HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 1999-02-03
A 4;[70\
.c.
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BLVD.
MEETING DATE:
MEETING TIME:
CLOSED SESSION:
FEBRUARY 3, 1999
7:30 P.M.
None
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Addr...; (3) State Views Succinctly; (4) L1m~ 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 on this agenda, other
than items on the Consent Calendar. The public will be given an opportunity to speak on each agenda item
at the time it is called. Presentations are limited to three (3) minutes. Matters requiring action will be
referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or Staff for consideration andlor placed on a
future meeting ~genda.
D. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
1) STATUS OF NEW POLICE BUILDING - (project Manager 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 #1152 - January 20, 1999 - (Approve)
3) STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) FUNDING - (Adopt
Resolution Assuring Local Funding)
4) REQUESTS TO JOIN AMICUS BRIEF: Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes,
Cal App 3d, Case No. C029659; Saia v. City a/Capito/a, Cal App 6th, Case No. H019076-
(Approve)
5) SPRINT LEASE AMENDMENT - (Consider Rental Increase for Additional Space)
F. APPLlCA nONS TO TOWN BOARDS. COMMISSIONS &
COMMITTEES
6) STATUS OF TOWN COMMISSION VACANCIES & APPLICATIONS - (Set interview
schedule)
G. PUBLIC HEARING
7) APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL of Rezoning, Lot Line Adjustment, and
Amendments to Tiburon Highlands Master Plan & Precise Plan - AP Nos. 34-360-11, 38-
182-20 & 38-322-11 (Fred Grange, Applicant & Appellant)
H. NEW BUSINESS
I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8) REVIEW OF LAFCO POLICIES - (planning Director)
J. COMMUNICA nONS
K. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
9) AL TO-RICHARDSON BAY FIRE DISTRICT - (Town Manager)
10) STATUS OF NEW COMPUTER NETWORK - (Town Attorney/Town Clerk)
L. ADJOURNMENT
Future Aeenda Items
-Authori:otion to Retain new Contract Engineer - (February 17)
-Recommendations for Improvements to Reed Ranch RoatVI'iburon Blvd Intersection - (February 17)
--Ordinance preventing construction on Main Street during Thanksgiving/Christmas Holidays - (February 17)
--Resolution adopting new Road Impact Fee &hedule for damage caused by construction activity - (March 17)
I
~-=#.
and Febua
JAN FEBRUARY
Items Site Activities 25 26 27 28 29 3Q31 1 2 3 4 5t:" 8 9 10 11 12:13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
1 Install drop ceilings 1st I: .": I. ..
2 Install drop ceilings 2nd
3 Install ex. Siding '.
I.
4 Dry in roof
5 Ro plumbing inspetion - . L
.... I~ - ... " 2' c- 1"7
6 Ro plumbing inspetion 2nd flr
7 Insulate 1st fir : I: . '" ... I.. Ii .
.... I: ..' 1'.' ".
8 Insulate 2nd floor
9 Doors and frames ext. I.. I. .' .. I. I ..
':' I" ." ....... '}; r# ITh0 0'
10 Dooors frames int.
11 Grade sally prot I.
12 Rock sand vis queen
13 Pour saluly port ~
14 Demo site work
15 Forms curbs gutter walkway .. .. ..... ..
16 Base rock in parking lot m ~I
17 Drywall 15t floor
....~ I-
18 Ducts 151 finish
'''... I: . .
19 Duct 2nd floor I., ..
20 DUCTS ATTIC Ii.' " I.. It!!TI :il.. '''i.
ef
ched
on
Constructi
--Month
Tiburon Police Station
Tiburon Police Station Schedule. xis
1/25/995:19 PM
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
DRArl
Vfv--~ 2..
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Bach called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:35 p.m.
on Wednesday, January 20, 1999, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon,
California.
A. ROLL CALL
PRESENT; COUNCILMEMBERS:
Bach, Gram, Hennessy, Matthews, Thompson
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO:
Town Manager Kleinert, Town Attorney Danforth,
Planning Director Anderson, Finance Director
Stranzl, Superintendent of Public Works Iacopi,
Town Clerk Crane
B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If any)
Mayor Bach said no action was taken in closed session.
C. PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
None.
D. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
1) TOWN TREASURER'S ANNUAL REPORT - (Bill Osher)
Treasurer Osher said that the Town had invested its funds (approximately 4.7 million dollars) in
LAIF (Local Agency Investment Fund), created by statute in 1977. He said there was lots of
oversight, and that LAIF's policies, goals and objectives were primarily capital preservation,
diversity, liquidity and return. In response to a question from Councilmember Matthews, Osher
said that LAIF did not use derivatives.
Osher said that the 1998 overall return on investment was 5.6%.
2) TOWN'S 35th ANNIVERSAY (June 23, 1999) CELEBRATION - (Mayor Bach)
Mayor Bach said it had become a tradition to celebrate the Town's anniversary every five years
since No. 25. He proposed combining the date with the Grand Opening of the new Tiburon
Police Building, and possibly to hold a dinner dance at the Corinthian Yacht Club.
Mayor Bach agreed to serve on the committee to plan the event.
3) MCCMC IT. SERVICES COORDINATION PROGRAM - (Councilmember Matthews)
Councilmember Matthews said there were 35 different joint powers authorities in Marin County,
and that he had been selected to serve as the Town's representative on a committee formed to
make recommendations to the Master JPA and oversight authority. He asked Council to reaffirm
Town Council Minutes #1156
January 20, 1999
Page 1
its support of the Master JP A, and for the proposed recommendation to hire one person to act as
the director of the JP A.
Council concurred.
E. CONSENT CALENDAR
4) TOWN COUNCrr. MINUTES #1151 - January 6,1999 - (Approve)
5) TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES - January 12,1999 - (Accept)
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To approve Consent Calendar, Items 4 & 5 above.
Hennessy, Seconded by Thompson
AYES: Unanimous
F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6 & 7) TRAFFIC & PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ISSUES - (Councilmember Thompson)
A) Reed Ranch RoadlTiburon Boulevard Intersection Improvements
B) McKegney Green Access Improvements
A) Councilmember Thompson said there had long been a problem for traffic
attempting to turn left off Reed Ranch Road onto Tiburon Boulevard. He
proposed moving the existing "merge" lane near Blackie's Pasture further west and
creating a dedicated "turn into lane" for traffic coming from Reed Ranch Road.
Vice Mayor Gram said it would be helpful to see drawings of the proposal first, and Town
Manager Kleinert said he would invite representatives from CALfTRANS to the February
17 Town Council meeting for a public hearing on the proposal.
B) Council acknowledged the "dangerous situation" created when people walk on
Tiburon Boulevard in order to take a shortcut to McKegney Green.
Superintendent of Public Works Iacopi presented a drawing which would create a
new, more direct path, while integrating it with the existing path near Pine
Terrace. Iacopi said the existing path would have to be refinished at the same
time.
Mayor Bach also suggested asking the School District to fence off the Del Mar school
side of Tiburon Boulevard to prevent people from illegally crossing Tiburon Boulevard at
that location.
Item continued.
G. NEW BUSINESS
8) MARIN RENTAL HOUSING CRISIS - (Report by Marin Continuum of Housing and
Services)
Town Council Minutes #1156
January 20, 1999
Page 2
Betty Pagett, Community Education Director for the Ecumenical Association for Housing, spoke
on behalf of the Marin Housing Council and the Marin Continuum of Housing and Services.
She said the Marin County Board of Supervisors had endorsed a paper describing the current
rental housing crisis in Marin County, which she said was first noticed in Tiburon.
Pagett noted that the median rent for two-bedroom apartments was $1330 and the vacancy rate
was below 1 %, making rental units virtually unaffordable for many working families. According
to Pagett, the median ~ paid in Marin County is $28,000, even though the County median
income is listed at $48,000. She also noted that for seniors, the median income is $18,000, and
said that 30% of Marin County senior rent.
She asked the Town to take three steps in addressing the issue; 1) to recognize the crisis; 2) to
prepare and implement plans to make affordable housing available [i.e. talk about 2nd units, new
designs in architecture, and re-use of existing stock]; and 3) consider interceding in unreasonable
rent increases by local landlords.
In response to a question from Town Manager Kleinert, Ms. Pagett said there had been a
decrease in rental stock in the last 10 years, along with gentrification, so that even though 20,000
jobs had been created in that time, only 7,000 housing units had been created, of which only 700
were affordable.
Wendy Buchen, Belvedere resident and member of the Marin Commission on Aging, said the
Marin Housing Authority is closing its waiting list for housing to the elderly and disabled, thereby
reiterating the nature of the shortage oflow-income and affordable housing.
9) CORTE MADERA HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE - (possible Impacts on Town of
Tiburon)
Planning Director Anderson said the Town of Corte Madera had been required to update its
Housing Element as the result a lawsuit filed by Legal Aid of Marin. As a result, Anderson said
several sites had been proposed for possible affordable housing developments, including a IS-acre
parcel adjacent to Robin Drive.
Anderson said that until the draft housing element report was completed, and the Town of
Tiburon was able to see that Corte Madera was proposing, Staff could not comment on any
particular plan.
In response to a question from Councilmember Matthews, Planning Director Anderson said the
report might be available by mid-February, and that a public hearing had been scheduled in Corte
Madera for February 25, 1999.
Before opening the public hearing, Mayor Bach commented that a flyer [referred to by The Ark
newspaper as a "hate flyer"] which was part of the Staff report exhibits, was "mean-spirited," and
Town Council Minutes #//56
January 20, /999
Page 3
that the author would not be invited to speak tonight.
Ann Thull, Taylor Road Homeowner's Association President, agreed that the above-mentioned
flyer had "hurt us all," but stated that she and her neighbors still had concerns about the proposed
housing density and traffic issues, She said that there were no sidewalks nor shoulder on Paradise
Drive, and that even if the proposed housing was "expensive condos," they would be opposed.
Councilmember Hennessy said the flyer had sent her into a "rage," and she asked those members
of the audience "not to be afraid of people who don't make as much money as you do." Hennessy
noted that she used to live in The Hilarita, a low-income housing development, and that she now
lived at Pt. Tiburon Marsh in affordable housing, She said examples of others who Iivecl there in
affordable housing units were an employee of Sanitary District No.5, the City Clerk of Belvedere,
and the Tiburon Building Department Secretary.
A resident of Paradise Cay, 118 St. Thomas Way, read a letter from the President of the
Paradise Cay Homeowner's Association, which opposed the rezoning of the Robin Drive area
parcel, claiming it would increase the [current] low density population by seven fold. The letter
challenged the Town of Corte Madera to make subsequent modifications to Paradise Drive if it
went forward with the proposal.
Belle Holden, Taylor Road, thanked Staff for taking the time to review the issue and prepare a
report.
Mayor Bach closed the public hearing.
Council directed Planning Director Anderson to write a letter to the Town of Corte Madera
expressing the voiced concerns, and to keep Council informed of progress on the issue.
Councilmember Hennessy asked that it not be a unanimous message opposing the project, since
she had long supported low-income and affordable housing.
10) REVIEW OF LAFCO POLICIES - (planning Director)
Continued to February 3, 1999.
11) 1999-2000 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW - (Finance Director)
Finance Director Stranzl said the Town's General Fund was "healthy" with projected revenues up
by approximately $147,000. He also noted that expenses were higher but would still be
outstripped by revenue, resulting in a net operating budget figure of $90,000 by year end.
Concerning Capital Improvements, Stranzl noted that the Town would complete $600,000 in
street repairs by year-end, in addition to almost $800,000 of drainage repairs, the latter through
Flood Control grants funds.
Town Council Minutes #1156
January 20, 1999
Page 4
12) SELECTION OF NEW TOWN AUDITOR - (Consider Committee Recommendations)
Council waived the staff report, and voted 5-0 to select Odenberg, UIIakko & Muranishi as Town
auditors.
13) TOWN HALL FRIDAY AFTERNOON CLOSURE - (Consider Change in Current
Closure Policy from Thursday to Friday P.M.)
Council waived the Staff report, and voted unanimously to adopt the recommendation, in keeping
with the majority of Marin cities.
H. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
14) TffiURON MILLENNIUM CELEBRATION - (Town Manager)
Town Manager Kleinert said a select committee was working on ideas for the celebration and he
would keep Council informed. Councilmember Hennessy asked that the proposed ticket price s
be kept affordable.
15) TOWN COUNCIUSTAFF RETREAT - Consider Date & Location Recommendations-
(Town Manager)
Council chose Tuesday, February 23, location to be determined. In addition, March 9 was
selected as the date for an Employee Recognition dinner.
16) MCCMC - TOWN OF TffiURON HOST MEETING, May 1999 - (Town Manager)
Town Manager Kleinert asked Council to consider topics and speakers.
17) TOWN COUNCILIHOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATIONS WORKSHOP - March or April,
1999 - (Town Manager)
Council selected Tuesday, April 27 as the tentative date.
I. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Bach
adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m., sine die.
MOGENS BACH, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
Town CouneilMinutes #1156
January 20, 1999
Page 5
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
February 3, 1999
TOWN COUNCIL
RICHARD STRANZL, FlNANCE DlRECTOR
1998 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) FUNDlNG-
ADOPT RESOLUTION ASSURING LOCAL FUNDlNG
ITEM:
.3
BACKGROUND:
This item is for adoption of a resolution assuring Town funding for the streets rehabilitation projects selected
for 1998 STIP funding.
In December 1998, the Marin County Congestion Management Agency notified the Town that we would
receive $247,000 in STIP funding for the street rehabilitation projects recommended by the Town Engineer.
The Town Engineer's proposal requested $274,000 to fund these improvements. In order to completely fund
these improvements the Town is required to assure the Congestion Management Agency that we will fund the
difference ($27,000) between the award and the proposal estimate.
The Town Engineer plans for these improvements to be completed in Fiscal Year 1999-2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Town Council adopt the draft resolution, and approve the appropriation of $27,000 from the General Fund
Streets & Drainage Reserve to fund the 1998 STIP Improvements.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution - A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
ASSURING LOCAL FUNDlNG OF PROJECTS SUBMITTED AND APPROVED FOR 1998
STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) FUNDlNG
R. Stranzl
RESOLUTION NO
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF TIBURON ASSURING LOCAL FUNDING
OF PROJECTS SUBMITIED AND APPROVED FOR
1998 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (STIP) FUNDING
WHEREAS, in December 1998 the Marin County Congestion Management Agency notified the Town
that the following street rehabilitation projects submitted by the Town Engineer for 1998 STIP funding:
. Vistazo West
. Solano Street
. Centro East (paradise to Solano)
. Virginia Drive
. Comstock Drive
. Silverado Drive
. Jefferson Drive
. Irving Court
. Washington Court
$ 63,000
18,000
30,000
23,000
33,000
47,000
30,000
15,000
15,000
. Total Estimated Cost:
$274,000
had been selected for STIP funding; and
WHEREAS, the Congestion Management Agency Board-recommended funding level for the selected
street projects is $247,000; and in order to completely fund the selected projects the Town must allocate
an additional $27,000.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS RESOL YED by the Town Council that the Town herein allocates a total of
$27,000 from its General Fund Streets & Drainage Reserve, to fund the estimated cost of the selected
1998 STIP street rehabilitation projects; and Staff is further directed to provide a copy of this Resolution
to the Marin County Congestion Management Agency in support of STIP funding requirements.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this
day of
,1999
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
BY:
MOGENS BACH, MAYOR
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
1Pi&t)
-\ fro f\" E Y,
LLP
rD)~@~~W~1n\
mJ JAN 2 2 1999 lW
ToWN A'T'1'QF1NGY'S OFFICE
tOWN Qf! 'tlilYAQN
Hills Plaza
350 The Embarcadero
San Francisco, CA
94105,1250
Tel 415 512 8700
Fax 415 512 8750
wwwJandels.com
LANDELS
RlrLEY &
DIAMOND
January 21, 1999
Michael H. Zischke
4155124608
mhz@landels.com
To: All California City Attorneys
From: Michael Zischke, Landels Ripley & Diamond LLP
Re: Request to Join in Amicus Brief Supporting a City's Ability to Use a Program EIR
for a Redevelopment Plan - Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes,
California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, Case No. C029659 (on appeal
from Mono County Superior Court Case No. 12308) - City Decisions to Join
Requested by Friday, February 12
We request your City's amicus assistance regarding the Third District Court of Appeals'
consideration of an important case dealing with the level of specificity required when a City
prepares a program ErR for a redevelopment plan. The Mono County Superior Court upheld the
ErR prepared by the Town of Mammoth Lakes, and that decision is now being appealed
primarily based on the argument that the level of review in the program ErR was not sufficiently
specific or detailed.
This decision is significant for California cities because an adverse decision could make
it much more difficult for cities to use program ElRs, both in redevelopment as well as other
contexts. The League of California Cities' Legal Advocacy Committee has reviewed this case,
and urges cities to participate in an amicus brief in support of the Town of Mammoth Lakes.
The following provisions of this memorandum briefly describe the case, explain in more
detail why the case merits city attention, and concludes providing forms for cities to indicate
their support and agreement to join in the amicus brief
A. Brief Description of Case
This case arises out of the Town of Mammoth Lakes' June 1997 decision to approve a
redevelopment plan and to certify an accompanying program environmental impact report.
Following incorporation in 1984. the Town had begun to explore redevelopment under the
Community Redevelopment Law based on findings that many areas of the town were
characterized by aging and potentially unsafe buildings, inadequate and worn-out roadways, lack
of affordable housing, aesthetic nuisances. and other problems. The redevelopment area
20674S.1
LANDELS
RIPLEY &
DIAMOND
CalIfornia City Attorneys
January 21, 1999
Page 2
ArT U R ~ f Y S
LLP
evaluated in the plan covers three separate parts of the Town of Mammoth Lakes comprising
1,139 acres.
In the process of studying redevelopment, the Town had considered some 72 possible
different development proposals that might be implemented through a redevelopment plan to
alleviate the conditions of blight. These proposals were discussed in general in both the EIR and
the redevelopment project report. When the EIR was prepared and the plan was adopted, the
proposals were not defined in detail and had not been approved by the Town. The Town
prepared a program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15180 and Public Resources Code Section
21090, which specified that a redevelopment plan is to be considered as a single project. In
particular, Guideline 15 I 80(b) states that an EIR in a redevelopment plan "shall be treated as a
program EIR."
After the June 1997 approval of the Plan and the program EIR, Friends of Mammoth and
several individuals filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the adequacy of the EIR's
environmental review. Their primary contention in this case, and on this appeal, is an argument
that the program-level of EIR review by the Town was improper and inadequate. and that the
T own should have reviewed each of the 72 possible development proposals in specific detail
before adopting the redevelopment plan. Friends of Mammoth also made a broad-ranging attack
on most other aspects of the EIR, linking these other challenges to the basic argument that more
specific review of particular development proposals is required in a program EIR for a
rcdevelopment plan.
In a statement of decision issued on May 5, 1998, Judge Edward Denton of the Mono
County Superior Court upheld the EIR and denied the petition for writ of mandate sought by
Friends of Mammoth. Friends of Mammoth has appealed that decision and filed their opening
brief: and the responding brief from the Town of Mammoth is due on February 16, 1999. We
intend to file the brief of joining California cities also on or before February 16, 1999.
B. League of California Cities' Review of this Case
This matter has been reviewed by the League of California Cities' Legal Advocacy
Committee. and the Legal Advocacy Committee is urging that cities participate as Amici Curiae.
At the request of the League, our firm will prepare an amicus brief of joining California cities
without cost to the League or any of the joining cities.
C. Whv this Case Merits City Attention and Amicus Support
This case merits city support for two reasons, which will be the primary focus of the
amicus brief of the joining California cities. First, it is important for cities, in preparing
redevelopment plans or similar planning or programmatic documents, to be able to engage in a
2067451
LANDELS
RIPLEY &
DIAMOND
California City Attorneys
January 21, 1999
Page 3
AT r u ,( '" t Y"
L L P
program level of environmental review. A decision from the Court of Appeal finding that more
specific environmental review of particular projects within the redevelopment plan is required
would significantly complicate the task of preparing program ErRs and program EIRs for
redevelopment in particular. Redevelopment plans will become far more difficult and expensive
to study under CEQA, because of the greatly increased level of detail required in an
environmental review. As a result, fewer proposals would be included in redevelopment plans
because fewer proposals would be sufficiently well-defined to perform an environmental review.
As a result redevelopment projects would likely be smaller and cities would have less flexibility
in finding ways to eliminate blight.
Second, and more generally, cities as the lead agencies responsible for CEQA compliance
on their own planning projects need reliable guidance from the CEQA Guidelines, and
predictability in judicial interpretation of those Guidelines. The CEQA Guidelines governing
redevelopment plan EIRs and program EIRs specifically state that a redevelopment plan EIR
should be a program EIR, and that program EIRs should analyze proposals at a general level of
detaiL The CEQA process for cities will be significantly complicated if cities are not able to rely
on these Guidelines.
D. Request for Support
On behalf of the Town of Mammoth and the League of California Cities' Legal
Advocacy Committee, please join in an amicus brief supporting the position of the Town of
Mammoth Lakes on these issues. We have enclosed forms to authorize such amicus
participation, as follows:
1. It will be easiest if joining cities sign on the brief through their respective
city attorneys, and the first attached form provides for participation in this manner. This
simplifies the process of participating, because the city is represented by its own counsel on the
amicus brief.
2. In the alternative, we will be counsel of record for some joining California
cities (including those cities that we already represent on other matters and that wish to join in
this brief). However, with respect to cities that we do not currently represent, if the city wishes
to appear on the brief represented by our firm we will need to promptly check for possible
conflicts of interest, and the representation in this case would be subject to the consent and
waiver which is included on the second form.
3. We ask that City Attorneys return this form by mail or fax so that we
receive it by Friday. February 12. Our fax number is 415-512-8750.
206745.1
LANDELS
RIPLEY &
DIAMOND
California City Attorneys
January 21, 1999
Page 4
A ~ r u I'. " ~ y \
L L P
E. For Further Information
A copy of the Superior Court's Statement of Decision is attached. If you would like any
further information regarding this case, please feel free to contact Mike Zischke at Landels,
Ripley & Diamond at 415-512-4608. You can send email inquiriestomhz(ij)landels.com. You
could also contact Peter Tracy, Town Attorney for the Town of Mammoth Lakes, at 760-872-
1101, or Daniel McHugh of the League's Legal Advocacy Committee at 909-798-7595.
?iY!'~ L;!J
"iclrndQ;.,
MHZ/ds
Enclosures
206745.1
GLENN R WATSON
ROBERT G BEVERLY
HARRY l GERSHON
DOUGLAS W ARGUE
MARK l L.AMKEN
ERWIN E. ADLER
DAROLD D. PIEPER
ALLEN E. RENNETT
STEVEN L DORSEY
WilLIAM L STRAl1SZ
ANTHONY 8 DREWRY
MITCHELL E ASBOTT
TIMOTHY l. NEUFELD
GREGORY W. STEPANICICH
ROCHELLE BROWNE
MICHAEL JENKINS
WILLIAM B. RUDEll
QUINN M BARROW
CAROL W lYNCH
JEFFREY A RABIN
GREGORY M. KUNERT
THOMAS M. J,MBO
MICHELE SEAL BAGNERIS
AMANDA F SUSSKIND
ROBERT C CECCON
SAYRE WEAVER
STEVEN H KAUFMANN
GARY E. GANS
JOHN J, HARRIS
KEVIN G. ENNIS
ROSIN 0 HARRIS
MICHAEL ESTRADA
LAURENCE S. WIENER
STEVEN R ORR
MICHAEL G COL..ANT'--'ONO
B. TILDEN KIM
C EDWARD DllKES
PETER M THORSON
BRENDA l DIEDERIC,"<S
JAMES l. MARKMAN
DEBORAH R. HAKMAN
RUSIN D. WEINER
SASKIA T. ASAMURA
KAYSER 0, SUME
SAUL JAFFE
CRAIG A. STEELE
T PETER PliORCE
DAVID ROBERT DANIELS
WILL.lAM P CURLEY III
D. CRA'G FOX
LYNN I. IBAAA
JANET iO COLESON
TERENCE R. BOGA
DANIEL L PINES
LISA SaND
DIANE ARKOW GROSS
ROY A CLARKE
ROXANNE M LJ'AZ
MARIS!:L S MEDINA
ROBERT A. BALBU!:NA
ERIKA M FLEMING
OLIVIA WAI.WEN SUAN
AMY W CHING
PATRIC'A K OL'VER
SANORALMcDONOUGH
GABRI!:l K. coy
MATTHEW O. MITCHELL
PAULA GUTIERREZ SAEZA
IF L( Ct9
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
A TTORNEYS AT LAW
RICHARD RICHARDS
(1916-1988)
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIOC.
THIRTY-EIGHTH FLOOR
333 SOUTH HOPE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 1469
(213) 626-8484
FACSIMILE (213) 626-0078
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE
SUITE 960
FORTY-FOUR MONTGOMERY STREET
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94104-461'
(415) 42'.9494
FACSIMILE (4'5) 42'-8486
January 20, 1999
ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE
NUMBER ONE CIVIC CENTER CIRCLE
BREA, CALIFORNIA 92921
(714) 990-0901
FACSIMILE (714) 990-6230
OF COUNSEL
WILLIAM K KRAMER
0502737
OUR FILE NUMBER
99999-99999
To: All California City Attorneys
Re:
Amicus Brief
No. H019076
Dear City Attorney:
in Saia v. City of
(6th District Court
Capitola,
of Appeal)
The Legal Advocacy Committee of the League of
California Cities has approved the filing of an amicus brief in
support of the City of Capitola in this case and I am writing to
request your City's joinder in the brief.
saia involves the question of how to determine fair
return on investment or property. While the case involves a
decision of Capitola's mobilehome rental review board, it should
be of concern to cities that do not have rent control, as well as
cities with rent control, because the trial court decision poses
a threat to local regulation in general.
The California Supreme Court and United States Supreme
Courts have repeatedly held that the wisdom of legislation is not
a matter for the courts and that legislation should be upheld if
it is reasonably related to a legitimate public purpose. These
Courts have also squarely held that rent control is within the
police power discretion of local jurisdictions and have explained
that cities need not follow any particular methodology in
regulating rents, or other prices, so long as the result of the
regulation does not deprive the property owner of a "just and
reasonable" or "fair" return.
This standard is similar to the question raised in
regulatory takings cases concerning whether a regulation allows
reasonable, economic use of property and plaintiffs and courts
have been applying takings analysis to rent control regulations
and decisions. Thus, decisions in rent control cases generally
have the potential to impact the analysis applied in regulatory
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
All California city Attorneys
January 20, 1999
Page 2
takings cases and the standard of judicial review applied to most
regulations.
The trial court decision in Saia is contrary to the
above principles and would render illusory the previously
established authority of local jurisdictions to impose rent
regulations (and, by implication, other regulations as well)
Many cities with rent regulation ordinances include a provision
in their ordinances that puts prospective purchasers of rental
properties on notice that neither the price paid for a mobilehome
park nor increases in mortgage payments arising from the purchase
of a park after the adoption of rent control can be used to
justify a rent increase. Capitola's ordinance states that the
purchase of a park standing alone is not sufficient to justify a
rent increase. Absent such provisions, rent control would be
ineffective because property owners could compel the very rent
increases that rent regulation is designed to avoid simply by
buying property at prices exceeding that justified by the
controlled rental income stream under the ordinance. See Fisher
v. City of Berkeley, 37 Cal.3d 644, 691-692 & fn.53.
The trial court in saia nonetheless held that Capitola
erred in denying a rent increase application and denied the owner
a fair return because Capitola did not consider the increased
purchase price paid by an owner who purchased the mobilehome park
after the adoption of the ordinance, Thus, it invalidated part
of the ordinance as well as the City's denial of the plaintiff's
rent increase application and eliminated the ability of Capitola
to have meaningful rent regulation despite the repeated high
court rulings that hold that rent regulation is within the City's
police power discretion. Any decision which so undercuts a
City's police power should be of concern to all cities. The
trial court based this ruling on an ambiguous and questionable
statement of the court of appeal (4th District) in Westwinds
Mobilehome Park v. Mobilehome Rental Review Board, 30 Cal.App,4th
84, 91 (1994), which should not be extended beyond that case.
The amicus brief filed in support of Capitola will set.
forth the concern of all cities about the trial court's improper
limitation of the police power authority and the potential impact
of that limitation on other legitimate local regulation. It will
also set forth the concerns of cities that have rent regulation
ordinances about the impact of the trial court's decision on
their ability to have effective rent regulation ordinances and
about the inconsistency of the trial court decision with the
California Supreme Court's decisions addressing the "fair return"
standard.
There will be no cost to your City in joining the brief
and it is important to show the Court of Appeal that this is a
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
All California City Attorneys
January 20, 1999
Page 3
matter of concern to many cities. If your City wishes to join in
the brief please sign and return the enclosed authorization to me
by February 22, 1999. The authorization can be faxed so long as
the original, signed authorization is later mailed to me,
brief.
I hope that your City will decide to join in the amicus
Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any
questions concerning the case or the amicus brief.
Very truly yours,
F>
/.. /7
;i!:/;;-r:-i.;-:"-:"E>I.>~'~" X~=>)..::~--->'-L-C-
Rochelle Browne
RB:rb
0502737
encl
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO. 2
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN MANAGER
SPRINT LEASE AMENDMENT
February 3, 1999
BACKGROUND
In 1997, the Town entered into a five-year lease with the Sprint company for the rental of
approximately 85 square feet located on the second floor of Town Hall. This space was originally
intended for storage purposes. The annual rent of $24,000 is adjusted annually based upon the
CPL The lease includes the antennae panels in the Town Hall clock tower, and the equipment
cabinets. Sprint also contributed funding towards the purchase of the new Town Hall generator.
Sprint has now requested an additional 16 square feet of area to install another equipment
cabinet. The Town can provide this area by utilizing a portion of unused 2nd floor rear hallway
without impact upon Town operations.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Town Council authorize the Town Manager to execute the proposed lease
amendment which will increase Sprint's annual rental fee to the Town from $24,000 to $30,000.
R.L. Kleinert
EXIDBITS
--Lease Amendment (to be submitted)
--Description of Existing & Proposed Rental Space
1
Site Name: Tiburon City Hall
Cascade Number: Fs04xc400
EXHIBIT 1 for AMENDl\'[ENT TO pes SITE AGREEMENT
8.5"
(E) SPRINT pcs
EOUIPMENT
(E) PPC CABINET
ELEC
-- .-. -I
STORAGE
.If
7'-'"
PRC
PWR
~ =_-= .=:-_-=.1
o
o
TOILET
Note: SSLP may replace this Description of SSLP's SiteJPremises with the plans submitted to the local jurisdiction
for a building permit and/or as-built drawings depicting the Site and pes. Such replacement description shall be
deemed a part of this Agreement and shall be binding on Owner and SSLP.
Owner's Initials
SSLP's Initials
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
ITEMNO.L
To:
TOWN COUNCIL
From:
TOWN CLERK
Subject: STATUS OF OPENINGS AND APPOINTMENTS
TO TOWN BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
Date: February 3, 1999
BACKGROUND
The following terms will expire at the end of February:
1) PLANNING COMMISSION:
2) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD:
3) PARKS & OPEN SPACE:
4) IT. RECREATION COMMITTEE:
Lisa Klairmont
Kirk Beales, Larry Doane
Mindy Canter, Kurt Obermeyer
Priscilla Tripp, Jerry Riessen
The Town has not yet received a response concerning re-appointment from either Lisa
Klairmont or Larry Doane. All other commissioners, with the exception of Kurt Obermeyer who
submitted his resignation, would like to be considered for reappointment.
Notices of the pending vacancies have been posted at Town Hall, the Belvedere-Tiburon
Library, and published in The Ark newspaper. To date, only three applications have been received
from interested citizens, two of which would like to serve on the Parks & Open Space
Commission (see attached Exhibit). The application period closed on January 31, 1999.
ACTION REOUIRED
1) The Town Council should consider interviewing candidates at the next Council
meeting, February 17, so that appointments can be made at the first meeting in
March, 1999.
2) The Council can also appoint someone previously interviewed or currently seated
on another board or commission.
EXHIBIT
--Applications
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435-7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
October 16, 1998
Mrs. Traute Eckersdorff
2 Janet Way, #99
Tiburon, CA 94920
SUBJECT:
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON TOWN COMMISSION
Dear Mrs. Eckersdorff
Thank you for your recent application to serve on the Tiburon Parks & Open Space
Commission.
The Town Council will schedule interviews for upcoming vacancies on this Commission
beginning in January or February of next year. These informal interviews last approximately 10
minutes and take place in the Council Chambers at 1505 Tiburon Boulevard. I will contact you as
soon as a date is selected to set up an appointment with you.
Once again, thank you for your interest in serving the Tiburon community.
Vel)' ~IY Yil'
.//.7&~
/ .
Diane L. Crane
Town Clerk
~
NAME: -(- PrI.XiE -C IE
MAILING ADDRESS: ;:l.. 3c: Y\.. +-
TELEPHONE: Home: 3~/-b)~]Work:
PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (lfapplicable)
TmURON RESIDENT: (Years) I DATE SUBMITTED:
TOWN MANA~RS O,flCE
TOWN OF IBURON
A~
~~:
~~~~~~ ~~~ ~ ,~L~Ch
_f~~e~~~;.~~j~~L,
----------------------------------------------1rOVVTl JIall {)se -------------------------------------------------
( Ire; '1 )
(0- n ,{r
Interview Date:
_ Date Application Received:
_ Appointed to:
(Commission, Board or Committee)
(Date)
_ Date 1rerm Expires:
Length of1rerm:
jrn 12/95
2
~
TOWN OF TIB URON
[505 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435.-7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
COM1\HSSION. BOARD & COMlVIITTEE
RECEIVED
OCT 1 3 1998
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF T1BURON
APPLICA TION
The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions,
boards and committee throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen
vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local
governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in
serving the Town in some capacity.
Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience
which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both sides of this form and
returning it to Town Hall. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and
informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year.
Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year.
Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community.
&11
Robert L. Kleinert
Town Manager
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Indicate Your Area(.) of Interest in Numerical Order
(#1 Being the Greatest Interest)
PLANNING V PARKS & OPEN SPACE
DESIGN REVIEW RECREA nON
HERITAGE & ARTS DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
BUDGET & FINANCE LIBRARY
RECYCLING & WASTE MANAGEMENT
DOWNTOWN REVIT ALIZA nON TASK FORCE
1
TOWN OF TIBURON
1.505 TIBURON BOULEVARD' TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435.7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
December 23, 1998
Mary Mullen
7 Playa Verde
Tiburon, CA 94920
SUBJECT:
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON TOWN BOARD OR COMMISSION
Dear Mrs. Mullen:
Thank you for your recent application to serve on a Town Board or Commission. The
Town Council will conduct interviews for terms expiring in February, 1999, on the Planning
Commission, Parks & Open Space Commission, Design Review Board, and Jt. Recreation
Committee. We will contact you again once a date is set for these interviews.
Once again, thank you for your interest in serving the Tiburon community.
Very truly yours,
Diane L. Crane
Town Clerk
cc:
Town Council
Town Manager
T- f/j1rt ~d~
I
.,
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435-7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
~C ~ f& ~d-1 f-
C~ ....Ikt
COMMISSION. BOARD & co~nTTEE RECEIVED
DEe - 2 1998
c.e'.(ID
W~
,..
~.
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICt
TOWN OF TlBURON
The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions,
boards and committee throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen
vacancies. In its effort to broa.den participation by local residents in Tiburon's local
governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in
serving the Town in some capacity.
APPLICA TION
Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience
which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both sides of this form and
returning it to Town Hall. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and
informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year.
Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year.
Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community.
$A
Robert L. Kleinert
Town Manager
****** * * *** * * * * * * * ** * * ** * **** * * * * * * ** * * * * * * ** * *
Indicate Your Area(s) oCInterest in Numerical Order
(#1 Being the Greatest Interest)
st \ X
,~
-
PLANNING r; PARKS & OPEN SPACE
DESIGN REVIEW ~RECREA TION
HERITAGE & ARTS ~DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
BUDGET & FINANCE LIBRARY f:-
a RECYCLING & WASTE MANAGEMENT
DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION TASK FORC
1
NAME: MI1'i[i F Mu//.cr/
MAILING ADD SS: "7 1'1 ~A ~A!jt:
TELEPHONE: Home: ~q. O:l. \\ ork: 4i~l- ~ -!uO )( 2r.fI Fax No~ 4to J . 5;:.; 1"1
PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (Ifapplicable)
TIBURON RESIDENT: (Years) DATE SUBMITTED:
-h p./~tJ~-~~ -6 5~u~u-'
~ ~. ,..,/V'" ,., i ~ ':~-'. ~ ! '""" n-.......~f/..
lm~1l~~fu1;~i*j~i~f~~j~~j1j1j111111Ijjjiii11111~~~
:::::::::::::::;:;:::::;:::::::;:
Jil1iti:il:i:i:i:i:i:iililllllll'l:1111Iill!::1
~.~
(;/~t~::~j~2::C;;! (',":~:=b^ S~rI{1A
7 r~./Ir< E ~/1e' ~ I [:jl GL- tA--' !2J,<:/,i//h.;t', t;..,/ bcJ' c~ ~ 6 ,);; ~.
OY,Efi!.
-.Lif~' ~)(,};"I2I&Jt1cE... it'.' '.E..1Y..J.:..J.~/Vi}1~lfttLJ''Y'vkb___
----------------------------------------------1fOlVll 1Ia11 1Jse -------------------------------------------------
_ Date Application Received:
( ;) .- ).. -'7 r
Interview Date:
10 ~ h~~;1
_ Appointed to:
(Commission, Board or Committee)
(Date)
_ Date 1ferm Expires:
Length of 1ferm:
jrn 12/95
2
TOWN OF TIB URON
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435-7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
January 26, 1999
Thomas W. Allen
535 Comstock Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
SUBJECT:
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON TOWN COMMISSION
Dear Mr. Allen:
Thank you for your recent application to serve on the Tiburon Parks & Open Space
Commission.
The Town Council will hold interviews for pending vacancies on this Commission
sometime during the next month. These informal interviews last approximately 10 minutes and
take place in the Council Chambers at 1505 Tiburon Boulevard. I will contact you as soon as a
date is selected to set up an appointment with you.
Once again, thank you for your interest in serving the Tiburon community.
Very truly yours,
Diane L. Crane
Town Clerk
cc: Town Council
Town Manager
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 T1BURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435-7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE
RECEIVED
JAN 1 5 1999
APPLICA TION
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions,
boards and committee throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen
vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local
governmental process and ~ctiv.ities, the Council needs to know your interest in
serving the Town in some capacity.
, Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience
which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both sides of this form and
returning it to Town Hall. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and
informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year.
Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year.
Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community.
4A
Robert L. Kleinert
Town Manager
****** * * * * ** * * * *** * * * * * ** *** * * * * * * * * * * * *** *** **
:~::~~:::::~::::::::::;:;;;;:iiil'llilillll!~illlilill11111111:lilll
..~t~~~~~i~~~~1ili~~~~~~1~~~ffi~~~j~~~~1~~~1~~~~1~~~~~1~1~jjj~~~~~1~1~~~~1~~1~~11~~
Indicate Your Area(s) of Interest in Numerical Order
(#1 Being the Greatest Interest)
PLANNING )( PARKS & OPEN SPACE
DESIGN REVIEW RECREATION
HERITAGE & ARTS DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
BUDGET & FINANCE LIBRARY
RECYCLING & WASTE MANAGEMENT
DOWNTOWN REVIT ALIZA TION TASK FORCE
1
NAME: T'v\olMD.s W. Al\~
MAILING ADDRESS: 53., (oM S~c.\.- D 1".
TELEPHONE: Home: ~~S"9;~ Work: If-C4-1...14-C:;k Fax No. ~-;5."5'2..3
PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (Ifapplicable) ~eed I-\ei.,\...tl'/T\'~~ ~al\..r
TIBURON RESIDENT: (Years) S' DA TE SUBMITTED:
o~ Spo..ce. X. ~ ;~~~;v-. I. ~
~ o...l' ~ CO'\^.Sv l~+ ~ 1k.. T~lAc;+- ~ pv blit. ~
\ l'\ S ~ fVt;w..c..,ts ~ ~ 0 Y"€A. (0 j esa-r:s I S'cr ha...v ~ , a,.i V'- ~ cI- q
wav~"" ~"'''''Ch-l\e.tk-, ~ ~ ~frec(o-n"'n., fa- l~ cO\^~~t\'"......
+e. c t... " r Gf u..t S' . :I: ~ 0.... ~ kr: a.{ tt:p AdA y~C k.. L..t::.o...1 ~
ctM. b a. ri VA.t~ ,fi,-r~J'+ I"'E".t.MNe, I"" ~ A-ctl-r"~o.c.L p~~
whi~ 1:- viS'I+- CA.M.1I\~flr w~ !My ; Iy, C. fYT?J..tIlAr.f G5,ooo
o..cyes of (,J00cl1~ \.w~~ (~..r / s~.s ~ f'va.; is'.
MBA- ~ S'~~ (~'11
c.f'A
~('~4 ,)' C Fo d+- (eu.J ~r_, S>ra k.c1.:..,.1 L..le.~e.r ~ f-f'vr{S(J'\A.. LLf
,'", s~ ~c...is (.Q (:S~lA.CA 19C1"")' Se-cz.. ~o...c~
~ S l..VIMoA- - V\.o +- u olo..te.J 1-0 V'e.f-1 c. ~ ~.1 0 'i i ""~
(1:::> p-cK' ~ i "",'TI f:,~"" o...rq:J l,.J~Jr M~" (B~ ',"'>"\A..,s IA l.cw-~
\,.Ie.. a.JU. t",- -ft;;;; F M.; tH ~1'1) <:.l..fJ' b \I i (J. ~ ~ I~ IN \ \ k.i,
~ ~ a. s.f-zt..f 20 lI'\~
-------------.----.---------------------------1rOlYll lIaJI 1Jse .-..---------------------------------------------
_ Date Application Received: /-1 )-77
Interview Date: fv be d~f /~ "q
_ Appointed to:
(Commission, Board or Committee)
(Date)
_ Date Term Expires:
Length of Term:
jm 12/95
2
Thomas W. Allen
· Twenty five years of management and management systems consulting experience with
Fortune 1000 companies, major not-for-profit organizations and government entities.
· Professional history of developing $1-2 million in new consulting business annually.
· Well developed planning, project management and client relations skills.
· Excellent written, verbal, presentation and interpersonal communication and persuasion skills.
· Exceptional solution development, conflict resolution and negotiation skills.
Professional Experience
Managing Partner
IT Management Advisors, Inc. (ITMA) 1989 - Present
Founder and Managing Partner of information systems planning and design firm. lIMA is a client-
driven, alliance-based firm that provides strategic systems planning, financial management reporting,
and business process improvement services to medium-sized companies. Responsible for strategic
planning, business development, project management and staff planning and management.
Performed significant consulting projects for Charles Schwab and Co., Lucasfilm, Ltd., Failure Analysis
Associates, Bio-Rad Laboratories, VLSI Technologies, Octel Communications, The Trust for Public
Land, San Francisco Foundation, CellularOne, East Bay Regional Park District, and many others.
Served as Chief Operating Officer for Global Internet.com, Inc., a $25 million networking professional
services firm, for eight months.
Business Center Manager
Systemhouse, Inc.
1987 - 1989
Responsible for business development, practice planning, project management, and staff planning for one
of Systemhouse's nine U.S. offices.
Partner, Management Consulting Department
KPMG Peat Marwick
1972 -1987
Built management consulting practices in several industries and performed business development,
project management, professional staff development and client relations for this Big 6 professional
services firm. As a Partner, generated 1-2 million dollars in new business annually. Pioneered and
developed new industry business and staffed four new industry consulting practices within Peat
Marwick. Clients included: Fortune 1000 Companies; state, federal and local government agencies;
financial institutions; public sector organizations; high technology firms; major transportation and
leasing companies. Consulting emphases included: strategic planning, management reporting systems,
organizational development and general management consulting. Delivered the Economic, Financial
and Market Analysis Seminar for the Chemical Planning Institute, Beijing, China.
U.S. Navy
1965 - 1967
Served as an officer aboard USS Saint Paul (CA-73) in Vietnam Conflict. Officer of the Deck underway.
Eight inch gun director officer for shore bombardment and counter-battery fire.
Education
MBA
BA
CPA
Stanford University, 1971
University of Pennsylvania, 1965
Certified, 1976
Affiliations
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
California Society of Certified Public Accountants
Society for Information Management
Member of the Board of Trustees, San Francisco Ballet Association
535 Comstock Drive, Tiburon, California 94920 · 415/435-9974 Home. 415/388-0841 Office
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
1-
To:
From:
Subject:
TOWN COUNCIL
DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER
FRED GRANGE, END OF WARREN'S WAY
REZONING #R98-02, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MASTER PLAN
AMENDMENT # 39806, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT #69802
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF REQUEST TO ADJUST
LOT LINES FOR THREE LOTS, AND INCORPORATE TWO SEPARATE
EXISTING PARCELS INTO THE TIBURON HIGHLANDS PRECISE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MASTER PLAN
FEBRUARY 3,1999
Date:
PROJECT DATA
Address:
AP Nos.:
File Nos.:
End of Warren's Way
34-360-11,38-182-20 & 38-322-11
Rezoning #R98-02, Precise Development Plan and Master Plan
Amendment #39806, and Lot Line Adjustment #69802
Medium High Density Residential
RPD (Residential Planned Development) & RO-2 (Residential Open)
4.8 acres
Vacant
Fred C. Grange
Tom W. Newton
General Plan:
Zoning:
Property Size
Current Use:
Owner.
