HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2000-09-06
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA
;tf~k
~'
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BL YD.
MEETING DATE:
MEETING TIME:
CLOSED SESSION:
SEPTEMBER 6, 2000
7:30 P.M.
7:00 P.M.
PLEASE NOTE: In order to live all Interested persons an opportunity to be heard, and to ensure the p.....ntatlon of all
points of vIew, members of the audience should:
(I) Always Address the Chair; (2) State Name and Address; (3) State Views Succinctly; (4) Limit Presentadons to 3 minutes, (5)
Speak Directly Into Microphone.
A. ROLL CALL
B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If any)
C. PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Please confine your comments during this portion 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 eacb
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 agenda.
D. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
I) AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHT & AIRSPACE ISSUES STRATEGIC WORK
PROGRAM - (Council member Matthews)
2) BELVEDERE DRAINAGE DIVERSION PROJECT - Meeting to Review Proposed
Landscape Plan - (Mayor Gram)
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 modon 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.
3) TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES - No. 1197 - August 16,2000 - (Adopt)
4) TOWN MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY - As of July 31,2000 - (Accept)
5) DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES - Service Agreement with James McLane &
Associates - (Approve Agreement and Authorize Budget Amendment)
6) 37 REED RANCH ROAD - Conditional Grant of Appeal of Design Review Board
Decision to Deny Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of an addition
to an existing single-family dwelling with a Variance for reduced front yard setback
- (AP No. 34-301-03) - Ann Solomon, Applicant/Appellant - (Resolution)
7) ROONEY'S CAFE - Proclamation in honor of John Rooney & David Hinman's 30th
Anniversary of business in Downtown Tiburon - (Adopt)
8) RECYCLING GRANT FUND REQUEST - Authorize Town's Recycling
Coordinator to Apply for Grant Funds for Recycling and/or Litter Reduction
Activities from Dept. of Conservation Division of Recycling - (Resolution)
9) SUDDEN OAK DEATH RECOVERY EFFORTS - Support Board of Supervisors'
Declaration of Local Emergency & Request for State Assistance - (Resolution)
10) SUPPLEMENT AL LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDS ("COPS") - Proposed
utilization for FY 2000-2001 - (Resolution)
II) TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX - Allocation of Proceeds - (Resolution)
12) POINT TffiURON (RAILROAD) MARSH MAINTENANCE PROGRAM-
Proposal from Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. to Update Marsh Management
Plan - (Budget Amendment)
13) REED RANCH ROADfJEFFERSON DRIVE W ALKW A Y - Emergency Drainage
Repair - (Budget Amendment)
14) DEDICATION OF PUBLIC STREET - Designation ofUnamed Roadway behind
Tiburon Police Station as Public Street - (Resolution)
15) TOWN MANAGER RETIREMENT-
A) Commendation for 30 Years of Service - (Resolution)
B) Approve Retirement Bonus - (Resolution)
F. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS. COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES
16) SUBCOMMITTEE TO STUDY MERA (Marin Emergency Radio Authority)
ALTERNATE ANTENNA SITES IN TIBURON
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
17) FY 2001 FUND TRANSFERS - (Staff Recommendations for General Fund Reserve
Reallocations & Transfers)
18)2-98 NED'S WAY - (Chandler's Gate Senior Housing Project) - Grant of Five-foot
Drainage Easement; AP No. 58-151-27 - (Resolution) - Continuedfrom August 16,
2000
19) CORTE MADERA HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE - (Letter from Environmental
Consultant Greg Zitney, dated August 14,2000)
H. PUBLIC HEARING
20) 36 SOUTHRlDGE WEST - Request by Town Council for Modification to as-built
deck - (Lalita Waterman, Applicant/Appellant) - AP #34-311-11 - (Continuation of
June 7 and July 19, 2000 Appeal Hearing of Design Review Board Decision to Town
Council)
21)210 & 220 GILMARTIN DRIVE - Request for Approval of Vista Golden Gate
Estates Precise Development Plan & Mitigated Negative Declaration - (Alexander &
Yami Anolik, Applicants) - AP# 39-171-05 - (Continuedfrom August 2, 2000)
22) 14 PLACE MOUUN - Appeal of Design Review Board Decision approving
Application for Construction of a new Single-Family Dwelling - (Star Two,
Applicant; Michael Rex Associates, Appellant) - AP# 58-351-24
I. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
J. ADJOURNMENT
Future Allenda Items
--223 DlVlSO STREET - Appeal of Desi/{n Review Board Decision Denying Application for Legalization of an as-
built Fence on and near property - AP /1(0. 059-131-07 - (lvIalcolm Misuraca and Victoria Brieant,
Applicants/Appellants) - (September 20) .
--684 HIlARY DRIVE - Appeal of Design Review Board approval for construction of additions to an existing
single-family dwelling, granting Variance for reduced side yard setback - AP No. 55-182-/4 - Carol Weiss,
Applicant; Irmgard Brunner, P.D. Box 230, Tiburon, Appellant- (October 4)
DATE OF MEETING:
September 6, 2000
No. 13, 2000
NOTICE OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR HOLDING
CLOSED MEETING OF THE TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 54950 et seq., the Town Council will
hold a Closed Session. More specific infonnatlon regarding this meeting is indicated
below:
1. WORKER'S COMPENSATION
(Section 54956.9(a))
WCAB No. SF00397174
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTIClP A TED LITIGATION
(Section 54956.9(b))
Name of Claimant:
Name of Claimant:
Victoria Smith
Linda Unger
7 Ie IvL /!/tJ.
I
Marin COUnty
Community Development Agency
Alex Hinds, Director
August 22, 2000
Marin County Board of Supervisors
3501 Civic Center Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903
RECEIVED
AUG 1 a 2000
TOWN MANAGERS O~FICE
TOWN OF Tl6URQN
RECOMMENDATIONS: Review the attached Aircraft Overflight and Airspace Issues Stralegic Work Program,
conduct a public hearing, and following the close of the hearing:
SUBJECT: Aircraft Overllight and Airspace Issues Strategic Work Program
I .) Approve the attached Work Program in concept;
2.) Direct staff to implement now only those tasks in the Work Program whieh have short term deadlines for
action (tasks 4a. band c, 7d, and lOb). artd allocate partial funding from the estimated work program budget
to carry them out. (Short term tasks-are further discussed in the Recommended Action and Funding Section of
Ihis report);
3.) Direct staff to prepare a Prionty Implementation Schedule which reflects the Board's concerns and discussion
al thiS hearing and bnng the schedule back to the Board al a later date for consideration and action 10
implement and fund each of the tasks based on the prioritized schedule.
BACKGROUND: In response to community concern regarding noise and other impacts of commercial jel
overflights. the Board held a public hearing on May 16, 2000, and discussed an Aircraft Overflight and Airspace
Issues Report prepared by staff. The Board directed staff to transmit a NOP comment letter for the proposed San
Francisco Airport expansIon ,md to prepare a comprehensive strategy, incorporating the discussion at the hearing for
subsequent action by the Board to addn:ss the County's concerns with the aircraft overflights and airspace use.
WORK PROGRAM SUMMARY: The Aircraft Overflight and Airspace Issues Strategic Work Program
establishes a level of Coumy invlllvenwm and a variety of coordinated actions designed to accomplish this objective.
The recommended tasks in the Work Program suggest that the County advocate for a regional approach 10 airspace
and airport facililies planning that would reduce the potential impacts of commercial aviation on Marin County.
without shifting these impacts tll olher Bay Area Jurisdiclions. These tasks include:
. Request expansoon of the Regional Airport Planning Committee's (RAPC) authorilY for airport planning in the
region.
. Increase County partiCipation in aill10rt planning by such actions as requesting an "official" seat on RAPe;
participating in cOlllmunity noise I'oumhahles; monitoring legislation. lobbying State and Federal representatives;
and commenting on tilL' EIR for the proposed San Francisco Airport expansion.
. Request that the FAA rCClmfigure airspace and designate flight paths in the Bay Region. make increased use of
flight paths over [he Pacll'ic OL'can (such as Victor 199) and not adopt aircraft procedures that will increase noise
over Mann County.
. Request San FranClScll, Oakland :lnd Sail hlse International Airports pelllion the FAA. pursuant to 14 CFR part
161, to estahlish IH)isl.: critl:ria and access limitations at each airport in the immediate future in order to minimize
airpon nOIse througlwu( (he rc~ilm.
. Request that the Re~lllllal Airp"rt Sl'stem Plan (RASP) Update comprehensively address regional airport and
airspace Issues. comply with CEQAlNEPA requirements. and hold public hearings. In addition, request that the
Updated RASP he t<mnally ad"pled as an ekmelll of the Regional Transportalion Plan.
3501 Civic Center Drive, #308. San R.t.eJ. CA 94903.4157. Telephone (415) 499.6269. Fax (4151499.7880
o Request the FAA and Airports conduct an audit of overflights for the past 3 years and monitor noise effects in
Mann.
o Inform other jurisdictions. Marin Cities and community groups of the CounlY position on airport planning issues
and how they can effectively parlIcipate in the decision-making process.
o Schedule a meelIng with Supervisors and Congresswoman Woolsey and the FAA Director Jane Garvey to
discuss FAA audil of overflights and airspace use.
o Quarterly ReporlS summarizing the status of regional airspace/airpon planning activities; progress in achieving
County objectives; the funds expended to date: and the tasks and budget required for the next two quaners would
be provided.
RECOMMENDED ACTION AND FUNDING: In addition to the recommended Board action to approve the Work
Program concept and direction to staff to prepare a Priority Implementation Schedule for later consideration and
action by the Board, it is recommended that the Board direct staff to implement now those specific work program
tasks with shon term deadlines for action, (identified as 4a,b,c, 7d, and lO.b in the attached Work Program). The
shon term deadlines for these tasks involve several upcoming events in September including: a meeting with FAA
Administrator Jane Garvey on September 19'" when she is scheduled to be out here from Washington DC; a
scheduled action by the MTC to adopl the Regi6nal Airpon System Plan (RASP) at their September 27"' meeting;
and the selection of a new member by the Oakland Airpon Noise Management Forum at their scheduled meeting on
Seplember 20th. In addition, a timely response is needed to SFO Director Manin's letter of July 3, 2000 regarding a
proposed Marin Overflight Study.
It IS also recommended that the Board approve initial funding in the amount of $2,540.00 (of a total estimated work
program budget of $39,580.00) to carry out Ihe specific deadline tasks and the necessary work associated with those
tasks in September and October. The rest of the work program tasks together with ongoing work for a period of IWO
quaners of a year would be considered for funding at a later date in conjunction with the Priority Implementation
Schedule. The program would then be re-evaluated again at the end of the second quarter of the program for possible
funher funding of an additional two quarters (See Attachment B, Budget Summary estimates for details).
If you have any questions, or would like more detailed information regarding i1lis matter. please contact me in the
Community Development Agency office at 499-6274.
RespectfulIy submitted
EI~
Tim Haddad
Environmental Coordinator
i:lh: projs: airpon: 8-22-bos .doc
Attachments:
A. Marin Air Traffic Issues Work Program
B. Budget Summary
C. Sample Letters and Resolution
cc: Honorable Lynn Woolsey, Congresswoman, US House of Representatives
Mark J. Riesenfeld, County Administrator
Alex Hinds, Direclor
Grace Schmidl, County Administrator's Office
Paul SChabracq, Planning Consultant and Leonard Charles & Associates
Mayors, City Managers and Council Members
Interested Panies
2
WORK PROGRAM
ATTACHMENT A
MARIN AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHT AND AIRSPACE ISSUES
WORK PROGRAM
TASK 1: REQUEST EXPANSION OF THE REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMITTEE'S
(RAPC) AUTHORITY IN REGIONAL PLANNING.
Implementation Activities
l.a. Prepare the following letters for the Board of Supervisors (BOS) President's signature
urging action to formally establish RAPC as a regional airport planning body and
expand the authority ofRAPC in-regional airspace and airport facilities planning: to the
ABAG Executive Committee; to MTC Board of Commissioners; and to BCDC Board
of Commissioners.
I.b. Adopt a BOS Resolution urging ABAG, MTC and BCDC action to expand the
authority of RAPC in regionaf airspace and airport use planning. This Resolution
would be written as a model for use principally by Marin Cities and other agencies.
Refer to Appendix A: Sample letters and resolutions.
i.e. Prepare letters and supporting documentation for other jurisdictions (e.g. Marin Cities,
other counties and cities) to inform other agencies and promote regional interest in
expanding RAPe's role.
J.d. Follow-up as necessary with other jurisdictions, Marin Cities and adjacent Counties
regarding expanding RAPe's role by means of telephone calls; meetings with staff,
elected officials and legislative bodies, as requested by other jurisdictions.
I.e. Prepare BOS letters and mailing list for follow up by County's lobbyist to determine
support from legislative representatives in Sacramento for expanding RAPe's role.
Notes: Letters will include the rationale and necessity for regional planning for Bay Area
airport activities, a statement of the County's concerns regarding aircraft overflight and
airspace issues with the request that RAPC take responsibility for regional airport
planning and airspace use.
Schedule
2 to 4 weeks
Budget
$2,200.00
Marin Air Traffic Issues Work Program
I
TASK 2: REQUEST MARIN COUNTY HAVE A SEAT ON RAPe.
Implementation Activities
2.a. Send a letter from the BOS to RAPC requesting that RAPC establish an "active" seat
on the Commission for a Marin County representative. The letter should summarize the
County's concerns with regard to regional airport and airspace planning.
2.b. Develop a process for the BOS to select a County representative on RAPC.
2.c. Include in the letter a request that RAPC staff reports and hearing packets from January
1,2000 to the present be provided to the Marin BOS RAPC Alternate and arrange for
future packets to be provided to t~e selected County RAPC representative.
Notes: The County's nominee to RAPC would be recommended in coordination with Marin
Cities. The recommended County representative on RAPC would be a City or County
elected official. ;
Schedule
Four weeks
Budget
$880.00
TASK 3: REQUEST THAT RAPC ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR
COORDINATING WITH THE FAA TO REDESIGN AIRSPACE
CORRIDORS AND FULFILL OTHER PLANNING FUNCTIONS.
Implementation Activities
3.a. Send a letter from the BOS to RAPC requesting that RAPC offer to serve as the agency
to coordinate between the FAA and the State and Local jurisdictions, airlines, airports,
noise forums, community groups and other interested parties for the FAA's redesign of
the commercial aviation airspace and designated flight routes. The letter should explain
why this is a regional issue, the need to redesign the airspace to balance flight routes
and effects and how flight routes have significant noise, air quality, safety and quality
of life impacts. The letter will also request the RAPC fill a role in regional airport and
airspace planning, such as (a) monitor and report on FAA rule changes and process; (b)
develop contacts to monitor unpublished FAA flight changes; (c) monitor and report on
airport expansion activities; (d) make independent assessments of regional demand and
capacity for airports in an integrated regional context; and (e) evaluate the
environmental effects of proposed changes to airport facilities and operations, including
potential air quality impacts.
3.b. Send letters from the BOS to Marin communities and other local jurisdictions to inform
and encourage participation in the redesign of airspace and flight routes.
Marin Air Traffic Issues Work Program
2
Notes: The FAA is evaluating potential changes to established flight paths which may be
necessary as a result of increased air traffic and SFO expansion plans. These changes
could modify the specified floor and ceiling altitudes of existing flight paths, and could
result in additional flights over Marin County. The FAA has also publicly stated that
they would consider redesign of the airspace if a local agency is available to coordinate
the task.
Schedule
4 weeks
Budget
$330.00
TASK 4: REQUEST INCLUSION OF THE REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN
(RASP) AS AN OFFICIAL ELEMENT OF THE REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP)
Implementation Activities
4.a. Send a letter from the BOS to the MTC Board of Commissioners requesting that the
MTC conduct a formal process for preparing and adopting the RASP, including public
hearings on the environmental impacts and on the adoption of the plan.
4.b. Send a letter from the BOS to the State Office of Planning and Research regarding
MTC's statutory responsibility to adopt an aviation element of the RTP.
4.c. Send a sample/modd letter for Marin Cities and other jurisdictions that discuss the
same Issues.
Notes: Include as an attachment to the above, the County's comment letter on the Draft RASP
Update. Refer to Task 5.
Schedule
2 to 4 weeks
Budget
$1,100.00
Marin Air Traffic Issues Work Program
3
TASK 5: REQUEST THAT THE RASP BE REVISED TO INCLUDE SPECIFIED
ITEMS.
Implementation Activities
5.a. Send a letter to RAPC commenting on the RASP UPDATE which requests that the
RASP include policy recommendations which guide airport development as a part of an
integrated regional airport facilities system; evaluate alternatives to SFO expansion;
include an analysis and recommendations for intermodallinks to ground transportation;
state the requirement for CEQAlNEPA evaluation; and request more extensive public
hearings.
Notes: This task has been completed. The County's comment letters on the RASP are attached
as Appendix B,
Schedule
1 to 4 weeks
Budget
$1,800.00
TASK 6: ASSIST COMMUNITY GROUPS IN ESTABLISHING A CITIZEN BASED
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION FOR A "NORTH BAY NOISE FORUM
ROUNDTABLE", AND PARTICIPATE IN AS WARRANTED.
Implementation Activities
6.a. Assist the community based organization by sending a letter from the BOS to decision
makers in Sonoma, Solano, Napa and Contra Costa Counties, (and each city and town
therein) and Marin Cities and community organizations to encourage their participation
and support of a community based organization for a "North Bay Noise Forum Round
Table."
6.b. Assist the community based organization by sending a letter from the BOS to the FAA,
SFO, OAK, SJO airports and other airport stakeholders, such as airline operators,
service providers and aviation-related businesses, etc, encouraging their participation in
a North Bay Noise Forum Round Table.
6.c. Allocate staff resources to facilitate initial workshops with community organizations to
assist them in organizing the noise forum. Identify a very limited short term advisory
role for County staff in assisting in the preparation of a mission statement, by-laws and
procedures and identifying potential funding mechanisms such as member dues.
Marin Air Traffic Issues Work Program
4
Notes: Determining the interest in such a forum would involve a two-stage process. The first
stage would require contacting stakeholders to determine their interest in participating
in a community-based noise forum, as described in Implementation Activities 6.a and
6.b. If sufficient interest is generated, then the County would sponsor a kick-off
meeting to facilitate creation of the organization, and follow up with approximately six
more initial organization meetings with the forum to assist in establishing by-laws,
identifYing potential funding mechanisms and providing limited technical and staff
support, as described in Implementation Activities 6.c.
Schedule
Determining interest in the noise forum: 6 weeks, and then ongoing for a limited term estimated
as approximately six initial meetings monthly if established.
Budget
Phase I - Determining interest: $1,200.00
Phase 2 - Participation in six initial noise forum meetings: $3,000.00 (does not include Aviation
or Noise Consultants or other technical assistance).
TASK 7: REQUEST THE FAA REDESIGN THE REGIONS AIRSPACE AND
DESIGNATED FLIGHT PATHS, REDUCE OVERFLIGHT NOISE, AND
RELATED ISSUES.
Implementing Actions
7.a. Send a letter from the BOS to the FAA requesting that they redesign the region's
airspace and reconfigUfe flight paths, including consideration of using Vector 199 and
other flight paths over the Pacific Ocean and not using Skaggs Island flight path for
SFO reconfiguration or any increased flights over Marin, Sonoma and Napa Counties.
The letter should also request the FAA to do the following:
1. develop a regional map of flight paths that show ceilings and floors and routes
for all of Marin, Sonoma, Napa and Contra Costa County flight paths. Conduct
a 3-year retrospective audit of beacons at Point Reyes, Sausalito, and Skaggs
Island for the 3 Bay Area regional airport operations for one week in summer
and one week in winter for each of the prior three years that provide: (a)
arrival/descent pattern, (b) type of aircraft, (c) flight altitude, and (d) noise
rating. Conduct an equivalent current audit and noise monitoring of overflights
with which to compare the historic data;
11. disclose all published and unpublished practices and routes that affect airspace
use over Marin County such as the MOU between Bay TRACON and the
Oakland Center affecting the altitude of flights over the Sausalito Beacon;
111. study the larger Bay Area region for any proposed airspace changes that may
have noise, air quality and other impacts outside of the immediate vicinity of
Marin Air Traffic Issues Work Program
5
SFO/Oakland and San Jose airports, In compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
iv invoke 14 CFR, part 161 at each of the regional airports to impose noise
restrictions, limit access, and limit night flights, particularly for cargo aircraft;
v, halt consideration of any operational modifications that could increase or shift
noise over Marin County; and ask the FAA to adopt procedures that would
decrease aircraft noise over Marin County;
VI. require phasing in of Category 4 aircraft at all Bay Area airports.
7.b. Adopt a BOS resolution requesting the FAA redesign the region's airspace and
reconfigure flight paths. The resolution should also reference the specific requests to
the FAA noted in 7.a. above.
7.c. Prepare a model resolution for ~doption by Marin Cities and other jurisdictions based
on the BOS resolution.
7.d. Prepare a letter from the BOS to set up a meeting with the FAA Director Jane Garvey
and other FAA representatives, and the BOS. City officials and Congresswoman
Woolsey, in response to the communications between the Congresswoman and the
FAA director regarding Congresswoman Woolsey's requests for audits and noise
monitoring in Marin. Prepare a letter in response to SFO Director John Martin's July
3rd letter proposing a study of current overflights over Marin County.
Notes: Task 7 involves making many requests of the FAA to reduce aircraft noise and to
provide detailed information about flight paths. The FAA has already generally
indicated that they may be willing to engage in comprehensive regional airspace
planning. Refer to attached correspondence between Representative Lynn Woolsey and
FAA Administrator Jane Garvey. A meeting with the FAA is tentatively scheduled in
September when these issues can be discussed.
The requests to the FAA will be made through several methods, as appropriate: letters
and resolutions from the Marin BOS and other local jurisdictions, meetings with the
FAA; letters from Rep. Lynn Woolsey, and through the ongoing enhanced regional
planning responsibilities that we are requesting RAPe take.
Schedule
Send letters and resolutions: 4 to 6 weeks. and for Implementation Activity 7.d., ongoing process
Budget
Prepare letter and resolutions: $330.00. Ongoing process: $1.500.00, quarterly.
Marin Air Traffic Issues Work Program
6
TASK 8: REQUEST THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NOISE STANDARDS AT SAN
FRANCISCO, OAKLAND AND SAN JOSE AIRPORTS.
Implementing Activities
8.a Send letters from the BOS to San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose Airports requesting
they petition the FAA to establish noise criteria and access limitations pursuant to 14
CFR Part 161 at each airport to minimize airport noise impacting Marin County and
without shifting the noise to other locations. The letters should also include a request to
use best management practices, noise standards and criteria similar to those currently
employed at other airports. The letters should request compliance with the noise
standards adopted by the County and all of the communities in Marin.
8.b Send a letter from the BOS to the FAA requesting the establishment of noise criteria
and access limitations per 14 CFR Part 161.
8.c Coordinate with County lobb~ist to send letters from the BOS to legislative
representatives seeking support for noise criteria and access limitations and follow-up
as needed. Send letters to State and Federal representatives encouraging legislation
supporting more stringent noise limitations (e.g., SB 1060 as originally drafted).
Notes: Implementation Activity 8.a, requires identifying examples of noise standards and
access limitations representing the best management practices adopted for other airports
which would be included in letters to San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland Airports
and the FAA.
Letters will include a statement of the need for noise standards due to the age of current
aircraft; changes to the type and volume of air traffic; and changes to control
technology and environment. This is closely related to Task 11 requesting audits of
flights over Marin County and may be combined in a single letter covering all of these
issues. The letters may also need to address some recent monitoring completed in
Marin by SFO in response to requests from community groups.
Schedule
4 to 6 weeks
Budget
$550.00
Marin Air Traffic Issues Work Program
7
TASK 9: MONITOR LEGISLATION AND SEEK LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT.
Implementation Activities
9.a. Send letters from the BOS to State representatives encouraging legislation creating a
California Commission on Northern California Airport Facilities (e.g., AB 2771 as
originally drafted) and designate RAPC as a regional airport authority.
9.b. Coordinate with the County's State and federal lobbyists to prepare effective
communications to gamer support from elected representatives.
9.c. Ask County lobbyist to meet with legislative representatives to gauge their interest and
support.
Notes: Implementation Activity 9.a. involves requesting the County lobbyist to identify a
likely sponsor for such legislation. We need to obtain current status and versions of SB
1060 and AB 2771.
Schedule
4 - 6 weeks
Budget
$550.00
TASK 10: INCREASE COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN REGIONAL AIRPORT
PLANNING.
Implementation Activities
10.a. Send a letter from the BOS to Caltrans Aeronautics and San Francisco, Oakland and
San Jose Airports requesting that a regional ALUC be created. The establishment of a
regional ALUC for SFO, OAK. and SJO airports would establish a framework to
addrcss the regional effects of airport operations beyond the traditional areas adjacent
to each individual airport. using existing legislative criteria and procedures currently
applied to airports, to apply to the three regional airports as a single system of airport
operations in the region.
10.b. Send a letter from the BOS to tile Oakland Airport Noise Management Forum and the
San Francisco Airport Community Round Table asking that the County be represented
by someone from Marin on these forums.
10.c. Monitor and participate in the environmental review for the proposed SFO expansion.
Send a comment letter to SFO on the Draft EIR. Include comments regarding the
potential impacts of aircraft emissions on air quality as applicable.
10.d Allocate staff/consultant resources to monitor and participate in regional airport forums
relating to noise. air quality and land use issues.
Marin Air Traffic Issues Work Programe
8
Notes: Task 10 would involve staff or consultants monitoring or participating in discussions
before the San Francisco Airport/Community Round Table, the Oakland Airport Noise
Management Forum and other regional planning forums such as RAPe that consider
FAA rule changes, the establishment of noise standards, types of aircraft permitted, and
access limitations.
Implementation Activity 10.c, would involve staff and consultants reviewing
environmental documents and preparing written comments for the BOS on the
proposed SFO expansion. Noise and aviation consultants may be needed for this
activity.
Schedule
Implementation Activities 10.b. and 10,d. would take I week, Implementation Activity 10,c. is
ongoing. Implementation Activity !O.c, would take 6 to 8 weeks.
Budget
Ongoing County staff or consultant participating in regional airport planning forums: $2,640.00,
quarterly.
Comment on DEIR for SFO expansion: $5,000.00
(Review of DEIR for the SFO expansion may require a budget augment to retain noise and
aviation consultants at an estimated cost of$3,000.)
TASK 11: REQUEST AN AUDIT OF FLIGHTS OVER MARIN COUNTY.
Implementation Activities
II.a Send letters from the BOS to San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose Airports and to the
FAA requesting an audit of flights and noise monitoring over Marin and adjacent areas
be carried out.
Il.b Prepare a RFP to solicit a consultant to develop a report for tlle County which provide
for an independent audit and summary of past airport operations and which would
provide for a comparable current monitoring of overflights, in the event that the audit
and monitoring requested of the airports and FAA is not granted.
Notes: Implementation Activity ll.a. would request a 3-year retrospective audit of beacons at
Point Reyes, Sausalito, and Skaggs Island for the 3 Bay Area airports for one week in
summer and one week in winter each year, that give (a) arrival/descent pattern, (b) type
of aircraft. and (c) flight altitude and (d) noise rating. An equivalent current audit and
noise monitoring of overflights with which to compare to the historic data would also
be requested. (Refer also to Implementation Activity 7.a.)
Schedule
3 weeks
Budget
Marin Air Traffic Issues Work Program
9
$660.00
TASK 12: PROVIDE QUARTERLY REPORTS ON THE STATUS OF AIRSPACE AND
OVERFLIGHT ISSUES AND COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN
AIRSPACE/AIRPORT PLANNING.
Implementation Activities
12.a. Prepare quarterly reports for the BOS in June, September, December, and March.
Notes: Implementation Activity l2.a. would summarize the status of regional airport planning
activities and progress in achieving County objectives; the funds expended to date; and
identify tasks and budget needs for the next two quarters.
Schedule
Ongoing
Budget
$440.00 quarterly
TASK 13: ADOPT A POLICY RELATED TO POTENTIAL MITIGATION SITES IN
MARIN.
Implementation Activities
13.a. Adopt a BOS policy or resolution stating County opposition to habitat enhancement
projects in Marin proposed as off-site mitigation for any international airport runway
expansion that would result in significant noise, air quality, public health and other
impacts in Marin from increased overflights.
13.b Send a model resolution for Cities in Marin with a cover letter.
13.c Review proposed off-site mitigations for the SFO Expansion. (Refer to Implementation
Activity 1O.c.)"
Notes: Task 13 would request independent and thorough documentation of potential adverse
impacts. If mitigations are found to result in potentially adverse impacts or additional
costs to the County, they should be opposed.
Schedule
3 weeks
Budget
$660.00
Marin Air Traffic Issues Work Program
10
TASK 14: REVIEW NOISE POLICIES FOR THE COUNTY AS PART OF THE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.
Implementation Activities
14.a. Modify noise policies to address impacts from regional air traffic, if required.
Notes: Task 14 would require planning staff to evaluate noise policies and abatement codes
with respect to regional airport noise as part of the upcoming Countywide Plan Update.
Schedule
4 weeks
Budget
Included within CDA Countywide Plan Update budget.
Marin Air Traffic Issues Work Program
11
BUDGET SUMMARY
A TT ACHMENT B
>-
0::
<>:
:2
:2
=>
UJ
f-
w
'-'
o
=>
CIl
$
"
-'"
c."
E ..
0....
U u
'"
o ._
~ u
~ "
"0.
.glen
"
III
,,",
Ul
<(
....
.f<
"
.c
'5
ro
U
0.
00
<(
eo
..
'"
"
'"
E
E
o
U
t
o
e-
<i'
n;
C
o
'0,
"
'"
"
E
'0
C '"
o .S:
"jjj c
C C
I~'~
X 0.,
~ro
.. C
" 0
5-'5
" i"
'" 5
'"
..
ro
....
o
o
o
o
N
N
'"
,0
o
,0
""
'00
,'"
cj
0.
.~
:J:
"-
,~ en
C
=2
'j 0
"",;:
.5 en
"' .S
1:6 ~
:Sa
81;;
.E:~
~~$
;;e ..:
""0
C C
8.'"
"l!!
i" 0
~~
28
~ 1l
~[
l!!
,m ';
'= c:
:U; .21'
~ ~
ir~
"'0
c'i-
'"
..
'"
....
C
o
0;
"
"
ro
"
>
'"
.c
;:0-
C
"
o
U
C
't=
'"
'::0
Ui
"
"
"
"
'"
N
'"
..
'"
....
o
o
o
,M
'M
''''
8
g
,~
;;;
o:-,ct'
00....
~';
-",
~c:
- C
,0. 0
E'~'
$~
.. 0
,., c.,
,00 ..
tC
o ~
e-....
<'~
Ri ,2
,~ :ir
:ir'"
'" "
,,5
5'0
(5c
c"
o E
.~~
;13 ai
,5 '0'
1ii~
!!l C
i'"
'" ..
'"
'"
'"
..
'"
....
8
o
o
'CD_,
~
"',
'"
E
.~
U
!fi
8-
..
"
'C
"
1J
.5
09
~
;:
i"
C
.Q
0;
,~
~]
I... c:
'0 ..
;:o-~
,- ..
5 ~
IE ~
E e
8-
, .!l
.~ '"
c.,
'TS
:~''€
,c:['
,"
,~ 'C
1'0':;
:(Q."
gi~
.- ..
:i I-
::5 ~
2 "
.. 0
"",
.5 E
11.I2
0.0
""-
~.~
,f<zo
e
,:::J >-"
iE~
E€
80
Uiz
'ijj:(Q
.:2"
cD-
'"
"
'"
....
.8
0.
00
~
"
5
0;
5
Ui
"
"
i
'"
.n
'"
..
'"
....
,g'
:~
iM
'..
18'
'g'
IN.!
,~'
..,
.;
5
'"
, c.,
,Ei
I.g'll
'"
'il
1ii
e
.2'
...
'"
'C
'C,
e
ro
1l
i[ I
!J::, llii
:CQ'G.l1
," "
5,18
"~,~
Q.ll!!
,= !!
e-g
i.!tnl'
" "
,il.~
''-10
i~:~
:u...Sll:
~lii
'II) ~
!!l1l
""
~'il
r.,,:'"
'"
..
'"
....
'8
'~'
ies
'r"i;
'..
-
181
8'
.1
I~:
: ~ I
8
I~
''''
igl
, ,
10i
<n,
I~~
, .
,~
,~
'<
"
..
o
..,
I~
,00
,'C
,e
'"
:-g I
1.!2'
",'
ICG
'a,
10
,,,- ,
Itf),
10;1
..
I'C '
I~;
,'l! '
is,
'..'
'.~
o
e
-
o
C
~
.c
.!ll
:;;
is,
:{I,
i'!!
'fi '
l
i
'"
a;
'"
..
'"
....
8
i~1
!NI
g'
i :
I
I
Ig'
Igl
N_i
i~:
1
'g
I.
l:il'
Inl
"',
1818'
1~18.
'.,; ::I,
,'''-
I
it'
:~,
,ai
:~
,J9 I
.!!l
j'
1
:'2
'"
I '
Ig,
'.!2
'i,
',g
5
~
in
'"
~
....
j'!
.~!
!!:
..'
I~;
e
is!
'3
I~ I~I
'2 181
,e: ,_,
1.!21l
'1'~.Ei l:g,.
S! 2 'U'
1!i'~'1 i~i
~:'2.~!~1'
2 e'...-
l'i',.!!1 Ii ~
!... ,~I e-:-g
.S'~IQ.l.(Q!
5._:0 'I,
i:=; (Q,LL ,~I
'. cu I: 'U) i 0 ~
0.,-.... c:
1'01:'0 '-,
!:e:o'- .E!:
:(0 ~.g;:c:!
I Q" Q.;W' 9,!'
i;:o-:<lcIE:
,c:: :e! c: 1 enl
I'~ :li~I;'
Ci ~eln;'
'= 2''!!....,
1 '0 E c:
'~gJ~:~i
I:oua..
1- , . '7'
'0
~
'"
~
o
o
o
~
,j;.
e
,,,
i8,
~'E ,
..
,~
~
",
>
o
J!I
""
'"
;=
;'0
I'"
,-g
''''
I~
I"
,~
I
'C
C
'"
..
"
"
~,
.!:!!'
E!
"',
~
"
>
o
-g ~
ro'
1l
""
~:~
'nsi'c
'Oi~
11),0.:
,.2:t::
~~. ~i
m,'ns'
E1J
g ~:
~.~
8..5
i" e
~g
" '"
I;:,g-
g.:~
,,0.
:2;:0-
E; 5
Ci,o
..u
N
~
;:
'"
~
~
'"
..
'"
....
:8,
Ig'
I~
'gl
II
1:5
I~
'0
'0
I~:
c
!'~!
l:e i
1,5'
12
'iii,
'e
Ig,
l.w
E
'ro'
~!
,Sl:
0'
0.
09,
''C
.!l
:J!!I
i"
,.~
'0:
0.,
'"
:0.
o
~
M
~
'"
..
'"
....
Q:i;
! enl
''C'
;=Si
il"
1131
i~'
,0
It
I~
,,;
0;'
Ri
:::>'
:e
'ro
Ie::
Ie
,"
'e
!~i
,"
i~
,0
i;j
! 0.1
!~!
;:0-
e
"
o
'U'
'"
=~
~
.2
"
"
-:Q
'0'
0.
