HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2000-11-01
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA
S (oi1.
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BLVD.
MEETING DATE:
MEETING TIME:
CLOSED SESSION:
NOVEMBER 1, 2000
7:30 P.M.
7:00 P.M.
PLEASE NOTE: In order to give all interested persons an opportunity to be heard, and to ensure the presentadon of all
points of view, members of the audience should:
(1) Always Address the Chair, (2) State Name and Address; (3) State Views Succinctly; (4) LImit Presentadons to 3 minutes; (5)
Sp.... Directly Into Microphone.
Tiburon Redevelopment Agency
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1) No. 04 --00; October 4,2000 - (Adopt)
C. NEW BUSINESS
2) 2-98 Ned's Way (Chandler's Gate Senior Housing Project): Review & Approval ofa
Tri-party Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Agreement for provision off our (4)
very low income units in the 25-unit development - (Tiburon Redevelopment
Agency, Marin Housing Authority, and Ned's Way Garden Homes, LLC, parties to
the Agreement) - AP#58-151-35
D. ADJOURNMENT
Tiburon Town Council
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 pubtic will be given an opportunity to speak on each agenda item
at the time it is called. Presentations are limited to three (3) minutes. Matters requiring action will be
referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or Staff for consideration and/or placed on a
future meeting agenda.
D. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
. LATE NIGHT FERRY SERVICE SUBCOMMITTEE - (Councilmember Matthews)
E. CONSENT CALENDAR
The purpose of the Consent Calendar is to group items together which generally do not require discussion
and which will probably be approved by one motion unless separate action is required on a particular item.
Any member of the Town Council, Town Staff, or the Public may request removal of an item for
discussion,
I) TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES - a) No. 1199 - September 6, 2000; No. 1201 -
October 4, 2000 - (Adopt)
2) TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES - September 26, 2000 - (Accept)
3) AMICUS BRIEF REQUESTS -a) Alameda Books Inc. v. City of Los Angeles - 2000
Daily Journal DAR 9569 (Ninth Circuit, August 28, 2000) - Petition for Certiorari to
US. Supreme Court; b) Cornette v. Dept. of Transportation - Supreme Court No.
S089010 - (Approve)
4) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CITIZEN OF THE YEAR - E. Bruce Ross - (Adopt
Resolution of Commendation)
5) HERITAGE & ARTS COMMISSION - Annual Report, September 1999 - 2000 -
(Accept)
6) 19 CffiRIAN DRIVE - Resolution Denying Appeal by Mark and Annette Loupe of
Approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review for a new Residence on Property -
(Adopt)
7) PARADISE CAY PARK - Resolution Supporting Inclusion of a Tot Lot and Play
Structure for young Children in the Park Site located in the Paradise Cay
Neighborhood at the end of Trinidad Drive - (Adopt)
8) ZELINSKY PARK LANDSCAPING INSTALLATION - (Award of Contract to
Neary Landscape and Authorize Budget Amendment)
F. PUBLIC HEARING
9) APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION to Approve an Application
filed by Mr. And Ms. Hariri to install a fence on the property located at 163 Avenida
Miraflores; AP No. 039-261-05 - (Chester Judah, 166 Avenida Miraflores,
Appellant)
10) DOWNTOWN FERRY AREA ACCESS & SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS - Consider
Adoption of a Negative Declaration and Approval of Safety and Access
Improvements in the vicinity of the Blue & Gold Ferry dock, including Shoreline
Park, Main Street, Paradise Drive near the turning circle, and the waterfront behind
Main Street - (Town of Tiburon, Applicant)
G. NEW BUSINESS
1 I) HOUSING ELEMENT REVISION STATUS REPORT - (Report to Town Council
on the General Plan Housing Element currently underway, and the results of a
Planning Commission Workshop held in May 2000 on the Housing Element Update)
12) PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION -Discussion of Proposed reduction of
Commission size - (Town Manager)
H. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
I. ADJOURNMENT- to Thursday, November 9,2000 at 7:00 p.m. - Del
Mar School Gymnasium- St. Hilary's Appeal of Planning Commission
Decision
Future A~enda Items
--Town Council Annual Reorganizalion- (November 16)
--AdoptIOn of Annual Appointments List & Town Council Committee Appointments - (December 6)
--Annual Holiday Party - (December 19)
DATE OF MEETING:
DATE POSTED:
November 1, 2000
October 27, 2000
No. 16,2000
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 infonnation regarding this meeting is indicated
below:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
(Section 54957.6)
Agency Negotiator: Town Attorney
Position: Town Manager
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Section 54946.9(a))
Town of Tiburon v. American Coach Builders, et a/.
Marin County Superior Court Case No. CV 000059
KQ4-r~ I,
TIBURON
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MINUTES
^,")
<<...1( ~ "
"l/"-t
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Thompson called the meeting of the Redevelopment Agency ofthe Town of
Tiburon to order at 8:05 P.M. on Wednesday, October 4,2000 in the Council Chambers
at 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California.
A. ROLL CALL
PRESENT
ABSENT:
BOARDMEMBERS:
BOARDMEMBERS:
Bach, Hennessy, Matthews, Thompson
Gram
EX-OFFICIO:
Executive Director McIntyre, Finance
Director Stranzl, Planning Director
Anderson, Senior Planner Watrous, Acting
Chief of Police Lt. Aiello, Superintendent of
Public Works Iacopi, Town Clerk Crane
Iacopi
B. NEW BUSINESS
1) No 3-00 - June 21, 2000 <Adopt)
MOTION: To Adopt Minutes #03-00, June 21,2000, as presented
Moved: Bach, Seconded by Hennessy
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: Gram
2) ANNUAL REPORT - Finance Report for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2000-
<Accept)
Finance Director Stranzl said the item was updated financial information for the recent
fiscal year, previously submitted during the budget hearings in June 2000.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To accept the Redevelopment Agency Financial Report ofFY
Ended June 30, 2000
Hennessy, Seconded by Bach
AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: Gram
Redevelopment Agency Minutes #04-00
October 4. 2000
Page 1
C. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business of the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency, Chair
Vice Chair Thompson adjourned the meeting at 8: 11 P.M., sine die.
ANDREW THOMPSON, VICE CHAIR
Tiburon Redevelopment Agency
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Redevelopment Agency Minutes #04-00
October 4, 2000
Page 2
TIBURON
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
ST AFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE: 111112000
RtA--J-
To: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
From: SCOTT ANDERSON, TOWN PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
Subject: BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING AGREEMENT FOR CHANDLERS GATE
AT TIDURON (FORMERLY NED'S WAY GARDEN HOMES) PROJECT: 2-98
NED'S WAY; ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 58-151-35
Date: OCTOBER 25, 2000
BACKGROUND
In June 1996, the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency (RDA) entered into a Disposition &
Development Agreement (DDA) with Ned's Way Garden Homes LLC (Developer), the
prospective developer of the 25-unit senior housing project located on Ned's Way on the site of
the former Town Hall and Tiburon Police Department buildings. The project has since proceeded
to secure all of its entitlements from the Town of Tiburon and construction began in the summer
of2000. The DDA requires that four of the 25 units in the project be offered for sale to very low
income households.
The mechanism selected to implement to affordable housing requirements of the DDA is a
tripartite "Below Market Rate Housing Agreement" among the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency,
the Developer, and the Housing Authority of the County of Marin. This Agreement has been
drafted by the Housing Authority and is now before the Board of Directors for review and
approval.
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the DDA, the sale price of each of the four (4) very low income units would be
$270,000.00, with the purchaser responsible for $70,000.00 and the RDA subsidizing the
Tiburon Redevelopment Agency
Staff Repart
11/1/2000
1
remaining $200,000.00 for each unit. This was the sales approach deemed most likely to occur at
the time that the DDA was executed. The DDA also provided that if the Developer is unable to
sell the units to very low income households after making a good faith effort, they may be sold to
low income households. The attached Exhibit 1 contains excerpts from the DDA regarding the
four units.
However, the DDA also contains provisions for RDA purchase of the units. The RDA has the
option of purchasing one or more of the affordable units for $270,000.00 each under Section 7.7
of the DDA. This decision to purchase units must be made by the RDA shortly before completion
of the units. The RDA would have a second opportunity to purchase one or more units, pursuant
to Section 7.8(a), if the Developer is unable to sell them to very low income households within
three months after completion.
The provisions of the DDA have been incorporated into the BMR Agreement in an implementable
framework. The draft BMR Agreement and a cover letter form the Marin Housing Authority is
attached as Exhibit 2. The Agreement has been reviewed and approved by the Redevelopment
Agency's attorneys at Goldfarb & Lipman.
ISSUES
Limited Loan Amount
Due to the income formulas established under redevelopment law, it will be possible to obtain a
loan for only about $16,000.00 of the $70,000.00 purchase price that is the responsibility of the
purchaser. The law allows that only 30% ofa household's income may be for housing-related
costs, and to qualifY as "very low income", a household must earn less than 50% of the median
income. Obviously, 30% of 50% of the median income is not a large amount of money
($10,112.00 per year), and homeowner dues and other housing costs (such as fire insurance) are
high. A breakdown of the 30% housing cost for these units is attached as Exhibit 3.
This $16,000.00 loan limitation mayor may not prove to be a serious sales liability in finding
qualified households, as prospective buyers may have assets up to three (3) times their purchase
price ($210,000.00). One method of expanding the loan amount would be to lower the monthly
homeowner assessment for the four below market rate units, thereby reducing housing costs. The
Developer has to date not expressed a willingness to consider lower homeowner dues for the
affordable units.
Ootion to Purchase bv Redevelooment Al!encv
The BMR Agreement (echoing the DDA) offers the RDA two opportunities to purchase one or
more of the BMR units. The units would cost $270,000.00 each The first opportunity for RDA
purchase occurs just prior to completion of the units, during which there is a 60-day window to
act. The second opportunity arises only if, after 90 days of good faith efforts to sell the
completed units, the Developer is unable to sell any or all of the affordable units to qualifYing
Tiburon Redevelopment Agency
Staff Repart
11/1/2000
2
households. Then the Developer may tender a written offer to the RDA to purchase one or more
units. Ifunits remain unsold after the RDA responds, then the Developer may sell the units to
qualified low-income households.
Preferences (Priorities for the Drawinl!)
In determining eligibility requirements for the four BMR units, Exhibit "c" of the BMR
Agreement contains a clause whereby the RDA may establish "priorities", also known as
preferences, to be used by the Marin Housing Authority in selecting buyers.
Common types of preferences include public safety personnel, schoolteachers, and so forth. In
setting priorities, the RDA must be cognizant of issues regarding discrimination. The broader the
preferences are set, the less likely the Agency could be accused of violating fair housing laws. By
setting too narrow of priorities, the RDA could be seen as discriminating. Please refer to the
attached policy from the Housing Council regarding preferences, attached as Exhibit 4.
Because Chandlers Gate is a senior housing project, commonly used preferences favoring public
safety employees and schoolteachers are not readily applicable. Staff recommends the approach
set forth in the Housing Council policy letter, that sets a preference for "those who live or work in
Marin County".
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINA nON
Approval of this Agreement is not a project under CEQA.
RECOMMENDA nON
That the Board of Directors approve the Below Market Rate Housing Agreement, incorporating
the preference for those "who live or work in Marin County", and authorize the Executive
Director to execute the Agreement.
EXHmITS
1. Excerpts from'DDA regarding affordable units.
2. Draft "Below Market Rate Housing Agreement" dated 10/12/2000.
3. Chandlers Gate Affordable Housing Cost Analysis dated 10/11/2000.
4. Housing Council policy regarding "preferences" dated 9/27/2000.
'n.tdslbmr agreement rdareport,doc
Tiburon Redevelopment Agency
Staff Repart
11/1/2000
3
DOA
-
ARTICLE 7
SALE OF TIIE AFFORDABLE UNITS
Section 7.1 Development of Affordable Units. As a condition of the sale of
the Property to the Developer, the Devcloper shall offer four units in the Development for
sale to Very Low Income Households at an Affordable Housing Cost. To assist the
Developer in making the units affordable, the Agency shall pay to the Developer a
subsidy, as specified below, for cach Affordable Unit sold to a Very Low Income
Household. The Agency Subsidy will allow the Developer to reduce the purchase price
of each Affordablc Unit so that it may be purchased by a Very Low Income Household at
an Affordable Housing Cost.
Section 7.2 Value of Affordahle Units. The Developer and the Agency have
reviewed the cost estimates for the dcvelopment of the Affordable Units. Based on the
cost analysis, the Developer and the Agency have agreed that upon completion of
construction of the Affordable Units, the fair market value of the each Affordable Unit
will be Two Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($270,000) (the "Affordable Unit
Value").
Section 7.3 Purchase Price of Affordable Units. Promptly following the
completion of construction of each of the Affordable Units as evidenced by the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy for such Unit, each Affordable Unit shall be offered for sale
to a Very Low Income Household at a purchase price which will allow the Very Low
Income Household to pay no greater than an Affordable Housing Cost for the Affordable
Unit.
Section 7.4 A~encv Suhsidy. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 6.6, the
Agency shall pay to the Developer the Agency Subsidy in the amount of Two Hundrcd
Thousand Dollars ($200,000) upon the sale of an Affordable Unit to a Very Low Income
Household. In no event shall the aggregatc Agency Subsidy amount exceed Eight
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($800,000).
Section 7.5. Resale Restriction Ai"eement. As a condition of receiving the
Agency Subsidy, the Developer shall require that the Very Low Income Household
execute a Resale Restriction Agreemcnt in favor of the Agency or its designee in
substantially thc form attached as Exhibit C. The Resale Restriction Agreement shall
restrict the ability of the Very Low Income Household to resell the Affordable Unit for a
period offifty-five (55) years. The Resale Restriction Agreement shall be recorded
against each Affordable Unit as a covenant running with the land.
Section 7.6 Pavment of Aiency Suhsidy. As a condition to receiving the
Agency Subsidy for an Affordable Unit, the Developer shall submit to the Agency (i) a
closing statement from the title company handling the escrow for the sale of the
Affordable Unit showing, at a rninimum, the purchase price of the Affordable Unit, the
first mortgage amount and the amount of the Very Low Income Household's
102\04\109685.5
14
EXHIBIT No.L
downpayment; (ii) household income information for the Very Low Income Household
sufficient for the Agency to verify the eligibility of the Very Low Income Household for
the assistancc, estimated first mortgage payments and other monthly charges required to
be paid by the purchaser; (iii) a copy of the rccorded Resale Restriction Agreement and
(iv) such other information as reasonably required by the Agency.
Section 7.7 Aiem;v Option to Purchase. As an alternativc to selling the
Affordable Unit to a V cry Low Income Household, the Developer grants to the Agency
an option to purchase one or more Affordable Units pursuant to the provisions of this
Section 7.7. Not more than one hundred twenty (120) days and not less than seventy fivc
(75) days prior to the anticipated datc of completion of construction of cach Affordable
Unit, the Developer shall notify the Agency in writing of the expected completion date.
The Agency shall have sixty (60) days from the rcccipt of the Developer's notice to notify
the Developer that the Agency intends to purchase the Affordable Unit for the Affordable
Unit Value. In the event the Agency exercises its option to purchase an Affordable Unit,
the purchase price for the Affordable Unit shall be paid to the Developer by the Agency.
through an escrow within sixty (60) days following the issuance of the certificate of
occupancy for the Affordable Unit. In the event of an Agency purchase of an Affordable
Unit, the other provisions of this Article 7., including the provisions regarding a payment
of any Agency Subsidy, shall not apply to the sale of the Affordable Unit to the Agency.
Section 7.8 Failure to Sell Affordable Units.
(a) In the cvent that after a good faith effort to market and sell the
Affordable Units for the three (3) month period following completion of all of the
Affordable Units, the Developer is unable to sell one or more of the Affordable Units to
Very Low Income Households, the Developer may tender a written offer to the Agency
for the purchase by the Agency of one or more of the Affordable Units at the Affordable
Unit Value. Thc Agency shall have a period of sixty (60) days following the receipt of
the Developer's written offer to notify the Developer in writing of the Agency's
acceptance of the Developer's offer. Should the Agency fail to provide a written
acceptance of the Developer's offer within the sixty (60) period following receipt of the
Developer's written offer, the provisions of Section 7.8(b) shall apply.
(b) 'In the event the one or morc Affordable Units are not sold pursuant to
Section 7.8(a), the Developer may offer any unsold Affordable Units for sale to Low
Income Households at an affordable housing cost as determined pursuant to Section
S0025.5(b)(2) of the California Health and Safety Code and 25 California Code of
Regulations Section 6920. Unless otherwise approved by the Agency, the Developer
shall require no less than a five percent (5%) downpayment from the Low Income
Houschold and shall require that the debt service on the first mortgage be no less than
twenty percent (20%) of the Low Income Household's annual income. The Agency
Subsidy, forpurposcs ofa salc ofan Affordable Unit to a Low Income Household, shall
be an amount equal to the difference between the Affordable Unit Value and the purchase
price paid to the Developer by the Low Income Household. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, in no event shall the Agency Subsidy for anyone Affordable Unit sold
102\04\109685.6
IS
pursuant to this Section 7.8(b) exceed Two Hundrcd Thousand Dollars ($200,000) nor
shall the aggregate Agency Subsidy amount exceed Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars
($800,000).
ARTICLE 8
ON-GOING DEVELOPER OBLIGATIONS
Section 8.1 Taxes and Assessments. The Developer shall pay all re d
crsonal property taxes, assessments and charges and all franchise, income, ployment,
age benefit, withholding, sales, and other taxes assessed against it, or able by it, at
suc . es and in such manner as to prevent any penalty from accruing, any lien or
charge m attaching to the Property; provided, however, that the De oper shall have
the right contest in good faith, any such taxes, assessments, or ch es. In the event
the Develop exercises its right to contest any tax, assessment, 0 arge against it, the
Developer, on determination of the proceeding or contest, all immediately payor
discharge any de . on or judgment rendercd against it, toge with all costs, charges
and interest.
Section 8.2
Contracts.
(a) The eloper covenants by and for itself, its
successors and assigns that there I be no di . ation against or segregation of a
person or of a group of persons on a unt 0 ace, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual
orientation, marital status, national ori cestry or disability in the sale, lease,
sublease transfcr, use, occupancy, tenur enjoyment of the Devclopment nor shall the
Developer or any person claiming un or ough the Developer establish or permit any
such practice or practices of disc' ation or egation with reference to the selection,
location, number, use or occupan of tenants, Ie ees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees
in the Development. ng covenant shall with the land.
(b) v
contracts made or entere to by Developer, its successors
of the Property shall c ain therein the following language:
In Deeds:
. All deeds, leases or
assigns, as to any portion
"Grantee here' covenants by and for itself, its successors and assigns tha
no discrimi on against or segregation of a person or of a group of person
of race, co , creed, rcligion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national 0
ancestry disability in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure
enJo t of the property herein conveyed nor shall the grantee or any person cl .
und r through the grantee establish or permit any such practice or practices of
di ination or segregation with rcference to the selection, location, number, use or
upancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees in the property herein
102\04\109685.6
16
October 12, 2000
OCT 1 2 2000
MAR'N
HOUSING
Making Housing More Affordable
~.'2':=El~/~~:;
PL ~f~~~.:: ::~ ~,j ~ ::I~ ~ ::~;61,~ t, I-I
Scott Anderson, Planning Director
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
4020 Civic Center Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903-4173
Executive Director
Janel Miller Schoder
Deputy Director
Michael D. Kelleher
Re: Chandler's Gate BMR Housing Agreement
Dear Scott:
Here is a revised draft of the Below Market Rate Housing Agreement dated 10/12/00 for the
Chandler's Gate development based on additional comments I have received from you and Tom
Webber. I am forwarding copies to Tom as well as Mark Chamberlain and Bruce Burman. I
understand that you are planning to take it to the Town Council on November 1 for consideration of
any outstanding issues, including whether the Town wants to include any preferences in the
selection of prospective buyers.
For your information I am also including a draft of a recent working paper prepared by the Marin
Housing Council on the subject of Preferences in Affordable Housing. Lastly, I have included a
revised Housing Cost Analysis dated 10/11/00 for Chandler's Gate using the most current figures
available. This same information is contained in a more condensed form in Exhibit "B" to the draft
BMR Housing Agreement to provide the justification for the BMR Sales Price.
Please feel free to call me at (415) 491-2545 if you should have any questions or wish to discuss
this in more detail.
Sincerely,
"^~
MAURICE M. WOLOHAN
Manager, Rehabilitatien & New Development
cc: Thomas H. Webber, Goldfarb & Lipman
Mark Chamberlain, Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc.
Bruce Burman
Housing Authority of
the County of Marin
'I 415/491-2525
EXHIBIT NO.~AX) 415/472-2186
(TOO) 1-800-735-2929
. Recording Requested by:
~/ Tiburon Redevelopment Agency
When Recorded Return to:
Tiburon Redevelopment Agency
Attention: Executive Director
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING AGREEMENT
Project Name: CHANDLER'S GATE (Formerly known
as Ned's Way Garden Homes)
Location:
2-98 Ned's Way, Tiburon, California
Developer:
Ned's Way Garden Homes, LLC
This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 2000, among the
TIBURON REDEVELOPJ.\iIENT AGENCY, a public body, corporate and politic (hereinafter referred to as "the
Agency"), the HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF MARIN, a public body, corporate and politic,
created under the Housing Authority Law of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "Marin Housing
Authority"), and NED'S WAY GARDEN HOJ.\iIES, LLC, or any successor in interest (hereinafter referred to as
"the Developer").
A. The Developer intends to construct a residential housing development on that certain real property situated
within the Tiburon Rede:velopment Project Area, which real property is more particularly described in Exhibit
"A" attached hereto and incorporated herein.
B. The Agency, in accordance with the provisions of its Redevelopment Project Area Plan, has approved the
Developer's proposed development on condition that the Developer provide therein four (4) dwelling units to
be sold at prices that are within the means of very-low-income households.
C. Marin Housing Authority is authorized by law to participate in programs that provide housing for households
of low and moderate income, and is by experience qualified to screen and determine eligibility of applicants
for low and moderate-income housing.
D. The Agency and the Developer have entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (the "DDA
Agreement") dated June 17, 1998 wherein the Agency intends to assist the Developer in subsidizing four (4)
units to make them affordable to very low-income seniors pursuant to the terms of the DDA Agreement.
Chandler's Gate BMR Agreement- Ned's Way Garden Homes, LLC I
Tiburon Redevelopment Agency I Marin Housing Authority
Page lof9
1011212000
The parties hereto desire, by this Agreement, to cooperate in implementing the efforts of the Developer to comply
with the requirement that the Developer make available said dwelling units at prices which are within the means of
very-low-income households.
NOW TIfEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows:
l. The Developer agrees that each of the four (4) dwelling units within the project approved by the Agency for
the property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto will be sold to a very-low-income household in
accordance with the terms and pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Agreement. Said dwelling units are
identified in Exhibit "B" attached hereto. Said dwelling units are hereinafter referred to as "the Affordable
Units."
2. The Developer agrees that the contract sales price for the Affordable Units shall not exceed the prices set
forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto. The contract sales price is defined as the amount paid by the Buyer to
the Developer without regard to proration of taxes, utilities, or other such items and without regard to Buyer's
payment of homeowner's association fees, insurance premiums, escrow costs, transfer taxes, recording fees,
document preparation cost or similar items.
3. The Developer agrees to offer the Affordable Units for sale only to individuals or households who have been
certified as eligible by ~Iarin Housing Authority.
4. The Developer further agrees to give written notice to Marin Housing Authority at least one hundred and
twenty (120) days prior to estimated issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the Affordable Units.
5. Marin Housing Authority agrees to process applications and certify the eligibility of applicants as very-Iow-
income households. An individual or a household shall be deemed to qualify as a very-low-income
household provided the income of such individual or household does not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the
current median income for the San Francisco Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA)--San Francisco,
San Mateo and Marin County--as determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development ("HUD"). Office of Economic Affairs, Economic and Market Analysis Division, with
adjustments for smaller or larger households (refer to Exhibit "D" attached hereto).
In certifying the eligibility of applicants, Marin Housing Authority shall adhere to the requirements for
eligibility adopted by the Agency and specified in EXHIBIT "C" attached hereto. Selection of individuals or
households falling within any of the priorities established in EXHIBIT "C" shall be determined by a drawing
or other equitable method mutually agreed upon by the Agency and Marin Housing Authority. Marin
Housing Authority shall be paid a fee of $1000 per Affordable Unit to be paid by the buyer, which payment
shall be included in the buyer's closing costs through escrow.
6. As an alternative to selling the Affordable Unit to a very low-income household, the Developer grants to the
Agency an option to purchase one or more Affordable Units pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.7 of the
DDA Agreement.
In the event that after a good faith effort to market and sell the Affordable Units for the three (3) month
period following completion of all of the Affordable Units, the Developer is unable to sell one or more of the
Affordable Units to very low-income households, the Developer may tender a written offer to the Agency for
the purchase by the Agency of one or more of the Affordable Units at the Affordable unit value pursuant to
Chandler's Gate BMR Agreement- Ned's Way Garden Homes. LLC I
Tiburon Redevelopment Agency / Marin Housing Authority
Page 2of9
1011212000
the provisions of Section 7.8(a) of the DDA Agreement. In the event that one or more Affordable Units are
not sold pursuant to these provisions, the Developer may offer any unsold Affordable Units for sale to low-
income households at an affordable housing cost as determined pursuant to Section 7 .8(b) of the DDA
Agreement.
7. The contract conveying the Affordable Unit to a Buyer certified by Marin Housing Authority shall contain a
resale restriction and an option to purchase constituting a right of first refusal, pursuant to which the buyer
agrees that prior to selIing the property, it will first be offered for sale to Marin Housing Authority or its
assignee, in writing. Said deed restrictions shall be in the form of a Resale Restriction Agreement and Option
to Purchase to be provided by Marin Housing Authority as set forth in Exhibit "E" to this agreement. The
Resale Restriction Agreement shall be executed by the Buyer and recorded in immediate succession after the
Grant Deed conveying title to the property.
8. In the event that the development project is not constructed or in the event that the master plan for the project
is amended or revised such that the Affordable Units specified in Paragraph I are no longer required thereby,
this Agreement shall thereupon become void, unless any of the Affordable Units have previously been sold in
accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, in which event the provisions of this Agreement will
continue in force with respect to the Affordable Units so sold.
9. All notices required to be given under the terms of this Agreement shalI be sent by first class U.S. mail,
certified/return receipt requested, or by express courier service, addressed as folIows:
To the Agency:
Tiburon Redevelopment Agency
Attention: Executive Director
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
To Marin Housing Authority:
Marin Housing Authority
Attention: Executive Director
4020 Civic Center Dri ve
San Rafael, CA 94903-4173
To the Developer:
Ned's Way Garden Homes, LLC
clo Taylor-Woodrow Homes
160 Mitchell Boulevard
San Rafael, CA 94903
Any party may change the address to which notice shall be mailed to it by giving notice thereof to the other
parties by certified mail.
10. The Agency shall indemnify and hold harmless Marin Housing Authority and the Developer, its officers,
officials, employees and agents from and against all claims, damages, loses and expenses including attorneys
fees arising out of the performance of this agreement, cause in whole or part by any negligent act or omission
of the Agency, except where caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of the
Marin Housing Authority and/or Developer.
Chandler's Gale BMR Agreement- Ned's Way Garden Homes. LLC 1
Tiburon Redevelopment Agency I Marin Housing Authority
Page3of9
10/1212000
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written.
TIBURONREDEVELOPMENTAGENCY
HOUSING AlITHORITY OF
THE COUNTY OF MARIN
By:
By:
Its:
Its:
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
By:
By:
~ .
DEVELOPER: NED'S WAY GARDEN HOMES, LLC
By:
Its:
Attachments: Exhibit "A"--LegaI Description of Property
Exhibit "B"--Schedule of BMR Affordable Units and Sales Prices
Exhibit "C"--Eligibility Requirements and Priorities
Exhibit "D"--Marin County FY 2000 Median Family Income Schedule
Exhibit "E"--ResaIe Restriction Agreement and Option to Purchase
Chandler's Gate BMR Agreement- Ned's Way Garden Homes, LLC I
Tiburon Redevelopment Agency I Marin Housing Authority
Page4of9
101l2J2000
EXHIBIT "A"
Project Name:
CHANDLER'S GATE
Location:
2-98 Ned's Way, Tiburon, California
Developer:
Ned's Way Garden Homes, LLC, or any successor in interest
DESCRIPTION:
All that certain Real Property situated in the Town of Tiburon, State of California, described as follows:
Lot 1 through 25, inclusive, and Parcel "A" as shown on the subdivision map of Chandler's Gate
at Tiburon, filed for record on
, in Book
of
Maps at Pages
, inclusive, in the Official Records of the County of
through
Marin. State of California.
Chandler's Gate BMR Agreemenl- Ned's Way Garden Homes. LLC I
Tiburon Redevelopment Agency I Marin Housing Authority
Page 5 of9
10/1212000
EXHIBIT "B"
Project Name: CHANDLER'S GATE
Location: 2-98 Ned's Way, Tiburon, California
Developer: Ned's Way Garden Homes, LLC, or any successor in interest
Total Units: 25
BMR Affordable Units: 4
SCHEDULE OF BMR AFFORDABLE UNITS AND SALES PRICES
Unit No. Address Unit TVl'e Unit Size Income Eligibilitv Sales Price
Unit 2 6 Ned's Way 2 Bedroom 990 sf 50% of Median $70,000
Unit 3 10 Ned's Way 2 Bedroom 990 sf 50% of Median $70,000
Unit 10 38 Ned's Way 2 Bedroom 990 sf 50% of Median $70,000
Unit II 42 Ned's Way 2 Bedroom 990 sf 50% of Median $70,000
The income figures used to calculate the Affordable Housing Cost and the Sales Price of the BMR Affordable
Units are as follows:
FY2000 Median Income for Marin County (effective 3/9/00):
Median Income adjusted for three-person household size (x 0.9):
50% of Median Income for three-person household:
Affordable Housing Cost at 30% of 50% of Median
for three-person household:
Monthlv
6,242
5,618
2,809
843
The estimated housing costs for the BMR Affordable Units are as follows:
Principal & interest payment on mortgage loan ($16,000):
Property taxes & assessments on $70,000 valuation:
Allowance for owner-paid utilities:
Fire & casualty insurance for replacement value:
!allowance for property maintenance & repairs:
Homeowner Association fees:
Monthlv
120
130
130
67
21
375
843
Total Housing Costs
Annual
74,900
67,410
33,705
110,112
Annual
1,440
1,560
1,560
800
250
4,500
110,110 I
Because of the special nature of this project and the Disposition and Development Agreement between the Tiburon
Redevelopment Agency and the Developer, there will be no change or adjustment in the sales price of the
Affordable Units prior to completion and final sale of the Affordable Units.
Chandler's Gate BMR Agreement- Ned's Way Garden Homes. LLC I
Tiburon Redevelopment Agency I Marin Housing Authority
Page 6 of9
10/1212000
EXHIBIT "C"
Project Name:
CHAt 'IDLER'S GATE
Location:
2.98 Ned's Way, Tiburon, California
Developer:
Ned's Way Garden Homes, LLC, or any successor in interest
Elilribilitv Requirements
In determining and certifying eligibility of applicants for the subject project, Marin Housing Authority shall adhere
to the following criteria:
I. The applicant's total annual household income may not exceed 50% of the current median income for the
San Francisco PMSA as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (RUD),
and as adjusted for household size, in order to qualify as "very-low-income."
2. The total value of the applicant household's assets, including any equity in a principal residence, may not
exceed three times the purchase price of the Affordable Unit. For the purposes of this eligibility
requirement, the household's equity in a principal residence shall mean the value remaining after subtracting
the current principal balance of the household's debt secured by the residence (the mortgage or mortgages)
from the total value of the residence, as such value is determined by appraisal or other method reasonably
acceptable to Marin Housing Authority.
3. There is no minimum household size requirement to be eligible.
4. The applicant's household must be a "senior household," defined as a household in which at least one person
is sixty-two (62) years or older and in which all other members are forty-five (45) years or older, with the
exception of one household member who may be a licensed caregiver employed by the applicant and exempt
from the age requirement.
Priorities for the Drawing
In selecting prospective purchasers from among all eligible applicants, a drawing shall be conducted. The Tiburon
Redevelopment Agency has determined that there shall be no priorities employed in the drawing to select
prospective purchasers.
Chandler's Gate BMR Agreement- Ned's Way Garden Homes, LLC I
Tiburon Redevelopment Agency I Marin Housing Authority
Page 7 of9
10/1212000
EXHIBIT "n"
Effective 3/09/00
MARfN
HOUSING
--....-
402Il CMc c.nr.r onv.
San -. CA ll4803-4173
Marin County FY 2000 Median Household Income Schedule
(-415) 481-2550
Household f--- Vel}' Low Income---+I(
Size
Low Income
lit
Moderate Income
II
30%
50%
65%
80%
90%
Median
120%
15,750 26,200 34,100 41,950 47,200 52,450 62,900
2 18,000 29,950 38,950 47,950 53,950 59,900 71,900
3 20,200 33,700 43,800 53,950 60,650 67,400 80,900
4 22,450 37,450 48,700 59,900 - 67,400 74,900 89,900
5 24,250 40,450 52,600 64,700 72,800 80,900 97,100
6 26,050 43,450 56,450 69,500 78,200 86,900 104,250
7 27,850 46,450 60,350 74,300 83,600 92,900 111,450
8 29,650 49,450 64,250 79,100 89,000 98,850 118,650
This median income schedule has been prepared by the Marin Housing Authority. II is based on the FY 2000 median income for the San
Francisco MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area), comprising San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin Counties, The median income for a four.
person household, which is currently $74.900, is determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), Office of
Economic Affairs, Economic and Market AnaJysis Division. This figure is adjusted tor household size in accordance with HUe standard
adjustment factors. The current median income became effective 3/09/00. All figures on this schedule are rounded to the nearest $50.
Chandler's Gale BMR Agreemen,- Ned's Way Garden Homes. LLC 1
Tiburon Redevelopment Agency I Marin Housing Authority
Page 8 of9
10/1212000
"'.
EXIllBIT "E"
Resale Restriction Agreement and Option to Purchase
Chandler's Gate BMR Agreement- Ned's Way Garden Homes. LLC I
Tiburon Redevelopment Agency / Marin Housing Authority
Page 9 of9
1011212000
Recording Requested by:
Marin Housing Authority
When Recorded Retum to:
Marin Housing Authority
Attention; BMR Program
4020 Civic Center Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903-4173
RESALE RESTRICTION AGREEMENT AND OPTION TO PURCHASE
Owner(s):
Property Address:
Name of Development:
Local Jurisdiction:
Purchase Price:
Income Eligibility:
CHANDLER'S GATE
Tiburon Redevelopment Agency
$70,000
Very-low income (50% of median)
R1<TTTALS
This Resale Restriction Agreement and Option to Purchase ("Agreement") is entered into by and between
("Owner") and the
Housing Authority of the County of Marin (the "Authority") regarding certain improved real property
located at
, California (the "Premises").
A. The Premises are described more fully on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference and are subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
B. The Premises are being made available for purchase by an eligible very-low-income
purchaser at a below-market purchase price pursuant to the Below Market Rate Home Ownership
Program ("Program") administered by the Authority on behalf of the above-named Local Jurisdiction.
Rev. 10112100
C. Owner is an eligible very-low-income purchaser under the Program (defined below), intends
to live in the Premises as an owner-occupant and agrees to maintain the Premises as Owner's principal
residence.
D. In order to maintain and preserve the Premises as housing affordable to eligible very-low-
income purchasers, it is necessary to restrict the use and resale price of the Premises by the occupancy
and resale controls. Such controls prevent initial and subsequent purchasers from using the property for
purposes incompatible with the Program and realizing unwarranted gains from sales of the Premises at
unrestricted prices. The terms and conditions of this Agreement provide the necessary occupancy and
resale controls to ensure that the Premises are used, maintained and preserved as housing affordable to
eligible very-low-income purchasers.
E. The Premises subject to occupancy and resale controls constitute a valuable community
resource by providing decent, safe and sanitary housing to very-low-income purchasers who otherwise
would be unable to afford such housing. To protect and preserve this resource it is necessary, proper and
in the public interest for the Authority to administer the occupancy and resale controls by means of this
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS
Il'lURING TO OWNER A.J.'ID THE PUBLIC PURPOSES TO BE ACHIEVED UNDER THE
PROGRA.J.v!. OWNER HEREBY GRANTS TO THE AUTHORITY THIS OPTION ON THE
FOLLOWING TERMS A.J."ID CONDITIONS.
1, Prngr:1m C"nnrlitinnc;;:,
Owner agrees and acknowledges that the Authority's acceptance of Owner's participation in the
Program and purchase of the Premises is conditioned upon. Owner's continuing occupancy of the
Premises. Owner shall use and maintain the Premises as Owner's principal residence. Without limiting
the generality of the foregoing, any absence from the Premises by Owner for a period of sixty or more
consecutive days shall be deemed an abandonment of the Premises as the principal residence of Owner,
in violation of the conditions of this paragraph. Upon request of the Authority, Owner shall certify
Owner's continuing compliance with Program conditions and provide such documents and other evidence
as may be requested to verify Owner's compliance.
2. ~r:1nt of Option t,1 Pnrl"h:1fi:p.
Owner hereby grants and gives to the Authority a right to purchase all of Owner's right, title and
interest in and to the Premises upon the occurrence of events specified in this Agreement ("Option"),
subject to the terms and conditions contained herein.
3, AsC\ie-nmpnt of thp Option,
The Authority may assign the Option to another government entity or to a very-low-income
purchaser who meets the eligibility qualifications established by the Authority under the Program. The
Authority's assignment of the Option shall not extend any time limits contained herein with respect to the
exercise period of the Option or the period within which the Premises must be purchased. As used in this
Agreement, the term "Authority" shall mean the Authority and any assignee to which it has assigned the
Option under this paragraph. Notice of any such assignment shall be given to the beneficiary of record
under any deed of trust that secures any financing used to purchase the property.
- 2-
Chandler's Gate Resale Restriction Agreement
Rev. 10/12100
4. FvpntlO: (;iving RilO:p to Right to 'Ryprr-illi:p Option.
The Authority shall have the right to exercise its Option upon the occurrence of any of the
following events (an "Option Event"):
a. Receipt of a Notice of Intent to Transfer (defmed in paragraph 5 below);
b. Any actual, attempted or pending sale, conveyance, transfer, lease or other attempted
disposition of the Premises or of any estate or interest therein, except as provided in paragraph 15 below;
c. Any actual, attempted or pending encumbrance of the Premises, including without limitation by
way of mortgage or deed of trust, or by judgment, mechanics, tax or other lien, except as provided in
paragraph 16 below;
d. Recordation of a notice of default and/or notice of sale pursuant to California Civil Code
section 2924 (or successor provisions) under any deed of trust or mortgage with a power of sale
encumbering the Premises;
e. Commencement of a judicial foreclosure proceeding regarding the Premises;
f. Execution by Owner of any deed in lieu of foreclosure transferring ownership of the Premises;
and
g. Commencement of a proceeding or action in bankruptcy, whether voluntary or involuntary,
pursuant to Title [I of the United States Code or other bankruptcy statute. or any other insolvency,
reorganization, arrangement, assignment for the benefit of creditors, receivership or trusteeship,
concerning the Owner,
h. Any violation by Owner of the conditions set forth in paragraph I above.
5, l\'fpthnrl of F'Yprrising thp Optinn.
a. Nntir? nf Tnt?nt tn Tr;\n<;;.fPT. If Owner desires to sell, convey, transfer, lease. encumber or
otherwise dispose of the Premises or of any estate or interest therein, Owner shall notify Authority in
writing to that effect (the 1'Notice of Intent to Transfer"). The Notice of Intent to Transfer shall also state
the street address of the Premises, Owner's full name or names, the address and telephone number at
which Owner shall be contacted if not at the Premises, and shall be delivered personally or deposited in
the United States mail, postage prepaid, first class, certified-return receipt requested, addressed to the
Housing Authority of the County of Marin, 4020 Civic Center Drive, San Rafael, CA 94903-4173,
Attention: Executive Director. The Notice of Intent to Transfer shall be in substantially the form
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B.
b. Nntir~ nf Fx~rri,~. Upon the occurrence of any Option Event, the Authority may exercise its
Option by delivering notice to Owner that it will exercise such Option pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement ("Notice of Exercise"). The Notice of Exercise may be in the form attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit C. or in such other form as the Authority may from time to time adopt.
The Notice of Exercise shall be delivered by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first
class. addressed to Owner at the Premises, or at such other address as may be indicated on the Notice of
Intent to Transfer, and delivery shall be deemed effective on the date of deposit. If the Option Event
- 3-
Chandler' 5 Gate Resale Rr:striction Agreement
Rev. 10/12100
relates to the potential foreclosure of a mortgage under paragraphs 4d, e or f, then the Authority shall also
deliver the Notice of Exercise to the mortgagee or beneficiary under such mortgage, at such mortgagee's
or beneficiary's address of record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Marin.
c, Nntl(',a. nf rnn<;;p'nr tn Tr::.n..ff"r. If the Authority does not exercise the Option. it may give its
consent to the occurrence of the Option Event ("Consent to Transfer"), which consent shall be
conditioned upon the proposed transferee's or encumbrancer's assumption of Owner's duties and
obligations under this Agreement in writing, or execution of an agreement substantially similar to this
Agreement, within thirty (30) days after the Consent to Transfer has been delivered to Owner. If the
proposed transferee or encumbrancer fails to assume this Agreement or execute and deliver a
substantially similar agreement to the Authority within the thirty (30) day period, then the Consent to
Transfer shall expire and the Authority may exercise the Option as if no Consent to Transfer had been
delivered.
d. Tim.. Perioo for Notie... The Authority must deliver a Consent to Transfer, if applicable, not
later than sixty (60) days after the date that it receives notification of an Option Event. The Authority
must deliver a Notice of Exercise, if applicable, on such date which is the later to occur of the following
dates: (1) sixty (60) days after the date that the Authority receives notification of an Option Event or (2)
fifteen (15) days after a Consent to Transfer has expired. For purposes of computing commencement of
the delivery periods, the Authority shall be deemed to have notification of an Option Event on the date
that it acrually receives a written Notice of Intent to Transfer, notice of default, summons and complaint
or other pleading, or other writing specifically stating that an Option Event has occurred. The Authority
shall have no obligation to deliver a Notice of Exercise or Consent to Transfer, and the applicable time
period for exercise of the Option shall not commence to run, unless and until it has received notification
of an Option Event in the manner specified in this subparagraph. If there is a stay or injunction imposed
by court order precluding the Authority from delivering its Consent to Transfer or exercising the Option
within the applicable time period, then the running of such period shall cease until such time as the stay
is lifted or injunction dissolved and the Authority has been given written notice thereof, at which time the
period for delivery of a Consent t9 Transfer or exercise of the Option shall again begin to run.
e. Notice of A honrlonm..nt. If the Authority fails to deliver a Notice of Exercise or Consent to
Transfer within the above-stated time periods, then the Option shall terminate and have no further force
and effect. Thereafter. upon request by Owner. the Authority shall cause to be filed for recordation in the
Office of the Recorder of the County of Marin a notice of abandonment, which shall declare that the
provisions of the Option are no longer applicable to the Premises. If the Authority fails to record a notice
of abandonment, the sole remedy of Owner shall be to obtain a judicial order instructing such a
recordation, and Owner shall have no right to damages against the Authority for failure to record such
notice promptly.