Applicant
BACKGROUND
On December 9, 1998, the Tiburon Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 98-24 denying
a zone change (File #R98-02), precise development plan and master plan amendments (File
#39806) and a lot line adjustment (File #69802) for property located at the end of Warren's Way.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal involves a request to adjust lot lines for three properties, incorporate two separate
existing parcels into the Tiburon Highlands Precise Development Plan and Master Plan, and
consolidate the three existing properties into two lots. The property is located at the end of
TIRlTRON TO\VN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
FEBRUARY 3. 1999
Warren's Way and is currently vacant (see the vicinity map included in the Site Plan and Driveway
Plan, attached as Exhibit 24).
The site has an area of208,790 square feet (4.8 acres). The site consists of one current lot within
the Tiburon Highlands Subdivision (Lot IS) and two former railroad parcels which passed into
private ownership in the early 1970' s. The proposal would adjust the lot lines for Lot IS and the
former railroad parcels and result in two lots (l5A & 15B) within this subdivision. Lot 15A
would have an area of 49,037 square feet (1.1 acres) and Lot 15B would have an area of 159,753
square feet (3.7 acres). Building envelopes would be established for these two lots.
In order to accomplish the proposed project, the applicant requested the following discretionary
approvals:
I. Rezone the former railroad parcels from RO-2 (Residential Open, 20,000 square
foot minimum lot size) to RPD (Residential Planned Development);
2. Amend the Tiburon Highlands Master Plan to reflect the addition of one more
dwelling unit to the project (increasing from 42 homes to 43 homes);
3. Amend the Tiburon Highlands Precise Development Plan to add the area of the
former railroad parcels, and establish building envelopes for the proposed Lots
15A and 15B; and
4. Adjust the lot lines of Lot IS and the two former railroad parcels.
As shown on the plans in Exhibit 24, the site consists of a large sloped area consisting of Lot IS,
and a long, adjacent panhandle made up of the former railroad parcels. The site slopes down from
an extension of Warren's Way across Lot 14 to the railroad parcels, which start at the hollow
below the surrounding residential properties. An ephemeral drainageway begins in this hollow,
and continues as a stream leading away from the western edge of Lot 15. The former railroad
parcels have a central flattened area, but also slope away sharply to the south at their westerly
areas, leaving only a narrow strip oflevelland. This level area has been used as a means of access
by various utilities in order to maintain facilities on or near this site.
The subject site is surrounded by various residential subdivisions, including The Reedlands,
Reedland Woods and Bel Aire Estates. The bulk of the Tiburon Highlands subdivision is situated
to the southwest of the site These areas consist of detached single-family homes. Bel Aire
Elementary School borders the westerly end of the former railroad parcels
Access to Highlands Lot IS is provided by a private roadway easement that connects to Warren's
Way across Lot 14. Occasional vehicular access to the former railroad parcels for utilities
maintenance is achieved from the Bel Aire School property, although there are no recorded
easements for access. There is currently no legal vehicular access established to either of the
former railroad parcels However, as Mr. Grange owns Lot IS and both former railroad parcels,
TIBlTRON TOWN COl.lNCIL
STAFF REPORT
FEIlRUARY 3, 1999
2
it would be a simple matter for him to secure legal access across Lot IS to serve the two former
railroad parcels.
An application was made in 1996 (File #'s R96-02, 39603 & 69805) to add the former railroad
parcels to Lot IS, which would have resulted in three separate lots (Lots 15A, 158 and 15C). At
that time, Staff recognized that the development of three dwelling units on the area originally
approved for one house would place these new homes into too close proximity to each other, to
several stands of mature trees, and to the drainage areas surrounding the proposed building
envelopes. However, Staff believed that the development of two houses on the area of the
current Lot IS instead of the three dwellings proposed at that time would have significantly
reduced the impacts associated with the project, and brought the project into closer compliance
with the policies of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Staff urged the applicant to reduce
the project from three units to two, but he was reluctant to consider this option at that time. In
1997, the Planning Commission voted to deny the project, but during its deliberations expressed
support for the concept of two homes on the area currently occupied by Lot IS, instead of the
three homes proposed under that application. The current application is consistent with this
direction.
REVIEW BY THE COMMISSION
The Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this application on November 24, 1998.
Several neighboring property owners raised objections to the project, stating that the Tiburon
Highlands subdivision had been carefully scrutinized when it was approved, and that there is not
sufficient reason for the Town to revisit this previous decision. Concerns were also raised
regarding potential overcrowding of the site, and impacts on drainage, vegetation and wildlife
conditions on the property which would be caused by this project.
The Commission questioned whether access could be legally established to the former railroad
parcels across the Highlands subdivision. Staff explained that this issue had been reviewed with
three separate Town Attorneys over the years, and each had determined that although access to
these parcels would require an amendment to the Highlands Precise Plan and Master Plan, the
Town had no legal authority to deny access unless based on public health and safety issues
supported by evidence in the record.
As indicated in the minutes of the November 24, 1998 meeting (Exhibit 3) the Commission was
not convinced that appropriate access was available, and felt that a decision on the subject
application without a final determination on the access was premature. The Commission also
determined that there was insufficient justification for amending the Highlands precise plan and
master plan after the extensive public input and review which these plans had originally received.
The Commission unanimously (4-0) directed Staff to return at the next meeting with a resolution
denying the application. At the December 9, 1998 meeting, the Commission unanimously (4-0,
Berger abstaining) adopted Resolution No. 98-24 denying this request. The applicant filed a
timely appeal on December 21,1998.
TIBLfRO'J TOW;.I cO[ !NeIL
STAFF REPORT
FEBRUARY 3,1999
3
Warren's Way and is currently vacant (see the vicinity map included in the Site Plan and Driveway
Plan, attached as Exhibit 24).
The site has an area of208,790 square feet (4.8 acres). The site consists of one current lot within
the Tiburon HigWands Subdivision (Lot 15) and two former railroad parcels which passed into
private ownership in the early 1970' s. The proposal would adjust the lot lines for Lot 15 and the
former railroad parcels and result in two lots (15A & 15B) within this subdivision. Lot 15A
would have an area of 49,037 square feet (1.1 acres) and Lot 15B would have an area of 159,753
square feet (3.7 acres) Building envelopes would be established for these two lots.
In order to accomplish the proposed project, the applicant requested the following discretionary
approvals:
L Rezone the former railroad parcels from RO-2 (Residential Open, 20,000 square
foot minimum lot size) to RPD (Residential Planned Development);
2. Amend the Tiburon Highlands Master Plan to reflect the addition of one more
dwelling unit to the project (increasing from 42 homes to 43 homes);
3. Amend the Tiburon Highlands Precise Development Plan to add the area of the
former railroad parcels, and establish building envelopes for the proposed Lots
15A and 15B; and
4. Adjust the lot lines of Lot 15 and the two former railroad parcels.
As shown on the plans in Exhibit 24, the site consists ofa large sloped area consisting of Lot 15,
and a long, adjacent panhandle made up of the former railroad parcels. The site slopes down from
an extension of Warren's Way across Lot 14 to the railroad parcels, which start at the hollow
below the surrounding residential properties. An ephemeral drainageway begins in this hollow,
and continues as a stream leading away from the western edge of Lot 15. The former railroad
parcels have a central flattened area, but also slope away sharply to the south at their westerly
areas, leaving only a narrow strip oflevelland. This level area has been used as a means of access
by various utilities in order to maintain facilities on or near this site.
The subject site is surrounded by various residential subdivisions, including The Reedlands,
Reedland Woods and Bel Aire Estates The bulk of the Tiburon Highlands subdivision is situated
to the southwest of the site. These areas consist of detached single-family homes. Bel Aire
Elementary School borders the westerly end of the former railroad parcels.
Access to Highlands Lot 15 is provided by a private roadway easement that connects to Warren's
Way across Lot 14. Occasional vehicular access to the former railroad parcels for utilities
maintenance is achieved from the Bel Aire School property, although there are no recorded
easements for access. There is currently no legal vehicular access established to either of the
former railroad parcels. However, as Mr Grange owns Lot 15 and both former railroad parcels,
TIBlfRO)J TOWN COUNCil,
STAFF REPORT
FEBRUARY 3, 1999
2
Highlands Master Plan and Precise Plan, as they were under separate ownership and not part of
the project. A Conditional Certificate of Compliance was issued for the easternmost of these two
parcels in 1989, and a Conditional Certificate of Compliance was issued for the westernmost
parcel in 1995.
The Town's reluctant but legally unavoidable recognition of the two former railroad parcels,
which occurred subsequent to the Highlands Master Plan and Precise Plan approvals, has resulted
in a change of circumstances in the area and introduced a very strong potential for the creation of
two single-family home sites not previously contemplated. This has resulted in a change in
circumstances not anticipated at the time of the review of the Highlands project, and presents an
appropriate opportunity to consider the inclusion of these parcels into the Highlands Master Plan
and Precise Plan, as opposed to their piecemeal development as separate individual lots.
Ground #4 The arrangement of the two proposed dwellings is harmonious and
compatible with surrounding development and is not contrary to sound land development
and planning practices.
Staff Re~ponse: The Planning Commission acknowledged the exhaustive review that was
conducted as part of the approval of the Tiburon Highlands Master Plan and Precise Plan. The
extensive public input into the review of these plans was consistent with sound land development
and planning practices. The Commission determined that there was insufficient reason presented
by the applicant to revisit the previous decision on the placement of lots within the Highlands
subdivision.
As stated above, Staff believes that there is a very strong potential for the development of the
former railroad parcels with single-family dwellings. These home sites would be created without
the benefit of a "planned development" process and would essentially be shoe-horned into an
existing neighborhood separator (the former railroad right-of-way). The probable locations of
these homes would create more potential view and privacy conflicts with surrounding residences
than the location of the proposed house on Lot 158.
The future home on Lot 15B would occupy a portion of the site which is well removed from most
pre-existing homes in the area, and is visually buffered from homes along Burrell Court and Karen
Way by existing vegetation and future construction on Lots 14 and 15A. This home would be
separated from the homes to the north by the former railroad right-of-way. The placement of a
second home on the area currently contained within Lot 15, which reduces the potential for land
use impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods, would be a good planning solution for the
properties involved in this application.
Ground #5 The Planning Commission did not demonstrate that the project will be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
Staff Response The Planning Commission's review of this application centered on concerns that
the request was premature until such time that access to the former railroad parcels has been
TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
FEBRUARY 3. 1999
5
BASIS FOR THE APPEAL:
There are five grounds upon which the appeal (Exhibit I) is based:
Ground #1 Legal access to the former railroad parcels has been adequately
demonstrated.
Staff Response: Access to the former railroad parcels would need to be established across Lot IS
of the Tiburon Highlands subdivision. As stated previously, the Town Attorney advises that such
access would require an amendment to the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan and Master Plan, but
that denial of access would need to be based on public health and safety findings.
No precise plan or master plan amendment has been requested nor approved to grant access to
the former railroad parcels. The Planning Commission determined that a request to exchange the
development potential of these two parcels for the right to construct a second home on Lot IS
was premature until legal access has been definitively obtained. However, given that there
presently is no evidence that an amendment to the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan and Master
Plan Staff would adversely impact public health and safety, Staff believes that the Town would
grant an amendment allowing access.
Ground #2 There is adequate area on each former railroad parcel to construct a single-
family dwelling consistent with the Tiburon General Plan.
Staff Response: Each of the former railroad parcels contains land area in excess of the 20,000
square foot minimum lot size required under their current RO-2 zoning. The parcel closest to Lot
15 has an area of75, 711 square feet, while the parcel closer to Bel Aire School has an area of
64,962 square feet. However, both parcels are relatively narrow and very long, with widths of no
more than 60 feet along much of their length.
The applicant has previously submitted conceptual plans showing the potential location of homes
on each of the two former railroad parcels (Exhibit 21). The parcel closest to Lot IS does have a
relatively flat portion that would be suitable for the placement of a relatively small single-family
dwelling The other parcel has only a narrow bench following the former path of the railroad
tracks, with the remainder of the lot steeply sloping down toward the Bel Aire neighborhood.
However, it would appear feasible to construct a long, narrow house on the sloping area while
preserving emergency and utility vehicle access and accounting for encroachments such as the Bel
Aire School fence. This would be very poor site planning and would result in view and privacy
impacts on nearby residences. However, the Town would need to find supportable health and
safety reasons for denying all development on the property.
Ground #3 The Town did not have the option to include the former railroad parcels at
the time of review and approval of the Tiburon Highlands subdivision.
Staff Response: The two former railroad parcels were not included in the review of the Tiburon
TIBURON TOWN COliNCIL
STAFF REPORT
FEBRUARY 3.1999
4
parcels. Staff would consider this most unfortunate, and a prime example of poor
planning and development practices.
2. The owner reapplies for the same or similar 2-lot Highlands proposal currently on
appeaL
3. The owner re-applies for the same or similar 3-lot Highlands proposal which was
rejected by the Town in 1997.
4. Neighbors attempt to buy the property from the owner.
Staff considers Scenario No.4 to be unlikely. For reasons of both planning and efficiency, Staff
finds that granting the current appeal would be preferable to Scenarios Nos. 1-3. Further, a
lengthy, expensive, and probably highly antagonistic process would be necessary to perfect
development rights for the former railroad parcels and secure all required permits. Given this
likelihood, Staff can only speculate which option the owner might choose to pursue if successfuL
CONCLUSION:
I The Planning Commission determined that there was insufficient reason to approve the
subject application at this time. The Commission was not convinced that access to the
former railroad parcels was available, and felt that a decision on the subject application
without a final determination on the access was premature. The Commission also
determined that there was insufficient justification for amending the Highlands Precise
Plan and Master Plan after the extensive public input and review which these plans had
originally received. However, the Council has not historically evaluated zoning
amendments based on the process by which the earlier action was taken.
2 The Planning Commission viewed this application as an increase in the density of this
portion of the Highlands Master Plan and Precise Plan. Lot 15, which was originally
approved for development with one dwelling unit, would now be allowed to be developed
with two homes. The increase in density on this parcel was determined to be
inappropriate in light of the previous review for this subdivision.
3 Staff views this application as more likely an overall decrease in the number of potential
homes which could be constructed on the subject property. With the possibility of one
house being constructed on each of the former railroad parcels, along with another house
on Lot 15, the proposed project would reduce the density of development on this site from.
three homes to two.
4. Although access has not yet been definitively obtained for these two parcels, the actions
necessary to obtain such access are nearly administrative in nature. Access to the a second
dwelling house on Lot 158 would be established by the proposed project, thereby
eliminating the need to establish access to the former railroad parcels.
TIBl:RON TOW,\; eOl !NeiL
STAFF REPORT
FEBRUARY 3,1999
7
definitively established, and a reluctance to revisit the extensive review that went into the approval
of the Tiburon Highlands Master Plan and Precise Plan. Staff has been unable to find substantial
evidence in the record supporting findings that the proposed project would be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare.
ANALYSIS:
T own Staff favors the current 2-home proposal based largely on the assumption that the
alternative is likely to be development of both former railroad parcels and Lot 15, which would be
poor planning. Town Staff recognizes the possibilitv that Me Grange may not be able to perfect
the development rights on one or both of his two former railroad parcels. However, Staff believes
that Me Grange has a high probability of perfecting the development rights on one or both of
these parcels.
If the Council elects to follow the logic behind the Commission's decision, it could require the
applicant to establish legal access to the two former railroad parcels before granting the current
proposal. Staff does not recommend this approach, because, as stated above, Staff believes that
Me Grange could readily secure the necessary access.
The neighbors of this property have argued that in addition to the access question, there are other
constraints that would preclude development of the two former railroad parcels, concluding that it
is therefore inappropriate to view this proposal as reducing the number of buildable lots from 3 to
2. However, although the neighbors have stated that there are such impediments as unrecorded
access easements, we have no real evidence of any such constraints other than those previously
described in this report However, if the Council has serious doubt on this issue and believes that
the reduction in building potential is critical to its decision on Mr. Grange's application, it could
require that he first unequivocally establish that the two former railroad lots are buildable.
In order to perfect his development rights, Me Grange would need, at a minimum, to do the
following:
. Meet all conditions of the Conditional Certificates of Compliance issued by the
Town in 1989 and 1995.
. Receive design review and building permits from the Town, meeting all
requirements of the Fire District, Sanitary District, and other affected agencies.
. Secure title insurance policies on each lot
If the owner is unsuccessful, then presumably the two railroad lots would lose virtually all value as
they could not be developed. Ifthe owner is successful, as Staff believes he would be, then a
number of scenarios could be possible. Some of the more likely scenarios are:
I. The owner exercises the approvals and builds houses on one or both of the railroad
T1BLTRON TOWN COUNCIL
STAfF REPORT
FEBRUARY 3. 1999
6
24. Letter from Thomas Bomar, dated January 25, 1999
25. Letter from Vasco Morais and Holly Kaiser, dated January 26, 1999
26. Site Plan and Driveway Plan, dated September 14, 1998
H:\REPORTSITCR9802.RPT
TlBURON TOW>I COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
FEBRUARY 3, 1999
9
5. The proposed project would eliminate the potential for future construction of single-family
homes on the two former railroad parcels, and also eliminate the likely protracted legal
ramifications should attempts be made to withhold all development potential from the
former railroad parcels. Any homes constructed on the former railroad parcels would
create undesirable view and privacy conflicts with surrounding neighborhoods. A land use
decision which promotes such potential conflicts is a poor planning solution indeed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant the appeal and direct Staff to return with a Resolution memorializing the action to adopt
the mitigated negative declaration and approve the requested rezoning, amendment to the
HigWands Precise Plan and Master Plan, and lot line adjustment.
EXHIBITS:
1. Notice of Appeal dated December 21, 1998
2. Resolution No. 98-24
3. Minutes of the November 24, 1998, Planning Commission meeting
4. Minutes of the December 9, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
5. Staff report from the November 24, 1998, Planning Commission meeting
6. Application and supplemental materials
7. Draft Initial StudyIMitigated Negative Declaration
8. Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan
9. Biological study prepared by Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., dated December 27,
1996
10. Drainage study prepared by Questa Engineering Corporation, dated April 7, 1997
11. Addendum to drainage study prepared by Questa Engineering Corporation, dated April
14, 1997
12. Geological study from the Addendum to the Tiburon Highlands Master Plan
Environmental Impact Report, prepared by John Roberto Associates, dated February 1,
1988
13. Letter from Herzog Associates, dated March 27, 1990
14. Conditional Certificate of Compliance issued for Assessor's Parcel No. 38-182-20, dated
August 9, 1989
15. Conditional Certificate of Compliance issued for Assessor's Parcel No. 38-322-11, dated
April 21, 1995
16. Memo from Ann Danforth, Town Attorney, dated June 12, 1997
17. Plan showing originally approved building envelope for Lot 15
18. Planning Commission Resolution No. 97-21
19. Minutes of the August 13, 1997 Planning Commission meeting
20. Minutes of the September 10, 1997 Planning Commission meeting
21. Conceptual site plans for development of former railroad parcels, dated October 24, 1996
22. Letter from Grover Wilson III, dated January 22, 1999
23. Letter from Gerald and Artie Lee Kobil, dated January 22, 1999
TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
FEBRUARY 3, 1999
8
TOWN OF TIBURON
10
(C:
I D
KL
RECEIVED
DEe 2 I 1998
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TOWN IMHAGERS Offta
TOWN CE Tl8lRlN
APPELLANT
Name: TOM'll. NEWTON
Address: 715 SUN LANE, NOVATO, CA 94947
Telephone: 415/898-0962 (Work)
(Home)
ACTION BEING APPEALED
Body: PT,ANNTNr, r,nMMTSSTmr
Date of Action: DECEtffiER 9, 1998
Name of Applicant: TOM IV. NEWTON
Nature of Application: MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT and
LOT LINE ADJUS~lliNT
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
(Attach additional pages, if necessary)
See attached letter dated December 17, 1998.
/~-J-1-7~
Fee ($300.00) Paid C~ K 11 5"'.L 70 Date of Hearing: fo L.. c!..eie(",-,' ( 0(
m~L-
~j,^- a-f-
/).-)./-'70'
Date Received:
Last Day to File:
January 1996
EXHIBIT NO.-L
.p. {eFt.{
Page 2
Daniel M. Watrous
December 17,1998
Item 2) At the time of review and approval of the Tiburon HigWands Development,
the Town did not have the option of including the two former railroad
parcels in the Master Plan and Precise Development Plan area. It can only
be speculated as to the ultimate configuration of Lot 15 had that option
existed at that time. However, appellant believes that the proposal to place
two homes in an area where three homes are possible is not contrary to
sound land development and planning practices.
Finding D. II. Precise Development Plan and Master Plan Amendment
Item (A) Appellant believes that the proposed arrangement of residential units does
provide a harmonious transition from and is compatible with neighboring
development. The placement of two homes on Lot 15 together with adding
the former railroad parcel areas to Lot 15 as proposed results in lot sizes
of 1.13 acres for Lot 15A and 3.67 acres for Lot 15H. In comparison with
other lots in the Tiburon HigWands development, Lot 15A would be the
third largest in the entire subdivision while Lot 158 would become the
largest. As such, the proposed amendment to the Precise Development Plan
and Master Plan is compatible with Lots 14, 15 and 16 as originally
approved within the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan.
Item (8) and D. III. Lot Line Adjustment
As argued herein above, the project proposal for a Rezoning, Master Plan,
Precise Development Plan and Lot Line Adjustment is not inconsistent
with policies of the Tiburon General Plan.
Finding E.:
Appellant believes that the Planning Commission has not demonstrated
that the project as proposed will be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare as stated in their Resolution No 98-24. There are no factual
findings to that effect
EXHIBIT NO.--L
f- ~ CF <-f
pac
planning advisory corporation
tom w newton, president
715 sun lane
novato, ca 94947
415 898 0962
fax 415 898 0963
land development planning
and consulting services
December 17, 1998
Daniel Watrous, Senior Planner
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution 98-24
Dear Mr. Watrous:
Submitted herewith is an appeal from the Planning Commission's decision as contained in
the subject resolution. This appeal consists of the NOTICE OF APPEAL FORJ\1 and the
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL TEXT which follows below together with a FILING FEE of
$300.00.
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Appellant disagrees with Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-24 Section I. Findings,
D and E, and believes that the project is not inconsistent with the policies of the Tiburon
General Plan. Specifically:
Finding D.1. Zone Change
Item 1) Appellant believes that it has been adequately demonstrated that legal access
to the former railroad parcels is available over Lot 15 in the Tiburon
Highlands Development which is in the same ownership as the former
railroad parcels. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that there is
adequate area on both of the former railroad parcels to construct a single
family home on each. Such single-family development is consistent with
the Medium Density Land Use Designation as established in the Tiburon
General Plan for this area. Therefore, the proposed zone change is
consistent with the Tiburon General Plan.
,
EXHIBIT NO. I
r, 'L dfi" Lf
RESOLUTION NO. 98-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
DENYING A ZONE CHANGE, A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT,
A MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT AND A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
TO ADJUST LOT LINES FOR THREE LOTS, AND
INCORPORATE TWO SEPARATE EXISTING PARCELS INTO
THE TIBURON HIGHLANDS PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MASTER PLAN
ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 34-360-1 I 38-182-20 & 38-322-11
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows:
Section 1 Findinil:s,
A, On June 12, 1998, the Town of Tiburon received an application for a zone change, a
precise development plan amendment, a master plan amendment and a lot line adjustment
to adjust lot lines for three lots, and incorporate two separate existing parcels into the
Tiburon Highlands Precise Development Plan and Master Plan for the subject property
(Applications #R98-02, #39806 and #69802). The application cDnsists of the following:
1. Application Form received June 12, 1998
2. Site Plan and Driveway Plan received July 18, 1998
3. Letter from Herzog Associates, dated March 27, 1990
C. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on November 24, 1998,
and heard and considered testimony frDm interested persons.
D. The Planning Commission, based upon application materials and analysis presented in
the November 24, 1998 Staff Report as well as visits to the site and public testimony,
finds that the proposal is inconsistent with the required findings necessary to approve
each of the aspects of the subject application, as described below:
l. Zone Chanl;'e
Section 4.09.05 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance states that unless the proposed
zone change is consistent with the General Plan, then the Commission shall deny
the application, The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is
inconsistent with the following policies of the Tiburon General Plan and does not,
on balance, further the goals and objectives of the General Plan:
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-24
December 9, 1998
1
EXHIBIT NO. 'L-
r. lOP?;
Page 3
Daniel M. Watrous
December 17,1998
Appellant respectfully requests the Tiburon Town Council to uphold this appeal and
approve the application as proposed.
Cordially, ^
.~~U.~
Tom W. Newton
cc: Fred Grange
EXHIBIT NO. !
p/ lfqc cr
These same principles would also discourage the approval of the proposed
amendment to the Tiburon Highlands Master Plan.
Ill. Lot I.ine Adiustment
Section 14-11.2 (d) of the Tiburon Subdivision Ordinance requires that approval
of the application for a lot line adjustment be granted only if "the application
approval will result in conformance with the zoning and building ordinances of
the Town,>> The proposed lot line adjustment should therefore be denied, as the
proposed project would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Tiburon
Zoning Ordinance for approvals of a zone change and amendment to a precise
development plan, as stated above.
E. The Planning Commission finds that the project would not promote the public health,
safety, or welfare, nor on balance further the goals and policies of the General Plan with
respect to the proposed zone change, amendment to the Tiburon Highlands Precise
Development Plan and Master Plan, and lot line adjustment.
Section 2. Denial.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the Town of
Tiburon does hereby deny the proposed application for the reasons set forth above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the
Town of Tiburon on December 9, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES;
NOES:
ABST AIN :
COMMISSIONERS: KlAIRMONT, KNOBLE, SLA VITZ AND STEIN
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: BERGER
b~
LISA KLAIRMONT, CHAIRMAN
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST ~
flJL /
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
PCR9802d.res
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-24
December 9, 1998
3
EXHIBIT NO. e.
p. ':SoF3
1) Policy No, LU-3 of the Land Use Element states that "the Town shall
closely consider the environmental cDnstraints of land through the
development review process in determining the location, type, and density
of development." Due to the lack of legally demonstrated access and the
narrow physical configurations of the former railroad parcels, there is no
conclusive evidence that these parcels could be developed with single-
family dwellings, Therefore the request to forestall construction of two
dwelling units on these parcels, by allowing the construction of two
dwelling units on the area currently occupied by Lot 15, is premature at
best.
2) Land Use Policy No, LU-12 states that "in Planned Residential Districts,
new development should be located on the least environmentally sensitive
and least hazardous portions of vacant lands wherever feasible to promote
sound land development and planning practices." The original decision to
allow one dwelling unit on the area currently occupied by Lot 15 was
made after extensive scrutiny and public input as part of the adoption of
the Tiburon Highlands Precise Development Plan and Master Plan. The
request to add the area contained on two former railroad parcels to Lot 15
does not present a compelling reason to change a previous decision which
was accomplished using sound land development and planning practices.
II. Precise Development Plan and Master Plan Amendment
Section 4.08.04 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance lists principles that must be
applied in order to approve an amendment to a Precise Development. The
proposed project is found to be inconsistent with the following principles of this
Section:
(A) Principle U) states that the "proposed arrangement of residential units and
design of circulation system shall provide harmonious transition from, and
be compatible with, neighboring development and open space." The
proposed project would arrange a total of four dwelling units at the end of
a driveway off Warren's Way that was originally designed for three homes
(one each on Lots 14, 15 and 16), The placement of two homes on the
area currently contained within Lot 15 is not compatible with the more
open design of Lots 14, 15 and 16 as originally approved within the
Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan.
(B) Principle (p) states that "consistency with other goals and policies of the
General Plan elements shall be demonstrated," As described in Section
D,l. above, the proposed project is inconsistent with several policies of the
Tiburon General Plan.
liburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-24
December 9, 1998 2
EXHIBIT NO. L
p. 2- c5t"'3
change to the Master Plan. Three lots were clearly unacceptable. Two lots reduces impacts and
is a better solution than homes on the railroad parcels, He recommended adoption of the mitigated
negative declaration and approval of the project with reductions in building envelopes and floor
area ratios.
In reply to Commissioner Stein, Mr. Watrous stated that there had not been any change in
circumstance since the three units were proposed. The certificates of compliance give the
applicant the right to develop the parcels and it is likely they would do so, as there is a very strong
desire to live in Tiburon, Although the maximum width in this zone is 70 feet, that is for newly
created parcels. These are legally non-conforming lots, Mr, Stein commented that certificates
of compliance are easy to get and seem to leap-frog other steps.
Commissioner Slavitz asked whether a proposal to develop the railroad parcels would go to the
Design Review Board (ORB) first. Mr, Watrous said the first step in developing the railroad
parcels would be compliance with the certificates of occupancy, and the second would be to
establish access, which would most likely come to the Planning Commission with an amendment
to the precise plan, They do not have a lot of discretion as the RO-2 zone has setbacks already
determined. It would not require an EIR, as individual homes are exempt from CEQA, but a
categorical exemption would depend on where they built and if there are any question of
environmental sensitivity, He confirmed that access to the left parcel would be via a long
driveway.
Commissioner Knoble asked why the Commission should hear this now if the deed restrictions are
not yet lifted. Mr, Watrous replied that development of the railroad parcels was not before the
Commission. In any case, the deed restrictions were mostly procedural and did not present a
major hurdle. Commissioner Knoble did not agree, as she thought they were considering these
parcels and they are not legal. She also did not understand the story poles, Mr. Watrous said
they defined the building envelope. The storm had blown some over, but they had been replaced
that day. He realized that having three days to view the story poles diminished the
Commissioners' ability to analyze the project.
Commissioner Stein wanted further clarification on what the Planning Commission's role would
be if just the railroad parcels were sought to be developed, Mr. Watrous stated that the
Commission would only review the need to amend the access only, The actual homes would go
before the ORB. If a negative declaration were required, the ORB would review that, not the
Planning Commission. Stein asked if they requested access through Lot 15, would that come back
to the Commission, Mr. Watrous said the easement could be granted by the applicant without any'
action by the Town, but the Commission would vote on the Precise Plan amendment, and would
change the Tiburon Highlands Master Plan to reflect the access. The only action by the
Commission would be to recognize what is essentially a text amendment, not a discretionary one.
Commissioner Stein stated that he did not agree. Mr. Watrous replied that three town attorneys
all have agreed on this point.
'nBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24. 1998
MINUTES NO. 798
3
EXHIBIT NO. 3
(p. Z- OF Co
PUBLIC HEARING
1. END OF WARREN'S WAY: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO TIBURON
IDGHLANDS MASTER PLAN, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN; REZONING, LOT
LINE ADJUSTMENT, AND ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION; Fred Grange, applicant; Assessor Parcel Nos. 34-360-11, 38-182-20,
& 38-322-11.
Senior Planner Watrous advised that this project proposes combining Lot 15 of the Tiburon
Highlands with two adjacent railroad parcels, which would be added to the Tiburon Highlands
Precise Development Plan, and adjusting the lot lines to divide the three parcels into two parcels,
15A and 158. There would be one house on each of these two lots with access across Lot 14 from
Warren's Way.
Mr. Watrous described the two lots, the building envelopes, and the drainage, trees, and
topography of the properties, He stated that an application was made in 1997 to divide these same
lots into three parcels and was denied by the Commission. At that time an environmental review
of the properties had been done, It had found several oak trees and eucalyptus, most of which are
outside the building envelopes, but there are some trees that may be damaged by the construction.
When evaluating the impacts of the three parcels, the study found a 0.4 % increase in the drainage,
which is not a significant impact. There was also an indication of landslides, which have been
repaired and no longer present a hazard,
The last time the Commission discussed this project, they considered a potential pedestrian
easement along the railroad parcels outside the building envelopes to allow for public access so
students could walk to school. The Commission did not favor that solution at that time.
The proposed building envelopes for 15A and 15B are fairly large. Since the Staff Report was
written, the applicant revised the building envelopes away from the drainage easement and
eucalyptus trees. The allowable floor area ratios would be 6,900 and 8,000 square feet, and the
applicant would be willing to reduce to 5,500 and 6,000 square feet. As a matter of reference,
the houses on Lots 14 & 16 just completed are 5,000 square feet.
The central issue is whether or not there is the potential for building houses on the railroad
parcels. There are conditional certificates of compliance that recognize these parcels as legal non-
conforming that have conditions which would need to be met. There is no available access at this
time, but the applicant could establish an easement across his property (Lot 15). The railroad r
parcels are 60 feet wide at the narrowest point, so homes would fit on the properties.
This proposal for two lots would represent a reduction of all impacts as compared to the previous
proposal for three lots. The legal recognition of the two railroad parcels brings them into the
Tiburon Highlands without benefit of the planned development process and would require a
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24, 1998
MINUTES NO. 798
2
EXH!RITNO. 3
P. I CF 0
his planning consultant felt that was not good planning. The current project seems to work better
than having two small houses at the back of other houses.
Dolores Pahromenko, 345 Karen Way, stated that she had asked to be notified when these parcels
were up for the tax sale and had never heard. Mr. Watrous advised that any such notice would
have come from the County Assessor's Office, Mr. Anderson added that the Town does not get
involved with that process, Ms. Pahromenko wondered where the property was 60 feet wide, as
she thought it was much less than that. Mr. Watrous stated that it was measured from property
line to property line, and she indicated that much of that was steep slope,
Tom Bomar, 71 Reed Ranch Road, noted that many of the people who spoke at the last meeting
on this issue were not notified because they lived beyond the 300 feet for notification, He stated
that he is a real estate attorney and had done some research on the right of the applicant to build
on the railroad parcels. He had concluded that the applicant did not have the ownership attributes
that he claims to have. While the property may show that it is 60 feet wide, it was purchased
subject to many encroachments and easements, He felt that they were jumping too far ahead too
quickly. There has been no determination that the applicant has the right to build on these parcels,
or whether he could get through the EIR process or the easement rights of the school district or
fire department. The applicant realizes he does not have the legal right to build and is trying to
get around that by making a trade-off with rights he does not have.
Chris Wand, 5 Burrell Court, pointed out that the pedestrian path that goes by his property is a
well worn path used by game and people. It runs behind three homes and leads to Reed Ranch
Road. Warren's Way is not considered public access. There is also dedicated open space.
Marshall Gross, Warren's Way & Burrell Court, said he had been twenty years in this same
project and the homeowners had agreed to three buildable lots with ingress/egress from Warren's
Way, and now they are being told there will be five lots. He hoped the project would be denied.
Vasco Morais, 321 Warren's Way, felt this was a contract issue, in that the applicant is requesting
an amendment to the plan. That is discretionary and there needs to be some consideration as to
the value to the community in exchange for that. He questioned the easements and wildlife use
and mentioned the letter he had submitted that day. He stated that the railroad right of way is an
asset to the Town of Tiburon, that the bike path is comprised of old railroad parcels. There are
still railroad parcels out there and it needs to be considered what the Town will do with those
parcels. He urged the Commission to consider the larger perspective and deny the request.
Virginia Brunini, 267 Karen Way, a 34-year resident of the Bel Aire subdivision and former
planning commissioner, stated that she went through the development process for the Tiburon
Highlands. There was never any thought that two neighborhoods would be joined by two skinny
lots. They did not want to see access through Bel Aire, They had consistently not wanted to have
the railroad lots developed, nor did they want it to be a bike path. She is familiar with the process
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24. 1998
MINUTES NO. 798
5
EXHIBIT NO 3
.--
P- if CPb
Chair Klairmont felt this was all very piecemeal and with no story poles, questioned having this
hearing at all. Mr. Watrous recommended having the public hearing since so many neighbors had
come, and there were issues beyond the siting of the homes.
Commissioner Knoble questioned the FAR in this case because of the long lot. She thought the
intent of the building envelope was to encompass a reasonable portion of the buildable lot and
wondered if the Commission had some discretion on the FAR calculation. Mr. Watrous stated
that the Commission does have the discretion to establish a cap that is lower than would normally
be allowed. The FAR needs to have a relationship to the surrounding homes and, in this case,
should be reduced.
Chair Klairmont asked about the landslide and geological repair work, Mr. Watrous stated that
the prior application used the 1990 geology report for the Tiburon Highlands application. At that
time Staff had reviewed the geology report which indicated a landslide. At the hearing in 1997,
the appl icant indicated that the repair work had been done. Staff requested information on that
repair work for this report and that was included in the packet.
Discussion was opened to the public at 8: 15 p.m.
Tom Newton, 15 Sun Lane, Novato, Planning Consultant for Mr. Grange, stated that he was
available for questions. He was in agreement with the Negative Declaration and had nothing to
contest. He commented that the pedestrian easement through the railroad parcels can be accessed
from Karen Way, but there is no outlet. The tunnel is plugged by private residences.
Commissioner Stein asked when the applicant acquired the two railroad parcels and was advised
10-15 years ago. He asked whether parcel 15 was bought before or after that.
Fred Grange, 380 Eliseo in Greenbrae, replied that he did not recall specifically when the parcels
were purchased. The railroad parcels were sold off as tax parcels when the neighbors were not
interested, He has purchased 50 tax parcels over the years. He thought Lot 15 was purchased
first.
Planning Director Anderson stated that according to the certificates of occupancy, the smaller
parcel was purchased in April 1988, and the larger one in 1992.
Commissioner Stein asked whether there were other similar railroad parcels being independently
developed that did not have access to adjoining parcels, Mr. Anderson stated that there is one off r
Blackfield Drive that is approximately one acre, about 60 to 80 feet wide. Mr. Watrous added
that there was no access issue with that parcel.
Commissioner Slavitz asked Mr. Grange the logic of developing the railroad parcels versus the
current proposal. Mr. Grange stated that they were going to develop just the railroad parcels, but
'nBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24. 1998
MINUTES NO. 798
4
EXHIBIT NO. 3
P 3dP0
.'
minutes from that meeting indicate that it was not said two would be satisfactory, but two would
be beller. The objections that existed then, still apply, and there have not been any changes made
regarding the development of the railroad parcels since then. He would vote for denial.
Commissioner Knoble agreed with the previous comments, She added that in the Negative
Declaration there was consideration for a variety of impacts including drainage. If the water is
already at 100%, the little bit more from this project may require more study,
Chair Klairmont agreed with the other Commissioners and commended the neighbors for their
vigilance.
MIS Slavitz/Stein (4-0) to direct Staff to return with a resolution denying the project.
2. 1690 TmURON BOULEVARD: CONDmONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 120
SQUARE FOOT RETAIL AND SPORTING GOODS RENTAL STORE; Steve
Merrifield, applicant; Alfred & Ruth Mantegani, owners; Assessor Parcel No. 59-101-
13.
Senior Planner Watrous explained that this is an application for a Conditional Use Permit to
establish a store for roller-blade and bike rentals, and retail sales that would include skates,
sunglasses, and small food items. The business would be located in a small building on Tiburon
Boulevard that is currently vacant and would require interior remodeling and a bike rack outside.
The Town prohibits skating on the streets in the downtown, so the applicant will give out
information to show customers where skating is allowed. The intention is to serve the local
residents and tourists, This use is consistent with the retail zoning and is compatible with the
other businesses, They will have to work with their customers concerning the safety issues. He
recommended approval.
Commissioner Stein asked if there had been any communication with the Chief of Police. Mr.
Watrous said there had, and Chief Herley had no problem with the proposal. He discussed it
specifically in light of the ordinance, and as long as people complied with the ordinance, he could
support the business.
Commissioner Slavitz commented that the ordinance said this activity is hazardous, but not that
you cannot skate. Mr. Watrous clarified that it was unlawful on those streets.
.'
In response to questions, Mr. Watrous said there were no fines connected with the ordinance, the
bike lane could not be used for skating, the customers could go through the Boardwalk property,
and they could not skate out of the store, but would need to go to the multi-use path.
Discussion was opened to the public at 9: 10 p,m.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24. 1998
MINUTES NO. 798
7
EXHIBIT NO. 3
fCoCF0
and this proposal is incompatible. Mr. Stein asked her opinion of railroad lots, Mrs. Brunini
stated that she was shocked to think they have been deemed developable. The Planning
Commission does not have to make it so.
Forden Athearn, 7 Corte Las Casas, stated that he felt it only fair that the applicant be granted the
two homes, as he was advised to do this when he came in for three homes. He pointed out that
there is a lot of open space there, as they will keep the railroad parcels as open space. He
recommended approval. He showed Ms, Knoble where his house was and stated that he did not
think the project as proposed would impact him, nor any of the neighbors. Mr. Stein asked if his
support was due to the fact that the railroad parcels would not be developed, Mr. Athearn said
that was correct, but that he also thought two homes would be fine there.
Jay Parsens, 65 Reed Ranch Road, stated that he moved here five years ago with the
understanding that there would be three houses (Lots 14, 15, 16), He would be more impacted
with five houses like the house on Lot 16, That would change the dynamics of the area. He also
commented that the path was heavily traveled.
Sue Presley, 357 Karen Way, below the parcel, noted that the report mentioned drainage problems
and that there were underground streams, When there are heavy storms, this area floods and she
worries about the impact of more houses, Her house has already dropped, Also, a lot of wildlife
- herds of deer, owls, and foxes - would be impacted by this project.
Jackie Heronimus, 353 Karen Way, lives on the other side of the culvert from the Presleys, Her
property slopes at the creek already with heavy rains. She also had wildlife concerns.
Mr. Newton had no rebuttal.
Discussion was closed to the public at 8:47 p.m,
Commissioner Slavitz stated that he was familiar with the Highlands development and knew that
there had been a lot of negotiation done for that development. He had a problem changing what
was approved then at 5,000 square feet, to two houses at 6,000 square feet. It seems an unfair
situation, as it is not really known whether the railroad parcels could be developed, In any case,
he had a hard time making the trade-off between that and changing an existing plan.
Commissioner Stein agreed with Commissioner Slavitz. The problem before the Commission is
the adjustment of lot lines to avoid the development of the railroad parcels. The Staff Report said'
there was a strong potential for development, but maybe the applicant can and maybe he cannot.
It is not good to make major changes to a planned development. He did not think it was a good
trade-off even if the railroad parcels could be developed. That would not be known without a lot
more study. Several steps were jumped in order to say there was a strong possibility those parcels
could be developed. He disagreed that the applicant was told to come back for two lots, The
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24. 1998
MINUTES NO. 798
6
EXHIBIT NO. 3
p. :;- CFb
Commissioner Stein stated that the Town Resolution does not deny access.
Vice-Chair Berger stated that he had not been at the last meeting, but was there for the previous
application and thought two parcels were only questionably buildable at that time.
MIS Knoble/Slavitz (4-0-1, Berger abstaining) to adopt the Resolution of Denial as amended by
Commissioner Stein's changes.
4. 25 MAIN STREET: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 22-ROOM
HOTEL (THE TIBURON INN), AND PROPOSED ADDITION OF 3,000 SQUARE
FEET OF FLOOR AREA TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING;
CONSIDERATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; Ed & Laleh
Zelinsky, owners; KenKay Associates, applicant; Assessor Parcel No. 59-151-38.
(Continued from November 24, 1998.)
Planning Director Anderson stated that public testimony had been taken at the last meeting, during
which four issues emerged
1. The view blockage, especially from 39 Main Street.
2. The precedent-setting nature of the proposal in its bayward expansion.
3. The FAR exception.
4. The owner of Sam's Cafe concerns about his ability to build a second story in the future.
The applicant had made modification to the drawings, pulling back the building from the south and
west sides This reduced the square footage of the addition by 125 square feet, and the applicant had
a revised scale model at the meeting. Also available for the Commission to view was the video of
sun/shadow studies to show the effect on Sam's deck.
1. Concerning the view blockage from 39 Main Street, they had met with Dr. Rappaport's
representatives to resolve the issue and were unsuccessful The view information from the Hillside
Guidelines was included in the packet. According to the Guidelines, this would be considered a
peripheral view blockage, so the project would be consistent with the Town Guidelines. The
extension could be eliminated by taking off the third unit on the deck. That may make the project
financially difficult, but that is not the Town's purview.
2. Town Staff and the Town Attorney did not feel this project was setting a precedent.
3 This project keeps shrinking and the deck already exists, which softens the impact of the
addition. The Commission could reasonably find consistency with policy DT-12. A project is
consistent with the General Plan if, on balance, it furthers the goals of the General Plan. Every one
of the goals need not be met. It is the Planning Commission'sjob to determine if there is cDnsistency.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
MINtITES OF DECEMBER 9. 1998
MINUTES NO. 799
2
EXHIBIT NO.i:L
~. '2- iJf 2-
MINUTES NO. 799
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 9, 1998
Regular Meeting
Town Council Chambers
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California
Chair Klairmont called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. after allowing time for Commissioners to
read late mail.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chair Klairmont, Vice-Chair Berger, Commissioners Knoble, Slavitz, and
Stein.
Staff Present: Planning Director Anderson, Senior Planner Watrous, Planning Secretary
V orster.
PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
There were none.
COMMISSION & STAFF BRIEFING/CONSENT CALENDAR
Moved to the end of the meeting.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
3, END OF WARREN'S WAY: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION DENYING REZONING
#R98-02, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
#39806, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT #69802; Fred Grange, applicant; Assessor
Parcel Nos, 34-360-11, 38-182-20, & 38-322-11.