1m
"0
'e
~
"
.;:
"
'"
'"
~
'"
..
ro
....
o
o
o
CD
~
ai
...
o
o
o
CD
N
~
...
o
o
o
CD
N
aj
~
...
o 0
o 0
o c:i
N <Xl
... '"
6 en
M '"
'" '"
o
o
o
CD
~
ai
...
o
o
o
CD
~
N
~'
'"
o
o
o
CD
~
N
~
...
o
0'
o
CD
N
aj
~
...
o
o
o
CD
N
aj
~
...
~
o
c.,
~,
>-,
"i:
~
'"
::J
c-
o
.!
"
::J
0..
.,
-"
.,
J!
"ii
.,
:5
"ii
ci,
z'
0'
Z
::l
U.
...J
...:
>=
~.
...J,
...::
I-
o
I-
~
o
D-
"
~
>-
~
'"
::J
"
~
::J
.E
.,
::J
0.
.,
-"
.,
J!
"ii
.,
:5
ri:
...:
w
~
U
w
..,
o
II:
a..
...J
...:
....
o
....
WORK PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
DRAFT LETTERS AND RESOLUTION
EXAMPLES
ATTACHMENT C
August 2, 2000
William J. Carroll, Pre~jdent
Association of Bay Area Governments
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland. CA 94604.2050
James T. Beall. Chainnan
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter
101 Eighth Street
Oakland. CA 94607-4700
Dear Mr. Beall:
Robert R, Tofts. Chainnan
Bay Conservation and Development Commission
50 California, Suite 2600
San Francisco. CA 94111
Dear Mr. Carroll:
Dear Mr. Turft:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors respectfully asks ABAG, MTC, BCDC, as a partner of the
Regional Airports Planning Committee (RAPC), to work with RAPC's other partners, the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC),
to establish RAPC as a formal and official regional airport planning body with expanded authority in
regional airport activities planning.
Marin County makes this request in the face Q;fburgeoning air traffic and expansion activity of Bay Area
airports that impact all of the Bay Area. 'This impact extends beyond the immediate areas surrounding
each airport to a region-wide area subject to the overlapping effects ofthe San Francisco International,
Oakland International, and San Jose International airports.
Coordinated regional airports planning is essential to the development of air traffic service that meets
needs of Bay Area residents, providers, and consumers. The current deregulated airlines industry
environment presents a challenge to coordination. Airlines compete for niche markets at their hub
airport sites, and their host airports typically plan for growth based on the aviation industry's market
projections. Costs imposed on residents and environment of the region are addressed lightly or not at
all.
When capacity is expanded for airports individually rather than regionally, opportunities are lost that ean
maximize resources and minimize public costs. Coordinated regional planning expands the mix of
resources and provides more opportunities for the creative use of facilities, technology, and airspace to
reduce delay and meet demand. Expanded resources can meet the needs of a wider group of
stakeholders with less noise impacts on communities and hidden costs to ecosystems and the
environment.
In this context, we urge you to enlarge RAPC's role in regional airport system planning by taking the
following actions:
Acknowledge all stakeholders. Air traffic stakeholders in the Bay Area include (l) regional residents
affected by airport operations and the effects of those operations on their environment, (2) airline
customers, and (3) airline industry interests and service providers. An extensive public participation
process should become an integral part ofRAPC's planning activities.
Independently determine data needs. RAPC should independently derive data on relevant subjects such
as air traffic growth and demand, present and projected delays and their causes, and noise and
environmental effects throughout the region.
Analyze airport/airspace planning options as one integrated regional system. Each airport's
development should be evaluated as part of a single, integrated regional air transportation system
consistent with regional objectives, goals, policies, and standards. Regional airport planning should
describe how air operations will be integrated and coordinated between the existing and future major
DRAFT LETTER
WORK PROGRAM TASK la.
airports in the Bay Area, and how these facilities will maximize use of airspace and airport facilities
while minimizing costs, environmental effects, and air traffic delays.
Put the weight of regional authority behind regional recommendations by honoring planning processes
that are already in place. The Regional Airports System Plan (RASP) Update should be a formally
adopted element of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) pursuant to State Government Code
requirements that an RTP include aviation facilities and services. The current RASP was approved by
MTC in 1994 as an appendix to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and is considered advisory
only.
The above concerns are expressed in greater detail in the attached July 14 and July 27, 2000 letters of
comment on the RASP Update to Chris Brittle of the MTC.
We think the present is the ideal time to act on the ideas we raise here, and we welcome the opportunity
to discuss them more fully with the ABAG Executive Committee. We look forward to your response
and to a meaningful dialogue about planning for the growth and development of airports in the Bay
Area.
Sincerely,
Steve Kinsey, President
Marin County Board of Supervisors
cc: Honorable Lynn Woolsey, Congresswoman, US House of Representatives
Mark J. Riesenfeld, County Administrator
Alex Hinds, Director
Grace Schmidt, County Administrator's Office
Paul Schabracq, Planning Consultant and Leonard Charles & Associales
Mayors. City Managers and Council Members
RAPC Commissioners
Interested Parties
DRAFT LETTER
WORK PROGRAM TASK Ia.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF MARIN
URGING THE ASSOCIA nON OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS (ABAG),
THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC),
AND THE BAY CONSER V A nON AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (BCDC)
TO EXPAND AUTHORITY OF THE REGIONAL AIRPORTS PLANNING COMMITTEE
IN REGIONAL AIRSPACE AND AIRPORT USE PLANNING
WHEREAS, noise and other impacts of Increasing Bay Area air traffic are becoming significant
problems in the lives of many Marin County and Bay Area residents; and
WHEREAS, air traffic issues have tniditionally been dealt with in a fragmented fashion by
federal, state, and local agencies that represent their own prescribed jurisdictions and constituencies; and
WHEREAS, modern air traffic volume and technologies and increasing Bay Area population and
environmental risks have outdated traditional, fragmented air traffic planning and implementation; and
WHEREAS, the impacts of San Francisco International Airport, Oakland International Airport,
and San Jose International Airport are regional in nature and require the attentions of a regional planning
body; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Airports Planning Committee (RAPC) of the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and the Bay Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC) is a unique Bay Area organization that embodies regional
representation, expertise in air traffic issues, and the potential strength to coordinate airports and aIrspace
planning to effect an integrated regIOnal air transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the RAPe develops and updates the Regional Airports System Plan (RASP), which,
pursuant to requirements of State Government eode Sections 65080(a) 65081.1, should be treated as a
formally adopted element of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Marin urges ABAG, MTC, and BCDe to establish RAPe as a fonnal and official regional airport
planning body with expanded authority to coordinate airports and airspace planning to effect an integrated
regional aIr transportation system; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors urges RAPC to treat the RASP
as a fonnal element of the RTP subject to full public notice, hearing, comment. and CEQA compliance
prior to consideration and adoption.
DRAFT RESOLUTION
WORK PROGRAM TASK lb.
Date
Jane F. Garvey, Administrator
Federal Aviation Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
800 Independence A venue S W
Washington, DC 20591
RE: Air traffic impacts on Marin County, California
Dear Administrator Garvey:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors is concerned about the effects of recent San Francisco Bay Area air
traffic increases on the quality of life of Bay Arel\ and Marin residents. As major airports in the region plan for
expansions and reconfigurations to accommodate more flights and larger airplanes, our communities face greater
impacts. Airport planning options in the current RASP Update call for tradeoffs between flight delays due to
insufficient air field capacity (as well as to other causes) and aircraft noise and effects to San Francisco Bay
ecosystems.
For these reasons, members of the Marin County Board are pleased to learn the results of your June 2 I meeting
about air traffic issues with Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey. We thank you for your response to her request for
help in addressing our concerns and those of our constituents. We understand from Congresswoman Woolsey the
FAA will look into the following issues:
. The feasibility of increasing use of flight paths over the ocean rather than over land or the Bay.
. An audit of current SFO and Oakland airport flights over Marin County.
. An audit ofSFO and Oakland airport flights over Marin County in 1998 and 1999.
On behalf of our Marin County constituents and all Bay Area residents, and in support of Congresswoman
Woolsey's requests, we are making the following additional specific requests of the FAA. They are for (I)
information about flights over Marin, (2) analyses of alternative flight paths and consideration of Bay Area wide
flight path reconfiguration, and (3) regulatory enforcement.
Flights over Marin
We support Congresswoman Woolsey's request for FAA audits of past and present Marin County overflights.
Specifically, we would like to see audits ofnavaids at Pt. Reyes, Sausalito, and Skaggs Island for the three major
Bay Area airports in the years 1998, 1999, and 2000, each for one week of summer and one week of winter. For
these audits we would like to know the arrival/descent pattern, type of aircran, and flight aliitude. Additionally,
we would like the FAA to conduct a current altitude and noise audit in Marin, time and locations to be determined
by the
FAA and the County. We have received an offer from SFO Airport Director John Martin to develop a
comprehensive study of current Marin County overflights, and we are in the process ofascertaining the
methodology of that study to determine if it can fulfill the SFO's portion of the data for the audit requested of the
FAA, noted herein.
DRAFT LETTER
\VORK PROGRAM TASK 7a.
We would like the FAA to disclose to us all published and unpublished routes and procedures affecting airspace
over Marin. An example is the MOU between Bay TRACON and the Oakland Center concerning the altitude of
flights over the Sausalito navaid.
We would also like the FAA to provide us with a regional map of flight paths that show ceilings and floors for all
flight paths over the counties of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Contra Costa.
Alternative flight paths and flight path reconfiguration
We are asking the FAA to consider reconfiguring flight paths of the Bay Area wide region. We make this request
because increasing air traffic volume and advancing technology in aircraft and flight control have outdated 20-
year old flight patterns over increasingly populated Bay Area communities.
In this reconfiguration, we ask that flights be routed to the extent feasible over the ocean rather than over the San
Francisco Bay and densely populated or protected land areas. We also oppose use of the Skaggs Island flight path
proposed by SFO for takeoffs from expanded north-south runways, alternatives of the SFO reconfiguration
project. The Skaggs Island flight path would sublltantially shift noise and other air traffic impacts to Marin from
the south and east Bay Area. -
Regulatory enforcement
We would like the FAA to invoke 14 CRI', Part 16 I, to limit access of airport users, especially for night flights
and cargo flights, and to establish noise criteria that reflect local environmental needs -- including those of
National Parks and federally designated wildlife areas --, air traffic increases. and technology advances in aircraft
and air traffic control.
We ask the FAA to comply with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) by studying the entire Bay
Area for impacts of any proposed airspace changes outside the immediate vicinity of Bay Area airports,
We also ask the FAA to bcgin now to phase in a requirement for Category 4 aircraft at all Bay Area airports,
In closing. we thank you for your consideration of our requests and for your initial response to the requests of
Congresswoman Woolsey. We look forward to your reply and to your upcoming San Francisco visit the week of
September 19, We intend to continue to work with Congresswoman Woolsey's office and with your Bay Area
based lield staff to seck resolution of air traffic issues.
Sincerely.
Steve Kinsey. President
Marin County Board of Supervisors
cc: Honorable Lynn Woolsey. Congresswoman. US House of Representatives
Mark 1. Riesenfeld. County Administrator
Alex Hinds, Director
Grace Schmidl. Coullly Administralor's Omce
Paul Schabracq. Planning Consultant and Leonard Ch'lrles & Associates
Mayors. City Managers and Couocil Members
RAPC Commissioners
Interested Parties
DRAFT LEITER
WORK PROGRAM TASK 7..
T-". r. .UOZ ~-~II
,;'
o
u S OepanmcnT
or TrCl'lSpOrlQIlOn
'_01 A"iclriorl
Aclrninislrqdon
0"_ or 1M '-'lm,n.walO'
800 Inc'~nQ.nce Ave, S W
WUM>gJOn, OC 20'91
JUL 6 alOO
Th~ liol1Orabl~ Lynn Woob.y
"139 Cannon Hou$C Office BUlldlng
WashingtOl'l, Q,C. 205 IS
P~ar CongrC'))l1Uln Wool$CY:
I Vl'ry much apprl'ciartd the oppoltllllity ta speak with you last wetk about aviation-relal:cd
noise issu...s aff",amg Marin CoWlty.
As we discussed, 1 hav... asked IllY $taft to review t/1... feasibility of mcrC3Sed uriI.i2.:Won of
Vector 199, pan:icubrly from an oper.arion:l! lIIld safety p.enpective, We will report b-ack
to you with the r...sults of rhat r...vil'W.
,
Regarding your requl.'st for an audit of flights ov...r Matio. Couney from rh... !:m three years,
th... FAA will work with our:U.r tr.1ffic field st:lff in San Francisco md Oakland to a>cerum
th.level of tr.l.ffic CUfTently ov...rflyin~ Marin County. In ~clition, we will attempt to
obtain th.. traffic levels forrhe years you r<=qul.'sred, ,,"orking from both FAA dan and
outside- ,ources such :l:l the San Fnnciscc and Oakland ~rts.
I absclurdy Jgree with your d...sire to ...stablish good communiC&cion on these important
issul's. 1 apprecht" th" invitation to visit with you and 10c:U officials to exchange
infonnacion. I:un scheduled to be in the SoUl Francisco eay Area during the week of
September 19th and hJv" dit'l'cted my staff [Q work with your of(I('" to coordin= a
IDe<!rmg during my vi:>ir. It IS my hope mJc our meeting will also provide an appommiry
far rhe local officials you represem to nuke direct conr>a with the FAA's San Francisco
B~y Area base<l fit'ld staff. This will allow them to ensure gre~ter plJbJ;e involvem...m JS "'e
work to address concerns rel~ted to air space design and controL
I look forward ro 'Q/orking wil:h you. Suzanne SulliY:l.n, Assistant Admini=aror for
Government and Industry Aff.urs, will be in rou.;h ",ith your office. If you have any other
questions or COnCerns, please feel free to COlltict her at (202) 267-3277.
SIncerely,
J"d,~~hV
Adrnlm"rr"ror
i,
A'''POIIIT
COMMISSION
CITY AND COUNTY
OF SAN FRANCISCO
WILLIE L. BROWN, JR
MAYOR
HENRY E BERMAN
rRESIDENT
L^RRY M^ZLOLA
1/1([ PRESIDENT
MICHAEL S. STRUNSKY
LINDA S (R.:\VTON
CARnITO
JOHN L MARTIN
AIRPORT DIRECTOR
'San Francisco International Airport
July 3, 2000
P.O. 901 SO;}7
President Steve Kinsey and Members of the Board
]'1arln County Board of Supervisors
3501 Civic Center Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903
Jdn Fr"n(i~(:J, CA 94128
T<:>l 650.321.5000
Fax 650.821,5005
www.flysfo.com
\ }\'}
\ ,
\
Dear President Kinsey and County SupervIsors:
Members of my staff attended your May 16, 2000 hearing to discuss aircraft
overflight Issues and the SFO Runway Reconflguratlon project. We have reviewed
your staff analysis and recommendations.
The San Francisco Airport Commission has made a commitment that the Runway
Reconflguratlon project will not shift noise to another community. We are also
concerned with aircraft noise as It Impacts residents of the Bay Area. As you may
be aware, my staff has been working wIth residents IncludIng those residing in
Marin County. Our efforts have Included noise data collection, evaluation of
current aircraft procedures, and discussions with the FAA, Including proposals to
the FAA towards modifying procedures to lessen overflights and noise over
populated areas.
I have Instructed my staff to develop a comprehensive study of current overflights
over Marin County. This will be consistent with the studies previously conducted
in San Mateo, northern Santa Clara County and, more recently, the City and
County of San Francisco. This study will take approximately 8 months due to the
effort required. Once completed, we will share the results with you. Please
contact Roger Chinn of my staff at (650) 82] -51 00, for further Infonnation.
Very truly yours,
JO~~
Airport Director
ec: Airport Commission
bee; John COSt.lS
Stuart Sunshine
Roger Chinn
Michael McCarron
Date
Carole Wedl, Airport Noise/Environment Management Officer
Oakland International Airport
I Airport Drive, Box 45
Oakland, CA 94621
Dear Ms. Wedl:
The Marin County Board of Supervisors wishes to apply for membership on the Oakland
Airport-Community Noise Management Forum.
We have reviewed the Purpose of the Forum as stated in the Forum By-laws and are motivated to
take part in discussing, analyzing, and making recommendations about noise-related issues at
Oakland Airport. Significant portions of west and south Marin County are overflown by
Oakland Airport arrivals, and constituent complaints about air traffic noise in those areas have
increased dramatically in the past two years. Our newly adopted work plan to deal with impacts
of air traffic on Marin County includes participation in the Oakland Forum as a means of finding
ways to mitigate these impacts on rcsidents of Marin and all Bay Area communities.
We are prepared to meet all criteria of membership in the Forum by signing a Letter of
Understanding. by appointing one representative who is elected and one who is a private citizen,
and by contributing $1000 annually to costs of the group.
We look forward to working with other community representatives on the Forum toward
resolution of the issues of air traffic which alTect us all.
Sincerely.
Steve Kinsey. President
Marin County Board or Supervisors
DRAFT LETTER
WORK PROGRAM TASK lOb.
Action Issue
Decide if the County will apply for membership to the Oakland Airport-Community Noise
Management Forum.
Background
Two and a half years ago the Oakland Airport, Alameda County, and cities within the County
came together to deal with noise-related issues of the Airport. They created the Oakland Airport-
Community Noise Management Forum, which consists of the Port of Oakland, the County of
Alameda, and the cities of Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, Hayward, Oakland, Piedmont, San
Leandro, and Union City. An elected public official and a citizen represent each member city
and the County on the Forum. Each member agency has one vote, vested (for jurisdictions) in
the elected representative. Other Forum participants are selected by the Airport or by aviation
organizations. The FAA is advisor to the Iilroup.
,
As an advisory body to the Port Executive Director, the Forum is not subject to the Brown Act or
Sunshine Ordinance; however, efforts are made to honor the 10 day noticing requirements of the
Sunshine Ordinance.
At its last quarterly meeting, the Forum expanded membership to include two additional
jurisdictions - a city from West Contra Costa County, and an open seat.
Membership requircments
Marin County is technically eligible to apply for membership in the Forum, although the issue of
noise was conceived by Forum organizers as impacting geographic areas linked by land to the
Airport. Membership criteria includc the jurisdiction's location relative to the Airport's arrival
and departure corridors, the jurisdiction's proximity to the Airport, and resident complaints.
If application for Forum mcmbership is accepted, a jurisdiction must (I) sign a Letter of
Understanding about participation which is filcd with the Port of Oakland, (2) contribute $1000
yearly toward costs of the group, and (3) choose one elected public official and one private
citizen as representatives to the group. The public official may represent any public jurisdiction
within the County's borders.
Discussion
FAA and Bay Area airport otlicials and Marin County's aviation consultant say that current air
traffic noise impacts on the County are due more to Oakland arrivals than to any other air traffic
source. Oakland arrivals descend bl!ioll' SFO departures in order to turn east to land, and in
inclement weather they come in e\'en lower on their final descent to land into the ",ind.
Oakland Airport is the major sorting hub for Federal Express and UPS, two of the most
successful air cargo carriers in the world. Internet shopping, overnight service, and Pacific Rim
trade are expected to foster substantial growth in eargo traffic at Oakland Airport. By the year
DRAFT LETTER
WORK PROGRAM TASK lOb.
2020, total passenger and cargo growth is projected at 95% for Oakland, compared to 35% for
SFO.
One element of the County's recommended air traffic work program is to advocate for stricter
noise standards and access limitations at Bay Area airports. Membership in the Noise Forum
would give Marin a member's role as advocate in this regard.
On the other hand, Forum membership -- which will require some time and material commitment
from the County -- is advisory only to the Airport, and does not carry decision-making authority
with its vote. Its corollary, the SFO Roundtable, also staffed by its airport sponsor, has
sometimes been described as acting chiefly_as a public relations vehicle for the airport.
Recommendation to the BOS
Decide whether or not to apply for membership in the Oakland Airport-Community Noise
Management Forum (to Carole Wedl, AirPort NoiselEnvironmental Management Officer).
Application requires a Letter of Understanding with the Port of Oakland, $1000 annual
contribution, and the choice of an elected representative and a citizen representative to the group.
DRAFT LEITER
WORK PROGRAM TASK lOb.
I
I
,
,
,
LETI'ER OF vlmERSTANDING
For Establishing the
Oakland Airport-Commwdty Noise ManaKement Forum
. I
Statement of PIII;pose !
I
,
The purpose of the Oakland Airport-Comm\mity Noise Management Forum (hereinafter
called "Forwn'') is to provide a publicJorwb to discuss, analy%c and make
rc:conun=ndations to the Port of Oakland E~tive Director about noise related issues at
Oakland International Airport. The Forum }"ill provide a mechanism to facilitate
cooperation between the Airport and local cbmmunities.
Pnnctions
The functions of the Forum will be to:
- Provide a forum for discwsion by in~d parties
- Identify continuilli or new noise related i~sues .
- Discuss alternative actions and recommeJd poSSible solutions
- Promote cooperative actions by the indivrl ua1 members
Membership
r
The following agencies are invited to beco I e members of the Forum, and acceptance of
membership will be continued by signing's Letter of Understanding:
City of Alameda
City of Berkeley
City of Emeryville
City of Hayward
City of Oakland
City of Piedmont
City of San Leandro
City ofDnion City
County of Alameda
Port of Oakland
i
,
I
.
,
,
Any city in Alameda County that wishes tolbecome a member in the future may do so
with the approval of existing Forum mernb6rs and if the city agrees to abide by this Letter
ofUndcrstandlng. The Forum Is an advisof group to the Port of Oakland Executive
Director, I
I
I
,
~ 2'd
b82'ON
iJNt<i>lt<O jO l~Od
Wt<lp:0t 0002'8 '5nt<
Each member agency will have one vote in the Forum. Each member city and the County
of Alameda will appoint one elected representative and one citizen from its jurisdiction to
panicipate in the Forum. The authority to vote will be vested in each elected
representative. In the event an elected representative is absent, that voting authority may
be assigned by the elected representative to an alternate ofhis/her choosing. Tenn of
members,hip will be for two years, unless otherwise decided by the sponsoring agency.
Members may be reappointed.
The Airport will request local aviation representatives, including the FAA, to participate
in the Forum; however, they will not vote on Forum issues.
Fundini
Each city and the County of Alameda that chooses to become a member of the forum
will contribute $1,000.00 annually to help cover Forum operating expenses. The Port of
Oakland will pay the remaining costs.
The Airport Noise Management Office will provide staff support for the Forum. Other
support may be decided by the Forum and funded as stated above.
Signator:
(Agency name)
Date
~
t3,S,~ '0";
Q~~"'h'" _:: l~('d
:-JtjT:- :01 0002"8 "O:lnl:"
~-.",,"
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
Ik~ # 3
DRAFT
CALL TO ORDER
~',
Mayor Gram calle regular meet
on Wednesday ugust 16, 2000, in
California.
g of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:35 p.m.
wn Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon,
A. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Bach, Gram, Hennessy, Matthews, Thompson
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO:
Town Manager Kleinert, Interim Town Attorney
Sharp, Planning Director Anderson, Senior Planner
Watrous, Finance Director Stranzl, Superintendent
of Public Works Iacopi, Acting Chief of Police Lt.
Aiello, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi
B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If any)
Mayor Gram said no action was taken in closed session.
C. PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
None,
D. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
None
E. CONSENT CALENDAR
I) TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES - No. 1995 - July 19,2000; No. 1196 - August 2, 2000 -
(Adopt)
2) 2-98 NED'S WAY - (Chandler's Gate Senior Housing Project) - Grant of Five-foot
Drainage Easement; AP No, 58-151-27 - (Resolution)
Mayor Gram requested that Item NO.2 be heard at the conclusion of the meeting.
Town Manager Kleinert asked that Item NO.7 (Unfinished Business) be added to the Consent
Calendar as the Del Mar Valley Homeowner's Association President, Joan Wilson, had stated that
their group found the Statf's recommendation acceptable.
MOTION
Moved:
Vote:
To approve Consent Calendar No. I & 7 above.
Hennessy, Seconded by Gram
AYES: Unanimous
Mayor Gram asked to move New Business Item No. IO--"Town Manager Position - (Discussion
& Possible Appointment; Approval of Employment Agreement"--up on the agenda.
Tow" ('ouI/cil.\Jimu('s:l J 11.J:"
August /6. 2000
Page J
Mayor Gram introduced and announced the appointment of Portola Valley City Administrator
Alex Mclntyre as the new Tiburon Town Manager. Gram said the selection process started in
March when Town Manager Kleinert informed the Council of his retirement after 26 years as
Town Manager, A subcommittee of Mayor Gram and Councilmember Matthews was formed to
hire a search firm, Hughes Perry. Over 40 applications were received and Council interviewed six
(6) candidates and selected two finalists.
Mayor Gram said he had conducted reference interviews of Port 01 a Valley community activists,
Staff, Council and Commissioners which were all "overwhelmingly in favor" of Mr. McIntyre. He
summarized the Town's employment agreement with Mr. McIntyre, as follows:
· an annual salary of $11 0,000 and standard management benefits
· a $350 monthly auto allowance and a two-year Golden Gate Bridge "Fast Track Pass"
· a mortgage allowance of $250,000 (advanced by the City of Port 01 a Valley)
· at-will employment with 60 days written notice by either party
. '
. an annual performance review
· a termination package of six months severance pay
Mayor Gram opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. Town Attorney Sharp
said copies of the agreement were available to the public.
MOTION
To appoint Alex Mcintyre as Tiburon Town Manager and authorize the Town to
enter into the Employment Agreement with Mr. Mclntrye.
Matthews, Seconded by Bach
AYES: Unanimous
Moved:
Vote:
Council noted that Mr. Mcintyre's start date was still being negotiated, and that Town Manager
Kleinert would stay on until approximately the end of September.
F. APPOINTM.:NTS TO BOARDS. COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES
3) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - (One Vacancy)
Town Clerk Crane lacopi said the application period had closed. She also noted that several
candidates previously interviewed by Council for the Planning Commission vacancy had expressed
interest in Design Review, as well.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To appoint Michael Figour, 2131 Vistazo East, to the Design Review Board.
Bach, Seconded by Matthews
AYES: Unanimous
G, PlJBLlC nEARING
4) MARIN EMERGENCY RADIO AUTHORITY (MERA) - Appeal of Planning
Commission Denial of a Conditional Use Pernlit Application for installation and operation
of a Wireless COllllllunications Facility on a Marin Municipal Water District Storage Tank
site located at 99-1/2 Mt. Tiburon Road - (AP No. 58-261-32)
Tow" COlllld/.\Jinlllc's iJ II 'i;'
AIISlIs' I fl. 2000
Page 2
Senior Planner Watrous noted that MERA had requested a 90-day continuance of the matter.
Brock Arner, Executive Director ofMERA since August 1,2000, proposed two actions on behalf
ofMERA:
I) to withdraw the appeal;
2) request that the Council appoint a subcommittee consisting of two Town Councilmembers,
two members of COPAS (Citizens for Open Process in Antenna Siting) and two MERA
representatives, to study potential sites in Tiburon for the MERA antenna and to come back
to Council in 90 days with recommendations.
Mayor Gram asked that MERA not only withdraw its appeal, but withdraw the consideration of
the Mt. Tiburon site, as well.
Mr. Arner said that by withdrawing the a~peal, the site was being taken off the table and that no
new application could be made for at least one year (for that site), However, he said he could not
bind a public agency in the manner suggested by Mayor Gram.
Arner further stated that by withdrawing their appeal, MERA had essentially met the Council's
and Mayor Gram's objective,
Vice Mayor Thompson said it was a great idea to look at other sites and volunteered to serve on
the committee. Councilmember Hennessy concurred,
Council member Matthews said he wanted to "bring closure" to the Mt. Tiburon site, Mr. Arner
replied that MERA would report back in 90 days and that by withdrawing the appeal, the Mt.
Tiburon site was "off the table" for a minimum of one year according to State law,
Council member Bach also agreed with the recommended actions.
Mayor Gram also volunteered to serve on the committee. He suggested that Howard Zack or
Russ Pratt of COPAS be considered. as well,
In conclusion, Mayor Gram gave a brief background ofMERA. He said the County's "911"
emergency telephone system was breaking down and needed to be replaced. He said it was
important to the Town and the County to move forward on this matter. However, Gram said that
MERA had not provided enough public notice and review of the proposed [Mt. Tiburon] site, and
he thanked the neighbors for bringing it to the Council's attention.
Howard Zack. 99 Mt. Tiburon. thanked the neighbors and COPAS for bringing the matter to this
stage of the process, He thanked the Council and the Planning Commission for their
"constructive listening." He also acknowledged MERA for its forthcoming response.
Town Council.\fhmlc':'i Ii IIlJ7
..tl/glut J 6. :000
Page 3
5) 37 REED RANCH ROAD - Appeal of Design Review Board Denial of request for Site
Plan and Architectural Review to construct an addition to an existing single-family
dwelling with a Variance for reduced front yard setback -AP No. 34-301-03 - (Ann
Solomon, Applicant/Appellant)
Senior Planner Watrous gave the Staff Report. He said that the Design Review Board had
expressed concern about the mass and bulk of the addition and had continued the item with
direction to the applicant to address these issues. Watrous said the Board then determined at its
July 6, 2000 meeting that the applicant's proposed changes still did not significantly address their
concerns about bulk and mass and denied the application. The applicant, Mrs. Solomon, then
filed a timely appeal.
Watrous said that since the appeal had been filed, Mrs. Solomon had met with Staff and
Council member Matthews to discuss the issues and now had submitted revised plans for the
project. Watrous noted that [forme-r] ORB chair Wayne Snow had also seen the revised plans and
agreed with the proposed changes.
Therefore, according to Watrous, Staff now recommended that Council grant the appeal upon
approval of the revised plans,
David Holscher, Appellant's Architect, showed Council the difference between the previous and
current revisions, He showed how the house had been "pulled back" so that it would not "loom
over" Reed Ranch Road, and secondly, that the bulk and mass had been reduced by taking off the
deck and replacing it with an overhang. In addition, Holscher said the entryway to the house had
been pulled back five or six feet, but that the height and square footage of the house remained the
same.
In response to a question fi'om Vice Mayor Thompson, Mr. Holscher said the living room (first
story of the house) was recessed so that the wall of the (second story) bedroom would not appear
to be one mass.
Mayor Gram opened the public hearing.
Tom Riley, 43 Reed Ranch Road, asked how far back from the property line the house was, Mr.
Holscher replied that there was approximately eight feet from the property line to the curb, with a
17' 6" setback from the property line, so the house stood approximately 26 feet from the curb.
For the record, Mrs, Solomon, Applicant/Appellant, said the all the houses on Reed Ranch Road
were zoned to have 25 feet setbacks when the area was developed under County jurisdiction, and
that they all had applied for and had since received variances. She noted that her neighbors had a
17' setback,
Mayor Granl closed the public hearing.
TOll'lI Council .\ /1',,11I('.'0 :j II cJ;'
August /6. :000
J\lgt! .J
In response to questions from Council, Senior Planner Watrous said he thought the new plans met
the spirit of the Design Review Board's desires as articulated in the two previous hearings. He
said the Board was not looking for a "substantial overhaul" of the plans. He confirmed that public
hearing notices of the appeal had been sent to all homes within 300 feet of the project.
MOTION
Moved:
Vote:
To uphold the Appeal subject to the revised design presented by the Applicant and
represented by Staff.
Matthews, seconded by Bach
A YES: Unanimous
Mr. Watrous said Staff would return with i resolution of findings at the next meeting.
6) 223 DIVISO STREET - Appeal of Design Review Board Decision Denying Application
for Legalization of an as-built Fe~e on and near Property - AP No. 059-131-07 -
(Malcolm Misuraca and Victoria E1rieant, Applicants! Appellants) - Request for
Continuance to Septemher 20, 2000
Council notcd Staffs recommendation for a continuance.
H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7) A VENIDA MIRAFLORES MEDIAN STRIP LANDSCAPING - (Request by Del Mar
Valley Property Owncrs' Association for Portion of Town Water Allocation)
Item adopted on Consent Calendar.
8) DOG WASTE RECEPTACLE SYSTEM FOR TOWN PARKS & PARTHS - (Consider
Parks & Open Space Commission Recommendation & Adopt Program for FY 200 I)
Mayor Gram asked for a discussion of the Mill Valley Refuse Franchise Agreement first.
However, Council concurrcd with the Parks & Open Space Commission's recommendation to
begin utilization of a newspaper-style plastic bag dispenser system at five stations in Town for a
trial period of one year, The Council also authorized a fund transfer not to exceed $2,5000 from
the Park Development Reserve Fund to cover the cost of the dispenser installation and bags,
9) MILL V ALLEY REFUSE SERVICE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT - (Consideration of
additional service for Town Parks Garbage Pick-up)
Superintendent of Public Works lacopi said the proposal had been raised during the budget
hearings. He noted that although his men had complained of the problems associated with
handling dog waste, he now felt that if the new bag dispenser system were successful, it would
alleviate those problems.
Mayor Gram asked if there was a better use of the Department's time. Mr. Iacopi replied that the
men assigned to the Town parks garbage pick-up also had to clean the areas around the cans,
Town COU1It'il.\/ittw(....:: J ft)1
..tllgflst /6, 2000
Page 5
make repairs and do landscaping, so that they would still have to go to all those locations as part
of their weekly routine anyway.
Iacopi recommended waiting to amend the Franchise Agreement until after the trial period for the
new dog waste receptacle system. Mayor Gram indicated that he did not concur with this
recommendation.
Council member Hennessy said she had hoped to find a way to pass the cost of the new dispenser
system onto the users of the Town parks and multi-use path.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt the Superintendent of Public Work's recommendation to continue the
Town parks garbage pick-up during the trial period of the new Dog Waste
Receptacle Dispenser System.
Thompson, Seconded by ryIatthews
A YES: Bach, Hennessy, Matthews, Thompson
NOES Gram
1. NEW BUSINESS
10) TOWN MANAGER POSITION - (Discussion & Possible Appointment; Approval of
Employment Agreement)
See above,
II) FY 200 I FUND TRANSFERS - (General Fund Reserve Reallocations & Transfers)-
Conlinlled 10 Seplemher 6, 2000.
Council noted Staff's recommendation for a continuance.
12) TOWN OF TIBURON STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - (Award of Contract)
A) SPRING 2000 STREET OVERLAY PROJECT
B) GREENWOOD BEACH DRAINAGE PROJECT
Town Manager Kleinert informed Council that the low bidder on Item B, D&D Pipelines of
Greenbrae, had requested a withdrawal of their bid due to clerical error. He said the Town
Attorney, John Sharp, recommended releasing D&D, but that the Town Engineer recommended
postponing the award of both bids pending further study.
Council expressed an interest in moving forward on the streets project and asked if alternate
streets (to replace Greenwood Beach Road) had been designated, Staff indicated that this was the
case.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To award the contract for the Spring 2000 Streets Rehabilitation Contract to the
low bidder, North Bay Construction, and to remove Greenwood Beach Road from
the contract.
Bach, Seconded by Thompson
AYES: Unanimous
Town COllncil.\JimJtl's iI/IV-;-
..Iugust I~, :000
Page 6
Council member Bach noted that if the other contract was awarded within a reasonable period of
time, Greenwood Beach Road could be added back into the street overlay timeline.
J. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
13) BEL VEDERE DRAINAGE DIVERSION PROJECT - (Oral Status Report)
Town Manager Kleinert said a Landscape subcommittee had been appointed by the Belvedere
City Council and had conducted one meeting, He said the landscape plans would be available for
Town Council review at a future meeting.