6, Right to Rpinc;;t:1tprnpnt,
If the Option Event is the recordation of a notice of default, then the Authority shall be deemed to
be Owner's successor in interest under California Civil Code section 2924c (or successor sections) solely
for purposes of reinstatement of any mortgage on the Premises that has led to the recordation of the
notice of default. As Owner's deemed successor in interest, the Authority shall be entitled to pay all
amounts of principal, interest, taxes, assessments, insurance premiums, advances, costs, attorneys' fees
and expenses required to cure the default. If the Authority exercises the Option, then any and all
amounts paid by the Authority pursuant to this paragraph shall be treated as Adjustments to the Resale
Price for the Premises. as defined in paragraph II, below.
-4-
Chandler's Gate Resale Restriction Agreement
Rev. 10/12100
7, Insppf'tion of Prprni~p~.
After delivering a Notice of Exercise. the Authority shall be entitled to inspect the Premises one or
more times prior to the close of escrow to determine the amount of any Adjustments to the Resale Price.
Before inspecting the Premises, the Authority shall give Owner not less than forty-eight (48) hours
written notice of the date, time and expected duration of the inspection. The inspection shall be
conducted between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding court
holidays, unless another date and time is mutually agreed to by the panies. Owner shall make the
Premises available for inspection on the date and at the time specified in the Authority's request for
inspection.
8. F.;;:rrow.
Promptly after delivering a Notice of Exercise, the Authority shall open an escrow account for its
purchase of the Premises. Close of escrow shall take place on such date which is the later to occur of the
following: (a) ninety (90) days after a Notice of Intent to Transfer has been delivered by Owner to the
Authority, or (b) ten (10) days after Owner has done all acts and executed all documents required for
close of escrow. Prior to the close of escrow, the Authority shall deposit the Resale Price as defined in
paragraph 10 below, plus or minus any Adjustments as defined in paragraph II below. Closing costs and
title insurance shall be paid pursuant to the custom and practice in the County of Marin at the time of the
opening of escrow, or as may be provided otherwise by mutual agreement. Owner agrees to do all acts
and execute all documents necessary to enable the close of escrow and transfer of the Premises to the
Authority.
9. Prorpprl... of F...rrow. Rprnov~1 of FYl'pptionllii; to Tittp.
Prior to close of escrow, Owner shall cause the removal of all exceptions to title to the Premises
that were recorded after the date of this Agreement. All amounts deposited into escrow by the Authority
shall be applied first to the payment of any and all liens and encumbrances recorded against the Premises,
and thereafter to the payment of escrow fees and closing costs. Any amounts remaining after the
amounts deposited into escrow by the Authority have been so applied shall be paid to Owner upon the
close of escrow. If the amounts deposited into escrow by the Authority are insufficient to satisfy all liens
and encumbrances recorded against the Premises, then Owner shall deposit into escrow such additional
sums as may be required to remove said liens and encumbrances. In the event that the Authority agrees
to proceed with close of escrow prior to the date that Owner has caused all exceptions to title recorded
after the date of this OptiOh to be removed, then Owner shall indemnify Authority from any and all costs,
expenses or liabilities (including attorneys' fees) incurred or suffered by Authority that relate to such
exceptions and their removal as exceptions to title to the Premises.
la, Rpo;;nlp Pril'P,
Prior to adjustment pursuant to paragraph 11, the resale price of the Premises shall be the lowest of
("Resale Price"):
a. M~rli"n Tncnmp. The original price paid by Owner for acquisition of the Premises pursuant to
the Program ("Base Price") increased (but not decreased) by an amount, if any, equal to the Base Price
multiplied by the percentage increase in the median household income for the San Francisco Primary
Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA)--San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin Counties--published by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Economic Affairs, Economic and Market
Analysis Division ("Median Income") between the Recording Date (defined below in paragraph 20) and
- 5-
Chandler's Gate Resale R~s[riction Agreement
Rev. IOlt2l00
the date that the Authority receives notification of an Option Event.
b. [nnp, Prirp. The Base Price increased (but not decreased) by an amount. if any, equal to the
Base Price multiplied by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers
for the San Francisco Bay Area published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
("Index") between the Recording Date and the date that the Authority receives notification of an Option
Event.
c. Foir Morkpt VoIIlP. The fair market value of the Premises as determined by an appraiser
selected and paid for by Owner and approved in writing by the Authority.
d. Rp<olp Prirp Wnrk<hppt. To compute the Resale Price, the Authority may use the Resale Price
Worksheet attached as Exhibit D hereto, or such other form as the Authority may from time to time
adopt.
II. Arljn.;;hnpntllO: to Rpc::aJp PriC'P.
The Resale Price shall be adjusted by the following ("Adjustments"):
a. r"ri,,1 [mrrnwmpnt<. An increase for capital improvements made to the Premises by Owner
provided that the amount of said improvements had been previously accepted in writing by the Authority
after original written documentation of the cost was provided to the Authority for verification. The
amount of the Adjustment shall equal the original cost of any capital improvements depreciated in a
straight-line basis based upon the estimated useful life of the improvement stated in the Authority's prior
written acceptance of said improvement.
b. f)omo8P<. A decrease by the amount necessary to repair damages to the Premises, if any, and to
place the Premises into saleable condition as reasonably determined by the Authority, including amounts
attributed to cleaning, painting, replacing worn carpeting and draperies, making necessary structural,
mechanical. electrical and plumbing repairs and repairing or replacing built-in appliances and fixtures.
c. Anvonrp< hy Authnrity. A decrease in an amount equal to the sum of all costs advanced by the
Authority for the payment of mortgages, taxes, assessments, insurance premiums. homeowner's fees
and/or associated late fees, costs, interest. attorneys' fees, pest inspections, resale inspections and other
expenses related to the Premises, which Owner has failed to payor has permitted to become delinquent.
l2. Priority ~nrl Fffprtivpnpc::c:: of thp Option.
a. Rpc-nrno,inn. This Agreement shall be filed for recordation in the Office of the Recorder of the
County of Marin prior to any sale, conveyance, transfer or other disposition of the Premises, or of any
estate or interest therein, by Owner except any deed of trust or other instrument securing financing used
to purchase the Premises. The Option shall have priority over any subsequent sale, conveyance, transfer,
lease or other disposition or encumbrance of the Premises, or of any estate or interest therein except any
deed of trust or other instrument securing financing used to purchase the Premises. Except as otherwise
provided in paragraph 13a, the exercise of the Option by the Authority at any time and from time to time
shall not extinguish the Option or cause a merger of the Option into any estate or other interest in the
Premises. and the Option shall continue to exist and be effective with respect to the Premises against any
subsequent owner in accordance with the terms and conditions hereof.
- 6 -
Chandler's G;lte Resale Restriction Agreement
Rev. 10/12100
b. R_ql1e" for Noti~e of nefol1lt. The Authority shall file a Request for Notice of Default for
recordation in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Marin promptly upon execution of this
Agreement (see Exhibit E).
13, SlIrvivnl of Option TTpnn Tr~nfiO:fpr,
a. In Gen_ro I. The Authority's rights to exercise the Option shall survive any transfer of the
Premises by Owner. The Option may be exercised against the Premises whether owned. possessed or
occupied by (i) an eligible very-low-income purchaser, (ii) any successor, transferee, assignee, heir.
executor, or administrator of an eligible very-low-income purchaser, including a debtor-in-possession,
debtor or trustee pursuant to Title II of the United States Code, or (iii) any person owning, possessing or
occupying the Premises who does not meet the eligibility qualifications established by the Authority
under the Program (collectively all referred to and defmed herein as "Owner"). Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Option shall not survive (i) the sale and transfer of the Premises to a third party purchaser
pursuant to a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure or a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure under a power of sale
contained in a mortgage or deed of trust that secures any financing used to purchase the property and
recorded against the Premises in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Marin on or prior to the date
of this Agreement, or (ii) the recording of Owner's conveyance of the Premises to the Authority, or its
assignee, provided the conveyance is in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
b. HTTn Inq,r_rl N!ortrorp,. If Owner has acquired the Premises by a mortgage insured by the
Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. and a notice of default
has been recorded pursuant to California Civil Code section 2924 (or successor provisions), this Option
shall automatically tenninate if title to the Premises is transferred by foreclosure or deed-in-lieu of
foreclosure. or if the insured mortgage is assigned to the Secretary.
14, Voiclnhlp Trnn'lfpr".
As long as the Option has not been abandoned pursuant to paragraph 5e, any actual or attempted
sale, conveyance. transfer or other disposition of the Premises, or of any estate or interest therein, in
violation of the tenus and conditions of this Option, shall be voidable at the election of the Authority.
15, Pprmittpn Trnn",fprli;.
The following transfers of title to the Premises, or of any estate or interest therein ("Permitted
Transfers"), will not authorize the exercise of this Option: a good-faith transfer by gift, devise or
inheritance to Owner's spouse or issue: a taking of title by a surviving joint tenant; a court-ordered
transfer of title to a spouse as part of a divorce or dissolution proceeding; or an acquisition of title, or of
any interest therein, in conjunction with marriage. Notwithstanding any Pennitted Transfer, the Option
shall remain effective with respect to the Premises.
16, Pprmittprl Fn(,lImhr~nrp", !1ncl Rpfin!1nring,
This Option shall not become exercisable as the result of Owner's encumbering the Premises for
the purpose of securing financing to purchase the Premises pursuant to the Program, or to refinance
existing indebtedness incurred to purchase the Premises pursuant to the Program. The maximum amount
of any refinancing pennitted by this paragraph shall not exceed an amount equal to ninety percent (90%)
of the Resale Price calculated as provided in paragraph 10, as modified by this paragraph (the "Permitted
Encumbrance Amount"). The Pennitted Encumbrance Amount shall be the Resale Price calculated as if
- 7 -
Chandler's Gate Resale R~striction Agreement
Rev. 10/12100
the Authority had received notification of an Option Event on the earlier of (a) the date on which the
deed of trust or mortgage securing the refinancing indebtedness is filed for record in the Office of the
Recorder of the County of Marin, or (b) the date the Authority receives a Notice of Intent to Transfer
pursuant to paragraph 5a above.
17. OhH~ntionliO; or Ownpr 4. ftpr Option A. h~nrfnnmpnt,
If the Authority records a notice of abandonment of the Option, then the Premises may be sold by
Owner to a third party without restriction as to price. Upon such sale, Owner shall pay to Authority an
amount equal to eighty-five percent (85%) of the difference between (a) the actual sales price net of
reasonable and customary real estate conunissions paid (such conunissions not to exceed six percent
(6%) of the actual sales price), and (b) the Resale Price plus Adjustments. This amount shall be paid to
the Authority upon close of escrow on the sale of the Premises, or upon execution of a contract of sale,
whichever shall first occur. Owner shall not receive any proceeds from the sale unless and until the
Authority has been paid in full the amount determined pursuant to this paragraph.
18, T imitc;: on T bhility.
In no event shall the Authority become liable or obligated in any manner to Owner by reason of the
assignment of the Option. nor shall the Authority be in any way liable or obligated to Owner for any
failure of the Authority's assignee to consummate a purchase of the Premises or to comply with the terms
of this Option. or any escrow instructions or agreement for the purchase of the Premises.
19, JnC;:lIr~n('p Prorppnc;: ~nrl ronrlp.mn~tinn A w~rrt.
In the event the Premises are destroyed and insurance proceeds are distributed to Owner instead of
being used to rebuild the premises. or in the event of condemnation, if the proceeds thereof are
distributed to Owner. any such proceeds shall first be used to satisfy any existing encumbrance senior to
the rights of the Authority under this Agreement, and any surplus of proceeds remaining after payment of
the encumbrances of the premises shall be distributed as follows: that portion of the surplus up to, but
not to exceed the net amount that Owner would have received pursuant to paragraph 9 had the Authority
exercised its Option on the date of the destruction or condemnation valuation date shall be distributed to
Owner, and the balance of such surplus, if any. shall be distributed to the Authority.
20. Fffpctivp Oatp.
The obligations of the Authority contained in this Agreement shall be effective when the
Agreement is filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Marin, the date of which is
referred to in this Agreement as the "Recording Date."
21, Tprm of Option,
The restrictions contained herein shall continue for a period of fifty-five (55) years from the
Recording Date.
- 8 -
Chandler's Gate ResJle Restriction Agreement
Rev. 10/12100
22. Noticp",.
Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, all notices required to be sent pursuant to this
Agreement shall be made by personal delivery or by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage
prepaid, and shall be deemed to have been delivered and received on the date of personal delivery or five
(5) days after deposit in the mail, if sent to the following addresses:
AUTHORITY:
Housing Authority of the County of Marin
Attention: Executive Director and BMR Program
4020 Civic Center Drive
San Rafael, California 94903-4173
OWNER:
At the address of the Premises
The addresses above may be changed by notice given pursuant to this section.
23, A.ttnrnpy'" Fpp.~.
If either party is required to initiate legal proceedings to enforce its rights under this Agreement.
the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in
addition to any other recovery under this Agreement.
24, Spprifi(" Pprfonnnn("p,
Owner acknowledges that any breach in Owner's performance of Owner's obligations under this
Agreement or in the transfer of the Premises to the Authority shall cause irreparable harm to the
Authority. Owner agrees that the Authority is entitled to equitable relief in the form of specific
performance upon its exercise of the Option, and that an award of damages shall not be adequate to
compensate the Authority for Owner's failure to perform according to the terms of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the
day of
OWNER(S):
THE AUTHORITY:
By
JANET MILLER SCHODER
Executive Director
- 9-
Chandler's Gate Resale Restriction Agreement
Rev. 10112100
CERTllnCATEOFACCEPTANCE
(Pursuant to Government Code 927281)
This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the Resale Restriction
Agreement and Option to Purchase dated
from to the Housing
Authority of the County of Marin, a political corporation and/or governmental
agency, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer or agent on behalf of the
Housing Authority of the County of Marin pursuant to authority conferred by .
resolution #10-81, dated 5119/81; and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by
its duly authorized officer.
Dated:
By:
JANET Mll...LER SCHODER
Executive Director
Housing Authority of the County of Marin
- 10-
Chandler's Gate Resale Restriction Agreement
Rev. 10012JOO
F.XHTRT'T A
Legal Description
ATTENTION: TITLE COMPANY---
INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION
HERE PRIOR TO RECORDATION
RXHTRTT R
VfA rFRTfFfFn MA rr _ RFTrrRN RFrFfPT RF.Q,rrF<:TFn
To: Housing Authority of the County of Marin
Attention: BMR Program
4020 Civic Center Drive
San Rafael, California 94903-4173
Date:
Re: Notirp of Tntpnt to Tr::lnc;;fpT
The undersigned Owner(s),
hisfher intent to transfer the property located at
Owner may be contacted at the Premises or at the following address:
-
, hereby gives notice of
(the "Premises").
Owner's daytime telephone number is (---.-l
The proposed transfer of the Premises is to the following person(s):
Name:
Address:
Telephone:
(-)
The proposed transfer is: (check one)
o Sale
o Lease
o Encumbrance
o Other
Specify:
OWNER:
Signature
F,XHTRTT C.
Date:
To:
Owner or Transferee
Address
re: Notirp of "F.yprrlsP
The Housing Authority of the County of Marin ("Authority") hereby gives notice that it is
exercising its option to purchase the real property located at . The option
has been granted to the Authority pursuant to the Resale Restriction Agreement and Option to Purchase
between Owner and the Authority dated and recorded
[The Authority has assigned its option to purchase the real property to .J An
escrow for the purchase will be opened with First American Title Company of Marin.
The Housing Authority of the County of Marin
By:
Its Authorized Representative
'-
EXlDBITD
ViNJ'3 Owned:
yeatS
MARtN
HOUSING
---....-
BELOW MARKET RATE HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAM
BUR RESALE PRICE WORKSHEET
Date:
Owner.
4020 Civic CelllU Drive
San Raf..1. CA 94903"',73
Address:
Eze..'"UDye Din:ctor
lanet Miller Sc:hcder
Ocpuly ou.cuw
Michael D. Kelleher
Puteha:se Price:
Date of Purchase:
Present Median:
Original Median:
Rate of fncreass:
InC11lase in Price:
x
=
Met/Iod #1 Resale Price:
=
-. METHOD #2; CALC
E IN CONSUMER PRICE INDEX -
Present CPt:
E<<ectiv. Date:
Original CPI:
Erredive Oate:
Rate af InetNse:
per annum
x
x
=
THE ABOVE. THE BASE RESALE PRICE AS OF THIS DATE,
.IS:
By:
Housing Authority of
the Count)' o( Marin
4IS/~91-2S2S
(FAX) ~ll/472-2186
(TOOl \-110O-735-=
EXHIBIT E
Order No.
Escrow No-
Loan No.
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Sl'ACaA8OYC THIS 1,lNI 'OiJI ItECOIIDIWS USE ONt...,
Request For Notice Under Section 2924b Civil Code
In accordance with Section 2924b. Civil Code. request is hereby made that a copy of any Notice of Default and a copy of any
Notice of Sale under the Deed of Trust recorded as instrument No.
on
19_, in 600k
.Pago
,Official
Records of
County, California. and describing land therein as
executed by
. as Trustor,
in which
is named as
Beneficiary. and
. as Trustee.
be mailed to
at
N__SIIMt
CI.,.,.SIa..
N aTI C E: A COPY OF ANY NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND OF ANY NOTICE OF SALE WILL BE SENT ONL YTO THE
ADDRESS CONTAINED IN THIS RECORDED REQUEST. IF YOUR ADDRESS CHANGES. A NEW REQUEST MUST
BE RECORDED.
I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ...
couNTY OF I
On
belON me. 1M unders'aMd,. " Notary PubliC In anCIlOt said Sta,t.. IMraonally
a.,pured
I)ersonaUy ktIown 10 me (or ~ed to me on the-o.sis at salisfKtotY evidence, to
be the P4tson(SI ....ho.. nametst \ale'e subtcribed to III. within inattl.lmenl and
adln~ 10 me tMt "wsh.,trt.,. ..eculed trl. ame.
WlTNESS my !\and and oIIicial...L
5iOnatur.
m-._I_oMc*~-'
~ 168 (Rev. lIST}
-
Chandler's Gate Affordable Housing Cost Analysis
October 11, 2000
MsII1!J1a Al1IJJW
e Loan
70,000
16000
54,000
23%
8.250%
120 120 1,440
Pro
pertv Taxes & Assessments
Basic or.;r;ertVtax @ 1.0% of valuation 700
CiiVBonds Assessment 5
Tiburon Fire Assessment 45
Tiburon--Sanitarv Assessment 300
Reed School Assessment 136
Tam Union HJnh School District Assmt 138
Tiburon--Librarv CFD Assessment 65
MMWD--Fireflow Assessment 75
Old St. Hila"'--Onen Soace Assmt 98
Total annualorooertv taxes & assessments 1,562
130 1,562
Allowance for utilities
Garbane collection 0
Sewer 25
Water 25
Electrici'" 40
Gas 40
Total monthlV allowance for utilities 130
130 1,560
Fire & casualty insurance for replacement value
67
800
Allowance for prop~rty maintenance & repairs
21
250
Homeowner Association fees
375
4,500
Total Housing Costs
843
110,1121
Affordable Housing Cost at 3
. .....,.,.. '.. ""~",~c:_";,,",".,';_~;":;:t:.:t~-;..
",'-i-~':f.i:i;:;';,'-
EX-BIBIT NO. ..3
He HOUSING COUNCIL
DRAFT
2169 East Francisco Blvd., Suite B ~ San Rafael, CA 9490 I
Telephone: (415) 258-1800 ~ Fax: (415) 453-4927
Preferences in Affordable Housing
Marin Housing Council
September 27,2000
The intent of this policy is to assist jurisdictions and developers in crafting preferences
for affordable housing that serve the legitimate goals of preferences while steering clear
of unlawful discrimination and other legal issues. The legitimate goals of preferences in
affordable housing are to promote sustainable planning, community acceptance of
affordable housing development, and a balance between jobs and housing.
To promote these goals lawfully, preferences must not discriminate arbitrarily and may
not limit the availability of housing to protected classes based on race, national origin,
disability, gender, age, familial status, religion or sexual orientation. Discrimination
against protected classes is illegal not only when the preference,. on its face,
discriminates, but when the preference has a disproportionate effect (a "disparate
impact") on any of the protected classes. In addition, housing preferences must be
targeted to meet the housing needs identified in the jurisdiction's Housing Element.
The broader the preference, the less likely it is to run afoul of fair housing laws.
Therefore, we propose a preference for those who live or work in Marin County.
Such a policy promotes county-wide cooperation in meeting the County's critical
shortage of affordable housing and does not discriminate against those who, due to age or
disability, cannot work, as would a preference limited to those who work in Marin
County.
If a narrower preference is desired, the best wording would be a preference for those
who live or work within a .....mile radius of the site of the housing. In order to
comport with the fair housing laws, the radius must be large enough to include both
employment and residential centers with racial, ethnic and economic diversity equivalent
to that of the County as a whole.
If public funding finances housing for a particular group of people (such as HUD 202
funding for housing for elderly persons), it is possible to restrict occupancy to that
particular group. However, if public funding or public requirements produces housing
open to the public at large based on income (such as inclusionary zoning), preferences for
specified employment groups are likely to violate fair housing laws.
Marin Housing Council, Leelee Shapiro and Betty Pagett, co-chairs.
Legal Aid of Marin, Richard Marcantonio
Fair Housing of Marin, Nancy Kenyon
EXHIBIT NO. +
EAH a HomeBuver Assistance Center/Marin a Homeward Bound of iv1arin
Marin City Community Development Co'rp. a Marin Community Development Agency 0. Marin Community Foundation
Marin Fair Housing. a Marin Housing Authority Cl Mercy/Charities Housing a Northbay Ecumenical Homes
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
I~:# / (A)
D/(4J:r
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Gram called t ~ oft e Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:40
PM, on Wednesda , September 6,2000, in e Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon
Blvd., Tiburon, Ca 'fornia.
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, Associate Planner
Theriault, Finance Director Stranzl, Acting
Chief of Police Aiello, Minute Clerk
McVeigh
B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION
Mayor Gram stated no action was taken in closed session.
C. PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
None.
D. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
1) AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHT & AIRSPACE ISSUES STRATEGIC WORK
PROGRAM (Councilmember Matthews)
Councilmember Matthews reported that with the proposed expansion of SFO, flights over
Marin County would increase by 50% in the next twenty years. In response to increase
concerns over aircraft noise, the County of Marin has developed an Aircraft Overflight
and Airspace Issues Strategic Work Program. He noted the program includes the
recommendation that the FAA reconfigure airspace and designate flight paths, make
increased use of flight paths over the Pacific Ocean and not adopt aircraft procedures that
will increase noise over Marin County. He urged the public to read the report.
2) BELVEDERE DRAINAGE DIVERSION PROJECT (Mayor Gram)
Town CouncillvIinutes #1199
September 6. 2000
Page 1
Mayor Gram reported that a committee of Belvedere and Tiburon officials and staff has
developed a plan for the landscape that has been removed along the multi-use path. The
Town Council will meet next Wednesday to consider the plan, maintenance and funding.
E. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gram requested that Items 5, 7 and 15.b. be removed from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Hennessy requested item 19 be added to the Consent Calendar.
MOTION:
to approve the Consent Calendar consisting of:
3) TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES - No. 1197 - August 16,2000 (Adopt)
4) TOWN MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY - As ofJuly 31,2000 (Accept)
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)
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 2000-01 (Resolution)
II) TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX - Allocation of Proceeds (Resolution)
12) POINT TIBURON (RAILROAD) MARSH MAINTENANCE PROGRAM-
Proposal from Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. to Update Marsh Management
Plan (Budget Amendment)
13) REED RANCH ROAD/JEFFERSON DRIVE W ALKW A Y - Emergency
Drainage Repair (Budget Amendment)
14) DEDICATION OF PUBLIC STREET - Designation of Unnamed Roadway
behind Tiburon Police Station as Public Street (Resolution)
15A) TOWN MANAGER RETIREMENT - (Commendation for 30 Years of Service
(Resolution)
19. CORTE MADERA HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE - (Letter from
Environmental Consultant Greg Zitney, dated August 14,2000)
Moved:
Vote:
Thompson, Seconded by Bach
AYES: Unanimous (Council member Hennessy
Abstained on Item 12)
7. ROONEY'S CAFE - Proclamation in honor of John Rooney & David Hinman's
30th Anniversary of business in Downtown Tiburon (Adopt)
Town Council iv1inutes #1199
September 6, 2000
Page 2
,;,;
Mayor Gram reported that Council and Staff felt it was appropriate to adopt a
proclamation honoring John Rooney and Dave Hinman upon their 30th anniversary of
business in downtown Tiburon. Mayor Gram then presented the Proclamation to John
Rooney.
MOTION
Moved:
Vote:
to move to Public Hearings portion of Agenda
Hennessy, Seconded by Bach
AYES: Unanimous
20) 36 SOUTHRIDGE WEST - Request by Town Council for Modification to as-
built deck - (Lalita Waterman, Applicant/Appellant) - AP #34-311-11
(Continuance of June 7 and July 19, 2000 Appeal Hearing of Design Review
Board Decision to Town Council)
Council member Thompson recused himself from this item.
Associate Planner Theriault reported this is the Council's third review of an application
reviewed by the Design Review Board for legalization of as-built modifications to
previously approved plans and a variance for excess lot coverage. At the June 7th
meeting Council 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 Council concluded the applicant had failed to show the full reduction
directed by the Council. 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 an~le of the deck from post to post. The applicant has complied
with the Council's July 19' request and field investigation reveals a lot coverage of
21.3% in lieu of 15% allowed in the RO-2 zone).
Mayor Gram opened the public hearing. Being no response, Mayor Gram closed the
public hearing.
Moved:
Vote:
the application be approved as submitted this evening and staff is directed
to bring a resolution back memorializing this action
Bach, Seconded by Matthews
AYES: Hennessy, Bach, Matthews, Gram
ABSTAIN: Thompson
MOTION
20. 210 & 220 GILMARTIN DRIVE - Request for Approval of Vista Golden Gate
Estates Precise Development Plan & Mitigated Negative Declaration (Alexander
& Yami Anolik, Applicant) AP#39-17l-05 (Continued from August 2, 2000)
Senior Planner Watrous reviewed the proposed precise development plan to subdivide a
4.66 acre parcel into two lots, with a lot line adjustment to merge a portion ofland to an
existing adjacent lot under the same ownership. The property is located at the end of
Gilmartin Drive and receives access from Gilmartin Drive. In 1981 Leonard Cahn
Town Council A4inutes #1199
September 6. 2000
Page 3
received a Master Plan, Precise Plan and Tentative Map for 3 homes for this property, but
those approvals expired. The property was sold in the early 1990' s to Mr. and Mrs.
Anolik, adjacent property owners at 280 Round Hill Road. In 1996 The Anolik's sold the
property to the Equinox Group. Equinox Group submitted an application for two single-
family homes on individual lots know as the Tres Arboles Precise Development Plan.
The Planning Commission reviewed the application and recommended approval of the
Town Council. At the Council's hearing Mr. Anolik reported that he had foreclosed on
the property. This application was deemed to be withdrawn on February 26, 1999.
Watrous reported the present 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 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 merge with the lot at 280
Round Hill Road.
The Planning Commission first reviewed the application on April 12, 2000. Much of the
discussions focused on the request to develop the lower 0 66-acre portion of the site. The
applicant was requested to establish specific developable envelopes for the lower portion
of the site and to come up with a revised plan that would represent a tradeoff between the
development of the lower portion and concurrent reductions in the size of the areas to be
disturbed on the proposed Lots 1 and 2.
On May 24, 2000 the Commission reviewed revised drawings and recommended that the
developable portion of the lower area reduced from the 75% proposed by the applicant to
50% of its area. Disturbance of the remaining 50% would be prohibited through
imposing an open space easement and prohibiting fencing or other disturbance outside
the envelope areas. The Commission felt the specific envelope notes and height
restrictions from the previous Precise Development Plan should be restored to the current
proposal The Commission felt the proposed cabana should be reduced from 1,300 sq.ft.
to 700 sq.ft. and limited to 15' in height. House size limitations of6,000 sq.ft., plus up to
750 sq.ft. of garage should be imposed for proposed Lots 1 and 2 as a tradeoff for the
newly proposed development of the .66 acres The application was continued to June 14.
At the June 14th hearing the applicant proposed a floor area of 7,500 sq.ft. for the two
homes and aI, 100 sq.ft. cabana. The Commission did not feel the applicant responded to
their concerns and adopted Resolution 2000-10 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' downhill
In response to Council member Hennessy, Watrous indicated there were no recommended
restrictions on the size of homes for the Tres Arboles development. In response to
Councilmember Matthews, Watrous indicated Anolik's proposed 7,500 sq.ft. homes
would also allow 750 sq.ft. of garage space.
Town Council Minutes # 1199
September 6, 2000
Page 4
Planning Director Anderson indicated the Planning Commission felt 6,000 sq.ft. homes
are appropriate, as they would be a transition from much smaller homes to the south and
east. He noted there is a table in the packet showing house sizes in the vicinity. The
Commission felt that a 1,000 sq.ft. cabana was too large and would create the appearance
of a second unit on the property. Regarding fencing, the Commission was concerned that
once the .66 acres were fenced, what native grasslands and serpentine would be lost and
the area would lose the appearance of open space. The Commission did not feel it was
appropriate to transfer the FAR development potential of the .66 acres to the Anolik's
adjacent property at 280 Round Hill Road. Anderson stated the modifications by the
Planning Commission to the plan helps restore the balance that was achieved in the Tres
Arobles plan and he recommends the Council approve the Planning Commission's
recommendation and adopt the draft resolution.
Mayor Gram questioned the existing FAR for 280 Round Hill Road. Senior Planner
Watrous stated the lot is 39,050 sq.ft. which allows a maximum floor area of 5,905 sq.ft.
The current floor area on the lot is 4,750 sq.ft.
Michael Heckmann, architect for the applicant, addressed the main concerns of the
Planning Commission. In regard to fencing, the applicant is concerned with how the
property is located, and in particular with the location of the pool, and with regard to
security of the residence He feels the property is more like the Round Hill Road parcels
in character and size and because of this, feels fencing around the entire .66 acre parcel is
appropriate. With regard to the pool and cabana site development he suggests that the
appropriate size of the envelopes would be 20,075 sq.ft. which maintains 8,675 sq.ft. as
undeveloped or open space. He is proposing that the cabana floor area be 1,000 sq.ft. and
that his clients are disappointed to reduce the size of the 1,300 sq.ft. cabana originally
proposed. With a 1,000 sq.ft. cabana, he is proposing reducing the floor area for the
upper parcels by the same amount and that is how he came up with 7,500 sq.ft. for
parcels I and 2. As far as FAR, he reported if you took the. 66 acre and the cabana the
resulting FAR is only 3.5% and if you took the resultant area of280 Round Hill Road
including the .66 acre portion, the resulting FARis 7.4%. He noted the table he provided
gives a listing of all the FARs in the area, which average 166% With regard to the
FARs for the upper two parcels, the FAR at 7,500 sq.ft. would be 10.7% for lot 1 and
7.2% for lot 2, which is much lower than other parcels in the area. He stated there are no
issues regarding geological, size and shape oflot or privacy and view concerns that
would warrant a reduced FAR for these lots.
In response to Council member Matthews, Mr. Heckmann responded that the cabana
would not have any living space. Vice-Mayor Thompson summarized that the applicant
is looking for 7,500 sq.ft. homes plus garages for lots 1 and 2, a 1,000 sq.ft. cabana and a
fence along the property line of the .66 acre portion. Mr. Heckman indicated he would be
willing to adjust the fence back, ifit is within the proposed envelopes.
In response to Vice-Mayor Thompson, Planning Director Anderson stated the Planning
Commission felt the entire area of the recreational easement should not be counted
towards the FAR of 280 Round Hill Road
Town Councli Minutes # I 199
September 6, 2000
Page 5
Mayor Gram opened the public hearing.
Robert Greber, 11 Mt. Tiburon Road, stated he is in close proximity to the entire
development, but is closest to the .66 acre portion. He expressed his concern with the
noise that would come from the proposed pool and cabana facility. He supports the
Planning Commission's recommendations to the Council.
Hannah Sweet, 81 Mt. Tiburon Road, requested the Council support the Planning
Commission's recommendations without any changes.
Maren Mahabir, 238 Round Hill Road, also supports the Planning Commission's
recommendations as she felt it was a fair solution to everyone's concerns.
Chris Conner spoke on behalf of Chara Schreyer, 83 Mt. Tiburon Road, who also
requests the Council to support the Planning Commission's recommendations
Gary Spratling, 285 Round Hill Road, stated he is not claiming an impact from this
development, nor is he appearing as Mr. Anolik's counsel, but rather as an interested
neighbor. He stated the zoning ordinance allows 8,000 sq.ft. FAR for this development,
Mr. Anolik is asking for 7,500 sq.ft. and the Commission is recommending 6,000 sqft.
He feels the Commission's recommended 6,000 sq.ft. FAR for lots 1 and 2 is a severe
restriction for this property, noting that the 7,500 sq.ft. FAR would be approximately
50% below that of the surrounding area. He is mystified about how much time has been
spent on a 700 sq.ft. cabana versus and 1,000 sq.ft. and does not feel 1,000 sq.ft. would
have an adverse effect or reduce the enjoyment of the surrounding neighbors. With
regard to the FAR transfer to 280 Round Hill Road, he felt the Planning Commission was
incorrect in recommending a limitation on the FAR transfer.
Len Yaffe, 10 Gilmartin Court, expressed his concern with the height limitation in the
primary landscape envelope on the .66 acre portion, and recommended the 25' tree height
limitation be reduced to 20'. He fully supports the Planning Commission's
recommendation. In response to Mayor Gram, Mr. Anolik stated he has not taken issue
with the tree height limitation imposed by the Commission.
Russell Pratt, 95 Mt. Tiburon Rd., questioned ifthe .66 acre transfer to 280 Round Hill
Road would allow Mr. Anolik to split the newly created lot Planning Director Anderson
stated the lot could not be split and this issue is addressed in condition #10 of the
Planning Commission's resolution which read "The recreational easement area portion of
the property, proposed to be merged with the adjacent lot at 280 Round Hill Road, is
approved only for accessory uses and accessory structures normally associated with a
single-family dwelling, and shall not be used for further subdivision, for the development
of a separate dwelling unit, or for a secondary dwelling unit" In respect to noise, Mr.
Pratt was concerned with a comment by Mr. Anolik that there maybe overnight guests in
the cabana.
Town Council AJinutes #1199
September 6, 2000
Page 6
Kirk Hanson, Spanish Trail Road, spoke in favor of the applicant's proposal. He stated
the proposed density for these lots are very low, and takes issue with them being
considered transitional lots. He feels the applicant's proposal is very reasonable as Mr.
Anolik could start the process over and request three buildable lots.
Planning Commissioner Miles Berger spoke on the deliberations that took place at the
Commission level. He noted the original Tres Arboles application was for two 7,000
sq. ft. homes on the upper lots and no mention was made of the .66 acre recreational area.
When the revised plans came in for the .66 acre parcel to be developed, the Commission
felt it was appropriate to reduce the size of the homes on the upper parcels. The
Commission also felt 6,000 sq.ft. homes were more in keeping with the surrounding area.
In response to Mayor Gram, Berger indicated that he represented the application for a
13,000 sq.ft. and a 9,000 sq.ft. home in the vicinity.
Planning Director Anderson noted the Planning Commission's logic behind now allowing
the .66 acre recreational area's FAR to be transferred to the property at 280 Round Hill
Road, was not to allow over-development of the property out of character of the area.
Being no further comment, Mayor Gram closed the public hearing.
Al Anolik, applicant, reiterated that he did not submit the Tres Arboles plan, but rather it
was submitted by someone to whom he had sold the property. He does not feel his
proposal is over ambitious. He spoke to the noise impact issue of the pool and proposed
cabana. He noted he already has a pool on his property and it has never been a noise
issue The proposal is not taking any water views and the only neighbors that could see
the cabana are the Grebers. In regard to fencing, he noted no one could see the fencing
from the trail. It is needed for security purposes and it is proposed to be a wrought iron
fence. He does not understand the rationale in not allowing the full FAR transfer to his
property for the .66 acre portion that will be added to 280 Round Hill Road. He stated he
does not intend to sell off or split the property, and it is simply a lot line adjustment.
Vice-Mayor Thompson is surprised that the neighbors are more concerned over the
cabana, when the two homes above will have a larger impact. He feels since the two
upper lots have a reduced FAR, Mr. Anolik should be allowed up toa 1,300 sq.ft. cabana.
He does not like fences and agrees with the Commission's recommendation. He feels
that 50% of the .66 acre portion FAR should be transferred to 280 Round Hill Road.
Councilmember Matthews supports the Commission's recommendation regarding the
FAR for the two upper lots and fencing. He is open to allowing some FAR transfer for
the .66 acre portion.
Council member Hennessy feels that the Town has a zoning ordinance that would allow
up to 8,000 sq.ft. homes on the two proposed lot and the applicant should be allowed
7,500 sqft She feels the applicant should be allowed a 1,000 sq.ft. cabana as he could
have proposed an additional home on a third lot. She agrees with the Planning
Commission on the fencing issue.
Town Council Minutes #1199
September 6, 2000
Page 7
Council member Bach stated he is not concerned over the size of the cabana. He agrees
with the Commission on fencing.
Mayor Gram noted the general plan set the maximum size a home could be on a
particular lot, but it is not a guarantee. He noted these homes will be 7,500 sq. ft. and
would have massive rooflines and agrees the homes should be no larger than 6,000 sq.ft.
He does not have a problem with the cabana being 1,000 sq.ft. He agrees with the
Commission on the fencing. He does not have a problem with the FAR transfer for the
.66 acre portion.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
to adopt the resolution approving the Golden Gate Vista Estates Precise
Development Plan deleting condition 12 and increase the cabana size to
1,000 sq.ft.
Thompson, Seconded by Hennessy
AYES: Unanimous
Mayor Gram called for a break at 10: 10 PM and reconvened the Council at 10:20 PM.
21. 14 PLACE MOULIN - Appeal of Design Review Board Decision approving
Application for Construction ofa new Single-Family Dwelling (Two Star,
Applicant; Michael Rex Associates, Appellant) AP# 58-351-24
Senior Planner Watrous pointed out some corrections to the Staff report. He noted the
first two paragraphs under "Project Description" should be deleted. On page 4, Ground
#3, the second sentence should read "... ..yet notes that the frontage for this lot is much
narrower wider than that adj acent lot. . . "
Watrous noted the concerns regarding the proposed home at 14 Place Moulin centers on
privacy impacts and bulk of the home that would face certain portions of the home at 16
Place Moulin The Design Review Board felt that with additional landscaping the
privacy issue would be mitigated to some extent. Staff concludes that the DRB
appropriately applied the Hillside Design Guidelines to the project. Staff recommends
that Council indicate its intent to deny the appeal and direct Staff to return with a
Resolution that th~t effect.
Terry Irwin, representing the appellant Mr. Taromi of 16 Place Moulin, stated the appeal
is based upon the lack of a fair and proper review, the design not being in harmony with
the neighborhood, and because other options for the design were never explored. He is
concerned with the proposed garage being within 6.5' of the property line. The west side
of the garage is 29.5' long and 22' high, presenting a massive blank wall directly facing
Mr Taromi's front entryway. Mr Taromi's front door will be 12' below the garage
floor level and 20' below its roofline. He feels the proposed home's design was prepared
out of context, where priority was given to the needs of the client at the expense of the
neighbors. He feels a more harmonious design would respect and respond to Mr.
Taromi's entryway by stepping back and pulling the garage away from the southwest
Town Council/l,Iinutes # 1 J 99
September 6, 2000
Page 8
corner of the parcel. He expressed concern that Mr. Taromi's privacy will be
compromised by the proximity and number of windows proposed along the west side of
the proposed home. 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 proposed home is just 4" above the upper level of Mr. Taromi's home, so
occupants of the home will look directly down into Mr. Taromi's living room and master
bedroom. He noted there are seven windows directly facing Mr. Taromi's home. He also
expressed concern with lights shining into Mr. Taromi's home from the proposed home.
Michael Heckman, representing the owner of 14 Place Moulin, stated the design
guidelines want to achieve minimizing the massing from the view of down slope
neighbors. He said no one will even see the house as it is being seen this evening, the
closest neighbors down from the house are off Paradise Drive. He stated he has done
what the DRB requested in regard to landscape screening between the two homes The
DRB also felt having windows between adjacent houses is not considered to be a critical
negative aspect to development. He stated he should be able to have light and air in the
rooms facing 16 Place Moulin. He noted the neighbor at 12 Place Moulin, Mr. Orvis, has
provided a statement supporting the proposal as it exists. Lars Ulrich, 11 Place Moulin,
had some issues with the proposal, but now supports the project as proposed. He stated
he has work extensively with all the neighbors to limit the impacts of this home on the
area.
Mayor Gram opened the public hearing.
Mr Al Dovbish, Paradise Drive, stated he is a friend of Mr. Taromi. He stated one
problem with the plan is a flat lot house being built next to a flat lot home on a hillside
lot. He feels the home should be stepped down He feels Mr. Taromi is not going to
benefit from a home with seven windows with lights facing his home. He requested the
Council to carefully review the windows of the house and landscaping plans to insure the
privacy of the neighbors' homes are protected.
