HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2001-12-05
III ?f~
TOWN OF TIBURON
Town Council Chambers
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Wednesday, December 5, 2001
7:15 p.m. - Closed Session
7:30 p.m. - Regular Meeting
ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in
this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435.7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
AVAilABILITY OF INFORMATION
Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall
and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony
on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in
written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s).
AGENDA
CLOSED SESSION
Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 54950 et seq., the Town Council will hold a Closed
Session. More specific information regarding this meeting is indicated below:
CONFERENCE WITH lEGAL COUNSEL - CURRENT LITIGATION
(Section 54956.9(a))
Jackson v. Town of Tiburon
Zippin v. Town of Tiburon
CONFERENCE WITH lEGAL COUNSEL - PENDING LITIGATION
(Section 54956.9(b))
Name of Claimant: Frances Lovejoy
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
(Section 54957)
Title: Town Manager
;1
Agenda - Town Council Meeting
December 5, 2001
Page 2 of 4
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Slavitz, Councilmember Thompson, Vice Mayor Gram,
Mayor Matthews
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. IF ANY
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons wishing to address the Town Council on any subject not on the agenda may do so now.
Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action
tonight on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate
Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Town Council
meeting agenda. Please limit vour comments to no more than three (3) minutes.
RECOGNITIONS
Adoption of a Resolution Recognizing Little Reed HeightsfTiburon Knolls Homeowners' Association for their
Success Undergrounding Public Utilities
a) A Resolution of the Town Councii of the Town of Tiburon
Recognizing the Outstanding Efforts of the Little Reed Heights/
Tiburon Knolls Homeowners' Association for their Efforts at
Undergrounding Utilities in their Neighborhood
Adoption of a Resolution Recognizing John Kern for his Service to the Community and Naming of the Town
Hall Clock Tower in Honor of the Kern Family
a) A Resolution of the Town Councii of the Town of Tiburon
Recognizing John & Jane Kern for their Community Service
and Naming the Town Hall Clock Tower in their Honor
CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion unless a request is made that
an item be transferred to the Regular Agenda for separate discussion and consideration. Any item
on the Regular Agenda may be moved to the Consent Calendar.
1) Approval of Town Council Minutes - November 7, 2001
2) Report by Finance Director - Monthly Investment Summary Report - September 2001
3) Report by Finance Director - Monthly Investment Summary Report - October 2001
4) Recommendation by Finance Director - Amendment to Budget Plan - Appropriation of COPS/SLEF
Funds to Purchase Portable Computer and Projection Equipment
5) Recommendation by Finance Director - Approve Contract for Off-Site Storage for Computer Data
6) Recommendation by Finance Director - Adoption of a Resolution Revising Signature Authority
Agenda - Town Council Meeting
December 5,2001
Page 3 of 4
a) A resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Authorizing the Signing and Endorsing of Checks and Other
Instruments of Payment and Access to Documents Retained
in Safekeeping
7) Recommendation by Police Chief - Adoption of a Resolution Confirming the Extension of the Vehicle
Abatement Program and Imposition of $1 Registration Fee for 10 Years
a) A resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Extending the Marin County Abandoned Vehicle Service
Authority Vehicle Registration Fee Until April 2012
8) Recommendation by Chief of Police - Adoption of a Resolution Approving COPS Funding
a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon
Approving an Expenditure Plan for the Utilization of
Supplemental Law Enforcement Funds (COPS Monies)
Received in Fiscal Year 2001-2001
REGULAR AGENDA
9) Recommendation by Mayor - Revise Town Council Committee Appointments 2002
10) Recommendation by Mayor - Appropriate $20,000 Towards the Cost for the "Fountain Plaza" Art
Installation
11) Report by Planning Director and Building Official - Review of Policy for Fines Related to Building
Permit Extensions - (continued from November 7, 2001)
12) Report by Planning Director and Public Works DirectorfTown Engineer - Final Report: Railroad
Marsh Management Plan
13) Status Report by Public Works DirectorfTown Engineer - Stewart Drive Undergrounding Project
PUBLIC HEARING
14) Recommendation by Planning Director - Approval of Tiburon Court Precise Development Plan
a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Amplifying and Supplementing Provisions of the Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance with Respect to Planned Development #18b By
Approving the Tiburon Court Precise Development Plan and
Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program - Assessor Parcel Nos. 39.061-80 & 86
15) Recommendation by Town Attorney - Amend Chapter 23 of Town Code Pertaining to the Hours of
Use of Commercial Vehicles in the Downtown Area
Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance (Read by Title only)
Agenda - Town Council Meeting
December 5, 2001
Page 4 of 4
a) An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Amending Chapter 23 of the Tiburon Municipal Code to
Restrict the Use of Trucks on Downtown Streets
COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION REPORTS
16) Request by Parks & Open Space Commission - Signage Improvements for Downtown Public
Restrooms
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Town Council Weekly Digest - November 9,2001
Town Council Weekly Digest - November 16, 2001
Town Council Weekly Digest - November 23, 2001
Town Council Weekly Digest - November 30,2001
ADJOURNMENT
FUTURE MEETING DATES
. December 18 - 20 - League of California Cities - Sacramento
. December 19, 2001 - Regular Town Council Meeting - CANCELLED
. December 20,2001 - Town Holiday Party
. January 2, 2002 - Regular Town Council Meeting
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
. Adoption of Annual Appointments List & Notice of Upcoming Commission Vacancies - (January 2, 2002)
. Downtown Design Guidelines - (January 2, 2002)
. Approval of Final Concept Plans for Ferry Dock Access and Safety Improvements Project and Authorize
to Solicil Contractor Bids (January 2, 2002)
. Mid.Year Report & Financial Trends - (January 16, 2002)
. Implementation Plan for Tiburon Peninsula Traffic Committee Report and Traffic Safety Committee
Recommendations - (January 16, 2002)
.1.4'~ /(j~. I
D~"Zf{;:7
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Thompson called the regular m<:!(ting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:37 p,m,
on Wednesdav. November 7, 200 I, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard,
Tiburon. CaliR>rnia, ._/
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Bach, Matthews, Slavitz, Mayor Thompson
Gram
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO:
Town Manager McIntyre, Town Attorney Danforth,
Planning Director Anderson, Director of Public
Works/Town Engineer Echols, Assistant to the
Town Manager McVeigh, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi
CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - CURRENT LITIGA nON
(Section 54956. 9(a))
Zippin v. Town of Tiburon
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. IF ANY
Mayor Thompson announced that Marin County Superior Court had dismissed through summary
judgment a lawsuit against the Town concerning drainage on private property (see reference
above).
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
. On behalf of the Tiburon Peninsula Foundation, Councilmember Bach presented Mayor
Thompson with a check in the amount of $5,000 for Zelinsky Park,
. Gary Runes, owner of apartment building on Mar West, asked Council to reconsider its
ordinance requiring regular garbage collection for absentee tenants,
. Robert Chandler, 695 Hilary Drive, complained of an ongoing construction project uphill
from his residence, which he said would cause drainage problems later on to his property.
. Chris Carter, Reed Union School District Superintendent, thanked the Town Council for its
support of [the successful school bond] Measure C. She also congratulated the newly elected
Town Councilmembers, and said Mogens Bach would be missed.
Town Council Afinutes # 27-2UOI
November 7. 2001
Page 1
. Joe Keller, 699 Hilary Drive, asked the Council to look into requiring some screening and
camouflage for the house at 30 Del Mar. He said it should never have been approved and was
"the sore thumb of the neighborhood."
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Thompson said that Item NO.5 would be continued.
1. Approval of Town Council Minutes - October 17, 200 I
2. Approval of Town Council Minutes - October 22,2001
3. Recommendation by Town Manager - Adoption of Memorandum of Understanding
between Town of Tiburon, Angel Island Ferry Service, Sam's Anchor Cafe, and the State of
California Parks Service for Maintenance of Downtown Restrooms
4. Recommeudation by Mayor - Amendment to Town Manager Employment Agreement
5 Recommendation by Town Attorney & Senior Planner - Design Review Approval of
Fence Located at 223 Diviso Street pursuant to Agreement for the Settlement of Brieant et
at. v. Heirs of Lyford et. al
6 Recommendation by Town Attorney - Resolution to Accept Conveyance of Property
Located at 32 Marsh Road as Part of the Town's Affordable Housing Program and
Authorization for Town Manager to Sign Related Closing Documents
(a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Accepting Conveyance of Real Property from
Bert Ritchie and Torii Lynn Soldate-Ritchie
7 Recommendation by Town Attorney - Approve Amicus Brief Request - Dewayne Cargill,
et at. v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, et al.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To approve Consent Calendar Items I, 2 3, 4, 6 and 7 above.
Slavitz, seconded by Bach
AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT Gram
PUBLIC HEARING
8 Recommendation by Planning Director - Approve Extension of Time for Filing a Precise
Development Plan (PD#7) - 375 Taylor Road; John Walker, Applicant; Miranda Leonard,
Owner; AP No 38-182-42
Town louncil /vlinulcs # 27-2001
November 7, 2001
Page 2
Planning Director Anderson said the Planning Commission had reviewed the request, had
determined that there was no change since the previous extension, and had recommended
approval. Anderson, noted, however, that the applicant had now submitted a Design Review
application for one house on the 5.3 acre parcel. He said that Council's adoption of the
resolution would give a one-year extension to the Precise Development Plan,
Mayor Thompson opened and closed the public hearing, There was no public comment.
MOTION:
To adopt the resolution approving the fourth extension oftime for implementation
of Planned Development #7 at 375 Taylor Road (Ring Mountain Parcel G),
Bach, seconded by Slavitz
AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: Gram
Moved:
Vote:
9. Recommendation by Town Attorney - Amend Chapter 23 of Town Code Pertaining to the
Hours of Use of Commercial Vehicles in the Downtown Area
Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance (Read by Title Only)
a) An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Amending Chapter 23 of the Tiburon Municipal Code to
Restrict the Use of Trucks on Downtown Streets
Town Attorney Danforth gave the Staff report, She said the proposed ordinance was a regulatory
response to Council's direction to find a solution for complaints about noise in the downtown
area which were heard at the October 3, 2001 Town Council meeting,
Danforth said that although Council agreed with Staff that existing Town regulations could
address many of these issues, the ordinance addressed a specific area (Main Street) and woul,d
extend to Juanita Lane and Tiburon Boulevard east of Beach Road. She said the ordinance
would prohibit commercial vehicles in those locations between 10:00 p,m, and 8:00 a,m,
Monday through Friday and on holidays, She said that taxicabs, although technically
"commercial vehicles," were specifically excluded from the ordinance,
Town Attorney Danforth also said that the ordinance would impact garbage collection on
Corinthian Island by restricting the only street exit [onto Main Street]. She said the Council
could address this by creating an exception to the ordinance for refuse collection trucks exiting
the Island.
Mayor Thompson asked if Mill Valley Refuse had commented on the proposed inclusion of
Corinthian Island in the ordinance, Town Manager McIntyre said MVRS was not aware of the
exception and would probably oppose it.
Town Council !vlinuJes # 27-2001
November 7, 200J
Page 3
Ms. Danforth said that Council had also directed Staff to obtain information about gas-powered
leaf blowers which would be addressed separately at another hearing.
Mayor Thompson opened the public hearing.
Wayne Howard, 750 Hilary Drive, said the proposed regulations should not only apply to the
downtown area but needed to be extended to the neighborhoods.
Mr. Howard questioned why a ban on construction noise until 7:00 a.m. should be later than the
starting time allowed for garbage pick-up. He said that the noise created by the dumpster pick up
at St. Hilary School on Monday, Wednesday and Friday mornings was the problem, rather than
the regular can pick up. However, because the regular collection day in the neighborhood was on
Tuesday, he said that meant there were four days of noise from garbage collection in their
neighborhood, not to mention recycling pick up on Thursdays.
George Swift, 71 Eastview Avenue, thanked the Council for its attention to the noise issue in the
downtown area and said that the other neighborhoods deserved the same consideration. He also
said that the issue of "unreasonably loud noise, with or without permits" needed to be addressed,
and that all of the delivery companies and suppliers should be informed of the new regulations
pertaining to the downtown area.
The General Manager of Guaymas Restaurant said that his restaurant was willing to work with
the Town on the noise complaints but that it bothered him that the police came into the restaurant
while music was playing during events. He said that in the past he was told that music could go
until 1100 p.m. and he asked that Council clarity exactly what the regulations were. He also said
that his restaurant was being blamed for the noise from bottle recycling and asked what the
regulations were concerning this kind of collection (which he said took place at 8:00 or 9:00 p.m.
in the evening).
Mayor Thompson directed Staff to respond to these questions directly.
Carla Howard, 750 Hilary Drive, underscored her husband's remarks. She said that it was
unreasonable to be awakened at 5:00 or 5: 15 a.m. in a residential area by a utility that
[supposedly] served the community and that it constituted "cruel and unusual punishment."
Ms. Howard acknowledged that St. Hilary School had moved their dumpsters to the back to try
to help alleviate the problem, but she said the noise was still so bad that 30 decibel ear plugs did
not even work. Ms. Howard suggested that "Rubbermaid" dumpsters might help solve the
problem.
Councilmember Bach agreed with Ms. Howard that this situation was "cruel" but not unusual due
to the nature of garbage collection in this and other communities. He said that changing the times
at one end of Town would only affect another end of Town.
Town Council.ldinules # 27-2001
November 7, 2001
Page 4
Vice Mayor Matthews suggested that Staff look into the issue of using a different kind of
dumpster and report back to the Council He also said that the issue of noise from garbage
collection should be "kept alive" and addressed in the future with regard to the other
neighborhoods. Matthews said the ordinance before Council was a "first step" in addressing the
overall issue.
Councilmember Bach concurred and conceded that some renegotiation might be required with
Mill Valley Refuse (with regard to dumpsters, etc.). However, he warned that increasing the time
of garbage collection (by pushing the times forward) would invariably result in a rate increase.
Councilmember SIavitz said that Mill Valley Refuse already had an unwritten agreement regarding
garbage collection times downtown and assumed that they would be amenable to further
negotiations.
Mayor Thompson cautioned against "micromanaging" the business of garbage collection but said
that the ordinance was appropriate. He also directed Staff to work with Mill Valley Refuse to
determine who manufactured the dumpsters and how they could be altered.
In response to a question from Council, Town Attorney Danforth said that violation of the
[collection and delivery] times in the ordinance would result in an infraction or administrative
citation in the amount of $1 03 per violation.
Town Attorney Danforth asked Council what its decision was with regard to the exception of
vehicles exiting from Corinthian Island. Council concurred that subsection (c) should be added to
the ordinance, which would read as follows:
MOTION
Moved:
Vote:
"(c)
Notwithstanding anything in this section to the contrary, a
commercial vehicle authorized by the Town to collect refuse
and/or recyclables on Corinthian Island may travel along
Main Street and Tiburon Boulevard for the sole purpose of
exiting Corinthian Island after such authorized collection."
To read ordinance, amended above, by title only.
Bach, seconded by Slavitz
AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: Gram
Mayor Thompson read, "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Amending
Chapter 23 of the Tiburon Municipal Code to Restrict the use of Trucks on Downtown Streets."
MOTION
Moved:
Vote:
To pass first reading of the above ordinance.
Slavitz, seconded by Bach
AYES: Bach, Matthews, Slavitz, Thompson
ABSENT: Gram
Town Council AIinules # 27-2001
November 7, 2001
Page 5
Mr. & Mrs. Howard asked who at Town Hall they could contact regarding their noise complaints
and the possible redesign of the dumpsters. Town Manager McIntyre said they could contact him
directly
10. Recommendation by Town Attorney - Add Chapter 24 to Town Code Providing that
Property Owners Shall be Directly Liable to the Public for the Maintenance of Sidewalks
Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance (Read by Title Only)
(a) An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon
Adding Chapter 24 of the Tiburon Municipal Code
Regarding Maintenance of Sidewalks
Town Attorney Danforth said that Council had passed first reading of the ordinance, based upon
the recommendation of its insurer, ABAG (the Association of Bay Area Governments).
Councilmember Bach sought clarification on the issue of who was responsible for "fixing" broken
sidewalks Town Attorney Danforth said that under State Law the adjoining property owner was
responsible.
Mayor Thompson opened the public hearing.
John Kern, Stewart Drive, said that "an amazing number of people" had no idea where their
property lines were. He also stated that there were "lots of trees on Town property" that were
tearing up the sidewalks. He advised Council to inform the public of their responsibility and
where their property lines were.
Priscilla Tripp, 104 Howard Drive, said she thought it was "weird" that although the sidewalks
were public property they had to be maintained by private property owners. She asked what
happened if the Town did not maintain the sidewalks and they then deteriorated, or on the other
hand, what if the property owners decided to remove a sidewalk or paint it.
Mayor Thompson pointed out that the sidewalks were usually built by the developers of
subdivisions for the benefit of those people within the subdivisions. Town Attorney Danforth said
that the sidewalks were then generally subject to some sort of [public right of way] easement once
the subdivisions were approved by the Town, but said that there was no prohibition to "painting"
a sidewalk.
Ms. Tripp asked if there was any difference between the treatment of sidewalks in commercial or
residential areas under the law. Ms. Danforth said there was none.
Ms. Tripp said that the City of Belvedere had an ordinance which made property owners
responsible for the maintenance or sidewalks but did not force the liability issue on them, which
Town Council Jiinutes # 17-2001
November 7,2001
Page 6
was a more "friendly" approach. She said the proposed Tiburon ordinance was "a mean thing to
do" to property owners.
Town Attorney Danforth said that "liability follows duty." However, she said that even though
State Law clearly put the burden of maintenance on the property owner, the courts had ruled
otherwise, and that unless the Town passed this or a similar ordinance, liability would revert to
the Town. Danforth agreed, however, that more public education was needed.
Vice Mayor Matthews said the ordinance merely "closed the loop" on the liability issue. Mayor
Thompson agreed and said the Town should work with the citizenry to inform them of these
Issues.
MOTION
Moved:
Vote:
To read above ordinance by title only.
Slavitz, seconded by Matthews
AYES Unanimous
ABSENT: Gram
Mayor Thompson read, "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon adding
Chapter 24 of the Tiburon Municipal Code Regarding Maintenance of Sidewalks"
MOTION
Moved
Vote
To adopt above ordinance.
Bach, seconded by Slavitz
AYES: Bach, Matthews, Slavitz, Thompson
ABSENT Gram
REGULAR AGENDA
II. Report by Planning Director and Building Official - Review of Policy for Fines Related to
Building Permit Extensions
Mayor Thompson said that Councilmember Gram had asked that the item be continued to the
next regular meeting due to his absence. Council agreed.
12. Report by Chief of Police - Review of Tiburon Peninsula Traffic Committee Report and
Traffic Safety Committee Recommendations
Mayor Thompson praised Staff for its extra efforts on the matter and also thanked the traffic
consultant, Dalene Whitlock, RUSD Boardmember Grace Livingston, Peninsula Traffic
Committee member Katie Vogelheim, Committee Chair Bill McLaughlin and the neighborhood
representatives, RUSD Superintendent Chris Carter, and others, for all their hard work.
Thompson said it was important to keep in mind that changing driver behavior continued to be an
important factor, but that Council would first focus its attention on infrastructure improvements.
Town C'ouncil i\Iif/utes # 27-2001
November 7, 200/
Page 7
Planning Director Anderson delivered the report. He listed the problems as they were identified
by the traffic consultant, Dalene Whitlock and the Tiburon Peninsula Traffic Committee
(comprised ofrepresentatives from the Town of Tiburon, Reed Union School District, the City of
Belvedere, and St. Hilary School), presented the recommendations and findings from the public
meetings held at each location, and finally, reviewed the recommendations by the Town's Traffic
Safety Committee for area-wide improvements, as well as improvements to each of the school
sites (St. Hilary, Reed, Bel Aire, and Del Mar).
Anderson said that due to the complexity of issues related to the Del Mar School area, the
recommendations would be reformulated and addressed separately after the Traffic Safety
Committee had been able to meet again with neighborhood representatives.
Anderson also noted that the Town Council had authorized additional funds for W-Trans [traffic
consulting firm] to prepare cost estimates for certain improvements identified in the report.
With regard to area-wide improvements, Anderson said that previous traffic studies had
recommended coordination of all traffic signals along Tiburon Boulevard, and that this was one of
the current suggested improvements. He said that other actions already implemented by the
Town as a result of the study were the installation of reflective signage at all of the school sites,
and the assistance of the Tiburon Police Department in directing traffic at the school sites.
Mayor Thompson opened the public hearing.
Joe Keller, Hilary Drive, urged Council to "proceed modestly" with the recommendations for
signage and new sidewalks in that neighborhood. He suggested giving St. Hilary School time to
encourage bike and foot traffic before any improvements were undertaken and he said that all of
the "stuff' recommended in the report might not be necessary in their neighborhood.
Mayor Thompson closed the public hearing.
Reed Superintendent Chris Carter responded to Council's questions concerning improvements in
the Bel Aire School neighborhood. She said that the successful bond measure included money for
a survey of the area (in order to widen the driveway approach), but that the issue of where the
busses could load and unload still needed to be addressed.
Mayor Thompson also noted the "precarious" nature of the intersection at Blackfield Drive and
said that someone on the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee had suggested building a bridge
over Tiburon Boulevard to alleviate this problem.
Council discussed the idea of adding sidewalks in certain areas, such as vicinity of Tiburon
Boulevard heading toward Blackfield Drive, Rock Hill Drive (from Tiburon Boulevard), and
across fI'tlm Ned's Way. It was noted that the Town might not have jurisdiction over some of
these areas. Council also discussed the issue of signalization along Tiburon Boulevard.
TOH'n Council .\Iinutes # 27-2001
November 7,200/
Page 8
Concerns were expressed by Council about the stated cost estimates of the aforementioned
improvements Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Echols said that more detailed estimates
could be obtained for the sidewalk construction work. He also explained the different kinds of
signal programming and said that the one recommended in the report was relatively inexpensive.
Planning Director Anderson noted that the Town received fees from developers for signal
coordination under the General Plan, and said that $15,000 or more existed in the fund currently.
Echols said he would recommend moving forward with the right-turn lane overlap phase of the
proposed recommendations, then the sidewalk improvements (for which grant funding might be
available, although surveys should be obtained first).
Councilmember Slavitz asked about the possibility of utilizing a grant writer. Town Manager
McIntyre said that he had discussed this issue with RUSD Superintendent Carter and that they
both realized they did not have the Staff to devote to grant writing. McIntyre proposed "teaming
up" with the City of Belvedere, St. Hilary School, RUSD and the Town to see how to proceed.
Anderson's report and the recommendations listed in the report were accepted with the following
Council direction
. a) to proceed in phases;
. b) to coordinate construction and planning with RUSD;
. c) to implement "low cost" items first;
. d) to seek grant funding for [new] sidewalks;
. e) to get actual bids and seek to lower costs for overlaps and signal coordination;
· f) to return with implementation plan at the next regular meeting.
13. Request by Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of Commerce - Receipt of Transit Occupancy
Tax from Water's Edge Hotel
Chamber President Jim Bryant proposed that the Town Council authorize the Chamber to receive
1 % of the 10% transient occupancy tax generated from the new Waters Edge Hotel. He said the
Chamber had used these (TOT) funds in the past to promote tourism and that the current funds, if
approved, would be targeted to bringing local shoppers to the downtown area. He said this
would result in increased sales and therefore increased revenue (from sales tax) to the Town.
No action was taken by Council at this time.
14. Report by Mayor- BCDC Meeting of October 17, 2001 concerning "Anchor Outs" and
Richardson Bay Specific Area Plan
· Mayor Thompson reported that no changes had been made to the Plan at BCDC's October 17
meeting and that no further action was required by Council at this time.
Town COllrIcil.i\:!inUles # 17-2001
November 7, 2001
Poge 9
. Vice Mayor Matthews reported on the progress of the downtown Fountain Steering
Committee and alerted Council that the Heritage & Arts Commission would request
additional funding for the artist selection process.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Town Council Weekly Digest - October 19, 2001
Town Council Weekly Digest - October 26,2001
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon, Mayor
Thompson adjourned the meeting at 10:04 p.m. in memory of Stewart Hopkins and Don Tayer,
sine die.
ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR
ATTEST
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Town Council Afinutes # 27-2001
November 7, 2001
Page 10
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING: DECEMBER 5, 2001
TO: TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
Sl'BJECT: MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY REPO
AS OF THE MONTH ENDED SEPTEMBER
REVIEWED: ALEX D. McINTYRE, TOWN MANAGER
AGENDA ITEM
:<
TOWN OF TIBURON
Institution/Agency
Investment
Amount
Interest Rate
Maturity
State of California Local Agency $8,252,690 4.288% Liquid
Inve,' ment Fund
(LA IF)
Total Invested: $8,252,690
TIBl'RON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Institution! Agency
Investment
Amount
Interest Rate
Maturity
State of Califomia Local Agency $1,247,621 4.288% Liquid
Investment Fund
(LAIF)
Bank of America Other $0
Total Invested: $1,247,621
Notes to Table Information:
State of Califomla Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): The interest rate represents the effective yield for
the month referenced above. The State of California generally distributes investment' data reports in the third
week following the month ended.
Acknowledgment: This summary report accurately reflects all pooled investments of the Town of Tiburon and
the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency, and is in conformity with State laws and the Investment Policy adopted
by the Town Council. The investment program herein summarized provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to
meet next month's estimated expenditures.
---
~
Richar anzl, Finance Director
November 8, 200 I
cc: Town Treasurer
lOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND
Summary of Activity
September 2001
Beginning Balance
$ 18.188,260708 98
Deposits
$ 1,570,369,00000
Withdrawals
$ 1,480,635.132.92
Month End Balance
$ 18,277,994,576.06
POOLED MONEY INVESTMENT ACCOUNT
Summary of Investment Data
A Comparison of September 2001 with September 2000
(Dollars in Thousands)
Seotember 2001 Seotember 2000
Average Daily Portfolio $ 48,017,074
Effective Yield C 4.288 ~
Average life (month end in days) 169
$ 41 ,468,674
Chanae
$ + 6,548,400
6.502
- 2.214
192
- 23
POOLED MONEY INVESTMENT BOARD REPORT
SOON TO BE POSTED TO WEBSITE
Effective January 1, 2002, in an effort to save
administrative costs and for each agency's con-
venience, the Pooled Money Investment Board
(PMIB) Report will be posted on the State
Treasurer's website at www.treasurer.ca.gov.
The LAIF's enabling legislation requires the
Treasurer to prepare and distribute to all LAIF
participants a monthly report of investments.
The PMIB Report includes a summary of the
QUARTER ENDING
SEPTEMBER 2001
APPORTIONMENT RATE: 4.47%
EARNINGS RATE: .00012254784317284
PARTICIPATION FACTOR: 1.004705758
LAIF HOLIDAYS
(closed for business)
12 November Veterans' Day
22 November Thanksgiving Day
23 November Day after Thanksgiving Day
month's investment data, selected investment
data analysis of the portfolio, a graphical rep-
resentation of the portfolio composition, Time
Deposits, Bank Demand Deposits, and PMIB
designations.
Agencies that do not have Internet access
and would like to continue receiving the PMIB
Report by mail should contact the LAIF staff
at (916) 653.3001.
2001 LAIF ANNUAL CONFERENCE
The STO's Investment Division and the
LAIF staff would like to thank all who at.
tended the 2001 LAIF Annual Conference.
One hundred thirty.two LAIF participants
representing 99 agencies attended the con-
ference on Thursday, September 27, 2001.
The Investment Division and the LAIF staff
extend an invitation for all to return for the
LAIF's 25th Anniversary, the 2002 LAIF An-
nual Conference.
State 1 rcasurer PhilipAngelides Phone (916) 653-300 I
Local \gency Investment Fund F (916) 6 -4-993 I
PO B"x 942809 ax )
Sacramento CA 94209-000 I http://www.treasurer.ca.gov
","'
TmURON TOWN COUNCa
STAFF REPORT
MEETING: DECEMBER 5, 2001
TO: TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS
AGENDA ITEM
(7
.d
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
MONTHL Y INVESTMENT SUMMARY REPORT -
AS OF THE MONTH ENDED OCTOBER 30 0
REVIEWED: ALEX D. McINTYRE, TOWN MANAGER
FROM:
SUBJECT:
TOWN OF TIBURON
Institution! Agency
Investment
Amount
Interest Rate
Maturity
State of CalifornIa Local Agency $8,082,690 3.785% Liquid
Investment Fund
(LAIF)
Total Invested: $8,082,690
TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
InstItution! Agency
Investment
Amount
Interest Rate
Maturity
State of California Local Agency $1,247,621 3.785% Liquid
Investment Fund
(LAIF)
Bank of America Other $0
Total Invested: $1,247,621
Notes to Table Information:
State of Califomia Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): The interest rate represents the effective yield for
the month referenced above. The State of California generally distributes investment data reports in the third
week following the month ended.
Acknowledgment: This summary report accurately reflects all pooled investments of the Town of Tiburon and
the Tlburon Redevelopment Agency, and is in conformity with State laws and the Investment Policy adopted
by the Town Council. The Investment program herein summarized provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to
meet next month's estimated expenditures.
Richar tranzl, Finance Director
November 8, 2001
cc: Town Treasurer
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND
Summary of Activity
October 200 1
Beginning Balance
$ 18277,994,57606
Deposits
$ 1,8t7,993,788.54
Withdrawals
$1,686,898,176.79
Month End Balance
$ 18,409,090,187.81
POOLED MONEY INVESTMENT ACCOUNT
Summary of Investment Data
A Comparison of October 2001 with October 2000
(Dollars in Thousands)
October 2001 October 2000
Average Daily Portfolio $ 51 208659
Effective Yield C3 78~
A"o,_ ""lmo,"',,""" ,.,.) '" - /
$ 40,550,588
Chanae
$ +10,658,071
6.517%
- 2.732
199
- 8
STATE TREASURER TO INCREASE LAIF DEPOSIT LIMIT
Eff~ctive January 1,2002, State Treasurer Philip
Angelides will increase the Local Agency Investment
Fund's deposit limit for regular accounts from the
current $30 million to $-10 million based upon a
recommendation presentcd by the Local Investment
Advisory Board (L1AB).
Initially, LAIF had no limits on the amount deposited
or the number of transactions processed. The first time
a limit was implemented on LAIF's regular accounts
and number of transactions processed was in April
1981. The limit was implemented to control the
tremendous volatility in the dollar volume and workload
that adversely affected the Pooled Money Investment
Account and the investment operations.
Based on the needs voiced by local government
..,/ Same day transactions, call by 10:00 a.m.
/
V
$-1il milliun. cap per regular accullnt
(Trustee/bond accounts no cap)
15 transactions per month
$5000 minimum transaction amount
(Increments 01'$ I (00)
$11l million or more withdrawal
(Provide LAIF one.day advance notice)
/
V
/
V
/
V
participants, the L1AB has periodically requested
changes to the policy related to limits on account balance
and number of transactions processed. The last time
the Treasurer increased the LAIF's deposit limit for
regular accounts was July I, 1998, as requested by the
L1AB. At that time, the deposit limit was increased ITom
$20 million per regular account to the current level of
$30 million per regular account.
The L1AB's primary purpose is to advise and assist
the State Treasurer in formulating the policy for the
investment and reinvestment of monies as well as the
acquisition, retention, management, and disposition of
LAIF's deposits.
Please direct questions regarding LAIF's policies to
the LA IF staffat (916) 653-3001.
LAIF WILL BE CLOSED
DECEMBER 25, 2001
HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
FROM THE
LAIF STAFF
Slate Treasurer PhilipAngelides Phone (916) 653-300 I
Local Agency Investment Fund F (916) 6-4-9931
PO Box 942809 ax )
Sacramento CA 94209-000 I http://www.treasurer.ca.gov
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
1-
REVIEWED:
DECEMBER 5, 2001
MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
AMENDMENT OF BUDGET PLAN - Appropriate COPS/SLESF Funds to
Purchase Portable Computer & Projection E ent
ALEX D. McINTYRE, TOWN MANAGER
MEETING:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
This item is for amendment of the Police Department Operating Budget to purchase a
portable/laptop computer, with presentation and projection capabilities, for use by the Police and
other departments is presenting reports and technical information at staff, public, and other
special meetings.
FISCAL IMPACT
In November 2001, the Town received a State COPS Technology subvention of$30,742. These
monies are to be used for the purchase of technical equipment that will public safety and other
administrative support functions. The proposed purchase utilizes $6,400 of the total Fiscal Year
subvention.
RECOMMENDATION
That Town Council approve amendment of the Police Department Operating Budget to authorize
appropriation of$6,400 from the Police SLESFICOPS Fund, utilizing a portion of the Fiscal
Year 2001.02 COPS Technical Equipment subvention.
R. Stranzl
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
--
~
MEETING:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
DECEMBER 5, 2001
MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
CONTRACT FOR OFF.SITE STORAGE OF PUTER DATA
ALEX D. McINTYRE, TOWN MANAGER
This item is for approval of off. site vaulting services for the Town's data processing records.
The Town proposes to contract with Iron Mountain Off-Site Data Protection (IMOSDP) of
Sacramento to provide vaulting, handling, pick.up and delivery of tape media at Town Hall for
storage at their Sacramento vault location. IMOSDP will pick up data tapes weekly, and retain
archive tape data at their vault.
Staff currently performs daily back.up of the Town's network and accounting servers however,
as noted in the recently completed annual audit, it is advisable to further protect our information
and data systems by providing for off-site storage of this information, to ensure, to the greatest
extent possible, that our data is preserved in the event of major damage to the computer room
and/or to the Town Hall facility.
The cost of this service is approximately $300 per month ($2,100 in FY 2001-02), and will
reqUire amendment of the Administration budget for implementation.
RECOMMENDATION
That Town Council approve:
(1) The services contract with IMOSDP for off-site storage of the Town's data processing
records, and appropriate $2, I 00 from the General Fund Unallocated Reserve for this purpose.
(2) Authorize Staff to execute all contract documents associated with provision of this
service.
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Proposal for Off.Site Vaulting Services (dated November 14, 2001)
.~
~Zl
-1-
Iron Mountain Off-Site Data Protection
Clarke Hoagl.:md, Sales Representative
(916)684,3207
Town of Tiburon Proposal
11/14/01
Off-Site Vaulting for Critical Data Processing Records
Description of Services:
Iron Mountam Off,Sne Data Protection (IMOSDP) agrees to provide offsite vaulting and secunty
of data processing records for Town of Tlburon, ThiS service IS to include vaulting, handlmg,
plck.up and delivery of media at the customer's location.
!!vIOSDP has been providing off.site protection of data processing records for over thirty years.
We offer an unmatched infrastructure of over 50 state.of.the.art facilities, hundreds of screened,
tramed professIOnals, hundreds of trucks and aircraft - an unwavering commitment to ensuring
the safety. integrity and availabIlity of your data when disaster strikes.
Each !!vlOSDP facility IS designed and constructed specifIcally for the vaulting of magnetic
media (no bulk paper) and conforms to ANSI and NFPA requirements. The entire facility is
constructed with building features designed to minimize risk of fire and unauthorized entry.
Protective measures include:
. Halon.protected, climate-controlled vaults
. Buildmg located outsidc of the 100 year flood plain
. BlI1ldmg runs on electricity with no gas lines entering the facility
. Building alarmed with both ADT and Sonitrol alarm systems which are monitored by
both fire and police departments
. Vehicles are:
=> Independently climate-controlled and halon'protected
=> Locked and alarmed at all times
Pricing for Service
Description
Weekly TransportatIOn
O.~2-gauge Steel Media
Storage Containers
Container Handlmg
Transport Container
Archive Slots
Archive Tape Handling
Admmistration Fee
Emergency Service
Non-Emergency Service
Quantity and Unit Pricil.!:
$45.00 per delivery/pickup (Sacramento
Location)
Monthly Char!:e
$194.85
4@ $12.50 per container
2 per delivery @ $2.00 per container
I @$S.SO per month
20 @ .50 each
1 @ .50 each
$50.00
$17.32
$5.50
$10.00
$.50
$20,00
Monthly Cost EstImate
$298.17
4 hr response/24 hrs per day/365 days per year
24 hr response/365 days per year
$ 175.00/Trip
$90.00/Trip
Page I
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
o
MEETING:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
DECEMBER 5, 2001
MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
REVISED SIGNATURE AUTHORIZATION
ALEX D. McINTYRE, TOWN MANAGER
BACKGROUND
This item is for Town Council approval of a resolution revising the signature authorization for
check endorsements and access to documents held in safekeeping at the Tiburon Branch of the
Bank of America.
At the Special Town Council Meeting held on Wednesday, November 28,2001, the Town
Council certified the Tiburon Municipal Election of November 6, 200 I, and reorganized the
Town Council bascd upon the results of that election. The newly reorganized Town Council now
consists of the following members: Alice Fredericks, Tom Gram, Harry Matthews, JeffSlavitz,
and Andrew Thompson;
The attached resolution incorporates the change referred to above.
RECOMMENDATION
Town Council adopt the resolution modifying signature authorities.
A TT ACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
R. Stranzl
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF TIBURON AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING AND
ENDORSING OF CHECKS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF PAYMENT
& ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS RETAINED IN SAFEKEEPING
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has, by resolution, adopted a policy which identifies the
employees and officials who may sign and endorse checks and other instruments of payment on behalf of
the Town, and which employees may have authorization for access to Town documents held in
safekeeping: and
WHEREAS, at a special meeting held on Wednesday, November 28,2001, the Town Council
certified the Tiburon Municipal Election of November 6,2001, and reorganized the Town Council based
upon the results of that election; and
WHEREAS, the newly reorganized Town Council now consists of the following members:
Alice Fredericks, Tom Gram, Harry Matthews, Jeff Slavitz, and Andrew Thompson;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The Bank of America, Tiburon Branch, shall be the depository for all funds of the Town
ofTiburon. Commercia] accounts shall be established and maintained by and in the name of the Town of
Tiburon and its Redevelopment Agency at the designated bank upon and subject to such terms as may be
agreed to from time to time.
2. All checks, drafts and other instruments for payment from the Town's commercial
General and Redevelopment Agency accounts in the amount of $2,500.00 or less, or relating to the
Town's state and federal payroll tax obligations or PERS retirement or health insurance benefit
obligations in any amount shall be signed on behalf of the Town by any two (2) of the following people:
Town Manager (Alex Mclntyre), Finance Director (Richard Stranzl), or any member of the current Town
Council (Alice Fredericks, Tom Gram, Harry Matthews, JeffSlavitz, Andrew Thompson).
3. All payroll, payroll payable, and payroll benefit checks shall be signed by the Town
Manager, or in his absence, the Town Finance Director, or any member of the Town CounciL
4. All other checks, drafts and instruments for payment shall be signed on behalf of the
Town and its Redevelopment Agency by the Town Manager, Finance Director or Town Treasurer and by
one member of the Town Council (Board of Directors of the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency).
5. All checks, drafts or other instruments for payment made payable to the Town of Tiburon
may be endorsed for deposit by written or stamped endorsement in the name of the Town ofTiburon
(Tiburon Redevelopment Agency) without individual signatures.
6. Staff is directed to provide a certified copy of this resolution to the Bank of America
along with signature authorization forms which include signatures of the individuals currently holding
the following positions: Town Manager, Finance Director, and Town Council members. The Town
Clerk shall inform the Bank of America of any changes in these positions and provide new signature
.1.
cards when necessary.
7. The Bank of America is requested and authorized to honor, receive, certify or pay any
instrument signed or endorsed in accordance with this Resolution. This Resolution and signature
authorization forms submitted by the Town Clerk shall remain in full force and effect, and the Bank is
authorized and requested to rely and act thereon, until such time as the Bank receives written notice of
any changes from the Town Clerk.
8. The Bank of America, Tiburon Branch is the location of four Safe Deposit Boxes that the
Town rents from the Bank. The following employees of the Town are authorized by signature to place,
extract, or review items held in safekeeping: Town Manager (Alex McIntyre), Finance Director
(Richard Stranzl), and Town Clerk, (Diane Crane Iacopi).
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council ofthe Town of Tiburon on
December 5, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
BY:
HARRY MA TTHEWS, MAYOR
Town of Tiburon
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
.2-
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO.
.-:;
From:
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN ~CIL
ALEX D. MciNTYRE, TOWN MANAGER ~/
EXTENSION OF THE VEHICLE ABATEMENT PROGRAM AND
IMPOSITION OF $1 REGISTRATION FEE
To:
Subject:
Date:
NOVEMBER 29, 2001
In 1990, Section 22710 was added to the California Vehicle code to allow for the
creation of county-based vehicle service authorities to facilitate the abatement of
abandoned vehicles on public and private land. In 1991, the Marin County Abandoned
Vehicle Abatement Service Authority was formed and the Board of Supervisors
imposed a one-dollar annual vehicle registration fee on vehicles registered to an owner
with an address in the County of Marin.
Vehicle registration fees are collected by the Department of Motor Vehicles and
allocated to the Vehicle Abatement Service Authority (which in Marin is the Street Light
Acquisition Joint Powers Authority), The fees are then allocated to participating AVAP
entities on the basis of population and geographic area and on the percentage of
vehicles abated during the prior year in relation to the total vehicles abated by the
AVAP as a whole. Current AVAP entities are the Cities of Fairfax, Mill Valley, Novato,
San Anselmo, San Rafael, Sausalito, Tiburon, Corte Madera, Larkspur, and the County
of Marin. Since the inception of the program, approximately $1 ,853,210.72 has been
generated in the County of Marin. These funds have contributed to the abatement of
61,690 abandoned vehicles countywide. Of that, within Tiburon, $24,078 has been
expended to abate 447 vehicles over the past decade,
Authorization to collect $1 vehicle registration fee expires in April 2002. Statutes of
2001 allows service authorities to extend the vehicle registration fee for 10 years, with
the approval by two-thirds members of the County Board of Supervisors and with
subsequent confirmation by a majority of the cities comprising a majority of the
incorporated population in the County, The Marin County Board of Supervisors is
scheduled to consider extension of the program at its December 11, 2001 meeting.
Other County cities/towns will be considering the request during their council meetings
in December.
Town Council
November 29. 2001
Page 2 of 2
Fiscal Impact
This program provides finding to abate vehicles which otherwise might be a general
fund expense, Therefore, adoption of this resolution will save the Town several
thousand dollars over the next 10 years,
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Town Council adopt the attached resolution confirming the
extension of the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program until 2012.
Attachment
COUNTY OF MARIN
ABANDONED VEHICLE ABATEMENT PROGRAM
JURISDICTION TOTALS
1991-2001
JURISDICTION
Fairfax
Mill Valley
Novato
San Anselmo
San Rafael
Sausalito
Tiburon
Twin Cities: Corte Madera
Twin Cities: Larkspur
MCSO
TOTALS
Jurisdiction Reimbursment Criteria:
Population Percentages Only
Invoice (First Come First Served)
Abatement Percentages Only
Abate., Pop, & Geo. Percentages
VEHICLES
ABATED
FUNDING
RECEIVED
2,448
3,112
9,344
1,477
22,647
1,379
447
2,046
2659
16,131
$85,683.24
$84,685,73
$403,055.89
$53,816,11
$478,673.11
$13,588.56
$24,078,89
$42,692.86
$61,000.44
$605,935.89
61,690
$1,853.210.72
Applicable Dates:
April, 1992 - September, 1995
October, 1995 - December, 1996
January, 1997 - September, 1997
October, 1997 - Present
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
TO EXTEND THE MARIN COUNTY
ABANDONED VEHICLE SERVICE AUTHORITY
VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE UNTIL APRIL 2012
WHEREAS, the Marin County Abandoned Vehic1e Abatement Program (A V AP) Service
Authority was formed in 1991 pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 22710; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 9250.7, the Service Authority
imposes a one dollar ($1) annual service fee on motor vehicles registered to owners residing in
Marin County; and
WHEREAS, existing authority to collect the one dollar ($1) A V AP service fee is set to
expire in April 2002; and
WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 9250.7 has been amended to allow for a
ten (to) year extension of the A V AP service fee upon approval by two-thirds of the members of
the County board of Supervisors and subsequent confirmation by the city councils of a majority
of the incorporated cities in the County comprising a majority of the incorporated population;
and
WHEREAS, the County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution authorizing
extension of the A V AP service fee; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable to the residents of the Town of Tiburon that the A V AP vehicle
abatement program continue;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Tiburon Town Council confirms that the $1
A V AP service fee shall be extended until April 2012.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council on
December 5,2001, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
HARRY MATTHEWS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
TmURON TOWN COUNCa
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM:
f
SCBJECT:
DECEMBER 5, 2001
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
MATTHEW ODETTO, CHIEF OF POLICE
SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUND .
PROPOSED EXPENDITURE PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001.02
COPS GRANT i
ALEX D. McINTYRE, TOWN MANAGER
MEETING:
TO:
FROM:
REVIEWED:
COPS/SLESF PROGRAM
The Town annually receives an allocation of COPS monies (grants) that are to be expended in
support of frontline supplemental law enforcement activities. In recent years annual allocations
have been approximately $19,000, however in August 2000, Governor Davis signed a 4.year
extension of the COPS program that provided annual baseline funding of$IOO,OOO to all local
law enforcement jurisdictions. In July 2001, the Governor signed AB 2885 which extended the
program through January I, 2005, and ensured minimum annual baseline funding of$IOO,OOO
per agency.
In previous years, Town Council has approved the utilization of COPS monies to annually fund
Tiburon Police Department participation in the Countywide Emergency Communications
Equipment Upgrade Project (MERA), as well as for purchase of emergency defibrillators, mobile
telecommunications and mobile video equipment for outfitting and use in patrol units.
FISCAL YEAR 2001-02 EXPENDITURE PLAN
In Fiscal Year 2002, the Police Department proposes to use the new and current COPS Grant to
defray salary and benefits costs the full-time position of an Investigator Officer. COPSISLESF
resources will again be utilized for Department participation in the MERA Project. The
expenditure plan for the Fiscal Year 2002 COPS grant is estimated as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Add position (InvestigatorlDetective)salary, benefit, and related costs
Recruitment, equipment, training costs associated with new position
Participation in Countywide MERA project
AMOUNT
$ 75,000
5,000
40,000
Total Expenditure Plan:
$ 120,000
.1.