Kleinert also noted that the City of Belvedere had experienced a delay in the project over the issue
of an area of wetlands designated by CAL/TRANS and the Army Corps of Engineers. He said
that Belvedere would not be able to make the cut across Tiburon Boulevard until that issue was
resolved.
K. COMMUNICATIONS
14) SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS-
A) Paradise Drive from Tiburon Boulevard Turn-Around to Mar West Street-
(Tiburon Volunteer Fire Department Request for Street Closure and Use of
Waterfront Park for Chili Festival on September 9, 2000)
B) Main Street Parking Lot - (SF Film Society Request for Outdoor Screening on
September 21, 2000)
Items noted,
15) MARIN COUNTY OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES - July 2000 Newsletter-
(SEMS Orientation to Emergency Management)
Mayor Gram suggested that the topic be presented at one of the Marin Council of Mayors and
Councilmembers (MCCMC) meetings,
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO.2 - 2-98 Ned's Way - (Chandler's Gate Senior Housing
Project) - Grant of Five-Foot Drainage Easement; AP No. 58-151-27 - (Resolution)
Mayor Gram asked if escrow had closed on the project.
Planning Director Anderson said no, but that the Final Subdivision Map for the Chandler's Gate
Project would be recorded the following day.
Mayor Gram expressed concern that the developer was getting a "free ride" from the Town with
no incentive to close the deal. He recommended against acting on the drainage easement issue
until after the close of escrow,
Mark Chamberlin, Project Manager, said it had never been their intention to delay the project and
that they had been working diligently with Staff to complete the paperwork.
Tow1I ('OJweil .\Jimtll'S II lIe) 7
Augllsl/6. ::000
PlIg.7
Council concurred with the Mayor's recommendation and continued the matter.
L. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon, Mayor Gram
adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m., to a continuation of the closed session,
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Town Council .\lillu/es #/ /97
Augu.tI6. 1000
Page 8
TmURON TOWN COUNCa
STAFF REPORT
Meeting:
To:
From:
SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 Item:
TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
MONnIL Y INVESTMENT SUMMARY REPORT -
AS OF THE MONnI END_ED JULY 31, 2000
CONSENT # 1
Subject:
TOWN OF TIBURON
Institution! Agency
Investment
Amount
Interest Rate
Maturity
State of California Local Agency ; S6,075,675 6.443% Liquid
Investment Fund
(LAlF)
Total Invested: S6,075,675
TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Institution! Agency
Investment
Amount
Interest Rate
Maturity
State of California Local Agency S597,723 6.443% Liquid
Investment Fund
(LAIF)
Bank of America Other SO
Total Invested: S597,723
Notes to table infonnation:
State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): The interest rate represents the effective yield for the
month referenced above. The State of California generally distributes investment data reports in the third week
following the month ended. (As received August 17, 2000)
Acknowledgment: This surrunary report accurately reflects all pooled investments of the Town of Tiburon and
the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency, and is in confonnity with State laws and the Investment Policy adopted by
the Town Council. The investment program herein surrunarized provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet
~~..~
Ri'ch d tranz1 . D'
ar S ,Fmance lfector
August 21, 2000
cc: Town Treasurer
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE: 9/6/2000
s-
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES
AUGUST 30, 2000
BACKGROUND
The Town Council authorized the preparation of Downtown Design Guidelines in 1999. A
Request for Proposal (RFP) was distributed and six firms submitted proposals, The cost range of
the proposals was between $35,000 and $40,000,
The top three of the six firms were interviewed by a Selection Committee consisting of Vice-
Mayor Thompson, Planning Commission Chairman Berger, Heritage & Arts Commission
Chairman Kline, and the Planning Director.
ANAL YSIS
The team headed by architect James McLane of James McLane & Associates of San Francisco
was selected as the most qualified and likely to produce a superior document. Mr, McLane has
assembled a high-caliber team consisting of himself, an urban designer, a landscape architect, and
a signagcJgraphics expert. The Selection Committee was very impressed with the credentials of
this team, and has confidence in this team's ability to produce useful design guidelines for the
Downtown Area as well as provide design vision for the Tiburon Boulevard portion of
Downtown that will be most subject to change over the next 15-20 years, Staff also anticipates
that the Downtown Design Guidelines will provide a "head start" on revisions to the Town's
General Plan Downtown Sub-element, thereby reducing future expenditures on that update.
Town Staff is also interested in retaining this team for design-development level input on the
$830,000.00 ferry-relnted improvement project.
The FY 2000-2001 budget currently allocates $30,000.00 for preparation of the Downtown
Design Guidelines. As noted above, the six proposals submitted ranged from $35,000 to $40,000.
The McLane & Associates proposal is for $40,000.00,
7'ibll1't.m rOW1I Corlllo/
~\~t{~U }?{'por'
9 6 ~OOO
Staff believes that the proposal is reasonably priced and recommends a budget augment of
$10,000 for preparation of the Downtown Design Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Town Council:
. Authorize a budget amendment of$10,OOO for preparation of the Downtown Design
Guidelines.
. Approve the service agreement with Jllcmes McLane & Associates for $40,000.00 for
preparation of the Downtown Design Guidelines, and authorize the Town Manager to
execute the service agreement.
EXHIBITS
1. Scope of Services.
Tiburoll Town Council
Staff R'PO/1
9 6 JOOO
2
.. -
DOWNTOWN TIBURON
DESIGN GUIDELINES
INTRODUCTION
The team submitting this proposal consists of four individuals tepresenting each of the
professional disciplines called for by the Request for Proposal. Each member is a principal in
his respective firm, and each has worked with other members of the team on previous
projects.
PROJECT TEAM
. James McLane, McLane & Associa~s, Architects, San Francisco
James McLane & Associates wilf serve as the lead consultant for contract
management and production. Mclane will be the primary contributor to the design
guideline's architectural elements and details, along with those pertaining to
pedestrian circulation and accessibility
. Robert Bruce Anderson, Urban Designer, San Francisco
Bruce will handle day-to-day coordination and scheduling of substantive work items
and meetings of all team members, generate and edit text for the design guidelines,
and oversee development and production of the design guidelines to ensure their
consistency and wholeness
. Michael Manwaring, Environmental Graphics, San Anselmo
Michael will be the team's primary contributor to signage and graphic elements of
the design guidelines, and additionally, will prepare schematic sketches of "gateway"
or "entry" features to Downtown Tiburon
. Stephen Wheeler, Landscape Architect, San Francisco
Steve will be the team's primary contributor to srreetscape elements of the design
guidelines, including street furniture, landscaping and lighting
TEAM QUALIFICATIONS
Mclane has completed twO design guideline documents for the National Park Service, and
his architectural practice emphasizes historic preservation. Anderson has a distinguished
record of planning and urban design projects, including design and planning documents, for
public agencies across California. Manwaring is a well-recognized innovator of
environmental design and graphics. Wheeler has extensive experience in urban design and
landscape design for institutional projects.
Detailed information on the qualifications of each team member follows this narrative.
TEAM'S ApPROACH
To develop Design Guidelines for Downtown Tiburon that:
. are informative, concise, clearly stated and attractively presented;
EXHIBIT NO.
1
Jama McLa,,~ c!r /bJociaUJ, August 2H. 200fJ
PropoJal eo Pr'1'ar~ DOUInUlW1l D~Jign GuiJeunn
· respect and respond to character-defining e1emen[S of Downcown Tiburon's historic
townscapc;
· encourage designs and materials evocacive of Downtown Tiburon's historic architecture
and building eypes (racher chan accempting co enshrine the past with use of replicacions
and faux creations); .
· are illustracive and conscructive in both contenc and cone (racher chan being prescriptive
and direccive);
· welcome appropriace kinds of new conscruccion as equal partners and major contributors
to che life and vicalicy of Downtown Tiburon; and
· stress che imporcance and value of maintaining and repairing Downcown Tiburon's
hiscoric building fabric (racher chan assuming replacement as che preferred alcernative).
PROJECf COMPONENTS
>
The projecc's principal componcnts 'will consisc of:
· A sice reconnaissance CO idencify and record characcer-defining elements of Downtown
Tiburon's townscape;
· Review of existing plans, ordinances, scudies and ocher macerials as relaced to Downtown
Tiburon's pasc, presenc and fueure development;
· Public workshops and meetings 1'0 obtain the viewpoints and ascercain che interescs of
properry and business owners, residents and cown officials;
. Development of design guidelines thac address and reinforce che discinccive
environments chat comprise Downcown Tiburon: che wacerfronc, Main Screec, Ark Row
and Tiburon Boulevard; and
· Developmenc of a graphic product chac presencs che design guidelines in an accraccive,
user-friendly format, and that is easily reproducible.
PROJECf MEETINGS
The RFP calls for three (.>) meecings with the public, and four (4) meetings wich rhe staff.
Including preparation time and ;IIlY necessary follow up, ic is escimaced chac public meetings
will require an average of six (6) hours each (including cravel cime from SF), and chac
meetings with stafT will require :Ul :lVerage of four (4) hours each (again, including cravel cime
from SF).
Public Meetings
Meetings with Staff
James MeLine
Roberc Bruce Anderson
Michael Manwaring
Scephen Wheeler
2
3
2
2
3
4
2
2
2
Jama MclAne & Anociates. August 28, 2000
PropOJ4/ to PrqJa" Doumtown Design GuuuJinn
Content of the three public meetings tentatively is envisioned as follows:
· A workshop-type format to: 1) present findings and observations of the site
reconnaissance activity; and 2) ascertain what property and business owners, residents
and other interested parties think about Downtown Tiburon as a place, including their
points of view re "character" changes to Tiburon over the past 20-30 years and their
thoughts as to desirable qualities and features that they would like to see reflected in
Design Guidelines for Downtown Tiburon
· A presentation of preliminary concepts and design guidelines for architecture of
buildings and storefront design, including signage and graphics
· A presentation of preliminary concepts and design guidelines for streetscape and
"gateways" or "entries", including signage and graphics
Content of the four meetings with staff tentatively is envisioned as follows:
.
· Kick-off to review project scope, schedule and particularly relevant aspects and elements
of existing plans, ordinances, policies and procedures
. Draft of design guidelines re architecture and storefront design
· Draft of design guidelines re streetscape and "gateways" or "entries"
. Draft of Design Guidelines for Downtown Tiburon
PROJECT SCHEDULE AND WORK PlAN
Week 1
Task 1: Kick-Off Meeting with Staff
Review, discuss and make any necessary refinements or adjustments to
project scope and schedule; obtain available project-related materials; and
review and discuss any existing plans, projects, conditions or other matters
that are likely to require special attention or focus during life of the
project.
(8 hours: McLlOe, Anderson @ 4.0 ea.)
Task 2: Review of Background Materials
Review and summarization of relevant plans, ordinances, policies,
procedures and other materials likely to directly affect generarion of design
guidelines; and limited amount of research activity.
(16 hours: Anderson)
Weeks 2-3
Task 3: Site Reconnaissance
Documentation and recordation, as appropriate, of observable conditions
and features of the architecture, storefronts, sereeescape and public spaces
within the four distinct environments that appear to comprise Downtown
Tiburon: the waterfront, Main Street, Ark Rowand Tiburon Boulevard.
(40 hours: Mclane, Manwaring and Wheeler @ 8.0 ea., and Anderson @
16.0)
3
James McLane & NsociallS. AugUlllH. 2000
Week 4
Weeks 5-7
Weeks 8-10
Week 11
Weeks 12-14
Weeks 15-17
Week 18
PropolAi to Prepar~ Downutvn D~sign C'l4iMlinn
Task 4: Public Meeting #1
A workshop-type meeting with a two-fold agenda: 1) Presentation of
findings and observations stemming from consultants' site reconnaissance
activity; and 2) An open session with property and business owners,
residents and other interested parties as to what chey chink abouc
Downtown Tiburon. including "characcer" changes co Tiburon as a
community during che past 20-30 years and cheir choughts as co desirable
qualities and feacures that they would like to see reflected in che Design
Guidelines for Downcown Tiburon.
(22 hours: McLane, Manwaring and Wheeler @ 5.0 ea., and Anderson @
7.0)
Task 5: Architecture and Storefront Design Guidelines
Development of drafc design guidelines for archicectural elements and
storefronts of Downt9wn Tiburon, including building heights, foocprints.
secbacks, rooflines, balconies and decks. macerials. fenestration and
glazing. entries, signage, graphics and colors.
(105 hours: McLane and Anderson @ 40.0 ea., and Manwaring@ 25.0)
Review Period for Town ofTiburon: Task 5 Product
Task 6: StafT Meeting #2
Work session with scafT to obtain review comments and suggestions
regarding content and format of l' ask 5 product.
(8 hours: McLane, Anderson @ 4.0 ea.)
Task 7: Public Meeting #2
Presel1tacion of draft design guidelines for architectural elements and
storefrol1ts of Downcown Tiburon (Task 5 product), incorporating
changes resulting from work session with stafT.
(15 hours: Mcl.ane and Anderson @ 6.0 ca., and Manwaring @ 3.0)
l' k 8 S G 'd I' d "G ""E. "
as: treetscape UI e mes an ateways or ntrles
Development of draft design guidelines for streetscape elements of
Downcown Tiburon, including street furniture (seating, lighting fixtures,
trash receptacles, kiosks, bicycle racks). landscaping, signage and graphics,
and schematic sketches for "gateway" or "entry" features to Downtown
Tiburon.
(85 hours: Wheeler @ 40.0, Manwaring @ 25.0, and Anderson @ 20.0)
Review Period for Town ofTiburon: Task 8 Product
Task 9: StafTMeeting #3
Work session with staff to obtain review comments and suggestions
regarding concent and format ofT ask 8 product.
(12 hours: Wheeler. Manw:lring and Anderson @ 4.0 ea.)
4
-'" - ~-
;,"", McLAnt .;. AnIlCu,m. Augw' 28. 2000
Weeks 19-21
Weeks 22-24
Week 25
Weeks 26-27
P"'pollli to Pr",'rt Downtown Dni!?, GuiMunn
Task 10: Public Meeting #3
Presentation of draft design guidelines for streetscape elements and
schematic sketches for "gateways" or "entries" to Downtown Tiburon
(Task 8 product), incorporating changes resulting from work session with
staff.
(18 hours: Wheeler. Manwaring and Anderson @ 6.0 ea.)
Task 11: Preliminary Draft of Design Guidelines for Downtown
Tiburon
Preparation of preliminary layout and manuscript. graphics. headings and
captions for proposed Design Guidelines for Downtown Tiburon.
(80 hours: McLane and Anderson @ 25.0 ea.. and Manwaring and
Wheeler @ 15.0 ea.)
Review Period for T'twn of Tiburon: Task 11 Product
,
Task 12: Staff Meeting #4
Work session with scaff to obtain review comments and suggestions
regarding content and format of Task 11 product.
(8 hours: McLane. Anderson @ 4.0 ca.)
Task 13: Production and Delivery of Final Materials
Preparation of final text, captions and artwork for Design Guidelines for
Downtown Tiburon.
Delivery of 50 bound copies, camera-ready reproducible copy, and
computer files for Design Guidelines for Downtown Tiburon.
(30 hours: Mclane. Anderson @ 15.0 ca.)
EsTIMATED HOURS FOil EACH TFAM MEMBER
McLane 111
Anderson 167
Manwaring 91
Wheeler 78
Total 447
THE FINAL PRODUCT: DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE TOWN OF TIllURON
The Guidelines document will present general concepts and principles for design of
renovation or new projects in the three downcown districts known as Ark Row, Main Street,
and Tiburon Boulevard. The guidelines will address the seven topics listed in the Town's
Request for Proposal, dated. February 23, 2000. An appendix section will provide illustrated
examples of. or specifications for, a limited number of elements, as deemed necessary by
JMA. Illustrations such as photos, drawings, and diagrams will be included to the c-'Ctenc
necessary to explain concepts presenced in the tc-'Ct.
5
Jama McLAn~ & Auoci4I~/, Augwl 28, 2000
Prop'''' .. Prtp." DtnIm"""" Design Guidelines
Physical design for specific sites in Downtown is not included in the scope of the Guidelines,
but some design concepts may address site-specific issues.
The final product will be a spiral-bound paper document in black-and white copy, with the
possible inclusion of one or two color illustrations. JMA will deliver one original and five
hard copies at no charge. Additional copies may be provided as a reimbursable expense. JMA
will also provide the document as a computer file, composed in Word '98 or PageMaker
6.52, MacIntosh platform, for the Town's use in publishing additional copies from it's own
computers and printers.
Scott Anderson, Planning Director, Planning and Building Department, will act as contact
person for the project.
James McLane and Associates OMA), acting as the prime consultant, will retain the services
of Anderson, Manwaring, and Wheeler.lIS sub-consultants.
- "
PROFESSIONAL FEES
JMA will provide the professional services described in the Schedule and Work Plan for a
lump sum fee of $40,000. The schedule of payments will be as follows:
Billing Schedule
Week 4 Invoice #1
Week 8 Invoice #2
Week 12 Invoice #3
Week 16 Invoice #4
Week 20 Invoice #5
Week 24 Invoice #6
Completion Invoice #7
Total
$5700
$5700
$5700
$5700
$5700
$5700
$5800
-$40,000
J MA will provide one copy of the progress teview materials listed above at no charge.
Additional copies will be charged to the Town as a reimbursable expense.
JMA will provide presentation materials required for meetings included in the Schedule and
Work Plan.
JMA will obtain written research materials at it's own expense.
JMA will not charge for travel time to the meetings specified in the Schedule and Work Plan.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Should the Town direct JMA to provide services not included in the Schedule and Work
Plan, JMA will provide such services at additional cost. The charges for such services will be
provided on a time-and materials basis, and calculated using the hourly billing rates listed
below. JMA will add a ten percent mark-up to the services of it's sub-consultants.
6
fa=, Mcune 6- AnfJC;",n. Augut' 28. 2000
Proposal to Pr'Par~ Downk1Um Design Guuu/inn
Billing Rates
James Mclane
JMA Technical Scaff
Bruce Anderson
Michael Manwaring
Manwaring Staff
Stephen Wheeler
$100
$65-80
$110
$150
$85
$75
CHARGES FOR REIMBURSABLE ExPENSES
JMA may charge the Town for Reimbursable Expenses upon approval of che Town's contact
person. They are calculated as che direct COSt of the item plus a mark-up of ten percent.
These charges may include. but are not limited to, the following:
. Reproduction of historic photogRlphs.
. Additional copies of work products.
. Travel to meetings not specified in the Schedule and Work Plan above QMA will not
charge for travel time to the meetings specified in the Schedule and Work Plan).
. Conversion of computer files to programs or formats not specified herein.
7
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA NO.:
~
FROM:
SENIOR PLANNER WATROUS
SUBJECT:
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY
GRANTI~G APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DECISION TO DENY SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, WITH A
VARIANCE FOR REDUCED FRONT SETBACK (37 REED
RANCH ROAD)
MEETING DATE:
SEPTEMBER 6, 2000
SUMMARY:
On August 16,2000, the Town Council held a public hearing on an appeal of the Design Review
Board's decision to deny Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for the construction of an
addition to an existing single-family dwelling, with a Variance for reduced front yard setback, on
property located at 37 Reed Ranch Road. At that meeting, the Town Council reviewed revised
plans for this addition and determined that the revisions were consistent with the direction of the
Design Review Board regarding this application. The Council then voted unanimously (5-0) to
grant the appeal based on the revised plans. A resolution has been prepared memorializing this
decision, and is attached.
RECOMMENDA TlON:
Adopt the attached resolution conditionally granting the appeal.
EXHIBITS:
I. Draft resolution
TlIllJRON TOWN COUNCIL
ST AFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 6.!OOO
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
GRANTING THE APPEAL BY ANN SOLOMON
OF THE DENIAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARClllTECTURAL REVIEW
AND A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK
AND IMPOSING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 37 REED RANCH ROAD
-
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2000, the Design Review Board held a public hearing to
consider the approval of an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review and a Variance for
reduced front yard setback for an addition to a single-family residence at 37 Reed Ranch Road,
proposed by Ann Solomon ("Owner"); af\d
WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony and considering the application, the Board
conveyed its initial concerns regarding the proposed additions, primarily concerning the mass and
bulk of the proposed addition when viewed from Reed Ranch Road and from properties across
the street, and continued the item until July 6, 2000; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2000, the Board held the continued public hearing and, after
considering the moditications made to the proposal in response to its direction of June 15, 2000,
determined the changes were insignificant and did not adequately address the previously raised
concerns, and directed Staff to prepare a resolution denying the application; and
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2000 the Design Review Board adopted Resolution No. 2000-03
denying this application; and
WHEREAS, on July 3\,2000, the Owner filed an appeal of the Board's decision to deny
the application for Site Plan and Architectural Review and Variance for reduced front yard
setback tor 37 Reed Ranch Road; and
WHEREAS, the appeal canle before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on August
16, 2000, at which time the Town Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on the appeal; and
WHEREAS, on August 16,2000, after hearing all testimony and reviewing all documents
on the record, the Town Council found that a revised set of plans submitted to the Town of
Tiburon on August 16,2000 was in keeping with the direction of the Design Review Board to
mitigate the mass and bulk of the proposed addition and reduce the potential visual impacts of the
addition when viewed frOI11 Reed Ranch Road; and
WHEREAS. based on the above findings, the Council determined to grant the appeal by
the Owner. based on the revised plans submitted to the Town (a vote of 5-0).
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No.
Sa,k.,"" 6. 2000
1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon to memorialize that the appeal of Ann Solomon was granted, subject to the following
conditions:
I. The development of this project shall conform with the application dated by the
Town ofTiburon on May 8, 2000, or as amended by these conditions of approval.
Any modifications to the plans of August 16,2000, must be reviewed and
approved by the Design Review Board.
2. This approval shall be used l,Vithin three (3) years of the approval date, and shall
become null and void unless a building permit has been issued.
3. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan cheek shall be identical to
those approved by the De!l,ign Review Board. Ifany changes are made to the
approved Design Review plans, the permit holder is responsible for clearly
identifYing all such changes when submitted to the Building Department for plan
check. Such ehanges must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on
the submitted plans. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted
and attached to the building plans, with a signature block to be signed by the
Design Review Stall'member indicating that these changes have been reviewed and
are approved, or require additional Design Review. All changes that have not been
explicitly approved by Stall'as part of the Building Plan Check process are not
approved. Construction that docs not have Design Review approval is not valid
and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal.
4. The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior to the issuance of
a building permit f(lr this project.
5. All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review
Board must be down light type fixtures.
PASSED AND ADOPTED atll regular meeting of the Town Council on September 6,
2000, by the following vote:
AYES: COlJNClLMEMDERS:
NOES: COUNClLMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COlJNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COlJNCILMEMBERS:
TIOOron Town Cooncil
Reo<llution N<>
s.,Ae., b.. 6. 2000
2
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
H :dwatrous/resolutionsrrC200020.resolution.doc
Tiburon Town Council
Rosoh.tlon No.
~,obel 6.2000
3
I/P~ # 1-
PROCLAMATION
IN RECOGNITION OF JOHN ROONEY
AND DAVID HINMAN ON THE
OCCASION OF THE 30th ANNIVERSARY
OF ROONEY'S CAFE & GRILL
WHEREAS, AfLer 12 successful yeArs in the SAn FrAncisco
restAurAnL scene, owners John R~oney And DAvid HinmAn searched near
and fAr for a new locALion before seLtling in Tiburon at 38 Main Street; and
WHEREAS, wiLh the hJlp of architect John Halsey, they
su<:cessfully trAnsformed the resLiluranL formerly known AS "Cappies" into
the well-known cafe:) called "Rooney's," which opened in October 1970; and
WHEREAS, J"hn And David, both extraordinary, self-taught chefs,
have developed a detlieALed and loyal following since that time with their
lunches seven days a week, dinner five nighLs and week, and their well-
known Sunday brunch; and
WHEREAS, Rooney's is a fAvoriLe hAng-out of lOCAls and visitors
alike, and serves C'l11sisLenLly delicious food ranging from its famous corned
beef and pastrilmi sallllwiclles L,' gounnct dinners, And is well-known for its
crab cakes, gazp41cbo, 41nJ l')lllcr seasonal favorHes; and
WHEREAS, R"oney's CAfe:) & Grill was named "Business of the
Month" in February 1999 by the Tiburol1 Rotary Club;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, thAt the Town of
Tiburon is pleilsed Lo presenL Lllis proclA111Ati'll1 to John Rooney ilnd David
Himnilll on the oCCilsi'l11 "f Lbe 30th Anniversary of Rooney's Cafe [-1 Grill.
TOM GRN\l, MAYOR
September 6,2000
RESOLUTION NO.
I~~ -# e
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND SUBMISSION
OF FUNDlNG REQUEST FORMS
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSERVATION'S DIVISION OF RECYCLING
4?A .'>0
~r-r
WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the California
Beverage Container Recycling and Littler Reduction Act that provides funds to cities and
counties for beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Conservation's Division of Recycling has
been delegated the responsibilify for the administration of the program within the State,
setting up necessary procedures for cities and counties or their designees under the program;
and
WHEREAS, per Section l4581(a)(4)(E) of the California Beverage Container
Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, the eligible participant must submit the Funding Request
Form by the due date and time in order to request funds from the Department of
Conversation's Division of Recycling;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon authorizes the submittal of the Funding Request Form attached hereto as Exhibit
"A" to the Department of Conservation's Division of Recycling.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town's Recycling Coordinator is hereby
authorized and empowered to execute all necessary current and/or future forms on behalf of
the Town ofTiburon for the purposes of securing payments and to implement and carry out
the purposes specified in Section 14581 (a)(4)(A) of the California Beverage Container
Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, and to provide information regarding this program to the
Division upon request.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council on
September 6, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS:
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
ATTEST
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Rec:vc/ing Funding Request,res
TOWN OF TIB URON
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
1505 TlBURON BLVD., TIBURON, CA 94920
(415) 435-7380 FAX (415) 435-7395
THE TOWN OF TIBURON ENJOYS SPECTACULAR SHORELINE VIEWS, AND
SERVES AS A GATEWAY FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF VISITORS
TAKING THE FERRY TO ANGEL ISLAND OR ARRIVING BY FERRY FROM SAN
FRANCISCO. TIBURON HOSTS MANY LARGE PUBLIC EVENTS ANNUALLY,
INCLUDING OPENING-DAY-ON- THE-BAY, A WINE FESTIVAL, AND A CHILI
FESTIVAL- WHICH ATTRACTS ENORMOUS NUMBERS OF VISITORS.
TIBURON IS VERY COMMITTED TO RECYCLING EFFORTS AND REQUIRES
THAT ALL ORGANIZATIONS THAT APPLY FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS IN
OUR PARKS AND PUBLIC AREAS PROVIDE A PLAN FOR RECYCLING. WE ARE
FORTUNATE TO HAVE A CA REDEMPTION COLLECTION SITE LOCATED AT
OUR DOWNTOWN BELL MARKET.
IN NOVEMBER OF 1998 THE TOWN PURCHASED EIGHT PUBLIC RECYCLING
BINS AND PLACED THEM AT SPECIFIC ENTRY POINTS FOR TWO OF OUR
MOST POPULAR PARKS, SHORELINE PARK AND BLACKIE'S PASTURE. WE
SELECTED HIGH QUALITY BINS SO AS TO BE LONG LASTING AND
PERMANENTLY SECURED THEM TO CONCRETE PADS. WE DISCOVERED VERY
QUICKLY THAT WHEN YOU PROVIDE THE PI.IBUC WITH A PLACE TO PI.IT
REcyaABLE BEVERAGE CONTAINERS THEY ARE HAPPY TO COMPLY. IT'S
THA T SIMPLE, AND IT WORKS.
WE ARE REQUESTING FUNDING AT THIS TIME BECAUSE WE NEED
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC RECYCLING BINS. SOME OF THESE BINS WILL BE
PERMANENTLY SECURED AT SPECIFIC HIGH TRAFFIC LOCATIONS AND
SOME WILL BE PORTABLE, HENCE ALLOWING US TO BRING THEM ON SITE
WHEN WE HOST LARGE PUBLIC EVENTS.
ALSO, A PORTION OF THE FUNDING IS NEEDED FOR OUR RECYCLING
AWARENESS OUTREACH EFFORTS. TIBURON PROVIDES TWO HIGHLY
VISIBLE LOCATIONS RESERVED FOR 4'X6' COMMUNITY EVENT SIGNS. FOR
THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, WHENEVER THESE LOCATIONS ARE OPEN
(BETWEEN EVENTS) , WE PLACE OUR "REDUCE/RECYCLE/REUSE" MESSAGE
AS A VISIBLE REMINDER TO OUR RESIDENTS TO INCREASE THEIR
RECYCLING EFFORTS. OUR SIGN IS VERY BADLY WEATHERED AND MUST BE
REPLACED.
@
Pnnled on recycled paper
City/County Funding Request Form
FY 1999/2000
City or County Name Eligible Funding Amount Funding Cycle
Tiburon $5,000 FY 1999/2000
Entity Submitting this form (Le. City. Lead Jurisdiction or JPA) Mailing Address City State lip
Contact Person Telephone I Fax No.
ROMNEY FENNELL ( 415) 435. 7380 (415 ) 435 .7395
Recycling and/or Litter ReductIon Activities:
To qualify to receive funds, each activity listed below must meet one or more of the following criteria:
(1) Primary emphasis is collection and recycling of beverage containers at large venues; public areas. residential communities or
schools.
(2) Primary emphasis is public educallon promoting beverage container recycling and/or litter prevention.
,
(3) Primary emphasis is beverage contalner/lllter abatement in public places including community clean-up projects or other related
activities involving the recycling of beverage containers.
Please list/describe each beverage container recycling and/or litter reduction activity for which the funds will
be expended:
SEE ATT-\CHrn
. Has your city/county prohibited the siting of a supermarket site recycling center? 0 YES I:lJ NO
. Has your city/county caused a supermarket site recycling center to close its business? 0 YES ~ NO
. Has your city/county adopted a land use policy that restricts or prohibits the siting of a supermarket site
recycling center within its jurisdiction? Q YES ISl NO
. Has your city/county received funding from the Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling's Grant
Program? Q YES ~ NO If yes, which year?
THE SUBMISSION OF FALSE INFORMA TION WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD IS A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY SUBSTANTIAL
FINES, UP TO THREE YEARS IMPRISONMENT, OR BOTH, KNOWING THIS, I CERTIFY UNDER PENAL TY OF PERJURY
THA T THE FACTS REPRESENTED HEREIN ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
taUve Authorized to Expend Funds (Named on Resolution):
~ ~.vuL.
RECYCLING COORDINATOR
Date
MAY /27 12000
MAR N
Return this form by May 31, 2000 to: Division of Recycling, Industry Services Branch, City/County Payments,
801 K Street, MS 15-59, Sacramento, CA 95814. . -
Page 1 of 2
City/County Funding Request Form
FY 1999/2000
The City of Tiburon
Total Funds Available: $5,000
Provide estimated funding amounts, by expense category for each beverage container recycling
and/or litter reduction activity listed on the front of this form:
Expense Category:
PURCHASE FOUR RECYCLING BINS FOR PERMANENT
PLACEMENT TN HT~H TRAFFTr Plrnr rr InrATrnN~
PURCHASE SIX PORTABLE RECYCLING BINS FOR PLACEME~T
ON SITE OF LARGE PUBLIC EVENTS
DESIGN & PRODUCE 4'X 6' COMMUNITY EVE~T SIGN TO
PROMOTE & ENCOURAGE RECYCLING EFFORTS
Total Estimated expenditures:
Estimated Expenditure:
q:') ~nn
$7 000
5500
$5000
Questions regarding this form should be directed to the Industry Services Branch (916) 327-7361. .~
DOR 521/00
Page 2 of 2
Guidelines for City and County Annual Payments
Pursuant to Section 14581 (a)(4)(A) of the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction
Act, the Department of Conservation's Division of Recycling (Division) is required to distribute a total of
$10,500,000 to eligible cities and counties for beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities. .
For the purposes of these guidelines, each of the entities mentioned below shall be an "eligible participanf:
1) Individual cities and counties, 2) two or more cities and/or counties working together with one lead
jurisdiction acting on behalf of the team, and 3) cities and counties participating in a Joint Powers Authority
(JPA) may designate the JPA to act in their behalf, if the JPA Agreement includes recycling of beverage
containers.
I;~i:%li:: 'w.. '12,: "". . "':"I"How' MuchWIII Each City and County Recelve?'pfiin:,'!:;J..1ii;i'iW'/;uJ'; "i U)'i.,.:: , I
Each city may receive a minimum of $5,000 or'an amount calculated by the Division, per capita based,
whichever is greater. Each county may receive a minimum of $10,000 or an amount calculated by the
Division, per capita based, whichever is greater,
The per capita amount calculated by the Division, is based upon the population of the incorporated areas of
a city or city and county and the unincorporated area of a county, as stated in the Annual Demographic
Report submitted to the Governor by the Department of Finance.
I
Requesting Funds
I
Each year, the Division will provide to each city and county a Funding Request Form. The Funding Request
Form will specify the amount of funds your city or county is eligible to receive based on the criteria above,
It is the responsibility of the cities and counties that are designating a lead jurisdiction or JPA to provide
those entities with these guidelines and Funding Request Form, Eligible participants must complete one
Funding Request Form for each city and/or county.
The eligible participant must provide the following information on the Funding Request Form:
. A description of the beverage container recycling and/or litter reduction activities for which the funds will
be expended:
. An estimate of the expenses, by applicable expense category, for each activity or activities;
. If applicable, the location(s) where the beverage container recycling and/or litter reduction activities will
occur;
. An indication whether the city or county has prohibited siting of a supermarket site recycling center,
caused a supermarket site to close its business, or adopted a land use policy that restricts or prohibits
the siting of a supermarket site within its jurisdiction;
. Indicate if the eligible participant has received funds from the Division's Grant Program, providing the
year the Grant Funds were received;
. A contact person, phone number and fax number of a representative responsible for this program; and,
. The Funding Request Form must be signed by the authorized representative that will be responsible for
the expenditure of funds received from the Division indicated on the eligible participant's resolution.
Guidelines for City and County Annual Payments
Parjl" 2 of J
Ii: ;:;m;)ifjJ,0MWH~;; >ii,'di<
Reque.tlng Funds (continued)
"""i::'J'" U,"W''',''" ""',, I
Each eligible participant must submit along with the Funding Request Form, a resolution identifying
the individual authorized by the eligible participant to receive and expend funds received from the
Division, and carry out required activities under this program (a sample resolution is attached).
Two or more cities and/or counties teams with one designated lead jurisdiction must provide in
addition to the above mentioned resolution, a resolution from each of the participating jurisdictions
authorizing the lead applicant to act on their behalf as the primary contact and stating that the
jurisdiction elects to participate jointly and authorizes the lead jurisdiction to act on their behalf as the
primary contact.
Designated JPAs must also provide in addition to the above mentioned resolution; a copy of a Joint
Powers Authority Agreement, showing the inclusion of beverage container recycling and a copy of the
resolution from each of the participating jurisdictions authorizing the JPA to act on behalf of the
jurisdiction as the primary contact.