Senior Planner Watrous stated that Commissioner Stein had submitted a rewording for the first
paragraph of page 2 of the resolution He recommended adoption of the resolution as amended.
Discussion was opened to the public at 7:38 p.m.
T om Newton, representing Mr. Grange, stated that he strongly opposed the denial. He felt that the
proposal was consistent with the General Plan and the Master Plan for that area, and that it was
consistent with lot sizes. The Commission has denied access to the railrDad parcels, which in effect
is a taking of these properties.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1998
MlNlITES NO. 799
I
EXHIBIT NO.-.:L
f {~'-
acres) and Lot ISB would have an area of IS9,7S3 square feet (3.7 acres). Building envelopes
would be established for these two lots.
In order to accomplish the proposed project, the following discretionary approvals are being
requested:
1. Rezone the former railroad parcels from RO-2 (Residential Open) to RPD
(Residential Planned Development);
2. Amend the Tiburon Highlands Master Plan to reflect the addition of one more
dwelling unit to the project (increasing from 42 homes to 43 homes);
3. Amend the Tiburon Highlands Precise Development Plan to add the area of the
former railroad parcels, and establish building envelopes for the proposed Lots
ISA and ISB; and
4. Adjust the lot lines of Lot IS and the two former railroad parcels.
BACKGROUND
The Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan and Master Plan were approved in 1988 for the construction
of 42 single-family homes. Most of the homes within this project receive access from Cecilia
Court, Upper Cecilia Way and Southridge Drive. Lots 14, IS and 16 of this subdivision are
accessed instead from Warren's Way,
The former railroad parcels are part of the previous Northwestern Pacific Railroad right-of-way
through Tiburon. The railroad eventually sold off this right-of-way, with separate portions
coming into individual ownership over the years. A Conditional Certificate of Compliance was
issued for the easternmost of these two parcels in 1989 (Exhibit 9), and a separate Conditional
Certificate of Compliance was issued for the westernmost parcel in 1995 (Exhibit 10). Mr.
Grange owns both of these former railroad parcels, along with Lot IS of the Tiburon Highlands.
An application was made in 1997 (File #'s R96-02, 39603 & 6980S) to add the former railroad
parcels to Lot IS, which would have resulted in three separate parcels (Lots ISA, ISB and ISC),
The Planning Commission denied this request, Details of this decision will be discussed
elsewhere within this report. The previous application also requested an amendment to the
building envelope for Lot 14 of the Highlands subdivision, This request was also denied,
although a subsequent separate request (File #39803) with a revised building envelope was later
approved by the Town.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site consists of a large sloped area consisting of Lot IS, and a long, adjacent panhandle made
T1BURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 24, 1998
2
EXHIBIT NO. c;-
p, 2- if 12-
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO.
/
To:
From:
Subject:
PLANNING COMMISSION
DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER
FRED GRANGE, END OF WARREN'S WAY
REZONING #R98-02, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MASTER PLAN
AMENDMENT # 39806, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT #69802
REQUEST TO ADJUST LOT LINES FOR THREE LOTS, AND INCORPORATE
TWO SEPARATE EXISTING PARCELS INTO THE TIBURON HIGHLANDS
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MASTER PLAN
NOVEMBER 24, 1998
Date:
PROJECT DATA
Address:
AP Nos.:
File Nos.:
End of Warren's Way
34-360-11,38-182-20 & 38-322-11
Rezoning #R98-02, Precise Development Plan and Master Plan
Amendment #39806, and Lot Line Adjustment #69802
Medium High Density Residential
RPD (Residential Planned Development) & RO-2 (Residential Open)
4.8 acres
Vacant
Fred C. Grange
Tom M, Newton
General Plan:
Zoning:
Property Size:
Current Use:
Owner:
Applicant:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal involves a request to adjust lot lines for three lots, incorporate two separate existing
parcels into the Tiburon Highlands Precise Development Plan and Master Plan, and consolidate
the three existing lots into two parcels, The property is located at the end of Warren's Way and
is currently vacant.
The site has an area of 208,790 square feet (4,8 acres). The site consists of one current parcel
within the Tiburon Highlands subdivision (Lot 15) and two former railroad parcels. The
proposal would adjust the lot lines for Lot 15 and the former railroad parcels and result in two
lots (l5A & 15B) within this subdivision, Lot 15A would have an area of 49,037 square feet (Ll
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 24, 1998
EXHIBIT NO. q
f, I bf JL.
Monitoring Program (Exhibit 3) for the current project.
The previous biological study was prepared by Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. (Exhibit 4).
The study found that the site is mostly covered with non-native grasses. Several native coast live
oak and eucalyptus trees were noted on the site, and the study indicated that one of the oak trees
appeared to be in a state of decline, Some wetlands plants (including cattails, iris-leaf rush and
umbrella sedge) were observed along a portion of the former railroad parcels. Some riparian
habitat, including willows, was observed near the ephemeral creek. The study revealed no
presence of serpentine grasslands or any other locally designated natural communities on the site.
The study revealed no presence of endangered, threatened or rare species, their habitats on the
site. Although the study did not indicate the presence of any wildlife corridors on the site,
several neighboring residents have previously indicated that the former railroad parcels are
extensively used by a variety of wildlife. Preliminary investigation of the site by Town Staff
indicated that the biological conditions of the site appear to be unchanged since the preparation
of the previous biological study,
There are several native coast live oak trees present on the proposed Lot 158, along with several
large eucalyptus trees, Several of these trees would either be removed or are likely to be
damaged during the construction of a house on this proposed lot. The biological study indicated
that one of the oak trees appeared to be in a state of decline, A reduction in the size of the
building envelope for Lot 158 would increase the separation of future construction from these
existing trees, and avoid their removal or damage during construction.
The proposed grading work and development activity would not adversely affect the area along
the former railroad right-of-way that presently supports wetlands plants, as all construction,
drainage facilities and building envelopes avoid that area. The ephemeral wetlands below the
building envelopes of the proposed Lots 15A and 158 would not be disturbed, but the proposed
building envelopes are situated close to this area and should be reduced in size accordingly, All
on-site drainage will be carried via underground pipe to the headwall above the stream near the
northwest corner of the building envelope for Lot 158, Portions of the boundary of Lot 158 are
near the outer dripline of a willow riparian community along this ephemeral stream, which lies
within the jurisdiction of the State Department of Fish and Game. The Initial Study
recommended a series of mitigation measures which would reduce the impacts of the project to
less than significant levels,
The drainage study prepared for the proposed project by Questa Engineering (Exhibits 5 & 6)
estimated an increase in runoff during a lOG-year storm in the watershed surrounding the site of
0.4 % as a result of the proposed development. All impervious areas are proposed to be drained
directly to the ephemeral creek at the southwestern portion of proposed Lot 158 via an
underground storm drain system, All roof spouts and driveway drains would be connected to
this system. These improvements would reduce the amount of runoff into the drainage easement
to the north of the building envelopes for the proposed Lots 15A & 158, Instead, this runoff
would go directly into the ephemeral creek.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 24, 1998
4
EXHIBIT NO. C;
P. LjOFlh
up of the former railroad parcels, The site slopes down from an extension of Warren's Way
across Lot 14 to the railroad parcels, which start at the hollow below the surrounding residential
properties. An ephemeral drainageway begins in this hollow, and continues as a stream leading
away from the western edge of Lot 15. The former railroad parcels have a central flattened area,
but also slope away sharply to the south at their westerly areas, leaving only a narrow strip of
level land. This level area has been used as a means of access by various utilities in order to
maintain facilities on or near this site.
Most of Lot 15 has been cleared in the past, and is now covered with low grasses and a few
remaining trees, The bulk of the former railroad parcels, with the exception of area which has
been cleared for utilities access, consists of native plant communities, and includes some
wetlands plant habitat and a number of large, mature oak and eucalyptus trees.
The subject site is surrounded by various residential subdivisions, including Reedlands, Reedland
Woods and Bel Aire Estates. The bulk of the Tiburon Highlands subdivision is situated to the
southwest of the site, These areas consist of detached single-family homes. Bel Aire Elementary
School borders the westerly end of the former railroad parcels.
Access to Highlands Lot 15 is provided by a private driveway that connects to Warren's Way
across Lot 14, Occasional vehicular access to the former railroad parcels for utilities
maintenance is achieved from the Bel Aire School property, although there are no recorded
easements for access, There is currently no legal vehicular access established to either of the
former railroad lots.
A drainage easement in the hollow below Lot 15 currently collects drainage from this parcel, as
well as other residential lots surrounding this former railroad parcel. During and after periods of
heavy rainfall, an ephemeral stream collects in this hollow before draining to the ephemeral creek
to the west. The creek starts at a headwall located at the southwestern portion of the building
envelope for the proposed Lot 15B, and connects to the East Ditch, a concrete-lined drainageway
which eventually empties into Richardson Bay near the Cove Shopping Center.
ANALYSIS
Environmental review
As part of the previous application for the subject property, the applicant prepared several studies
which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the prior proposed project. These studies
examined the biological and drainage conditions of the site, along with the potential impacts
which may result from the proposed development of this property. Geological conditions were
examined using materials from the Environmental Impact Report and Addendum prepared for
Tiburon Highlands Master Plan, along with information presented at this time regarding previous
slide repair work which had been done on the site. These studies were utilized in the preparation
of the Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit 2) and Draft Mitigation
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 24, 1998
3
EXHIBIT NO. S-
f. 3 6F 12.-
Project analysis
The building envelopes for the proposed Lots 15A & 15B would occupy the bulk of the southern
portion of each parcel. Whereas the currently approved building envelope for Lot 15 (as shown
on Exhibit 12) occupies a 7,773 square foot area at the northeast corner of the parcel, the two
proposed lots have respective building envelopes of 13,797 square feet and 19,431 square feet.
The three lots previously proposed had building envelopes of 8,200 square feet, 9,775 square feet
and 12,704 square feet. The Commission should consider reducing the size of these envelopes to
reflect a less intensive level of development on each of the two proposed parcels,
The maximum floor area for the single-family homes which could be constructed on each of
these parcels would be 6,904 square feet on Lot 15A and 8,000 square feet for Lot 15B. A single
8,000 square foot house could currently be constructed on Lot 15. A single-family home with a
floor area of 8,000 square feet could theoretically be permitted on Lot 15 and each of the former
railroad parcels, although the narrow dimensions and topography of the railroad lots would likely
make it difficult to construct homes of such size, The Commission should determine if the
maximum floor areas for these homes should be further limited to be more compatible with the
pattern of development in the remainder of the Highlands subdivision and surrounding
neighborhoods,
Access to current Lot 15 is provided by an existing driveway that connects to Warren's Way
across Lot 14. A 30 foot wide driveway easement is proposed to be established across the
southern edge of Lot 15A to connect both proposed parcels to the existing driveway.
There are several existing drainage and utilities easements which traverse the site. The proposed
building envelopes have been established outside of the existing easements and utilities, An
access easement leading from the Bel Aire School property is proposed to be established across
the former railroad parcels to allow continued vehicular access for utilities maintenance, and
emergency purposes, but not for general use,
The central matter of the proposed project is the applicant's assertion that the project would
reduce the number of future homes that could be constructed on this property from three homes
to two. Instead of constructing one house within the existing building envelope for Lot 15 and
one each on the two former railroad parcels, the applicant is requesting the ability to build two
homes within the requested building envelopes for the proposed Lots 15A and 15B. Currently, a
building envelope has been established on Lot 15, and Conditional Certificates of Compliance
have been issued for the former railroad parcels, As described by the Town Attorney in a
previous memo (Exhibit II), these certificates set forth the conditions which must be met before
the Town will issue a permit or other grant of approval for development of the property, The
property owner does have the ability to apply for Site Plan and Architectural Review approvals
to construct a single-family house on each of these parcels, provided that all of the conditions on
the Certificates are met.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 24, 1998
6
EXHIBIT NO. '7
p, (PcF (L
During the review of the previous application for this property, several neighboring residents
presented anecdotal evidence of flooding and other drainage problems which currently exist on
and around the creek, The 0.4 % increase in runoff to this creek resulting from the prior proposed
development would be reduced by the development of only two homes on the site, rather than the
previously proposed three homes, The increased water runoff for this project could slightly
exacerbate existing flooding conditions in the vicinity of the project, but the increase itself is too
small to be considered a significant environmental impact.
A geological study was completed as part of the addendum to the EIR prepared for the Tiburon
Highlands Master Plan. This geological study (Exhibit 7) indicated the presence of a landslide
area on the site, The landslide appears to be a relatively shallow earthflow and debris slide
involving only colluvium and soil. No evidence of any repair work which had been done to
mitigate this landslide area was presented with the prior application. As part of the current
application, a copy of a letter from Herzog Associates (Exhibit 8) was included which details
repair work that was done in 1989 on Lots 14, 15 & 16 to repair this landslide area. This repair
work greatly reduces potential landslide concerns associated with the development of this
property .
Approximately 100 cubic yards of fill are estimated to be imported for the construction of the
access driveway. The potential exists for triggering additional slope movements. The Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration recommends that further geotechnical investigations should be
performed during the final design of development to determine and prescribe the extent of any
additional improvements necessary to create insure safe housing construction, It is also
recommended that artificial fill on the site be removed, and colluvium and shallow landslide
materials be removed and recompacted.
The proposed project would not otherwise alter the topography of the site. Drainage systems
would be installed to collect all on-site drainage and pipe the water to the ephemeral stream at
the base of Lot 15B, therefore reducing the potential erosion impacts of this drainage, The
geological study indicated that there are no known faults on the site.
The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration also identified a potential barrier to pedestrian traffic
which may be caused by the proposed project. The former railroad right-of-way parcels are
occasionally hiked by pedestrians walking between the various neighborhoods around the subject
site. There is no established trail or pedestrian easement across this property, Access to this area
from Warren's Way will be effectively blocked by the development of the homes on the site,
although the property could still be reached from other parcels bordering the former railroad
right-of-way, The proposed development could hinder existing public access and pedestrian
connections between the surrounding neighborhoods. During its review of the previous
application on this site, the Planning Commission indicated that it did not favor the establishment
of a publ ic pedestrian access easement across the former railroad parcels for continued
pedestrian connections to the surrounding neighborhoods,
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 24. 1998
s
EXHIBIT NO. S-
P ''i o~ 12--
Project analysis
The building envelopes for the proposed Lots 15A & 15B would occupy the bulk of the southern
portion of each parcel. Whereas the currently approved building envelope for Lot 15 (as shown
on Exhibit 12) occupies a 7,773 square foot area at the northeast corner of the parcel, the two
proposed lots have respective building envelopes of 13,797 square feet and 19,431 square feet.
The three lots previously proposed had building envelopes of 8,200 square feet, 9,775 square feet
and 12,704 square feet. The Commission should consider reducing the size of these envelopes to
reflect a less intensive level of development on each of the two proposed parcels.
The maximum floor area for the single-family homes which could be constructed on each of
these parcels would be 6,904 square feet on Lot 15A and 8,000 square feet for Lot 15B. A single
8,000 square foot house could currently be constructed on Lot 15. A single-family home with a
floor area of 8,000 square feet could theoretically be permitted on Lot 15 and each of the former
railroad parcels, although the narrow dimensions and topography of the railroad lots would likely
make it difficult to construct homes of such size. The Commission should determine if the
maximum floor areas for these homes should be further limited to be more compatible with the
pattern of development in the remainder of the Highlands subdivision and surrounding
neighborhoods.
Access to current Lot 15 is provided by an existing driveway that connects to Warren's Way
across Lot 14. A 30 foot wide driveway easement is proposed to be established across the
southern edge of Lot 15A to connect both proposed parcels to the existing driveway.
There are several existing drainage and utilities easements which traverse the site. The proposed
building envelopes have been established outside of the existing easements and utilities. An
access easement leading from the Bel Aire School property is proposed to be established across
the former railroad parcels to allow continued vehicular access for utilities maintenance, and
emergency purposes, but not for general use.
The central matter of the proposed project is the applicant's assertion that the project would
reduce the number of future homes that could be constructed on this property from three homes
to two. Instead of constructing one house within the existing building envelope for Lot 15 and
one each on the two former railroad parcels, the applicant is requesting the ability to build two
homes within the requested building envelopes for the proposed Lots 15A and 15B. Currently, a
building envelope has been established on Lot 15, and Conditional Certificates of Compliance
have been issued for the former railroad parcels. As described by the Town Attorney in a
previous memo (Exhibit 11), these certificates set forth the conditions which must be met before
the Town will issue a permit or other grant of approval for development of the property, The
property owner does have the ability to apply for Site Plan and Architectural Review approvals
to construct a single-family house on each of these parcels, provided that all of the conditions on
the Certificates are met.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 24, 1998
6
EXHIBIT NO. '7
p. (P oP l'-
Questions have been raised regarding the ability to construct houses on the former railrDad
parcels. The original deeds for these parcels included a restriction limiting the use of this land
fDr railroad purposes, The Conditional Certificate of Compliance issued for the westerly of these
two parcels (adjacent to the Bel Aire School) included a condition of approval stating that prior
to issuance of design review permits for development of this parcel, the property owner "shall
provide documentation to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney which demonstrates that [this]
restriction on the deed.. ,has been cleared or is otherwise inapplicable." As the former railroad
right-of-way is now discontinuous through Tiburon, it is not likely that these parcels will ever
again be able to support a railroad or other intensive transit activities. Regardless, the applicant
still needs to provide evidence to demonstrate compliance with this condition of approval prior to
development of the former railroad parcels,
Other practical concerns have been raised about the construction of single-family homes on the
former railroad parcels. Much of this property is very narrow and steeply sloped. No legally-
recognized access exists to these parcels at this time, Wetlands plant habitats border the parcels,
either further reducing the buildable area or raising the potential for serious development
impacts. Although the easterly parcel has at least one level area upon which a future house could
conceivably be sited, almost any future house site on the westerly parcel would place a home on
a severely sloped area which would raise significant view and privacy impacts for neighboring
residents,
These factors would be considered by the Design Review Board in the review of any applications
for construction of homes on these parcels, In following the Town's policies for Site Plan and
Architectural Review, the Board could limit the size and location of any such proposed homes in
order to address the potential impacts of these homes on surrounding properties. If access is still
desired for these homes via Warren's Way, the property owner could apply for an amendment to
the Tiburon Highlands Precise Development Plan which would only allow access across Lots 14
and 15 to the former railroad parcels.
The Tiburon Highlands Homeowners Association raised concerns regarding the prior proposal.
Some of these concerns were financial in nature, as Mr. Grange apparently owed substantial
unpaid assessments to the Association for parcels which he currently owns, The Association
raised questions about the Town's ability to force the Association to accept the additional area
and dwelling units requested. The subject application involves the possible inclusion of the
former railroad parcels and one additional dwelling unit within the area controlled by the Tiburon
Highlands Precise Development Plan and Master Plan. The issue of whether these changes
should also be reflected within the Tiburon Highlands Homeowners Association is a matter
which is not controlled by the Town, and must instead be worked out between the Association
and Mr, Grange.
General Plan Consistency
Policy No, LU-3 of the Land Use Element of the Tiburon General Plan states that "the Town
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 24, 1998
7
EXHIBIT NO. ?
p. 7 Ole 12-
shall closely consider the environmental constraints of land through the development review
process in determining the location, type, and density of development." The environmental
studies analyzed for this project indicate a variety of potential biological, drainage, geological
and pedestrian impacts which would occur as a result of the proposed project, although each of
the identified impacts appears to be able to be reduced to a less than significant level. The
relative nature of these same impacts is less understood if the former railroad parcels are
developed as an alternative to the proposed project.
Land Use Policy No, LU-12 states that "in Planned Residential Districts, new development
should be located on the least environmentally sensitive and least hazardous portions of vacant
lands wherever feasible to promote sound land development and planning practices." The
wetlands areas of the former railroad parcels are the most environmentally sensitive portions of
the subject property. The proposed development on Lots 15A & 15B would avoid these
sensitive areas and could, therefore, be considered to be consistent with this policy.
Policy OSC-ll of the Open Space and Conservation Element states that "the Town shall
encourage location of structures in a manner which minimizes tree removal and graping.
Specifically, grading shall be kept to a minimum." The building envelope for the proposed Lot
15B would result in the construction that would involve the removal of several mature oak and
eucalyptus trees, and the building envelope should therefore be reduced in size. The proposed
project would involve the construction of two dwelling units on the area currently contained
within Lot 15, which would result in more grading in this area than previously considered during
the original review of the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan. The amount of tree removal and
grading which would be necessary to construct homes on the former railroad parcels cannot be
determined at this time.
Policy No, C-35 of the Circulation Element states that "pedestrian routes, particularly for school
children, should be designated for all neighborhoods." In addition, Policy No. PR-8 of the Parks
& Recreation Element states that "the Town should require publicly-accessible off-road
connecting trails between recreation areas (developed, developable, and open space) and
neighborhood areas." The former railroad parcels are currently used as an informal pedestrian
trail, and provide a path leading to Bel Aire School. If this project is approved, a formal
pedestrian easement could be established across these parcels, if so desired as a neighborhood
connector. If this application is denied, the desirability of such an easement should be
considered during the Design Review process for any construction on the former railroad parcels,
Zoning Compliance
Section 4.08.04 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance establishes a series of principles which are to
be applied in reviewing a request to modify a Precise Development Plan. Principle (b) states that
"preservation of the natural features of the land shall be achieved to the maximum extent feasible
through minimization of grading and sensitive site design." Although the project would not alter
any distinguishing natural land features on the site, additional grading beyond that originally
T1BURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 24, 1998
8
EXHIBIT NO. S-
r ~o(-r2..-
considered for Lot 15 will be necessary to construct the two proposed houses.
Principle (d) states that "every reasonable effort should be made to preserve... mature trees [and]
access corridors." Several mature trees would be removed during the construction of a house on
the proposed Lot 158, unless the building envelope for this parcel is reduced in size. Efforts
could be made to recognize the pedestrian corridor along the former railroad parcels, if so
des ired.
Principle (t) states that "prominence of development and construction should be minimized by
appropriate location of grading and placing of buildings so that they are screened by wooded
areas, rock outcroppings and depressions in topography or other features." The homes to be built
on the proposed Lots 15A & 158 would be situated toward the base of the slope, helping to
minimize their visibility from neighboring residences.
Principle (j) states that the "proposed arrangement of residential units and design of circulation
system shall provide harmonious transition from, and be compatible with, neighboring
development and open space." The proposed project would arrange a total of four dwelling units
at the end of a driveway off Warren's Way that was originally designed for three homes (one
each on Lots 14, 15 and 16), The placement of two homes on the area currently contained within
Lot 15 is less compatible with the more open design of Lots 14, 15 and 16 as originally approved
within the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan.
Public comments
Staff has received several phone calls from the residents around this site in opposition to the
proposed project, Most of these concerns stem from the feeling that the addition of one more
house on this property would exceed the development of the site approved during the exhaustive
original review of the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan, Many nearby residents have been under
the impression that no development would ever occur on the former railroad parcels; therefore,
they do not subscribe to the applicant's assertion that the proposed project would reduce the
number of homes which could be constructed in this area from three future homes to two.
Previous Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission held public hearings on the previous application for this property on
August 13, 1997 and September 10, 1997, Resolution No. 97-21 was adopted on October 8,
1997 denying this application, Copies of the minutes of these meetings and the resolution are
attached as Exhibits 13 through 15,
During the review of the previous application, a possible alternative was discussed which would
have involved eliminating one of the proposed building envelopes, resulting in two houses on the
portion of the site previously proposed to be developed with three dwelling units. This
alternative, when compared to the prior proposal, would have resulted in decreased grading
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 24, 1998
9
EXHIBIT NO. c:;-
p, 9 Ol~ (2-
necessary to develop the site by eliminating one building envelope; reduced drainage into the
nearby ephemeral creek by decreasing the overall paved surface area; potentially saved several
existing trees; and reduced the amount of traffic using Warren's Way, During its deliberations,
the Commission expressed support for the concept of two homes on the area currently occupied
by Lot 15, instead of the three homes proposed under the prior application. At that time, the
applicant was reluctant to consider this option,
The issue of the potential impacts of the development of the former railroad parcels was not
resolved, as the exact locations of any potential future homes on these parcels were not known.
The applicant had previously submitted conceptual site plans for the development of these
parcels, which are attached as Exhibit 16 for illustration purposes, The actual impacts caused by
the construction of two homes on the former railroad parcels would have to be carefully
examined at the time of submittal of development plans for these parcels, provided that all
conditions placed on the Certificates of Compliance can be met.
The remaining issue discussed by the Commission involved the requested changes to a
previously approved precise development plan, The Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan was subject
to intensive public review and scrutiny during its approval. Historically, the Planning
Commission has required a compelling reason to approve an amendment to a precise plan, such
as changed physical conditions or a demonstration that the amendment would result in a greater
benefit to the community. The Commission determined that the previous application did not
meet this criteria, and therefore denied the request, but encouraged the applicant to return with a
revised proposal along the lines of that now under consideration.
Environmental Status
An initial study/draft mitigated negative declaration was prepared for this project and released for
public comment on July 17, 1997, The initial study/draft mitigated negative declaration is
attached as Exhibit 2. The public review period ended on August 7, 1997,
The initial study identified the potential for significant environmental impacts in the following
categories:
Geologic Hazards
Air Quality
Water Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Noise
Hazards/Emergency Response
Aesthetics
Mitigation measures and a draft mitigation monitoring program (Exhibit 3) have been developed
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 24, 1998
10
EXHIBIT NO. c:;-
p, fO of 1'2._
which would reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts to less-than-significant
levels, The mitigation measures related to geotechnical, drainage, biological and pedestrian
safety impacts have been previously described.
CONCLUSION
1. The Town's reluctant but legally unavoidable recognition of the two former railroad
parcels, which occurred subsequent to the Highlands Master Plan and Precise Plan
approvals, has resulted in a change of circumstances in the area and introduced a very
strong potential for the creation of two single-family home sites not previously
contemplated. These home sites would be created without the benefit of a "planned
development" process and would essentially be shoe-horned into an existing
neighborhood separator (the former railroad right-of-way). Staff considers this to be a
very poor planning solution.
2. The previously denied 3-lot proposal was clearly objectionable and constituted an
unacceptable solution.
3. The revised proposal for two lots significantly reduces the impacts associated with the
prior application. The amount of grading necessary to construct two dwelling units on
Lot 15 would still result in more grading than the single residence currently allowed for
Lot 15 under the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan, but alleviates the need for additional
grading to develop the former railroad parcels, A reduction in the building envelope
areas would insure better separation of the future homes from each other and from nearby
trees and drainage areas.
The addition of a second dwelling unit on Lot 15, which had been approved for only one
residence under this precise plan, would alter the density of development in this portion
of the Highlands subdivision. However, the proposed project would eliminate the
potential for future construction of single-family homes on the two former railroad
parcels, and also eliminate the likely protracted legal ramifications of the Town
attempting to withhold development potential from the former railroad parcels.
RECOMMENDATION
1, That the Planning Commission hold a public hearing.
2. That the Planning Commission direct Staff to return with a resolution recommending to
the Town Council adoption of the mitigated negative declaration and approval of the
project, with appropriate reductions in the size of building envelopes and floor area
maximums for future residences.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 24. 1998
Jl
EXHIBIT NO. S-
p, U cF /2-
EXHIBITS
1. Application form and additional submittal information
2, Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (delivered previously)
3. Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4, Biological study prepared by Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., dated December 27,
1996 (delivered previously)
5, Drainage study prepared by Questa Engineering Corporation, dated April 7, 1997
(delivered previously)
6, Addendum to drainage study prepared by Questa Engineering Corporation, dated April
14, 1997 (delivered previously)
7, Geological study from the Addendum to the Tiburon Highlands Master Plan
Environmental Impact Report, prepared by John Roberto Associates, dated February 1,
1988 (delivered previously)
8, Letter from Herzog Associates, dated March 27, 1990 (delivered previously)
9, Conditional Certificate of Compliance issued for Assessor's Parcel No. 38-182-20, dated
August 9, 1989
10. Conditional Certificate of Compliance issued for Assessor's Parcel No, 38-322-11, dated
April 21, 1995
11. Memo from Ann Danforth, Town Attorney, dated June 12, 1997
12. Plan showing originally approved building envelope for Lot 15
13, Planning Commission Resolution No, 97-21
14. Minutes of the August 13, 1997 Planning Commission meeting
15. Minutes of the September 10, 1997 Planning Commission meeting
16, Conceptual site plans for development of former railroad parcels, dated October 24, 1996
17. Site Plan and Driveway Plan, dated September 14, 1998 (delivered previously)
C:IREPORTSIPCR9802.RPT
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 24, [998
12
EXHIBIT NO. S-
p. (L IF rL
L..r\....1..,I ....,&,;;,v&,;L..Vrl.I-=.... 1-\..&"'1,",""1 "JI"lI
TYPE OF APPliCATION
-.1 ,~i~i;
o Conditional Use Permit
o Precise Development Plan
o Conceptual Master Plan
o Rezoning/Prezoning
o Zoning Text Amendment
o General Plan Amendment
o Tentative Sub~t::'!~~~r:'.~~~ __
o Final Subdivision Map
o Parcel Map
X Lot Line Adjustment
o Certificate of Compliance .
X Other~ P.J......"p~~~
,:b.." ",-_l...--.:t- :t:_
APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATIOrl~ 14-,1(, .L...
o Design Review {Majorl
o Design Review {Minor)
o Variance
o
D
o
Sign Permit
Tree Permit
Underground Waiver
SITE ADDRESS: No, ASS,GIUE.[') PROPERTY SIZE: 4,'1'1 ~
PARCEL NUMBER: 3'1-3~O-1I 311-131-..lo 13~-_Hl..~1/ ZOl'<'lNG: RO-l,. RPD
,
OWNER OF PROPERTY: PRE. DC. GI'.AN6E.
MAILING ADDRESS: ..1,3 K'.."'Noi.... BLVO.
CITY/STATE/ZIP: <;Ai'J RAFAe..L I': A "tl.j'lo I
.
PHONE NUMBER: /.iSh - ;2. '11;2. FAX '-I S 'j - Lj 10.3
APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner) 10M. LV tJ.E..WIO N
MAILING ADDRESS: '71~ SUi'J LANE
CITY /ST ATE/ZIP: ~rNK,O I r A '1'1 'I. '1 '1
PHONE NUMBER: I.il~/ -"9R-O'lt.1. FAX 41::./5'18- 0'\G.:2.
, .
ARcmTECT/DESIGNERlENGINEER: LAwI'.Il:>JC:.E:
MAILING ADDRESS: PO, C:.eX 10,0'1
CITY/STATE/ZIP: MiLL VALl r;v . L.A
PHONE NUM8ER: ~'l R R - "t" ~ ,. ,
P D.. J C-Ivit.
} CJY"~a.. .L.Al.llI~aa.vt!'t'DA.. Jr..... o..Jl:.e:.R
q~q"t ;l,
FAX 3'6 -g -oLj I J..
Please indkate with, a1l asterisk (*) iMrS0I1S to whom COi"TeSPQiiaeflCe shouM be S€,ii.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if Deeded):
I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application for
approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions of the Town
Ordinances, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
I understand that the requested approval is for my benetit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town
grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be
responsible for defending against this challenge. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense at the
request of the Town and also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs; claims or
!!al]i!!ti~s a!is!rg from t~~ ap::,rl)vl!l, inc1lld;ng, w!thout !irnit;Jtinr., :my ~ward of _~ttorney~ f~es that might result
from the third party challenge.
Signature: ~__
Date: --i..- .
I) N.~
/1.,''I,K
.,9%'0<.-
G4S'o2.-
Application No.:fl9t'>- cz...
Date Received: Cokd9R
00 NOT ~ITE BELOW THIS LINE
DEPARTMENTAL PROCESSING INFORMATION
Fee Deposit: ~~l
ReceIpt # \ 't
li:XHrrByr N n td
.....:-i __~~ _. ___ _'. , ,_ '._..___
p. I of ~
Received By:
Dc.)
pac
MI=CE!VED
tom w newton, president
planning advisory corporation
715 sun lane
novato, ca 94947
415 898 0962
fax 41 5 898 0963
SEP 1 0 1998
land development planning
and consulting services
?LANNI~ JG ~t~,;;'hT~.lEiJ I
TOWN OF TlBLRON
September 9, 1998
Daniel M. Watrous, Senior Planner
Senior Planner
Town ofTiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, Ca 94920
. Re: Zone Change Number R98-02, Precise Development Plan Amendment Number
39806 and Lot Line Adjustment Number 69802.
Dear Mr. Watrous:
In response to your letter of July 7, 1998 concerning the above referenced project, I
submit herewith the following items as you have requested.
1. This project proposes that the Tiburon HigWands Master Plan and Precise
Development Plan dated Apri118, 1988 be amended to: a) add Marin County
Assessor Parcel Numbers 38-182-20 and 38-322-11 to the HigWands
Master Plan and Precise Development Plan, b) add one more dwelling unit to
the project thereby increasing from 42 homes to 43 homes, c) establish building
envelopes for the proposed Lots 15 A and 15 B, d) adjust the lot lines of
Lot 15 and the two former railroad parcels, and e) modifY the Grading Plan to
add the proposed driveway serving Lots 15A and 158.
2. The geological repair work to correct landslide areas on Lots 14, 15 and 16 of
Tiburon HigWands is documented in the letter from Herzog Associates,
Geoscientists dated March 27, 1990. Any necessary permits for this remedial
work would have been issued by the Town prior to the March 27th Herzog
letter Please note that Stan Bala, the Town Engineer, was copied by Herzog.
This is the only documentation that Mr. Grange has been able to find in his files
relating to the repair work. However, I'm confident that Town records will
disclose the permits and inspection records for the grading and remedial work.
T'VT_H-nT1' T\JO "
:...'..:_.~.-:;_LLt;_....1.. J .
P, Z-oF 3
Page 2
Daniel Watrous
September 9, 1998
3. A check in the amount of$2,750.00 to the Town of Tiburon together with a
a check in the amount of$I,250.00 to the Department ofFish and Game.
4. Twenty full sized plans and one 11" X 17" sized plan.
I hope this provides the infonnation you have requested.
Cordially,
~ud
Tom W. Newton
cc: Fred Grange
'l'vTTr"Yfrr 7 't) "
l'.UkC~.'!..b.c .'. .lc\ ~ .
~, 3oF3
Initial Study
Environmental Checklist Form
I. Background
A. Summary Information
1. Application Number(s): R98-02, 39806 & 69802
2. Location: End of Warren's Way
Tiburon, California
3. Parcel No(s): 34-360-10,34-360-11,38-182-20 & 38-322-11
4, Project Sponsor: Fred C, Grange
5. Date Checklist completed: October 30, 1998
6. Agency Requiring Checklist: Town of Tiburon
7. Name of Proposal: Amendment to the Tiburon Highlands Precise
Development Plan and Master Plan, Rezoning
from RO-2 to RPD and lot line adjustment
8, General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (up to 3 dwelling
units per acre)
9. Zoning District: RPD (Residential Planned Development) and RO-
2 (Residential Open)
10, Surrounding land uses and setting:
North:
Single-family residential (Reedland Woods Unit 1 neighborhood)
and elementary school (Bel Aire School)
Single-family residential (Bel Aire Estates neighborhood)
Single-family residential (Tiburon Highlands neighborhood)
Single-family residential (Reed lands Unit 3 neighborhood)
East:
South:
West:
11. Other Public Agencies whose approval is required:
Alto-Richardson Fire District
Richardson Bay Sanitary District
TOWN OF 11BURON INITIAL STUDY!ORAFf MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98
1.
EXHIBIT NO. "7
r. I OF 2%'
B, Project Description
This is a request to adjust lot lines for three lots and incorporate two separate
existing parcels into the Tiburon Highlands Precise Development Plan. The two
additional parcels are part of a former railroad right-of-way, and would be
connected via a private driveway easement to Lot 15 of the Tiburon Highlands
subdivision. Lot lines would be adjusted to create two new parcel
configurations (Lots 15A & 15B). Single-family home building envelopes
would then be established for these two lots, within the area currently contained
by Tiburon Highlands Lot 15, Please refer to Exhibit A for a graphic description
of the subject property,
The site consists of a large sloped area consisting of Lot 15, and a long, adjacent
panhandle made up of the former railroad parcels. The site slopes down from
Warren's Way to the railroad parcels, which start at the hollow below the
surrounding residential properties. An ephemeral drainageway begins in this
hollow, and continues as a stream leading away from the western edge of Lot 15.
The old railroad parcels have a central flattened area, but also slope away
sharply to the south at their westerly areas, leaving only a narrow strip of level
land. This level area has been utilized as an access easement for various utilities
to maintain facilities on or near this site.
Most of Lot 15 has been cleared in the past, and is now covered with low grasses
and a few remaining trees. The bulk of the former railroad parcels, with the
exception of area which has been cleared for utilities access, consists of
relatively native plant communities, and includes some wetlands plant habitat
and a number of large, mature oak and eucalyptus trees. Various residential
subdivisions surround the subject property, including Reedlands, Reedland
Woods and Bel Aire Estates. These areas consist of detached single-family
homes. Bel Aire Elementary School borders the westerly end of the former
railroad parcels.
The Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan would be amended to include the additional
area from the former railroad parcels, to allow one additional dwelling unit in
the planned development, and to establish the building envelopes for Lots 15A
& 15B, The Tiburon Highlands Master Plan would also be amended to reflect
these changes, The additional area added to the Precise Plan would be rezoned
from RO-2 (Residential Open) to RPD (Residential Planned Development),
Lots 15A & 15B would receive access from Warren's Way via a private
driveway, with Lot 15B having an access easement across Lot 15A, The
building envelopes for these lots slope down to an ephemeral creek and drainage
area, Improvements to on-site drainage would be made to carryall water
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDYiDRAFT MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98
2
EXHIBIT NO. 7
p. z-ce2-~
underground to a headwall for the creek.
An application was submitted in 1996 for a similar project on this site, At that
time, the project was proposed to create three separate lots on the site, as
opposed to the two lots proposed as part of this application. Many of the
environmental studies prepared for the previous project have been used in the
evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the currently proposed
project.
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.
_ Land Use and Planning .x... Transportation/Circulation
Public Services
_ Population and Housing .x... Biological Resources
Utilities
.x... Geological Problems .x... Noise .x... Aesthetics
.x... Water _ Energy & Mineral Resources Cultural Resources
.x... Air Quality .x... Hazards Recreation
_ Mandatory Findings of Significance
_ Cumulative Impacts (Specify):
TOWN Of TtBURON INITIAL STUDYIDRAFT MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98 3
EXHIBIT NO. I
P."3 cY"'~
m. Environmental Detennination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
-X 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
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, but
at least one effect 1) 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 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project.
~~l.w~~
Signature
i c{ 3 cfcZ
Date
Daniel M. Watrous
Senior Planner
Town of Tiburon
Planning Division
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDYiDRAFr MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98 4
EXHIBIT NO. --;
f L/. Cf L~
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.
. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuanl to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section V at the end of the checklist.
. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g, general plans, zoning ordinances, studies, surveys, reports).
Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a
reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be
attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
TOWN OF TIBURON INrTIAL STUDYiDRAFr MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98
5
EXHIBIT NO. /
P. c:;- of 2R"
......-
Sipil'icuIt
Potentially UnIc:sa Lesl1ban
Sipitic:mt Mitiptioo. Si&nificanl No
lmp-=t m:orpol1lW Impact Impact
1. Land Use and Planning. Would the proposal result in:
a) Conflict with a general plan designation or
zoning designation?
Explanation:
xx
The level of development requested by the proposed development would be consistent with the
current Medium Density Residential designation for this property contained within the Land
Use Element of the Tiburon General Plan. The zoning for the land currently contained within
the two former railroad parcels would be changed from RO-2 to RPD as part of its inclusion
within the Tiburon Highlands Precise Development Plan. The Tiburon Highlands project,
approved in 1988, contains 42 parcels, each to be developed with a detached single-family
home, Most of the parcels within the Tiburon Highlands area are accessed from Upper Cecilia
Way and Cecilia Court. Only three parcels (Lots 14, 15 & 16) receive access from Warren's
Way, The proposed project would add one more dwelling unit to the total covered by the
Tiburon Highlands Precise Development and Master Plans. Since this change would occur by
adding land from the two former railroad parcels to the Tiburon Highlands area, the proposed
project would not increase the number of legally recognized lots within this neighborhood, but
would decrease the number of potential dwelling units on this site from three to two and modify
the likely location of the building sites,
b) A substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Explanation:
xx
The area around the subject site is developed primarily with detached single-family homes.
Each of the three existing lots whose lot lines are proposed to be adjusted could conceivably be
developed with a single-family dwelling. There would be a decrease in the potential number of
homes which could be built on this site from three to two, The construction of two single-
family homes on the proposed Lots 15A & 15B would not alter the present and planned single-
family residential nature 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,
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98
6
EXHIBIT NO. /
P. b of L~
......-
slpitlcmt
PcuotiaUy Unless l.- TbID
Sipificaot Mitiptioq Sipiftcmt No
lalpKl Ja:orporalel1lmpacl lmpaet
d) Disruption or division of the physical
arrangement of an established community?
Explanation:
xx
The homes proposed on the subject property would be constructed on land which is currently
vacant. Access for these homes would utilize an existing public street (Warren's Way), and
would not require any public street alterations. This development would not result in any
construction extending onto other properties which would disrupt or divide the physical
arrangement of the surrounding neighborhoods.
2. Population & Honsing. Would the proposal:
a) An alteration of the location, distribution,
density, or growth of the human population
of an area?
Explanation:
xx
The project is small in scale and does not have the potential to alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth of the human population of 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)? XX
Explanation:
The area around the project site is already developed with single-family homes and an
elementary school. No major infrastructure extensions are required for this development. This
proposal would therefore not induce substantial growth in the area.
c) Displace existing honsing, or create a
demand for additional honsing? XX
Explanation:
The proposed project would involve construction of single-family homes on currently vacant
land. No housing would be displaced by this construction.
3. Geologic Problems. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL S11JDYiDRAFT MmGATED NEGATIVE DEClARATION 10/98
7
EXHIBIT NO. 7
f. foF L~
......-
Sipific:ant
POU!nti&lJy UDleu u. ll\aQ
Si&nifIeaat MiLiptioQ Si&JUficant No
la:qJact IDcorporaled Impact Impact
a) Fault rupture?
Explanation:
xx
The Tiburon Highlands subdivision site, upon which all construction for this project would
occur, was extensively studied for geological impacts as part of the environmental impact
report (1982) and addendum (1984) prepared for the Tiburon Highlands Master Plan. A
geological study was completed as part of the addendum to this EIR. This study, henceforth
referred to as the geological study, indicated that there are no known faults on the site,
b) Seismic ground shaking?
Explanation:
xx
The site lies 8 miles to the east of the San Andreas Fault and 10 miles to the west of the
Hayward fault. The geological study states that the site is subject to strong ground shaking
during severe earthquakes, and that strong ground motion could trigger landslides on both
natural and graded slopes and could damage structures and utilities.
Recommended Miti2ation Measures:
The following conditions should be applied to construction on the subject site, and would
reduce the impacts to less than significant levels:
3,b,l. All improvements, including structures, fills, utilities and roads should be
designed to resist earthquake groundshaking, The latest seismic safety building
and engineering techniques should be employed in the design of the houses.
3,b.2, Structures should be designed to accommodate settlement, When this is not
acceptable, it will be necessary to support improvements (structures, utilities,
roads, etc.) on piers extending into firm materials below fill.
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
Explanation:
xx
The geological study indicated that materials susceptible to liquefaction were not observed on
the site.
d) Seiche or tsunami? XX
Explanation:
TOWN Of TIBURON INIl1AL STUDYIDRAFr MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98 8
EXHIBIT NO.7
p, ;J opz..y
PcuaLiaJly
Sipillcanl
......
......-
Sipificanl
Un/eu 1.- TbIID
Mitiplioa Si&nificaat No
lnl:orpoltied Impact Iaq:laa.
cause a fISh or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project is limited in scope and does not have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-tenn, to the disadvantage
of long-tenn, environmental goals?
(A short-tenn impact on the environment is
one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time, while long-tenn 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)?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project would not have any individually limited, but cumulatively considerable,
effects ,
d) Does the project have environmental
TOWN OF TIBURON INmAL STUDYIORAFT MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98
26
EXHIBIT NO. {
f .u., DrY
.....-
Sipiftcml
Potea.tia1/y UDIaI; l..-TbIID
sipitlc:mt Midpdga Sipiftcmt No
I..mpIct la=ofPOna.l b:apKt lmpacl
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
Explanation:
xx
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:
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:
xx
There are no religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area.
15. Recreation. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
Explanation:
xx
The project will not result in any significant increase in demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities.
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
xx
The project will not affect existing recreational opportunities, except to the extent that a
neighborhood connector route could become blocked. Refer to the discussion under 6,f. above,
16. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the enviromnent, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDYiDRAfT MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98
25
EXHIBIT NO. 7
~, 2\ IX 7%
PocmtiaUy
Sipificaat
......,.
PocmtiaUy
Sipifiaot
UnIea u. Tbao
MiLiptioa Si&JWicaat
IDtotporatal lmplCt
..