Town Council
December 5,2001
Page 2 of2
Utilization of COPS monies for this purpose will provide savings to the Town's discretionary
General Fund resources. As this is discretionary money, the Town always retains the right to
rescind the authorization of personnel.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Town Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the proposed plan
to utilize COPS monies in Fiscal Year 2001.2002, with the understanding that should the State
rescind baseline funding the Town Council may reconsider authorization of additional staff
funding.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution
.~i:
R. Stranzl
-2-
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING AN EXPENDITURE PLAN
FOR THE UTILIZATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDS
___' ~.. _,_l"COPS" MONIES) RECEIVED IN FISCAL YEAR 2001-02
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 3229, signed into law as Chapter 134, Statutes of 1996, established
the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program; and
WHEREAS, in July 2001, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 2885, that extends the COPS
program to January 1, 2005, and provides local government law enforcement jurisdictions with annual
baseline funding in the amount of$100,000, for frontline law enforcement personnel and other related
equipment, and
WHEREAS, the Town Council, at a public hearing held annually in September, must approve
of a plan for the expenditure of Supplemental Law Enforcement Funds (COPS), and
WHEREAS, in Fiscal Year 2001.02 the Tiburon Police Department proposes to utilize
additional COPS monies to employ a full.time Officer associated with Investigations, and fund all
salary, benefits, and employee development costs associated with the position, and
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, at its meeting of July 18,2001,
adopted the recommended Police Department Budget that included authorization of a COPS-funded
frontline position (Investigator), and COPS.funded participation in the Countywide MERA Program,
and operating expenses associated with frontline law enforcement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon to
approve the proposed and recommended use of COPS funds, and further, that the action to employ
additional frontline personnel shall be effective contingent upon receipt and continuation of baseline
funding in the amounts referred to above. This Resolution, which approves of the recommended plan
for the expenditure of COPS monies, is to be submitted to County Supplemental Law Enforcement
Oversight Committee.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
on, December S. 2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI
TOWN CLERK
.....-rT j) 9
~k/'vL /1,/0,
TOWN OF
TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Mayor and Members of the Town ~Cil
Alex D, Mcintyre, Town Manager
Tiburon Council Committee Appoint ts
November 26, 2001
Attached you will find the January 2001 list of Town Council Committee appointments,
Clearly, those appointments showing Mogens Bach will need to be updated.
I would further suggest that the Public Service sub-committee be divided into a Public
Works sub-committee and the Police sub-committee.
Please review each of the appointments and be prepared to share your preferred
appointments at the December 5,2001 Town Council meeting,
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Attachment
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
(2001)
I. ST ATE, LOCAL & REGIONAL AGENCIES
(Appointee & Alternate)
I. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES - (North Bay Division Meets Quarterly.
Annual Conference in October)
Mogens Bach. Delegate
Harry Matthews - Alternate
2, COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AGENCY/CONGESTION MANAGEMENT-
(Meets Monthly on 4th Thursday at 7:30 p.m. - San Rafael City Hall)
Jeff Slavitz - Delegate
Tom Gram. Alternate
3. ABAG. (Executive Board meets monthly in Oakland, MetroCenter, ABAG, Room 102A)
Andrew Thompson - Delegate
Tom Gram - Alternate
4, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT COMMITTEE (CDBG)
Harry Matthews - Delegate
Tom Gram - Alternate
5. RICHARDSON BAY REGIONAL AGENCY - (Meets Monthly on 2nd Wednesday at
6:00 p.m. . Sausalito City Hall)
Andrew Thompson - Delegate
Mogens Bach. Alternate
II. STANDING COMMITTEES. (Meetings scheduled as needed)
I. FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION
Jeff Slavitz
Harry Matthews
2, PUBLIC SERVICES
Mogens Bach
Andrew Thompson
3. LANDS & DEVELOPMENT
Tom Gram
Andrew Thompson
4. LEGAL
Tom Gram
Harry Matthews
Council Committee Appointments ~ Adopted 1//7/0 I I
III. MCCMC APPOINTMENTS
Appointed bv MCCMC President
1. MCCMC Legislative Committee
Harry Matthews
2. Joint Services Coordination Program Oversight Committee
Harry Matthews
Appointed bv MCCMC City Selection Committee
I. LAFCO
(to be determined - Counci/member Bach has applied for appointment)
2. CAL-ID Remote Access Network (Possible new appointments upcoming)
Harry Matthews
Town Appointments to MCCMC
I. ATT Broadband - Marin Telecommunications Agency -
(Subcommitt .,? meets every second Wednesday)
Mogens Bach
Tom Gram (Alternate)
2. Hazardous & Solid Waste JPA
Alex McIntyre
Andrew Thompson (Alternate)
3. North Bay Division - League of California Cities. (Meets Quarterly)
Mogens Bach
Harry Matthews (Alternate)
4. Marin Community Foundation City Liaison Committee - (Meets Quarterly)
Mogens Bach
CQuncil Committee Appointments' Adopted 1117101 2
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. I 0
To:
MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
From:
MAYOR HARRY MATTHEWS
Subject: REQUEST FOR $20,000 CONTRIBUTION FOR MAIN STREET
FOUNT AIN/SCULPTURE PROJECT
Date: December 5, 2001
BACKGROUND
Last Spring the Council resurrected the Main Street Fountain/Sculpture Project ("Project"),
Deirdre's article (attached) provides an accurate background to this undertaking. The Project is
separate and independent from the Plaza and waterfront renovation, but hopefully become the
"jewel in the crown" of downtown Tiburon when completed next year.
ANAL YSIS
To date we have received expressions of interest from 20 local artists and the Selection
Committee has narrowed the field to five (5) finalists. The details and timing of the overall
process are described on the reverse side of the Digest No, 3 attachment. The project is budgeted
at $100,000 to cover the costs of design, materials, fabrication and installation. Depending upon
the artwork selected, some amount of up to $20,000 may be needed for infrastructure (water
hook-up, etc,) and an endowment for ongoing maintenance.
Funding: A fund raising committee (Robin Daly, Sabra Drohan, and Harry Matthews) are
pursuing public and private sources to meet the $100,000 - $120,000 budget for the Project. To
start the ball rolling, this committee is asking the Town to commit $20,000 for this highly visible
community asset. This amount will not be funded or a contract exectured with the artist unless
all or substantially all of the $100,0001$120,000 has been committed,
Tihuron Town Council
Staff Report
/2/05/200/
It should be noted that the Town has already approved a $4,000 contribution together with a
$4,500 from the Tiburon Peninsula Foundation which is being used to compensate our
consultant. Lynne Baer. The Heritage & Arts Commission has voted to provide the $500
honorarium to each of the five finalists artists once their proposal/model has been submitted.
Finally, it is my understanding that financial commitments to the Project will not diminish or
subtract from other ongoing activities of the Town, e,g, road maintenance, drainage, etc,
RECOMMENDATION
To establish a Main Street Fountain/Sculpture Project fund in the Town budget and to transfer
$20,000 into this fund pending further contributions from other sources,
Respectfully submitted,
Harry Matthews, Mayor
EXHIBITS
. Article from the Ark
. Downtown Plaza Public Art Project - Request for Qualifications
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
12/05/2001
2
~
Main Street Fountain Idea Resurfaces
By DEIRDRE McCROHAN
Belvedere and Tiburon artists may find themselves
out of the running in a design competition to select
the artist who will help design Tiburon's new fountain
plaza at the corner of Tiburon Boulevard and Main
Street.
With the backing of the town council, the heritage
and arts commission plans to hire a consultant who
will help plan the competition and identify Bay Area
artists who have the talent and experience to create
public art. The council tentatively agreed to spend
$4,000 of the town's money to pay the consultant's
fee for phase one of the planning,
Naming one of the pluses of hiring such a
consultant, council member Tom Gram told
commissioners at a May 30 council-commission
workshop, "She will also help you fend off all your
friends who are 'artists. '"
The committee that will actually select the work to
be used hasn't been named yet, but council members
and commissioners agreed it should represent a broad
cross.section of the peninsula community.
The Tiburon Peninsula Foundation (TPF) has
offered to help with the project, but at the May 30
meeting. it was unclear what its role would be.
Councilmember Mogens Bach, who is also a member
of the TPF board, said TPF was not prepared to
coordinate the fundraising effort, but is willing to use
its 50lC3 status to funnel tax-deductible donations
from the public, As another town official pointed out,
however, the town doesn't need TPF for that.
Donations to the town are tax-deductible, anyway,
That was a surprise to those at the workshop,
Earlier in the year, TPF had quietly expressed to town
officials a willingness to help with the fundraising for
the art work itself,
In an interview with The Ark on June I, TPF
founder Larry Smith explained that the foundation's
plate was "way too full" with fundraising for other
projects,
That's not the end of the TPF story, however,
Smith explained that, the night after the council's
meeting, heritage and arts commissioner Andrea
Morgan made a pitch to the TPF at its May meeting
and TPF responded with an offer.
"TPF will assist in the planning phase by
contributing $2,000 to the first phase of planning and
$2,500 to the second phase," he said, "There's a
condition, though. The condition for our participating
is that we have a steering committee that will help
guide how the project unfolds, TPF wants the steering
committee to include representation from the
foundation as well as the downtown business
community, the town council and Heritage & Arts
Commission."
The steering committee, he said, would be distinct
from the art selection committee. The steering
committee's job should be to get the project off the
ground and to come up with ideas about what should
1..._____ ....._____ _ d ..
,
go in at the plaza and put some parameters on what
could go out there, he said,
Until now, people have loosely tossed around the
concept of a fountain, but Smith thinks that, for now,
the field is wide open. "We don't have to limit it to a
fountain," he said,
The town council will get to respond to TPF's offer
at the council's next meeting tonight, Wednesday,
June 6, which begins at 7:30 p,m,
Parks and Open Space Commissioner Margo
Zender, who was at the workshop, criticized the
allocation of $4,000 for the consultant. She suggested
that organizing the design competition was something
the town could do on its own.
The fountain--or whatever-would be built on a
site now occupied by a concrete pedestal topped by a
rather haggard-looking spruce tree,
In 1985, when the plaza was being designed as part
of the downtown redevelopment work funded by
Innisfree Companies, builder of Point Tiburon,
Tiburon landscape architect Anthony Guzzardo
sketched a design for a fountain topped by a sculpture
of a shark, [For those new to town and foreign
languages, tiburon is Spanish for shark]. The project
was abandoned, but some people think Guzzardo's
design still holds up.
J.
TOWN OF TlBURON
-
()IG~
~8.,..
I~{~ TlHl!RON HI)l!LE\'ARD . neURON' CALlFORSIA 'ann. ,413\4H-nn
FAX ,41~l./;~-~.P&
Downtown Plaza Public Art Project
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
The Town of Tiburon wishes to commission an artist to create a site-specific work at the
south end of the Downtown Plaza located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Tiburon
Boulevard and Main Street. Designed by landscape architect, Anthony Guzzardo in 1982, the
Plaza is a popular gathering place as a terminus for the 3-mile pedestrian and bikeway path
linking the passenger ferry dock, historic village, parks, and Paradise Drive along the waterfront.
The Plaza offers breathtaking harbor views of San Francisco Bay, the San Francisco skyline, and
Angel Island to the south, and Mt. Tamalpais to the north.
The Tiburon Peninsula, including the communities of Tiburon and Belvedere, is located
18 miles north of San Francisco via the Golden Gate Bridge or six miles across the Bay by
ferryboat. From the Spanish "Punta de Tiburon" (Shark Point), Tiburon was founded in 1884 as a
Northern Pacific Railroad-Ferry depot and Belvedere was incorporated in 1896 as an island
summer colony of San Franciscans. In the 1930's a lagoon was filled joining the communities. A
small community of approximately 12,000 residents, Tiburon hosts over 3 million visitors per year
from all parts of the world who come to enjoy its natural beauty as well as the restaurants, hotels,
and shops housed in historic buildings and refurbished houseboats.
The desire for an artist to create a work comes from community members who would like
to enhance the appearance and function of the Downtown Plaza. The goal of the commission is
to create a focal point, open-air gathering place, and respite for pedestrians at the highly visible
and used south end of the Plaza.
The challenge for the artist is to create a work that will enhance the Plaza in an
existing site. The site currently consists of a concrete circular basin comprising of three
concentric rings (the bottom ring: 24 feet in diameter and 4 inches high; the middle ring:
17 feet in diameter and 12 inches high; top ring: 11 feet in diameter and 8 inches high).
The artist can work with the forms or as part of the budget demolish the existing structure.
Budget: $100,000. to cover all costs of design, materials, fabrication, and installation.
~..
.t.
'.
Media: Open to all media appropriate to public spaces. A low maintenance water element will
also be considered.
Eligibility: All artists residing in Northern California.
Selection Process: An Artist Selection Panel will be composed of members of the
Tiburon Heritage and Arts Commission and Tiburon and Belvedere community members.
Criteria for the selection process:
"artistic excellence
"appropriateness to the site
"durability of design and materials
"minimum maintenance requirements and resistance to vandalism
"safety
The selection process will be conducted in two phases:
Phase I: The Selection Panel will review the materials submitted and select 3 .5 finalists who will
be invited to submit proposals. Each finalist will receive an honorarium of $500. for their finished
proposals and models.
The models will then be displayed publicly for review by the Selection Panel and
interested community members. Comments will be collected and forwarded to the Seiection
Panel as additional input for their decision.
Phase II: The Selection Panel will choose an artist from the finalists who will be allowed to fully
develop the proposal for review by the Tiburon Heritage and Arts Commission and the Town
Council.
Requirements for submission of qualifications:
1. Letter of interest, no longer than one page, indicating an approach for this project and
previous related experience.
2. Resume (not to exceed 3 pages)
3. Up to 20 slides of past work. Slides must be numbered 1.20 with TOP indicated.
Include an annotated identification sheet with full descriptions.
4. Self-addressed stamped envelope for return of slides (No work will be returned
without SASE)
Tentative Timeline:
Selection of finalists:
Submission of Proposals:
Selection of artist:
Installation of artwork:
December 1, 2001
January, 2002
February, 2002
October, 2002
Deadline for Submission of Qualifications: November 16, 2001 (postmark deadline)
Mail to: Lynne Baer
Public Art Consultant
1020 Union Street #2
San Francisco, CA 94133
Inquiries to Lynne Baer at 415931.1592 or Ibaerlalix.netcom.com
..
TIBURON DOWNTOWN PLAZA PUBLIC ART PROJECT SELECTION PANEL
Robin S. Daly
47 West Shore Road
Belvedere, CA 94920
(t) 435.9717; (fax) 435.0999
Meg Goodman
242 Beach Road
Belvedere, CA 94920
(t) 435.5677; megiql2mand~ com
Donna S. Kline
672 Hilary Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
(t) 435.3017; DSKline672@ao1.com
Joy Kuhn
27 Tara Hill Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
(t and fax) 435.3641; PineKuhn@aol com
Bruce Moody
88 Mount Tiburon Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
(t) 435.0788
Andrea Morgan
56 Lower North Terrace
Tiburon, CA 94920
(t) 384.0405; pamorgan@onemain.com
Chara Schreyer
83 Mount Tiburon Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
(t) 435.6995; rsarla@pacbell.net
Katherine Servino
41 North Terrace
Tiburon, CA 94920
(t) 435.2676; akservino@home.com
Alexander Seidel
14 Lagoon Road
Belvedere, CA 94920
(t) 435.6040; S.holzman@cncdsl com
Ann Turner
270 Madrona
Belvedere, CA 94920
(t) 435.3487, 435.6886 (fax)
PUBLIC ART CONSULTANT
Lynne Baer
1020 Union Street, #2
San Francisco, CA 94133
(t) 931.1592; Ibaer@ixnetcomcom
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO. ! I
MEETING DATE 12/5/2001
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Rev. By:
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
OVERDUE BUILDING PERMITS
NOVEMBER 29,2001
ALEX MCINTYRE, TOWN MANAGER
BACKGROUND
This item was continued without discussion from the Town Council meeting of November 7,
200 I.
The complete Staff Report from that meeting is attached as Exhibt A.
There are no changes to the staff analysis or recommendations found in the earlier report.
EXHIBITS
I. Staff Report from November 7, 200! meeting.
Tihuroll Town Council
Staff Report
12/5/200 I
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
EXHIBIT NO. A
-
ITEM NO. &
MEETING DAT : 11/7/2001
To:
From:
MAYOR A.1'ID MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
DEAN BLOOMQUIST, BUILDING OFFICIAL _ ~
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
OVERDUE BUILDING PERMITS
OCTOBER 31,2001
ALEX MCINTYRE TOWN MANAGER
Subject:
Date:
Rev. B :
BACKGROUND
Prior to April 15, 1994, building permits issued by the Town ofTiburon were valid indefinitely,
provided that ISO days did not pass without an inspection. Simply by calling for inspection of
some minor item within each ISO-day period, permits could remain active for years.
Effective April 15, 1994, the Town Council amended the Uniform Building Code, stipulating that
all permits would expire IS months from date of issue. Failure to complete the project within IS
months would require a reactivation fee "equal to the full original fee". The intent was to notifY
the permit holder that a substantial penalty would result if the project extended beyond the IS
months allowed. The substantial penalty was intended to serve as an incentive to complete the
project on time in order to reduce neighborhood disruption. Within certain guidelines, the
Building Official has the authority to issue one 6.month time extension without payment of
additional fees. (See Exhibit 1 for the full text)
Recently, the Town Council directed Staff to review and assess the adequacy of current
regulations, and to identifY potential methods of strengthening them. Staff believes that in the
overwhelming majority of cases, the current reactivation penalty has been an effective incentive to
complete projects on time. There are, of course, some notable exceptions.
PERMIT ACTIVITY
Given our small size, the Tiburon Building Division is a very high volume operation issuing
approximately 600 building permits each year, valued at about $35 million annually. Since
adoption of the IS.month limit in 1994, the Town has averaged over 23 homes constructed each
year, for a total of IS5 dwelling units. Moreover, during the same time period, 1,666 "major
Tihl/roll Town COl/tlcil
St~/J Report
11/7']001
1
.
remodel" permits were issued, for an average of20S major remodels per year. Given the very
high volume, the percentage of projects not completed within the IS month period is very small.
However, this fact is of little consolation to the neighbors who live near incomplete projects.
DISCUSSION
Most of the overdue building permits appear to be related to the construction oflarge new homes.
Major remodels tend to be completed within the IS month limit because there is usually a direct
inconvenience to the residents whose home is being remodeled. With new homes, there is
generally less personal incentive to complete the job on time.
One cited weakness in the Town's current system is that payment of a relatively small fee (in
comparison with the total cost of the project) buys the permittee an additional IS months of time.
This can happen repeatedly, although it almost never does. Staff believes that the vast majority
of building permit projects that exceed the IS-month limit do so for one of the following reasons
I) Contractors andlor owner.builders do not possess the requisite skills and experience to
complete the job in a timely fashion; or
2) Delay due to lawsuits. Lawsuits are often a consequence of # I above Imposition of
penalties while a project is being litigated may be legally problematic and would likely
have little practical effect
Staff does not believe that increasing the cost of permit reactivation will eliminate the incidence of
overdue permits, although the increased financial incentive may result in some reduction.
POLICIES OF OTHER MARIN COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES
Below is a summary of the requirements of other Marin County jurisdictions with respect to
building permit time limits.
. Mill Valley, Sausalito, Lal'kspur, Corte Madera, San Anselmo, Fairfax & San Rafael
All use the standard Uniform Building Code requirement that some level of pertnit activity be
documented within the ISO.day period. If the permit expires, and reactivation is requested
within ISO days of the date of expiration, the reactivation fee is one-half the original fee. The
full permit fee is required for reactivation if more than one year has elapsed.
. NovatomUses the standard ISO.day period, but with a maximum 2-year limit. Novato allows
reinstatement of an expired pertnit with a negotiated administrative fee.
. Belvedere---Uses an IS.month time limit adopted in 1999; allows an administrative fine of up
to $1,000 per day with a maximum 01'$100,000, as determined by the City Council on a case.
by-case basis
. Rossmsimilar to Belvedere; both issue 9, 12, 15, and IS.month permits, with the permit
length based on the estimated cost of the project Penalties may be assessed up to $1,000 per
day, not to exceed $250,000
TibUl'OlI TO>>'II Council
.\"Iaff Repa,.,
11 7]()OI
2
OVERDUE PROJECTS
.,
Below is a partiallist* of building permit projects (all new single.family homes) that have required
reactivation of permits, and repayment of fees.
. 28 Meadowhill Issued 9.23.98
JAJ Design Expired 3-23.00
Reactivated 2.28.00 ($6,745)
Expired 9.23.01
Reactivated 9.19.01 ($6,745)
. 32 Meadowhill Issued 9.2.98
Transworld Const. Expired 3.02.00
Reactivated 6-28-00 ($6,210)
Expired 9-02.01
Must pay reactivation fee to continue work.
. 117 Sugarloaf Issued 6-30-99
MASMA Const. Expired 12-30-00
Reactivated 2.07.01 ($5,464)
Project currently halted due to lawsuit
. 189 Gilmartin
Equinox Group
. 90 Via Los Altos
MASMA Con st.
. 94 Via Los Altos
Jansheski Const.
Tiburof/ Town COllncil
Issued 12.08.97
Expired 6.08.99
Reactivated 7.13.99
Expired 12-08-00
Project abandoned
Reactivated 5.02.01
Penalties paid 5.18.01
($6,290)
($11,225) includes street impact fee
($27,616) citationslstop work fees
Issued
Expired
Reactivated
Completed
8.24.98
2-24-00
2.22.00
5.18.01
($6,546)
Issued 1.15.99
6 month extension approved
Expired 1-15.01
Reactivated 1-22.01 ($7,460)
Still under construction
SIOJJ Repo/"[
11/7/1001
3
. 97 Via Los Altos
MASMA Const,
. 100 Via Los Altos
ACCO Enterprises
. 102 Via Los Altos
MASMA Const.
. 103 Via Los Altos
MASMA Con st.
Issued
Expired
Reactivated
Completed
Issued
Expired
Reactivated
Completed
Issued
Expired
Reactivated
Completed
10-2-97
4.2.99
12.9.99
1.11.00
($5,384)
11.12.96
5.12.98
8.14-98
8-5.99
($5,506)
4.22.98
10.22.99
2-22.00
9-27.00
($5,628)
Issued 7.16.98
Expired 1.16.00
Reactivated 2-22-00
Still under construction
OPTION#I: PROGRESSIVE nPlAUY
Sla!J Heparl
($5,492)
* Pleas~ note that pemliL~ issu.:u for 2024 Paradise Dri\'<;: ;II1U 3(j 16 Par;uJise Drive ;m: gralluf;lthcreJ under th..: prioT rcguLltiollS. Th.:se are projects that
have be.:n under COl1stlllction fur years, hut must only m...:d [h,; UW-Ja;. minin];l! pl'Ogress rCljuircmenl
The Town has a number of options with respect to its requirements for building permit time limits.
These include
Retain the initial 18.month completion time, retain the 6.month extension for good cause, but
allow only a 6.month extension after reactivation and payment of full fees. If the project is not
complete at the end of that 6 month period, allow another 6.month reactivation upon payment of
double the original permit fee, most of which would be a penalty. If the project is not completed
at the end of that 6-month period, the Building Official would issue a Stop Work Order with
instructions to apply to the Town Council for permission to reactivate the permit. The Council
could approve reactivation upon approval of a "schedule of completion" and payment of triple the
original permit fee, most of which would be a penalty.
OPTION#2: CITY OF BELVEDERE PROGRAM
Allow 18 months to complete the project, after which a daily penalty not to exceed $1,000 per
11/7/]001
4
ALTERNATIVES
TihuroJ/ Town Council
day or a total of $1 00,000 would accrue. The penalty fee could be a fixed fine set forth in the
Town's Fine Schedule, or could be adjudicated by the Town Council on a case.by.case basis, as
in the City of Belvedere. The BelvederelRoss models are prohibitively complex for Tiburon,
given our much higher volume of permits. Changes modeled on BelvederelRoss should
incorporate the high financial incentive, but simplifY the language and administration. Please refer
to Exhibit 2 for details
OPTION #3: NO CHANGE
Make no change to Ihe current regulations. The current regulations allow 18 months to complete
the project, but authorize the Building Official to grant one 6-month time extension without
payment of reactivation fees for good cause. Such extensions are seldom granted. Upon
expiration of the permit, a reactivation fee in the amount of the original permit fee is assessed and
another 18 months is given to complete the project.
RECOMM ENDA nON
If the Town Council determines that modifications to the Town's existing building permit
regulations are appropriate, Staff recommends Option #1, which increases the financial incentive
to complete on time and reduces the length of permit extension, while maintaining relatively
straightforward language/administration. Town Council should direct Staff to return with an
ordinance proposing amendments to Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code.
EXHIBITS
1. Excerpt from Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code regarding expiration of building
permits.
2. City of Belvedere regulations regarding building permit expiration.
3. Town of Ross regulations regarding building permit expiration.
TiburGn TOWII COllllcil
SIOjJ Repo!'1
//7]00/
5
13...U
-r ClA..J.",- o.{ I ~ b v.-J 19,^-
2.
Where alterations or repairs to exist-
ing roofs involve more than 50% of
the total area of an existing building
within a one year time period, the
entire roof shall be retrofitted with at
least a Class A.listed or noncombusti.
ble roof.
The Town fmds that these amendments are
necessitated by local climatic conditions or other
fire hazard conditions which exist in Tiburon.
(f) Section 106.4.4 is amended to read as fol.
lows:
1. Every pennit issued by the Building Official
under the provisions of this code after April 15,
1994, shall expire by limitation and become null
and void eighteen (18) months from the date the
pennit is issued. The Building Official shall have
the discretionary authority to extend the pennit
in the following circumstances:
(a) Where the project is unusually large or corn.
plex additional time may be granted at the
time of application, or
(b) Where the pennittee has proceeded with due
diligence and made substantial progress but
is unable to complete the project because of
unforeseen circumstances beyond the control
of the pennittee, one extension of up to six
(6) months may be granted. 10 determining
whether due diligence has been exercised, the
Building Official shall consider how soon
work began after issuance of the pennit,
whether work was conducted on a regular
basis and any other relevant facts. Decisions
of the Building Official made pursuant to this
section may be appealed to the Board of
Appeals pursuant to Chapter 31 of the
Tiburon Municipal Code.
P.lQ-IJ?yr :-T0.__L"
Once a pennit has expired pursuant to this
section, the work shall not recommence until
a new pennit is issued. The new pennit shall
be issued only if there have been no changes
in the original plans and specifications and a
new fee equal to the full original fee is paid.
2. All pennits issued by the Building Official
prior to April 15, 1994, and which have not
expired by limitation shall remain subject to
the provisions of Section 303( d) of the Uni.
form Building Code (1991 edition) as drafted
by the Ioternationa1 Conference of Building
Officials. For purposes of such pennits, fail.
ure to exercise due diligence and make sub-
stantial progress on the work authorized shall
be deemed suspension or abandonment of the
pennit.
The Town fmds that these amendments are need.
ed in order to reduce the number of pennit exten.
sions allowed and to establish a firm date for com-
pletion of work. (Ord. No. 446 N.S., Ii 2 (part))
13-4.2 Plumbing Code.
The plurnbing code of the town shall be the Uni-
form Plumbing Code, 1997 edition, including appen-
dices, as published by the Ioternational Association
of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, which docu.
ments are referred to, adopted and made a part
hereof as if fully set forth herein, subject, however,
to the following exceptions:
(a) Table 1-1 (Schedule of Fees) is deleted.
(b) Section 701.1.2 shall be amended to read as
follows:
ABS and PVC DWV piping installations shall be
limited to residential construction not more than
two stories in height.
The town's reasons for this amendment are
that the State Plumbing Code does not allow
plastics in other uses, environmental review on
this topic has not been performed, and because of
the types and frequency of required fire assem.
90
09 l3 01
fHr iO:53 F:\\ 415 435 04.10
CITY.-8ELVEDERE
~002
E~~HIBYr NO ~
20.04.035 . ,
C:-h 0+ Be(vcJelf'e...-
,
.
2(.04.035 Time ~imits for ccnstruccion. A. Con-
struc~ion Ti~eline Required. As part cf any application
for design review, the applicant sha:l file a construction
ti~eline establishi~g a reasonable time limi~ within which
construction of the proposed structure(s) will be complet-
ed, and compliance with such timeline shall become a condi-
tioL of design review approval, T~e time for completion of
the construction shall also be indicated on the building
permit,
B. Time Limit Guidelines. Except where the pla~~ing
commission finds there are unusual circumstances juscifying
a l~nger time period, the maximum time for completion of
new construction shall not exceed ~he following:
1. For new construction, the dereo~st=able value cf
which is estimated to be less than five hundred t~cusand
dollars: twelve ~onths from the co~.encenent of wcr~ fol-
lowing the issuance of the building permit,
2. For new construction, the demonstrable value of
wh~ch is estimated to be ~ore thaL five hundred thcusand
dollars: eighteen months fro~ tns comrnsncement of work
following the issuancs 0: the building permit;
3. For additions, alterations, modifications and
repairs, the demonstrable value of which is es~imated at
less than one hundred thousand dollars: six months from
che commencement of work fOllowing the issuance of the
building perrrit,
4. For additions, alterations. modifications and
repairs, the demonstrable val~e of which is estima~ed a~
less than five h~ndred thousand dollars: twelve mont~s
from the commencement of work fOllowing the issuance of the
building per.nit;
5. For additions, alterations, modifications and
repairs, ~he demonstrable value of which is estimated at
more than five hundred thousand dollars: eighteen months
from the commencement of work following the issu~~ce 0: the
building permit.
C, Effect of Failure to Comply With Timeline. Upon
failure of the applicant to complete construction by t~e
established time limit,. the building official shall issue a
compliance order setting a date not more than sixty days
from the date of such order, within which time the appli-
cant shall complete the construction, advising that each
day the constr~ction is incomple~e thereafter shall consti-
tute a new and separate violatioL of ~his chapter, anc tha~
oenalties of uc to one thousand dollars per violation will
~tart to accrue on that date if the construction is not
comple~ed. Upon failure of the applican~ to complete con-
struction by the.compliance order deadline, the building
o:f~cial shall issue an order to show cause sett~~g a hear-
i~g be:~re the city council pursuant to Chap~e~ :.14 of
this code. New construction shall be deemed completed for
p~rpos~s 0= ~his section upo~ the ~ssua~ce by t~e ci~y of
281
(Be2.vedere 4/99;
09 IJ 01 THl ]0:54 FAX 415 435 0430
eIn BEL\'EDERE
~003
20.04.040--2C.C4.05G
a~ oc=~pa~cy pe~;it. A remcdel shall be dee~ed comp:eted
for purposes of this section upon final building inspecticr.
appro'val. rOrd. 99-1 52, 1999).
20,04.040 Aoolication--Noeice of olannina commission
action--A~prova: conditions, A. The planning commissi=n
may approve, conditionally app~ove or deny any applicati=n.
Denial shall be without prejudice tc a new applicaticn
acccmpar,~ed by substan~ially revised plans and a new filing
fee. ~e plannin~ de~a=tment sec~etary shall mail or de-
1~ver to ~he a~~licant a copy of the planning commission o~
city counc~l resolution adopted in connec~ion with the
grant of approval or denial of any application for design
review, Copies of any such planning commission or ci~y
council resclutions shall be posted on the City Hall bul~e-
tin board and sene to the building official.
B. :n granting conditional approval, the planning
commission shall include suc~ conditions as a~e ~easonable
and necessary fcr substantial compliance with the crite=ia
set forth in this chapte=. Applications. and their acconpa-
ny~n~ plans, elevations and other supporting materials
shall be endorsed tc indicate the action taken by the plan-
ning cornrr.ission.
C. Design review approval shall not become final and
nc permit s~all be issued in connection therewi~h until ~he
expir atior. of the period within which appeals may oe f:.Ji1ed'
and if filed, decided p~rs~an~ to Section 20,04.070, (Oed.
LJiliC-5 !l2 (:;Jart), 1990: Ord. 80-1 542, 1980; Ord. 75-1
56(part;, 1975; prior cede !l25-6: Ord, 18: KS !l:Cpacti,
19721 .
2C . 04,050 Effect of ncncomoliance--st=uct'.lres deemed
o'.lblic nuisa:1ce--P.et.roa.::ti.,J'E aooroval--Abaternent author:.tv.
A, k~y building permit or cccupancy permit hereafter is-
d in conflict w~th this chapte= shall be void. Any work
or -uct~re cr irnp~ove~en~ which lacks or is not in ccm-
plianc ith planning commission approval or conditional
approval ~- in violation of this chap~er, may be stopped by
order of ~he 'lding official, and shall be declared ~o be
unlaw=~l ~d ape nuis~~ce. Each day en which a vi01a-
tion cOLtinues shal regarded as a ~ew and separate
'riolation.
B, Retroactive Desig
On application an ubmission of plans and
other data in the prescribed for,. nd conditions, the pIar.-
ning corrreission may approve or cond ionally approve re:ro-
ac~ive des~gn review for a struct~=e b . t 0= co~~en=ed
wit~Gut desig~ r~view approval.
_. As a ccndi~ion of any retroactive ~esign ~ev~ew
apprcva~, ~he pla~ni~g corrnission shall impose a
no~ to exceed o~e thc~sana dollars per violaticn,
e":ent :ess ~ha!: a mir::.murr. fine of five hundred dol:al-
281-J
(Ee:'~,tedere 4:
;liO,2~1l2 "::i
-jow,'\.
of
e-05S
p,,~~~rnIT NO ~
i!.J,{,-_dll:> . 1: .~__
15.50,050--15,50_050
:5.50.050 Definition, "CCtn?letion" as used in this
chapter re=ers to the final performance of el: construction
work, including exterior repair~ and r~~deling and, in
cases in which var~ances are requ~red, total ccmpliance
with ell conditions set by the town in granting the vari-
ance, including landscaping. " Comploation " includes the
clearing and clean~g the site of all construction rna~eri-
als and debris. Final inspection and approval of the ap-
plic~1. work by ebe public works director snall ~rk the
date of completion, {Ord, 482 ~1(part), 1990).
.
15.50.060 Time limits for a~plicable work to be com-
~leted--Cessat~on on exoiration of time limits. All appli-
cable work shall be completed within the following t~
limits:
{~) New cO~$tr~ction on a vacant lotj wi~hin Lift~~n
months from the date of ~he issu~,ce of the building permit
for under five hundred thousand dollars a~d eighteen months
for fi~e hur.dred thousand dollars or over,
(b) Adclitions, alterations, modificatie~s, repairs.
and imorovement~; wi~hin nine months from the date of the
issuance of a building permit fer under fifty thousand
dollars, twelve months fOr fifty thousand dollars to Cwo
hundred thousand dollars, fifteen months for two hu.~dred
thousand dollars to five hundred thousand dollars ar.d eigh-
teen months for over five hundred thousand dollars.
(c) No build~g permits shall be issued within nine
months of final inspection or expiration of a previous
building permit, unless an exception to the liIf.itation is
granted pursuan~ tc ~he procedures and standards set forth
in Chapter 18.48 of ~his code.
(d) All appl~cable work started a~ter the date of the
ordi~ance coaified in this chapter shall be compleced with-
in the time limits herein provided. All applicable work in
progress as of the effec~ive date of "he ordinance codified
in this chapter shall be complet~d within the ti~e l~mits
provided, measuring the ~irne lirni~s from the e=faccive d~ee
of the ordinance codified in this cha~ter,
[e) Upon the e><;;>i:::-ation of the requirec. tL-ne limi ts.
all construction shall cease, unless the t~me ~or the ap-
plicabl@ wcrk to be co~leted has been extended Uj the town
council as p~ovided by Section 15.50.080,
(f) Ie shall be a violation of this chapter if the
applicable work has :lot ;;'een completed within the tirr,e
limits descri~ed hereby, and the applicant has not applied
for or been grarcted a time extension or having been gran~ed
a tiIDe extension which time extension has exp~red, as pro-
vided in Section :5.50.C30.
130-25
(:R.oss 7/01)
:;e:::'.L;'::'t-;C1.l
lZ)::;=, TZSr~ T t- t
=,'::'1]2 .:l1J f"j"'1i]1 :l,."C.":-=l ;~ :,='1 T[1IZI.~-~0-~:O
..::!~_;O...~[lI2. ':::
15.50.065
(~) The town counci~ trAy set the failure to complete
the applicable work wi chin the time limits prescribed here-
in for a hearing at its next regular meeting, not less than
ten days after the completion date of the work not complet-
ed. lOrd, 548 ~ l(part) , 1999; Ord. 482 !il(pa::-tJ, 1990).
15.50.065 Administrative penalties. (a) The counc~l
may, pursuant to a failure of completion resolution, impose
~enalties upon person(s) responsible for failure to com-
~lete the applicable work in an amount not to exceed a
maximum of one thousand dollars per day for each day the
applicable work was not completed as provided herein and as
provided in sUbs~ction (c) of this ~ection, except the
total administrative per.alty imposed pursuant to this chap-
ter shall not exceed two h~dred fifty thousand dollars,
exclusive of administrative costs, attorneys' =ees, and
interest,
(b) =n determining the ~~ount ot the penalty, the
council may take any or all of the followin9" factors into
consideration:
(1) The period of time during whic~ the applicable
work occurred;
(2) The ease with which the applicable work cc~ld
~ave been completed;
(3) The good faith efforts made to c~lete the
appliCable work;
(4) The economic impact of the penalty upon per-
sons responsible for completing the work;
IS) The impact of the failure to complete the
dPplicable work on the commur-ity;
(6] Such other factors as justice may require,
(c) Penalties impo~ed by the council after a hearing
plus administrative costs, attorneys' fees and interest,
accrue ten days after the applicable work was to be com-
pleted and shall cease to accrue on the date the applicable
work is co~leted as determined by the ~ublic works direc-
tor, 'rhe ten-day grace period provided herein is to allow
the person~s) responsible for completing the applicable
work to c~lete the work Prior to ~he L~osition of any
administrative penalties.
(d) Penalties, fees and costs al5sessed by the council
shall be due each day as the ~nalties accr~e,
(e) Penalties, fess and costs assessed by the council
are a personal debt owed to the town and, i~ addition to
all other means ot anforc~m&nt and collection where the
person aga~r.st whom the penalties are assessed is an owner
of the real property on which the applicable work is being
constructed, may, at the council's option, be enforceG ~d
collected tr.rough the placement of a lien again5t that real
property.
1.30-26
(Ross 7/01)
~EZ.:.:;Zr:lJ1..
0'~::,Ts:.::'~~rt-r
SSOd ..:Ie! Hi'10J. :1^J[I~..:I ~t" :21 ~OO2-';O-.l::O
"
..Cl~--, r"UI2' d
15.50,080
(f) P~ltiES, fees ~,d cos~s shall coneir-ue to ac-
crue on a daily ~sis ~~il the applicable work has been
completed, suoject to the maximum Qroount set forCh in this
section.
(g) If a person subject to the failure of completion
~e601ution gives written ~otice to the p~lic works ~rec-
tor that the resolution has been complied with ~.d if the
publio works director finds that compliance has been
achieved, the d~te that the written notice was postmarked
or pez'sonally ci.eliverec. to ene public works director snall
be deemed to be the ~te of compliance with the fail'~e of
ccm~letion resolution. (Ord. 548 gl(part) , 1999).
15,5~~OB9 Extensions. (a) If any applicable work is
not completed within the above prescribed time limits, all
work must stop at the e~d of the ~~e limit un:~$S an ex-
"-ension has beer. grar.ted by the town council.
(b) At any regu:ar or special meeting of the town
council before the expiratic::I of the t:.me limits provided
above, notice provisions contained in Section 18.48.040
having b..el:> compl;...c wich, en a showing of geod cal<se, the
property owner(s), occupant(6). or other authorized appli-
cant (5), may apply to the town COUDcil :Eor extension of the
completion time limits stating the reasons for the delay,
'rbe applicar..t (3) shall also file with -che extensiotl appli-
cation a l~st of the work which remains to be done, and the
estimate of the costs and time to comple'Ce the work. Al-
terna-cively, the public ~~rks director may rrake ~he esti-
mate 0:: costs fron a detailed list of work to be co.mpleted
~ubmitted by the applicant;sj, The ~own council may ddd
conditions ic de ens ap~ropriate co any extensior. gran~ed.
(c) :f ~hQ applicabl. work i~ co~leted wi~~ the
cime extension, the case deposit(s) shall be ref~ded, less
any additional expenses the town has incurred for adnutlis-
cration a~d inspection in co~ection with the ex~ension.
(d) Sr.ould th~ applicant refuse to corrply with any of
tbe condit~ons gr~ted by the town oouncil, t~e ~own cou.~-
eil r.ay revoke the ex~ension and set the matter for a bear-
ing to determine whether a public nuisance exists and th$
appropriate abatenenc thereof. (Ord, 482 U(parc). 1990).
130-27
(Ross 7)0:..,
::'t.:c..L";::::r:CH
0::.:;-=. T:=;t-; q- [
'::SOd :K, 1'1'101 :[,.iCk:d ~7" :21 ~:J0.='-~.l~-1'::J
LATE MAil # II
-.....-..........".
_u,,"C::'ll"O
REC';.l"-
NOV 0 6 l001
STACKS AND STACKS PL~;~:;~,c; F'O;:p,'po~" I
Home Wares!
Slacks & Stacks 1 045 Hensley St. Richmond, Ca. 94801 519-215-5995 x19 Fax 510-215-5993
www.stacksandstacks.com e-mail: Mel@stacksandstacks.com
LIT'Y Hn~'I'r&ib (' - 4-(./;')( HJ lJ1il2ti
To: TDu./l./ c.C.\Uj.}C.1 L.
From: Mel Ronick
I ds/o
Date:
# of Pages:
n +I-.u , ~ C...J.."-v~ t,
lef : v-- <1 / ~ ,?-t'lj Ctf;f.-'TRO GiTST
1 uJL
,.
~,~
It~
~~
~ en.
I 'n O. '_
1~~
.A.~-e- ~ ~
~,~ ~\
~~~\~
W-0 ~
-~
J:;b-~
/~
~ 1rl -xL. ~
~)/~~ Cv~
h\~\lr'
~ ,~ Cut ~ iJ-<.'"r1.(! I Q
/\,
C0--c~
~
G~~'"'\.
o --x{>>{)
A '. _, " 1. n "
^~~
~
~
11...'--\
~\.
~~
.I\;~~~~
~lfl '~IDG~ 120
4~~ ')G,oC:;
)~
, J \ Mr. Robert Kleinert, Town Manager
, Cc: Thomas Gram, Mayor
Cc: T0ny Iacopi: Department of Public Works
Cc: Tiburon Marsh Homeowners Association
Town of Tiburon
May 12,2000
'-
As a resident of Tiburon Marsh, I attended a meeting several weeks ago at
the Tiburon town hall to discuss the state of the marsh.
Directly in front of my property the reeds in the marsh are very dense,
extending perhaps 30 feet from the land into the water. The view of the
water is totally blocked, yet, just 50 feet away - on either side - the reeds
were completely removed by the town of Tiburon. The removal of the reeds
was done piecemeal, in sections, hence: some areas have been cleared, others
have not.
I am requesting, with this letter that the town remove all the reeds fronting on
the marsh properties, for the following reasons:
1 - removal of the reeds in front of some properties, but not others, affords
those select properties an arbitrary, capricious, unfair, economic advantage
given that the view increases the value of such properties; in fact, the water
view was clear, without reeds - and part of the reason I bought this property
- when I acquired same,
2 - waiting for years to have the reeds removed directly affects the viability
of the marsh, and indeed threatens the future of the marsh;
3 - I have noticed a decline in wildlife, particularly various species of birds,
due to the encroachment of the reeds into the surface area of the water in the
marsh. Surface area of the water has declined dramatically;
4 - on a cost-effective basis, it is our opinion that maintaining the marsh on a
consistent basis - meaning: spending the money to do it right, and removing
all the reeds facing the properties, with periodic removal on a regular basis _
is a more logical, cost-effective basis given that the effort to remove
encroachment of the reeds is far _ expensive when the problem is not as
great. It takes less money - and work - to maintain the removal process of
the reeds rather than waiting years until the problem is acute - and expensive
- to fL~. .-
(J
Thank you for your attention tot1matter.
Sincerely, (/2 I'
7/( ~C ' ~, (
Mary Jo Scianamblo, 23 Marsh Road, Tiburon
\
/'
/'
/ ~)(nTT3TT l'r0.~
I-4?-M- ;[{). 11
~.
"''-..,
~
-
3/12/01
~:
-4 / 1f?)1 /r?e--JAI; /'<-.
RECEIVED
MAR 1 3 2001
O.,!
:c..,:
The Town Manager
City of Tiburon, CA
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
Re: removal of reeds in the marsh fronting 23 Marsh Road
Dear Town Manager,
Last year, the town selectively removed reeds on the shoreline of the
marsh, located behind the Town Hall,
My condo, which fronts on the marsh, was purchased by me nearly 5
years ago, and at the time the proximate area in front of my property
was clear of reeds. Unfortunately, in the most recent clearing by the
town last year a dense growth of reeds was left untouched, which
affects my views and property value.
I requested, last year, to have the town remove the reeds in front of
my property, to no avail.
In this regard, I am proposing that I pay for the removal of the reeds
in front of my property, in an area approximately 20 feet wide, so that
I can, once again, enjoy the water view which existed at the time I
purchased the property.
Reeds would be removed and hauled away by hand-labor.
Please advise, in writing, acceptability of same,
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Ma~::c:ZY ~
23 Marsh Road
Tiburon
435-2901
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO. L L
MEETING ATE: 12/5/2001
Subject:
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR
PAT ECHOLS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORfTOWN ENGINEERff.----
RAILROAD MARSH MANAGEMENT PLAN: RECEIVE REPORT
PREPARED BY WETLANDS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
NOVEMBER 30, 2001 rA.\
ALEX D. MCINTYRE, TOWN MANAGER ~
To:
From:
Date:
Rev. By:
BACKGROUND
As part of the Point Tiburon (Southern Pacific Railroad) development project, the Town
accepted title to the freshwater pond commonly known as the Railroad Marsh, located
behind the Tiburon Town Hall. The developer was required to fund the dredging,
expansion, and restoration of the Railroad Marsh, both for flood control and habitat
enhancement purposes. A Marsh Restoration Fund, with an initial balance of
$316,540, was established by the developer to fund the initial restoration and future
maintenance by the Town. The restoration of Railroad Marsh was completed in 1986,
leaving a balance of approximately $82,000 in the fund.
In 1986, Wetlands Research Associates developed a management plan that has been
faithfully implemented by the Tiburon Public Works Department over the years. The
Railroad Marsh required little maintenance during the first several years following its
restoration, and the Town accumulated significant interest in the account, raising its
balance to $120,000 in 1994.
However, the cost of maintaining Railroad Marsh in accordance with the Management
Plan has increased in recent years; the most recent cattail removallwindowing work
totaled $35,000. The current fund balance has shrunk to $87,000 and interest earnings
are no longer robust. Major cattail removal work is performed approximately every four
(4) years. At this rate, the maintenance fund could be exhausted in approximately 12
years. Recognizing this impending funding problem, the Town Council authorized an
update of the Town's Marsh Maintenance Plan on September 6, 2000, with the
objectives of assessing the health of Railroad Marsh and investigating methods of
reducing maintenance costs without substantially impacting its habitat value or flood
control effectiveness.
Town Council
November 30, 2001
Page 2 of 4
In October 2000, the Town entered into a service agreement with Wetlands Research
Associates, Inc., to update the Management Plan. The updated Railroad Marsh
Maintenance Plan (Exhibit 1) was received in October 2001. The report will be
presented by Wetlands Research Associates at the meeting.
Copies of the Management Plan were forwarded to the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and to the Point Tiburon Marsh Condominium Association for comment. Notice
of this meeting has been provided to Point Tiburon Marsh residents and the Tiburon
Peninsula Club. Past correspondence to the Town from a Point Tiburon resident
regarding cattail removal is attached as Exhibit 2.