Funding Request Forms must be received by the Division by May 31, 2000, Completed Funding
Request Forms should be mailed (registered mail preferred) to: Division of Recycling, Industry
Services Branch, City/County Payments, 801 K Street, MS 15-59, Sacramento, CA 95814
Or, Funding Request Forms may be submitted electronically. To receive an electronic Funding
Request Form, please contact the Division at (916) 327-7361,
I,
Eligible Activities for ExpenditureClf Funds
The eligible participant must provide on the Funding Request Form a description of an activity(ies)
that meets one or more of the following criteria:
. The activity has a primary emphasis on the collection and recycling of beverage containers at
large venues, public areas, residential communities or schools;
. The activity has a primary emphasis on public education promoting beverage container recycling
and/or litter prevention; or
. The activity has a primary emphasis on beverage container Iiller prevention and/or abatement in
public places including community clean-up projects or other related activities inVOlving the
recycling of beverage containers,
Pursuant to Section 14581 (a}(4}(C) of the Public Resources Code, these funds may not be used for
activities unrelated to beverage container recycling or litter reduction.
The Division encourages the inclusion of the following statement for any news media, brochures,
articles, seminars, or other type of promotional or educational material (including recycling bins):
"This project is (partially) funded by the Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling..
For prior approval of publications or promotional/educational material, please contact the Division at
(916) 327-7361,
RESOLUTION NO.
Lf~-17 C;
b;?~
,!?
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF TIBURON
IN SUPPORT OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR'S
DECLARATION OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY AND
RECOVERY EFFORTS FOR
SUDDEN OAK DEATH SYNDROME IN MARIN COUNTY
WHEREAS, Sudden Oak Death Syndrome has reached epidemic proportions in
Marin County, with no cure available at this time; and
WHEREAS, dead and dying oak trees have created conditions of extreme peril to
public safety due to the fire danger from increased fuel load, and the hazard from falling
trees and limbs; and
WHEREAS, the Marin County Board of Supervisors has proclaimed the existence
of a local emergency due to the above conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has requested the Governor to also
proclaim a state of local emergency through the State Director of the Office of
Emergency services, and to assist the County with funding to coordinate activities to
mitigate the effects of this local disaster,
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon does hereby resolve the support the Board of Supervisors in its efforts to seek
State assistance to halt the dieback of the oak trees and avoid potential environmental,
ecological and economic consequences for all of Marian County.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council on
September 6, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNClLMEMBERS
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
S://dcrane:()ak Tr('('.r('s
Marin County Sheriff's Department
Office of Emergency Services
20 N. San Pedro Road #2004 San Rafael. CA 94903
(415) 499-6584 FAX (415) 499-7450
Lt. Ken Froberg, Program Manager
DATE:
August 25, 2000
TO:
City/Town Managers
FROM:
Lt. Ken Froberg
RE:
Resolution supporting Sudden Oak Death recovery efforts
,
The County of Marin is seeking the support of your jurisdiction to obtain resources from
the state of California in combating the effects of the Sudden Oaks Death Syndrome. As you
know, this disease has reached epidemic proportions in Marin County with no cure available at
this time.
Dead and dying oak trees have created conditions of extreme peril to public safety due to
the fire danger from increased fuel load. There is also hazard from falling trees and limbs. Dieback
of the infected trees has potential environmental, ecological and economic consequences for all of
Marin County.
We are asking your jurisdiction to issue a resolution in support of the Resolution passed
by the Marin County Board of Supervisors on June 9,2000: "PROCLAIMING THE
EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMER(,'ENCY anti REQUESTING THE GOVERNOR TO
PROCLAIM A STATE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY." Attached is a copy of the 80S resolution
for your convenience.
When this item is scheduled on your public agenda's, we would be happy to arrange to
have any neccessary speakers or support to help your council understand the importance and
urgency of this matter,
Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-_
RESOLUTION OF THE MARIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
In the Matter of:
PROCLAIMING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY and
REQUESTING THE GOVERNOR TO PROCLAIM A STATE OF LOCAL
EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, Section 8630, Article 14 of the California Emergency Serviees Act empowers the Board of
Supervisors to proclaim lhe existence of a local emergency when said County is affected or likely to be affected by
a public calamity, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin has found that due to an epidemic and
dramatic die-back of tanoaks and coast live oak lrees in Marin County and throughout the Coastal Counties of
Northern California, a condition of extreme perillO life and property does exist in the County of Marin (and all its
cities); and
WHEREAS, the cause of this decline in health of live oak and tanbark oak trees is still unknown, and
,
WHEREAS, this increase in sudden oak death in the fall of 1999 and spring of 2000 involves enough
area and trees to adversely affect lire behavior and hamper lire suppression in Marin County, and may create
extreme lire control conditions under moderate wealher conditions, and
WHEREAS, lires of thalmagnitude would cause resulting degradation to lisheries and soil erosion, and
WHEREAS, such massive diebacks of trces makes them a suitablc host source for oak bark and ambrosia
beetles, crcating epidcmic proportions of these populations, and
WHEREAS, the present rate of dieback of coastal live oak in forestlands, public open space and on
private property scverely taxes the resources of local government and private homeowners, and
WHEREAS, the dieback of tanoak and live oak trees can have profound environmental. ecological and
economic consequences.
WHEREAS, said Board of Supe",isors does hereby lind that tbe aforesaid conditions of extreme peril
warrant and necessitate tbe proclamation of tbe existence of a local emergency, and that local resources arc unable
to cope witb tbe effects of said emergency,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED Umt a local emergency now exists througbout Marin
County; and
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED tbat a copy of this resolution be forwarded Ulrougb Ule State Director ofUle Office
of Emergency Services to tbe Governor of California with tbe request that be proclaim tbe County of Marin to be
in a state of emergency.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED Umt State funding be requested to coordinate and fund activities to mitigate the
effects of Ulis local disaster,
IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED that during the existencc of said local emergency, the
powers, functions and duties of the Director of Emergency Services and tbe emergency organization of Ule county
shall be UlOse prescribed by state law, by ordinllnces, and resolutions of this county approved by the Board of
Supervisors.
IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED that said local emergency sball be deemed to continue to
exists until its termination is proclaimed by the Bo,ud of Snpervisors of Ule County of Marin, State of California,
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a fllQular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Marin held on this _th day of , 2000, by the following vote:
AYES:
SUPERVISORS Cynthia L. Murray, Harold C. Brown, Jr" John B. Kress,
Annette Rose, Steve Kinsey
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 6, 2000
TOWN COUNCIL
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUNDS (COPS)-
PROPOSED UTILIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001
ITEM:
CONSENT
/0
DISCUSSION:
This item is for annual approval of an expenditure plan for the use of State Supplemental
Law Enforcement funds (COPS monieq
The Town annually receives an allocation of approximately $19,000 in COPS monies;
these funds are to be expended in support of frontline law enforcement activities. In August 2000,
Governor Davis signed a 4-year extension of the COPS program, that will provide annual baseline
funding of$100,OOO to all local law enforcement jurisdictions.
In previous years Town Council has approved the utilization of COPS monies to annually
fund Tiburon Police Department participation in the Countywide Emergency Communications
Equipment Upgrade Project (MERA), as well as for purchase of mobile telecommunications and
mobile video equipment for patrol units.
In Fiscal Year 200 I the Police Department proposes to utilize available and current COPS
monies for the following purposes:
(I) Add position (InvestigatorlDetective )salary, benefit, and related costs
(2) Recruitment, equipment, training costs associated with new position
(3) Participation in Countywide MERA project
(4) Mobile Computer Communications
(5) Mobile Video Equipment
(6) Mobile Emergency Equipment (Defibrillator)
Total Expenditure Plan:
$ 70,000
5,000
8,000
1,500
5,500
2,500
$ 92,500
RECOMMENDA nON:
Town Council adopt the Draft Resolution approving the proposed plan to utilize COPS
monies in Fiscal Year 2000-2001, with the understanding that should the State rescind baseline
funding the Town may reconsider authorization of the new position ofInvestigator.
A TIACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution
C)7~
R. Stranz1
1
RESOLUTION NO
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF TlBURON APPROVING AN EXPENDITURE PLAN
FOR THE UTILIZATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDS
( "COPS" MONIES) IN FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 3229, signed into law as Chapter 134, Statutes of 1996, establishes
the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program; and
WHEREAS, the Governor recently signed a four-year extension of the COPS program that
provides local government law enforcement jurisdictions with annual baseline funding in the amount of
$100,000, for frontline law enforcement personnel and other related equipment, and
WHEREAS, the Town Council, at a public hearing held annually in September, must approve of
a plan for the expenditure of Supplemental ~aw Enforcement Funds (COPS), and
,
WHEREAS, in Fiscal Year 2000-0 I the Tiburon Police Department proposes to utilize
additional and available COPS monies to employ a full-time Detective/Investigator; fund Department
participation in the Countywide MERA Program; defray ongoing operating costs associated with patrol
mobile computing units; and purchase mobile communications and emergency equipment for use by
frontline law enforcement personnel, and
WHEREAS, the Town Council oflhe Town ofTiburon, at its meeting ofJuly 5, 2000, adopted
the recommended Police Department Budget that included authorization of a new COPS-funded
frontline position (Investigator), and COPS-funded participation in the Countywide MERA Program:
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon to
approve the proposed and recommended use of COPS funds, and further, that the action to employ
additional frontline personnel shall be effective contingent upon receipt and continuation of baseline
funding in the amounts referred to above, This Resolution, which approves of the recommended plan
for the expenditure of COPS monies, is to be submitted to County Supplemental Law Enforcement
Oversight Committee.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon
on, September 6 2000, by the following vole:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI
TOWN CLERK
Succucls Tiburon R~solution No. 3364
TaWil Coullcil.llutillgof&pt~nrtx.r6. 2000
Pag~ I
r /PI'^- # 1/
RESOLUTION NO
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF TIBURON CONCERNING ALLOCATION OF
PROCEEDS OF THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX RATE
WHEREAS, the residents of the Town ofTiburon, in the June 6, 1989 election, approved
the ballot proposal enabling the Town Council to increase the Transient Occupancy Tax rate to
ten percent (10%), and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 349 N.S. authorized amendment of the Tiburon Municipal
Code to establish the Transient Occupancy Tax rate at ten percent (10%), and
WHEREAS, by way of Resolution No. 2653 the Town Council determined that the new
tax rate was to be effective January I, 1990, and that the equivalent of one percent (1%) of the
Transient Occupancy Tax rate of 10%, applicable to the Tiburon Lodge, was to be allocated to
the Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of Com~erce, and
WHEREAS, the Town Council, during the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 budget process,
confirmed that the 1 % allocation of the Transient Occupancy Tax rate applies only to tax
proceeds received from the Tiburon Lodge.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
does hereby set forth that all proceeds of the Transient Occupancy Tax received from businesses
other than the Tiburon Lodge are to be deposited to the General Fund, and subsequently utilized
and allocated in accordance with the Town's adopted budget plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on, September 6 2000, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI
TOWN CLERK
TaWil Co,,"cil Jlutillg a/September 6. 2000
Page J
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
SEPTEMBER 6, 2000
TOWN COUNCIL
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
DOWNTOWN RAILROAD MARSH - Proposal of Wetlands Research
Associates (WRA) to Prepare Marsh Management Plan (Budget Amendment)
ITEM:
12.
BACKGROUND:
This item is for approval of the proposal of Wetland Research Associates of San Rafael to
prepare an updated Manaaement Plan for the Tiburon Railroad Marsh. WRA Principal and
President, Dr. Michael Josselyn, hl\:l preViously consulted with the Town concerning the marsh:
WRA is experienced and knowledgeable with respect to marsh and wetlands management.
DISCUSSION:
The Downtown Railroad Marsh was acquired from the Innisfree Company as part of the Point
Tiburon development dedication and through negotiations with the Tiburon Peninsula Club in
1984-85. The developer dedicated $316,540 for marsh restoration and for subsequent marsh
maintenance. Since completion of the initial restoration project in 1985-86, the Town Public
Works Department has employed various marsh maintenance operations: (1) dredging and silt
control, (2) algae control, and (3) cUlling and clearing of reeds and overgrowth, From 1986 to
1995 the Public Works Department conducted minor operating maintenance of the marsh,
Beginning in FY 1996, and more recently in FY 2000, the Town undertook, at significant expense
($27,000 and $34,000, respectively) major clearing of reeds and overgrowth.
The Marsh Fund currently has resources of $89,320 (as of June 30, 2000), It has become
apparent that the periodically scheduled efforts to clear tules and reeds (every 4 years), as well as
anticipated silt basin maintenance needs will cause the Fund to be depleted in less than 10 years
The proposed study and plan development will greatly assist Town and Staff in determining how
to best maintain the marsh, while at the same time maximizing the limited resources of the Marsh
Restoration Fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Town Council accept the proposnl of Dr. Michael Josselyn of Wetlands Research Associates
to prepare an updated management plnn for the Downtown Railroad Marsh; and to appropriate
$7,600 in the Marsh Restoration Fund for this purpose.
ATIACHMENTS:
L Proposal of Wetlands Rese:1rch Associates (August 22, 2000)
~
R, Stranzl
I
Em
Wetlands ResearchAssoclates,lnc.
August 22, 2000
Robert Kleinert, Town Manager
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
AEc'e~1jED
AUG 2 4 2000
rQ1,WI ~.1M1ACjERS IJFr:'CE
TGWI i GF mlm~,'1
RE: Mup.ugement Plan for the Tiburon Freshwater Marsh
t
Dear Bob:
Our firm is responding to your request to prepare an updated Management Plan for the Tiburon
Freshwater Marsh. Our firm is experienced in this type of work having completed the original
plan for the Tiburon Freshwater Marsh and prepared management plans for other freshwater
marshes and lagoons such as the Baypointe Lagoon in the City of San Rafael. You may wish to
contact Dave Bernardi with the City of San Rafael concerning our work for them. Additional
information on our firm is available at .www.wra-ca.com..
The proposed management program will focus on the primary objective for the original
enhancement of the Tiburon Freshwater Marsh: Improve wildlife habitat quality within the
Marsh for waterfowl and nesting birds. Human-oriented recreation is not considered an objective
of the Marsh and will not be considered in the management plan.
Our scope of work for the project will involve the following:
1. Assessment of existing conditions. WRA will acquire a recent aerial photograph of the
marsh and use the photograph to determine the habitat areas surrounding the marsh. In
addition, WRA will conduct a field reconnaissance of the marsh to evaluate current
conditions including vegetative habitats. general wildlife usage, presence of any exotic or
nuisance plants. and bathymetry of the open water areas of the marsh. WRA will also
examine condition of inlet and outlet structures and determine their relative elevations
given the wetland water level and bathymetry.
2. Review of mana!!ement issues. WRA will interview Town personnel to determine what
management isslles have developed over the years since the wetland was constructed, If
desired, WRA will also meet with interested citizens (eg. Wetland Committee) in a
meeting to discuss concerns affecting the habitat quality or management of the marsh.
3. Preoaration of draft olan. WRA will prepare a draft management plan for the Town of
Tiburon to include issues sllch as vegetatIOn management, sediment loading. and
2169-8 East Francisco Blvd.. San Rafael. CA 94901 (415) 454-8868/FAX (415) 454-0129
~NrED eN REOCLW ~peR
nuisance plant control. In addition, WRA will investigate potential water level
management methods to control cattail growth in the marsh. The draft plan will include a
schedule for various management activities. The draft report will be submitted to the
Town of Tiburon for review and comment. WRA staff will meet with the Town to
discuss the report and respond to questions.
4, Final manal!ement olano Based on comments received from the Town, WRA will
prepare a final plan that is responsive to Town needs and the Scope of Work.
Our estimate cost for the completion of thi~ Scope of Work is $7,500 and is based on our firm's
current rate schedule. A detailed budget is provided below.
lask ask description IIrTe ASSignment in U1ys t:xpensa5 Ictal ree
# MNJ .NIB SA ASSOC ASSOC lEa;
. . :tiC
1 Existing cordillons -'0.25 4 $450 $3,007
2 Meeting v..ilh TCl'M'l cCllT1'1ittee 0.25 0.5 $608
3 Draft report 0.5 4 $50 $2.003
4 Firal report 0.25 1 $100 $990
$0
$0
Totals
Project days 1.25 0 0 0 9.5
Expenses $600
Total fee $7,508
I appreciate your consideration of this proposal and would be glad to meet with you to discuss the
Scope of Work and estimated fee.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Josselyn, PhD
Certified Professional Wetland Scientist
,.
Em
w~tlands R~s~archAssoclat~s, Inc.
RATE SCHEDULE
Effective: August, 2000
~
PRINCIPALS:
Michael Josselyn, Preshtent .................... $ 168/HR
James Buchholz ................................ 144/HR
SENIOR ASSOCIATES:
Doug Spicher, Senior Associate. . .. . . . . . .... . .. . .. 110/HR
Thomas Fraser, Senior Associate .................. 90/HR
ASSOCIATES:
Jeffrey Dreier, Associate Wildlife Ecologist. . . . . . . . . . . 80/HR
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
George Salvaggio, Landscape Architect ............. 68/HR
TECHNICIANS:
Phil Greer, Plant Ecologist ........................ 68/HR
Shannon Lucas, Biologist ........................ 68/HR
Evelyn Buchwitz, Environmental Planner ............ 63/HR
Mary Hammer, Wildlife Biologist ................... 63/HR
Lisa Hill, CAD/GIS Technician. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63/HR
Heather Larson, Biologist ......................... 63/HR
Francis Lozier, CAD/GIS Technician ................ 63/HR
Tom Mahony, Botanist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63/HR
Peter Tomsovic, Biologist .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63/HR
Brent Zacharia, Biologist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63/HR
Field Staff ...................................... 30/HR
CLERICAL SUPPORT ................................. 54/HR
EXPENSES .......... ;-..:..' . . . . . . . . . . . > . . . . . COST PLUS 10%
2169~G tost I'rancisco Blvd.. San l<Cltael. CA 94901 ~415) 454-8868/FAX (415) 454-0129
PQNTtD C'N RECvC:"~D PAPER
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 ITEM: / :,
TOWN COUNCIL CONSENT
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
REED RANCH ROAD/JEFFERSON W ALKW A Y REPAIRS - Emergency
Drainage Repairs (Amend FY 2001 Budget Authorization)
BACKGROUND:
This item is to approve the bid proposal of Maggi ora & Ghilotti to perform Phase 2 of the project
to repair drainage facilities located beneath the pedestrian walkway that extends approximately
600 feet from Reed Ranch Road to Jefferson.
,
For Fiscal Year 2001 a total of$25,OOO was appropriated for this project. A total of$7,500 has
been expended in exploration and examination of the scope of the problem beneath the walkway.
Project Phase 2. requires the insertion of a polyurethane sleeve beneath the walkway for the
interval and length referred to above.
Three bids were received, as follows:
Maggiora & Ghilotti
Ghilotti Brothers
Roto Rooter
$ 38,740
$ 38,887
$ 64,994
Lowest bid
Both the Town Engineer and Superintendent of Public Works recommend that this project be
undertaken and completed immediately. Further delay or postponement may result in additional
erosion; and for reasons associated with health and safety there is a need to restore full unimpeded
pedestrian access in this area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Town Council approve: accept the bid proposal of Maggi ora to construct the required
improvements, and allocate an additional $22,000 from the General Fund Streets & Drainage
Reserve to complete the project.
.~
1
Ifelv\. 110, IS[ It)
RESOLUTION NO. 3435
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
RECOGNIZING AND COMMENDING ROBERT L. KLEINERT
FOR 30 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE TOWN OF TIBURON
WHEREAS, Tiburon Town Manager Robert (Bob) L. Kleinert has served the City/Town
of Tiburon since January 2, 1970 without an Employment Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Bob has had the dubious pleasure of working with 28 different mayors and
innumerable employees in three different locations over the past 30 years; and
WHEREAS, Bob's fiscal prudenqe enabled the Town to save suffic.ient funds to build a
New Town Hall and Police Station without additional taxes to the residents; and
WHEREAS, Bob has either chaired or served on the committees of numerous local
government JPAs, and agencies, such as the Association of Bay Area Governments and the
Marin Managers' Association; and
WHEREAS, his commitment to the Tiburon Peninsula was recognized by the Tiburon
Peninsula Chamber of Commerce when he was chosen as the Citizen of the Year in 1989;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon hereby recognizes Robert L. Kleinert for his commitment, diplomacy, and dedication to
the residents of the Town ofTiburon,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, upon the occasion of his retirement, that the Town
Council commends Robert L. Kleinert for his personal integrity, excellent stewardship, and
faithful service, and wishes Bob and Trudy many happy years of retirement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council on
September 6, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES
NOES
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Bach, Gram, Hennessy, Matthews, Thompson
None
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
ATTEST
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
SQP-Ol-OO Ol:20P
P.02
IlehA- lU.f5(6)
Rl!;SOLlTTJON NO. 2000-_
A RESOLUTION OF THF. TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
TJlJllRON APPROVING RETIREMENT IJONllS .\<"01{
RF.TTRI!'IG TOWN MANAGEH ROBF.RT I.. KT.RINF.RT
W1IERFAS. Robert L. Kleinert has s..rv.d ,h.. Tuwn urTiburon Ii" 30 yea". a.s
Town Manager: alld
Wl.JERFAS. ill his capacity as T"wn Manag"r Ruhert L. Klemert has pcrl<>nn"J
outstandinllservice,' ((n'-and on hehalro/'th. Town o/'Tihunm, including.
hut nOllil11i..,d lo. Inllnagmg th~ T,'wn's budg~t. p~rsonncl and ~nhancing
the Town's overall well oeing; and
W1-jEREAS. Robel1 L. KI..inert h(\~ .",,,ouneeJ his retirement, dleetlvc September
2000,and
Wll1::REAS. R"herl L. Kleinert will be available for eonsult1tion ill order to ensure th,'
SnllKIlh lransition of his managerial duties to the new Town Manager, and
WHEREAS. the Town Council ur lh. Town o/'Tihuron d.sir"s to award Rch.J1 I"
KleillcI1 f(lr his thirty y~urs lJI" SCTV:CC t(J the Town as descrihed herein;
and
NOW THEREFORE IJE IT I{~SOL V~I)
That the Town Council of the Town Of Tihuron do"s authorize and aWilrd to
Robel11" Kleinert lh. slim 0/'$30.000.00 plus su~h amounls as ar. n"~.ss"ry to cov.,.
""'plo)'mcnl taxcs and income tax and other withholding such that the net bonus to
Roh.rt J.. Kleinert is $3U.000.UU as a ret:rement bOllllS, payable forthwith. with the good
wishes ofthc TaWil ('ouncil of the l\lWlI of Tih'lI'On, and as an "'p..ession of rile town's
appreciation for many years or SC':rvit.:t: ~(1 lh~ lown
The Town Ckrk slmll ecnify to the pass:.lgl' ,md adoption or lhi, Resolution and
ent"r il.11lo the hook of original resolutions,
4~
..4~>
Sap-OI-OO OI:20P
P.03
PASSED AND ;\POpnD at a r~gular me<:ting I.1rth~ Town Council of the Town o!'
TdJuron held on this 6th day of S~ptember 2000. by the following yote to wit:
AYES:
NOFS.
Tom Uram. Mayor oiTihumn
Allesl:
D"li;'c Crane lacopi. Town Clerk
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 ITEM:
TOWN COUNCIL
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001 - PROPOSED GENERAL FUND RESERVE
REALLOCATIONS AND FUND TRANSFERS
/1
BACKGROUND:
This item is for approval of Staff-recomruended reallocation of monies from the General Fund
Unallocated Reserve to other specific Designated Reserves of the General Fund.
DISCUSSION:
Closing Financial Statements (as of June 30, 2000) show that the General Fund has total reserves of
approximately $3,642,000; of this amount, the General Fund Unallocated Reserve is $1,615,000 and
other General Fund Designated Reserves comprise $2,027,000.
The following Table outlines the projected year-end status of the General Fund Reserves, and the
recommended reallocations.
Unallocated & Designated Reserve(s) Closing Proposed- Beginning
Balance Transfer In Balance
6/30/2000 (Out) 7/1/2000
General Fund Un allocated Reserve $ 1,615,000 $(515,000) $ 1,100,000
Recent Town goal & policy has been to maintain an
Unallocated Reserve equal to 25% of operating
expenditures. The FY 2001 Operating Budget is
$4,234,100,25% = $1,058,500.
Recommended reallocations are outlined below.
Employee Compensated Leave Reserve $ 228,000 $ 65,000 $ 293,000
Policy has been to provide reserve funding for this
liability as monies are available. The current leave liability
is $337,000 - fund balance provides 68% coverage.
Reallocation to augment coverage of liability.
Self Insurance Reserve $ 327,000 $ 0 $ 327,000
The Town has maintained a reserve balance equal to 3
liability insurance deductible amounts. Current reserve
balance augments the Workers' Compensation program.
Fiscal Year 2000/2001 Fund Transfers & Reallocations
Town Council Meeting of September 6. 2000
Page 1
Unallocated & Designated Reserve(s) Closing Proposed- Beginning
Balance Transfer In Balance
6/30/2000 (Out) 7/1/2000
Capital Equipment Replacement Reserve $ 330,000 $ 0 $ 330,000
Annual revenue to the Reserve is $132,000 - this is from
the Capital Equipment Replacement Allowance charged
to Operating Department budgets. The current balance
represents a 2-1/2 year reserve.
Park Development Reserve $ 175,000 $ 0 $ 175,000
There are no set guidelines or polices regarding the
amount in this reserve. A total of$110,000 is currently
set-aside for the Waterfront Access Improvement Project.
Streets & Drainage Reserve $ 437,000 $ 0 $ 437,000
There are no set guidelines or polices regarding the
amount in this reserve. In FYs 2001 & 2002 a total of
$295,000 is allocated for major drainage improvements.
The estimated FY 2002 closing reserve balance is
$94,000.
Capital Outlay Reserve $ 313,000 $ 0 $ 313,000
There are no set guidelines or polices regarding the
amount in this reserve. Funds have typically been used
for important facility or structural maintenance projects.
New Police Building Project $ 167,000 $ 0 $ 167,000
Fund to be discontinued with project completion. The
current balance represents the amount retained during the
construction phase.
New Public Works Facilities Improvements Reserve $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 100,000
Established to provide seed funding for major
Corporation Yard renovations. In FY 2001 monies are
allocated to master plan improvements of the Corporation
Yard. Reallocation to augment reserve, and provide a
source of matching funds for grant applications.
Storm Damage Reserve - (New) $ 0 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
A new reserve established as contingency funding for
storm damage repairs, and to provide a single source of
accounting for State and Federal grant reimbursements of
such repairs and improvements.
Employer Housing Assistance Reserve - (New) $ 0 $ 300,000 $ 300,000
A new reserve established to provide a source of
employer housing assistance to enable eligible personnel
to reside in the county. (Policy & Program //ot approved
at this time)
GENERAL FUND RESERVE TOTALS: $ 3,642,000 $ 0 $ 3,642,000
Fiscal Year 2000/2001 Fllnd Transfers & Reallocations
Town COllncil Meeting of&ptemher 6. 2000
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
L Town Council approve the transfer (reallocation) of$515,OOO from the General Fund Unallocated
Reserve to specific Designated Reserves of the General Fund, as outlined above, and restated in
the following table.
2. Town Council establish a Working Committee to develop policy guidelines for the new Employer
Housing Assistance Reserve, with the understanding that such monies will not be utilized until
such guidelines are developed and adopted by Town Council.
Proposed General Fund Reallocations, Restated from Previous Table
; AMOUNT
TRANSFER-FROM:
L General Fund Unallocated Reserve $ 515,000
TRANSFER-TO:
L Employee Compensated Leave Reserve $ 65,000
2. Self Insurance Reserve 0
3. Capital Equipment Replacement Reserve 0
4. Park Development Reserve 0
5. Streets & Drainage Reserve 0
6. Capital Outlay Reserve 0
7. New Public Works Facilities Improvements 50,000
New Designated Reserves
8. Storm Damage Reserve 100,000
9. Employer Housing Assistance 300,000
Total Transfers-to: $ 515,000
~
R. Stranzl, Finance Director "'"
~~
Fiscal Year 2000/2001 Fund Transfrrs & R~allacallans
Town Council Meeting "fs.:pt~mber 6, 2000
Page 3
'"
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE: 9/6/2000
If
To:
From:
Subject:
TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
CHANDLERS GATE AT TIBURON (FORMERLY NED'S WAY GARDEN
HOMES) PROJECT: REQUEST FOR GRANT OF 5 -FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE
EASEMENT ACROSS TO'YN-OWNED PROPERTY UPSLOPE; 58-151-27
,
SEPTEMBER I, 2000
Date:
BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the Town Council meeting of August 16,2000 in order that the
final map and sale of the property be completed prior to granting of the drainage easement. The
Mayor also requested a project update at the next meeting,
PROJECT STATUS
. Grading on the site began the week of August 7, 2000 by special agreement approved by the
Redevelopment Agency. ^ $50,000 advance on the purchase was required
. The final subdivision map for the Chandlers Gate project was recorded on August 24, 2000.
. The Chandlers Gate property closed escrow on August 28,2000 and is now owned by Ned's
Way Garden Homes, LLC. The Redevelopment Agency has received the full payment of
$1,400,000,00 for the property,
. The terms of the 1998 Disposition and Development Agreement remain in effect with regard
to the four Below Market Rate units,
. The Town has received no formal complaints regarding construction noise or disruption from
the Hilarita, Reed Elementary School, or the Belvedere- Tiburon Child Care Center.
. The temporary sound barrier is being completed as of the writing of this report.
. Project completion estimates range from 12-15 months.
]'iburc)1l Tow" Council
S/c~U R('/wr,
9'6:2000
ANALYSIS
During preparation of the subdivision improvement drawings, it became apparent that a small
drainage easement would be required upslope from the rear wall of the upper set of duplexes
comprising the Chandlers Gate project. This area has been previously established as a 30-foot
wide landscape buffer area. It is anticipated that a concrete V -ditch will be located in the
easement, entirely screened by the landscaping within the landscape buffer.
The 5-foot wide drainage easement is an e~sential element of the project as designed, and
comprises only a small portion of the 30-foot wide landscape buffer. Granting of the drainage
easement would not cause any foreseeable problems for future use of the Town-owned parcel, as
it would be part of any reasonable setback area established for a future use.
,
This is a ministerial action and is exempt from CEQA.
RECOMMENDA TlON
That the Town Council adopt the Resolution (Exhibit I) granting the drainage easement.
EXHIBITS
I. Draft Resolution,
Drainage easement report2.doc
Tiburon Town Council
Staff R'pa/'t
9/6/2000
2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TffiURON
GRANTING AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES OVER TOWN-OWNED
LAND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHANDLERS GATE SUBDIVISION
LOCATED AT 2-98 NED'S WAY
(ASSESSOR. PARCEL NUMBER 58-151-27)
WHEREAS, the Town ofTiburon has approved a 25-unit subdivision for senior
housing purposes located at 2-98 Ned's Way (the Chandlers Gate project); and
WHEREAS, the Town has issued an encroachment permit for a 30-foot wide
landscaped buffer along the southern edge of the Town-owned parcel located due north of
the Chandlers Gate project; and
WHEREAS, the project design requires that a five (5) foot wide drainage
easement be established over the southernmost five feet of the 30-foot wide landscaped
buffer area, said easement being established over the Town-owned parcel (Assessor Parcel
No. 58-151-27) for the benefit of the adjacent Chandlers Gate project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon Town ofTiburon hereby grants a five (5) foot wide easement for drainage
purposes over that portion of property described in the attached Exhibit 1 being the grant
deed
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town
of Tiburon on September 1, 2000 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
THOMAS GRAM, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE L. CRANE. TOWN CLERK
/nedsleasement grant. res. doc
Tiburon TowII Cormcil
Resolution No.
8/16/2000
EYT-!IBIT NO.1-
APN NO. 58-151-27 (portion)
Recording Requested By:
TOWN OF TlBURON
Return to:
Planning Director
Town ofTiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
DOCUMENT TITLE
GRANT OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT
APN: 58-151-27
GRANT DEED
The Town of Tiburon, a municipal corporation ("Grantor"), hereby grants to Ned's
Way Garden Homes, LLC an easement for drainage purposes over that portion of real
property situated in the Town of Tiburon, Marin County, California, which is more
particularly described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has snbscribed its name this ~ day of
August, 2000.
THOMASGRAM,MAYOR
Town ofTiburon
~ iLE Ilk> .447 08/08 '00 16 :03 I D: TOJiI(D::L
FAi<: 14154m462
P::G: 3
EXHIBIT A
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
All that certain real property situated in the Town of Tiburon, State of California,
being an easement for drainage and relaled purposes over the lands of the Town
of Tiburon as described in the deed recorded in Book 2994 of Official Records at
Page 580, Marin County Records, being further described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the southerly boundary line of said lands, said point
also being the Northwesterly corner of Lot 1 of Parcel Map - Lands of the Town
of Tiburon" filed in Book 26 of Parcel Maps at Page 43, Marin County Records;
Thence North 44010'20" East, 6.26 feet 10 a point on the easterly right of way line
of Ned's Way as shown on said Parcal Map;
Thence Easterly, parallel to and 5.00 feet perpendicular from the Northerly line of
said Lot 1 South 82048'00" East, 175.32 feet;
Thence, continuing along said parallel line, North 76029'08" East, 39.99 feet;
Thence, North 47054'00. East, 39,69 feet;
Thence, leaving said parallel line, North 76029'08" East 1045 feet to a point on
the northerly line of said Lot 1;
Thence Westerly, along said northerly line, the following Courses and distances:
South 47054'00" West, 50.14 feat,
South 76029'08' West, 42 18 feet,
North 82048'00. West, 18000 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Prepared by:
687_._
08/01!()()
F.LE r>lo.447 08/08 '00 16:04 lD:TlJ-/I[O:L
.
FAX: 14154928462
PA?E 4
U. SCHWAllTZ AS9OCIATI!S, INC. ~
Civil Engineering .Ie Land Surveying
79 Galli Oriv.
NOVA TO, CA 94949
(415) 883-9200 FAX 883-2763
JOe CHANDLERS GATE - DRAINAGE EASEMENT
JOB NO. 6876 SHEET NO. 1 OF' I
DESlCN BY JRH DATE 08/01/00
CHECKED BY II.S DATE 08/01/00
SCAl!: l' - 40'
...
~
~
N 7&'2'1'O~' e~-1--
/0.45' ~?..;.,
-1-- 71'" ~ ~, .
'>0 ..:)l ./- CL
-.:s; s> "..., 0
%f>'~ <:, T//!Jt.IRON REf::lEVaOPl1ENT Aet'J..(; r
~z z. ~-O/9.570
~~ ~~
~":''Cl''-.) ~
'i. '-,~
ct: ~- '" Chandlers Gate site
~- ~
... ':r. "0'
~ ~ .' .
t:-< .
j:::l '., .'
~a8
f!:iE3~
, r 5' VRAINA6f' EA~NT
~ . .
~ .:.:.
~I~
~~ ~
~~~
~~ ~
~f
TCHV ~ nlJ(..RON
29'?4 Of? ~
Town-owned parcel
~
:::J!~
~
~
'0.
.p
...
7".,.t..
EXHIBIT B
'.
, ,
.... ".
, .
'. :
......
o . . ,
. .:
..
.
:........
...
":'..:'
..
" . :
N 44'/0'20. E'/
6.26'
'\
,
"
~
~
,
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE: 9/6/2000
/f
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTO~
TOWN OF CORTE MADERA HOUSING ELEMENT REVISION
AUGUST 29, 2000
BACKGROUND
At its August 2, 2000 meeting, the Town Council received an update regarding the Town of
Corte Madera's Housing Element revision.
