budgets.
9. MEDICAL/HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM.
As &1 ~d bCH"fit A max:hlhA:U ll:1HOulll 43 sp"iE.cd':'u the. m.mual5Al~J p10514:Ul nill he co...lt1IDu.tcd
to the co~l of G...K.h "J':'5lLk mlt..h'1A'~lK..ll"".Ln}Jlo]c<" b Clonp Ikalth, Dis:.b':'l:lJ, L:f", g.J..Ld D"ulJ.1.L~uu"",_u,.." Pl"-l.L
CO~~.Lug"".
Management employees shall receive:
I) Monthly Allowance as Specified on Town Employee Benefit Schedule (Exhibit A.)
Adopted Annually by Town Council.
2) Additional Group Term Life Insurance Coverage, in addition to the mandatory
$25,000. Total coverage not-to-exceed one-times (Ix) employees' annual salary.
10. RETIRED MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE'S MEDICAL ALLOWANCE
Thee Town of Tiburon will make contributions toward a retired Management employee's medical
insurance plan based upon the following conditions:
1) Applies to Employee only (not spouse or family) and the Employee must retire directly
from employment with the Town of Tiburon and apply to PERS for retirement benefits.
Tiburon Resolution No.
,August 26. 1998
DRAFT-Page3
2) The retiree's medical insurance allowance is fixed and capped at the Kaiser employee
rate that is in effect at the time of the employee's retirement.
3) The Town's contribution rate is based on the following fonnula:
Percent of
Kaiser Rate
Years of
Consecutive
Service to Town
50%
75%
100%
10 Years
15 Years
25 Years
11. SICK LEAVE.
Management employees accumulate sick leave as specified by the Town's Personnel Rules and
Regulations. Such sick leave can be accrued by management employees without a maximum limitation, however,
the fifty percent (50%) payment upon termination for any unused sick leave is limited to an unused sick leave
accumulation of not more than one hundred twenty (120) working days.
12. SALARY ADJUSTMENTS.
The Town Manager will submit annually to the Town Council reconnnended salarylbenefit adjustments
for management personnel to become effective for the subsequent fiscal year. These salary adjustments will be
based upon annual fluctuations in the Bay Area cost of living (April through March) and upon the prevailing rates
of equivalent positions in the County of Mario and San Francisco Bay Area.
Salary review and performance evaluation of Management employees will occur on an annual basis, and
adjustments made by the Town Manager according to prescribed Town Council authorization and policy.
13. The provisions of this resolution shall supersede any other previous rules and resolutions of the
Town of Tiburon which may be in conflict herewith.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
BY:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
Tiburon Resolution No.
. August 26, 1998
DRAFT-Page4
Fox 8 SOHACI, LLP
City Attorney
July 22, 1998
Page 2
This appeal may have a direct impact on your city's efforts to regulate
adult uses within your community and to amortize out any non-conforming adult
uses. The issues include:
1. What is constitutionally required in order for a community to
provide a reasonable range of alternative sites for adult facilities?
2. What is the standard for defIning the potential "availability" of
sites within the relevant market under Topanga Press and City of Renton?
3. Who has the burden of proof on the sites issues?
4. Is an eighteen (18) month amortization period permissible?
5. Does a city violate equal protection if it applies amortization to
existing adult uses but not to non-adult uses within the community?
As amicus, we will argue that the adult use operator has the burden of
proving the reasonableness of the number of offered sites and that the relevant
market does not require that sites be unoccupied. One of the troubling aspects of
the trial court proceeding was that initially, Judge Paez was of the mind that to be
"available," a site must be unoccupied. While Long Beach was able to carry the
day in educating the court on the applicable standard of "availability" in a more
generic sense within the commercial real estate market, this issue continues to
plague municipalities at the trial court leveL
An amicus brief from California cities will substantially bolster the
chance for a favorable ruling from the Ninth Circuit which will have far-reaching
signifIcance for all California cities. We think this is a matter of widespread
interest to all cities, and that amicus assistance from cities will be of great help in
obtaining a clear recitation from the Ninth Circuit.
LAW OFFICES
IleMJ/o. 6 V
Fox Ii SOHAGl, LLP
DEBORAH J. FOX
MARGARET 1l400RE SOHAGI
RICHARD P. LOPEZ
LIORA FORIl4AN
... "'corSTC"'CC 1.IMrTCC 1.1".'1.'TY "'..."'TNC"'."''''
TERRY P. KAUFIl4ANN Il4AelAS
PHILIP A. SEYIl40UR
OF COUNSEL
10960 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD. SUITE 1270
Los ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90024-3702
FACSIMILE
(310) 444-7813
rtb
lIlECTCL.ED II'jIt,II'EIIt
TELEPHONE
(310) 444-7805
July 22, 1998
City Attorney
Re: Request for Amicus Support - Lim v. City of Long Beach,
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 98-55915
Dear Colleague:
On behalf of the City of Long Beach, our office joins with the Legal
Advocacy Committee of the League of California Cities in urging you to add your
city as amicus in this important case titled Lim v. Long Beach involving the
regulation of adult businesses. By action on June 19, 1998, the Advocacy
Committee recommended that cities join the amicus brief that is being prepared by
Deborah J. Fox of Fox & Sohagi under the review of Marsha Moutrie, City
Attorney for Santa Monica. Several cities and the County Counsels' Association
of California have already indicated their support for Long Beach's position.
Long Beach's adult business ordinance was challenged by four adult
bookstores who claimed that the Long Beach ordinance was unconstitutional
because it failed to provide adequate relocation sites and required amortization of
non-conforming adult facilities. Roger Diamond represented the adult use
operators and this matter was heard in federal court before the Honorable Judge
Paez, Presiding. On May 15, 1998, Judge Paez issued his ruling declaring Long
Beach's ordinance to be constitutionally sound. Long Beach has requested
publication of the decision but to date, this request has not been granted. I
Plaintiffs have appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
I If you would like to review the unpublished opinion in full, please contact
our office and we can see that a copy is timely provided.
Fox II SOHAGI, LLP
City Attorney
July 22, 1998
Page 3
Currently, appellant's opening brief is due on September 8, 1998 and
we request that you obtain any necessary authority and notify Anne Munsell (legal
assistant) of my office on or before September 1, 1998. A consent form to
confIrm your authorization is enclosed for your use. Your city will not be charged
in any way should it choose to support this effort.
Many thanks for your support and please feel free to telephone me
directly at (310) 444-7805 should you have any questions on this case or Deputy
City Attorney Dan Murphy who handled the trial court proceeding.
Sincerely,
~Cl)fcV"L
DEBORAH J. FOX
of FOX & SOHAGI, LLP
Enclosure
cc: JoAnne Speers, General Counsel,
League of California Cities
Daniel S. Murphy, Deputy City Attorney,
City of Long Beach
Marsha Moutrie, City Attorney,
City of Santa Monica
djf\lb.anucus.llT\70501.025
California City Attorneys
July 30, 1998
Page 2
The ordinance was challenged by a local retailer and the case was dismissed after two rulings in
favor of the Health Department on cross-motions for summary judgment Plaintiff Lindsey has
appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit
Amicus Brief Issues
The amicus brief will be divided into three main sections to argue the following federal preemption
and First Amendment issues:
(1) Tacoma's ordinance is not preempted by federal law because it regulates only the location of
tobacco advertising not the content of the advertising message.
(2) Tacoma's ordinance is a permissible regulation of commercial speech under the Supreme
Court test established in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Servo Comm'n3 since it
directly and materially advances a substantial government interest and is narrowly tailored to
achieve its purpose.
(3) The First Amendment does not prevent governments from taking reasonable steps to protect
children from patently hannful speech that is imposed on them by an inherently intrusive
media: (with four subparts)
(A) children are entitled to "special solicitude in the First Amendment balance";
(B) tobacco advertising plays a significant role in inducing children to use tobacco;
(C) tobacco is a uniquely dangerous product that is rapidly addicting and often lethal
when used as intended; and
(D) the governmental authority to protect children from patently harmful speech is
enhanced when the speech is directed at a captive audience or propagated by
inherently intrusive means.
The amicus brief will reference the local ordinances regulating tobacco advertising that have been
enacted by California municipalities.
Why These Issues are of Major Significance to Cities
Numerous California cities and counties have passed or are currently considering restrictions on
tobacco advertising. Specifically, as of July 20, 1998, the cities of Berkeley, Carson, Compton,
Covina, Long Beach, and Oakland, as well as Los Angeles County and the City and County of San
Francisco, had adopted ordinances regulating tobacco advertising. As of July 20, 1998, California
communities that were considering ordinances to regulate tobacco advertising included Contra Costa
County and the cities of Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Jose. A decision against Tacoma-Pierce
County could significantly limit the authority of cities to locally regulate tobacco advertising in
places where children live and play.
What Amicus Support Can Add
An amicus brief from California cities will make the court aware of the widespread effect of its
l 447 U.S. 557, 561 (1980).
Le2al Team
Stephen R. Barnett
Boalt Hall School of Law
UC Berlceley
Stephen McG. Bundy
Boalt Hall School of Law
UC Berkeley
Michael G. Colantuono
Richards. Watson &: Gershon.
P.c.
Marc B. Mibaly/
Ellen J. Garber
Shute. Mihaly &: Weinberger
Andrea J. Saltzman
Meyers. Nave. Riback. Silver
&: Wilson
Stephen D. Sugannan
Boalt Hall School of Law
UC Berkeley
Advisory Board
Serena Chen
Amuican Lung Association
of Alameda County
Marqueece Dawsoo
Convnu.nity Coalition/or
Substanct Abuse Prevention
Leslie Fiedler
Kern County Dept. of
Public Health
Malcolm Hunter
Richnwnd City Attorney
Nora Manzanilla
LA. LINK
Carol McGruder
San Francisco African
American Tobacco-Free
Project
James F. Mosher
The Marin Institute for lhe
Prevention of Alcohol and
Orher Drug Problems
Gwenn Norton-Perry
BeMvioral Health Institute
Cal Slate University .
San Bernardino
Doug Robins
Tobacco Control Section
CA Dept. of Health Services
Ann Miller Ravel
County Counsel
Santa Clara County
Stephen D. Sugannan
Boalt Hall School of Law
UC Berkeley
Elva Yanez/Cynthia Hallett
Americans for Nonsmnkerr'
Riglll5
~PUBUC
'HEALTH
INSTITUTE
r~Jh. hb)'
~
Technical Assistance Legal Center
July 30,1998
TO, California City Attorneys
RE: Request to Cities to Join as Amicus in Lindsey v. Tacoma-Pierce County, No.
c97-5076RJB (W.O. Wash 1997) (appeal pending, Ninth Circuit)
I am writing to request your city's participation as amicus curiae in a brief being prepared
in the above-referenced matter under the supervision of two members the League of
California Cities' Legal Advocacy Committee. The brief will be written by Donald W.
Garner, a Southern lllinois University Law School professor, and will be filed in support
of Tacoma-Pierce County, Washington. The Legal Advocacy Committee of the League
has recommended that California cities sign the amicus brief.
The Technical Assistance Legal Center (TALC) is funded by the California Department
of Health Services to provide technical assistance to cities and counties with legal
questions relating to tobacco advertising and promotions regulations. TALC is
coordinating California cities' response to this request in conjunction with the supervising
attorneys from League of Cities' Legal Advocacy Committee.
Issues
The two key issues in the appeal are whether (I) a local ordinance regulating tobacco
advertising is preempted by federal law and (2) the ordinance is a permissible regulation
of commercial speech under the First Amendment A Ninth Circuit decision will, of
course, be binding in California; the issues to be considered by the court are virtually
identical to the issues which would be raised in a challenge to a California ordinance
regulating tobacco or alcohol advertising.
Facts
The ?oard of Health for Tacoma-Pierce County, Washington, passed an ordinance,
effective March I, 1997, that prohibits outdoor tobacco advertising that can be seen from
the street I The ordinance's definition of outdoor advertising extends to ads that "can be
seen from outside the building or enclosure through windows, doors, or other apertures or
if it can be seen on television". The ordinance permits tombstone advertising (truthful,
factual information in black type on a white field without color, opinion, artwork, or
logos) that is 1,000 feet away from a school, playground, or public park, but not if visible
from a school, bus stop or sidewalk regularly used by minors to get to school. 2
I "Truth in Outdoor Tobacco Advertising" Regulation, Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health
Resolution No. 96-1997. adopted December 4. 1996.
2 ld. 993.1.3. 3.2.1-3.2.3.
2001 Addiscn SI.. 2nd Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704.1103. Phone: (510) 540.8585. Fax: (510) 649.7894. E.mail: talc@publicheallh.org
California City Attorneys
July 30, 1998
Page 3
decision on ordinances outside of Washington state. The brief also will make the court aware of the
range of rationales for adopting an ordinance regulating tobacco advertising. This distinction will be
crucial in ensuring that California municipalities retain the authority to enact ordinances regulating
tobacco advertising in order to reduce youth tobacco use.
Amicus Brief Author
The amicus brief will be written by Donald W. Garner, a Professor of Law at Southern illinois
University, who is currently the Straus Distinguished Visitor at Pepperdine University School of
Law. Professor Garner has written extensively on the legal issues in tobacco advertising regulation,
including an amicus brief in the case upholding Baltimore's ordinance regulating tobacco
advertising;' an amicus brief in support of New York City's ordinance regulating tobacco
advertising;' and a law review article.6 This brief is being written with funding from the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation.
In addition to the California cities signing on to the brief, the amicus will be submitted by the
California State Association of Counties; the American Medical Association; and the Tacoma
chapters of the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the National
Education Association.
Anticipated Filing Schedule
Appellants brief is due on August 3, 1998. The appellees brief is due September I, 1998. The
amicus in support of Tacoma is also due on September 1, 1998. Accordingly, we ask that cities
wishing to join in the amicus return the attached authorization by August 20, 1998. If you are
unable to respond by August 20 because you must get council approval, you may still join in the
brief by returning the form to us after August 20. It may be necessary to notify the court of your
joinder by letter after the brief is filed.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 510-540-8585.
Sinyerely, 7
"'- 'tfU 1...0.. {J.LlL.//(.'
Leslie Zellers, J.D..
Legal Director, TALe
Enclosures
cc: JoAnne Speers, League of California Cities
Donald W. Garner, Pepperdine University School of Law
, Penn Advertising, Inc. v. Mayor of Ba1timore 63 F.3d 1318 (4th Cir. 1995), vacated and remanded on
other grounds. Penn Advertising, Inc. v. Schmoke (Mayor of Baltimore) 518 U.S. 1030 (1996), modified and
adhered to, 101 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 1996).
, Greater N.Y. Metro. Food Council, Inc. v. Giuliani, No. 98 Civ. 0251 (S.D. N.Y. Jan. 14, 1998)
6 Donald W. Garner & Richard J. Whitney. Protecting Children from Joe Camel and His Friends: A New
First Amendment and Federal Preemption Analysis o/Tobacco Billboard Regulation, 46 EMORY L.J. 479, 562-77
(Spring 1997).
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
)'
ITEM NO.
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN MANAGER
TIBURON BOULEVARD MEDIAN LANDSCAPING PROJECT
AUGUST 5,1998
BACKGROUND
In January 1998 a committee of Belvedere, Tiburon and CalITrans representatives met to discuss
landscaping improvements for the median located along Tiburon Boulevard Route 131 from the
vicinity of Reed Ranch Road to the Freeway (Route 101). This committee was chaired by Jean
Banning of Belvedere.
The proposed improvement program would include cleaning, grubbing, top soil and mulch,
fertilization, pruning existing planting and installing new plant materia1s_
Responsibilitv
Activity Completion Date
CaVTrans
Clean and Improve existing May 15, 1998
median strip drainage ditch
Cal/T rans
Prepare landscape plans and June 1, 1998
select plant materials
CallTrans & California
Conservation Corps
Clean up and preparation including September 1, 1998
removal of existing plants, and
trimming and pruning of plants
To be retained
Cal/T rans
lnstall drip irrigation system September 1, 1998
CallTrans
Bid, purchase, deliver and install October 1, 1998
New plan materials
CallTrans & CCC
Prepare ground, plan, fertilize and mulch October 15,1998
The Citizens Committee's responsibility is to provide all of the new plant and soil materials_ The
overall cost is anticipated to cost approximately $30,000 - 35,000. The Committee is currently
....:.~"....G.:- ~~....,,~.:-~~=="'~~~~_ _ _~. ~ ~- ~-
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
September 2, 1998 ITEM:
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN MANAGER
TffiURON BOULEVARD MEDIAN LANDSCAPING PROJECT -
Authorize Town Participation in Project Funding
f
MEETING:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND:
This item is for approval of Town participation in funding a portion of the proposed landscape
improvements for the Tiburon Boulevard (Route 131) medians - from Reed Ranch Road to
Highway 101. The entire project will be implemented and primarily funded by Caltrans. The
County of Marin, City of Belvedere, and Town of Tiburon will share part of the costs associated
with purchase of plant and landscape materials ("$32,000). The balance oflocal funding
assistance will be generated by citizen and community fund raising efforts.
RECOMMENDATION,
Stalfrecommends that Council approve Town participation in this project, and authorize the
appropriation of $5,000 from the Tiburon Boulevard Improvement Reserve Fund for this purpose. .
ATTACHMENTS,
1. Staff Report, dated 8/5/98
1
out to bid for the proposed materials. CalJTrans in conjunction with the California Conservation
Corps will provide the labor to install the new plants.
The Town of Tiburon will serve as the lead agency in providing water to establish the plants
through a drip irrigation system. The City of Belvedere and County of Marin will be asked to
assist in this effort which should be of minimal cost.
EXHIBITS
1. Tiburon Medial Committee noted dated January 1998
2. Letter from calJTrans landscape architect to Jean Banning, dated 5/28/98
3. Bid proposal for plants and mulch, dated 7/7/98
. .
_'. _a<. _'v,..' i__.. ',_." '.'
lJI"
,<, ,
C\}" '
. <:.
.c:/f
...,<r:i""
<r:i
--..:::
f'oI'A 8USINESS, TRANSPCRT A nON AND HOUSING AGENCY
MENT OF TRANSPORT A TION
PETE WILSON, Go\llttnor
JUN .. 1 1998
May 28, 1998 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TlEURON
File: !vIm-1 3 I RO,9
No. Knoll Rd. to Reed Ranch Rd.
Mrs. Jean Banning
7 Tamalpais Avenue
Belvedere, CA 94920
Re, Landscaping Along Tiburon Boulevard
Dear Mrs. Banning:
Enclosed, per your request is the list of plant and soil materials required for our
beautification efforts.
As stated in my previous lener dated January 21,1998, Caltrans Area Manager, Mr. Don
Kiser has agreed to provide the necessary labor to install plants, provided that plant and
soil materials are available. Caltrans will furnish and install an irrigation system (from
Reed Ranch Road to Cecelia Way) and a cobble lined "V" ditch where appropriate.
A breakdown of funds necessary to purchase the plant and soil materials is as follows:
Reed Ranch Rd to Cecelia Wav (Total 519.083)
1,531 shrubs & groundcovers, 200 bulbs, & 3 Ibs wildflower seeds = $ 6,861
415 cubic yards top soil for above plants (6" deep) = $ 6,222
26,000 square feet mulch for planted 3Iea (2"-3 "deep) = $ 4,000
125 pounds granular fertilizer = $ 1,500
Bav Vista Drive to Norrh Knoll Road (total 514.264)
1,123 shrubs & groundcovers, 200 bulbs
315 cubic yards top soil for above plants (6" deep)
25,000 square feet mulch for planted area (2"-3" deep)
85 pounds granular fertilizer
= $ 5,539
= $ 4,725
= $ 3,000
= $ 1,000
The above figures, especially for soil materials, are still preliminary. While the total sum
of $33,350 seem~ high, it is relatively small compared to the figure that it could cost
approximately $250,000 installed by a contract.
If you have any questions. please call me at (510) 286-61-'16.