Mr. Cliff Aim, 18 Place Moulin, expressed his concerns over the impacts of the windows
on Mr. Taromi's property and with noise impacts on the surround neighborhood.
Being no further comments, Mayor Gram closed the public hearing.
Mr. Irwin requested the Council consider reducing the number of windows on the
proposed home and soften the critical massing of the home.
In respond to Councilmember Hennessy, Watrous indicated Mr. Taromi's home is set
back 5' from the property line ofthe proposed home. The distance between the two
buildings is II' at the closest corner.
Town Council Minutes #1199
September 6, 2000
Page 9
Councilmember Hennessy stated she would like to see a reduction in the number of
windows facing 16 Place Moulin and perhaps moving the garage to the other side to
reduce the bulk.
Council member Bach stated he felt there was a privacy issue and the number of
windrows should be reduced. He has not problem with moving the garage.
Councilmember Thompson stated the most of the bulk of the proposed home faces Mr.
Taromi's home. He would like to see more of the bulk placed on the other side. He feels
the home is big and bulky and does not think stepping the home down the hillside would
help. He is in favor of granting the appeal and remanding the matter back to the Design
Review Board with some specific recommendations.
Council member Matthews feels the landscaping will eventually help with the privacy
issue, but does feel the number of windows could be reduced.
Mayor Gram suggested getting rid of the lower windows and keeping the higher ones.
He would recommend removing the windows in the proposed garage.
MOTION
Moved:
Vote:
direct Staff to prepare a Resolution partially upholding the appeal but
directing the garage and lower floor windows on the west side of the
house be removed
Hennessy, seconded by Bach
A YES: Hennessy, Bach, Matthews, Gram
NOES: Thompson
5. DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES - Service Agreement with James
McLane and Associated - (Approve Agreement and Authorize Budget
Amendment)
Planning Director Anderson reported that the Consultants have received the previous
report from Glen David Matthews. He does not want the consultants to reinvent the
wheel.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
authorize a budget amendment of$IO,OOO for the downtown design
guidelines and approve the service agreement with James McLane &
Associates.
Thompson Seconded by Hennessy
AYES: Unanimous
18) 2-98 Ned's Way (Chandler's Gate Senior Housing Project) - Grant of five-foot
Drainage Easement; AP No. 58-151-27 - (Resolution)
Council waived an oral Staff report.
September 6, 2000
Town Council ,Hinutes #1199
Page 10
Mayor Gram stated he wants the Resolution to bind any assigned successors and that the
easement runs with the land.
MOTION
Moved:
Vote:
to approve the Ned's Way grant ofS' easement with revisions
Thompson, seconded by Matthews
AYES: Unanimous
17. FY 2001 FUND TRANSFERS - (Staff Recommendations for General Fund
Reserve Reallocations & Transfers)
Councilmember Matthews questions the transfer of$300,000 to the Employer Assisted
Housing Fund. He feels the program will require significant funding. Manager Kleinert
stated the guidelines need to be developed and no funds will be drawn until so. He
recommends meeting with the Finance and Administration Committee to develop policies
and procedures for use of these funds.
16. SUBCOMMITTEE TO STUDY l\.1ERA (Marin Emergency Radio Authority)
ALTERNATE ANTENNA SITES IN TIBURON
Council agreed to have Mayor Gram and Councilmember Thompson serve on the
subcommittee
IS.b. TOWN MANAGER RETlREl\.1ENT - Approve Retirement Bonus (Resolution)
Council amended the resolution so that Retiring Manager Kleinert receives a $30,000
Bonus in which he will be issued a 1099.
MOTION
Moved
Vote
to approve the resolution as amended
Hennessy, Seconded by Thompson
AYES: Unanimous
J. ADJOURNMENT
Being no further business of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Gram
adjourned the meeting to Wednesday, September 14, 2000 at 6:00 PM in the Town
Council Chambers.
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
Town Council.VJinutes # 1199
September 6. 2000
Page 11
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Town Councli Minutes #1199
September 6, 2000
Page 12
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
r~# 1(6)
DRAFT
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Gram call e regular m.ee' g of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:38 p.m.
on Wednesday, ctober 4,2000, in own Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon,
California.
A. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Bach, Hennessy, Matthews, Thompson
Gram
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO:
Town Manager McIntyre, Town Attorney Danforth,
Planning Director Anderson, Senior Planner
Watrous, Finance Director Stranzl, Superintendent
of Public Works Iacopi, Acting Chief of Police
Aiello, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi
B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION Gr any)
Vice Mayor Thompson said the Council took advisement from the Town Attorney on potential
litigation but no action was taken in closed session.
C.
None.
PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
D.
INTRODUCTION & SWEARING IN OF NEW TOWN EMPLOYEES
. Town Manager - (Alex McIntyre)
. Tiburon Police Department - (Officers Mike Baird & Jarnie Waterman; Community
Service Officer Cece Hernandez)
· Tiburon Public Works Department - (Cameron Balfe)
Vice Mayor Thompson introduced the new Town Manager, Alex McIntyre, who had most
recently been Portola Y alley's Town Administrator.
Lt. Aiello introduced the new Police Officers, Mike Baird and Jamie Waterman, both from
Sonoma County, and their mends and families who were in the audience. The Town Clerk
administered the oath of office to the officers.
Superintendent of Public Works Iacopi introduced the newest landscaper in the Department,
Cameron Balfe of San Anselmo. Lt. Aiello introduced Cece Hernandez, Parking Enforcement
officer, who lives in Santa Rosa. Town Clerk Crane Iacopi administered the oath to these two
employees.
Town CounciUvfinutes #1201
October 4, 2000
Page 1
Vice Mayor Thompson announced a break for coffee and cake to welcome the new Town
employees.
E. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMfITEE REPORTS
None.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To move to Item No.8, New Business.
Hennessy, seconded by Matthews
AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: Gram
I. NEW BUSINESS
8) ST: HILARY'S APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO TOWN
COUNCIL
A) Schedule hearing date
B) Appoint ad hoc fact-finding committee
B) Vice Mayor Thompson said that Councilmember Matthews and Mayor Gram had agreed
to serve as an ad hoc fact-finding committee to gather information and speak to people on both
sides of the issue prior to the Appeal hearing.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To appoint Tom Gram and Harry Matthews to the ad hoc committee.
Hennessy, Seconded by Bach
AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: Gram
Councilmember Matthews said he and Mayor Gram would contact the interested parties.
June Lalwell, Rockhill Drive, asked whom the committee would speak to from "the opposition."
Councilmember Matthews said they would not exclude people but would like to keep the number
to 7 or 8. He said they would either call Ms. Lalwell or Carla Howard, on Hilary Drive.
A) Council chose November 9,2000 at 7:00 p.m. as a hearing date, with November 14 as a
back-up. Council directed Staff to call the School District and seek a location that would
accommodate a larger number of people than the Council Chambers.
F. CONSENT CALENDAR
I) 223 DIVISO STREET - Denial of Appeal of Design Review Board Decision Denying
Application for Legalization of an as-built Fence on and near Property - AP No. 059-131-
07 - (Malcolm Misuraca and Victoria Brieant, Applicants/Appellants) - (Adopt
Resolution)
2) RICHARDSON BAY REGIONAL AGENCY JT: POWERS AGREEMENT - Authorize
Execution of Revised Agreement)
Town Council Minutes #1201
October 4, 2000
Page 2
3) BELVERON WATERSHED - DRAINAGE IMPACT FEE ADJUSTMENT - (Adopt
Resolution)
4) TOWN CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE - (Biennial Notice) - (Adopt)
Councilmember Hennessy asked for Item No.9, Special Event Permits, to be moved to Consent.
Council concurred.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 4, and NO.9.
Hennessy, Seconded by Bach
AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: Gram
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5) GREENWOOD BEACH ROAD DRAINAGE PROJECT - (Oral Report by Town Attorney)
Town Attorney Danforth said she was pleased to announce that the Greenwood Beach
Homeowners had deposited $45,000 with the Town, which would be added to the $55,000 in
Town funds and $10,000 from the Flood Control District for the project.
Danforth also said that the homeowners had committed to funding the landscaping portion of the
project, which would be accomplished through a change order to the contract. This would close
the $28,000 gap left in the contract award amount.
Bruce Abbott, 458 Greenwood Beach Road, thanked the Town Councils, past and present, and
Town Staff for their efforts in accomplishing this result. He especially thanked former Town
Manager Kleinert for his "stalwart efforts," and said that Kleinert was "a master of accomplishing
the impossible."
Vice Mayor Thompson also thanked Mr. Abbott and the Greenwood Beach homeowners for
seeing the project through to this point.
6) ZELINKSY PARK LANDSCAPE PLAN - (Status Report)
Planning Director Anderson reported that the sidewalks and grading had been completed for the
park. He reviewed landscape plans prepared by Ralph Alexander, which showed trees, ground
cover, an arbor and semi-circle lawn area. The plan also called for four benches and two picnic
tables, although Anderson said the suggestion had been made to move them to a different
location, away from the Southern Marin Sewer Agency's easement.
Planning Director Anderson also said that the landscape architect's estimate of $83,000 seemed
high, and noted that the Superintendent of Public Works thought the most of the work could be
done in-house for half the cost.
Finally, Anderson said that the plans called for removal of invasive exotics at the perimeter of the
Town Council}Jinutes #1201
October 4, 2000
Poge 3
park, and that an appropriate plaque or marker would be added to honor the Zelinksy family. He
recommended that Council give strong consideration to the Department of Public Works'
proposal, and the suggestion to relocate the arbors.
Councilmember Hennessy asked if the Flood Plain funds could be used to remove the invasives.
Anderson said that portion of the project would not be a "big ticket item."
Former Town Manager Kleinert said he had met with Councilmember Bach and others to review
the plans. He said Bach had recommended splitting up the work into sub-projects, and had
offered to work with the Department of Public Works to accomplish this.
Deirdre McCrohan, The Ark newspaper reporter, commented that the current plan looked like a
previous plan, which had been turned down.
Planning Director Anderson said the current landscape plan was based on a park plan approved in
April by the Town Council, the only difference being the current plan was a working drawing with
specifications.
Vice Mayor Thompson asked Ms. McCrohan if she thought people would think another plan had
been approved. She replied that The Ark had published an article showing a sundial in the middle
of a semi-circle.
Planning Director Anderson clarified that she was thinking of yet an older plan that had been
submitted by the Carducci landscape architect firm.
Councilmember Bach concurred that this was the first time Council had working drawings before
them with details, for approval. He also said that he, the Town Manager and the Superintendent
of Public Works had each met with the Library Director on this issue of the current plans.
Former Town Manager Kleinert said Staff would still need to work on the best way to secure
water for the park and a cost analysis. He said the Library Agency preferred not to share its
meter and the Town agreed that it would be better to have a separate source, or meter.
MOTION:
To accept Staff's recommended modifications to the Zelinksy Park landscape plan
and to move ahead with the project.
Hennessy, Seconded by Bach
AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: Gram
Moved:
Vote:
H. PUBLIC HEARING
7) 684 HILARY DRIVE - Appeal of Design Review Board approval for construction of
additions to an existing single-family dwelling, granting Variance for reduced sideyard setback
- AP No. 55-182-14 - Carol Weiss, Applicant; Irmgard Brunner, P.O Box 230, Tiburon,
Appellant
Town Council Afinutes #1201
October 4, 2000
Page 4
Senior Planner Watrous gave the Staff report, noting that the Design Review Board granted
approval for construction of an addition to the existing single-family dwelling at 684 Hilary Drive,
with a variance for reduced side yard setback.
The construction would include demolition of an existing carport at the front of the house, which
would be replaced with a new, one-car garage and utility room. A new entry would also be
constructed leading to the family room, with a covered entry portico to the side of the proposed
garage. Also included in the approval were new skylights above the existing living room and new
portico. The proposed garage would extend to within five feet of the side property line, thereby
requiring a variance for a reduced side yard setback.
Irmgard Brunner, owner of nearby 681 Hilary Drive, raised concerns about potential view
blockage from the proposed addition at the August 17 DRB meeting. She presented historical
photographs showing a view of Richardson Bay from her house across from the subject property,
which she felt would be impeded if the structure were no higher than the story poles erected from
the project.
Mr. Watrous said the Board members reviewed the photographs and indicated their support for
the proposed project, as the ridgeline for the addition would not exceed the ridge height of the
existing house.
Vice Mayor Thompson asked Mr. Watrous whether the Building Department required the black
ventilation pipes on the roof of 684 Hilary Drive and whether they could be removed. Mr.
Watrous replied that unless the [building] permits were issued in error, the Town had no authority
to cause their removal, but would be happy to cooperate with the owner if they wanted to change
them.
Thompson also observed that the story poles in question were about a foot lower than the garage
on the adjacent lot in his estimation.
Vice Mayor Thompson opened the public hearing.
Irmgard Brunner, Appellant, thanked Councilmember Matthews and Vice Mayor Thompson for
coming to the site and speaking with her.
Mrs. Brunner distributed more photographs, which she said demonstrated that the proposed
roofline was not accurately reflected by the story poles. She said her nicest view facing Sausalito
would be impacted and that although she would leave the decision up to the Council, she wanted
to be treated fairly. Mrs. Brunner also said she was out of town when the notices for the Design
Review Board hearing were mailed out, so she had little time to prepare for that hearing.
Vice Mayor Thompson asked Mrs. Brunner if she was requesting a specific design change to the
project. She responded by asking if there was any construction that could be done without
blocking that portion of the roofline, and stated that the Design Review Board should have moved
Town Councill'vlinutes #1201
October 4, 2000
Page 5
[the roofline] one way or the other.
Carol Weiss, Applicant, said the design followed the same roofline of the existing house and was
very simple and insignificant. Ms. Weiss said she had been talking back and forth with her
neighbors, including Mrs. Brunner, for "months and months" before undertaking the project. She
also said she had hired an architect for the project who had worked on the house across the street
and next door.
In response to a question from Vice Mayor Thompson, Ms. Weiss acknowledged that the
storypole was in fact a foot lower than the height of the garage on the adjacent property.
Mrs. Brunner said she had never been informed of the project.
Vice Mayor Thompson closed the public hearing.
Council member Matthews said it would be helpful to have ribbons strung between story poles for
a more accurate picture, especially in close neighborhoods. However, he said he felt the Design
Review Board acted in good faith and he would support their decision.
Matthews acknowledged a loss of view to Mrs. Brunner, but noted that it was not from a primary
living area (the den).
Councilmember Hennessy concurred. She said she while she was sympathetic, and noted that
views were an important concern in Tiburon, the view loss was minimal.
Councilmember Bach concurred, stated that he had also visited the site and stood on Mrs.
Brunner's patio to look at the view.
Vice Mayor Thompson said the Hilary and Hawthorne Terrace neighborhoods had particular
concerns due to the shallow terracing which caused each inch of [increased] height to make a
difference. But in this instance, Thompson said, the roofline was not being raised but expanded,
and that the addition to the house would be an attractive addition to the neighborhood.
He reiterated Councilmember Matthews' concerns that story poles should be accurate, erected
early in the project, and have tape strung between them. Thompson also said that early
communication between neighbors was important, as well.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To deny the Appeal and direct Staff to return with a resolution of findings.
Bach, seconded by Matthews
AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: Gram
III
Town Council Minutes #1201
October 4, 2000
Page 6
J. COMMUNICATIONS
9) SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS -
A) October 7 - (Open Water Swim from Angel Island to Sam's Anchor Cafe &
Shoreline Park Awards Ceremony)
B) October 21 - ("For Paws" Pet Parade on Upper Main Street)
Adopted on Consent.
K. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
Vice Mayor Thompson said he had spoken to the family of Sol Martin, who had agreed that his
bequest could be used for improvements to the Pine Terrace path to McKegney Green.
Council asked that the matter be agendized, including what paperwork needed to be done to
indemnifY the Pine Terrace property owners, and to make the path ADA accessible. Council also
asked what could be done to close the gap and perhaps raise the fence in the CAL/TRANS right
of way. Councilmember Bach said he thought it was important for RUSD to raise the Del Mar
School fence, as well, to keep children from crossing Tiburon Boulevard illegally.
Councilmember Bach asked if the new path had to be ADA compliant. Outgoing Town Manager
Kleinert said the existing path would remain an ADA accessible route. Superintendent of Public
Works Iacopi said he thought any modifications to a public walkway had to be made ADA
accessible. Town Attorney Danforth said she would research the issue.
Vice Mayor Thompson said the real issue was whether a [new] path was needed at all, or whether
to cut the existing fence that would let the children onto the path at an earlier junction.
On another subject, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi asked for suggestions for topics for the Town
Newsletter. Council mentioned Disaster Preparedness, Night Ferry Service to San Francisco, and
when permits were needed for construction.
L. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon, Mayor Gram
adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m., sine die.
ANDREW THOMPSON, VICE MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Town Council Minutes # 120 1
October 4, 2000
Page 7
;; ..; ""
TOWN OF TIBURON
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
REpORT
i
.. of' T/0v ~
~~'\>
!l~,,' /", 0 "I~
_i~, /0,', .~
<; '. - ~: ;- - ...."
"/",- ~ . , t\G ::!
~ OIi'~IA \
,
.
I~#:2
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
The Members of the Tiburon Town Council
Acting Chief Tom Aiello, Chairman, Traffic Safety Committee
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING - September 26, 2000
October 10, 2000
On September 26, 2000, a meeting of the Traffic Safety Committee was held. Below is a summary
of the meeting and the Traffic Safety Committee's recommendations.
In attendance were the following:
. Acting Chief of Police Tom Aiello, Chairman
. Irv Schwartz, Town Engineer
. Scott Anderson, Planning Director
. Tony Iacopi, Superintendent of Public Works
Item #1- The residents of Mar West request the Traffic Safety Committee consider a "three-
way stop sign" at Mar West and Las Lomas and a "No left turn" from Mar West to Paradise
Drive and a "No right Turn" from Paradise Drive to Mar West. This action is requested to
slow down the speeding problem and the volume oftraffic on Mar West, for the safety ofthe
children and the people who live in the vicinity.
The Traffic Safety Committee recommendations are:
. Prohibit turns to and from Paradise Drive onto Mar West, with exceptions for emergency
vehicles, Public Works and Sanitary District vehicles, as detailed and directed by the Town
Engineer.
. Install a crosswalk at the intersection of Mar West and Las Lomas.
. Direct a letter to the Point Tiburon Homeowners Association to cut the brush at the top of the
stairs.
. The Town Engineer will survey Mar West between Paradise Drive and Esperanza for the
addition of "slow" signs or IS mph advisory signs.
The Traffic Safety Committee feels a "Stop" sign at Las Lomas & Mar West is not the solution.
This recommendation will be on a 90 day trial period at that point we can re-visit.
Item #2 - Request designated drop-off and pick-up locations for the children at Bel Aire
School. The school has a stacking and staging problem that needs to be resolved.
The Safety committee recommends that the curb be painted red on the right and left hand side of the
driveway, so the buses can clear the driveway.
We request that a crosswalk be painted across the bottom of the driveway, and use the driveway as
the designed drop-off, and pick-up zone at certain hours. A newsletter should be send to the parents
advising that the drop-off and pick-up will be at the base of the driveway.
The Committee also recommends that the school come up with some ideas and a plan with alternate
ways of dropping off the children, one using Claire Way and one using Leland Way, and allowing
for drop offs and pick ups directly below the school driveway and partially in front of275 Karen,
since it appears they have 20 feet of clearance to use.
The Traffic Safety Committee also recommends that the school district hire a traffic consultant to
make recommendation to the school district and the Town as to what could be done to solve this
problem.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
I. Joint meeting with the "Bicycle Committee" regarding the bicycle speeding problems on the
Path. Prior to our meeting we will contact other cities to see how they handle the situations.
2
[OWN OF TIBURON
fRAFFle SAFETY COMMITTEE
REPORT
0:
I~-#:2
,
. 0'" Tle(,~
"~~~'\>(O,
_II~~~~,,~
" .
0'9' c,'"
</Jt- . ~v "'~..
~ ORNIA. \
,
.
The Members of the Tiburon Town Council
Acting Chief Torn Aiello, chairman, Traffic Safety committee
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING - September 26, 2000
October 10,2000
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
On _ml<<26, 2000,' m_ of"" T_ S_ eo"""i'" wm ",!d, ""ow" ,,-
of the meeting and the Traffic Safety Committee'S recommendations.
In attendance were the following:
. Acting Chief of police Tom Aiello, chairman
. Irv Schwartz, Town Engineer
. Scott Anderson, planning Director
. Tony Iacopi, Superintendent of Public Works
u"" .. . Tb. ",!d.'~ of"" W~I .....~I lb' T""'" S...., c.mm'''' w..!d" · "Ib"'~
w., .I.p .11l"" .1 "" W~I ... Lm Lom" .... "N. \dt tunt" fwm "" W~I I. .......
Dm' ..,. "N. rig'd T.nt" f"m P...... Dm' to "" W~l. Tb. "".. .. ,.....1.. to
.... dow' lb' .......g p"b''''' .wl lb. "..m. of ",... on "" W.,t, fn< lb. ..f.., .f lb'
children and the people who live in the vicinity.
The Traffic Safety Committee recommendations are:
. probib" _ 10'" {rom p"",... Dn" .nto "" W~I, with ",,,",im~ fu, .........',
"bi'''', p.bti' Wm"'" """"" m.n" "bioi.., m _I..... directol by "" Town
Engineer.
. Install a crosswalk at the intersection of Mar West and Las Lornas.
. DU<,I , I.t<<< ro lb' Point Tib""" H"''''wn~' """"i.tion to "rt the mush" "" top .f tb<
stairs.
. Tb< Town Engi"" will''''''' "" W'"' "'.-. p"",... Dn,,'" E_ fu, tb<
addition of "sloW" signs or 15 mph advisory signs.
Tb< Troffi' ""olY conuni'" fool., "smp" .igo ~ ..... Lo_ & MOl W..I i. ... lb' wI"''''
'fbi. =o.....,doti" will '" '" '" da, trio! ",nod .. .". point we ... ".",.it.
Item #2 - Request designated drop-off and pick-up locations for the children at Bel Aire
School; The school has a stacking and staging problem that needs to be resolved.
The Safety committee recommends that the curb be painted red on the right and left hand side of the
driveway, so the buses can clear the driveway.
We request that a crosswalk be painted across the bottom of the driveway, and use the driveway as
the designed drop-off, and pick-up zone at certain hours. A newsletter should be send to the parents
advising that the drop-off and pick-up will be at the base of the driveway.
The Committee also recommends that the school come up with some ideas and a plan with alternate
ways of dropping off the children, one using Claire Way and one using Leland Way, and allowing
for drop offs and pick ups directly below the school driveway and partially in front of275 Karen,
since it appears they have 20 feet of clearance to use.
The Traffic Safety Committee also recommends that the school district hire a traffic consultant to
make recommendation to the school district and the Town as to what could be done to solve this
problem.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
I. Joint meeting with the "Bicycle Committee" regarding the bicycle speeding problems on the
Path. Prior to our meeting we will contact other cities to see how they handle the situations.
2
--'
. ..,,_.. ~.~:::~"E.:::~~~::,~.~..~:._~.~o~ ~ 2~ ~ ~ ~ 1}", ~
DAVID u. HANCOCK I...ItCAFlIE S. WH~'-Ji. A'JTORNEY'S7Ar2PR-.\iUGHWAY I I I. SUITE 200
HJ>.VLEY E. PETERSON KAREN M. f"RU:tWtVI'f 1"\ I'IrciAJr~S. CALIFORNIA Q22 I 0
~~:;': ~- ;.!~.:ci~~~D ;'~~~~y ~'~:~~~oA~QWN OF TIBURON'oST 0,.F1CE: sox 13e!50
.JAMES P. MORRIS USI MESHREKY I"AL.M DESERT. CAL.Il'"ORNIA Q22!5!5
KEVIN T COLLINS CRAIl) M MARSHA!.!.. TELEPHONE 17eOl !5aS-2l5 I I
CARYN I.. CRAIQ ..EFf"REV S. BALLINGER TELECOPIE:R 17eOJ 340.eeliJa
DAVID W. NEWMAN M. "TliERESA TOLEN"NO
.JENNI,.ER T. BUCKMAN THERESA E. ,A.Nl'ONUCCt WWWBE!lKl.AW.COM
MARIA E. GLES$ MELISSA W. WOO
GLEN w. PI'tICE E. SEAN ARTHER
MARYMICHAEL- Mcl.EOO 'TW...".O T. ~AN
,JA.ME:S Fl. TOUCHSTONE CARMEN MARTlNE:Z 1)1; O$ASA
STEVEN MANDERSON 11'lACIE PHAM
ROBERT L. PA1'T1:RSO,," ..JASON C. GLESS
BRYAN K. BENARD
PAUL.A C.P.DIl: SOUSA
L.YSA M. SAL.TZMAN
MARCO A. MA"TlNEZ
..JOHN" WAL.SH
CANIl!:L. G. STEVENSON
..JE"I'RY 1'. I'ERRE
DORINE l.AWRENCE-HUGHES
....L.ISOH D. ALPERT
KRISH....N S. CHOPRA
..JAY..J. LEE
..JAMES C. T1JRNEY
MICHAEL C. COL1CA
....RTl-IU~ L. L.ITTLEWORTl-I.
WILLIAM R. CIl:WOLFE"
RICH....RO T. ANDERSON"
JOHN O. W....HL.IN.
JOHN E. BROWN
MICH....EL T. F1IDDELL*
MICH....EL O"....NT.
.RANCIS..J. B....UM.
GCORGE M. REYES.
WILLIAM W .LOYO, Jt:l
GRl!:GORY L. .......ROKE
KENDALL H. MACVEY
C1.ARK H. ALSOP
OAV'O J. ERWIN.
MICHAEL..J. ....HOIELSON.
DOUGL....S S. PHILl-IPS.
GRIEGORY 1(. WILI(II'<lSON
GENE: TANAt(A
VICTOR l-. WOL.P'
OAI'<IIEL E. Ot.IVIER
HOWARD S. GOI..OS
STEPHEN P OIEITSCH
..JOHN R ROTlSCHAEI'ER
M....RTlN.... MUEI..LIEFI
..J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR
SCOTT C SMITl-I
..JACK B CLARt(E. ..JR
BRI....N M. LIEWIS"
BRAOI..EY E. NEUP'ELO
F>ETER M BAR MACK
..JEF'F'REY V. OUNN
STEVEN C. O..S....UN
ERIC L.. GARNER.
DENNIS M. COT....
F>.H.W.l'". F>EARCE
F10SEFlTW. "'ARGREAVES
C MICHAEL COWETT
BFlUCE W. SEACH
....RI..ENE F>R....TER
MARK ..... EASTER
MICHELLE OUELLETTE
KEVIN K. R....NOOLF>H
CYNTl-IIA M. GERMANO
M....RGUERlTE S. STRANO
KY\.l!:.... SNOW
..JAMIES S G1L.PIN
KIM..... BYRENS
D!:AN DERLETH
SONI.... RUSIO CARVALHO
..JOHN O. PINKNEY
F>IERO C. O....LLARDA
DWIOHT M. MONTGOMERY
WILLI....M O. OAHL.INO, ..JR
Bl!:RNlE L. WILLIAMSON
O. HENRY Wl!:I..l-ES
RICHARD T. EGGER
OF' COUNSEL
CHRISTOPHER 1... CARPENTER.
MICHAEL D. HARRIS'
ANNE T. Tl-IOM....S.
DONAL.D" ZIMMER"
F'RANt(L.IN C. ADAMS
WILLIAM WOOD MERRILL.
D. BRI....N REID!:R
KIRK W. SMITl-I
DINA O. H....RRIS
OF'I'ICES IN
RIVERSIDE UlOa) ses- I 4S0
ONTA"'O (aOal aBa-ese4
SAN on:oo Ie I a) 52S-1 300
RAYMOND BEST r 1 ee8- I 85 7J
..JAMES N. KRIl!:OER C I Q I 3'1 Q715)
EUGENE: BEST r 1 883-1 88' I
'A PFlOf"ESSIONAl CORPORAnON
FileNo,
October 6, 2000
TO:
ALL CALIFORNIA CITY ATTORNEYS
AMICUS SUPPORT FOR PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT IN ALAMEDA BOOKS. INC. vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES.
2000 DAILY JOURNAL DAR 9569 (NINTH CIRCUIT. AUGUST 28.2000)
RE:
ISSUE,
THE SPECIFICITY WITH WHICH STUDIES MUST DEMONSTRATE
ADVERSE SECONDARY EFFECTS IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY PARTICULAR
REGULATIONS OF ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES.
Dear Colleague:
On behalf of the City of Los Angeles, our office joins with the Legal Advocacy
Committee of the League of California Cities in urging you to add your city as amicus in this
important case titled Alameda Books. Inc.. v City of Los Angeles involving the regulation of adult
businesses. Sixty five California cities previously joined in an Amicus Briefin support of the City of
Los Angeles in this matter before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Unfortunately, the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the trial court decision adverse to the City of Los Angeles, jeopardizing adult
business regulation statewide.
By action on August 4,2000, the Legal Advocacy Committee recommended that cities
join the amicus brief in support of the City of Los Angeles's Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme
Court, and, if granted, an amicus brief in support of Los Angeles on the merits. The brief is being
prepared by Robert Hargreaves, Marco Martinez, and Kevin Collins of Best Best & Krieger.
R.\APUB\RWH\I72657
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
All California City Attorneys
October 6, 2000
Page 2
1. Summary of Facts and Proceedings in the Trial Court.
Plaintiffs are the owners and operators of combined adult bookstores and adult video
arcades in one building, Los Angeles Municipal Code section 12,70, the City's adult entertainment
ordinance, provides that adult businesses must be separated from each other by 1000 feet and that
two adult businesses cannot be combined in the same building. These plaintiffs expanded their adult
bookstores to include adult video arcades after the adult entertainment ordinance restrictions were
in effect. When the City sought to enforce the provisions of its ordinance, plaintiffs filed suit in
federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to have the provision prohibiting two businesses
in one building declared unconstitutional and its enforcement enjoined. The trial court granted
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and held that the provision prohibiting an adult bookstore
and adult video arcade in one building violates the First Amendment.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding that the multi-use restriction was inadequately
supported by evidence of adverse impacts, The Court found that the City had presented no evidence,
in the legislative record, that a combination adult bookstore/arcade produces any harmful secondary
effects, (The study on which Los Angeles relied indicated that one forth of the adult businesses in
the area of the city that experienced the greatest crime increase where adult bookstore/arcades.)
2. Alameda Books Has Statewide Significance for All
Local Governments.
To require, as the Alameda Books decision does, that a city present in its legislative
record particularized evidence that a particular combination or manifestation of adult businesses
actually produces the secondary effects that the City seeks to ameliorate would impose a very difficult
evidentiary burden on local governments,
The ever-lengthening list of variations of adult-businesses attest to the breadth and
variability of this industry. New variations constantly appear in attempts to expand markets and
circumvent existing regulations. The complexity of the ordinances regulating these uses has grown
in an attempt to keep pace with the ever-changing adult businesses and evolving judicial standards.
Current adult-business ordinances often measure in excess of 20 pages and contain dozens of
regulatory provisions.
Alameda Books can be interpreted to require that each aspect, and every permutation,
of these regulations be backed by specific evidence that demonstrates that the conduct regulated
actually produces harmful secondary effects. Despite numerous studies by local governments of the
harmful secondary effects of these types of businesses, no study currently documents the harmful
secondary effects of each type of business or behavior that adult business -regulations are designed
to address. To provide the level of proof apparently required by Alameda Books would create an
extreme hardship on local cities, Morever, if Alameda Books is upheld, many aspects of our current
adult business regulations will be subject to challenge,
R..\.fPl:B\R Wlfl726S7
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
All California City Attorneys
October 6, 2000
Page 3
3, Basis for the Amicus Brief.
Amicus will contend on appeal that this ruling creates an unworkable standard for
local governments to meet in regulating adult businesses. Neither Youngv. AmericanMini Theatres
427 US 50 (1976) nor City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. 475 US. 41 (1986) require that
each permutation and combination of adult business configurations be studied in order to conclude
that there are adverse secondary effects that justifY and require regulation:
"The First Amendment does not require a city, before enacting such
an ordinance, to conduct new studies or produce evidence
independent of that already generated by other cities, so long as
whatever evidence the city relies upon is reasonably believed to be
relevant to the problem that the city addresses," (Renton 475 US, 41,
51-52,)
Amicus will contend that the Renton standard was inappropriately applied in this case, and that cities
may rely on reasonable inferences from existing studies to justifY their regulatory schemes,
4. Briefing Schedule,
We anticipate that the amicus brief will be due on approximately November 15, 2000.
We would appreciate your support in this important effort on behalf of California
cities' efforts to regulate adult-oriented businesses. Please complete and return the attached form by
November I, 2000, Your city will not be charged in anyway should it choose to support this effort.
Many thanks for your support and please feel free to telephone me directly at (760)
568-2611 should you have any questions on this case.
RWHlkc
enclosures
cc Joanne Speers, General Counsel,
League of California Cities
Michael K1ekner, City Attorneys' Office
City of Los Angeles
R.\1PG"BIR\HfI172657
Ik~ fr~ (IS)
MICHAEL M. POLLAK
SCOTT J. VIDA
GIRARD FISHER
J. SUSAN GRAHAM
DANIEL P. BARER'
LAWRENCE J. SHER
DAVID A. HAD LEN
JUOY L. McKELVEY
DANIEL S. HOUSER
POLLAK, VIDA & FISHER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1801 CENTURY PARK EAST
26TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067.2343
TELEPHONE
(310) 551-3400
FAX
(310) 551-1036
E-MAIL
lawCpvandf,com
INTERNET
www.pvandf.com
. CE"-TIFIEDSPECI"'L'ST, APPELLATE LAW
STATE 8AR OF CALIFORNIA
80"ROOFLEGALSPEC,.o.LIZ"TION
October 13, 2000
OF COUNSEL:
GERARD A. LAFOND, JR.
MICHAEL R. NEBENZAHL
fij)~@~~w~rm
mJ OCT t 6 2000 [lI)
TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
Ann R. Danforth
TOWll AtLorney
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: REOUEST FOR PARTICIPATION IN AMICUS BRIEF
Cornette v. Department of Transportation
Supreme Court No. S089010
[Please respond by November 10, 2000]
Dear Ms. Danforth:
I urge your City to join in the Cornette amicus brief. This California Supreme Court
case will decide whether loss of design immunity due to changed conditions is a court or jury
question.
The League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties have
approved amicus support. They have authorized our firm to write the brief.
The League does not submit amicus briefs in its own name. Instead, it encollrages
individual cities to lend their names. Therefore, we request all California cities to join as amici.
The Case
The Cornettes had an auto accident on a state highway, in which they crossed over a dirt
median into opposing traffic. They sued Caltrans. They alleged that the highway was in a
dangerous condition because it lacked a median barrier. The trial court bifurcated the trial, and
tried Caltrans' design immunity defense (Government Code section 830.6) first, without a jury.
During the design immunity phase, the parties produced conflicting evidence (factual and expert)
about whether Caltrans had lost the design immunity through changed conditions. The trial court
ruled that it -- not a jury -- should resolve all factual and legal issues, and found for Caltrans on
design immunity. But the appellate court reversed. It decided that when facts are disputed, all
the elements of design immunity -- except whether substantial evidence supports the
October 13,2000
Page 2
reasonableness of the design -- are jury questions. The Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court will hand down an important decision on governmental tort liability.
Current case law states that all elements of design immunity should be decided by the court.
This allows public entities to end dangerous-design cases at summary judgment, or in the
immunity phase of a bifurcated trial, before the case goes to the jury. This decision could require
nearly all design immunity cases to go to the jury. The League seeks to ensure that that does not
happen.
bsues
Government Code section 830.6's design immunity exonerates public entities from
liability for reasonably-approved plans or designs for public property. Whether the public
entity's approval of the plan or design was reasonable is determined by the court under the
"substantial evidence" test: if the entity produces substantial evidence (such as an expert's
opinion) that the design could reasonably be approved, reasonable approval is established -- even
if the plaintiff presents evidence that the plan is unreasonable. The immunity can be lost if
physical conditions that changed since the plan or design was approved render it dangerous.
Until Cornette, courts held whether the plan or design remained reasonable, despite changed
conditions, was also decided by the court under the substantial evidence standard.
The Cornette case poses a single core issue: Do all issues concerning design immunity --
including whether changed conditions eliminating immunity -- present legal questions for the
court to resolve on the "substantial evidence" standard, regardless of conflicting facts? Or are all
design immunity issues (except whether the initial design was reasonable) questions for the jury?
We will argue that the substantial evidence standard should apply not only to the
reasonableness of the original approval, but also whether the construction still conforms to a
reasonable plan or design despite changed conditions.
Design immunity is a powerful tool for ending dangerous condition cases before they can
go to the jury; and for preventing juries from second-guessing discretionary design decisions.
The Supreme Court's decision in this case could disable that tool.
You can find the appellate decision at 80 Cal.App.4th 1239; 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 733; or 2000
Cal.App. LEXIS 563.
Reauest
It's important to get the cities on board. Their stance really does influence the court. In a
case we recently argued before the California Supreme Court, Chief Justice George turned to the
League's amicus counsel and asked pointedly, "Where do the cities stand?" We'd like to make
a strong statement about that in this case.
October 13,2000
Page 3
If your City is willing to participate, please complete and return the enclosed
authorization to my office.
The form should be mailed to the undersigned by November 10, 2000.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
POLLAK, VIDA & FISHER
{)vwl P~f:Y
DANIEL P. BARER
GF:pb
Enclosure
cc: Joanne Speers
League of California Cities
G:\ WPOOCS\A TTYS\GF\amicus briefs\Comette\Comettemrg-IOI300.wpd
RESOLUTION NO.
T~Ifh'io
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
COMMENDING EDGAR BRUCE ROSS
UPON IDS SELECTION BY THE
TIBURON PENINSULA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AS CITIZEN OF THE YEAR 2000
WHEREAS, Edgar Bruce ("Bruce") Ross and his wife Sylvia moved to Tiburon in 1965,
and have been involved in community affairs since that time;
WHEREAS, Bruce Ross has not only made many friends in the Tiburon community, but
he has had the pleasure of raising a family of two daughters, Piper and Camerin, and one son
David, who also live nearby with their families and have been active in community affairs;
WHEREAS, in addition to his successful ventures and awards in the field of architecture,
Bruce Ross has brought his skill and expertise to bear in service to the Town in the following
ways:
· Tiburon Planning Commissioner, Council member and Mayor (1978)
· Tiburon Peninsula Foundation member since 1980
· Participation in the establishment ofMcKegney Green, the Multi-Use Path and
Waterfront park
· Construction of the Hilarita Housing Development
· The purchase of the Ned's Way property for a temporary Town Hall and Police
Station
· Conceptual planning and design of the new downtown Town Hall, Police Station, and
Senior Housing project at Ned's Way ("Chandler's Gate"); and
WHEREAS, Bruce continues to lend his talent, time and expertise to the completion of
Zelinsky Park, as an appropriate tribute to the Zelinksy family for donating the land upon which
the new Town Hall and Library are located;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon is pleased to adopt this resolution commending BRUCE ROSS upon his selection by the
Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of Commerce as Citizen of the Year 2000, and to thank him for his
many years of dedicated service to the Town.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council on
November 1, 2000, by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS.
COUNCILMEMBERS
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
TOWN OF TffiURON
ATTEST
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
L~ # S-
ANNUAL REPORT
HERITAGE AND ARTS COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER, 1999 - SEPTEMBER, 2000
To: Tiburon Town Council
From: Donna Kline, Chair Heritage and Arts Conunission
In accordance with Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 3329, Section F, the following
is a report of the Heritage and Arts Commission's various projects and activities from
September, 1999 through September, 2000.
MaranslTeather commemorative plaque for Lyford Tower
Creation of Plaque
Dedication Ceremony
Reception at Donahue Depot. Building
A full bronze historical plaque for Lyford tower to match dedication plaque has
been accomplished through pooling of funds from Tiburon Town, H & A
Commission, as well as the Marans, Davis, and Teather families.
Lobby DesW1
Staffliaison, Joan Palmero, composed a Requestfor Proposal which was sent out
to Designers holding business licenses in Tiburon. Also revamped RFP to extended
off~ to designers outside Tiburon.
Selected professional Designer, Nancy Sprague, who has assisted the Commission
with the Lobby Design.
Recommenjied that the Town Manager hire an Acoustical Engineer as a
consultant. .
Worked with Jim Wilson, Chair of Building Advisory Committee, regarding
Acoustical problem. Charles M. Salter, Consultant in Acoustics Design was
hired to review and develop an effective acoustical treatment for Town Hall.
Bids were submitted week of September 18th to four Acoustic Contractors.
After meeting with the H and A Commission, Town Staff, and consulting with
Chair, Donna Kline, Designer, Nancy Sprague, has submitted four different floor
plans for the Lobby Design. One plan will be decided at September 26th meeting.
Chair, Kline will submit the winning plan and approximate cost to the Town
Council for acceptance.
Once the Acoustical contractors have been hired and work completed,
furnishings and area carpet will be brought to the Lobby. Projected completion by
November-December, 2000.
Art Shows
Rotating art shows displayed throughout the Town Hall. Each show with a Meet-
the-Artist(s) Reception. In most cases, hosted by H and A members. The
Commission earns 25% from each work sold. These accrued funds go to the H
and A fund for various projects.
1999
Annie BiIder- Tiburon Acrylics
Downtown San Rafael Art Center Artists-Mixed Media
Belvedere- Tiburon Newcomers CIub--Mixed Media
Landmarks Society Art Guild--Mixed Media
2000
Warren Ca1lister-Architectural Photographs
Ken Rosenthal-Photographs of AIDcan Animals and Tiburon Shorebirds
Penny V orster-Designed and woven wall hangings
Marin Watercolor Society-Watercolor
Suzanne Simpson-Geometric Watercolors and Intricate Paper Collages
Pt:ofessor James Liu-Chinese Watercolor and brush painting
Baywood Artists-Mixed Media of Marin Landscapes
Annual Heritalle Preservation Award
Reception and presentation of 5th Annual Heritage Preservation Award
Larry Smith-Reception, 2000
Landmarks Society, Reception, 1999
Angel Island Assn., Reception, 1998
Dr. David Steinhardt, Reception, 1997
Mr. Ed Zelinsky, Reception, 1996
Downtown Historical Inventory
Completed historic inventory searching for details not discovered by the paid
consultants on all building on lower Main Street and Ark Row.