A draft EIR for the project had been prepared and released to the public for review and comment.
Tiburon staff reviewed the document and concluded that the draft ElR attempted to be both the
program-level ElR for the Housing Element revision and the project-level EIR for three separate
residential projects totaling 368 units. Staff believed the draft ElR to be inadequate for project-
specific environmental analysis,
Tiburon residents in the Robin Drive vicinity had retained a highly qualified environmental
consultant to review the draft ElR and prepare a formal comment letter to the Town of Corte
Madera. The Tiburon Town Council directed that it receive a copy of the letter prepared on
behalf of the residents. Following receipt of the letter, the Tiburon Town Council would revisit
the issue and decide whether to prepare a letter of its own to Corte Madera.
ANALYSIS
On August 16, 2000, Tiburon received a letter (Exhibit 1) prepared by Greg Zitney, Zitney and
Associates, on behalf of concerned residents in the Robin Drive vicinity, The letter describes the
most obvious shortcomings of the draft EIR in a more eloquent and capable fashion than Tiburon
staff could achieve. Tiburon staff understands that this letter was widely distributed to interested
parties, including Legal Aid of Marin, which filed the lawsuit against Corte Madera and would be
most interested in the preparation of an adequate and legally defensible ElR.
Tibllron Town Council
Staff Report
9 6 2000
1
The Town of Corte Madera must respond to the points raised in the Zitney letter as they go to the
heart of the adequacy and defensibility of the EIR for the Corte Madera Housing Element
revision. It could be months before a written response to the Zitney letter is prepared, as the
Town of Corte Madera is likely to make revisions to the draft EIR and recirculate it for public
review a second time. Upon the second release, Tiburon staff would review the document to
insure that the shortcomings identified in the Zitney letter have been adequately addressed.
RECOMMENDATION
. Review the attached Zitney letter.
. If the Town Council believes that a separate letter from the Town ofTiburon would be
appropriate, direct Staff to prepare a i'etter for the Mayor's signature.
EXHffiITS
1. Letter from Greg Zitney to Town of Corte Madera dated 8/14/2000.
CortemadJ.rpt
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
9/6;]000
2
...~~. .~
& Associates
ENVIRONMENTAL
PLANNING
August 14, 2000
RECE]1lED
Mr. Jay Tashiro
Director of Environmental Services
Town of Corte Madera
300 Tamalpais Drive
Corte Madera, CA 94925
AUG 1 6 2000
"L" ~ 1~,"1.;~ r~~"RP!i~~lT
r ,"",I "... -:::",'_'.~,_
E',','tj ::-.'(- i~I,jU"..J!1
>
Re: Comments on the DraffEIR for the Corte Madera Housing Element and Related
Projects
Dear Mr. Tashiro:
I realize that the official comment period for the above-referenced EIR has ended;
however, I have some observations regarding this EIR that I believe the Town of Corte
Madera should seriously consider. These comments do not emphasize specific aspects of
the EIR's analysis of various issues, but rather the procedural aspects of CEQA
compliance in relation to the type and format of the EIR and the contemplated approvals
it addresses. I'm sure you have already received many comments that deal with the
adequacy of specific analytical aspects of the EIR.
Before getting into these issues, I should inform you that I have been asked by Ms. Anne
Thull, a Tiburon resident and member of the Ring Mountain - Taylor Road
Homeowner's Association, to review this Draft EIR and provide comments that I believe
are appropriate. I have an extensive background in CEQA - I have managed the
preparation of many EIRs since the beginning of my career in 1971, and have taught
various CEQA courses over the past 18 years.
I also want to emphasize that my comments are based on a review of only the Draft EIR,
Notice of Preparation (NOP), and Notice of Availability. I have not reviewed the entire
administrative record, including applicable initial studies, public comments, transcripts,
minutes, etc.
After reviewing the document, my concerns are in three important areas. These are
summarized below and discussed in greater detail in the remainder of this letter:
EXHIBIT No.L
7 Villa Vista Court · Novato. California 94947
Telephone (415) 892-3343 . FAX (415) 897-5479
Mr. Jay Tashiro
August 14, 2000
Page 2
I. The EIR appears to be prepared as a oro~ram EIR for the Housing Element and as
a oroiect EIR for the three specific development proposals. What this meant in
terms of the Town's intent regarding additional or subsequent CEQA reviews of
the three development sites was not clearly indicated. Reviewers, therefore, may
not have known if there would be future opportunities to review and conunent on
environmental information that was not available in the current Draft EIR.
2. The EIR does not provide enough information to satisfy the intent of CEQA for a
project-level analysis of the three sites proposed for development.
3. The EIR defers a substantial amount of environmental analyses and development
of mitigation measures to a later time, This does not comply with CEQA and
related court decisions unless subsequent CEQA review is specifically anticipated
or specific, binding performance 'criteria are defined.
Dual Role as Proe:ram and Proiect EIR
After reviewing the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and the introduction to the EIR (pages
1-5), it appears that Corte Madera may intend for this EIR to function as both a program
EIR for the Housing Element, and a project EIR for the three described development
sites. (Anne Thull later informed me that, based on a telephone conversation with you, it
is indeed the Town's intent that this EIR would satisfy all CEQA review requirements.)
There is nothing in CEQA that prevents this approach as long as certain conditions are
met. However, I see some major problems with the Draft EIR as circulated:
Many members of the public are not familiar with the various provisions and procedures
of CEQA, and many reviewers may not have understood the "programmatic" and
"project-level" concepts referenced in the Draft EIR. In their Guide to the California
Environmental Duality Act (CEOA), Remy, et al. (1999) state on page 518:
Many program EIRs are intended to serve both jUnctions at once: for some
site-specific purposes, they will serve as the only EIR that will be required;
but for other purposes, second or third-tier EIRs or negative declarations
are contemplated. Rerwrdless of the intended use of a prof!l'am EIR. the
authors believe that a lead al2'encv should clearlv inform the public whether
future CEOA documents are anticipated. Such information will affect the
manner in which people review and criticize the first-tier EIR. (Underlining
added)
The NOP did not clearly inform the public that no future CEQA documents were
anticipated for the three development projects. Likewise, the Notice of Availability only
refers to the document as a "Draft EIR" and did not clearly inform the public of its dual
program and project level status. The cover of the document also only refers to itself as a
"Draft EIR". The first time there is any indication of the dual intent for the EIR is in the
Introduction on page 5 where it is briefly mentioned that "The Town Council will abo
rely on this EIR, if certified, as the environmental review document for the three
Mr. Jay Tashiro
August /4. 2000
Page 3
individual housing projects discussed herein." Later in the EIR, on page 47, it states that
enVironmental review of "this project" includes "programmatic review of the proposed
Housing Element. . ." and "project-level review of housing development on three sites. .
." None of these references clearly inform the public as to whether any subsequent
environmental review would be conducted (Le., it is not clearly indicated whether their
would or would not be subsequent opportunities for additional public review under
CEQA). Due to this lack of clarity, many reviewers may not have fully understood the
Town's intent with respect to CEQA compliance and, therefore, the nature of comments
submitted may have been affected adversely.
This situation could be corrected by more clearly discussing the "intended uses of the
EIR" as required by CEQA Guidelines ~ 15124(d) in the project description of a revised
and recirculated Draft EIR. The NOP, title page, and introduction/preface of the EIR
I
should also clearly indicate its intended function, and describe what subsequent
environmental review opportunities would be provided in order for the public to provide
meaningful comments.
Inadequate Analvsis for Proiect-Level EIR
The Draft EIR's analysis of the three development projects is not detailed enough to
provide an adequate project-level CEQA review. First of all, the plans for the
development projects are described as "conceptual" in the Nap. The Draft EIR (page 2)
even indicates that the EIR consultants developed one of the site plans. It also appears
that detailed site plans and reports, which usually accompany site-specific project
applications, are missing (engineering studies, grading and drainage plans, biological
surveys, etc.). Without this information, an adequate project-level CEQA review cannot
be completed at this time.
This lack of detailed information is reflected in the impact evaluation and mitigation
measures described in the Draft EIR. One example is Impact GEO-R-4 (page 32) which
states that "Improperly controlled drainage could cause erosion and contribute to slope
instability." The mitigation for this impact essentially consists of requiring a future
geotechnical report, grading plan, and erosion control plan.
There are many other similar impacts described in the Draft EIR where the potential
mitigation is deferred to plans and reports to be prepared in the future. The point is that
without the information that such plans typically include, it is impossible to provide an
adequate project-level CEQA review. Therefore, in its current state, and with the Town's
apparent intent to have this EIR serve as the "final" CEQA review document for the three
projects, the public would be deprived of an opportunity to review and provide
meaningful comment on the adequacy of these "future plans'~ with respect to their ability
to indeed identify, avoid, and/or mitigate impacts to the environment. (The improper
deferral of environmental information and mitigation is discussed in greater detail later.)
It is also difficult to understand how the Town can expect that the Draft EIR in its present
state could serve as the final CEQA document for three projects that would add 368 new
Mr. Jay Tashiro
AUgusl14, 2000
Page 4
housinll units to the area with the cursory level of environmental analyses provided. For
example, the traffic analysis only examines the effect of the proposed developments on
local intersections. Cumulative effects on Highway 101 and to surrounding communities
are not discussed at all. The entire cumulative impacts discussion is only four pages long
and is largely conclusory in nature with little supporting evidence. Incredibly, the Draft
EIR's cumulative impacts discussion for biological resources (page 377) makes the
conclusory statement that "The project would lead to a reduction in wetlands and salt
marsh habitat on the Madera Bay Park site, and a reduction in native grasslands and
freshwater wetland habitat on the Robin Drive site. Since these are different biological
resources. there would be no cumulative imoacts." (Underlining added) I'm not sure how
the fact that these are "different biological resources" justifies a conclusion of no
cumulative impact; however, the primary point is that not enough information is provided
to specifically assess the impacts or ~dequacy of "future" mitigation at this time - as a
result, subseauent CEOA review should be anticioated. Even the Draft EIR (page 258)
acknowledges that the wetland assessment conducted for the Madera Bay Park site is
"preliminary" - the public should be provided an opportunity to review and comment on
impacts and mitigation at the time that a more definitive assessment is available.
Inaonronriate Deferral of Analvses and Mitie:ation
The deferral of adequate environmental analyses and formulation of site-specific
mitigation measures has been the subject of several CEQA court cases. Of particular note
are the cases of Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1 st Dist. 1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296
[248 Cal.Rptr. 352] and Gentry v. City of Murrieta (4th Dist. 1995) 36 Cal.App.4'h 1359
[43 Cal.Rptr.2d 170]. Basically, these and other related cases have determined that
projects cannot be approved based on undefined mitigation that will be formulated at a
later date ("deferred"). Some court cases in recent years have, however, determined that a
certain amount of deferral of environmental problem-solving may be appropriate if
specified principles are followed; these primarily involve the formulation of specific
performance standards for mitigation. Remy, et al. (1999) state on page 425 of their
Guide to CEOA:
In f!eneral. an af!encv should not relv on a mitif!ation measure of unknown
efflcacv in concludinf! that a sif!nificant imDact will be mitirrated to a less
than sif!nificant level. Over the last several years, however, the courts
have developed legal principles regarding the extent to which an agency,
in concluding that a significant impact will be fully mitigated. can rely on
a mitigation measure that deftrs some amount of environmental problem-
solving until after project approval. The evolving consensus seems to be
that such deftrral is permissible where the adopted mitigation measure (i)
commits the agency to a realistic performance standard or criterion that
will ensure the mitigation of the significant effect, and (ii) disallows the
occurrence of physical changes to the environment unless the performance
standard is or will be satisfied. (See CEQA Guidelines, 9 15126.4, subd
(a)(l)(B) ("measures may specify performance standards which would
Mr. Jay Tashiro
August 14, 2000
Page 5
mitigate the significant effect of the project and which may be
accomplished in more than one specified way'j.)
The use of TJerformance standards is TJarticularlv aTJTJropriate in
connection with "first tier" aTJprovals or other planninl! decisions that will
necessarilv be followed bv additional. TJroiect-level environmental review,
On the other hand, where a mitigation measure embodies nothing more
than the hope that the agency or applicant, with more effort or analysis,
can somehow find a solution to a thorny environmental problem, g[!
al!encv may violate CEOA in concludinl! that such a measure will render a
sivnificant effect less than sirmificant. (Underlining added; one footnote
excluded which referred to another section of the book for additional
discussion of "tiering".)
~
In my view, the Draft EIR defers far too much mitigation to future, as yet undeveloped
"plans," and does not define specific performance standards which commit the Town to
fully mitigate potential impacts to a level of insignificance. As a result, the Draft EIR's
conclusions that many impacts can be mitigated are premature and are not supported by
substantial evidence. This leads to the conclusion that the public has not yet been
presented adequate information to review and, therefore, has been deprived of the
opportunity to provide "meaningful comment" regarding impacts and mitigation for the
three specific projects.
As I see it, there are two options available to the Town to rectify these inadequacies and
avoid possible "violations ofCEQA":
I. Revise the Draft EIR to incorporate and evaluate much more specific information
for the three development sites in order to provide a meaningful and adequate
project-level CEQA analysis, and then recirculate it. To the extent that
environmental analysis and/or mitigation measures must still be deferred, specific
and binding performance standards should be included.
2. Recirculate the Draft EIR and clearly indicate that it is a prOlZram EIR for both the
Housing Element and the conceptual plans for development of the three sites,
while expressly explaining that subsequent CEQA review would be conducted for
the development sites at such time in the future when more detailed plans are
available. If this option is elected, it would still be advisable to include specific
performance standards.
Given the current status of the three sites in terms of their level of site planning, the
second option may be the most prudent for the Town. With subsequent CEQA reviews
anticipated, the Town would retain the flexibility to deal with project design
modifications and/or new environmental circumstances in the future, while at the same
time insuring full compliance with CEQA. The public would then have the assurance and
Mr. Jay Tashiro
Augusl14. 2000
Page 6
level of "comfort" that it would have additional opportunities in the future to review and
comment on more precise plans and mitigation measures.
I hope these comments are helpful to the Town of Corte Madera regarding the Housing
Element EIR. My objective is to offer comments that may assist the Town in fully
complying with CEQA and producing an adequate and legally defensible EIR, while at
the same time assuring that the intent of CEQA with respect to meaningful public review
is met.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
;;
"
~..
cc:
Anne Thull
"'.."
Reference cited:
Remy, Michael H., Tina A. Thomas, et al.1999. Guide to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). IOIh edition. Solano Press Books, Point Arena, California.
[
{;
Q
:I~
"...,
m
."0
I:;:
:z
I
I
1
1
I
i
I
)1:1 ... tl I"") 0 '"
g ~ ~ [ , ~
~:; a';
~'" I
:'~, i~ r',
vi:' ',' . I
l:
z~/
.::' '. -,--
" .
!;
^
"
EXI~TI"GSHB^CK
-"I,- ------ --
"
gl,
"0
1,/~
"be
"""
"/
tI1 _.~
z.'C
~-
-\-'3\
1'';;
:
-;\
"il'
""
~
\
~ ,,~1\
\\. \-. "",,"Ie
~ ~ ,''it'
~~ \~).s
\\ ~\,
. '" .;::,A
'~\
,,".
""-,
,
~
\
?
,
"
o
>
,
~
.------/
/-- 8
z
o
~
~"
~~
^ 0
~,
: "g.
Ul g
~9.,
;:~
~~
^ ~
""
il.~
o ~
~ 8
~g-
~;>;:l
;:flS
. 0
^ <
:;-il.
o
~
o
9
~
.
~
o
"
~
o
~
o
<
g.
~
~
o
a
g-
~
"
(~.
~
o'
o
'.
"
s
"
~
o
o
.
g-
fl-
g
~
o
,i
,
,
U
:
o
:a
:rc.
c:::
GO)
.,
;._-l.
co
'"
=
=
C.:;,
,..,.'
so,
"b&
&
~S',..
~
,"
."}.
o
~
.
.,
'"
n
o
<
~
.
:0
o
r
S
~
.
00
'"
~
or:
~
'"
'~
o
"
lC
"
;>;'1
:0
o
Co
~
;.,Cl
,
"0
@:::
~~
:z 8
em
>~
"
:E
)>
...;
~~
~z
~'"
om
.,.'"
8
Ii!
n
tn
I
,EXJS.TlNGSF.TBACK
-----/---...---.....----------
~
~
~
~
8
...;
o
g,
oo::c: t"""
g ~ g 0
1";"'"' '" ......
'" [~ (j
~ 0
^ ~ -<
....NN~~
;j13~"'P'
~;".,~~~
~O
"'
0;
'~
'"
~
~
"
~
o
~
~
~n
Ie.) --I C
-J 'JI Iv::l
..,.....0(1)
~~~,~
~
8
,~ )>
h) ...J '"
g~~::?
~~~~
8.
^
-
''''''(1)'''
~ i5 ~ ~
~; ~~
'-"... 1'5. 0
~~~~
'1"~' VI
o",G..
~ ~ ~J~
O~~
c=~
~
.
~:
"0
::<l
o
'-'
tT1
n
...,
z
o
...,
tT1
V>
~
'"
o
.." >
t'" '"
> (")
Z ::r:
Z
...;
Z m
Cl (")
...;
c
'"
m
>::r:::r:
Vl$lj~
Vl -::::s
Oct>_
() ri< ~
...../<1"
a
ct>
Vl
--J' ~--
~~
"1-:+
x (j
\>l, L
i8'.,," iJ r",
,;<-
"
.1'.0"
d' z" N r.i...........__~_
+--
1
'~YI-
,
.....~ -ii' cliO" iC "') f
=~:z=~~; ~-l
~l '
IJJ 'k I
-~ ~ 1-'- '-
" 'l
'\
i ill -
I "
"
I '
5'..(,"
I
I
,
,
,
-:---4==~
I
4-7o~"'~H,n..I~-
, ,
I
rr=... .-'=-"-
! I
ii 3-l.(,j{,I(.A'l!:.MfN,.
r'---" '--to ~=4=I~~I'.'" . """';w_
'~ r ~l- ---.t--~~=~~---~ '
:J ~J [@J ;;b i..'.1 .', ,i -
:" , :".~ ". fJ-"i
: , .", j ,
t1 i:~' . ,.'k2ll 3--l2,
__" z ~f.'d . u ~'I','
\: 3 , ! O~
, "
1_ Ir'l i---.J ~
EH ~~i~1i' j ~-
""'" \.-'1 ".,
,
,-
p- ;,:'
~ r
"
~ c
~, ..,.
t.,
--i...
,
j
f
z
o
o
'"
~
~
~
:;5
"0
r-
>
Z
:! '6'
!h &
~i'~
;!i~
'I>>
J:~
1
"
'"
n
'"
o
<
m
'"
,
'"
I
(-j
.
<
"
~,
~
I: ~
~
,~
,.
,
,
+--~-
:3
"
l>
g I
-----j---
1:
c
l>
'"
>
rc
'"
.."
~
F
-<
~
w......:'~:'~ ,"'_'''',_.'' '.
--'10-
I
I~
I'
~
I'! ~
z
"
,~J
"
z
z
Cl
w.:
i!
, I
I
~\
I ~j:
r
, ,
i:
-
2
~
---i-
'1-
"8
'J'.-
-C::::J
", ..-.;;.;~,,-,..'.'
:B ~
p
r-
;::
s:! "
Cl il ,
'" C
0 :B
0 'I
3:: "
m
ii n ~
'" p
"
,
,
~4:'
-------~---_!/,
~.______4 :'"
I ~
~-J' '10Vf-/
"
-;; ~iJ !!1
r-M-l
'f<-,,~ ~'
._.~ -<
,"
<:i;:
l"cn
cO
,,-',1"
i-'
~
: ~
"
"
,
,
I !lm;!H\:U
~ IB~~~J~;~ n
- !~ irrn~~ "*{ I
r~';B(;~~ ;}-
!i ![",7"'~ /'
" "":! 'u
~ -~~~1 IlJ1
r H~ ~i (\
f;~~ ~ ,~
'--I
!2
IIII /
iI: ;; >o,l)
t! :: Hi';:
( i'
, ,I;
"
hi
I'
;
*"1
. ',' ~"~, ~ '",,' ~"
. ,\.~ ~
!ill,
- ~ j! :
. ~~ ':
,';~ .
J(, ~
;& ~
t ~ ~
,~~ ~
~
,-
u
(") 1'=----
l' \l~
orKl;-"\" ~
"'1"
m
'~
l>
r-
r-
,
"
i I
:---------
rr--=T----' ,
,II I
i-lr-~~Ii-~II~
Iii '~ll
,,1
,
'11
i'
II:
~l:'
" 1
II '
I iq
~ ,~
~ "
'i
/
(j
,
"
~': ~ ~ (~
~~' "
~ ~ ~ ~
I, j
;iL
" ,~
: ~'
,
11"--:'
,
0_
";: ~ ~ - I~ j'/- :~
~'~~ilt~ ;]~';"" 8
',~~o~'~ .~;~~~::
'1~t' ~ ~~~ t'; ~
~>6~~~, ~~.~"~ "
,\,,~~h - ," <~." >
~6 v ,,- '>~" ~,
Hf!,,'i~ ;~~I ~ 1 '"
'jr ~ f" ~~
"T:.,f',.
~!!!! ~ '! l~;
~ ,~~" ,j ~
~{rU ~ :~~~
~~~i:~ ~ :~~
ai~:;:1 ~ :in
~~0~~ .,,~
'f~ }
+---
I
,
I
co
";
~
~'I",I
['J >< ,----->--
L
r
I
~I,;,
",-D
I" -
~
"
'"
"
. "
'," ""i~
'if lW"
~;" ' ~"l- i I
~f ~ ~; r' ~ i P-
,.' "1':/
,I!!! :1"
~~ ~m~': ,1'1
"1_,' ~,~; '1
"i"""
~i. "' ]~{ :[rl
, ' ,'~ ~;' ;}J
;" 1'.:1"
~~r ~>~ It
" ,1.f,1"IL
'<.~ ~tj \')
L '~1_-1
\:\J (~~ 1111
Q' ,,If'
\ '
~k1~ d 6: ~~~: ;: '_:C
~~:" :,:' ,d ~IN ~ 'it ~~
6 4 j' ~ ' Lie." '" ~ S~
~~rf ;~t~ ~~ :',0
H ~ ~ ~!~ ~ ~ ~ a
p~~l~:~'~>
C' ~ ~ ~ ' ! I ~ ,t < 6
n~'~~~f~f~f,
/ b ! : ~' "e ,l
W I ~nrf
+-.--------
, "
~
~
, '
, .
"
u::
,
I:i
ill
II
I,
II
II '
. iii I
___*- i ~
. J -~l('
.I-
_IJ-'-:.~-~-----t.
------+
"
"
1'---'" i'
10 -I
"
IC
~-
I,"
I ,~.
,I
,I I
M---
," ~~ 'M '1
~ '\ d ,~ r ~ ..'
ql \ 'h " l'
~; n 8~ ~ : I
'~~~,\~~fn'
~n ,! ~.
>.( t '; ~~ ~
';~ ~ l .~ ~
,. 2 } . f ~ ~
'I ~ I"~
r:, ~i ~ ~
~, ,. 1, ~~
H ~ ~t
ni ~~
~ 1
...!.~-8"
l.~
10'-b"
t
(,;",~~....t{'~&""H":(1 I'" ~t~~ ""
" > ). :J::
ni~jl ~ \ tt i ~ ~ ,I I i> [
~ :: ~ i 1 !i~ ,~,:,JI < 0- <-l ~:~~ t"" ;0
d~~,n~I\S\ ...,"" '" > ("') V1 ~
~ , ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ !:J,O V1
';~~~~Li032! ,. ~~g~ Z J: -
t 'i ~ ~ ~ 0 G
pnt "~8":'~1~ ~ ~ '" b;:;"n~ z r
'l 0 ~I' ;:t' '" l> (";)
~~'hJ 9 c:. ::; z ~.:.. >- ~ <-l Ro
QO '--,'..or .....
~~' ], In .Z t:) is 8::!f Z m ~
t,Y~ ;. ~ Z '" . Cl ("')
j>:~ )>:€ ~ ~ <-l G
, '" '" ~ V1
:0 ~ c
Iz ~ '"
:lO Z ;0
(') m
'"
; f~o'~! /"" I.;""
~"i'"1 <': ~; IIh~~n' ~,j' it>
~ ~ S' ~ S? ~
~: B. ;; a. ~ ~
0:" :?.
" ~i ~r 1 'i
~~ ~~\
~( ~~ 1 ~
~;:)~ I';
" ,/'/
~ ~ 1;--
" ~,\)
,. ~" I
tl\:;
\
II
,: "
:~ ~ I
.
[
~'I ;; - ~ ,,;': dJ
~~H
'0,'
j:!'l ~
i1~J ~
'll'
~~I! ~
- ~~ ~
r,;
JH
<j ~
!'
~~~~~w.~~ HH"~~~~:.' I';
~,:lrJ~~h; 'i.~!{~';~q{ ~
?6 ,1:ll~3UP n81.~ '!'."" "
~ t;nH~'~~ ~~~~~\< ~;~ ~I
--_ ".':!:;.\~~~,11 d~~n "';" ~.
;> .;,<~\iH'i~ ~~~?rHf~ it
z ~~~~J-~~~i ~~l'!,,~~;(~~ j~
( 'n ~~~~ !~i%h:'J~~ ~:;
( !,~ ~~;.~ :;d~,Hr.~(..} ~~
; '!'i ~ I' ~. ,~~!,.,t ~l
" '.\ '. ;~ lf~h~d"\, "
, 0: ~~ 'I'H~" f,,, .
:(1 ~ ~I' ~clgl;l.lil~> *j
, ~ r:i "" ,; <
~
,"" ~ ,\ 'i
~'.; ,".' ~: 1
H~
~ i ~ ~ l
~ 0 :
h~
j 'i ~
''1
,-
,;;
;
~ ~
1;1
~~;,~ ~~q
~ ; ~ ~ Hi i
n~c ~~~"
hi' .,,"1
. : ~ ~ r
Hn ~
~,~ ~
"
'i ~
Ii
~ 6
n
;;Iji!!
'~~ ~ w
Ii' Iii
, j!'
1 "
i ~~
,1 CR
, ~~
~~
'~'I II';; h ~ If li;r-
~ _~ ~ J : r-
,
I ,
II I I i
,
;:t:-
V
~
~
'"
o
o
."
."
r-
)>
Z
r~
/
/
/
I
,
,
/
I
-~.
---:c.~-....:..~
IT---'
I" ~-,
-----~~ li~'r-
-.......
"
-jt--)
I
i
------- :
-----+,
-
I
'"
><
~
I' ~
ic I:J
'"
~O
'"
o
~r
~-
",Z
R~~
~~ ('
c~
~~
~
-;
~
z
m
'"
"
o
o
~
--~
~2:'J
v,
r-nf,7T~.
';''1' \
-------~
--.......
----------
.
'\
\
\
\ '\
'\ ,
, \ \
,,";:'-~ .....\ '
-J;-"" ---
i.~ /~.....
Z-A ----
,m -
'- "r--
/
/
'l:
\_~
I
!
"
,
'I ....-\,\
, "S:
c
------.
------------------_c-.
,/
/
/
:---'J
i
,
I
I
'-'~_n__=i
I'
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
!
i
i
!
I
, i
! I
~__.___~______L
'I
[ n 0 n O. ~ ::;:
, , . , ~~~ ." > >- ::r: ~
5 ~ I " ~ g!!l
[ )> r- '"
, . .. c. -i ":4ii:~ rJJ ~
~ '" ;;~g_o > (')
~ rJJ -
> , I' i 1- I~ gg >~ ~3~~ z :I: 0 ~
N.'. ,;) 1:: g~1 0.- .....
g' I'" -. ...Jo .... 50 ~ I '/ r-; b~n[f z (") Ro~
tJ \'~., !J 'J' ~ :>3"' !~ U~>g .., -.
c. ,-,,', , Cc: ""''-'''J;>""" Z m a
. ~ '; , ,I 2.0 g~a
+;. I ~ 0g a (')
,.,.., '''- -. ~
- J>~ '" ~ ..,
~ i ~ rJJ
I I 0 '" 0 c
~ '"
'/ -;
m
r,
~ '-----
." ~
....., ,j:;'
!:"I'j L
r .
~ ,1
< ,
)> <;
::! 1,
c ,,-'
z
'" ,.:11;
" ...'r-
2 I [Tl
;<I ~1 <-
~ ~)>
~ J :::-\
, J \)
t (': 7
~ ~ l~:
~ ",,1
\' 7
r '; Pi
:Q '; ,..u
;oJ :;:)>
~1 r--
; :;: /'
,j j \)
~ " -.,
~ :, IT;
_~ l~ (J\
! ,
~
l ~
" ^
,
8 "
a ,
,
,
[
>
tI
IJl
Q
I
I
~y/
t~I;'~~. Jlr--'
-~i !~~ "
------- i ~;~~--=11-- -- l'
i :.~~~_~-<
-"--t=~
---i'
I
I i,i-
"
~~-
,
~
'.J
[<]
) i
L-J 1 1-
i
-l
~-
,~
il;
'r
.,
y,--,
, " , ~ , '" " ~ ;11
, , ~ , ,
! , 1 c , , '" " ~ ~ ,
" , , ,
6 " " I , " , , I'l
, , I " ~ ,> <.
, , , t " , '1,
" , l ^ ^ y
'" ~ "
, ~ R ~ ,'i'
~ , ~ , ^ /, , '" i
, , , ,
, " " " \)
;) " , f' " , ,
, , , , " ~ : " /
, , , , ,
, , , i ,
, " , , , , \j
, , " "
~ , , " J ~i
, ;' '" Ul
\i; " \ c
; i I I' i , ('
" ~ , ,{1
~ " , \; (I
,
, ,
, ()
". '"
, /
/
()
,
ill
Ul
j T
1~
f;i ;~
"' I
)> l:i
'"
"' ~
r
m m I
< r I
)> m
-; <
0 \ )>
z -;
~
i!
!
f
~
'\';,
or.
,___"__"_ c'=.c4
,
, '
,I, I
Id 'I
jL._. ..J
I
"1' I I
I,E
I-J Il'~
~\" ,liL ~".;,-i...li
"j f':
T
~ _'0"--
\
\
~~\
[-
i
I
;1
I9:Jrl
,"
.. /
------ {
__._ .,_' _un,
,
"
-- [
i
t
"
ji
~
I
i
toJI:l
F-~ !I
i 'I
' I
I
,il
!I'
, ,I
, ii'
~ ,"
. '1
Ii
/ I~ ..,
:11
I E ;~
- ~:
+
;r'l r
III!
1"11 i
" ,
Iii: '
"I I
li,i i
III i
U" Ii
I!::I:
Ii' 'I
+ ~
r .~
/ ,
[~-.
~ '-..
,
IL Iii
,
ltf
:' ~"I'
" I
,
1Q.1
il I
'i II
iil '.'1'
" Ii.
1:1 ~'-='il
~II Iii
c;;J-~'.!1
I,I!
EJ 11j--rrjl
I: '
l~ ~ 11
ml
"1
Ii
i'
il!
Iii
1'1
,I
III
rQl
I'
Ii
il.
,
'!
."
-" "
flj
'., I
~
-~Jl ~~t== '
, ii, 1'1' i
i. I'~'I ~
: I.i
~ --~-~j
iii,
,J.
,
1
I"]
,
:
I,
-.,
1Il :;0 " " " "" ~
~. ~- ;; ~ i ~ r :E
'" ">1"1::"'.... ..., >
~; a. ~ ~ ir~ ~ > ::r:: ::r::
~ ,~ ~~';:il~ t"" ;0
t l;~ I~ i"1 ~ ;;;~ ~ ~ > () Vl ~ a
L ~ Vl
.'. --'0 iE~-~ z -
Ii; ~ 53c: :I: 0 (1)
I~""" -!I!' r-i 6~n~ z ()
ill. i 'I ' '"% ~ ....;1>1; -; Ro~
~6 QI>",~r Z _.
8::~ m a
(;C1 C> ()
>m -. (1)
'" ;;; -;
II II i '" :5 C Vl
:3 ;0
m
HlNT H~LE JONES ~PC~I It:415-238-0288
SEPC!'JC
11 :16 No .003 P.01
HUNT HALE JONES
AUCIIITI'CT'
L~TEMAIL /I d-{)
FAX COVRR SHEET
'IlII Em; Theriaull II""", I)iek Hunt
,., 435 2438 I'~ 2 incl. covel'
........ 4357397 1- 09/01/UO
frJ NOlll.' W..erman Residence 1'rl8. 1??oo1
Ill: 36 SOllll1Rldae W.ot aite villil ee,
OUfJIftIl xli'orRt\lIt.'w 01'_ Cwnll",nl o I'l.... RcI~Y
o ptt>.asc R<<yd~
. eon""'IlL"
Thr. WalennanN llfolkcll t1l(1 to t'OI'WUI'(j lht.: ilu/ll..:hcd leonel' tC1 you.
p,..
. ')~'~~-~'1.
", 'J ":; :i~I,D
SfP ~-
! 2000
,';
n
636 l'O\\fth ~rrt('l ~;H1 h~m\'i:l;.rC\, CA (H1 \)] . Plh~n,' 41'~ 12-}')(ll' . FnK at) tl-2Hr~.ll.~t\K . ,\'\\wlnullh;.ll'.Il)Hl':'.~\'\m
-IVI!. f:eL_~..IO\~ES_ ~RC,-II If :41~-288-0288
SEP 01')C 11:110 "J,003 P.02
@
SheratQn Pasadena
HOTEl.
F:tEr-'r-"
. ". l!2D
S l-~\ I C,C> f PLS,E:", 1 2000
~ /c;~/// -~~;'J,'i;'1r',li ,\ ~
r _ ~ '. \ _ ~ __ \ ~.... _ J'- liLI",.".:-.11
\w..C~~-'~~ o'.ul.'j,'j
N\~-\:\.\~J 'I.
~o,...
~... ~'Q"""- Cc~.... OV\.J..
~7 ~~.."
41'5) 4~'5' - 7-1..t. sa
~
i
f1'\~^, ~ or' Co~~4-"-S'
~. _?b; Sr.>~~ vJ~~\:-!\~ C\llolClQ
~c. <l.^"- ~ t..~ to ~ "~~~ ~ 0. i~ ~l!..
~ '\~. ~- c;.e:r1.\.a...L ::::.: oI 1"<"" ~l fur L .s~""L.>
~ ~ ~: ~"'CO \ ',.k.~~ Lp.::u.. 't"o~.""...c~..J'
c,~...--".). ~-' ri\~~~ ~. :.J\.~ p;:L~ tN...
CIwI"cl ~, ~~$o<<--.L c:."~ o'<\., '1~ ~4-) 00.
~ ~ 1N.. ~ "* ~O~ o.~\o+ p~
'"'-' e u.Ll. lo ~.... '"to ,-..t:L ~ ~~ s: *- d--'" k,
o..."t. 11\L 'l..Q.Q'U ~ '\\ b \00 ~l ~lg'-"-
r<'I.-=>:::.'C' ........el...r-"'......,. 't...~ ~p .be ~c ~
~ 0-........, O('\.. M,,<\.d.a.ll, "\LI\OC".i -5"",1:"
~ ":.:::~ r ""'~ ~"h "f~~<,..G,
(.Cl ......L ~ . I
S~t'\t...~. . ()
I....., :r;.. H. L.U~~ I~om. 32,3
~. "..-.J
\~,.,..II"') Pk . !
~\ ~L~?