Cc: Don Kiser. Bob Kleinert
Sincere:uao ~ ~
~ H. Roberts
Landscape Architect # 1695
':'<L<l. ')H...0 f!!-12, <;,:"'-.../ I !)trr-- tZr.v'(......-Q
@.
." -;- ':.
..: -:
...'
~
~10
V.t
([:
. Concerns about parking, traffic, and circulation.
Commissioner Stein has been appointed to be in attendance at the Town Council meeting to
respolld to any questions from the Town Council.
STAFF COMMENTS
1. For the sake of accuracy, Staff would like to correct a mis-statement made at the hearing
by Mr. Marans, which may have misled the Planning Commission concerning prior second
story approvals for the building at 1701-1751 Tiburon Boulevard. Mr. Marans stated (pC
minutes, p. 9) that the original fitness center in the building had tried to expand to the
second floor, but was refused and had to move out. Contrary to Mr. Marans' recollection,
Town records from 1988 indicate that second floor improvements were approved for the
fitness center use. These improvements would have occupied nearly half of the length of
the usable second floor area of the building. The approved second floor uses were offices,
a conference room, a lounge, locker rooms, and showers associated with the Tiburon
Fitness Club (see Exhibit D). However, the Tiburon Fitness Club suffered the same fate
as nearly all other early uses in the Plaza, and the business folded before the second floor
improvements could be installed.
2. At the Planning Commission hearing, suggestions were made that this application and
other foreseeable significant Downtown applications should be reviewed in the context of
"revisiting the Downtown Plan". Staff notes that Tiburon General Plan revisions of such
magnitude usually require between one and two years to complete.
3. At the Planning Commission meeting, suggestions were made that this application could
be reviewed again following release of the long-awaited Downtown Revitalization Task
Force report. Preliminary indications are that the report will recommend that the Town
endorse commercial uses which lend year-round support to existing businesses, as
opposed to providing only seasonal (largely tourist-oriented) support to existing
businesses. Office uses fit well into the first category.
4. At the Planning Commission hearing, concerns about increased traffic and parking demand
were raised, primarily in the context of a possible future change from the proposed 10w-
intensity office use to a more intensive office use involving more employees and client
visits. In C?rder to address these concerns, the applicant has suggested, and Staff endorses,
a condition that all future use of the second floor area of the building be limited to low-
intensity office use.
5. Traditionally, Tiburon's elected officials utilize a broader range off actors than Planning
Commissions when analyzing significant land use applications. The community's vitality
and economic health, fiscal and budgetary considerations, and constituent preferences are
among those additional factors which come into play at the Town Counci11evel.
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
9/2/98
2
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE: 9/2/98
9
To: TOWN COUNCIL
From: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTO~
Subject: 1701-1751 TffiURONBOULEVARD, APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE POINT TffiURON
(NORTHWESTERN PACIFIC) PRECISE PLAN TO ALLOW THE ADDITION
OF APPROXIMATELY 4,852 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITmN
THE WALLS OF AN EXISTING BUILDING; AND ADOPTION OF A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SAID PROJECT
Date: AUGUST 26, 1998
BACKGROUND
This application for Precise Plan Amendment was filed in May, 1998. The Planning Commission
held a public hearing on August 12, 1998. Following closure of the public hearing, the Planning
Commission voted 4-0 (Berger absent) to deny the application. On August 20, 1998, the
applicant filed an appeal (Exhibit A) of the Planning Commission's decision.
Please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 6, 1998 (Exhibit B) for
detailed information and analysis regarding the application.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND DECISION
Detailed draft minutes of the Planning Commission's public hearing and decision are attached as
Exhibit C. At the hearing, the Planning Commission heard testimony from only two persons: the
applicant and Mr. Nat Marans. The primary reasons for the Planning Commission's denial appear
to have been as follows,
. Prior Town approvals of square footage maximums for the Point Tiburon project should
not be changed without exceptional justification. The applicant was unable to provide
such justification to the satisfaction of the Commission.
. Concerns that this project should be reviewed in the more general context of revisiting the
Downtown Plan component of the Tiburon General Plan, and/or awaiting the release of
the Downtown Revitalization Task Force report.
Tihuron Town Council
StajJReport
9/2/98
1
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
An initial study and draft negative declaration were prepared for this project. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the matter, including on the draft negative declaration. No
substantial evidence was submitted in support of a fair argument that an adverse environmental
impact would occur as a result of the project. As is standard practice when denying an
application, the Planning Commission did not take final action on the negative declaration.
In order to approve the project, the Town Council would need to adopt the Negative Declaration.
If the Town Council denies the appeal, no action on the Negative Declaration is required.
OPTIONS
1. Uphold the appeal. If this option is chosen, the Town Council should indicate its intent to
adopt the negative declaration and approve the project, and direct staff to return with a
resolution formalizing the approval.
2. Deny the appeal. If this option is chosen, the Town Council should indicate its intent to
deny the appeal, and direct staff to return with a resolution formalizing the denial.
3. Uphold the appeal, but modifY the project on approval. This is normally achieved through
added conditions of approval.
4. Remand the matter to the Planning Commission for further review. Upon further review,
the Planning Commission could either deny the application once again, or forward it to the
Town Council with a recommendation for approval. By Town ordinance, the Planning
Commission cannot give final approval for the project under any circumstances.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Town Council select Option #3 and uphold the appeal with the condition that any second
floor uses in the building be limited to low-intensity office uses in terms of employees and the
number of client visits and support activities, such as deliveries, to the site.
EXHmITS
A. Appeal form received 8/20/98.
B. Staff Report to Planning Commission dated 8/6/98
C. Minutes of Planning Commission meeting of 8/12/98.
D. Resolution dated 2/29/88 approving second floor use of 1701 Tiburon Boulevard.
E. Appeal policy.
39805tc.rpt
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
9/2/98
3
Following a favorable report and recommendation from the Planning Director, applicant
gave a brief statement, outlining the change in concept at Point Tiburon Plaza, away from
commercial-retail and restaurants, toward premium quality office space.
In the meeting that followed, numerous assumptions and statements were made that were
inaccurate at best. Although erroneous assumptions and inaccuracies of fact arising after
the Planning Director's and applicant's presentations were the pivotal bases of the
commissions decision, the applicant was not allowed to respond to the newly raised
misperceptions.
The project proposes to amend the Point Tiburon (Northwestern Pacific) Precise Plan to
all the addition of approximately 4,852 additional square feet of office space in the
commercial portion of the project. The additional square footage would be installed
inside the existing walls of the building located at 170 I-51 Tiburon Blvd. in the Point
Tiburon Plaza. This building was finished and occupied as a one-story structure, but has
the physical capability of partial second story occupancy without any exterior alterations.
The additional space is intended to be used for an expansion of the Digital Foundry
business located on the ground floor of the building. Digital Foundry is the current
"anchor" of the Point Tiburon Plaza. Significant physical changes to the building would
be limited to internal tenant improvements, no significant exterior changes are proposed,
and no physical expansion of the building's outer walls or roof are proposed. Town of
Tiburon, Staff Report, page I.
Installation and use of second floor offices in this commercial center would be consistent
with the Neighborhood Commercial district and zone, which both allow "resident-serving
commercial and office use." The floor area ratio within the Point Tiburon development
would increase to 0.1695, slightly below the 0.17 floor area ratio maximum allowed
under the Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. Existing lot coverage
would not increase. The height of the building would not increase. Town ofTiburon
Initial Study/Draft },Ifitigated Negative Declaration, Pg. 2, Para. I
Based upon 1995 traffic counts, the office space would increase the number of vehicles
on Tiburon Boulevard by 0.16%, a negligible amount. Traffic impacts resulting from the
project itself would therefore be less than significant. Town ofTiburon Initial Study/Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Pg. , Para. 6.
[T} here is clearly a large surplus of available parking spaces beyond that required by
current uses. It is important to note that the Plaza has recently undergone a shift toward
office use from restaurants and retail sales. Retail and restaurant uses tended to fare
poorly in this development for a number of reasons. Retail and restaurant uses typically
require more parking than office uses, so that the week-day parking demand in the Plaza
has been reduced through recent tenant changes. Staff concluded that there would be less
than significant impact on parking as a result of this project. Town ofTiburon Initial
Study/Draft fli/itigated Negative Declaration, Pg. 9 '. Para 6a.
/
TOWN OF TIBURON
cc: .2/0'1
/3r.;
UI<
RECEIVED
AUG 2 0 1998
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
APPELLANT
Name, Point TibClron Plaza, Inc.
Address: 1701 Tib'.lron Blvd., TibClron, CA 94920
435-5400
Telephone:
(Work)
(Home)
ACTION BEING APPEALED
Body, Planning Commission
Date of Action: AClg'.lS t 12, 1998
Name of Applicant: Point Tib'.lron Plaza, Inc.
. . Amendment of Precise Plan to '.lse attic space for o.ffice
Nature of ApphcatlOn,
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
(Attach additional pages, if necessary)
See Attachment
Last Day to File 6- .2(./- C(?
Date Received:
t-~ - c:!(?
~ ;)./ /7 'i,f/!
Fee ($300.00) Paid: C ivK it- 03 2( r- Date ofHearing:
January 1996
EXHIBIT No.A
Moreover, with the persistently declining intensity of Plaza uses, the parking ratio
requirements have declined steadily and dramatically at Point Tiburon Plaza. The
Planning Director informed the commission that after the expansion of the Digital
Foundry there would still remain a substantial excess of parking during weekdays when
the offices are utilized. (Tourists do crowd every parking lot in Tiburon on weekends.).
More fundamentally. the commission expressed concern that future developments in old
town are imminent, and that the Plaza proposal should only be considered in the context
of an expected new downtown plan possibly even expanding the current .017 FAR ratio
to permit redevelopment of other properties in downtown.. In this light, the
commissioners unanimously agreed that no consideration at all should be given to Point
Tiburon Plaza's application until after the commission had received the "downtown task
force report", which they presumed would address and solve all of these future issues. .
The commission considered that Mr. Q's would develop as a 24 unit hotel or "inn" aIld
also that Tiburon Tommies would be developed soon.. Such developments will
inevitably require more parking and add more traffic than presently exists, and it was
stated that it could be expected that Point Tiburon's lot would be utilized at least in part
by those new patrons. The commission incorrectly believed that circulation or parking
recommendations might be made which might make undesirable or unreasonable the
Plaza's use of its own parking lot for its own tenants. (Presumably, any development of
Mr. Q's and Tiburon Tommie's which may significantly impact parking in downtown
beyond the recent and present parking impact will require similar revaluation pursuant to
a general review of the Downtown General Plan, including the issue of extending FAR
limits beyond. 017.)
Commissioner Stein was in error when he concluded that the primary purpose of the
Plaza is to provide retail uses which would allow locals to shop without making
additional Tiburon Blvd. highway trips. Commissioner Stein stated on the basis of no
information at all, that such resident serving uses as "convenience stores, video shops and
cleaners" might well have succeeded at the Plaza "if parking was not so expensive.".
Applicant was not allowed to respond, but it should have been assumed even by a
stranger wholly unfamiliar with Point Tiburon Plaza that as is universally customary,
customer parking is validated at no cost to the patron. It should also have been assumed
that because of unalterable physical constraints, the Plaza is wholly incapable of
providing a space that would be acceptable to a "convenience" store..
Importantly. LO the extent that resident serving retail use was an original objective, that
objective has abysmally failed, in the light of real life experience, not only at the Plaza,
but throughout Downtown generally. There has been a dismaying rate of failures of
genuinely locally needed retail businesses. The variety store failed, Safeway moved out,
the hardware store failed, the pharmacy failed. All of these clearly needed businesses had
parking at their doorstep. which is genuinely critical to convenience oriented local retail.
The need for doorstep parking is currently evidenced by the enormous concern and
pressure of downtown merchants concerning the possibility that a handful of Main Street
parking spaces might be eliminated in one of the proposed circulation plans for Main
Street.
3
[O]ffice uses are typically very quiet uses, limited to daytime only, and it unlikely that
any such measurable noise increases would be noticeable to the human ear over the
surrounding ambient traffic noise of Downtown Tiburon. Actual operating hours for any
office use occupying the space would be established through a Conditional Use Permit, at
which time any concerns of neighbors regarding potential noise could be specifically
addressed. Town ofTiburon Initial Study/Draft AHtigated Negative Declaration, Pg. 12,
Para. 6(a).
The commissioners expressed reservations concerning the number of customer visits to
the office. But for occasional visiting high-tech executives from various parts of the
country and the world, there are none. One commissioner indicated that in the future,
perhaps some use such as a large real estate office with a great deal of customer traffic
might occupy the attic space. Although no such traffic producing realtor, or any other
similar office business has emerged in the five years ofleasing experience at the Plaza,
the concern is at least in theory and intent a legitimate one, which could be resolved with
a limitation that any such intensive office use be reviewed upon conditional use
application to assure that intensive, high traffic producing office uses be prohibited.
The planning commissioners explicitly stated that they had virtually no knowledge about
Point Tiburon Plaza planning, and extended their gratitude and congratulations to !vIr.
Marans that all of this had (erroneously) been cleared up for them. The commission
accepted completely the argument that in the previous decade the Town had a passionate
fixation on an absolute square footage number as the guiding light and immutable and
simple to apply standard of planning for the Plaza. They did not seek information from
the Planning Director'on this subject, and the applicant was not allowed to respond at all,
as to any issue. Further, the commission simply accepted Marans' representations that
second floor uses had been absolutely verboten in previous uses and that for instance his
close friend, !vIr. Canyon folded thefitnes;; ce.llter.eJ~!2nedip.the original development for
the sole reason that he could not secure approvaJ.~~ilSe of the second floor. To the
contrary, however, second floor usage had been permitted for that use by Tow'll
resolution.
One commissioner stated that some wholly announced and unarticulated "greater standard
of proof of benefit" applied to use proposals at the Plaza property.
The commissioners purported to be concerned about parking sufficiency for Plaza uses,
but disregarded the four years of actual parking studies and parking counts conducted at
the Point Tiburon Plaza lot and others, by the Town of Tiburon, which demonstrated
consistent under utilization of the Plaza lot during normal weekday office hours. The
commissioners determined however that the Point Tiburon parking lot might be needed
for other anticipated downtown uses which will be proposed in the future. Point Tiburon
Plaza has a spectacular 10. 7 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leased square
feet. There is probably no comparable development within the county with such
excessive parking space for its uses, and most certainly not in Tiburon, which does not
come within a tiny fraction of that availability of parking.
.Pi,
2-
which was not accepted., and it is likely that a much higher intensity use will eventually
be proposed to the commission.)
Commissioner Stein stated that the Plaza had "agreed not to change uses". There was no
evidence of such agreement, although it is perhaps correct that in part at least, the earliest
original intent was that the Plaza would be developed primarily as resident serving retail
uses, later modified again to include office uses. The fact is that resident serving retail is
not generally viable, and that the Plaza has consistently gravitated toward lower and
lower intensity uses, benefiting the town in a variety of ways__ The diminished intensity
but flourishing Plaza office uses clearly do not compete with or add to the persistently
failing retail endeavors which have blighted downtown Tiburon. Instead, the professional
office uses which have replaced prior Plaza restaurants and retail actually support and
enliven the downtown by the increment of high income, high revenue producing
professionals who patronize local restaurants, entertain clients, shop, bank, and purchase
from the existing local retail businesses.
Commissioner Stein erroneously assumed and maintained that the Plaza was somehow '
breaking a number of "agreements", and repeatedly referenced those agreements, even
after the Planning Director informed him that were none, except perhaps a reciprocal
driveway easement.. If the agreements nebulously referred to .consisted of the. Qrig~_
plan to have Point Tiburon Plaza be a resident serving retail location, those "agreements"
have utterly been eclipsed by the cold reality that Tiburon residents do not generally
support downtown retail businesses, particularly in the case of Point Tiburon, where the
physical constraints of surrounding lagoons, bridge, and distance from parking to the
retail location are concerned.
With regard to potential traffic increases, the commissioners gave little or no weight to
the conclusion of the Planning Director, based upon empirical traffic counts, that in the
peak hours, traffic increase on Tiburon Blvd. would be a negligible 0/16% (.0016)__. One
commissioner relied upon her impression that turning left on Tiburon Blvd. from
Steward Drive getting harder all the time, and therefore she discounted traffic counts and
study data as wrreliable and inaccurate. Since real life experience has been that there has
been nil, negligible or declining recent commercial development in the Downtown, any
perceived increase in traffic cannot be reasonably attributed to commercial over-
development of the downtown, but rather to increased resident related trips.
The commissioners gave no consideration to the enormous downward changes in
intensity of uses at the Plaza, and its beneficial effect on parking and traffic, on
neighboring residents, and the downtown generally.. The commissioners did not consider
or compare the low intensity use plan of the Plaza with previously approved, greatly more
intense uses previously permitted at the Plaza.
The conclusions of the commission were not supported by any reasonably reliable
evidence in the record. The planning commission improperly subordinated the interests
of the town in having the Plaza remaining as a viable, fully occupied, low intensity use,
paying substantial ta, revenue to the town, to possible new tourist oriented uses on Main
Street, which will unquestionably increase traffic congestion, and add to parking needs
and traffic problems beyond what exists today. (It should be noted that at the time the
j'
The commissioners ignored the real life present day and foreseeable future fact that Point
Tiburon Plaza is not needed as an additional increment to locally serving retail uses,
particularly in view of the fact that there have been chronically failing, genuinely needed
retail spaces in town The commissioners were unaware that as a retail serving use, the
Plaza was functionally obsolescent the day it was planned and the day it was opened, and
that typical retail use was doomed from day one, because of inconvenient parking coupled
with the chronic, historically demonstrated reluctance of Tiburon residents to patronize
local merchants, in favor of making extra trips to patronize mega-retailers in Corte
Madera, Strawberry or San Rafael. A tragic number of retail businesses have failed at
Point Tiburon, and in Downtown generally, and planning pressure for increased retail
space is entirely misplaced. It is a nice theory that traffic on Tiburon Boulevard could be
reduced by expansion of Tiburon retail space, but it simply, absolutely does not work in
reality, as repeatedly and expensively demonstrated by chronic, major retail failures in
Tiburon.
The commissioners even questioned whether the Digital Foundry was a resident serving
use, with question as to how many employees are residents of Tiburon. The concern is
irrelevant inasmuch as the uses permitted in the zone, are "resident serving commercial
or office".use. There is no requirement that the offices be "resident serving offices",
(whatever that might mean, - perhaps that the business must employ all or primarily
resident technical staff.). If it should be considered a new or implicit requirement for
office occupancy within the town, it should be noted that the founders and chief
executives are Tiburon residents, committing their lives and professional future to their
Tiburon office in which they have made substantial connectivity investment, and the use
is for the business owned by them. By way of contrast, the very great numbers of
employees of Guaymas, Sam's, and Tutto Mare, are of course not required to be residents
of Tiburon, nor would any other office use in Tiburon would require inquiries into the
employees' residences)
The commissioners improperly founded their decision in part upon a vague, unarticulated
belief 'that there was plenty of other space at Point Tiburon Plaza, or elsewhere in
downtown. More importantly, they had a fundamental, erroneous belief that the
"downtown task force" would not only inventory all of this abundant office space, but
would make recommendations that would restrict or constrain Point T:buron office uses.
It was assumed that The Digital Foundry could facilely move anywhere there might be a
vacancy of office space revealed by such inventory.. However, costly investments in
electrical systems, and in separate telecommunications and networking infrastructure are
necessary for such high technology businesses. In-the walls networking cables must be
installed, and every station must be on the network, and tied to a backup generator.