MAJOR FINDINGS OF THE UPDATED MANAGEMENT PLAN
1. Sixteen years after is original restoration, the Railroad Marsh is doing well, and
continues to provide a variety of wildlife habitats.
2. The Railroad Marsh continues to function successfully as a flood control device,
maintaining a depth that equals or exceeds its original design depth; the current
maintenance schedule for cleaning of the sediment traps appears to be
successful and should be continued. The largest silt basin (#3) will probably
need dredging in the next few years.
3. Control of cattail growth is a major problem, especially in shallow water areas,
and should be addressed on an annual basis rather than every 4.5 years.
4. Railroad Marsh currently lacks vegetative buffers along the south shoreline that
would act to reduce wildlife disturbance and enhance the shallow water habitat.
Vegetative buffers andlor a fence should be installed to provide this protection.
5. The Town should assume the presence of two special-status species of wildlife
(California Red.legged frog and salt marsh common yellowthroat bird) in the
Marsh. This would limit most maintenance activities to the months of September
and October only.
6. Should the Town initiate removal of non-native plants on the slope above the
Marsh's east end, surveys for the Tiburon jewel flower should be conducted to
determine if it is present.
Town Council
November 30, 2001
Page 3 of 4
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN
An Annual Maintenance Program is recommended in the Plan, and can be found on
Page 28. Estimated costs associated with the Annual Maintenance Program are listed
on Page 29 of the Plan.
The Annual Maintenance Program is a mixture on ongoing maintenance items and one-
time habitat improvement measures. The ongoing maintenance items(and their
estimated cost) include:
. Annual maintenance of Sediment Traps #1 (in.house) and #2 ($8,000).
. Long.term (approximately every 10 years) dredging of Sediment Trap #3
($35,000).
. Annual cutting of cattails below the water line (or application of herbicides) in
shallow water areas along the shoreline ($3,000).
One-time habitat improvement measures include:
. Clearing mature cattails from 90.180 feet of shoreline along the north (TPC-side)
of Railroad Marsh ($10.000 to $15,000).
. Planting of aquatic and upland buffer vegetation along 450 feet of shoreline
($3,000).
. Perform Tiburon jewel flower survey ($1,000).
. Removal of non.native vegetation from riparian and upland areas (in.house).
. Replant riparian and upland areas with native species ($2.000).
. Install a new Sediment Trap on the minor drainage entering Railroad Marsh from
the east side of the Tiburon Peninsula Club (as condition of approval on a future
application).
APPROACH TO IMPLEMENTATION
The primary purpose of updating the Management Plan was to explore methods of
reducing ongoing maintenance costs for Railroad Marsh while protecting its habitat and
flood control virtues. This would enable the Town to extend the lifespan of the "sinking
fund" until such time as an ongoing revenue source can be established for Railroad
Marsh maintenance.
With only $87,000 remaining in the Marsh Maintenance Fund, performing required
annual maintenance in addition to the dredging of Sediment Trap #3 and other items
suggested in the Program would substantially deplete the remaining Marsh
Town Council
November 30, 2001
Page 4 of 4
Maintenance Fund account within the next two years.
Town Staff believes that the Management Plan and Maintenance Program are sound.
However, Staff believes that a multi-phase and multi.fund approach will be necessary to
conserve ongoing maintenance funds while implementing the Management Plan. For
example, dredging of Sediment Trap #3 (required only 10 years or so) could eventually
be folded into the Town's CIP program and funded from it. The clearing of 90-180 feet
of northern shoreline, and the needed dredging of Sediment Trap #3 (which has not
been performed in over 22 years), could be implemented next year as a one-time
Capital Outlay project and not charged to the Marsh Maintenance Fund. The Marsh
Maintenance Fund could then be used for the annual cattail removal with substantially
less risk of depleting the fund over the long term. Grant money could be sought for
other one-time habitat improvement measures.
If given direction from the Town Council, Staff will prepare some alternative approaches
and more detailed cost estimates for implementation of the Management Plan for
review and discussion at a future meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
The Town Council should:
1. Receive a presentation by Wetlands Research Associates.
2. Receive any public testimony on the Railroad Marsh Management Plan.
3. Direct Staff to return with implementation alternatives.
EXHIBITS
1. Railroad Marsh Management Plan, prepared by Wetlands Research Associates,
Inc., dated October 2001.
\scott\railroad marsh te report. doc
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. IS-
To: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
From: ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN ATTOR..~EY
Subject: RESTRICTION OF COMMERICIAL VEHICLES IN THE DOWNTOWN
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE
Date: December 5, 2001
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The proposed ordinance would prohibit the operation of any commercial vehicle (other than
taxicabs) on Main Street, Juanita Lane and Tiburon Boulevard east of Beach Road; and any other
street or highway or portion thereof that may be designated in the future by resolution of the Town
Council. This prohibition would extend from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. on Saturday, Sunday and Holidays
and from 10 p.m. and 7 am on all other days.
On November 7,2001, the Town Council considered the ordinance and directed staff to add an
exception for authorized trucks exiting Corinthian Island after collecting refuse. Thereafter, the
Council unanimously passed first reading of the proposed ordinance. The staff report for that
meeting further explains the purpose of the ordinance and is attached for the Council's convenience.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed new ordinance;
2. By motion, read the ordinance by title only; and
3. Pass second reading and adopt the ordinance by roll call vote.
EXHIBlTS
Draft Ordinance
Staff Report of November 7, 2001
1
10,f~
.
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
/
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN ATTORNEY
REGULA TORY SOLUTIONS TO NOISE COMPLAINTS
November 7, 2001
BACKGROUND
On October 3, 2001, the Council considered a variety of noise issues and potential solutions One
of the foremost complaints stemmed from commercial vehicles in the downtown, collecting refuse
and recyclable materials and delivering freight to downtown merchants. To address these complaints,
Council directed staff to return with regulations that would prohibit the presence of trucks on
downtown streets from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. on weekdays and from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. on weekends.
Another complaint raised at the October 3n1 meeting was the noise caused by gas. powered leaf
blowers, The Town currently allows the use of such devices only on Monday through Friday, from
800 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The Council directed staff to report back regarding the experience of other
local governments that have enacted a total ban on gas-powered leaf blowers. This research is still
III process.
ANALYSIS
The proposed ordinance would add a new Section 23-19A to the Town's Municipal Code.
Section 23.19 A would prohibit the operation of any commercial vehicle (other than taxicabs) on Main
Street, Juanita lane and Tiburon Boulevard east of Beach Road; and any other street or highway or
portion thereof that may be designated in the future by resolution of the Town Council. This
prohibition would extend from 10 p.rn. to 8 a.m. on Saturday, Sunday and Holidays and from 10 p.m.
and 7 am on all other days. 1 The Section expressly applies to vehicles used for the collection of
refuse and recyclable materials. Violations of Section 23-19A would be punishable as an infraction
under Section 23-11 of the Municipal Code or by administrative citation under Section 31-12.
The Council should take note of one issue relating to the operations of Mill Valley Refuse. At the
October 3'd meeting, the Council decided only to limit the operation of trucks in the downtown.
However, the only exit from the residential neighborhood on Corinthian Island is via Main Street.
I The Council did not discuss regulation on holidays at the October 3'd meeting. Generally speaking, holidays are
treated in the same manner as weekend days and there appears to be no reason to deviate from this practice in the
present case.
Accordingly, if the Council adopts the ordinance in its current form, Mill Valley Refuse will not be
able to leave Corinthian Island until 8 a.In. on Saturday, Sunday and Holidays and 7 am on all other
days. This will likely necessitate later pick up times on Corinthian Island. While this may be a
welcome change to Corinthian Island residents, it may cause operational problems for Mill Valley
Refuse and result in earlier pick up times in other residential neighborhoods. Staff has asked Mill
Valley Refuse to comment on this issue. If the Council prefers not to restrict refuse collection on
Corinthian Island, it should add the following Subsection (c) to the new Section 23- I 9A:
(c) Notwithstanding anything in this section to the contrary, a
commercial vehicle authorized by the Town to collect refuse
andlor recyclables on Corinthian Island may travel along Main
Street and Tiburon Boulevard for the sole purpose of exiting
Corinthian Island after such authorized collection
RECOMMENDA nON
The Council should
I. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed new ordinance and decide whether
Subsection (c) is a desirable addilion;
2 By motion, read the ordinance by title only; and
3. Pass first reading of the ordinance by roll call vote.
EXHIBITS
Draft Ordinance
Staff Report of October 3,2001
2
.
.
ORDINANCE NO. N.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TmURON AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE
TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE TO RESTRICT THE USE
OF TRUCKS ON DOWNTOWN STREETS
The Town Council of the Town ofTiburon does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1 SECTION 23-19A OF THE TffiURON MUNICIPAL CODE IS
HEREBY ADDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
23-19A Use of Commercial Vehicles on Certain Downtown Streets.
(a) No person shall operate or drive a commercial vehicle (as defined in Section 260 of
the Vehicle Code) in, on or across the streets listed in Subsection (b) of this Section
between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. on Saturday, Sunday and Holidays and 10
pm and 7 am on all other days. This restriction shall not apply to taxicabs, as
defined in Section 11-1 of the Municipal Code. This restriction shall apply, without
limitation, to any vehicle used for the collection of refuse or recyclable materials.
(b) The restrictions of this Section shall apply to Main Street (including, without
limitation, that portion commonly known as Ark Row); Juanita Lane; that portion of
Tiburon Boulevard lying east of Beach Road; and any other street or highway or
portion thereof that may be so designated by resolution of the Town Council.
SECTION ~ SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The Town
Council ofthe Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, any
section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective ofthe fact that anyone or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION;L EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days after the date of passage, and
before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after passage by the Town Council, a copy of the
ordinance shall be published with the names ofthe members voting for and against it at least
once in a newspaper of general circulation published in the Town of Tiburon.
This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on November --,2001, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of
the Town of Tiburon on ,2001, which was noticed pursuant to Government Code
Section 50022.3, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ANDREWTHONWSON,MAYOR
TOWN OF TffiURON
DIANE CRANE 1ACOPI, TOWN CLERK
ORDINANCE NO. N.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE
TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE TO RESTRICT THE USE
OF TRUCKS ON DOWNTOWN STREETS
The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does ordain as follows:
SECTION I SECTION 23. 19A OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE IS
HEREBY ADDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
23-19A Use of Commercial Vehicles on Certain Downtown Streets.
(a) No person shall operate or drive a commercial vehicle (as defined in Section 260 of
the Vehicle Code) in, on or across the streets listed in Subsection (b) of this Section
between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m, on Saturday, Sunday and Holidays and 10
p.m. and 7 am on all other days. This restriction shall not apply to taxicabs, as
defined in Section II. I of the Municipal Code. This restriction shall apply, without
limitation, to any vehicle used for the collection of refuse or recyclable materials.
(b) The restrictions of this Section shall apply to Main Street (including, without
limitation. that portion commonly known as Ark Row); Juanita Lane; that portion of
Tiburon Boulevard lying east of Beach Road; and any other street or highway or
portion thereof that may be so designated by resolution of the Town Council.
(c) Notwithstanding anything in this section to the contrary, a commercial vehicle
authorized by the Town to collect refuse on Corinthian Island may travel along Main
Street and Tiburon Boulevard for the sole purpose of exiting Corinthian Island after
such authorized collection.
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, such
decision 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 anyone or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days after the date of passage, and
before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after passage by the Town Council. a copy of the
ordinance shall be published with the names of the members voting for and against it at least
once in a newspaper of general circulation published in the Town ofTiburon.
This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on November 7, 2001, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town ofT 'uron on ,2001, which was noticed pursuant to Government Code
Section 50\J22.3, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNC1LMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
HARRY MATTHEWS, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
.,
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO,
MEETING DATE: 12/512001
IG
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Rev. By:
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
IMPROVED SIGNAGE FOR PUBLIC RESTROOMS IN DOWNTOWN
NOVEMBER 29,2001 Q
ALEX MCINTYRE, TOWN MANAGER ~
BACKGROUND
At its regular meeting of November 13, 2001, the Parks & Open Space Commission again
discussed the concept of installing a public restroom facility on or near Shoreline Park in the
Downtown area. While a majority of the POSC did not believe there was a demonstrated need
for additional restrooms at this time, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the
Town Council authorize temporary signage to improve public awareness of the existing public
restroom facilities located in the WatersEdge Hotel building at 25 Main Street.
The concept of a new public restroom in or near Shoreline Park had been discussed by the POSC
at several meetings in 2000. At that time, the POSC voted 3.2 not to further pursue the public
restroom concept. The Town Council accepted this recommendation in December 2000.
ANALYSIS
Improved public restroom sign age will be installed as part of the Ferry Access Improvement
project due to begin construction in Spring 2002. The POSC felt that during the intervening
months, temporary signage should be installed to better inform the public of the somewhat hidden
existing restrooms.
Draft minutes of the POSC meeting are attached as Exhibit A. The POSC staff report is attached
as Exhibit B
RECOMMENDA nON
Consider the recommendation of the POSC to install additional temporary signage until the Ferry
Access Improvement project is completed, Town Staff will select appropriate sign locations and
Tihuron Town Council
Staff Report
11/5/1001
undertake the installation should the Town Council authorize the work.
EXHIBITS
1. Draft pose minutes of 11113/2001.
2. pose Staff Report from November 11, 2001 meeting.
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
/2/5/200/
2
ill) [ffi ~ If U
~
5. Consider Concept of Creating a Public Restroom facility near Shoreline Park
Anderson presented the staff report, noting that Commissioner Lindqvist had requested that the item
be placed on an agenda for discussion following the receipt of a letter from the Belvedere- Tiburon
Landmarks Society,
Karl Peschlow, 1731 Centro West and proprietor of the Caprice Restaurant adjacent to Shoreline
Park, urged the POSC to move ahead with installation of a public restroom facility. He said that there
is heavy and increasing use of the area and therefore increased demands for a public restroom.
Chair Burgin asked how many come to the Caprice Restaurant for the public of using a restroom.
Mr. Peschlow responded that during a worst case weekend, a few dozen people come for that
purpose. This causes problems for his paying customers, who are inconvenienced when the
restrooms are in use by non-customers, He noted that the adjacent Sanitary District NO.5 building
has restrooms that they make available to the public, but that the facility is closed on weekends when
demand is highest.
Chair Burgin asked if there are public restrooms in the Point Tiburon Plaza commercial area. Mr.
Peschlow responded that the restrooms at Point Tiburon are for the tenants only, not open to the
public. He further stated that the Downtown is under.represented with respect to public restrooms.
Commission Lindqvist added that the Sanitary District NO.5 restrooms are inside the building, behind
work areas, and are not easily accessible to the public
There was discussion regarding existing facilities, the possibility ofa portable restroom (as opposed
to a permanent restroom), the adequacy of signs guiding people to the existing restrooms, the limited
locations for a new restroom and possible opposition from Point Tiburon homeowners over any
proposal to install such a facility in or near Shoreline Park, and the general availability of rest rooms to
the public at Guaymas and other restaurants,
Commissioner Burgin stated that she was not in favor of pursuing a new public restroom at this time.
She preferred to focus on better signage for the existing facilities and not a new bathroom facility
Town Engineer Echols indicated that improved signage would be installed as part of the Ferry Access
project that would be completed in Summer 2002.
It was moved by Commissioner Lindqvist to agendize and publicly notice and advertise the new
restroom concept for the Commission's January 2002 meeting. The motion died for lack of a second.
MIS Fraser/Burgin (3-0) to recommend to the Town Council that better signage to the existing
public restrooms be installed until such time as the Ferry Access project signs are installed.
Tlburon Parks & Open Space ComllllSSlOn
4
,\flnllle.l' No. J90 ..Vowl1Iher /3. :l001
EXHIB1T NO,
A
~
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE 11/13/01
s
To: PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
From: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR jA-
Subject: CONSIDER CONCEPT OF CREATING A PUBLIC RESTROOM FACILITY
NEAR SHORELINE PARK
NOVEl\IffiER 9,2001
BACKGROUND
The POSC is in receipt ofa letter (Exhibit 1) dated June 16, 2001 from the Belvedere.Tiburon
Landmarks Society indicating serious need for public restrooms in the Shoreline Park area.
At its meeting of September 11, 2001, Commissioner Lindqvist requested that this item be placed
on the next regular meeting agenda for discussion,
The POSC previously discussed this concept at meetings in September, October, and November
of2000. At its meeting of November 14,2000, the Commission voted 3.2 to not further explore
the creation of a public restroom near Shoreline Park.
At its meeting of December 6,2000, the Town Council adopted the recommendation of the
POSC on its consent calendar without discussion. The Town Council Staff Report and previous
POSC materials are attached as Exhibit 2.
The Commission should discuss this matter and determine whether it is at all inclined to pursue
this matter. If so, then it should direct Staff to formally notice the item to surrounding property
owners so that they may have an opportunity to comment.
...x:aIBITS
1, Letter from Belvedere- Tiburon landmarks Society dated June 16, 2001.
2. Town Council Staff report dated 12/6/2000, with attachments
fpase/shoreline restroom report.doc
PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSiON
STAFF REPORT
11/1312001
EXHIBIT NO. b _
;;::'"-~;~~~~;,:
dt "\:.~ . '\
/./ , '\. )"
I~I.LI\ " :,
'~,...., ,';'~/' ;;
?" ~-J:.i' _..'~!
.><,.....\\'- /" /
~,,~~~/
......~,,.c~
AUgust 1 addendum re~ated to letter to which there has been no re~y~
l<:Cr~~~'T"'~ --L
BELVEDERE-TIBCROl'l LA...~D~L\RKS SOCIETY
"
P.O. Box 134 Belvedere-Tiburon, California 94920 415-435-1853
"
,
Non-Pralll CIlarllaGle
Orgar.:zatlon
SOI,eil])
F~ r= -:- c: :~~\../ :-, D
June 16, 2001
r:I'"'
,-i!,"J 0 2 2001
Parks and Open Space Commission
Town of Tiburon
'~;,-.'~f,',il:. . ~_,,'::0:,~. !.;E!'iT
-~it,'/:~ .. - - :~)~....:<):\!
Dear Commissioners:
As project director for the Donahue Depot Railroad-Ferry Museum, I am
aware of the serious need for a public toilet related to the shoreline park
along Raccoon Strait.
For a variety of safety and sanitary reasons, as well as historical
restrictions, it is not possible to provide even emergency facilities at
the Donahue Depot. In addition, the museum is open only during the
daylight saving season, two days or six hours per week, which in no way
meets the daily need, every week, all year.
Even if visitors, especially the elder and young, have had accommodations
on Main Str~et, the long walk indicates the importance of a public convenience
in a timely but inconspi~uous location. The most logical place for a handicap
accessible station ~s adjacent to the sanitary district plant.
It is the :tOWllc',s,'tesponsibd.J.ity,,", to meet this need as soon as possible for
the benefit of residents and visitors enjoying Point Tiburon where tax dollars
are generated. The more the town is promoted the greater the urgency.
Society docents are aware that the obscure facility on Main Street is inadequate.
Please initiate action immediately.
Sincerely yours,
~
cc Town Manager
Chamber of Commerce
Beverly W. Bastian
Proj ect Director
Donahue Depot Museum
FYI Since June we have used a counter to check the number of visitors,
On Wednesdays, the lowest was 16 and on July 4 there were 117, the
average is 30. On Sundays, the lowest was 31 and highest 123, the
average is 80. If anyone doubts the need for public facilities, I
recommend that they volunteer as docents at the museum or spend at
least an hour along the shoreline several different days for a month.
~
HOllomry President: Beverly Wright Bastian
Honora,.; .'v1cmaers: Rose R. VeIT;JU~ Thomas M_ Lacev, Caroline S. Livennore-, TIlomas B. Crowle'\-"', William RD & Dorothy Cuthbertson.. Marion P. Allen'
Winifred 3 .Allen., Elizabeth TerNilliger, Britton Rey'," Peter Behr~, Helen G. Bootb~, Gordon W StrJwbridge~, Russell & Benudet KeiJ., Fredenck and juaruta
Zelinsky', Miriam B. Grbac', AdmiTa.] eN. Payne, Jr.~, Phyllis Ellman, Thomas. & Jeanne Price, MJria Woodward. He1e~ Newman., David & Louise
TeatheT~, David Allen., Howard Allen, Erwi.n Fariey, Esther Meyer, Barbara Gnoss, Robert Van Blaricom, Shirley Mitchell, Edward G Zeiinsky, George Gnoss
Ronald ?y~ar1d. Pamela Locke, Helen Benedict, ..1,nna jean Coit?, Ann~. Allen, Lewis \logler, Roge: Felton, Thomas Everett Brown. .D~ce3sed
E}~~I15 IT ?\T {) .
-~
~
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DAT 1216/2000
To;
From:
Subject:
Date:
TO\VN COL'NCIL
SCOTT Ai'-i"DERSON, PLAi"';.rrNG DIRECTOR ~
PUBLIC RESTROOM IN SHORELINE PARK
NOVENffiER 30, 2000
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of November 14, 2000, the Parks & Open Space Commission (POSC) discussed
the possibility of constructing a permanent public restroom in the vicinity in Shoreline Park, most
likely in the small Town.owned parking lot across Mar West Street from the Sanitary District No.
S sewage treatment facility. The concept of installing such a restroom had been raised by former
Town Manager Kobert Kleinert, who had received input from the Caprice Restaurant and from
some members of the public.
The POSC discussed the matter at its meetings of September 8, October 10, and November 14,
2000 (see Exhibits A through E for st3fT reports and minutes)
A majority of POSC members did not believe that there was a demonstrated need for a public
restroom in Shoreline Park and voted to drop the matter from any further consideration at this
time.
RECOMMENDA nON
Unless the Town Council desires to pursue the matter, it should accept the recommendation of
the POSC and table the matter. Adopting this item on the consent calendar will indicate that the
Town Council agrees with the POSC's recommendation.
EXHTBlTS
A. POSC staff report from 9/1212000 meeting
B. Minutes of9/1212000 POSC meeting.
C POSC staff report from 10/1 012000 meeting.
D Minutes of 10/1012000 POSC meeting,
E Draft minutes of II: 14/2000 POSC meeting,
Slhlr<.:lin.; rark n.:.stn)011\ l..:r<.:p"11.Jo..:
Tdmron TOWII COlll/cil
SllufHef10rr
I: (,:O()(}
-,
-,
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
,( .
ITEM NO. / 'I
MEETING DATE:
12/5/200 I
Date:
Rev. By:
MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
FILE #39903: "TIBURON COURT" RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (PD#18B)
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CREATE FOUR BUILDING SITES ON A
\3.34 ACRE PARCEL AND REVIEW OF A FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION; SOUTH SIDE OF TRESTLE GLEN BOULEVARD; Round-
Two Development, LLC, owner; Don Henderson and Craig Pilgrim, applicants;
. Assessor's Parcel Nos 58-061-80 & 86 ~
NOVEMBER 28,2001
ALEX D MCINTYRE. TOWN MANAGER
To:
From:
Subject:
PROJECT DATA
Address:
South (upslope) side of Trestle Glen Boulevard'west of its
intersection with Turtle Rock Court (PD# 18B)
58-061-80 & 86
39903
L (Low Density Residential (up to 0.3 du/acre)
RPD (Resid Planned Devel. Zone - up to 0.3 du/acre)
13.34 acres
PM 10-8 (1974)
Undeveloped land
Round-Two Development Joint Venture
Don Henderson & Craig Pilgrim
APNo:
File No.:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Property Size:
Subdivision:
Current Use:
Owner:
Applicant:
BACKGROUND
This project application was tiled on April 21, 1999 and was considered by the Planning
Commission at four public hearings held on October I I, 2000, January 10, 200 I, July 25, 200 I.
and October 24, 200 I. The Planning Commission voted 4-0 (Berger absent) to adopt Resolution
No. 2001-15 (Exhibit 1) recommending approval of the project to the Town Council.
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
12/512001
1
.
Over the course of the twelve months and four well-attended public hearings of Planning
Commission review, the project has been substantially modified to I) reduce the floor area,
footprint, height, mass and scale of the four residences; 2) to provide enhanced buffer and
screening landscaping along Trestle Glen Boulevard and around individual homes; 3) to increase
compatibility of scale, design and appearance with surrounding development; and 4) to reduce
overall visibility of the project. Building envelopes were shrunk and repositioned to create greater
setbacks and buffer zones from Trestle Glen Boulevard. Extensive buffer landscaping along
Trestle Glen Boulevard, to be maintained in perpetuity by the owners, was required along Trestle
Glen Boulevard (see Exhibit 2) and around individual homes.
The record ofthis project is voluminous and has not been included in its entirety in this packet,
but is available for review in the Planning Department at Town Hall. Attached copies of Planning
Commission staff reports and minutes (Exhibits 3 - 10) contain public correspondence received
on this project.
SITE HISTORY
The property was once part of the grcater holdings of the Little Reed Ranch owned by the heirs
of John Reed. It was later part of the Bostick Brothers Dairy operation as cattle grazing land. In
1949 (predating Belveron Gardens Subdivision), the Bosticks received Tentative Subdivision Map
approval from the Marin County Board of Supervisors for "Hacienda Terrace", a 50-lot
subdivision involving this property and adjacent property to the east. About 32 single-family lots
would have been located on the current Tiburon Court project site. Only the Benton Court and
Warren Court portions of Hacicnda Terrace, comprising 18 of the 50 lots, proceeded to the Final
Subdivision Map stage and were developed. This occurred in the early 1950's.
In 1973, a 54-unit townhouse project called Tiburon Towne was submitted for approval on this
site and on the adjoining Lower Trestle Glen property, which were under the same ownership at
that time. Approximately 42 of the 54 townhouse units would have been built on the Tiburon
Court portion of the site. The maximum density at the time was up to 2.5 units per acre, allowing
up to 69 units on the 28-acre total site. That application was withdrawn for unspecified reasons.
In 1978, the property was. conveyed to the Cherry family, which owned it into the 1990's. In July
1981, the Cherry's filed a proposal for a 36-unit single family residential project called Tiburon
Meadows. Approximately 13 of the 36 units would have been locatcd on thc 'Tiburon Court"
portion of the 28 acres. The propcrty was still zoned for up to 69 units at that time. This
proposal was cvcntually withdrawn duc to a lack of funding to proceed.
In 1989, the Town of Tiburon rcviscd its Gcncral Plan and "down-zoncd" the cntire propcrty
from a density of2.5 units per acre to 0.3 units per acrc, allowing a maximum of8 lots on the 28-
acrc Cherry Property. In thc mid-1990s thc two major holdings comprising thc Cherry property
were sold to ditferent buyers. The current application for f(lUr homes was tilcd in 1999.
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
12/512001
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Tiburon Court project would crcatc four residential lots ranging in size from 145 to 4.98
acres (an average of approximately 3.33 acres per lot) on the 13.34-acre site. Each lot would be
developed with one single-family detached unit and surrounding yard area. Due to the physical,
environmental, and policy-driven constraints of the property, development is clustered in a 2-acre
portion of the site. .
The portion of the site devoted to residential use (homes, yards, roads, fenceable areas) would be
less than 15% (less than 2 acres total). Drawings of the proposed project are attached as
Attachment A. Attachment B contains revised photosimulations dated October 2001 depicting
the project from three public locations, as well as floor plans and elevations. A comparison of
these photosimulations with those prepared in November 2000 for an earlier design of this project
(see Attachment E) is quite informativc A Story Pole Plan reflecting the Planning Commission-
recommended project is attached as Attachment D. Story poles with orange netting are currently
erected in the field for review.
Re.~hlential BuUding Envelopes. Drawings identifY residcntial building envelopes, residential use
areas (fenceable areas), and private open space. Residential building envelopes would range from
0.15- to 0.23-acres. Lots I, 2 and 3 would be limited to a maximum of 2,900 gross square feet of
residential floor area (not including below-grade areas), plus up to 600 square feet of garage, with
a maximum height not to exceed 24 fcct from !Inished grade nor 18-20 feet from existing grade.
Lot 4 would be limited to a maximum of2,600 gross square feet of residential !loor area (not
including below-grade areas), plus up to 600 square feet of garage, with a maximum height not to
exceed 20 feet from finished grade nor 16 feet f~om existing grade.
Lot Lot Area BuildinJ! Envelope Area" Percent of
A eres SC/uare Fee! Acres SC/uare Fee! Lot Area h
I 145 63,341 0.18 8,004 12.6
2 4.05 176.605 0.23 10,204 5.8
3 2.77 120.504 0.15 6,320 5.2
4 4.98 216,900 () 18 7,631 3.5
To!al 13.25 577,350 OJ-I 32,159 ----
Source: Tiburon Court Precise Devclopment Plan Site Plan, Grading & Drainage Plan,
Lawrence P Doyle, Land Surveyor / Civil Engineer, September 27,2001.
a Only includes residential building envelope (docs not include "residential use areas").
h Shows percent of total lot area comprising the building envclope for each lot; pcreent of Iota I
property devoted to residential use (houses plus feneeable yard areas) is less than 15'\10.
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
12/512001
3
Secondary Recreational Envelopes. Such cnvclopcs had originally been proposed (including one
for a tennis court), but wcrc eliminated through the cnvironmcntal rcvicw process and Planning
Commission hcarings.
Private Open Space. Land outside the "residential use arca" (comprising over 85% ofthc
property) would be secured as permanent open space through a recorded open space easement
held by the Town of Tiburon. A ten-foot wide public pedestrian trail would be constructcd across
parts of proposed Lots I and 2 to connect Trestle Glen Boulevard (opposite Shepherd Way) with
Porto Marino Drive. This trail would provide a much more pleasant and safe alignment of the
Tiburon Ridge Trail than is currently provided by Hacienda Drive. A separate public pedestrian
easement, for future trail development, would connect the Ridge Trail path laterally across this
property to the adjacent Trestle Glen .Lower propcrty, across which future easements for
neighborhood access could be secured.
A variablc width drainage easement along the primary drainageway would cross Lots 2, 3. and 4 in
the southeast to northwest direction. This drainageway, located within the Town's open space
easement, would be restored and enhanced pursuant to a Streamside and Habitat Enhancement
Plan already approved by the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Servicc. In addition, the project would ofTer a
ten-foot widening strip along Trestle Glen Boulcvard for dedication to the Town for future bike
lane and/or road widening purposes.
Acces.~. Access to the four homes would be from a new private roadway that would interscct
Trestle Glen Boulevard between Turtle Rock Court (east) and Juno Road (wcst) and would extcnd
260 feet south to a 60-foot diameter cul-dc-sac bulb. The access roadway would be built across
the private lots, and easements would be cstablishcd to permit acccss by the other lot owners. Lot
owners would be responsible for maintaining thc roadway under a "Common Driveway
Maintenance Agreement" to be recorded after Town of Tiburon review and approval. A total of
13 "common use" parking spaces would be located along the roadway and cul-de-sac, in addition
to the garage and driveway apron parking that would be provided for each home.
lnfrustructure. On- and ofT-sitc infrastructurc improvcmcnts (roadway, including curbs and
gutters, and utilities, including sewer, water, and drainage facilities) would be constructed for the
entire project at one time. These includc
. Grading and construction of the site access roadway. Cut and till would balancc.
. Installation of sewer lines along Trestle Glen Boulevard connecting from the project site to the
existing sewer main in Tiburon Boulevard.
. Construction of storm drain improvements, either along the south side of Trestle Glen
Boulevard or within the existing storm channcl on the north side of Trestle Glen Boulcvard.
This property (and its adjoining undeveloped "other half' of the former Cherry property) will
contribute to the completion of the Belveron Drainage Master Plan adopted in 1985.
Tiburon Town Council Staff Report 12/512001 4
. Repair oflandslides, ineluding three within the drai'nage easement (Landslides 2,3, and 4), and
one adjacent to Trestle Glen Boulevard (Landslide I), and the head areas of debris flow swales
adjacent to the drainageway. Landslides I through 4 would be stabilized by excavating the
slide, continuing the excavation through the slide plane to firm soil and/or rock below the slide
plane, backfilling with engineered fill to desired grades, and concurrently installing subsurface
drains Head areas of debris flow swales would be regraded, and debris flow-susceptible
material would be recompacted.
Project Site Setting. The Tiburon Court project is proposed on part of a site formerly known as
the Cherry property. It is a vacant infill parcel located on the south side of Trestle Glen Boulevard
and is surrounded by existing residential neighborhoods Site elevations range from about 60 feet
at Trestle Glen Boulevard to 260 feet at the southeast property line near the Marin Convalescent
and Rehabilitation Hospital located on Hacienda Drive.
Two drainageways cross the site. The primary drainageway originates at the end of Porto Marino
Drive, which stubs out at the southeast corner of the site. This drainageway extends downhill in a
northwest direction to an existing box culvert under Trestle Glen Boulevard located east of the
Juno Road intersection. A second drainageway originates on the adjacent "Trestle Glen Lower"
parcel and flows north toward Trestle Glen Boulevard across the western end of the Tiburon Court
project site, far from the proposed homes Both drainageways contain intermittent streams. Site
vegetation is composed of grasslands, scrub and busbtield, woodland, riparian scrub, and
freshwater marsh.
Surrounding Land Uses. Surrounding uses are residential, except for the undeveloped "Trestle
Glen Lower" parcel located west of the site and the Marin Convalescent and Rehabilitation
Hospital contiguous to the southeast corner of the site.
The Belveron Gardens East and Perini Preserve (Turtle Rock Court) subdivisions are located north
across Trestle Glen Boulevard and are designated for development at medium high (up to 4.4 units
per acre) and medium low (up to 1.1 units per acre) densities, respectively. Residential areas
south, east, and west of the site are designated for medium density (up to 3.0 units per acre) along
Stewart Drive (south), medium high density on Benton Court (east), and low density (0.3 unit per
acre) on the "Trestle Glen Lower" site (west) The Marin Convalescent and Rehabilitation
Hospital, located on Hacienda Drive east of the site, and the Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran
Church, located on Shepherd Way, are tbe only non-residential uses in the vicinity. Except for the
"Trestle Glen Lower" parcel, the surrounding residential neighborhoods are virtually built out.
CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS, POLICIES AND ORDINANCES
Detailed analysis of General Plan consistency and Zoning Ordinance conformance was provided in
the staff report of October 11,2000 (see Exhibit 3) Stafl'believed that the project, with some
modifications, would on balance further the goals, objectives and policies of the Tiburon General
Tiburon Town .Council
Staff Report
12/512001
5
Plan and Tiburon Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Commission agreed with this conclusion only after requiring extensive changes to
the project. The Planning Commission believed that it was critical to minimize house square
footage, height, mass, visibility, and compatibility issues at the very earliest stage of review (the
Precise Development Plan), and not defer any of these issues to the Design Review Board
through conditions of approval, as has traditionally occurred. This approach entailed extensive
project redesign. From the outset, the Planning Commission directed that the applicant either
reduce the number of home sites or use a combination of other methods to reduce the (primarily
visual) impacts of the project attributable to house size, height, location, design and appearance.
The applicants responded by lowering, shrinking, and screening proposed homes, and refining lot
layouts and houses designs until a project acceptable to the Commission was realized. The table
below compares "before and after" conditions of the application:
Criteria
Original Application
PC-recommended A/2olicatiOl/
House size (in gross square feet):
Lot I
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 4
4,800 sq. ft.
4,800 sq. ft
4,800 sq. ft.
4,800 sq. ft.
2,900 sq. ft.
2,900 sq. ft
2,900 sq. ft.
2,600 sq. ft
House Height (in feet, from finished grade):
Lot I 30'
Lot 2 30'
Lot 3 30'
Lot 4 35'
24' (10-18' from existing grade)
24' (12-18' from existing grade)
24' (12-20' from existing grade)
20' (10-16' trom existing grade)
Building Envelope Area (in acres):
Lot I .81
Lot 2 .43
Lot 3 .31
Lot4 .19
.18
.23
.15
.18
On-site Common-Use Parking Spaces:
4 spaces
13 spaces
Color, Materials, Exterior Appearance
Similar to homes in Turtle
Rock Court subdivision
Medium-to-dark earth tones, native
materials, extensive landscaping
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
12/512001
6
Staff believes that revisions made to the project over the past year of review have substantially
improved the conformity with Town goals and policies, especially in terms of visual mass, bulk
and appearance of the project. The revised project would result in a more harmonious transition
between the Tiburon Boulevard and Paradise Drive areas of the Town of Tiburon. The depth to
which the Planning Commission addressed future potential areas of controversy at this early stage
of review is noteworthy and laudable.
Staff is of the opinion that this project is a rare instance where a "large vacant parcel" in the
Tiburon Planning Area is able to achieve its maximum allowable density set forth in the General
Plan (0.3 units per acre in this case) without creating significant adverse environmental impacts,
while meeting the goals and objectives of the General Plan and allowing a reasonable use of the
property.
The kev to a successful implementation of this proiect will be to ensure that the homes actually
built in the field strongiy resemble the masses. colors, materials, and general appearance of the
homes shown in the approved application materials. including the final photosimulations. The
same aj)plies to the landscaping installed in the field. The draft Resolution forwarded bv the
Planning Commission is structured to achieve this critical end.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An expanded Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project was prepared
under contract to the Town ofTiburon by the consulting firm of Nichols-Berman, and released for
public review and comment on September I, 2000. The comment period closed on October 2,
2000. Subsequent revisions made to the project in response to the environmental review process
and public hearings, as well as responses to oral and written comments on the Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration, were incorporated into a Final Mitigated Negative Declaration released in
July 2001. A copy of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and response to comments is
attached as Attachment C.
The conclusion of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration is that changes to the project made
since the first Planning Commission hearing in October 2000 have acted only to further reduce
less than significant impacts of the project on the environment. Project modifications have
resulted in reductions in the potential for aesthetic impacts through size, height, and visual mass
reductions and changes in building materials. Potential hydrology impacts have been further
reduced through decreases in impervious surface Potential traffic safety impacts at the project
roadway entrance have been further reduced by improving the sight distance to the east, and on-
site parking has been increased substantially
Mitigation measures presented in the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration have been accepted in
writing by the applicant, and would reduce all potential impacts to less than significant levels
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
12/512001
7
PUBLIC COMMENT
This application generated substantial public comment and interaction, primarily from surrounding
neighborhoods and residents. Public comments can be found in the attached minutes and in letters
contained within the Planning Commission staff reports. Concerns. ran the gamut from traffic
impacts, drainage/flooding impacts, visual impacts, excessive density, and loss of open space.
In particular, the Belveron neighborhood pulled together and met several times with the project
applicants to discuss project revisions that would reduce impacts. Staff believes that these
meetings were productive, and that good faith efforts resulted in compromises that have greatly
improved the project. Nevertheless, there remains some sentiment in the surrounding areas that
the project density should be reduced or the homes further redueed in size.
FUTURE ACTIONS REQUIRED
If the Precise Development Plan is approved by the Town Council, subsequent Town permits
would include a Tentative Subdivision Map, Parcel Map, Subdivision Improvement Drawings,
Site Plan and Arehitectural Review approval for each lot, and Building Permits for eaeh residence.
REVISIONS TO DRAFT RESOLUTION
Following a review of the quite extensive project record, Staff has added/augmented some
conditions to the draft Town Council Resolution that were not included in the Planning
Commission Resolution. These revisions are double-underlilLed in Exhibit 12. They include
enhanced direction to the Design Review Board on addressing clustering effects and fencing;
requiring a third public pedestrian easement that the applicant had committed to the Belveron
neighborhood; and making provisions to permanently demarcate the "residential use areas"
around each Lot in the field.
RECOMMENDA TlON
Staff believes that project modifications required by the Planning Commission further improve this
project and result in a superior development that on balance is consistent with the goals and
policies of the Tiburon General Plan and conforms with the principles of the Residential Planned
Development zoning district. Staff has prepared a brief list of positive and negative effects of the
project, attached as Exhibit II.
The Town Council should:
I. '.Told a public hearing on the application, and
2. Adopt the draft Resolution (Exhibit 12) conditionally approving the project.
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
12/512001
8
~\
EXHIBITS
I. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-15.
2. Planning Commission Staff Report of 10/11/2000
3. Planning Commission Minutes of 10111/2000.
4. Planning Commission Staff Report of 1/10/2001.
5. Planning Commission Minutes of 1/10/2001.
6. Planning Commission Staff Report of 7/25/200 I.
7. Planning Commission Minutes of 7/25/200 I.
8. Planning Commission Staff RepOJi of 10/24/200 I.
9. Planning Commission Minutes of 10/24/200 I.
10. Sample form of Landscape Installation and Maintenance Agreement
II. Brieflist of positive and negative effects of project.
12. Draft Town Council Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Planning Commission recommended drawings (7 sheets), 24" X 36", date-stamped "Received
November 26, 200 I".
B. Tiburon Court Conceptual Architecture Plans Booklet, date-stamped "Received October II,
200 I, prepared by DTH & Associates, I I" X I 7" !{)rmat (includes reduced landscape plan,
final photosimulations dated October 200 I, and elevations and floor plans).
C. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration dated July 200 I (previously distributed to Council)
D. Revised Story Pole Plan, date-stamped "Received November 26,2001" (II"X 17")
E. Photosimulations of earlier version of project dated November 13, 2000.
\",:ouIJ990311: n.:port.uoc
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
12/512001
9
RESOLUTION NO. 200t-IS
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE TIBURON COURT PRECISE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 18B) AND ADOPTION OFA MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND M[TIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 39-061-80 & 86
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission of the Town ofTiburon does resolve as follows:
Section 1.
Findings.
A. The Town ofTiburon has received and considered an application liled by Round-Two
Joint Venture for a Precise Development Plan (the Tiburon Court Precise Development
Plan) to develop the following project:
The development offour single-t~lmily dwellings on a 13.34-acre property, with lot sizes
ranging Irom 1.45 to 4.92 acres. The Tiburon Court Precise Development Plan would
establish building envelopes. residential use areas, height and 1100r area limits. and other
zoning limitations for the four lillure lots. Except for stream restoration landscaping and
Trestle Glen Boulevard bulTer landscaping. all landscaping and fencing would be limited to
the residential use area on each lot. Homes on Lots 1,2, and 3 would be limited to 2,900
square feet of gross tloor area. as delined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, plus up to
600 square feet of garage and below-grade areas. Any home on Lot 4 would be limited
to 2,600 square feet of gross tloor area. as dctlned by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, plus
up to 600 square feet of garage and below-grade areas.
B, The Precise Development Plan 'IIJplication consists of File #39903. on tile with the Town
ofTiburon Planning Department Materials Irom that application include but arc not
limitedto the following
I. Site Plan, Tiburon Court, prepared by Lawrence Doyle, revised 9/27/0 I, scale
["=50' (1 sheet)
2. Precise Development Plan Grading & Drainage Plan, Tiburon Court, prepared by
Lawrence Doyle, revised 9/27/0 I, scale 1"=20' (I sheet)
3. Schematic Landscape Plan. Tibul"On Coul1. dated 8/28/0 I (I sheet)
4. Tiburon Court Conceptual Architecture Plans Booklet. date-stamped received
October I I, 200 I, prepared by DTH & Associates. II"X IT' format.
5. Tiburon Court Mitigation Plan (Stream Restoration) drawings. prepared by Diane
L Renshaw, dated 6/21/2000 (2 sheets).
6. Letter I"om Don Henderson to Scott Anderson, dated October [2, 200 I, detailing
revisions to the project (I page).
7. Photosimulations date-stamped "'Received October 8,200 I" (12 photos).
The ot1icial record for this project is hereby incorporated anti made pal1 of this resolution.
Tiburon Plallnilll:! CUll1ll1i'-;'-;\llll
RI..'sllllllillll Nt), 2n()I~15
11I/2cJ/211() I
1
'l<'XTIT1-':>T'TI '~T{' L
.1..:..,... _ _l l).~ _j. .~... .J... .
.--;
,
The record includes the Stall' Reports, minutes, application materials, and all comments
and materials received at the public hearing.
C An expanded. Initial Study and dran Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project was
prepared under contract to the Town ofTiburon by the consulting firm of Nichols-
Berman. and released for public review and comment on September I, 2000. Numerous
letters were received on this document in addition to comments olTered at the two public
hearings. Responses to these comments were compiled along with project revisions into a
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration document dated July 2001.
\
The Final Mitigated Negative Declaration concludes that changes to the project made
since the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration have acted to reduce potential impacts of
the project on the environment Project modilications have resulted in reductions in the
potential for aesthetic impacts through size, height. and visual mass reductions as well as
changes in building materials Potential hydrology impacts have been further reduced
through decreases in impervious surtilce Potential tramc .safety impacts at the project
roadway entrance have been tLlrther reduced by improving the sight distance to the east.
On-site parking has been increased substantially Mitigation measures presented in the
Final t\'litigated Negative Declaration have been accepted in writing by the applicant and
would reduce all potential adverse environmental impacts to less than significani levels.
The Planning Commission linds that based upon evidence in the record, no signilicant
adverse impacts on the environment' would occur as a result of the project. All potentially
signiticant adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated to less than significant
levels through moditications to the project as set forth in the mitigation monitoring
program and agreed upon by the applicant. There has been no substantial evidence
submitted into the record 10 support a Illir argument that a signiticant adverse
environmental impact may result t'rom the project
D. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on October 11,2000, January
10, 200 I, July 25, 200 I, and October 24. 2UO I at which it heard and considered testimony
from interested persons The Planning Commission found, based upon application
materials and analysis presented in the stall' reports and the Final Mitigated Negative
Declaration, that on balance the proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the
Tiburon General Plan and in conformance with provisions of the Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance. The facts in support ot' this linding are set fol1h in the staff repol1s and the
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration. all of which are incorporated into the project
record.
Section 2.
Recommendation for AdoJltion of Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RI:::SOL VEl) that the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend adoption of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration. dated July 2001, to the Town
Council.
Tiburon Planllillg Clllllllli:-i;-;j(lll
!':'C:-illlllllllll Nt). 2()()]-15
In/24/200 I
2
.
---
;
Section 3
Recommendation for Pmiect AI2lJl"lwal and Adoption of Mitigation Monitorinl,(
Pro~ram.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED that the Planning Commission
hereby recommends approval of the Tibllron COllrt Precise Development Plan (PD# 18B) to the
Town Council and lurther recommends adoption of a mitigation monitoring program for the
project, subject to the following conditions:,
1. The following Tiburon Court Precise Development Plan drawings and application
materials are approved. said plans being on tile with the Tiburon Planning
Department:
A. Sile P!OIl, Tiburon COllrt, prepared by Lawrence Doyle, revised 9/27!02, scale
1"=50' (I sheet)
B. Precise Dew!ofJlIlelll /'!(//I Grudlllg & Droillage P!WI, Tiburon Court, .
prepared by Lawrence Doyle, revised 9!27/0 I ,.scale 1"=20' (I sheet).
C Schelllulic l.ulldlcupe P!UII, Tiburon Court, dated 8!28/0 1 (I sheet).
D Tibllron Court COllce/'II"'! Archlleclllre PiLms Book!el. date-stamped received
October II, 200 I, prepared by DTI-I & Associates. II"X 17" format
E. Tiburon Court Millguli()1I /'!UII. prepared by Diane L. Renshaw, dated
6/21/200 (2 sheets).