Imp~
for single-family residential construction, each of these houses could be a maximum of 30 feet
in height, with floor areas of 6,904 square feet for proposed Lot 15A and 8,000 square feet for
proposed Lot l5B,
Although these homes would be visible from other surrounding residential sites, the
construction of homes on these parcels is not likely to have, in and of itself, a demonstrable
negative aesthetic effect. However, the specific placement, size, and appearance of the
proposed houses and associated improvements should be thoroughly analyzed before final
approval is given for the construction of these homes.
Recommended Miti2ation Measures:
The following condition should be appiied to the project and would reduce the impacts to less
than significant levels:
l3.b.l.Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for each of the four proposed
single-family homes, the building design and landscaping of each house shall
receive Site Plan and Architectural Review approval pursuant to Section 4.02,00
of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, The building and landscaping shall be
designed so as to minimize and effectively mitigate visual impacts to the
surrounding neighborhood,
c) Create light or glare?
Explanation:
xx
The construction of two clustered homes on what is currently one building site could result in
increased light and glare to surrounding residents.
Recommended Miti~ation Measures:
Refer to Mitigation Measure 13,b.1.
14. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
Explanation:
xx
There are no known paleontological resources on the subject site,
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDYIDRAFT MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98
24
EXHIBIT NO. 7
V, '2-" ~ 2Jt
POlCIIlially
Si&niJkant
.......
.....-
Sipificaat
Uo/a.I lat Than
Mltiption Sipiftcaat
lDcorporated I.mpad
No
.......
Explanation:
The proposed project will not require substantial alteration to existing sanitary sewer systems.
e) Stonn water drainage?
Explanation:
xx
The drainage study for the previously proposed project indicated that the peak runoff from the
fully developed site during a lOO-year storm would increase the runoff in the ephemeral creek
next to the site by 0.4 %. The current project involves the construction of one less home than
the previous project, and would therefore result in a reduction in the increased runoff estimated
by the drainage study. This increase is a less than significant drainage impact. With the
exception of on-site drainage improvements necessary to carry the storm water from the
developed areas to the creek, there would be no other improvements required to the storm water
drainage systems in the area.
t) Solid waste disposal?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not require substantial alteration to solid waste disposal systems.
g) Local or regional water supplies?
Explanation:
xx
No 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
The proposed project would not be visible from or block the view of any scenic vista, nor is
visible from any scenic highway,
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
Explanation:
xx
The prDposed project would involve the development of two single-family homes on a
currently vacant site. Based upon the requirements of the Town of Tiburon Zoning Ordinance
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDYIDRAFr MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10198
23
EXHIBIT NO. 7
~, 2:' ()F?\?"
.....-
sipifteant
""""
.....-
Sipiftcapl
Unless u. ThaD
Mitiplion sipifteant
Im:orporaud. Impact
No
""""
The project would not create any new lots, but would only relocate probable building sites, and
would not have any effect on school services for the community.
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
Explanation:
xx
The project would not create any new lots, but would only relocate probable building sites.
Traffic from all building sites would use Warren's Way. Roadways within the project itself
would be privately owned and maintained.
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 require substantial alteration to existing power or natural gas
systems to provide service to the site.
b) Communication systems?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not require substantial alteration to existing communications systems
to provide service to the site.
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not generate new demand for water services.
d)
Sewer or septic tanks?
xx
TOWN Of TIBURON INI11AL STIJDYIDRAfT MmGATED NEGATIVE DEClARATION 10/98
22
EXHIBIT No.7
p, ]..:z oF' z...~
.....,-
Sipilicult
PocmtialJy UDk:A Lesa 1bm
Si&niftcmt Mitiplioa Si&niftemt No
lmpKl IDcorpotal81 bqsacl Impaa.
The proposed project will not expose people to any unusual health hazards.
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
plants?
Explanation:
xx
The former railroad right-of-way parcels contain a variety of non-native grasses which, if not
properly maintained could present a potential fire hazard for the existing and proposed homes
adjacent to this area.
Recommended Mitilration Measures'
The following condition should be applied to the project and would reduce the impacts to less
than significant levels:
lO,e.l. Grass vegetation within former railroad right-of-way shall be properly
maintained for fire protection as determined by the Alto-Richardson Fire
Protection District.
11. Public 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
The proposed project will not affect fire protection services. The Alto-Richardson Fire
Protection District has indicated improvements to the proposed driveway and access roads and
installation of water system improvements that will be necessary for the safety of the proposed
homes, See Item lO.e, above,
b) Police protection?
Explanation:
xx
No law enforcement issues are foreseen for the proposed project,
c) Schools?
Explanation:
xx
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDYIDRAFT MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98
21
EXHIBIT NO.7
f. U oFZ%
POleIltWly
Si&nifI.eaot
PotclI.UatJy UQJeu I..- Tbm
Si&nifteaat MitipUoo Sianifieaot No
~act lDcorporated Impact lmp.a
Explanation:
The proposed project does not include the use or storage of hazardous materials.
b) possible interference with an emergency
response plan or evacuation plan?
Explanation:
xx
The Alto-Richardson Fire Protection District has indicated that the design of the proposed
project could hamper the ability to fight any fires on future homes on this site,
Recommended Miti~ation Measures'
The following conditions should be applied to the project and would reduce the impacts to less
than significant levels:
1O.b.l.Access roads to each lot shall be not less than 12 feet unobstructed width with a
maximum 18% grade; they shall be constructed with an all-weather driving
surface, capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus and having a
minimum of 13 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance,
10,b.2.Access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with an approved
turnaround.
lO,b,3 Any gates shall be equipped with emergency fire access for fire apparatus.
10.b.4,An approved water supply, including water main and new hydrant, shall be
installed at the base of the driveway serving the lots accessed from Warren's
Way.
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
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDYIDRAFT MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98
20
EXHIBIT NO. I
f, 2-0 of 28'
...........,.
Sipi&aal
. PoceatWly um- u-l'bm
Sipi&mt Mitiptioa Si&niIkmlt No
luIpact lDcorp)f.ted~ Impact
The following condition should be applied to the project and would reduce the impacts to less
than significant levels:
8.a.1. All construction activity shall comply with the Town's limitations on
construction hours as set forth in Section 13-6 of the Tiburon Uniform Building
Code,
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
There are no identified 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)?
xx
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STIJDYIDRAFT MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10198
19
EXHIBIT NO. 7
Pi ('( of z...8"
......-
SignifiCU11
pocmtially UnleM I..- Thall
Si&nil1eaot Mitiptiou Sipificatll No
ltnpad lDc:orponud Impact Impact
boundary of Lot 15B are near the outer dripline of a willow riparian community along this
ephemeral stream, which lies within the jurisdiction of the State Department of Fish and Game.
Recommended Miti~ation Measures:
The following conditions should be applied to the project and would reduce the impacts to less
than significant levels:
7,d,1. The riparian vegetation and the stream bank adjacent to proposed Lot 15B shall
be avoided by any development or construction activity.
7,d.2. Any encroachment into the outer dripline of the willow riparian community will
only be permitted after obtaining a streambed alteration permit from the State
Department of Fish and Game.
7.d.3. The proposed underground storm drain system shall be routed into the existing
railroad bed culvert at the bottom of the slope of Lot 15B so as to avoid working
in and possibly adversely affecting the natural streambed.
e) Wildlife corridors?
Explanation:
xx
The biological study prepared for the previously proposed project did not reveal the presence of
wildlife corridors on the site. However, as no fencing will be allowed outside of building
envelopes, any wildlife movement would not be substantially affected,
8. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will result in a short-term increase in noise from grading and earth-
moving equipment and other normal residential construction activities. Construction which
occurs during most daylight hours is not likely to increase ambient noise to significant levels
for surrounding residences, although the bowl-shaped nature of the site could result in increased
noise transmission.
Recommended Miti~ation Mea~ures'
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDYiDRAFT MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98
18
EXHIBIT NO. 7
9, tg of Zi'
.......-
Sipifieaat
PotmtiaUy UDleu !..aIThIIl
Sipilleaal MilipLioo Signill.eulI No
Impact lDcorporaaed. Impact laq:w:t
b) Locally designated species (e.g. beritage trees)? _ XX
Explanation:
There are several native coast I ive oak trees present on the proposed Lot 15B. These trees are
identified as Protected Trees by the Tiburon Tree Ordinance, and Tree Permits from the Town
of Tiburon would be required for their removal. Several eucalyptus trees on the site appear to
also reached a size which would classify them as Protected Trees, The biological study
prepared for the previously proposed project indicated that one of the oak trees appeared to be
in a state of decline.
Recommended Mitil1ation Measures:
The following conditions should be applied to the project and would reduce the impacts to less
than significant levels:
7.b.1. Unless approved as part of another permit, a separate Tree Permit shall be
obtained from the Town of Tiburon prior to removal of any Protected Trees on
the site. Any removed trees shall be replaced on a 3 to 1 basis.
7,b.2. An arborist's report shall be prepared assessing the health of the oak tree
identified in the biological report. Efforts shall be made to avoid damage to this
tree based upon recommendations within this arborist's report.
c) Locally-designated natural communities (e.g.,
oak forest, serpentine grasslands)?
Explanation:
xx
The biological study prepared for the previously proposed project revealed no presence of
serpentine grasslands or any other locally designated natural communities on the site.
d) Wetland habitat?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed grading work and development activity will not adversely affect the area along
the former railroad right-of-way that presently supports wetlands plants, as all construction,
drainage facilities and building envelopes avoid that area. The ephemeral wetlands below
proposed Lots 15A & 15B will not be disturbed, as the building envelopes do not encroach into
this area and all on-site drainage will be carried via underground pipe to the headwall above the
stream near the northwest corner of the building envelope for Lot 15B, Portions of the
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDYIDRAFT MmGATED NEGAllYE DECLARATION 10/98
17
EXHIBIT NO. '7
f, l7 oP 2.Y
--
Si&nifIClII1.I
POCcIl.tially UnIaI u. 1baD
Sianiflcuu. Mitiptioo Sicnifteml No
Impact ~~~ Impact Impact
The former railroad right-of-way parcels are occasionally hiked by pedestrians walking
between the various neighborhoods around the subject site. There is no established trail or
pedestrian easement across this property. Access to this area from Warren's Way will be
effectively blocked by the development of the homes on the site, although the property could
still be reached from other parcels bordering the former railroad right-of-way. The proposed
development could hinder existing public access and pedestrian connections between the
surrounding neighborhoods.
Recommended Mitifation Measures:
The following condition should be applied to the project and would reduce the impacts to less
than significant levels:
6.f.1. A public pedestrian access easement shall be established across the former
railroad parcels to continue to allow pedestrian connections to the surrounding
neighborhoods,
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
A biological study was prepared for the previously proposed project on this same site by
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc, (1996). The study found that the site is mostly covered
with non-native grasses. Several native coast live oak and eucalyptus trees were noted on the
site. Some wetlands plants (including cattails, iris-leaf rush and umbrella sedge) were observed
along a portion of the former railroad parcels. Some riparian habitat, including willows, was
observed near the ephemeral creek. The study revealed no presence of endangered, threatened
or rare species or their habitats on the site,
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDYIDRAIT MmGATED NEGATIVE OECLARATION 10/98
16
EXHIBIT NO. 7
-:PI /(POF 2X
.....-
Sip.if1cant
"'-'
.....-
Sipill.cant
Umc.. I..- Thu1
Mitiption SipiftCIIII No
lDcoqlOrued lIPpact Impact
existing street system serving this project.
b) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
Explanation:
xx
Each proposed house within this project will be required to provide at least four off-street
parking spaces, in conformance with the parking requirements of the Tiburon Zoning Code.
This parking will be adequate to serve the needs of the residents of these homes.
c) Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses?
Explanation:
xx
The driveway serving this project and its connection with Warren's Way would have standard
90 degree intersections which would not pose any unusual safety hazards.
d) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses?
Explanation:
xx
Primary access for emergency vehicles to this site would be provided via the driveway
connection to Warren's Way. A secondary emergency vehicle access is proposed to be
provided to the west across the old railroad right-of-way parcels.
e) Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts?
Explanation:
xx
The project will not affect rail, water or air transportation systems.
o Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists?
Explanation:
xx
Policy PR-8 of the Parks and Recreation Element of the Tiburon General Plan states that the
Town should require publicly-accessible off-road connecting trails between neighborhood
areas, Program PR-e of this element states that the Town should examine every development
application for the existence of easements that connect or continue to allow public access to
recreation and open space areas,
TOWN OF llBURON INITIAL S11JDYIDRAfT MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98
15
EXHIBIT NO. 7
p, 6cr 2%
,.,...-
Sianificml
'-
Potentially
Sipilkanl
Unk=u l...cIIlbID
Mitiptioa Sianifk.ml
IDcorpo,.telI ImpaI:t
No
'-
b) Create objectionable odors?
Explanation:
xx
The paving of the proposed driveway or other paved surfaces to support the two future houses
could generate short-term impacts from asphalt odors, but Staff considers this temporary impact
to be less-than-significant.
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
Bel Aire School is the only sensitive receptor in the vicinity of the project site. No construction
activity is proposed to occur on the portion of the site near the school. Any fugitive dust which
might be raised during construction would not reach the school grounds.
6. Transportation/Circulation. Would the proposal
result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Explanation:
xx
Interior circulation for the proposed project would be provided by a single driveway connecting
to Warren's Way. An existing driveway currently extends across Lot 14 from Warren's Way to
the edge of Lot 15. The existing house on Lot 16 also connects to Warren's Way via the top of
this driveway. A driveway easement would be established across the southern edge of the
proposed Lot 15A, A single driveway would be constructed which would connect to the base
of the existing driveway. The houses on proposed Lots 15A & 15B would each utilize this
single driveway for access, connecting to the remainder of the Tiburon street system via
Warren's Way.
The proposed amendments to the approved Precise Development Plan and Master Plan, along
with the lot line adjustments, would not result in a significant increase in the traffic generated
by this project. The traffic generated by these two future homes can be easily handled by the
TOWN OF TIBURON INmAL STIJDYIDRAFr MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98
14
EXHIBIT NO. '7
p. N Of ~
PotcaUauy
SJpitlc.mt
PtuatiaUy Unk=u L.c:. Tbm
sipiftaat MWp&ioa Sipi&am No
lmpact IDI:orporaud ~Kt bq)act
No activities are proposed which would have an impact on groundwaters.
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
Explanation:
xx
No activities are proposed which would have an impact on groundwaters.
n Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Explanation:
xx
The possible addition of two single-family homes would not result in a significant impact on
public water supplies,
j) Exposure of people or property to
water-related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project would not expose people or property to water-related hazards.
5. Air Quality. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
Explanation:
xx
Earth-moving and other construction activities on the site could result in short-term fugitive
dust impacts which could violate air quality standards.
Recommended Mitii:ation Measures:
The following condition should be applied to the project and would reduce the impacts to less
than significant levels:
5.a,l. The site shaH be watered during construction to reduce the impacts of such dust
to acceptable levels.
TOWN OF TIBlJRON INITIAL STUDYIDRAFT MmGATED NEGATIVE DEClARATION 10/98
1.3
EXHIBIT NO. I
P. 13 Ol~zr
POlaItiaUy
Si&nifteant
......
POlaIUaUy
Sipificagt
UD1eu Lcsa ThIn
Mitiptioo Si&nificant No
lDcorpoflle:i lmpad. ImpM:l.
to the ephemeral creek during a lOO-year storm for the watershed surrounding the site of 0.4%
as a result of this development. The current project involves the construction of one less home
than the previous project, and would therefore result in a reduction in the increased runoff
estimated by the drainage study, This minor increase in runoff would not be large enough to
have a significant effect on the amount of surface water in the water bodies into which this
runoff would drain.
e) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)?
Explanation:
xx
The drainage study prepared for the previously proposed project indicated that this
development would result in a minor increase in stormwater runoff. Runoff from the site does
have the potential for carrying pollutants into the ephemeral creek and into the bay.
Recommended Mitifation Measures:
The following condition should be applied to the project and would reduce the impacts to less
than significant levels:
4.e.1. Project design and construction activities will utilize Best Management Practices
as described in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice
Handbook for Construction Activity, March, 1993.
o Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of groundwaters?
Explanation:
xx
No activities are proposed which would have an impact on groundwaters.
g) Change in the quantity of groundwaters,
either through direct additiollS or
withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavatiollS or
through substantial loss of groundwater
recharge capability?
Explanation:
xx
TOWN OF TIBURON INIllAL STUDY/DRAFT MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98
12
EXHIBIT NO.-1-
r. /L- of W'
PolcDtially
Sipitic.ul
Potcutially UaI_ l..- 1bID
Sipifteml Mitiption Sianific.ul No
lmpad. lDeorponoled Impact Impact
of the existing Lot 15, and connects to the East Ditch, a concrete-lined drainageway which
eventually empties into Richardson Bay near the Cove Shopping Center.
A drainage study was prepared for the previously proposed project on this same site by Questa
Engineering Corporation (1997). The drainage study estimated an increase in runoff during a
lOO-year storm in the watershed surrounding the site of 0.4% as a result of the proposed
development. The current project involves the construction of one less home than the previous
project, and would therefore result in a reduction in the increased runoff estimated by the
drainage study, The Town Engineer, who also represents Flood Control District #4, reviewed
the drainage study and determined that this increase will be insufficient to change the currents,
or the course or direction of water movements in the ephemeral creek into which this drainage
will occur,
b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface nmoff?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project would affect absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount
of surface runoff for the paved area of the future building sites and driveways, All impervious
areas are proposed to be drained directly to the ephemeral creek at the southwestern portion of
the existing Lot 15 via an underground storm drain system. All roof spouts and driveway
drains would be connected to this system. These improvements would reduce the amount of
runoff into the drainage easement to the north of the building envelopes for the proposed Lots
15A & 15B. Instead, this runoff would go directly into the ephemeral creek. The less than
0.4 % increase in runoff to this creek resulting from this development would not be a significant
environmental impact.
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
The drainage study prepared for the previously proposed project estimated an increase in runoff
TOWN OF TIBURON lNmAL STUDY/DRAFT MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98
11
EXHIBIT NO.7
p. II c.F ZX
""""""'"
si&nitkaDt
PotaI.tiaUy Uw- laITblla
Si&ni1lcml Mitiptioa Si&:nificmt No
Impaet la:orporaud lDIp-=t Impaa.
will be conducted. Estimates for the amount of grading necessary have not yet been prepared,
as the designs for the homes have not been finalized, but the magnitude of soil removal on such
a small site would not be considered to be significant.
Recommended Mitivation Measures:
The following condition should be applied to the project and would reduce the impacts to less
than significant levels:
3,f.3. Artificial fill on the site should be removed. Colluvium and shallow landslide
materials should be removed and recompacted. Fills should be keyed into firm,
competent bedrock. Retaining walls, buttresses and drainage facilities should be
installed if needed.
g) Subsidence of land?
Explanation:
xx
The geological study indicated no possibility of subsidence of land on this site.
h) Expansive soils?
Explanation:
xx
The geological study indicated no presence of expansive soils on the site.
n Unique geologic or physical features?
Explanation:
xx
There are no unique geologic or physical features present on the site,
4. Water. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in currents, or the course
or direction of water movements?
Explanation:
xx
A drainage easement in the hollow below Lot 15 currently collects drainage from Lots 14 & 15,
as well as other residential lots surrounding this former railroad parcel. During and after
periods of heavy rainfall, an ephemeral stream collects in this hollow before draining to the
ephemeral creek to the west. The creek starts at a headwall located at the southwestern portion
TOWN OF TIBURON INI11AL STUDYiDRAFT MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98
10
EXHIBIT NO. "7
f. lODf'2'i(
.....-
Sianil'eanl
Potentially UnIeu l.es 1baD
SJ&nilIc:m1 Mitipa.ion Sianifieant No
Imp-=t IDcorporateG lmpaet Impact
The proposed project will not expose people to water-related hazards such as seiches or
tsunamis.
e) Landslides or mudflows?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project is situated upon land identified in the Safety Element of the Tiburon
General Plan as containing Franciscan Melange geology, which is highly susceptible to
landsliding. The geological study indicated the presence of a landslide area on the site. The
landslide appears to be a relatively shallow earth flow and debris slide involving only colluvium
and soil. A letter from Herzog Associates indicates that repair work was completed in 1990 on
Lots 14, 15 & 16 to mitigate this landslide area. Due to the historic nature of these landslides,
the potential still exists for triggering additional slope movements.
Recommended Miti~ation Measures:
The following conditions should be applied to the project and would reduce the impacts to less
than significant levels:
3.e.1. The site shall be examined during construction for evidence of any remaining
landslide areas. Pilings or other reinforcements to the structural integrity of the
proposed houses shall be constructed beyond the depth of any remaining
underlying landslide or debris flow deposits.
3.e,2. Bedrock conditions should be observed by a geologist during grading to evaluate
the potential for deep-seated sliding within graded areas.
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
soils conditions from excavation, grading
orml?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project would not substantially alter the topography of the site. Drainage systems
would be installed to collect all on-site drainage and pipe the water to the ephemeral stream at
the base of Lot 15B, therefore reducing the potential erosion impacts of this drainage. The
geological study indicated the presence of a landslide area on the site, The landslide appears to
be a relatively shallow earth flow and debris slide involving only colluvium and soil.
Approximately 100 cubic yards of fill are estimated to be imported for the construction of the
access driveway, Removal of unstable artificial fill and grading for the proposed home sites
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDY/DRAFf MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98
9
EXHIBIT NO. 7
f, q at;: 1--'(
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Explanation:
xx
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:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify any earlier analysis used and state where they
are available for review,
The Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Tiburon
Highlands Master Plan in 1984 was used in the preparation of the geological
analysis for this review. Drainage and biological studies prepared for the
previously proposed project on this site in 1996 and 1997 were used in the
preparation of the drainage and biological analysis for this review, These
documents are available in the Tiburon Planning Division offices at Tiburon
Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above
checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis,
PDtential geological impacts for this project were reviewed based upon the
geological analysis contained within the Addendum to the Environmental
Impact Report prepared for the Tiburon Highlands Master Plan. Proposed
mitigation measures for this project were developed using some of the
recommended mitigation measures contained within that document.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated", describe the mitigation measures which are
incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specific conditions for the project,
None applicable.
TOWN OF TIBURON lNmAL STUDYIDRAFf MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98
27
EXHIBIT NO. i
(j,J.-7 opz.~
EXHIBITS
A. Proposed site plan dated September 14, 1998
B. Biological study prepared by Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., dated December 27,
1996
C. Drainage study prepared by Questa Engineering Corporation, dated April 7, 1997
D. Addendum to drainage study prepared by Questa Engineering Corporation, dated April
14,1997
E. Geology and Soils analysis from the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
prepared for the Tiburon Highlands Master Plan by lohn Roberto Associates, 1984.
F. Letter from Herzog Associates dated March 27, 1990
SOURCES REFERENCED OR CONSULTED
1. Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Tiburon Highlands
Master Plan by lohn Roberto Associates, 1984.
2. Safety Element of the Tiburon General Plan, 1989.
3. U.S. Government Flood Hazard Map, Community No. 060430 A, November, 1976.
4. California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook for Construction Activity,
March, 1993.
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDYiDRAFT MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10/98
28
EXHIBIT NO. 7
f 2$ of-us'
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FRED C. GRANGE REZONING, MASTER PLAN AND PRECISE PLAN
AMENDMENT
FILE # R98-02, 39806 & 69802
END OF WARREN'S WAY
Geolo~ic Prohlems
Mitil:ation Mea~ure'
3.b.I. All improvements, including structures, fills, utilities and roads should be designed
to resist earthquake groundshaking. The latest seismic safety building and
engineering techniques should be employed in the design of the houses.
Implementation Procedure:
Construction drawings submitted by applicant for building permit must show proposed
structural integrity reinforcements acceptable to the Town Engineer and other
mechanical and architectural reinforcements acceptable to the Building Official.
Responsibility of Building Official to ensure plans contain this information and that
structural integrity reinforcements have been approved by the Town Engineer. Actual
installation of approved structural integrity measures and other mechanical and
architectural improvements shall be confirmed by the Building Official prior to final
inspection and sign off on the building and/or grading permit.
Non-compliance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit if structural integrity measures and mechanical and
architectural reinforcements are not shown on plans; no final sign off if these measures
and reinforcements not installed; halt construction; fines.
Mitil:ation Measure'
3.b.2. Structures should be designed to accommodate settlement. When this is not
unacceptable, it will be necessary to support improvements (structures, utilities,
roads, etc.) on piers extending into fll"lIl materials below fill.
Implementation Procedure'
Construction drawings submitted by applicant for building permits must show proposed
structural integrity reinforcements acceptable to the Town Engineer. Responsibility of
Building Official to ensure plans contain this information and that reinforcements have
TOWN OF T1BURON MmGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 11/98
1
""'7i-;;7TrT~T~ ""t.,"':"(\ Q.
_::":_.:.'~-~':'_~'_::_ ...:",! 'j, (;..I
f. t Df/O
been approved by the Town Engineer. Actual installation of approved structural
integrity measures shall be confirmed by the Building Official prior to final inspection
and sign off on the building and/or grading permit.
Non-compliance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit if structural integrity measures are not shown on plans;
no final sign off if structural integrity measures are not installed; halt construction;
fines.
Miti~ation Measure:
3.e.I. The site shall be examined during construction for evidence of any remainiTlg
landslide areas. Pilings or other reinforcements to the structural integrity of the
proposed houses shall be constructed beyond the depth of any remaining
underlying landslide or debris flow deposits.
Implementation Procedure:
Required structural integrity improvements shall be submitted to the Town Engineer for
review prior to submittal for building permits. Responsibility of Building Official to
ensure improvements have been included in required plans. Building Inspector shall
inspect construction to insure improvements have been installed.
Non-compliance Sanction'
No issuance of building permits if geotechnical investigations not completed; halt
construction; fines.
Miti~ation Measure:
3.e.2. Bedrock conditions should be observed by a geologist during grading to evaluate
the potential for deep-seated sliding within graded areas.
Implementation Procedure:
Building Inspector shall coordinate with hired geologist to insure bedrock conditions are
observed during grading. Town Engineer shall review findings of geologist to
determine if additional repair work is necessary. Building Official shall confirm
observations with geologist and Town Engineer prior to authorizing construction of
building.
Non-compliance Sanction'
TOWN OF T1BURON MmGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 11/98
2
.......,...p.....~T~~':"""'\ -;'-,""':"1} [3;
~_~~_~.~~:':'_ 1, .',<,~ '___
f.l~IO
No authorization of building construction if findings of geologist and Town Engineer
have not been evaluated; halt construction; fines.
Mitil:ation Mea~ure:
3.f.3. Artificial fill on the site should be removed. Colluvium and shallow landslide
materials should be removed and recompacted. Fills should be keyed into fll"lIl,
competent bedrock. Retaining walls, buttresses and drainage facilities should be
installed if needed.
Implementation Procedure:
Building Inspector shall inspect site during grading to assure removal of artificial fill,
removal and recompaction of colluvium and landslide materials, keying of fill into
bedrock, and installation of required retaining walls, buttresses and drainage facilities.
Remedies for necessary improvements to be determined by Town Engineer.
Responsibility of Building Official to ensure necessary removal, recompaction and
installation of prescribed improvements completed prior to issuance of building permits.
Non-compliance Sanction:
No issuance of building permits if necessary removal, recompaction and installation of
prescribed improvements not completed; halt construction; fines.
Water Ouality
Mitivation Measure:
4.e.1. Project design and construction activities will utilize Best Management Practices as
described in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook for
Construction Activity, March, 1993.
Implementation Procedure:
BMP program to be approved by Town Engineer prior to issuance of building or
grading permits. Implementation of BMP program shall be by the contractor, under
review of the Town Engineer.
Non-compliance Sanction'
Failure to comply with the approved construction BMP's will result in the issuance of
correction notices, citations, a project stop-work order, or other available enforcement
TOWN OF T1BURON MmGA TION MONITORING PROGRAM 11/98
3
;7'\'7-~~' :-",~:: T"Ti -"': j'~ 8
,'J.__
p, :5 bF to
methods,
Air Ouality
Mitil:ation Measure:
5.a.1. The site shall be watered during construction to reduce the impacts of such dust to
acceptable levels.
Implementation Procedure'
The Building Inspector shall observe the site during all inspections for evidence of
watering or fugitive dust.
Non-compliance Sanction:
Failure to comply with site watering requirements or observation of fugitive dust will
result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, a project stop-work order, or other
available enforcement methods.
Transportation/C irculation
Mitil:ation Measure:
6.f.1. A public pedestrian access easement shall be established across the former railroad
parcels to continue to allow pedestrian counections to the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Implementation Procedure:
Applicant shall hire an engineer to prepare necessary materials to establish pedestrian
easement. Town Engineer shall review application prior to recordation. Planning
Division shall record easement.
Non-compliance Sanction:
No final sign off of building permit if pedestrian easement not recorded; halt
construction; fines.
Biolo~ical Resources
Miti~ation Measure:
TOWN OF T1BURON MmGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 11198
4
-;::-,;:-,;~.;:;:.,rTi g
P, t{~LO
7.b.1. Uuless approved as part of another permit, a separate Tree Permit shall be
obtained from the Town of Tiburon prior to removal of any Protected Trees on the
site. Any removed trees shall be replaced on a 3 to 1 basis.
Implementation Procedure'
Applicant shall hire an arborist to prepare a report listing Protected Trees on the site,
Protected Trees to be removed shall be identified, and types and locations of
replacement trees to be specified. Applicant to submit Tree Permit application prior to
removal of any Protected Trees. Planning Division to process Tree Permit applications
for any trees to be removed. Planning Division to inspect property to insure planting of
replacement trees.
Non-compliance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit until arborist's report is completed and reviewed by
Planning Division; halt construction if Protected Trees are endangered by construction;
no final sign off until all replacement trees planted; fines,
Mitivation Mea~ure:
7.b.2. An arborist's report shaU be prepared assessing the health of the oak tree
identified in the biological report. Efforts shall be made to avoid damage to this
tree based upon recommendations within this arborist's report.
Implementation Procedure:
Applicant shall hire an arborist to prepare a report assessing health of oak tree.
Planning Division shall review report and building plans to determine if proposed
construction will result in damage to tree. Building Inspector shall inspect efforts in the
field to avoid construction confl icts with tree.
Non-compliance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit until arborist's report is completed and reviewed by
Planning Division; halt construction if plans or construction work indicate potential
damage to oak tree; fines,
Miti~ation Measure'
7.d.1. The riparian vegetation and the stream bank adjacent to proposed Lot 15B shall
be avoided by any development or construction activity.
TOWN OF T1BURON MmGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 11198
5
-~:-. ~-'.~. - -
._'-;-;...., :~~:- T -:."_..,, .-:-:;~
:,_:8
p, ')~LO
Implementation Procedure:
Planning Division shall review building plans to determine if proposed construction will
result in damage to riparian vegetation and stream bank. Building Inspector shall
inspect efforts in the field to avoid construction conflicts with these areas.
Non-compliance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit until building plans are reviewed by Planning Division;
halt construction if plans or construction work indicate potential damage to riparian
vegetation and stream bank; fines.
Mitiiation Measure:
7.d.2. Any encroachment into the outer dripIine ofthe willow riparian community will
ouly be permitted after obtaining a streambed alteration permit from the State
Department of Fish and Game.
Implementation Procedure'
Applicant shall hire an arborist to prepare a report determining the outer dripline of the
willow riparian community, Planning Division shall review report and building plans to
determine if proposed construction will result in damage to community. Building
Inspector shall inspect efforts in the field to avoid construction conflicts with drip lines.
If driplines are encroached upon, applicant shall obtain a streambed alteration permit
from the State Department of Fish and Game. Building Official shall not authorize
construction in the are of the willow community until streambed alteration permit has
been issued,
Non-compliance Sanction'
No issuance of building permit until arborist's report is completed and reviewed by
Planning Division; halt construction if plans or construction work indicate potential
damage to willow community or if streambed alteration permit has not been issued;
fines,
Miti~ation Measure'
7.d.3. The proposed underground storm drain system shall be routed into the existing
railroad bed culvert at the bottom of the slope of Lot 15B so as to avoid working in
and possibly adversely affecting the natural streambed.
Implementation Procedure:
TOWN OF T1BURON MmGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 11198
6
._.........,~~;.,....-:-;----..._~ -, Q
___.._._ u._ ,~. ~ ..0.___
f, 0 OF to
Plans for underground storm drain system shall be reviewed by Town Engineer prior to
issuance of building permits, Responsibility of Building Official to ensure plans
contain this information and that storm drain system has been approved by the Town
Engineer. Actual installation of approved storm drain system shall be confirmed by the
Building Official prior to final inspection and sign off on the building and/or grading
permit.
Non-compliance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit if storm drain system routed to railroad bed culvert is
not shown on plans; no final sign off if approved storm drain system is not installed;
halt construction; fines.
~
Mitil:ation Measure:
8.a.I. All construction activity shall comply with the Town's limitations on construction
hours as set forth in Section 13-6 of the Tiburon Uniform Building Code.
Implementation Procedure:
Ensure contractor and any sub-contractors are aware of the Town's limited construction
hours, including those for use of heavy equipment. Building Inspector shall ensure that
these appear on the job card. Building Inspector and Police Department to enforce this
measure,
Non-compliance Sanction'
Police Department and/or Building Inspector to issue citations and/or halt construction.
Hazards
Miti~ation Mea~ure:
10.b.1.
Access roads to each lot shall be not less than 12 feet unobstructed width
with a maximum 18% grade; they shall be constructed with an all-weather
driving surface, capable of supporting the imposed loads of frre apparatus
and having a minimum of 13 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance.
Implementation Procedure:
Construction drawings submitted by applicant for building permit must show proposed
TOWN OF T1BURON MmGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 11/98
7
-C"i~'--' ,- ;-- --~. -. "-. B
.,-'--
~. '7 0(-" to
construction details of all access roads, including grade, width, paving materials and
vertical clearance. Responsibility of Building Official to ensure plans contain this
information, Actual construction of approved access roads shall be confirmed by the
Building Official prior to final inspection and sign off on the building and/or grading
permit.
Non-compliance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit if detailed access road plans are not shown on plans; no
final sign off if access road not properly constructed; halt construction; fines,
Mitijl:ation Measure:
10.b.2.
Access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with an approved
turnaround.
Implementation Procedure:
Construction drawings submitted by applicant for building permit must show proposed
access road turnaround acceptable to the Tiburon Fire Protection District.
Responsibility of Building Official to ensure plans contain this information and that it
has been approved by the Fire District. Actual construction of approved turnaround
shall be confirmed by the Building Official prior to final inspection and sign off on the
building and/or grading permit.
Non-compliance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit if adequate access road turnaround is not shown on
plans; no final sign off if turnaround not constructed; halt construction; fines.
Mitil:ation Measure:
10.b.3
Any gates shall be equipped with emergency fIre access for fIre apparatus.
Implementation Procedure'
Construction drawings submitted by applicant for building permit must show any
proposed gates. All such gates must show emergency fire access equipment acceptable
to the Tiburon Fire Protection District. Responsibility of Building Official to ensure
plans contain this information and that it has been approved by the Fire District. Actual
installation of emergency fire access equipment on gates shall be confirmed by the
Building Official prior to final inspection and sign off on the building and/or grading
permit.
TOWN OF T1BURON MmGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 1l/98
8
---~ .. -=. 8-
p, g OF 10
Non-compliance Sanction'
No issuance of building permit if any gates shown on plans do not include appropriate
emergency fire access equipment; no final sign off if such equipment not installed on
gates; halt construction; fines,
Miti~ation Measure'
10.b.4.
An approved water supply, including water main and new hydrant, shaU be
installed at the base of the driveway serving the lots accessed from
Warren's Way.
Implementation Procedure:
Construction drawings submitted by applicant for building permit must show proposed
water main and hydrant acceptable to the Tiburon Fire Protection District.
Responsibility of Building Official to ensure plans contain this information and that it
has been approved by the Fire District. Actual installation of approved water main and
hydrant shall be confirmed by the Building Official prior to final inspection and sign off
on the building and/or grading permit.
Non-compliance Sanction'
No issuance of building permit if new water main and hydrant are not shown on plans;
no final sign off if water main and hydrant not installed; halt construction; fines.
Mitivation Measure'
10.e.1.Grass vegetation within former railroad right-of-way shall be properly maintained
for fire protection as determined by the Alto-Richardson Fire Protection District.
Implementation Procedure:
Property owner for former railroad parcels shall be responsible for maintenance of
vegetation in this area. Alto-Richardson Fire Protection District shall conduct annual
inspections for evaluation of vegetation maintenance,
Non-compliance Sanction:
Alto-Richardson Fire Protection District shall issue notice of violation and/or fines if
vegetation is not properly maintained; emergency abatement shall be completed by Fire
District if necessary,
TOWN OFTlBURON MmGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 11198
9
_~._c__- 8
p, cr r:[{O
Aesthetics
Mitillation Mea~ure:
13.b.1.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for each of the two
proposed single-family homes, the building design and landscaping of each
house shall receive Site Plan and Architectural Review approval pursuant
to Section 4.02.00 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The building and
landscaping shall be designed so as to minimize and effectively mitigate
visual impacts to the surrounding neighborhood.
Implementation Procedure'
The Tiburon Design Review Board shall review the submitted building and landscaping
plans to insure that visual impacts on surrounding residences are minimized and
effectively mitigated. The Building official shall not accept plans for building plan
check nor issue building permits without verification that the proposed building has
received Site Plan and Architectural Review approval by the Design Review Board.
Non-compliance Sanction"
Building permits shall not be issued without proof of Site Plan and Architectural
Review approval; no final sign off if landscaping and building is not completed in
compliance with said approval; halt construction; fines,
TOWN OF T1BURON MmGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 11198
10
~"7'--'- ,. ;--..T' -. "-, .6,___
P. 10 DftD
Em
W~tlands R~s~archAssociat~s, Inc.
December 27, ] 996
Mr. Fred C Grange
2333 Kerner Blvd.
San Rafael, CA 94901
RE Grange PropertyfWarren Way
Dear Mr. Grange:
At your request, Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. conducted a site reconnaissance at the property.
located off Warren Way in Tiburon, CA on December 19, 1996 for the purpose of assessing the
proposed project's impacts on drainage courses, wetlands, vegetation, and wildlife on or near the
project site. Assessment of these items were requested by the Town of Tiburon in a letter dated
December 16, ] 996.
Based on information provided by you (Tentative Map ]2/5/96; 12/27/96 revision), the proposed
project will involve construction of a driveway/street extension and establishment of three building
envelopes. This will require minor grading and recontouring approximately halfway down the slope
that was stabilized and recontoured a few year.s ago. According to the plans, no work for the
driveway/street construction will occur below the 70-foot contour The lowes1 building envelop will
extend down to an existing sewer system man hole near the toe-of-slope (approximately the 57-foot
contour). Roof downspouts and driveway drains are planned to be connected to an underground
storm drain system.
The project si1e consists of a relatively steep slope covered with non-native grasses and forbs. The
western portion of Lot 15C has several native coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia); the remaining
vegetation in this area consists of non-native grasses, broom (Genista monspessulana), and
Eucalyptus. Most of the coast live oak trees appeared to be young, however, there is one large oak
that appeared to be within building envelope Lot 15C This large oak appeared to be in a state of
decline, and an arborist should assess the soundness of this tree. North of Lots 15A, 15B, and 15C
are several more oak and Eucalyptus trees which appeared to be outside of the proposed building
envelopes.
At the bottom of the slope and extending in an east-west direction is an old railroad grade. The
railroad grade is in a maintained condition (mowed); dominant vegetation is non-native grasses. One
portion (average ]2.5 feet wide by approximately 125 feet long or 0.035 acre) of the grade north of
Lot] 5C supports wetland plants, such as cattail (Typha sp.), iris-leafed rush (JUllcuS xiphoides), and
umbrella sedge (Cypel1ls eragrostis) Drainage was apparently blocked when din that was stockpiled
at the toe-of-slope during slope stabilization work was not completely removed.
2169-G East Francisco Blvd.. Son Rafael. CA 94901
(415) 454-8868/FAX (415) 454-0129 'I
EXHIBIT NO,
P, l C>F :3
o:n.o_",.'.!~_r:' 0,,'D~.~.u::_~._~~Q.C:D
West of Lot 15C and south of the fonner railroad grade is an ephemeral creek This ephemeral creek
supports a riparian plant community dominated by willows (Salix sp.).
Assessmeut oflmpacts to Drainage Courses aud Potential Wetlands
A potential impact from construction of the proposed project would be faster runoff from portions
of the site covered by impenneable surfaces (e.g., pavement, roofs). The impact to drainage courses
and wetlands from faster runoff would be insignificant at the project site and would probably be
insignificant to areas downstream of the project site.
Sediments entering the drainage course is also a potential impact Siltation controls, such as
installation of temporary silt fences, allowing construction work only during periods of fair weather,
and/or seeding disturbed soil to establish ground cover, should be implemented to control silt from
entering the drainage course during construction activities.
Assessment of Impacts to Vegetation and Wildlife
Potential adverse impacts to vegetation include removal of native oak trees and/or heritage trees on
the site that are protected by Town ofTiburon ordinance and possible encroachment into the willow
riparian community along the ephemeral creek. Removal of non-native grasses, forbs, shrubs and
non-heritage trees would not be considered an adverse impact. Removal or alteration of any oak tree
(any size) on the site will require a permit from Town ofTiburon. Removal or alteration of any tree
meeting heritage tree requirements (>60 inch diameter measured two feet above ground), including
non-native trees, will also require a permit. If a permit is issued for tree removal or alteration,
conditions for mitigation probably would include tree replacement.
The proposed grading work or development activity will not adversely affect the area along the
railroad grade that presently supports wetland plants. All construction, drainage facilities, and
building envelopes avoid that area
Although the limit of Lot 15C as shown onthe project plans does not appear to encroach on the
willow riparian community along the ephemera! stream, portions of its boundary are near the outer
dripline of willows (the limit of Department ofFish and Game jurisdiction). The riparian vegetation
and the stream bank should be avoided by any development or construction activity. Encroachment
into DFG jurisdiction will require a streambed alteration agreement with the DFG. The proposed
underground storm drain should be routed into the existing culvert (railroad bed culvert) at the
botlom of the slope so as to avoid working in and possibly adversely affecting the natural streambed.
Several birds were observed during the site visit, including American robin (TlIrdlls migralorills), re-
breasted nuthatch (Si/la canadensis), Anna's hummingbird (Calyple anna), and Steller's jay
(Cyanocilla slelleri). The tracks of raccoon (Procyon 1010r) wen~ common along the ephemera!
creek. No benthic macroinvenebrates were found in the creek gravel; this indicates the creek is
ephemeral and has no perermial water flow. A habitat assessment was conducted for California red-
EXHIBIT NO....L
r. 2- oP 3
legged frog (Rcma aI/rom dray/onii). Although the willow riparian habitat could provide estivation
sites for this frog, a population could probably not be maintained in the ephemeral stream in which
all surface water disappears. In addition, there is no dense emergent vegetation in or along the stream
for egg mass attachment or juvenile cover. Since the proposed project appears not to impact the
riparian vegetation or streambed, no impacts to wildlife are expected.
If you have questions or require additional information, please call.
Sincerely,
000 ,:r
Senior Associate
EXHIBIT NO, q
P. '3 oF- ?:,
Questa Engineering Corporation
CIVIL. ENVIRONMENTAL, AND WATER RESOURCE ENGINEERS
, --:-'.,
\ '--~-,
-' -~.>
'""
-- "",/.."
~i i /'
-.J
April 7, 1997
;:~~~~
':......
'-~--
,- 6>0:~,.
Mr. Fred C Grange
2333 Kerner Boulevard
San Rafael, CA 94901
....".-._,~?
~::/~>:..!)
-"/
,.-
~
i~'/-"'l,
r""....
. -')0.'....
~.
", ~..
Subiect Drainage Study for Grange Property; Warrens Way, Tiburon California
?
'.
Dear Mr_ Grange:
In response to your request, Questa Engineering Corporation has analyzed potential drainage and
hydrological impacts of the proposed development of the property located off Warren Way in
Tiburon, California_ Areas of concern, as stated in a letter from the Town of Tiburon dated February
27, 1997 were the ephemeral stream to the west oflot 15C and the area within the northern ends of
lots 15A, 15B, and 15C
Site Conditions
The proposed project site consists offour lots (14, 15A, 15B, 15C) and is 5_7 acres in total. The site
drains 10 the northwest with slopes ranging from 2 to 30 percent- Area soils are Los Osos loams and
Bonnydoon gravelly loams_ These soils are well to excessively drained with depth to bedrock between
10 and 40 inches Runoff from these soils is rapid and the hazard from erosion is high (Soil
Conservation Service, 1985)
The site drains predominantly by sheet flow to the northwest comer of lot 15C where it enters an
ephemeral stream. This stream begins at the northwest comer oflot 15c and flows westward for
several hundred feet prior to entering the City's storm drain system The water is conveyed beneath
the end of Karen Way and is discharged to another drainage ditch near Leland Way_
In addition to receiving runoff from the project site, the ephemeral creek receives runoff from it 111-
acre area to the north of Reed Ranch Road (Figure n Runoff from this area is intercepted by Reed
Ranch Road and is conveyed underneath the road via a 36-inch culvert_ The culvert discharges
through a concrete headwall to the eastern most end of the ephemeral creek on lot 15C
Soils in the ephemeral creek are dark grayish brown, heavy silty clay loams As reported by Wetlands
Research, the creek is heavily populated with willows (Saux sp)
(510) 236-6114 . (FAX) 236-2423
P.O. BOX 70356 . 1220 BRICKYARD COVE ROAD, SUITE 206 . POINT RICHMOND, CA 94807-0356
EXHIBIT NO.LL
y. I OF 'Cf
" ~I-"'~'W""""
,I _ ~~~r, '~I'\'" ""'=":,,:':~ -...:. .;.i:::.. ".. .::::~~'::::
Co un- !III' ~ '<,."...... ...... ...... .........