Additionally, such a business has a critical need for secure premises because of the high
value of equipment and the trade information contained in such equipment. These needs
cannot be met with a storefront space on Boardwalk or Main Street, and in any event,
there are no such spaces available for office uses, with the exception of Tiburon
Tommie's and Mr. Q's which could be converted to such office uses. (Prior to this
application, the applicant did make an offer to purchase Tiburon Tommie's, for such use,
'I
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
4
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE: 8/12/98
PLANNING COMMISSION
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR *'
1701-1751 TmURONBOULEVARD, AMENDMENT TO POINT
TmURON (NORTHWESTERN P ACIFIe) PRECISE PLAN TO ALLOW
THE ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 4,852 SQUARE FEET OF
OFFICE SPACE WITHIN THE WALLS OF AN EXISTING BUILDING
AND CONSIDERATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AUGUST 6,1998
BACKGROUND
Address:
APNo.,
FileNo.:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Subdivision:
Current Use:
Owner:
Applicant:
Date Complete:
PSA Deadline,
1701-1751 Tiburon Boulevard
59-161-07
39805
NC (Neighborhood Commercial)
NC (Neighborhood Commercial)
Point Tiburon, 1984
Commercial portion of a mixed use commercial/residential development
Stan and Chong Chi Cook
same
. 6/14/98
NA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes to amend the Point Tiburon (Northwestern Pacific) Precise Plan to allow
the addition of approximately 4,852 additional square feet of office space in the commercial
portion of the project. The additional square footage would be installed inside the existing walls
of the building located at 1701-1751 Tiburon Boulevard in the Point Tiburon Plaza. This building
was finished and occupied as a one-story structure, but has the physical capability of partial
second story occupancy without any significant exterior alterations. The additional space is
intended to be used for an expansion of the Digital Foundry business located on the ground floor
of the building. Digital Foundry is the current "anchor" of the Point Tiburon Plaza.
Planning Commission Staff Report
August 12, 1998
I
EXHIBIT NO.~
original Point Tiburon parking allocations and use permits were approved, both Tiburon
Tommies' and Mr. Q's, then The Dock, were thriving and fully active, with high intensity
restaurant impacts. It should be noted further that the Point Tiburon Plaza's uses have
since dramatically decreased in intensity and burdens to the residents and town)
Tourist impacts upon the town have and will continue to have an inevitable and
increasingly severe impact on traffic and parking in Tiburon, especially on weekends. It
is accordingly an announced policy of the town that expansion of retail or other uses
oriented towards non-Tiburon residents (tourists) should be strongly discouraged.
During the weekdays, the town is quiet, the Plaza is empty of customer traffic, and
parking is abundant, but on weekends there is clearly a problem because of the tourist
influx. All of the parking lots in town are filled to capacity. Point Tiburon Plaza,
however, has specifically designed all of its uses to produce exactly zero businesses
reliant upon tourist promotion and traffic. Office uses are focused upon weekdays, not
weekends, not nights. The service uses at the Plaza rely almost exclusively upon local
resident patronage, not tourists, though some may dine at Dynasty Restaurant, and a few
may purchase jewelry from De1euse Jewelers, which is specifically oriented toward local
trade.
It was truly regrettable that the commissioners were utterly misled by Nat Marans long,
intimate and false history of Point Tiburon planning. They expressly stated that they had
no familiarity with the Plaza, and particularly concerning its early history, and they
genuinely relied upon the false statements and false allegations made by Mr. Marans. Mr.
Marans tainted the climate of the hearing with an outrageous and unjustified personal
attack on the Planning Director, as a Novato carpetbagger who disloyally delivers the
town into the hands of greedy developers, and who has no regard for the maintaining the
character of old Tiburon. While the commission did not accept such slanderous
innuendoes, and requested retraction, the attack undoubtedly was a factor in the
commissions reluctance thereafter to turn to the Planning Director for his understanding
of the history of Point Tiburon Plaza, and the significance and intent of the various
planning changes over the years. The commissioners are volunteer citizens with good
intentions, and though understandable in light of their lack of knowledge, it is a tragedy
and a travesty that Marans' false, deliberately misleading and reckless statements were so
innocently and completely accepted by the commissioners.
-...,.......) ---
-~-~.:;"'~
Respectfully submitted,
(.,
Over the pastfew years there have been many changes in Downtown Tiburon and,
although the desired village-like character has been threatened, it has been maintained
The intent of this Sub-Element is to retain the village-like atmosphere of Downtown and
preserve the character of Downtown by encouraging the present pattern and mix of land
uses and by promoting resident-serving uses.
A brief chronology of the Town ofTiburon approvals for the Point Tiburon project are as
follows:
1975-6:
1979:
1980
1983,
1986-7,
1989:
The Town writes and adopts the 1975 Downtown Plan as a part of the Tiburon
General Plan. The Downtown Plan sets a cap of7,200 sq. ft. per acre (.165 FAR)
for undeveloped properties in the Downtown area, including the former
Northwestern Pacific railroad yard. The 38-acre site could achieve a maximum
floor area of273,600 square feet under the 1975 Downtown Plan. Previous plans
for almost 450,000 square feet of development on the rail yard site are shelved.
The Northwestern Pacific Railroad Master Plan is approved. It allows up to 164
residential units and up to 68,480 square feet of commercial space, with provisions
that the Town Council could reduce the commercial space to not less than 40,000
at the Precise Plan phase. A minimum of55-70% of the commercial space is to be
offices. A total of273,600 square feet of floor area is approved (.165 FAR).
.
The Northwestern Pacific Railroad Precise Plan is approved. A total of 160
residential units and 27,3 04 square feet of commercial space are approved, with a
combined total of273,600 square feet of development approved.
Amendments to the approved Master Plan and Precise Plan are requested by the
owner and approved by the Town. These amendments increase the number of
residential units to 161 and reduce the commercial square footage to 22,106
square feet. The property is subsequently acquired by the Innisfree Companies.
The Point Tiburon project is constructed by Innisfree.
The Town adopts an entirely new General Plan. The new Downtown Sub-Element
"rounds off" the .165 FAR established in the 1975 Downtown Plan to .17 FAR.
This "rounding off" was essentially meaningless with respect to nearly all
properties in Downtown, which are small and already exceed the .17 FAR. The
Point Tiburon project was an exception because of its large size (38 acres). The
"rounding off" potentially increased the maximum floor area which could be
constructed in the Point Tiburon project from 273,600 square feet to 281,400
square feet (+7,800 sq. ft.), while still maintaining consistency with the Tiburon
General Plan FAR limits. The significance of this fact was never previously
recognized.
Planning Commission Staff Report
August 12. 1998
3
Significant physical changes to the building would be limited to internal tenant improvements; no
significant exterior changes are proposed, and no physical expansion of the building's outer walls
or roof are proposed. See drawings attached as Exhibit 1 and application text attached as
Exhibit 2.
A Precise Plan amendment is required in order to increase the rentable commercial square footage
in the Point Tiburon Plaza by 4,852 square feet above its current limit of22,647 square feet
allowed in Town Council Resolution No. 2818, adopted in 1991 and attached as Exhibit 3. The
proposal would limit the second floor use to office only. A Precise Plan amendment is also
required to increase the maximum square footage allowed in the entire Point Tiburon project
(commercial and residential) from the current limit of 274,248 square feet established in
Resolution No. 2818. In order to achieve these objectives, the following specific amendments to
Resolution No. 2818 are proposed:
. Section 1.b. would be amended to read as follows (new text double-underlined, deleted
text struck-through):
"A maximum of27 50021,647 square feet of rentable commercial (plaza) square
footage, exclusive of public bathroom, garbage collection areas, and storage. The
commercial space shall be available for retail, office, and/or other commercial community
serving use orovido;:d that second floor soace shall be for office use only."
. Section 1.c. would be amended to read as follows (new text double-underlined, deleted
text struck-through):
"The total square footage of the project shall not exceed the 280 600 sauare feet estimated
bv the Town to exist within th~ Point Tiburon oroiect area 174,248 $'1uA.G reG! llllu..."t...d
above."
Please note that the 280,600 square foot total represents Staff's estimate of all square footage in
the Point Tiburon project, including storage areas, the flower gazebo, and existing second floor
areas.
HISTORY
The Northwestern Pacific (later Point Tiburon) Master Plan and Precise Plan constituted the
single largest project ever undertaken in Downtown Tiburon. It involved the redevelopment of all
of the 38 acres owned since the late nineteenth century by the Northwestern Pacific Railroad
Company. This development project was the subject of many years of debate on various project
proposals, some quite grandiose. Redevelopment of the former railroad yard site was widely
considered as a project which would either preserve or destroy the cherished village character of
Downtown Tiburon. As noted in the 1989 General Plan Downtown Sub-Element, written a few
years after completion of the Point Tiburon project:
Planning Commission Staff Report
August 12, 1998
2 .
adopted Master and Precise Plans. Conditional Use Permits are required for new uses to the
extent that the Zoning Ordinance would require such permits in the Neighborhood Commercial
zone. The Zoning Ordinance also stipulates a .17 FAR limit for this zone. The proposal would be
in conformance with zoning district regulations provided that the Precise Plan is amended to allow
the additional square footage.
Parking: Parking for the expanded office square footage would be located in the Point Tiburon
Plaza parking lot on the property. This lot has a technical capacity of241 parking spaces; in
practice it accommodates far more cars. Parking for the Point Tiburon Plaza was approved at a
retail ratio of one space per every 250 square feet of floor area. At the approved square footage
of22,000 square feet, a total of88 parking spaces were required by the Town for the Plaza uses.
A total of 116 spaces were provided by the developer exclusively for the Plaza uses. The
remaining 125 spaces in the Point Tiburon Plaza parking lot were designated as "commuter"
spaces for week-day use, and on week-ends for use by tourists and the public, on a fee basis.
During the week, an average of30 "commuter" spaces are used, according to the applicant, with
maximum commuter use at approximately 45 spaces. During the week, the Point Tiburon Plaza
parking lot is generally under-utilized. On week-ends, the lot often fills up during the late spring
through Labor Day, but is under-utilized the remainder of the year, according to car counts
conducted by the Town ofTiburon over the past four years.
The applicant has provided a detailed accounfing of the current tenants occupying the Plaza, their
square footage, number of employees, and type of use. The fully-leased Plaza currently requires
83 parking spaces per current Town ordinances, according to the applicant. While Staff arrived at
a slightly higher number of spaces required by current tenants, there is clearly a surplus of parking
spaces beyond that required by current uses. It is important to note that the Plaza has recently
undergone a shift toward office use from restaurant and retail sales uses. Retail and restaurant
uses tended to fare poorly in this location for a number of reasons. Retail and restaurant uses
typically require more parking than office uses, so that week-day and especially week-end parking
demand from Plaza uses has been reduced through recent tenant changes.
The proposed additional office space of 4,852 square feet would require 16 parking spaces under
. current Town standards. There would still be a surplus of Town-required parking spaces in the
Point Tiburon Plaza lot even after the addition of the new office improvements. The office uses
typically would not be open on the week-end days, when parking demand on the Plaza lot is at its
greatest due to tourism, at least in late spring and through the summer.
Conformance with Point Tiburon (Northwestern Pacific) Master Plan and Precise Plan
In 1991, the Point Tiburon Master Plan was amended such that all specific use and square footage
requirements were to be established in the Precise Plan. The Precise Plan, as currently embodied
in Resolution No. 2818, is therefore the controlling document for the Point Tiburon development.
Amendment of the Precise Plan as outlined above in this report would produce consistency
between the proposed project and the Point Tiburon Precise Plan. .
Planning Commission Staff Report
August 12, 1998
5
1987-91:
Several small deck enclosures in the residential portions of the Point Tiburon
project are approved by the Design Review Board. Also, some small second floor
additions in the commercial portions of Point Tiburon are issued building pennits
without zoning pennit approval. Cumulatively, these additions and enclosures
exceed the maximum project square footage of273,600 by several hundred square
feet.
1991, In response to these additions, the Planning Commission and Town Council adopt
Resolution No. 2818. This resolution "grandfathers in" all previously constructed
residential enclosures and commercial second floor area, but states that "It is the
policy of the Town to strongly discourage square footage additions in the Point
Tiburon project, especially in the residential portions." The resolution increases
the total maximum square footage for the Point Tiburon project to 274,248 square
feet and increases the commercial square footage to 22,647 rentable square feet,
excluding storage, garbage collection areas, and public restrooms.
1995: The Planning Commission approves a 686 square foot detached storage building at
the rear of the Point Tiburon Plaza Parking Lot.
1997: The Planning Commission approves a 120 square foot detached flower stand in
front of the Point Tiburon Plaza.
1998: Owner applies for pennits to install approximately 4,852 additional square feet of
office space in the commercial building at 1701-1751 Tiburon Boulevard.
ANALYSIS
General Plan Consistency
The subject site is designated NC (Neighborhood Commercial) in the Tiburon General Plan. This
designation allows office uses. There is a . 17 FAR limit. Staff calculates that approval of the
application would increase the total square footage built within the area covered by the Precise
Plan (including Plaza storage) to approximately 280,600 square feet, slightly below the 281,400
square feet established by the .17 FAR maximum in the General Plan. The resulting FAR would
be .1695. Approval of the requested additional office space would not be inconsistent with the
Tiburon General Plan intensity limits. However, very little room for expansion (approximately 800
square feet) would remain under current General Plan policies.
Conformance with Zoning Ordinance
Use and Intensity: The subject site is designated NC (Neighborhood Commercial) in the Zoning
Ordinance; this zone allows office uses. Section 2.11.01(3) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance
specifically establishes that the Point Tiburon Plaza commercial area shall be governed by the
Planning Commission Staff Report
August 12, 1998
4
of the project did not separate access to the Bayside Condos from the Plaza parking lot in an
effective manner. This design flaw has been an ongoing problem, especially on week-ends. The
Association is pursuing remedies to this problem with the owner, with the support of the Town.
Staff does not believe that the expanded office use would materially exacerbate the existing
access-separation design problem, which Staff believes is primarily tourist-generated.
PLANNING COMMISSION ROLE AND ACTION
If the Planning Commission votes to approve the Precise Plan amendment, either as proposed or
in modified form, then that decision becomes a recommendation for approval to the Town
Council, which will then hold a public hearing on the matter. Should the Planning Commission
vote to deny the application, then its action is final unless appealed to the Town Council within 10
days.
SUBSEOUENT APPROVALS NEEDED
If the Precise Plan Amendment is approved by the Town Council, a Conditional Use Permit
would be required to establish the office use. Site Plan and Architectural Review approval would
be required for any exterior alterations which may be associated with the project. Building
permits would be required for any interior or exterior improvements requiring such permits.
CONCLUSION
Staff believes that the Planning Commission should review the proposal within the context of
Downtown Tiburon today and in the foreseeable future. The economic climate in Downtown
Tiburon has changed since 1983 when the original cap was established under the prior General
Plan. Tourism and physical development have not overrun the Downtown, and the Point Tiburon
project and other projects built since 1983 have not ruined the Downtown's village-like character.
Many people believe that Downtown Tiburon's physical appearance has never been better. There
is very little remaining development potential in Downtown Tiburon under the current General
Plan. Changes to existing uses over time will have far more impact on Downtown Tiburon than
any limited new development which could occur. This is especially true for new small office
projects, which have very limited impacts.
Staff is of the opinion that the addition of the office space as proposed in this application will not
have any demonstrable impact on the Downtown or on surrounding development provided that
appropriate limits on office hours of use and careful review oflighting on the second floor area of
the building are properly addressed in the subsequent conditional use permit process.
Should the Planning Commission agree, a draft resolution recommending adoption of a negative
declaration and approval of the Precise Plan amendment to the Town Council has been prepared
and is attached as Exhibit 12. Should the Commission decide to deny the application, it should
direct Staff to prepare a resolution seting forth the reasons for the denial.
Planning Commission Staff Report
August 12, 1998
7
The issue of whether the Point Tiburon development should be allowed lIIlll additional square
footage has been raised in written comments to the Planning Commission. Clearly, the Town has
no obligation to approve additional square footage in the project, even though the current General
Plan would allow for it. However, blind adherence to a maximum floor area limit established
before the project was constructed and before the real-life effects of the project on Downtown
Tiburon could be appreciated, is also not an obligation of the Town. It is true that the original
developer was not allowed to install second floor improvements in the Plaza buildings because all
of the then-existing square footage allocation of 22, 106 square feet was used on the ground floor.
However, a single story design for the Plaza buildings would have been architecturally and
aesthetically inferior, dwarfed by the residential buildings behind them, and a partial two-story
design was approved by the Town.
PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS
Letters have been received from the Police Department, Fire District, and Water District
concerning this application (see Exhibits 4, 5 & 6.) No concerns or objections have been raised
by these agencies.
As of the date of this report, three public comment letters (Exhibits 7, 8 & 9) have been received,
one from Nathaniel Marans, one from the Lyford Cove-Old Tiburon Homeowner's Association,
and one from the adjacent Point Tiburon Bayside Condominium Association. The comments in
these letters are addressed above and in the Environmental Status section of this report.
ENVTRO~ENTALSTATUS
An initial study (Exhibit 10) was prepared for this project, and circulated for the required public
review period (see Exhibit 11). The initial study found that the project could not have a
significant impact on the physical environment, and that a negative declaration should be
prepared.
Three comment letters were received. The first letter (Marans) objects to the project on non-
environmental grounds, and no response is required. The second letter, from the Lyford's cove-
Old Tiburon Homeowner's Association, raises environmental issues of increased commercial
intensity in the Downtown, parking adequacy (especially on week-ends), and traffic increases
(particularly on Mar West Street and its adjoining side streets). These three environmental issues
are addressed in the initial study, where it is concluded that any impacts would be less than
significant. Staff sees no potential for traffic impacts on Mar West Street; the week-day offices
uses will not materially affect week-end parking availability; and the commercial intensity would
be consistent with and would not exceed the .17 FAR allowed throughout the remainder of
Downtown Tiburon. No precedent would be set by this project to allow F ARs in excess of .17 on
other properties. The third letter, from the Point Tiburon Bayside Condominium Association,
expresses concern that allowing additional square footage in the Plaza could exacerbate the
existing tendency for drivers to enter the private Bayside parking area. Staff notes that the design
Planning Commission Staff Report
August 12, 1998
6
-
~
~
~
~~.~
"II" '.,
:;: ~ ~':' "
I; ~'./~;!.':i>"
1\ ~ " ,.'. ,':.~
l....'" _".
'..I: ")
.g i1 _
~ llo "
. ~ ~
I~ ,
~ :q.i
i
. .
1'(,
.IE
~~j:1:
I ~
,
n. "::i:i;~. ';'[
'!.;~- ''''('''.; '.;
. <. .... ~. I ",
~.;: i jEff.fl,' . ~~.
=;;,.; '-i =
!i :.~! ;~~! If
b (- =u~ I
a= .'~liiii ,=
.. ='1"" j'
il ~,J~ U; t
'1 . 1 "~l '
" "I.i!. .
0" h >==. I
5i :fi~i:1 i
to '.:if.:: .il
;~ !F,ii;: i
i~ i:=.oitf l
i, ol.!.iL I
- 0", I
II Hi;;
"
'n';";';';;'-;;~;;ii -;
hh..iiIUll-i~. i'~l..
ll'i: !.: ., - .~t i~ 'i:') . ~
-!l':l~ii:j;,:illi 'I:i;l
l~sa-~'i,i1~;!~ :i.;
'1;'"i'l;il~!Iil._,Ui
1_.- i "-"'u-."
illlil~hi~~i!~~;~ ::H :
i :1:i.tl~i";'HII.!o.
~ .i~ii='I.-~tlil HE' ~
hH.iill'.!~i'!in.!,
';""'3 i<l:l:fIIH
:I';~:ii::f ti:~ 1m
H!II!~_-t'Hl~i ~~:~
I" 1".L:iljiS: ::!}i
I"". - hi!. i~;:! ~'~._
ur;.H~"~~":I'h;;
i:~!~::~j!~;~m l;;~
!I!q
r ,~
o
~ ~ .,.
- ~ }>-
o ~ ~,.
""'::e;:z . >
='m:j lJ>:z;po.
~::::() fOr
" ~ --l:-!
~ <:2: ';::j;po.