F Lellaj;-()1Il D()II /-Il'lIda.lillI /() Sc()11 Allda.lwl, dated October 12,2001,
detailing revisions to rhe project.
G. Ph()l()sinlll!uliolls dare-stamped "'Received October 8, 2001".
2. This Precise Development Plan approval incorporates all of the environmental
mitigation measures listed in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program,
attached hereto as Exhihit "A". Applicant shall bear all costs for implementation
and monitoring of the J\'litigation r\/Ionitoring Program.
3. This Precise Development f'lanls intended to retlect ultimate development of the
property. No additional subdivision is permitted and a note to that elTect shall be
placed on the Parcel Map
4. It is the intent of this Precise Development Plan approval that all residences
constructed shall very closely resemble the homes presented in the COllceplllal
Archileclllre P!OIlS }io()k!"1 and as shown on the photosimulations dated-stamped
October S, 200 I. l'vlaterials and colors used for all structures located within the
boundaries of this Precise Development Plan shall blend into the natural
environment and strongly resemble those on the photosimulations. Exterior colors
(includin~ trim) shall be restricted to subdued, medium-to-dark earth-tones. Walls
shall be native stone or stone-clad. natural wood shingle siding (no raw redwood),
and dark earth-tone rooting materials shall be required A1\ homes shall maintain
Tiburon Planning C~l[nllll~.";l\lll
1{1...':->plllliull Nll.. 200 1-15
I Oi24/200 I
3
the appearance of a single story .'Bungalow" style dwelling when viewed trom
Trestle Glen Boulevard. The eXlerior appearance of the homes shall be maintained
over time in accordance with this condition of approval. Repainting or other
exterior alteration not in accordance with this condition of approval will require an
amendment to this Precise Development Plan.
5. It is recommended that the Design Review Board should further reduce the tloor
areas for any or all houses in this subdivision if the homes appear to be too closely
clustered.
6. The maximum "gross tloor area", as defined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance,
allowed to be constructed on each lot shall be as Il)llows:
. Lots I, 2, and 3. Shall not exceed 2.900 square feet, plus up to 600
square feet 01' gar~lge space
. Lot 4 Shall not exceed 2.600 square feet, plus up to 600 square feet
of garage space.
7. Buildings and accessory buildings shall be confined to the approved "building
envelope" on each lot. I" shown un Ihe approved 1"=20' scale Precise
Del'e!(J/)JJleJlI /'luII Gr",lillg 1(' /)ruilluge /'luII. No tennis courts are permitted.
8. No improvements of any type, including fencing ancllandscaping, shall be
permitted outside the appruved ",.esidentialuse are,l" shown on the approved
1"=50' Sile 1'1011, except tllOse I.c'iuired subdivision and initial construction-related
improvements shown on Ihe approved I'recise Development Plan drawings, as well
as butTer landscaping alollg Trestle Glen Boulevard. Landscaping shown on the
Schematic Landscape Plan at the rear of Lot 2 and located outside of the lot's
"residential use area" is hereby deleted.
9. Setbacks shall be as set I,)rth on the approved 1"=20' scalc /'recise Del'e/opmellt
J'lall Grudillg & Droilluge /'luII. with the following additional setback
requirements:
a. Lot I buildings sltall be sel back at least 120 feet Irom the existing
pavement edge ofTrcstk Glen Boulevard, measured perpendicular to
Trestle Glen Boulc'vard.
bLot 4 buildings shall be Set back at least 110 leet li'Olll tlte existing
pavemcnt edgc ofTrcstk Glen Boulcvard, measured perpendicular to
Trestle Glen Boulevard
c. Lot 3 and Lot 4 buildings shllll be set back at least 50 feet trom the "top of
bank" of the intermittent strel1m.
Tiburon PI<llll1ilq; ('(}llUl11:-;:-;illll
1~<'::"llllli,i11 ~\) 2111j 1-1.51
,
1')12~/20() I
4
Cl
,
10.
Maximum height of residences. as defined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. shall
be as follows:
a Lots I, 2, and J shall not exceed 24 feet in height f,'om tinished grade at
any point; Lot 4 shall not exceed 20 feet in height from tinished grade at
any point.
b. Height trom existing (pre-project) grade for Lot I shall range from 10 to
18 feet but shall not exceed 18 feet at any point.
c. Height frolll existing (pre-project) grade for Lot 2 shall range from 12 to
18 feet but shall not exceed 18 feet at any point.
d, Height from existing (pre-project) grade for Lot 3 shall range from 12 to
20 feet but shall not exceed 20 feet at any point
e. Height from existing (pre-project) grade for Lot 4 shall range from \0 to
16 feet but shall not exceed 16 feet at any point.
f Accessory structures may not exceed 15 feet in height at any point.
Existing (pre-project) grade shall be based upon the topographic lines included on
the approved 1"=20' sc,de /'rccisc /)Cl'e!O/JlIICIII /'lulI C;mdillg & Dmlllagc Plan.
I I. Any sloped roof areas shall not exceed 4/12 pitch and shall be clustered at the
center of each house. with remaining roof areas to be flat or low-pitched to reduce
visual impact.
12. Landscape palettes developed lex each Lot shall be in substantial conformance
with the Revised Schelllatic LlIldscape Palette attached as Exhihit "B" hereto.
The precise location. size. and type of plantings shall be specified with submittal of
the Site Plan & Architectural Review application for each lot. Ongoing
maintenance of the screening landscaping (trees) on each lot shall be secured by
rccordcd agreement between the Town and project sponsor prior to issuance of
the building permit for eachlo!. Said agreement shall ensure that the screening
landscaping (trees) are maintained by the lot owner in perpetuity.
13. Exterior lighting should be limited to the minimum amount necessary to sately
illuminate points of access and uutdoor use areas. In its review of individual
homes, the Design Review 130ard shall carellt1ly review all lighting to minimize its
visibility from surrounding propenies and Trestle Glen 130ulevard
14. All portions of lots outside of the "residcntialuse area" and the 40-foot wide
"access and publie utilities easemenf" shall be contained and protected within an
open space easement granted to the Town of Tiburon. Said open space easement
shall be recorded in conjunction with the recordation of the parcel map. Said open
space easement shall aCKnowledge. il'necessary. a possible tellure access driveway
opposite Juno Road to serve the adjoining 14.5-acre parcel to the west, and shall
also aCKnowledge any required drainage and utility easements and any landscape
Tiburon Planning C(11llIlli""il\1l
1<'..'.'>\l]lIlilill N(), 2(){) 1-1)
10/24/200 I
5
/)
"
1
installation and maintenance agreements that are required as part of this Precise
Development Plan approval. The llpen space easement language shall be reviewed
and approved by the Town AtllJi"t1ey and Planning Director prior to approval of the
parcel map.
IS. Timing of Trestle Glen Boulevard buller landscape installation. irrigation and
ongoing maintenance shall be specifically resolved through recorded agreement
prior to approval of the Parcel Map The agreement shall ensure that the
landscape butTer is maintained in perpetuity
16. In addition to the Tiburon Ridge Trail segment to be otTered for puhlic dedication
and constructed by the project sponsor, a second public pedestrian easement shall
be oftered for dedication. This easement shall run laterally across the property,
tollowing the natural contours to the extent feasible, and shall connect the Tiburon
Ridge Trail segment to the property line of the adjoining 14.5-acre parcel to the
west.
17. In addition to the otl'er 01' dedication tor the 10' road-widening strip along the
length of the Trestle Glen Boulevard frontage. project sponsor shall contribute
monetarily to the eventual construction of a bicycle lane. Said monetary
contribution shall be paid prior to recordation of the parcel map and shall be
calculated in accordance with legal principles governing such exaction.
18. Drati CC&R's tor the subdivision shall be prepared and submitted tor review by
the Town AtllJrney and ['lanning DirecllJr as part of the Tentative Map application.
Said CC&Rs shall contain provisions and limitations as set torth in this Precise
Development Plan approval tel the satistilction of the Town ofTiburon.
19. Due to parking limitations within the subdivision. secondary dwelling units, as
detined by the Tiburon Loning Ordinance. shall not be permitted within this
subdivision. CC&R's shall incorpmate this limitation.
20. All requirements of the Town Engineer with respect to drainage and utilities shall
be met. The Town's preference allhis time is to require improvement of the
existing undersized Belveron Drainage Ditch and pipe east of Juno Road and direct
the project's tlow into the upgr"ded tileilities. In addition, drainage mitigation fees
will be required per the Tibmoll i\lunicipal Code.
21. This Precise Development Plan approval shall be valid for 36 months tollowing its
etfective date, and shall expire unless subsequent zoning and/or building permits
have been issued pursuant to Ihis approval A time extension may be granted if
such request is tiled prior to Ihe expiration date.
Tiburon Planning C011llllissi( III
R",,'Sllill\i'ill NlI. 2()()1.15
11I/24/2110 I
6
\
,
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission oflhe Town
ofTiburon held on October 24,200 I by the following vote:
AYES.
Fredericks, Smith, Snow 8:. Stein
NOES
None
ABSENT:
Berger
~~Y( k
STEVE STEIN, CHAIRMAN
Tiburoll Planning COlllmission
ATTEST
:A.JL~
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
'Sl'Oll/.-; 9~)()] pc rcsli n:ll. doe
Tiburon, PI.lIll1illg Cl)l11111I~:-;i(lll
[\I.,.'....;llllllill\\ N'l, 2(11) 1-15
10/24/200 I
7
--..~-
..
""'l:'-~~
[FillL~ @@tfu"
-
~,,!-.
,
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE: 10/11/00
J..
To: PLANNING COMMISSION
From: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
Subject: FILE #39903: "TIBURON COURT" RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (PD#18B).
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CREATE FOUR BUILDrNG SITES ON A
13.25 ACRE PARCEL AND REVIEW OF DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION; SOUTH SIDE OF TRESTLE GL,EN BOULEVARD; Round-
Two Development, LLC, owner; Don Henderson, Craig Pilgrim and Tom Newton,
applicants; Assessor's Parcel No. 58-061-80 & 86
Date: OCTOBER 5, 2000
PROJECT DATA
Address:
South (upslope) side of Trestle Glen Boulevard west of its
intersection with Turtle Rock Court (PD# 18B)
58-061-80 & 86
39903
L (Low Density Residential (up to 0.3 du.lacre)
RPD (Residential Planned Development Zone - up to 0.3
du./acre)
13.25 acres
PM 10-8 (1974)
Undeveloped land
Round-Two Development Joint Venture
Don Henderson & Craig Pilgrim
August 20, 1999
APNo:
FileNo.:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Property Size:
Subdivision:
Current Use:
Owner:
Applicant:
Date Complete
SITE HISTORY
The property was once part of the greater holdings of the Little Reed Ranch owned by the heirs
of John Reed. It was later part of the Bostick Brothers Dairy operation as cattle grazing land. In
1949 (predating Belveron Gardens Subdivision), the Bostics received Tentative Subdivision Map
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
10/1112000
EXJUBIT I\jO..~
~
~~
approval from the Marin CO'Jnty Supervisors for Hacienda Terrace, a 50-lot subdivision involving
this and adjacent property to the east. About 32 single-family lots would have been located on
the current Tiburon Court project site. Only the Benton Court and Warren Court portions of
Hacienda Terrace, comprising 18 lots, proceeded to the Final Subdivision Map stage and were
developed.
In 1973, a 54-unit townhouse project called Tiburon Towne was submitted for approval on this
site and on the adjoining Lower Trestle Glen property, which were under the same ownership at
that time. Approximately 42 of the 54 townhouse units would have been built on the Tiburon
Court portion of the site. The maximum density at the time was up to 2.5 units per acre, allowing
up to 69 units on the 28-acre total site. That application was withdrawn in October 1974 for
unspecified reasons.
In 1978, the property was conveyed to Cherry family, which owned it into the 1990's. In July
1981, the owners filed a proposal for a 36-unit single family lot project called Tiburon Meadows
Approximately 13 of the 36 units would have been located on the "Tiburon Court" portion of the
28 acres. The property was still zoned for up to 69 units at that time. This proposal was
eventually withdrawn due to a lack of funding by the applicant to further process the application.
In 1989, the Town ofTiburon revised its General Plan and "down-zoned" the entire property
from a density of2.5 units per acre to 0.3 units per acre, allowing a maximum of8 lots on the 28-
acre Cherry Property. In the mid-1990s the two major holdings comprising the Cherry property
were sold to different buyers. The current development application (Exhibit 1) for four homes
was filed in 1999.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Tiburon Court project would create four residential lots ranging in size from 2.36 to 5.03
acres (an average of approximately 3.3 acres per lot) on the 13.25-acre site). Each lot would be
developed with one single-family detached unit and accessory uses Drawings of the proposed
project are attached as Attachment A (large-scale) and Attachment B (II" X 17" reduced). .
Residential Building Envelopes Plans identifY residential building envelopes, secondary recreational
envelopes, and private open space. Residential building envelopes would range from 0.19- to 0.81-
acre, and each would be developed with a split-level 4,800-square foot unit with a 3,000-square
foot footprint. The maximum height of units on Lots I, 2, and 3 is proposed to be to 30 feet and
on Lot 4 is 35 feet. Residential building envelopes on Lots I and 2 designate areas from
approximately the 160- to 170-foot contour uphill to the 190-foot contour where maximum
building heights would be limited to 18 feet above the finished grade. Proposed units are intended
to be similar in size and appearance to homes in the Turtle Rock Court subdivision.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
10/1112000
2
{.
,
Lot Lot Area Buildino Enve/ooe Area' Percent of
Acres Sauare Feet Acres Sauare Feet Lot Area b
1 2.59 112.896 0.81 35.274 312
2 5.03 219.158 0.43 18.714 8.5
3 2.36 103,206 0.31 13.432 13.0
4 3.25 141,667 0.19 8.272 5.8
Total 13.23 576,927 1.74 75,692 13.1
Source: Tiburon Court Precise Development Plan Site Plan, Grading & Drainage Plan, Lawrence P. Doyle,
Land Surveyor I Civil Engineer, July 12, 1999.
a Only includes residential building envelope and excludes secondary recreational envelope.
b Shows percent of total lot area devoroo to building envelope area where residential development could occur.
c Areas do not add to 13.25 acres (577,231 square feet) given on application materials.
Lots 1 and 2 would be upslope lots and Lots 3 and 4 downslope lots. Average slopes would be
29.5 percent (Lot 1),28.6 percent (Lot 2), 18.2 percent (Lot 3), and 27.4 percent (Lot 4).
Secondary Recreational Envelopes A secondary recreational envelope is proposed on Lot 3.
Secondary envelopes originally proposed on Lots 2 and 4 have been deleted The remaining
secondary envelope on Lot 3 could be developed with a private tennis court or other ancillary uses
not including out-buildings.
Private Open Space Land outside the residential building and secondary recreational lot
development areas would be designated private open space, maintained by individual lot owners,
and covered by a scenic easement. A ten-foot wide public trail easement is proposed across parts
of proposed Lots 1 and 2 from Trestle Glen Boulevard (northeast corner of the site) to Porto
Marino Drive (southeast corner). No other public recreational or other facilities are proposed. A
varying width drainage easement along the incised drainageway would cross Lots 2, 3, and 4 in the
southeast to northwest direction. In addition, the project would offer a ten-foot widening strip
along Trestle Glen Boulevard for dedication to the Town.
A schematic Landscape Plan has been prepared which indicates tree and shrub types and sizes to be
planted along the proposed access roadway and illustrates potential planting concepts for lots.
Landscaping is estimated to cover approximately 10,000 square feet per lot.
Access Access would be via a 24-fool wide private roadway. It would intersect Trestle Glen
Boulevard midway between Turtle Rock Court (east) and. Juno Road (west) and would extend 250
feet south to a 60-foot diameter cul-de-sac bulb. The access roadway would be built across the
private lots, and easements would be established to permit access by the other lot owners. Lot
owners would be responsible for maintaining the roadway under a "Common Driveway
Maintenance Agreement" to be recorded after Town ofTiburon review and approval.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
10/1112000
3
c
:"!".'
-.
~
Infrastructure On- and off-site infrastructure improvements (roadway, including curbs and gutters,
and utilities, including sewer, water, and drainage facilities) would be constructed for the entire
project at one time. These include:
. Grading and construction of the site access roadway. Cutting would occur on the east side of the proposed
alignment and would involve an estimated 3,500 cubic yards of material. Filling would occur on the west
side of the roadway and would involve placcment of3,500 cubic yards ofmatcnal, for a balanced grading
operation.
. Construction of a 24-inch stonn drain on the south side of Trestle Glen Boulcvard. It would divert
stonnwater west and then north illlder the roadway to an existing concrcte drainage canal in the Belveron
subdivision west of Juno Road (and away from thc existing box cuh'crt under Trestle Glen Boulevard.to
an open drainage ditch east of JilllO Road).
. Repair of landslides, including three within the drainage easement (Landslidcs 2, 3, and 4), one adjacent
to Trcstle Glen Boulcvard (Landslide 1), and the head areas of debris llow swalcs. Landslides I through
4 would be stabilized by excavating the slide, continuing the excavation through the slide plane to finn
soil and / or rock below the slide plane, backfilling with engineercd fill to desired grades, and concurrently
installing subsurface drains. Head areas of debris flow swalcs would bc regraded, and debris flow-
susceptible material would be recompacted.
Project Site Setting The Tiburon Court project is proposed on part of a site formerly known as the
Cherry property It is a vacant infill parcel located on the south side of Trestle Glen Boulevard and
is surrounded by existing residential neighborhoods. Site elevations range from about 60 feet at
Trestle Glen Boulevard in the northwest corner to 260 feet at the southeast property line with the
Marin Convalescent and Rehabilitation Hospital on Hacienda Drive.
Two drainageways cross the site. The primary drainage originates at the end of Porto Marino
Drive which stubs out at the southeast corner of the site. The drainage extends downhill in a
northwest direction to an existing box culvert under Trestle Glen Boulevard located east of the
Juno Road intersection. The second drainage originates on the adjacent "Trestle Glen Lower"
parcel and flows north toward Trestle Glen Boulevard across the western end of the Tiburon Court
project site. Both are intermittent streams. Site vegetation is composed of grasslands, scrub and
bushfield, woodland, riparian scrub, and freshwater marsh.
Surrounding Land Uses Surrounding uses are residential, except for the undeveloped "Trestle Glen
Lower" parcel located west of the site and the Marin Convalescent and Rehabilitation Hospital
contiguous to the southeast corner of the site.
The Belveron Gardens East and Preserve (Turtle Rock Court) subdivisions are located north
across Trestle Glen Boulevard and are designated for development at medium high (up to 4.4 units
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
10/1112000
4
{:
~
per acre) and medium low (up to 1.1 units per acre) densities, respectively Residential areas
south, east, and west of the site are designated for medium density (up to 3.0 units per acre) along
Stewart Drive (south), medium high density on Benton Court (east), and both low density (0.3 unit
per acre) on "Trestle Glen Lower" (west) and medium high density (Trestle Glen Terrace, west of
Trestle Glen Lower). The Marin Convalescent and Rehabilitation Hospital, located on Hacienda
Drive east of the site, is the only non-residential use in the vicinity. Except for the project site and
"Trestle Glen Lower" parcel, the surrounding residential neighborhoods are virtually built out.
The Town ofTiburon is a predominantly residential community composed of established
neighborhoods interspersed with permanent open space, including the nearby Ring Mountain
Preserve. Tiburon Boulevard provides primary access along the Tiburon Peninsula between
downtown Tiburon at the tip (southeast) and Highway 101 (northwest), the major transportation
corridor which connects Marin County with the region. Trestle Glen Boulevard traverses the
Tiburon Peninsula and provides the only cross-peninsula paved roadway connection between
Paradise Drive (east) and Tiburon Boulevard (west).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An expanded Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project was prepared
under contract to the Town ofTiburon by the consulting firm of Nichols-Berman, and released for
public review and comment on September I, 2000. Planning Commissioners have previously
received copies. An additional copy of the Initial Study is attached with Commission packets for
convenience (Attachment C),
The initial study synthesized the findings of numerous professionally-prepared studies, an
independent geotechnical peer review commissioned by the Town of Tiburon, and in-house peer
review by the Town's environmental consultant. The studies included a cultural resources study,
traffic study, preliminary geotechnical engineering investigation and independent peer review, a
faunal assessment, three biological studies, an acoustical analysis, a hydrology report, and a visual
simulation. These documents are available for review in the Tiburon Planning Department.
The comment period on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration closed on October 2, 2000 but
is customarily extended to include the first Planning Commission public hearing. The draft
mitigated negative declaration identifies several environmental factors that would potentially be
affected by the project. These are.
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
10/1112000
5
~
~~.
...
Hydrology & Water Quality
Land Use & Planning
Noise
Recreation
Transportation and Traffic
Utilities & Service Systems
Mitigation measures presented in the Initial Study and accepted in writing by the applicant would
reduce all potential impacts to less than significant levels. A brief discussion of each affected
environmental factor is provided below.
Aesthetics
From a CEQA standpoint, the project would change but not substantially degrade the visual
character of the natural hillside. The remaining secondary building envelope on Lot 3 would need
to be defined to eliminate outbuildings to mitigate potential impacts.
Air Qualitv
Standard mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the potential dust and other air quality
impacts that may occur during construction on the site. Measures include watering and sweeping
of the site and streets, covering of materials, and hydroseeding of disturbed areas.
Biological Resources
Biological resources constitute the most limiting factor for development of the site from a CEQA
standpoint. The entire portion of the property south of the intermittent stream must be avoided to
prevent significant adverse impacts on biological resources. Secondary building envelopes
originally proposed for this area have been eliminated. There are no significant biological
resources on the portions of the site proposed for development. Significant biological resources
on undeveloped portions of the site would be protected by a Town-held open space easement.
These resources include riparian habitat, native grasslands, potential red-legged frog habitat, and
oak woodland.
Cultural Resources
While it is very unlikely to occur, any discovery of subsurface cultural resources will result in a
halt of the project work in the vicinity so that the proper authorities can be consulted.
Geologv and Soils
As is common with hillside properties on the Tiburon Peninsula, the subject property contains
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
10/1112000
6
~
:~.
,
areas of unstable soils in the form oflandslides and debris flows. Debris flows and landslides are
differentiated by the velocity at which the ground movement occurs. Debris flows are fast
moving, highly fluid landslides that occur during periods of intense rainfall (i. e. mudslides).
Landslides can move at a rate of only inches per day. Soils conditions on the site could also lead
to settlement of structures, erosion, expansive soils, and long-term slope stability.
A preliminary geotechnical investigation was prepared for the project site as detailed in the Initial
Study. This report was intensively reviewed by an independent geotechnical engineer retained by
the Town ofTiburon, namely Eugene Miller of Miller Pacific Engineering, as well as by the Town
Engineer.
Because soils on much of the Tiburon Peninsula are prone to instability, the Town of Tiburon has
adopted stringent landslide repair policies (Exhibit 2). Landslide repairs and debris flow
mitigations will be required as part of any subdivision of this property prior to the construction of
individual homes. Completion of these improvements is fully bonded such that the Town can
complete the work should the developer be unable to do so.
The Project Geotechnical Engineer, Town Engineer, and Town Geotechnical Consultant will
ensure that the Town's landslide repair policies are implemented on this property, eliminating or
greatly reducing the potential for damage from soil instability. In comparison with the adjacent
Lower Trestle Glen project site, unstable areas on the Tiburon Court site are small and completely
avoid roadways and building envelopes. Except for an area of recent (1960's) fill, the slide areas
involve slumped areas along the side of the intermittent stream channel
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Susceptibility to wildland fires was identified as a potential project impact. Conformance with
required provisions of the current Tiburon Fire Protection District codes will reduce potential
wildland fire hazard impacts to less than significant levels.
Hydrology & Water Quality
Unlike the Lower Trestle Glen project site, the Tiburon Court site drains into off-site portions of
the drainage system that were not upgraded in 1987-1988 by the deyelopers of the Preserve
Subdivision to serve the ultimate buildout of the Belyeron Watershed. The inadequate drainage
sections include an undersized 24" corrugated metal pipe located at the uphill side of Juno Road
crossing and a degraded open drainage ditch upstream from the Juno Road crossing. At the
downstream side of the Juno Road crossing, the upgraded culvert is 54" in diameter and both it
and the 5 foot by 5 foot concrete box culvert downstream from the Juno Road crossing are sized
and designed to accommodate buildout of the Belyeron Watershed for the I DO-year storm event.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
10/1112000
7
{
,
The project proposes to divert a substantial portion of the site's runoff around the undersized
ditch and culvert and directly into the adequately sized box culvert below the Juno Road crossing.
This measure would slightly reduce the amount of runoff entering the undersized drainage
facilities upstream from the Juno Road crossing. An alternative solution (favored by the Town
Engineer) would be to upgrade the 24" pipe under Juno Road crossing and improve the degraded
ditch upstream from it, without any diversion. Given the fact that both Trestle Glen projects will
be required to pay drainage improvement fees to the Town (or construct the actual
improvements), either alternative will result in an improved drainage system and decreased risk of
flooding for the Belveron Gardens Subdivision.
Noise
Potential short-term noise impacts from earthmoving, grading and paving machines were
identified and mitigations proposed. Short-term construction impacts will inevitably cause'
irritation and inconvenience for surrounding properties. Such impacts, while certainly annoying,
do not constitute significant adverse environmental impacts under CEQA. Limited hours for
construction and use of heavy equipment will reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels,
especially during traditionally quiet hours and on weekends.
Recreation
The project offers opportunities to expand the non-street portion of the Tiburon Ridge Trail by
connecting across the site to Porto Marino Drive. The project sponsor shall design, build, and
dedicate this trail to the Town ofTiburon.
Transportation and Traffic
Adequacy of intersection sight distances and adequacy of project parking were identified as
potential impacts.
Vehicular access to the project would be from a single private roadway off Trestle Glen
Boulevard, located along the frontage approximately 270 feet west of the Turtle Rock Court
intersection and approximately 780 feet east of the Juno Road intersection with Trestle Glen
Boulevard. Legal vehicular access to the property is only available from Trestle Glen Boulevard.
The proposed private roadway location offers excellent sight distance (620 feet) to the west but
marginal sight distance (295 feet) to the east due to the contours of the land immediately east of
the proposed intersection. Mitigation measures are specified that will result in safe sight
distances in both directions.
Parking mitigations will require five on-site spaces for each home plus the four on-street spaces
on the private roadway. Special provisions for valet parking or shuttle service shall be
incorporated into the CC&R's to address occasional special event parking situations.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
10/1112000
8
{:
,
The project will be required to pay its pro-rata share of traffic impact fees to address cumulative
traffic generation impacts.
Utilities & Service Svstems
Installation of a new sewer line along Trestle Glen Boulevard will be required Alternatively,
upgrading of the existing sewer line in Juno Road could be performed to serve the site. Either
alternative will mitigate potential impacts, although the applicant prefers construction of a new
sewer line to minimize the disruption within Belveron Gardens.
Public and agency comment letters have been received as follows:
Letter from Tiburon Ridge Association dated 12/28/99.
Letter from Town Engineer dated 8/21/00.
Letter from State Department of Fish & Game dated 9/12/00.
Letter from Frank Mullberg, 66 Hacienda Drive, dated 9/14/2000.
Letter from Michael & Sheila Lagios dated 9/26/00.
Letter from Anthony & Pamela Harrington dated 9/27/00.
Letter from Shaun & Janet Coughlin dated 9/28/00.
Letter from Randy Greenberg dated 10/2/00.
Letter from Barry & Rosalind Jekowsky dated 10/2/00.
Letter from Governor's Office of Planning & Research dated 10/2/00.
Letter from US Fish & Wildlife Service dated 9/20/00.
These letters are attached as Exhibits 3 through 13. The applicant, staff and consultants will be
prepared to address these comments at the meeting. The applicant has olTered to meet with any
commentors subsequent to the meeting.
CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS, POLICIES AND ORDINANCES
Zoning Ordinance Conformance
Section 4.08.04 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance sets forth the following principles to be
evaluated in the review of Precise Development Plan applications. A summary of this project's
conformance with thesc principles is as follows:
(a) Significant open .'pace shall he preserved,.throllgh dedication or other means
acceptable to the Town, consistelll with policies of the Open Space and
C'onservation Element of the Tihllron General Plan.
The project would leave approximately 80% of the site in a permanent open
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
10/11/2000
9
~
~~.
"""
condition, including the oak trees, the intermittent stream channel, and riparian
areas. The proposed precise plan indicates that, with the exception of a public
pedestrian easement across the property, the open space would remain private.
Developments of this nature typically confer "open space easements" to the Town
over portions of the privately owned lots located outside the building envelopes.
Staff does not recommend fee dedication ofland in instances such as this project,
where the remaining open space is isolated from other dedicated open space areas
(b) Preservation of natural features of the land shall he achieved to the maximum
extent feasible through minimization of grading and semitive site design.
Features worthy of preservation include ridgelines, prominent knolls, desirable
native vegetation, trees, significant rock outcrop pings. lI'ater courses, and
riparian corridors.
Biological and habitat constraints limit development to the north side of the
watercourse in order to avoid significant adverse impacts on the environment. The
applicant has already agreed to eliminate the proposed secondary recreational
envelopes on Lots 2 and 4 that were proposed for the south side of the
watercourse. There will be no structures or improvements of any kind on the
south side of the watercourse.
(c) Slopes created by grading shollld not exceed 30 percell I. Filial contours and
slopes should reflect lIalllralland featllres.
Most of the earthmoving activities would involve the removal of landslide and
debris flow material, and recompaction of these same areas into stable slopes
Cutting and filling for the project roadway and individual homes will also occur.
Final graded slopes shall not exceed 30% and shall resemble natural terrain.
(d) Every reasonable effort shall he made to preserve view corridors, mature trees,
rare plants, significant native flora and fauna, areas of historical significance,
access corridors, and hahitats of endangered species.
Story poles have been erected by the applicant at the approximate locations of the
homes to be built on each of the four proposed lots. A story pole and staking plan
is attached as Attachment D The poles have been in place since August.
(e) Localion of development lI'ell heloll' ridgelilles shall he achieved, in accordance
with General Plan and olher policies.
Secondary Ridgeline #3 as identified in Resolution No. 2859 is the nearest
ridgeline to the site, but is otTthe property The project would have no effect on
Tiburon Planning Commission
Stall Report
10/11/2000
10
.
:~.
-
,
ridgelines.
(f) Prominence of development and construction should he minimized by appropriate
location of grading and placing of bui/dings so that they are screened hy wooded
areas, rock ou/croppings and depressions in topography or other features.
The property's open hillside nature limits the ability to "hide" proposed homes
using site features. Prominent trees on the site are located at the upper reaches
that are inappropriate for development. Depressions in topography on this site are
typically drainageways that should be avoided. On properties such as this,
appropriate design of homes (in terms of height, size, mass. bulk, color, shape,
architecture, landscaping and materials) is the best tool to achieve compatible
construction that blends to the extent possible with the surroundings. "Show-me"
homes and "monster" homes should be avoided on such sites.
(g) Due consideration shall he gil'en to al'oidance of areas posing geological
hazards.
The geologically unstable areas of this site have been identitied and discussed in
the Initial Study. They will be repaired in accordance with the Town's policies.
Proposed homes and roadways avoid these unstable areas
(h) Minimization of significant adl'erse impacts, as delailed in the Enpimnmental
Impact Report, if one is required
A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and expanded Initial Study concluded that
all potential adverse impacts to the physical environment, as defined by CEQA, are
reduced to less than significant levels by mitigation measures incorporated into the
project. Please refer to the Initial Study for details.
(i) Road, shall he designedfor minimum slopes, grading. wt-hacks andfill.
Narrowing of roadways may he allowed to reduce grading, retaining walls, and
other scarring of the land.
The 24 foot wide, 250 foot long proposed roadway would essentially follow the
natural contours of the land and require minimal grading and cutback except to
provide adequate sight lines to Trestle Glen Boulevard. Cut and fill for the project
is balanced. The slope of the proposed roadway would range from 2% to 18% and
would meet applicable standards for fire, emergency, utility and service trucks such
as refuse collection vehicles. In comparison, Taylor Road. a public street off
Paradise Drive, maintains a 25% slope over a considerable distance.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
10/1112000
11
" -
. :~.
. ,
(j) Proposed arrangement of residential units and design of circulation system shall
provide harmonious transitionfrom and he compatihle wilh, neighboring
development and open ~pace. Monotony in design shall he avoided.
The project is designed to be independent of surrounding neighborhoods in terms
of access and respects preservation of open space as about 80% of the site will
remain permanently open.
(k) Adequate consideration shall he given to the need for privacy and with minimum
visual and aural intrusion into indoor and outdoor livillg areas from other living
areas.
Staff has concluded that with some suggested modifications, the location of the
proposed building envelopes would create adequate separation between the future
houses and nearby existing homes, insuring the privacy of neighboring residents
Privacy issues can be addressed in much greater detail at the site plan and
architectural review permit level. Suggested modifications to address visual issues,
such as the "looming effect" arc discussed in the "Issues" section below.
(I) Improvements shall he placed so as 10 minimize illl/'lls/{}n of lIoise onllearhy
areas.
The noise study prepared for the project by Lumina Technologies determined that
the locations of the homes would not result in any long-term significant noise
impacts on the surrounding areas.
(m) Landscaping shall he designed so as to result illlhe leasl possihle dislurhance of
natural and/or opell areas alld shall he compalihle lI'ilh Ihe JJatural setting.
Consideration shall he given 10 fire proteclioll, waleI' collservation, protection of
views and trail areas, alld hufferillg of noise.
Unless otherwise required, landscaping would be limited to the building envelope
and landscape envelope areas surrounding the homes, all of which are in the least
environmentally sensitive portions of the site. Staff believes that some form of
naturalized landscaping should be required along the affected portions of the
Trestle Glen Boulevard frontage to soften the effect of residential development
from the public street and from Belveron Gardens Subdivision (especially Venus
Court and portions of Juno Road).
(n) Utililies shall he underground and slreet lighls, ilneeded. slJaIl he of low intensity
and low in profile.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
10/1112000
12
~;::
~
Streetlights (if any) for this project would be the minimum to achieve public safety.
Low level roadway downlighting would be more appropriate, and would be
reviewed by the Town during its review of the subdivision improvement drawings
and by the Design Review Board during its review of any homes eventually
proposed on the'site.
(0) Materials and colors used in improvements shall blelld illto the natural
environme11lto the exte11l reasonably possible.
This is a standard condition of approval for planned developments in Tiburon.
'Medium-to-dark earth tone colors are generally preferred by Town Staffas
blending better with the surrounding environment. A "design theme", such as
Craftsman Style, has been required by the Town on occasion when compatibility
concerns are pronounced.
(p) Consistency with other goals and policies of the GellemlPlan Eleme11ls shall be
demonstrated.
See the General Plan discussion below.
General Plan Consistency
The following section addresses the policies of the Tiburon General Plan that relate to this
proposed project
Land Use Element
LU-B
To ensure that all land uses, hy type, amoullt, desigll, alld arrallgement serve to
protect and enhallce the low-dellSity reside11lial alld village character and image
of the community. .
The proposed density ofless than one unit per three acres is quite low, roughly one-twelfth that of
Belveron Gardens, The arrangement of units in a clustered manner that respects the
environmental limitations of the site while preserving its most visually prominent portions will
enhance the image of the community.
LU-12
III Plallned Residelltial Districts, lIew development shollld he located on the least
envirollmentally sensitive and least ha:ardous portiolls olvacantland wherever
feasible /0 promote sOllnd lalld development and plallllillg practices. Special
emphasis shall he placed 011 keeping ridge lilies opell alld IIl10hstructed to the
maximum extent feasible.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
10/1112000
13
~
~"!""--
~
Development is clustered in the lower portion of the site away from environmentally sensitive
resources on this property. Project construction would avoid oak woodlands on the upper
reaches of the property, a riparian drainage channel through the center of the site, and increasingly
scarce native grasslands south of the intermittent stream channel. An open space easement would
protect these areas. There would be no impact on ridgelines.
Open Space and Conservation Element
OSC-B
To provide aftexihle guide for landowners to suhmit proposals for development
which will preserve as milch open space as possihle and resnlt in protection or
enhancement to the maximum extent feasihle of shorelines, open water, wetlands,
significant ridgelines, riparian corridors, steep slopes, rock outcroppings. rare
and endangered plant and animal hahitat areas, other sil'nificant vegetation, and
areas of visual importance.
The project would retain the site's steep slopes, native grasslands. and riparian corridors in private
open space protected by an open space easement. Significant trees and biological areas are.
likewise avoided The secondary ridgeline is completely unaffected.
OSC-2
Growth. While accommodation of growth is an accepted reality. it should be so
directed as 10 preserve and enhance "iews, ridgelincs, significant vegetation,
habitats and environmelllally sensitive areas to the lI/axill/ulI/ extelll feasihle.
New developlI/ent shall be in harll/ony with adlacelll neil'hhorhood~ and
surrounding open space areas.
The proposed project would maintain approximately 80% of the property as open space outside
of building and secondary recreational envelopes The envelopes would avoid the sensitive
vegetation on the upper portions of the property and preserve the mature trees on the site. The
design of the project would not excessively impact the views of neighboring residences if
suggested modifications are implemented.
OSC-3
Outward Views. Property owners cherish their viell's. Nell' stl'1lctures and
associated landscaping should he situated or kept loll' to avoid il/lelference with
existing olltlooks.
The project building envelopes are designed such that view blockage internal to the subdivision
should not result.
OSC--I
View Corridors. Principal inhoard and outhoard vistas should he de.fined and
development should he located to protect such vistas to the II/aximum extent
feasihle.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
10/1112000
14
{:
~
The project has the potential to affect primary views from residences at 8 and II Turtle Rock
Court. Suggested modifications to building envelopes and height limits would eliminate this
potential. A series of visual representations of the project will be available for review at the
meeting. The visual backdrop of the ridgeline and middle and upper reaches of the property
remains intact as open space.
OSC-11
Grading and Tree Removal. The Town shall encourage location of stmctures in a
manner that minimizes tree removal and grading. 5{Jecijically, grading shall be
kept to a minimum and evelY effor/ made to retain the na/ura/ fealllres of the land
including ridges, rolling landforms, knolls, vegeta/ioll, Irees, rock outcropping.i,
and water courses. Where gradillg is required /0 s/ahilize areas of geologic
instability, the graded area shall be returned to a na/ural landform. Excessive
grading to stabilize soil is not in/he hest illleres/ of /he liMn and is inconsistent
with the TownDs desire /0 re/aillnatural landforms. Iherefore, excessive grading
is to be avoided 10 Ihe maximum eXlentfeasihle. .
The project would avoid removal of all significant trees on the site. Some smaller Bishop Pines
would be removed. Roadway grading will be fairly minimal given the topography of the site, and
no retaining walls will be required for the roadway.
OSC-15
Si/e Coverage. If) Ihe maximul11 ex/en/ feasihle, a gool '!l5IJ% of large
undeveloped parcels shollld he cOllsideredfor relelllioll ill permallelll open space
outside of any parcel or 10/ which has developmelll pOlell/ial. SlIch open space
shall be COllliguous and lillk up wilh adjacelll opell .'poce ,phenever practicahle.
Where a more desirahle sile plan would resul/, cOllsidera/iolll11ay be given to
larger individual 10/.1'. III/he laller case, /0 /he lIIaxillllllll ex/ellt feasihle, 50% of
the large undeveloped parcel should he retained ill open .\f)(/ce and the portions
of open space wi/hin a parcel or 10/ wi/h develoPlllell/ po/ell/ial should be
restrictedjrom development hy open .\]J(1ce eas'emelll or olher appropriate means.
This policy shall no/ require or preclllde clllslerillg o/lll pmtec/ion of open space
views shall be accomplished /hmllgh appropria/e hllilding and site coverage
restrictions.
Due to environmental constraints, a clustered approach is required for development of the
property. Approximately 80% of the property would remain as permanent open space, and the
open space will be contiguous to the large open space proposed for the Lower Trestle Glen
project.
ISSUES
The subject property is characterized by numerous environmental constraints (especially biological
constraints) that confine development to a relatively small portion of the site, resulting in a tightly
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
10/1112000
15
{.
~.
~
clustered development. The applicants have worked diligently to design a project that respects
the environmental constraints of the property.
Staff believes that the project, on balance, furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the
Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. While highly supportive of the proposed
project layout, Staff is of the opinion that certain modifications to the project would serve to
soften some of the negatives that can result from tightly clustered projects and increase
conformity with the Town's regulatory documents. These modifications would achieve a superior
project from that standpoint. These modifications are discussed below. Staff will have on display
at the meeting a colored version of these proposed modifications.
Building Envelopes and SecondarY Recreational Envelope
Story poles were erected for this project in August 2000 and have provided an invaluable
opportunity to assess potential visual, privacy, and view blockage impacts to the extent feasible
without actual house designs for each lot.
. Lot I. Primary view blockage could result for properties located at 8 and II Benton Court
due to the size and extent of the building envelope on Lot I. The building envelope should be
reduced significantly, the height limit lowered to 24 feet with a partial two-story design, and a
height limit of "15 feet from grade" established for the upper portion of the envelope. The
home would be placed in the area where the story pole was erected.
. Lot 2. The building envelope need not extend as far upslope as shown and the height of the
upper area envelope should be reduced to "15 feet above grade". Any home should be limited
to a "partial" two-story home.
. Lot 3. The building envelope should be scaled back to provide an increased setback of 60 feet
from the Trestle Glen Boulevard edge of pavement. A maximum height limit of24 feet
should be specified for the home, with a partial two-story design. The secondary recreational
envelope should have its "tail" bobbed off and have a minimum setback of 50 feet from the
edge of pavement of Trestle Glen Boulevard. As no buildings will be permitted within this
secondary recreational envelope, a smaller setback from Trestle Glen Boulevard is acceptable.
. Lot 4. This is the most constricted envelope. Any home should be limited to a partial two-
story design. The maximum height should not exceed 30 feel.
. As with the Lower Trestle Glen site, a naturalized landscape buffer should be required along
the Trestle Glen Boulevard frontage to soften the visual transition to the homes.
Pedestrian Trail Ali~mment
. Staff walked the full length of the proposed pedestrian trail with the applicant and agreed
upon a modified alignment that would move the trail slightly further trom homes on Benton
Court and provide an easier walk by following natural contours more closely.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
10/1112000
16
~.
~
House Sizes
. Proposed house sizes are up to a maximum of 4,800 square feet. These proposed sizes are
substantially larger than the surrounding 1950's-vintage homes, but are similar to large lot
homes approved by the Town of Tiburon in newer Precise Development Plans, such as The
Preserve off Turtle Rock Court. The Commission may wish to consider further reductions if
it does not believe that compatibility can be achieved through the Site Plan & Architectural
Review process.
Future Bicvcle Lane on Trestle Glen Boulevard.
. General Plan Circulation Element policy C-34 states that "a future bike lane may be
considered along Trestle Glen Boulevard". In order to accommodate this future possibility,
the Town will require a ten-foot wide roadway dedication along the entire frontage of the
property. According to the Town Engineer, a bike lane project would need to be thoroughly
investigated before determining which side of the street it might best be located. It is
premature at this time to require any actual installation of improvements along the frontage of
this property If the Planning Commission considers a thorough investigation ofa future
bicycle lane to be a high priority, it should so recommend to the Town Council. Such a plan
would also need to address the frontage below Benton Court and Warren Court, where a
widened right-of-way has already been secured. Frontage improvements on a much smaller
scale would be required to secure a safe entry for the pedestrian path that connected to
Shepherd Way and the Tiburon Ridge Trail.
A~encv!Department Comments
Letters have been received from the Town Engineer, Tiburon Fire Protection District, Richardson
Bay Sanitary District, and Marin Municipal Water District. These letters are attached as Exhibits
14 through 17. The comments indicate that the project design is feasible in t~rms of service
capacity and provision. These early comments from agencies are retlected in the Initial Study
document, and the issues raised therein resolved.
Miscellaneous file letters regarding this site or its vicinity are attached as Exhibits 18 through 21.
FUTURE ACTIONS REQUIRED
The Planning Commission's approval of this project would be in the form ofa recommendation to
the Town Council for project approval. The Town Council would then hold a separate public
hearing to consider the project and the environmental determination Should the Commission
vote to deny the project, the denial would be final unless appealed to the Town Council.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
10/1112000
17
~
~......
,
If the Precise Development Plan is approved by the Town Council, subsequent Town permits
would include a Tentative Subdivision Map, Parcel Map, Subdivision Improvement Drawings,
Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for each lot, and Building Permits for each residence.
RECOMMENDA nON
. This hearing will provide the best opportunity to hear from various technical experts who will
be present at the meeting, including drainage, traffic, soils, landscaping, and environmental
consultants. The Town Engineer will also be present.
. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on this item.
. Staff believes that this project, with some massaging, can be supported and recommended for
approval to the Town Council. Statfwill prepare a draft resolution for consideration by the
Planning Commission at its next meeting on this project. .
EXHIBITS
1. Application Form received 4/27/99.
2. Adopted Town policies regarding landslide repair, revised May 4, 2000.
3. Letter from Tiburon Ridge Association dated 12/28/99.
4. Letter from Town Engineer dated 8/21/00.
5. Letter from State Department ofFish & Game dated 9112/00.
6. Letter from Frank Mullberg, 66 Hacienda Drive. dated 9114/2000.
7. Letter from Michael & Sheila Lagios dated 9/26/00.
8. Letter from Anthony & Pamela Harrington dated 9/27/00.
9. Letter from Shaun & Janet Coughlin dated 9/28/00.
10. Letter from Randy Greenberg dated 10/2/00.
11. Letter from Barry & Rosalind Jekowsky dated 10/2/00.
12. Letter from Governor's Office of Planning & Research dated 10/2/00.
13. Letter from u.S. Fish & Wildlife Service dated 9/20/00.
14. Comments from Deputy Town Engineer dated 5/21/99.
15. Comments from Tiburon Fire Protection District dated 5/24/99.
16. Comments from Richardson Bay Sanitary District dated 1/25/2000
17. Comments from Marin Municipal Water District dated 1/25/2000.
18. Letter from Sharon Callahan, 31 Juno Road, received 3/3/97.
19. Letter from Sharon Callahan, 3 I Juno Road dated 8112/97.
20. Letter from Randy Greenberg, 45 Norman day, dated 6/21/99.
21. Letter from Dr. Michael Lagios, II Benton Court, dated 4/20/2000.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Slaff Report
10/1112000
18
ATTACHMENTS
A. Full size drawings (4 sheets) prepared by Lawrence P. Doyle dated 4/l9/99.
B. Reduced scale (II" X 17") drawings of the above (for field use).
C. Additional copy ofInitial Study & Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
D. Story Pole and Building Envelope Staking Plan (11" X IT) for field use.
\'''l.:OIl']9I)O]rc r~port.doc
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
10/1112000
-
~,,!"
~
19
TOWN OF TIBURON 1M:r:.::";~J\;,;:rJ
LAND '"""EVELOPMENT APPLI'-~TION Tm'h\JoFTIJU2,JN .