, I - '-!"'J:..... ~ --c;,J'l:d:.- ...~:::.:::::-:.:.::..: :"::'::iiz:"'
QUESTA ENGINEERING CORPORATION
1220 BRICKYARD COVE ROAD
PT RICHMOND, CA 94807
FIGURE
PROJECT LOCATION
AND DRAINAGE AREA
1
Job No 97040
Appr. N.H.
Oate:4/1 ! 97
10
F;XHIBIT NO.
-p, 2-w19
Page 2
!vir Grange
April 7, 1997
Analysis of Drainage Impacts
Proposed construction is to involve the addition of approximately 26,200 sq.ft. of impervious
area(12,700 fi' of covered area and 13,500 fi'ofpaved surface) to the existing site. All impervious
areas are to be drained via an underground storm system directly to the ephemeral creek. The
proposed outfall is to be located adjacent to the existing concrete headwall that is the drainage outfall
structure for the area to the north of Reed Ranch Road (Figure 2).
The Rational Method was used to detennine drainage flows before and after construction to analyze
the impact of the proposed development on the site's drainage Drainage from the site into the
ephemeral creek was compared with that received from the III-acre area above Reed Ranch Road.
Calculations were made for the 10-year storm using the Marin County Standard Hydrological Design
Criteria and per Rantz (1971). Calculations were also made to detennine the impact of the proposed
development to drainage flow into the area in the northern end oflots 15A, 15B, and 15C.
Considering only the 5.7 -acre project site, the proposed development will increase peak runoff rates
from the project site into the ephemeral creek from approximately 4.3 cfs to 6.3 cfs based on the 10-
year storm. This increase of 2 cfs is based on a storm intensity of 5 minutes, which is the estimated
time of concentration for the project site. (Note the time of concentration is the time for water to
travel from the most distant location in a drainage area to the concentration point of interest.) This
peak flow estimate is important for the sizing of the drainage improvements (i.e., culverts) that will
convey the runoff from the project site to the ephemeral creek.
The impact of the project on the peak runoff flows in the creek was evaluated by considering the
project site in conjunction with the runoff from the III-acre drainage area to the north of Reed Ranch
Road. Being a substantially larger watershed, the time of concentration for this drainage basin is also
much greater; it is estimated to be 19 minutes For the overall watershed analysis the peak runoff
from the project was calculated using a 1 a-year storm intensity of 19 minutes to match the watershed
time of concentration. Under these rainfall conditions the estimated peak runoff from the project site
increases from 2.9 cfs for undeveloped to 3.3 cfs for the developed project (i.e., an increase of 0.4
cfs) The estimated 10-year peak runoff in the ephemeral creek from the III-acre watershed to the
north was calculated to be 106 cfs The added runoff due to the project amounts to less than a 0.5%
increase in the peak runoff flow in the ephemeral creek; this is a negligible, insignificant drainage
impact. Additionally, for storm intensities ofless than 19 minutes, the runoff impact from the project
",ill be negligible This is due to the fact that peak runoff from the project area will have drained off
prior to the arrival of peak flows from the area north of Reed Ranch Road. This point is illustrated
in the attached schematic of the drainage area hydrograph (Figure 3).
Proposed development will also be unlikely to negatively impact drainage to the low area within the
north end of Lots 15A, 15B, and 15C. Currently, 1.5 acres of the project site drains to this area,
resulting in peak runoff flows of approximately 2.0 cfs (IO-year storm). Following development
EXHIBIT NO. . _,10
?, 3 OF /9
PROPOSED OUTFALL LOCATION
FOR DRAINAGE OF IMPERVIOUS
AREAS ON LOTS 14, 15A,15B, &15C
EPHEMERAL CRE
EXISTING CONCRETE HEADWALL
_.,.. ,;'1
.,,~
--,
.
~
.loP UI- lOI - ~o
/~
/...;
/
/ ,.~,.-"""~/
I ;>QCl...
--....::::::::;
. /
",
~;ll-lOl-.;"
--.:
--{~''''- -- -
. _ _ ___==,"u ~;;..-~---
----
----
.....
€I
loll )6-~':
.lo,_.~
.loP J.....~O:-..
r-~(~ SM~~7 : ~CR
t. ro""CPQSE::J :;;;rV~'N~ 'r ::l'joN
/
~4r~:'"OOL
10.0011
..~
RE,YOV( EX ASP,.....UL.,..
''"(
(iO)
1.I'.....~)o2-02
'.t.! ~
r "-;!C--/f;;
" @
AP J4-JO":::_O'1
BEGIN .0' ~:::S: .oloND uTIUTY
E':'St:.~e:I'H. T;oo",,..S::i;i:l."< ":'0 :;0'
__ ~""'::60-09
~.
QUESTA ENGINEERING CORPORATION
1220 BRICKYARD COVE ROAD
PT. RICHMOND, CA 94807
FIGURE
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
OUTFALL LOCATION
2
Job No: 97040
Appr: N.H.
Date:4/1 /97
EXHIBIT NO. 10
y. 1../ c;Y ('1
120
100
80
----
CI:l
-
(..'l 60
---
3:
0 40
-l
LJ...
20
0
0
DRAINAGE FROM
OVERALL AREA -.......
DRAINAGE FROM
I PROJECT .AREA
. .......:-:.:.::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::.;:::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:......
5
10
15
Time (min)
20
25
30
NOTE: 1. Tc sTIME OF CONCENTRATION OF PROJECT AREA.
I
2. Tc ;TIME OF CONCENTRATION OF OVERALL AREA.
z
QUESTA ENGINEERING CORPORATION
1220 BRICKYARD COVE ROAD
PT. RICHMOND, CA 94807
FIGURE
SCHEMATIC OF DRAINAGE
AREA HYDROGRAPH
3
Job No: 97040 Appr: N.H.
Date: 4 / 1/97
,~)~ilBIT NO. /0
Y. S- of' 1<1
Page 3
Mr. Grange
April 7, 1997
approximately 0.3 acre of the total1.S acre area will be covered or paved and will drain directly to
the ephemeral creek via an underground storm drain. The area draining into the low region will thus
decrease to 1.2 acres, resulting in a drop in peak runoff flows to approximately 1.6 cfs (la-year
storm).
Conclusion
Based on our field investigation and our runoff analysis, it is our opinion that the proposed
development will have no significant drainage or hydrological impacts on the ephemeral creek to the
west of lot ISC or the area in the northern end oflots ISA, ISB, and ISC.
Please contact the undersigned if there are any questions or any additional information is required.
Sincerely,
/I~ ~J/
~s WrighT'
Project Engineer
~tzsche,
Principa1/Yfanaging Eng neer
L"
- -
,
/ .,.
CW/afg
, 'J" .' ,', ..... .
,iv/~-;1J;{:_~~ .
\,<",.,,\ ~."t~[~;1~7:
. 'c~;"\- /.
". I'/l:':" ~_ ~ A, '. '
, OF ....,. ./
\
~)
!
XC' Mr Tom NeMon, Planning Advisory Corporation
Mr. Daniel M. Watrous, Town of Tiburon
Ref: 97040L2
EXHIBIT NO. . 10
f&bFf(
Page / of
Date:
Questa Engineering Corporation PrOject No.:
Civil, Environmental, and Water Resource Engineers Project Name:
By:
Subject:
Chk'd By:
~C, Bel 356
\ 220 Snck'yOl'O CO'o'e Road
~nt Rlcnrrona. CA 94807
(510]236-6114
Fm (510] 236.2423
I
I
~.<:"
I
I
~mINcE.
~J-
j
/h'
~
hI":;sr:,OE..
(0
.. ... j;ll.;~~'~~m
. (j~~~)
CH.....NCLI
;r:
/.18
,
,
[
i
z~
I
]
C
r
/Z,~
/,...
I
I
Jo..ec~
L/'4"", [....;;::Xi:r,.,.
I I
X IIi-
.._......~
i5i.,.O Ii-
- O. ~;..__,..x
1"-
I
.., ..".. ... .... iiDlr:"'T4CQ 1+ ...,
........~...:-~~: ...........;&~;~;..l'........T..........................
7(~3'-O -r '7r..o'
t::-XJ
0.;:5.......
= L
Ve~..... ov6e..:=:. ,D.o.s
&;,~=-.,sc.e~= p. /S
............. ............ .... j...............,..
c. = t:). '.5
1
Swore:. :
.='4/3,
,
c? oeFACI.b>roE
.Ko opr.'
1
l'
&-<"'10-=
i
I
I
EXHIBIT NO. _' It) P. 7 DF /9
. PIOject NO.:
Project Nome:
By:
Subject:
Questa Engineering Corporation
Civil. Environmental, and Water Resource Engineers
P.O.DJ56
1220Brlc:li:','O'C~~Cl
PoInl RIC.'VT'OnCl. CA 94807
[510]236-6\ 14
Fax: (510] 236-2423
I
- I
...._... "_ 77~.=._ Or:.
I
,
I
I / / 7""wcE ,-.
t--~- j 7,;7ZAv",,-Lc..e.e....-:l
--~- - r- -- .----.-..
______ == ~= _-:hr""a.. FU,N" 77~:
I
G.\Jc~_rL ~77CN.
j
:
1<:.
IT
I '
I lie
--1- . ---- --1'
OVc;2<:,.A;u;::>.l2kv..l .77,,<"=:
- i . i
-- - j ~
i lie =- /3
.... ~j GO
=: t!~I>7':'''-
I
. ...r
Poge';;< of
Dote:
. . Chi<'d By:
- - ---
,
jJ\) C"""""'M...4-.
L
I
J
I
O.3BS.;
. !
~,"'c""-''''
.s;;
I
]
1
QI1SI"'/c;.
2~~iJ~}~~~~
. ... . i . .-... .. ... ...........f~J,l7.p.?"J~~/Cd<..,-"-'__
. (" .h t:.
I L = .1)(,.0'_
..... ... _ L
...19"",;"'_
..-.. C:&~;;:i. .awe
:7b~; ..-..4fZ;~7J,;,-
I
I
-+ ~ .-----.-----
._-===~ L~K_J.)~~~-:__Q--;:c--------L ......_ ........ . .. -.... .--.....-- .._._________
.----- +---- a{ ..~5XZ~!7)GZ20t~)(X;-- .:t~................-......... ..--:-=~~
......______...u_____ ___~______ . __. i.le.
__..__d t-----d j
..~ -I /M@gk~,"m==
.-- +----:rl ........ --- -
n - --- j- ---- - -.-/'f..L,,,,,,
-,------ - 1
n __.__ L__._ - - j...:z;,..
c.
k70
J
T7 XQ,1
:
~
L~'\.':"! -:"l.
r. 8o( fi
Page J of
Questa Engineering Corporation Project No..:
Civil, Environmental, and Water Resource Engineers ProJect Name:
P.O. Sox 356
1220Brlc:lr:yOrdCa.oel1ood
PolnT R1CnlT'OnCl. CA 94807
:GL.:
1
Date:
(5101236-61\4
Fox 15101236-2423
By:
SUbject:
Chk'd By:
! ! I ·
..., , -
. ~ r;'.ii2J...l~ Azi:=;A / C::,'(<S'?~ (2,.:,.,.,l/tWS
Imm ..1 I
'A!s.S::)~ ~rz.aw' OH'<-.:>,
I i
r b~~.~8:,
I ' .
~ - l reo '--S,;) :) /IS::of -=
, , I
, I '
4b"?LC/c5Uri OF .?~+ (e j
~Q<= = 10.30 ,
00'<- . rNF<-r~;7O!!'" = 0. /6 :
V~A'- C'cv<5e1 = 0.06
~Ar~~~ O,)~
I
?~~ ZJe~~...-_&40
,
0,::: e:?.trr::;1'?6c '- c,:.: <j
L .'m'" mmmm Lm
. .. (nCo~~L.".'~Co.<:.Uc% 7<:;;_m
I
O.~b
i
!
( 0t~......z.-)
I
c - O.~5
Im=
j/lME o,:::jCOVc,&~JONmm Ic-m:m__m____.
j TO\€e<..AAfOjEaWONL.Yj . m.. ._m_____m
...t.. /e- - ". 8m;~ '~.R........!.".....~_,..,.-.,..._...-..,~".,......,.'.CZ_ f~~~I~~.
~j~
I
'm ,,' /'-D ~..3 "f.MA?L~j)mmm"'.
__.', . ".""mm. .,.. .,.... """"OJ'7/'1{?~".'L",),',',",,'
ZOO ~ 1a.,?{t,,01..0mm m "m+m_m
_ .......,m "m", O';7J/,,{/.3IJS:L)
I / _ j,g. rz. 0 z. B ! =
l.:z:;ojL;.;c;m ml 3,19
.:2:7"oe o.'l6xO:
"""'.-...'..'..Ci~E
,n I"
Imm,,- .j
..bvc..j3::; )
~mm ~
,
, immmm
. .... ... . m,."({'+~7:..)(.m,,
lnj};;;""maa4-,,,,/Ar ,-
_m J .
-CI I
I I
"m_).. ",...'. .94mj i;)98 "= 4.m, .2::A',."-"4"..m.,m",..
Q. ~ (c=;J. mJ{ . U ....m.m' ,.,m, , ,;Sm ' ".'".
I I f
1 . ..E.ffiTBi1""t'......, {5
I .1 ."L'''~m''__ NO. ..
,"t ( Cf
v.
Q=
[510)236-6114
Fax 15101236-2423
Project No..
. Project Name:
By:
Subject:
Page 4- of
. Date:
Questa Engineering Corporation
Civil. Environmental. end Water Resource Engineers
P.O.8cuc356
1220 BrlCkyOrO CCM! Rood
Pont RlctII'TOf"ld. CA 94807
Chk'd By:
Z..JJr FeZ ~r;- .4.1i~; /Pu,LOSCD CLZ>'7ION-S
:~; ;c~~ecA~~ /01 .sPl,~
"- Cc>'-<' r~/-Cl6)~O]~~o-=,=
.===-, ~~/~E j=. 0.-39
.... .._.~__ -'....:So/'-J.NP;,'-T~L/oN'.= , ./.$ ..
~ T- -.I I
,
. ~_ ._.<.S..;.;ZFAU:;E. 6ro.e~ = O. /5
I .
I j
1 C = O'jiJ5
j
::;l .
_ -- .___1.;,.0.. j.:f. IMAP :x J
':"- LI 0. PI /'1 ( J4-.IS d
_.d-,= =..~8 .;((~. QZ 1;1 .3 I
=-~,~~T{:9~$' (~f,"~~... ..
I
(C.-e,l z:)
/1.1,-
.'
4.g/,,jh,,.
.............................-.---
.~).
.----
. "_ili<-v=::'II"'-ZGC.
,
__. _..J_...
t
J
or
1
I
"'!?~--. ~;=~~~~o:
cc.XH...._.TNO...
..".CD.DE.... J<t
Questa Engineering Corporation
Civil, Environmental. and Water Resource Engineers
Project No.'
ProJect Name,
By:
Subject:
;:>0. ilolJ56
1220 8nck'vOro c~ Rood
=On! Rlcnmona. CA 94807
(510)236-6114
Fax [5101236-2423
~ oP7~ . ,.z:;,e J1z.ok.r ,4iZCA , iCis7i..::lc.- a.i>D,i70"'~
II _1 I
r... - /l.sc;urnc.. ;'mr 01'" G"c.:r,..-z...i70'> E.QUAc.- ~
~""'mjz:f=:: VA~O:O.m (/d:J'3m;"j
_ A~,4 "" ';;;.98)1. I
. /.u~j'7"""n. . . mmm mm 1
. Ifu./.~m m Cm'V"X)
...z;",,~.;;)'/I~/fv.( ~rE).
I I I
l'..z;... .=0_ T} .m....... {(t ~ 1 c"'.)~. ~.Q)
i-i- '0 == 0. 7)~ g ~ 1'01 //", . .."" l 47 :, jL.
~ 1
. '?I~ r):- C .6
e,A ~ J@Z;S)(lcfJ?""2B)';;5"35
Im+mm 'm
- ~Ai 7] I
i . .....1
. . /c.~ /'7/71''" i
- n ~..:= 4",. .00.'7Cl.d.r .e:s .... ..mm.. ... ..... ...
- J~~/I."J'mm-1-ml.<72. 'n/. l'...{'~ :A.s. .A&lv.E
I I
-=-= . ...~~F~'~~=i~~;;Z~;;~ -,;
I
Q,o =
"nL:J;(..5
'2
I
j~c.
j
/AJ~kSC:
i
(j -'"
j......
..2.>.., 0.1"7'=._ ...
,
I
..~.
~. elk = it"k,..
"6
Page 4. S of
Date:
. Chk'd By:.
I
r
A
~ '~,~&k~~~~~~~
.m~i .~~'.:::==~~-==
.:3=jd,s
=
=
h?o?as.:D ~~. . z,.;.;~~;;.,.~iAb;;7t:.m_.___m.
, .. .?"Zo.FcEq"m.... .. J.3'..,301 ...........___m
~. /~~';.0 ..~ ~...... 2.;io.~=;.*~~~~:i:RfT'~~o .
. j . I .m.=m .. 'Im m..'m. .. .mmmf;ltDF/'-
5;01:30-6114
::.c. :;01230-2423
Project No.:
Prolect Name:
By:
Subject:
Page S of
Date:
Questa Engineering Corporation
Civil. Environmental. and Water Rescurce Engineers
P.O. E\olI;356
1220 BlIcl::VOl'd Cow f((x)d
~nt R1Ct"HT'ond. CA 94807
Chk'd By:
I
Z",onT
j
h2=-< /:e~Z7""
I
1
JA..~ YaZI.H ~D
!
/"" i
l.......Cl......:l.;:;J~..../~.s_.~
Or . Lr,;-~
__l-q€c4 =_j.~~ j
I I I
-+------...----.--.---...-,--~--.......--- f
.-_t-n__--AZ.;d_o;::;:Z~7"7
.__.L____ _LU 1rlC Yoe,;,; 6tD
, I
1
j
j
.......J
/__~ ;Z)~:;>;;;; EZ...Ar. ,.?!..=C....CW
0':: L.<:Jr~j5AIJs;or rIScj:.
I
I
J.5A. IB
I
~c.,
s
I
.e3v.s7"I,vCa-
~~.~n"JlI~:~_:
. ~ c:::~/..s;?"":)G-
As.s"",.,c;;: ~~r
h...a .,.,;
I
!
O/l/1-'r'
,
r --- -
:J;';'.<:-l:;< "
..:::::-:E -
000'
I
1
1
/ '
---.-.i-. ...j ... '
. _Cceac,,,:;...c...OE7...wOrE (C.H~rz:)
I I
&~ = 10, 3D
Oft"- A,)r/L.. I c: o. /..::5
j.;~"';::7-9t.-G.dR ...= .0.051
_:;5~;2EA.CC S-6vt&C= O.!lo
I
.-. ~-=~ .-- -C-=. j
1
: - - I
_._..':'--.L /M.:...=..:CCiLv'c.=NT2.A72ON'
Ii;
-=~] ___=t =~.~~..!=~
, =
_. J=~_
1
o,~
Le1
-} ;/cW~',,-
.......j...... ...&
_.~_L~~_I....... .... ..... .1. ............-..... .
. : ....__.20.,,_I3CM.AP..h-). . (~'j
1u_u_ _.::r~m_183{'. 02-7) ~.I'7i ......./8.~..
, . 1,0; 1I7 Ii. e 3/;8.,,).. ...
0;;) x i
-::~.." -~_..
~ .rA~..t'_)i7',bt'~ Q<:!o:!QO,=,,)
j
I
. .::z::o ) ,- =
_.... _._ ____no ~... _. ____. _ 1.;..-----rC;C-..__~_
. ,
'70
(e;""~<'<I....~,.;;3,Q
. / 7~ =uQ,T7x.l$,.;;;)J") h....: ~m9l'C?t /t,)JJY',
. ,
. ?~. .:D-'5C~ j 0 = CIA
. .. .. I : ....
o ={O.t.O )Cc??J4j(J. yJ::
j u_ jmm.!
m~<1,)c4
PVHIPTT" . ):-TO'" ...m ',70
fWL~....... ~.J_ r \ .-
,. (2,.. OF ff
PrOject No.:
Project Name:
By:
Subject:
I
. A?2ZoIYI??Ar-=. IU;? Ylo<:J"S A.JZ..CA
E'u,,,..Z)~At~,~~/~TO ~ Z=~~,,)
L4>rj6A = Q./Z AcIZ';;
I
LJ,rIS"3 [
I I
I ,
I I
I
A br..=c.$
'1
I
i
t
I
I
. ..Qz" &1.vA<J fJ,z..=:A . ...:D
j . ......
. A.e.=;A.. ?:'8f '~'.::Jk73
1 0'::' 6~ XO;:
.. ...j.. .... .... ..
~~~;E~;;~
I
Questa Engineering Corporation
Civil, Environmental, and Water Resource Engineers
?'C.b.350
'220 5ncr.aa ~ RooCl
":IN R\c'Yn::n::l, CA 94807
[510]236-6114
Fax (510) 230-2423
- I
7..:.u~
I
I
I I
~rn ~~/7 /,...)7.::>
I I
· .,2ZQ~.J~~____ C-Jo1 ~DAI~
, ,
zk&o,v
!
<::'uw'
1- --
,
)2JAP =
d
lo~,.4 '- =:
Page t:, of
Date:
Chk'd By:
.1
;...) ).IeV?.G.= ClJ"'" LA::::s
I
I
~"\)4:-:U~c;o.. ......... .... ..
'~.M,b~4tp/":
0. OB ~ (<tl..fz.. 0/-'7,;"'"",- ...I"""'~"'.
A.~..p.Lpr...... 1$ ;:?..;;;;.....s
~,.v T,"",,~P\6 ...o.E....
A ~,. .Oe..-6-INAL...7._...... ......
'*' ',,,, 1.:)& - 126
js.J ISB
~ -
/6G
1-
I
,-
Q. 10 Ac...e.:;
o ,;::;0 Ac.z.c.
1-:)J.::Jc.r- ""~ ,_L.c..):2.:::G,.J;; ..'"
..:> .2~~~1=;.i~""kil.::;i
- <-O?J'Y7~r- =- I .S
/. ;;)
.. __L..
6::"'. ..Lcl_L .............. .... ... .. ... ... .__...._._.~..
'';;;Gr"..7P__W.v.gGrlo,..)~cl''':'~. ....._.____.'...
I
,4..5:;;:~::.QI('l-~.D=:;/IEm,~).r:::..-........----.-...
C", 6. r ~.=l .....1.
c;v-: _ o,vC6:J77C.41/cW .. "/<:...-1- ...J...........
..~:;:... A.ecs .. VZAI.4U),:Jc.,..7,; ~. ..,..~c:>..l
A ~ .... 1- _ -_
lc.. ,4.s?,e,. z-X
~. GO...k /" ,;"
1
,.
JL..
~--- j--
-
1 /, meE
j
.,
.e._ ..__.__............__
rG
j
~//
I EX1:-IIB~T NO. ,
. :~'c-V/'l2HAZG-C:mm ... 0 =CJA .mmmmr.[}DF[~
'j . mm ... m ......r. 7 , (). .;j.t~4 17/';;;\' ....,:: ... m/.~ ...mm.
. .. .. Q .. .. .. ret' ." ~Yi j('... ...'oj I' ..... ..mmmC.. , .. ..... ......... "m
TADLE 5
15.
nUNOF7 COEFFICIENTS .:"'OR AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN AREAS .
WATERSii,D CHARACTE?r5-r:CS
.
A I B I c D
R.F:UET SOIL INFILTRAT:ON I VEGZ7AL. COVER SURFACZ: STOR...l...GZo
....- - -.
(-;. '0-' . , CO\
/0,20 ~
No a!~.-;;;U -/
tW St.e~'Z'r.J.D No e-!fectlye- pL&.nt Negtigible:
:; ..ur!ac:e
W .averaS_ dop~. coyer; ".i.th~r rock or cavor; oAre <lr v.ry cepro.don few and
'" &r.&~ r t.b..a.n 30'- thin .oil rn,anu.o 8par_. .au.cover .hallow; crainage
....
" negligibl. infUtn,- way. at.e_p a.nd ImAIl.
W tion c:ap.c:ity no panel. OJ' map.h..
-
I -
C '-v' , \)
_'O"L.. I , ~ c:- -
.
~ -
'" ~ ~ E..:...!1
<.; Hilly.-it.b &Yer.&:I;_ Slow to ta.k. up .ate r; Poor to rair; clean La.M; well delln.d.
;:: - .lope. (>( 10 to 30"" clay or other .oil at l:ultivated crop. or ay.tern ot amall d.:ratn_
~, t3
:;, lcrw inIUtr,atJon ca~ci- poor natural cover: al" "'ayal tlO J=ono:ta or
;:i ty 8\lch ;11.. heavy iUfnho Ie.. thAn 10er. ot ar.,. m..r.b..
~I urui.r .ood CD"'''
'"
:s , I
U . (/
CJ
gl -
.--
Q ~ ~'i ~ . 0,10
g Norln..].. -::; l~m
"- .J a..oItir:. _\th. .ye,...... F:.ir to looe; abo\.":f: Nonnal.; con."idera.bb,
'" < alope. ol S to lO~ SO':". oC area In .o'Od .urlace depre..ion.
;.. ~ Ira.. land. "II(oodlanci stouse; typic::a.l 01
C
Z 0 or .qu1va.ent COY.I" pr:a.i.:rie land.j l&k.e..
::> ;:: pond. and ma.:.=h..
'" 1.... ~~ 2-:1" 0111,.....
. "- ~I
. I
.
0.10 ~ I O.OS ~
Itel.&tively fl.; land High; dceop sa,nd or I Good to excellent; High; surra.co QC'pre:ill..
~ averal. ,lop._ 0 to other .oil that a.hout 9045". o! are,a alen _torage high;
::l S~ tak.e._ up wator in iOOe! gra;,. land. dr&i~;;e eY!JtI':m not
readily a.nd rapidly woo.d1.and or cqulv.. ah...rply deHilec!.. Li.
alent C:~.I" flood t'~in .tor.:a.I~;
. la.rge Dumb. r at
I pone. a.::r.c ma.r.h..
'- fl\
NOTE: RunolI coct!icient 1, enua.l to aum ot coe!!lcienb trom the appropri&t. btock
1n 6to_. A. :3, C And D..
. Alter H.:'- Cook. ... ?w..1illhed in En'l'lneerln'Ot lOT A:;::rtcultural Orainali'e. by
Harry 3. Rooe and QUlnci' C. Ayre.. Mc(."ra.w_HI!i. uook \"'0.. .lnoo:., l-ie'W Yor~ C
19H, p. 10S. '"""TPTP,TT FO. J 10
J:.-''\.C-~-~-'f 1'4 of C't
;;
'::':-
i'
r
f
-,
..
,.
.
24
'"
>
~
E-
o
Z
<;
;:::
'w
>
o
DESIGN OF STORM-DRAINAGE FACILITIES, SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
1000
, I I , , I
I
I I I
I
I I I
I I
1 I II'
1 I 1 I
I' I I
" I
I I I ,
I I I I 1
ii' I
, I I ,
, I
, I 1 I
1 I I I I
, I 1 I 1 I
, ,
I
I'
, I I
I I ,
I I I
, I I
, I r
I I I
I
I I I
I'
I I!
1 I , I
,
"
I,
I I ,
I I r-. "
1 _..' I I
, 1 r ~ t
I 0.:::::::'
I I I
I 1_' I I I
I I
,- '"
I I , -"1
, I' "
, I
I
, ,
I I I
,
, I
I
I I
, 1 I I I
"1 'I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I r I
800
I I I 1 1 I J
, I I J I
1 I I 1 I
1 'I I 1 I I I
, , 1 I 1
, I 1 I I 1 I I 1
I I I 1 III
, , I I
1 r I I I 1
, I ' , I
, I I I
III r I
, 'II I
I
I I ,
....,
I 'I
I I I
I
I
I I ,
I I ~
I I
I I
"
I I
, ,
, I
I I
, ,
, I
I I
,
, I
E-
'"
'"
.,.
Z
....
, I I
I ,
I I
I I I,
I I
I
1 I I II
, I I
I I
1 A...... 1
J I' '...... 1
I I I I I
I I
I
I I ,
, I
I I
I
I I I
I
I
I'
I'
I
I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I 1 1
I I I
600
1 1"
, '/1
I I I , , I
I I I I I 1
I' , 1 1 I
i ' 1
I 'I I 1
1 I I 1
,
, I
, ,
, I
I I
, I
, ,
'"
F I , 1
, I I
r':
II, I I I : I
1, I I I I
I II I I
1 ,I 1
, 1'1 I '
" III
I , I
'"
U
z
<:
E-
'"
....
o
I I
I
I I I
I'll'
1'1 1
I I I
I J I 1
I I I
I,
I I
, I
"
I I I
, I
"
I
I I :
"
400
,
, ! ,
I :/1
11 I,. , ,I
I I I
I
I I I
I ,
III 1 I
I I
I I
80
I
I
, I
'"
'"
!5
z
-
::<:
"
I ,
I
, ,
I I
I, " I'
r 1 I I I!
I I' 1 I('
III I r
, I
I I
, , I
, I I
I, I
, I I
I I I I
I I " I I I
1'1 I I
-=
I I 1 " I 1 I
, I I I r I I I
, 1 I I I 1
II J I I I I I
I 1 I 1 I 1 I
, r 1 I
I I I
1 I i
I
I I
I I
I I I
I, :
I
II " I
I I I
I I , ,
I
I I
1 I r 1 , I
I I I I I I
60
I
I I I
I j
I
, I I
I
,
z
....
...J
'"
>
~
E-
.,.
o
'"
::<:
-
E-
o
z
<:
...J
c::
W
>
o
200
, ,
, I ,
I
I I
I
, I
I
I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I I
I I
, I
I I I
I I
1 I I I
~."YY
I , I I
; 1 I I I
0""'"11
I " I I I I
III I I I
I I I I
II I , I
II.'"
I I I
"
, I I
: I I
I
I I I
I I!
I Ii,
I I
, ,
I
I
, I
I I
I I
II I I I
I I
I I I I 1 1 I I
II I I I I I I
I I I I 1 III
I
I I 1 1
, 1 1 ,
I I
I
40
,
I I
,
1'1
I "
,
"
............11 I,
"
,,,
I I I
, I J I
I I
, I
I
"1
I
I I I
, I
I I I
I
I I I
~
, I
" I
20
I I
I I
1'1
1 I I 1
, ,
I I I I
I I ,
o
, I I
I I I 1
, I I
"
FIGURE 6.--Relation of ove"land time of travel to overland travel
distance, average overland slope, and coefficient C--for use in
Rational Method. (Based on fig. 3-1, Wright-McLaughlin Engineers,
1969. Adapted and extended by $, E, Rantz.)
I I I 1
, I I I I 1 ,
EXHIBIT NO. 'ID
P. ~D~{9
.
~ -~..."'" _..;..., ~_'_.L-;. -_-.~ ""(,~'r.... "-. _
r
..........,
.
L , -., " 1"-
\ C~
J C(y\.
/f n
f (.CT"~ '"" \ N.
;: '~1\7f~'
5-8 20 '" \ I
\.1 \~.
\ . i
\ I.,
\ :'
5\
I II
;
I
I
I
I
':
:
?'
...~-,u,."...._,__...__..._, .__..__....,._.._
,...,'uo._,.",_,,_..,_..... ,....__...._..
~
~ : :=::= ::':::':00:: ,::.:::' ."':::/_-::::::::.-
c. __...l~"O~..vJ'" .......... J......._
:: _-."J~.<I'" 1IJ'1 __.._ 1.._
_ :~..~., "'~'f_""'__~'_"
~
~.:;r . ...) ,
o
6-9
,
/
c
'::)6 -7-
.-~
\ .:-.
@
~
:
~~c(T-lt:.s -r~.:-t~S r) J
.l.:;...:::L" 1.....~~'. -,.....
: .p,pbF 1'1
tun 0' 'Al..lftllllU.I
"
"-
<.....-.-
!C~lY':J
~__I~..."....r_""6"'I~~_
g : ==:~::::::::'::.=:::.'~~.:...:'-
,
1.,.._1
;-~~
1- '._' .,....
, _....,... __ r-o_
H f\.~ 0 ~...., r.
(\(1'),-.
',. / t:.. \....
l
~, \
t=J
"..
~
~
~,
b:J
>-<
~~
. ~
'-7
~""-<
:;:-,C
fj'
" .....
'{l ~
........
G\
.
o
['.J
d
9-0
-0)
-::0
o
(Q
tb
~I-d'
~I(JI
N\O
'--'"
(-..
il
0-
z
:;iJ.
~
rrJ
<2
:r.> (/)
;:J=i
0-<
c
CD <
CIi
II
9J
r\)
o
C
::0
<~
l>-
ro
CZ
ITI
C/>
1'.J. 2::::1:..J lV~;--':": i,.C;) :;:.;\..!...
oCl 0:; Oli? Ol C9 0; C'; C~ ~ Z G? ~ !
l.r,!,III)"ll: 1";lli"rl,,;"~lllli:'il":~"I._'III'!1
'!I;lII':j I j ~,"laJ"'!\'!!II~I,I-: ;'"'rllll..:2:..;",,_LIJ,:,'::I~lr';I,
~I~""' ~'I J, 1i"i7':l~",I" ".!...!...:....:.J~_..:~, ;.:-'II!~~I,~__..,j~ ~'~
IIII~""II', I, 1....II~~~I';'J",:'D"'lI,,.I\I':"""':.;"""I""'" I "11 I, I
'1"'i"",,~"';'!'I":"""tl:.,j~111""li"''"':'"ji''T1..JIIIII
,'"f.'.rr<_~,li~-~'"'. r
'-: t~__ _i-~ t - ~:_- __:~~~S~ ~ -=i=--=~ -~
..., -_~-....-_I ._.'. __________.,j-_~
J , :~______~=__-:-..:::=;-.-=- _ .__+==-
~~~~E~~~
b. . -~~-,-;::::J ~ ,-;:;:~n;-_=: - ... .. ~
..~ ....l -:~ ===
-/
~.,
----,
==j
d'
----f
'L
--j
lB
'0
I
I ot
, I
or
t
_.:...-
-,
i. ::::=J=-
". ~
...;..,.....-l
~
-
~.
~.,-;;
....~~~..;::...,;
=t:;~"_' ,
~ "".-
~
---j
~.,
"-:=:
, , .' ,
. . .
-
::2:c~.
. __.--....~~......--' ...-J--..;:........ -;.- ,.........(
-"";'"'------~.........- --' """-";: ...~
--.:.-~' ~- " '-
:.....1. __ ,--....;: ~_,- .
I. I I:--:-_"!',l"~""'_'-I""" ,..,..:.~~:,
P,P=,': :",1-. '....I~"~:-:--"""":': ~ i '......._.,I':,;~ I"';
I'--..! "'I_=::::..,} ''-.,1' "''''''''''=~'~~',''
-- ~., ,...... . ,"'" .I:,~..'I~"',
'. . -.J~+""." ~. '-,,-~\;'"''''
.':'... ::s:--~~t~~~~~2d-'
,,-<--1 .' .. .~ "-<;: ,. ~. ., .
""'----' '''---''-'~' -. . " ~.
;--~, s::t-----...:.;;;::.,,-- . . i"'--.:. ;,"-,'.. .--;-.:!-."..' .~
. -.-.--l-""-J' ~.:S:;;::: . . .
_ ~::-:s::::: --==-::5::
;.-....". ....... - ~'.~-::.-,_._-
~"-- ~"-._..;;::.;..... .~~..:.
,~- ~~ . ~.
.- .-=-~.,~- ~ ~ '-",-~--.--~ - .- ~-=
-,__ ~=.~_ "',_ -..::-J.- ~~__--........ " ,- _:-. S:.-_
--- ~ ~-.~d.::.~~."'.-~ ..... ..-:..--.....,~- -:=---~.' - -
:"'r. -...,,:::s::: ':...;:::..-:ss-~.~---~ '.:"_ """";".-:=-. 'S<.-:-""...,... - -
_' "" .--';--=~-=:-'~o..::; _ :..:::::;:..._.-=~......~
~~'" - ::::-- ~:-~~-s..... ~..:;_~~-~~"'.~.:.-
~~~ - => - "':::-..;...-:-::-: - '. - - ~"---., -~.--
!I~-_ =s:'~~ =:;:~~...::.....~--:.- --=-~=-~:::...<--
. ~--c:~:.:;;~~~~",-~~:-'~ -~
= ~ - :' ,-"--.~~*~,:?:'-'~~- -~
E::::::--~ =- ",-' - t ._,~:?-~~'::::;-_.' ""-'-
~~ --=: ~-~-::;-~..;;:..... -
~'--,~ .~--,~ ---~:-:::~~$':"~~- '.
~~~'-'-'-".e~ '-"'0--..-- -. -
~==::::~-===::s,.=- ----. --.:t::.~~
--~--~ -~~-~ ~.-~
t= ~.-- -~ -" --'-..;. ~S;
-. .~~----~:,~::;~ <."
I' ............ .~ ::'..:....;+.-.:. ~ -- -
'!~~ _ L
~ _~..; , , ' ----=:; J
--1~"'" '--r- -----l l..
-'-'~ ~-------. -~ ~' g
---=-_- =_1-- ,~' . 1-: ~ ~ 0
... ,..... '
-'-.:-:--,!- .....,-
Ot
)..on1.3 3:l"'NltftlO
~
I"
t,
...,.~II
.,...... '
", ....;......
,~
" ,
"
-"
~
'--
.::.L
-~
-
!:SC'I
Z
-t
m
Z
co
=i
-<
-
;;-
n
=r
o
o
.....
".
o
!;
-
,;.t
.
s<:
....
{
xv.::lWtf.::l
try
".<
r.;::;
....,.;.J..j
00,;:,):-""
......tr.J
~ '.....
1-3
~~
I] <<
,,0
~/~
s::
z
c
~
rTI
IJl
~ 'r
~I ~f
~-
=:
o
C
:::l
IJl
()
I
l>
:::0
--i
=
^
=
N
o
Z
fTl
CD
'"
"
"'.....
.....'"
~'"
,.",
1
~I
:~
<;
I- . ~
I~ ~ :
- "
;; ~ -
Q. C 0
i:nlcr ;; C7)
~Ii ; ;
3 ~
. .
~ ! .
...
..
.
-
<
c
c
.
~
.
c
c ~
~ ..
Q. -
....
o '" '-
o ...
:::. UI 0
.
....
o
-"
~
c
, c
.... ~
oN"
~
..
::j " , n . , \' 1 (1 N~ -l d 'rj
o~
~
Q. C
o . _
'" ~ ~
.... Q ~ 0,
o n
- .
~
c <
~ .
.. ~
.
o
1c"ICn
1"'1'"
N-
. _ . I .
.-
~ "
c
~
...
-
-~
=.
N
_~o
I,~
'~:...-:-::r::===~
c
-"
"
..
.
, .. 0
~
N1- 'I:
$ g:t:1
,
'"
....
- >
I ....
;; ""
3 Q ::l 0
- :J ~ "T'l
=c>'On
<.::J 0>>
~ 0 I ~
- 1"'< "T'l
I < CO 0
-..J C1t 0 ::c
- I ~ :z:
:::t:J _UI :>
~ gg 1
Z . CJ') 0
"" -C ""
> ~ C") "'"C
~ Q :z >
- :D
'" ....
~::Ol:
~>""
fT1 Z
tf)Z""
Cl;!O
Zr-""
_r-....
'Z_::D
o-lZ>
Cf'T'1-;~
~Z"""'t:l
......U')zg
a"""",(J)-t
Z-<-t=:;
1::0-< 0
""'>oZ
~-tCn
"'0::0>>
~(J)>r
z- :j;;
n NO>
-< Zz
o V>
>Zn-
;mcl
r ::c~
~CD<t.n
c.n f'T1;;
tf) n
- -<
N
'"
'"
..
.
'"
'"
..
..
~
.
;3 .
I 5
I
1
N
C
"'~
....-
..
c
.. t
l!:
~
:..,43
N
=
A
Ques(a Engineering Corporation
CIVIL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND WATER RESOURCE ENGINEERS
April 14, 1997
e~~~,~!"; .~~~,
I; ,. .,. ,_..., :~:: ~,",.;J
.. -~ :-', ~I -;
.......:; i
Daniel M. Watrous
Senior Planner
Town of Tiburon
1155 Tihuron Blvd.
Tiburon. CA 94920
_' ~ !,~:.,..~,.; ~:';:~-. '~~;";....~?~9N~_
, .........~...."'-..... c......_'u\.--:: :;=,;"'1:.
Subiect: Addendum to Drainage Study for Grange Property; Warrens Way. Tiburon.
California
Dear Mr. Watrous:
In response to your phone conversation with Norman Hantzsche on April 10, 1997. we have re-
examined the potential drainage and hydrological impacts of the proposed development on the
property located off Warren Way in Tiburon, California based on a lOa-year design storm. In our
original drainage analysis (letter to Fred Grange dated April 7. ] 997). potential drainage impacts
were investigated based upon a design storm recurrence interval of 10 years.
As was previously done, the impact of the project on the peak runoff flows in the ephemeral creek
was evaluated by considering the project site in conjunction with the runoff from the III-acre
drainage area to the north of Reed Ranch Road. For this analysis the peak runoff from the project
was calculated using a lOa-year storm intensity for a 19 minute interval, to match the overall
watershed time of concentration (see attached calculation sheets). Under these conditions the
estimated peak runoff from the project site increases from 4.1 cfs for undeveloped conditions to 4.7
cfs for the developed project (i.e., an increase of 0.6 cfs). The estimated 100-year peak runoff in the
ephemeral creek from the Ill-acre watershed to the north was calculated to be 152 cfs. The added
rund1Y dut: hi thl.. propo~ed .Je\ie:opmcnt ar.10:1nt:~ ~o less thaI"! a 0..:19(. in(;reCtS,~ in the peak runoff flow
In the ephemeral creek: this is a negligible. insignificant drainage impact.
For the lOa-year storm. proposed development will also be unlikely to negatively impact drainage
to the low area within the north end of Lots 15A, 15B, and 15C. Currently, 1.5 acres of the project
site drains to this area, resulting in peak runoff flows of approximately 2.9 cfs (IOO-year storm).
Following development, approximately 0.3 acre of the total 1.5 acre area will be covered or paved
and will drain directly to the ephemeral creek via an underground storm drain. The area draining
into the low region will thus decrease to 1.2 acres, resulting in a drop in peak runoff flows to
approximately 2.3 cfs (IOO-year storm).
P,O. BOX 70356
(510) 236-6114 . (FAX) 236-2423
. 1220 BRICKYARD COVE ROAD, SUITE 206 . POINT RICHMOND, CA 94807-0356
EXHIBIT NO.1L_
P. 1Cf='?"
Page 2
Mr. Watrous
April 14, 1997
Based on our field investigation and the additional runoff analysis, it remains our opinion that the
proposed development will have no significant drainage or hydrological impacts on the ephemeral
creek to the west of lot lSC or the area in the northern end of lots lSA, lSB, or ISC.
Please contact the undersigned if there are any questions or any additional information is required.
Sincerely,
~~
Project Engineer
Norman N. Hantzsc
Principal/Managing
~.
XC: Fred C. Grange
-'--""'"
/. '"'"','-.,
/'" '\~"
!I ~. +('1 !~7
c;;;;: r..J ,- ..~ - ~,,...!
-\~ \~. ~;/~;;'77
,
-- ;
CW/cw
J:':
1
i
)
..-
./
Ref. 97040L3
.' '-
- -'(~E3IT NO.11--
t'. 2- CY 5"'
p.o. Boll. 350
1220 Bllcll:yOl'd Cove Rood
FOnt Rlcnrrona. ':A 94807
[510]230-6114
FOl(510)2J6-2423
Project No.: 9 '7040
Project Name: T8u/Za,.J
By: e k)iliG,H1"
Subject: loa......e ....sr"'~.
Page / of.3
Date: 4/1'/<]17
J.J 'TD2ot.o<Jr 't'..
Chk'dBY:yt~-
Questa Engineering Corporation
Civil. Environmental. and Water Resource Engineers
vk;~'x~~:t,:o i/::~l:: ~t~,=L
I I I I
, 's ~...... C.li!/~~A! rb< h'.,....Q~C...I"- - '(Jrlv'o
.... 67eRM.,. 'D I 'N~ ... FAC/c..J rlC:S!J.ur~\.S<WF...zANeceo.....
.4't':~~+" C?~"13 Y<s'~'I.zA"'TC
. I - - .- - .:;,
m ~ ~~~;.,..4~,,~~;:}1~~~:: m mm-_
~.K~6EF .~4~~''''>~ ~ .JVoR71i aE:....2:i=o~
I I I I
....4~. ==....lIL...~.c..e.=-.... j.