Lyford House as a Town Landmark
Recommended the official designation of Lyford House and supported Richardson
Bay Audubon's plan to nominate Lyford House for placement on the National
Register of Historic Places.
Landmark Society
Negotiated an agreement whereby the Belvedere- Tiburon Landmarks Society will
provide two or three historic displays for the Town Hall Lobby wall each year.
Negotiated with LMS to move the old Reed Ranch Calving Shed (which was
scheduled for demolition) onto the Newman Property.
Memorial Book
Began work on the Memorial Book which will be incorporated into the lobby
design It will contain photos and biographies of Tiburon citizens being honored
for their contributions to the community.
Council Chamber Photograph
Designed and framed a permanent display for the Council Chambers of the current
mayor and council photos which allows for easy changing of the mayor's photo as
each new person takes office. Frame coordinated to balance and match the wood
on the Nash memorial clock.
Bench
Created and carried out idea of presenting a bench to retiring Town Manager, Bob
Kleinert, on behalf of the H and A Commission.
Possible Future Proiects for Heritage and Arts Commission
hnplementing the Public Arts Program in the Schools.
A Marquee in front of Town Hall to match the Library Marquee
A fountain to replace tree on the circular plaza at Main Street and Tiburon Blvd.
Ije+-<- # {p
.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
DENYING AN APPEAL BY MARK AND ANNETTE LOUPE
OF THE APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCmTECTURAL REVIEW
FOR A NEW RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT
19 CIBRIMl DRIVE
WHEREAS, on September 7, 2000, the Design Review Board held a public hearing to
oo~id~ ." ."'0,," 0" '", PI~ "" ^",,,,,,,,,,w ",,"w ",,,,,\i00'" ooO,"""ioo 0"
new single family dwelling on property located at 19 Cibrian Drive; and
WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, including concerns raised by neighboring
""p'''' 0_" reg~di"ll po''''''. ",w imp"" which _iii h, '''''''' by "" ,,*0<, ."
Bo~d d""""",'" ,bm "'" p",,,,,,, J"Oi'" w~ 00"""''' wifu fu' "'1IOd' ""i", Gui",li~
and would not result in unreasonable view blockage or privacy impacts, nor be out of character
with the surrounding neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board unanimously approved the project subject to the
findings and conditions set forth in the Staff Report dated September 7, 2000; and
WHEREAS, on September 18,2000, Marc and Anette Loupe ("Appellants"), owner of
"'jooort p"'''''' " " Cihri~ 0""'. fiI'" m ",p.. of"'" Bo"d'. "",.ioo '" ",,,,,YO ,hi'
application; and
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2000, the Town Council ofthe Town of Tiburon held a duly-
noticed public hearing on the appeal; during which public testimony was heard regarding the
,_ md ,h~",,~ of fu, P"'''''''' 00_,"00 "" <h, p""",," ",w md p""'" imp'''' "'''
could be caused by the proposed construction; and
WHEREAS, after hearing all testimony and reviewing aU documents in the record, the
Town council deadlocked 2-2 (Gram and Bach in favor; Hennessy and Thompson opposed) on a
motion to deny the appeal; and
WHEREAS, after further discussion, the Town Council determined that aU additional
mo'o", woold Iikewi~ ,..., io d,"'lod,," ,-, vo,o;, "" "'" "",om' '" Soolioo 30408 of
the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, the appeal was denied by operation onaw.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town council ofthe Town of
Tibomo m,mo","",,' 'bm "', .".. of hW' "" ^""" Loop' w", dwi'" 00 0"- lB, 2000
as set forth in this resolution,
11/1/2000
1
Resolution No. _
T\buron Town Council
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on November 1,
2000, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
TOWN OF TffiURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Iscott\19cibriantc reso.doc
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No.
11/1/2000
2
TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, ~
PLANNING DIRECTOR
MEETING DATE: 11/1/2000
ITEM NO.: 7
FROM:
SUBJECT:
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING INCLUSION OF A TOT LOT AND PLAY
STRUCTURE FOR YOUNG CHILDREN IN THE PARK SITE LOCATED IN
THE PARADISE CAY NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE END OF TRINIDAD
DRIVE
BACKGROUND
In the early 1990's the County of Marin approved the Paradise Cay North development project
comprised of a marina expansion, yacht club, and 3 I homes off Trinidad Drive in Paradise Cay.
One of the conditions of approval was the development ofa 1.3-acre park site located at the very
end of the spit forming the northerly breakwater for the Paradise Cay marina and neighborhood.
The park plans, approved in 1991, depicted only passive recreational uses such as benches,
pathways, and an open grass area. Since 1991, many families with young children have moved
into the Paradise Cay Neighborhood, and there is now a demand for more active play structures in
this soon-to-be-constructed park.
Residents of Paradise Cay have been working to fund the play structure and convince the
developer, K. M. C. Inc, to modifY its approved plans to incorporate the play structure. The
neighborhood is seeking the support of Supervisor Rose, BCDC, the State Lands Commission
(property owner) and the Town of Tiburon in their effort to encourage the play structure
installation,
The Tiburon Parks & Open Space Commission received a presentation of the play structure
proposal in May 2000 and endorsed the concept. Supervisor Rose has recently indicated that a
resolution of support from the Tiburon Town Council would assist in the effort to make the play
structure a reality,
RECOMMENDA nON
Adopt the resolution attached as Exhibit 2.
EXHIBITS
I.
2,
Vicinity Map,
Draft resolution
'.scott\paradise cay tot lot rpt.doc
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
J 1/1/2000
,-,,~,.
~-f.';(', ~"
:~~.~t -,
'.i!'_
~-
-
I I
(;"
\
I
.
~
~'"
"
r
(Sf
ff
.!l
.
,
~l -;_. .::.
I{
'-'~::'~~:::~'~.:'
'J-:~~'>;: :'_
'>;..-r;:-~
, ,
~ - - .
....,. ~ -,' ~~--.
'tJ'tJ
0> 0>
" "
:><'0>
0.
CIl >-.
>--m
rtro
ro 0
0>
><
Z
o
"
rt
::r
'"
)C
=I:
--
CD
.....
-\
..}
::.L' __
-"
,,'
"
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
SUPPORTING INCLUSION OF A TOT LOT PLAY AREA IN THE PARK BEING
CONSTRUCTED IN PARADISE CAY AT THE
END OF TRINIDAD DRIVE
WHEREAS, there exists at the end of Trinidad Drive in Paradise Cay a 1.3 acre
public park site to be constructed by K. M. C. Inc. as a condition of approval for the
Paradise Cay North development project approved by Marin County and BCDC in the
early 1990' s, and
WHEREAS, the park site is on land leased by the State Lands Commission to the
private corporation K. M. C. Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the park site is technically within the corporate limits of the Town of
Tiburon, although the Town ofTiburon has no practical jurisdiction over the property as
it is owned by the State of California; and
WHEREAS, in January 1991, the Town of Tiburon Board of Adjustments &
Review conducted a "courtesy review" of the park development plans as presented by the
then-developer Pullman Building Company, said plans depicting an open grass area,
pathways, benches, landscaping and five drop-ofT parking spaces adjacent to public
parking and public restrooms at the Tiburon Peninsula Yacht Club; and
WHEREAS, the plans approved at that time made no provision for a children's
play area or play structure in the Park, but were purely passive recreational in nature; and
WHEREAS, dramatic demographic changes have occurred in the Paradise Cay
Neighborhood since the plans were approved in 1991, such that there are now over 60
children under age 11 living in the immediate vicinity and a much greater demand for
active recreational opportunities for young children; and
WHEREAS, there are currently no park facilities within walking distance or local
bus service to serve children in the vicinity of Paradise Cay; and
WHEREAS, residents of Paradise Cay are currently proposing to pay for the
installation of a tot lot that would include a professionally designed play structure for
young children and need support to encourage the developer K. M. C. Inc. to agree to the
installation of such a play area; and
WHEREAS, the Town ofTiburon Parks & Open Space Commission reviewed the
proposal for a tot lot and play structure at its meeting on May 9, 2000 and expressed its
support for the concept.
Tib/lron Town COlwell
ResoluNon No
--/--/2000
EL1fIBIT NO. c1-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon hereby strongly supports the residents of Paradise Cay and its vicinity in their
efforts to secure a tot lot and play structure in the park being constructed at the end of
Trinidad Drive. The Town Council further urges K. M. C. Inc. to lend its willing support
to this laudable community effort, and encourages the County of Marin, BCDC, State
Lands Commission, and other entities having permit authority over the park to expedite
any modifications to permits or approvals to make the tot lot and play structure a reality.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council on
, 2000 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBER:
COUNCILMEMBER:
COUNCILMEMBER:
THOMAS GRAM, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE, TOWN CLERK
plll"adise cay tot lot l"eso.doc
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No.
n/--/2000
2
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO,
MEETING DATE: 11/1/2000
?
To: TOWN COUNCIL
From: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR~
Subject: ZELINSKY PARK LANDSCAPING INSTALLATION: AWARD CONTRACT
TO NEARY LANDSCAPE AND AUTHORIZE BUDGET AMENDMENT
Date: OCTOBER 26, 2000
BACKGROUND
The Town Council approved the Zelinsky Park improvement project in April 2000, On October
4, 2000, the Town Council reviewed and approved detailed landscape and improvement drawings
prepared by Ralph Alexander & Associates. Those drawings were put out for informal bid on
October 12, 2000, Invitations to bid were sent to six (6) landscape firms; one bid was received
from Neary Landscape.
ANALYSIS
Landscape Improvements
The FY 2000-200 I budget currently allocates $50,000.00 for Zelinsky Park in the Capital
Improvement Program section, The bid from Neary Landscape was for $68,300,00, However,
some items listed in the bid (grading) will be negotiated down, and others (invasive plant removal)
will probably be performed by the Public Works Department. The Town anticipates that the final
negotiated contract will be substantially less than the $68,300.00 quote. Town Staff and the
landscape architect co'nsider the Neary Landscape bid to be reasonable and acceptable. The once-
proposed arbors are not part of the current project as bid,
Water Meter and Water Allocation
Other costs associated with installation of Zelinsky Park include purchase of new water allocation
from MMWD and either the purchase of a new water meter or upgrading of an existing water
meter to service the Park's irrigation needs. The cost of a new water meter is estimated at
$1,800,00, The current landscape plan is calculated to require a water allocation of
approximately 0,5 acre-feet per year. While Town Staff considered the purchase of excess water
allocation for future landscape expansion in Zelinsky Park, this would conflict with MMWD
Tihuron Town Council
Staff Report
111/]000
policy, MMWD will only allocate the amount of water for purchase that it calculates the facility
will require, and will not allow the purchase of excess water allocation at this time. The combined
cost for the water meter and the new water allocation are approximately $13,625.00.
RECOMMENDA TION
That the Town Council:
1. Accept the bid proposal from Neary Landscape to install the Zelinsky Park landscaping and
authorize the Town Manager to negotiate and execute the final contract.
2. Allocate an additional $32,000.00 from the Park In-lieu Fund to complete the project,
including the purchase or upgrade of a water meter and the purchase of new water allocation
of approximately 0.5 acre-feet from MMWD.
EXHIBITS
1, Proposal from Neary Landscape.
Tiburon Town Council
Stoff Report
11/1/2000
2
Jt./eI:u'-1. ~~e
7.0 18ox. cfCf):3
.5~ ~e.i I c/J 9t;c;l:J
\
llc. 1F7SS'FI() C.Z7
....J........J"-J..J..JJ..
"ROPOSA!. SUllMITT'EO TO:
~NO,
....
w. Mrelly ~ to Iu_ ... ....... Ind '*"'"'" 1M '-bor _ry fat b CClmIlII'OlI of
-
-
-
-
NC:.14K'r' L..~:::R..At-'~
PAGE il2
PROPOSAL
SI1.1T NO.
</15- Y'1Z -/e; ttcj
WOfllK TO BE PERFORMED AT:
CIT'f, IT"'1i
DA'1i OF PI.ANll
,uQ1lTECT
.
,
l
I. II .."teed te be as ."",,1"41<1. a"d the above worlc to be performed In accordanc. with Iha drawing. and
speclllcatlona submitted for aboye work and com"I.ted In a ...bll.ntlal wo","",nlllca mannar 10' the sum of:
wilI1 P*l/I'MMS to 0. aa lollowe
lloIIar3 l~
"__~submia~ ~~~c.~
Po< ~~
_ . TIlle IlfCPOIllIIMY be ~ by .. K nol .~ willlln :10 days
ACCEPTANCE OF P~POSAl.:
The _ pnc., ~ and __... dIIoflldOly and a... he.uy . lad. You _ _ta de I/le_.. ~, ~....
.. "... .. outIIr'IOCf ..,..
AIfI~."'--' '-'...... ......... ~ -....
..........,.....-..- ftIM............. _.,.....
"" .. ..... .. -... ............... - .......
...................---,
Cll\T&
....
-..TIlllII
_TVM
I, .1
EX--B:IBIT NO..L
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA NO.:
'i
FROM:
ASSOCIATE PLANNER THERIAULT
SUBJECT:
APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO
APPROVE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE; 163 A VENIDA
MIRAFLORES
MEETING DATE:
REPORT DATE:
NOVEMBER 1, 2000
OCTOBER 23, 2000
APPLICANTS - FARNOOSH AND FIRUZE HARIRI
APPELLANTS - CHESTER JUDAH
PROJECT DATA:
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL:
FILE NUMBER:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
DA TE COMPLETE:
CEQA EXEMPTION:
163 A VENIDA MIRAFLORES
038-011-43
700150
27,000 SQUARE FEET
RPD (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT)
M (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
C
SEPTEMBER 21,2000
NOVEMBER 20, 2000
BACKGROUND:
On September 21, 2000 the Tiburon Design Review Board granted Site Plan and Architectural
Review approval to allow for the construction of a new fence intended to replace an existing as-
built fence with superior materials on property located at 163 A venida Miraflores, Chester Judah,
a property owner of the lot located across the street from the subject property, has now appealed
this decision to the Town Council.
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
November I, 2000
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requested Design Review approval for construction of a new fence for the property
located at 163 A venida Miraflores, a property located in the Miraflores Precise Development Plan
subdivision area The fence would consist of a 5-foot high wrought-iron structure. The fence,
according to Building Department technical interpretation of Town Code, would be considered 6
feet high in certain parts of the subject property due to the steep topography found in portions of
the lot
The proposed fence would be set back from the existing sidewalk in order to provide an
appropriate pedestrian-friendly environment for neighborhood residents. The original application
requested approval to site the fence along the front yard property line and along the right side
yard property line.
BACKGROUND:
Beginning in September of 1999, the applicant was subject to several Code Enforcement
procedures due to the erection of a greenhouse on a neighboring property owner's property and
the construction of a chicken wire and wood stick fence on the subject property prior to the
acquisition of appropriate permits. The Staff Report prepared for the Design Review Board,
dated September 21, 2000, outlines the history of code enforcement on the subject property and
the chronology of events leading up to the submittal of the current application. (Exhibit 3).
REVIEW BY THE BOARD:
This application was heard before the Design Review Board at the September 21, 2000 meeting.
At that time, concerns were raised by adjacent property owners regarding potential view impacts
and a property line dispute. The concerned property owners did not oppose the actual design of
the fence, but limited the expressed concerns to the view and property line dispute issues,
The applicant explained to the Board that the fence design was in keeping with the character of
the neighborhood and presented photos demonstrating her belief that the fence did not block
views for the property owner at 166 Avenida Miraflores (the appellant). Field investigations
performed by Board members revealed that the location of the existing, as-built chicken wire
fencing, with the exception of its close proximity to the sidewalk, would not impact neighboring
property owners,
The proposed fence location would have partially impacted views from downstairs bedrooms for
the neighbor at 165 Avenida Miraflores The Town ofTiburon Hillside Guidelines protect views
for ceremonial rooms only. The views of Mount Tam which the appellant feels would be blocked
by the proposed fence would not actually be blocked by the fence although the fence could be
seen below the view, in the foreground.
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
November 1.2000
2
After considering public testimony on the application, the Design Review Board deliberated the
merits of the application and determined that in order to minimize issues voiced by neighboring
property owners, the fence should be sited primarily in the location of the existing as-built fencing
with the portion of the fence that follows Avenida Miraflores to be set back a minimum of3 feet
from the curb, The Board found the application, with the modification to the fence line
configuration, to be in compliance with the Town's Hillside Design Guidelines with respect to
view impact issues. The Board voted (4-0 with one member abstaining), to conditionally approve
the application. Mr, Judah subsequently filed a timely appeal of this action on October 2, 2000.
BASIS FOR THE APPEAL:
There are two grounds upon which the appeal (Exhibit 1) is based:
Ground #1 The Design Review Board failed to consider and require that the design of
the proposed fence comply with the aesthetic character of the neighborhood.
Staff Response According to the minutes of the meeting (Exhibit 2), the Board discussed the
design of the fence and determined that the design would be an improvement over the current as-
built fence and would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Boardmembers
visited the neighborhood and were aware of the types of design and configuration of fencing
installations in the area prior to making their decision on the application.
Ground #2 The Board approved a compromise on the fence line configuration after the
close of the public hearing without inviting additional public input.
Slaff Response: The Board visited the subject property, viewed the site from the perspective of
neighboring properties, considered public comments and deliberated the merits of the proposed
fence design during the Board's September 21,2000 public hearing, After the public hearing was
closed, the Board determined that the fence was to be sited in an alternate location than that
originally proposed,
The Design Review Board is not obligated to take additional testimony from the public once the
public hearing is closed The minutes from the meeting show that the Board cited the neighboring
property owners' comments in their deliberations, and concluded that a compromise of the
location of the fence would address the neighbors' concerns
Submittal of Revised Plans
The applicant and the appellant have come to an agreement on a proposed revision to the fence
line configuration approved by the Design Review Board, (Exhibit 6). The revised fence
configuration would lower the height of the fence in an area of the property closest to the
appellant. The revised plans would also call for the installation of a fence on the shared property
TII3URON TO\\!1\" COl:NCIL
STAFF REPORT
November L 2000
3
line between the subject property and the neighbor at 165 Avenida Miraflores. The property
owner of 165 A venida Miraflores, Mrs. Petri, has not approved this revision. Mrs. Petri has
historically expressed strong concerns regarding view impacts and property line issues particularly
relating to fencing. Staff believes it would be inappropriate to administratively approve a revised
fence plan that would resolve issues between the applicant and the appellant, but would create
other concerns for another neighbor. The Town Council may choose to approve the revised fence
plans by partially granting the appeal and requiring that fencing comply with the revised plans,
CONCLUSION:
Staff concludes that the Design Review Board followed the guidelines for Site Plan and
Architectural Review applications, and appropriately applied the guidelines for such applications
in its review of this project, The proposed new fence does not appear to create view, mass or
bulk impacts for neighboring property owners. The wrought-iron fence design is of a superior
quality and would be in keeping with the character offences in the neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Town Council take public testimony on the appeal, close the public
hearing, deliberate upon the merits of the appeal, and direct Staff to prepare an appropriate
resolution,
EXHffiITS:
I, Notice of Appeal dated October 2, 2000
2, Minutes of the September 21,2000 Design Review Board meeting
3, Staff report of the September 21,2000 Design Review Board meeting
4, Conditions of approval adopted by the Design Review Board on September 21, 2000
5, Application and supplemental materials dated August 9, 2000
6, Revised Plans and letter of agreement (between the applicant and the appellant) dated
October 23,2000
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
November I. 2000
4
EXHIBIT NO. '2
TOWN OF TIBURON
RECEIVED
OCT - 2 2000
CG : ';'10
(~:
St:.()/t'
/3 c
A4~
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TlEURON
APPELLANT
Name: <2-1-(c.?~TGP- YvD.c.,I-l ~(l..
Address: 166 A Vc: IV; 0 A f'Y\ I It 4 e L-Otl<?" S.
Telephone: l..f /" - - 7 g- q , 0 >'-f~ork)
ACTION BEING APPEALED
(Home)
Body:
-yo w "-'
c..o 1..1 "-J C. ( L.
Date of Action:
c; ( .: p, e:-- ,..... 9. (;' 'L ;z.. I
:;;LooO
Name of Applicant: PA"l N 0 v$: {+ If PI !<... 1 t<. /
Nature of Application: A pP '- ( c <0) (( O,v
16 3. A-t/ r;>.., l::>~
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
(Attach additional pages, if necessary)
D~SIl;..."" RG'v'(~Cv C2.r?AQ.1)
,-Q ~ ~ c-
- <1... {-e::1V (:
f"\1"l"lF,-oa12.!;:
Ac
F Pr I Le:>!:) T/~n..rJ v C. (-I
qUe:-~T(O~
PI"''":>
"
tt)1 s;:c.v\;.S, (u...,
-ro
A D Dn c:::- ~ s.
-rh" c.:
Ae-s.Tr-{E'T( c..... C.HA'1."'rCTc.-''11 ~TIC
OP NGI6-/{ BO')(-!oOD
r+,,-? 11-1- c5' : 1 IY\ PACT 0 f" ,= C::rV C ~ O'V' SA rn c:: .
r=Uf1.1{.-{(~ (L r'"\,-O tt.(,i"
D e ~ { c:;. rv R G'tJ ( t? G...J (3 0 "7 <1... +> p \ ~ rv 0 ,.
(l..c=r.:r-Cl-f f'r ~12'C.l~ \o~ I.)Po~ -rHr=- A-p,pLIC,c,,"T(O:""
~\)\ (l.,AlHC2'1\.... UPtJ-v -fc.':;, 0<:-
TI-Ic.:i \), ~ /,,0 \' e-R.I"\( \ puS ..L.lc..
Last Day to File: 10 - .2. - d"O Date Received:
Fee ($300.00) Paid d-I{ .#: ( ().2-.
Date of Hearing:
- 0 ~ \0 W(-f { C /-f
e.Orv..rr..c:~ I
I" - ,l-()'O
fo k12 C/.R.Jei/~j
January 1996 --IN &" f2- I G-I-{ T 0
\ fI'\ A IIV T A (;. I\.. "f /7' c:- PI "^ & ~ D "/L
A-DO
To rN IS
A-i?{? C:C'l(....
o e -1/-1 G1"
A(~ Ie'\.
(+ (;:!:l'1.I-~
~ R..(3t/{r:=c...-
w (-I (c(-(
oe
A"\.c?
TI-I c..-=-
NO",
,fY1/"'-' r.J le.:.s
~
166 Avenida Miraflores
Tiburon, California 94920
October 1, 2000
Emi Theriault
Assiciate Planner
Planning & Building Department
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: File #700150, Fence at 163 Avenida Miraflores
Dear Ms. Theriault:
I wish to appeal to the Town Council the follwowing decision of
the Design Review Board;
Meeting Date:
Item No.:
Subject:
September 21, 2000.
E5
163 Avenida Miraflores; File #700150 site
plan and Architectural review for Fencing
Please advise me as to the date of the appeal hearing.
Yours very ~~~ p1
c~C.!-.
,;1"
-Fi'tn" T N'O 2..
L,.A,dIBI .
5. 163 Avenida Miraflores . Hariri, Fence
According to the Staff report, the applicants are requesting approval for the installation of
fencing to replace unauthorized fencing currently located on the site.
An elevation drawing of the proposed fence and a site plan of the proposed location of the
fence have been submitted, along with a survey of the subject property. The proposed
wrought iron fence would replace the existing unauthorized wood picket/chicken wire
fencing. The proposed fencing would not be installed at the same location as the existing
fencing but would be set back further from the street and closer to the property located at
165 A venida Miraflores.
Firuze Hariri, applicant, explained that the proposal is for a fence commonly used in her
neighborhood. She presented photographs of four other properties that have the same
kind of fence. The reason for the proposed height is to comply with the height limit for
the pool and keep deer out of the garden. She has shown the plans to the neighbors and
has received II letters of support. In response to a concern by the owners of 166 A venida
Miraflores that their view would be impacted, she placed story poles and attl.'c:hed green
ribbon on the story poles that indicate the fence height. The fence does not impose on any
portion of their view ofMt. Tam. The issue with the Petris is a dispute over the boundary
lines. She spoke with the Homeowners Association and they had no problem with the
proposal. She noted that most of the fence is set back much further than 3 feet.
Boardmember Stroub said the survey does not show the fence line and asked if the site
plan is accurate according to the survey. Ms. Hariri affirmed that it was accurate.
F arhoodi Petri, 165 A venida Miraflores, stated that they are adjacent neighbors and feel
the applicant has encroached into their space and have built many, many structures on the
lot. She did not understand why they have a need to build such a large structure around
their pool now when there was never a need for that in the past. If they want to protect
the garden they could do it with a lower fence without affecting her view and the value of
their property. She has no problem with them building a 4 foot tall fence and then build
something higher just around the pool area.
Chair Smith stated he walked on the Petri property and asked what view would be
impacted. Ms. Petri stated the view is from the family room, living room and kitchen and
it will affect their view of the water and blocks the view from all the rooms downstairs.
Becky Pringle, 530 ComstQck Drive, said it is her understanding that there is only a
requirement of 3 foot tall fence for a swimming pool. Mr. Watrous explained that the
Town's Ordinance requires a four foot fence around a pool, not 3 feet.
Boardmember McLaughlin arrived at the meeting.
TIBURON ORB
9/21/00
8
Paul Grothe, Marin Land Company Realtor and representing the Petris, stated there is a
knoll area where the fence would go. At 6 feet high, it would impact the views of the
Petris because their main views are of Richardson Bay. A 3'6" fence would not be
objectionable, but a 6 foot high fence would be. They are not concerned about the fence
around the pool area The Petri's home is situated to the west, and a 6 foot fence would
impact them in their living room, dining room and kitchen and their views of Sausalito, all
the way back to Mt. Tarn.
Chester Judah, 166 A venida Miraflores, stated that be was opposed to a 6 foot high fence
and the type of fence is not the typical in the neighborhood. He has a view of Mt. Tam
from the comer of his living room and in the foreground he would have the view of the
fence.
Ms. Hariri commented that the bedrooms in the Petris' lower area are not considered
ceremonial rooms. They are trying to comply with the Town's regulations with regard to
fence height. Since the planter box is 2 feet high, and the Building Official indicated they
need a 4 foot fence on top of the box, resulting in a 6 foot total height.
Ms. Petri stated that the view from the lower levels are not that much of concern, but the
concerns are the upper level. She did not know the requirement was 6 feet because of the
planter. She suggested that the planter can be removed.
Catherine Gallagher, 166 Avenida Miratlores, wanted to know why there is there all this
discussion if the Code only allows a 42 inch fence and wondered why is there a need for a
variance.
Ms. Theriault explained that some of the posts are already in because the Hariris were
planning to build a 3 Y2 foot tall fence, and now they are asking for the proposed fence
because of the varying slope and the request of the Building Official.
Boardmember Beales said his concern is the fence along the Petri's property line. The
existing fence is chicken wire and over the hill. That fence would not affect anyone and
the uphill area adjacent to the Petris is unplantable. From the side of the Petri's house, a 6
foot fence would affect their water views. The 4 foot height requirement around the pool
is a Code requirement and the rest of the height is to basically keep out the deer. He
cannot support anything else but 4 foot high fencing along the Petri's property line.
Boardmember Stroub felt the fence affects the views from the lower levels of the Petri's
house. He would like to see the fence lowered or be moved farther down the hill. Also,
the fence along the sidewalk should be set back 3 feet from the sidewlj,\k. If they do not
want the reduced height, the fence should be moved down the hill farther.
Boardmember McLaughlin said he missed a significant part of the discussion and would
therefore have to abstain from discussing or voting on this item.
TIBURON ORB
9/21/00
9
Boardmember Figour stated that the two neighbors that are opposing the fence are
concerned about looking at a type of fence that they do not want to see. He wondered if
the fence could be moved down the hill further. He is sensitive to the deer issue and
would like to see a compromise that keeps the deer at bay.
Chair Smith would rather have this worked out by the neighbors. He visited the site and
the neighboring properties and tried to see the view impacts and had difficulty seeing any
view impact. He understands the Petris' concern but does not see it as a view impact. He
stood right in front of the windows, although he did not go into the house. The Judahs
would see the framing of the fence in the foreground. The contentious issues are between
the Petris and the Hariris. There is an existing fence line that has been there for many
years. That fence is not particularly attractive and the neighborhood would benefit from
its replacement. He is not so concerned about the fence height but would be inclined to
keep the existing fence line as shown on the diagram and use that rather than the proposed
location. One complication is the poles that have already been put in place along Avenida
Miraflores. He could support a 6 foot fence that follows the existing fence line. The
portion of the fence that runs along Avenida Miraflores should be the 3 feet from the
property line.
Boardmember Beales stated that they are asking for a 6 foot fence in an area that has not
been fenced before. A 6 foot fence along the area that already has a fence would just be
considered a replacement.
Boardmember Figour stated that the applicant should submit a new site plan in light of the
Board's recommendation so the Building Department would be able to understand what
was approved by the Board.
Mis Smith/Beales, and passed (4-0, McLaughlin, abstaining), to approve the application
based on the following: a fence with a maximum height of 6 feet shall follow the existing
fence line; the portion of the fence that follows Avenida Miraflores shall be a minimum of
3 feet from the property line, then any portion over 3Y> feet in height shall follow the
existing fence line to the other property line; and the applicant shall submit a site plan to
the Building Department to ensure the fence is being built in compliance with these
requirements.
TIBURON ORB
9/21/00
10
EXHIBIT NO. 3
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ITEM NO.
E5
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ASSOCIATE PLANNER THERIA UL T
163 A VENIDA MIRAFLORES; FILE # 700150 SITE PLAN AND
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR FENCING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2000
DATE:
PROPERTY OWNERS/APPLICANTS--FIRUZE AND FARNOOSH HARIRI
DESIGNER-COGGINS FENCE COMPANY
PROJECT DATA:
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL:
FILE NUMBER:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
DATE COMPLETE:
CEQA EXEMPTION:
PERMIT STREAMLINING
ACT DEADLINE:
163 A VENIDA MIRAFLORES
039-261-05
700150
27,000 SQUARE FEET
RPD (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT)
M (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
C
AUGUST 31, 2000
SEPTEMBER 21. 2000
NOVEMBER 20, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303(e).
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 21,2000
1
,~
PROPOSAL:
The applicants, Mr. Firuze Hariri and his daughter Ms. Farnoosh Hariri, are requesting approval
for the installation of fencing to replace unauthorized fencing currently located on the site.
An elevation drawing of the proposed fence and a site plan of the proposed location of the fence
have been submitted. A survey of the subject property has also been submitted. The proposed
wrought iron fence would replace the existing unauthorized wood picket/chicken wire fencing.
The proposed fencing would not be installed at the same location as the existing fencing,
however, but would be set back further from the street and closer to the property located at 165
A venida Miraflores.
BACKGROUND:
The current application was submitted as a result of continuous pursuit of the removal ofthe
unauthorized fence by Staff and neighboring property owners, For a chronology of code
enforcement, Staff level design review and Building Department review of the existing and
proposed replacement fencing, please review the following information:
September 10, 1999. Staff conducts a field investigation of unauthorized fencing and a lean-to
greenhouse in response to a complaint filed by Mrs. Petri of 165 Avenida Miraflores.
September 1999. Staff contacts Mrs. Hariri of 163 Avenida Miraflores to request for her to
remove the structures or to submit a design review application to legalize the as-built fencing and
greenhouse.
December 1, 1999. Staff issues a pre-citation notice to the applicant due to a lack of response to
the request made in September. The applicant is given until December 15, 2000 to remove the
unauthorized fencing and greenhouse or to submit a design review application.
January 4, 2000. Staff issues a citation notice due to the applicant's non-compliance with the
precitation notice requirements.
January 25, 2000. The applicant removes the as-built greenhouse and submits a design review
application for proposed replacement fencing for the as-built woodlchicken wire fencing (File
#700018)
February 22, 2000. Staff approves the replacement fencing with conditions related to height and
landscaping mitigation measures,
February 25, 2000. The applicant submits a property line survey in response to concerns
expressed by the neighbor at 165 A venida Miraflores.
TlEURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 21, 2000
2
~.-:.::::-:.~_o.:-,=--c.::..=.._..:.:::.::::.-,,--=---:.:,-,--"-,--,-~_':_~____
February 29,2000. The neighbor at 165 Avenida Miraflores, Mrs. Petri, submits an appeal of
the Staff level design review decision.
March 28, 2000. The applicant withdraws her application for design review (in lieu of complying
with Staff level conditions of approval and going through the appeal process). The applicant
agrees to remove the as-built fence and expresses her intent to obtain a building permit to install a
fence 3.5 feet or less in height. The applicant is informed that she has until April 28, 2000 to
remove the unauthorized fencing.
June 7, 2000. Staff issues a precitation notice requiring the applicant to remove the unauthorized
fencing by June 23, 2000. Prior to the citation deadline, the Building Official contacts Planning
Department Staff and informs Staff that the as-built fence must be retained for pool enclosure
purposes until such a time as another fence replaces the as-built fence. The Building Official also
informs Staff that the 3.5 foot high fence panels proposed by the applicant would be considered
higher than 3,5 feet high according to Zoning Code definition due to the topography of the site.
Staff, therefore, requires the applicant to submit a new design review application.
August 9, 2000. The applicant submits a Staff level design review application for a 55-foot high
fence, which may be defined as a 6-foot high fence due to topographic considerations.
August 31, 2000. Staff refers the design review application to the Design Review Board for
review due to neighbor opposition (File #700150).
ANALYSIS:
Design Issues
The subject property is located on a steeply terrained hillside. The applicant has requested the
fencing to protect existing landscaping from deer. The Building Official has indicated that pool
enclosure fencing is required for the pool but has not mandated a specific location for the fencing,
Therefore, the proposed fence perimeters may be desirable for the purpose of discouraging deer
from entering the property but are not required by building code.
In order to preserve adequate room for pedestrians who use the sidewalk in front of 163 A venida
Miraflores, the Planning Department is suggesting at least a 3-foot setback for the fencing from
the sidewalk for fencing 4 feet or lower in height. If the applicant is approved for fencing higher
than 4 feet in height, the fencing should be setback further from the curb to allow for the
installation of irrigation and landscaping to soften the height of the fence at the street.
Staff does not foresee any other design issues with this project.
TlBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 21, 2000
3
Zoning
Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in conformance with the development standards
for the Miraflores Precise Development Plan. According to the resolution and final map for the
Miraflores Project, Unit 1, fencing is not prohibited outside the approved building envelope,
Public Comment
Staff has received comments from two neighboring property owners regarding this application,
The property owners of 165 Avenida Miraflores, Mr. and Mrs. Petri, have telephoned and visited
Staff on several occasions to express their concerns. Their concerns regard view issues related to
possible impacts to the bedrooms located on the lower floor of their residence and to the accuracy
of the property line survey submitted by the applicants. The Board is encouraged to use the
Town of Tiburon "Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings" in the review of view issues. Survey
disputes are reviewed by the Town Building Department. If the property owners of 165 Avenida
Miraflores disagree with the Building Official's interpretation of the correct property boundaries,
the disagreement is considered a civil matter and is not within the jurisdiction of the Town's
revIew processes,
The property owner of 166 Avenida Miraflores, Chester Judah, has indicated that he objects to
the fencing proposal. Copies of his emails as well as a letter, dated August 29, 2000 are attached,
(Exhibit 3).
RECOMMENDA TION:
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,
EXHffiITS:
1 Conditions of approval
2, Application, plans and supplemental materials dated August 9, 2000
3 Emails, dated June 16 and June 19,2000 and a letter, dated August 29,2000 from Chester
Judah.
TlBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 21.2000
4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
163 Avenida Miraflores
FILE #700150
I. This approval shall be used within 3 years of the approval date, and shall become
null and void unless a building permit has been issued.
2. The development of this project shall conform with the revised application dated by
the Town of Tiburon on June 22, 2000, or as amended by these conditions of
approval. Any modifications to the plans received July 24, 2000, must receive
further design review and approvals.
3. The applicant shall submit any additional plans required by the Building Official or
the Town Engineer.
4. 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 permit holder is responsible for clearly
identifying all such changes when submitted to the Building Department for plan
check. Such changes 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 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.
TIBURON DESIGN REViEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 21, 2000
5
TOWN OF TlBURON
i
JCO' ""of
.0 o.
r... 1.-\
i,.r "_~ ~,', ~,; . i-
t' 1;; lo" ~ ~ '; ~ . '"
1'<~.. 1 ~~f~'~""
!Zi U"N'P.' \..~. .....
,
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435-7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
EXHIBIT NO.
~
NOTICE OF
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION
On September 21, 2000, the Tiburon Design Review Board took the following action:
Granted approval for a new fence to be located at 163 Avenida Miraflores (File #7001150).
Approved as submitted
~ Approved with conditions
Denied as submitted
Continued
Please review the attached materials (if any) to acquaint yourself with the conditions of approval
or other requirements. The following materials are attached and should be retained for your
records:
Approved plans
Appeal provisions of the Town
No attachments
,/ Other-Conditions of Approval
Minutes of the Design Review Board meeting are generally available within 3 weeks following the
meeting, and will be provided upon request.
After Design Review approval, you are required to obtain a Building Permit from the
Tiburon Building Department for your project. Information on Building Permit procedures
may be obtained by calling the Building Department at (415) 435-7380.
For additional information regarding this application, please call me at (415) 435-7397.
Sincerely,
C~'-~) ~
Emi Theriault
Associate Planner
FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
163 Avenida Miratlores
FILE #700150
I. This approval shall be used within 3 years of the approval date, and shall become
null and void unless a building permit has been issued. Note: although this
approval must be used within 3 years, the unauthorized fencing currently existing
on the subject property is subject to code enforcement and must be removed in a
timely manner.
2. The development of this project shall conform with the revised application dated by
the Town of Tiburon on June 22, 2000, or as amended by these conditions of
approval. Any modifications to the plans received July 24, 2000, must receive
further design review and approvals.
3. The new fence must be installed at the location of the existing, unapproved fence, in
the area adjacent to the property at 165 Avenida Miratlores with the exception of
the portion of the fencing adjacent to Avenida Miratlores. Fencing in this area must
be set back from the property line 3 feet. The applicant must submit a revised site
plan retlecting these conditions prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4. The applicant shall submit any additional plans required by the Building Official or
the Town Engineer.
5. 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 permit holder is responsible for clearly
identifying all such changes when submitted to the Building Department for plan
check. Such changes 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 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.
TlBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SEPTEMBER 21,2000
TOWN OF TIBURON
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
TYPE OF APPLICATION
0 Conditional Use Permit 0 Design Review (DRBI 0 Tentative Subdivision Map
0 Precise Development Plan 0 Design Review (Staff level) 0 Final Subdivision Map
0 Conceptual Master Plan 0 Variance 0 Parcel Map
0 Rezoning/Prezoning 0 Sign Permit 0 Lot Una Adjustment
0 Zoning Text Amendment 0 Tree Permit 0 Certificate of Compliance
0 General Plan Amendment 0 Underground Waiver 0 Other
SITE ADDRESS:
PARCEL NUMBER:
APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION
It'S 1~v'e,,\J,-c tln",Jk'J'eI PROPERTY SIZE:
ZONING:
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY /ST ATE/ZIP:
PHONE NUMBER: (
'1':..,'"<12D
FAX ,~S'i-II be
"bc'\A.o.
APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner)
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY/STATEIZIP:
PHONE NUMBER:
,~_,-,".4.""'.....t:.
.;"L)
FAX
L~-,-;;r-'1h../I,
/'y'? ! I
( 4 (f -'::;4 c ~
,
,
I', I ~_, . ,";"; I'"
1/
(-Ul.Ll" (;
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER/ENGINEER:
MAILING ADDRESS: I' C. I~c ^
CITY/STATE/ZIP: :,.,.",-;''1- /(0'"
PHONE NUMBER: {- ;:' - <~(:, _ ["':. ':':'>'-t
FAX "/,' / - (..-;'-/ /.,
" .' /I
Plea~;e indicate with an asterisk (*) persons to whom correspondence should be sent.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed):
I~-(:I',.L. - r.,:.......~.:-...:- .~" ,( ff.{ J..,,-J
I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application for
approval of the plans sublliilted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions of the Town
Ordinances, and I hereby certify that the inforfilation given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
I uIHJcrstand that the requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town
grams the approval, with or without conditions. and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be
responsible for defending against this challe~lge. [therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense at the
request of tile 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 the III ird party challenge.
! j, --)' oj.. ,.'
Signature: '~/-, ( (-./~-- Date: <-"}/cc
(I f other t1i~1lI owner: must have ielter from owner)
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE "I
DEPARTMENTAL PROCESSING INFORMATION I,
Application No.: 7oC'/s,-V / Fee Deposit: . ,;200-+ ,:j",G L.
Date ReceIved: ~;0a- Received By: ffI-y Receipt # -PI /9d-t,Q :<,5
'<I.,'
Date Deemed Complete:._ ~ f\ 'V;~\ _ '\\ -;' Cc,,- By: [
~- r' ~
Acting Body __'_____~_ Actioi1:_ Date: ____
Conditions of Approval or Comments:
Resolution or Ordinance If:
fQ'''''I.oolic9199
EXHIBIT NO. 5
Farnoosh Hariri
163 Avenida Miraflores, Tiburon, CA 94920
Tel: 339-2355
Fax: 289-1160
August 9, 2000
To: Town ofTiburon
Re: Proposed Fence for 163 Avenida Miraflores, Tiburon
Chairman Paul Smith and Members of the Design Review Board,
We are submitting an application for approval of a fence for our above addressed property.
We received an approval from the staff on February 22,2000 for the same fence not to exceed 4' in
height. We withdrew the application in response to an appeal from our neighbour at 165 Avenida
Miraflores. Subsequently, we filed and obtained a building permit (no design review required for this
height of a fence), for the same fence not to exceed 3'.6", hired a contractor, purchased material and
commenced the work. Shortly after, we were served with a stop notice.
On June 28,2000 we met with Mr. Dean Bloomquist, Town of Tiburon Building Official and our
contractor Coggins Fence Co. at the site and based on their recommendations, we are applying for
a 6' high fence in view of the following facts:
A) There is a swimming pool on the property,
B) There is varied topography and steepness requiring various heights offence,
C) There is a 2' high concrete planter box, between our property and 165 Avenida Miraflores.