TYPE OF APPLICATION
o Conditional Use Permit
.Ii( Precise Development Plan
o Conceptual Master Plan
o Rezoning/Prezoning
o Zoning Text Amendment
o General Plan Amendment
o Design Review IMajor!
o Design Review IMinor)
o Variance
o Sign Permit
o Tree Permit
o Underground Waiver
APR 2 I 1999
~.
~
C@~'r:;~":-"TC-
o Tentative Sull.divj~!' :'JliIa :,,~;~. 'f"'
I;.UIVIM iIll fY r::.vr;, OF! 1-'''-
o Final Subdivision Map - '-.. " '::j, I
o Parcel Map
o Lot Line Adjustment
o Certificate of Compliance
o Other
APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION
SITE ADDRESS:
PARCEL NUMBER:
~ bW1/ 'BoVLQ/A?(,?
039 -o~ t - eo 4B~
PROPERTY SIZE: S'l "Ii'A 3 i ~,&:.
ZONING: gPll c.~
* OWNER OF PROPERTY: ~t-T......rc-~. . +- ..J V
MAILING ADDRESS: ~60 - C. D...~ ~~ \ \ '"
CITY /ST ATE/ZIP: ~~ ~ CA. 'I Lj <t (., <;.-
PHONE NUMBER: Lj, - / '1 '-! 0 - -~ FAX
,
*' APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner) 2--. LJ. "-.l~
MAILING ADDRESS: '? 1"- s............. L..-.... 9
CITY/STATE/ZIP: ~ ~A "1'-/"1,-/'1
PHONE NUMBER: 1./1';-/7\9';5-0'1'2. FAX i.t15'/~'1'6-CJ9G'-)
. .
ARCHITECTIDESIGNE~NGINEER? ~2"~~.... e ~
MAILING ADDRESS: ~ cr"- i _ __
CITY/STATE/ZIP: ~f~) ~ LA '1,-/c,Lj7....
PHONE NUMBER: l..f -. ~ ~, 1.rr:" FAX <Ii"> I -sRS- 04/ J...
Please indicate with all asterisk (*) persolls to whom correspondence should be sent.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet ir needed):
S ", Mt..-.. ~ -r"'""" u. ,Ij ,._:i:-_ ,L-t.1 ~). II 1'1 'l"t .
!, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby makt: application for
approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions of the Town
Ordinances, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
I understand that the requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town
grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be
responsible for defending against this challenge. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense at the.
request of the Town and also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs. claims or
liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limite.lion I
frf_'!TI the third party ('h:l!!~f!g~. ~.)l~!IBIT 1'10.---'-
Sig;1ature:~. ( ,~,. I~ : . ^ i 'A ~
11
", ~HA'l'" ,', < ..,
.
Date: .~/ J...L., /iJ
~
~-~.~...;
~~ ~~, -
(-^ .~
~'-''''-
TOWN OF TIBURON
~
t50S nBURON BOULEVARD. DBCRON . CALrFOR."'lIA 94910 . (41.:5) 38).9200
FAX (41.5) S8J.!763
~
OFFlC5 OF THE TOWN ENGINEER
lr-iog L. Schw:uu
MEMO
Ri:C=n!/'=.'i""I
7___ '-_I '_.U
Februarv 22. 2000
("RevIsed May 4, 2~
MAY 1 0 2000
TO:
Scott Anderson, Planning Director
P~.~~';;!:' :,-;- ::: ',="';" ,\~ ~"i i
Tr, , .' '"
FROM:
Robert Kleinert
Ann Danforth
D5Jl1 Bloomquist
~an Watrous
Irving L. Schwartz, Town Engineer 0
- - / /"-'
Repair of Landslides
cc:
SUBJECT:
,. .,._ .'_._".' _ ., .'.':.J ";'''~'_' ;.'" ,....._ ,."_J. ....r.r,"'..T.I."I'-' ,,,,,,,.r',, .I'~I""''''''I'.r'_'"I.rI_'__J"_."..."_-,,,-*,,,_'.''J'.r-.;...''''''R-"''' ..-.
For many years the TOV;TI of Tiburon, through its TO\\TI Engineer, Stanley Bala. had a policy
regarding the repair of landslides which were made as requirements of development of private
proper.;; within the Town. Therefore. for both consistency and clarity, the following information
regarding the repair of landslides will be recommended by me as conditions of approval for
development of private property.
I. All landslides within the limits of the lot lines of a lot proposed to be developed excluding areas
outside of designated building envelopes shall be fully repaired or eliminated.
2. All landslides within the limits of any subdivision which may impact lots or public
improvements either inside or outside of the subdivision shall be fully repaired or eliminated.
3. All active landslides within the limits of any subdivision, but outside of the actual lots shall be
fully repaired or eliminated.
4. All potential or inactive landslides located within the limits of a subdivision, but outside of
proposed lots, which do not represent a serious threat to downhill property either within the
subdivision or outside of the subdivision, shall be reasonably improved or mitigated.
All of the above is subject to the professional judgment of the Project Geotechnical Engineer, as well
as the Town Engineer and the Town's Geotechnical Consultant.
CORROS?OJOB
EXHIBITNO.~
-
~
-.
,-;
c
~"!'"-'
TIBURON RIDGE ASSOCIATION
146 HACIENDA DRIVE
TIBURON, CALIFORNIA
R...., C,...o'.lI'-
- ',,,-.-. D
~ -)L;L:'~'
~
DEe 2 9 1999
PLAN,\~ING J:~~.RTMEf'Jf
TGv'.';,j OF li3URON
December 28, 1999
Mr. Scott Anderson
Planning Director, Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, California 94920
Re: Tiburon Court Precise Development Plan
Dear Scott:
Here are my comments regarding this plan, though I must say that I have not had the
opportunity to discuss this proposal with any other members of the Association. The
plan does, however, have an impact on the Association members since this is a main
road of travel to and from their homes.
First, traffic. In spite of opinions of traffic engineers, etc., Trestle Glen has a potential of
being dangerous. I have been' using this road for thirty-five years and feel qualified to
speak to its shortcomings. Cars travel at a higher rate of speed than the limit. It is
narrow. Bicycles are used frequently as a means of travel without a proper bike lane.
Pedestrians are commonly seen. There are other access streets entering Trestle Glen.
There is no shoulder in the northeastern direction. All these factors need to be
considered when designing the new development's access to Trestle Glen. In the
document sent to me, I do not see enough detail regarding sight lines, stop signs,
additions of bike lanes, etc. Also, increased traffic will occur from further development
on Paradise Drive. Please make sure that safety and comfort of use by citizens is
thoroughly considered before issuing a permit for the precise plan.
Second, envelopes. The height allowances are too high. Lot 1 has areas of 40%
slope, areas which the General Plan directs be avoided whenever possible. These
homes should be nestled into the hills so that they make a proper transition from their
adjoining neighborhood on Benton Court. Their appearances from Trestle Glen at the
proposed heights would be out of character with the surrounding neighborhoods and
a detriment to the beauty of the surrounding hillsides. Please consider lower height
limits for the envelopes.
EX-BIBIT NO. 3
...-/. ~/
-. '",
'.:- " ,/,-
" '. 4'
. .l/
l
:;:;,
r
.
:~
,
Mr. Scott Anderson, Tiburon Court
page two
December 28, 1999
I hope my comments will be utilized, and I appreciate the opportunity you have given
me to express my opinions.
~"Y2~'$~
Mary;~~rt .
presl~nrewe
-
--
(
r
TOWN OF TIBURON
~
~,,!,",
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 883.9200
FAX (415) 883-2763
~
OFFICE OF THE TOWN ENGINEER
Irving L. Schwanz
MEMO
RIl""'",,....=~',i"::r'"':
ll"""- " ,,',. ,,'
l._'~.._." ............
August 21, 2000
AUG 2 2 2000
SUBJECT:
Scott Anderson, Planning Director
Irving Schwartz, Town Engine;.9 ~
Tiburon Court Project (Trestle Glen)
Drainage Analysis
Our File No. 6940-P3-9903
PLANN!(\G G:.::.:',-.;- . :.';::':.: i
TOVVN OF -IT~'~.' 7"".\;
TO:
FROM:
J .;,.".,J...,.J'".-'-A:'....'.I/J.."''''''' "''''''J,,'.:J,.J,'''''''''/I'''''''?#/_-';'o'''#~.I'~'''', "';II """,_".",,,,,,/,,,,_,, ."',#/.I.,.,,,,....?,I,,,.,',...,.,.,I:.'"','"",..,,,'.I:J'.....,..r .,........',1. ,..,.;.:.......,.. ."', ~ .
As requested I have reviewed the hydrology section of the Tiburon Court Draft Initial Study and
Negative Declaration especially as related to sections 3, 4 and 9. I have the following comments.
First in regard to Mitigation H.1(a), I am concerned about the required Storm Water Pollution
Protection Program (SWPPP). It is my understanding that a SWPPP as indicated in the text for this
mitigation measure is not required for this project as a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System stormwater permit is not required. It is my understanding that a SWPPP is a very specific
document required when a NPDES permit is required. I suggest that a plan be required to address
the appropriate issues that would be included in a SWPPP if it were required but that it be retiled and
appropriately redefined so as not to be confused with a SWPPP.
In regard to items 3 and 4, I concur with Clearwater Hydrology that the bypass storm water system
should be eilimited and storm water should follow its current pattern outletting through the existing
culvert under Juno Road. When considering the obligation of the developer as required by the
Tiburon Municipal Code, Chapter 14 A, it would appear both more cost effective to the developer
and more beneficial to the Town as well as the surrounding neighbors to improve the existing
drainage system rather than constructing a new drainage system. Therefore I concur that the
Mitigation Measure should be to upgrade the Juno Road culvert and its inlet, as described in
Mitigation Measure H.4. However I suggest that the last paragraph be rewritten to indicate that in
lieu of paying drainage fees as required by Chapter 14 A of the Tiburon Municipal Code that the
developer be required to upgrade the Juno Road culvert, the culvert's inlet and any required
improvements to the existing channel between the outlet of the existing box culvert under Trestle
Glen Boulevard and the inlet to the Juno Road culvert.
EXHIRIT NO.~
/
/
,*
-:-_~
j
c--
;//';'
~.
,
In regard to item number 9, Mitigation Measure H.9, requires a very specific design, which the
design engineer is required to be responsible for even though it was specifically required by
Clearwater Hydrology, who is taking no responsibility for the design.
I suggest that this section be reworded in the context of providing some general criteria to be
incorporated into the design of this channel rather than providing specific design requirements.
If you have any questions I would be pleased to sit down with you and or representatives from
Clearwater Hydrology as well as the Project Civil Engineer to discuss these issues further ifit would
be helpful.
CORROSPOJOB
6940. tib.anderson821. memo.doc
St~~.~_~~ Cal!f~~r1i_a ,-, !.he ~~~~~~~;):~,ge.~~y..
DEPARTMENT OFFISH AND GAME
http://www.dfg.ca.gov
POST OFFICE BOX 47
YOUN1VlLLE, CALIFORNIA 94599
(707) 944-5500
GRAY DAVIS, Governor .<"
~..,.,
.
~
September 12, 2000
Mr. Scott Anderson
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, California 94920
(jLCA r
C( 01'1 gJ
t
STATE CLEPR!r~CHOU~
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Tiburon Court Residential Project
Trestle Glen Boulevard andJ~no Road
Tiburon, "Marin county
SCH# 2000082144
Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the
subj ect proj ect. We have no specific.'comments regarding the
project or the environmental document. - However, if the project
will potentially affect a stream or watercourse, this will
require notification to the Department before any work is done.
The .Department has direct jurisdiction under Fish and Game
Code sections 1601-03 in regard to any proposed activities that
would divert or obstruct the natural flow or change the bed,
channel, or bank of any stream: We . recommend early- consultation
since modification of the proposed project may be required to
avoid impacts to fish and wildlife resources. To avoid delays,
formal notification under Fish and Game Code Section 1603 should
be made after all otherpeimits and certifications have been
obtained. Work cannot be initiated until a streambed alteration
agreement is executed.
A recent court order requires the Department, prior to
entering into a 1603 agreement, to conduct an environmental
review.pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Therefore, because of the additional process required
under CEQA which includes minimum document circulation periods,
we are no longer restricted to issuing agreements within 30 days.
We will still attempt to issue 1603s as soon as possible but, at
this time, we are not certain how long it will take to process
1603 applications.
. T<~XJ:-IIBIT NO.
s
(~I . ,..,.
__,D/1~t.:"),~,,,,,,'1''''< L'.(~;'..,~.>.'r:"'I-1,,-:_:....-j
( I."': .il. t.
~";''\.''.,~1 -....'.! .
'\A .~/
;~.;-.}c
~......
-
Mr. Scott Anderson
September 12, 2000
Page Two
The necessary notification forms may be obtained by
contacting the Department at (707) 944-5520. Questions
concerning our comments should be directed to Fred Botti,
Associate Wildlife Biologist, at (707) 944-5534; or Carl Wilcox,
Habitat Conservation Manager, at (707) 944-5525.
'M~#J
Robert W. Floerke
Regional Manager
Central Coast Region
cc: State Clearinghouse
.:.' /. '.
..' I. ~ ...
.. -
l: ~ :: rJ'
.,'. ,,.k.:t.
I. . I...;:,
~ '~'~I _:',.,-
." ..
r~:,
FRANK I. MULBERG
ttAnderson
i.iiining Director
'Town ofTiburon
.r 1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
ATTORNEY AT ~w
e~s RECWOOD HIGHWAY. SUITE 300
Mlu.. VAL..LEY. CAUFORNlA 904961
PHONE(.15)388~5
FAX (A-IS) 388-esZ9
Copy by Facsimile: 435-243S'
~
~~.
,.
?;: "~ ~--./;f.. S~
SEP 1 8 2000
RE:
Two Cherry Property Developments:
(a) Tiburon Court residential Project - 10111/2000 hearing
(b) Lower Trestle Glen Project (Tiburon Ranch) - 9/27/2000
:i
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I reside at 66 Hacienda Drive, Tiburon, CA 94920. On behalf of myself and my neighbors we
have concern about the aforementioned projects that the Town of Tiburon is considering adoption
of Mitigated Negative Declarations.
Aside from construction, traffic congestion, noise, dust, environmental disruption to plant and
animal life on the hill, we are extremely concerned about soil stability of the entire hillside This
concern is not limited to actual build out of development improvements and cuts into the hillside
but pertains to surface water runoff. diversions of water and drainage issues. both present and
future.
The two present development sites located on hillside land are what, in the past, have been
referred to as land having "N"EGA TlVE VALUE" due to soil subsidization issues. Thus, the
compelling concern from community members who are directly and indirectly affected by these
projects.
Not only must there be assurances and protection for the land itself, but equally important are the
financial protections and measures instituted for the land of uphill property owners, who in the
future, may suffer damages or liability to their respective properties as a result of the subject
developments.
For example, covenants and servitudes running with the land could be structured for the benefit of
uphill land owners should the projects not ultimately provide the safeguards promised.
I look forward to review of the reports related to the projects.
ve~ yoors,
F~(Mu rg
FM:mg
EXHIBIT NO.-'-
.
__.~u_,__'_"_ --
.
.
~
~.
,
11 Benton Court
Tiburon, California 94920
September 18, 2000
s...:~': C:~~-.. ,,..... . -- "--'?-
SEP 2 6 2000
Scott Anderson, Planning Director
Planning Department
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, California 94920
'." :"~I.".' -~ . '...~ ,'_::::H
-I :; . ; ;,...~;: \.':'i
Re: Initial Study, Tiburon Court Residential Project (upper Chenry property).
Dear Mr. Anderson:
We have reviewed the initial site and building envelope plans for the Tiburon
Court Project and have several concerns.
The height limit and building envelope location for Lot #1 will have a major
impact on our sight line and view from our back deck and most likely our back
bedroom. We would therefore request that both the primary and secondary
building envelopes on this lot be moved to the south as much as possible, i.e.
shave the northern edge of this envelope. Since this is the largest proposed
building envelope of the four lots, this will merely bring this building envelope in
line with the remaining three lots.
We would further request that the proposed secondary building envelope on this
lot #1 be moved by 10 feet to the west (i.e. down the grade) and that the height
of 18 feet be reduced to 12 feet.
We feel that these minor revisions at this point in this development will alleviate
any conflicts which might arise later in the development process. We would very
much appreciate your support in achieving these changes.
Sincerely,
. ~f:~~~
Mithael D. Lagios, . .
~~lj
Sheila C. Lagios
r,:XHIBIT NO.~
.
<-
~mL[~ @@[P)W ~
~
September 27, 2000
'-"'-~~'1'::o""""D
H :::.\..,:-::, 'i .,:;
To: Tiburon Planning Commission
SEP 2 8 2000
From: Anthony and Pamela Harrington
PLA::;:~NG J~":":'j;:-;',;c;\jT
Tm~iN ',y: i idU~,m~
Re: Precise Development Plan for Tiburon Court
Dear Planning Commission:
As current residents of 8 Benton Court. we are writing to express our concerns regarding the proposed
Precise Development Plan (Site Plan) for Tiburon Court. Specifically, we are worried that the proposed
layout for Lot I (and the resulting structure to be built) will negatively impact the view, sight line and
privacy (hence, property value) of our home on Benton Court. (Based on where the story posts are
currently placed, it appears the proposed plan for Lots 2-4 will not imp.dour home). To ensure that the
integrity of our property is maintained, we request that:
I. Primary and secondary building envelopes be reduced for LotI. Specifically, we want the building
envelopes nearest our property moved further away from Benton Court and moved further down the
hill (closer to Trestle Glen and the proposed new road (see attached redrawn lines)).
2. Height limits be reduced for both the primary envelope (from 30 feet to 25 feet) and secondary
envelope (from 18 to 15 feet) on LotI.
3. All calculations for height be measured from Natural Grade. not finished grade (as shown on the site
plan),
4, Reasonable limitations (8 feet) be placed on the height of all fences built along the property envelope
of Lot I.
As current homeowners in Tiburon. we hope that you will implement our recommendations and protect our
property interests.
Thank you for your time!
Sincerely.
Anthony and Pamela Harrington
'-'Xl-EBIT NO.~
f~."",,,~
",e::-
...
- ,~\=::-~. ~/ '''"
'.", ~ ~ .~
.~
\ o.
,1,
,.
.....
-----'---"'-.'
\~~:~39-~~I-l
~ _::-::::-::--,::-....
..- -::_-~
- ~--;
-----......~ ---'-,.
--:.."
---
=
~
-, -:-
...
'3 ?
. ..
~ ~~
.0
-OIl_IJ
,.-".,'(
, ;.~~'tl
'"..)
.....,--' ---~.
'"~o' h"~~.
~i.. f:.. 'l/~' \_,.:-;y--:s:
......-fIJi:" ... .. .
C'" .' ....~ '.
( :_l'1:n\
"....._100 "
GRAPHIC SCALE
~----~
~~p ~~ UU ~1~~~c
~n~.~ I' linl.L
""1:::J-~C::::~-,JC_{
~ --
,-. -
-
-
~
:~..
...
9128/l1)
From:
Shaun and Jonet Coughlin
2 Turtle Rock Ct.
Tiburon, CA 94920
1 lr.~
L~">
t}c~'
.'f~
To:
Scott Anderson
Planning DirectC'r
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: 10/11/00 Public Hearing on Tiburon Court Residential Project
We wish to submit the following for consideration in the planning process to mitigate
possible negative impact of the proposed development on our property.
We note that the building envelope for lot Itl is 35,274 sq. ft., nearly twice the size of the
next largest (lot #2 @18,714 sq. ft.) and vastly larger than tne 3000 sq. ft footprint
proposed for the house. The impact of the house upon our property and upon Trestle
Glenn will depend upon where it is located on the lot. We ask that the building envelope
be adjusted to assure that the house will be set back from Trestle Glen and sited within
150 feet of the center of the proposed turnaround circle. The current iocation of the story
pole would comply with such constraints. In essence, we are asking for assurance that
what we see now is what we will get and that future structures that might impact us will
not become an issue.
Any decrease in the grade of the hillside in Lot It I within 150 ft. of Trestle Glen could
substantially increase L'1e impact of the proposed structure on our property. To our
interpretation, the site plan shows no such reduction in the grade cf the hillside within
200 ft. of the entrance to Turtle Rock Cl. We request that this be adhered to in the final
plan. Further, a slight reduction in the absolute elevation of the top of the proposed
strUcture, either by reducing grade at the foundation or decreasing the allowed height of
the proposed structure above grade, would decrease the impact OIl our property and
Trestle Glen.
We ask that trees be planted and maintained at the top of the hillside along Trestle Glen
to screen the development. We remind the planning commission that we were required to
set a 6 ft. fence along Trestle Glen helow grade and to screen it with plantings. We were
also required to deposit funds with the town until satisfactory screening was in place.
Lastly, we ask that Blackie's Pasture or anotherlarge site be used as the staging area for
construction. The entrance to Turtle Rock has sometimes been used for this purpose.
We've had damage to our curb and irrigation system from large trUcks turning around.
More importantly, parked trucks narrow Turtle Rock to the point where two-way traffic is
dangerous.
Q~.f"'~"''''_''~'''
:I .t '_,..J.._ ,.~ . '_ ~.." ~
SEP 2 9 2000
F'.,'.'''''''," "-''',8"Q,
EK..1jJBIT::MC:=L
.
~
,
TO: Scott Anderson
FM:
Randy Greenberg
_ ~~.,:r.:~D
~"_'i "r'",'~'"..:;.-:.'
J ~::.-.. ~-.>' ,:....,' -:[
DATE:
October 2, 2000
eCI 4 2000
RE:
Tiburon Court development
FL':~::i~,~':,;(\~: ~:T~~G~~\~:{i
I have reviewed the Initial Study ("IS") for the Tiburon Court development and the Town
files on the project. Below are questions and comments that arose out of my review.
Ouestions about the oroiect
1. House size. Do house sizes of 4,800 sf include garages, or is there an additional 750
feet?
2. Grading. How many cu. ft. of earth need to be moved for slide repair and
infrastructure development? What are the grading requirement .estimates for individual
lots? Is any earth to be exported? If yes, how much? .
3. Slide repair. IS, Ex.8, SE-8. Says some of the unstable area is adjacent to Trestle
Glen. Will repairs extend into the roadway, or stop just short of it? What are the potential
impacts to Trestle Glen if repairs stop short of it?
4. Mapping. IS, p.38. Mitigation F.I (d) says site plan shall be revised to show all unstable
or potentially unstable areas. The 8/2/99 report from Jensen-Van Lienden Associates
reviewing the Grading & Drainage Plan is missing Figure I, which supposedly shows some of
these areas. The resource map on which some of these areas are marked has no legend,
making it difficult to understand what the noted areas represent. This material needs to be
provided.
5. Freshwater seeps. IS. p. 28, #3. Says areas of freshwater seep are more widespread
than indicated. Where are these located? Which, if any, will be disturbed by the project?
6. Fencing. IS, Mitigation D.4 Restrict fencing to building envelopes, if permitted at
all, to reduce impacts on wetlands. Where would project fencing have the potential to
create such impacts?
7. Trestle Glen culvert. What is the cumulative additional runoff from both Trestle Glen
properties? What are the impacts on the actual capacity of the culvert along Trestle Glen?
8. Mail delivery. Is mail delivery at street entry or at homes? If at entry, what is the
plan? What are the impacts?
Comments
Lot 1. Lot 1 has an overly large building envelope, over 4 times larger than that of lot 4
and at least twice as big as those of lots 2 and 3. In addition, letters from Benton Court
and Turtle Rock neighbors find that the Lot 1 story pole-impacts their views. (OSC-3)
Lot 2. The building envelope on this lot should be moved. It appears to be less than 35'
from the center of the stream. By all standards, this is far too close. In her 4/24/00 letter,
Diane Renshaw, Consulting Ecologist says: "The [stream] banks are largely active and
unstable, characterized by erosion and slumping and stabilized in only a few places with
roots. There are a few places where undercut banks have developed." In her 2/9/99 (p.5)
Tiburon Court comments
10/2/00
Page 1 of5 .0
EX-BIBIT NO.~
~
~~.
,
letter she writes, the "Environmental Quality Element of the Marin County Plan provides
for a 50' setback from the tops of banks on watercourses that support riparian vegetation
for 100' or more and CA Dept. ofFish & Game typically recommends a similar setback
when reviewing a project under CEQA The intent behind setback buffers is to protect
vegetation and wildlife values, maintain or improve. existing hydrological conditions and
prevent sedimentation." IS, p. 25, 3nl para: After looking at this specific project, the
USFWS recommends that building within 300' of the stream be avoided.
This stream should be protected to the greatest extent possible. Certainly, it should at least
respect standard setback requirements, which this plan does not. Building envelopes should
be placed a mininuun of 50' from the top of stream banks (not the stream center). (OSC-12,
LU-3)
Lot 3. The whole configuration of Lot 3 is extremely awkward. The placement of a
home right up against Trestle Glen will have significant visual impacts. This lot should be
eliminated or reworked. (OSC-2)
Most of the acreage is more logically associated with Lot 4. The effort to give acreage to
each lot to raise its value is understandable, but this long frontage for one home along
Trestle Glen is really undesirable. The land closest to Trestle Glen has the least value and
a single homeowner will own slope erosion problems for this long frontage. The house
for this lot will be right up against the Trestle Glen. Since its view orientation is in the
direction of this thoroughfare, landscaping will never hide it. It will be the single biggest
contributor to changing the character of this area. It will look very out of place.
Lot 3 - Recreational envelope. Based on the impacts, the mitigations offered, and the
property owner's agreement to eliminate the recreational envelopes on Lots 2 and 4
(6/23/00 letter), I am assuming these will be removed from the plan. The recreational
envelope on Lot 3 seems to still be in play, so my comments are directed to the existence,
and use of, this envelope.
The recreational envelope for Lot 3 should be eliminated. If this envelope is retained, the
plan should limit recreational development to that which will not have negative visual
impacts or require excessive grading, high retaining walls, etc.
Lot 3' s recreational envelope is closer to lot 4' s building envelope than to its own, making
it inappropriate. This secondary envelope is situated directly along, and only slightly
above, Trestle Glen. Pictures in real estate magazines show it is being marketed as an
area for a tennis court. Tennis courts require high fences. The visual impacts of such a
fence along Trestle Glen is unacceptable, and I don't think prospective buyers of Lot 4 are
going to like it either. Grading, drainage and retaining wall work required for a tennis
. court here are also likely to create negative impacts. Safety impacts are an issue: assess
potential consequences of an errant tennis ball hitting a bike, its rider, the front window of
a car. (The 8/2/99 report from Jensen-Van Lienden Associates reviewing the Grading &
Drainage Plan suggests taking soil removed for riprap installation and placing it on Lot 3
near Trestle Glen, if it is not exported from the site. This makes the tennis court scenario
more likely.) Mitigation D.4 restricts fences outside of building envelopes to 4' in height.
If accepted, this would eliminate tennis courts or pools in lot 3's recreational envelope,
greatly diminishing its usefulness. If this envelope were developed with a IS' structure,
. visual impacts would be major.
Tiburon Court comments
10/2/00
Page 2 of5
A
:~-.
,
I note references to keeping horses on the property. While it would be lovely to see these
graceful animals on the hillside, the reality is that they would be kept in small paddocks
that would quickly lose all vegetation cover, increasing chances for erosion. In addition,
horses on such a site must be transported. This means horse trailers and trucks to pull
them, a serious impact in a subdivision that is already deficient in parking opportunities.
Keeping horses on-site should be explicitly prohibited.
Lot 4. Described as 35' in height, it exceeds the maximum height allowed. If this unit
requires excessive height to work, it should be eliminated. The comments on building
setbacks from the top of stream banks for Lot 2 applies to the building envelope for this
lot as well. (OSC-I2)
Areas of Instability/GradingIW etIands:
1. Consistency with LU-3, LU-I? IS, Ex. 8. Property is loaded with slides, debris flows,
areas of potential lurching, stream, wetlands. Debris flow repair requires cooperation of
offsite neighbors. Stream bank setbacks are inadequate for protection. Do the
environmental constraints of the property justify the maximum density allowed?
2. IS, Mil. D.3 says that where complete avoidance of the stream channel and areas of
freshwater seep habitat is not possible, a plan shall be developed for replacement of lost
wetlands. It is unclear if the mitigation means replacement onsite (with uncertain success)
or at another location. Reduction of onsite wetlands degrades the habitat value of the
project site and surrounding areas. It reduces habitat and feeding opportunities for birds,
insects and the small mammals that help comprise the local ecosystem, and limits the
opportunity for native plant growth. Each small reduction is cumulative and the end result
is a significant negative impact on the local area. Assess the actual reduction in wetland
area after mitigations are in place. If these remain in any way meaningful, development
which causes these impacts should be eliminated. (OSC-B, OSC-12)
Safety impacts: Sight lines at entry. Deficient for westbound traffic. To minimize
hazards, ideally there would be one entry point for both the upper and lower Trestle Glen
properties, even though such access would require bridging the stream.
Parking: Mil. 0.6. Even with the mitigation offered - parking for 5 onsite vehicles and
shuttle parking for special events - parking is clearly a problem and should be looked at
carefully in the final project design.
Visual Impacts:
1. Consistency with adjacent neighborhood. Mitigation A.3 is offered to reduce
substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings created by the project. It excludes the allowable small structures in the
secondary recreational envelopes or eliminates the envelopes completely. While this is a
step in the right direction, possible construction in these envelopes has extremely minor
impacts compared to what will happen in the primary building envelopes. Mitigations
need to be offered to reduce the impacts of building in the primary envelopes.
Eliminating very small structures does not reduce significant impacts effectively. (OCS-2,
OSC-6)
Tiburon Court comments
I 0/2/00
Page 3 of5
~
:..~
,
IS, Exhibit 8, OSC-A & OSC -2. Mitigations, in addition to those proposed, are necessary
for this development to be in harmony with the sense of place that exists along Trestle
Glen, and to maximize the sense of an open natural landform along this major connector
roadway. Proposed houses will be bigger and more visible than anything that can be seen
along with them in the area. This development will change the character of the existing
area. The change should be minimized by incorporating mitigations that reduce house
size and height, govern colors, fence design (if any allowed), and regulate what couId go
in recreational envelopes, if allowed. Because landscaping will be kept low to preserve
outward views (OSC-3) these mitigations are clearly necessary. Design of homes for this
project should be coordinated with the lower Trestle Glen project. Proposing that project
homes will be the same type as along Turtle Rock, a development situated on a fairly flat
roadway with sidewalks, not on a major thoroughfare, is not appropriate.
2. Visual Analysis Study, 12/14/98. This addresses a project that appears to be
somewhat different than what is currently proposed. It needs to be done from the most
affected neighborhood - Belveron. It should show the areas of riprap and buttressed
terraces. Any visible retaining walls should be shown. The view from Trestle Glen
should also be shown.
3. Ridgelines & Open Space. IS, p.12, 2nd and 3'd para. Says because houses will not
break the ridgeline and upper slopes will remain visible, project will not have a
"substantial aesthetic effect." First, from some viewpoints the proposed houses do break
the ridgeline and the upper slopes will be largely blocked (LU-12). Second, the only
measure of aesthetic impact addressed here appears to be blocking of open space and
ridgelines. The houses themselves are a negative aesthetic impact on this natural hillside.
Mitigations to regulate the size, height and colors of homes, fence heights and design are
necessary to reduce visual impacts to an insignificant level. These should be offered as
mitigations. (OSC-2)
4. Lighting. IS, p.14, #4. Suggests that lighting impacts for 4 residential units will be
similar to that in other neighborhoods. The fact is that this project is not a neighborhood -
but a development upslope a major thoroughfare. At night, the house designs offered with
the project plans, with massive glass expanses, will create inordinate glare and
significantly change the ambience of the area. In addition, there is a need to be very
sensitive about the installation of downlighting associated with houses and landscaping
because of the project location above, and very close to, Trestle Glen and the Belveron
neighborhood.
5. Riprap. IS, p.12, bottom para. IS says riprap is proposed to be installed in 3 locations
along the primary drainage and in one along Trestle Glen, and that the visual impacts
"would not represent a substantial aesthetic impact. More information is needed to assess
this impact - exact location, height and length of each installation, riprap material, ability
to plant it, etc. This could be a real eyesore in hiding.
6. Buttressed terraces. IS, p.39, 2nd para. Says slides 2, 3 and 4 repairs may have a
finished grade designed as a series of buttressed terraces. How might these be buttressed?
Where will they be located, what will be the heights of the terraces, what are the potential
visual impacts?
Tiburon Court comments
10/2/00
Page 4 of 5
~
~.
,
7. Storm drain conduits. IS, p.39, Mit. F.2. Erosion control measures may include large
storm drain conduits, riprap in the channel, drop structures, etc. Where might these be
located? What are the visual impacts?
8. Fencing. IS, p. 29. Fencing along building envelopes on this hillside project will be
highly visible, chopping up the site into highly visible, boxlike landscaped areas amid
natural vegetation. One of the envelopes has a long frontage along Trestle Glen. If
fences are allowed, their height and design should be specified and transitional
landscaping to reduce the fences visual impacts should be required.
Relevant General Plan Policies:
LU-3. The Town shall closely consider the environmental constraints of land through the
development review process in determining the location, type and density of development
LU-12. ... Special emphasis shall be placed on keeping ridgelines open and unobstructed to
the maximum extent feasible.
LU-i6. The Town shall strive to preserve to the greatest extent feasible wildlife habitat in the
open ridges, shoreline, marshes, mudflats, and other biologically sensitive areas.
LU-17. ... densities... are maximums which may not be achieved if other standards of the
General Plan pertaining to environmental, physical or offsite constraints such as steep slopes,
soil instability ... require lower densities.
OSe-B. To provide a flexible guide for landowners to submit proposals for development which
will preserve as much open space as possible and result in protection or enhancement to the
maximum extent feasible of ... wetland~, significant ridgelines, riparian corridors, steep
slopes, ... and animal habitat area, ... and areas of visual importance.
OSe-D. To discourage to the maximum extent feasible development of areas subject to hazards,
including. but not limited to, geotechnical problems. unstabie slopes and flood-prone areas.
OSe-2. [Growth] should be so directed as to preserve and enhance views, ridgelines, no
habitats and environmentally sensitive areas to the maximum extent feasible. New development
shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and surrounding open space areas.
OSe-3. Outward Views. Property owners cherish their views. New structures and associated
landscaping should be so situated or kept low to avoid interference with existing outlooks.
OSC4. View Corridors. Principal inboard and outboard vistas should be defined and
development should be located to protect such vistas to the maximum extent feasible.
OSe-5. Ridglines. ...To the maximum extent feasible, all new development shall be located
well below the ridgelines. ...
OSC-6. Quality. ... massive structures and site coverage that overwhelm the surrounding area
shall be avoided.
OSe-ii. ... Excessive grading to stabilize soil is not in the best interest of the Town and is
inconsistent with the Town's desire to retain natural land forms. Therefore, excessive grading
is to be avoided to the maximum extent feasible.
OSe-12. Riparian Corridors. The Town shall require open space buffers along riparian
corridors to minimize disturbance of natural vegetation and maintain aesthetic, scenic and
environmental attributes of the corridor. ...
Tiburon Court comments
10/2/00
Page 5 of5
Oct 04 00 01:02F
Jeko""sk~
14151 435-8089
F.e
~
~....
BARRY !EKOWSKY
,
REC::~'\/c.D
October 2, 2000
OCT
4 2000
Scott Anderson
Planning Director
Tiburon Planning Commission
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
pi .,,; ::l\>~G :.:::-,".,i; q/.,~H
~ 10\';~1 Ci '\\t;Jfl;iJ!'l
Re: 10/11/00 Public Hearin" on Tiburon Court Residential Proiecr
Dear Mr. Anderson:
We wish to submir rhe followinR for consideration in the planning process to mitigate possible :Iegarive
impact of the proposed developmem on our property.
We :late that the building envelope for 1ot#l is 35,274 sq. ft., nearly twice t.l,e size of the next largest
\1.ot#2 @ 18,714 sq. ft.) and V:l.Stly larger than the 3,000 sq. ft. footprint proposed for 6e house. The
:mpact of the house upon our property and upon Trestle Glenn wit; depend upon where it is located an
the lor. We ask that the building envelope be adjusted to assure that the house will be ser back from
Trestle Glen and sired within 150 feet of the center of the proposed Nrnarou.'ld cirde. The c"""tent
locaton of the story pole would comply with such constraints. In essence, we are asking for assurance
that what we see nOW is what we ",~ll get and that fuNre struCNres that might impact us will not become
an issue.
Any decrease in the grade of the hillside in Lot#l within 150 ft. of Trestle Glen could substantially
increase the impact of the proposed structure on our Froperty. To our interpretation, the site plall
shows :10 such reductior. in the grade of L"e hillside within 200 fe. of tl-..e enaance to Turtle Rock Court.
We request that this be adhered to in tl-.e final plan. Farther, a slight reduction in the absolute elevation
of tl-.e top of the proposed srrucNre, either by reducing grade at the foundation or decreasing the
allowed height of the proposed structure above grade, would decrease t.l,e impaC': or. our property and
T:estle Glen.
We ask that the following be required:
. Trees planted and maintained at the top of the hillside :uong Trestle Glen to screen the
development.
. A 6-ft. fence installed :uong Trestle Glen (below grade) screened wi", plantings.
. A casr. deposit to the town to ensure completion of the above.
Lmly, we ask that Blaclcie's Pasture or another large site be used as the staging area for constructior..
The entr:lOce co Turtle Rock has sometimes been used far this purpose. Puked tr.1cks narrow Turtle
Rock [0 the ?oinc where two-way traffic becomes dangemus.
n.nk vou for your consideration.
Barry & Rosalind Jekowsky
4 TURE[ ROCK Cou~-:- . TIf!CRC!'i . C^LtFOR;>.;rA . 94920 . (4151 4J5-['W6& . F^x 14151 43.5-8C89 . jeimwskY@301.com
17".rrTTT...rT N 1L
,-,"-lb 10
--.---. -
~
WJ
Gray Davis
GOVERNOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
~~
(~,:;
~.~
. Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
St<v< Nissen
AcrlNG DlIECTOi
October 2, 2000
Scott Anderson
City ofTiburon.
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
A r- '"' 1:: ". ,." '=D
:.- \..; ~....~' 'j .... '
Subject: Tiburon Court Residential Project
SCH#: 2000082144
OCT
4 zaaa
Dear Scott Anderson:
P L~~:~;~';i:'~ ~ ~~ ~~': :':~~~~~i,~j~r
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected srate agencies for
review. On the enclosed Docwnent Derails Report please note thar the Clearinghouse has listed the srate
agencies that reviewed your docwnent. The review period closed on September 29, 2000, and the
comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order,
please notify the State Clearinghouse inunediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State
Clearinghouse nwnber in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly.
Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that:
"A responsible or other public agency shall only make subsl:U1tive comments regarding those
activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are
required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by
specific documentation."
These conunents are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need.
more information or clarification of the enclosed comments. we recormnend that you contact the
commenting agency directly.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the Slale Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents. pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact ~e State
Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the envirorunental review process.
~~
Terry Roberts
Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
. cc: Resources Agency
1400 TENTH STREET P,O, BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 9S812-3044
9t6-44S-061}
FAX 916-323-)018
WWW.OPR.CA.GOV/CLEARINGHOUSE.ilTML I '\
EXHIBIT NO.-l&
SCH#
Project Title
Lead Agency
uocurnenl uetau::), r\.epoa..
State Clearinghouse Data Ba~
2000082144 .
Tiburon Court Residential Project
Tiburon, City of
~
-:-~,
,
Type Neg Negative Declaration
Description Creation of four single family residential building sites on 13.4 acres of land accessed by a single
common roadway from TresUe Glen Boulevard Homes and appurtenant structures and landscaping
subject to subsequent review and pennits.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Scott Anderson
Agency City of Tiburon
Phone 415-435-7392
email
Address
City
Fax
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon
State CA Zip 94920
Project Location
County Marin
City Tiburon
Region
Cross Streets
Parcel No.
Township
TresUe Glen Boulevard & Juno Road
039-061-80 & 86
Range
Sectlon Base
Proximity to:
Highways 131,101
Airports
Railways
WatelWays
Schools
Land Use
San Francisco Bay, Richardson Bay
Reed, Bel Aire, Del Mar
Undeveloped; Zoning is Planned Residential; General Plan is residential
Project Issues
AestheticNisual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic; Drainage/Absorption; Flood
Plain/Flooding; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Geologic/Seismic; Minerals; Noise; Population/Housing
Balance; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities; Sewer Capacity; Solid Waste;
Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Wildlife; Growth
Inducing; Landuse; Cumulative Effects; Toxic/Hazardous; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading
Reviewing
Agencies
Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Parks
and Recreation; San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission; Caltrans. District 4;
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands
Commission; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3
Start of Review 08/31/2000
End of Review 09/29/2000
Date Received 08/31/2000
Note: Blanks in data fields result /rom insufficient information provided by lead agency.
1 -26-1 99=., 0: 54.':"1,1
FRO'.1 1 866J-S523D .
P_2
~
-:-"'!"
United States Department ofthe Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
S.....m..IO'isb IDd Wildllf. Ollie.
1100 C'utQL. Way. R...,,,, W..2~
~r.mt'nlo. California 9SlZ5--JM6
.,
1101 un \' una ~.O
1-l-OO-TA-211H2
Sel'IClllb.--r 20. ZOOO
Ms. [)i~ne Ren~ha...
Consulting bColo~st
607 I'.co Drive
f.n!i ,~lhls.. Caht"ml3. 94014
S"bj~'C"
Pmposcd Tiowon (""un Ho....~mg Proje." Tibuo-m'. M;,rin C:UW'IY.
California
Dear ~s. RCllsl1.1W:
ThlS is in rc.poo!;C to yow Ictter dated June 21, Z(~~J. rcganlir.g the proposc<l Till...,," Cuurl
Housing !'loieeT. in Tiburon. Clllifomia. 'nlC project as propo~d involvc. the development oj
rour .~inglc family !louses on approximately 1".1 acres located on rne cast side ofTrcsrlc Glen
Ooule::vard in Tib~r<m.
~3Scd on Ill<: informatio" provided i.., your cOI:cspondcnec.lhc U.S. J'ish and Wildlife Service
~liev~... the- pn,j~'1 y.'ill not re~lt in lake 01' thl!! Cali"lrma Tec.J-;~~td Iri'g (Rcmu aur(Jra
druyl<lni;). which is prot~tl:d WIder the:: lilidange:cd S~cics i\ct I)f: 973. as amended (Act).
SectiOl'1 ? of tbe Act and i~ implemt:nli"~ r"1lulalions pruhibil Ule "takc:" of li:der.uly li~ted fish
and w,ldlili: 'pecic,. -rue is dcfllled by the Act as "hnra.... tlllnn. plLrsue. bUilt. !<lIl)o.'L ..oun<l.
kill. trap. capTUte. or collect~ IlIlY IiSll:d wildlife species. "I1arm" III rhis definition include,;
s~ificant h~bilat ,n"diliC<ll;(m Ilr <lepa<Wlioll woe", it aCl\l<Jlly kills or ~njures wildlife. by
sil(Oili"""lIy impairing essential bch3vioral pattern., incl~din~ nn:eding. Il:cdinS. or shelterin!! (SO
efR ~ 17.:1). The",fllTe. unl,,:;:; ne'" infunnatillll ",veals effects "ftbe proposed llCliou lhat Illa)'
anee\. hSlt:d sper.:u:~ in a n14.'V\ner nr to an ~:dent nul cun~idt=red. nr u new ~pe:cie~ 'IT critical habit~'
is desi@n4ted that may be .rreeled by the pt<ll""~ action. 0\) further action J'I~rsuanL In 111" ""C[ is
necessary .
; ,\."'.TP"Y-T NO ' 3
,_~... _<.01 1 .~
i -;.26- 1 .99~ i(;): :::'::;.;"1-1
r--';::"Gi'l -IOOO.:o.:::C.;";':.:.J
Mx~ Dlarle Rensh4"\W
Il" yo~ h...c any fw1hcr questions. ple:asc contact O\m Him";",'" K..nn,'lh S,mchC'/. ~I ('11(.,
414-6625.
Si1~rcly.
~~" I,'},.,.
I J~~~' ~ .~~q...,
~...;
K..,cnJ. Millc,
Chid. 1'J1<hlR~.,.,1l SI',:"i...-,; Dj, ;,i"n
'-.
~
~"':'".
,
---
.
TOWN OF TIBURON
lFn[L~ ~(Q)~W
:~.
ISOS TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CAUFORNIA 94920 . (415) 883.9200
FAX (41.5) 883.2763
~
OFFICE OF THE TOWN ENGINEER
lrviul L. Scbwaru
MEMO
RECEiVED
M~Y 2 4 '999
PLANNING DePARTMENT
10WN OF l\BURON
May 21, 1999
TO:
SUBJECT:
Scott Anderson
John Hugunin, Deputy Town Engineer r~ 1t-
Tiburon Court (A.P.N. 039-061-80 &~-061-86)
Precise Development Plan 39903
Our File No. 6940-P3-9903
FROM:
r. "',,", ~"
""'. ," '..,<' r'#.'," ,",o.~ .,.'.. ~..." '"''',",,' ,._....#..., ,.... "."."..'_01,1'''"", p>#'.# .......,. , '~""""'~'~ .r'~'i':''':'',''-,..,_' '" ..._.. .' . .'~
I. The application is considered complete.
2. The following Precise Development Plan Conditions of Approval are recommended:
a) A 10' widening strip along the entire Trestle Glen Blvd. Frontage shall be offered for dedication to the
Town.
b) The common driveway shall be totally contained within a minimum 40' wide easement.
c) The water course within Lots 2, 3 and 4 shall be contained within a drainage easement.
d) A non-vehicular access easement shall be provided along the new Trestle Glen Blvd. right-of-way except
at the driveway easement.
e) A driveway access easement as required shall be shown across Lot 4 for access to Lot 3.
f\ J:......h -~ DC'''''~ ..""...:dca....,...Q. ...1-.all h"'~''''' at" 1...........+ ...~."'._..,_1,:....~ - .........,.S 1'- - g--a-~ 'r ..~H.p-rt .-, t".:. ... n'or
4) ~_... ~ p:....;p' .......... A......... ............. uU .... ,u....."" .. .....~.. ........v t-'.......n.ll1t5 .:Jj.Ju.....l". u"........ c.... u "-'u.I. V l Will ....,.u t::~'\.L.t:
guest parking spaces.
g) The connection of the common driveway with Trestle Glen Blvd. shall be widened and flared to facilitate
ingress and egress.
h) Conditions from Page 2 of the Traffic Impact Study Update prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates (March
17, 1999) shaH be incorporated into the Subdivision Improvement Plans.
i) Hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted with the Tentative Map application for the
existing 24" storm drain in Trestle Glen Blvd. If inadequate or in poor condition, upgrading shall be
shown on the Subdivision Improvement Plans.
j) The proposed 24" storm drain shall be located entirely within the Trestle Glen Blvd. Right-of-way.
k) The Tentative Map shall delineate all existing landslides and debris flows as determined by the
Geotechnical Engineer. Landslides and debris flows which could affect the proposed improvements (i.e.
the area north of the erosion gully), existing residences or existing roadways shall be completely repaired,
whereas all others shall at a minimum be mitigated in accordance with the Geotechnical Engineer's
recommendations.