Jj:t:>.."...,.~
~~~g'o rrll>
~ :z 1> .lJ> VI ()
8.1>, ~ C (/l
~"" "O~;:
-<VI(TI :-l(Tl
i:,.~ 0..(
~. ~ .~
o ,. ~
! I 5
~
'--'
'--' "
'--'
~
~
'--
L--l
L--l
'---'
~
'--'
~
'--'
~
" ~ t-- ..
. o:-t".lFnn!~t 1:
~....t..,,~\.'i.. { n.tf"
f'ljl!1 'UPfJ!iiHW:[fJJ I'
(,I! III Iff I' I! f
1 f II II I
'lIt I!UUI14~\P\'<l.!&
'!in )i"" '''''1'
nIUrltFW.liW!~IHfll
'ttFI"lr~' 11 I'
Irllftlll
.
,'I
",
W:ii
l:f[::
I/.nl
l'ld
i~'
'1"
I"
--I it
q, h.
I,!; ~
~
"
,
'/
EXHmITS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Drawings received May 15, 1998 (3 sheets).
Application text received May 15, 1998.
Resolution No. 2818.
Letter from Tiburon Police Department dated July 2, 1998.
Letter from Tiburon Fire District received July 7, 1998.
Letter from Marin Municipal Water District dated July 27, 1998.
Letter from Nathaniel Marans dated July 23, 1998.
Letter from Lyford Cove-Old Tiburon Homeowner's Association dated August 5, 1998.
Letter from Point Tiburon Bayside Condominium Association dated August 4, 1998.
Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration dated July, 1998.
Notice of Public Hearing.
Draft resolution. \scott\39805pc.rpt
Planning Commission Staff Report
August J 2, J 998
8
-
~
~
~
~
'-'
~
~"
'-'
'-'
'---'
'--'
'--'
'---'
'---'
'---'
'---'
'---'
-.
, .
> ~ ~~:
~ ~ -i; .
~ 5 ~ 3.
~ f:l ~
~ Cl ~
.',
.
, ,
o:t".1Fn:n!H!~:
aJ"... 'I.~\1'1 { 'fl'
\ I "" tr 0
ilqWliifFUHW!t~lJ I
\:lll!t drl~ is f
i f I'll! !
,,~4
.,
'Ill I qHil~+"\:'.\''':'l.
' t ~ a ~ ~ I ! I I I
; (:/Irr;r 'pmnitH{1fiq
; (tIn! ifn 'I it! I,
t 1. '1.' ,d II
"I't' I '
.1 ,
r
;jif;iiimHf;liill
!!'~Ii J~U~ii!l! l~~
· ~-=l"~~.! !:
t~ h'Hi~ _I
,; :"l::fi ~.
if i:fliE -I
:~ ~~I.:~'"li :
i~ h !_." !
H ~!I!i:1 I
:~ :~!i~ii ,
!. IJHFi i
:i l~;'i!i ~
Ii ;td:=1 I
il !~Hr
'.
P!~;~ii~;;~;:ii~ mi ~ "!
'i~"""!l'lh=~ ..-1..
"l"t--_. - ir "hi.
!!l;~r~~:i~'i JI.rii!
1!la:;. "I"jiil';!l:. I:;.;
~:li;L i!Wh.1; ;t:~ e
'llh!!!I~':il{~':jH :
;1"t1~:H~~.:ii:ii I!;: .
r !iff-l:od-!tHtn""'I.
hn_.~li~~~i'!i H.,
I:':~.:i:l'l' ~~lf Jii!
: r.i'I.. I <.. ~ I!:
Ih.li."I~I..".H,!1 ~.h
"', "..."
I:i JifHi!::~;~ hI!
il!ikpmWWi
~
,
-<
I
, .
1'1;
.It,
~~f~
Ii ;
,
o ~ ~
~ ~ l>
o ~ ~ r
"':l:Z " ~
~ m::! '"" Z 1>
i~() 'f or
"'T\ ~ -;:-i
~:::z 0 =i p
::lJ't>..,.. r"-....
~~~~"O ""1>
f; Z t:: ,'"" (J) ()
8'!"r ~ c(/)
~_"'T\"'T\ o~3:
"'(J)f"T1 .-.,1,."
j",O 0-<
(I ~ lD
~ 't> "0
~ ~ .Ul
.. 0
'/
~~ \Jl
~p;;
.\
&~ S2
-fZ
q(0
m(S
~ 11
-' Al
"'A- \l'
~ -I
. 11
c... \
C)
H~
,
"'b
..
o
<
"
'"
,.,
e-
st
~
..,.
~
~
I
1
~___-o-_______
1
1
1
1 I
1 i
---1--0
1
1
- ---8
,
! & ", ~/'
i~ 1 ~~,><
" ,
1/"/
~--.. -------t---
, ,
- ,
, ,
'-'" /..~<, i
, /', ~ '1
' -
// '~~ I'
, -
1
I
I
___.-0- __ __.._....
1
1
1
1
----~-_._-_.
1
I
I 1 1
1 '
~._.. .----,.----.!.----
. 1
1 i
1 1
1 .
--- ~~ j, -~A
~~ I ,.
tii , ',/' I
I /~~" i
,/ :is! -',_'
1 I
~ ~
,
"-- 'g/~ i
" ~
, . rn'
/'-Jiiz 1
, ,
//' ',~ I'
, ,
1
---t
I
I
,[
,
-'-" /i~ i
, /",Jiiz i
, ,
/ "I'
,/ ~,
"~'~",/li
:i~/~
/ 'I'
, ,
r--rLm
/~r~--
,I,' I'
'/
._-~
--0
'- "
, ,
l~'
. ,
. '
, '
, I /~ -----8
-"" }~'"
>< ~~
, ,
, -
, ,
1
1
1
----~ ------
1
cb
--@
---@
..---@
I
1
1
-----@
1
~
11
-
o
o
'\
)>
") ~~ \Jl
.. ~~ c
". ~r1J F
dl~ S2
"z
~ ~~
'"'P Q
o 0'
... rn
" G
$l- Cl
z
-l- D
G --n
,
~ ~
-,
~
~
~
<:
l\
~
-~;j
>t~a
>~,
il."~
~'(l
Q~~
~N~
."Ii
~~~
,
I
I
----->---.---
I
I
1
I
1
.-.-.-----8
I
I
1
,
! ", ,/;
~~ i /i~",
~z 1 /.'l' .' ..
"' i:\"':,,--~. ----8
y'/y .'",'x ,'xc,,'x .."Y~ I '
""x'~<'l!'> v;y'X'<x'<x
\."'. ~:,;~: x..x..,:~ x. ('R~. ..X: X>;:
<<..~..~-x-x~~.vv.!<"''<xy
'/'"Y:'0~<1~ i
I""'" "'~/ ,~~~~~~ .-- i-----e
>< 5~ ^'<''<'''.><VVj'x"x,)<.>
/ ',.Z \, '- -V\/\;\;'1'''<<
i /;~ "'" ~~~~~:~;t(;~
I', / i'\"''''''',<'x ,',><.Ix):~;',:<
.', /\..,', <,'xX"'<'k'x\""x'
''>::l~~~.'-x. ~~t~~~
'I / "" x>,,> aM kl~"'x't'\x"">
/-.-. ". . "'x 0<.:LY - -e
I " --~Y:.',,<.)<>:.!().:,< :>~<."<x \ I - - \Jl
" ",,";''':"'./'y Y"'< '(' ',,' <',<'/ \ ,',
~ "" // :;~:'<<><<~>~,~>.<~::X'<-: G,C;{
r~,., ".'-'-:"''''''-",:' './y t -,v y''';., ~~
~//~ "'" <~::-:/::<'::~'~<;~'::'t~~:-':>~ /~ \ '
1/ '- .'"" '\)<',-...."'I""v I \1
~ , "V:~~'<,;.X>:: ," -' '____ ----t;0
-< >.: x ,''X,KY:X'',.; 'x:, " "1-=
l' .v'V.....X''x>(.'. x:< " /
~<> 66'>. 'x. >X "" ,~~
(<\~~ )<,~'l'
, '''<'X/'_., - "
~~.~~._~ u_\{x:X.
I x'.\. V}J: Y
'~i--'x'~~~/ '\(j'<....:
~,',<-xx >y "~
~E~~1(~
_~. 'x.,&x;~.'. <~_. .__--@
,-'\:-'<..;:<:,:X, ,:/"..'\,.X"
-v"~ x:-<. v xx
, <v~v"<:i<'>"-x
',- ",.' ",/V v v!-:~ v~-<>
c .<;~<t:~:~<s<~;'S2t~~S~
. -- ~ --<~.~ t-- ~. ~ -~ -,~,. L:''v~
i~~~g~rf~
-.-0
I
1
I
-----~
I
I
I
I
----~--
I
1
I
--8
--0
-@
1
I
1
--_.~--
1
~
I
cb
I
I
1
--T-'-@
G ~
~l.'~~;'.~~~~::;~~
'-
"-" ji": C;:: -~~:2~:::8;\1
j 5 i998
Attachment to Application to Amend Precise Plan: Description ofProiect
(':n,/,?~i;~~':~~;l'~~;-~T E: __.,
.....'-. "Al.l~'~l/-,. '.. .--
. ............ -~-I,.\wl";:;:::;,:J
This is an application to amend the Precise Plan to allow utilization of the second floor
level of the 1701 Building for expanded office space.
Background:
The Plaza in early development was envisioned and feared as a high intensity retail and
restaurant center, with a mass promoted fitness center Although office uses were always
deemed entirely appropriate, there were none during the prior ownership. With this
marketing profile, the experience of the Plaza for years was significant vacancy rates,- and
a persistent, chronic failure of retail and restaurant uses.
Problems with Retail Use
The Plaza is not well suited to most conventional retail uses. Retail designed to meet
customary repeat needs oflocal residents, e.g., pharmacy, video, hardware, cleaners, dime
store, foods, etc. must have parking at or near their door. It is a long walk, whether in sun
or rain, from the back parking lot to most locations in the Plaza. For day to day retail
businesses, if it is ever inconvenient to the customer, the customer will likely find a more
convenient merchant, and may never return. Equally important, retailers generally are
highly reliant upon foot traffic. When there is foot traffic in Tiburon, it is usually on a
holiday or a summer weekend, and consists of visitors and tourists, who invariably
immediately gravitate to the variant, charming, clustered retailers at Main Street,
Boardwalk, and Ark Row. The large numbers of small retailers, the variety and historic
appearance of the many shops on Main Street, Ark Rowand Boardwalk captures virtually
all of the visitor foot traffic, as would be entirely expected. Even with that, there are
frequent retail vacancies, and easily accessible and locally needed retail businesses
closing their doors. Moreover, the Plaza spaces were so architecturally configured that
the minimum square footage of any given unit is 600 square feet, and more generally
1200 square feet, with a front window dimension of only 20 feet, and a depth of 60 feet.
Restaurant Uses:
In the previously approved use applications, neighboring residents were most negative
concerning new restaurant uses, fearing the considerable garbage production, odor and
light intrusion, noise, evening hours of operation, take-out sales, litter, traffic and parking.
With the exception of Dynasty, restaurants at Point Tiburon have failed. The town has an
abundance of good restaurants, in more charming, more convenient locales, which are
more attractive to visitors. Main Street, with some extraordinarily successful restaurants
and waterfront locations, has substantial restaurant space vacancy or availability.
EXHIBIT NO. 1
-..."-.
It is planned that there will be no further restaurants at Point Tiburon, with the exception
of the Dynasty Restaurant location, adjacent to the parking lot.
Present Development:
The Plaza is currently fully leased to resident serving commercial businesses and
services. Technology professionals, with larger spaces, are highly significant in the
present mix, and in planning for the future. At great cost of money, study, time,
experience, failure and success, the Plaza with its present tenant mix is at last stable and
sound.
Since the acquisition of the Plaza by the applicant, none of the original fears concerning
the Plaza's development have been realized. Instead of a tourist dependent site, the Plaza
has become an attractive campus-like business environment, well landscaped and
maintained, discreet and successful, and populated largely with local professional
tenancies. The anchor business tenants are high technology professional groups,
principally The Digital Foundry and Brouwer & Janachowski.
Conservative, constructive, attractive stability is the objective of the Plaza. The
professional tenancies at the Plaza lend weekday vitality to the location and the town,
patronizing stores, restaurants, banks, and services. Theyentail no public safety
problems, no litter, and no intrusion upon neighbors. The professional tenancies pay
taxes based upon a percentage of their substantial gross receipts, as does the Plaza.
High technology office uses:
Substantial utilization of the Plaza as a campus business location for high tech
information professionals balances all interests, is economically and environmentally
sound, is attuned to a genuine and growing need, and promotes long term stability.
Proposed Utilization of Second Floor:
The Digital Foundry is the Plaza's most important anchor tenant, and was a turning point
in its current development. However, Digital's rapidly increasing success in development
of software miillagement programs invaluable to its Fortune 500 customers will
absolutely necessitate a larger space than it occupies in the Plaza. If the Digital Foundry
is unable to expand into the second floor above its present location, there is a substantial
likelihood that the Plaza and Tiburon would lose this valuable business. A successful
technology business will typically require a minimum 10,000 to 15,000 square feet. The
addition of second floor footage for such a use has a number of important planning
advantages: Low impact, non-obtrusive, no garbage, minimal paper waste, no deliveries,
no advertising, no sales promotions, minimal signage, minimal customer or client visits.
High level professional staffing, and high gross revenues yielding substantial & stable tax
contributions to the town. Nil public safety problems and a secure, esthetic working
environment.
No Exterior Change:
The new interior second floor will be an open, spacious configuration, designed to meet
the technology requirements of high technology business, and utilizing the interior
architecturaI values of the Plaza. The plan contemplates no exterior change.
Parking Requirements:
The current and proposed uses, with decreased emphasis on restaurants and retail, impose
a greatly lessened parking requirement. The Plaza has 242 parking spaces. Moreover,
during the weekdays, when visitor demand is light, the parking lot is under-utilized. The
average number for commuter parking is 30 per day, with a maximum of 45.
Precise Plan Amendment:
It is proposed that paragraph I of Resolution No. 2818 be amended in part to read as
follows::
Lb. "A maximum of 27,471 square feet of rentable commercial (Plaza) square
footage, exclusive of public bathrooms, garbage collection areas, and storage.
The commercial space shall be available for retail, office and for other
commercial community serving use, provided that second floor space shall be
for office use only"
I.c. "The total square footage of the project shall not exceed the 279,072 square
feet allocated above."
~'J~.'''?':l:'=~~ :7~'n\
!_-~..;..;:>I".. ,"",-,'i"\':I--~:_'J
~ d...:.....'~'..:-'"'o.; '..:J L'-'.:.v
1C')ji\j C~:: Ti2URON
M.8Y 1 5 1998
C:::::,:-~F:7V:::\;7 c;:
1701 BUILDING
C('"l'rc.,r~" ,'.~'" ,-;-' ,-; -"\"-',.--....,..
. .- I ..'d '\'11 ',' , ,:-" "., ; ",_(\.'1-,"..
_............. __~__.:..._ ...1-.1:
Space Gross Tenant Net Parking Use
A&B 1074 The Digital Foundry 900} Office
CoD 1850 1400} Office
E 700 600} 15 Office
G 1200 650} Office
H 1056 900} Office
5880 4450
F 300 Point Tiburon Plaza 300 1 Office
I-J. 3400 Proportions 2000 10 Fitness Center
K 700 BPE (Bernstein) 600 2 Office.
L 600 Euroskin 600 3 Retail/Salon
M 200 Tiburon Nails 200 3 Nails Salon
N} 1300 Remax Marin's Connection 1000 4 Office
O}
P 1500 Deleuse Jewelers 800 3 Retail
1801 BUILDING
Q-l,2 773 Securities America (Dalton) 750 2 Offices
Q-3 232 Allen Moltzen, Esq. 232 1 Office
Q-4 290 HJ Kramer Publ. 290 1 Office
R-l 169 Carla Howard 169 1 Office
R-2,3 835 Lava Liner Ltd. 835 3 Office
S 800 Salon di Plaza 600 4 Beauty Salon
T} 2340 Brouwer & Janachowski 1900 6 Offices
U}
W}
V 3300 Dynasty Restaurant 800 24 Restaurant
22,619 15,526 83
4,852 (2nd Floor Offices) 4,852 16 Offices
27,471 20,378 99
Point Tiburon Plaza
Existent Business Descriptions and Owner-Employee Tally
Tenant
Bernstein Publishine: Entervrises K
Web-site publisher ( Sally' s Place)
Brouwer & Janachowski
Mutual funds management, large
accounts, institutional investors.
Dalton - Securities America
Tiburon securities broker. One
part time employee
Deleuse Jewelers
High image, high quality jeweler,
Jeff & Janet Deleuse, no employees
Dilrital Foundrv
Creators of advanced Windows NT
automated administration, manage-
ment, provisioning & reporting
software for web and intranet software
Fortune 500 customer base.
Dvnastv
Original tenant at Point Tiburon
Maximum shift is off-hours from
5 P.M. to late evening
Euroskin
Personalized skin care salon
HJ Kramer Pub!.
Accounting office ofTiburon
book publisher.
Howard, Carla & Wavne
Tiburon writer/publisher
Lava-Liner Ltd. (Sylvester)
Business office of Point Tiburon
resident. No employees
Suite
Use
Employees
Office, Publisher: (2)
TUW
Offices: Securities (6)
Q-I,2
Offices: Securities ( 3)
P
Retail:
(2)
AB
CDEG
H
Software Development (20)
v
Restaurant ( 6)
L
Skin care (2)
Q-4
Office: Publishing (I)
R-I
Office: Publishing (I)
R-2,3
Office:
(2)
Tenant Space Use Employees
Moltzen. Allan Q-3 Office: Attorney (1)
Semi-retired Tiburon attorney
Plaza Office F Office: Plaza (3) -
Management office
ProDortions J Fitness Center ( 3)
Local fitness center
RElMax N,O Office: Realtor (4)
Real estate broker
Salon di Plaza S Beauty Salon (4)
Beauty salon
Tiburon Nails M Nail Salon (2)
Nails salon
Pro Dosed Office EXDansion SDace:
Second Floor offices: 1701 building Office (20)
Total including 2nd FL: (82)
..,') .,~.
I
I
I
RESOLUTION NO. 2818
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2168
(AMENDING THE NORTHWESTERN PACIFIC PRECISE PLAN)
TO RECONCILE THIS PLAN WITH SUBSEQUENTLY
APPROVED ADDITIONS TO THE PROJECT AND TO
DISCOURAGE FUTURE ADDITIONS TO THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does resolve
as follows:
Section 1. Findinas.
A. In 1979, the Town adopted Ordinance No. 219 N.S. approving the
. Northwestern Pacific Master Plan, which established a maximum of
273,600 square feet of development on approximately 38 acres of
land owned by the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company. In
1980, the Town adopted a Precise Plan for the property by passing
Resolution No. 1090.
B.
In 1983, the Town approved Resolution No. 2168 amending the
aforesaid Precise Plan. This amendment also specified a maximum
of 273,600 square feet of development for the total project, now
commonly known as, and hereafter referred to, as "Point Tiburon".
C.
In 1985, a request for a 102 square foot deck enclosure at 209
Paradise Drive was received by the Town Council. At that time, it
was calculated that the total square footage of the Point Tiburon
project, as built, was 273,441 square feet, meaning that a 159
square foot surplus remained. The Council approved the 102 .
square foot deck enclosure for the condominium, leaving a 57
square foot surplus in the Master and Precise Plans.
D.
In 1989 and 1990, the Board of Adjustments and Review approved a
130 square foot deck enclosure at 201 Paradise Drive, an 85 square
foot room addition at 208 Paradise Drive, and a 110 square foot
deck enclosure at 412 Paradise Drive. These additions caused
construction at Point Tiburon to reach 273,867 square feet, 267
square feet in excess of the permitted maximum.
1
EXHIBIT NO. 3
"..l "(
I
I
I.