D) There is a small area where some filling of maximum 20" is required in order to comply with
city's requirement for the maximum vertical clearance between grade and the bottom of the
barrier not to exceed 2 inches.
Please feel free to call me if you have any question or to arrange a site visit.
Sincerely,
C)(~?
Famoosh Hariri
- ......
-
Attachment:
I) Staff approval, Dated February 22, 2000,
2) Site plan and detailed drawing from Coggins Fence Co.
3) Plot Plan showing 163 and 165 Avenida Miraflores.
4) Copy of the Survey by Oberkamper, Civil Engineer.
5) Color copy of the fence brochure.
~_Ii'""" _C>-_'?';~? ':"',..
r "<-..,.,,
If..1t'..o:..."...ti!'''"".,i "."
AUG 9 2000
PLtI"II\llt',.~: r-.; :~!,:':
\'j,....,..__..:.-:;.:.....
TOV.Ji': ,_,1- : :,;.',
HW~~"d-~JuU ~CJ ubI ,8 AM
\'
-- e' 0' MIoXIMUIot
IT
6011
84"
...., S" I+-
COGGINS
FENce & SUPPLY INC.
~.., IN. ."""'.
5/9" PLAJ:N PICKET (4 1/2" O.C,) 2 RAIL nNCE
(S' HIGH)
tAX ,~U.
4 \/2"
r. Jl
'I
S"
68"
S'
...., 8" I+-
COGGINS FENCE . SIJPPIoY, :UlC.
P.O.BOX 343 CL~ 210646
~'rA lICSA, CA 95402
(707) 546-0294 FAX 546-0211
DlWIIR IY: .NO 02-050-15195 ICAL&: 1101:& 1lAGI&:
uvum: .nI:l 02-o5-1U5 I':rr.&: U10S2D 1 oE 1
I
I
/
/\
/
I
0\ \
, \ I
:t.
"
r
,
\
~~
' \
"
. I?
",'to
,,\1'
.A"l~"
;;: j,,"
"
~
,+
Q\
Ul
l:7
'"
(l
'"
~
-I~ ::b ::0
Q;g ~ m
2:-i (')
(;~ l'n
~~ t.C =<
el'J. ~ f'll
~~ g f....
";'""7 C) ...,
:: ~
T"j;
1:11'1
a III
~-
Iil
_'J
"------ -
--
~
o
'"
"
\'>
.,:
)>
'-(
~...
c,
li::..;J
IliJ'J
,)
)
\ \~)\\. ,
~ "'t-. \),.\;;'
\ . . ) >Cf'_
1-
'\:;-,
>-t
\
"":;'
"~
Farnoosh Hariri
163 Avenida Miraflores, Tiburon, CA 94920
Tel: 415-339-2355
Fax: 415-289-1160
t.:L4IBIT NO. ~
Octeber 23,2000
rlE~~'
OCT 2 3 2000
Emi Theriault, Associate Planner
City of Tiburon
1501 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, Ca 94920
Fax: 435-2438
eLi<- .
T\'=;'j):'~
Re: .Proposed Fence for 163 Avenida Miraflores, Tiburon. File #700150
Dear'Eini,
Enclosed is a revised plan for our fence, As shown Mr. Chester Judah and Ms. Kathleen Gallagher
who had appealed the Design Review Board's decision are in support of this revised proposal. In
addition, I have been told by Farideh Petri, that she is working with her parents at 165 Avenida
Miraflores and that she is hopeful to have their decision of support this week.
I also would like to make sure, that the correction is made, that the staff's opinion was to have the
fence be installed at least three feet from the existing sidewalk, not from the property line as indicated
in the "Final Condition of Approval".
I am available to meet with the members of the Town council at their convenience and can be reached
at 971-3592.
-,
"I
'-'
m
f)
lli
bl!
i\i
I~
II,
--..,
t"
~
~:r
<l>~
~~
'" <>
lj~
. 0
0 ?
I
.. '"
r4 '-
I I
0 ~
I ~ ~ -~ ~
" "
"
0- j
il
S
. "
.
,s 0
i ~ -<
4'1 ~
" ~ ~
! -<
~
. ~
0
il li
"'
" 0-
-li ~
~
. ~
F'
<.-'
~
c.-.
c;'~
("J f--
L<J u .;)
n:: Cl y_
~
. f,'
.'
'\
""'->0.
-'I
~
"-
Ii,
>
;;;
Cl
y
H
l'J
- -~
OlD
- ii1
en,
=LeU
r
II
'"
Ll
'"
'"
-1--1
iii'
~
I
I
J
'~
'J
~
"v J'!
~~ cJ'
~",,,
Q('"
"
~ ~
~ ~
~\\\~
-:;~;.L
~e'l~
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO. t lJ
MEETING DATE: 11/1/2000
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
FERRY AREA ACCESS AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
OCTOBER 24, 2000
BACKGROUND
In July 2000 the Town received approval for a $710,000.00 grant to construct ferry area access
and safety improvements in the vicinity of the Blue & Gold Ferry Dock and Angel Island Ferry
Dock in Downtown Tiburon, The grant had originally been earmarked for replacement of the
Blue & Gold Ferry dock float with a larger and ADA-accessible float, but the Blue & Gold Fleet
voluntarily agreed to upgrade its float to meet ADA guidelines. The Town then successfully
petitioned the California Transportation Commission to reapply the grant monies to other access
and safety improvements in the vicinity. The Council authorized matching funds up to
$134,000.00 and authorized Staff to proceed with detailed drawings, environmental review, and
securing of required permits from other agencies, including BCDC, Caltrans, and the Army Corps
of Engineers.
The project now comes before the Town Council for formal adoption of the environmental
determination and approval of the project.
PROJECT DESCRIl'TION
Major project elements are as follows:
· Installation of a new approximately 2, 100 square foot, brick pedestrian plaza east of the Blue
& Gold ferry dock to link the existing Tiburon Boulevard bus loading and drop-off zone with
the ferry access deck (Zelinsky Bridge),
· Replacement of the aging and deteriorated ferry access deck (the Allan Thompson Walkway)
behind the Guaymas and Servino Restaurants with a new pile-supported walkway that will
have ADA-accessible ramps, The replacement walkway would extend all the way to the
Angel Island Ferry dock (it currently stops short of it).
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
11///2000
I
. Improved lighting, new seating, trash containers, ferry signs and schedules for two ferry
arcades that connect Main Street with the Blue & Gold and Angel Island ferry docks.
· Improvements to the bus stop area on Tiburon Boulevard adjacent to the Point Tiburon Plaza
that would include new lighting, seating, trash containers, a new bus shelter/canopy, and
landscape maintenance,
· Improvements to the brick plaza in front of 1700-1704 Tiburon Boulevard north of the ferry
arcades are proposed, including new seating and trash containers, lighting, ferry
signage/schedules, and landscaping.
Conceptual drawings are contained within the Initial Study referenced below and will be on
display at the public hearing. These are essentially the same drawings that the Town Council
viewed at its meeting on March 15,2000.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The firm ofLSA Associates was retained to prepare the environmental review document for this
project. An Initial Study & Draft Negative Declaration (Exhibit I) was prepared and released for
public review on September 22,2000.
The Initial Study determined that there was the potential for impacts in the areas of biological
resources (fish spawning disturbance), aesthetic resources (potential lighting impacts), and
hazardous materials (removal of old pilings and placement of new ones). Mitigation measures
were identified that would reduce any such impacts to a less than significant level. The Town has
agreed to implement these mitigation measures.
The public and agency comment period on the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration ended
on October 23, 2000. One comment letter (Exhibit 2), from the Department of Toxic Substances
Control, was received on October 13, 2000. The letter expressed concern about the quality of the
approximately 100 cubic yards of material that would be excavated from the lawn area of
Shoreline Park to create the proposed brick pedestrian plaza area. Shoreline Park and the lawn
areas were installed as part of the Point Tiburon (Southern Pacific Railroad) project in the mid-
1980s, Staff contacted the Town Engineer at the time, Stanley Bala, who reported that clean fill
was placed on the site'to create the raised turf areas of Shoreline Park. Mr. Bala indicated that
the fill did not originate from the former railroad yard, and that there is no reason to believe that
any contamination would be found in the Shoreline Park lawn areas during excavation,
Therefore, no additional testing is warranted and no additional mitigation is required.
GENERAL PLAN & ZONING CONFORMANCE
General Plan
The Downtown sub-element of the Tiburon General Plan is the operative section of that
document with respect to the ferry access and safety improvement project. The following policies
from that General Plan sub-element are germane:
Tiburon Town Council StofJReport 1l/1/2000 2
DT-I. Pedestrian access to walerfront activity shall be encouraged.
The proposed project would enhance pedestrian access to the bay through Shoreline Park,
through the three pedestrian access easements connecting Main Street to the waterfront, and
through extension of the Allan Thompson Walkway to the Angel Island Ferry Dock.
DT-I5.
New development in Downtown Tiburon shall enhance the existing streetscape by
providing architecturally appropriate and harmonious street furniture,
landscaping, signage and lighting.
The proposed project would enhance the existing streetscape, landscaping, signage and lighting
through the installation of higher quality walking surfaces, light fixtures, sings, and landscaping.
All proposed improvements are near grade and would not result in view blockage,
DT-I6.
Details of new Downtown Tiburon development such as height of signage,
arcades and canopies shall be designed to relate to pedestrian scale.
The proposed improvements are designed to relate to the pedestrian scale and are primarily
intended to enhance pedestrian use and enjoyment of the ferry-related facilities in Downtown
Tiburon,
DT-I7.
All exterior lighting in Down/own Tibul'On (ineluding signs) shall be designed to
be unobtrusive, non-glaring and directed on the sile served.
Mitigation measures approved as part of the project require that lighting be placed so as to
prohibit spillover illumination or glare onto adjoining properties,
Zoning Ordinance
Provisions of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance primarily relate to allowed uses in the Downtown
area. This project proposes no new uses However, certain elements of the project (lighting,
signage, walkway extension, etc) would normally require separate design review or sign permits.
The Town Council should consider the following options to address these permit requirements:
. Allow the normal review process to prevail (Design Review Board or Staff-level approvals).
. Adopt an ordinance exempting this project from the normal review procedures. This
approach has been used frequently in the recent past to streamline the review process and
reduce costs for publicly financed projects. Review authority is typically reserved exclusively
to the Town Council, with referrals to various Boards and Commissions at the discretion of
the Town Council.
An example of such an ordinance adopted for the Zelinsky Park project is attached as Exhibit 3.
Tiburon Town Council
Stoff Report
11/1/2000
3
RECOMMENDA TION
. That the Town Council hold a public hearing on the project.
. That the Town Council direct Staff to prepare a draft ordinance establishing streamlined
permit review procedures for this project, including final review and approval by the Town
Council of working drawings, and optional referral of drawings to other boards and
commiSSions.
. That the Town Council adopt the Resolution (Exhibit 4) adopting the Negative Declaration
and approving the project.
EXHIBITS
1. Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration prepared by LSA Associates dated
September 2000,
2. Letter from State Department of Toxic Substances Control dated 10/13/00.
3, Example of ordinance adopting streamlined review procedures.
4, Draft Resolution of approval.
Ferry area access report.doc
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
11/1/2000
4
Winston H. Hickox
Agency Secretary
California Environmental
Protection Agency
Edwin F. Lowry, Director
700 Heinz Avenue, Suite 200
Berkeley, California 94710-2721
*"(
~
.
lFll['~ @@if'~7 .
, Gray DaVIS
Governor
e
Department of Toxic Substances Control
October 11, 2000
R"" ""7"" -~n
, li:t:~~t;~J ~'j' t:W
Mr. Scott Anderson
Planning Director
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, California 94920
OCT 1 3 2000
r:....:.,:~: "; :i~ r':'::,;n:'~>:-'
TC:;iJ c;;~ 1:;,-;:~::~,,:1
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study for the Downtown Ferry
Area Improvement Project [SCH# 2000092049], located along the downtown watefront
area in Tiburon. As you may be aware, the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) oversees the cleanup of sites where hazardous substances have been
released pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.8.
As a resource agency, DTSC is submitting comments to ensure that the environmental
documentation prepared for this project to address the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) adequately addresses any required remediation activities which may be
required to address any hazardous substances release.
The Initial Study identifies in the Ferry Pedestrian Plaza that a portion of a grassy
mound, approximately 100 cubic yards of soil, would be removed to allow construction
of the plaza. DTSC recommends that the source of the soil be determined. Depending
on the source or if it cannot be determined, we recommend that sampling be conducted
to determine whether any hazardous substances may be present, and if this is an issue
which will need to be addressed in the CEQA compliance document. If hazardous
substances have been released, they will need to be addressed as part of this project.
For example, if the remediation activities include the need for soil excavation, the CEQA
document should include: (1) an assessment of air impacts and health impacts
associated with the excavation activities; (2) identification of any applicable local
standards which may be exceeded by the excavation activities, including dust levels
and noise; (3) transportation impacts from the removal or remedial activities; and (4)
risk of upset should be there an accident at the Site
DTSC can assist your agency in overseeing characterization and cleanup activities
through our Voluntary Cleanup Program. A fact sheet describing this program is
enclosed. We are aware that projects such as this one are typically on a compressed
schedule, and in an effort to use the available review time efficiently, we request that
DTSC be included in any meetings where issues relevant to our statutory authority are
@ Printed on Recycled Paper
EXHIBIT NO. ~
p. i.fJ..
": .,..
Mr. Scott Anderson
October 11, 2000
Page 2
discussed.
Please contact Lynn Nakashima of my staff at (510) 540-3839 if you have any
questions or would like to schedule a meeting. Thank you in advance for your
cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
~ CO 0YL
Barbara J. Cook, P.E., Chief
Northern California - Coastal Cleanup
Operations Branch
Enclosures
cc: without enclosures
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
P. O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
Guenther Moskat
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812-0806
EX-TIIBIT NO. 1
p r .1 ..f .J..
IFn[b~ ~@~)J
ORDINANCE NO. 451 N.S.
A1~ ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON ESTABLISHING
PLA1~G PROCEDURES FOR THE PROPOSED
ZELINSKY PARKIRAILROAD MARSH FLOODPLAIN PROJECT
LOCATED ON TOWN OF TIBURON-OWNED LAND BEHIND THE
TIBURON TOWN HALL AND BEL VEDERE- TIBURON PUBLIC
LIBRARY BUILDINGS AT 1501 & 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD
(PORTIONS OF ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 58-171-62 & 85)
The Town Council of the Town ofTiburon does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1.
PURPOSE
The Town ofTiburon is proposing to make landscaping, grading, drainage
and passive public recreation improvements to a portion of the Railroad Marsh
Floodplain located behind the Tiburon Town Hall and Belvedere- Tiburon Public
Library buildings at 1505 and 1501 Tiburon Boulevard. The improvements would
include a suitable recognition of the contributions of the Zelinsky Family toward
making the Town Hall and Library buildings a reality, Under provisions of the
Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, this project would require a review by and
recommendation from the Parks & Open Space Commission and issuance of a
conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. The Tiburon Town Council
is adopting this ordinance for the purpose of establishing more streamlined
planning procedures for approval of this major public investment, and providing
for direct Town Council review and approval of the project. This ordinance
exempts the Zelinsky Park/Railroad Marsh Floodplain project from provisions of
the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance while establishing review procedures for the
project. The purpose of the ordinance is to streamline the review process in order
to reduce public costs of the project while preserving the public input process by
making;the Town Council the sole decision-making body for the project.
SECTION 2,
EXEMPTION FROM ZONING ORDINANCE
The Zelinsky Park/Railroad Marsh Floodplain project proposed for Town-
owned property located behind 150 I and 1505 Tiburon Boulevard (Assessor
Parcels 58-171-62 and 85) shall be exempt from all provisions of the Tiburon
Zoning Ordinance, Tiburon Municipal Code Chapter 16.
Town ofTiburon
Ordinance No. ~51 NS Effective 1l/19/99
1
EXHIBIT NO.
e. (,+.3
.3
SECTION 3.
REVIEW PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED
Plans for the Zelinsky Park/Railroad Marsh Floodplain project shall be
reviewed pursuant to the following procedures:
(A) The Town Council shall hold one Of mOfe public meetings to
review and approve conceptual drawings for the project, and shall hold one or
more public meetings to review and approve final working drawings for the
project.
(B) The project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code 21000, et seq., ("CEQA") and the necessary environmental
review shall be conducted at the appropriate states of the project as required by
sate law.
(C) At any time during the process, the Town Council may, as it deems
appropriate, refer the project to the MarshlFloodplain Improvement Committee,
Planning Commission, Design Review Board, or any other Council-appointed
Board or Committee for that group's input or analysis. Such referrals shall be
advisory and not binding on the Council.
(0) Prior to any work on the site, the Town's Building Official shall
issue a grading or building permit for the project as necessary.
(E)
The project shall be exempt from all Town fees.
SECTION 4.
SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of the court of competent
jurisdiction, such section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase shall be deemed severable
and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The Town
Council of the' Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance,
any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any
one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be declared invalid
or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5.
EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of
passage and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage a copy of the
ordinance shall be published with the names of the members voting for and against it at
least once in a newspaper of general circulation published in the T own of Tiburon.
Town ofTiburon
Ordinance No. 451 NS Effective 11/19/99
2
EXHIBIT NO. 3
(', J .f.3
-_._--------~--
,,,,0.
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council held on
October 6, 1999 and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town
ofTiburon on October 20, 1999, by the following vote:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Bach, Hennessy, Matthews,
Thompson
None
Gram
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
7~ci. .
DIANE CRANE IAC~WN CLERK
Zelinsky park exempt orddoc
Town ofTiburon
EXHIBIT NO. ..3
Ordinance No. 451 NS. Effective 1l/19/99 ~, 3 j, J 3
0'",
, .
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING A NEGA TIVE DECLARATION AND
APPROVING A PROJECT PROPOSING FERRY-RELATED ACCESS AND
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA IN THE VICINITY
OF THE BLUE & GOLD FERRY DOCK
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, Town ofTiburon has developed drawings for improvements to the subject
area entitled "Tiburon Ferry Area Improvements" prepared by LSA Associates and dated March,
2000 ( 6 sheets); and
WHEREAS, the project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and the Town determined that an Initial Study must be prepared and authorized the preparation
of such a study in August 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Tiburon Planning Department determined that based upon the completed
Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was required for the project pursuant to CEQA;
and
WHEREAS, in September 2000, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was
completed and Notices of such were posted, mailed, and advertised in the ARK newspaper to
announce a 30-day public review period for review and comment on the Initial StudylDraft
Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, following closure of the 30-day public review period on October 23,
2000, the Town Council conducted a public hearing on November I, 2000 to receive public
testimony on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and project plans, and heard and
considered all public testimony on the matter, reviewed and considered the information contained
in the Initial Study and the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, any and all comments and
responses thereto; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds the project to be consistent with the Tiburon General
Plan and Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, as set forth in the Staff Report dated October 24, 2000,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council ofthe Town of
Tiburon does hereby make the following findings:
1. Notice of the public review period and hearing on the Mitigated Negative
Declaration was given as required by law and said hearing was conducted
pursuant to Sections 15073 and 15074 of the State CEQA Guidelines and
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No.
--1--/2000
1
EXHIBITNO.~
f-Iot-4-
pursuant to provisions of the Town's Local CEQA Guidelines.
2. All individuals and groups desiring to comment on the Initial Study and
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were given the opportunity to
address the Town Council.
3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project consists of the Initial
Study document dated September 2000, the Negative Declaration form,
the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and any supporting information that
may be referenced therein.
4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was completed in compliance with the
intent and requirements ofCEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the
Town's Local CEQA Guidelines.
5, The Town Council has found that there is no substantial evidence in the record
sufficient to support a fair argument that the project will have a significant
unmitigated impact on the environment.
6. The Town Council has found that the project is consistent with the goals and
policies of the Tiburon General Plan, as set forth and documented in the Staff
Report dated October 24, 2000,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of
the Town ofTiburon does hereby:
1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
2. Approve the Ferry Area Access & Safety Improvement Project as set forth
on the drawings referenced above, subject to review provisions as set forth
by ordinances applicable to the project.
3. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached as Exhibit "A" hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town
of Tiburon on ' ,2000 by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No.
--1--12000
2
ELqIBIT NO. 4-
p- J. J 4-
ATTEST:
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No,
THOMAS GRAM, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
feny area access reso.doc
--/--/2000
EXHIBIT NO. 4
p-3A-4-
3
-
'"
~
..
,..
EXHIBIT No.A
.. = ~
= ~ g-j:l
.;: 0 .52 ~ "-E ~ 5 .!l '" .!l '"
e.: -;; 13 -;; U -;; U
~E .5! S '0 ODS'=: ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
= .- 0 ~ = 0", U = 0", U =
",.. .2 ~- ~ = ~.=:g Ez U ~ = u U ~ = u U
::;: 0.'" = '" 0.._ 0 '" 0...- 0 '"
0: ~tE "J!! =500 0: ~ o.U~ ~ o.U~ ~
u 0. O-ou..::,S,.., "'.0 0. ",.c 0.
::;;
~
c.:l
o
=:
=-
c.:l
z
...
r;;
o
=-
~
c.:l
Z
...
=:
o
,..
Z
o
::;;
Q
Z
<
Z
o
...
,..
<
c.:l
...
,..
...
::;;
~
~
Q
u
:is c
~'; ~.~
; =~.~
... 0. =
:l 0
== ::;;
....
oS
'c
"
::;;
13
U '"
.~:
o.U
..= :; ""0 ~Vl
;::: Vl c c:
~ 5 ~ 6
-tB1df-
o .;: ou
~ 0 o...c: Vl
- 0 - IU
""0 E l5.:~
:; .... 0.'- U
Oc:~~"'O
-5i 13.~ c":;
.9 ~~~ ~
.-._._.- Ol)
c:c.:c :g.-
OO()coorG
:E:.=:.=u-o
.0
=
"
;:
u
-<
~ =
00
= ~
~15
0,_
,..,..
=
.52
-;
1:.=
.,."-
e .E
..!:!foot
0.
e
-
'"
=
:g
-;;
=
<=
.5!
~
o
'~
0.
=
,52
13
"
~
'@ ~
80.
u
:c =
or;; c
C';
" '"
0.
;:;:
==::;:
~~
;$
...
=
::
"
.c
i=
~
o
=
~
o
f-
u
....
"
~
..
u
::;:
" "
".0
>,t:i=.8
.D"(i; C'a C
"'0 c..c 0
(1) 8 ~ (1)
~r.fl.:c~
.~.- bI) OD
;> Ol):.:....
e.=;::: 0
""O.E.tG C
~ .~ co .g
"'O-;;S~
Q) Q) "'C'-
a ... c E
Cl.~ ~ =
e g vi=:
Q..~ g ..
(l) E.- It)
.D 0..1) [;
="'0_
";j tG":;=-=
~~0l)5r
c..c = .....
cO .... 01):.6
c.. e"3:E ri!
0.0 ~"'C E ofi
.5 c I;/) 0. <0 i
.:c cu"c 0 c.,
bO.9~:2i
:.::: l;: E: ~ 0..,
<(ctlr-OOl)
..... Q,) VI c
':":1 ~ -5 -g :5
r:n~..cuo
:> ~ .~ -E. ~'
=
~
'"
-
~
~ =
"On tIS U t'I:l
..2""0 5 QO~=
.S! =..c: .: u a
.0 r:l:l ~.~ 3..0 0 "-
~COll..c-oOO~U
._ ~ c Vl .... = u 2
l-o 0"= l.;:; C'-..o -
] f-.- u ~ t: E :g
t.EuE.::~8u8-d
te-E ~''Bi o.;:s E; urM
'iU.s~5~c:Z,,",r:l:l
.cU"""<Il ..o-o8~
-::c 0'- OO"'E c uo.c
~ (C u 0 .5 2 "
.- '5.:E c t: .... - C ""0
g.<UC'I:l~::::SCl)ilJ~:;
uuo.eaUCC<<lO
0:: 16 ~ ~ g 8 ~ ~-55
'0 a
= ~
~ "
~.c
o ,_
f-f-
o
..,
- ~
~ ~ t.l.,g
'0' g 5 E
....- - U
0. U c: ...
o.o:luO
.E ~ ~;z
:;c....-o
,..., 0 u c:
.....u"OC'a
"
o
3
.0 c
f=.2o
,-ti_
c 2 ~
l::1ii-
;::: c:c:
000
!-uu
"
-s
...
o
" .
" "
6 e
80
,,=
o.~
e ~
.5:5.
.~ ~
""
" "
.~..c:
u t::: 0
00'"
~ = ....
~.9 ]
""-6
. u "
,~g>
~ ~ 0
BSZ
"u'"
~"'O a
= ~
'~..::t: ~
= u C
<{5~
61:11
C5~~
,,~
",0
-=
- 0
"'.-
..co'::
-'"
~ =
cO
~ u
= "
U U
"'O-c";i
;; "E E;
o .
"'~o.
r,t)._ Q.
~ U '"
.2 :;.-=
'= ~ E
0" "
::Eeo.
'0 g
= ~
~ "
0:0::
f-f-
~
~
U
U u
.~8
:: 0.
0.-
"
"'~
.58:
~ 0.
" 0.
0",
"
::
15 =
.- 0 *-
t'iLs
o 2 ~
~T:1E
000
f-UU
OIl
= >>
'';:..0
='0
u "
>>""
"".0 "
C "" '"
'" "
Go) > 00
u 0 "
; E:~
-e~..a
~~~
;.0-'0.
~] 0
cu <Ii ~
t;] ~
.g 's.. ~
~0Il'"
E .5 -e
0- 0
t::.~ Q)
o " "
.0 " '"
~ b~
="... ~
"'O:s! :
e-e~u;
0,a=.2.,
E-o$o
':":1 ~ ;;; '3
, VI U l'lS
N8-S.a
~~-;E
U~
'" 0
- =
- 0
" .-
..c::
-",
~ =
" 0
~ u
= "
" U
"'0"'0";
-,,~
g E 8:
"'~o.
t/l._ c..
~ U "
.s 5;::
'2 ~ E
l..g 00 u
'.GEe.
~ =
00
= ~
~15
0._
f-f-
~
~
13 U
u g
'0' l5..
Q..";j
"'~
.S 8:
:; ~
0",
"
::
"
.c =
f=.~ 0
~U_
o.f u
c: Vi ~
:.t c-=
000
f-UU
u-;-fi
.0 u '"
c; 's ~
.c"""
:~]
] rn (.)
. "'-
B..c ~
cug-=
8rn.I!3
~ r.Il~ g
tl S c
"" '" 8
"5 8.g
u 0 ~
~._.... ...
.5 ~ ~ E
- - u i3
'a 0 oS 0
_ c 0 1-0
C Il.) '>
u > ~ c
5] $' ~
~ c; g.5
0....="'0"'0
u v.l 0 =
.... "'01-0 ::s
" '" 0
:< cu bO t::
<S.5 ~
~I'~] .s
.... c '';: 0
........ 0 C =
::I: c cu._
.!l
'"
-;; "
~ :::
0'" u
0..5 g
o."~
".0
,,~
'" 0
- =
- 0
".-
.s~
~ =
" 0
~ u
= "
u,,_
"''''"
-"'~
gEe
"'~o.
Vl._ c.
!_uca
i .9 :;.-=
i 'g ~.E
I ::E s' g,
~ =
00
= ~
~.E
0._
f-f-
~
~
"
u u
.~E
00.
E.-
'"
"'~
.E 2
~ 0.
" 0.
0"
"
o
] =
.- 0 1-0
t'€ s
o 2 ~
~~E
000
f-UU
.
B
~c;
.I:l OIl
= "
0-
u ..
" =
.c .-
- ~
....: OIl
~E
0'-
. '"
"'""
"'-
.. 0
- "
ll.c
'S~
. 0
"'"
~ ~
o 0 .
c c..B
O ~,-
.- ~
'- '"
.~ "'0
'" 0 "
,,- ..
,,"'-
U 0 go
(U.!:l =
III g.. tIS
<(" -
. '"
011l ~
N= S
<( '" '"
=~6
~
.s
.;
u
;;
'5
o
~
-<:
<(
'"
..l
~
~
I
.S
I
.
~
~
OJ
u
3
o
'"
EXHIBIT NO. t-
p, 4- .f 1-
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
FERRY AREA IMPROVEMENTS
INITIAL STUDY
Submitted to the:
TOWN OF TIBURON
Preparedlry:
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC.
SEPTEMBER 2000
L S ^
, ","\:1'1''''''''1' NO I
_j.., L .1')1 .--1-
TlBURON FERRY AREA IMPROVEMENTS INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
TABLE OF CONTENTS
. . .
CONTENTS
A. Summary Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I
B. Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
C. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .......................... 21
D. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................... 22
E. Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25
F. Draft Mitigation Monitoring Report Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50
G. Report Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52
H. Sources Contacted or Cited ....................................... 52
FIGURES
Figur~ I: Regional Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
Figure 2: Project Area and Existing Conditions ............................... 5
Figure 3: Schematic Plan ................................................ 7
Figure 4: Pedestrian Plaza Subarea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
Figure 5: Replacement Deck and Arcade Subarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
Figure 6: Tiburon Boulevard Subarea ..................................... 13
Figure 7: Schematic Elevations .......................................... 15
Figure 8: Land Use Designations ......................................... 17
TABLES
Table I: Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Program........................... 51
P:\TOI03I\JnilialSlUdy'oC'heckJill_wpd(9!\4IOO)
P:ITot03l\Jnitial SnulyIOlectlist.wp:l (9J141OO)
\1
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
. . .
A. Summary Information
1. Project Title:
Tiburon Ferry Area Improvements
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
3. Contact Person and Phone Nnmber:
Scott Anderson, Planning Director
(415) 435-7392
4. Project Location:
The Tiburon Ferry Improvements project area is located along the downtown waterfront
area in the vicinity of the Blue and Gold Ferry Dock. Project improvements are planned for
the westernmost portion of the Downtown Shoreline Park, the deck area connecting the Blue
and Gold ferry dock with the Angel Island ferry dock, the ferry concourse arcades
connecting Main Street with the Blue and Gold ferry dock, and the bus loading and sidewalk
area in the vicinity of the Tiburon Boulevard and Main Street intersection.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Town ofTiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
6. General Plan Designation:
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Public/Quasi-Public (P)
Village Commercial (VC)
7. Zoning:
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Public/Quasi-Public (P)
Village Commercial (VC)
8. Description of Project:
See project description below.
P",Todlll\JnitiaISrudy\Olec.ldin.wpd(91I""OO)
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
See project description below.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
I. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
2. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
3. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (Corps)
4. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS)
I'ITol031\1nitialSludylCha:ldia-wpcl(9f141OO)
2
B. Project Description
1. Introduction
The Town of Tiburon Ferry Area Improvements project (project) is located in the vicinity of the existing
dock used by the Blue and Gold Ferry fleet at the Town's waterfront. Figure I shows the regional location
of the project. Figure 2 shows the project area and the existing layout of the docks, decks, public arcades,
plazas, stairs, pedestrian access, automobile access, bus stops, bus loading areas and other features in the
vicinity of the ferry area.
The project proposes to enhance public pedestrian and bus transit user access to and connections between
the ferry, bus transit, and bayfront uses by replacing stairs and providing new ramps, walkways, lighting,
landscaping, and safety features in the vicinity of the Blue and Gold ferry dock. Figures 3 through 7 show
the proposed schematic plan for the ferry area improvements, and subarea details of the improvements.
2. Setting of Project Area and Vicinity
The project area is used regularly by pedestrians for shopping, recreation, and ferry access. The portion of
Main Street extending west from Tiburon Boulevard (the ferry concourse and deck area) is lined with
restaurants and retail stores (see Figure 2). The Downtown Shoreline Park, a landscaped park, extends
eastward along the waterfront from the existing bus stop area at Tiburon Boulevard. A relatively small area
is currently provided for ferry users to congregate along a short bridge (Zelinksy Bridge) leading to Shoreline
Park and along a wooden deck adjacent to the Guaymas Restaurant. The existing access from Tiburon
Boulevard and Main Street to the Blue and Gold and the Angel Island ferry docks is circuitous and not well
marked for ferry users. Two sets of stairs and a "jog" around a gate provide obstacles for accessing the Blue
and Gold Ferry Dock from Main Street or the arcades (see Figure 2). Pedestrian and ferry user amenities
such as easily visible ferry schedules, trash receptacles, lighting, and seating are lacking in the project area.
Additionally, transit and ferry user loading and unloading areas are often congested during peak drop-off and
pick-up times. Some existing trees and landscaping is overgrown in the bus loading area. Approximately
300 feet of sidewalk along Tiburon Boulevard, north of the intersection with Main Street, narrows from 8
to 5 feet causing pedestrian congestion at peak commute hours.
Land uses in the vicinity oftheproject include medium- to high-density residential, commercial, open space,
and public/quasi-public space. Figure 8 shows the Town of Tiburon General Plan designations for the ferry
improvement area. An open-space/commercial area lies to the north of the project area; the Point Tiburon
condominium complex is located to the northeast; the San Francisco Bay is located to the south, and the
Shoreline Park lies to the east.
3. Background
In 1991, grant funding for the project became available under the Proposition 116 California Transportation
Commission (CTC) Water-Borne Ferry Program. The Town applied for a grant and originally planned to
reconfigure the Blue and Gold ferry dock to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
1",T<11031\Jnili.ISludy\Olccldi5l.wpd(9I14l00)
3
Vallejo
Sa n Mateo
Redwood
City
Source: U.S.G.S. Oolc!ond West
Inc., 1999.
TIBURON FERRY AREA IMPROVEMENTS
L S ^
Figure 1
Regional Vicinity
r-
C/>
>
-0
(3
C1)'
0-
)>
.,
C1)
o
o
::l
0...
m
~.
~
::l
CO
n
o
::l .."
9:- cO'
:::!: c:
o Cl
~ N
J~t0
~
u
Q/--L
~.,'_._.~
-~;"~oo=''"<\
I \<~~.",''-'',__'"'' ~)t
" r"'l>., ,_ "
'-<<~;~>~~ , ! !\
'<:"", il
' ~\~ ill
". "'1'~~\ ; Ii! !
\Y} t:J d )
'.I L 'I i
;j II;
~'11 il/
::, ~)j
\ ~~:::g
" ' ,,"."C/
'---.. ,,/
,
.
.
'"
>-j
~
tJj
c:
::0
o
Z
"'1
1"'1
::0
~
:>-
::0
1"'1
:>-
~
~
'"C
::0
o
<:
t>1
~
t>1
Z
>-j
lZl
,
o
. ,
"
...",
."
'",
..~
<-
....
>'~~
~:~z:.
~~! /'
//5~--~~~~~'~~,~~.
./ ">..
....
--'.............., ~
~.
.
> J:
~
, "
i ;;: ~
l' If>
\', ~ rn
'\,.
-':--~:_~-".._,
;-
/
:S
"',
:~:\~,\.::.. ~
\\~ \
\\':~\~". \.
\\\\,
\.':\,".>.'
>.\
\'\.,
.,
\',
, \\
\,\
" ",
\
\. \ \
\\\\
. I
!
'->
k
o
"Y
C"
'"
I..-
~,
'0
~
"
f I: I !(S?J
r-
C/l
>
U1
,..,
::r
C1l
3
o
:::!:"n
n ca'
""
-"
o CD
:J ....
~ ~~'JU
t.!.,j ',~ ',f'"
~ f',' ,.
m '~, :: '
;)/-{l'; ;;):.
l_J to
~
...,
~
tt1
c::
;<:i
o
z
'Tj
t">1
;<:i
;<:i
-<
>
::0
t">1
>
~
~
'"C
;<:i
o
<:
t">1
~
t">1
Z
...,
en
I
~
.
Ii
;f
..
.
.
.
~~',~
p~
.:~t/
//."'~-~"
";/
,/ .
'/,'
I
/'i ,.
Ii,:'
,Ii
'..c......
~@
OJ
-'-'..~.., k '(
. ,):g l& I '. ~
J!i~~~~' ~~ it~!~r' \
i~31~:II~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ;) ~ \ ~
7';~ ~\' ';;- Q o,~~Nf'" J-
i. J\ i'~}~j~\
:...:,.,....-. ',;-,,\ ',\ ~
-c"'R i ".:-.\\\. 1lo
!~h~* (..\~\\ '.,
i < .J} ":~,~' . "',
o y~ . \\',
~ .' . \\\ '" "
/ ~~<~'\:":'\'"
" ~\\:\.\
B \'\'.~.
\\~::'\ ": ( :
.\ .
" ,\ '
-0
,!l~ff$
/ "'1l:.~
,,~;;I~'I'
i ~~
VI <l
~
'"
'!>
"-
It
1"
/
a
'-'
k
, \\
- ; \
." \\
-'"
- ""- /
. . '. ')..........---"
'. ,F/'
,k- /
v""y-'-'
o
Iv
c<
o
.le
~
o
\
\ . '.,
\ \\
~'r,f'C:::
'-'. '"
L--J'- ~-,
/--' --"1~
/ ~t~~ W
-.~ ;!: -J
".1 ti '>-
~
1>
~
yo
,
.
V.l
~
Cl
C)
(:J
~
()
>
~Z~
m 0
~ - ..
o z -<
~ :I:
m
m
~
'"
7
r~,_~C~
\,
^
,
.,.
~
8
r-
C/)
>
~
0-
co
Vl
~
::l.
o
OJ
"
o
N
o
Ul
C :n
o-ea
o c
ro ;
o ...
"'/
/
r~~Yf ';:. ~ /
/. r/ ~- /
J'
.' I') /
.' / \
/ '~/
D I
Ih
'--
---U
y '"'.
v, /~" ")
'\ \,
I)
",.. / (I)
"'/ lh
Ib
......\
:::..'
<:
(1)0
--'
/
/'/
,
/
>-J
~
t:C
c::
~
o
Z
'7l
t<1
~
~
><:
:>
~
t<1
:>
~
;;:::
."
~
o
-<
t<1
;;:::
t<1
Z
>-J
rJ:J
-~,..
--
El.:.
"""-~:s
'", \l\ '1'
,\ (\ ~
C 4-r,
..1-'-1. I"~
-0
-. c d\
"'. c-
II\~'
\J)'^
~
~-
/
/
r
~ ()
../ )>
<:)l \J
/
;5'
c
<1\
-~
f-
"-'0
.---'--
::;1;
"
~
--
'l-
l"
I'
f
I
.I
o : ..'0 ^- ..... '\\\bi~'
I": :~\jl,\
\, I If - I'
"i' '\1 V
\"\i'i!'\': V
\T I \ /
'\i'1,1. 0 1:-:-:
..".."...'j".,I,': I' '2r 1 ! "
ij:Lf\~:;~::' I" ~ -' -... ~ .....-t.
.:i, TC '" '. (5) J> i? ~ Ii.'"
~1ti:. ;~~ i8. !-.{
/1~~E1:. (i"
\ ..i}ifIm.
"'f, ~ ;:1!'C,S
\ ~~~- ~
3, 1" --
\ \}\"~ ~ " ~
'" .A.. t,. "'Z.~ "" . 8-
\ C) ..0,,\, ~
\ ..C....'\.
...,\ ~ .
\,,1'>\
~
o
~
t.>-> "
i> - ~ 60
o:z ~
o ~ :I
o m
o ~
N
o
r-
(j')
>
;;<J
(1)
'D
0'
()
(1)
3
(1)
:J
~
o
o
()
'"
a
:J
CL
)>
~
()
a
CL
(1)
V>
C ."
lJ -.
a <g
en 0;
a '"
/
I J'
)>
,
.r)
-_...._--
"lr
""I
/1!rfcO~~j:)
! \~~~:::-/_J'
~) ".~:=::::.::.
o }
~
\,
.,
\'
I'
\ I
, \
\
\ \
1\
\ I
\ "
(F~
\\
\\
: I
:~.':.-':~:'
./
"V
~
J-
~
\~,
......>
'.
:.'.::::/
'"',
"""'.
t
"-
" '.
'"
"-
""
"
"
>-l
.....
t;,;
c::
~
o
z
~ i!
~ "-
~ r.~.j.
~ ~~\}~Iy\
~ ~'rt
~ ! /"/
s::: /0'
t>1
Z
>-J
en
-
, '
~
~
17
V1
--...------.-
. ,,'
th ~~~8 .
'" N-" f'" -.
(\
7'
o
\
\.
(,.l
l>-
e
I:l
Cl
~
"
>
o :;; 6 f'VlI:
~ ~UJ
m
m
~
~
o
r-
C/)
>
--1
er-
e
a
::J
co
o
e
ib
<
o
a...
Ul
e ."
0- r.O'
o c
, ,
Cl> CD
o '"
...,
~
I:Jj
c:
~
o
Z
'"'1
t"'1
~
~
><:
>
~
t"'1
>
~
s::
."
~
o
<
t"'1
s::
t"'1
Z
...,
'"
v:>
f:;-
a
<:l
Cl
-"-" ,1
.\.......
-.
..,....
"
'''',
"
'.
-'""
t' " ~ /"
",--,.J /)/
--,....-
"
/~
o~
~
-1''q.
~)
c
-
(-
'--..
'-, ---
'/
/
~
-~
,I
/
/
/
,. /
"
'.....,
Q
(j)
;oJ{,
-
\
""-
",
""
",
".
o
~
n
>
,,:5@
z ~
~ :I:
m
m
~
~
o
EI
~~
'-_./ ~
r::t
,^ C\ -1 ;y c:.
l>~~~'^
~~J\l')tP
0-( :t- -r
G (11 -I
~ J\~ v
. 3: ><
"'\ ~ -- @~:Xj~ <!.
.. ) ~ \f" '~r" /[C:) ~'C ~
, vi E1 ,,, ('"
""'~_""" '., \" ,'f '
r=\ ";'H:t'.-..",., -' ...
\:'.J, ~- -=iP' t7 1
[' -) &.........
"_\"" e. i\.'
". \ . '=7\
(....)':s -'r,' (:)
'.,~}.-." "
.". /'r.......l. ~
'"p.." \ .
/ z'-'
t 0, .:\., j/
-\~,j
.._; '! .~--.. "-'I.~':~"::'J ,...,
.........l... ~
~'_.,.,' .,,'
\.~J/\;'.
, ...L.".~'\
/<"'\ ..~:/
.j "j"./"
,..' e .t;0',...,
\ \,.~:)
,
'\
'~..
'--:;-.:-'
Il-\J
~ ~ ,/
~, \
\
'.