EXHIBIT NO.~
.. Pice %
MEMO
May 21.1999
TO: Scott Anderson
FROM: John Hugunin. Deputy Town Engineer
SUBJECT:Tiburon Court (AP.N. 039-061-80 & 039-061-86)
Precise Development Plan 39903 .
Our File No. 6940-P3-9903
~
~"!'.
."
Coadaued
I) The "erosion gully" bisecting the site shall be corrected per Section 3.a of the Soils Report, so that further
erosion is prevented. The project Geotechnical Engineer should develop further recommendations for its
repair to be shown on Subdivision Improvement Plans
m) The existing headwall opposite Juno Road shall be removed and its outlet culvert removed or backfilled.
n) A Street light shall be installed at the common driveway's intersection with Trestle Glen B0111evard.
0) The Subdivision Improvement Plans shall shown improving the Trestle Glen Boulevard frontage by
building up the existing shoulder with a minimum of 6" of base rock to be flush with the pavement.
CORRESPO.JOB
6940PJ-990JMEMO.doc:
OS/26/1999 14:59
4154357205
?43E Ell
~
~-:.-
lFn[b~ @@[Pi
~
TIBURONFIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
DATE: 24 May, 1999
TO: Tlburon Planning Department
FROM:
Ron Bamey, Fire Inspector 4<E..<B.
RE: 111e' 39903, Tlburon Court
The proposed subdivision of one. parcel. into four on Trestl~ Glen 8~all comply with the
following requirements of the Uniform Fife Code and the Tlburon Fire Protection
District:
1)
All new structures shall have installed throughout an automatic
fire sprinkler system in accordance with local. Standards.
The system design, installation and final testing shall be
approved by the District Fire Prevention Officer. UFC 1003
A fire Hydrant shall be supplied at the intersection of Trestla Glen and the
new access road. This hydrant shall be capable of flowing 1500gpm at
20psi residual pressure, or, the homes in this development shall be
limited in total floor area to less than 3600 Sq. Ft. per dwelling.
The fire apparatus access road shall be posted as no parking along the
entire length of one side, and in all areas of the turnaround. The Fire
District would prefer the turnaround to be of a cul-de-sac design.
2)
3)
4)
Create and maintain a "green belt" by cutting and clearing all
combustible vegetation within 30 feet of all new structures. UFC 1103
5)
The Fire Dis~rict does not have sufficient informalion regarding the
proposed trail easement. We do have significant concems with this issue
at face value.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the plans.
EXHIBIT Mo, 15
Hi IARDSON BAY SAl'IITIARY DISTRl
500TlBURON BOULEVARD
TlBURON, CA 94920
TEL (415) 388-1345. FAX (415) 388-1339
lFnlL~ @@lfJW~;
,
January 25, 2000
Mr. Craig Pilgrim
Round-Two Development
160-C Donahue Street, Suite #115
Marin City, CA 94965
REceIVED
JAN 2 7 2000
RE: Tiburon Court Development, APN 039-061-80&86
PLAr,~I:NG DEPARTMENT
TOWN OF Tl8URON
Gentlemen:
We have received a copy of the Precise Development Plan for the above
referenced project from the Town of Tiburon. Please be advised that the District
will require that a Deposit Account be established in the amount of $1,500 to
cover the District's expenses before reviewing this project further.
The District has made a preliminary review of the plans and has the following
comments
1 . There is a sewer shown from the bulb in the cul-de-sac along the rear
property line of the proposed lots towards Trestle Glen Blvd. District
policy is to have public sewers within streets.
2. The proposed sewer is shown connecting to an existing manhole at the
intersection of Trestle Glen Blvd. and Juno Place. There are no
sanitary .sewer facilities in Juno Place and the existing 6" VCP sewer in
Juno Road will probably need to be expanded to an 8" line by pipe
bursting, or a new sewer will need to be constructed in Trestle Glen
Blvd.
3. Furthermore, be advised that before any construction, you will be
required to enter into a sewer extension agreement with the
Richardson Bay Sanitary District, which will require additional fees and
charges.
If you have any question, please do not hesitate to call me.
Respectfully,
(".'
, .
--L--- /". ." ) r.~
\ .\ ,-,,/. A......'.. <'(
. . ... -' ./ -----
Frank T. Dittle, Jr.
--'
District Superintendent
~~~i~.~~~~:,./': .~,:'~',':.~'",:;.:>t~~,';.' ;:'::-'X"':'\~~",:- ';I:~:':--:7'~:;'~~-,t,:: ',.
R~G6:lirbtPlanning Dept,SCC:'tt Ariderson
Nute Engineering, Gary Robards
EXHIBIT NO. I'
rJ~~,:-'\.,.... ~ -
n ~ ~,~l:~'; ':./~::--~
. '. .....".;4...,<1
MARIN MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT
,It1N 26 2000
{.
".
~
PL'ig':~':.'/~;/.:.::~.l" .:' .'
.;'" ;'1
lfli[b~ l13~u- II
220 Nellen Avenue
Com: Madera, CA 94925-1169
415.924.4600
FAX 415.927.4953
Scott Anderson
Tiburon Planning Department
1505 Tiburon Boulevad
Tiburon CA 94920
January 25, 2000
File No. 244.1
Map No. N21-1
RE: WATER AVAILABILlTY-
Assessor's Parcel No.: 39-061-80 and 86
Location: Trestle Glen Boulevard (between Turtle Rock Ct and Juno Rd)
Dear Mr. Anderson:
The above referenced parcels are not currently being served and no water has been allocated to
these properties. These parcels do not meet the conditions for service as set forth by the District
which state in part: "The properties must be fronted by a water main; the structures must be within
125 feet of the water main." Under these conditions, water service to these properties will require
a pipeline extension from Trestle Glen Boulevard.
The applicants must enter into a pipeline extension agreement with the District. Said agreement
must be approved by the District's Board of Directors. All costs associated with a pipeline extension
are borne by the applicants.
Upon completion and acceptance of these facilities, these properties will be eligible for water
service upon request and fulfillment of the requirements listed below.
1. Complete a High Pressure Water Service Application.
2. Submit a copy of the building permit.
3. Pay appropriate fees.
4. Compiete the structure's foundation within 120 days of the date of application.
5. Comply with the District's rules and regulations in effect at the time service is requested.
6. All landscape and irrigation plans must be designed in accordance with District landscape
Ordinance #385. Prior to issuing a new irrigation water service, the applicant must receive
District approval regarding the project's working drawings for planting and irrigation
systems. Any questions regarding the District's current water conservation and landscape
Ordinance should be directed to David lribarne at (415) 945-1525.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Sergio Paganelli at (415)
945-1531.
Very truly yours,
~~
Wi:!
Project Manager
"'XHIBIT NO. I i-
!';P:dh
An Equa1 {)pporruniry / Affjrmariv~ Action Emplov~r
..~
~l
ty
..'
-~
~~.
~
SHARON E. CALLAHAN
31 Juno Road
Tiburon CA 94920
(415) 435-5615
~;
,
Re: Building Development Concern
~~
......"'"
.....
,"llt"
~"" .. '''L'~r':~
,~- ':';'1..;~
"'<J:~2'>,'"> '-'
""'~~~;;:?qv
- .... --~\
'- ;.,
'.-?"
Scott Anderson
Tiburon Planning Department
Tiburon Town Hall
Tiburon CA 94920
Dear Scott:
This letter is to follow up on our conversation the other day about my concern over
any building development involving access on Trestle Glen Boulevard. It is my view
that Trestle Glen is currently over developed and very hazardous-and that we
residents of Belveron-Gardens East unduly suffer the cOJ;lsequences caused by
problems from previous carelessly planned development There are always accidents,
particularly those involving bikers, cars and pedestrians due to traffic on this road and
there have been untold numerous near-misses due to the poorly planned access.
When I moved into my home in 1983, Trestle Glen was mostly a country lane. With
the build-up of the Turtle Rock addition, new homes up Hacienda, increased traffic at
the Lutheran Church day-school, and overall increased traffic by-pass to Paradise Road,
Trestle Glen has changed into a major road artery without proper safe infrastructure. It
was never designed to handle the incredible type and volume of mixed-use activity
now occurring: all types of motorized transport, trucks, fire & emergency service
vehicles, bikers, skaters, joggers, pedestrians, etc.
Speaking of poor access problem recognition, I would like to bring to your attention
current examples of how some difficult traffic situations .are currently being managed.
During the week in the evening, the special #5 bus uses Juno Road as a turn-around
access, and during the day, many construction trucks and vehicles also do the very
same because Blackie's pasture access is now unavailable for their activity.
Per your request, this letter will also serve as my request to be informed of any
upcoming development affecting our neighborhood.
Thank you,
jL~
Sharon Callahan
... :U-TTBIT NO ' ~
. .. ,.~ .-LQ..
45 No. Do Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
June 21, 1999
RECEIVED
~
~"!..
JUN 2 5 1999 ';
Scott Anderson, Planning Director
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TOWN OF neURON
RE:
Request for the Juno/fresde Glen & Mercury/fresde Glen intersections to be
added to the Circulation System Improvement Fund.
Dear Scott,
I am writing to request that Juno Road and Mercury Drive intersections with Trestle Glen be added
to the list of projects that can be funded by the Tiburon's Circulation System Improvement Fund.
Both these intersections presemserious safety hazards. A substallrial increase in traffic on Trestie
Glen in the past several years, and the promise of continuing increase with new development and
expansion of the Romberg Center programs make dealing with these hazards a high priority. It is
important to include them in the list addressed by the Fund.
1. Mercury/frestIe Glen. As the number of cars in the Tiburon Blvd. turning lane onto Trestle
Glen has increased, a serious safety problem has developed when cars in this queue try to
make a left hand turn into Mercury. As a car slows, or sometimes stops in order to make this
turn, cars further .behind cannot see what is happening. Indeed, the car directly behind the one
turning may be surprised, since the two turns are so close together that turning signals are
ineffectUal. Rear end collisions are inevitable. I regularly see broken glass at the beginning of
Trestle Glen. One suggestion is to create a turning lane. However, the shon distance between
Tiburon Blvd. and the entry to this street may make this inadvisable. Another suggestion is to
prohibit left-hand turns here and require traffic to go to Juno before making a turn. This
would vastly improve the Mercury situation, but would exacerbate the existing Juno
intersection problem. Something needs to be done.
2. Juno/frestIe Glen. The issue here is the left-hand turn into Juno. There is a slight curve in
Trestle Glen (going toward Hacienda) just before Juno. Longer lines of cars make it common
to be in a moving line, unable to see that intersection, when a car slows or stops to turn onto
Juno. A driver comes around the curve to confront stopped traffic. A quick application of the
brakes starts a chain reaction down the line of cars following. I also note that frequent cyclists
in this lane are at considerable risk as cars swerve to the right to avoid a rear-ender. It is
possible that a turning lane solution would be effective here.
I recognize that there are many troublesome traffic problems in Tiburon that are long overdue for
attention. They should all be formally acknowledged as needing correction in the event that the
Fund, or other monies, become available. I ask that the two intersections listed above be added to
the projects that may be addressed by the Fund. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
/~ ~~4
Randy Greenberg
EXHIBIT NO..1 Q
trestle glen safety. 6.99
-""
WomanKind
St. Mary's Medical Center
+CHW
450 5tanyan Street
San Francisco. CA 94117-1079
4157505775 Telephone
~
~~
B"ay Area Region
Breast Cancer Consultation S~r..ice
Michael D. Lag-ios. M.D.. Medical Director
R-,...r-'~ 'f""'~
.,.. t-. .~ ~ :. f..-,.. ~
5a.vtJu: ... ___ ....~'i
April 10, 2000
APR I 1 2000
Peter Winkler
104 A Main Street
Tiburon, California 94920
PL..'~i<:-.~~:.;~; :.:~~;":~'~:";~",
-:-"', '. ','-,,'....
1''''',,:':...- :;:."....."..
Scott Anderson
Pidnning Department
Town of Tiburon
Tiburon, Californai 94920
Gentlemen:
I wish to draw your attention to two aspects of the Tiburon Blvd-Trestle Glen
junction: 1. At present bicycle traffic must either dismount and use the
pedestrian cross-walk, or hang back in the left hand turn lane awaiting a long
signal (which doesn't respond to bicycle frames) before turning left onto Trestle
Glen.
There is an alternative route which parallels the inside of the Tiburon Blvd.
guardrail and allows an easier left hand turn. This short path bypasses heavy
vehicle traffic at the intersection. However its broken surface, constrained by
weeds, make it less than optimal as an alternative. 15 years ago I spoke with
Stan Bala, Town Engineer about upgrading the surface of this path which would
make it safer for pedestrian foot traffic and bicycles. Can we repair this? (See
diagram).
Another point relates to Trestle Glen and Paradise Drive in Tiburon which are
major recreational and commuting bike thoroughfares. When I commute to work
in San Francisco I don't want to be taken out by an urban assault vehicle
entering Trestle Glen from one of the new "planned" developments. Lets make
sure that they can see me before granting .blanket approval for yet more traffic
intersections on blind curves on Trestle Glen.
Sincerely,
~,~~~~~~
Mic ael D. Laglos, M. .
A Member of Catholic Healthcan: Wes[
EXHIBIT NO.~J _
=,. .:..,-',-'eJ ':.:..: ...:;,-;."';
PROI.., '='rnold 3i~9~1 Mi 11 IJ-:tl' '-:l
ON:: NJ. : 415 333 791~
f 1:~~lE MAl L # c2
~
~"!:"
~
Susan Em
20 Juno Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
TO: Scott Anderson, Planning Director
Town of Tiburon, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Trestle Glen Housing Projects.
.....;-..," .
OCT f; 2000
:.;,
".j, .
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Trestle Glen Boulevard, in relation to other roads in Tiburon, is NOT a minor
artery. Since it parallels my back yard, I took the opporl\.Jnity to count traffic at
8: 15 am on three weekday mornings: 15 automobiles per minute, 2 bicycles, and
3 pedestrians. It is the gateway to the homes in Belveron East, Turtle Rock, and
Paradise Cay, on Hacienda Drive and Paradise Drive. Treslle Glen is important
because it sets the tone and character for the drive to this large geographic area
of Tiburon. A poorly planned development here will change the character of the
town. This aspect of the proposal was not addressed in the staff report. Being
only a two lane highly traveled road, where will traffic be diverted with major
construction, large vehicles and tearing up the road to install utilities? Belveron
East is a large community with 169 homes, several with children and pets, I don't
think it would be prudent or safe to divert traffic to one of these roads. Newer
residential developments in Tiburon have generally been built in areas away from
main traffic arteries. The Trestle Glen proposals would change that. The
developer is asking for the maximum number of houses. The houses would be
large, generally parallel to, and quite close to the road. The natural beauty of the
area would change from rural gateway to housing corridor.
With the benefit of retrospection to examples of Round Hill and it's formidable not
to mention noisy and eyesore-like retaining .walls, aren't we setting up an ugly
echo corridor for all those who use the road and the residents of Belveron East?
I think for 50 years of tax money paid to the town of Tiburon, these Belveron
residents deserve more than a hasty, sloppy and unthoughtful development
"looming" over them.
A plan with fewer, single story houses MIGHT be more suitable for this exposed
location.
Your sincere and thoughtful attention to this project will be greatly appreciated,
Susan Erb
LATE MAil # c2
-
-:-"!'""
-
October 9, 2000
Scott Andersn"
Planning Director
Tiburon Planning Commission
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CJ\ 94920
Re: 10/11/00 Public Hearirtlr on Tiburon Court Residential Proiect
Dear Mr. Anderson:
We wish to submit the following for consideration in the plan."1ing process ro mitigare possible negatve
impact of the proposed development on our property.
We Mte that the building envelope for Lot#1 is 35,274 sq. ft., nearly twice the size of the next large"
(Lot#2 @ 18,714 sq. ft.) and vastly larger than the 3,000 sq. ft. footprint proposed for the house. The
impact of the housc upon our property and upon Trestle Glenn will depend upon where it is locared on
the lot. We ask that the buildir.g envelope be adjusted to a55ure that the house will be set back from
Trestle Glen and sited within 150 feet of the centet of the proposed turnaround circle. The current
locatior. of the story pole would comply with such constraints. In essenCe, we are asking for assurance
that what we sce now is what We will get and that future structures that might impact us will not become
an Issue.
!'u1y decrease in the grade of the hillside in Lot#1 within 150 ft. of Trestle Glen could substantially
ir.cre..e the impact of the proposed Structure on our property. To Our interpretation, tlle sire plan
shows no such reduction in the grade of the hillside withi:1 200 it. of l."c enttanCe to Tude Rock Coun.
We request that this be adhered to in the final plan. Further, a slight reduction in the absolute elevation
of the top of the proposed structure, either by reducing grade at the fOl1ndation or decreasing c."e
allowed height of the proposed strucrJre above grade, would decrease the impact on our property and
T resde Glen.
We ask that the following be required:
· Trees plamed and maintained at the top of the hillside along Trestle Glen to Seteen l.,e
development.
· A 6-ft. fenCe installed along Trestle Gler. (below ~cie) screened with planting..
. A cash deposit to thc town to ensure completion of the abOve.
Lastly; we ask that Blaclcie's Pasture or another large site be used as the staging area for constrUction.
The entrance to Twtle Rock has sometimes been used for this purpose. Parked trucks narrow Twtle
Rock to the point where two-way traffic becomes dangerous.
,,--/u.~ . .
Sus.n and Tim Geraghty
6 Turde Rock Court
Tiburon '
435-3461
~ ,('.C .
\ 4~1)jV.,
'""'~.'"","'. =-',7",
(,., ','" '
ocr I f 2000
~~~ . ~ ...,~ ............ <-.....r-
....Il::'............~,...=
l '"'I'.l.:::':' ~.,J.;:l- d-.;c;;:'
p.T
LATE MAIL # c2
-:~
October 9, 2000
Scott Anderson
Planning Director
Tiburon Planning Commission .
1505 TiblUon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: 10/11/00 Public Hearinr on Tiburon Court Residential Proiect
Dear Mr. Anderson:
We wish to submit the following for consideration in the plan:ling process to mitigare possible negative
impact of the proposcd development on our property.
We core that the building envelope for Lot#l is 35,274 sq. fL, nearly twice the size of the nextlargcst
(Lot#2@ 18,714 sq. ft.) and vastly larger than the 3,000 sq. ft. footprim proposed ior the house. The
impact of tOc house upon our propercy and upon Trestle Glenn will depend upon where it is located on
the 10L We ask that the buildicg envelope be adjusted to assure that the house will be set back from
Trestle Glen and sited within 150 feet of the center of the propo,ed nunaround circle. The ClUrent
location of the story pole would comply with such constraints. In essence, we are asking for aSSlUance
that what we see now is what we will get and that future structures that might impact us will not becor:1e
an ISsue.
Any decrease in the grade of the hillside in Lot#! within 150 ft. of Trestle Glen could substantially
iccrease the impact of the proposed Structure on our property. To our imerpremtion, tlle sire plan
shows no such reduction in the grade of the hillside within 200 fL of the entrance to Tude Rock Coun.
We request that this be adhered to in the final plan. Further, a slight reduction in the absolute elevation
of the top of the proposed structure, either by reducing grade at the foundation or ciecreasing Ll,e
allowcd height of the proposed struct-ore above grade, would decrease the impact on our property and
Trestie Glen.
We ask that the following be required:
. Trees plamed and maintained at the top of the hillside along Trestle Glen to screen the
development.
· A 6-ft. fence installed along Trestle Glee (below grade) screened with plantings.
· A cash deposit to the town to ensure completion of the above.
Lastly; wc ask that 51ackie's Pasture or another large site be used as the staging area for consrruction.
The entrance to TW't!e Rock has sometimes been used for this purpose. Parked trucks narrow Turtle
Rock to the point where two-way traffic becomes dangerous.
.',-/u..~ .
Susan and Tim Geraghty
6 T urrle Rock Court
Tiburon '
435-3461
~
~ ('c.
\ 4~jJJ,,~;
r:;.,""'.'
;-"", .
~.. ,7:-'"
." "'."-.
OCT I f 2000
L loC..,'." r 'All #
. tt~ ~Lull J.,.
Ms. Alice Fredericks
Town Planning Commission
Tiburon, California
Dear Alice,
{.
~
197 Stewart Drive
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
Oct 9, 2000
As per our conversation today, I am following up with a brief note as to my concerns relative to the
proposed development along Trestle Glen Road.
First there is a gully below our propeny which transmits an enormous amount of water from properties at
the end of Stewart at Porto JI,larino. One can observe the major rehabilitation that was required by the
homeowners at this junction in order to stabilize the soil on and above their properties due to a mud slide
that buried one of the driveways and threatened at least two structures. I suspect that the stream that runs
beneath these properties feeds the gully that I have referred to earlier. Although the developers of the
proposed project state that tile soils problems will be corrected, I fear that there are no guarantees, no long
teml insurance, bonds, etc. that will protect those of us who are threatened. Who will be liable should their
efforts fail and for how long and for how much? .
Secondly, the valley between Belveron and Stewart Drive is already an echo chamber. Barking dogs and
moderately noisy gatllerings in Belveron are amplified and become quite intrusive to the residents who face
the valley. TIle erection of high concrete retaining walls for the proposed cut and fill development will, I
fear, cxacerbate the problem.
Thank you for your interest
Very truly.
David Rose
_.....-.---..~.._.,
~- ':~ ~;i:~' ".c..; '.'~...'" :'; '0'.'" -..".
'1M~
OCT 1 0 2000
I_~:":: ,:r,;:-,
T\".' ;;.; ;:',: ; ~:.::; ',I ,l '
~ROM Ar~~ld Siegel Mi 11 Va! 1
J:T. S.22J'] 12: 43P:1 :=- 1
l'E~: ~'-D. : 4t 5 333 7'31 ='
.'
& i4TE MAIL # ~
{:
,
Susan Erb
20 Juno Road
Tlburon, CA 94920
TO: Scott Anderson, Planning Director
Town of Tiburon, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Trestle Glen Housing Projects
.... n_ .to.,
OCT f., 2000
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Trestle Glen Boulevard, in relation to other roads in Tibu,ron, is NOT a minor
artery. Since it parallels my back yard, I took the opportunity to count traffic at
8:15 am on three weekday mornings: 15 automobiles per minute, 2 bicycles, and
3 pedestrians. It is the gateway to the homes in Belveron East, Turtle Rock, and
Paradise Cay, on Hacienda Drive and Paradise Drive. Trestle Glen is important
because it sets the tone and character for the drive to this large geographic area
of Tiburon. A poorly planned development here will change the character of the
town. This aspect of the proposal was not addressed in the staff report. Being
only a two lane highly traveled road, where will traffic be diverted with major
construction, large vehicles and tearing up the road to install utilities? Belveron
East is a large community with 169 homes, several with children and pets, I don't
think it would be prudent or safe to divert traffic to one of these roads. Newer
residential developments in Tiburon have generally been built in areas away from
main traffic arteries. The Trestle Glen proposals would change that. The
developer is asking for the maximum number of houses. The houses would be
large, generally parallel to, and quite close to the road The natural beauty of the
area would change from rural gateway to housing corridor.
With the benefit of retrospection to examples of Round Hill and it's formidable not
to mention noisy and eyesore-like retaining walls, aren't we setting up an ugly
echo corridor for all those who use the road and the residents of Belveron East?
I think for 50 years of tax money paid to the town of Tiburon, these Belveron
residents deserve more than a hasty, sloppy and unthoughtful development
"looming" over them. .
A plan with fewer, single story houses MIGHT be more suitable for this exposed
location.
Your sincere and thoughtful attention to this project will be greatly appreciated,
Susan Erb
APPROVED
MINUTES
:"!"
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. TRESTLE GLEN BOULEVARD: TIBURON COURT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
FOUR (4) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON 13.4 ACRES; Round-Two
Development, owner and applicant; Assessor Parcel Nos. 39-061-80 and 86.
Planning Director Anderson stated that this was the upper portion of what previously was
known as the Cherry property. This Precise Development Plan is a request for four homes on
13.4 acres. He gave a brief history of the property, noting that previous plans for the property
would have had from 13 to 32 single family homes. In 1989 the Town down-zoned this and the
adjacent property to 0.3 units per acre, which would allow four (4) units for this project.
Mr. Anderson said the plans show primary and secondary envelopes for the four lots, a
pedestrian easement from Trestle Glen Boulevard to Porto Marino for a Ridge Trail connector,
and the rest of the property as private open space. The homes are similar in size and color to
the Turtle Rock Court development, with a maximum size of 4:800 square feet on split levels.
There would be one access road from Trestle Glen Boulevard in between Turtle Rock Court
and Juno Road. No retaining walls were needed, as the area is fairly level and the homes are
clustered together. They avoid the stream channel and other environmental constraints. He
noted that Louise Nichols, Environmental Consultant, and Town Engineer Schwartz were both
present to answer questions.
The Initial Study had been released September 2, 2000, and the conclusion was that all
potentially significant impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels. The landslides
and debris flows are much simpler to repair than in the Lower Trestle Glen project. The
property drains into portions of the Belveron system, which may need improvements to divert
some of the water into a larger pipe. Improvements would result in better drainage for the
entire area.
The Ridge Trail connector to the open space would be provided and dedicated to the Town.
The hillside may need to be modified to improve sight distances for the entrance to the project.
There are five on-site parking spaces for each home and extra spaces on the street. Mr.
Anderson stated that the project generally complies with the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance, but there were several modifications listed in the Staff Report concerning building
envelopes, pedestrian trail alignment, house sizes, and bike lanes that he would recommend.
Mr. Anderson recommended that the Commission hear from the experts present, conduct the
public hearing, and continue for modifications to be made.
Vice-Chair Stein stated that he thought this project and the Lower Trestle Glen project should
be considered at the same time, so there could be a single over-view. Mr. Anderson said it was
the choice of the two applicants to be reviewed separately. The Town can encourage but not
compel, joint CEQA review of separate projects. Both applicants declined Staff's suggestion
for joint CEQA review.
TlBlJRON PLANNING COMMISSION
2
MINUTES NO. X33 OF OCTOBER 11, 10003
""VTl TnT"\' '\''''
J"J.( .d,:,,~JJ),~... ..i,l '.J. .._', .~_,
~
Commissioner Fredericks wanted to know whether the bike path was defined. Mr. Anderson
said it was not, but that the Commission should decide what improvements they want to see for
these two projects, whether bike lane, sidewalks, widened road, curbs, and on which side of
the road these should be. This dialogue needed to start now and the Town Engineer was
present.
Commissioner Berger asked what improvements would be allowed in a scenic easement. Mr.
Anderson said in private open space nothing could be done outside the building envelopes. The
proposed landscaping along Trestle Glen Boulevard is outside the envelopes, but nothing else
could be done outside the envelopes, except for the trail.
Commissioner Berger asked if the setbacks and landscape plans for the two projects would be
coordinated along Trestle Glen Boulevard. Mr. Anderson said they could be along Trestle Glen
Boulevard, but other than that there would be no change outside of the building envelopes.
Commissioner Snow asked whether the 4,800 square feet included garage or not. Mr.
Anderson it did not, but the Commission could specify otherwise.
Chair Slavitz asked about the width of the bike path. Mr. Anderson said it would be ten feet
from the current right-of-way. He said it needed to be determined on which side of the road the
bike path would be, or whether one would be on both sides.
Vice-Chair Stein asked whether there were impact fees for this. Mr. Anderson said impact fees
would be collected.
Town Engineer Schwartz stated that a number of options could be required of the subdivision,
and it is normal to require improvements be made. He recommended a ten foot wide strip, and
it should be designated what would be in it and where. If a bike lane is added, the ultimate.
would be to have one on each side for a Class 2 bikeway, which is a painted stripe only. If it is
four or five feet wide, plus curb and gutter, then another foot is needed, plus sidewalk for
pedestrians, When he has a shopping list of what is wanted, then he will see how best to locate
the improvements. It may involve retaining walls because of the terrain, so it may be a
compromise between what is wanted and what will work there,
Vice-Chair Stein thought that any measure would be better, such as a sidewalk that leads to
Blackie's Pasture and provides a safe place to walk.
Mr. Schwartz said that he had thought of a number of changes, but for everything added there
are downsides. It will be a matter of determining what can fit.
Chair Slavitz said that the walkway on the other side of the street should be improved. Mr.
Schwartz said the problem with that is, that it is not continuous, but the road travel way could
be relocated. He suggested that they see what they want, and then he will see what can be
done.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
3
MINUTES NO. 833 OF OCTOBER 1 (.2000
Commissioner Berger asked who would pay for these improvements? Mr. Schwartz said that it
is normal for a subdivision to pay for street improvements and it will be done by both of these
projects on this frontage. Town funds in the future can finish it out. As long as it is reasonably
related to the development, it can be required of them,
:;
Chair Slavitz asked about the drainage issues and flooding potential, and wondered whether
these developments put more water in the system and make things worse. Mr. Schwartz said
that the system was developed with a much higher density in mind and a IOO-year design, so it
should be adequate. He preferred to improve the channel under Juno Road than what has been
proposed by the applicant. Rather than bypass the system, Schwartz favors maintenance and
improvement of the earth channel.
Chair Slavitz asked if the developer puts in and goes away, who makes sure it works. Mr.
Schwartz stated that their engineer posts a bond with the Town and builds the system. The
Town inspects for compliance and then returns the bond to them once it is accepted.
Chair Slavitz asked Consultant Nichols to comment on the parking. He noted that the
mitigation for large events parking was on Trestle Glen Boulevard and thought that was an
impact, not mitigation. Ms. Nichols stated that this was an l,nitial Study, not an ElR. She
suggested shuttles, or a valet service to deal with large parties. There was no way to tell how
often this would be necessary when there were just four houses. This assumed the worst case
scenario.
Commissioner Berger asked whether an analysis had been done' assuming more parking
provided along the street. Ms. Nichols said a Precise Development Plan would only do this in
a theoretical way. Planning Director Anderson stated that the applicant would address adding
shared parking. He also noted that the heights of the two homes on Trestle Glen Boulevard
would be reduced to 24 feet.
Commissioner Berger stated that guests are reticent to park in private areas but not in shared
areas.
Commissioner Fredericks asked about the measurement of the setback from the stream and
whether the reduction of the envelopes had taken that into consideration. Mr. Anderson said
the reduction of the envelopes had not addressed those two lots, just the two closest to Trestle
Glen Boulevard. He noted that for mapping purposes, measuring from the center of the stream
is the easiest method, as stream banks are not uniform, especially where slides have occured.
Discussion was opened to the applicant at 8:25 p.m.
Don Henderson stated that he had owned the property for six years. He handed out
photomontages to show the visual impact of the project. They will add four to eight more
parking spaces, but he had a problem with paving more surfaces. Mr. Anderson had suggested
that they were better added to the street, rather than on each lot. Concerning the runoff bypass,
he noted that they would have to remove several trees to build it as suggested by the Town
llDURON PI.ANNING cnMMlSSION
4
MIN UTES NO. 833 OF OCTOBER 11, 2000
~
Engineer. The conceptual drawings show split level homes with two stories on the front and
one story at the rear. One unit has a three-story section.
Commissioner Berger stated that the renderings were nice, but did not reflect the current
project, as the cul-de-sac was not included. Mr. Henderson said that the houses had been
pushed back as far as possible to the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Henderson noted that his landscape architect would address the Trestle Glen Boulevard
frontage. Commissioner Berger stated that he thought the landscaping should be coordinated
for both properties and wondered how Mr. Henderson felt about that. Mr, Henderson said
these were two different projects and that it might look better to have two smaller sections.
Mr. Berger said it all looks similar now with the natural vegetation, and he wanted to
coordinate the trees used for shielding. Mr. Henderson said he would explore that. He noted
that he had already offered an easement to Juno Road for the Lower Trestle Glen project and
was working with them.
Chair Slavitz confirmed that there would be II off-street parkil1g spaces. Mr. Henderson said
he was trying to avoid retaining walls. Those would be in addition to the five for each site, 3 in
the garage, and 2 on the apron.
Chair Slavitz stated that he felt the tennis court for Lot #3 seemed out of scale. Mr. Henderson
said that it added a buffer between the s,treet and the homes.
Discussion was opened to the public at 8:40 p. m.
Claire Horn, 18 Turtle Rock Court, wanted to know where all the parking would be for such a
huge construction project. Mr. Henderson replied that all the construction would be on-site,
that the cut and fill balances out, and that this could be a condition of approval. Mr. Anderson
stated that part of the Tentative Map shows the staging, and it has to be on-site. Ms. Horn
asked about dust, and Mr. Henderson said there would be water trucks on-site at all times.
Jim Malott, 987 Tiburon Boulevard, stated that he is an architect and has lived in Tiburon for
30 years. The open space is the treasure of the Town, and every time an area is developed, the
Town takes a portion of it for open space. Once open area has been developed and fenced, it is
no longer available. The pattern of Tiburon open space has been aggregating property from the
ridgelille down to the bike path and other areas, with some property being purchased by
Tiburoll. The path going through this property is an important connection to the open space
between Porto Marino to Shepherd Way.
Mr. Malott commended the applicant for the tightness of the development, but thought that the
building envelopes would force the buildings to go up. If the envelopes were larger, the houses
could be lower. He thought that screening trees placed further down the hill would work
better. He suggested using camouflaging colors with the houses the same dark value as the
trees, and broad overhangs to put shade on the houses, in addition to dark roofs. He felt that
color was more important than size. He thought the tennis court created too much of a visual
TIBURON PI.A.l"iNING COMMISSION
5
MINUTES NO. 833 OF OCTOBER 11.2000
impact, that the driveway should be widened, and that there should be stop signs, or lights, or
something to slow the traffic on Trestle Glen Boulevard.
Judy Dick, 16 Juno Road, stated that the fire truck comes from the station on Trestle Glen
Boulevard and Paradise Drive, and goes fast down the hill. With the construction and added
traffic, the hindrance of emergency vehicles needs to be considered.
Janica Anderson, 3 Mercury Drive, stated that she thought drainage would be a problem. She
lives at the base of the hill where the water comes down and during a storm it is already full.
even though it was built for the 100-year storm. The streets are rivers in a storm and 30 Juno
regularly floods. She wanted the foliage and plantings to remain as natural as possible, with no
fancy gardens from Greece, etc. She hoped the wildlife would not be crowded out of the area.
Commissioner Berger asked Ms. Anderson which drainage plan she preferred the bypass or
improved connection. She stated that the upper portion would have to be fixed in any case. She
said that if changes were made to the road, improved drainage could be added. She thought
that it could be high tide and rain combined that causes flooding: not just the lOO-year 110ad.
Randy Greenberg, Norman Way, stated that the two developments as shown would represent a
significant loss to the local community for a small gain in multi-million dollar houses. The
photos do not show the view impacts to those on Juno Road who are the most impacted by this.
She felt that there should not be more than two houses for each project, and agreed with Mr.
Malott about ways to improve the design to not create another Turtle Rock. There shouid not
be three-story buildings and the colors are important. The native plantings are important and
the houses should be incorporated into the natural landscape. Landscaping around the houses
can make them more apparent. This should be cohesive for both projects and she felt that was
the job of the Planning Commission, not the DRB. She thought that the Initial Study
understated the issues and that there were 13 goals in the General Plan that were not consistent.
There was no development so visible in Tiburon and these projects would be the legacy of this
Planning Commission.
Vice-Chair Stein asked Ms. Greenberg what size the two houses should be. She said they
should be low and horizontal to fit into the hillside, and avoid the looming vertical mass. They
should be between 4,000 and 5.000 square feet including garage. Mr. Stein said that more
houses, but smaller could achieve the same effect. She said that four houses become wall-to-
wall house when they are close together. This is a rural gateway, not a regular neighborhood.
She thought that the setback from the creek was not sufticient, that 50 feet would be better as
the fragile bank could be ruined.
Mel Cohen, 8 Venus Court, stated that he was concerned about landslides on this property and
the disturbance of soils in the preparation of the lots. The soil is still moving. He had a
Monterey pine tree, which kept leaning over until he finally had to remove it.
Chair Slavitz suggested that Curtis Jensen, the geo-technical engineer for the project, speak to
this issue.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
6
MINllTES NO_ 103 OF OCTOBER] 1. 2lX)()
~
Mr. Jensen stated that the slides above the project are not an impact on these homes. The slides
along the creek are a concern because of the instability. These areas will either be fixed, or
there will be a large setback. Measuring from the center or top of the bank, the setbacks are
larger than he recommended, so it would be safe. Ther.e is no evidence of slides in the area
where the houses are to be built, and the slides would not affect the area across Trestle Glen
Boulevard. Chair Slavitz asked whether the grading would affect the houses uphill from the
project. Mr. Jensen said it would not because of the terrain and channel.
Commissioner Fredericks asked whether the instability on Stewart Drive was independent of
this project. Mr. Anderson said the slides started on property off Stewart Drive and slid down
onto this property.
Ellen Rony, 21 Juno Road, stated that she was wary of the arrangements between the
developer and drainage issue. She invited the Commissioners to come to her house at night to
walk Juno Road to experience the quiet community and dark hillside. This project means there
will be lights shining down and with a shuttle the area will be busy and the quiet gone. Big
houses mean multiple cars and she regrets this change, She has lived there for 21 years and
many of her neighbors have been there since 1951. They have the right to have the Planning
Commission answer all of Ms. Greenberg's issues concerning compliance with the General
Plan. If they are out of compliance. how could this development proceed? The Commission has
heard the problems. The developer is trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. She
wanted to protect the property rights, but there were lots of issues and that was why no homes
had been built there yet.
Jean Cohen, 8 Venus Court, had concerns about the slides and traffic. She wondered where
were all the cars going to go? She noted that it's hard to get out of Belveron and onto Tiburon
Boulevard now. She urged the Commission to consider the number of cars.
Karen Halsey, 14 Juno Road, stated that regarding the drainage issues. she wondered whether
Juno Road would be used as an interim solution, and thought that they should look at the long-
term solution with Trestle Glen Boulevard.
Mike Lagios, 11 Benton Court, noted that repairs had been made to houses on his street due to
landslide damage and felt that the area was unstable. There is lots of water and it needs
adequate drainage. He has walked the property and it is beautiful. He suggested the
Commissioners walk the property. before it is developed.
Alan Wiendorf, 30 Juno Road, stated that the Public Works department is familiar with him
because of the drainage problems on his property. There is a quality of life on Juno Road.
because the view corridor makes up for the increased traffic, that is special and they do not
want to lose it.
Shaun Coughlin, 2 Turtle Rock Court, stated that there should be a permanent fence along
Trestle Glen Boulevard that is below grade and landscaped to occlude it.
TlIIlJRON PLANNING CC)MMISSION
7
MINUTES NO. 833 or OCTOBER 11.2000
<
"
Scott Durkee, 12 Venus Court, stated that he had concerns about the two new intersections
being created, as drivers go fast on this road, and about the light that will be coming from the
houses. He thought the bike path, etc., should all be incorporated, as there is considerable
traffic there, including foot traffic.
Mr. Henderson stated that his traffic consultant has bike information, which would suggest the
best location for a path, and he was willing to have him look at that.
Discussion was closed to the public at 9:24 p.m.
Commissioner Berger stated that he had the same feeling about this project as the Lower
Trestle Glen project. Trestle Glen Boulevard is a special corridor on the peninsula. Both
projects have little developable property because of the slides, so the houses get squeezed onto
a small space close to Trestle Glen Boulevard, which is the most sensitive visually. He thought
they needed to go back for a serious look at the screening, and whether there can be four lots.
He thought Lot #3 was really tenable and Lot #4 would be difficult to accommodate. He
thought that a 50-foot setback from the stream is more typical and would be preferable. He felt
that the parking was a unique situation and that the applicant did not address this. Eleven non-
specific parking spaces are a good addition, but he would add at least four more. The tennis
court was out of place here. He wanted to see a new landscape plan that shows the actual road,
the screening where it should be, and more parking. He agreed the pedestrian easement should
remain as connection for the open space. Mr. Malott's suggestions about color were good.
Once the 60-foot setback from Trestle Glen Boulevard is put in, what should it look like? This
hillside is so unique and a visual resource of Tiburon, because everyone sees it. He thought
that a rethinking by the applicant was indicated.
Commissioner Fredericks agreed with Commissioner Berger and said she had misgivings about
Lot #3. She did not have a concept of the landslide being fixed, and no sense of the visual
impacts from Juno Road. The photomontages were from Venus Court looking up. What were
the lighting impacts on Juno Road? She felt that smaller houses were important, Those in the
schematics look bulky. She also wanted to improve the bike path so there would be access to
Blackie's Pasture.
Commissioner Snow agreed that this was an important corridor and a transition to Paradise
Drive, and as such should not be compromised. The site constraints have determined where the
homes are located and the remedy would be to have fewer or lower homes. That could address
the lighting problem if the homes were one or one-and-a-half stories. Darker colors are also
appropriate. The creekside setback should be no less than 50 feet as that is a valuable natural
component of the property. The bike path/sidewalk makes sense for safety, and perhaps the
Town Engineer would consider that a turn lane would be appropriate. He felt that the applicant
should listen to the residents of Belveron.
Vice-Chair Stein stated that he realized that the Planning Commission's job was to uphold the
General Plan, not determine their feelings. But the General Plan also feels strongly about
protecting the views from Trestle Glen Boulevard. They can request improvements of the
TlUlJRON PLANNING COMMISSION
8
MINUTES NO. M33 OF OCTOBER II. :!OOO
:~
,
developer if they apply to the development. He felt that safety was an issue for a bike path. as
this was a major corridor, especially on weekends. Two new streets make bike paths more
necessary. He had been on Mercury Avenue and Juno Road to get a feeling for how houses
could be built there and not have a devastating impact. There is nothing in the General Plan
that says use it or lose it. Owners have every right to develop. Some development will occur
and some view impacts will occur, but the General Plan limits what can be built. He suggested
a 20-foot height limit of one to one-and-a-half stories. Mr. Malott's suggestion of larger
building envelope for lower homes made sense. Three larger envelopes with lower homes
would begin to be equitable. He noted that there are large homes in Tiburon with massive
fronts and no screening and he felt that was a mistake. Screening should be required to help
hide the impact of the structures, The Turtle Rock Court homes are lovely, but should not be a
model for these projects. On the drainage, he felt the bypass was more expensive, but would
do less, They should not rely on a shuttle to solve the parking situation, but should have
additional parking in a shared area.
Chair Slavitz stated that the parking had to be adequate to not burden Turtle Rock Court and
Juno Road. The sidewalk, bike path, and crosswalk were all n'eeded as a traffic safety issue.
He agreed with a 50 or 60-foot setback from Trestle Glen Boulevard, This bike route is used
,all the time. He mentioned the Paradise Visioning Plan's goal was to maintain the rural quality.
which was great, but there needs to be improved safety for bikes and pedestrians. He wanted
smaller houses and thought it was better to spread out on bigger envelopes. The development'is
more visually compact. The developer does have a right to build. but he should tind the best
way to do that. He would remove Lot #3, minimize fencing, reduce outdoor lighting, and put
up story poles for the middle and corners of each house to help everyone visualize the project.
Commissioner Berger thought the sidewalk should be on the Belveron side and the other side
kept natural. The landscaping bordering these projects should enhance the natural environment.
M/S Berger/Stein (5-0) to continue to October 25, 2000, to allow time to prepare revisions,
and schedule together with the Lower Trestle Glen project.
The Commission recessed from 10: 10 to 10:20 p.m.
3. END OF PARENTE ROAD AND END OF ANTONETTE DRIVE: PARENTE
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCOPING
SESSION; PROPOSAL TO CREATE FIVE (5) SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON 10.3 ACRES OF LAND; Amerippon, Inc., owner;
Assessor Parcel No. 38-111-16.
Senior Planner Watrous stated that this is the first of a series of public hearing for this Precise
Development Plan. The Scoping Session for the EIR is intended to take comments as to the
items to be included in the EIR, and not the merits of the project. Mr. Watrous described the
project as five lots along a new road created by connecting Parente Road and Antonette Road.
The applicant had prepared a series of studies on geological, traffic and circulation, aesthetics,
and drainage. The Town had hired Leonard Charles as the EIR Consultant and he was present
TIUIJRON PLANNING COMMISSION
9
MINUTES NO. ln3 OF OCTOBER II, 2000
,
,
. -,
\
",
,
.
:~.
,
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE: 1/10/2001
cl
To: PLANNING COMMISSION
From: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
Subject: FILE #39903: "TIBURON COURT" RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (PD#18B).
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CREATE FOUR BUILDING SITES ON A
13.25 ACRE PARCEL AND REVIEW OF DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DE CLARA nON; SOUTH SIDE OF TRESTLE GLEN BOULEVARD; Round-
Two Development, LLC, owner; Don Henderson & Craig Pilgrim, applicants;
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 58-061-80 & 86
Date: JANUARY 5, 2001
PRO.JECT DATA
Address:
South (upslope) side of Trestle Glen Boulevard west of its
intersection with Turtle Rock Court (PD# 18B)
58-061-80 & 86
39903
L (Low Density Residential (up to 0,3 du./acre)
RPD (Residential Planned Development Zone - up to 0.3
du./acre)
13 .25 acres
PM 10-8 (1974)
Undeveloped land
Round-Two Development Joint Venture
Don Henderson & Craig Pilgrim
August 20, 1999
APNo.:
FileNo.:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Property Size:
Subdivision:
Current Use:
Owner:
Applicant:
Date Complete:
BACKGROUND
This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its meeting of October II, 2000, The
Commission expressed concern over a number of issues and provided direction to the applicant
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
1/1012001
1
E'vrlln T'1'I\7 ()
~_i~...r . I:J ,.. __ 1 ~ j.
If.
~.
{:
for a significant redesign of the project. Minutes of the October 11, 2000 meeting are attached as
Exhibit 1 for convenience.
Since that time, the applicant has made modifications to the project and submitted revised
application materials. Several meetings between the applicants and Belveron Association
representatives have been held.
REVISED PROJECT MA TERlALS
Full-size plan-view drawings of the revised project are separately attached as Attachment A
(whole site plan) and Attachment B (schematic landscape plan). A booklet containing reduced
site and landscape plans as well as site statistics, elevations, sections, floor plans and
photosimulations, is separately attached as Attachment C A revised story pole plan is attached as
Attachment D. Miscellaneous other materials include a "Letter of Agreement" (Exhibit 2) and
"Bank Planting and Stabilization Specifications" attached as Exhibit 3.
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTIONfREVISIONS TO THE PROJECT
Below is a brief description of Planning Commission direction from the October II, 2000
meeting, and the revisions made by the applicant in response:
. Commissioners indicated a consensus to reduce the number of units in the project; the
Commission found Lot 3 (the lot nearest to Trestle Glen Boulevard and with the tennis court)
especially marginaL The revised project retains four single-family dwellings, although the
buildings have been rearranged within a slightly reduced development area and the cul-de-sac
shifted upslope.
. Commissioners indicated that the sizes of the homes should be reduced. Revised plans
indicate that house sizes (including garage) would range from 5,160 square feet to 5,370
square feet, only slightly smaller than the 5,400 square feet originally proposed.