C' ~.
.:::.c~^"', l:;r.)'i..'-~
c:..-,..:...
1;4 (j...
N~
\-
0..'
I-~
C. r- ~
,
303 ~A..S; COJ"OOVA srqen, MS....OE"'A. CAI.IFOFN'A Q1")1 P""t:!NE: (IHI ol"'40~" ~ ("''')~-6
LHOl~"(t.I~l' ~,c I' """'loAn...... M('\;'I~ 1.......Q~.NT ....~.,Vf'. .u.(\ ~....tw.., ....., -..v", ':r aoa
....__ ~...~otrlMI""',.,.
".
Page 1
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
dD
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
ITEM NO.:
FROM:
;
ASSOCIATE PLANNER THERIAULT
SUBJECT:
APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IMPOSED ON
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND
VARIANCE APPLICATION APPROVALS AT
36 SOUTH RIDGE WEST
MEETING DATE:
SEPTEMBER 6, 2000
APPLICANT/APPELLANT - LALITA WATERMAN
PROJECT DATA:
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL:
FILE NUMBER:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
DATE COMPLETE:
CEQA EXEMPTION:
ORB ACTION DATE:
APPEAL FILED DATE:
36 SOUTH RIDGE WEST
034-311-11
200008
19,250 SQUARE FEET
RO-2 (RESIDENTIAL OPEN)
M (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
C
MARCH 14, 2000
APRIL 6, 2000
APRIL 6, 2000
APRIL 17,2000
BACKGROUND AND TOWN COUNCIL REVIEW
The Tiburon Town Council has reviewed this appeal of a Design Review Board decision over the
period of the two Council meetings held on June 7,2000 and July 19,2000. The Site Plan and
Architectural Review application reviewed by the Board had requested legalization of as-built
Page 2
modifications to previously approved plans and a variance for excess lot coverage. Please review
the Staff Reports to the Town Council, dated June 7, 2000 and July 19, 2000, for additional
information about the history of this application and code enforcement related to as-built work
performed on the subject property,
At the June 7th meeting, the Council had directed the applicant to erect storypoles and ribbons for
the purpose of indicating a redesign option -which would eliminate the most prominent portion of
the deck in lieu of denying the entire area of the deck over three feet from grade. At the July 19th
meeting, the Town Council concluded that the applicant had failed to show the full reduction
directed by the Council. In addition, Statrhad noted that accurate measurements and drawings
depicting proposed lot coverage variance'had yet to be submitted. The July 19th minutes are
attached as Exhibit I.
The Council directed the applicant to revise the plans to include accurate data for lot coverage
and a redesign for a reduced deck that would consist of the removal of a 45-degree angle of the
deck from post to post. The applicant was again directed to erect storypoles and ribbon to
demonstrate the revised redesign, The Council granted the applicant's request to continue the
item to September 6, 2000.
Staff has re-noticed the item to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property.
Analvsis:
Deck Reduction
The applicant submitted the revised drawing and lot coverage calculations on August 17, 2000. In
a field investigation conducted August 21, 2000, Staff confirmed that storypoles and ribbon,
representative of the deck removal consideration have been erected. The ribbons are white in
color, not orange as indicated in the applicant's submittal.
Measurements of the scaled drawings indicate that the applicant is proposing removal of a 45
degree angled section of the deck 7.5 feet in each direction from the southeast comer of the
existing, as-built deck railing. If the Council intended for the 45-degree angle reduction to align
with support posts for the deck, then the location of the ribbons falls considerably short of the
Council's direction, ^ deck cut back to the support posts at a 45-degree angle would still allow
the applicant to have a 71" width area to turn a wheelchair around the deck comer.
Lot Coverage Calculations
According to the architect's calculations, the revised deck, as proposed. would add 171 square
feet lot coverage to the existing residence. The architect submitted a field copy of plans
Page 3
illustrating calculations for proposed lot coverage. The architect and Mr Waterman explained
that they measured the height of the deck by inserting a 3-foot high board into slots at several
different locations through the deck flooring. Staff will make these calculations available for the
Council to review at the September 6, 2000 meeting. The submitted plans note that the total lot
coverage would be 4,031 square feet (21 % lot coverage in lieu of the 15% lot coverage allowed
for a property of this size in the RO-2 zone).
The applicant requested Staff to confirm the adequacy of their architect's submittal. Staff tried on
several occasions to contact Mr. and Mrs, Waterman via telephone but was unable to as they
were not home and their answering machine would not record messages Staff conducted another
field investigation on September I, 2000,' Staff remeasured the deck area by climbing around and
crawling under the deck, utilizing a measuring tape to obtain accurate measurements,
Lot Coverage: According to the Zoning Ordinance (section 1,0508) height of structures should
be measured from finished to existing grade, whichever is lower The language defining "height"
technically requires measurement to the lOp of any structure. However. for practical purposes
safety railings are not counted toward the height of a deck Stalf measured the deck height from
grade (below the concrete slab) in order to obtain the correct height as it would impact neighbors.
The actual lot coverage is greater than that indicated by the calculations supplied by the architect.
According to Staffs calculations, the revised deck, as proposed, would add 325 square feet lot
coverage to the existing residence, Slalf s lield measurements indicate that the total lot coverage,
with the revision, would be 4,096 square leet (21.3 % in lieu of the maximum 15% allowed in the
RO-2 zone). Staffs calculations will also be available for the Council to review at the September
6, 2000 meeting,
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffis recommending that the Town Council review the revised plans, conduct further discussion
pursuant to the Council's previous deliberations on the item and direct Staff to return with a
Resolution memorializing an action on the appeal.
EXHIBITS:
I. Minutes of the July 19,2000 Town Councilmceting,
2. Revised Plans submitted August 17, 2000.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
EXHIBIT NO. :L-
To approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1,2,4 and 5 above.
Hennessy, Seconded by Matthews
AYES: Unanimous
G. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS. COMMISSIONS & COMM.nTEES
6) PLANNING COMMISSION - (One Vacancy)
Mayor Gram said four applicants had been interviewed for the vacancy at this meeting.
Councilmember Matthews said the Town was fortunate to have so many qualified candidates.
MOTION:
To appoint (Design Review Board Chair) Wayne Snow to the Planning
Commission.
Matthews, Seconded by Bach
AYES: Unanimou~
Moved:
Vote:
>1.
PUBLIC HEARING
7) 36 SOUTHRIDGE WEST - Request by Town Council for Modification to As-
Built Deck - (Continuation of June 7, 2000 Appeal Hearing of Design Review
Board Decision to Town Council) - AP No. 34-311-11 - (Lalita Waterman,
Applicant/Appellant)
Vice Mayor Thompson recused himself
Associate Planner Theriault said that at the June 7, 2000 meeting, the applicant, Mrs. Waterman,
had been directed by Council to make modifications to an as-built deck and resubmit the plans
that included a variance associated with excess lot coverage. Theriault said Mrs. Waterman had
also erected story poles and ribbons showing the changes to the deck and had provided a
landscaping [mitigation] plan.
Ms. Theriault said that the Planning Department Staff would still like to have more complete data
on the lot coverage at 36 Southridge west. She said the current plans showed 200 feet of the
deck as being three feet from grade. Theriault recommended that a representative of the applicant
actually do the measurements in the field so that the Town would have correct data for its
records.
In response to a question from Council about lot coverage data submitted, Adam Gardner,
representing Dick Hunt [Hunt Hale Architects, the Watennan' s architects] said he had not
personally done any measurements,
In response to a question from Councilmember Hennessy on the discrepancy between the original
plans and current plans, Mr. Gardner said [the current plans showed] the previously existing deck.
being built to meet the new as-built deck.
Town Council Minutes # J 195
July J 9, 2000
Page 3
..
Mayor Gram asked if a particular current set of plans was correct, Mr. Gardner answered
affirmatively.
Councilmember Hennessy asked ifhe would measure the deck and distance from grade. He said
he would do so,
Associate Planner Theriault confirmed that the revised (current) plans showed the correct length
of the deck.
Neil Sorensen, attorney representing the Watermans, said his clients had followed Council's
suggestion and planned to cut off "just under eight feet" of the deck, He said their structural
engineer had said the comer could not be cut from "post to post" as recommended by Council
due to a denigration of structural integrity. Nevertheless, according to Sorensen, there were still
sufficient findings for a variance in this case.
,
Mayor Gram opened the public hearing.
Andrew Thompson, 18 Southridge West, said the matter should be continued because the
applicants still had not submitted the data showing the correct height of the deck [from grade].
He also said that some of the neighbors could not be present who had wanted to comment
because no notice of [the current] hearing had been sent out.
Mr. Thompson said he appreciated the story poles, but that what people in the neighborhood were
still upset about is what the Staff was concerned about, that is, the deck not conforming to the
[Town's] three-foot rule, and continued misrepresentations by the applicant.
Thompson further stated that "snipping the comer" of the deck did not make that much
difference, and continued misrepresentations, whether intentional or not, continued to frustrate
some people in the neighborhood.
Attorney Sorensen responded that he had been unaware of any errors in the plans up until now,
but that there was no change to the [current] area over three feet. He said the applicant was only
cutting off a comer to the deck and that the other data on the plans was not changed. However,
he suggested that the Council could require figures [specific data] in its final approval.
Mr. Sorensen said his clients had already presented their case and that it was not important
whether or not the deck was taken back to the three-foot line because of the findings presented,
as well as the finding for a variance under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Mayor Gram closed the public hearing.
Mayor Gram said the Town wanted to receive the numbers [specific data] within the next few
days.
Town Council MinUI<s ~ J J 95
July J 9. 2000
Page 4
Councilmember Bach said the Council's concern was [removal of] the comer of the deck and that
he "was not happy" with the way the applicant proposed to cut off the comer in the current plans.
He questioned whether a structural problem really existed.
Bach said he had specifically requested a 45-degree cut from post to post. He said the 45-degree
angle would closely follow the contours of the hillside and would lessen the view impacts from
neighboring properties.
Councilmember Bach said the Council had "lived with the other part of the deck" but that he
would not accept the current proposal. He also said he appreciated receiving up to date drawings
but that he noticed a skylight that was not there before and that he would not approve that either.
Councilmember Matthews said his opinion was close to Bach's but that he was not quite as
troubled by the [cut of the] deck because. the proposed landscaping would help to camouflage it,
,
Matthews asked how far off the cut was. Councilmember Hennessy said it was supposed to be
from "post to post." Councilmember Bach said that the comer was what was in the view angle of
the other homes and that it was important to remove it. He said it would take years before the
shrubbery would get to the deck railing height.
Council discussed the size of the shrubs. Mrs. Waterman's letter stated they would be 25-gallon
size. Council questioned whether they were 25 or 15-gallon containers, The applicant said they
would be 15-gallon size.
Mayor Gram said he agreed with Councilmember Bach that the deck must be pulled back more
than was shown on the proposed plans.
Mrs, Waterman replied that she had done what her structural engineer recommended but that she
would be willing to do what Council asked, However, she said it would require cutting offpart of
a structural beam. She said she had submitted a letter to Staff, dated July 5, that addressed this
Issue.
Mayor Gram directed Mrs. Waterman to take that action and return to a continued hearing so that
Council could have time to look at the plans again. He said the Council wanted to make sure the
changes were satisfactory and that a new post ( story pole) should be erected.
Mrs. Waterman said the post could be erected the following day, but she asked for a continuance
until September in order to take care of family business out of town in August,
Luncil agreed to a continuance to September 6, 2000.
8) 223 DIVISO STREET - Appeal of Design Review Board Decision Denying
Application for Legalization of an As-Built Fence on and near Property - AP No,
059-13 1-07 - (Malcolm Misuraca and Victoria Brieant, Applicants! Appellants) -
Town Council.\finules # 1195
July /9. 2000
Page 5
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO.
d/
To:
From:
Subject:
TOWN COUNCIL
DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER~
FILE #39907: GOLDEN GATE VISTA ESTATES PRECISE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN (PD #27) TO CREATE TWO BUILDING SITES AND AN ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE ENVELOPE ON A 4.66 ACRE PARCEL; 200/210 GILMARTIN
DRIVE; Alexander and. yamf Anolik, owners; Michael Heckmann, applicant;
Assessor's Parcel No. 39- I 7 I -05 (formerly Pinensky property)
(CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 2. 2000)
SEPTEMBER 6, 2000
Date:
BACKGROUND
The project is the proposed approval of a precise development plan (the Vista Golden Gate
Estates Precise Development Plan, File #39907) to subdivide a 4.66 acre parcel into two lots,
with a lot line adjustment to merge a portion of land to an existing adjacent lot under the same
ownership. On June 14, 2000, the Planning Commission adoptcd Resolution No, 2000-10
reconunending to the Town Council that the Precise Development Plan amendment be approved.
The public hearing for this application was originally scheduled for the August 2, 2000 Town
Council meeting. As a bare quorum of the Council was present at that mecting, the hearing was
continued to the September 6. 2000 meeting. The Stafl'report for the previous meeting is
attached as Exhibit I.
ADDITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATION
Since the August 2, 2000 Town Council meeting, Staffhas further investigated the existing
structures permitted on the applicant's property at 280 Round Hill Road, In 1981, the Board of
Adjustments and Review approved the construction of a two-story, 1,120 square foot guest house
on the property. This structure. which has been referred to under various permits as either a
"guest house," "tennis cabana" or a ''rec, house," was constructed, but never received a final
Building Department inspection or an occupancy permit. Permits were also issued for
construction of a swimming pool on the property, with the poor condition of the pool illustrated
in a photograph submitted liS late mail by the applicant prior to the last Town Council meeting,
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
ST AFF RFI'ORT
SEI'TEMI1ER ^. ~OO(l
FlLF 1t_~Q907
CONCLUSION
As stated in the previous Staff report, diligent work by a previous applicant had resulted in a
design for a precise development plan for this property that is consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance and General Plan requirements for development of a two-unit project, with
considerable efforts made to address the concerns of surrounding property owners, including
potential view and privacy impacts. The modifications recommended by the Planning
Commission for the subject application should help maintain the delicate balance previously
achieved for this property by the Tres Arboles Precise Development Plan, and insure that
development on the site is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council hold a public hearing on this item and direct Staff to
return with draft resolutions adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally
approving the Vista Golden Gate Estates Precise Devclopment Plan.
EXHIBITS
I. Staff report lor thc August 2, 2000 Town Council meeting
2. Letter from Joseph Ahcrn, datcd August 14,2000
3. Letter from Morris Leader, dated August 15, 2000
4. Letter from Fred and Dolores Rudow, dated August 15,2000
5. Letter from William Bremer, dated August 10,2000
6. Letter from William Swcet, dated August 31, 2000
T1BURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 6. 2000
FILE N399Q7
2
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO.
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
TOWN COUNCIL
DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER
FILE #39907: GOLDEN GATE VISTA ESTATES PRECISE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN (PD #27) TO CREATE TWO BUILDING SITES AND AN ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE ENVELOPE ON A 4.66 ACRE PARCEL; 200/210 GILMARTIN
DRIVE; Alexander and. Y ami Anolik, owners; Michael Heckmann, applicant;
Assessor's Parcel No. 39-171-05 (fonnerly Pinensky property)
AUGUST 2, 2000
PROJECT DATA
Address:
APNo.:
File No.:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Property Size:
Subdivision:
Current Use:
Owner:
Applicant:
Date Complete:
200 & 210 Gilmartin Drive
39-171-05
39907
Residential (up to 0.6 units per acre)
RPD-0.6 (Residential Planned Development Zone)
4.66 acres
None
Undeveloped land
Alexander and Yami Anolik
Michael Heckmann
February 17, 2000
BACKGROUND
The project is the proposed approval ofa precise development plan (the Vista Golden Gate
Estates Precise Development Plan, File #39907) to subdivide a 4.66 acre parcel into two lots.
with a lot line adjustment to merge a portion of land to an existing adjacent lot under the same
ownership. On June 14,2000, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No, 2000-10
(Exhibit 2) recommending to the Town Council that the Precise Development Plan amendment be
approved.
PREVIOUS TOWN REVIEW
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
AUGUST 1, 2()(lO
FII.F #)QQ07
EXHIBIT NoL
p, I OF-tD
Prooertv Historv
The subject property was owned for many years by Irving and Wilma Pinensky. In the early
1980's, the property was sold to developer Leonard Cahn, who received a Master Plan approval
for three lots on this property in 1981. That approval later expired, and the property reverted to
the ownership of Wilma Pinensky. The property was sold in the early 1990's to Alexander and
Yami Anolik, adjacent property owners at 280 Round Hill Road, at the southwest corner of the
site.
[n 1996, Mr. Anolik sold the property to the Equinox Group, who submitted an application for a
precise development plan (the Tres Arboles Precise Development Plan, File #39703) for the
property. This application requested to d~velop the property with two single-family homes on
individual lots. The Planning Commission reviewed the application and recommended approval to
the Town Council. At a hearing belore the Town Council on March 18, 1998, Mr. Anolik
appeared and stated that he had toreclosed on the property and wished to continue the hearing
until the application could be moditied. This application was subsequently deemed to be
withdrawn on February 26, 1999.
Conceptual Master Plan Review
Prior to submittal of the Tres Arboles Precise Development Plan application, an earlier version of
this proposal for was submitted tor Conceptual Master Plan review by the Town. The Planning
Commission and Town Council conducted their review of the conceptual plans in 1997, and gave
feedback to the applicant about the plans. One of the primary issues addressed during these
reviews was the location of the building envelopes in proximity to the Tiburon Ridge. As more
fully described later, the Tiburon General Plan discourages development within 50 vertical feet
and 150 horizontal teet of any major ridge line, while the building envelope proposed for Lot I
would encroach into this setback. The Planning Commission and Town Council both agreed that
the general locations of the building envelopes were appropriate, as alternate locations elsewhere
on the site would significantly impact the views from surrounding homes.
The Commission and Council made several other comments regarding the conceptual plans:
The building envdopes were too large, and should be reduced in size.
There should probably be a one story height restriction on Lot I.
The driveway design appears to be tortured, and results in concerns over glare
from headlights shining into neighboring homes.
At these hearings, comments were made by a nunlber of the neighboring property owners
regarding the conceptual plans. There were concerns that the building envelopes were too large,
TIIlURON TOWN Cl)UN('II.
STAFF REPORT
AUGUST 2. 200{)
FILE #39907
2
ELTfIBIT NO. r
p, '2 Of=' 10
and that the heights for the proposed buildings were excessive. Neighbors wished to preserve
their existing views across the site toward San Francisco and Mount Tamalpais. The proximity of
the building envelopes to some of the existing residences raised concerns over privacy, Several
neighbors wanted to insure that open space on the site would be preserved and that informal
pedestrian access across the property to the Tiburon Ridge Trail would not be eliminated.
In response to the comments made during this review, the applicants made a number of changes
to the proposal, including a reduction in the size of the building envelopes, modifications to the
driveway design, and a proposal for a 3 foot wide pedestrian easement along the eastern property
line leading to the Tiburon Ridge Trail.
Tres Arboles Precise Development Plan Review
,
The Planning Commission first reviewed the Tres Arboles Precise Development Plan on January
14, 1998. Discussions centered on the need for adequate story poles to visually represent the
project and potential mitigation measures for the removal of serpentine grass on the site, The
application was continued to February 25, 1998 to allow time for story poles to be erected on the
site.
At that following meeting, the Commission further discussed the size and location of the building
envelopes and potential fees to be used for mitigation of serpentine grass removal. The
Commission made several changes to the proposed building and landscape envelopes, and
specified that any in-lieu fees charged for removal of serpentine grass be used for purchase of
grassland on the Tiburon Peninsula that is contiguous with other grasslands, The Commission
then unanimously adopted Resolution No. 98-03 recommending approval of the project to the
Town Council.
The Town Council reviewed the Tres Arboles application on March 18, 1998. Shortly after the
public hearing was opened, Mr. Anolik appeared and indicated to the Town Council that he and
his wife were now the owners of the property, and could not support the application, Mr, Anolik
indicated that he had requested an easement to construct a swimming pool un the lower portion of
the site, and indicated a desire to develop three homes on the remainder ufthe property. The
Council tabled the item until the ownership of the property could be properly determined, It was
subsequently verified that Mr. Anolik had regained ownership of the property. The Tres Arboles
application was withdrawn on February 26, 1999,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Vista Golden Gate Estates Precise Development Plan would provide for the development of
two single-family dwellings on separate lots on the site. Lot I, on the upper end of the site,
would have an area of 1.64 acres, and Lot 2 would have an area of2.36 acres, The remaining
0.66 acre portion of the property is proposed for merger with the lot at 280 Round Hill Road to
create a greatly expanded rear yard. Conceptual plans show a 1,300 square foot cabana, a hot
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
AUGUST 2. 2000
FILE #39407
3
EX-BIBIT NO. I
f ?JiflD
tub, swimming pool, a fountain, numerous retaining walls, a terraced garden and an orchard for
this area,
The project site consists of a roughly rectangular parcel which slopes down from the Tiburon
Ridge, [For purposes of this report, the property line fronting Gilmartin Drive will be called
"north" (as opposed to its actual north-northeast orientation); similarly, the side property lines will
be referred to as "east" and "wcst", with the property line at the bottom of the slope called
"south."J The property has a north-to-south slope of 15% to 30%, with a negligible cross-slope.
Vegetation on the site consists of three trees and a serpentine bunchgrass grassland plant
community. Serpentine rock outcroppings dominate the property, although none of these
formations is particularly prominent. The Tiburon Ridge Trail runs just north of the site.
The Vista Golden Gate Estates Precise D~velopment Plan would establish building envelopes and
other planning limitations for the two proposed lots. The building envelopes for both of the
proposed lots run horizontally across the site, with Lot I located toward the top of the site and
Lot 2 on the lower portion of the property. Each lot would have separate building and
landscaping envelopes. Access would be provided to both proposed lots from a single driveway
extending from the cul-de-sac at the end of Gilmartin Drive.
The height of the house for Lot I would essentially be limited to one story in height, with the
potential for a small second story area at the southeast comer of the building envelope. The
maxllnum roof height for this house would be IS feet along the upper portions of the envelope,
with elevations of 498 to 500 feet, which is the approximate elevation of the portion of the
Tiburon Ridge Trail adjacent to the site. The house on Lot 2, situated further down slope on the
site, is proposed to have a height ranging from 25 to 30 feet.
To illustrate the potential housing construction on each of the proposed lots, the applicant has
submitted conceptual plans for two houses which would meet the criteria for the proposed precise
development plan. Each of the houses would be wide but shallow, with only one story of each
structure visible from above the lots. Although these plans are conceptual in nature, and would
require subsequent approval by the Design Review Board, the plans are probably representative of
the type of construction which would be expected for each lot, given the height and building
envelope constraints proposed.
The remaining 0.66 acre portion of the property lies at the bottom of the site. The applicants own
the adjacent property to the west at 280 Round Hill Road and hold a recreational back yard
easement over the 0.66 acre portion of the subject property, which would be merged in the future
with the 280 Round Hill Road lot. Three separate envelope types have been proposed for this
area, including a building envelope for a proposed cabana structure; a primary landscape envelope
for a swimming pool, trellises and retaining walls which would not exceed 6 feet in height; and
two secondary landscape envelopes that envelopes would allow plantings that would not exceed
10 feet in height, and would predominantly consist of shrubs and other low ground cover. The
developable portion (envelope area) of the 0.66 acre recreational easement would cover 50% of
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIl.
ST AFt' REI~)RT
AUGUST 2. 200U
FILE #J9'l()7
4
EXHIBIT NO. I
p 4 OF tD
its area, or approximately 14,500 square feet. The balance of the 0.66 acre portion, on the
easternmost section of this lower area, would be designated as private open space, and would not
be allowed to be disturbed.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
This application was first reviewed by the Planning Commission at its April 12, 2000 meeting. At
that time, concerns were raised regarding the differences between the proposed application and
the previously reviewed application for this_property (the Tres Arboles Precise Development Plan,
File #39703). Much of the discussion focused on the request to develop the lower 0.66 acre
portion of the site. The Commission indicated that the amount of area to be disturbed on the site
which was found to be acceptable in the review of the previous application was considerably
expanded by the proposed application, perhaps to unacceptable levels. The proposed plan did not
include any specific developable envelopes for the lower portion of the site; the applicant was
directed to establish such envelopes and to come up with a revised plan that would represent a
tradeoff between the development of the lower portion of the site and concurrent reductions in
the size of the areas to be disturbed on the proposed Lots I and 2. The application was continued
to the May 24, 2000 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant time to make these
modifications.
The applicant subsequently submitted revised plans which delineated three separate types of
building and/or landscaping envelopes for the lower portion of the property. and slightly reduced
portions of the proposed building and landscaping envelopes for Lots I and 2. At the May 24,
2000 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed these revised plans and reached consensus on
the following aspects of the proposed project:
1. The specific envelope notes and height restrictions from the prior Tres Arboles
Precise Development Plan drawings should be restored to the current proposal.
2. The developable portion (envelope area) of the 0.66 acre recreational easement
should be reduced from the 21,800 square teet (or 75.7% of the lower portion)
proposed by the applicant to 50% of its area, or approximately 14,500 square feet.
Disturbance of the remaining 50% would be prohibited through imposition ofa
scenic easement and prohibition of fencing or other disturbance outside the
envelope areas.
3. The proposed cabana should be reduced in size from the IJOO square feet
proposed by the applicant to 700 square feet. and limited to I 5 feet in height from
grade.
4. Specific landscape palettes and building envelopes restrictions (including height
limits) should be established for the remaining developable portion of the 0.66 acre
recreational easement. In addition, the Town may wish to explore imposition of
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
AlKiUST :!. 2000
FlLL#3lN\l7
5
EXHIBIT NO. I
~, s O~ ! 0
deed restrictions to ensure that view blockage does not occur over time, or, if it
does, that it can be legally remedied.
5. House size limitations of6,000 square feet, plus up to 750 square feet of garage,
should be imposed for proposed Lots I and 2 as a "tradeoff" for the newly
proposed development of the 0.66 acre area and Lots I and 2, as well as to keep
the homes in scale with surrounding development. The original application
included no floor area limitations, and each lot would be allowed up to 8,000
square feet of floor area, with an additional 750 square feet of garage space, under
the Town's default floor area ratio.
6. Appropriate restrictions on use of the recreational easement area should be
applied, including prohibitions on further subdivision, secondary dwelling units,
and transfer of the !loor area ratio to the existing lot at 280 Round Hill Road.
At the same meeting, the Planning Commission continued to raise concerns regarding the extent
of Lot I's encroachment into the 50 foot vertical setbacks from the Tiburon Ridgeline as set forth
in General Plan Policy OSC-5. The Commission was concerned about the mass and bulk of the
future house on the proposed Lot I, particularly when viewed from the Tiburon Ridge Trail,
which passes across the top of the property. The potential for this future house to significantly
impact views from the Ridge Trail caused the Commission to direct the applicant to explore
alternative building envelope designs which would address this situation. The applicant was
required to investigate various methods 0 f illustrating potential development options, including
modified plans and story poles for Lot I. The hearing was then continued to the June 14,2000
meeting.
The applicant subsequently installed revised story poles tor Lot I which indicated a 20 foot
downhill shift of the proposed building and landscape envelopes for this lot, and would result in a
maximum height reduction of3 to 4 teet from the previous proposal. The applicant also
submitted revised plans tor the project which indicated the following changes:
A reduction in the !loor area of the proposed cabana from 1,315 square feet to
I , I 00 sq uare teet.
An increase in the amount of undeveloped open area on the lower 0.66 acre
portion of the to 8.675 square feet. or 30% of the area of this lower portion.
A 23 toot maximum height of fruit trees tor the proposed orchard, illustrated by a
story pole at the south end of the proposed orchard.
A further reduction in the area removed from the building envelopes from Lots I
and 2 from 1,200 square teet to 1.800 square feet, representing a 1:2 ratio of
reduction tor the building envelope area of the lower portion of the site.
TIBlJRON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF RFI"RT
AUfil1ST ~. 200n
FILE #39907
6
EXHIBIT NO. \
p. ~ or=:: 10
A further reduction in the area removed from the landscape envelopes from Lots 1
and 2 from 1,833 square feet to 2,750 square feet, representing a 1:4 ratio of
reduction for the primary landscape envelope area of the lower portion of the site.
Reduced maximum floor areas for Lots 1 and 2 from 8,000 square feet to 7,500
square feet.
The applicant also continued to show fencing around the entire lower portion of the site, and
raised objections to any restriction that would prohibit the transfer of the floor area ratio from this
lower portion to the existing lot at 280 Round Hill Road.
At the June 14,2000 meeting, the Planniqg Commission determined that the applicant's revisions
did not address previously raised concerns regarding potential overdevelopment of the site and
,compatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood. It was noted that the proposed
development of the lower portion of the site could conceivably have the impact ofa third
residence on the property. As a result, the level of development for both this lower portion and
the two proposed lots should be restricted.
The Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2000-10 (Exhibit 2), which ratified the
consensus from the previous meeting and recommended approval of the Vista Golden Gate
Estates Precise Development Plan to the Town Council. The only significant change was an
extension of the building envelope for Lot 1 20 feet downhill, with direction given to the Design
Review Board to carefully examine both the potential view impacts which could be caused by this
extension and to minimize potential public view blockage from the Tiburon Ridge Trail.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An initial study/draft mitigated negative declaration was prepared for this project and released for
public comment on March 22, 2000. The initial study/draft mitigated negative declaration is
attached as Exhibit 2. The public review period ends on April 12, 2000. No letters have been
received at this time regarding the negative declaration.
The initial study identified the potential for significant environmental impacts in the following
categories:
Aesthetic
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Noise
llBURON TOWN COllNCI L
STAFF REPORT
AUGUST 2. 2000
FILl-: #39907
7
EXHIBIT NO. (
'f 70p {O
T ransportation/T rallic
Mitigation measures and a draft mitigation monitoring program (Exhibit 3) have been developed
which would reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts to less-than-significant
levels. As a mitigation measure for the removal of serpentine grassland on the site, the Planning
Commission previously recommended as part of the Tres Arboles Precise Development Plan that
a fee be paid for purchase of serpentine grassland elsewhere on the Tiburon Peninsula to replace
all serpentine grassland disturbed by this project on a 1.5 to I basis. Such replacement was
evaluated as an appropriate mitigation due to the relatively poor value of the existing serpentine
grassland habitat on the site, as the property is already surrounded by developed properties. The
Commission specified the purchase of grassland area contiguous to other grassland in order to
preserve better serpentine habitat elsewhere on the peninsula. The Commission used the purchase
price of $64,627 per acre paid for the H~oman property to become the Old St. Hilary's open
space to determine the appropriate fee to be paid by the applicant.
ANALYSISIISSVES TO BE RESOLVED
The applicant has raised objections to several of the Planning Commission's recommendations
regarding the proposed project. In particular, the applicant request that the tloor area for Lots I
and 2 be increased to at least 7,500 square feet for each home; that the size ofthe proposed
cabana on the lower portion of the site be increased to at least I, I 00 square feet; that fencing be
pennitted around the entire lower portion; and that the additional lot area added to the property at
280 Round Hill Road as a result of the proposed lot line adjustment be used to increase the tloor
area ratio for this property.
The Planning Commission detennined that the 6,000 square toot limitations tor future homes on
Lots I and 2 were appropriate given the size of homes surrounding the site. The Commission
noted that only three homes on Gilmartin Drive have tloor areas greater than 6,000 square feet,
while the 9 remaining properties listed in the table have tloor areas ranging from 2.784 to 4,750
square feet. The proposed 6.000 square foot tloor area limitation for Lots I and 2 was therefore
determined to be consistent with the sizes of the homes in the vicinity of the subject property.
The Commission recommended that the size of the proposed cabana be reduced to a maximum of
700 square feet, which is the Town's limitation for the tloor area for a secondary dwelling unit.
The reduced size would alleviate concerns about the development of a structure with the impacts
of a third dwelling unit on the lower portion of the site.
The Planning Commission recommended that fencing on the lower portion of the site be limited to
the area contained within the building, primary and secondary landscaping envelopes. The
Commission acknowledged the need tor security raised by the applicant. but indicated that
security provided by fencing of the envelope areas would be no different than that provided by
extended fencelines. The Commission also indicated that the fencing limitation would help to
protect the designated open space from encroachment by other landscaping in the future.
T1BURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
AUGUST :!. 2000
FILE #JQQ07
8
EXHIBIT NO. I
'P. 8' OF (0
The addition of the lower 0.66 acre portion of the site to the property at 280 Round Hill Road
could conceivably increase the maximum permitted floor area for the property by up to 2,880
square feet. The Planning Commission determined that this additional floor area could result in
development which would be out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood, and that the floor
area ratio which would result from the proposed lot line adjustment should not be transferred to
the existing lot at 280 Round HilI Road.
The Planning Commission considered addi~ional modifications to the building envelopes for Lots
1 and 2 in order to address potential view concerns from the Tiburon Ridge TraiL Ultimately,
however, the Commission recognized that the currently proposed envelope locations were the
result of extensive review and negotiations with the surrounding property owners, and any
significant modifications could result in substantial view impacts from neighboring residences. It
,
was also noted that the currently proposed envelopes have the support of the surrounding
property owners. In recommending a 20 foot downhill extension of the building envelope for Lot
1, the Commission directed that the Design Review Board should attempt to preserve adjacent
residential views across the site to the same degree as if the building envelope enlargement had
not been approved.
CONCLUSION
Diligent work by a previous applicant had resulted in a design for a precise development plan for
this property that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan requirements for
development of a two-unit project, with considerable efforts made to address the concerns of
surrounding property owners, including potential view and privacy impacts. The modifications
recommended by the Planning Commission should help maintain the delicatc balance previously
achieved for this property by the Tres Arboles Precise Development Plan. and insure that
development on the site is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods,
RECOMMENDA nON
Staff recommends that the Town Council hold a public hearing on this item and direct Staff to
return with draft resolutions adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally
approving the Vista Golden Gate Estates Precise Development Plan.
EXHIBITS (to be modified....)
1. Application torm
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2000- I 0
3. Draft Initial StudyfMitigated Negative Declaration
4. Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan
5. Resource Conservation Report prepared by Diane Renshaw, datcd September 22, 1999
6. Geological evaluation prepared by Geoengineering, Inc., dated October 2, 1996
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
AUGUST 2. 2000
FILE #J9907
9
EXHIBIT NO. \
~, cr oF- (6
7.
8.
9.
10.
II.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Geological evaluation prepared by Geoengineering, Inc., dated October 22, 1999
Environmental Data Submission form and supplemental materials prepared by Michael
Heckmann, dated January 18, 2000
General description of the site and project prepared by Michael Heckmann, dated
November 30, 1999
Memorandum from Michael Heckmann, dated May 8, 2000
Minutes of the April 12, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
Minutes of the May 24,2000 Planning Commission meeting
Draft Minutes of the June 14,2000 Planning Commission meeting
Letter from Robert and Judith Greber, William and Hannah Sweet, and Leonard and Ruth
Yaffe, dated September 2, 1999
Letter from Judith Greber, dated April 4, 2000
Letter from Peter and Leslie Mathews, dated June 8, 2000
,
Letter from Anders and Terri Swahn, dated June 3, 2000
Building envelope and height restrictions from earlier Tres Arboles project
Memorandum from Police ChiefHerley, dated June 10, 2000
Proposed plans
TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
FILE #39907
10
AUGUST 2. 2000
EXHIBIT NO. \
~. l 0 DP to
~
KGOTELEVISION
Joseph J. Ahern
President & General Manager
14 August 2000
RECEIVED
AUB 1 6 2000
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Town Council
1005 Tiburon Road
Tiburon, California 94920
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBWR8N
RE: RESOLUTION #2000-10
ALEXANDER AND YAMi ANOLIK
280 ROUNDHILL
Dear Council Members:
Please accept this letter as an expression of my support of AI Anolik's
request for the annexation of the approximate 2/3 acre to his above
referenced property and the proposed cabana and fencing.