I
In 1990, the Town Council acknowledged the existence of the
additions, but strongly discouraged further additions. The Council
directed that applications for future additions would require full
Amendments to' the Town's prior zoning approvals regarding the
project, and could not simply be processed as "design review"
applications. The Council found that this was clearly the intent of
the original zoning approvals for the property.
E. In March, 1991, the Planning Commission received an application
from a Point Tiburon homeowner requesting Master and Precise
Plan Amendments to permit a 36 square foot floor area addition to
his condominium at 207 Paradise Drive. Even though the
application was withdraWn, the Planning Commission was made
aware that previously-approved additions to the Point Tiburon
project had caused it to exceed the maximum floor area limits
allowed by the Point Tiburon Master Plan and Point Tiburon Precise
. Plan.
F. The Planning Commission recommended that the Town rectify
these previous oversights by formally amending the Point Tiburon
Master Plan and Point T1buron Precise Plan, and has adopted
Resolution 91-13 to that effect.
G.
Furthermore, the Planning Commission recommended that the
Town adopt language strongly discouraging future square footage
additions at Point T1buron, especially in the residential portions of
the project. The Commission found that haphazard additions and
enclosures could damage the integrity and harmony of the project,
detract from the appearance of the project as a whole, and result in
other negative impacts.
H.
The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on
April 10, 1991 and heard and considered testimony from interested
persons in arriving at its recommendations.
The Town Council has held duly noticed and advertised public
hearings on 6/19/91 and 10/15/91, and has considered the
testimony in arriving at its decision. The Town Council concurs with
the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and finds that the
project is consistent with the T1buron General Plan and applicable
Town regulations.
2
~"~I "
I
The Town Council has found that this project is categorically
exempt from CEOA under Section 15305 of the CEOA Guidelines
(Minor Changes to Land Use Umitatlons).
J.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the
Town of T1buron does hereby amend Resolution No. 2168 (amending the
Point Tiburon Precise Plan and Tentative Map) as follows:
1. Sub-paragraph (1) of Section 2 of Resolution No. 2168 is
modified to read,
I
e.
I
"Density-Land Use Mix (page 1) shall read as follows:
a. A maximum of 155 attached residential units not to
exceed 251,601 square feet. Twenty of these units shall
be below-market.
b. A maximum of 22,647 square feet of rentable
commercial (Plaza) square footage, exclusive of public
bathrooms, garbage collection areas, and storage. The
commercial space shall be available for retail, office
and/or other commercial community serving use.
c.
The total square footage of the project shall not exceed
the 274,248 square feet allocated above.
d.
The above figures represent the best estimate of as-
built square footage as of August, 1991. However, the
Town will accept as valid additional commercial or
residential square footage which can be demonstrated
to have been approved by the Town and built prior to
August, 1991, without requiring an amendment to the
Precise Plan.
It is the policy of the Town to strongly discourage
square footage additions in the Point Tiburon project,
especially in the residential portions. Applications for
Precise Plan Amendment must be approved by the
Town prior to the approval of any additions to the Point
Tiburon project by the Board or the Building
Department.
3
-,...,; ~ r
.,.' -''\>i''
.. ., ... .
I
I
I
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council
of the Town of Tiburon on October 15,1991, by the following vote: ".-'
. ,
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS: Coxhead, Friedman, Kuhn,
Thayer
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:
, -
None
Logan
4
.. < .-..-.-.,-,.....-- ...._--_._,._-_._.".._._-~..__.._----_.-.._-_. _... ~-~---_._._--_._.'------
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
~
-Oi=/'-OFI,,(j -_~
V~~1'
~..,9~.~~., .. "\%~
-(.;;~ -:\,j-::::--,;-)''''''''
". (1 \- ~ " JI'- _ - ,-: ' .,. J.
L~<~i~~--:__ _~i - :-_' -;. > O}~_/
~"()Iii'^,'A \~/~
"
Police Department
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Scott Anderson, Planning Department
Sergeant David M. Hutton
Referral Report for 170 I Tiburon Blvd.
July 2, 1998
On Thursday, July 2,1998, I responded to the area of 1701 Tiburon Blvd., at the Point Tiburon
Plaza, for the purpose of reviewing the job sight for improvements listed on the plans provided by
your department.
In my estimation, the work which would allow the installation of approximately 4852 square feet of
second floor office area inside the existing walls of the building, does not hamper the sight lines,
sight distances or limit sight in any way to the neighbors or neighboring businesses in the
surrounding area. As per the attached plans, the changes would be internal improvements only and .
no physical expansion of the buildings outer walls are proposed at this time. Should this plan change
in the future, this department would appreciate notification.
I have also reviewed the attached Land Development Application on file at Town Hall and see no
foreseeable problee::::in.1~ area as well.
/IJ~(~
RECEIVED
DAVID M. HUTTON,
SERGEANT
JUL 6
1998
PLANNING OEPARTMENT
TOWN OF TI8URON
EXHIBIT NO. 4
. ,~~
TIBURON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
TO: Tiburon Planning Department
DATE: dtJty?7;;:1-g98~
:_.-~~'-~"-~': ~- ~;.;.:-~='/
FROM:
Ron Barney, Fire Inspector
ij..,..:,-:..;.... -,:":'r T:= ~-':-:'::->~
RE: File # 39805, PI. Tiburon Plaza
JUt 7 \996
c_.,-.
CC':':~~_.~, :;.t'j_~.' ..:::..:..:i~;\i:~~"lT
The proposed remodel and addition of second floor office space at 1701 Tiburon Blvd.
shall comply with the following requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and the Tiburon
Fire Protection District:
1) The automatic fire sprinkler system shall be extended into the new office
area in accordance with NFPA std. 13.
The system design, installation and fina/testing shall be
approved by the District Fire Prevention Officer. UFC 1003
2) Our records indicate that this structure was assigned numerical
addresses for the various tenants. This was done in July of 1995 by the
Planning and Building Departments. Our records have been updated to
reflect these changes. All existing tenants and any proposed new
tenants shall use the appropriate numerical designations.
3) Tenant improvement plans for the proposed construction shall be
approved by the Fire District prior to construction.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the plans.
cc: file
H:"'~,--:rr'PTT N-r,
..u..:::'k.(...;u.~t.1,. .I.. v.
5
MARIN MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT
RECEIVED'
JUl 3 1 1998
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TOViN OF TiBiJRON
220 Nellen A venue
Corte Madera, CA 94925.1169
415.924.4600
FAX 415.927.4953
July 27, 1998
File No. 244.1
Service No. 55636
Map No. N22-13
Scott Anderson
Tiburon Planning Dept
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon CA 94920
RE: WATER AVAILABILITY - Commercial/Office
Assessor's Parcel No.: 59-161-07
Location: 170-rTiburon Blvd., Tiburon
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Water is currently being provided to the above referenced parcel by Service No. 55636.
The purpose and intent of this service are to provide water for commercial use. District
records indicate an existing water entitlement of 3.50 acre-feet for this service. The District
calculates water consumption for office space at 0.10 acre-feet per one thousand square
feet of floor area. Therefore the proposed 4,852 of additional floor space would generate
an estimated 0.48 acre-feet of water use.
This estimate, combined with the current average consumption of approximately 2.07 acre-
feet annually is well below the water entitlement of 3.50 acre-feet for the service. The
installation of the second floor office space within the existing building, will not impair the
ability of the District to serve this property.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 924-4600, ext. 258.
~~
(J Mistron
Project Manager
JM:mp
EXHIBIT NO,._~._.
An Equal Opporrunirv/Affirmative Action Employer
Q Recyclea
W Rec,;clabl€
Mayor and Tiburon Town Council
Town Staff and Planning Commission
July 23, 1998
Re: request for additional 4,500+ Sq.ft. office space
in Point Tiburon Commercial
On August 5th 1998, an application for internal expansion, (2nd level construction) creating more office
space,... along with a Draft for a ''Negative Declaration", will be submitted to Council and Planning. The
present Owners of Point Tiburon's Commercial are requesting an addition of over 4,500 sq. ft. of
rentable space to be added to their development, by creating illegal upper floors levels. The existing square
footage presently EXCEEDS the maximwn allowed in the recorded Master andlor Precise Plans for this
Commercial Area.
The present owners are aware that UPPER LEVELS in their buildings are not allowed in this development. -
Townsmembers attended hundreds of meetings on this project, finalizing in an approved Master Plan for Point
Tiburon. It took TEN YEARS of meetings, between 1971 and 1981, to get a negotiated settlement with the original
property owners, Southern Pacific Railroad, along with their Architects and Attorneys. Maximwn allowable sq.
footage for Residential and Commercial areas were set forth in the agreements and the docwnents are on record in
Staffs office.
The project was purchased by David Inner of Innisfree Corp. along with the accepted design in 1981. Thje project
was completed in 1984, using EVERY allowable square foot of construction in both residential and commercial
areas. The maximwn has been reached and NO MORE should be allowed!
Town Staff, with the exception of Manager Bob Kleinert may be unaware of the history of Point
Tiburon. They should read the fIles in their archives, before adding their support, and recommending Approval to
the 'Negative Declaration'.
In hopes that we don't haV7to 0 thru Poin:..Tiburon 's'planning again........
~_-<'l....~ ~ eLL'" '\...-----J
Nathaniel Marans -
2312 Spanish Trail.
Tiburon, Calif 94920 i
RECEIVED
JUl 2 2 1998
TOWN MANAGERS OffiCE
TOWN Of TI6URON
J~XHIBIT NO.
f
~
..."!.. : -
t ~ Lyford's Cove - Old TibuTon
F'ii-'~' Homeowners Association
~ ,_ __0' 0'-':-: :}i. 1/
; ~;:o ~ ,/'" , ~ ~t I -~8 Main Street, Suite 634, Tjburod, CA 94920
"" ,.' ,\. .... ....:0...
." ,..' -f\, -, -.
August 5,1998
RECEIVED
AUG 5 1998
Scott Anderson
Planning Director
Town of Tiburon
1505 TiblU"OI1 Blvd,
TibtU"On, CA 94920
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TOWN OF TIBURON
Re: Pt. Tihuron Commerciaf S1l8ceJReauest for Additional Densi1;y
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Our Homeowners Association represents the area immediately adjacent to
Pt. Tiburon. Our homeowners would be impacted adversely by any increase in density of the
commercial portion ofPt. Tiburon. The Town of Tiburon has pertormed surveys of the parking
areas and can appreciate that at peak times on weekends, the existing parking fileilities are full.
Ovcrflow parking is then pnxiuced into the ~treets immediately adjacent in OUT homeowners
areas.
The density of the Pt. Tiburon commercial area was reviewed extensively at the
time that the project was approved. Specifically, the concept of allowing second levels in the
commercial buildings was reviewed and rejected because the project was t" be, and now is, built
to its maximum density.
The Lyford's Cove - Old Tiburon H"meownen Association would respectfully
request that the Town Planning Commission and Council give serious consideration to the traftic
and parking impacts that would be caused by the addition of the second floor areas of the
commercial buildings, particularly on Mar West Street and the side streets adjacent thereto.
We also would ask the Planning Commission and Council to consider the
precedent established by increasing the density in the Pt. Tiburon Plaza area. '!be original
densities were established to create parity with existing Town development, i.::.. the already
developed portions primarily owned by l'vlain Street Properties. Any increase in density in the
Pt. Tiburon Plaza would trigger an argument that the remaining portion> of the downtown area
must be allowed to increase their densities proporti!lnately.
EXHIBIT NO.
g
Scott Anderson
August 5,1998
Page 2
There is also a question regarding whether there should be an increase in
commercial office space in Tibucon when substantial retail space remains unoccupied. We
would recommend that no density increases be granted until the impact on the neighboring areas
is adequately assessed and the present occupancy rates of existing downtown commercial spaces
arc reviewed.
Sincerely,
tJ41' ~
Wendy Soule
p
o
I
N
T
.
.
1If~
T
I
B
u
R
o
N
REceIVED
August 4, 1998
AUG' 5 1998
Town of Tiburon Planning Department
Scott Anderson
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
PLANNING OEPAAT,vlENT
TOWN OF TlBURON
Re:
Point Tiburon Plaza
Commercial application to expand
office space
Dear Scott:
The Board of Directors for the Point Tiburon Bayside Condominium
Association has directed me to write this letter on their behalf.
The Point Tiburon Bayside Condominium Association is currently
reviewing traffic circulation caused by automobiles entering the
Point Tiburon Plaza public parking facilities and its effect upon
the adj acent private parking areas of the Point Tiburon Bayside
Condominium Association.
The current sign configuration, leading to the public parking, is
confusing and causes many automobiles to enter the private Point
Tiburon Bayside parking area, causing much unnecessary traffic and
related safety problems.
The Point Tiburon Bayside Condominium Association plans to discuss
the situation with the Owners of Point Tiburon Plaza and propose
remedies in the near future.
Any inc~ease in the size of Peint Tiburon Plaza could exace=bate
this situation.
Bgegar
~brec t
General Manager
cc: Board of Directors
EYJ!I"RIT NO. q
SA YSlDE CONDOf-Ili\:ll.Jivt ASSOCIXrlOr..;
Mailing Address
:i5 Llgoon Vi~t<l, Tiburon, C,l. 9-F)2i1
Office Location
1680 C Tiburon Bh'd., Tibumn, C,l.
Telephone
-!15 -!35-3-!67
-!15 -!35-S50-! FAX
Initial Study
Environmental Checklist Form
I. Background
A.
Summary Information
1. Application Number(s): 39805
2. Location, 1701 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California
3. Parcel No(s), 59-161-07
4. Project Sponsor: Stanley Cook, Point Tiburon Plaza
5. Date Checklist completed, July, 1998
6. Agency Requiring Checklist, Town ofTiburon
7. Name of Proposal: Amendment to Point Tiburon Precise Plan
8. General Plan Designation: NC (Neighborhood Commercial)
9. Zoning District: NC (Neighborhood Commercial)
10. Surrounding land uses and setting:
North, Point Tiburon Lagoon and Lagoon Condominiums
East: Point Tiburon Lagoon, Plaza Parking lot, and Bayside Condominiums
South, State Highway 131 (Tiburon Boulevard)
West: Tiburon Cleaners and Fire District Headquarters
11. Other Public Agencies whose approval is required, None
B. Project Description
The project proposes to amend the Point Tiburon (Northwestern Pacific) Precise Plan to
allow the addition of approximately 4,852 additional square feet of office space in the
commercial portion of the project: The additional square footage would be installed inside
the existing walls of the building located at 1701 Tiburon Boulevard in the Point Tiburon
Plaza. This building was finished and occupied as a one-story structure, but has the physical
capability of partial second story occupancy without any significant exterior alterations.
TOWN OF TlBURON !NIDAL STUDYIDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7/98
1
EXHIBIT NO. 10
Significant physical changes to the building would be limited to internal tenant
improvements; no significant exterior changes are proposed, and no physical expansion of
the building's outer walls or roof are proposed. See drawings attached as Exhibit A.
A Precise Plan amendment is required in order to increase the rentable commercial square
footage in the Point Tiburon Plaza by 4,852 square feet above its current limit of22,647
square feet allowed in Town Council Resolution No. 2818, adopted in 1991. The proposal
would limit the second floor use to office only. The proposed amendment would also
increase the maximum square footage allowed in the Point Tiburon Precise Plan
(commercial and residential) to 279,100 square feet from the current limit of 274,248
square feet.
II. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages. NONE IDENTIFIED.
_ Land Use and Planning _ Transportation/Circulation
Public Services
_ Population and Housing _ Biological Resources
Utilities
_ Geological Problems
Noise
Aesthetics
_ Water
_ Energy & Mineral Resources
Cultural Resources
_ Air Quality
Hazards
Recreation
_ Mandatory Findings of Significance
_ Cumulative Impacts (SpecifY),
ill. Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
xx 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 DECLARATION
WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDYIDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7/98
2
,_ ,. ____."_.____" __.__o__--._._.__.._w_ ._. _ '__'_____'_._____'__"_.'_'__
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, but at
least one effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described in the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effect which remain to be
addressed.
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 all potentially significant effect
I) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ErR, including revisions or
~;~:o O~,'~:'~~~~~d '0 <h, P"P~~~""13 I j q,~
Scott Anderson nai1 a- J
Planning Director
IV. 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 determination
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. Mitigation measures from Section V "Earlier Analyses" may be cross-
referenced.
TOWN OF TlBURON INITIAL STUDYiDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7198
3
Potentially
Significant
PotentiaDy UnleM Leu Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impect
1. Land Use and Planning. Would the proposal result in:
a) Conflict with a general plan designation or
zoning designation? _ _ XX
Explanation: Installation and use of second floor offices in this commercial center would be
consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial district and zone, which both allow
"resident-serving commercial and office use". The floor area ratio within the Point Tiburon
development would increase to 0.1695, slightly below the 0.17 floor area ratio maximum
allowed under the Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. Existing lot
coverage would not increase. The height of the building would not increase.
b) A substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Explanation,
XX
The site is already used as a commercial center in Downtown Tiburon. The addition ofless than
5,000 square feet of office space within the walls of an existing commercial building would not
substantially alter the planned or present land use of the area
c) Effects upon agricultural resources or
operations?
Explanation:
XX
There are no agricultural resources or operations on or in the vicinity of the site, and the project will
therefore have no effects on such resources or operations.
d) Disruption or division of the physical
arrangement of an established community? _ _ XX
Explanation, The site is already used as a commercial center in Downtown Tiburon. The
addition of less than 5,000 square feet of office space within the walls of an existing
commercial building would not disrupt the physical arrangement of the Downtown
community.
2. Population & Housing. Would the proposal,
a) An alteration of the location, distribution,
density, or growth of the human population
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDYIDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7/98
4
PotentiaDy
Signi1icant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Signilicant No
[mpact lncorpol'll.lcd Impact [mpact
of an area? XX
--
Explanation: The project would have no effect on the growth, density, or distribution of
human population in the area.
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of
major infrastructure)?
Explanation,
XX
--
The area around the project site is already developed with commercial and residential use~s. This
project would utilize virtually all of the floor area ratio allowed in the Tiburon General Plan for the
Point Tiburon project. The Point Tiburon project could provide no more than an additional 800
square feet of floor area within the project area while still not exceeding the 0.17 floor are limit set
forth in the Tiburon General Plan.
c) Displace existing housing, or create a
demand for additional housing?
Explanation,
XX
--
The proposed project is small in scale and has no potential to displace existing housing or create a
demand for additional housing.
3. Geologic Problems. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
Explanation,
XX
--
There are no known faults on the site nor on the Tiburon Peninsula. The existing building at Point
Tiburon is built on drilled piers into bedrock below the bay mud overlay. The addition of improved
floor area within the existing building frame would not alter the situation, and new construction will
be required to meet Uniform Building Code standards
b) Seismic ground shaking?
Explanation,
XX
--
There are no known faults on the site nor on the Tiburon Peninsula. The existing building at Point
Tiburon is built on drilled piers into bedrock below the bay mud overlay. The addition of improved
TOWN OF TlBURON INITIAL STUDYIDRAIT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7/98
5
PotentiaBy
Significant
Impact
Potenlially
SigniJicant
Unless Less1lwt
Mitiplion Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
floor area within the existing building frame would not alter the situation, and new construction will
be required to meet Uniform Building Code standards.
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
Explanation,
xx
There are no known faults on the site nor on the Tiburon Peninsula. The existing building at Point
Tiburon is built on drilled piers into bedrock below the bay mud overlay. The addition of improved
floor area within the existing building frame would not alter the situation, and new construction will
be required to meet Uniform Building Code standards.
d) Seiche or tsunami?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not expose people to water-related hazards such as seiches or tsunamis.
e) Landslides or mudflows?
Explanation,
xx
--
The geological studies previously prepared for the Point Tiburon project indicated that there are no
landslide areas on the site.
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
soils conditions from excavation, grading
or fill?
Explanation,
xx
- - - -
The proposed project would not alter the topography of the site. No grading or other physical
change to the site is proposed.
g) Subsidence of land?