. ....7;1 ...=... j 9>>>t'''.''''
.. ~.t~~~~=.I"'~<J~:J ..
-'= I
0."'5 j
. . .... I.
'. ..J....... ............... :... .......................................--...........i......................-.........-.....
6AM. As ~ C?.A,,,,"v.6.l'"
.. .. .. ... . ...... , .... .'..'.1".'. ......
fi>~ THIS ..0 Y.e ~
..........._........n____..__.n_.n__.........J.........._...................._............__...mm.._..__......mm..~.._..._..___.~_n.
I
1
_I
;;:0 rj'~J:a~A
.L-/oo,,? /8.::<(~.4Zr)..."
j - ........~~~(~.~~.I<~
J ...1....
.... -L:~"'I' ,,"""'.. ,0. c.z:,.._
I I
. . ... ....Q = . (o.tD5)(o9.]/
.....~J
~O~.9.z.j
.____nn. ........
_...........~,
-I
j
/.52
. . ... .......----.........---.--...1
I
P.H-iH~l'T..l\f
~_ _..... _ A.
...........'P;?
- .... .. ....---~._.--~-_....
...;1L-=.---
'5""'-.
p.o. Box 350
1220 BrlckyOrCl CO...e Rood
PoInt Rlcnm::lncl. CA 9.4807
1510)236-6114
FQJ<{5101236-2423
Poge 'Z.. of
prOJecl No.; 9VCJ4C! Dole; 4//1/9'7
Projecl Nome: 77d,),IZ~':> lI't'pA!.oL.oQr.,.
By t:. t-) JZI G+I ,- Chk'd By; I1.1:J,
Subject: /00 Y..: <.Src..e.......
Questa Engineering Corporation
Civil, Environmental, and Water Resource Engineers
~j~~ p.e..i~ ... Rz~~ "'~A
. c::.X/67? C:r Ca";'O"77DJv'oS: I
! !
. ~""".:: -570.2M. :uJZ477o..::. 6Q~.7C. ;if"-<.:;. OJ11:. .... I ..................
~J9: ;~~ '''~ r;'v~~~i~t:~"!
I
'"
j ,
. .z;"u 7E,..:ls,,77' i :
I... -D i /.3
I Ir.o T .
j X;oo] - d. I /"'!:},,. (' 'f""y.e,<S:'~.ej,....)
I . .j ... .. .1.. ........... .[.. ........ .
foa..,,< Vl..SCHAJ2L':rlE: '....Q .~. CIA....... ... ........... .....1
....... I I
\:).~.s ,II ,=- .. 47
220r>1,GD Co.obncNs: j
I ! I
I..: A~A ; ?,<}~.4:1es ;c= -=
j'~<<>o"l." .....~,<..I"f"
- . iF""K... ZJ IJA;a;..:::~........:/II. Q ::c:..z-.A.. .
1....'1 .
4.
1705 ..]
~n~-~l~==
10 .c ..s~J....
I
I
I.. iT ......
~:rTP.TTNO.lL..-...
'~-f.-t.ft~..
Questa Engineering Corporation
Civil. Environmental, and Water Resource Engineers
PO 80:.1356
1220 Brcl::yara Co\.@ fbJa
P\:llnTR\cl1mono. CA 94807
(5101236-6114
Fax (510) 236-2423
Project No.'. 97040
Project Name: 77&.;IZa~
By: C. W/ZI(frHI
Subject: /00 YIZ
i?~ok F.eo.....1 ?.20peIZJ INnl tlbkn,l ell/o or L.or.s. /6.1 A.] /68,
I . I
~6-xI6;?.:>~m b=al"'/o~1 ,I
I I I I
I AJZ.:4 J"m/' ..s.A : l?
". CoE;"','.j c.n:!!.....r04m :2..>""0""""= 0, (.,0 : m.. -S~,As .rn.c...
j ....mmTc.. j':=m B ?n.:....1 I .m. ICyI' <Sra.eM
i ..... mjm mm . mmm ....... . . .1 I I
j1'~~ = /.13 I (;1nAPIJ
I , ,
Leo = /6.1Z. {t.6? )JD./Ji' I~ ( ~'-;jB.Z J
I I I
mmf60 .. ja.2.t.02.~jt '1
.~~mm?:.)~~~f~=QI== CXA
1 = l ~o 0.2. . S =
I j j I
! ... ... ._mj ..m.' ..'m. mmmmj J I
. j ~?r>~;l~o:~~:Ts ~ ;.1 y~ <s j
m___ .. .. j ......J:lr~ ~r~~ m_:l?eP<'>c:ea
Cd6"'€/ Cle>90FmZ,.)~............"",... o...~~..._
UFmmQEGbNCC:IV'7iZA'fON==.. B {n:....
;J;:=m ~~JH~~ =~~;t Aaove.
I 1
~/l.
. I
i('e~F)
2
1~.iJ
2;Ymr"'~~""'-
.-......................... _.--.._-------_._--._---_..--..~.....-
.-..-.---.--....-...,-....".......-....-...-.........-...--.-.--.-...........
i
.~...........
'-::-""':.....~ '1-."'-
!\. <41 -gT'T' !~I ... U .................. .
._.........L.._.....__'._. .~
.... p,m5' LS--m-'
I
~~~
~'.;~;~:
~.~ji,:;~~:
:.;.:-
<;~ '
14ft';-
:~,;~'.
:)~:-f
'~,l
'J;\: '
:i
.}~:
~j~
.~
;.':1
'<!'~i'
~,. "
/:~;~f -
~.~;
~"~~~ -
":~
-~
"F
:i~,-
,.::~Ji~,t
-~
~,'
~:~.;(
:.:2.~.
'fi~.
~~'.'~.
~~~1
".~",:?/.
~/
J
"
~ ,---
'.
RECEIVED
TIBURON
HIGHLANDS
FEB 1 \988
, TOWI'4 Uf TtBURON
Dept of Community Development
,
-'.
,.
0," .',
.1.1.',
Addend u m to :~~i::~;"d(G..::~":,~'" .'.~.' . .
.~~;:;,'" '/." _'_ ". ':':;J:''':~::-'~:;:''-'!~:{,_.::~.~'';''':.'''~t'__:~_~.~J:~,~'~,-' ., .~. >:i~~;f;..::~~{~~.;:.~'.t;A!.:",..':,t :'''_~':.~''~':~'.,
En vi ro n"m e 'nt a I "1 rri'p'a'c t .
\qg4
Re port
',\,,'
. J-~..:. ';
,
~
;.
II'.
"
'."
'.'.-:'"
~.. ....., ~'"
.. ," .-
'-\.
~
,
. -'~
"-::.n, '-......,~..
,
John Roberto Associates
- .
:<.-, ...~ '-' - '.
,
,;;' '.
.' ''':'~. :-:~_.
., ',:"~.>.~
,";.
<A.~"':'
:':"'7':!i;
-:.c,t',',.
~{r~
".:~' <~;~~~~:: ,"
,'~:~~;j:~;f:t~~' ,
,,' ..~ ',..:' ',- .-
.:"'':':;~i~'i};', .
,~;:,.'::~,:~ "
,,",,~
.....,.. ,
- ~~:
;-::,,~;
'{" .:-~
,~~.
".'-
:. ~'
",;. .'
~ - \',"
'~">?~':,<L
.,:.:'~."~;;~;J:
.'.: ":>i:;;,~~f:'
',;~~;;/,}:~~!li~.
~:"~' :.
'~'.,. ",
. '.:
EXHIBIT NO.\"")...
p. I OFL3 .'
.... ' .'
.' '.~~
"t-
"'-"~t..:.~'
.......
..~_.... '-:.;~.,-:l~",:;"'~" "';".- ):'.
".-.~""""~~~':
"'::..:, ~.. . ,: ......
~ ". .
,. ~- '!>*t;;i~;*
B. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Setting
Regional
The proposed Tiburon Highlands Development is located in the northwest portion of the
Tiburon Peninsula. The dominant topographic feature is a northeost-southwest trending
flat-topped ridge with moderate to steep inclined slopes facing north and west. The
slopes generally range in steepness between 2 horizontal to I vertical (2h: I v) and 4h: I v.
There are steeper slopes (up to I I /2h: I v) in the northern portion of the site behind
existing residences on Karen Way. Slopes flatter than 4h: I v are encountered at lower
elevations in the northeast and west portions of the site. The ridge top was previously
graded leaving a roughly level ridge. Elevations at the site range from about 200 feet on
the ridge top to about 20 feet in the western portion of the site adjacent to Cecilia Way.
Vegetation on the site consists largely of grasses and scattered chaparral. The steep,
north-facing slope adjacent to Karen Way is more heavily vegetated with live oak and
brush. The flat-topped ridge has been nearly denuded of soi I and does not support
vegetat ion.
Geologic data for the project site was obtained from three sources:
reconnaissance; 2) interpretation of stereo-paired aerial photographs;
geologic reports and maps pertinent to the site. I
I) a geologic
3) review of
Site Geology
The site is underlain by rocks of the Franciscan Formation, which make up most of the
Tiburon Peninsula. Rock types exposed at the site include sandstone, shale, greenstone
and minor chert. The Franciscan Formation is characterized by scattered masses of hard,
relatively resistant rocks such as sandstone and greenstone, which are enclosed in a
matrix of weak, highly sheared shale. This type of rock assemblage is called melange.
Though usually strong, the resistant rock masses are often highly fractured. Melange is
more variable than many other types of bedrock formations, and it is often difficult to
extrapolate conditions very far beyond known data points (borings and surface exposures).
EXHIBIT NO.l"'b-
'P. ZoF 13
37
Most of the bedrock exposures at the site occur on the excavated ridge top. Sandstone is
exposed in the northeastern portion of the ridge cut. A mixed assemblage of greenstone,
chert, sondstone and shale are exposed in a smaller area in the southwest portion of the
ridge cut. Elsewhere at the site, the bedrock is covered by colluvial and residual soil.
Sandstone probably underlies most of the northern and eastern protions of the site, while
the mixed assemblage of greenstone, shale, sandstone and chert probably underlies most
of the western portion. Sandstone was encountered in test pits on the tributary ridge that
extends into the northwestern portion of the site) (See Map II)
The sandstones that appear to underlie most of the north and east portions of the site are
moderately to deeply weathered, and closely fractured. The mixed assemblage of rocks
that appears to underlie the western portion of the site is more variable in physical
properties. Some of the bedrock in this area, primarily shale, is likely to be soft, weak
and intensely fractured.
The colluvial and residual soils that cover most of the slopes are rich in clay and variable
in thickness. Thicknesses range from a few feet on steep slopes and near ridges to more
than 10 feet at the base of slopes and in swales. The soils are experiencing slow downhill
creep (on the order of a fraction of on inch per year). Creep is typical of many hillsides in
Marin County. The clay-rich soils are slightly to moderately expansive. Soils near the
crest of the sandstone ridges are lower in clay content and consist mainly of silts and
sandy clays. These soils are more erosive than the clay-rich soils. They are deeply eroded
along the western edge of the excavated ridgetop.
Slope Stability
Several landslides are located on the site. (See Map 12) All the landslides appear to be
relatively shallow earthflows and debris slides involving only colluvium and soil. None of
the landslides appear to extend into the underlying bedrock. Two earthflows are present
on the west-facing slope. One of these is appraximately 300 feet in length. There is also
a relatively large debris slide on the north-facing slope above Karen Way. This slide was
reactivated during the intense storms of January, 1982. The active slide appears to be
part of a larger, dormant slide. Surface drainage diversions and a crib-wall have been
installed to stabilize the slide and retain additional material from moving downslope onto
38
EXHIBIT NO,_~
P. '3 oF- IS
> r
. aJ G :s ~ '"
:;:." r~ ~ or ..:,
-..... -'-' u ~" gi~ ~
.... ~'"" o<r r ~r::~
.... ....0< 0< ~$
~ Ul ~.... ::'
~ 0 ~~ Q..!:l!IO .
.... Q ~x ~ ~" " 100I"'I:l
~ aJ ee 0:""1..= c::
~ 2> :or 0
~ ~~ <z -I~I"'" ~
u " ......... ~z :-0.....1"'.:::;
.... ~~ ZO 0<
~ ;:::; 0- ~u 61C:'00I
~ -- Z~ ~,,~1.=00Il
>- - 0 Q u :oz ~;; 0_
~ z <: ....0< _u 0' '"
en 0< "" ....~ ~~ ~z 31"1 :;
.... O~ ~o g~
0 u :3~ _ ;al;~
""~ 2 c:;;;:<.i'l
- ~
0 <l: i _~~ iii
Q) ...J ~ 'C "'IC::~
(,) " :: ~I~a:
" CJ) :=::.!::: ;;
~aG~
..
u CI') c ....
. ,::..,
.: = w
:z: ..
.:::..... f
Q -=
.:: >
_aJ ....I ~
,0:: - ~
Q - i
0 .. = .2
U 'J .
.;;; - () . i
U~ - ~ !
u_ ,^
Q - 't: i
o u i
.. ..8: ~
~.g :z: ,
_ii ;;;1 I
o > =
.0 ..c.~~
,-,z
= 012
;; "",'.
u == .211
- = ~ll
Q
" - ,
..... 41
:
ATTACHMENT 'C'
'\. ! .
+ .
.
'\. .
I
. .
.
: . ,
,
.
.
: i
.
~~
~
.. ~
;; :
... '-' ~
E"'; 1:1
... ~ ~
~ I ~
)0... ~ v
\. 0 ~
-:;;iO
,
~
\iJ
~
;!
.
-
~
:::
"
;
:=
! :
"
.
~
B
8
.
:!
!
. c
i. .
~j ii
!l:~~
39
EXdIBIT NO \?-
P. L( oFt3
:i:
o .
~ .
, 5
. .
o .
>
.s
~ ~ ... '"
0" ..::;
~ ,-
II c:'- ":l'" :.> ":l
:;: U _ ~ '"
'1';1-'" "l <0 ... ..
~ ~ :::.., : 21:7'
_ 0( '-' III
3 III 2 ~ ~...
.... . ":l _ ~ <II
~ [ go 1l '0 ~ ...
N ;;::1 '"
... -= ... 0 - ...
o :TIU" III
U ~ ., :l _
....s~~~~~
0'" Q,I:::...
:::... '" ..,
<Il 0 <J IJ..,"":::
.... ... - ~ U 'lI
:II ":l E'"
Ol III Q;:/ ... I:!'
&,:; ~ = ~ Ul _
, -
'0" III .....
::'U":l "..)
...: III '" 'lI "'...
.;: "'... c.... '"
i=~~~B~~
.
,
.
,
o
~
.
.
::: ~ ~
~ .. 'll ~ .
..... ;; 0; ~
2 = 0 il.:
IV :t,SGi;:
........1.0 ..
::):::.. 1:7'
<II ;> '" III
.. = '" <=..
III D.U ::l
"::l 0 >( "'..
'" ,
.. ~ _ 'tl e
.., N 01 "" ...
::: CillO <II
~ ~ _ C
ill .. ~ .3 8-
_.:.: N'" ::l
_ _ e u
.:; ~... e: 0"-
" .
:II'" <11..,
..,:.., --
l_ 11/ 0 III
.. > ~ :.> 0.-
1Il"':l;J III
..;.... ..."1:1
,
,
,
,
.
"
~
~
o
.
."
.
. .
o .
~
. .
.
.~
. 0
.
. . 0
. . 0
... ." <II ..,
. 0 ~ ' ,
>0:>' U" :l:::
.....c Iooi .... IU
Co. IU :> ....
<II C III.". :l'"
..... :::........
CI III " III 0"'''
<:......... 0"
~ ~ z..; ~ U III
"C'" G1......
.. cue... 0 '"
011;:1'" 0 C. C.
> ...... l/I...
8"~~"al~':::
"'" :>...:11....
u ~ = &~ 1Ii
0'="''' "Ill I:P\
<II .. U III .., '0 e
o
... ...... .."'" ....
:: : .... ... 0 u ~ g
:J'" ::: III ~.c 0 ....
III tl'-""'"
01 on .... ::: '-' .. 'tl
III 011'" 0' III
c.::: c....... 0....111
0'" Ii 0'1';1 Ill"'..
_.cOOIll--c..
ctI .... u.... ..Q oC .... ..
~I
o
~ .
0": .
.~ ~
-~:;;I~
.- -
<.:l~!
-=1.'
~ -
-= c:ac
- O~
E ~,-
- '1
_i..a ...
E!;::....:I
0.1 .J:1U
~ 51~~"
-~ "
~-
~ .,
a:_~o:~
-~ ~
~"e
-. ~
~ > -Ie
Sc"'o
-- Q
u
~
~...
oCO
. ......
,~
. ~
o
o
u
~~
gO:;
:'.:.r-
,=
0'
.-
o~
>-
::::
.
'" ..... .
o , .
~ >,
,- .
0"'''' tl
.. i >0-:;
. ~
<= <= -....
".... III U
".I: l.o....
~ .. ".. .
t. I: 1:.>11.
!5 '5 ~ c g
,- .
~:s ..; c:
_ Gl .. \0....
..Q U " 'll
'" Ill:''' III
... .... 0 U ~
II) .. U c:
, .-
.. ..>11. ~..
~~8~]
.
>
o
, ~
. ~
. ~
.
.~
- .
, "
"
"
~
,
,
.
. .
..c
<tI
-
en
Gl
.::
-
<tI
Gl
a:
u
Q
w
<
c:c
'. !
ATTACHMENT ' B' .
.
, I
.
.
: . .
.
.
.
.
y
"
.
~!
~
=
:z:
CC
.....
-
-
c:.::I
.N
;....
~
..
f
-
-
-
~ ~
~
'" .
'g
.~
.~
't::
Q.:
......:""
-."
~j!
Qi;
.:::::.t.":
ji!l
o;~
,{j
,
41
,
,
:z:
=
==
==
=
-
I-
1
.
.
.-
i~ ~~
i~ i~ ;;
~
.
. .
~
,
. - 8
.
.
40
EXHIBIT NO. \")..-
P.. 5" OF 13
r
adjacent properties and homes. Several other smaller surficial slides are present on the
north and west facing slopes of the site.
~ .
croslon
Erosion related features have added to slope instability in the west central portion of the
site. The most prominent feature is a gully that is approximately 250 feet in length and
up to 10 feet in depth. The gully is eroded into deep, clay-rich colluvium. Northeast of
the gully is a series of smaller rills, gullies, and denuded ground. These features are
eroded into granular soils at the edge of the excavated area. All the erosional features
appear to be related to concentrated surface runoff from the excavated area.
Two small areas of artificial fill are present on the site, one along the southernmost
boundary and the other along the northeast boundary at the terminus of Warrens Way.
The fills consist of loosely compacted sandy and silty clays. Organic materials are
contained in the fill along the southern boundary)
.
.
,
Several surface seeps and springs are indicated on the geotechnical map of Herzog and
Associates (1981). A reconnaissance conducted in September, 1984,4 found vegetation
indicative of near surface water at some of the mapped spring locations but no flowing
water. Apparently these springs are of seasonal nature.
Seismicity
The nearest mapped active faults are the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 8
miles to the west of the site, and the Hayward Fault, approximately 10 miles to the east.
No faults are known to exist on the site. The site is subject to strong ground shaking
during severe earthquakes. Strong ground motion could trigger landslides on both natural
and graded slopes and could damage structures and utilities. Materials susceptible to
liquefaction were not observed on the site.
~
~
Impacts
,
~
j
i
J
.
;
Improvements associated with the Tiburon Highlands development plan will take place in
four development zones:
~
41
EXHIBIT NO.Ij..
~ ~ 6ft3>
I. The flat ridge top that was previously groded;
2. The upper portion of the west facing slope in the western portion of the site above
Leland Avenue;
3. The low-lying area in the western corners adjacent to lower Cecilia Way;
4. The eastern portion of the site adjacent to Worrens Way.
According to the applicant's development plan, (see map 5) grading in Zones I, 2 and 3 will
involve movement of approximately 85,900 cubic yards of soil and rock material.
Earthwork will include about 66,500 cubic yards of cut and 85,900 cubic yards of fill.
About 19,400 cubic yards of material will have to be imported onto the site to achieve the
proposed grading configuration. The volume of earthwork involved in grading of Zone 4
was not estimated in the applicant's development plan, but review of the grading plan
(dated 9/5/84), indicates that it will consist primarily of fill placement. (See Map 13)
Geologic and soils-related impacts fall into two major categories, slope stability hazards
and seismic hazards. These impacts are discussed below.
Slope Stability
I. Zone 2 development will require a fairly extensive cut and fill scheme. Fills more
than 20 feet thick will be placed on slopes of 3H:IV in an area of colluvial soils and
shallow landslides. The existing landslides in this area are presently dormant but
could be reactivated. The underlying bedrock probably contains a certain amount of
relatively soft, weak shale. Fill placement would add weight to the slope which
could trigger failure of the underlying soil and rock materials. Such a failure could
damage utilities, roads and structures founded within the fill.
2. Cuts of up to 20 feet deep are proposed in the northern part of Zone 2. Excavation
of cut oreas could oversteepen slopes, undermine zones of weakness, or remove
lateral support. The potential exists for triggering slope movements.
3. The geologic setting of the site is susceptible to reactivation of existing landslides
or development of new ones that may not be directly related to development. As an
example, an existing landslide on the north-facing slope above Karen Way was
reactivated during the heavy rains of January, 1982. Based on the existing condition
42
EXHIBIT NO.X7-
P..76F/3
"0
..
c
.
l-
e..
UJ
u
z
o
u
'"
z:
-
o
""
'"
'"
>-
'"
""
z:
.....
o
.~
E
C'>.<:
"u
.~V'>
"0
"'''''
....
"'''
o
E'"
o E
....'"
......~
~
=
:z:
-=
.....
=
~
-
=
:z:
o
==
~
=
-
~
..
..
f
z
-
....J
UJ
'"
e..
.<:
......
c. '"
OJ _
"0-
.~
OJ.....
......
"'"0
E "
.~ '"
x
0'"
..........
c.:>
c.u
""
"0-
OJ'~
+0)3;:
'" '<T
E -CO
._ c:.........
......"'.,-,
"'-.......
UJ e.. '"
VOl J
'"
~i
'\j f
()!
~ .
'n,
'Cl
O.~
........'0
~'c
t'y~ !
..0' "
on
CJl.":
.,
c..
..ci ..
Ot~
-\ g
<.j~
.
f
! . f
~.. . I
.
~ I . :
. .
: . i
.
i
. 0
u
o
'"
'"
""
""
OJ
U
.~
....
Co
:r:
OJ
-
>
~
V.XHIBIT NOJ
.~ O~I:!1
.
.
.
43
of the site, the principal hazard appears to be shallow landslides involving only soil
and colluvium. There is some potential for deep-seated landslides extending into
bedrock to develop. Large deep-seated landslides have developed in similar bedrock
in some locations in Marin County.
4. Proposed grading and site improvements will substantially alter surface and
subsurface drainage patterns. Surface diversions and irrigation wi II tend to collect
and concentrate water. Excess water, if allowed to percolate into slopes, could
trigger slope movements by increasing hydrostatic pore water pressure.
Concentrated surface water can also cause erosion and gullying of soils. The
applicants proposed storm drainage plan (Map 7) is designed to prevent concentrated
runoff from draining directly onto slopes.
5. Development on the flat, graded ridgetop will involve shallow cuts and fills.
Construction in this area is not likely to cause on-site slope stability problems
because relatively competent bedrock is close to the surface and slopes are gent Ie.
6. Development in Zone 3 will involve shallow cuts and fills. This .area is underlain by
fairly thick, clay-rich soils. Fill placement on these soils could cause differential
sett lement.
7. Grading of Zone 4 will involve plocing up to 20 feet of fill in an area underlain by
colluvium and artificial fill. A shallow landslide involving fill and colluvium is
present. The potential exists for triggering additional slope movements.
8. The potential for impacts to off-site property and structures appears to exist in two
areas:
a. On the north-facing slope above Karen Way
b. behind homes on Reed Ranch Road
Existing landslides are present on the site above Karen Way. One of these was
reactivated during the intense rains of January, 1982, sending rock and soil into
properties adjacent to the site. A cribwall and surface droinage diversions were
subsequently installed to minimize additional slope movements.
.
,
,
44
EXHIBIT NO. l~
f! cr Dr-: 13
The slope behind the residences on Reed Ranch Road is a relatively steep cuts lope.
Most of it lies outside the project site. It is not likely that landslides on this slope
would originate inside the site boundary. There is some potential that slope
movements or rockfalls could be triggered during construction of the project due to
vibrations. Excess runoff during or after construction could also contribute to slope
movements. Homes along Leland Way appear to be beyond the reach of potential
landslides originating within the site.
9. There is a potential for mudflows occurring during rainy periods in areas disturbed
by grading or construction. Mudflows could damage both on-site and off-site
structures. Off-site property that could be impacted included homes along Karen
Way and Reed Ranch Road. This hazard is likely to occur only during construction
and far a limited period after. It is considered more of a nuisance than a danger.
Seismic Hazards
10. No active or potentially active faults are known to exist on the site. The nearest
fault with known recent activity is the San Andreas fault, approximately 8 miles to
the west. The likelihood of fault rupture on the site is minimal.
II. The site is in a seismically active region of the earth's crust. As such, it is subject
to severe groundshaking during strong earthquakes. Earthquakes of a damaging
intensity can be expected to occur sometime during the life of the proposed
development, and improperly designed structures, walls, utilities, cuts, fills and
slopes are likely to suffer extensive domage.
12. Liquefaction is the temporary loss of strength of a saturated, loose, granular soil
during strong shaking, as during an earthquake. Soils susceptible to liquefaction
were not encountered on the site; therefore, there is little risk of liquefaction.
13. Settlement of fills can be expected over time, and this can cause distress in
structures, rupture utility lines, or cause unevenness in roads. Settlements of 1-1/2
percent of the thickness of the fill are expected. Where new fill is placed on older
engineered fill or colluvium, additional settlements can be anticipated.
45
FVPTnIT l\TO I"
.A..:.J..t.'\-L .1.__........~ 1 . . C-'
P. If:> Df=-13
r
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
Mitiqation
I.a The potential hazards of placing fill on slopes covered with colluvium and shallow
landslide materials can be mitigated by removing and recompacting the loose soils
and by keying the fill into firm, stable bedrock. Additional soil investigations are
required during final design and a geologist should be present during fill placement
to observe bedrock conditions. Other stabilization measures which may be
appropriate include retaining walls, earth buttresses, benches, and surface and
subsurface drains (responsibility of applicant, project engineer and construction
contractor).
I.b Where utilities are located in loose fill and colluvium, it will be necessary to provide
flexible joints to accommodate creep movement (responsibility of applicant and
construction contractor).
2. Cutslope height and steepness should be determined by additional design level
geotechnical investigations. Stability of cutslopes can be increased by properly
designed retaining walls and surface and subsurface drainage facilities
(responsibility of applicant and project engineer).
3.a Further geotechnical investigations should be performed during final design and site
development to clearly define the lateral and subsurface extent of existing unstable
areas and establish their effect on proposed development area. Structures and
utilities should be set back from unrepaired slides so that they are not affected by
potential slide enlargement. The reactivated slide above Karen Way should be re-
evaluated to determine whether the existing stabilization measures are adequate.
Bedrock conditions should be observed by a geologist during grading to evaluate the
potential for deep-seated sliding within graded areas. This is most important on the
west-facing slope that appears to be underlain in part by weak shale (responsibility
of town).
3.b Where utilities extend through unrepaired slide areas, it will be necessary to extend
utilities into firm rock below the slide plane (responsbility of applicant, project
engineer and construction contractor).
46
"P""T"-_TTDTm 1\ 0 \"'7_
.;.'~:LQl....:"l.l ..I.. T . y
p, II (p 13
4. Storm runoff concentrated within developed zones must be efficiently diverted away
from slopes and conveyed into storm drains. It is particularly important to prevent
surfoce runoff from draining onto existing unstable areas such as the slope above
Karen Way, and onto fills and cutslapes. The applicant's preliminary storm drainage
plan appears to effectively control concentrated runoff. However this problem
should be a matter af detailed consideration during design. Runoff should also be
diverted away from the slope behind the residences on Reed Ranch Road.
Construction of impervious barriers, such as retaining walls and basement walls,
should be designed with backdrains to prevent excess hydrostatic pressure, which
could impede groundwater flows and raise groundwater levels. Storm drains, utility
conduits and swimming pools should be carefully located and constructed so that the
potential of saturation of slope materials due to rupture is minimized (responsibility
of opplicant, project engineers and construction contractor).
5. No mitigation is necessary.
6. To mitigate the effect of differential fill settlement in Zone 3 structures should be
supported on piers founded into firm bedrock below the fill and soil materials.
7. Artificial fill within Zone 4 is probably not suitable for use as engineered fill and
should be removed. Colluvium and shallow landslide materials should be removed
and recompacted. Fills should be keyed into firm, competent bedrock. Retaining
walls, buttresses and drainage facilities should be installed if needed.
B. The slide area above Karen Way should be re-evaluated ta determine whether
additional stabilization measures are needed. It would be beneficial to grade the
area adjacent to the slope behind the residences on Reed Ranch Road during the dry
season when the slope is least prone to disturbances from vibrations or runoff.
9.a Mudflows originating during construction can be effectively mitigated through
restricting construction to the dry season.
9.b Erosion control measures such as planting, siltation ponds and silt fencing should be
required for at least one winter season after construction (responsibility of town).
47
.''''~::'''"'DTT l\JO l~
. .J..t-.1,J.. 1 .
P. 1"2.. eFt3
9.c Structures located on the lower slopes in Zones 2 and 3 should be protected from
potential mudflows by providing a level buffer area between structures and upslopes,
or by providing temporary catchment walls for protection from slough debris
(responsiblity of applicant and construction contractor).
10. No mitigation is necessary.
II. All improvements, including structures, fills, utilities, and roads should be designed
to withstand severe ground shaking. The latest seismic safety building and
engineering techniques should be employed (responsibility of applicant, project
engineer and town).
12. No mitigation is necessary.
13. Settlement is very likely to occur in new fills, and in older, loose fills and soil
(colluvium) that are not recompacted. Structures should be designed to
accommodate settlement; where this is unacceptable, it will be necessary to support
improvements (structures, utilities, roads, etc.) on piers extending into firm
materials below fill (responsibility of applicant and structural engineer).
NOTES: Geolooy and Soils
I. Salem Rice, U.S. Geological Survey, 1976.
2. Herzog and Associates, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Tiburon Highlands,
January 14, 1981.
3. Ibid.
4. Mark Weigers, Engineering Geologist, Georesources Inc., September 1984.
48
--Y"-~--nT
: ;LtiL:::.~T .NO.~
? ('3 Ofl~
-""
t ",
r..
(
Herzog AI..,lales
Geoscjentlst~
---
1318 Re~woo~ Way. SUlle 200
Petaluma. CA 94954
Tel (707) 792.5600
Fax (707) 792.5695
(
March 27, 1990
Job No. 2716,1-1-1
u~n -Wn~.
n~I....s..__
~ mf1:,~ . :'.\ IHIH) !l':'ur O! CO";l,l'''f
Grange Debris Box and Wrecking Company, Inc.
2021 Francisco Boulevard
San Rafael, California 94902
Attention: Mr. Fred Grange
'-
RE: Geotechnical Services During Slide Repair
and Site Grading
Lots 14, 15 and 16
Tiburon Highlands
Tiburon, California
Gentlemen:
This leller presents the resuhs of ou.r geotechnical services during the slide repair
on Lots 14, 15 and 16 at Tiburon Highlands located in Tiburon, California, We
previously performed a geotechnical investigation of the site and presented the
results in our report dated July 22, 19~5. Our November I, 1989, letter discussed
several items related to the site grading 1hat needed corrections.
~
Site grading began in lune, 1989. Our Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG)
observed the keyway excavation prior to fill placement. The keyway extended a
minimum of 2 feet into rock and run.' from east 10 west as shown on Sheet G-4
dated July 19, 1989, prepared by CSW ConsullUnts,
Our CEG also approved the depth of excavation for removal of slide debris and
the suspected slide plain, Benches were excavated into hedrock and/or firm
material prior to placing compacted fill. We intermittently observed the placement
of three subdrains including one placed on the inhoard side of the keyway, The
subdrains consist of perforated drain pipe enveloped with J/4 inch drain rock and
filter fabric. Filter fabric was not used in the keyway drain, All the subdrains are
provided with clean outs.
We inrermiuently observed and tested compacled fill. The fill was placed in thin
lifts, moisture conditioned as necessary and compaCted to at least 90 percent
maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D1557-70(C) laboratory test.
Field density tests were performed with a Campbell Nuclear Gauge in accordance
with ASTM D-2922-81.
~/~
jtn~~tlqc
EXHIBIT NO. 13
p. I DP- 2. -'
III I/'I
Hlrmg Als.clot..
---
(
-~
Lots 14, 15 and 16
Tiburon Highlands
lob No. 2716,1-1-1
Page 2 - March 27, 1990
Based on our intermittent observations and testing we judge the site excavations,
subdrains and compacted fill are generally in accordance with the intent of our
geotechnical recommendations.
'..-'
However, some loose fill still remains on the site as outlined in Item No.2
presented in our November 1, 1989, leller. The main areas of concern are at the
toe of the fill slope adjacent to the scrub oak trees and above the old railroad
right-of-way and at the outer edge of the road near the large oak ITee. The loose
fill should be removed or compacted. The outer edge of the road below the large
oak tree is as steep as 1-1/2 horizontal [0 I vertical (1-1/2:1), it should be no
steeper than 2-1/2:1.
Our services did not include establishing construction line or grade of observation
and testing of the water main. We are not aware if road subgrade has been
established and we have not tested it for the recommended 95 percent relative
compaction.
We have provided a summary of our field density test data on Plates 1 through 3.
We trust this provides the information you require at this time.
'---'
Yours very truly,
HERZOG ASSOCIATES
T~~
v
John Colwell
Staff Engineer
~c~
Lyle E. Lewis
Principal Engineer - 523
""::--'-'-I-~
.,'~ '~.:,\Jr ......,l 1/"'.11
. <<- ~-~- , ..
J'.',/.'. '.~ ".._'" <'-1,..~
i~~"F "0.' '.~- '~~\,
-' ..___3 ).1
~:~ \ r,.=: u6"3;~"'" . to if
," / J
~ . r ."-'/. ,"
'-\ "" ,,' 'oj
'_ f'X:O,~"'.':.':"Y'"
""';'r~~.'"..:"""
,VI;, '" ~., (tU'/
"~..~_.:'r ~.....\,,_"-:
JC:LELts:mc (560-52)
cc: Stan Bala
EXHIBIT NO. l)
"p 2..-- oFL
89 47096
~C!",!""jj~::n \ - ::;=G"-~T OF
:__........t.....'-..... Al ,",... t.1t:~
AGENCY SHOWN
j"C" 11'''' f'""
')iJ~ kLu", ""\ P;J, I. r 'D
v v 'd I. 'oJ"
Town of TIBURON
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
arii~ ~ ((;r,~ U \Vl~ ~
:~, . '1989
FINANCE OEPARTMENT
"'"(lWN OF TIBURON
1).' o;{- ~~~::,7:~.F:;~=~O~JS
; ;'''I\Jfll" 'iJl. i ~ :: 1,' l::r'RNtA
J~t-1ES 't~1. In ;t:~ JO~l\' ;~
Recording Requested by,
When Recorded, mail to:
REC!IVED
SEP - 'f 1989
----------------------------------------------le~~~~Q~------
Dept. of Community Development 1'1. ~
CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ~
(Division 2 of Title 7, Section 66499.35, California Government Code)
The Town of Tiburon, pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision
Map Act, has determined that the real property described below was
not divided in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map
Act and of applicable subdivision regulations of the Town of Tiburon
enacted pursuant thereto, and therefore issues this Conditional
certificate of Compliance pursuant to the provisions of California
Government Code 966499.35.
Property Owner(s) of Record:
(as shown on the latest
equalized assessment roll)
Fred C. Grange, an unmarried man
Record Cate for Subiect Property: Recorded April 7, 1988,
Recorder's Serial No. 88 17800,
Marin County Records
Assessor's Parcel Number:
38-182-20
Description:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and incorporated herein.
Note:
The description in Exhibit "A" attached has been taken
from the Preliminary Title Report prepared by Pacific
Coast Title Company of Marin dated 5/3/89, Order No.
78252-BH, and neither the Town of Tiburon nor any of its
officers or employees assume responsibility for the
accuracy of said description.
( ~"~
'.....U;
I ~ ~ .
V'
"fl' F ~y\y~ 1
.e... uUr
N'OT, Rr~~ov. r"
i [IViU\'t
EXHIBIT NO...J.j.
'P. {ovro
Page 1 of 2
89 ~70oS
Conditions:
This Conditional certificate of Compliance is expressly conditioned
so as to require that prior to the issuance of a permit or other
grant of approval for any development of the property there shall be
compliance by the property owner, or any subsequent transferee of the
property, with the following conditions and requirements.
See "Exhibit B" attached hereto and incorporated herein.
This Conditional certificate of Compliance shall in no way affect the
require-ments of any other County, State, Federal, or local agency
that regulates development of real property; nor does it affect
applicable regulations of the Town of Tiburon governing the
construction of improvements to real. property.
Dated, a ~ '1 ' ,,L?
TOWN OF TIBURON
A Municipal corporation
.-
- "
,
. ,
......
!
TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF TIBJRO'
EXHIBIT NO._ 14
p, '2- o~0
a 9 _U_o a LH
78252-EIi
IES:lUPI'Ia.l
All tnat oarta.in real property situate in the C1 ty of T:lbJrcn
County of M3rln, State of California, desc:ribed as follcws:
BEGINNnU at the Sou1:holest .........-= of IDt 21 M3p of Aeedlerxi IbXIs filed July 27, 1965
in ax:k 13 of M3ps at Page 23, ~ tteD! Sart:h 5" 10' West to a point at the
Scluth!rly line of the ~ Pacific Railroad Cb. right of way (rDW aballckued)
said point also ~ at the N..u.11.e.cly line of lot 62 M3p of Bel Aire Fstates filed
!O.=:u... 21, 1950 .1.'1 B.:::lc* 7 of Maps lit Page az, runnirg tiHD;, Easterly 8lcng said R.R.
right of way line to 8 point at the N::lrt:tEaster1y line of lot 77 M:Ip of ~ 'I' aOOs Unit
3 filed far L~cI ~l=Il-= 4, 1958 in ax:k 10 of Maps at Page 4, said point bear1rg
Scuth 53" 33'" East 75.57 feet arrl Sa.rt:h 47" 47' East 10 feet, frc:m the IIDS't N:...U-=r1y
LUI.le.L of said lot, tte:oe N...u. !:Jerly in a direct line to 8 point en the Southerly line
of IDt 3 M3p of Peed1and lb:lds (13 ~ 23) seld poir:t being Easterly 10 feet, f= tte
~ly ..........-= of said lot, ronnir.g tieD! lLl=ly 8l~ the Sc:::uth!rly bcun:laIy of
said l' "'~ W::lods SnbOfvis.ien to the point of beginn;f.nJ.
EXHIBIT NO. 1t..J.
1'. 3 cp (p
EXHIBIT A
89 470?~
EXHIBIT "B"
CONDITIONS FOR GRANGE CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
(ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 38-182-20 OF 1988 MAPS)
1. Provided that all conditions can be met and all necessary
aeprova1s secured, development of the property shall be
limited to a maximum of one single family dwelling and
allowable ancillary improvements. A restriction shall be
recorded on the deed of the property to ensure that no
further subdivision of the parcel IS permitted.
2. Prior to issuance of d0Y building or grading permits,
design review approval shall be secured from the Town.
3. Prior to issuance of a design review permit, the pro~erty
owner shall provide proof of legal and acceptable access
through an adjacent parcel to a publlcly owned and
mainta~ned s~reet. If access is proposed through adjacent
proper-tv known as the "Highlands", it is likely that
amendments to the Tiburon Highlands Development Agreement,
Highlands Master Plan, and Highlands Precise Plan would need
to be aeproved by the Town and with the consent of the
affected property owners. Furthermore, any application to
2xpa~d the subject property by lot line adjustmeGt or other
means, should such expansion involve property included in
thE Highlands, is likely to require amendments to the
High:ands Development Agreement, Highla;,ds Master Plan, and
High2a:lds Precise Plan.
4. The property owner shall agree in a form acceptat:le to
the Town Attorney not to protest the initiation of a
rezoning cf ~his parcel 50 as to appropriately implemerlt the
Town's General Plan which is currently under revision.
5. In the event that a slngle family dwelling is approved
for the property, prior to issuance of building permits, the
owner shall pay, as requil-ed by Town ordinances in effect on
April 7, 1988, Tiburon Boulevard improvement fees of $1,972
and park and recreation in-lieu fees or $500.
6. All requirements of the Alto-Richardson Bay Fire
Protection District shall be met.
7. Ccnnection to the Richardson Bay Sanitary District shall
be r-eqL.;, i l-ed.
8. All requirements of the Town Engineer shall be satisfied
pr~or to issuance of building permits.
9. Prior to issuance of building permits, the owner shall
obtain written confirmation from MMWD that the property can
be served. Connection to MMWD facilities is required.
EXHIBIT NO. (4
P'toVb
89 ~70ge
10. Prior to issuance of building permits,
obtain written confirmation from PG&E that
be adequately served.
the owner sha 11
the property may
11. No removal of trees shall be permitted prior to securing
of design review approvals, unless prior written
authorization is obtained from the Planning Director. A
"tree protection plan" shall be filed with application for
desIgn review, with the emphasis on preserving existing
trees which buffer the property from residences on Reed
Ranch Road.
12. Prior to issuance of design review entitlements, a soils
report shall be prepared and a drainage study conducted to
the satisfaction of the Town Engineer.
EXHIBIT NO. /Lj
p.'5"CP&>
t= I\re '/::;/ 0 H
-I ~NL
= l ----, i -:rn
- \ '
- \~j
..- \ ~~ 7" ~
~~:~ ~.
"cY GY .V~
~>;>s~:;~\-) '1 Al- ~~
.~~~' ?b~\ ~t- ~~ !\ !
~ 11 ~ ~ ~\ "-
'CJ:~ ',=::: -:::' '" j
o ~ 'l~~~". ~ ~ v~
. \ V ~\;:::: '01 --' ! ,...
'?o
-:s-
...
n- o?
;1 11 \) Ll,- 0
, 1\ ~ ::.:. II \ ~
I ~ \. \ . 0"" ~ ~
7> r;/i /!A h \1l0, ~ \
y/ , )1 ,I: --"v 0: '\ j ~ A
~~1{1'" ~,~~~/ ~\/71
,..." -I r--V L 1... ,\"'--- J:teI. '
,"J,. // ~C ~ tl ~y Y, ~ ~y
~/ ~'" ~!'~U/I ~~ \'2 ~
\.. / / p~~ ~L/\ ~ '" _ :s
'" I, ~?J"f<')~'- 1 j \ 1 f!$!)~~X-(j ff{ I / _-;~
~{J ..... _ __~
I . -c..\ Hj
.... \ \ }.--:r- -; '< -~ .--fP- ~Q
%'" \ 1 ~. ~ II ;
\ \ L '''\< . ,- rb.. ).k-J II ~
\ \ ~ f \
'F \\ . ,~ N"~ ~ f-......... . 1-
} , '.... I ^"<.! T-,JL- \ ~j -., y
..... ", --~ ~..;/!i'Y;'"'N -' >>7.. m
~\ ~~ ' -, ......, \ ~q ~ k:..., .. ") ~o j
)!(~ '-",,' ....~ '"--../. -,...<,... '--'.
~ J ~'''~O'--~ ~ ~ y~ ~
~.... ,', ~...r-__ - '<:Y..I r, ~
T:17LT--H::-"T ?>.Tn /4 "'\~-r- '- _'/ l! ~
.c.;AJ:].l~J.J.'u._ \ //\~--.J........
? 0 Dr V> \\ / I ,r;---'.-'J _____
',~~
//~
-,.---'
/
/ ,57 f\-C"
",<"
~ ..' /
- /
I~ \!I\ V
~~
/ I'
~
A~
,
_l
~-<
(")
,...
~
,
-
j(
Recording requested,
when recorded, mail to:
Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Attn: Scott Anderson
CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
(Division 2 of Title 7, Section 66499.35, California Government Code)
The Town of Tlburon, pursuant to the provisions of the SubdiviSion Map Act, has determined that the real
property described below was created by deed in 1886 prior to the existence of the Subdivision Map Act.
The Town of Tiburon therefore issues this Conditional Certificate of Compliance pursuant to the provisions
of California Government Code S66499.35.
Prooertv Owner's) of Record: Fred C. Grange, an unmarried man (as shown on the latest
equalized assessment roll)
Record Date for Prooertv: Recorded October 13, 1992, Recorder's Serial No. 92-081377, Marin
County Records
Assessor's Parcel Number: 38-322-11
Descriotion: See Exhibit 'A' attached hereto and incorporated herein. Exhibit 'B'
attached hereto graphically depicts the property for illustrative purposes
only.
Note: The description in Exhibit 'A' has been taken from the Preliminary Title
Report prepared by Pacific Coast Title Company of Marin Dated 3/13/95,
Order No. 105479-J, and neither the Town of Tiburon nor any of its officers
or employees assume responsibility for the accuracy of said description.