".
\
...
\
)
{
~
I
I
\
\ ~~
\\ > ~L-
\\ ~ ~
,I ~ >
~'\ "0 --1
, r...
\~ L
....."
...~::~,>:-:..
.~-
...~--_:==.~:.:~~~.-:~"-..~::-:~.~~"".
Q
.~.l___
/
cl'~
1'>",
L.
]I "
~~
~ 1. (
~~, \
)
I
(
~
"
)
')
i
i
,
\ ..
\
..._) [B (
(\ J1 f2'
- Xc>
". "::1 c:.
-\ C. --\
i">o
0\ 1" 0
-\ '^ C>
'C1
\'
,~
'I
-\
~--_....--- """--~-",,",,,""'-""
._._~-,..__..,. --- ,--. ..... ......, ,......"... '..
f
~ \
I
c '>>
..." ~
""
C
() U\ I
m ,
) \
0' ~
(J Q (J)
, .:r:.
(\' \
10 0'
-I
@ ,
(
f'
~
~
c
~
o
L
"ZV
\
y~~
'-.,/
@
\
(
€I
(~ ~i
"
r==
,/
"
m
\
~
C
>
\
-
0
I-
I
-c..
1\'
C-
~
..., >-
~ ~
tl:l
C Q
::0 (.
0 )>
Z
'"'1 \
~ 1\
::0
::0
r- -< ~
(/) >
::0
> ~
> "
~
s::: (\\
'"d 7'-
::0
0 ~
<: -
~ {."
s::: t!I
~
z
...,
'"
T
--'
Q
-
d
-
U>
()
:r
m
3
9-
(i"
m
m
< ."
o -.
~"'
-. c:
o ~
::J CD
'" ....
CJ..>
;:>
<!l
<l
~
-+
-i
VI
~
--
--
I-
._---
--~..
)> ~ f-- --
r. ~_.-
~ ~ t -"- }. ~~
C\\ ,....--
~ (" . ~
- ......... p}~
v1 ~ 1:--'
"-'-"
D ("' u~
C> .>
(\ c
r c --"
....-...
--"c'.
.~CT;~' )>
~.'-'-'- " 1
~'_..~
,,--'--'
,-----.
..-...-
-- i
d ~ --, -r - -
..--.-
J, ~ ~ ~ I
:i~ ~'" ;
~
.l> ..-...-. ;
- ...--"'" -,/
~ -P-~'"
.--.. -4r:/
--.--.
r - ~~, "-
-...---. ~
"..-.... 1:'='
--.-
._-_.
.-..,.-. ,--
-,- -..-
f J .-.--- .J\
-- :OO.-Z
(\j
.- H_ ,---- ("
--- ..-.-
~ ........ '"' c.
- ---. D :==
0 ~
.. "- ..,
- ... c:. ,-
l? -I, ~ --..-.. .1\
.........
-.. -,-.. ..-.-." \..
ca ~ -, =
.... .. "
-" .... ~...
\) -,- ~
-_.- --.....,
~ c ".". - ....__... j'"
t::i .,:"-' .._,"..,.
- > .,.. ...,
- . ..'~' .....-...
f. ...." .......... ;rr
- .....-_..
- It
\" oS'
-
\' ~ ('>
~
c::
(\\ ,,- -
E '.J: ,.
0(
~
J> ,
3
~
.l> ()
(" G
f -\ ~
\J C. "-
.. s 'J>
.:J- c 0 -<.
~ - G
"fJ ...l to ~ -
s, -
J>. <'I '-, J>
(\ g -- -
(\ ,-.. - \7 i.A
~' ,:~ '",
..' -
v'l .". -, (
- 0 -
.:;y ( -,,'- -
., ..
\" (7 ~
~ -"-,
Q ".- ()\
c .. _..~
r I -~'..
..'
--,
'h._.;.
1 ''',.n'
e_
......-
...~., :
" - I
I '''-,.
.:~ ~ -
CJl '0",-- So ~
-
f--I ;-..... ~, '-
=cq~ I, "'
~ -( (\
11 II 1\
'I >2
'I ~."
IJ ~ 1'\\
I
P ~
~
':>
--1
-,
'0.
: ;
!~i
~
'I'
. ,
~:
, '
. ,
,.....'
[....f:
!6
'~
.........
-:1
o
C
.~
~
\7
1\
i(\~
'~
.,...
.w:;-
:v
/0
if)
7'i
1Il
n
~
1"
1'1
J\
J
""
~
~
EJ~
;::\\S'
o t ~
~: -
~~
~--
~
~ ~ ~
'^ C\ -
;-1 ~J
~ t;
~ ~
3\' ~
1 (j>
<:
~
l:S
~)
J',
IJ
r~ t_
_ ro
- ~\
J
i"
r'" C\\~
3 "SJt, \)
'" "'3) '~
"Z. ----<->
os 7"-
r:
'c
'-,
""
I
i
~
-')~
-F> S "-
<'12.~
~ ('::::\
_ t::..
~ ?: II
~~c
r ',~
."
i:.-
~
'^
'" ~ EI
tI\ c>-\
--t~
"Q::t:~
~ r:'
r
),-,\
./
<Ill. ,.--"
" -..
~
~
~,--..
'''-,
I
I
I
'\
~
(\\
-I (- \Jl
C' L. C\I
1\ V\-(
~ 1,,0
x--<~
-:.. D
-~~
"f"
{\Z
'"
'-'\, [J
,~
'" --tJ\&'-
(" ~c:.
it'
jf ~
~~
~~t
Wfi!-
VIS:;
(">
r-
/.......,
/f--"'~ ..
,1( ~ -""
:/1/-:,,- '\~ ')
(i,."" '\)~
,'( -- ) /(
\' ./ "
>"-,.."~'/
- \
,
\ (:'-.
" ,., (1\
" <:: --~.
:~ _/ (\:so
~,,~~EJ ~ ~
,:'. i~",.".~.~\~ ~
~ ".
i ~ ,L 7 ~, .
Y( r\ \ I ,', ~~
~~ ~,nl\0~:~t)l~
\ \... y'(~ ~I '1 \ ---' :y; '" /P
~ V 11\.. 0 -.., ---Lii TI r- e-J, 0fj iEh ~
. ~H ~ r-r-/,.....- [ ~W
:~~ dflML /' ^" j'~~ ~ tk~~~~Q
--1tt::==F J)' I ~"";;;" "h 'x -:s ......
:25t-1 J r< 1 ~ s_ 1;:: J. :/ 'I
J/: \ '\0 fii P ct. J( ~..... ,.. -J/U. ~L ~
'Mr: ~'" ..:y~ \::,p. III,rW.
,\.-f' · .-r-'. ';f' ~ ~\( ~l/ \Yl Ijf ~~.
1\=1 II ,....lr. ;; p ~ ~~.,.. ~\\
~~\ /~ ~~;, /( v~ ~l'\ T "~Vl'\ tiC,
)\.\\ '\ IV -1 ":/-. v ,~ ".,,' He ) stf
\\ .v, r13 J 1; OSt~rrc' VH .~ -,......, ',r;:;~<
=-.: ,_ \U"" ::z~-..... . .l"d) Ir" \ ~
- ~-<:---- .<~ JP"-, '\ .Yf1l
_ _~_':;'-~.:::-- .,.,.-\ \ 'U .'1,
;;3 ~--".. ----- ~ frVM~ _" \ _01_
~ ~ 1>.."_*"__
---..:// ~ ~
____________ ", J
v-: ~~
;j~,
- ~ j'
~~~~~~~
.
~
~
-
~
l-
V')
z
o
o
u
~
NORTH
SCALE IN FEET
o 500 1000
,
Source: TiburonGenercl Plon,9128/89
VC V;\IogeCommecc;ol TIBURON FERRY AREA IMPROVEMENTS
NC Neighborhood Commercial
P PublidQuosi-Public
OS Open Space
VH Very-High Density Residential
MH Medium-High Density Residential
L S ^
Figure 8
land Use Designations
requirements. The project was halted several times to review and address the concerns of the residents of
the Point Tiburon condominium complex northeast of the ferry area regarding the potential alteration oftheir
Bay views by a proposed extension of the ferry dock. In May 1999, a public workshop was held at which
the condominium residents restated their resistance to a redesigned pier. At this meeting, representatives
of the Blue and Gold fleet proposed, as a compromise measure, to replace the existing ferry dock, at no cost
to the Town, with a new, ADA-accessible ferry dock similar in design to the variable-height ramp (VHR)
system used at Pier 4 I in San Francisco. This compromise appeared to be acceptable to the Point Tiburon
residents.
Subsequent to the May 1999 meeting, Town staff contacted the CDC to discuss other possible ferry-related
projects for the grant funding. CTC staff indicated that the grant could be used to fund projects that serve
to reinforce pedestrian activity and encourage public transit usage adjacent to the ferry dock.
In January of2000, Tiburon staff engaged the consulting firm ofLSA Associates, Inc. to prepare schematic
designs and estimate the probable cost for pedestrian and public transit improvements associated with the
ferry dock. Subsequently, the following activities took place:
A design "charrette" was held on January 20, 2000 and attended by representatives of the Town,
transit providers, and affected local businesses to discuss initial design concepts.
Existing layout, site features and use patterns (pedestrians, tourists, cyclists, bus and ferry) were
diagramed.
Three schematic alternatives were developed and presented to Town staff and council members at
the February 16,2000 Town Council meeting. Based on comments received on these alternatives,
a single preferred alternative was chosen for further development.
At the March 15, 2000 Council meeting, the schematic preferred alternative and estimate of probable
cost was presented and approved for presentation to the CTC as part ofthe revised grant application.
. On July 20, 2000, the Town obtained California Department of Transportation and CTC approval
and initial funding for the ferry area improvement project, described herein.
The proposed project would be consistent with other ongoing Town projects and would help realize the
Town's vision of improved pedestrian access along the Main Street waterfront. The ferry area improvements
would complement the Main Street ADA-compliance project completed in May 2000. This project consisted
of sidewalk widening and ADA-accessibility improvements to storefronts along the length of Main Street,
Tiburon's historic thoroughfare. The Town also recently completed an inventory of all structures along Main
Street and Ark Row, and is currently developing a set of downtown design guidelines for future public and
private development, such as new street furniture, street lighting, and pedestrian circulation. The Downtown
DeSIgn Guidelines are planned to be completed in early 2001. The Town envisions that the ferry area
improvement project will act as a catalyst to realize additional transit and pedestrian-oriented development
in downtown Tiburon.
I'ITDIOll']nitiIJSIUdY'.Q1cck.hsl.wpd(91l4JOOj
18
4. Features of Proposed Project
The proposed ferry area improvement project schematic plan is shown in Figure 3. Figures 4 through 7 show
proposed improvements to specific areas of the schematic plan. The following identifies the major features
to be incorporated into the project.
a, Ferry Pedestrian Plaza: A new approximately 2, 1 00 square foot, brick pedestrian plaza is proposed
to link the existing Tiburon Boulevard bus loading and drop-off zone with the ferry access deck
(Zelinsky Bridge). The plaza would feature a widened (approximately 20 feet) and direct pedestrian
access route to the ferry, lighting, seating, and other pedestrian-friendly features that would unifY
existing and planned Tiburon streetscape elements. Lighting, signage and ferry schedule infor-
mation would be improved (see Figures 4 and 7). An existing concrete walk (approximately 1,000
square feet) east of the proposed plaza would be removed and replaced with turf as part of the
project. A portion of a grassy mound (approximately 100 cubic yards of dirt) would be removed to
allow construction of the plaza. The new plaza would be designed and sloped to drain into the
surrounding turf area or street stonnwater system and to minimize stonnwater drainage into the rip
rap along the shoreline.
b. Ferry Access Deck Improvements: The project proposes to replace the aging and deteriorated ferry
access deck (the Allan Thompson Walkway) along the bayfront and eliminate the current steps and
"jog" which pedestrians must currently navigate to access the ferry dock (see Figure 2). A
replacement pile-supported deck and ramps are proposed to extend along the bayside of the
waterfront from the Blue and Gold ferry dock to the Angel Island ferry dock (see Figures 3 and 5).
To eliminate the "jog" and allow sufficient length to construct two 3D-foot ramps, approximately
550 square feet of new pile-supported deck (approximately 55 feet in length by 10 feet in width) is
proposed for a total deck length of 115 feet. The deck width would be maintained at 10 feet. To
protect views from adjacent restaurants, the replacement deck would be no higher in elevation than
the existing deck (see Figure 7). Construction of the proposed deck would require the removal of
60 linear feet (approximately 600 square feet) of dilapidated wooden deck and stairs.
The removal of old piles and the installation of new piles to support the deck and ramps would be
subject to the following conditions. To reduce bottom substrate disturbance and excessive turbidity,
existing piles would be removed by cutting at the substrate surface or by reverse pile driving, and
not by hydraulic jets. All new piling, bulkhead, and dock material would be nontoxic. Any
combination of wood, plastic, concrete, or steel piling may be used, provided that they have no toxic
coatings, such as chemical antifouling products, or other biotic controls that could leach into the
surrounding environment.
c. Ferry Arcade Improvemenls: Proposed project improvements to two ferry arcades that connect
Main Street with the Blue and Gold ferry dock are shown on Figures 3 and 5. Proposed
improvements include improved lighting, new seating, trash containers, ferry signs and schedules.
These improvements would enhance public safety and improve public access to the ferry from Main"Street.
P:\TOIOll\!oili.1 Sludy\C!l<<klis.."-pd (91I4100j
19
d. Bus Stop Improvements (Tiburon Boulevard Norlh Side): Improvements to the bus stop area
adjacent to the lagoon and Point Tiburon stores include new lighting, seating, trash containers, a new
bus shelterlcanopy, and landscape maintenance (see Figure 6). An expanded bus shelter would be
designed in conjunction with the Golden Gate Transit District to ensure that their criteria are met
and to provide increased visibility for transit in the area. Currently, the sidewalk narrows from 8 to
5 feet near the bus stop causing pedestrian congestion at peak commute hours. Widening a total
length of approximately 300 feet of sidewalk to 8 feet is proposed to improve access and alleviate
safety concerns. As part ofthe sidewalk widening, the Town would need to acquire an easement for
an additional 3-foot strip of public right-of-way along Tiburon Boulevard (State Route 131).
Pedestrian access and safety improvements are also proposed along the corridors leading to feny
parking areas north and east of the feny dock (see Figures 3 and 6). These improvements include
widened sidewalks (where the sidewalk narrows to 5 feet), improved lighting and street trees. No
additional parking is proposed as part of this project.
e. Fountain Plaza improvements: Improvements to the brick plaza across Main Street north of the
feny arcades are proposed, including new seating and trash containers, lighting, feny
signage/schedules, and landscaping (see Figures 3 and 6). Renovating the fountain is nolpart ofthis
proj ect.
5. Proposed Project Construction Schedule
Construction of the upland features (the pedestrian plaza and arcade improvements) is proposed for early
spring 2001. Construction of the plaza would take place over the course of approximately 4 weeks. Any
in-water work associated with removal of the existing deck and construction of the ramps would occur
between June I and November 30. This schedule would minimize any impacts to sensitive fish species and
habitat (as identified in this Initial Study) that may be present in the vicinity of the project generally from
December to May. Additionally, this schedule would limit any impacts to spawning herring. Herring are
a commercially important fish species that may spawn in the project area from November 30 to March I.
Turbidity associated with in-water construction can decrease the viability of the spawn. Construction of the
replacement feny dock would take approximately 4 weeks.
The proposed project may be subject to further permitting requirements and restrictions as determined by
the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, the BCDC, and the Corps.
P:\ToI031'.ln;li.JSI"dy\Ch..d.l;>t,wpdj'J1141(0)
20
C. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
m Aesthetics 0 Agricultural Resources o Air Quality
m Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources o Geology/Soils
m Hazards & Hazardous Materials 0 HydrologylWater Quality OLand Use/Planning
0 Mineral Resources 0 Noise o PopulationIHousing
0 Public Services 0 Recreation o Transportation/Traffic
0 UtilitieslService Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination. (To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
o I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
.P!i I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
o I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect I) has been adequately analyzed
in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMP ACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that
.re ,m"",,, o,,?!,, ,ro,=' proj,,' 'oW;" ,orth~ ;, ""o;red.
\2vJL ~ C}-(f--J-Ooo
Signature Date
S4J-+t- A V'.l~v^Jo"""
Printed Name
5","",~.,+ --r; 6~_-~ ,"-
For
P:IToI0311Jni,jaISludyIOlecldiol-wv<I(9/1""OO)
21
D. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific
factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2, All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to
a "Less Than Significant Impact". The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from
Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses", may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identifY the following:
a) Earlier Anal~sis Used. IdentifY and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. IdentifY which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures
Incorporated", describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (.e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
~\TotOJ1'.lniti.ISludy\OIcdli51wpd(9114100)
22
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold; if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
1':IToI0311InitiIISllldyl(J:JedJiSl,"'I"I(9f141OOl
23
P;\TolOlI'Jn;I;'! Slgd~\OlecldjSl,wpd (9114100)
24
E. Environmental Impacts
Potentially
Signifh:ant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantial1y damage scenic resources, including, but not
linnted to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantial1y degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
o
o
o
o
~
o
o
~
o
o
~
o
o
~
o
o
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Explanation: Construction of the new ferry pedestrian plaza would involve removing a portion of a
small (approximately 2 feet in height) grassy mound (approximately lOa cubic yards of material) at the
western edge of the Shoreline Park and building the new pedestrian plaza at grade (see Figure 3). No
portion of the pedestrian plaza would be taller than the existing mound; therefore, views of the Bay
would not be affected. The finished height of the replacement deck and ramps between the Blue and
Gold ferry dock and the Angel Island ferry dock is proposed to be no higher in elevation than the existing
deck. The change in height would not significantly affect scenic vistas from Tiburon of the San
Francisco Bay.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings:within a state scenic highway?
Explanation: See l.a.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and ils surroundings?
Explanation: See I.a.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in lhe area?
P\TOIOJl\lnili.ISludy\Checklislwpd(9/14/00l
25
adversely affect nighttime views in the area. The following mitigation measure is proposed to reduce any
impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure VIS-I: A lighting plan shall be prepared and reviewed by Town staff to ensure
that all project area lighting is consistent with the Town's design guidelines, and that all lights shall
be placed so as to prohibit spillover illumination or glare onto adjoining properties.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to a non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
o
o
o
iii
o
o
o
iii
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
o
o
o
iii
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Imporlance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of lhe
California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use?
Explanation: No agricultural resources are present at the project site, nor would agricultural resources be
affected by the proposed project.
b) Conjlicl wilh exisling zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Acl conlract?
Explanation: See 2.a.
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which. due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
Explanation: See 2.a.
~ ..ToI031\1";ti~IS{ody\n\ttkJi$l.wpdI9"'141001
26
:> 'if'
cJ Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to lheir location or nalure, could
result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
Explanation: See 2.a.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 0 0 0 ~
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 0 0 0 ~
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 0 0 0 ~
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 0 0 0 ~
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number 0 0 0 ~
of people?
aJ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Explanation: The project area is located in the San Francisco Bay Air Basin, and is within the
jurisdiction of the Bay' Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The closest BAAQMD
monitoring site is located in San Rafael, about 7 miles northwest of the project area. Common pollutants
(ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PMIO)) are monitored at the San
Rafael site. The project involves improvements to pedestrian access routes and bus transit areas related
to ferry access. Construction of the project would not lead to an increase in the number of car trips to the
site and resulting long-term potential air quality impacts. Construction of the new ferry pedestrian plaza
(leveling of the grassy mound and construction of the brick plaza) is expected to be completed within 4
weeks. The ferry plaza area would be sufficiently maintained and watered while under construction and
would not result in a source of significant amounts of dust particulates. Because construction of the
replacement deck would take place over open water and construction materials would consist primarily
of wood, no short-term construction impacts on air quality related to fugitive dust are expected to occur.
Other ferry area improvements (such as the ferry arcade improvements) would not result in impacts to air
I':\TolOJ1\lnilial SllUlyIOu,<kliSl,wpd (9114100)
27
quality related to dust or increased vehicular emissions. Construction of the project would not violate
any air quality standards or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Explanation: See 3.a.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Explanation: See 3.a.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Explanation: No sensitive receptors are adjacent to the project site. Construction of the proposed project
would not cause a potential for fugitive dust as explained previously, and is not expected to expose any
sensitive receptors to other pollutants.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Explanation: The construction of the project is not expected to create any objectionable odors.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impatt Impact
0 iii 0 0
o
iii
o
o
PITOlOJI'.lniu.ISludylCbeddiSl,wpd(9114100)
28
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) Through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
1) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 IXI 0
o
o
IXI
o
o
o
IXI
o
o
o
IXI
o
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habilat modifications, on any species
idenlified as a candidale, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by lhe California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Explanation: Available information from NMFS indicates that the following federally-listed fish species
and their critical habitat may occur within the proposed project area:
Sacramento River winter-rnn chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) - endangered
Central Valley ESU spring-ron chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) - threatened
Central California Coast ESU coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) - threatened
Central California Coast ESU steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) - threatened
Central Valley ESU steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) - threatened
These fish species may occur in the vicinity of the project during their upstream migration and
downstream juvenile emigration that usually occurs from December through May. Juvenile salmon and
steelhead are more likely to be adversely affected by pile driving and pile removal than adult fish due to
their reduced swimming and avoidance abilities. Additionally, the project may create impacts to
spawning herring. Herring are a commercially important fish species that may spawn in the project area
from November 30 to March I. Turbidity associated with in-water construction can decrease the
viability of the spawn. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would minimize impacts to
emIgrating winter-run chinook salmon, steelhead juveniles, and spawning herring to a less than
~\TQ,Q]j'Jnj,i.ISI"dy\a.ed;ji.._wpdi9l141001
29
significant level. The project would not involve a change in use, and therefore no long-term impacts to
locally-designated species are expected to occur.
Mitigation Measure BIO-I: Any in-water work associated with replacement of the existing deck
and construction of the ramps shall occur between June I and November 30.
b) Have a substantial adverse efJect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Deparlment of Fish
and Game or Us. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Explanation: No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities exist in the vicinity of the
project site and would be impacted by construction of the project. The new ferry pedestrian plaza would
be constructed in an area which is currently landscaped turf, within an area of the existing Downtown
Shoreline Park. The proposed route of the replacement deck is open water. See also 4.a.
c) Have a substantial adverse efJecl on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of lhe
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc) through direct
removal,filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Explanation: The project area is currently developed with commercial, public, recreation, and transit
uses. The shoreline consists of pile supported decks, bulkheads, and rip rap. Construction of the 550
square feet of additional ADA-accessible deck to improve access to the ferry dock would not have a
substantial effect on federally protected wetlands.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native residenl or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede lhe use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
Explanation: As identified above, the proposed replacement deck would be constructed on piles over
open water and, with the exception of the seasonally sensitive fish habitat identified above (see 4.a.
explanation and mitigation measure), no wildlife corridors would be impeded or blocked as a result of
implementation ofthe:project.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Explanation: The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources.
j) Conflict with lhe provisions of an adopted Habilat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservalion Plan or olher approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
P:ITo,OJlllnili.1 SlUdyIO'tdJiSl,wpd (9114100)
30
Explanation: The project location is designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for fish species managed
with the following Fishery Management Plans (FMP) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act:
. Pacific Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
Coastal Pelagics Fishery Management Plan
Pacific Coast Salmon Management Plan (proposed)
With the incorporation of the mitigation measure (BIO-I) listed above, the project would not conflict
with the provisions of an adopted Fishery Management Plan, Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 0 0 0 !Xl
a historical resource as defmed in S 15064,5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 0 0 0 !Xl
an archaeological resource pursuant to S 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 0 0 0 !Xl
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred 0 0 0 !Xl
outside of formal cemeteries?
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 9
15064.5?
Explanation: No paleontological, archaeological, or other historic resources are known to exist in the
project area, which is currently developed with public recreation, commercial, and transit uses. New
historical resources are unlikely to be discovered during project construction.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 9
15064.5?
Explanation: See 5.a.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Explanation: See 5.a.
P\TC10Jl\lwliaISludy\ChetkJi5l_wpd(9I14/00)
31
d) Disturb any human remains, including lhose interred outside offormal cemeteries?
Explanation: No human remains are known to exist in the project area.
Potentially
Signifiunt
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial 0 0 0 IXJ
adverse effects, including the risk ofloss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on 0 0 0 IXJ
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 IXJ
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 0 0 0 IXJ
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? 0 0 0 IXJ
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 0 IXJ
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or 0 0 IXJ 0
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defmed in Table 18-I-B 0 0 0 IXJ
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of 0 0 0 IXJ
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
a) Expose people or structures 10 pOlenlial subslantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
i,yury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earlhquake faull, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologistfor the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42; ii)Slrong seismic ground shaking; iii)Seismic-related groundfai/ure,
including liquefaction; iv)Landslides?
1':\TOI031\lo;li.JSludy\OIcd.li<l.wpd(9114/00)
32
Explanation: The nature of the ferry area improvements do not involve the construction or modification
of any habitable structures, and would not increase public exposure to potential substantial adverse
seismic or soils-related effects. The replacement of the Bay deck may improve the seismic safety of the
deck.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Explanation: Construction of the ferry pedestrian plaza would take place in an existing, developed park
area, and would not result in significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The existing walkway (east of the
proposed plaza) would be removed and the area returfed as part of the improvements project.
Construction of the replacement deck, which would take place in open water, would not result in or
expose people to erosion.
c) Be localed on a geologic unil or soil lhal is unstable, or lhat would become unstable as a result of
lhe projecl, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, laleral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Explanation: The replacement deck would be supported by piles, which would be driven into the
weathered sandstone bedrock underlying the soft Bay mud. The pile placement and deck construction
would adhere to the Uniform Building Code and best management practices for marine construction.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B oflhe Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
Explanation: See 6.c.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternalive waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Explanation: Project construction and operation would not result in waste water disposal. No septic
tanks are or would be present in the project area.
7. HAZARDS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Potentially
Significant
Pot~ntiall)' Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 IXJ 0 0
I'IToIOJI\JnilioJSludy\O'ed:Ji5l_wpd(9114100)
33
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the D D Iil D
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the envirorunent?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely D D D Iil
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of D D D Iil
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, D D D Iil
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
l) For a project located within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 Iil
airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an 0 D 0 Iil
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, D 0 D Iil
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
aJ Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmenl through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Explanation: No routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials is associated with the project.
The existing pilings supporting the Bay deck are composed of creosote-soaked timbers. Creosote is
considered to be a hazardous substance. To reduce the amount of creosote that may be released into the
water during the one-time removal of the existing timbers to the lowest possible amount and to ensure
that no sawdust would be produced, implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce
the impact to a less-than-significant level.
P:'.TOI03I"Jn(li.IStudylo,edJi..,wpd(9114lOO)
34
Mitigation Measure HAZ-I: To reduce bottom substrate disturbance and excessive turbidity,
existing piles shall be removed by cutting at the substrate surface or by reverse pile driving, and
not by hydraulic jets.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: All replacement pilings and deck materials shall be nontoxic, and
shall have no toxic coatings, such as chemical antifouling products, or other biotic controls that
could leach into the surrounding environment.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: As a condition of project approval, the contractor shall be required to
dispose of the old pilings in a legal manner at an upland site.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Explanation: See 7.a.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous malerials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Explanation: The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Explanation: The proposed project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adoPled,
within two miles of a public airporl or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Explanation: The proposed project would not be located within an airport land use plan nor within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport.
j) For a projecl located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would lhe project result in a safety
hazard/or people residing or working in the project area?
ExplanatIOn: The proposed project would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopled emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
1'.\TOIO}]\lniti~1 SludyICbetkJ;$I.wpd (9114'00)
35
Explanation: The project would in no way interfere with emergency response or excavation plans. The
project would improve pedestrian circulation and lighting in the project area, thereby potentially
improving access for emergency response or emergency evacuation.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlandfires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
wilh wildlands?
Explanation: Because project construction would take place in open water and along the waterfront area
away from wildland areas, the project would not cause an increase in wildland fire hazard.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation 00- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, includmg through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
OCJ
o
o
o
o
OCJ
o
o
o
OCJ
o
o
o
OCJ
o
o
o
OCJ
o
o
OCJ
o
P:\TolOll\lniliaISludy\OIeckliil_wpd(9/14100)
36
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
g) Place housing within a lOa-year flood hazard area as 0 0 0 iXl
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a I aD-year flood hazard area structures 0 0 0 iXl
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, 0 0 0 iXl
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding of
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 iXl 0
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Explanation: The proposed brick pedestrian plaza would be constructed and sloped to drain primarily
into the adjacent turfed areas and the street storm water drainage system, minimizing discharge to the
Bay. No net change in the amount of runoff draining into the rip rap is anticipated, as the proposed
improvements would result in no net increase in impermeable surface. The proposed plaza encompasses
approximately 2, I 00 square feet of impermeable surface area. Impermeable surface to be removed
includes a portion of the bicycle storage area west of the plaza (approximately 1,200 square feet), plus
the pathway east of the plaza (approximately 900 square feet). A high point near the center of the
proposed plaza will have the effect of maintaining existing surface drainage patterns; i.e., 50 percent of
the runoff will be directed to the street, and 50 percent to the rip rap, again resulting in no net change in
the amount of runoff.
No violation of any water quality standards would be expected. Construction of the proposed deck
would involve the installation of new pilings in the waters of the San Francisco Bay and removal of the
existing timber pilings: Short-term construction impacts are expected to locally increase the turbidity of
the Bay waters, but the project is not expected to violate any applicable water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements set by the RWQCB. Implementation of mitigation measure HAZ-I, concerning
the removal of the wooden pilings, would reduce any potential significant water quality effects
associated with construction of the deck.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substanlially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwaler
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
P:ITotUJlllnili.ISludy\OledJiSLwpd(9114JOOI
37
Explanation: Construction of the pedestrian plaza would not result in alteration of the direction or rate of
tlow of groundwater, and would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge.
c) Subslantially aller lhe exisling drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of lhe course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site?
Explanation: Construction of the pedestrian plaza and the replacement deck would result in a less-than-
significant increase in impervious surface area (approximately 1,100 square feet of brick plaza and 550
square feet of Bay deck). The existing pedestrian walkway would be removed and returfed.
Construction of the project would not result in a significant change in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff. See also 8.a.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of swface
runoffin a manner which would result injlooding on- or off-site?
Explanation: The proposed project would not involve the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
and would not result in tlooding on- or off-site. See also 8.c.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Explanation: Runoffwater from the pedestrian plaza and deck would not exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems nor provide additional sources of polluted runoff. See also 8.a
and 8.c.
j) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Explanation: The proposed project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. See also 8.a
and 8.c.
g) Place housing within a 100-year jlood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rale Map or other jlood hazard delineation map?
Explanation: Construction of the proposed project does not include the construction of new housing.
h) Place within a 100-year jlood hazard area structures which would impede or redirecljlood
jlows?
Explanation: Construction of the proposed project would not create new structures that would impede or
redirect tlood tlows.
P\ToIOJI,lnitiaISludyIChe<:kJisl_wpd(91141OO)
38
z) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involvingjlooding,
including jlooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Explanation: The project does not include the construction of habitable structures and would not expose
people or structures to a new significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudjlow?
Explanation: As described previously, the objective of the project is to improve pedestrian access to the
Blue and Gold ferry dock. No additional exposure to water-related hazards is expected as a result of the
project.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 0 iii
0 0 0 iii
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
nahlral community conservation plan?
o
o
o
iii
a) Physically divide an eSlablished community?
Explanation: No physical division of an established community would result from implementation of the
project.
b) Conjlict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
Explanation: The project does not involve change in a Tiburon General Plan designation or zoning.
Implementation of the project following approval would therefore be consistent with applicable zoning
and general plan designations.
P\T~IOJI\lnjli.1 Sludy\OIa:kJiSl_wpd(9II4IOOl
39
,
c/ Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
Explanation: The project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. See also 4.a and 4.f.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability ofa locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 0 IXJ
o
o
o
IXJ
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource thai would be of value to the region
and lhe residents of the state?
Explanation: No known mineral resources are present at the project site.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-importanl mineral resource recovery site delineated on
a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Explanation: See lO.a.
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 IXJ 0
o
o
IXJ
o
o
o
o
IXJ
P\TOIOJI\lnilill Sludy\ClJcckJisLlwpd (9114JOO)
40
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
lmpact lncorporated lmpact lmpact
0 0 IXJ 0
o
o
o
IXJ
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
o
o
o
IXJ
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or Iloise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Explanation: The proposed project would not change the use of the existing area, and no long-term
increases in ambient noise levels are expected as a result of the project.
Short-term construction activities related to the proposed ferry area improvements would temporarily
increase noise levels in the area during the construction period (approximately 90 days). Pile driving
related to construction of the Bay deck could temporarily expose persons to increased noise levels. Pile
driving would take place intermittently for 10 to 15 minutes for up to 2 hours per pile. Up to 20 piles
may be needed to support the replacement deck and ramps. Pile driving activities would take place over
the course of approximately 2 weeks. Driving piles into the mud can generate noise levels of 90 to 100
dBA at the source for up to 2-hour intervals. When the distance from noise sources is doubled (e.g.,
going from 50 feet to 100 feet), noise levels are reduced by approximately 4 to 6 decibels. The Town of
Tiburon regulates construction activities to daytime hours, the least noise-sensitive time of day. No
residential uses are located within 200 feet of the construction area. Compliance with the Town's
construction restrictions would reduce this temporary impact to less-than-significant levels. All
construction activities would adhere to the scheduling requirements of Chapter 13 of the Tiburon
Municipal Code.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise
levels?
Explanation: Pile driving related to construction of the Bay deck could temporarily expose persons to
ground borne vibration or noise levels. See II.a.
PIToIO)lllnili.JSlUdyIChcdJiSl,"'1"i(9114JOOj
41
c) A subslantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
Explanation: No long-term increase in ambient noise levels are expected as a result of the project.
d) A substantial temporalY or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Explanation: Construction of the project will temporarily increase ambient noise levels. Compliance
with the Town's construction restrictions would reduce this temporary impact to less-than-significant
levels. See also 11.a.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Explanation: The project would not be located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an
airport.
j) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Explanation: The project would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) o( indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
lmpact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 0 IXJ
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
o
o
o
IXJ
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
o
o
o
~
P.'TOI03!l!n;li.1Sludylo.c<ldi<I,"'1"i(91!4JOOj
42
a} Induce substantial populatioll growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure) ?
Explanation: The project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in an
area.
b) Displace substantialllumbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Explanation: The project would not displace any housing.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Explanation: See l2.b.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES.
al Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools"
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 0 IXJ
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
IXJ
IXJ
IXJ
IXJ
IXJ
a) Would the project result in substalltial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause sigllificant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services: Fire protectioll, police protection, schools, parks, other public facilities?
P:\TolOli\ln;l;aISlu<ly\ChcdJ;'I_wpd.(9/141OOJ
43
Explanation: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision, need or construction of governmental facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives. Construction of the replacement deck involves an approximately
55-foot extension in length of an existing timber structure in open water, no effect upon fire protection
services would be expected. Widening a total length of approximately 300 feet of sidewalk by 3 feet for
a total width of 8 feet (consistent with the remainder of the sidewalk) along Tiburon Boulevard would
not affect fire or police protection services.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
14. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
o
o
IXJ
o
o
o
IXJ
o
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Explanation: The objective of the project is to increase pedestrian access to the ferry dock primarily by
constructing a brick-paved pedestrian plaza and replacing deteriorating wooden steps and a deck. The
brick pavement of the plaza would mitigate any deterioration to turf and landscaping at the Shoreline
Park caused by pedestrians accessing the ferry.
b) Does the project illclude recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreationalfacilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Explanation: The project would not include any changes to existing recreation facilities or new facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Issues associated with surface drainage
from the pedestrian plaza are discussed in 8.a and 8.c.
P:IToI031,lojli.IStudy\ChcdJiSl.wpd(911~!OO)
44
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
15. TRANSPORT A nON/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in 0 0 0 IXJ
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio
on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of 0 0 0 IXJ
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency or designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either 0 0 0 IXJ
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature 0 0 0 IXJ
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 IXJ
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 IXJ
g) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs 0 0 0 IXJ
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
vall/me to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
Explanation: The project involves improvements to pedestrian access for ferry and bus transit loading
and unloading areas. Traffic associated with ferry ridership would not be affected by the proposed
project.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county
congestion mallagement agency or designated roads or highways?
Explanation: The project would not exceed a level of service standard. See also 15.a.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial safety risks?
Explanation: The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns.
1':\TIlIOJI'.Jnili.ISllldy\Cht<l:liSl.wpd(9114100)
45
d) Substalltially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or illcompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Explanation: The project does propose to widen a total length of approximately 300 feet of sidewalk by
3 feet for a total width of8 feet (consistent with the remainder of the sidewalk) along Tiburon Boulevard.
However, this design feature would not increase hazards.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Explanation: The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Widening the sidewalk,
replacing the deck with an ADA-accessible ramp and providing safety lighting would serve to augment
emergency access. See also 13.a and 15 .d.
j) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
ExplanatIOn: The project would not result in inadequate parking capacity. See also 15.a.
g) Conflict with adopted polices, plans. or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Explanation: The project supports existing plans and programs for supporting alternative transportation
by improving bus transit loading and unloading areas and pedestrian access. No change to the cycle
parking area east of Guyamas Restaurant is proposed as part of the project.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Re~ional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
IXJ
o
o
IXJ
o
o
o
IXJ
o
o
o
o
IXJ
P:IToI031\!oili.ISludyIOlcdJiSl,"'1"i(9'14100j
46
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 0 0 IXJ
o
o
IXJ
o
o
o
o
IXJ
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Explanation: The project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements because the project
would not generate significant amounts of wastewater.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Explanation: The project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities. See also 16.a.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Explanation: The project would not result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities.
d) Have sufficient wpter supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are' new or expanded entitlements needed?
Explanation: The project would not require water resources nor entitlements.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
Explanation: The project would not generate significant amounts of wastewater.
P:\TotOJI\jnil;.ISludy\alcdJ;>l-wpd(911~'{1O.I
47
j) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
Explanation: Approximately 20 new trash containers would be installed as part of the project to reduce
the potential for littering. As mentioned previously, approximately 10 pilings and 100 cubic yards of soil
may need to be disposed of at an upland site as part of the project. However, existing capacity at local
landfills can accommodate this amount of material. No significant increase in solid waste generation is
expected as a result of project implementation. See also 7.a.
g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Explanation: The project would comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste. See also 7.a and 16.f.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
17. MANDA TORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality 0 0 0 IXJ
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal conununity, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually 0 0 0 IXJ
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will 0 0 0 lil
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of afish or wildlife species, cause afish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal commullity, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
P:ITOlOJIJn;ti.ISludyIOlcckIiSl.wpd(91l4l00)
48
Explanation: As discussed under section 4., Biological Resources, the Sacramento River winter-run
chinook salmon, a federally-listed endangered species; and the following federally-listed threatened
species: Central Valley ESU spring-run chinook salmon, Central California Coast ESU coho salmon,
Central California Coast ESU steelhead, Central Valley ESU steelhead all may occur in the vicinity of
the project during their upstream migration and downstream juvenile emigration. Juvenile salmon and
steel head are more likely to be adversely affected by pile driving and pile removal than adult fish due to
their reduced swimming and avoidance abilities. The project area has also historically been used by
herring to spawn. Herring are considered to be a commercially important fish, but are neither rare nor
endangered. If short-term construction impacts do not increase turbidity of the water during a spawn, no
impacts to the herring would occur. Mitigation Measure BIO-l addresses potential impacts to these fish
species, and minimizes the impacts to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of the project with
mitigation would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment; reduce the habitat, population
or range of species; nor eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively cOllsiderable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.)
Explanation: Based on the findings of the initial study, the project would not have individual or
cumulative environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Explanation: Based on the findings of the initial study, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the
project would cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings, directly or indirectly.
PIToIOJI\Jnili.ISludylChcc.IJi.l.....pd(91l4JOOj
49
F. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 provides a Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Ferry Area Improvement
Project.
P:\TOI031\lniliaISludyIChcdJ;nwpd(91IMOOj
50
::.:
~
"
o
~
~
"
z
....
I'-<
~
o
~
[;l
"
z
I:il
-0
"
:;;~
eo Z
1'-<0
::.:
~
z
<
z
o
....
I'-<
<
"
....
I'-<
....
::.:
1'-<,
~,
~I
~
~
:c "
.c'rn "c
~ = _ 0
cu Q.~.~
~ l:l.. =
~ <0
== :;.
..
c
't: =
0..-
:t:E
c._
,,~
:;.
....
"
.s~
o ~"a
~ fttE
1;;
U ~
'e'-=
Q,U
..c :; ""0 ~Vl
.<::: c: a S;
::: 'lJ <U;:;
-t:.s~!-
0.....;: 11)
.0 :::.9 g-.s ~
c :s! ~ a.s.5
0: ::l _ c.';: '0
.: .8 c ~ ... "'0
~ 'J> 8.~ 'E"5
-< s~gft;~
'c E ~ .~ .~
~~~8.g
..
E
';;
<0
:;.
.... ..
" "
.. ~
~E
0._
f-<f-<
c
"
;;
"
~c
~ .-
E.~
~.~
'"
E
-
"l
..
:S
0;
..
'"
.s
.9
0::
..
.S<
1;;
..
~
~ ~
0_
u Q,
~
;5=
~ <0
=:;
" "
'"
~.-
~.~
=:;.
c"
;.;a
...
..
2
..
.0
i=
....
o
..
~
o
f-<
~
..
"
~
"
~
::;:
"
~
"
1::~
E 0
;>-.~ ~ e
..c Vl..c 0
."c~
d.l 8 Vl e
::: r.Il~ ~
11)._ on"bD
'S: 1:llJ:.= 1-0
~ .== 0
"'0 1::'~ 5
a Oi)~._
:'=...c::::~
""OC':l-C
(\) 01) ""0'-
~ a a E
fru ..~
1-001) tn._
o..,'"'"':g 1-0
lU e.- 'lJ
..0 0..0 >
- -0.9
~-;;'3:-::
~&j0i)~
c..c ~.t::
~ ~ 'm.e vi
0..1-< Q).J:: Q)
O1l~-oe'E
.5 c Vl 0.. Q.)
1:: 0 ~c 0 0..