Explanation:
xx
The existing building at Point Tiburon is built on drilled piers into bedrock below the bay mud
overlay. The addition of improved floor area within the existing building frame would not alter the
situation, and new construction will be required to meet Uniform Building Code standards.
h) Expansive soils?
Explanation,
xx
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7/98
6
Potentially
Significant
Imp'"
potenlWly
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impt.ct Impact
The existing building at Point Tiburon is built on drilled piers into bedrock below the bay mud
overlay. The addition of improved floor area within the existing building frame would not alter the
situation, and new construction will be required to meet Uniform Building Code standards.
I) Unique geologic or physical features?
Explanation:
xx
There are no unique geologic or physical features present on the site, which has been used for over
100 years for railroad yard and urban-oriented purposes.
4. Water. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in currents, or the course
or direction of water movements?
Explanation,
xx
The proposed project would not create any changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements.
b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff?
Explanation,
xx
The proposed project would not affect absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate or amount of
surface runoff .
c) Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
Explanation,
xx
The proposed project would not alter the course or flow of floodwaters.
d. Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body or wetland?
Explanation:
xx
No increase in runoff would result from the project.
e) Discharge into surface waters or other
TOWN OF TlBURON INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7/98
7
Potentially
Significant
Impact
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)?
Explanation:
PQtentially
Significant
Unless Leu Than
Mitigation SignifiC1lllt No
lncmporated lrnpact Impact
xx
--
No increased runoff from the site would occur, and no change in water quality would result.
t) Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of groundwaters?
Explanation,
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 excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater
recharge capability?
Explanation:
No activities are proposed which would have an impact on groundwaters.
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
Explanation:
No activities are proposed which would have an impact on groundwaters.
I) Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Explanation:
No substantial increase in water consumption would occur.
j) Exposure of people or property to
water-related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves?
Explanation:
xx
xx
--
xx
xx
--
xx
--
The proposed project would not expose people or property to water-related hazards.
TOWN OF TlBURON fNITIAL STUDYIDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7/98
8
PotentiaUy
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Inc{)Jpo~ted Impact Impact
5. Air Quality. Would the proposal,
a) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
Explanation,
xx
--
No earth-moving or other potential air-quality degrading activities on the site are proposed.
b) Create objectionable odors?
Explanation,
xx
No odor problems are expected to result from the expanded office use.
c)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate?
xx
Explanation:
The proposed project will not have any effect on the climate of the surrounding area.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
Explanation:
xx
--
There are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site.
6. Transportation/Circulation. Would the proposal
result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Explanation,
xx
The addition of 4,852 square feet of office space would result in approximately 12 additional AM
peak hour vehicle trips (10 inbound and 2 outbound), and 14 PM peak hour vehicle trips (12
outbound and 2 inbound) at the site. Traffic count information from 1995 indicates that at the
Tiburon Boulevard/Mar West intersection, there are approximately 1185 inbound trips (toward
Downtown) and 615 outbound trips during the PM peak hour during week-days. In the busiest
direction of the PM peak hour (inbound), the office space would increase the number of vehicles
on Tiburon Boulevard by 0.16% (.0016), a negligible amount. Traffic impacts resulting from the
project itself would therefore be less than significant.
TOWN OF TIIlURON INITIAL STUDY IDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7/98
9
Potentially
Significant
ImpllCl
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitiption Significant No
lncorponr.ted Impact Impact
The site is already used as a commercial center in Downtown Tiburon. The addition ofless than
5,000 square feet of office space within the walls of an existing commercial building has no potential
for negative effects on biological resources. -
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? _
Explanation,
xx
No trees would be affected or removed. The project would have no impact on biological resources.
c) Locally-designated natural communities (e.g.,
oak forest, serpentine grasslands)?
Explanation:
xx
--
See response to 7(a) above.
d) Wetland habitat?
Explanation:
xx
--
The proposed project is adjacent to an artificially-created fresh-water lagoon which is currently
undergoing restoration. The office use is not anticipated to have any adverse effects on this lagoon
as all work would be within the existing building walls.
e) Wildlife corridors?
Explanation:
xx
--
See response to 7(a) above.
8. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
Explanation,
xx
The installation of nearly 5,000 additional square feet of office space within a commercial building
could possibly produce measurable increases in decibel levels of the ambient noise adjacent to the
Point Tiburon Plaza. However, office uses are typically very quiet uses, limited to daytime only,
and it is unlikely that any such measurable noise increases would be noticeable to the human ear
over the surrounding ambient traffic noise of Downtown Tiburon. Actual operating hours for any
office use occupying the space would be established through a Conditional Use Permit, at which
time any concerns of neighbors regarding potential noise could be specifically addressed.
TOWN OF nBURoN INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7/98
12
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Signiticant
Unless LeM Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impacl
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Explanation,
xx
The project will not expose persons to severe noise levels.
9. Energy and Mineral Resources. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans?
Explanation:
xx
The project will not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans.
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful or
inefficient manner?
Explanation:
xx
The project will not use non-renewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner.
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the State?
Explanation,
xx
The project would not affect any mineral resources on the subject property.
10. Hazards. Would the proposal involve,
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project does not include the use or storage of hazardous materials.
b) possible interference with an emergency
response plan or evacuation plan? XX
Explanation:
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDYiDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7/98 13
Potentially
SignifiC&llt
Impoct
PotentiaDy
Significant
Unless LcssThan
Mitigation Significant No
lncmporated Im~ Impllct
In tenns of cumulative impact on Tiburon Boulevard intersections, the project would also result in
less than significant impacts because of its small magnitude. As required by ordinance, the project
would be required to pay traffic mitigation fees. Under the current fee schedule, the traffic impact
fees would total approximately $70,000.
b) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or ofT-site?_
Explanation,
xx
Parking for the expanded office square footage would be located in the Point Tiburon Plaza parking
lot on the property. This lot has a technical capacity of 241 parking spaces. Parking for the Point
Tiburon Plaza was approved at a retail ratio of one space per every 250 square feet of floor area.
At the approved square footage of22,000 square feet, a total of88 parking spaces were required
by the Town for the Plaza uses. A total of 116 spaces were created by the developer exclusively
for the Plaza uses. The remaining 125 spaces in the Point Tiburon Plaza parking lot were
designated as "commuter" spaces for week-day use, and on week-ends for use by tourists and the
public on a fee basis. During the week, an average of30 "commuter" spaces are used, according
to the applicant, with maximum use at approximately 45 spaces. During the week, the Point
Tiburon Plaza parking lot is generally under-utilized. On week-ends, the lot often fills up during
the late spring through Labor Day, but is under-utilized the remainder of the year, according to car
counts conducted by the Town of Tiburon over the past four years.
The applicant has provided a detailed accounting of the current tenants occupying the Plaza, their
square footage and type of use. The fully-leased Plaza currently requires 83 parking spaces per
current Town ordinances, according to the applicant. While Staff arrived at a slightly higher number
of spaces required by current tenants, there is clearly a large surplus of available parking spaces
beyond that required by current uses. It is important to note that the Plaza has recently undergone
a shift toward office use from restaurant and retail sales. Retail and restaurant uses tended to fare
poorly in this development for a number of reasons. Retail and restaurant uses typically require
more parking than office uses, so that the week-day parking demand int he Plaza has been reduced
through recent tenant changes.
The proposed additional office space of 4,852 square feet would require 16 parking spaces under
current Town standards. There would still be a surplus of Town-required parking spaces in the
Point Tiburon Plaza lot even after the addition of the new office improvements. The office uses
typically would not be open on the week-end days, when parking demand on the Plaza lot is at its
greatest, at least in late spring and summer.
Staff concludes that there would be a less than significant impact on parking as a result of this
project.
TOWN Of TIBURON INITIAL STUDYIDRAfT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7198
10
Potentially
Sigrulicll1lt
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
c) Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses?
Explanation,
xx
The project would have no impact on street design features. The minor additional traffic generation
from the expanded office use would not result in significant traffic safety problems.
d) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses?
Explanation,
xx
The proposed project will have no impact on emergency access or on access to nearby uses. All
parking for the office use would be located in the Point Tiburon Plaza parking lot.
e) Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts?
Explanation:
xx
The project will not affect rail, water or air transportation systems.
1) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists?
Explanation:
xx
This project proposes no physical changes to the site which would create or worsen hazards for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
g) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation?
Explanation,
xx
The project will not conflict with any adopted policies supporting alternative transportation.
7. Biological Resources. Would the proposal result in
impacts to
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or
their habitats?
Explanation:
xx
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDY/DRAn' MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7/98
11
Potentially
Si&nificant
Impoct
Potentially
Signilicant
UnIe5S LessThan
Mitiplion Si&nificant No
lncotpOfllted Impact Impact
The minor increase in traffic generation from the project would not have a substantial effect on
emergency response or evacuation plans.
c) The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not create any unusual health hazards.
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
Explanation,
.XX
The proposed project will not expose people to any unusual health hazards.
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
plants?
Explanation,
xx
The proposed project will not expose people to increased fire hazards due to flammable plants.
11. Pu blic Services. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas?
a) Fire protection?
Explanation:
xx
According to the Tiburon Fire Protection District, the proposed project will not affect fire
protection services. See Exhibit B.
b) Pulice protection?
Explanation:
xx
--
According to the Tiburon Police Department, no law enforcement issues are foreseen for the
proposed project. See Exhibit C.
c) Schools?
Explanation,
xx
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDYIDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7/98
14
~""-""--'-'-""'''.~'-''''--'-^.'--'--''''~''''-----''--~'''-'^'''''____________'__'_n._______
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentiany
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
The project would not result in increased school enrollments
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
Explanation,
xx
The project would not result in substantial new maintenance of any public facilities.
e) Other governmental services?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project has no potential to affect the delivery of government services.
12. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the proposal
result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities?
a) Power or natural gas?
Explanation
xx
The proposed project will not significantly alter existing power or natural gas systems serving the
site.
b) Communication systems?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not significantly alter existing communications systems serving the site.
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not generate substantial new demand for water services.
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
Explanation,
xx
The proposed project will not require substantial alteration to existing sanitary sewer systems.
e)
Storm water drainage?
xx
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDYIDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7/98
15
PotcntiaDy
~t
1mp""
PotcntiaD.y
Significant
UNou Lou '!bon
Mitiption. Signifkant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
Explanation,
The project will have no impact on storm drains.
t) Solid waste disposal?
Explanation:
xx
The project will have no significant impact on solid waste disposal systems.
g) Local or regional water supplies?
Explanation,
xx
No substantial new demand for water supplies will be generated by this project.
13. Aesthetics. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
Explanation:
xx
--
There will be no substantial aesthetic changes as a result of this project.
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
Explanation
xx
--
There will be no significant aesthetic changes as a result of this project.
c) Create light or glare?
Explanation:
xx
Second story office use does have the potential to create new light in portions of the building which
were not previously occupied. It is anticipated that such lights would be of the low-intensity
internal variety CQmmon to modern day office buildings. Any such lighting would be expected to
have a less-than-significant impact on nearby residences. At such time as specific approvals for use
are sought (Conditional Use Permit), appropriate conditions of approval on the use and design can
be imposed which would address any concerns of neighbors.
14. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
Explanation:
xx
--
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDYIDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7/98
16
,---------_..-."- -'------'-_.._._----_._...~.._.,-'"_._~----------------_.---.
There are no known paleontological resources on the subject site.
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
Explanation,
There are no known archeological resources on the subject site.
c) Have the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values?
Explanation:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation SigniJicant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
xx
xx
The proposed project will not cause any physical changes which would affect unique cultural values.
d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area?
Explanation:
There are no religious or sacred uses within the site area.
15. Recreation. Would the proposal,
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
Explanation:
The project will not have any impact on recreational facilities.
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
The proposal would have no impact on recreational facilities.
16. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to
xx
xx
- -
xx
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL SnJDYfDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7/98
17
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
lncotpOBlcd Impact Impact
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,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of Cali fomi a 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, definitive
period of time, while long-term impacts will
endure well 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 individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may impact on
two or more separate resources where
the impact on each resource is relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant)?
Explanatiqn
xx
The proposed project would not have any individually limited, but cumulatively considerable,
effects.
d)
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
xx
TOWN OF nEURON INITIAL STUDYIDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7/98
18
PotentiaDy
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unlcu Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Imp8ct Impact
Explanation,
The proposed project will not cause any substantial adverse effects on human beings.
V. Earlier Analyses. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program
EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an
earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion
should identifY the following on the attached sheets:
This section is not applicable to this Initial Study.
EXHIBITS
A. Site and building plans.
B. Letter dated July 7, 1998 from Tiburon Fire Protection District.
C. Letter dated July 2, 1998 from Tiburon Police Department.
SOURCES REFERENCED OR CONSULTED
1. Tiburon General Plan, as current to July, 1998.
2. U.S. Government Flood Hazard Map, Community No. 060430 A, November, 1976.
3. Geotechnical Investigation for Final Design, Southern Pacific Development Project,
Harding-Lawson Associates, April, 1982.
\scott\39805.is
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDYiDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7/98
19
-
,
;:r.~
"
"
"<,
.,
o
" .,
."'"
..,
~ g ~
'0,
~ l: ~
,
.........
.........
.........
......... .......
.........- .......
.........
....
~...~
" '.
,'.ii. . .
,01.... ,
"'f':',"j.)
\
.........
.........
....... .......
.......
....... '---'
'---'
'---'
\ ~ \\~. \"!.\'i~Ht.!l.HHH~H; ~
!HitrrWfJ/UHllHwm 1
t III,!llllr ~ II..
r t ! h t
.
'III 1IIIlil I
~fin HnL ~..H.,,<(a..
if \Hl'ltf\.tPt!lmHPHl
'l[Wnit!! litHfll1r
I If 1ft If[ /I
!~ ~~~ !!; i!!H~~~i !:i m~!~!: ~ l
h =~! !_~ IjI""':I! h~ ~"..i:J! f
;; !!; m l:;;l:i:; ~!~ ;;j';!iO ~ _..~
!~ 'l'~ !I.l -"'t" I.' iill! u-.! I ~ '"
i~ !l i~i l::.i~i~ I;: !.;'~B!! i'l "
~~ H: ~i! ~m.:i~ !fi i!~::i.;i ~. '\
"111hi u."t"-'hnOlll"t '_P
i!-li;l= :!H;;iIH~ii'I"H;
it !;i j~J It~i!i.g iji It' =hij ~ ,....
;i H; !~ !!~,':;i !.~ ";:-~hi'"
j- ;.1 :~ CE~tU~~ Iii l.d.iI ... .....
i"= i! h:;':;"j :) l~t~IH. CJI
il II l!!!!!!j il !I!l!l! ~ '::. '
. 'Wli
~ j~
~
. ;
i'\,
.Ii;
i~i~
m~\ilmmi~;H ~m ~Ii
t" ,'. "~1' .1.'",1l _I' I
,';!.'iii_l!'\; l!I";::,
i'! ~! ti'; ~,Ili '~i _ "
',.'--1"'-. -ll-t'
lia fl!Lm~i.i'..ii~!i
~!~~:m~~~mm ~m_i
f ,"~~:.h":;fa., ~t:j
~ ":i"i:.lifi~ il. 1i:~
':r:I,j:~~~'iHH t;~~
('i i----.Li" :._
~immil1l!!Ilim
r :'~i~
o
" ,
~ ~ ~
~~~ ~,
='m-l l>
~I.IlO '-" Z}:>O
"""-1 ~ Or
~ <~ ~::!:-of
_z 0 -l):>
1:2:~o_l> r~
~ ze!:n ~ l'Tl):>
8.];>~ ~~G
~:~ ~ ~ ~
~~ 0 ~
'" -"
" 0
r _
I '0
'(
i~-'
'1'-
I~~ ~
: t~ ~
:'".' :la
~
"
i
"
D
,
.
.
\\
\
/
~r I of 3
"~ \JI
~~ C
-;f1' F
&? S2
fZ
qa-
m2S
~ -n
~ 31
_' -I
. -n
c..- ,-
C)
H~
,
""b
~
.
Co
"
"
"
it
~
:p
.,.
~
p
I
1
----~-------
1
1
1
I ,I
I 'i
-------T---B
1
I
- ---8
,
, ,
I &'" /
i~ : )~/,"
-------f---
, ,
, ,
, ,
"'"/'6',, i
, /"'~~ i
"./ ", I'
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, "
", ''8' a 1
" ~
' ,
/~ "Jii I
,/ '"
, ,
, ,
, '
1
--t-
I
I
'-1
--{0
, -----0
"'" /i~ i
, 0( Q ,
// ',~ I
, ,
"./ >", I'
, ,
--8
" t'
, ~~"/
"'0/'
/ '
~/ ',1
,
, ,
, ,
~~'
, ,
, ,
, ,
, '
r-rL---
/;-r~--
,',' 1
,/
--e
,
"'" J~~
'0(/ rijz
"
, ,
, ,
, ,
/
1
I
I
----~-------
I
1
I
1
~---~-------
1
1
I I 1
'-----+----l----
, I
I '
, I
I '
, I
______l____i _
T a- ------
, ~~ ,"', /' 1 ~~
'a I' , , a
" ",/ I"
i i /'i'~"", i
I " '
, ,
, ,
-----0---------
1 I 1
~ ~ ~
---@
----0
---{9
1
1
I
----~----@
I
~
EXHIBIT NO.
~
0'
o
'\
)>
'" "~\JI
~ ~~ ~
r ~;; S2
..;z
:p~G'
d ::::j
-p' Sd
o 0-
... rTl
" 0
5l- C)
z
4- I:)
6 -n
,-
r- ~
--
;-
..,..
~
c
4
"
~'n
.."
gfri~
~'~
~~G
>l~o
~~i
, m
I
I
-~----._---
I
I
I
, I
, I
----------8
I
I
I
,
I', ~J
I '""
~~ ! //jl',
---8
I
,
,
I'",
---0
I
I
I
-----0---------
I
I
I
I
-------------
I
I
I
I
-----@
I
I
-----0
I
I
----@
I
I
I
-----0-------
I I
~ tb
I
I
I
-----T---@
G <k
EXHIBIT NO.
A~
TIBURON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
TO: Tiburon Planning Department
DATE: ~'ty ('Y;;; 1'998' '"5)
'..1.="=}'~""'-' '--"';"""-'
FROM:
Ron Barney, Fire Inspector
T,,::"+"j~'_ J:-:~~ T:~.~,~~:'J>1
RE: File # 39805, PI. Tiburon Plaza
JUt 7 1998
'" ~- - --. --....,.- -~"-
C2~,.,~:..~':'. :;~.~",/ _~; ~~C::~\t::: ,]7
The proposed remodel and addition of second floor office space at 1701 Tiburon Blvd.
shall comply with the following requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and the Tiburon
Fire Protection District:
1) The automatic fire sprinkler system shall be extended into the new office
area in accordance with NFPA std. 13.
The system design, installation and final testing shall be
approved by the District Fire Prevention Officer. UFC 1003
2) Our records indicate that this structure was assigned numerical
addresses for the various tenants_ This was done in July of 1995 by the
Planning and Building Departments. Our records have been updated to
reflect these changes. All existing tenants and any proposed new
tenants shall use the appropriate numerical designations.
3) Tenant improvement plans for the proposed construction shall be
approved by the Fire District prior to construction_
Thank you for the opportunity to review the plans.
cc: file
EXHIBIT NO. B
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
i
.:-;:/-oF T/~ ~
f-,,~01>\
r ~..,ol
o -...."".. '. l.-z.
'1-" ',' \
_'I'.;_~ it ,__ ,I.,~
I '{' 1'1 :""_._ _,/:
~(.l' t- _;: -- - _ '''' "" /
~r(';~:~_ _,- ;::_,:,. ~~~il
~-009NIA \t\c, ~
,
.
Police Department
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Scott Anderson, Planning Department
Sergeant David M_ Hutton
Referral Report for 170 I Tiburon Blvd.