. Commissioners indicated that the heights of homes should be reduced to 1 to I Y, stories.
Revised materials indicate that no home would exceed 24 feet in height at any point, every
attempt will be made to keep homes lower than that.
. Commissioners indicated that a minimum 50 foot setback from the centerline of the
drainageway and a minimum 60 foot setback from existing Trestle Glen Boulevard pavement
be established. Revised drawings indicate these minimum setbacks have been provided.
. Commissioners indicated that project parking be greatly increased, especially non-lot specific
parking spaces. Revised drawings show a total of 12 non"lot specific parking space along the
private roadway access, and at least five lot-specific spaces per lot (20 total) for a grand total
of32 parking spaces for the four-unit project. Parking now appears more than adequate.
. Commissioners indicated that the proposed tennis court on Lot 3 should be eliminated and
that certain building envelopes should be reduced in size. The tennis court has been
eliminated and building envelopes reduced generally as suggested.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
1/10/2001
2
.
.
~.
,
. Commissioners wanted better visual impact analysis, and challenged the applicant to revise the
project in a manner that could demonstrate that it would not result in unacceptable visual
impacts. Photosimulations have been prepared under contract to the Town that show the
project from two vantage points along Trestle Glen Boulevard and one from Belveron (Venus
Court). In addition, enhanced story poles have been erected (six poles per house) based upon
actual house designs and heights.
. Commissioners indicated that the design, materials, and landscaping were inappropriate. The
materials and design of the proposed homes has been modified. Rather than stucco, the
homes would shingle or board and batten siding with fieldstone walls and chimneys. Colors
have been muted to blend better with the surrounding environment. Landscaping has been
enhanced.
. Commissioners indicated that a substantial naturalized landscaping buffer be created along
Trestle Glen Boulevard. The applicant has submitted a schematic landscape plan with plant
list. The drawing depicts a meandering footpath within the otherwise landscaped buffer. The
drawing does not reflect the proposed widening of the right-of-way for pedestrian and bike
lane purposes, nor is the footpath a likely improvement within that expanded right-of-way.
. Commissioners expressed concern about the use of rip-rap for stream bank repair and
stabilization, Rip-rap has been eliminated in favor of biomechanical techniques.
Staff is of the opinion that while the design, materials, and visibility of the homes have been
somewhat improved through the revisions, the fundamental concerns expressed by the Planning
Commission regarding density, size of homes, visual impacts, and neighborhood character have
not been substantially alleviated by the project revisions.
OTHER ISSUES
Possible Archeolo~ical Feature
The potential archaeological feature identified in the letter from Grassetti Environmental
Consulting was investigated by David Chavez & Associates, Cultural Resources Consultants (see
Exhibit 4). This feature had been noted in the original site investigation by Chavez, but dismissed
as an object of recent origin (less than 50 years old). Mr. Chavez believes the feature to be a
septic system that originally served the Benton Court homes for the first several years following
their construction in about 1950. The homes were later connected to the public sewer system.
Proiect Draina~e
Project drainage is now proposed to be conveyed via a 24" diameter underground pipe directly to
the drainage system within Tiburon Boulevard without crossing Trestle Glen Boulevard,
apparently at the request of the Belveron Association No technical analysis of this alternative
drainage scheme has been submitted and the feasibility and desirability of this unexplored drainage
alternative remain unknown at this time.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
1/1012001
3
-
:~.
...
Pedestrian Trails
In addition to the originally-proposed Ridge Trail connection, that applicants have now proposed
additional trail easements connecting to the Lower Trestle Glen property and down to Trestle
Glen Boulevard near its intersections with Juno Road. Final alignments would be determined in
the field. These easements are shown on the colored site plan inside the booklet (Attachment C),
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
A letter and petition has been received from the Trestle Glen Hill Committee of the Belveron
Association, dated January 3, 2001. This letter is attached as Exhibit 5, and contains very
specific suggestions and recommendations to the Planning Commission regarding both
undeveloped parcels along Trestle Glen Boulevard.
All other correspondence received since the October 11,2000 meeting is attached as Exhibit 6.
RECOMMENDA nON
The Planning Commission should review the revised submittal in the context of the direction
provided at the October 11, 2000 meeting and provide additional specific direction to the
applicant
EXHIBITS
1. Minutes of October II, 2000 Commission meeting.
2. Letter of Agreement (undated) regarding revised design features, 2000.
3. Bank Planting & Stabilization Specifications (undated).
4. Letter addendum to Cultural Resources Report by David Chavez dated 12/1212000.
5. Letter and petition from Belveron Association dated January 3, 200 I.
6. Late mail (several letters) received since October 11, 2000 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Full size revised site plan dated November 8, 2000.
B. Schematic Landscape Plan dated November 8, 2000,
C. Booklet containing revised drawings, elevations, and photosimulations date-stamped
1141200 I.
D. Story Pole Plan dated January 4, 200 I (II" X I 7") for field use.
\scon\39903pc4 ro:port.doc
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
1/1012001
4
1.-..._.....,_1" --
JAN - 3 2U01
:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TOWN OF TIBURON
The following project design revisions have been undertaken to meet the concern of the
Belveron Association and gain their endorsement for the project. As principal owner of the
project, I agree to the following to be included in the conditions of approval.
Letter of Agreement
{
1. Biomechanicaltechniaues will be used for bank stabilization and erosion protection.
Coir matting and other biodegradable fabrics will be used to cover and secure bare
slopes immediately following slope repair. Native vegetation will be planted on the
banks, using seeds, plants, and cuttings. Willow wattling and live staking will be
employed on the lower banks and in the streambed. Other native shrub species will be
planted along the bank tops. Temporary (3-year) drip irrigation will be installed during
the plant establishment period. The project landscape architect and project ecologist,
, will oversee site-specific details of the planting, and will make
detailed recommendations on plant species, planting techniques, irrigation requirements,
performance standards, and maintenance.
2. All grading & Slide Repair
Bank stabilization and road grading will be completed at one time. It is to be balanced
on site with no off-site hauling of dirt. To further minimize the impact on the
community, water will be present on site during grading to keep dust to a minirnum.
3. Parking
During construction all construction vehicles will be restricted to on-site parking. No
parking will be allowed on Trestle Glen, Turtle Rock, or the Belveron area. The project
proposed is for 4 homes at an 8-to-1 ratio or 32 on-site parking. No parking will be
allowed on Trestle Glen after completion of project.
4. Investigation of Potential Historic Resource
David Chavez, an archeologist from Mill Valley, has been retained to investigate the
area of concern within the road widening easement adjacent to (15-20') Trestle Glen.
This buried structure appears to be an abandoned redwood septic tank. . Furthermore, the
owners are not planning and will not have any structures or grading within this area now
or in the future.
5. Visual Impact
To mitigate the impact of development for 4 homes, the owners agree to maintain the
rural appearance of the project both in landscaping and design of the homes. (See
landscape plans and residential design.) The developer has used the elevation provided
by the homeowners to bring in the uses of wood and stone in all the proposed homes.
While no home will exceed 24' in height, every attempt will be made to keep homes
lower. The developer will work with the Beveron Association and its landscape
architect to further mitigate the visual impact of the homes by relocating, adding and/or
increasing the size of trees. To further assure mitigation be implemented, the developer
agrees to bond the landscaping for the homes adjacent to Trestle Glen. (Lots I & 4).
EXHIBIT l\i0 J.
:
6.
Storm Drain
To help alleviate the flooding on Juno, the project owners agree to install storm drain
along Trestle Glen connecting directly to Tiburon Boulevard and bypassing the concrete
drainage channel.
{
7. Proiect Lighting
All exterior residential road and path lighting will be low-impact lighting. No lighting
from this project will shine directly into the Belveron communities.
8. Trail Easement
The owner will provide a trail easement from the southwest comer (nearest Belveron at
Juno) to Porto Marino.
As your future neighbor and homeowner in this development, I pledge to continue working
with the Belveron Association and look forward to meeting those concerns that impact your
community and your support for this project.
Sincerely,
.~
; \ \,. ,
Crai~lgrim .
Principal Round -Two Development
RECEIVED
~
:",!,,""
BANK PLAl''TING AND STABILIZATION
JAN - 3 2001
,
MITIGATION, MANAGEMEl''T, Ar.,l) MONITORING SPECIFICATIONS PLANNING DEPARTMENl
TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Court, Trestle Glen Boulevard
GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS
I. Streamside enhancement plantings shall use native material only, selected according to
availability from the recommended plant list below.
2. All plants used in the mitigation plantings will be deri ved from local plant material as far as
possible. Marin and Sonoma county stock may be used if necessary; northern California
material may be substituted when more local stock is not available.
3. The landscape plans show areas designated for mitigation plantings. Within these areas,
placement and spacing of the plants will fall within the general guidelines indicated in this pla'n,
but will be responsive to site conditions at the discretion of the landscape professional. The
landscape professional shall monitor and approve the planting stock and the final placement at
the time of installation.
4. The existing willows and hillside native grassland area shall be protected from damage or entry
prior to the onset of any site preparation. Temporary fencing and flagging shall be installed
as needed to prevent mechanical injury or accidental entry.
EROSION CONTROL
5. Bare mineral soils in the slide repair area will be stabilized to prevent erosion and managed to
discourage weeds. Slope stabilization shall be completed prior to the installation of the
mitigation plantings. Erosion and slope failures shall be revegetated at the direction of the
landscape professional and/or the regulatory agencies.
6. To minimize invasion and disruption of the native grassland habitat at and adjacent to this site,
no invasive, persistent, non-native grasses (e.g., blando brome, Italian ryegrass) shall be used in
any hydroseed or erosion control mix at this project site. Where rapid cover is required, non-
persistent annual grasses may be used. Mechanical stabilization with seeding and/or plugging
willi native perennial grasses shall be the preferred method.
IRRIGATION
7. Irrigation of the mitigation plantings shall be supplied by a temporary, above-ground drip
system, or as specified in project bid documents prepared by the landscape professional. The
EXHIBIT No.3
irrigation system should incorporate at a minimum the following or similar features:
.
~<I('
,
a. programmable electric or battery operated controller(s).
b. 3/4" or 1/2" remote control valves.
c. approved pressure reducer and drip irrigation filter/strainer.
d. schedule 40 pvc main line, I '. to the main controller and valves.
e. 3/4" polyethelyne drip tube main lines within each drip zone, with 1/2" drip tube for
laterals. Main line and laterals to be placed next to each plant. 1/8" tubing from
emitter to plant may be used where it is not feasible to place main line or laterals
next to the plant.
f. 1/2 gph self-flushing and pressure-regulating emitters. Larger plants may require
more than one emitter.
The contractor shall design-build the drip system as approved by owner or owner's
representati ve. Piping is to be installed on the surface, and anchored as needed to hold pipe
firmly in place. All plantings shall have a minimum of one 1/2 gph emitter; larger plants will be
supplied with two or more. The system shall be 100% operable, and time clocks set as directed
by the landscape professional to insure plant survi val. Supplemental ,irrigation will be required
during dry season until plantings are established (1-3 years) and performance standards achieved.
Summer dry-down may be desirable. Unless otherwise specified, deep watering at each specific
plant spot shall be preferred to overall surface watering. Timing and duration of irrigation will
be determined throughout the monitoring period by the landscape professional. Hand or truck
tank watering shall be Used if the automatic drip system fails to function. Once established
native vegetation may not tolerate summer water, and consequently irrigation lines shall be
removed or truncated at the completion of the 3-year establishment period.
INSTALLATION
8. All French and Scotch broom and jubata grass shall be removed from the streamside
enhancement corridor prior to installation of the mitigation plantings.
9. Plantings shall be container stock. Container plants shall be liners, dee pots, or similar-sized
stock, although larger plants may be used where screening and visual effect are desired. Where
possible, all planting points shall be augured to a depth of at least 1.5'. The root collar of the
plants shall be level with the surrounding soil level. A weedmat shall be used to suppress weeds
and conserve moisture. Adjustments in the field to meet slope and site constraints shall be
reviewed by the landscape professional.
10. The location of all plantings shall be determined in the field prior to final installation by the
landscape professional. Plant species shan be grouped and .arranged to approximate structure
and diversity of natural habitat, and not planted in grids or rows. All plant material shall be
inspected by the landscape professional prior to acceptance, Rootbound and corkscrew or j-
rooled stock shall not be used.
II. Plantings shall be protected by sleeves, screening, tree shelters, welded wire cages, or other
devices to a height appropriate for shoot gro"'lh to minimize browse damage. Protective
materials shall be removed as plantings grow. Trees shall be staked and tied in such a manner as
to provide for trunk movement and flex.
~
:~
,
MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING
12. Plants that fail to thrive shall be replaced as needed to meet an overall 50% survival standard at
the end of the 3- year establishment program. Replacement plants shall meet the same criteria
described above for the original plant material.
13. During Year I, all observable irrigation equipment shall be inspected once each month from May
to October for proper operation, and irrigated areas shall be checked for under- or overwatering,
Equipment repairs or adjustments to the watering schedule shall be made as needed. Frequency
of inspection may be reduced in years 2 and 3, at the discretion of the landscape professional.
14. Weeds shall be removed at least three times each year as needed frolJl a I-foot radius area
around each planting spot. Just after the onset of the winter rains, and in early and late spring are
preferred times for weed removal; manual removal is the preferred method, but herbicides may
be used on extensive or persistent infestations or where manual removal would cause excessive
disruption of the soil surface. Weed control may be minimized or cease when the target plants
are at least 7 feet tall or at the end of the 3-year monitoring period. Adjustments to the weeding
schedule may be made at the discretion of the landscape professional.
15. The mitigation planting areas shall be kept free of litter and unwanted debris. Trees and sluubs
shall be pruned and pests controlled as needed to encourage healthy growth.
NATIVE PLA:'I."T SPECIES RECOMMEl"o'DED FOR MITIGATION PLA!'."TINGS,
TIBVRON COL"RT, TRESTLE GLEN BOULEVARD:
~
:,,!""",
,
TREES
Acer negundo var. californicum
Aesculus californica
Fraxinus latifolia
Quercus agrifolia
Quercus lobata
Salix Iasiolepis
box elder
buckeye
Oregon ash
coast live oak
vaHey oak
arroyo willow
SHRUBS Al''iD VIi\ES
Baccharis pilularis
Ca/ystegia occidenta/is
Cercis occidentalis
Heteromeles arbutifolia
Physocarpus capitata
Symphoricarpos albus var. lae>'igatus
Sambucus mexicana
Vitis californica
coyote brush
morning-glory
redbud
toyon
ninebark
sllowberry
elderberry
wild grape
PERENNIALS
Artemesia douglasiana
Mimulus aurantiacus
Scrophularia californica
mugwort
sticky monkeyflower
California figwort
NATIVE GRASSES
Bromus carinatus
Elymus glaucus
Festuca californica
Festuca rubra
Festuca idahoensis
Leymus triticoides
Melica californica
Nassella pulchra
California brome
blue wildrye
California fescue
red fescue
Idaho fescue
creeping wildrye
melic grass
purple needlegrass
-
~~.
/~>
"
1-.>
?
;Sq,~
J
~
~ -z
~ ~
~ ~t
~t) ~:z
~* ~ .
&~ \P ~
~~~ ~
- ~
\-l ~~ L ~
\ .~'~ \= .~
\ cL~ 7- ~
~z ~"
\ ~~..t.
\ c:L ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
2.
\ l\:i~ \- ~
\ t=~ ~ <J )::
\ \ -" M t-
\,:~ \0
'\If
=<;:)
, ~~
. I-'-
6-
).-
\\\
~
t-
~i
~~
-~ ::l ~};
~.~ ~~
_ .,} 0.. .
t~J~
~v -~~
~
III
:=>
~~
~\
~
~ '\ ',.
~
3 \
'\
1
. . '. ,~: I.. " . ",
"1'/
L
i1~
-~
S
~ \U -..........-~...
\fl ~ .' ~ ~,..;-
~ )~"".' "'..' '.
~ ~ ({"" "-:-:-~"_o:rc.
.::f Z t' . ,~ ' "
~ ~ 0 >;~~~.~...~_/
\'-<>.- .~ -.......
4.. "?' ~ .
:z ~ ''-....~_u
~ ~ ~',
~ ~'-----....
'5:~ct. ..
.<::) ....... 10 '.
\,J~O
7 Z -
c:::,.~<;>"
~-~~
ill~~
z
~
a.
-:z
:::i
!'"
~u
~
uo~:
~
~.'"
'l' srAKE eN CON7a.A
""
,
"'-,
~,'"
.~, ~/. I
WO~M. ST,.gT~ J..' !e"o'" 0' CUT
0" FILL .NO Ffl.CCHCS fRov STEP I
~OIJG" STEP;
Q) 'mEI<CI< "SovE sa"ES
I~ ~1~"Eni' OF 3VNOL;5
~~'\
-:-=;, ~'
II' """'"
f Ii.:~" _
P... \.
/ \'~ ,: ~
@ .0.00 S'~KES TW'Q<.;GI1
~NC SELOW ,uNOLES
PIlEP/IPoE WAT7UI'IG, ClG.'",-S/'V'PED Sl.N0LE5
OF 1M BIlVS>< ...,... BlITTS Al.TOilN"rMl.
"..to"~Ei~."e.ol'r.'s-cc S-i'EC;E5
",,",e:.. ReeT.>JlE ?'l&-~P,E~
.
WlLLOW WA'll'~!'lG
~n
i hI'
:S',:IT r
It
L~
':'OP-DIP ON RE:l
l....6rEX P~IN1
e.sC:_AXE.SCORE
AHO OlP 'N R.='
toG ><CIWC<<E
'.l!l'. rTJ.41C'X \JVEWll....OW STAKE
~,sCOReo AT""'E 3OT'":'O" ro
FAOUTATE ~T OA()Wll-4 "'n"E~
n.e.-o.oe<T won. RoOnNG t<OR..orn:
uve STAKE
WillOW WATTLING AND LIVE STAKING
NTS
~~.
..
Blodegridable Soli Stabilization Blankets: Im;tallatlon
ANCl<OR SlCfT
~
A.PPRO:lCIWAlQ.Y 200 ,TAPlQ REQUIRED
PER '00 SO. YllS. or WlTER'", ROll.
MCHOIt ~, JuNC:TION SL.OTS "
O€CK 5LOTS TO BE ifu'RIED r TO 11'.
,1' ...,.. ':1 OR rv.nll'
If' ..... STtD'fIl 'llW< ':' r I
~ ....0 E'O JOMS
TO 8E SHUc\'Y AIlUm:O
f---
(NTE 01(5" ....u. ...~
5TN'\..EO V# .10M IN
ll(V or (oct: JOIN!)
I II I
I I
lAP JClNT T kilN.
(JUTE NES" _ Y)
I I
:l
l'
!t' MoU. 4:1 OR F\..Al'TER
J' WAX. m[PER ~ ,4:'
T
T
II
I I
I1ill!i.
I I
I I
. CHECK SL01
l'
CHECK SlOT
-l t-"T02"
I I
"
L
I AI II I"
v.....
PLAN
STAPLING
VAR.
-I
If' TQ If' MI'.
VIEW
DIAGRAM
DETAIL
.CHECK SL.OTS ,,1 WIN.
ST.ooPU r"""EO ",OM '0," $T1:EL WIRE, 60' C-C INTERVALS'
.. STAPU: ..... lENeT" fOR 5INOY SOIl. NOT ReQ:O WIT)< "LL
r STAPLE ..N, LLHCT>l rOIl OTHER so... "CO"'81~TI()N"ll\.N'lKnS
JVNC:T1OO< .WT
~
TQ It'
T'ER1Il....... row
~
T..... '....ly
l'
11m!!.
DETAIL
Source Virvtn'a Erosion and Sedlmant Control Handbook {Rat. No 4J
STRUCTURAL "ANDARDS
AND SAMPLE SPECIFICATIONS
SOIL STABI'./lAnON
BLANKETS
~~.
~
Biodegradable Soli StlblllZltion Blankets: Placement
SIW.l.OW
SLOPE
'. '. . ....~..;~._.."-.
4~~~I~ll'~lr
=Il-~~=.!!.=.!l.
ON ~ SLOPES. ST.~ OF
N(mNC PR01[C'TTVt CQ\I[R'INCS
WAY B( N'PlIED ACROSS
_ SLoPE.
WHERE THERE fS A BERN AT THE TOP or THE Slope. 4BCAW
alUNC THE .....T[RrAl OVER THE SEA" ANO ~A fr ____
BCHIHO '!ME 9~".
STCCP
SLOPE
....:.."..
1=llg~~wgjJJJ!{~;;;;[~~~~;t~::,t!li
11=11=11=1,.........".... ......"... ........4..._..._..:;:.;:::
= -= =II=I~.:':.:"""':':.."';.:'=::::--~,;.:}::
- !!=~...:.:.",#..,:";"",,,~:~:::::
I,"!!.."*.....:..~........r~~:::::
-ij~~~~~..._--.--..
-ii.t~:!.-:!~:E:!.:.i
-11=:11'="11=11=011=:11=,
-J1=jt=g=g=J!=J!=1I
ON ~ SLOPES. ...pt>
PIIOTEC!M: COYERINC P-.ul
TO '!ME DlRECllON Of FlOW
AHO ANCHO~ SECURELY
S"ING ""'TtIll<!. DOWN TO . lMl AO(A StFORC
l[RY...T!"<' _ INSTAl.lJ\TION. NRN THE EHO
Vf\()[R. 11IIO STAPLE: "T t r I~T[""'AlS.
.......'.
. ~. .
1T
IN OfTeH[S. APPI.Y PIiIOTtCTN( C~RlNC
PAlW..L.LL TO "n1( 0l1lltcT10N 0" n.ow.
VSf CHECK SLOTS AS flltOULRtD. A\aD
JOt.."" "",T[II1Al. OJ ~t C[HT[~ Of
~( DrTtM ., AT ~ POSSlBlC.
Source Virpinie ErgO/on enrj Sediment Control H.MbooJc {Ret No 4/
~ DAVID CHAVEZ II ASSOCIATES
P.O. BOX 52 MIll VALlEY. CAlIFORNIA 94942 415388-9037 FIlX 415 388-3688
CuI/ur8J RllSOUl'C8S Comullant.s
December 13, 2000
Craig Pilgrim
Equilan Management
One Sansome Strec:t, 2 I" Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
SUBJECT: Tiburon Court Proposal, Tiburon, California
Dear Mr. Pilgrim:
~
~,!""
~
@@~1[
p.=;~."P'"n<:, f~~
'.._'1..,,;;.1.::'; ,. ;....;':.J
DEe 1 8 2000
Pl,:.:.I~!.':G r"
, "", - -
. ";1
H. ';;; !.;~ '... " '.,
This is in response to your request for an historical resources evaluation of a collapsed fea-
ture reported on the Tiburon Court property. The following is a summation of that evalua-
tion.
At the time of our initial investigation of the subject property (Chavez 1999) the feature in
question was observed to be a collapsed hole with wood framing present; it was not noted
as a potentiai historical resources as it appeared to be of relativcly recent origin (i.c., not
more than fifty years old). Our current evaluation is presented as an addendum to the carlicr
study.
Record Review
Historian J an M. Hupman conducted a map and records review in-house and at the Marin
County Civic Center Library History Room. The following historical maps, dating from thc
sccond half of the nineteenth century and much of the twentieth ccntury, did not show any
activity in the vicinity of the feature.
EXHIBIT NO,.1=.
.
~~.
. · 1858 and 1868 Plats of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, Confirmed to Heirs of
John Reed
. 1873 Map of Marin County
· 1886 United States Geodetic and Coast Survey Map, San Francisco Entrance
. 1892 Official Map of Marin County, California
. 1899 and 1915 USGS San Francisco, California Quadrangle Maps
. 1916 Reed School District Map, Marin County
. 1927 United States Geodetic and Coast Survey Map, San Francisco Entrance
· 1942,1948,1959,1968,1973,1980 USGS San Quentin, California Quadrangle Maps
,
Interviews
In mid-November, Historian Hupman spoke to Pipper Berger, Archivist for the Belvederel
Tiburon Landmarks Society. Ms. Berger stated that the land belonged to the Reed family
well into this century and that for decades it was used as pastureland. She also agreed that
there were never any Reed-family homes in the region. She told Ms. Hupman that she had
sent out a Landmarks Society volunteer to look at the feature. The volunteer, Jean Ortalda,
and her geologist husband, Robert, could not be sure what the feature had been but Mr.
Ortalda believed it was largely buried due to a landslide and any excavation activities would
require shoring. Ms. Berger also mentioned that there was an article in the "ARK" (11/15/
2000) in which a resident (Jean Sutliffe) stated that the area was at one time "Blackie's
pasture," Ms. Berger said there are many springs on the hill and that one of them may have
been tapped and its waters brought to the feature in order to water ranch animals.
Ms. Hupman obtained Jean Sutliffe' s phone number from Daniel Watrous, Tiburon Planning
Department, and on November 25 left a message with Jean Sutliffe, On November 27,
Historian Hupman spoke by phone with Ms. Sutliffe who said she has lived on Juno Road
since 1955 and that her house and the surrounding neighborhood was constructed in 1951.
She further stated that prior to the houses being built, the region was part of the Navy Net
Depot property, a 1940s navy housing and depot facility that was later razed. Ms. Sutliffe
confirmed that the project area has been vacant since the 1950s and cited photographs in
James Heig's Pictorial History ofTiburon (Heig 1984:68), which shows the property void
offeatures in the 1930s. Ms. Sutliffe indicated that "Blackie" (Tiburon's noted horse) was
pastured on the project area land when she first moved there but she doesn't remember when
he was removed. She also said children use to build forts below the hill; in addition, she
heard that the military conducted exercises on the project area during weekends in the I 960s
and 19705. She said the hill above the project area was called DetTebach Hill when she first
2
{.
arrived - named after Thomas Deffebach who mamed into the Reed family and, along with
his wife, inherited the property.
,
On December 5, historian Hupman and archaeologist Chavez met on the property with Craig
Pilgrim, Equilan Management, and C. D. Madsen, thirty-year resident ofTiburon, Together
we re-examined the feature and Mr. Madsen informed us that it is a collapsed septic tank
that was installed in 1952, the details of which are presented in the attached letter. Mr.
Madsen had no recollection of"Blackie" ever being pastured on the land nor of any military
exercises taking place in the area,
Conclusions
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines a lead agency has "a responsibility to evaluate wheth-
er historical resources are present and could be impacted by a proposed project (pRC
21084.1, CEQA Guidelines 15064.5).
A site may be considered an historical resource if it is si&nificant in the archit-
ectural. engineering, scientific, economic, agriculturaI, educational, social,
political, miliary or cultural annals of California (pRC 5020.10)) and if it
meets the criteria for listing on the California Register (CCR Title 14,4850).
If an archaeological site is an historical resources (i.e., listed or eligible for
listing in the California Register) it must be protected from substantial adverse
change like any other historical resources (pRC 21084:1; PRC 21083.2(1)).
An historical resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the follow-
ing criteria:
1. it is asscx:iated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
2. it is associated with the lives of persons important in California's past;
3. .it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses
high artistic value; or
4. It has yielded or is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.
The Register includes properties which are listed or have been fonnally determined to be
eligible for listing in the National Register, State Historical Landmarks and eligible Points
of Historical Interest.
3
~~
Other resources may be eligible for nomination for inclusion in the Register. These may
include resources contributing to the significance of a local historic district, individual
historical resources, historical resources identified in historic resources surveys conducted
in accordance with SHPO procedures, historic resources or districts designated Wlder a local
ordinance consistent with Commission procedures and local landmarks or historic properties
designated under local ordinance (CEQA 1999).
,
The most compelling evidence of the history of the collapsed feature on the Tiburon Court
property is that given by Mr. Madsen. It is therefore concluded that the feature does not
meet any of the criteria for listing on the California Register.
It is recommended that no additional cultural resources management action is required for
the Tiburon Court Project, in regard to the collapsed septic tank feature on the property.
Best regards,
b~~ _._
David Chavez
References
CEQA (Califomia Environmental Quality Act)
1999 California Environmental Quality Act and Historical Resources: Questions and
Answers. Technical Assistance Series 1. California Office of Historic Preserva-
tion. Sacramento.'
Chavez, David
1999 Cultural Resources Investigation for the Tiburon Court A ROWld-two Develop-
ment Project Tiburon, California. Report Prepared for Equilan Management. San
Francisco.
4
~
:,,!<.
December 5, 2000
Planning Director
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Sir,
As a resident of Tiburon for the past thirty years or so, I
have been involved in many important projects in the
Trestle Glen area. Back around 1952 I was a partner in
Shafer/Nadsen and graded an area below Sent on Court for the
purpose of installinq a leach field and redwood septic
tank. This of course was to serve the homes located on
Benton Court prior to the .ewer extension some years later.
I recently walked the area with the owner of property to
point out the old collapsed tank. It may be a hazard to
those walking in this area and probably should be removed
when developing the propo8ad subdivision.'
Yours truly,
C,~-'---- I
C. D. Madsen
-
4633 Paradise Drive
Ticuron, CA 94920
Phone: 435-0253
TRESTLE GLEN HILL COMMITTEE
Belveron Association
14 Juno Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
415-435-6386
~.
~
Date:
January 3, 2001
To:
Tiburon Planning Commission
Jeff Slavitz, Chair
Steve Stein, Vice-Chair
Alice Fredericks
Miles Berger
Wayne Snow
RECEIVED
JAN - 3 ZOOl
CC:
Tiburon Planning Department
Scott Anderson
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TOWN OF TIBURON
From:
Karen Halsey, Susan Erb,
on behalf of the Belveron Association
and Adjacent Neighbors
Re:
Public Petition Regarding Development Along Trestle Glen
Blvd.
Attached is a public petition with conditions for approval that we ask the planning
commission to consider when reviewing the precise development plans (POP) for the
proposed Tiburon Court (File #39903) and Lower Trestle Glen (File # 39908) projects.
You will see that more than 125 residents in both Belveron and nearby neighborhoods
have read and signed this petition.
While some progress has been made toward these conditions as a result of previous
planning commission meetings and meetings that our community has had with the
developers, we also would like to submit our concerns and wishes directly to the planning
commission itself.
For the January 10th planning commission meeting, which will review Tiburon Court's POP,
our community also will be looking to the commission to uphold the recommendations that
were made by the commission to the developers on September 27, 2000. These are:
o Special consideration for a special corridor
o Twenty-foot height limitations (one to one-and-half stories)
o Fifty-to-60 foot set-back from Trestle Glen Blvd. for building envelopes
o Natural. native landscaping
o Elirnination of proposed tennis court
o Fifteen off-street parking spaces
o Submission of view impacts from Juno Road homes
o Minirnum stream set-back of 50 feet
EXHIBIT NO..s..
Public Petition Regarding Development Along Trestle Glen Blvd.
Page 2
~
~,!"",
~.
,
o Results of the investigation into a potential historic resource on the site by a
qualified, objective historian or archeologist
o Three houses
o Minimal fencing
o Reduction of exterior lighting
o Story poles that mark middle and outer edges of proposed homes
o Some direction and next steps on the future of Trestle Glen Blvd. (e.g., bike lanes, safe
pedestrian usage, traffic, emergency vehicle usage, etc.) How can the community
help?
Additionally, with regards to the stream on the Tiburon Court property, our environmental
consultant has reviewed the developers' latest plans and offers the following comments:
Once the project disturbances are complete and the area has been restored to its
final grade, a restoration biologist should oversee the collection of at least one
composite soil sample for agricultural suitability soil testing. The soil sample(s)
should be collected once the rough grade has been reestablished. At least one
sample should be collected for each area if distinct differences are observed,
containing about a quart of soil, and placed in a zip-lock type plastic bag. The
soil sample(s) will be sent for "agricultural suitability" analysis at an approved soil
testing laboratory such as Soil and Plant Lab (408) 727-0330. This laboratory
analysis will provide information important to the restoration effort, such as
identifying mineral deficiencies or toxicities that may adversely affect plant growth
and/or establishment. The restoration biologist may modify fertilizer/soil
amendment specifications or the seed list, based on the soil test results.
Additional fertilizer/soil amendment applications may also be required during the
establishment maintenance period.
There also is a disparity between the geotechnical stream stabilization proposal
shown in the Initial Study, which proposes rip-rap, and the current biotechnical
restoration plan, which forbids rip-rap. This inconsistency should be resolved
prior to completion of the CEQA process.
-- Grassetti Environmenta/ Consulting
We would like to thank the commission and planning departrnent for requiring impartial,
peer-reviewed photo sirnulations of the Tiburon Court project. Early information shared
with us by the developers has been extremely helpful in determining the visual impact of
the proposed four houses. Should the Lower Trestle Glen project again rnove forward,
we ask that this be a requirement for this project as well.
Again, we thank you for your consideration and look forward to working further with the
Staff, Comrnission, Planning Department and Developers on the proposed POPs.
###
Attached: Copy of petition and signatures
{:
,
BELVERON ASSOCIATION
14 Juno Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
415-435-6386
PUBLIC PETITION
Proposed Precise Development Plans
for the Proposed Tiburon Court (File #39903)
and Lower Trestle Glen (File #39908) Projects
Trestle Glen Boulevard is the transition from the suburban west to the more rural east
side of Tiburon and, as such, is a significant visual resource to all of Tiburon. While
there is considerable housing along Trestle Glen, most of it is invisible.
This will not be the case for these proposed projects on the old Cherry property.
Although the upper reaches of the property will become private open space, the
proposed eight homes ranging in size from 4,800 - 7,500 sq. ft. will have multiple,
significant impacts. Most important are the views of the Tres.tle Glen hillside, which are
cherished by homeowners below and above, as well as, Tiburon residents who travel
along Trestle Glen Blvd.
We ask that the planning commission be deliberate and thoughtful in its review,
recommendations and possible approval of these proposed projects. Your decisions will
forever change the natural beauty and resources of the Trestle Glen hillside and have a
tremendous impact on surrounding residents. With your. review and recornmendations to
the developers, we ask that you incorporate the following:
Conditions for PDP Approval - Both Proiects
. Story poles and plastic netting should be constructed to sirnulate roof ridge lines,
eaves lines and building forrns of proposed development
. Houses should be low-profile one and one-and-half story levels, which are stepped
down or up hillsides in order to conform with natural terrain; the rnaximum height of
homes should not exceed 15'
. Uphill views of homes should present a low-slung horizontal silhouette by integrating
deck and foundation design into the shape of the building and site topography
. Downhill views of homes should present a pleasing roofscape of low-pitched and
gabled and hip roofs
. Roof colors should be dark earth tones to minimize visibility from distant locations
. Large unbroken expanses of walls and rooflines, large areas of single-pane glass,
colurnns and towers should be avoided
. Exterior wall material should consist of natural wood shingles, clapboard, or board
and batten or natural colored stone; exterior colors should be subdued natural colors
or earthtone finishes
~
:,,!,,"
~
Conditions for POP Approval - Both Proiects continued
. No ,aw redwood exteriors
. Private open space should be highly restricted from future building and/or
landscaping and remain in its natural state (except for fire prevention measures and
general upkeep)
. Alternative surface materials should be explored for access roads rather than black
asphalt
. No bridge over creek
. Retaining walls and skirt walls will be of native stone or stone clad; retaining walls
exposed to downhill views should be rock faced or colored, textured or painted to
harmonize with adjacent soil or plant colors or may be screened by landscaping to
reduce visual impact.
. Exterior lighting should be limited ~o the minimum amount necessary to safely
iIIurninate points of access and ou:-joor living areas; such lighting shall also be
designed and located to avoid or minimize its visibility ftom surrounding properties
and Trestle Glen Blvd.
. On-site landscaping or re-vegetation should utilize primarily native plant species,
which are compatible with the surrounding natural environment of the Trestle Glen
hillside. Trees should be used to block 65 to 100 percent of the houses from
existing neighborhoods while allowing new homeowners to enjoy their views.
. To maintain the natural state of the hillside, pools and structures such as gazebos or
trellis will not be permitted.
. No property will have boundary fences; extensive terracing shall be discouraged
. Frontage along Trestle Glen Blvd. should maintain its natural look (e.g., rolling hills,
grasses, trees and bushes)
. With the dedication of a ten-foot wide strip along Trestle Glen Blvd. for future uses,
including a bicycle path or sidewalk, pUblic discussion and comment will be 'held to
determine long-term usage and safety of Trestle Glen Blvd.
. County trails for hiking to open space areas will be preserved
Conditions of PDP Approval - Tiburon Court
. Reduction of proposed units from four to two
. Elimination of proposed tennis courts
. Peer-review study of how the stream channel, entering the property from the
southeast corner, will be stabilized (see October 25 memo to planning commission);
we support the recommendation of the United States Fish & Wildlife Service that
building within 300' of the stream be avoided.
. Presence of neighborhood-association-approved stream biologist during strearn
stabilization
~
:~.
~
I
Conditions of POP Approval - Lower Trestle Glen
. Reduction of proposed units from four to one
.. Eliminate Lot 3 because its slope exceeds 40 percent in certain areas, and the
Tiburon General Plan states "the Town should discourage development on slopes
exceeding 40 percent wherever possible."
. By elirninating Lot 4, 3 and 2, the need for retaining walls and a rnultiple street
parking spaces and the resulting significant visual irnpacts could be avoided
. The height rnaximum of Lot 1 should be limited to 1 story
Construction ReQuirements
. No construction on Saturday or Sunday
. No construction before 8 a.m, or after 5 p,m.
. Vehicles belonging to construction/project personnel and/or heavy equipment shall
be not parked on Juno Road, Mercury Avenue, Apollo Road, Turtle Rock Court,
Shepard Way, Hacienda Drive, Benton Court or Warren Court.
. Juno Road, Mercury Avenue, Apollo Road, Turtle Rock Court, Shepard Way,
Hacienda Drive, Benton Court and Warren Court should be swept daily
ReQuest for PlanninQ Commission and the Town of Tiburon
. We request the Town Engineer inspect the stability of Trestle Glen Blvd. in the area
of the proposed access road for potential landslides into Venus Court hornes.
. We also ask that a rnore thorough traffic and safety study be initiated regarding
placernents of both access roads along Trestle Glen Blvd.
. Prior to POP approval, the Town will disclose drainage alternatives to those
Belveron residents most affected.
. We also ask that other options for the Lower Trestle Glen project be actively
explored:
For example, one or two lots accessed from Silverado Drive.
The location of these lots would reduce the overall number of units and irnpact to
hillside while providing sufficient revenue to property owner. (LU-19 c)
"Developrnent should avoid ridgelines or prominently visible areas," which the
Trestle Glen hillside is to the greater Belveron area.
###
//
~ N NI N N
. ~ ~ N ~ N - - - I
. . 9 ID m ~ - - -
,-- _" I rl .' - ?' "'I ,.. ~ ~ ::: ~ !" CD ..... en
~ ,,"I" . ... . ..~~~
C.,f ~;~f~;~~~fl;~'~'~~t~W~~~ ~
~~~'~I ~~~~~~~. ~~>~~'~~~~4~~' ~
~'~ f~\I~,~~~~dl2~,_,~r7~~~ ;
I"{ ",'f _7 """,,, ~p ·
~~,,- C'~. H ;:;:,\;',,~J~~i ~~~n
j;~ ,g j t" ,~ ," V. i"f; ~ ~ ;; i; ~
Hi ,_ " , ~ ,-... ".;;l '" '" ~
t>:o ~ ~ :' ~'t ,", 21)' :.. ;., \.-
~~ () " fi >. ,,;i
, ~_'0 ~ v- ~
d ,II, ~ f'i~ ' 1,.' " ..
_ !) f\ ~'[''''' ~ ,/ t r~ S':~;Gh'I'jl. t) ~
~~~,~I~~~~i~>;17~(r~,~r~~I; ~
t~~(~)~~~'~~~ ~~ ~~~(.~~I~
t~ ~~ ~"\ l(f~ ~ If- s ) l:::: (' (S ~ ~ ~ ~
\ ~ . ~ ,-If. ,~- ~
, 't' Ii ". t ,. j:,
2: /:\~.t;\ ,,~
^ ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ _ ,~ 'N ~"
;Ii: ~, \.i' IJ.>" ~, w -'" ~i ' . -" Ci\ (,," '
~I~~~~~~~~~'~f,r~~~~~~~~~i
~~0t~~,~~~~Sf'~q^~~~~"~}
f 9' <' P :.dl~:"'~~~ \' ,- - ~d"f 1 J I
,,'\ 2'f fi) .. ~pS: iC'g ~ \' *,1 d:. "C' ,'" ~
:t;~~~~~~~~~F ~ ?8 r~9~}e
L2 ~ \. .:s ~ /hlh--. ~ ),," 'l' '1 '
f ~~ ~~ 4
~ ~ f..
-tl '~ ...i...c J..... ' ..\ '~ c~ ~ .
.~~~ ~~^~~.~~.~,.~.~~W~~k.
~_~t ~~~~~KWO~'-~!~.~'~~.
.:- ~ k' ..... ~ _ ~ ~ i (Ai '-') ;0 > IX\ IN -- ' '~ \ W ~ ,\1' :
_ " I ','.n ~ 0 _ "'I '- ~' 1 ,\. v' ,," · ' .- C? '"
~ ~ t9 ~ ;:[,.f; S!: ~ ;' ~ ~ ~ Jl ~ O. ;::J:~ ~,. ~ w~, ~ h..: ~\
"~ ~ ~~~1~~~~t~~ ~~~~~..
~ :; v "()'f''' 'l'
.
~,!",
"
>
Q.
~
...
<D
IIJ
IIJ
III _
.::l 0
Q....
r-....-c
o :T...
:E CD 0
<D -c 'tl
... ... 0
-IOIIJ
'tlCD
<;l0Q."'tl
1IJ1IJ"'tlC:
....<D
CilQ.<;llll
G) -I ~. !:
_5'IIJ("')
<D _ CD
::l - .
...
-:;;0 CD m
_.::l <-I
Cil("')~-
=11:00-1
w l: 'tl 0
CD::\.3
CD_CDZ
O"'l'1::l
co -....
-c;-"tJ
"'tl=ll:-
... Will
..2. (Q ~
<D CD IIJ
no
lii~
"'tl
::r
o
::l
<D
Z
l:
3
l:l"
<D
...
N I'W I\J I\J I\J
?1 ;Clo- ~ !'l -"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I\J ~
-0
:l.
::I
s-
o.
Z
ll>
3
CD
{
(/)
C' ll> _
::I
ll> ::I 0
- 0."
C r--o
.. o ::1"..
CD =ECDO
CD -0 '8
.. .. en
-I.g CD
"00.-0
3len-oc
_CD"m
-Q.CD
CD 0 r
G) -I -. -
-'en (")
f'l (;"O'"CD
::I5ic-o
~ -OCDm
"Tl::l<-I
=(")CD_
CD --I
00_
)> '!tc"C 0
0. ~;::I.3z
0. (I)_CD
.. O"Tl::l
CD
en c:a:""
VI -CD-O
-O'!t-
.. c..> ll>
o ::I
_. CD en
CD (I)
0 0
ur~
-0
::I"
o
::I
CD
Z
c
3
0'"
CD
..
N N I\J N N N -. -lo
~ ~ ~ !'J -. 9 ~ ?J
"
~.
::l
lii
a.
Z
III
3
CD
.
~"'"
~
I~
- -t:, .t "
: :'1 ::r
~ 0
~ VI ::l
o '-1 CD
,
1i '" '" z
~-.j) ~ c
3
C"
CD
...
Ul
cc III -
::l ::l 0
III a....
-
c r-"
... o ::T ..,
CD :eCDO
CD 4'-g
... 0 Ul
-i"'C CD
"'00."
l)lUl"C
....m..,m
-c.CD
CD (') r
C)-i-.-
-.Ul (")
-C"CD
~:;C"
-OCDm
"'T1::l<-i
=(")CD_
CD --i
00_
:to l!ic"'C 0
a. CD~3z
:: a. CD_CD
... O"'T1::l
CD
Ul co:: ,..
Ul -CD "
"=Il:-
.., c.l III
o ::l
_. CD en
CD CD
(') 0
- c.l
Ul _
::-
~~-
,
'" '" '" '" '" '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "0
?' ~ ~ '" ~ !=' ~ Q) :-J C) ?' ~ ~
(
'(j
D> _
::s 0
Q....
r--"O
o ;:,"...
==CDO
CD "O-g
... a IA
-l"1:l CD
"'oQ."O
g:IIl"OC
_CD"'tIl
-Q.CD
CD or-
,... -l-.-
'" -. III (")
-C'CD
~E;c"O
-OCDm
-n::S<-l
=(")CD_
CD --l
=11:00-
w c:"1:l 0
CQ;:l.3z
CQ_CD
o-n::s
co:"'"
-CD"
"0=11:-
... wD>
o ::s
_. to IA
CD CQ
('lO
Iil'~
N N I\J I\J N N ....a.
~ ~ !JJ !'J ....a. p ~
~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~
r! 0> <J1 A
I
~ ~ ~
~ ~
!:D :"
"
:!.
:::l
-
CD
C.
Z
III
3
CD
CIl
cC'
:::l
III
-
s:::
iil
~:::
~
)>
c.
c.
...
CD
1II
1II
11I_
:::l 0
c....
r-"t1
o ::r...
::E CD 0
CD ~]
... 0 1II
-I"C CD
"'OC.-C
lXlII-cc
_CD-.ttl
-C.CD
CD nr
,..., -1---
'" -. (II ,...,
-C"CD"
CD s:::
:l...0"
-OCDm
"T1:l<-I
=....CD_
CD "--I
=11:00_
w s:::"C 0
(Q;:l.3Z
(Q_CD
(:) "T1 :l
0):'"
-CD-C
"=11:-
... c.> D>
o :l
_. to f/)
CD (Q
(') (:)
-c.>
1II_
"
::r
o
:::l
CD
Z
s:::
3
C"
CD
...
N N ~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ A ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
f-
~::::
~
"'C
::!.
::::J
lD
Q.
Z
III
3
lD
'" '" '"
~ -!- ~
N N N --" --" --"
N -'" ~ ~ ~ -.l
,
--" --" --" --" --" --" --" ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ W N --" _
C)!J1.&loWI\.l......O. .. .. ~ "
.; ./,..' ::1"--' ,/ ~ j 5
~, i3 :J<' 1"'< rn -~kZ ~;:- -
I-' '" .~I'. ~ ..,~~ ~
90 0-- ~ >"'1<::7' :, ~~;
(~." ' I<j: 1::::) R r :J I~ ~ ~ ~" ~ ;J iff
i:=t ~ r; ~"- "'". ,>~. ~
~J ?il\ J(~<-- ~.....- ~ ~'::J"
. , '''~ p ~".., <:...... ~ \; ~ ~I:>
~ S>~~ t63 ~~ r~ ~?
V >~~~ t::: t~:s ~ r~
~ f ,- iO~ I'P ~ r-p ~f-
Ia:.? I l?) ~
f.,.