Mr. and Mrs. Anolik appear to have done everything in their power to
adjust their plans to annex their own property and to develop a
reasonable sized cabana and fence on the property.
I have viewed the land and it's development and find their request most
reasonable.
By way ofthis letter, I ask that the Town Council grant their request.
Sincerely,
ct~
~,X-T-IIBIT NO. 2-
ABC INC. 900 FRONT STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 90.1111415950.1.7700
Morris Leader
88 Trinidad Drive
Tiburon CA 94920
Tel: 415 435 0828
Fax: 415 435 0711
RECEIVED
AUG 1 6 2000
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBYRQN
August 15, 2000
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Town Council
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon CA 94920
Re: Resolution # 2000-10,
Alexander and Yami Anolik
Dear Council Members:
My wife and I are very much in favor of the. "Open Space" concept but in
this case, we think the Council's position is unreasonable. We support the
request of Mr. and Mrs. Anolik.
sm""l~~
Morris Leader.
3
EX1:l1BIT NO.-
-
Fred & Dolores Rudow
100 Red Hill Circle
Tiburon, CA 94920
August 15, 2000
RECEIVED
AUG 1 7 2000
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
Town of Tiburon
Tlburon Town Council
1505 Tlburon Blvd
Tlburon, CA 94920
,
R~ Resolution # 2000 .1 0
Alexander and Yami Anolik
280 Round Hill Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Council Members:
We respectfully request that you approve the Anolik proposal as submitted by them.
Their proposal is not unreasonable and the plans indicate that the addition of a cabana
and replacement of their pool will be visually pleasing and not cause any negative
environmental impact.
The Anolik family are long time residents of Tiburon and should be permitted to modify
their property to accommodate their current life style. Their request is far more
reasonable than what has been approved for adjoining properties in their neighborhood.
They are entitled to fair treatment.
Sincerely yours,
~~
--~:.:./.~:.
EXHIBIT NO. Lf
LAW OFFICES
WILLIAM R. BREMER
120 TAYlOR ROAD
TlBURON. CALIFORNIA 94920
1415) 435.4487
FAX (4151 435.0882
M
ii
I
RECEIVED
AUG 1 4 2000
August 10, 2000
TOWN MANAGi:AS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Town Council
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Resolution Number 2000-10
Owner: Al Anolik
Dear Council Members,
I'm writing to support and to encourage you to vote favorably on the above captioned
Resolution permitting the Anolik's to complete their cabana, and related items that I
consider a reasonable development of their property. I believe that in this matter, the
Anolik's have made substantial concessions, revisions, and adjustments to appease and
satisfy any concerns that may have been raised. The proposed improvements do not
approach any effort to maximize the land use. Their proposals are reasonable and in
keeping with our Town values and objectives.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
~~.
-
EXHIBIT NO. ~
RECEIVED
AUG 3 1 2000
PLANhl!;'jG Dt::PAri i r"iEN I
TOWN OF T1BURON
81 Mt. Tiburon Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
August 25,2000
Dear Mr. And Mrs. Anolik,
This is in response to your Jetter 'of August 3, 2000 addressed to my wife. Please
address future correspondence, if any, to both of us as we are joint owners of this
property.
The tone of your letter was threatening in its reference to ".. . the judicial
alternative" and it was not well received at our home. But most disturbing to us is your
intimation that the neighbors are in opposition to your plans. As the record attests, we,
and many other neighbors, have been working with you and your associates for over four
years to try to help you get a plan that will pass the town's requirements and not destroy
the ambiance of our neighborhood. At each turning point the town and your neighbors
have compromised to suit you. But it is never enough. Each time you have escalated your
demands and we are all forced to spend more of our time on your project. This has
continued for over four years. Now the Tiburon Planning Commissioners have presented
a plan, which should be satisfactory to everyone of US]wn!], considering of all the work
that went into it. This plan is Resolution NO.2000-1O. My wife and I have written to the
members of the town council in support of Resolution No, 2000-10 and in spite of your
threats, are still supportive of that plan without any changes to it.
Sincerely yours,
William R. Sweet
Clc Tiburon Town Council
EXHIBIT NO.~
f. l ct' 'L
iJ~m[<lil~ roarrl1t' &mill AJllHllH
~~ m:tll\lJJll:!ilThuill1l ffi:tlloo I
'1'1ilbllllOO!!l, iC&Ihi$a.mSl ~~@.'OO$1L
[41~3 41.5i!-<lJ)l}(OO
RECEIVED
AUG 3 1 2000
PLANNING DEPARTNIENT
TOWN OF TiBURON
August 3, 2000
Hannah Sweet
81 Mount Tiburon Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Cabana Next to Mv Residence
File No. 10183-01
Dear Ms. Sweet:
o
,
I was surprised that some of the residents on the south side of the lot line
adjustment were objecting to the recent modification request to the precise plan in light of
the original plans. I am enclosing the map plan and resolution that had the road area
going closer to your house. In that it would be more economical for us to put the road on
our south side, and next to your property and better for the actual three separate parcels,
(if we were not now approved and we had to resubmit), I wanted to survey the neighbors
as to whether or not if I withdraw my application now, and start over again, whether you
would support the originally approved 3-lot subdivision with'the road on your side, rather
than the present 2-lot subdivision next to Mr. Yaffe, who does not want the road on his
side. If the matter is not now resolved, and is going to haVe to go to court, then why
should I give up the third parcel that r am still paying separate assessment fees on? The
present pending proposal is that I could never separate and sell the cabana area.
I obtained the Town's original approved map with the road on your side of the
parcel a number of weeks ago, and had asswned all of the immediate neighbors were
aware of the original approval in 1981, and was wondering why there was so much
opposition to what I am now proposing, when the judicial alternative just might be a 3-lot
subdivision with the road on your side. If you could review the enclosed and let me have
your thoughts either by phone or mc'eting, Yami and I would be happy to do this.
AA:sws
Enclosure
101 RJ-O 'IORIlJIlO-AA to Sweet
XHIBIT NO.
1", 2 of 2-
~
tATE MAIL # eJ-!
I!o. CUv--f ~ ?, ;18 -3/- ~
~
1Ii
flO
f
August 28, 2000
RECEIVED
AUG 3 0 2000
Alexander and Yami Anolik
280 Round Hill Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF T1SURON
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Anolik:
I have received your letter of August 3, 2000 regarding
the property next to my residence. As a two-lot subdivision of
the property has been ~nde~.discussion for nearly four years, I
am surprised that you would'now ask my views about a three-lot
subdivision that apparently was last considered by the town
nearly 20 years ago. I also am surprised that, after all the
time and effort that everyone in the neighborhood has spent
considering your two-lot proposal, you would consider withdrawing
your application and starting over again.
Nevertheless, you had asked if I would prefer the
three-lot subdivision from 1981 rather than the present two-lot
subdivision which is before the Town Council. Although I would
obviously need to see the details of any three-lot proposal, my
initial reaction is that I would not prefer a new three-lot
subdivision in lieu of the current two-lot subdivision.
Very truly yours,
&>-,r--J-. ~
Chara Schreyer
83 Mt. Tiburon Road
Tiburon, CA 94942
cc: Tiburon Town Council {
WORO\CWS\Gilmartin Drive Development
AUG-22-00 TuE e2:36 ~M ~IYR HOEFLINC
415 43:5 246':5
P.01
0&
~
7ir~:~
-:~ .
,
~
/to-
'{ve,I'U N "VZ.~denh, 6{- h~ Cki~ ~ 72 . ~~
"Ne CO~deN it Q.J.:. a..Yl ~ CLnJ ~~ r
;-0 ~ ve. 1 Y\.. ou>v n.eJ . \1.; Q)I. ~rte,
nA~ a.,n,J .Q~~ tuK1-~'U. .We a;~1t.flQ~CLkl
~~~.'Ne",RG.~e~ ~~ ~~J~~,' \
~ cU.Q ~ ~C! -D~l~'<,'" . .
\!\J e. cUJw (!.O..n.. ~ - a..Q.Q. 'I ~ C'..om1l'\.Ll.1'\A '-1
~ ~. ~ ~ . vftcf' qo.oJ 4b
m ~ ~p-U ~ ~~ ~ m..-h>
~Q,,+ ~'"'t ~~. ~IS Q ~~o..t
cuhL.\..; IhL 1-<:> ~"'nw..",'~ Cl.>\cl -h, 0<.0Jo>u ~
11k;-..u n cu 0.. Wu1. aRd t<!~~ ~h
~ ,we. wouM ~~ +0 ~ ~.<J,Jt\s.'
A . kN L\ ~ "I n ~'7.. 0.. ~.ern~ +0 YYLO-k:.Q. ~ 't.-
~-~fu\N I'~~~~'
ef ~ Y\QA . ~ w~ oo~d~
~CF:~ Ji- ~s '~~~ ;& b~
LQ..~~ cJ,-l cYY'Ib 'tn 0t0A. ~. 6
Lr ~ k.: .48'l-UvG
W. i~s-:14 cos . .
rA-i-.: WMQ (e,atl r~+' ~
- RECEIVED
-.
AUG 3 0 2000
'~~Ml
AUS~2t aa 13:23
TOWN MANAGERS OFFIC,
TOWN OF T1SURON
415 435 2465 PAGE.eel
,/)I{,u ,J.
Park & Taylor, Attorneys at Law
703 Market Street, Suite 1900, San FraaciKo, CA 94103.2129
Phone: 415 896 0998
Fax: 415 896 0777
Anonaeys. Byron Park, Karyn Taylor
Para1eg...... Joyce Hessel, Abnudena Bernabeu
Town of Tiburon August 25, 2000
Tiburon Town Council
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Belvedere- Tiburon, CA 94920
AECenfED
AUG 2 8 2000
TGWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TISURON
Re: Resolution #2000-10, Alexander and Yami Anolik
Dear Council members:
;i
My wife, Jeanne Park, and I reside at 705 Hilary Drive in Tiburon. I've known AI
Anolik for many years, going back to the time when he defended impoverished Mexican
immigrants in visa and deportation cases. I respect him as a man of integrity and
principle.
It seems to me that his request for a 1000 square foot cabana and a tasteful iron
fence on his property is quite reasonable. Moreover, it is certainly not invasive or
disruptive of the quality of life in the neighborhood where he and Yami reside.
I understand that the Planning Commission was willing to approve a 700 square
foot cabana, but Mr. and Mrs. Anolik want one that is 300 square feet larger. Surely
there is room here for amicable resolution of this dispute. I urge you to approve the
request of Mr. and Mrs. Anolik.
Thank you.
,
~
1/0
ZIt?
f
Martina Koeckritz-Latimer
William Latimer
28 D Circle Dr.
Tiburon, California 94920
(415) 380-8436
~t
f/i
RECEIVED ~f
AUG 2 9 2000
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
August 25, 2000
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Town Council
1005 Tiburon Road
Tiburon, California 94920
;,
,
Re: Resolution # 2000-10, Alexander and Yami Anolik
Dear Council Members:
After viewing Mr. and Mrs Anolik's land we are expressing our full
support for their thoughtful proposal.
It is our sincere hope that the Town Council grant this reasonable
. request.
This is also an opportunity to thank you for all the considerate work
you put out for the well being of our town.
Sincerely,
/;~c;< ~ot'~ (' - ZA ~
W)L~
RECEnfED
AUG 3 0 2000
!j:;
JIg
~~
TOWNMANAGERSGFFiC" n~~A../~" /Z.-.
TOWNOFTfSJ;ROcJ (1;- (f -..., _. ....<3"/
0J~~ u ....;1~ ~G<../t- ~
LJ ..- 3S~ 0/
~;:L' j)~
~ ~~j- td
~~~
. ?J-' , J./ ~LJ!,
~ ;:t; ~~h(J/~
tiP-F~ .~ ~~~~'-
.~L..S~~~
^#J C{~~ ~ ~J"-
S. ~'cf~'-f~
~ ~~/'S~~
~ 'JJ;~~
~ . , . -::t~~~
-/IL 1)~tf.S.(~"t . hf:.Wl~'
~ " --I It' .L, ~. -' . t>I~ 0 0 C _ /0
~D (hV /i;!7i.,,- ~,-((U Ife~ /11 ;fIN'
J~ ~,+-IJ..!J~./'~fJ/
.V;4 ~k5 ~ ~~. t/,,~.
jr:~ lC~~~ /
1.I.t.4.$-> ~ . ~~
J?~C .
d~~~~~~
~ I . ~ I:;J
~~s ~ ~.k-/u-t '!'
. ~5,L~
. .
/sL--~~' .. 4
~~,~~:I~
~,~L4-5~~~'//~
~"-~~. 0
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA NO.:
:2~
FROM:
SENIOR PLANNER WATROUS
SUBJECT:
APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO
APPROV~ SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
FORA NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING
(14 PLACE MOULIN)
SEPTEMBER 6, 2000
MEETING DATE:
APPELLANT - MICHAEL REX ASSOICA TES
APPLICANTS - STAR TWO, LLC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------..---------------------------
PROJECT DATA:
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL:
FILE NUMBER:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
PRECISE PLAN:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
DA TE COMPLETE:
CEQA EXEMPTION:
BACKGROUND:
14 PLACE MOULIN
58-351-24
700090
14,241 SQUARE FEET
RPD (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT)
MOUNT TlBURON
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
C
JUNE 29, 2000
JULY 14,2000
On June I, 2000, the Tiburon Design Review Board granted Site Plan and Architectural Review
approval for the construction of a single-fiunily dwelling on property located at 14 Place Moulin.
Michael Rex Associates. representing the property owners of the adjacent home currently under
construction at 16 Place Moulin. has now appealed this decision to the TOv"ll CounciL
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
ST.\FF REPORT
SEPTEMBER O. 2000
I
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicants requested Design Review approval for the construction of a new single-family
dwelling on property located at 8 Francisco Vista Court. The house would be a one-story
structure, with a maximum height of 19.5 feet. The main floor would include a living room,
family room, dining room, kitchen, master bedroom suite, along with one more bedroom, two
more bathrooms, an office, library, and a laundry room A two-car garage would be attached to
the main floor. An existing home on the site would be demolished. The existing home, built in
1963, has 1,603 square feet of floor area.
The house would have a total floor area of3,301 square feet, which is less than the maximum
allowed for a parcel of this size. The st~tures will cover 3,792 square feet (25.9%) of the lot,
which is more than the 15.0% maximum established for the RO-2 zone. A variance has therefore
been requested for excess lot coverage.
The applicants requested Design Review approval for the construction ofa new single-family
dwelling on a currently vacant lot located at 14 Place Moulin. The house would have two stories
of livable area, and an overall height 000 feet. The lower (first) floor would include three
bedrooms, three bathrooms, a play room and laundry room. The upper (second) floor would
include a living room, kitchen, dining room, family room, a master bedroom suite, a study and one
half bathroom. A two-car garage would be attached to the second floor of the house. The
structures would cover approximately 2,530 square feet (17.8%) of the lot. The house would
have a floor area of 3,424 square feet, which is the maximum allowed for this parcel of this size.
REVIEW BY THE BOARD:
The Design Review Board reviewed the project (File #700090) at its July 20, 2000 meeting. At
that time, concerns were raised by the Michael Rex and Siamak Taromi, representing the owners
of the adjacent property at 16 Place Moulin, regarding the proposed house. Their concerns
centered on the mass and bulk of the proposed house, particularly when viewed from the entry of
the adjacent home, and the potential privacy impacts which would be caused by seven windows
facing into the living room and bedroom of the adjacent house.
At the hearing, the Board members indicated that the proposed design complied with the Hillside
Design Guidelines and was appropriate for the sloping site. The mass and bulk were determined
to be noticeable primarily from the entryway of the adjacent house. but was inherent with a design
for such a property. The Board telt that shifting the proposed house further down the slope
would result in other view or privacy problems. The Board determined that additional
landscaping between the two homes would properly address any privacy concerns with this
application.
The Board voted unanimously (3-0) to approve the application and imposed additional conditions
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF RFPORT
SEllTEMBER 6, 1000
2
of approval, including a requirement that the size of the plantings be increased to maximize
screening between the applicant and the neighbor at 16 Place Moulin, with the landscaping to be
reviewed by Staff. On July 31,2000, Michael Rex Associates filed a timely appeal of the Board's
decision.
BASIS FOR THE APPEAL:
There are five grounds upon which the appeal (Exhibit 1) is based:
Ground #1 The appellants' concerns were not afforded a fair and proper review by the
applicant or the Design Review Board.
Staff Response: The appellant indicated $at his client did not have adequate time to review the
proposed plans or enough time to nieet with the applicant to discuss the proposed plans. Notices
for this application were published in the Ark and mailed to neighboring property owners in
accordance with the Town's requirements. The appeal notes correctly that only three Design
Review Board members were present at the meeting to discuss this application, as one member
was absent and one Board position was vacant at the time.
The Boardmembers who were present at the July 20, 2000 meeting deliberated fully on the
application and took the appellant"s concerns into consideration prior to making a decision on this
application. The potential design conflicts with the adjoining house were mentioned in the Staff
report to the Board regarding this application (Exhibit 3). In its deliberations, the Board
addressed the design and potential privacy impacts of the proposed house in relation to the
adjacent residence.
Ground #2 The applicant's application received different treatment than the appellants'
application for construction of the adjacent house.
Staff Response: In 1998, the appellant"s client received Site Plan and Architectural approval
Review (File #798022) for construction ofa single-family dwelling on the adjacent property at 16
Place Moulin. Prior to submittal of this application to the Town, the property owner attempted to
address several concerns of the owner of the adjacent home at 18 Place Moulin. In response to
this neighbor's concerns, no windows were requested along the entire western side of the
building, and several other design changes were made to the proposed house. The property
owner also agreed to construct an overheight wall along the western side property to further allay
the privacy concerns of the neighbor. and received a Variance (File #289012) for this wall.
The Design Review Board only reviewed the plans tor this house after these modifications had
been made to address the neighbor's concerns. The Board never had the opportunity to
determine if these changes were necessary to mitigate the design of the proposed house, and did
not require that these modifications be made in order to approve the house.
TIBURON TOWN ('nUNC! L
STAFF REPORT
SFPTEMBER 0, ~O()O
3
The applicant for the subject property did not make similar changes to the house to address the
concerns of the appellant. In this case, the Design Review Board determined that modifications
similar to those voluntarily made by the neighboring property owner for the adjacent house were
not necessary.
The appeal also states that public hearing for the adjacent house was continued to address the
concerns of the homeowner for 18 Place Moulin. The Design Review Board only continued the
hearing when it became apparent that the property owner had already agreed to construct an
overheight wall along the western property line, but had not applied for a Variance to permit this
construction. The hearing was only continued to allow legal notice to be published for this
Variance request.
Ground #3
The proposed design is Bot in harmony with the neighborhood.
,
Stajf Re.\ponse: The appeal includes a variety of design concerns with the proposed project, most
ofwhich were addressed by the Design Review Board in its deliberations regarding this
application. The appeal states that the proposed house would be constructed too close to the side
property lines, yet notes that the frontage for this lot is much narrower than the adjacent lot at 16
Place Moulin. Concerns are raised about spreading the mass of the building across the site, which
also disregard the fact that with such a narrow lot, it would be difficult to further compress the
width of the building.
The appeal states that the views from the entry of the adjacent home would be diminished by the
proposed house. The Board also noted this potential impact in its deliberations. However, Goal
3. Principle 7 (A) of the Hillside Design Guidelines (Exhibit 6) states that "view protection is
more important for major 'ceremonial" rooms (living, dining, kitchen, deck) than for secondary
rooms (bedroom, bathrooms, family room, etc.)." Entry areas are not considered to be
ceremonial areas for purposes of view prote.ction.
The appeal states that the parking court and entry design tor the proposed house is not in
harmony with the sloping nature of the site. The Design Review Board disagreed with this
conclusion. stating that the design of the house worked well with the property and would not be
improved by moving further down the hill.
The appeal states that all of the existing trees on the upper portion of the site would be removed
as a result of the proposed house. The Design Review Board commented that there would be a
loss of trees on this lot regardless of the design. due to the location of the trees at the center of
the upper portion of the property. The trees are in the most logical location for construction of a
house on this site. In order to preserve these trees, a house would need to be built well down the
slope away from the street. unlike the other homes in this neighborhood.
Finally. the appeal states that the proposed design compromises the privacy of the living room and
one master bedroom for the adjacent house. The Design Review Board considered this potential
TIBURON TOWN CllUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER o. 1000
4
impact in its review of this application, but determined that the privacy could be protected by
planting appropriate landscaping between the two homes. Since the Design Review Board
hearing, the applicant has submitted revised landscaping plans for the area between the proposed
house and the home under construction at 16 Place Moulin. The revised landscaping plans would
replace the three (3) previously proposed 15 gallon cajeput trees with four (4) 24 inch box trees
of the same species. The revised plans also include additional shrubs to be planted along this side
property line to buffer the lower portions of the proposed house.
The ability of the proposed trees and shrubs to thrive within the limited space between the two
structures, and to effectively screen the proposed house have both been questioned by the
appellant. The Town Council should carefully review the windows of the proposed house and the
revised landscaping plans to determine if the privacy of the adjacent home would be sufficiently
protected.
Ground #4
The submitted plans are not accurate.
Staff Response: The appeal states that the plans submitted to the Design Review Board were not
stamped by a licensed surveyor. This is not a requirement for review of Design Review
applications, but is often required at the time of submittal of plans tor Building Department plan
check. The appeal also asks if the story poles for the proposed house were certified; a story pole
certification letter has been submitted by the applicant for this project.
The appeal indicates that the proposcd driveway may be too steep. Based on the information
submitted in the proposed plans, the driveway does not appear to drop as suddenly as the appeal
states. The Town Engineer will review the proposed plans during the Building Department plan
check process, and will require modifications if the driveway design is unsate.
Ground #5
Other design options for this property have not been adequately explored.
Staff Response: The appeal states that a variety ofditlcrent design options exist tor the subject
house, including moving the garage or driveway, shifting the home to the east. reducing the size
of the garage and eliminating several windows. It is not the duty of the Design Review Board to
redesign a project, but rather to evaluate the appropriateness of the plans submitted to the Town
for review. Just as the Board did not attempt to redesign the modifications made by the property
owner for the adjacent house at 16 Place Moulin, the Board simply reviewed the submitted plans,
and determined that the plans, as conditionally approved, were consistent with the Tiburon
Zoning Ordinance and the Hillside Design Guidelines.
CONCLUSION:
Staff concludes that the Design Review Board tollowed the guidelines liJr Site Plan and
Architectural Review applications and the Hillside Design Guidelines, and appropriately applied
the guidelines in its review of this project. The Design Review Board elH1duded that the design
T1BURON TOWN COUNCIl.
STAFF RI'l'llR r
SEPTEMBER O. ~l\Oll
5
of the house was appropriate for the site, and determined that the privacy concerns of the adjacent
property owner could be adequately addressed through the planting of appropriate landscaping
between the two homes, although the Council should also review these potential privacy impacts.
RECOMMENDATION:
I) That the Town Council indicate its intention to deny the appeal; and
2) That the Town Council direct Staff to return with a Resolution to that effect for
consideration at the next meeting.
EXHIBITS:
I. Notice of Appeal filed by Michael'Rex Associates, dated July 31, 2000
2. Application form and supplemental materials, dated June 17, 1999
3. Staff report of the July 20, 2000, Design Review Board meeting
4. Minutes of the July 20,2000, Design Review Board meeting
5. Conditions of approval amended at the July 20, 2000 Design Review Board meeting
6. Goal 3, Principle 7 (A) of the Hillside Design Guidelines
7. Letter from Michael Rex, dated July 20,2000
8. Letter from Michael Heckmann, dated July 13, 2000
9. Submitted plans, dated August 30, 2000
T1BURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 6. 2000
6
, ,
.
... ~ OF-TI
~"v!r.;
o 1>
;.. . ~ 0
., ,c;':.'''''''' ,z.,
..... '; , , .~..-
'7< -.J: ...,,1
;.... ::r. '" <It'"
~ (."'/I;,A ,,,10,,:,<
,
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TOWN OF TIBURON
u:(~
J~
RECEIVED
JUL 3 1 2000
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TlBURON
APPELLANT
Name: HI,,-L-/A4:i.- ~~ ,A~v'A.reS
Address: 17~~ i-"~I::z:tE~'f' $t..\..1?" fJ-f$t..JI ~us4'-'ITO, CA. q41d:-!5
Telephone:t'fJV ~~1-)4uz> ;(Work) (~J?') 'J~Z.-'1I;,O (Home)
ACflON BEING APPEALED
Body: ~I':;J-..J ~VJlE:I.~ ~A;t.-.;7
Date of Action: .:r1JL""" -ze; I "ZAm7>
Name of Applicant: k/~A..E:L- -H~b~L-t,A.),.JJ.-l,
Nature of Application: Nr~ :;; APZJ ~.~. ":S1~.M1U: pA)-O ~l(
~I~N~ AT' r-4- p~ HcuL.-/}..J
GROUNDSFORAPPEAL p1L.2. 1--l,o, 7~oo'10
(Attach additional pages, if necessary)
~ AI-rk.J.Le;? ~ j/',g.l\.--""
. Last Day to File: ':J - ~/- ro Date Received:
Fee ($300.00) Paid: (l.J...../( #' /3 f.{.!:.. Date of Hearing:
Il1ftuary 1996
EXHIBIT NO.-L
~_ i oPCp
1- 3/- rro
10 ~ ~~c(
I~J~'
T ~ C4-~
MICHAEL REX ASSOCiJlt.TES
July 30, 2000
ARCHI"CELiURE o5l. DESIGN
I 7 } C Bit J 0 U E '1/ ,.4, Y
:::; U I T E B 2 1 1
SAUSAI.ITO
CAl.1FOltNlA 94965
T 4 J 5 ! 3 I 1 4 0 0
F 4 I 5 j} I 5" 6 J
Members of the City Council
Town ofTiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: APPEAL OF 14 PLACE MOULIN; FILE 11700090 - PLANS BY HECKMANN FOR
STAR TWO, LLC.
Dear Members of the City Council,
On behalf of Mr. Siamak Taromi, owner of 16 Place Moulin, we ask you to hear our appeal of
The Design Review Board's approval ofa new home proposed for 14 Place Moulin. Mr.
Taromi's home, which currently is under construction, is adjacent and on the west side of the
proposed project. During their July 20, 2000 hearing, the Board voted 3 in favor with two absent,
to approve plans for a new 3,400 sq. ft. home prepared by architect, Michael Heckmann, and dated
June 26, 2000. We appeal tile DRB action for the following reasons:
1. Lack of fair and proper review:
a) Mr. Taromi learned of the proposed project only one week prior to the hearing.
Because of such short notice. and Mr. Heckmann's absence prior to the hearing,
Mr, Taromi never had an opportunity to review his concerns with Mr. Heckmann
in advance of the Board's action. While Mr. Taromi received a letter from Mr.
Heckmann dated June 1,2000, it didn't arrive until July 12. When Mr. Taromi
called Mr. Heckmann immediately upon receipt of the letter, he was told that Mr.
Heckmann was out of town. It was only when the story poles suddenly went up
that Mr. Taromi became aware of the serious impacts of the project.
Mr. Heckmann finally called a day before the hearing and suggested a meeting
only a few hours before the hearing, so last minute that it was impossible to
explore options in a meaningful manner. From oral testimony during the July
20th hearing, it seems that Mr. Heckmann made a point to meet with other nearby
neighbors, but for some reason failed to meet with Mr. Taromi, the neighbor
most impacted by the proposed structure.
b) Mr. Heckman rejected our request to delay the Board's hearing to permit time to
meet and discuss the project. In spite of our letter to the members of the Design
Review Board requesting a continuance, Mr. Heckman insisted that the Board
vote on his application at the first hearing.
c) Other than adding some additional plant material to screen the proposed garage,
the Design Review Board members who were present did not require a single
modification to the proposed design in response to grave concerns presented
during the hearing by Mr. Taromi and myself.
EXHIBIT NO. f
P. z OF'"
or
Pg. 2 - Appeal of 14 Place Moulin by Taromi - July 30, 2000
d) Seeking to meet with the members of the Design Review Board at the site to
view the story poles and point out the structure's impacts, Mr Taromi contacted
the planning department for their telephone number, but staff would not make the
numbers available to Mr. Taromi in advance of the hearing.
e) Two members of the Design Review Board were absent the night of the hearing,
leaving Mr. Taromi at a disadvantage not having the benefit of their opinions.
With the minimum quorum present, the three remaining members were more
inclined to vote as a majority.
f) The chairman of the Design Review Board mentioned during the hearing that he
was disappointed that our firm hadn't presented design alternatives to mitigate
the negative impacts of the Heckmann design, even though it is Mr. Heckmann
who is responsible for such studies. We were pointing out to the Board that a
two-week delay was necessary to permit time to explore such options.
,
g) In their July 20, 2000 report, staff cautioned that, "The Design Review Board
should carefully evaluate the potential visual impact of th~ proposed house from
both of the adjacent residences." By not allowing time for the neighbors to meet
and discuss impacts and explore options; by not considering options themselves;
by not requiring a single change be made to the design of the proposed structure;
and by voting to approve the design at their first hearing without a full board and
in spite of strong objections raised by Mr. Taromi and his architect, the Board did
not adequately evaluate the potential visual impact of the proposed house as
recommended by Staff.
2. Applicants not treated equaUy:
a) When Mr. Taromi submitted plans to the Town of Tiburon for his home,
numerous conditions were added to the Design Review Board's approval in
response to concerns raised by the neighbor to the west. These conditions
included:
I) Lowering the entire house so that the main living lev~l is a full story
below the street.
2) Stepping the building form down the hill to breakup the height of the
downhill walls.
3) Eliminating all the windows on th~ west side of the house.
b)
None of these conditions were required for the approval of Mr. Heckmann's
design. The design approved by the DRB is not stepped down the hill. Because
of the large parking court on the uphill side of the house. the top floor has been
pushed further out over the lower floor so that the downhill walls of the structure
are aligned. creating straight walls 30 feet high. The upper north wall of the
garage portion actually cantilevers out over the wall below. giving it a looming
appearance. Mr. Heckmann's plans show 7 windows on his west elevation.
c)
When the neighbor to the west of Mr. Taromi's home object~d to el~ments of Mr.
Taromi's design, the hearings were continued to study and make changes that
addressed the concerns raised. When Mr. Taromi objected to el~ments of Mr.
Heckmann's design, it was approved at the first hearing without any changes to
the structure or its location.
EXHIBIT NO. I
1> 3 oF- &
Pg. 3 - Appeal of 14 Place Moulin by Taromi - July 30,2000
3. Proposed design is not in harmony with the neighborhood:
a) Mr. Taromi's parcel has a 31 ft. frontage, compared to Mr. Heckmann's parcel,
which has a frontage of86 ft. Even though Mr. Heckmann's site is almost three
times the width of Mr. Taromi's site, the proposed side yards are very narrow-
at one point on the west side, the garage is within 6.5 feet of the property line
shared with Mr. Taromi, and on the east side the setback at one point is 9.25 feet.
b) To provide for the large formal parking court between the front door and the
street, Mr. Heckmann has spread the building mass across the entire length of his
site, pushing the garage into the face of Mr. Taromi's home and turning its back
on it. Because Mr. Heckman wishes to have a formal driveway entrance centered
on the front door, the back up room for cars exiting the garage measures 36 feet
across, where normally only 24 feet is required.
,
c) The west side of Mr. Heckmann's garage is 29.5 ft long and 22 feet high,
presenting a massive blank wall directly facing Mr. Taromi's front entry way.
Mr. Taromi's front door will be 12 ft. below the garage floor level, 20 ft. below
its roofline and just 16 feet away. Placing plant material in the side yard to
screen the garage will only further narrow the space between the two homes. The
considerable length and height of the proposed garage, combined with its close
proximity, will cause the structure to loom over Mr. Taromi's home, making his
entry feel like it is down in a hole. The beautiful vista of the Bay and the
Paradise shoreline that Mr. Taromi now enjoys upon entering his home will be
severely narrowed and forever compromised by the two story garage wall should
it be built as proposed. Such negative impacts will seriously diminish the
quality, enjoyment and value of Mr. Taromi's property. A Board member noted
that these negative impacts will only be experienced when outside the home, and
yet it is the entrance to one's home that sets the pace for what's inside.
d) The Heckmann design was prepared out of context, where priority was given to
the needs of his client at the expense of the neighbors. To create an grand axial
entry approach and a formal parking court for his client, Mr. Taromi's entry is
compromise. While Mr. Heckmann's design may be a handsome work on its
own, the Design Review Board failed in their charge to insure that it be in
hannony with its setting. Such a large parking court is more typical of a flat lot,
not a steep downhill site.
The mass and placement of the garage has no relationship to Mr. Taromi's home.
Instead of walling off his entry and blocking its view from one when
approaching, a more hannonious design would respect and respond to his entry
way by stepping back and pulling away from the southwest comer of the
Heckmann parcel. Mr. Heckmann's design is placed so close to the southwest
comer that the garage eve encroaches into the street right-of-way.
e) Demonstrating a lack of consideration for the specific site, all the existing trees
on the upper portion of the proposed project site will be removed, except for a
few small oaks on the far east side of the building envelope. Any screening that
existing trees would offer between neighbors will be eliminated. Even though
new trees are called for in the side yards, it will take many years for them to grow
high enough to screen the proposed two and three story walls.
:XHIBIT NO. (
P l{ Dr::- b
Pg. 4 - Appeal of 14 Place Moulin by Taromi - July 30, 2000
f) Mr. Taromi's privacy will be compromised by the proximity and number of
windows proposed along the west side of Mr. Heckmann's design. The proposed
lower bedroom is positioned across from Mr. Taromi's Foyer and portions of his
Living Room and lower Master Bedroom. The lower level of the Heckmann
design is just 4" above the upper level of Mr. Taromi' s home, so occupants of the
Heckmann design will look directly down into Mr. Taromi's Living Room and
Master Bedroom.
4. We question the accuracy of the prepared plans:
a) The survey has not been stamped by a licensed surveyor.
b) We wish to know if a surveyor has certified that the story poles have been
properly located and are at the proper heights.
,
c) Based on our analysis, the proposed driveway is too steep and will not work.
The site plan on sheet AG.l and the Section on sheet A3.1 show a 8.6 foot drop
in a distance of 22 feet, resulting in a driveway slope of 3 9%, more than twice the
normal maximum slope of 18%. Allowing for required feathering at the top and
bottom of the drive, the slope would be even greater. To get the driveway to
work, the house and garage would have to be placed at a much higher elevation,
causing the garage to loom even more over Mr. Taromi's home. TIlls concern
must be addressed before the Town takes final action.