July 2, 1998
On Thursday, July 2, 1998, I responded to the area of 1701 Tiburon Blvd., at the Point Tiburon
Plaza. for the purpose of reviewing the job sight for improvements listed on the plans provided by
your department. -
In my estimation, the work which would allow the installation of approximately 4852 square feet of
second floor office area inside the existing walls of the building, does not hamper the sight lines,
sight distances or limit sight in any way to the neighbors or neighboring businesses in the
surrounding area. As per the attached plans, the changes would be internal improvements only and,
no physical expansion of the buildings outer walls are proposed at tllis time. Should this plan change
in the future, this department would appreciate notification.
I have also reviewed the attached Land Development Application on file at Town Hall and see no
foreseeable proble ilL,that area as well.
DAVID M_ HUTTON,
SERGEANT
RECEIVED
JUL 6 1998
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TOWN OF TlBURON
EXHIBIT NO. C
TOWN OF TIBURON
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND
NOTICE OF A V AILABILITY OF DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
If::;, -..- (Pj "y\\~,
-, I ' ,'~ '1,
"_., ":. ~\~Lr
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD' TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435-7373
FAX (415) 435.2438
Notice is hereby given that the Tiburon Planning Commission and Tiburon Town Council will
hold public hearings to consider an application tiled by Stanley Cook to amend the Northwestern
Pacific (point Tiburon) Precise Plan to allow the addition of approximately 4,852 square feet of
office space within the commercial portion of the Point Tiburon Plaza_ The additional square
footage would be installed inside the existing walls of the building located at 1701 Tiburon
Boulevard in the Point Tiburon Plaza, This building was finished and occupied as a one-story
structure, but has the physical capability of partial second story occupancy without any significant
exterior alterations, Significant physical changes to the building would be limited to intemal
tenant improvements; no significant exterior changes are proposed, and no physical expansion of
the building's outer walls or roof are proposed, The project site is located at 1701 Tiburon
Boulevard, Tiburon, California, and is Marin County Assessor Parcel No, 59-161-07,
The Planning Commission and Town Council will also consider certification ofa Negative
Declaration for the project. The Tiburon Planning Department is recommending that a Negative
Declaration be adopted for the project pursuant to Section 21080 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The adoption ofa Negative Declaration would indicate that the project
would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The Draft Negative Declaration &
Initial Study, as well as other project materials, are available for review at the Planning
Department, Tiburon Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA, 94920. Questions on
the Draft Negative Declaration and/or the project should be directed to Scott Anderson, Planning
Director, at (415) 435-7392,
Written comments on the Draft Negative Declaration/Initial Study will be accepted until
5:00 PM on Wednesday, August 5, 1998, and should be sent to Scott Anderson, Planning
Director, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920.
The public hearings will be held at 7:30 PM at the Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon
Boulevard, Tiburon, California. The Planning Commission will meet on Wednesday,
August 12, 1998, and the Town Council will meet on Wednesday, August 19, 1998, or as
soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.
NOTICE OF LIMITATION ON LEGAL CHALLENGES
Pursuant to Section 65009 of the California Government Code, please be advised that if you
challenge the Town's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the Town at, or prior to, the public hearing_
Scott Anderson
Planning Director 3980Snd,not
LEGAL NOTICE--PUBLISH ONCE IN THE ARK ON JULY 15, 1998
EXHIBIT NO.
\ \
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
TOWN OF TffiURON RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE
NORTHWESTERN PACIFIC (POINT TffiURON) PRECISE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, in 1979, the Town adopted Ordinance No, 219 N.S_ approving the
Northwestern Pacific Master Plan, which established a maximum of 273,600 square feet of
development on approximately 38 acres ofland owned by the Northwestern Pacific Railroad
Company, The square footage was the maximum allowed at that time under the Tiburon General
Plan, In 1980, the Town adopted a Precise Plan for the property by passing Resolution No. 1090;
and
WHEREAS, in 1983, the Town adopted Resolution No. 2168 amending the aforesaid
Precise Plan. This amendment also specified a maximum of273,600 square feet of development
for the total project, now commonly known as, and hereafter referred to, as "Point Tiburon"; and
WHEREAS, in 1989, the Town ofTiburon amended its General Plan such that additional
square footage up to a maximum of281,400 square feet could be allowed within the Point
Tiburon project; and
WHEREAS, in 1991, the Town adopted Resolution No, 2818 amending the aforesaid
Precise Plan by increasing the amount of rentable commercial square footage to 22,647 and
increasing the total allowable square footage to 274,248; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is in receipt of an application to amend the
aforesaid Precise Plan by allowing an additional 4,852 square feet of office area in the project
through installation of second floor improvements in the existing commercial building located at
1701-1751 Tiburon Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and in July, 1998, the Tiburon Planning Department Staff prepared an Initial Study for the
project, which determined that there was no potentially significant environmental effects
related to the project; and
WHEREAS, the Tiburon Planning Department determined that based upon the Initial
Study, a Negative Declaration was required for the project pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, in July 1998, a Draft Negative Declaration was completed and Notices of
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No,
Page
1
EXHIRIT NO.
1:1
such were posted, mailed, and advertised in the ARK newspaper to announce a 21-day public
review period for review and comment on the Initial StudylDraft Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, a notice of the public hearing on the Draft Negative Declaration and the
project plans was also posted, mailed, and published in the ARK newspaper; and
WHEREAS, following closure of the 21-day public review period on August 5, 1998,
the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 12, 1998 to receive public
testimony on the Draft Negative Declaration and project plans; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Initial Study and the Draft Negative Declaration, and any and all comments and
responses thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the Town of
Tiburon does hereby make the following findings:
L Notice of the public review period and hearing on the Negative Declaration was
given as required by law and said hearing was conducted pursuant to Sections
15073 and 15074 of the State CEQA Guidelines and pursuant to provisions of the
Town's Local CEQA Guidelines.
2_ All individuals and groups desiring to comment on the Negative Declaration were
given the opportunity to address the Planning Commission.
3, The Negative Declaration for the project consists of the Initial Study document
dated July, 1998, the Negative Declaration form, and any supporting information
which may be referenced therein.
4, The Negative Declaration was completed in compliance with the intent and
requirements ofCEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Town's Local CEQA
Guidelines.
5, The Planning Commission has found that there is no substantial evidence in the record
sufficient to support a fair argument that the project will have a significant unmitigated
impact on. the environment.
6, The Planning Commission has found that the project is consistent with the goals and
policies of the Tiburon General Plan; is in conformance with standards and regulations of
the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance; and is consistent with other provisions of the Point
Tiburon Master Plan and Point Tiburon Precise Plan, as set forth and documented in the
Staff Report dated August 6, 1998,
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No.
Page
2
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the Town ofTiburon does hereby recommend that the Tiburon Town Council:
L Adopt the Negative Declaration for the project,
2_ Approve the Precise Plan amendment by amending Resolution No_ 2818 as
follows:
A. Section Lb. of Resolution No, 2818 is amended to read as follows:
"A maximum of27, 500 square feet of rentable commercial (plaza) square
footage, exclusive of public bathroom, garbage collection areas, and
storage, The commercial space shall be available for retail, office, and/or
other commercial community serving use, provided that second floor space
shall be for office use only,"
B, Section Lc, of Resolution No, 2818 is amended to read as follows:
"The total square footage of the project shall not exceed the 280,600
square feet estimated by the Town to exist within the Point Tiburon project
area.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town
ofTiburon on , 1998, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
LISA KLAIRMONT, CHAIRMAN
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
39805pc_res
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No,
Page
3
(0) [ffi ~ ~ 1r
4. 1701 TIBURON BOULEVARD: APPUCATION TO AMEND THE NORTHWESTERN
PACIFIC (pOINT TIBURON) PRECISE PLAN TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF
APPROXIMATELY 4,852 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE WITIllN THE
WALLS OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING; Stanley Cook, Applicant;
Assessor Parcel No. 59-161-07.
Planning Director Anderson presented the Staff Report. He said that this is a proposal to amend
the Point Tiburon Precise Plan to add 4.852 square feet of office space in the commercial portion
of the project. The Plaza portion of the project was finished and occupied as a one story structure,
but has the physical capability of partial second story occupancy without any exterior alterations.
Only those portions of the building's second floor with an actual ceiling height that meets the
uniform building code minimums would be occupied. This expansion is for Digital Foundry
located on the ground floor of that building, which is one of the major tenants of the shopping
center. Significant changes to the exterior of the building would not be required, just ~nternal
tenant improvements. No physical expansion of the outer walls or roof were proposed. The
Precise Plan amendment is required because it limits both the amount of commercial square
footage in the Point Tiburon project and also places a maximum total amount of square footage
allowed in the entire project, both commercial and residential. The actual changes to Resolution
No. 2818, the current document regulating that Precise Plan, would increase the rentable
commercial square footage in the Plaza to 27,500 square feet from 22,647 and increase the total
square footage of the Point Tiburon project to a little over 280,000.
Mr. Anderson noted that the Point Tiburon project is the largest single development in downtown
Tiburon. Built on the 38 acre former railroad property, the project was widely considered able
to ruin or preserve the character of the downtown. There was a lot of public trepidation
concerning this project. The current community consensus is that the Point Tiburon project did
not destroy the village-like character of downtown.
He explained that the approvals of the Master and Precise Plans set the maximum at 273,600
square feet with the FAR at .165. Starting in 1987, several residential small deck enclosures and
commercial second floor additions were approved by the Town. In response, the Planning
Commission and Town Council adopted Resolution No. 2818 which grandfathered in the past
changes but set a new limit for Point Tiburon at 274,248 square feet and discouraged future
additions. In 1995 a storage building was approved at the rear of the parking lot, and last year
a detached flower ,stand in front of the Plaza was approved.
The current General Plan designates the FAR limit as .17 in that area and the requested addition
would fall within that limit. Office is a permitted use for the Plaza and it has been established that
retail and restaurants do not work well there. The parking was originally established for the retail
center, with 88 required for the plaza, 116 were provided, plus a cushion of 125 for commuter
reserves. It was anticipated that there would be a large number of commuter users during the
week, but we have not seen that occur. There are about 30 commuter spaces used during the
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 12,1998
MINUTES NO, 791
5
PXHIBIT NO. C-
[ill [ffi ~ ~ lJ
week and 40-45 on busiest days. During the week, the lot is underutilized, so there is a surplus
for any commercial core. The heaviest use is on summer weekends. With the Plaza's recent shift
to office use, which requires less parking, the surplus has increased. The addition of 4,800 square
feet would require 16 additional spaces, which still leaves a surplus.
There has been a question as to whether any addition should be allowed, even though it would
comply with the General Plan. However, there is also no reason to feel obligated to comply to
a previous cap which was set before the effect of the project was understood. The partial two-
story construction was allowed for esthetic reasons. A one-story commercial building would have
been dwarfed in front of the two-story residential buildings. But the developer had used up the
entire square footage allocation on the ground floor, so he was not allowed to develop the second
story,
An initial study and negative declaration were prepared. Three comment letters were induded in
the Staff Report.
The Planning Commission's role, if they approve, is advisory to the Town Council. If they deny,
that is final unless appealed. Upon approval, the applicant would need to apply for a Conditional
Use Permit, Design Review, and building permits. He recommended the Commission review the
proposal in the context of Tiburon today and the foreseeable future, and not the context of fifteen
years ago. Tourism and development has not overrun the downtown, it looks better than ever,
and there is little remaining new development to occur downtown. The more likely impact will
be changes in use, rather than new building. This project would not have a significant impact on
the downtown or surrounding areas. The Town would need to impose reasonable operating hours
on the office use, with lighting and screening carefully done by putting conditions on the use
permit.
Mr. Anderson recommended adoption of the resolution and mentioned that he had spoken to the
Town Manager, who recommended this project should be looked at in terms of today and with
an eye to the future, not the past.
Commissioner Slavitz wanted an explanation of the 1991 compromise solution. Mr. Anderson
provided a brief permit history for the project. In 1976, the Town adopted a ,165 FAR limit and
the Town held to that until 1991, when little additions or second stories were added, some without
permits. The Pl,aza basically was shut down for some time, was vacant and considered a
commercial failure. In 1991, the Town Council accepted all existing square footage, but did not
encourage future changes to alter the appearance, especially in the residential areas.
Commissioner Stein wanted an explanation of the legal structure of the development, i.e.
homeowner associations, etc. Mr. Anderson stated that the three homeowner associations were
separate: Bayside Association on Paradise, the Lagoon Association, and the Marsh Units behind
Bell Market. The commercial Point Tiburon Plaza and parking lot is owned by the Cooks, with
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 12,1998
MINUTES NO, 791
6
(ill ~m(fu
some sections, such as parks, owned by the Town. Mr. Stein asked if, other than the Precise
Plan, there was some master document showing a reciprocal obligation these entities have toward
each other. Planning Director Anderson said that was not a planning and zoning matter, and that
staff had focused on land use and zoning permits.
Commissioner Stein wondered if there were any reciprocal easements. Mr. Anderson said there
were some reciprocal access easements concerning parking between the Bayside Condos and the
Plaza Parking lot.
Commissioner Slavitz said that with this project there were not any findings to justify the changes
to the previous agreements. Mr. Anderson said that the findings are in the resolution, In order
to amend the Precise Plan the Planning Commission would need to find conformity with the
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and that there would be no demonstrable detriment to public
safety and welfare.
Commissioner Knoble asked why there was no letter from the Sanitary District. Mr. Anderson
said they often do not respond to our referrals, as they have told us they have no capacity problem
at the sewer plant.
Chair K1airmont wondered with which of the General Plan goals were they to be consistent. Mr.
Anderson said most of the General Plan goals have no direct bearing on this project, as it is an
existing building and just allows internal changes not visible on the outside. The village-like
character is not threatened. The proposal is consistent with specific General Plan policies, such
as the FAR limit and type of use allowed in this district.
Chair Klairmont, referring to the written staff report, questioned the difference between the
technical parking capacity and actual capacity. Mr. Anderson said that sometimes there are more
than the technical capacity of241 cars parked there, which is something that happens at the other
fee parking lots as well. She asked about the circulation problem impacting the residential parking
lot. Mr. Anderson said the Bayside Condo Association has had a problem for some time with
people pulling into the Plaza parking lot, especially on weekends, finding it full, and then it is
difficult for them to get out without turning into the Bayside parking lot. The residents are
working with the owners to correct what is essentially a design flaw in the circulation, Ms.
Klairmont asked what was the remaining development potential in downtown Tiburon and the
types of changes that could be expected. In reference to this project, which adds 4,000 square
feet, how do we retain the "village-like character" of the Town. Mr. Anderson said there was
not a lot of new building that could happen. There could be some minor additions, which the
Town could allow as long as there was a decrease in the intensity. But mostly we will see changes
in use within existing buildings. Generally these will be to less intense use, such as a 380 seat
restaurant changing to a motel or bed and breakfast with approximately 20 rooms.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 12. 1998
MINUTES NO, 791
7
LQ) [ffi m (FIT
In response to Commissioner Knoble, he stated that the Conditional Use Permit can include hours
of operation. It was not usual to have problems with office use, but if it is a sensitive location
close to some of the Lagoon units, it would not be inappropriate to include limitations on hours
of operation. Most offices in Point Tiburon do not have a huge client flow, but the visitor traffic
is factored into the parking requirements.
Commissioner Knoble said that if the tenant changed, the traffic could change, and Mr, Anderson
agreed.
Chair Klairmont disagreed that the number of employees at the Dynasty Restaurant was six and
questioned the data provided. Mr. Anderson also thought the data was an underestimation, so he
used larger numbers for the parking requirements, but they were still well within the buffer
provided.
Discussion was opened to the public at 8:55 p.m.
Applicant Stan Cook stated that he has been working on the property for about five years and that
it has been very hard to conceptualize and develop. Originally he thought it would be a great
retail space, but the reality is that it is not. If he had known this, they could have started with
office use, as that is totally appropriate. Retail is not appropriate because of the lack of foot
traffic and accessibility.
When Digital Foundry came in, it was the turning point. The change in image at the Plaza was
dramatic. They are using 5,000 to 6,000 square feet and the wiring for this business was more
expensive than he ever imagined. The architecture of the space is pleasing and they have created
a beautiful office environment with a campus feeling around the lagoon that is not in competition
with the downtown. Since the three restaurants have closed, the Plaza has almost no deliveries
and the garbage is down two-thirds. They do not even have paper waste, as everything is on
computers. They essentially do not have visitors or noise. He went in there one day and it felt
more like a church. This expansion is necessary as, due to their great success, Digital needs to
double their office space. If they can't do this, the Plaza will lose them as a tenant. The second
floor expansion will be a beautiful achievement. In order to maintain a highly professional image,
the Plaza has a full-time landscaper and a painter. He felt that large office tenants are better than
many smaller ones. The Plaza must keep this tenant or go back to square one. The security and
sta!lility of this te~t is wonderful. He stated that this is the end of changes in the Plaza, that it
is esthetically complete.
Commissioner Slavitz asked what would happen if Digital Foundry needed more space in the
future, would he have other space for them. Mr. Cook said most of the business would remain
at this site, but a segment of it would go elsewhere. That is not an option for this present
expansion, as it all needs to remain together and there is no other space at the Plaza.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 12,1998
MINUTES NO, 791
8
\D)~m~lf
Commissioner Knoble said that frequently this type of business has employees who work more
than normal hours and she wondered what kind of hours they kept. Mr. Cook said he does not
see them there late at night or on weekends. Ms. Knoble asked about any policy to reduce
vehicular traffic. Mr. Cook said there was no specific program, but he sees bikes there and some
employees are residents of the Town. Ms. Knoble asked how many locals there were, and he said
at least ten. She asked how long their lease was. He replied about four years, with many
extensions possible.
Nat Marans, Spanish Trail, stated that he lives in Old Tiburon, the area that is directly affected
by this project and everything that is proposed along Point Tiburon and Main Street. He felt that
Mr. Anderson is good at public relations, but that he was not here for the ten years that this
project was being developed, from 1971-81. The pros and cons of the Point Tiburon development
were debated for eight years and it was a real battle. The design firm, Fischer Friedman, worked
for the railroad and submitted various designs. They went before the Planning Commission,
DRB, Town Council and staff. The parking ratios were figured and the square footage allocated
and that was all set in concrete. He had never seen any development with more nails in it. He
described how the developer built every square foot possible on a single floor and then went
broke. The Fitness Center thought they could build on the upper floor, but they were refused and
so had to move out. Others have tried also, but it cannot be done. Then the Cooks bought the
property and little things kept being added, tool shed in back and flower shop in front.
Parking in downtown has gotten less and less because of building the Town Hall and Library, etc.
Local residents cannot park during the day, even the Plaza's own tenants cannot find parking.
There are changes to come. Mr. Q's will need more parking, also Tommies, and so will the Bank
at the end of the street. There is no parking on heavy days and soon there will be proposals for
double deck parking structures as Mr. Zelinsky has proposed in the past and been refused. He
felt this was going back on the agreement with the people of the Old Tiburon Homeowners
Association and was adamant that no further square footage be allowed. He wanted to know how
we can come in here as a group and have a staff that lives up in Novato and says it is ok to build
more. He was getting angry with staff for constantly allowing more and more building in an area
that is already over built. He thanked Mr. Stein for saying it was over built. He has been here
46 years. Mistakes are constantly being made, always in Point Tiburon. Now they want to add
4,800 square feet here, and who knows how many others as illegalities they have. He went
through years of this planning to keep Tiburon the way it is and wondered where it would stop.
Every time someone wants to add, the Town gives it to them. He thought incorporation in the
Town was a good thing, but that has proved to be a mistake. There is no support from our own
people (staff). Since incorporation, the Town has breached every application that comes through
with either a variance or exception. There is no clear cut application for anything in the last two
years. It all comes through staff approval, people say they have to pay for the property, so they
give them what they want.