OJ)o~:;:o
:.=: tt; ~ C':l 5.:
<r:: c<:l 0 Ol):
..... (1) t;/") C
':";1 ~ -5 ] :5
~ :::..c u 0
>~'~-a%
-
~
"
.S<
1;;
..
~
~ ~
0-
UQ,
~
.. _ U
o .0
:?f ''5 g E
.- ::I;:l ~
~gf..::-' 0
c ';: d ~ z .
O.g8<l::E~
00 ..
'00 ~ II) ~
o c Ol) ~:::
o"'O.,g c ~
:0 a :t ~.~ 1:l 0
Vl c eo..:::::: ""0 o.or,:
.~ 5 '2 ~ E == 1:l
~ r-'- IU ~ l:: E
~ u E.::: ~ B 'lJ
~.s 2:!''BJ o.g ~
t:;j,S.g;J2cZ
.c 'lJ '- V'J ~.9: ""0
-:cO.......Oll-c
~ ro <U O.S g ro
.- 0.::0 C l: .l:l -
5-'lJCU:::::lVl'lJ
ll.luo.<":IUCC
~~~~g8..:;
.... ..
00
.. ~
, ..
~.o
0._
f-<f-<
'"
~
- ~
~ "<u E
'0' 5 5 E
... .- -. 'lJ
c...'U c ;;-
Ol):::l'lJO
.S ~ ~ z
"'C:::'::;""O
! c3 81:l a
..'
2
E ..
f=.g 0
'og'U
c.= e
:::~c:
000
f-<UU
"
,s
'-
o
E ~
" "
E U
" <.)
<.) 0
"'-
o..~
e ~
.s~
.- E
~ ~
." ~
" U
ttt-s
'w,- 0
00">
~ .. ~
~.9 ~
-'" - E
~ <.) U
o " >
~ ~ 0
I.o;f:z
~8-o
~ -0 a
, c
.. '"
.~~ 0
.. U C
-<.g~
61fl
co~]
."
."
~ ~
5 b Ol.l ~
.c a..5 g
~g-~o.
..
.g
U
.5
00
..
8 --g!
--,
00_,
~ "
...c
::l U
0.0 ,
C ""01
::: :; 1
~]!
00 ~
]'0
- ..
~.2
.c o':::
-."
U 0
~ 8
.. ~
U U
~-g~
5 E e
13i.~ 8:
B ~ cd
'8 ~.~
~E~
.... ..
00
.. ~
~ ..
0:9
f-<f-<
00
00
_ U
U U
" 0
.~ ~
2 Q,
Q,-
~
,,,,,
.52
~ Q,
.. Q,
o ~
...
o
~
..
.0"
E=.2 C
'ogu
c..:[':
:::~c:
000
f-UU
."
=
~
"
U
..
'"
-e
E
~
'6
-;
E.c
~ ~
l:: ~
1l~
" 0.
~ "" >-
a.S ~
o t; 0
~.>( ~
,.c 11)~~
~cl-.<
::s:.a ~
]~~
OEl::
t-<v]
~I.~ ~
~ ti ~
gf>-
.- .0
t _
" 0
U =
>-."
.0 ..
." ~
U
>
o
E
"
~
"
.0
oil
..
'S:
~
~
.0.
"
~
~
"
>
"
~
."
."
~ ~
= b Ol.l ~
~ 0..5 g
~g-~o.
]'0
- 0
~ ,2
-S::S
~ a
00 u
.. ~
U u_
.".,,~
- ~ ,
g E 2
.c00Q,
<1)._ Q..
~ U ~
o ~
.~ ~ '2
o ~ 1U
I ::; E Q,
--'-T"
.... ..
00
.. ~
~E
o ._
f-<f-<
~
u ~
U 0
'0' 0.
Q."@
"l,
.52
::i 8:
0"
c
2
..
.0 0
E= .g
'-0.9
o S ~
~ ~ c:
000
f-<UU
en
"
.~
.,"
:;
~
~
."
>-
.c
iOC;;"'8
.0 <.) ~
]'~ ~
~i3-g
] ~ ~
~
~..g]
8 ~:;
~ big
" = =
." _ 0
." '" <.)
c 0 <.)
~ (.)'.:;j .
<n.~.9 -=
OJ);<,.c IU
.S 0 I-; 8
- - Il) i3
'6. o.s :=
- !: o's:'
C Il) I-; l=:
:g > 0 0
~ ] .6 OJ)
i~.g~
I-; '"tj := g
< a ~ t::
u~ !: ~
N~:r:':I'>(~ ]
.8 t.8 -
.. _ 0
g ; .s
."
."
0; U
> ~
= 0 b.O ~
~ Q..5 g
~ g.~ s-.
~'o
- ..
- 0
~.-
.co':::
-."
U ..
~ 8
.. ~
UU_
."." "
- ~ >
gEe
.c00Q,
<1)._ Q..
~ U "
.9 5 .'=::
'c ~ E
.g1U~
",SQ,
......
o 0
.. ~
~E
0._
f-<f-<
00
00
u8
U 0
'[ 0.
Q,o;
"l,
.. 0
.- ~
5 8:
o ~
c
2
..
.0 0
E=.2 ..
......u~
o.Ecd
.. 00 ~
::: = c:
000
f-<UU
~
.s
U
,g~
s~
U '"
Il) .5
,s ~
- "l
" ..
>-
8 '6,.
~:E
'" 0
~]
'0' .:::
~ 0
0."
'- 00
o 0 .
c o..B
o U'l .-
:;:.a ~
." 0 =
= - '"
0'" -
u ~ g..
~ '3 c
-< g" ~
~ ~
~I~ ~
<C ~ ~
:r: ~ E
-
or)
oj
.s
,;
B
"
.u
o
00
..(
<C
'"
...J
8
.
~
}
.
.
,
e
i
"
.
~
i
"
.
~
u
;;
o
'"
52
wpd(9114100)
ITolOllllnilialStudylChcd.1iSl
G. Report Preparers
LSA Associates, Inc.
22 1 5 Fifth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
David Clore, AICP, Principal-in-Charge
Judith Malamut, AICP, Project Manager
Christy Herron, Project Planner
Patty Linder, GraphicslDocument Production
Bo Dash and Sue Smith, Word Processing
H. Sources Contacts or Cited
Anderson, Scott, 2000. Planning Director, Town ofTiburon. Personal communication with Judith
Malamut, LSA Associates, Inc. August.
Bybee, James, 2000. Habitat Conservation Manager, Northern California, National Oceanic and
Attnospheric Administration, Southwest Region. Comments on a proposal to replace a
breakwater at the Corinthian Yacht Club, Tiburon, California. Written communication to Lt.
Colonel Richard G. Thompson, District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco
District. February 19.
California, State of, 2000. California Transportation Commission. Project Application Approval
Amendment for the Town ofTiburon's Ferry Dock-Access and Safety Improvements Project, and
Amendment to Resolution #PA-93-21. Memorandum (and Amendment to Resolution) to Chair
and Commissioners. June 28.
Comic, Debbie, 2000. Permitting, California Department of Transportation, District 4. Personal
communication with Christy Herron, LSA Associates, Inc. August.
Hugunin, John, 2000. Vice President, I.L. Schwartz Associates, Inc. Personal communication with
Judith Malamut, LSA Associates, Inc. August.
Hugunin, John, 2000. Deputy Town Engineer, Town of Tiburon. Proposition 116 Ferry Program
Downtown Tiburon Ferry Dock-Access and Safety Improvements, Additional Requested
Information. Written communication to Kathie Jacobs, California Transportation Commission.
June 30.
McAdam, Steve, 2000. Pcrmitting, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
Personal communication with Judith Malamut, LSA Associates, Inc. August.
McRae, Brad, 2000. Design Analyst, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
Personal communication with Judith Malamut, LSA Associates, Inc. August.
P:\TotO!l\lnili.1 Sludy\ChcckJisl.wpd (9/14JOO)
53
Stem, Gary, 2000. Protective Resources Division, Northern California, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Southwest Region. Personal communication with Christy Herron,
LSA Associates, Inc. August.
Tiburon, Town of. Municipal Code.
Tiburon, Town of, 2000. Tiburon Ferry Dock Landing Schematic Design Services Community Meeting.
Town of Tiburon Meeting Notes. January 20.
Tiburon, Town of, 1989. General Plan. Adopted September, as amended.
P"TQIOJlllnilialSludylOicckJiSl.wpd(9114lOO)
54
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE: 11/1/2000
1/
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT REVISION STATUS REPORT
OCTOBER 25, 2000
BACKGROUND
On May 31, 2000, the Planning Commission held a workshop regarding the ongoing Housing
Element update effort. The primary intent of the update effort is to review and improve upon
strategies for affordable housing development that have worked in the past and to identify new
housing sites and programs for the next six (6) years. The Planning Commission's workshop
constituted the first of many opportunities to receive feedback regarding the direction of the
Housing Element update.
This report is intended to provide the Town Council with a status report on the Housing Element
update and to share the information that was presented to the Planning Commission at its
workshop
STATUS UPDATE
Planning Consultant Lisa Newman is currently preparing a draft housing element under contract
to the Town under the supervision of the Planning Director and with direction from the Planning
Commission. An initial study (CEQA document) is also being prepared by Ms. Newman to assess
potential environmental impacts from a revised housing element.
A countywide collaborative effort on Housing Elements is proceeding more slowly. The Town of
Tiburon intends to fold any useful policies or programs that the collaborative effort generates into
its Housing Element, as needed.
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
1/11/2000
WORKSHOP SUMMARY
The packet that was received by the Planning Commission for its workshop is attached as
Attachment A. The packet included a brief staff report and various exhibits setting forth the
following:
· Exhibit I described the Town's progress on implementation of its 1991 Housing Element.
. Exhibit 2 set forth a comprehensive list of sites that have been identified over the years as
"potential housing opportunity sites".
· Exhibit 3 listed the ABAG housing numbers (since revised by ABAG) and a "Goals List" of
possible sites for meeting the state requirement to identifY and designate sites sufficient to
accommodate the ABAG housing numbers.
· Exhibit 4 described program options for the housing element update.
· Exhibit 5 was the ABAG housing needs numbers for Marin cities and the County.
. Exhibit 6 was a map of the comprehensive list of "potential housing opportunity sites".
A map of "large vacant parcels" on the Peninsula will also be on display at the meeting, as these
sites constitute additional "potential housing opportunity sites". The large vacant parcels are
shown on Attachment B.
The Planning Commission offered the following direction regarding the housing element revision:
I. The majority of Planning Commissioners were wary of amending the Town's Secondary
Dwelling Unit Ordinance to encourage the creation of such units. They noted that most such
applications are fraught with problems and are often denied.
2. In order to designate sufficient sites at adequate densities to meet ABAG housing allocation
numbers, the Planning Commission preferred to specifY individual affordable housing sites
rather than increasing allowable zoning densities over wide areas or particular zoning districts
(such as the R-3 Multi-family Zone).
3. The Commission generally favored the provision of additional housing in the Downtown area,
while acknowledging that there are limited areas where such housing could be constructed in
the Downtown. Where feasible, residential opportunities in commercial areas should be
expanded in the updated Housing Element.
4. The Commission expressed concern over the tear-down or conversion of existing two-family
and multi-family housing units to single family use, and noted the need for a policy to restrict
such tear-downs or conversions.
5. The Commission concluded that the "large vacant parcels" on the Peninsula (as shown on
Attachment B) provide little opportunity for affordable housing construction but will serve to
generate affordable housing in-lieu fees that can be more effectively used to promote
affordable housing construction on those properties listed on the "Goals List", which is
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
11/1/2000
2
Exhibit 3 of the Planning Commission workshop packet.
6. One Commissioner expressed concern about possible over-concentration of very low income
units in the Ned's Way area.
7. More information on home-sharing, Whistlestop programs, and programs offered by the
Marin County Housing Authority should be provided in the updated element.
RECOMMENDA nON
. The Town Council should review the materials and the general direction of the strategy being
suggested to meet ABAG housing allocation numbers, as embodied in the "Goals List".
. Provide Staff with any additional policy ideas regarding housing.
ATIACHMENTS
A. Planning Commission packet from May 31, 2000 workshop.
B. Map of "Large Vacant Parcels" on the Tiburon Peninsula.
Housing update tcreport.doc
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Repart
11/1/2000
3
-
IrnlL~ ~(Q)tP'i1
PLANNING COMMISSION
WORKSHOP
WHEN:
~:
WEDNESDAY, MAY 31,2000,7:30 P.M.
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD, TIBURON. CA
AGENDA
A. ROLL CALL
B. PUBLIC QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
C. HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
I. INTRODUCTION
II. PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP
A. Review 1991 Housing Element Implementing Program Evaluation
B. Discuss ABAG Housing Needs Numbers and Potentia! Affordable Housing
Sites
C. Consider New Housing Goals 1999-2006
o Discuss New Housing Program Options
III. OVERVIEW OF PROCESS
A. Review HousIng Element Update Work Program and Schedule
B Describe work-to-date
C Planning Commission's role
o HCD's role and primary concerns (realistic programs to meet housing goals,
adequate affordable housing sites identified, remove governmental
obstacles to achieving goals)
IV. 2000-2006 HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS AND PROGRAMS
A. 1991 Housing Element Program Evaluation Table (Exhibit 1)
B Affordable Housing Sites Table (Exhibit 2 & 6)
C Affordable Housing Goals Table (Exhibit 3)
D. Housing Program Options (Exhibit 4)
V. SUMMARY
A. Overview Next Steps
1) General Plan Amendment
2) Initial Study
3) Preparation of Draft Housing Element
4) Public Hearing Process
D.
ADJOURNMENT
ATTACHMENT A
lFmu~ ~@~ Yl
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
~ETING DATE: 5/31/2000
To:
From:
PLANNING COMMISSION
LISA NE\.VMAN, HOL"SING ELEi\1ENT CONSULTANT
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELE!vfENT UPDATE WORKSHOP
MAY 25, 2000
Subject:
Date:
BACKGROUND
The primary intent of the Tiburon Housing Element Update etfort is to review and improve upon
strategies for affordable housing development that have worked in the past and to identifY new
housing sites and programs for the next six years, This workshop constitutes the first of many
opportunities for the Planning Commission and public to provide input to Staff and consultants
regarding the Housing Element update
Every community is required by State law to update the Housing Element periodically and adopt
it as part of the General Plan. State law also requires tnatthe Housing Element be reviewed and
certified by tne State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Certification
by HCD is an important element in having a legally adequate General Plan, All cities and counties
that do not have an HCD-certified housing element are subject to lawsuits such as that recently
filed against the Town of Corte Ytadera
The Town ofTiburon Housing Element Update covers the 1999-2006 time frame Housing
Element updates are required to be complete by December 31, 2001. This reflects a recently
approved 6-month extension to the previous deadline of July 1,2000, as authorized by the
CalifOrnia Legislature The existing General Plan Housing Element was adopted in 1991, with a
minor revision made in \994
The Town embarked on the Housing Element Update effort at the end of 1999 when Lisa
Newman, Newman Planning Associates. was retained to assist the Town in preparing the Housing
Element Update On January 26, 2000. the Planning Commission held a question and answer
session with Ms Newman and Town StatTregarding the scope of work for the Housing Element
Update
T,h"rO!l PI"""",!! C!IIlIlIln
Slaj/llc'pdrl
5-312000
~
.
..
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Planning Commission Workshop is to discuss information that has been
developed by Town Staff and \1s Newman regarding key aspects of the Housing Element
Update, including
I) An evaluation of past Housing Element programs (Exhibit 1)
2) Identification of affordable housing sites and densities to meet the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) Housing Need numbers for Tiburon_ (Exhibits 2, 3, and 6)
3) Discussion of potential new Housing Element Program Options (Exhibit 4)
This Workshop is being held at an early stage in the Housing Element Update process when input
from the Planning Commission and public can intluence the direction of the draft Housing
Element
In recent months, Statf and \1s Newman have updated data on developable land in Tiburon,
conducted a survey of Secondary Dwelling Unit rents, responded to ABAG regarding the
Housing Need numbers for Tiburon, and developed a number of exhibits that are attached to this
report These exhibits will be the basis for discussion during the Workshop and include"
1991-1995 Tiburon Housing Element !mplementing Program Evaluation
Potential Atforclable Housing Development Sites and Lnits
Housing Goals 1999-2006 (recommended affordClble housing sites)
Housing Element UpdClte Program Options
WORKSHOP GOALS
The Planning Commission and public will have the opportunity to discuss and provide comments
and suggestions on th~ Housing Element Update information developed to date Staff hopes that
the Planning Commission will carefully evalu<lte the following
I The list and maps of pOl entia I affordable housing sites (Exhibits 2, 3 & 6)
2 The range of densities identified for affordable housing development to meet or slightly
exceed the ABAG Housing Need numbers identified for Tiburon
The types of new Housing Programs that could be developed to further encourage affordable
housing development in Tiburon over the next several years (Exhibit 4)
New ideas and approaches are encouraged I The comments provided to Staff will direct the next
stage ofwark, which is to prepare a public reviev,." Draft Housing Element Update and the
environmental evaluation (CEQA documentation)
Tiblll'OlIl'/alltliilgCul!/lIlI.\mJII
~"lci/l :'\e'p''''1
5,3/i2000
2
It is important to emphasize that the identification of sufficient sites and densities for affordable
housing, to demonstrate that the ABAG Housing Need numbers are provided for, is essential for
certification of the Housing Element by HCD. In previous reports and comments, Staff has
indicated to the Planning Commission and Town Council that the ABAG Housing Need numbers
for Tiburon are reasonable. Staff has developed an approach to meeting the identified Housing
Need numbers that we believe will work. State housing law does not require that the units
actually be constructed, but that it is possible to achieve such projects without a general plan
amendment or a zoning change, and that governmental constraints to such projects are minimized.
As of the completion of this report, Staffhasjust received revised Housing Need numbers from
ABAG that reflect a reallocation of units from unincorporated areas to cities. The revised
numbers are attached as Exhibit 5. The overall effect of these revisions is minor, but it will
necessitate some small adjustments to the previously prepared Housing Goals Table (Exhibit 3).
EXHIBITS
I. 1991-1995 Tiburon Housing Element Program Evaluation
2. Potential Affordable Housing Development Sites and L:nits
3 Housing Goals Table 1999-2006
4 Housing Update Program Options
5 Revised ABAG Housing Need Numbers received 5/25/00
6 Map of Potential Atfordable Housing Sites
HOllSlng\\'orhhoppcrcport,doc
Tib"ronPI"""'''gC''/o''IlI.IS'Ii/l
Slaj]/I~I'''''I
5;31,]000
E-Z
zO
",-
:E:;:
",=0
-'-'
"'<
c;>
z'"
Uj~8
~<~
00::..:
::r::c<'"1
ZC~
00::::;
0::"''''
~ ~ E!
cczo
~E:
",z
",,,,
"':E
,~
~~
::::E
rg
~<-
~~
;:0'"
Of-
"'''
-'"
g~
N...l
'"
"
o
;:
-<
;:0
...l
-<
>
'"
~
o
o
'"
0.
::;
;:i
o
o
'"
0.
~
~
~
~
~
.=
~
~
Q.
E
8
=
E
~O,
o~
~~
N ~
~ ~
o .
.- <2:!
].g~
~-=o
5".5 ;:!l
~ .5 ~
. .
. 0
g 1 1;l
.5 Z ~
"E ",..8
0"'2 >.
.5~ -~
3 6.g
~; eJi
..= ",.::
,:::"9 :2
o > .
'D 2 g
" ~"
. ~
f'~ ]
.g ~ il
CIl <==...:::!
Ei
E
~
o
-
0.
~
.~
o
~
~ 8 ~.~
=.II "';::I
.~ ~ 5.2 ".
:=;;;g 2~
~~1~&
~~:E@~
-:: ;: -E ~"n
E~@2~...:
~:;: '" 'E ~ ii
'tl"B ,5"S ~ E
; '" c.. 0" 0 '"
i:t ;:: ..e e ~ go
.S! ~ ~ E ~ Cl
~ 1,! ~'':: 5.5
=M.s.S~2
'" '-' <on '" o.lI.!l!
e ;;; ~ ~ - Q..
lS'g.'~2~i>
l~-~~.~~
" 0 '" c
1'Ii ~";; g ~ 8-
:i: ~ ~ ~ g:~
~
.~
.;;
'"
.
-E ~ 'o~
:€"'..
. ~ 0
,:: 0.-=
.,gaz
. ~ .
o . ~
o " "
's's@
. = .
.5 B if
~ E'~
g ~ ~
~ go..8
~ a~
o ~ -
. 0 "
E <2 <2
]" ~&
III ,- 0\
~ g ~
~ ~ a
.00
<::.- QO
0"" C\
!5.= -
~ 0
f="= 1:S
. . .
~~]
~
;.
2
~
.
o
o
C
o
u
-
"
"
'" "
~ E
.~ ~ 8 "g
~:t ~ "E
. ~ ~~ .g ~
~~]~ 8~
Egl1lz ~%
~U.",:;j ;E
Q. '" ::;;: ~
-<r: ~"2 .~ ::: <::
'" <) =::l 2 E
:: It.> <u .E E
'" ~ 15 15 f= g
_ r..> u 0
._ ".:: .E on
5"'~~ ~~
N'::2.2 :;,;.2
s'~ t' c >.
~~;:.~ 'c=
--......". ='"
JHJEH
guOuo/~ =..2 5.~.
"0' ,-,CIl c.._.
aN"";..,r '^ ~
~
t
~
"l
. '"C
o 1! 011..
;;- '" ~ ~ ..
~o88~~:E
~u.s.g2",;E
o !.! ., :;:; c.. E .~
~-::::l'iE]~o
2J II) ... 0 - - Q.
E-g-g-~:5':C
. 'E E .;l',:: ~ CI:\
E .... "0 ,:: .6 .., .-
~ .8 ,::..2 C5"2,~
Q '" C<l C u .... 0:
=-:u:u..,Je,:: ~
~~~E]~O
5 0.;:: U . 2l: .;.;
1:.lI.... 0 ,9 '" '" ~
<( g = :< 'E :; '"'
C 5b-g ~ .e.~~ ~
E~2.~0.0.oti~
C. -= :;:; <il ~!;IIl S 0.0
~Esg.;;;.~.5~
tg.~~gg:~
"0 'ii...o:: ....- - .., E
OJ ;> -.0 .., ..,.J:: 0.
=:.g.~ ~~:g o~
..Q IX "2 .;;;"8 "8 gf t
=~r:t5@::@~"2
. Ol...o:: "" "" ""::.::
'"
,,:0
zf-o
~;::
:0'"
Of-o
:o::Z
"'
0:';
0",
N..J
OJ
o~
t "
8.~
c..~ E
:1- e
~..:J ~
g ij l:..
~] .;
o 0 c
w::<:....;
:5
~
:0
..J
""
;>
"'
:,;
;2
"
o
'"
'"
~,g ..."5 ;;
_ 'C z: -5 ~ c..
.9 8 ~ g:i =_
a-;j~'~~~
"'=;~~~~-g
~c'~:ai:l~.E
~...-9.q;g~
'a ~ ~ ~ ~ t ,~
'" ~ "'::l '5 1A ~ "'::l
~ ~.~ ~ E .. ~
'" '" Q.l ~ r: ell
~~~'~e~~
~~~~~c~
~ ;::"'0 ;.... .. 2 2
:?~~~j,s~
~ ~ i5 0 - r- l:
~~5~J~~
.~ ;.. g; ~ ~ E ~
.J:; - "'''<: 1.> =
~-~-g~~~~
f-~;:~s ;:l
~-9~~ijg~
r- ~ _H:O:: _.J:;
:,;
;2
"
o
'"
'"
~
~
~
~ :5f",oo
~';:2 ::: 15.5
0..'= :>, .... u a
::::l :3= _:'i! ~.c .::!
~a~~..s]~o..
g'E~ ~.g~~i .
.~ g.-...2 zg ~~:S ti
oo<=~",<~eJl
U ~:r:,g~::;;:r: 8.~
~-u!:..c'=U~::E
1ij";6:E~56"=
~~~~~~E.;.)~
8 ~-c ~ ~ 8 E! g: f-
=- 6.~'O~.s e-,=::
; ;:..,;:l [l ~ 0.. E g
" :;2 <( '" 0::. 0 ::: "=' ::l
~.g ~E~;;;.@ ~8
'= '" '" .. .. , ~ ,t:: :::
:;;~~l!<]]~
o 0:: 't'l:I: 1'! .,g E-
.- -;; >.:!jl'l U ......, _
~ ,g ~ :B ~ 6 ~ '" .2
OJ ..::> '" ""2 '"
"~~t~a5'::'~
...g ;:: ... OIl eJl~ zg ::
~ ~ i.g ~~ 8: e 8
..,
~
~
~
"'
o
..
"
.~
E
o
u
""
E
.
~1
C 0
E ..
o '"
C "
o
~~
60:0
0( .5
:i:;g
.q~
0'<=
~ C
'a..J.
E~
o c
E .s;!
o .
~ i:; .
.,8 ~ g::
c 0 ~
" u
~ Eo-
~"a ~
-;n's ij
CO"
ig~
f-u..c
~E
.~ ~ ;.:..
C _
~ E._
-O~
3"g 'a
5 8 8..
~ - Ie
C: ~ ~
~ ~ ~
6: ""0
~ -5 ~
0"'20
.~ ~ ~
j;::I: t'l
r3 ~~
e ~ u c
.::.... ~ ..
.50:::S."
e ;:; 1! c..
]~~o
o u 0
u.2'~ .!f
-i:i ii ~ 2
== .2 8 a:
I
~
~
c
..
~
E
o
u
-I -
0 4-
Z
~ '"'
.....
S <>-
~
"'1
N
~
c "
. c
<::; ,!;! ~
2:'5! ,:::
..5 ~'l;
f=~::E
~g..2
~".~ ~
~.~
~ < ~ .
:;!:!~~
ceo
~ ~ g ~
_C>C<.t;II>
~.9 8 ~
~ ti ~ ~
l Jl.a II>
6]~~.
~.:: 'l:I _
.D 11>... ","
f= ~ '~.E
:=::s!~:-
o c
~~~e
~] ~ [
N
... ii
. ~
.~ ..5;
_ <'<1oo:;E-o
~ :E a:E on
'l:I ....- E
~ -s il ~ ~ ."
~:@ ~ ~ &~
~ ~...<:: ~ C4_
~ ~ E i5..~ S
= 0 II> ....- ..;
UJ ~ E i:!.5.- ii
~ on -E..;:! ::.. 3 E
; ~ .5'~ ; E it
.il &S~l go
~ C4 ~ ~ .- 011
<~'Ee~*.~
~.-..<:: III '"' ... C
.~ g ~ ~ 2 -g i5:
..s::: 0ll"2 C4 E..
-!:!.5 Ill!!; 'l:I ~
'; ii :g fr~ ;:i
c..':~2":t~
= 1:j ;;.... - ",.S2 is
...S2 i:: g !!; N :5.
~]8r~:~
~
,,"
~f-
~~
,,~
Of-
"'Z
_OJ
o:E
O;..u
N...l
OJ
- .
.~
~ 0
~ ~
2-~ u
~o
g..g-]
.2 J: ~
a :; 0
u ~ E
z
o
i:
'"
"
...l
'"
>
OJ
:E
;2
'"
o
'"
'"
";: ~ ... v
;:l ..<:: 0 '"
0ll~1.l ""-=.....
.5 5 ~ c8 ~ ~ if.s
~ E- ~ .J:I F -;;; ;:;
] ~ @ .~ .~ :; 1 ;>-
g <<l -;; 8 J! ~ .~
i~~~~~~'"
';: 5 ~ ::; g.~ ~ ]
~:r: ~ {l ~.5 ~ C
l] ~ ij 'E ~ .S ;. ~ .;
~ ~ ~ @ 0:" -g .5 g'~
Uj 8.;; ~.g ~.~ ~ 8-
~~~.g:g~o>;;~
.~ ~ a .~ ~.~ .~ -;, ~
~~:~:~iE~
& ge.g~.;~.~:~
~E9-3~u~=:;
<lO -0 15 "" I!J Il> 0 -;:; 0
~ fA J::: 8 ~-:5 !::l ~..c
-:~~]%3..2::;~
.s ~ ~ '" E""" ::c'~
g> 5. -g .?t ~ %. ~ ~ .~
'~t-g~5~2~]
Ci ~ :: ..<:: E- <A c.. '" _
:E
;2
'"
o
'"
'"
~
'"
e:
c:
'"
"
-;; :: OJ ~ ~
~-:~_"'uc
OJ~E"::: 3~-~~E'~
~e8~] ~'- t"ag,
~ 6''E ~ ~,~ ~ : -g ~ ~ 8
5 g 0<2.2"2 u ~~2 "'.5
~;>,.=~~..215~~tl~
u.D ~_=,c ';'l ._~ 0 0
>'~'2"Ii'-";;j:3:a ~::J e ~
~';:;;:::I::::-8 <:::';;;;~~2!?-
g E .~ ~ :2 0 -g 8. _ .5 "'..~
c.'l '" E-.... '" i::.-, ....
. '0 :5"2 . 1::--;; ;;;- :: \C .2 8
~_..c:::l ~1Jl1;:!~~:;~ 9-
';; .S ~ II ~:!:! Oll .., ~ \.0 g ..;
g !!i -;:; .:: 5 ~ 2 ~ -5 .;.; Z r;
=:=8"o..c:::u~"" ~..E
.... .D '" >. <U ... > '-' 0 g, 1.0 ;>, t::
o"'o.~Eo~o"o~'-a
c 13 -:] 8 f5: a.::J -.;; "'"'::E ..,
.g~.!f.g i;l..s:::..;;i:;.~'~c
:fZl ~ "i:i..8 ~ '2! g :: ~ 3 8..~
&s1;l~uo:!:! <;;.o.!!~a
..;::::: 0 ~-g.;.s..;s E..~~=:E:
_",":'5 ~ ~.;.~ ~ ['@]~-=
[ ~ g ; ] \3 ~ ~ a ~ ~ .~
~
~
E
~~
o~
" ~
~=
2
.~ OJ
0';;
u ~
-I
0
Z ""
E::: 0
o:l M
..... "-
~
"1
"
.g
1: E 0
~ @.g,:
" " 0
o. .
." ~
.....w OJ 0:
~;;,;: ~
0: .., 0 -u
W ._ t ~
.f- i5..-=
"2 - '" a
.g :E ~ g-
o: - - '"
8 5 e:2
.~ f- '" e
~ -"
'" '" :: 3;
~z~~~
E..!::!.:: OJ 8
~.~ 5-~ .....
~e~~~
Cl.. "'.2 8 ~
B ] ~ ~.~
:E-a~~.E
~ ~ 3 ~ .=
,.... c...v:::::l E
~~
c C 'a E'
g'~ B ~ ft;.:,
t6~~'O"'~]
~!~~~~~l
~~'~.E; ~ ~~
~ fi ::; ~ ~.:;: E ..
.., ... .., .., .., 3:: ~ ~
t..8 5 .tl.tl..8 ;:_
8:;:: 5u';:;:]:: C>......
~~'~E~~.5~
='~9.:;;;s.~Bl::
.3~'~""'E<Il'=04
'" OJ i:;"g:: E-< t ~
:>"'0 c.. '" := ,,; ..,
~.;; g E ~ E ~ 6 E
;g 8 U OJ I:: l:: 0 '0 i;l
-5;--= 2 5 e~.~t:
~~~fr~~tf~fr
~ 3:: E Ci 5.9 fi ~ 0
~ E ~ gf~ ~"2 ~ gp
.. ~ e '@ t3 ~ ~ En~
~~,~5:~8[~O:
'"
;:0
~;:
'" ~
;:0'"
Of-
:r::~
0;;;;
0,"
N ,
ill
~
~
C.
E
o
u
E
o
~
e
~
z
o
i=
'"
;:0
:;:
;0-
"'
;;;
'"
'"
o
o
'"
0.
o e
.2 ~
g.",'E~
"'=l~~Jl
~5a--
.3'~ ~-g
II> _ C OIl
",::t ; ~
-= II> <:: 0
0,0 f-
,E:-' 5l
E .....<:: _
E <:: .., >.
cd~:g ~
OIl i "E.2
.~ ~@ a
~'E ~:~ ;;..
'" ~"E ~ g
]~~~~
"5 -E ~ ~ _
~.5;;"~ E
~ti2~2:
o~~~~
f-,; 8 ~ .~]
t: <E: ~.;;; c.:
;;;
;2
o
o
'"
0.
~
~
~
~
~
u
c
'5z-:9'I.s
3~E.g~'O
8~~:i3gN."
~~:EE~'~~.;
o::;~~o.t.E
E- ... <.l u ~ c E
~i@1!'::'~'::8
....... '" ... - p,. >.
co': gj '0 ~.z ~,~
'C~~5~",~:g
.! ~~'~.E g.a,~
=.;!i.5 r~ ~i1
1!6uEo-ouc
-E.s~uc>.-o
... 0 0:>11 .., .. ....." c..
~u.~-s~ s~~
.s.r!:u ~<<i"a';'; ..
'; '" "'.- '" OIl ~;..,
~5e~2::..c""3
~ :I: ~~.5 ~ ~ ;e
a"E..s:.... E 0000 IS
u's~rt~.s-~!.
.= g,.g'~ ~"'g ~ f!l
:: ~ g- 2 a,z::I: ==
-5
.~ OIl
~.s .~
~2] ]
C:: ~ ~ ~
III 000'"
B ~ ~ i:i
"E ;;0 ~
8g~@
-/=
o'+.
Z"l-
8.
~G-
"1
1!'
"
o 0
~i
,e ~
t g
00
.~
~<2
o.
,0 0
- ~
.:: OJ
~-5
. ~
u 0
E~
, 0
g u
~ ~
o~
~~
.- ~
o 0
o .
~ -
~~
~
~ -
~ i3
~ l .~
<: 1l ;;
~
e
.
-
..
e
0.
..
..
~
o
:t:
~
.
z
. 0
-52
ell 'O:u u ...^~
gf C -g2iEJ:s
'~-ggc~5~~2
.2 ~ -; E.s >'.5 g, 8.
;r; ~ -I:: Cl. >.:u '" :::! II
~'g ~~~;'E'~"
~~.... ~'2'3 ~o .
u '" OJ"Cl ::1.0 :J <"1 ..
't.~.s ~.-B:;[
c::::ao:i8cc...=..
d a E g 8'; .~~ &
o"O..c Cl.'<j" IX) ..c <n '"
~~.~-g::;;'Oa-'E
::.E~;~ ~~~~
"'o~o~".O\oV),..;
15 9. u"S; -< lJ '7.... 'Ei (:;
u="!;!.,~....1;i;;::~"aa
~g~E~;;~:g.;8.
.~ ~ Z;l ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~
=>05 "_". ._
:::"C oS"E l:! is ~,..; a.g
~-9~8"g ~ ~"~~{'
Z~~.,;].,.._~~~~
..".,.., 0 'E 0.0'\ >< c _ "_
~ ~ 5 g g.~ g g or; ~
eg
Of-
Z'"
22:1:
~
~z
"'
Q:S
N:J
"'
E
.
'"
Ii
"
E
o
'-'
z
o
i=
""
:0
...J
'"
>
"'
:<
:5
(3
o
E:
~
., ''::
~ N ~
~ 0 ~
.9 ~ '"
[,.:: -0
~j~
:.~ ~
0- ,; '"
- . -
.si~
Cll1,l::I:'E
.!: :;; ., E"
!: '>lI,s
-5 :l.....!:!
]~~~
~ ;, ~ .5
.~ I! ~
::;I R:~ ~
~ 0: 3-
~..=!..!:!...
@ ~:g.5
. ~ ~
:;;: ~ ~.~
:<
;2
o
9
5:
~
~
~
~ ~ ~ ] .~ ell i
~ :l'" ,.;; .5 (3
....;::J5~~e 0
~ ....'Q.:::- c. ~~
>"@ES8B<uO;J:
e",-U..!:!.~ftj ~
""'~~'E~ g.~ ~6
.~5..!:!~~~Ne::::;
.... E ~ ... ~>~':":: fr
~ 8'~.s.S~'~ ~Q
~.:: ..!:! oS 8 g :;l :::l ~
== ~:a'~ ~.s.s~'~
.!! ... .... B '" '" '- '" ~
~.g@.5 ~~ ~.~~
=:E~"E-"ii.go.~
os -g : 8 .s ~ .~ -=:~
;:l':'~-oe..8ec'~>.
'" 3: .- C ::;I ... Q..-o 0 .:::
~.2E~G~g.~CI.~
'C '- e 0 0 <.l;::;;..; r!l :;
:s ~:!ll.@ ....~:::'E~.<
c .9 "2 8.~ ~ e"6 e gp
<: ~ ::l ... 0 .... C '" e .-
'7>~~~'S~ 8~ ~g
::c e -:s e <: E .9 E ~:J:
0;
~
~
.
'"
Ii
"
.E
E
~
i5
~
.
o
"
::;:
"'
~
'O.W:
~ ~ .~
~..8 ~
'~:5 ~
~.g .s
.f'~ ]
::5 ':;:l
.~ 2~
-0 ~ ~
~~~
] g.s ~
g-i3-o"E-
"'0 0 '" :;I
"'-o,;! Q.
g~.s~
~ ~ .'!i ~
..c <Il 0:=
F.s E <:
;$ <l.l c..:t
~Ej2U
OJ ~ ~ ~
~.2~o
.2~
0-
>
~ .s
".;;:;
o~
~ ~
~]
c,:, 0.'0:
o 0
.~< E
"=.. <OS
:3tlfr
~~Q
"' . ~
.. ~
Oc ".;"@
;;l1:!.;!!
..2:!~o..
'c-o ."
'" .- >.
'Er3~
~ >,:3
<:..: ~
..:;'d.
" ~"
'': ...
="''''
"
.
"
a.
o
o
o
~
~
o
d:
-I-
e)
Z'"
E-<~
H
i!:I=
~
>il
~-
o .
'~"g g.
N~<.l
- -~ ~
] ~ ~ :;;
~ 0 ~ ~
i5: 15 '" .9
-'= ... :::
~ u g ;r;
iiEl;:;8
o g 0 ~
... u >._
~.s.~ .5
g ;r; ~ u
::: ~:i'~
.5.9 ~ ~
"2"2 t;l-.::;
].~ :'l ii
~t;l~]
o ... ... ...
o a 0
~ ~ E 0
;r; ... ? "2
E ~ ~ ~
~.5'- -E.
~ 5'g ~
~
.5
~
,
~
- .~
E >
2~
8 _
-' 0
'€ ~
~5:l
.~ 1;l
':;:0
O~
" 0
'6 ~
." .
o ~
~:3~
~ ~ ~
~ ii ~
~ ;;; '"
~ g ~
:i u :;;
o
~'2
..... '" 0
- ________n_ --
~ ] .=
0 f" ]
:z .; . 1!'
Ui f-o "
0 ~ Q. 0 Q. -1=
~ f-o = ~ E
8 = 8
:z 0
UJ ~ '" = 0
<; :E . " .
0 UJ '" 0 0 '+
N ~ ~N
,.J 2 1!' 0 o~ 0
<: "~
'" ~ 0 ~- Z
'-'
.. ~ .. ~ . Eo-<
j1 " .... ~
'0 = . 2 '"
. 0 "0 . 0
~ .2 . . . .0 ~ ....
2 :2 0: . " ~ 0 8 ~
" ~ .~ " .0 . c ~
. . . .=
. ~-5 ." 0 0 ~ '" 3 ~
~ . ~ J; N 0 ~ .~
" . ,; u =: .0 ~ f-o N
:z .~ ;;j . . 0 6 0 ~
2 -5 . ~ . 0 '"
0 ~ ~ -5 . } = 0 2 ~
f" N f-o '" .. 8 0 .
~ 0 N ~ .=
~ '" 1i 8 . 2 .~ a-^~ . ~
:0 ~ ~ E ~ i ~ " .
.= 0 0 . . '" .= . ~
:;: ~ 0- 0 0
~ 0 '" ". 3 11 E E
. "' =: ~- .,; -5 ~ 0
> ~ '5 :t:: ~ ~ M " . .
= . ,; . ~
OJ . -5 c a c - ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ .= ~
E . :0 0 " . = = -
:E . -5 .. E E . . 0 . . c " .
" c .~ ~ "-
;2 . ~ 0 E . " 8
. . . 0 .8 0 .
. 5 . . ~ . ~ ;;
0 :0 0 . . ~ 0 ~ " 0 " ~ E
. .~ -5 .5 E E . ~
0 . ~. c .0 = '" 0
'" c ~ .:: -g ~ . " 0 0 ~ .9 ~
. . 0 ~ ~ 0 8 " .
0. c .. E 0 c 0 . > . .
~ . ~ . :e .5 .= .. 0 " "
J! " . ~ " . ~ 0..2 . 0
0 . 0 0 " ~ 9 ~ .. c :~
~o ~ 0 . .0 E . .2 = ~ "'
~ 0 0 = c.:;
.:: ; .~ 0 ~ 0 . " 0; >
> - "0 N C . = . > 2
c c ~ . 0 . ~ ~
0 ., "' > > . ~
N 0 ~ c
. -a " ~ ~ ~.~ , 0 ~
" ~ . 2
. .c ~ ~ 0 -5
f= c a 0 . .= 0 . . ~ N
:E
;2
o
o
'"
"-
~
~
~
. . 0
., q 1:!-E ~
~ ti. ~ ._ ~u ~ ]- 1 ~
'ii E 8 :t. ;;;; :!! j; ." .:;>
~.<:;~_gEa5g~~~
[,II ~ .., 0= Co;:l '" IU '" .. .;;1
~~~.;!~~.;;.~.~ 8:[
E € ~ 3 ~'~:g .g~ ~ ~
.~ 's 0 ~ ~.:t! ] -g ~ ~ cc:
~l5.;; 5.~ :~<2 ~]"2.
if.", I:: "0 ;;l tlI).-.e... ",-
<II; E'~~ ~ ~'~:a'a~
.; '" .~ = .!! 8 ., 11.>"<;:; :;:l "0
.!!~;:l.-,9=~g~ll>.