Condition:
This Conditional Certificate of Compliance is expressly conditioned so as to require that prior to
the issuance of a permit or other grant of approval for any development of the property there shall
be compliance by the property owner, or any subsequent transferee of the property, with the
conditions and requirements as set forth fully in Exhibit 'C' attached hereto and incorporated
herein.
This Conditional Certificate of Compliance shall in no way affect the requirements of any other County,
State, Federal, or local agency that regulates development of real property; not does it affect applicable
regulations of the Town of Tiburon governing the construction of improvements to real property.
By:
TOWN OF TlBURON, A Municipal Corporation
-,
.~.dt a~/~~t~_'
Scott Anderson
Planning Director
Dated: April 21, 1995
E:iffiIBIT NO. /0
P. {CFLf
EXHIBIT "N'
DESCRIPTION
"BEGINNING at the Southwest corner of Lot 2.1, as shown upon "Map of Reedland Woods Unit
One", filed for record July 27, 1955 in Volume 13 of Maps at page 23, Marin County
Records, running thence North 850 04' West to a point which bears North 50 30' East
from the Northeast corner of Lot 76, as shown upon "Map of Bel Aire Estatesll, filed for
record April 8, 1953 in Book 7 of Maps at page 82, Marin County Records, thence South
50 30' West to the Northeast corner of said Lot 76, running thence Easterly along the
Nor~herly boundary line of said Map of Bel Aire Estates to_a_point which bears South SO
09' West from the point of beginning, thence North'50 09' East to the point of
beginning.
EXHIBIT NO.ltL
p, 2-op'-(
.'
~
c-
r
~
.$?
"
~
,
'"
...
...
~
Q
"
Q.
~
o
o
Q.
~
1'.
c
"
~
'"
. ~
. .
~ ~
~ ~
, -
. .'
'"
3:
?a
~ ,
~ ~
~~
.~ ~
. .
~~
~ 1
. ,
5 :.
"'"
~~
, .
. ,
h
~
C) '^
'"
.., ~
0 ",
2- ~
, "'
0 ,-
~ ii"
3: "
(l,
Q ,~
; l.
""
;,
I
... , .,~~.., ...
'_--':__~~,'J,'_'
," "7.-"
C)
u ,
::- "11
._ 10.1
,.
i-j
,,::1'
EXHIBIT "B"
/.,:.
,~. I
,~,/
,,'>v'
0'"'1"1
-@
g~3
h
o
:'::. ".I....,
.. ~ 4' .<.J
C)
. /
/
.,
"
.'\'~' /'
..~,~ ..
...~:/II .;./;,
>~ ~'/ .~;< / :.~'
~",:'",' ~ " /
F /'-'-~' '@ /,
.,,1 ~",. ,."."..:"
- ~ . .. ~;' -.. ' . (
;/(/ ": @,..::...'",: '0'
~ ;:. I
a<I,:" "~~'l"..
!:::' I l~~:".~'.'~
. ",:y
<~ i~l,f.~/i) ~:'.:;~;-;:-; '..::';.@
-....,,,J..... , """.......
- "'..,:!- I ....~-'
-'.~, "
~OA!J :" ", . ~qJ~
, -'I
1->" :'1'" I
, ~-;>>- i .l.~)
1_ \l' ., ..
\y ,j "
',: I I
., .
i: "
, ,..
;j ,~@f
'" I.
" " ~
...
'~ I
! ~' Ii
"';. ,
, ~I (
,I ..
OJ '\1 ,
:"" I
L i:
:0: '
}P~. ,l
~!, '
,t I,
\~! .
.:1 I ,
i~ , :
:, ,
" '
. , ,
"r '
).J ,
=: ----
@
~ ,:,/T"'- -.,. .
/';:"" .".~,
~ ';<' . -'"
'."
I, "'-.:..
: ~ ;(1 (" ,"\:
n ' ~ \:
,S!:\ \ @ \~
.X ,~ ~) ..~~-
",'.:.. ~ \ :;r/ i
'l'c,@" ~ ~./, :u
" '$o.~ b
I ~ 0'''''' 2
Ii ~-'l'" 0'/ (')
: >,d----......~ ....'.~" ~~ :I:
~"" X ~
I;: (2) " j~o,~ 0
,:: ~ :.:;.....,;: / ::n
h\ c/; n::
,.
"
. ?
i::
: 0
. fl1
:u
l:>
, 0
,
, fl1
(r:;;\ r
" "'. "U
'_.-'
~ :u
, fl1
U'l
-, 0
-, n
Hf, t- o
."
, Vi
< ....
. ~ :<: I
h ( -
.; ~ 2
0 I
I
SO'........,,'
\\
\\
~
,.'17"'-.
\\0
1\
'\1
,
,
.
~
" .
,~ ~
\' .1. J:~
II
c6\\ .
II
. ,
, ,
^
...... ~O:J'-",',,' 1-
~ ,/0I~, I ~
,
,
>,
",iJ
0,,1-
..'
1'1
I,
,.,0...1..),';'"
/}<j-' "
.
, .
" ,
.
~' .:
(;J
Ii
to ~ .'" ~ I
" ,
J"../.j...."J,.
,
, .
, "I
\l~
._" J~ I.
,
ff'o "
10) '"
.'
;:: ,~
.
"
~::'!-~...,,-
I; '......
'.
"
I,
I
I .
J-:- ~:'-
~ . ..,~., ..".
00
;; r.
"cD
...1.'"
'- -
:!:-
'~"~l
, ~w,~ ':
"$"i. ~.a .l-~t~
(~)
-:/:
,.
i '''')
I \.Q.
1/
(~
'J'
Ie
'.
,
1.5'
: .
EXHIBIT NO.
p, '3 DF L{ _>.
o
--
.
c;'
,
'"
o
..
b
"
Q
VJ
CO
,
VJ
N
EXHIBIT "C" "
CONDITIONS FOR GRANGE CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
(ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 38-322-11 OF 1992 MAPS)
1. Provided that all conditions can be met and all necessary approvals secured, development of the
property shall be limited to a maximum of one single family dwelling and allowable ancillary
improvements, A restriction shall be recorded on the deed of the property to ensure that no further
subdivision of the parcel is permitted.
2. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, design review approval shall be secured from
the Town.
3. Prior to issuance of a design review permit, the property owner shall provide proof of legal and
acceptable access. If access is proposed through property in the nearby Tiburon Highlands
subdivision, amendments to the Tiburon Highlands Master Plan and/or Precise Plan shall be
required.
4. Any application to change the lot lines of the parcel, should such change involve property included
in the Tiburon Highlands subdivision, shall require amendments to the Tiburon Highlands Master
Plan and/or Precise Plan.
5, All requirements of the Alto-Richardson Bay Fire Protection District shall be met.
6, Connection to the Richardson Bay Sanitary District shall be required,
7. All requirements of the Town Engineer shall be satisfied prior to issuance of building permits.
8. Prior to issuance of building permits, the owner shall obtain written confirmation from MMWD that
the property can be served, Connection to MMWD facilities is required.
9. Prior to issuance of building permits, the owner shall obtain written confirmation from PG&E that
the property may be adequately served,
10, No removal of trees shall be permitted prior to securing of design review approvals, unless prior
written authorization is obtained from the Planning Director. A "tree protection plan' shall be filed
with any application for design review, with the emphasis on preserving existing trees which buffer
the property from residences on Karen Way
11. Prior to issuance of design review entitlements, a soils report shall be prepared and a drainage
study conducted to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer,
12, Prior to the issuance of design review permits, the owner shall provide documentation to the
satisfaction of the Town Attorney which demonstrates that a restriction on the deed recorded on
October 7, 1886, in Volume 4, page 54 of the official records of Marin County, has been cleared
or is otherwise inapplicable, The restriction limits the use of the property to railroad right of way
and appurtenant structures and for no other or further purpose.
\scott\grange.coc
EXHIBIT NO. I :r
P. 4 OF Lf . -.
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
To: DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER
From: ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN ATTORNEY
Subject: CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
BLACKFIELD DRIVE
Date: June 12, 1997
As requested by Planning Director Scott Anderson, this memorandum is for your use in analyzing the
appeal of Conditional Certificate of Compliance No. COC97-01.
Under the Subdivision Map Act, Govt. Code gg66410 et seq., an owner or purchaser of real property
is entitled to request the Town to determine whether that property complies with the Map Act and
the Town's subdivision ordinances. If the Town detennines that the property is in compliance, it
must issue a Certificate of Compliance suitable for recording with the Marin County Recorder's
Office.
If the Town determines that the property does not comply with the Map Act and the Town's
subdivision ordinances, it must issue a Conditional Certificate of Compliance which sets forth the
conditions that must be met before the Town will issue a pennit or other grant of approval for
development of the property. The nature of those conditions will depend on (1) the date that the
property was improperly divided; and (2) the date that the applicant for the Certificate of Compliance
acquired their interest in the property. If the applicant owned the property at the time of the improper
division, the conditions imposed are those that would be applicable to a current subdivision of the
property. However, if the applicant acquired their interest after the division, the conditions should
be those that would apply to a subdivision at the time that the applicant acquired their interest.
The Map Act appears to require that the Town issue either a Certificate of Compliance or a
Conditional Certificate of Compliance upon request from a qualified applicant. However, there is a
general provision of the Map Act that precludes the Town from issuing any permit or other approval
necessary for development for improperly divided property where the Town finds that development
of such property is contrary to the public health or the public safety.
CERTOCOM,DMW
EXHIBIT No./6
? I ()P ?..-
,
.
Daniel M. Watrous
Certificate of Compliance No. COC97-01
Page 2
June 12, 1997
You have advised me that the property that is the subject of Certificate of Compliance No, COC97-
01 was divided from the adjoining properties in 1986 without compliance with the Map Act and the
Town's subdivision ordinances, You have further advised me that the applicant acquired her interest
in 1992. Accordingly, the Town should issue a Certificate of Compliance subject to any conditions
that would have been applicable to a division of the land in 1992, The Town may only refuse to issue
a Certificate of Compliance jfthe Town finds, based on evidence in the record, that development of
the property is inconsistent with public health or public safety.
~~
Town Attorney
CERTOCOM,DMW
EXHIBITNO./b
%'. 2. OY2.....-
-'"
<I)'D
,,<I)
'0'0
".-
/
/
/
/.
'0'
\
0'
.~
ee\
~\
e
{'~
-
v
. "~~_.~"...- ........"'.,.
<1)<1)
<I)'
':J'^ 0.."
'0'
7,'0
\3\3-\3\3-\4
W53-9S.00
It)
...
~
o
...J
99 0 tlo0S:
;.;( L L Z
I', 20 DO:;
.N
10
-
'\
\
\
\
\
/'\ '{b. "
~ \ "'",
...-/,/ ~ ~
./. ~:-\
//\\Cb~ ~
/ .~/
/' ~
\ ...-
(
~\
<",
\
/'
.........
\ ':J/
\,./
-"'il
~
o
...J
\
"I
\~
'.
b
o
Z
E-<
.....
P=I
~
kJ
SV;<
\3-"<
r'" \
"v77\\.\\
N 52-15-0\3-W
100.00 .~
I
I -m.Ol
~., <" J ~ ~
~I~ r",oooo.;?s!V . r-..
~Q ~- ' lS)~
~I _~I~ ~
I iJll~
l '"
. .Ze> -.J
-fA _OO.OO~-N
-- -----,
:+,Lb
w
,
<Sl
<Sl
<Sl
<Sl
al
'"
I
Z
00'<22
N
ID
'"'
'"
-'- ---,
---:;:Z:lf ~ll
. -~I
--"-'~ -.J
I
-61.,.
"'I-
\..-_J b
...J
o
I
~
oS'
\0
/
/
I
't-
~
RESOLUTION NO. 97-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
DENYING A ZONE CHANGE, A PRECISE DEVELOPJ\1ENT PLAN AMENDJ\1ENT,
A MASTER PLAN AMENDJ\1ENT AND A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
TO ADJUST LOT LINES FOR TIIREE LOTS,
INCORPORATE TWO SEPARATE EXISTING PARCELS INTO
TIIE TIBURON HIGHLAJ'IDS PRECISE DEVELOPJ\1ENT PLAN AND MASTER PLAN,
AND ADJUST ONE BUli.DING ENVELOPE
END OF WARREN'S WAY
ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 34-360-10 34-360-11 38-182-20 & 38-322-11
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town ofTiburon does resolve as follows:
Section I. Findings.
A. On December 4, 1996, the Town of Tiburon received an application for a zone change, a
precise development plan amendment, a master plan amendment and a lot line adjustment to
adjust lot lines for three lots, incorporate two separate existing parcels into the Tiburon
Highlands Precise Development Plan and Master Plan and adjust one building envelope for
the subject property (Applications #R96-02, #39603 and #69605). The application consists
of the following:
I. Application Form received December 4, 1996
2. Site Plan and Driveway Plan received July 23, 1997
3. Drainage Study prepared by Questa Engineering Corporation, April 7, 1997
4. Addendum to the Drainage Study prepared by Questa Engineering Corporation, April
14, 1997
5. Biological Study prepared by Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., December 27, 1996
C. The Planning Commission held duly-noticed public hearings on August 13, 1997, and
September 10, 1997, and heard and considered testimony from interested persons.
D. The Planning Commission, based upon application materials and analysis presented in the
August 13 and September 10, 1997 Staff Reports as well as visits to the site and public
testimony, finds that the proposal is inconsistent with the required findings necessary to
approve each of the aspects of the subject application, as described below:
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 97.21
October 8, 1937
1
1~'O;r"".r"i""_._~_
, , ,..::''l,'r-1 r ;}....;. ~ f " '""
- ""--'-..:......;...~....:.;..'
p.
18
(OF)'
I. Zone Change
(A) Section 4.09.05 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance states that unless the proposed zone
change is consistent with the General Plan, then the Commission shall deny the
application. The proposed project is found to be inconsistent with the following
policies of the Tiburon General Plan and does not, on balance, further the goals and
objectives of the General Plan:
I) Policy No. LU-3 of the Land Use Element states that "the Town shall closely
consider the environmental constraints of land through the development
review process in determining the location, type, and density of development."
The environmental studies prepared for this project indicate a variety of
potential biological, drainage, geological and pedestrian impacts which would
occur as a result of the proposed project.
2) Land Use Policy No. LU-12 states that "in Planned Residential Districts. new
development should be located on the least environmentally sensitive and least
hazardous portions of vacant lands wherever feasible to promote sound land
development and planning practices." Due to the presence of the landslide
identified in the geological study prepared for the Tiburon Highlands
subdivision, Lot 15 would likely be considered one of the more
environmentally sensitive areas within the Tiburon Highlands subdivision.
Locating three houses on an area previously approved for one dwelling would
be inconsistent with this policy.
3) Policy OSC-ll of the Open Space and Conservation Element states that "the
Town shall encourage location of structures in a manner which minimi7es tree
removal and grading. Specifically. grading shall be kept to a minimum." The
creation of the building envelope for the proposed Lot 15C would result in the
construction that would involve the removal of several mature oak and
eucalyptus trees. The proposed project would also locate three dwelling tmits
on a landslide area that was previously considered appropriate for only one
home.
(B) The Commission further finds that all other former railroad parcels in the Town are
designated either Publk (having been acquired by the Town) or RO-2, and that there
is no compelling reason to rezone the railroad parcels to a Planned Residential.
Development zone.
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 97-21
October 8, 1007
2
T;~~:~.~II.:-=:T~ T'~T'O. te
r, 'l/uP:)
II. Precise Development Plan and Master Plan Amendment
Section 4.08.04 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance lists principles that must be applied
in order to approve an amendment to a Precise Development. The proposed project
is found to be inconsistent with the following principles of this Section:
(A) Principle (b) states that "preservation of the natural features of the land shall
be achieved to the maximum extent feasible through minimization of grading
and sensitive site design." Although the project would not alter any
distinguishing natural land features on the site, extensive grading will be
necessary to stabilize the existing landslide area for the construction of the
three proposed houses.
(B) Principle (d) states that "every reasonable effort should be made to preserve...
mature trees." Several mature trees would be removed during the
construction of a house on the proposed Lot ISc.
(C) Principle (t) states that ''prominence of development and construction should
be minimized by appropriate location of grading and placing of buildings so
that they are screened by wooded areas, rock outcroppings and depressions
in topography or other features." A future house constructed within the
proposed building envelope for Lot 14 would be more visible than one built
in the currently approved envelope. The building envelopes for the proposed
Lots ISA. ISB and ISC would be situated with only a 20 foot separation
between envelopes. increasing the prominence of the three future homes in
such close proximity.
(D) Principle (j) states that the ''proposed arrangement of residential units and
design of circulation system shall provide harmonious transition from, and be
compatible with, neighboring development and open space." The proposed
project would arrange a total of five dwelling units at the end of a driveway
off Warren's Way that was originally designed for three homes (one each on
Lots 14. IS and 16). The placement of three homes on the area currently
contained within Lot 15 is not compatible with the more open design of Lots
14, IS and 16 as originally approved within the Tiburon Highlands Precise
Plan. The 20 foot separation between the building envelopes of the proposed
Lots ISA, ISB and ISC is inconsistent with the 2S foot separation between
envelopes required elsewhere within the Tiburon Highlands subdivision. as set
forth in the adopted Tiburon Highlands Precise Development Plan Map
(E) Principle (k) states that "adequate consideration shall he given to the need for
privacy and with minimum visual and aural intrusion into indoor and outdoor
living areas from other living areas." The proposed building envelopes for
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 97-21
October 8, 1997
3
J.
16
,_. :_.u~ ',:',;,___,'_...~~ _:'_,':.('",:~
p. 3> )~ ~
Lots 14 and IS A would bring the future houses for those parcels into closer
proximity to the adjacent properties to the east, reducing their privacy and
increasing the visual and aural intrusion for these residents above what could
currently be developed on Lots 14 and IS.
(F) Principle (p) states that "consistency with other goals and policies of the
General Plan elements shall be demonstrated." As descnoed in Section D. I.
above, the proposed project is inconsistent with several policies of the
Tiburon General Plan.
These same principles would also discourage the approval of the proposed
amendment to the Tiburon Highlands Master Plan.
III. Lot Line Adiustment
Section 14-11.2 (d) of the Tiburon Subdivision Ordinance requires that approval of
the application for a lot line adjustment be granted only if "the application approval
will result in conformance with the zoning and building ordinances of the Town." The
proposed lot line adjustment should therefore be denied, as the proposed project
would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance for
approvals of a zone change and amendment to a precise development plan, as stated
above.
E. The Planning Commission finds that the project would not promote the public health, safety,
or wel.fure, nor on balance further the goals and policies of the General Plan with respect to
the proposed zone change, amendment to the Tiburon Highlands Precise Development Plan
and Master Plan, and lot line adjustment.
Section 2. Denial.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the Town of
Tiburon does hereby deny the proposed application for the reasons set forth above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town
ofTiburon on October 8, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABESNT:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
COMMISSIONERS GREENBERG, KLAIRMONT
COMMISSIONERS NONE
COMMISSIONERS BERGER
COMMISSIONERS SADRlEH
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 97-21
October 8, 1007
4
.,., 1"-
'c:....__,.*~-
p, L( of S-
ATTEST:
fl~ L~
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 97~21
~ f1aUVVYlu~~
LISA KLAIRMONT, VICE-CHAIRMAN
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
PC69602dres
October 8,1997
5
,"._;n~~:..~re I>TO. f6
~, c; 'Or: )"
M/S Berger/Schrier to adopt the Draft Resolution with amendments as follows:
Section 2 Condition 5.A: delete uwith on-street parking being a last resort"
Condition 10: add to the end uexcept for Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Selichot,
Shavuot, and the second night of Passover, at which times the parking lot lighting may
remain on until no later than fifteen minutes after the last vehicle has exited the parking
lots. "
Condition 11: add U Any changes to the calendar shall be forwarded to the Planning
Director and shall be posted as described above. "
Condition 13: should read uannual Sunday School closing ceremony"
Passed (4-0)
Vice-Chair Klairmont returned to the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
3. END OF WARREN'S WAY: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON
HIGHLANDS PRECISE DEVELOPMENT AND MASTER PLANS, FILE #39603;
REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM RO-2 TO RPD, FILE #R96-02; LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT, FILE #69605; Fred Grange, Owner; Assessor Parcel Nos. 34-360-10,
34-360-11, 38-182-20, & 38-322-11.
Chair Sadrieh recused himself from this item.
Senior Planner Watrous explained that the applicant had requested a continuance because there
were legal issues involved and his lawyer was not able to be present.
Tom Newton, representing the applicant, indicated that the applicant had only recently realized
that certain legal issues were involved with this application.
Since the nature of the legal issues could change the application, it was agreed that the applicant's
attorney would write a letter to the Town framing the legal issues which concern the applicant,
which would be reviewed by the Town Attorney prior to the next hearing date; that story poles
be erected at the edge of the proposed building envelopes for Lots 14, 15A, 15B, 15C, along with
the existing building envelope for Lot 14; and property line stakes would be placed on the
property to avoid further delays. Vice-Chair Klairmont asked those present whether they would
rather speak tonight or at the next meeting and no one did. She apologized to those present, but
it was felt that it was better to hear all the information at one meeting,
M/S Schrier/Greenberg to continue to the September 10th meeting, (4-0)
Chair Sadrieh returned to the meeting.
4
T1BURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 1997 MINUTES NO. 775
"'~Tl:.--"T~'-lrr -~.T.O I t1
~.,o.Jj.J..X::~ . .... j ..-!..L
M/S Berger/Sadrieh to approve as corrected, (4-0)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Chair Sadrieh recused himself from the next two items, Vice-Chair Klairmont conducted the
meeting.
2. END OF WARREN'S WAY: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE TffiURON
HIGHLANDS PRECISE DEVELOPMENT AND MASTER PLANS, FILE #39603;
REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM RO-2 TO RPD, FILE #R96-02; LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT, FILE #69605; Fred Grange, Owner; Assessor Parcel Nos. 34-360-10,
34-360-11, 38-182-20, & 38-322-11. (Continued from August 13, 1997)
Senior Planner Watrous gave an overview of the project, using the plans on the board to show
what changes were being made. The proposal involves a request to adjust lot lines for three lots,
incorporate two separate existing parcels into the Tiburon Highlands Precise Development Plan
and Master Plan, and adjust the building envelope for another parcel. The property is located at
the end of Warren's Way and is currently vacant.
At the last meeting the applicant indicated that there were legal issues involved. As his attorney
was not able to attend, he asked for a continuance, The Commission directed the applicant to
have his attorney frame the legal arguments for a written response by the Town Attorney. They
were also to erect story poles for building envelopes and property lines were to be staked.
The story poles went up the Thursday before the meeting, the map was available Monday and the
response from their attorney was not received until the day before the meeting.
The legal response indicated that there were two issues involved if this project is denied. There
is a question as to what approvals are necessary if the railroad parcels are ultimately developed,
as far as providing access to that property. The applicant's attorney indicated that Staff stated
there would not be any Town approvals necessary to provide access, but an amendment may be
required to the Precise Plan for grading changes necessary to install that access. Mr. Watrous
stated that the Staff Report makes no indication of any amendments necessary relating to the
grading issue. He has, however, indicated on several occasions that the Town Attorney has found
that access to the railroad parcels across the Tiburon Highlands will require a Precise Plan
amendment.
He recommended the Commission take testimony and direct Staff to return with a Resolution
denying the project,
Mr. Anderson stated he was disappointed with the memo as it did not cover any new territory, yet
had caused a delay and inconvenience to many interested persons.
T1BURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10. 1997 MINUTES NO. 776
2
-_.--~-.-r-lr.; "j"') .-70
rl:)l3:~LLt'_,"-1' J,' \ . ~
1 lDF7
Commissioner Greenberg asked for clarification on where the driveway would be for the various
parcels and confIrmation that ordinarily a driveway serves three properties. Commissioner Berger
asked whether there were standing easements that would restrict railroad parcel access and
Watrous replied there were none for that purpose. Commissioner Klairmont asked how long
before a meeting story poles were to be erected. Watrous replied that normally it was 10 days,
but these were up 6 days before. He pointed out for Greenberg where the access through the
railroad parcels would be and clarified for Klairmont when the maps for the story poles were
available.
Discussion was opened to the applicant at 8:00 p.m.
Tom Newton, Planning Consultant representing Owner Fred Grange, stated that the drawings on
the board were in two sections in addition to the Tiburon Highlands Precise Plan. The first
section showed the existing situation, Lot #15 plus two railroad parcels. Under the current
ownership pattern these lots would have single family homes with a long driveway, which they
feel is less desirable than what they were proposing, The second section was their proposal which
showed the three lots realigned with a short driveway to all three. They are also asking to modify
the Lot #14 building envelope. The drawings were done to show a comparison to the rest of the
Tiburon Highlands. These three are some of the largest lots in the Tiburon Highlands, but are
compatible with Tiburon Highlands.
He had comments on the Staff Report of August 13th. On page 8 under General Plan Consistency
it mentions being environmentally sensitive because of the presence of the landslide previously
identified. The landslide does not exist any longer. It was repaired some time ago, Page 9,
second paragraph states "building envelope for proposed Lot #15C would result in.... the removal
of several mature.. ,trees. " This is not necessarily true as they don't have plans for development
of that lot yet. As shown, it is outside the area for tree removal. Under Zoning Compliance it
states that "extensive grading will be necessary to stabilize the existing landslide area." That has
already been repaired. The report also states "several mature trees would be removed" and he
disagreed with that, as it would depend upon the siting of the house,
Mr. Newton noted that Item 2 of the Conclusion mentions the close proximity of the homes. He
stated that in Lot #15 their proposed separation was 20'. He noted that in the Tiburon Highlands
the separation was 25' , so they are willing to increase the separation to 25', He commented that
Lot #16 had substantial tree mass removal with a 3-1 replacement and they would do the same
with Lot # l5C if trees were removed. The drainage area identified on the Railroad lot is outside
the building envelope and is not disturbing the drainage course,
Mr. Newton did not agree with Item 4. They propose a 15' recorded access easement the full
length of the railroad grade to allow for a fire truck hammer-head turnaround and are thereby
helping the general public safety. They are proposing nothing that is contrary to public health or
T1BURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10. 1997 MINUTES NO. 776
3
J~JC.1I}.}::lrI~ '~\T(). [D
f. 2.. 0(- 7
safety. In conclusion, he stated that the Staff recommendation of a height limit of 25' for Lot #14
is acceptable to them.
Mr. Newton identified the location of the 30 inch diameter eucalyptus for Commissioner
Greenberg.
Vice-Chair Klairmont asked whether there was someone to comment on the letter from their
lawyer. Mr, Newton stated that their attorney was not present. He apologized that the letter was
received too late for a reply from the Town Attorney, He felt there was a disagreement between
the Staff Report and what their attorney felt had been worked out previously, He was satisfied
that the letter was responsive, though he did not agree with the tone of the letter. The issue is
whether or not they have three lots. There are two certificates of compliance and a legal lot in
the Highlands and they are moving lot lines into a more traditional pattern of single family
development. If they, in fact, do not have three lots and access is the key issue, then it is not a
lot line adjustment as they propose. Their attorney states they have three lots, they have access,
and the Town does not have the right to deny access.
Commissioner Greenberg questioned Staff about the slide repair. Mr. Watrous replied that they
had asked for reports analyzing the property and were told that the environmental report prepared
for the Tiburon Highlands contained the information needed on that property. They were not told
that the landslide had been repaired, Mr. Anderson commented that it would have been done at
the time of the subdivision improvement agreements, but not having received any evidence of
repair, Staff must assume the "worst case" for environmental review purposes. The applicant
would need to provide proof of repair,
Vice-Chair Klairmont asked for clarification of the issues before them, Mr. Watrous stated that
the issue being raised by their attorney has nothing to do with the project as submitted. It is only
a potential question if this project is withdrawn or denied and Mr. Grange resubmits an application
to develop the other two parcels. This issue has been discussed with three Town Attorneys and
the Planning Department Staff has received the same reply each time, The access across the
Tiburon Highlands parcels to the railroad lots would require an amendment to the Precise Plan
and the Master Plan. This has been communicated to the applicant several times, The
Commission should focus on this application, The other map showing houses on the railroad lots
is entirely hypothetical and not part of the pending application.
Discussion was opened to the public at 8:20.
Marshall Gross, 1 Burrell Court, stated that when he bought his property years ago he was told
that the property behind them was open space and undevelopable. When the Tiburon Highlands
was proposed the homeowners objected to the high density and it was reduced. That agreement
included Lots 14 and 15, His concern was with the moving of the building envelope for Lot #14,
4
T1BURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10. 1997 MINUTES NO. 776
,".. ZO
.;,
p, 3 DF!
which brings it much closer to his house. If that change is allowed, it goes against the agreement
made and all the time spent.
Virginia Brunini, 267 Karen Way, stated that she has intense feelings about what is being
proposed. She is a Bel-Air resident and as the President of their Homeowners Association went
to many meetings regarding Tiburon Highlands. No one ever conceived anything like this project.
Nineteen homes in Bel-Air are directly affected by development of this project. She is concerned
about this being a traversable piece of property. There was no intention before in joining the two
areas between Bel Air and Tiburon Highlands. She objects to the pedestrian easement, never
thought they would need access. She questioned whether there was adequate room for the fire
department turnaround.
Karen Nygren, 22 Paseo Mirasol, requested that the Commission deny this project and briefly
gave some history of this area. She was on the Planning Commission during the Tiburon
Highlands approval. At that time she walked the site as to layout, access and roads. They very
carefully considered slides, density, etc, when the Tiburon Highlands was approved. The
settlement agreement included some property exchange to be sure there were no more than 42
units for specific reasons. In order to change the Precise Plan or Master Plan, there must be
compelling reasons to make those changes. There are also some regulations regarding the number
of houses off a driveway, By adding more than three, the Commission would be over-riding the
established zoning. She emphasized that years of work were done on this development.
Derick Benham, 1015 Sunny Hills Road, Oakland, has a purchase agreement for #15C based on
approval of this project, They lost their home in the Oakland hills fire and are sensitive to the
needs here. Their home was a type that could not be rebuilt, so they opted to move to Crocker
Highlands in Oakland, They are not buying the Tiburon home on spec, but to live here, as they
have relatives here and feel the schools are better. He is unfamiliar with the local issues, but felt
the envelope for this property would maximize privacy. They would keep most as a greenbelt and
make some improvements there, He stated that the eucalyptus were found to be explosive in the
fire. He would put up trees to maximize privacy. He was trying to be sensitive to the neighbors.
Kris Wand, 5 Burrell Court, stated she has walked the new lots. Her house is adjacent to Lot
#15A and she will be looking down on three roofs. She feels it is a tortured and gerrymandered
project and mentioned that there was a landslide in that area years ago. She stated that the whole
area is like an acoustical bowl and that privacy is very limited,
Vasco Morais, 321 Karen Way, stated he is opposed to this project. He doesn't know what he
is being asked to support. Instead of the railroad parcels, applicant is asking for these three lots,
He wondered whether applicant has the right to build a house on the railroad parcels, He felt they
were never intended for houses. So what really is being exchanged. Mr. Grange purchased the
railroad parcels for $300 so there is no value there anyway. He does not consider that a denial
would be a utaking. ff
T1BURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10. 1997 MINUTES NO. 776
5
~. :'i _'__ .~_ _
--- -. - 2D
f. L(of7
lackie Heronimus, 353 Karen Way, stated she is concerned about the drainage of Lot #15C. This
is a bog area because of the runoff. There is an easement on her property for a high culvert.
When it rains the water level is up to their yards. She is concerned about what would happen with
three more homes.
Tom Bomar, 71 Reed Ranch Road, felt that the question was as the application has been
presented, not whether the railroad parcels could be developed. He did not feel the lot line split
was a good idea. He was concerned about the amount of grading that would be done, the loss of
deer habitat, and the noise that would result.
Peggy Hill, 358 Karen Way, stated that she remembered the hours and hours spent on Tiburon
Highlands and felt it would be a tragedy to change after all those hours. The idea was to try to
leave open space for wildlife and flowers. She doesn't understand why they would want to build
in an area that would be wet, dark, and boggy,
lulie & Walter Grivesmiel, prospective buyers of Lot #14, stated that they carefully considered
the placement of the building envelope. They were interested in keeping the trees as they are.
The home they have had designed is very unimposing and within the height limits, They felt it
would be a good addition to the neighborhood and requested that they be allowed to go ahead even
though there may be a dispute with Lots #15A,B,C.
James Parsons, 65 Reed Ranch Road at the end of the drainage easement, stated that all of his
neighbors have moved their fences back to create access to the railroad parcels. There are deer
there also, He has a problem with the height of Lot #14 as he will be looking into their house.
He felt that Lot #15 would impact access,
Sue Pressley, 357 Karen Way, stated she lives near Lot #16 and the drainage is an issue, After
a rain,. the area behind Lot # 15 becomes a flash flood area. If there are three houses there the
drainage will be more severe,
Barbara Vickrey, 7 Burrell Court, stated that with the density the proposal creates, she is
concerned about the noise pollution, She feels the area is a sound amplifier, that she can hear the
words of all the present neighbors, The noise level would be greatly increased with three more
homes.
Delores Vaiani, 345 Karen Way, stated she is at the bottom of the natural drainage, They had the
drains put through, She is concerned that if any dirt is moved, it will create flooding problems
for them,
lohn Jack, owner of Lot #16, stated that he is not opposed to Lot #14, but he is opposed to
development of Lot #15. They were told that would remain open space and have been enchanted
by the wildlife. They oppose the density this project would bring,
T1BURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1997 MINUTES NO, 776
6
. ZD
'-.-/"'-~-
p.
5"or::: 7
Anne Carroll, 3 Burrell Court, stated she disagrees with the changes, that there is enough density
as it is.
Fernando Cruz, is building on Lot #17, currently lives at 43 Edwards, San Rafael, stated that he
can see the roof of the houses from there. One house would be ok, but three would not. It is one
lot, there should be one home,
Karen Nygren, advised that she used to own Jackie Heronimus's property and she has a photo of
her standing in the culvert. It is as large as she is tall. Even with the culvert, when it rains, that
area is a huge swamp and runoff area. There are a lot of environmental issues that were not
addressed on this project and are not on the negative declaration. The noise issue also needs to
be addressed. Concerning moving the building up the hill on Lot #14, it was specifically set
downhill to address issues of the adjacent homes. There will be a lot of noise and light on the new
driveway. She felt that this project should not proceed as it would create too large an impact on
the area.
Virginia Brunini reminded the Commission that on December 20, 1969 there was a large flood
in Bel-Air, flooding every house on Cecilia Way that was caused by the large culvert. The
residents taxed themselves to create a drainage solution. Flooding in that area is a serious issue.
lackie Heronimus stated that every time it rains, they call to clear the drain. This relies on Marin
County and is low priority, It took them all summer to cut down a tree.
Discussion was closed to the public at 9: 10 p,m.
Commissioner Greenberg had questions of Staff. Anderson stated that Mr. Sherwood's analysis
is based on the premise that the only thing that needs changing is the grading plan, and Staff does
not agree, There was some discussion about access for the school. The Precise Plan was part of
the lawsuit that established 42 units. The development agreement was good for five years, but
has expired,
Applicant Fred Grange, 380 Elisio, Greenbrae, responded to comments. He stated that the fence
is on his property but he will dedicate that to the school, so he felt it would be reasonable to ask
for access, They will make access for the Fire District, public access, and will landscape it as
well. The noise and land issues can be addressed as the project develops, As to whether there
is building potential on the railroad parcels, he felt there definitely is, regardless of whether they
go through the Tiburon Highlands, He doesn't want to do that, but rather as proposed.
Discussion was returned to the Commission at 9:20 p.m,
Commissioner Berger noted that it was interesting to see so many past Commissioners and others
familiar with the process. He commended Mr. Watrous on the Staff Report. He questioned
T1BURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1997 MINUTES NO. 776
7
:'?P _
f, b oF7
whether or not the railroad parcels were buildable given that the drainage issues are so great. He
also wondered whether the property could take four houses when it was planned for two. He
agreed with the Staff Report conclusion that two houses on Lot #15 would reduce the impacts.
He was not happy with Lot #14 as the driveway on the back is in too close proximity to the other
homes, He would be willing to discuss approval of Lot #14. He would approve 2 or at most, 3
of the 4 proposed lots,
Commissioner Greenberg agreed with Mr. Berger. She stated that large developments are heard
extensively, so a request for any change needs to show a compelling reason, There needs to be
new information and be of great benefit, otherwise the process goes on and on, She would be
reluctant to change the Precise Plan, but may approve two lots. It would not be good to build on
a drainage area. This section was picked to remain open for the sub-division as a whole, and this
project would eliminate that. They need to protect the interests of the existing residents, She
agreed the Lot #14 relocation was not a good move, that it was better to be further down hill. The
current location is the result of compromise already.
Vice-Chair Klairmont stated that she was displeased with the procedure taken for this project in
the delay of the hearing for legal reasons only to receive story pole maps so late as to make the
Commission's job hard. She felt the area appears to be way over-built with the story poles. She
was impressed by the comments and felt that if the project is redone, the Negative Declaration
would need to be redone as several issues that were brought up were not covered,
M/S Berger/Greenberg to direct Staff to return with a Resolution to deny the project. (3-0)
3. ROUND HILL ROAD: SCOPING SESSION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (EIR) TO BE PREPARED FOR A PROPOSED FOUR LOT PRECISE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, FILE #39701; Sanford L. Goldeen Applicant/Owner; Assessor
Pa.rcel No. 58-301-26. (Continued from August 27, 1997)
Senior Planner Watrous showed on the map the location of the proposed four lots. He and the
Town Engineer had determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be needed,
which would focus on the geological and drainage issues. Three of the proposed parcels are on
a relatively flat area, while the fourth is on a slope, The fill in one area is loose soil and would
need to be repaired before construction. The downstream effects into the Belvedere Lagoon need
to be studied, as that drainage area is currently a problem for the Town and they would not want
to make the situation worse, He recOmmended the Commission take testimony and give direction
on additional issues to be covered by the EIR,
Commissioner Berger wondered whether there was a way to use the reports that had already been
done for Mr. Goldeen. Mr. Watrous explained that the EIR evaluates a project from a technical
standpoint to determine the potential impacts, It is prepared by experts who have a broad
T1BURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1997 MINUTES NO. 776
8
W
,_--=.~
P,7oF-)
i,
1,/
'//
/ "
"j /
JI , /
/
.' //
,/ ,,'
j 1% I
~ 11// I
~ ;i /
~ ; 1//
"- "- -J j; /
~//
/ j, I
/;'
, 11//
/ //
/;1' /
, /1/
, /
~! ! I I 1/
- _~ 1- J I I
I
-------
--f- _---;
'---- , ------,
I
------- , -----
- -
/
/
,
I I
I I
I !
I I
I I
!
il
,>-
I 'i
-
i~
I /
1/
I
I
I
;1 i/"
../ :i!'
-'
~.,
tJ ~
t1
l'
it:
"-
"- ,"'- ""-.
"~""
""-.- "-
, ,,~'"
~i cJ
~. \L
0.0
z-
f-i .
H~
p::;
~
~
r
I
\(~'
j
/
)
r...../ V...'
\' ' '
I' "
'i /
T
il
~I
4
.,'
- ,
,;::
sl
i:-- .
,
-----
i
,
,
/
../
111 ~
d \L
Z ()
E-i N
~ .
~(4-
t-<
~
t-l-,
X
r
Grover Wilson ill
329 Karen Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
RECEiVED
JAN 2 6 1999
~
~
~I
f
January 22, 1999
Mr. Mogens Bach
Mayor of Tiburon and
Tiburon Town Council
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TlBURON
Re Francisco Properties' Appeal of a [Denied] Request to Amend the Tiburon HigWands Precise
Development Plan and the Tiburon HigWands Master Plan, Rezoning of Property from RO-2
(Residential Open) to RPD (Residential Planned Development) and a Lot Line Adjustment - Marin
County Assessor Parcel Nos. 34-360-11, 38-182-20 & 38-322-11 (the "Appeal").
Dear Mr. Bach:
Please allow this letter to serve as my formal objection to the Appeal. Since 1993, my wife and I, along with
our two small children, have owned and resided at 329 Karen Way I understand Mr. Grange has made the
Appeal, in one form or another, for several years. While I certainly do not have the past knowledge of some of
my neighbors that have lived in Bel Aire for decades, I have personally attended all of the recent Tiburon
Planning Commission Public Hearings related to this Appeal. At this time, I believe it is important to consider
the history associated with the Appeal.
First, in the September 10, 1997, public record of the Tiburon Planning Commission minutes a former
Planning Commission member during the Tiburon IcligWands approval process was quoted as saying the
Planning Commission "very carefully considered slides, density, etc. when the Tiburon HigWands was
approved. The settlement agreement included some property exchange to be sure there were no more than 42
units for specific reasons. In order to change the Precise Plan or Master Plan, there must be compelling
reasons to make those changes...the Commission [now TO"TI Council] would be over-riding the established
zoning." It was "emphasized that years of work were done on this development." It appears that the
compelling reason for the Appeal is monetary gain.
Second, it seems that the Appeal is trying to "trade" an increase to the density of the Tiburon Highlands
Precise Development Pi<m for non-development of the former Railroad right-of-way. From attending the
numerous Public Hearings on this topic, it is my understanding that any possible development of the former
Railroad right-of-way has never been established.
Again, based upon the aforementioned, I respectfully request that you deny the Appeal. If you should have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (415) 388-6580.
C"
~M~O-
Grover Wilson III
III
-
cc:
Tom Gram - Vice Mayor
Terry Hennessy
Harry Matthews
Andrew Thompson
EXHIBIT NO. 1.1-
tv),Morgens BACH
Mayor of Tiburon and the
Tiburon Town Council,
1505 Tiburon Boulevard,
Tiburon, Calif.. 94920
341 Karen Way,
Tiburon, Calif.. 94920
22 January, 1999
!Jr;-
, }! fr /JII.
GERALD & ARTIE LEE KOBIL ,~
RECE" >...~ ~l
. . . ~ \} ~~Wf
JAN 2 6 j99~
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
Re: Francisco Properties Appeal of (Denied) Request to Ammend the Tiburon High-
lands Precise Development Plan and the Tiburon Highlands Master Plan, Rezoning
of Property from RO-2 (Residential Open) to RPD (Residential PIa nned Development)
and a lot adjustment - Marin County Assessor Parcel Nos. 34-36 0-11, 38-182-20 &
38-322-11) . Herefore cited "The Appeal".
Dear Mayor Bach:
Lo ,,_
My wife and I would to on record objecting to the above cited Appeal We have resided at
341 Karen Way for Over 37 yrs. and in Marin County for 59 years. Our reasons being:
1. Environmental Impact Reportr:
Flooding is a serious problem in this area. Residing when the
drainage was expanded on Karen Way it was visably obvious
that additional flow eventually could not be handled.
2. Fire Fighting and Emergency needs,
Road access is minimal causing navigational problems for
emergency vehicles.
3. Residential Privacy:
Constructing on the railroad right-of-way would cause us to loose
any privacy in our home One could look into living room as well
as our dining area and kitchen.
4. Noise tolerance.
Construction would magnify the accoustics to point of reaching
intolerable decibles. This noise would continues in the form of
the everyday routine living sounds but grossly magnified.
5.. Environment:
Three days ago we coun1ed over 150 jW1kos and finches in ourr
back yard as well as 75 Morning Doves. This and our resident
skunjs. foxes and Possuems will all be lost to noise and const-
truction.
We strongly request that you deny this (monetary induced) Appeal.
Sincerely, . L " ~ 1/ _ .. / .
Gerald Kobil M.A. ~~
Artie Lee Kobil R.N, ~ ~ K~
cc: Tom Gram - Vice Mayor
Terry Hennessy
Harry Matthews
Andrew Thompson
EXHIBIT NO. 2)
LAW OFFICES OF
THOMAS H. BOMAR
50 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, Ca. 94111
(415) 296-7200
Fax (415) 981-3601
e~
11"
,10
RECEIVED ~
JAN 2 6 j999
January 25, 1999
TOWN MANAGERS OFFIC~
IOWN OF TIBURQri
Tiburon City Council
1505 Tiburon Blvd,
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
By Fax 435-2438
Re:
Application of Fred Grange/Francisco Properties
Meeting Date: February 3, 1999
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I live at 71 Reed Ranch Road, I am against the referenced Application / Amendment. I purchased
my home shortly after the Tiburon Highlands project was approved and I had carefully researched
the future buildable lots in the neighborhood. The Highlands project was allowed only 3 lots off
Warrens Way. This made me comfortable that no house would be built directly behind me.
Although the Development Agreement expired after 5 years, the entitlements were set and would
require an Amendment to the PDP to deviate therefrom, I felt protected in that, after all the
negotiations and compromises of the Highlands project, no future amendment would be allowed.
However, this Application proposes to do just that, and I request that you preserve the status quo
and deny this change. Existing approved lots should not be split to double the housing. There is no
justification or benefit to the City or neighborhood for allowing the Applicant to split a lot.
Any discussion of the railroad lots is irrelevant, or at least premature, Applicant purchased some
rights at a tax foreclosure sale. What rights he has therein is unclear. Other entities have
preexisting, grandfathered rights to those lots, The Alto Tiburon Fire District keeps the key to the
gate and uses the railroad lots. The School District keeps a fence well onto the lots. These rights are
enforceable against the Applicant and the only way he can build another house is by amending the
PDP with your approval. The Planning Staff has little or no understanding of these issues and is
being premature to assume that some housing could be built on the railroad lots, Please see my
October 6, 1997 letter to the Planning Dept. on these issues.