T1BURON PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 12,1998
MINUTES NO, 791
9
ill) 00 ~ [f 1f
Commissioner Stein said there were serious allegations made regarding illegal improvements at
the Plaza, but they would need specifics. Mr. Marans said he would hold in abeyance, subject
to inspection. Mr. Stein asked about the sections partially developed in Point Tiburon done
without the knowledge of the Town as mentioned. Mr. Marans stated that in four instances decks
had been enclosed, He had the Town stop the work. He knows there were ceilings and steps
going up and there is not supposed to be anything in the upper level. There was a
misrepresentation by the real estate agent to the Fitness Center that they could build up. He was
trying to protect what they have in Point Tiburon. No additions. He reiterated previous
comments and disagreed that it was only a fraction to be added as stated. He felt they were
disregarding everything done in the past.
Discussion was closed to the public at 9:30 p.m.
Commissioner Slavitz thought it was not good to have personal attacks on the Staff and pthers,
Commissioner Stein said he had asked about the disparities in the legal structure and no one was
there from the residential entities to explain differently. He quoted part of Resolution No, 2818:
"It is the policy of the Town to strongly discourage square footage additions to the Point Tiburon
project, especially in the residential portions." This came about because various owners in some
residences enclosed part of their property. This became enough of a bone of contention that the
Town became the overseer of this issue. He felt this was significant. He agreed with Mr.
Anderson that the proposed addition being requested is in consonance with the development of the
Town. He felt, however, that there was a higher standard referred to in the Resolution~ He did
not agree that just because something was written one time, that it is in stone. Things change and
it is the Planning Commission's job to be aware of those changes.
He said that it was the foundation of administrative law that flexibility be built into the system in
rational and principled ways. He hated to see the day when every attempt to apply flexible rules
was cynically derided as a break with the past. He finds this project hard to approve as presented
because there is nothing in the resolution to suggest a lesser standard should be applied to
commercial areas than the residential areas.
Mr. Stein stated that the applicant says this is a good tenant, but, as Mr. Slavitz said, they can
grow out of this larger space also. Then Point Tiburon may come back asking for more space.
Yes, office use is good for the Town and not detrimental to the residents, but the commercial
portions of the Plaza were intended to be resident-serving retail to eliminate automobile usage.
He wondered if the fee parking rates were cheaper, might retail uses have worked. He asked if
the applicant was prepared to grant a reciprocal benefit to the people in the area,
Mr. Stein stated that he would be more comfortable entertaining an expansion in the more general
context of revisiting our Downtown Plan. There has been some discussion about changes of use
for the downtown area and possible increases in some FAR ratios in certain areas along Tiburon
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 1998
MINUTES NO, 791
10
___ _.. ...~____ _..,,_____..m.____._._._.._.__~.._,_.,__
[ill lR1 fA [f 1f
Boulevard, Also, currently going on is a Downtown Revitalization Study which is to be
completed soon, that addresses questions about Main Street and how the traffic circulates. He
would more comfortably address the issues of this project in that context, because if it is
determined that certain changes in downtown uses are to be done, then almost by definition, the
political process being what it is in Tiburon, we would have a greater comfort level that the
residents who may be negatively impacted in certain respects could be positively impacted in
others. He saw nothing in the current record that suggested any positive benefit to the immediate
neighbors.
Commissioner Slavitz stated that the points Mr. Marans brought up are accurate. The developer
built out in compliance with the agreements and he wondered what criteria allows us to change
those agreements. Just because this tenant needs space, that is not good enough to overturn years
of work and agreements. We must keep in mind that these issues are emotional to the people who
went through the process. Technically, there are just minor changes and no exterior changes, but
there should be weighty reasons for making changes. The owner purchased the property with
these requirements and limitations.
Commissioner Knoble stated that she had a bias after living in Tiburon for ten years and knows
there is more need for office space in Tiburon than for other commercial. This is an attractive
type of business for Tiburon, but the doubling of employment is a significant increase in that
space. There are significant parking issues, traffic, and circulation issues. Absent are any
provisions to decrease hours. Once the space is established, if this tenant leaves, whoever comes
next may generate more traffic. Despite wanting this in downtown Tiburon, she is persuaded this
is not the project to do it. The Plaza is already built out and restrictions were placed on it. They
have used the maximum space already. She agreed the proposal was not appropriate,
Chair Klairmont stated that this project was not a total negative, that a $70,000 fee would be paid
into transportation improvements and additional taxes collected, but agreed with the other
Commissioners. Her husband works in Tiburon and she knows the advantage of living and
working in the same area. There was a lot of history to understand. She understands the growth
and needs of the client, but she thought maybe another space in Point Tiburon would become
available. It is a hard decision as the exterior would not change and the parking would be
satisfactory. But she also knows it is hard to turn left onto Tiburon Boulevard from Steward
Drive, so she distrusts the traffic count data. She was not in favor of approval.
Commissioner Knoble stated that once they have the downtown studies, they may have better
traffic and parking data, it may be easier to consider in light of that information.
Commissioner Stein felt that this project was one piece of the larger picture and they needed to
wait in fairness to the residents close by,
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 12,1998
MINUTES NO, 791
11
[JJ ~ iA1 [f1f
Planning Director Anderson said the report should be out soon, but that he did not think it would
contain this kind of information. It is a Downtown Revitalization Task Force, and the emphasis
was not on parking and traffic. Commissioner Stein said he thought the report would inventory
all of the parking in the downtown area and consider ways to improve parking and wondered
whether the Commission would see the report. Me. Anderson did not know, but hoped to bring
it to the Planning Commission for their comments. Me. Stein thought that would be the more
appropriate time to consider the implications of this project. Past rulings are only one piece of
this. Decision-makers also need to review the current application upon the record and under the
current conditions. He felt that staff had approached this project in the right spirit, and that the
decisions of the staff and Commission are different in degree, but not principle.
Commissioner Slavitz commended Mr. Cook for the good job he had done with the Point Tiburon
project.
MIS Slavitz/Stein to deny the application. (4-0)
Planning Director Anderson noted for the record that the applicant had ten days to appeal the
decision.
ADJOURNMENT
Having no further business, the Commission adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
LISA KLAIRMONT, CHAIR
Tiburon Planning Commission
A TIEST:
SCOTI ANDERSON, SECRETARY
m980812
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF AUGUST 12,1998
MINUTES NO, 791
12
no IIi6 g Ivd
5fl1lc.e.:J:;.r f t:
RESOLUTION N~. 22
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE OF
THE TOWN COUNCIL APPROVING A 1,000 SQUARE FOOT
ADDITION IN THE COMMERCIAL USE PERMIT
FOR THE TIEURON FITNESS CLUB
AT THE PLAZA. POINT T:BURON
WHEREAS, the Committee does resolve as follows:
Section 1.
Findinqs
A~ The Innisfree Companies have requested consideration of
Conditioned Commercial Use Permits for activities in the
commercial space at the Plaza, Point Tiburon.
E. An application for a Conditioned Commercial Use Permit
has been submitted as follows:
Application dated 2/9/88 from Michael Kanyon for the
expansion of the Tiburon Fitness Club~ originally appro~ed
August 11, 1987 in Committee Resolution No, 18.
C. The Committee has considered the apDlication at a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed in Town Council
Resolution No. 2352.
D. So long as the conditions of approval as outlined in the
approval section of this reSOlution are followed, the
Committee makes the following findings:
1. The use is primarily resident oriented as opposed
to tourist oriented.
2. The use will not create slgnificant environmental
disturbance including, but not limited to,
pedestrian and vehicular traffic~ parking, noise,
odor, litter. vibration and g13re.
3. The use is appropriately situated withln the
building and relative to sUJ-rO~ndlng uses.
~. The hours of operation are comoatible w:tl,
surrounding uses.
5. The use is consistent rlith the Downtown Flan. the
General Plan and all applicable pol1cies and
regulations of the Town.
EXHIBIT NO.
p. (Af
D
TC COMMITTEE ResolutIon No. 22
2/29/88
Paqe I
.~,.,.,._..',..._---,._--- .._-.~._..__..._._,-~-,. ....------.----....------.---..--
Section 2_
eJ:2.Rrova 1
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that t.h~ Committee
approves the expansion of commercial space at the Pla=a,
Point Tiburon, for the Tiburcn Fitne~s Club subject to the
following conditions:
1. Hours of operation snaIl be from 6:00 a~m_ to no later
than 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, from 7:00 a.m. to no
later than 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, and from 8:00 a.m. to no
later than 6:00 p.m. an Sunday. Amended hours of operation
may be considered by the Committee upon written request_
2_ The use shall be subject to review by the Town at such
intervals 35 may be directed by the Town Council for the
purpose of determining whether or nat conditions af approval
have been met. In the event that it is determined that
conditions of approval are not being met the Town Council
may direct reconsideration or revocation of the use permit.
>
3. The upstairs area shall be used for administrative
offices, lockers and shOV-Jers only.
4. Within six months of the date of openIng, either the
applicant~ without the payment of additional fees~ or the
Committee, upon proper notice, may bring the matter back for
reconsideration of the parking and use~
5. Twe~ty-six (26) off-street parking spaces shall be
allotted for this use.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the Committee of the
Town CounCIl of the Town of Tiburon on February 29, 1988 by
the following vote:
AYES:
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
~,IOES:
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
8assett, Thayer,
Shaw. Wi Ison
none
ABSE~IT :
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Friedman~ Mayberry
~~,G0~
JAMES WILSON. CHAIRMAN
SECRETARf
RES22.DCC
TC COMMITTEE Resolution No. 22
2/29/83
P3qe 2
~;"'-::-;~'_' 7'-_..-_ ~~_____-___-"'._~~ -- -- ~ r..,----:_ _ __--; '. _,:.-,-:-;r:.-""__':-,-- . '-' ~'~-:1
"
; I '1
-1
I i
~ ' I
- .1
G i
. 0
.
. 0
.
~ 0
0
0
0
., 0
5 .,
00100 .
. :; .
Z~ . Iii
1 ; I
'g I
----
< C' I
~ i! . ;
. >- ! ~ 0
z. .' 0
'", I s .
. i oj
... i I .
i .- .
r- " ,. !' .
0, .
. 0 I I ~.
:II I
" I
~I ~--' .-
-~ .
. I
, ! I
0 I I I
L
I .. !
I I
>---
,
" ,
/ "
/ ! !
- r;-- G
.. I
.
0, i I
"" ...
.. I
i I
~ I
i I I
I I
-, I
~ ~ I
~. ~ I
~1,! I
I ;} ---- "
-- ---- . :.--- -'-7- 6 r
l- :: .. /
. , /
; .... /
~ '>/
~ /"
/ ""
/ :j:
" I I "
----------'1' ~'?~ !
I
~~ j
, ~~~~ C\.
_ . __ ~~<$i __'#-_ _ ____ ~-@
, ~ >>() . ,
~ ~ . ~ ..JI
" ~~?;, r8-\. <:?:,? 'j
, 'J><$>~f;S C~f\:\ S 'G .
, 1
i ~ ~ I R,~ ~~ ',j
I C() "'~ ,
, ~ ~~~' j
~. ,- .~
r. . , , I
3: z " , I]
!
1 . .. II ~;2 ;!I t ~THC TlBURON FITNESS CLUB , 'T ~ II ' ~..-
J .. '). ~ ~ > Oi I! : i ~;
L~-!';i z'i ~
w.... : J THE Pr..AzA ,I POI~T TIBUROH . TISURON. CA .:L . i* I ,
.
-
" '~
::-:.-- e
/
----- -- t /
!n:
00 / /
o. .
.. /
.o'; J
00
.i ~
00
"
. " -
z~ . 1" ,
..
.. ,
,~
..
~ .. G
.::.
.
ft
, .
.. !
" . .
~. , . ! 1
~~ . . .
.
. . .
'm . .. . .
N __0__ r~--- .
N . .
'"' ~ . .
c .
Z . : ~ .
. z .. / . .
m. / ~
... / ~
... /
-0
0 G
, '"
.. /
. /
.... ;
'"' /
z: .
, .
. /
" J.
,
,
..
,
,
,
G i
/
~; ~ /
/
/
io,
.,
5-h~ h~
H - - --
..1 .'
: I .-
10 ..
" ,
~ ,
..
@ ;.
I
l
z
I
,
~
"'~?,~
I ~
r:o~
<,,~ t"\~
~"". '>V .
~~~"''O):-.~ . 2>~
>.~~ ~r:so s u . -
_ COCO't ...~~'O
I~~~'
I j
~ i
_!I!~II!-
o
I
L__
. I' i II
I ,,:; *
II\,)' 0
.....
,...1...
''"'10
zo
\~~.
A THE TIBURON' FITNESS CLUB,
· .~ THE Pu.;A at P?lNT oT;I,B,UR.?N : TI.U.RON. ~J
:1'.
1.~,,~ ._____
""~ ~ _.__.~;;.~.,
-
" .
TOWN COUNCIL POLICY 95-01
PROCEDURE FOR APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION, DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD, OR ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL
1. An appeal form, along with the required $300.00 fee, must be
filed with the Town Clerk not more than 10 calendar days
(excluding legal holidays) following the decision being
appealed.
2. In the appeal form, the appellant shall state specifically
the reasons why the decision is not in accord with the
purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or other applicable
regulations, or the reasons it is claimed there was an error
or abuse of discretion such that the decision is not
supported by evidence in the record or is otherwise
improper. As a general rule, all issues upon which an
appeal is based must have been raised prior to the decision
being appealed.
3. All grounds on which the appeal is based must be stated in
the appeal form filed with the Town Clerk. Issues raised at
a later time which were not raised in the appeal form need
not be addressed by staff nor considered by the Town Council
in making a decision on the appeal.
4. The Town Staff will notify the appellant and applicant of
the Council hearing date as soon as it is determined.
Requests for postponement of an appeal hearing are not
usually granted unless by mutual agreement of applicant and
appellant (see attached Resolution for further details).
5. The procedure for presentation of the appeal at the Town
Council meeting is as described below. In cases where the
applicant and appellant are the same person, paragraph (c)
below would not apply.
(a) Town Staff will make a brief presentation (10 minutes
maximum) of the matter and then respond to Town Council
questions.
(b) Appellant and/or appellant's representative(s) may make
a presentation (20 minutes maximum) and then respond to
Town Council questions. Appellant may divide up the 20
minutes between various speakers or have one speaker
use all 20 minutes, so long as the time limit is
observed.
1
EXHIBIT NO.-E.
Ik~ tf/d~ VI
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435.7373
FAX (415) 435.2438
. ECIAL EVENT PERMIT ~ oj!jp
DATEOFEVEN:3.~~T E: 'i:~-+"laA("'K- t-~.~
^ !t:-b:-t :-1 TFtJ IJ~ tMIz~ ~QZI~
~~
.JJ.:;:2. <:.v/-ck.-.sz.<... Of\ ~ ~:~ ~It rC3.lL\LL-o~ oHO .
-A3 .5t.&~ ev/-ck.-.&:tc.- artsu.k..---6~~ N..S,c4u:.<.-a::t IZl)O Ylst4~ ~t
NAME & ADDRESS OF INDIVIDUAL, _ . f '\ .-l.
OR SPONSORING ORGANIZATION: i':)ltv.....f,dk. 1707 v'~"'F.r> lJe01,
--Th..r I j' ., - j -H.
Home Phone: Lf.3"S - 0<< IS" Work Phone:
Fax Number: 4-3> . ~-,g
TYPE OF EVENT:
LOCATIO . -# {
-..s,,<....
",
...:'" .,.....
Please describe YO~RflLJ!l'1"for the following:
PARKING: ;;;;t
'( LL.
I,
~ <-" -ttl>>,-,
CLEAN-UP & RECYCLING - (REQUIRED BY TOWN OF TIBURON) j. 0
tA)t/ b,. ~'^.=~ orL/Y<- tl~ r",.l~h....-hill.s oI'j :c;~ ::;r
'~~l ..
FIRST AID: ~.'\U"s t1t u..."'- be ;:t,oA will AAV(.., 0.. -f.7st {;\l~ k\f
Do you anticipate using sound amplification equipment? ~
If so, please describe:
Your Permit will be approved onlv after receipt of an insurance certificate naming the
Town of Tiburon as additional insured_ Special Event Insurance can be purchased
through the JI. R.ecreation Department at 435-4355 (ask for Dana Thor). Thank you,
Date: 1- ~ ~9~
< u/(~. -:::c FcJ K
Applicant
Tiburon Fire Chief
g//CJ/?t
Date 1/il~l
Date I. !
R /'f C/f
Datg,;/9/??
Datel .
IS~! f-J-J-'tr
r~ttev~
Works
NO. DR(98/01)
41988
CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE - SPECIAL EVENT LIABILITY PROGRAM
NTITY (Additional Insured):
701#\1 of Tiburo!\
PRODUCER: License #0529776
DIVERSIFIED RISK INSURANCE BROKERS
1335 STANFORD AVENUE. SUITE 100
EMER YVILLE. CA 94608
510-547-3203;
Fax: 510-547-5648
~
INSURED EVENT HOLDER (Named Insured):
Old Tawil Tihuron RIGeL Residents &
Ili'1'], Eal'(
Laurie Grayson
Tlleres~ T'oepel
f'3:ll Healy
EVENT INFORMATION:
TYPE:
DATE(S):
LOCATION:
ATTENDANCE:
3' ?("y.
1?"''''~7
q/lIl/~
~"qflt <>11 j'y' :'\ ..
CLASS: i1
Vi Ill: 011:0
15';)
This is to certifY that the policies of insurance listed below have been issued to the insured named above for the event date(s) indicated above._ Notwithstanding any
requirement, term or condition of any contract or other document with respect to which this certificate may be issued or may pertain, the insurance afforded by the
policies described herein is subject to all the terms, exclusions and conditions of such policies.
Insurance Carrier:
Master Policy Number:
Master Policy Dates:
Primary:
General Star Indemnity Co.
IYG325268A
Effective:
Expiration:
1/1/98
1/1/01
Excess:
Genesis Indemnity Insurance Co.
ZXB300176B
Effective:
Expiration:
1/1/98
1/1/01
;'.;
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
I
teneral Aggregate Limit
Products! Completed Operations Aggregate
Personal & Advertising Injury
Each Occurrence Limit
Fire Damage Legal Liability
Medical Payments
Primary:
51,000,000
51,000,000
5250,000
5250,000
550.000
52,000
Excess:
51,500,000
51,500,000
5750,000
5750,000
NIL
NIL
EXCLUSIONS:
-Real & personal property you own, rent. use
or occupy or in your care, custody or control
-Pyrotechnics
-Mechanical amusement devices
-Rap or Heavy Metal concerts
-Other standard exclusions
Optional Excess Limits:
(Each Occurrence &. Aggregate)
s
COVERAGE TERMS:
-()(:currence Form (CGOOOl)
."ost Liquor Liability included
-Full Liquor Liability included when a separate
premium has been charged.
-Participants: Not excluded
The coverage afforded by this insurance is primary and not contributing with any insurance held by the "'ADDITIONAL INSURED(S)", except as respects
the sole negligence of such additional insured. The limits of insurance apply separately to each event insured by this policy as if a separate policy of
insurance has been issued for that event. Who is an insured is 'amended to include as an additional insured the "Entity - Additional Insured" above and any
person or organization shown in the..schedule below, but only with respect to liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the premises used
by the insund event holder. This insurance does not apply to: Any '.occurrence" which takes place after tbe event holder ceases to be a tenant in that
premises. This insurance applies only to: an "occurrence" which takes place during the dates indicated under "Event Information" above.
OTHER ADDITIONAL INSUREDS
~~lTe~er~/ri~urou Recr~ation Dept.
S~'fANCELLA TION Should the above deSCribed poiJcy(s) be canceled before the expIration date thereof. the Issumg company WIll endeavor to mati 30 days Written
)ratiee to the Insured event holder and addlllOnal Insureds listed.
j' 1/ :' ' _/1..-._
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: "",-' -' /; - , DATE ISSUED: /,i - ':-, Ir
EXTRA COPY