~[1l ~~~~ lL:;;;;;
."=_e;;~j~ .~:o.~.
o..u"'''' >'o'=~>'E
;Js2:.a.!!~=u3V1-a.'-'
.!!~"o~~o~~...'a:i.,5
:5~ ~rJ"2~:= ~2 ell: a
~<t:! .!:!-;;;; 2.<:; "0 ii::!;: 0 Y
:::;:;:~E':;j~-g=_;:;~':Q
-< :t _- o..s "0 i!i:3: G ":1:0 ~
c E~ gz i1 c.=~ !:!"c
e :3: ~ ::: 0 ~.O' :3: g. ~ ~;
~~~2c..;ac..~1::l'6]i5:
"7
0;
~
.0
:o-
S ~ll>.
1l c ~ ~3
~.g f-o i
eo u <8 . =
~ E ~€ 8..
o ~ g;,~ ~
g g to ... =
u.l 1;l(l9 ~.r;
,.; .5 ",'u <:;..
~;C;-5~
~] ~.2 E
o ;l: sr '" '"
'~u~2
011"0 ....- ::>
.5 1;:l'2' 1l ...
:g:a a. &l 5
0';;; ~Ol g E
:t.g <<l U .- ...
"C '" ~ ..9 2 E
.~ B 8 c; ~ <<l
:;! ~ ~ ~ -g fr
~~,.;~E';
tIl ~ E __"0 ~
'" '" '" ~.-
=: 2 ~.g ; ~
:i: ~ a.E..9 c:;
=
. ~
~ 0 II) .5
., ... E E "0 >.
f=.2ES"O.g~
:i~:5~a]?;l
=.;:: E ;; ~.- 8......;
::!8",~.a~8~
5.. = {l '8 '-S = a. 8
~.;.;;;: E"O jg.8 ~
;..=0"00"'0a.
.1'''''''=c,:;,~....y
~~:"'~i::l~Cl
~ .5.~ ~ ::I '0' =:; ~
Z~~-;1S~].~
.5~~~g.::l8~
011 i::l:cQ: ijQ.,Q.,
; E '2'~ ;.:..,...... ;.:,
5.2 ~@'~~~:a
:t bE"'!!.a~:e
....~ ~ :!! t:' ... !
:E .. g'8 &@ t:: 8.
-E~~ ::I,5."'@ ~
c 0 i:! OIl II):Z:
l::: ;:; -g 9:9 .5 .:.0: ..
<ij:o..@c;~~
o"O~*~'2",;;
='~~~.E@:S~
~
o
~;:;
o~
Of-
"z
S:E
g(.;,!
o
"
~
2
~
i
~
5
'"
6
r::
."
:>
:;!
>
"'
:E
;;i
o
o
"
'-
~
o
o
.
_ 0
"e-
o .
"8 -s
"~~ a
-;;;.- 8
.~] B
" II 0
a 0 ~
g ~ .~
~ ;;-;l
~ ~ ~
~~ .
~~ ~
. . >
. ^ 0
o_z
.] g.::
c 0 ~
:l:<Oi
?;>-dG:
o . _
6 S,g ~
~:~ ~ ~
:E
;;i
o
o
"
'-
~
'"
'"
'"
'"
<I.> .::;;.....>ol 'E
~~a;!l~~~~~~",,2'~~ ~
<U ~ ~.;;: 8 ::;; ._ .9 ~ c. ~..... i:!
-SO~~.._~ ~--?;>",E~~o.
-- -:>i3_;'~~ O~ E
~5c.':~ ~~~a='~~~~~~
1:l :: ~ oS";:;: ~ ~ <II ~ ;;: ~ - ~ <I.> (.l.,
.- =E-'-o~-u~~o~~ b~
E ~ :g f- 15 ..0003 '" e - := <I.>
9~:g~'Goo_~~sis~~~c
<I.>~j1~~~~'~~~~o~~~~
~ g,?:- 0. ~:~ .; !:: 52""';: 1:3 U u... 0 ~
.. ~ -...~........t'-o~~ouQ,"2
"_~~O o~= i:!€-~~2~a
;z; ~::: .~ rf ~ g]"~ g,"~ ::: E! ~ =: Q:;
1~E~~G~~~"'o.c~~=~~
:~~=o"~oS~!~joB~E.~~
-....~f--- "'~ 0.0..0':;::
=Jl 0 ~ ~ 0;; &.~ ~ ~ ;Q:g : ~ 2 :s.. g
i~~~~~a'G~s~i~a~-;;;~
5Eg,C~~SE~~~"'5~~~U
=@~~2 ~i5~gi.5~~~~
~_~ ~~ ~~ E ~~] ~ ~]~.~.~~
~Uf-~~aoEEjoc~cEo~
f./lE <II .. ~ ~ <I.> ... u ",:.a E ~:=
~~i:!Dt~i8.S2~gig8o~
~ E E! ~ ~ u .. ~ 1l ~ 0::: ~(.l., ~.;.o :31
c ~ ... 0 '" 0 _ 2: c _ "~ .8 ... E ~ ..
a";~U~~ o~"~~u=~~~
~:8~~i~'i.~g~frE~8~~
-=
.~ 0 ~
~ ";-d
2..2 ~.g
~ ~ ~ 8-
:;:l 2:!'o ~
c .. N 'l.l
.~ i ~ ~
c3 2l ~ ~
-I
o
Z'-!;
~fi-
I'l:l
~<1.-
>Xl
5
~
~
;
~
o
>
o
is.
:<
o
~
':C:; ~
0",
~-
.E -0
= 0
o "
'00
~oo
c'"
"
~ ~
~ ~
.~
~ ~
..::~
. .
25
<e .E
~
o
ri -s .-
'13 s ;;;]:S!
e~;Q~=.2
.. II> II> .... E ~
] ~ .~ ~ ~ .@ i:!
~8"EgaE1:l
_~ ~ ~ ell .~_ E
~ ..c .. ..
<;;'--~._~fr
~._~a~<IIc
c ~ ~ U <I.> ~
~ :;:l <;j ~ '2 -g .5
~e[;~~Ea
~-g~~~oi:
~ 8 ... <'l;::g ..
:iMg~o...G>
.2~.g'>8~~
;:l E!"E e: E -.Cjj
~~oo.._oc
;g~~.5~~
]~:~~"2~~
a:l ~ ~ E-< R2;'::'
{Jj 2 _'" -ci'u ~ a
&'~~.$J'~~;;
~8~~"~~~
00
0:0
Zf-
?i3~
:000
Of-
:t:Z
_OJ
0::;
0",
N...,
OJ
~
"
"
c-
E
8
.
;
~
o
'"
z
o
i=
-<
:0
...,
-<
>
"'
::;
~
o
'"
~
o ~ \i ~ on g :u
;:; ~ ~ ..c::.~"B-=.
~ c g i-":5...s "'."
~'@g"c-.gE~O
-5E~~~33;,
~ g 9 ~ .~ -g .s :a
~;: g -5 ;.E ~ J:!
-;j -c O. ~ 0 ....N CC
E::l~O\:r:.siioi
<<I !;IllN:::: .:!l 0";; U oC
~.~ "'" oC ";: -.:I .g a:.~
e ::l E 0lC <2 ~ '" os ::l
~],g:::: ~ =.=:=~
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e 'E ~ (5
6 -E rf 2: .~ ~ "5 -; .~
:C2~~-;;;.=lte'Jl
HiH~jH
g 6= ;:;:;"3 5i:Z
-":-' ~"a on,S 1.0.. IV "'0
"~ .g -~ ~ ~ Ll .~~ ~
:t; ::l'" - "C E en"'O .
o ~ .'" ~ B 8 ::l .. .f!
I- 'E. c 1: g '" :E ~ ~
~~~~:gg~':~
r- '" f- '" '-' '- _ 0_
::;
~
o
o
'"
~
~
~
~
~
2:
~
o
U -_
:;; ~ ~ ~ ~_..
Q.1:!E'"
. ::l ~ g.]
~~ 1:l OO'C;:;
C6'-.5=
ri:~5;g&
.~.g -g ~~
!S..a ":.::P N"_~-=
~ .s.g -e ~ ~
:u;G..2@&8
~~~::.c
~ .!:! -;;; -c.rJ ~
,:~f~~p-
'ai~1A1-2-g
t ;; ~ II ~::
-g 'O.~ ;.'~ i:J
:; 1il S ,5 0.. g
~:~.~~~
"..8 "'{; r; '"'
:t: '" ~ '" CQ
~ ~ ~ ~ t .?f
;.:.g i';.;J ~ g
=-~~.2~~
o
;
~
2
~
g
E
.
o
U
.s on
~ .
.5 "'=' .~
;:;.,g.,g
Q~1Il
~~
0;;:;;..",
~e~
0.. ~ <<I
~ ~ ~
..8 E:;
~ " .
-.~ ~ E
-'0 E
~.~ 8
:u <= ::;
~ ~"~
~ ~"'2
;S - ~
2!l ~ 2
0:1 C ::l ..;
:;~:::~
~:~ ~
&.5 ~.,g
'" ;g ~ :u
Z~].g
1.):U ~~
-=.s :u ~ ~
~ 5 ,.C "='
Eo:: ;.5
8 Q. J2 '" ;g
0.. ~"g ==- -g.,g
~,g '" ~ ~ '"
:~.~U~.@
< ;: ~'2';; ~
. ". v",>
'5 ~s:; ~ i3
}S.E :€ ~.~ ~
_ ;t:.c::l '"
~'g~gb8
'a~~~~.~
II> .t:J .a.- u ~
a: ..gj /Xl ~:t =:-
.~@:~~~.~
e":.2, ij 5 a
~ 0 '0 e E i5:
g.g,~~~o
Uuc:::: 0'" gfl
",.g ~.~ e.'~
:t: a.~ (3 6...2
"
"
c-
o
8
~
;,
e
~
-I
g
I
f=1
-
-
....
O<l
"-
~
.
."
o
N
"
'"
-
o
~
.
~
.
N
~
'"
.E
ii
c-
o
~
.
. .
~ ~
~.g
~
1;1 =
. "
~ ~
.;;:;
~o
~
;::. ;::
-;;; ~ ~ E ~
~]'5~ :;~
!! E g'.~ fr-g
.~E~og:Q""
~~.!!~:gfl.~
o '- ::1'- 0 '2 ;>
U -g.!:!"€ 13 ; ~
,a ~ 1;.2 "" is: 8
'" -'- - ;>'-0 C
5 ~1l ;)l -;; ;.9
:I:e=;::g.!:!._u
1l 0...2 E "".~ E g
~il~~~~g~
5L.;.,3'5ooU~
e.~:[il~~';
~-,J ~.~";; 5-2 ""
~ .5 ~ 3 .!:! .~ a .~
II> _'" U ;>, 1; ,Sl3: ~
iii :::.5 ;;._ ..... .. _
.... ~ il a ~ .b,~ go
.~ f- ~ ~ '~ == '~ ~
-il.M~uca:::;3e8
.s - ~.5.;..; jg <t::::
~ell~8.~g
~ Q. - "" itl -0 ::I
:t: :::: g.g ~ cc 98
~ ~ ~ 0
c :: "i'~ -5 ~ ~
z " E 0 <8 .= 0
'^ ~ ~~ ~ g-g ~
:J ~ "-
0 f- O.Q <:11)-._ =
.. 0:1'" -.... 0
X z ~ 1! S:g &. u
0; '" E@--g~ = ~
:E 0
0 >.:-i ,;:: o:l OIl E ~
N g ~ II> CO ... 2
(;J u ~";jj ~ Gj ~
z
Q
"
:J
..J
"
>
'"
:E
;l
c
o
'"
'-
o
o
o
N
.=
.
.0
,
E
o
u
.=
.
""
t-
o
>
~
~
o
o
.2
~
=
8
"'
~
o
>
o
"-
~
<:
:E
;l
c
o
'"
"-
~
~
~
;,:, ~ ~
~.~ z
il~i-
<U 11):=
z:o:c
a ~.~
-;;;-@ 8..
e '" ~
iil ::;=
~;gici
'-'''''-= S!
'" .t:! '" "H ~
~ ~ ~ ~ go
... 'i:3:::J 8
< :c 0 .. i::
.;:. ;: E- ;: ~
0= ~,E"€ ~
= Eo- "0 ::l..<::
i i ~ f .~
=- :::g =--
O ::l wo ~_
0'0
~ u 8:l ~
.5 ';2 11 ~
~ -- >. OJIo.;:
~ ~:E ~ ~
;;;
~
~
~
.=
.5
~
e
~
5
~
,
c
'"
"'
'g
OJ
o
e
"
"
c:
..
.....S ....
2;=.G;;
Ei ~~
o _
U~]
o
e
os
o
-~
= -
o ~
" 0 ~
~ ~ .~
000
0..'- <U
UI . E
~ .9 8
c 0.5
~:g ~ .
Q "" _ c
:c :3: i::' ~
>,01O{-<
0- >
:a 1':'...... >.
<'II ... ..'_
.. .. c::::t
=";;j.S! :e
"":'at:~
~:E.g :5..
=~~~
il
"
"-
E
8
E
e
~
2
~
_ 0
~ >
~ .
.-~
~ ~ OJ
~ ;";:;; "2
"e-:;.q ~
~ '" 0: =
!Oll~ E";;;
0: g 8. 2
~::! g.:;
:.~ .~~
~~i~
~~..2-5
- IIJ.Q.-
::=-~~:3:
~:@~
2>:-< '" i2
.~ r--.: '" 8:
=S~~~
U-;;;E&.
.- ..!:! 0
Jlil
1 E g i:i
E-8-~
~_' ~": .s ~ ~
u ~ -s ~ ~ .... 11 .(g .s
<U ~ O::l i:l -g .....l::
::E~.g~2o:1g.::;g
o :; ~,.g"i c..-g gn=:::
-g c8 0 -" >. ~..8'5 1;l '"
... 0"<:: 011- ;jj ... e.lI",-5
1l-1f_:: g;gl5 ~::C'~
:~";g~.c..c::..8.a,,,
o:l ._";: ,g 0 >,.2!l <U 15 ...
~-E18 ;>.,.:] 1:!-5~ ~
oo~ ~"E~~.~]~ ~
i~'~~~ll~~~~
:ail ~.2'g~~ [-::~
.::!l1j g.Q'O ~.s.5~ ~
:c ;; g.~ t; "Vi ..s IS a f-
"0 c::..._ ",..c "t:l ._ c...
~e:!.3E~~...,tl;.:,..,;
~u",~::;;l "~:::I.~ti
o:tl...,~.5;e2-g]5"
i ~ 1 ~ ..s .~ g..~ ~ .~ ~
O:;~::;;la.:g"-28.~
~:Eo.~couti;:l~'"
"':"f--:-g.gti]~~C:(O
~>'~~.~-a::::~~i1g
:i:~ "@~.s @~ g~-5o
_I
I~
o~
z'+
I:
I'il
~
... >.
~E
_ 0
. 0
,..u
~ .g
~i
~ ..
o ~
~a
f-:S
o ~
.;:: e
~o.
.~ ~
~'"
.":: ori
"'~
~~
c';,
o~
8 .~
o 0
._ 0
;..:!
:>!.g
."E
~-.2
-~
o .
:i:;;
-
'"
02 -g ~
2:.'< - .
"'.... ..!:! E -1-
0'" 62
@ ....
:z 8 ~
"' 0
:;; ::; E ,
0 e.:: d;:;::
N "' ~%
.J e ;:; Z .
"' ~u
E-< .::l
......
~ IJ< <L
. ~
.
M 0
~~ ..
'" - ~
<2 '" '"
.- ~
"~ .E
:z 8.'" ~
S2 0 . "
'" .
~ . ~
." 2 .~ "
0 ~ S.
.J '" ~ ~
." . .E .
> i ~ ~
"' ~
::; .~ ~
fr.2
;2 "~
~. .~
0 0"2
0 ,E ~ " ~
.~ .
'" E . ..
~ E'S ,
'6 0
c3 :~ ~
E 0
~-; 0 :g
"u;-.;l u ~
, 0 ~ @
o c.. ::: "
::r:: 0 .-
- .
1~~ .
.
f-~~ <:
::;
."
'"
o
o
'"
~
~
~
~
~
~
10 _ ~ '" OIl)
g~g~~~'=:at- ...
g 6<;1 ~ ~._3~.9-g ~~]
u.o::~~.o ~~@ ~:I:..cg b
c .::!._ = ~ 0 .c '" -0 '0 .... '" c.o
~~~:3:o::u;<Il~:::l~tl~
~",oO..c::...-.s'.:::c"g_:::...
~"o~~F:a>'~EjiE.2
...... ""'.c &:l ..9 U 0 ... c.. S II.>
>':u~ _3~;:.c...=Eo:C
>,"0,,= ~.-:d.,t::2!'~ ....g.oU:3
"C:I E "'._ IO"S U C J::J Il,I U Cl)"S
~ '" ..:.~ e E t 15 ~ €.S '"
Xl ~.~~ 68 ~< a.-5~ g]
;1::"'~=';j"'~Ne~....::r:-:
:.E,g ~ t;-S~~ Q.'ij ~c ~
= E..2....e....i::.....2E! 1; g;:
.! g-g 'i:!~~ i", ~.........~~
.su] ~ ~~.s ~E ~~ o~
-;: ~::::: a ~"€ 2! ~ € ~:I: :i 1i
~ ';;; '" 10 -. ~ 10: >. a g '1jj..2.
01 ;:::l 0 -s U'- .D '" 5. t' ell.>....
1: ~:; ... '1;; !l .- a .!:! u;g &. i:; :g
.g "E :~ ] .;l '0; g,'~ -0; -5 Q. ~ :: ~
<.~ g..s3l! e"s ~.~ ~~.'~ 5
;.: &~~~oc;; g!:l] ~~.!:!~
:C ~g.E::t: ~~u,g :dii;:: 8.e
2. -B c ....
;:::l ~ '0 co'- ii :'iii
~ : E:;-'O'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1
~ ~.o2:.~E-..2~~ go;;
[Q "8 .~ 0... ~ ~ ~ 1! t.5 -8. "
l!:O...i1o.~"'.-g.;gN" ..!:!
::~.2;;;]ll~bOj~~~~
"'.D - '"'.- ii: '" ~ i:i - ,
'o.c ~ Bt-._ l:!'~""=''O >.3 ~
=:;.~~ ii21 q';;;; "'e; ~.D.E;;;
e l:! "'u ",::;::l E.= =""=' a-
S""=' grOl)"5P-~M fi E ~ soB
8 ;;:;;;.a.~ ~~< 8.~-a.E8..2
~ '"' o.Q:l..... u u'- .D
.E~~] ,;"2 ~';3Eg.8.s.~
-6'~.s~ g~-5~] ~~g;;
.:~'g ~.~.g.3:.: ~-5t5::r:"2
(I'J '0 u U <;; ~ u fi ~ ~ .. c ~
.!! 8...5 oil ~'5 ~ e o..="S ~ i:!
.- '" ..; . OIl 0' Co.'" E 1lOE- '"
~'O ~~~ ~ 8~~E~.. ~
.5 >.;;; fi -5:sl ~. i:i E'O .~.....
~:=:e;e21;::l..,~ ",0._0
,.2:0'0 o.o:l ~;;; ~~ll~~ ~
-.f! ~~ g >.~2:!:a g;.= go
..;::lE>'"'""='.-.-"'lS.,u8.Oj
~~~~~g[[B",:a~~lii
0: -5 u 1:: Eo- '" '" ",'in -5 A. =: CI ;::l
:s
tJ;-
z.,
:;i:-
:J~
0:-
-z
~"'
0::;
0",
N..o
"'
---...............
o
~
C.
E
o
o
~
"'
o
0:
-I~
o'+;
z_
~ Q..
I:Q
~
r='l
z
9
'.;:
:J
:;i
>
"'
~
"
~
~
o
o
N
6
o
o
N
"
<:
'"
.,
u
;S
o
o
~
~
o
E
E
o .
00
08
eN
o .
~~
f- ~
~.,
o 0
~ '~
~.l:
o E
iO ~
::;
;:i
"
o
'"
""
~
g;
~
~
E 0
E;t ]
E ~ ~ ~
8 <\l <\l Eo
1j:~E~E
<'l 0 <\l C. ~ <\l
~:~~.e5
";;"g 0 aJ ~ ;
<\l E ~ "l:l '0 <\l
~ '" ... v c::O
'" ~ <: oS ;t
'"' "- >. ... o.S:
-9 ~ ~ ~ f-.~
9"@ '0 ~.s ~
z ~ 8 <.l.: c:
13 ~.:::: ij':a ~
z"2.g=.g~
~ 1:! ~ l! ~ ..
.~ gf<:; .2'~
= ,- <\l ... "".t:l
~ g -s ~ 1j'i
..c:: >'<\l 0:1
~~~E~~
= c: 5 6"~ 0::
-< 2P- <: to ~
.. oaf-CO c: 0:1
~g'O$8O::
~
en
""
:z:
;:0
i:I
Z
-<
en
'"
""
-
en
""
t-~
Z:;:
"'..
:;:0
"''''''0
..;l~g
{;o;l > 01
"''''M
Zi:I,.
t;5C<:
;:OZ::;;
Of;j;-.
=~;.t...
ZO~
o=:o
"''''
;:0,...,
==
--<
""i:I
'"
o
'"
'"
-<
,...,
-<
1=
Z
'"
""
o
..
'"
-'
-,'"
<<
O~
. "'....
ZO-
i-'-lw..Z
,.....u..~
0<
~ .
o
Z
:;;: >- e
f= r- u
Z(ii~
~ @"2
0" =
~
o
ZO
i=~
~Z
-0
i;]N
~
'"
'"
U
<
~
u
i=
~
Oi
'"
....
U
<
'"
:$
U
:'5
i=
<
S
'"
....
e;;
~ 00
o 0
N N
~
o
.8
]<;
.c OJ U
.~ ti ;Z
Z ~
u 0
ZU
00
~ ~
o 0
B~
E ~
~~
. 0
0_
o ~
= 0
~ 0
..8,.2
~ a
.9 5
~.~ ~
Cl ~ f-
" ~
,~r tl E ::
.~~ ~ E
..:.: s"'::: ~
[;;1l ~
t- 0 ~
~ 1J'; ..
";:;::: i:l ;;:
.:L. '" c IJ.I
Z
"
OZ
....0
Zx
,,:0
~'"
,,-
~
t
,
o
'"
o
2
0-
-92
~ .5
~"
t:!
;::
U
Z
~
o
o
~
..
,
E~
~~
~ ;;: .~ ~
~ ~ ~::;
.~ ~ -:-i
;g~~ ci
:I "'";;; 0
~ " ;:0 _'~
~ tl ~ ~..8
6~]<t:~
~ ~::! ~ ~
<:::>]r;~
<:T.; t>I).,fC
'" <.J C N _
~'~~~'i
~-< '?-:g:::l
'>0'- ~,= E
c ~ :; 2 ~
j ~.~ ~ 8
~
~
.
o
Q
~
~
~
,
o "
'"
~Oj
iiC
f=::.,
o "
o~
"'~
]~
o .
~.t::
g E
]::
c: 0
. ~
o
o.
~8
~
o
N
u
Z
M
~
,;
g-
o
o
.......0
~-
fr~
"'C i! B
c.. g,
a 'r .,
g ~ ::;I
] ~
<-g~
<t:! ~ E
g-~ ~
~]~
.~1~
E ~
E~
. 0 "
" u <
Vi4::~
~
~ 0
~d3
> -
o 0
g 3
"'~
2 g
~~
f-il
-~
.
>
,..
z
o
;:
"
>
"
~
~
C
~
Z
~
~
~
~
1l
., ~
]5:
"<5.
"",':::;
~"
,,~
.
~u
:0:0
o 0
O~~
~ ~
';".2
:;: S
~ >
, ~
~-g
g]
~ E
~ 0
" a
o
&]
.~
g ~
~ .~ "g
o~
~,~ E
~ ~ ~
o
o
~ '"
"
~ .
.=
""
{l e ~
" 0 ~
z;!:: 0
9 g]
'" t t\
~ '"
'g'o~
_ . E
~]-5
:E .~
gB~
~ ~.~
~~]-
f-X""
E
~
,
~
" '"
~~
~"E
<jz
000
Zo
" ~
~;
~~
" 0
.Z
~o
"0
z~
C"1b
d'
z--:
E-<c
~
"1
.
~
.
"!
~ii5
",,,,
-o~
f-"'f-
Zo-
"''''Z
E-I.I..::;
0",
0. .
o
Z
-'
<t: >- e
f=E-o
ZCii~
~ @"a
00-
0.
00
"Z
f--
~Z
-0
i;lN
~
'"
'"
u
'"
~
~
~
'"
'"
f-
U
'"
'"
'"
:c
u
Z
C
C
'"
u
c
~
iU
f-
0;
~
~
0.
~
'"
-;;
'0 c
"-
-g
~t:
g-gc-
on>=-,:,
~ g Iii
-^.... "
c 0 c
LE ~
-"2 ~ :l:
~ 8..9
..a ""00
~'"E
~:E~
- '".-'
~'s.9 -
- ~ c"
~ ~ ~
g,2~~
-~
~ ~"2 ,.
-::;::>::: "
j ~~]
I
~
~ ~
~~
~~
..20
-";:0
~
o
~
~
-;;
~ c
"-
!
.Q ",]
ao c go '5
~ g.~ 2-
0..2 <:i 0:
_ . 0
g B ~ a
..c '" '" c
~~~]
,. .~"tJ
] ,~ !;:; .,
:83-5
~"':l -0 e e
~~ ~ s u
's..3'~ 1:'::
~gE~'"
"-0 ~ '3 ~ ~
iE ~ ~.~
'" 0 0,- 0
~~8~~
c - '" '" '"
::;"i s:- 8 .2
1 l
"" ::;
~?s
~ -~ g
EO"
~ ~,e
- ~ ,...
-0 "C'o
~~=
~
~
o
"'"
]~
E~
. .~.~
"'~'"
~
~
N_
~ '"
::: fl
o ....~
" 0 ~
~.E.S i:
e _ :; 13
~ l~!
~ ~.~ ~
~ 0 g. ~
~ ~:2 ~ "
CO";:;.. '" ;;. .~.
'lf~ i -a -.
:;;.b ~ .~
g? fl '~ e lQ
..;2Q1lo<t:
ti.; ~ ~ ~
^ _..c ;:l ~
"@iJi-@..ci3
.E .; <2 ;:l E
U ~"";:j-51
~
~
~
;;~
1l~
=0
o ,
O~
" ~
]]
~~
~ -
~-
u
'"
2
U
6
~
"'"
.~ ~
'" "
o 0
_0
~-
~ffi.~
-;;
- ~
!
'0 ._
o~] .~
E.8';; "
2 ~ g E
= .~ ~
o "
o 0
o " ., u
i>lla... '"
.E.,S:I!l"':l
:;- ~ -g g
~ g ~ --
3 ~ i'l '"
"'::1"'::1 e '"
g ~o '"
~ ~ ~ ~
:,.g ~.::
~~]]
15..<..c ~
of^.:!":: ;j
].~ ';; ~
u -"':;-
o
o
'"
2""
:= \:3
o
o
c
~~
~ "
c "
j~
f-~
"
'n
o
L:
o~
~ it
"0
00
, :s! 0.
o :G 0
""~:z
o
'"
"- .2
;;
:::: "6
s.;::
> 0
C
~ .
0"
~~
"E ";::
~~
~ ~ .
000
-g ~ g
~N ::
.5 b':;;
~o_
0:; """
0:; E U
b';:;~
@"~~
Vi :;-ct:
~
"
u
o
- "
o _ >
~ g 15
u ~ C
c;.:=
~ ~:i:
0-
- 0 ~
~ -~
.:;:
~
"
~~
0""
0-
- -
00
'";':9:3
cj36
o::o::!::::!-
~
~-
o
o
"0 0
.:; "'.==
:~~~
~ ~ <>G~
0]'[ ~
'" 0..<::
-g ~ -:;; :::
1.>,., >'::1
~ if]
~ .~ c
-_~ ",::I
- 8 ~]
~~1~
u..<::.9 Co
5 ::: ~ '2
~6 -g E
== ~ g.
t;;"'" ,0;
:~ ~ ~ ~
1!
~
~
c
U
~ -
'c ""
::l..<:: 15
~ ~ :.:
3d'"
~
=
~
~I
o.
z
~
~
~
N
o
o
'"
"
.
.
<
" 0
c .
=::::i'::r>
"':...
:: <( z
:;;i ~;;>
z <
...l Z. ~
~ '" ""
I-< ;- -
~~~
.
o
"
~
"
<
GOALS US,
HEr:::'_,'~D
TIBURON HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE:
HOUSING GOALS 1999 - 2006
DRAFT OCTOBER 18, 2000
OCT I 0 2000
"""\11
'"j
NEW HOUSING GOALS
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
l. 1555 TiburonBoulevard to 0 to 0
(Zelinsky)
2.1601 TiburonBoulevard 11 6 0
(Bank of America)
}, Neds Way Garden 25 4 0 0 21
Homes 98 Neds Way (Approved '99)
4.~edsWaySjte 30 15 4 11 0
600 Neds Way
5. Hilarita(unused ponion) 2 0
100NedsWay
6. Second Units 16 0 0 16 0
(Estimate 2 UnitsIYear)
SublotalAffordable 79 29 15 35 0
Housing Goals
MARKET RATE 97 76
HOUSING (76 + 21 =97)
EXHIBIT NO. 3
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM OPTIONS
Draft \1ay J 1, 2000
I. EXISTING HOUSING PROGRA"'IS
A Continue and Revise Existing Programs as Indicated in the Program Evaluation Table.
B Develop a Homesharing Program
Homesharing programs attempt tofacilitate owners of large homes who want to rent
out rooms /0 singles or single-parentfamilies. The concept is to promote the idea in
the HOl/sing Element alld cooperate with any agency that might facilitate
homesharing.
II. NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRA"'lS
A. Create an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
This would be all implementing mechanism to influence the opportunity for
affordable hm/sing development 011 sites :,pecJfica/~v identified ill the HOl/sing
E/emelll (i.e., Ihe shurI fist ofsiles in rhe Housing Goals tablej. This Overlay Zone
would he dl!veloped hy Stafffor review and approval by the Planning Commission
and TowII COllncil at ajiullre date. COllceplually, the Overlay Zone wOllldpermit a
density Increase lip to a specified limil when an affordable housing development
prrljecl Is proposed. The details of Ihe Overlay Zone wOllld be developed afler
adoptioll of the Housing Element Update. Related to the Overlay Zone would be a
Gweral Plan Amwdment to permit the specified density increases on the idelltified
SlIes.
B Increase the Percentage of Affordable Units in the Inclusionary Housing Policy
PrewlI!ly. the lnclusio/la/)' Housing policy (SubchapTer 6) of Ihe ZOlling Ordinance
requm!.\ Ihat 10% uf Ihe 101a11/T/mher ofT/nilS in (J ,\"uhdivision of 10 or more units
be prrJl'ided at costs afforduhle to low or moderate income in perpetuity. NlallY
commllllities require (J higher percelltage, Corte ",vladem)' flew draft Housing
Eleme/lt has a ::0% iJlclusio/lwy requirement for projects with densities of 6
units; acre or less and a 25% inclusionwy requirement/or projects with densities 0/
6 ulTitsacre or gT(!aler The TOWII of Tihuro/l should COJ/sid",!" an approach that is
better tui{ored to Ihis commT/nity, hut with The same gtxd In mind.
C Address Special Housing Needs in Appropriate Ways
Speciul HOT/sing V<!eJI' ill the commTl!/TI)/ could !IIelllde senior hOT/sing, largl! family
housing, sTTlgle-pureTll hOl/.I'eho/ds, (lTld dis(lbli:d perso/tl_ J'ihuf"OTI ha:.; already
EXHIBIT NO.~
p,(J02
addressed disabled and senior special needs. This call be done simply by
acknowledging the need alld encouraging inelusion of large family units in mrw
affordahle housing developments. Single-parent households would pro~bly benefit
from a Homesharing program as well as allY affordahle hal/sing programs.
D. Simplify the Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit Process
Ijregulations could be simplified, more secondary dwelling IInits might be created.
This is a SOl/rce of affordable housing in the cummunity. Options inelude, bllt are not
limited 10' waivingfees, making the Conditional Use Permit process less stringent,
etc.
E. Increase Incentives for Residential Uses in Commercial Zones
The Tihllron General Plan and TiburOfi Zoning Ordinance currently allow for mIxed
IIse and"or residential development in commercial =ones. However, the policies and
regulations are vag"lIe and do not offer any incentives for sllch projects. Incentives
could inclllde FAR honuses/or projects colltainingaffordable hal/sing.
m. HOUSING OPPORTU:"IITY AREAS
A IdentifY New Affordable Housing Sites and Target Housing Goals for Each Site
The short list of affordable hOllsing sites i/1 Ihe HOl/sing Goals Tahle (Exhibit 3)
would be the baSIS fOl" this program. The progmm would commit the Town to
encollraging affordahle hm/sing del'elopmel1l at these sites. Howf!wr, it mllSI be
noted Ihat the Town is I/Of reqllired /() huilJ affordable hOIlSillg 011 these sites, or
compel Ihe properly oWllers 10 hl/ild affordahle hal/sing aI/these sites.
EXHIBIT NO.~
PJA;.t
ABAG Regional Housing Needs Determination
Allocation DiS(ributed By Income Category
1999-2006 Distribution Cycle
San Francisco and Marin Counties
~~~~~~Jli~
F~~~'-~',;"~":"7;;~
~f:~W;"~~i~~1~
-,"'"
U~~~!~ ;~t
sAj:.f'ANs _' " ,- -~lo/f;
~!fi.
'u';;"'-'~-,,::-.~~
IU1ICOijXir.Ued_~~:awger-...4W':'"
HCD Regional Housing Ned
230,743
175
58
257
170
2,570
21
137
2Ml
143
144
782
I 6
29 87
121 26
56 133
40 lOB
476 1.130
3 II
32 6S
445 876
361 104
26 92
as 292
0.~20:372 5,2441 2.1261 5,6391 7,363
S~~F;.ana$Co""~~~
20,372
,.
c;'~~~'
,~,r
Rcgiarul Hau..>ir.g :-":wisJurj,d.criar.,j R~."", :--:umbe""
RECEIVED
MAY 2 5 1000
PLANNING DEPAAT~'J1ENl
TOWN OF TIBURON
l@R~~ousing Needs
1i ABAG """",'",f
f1W IbyAm
Governments
EXHIBIT NO. S"
~ ~ ~ ~!
. 0 ~ ~ :;;-
t > > ." .
~ " . ~ "- . ~~ J
~ 0.0 "~ 6
O~ o. o . .!!o;
0 ~ :~ 0:->0 = =
!':z ~ o -
0 - . ~~ z
s~ tn 2'0; o E
~~ ~ ~ 0 = - , <
~- o 0 """'
E= ~".-j ~:: ~ ~ _ 0
g~ ...., _= .Jo:: f=~ .E'5:il H.
~ - H g ~ ,- ~ ~
~ ~ [ ;; ~ - .-
~~ ~.. H
~S ~~ ~
<""! <'l
T "'"
~\~~fft
u :i!
;;: fi
.. "
>- 0 ~
<: ~~
~ ;:t 'B
c -is z
~ :Z ~
. ~
~~
~~
.~
~o
.0
~~
o
o
"
o
~
~
1;: ~
g~
3.:g
"E z
-"0
:==
'0 "2
~ ~
,,~o
~.9 ~
'" t: 0
E 0 5
. ~~
iil~f=
"3 g ~
~ 3-
"I
c5
Z
E-<
.....
i:Q
~
'"
~
\.;::)
= ~
~~
- ~
o .
"E-=
~~
~~
~-
1i
.c~ ~ ~
~ ~ -= .~
~ . u ~ ......\
ul%! <> ~ -a ~
.Eg ]g.~ ~ ~
~~ O"t:o b:I: d
=~ ~&.~'2"" Z
~ 0 .!!! il ~ ~"5 g
:f!~ :i:;::r: e;~ E-'
E-..,. v5!~ 8o:!: I-"
a P'i
I rt ~
r=:
; I
~,.I a:
)
~
"~ :
\
,\ J
\ I ',:,~' I
, !r . 'i. 'v:
1 I .!- ,l:E' j ';.~,
~ (,i.,' \\t-,)I "
" \ .'\ I ',1>-,'
1_- .-:'<Ai\-<'<; l ., '\ '",
/~~v:'" c,..,'
/ ~,' ",'~.
..---......... :!(',' :,~v,.,c.
-----s;-- Ir'<,~: ",'" /' --'C','.."\.
,.'('
I?
I
! to i
I, : 71 i
,I I
'I
,
!
~
I
II
f
nl;;;;;;;',
~~ t;, "ii ~
n :! !!
rl ! ~
, , ':' :~:': I.
. !
~
~
i
m
~
m
"-'OCOoH .......
~~
~~
VitTI
~<
N>
on
o~
c~
~
n
M
~
~
Page 2, Azevedo, housing element
BDforcelflent powers of the state Department of Bousing and
COIIIauDit.y Development
It's true that the Department's enforcement powers are limited
to ruling whether or not a housing element conforms to state
law, though a non-certified housing element leaves a city
vulnerable to law suits, as has happened in Corte Madera.
But to my mind, the city, once it adopts a housing element,
has made a commitment to it. I think our housing element should
not only contain the requisite legal instruments, but should
be a declaration of the city's intention to actually carry
out the goals to the best of its ability.
cc Scott Anderson
Lisa Newman
RECE1V;:D
JUN 2 0 2000
June 16, 2000
p,-,
TO: Miles Berger, Chair, Tiburon Planning Commission
FROM: Margaret A~evedo, 1877 Centro west, Tiburon
REGARDING: Tiburon Housing Element
r'm writing to commend Scott Anderson and Lisa Newman for
the well organized and useful preview of Tlburon's year
2000 Housing Element they presented to you last month.
It gives you the basic content of a housing element without
burdening you with the plethora of detail that will ultimately
be required under state law, And it presents a list of options
for additions to the new Housing Element that are certainly
worth considering.
I offer a few thoughts on that subject.
Potential affordable housing sites
The list is exhaustive and of course not all will turn out to
be possible. The five in-town sites on the short list in
Exhibit 3 are well located I believe. I'd like to see staff
develop a set of criteria for selecting those most realistic,.
Affordable housing overlay ZODe
Essential to establish the city's intentions for these sites.
iRclusionary units
I believe we should increase the requirement of 10 percent
affordable and should specify a certain number of low or
very low income units.
Secondary units
A good source of affordable housing if it's affordable. The
Housing Goals Chart (Exhibit 3) shows nothing in the "very low"
or "low" categories, yet much of our own work force--city
employees, teachers, etc.--fall within or below those income
limits. The figures used by ABAG do not reflect the large gap
between Marin's high median income and that of our elderly and
our civil servants. I suggest we include a rental cap in our
ordinance, as does the city of San Anselmo. It could be offset
by reductions in per~it fees, in parking requirements, and in
the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size, which seems excessive
for this use.
~~
TOWN OF TIBURON
ST AFF REPORT
From:
ITEM NO. h-
Mayor and Members of the Town co~ "
Alex D. McIntyre, Town Manager W"
To:
Subject: Proposed Reduction of Membership of the Parks and Open Space Committee
Date:
October 27, 2000
As the result ofa recent vacancy on the Parks and Open Space Committee, former Town
Manager Bob Kleinert had suggested that the Town Council consider reducing the membership of
the Committee from 7 to 5. His memorandum is attached.
The arguments for reducing the membership from 7 to 5 include:
I. Most other Town Committees/Commissions are made up of 5 members;
2. The ability to form a quorum would be easier with 3 of 5 rather than 4 of7 (see Emi
Theriault's memo attached);
With fewer members, decision-making could be more efficient; and
4. Minor cost savings by the reduction would result.
,
o
The Town's Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code govern the membership of the Parks and
Open Space Committee. In order to make the change the Town Council would need to modifY
both through ordinances Staff could bring back both ordinances for introduction at the Town
Council's next regular meeting.
Presently, there is one vacancy on the Parks and Open Space Committee with two members'
terms due to expire in February 2001. Through attrition, the membership could be effectively
reduced by no later March 200 I.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Town Council ask staff to prepare the appropriate ordinances reducing
the membership of the Parks and Open Space Committee from 7 to 5.
Attachments
TOWN OF
TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN MANAGER
PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION (pOSe) VACANCY
AUGUST II, 2000
With Tom Allen's recent resignation, a vacancy now exists on the POSe. I recommend that
Council consider not filling this vacancy and, through attrition, indicate its intent to reduce the
size of the Commission from seven (7) members to five (5), similar to the Town's Design Review
Board, Planning Commission and Town Council.
I feel the Commission will be just as effective, or perhaps more so, than it is now. There is also
some cost savings in less agendas, reports, mailings, staff time, etc. and not having to extend the
present "Council table" with another smaller table at each meeting when all commissioners attend.
Such a change in the Commission structure would only require a minor revision to the Town's
current ordinance.
R. L. Kleinert
Town Manager
RLK: shm
cc: Planning Director
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
t'
Emi Theriault
Alex McIntyre, own Manager and
Scott Anderson, Planning Director
Parks and Open Space
October 27, 2000
Per your request, I have compiled an analysis of the quorum problem we are having with the Parks and Open
Space Commission. Please review the attached "Parks and Open Space Quorum Information" document.
Quorum issues appear to be somewhat related to the tardiness problem the Town has had with the
Commission (see the attached letter written to the Commission by fonner Town Manager Bob Kleinert), but
the actual size of the Commission may be the real cause for the problem.
All other Boards and Commissions for the Town consist of 5 members while this Commission is supposed to
have 7 members. Six members currently serve the Commission. (As an aside, the large size of the
Commission poses some logistical problems for Staff as the Council dais seats ouly 5 persons. An extra
table must be placed adjacent to the dais for each Commission meeting and Town Hall does not have enough
microphones for all 7 Commissioners). There does not seem to be a reason for the extra two member
provision at this point and the effectiveness of the Commission may be well served if the size of the body
were reduced to that provided for all other Town Boards, etc.
Quorums for the past 12 months, October 12, 1999 through September 12, 2000, for Parks &
Open Space Meetings. Three of the 12 meetings were cancelled. One of these meetings was
cancelled in order for the Commission to have a joint meeting with the Town Council. Two
members of the Commission attended the joint meeting.
Number of Meetings: 9 of 12
Meetings started on time: 0 of 9 held
Meetings started less than 5 minutes late: 2 of 9 held
Meetings started more than 5 minutes late in order to obtain a quorum: 7 of 9 held
Meetings cancelled for lack of quorum: 1 cancelled on night of meeting (after public notice
issued). 1 meeting started 25 minutes late in order to obtain a quorum.