5. There are other options that have never been explored:
Because Mr. Taromi's home is built, he has few options to mitigate the impacts described
above. Mr. Heckmann has many options because his home has not been built. Such
options may include:
a) Locating the garage to the east side of the site. The garage could access directly
from the street with a standard parking apron. The parking court could be
converted to a pleasant and useful entI)' garden. The area of the original garage
couId be used for a smaller breakfast room, opening to the front garden and the
morning light.
b) Shifting the driveway to the west where it would start down at a lower elevation,
helping to reduce its slope and shortening the parking court's 36 ft. length. With
a shorter parking court, the garage could be shifted to the east at least three feet
or more.
c) Since the side yard setback on the east is greater than on the west, the entire
home could be moved a few feet to the east. During the D RB hearing, Michael
Heckmann suggested that this was possible, but unfortunately. the Board didn't
take him up on this idea
d) The garage portion of the Heckmann design is larger than needed to park two
cars. The interior dimension of the garage is 21 ft. x 21 ft. where 20 x 20 would
suffice. Because a mudroom has been added at the highest downhill comer of the
garage wing, the outside dimensions of the garage wing measure 29.5 ft. by 22 ft.
EXHIBIT NO. (
P 5or-f,
Pg. 5 - Appeal of 14 Place Moulin by Taromi - July 30,2000
If the mudroom was relocated or eliminated, and the garage had a standard 20 ft.
x 20 ft. interior dimension, 8.5 feet could be removed from the length of the west
wall and the west garage wall could shift another foot to the east.
e) Just combining options b), c) and d) above would add 6 feet to the 6.5 foot
setback. However, option a) would provide a design more harmonious with Mr.
Taromi's home.
f) Eliminate some of the windows, or require translucent glass on some windows on
the west wall, particularly those in the northwest comer of the Family Room and
the lower bedroom.
Conclusion:
,
Prior to your hearing on this appeal, we ask to have the opportunity to meet each member of the
Town Council up at the site so that we can point out first hand the serious impacts the Heckmann
design will have on Mr. Taromi's home.
It is wIfortunate that Mr. Heckmann didn't initiate a dialog with Mr. Taromi months ago when he
was designing this house. Such a consideration then would have saved everyone time and
money. We have contacted Mr. Heckmann and hope he is willing to make significant changes to
his design now, prior to you hearing this appeal. lfhe is not willing to respond in a meaningful
manner, we ask that you direct him to do so, or uphold our appeal and deny his application.
We greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
M~~~ct
c.c. Siamak Taromi
EXHIBIT NO. (
P. r;, 01::::- (p
TOWN OF TIBURON
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
RECEIVED
MAY 1 8 2000
TYPE OF APPLICATION
o Conditional Use Permit
o Precise Development Plan
o Conceptual Master Plan
o Rezoning/Prezoning
o Zoning Text Amendment
o General Plan Amendment
)If Design Review (Major)
o Design Review (Minor}
o Variance
o Sign Permit
o Tree Permit
o Underground Waiver
PLAf'JNltjC, Dc:PM~ '.ii::i,;
TOWr\ OF ':B'Jc;-)rj
o Tentative Subdivision Map
o Final Subdivision Map
o Parcel Map
o Lot Line Adjustment
o Certificate of Compliance
o Other
APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION
SITE ADDRESS:
PARCEL NUMBER:
14 'PLAc.E I1DUL1N
I?S -"!>'l7 1- 2.4
PROPERTY SIZE:
ZONING:
14,~41
r<..po
"".ff
*OWNER OF PROPERTY:
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY /ST A TE/ZI '1':
PHONE NUMBER:
~TA'" TWO, LLC
~"';><' '?S:lo
'5Ttt.l '7DrJ BE;o.etf)
."g.9100
CA "l4Q1o
FAX 'bGOe'2,G;oo
APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner)
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY/STATE/ZIP:
PHONE NUMBER:
FAX
'*'ARCHlTECT/UI<:lICNI<Il 'I<r III If Ili:IlR: ~1c.~AE!.- flee",-"!'I",... N
MAILING ADDRESS: I <.'2.4 Tie UI'--dH !!>LVt7,
CITY/STATE/ZIP: II&U~oM, U>. 94-'1'2.0
PHONE NUMBER: 4<!0'!> - ~+t<: FAX 4'3'5' -:2.$'1'"
Please indicate with an asterisk (*) persons to whom correspondence should be sent.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed):
1-IlO.I<L <;.II<>L1:' F~HtL'( I"-"Slt>EHC~
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 benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town
grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is chalJenged 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
liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of attorneys fees that might result
from Ihe third p~r;y c~lI~ge'd n
Slgnalure: ~ ~ Date: 15/I1/tJ 0
(If other than owner, must have letter from owner)
EXHIBIT NO. "2-
P loF~
TOWN OF TIBURON
150S TIBURON BOULEVARD. TlBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920. (415) 435-7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
RECEIVED
Design Review Board (415) 435-7397
MAY 1 8 2000
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW
. '-'"11..."...:... ......., ,.r" ,......,.
TOWN OF TIBURON
COMPLF:TE THF: FOLLOWING PROJECT DATA LIST:
TOBECOMPL.El'EOBYAPPl.IC:ANT ...... . . STAFF USE ONLY
... .r... .
. ..... . EXISTING ...... PR.()P()SED~J:lDITION .
ITEM PROPOSED ACTUAL REQUIRED
... AND1ORALTERATION TOTAL .
Parcel Area 14, '.2..:4 I
sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft.
No. of Dwelling Units 1
Parcel ArealDwelling
N/A
Yards 0
Front ft. ft. ft. ft. ft.
Rear ?1
ft. ft. ft. ft. ft.
Right Side 9
ft. ft. ft. ft. ft.
Left Side <P
ft. ft. ft. ft. ft.
Height ?J 0
Building Coverage 'l.,?,? 0
Area Covered sq.ft. sq.ft sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft.
Percent of Parcel 11.1
% N/A % % %
Floor Area ~42+
Net Floor Area sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft.
Floor Area Ratio ~4.o
(FAR) N/A
Parking Spaces 2-
Number Provided
Dimensions of . ~o'
Spaces Ii:' )<
EXHIBIT NO. 2-
f' 2- DP<;""
PT.RASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
1. Briefly state the reason for proposed project.
~~ lL-'f ~L b~Kc..p
(.0 t-l ':1'\l'-U '"1
c:;.INGlI:'f:-
2. Lot area in square feet:
14, 1-+1 'SG1.~
RECEIVED
MAY 1 8 2000
3. Proposed use of site:
Existing \I~,b N- i
Proposed ~l~llC'f-.
PLANNIr'JG DEP,\'" '''','.,
TOWN OF T!Bi.;;"()l\
4. Individual and total square feet of living areas and accessory buildings.
Existing
Proposed
~z4 ~ lb. / 41t?
.
4^~E.
5. Percentage of total site to be covered by:
ON GRADE BUILDING:
Existing
Proposed
~?'?O ~Slll.
PARKING:
Existing
Proposed
+1'1
4""~"
OTHER PAVED AREAS (ACCESS TO PARKING, TURNAROUNDS, ETC.):
Existing
Proposed ~ 1 J? t:1l\1L.'t' 1>""'~ CCUILt"(,A.....17
LANDSCAPING:
Existing
Proposed
"'?t/tJo
DEsION REvIEW APPLICATION
2
TOWN OF TIBURON
"'XHIBIT NO. L..
f 3 ~':>
6. Building height and number of stories:
Existing
Proposed
'11{) 1't. /
/
~ ~(e..l1S~
7. Number of off-street parking spaces:
COVERED:
Existing
Proposed ~
OPEN:
'2--
8. Surrounding land use:
North:
South:
; East:
West:
~lb~N1'\"L-
f'<E.-; Ib t.~1\."'1.-
~ I b'EJ..t:tl p..L-
9. Project scheduling and phasing:
t>~G1Itl.. (.-I'I~(.-nolll-J UL'f' 'Zoot>
10. If residential: Total number of living units
Range of sale prices or rents
,p "-t::
11. If commercial or industrial:
Net rentable floor area
Number of occupants
Estimated employment per shift
12. If applicable, describe provisions for:
Water service M tot W-t1 !'[mll- It\.. ~I...,..c.l=-
Fire protection ;1I&ot~ 1'114:. pl<,11Uct /PfteJ~ct 'tUtJ..'1 ... PN1lIq!;~D
Storm drainage bl~H~I.\;tl.O \!.~~ ~lb~M4
Sewage disposal ~elol'f'P- HN.,! llol t;,L....~HI!",. t7"I.hISl.O"~ c'F ~~I~Mci
Other Utilities I'Ge~ ~v~ 'b19f\fl.'t 11' tlt.e>~1i
13. Any other pertinent information (attach additional sheets if necessary):
DESIGN REvIEW APPLICATION
3
TOWN OF TlBURON
V.XHIBIT NO. ~
~. 4 D1YS
",
TOWN OF TlBURON
RECEIVEr
MAY 1 8 lOOO
PLANNING 0
TOWN EP"'L,
OF Ti8UFJr"~"
_:j'J
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH RECORDED COVENANTS,
CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
PURPOSE
Many properties in the Town of Tiburon are affected by Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&R's) or by other recorded. documents which limit various aspects of a
property's use or appearance. This form is designed to ensure that applicants are aware
of any CC&R's or other documents recorded against their property, and that they have
reviewed these documents for conformity prior to the submittal of entitlement
applications to the Town of Tiburbn. This procedure is intended for the benefit and
protection of both the property owner and the Town of Tiburon.
I,
MJJ ~---
(I "II TJr To authorized ae:ent)
do hereby affirm that I or the plan preparer
(architect, engineer, building designer, etc.) have read any and all Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and other documents recorded against my
property which could affect this application and that the prepared plans conform to said
CC&R's and documents.
I further acknowledge that if the Town of Tiburon is not a party to the CC&R's or other
documents, it is not responsible for any failure on my part or on the part of my plan
preparer to ensure that submitted plans conform to provisions of the CC&R's or other
documents.
I,
do hereby affirm that there are no CC&R's or
(owner or authorized agent)
other documents recorded against my property which may conflict with submitted plans.
Staff Use Only
Project Address:
DRB File No.:
Date Received:
Received By:
BK.BIBIT NO. C
, ~ "'":'.
~. 501=':;-
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:
DESIGN R_EVIEW BOARD
AGENDA NO.: F .3
SENIOR PLANNER WATROUS
14 PLACf: MOULIN; FILE # 700090
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A
NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING
JULY 20, 2000
APPLICANT - MICHAEL HECKMANN (ARCHITECT)
PROPERTY OWNER - STAR TWO, LLC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT DATA:
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL:
FILE NUMBER:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
PRECISE PLAN:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
DATE COMPLETE:
CEQA EXEMPTION:
PERMIT STREAMLINING
ACT DEADlINE:
14 PLACE MOULIN
58-351-24
700090
14,241 SQUARE FEET
RPD (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT)
MOUNT TIBURON
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
C
JUNE 29, 2000
JULY 14,2000
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This proposal is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
as specified in Section 15303.
TIBVRON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
1
JULY 20, 2000
EXHIBIT NO. 3
? I OF3
PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new single-family
dwelling on property located at 14 Place Moulin. The house would have two stories of livable
area, and an overall height of 30 feet. The lower (first) floor would include three bedrooms, three
bathrooms, a play room and laundry room. The upper (second) floor would include a living
room, kitchen, dining room, family room, a master bedroom suite, a study and one halfbathroom.
A two-car garage would be attached to the second floor of the house.
The structures would cover approximately 2,530 square feet (17.8%) of the lot. The house would
have a floor area of3,424 square feet, which is the maximum allowed for this parcel of this size.
Colors and materials samples have been submitted, and will be present at the meeting for the
Board to review. The exterior waIls of the house would utilize a grayish-brown stucco finish,
with beige and brown trim. Red flat concrete tile materials are proposed for the roof.
ANALYSIS:
Zoning
The Mount Tiburon Precise Plan does not contain specific development standards for future
construction. The standards for each lot governed by this precise plan are determined during the
review of the Site Plan and Architectural Review application by the Design Review Board.
Design Issues
The subject property slopes steeply away from Place Moulin. The location of the proposed house
has been pulled toward the street to avoid going too far down the slope. This design is shared by
many other homes along Place Moulin.
The proposed garage would be located adjacent to front property line. The driveway would
approach the garage from the side, thereby providing appropriate turnaround area for vehicles on
the site.
A total of II skylights are proposed to be installed on the proposed house. The number of
skylights is unlikely to pose a significant problem due to the location of the subject property near
the top of Mount Tiburon and the relatively few homes situated above the height of the proposed
roof.
The mass and bulk of the proposed house would primarily be visible from below the site. The
homes to the rear are located near Paradise Drive, and would have minimal views of the proposed
house. The only other homes which could view the rear of the proposed house are situated on
Gilmartin Drive, and would also only have minimal visibility of this proposed structure.
T1BURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
JULY 20, 2000
2
Ex..T-IIBIT NO. :s
r. L DF '3
The upper portion of the subject property is covered with a large number of mature trees, many of
which may be removed as a result of the proposed construction. The visibility of the proposed
house from the side windows of the existing residence at 12 Place Moulin may increase as a result
of this tree removal. The house currently under construction on the other side of the subject site
at 16 Place Moulin may have similar impacts. The Design Review Board should carefully
evaluate the potential visual impacts of the proposed house from both of these adjacent
residences.
The design of the proposed house does not step down the slope of the subject property, as most
of the floor area of the upper floor is situated directly above the lower floor areas. The rear ofthe
proposed house has been articulated to attempt to break up the mass and bulk of the structure
when viewed from below. The Board sqould consider whether the proposed design is consistent
with Goal I, Principle 2 of the Tibiiron Hillside Design Guidelines, which encourages efforts to
"terrace [the] building using the slope."
Staff does not foresee any other design issues with this project.
Public Comment
To date, no written comments have been received from the public regarding this proposal.
RECOMMENDA nON:
The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 4.02.07
(Guiding Principles). If the Board finds the design to be acceptable and in conformance with the
Town's Design Guidelines, then Staff has no objections to the approval of this project. If the
Board wishes to approve the project, Staff recommends that the attached conditions of approval
be applied.
A TT ACHMENTS:
I. Conditions of approval
2. Application and supplemental materials
3. Submitted plans
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
JULY 20, 2000
3
EXHIBIT NO. '3
f. 3DF~
F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD
3. 14 Place Moulin Star Two, New Dwelling
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new single-
fiunily dwelling on property located at 14 Place Moulin. The house would have two
stories of livable area, and an overall height of 30 feet. The lower floor would include
three bedrooms, three bathrooms, a play room and laundry room. The upper floor would
include a living room, kitchen, dining rQom, fiunily room, a master bedroom suite, a study
and one half bathroom. A two-car garage would be attached to the second floor of the
house.
The structures would cover approxivmtely 2,530 square feet (17.8%) of the lot. The
house would have a floor area of 3,424 square feet, which is the maximum allowed for this
parcel of this size.
Michael Heckmann, architect representing the applicant, said they were interested in
taking a different approach from the norm on the hillside. They wanted to give a sense of
drama from the street to the house, into the house, and to the view beyond. They have a
reasonable size lot but a portion of it is pie shaped. They have been able to stagger the
house. They have also worked extensively on the rear elevation of the house and have
created a series of bays and decks. They want to create smaller decks rather than large
decks and a courtyard as well for outdoor space: They sent a letter in early June to the
neighbors. He did not hear from the owners of 18 Place Moulin after he sent them plans.
He met with the owners of II, 12 and 15 Place Moulin and made various modifications
per their concerns. The window in the garage was changed to obscure glass and the fence
in the courtyard was modified to be a stucco wall. The trees along the entryway have
been changed so they won't exeeed 20 feet at maturity. Also, the skylights on the south
side of the residence were a concern and they would agree to go to a darker than standard
tint. The owner of 16 Place Moulin said he only received the letter last week even though
he sent a letter to them several weeks ago regarding the project. In addition, the story
poles have been up since July 10'h and their locations have been certified by the surveyor.
His concerns were about the garage element that faces his property at 16 Place Moulin.
Mr. Heckmann explained to the Board that they have taken great lengths to not impact
anyone's views or privacy. They have also proposed landscaping between the two
properties. The greater problem is the way 16 Place Moulin was sited on the lot. They
would agree to increase the landscaping, although it is already heavily landscaped, and
would increase the size of the landscape material.
Michael Rex, architect representing the owner of 16 Place Moulin. said they sent late mail
to the Board today about their concerns. They are asking for a continuance to have an
opportunity to have a dialogue with the applicant's architect because his client will be the
most affected by this project. Their real issue is the location of the garage
Tiburon ORB
7/20/00 Minutes
17"Xl:-ITBIT NO.~
p. I DFt{
5
Mr. Heckmann said he did not feel a continuance was in order.
Mr. Rex went on to say that the issue is the garage on the west side, the massiveness and
the height. His client will see it when he is walking down his entryway. The mud room
makes the wall even larger. There are three trees but that will not be adequate to screen
the garage. The garage will loom over his entryway. The frontage of the applicant's lot is
87 feet long; his client's lot has a 30 foot frontage. The applicant has spread out the entire
length of the house and hollowed out the center, which therefore pushes the mass to the
neighbors. The most massive part of the house is against his client. There has not been
much effort to design a house that is iI! harmony with the neighborhood. There has been
no reasonable notice and no dialogue to look at options and there has not been much
willingness on the part of the applicant to compromise. They are left with a situation that
would destroy all the trees that are adjacent to his client. The trees should remain and the
house should be pulled back. They w)ll also lose morning light and they will be left with a
massive, stark wall and landscaping will not help.
At his request, Boardmember McLaughlin was provided with a copy of the plans for the
house at 16 Place Moulin.
David Jochum, architect representing the owners of 15 Place Moulin, stated that they have
been in contact with the applicant. Their house is considerably higher than the proposed
project and their main concerns were the trees and the skylights. The new proposal of the
20-foot maximum height trees would be fine. The original proposal was to tint the
skylights 15 percent. There are seven or eight that would affect his client. Those
skylights are the three over the stairwell, over the entry, the master closet and over the
family room. The proposal to do a darker tint is something they could look at, depending
on the type of tint, but their first request would be to remove them. In summary, his
clients would like all the skylights that are facing south at the street level to be removed.
Mr. Watrous stated that the Town's standard for skylight tinting is 25 percent and they get
very few complaints with that.
John Orvis, 12 Place Moulin, said he is comfortable with the alignment of the house now
but may not be if it is reconfigured.
Mr. Heckmann responded that he would be willing to eliminate the first skylight at the
entry door and the one in the master closet, and would reduce the entry skylights from
three down to two, and add tinting at 25 percent as a mitigation measure.
Mr. Orvis said that would satisfY them.
Mr. Heckmann went on to say that they would increase the density of landscaping
significantly between the proposed house and that of 16 Place Moulin. The alternative
would be to shift the building but he would have to talk to the neighbor at 10 Place
Tiburon DRB
7/20/00 Minutes
6
EXHIBIT NO. Lf
P. ? or-- t.f
..
Moulin. The most downward portion of the house is most centrally located and where the
entry does occur, they only have a single-story structure.
Boardmember McLaughlin stated that if the house were shifted it would crowd the
property line. Mr. Heckmann responded that they are right where they want to be but it is
a gesture. He was convinced that landscaping would be the real solution.
In response to Boardmember Stroub, Mr. Heckmann explained that the driveway has a
relationship to the garages and the tolerances are pretty tight.
Siamak Taromi, owner of 16 Place Moulin, said his house was terraced and the proposed
house is not. The house proposed should be on a flat lot, not a sloped lot. There are
seven windows looking into his property and into his living room and bedrooms.
,
Boardmember McLaughlin stated that the plan works for the property. Because of the
way the neighbor's house is stacked, if it were sloped more down the hill, there would be
more intrusion. There will be massing with any design and landscaping is the appropriate
solution. He appreciates the design and the center courtyard. He likes not seeing the
garage doors facing the street. There will be a loss of trees on this lot no matter what the
design is. The house is angled correctly and privacy issues are minimal. He noted that the
house is also constrained from going downhill because of the sanitary easement.
Boardmember Stroub said the location of the proposed garage is in the area with the least
amount of trees on the property. The massing is inherent with the type of sloping lot. He
does not know that shifting the house one foot or making the courtyard a little narrower
would really make a difference because you will still see it and most of the massing is
occurring at the entry. The massing will only be seen when entering the house.
Eliminating three skylights is a good concession.
Chair Snow said that the location of the house really makes sense and they have followed
the hillside design guidelines in placing the building on the site. He does not see much
value in terracing this house in this situation and is not sure what could be gained by a
continuance. There is no way the height of the garage could be trimmed; if the house
were shifted down the hill, it would create other issues. The windows that look at the
neighbor at 16 Place Moulin are from bedrooms, and two off of a family room. Most of
the windows are not facing the neighbor. He was glad the tree height and skylight issues
have been worked out.
MIs Stroub/McLaughlin, and unanimously passed (3-0) to approve the application based
on the findings and conditions as set forth in the Staff report and the following additional
conditions of approval: include the amendments contained within the July 13, 2000 letter
from Mr. Heckmann; establish a maximum height at maturity of20 teet tor trees along the
front of the property; elimination of the following skylights: one over the closet; one over
the entry facing the driveway, and the forward one in the stairwell; and increase the size of
Tiburon DRB
7/20/00 Minutes
7
EX.BIBIT NO. l{
p. '-3DF-Y
the plantings to maximize screening between the applicant and the neighbor at 16 Place
Moulin, with the landscaping to be reviewed by Staff.
Tiburon DRB
7/20/00 Minutes
8
EXHIBIT NO. L/-
w. 'i oe tf
CONDITIONS OF APPRO V AL
14 PLACE MOULIN
FILE #700090
(AS MODIFIED AT THE JULY 20, 2000 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING)
1. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall become
null and void unless a building pennit has been issued.
2. The development ofthis project ~halI conform with the application dated by the Town of
Tiburon on May 18, 2000, and the letter submitted by the architect on July 13, 2000, or as
amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the plans of June 23,
2000, must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board.
3. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall be identical to those approved by
the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the approved Design Review plans, the
pennit holder is responsible for clearly identifYing all such changes when submitted to the Building
Department for plan check. Such changes must be clearly higWighted (with a "bubble" or
"cloud") on the submitted plans. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and
attached to the building plans, with a signature block to be signed by the Design Review Staff
member indicating that these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or require additional
Design Review. All changes that have not been explicitly approved by Staff as part of the
Building Plan Check process are not approved. Construction that does not have Design Review
approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal.
4. The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior to the issuance of a
building pennit for this project.
5. All skylights shall be bronzed or tinted and no lights shall be placed in the wells.
6. All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review Board must
be down light type fixtures.
7. Prior to the issuance of building pennits, the applicant shall submit verification from a
licensed landscape architect that the proposed landscape plan conforms to M.M.W.D.
landscape regulations, as required by Town Council Ordinance.
8. Prior to the issuance of final building inspection approval, all landscaping and irrigation
shall be installed in accordance with approved plans. The installation of plantings and
irrigation shall be verified by a Planning Department field inspection prior to the issuance
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
JUL Y 20. 2000
4
EXHIBIT NO. 5
g. [ cf 3
of occupancy permits.
9. Prior to underfloor inspection, a certified survey of the structure foundation will be
required. Required documents shall include graphic documentation locating the building
on a site plan and including specific dimensions from property lines and other reference
points as appropriate, and elevations relative to sea level of the foundation walls and slabs.
No inspections will be provided until the survey results have been verified.
9. The project shall comply with the following requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection
District:
a. The structure shall have installed throughout an automatic fire sprinkler
system in accordapce with NFPA standard J3-D (UFC 1003).
b. Approved smoke alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all
sleeping areas (UBC 1210).
c. Approved spark arresters shall be installed on chimneys (UFC 1101).
d. A greenbelt shall be provided by cutting and clearing all combustible
vegetation within 30 feet of the structure (UFC 1103).
10. Tree protection fencing as shown on the submitted plans shall be installed prior to
commencement of construction on the site, and shall be removed immediately prior to final
building approval for the house. All oak trees removed during construction shall be
replaced on a 3 to 1 basis.
11. The following requirements of the Marin Municipal Water District shall be met:
a. A High Water Pressure Water Service application shall be completed.
b. A copy of the building permit shall be submitted.
c. Appropriate fees shall be paid.
d. The structure's foundation shall be completed within 120 days of the sate
of application.
e. The applicant shall comply with the District's rules and regulations in effect
at the time service is requested.
12. The applicants shall obtain a sewer permit from Sanitary District No.5 and pay all
applicable fees prior to construction of a side sewer and connection to the sewer main.
TlBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
JULY 20. 2000
5
l"yr-rIBIT NO. S-
r,
p 'LoF 3
After connection to the sewer main but prior to commencement of discharge and prior to
covering of the pipe, the District shall be contacted and allowed to inspect the connection
for confonnance to standards.
13. All requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met.
14. The size of landscaping to be planted between this property and the adjacent lot at 16
Place Moulin shall be increased to maximize the privacy screening between the two
homes. Planning Staff shall revie~ the landscaping for adequacy of screening.
15. The skylights above the dressing room, the entry and the forward location above the
stairwell shall be eliminated.
;
16. Trees to be planted along the front portion of the site shall have a maximum height at
maturity of20 feet.
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
JUL Y 20, 2000
6
EXHIBIT NO. 5'
P. '3 D~ 3
}-
Tul< ~\L~ ~j
U)~i\J \._~ Cl!' ~
~\-~" ~)):, t-1. 5\1.:
~.;j/'" r~~~ '-'
.I.()--Jlli~(}--'> ~ III II_A'
IlJ! 1- .'>X,":J :x:>- ~ at > "
-.Ji.:0 $ \--:\ .{ ~ ~?: .-l ~
<;S}I:.} ->1 u. " '" - - u
'J'\ ~:1 () 11. (l :.- C 3 n 2
~ ~~~~~~~-~~ i ~
Q T X ~ "T "ul ill ~ &
~.Jlll.~-(' :~~ ~.
\'.l-.Jul{'-I~::)T C'
>ul:.uU\;-il1--\-() -j ~
ill 5\--~~ t{\~ ~ .( B
+- Q il ~ \-- a~ ~ ;- 15 s:Y
.@~\)~J ...4-1:: <S
~ -L \-- ill > (l ill ~ t! -<:: UJ
>_l~n\\-0 ill &
\-=-() :::- --ill~ lY'-../
Q. .{I ~ ill ./ -~ -(' T () \ll
ill x u- ~ I:l .,1 <: \-- Z y ~
Q ruT :.J :l:. ~ ~..( ~
. -. - rl----'J<{~ 1ll- ~
5. :f-Q~Tr-NSUl ~ ()
~ ~t~--~~-~~ J ~
tq \l..i-:'" U!"J J~.(l ~ &-
~. c ~o;Q> <L
~.o~:?T-.:J\ll~ill \.'I!cr
~ 5<ffi<{l>ill~ I:) r
~ U)~I"I Q 4: ll. ()
:>: >(\nl--\~re1S~ i"J
{\~ "In}'\- I T:~
~ -~~t~-.iJ:~ f ....
..( ~'!:-1..(l ill ill t-~ ~ ~
:Y. -~_.- ,-..1-,- j () S>
.J.-1 J:J _..:J~ ._~ cr: u..
~ ,>ltl~L 4?=.~ ~ :f r
~ Q ? \\\ . <; -r ..( 1L
= ~ ,l ./ ~ ~ ill III ill <(
-,. u) . ;> '-1 ~ .-l ~ J:
&; 53 ~lli~&lll~ Q ~
>{>'~\:>5~~ - :{"~
~ ~ :>--}~ \\l ~-f ~ ill :Q~
- :r & \ _}- _ - () ;L...{....- - -- ~
~ " >-.r oj y 'J L
&. ~~~~11l<L ~~:S ~- T
-< {l}- -0".n () -j ~ ill
.- {'~N ~I~-~i 1::1 \\'l:.r rZ
.(~t\l~~nl_Q :d ~~}:J..
ill ('" ~ ~..J . \ ill:? Q!' :,L ~
~\i}Q.~~1-.:.:c{\Ul:; Q. ill
. :) .~ ~ uL{ ~ 5 ~ > ill 3'~ ~
I ~ ~ "$ \-_ -..1 ~ ~ ill > ill I ~
~ ~ Q\ ffi ~ --\ ~ ~:!: ~ ~ T t.)
.~ ~~'??= .(.( \L\-~\'=-._..( Q ~
'-,.' .
-- .- ... --, - '.
_ _.. ~.' n.,.._ _
. .-'. '-_:..
'0r
ill \
)-,
~I
3
\t1~
!:1',
-.::l~
~~
-..3 "
!.Yg
\--I
{'l 1-:-
Q~
ill
-\l ,"I
~~
Q....J
C)~
".YJ
Q.~
.
~
u)
~
ul.:"
5~
\"-(J
'-1""
:)-
Q! .(f
\-T
{'>
Q-1
l\l
{IV
C)'l
So!. -..)
C)C)
c;y ..1
Q&
.
I.
(
I
I
l
"'
,
o '
"
\
I
I
,
\'
~
. .-- _:.
T
Qs
\-
~
&>-
~1--
-- ..1
Ill&:
...l...{
\--......
\-,...r
....lw.
. ,r. _
>..
~
en
tLI
z
-
..J
-r W
..L '0
(:) -
t- ::J
~CJ
~ .
Q> ,z
~ \--= 52
\":_.1 U)
-~--. W
~~... 0
Ul :f.'
~>:.
~~j; ~
.0:
::J
lXI
.~ j;:-'
. --........--...,..--. ".,
,...
Q. t")
t") C"il
. ..(L....
..~
o
z
~.
E9
~.
ril
.
,
.
....' -- -" .
MICHAEL REX ASSOCIATES
'~~ ,...,..
;,~
". ~~1t~~~l # FS
ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN
1750 BRIDGEWAY
SUI T E B 2 I 1
SAUSAL1TD
CALIFORNI..... 94965
T 4 1 3 3 I I 4 (\ (\
F 4 15 J 31 546.J
"...,.,.-...t""""~ri"/f~""'D
b'i~::y~~::~ '.J;::,
July 20, 2000
JUL 2 0 ZOOO
Members of the Design Review Board
C/O Senior Planner Dan Waltrous
Town ofTiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
:..L,'~,;';,.~:~\ ':~ ;.:::c:.p f\F,Ti.,.lENT
TI.:"'N~~ 'JF TiBUR8N
RE: 14 PLACE MOULIN; FILE /I 700090 - PLANS BY HECKMANN FOR STAR TWO,
LLC.
-
Dear Members of the Design Review Board,
On behalf of Mr. Siamak Taromi, owner of 16 Place Moulin, the adjacent home under
construction to the west of the proposed project, we ask that you continue tonight's hearing to
pennit time to discuss and resolve with the applicant grave concerns Mr. Tarorni has regarding
the design illustrated in plans by architect Michael Heckmann, dated JlUle 26, 2000.
Mr. Taromi's primary concern relates to the mass and location of the proposed garage and
mudroom. It's tremendous length and height, combined with its close proximity, will cause the
structure to loom over Mr. Tarorni's home, seriously diminishing the quality and value of his
property. The Town's staff shares his concern. On page 3 of their July 20.2000 report, staff
recommends: "The Design Review Board should carefully evaluate the potential visual impact of
the proposed house from both of these adjacent residences."
We ask for a continuance because the applicant has not given Mr. Taromi the opportunity to
discuss the project prior to tonight's meeting. While Mr. Tarorni received a letter from Mr.
Heckmann dated June 1,2000, it anived only a week ago. When Mr. Taromi called Mr.
HccIanann immediately upon receipt of the letter, he was told that Mr. Heckmann was out of
town. It was only just last week, when the story poles suddenly went up, that Mr. Tarorni became
aware of the serious impacts of the project. Mr. Heckmann finally called yesterday, suggesting a
meeting this morning, so last minute that it is now impossible to explore options prior to your
hearing.
We apologize for this late mail, but lUlder the circwnstances created by the applicant, we are left
with no choice but to ask at this late date for a delay in the hearing. We know you prefer that
applicants seek to resolve issues with their neighbors in advance of bringing their project to you
for review. In this case, such dialog has not occurred and it should.
If the applicant is unwilling to accept a continuance, then we ask that you deny the project so that
the neighbors will have the opportunity to explore design alternatives that are more compatible
with the neighborhood. We greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter.
Sincer;l~~
~iir~~hitect
EXHIBIT NO, -7
1'\
r."
;,.,
~/::
1/ .
I,'
.'
-~,
':,
~c
07/13.'2000 16: 13 4154352875
HE::<HAN/--l ARCHITECTS
;:lAGE 61
r l4 TEIVIAlt#-F3,
M.... 'I'C' ..... .H' 'A:E:L.. . .'0' . : H'.',., 'IZr!~,Ai;A:A!"J(f..d . A 1;'\;
" .: ",",~'" c .e,::, ',":'~'~~Y"'~~?~.i"'" '"' _~,
Architect.PI~ner
,
TRANSMITTAL
.' RE.CEIVED
JUL 13 2000
DATE:. f~ .J,/.I:t'l (PC
TO; "tI'\4J#'''f". 1\$~ ~~.~l+lil~, .~
~}.p,t.:t4WA~~>' '.'
L,,,~ .
'PLANi~INGDEPARTMENT
. . ..' TOWI~'()fTIBURON
. -t ~$".L2.t3g' '.
"'- ". '.'j
,,". .~
TOTA.L NO;;~PAG~S:L'. "
5U8JECT~Ui . .~.~I-lo';&-i.t.;
'.'.:;"
. .' ': , ," ,',.. , :', ,'- -', -'", ,'.. .::, ""-:.", ,,-, ," , ,..,~:,
ENCLOSi:n,,;M-. ~11"1 c...4-notL-.;el'....~'U!.It~.,"~...,..\.tc.4ti.~4
. . . . . .
,(' , '-,,'.;
.' -. _. ".. ' ,., ..' . , " -'. I .' . . ,'" '. . ,-::' ',~ "", :~' ,,", c" _ " " _, . ' . ...'..
'14f1\hf'O__': ....-ro. .1'~~'j~;~S 1ltt:1'f.A~"_2>p..: J.lrll~i'-il",,'tI.
jI...~w.JtfI4L.~.f ~mm..~,.:p~y~t.I... :t.'W~~~. .'Jl:ir4~~~ ~.'"'".....~~.....,.t.
~"'~~'~..' . .....:,; ..i:'.. ..;:'
1.$~';j1r- ~ . ",....~lio'+~l;r "Dll4~~>l&l~~ ...."'11*. ",.,~~~P ;.ft.1'-
~e,..; .~~~...........~N;AT;..~'~H.~'..,.~~T1.
.....~. A.... ..v~-#;'.._~,..".."'$b~~r~,.. '17.-~~';+1fF"';'
'~.'.'."." .....' ." ~T..'.", ""...~. :..';.......~..;N';...~...;...;..'t'l;.!f.:',.. 'I-:-Ia....,,~ ~'c.A. t.' '.'.'.>.". ~:"".~....'l.
,.... .../ ..... .... . '.'" .t< ..:'1". . . ,.1'"7 . . .,,1
.~..4\Ut\P . ~t-I1;~~~~.~I;:~+~q'pt"Tt.~t1 .....~~
.I?,..' ... ~~ .'tl5:~~'f#~'.~~ ,$~,..~~(.~s:.;"
....h
"~I',;
,'."
VIA:~
'." ,"
. , , "
1624 nburrilt.~:Nd:,::m-6~ronT:CA9-4920
','- -- ',' :' "_:"', >::,-, "'/ 1,' '.'.', ',:' ',:. ':..,','......, '_. .-'
Fax 415it43.5.2&7!ilfO'n415~435.2446
...... ". ,,~
1<;XHIBIT NO,