Finally, the Council should weigh the henefit to the community against the harm to Applicant. The
community has been unanimous and vocal against this amendment for many reasons which are in
the record, Twenty (20) people spoke against it at the Planning Commission, On the other hand,
the Applicant purchased the three Warrens Way lots when they were valued at $350,000 and
purchased the railroad lots for a few thousand dollars, The 3 Warrens Way lots are worth today
over $500,000. He will not be harmed - only made to do with less profit.
Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions.
c;rJ~
Thomas H. Bomar
EXHIBIT NO.~
JAN '2 6 .,.,o~
Vasco H. Morais & Holly W. Kaiser
321 Karen Way, Tiburon, CA 94920
January 24, 1999
RECeIVF-~
Mr. Mogens Bach
Mayor of Tiburon and
Tiburon Town Councii
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Amendment to the Tiburon Highlands Precise Development Plan and Master Plan,
Rezoning from RO-2 to RPD and lot line adjustment (the "Amendment to the Plan")
TOWN M.O,' ';~'~:;>" ,";ICE
TOWN Ur litluRON
Dear Mr. Mayor & Town Council:
We are writing in response to the appeal by Francisco Properties and Mr. Fred Grange (the
"Applicant") to an adverse. decision by the Tiburon Planning Commission on a request for a
rezoning and a lot line readjustment in the meadow (the "Warrens' Way Meadow") at the end of
the Railroad right-of-way (the "Railroad Right-of-Way") in the Tiburon Highlands development
We have been residents and homeowners at 321 Karen Way since 1994.
In 1997 the Applicant first proposed the Amendment to the Plan. We met with the Applicant's
developer and talked to the Applicant directly, In those conversations the Applicant warned that if
the Amendment to the Plan was not approved (I.e., if we did not agree to the Amendment to the
Plan), then the Applicant would build a house directly on top of our home on the Railroad Right-of
Way, Consequently, we initially favored the Applicant's proposal - until we investigated the
Applicant's assertion of his right to build on the Railroad Right-of-Way, whereupon we reversed
our position. Fortunately, partly due to overwhelming community opposition, the Applicant's
proposal was not favorably recommended by the Planning Department and was turned down by
the Planning Commission, The Applicant appealed, and lost the appeal at the Town Council.
The Applicant has now returned with a similar proposal.
The Applicant's proposal, due to the size and topography of the lots, directly impacts many
Tiburon residents who continue to be unanimous in their adversity to the proposal. Unfortunately,
the Tiburon Planning Department, notwithstanding the strong adverse views of the community,
has this time made a favorable recommendation of the project as "it made better sense from a
planning perspective." This view only makes sense if one is convinced that the Applicant has a
legitimate and practical ability to build on the Raiiroad Right-of-Way above Karen Way, However,
we join the community in finding it difficuit to believe that the Applicant could overcome all of the
legal, practical, and technical obstacles to build on the Railroad Right-or-Way and that the Town
would eventually permil development on a narrow strip of landfill.
As such, we join the overwhelming majority of residents of Karen Way and Reed Ranch Road
and the Planning Commission in the belief that the view of the Planning Department (I.e., that the
Amendment to the Plan makes "better planning sense"), is flawed, The view is flawed because it
presumes that the Applicant has a valuable right to build on the Railroad Right-of-Way to be
traded for an additional home on Warren's Way Meadow, which right the rest of the community
and the Planning Commission has never been convinced exists. In fact, the Applicant purchased
both Railroad Right-of-Way parcels for just a mere few thousand dollars - the purchase price
reflecting the prevailing belief that due to the topography and unstable soil conditions, the
Raiiroad Right-of-Way along Karen Way is not practically or legally developable,
Unfortunately, the Planning Department has been convinced by the Applicant of the opposite
view. We share the community's disappointment that the Planning Department appears to have
taken the view of an outside developer over the strong opinions of the local residents on this
highly sensitive issue, It is fortunate that the Planning Commission, after lengthy deliberation,
was unanimous in sharing the views of the community and rejecting the Applicant's proposed
Amendment We urge the Tiburon Town Council to follow the Planning Commission's sound
decision, and to once again reject the Applicant's attempt to "get something for nothing:
Sincerely,
~;~~rai~r{~
Holly W. Kaiser
7/,;(/llz) ~~ .
/ .-
EXHIBIT NO. 2--~
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE: 2/3/99
cr
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR-SA,
REVIEW OF LAFCO POLICIES
1/28/99
BACKGROUND
In September, 1998, LAFCO requested that all local governments in Marin County conduct a
review ofLAFCO's current policies and forward comments by February, 1999. A "Working
Draft" of revised Marin LAFCO policies (Exhibit 1), dated March 1998, was included in the
request for comments. This document was prepared by former Executive Director Dawn
Mittleman prior to her departure in the Fall of 1998.
Town Staff has reviewed the Working Draft in relation to the adopted Marin LAFCO Policy
Guidelines document (Exhibit 2), prepared at some point in the 1980's.
ANALYSIS
General Comments
From the information provided, it is difficult to determine whether the Working Draft is intended
as a comprehensive restatement ofLAFCO policies, or something else. The Working Draft
appears to contain new policies, slightly modified policies, unchanged policies, and a large number
of eliminated policies as compared to the 1980's Policy Guidelines document All told, roughly
half of the earlier policies are missing from the Working Draft A list of current policies not
included in the Working Draft is as follows
Services Hierarchy Policy
Agency Coordination Policy
Urban Services Policy
Interagency Cooperation Policy
Reorganization Policy
Annexation Program Policy
City-Centered Corridor Policy
Reorganization Referral Policy
Provided that nothing of critical importance is lost, Town Staff considers the general notion of
streamlining and elimination of policies to be a positive occurrence.
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
2/3/99
1
It would be very helpful if more detailed explanation of the Working Draft could be provided.
For example, if this process is intended as a comprehensive policy review, all existing policies
should be listed and an explanation provided as to whether, and why, the policy is proposed for
either retention, elimination, or modification.
Town Staff would be able to provide more meaningful comments using this type offormat.
Specific Comments
A. The Working Draft contains an opening section which succinctly sets forth the purpose of
LAFCOs as well as goals and implementation methods, which appear to derive almost
directly from state statute. This section is an excellent addition to the public document.
B. The Community Plan for Providing Services (Working Draft, p. 1-2) appears to be an
entirely new written policy for Marin LAFCO, although Marin LAFCO applications have
for many years requested information from an annexing agency regarding provision of
services to the area proposed for annexation. It is unclear whether the policy is intended
to reflect this long-standing practice, or is an entirely new concept requiring significant
effort on the part oflocal agencies to create and adopt such a Plan. Once the intent of this
proposed policy can be determined, Staff would provide more detailed comments.
C. The Dual Annexation Policy was separately discussed by LAFCO at a recent meeting.
The Town Council submitted comments on the Dual Annexation Policy on November 9,
1998 (Exhibit 3).
D. The Sphere ofInfluence Policies (Working Draft, p. 3-4) are greatly revised and
simplified. However, this policy would incorporate and require the development by local
governments of a Community Plan for Providing Services (see B above). A clearer
understanding of this Community Plan concept will be needed before Town Staff can offer
further comment.
RECOMMEND A TION
That Town Staffbe directed to forward the above comments to LAFCO.
EXHmITS
1. "Working Draft Marin LAFCO Policies", dated March 1998.
2. Marin LAFCO Policy Guidelines document (circa 1989).
3. Letter from Town of Tiburon to LAFCO dated 11/9/98 regarding Dual Annexation
Policy.
\scott\lafcopol. rpt
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
2/3/99
2
WORKING DRAFT
MARIN LAFCO POLICIES
MARCH 1998
LAFCOs are responsible for coordinating logical and timely
changes in local government boundaries. The Commission's
intent is to ensure that services are provided efficiently
and economically while agricultural and open space lands are
protected.
GOALS
1. To assist local government with the coordination and
efficient delivery of government services.
2. To protect agricultural land and open space.
3. To discourage urban sprawl.
IMPLEMENTATION
1. The Commission will conduct studies, collect data, and
disseminate this information to local government and to
members of the public. The Commission's sphere of
influence studies shall require that providers wi thin
the study area develop a service plan and provide for
coordinated, efficient delivery of services.
2. The Commission's sphere of influence boundaries have
been designed to exclude agricultural and open space
from the encroachment of urban development. Therefore,
the Commission's agricultural and open space policies
are designed to prevent the premature conversion of
these lands.
3. The Commission's sphere of influence boundaries are
designed to discourage irregular and disorganized urban
growth patterns.
COMMISSION'S POLICIES
Community Plan for Providing Services
Marin LAFCO supports interagency coordination to reduce
duplication of services and to promote efficient delivery of
services. Each local government agency serving a community
SOIUP/policy.98
EXHIBIT NO.
I
WORKING DRAFT
MARIN LAFCO POLICIES
MARCH 1998
PAGE 2
shall adopt Community Plan for Providing Services which
includes:
1. Services provided.
2. Facilities and equipment.
3. Personnel.
4. Budget.
5. Capital improvement plans.
6. Interagency coordination through service delivery and
shared personnel, training and buying power.
7. Programs of cooperated service and provision of backup
service.
8. Reduced duplication of service.
Logical Service Boundary Policy
LAFCO recognizes
boundaries create
districts should
parcels to create
that illogical, irregular service
confusion and inefficiency. Cities and
develop a program to annex or detach
logical service boundaries.
Outside Service Agreement
Requests for cities and districts to extend services beyond
their boundaries must comply with the following criteria:
1. Land shall be within the district's or city's sphere of
influence.
2. Land is anticipated for later annexation.
3. Extension of service complies with Commission policies.
Dual Annexation Policy
See attached ftWorking Paper" dated July 3, 1996.
Prezoning Policy
All city annexation proposals shall be pre zoned prior to
submitting the application to LAFCO for consideration. The
WORKING DRAFT
MARIN LAFCO POLICIES
MARCH 1998
PAGE 3
city shall be lead agency for environmental review in such
cases, and proof of environmental documentation shall
accompany the application. (Adopted: July 12, 1977;
Revised: April 12, 1978)
Agricultural Lands Policies
1. Land which is currently engaged in the substantial
production of food, fiber, or livestock, or is
identified as agricultural land, either by zoning
classification, Williamson Act contract, or by general
plan designation, shall not be annexed to a city or a
district for the purpose of promoting urban
development. (Originally Adopted: July 13, 1977;
Revised: January 13, 1983)
2. Development of existing vacant or non-prime
agricultural lands for urban uses within a city's or
district's jurisdiction or sphere of influence should
be encouraged before any proposal is approved which
would allow or lead to the development of similar lands
outside the jurisdiction or sphere of influence for
uses. (Adopted July 13, 1977)
County Service Area (eSAI Policy
A County Service Area may be formed when unincorporated
areas located outside municipal sphere of influence
boundaries desire extended urban-type services including
police and fire protection from the County of Marin.
Unincorporated lands located wi thin a municipal sphere of
influence boundary should not be eligible to receive
extended urban-type services from the county in the form of
a County Service Area except when (a) evaluation on a case-
by-case basis justifies creation and (b) the affected city,
by letter, expresses approval of such action. (Originally
Adopted: July 13, 1977; Revised: January 13, 1983)
Sphere of Influence Policies
Sphere of influence is a plan for the probable physical
boundaries and service area of a local agency as determined
by the Conunission. Cities and districts must develop a
Conununity Plan for Providing Services to demonstrate their
WORKING DRAFT
MARIN LAFCO POLICIES
MARCH 1998
PAGE 4
abi1i ty to provide
sphere of influence.
service to lands
They must adopt:
located within their
1.
Boundary cleanup
detachments in
boundaries.
plan
order
to
to
initiate
create
annexations and
logical service
2. Cities should prezone all parcels within their sphere
of influence and adopt a program of phased annexation
within their sphere of influence.
l: ~
~~"E ~,~..
> c... >001
:;: :.~~~
~,~ !::" <>."...
...." ';' ~.. ~ ~
~~ 51: ~ g
'i:~-e ...;;.- "'0>
~~~ I ~='~-.
....0""........,
c.. <>,~...._
3:: g -;.::: ~ ~ '"
c ;:;:;"t,"-:;
~~c"'.. "..,
.. "..cc
g'::;::'5t:.:::".
;....;:...f.:1:
"C" OJ ....
......c::...........
I ~... 1.... ~ "'.g
0...,......... _'"
u~;...ztg~
~~;:g:.~~
...." ""....,...
".-::: ~ ~ -~li (;
...."..<>...,,"'..
~ t'-; ~ ,;:';; ...
",_:_1 - ."n
_ in;~~f1~g
- "." c........
_." <> u"
..: :]~~~:.~~
1 _..<l~ t Ii~:;
.,,1;t:..:::.....
~.. L~ &.t.~~
:~=t::!:
(5'" c: :;.~~ c"
.
<
.
,
-
<
~
~.~~
~ j> ~
il!f
~~i~
...."....
::1: ~
."..."Ii
~'~].8
~';; ;~
~ t;::~
e-~..c c-
O""'"'"....
.5 j;: ~~
< '"
~~: &.:i
g.~~ ~~
]~~~~
,,0::,,1:
~ e .;:-.. ~
.......""
~~i~~
<
<
:!]
< .
~~
<-
,.
r-
~]
< ~
. ~
.<
- <
o
~~
B~
< .
-.
j'
c "......
.....-"
1:"'" u....
".::::0 iL~!i ."
~!12~';;'(;~
.ru.... ~ " l::..
~.3~[:g~;~
"Eli:::::::t>
~ 0 of ~ -;; g "''0
.....".. v.
01 ,,"O"'c
.......0 """'0
~ g'" L..:' <:-;:
.......<l"..O..
....c...... ..
J:: -<"" u" 'tI_
"'....""...=. B~::
0.....".".....
... U 0__ """ u::l
..3" :","'!l <>
.. 0....0 ...
~.=-;g:un;..
~;~::;:~j3~
..z ...._ .....
.. " .......
....0.....,.,..
0... ".."'_ ....
"''',.,s5::''::
~~-.::-~~"
I_!"" ~ ~ Ii .
........50...D ..
1>0 ."uo....
-; ..~ ~~ e-":;
~ t-... .. '" wi 3 S ,.,
"';~~~E~~-~
5s:.....~..!i"...
~., ~ 2."", "'':;:
:I. .~....!i..
~ .;~~ ~!!.2.5
.... u.._....,.,...
.......... >.."..
,';; :;::5~.=~.#.;:: 'i
-,
I':~
.--
.2&:;
:~ -.
"';::::
i ~ ,.,
.--
""
, .-
.;
.;
"
.
.
o
0_
..
.
0-
o
..
"-
..
:@
~.~~
~ ~ t;
01; 0
;~~
u o'
j~:
" 0
H~l:
-c~.~
- .,
~r'
. ..
i:~
t::
..~c
o 0
: ~':
~li
_0'
_.u
.
~
,
,
.
.
.
o
.~
j
.
.
.
.-
.!
<,
~g
1:
j ~
~ ra
~~
~r
:~
.0
<
.-
-.
.0
~!
"
.,
..
r~
.
]
l
,
o.
.0
""
..
o
o.
.~~
~~
, .
~~
S~
..
I'
,
.,
.
"
:~
f!
~ ;
,.
~ ~
~i
~~
-.
< .,
..
j~~;
,.........
.~~: ~
;-'::.~ .~
.. '" ..'~
..
;~~:
~ ~ u "
~;;: ~ 3
.
~~ :.~ ~
'" 3.';: :: ~
..",,"..
.. u ....
- .. "".:
] ';::~ S!
e~::.:-"
0"'_ ....
e-:;; I!!~"
,,_.._ ::i
~ .. .......5
-.....-'"
.c u ~ .. ~
~
.
~]
['S
~::E
.-
.
0-
- .
..
.-
.
3.
~~
~ .!:
:f
it
,. -
"';::'i
:~~
l,;:..:;
~ ~!
~ '" of
. - ,
" ,~ ..
~.~ 50
~
o
Z
,
.-
..
:;~
. -
..
0'_
lE
~
oc-,., 1;,.
goD ..."
;~~~l
.. ..-:.
;;..i ~::::-
~ ~ ii t- ~
.,,- "'~';'
e _ ,.,,~.~
....:l.D ::i ~
_:I" ..~
.;~ ~ .
5;: u :; ~
~ ::. e ,., I
-" ",,"....~
~..g~'::::J
~3i~]~
':'" ~-!:i-
." ~ ~ ~ -e t-
:l:.-# ~ ~ " ~
f; ~: f~
,.,..:E-" i..
_ 0 .... "."
~ ..;2 g ~_;
e"" _... >
B ~~~: ell
...........
~ > ,. Or-
;~: i~E
~ ~ c:;: .... _
... ""...
~ ,; ~~'5-
5~g~:;.;
.:3...........,
.
.;
"
i
~ ,~ ..
~..::,-# Z -;..
-e".. __"
~~ e~-~~E
0..... ....'"
.... .. B ::~:;
...... "
"'0-""'0"_
Ii ..""..
- g~~ ..~-;::
.-: g....2 1i!L
~f: ~.,,>-;
-...-, .,
:I.... _...",
~ ,;!, ~ ~ .. " Ii
.. ... -"..
.......-..... ~
..- "" ....... ~
..-.. .. ,.,...
I ,~...~ ~~.::::;
.... 0".. ,,_
.... 0"".
'i'-':: =: ~ ".~ ....;
............ .....-
0"'''0''0
e:. ...'~ :I ,.,
..........0.._
, . ",. ""'''
o ~... '" li e.w:'"
.. ~t:~!::. ~~
~ ..';:: e iJ-5 0 ~
.. ".. ....'...~ .. "
>~.:: e-::.~ o~
~li"'..".. g~
.. --.. .......
....... .......
:::....<::';i-;:" ~ ~
............."'..
".;:: ~ &.-;; ~ ,::: ~
'ti.... e" ~l;;;::
o............e:
........ 0.. ..
01:<;"',',,, 8._.....
"".:: .. ~ t: 0
.2 ~ _" t l g ';:: :::
'..,.,00"....
""...- "'.c
& :;'~1: ~ :;:; ~
o
...."'.
",.
~; ..,~
;8 :~
0"
S..2-5"
~g ;:.:
_ 00
:::: -.~
_-to.
-I.~ ...
~~~;
:.;:';i"
~.., ~ i
u o! t
B'" 83
,.,...."
..">,,
= t:i-
...... ..~
.. 0.....
~';;.....:;
li.3 ~,2-:
.. .......
..2~ :~:
.. .......
_ o. !"
::~ i:~
&.0"'"
e';::-"....;,;
""::: ~::
e:......_..
;; ~~ !~
.=1,: I !f! E
~ €_g~~:l'
.g"'"
::j... eo;
............,
o
o
-
-
.
~
~
l~
ri
u.
~~
.5~
.-
~.
I'
; 5
toe;:
".
r~
~~
~i
~~
_ 0
0._
. .
.. .
~~~
:a~
. -
i::
_'0
g~ :::
'.
."<
t:8 ~
.
-; ~
~2~
~~:;
~ 3 ';:j
t::::~
",
~!~
--.
~~'"
.-.
~~E
:!~
o.
~~~
~..-
.. .....
~ ~~ti
o .0 'o~, 0
i "...,., t' I-
~ ~ t-.~~,
..
.. ....0
-u~o ;~~i
:: ..: :::.: ~
:.~ =~
~ : t~-
.::l J! =: Ii~
..
o
.
"
o
.
.
<
~
o
..
00
-.
.
.
..
'.
..
:.~
u.
j~
..
0_
..
- -
. .
~ t
'"
- .
~~
~::
::.f
B g
~ g. ...:
~]
.
" .
......
'i ~ ~
~~ :
n
00 0
l,a
; 5]
~]I
" .w
~ ~.
t 0 ~ .
;.g~=
: 3, ~
0.:;::: ~
...
l~.:::
~5~ ~.
3:;.....
0...,.,...
u _.
"~i :;
t:""....
.
..
.~.~
~n
H
~
i~
]~
.-
..-
.; ~
:8
.~ to
i-;::
'ti-5
-,., .;
:.D:::
[~ :
~j"5
"
,
.
. .
....'-...
~!~
~~~
.....0..
:t~~
;; ~:l"
Slil...,.,
.." 0_
mi_
~~".$::J
.. ....'"
-ti.. ...
i:....:;:~ _
........- ...
.... ~ .. .....
Jl t:~ ';.t-
.....,,'....
0-........"
",e"'SJi
:;""i1 ..,
: ~ ~t'.;,
"''''-''''''
g ~ ~~.;
8111 t:t
.
<
~
B .. 0
,
g .:: ~1
:~.:..: e~
. - .
s::. ~:::~
....0....
=~::B
.. <,.
~.8 ~ .i
iE i'3~
..........
b..-"w
-.::- -,"
~ 3 ~ ~~
i ~l ~ i
......... ...
.
o
.
,
o
.
".
$~
Ez
3~
!~
..
..
$e-
"
.;
.
<
.
,
t
~
!
i
0_
;,
i.;
If
< oDU
z
o
Vl
U)
:1
:l;
n
U
Z
o
;::
<:
:l;
0:
o
...
,.
u
z
"'
<.:l
<:
..:l
<:
u
o
..:l
Z
0:
<:
:l;
U)
"'
z
::l
"'
8
::>
t:l
,.
~
2
~
iiiJ
~
lil
SZl
o
'"
c.o
=>
-<
"
.
g
~
z1
0<>
<>::1
~o
cD
i=~
c
... '"
OE
ZE
~~
00
1--6
~
."
- .
..
..
-"
o
.
. .
HI
~ ;i
.. ..
.
I
~
.
o
~
~
.
<
-
o
.
!
,
i ~
. ,
..
.-
~~
--
o
,
.
.
< .
. .
'i ~t: .gE
... ::1- "':':
~ ~i :;
",.,-_ 0..
;::....9-'" e-~
t'~j::: ~e-
';:j;;;!i~ t'~ ~
::1::-': :';j.9-~
--..-.... ....
.::~:~: 5"i-=
.... ...c"
.....:;:.. 1:;-;" t:
~li:lili~~::
2:l:S:l~!'ti'ti
g g:; g g!i ~ c..
__"'__0"00
::t:=~e.~'~
~~;'~~~3!!e
J!J!",~~-c.!:of.e
.
i
"
.
.
<-
'" 0
::~'z
~ :E
B.::: e
c ~ ...
.z ~~
ll""'"
:] :;
Ii ~.; .
.. e.~:
[.~ ~.~
,., ~ ~;;;
;", t_
o~ ..~
:i.::: r: ~
].. j~~::-
i::~
j 't Ii ...1
. .
""....,.,
e.s: ~
.. ""0 "
...."'0
..."'.."
'u:o" g :~.:;:
~ :; [~
o .
on
~ '5 -;:: :
o o.
..tt-;
........
&'ie::
~
o
z
]
.;
o
;
.
.
.. g
"'::..
i":;'i:
; ~~
tile
I <
.. [~f?
8r:'"
.; ~ :=-
.. ~ -~ ,.,
.. ""...
::10""
] ~.::'"
~~ Eo]
..0:: o~
o -.
...e:o...
~ ,;: ...:s
". .
i.g] ~
~~ ~ ~
:l 3] e
..,.,.....
< .-
.. ~ > ~ 0
.......... ...
o ~ 0.5 ..
= ~ :.. 0
"..- ..
r~~.~ ~
.. -
f ~ ~ g c
1il e 1-.:; u
o "'E~
~ g ~:::
.:s'~ ~s:
.
<-
-.
-.
.-
. .
o.
,
-,
~,
i.;,;
..
. .
H
."
o
l~
~ ~
- .
:"E
i~
..
"5,:
i~
~t
H
:0:-;
o
.
o
.
;
.l
..~.s
.......
=:~.:l
i~~
.. 0
"0_
~~ J;:
!H
i:;..
:: g.~
..=1:
~ lt~
--,
:~~ .
.ait'_;
~~~.~
E~E~
l-f . i:
~'i: B::
!lg~
...
..-'" ...
-- 0
-"0__
-= i-a ~
&."&....
._0
~;~ ~
::: ~ t,S
~.......
,
.
< .
.-.
0_
-
o i
:::."
,..
ji~
~.~ i
~f!~
::s ~:::
.00
~:;: =
...,,::1
c..:::~
.. .
.......
:;le=:.;;
-.... ..
o ... ~ "
::1..." go
~;~!
t.;:i:,..
&.:J..~
~... ".~
~i!~
::..9 ~
S -g'~ ~
..~ i1" ~
8" e I;
II. ~ ""~ ~
~~ i! g
....1..
2!Eze "
~ i~! ~
':.
1_.:" 0
..e: 00
.c"o,"
.....1-..
'" .. ..,.,
~: ~ . ::.::
""N......"
0_ "'" ..
1il &._s ~ ...=
o ..
0"'" .....
~~~.~~~
~ ~:q ~1
....... ..
... .."'..."
.. .'i::"'''
~ ~.;: a:
..",.. ..>
'i' 3 e:::~:!:
"'~ "-,~"5
~ 8]:; go ~
:n;~~-;~~
- ~ 0 ~ ~ '5;;;:
.;;~ ~t "':l:.~
,..." ""0
.. .-.. .
-........." ...
'" 0 3 ::1~-
.... "..",.,
~ ~ il " ... .. ..
.............i ~
e.~~tse~
3:;>0"'::
.. ~". ..
'5 t I-~i~
:::st:dit
0::"""0 -<
:i'E; ~ ~E[
............. .
-........ .....
~,-., "I'
< """" e:
"-e ~ ~.. ~ ~
;~::::Ep:
a,;E =z,:: ij
"
'.
00
,-
o
..
. .
00
"-
..
,
l~
;.~
Ca
~~
:1
- .
..
~.; ~
, ,.
.. ,
~! t
':: ~ ..
;.-e _
;;:"t
<a;':
00 0
""",...,,,,,
If 0 ",,, ""
...-" .o.~ '" "
" ..-....
_.. ::I" "
"" 0......
>.... ..c....
~ ~ ~.:: ~,,::i
_ 0"<:""
~5~~~:~
...... .. <:-"
~~~:~t~:
HHW
::;: ::I ii _~ ::.:
I..,..."......
" " "'-~ .. "
0'" 0".....
~::~~]~~
i~HU:i
..."..... >....
_-~,,~~gi':
=-g"a..."";:;:
0:;"" .. - OJ
~-..,...........
~ '0:: i _~ -E"~ ~
<: ..c.."lI......"
;:1",-"".." ..
.... 3"',,;; ~ii d ~
~ :n:"~ .......:::;;
1-""""-<0""
.
o
.
,
~i:5
.; ~ i'~
! ~ -~'i
.,.
......c: <TU
o.
"
.. .
,".::;"
<n
f~'~~
~ ~g l
, 0
....., 0_
.ll'!i"!:
.. .
=:~:
g,",....
e!'~ 3
""C.c. e.
..""..
i;~I
"",.0"
.<>....
. ""
~." ~:
t~...
~';;;~ ~
....:..8
.~~:~
.......1I,e
"':0""
,
..
u
~~...Ii'
'5 ~; S
-; ~.::::-;:
]8~~:E
. . .
~.5.. e-~
1:1.........
:~ ;i~
i........
-~~:c.;
l.._"':;
...........-0
::"::"lj
""""..
e--"" ..
3~ &.~ ~
5';;..3~
!i~':~:::
...- ........
0...".."
.. .
..0
........"
"..~'5-;:
f.i\.-e..~
"D..g"se
............
.......... ..
:;18-8;"
.......::e81
!5:28::~
::~jj~~
.cu........t:
.
] ::
e] ..'(
: ~ ~
'. -
~~~
". .
'.j
~'5 ~
~1'O
~~]
'!iii..
~~:
;t.......
l'Oj'
.2]3
:.:~
.. .
:'C~
ri:
'"
~-'Je
i:-;;:
., .
,0 ~
.. .
go .
o:;:li
~~~
o.
0-
.,
i-i
~r
..
.-
.,
]~
';3
~~g
""] :
o.;'i
lit8
a--;:"
:E'~
3~j
'0
11 !-~
~ .,'~
l~~
; ~.9
~~.:;
~1~
~ ;'5
,.
o.
o.
o
..
,
.::=
n~
~t;
~.. .~
-l'5S
0..
,""
..,
i-;~
;"!l
~.~ ::-
... ....
~ g,.::~
., 5 ~
_ ..
~ ~ !'~
.. ::.~ ~
,,-
i [~;
" ..
i ~E:
:1
~
~
.
.
<
.
~
... ~- ~~'::'~' ~..
~ ....... e-.. .. ...'"
.fi: ~ i: g ~ g.t ';;
.... "'-;; ~,;:;'o"'.~
,,_ f:..""..... f:...
t:fr;::........~g....
... &''' ~~ ~ ..:ii g
o 2 ~ ';:l:; ~ ,'.~ 'g....
"....:.. :1:::::_ &....i
1f-:'5~: ~li',~ ~
"......~ .;;::: I-
a-=':j~.5]~ 31 ~
.:: .. ~ ~ ...., ~" ..:: g
..." ...... .." u.~
.5~~:~E~.:o.t;
g c ~ ~ '0 e-~ ~.: " I
.." u... .._....,.."
;.:;;:~~ ~.. Ii g.~ g u
.....:l_ .-:::1: =111;::.. c
~!:3~~i3~~~:
ou....... ....... Q."
u .......".."......
.,," ...........0
......,............0..<: ...
i ~i g li.&i:~:; It
,~.3:lii g a I!: i.;~
u~ '.. ;... ...., ..'-;;~
~ ,,:: ~ Ii"'; ~ ~"
......." c ..." 0_.....
:. "......" ...- ...-...
i~.i.;"E.~ ~:e~ r~
g:;o8 Ii.; ~=! e]
-z.;:: g u 81 ..... u ~ ..
::1"_" "...."......
_...."..u....." ..
~..c ~~ 5 c !j .-;:;;5
t ~-;: a .~ 11: i.:=-;:
.- >,.." ......
~~ ~~8 e~~ :-~i
f ~t g 3&::~:3:: B
.. ~
\'
~.
~1
: a
_0
..
..
o
o.
.
..
r~
u
,
.0
H
'=
, ~
.~
. .
.;
- .
. .
.0
.-.
..
.
. .
:i
~~
: ~
"
i~
e~
~J
- .
-<
..
<
o
.
..
.<
~'g-
r~;
_ 0 .
~::::
~E ~
'"::e
~.g~
.
.
~
2
u
~
00
;~.
~~
:!!
u
~~
~~
=
i
8
~
~
.
o
ll~J
<_0
.0'
......> .
~ ~ >- M
.........
.., e':::~
~;~~
.s':;"o
.z~:::"
';""-:~
",,"5....
.......p.
.u
e:O:i1:
.. ,
... 51: ~
~ t'~ ~
5"':;1..
i~i;
.....>-"
.""0
.. .~..c::
D~" ..
~~-5 li
f'" 3 a=
o _
.:........
, ..
. .
112:1..
~~~ !
>...2"
-#'(;....z
..
......."
.... y...
~lii"E'"
_'f..;
-<:;I .._
.
e..~
i~~
'0-
eo::;
Et~
E'~_;
m
:ni~
.;!=
5~"
-..
. -
::5"
~~.z
~;::: .
".......i:'
o .,
~ ~.:::~
...:;:.. :
o:l:l..
..:l"t
o ..
........
.......
~i:n:
~ ~ Ii::
..;
..
.0 .
.: ,~!~ Ii t
Ii 0_" .....'€..
"".:::Si:3",..
.........", 0..
".... " ..,......
I"" ..... U
~85e,~!~~
..c:: ..............
!.~ ~ I~~ ~.:
~"!" li'...!i"''Z
... ~O:i1... ;:;.';
'E~ ".3 ~ :-;;-:
"">-" .."....
; ~:.: e -E~ ~
.;:"! ~;; ~ 1:':
_ .... 0.....
0.............<::5
:3 :.i~:.c-
.. 0" It.....
~~.E37.~~~
;::~~::i:;e-=~
.. c u..
"..0.<:0.""'"
0..<:" ..._....""
0. ,
......!:E.;81l:i
i ~_!-=!j E~
........... 0"
2: f... ~.. ,.:...:::
ti:'~:~:~'g
.."......>....
....... "'''0
Ii-................
1: :a::~8~:;
"..2"", ....
11.::10.....
1::.."" t e- ......
!E~:E~t~:
"'......J.........."
",~ !
~~ e i-:g
....J -; ~.;l .
1>"-;: 3:
"'''O'M
-0 U _.0:>
~~ t t:=:
~:i ~~
..- v....,
1:.~ 'C;~:
",..11:"'0
:'j !: ~:::
~o>....
~~8-&.~
5..........
.....~.. :>
.o~" ...:-
S':]i t
., ;.::;::-
.::::;: ~.g-;;
>...e......
~.. 0 .. ..
.."",..
. 0 .
"'..cc
0__'
.z~~-o.a
~".::: t c
o....ll
;.~~~~ ~
'C;"fj';::"'..li
11"........
]: ~~!;
ll,,"'OUlTlT
.:!i :i.::l:! t
€
~
o
j
,
.
.
o
~
~
.-
..
o.
..
.
[ t.t:
r~
.
o.
."
'.
. ,
f;
:'
l
.
.
3
.0
0-
~~l
.0-
;2;
.. ~
:::g-
~~
!i
~;
0'
~ :
r~
,
,
,
o
o
,
~ "~..
i ~'3'~
1: ~.~;
_ . _:i..
~ =~ ....:
"'0 1"'0 ~-oi
j2 j:...
.c ..;w
o
"
~
~
.
.
o
j
.
o~
"::i':
ii:
" "3
, t
~!iE:::~
-o3..,,:i
.,
.8 ~ e ~;;:
Hi!:
0::: ~~..,
~ t._
..."'" '"
~~:]~
l~~~t
i-:lU"<:O
"....-0
.. <
<. ,
- . -
-5 ~ .. "g ~
.; 'E~ :.~
-0""0"
~,. ~;::8
"0"'''
~ ... '" t c
_ ~.. u.~
;:e ~:: t;
Ii ..u.....
: ~; '[~
.. ~.~ "'-
, -.-,
t:" ..",.,
.. ...o,.a.
u ..<: .._
~ : ~".;-
5 .. u,,_
.
E~~
0' !
f~:
;;~ .~
00 .
00 0
o. "
. ,
, 0
i~~
~~:
.0'05
:i~
~~e.
..".-
0..
E'~~
~ i~
~l
~~
-~
o
,
.0
,-
0'
i=
_0
t~
~l
~ ~~
~~;
f-i I
~il
~ ~~
0<
o
..0
.
,
.
,
o
.
,
"
o
u
<
~
1
o
,
"
.
....... "
,n
.0......
.-0" ..
~~~ie
u.
-;;'~.e:; ~
~ i'E; ~
. "'
_ t.g ."
~:: ~I
~'g~:~
:~t-tli
g....."
..-::5-:2,::
._ 0 I... e..~
<: i 3 ~-;;~
e..~ e-~..
~"''''3~~
"_"'0" ..
~:; ;.~ t-~
e.. ...e.
-8 :'~.e u...
:t~.~e~
~~ :::,.,~:.
u ~;..!:..
~ ~'''I' ~
~ ~'Z t.
~-::'UOU~
,
.
o
.
""
..
. .
~~
]~
~ ,~
_ t
g ~
~-5
,.
00
0<
'[:2.;:;.::::::E~
~ 5 :i';:; -8 ll';:: ~ ~
~~ 'C.S.:;; ~.. ~ 8
t' t... ; t: -;; ~ '" '"
~~'Z~~~:3o
'i .;::..~ t: 5~ ~
.'::: 5: ~"'O""~
U" ..-_:> ....:>
.. e." .. ..
.. 0"'0 ......._
"5:;'li~te~!-~
-:;''C; <>.~..~ ~-..
"..e .. 0" "...
e l...:.2 z::;_...
"<:0"<:" ." .
.. ~.. ~;;:.. ::I-ll
"g ~:i ~~.; U:.~
""'O".c>~ou...
:> .. '" "
e.;i~:;'.g~~~
;;~.s] ~e~ ~
"'0..... ......
~]~'O.~.."5e:
~~: ~.~ ~t~.~"
g.- =.~.. ..;;: B t: =
= r~ g.-5~.~ ~~.;
..) .~'O" ""'O~1:
:: :!iU:.....; ~ ~... >-.
~... ..<:..... 0 0"'0 ..
'C';~;'5:g:~~:;
~~:!~~~ ~re'~
~
.
..
,
. '"
;.:::'ut-"5..;
~i.~~u~:
O:..'5u~:::~
>........00..
~~:>~ :;.e.ti
.. " oco
.. ... .....~"
.. " I!.. ...~
,.... e...'" "--
.. .. o'~ .. .. ..
....._.. oou..
:~E[~~:
;; ""'0 e 1: o.~
""..e. "...
"0" .. ..
:i';::2~ ~'O.:::
.. ~ i"'J ':: "':;::
<>. e..;:: t: ~.::: ~
~J;"~~o'~
... ~ ~:::2:
...:] 55 ",-a:::
~;;: ~.~~;: ~~
e.",.. ,,:0:... .
~~~ 3'~~~:
c .. e"'O.~ ... .. ..
. 00 1 ."
;t~.8'O :E
~; ~ ~d
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920. (415) 435-7313
FAX (415) 435-2438
November 9, 1998
Mr. David Ware, Chairman
Marin Local Agency Formation Commission
165 N. Redwood Drive, Suite 160
San Rafael, CA 94903
RE: YOUR REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DUAL ANNEXATION POLICY
Dear Mr. Ware:
The Town ofTiburon is in receipt of your request, via letter dated September II, 1998, for
comments on Marin LAFCO's Dual Annexation Policy. It is noted that this policy was
extensively reviewed by LAFCO within the past one to two years, with a determination that the
policy should not be changed.
The Tiburon Town Council discussed this matter at its regular meeting of November 4, 1998, and
voted unanimously to express its strongest support for the current Dual Annexation Policy.
Specific reasons why the Town of Tiburon supports the policy are listed below:
. The Town vigorously supports the dual annexation policy in its General Plan. The well-
crafted policy is not broken, and therefore does not need to be "fixed".
. The dual annexation policy allows cities to recommend a waiver of the policy's application
to LAFCO; such requests are almost always granted. The policy is a friend of the cities,
and of the county.
. Common sense dictates that there will be a lengthy time frame required for the dual
annexation policy to achieve its goals; there is no quick fix. It took many decades of
"non-planning" to create the illogical boundaries which the dual annexation policy seeks to
correct; it will certainly take more than the approximately 20 years the dual annexation
policy has existed to correct them. This is because the dual annexation policy must be
"triggered" by some action, such as a property wishing to connect to a new urban service,
for example, a public sanitary sewer If unincorporated properties have not yet
"triggered" application of the dual annexation policy, it should not be looked upon as a
failure or shortcoming of the policy The dual annexation policy will be triggered in time,
when properties seek to develop or change to a more urban-service-oriented status.
EXHIBIT NO.~
. The dual annexation policy serves in the best interests oflong-term planning, and should
not be judged in terms of short-term planning horizons or political expediency. A strict
application of the current dual annexation policy is still the best method to overcome
decades of non-planning and haphazard governmental boundary-setting. The policy
sometimes seems unpopular and even dictatorial in the short run, but makes sense in the
long run, wherein LAFCO's mandates and priorities rest.
If you need clarification concerning the Town of Tiburon's position with respect to the dual
annexation policy, please contact Scott Anderson, Tiburon Planning Director, at 435-7392.
Very truly yours,
!:zh~~
Town ofTiburon
cc:
Town Council
Town Manager
Planning Director
Planning Commission
ware.ltr
2
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO. [0
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN ATTORNEY/TOWN CLERK
STATUS OF NEW COMPUTER NETWORK AT TOWN HALL
February 3, 1999
BACKGROUND
During the week of December 21, 1998, a new computer network was installed at Town Hall.
The system runs Microsoft Office, a suite of programs that includes e-mail, internet access, word
processing, and spreadsheet programs. In addition, there are features that allow Staff to set up
appointments, schedule meetings, and produce a calendar of events readable by all users for that
day.
Town Staff received brief, 4-hour training sessions on how to use the above program on
December 28, 1998. Since that time, most Staff members have been training themselves and each
other on the system, although it is clear that some users who have specialized or more complex
project work will need additional training.
CURRENT STATUS OF NETWORK
1) Town Staff has found the e-mail system, in particular, to be a very fast and effective way of
communicating within and outside of Town Hall. It eliminates the problem of "telephone tag" and
the time it takes to listen and respond to numerous and lengthy voice mails. It also allows
immediate responses to inquiries, since new mail messages pop up on the user's screen while they
are working on other documents.
The Microsoft office calendaring system has facilitated scheduling meetings, and the benefits of
this will only improve as Staff becomes more accustomed to using it.
At the February 3 Town Council meeting, Town Clerk Crane distributed a list of the e-mail
addresses for Town Staff A copy of that memo is once again attached for your information.
2) There have been some problems with installing a system connection to Pacific Bell's ISDN
service, thereby preventing most Staff from having internet access. This problem should be
corrected by February 4. At that time, the Public Works Department will also receive a new
1
computer which will allow that Department to be connected to the Town's e-mail system, as well
as the other programs.
STATUS OF TOWN WEB SITE
For more than two years, the Town has been fortunate to have a web site sponsored by the Digital
Foundry at Pt. Tiburon Plaza. It is a "community-oriented" site which contains ferry schedules, a
restaurant guide, and other information in addition to the Town's business of minutes, agendas
and how to file for Building and Planning permits.
Since the initiation of the web site, The Digital Foundry has assigned a student intern to update
the site, who is only able to spare about one hour per week on the project. Because of certain
scheduling difficulties, Town Council agendas are often not posted until well after a meeting has
taken place. Copies of minutes of Town Council meetings are more up to date, although it takes
anywhere from two weeks to over a month to prepare and have them approved before they can be
sent to and posted on the site.
At the request of Council, Town Staifis researching other ways to accomplish a more timely
posting of Town Council agendas and minutes. One idea is for the Town to have a separate web
site at Town Hall. However, this would require the purchase of additional computer equipment,
which was specifically deleted from the proposal approved by Council, for cost considerations.
The second option is to have the Town's internet service provider, Infoasis, host the site at its
location (San Rafael), with the Town Clerk transmitting data as soon as it becomes available.
There would be a cost associated with this service which is currently being negotiated as part of
the larger "package."
RECOMMENDATION
That Council discuss the web site issue and direct Staff on how to proceed.
Ann Danforth
Diane Crane
EXHIBIT
--List of Town Hall (and Town Council) e-mail addresses
2
TOWN OF TIBURON
,
.
.;>o:"~Of'-T'&
/cr~v.
/~ ~ ", "~
-i~~jt)-
1r{';'A ~ \""c.' ':.to:.
,
,
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
TOWN COUNCIL/TOWN DEPT. HEADS (via e-mail)
DIANE L. CRANE - TOWN CLERK
NEW TOWN E-MAIL ADDRESSES
lanuary 20, 1999
The Town ofTiburon has a new e-mail address:ci.tiburon.ca.us.This "naming
convention" was recommended by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) as a model
for all California cities.
Here is a list of individual staff addresses:
Rkleinert@ci.tiburon.ca.us
Adanforth@ci.tiburon.ca.us
Dcrane@ci.tiburon.ca.us
Rstranzl@ci.tiburon.ca.us
Hmcveil!h@ci.tiburon.ca.us
lpalmero@ci.tiburon.ca.us
Pvorster@ci.tiburon.ca.us
Sanderson@ci.tiburon.ca.us
Dwatrous@ci.tiburon.ca.us
Etherault@ci.tiburon.ca.us
Dbloomquist@ci.tiburon.ca.us
K1indll:ren@ci.tiburon.ca.us
Rfennell@ci.tiburon.ca.us
The Tiburon Police Department is on a different computer network:
Pherley@ix.netcom.com
Tibod@ix.netcom.com [Lt. Aiello's desk]
Tiburon Public Works will be set up with their new computer and e-mail address in the
next two weeks. Their address will be: tiacopi@ci.tiburon.ca.us.
Diane Crane
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ann Danforth
Friday, January 22, 1999 11:46 AM
Diane Crane
RE: Town Council e-mail addresses
Thanks. If you haven't done so already, would you please put these all under "Town Contacts?"
-Original Messa_
From: Diane Crane
Sent: Friday, January 22, 1_ 9:47 AM
To: E~
Cc: 'phet1eyC!lix.netcom.com'; 'tibpdC!lix.netcom.com'
Subject: Town Council e-mail addresses
For your corresponding pleasure, here are the e-mail addresses of our current councilmembers.
DISCLAIMER; I believe these are for intemal distribution only, not to be given out to the public (unless otherwise
notified).
Also, Mayor Bach has asked that all snail mail be sent to him at his OFFICE, not to his home, so the latter address is:
1640 Tiburon Blvd.
HERE WE GO:
Mayor Bach mbach@msn.com
Vice Mayor Gram thomasgram@aoLcom
Councilmember Matthews hsmatt@aoLcom
Councilmember Thompson alt@whitcress.com
Councilmember Hennessy thennessy@cotl.com
Other e-mails of interest:
Deirdre@thearknewspaper.com
Editor@thearknewspaper.com
All for now.
dlcrane
1