~, ;;2 ~P:\: \1 ~ ~ ~k :
'" ;;;;: ~ '" S;"''l1iQ ,'\P'f ~;~-;
....... lj.' ;;~1Ir iO' &h~ Ct-~~i:> 2'
~ \:~~ '" ~~ 5 ~II:: , ~ It ~ iil
:' ~~J? -f. ~zl--,',," ~ ~ ~.. ",-
\ ";:.;::..... ~ -' N -L '- ) ;:,,-,?>, 1 ~ ,-'"
'- ~ ;?~?;; I ~ s: (~~ .(\~,
p~;\ . .: I ~t'" / ~ .~ ~
';;' I '\ \, ""'. C' - " "- ~
l) \ ~ ~ .,,)
~ ~ --
- 71
Ie:::..
J~u~~.~~~~~~.'~~~~~ ~
-n 5' ....-,~' (---. -ti ", ':' I, ;::1 Q.
"J:::I ;::) ~" -\ ~ ~,~} ~.~ ii
~ ~\~ ~ ~ ~~>::I ~ ;: ~\ ~\ ~ 1- r~ ~ CIl
-t;:::' ,\\~{ ~ ,...~, -j:. >,,-,- 7C
(:'0 =P? 'J (>, ~~~, ,=-4;'~~
~ ~-J ~ ~ ~' ?t;-S' ~~~. ~ ~ r~~i-:c
K ....., ~'- ~-l: ,,\ :;: ct.- ",--:->
i;- .... <.:) '1 '\~, ~ \, '" P "" -' ~.-:-
~~' ~.
~ ~ k.~, ~ .[;;:; ~
[l,J s: (,\ il' I~'\J .c ,
VI .J-l~I)W' \ \
l r, ~ .IJ '! '~ ""( ~ (\ ~
";: " 2.. () ~ { -"~.~
TV' o~rvfJJo(I_'';\
J 171 ~ C; " ~'" \ \
"""':fl.Il ~~...5l ~
...-
r-~
~. ",.\ ;;::;- \.\l ~
r-C,,,\ ....., j0J
_ ',~ . \ ~I~
( -" ~ :/,
\.....t>~J.l
~.::;~'-\_~ ,-
"'J''J "->lA\-:;--
-~ ~-
V""lI;:,
~
~~.
,
Ill....
:::l 0
Co"
r---C
o ::r ..
:e III 0
III ~-g
"om
-l"tl 11l
..oCo"tl
g:m"tlC
....CD..""
-Colli'"
III or-
,.., -l-._
'" -. m ,..,
-C"lll"
~5;c"tl
-Olllm
"T1:::l<-l
=,..,lll_
lll"--l
:;t:oo-
'" r:: "tl 0
1D::l.3z
1D_11l
O"T1:::l
CD::....
-lll"tl
"tl:;t:-
.. '" III
o :::l
_. U) en
III ID
00
lii~
"tl
::r
o
:::l
III
Z
r::
3
C"
11l
..
'" '" '" '" '" '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ co !'" :-' !'" ~ ~ ~ '" c"
'" A ~ '" ~ 9 co '" :-' !'" ?' ~ ~ !" c" 9 ""ll
\ ::!.
::I
S'
<' Co
---., Z
III
OJ 3
CD
""
.....
~
'"
~
0';"-
C
,... ;"'~"
1'-
'\ ...
~
:,,!-.
~
CIl
cEo
::I
III
...
c:
..
CD
III _
::I 0
Co.,
r"'""ll
o ::T.,
:IE CD 0
CD ""ll]
~ a en
-I"tl CD
"oCo""ll
lJ:CIl""llC
...CD"'lJl
-CoCD
CD or
,.., -I -._
." -. CIl ,..,
-o-CD"
~5iO""ll
-OCDm
"T1::1<-I
:::,..,(1)_
(1)"--1
'11:00_
W c:"tl 0
CD::l.3z
CD_(I)
O"T1:l
=::..
-(I)""ll
""ll'll:-
... ".Ill
0-::1
-. (D en
(I) CD
00
lii~
~
Co
Co
..
(I)
CIl
CIl
""ll
::T
o
::I
CD
Z
c:
3
0-
(I)
..
---
'" '" '" '" '" '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <:xl :-" <:xl ~ .... w '" ~
(]I ..... ~ '" ~ ~ ~ <:xl :-" (J) ~ '" ~ '" ~ ~ " d
~ r-
~, ~
~ t
~ ?
~ ,~
~
~ qJ [-
t
J;;C f
~ I~
~
~ 1'-
1=
eo ~ r;..
~ \ ~
It
~ v
- K
~ f t' ~
,.\
/ w ~
::::::: 0 t'
'I.
~ ~ ~
r -
,..... c
;: r
0
~ s ~
C7 -:J
, ::1
j V-
a- ~
~ c. ~
J 3
.
~ ..c
~
I
k I
b ~ ...r:..
~ ~
2t'
~ '9.
<;::,
--t-i
~
:."
"'ll
:!.
='
-
CD
Co
Z
III
3
CD
~
en
US'
='
III
-
C
...
CD
III _
=' 0
Co...
r-"'ll
o :T...
::e lI) 0
lI) "'ll"g
... a In
-I "C CD
...oCo"'ll
mCll"'llC
~ct)...,""
-Coli)....
CD (') r
"" -I -'-
'" -. CIl (")
-C'CD
~:;C"'ll
-Oll)m
"T1='<-I
=(")lI)_
CD --I
=II: 0 0-1
...c"C 0
",::I.3z
"'_CD
C"T1='
ca:.:;""
-lI)"'ll
"'ll=ll:-
... ...Ill
o ='
--.. CD t/J
CD '"
(') C
ur~
)>
Co
Co
Cil
CIl
CIl
"'ll
:T
o
='
lI)
z
c
3
C'
lI)
...
f\J f\J f\J f\J N f\J
?1 ~ W f\J ...... P
~ CC :---I P> ~
~ ~ !'J ~
-" -" ..... .....
~ ~
~
.b. W
~ ~ ~
tv -" 9
k-i.rtl
=
F
ffi
(5?)
(9
.
:It!
_.
.-r
,-==
~
-,,,":!'
"
r
-.> :Il
02
SZ m c..; --f::, "'"
zZ w _'J "tl
OGl (') ':: /,. "\ =
,.,0 m .\ " I 0
, ::::I
-.en .....
-" 1 ~ ..... CD
9;; ---\\ ..... z
- ~ -..() .........
:JJ- C
0'"
2R' I:" ''>I) 3
2 ~ C'
- CD
, ..
".
,;
-~
.'.
"tl
~.
::::I
S-
a.
z
Dl
3
CD
en
cc
::::I
Dl
....
c
iil
Dl ....
::::I 0
Co"
r..."tl
o ::r-.
:ECDO
CD 4'-g
"OUl
-I"'C lD
(i;oa."tl
UlUI"tlC
...CD-'lIl
-ColD
CD n r
roo -1-._
." _. UI
CSC'lD(")
::::IEiC"tl
_Omm
:!!::::I<-I
CS(")~-
:jt:oo-l
wC't:l (5
<.o::l.3z
<.o_Cll
O'TI::::l
co -.,...
-CS"tl
"tl:jt:-
-. w Dl
o ::::I
_. CD r.n
Cll <.0
no
"'w
UI_
)>
Co
Co
..
CD
UI
III
Ir-
o 0
c ::E
CJl CD
CD -,
CJl
OJ
-,
CD
::l
o
.-+
.-+
o
CJl ::l
()"O
OJ -,
CD ..Q.
UCD
c ~
.-+
OJ
-,
CD
-.
::l
OJ
"0
"0
-,
o
x
3
OJ
.-+
CD
"0
CD
-,
3
OJ
::l
CD
::l
.-+
o
()
OJ
.-+
o'
::l
CJl
"0
.,c
--
-l
-,
CD
CJl
.-+
CD
G)
CD
~
./,4-
..'
:
,
I -l "'""
~ g I'.~'
C1> 0 f"
en ::l ~; .
0) O~' ,
..... 0
C1> c
5::1-
...... "0
...... .....
o 0
~.
en C1>
(') (')
0)......
CD
0-
C
......
0)
.....
C1>
::l
0)
"0
"0
.....
o
x
3
0)
......
C1>
"0
C1>
.....
3
0)
::l
C1>
::l
......
o
(')
0)
~
o
::l
en
.,
.
~
l
I
Albert W. Kirschbaum
. 40 Juno Road
Tiburon, Califkornia
94920
ffll[Lfg @@IFt'
T" ~~I..,
~-;.
,
M:=')~:~~"' =-~S
Mr. Scott Anderson
Planning Director
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
n~r
LJ:..u
7 2000
D~::'" ,
",:';,;:
" :,....., ,,'I
Dear Mr, Anderson:
I have been told that alternative proposals are being considered for the culvert
placement in connection with the Tiburon Court development. Whereas the
developers would prefer to put the culvert on the south side of Trestle Glen
("Gerry Culvert") the City is proposing a culvert on the Belveron side of Trestle
Glen ("Belveron Culvert"). Following are my observations on the matter.
1. The construction of the Belveron Culvert would result in partial or complete
damage to about fifteen mature trees and about a dozen large bushes all of which
now anchor and stabilize this steep sloping property while also providing both
sound and visual barriers to Trestle Glen traffic and the future developments
proposed on the Cherry Property. This does not speak in favor of the "Belveron
Culvert" .
2. When investigated, reported water problems above 34 Juno Road through Venus
Court are likely to prove to be "artesian" or groundwater in nature and not the
result surface runoff. A culvert would do nothing toward intercepting the
groundwater. The artesian effect from the steep sloping Cherry Property is
pronounced enough to force groundwater through the pore structure of the asphalt
streets in Belveron. This does not speak in favor of the "Belveron Culvert".
3. The recognized surface water problems and poor drainage configuration now
facing 30/32 Juno Road properties would seem best dealt with by directing all runoff
from the intermittent Cherry Property stream into the proposed "Gerry Culvert",
thus by passing completely the two troubled properties. A "Belveron Culvert"
originating near the entrance to Turtle Rock would serve only to direct more water
flow past the 30/32 Juno properties and thus further aggravate the existing problem.
These facts also seem to speak in favor of the "Cherry Culvert",
5(AtWv-
cc: Karen Halsey, Susan Erb
T.'--TTT~"l-T N-O -'-
~j,-,-r"").lD .
.
.~.
~irE MAI[ #L
-r~.c~';
n=nn r;; ~(iii"?'1:'''
tJ ib~ 0'~'J.' ;
H E '8,:~ :"'17:.!)
November 5,2000
~,! 0\/ 6 2000
The Planning Commission
Citty of Tiburon
__.Ladies and Gentlemen: - - ... ..
p:_:' .. ',' -- ~.~ ," '.::! 1
., ..J
We wish to express our concern regarding the increasing traffic on Trestle
Glenn Drive. Since the opening of the Turtle Rock development, the traffic has
increased many times. On October 31, at 4 P.M. we counted 14 vehicles on Tiburon
Blvd. to turn onto Trestle Glenn The vehicles stood as far back as the left turn lane for
Jeffry Drive.The traffic light allowed only 8 vehicles to turn. The grid lock both in the
morning and evening commute hours is constantly increasing. The safety of byciclists,
using Trestle Glenn to get to Paradise Drive, is jeopardized by the increase in
vehicular traffic. The proposed multiple unit development on the East side of Trestle
Glenn would increase again the already heavy traffic on this road which is also a
thoroughfare to the back roads to the north for vehicles cought in the evening rush
hours on highway 101.
We urgently ask you to consider this situation on a road, that is probably not
suitable for much widening, in your deliberations of the suitability of this area for further
development
Thank you for your attention to this.
~~~
Ena Griesbach
('
!~ ~d-~
3 Hacienda Drive
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
KEITH R. CARR
Building Inspections
11/9/00
fC!\ ~ r? (:'\ F'I IC,,\;7
lJl;,--...o;;l \,;:J~lr Ll
- --r, lor &t-
~~.
,
SCOTT ANDERiON
PLANNING DIRECTOR
"
Last n1ght at the Lower Trestle Glen Development meeting,
one of your staff read from the T1buron General Plan Ord1nance
and talked about the d1fferent 1ssues 1nvolved.
The two developers have never yet spoken or wr1tten on
paper anyth1ng that could be even remotely 1n comp11ance w1th
rules of the T1buron General Plan. 3000 sq. ft. houses and 15 ft.
high reta1n1ng walls w111 never be found on Juno Rd. or Apollo Rd.
10:.2 sq. ft. 1s . what you w111 see, and some less than 1012 sq. ft.
Both of these developments must be stopped at once. No more
wast1ng the Plann1ng Departments t1me (tax payers money) plUS the
time of the people who 11ve 1nthe area.
~~~
KEITH CARR
15 Juno Rd..
T1buron
':ll'It\~........~.......,,\ ".r...-.
5.....~ :::'~.' ,-... '-.:)
NOV 1 0 2000
PL";"" :..'"': :'~;'" ,; ;;':;111'
T:..J"" L_.(- 1,(JL':".I:j
P.O. Box 603 Tiburon. California 94920
Tel('phonf" (415) 435-2014
nJ~T~ MAIL 1# J-f-
8llll ~ @r,:;-,~~7
tr LbLS \!:!] UdJ If U
~\6r 8: I
~
~~-
,
.
,
To: The Planning Commission
City of Tiburon
1520 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon CA 94920
November 6, 2000
~""r-',,-:"'I
'"',i::......t:.i ~!CLI
NOV 8 2000
Re: Consideration of development of Cherry property,
both upper and lower parcels
F'U',;;:::~-H~ O~~~?;:'.-ib"jT
Te:....::..) :":;':"j icl.":~::~
Dear Commissioners:
Could you please elaborate on the proposed 1 O-foot expansion of
Trestle Glen Boulevard, i.e., is its purpose to (1) widen the road, (2) provide
parking for construction vehicles, (3) provide a setback base for retaining
walls, or some other purpose? This has never been clear. We have heard
mention of a sidewalk. as well as the proposed entry road(s) from Trestle Glen,
plus the laying of sewer pipes,but this rather nebulous 10-foot strip has not been
defined.
For example, where exactly would it begin, and where end? I would have
to assume it will remove any number of pine and roadside growth that have
taken about 30 to 40 years to cover what once was a plain grassy hill
(and some of which we planted or nurtured), but I would like some definition.
Further, does this expansion end abruptly at Hacienda, the road narrowing
back beyond that point, or is this meant to be a major widening of Trestle
Glen Boulevard intended to accommodate more traffic, and ultimately
changing a pleasant country road into another gaseous thoroughfare?
One further question in the area of cement: why would anyone want
to put rip-rap into a living stream? And if anyone doubts this is a viable
hillside watervvay, I believe I could find witnesses to that from most
states i~ the UnitOn}Ome of whom kept their frogs in my second bathtub.
- I 'If /
C/~~ '~
Madge L. Engan
28 Apollo Road
Tiburon CA 94920
;7
/
.~/{.;tJ-tt<<
.
c
~~
~
,-.;...
Ifil~rg-@@[f'~'
__,,:. -A'.Io-()r;,c:r
- - ,. , ..~
~
Tiburon Planning Commission
Town Hall, T;buron Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
November 14, 2000
',J! u tCCe
,
..
This is in regard to the " Cherry Property" development off of Trestle Glen Blvd.
As the home owner of one of the first homes built in Belveron, I wish to contribute a bit
of history to your deliberations on of the project.
We moved into our home on Apollo Road, where I still live, on November
forteenth , 1950----- just fifty years ago.
Through the years I have gotten to know successive generations of home owners
who cherish this hillside we affectionately called "Belveron Hill". Take a walk through
our streets and pause any where to look past Trestle Glen to one of nature's beautiful
creations; and you will understand why we are concerned.
The creek that meanders through this hillside has both beautified the natural
topography of the landscape and has warned us of the unstable condition of the soil it
rests on . We recall the mud slides and slippages on the hill foUowing the rains of 1982.(
Here I digress to remind ourselves of Belveron's part in defeating the cluster of
condominiums proposed O[for the plateau just across Juno Road and Trestle Glen Blvd.
Records of past Planning Commissions should show the hundreds of signatures gathered
by the residents protesting the condominiums development)
With the incorporation of the penninsula as" Town of Tiburon" , our Belveron
enclave integrated into the wider community with a municipal government to protect us.
In return, we have supported many communiy endeavors, including promoting the
"Bicycle path", "McKegny Green", the acquisition of "Ring Mountain" and other "Open
Space"treasures. We remain a significant con1ituency in supporting City Hall,our
magnificent Public Library and other public Buildings.
Trestle Glen is our connecting link to Paradise Drive. Spend a few minutes at
Juno Road and Trestle Glen during commute hours and you can imagine what the traffic
.problems this development would cause for our neighbors who need this lifeline.
Thanks to Deirdre Mc.Croh~ excellent article in "The Ark" we are informed of
the " Save the Rural Gateway to Paradise Committee, and their vision of acquiring this
entire piece of Property as"Open Space"Please take time to review all the information the
article gave and compare the alrtemative of private mansions with private drivewavs
emotvin!! into a busy oublic ro~d verses preserving it as "Open Space."
As a Belveron grandmother I am proud of our young people's effort to pre-serve
for posterity this beautiful enviromentally fragile piece of hillside.
Most Sincerely. C<;;J-~C ~ S&"r-
Adina Robinson
16 Apollo Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
cc: The Ark
~DlL~ @@!tli'
~
:~.
...
BELVERON ASSOCIATION
14 Juno Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
415-435-6386
. Date:
October 25, 2000
To:
Tiburon Planning Cornmission
Jeff Slavitz, Chair
Steve Stein, Vice-Chair
Alice Fredericks
Miles Berger
Wayne Snow
R"'Cl""'l' '-0
-..- ,_.~:t !......' .
s.... !4.4 'fit i::.....:.
: OCT 2 5 2000
P!.},.:,,':';::'~G C;:-,:-::,ST:\E{j
TO';,,'i'i G;: ;::~;:;j:'J
cc:
Tiburon Planning Departrnent
Scott Anderson
From:
Karen Halsey, Susan Erb,
Janica Anderson, Charlie Zabielskis
on behalf of the Belveron Association and Adjacent
Neighbors
Public Comment Regarding Proposed Mitigated
Negative Declarations for the Proposed Tiburon Court
(File #39903) and Lower Trestle Glen (File #39908) Projects
Re:
To satisfy the rnany concerns and questions raised by Belveron and other adjacent
neighbors, we hired an environmental consultant to review the initial studies, Mitigated
Negative Declaration drafts and staff reports for the proposed Tiburon Court and Lower
Trestle Glen housing projects. The prelirninary report prepared by Richard Grassetti of
Grassetti Environmental Consulting as well as his qualifications are attached for review.
Based on Mr. Grassetti's findings and by cornparing his observations to the goals and
policies of Tiburon's General Plan, we believe additional docurnentation and/or studies
should be provided to the public for complete disclosure of all significant effects.
In particular, we ask the commission to consider requirernents by the developers for the
following:
. Impartial, peer-reviewed photo simulations of each project and both cornbined
. Peer-review study of how the stream channel, entering the property frorn the
southeast corner, will be stabilized
. Investigation into a potential historic resource on the site by a qualified, objective
historian or archeologist
,
"
~
~~..
,
Public Comrnent Re: Tiburon Court and' Lower Trestle Glen Projects
Page 2
Impartial, peer-reviewed photo simulations of each proiect and both combined
Trestle Glen is the transition fror:n the suburban west to the rnore rural east side of
Tiburon and, as such, is a significant visual resource. While there is considerable
housing along Trestle Glen, most of it is invisible. This will not be the case for this
project. The upper reaches of the property will rernain open, but the property will be
viewed by most from below, where housing will block the view of a rneaningful portion of
open space.1 .
Since the planning commission meetings, we have met with both developers on
separate occasions. While both discussed changes and suggestions, neither provided
new photo simulations.
We strongly feel one of the most significant impacts of these projects is the curnulative
visual impact. We believe requesting new photo simulations from the developers (both
individual and curnulative) will not provide sufficient public disclosure, and, therefore,
request that an objective artist create numerous sirnulations from various locations in
Belveron, Benton Ct. Hacienda Dr., Turtle Rock and Indian Rock. These simulations
should include access roads, retaining walls, the presence of autornobiles/SUVs,
landscaping, play structures, secondary buildings (e.g., pool house), fences. The
simulations should be in color, include specific periods of tirne (e.g., during construction,
immediately following cornpletion of construction, five-years, ten-years) and the four
seasons. We also expect the commission's recomrnendations from the last rneetings
will be incorporated such as height restraints, natural landscaping, rernoval of tennis
courts, parking, etc.
Rationale
· Grassetti Report: Absent a photosimulation, the visual impacts of the proposed
structures, grading, road, and landslide repair cannot be ascertained by the public.
Given the high visibility of the project, size and scale of proposed project houses,
sensitivity of the community, and substantial grading required for development of the
site, photo-simulations are necessary to support the IS/MND's conclusions that the
project's visual effects would be less than significant
Tiburon General Plan
(OSC-2) Growth... New developments shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods
and surrounding open space areas. One way to confirrn that both developers plan to
construct developments that are in harmony with Belveron and adjacent neighborhoods
is through the aid of cornprehensive photo simulations.
,
, Randy Greenberg, Copy of Letter Filed with the Tiburon Planning Department on September 20,2000, p. 1
{:
,
Public Comment Re: Tiburon Court and Lower Trestle Glen Projects
Page 3
(OSC-3) Outward views. Property owners cherish their views. New structures and
associated landscaping should be so situated or kept low to avoid interference with
existing outlooks. Residents at the recent cominission meetings have expressed that
the Trestle Glen hill is our neighborhood's "Bay, San Francisco or Golden Gate" view
and should be considered as such a view.
(OSC-6) Quality. The Town should encourage well-designed projects that enhance
its image through the development and design process. Monotony in design, and
massive structures and site coverage that overwhelm the surrounding area, shall be
avoided. In the case of both projects, concern has been voiced about the proposed
houses loorning over existing homes. Photo sirnulations from Belveron will aid in
this deterrnination.
(OSC-4) View Corridors. Principal inboard and outboard vistas should be defined
and development should be located to protect such vistas to the maximum extent
feasible. Trestle Glen, a key roadway according to the General Plan, is the only
road that bisects the Tiburon Peninsula. The properties in review represent the last
pieces of vacant land along this heavily-used corridor. Therefore, consideration of
how each parcel is developed is critical to the long-term beauty and enjoyrnent of
this road. .
(OSC-11) Grading and Tree Removal. . . . Specifically, grading shall be kept to a
minimum and evef)l effort made to retain the natural features of the land, including
ridges, rolling land forms, knolls, vegetation, trees, rock outcroppings and water
courses.... The only way to truly understand how these developments will change
the appearance of the Trestle Glen corridor is by comprehensive photo sirnulations.
Documentation stream stabilization
This stream should be protected to the greatest extent possible. Certainly, it should at
least respect standard setback requirernents, which this plan does not. Building
envelopes should be placed a minirnum of 50' from the top of the stream banks (not the
stream center). After looking at this specific project, the USFWS recornrnends that
building within 300' of the strearn be avoided.2
2 Randy Greenberg, Copy of Letter Filed with the Tiburon Planning Department on October 2, 2000, p. 2
,
Public Comment Re: Tiburon Court and Lower Trestle Glen Projects
Page 4
While not visible from Trestle Glen, the stream along the Tiburon Court project is quite
beautiful. It is filled with small, natural pools and waterfalls during the winter and has
active small springs during other seasons. The large arnounts of various animal scat
and flat grasses show that the area is an important habitat to local species like deer,
raccoons, foxes and birds. Although not threatened or endangered, these species are a
part of our local ecology, and their habitat should be thoughtfully considered.
When we rnet with Mr. Craig Pilgrim and Don Henderson on October 9, we understood
that the development would improve and enhance the stream channel. Mr. Henderson
mentioned that pools would be incorporated into the strearn, using rip-rap. Based on
these comrnents, we are concerned 1) how the "new" stream will affect local species, 2)
how the stabilization may adversely affect other areas of the site.
Rationale
· Grassetti Report: P. 25: The conclusion that "repair of the existing slides along the
stream would cause short term disturbance along about 350 feet of the channel, but
this segment would be restored and enhanced as part of proposed mitigation
measures" is unsuDDorted and. to some dearee. contradicted by other sections of
this document. Specifically, Exhibit 7 of the document indicates rip-rapping of both
the bank and bed of the channel. Response to Item A-1 (p.12) specifically notes that
it is unlikely that this rip-rap would be successfully revegetated. Mitigation Measures
0.1 suggest that streamside habitat be restored and enhanced, but provide no
specifics as to how this would or even could occur. Therefore, absent any
supporting evidence to the contrary, this impact appears to remain substantially
unmitigated, and possibly may be unmitigable.
The IS/MND's hydrology discussion (pp. 48 and 54) notes that the Califomia
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) opposes rip-rapped channels, and supports
biotechnical approaches to bank stabilization. A Stream Alteration Agreement
(permit) is required from CDFG for the project's proposed channel stabilization.
There is no evidence in the IS/PND that CDFG would approve the proposed rip-rap
approach. This issue should be resolved with CDFG before the impact of this
approach is deemed to be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure D.3(a) should be expanded to describe what restrictions on
grading, slope repair, and building are intended. Absent this specificity, the measure
does not provide substantive mitigation.
,
~
~,!"
Public Cornment Re: Tiburon Court and Lower Trestle Glen Projects
Page 5
. Tiburon General Plan
(General Plan, pg. 11) Riparian Corridors and Drainageways. In approving
development, open space buffer areas should be provided between new
development and riparian corridors to ensure protection of the corridor resource
values. If land to the north of the stream is constrained, should there not be a buffer
extending along the entire strearn? One that extends beyond 50 feet?
.:. The Belveron Association also requests that a biologist be present during the
stabilization of the stream.
Investiqation of potential historic resource
· Grassetti Report: Pp. 30-31, Historic Resources, does not address a partially buried
wooden structure encountered near the site's Trestle Glen Road frontage in a site
walkover. The potential historic nature of that feature should be addressed prior to
the report concluding that there are no significant historic resources on the site-tsee
attaGl.ed }Jllote1.
. Tiburon General Plan
(EQ-3.5) Protection of unique geologic, ecologic, archaeologic and historic sites.
Unique geologic, ecologic, archaeologic and historic sites shall be protected. While
the exact nature of this wooden structure is unknown, the fact that it is within view of
the building envelopes and not listed in the initial study is another reason to
investigate its origin. If not of historic consequence, it may have an irnpact on site
development, which could be significant.
SUMMARY
We thank you for your consideration and look forward to working further with the Staff,
Commission, Planning Department and developers on the proposed Precise
Development Plans (e.g., nurnber of units, size of units, colors, landscaping, long-term
usage study of Trestle Glen, etc.). Detailed documentation from the Association will be
forthcoming in the next couple of weeks.
###
.........."'.........."'..
1.:1.l:.....u J:.j'!Ll\Ul~~'.i.l\.1...
19) UU~
f;DyiJOD~.j,~I: X:sireu~eD. t
." . :-- .
. ~
.:'!':'
," "
'IIrasse1:1:1 . .
'. vlronment;al _
" suIting' .
. .
" ,NttPNCEO:'-' C~~pH.nc.
,'.,....
'~. ,:
. . ~roiect:~lIn.i.~~n" , .
..t-ro~nl,ne'a.nd,r,~:r~lttln., "
. . ::RBeU"I,.~~,Proc:~"'" COD3:uh1n<=-,
,
'.MEMO
". "
'.",'
'. From: Richard Grassetti; Grassetti Enrlro~enW Consulthig ,
" .. ,.' - ' " '.' ,
'. " .. .
To: Susan. Erb and Karen Halsey
, .' .' " ',. '" . . .
...., ." '.S~jecl: PrelinunaryRevi~wofCEQA Documents for Trestle Glen Road Proje~tS .
. ~.,'
Oatei.Octobet 24; 20lJO . .
',',
". ,.,.
. -
. '. P.12:Absent a photos;irtU1ati~~the visual.lmpilCtsof lheproposed stttictures, grading;roact, arid "
'. 'larids}iderepa:it call1lot,be .ascertainedby the'public;Given the high visibility of the project, slie .
.. and scale of proposed project hOUses, sensitivity 6ftheconimunity, and substantial grading .," .
. . requited for developIlll'lnt ofthesite,photo-smwlations are necessary .to support .the IS/MND's . .
conclusions tha:the project's viswill'lffecis would 1Je lessthail sigriifican~: . . -
': .'
. ';700S'8riBr.Oi'Drlve "
"rf
Berkei;'y, <:"\'94705
~
Phooe/FaX:.51 O_849.235~'
. ',I:
.v,_~,.v~v ~~;vl r.~ ~~UO~~~Jv~
~LCLJ E;W lROJ\lli:::iTAL
teJlH.lJ
,...,Trestle 'Glen iIlitialShldies Review
.october 24;2000 ' .
Page 2. .'
.i
r
;'j
" ',,,
'". . ~.
',' ...
!
, ,. "'" , ". .
.1'heISjMNo~shYdrOlOgy disCussion (pp~~and 54) noteS that the Caillomiabepartmerit ofFwt. ."
. . . .and Gaine (CDFG) Opposes rip-rappedcham!e1s, and supports biotechnica1 approacl1esto barlk .
. stabilization.' A Stream. Aliera tion Agreement (permit) is requited from CDFG for t:!te project's' '. .' ." .
. .proposed channel stabilization> There is no evidence in the IS/PND that COPG woUld approve the.
. . '. proposed rip-rap approaCh. This issue should.be resolved with. COPG before .the iliIpactoithis "
'. approach is.deen'ied tQbe:initigated to a Jess thartsigni6cantJevel . ..... .' .... . ':.'
'. '.' . .. . . .. . .-
... Mitigatioo Measure D.3(a) should .be ~anded to describe what reStricti.ons.on gracl:irlg, ~lope
.'... iepli:ir; <lnd: building are intended. .Absent this specifidty, the measure does not provide
..substantive mitigation: . .' '. .
. ..' pp. 3O~31,Historlc R,esoun::es, doeS not addres~a partiany burled wooden structure encountered . .
.' near the Site's Trestle Glen Roadfrontage'in a site walkove.r.. The potential histOric natureof..that. '.
, . feature should be addressed prior to ,the report concluding that there are no sigitificant historic ..'
. resolI!'ces on. the site. . .... . .
· The Geologysectionneedsa map indicating w'here the art.iiiciaI5.u area is: If houses are to be
. constructed on that fill; the study of that area should not..be deferred until after. project approval.
" .' .' " " .,...' " ". ' ','.-' : '.', . ,
. . o Addmonalgradingthat may be ~qui:red foradequ~te~ightlines for the project access road sh6uld
..beshown on a map. . ,....
. , . .
'. LowerTr~stJe GleriRJisidential ~~velop~tInitiJi1 Stucl,ylMiti$atedNegative Declarati.on aS/MND)'.. .,:
, . .
· It ~ unclear how thedevelop~ent of. a 40oio slope lot (lot #3) is in conforInance with the TOwit.s
. policydisc;oUraging such deveIopment(PolicySE-{5). It should be noted that topographic maps in , .
: the. IS/MNDarenot accurate enough. to distinguish between a 40% or "over 40% "lot. . Furthe.,'. '.
'. : geologic forces do not mow the differenc.e between a40 and 41% slope. Therefore, to erionthe': '
. '. side of caution, the lot would reasonably be considered subject to the To~'s policydiscoUJ:<lging .
sitch development. The IS/PND claims that because the portion .of the. lot will be .30.25% after ....
. . grading,thanhe policy is notapplici.ble (p. 43). The policy m,akes lio distinction between before. .
, .', and after grading, an'd the policy appears to apply, . . . . .
. The photoSlmUiation frtcl~ded inth~ rS/MND wa~ provided by the app~tand appear5 not to '... '
. ,indicate the visu3.1effects.ofpropo!led access road and slope stabiliZation. Further;it,dOesnot .. .
. . account for vegetation removal around the houses fOr fin! safety pwposes, In short, it does not., "
,appear to accutately represenftheproject'stmpacts. This should be independently evaluated fOr'
.scale.and aspect issues, and corrected to include the missmg featuIes.As noted above; aimulative'
. visual effeCts of the two adjacent concurrent projects shouldbesimu.lated and evaluated. The :
. '. Vtsualimpact assessment should be.red.one after thesmuilations are appropriately revised.:
,.' .. . P. 26, DebriS FloWs,contends thatdebrls flow repair Will be imuted to the loWerportlOnsofthe site. '. '. .
. yet i;everalof the d.ebrisflows start on the upper and middle portions of the site. Thisapparent ....: ."
'discrepancyshould be i'ecti.(ied.' .. '. .. .
. .itis notclearwhether the 5ite'Shydrologi~ anaiysisaccounted for thefact that nmofffrom aboVe '
'. ..the site is now proposed to be collected and directedthl'Ough the site to the TrestleGleri storm ......
. .... drain.'system.. This'would reduce the infiltration of that water, and would inC:reasedischarge .to the
, " '
.,; "
..........".....-.:....."'&
I..tl:......v C,N ~ .li\.u.~~"i'l'A.L
ii!J OU4
, .' , " ".
Trestle Glen initial StUdies..leW '
OctOber2~2000 "
. Pa~.3: ',' . .
. ..'
,
': ~ .
I
"
~
'.--:-:'
.;
.,stQqn draJn-System:rf n6t i1ccotinied for, the.caJ.c:u!ations Shciild ile ~d ~dimpacts-~eS5ed~ "
'," Also;itiS not clearjf cumulative i:trainage impacts of this project ,and ~e ~stream Tiburon CoUrt' "
,'" d'7"elopjIleIlt'an!c~~ed.'" , . ' . , , , ' , .. ,
· Mi~ti~~e;'~2~1lppea%Stob~~~rceabIe. Will~Town'5PoliceO~tbe'
" ! in$trUcted/ authoriZed, to oider, the hiring of valets for parties, jf one is urtderwa y at a pro,ject house ' ,,'
,wit:houtavalet?" -:' ' ,., ..' ,., " . ",'
.'."
....
. ,\
',,'
. ~. .'
.\
'.
,
,
',. '
"i.
.( Kl::ITH R. CARR
BUilding Inspections
IJ/I8/00-
c
-:~.
r?ll[lrg @(Q)~W '
SCOTT A:mERSON
PLANNING DIRECTOR
TOWN OF TIEURON
As you will recall from our Lower Trestle Glen Residential
project meeting 9/27/00, you heard from a person that lived on Juno
Rd. She explained about people who live with a ocean and shoreline
view, and how much they love their view. She said that we love our
hill the same way because it is our ocean view and we do not want
to lose that view anymore than the people with their ocean view.
At the IO/II/OO meeting regarding Tiburon Court, severai of your
own staff spoke of how very unique the ride up Trestle Glen is, plus
people who commute over Trestle Glen comment about the same thing.
If you allow one house on each of the two properties that are
the same size as my house on Juno Rd. (IOI2 Sq. Ft. and 13 ft. 7
inches high at the ridge, I assure you that the uniqueness of Trestle
Glen hill will be lost forever.
No houses have been built on that hill in the last 50 years
because of soil instability. That instability has not improved in
those 50 years. It is not question of if the hill will come down,
only when. Allowing two greedy property owners called developers,
( My na~e for them is destroyers). To disturb the existing conditions
would be criminal.
When the hill does come down, the destruction of a few existing
houses up on the top of that hill, plus the new ones to be built
and the possible death of a few people will be on the shoulders of
you, the planning department, not the developer. All of this will
happen because, you people did not have the guts to stand up and do
what was right----and say NO.
y.........t.:::~~
KEITH CARR
I5 Juno Rd.
--
~1..( __ ~_~" ._
.:" ;"'.
.,......-....
OCT 1 9 2000
F~_: , ..
P,O. Box 603 Tiburon, California 94920
Telephont" (415) 435-2014
~
, ,
{,
~
"
HA V'E ,,:::r..: s;:~:~
...., ~~":'"
...).'-
OF ~~~SE L~~E~~ 7
--=
MUDSUDE IN SWISS
:>., ,...;-.;.1"
--..,'
SUP.E IS A:.>',:::::' ':1':'..',: " :_~\':>",5 S::.;,LL :,::,J~~~:~ JF lL'JD CAN DO.
~
Y-~~~
-
-
....~
Mr. Charlie Zab;elskis
Mr. Scott Anderson
Planning Commission
City ofTihuron
ISOS Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon. CA 94920
RECEIVED
OCT 1 6 2000
10/1.2/00
PLAi~:!~~!G ::=~.',Rn'E'\JT
TGi"'I'I'.": ':"b" ICC~::
0; .....r I, l.'1. -:'1
Dear Sirs -
I \1m1ted to add my voice: to those of my neighbors in Belveron in appeal to you and the Planning Commission
reg:uding the development ofTresde Glen Hill. For the past 15 years, my husband and I have made our home in this
neighborhood and enjoyed the run! setting afforded by :ill me open space surrounding our district. In learning of the
pl:m.s for development (of potentially some aCthe lugest homes on the peninsub) we were terrifically saddened to
think of the negative impact this would create on the loc.u environment and concerned that it would, also. affect our
lives ::lod property in a nCgJ.rivc: fashion.
The litde homes of Bdveron are. one by one, joining the ranks afme seven-6gure properties in Tiburon. While, previ-
ously. we were a sUtter subdivision, now we see many homes remodeled and enlarged to gracious residences. Part of
the chuacter that drew US to this area w:lS this rural quality and it conttibutes in no small degree to the desirability of
these sites. We'd like to see our modicum of privacy and view preserved and look to you to work with us to that end.
We are hopeful that the Town can learn from past experience that homes should not be built that loom above existing
neighborhoods. These new developments should be planned to carefully fit in and not become a blight on the sur-
rounding are:J..
The thought of looking up at a colony megahames that obscures our oudook of the hills (and that, in cum, peer down
into our 'y'd.rds) is not an appealing one. I hope you will take our concerns to heart and try to find some way to pre-
serve our enjoyment of this (one of the last undeveloped hillsides in the vicinity), so chol( the value and privacy of the
district we've worked so long and hard [0 improve can be mainuined.
Thank you for your time.
~
Holly Hudson
12 Mercury Avenue
Tiburon. CA 94920
.
r
.
{:
Meilssa Hopps
11 Juno Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
IrillL~ ~@1l~fiJ7
Attn: Scott Anderson
Dear Mr Anderson:
I wish to take issue with one section of the Town of
Tiburon Staff Report on the Lower Trestle Glen Development.
The section under General Plan Consistency, Land Use
Element LU-B is the section I would like to comment on.
The staff wrote "The proposed density of less than one unit
per three acres is quite low, roughly one-twelfth that of
Belveron Gardens."
This comparison is not appropriate. Belveron Gardens was
developed in accordance to the restrictions of its time, 50
years ago, before the Town of Tiburon was even in
existence. If a comparison to Belveron is needed here, the
following may be more relevant to the planning process: If
you allow four 5,500 sq. ft. houses on this property, that
would be more area than 22 original Belveron houses put
together. That is the equivalent of all the houses on both
sides of Juno Road that face the Lower Trestle Glen
Property.
Another way to analyze at the land use element is to look
at the proposed density of the buildable land. If you look
at the proposed house sizes on the buildable portion of the
property, the density is really quite high. The
houses/building envelopes are crowded together. The
remainder of the property is useless to the developer
except to make the density calculations look good.
I feel that this staff report is not unbiased, but leans
toward the developers wishes for the property. I urge the
commission to take a closer, and more even handed look when
examining this proposed development.
Si cerely,
ebo
f~
R.73;:::-::~1~/:2D
Mel'ssa Ho
OCi I 0 2000
.;.'
'. -'
,...i:'
~
:~.
,
The Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
--
C"':':i-' ,t...,_'i"'- " _
~"'"-" ;' ;"-. ~':D
OCT 2 4 2000
Attention: Scott Anderson
Planning Director
PL~~: " '," ;r:, .~ ...:: ;~ T}',!(,'J;
'" .. "'~. ..' ~,~'i i
Dear Mr. Anderson:
As a resident of Belveron, I arn concerned about the visual impact of the
proposed houses on Trestle Glen Blvd. From the documents submitted by the
town staff and the developer, it seems to rne that there is not enough information
for the commission to make an informed decision on this issue.' The composite
photo submitted by the developer and taken from two neighborhoods away has
already been recognized as inadequate.
'The best way to assess the proposed development is to look at the site in real
life terms by walking along Trestle Glen Blvd and the Belveron streets, which will
bring to your attention the story poles, or lack thereof. I always understood that
six story poles are normally needed for a structure, one at each corner of the
building, and two showing the roof ridgeline. Only then can the impact of the
proposed structure be seen by all. A single pole representing a 5,000 square
foot house does not accomplish this purpose. .
I realize the houses are not designed yet, but some assumptions could be made.
If you allow a 5,000 sq. ft. house, and assume two stories, then conservatively, a
building perimeter of 35ft by 70ft would be a start. It could be placed anywhere
in the proposed building envelope. For planning purposes, to see the true
impact of the whole project would require story poles for four houses.
Developers should not be allowed to short cut this procedure when we will all
have to live with the results for many years. We want an informed decision and
no surprises.
Yj;':f5 ~~~.trUIY, ~.
BCin~~
4 Juno Road
Tiburon, Ca 94920
-
~'":'"-
Scott Anderson
,
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:.
Subject:
Frank I. Mason [frankm@crt-net.com]
Thursday, October26, 2000 5:58 AM
sanderson@ci.tlburon.ca.us
frankm@intemetaddress.com
Trestle Glenn ?'s
REt""1=lV;:r-,
.J_ </........,
OCT 2 7 2000
PLANNING CE::'-;-,;.;':' :c;\ i
TOWN OF T!3',!R2N
Scott,
As you suggested, I'm sending you this letter with my concerns for the
two developments that are going in on Trestle Glenn below my home.
The major concern that I have is that the developments provide
sufficient
right of way for Trestle Glenn. The requirements for the roadway should
be as follows:
1) One VERY Generous sized lane/road top with shoulders going in each
direction.
2). Room for a center Turn Lane. As we had talked about tpat doesn I t
mean that there needs to be a turn lane in place for the entire length
but, there needs to be room to add one for any future needs and most
likely
one at the entrance of each connecting street.
3) Bike / Pedestrian lane separated from the roadway as this is the
only
street that connects both sides of Tiburon and all of the bike traffic.
A secondary concern is that the developments provide access to the
bottom
of my neighbors and mine lots as the slope doesn't allow for tree
removal
and other maintenance needs. This could be done by having a alley or
thruway at the back of 'each of the developments. Developing these areas
will create this problem so I feel that the developments should make
room
for access.
As my family and I have to turn at the extremely dangerous Stewart and
Tiburon intersection each day, I see this as the only moment that we
have
to plan for the future of Trestle Glenn. As we talked about the study
that you are looking at doing for Cal Trans, to clean up things like our
intersection lets use this time to make sure that a new problem isn't
created that has to be addressed in the future at a must higher cost to
all. I would like to be updated on the engineers thoughts and plans on
my concerns.
Please contact me if you have any further questions or updates.
Frank I. Mason
191 Stewart Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415)435-3317 (h)
(415)472-6912 (w)
frankm@crt-net.com
~
"".'":j" F ~.~ l\ ~ ~
..... \.:. '", .:''2
F:kCv"1
#~;
--.-..--:;;
LAW OFFICES OF
r= c;" P'"
I:''';:'';:; l~
..;Li.hl.::
'r...' _....
950 NORTH GATE DRIVE', SUITE 205
SAN RAfAEL, CALIfORNIA 94903
NEIL SORENSEN
TELEPHONE 415 499-8600
FACSIMILE 415 490-0140
January 10,2001
REceiVED
JAN 1 0 2001
Via Hand Delivery
PLANNING Uty,,\l-\, .,,~ ~,
TOWN OF TIBUf'.ON
Chairman JeffSlavitz and
Members of the Planning Commission
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd,
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Tiburon Court Project (File No. 39903)
Dear Chairman Slavitz and Members of the Planning Commission:
This office represents the owners and developers of the Tiburon Court Project.
As set forth in detail in the expanded Initial StudyIMitigated Negative Declaration
for this project and in the original staff report (for your meeting of October I I, 2000), this
project, with mitigation mcasures, would not have a significant impact on thc
environmcnt, and is consistent with the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinance.
As will bc presented to you in more detail tonight, in response to comments from
the Planning Commission and thc neighbors, the applicants have significantly redesigned
thc project to make it even better. The redcsigned project is consistcnt with all relevant
goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan and consistent with all zoning
standards. Accordingly, it is requested that the Planning Commission vote to approve the
project and direct staff to preparc a rcsolution recommending approval to the Town
Council.
In considcring this mattcr, I would also like to direct your attention to California
Government Code ~ 65589.5 (j) which statcs as follows:
"(j) When a proposed housing development project complies with
applicablc, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria in
effect at the time that the housing development project's application is
determined to be completc, but the local agency proposes to disapprove
the project or to approve it upon the condition that thc project be
developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision
regarding the proposed housing development project upon writtcn findings
Chairman Slavitz and Members of the Planning Commission
January 10,2001 .
Page 2
~
:~.
,
supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following
conditions exist:
(1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse
impact upon the public, health or safety unless the project is
disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be
developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, 'specific,
adverse impact' means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and
unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public
health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the
date the application was deemed complete.
(2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid thc
adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the ,
disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the
project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density."
Accordingly, since there is not substantial evidence in the record that this project
would have a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety, the Planning
Commission may not disapprove it or approvc it at a lower density.
Sincere;::/~, ',/I,.~" ,,~
~/ (1itf /-
Nfu SOR~:~:~ ----
NS/kz
Cc: Round Two Development
~ROM 1'1. ,-~G I,J'3
=-."J"E ~j8.
J~~. 03 2001 03:25~~ ~1
~~.lE.MAll.)'# ~
~
:.or'
,
11 Benton Court
Tiburon, California
[?mL~ @L~
January 6, 2001
To'
Tiburon Planning Commission
Tiburon Planning Department
Ri. -~~~:-',~'"')
From'
Michael and Sheila Lagios
J.~N C ~ 2001
Re:
Revised Precise Development Plans
Tiburon Court
PL.'~:, :', :,,:::: ~ ;~i~, ~~' ~ ~;:~",~:;~ ~~\~ ~'J ~
1'_;\,1. '-" 11...,,-,,,,.),1
Gentlemen:
We have reviewed the revised developer's computer-synthesized photo montage
of the Tiburon Court development and have viewed the story poles and minimal
netting which has just been erected on Friday, January 5
We are disappointed to see that the developers have not taken the planning
commission's recommendations of September 27,2000 seriously. At that
meeting you specifically recommended that lot 3 be eliminated and the total
number of homes in this development be reduced to three. We see that there
are still four in the developer's plans We also note that the height limit
recommended by your committee has been slightly reduced but is still greater
that one story.
The visual impact of the proposed revision on the Trestle Glen transition corridor
(which is listed in the town general plan as being a significant rural corridor
between the built up Tiburon Blvd. side and the rural Paradise side) is still
overwhelming, that of a wall of buildings which desecrates the rural character of
the oomdor.
We hope that the Planning Commission will stand by it's original
recommendation of September 27. The developers have made some limited
modifications, however having seen the impact of these, we recommend that
only two dwellings be permitted on this property. The size of the dwellings
proposed is relatively enormous for this parficular site and in comparison with
neighbonng homes on Benton Court, lower Hacienda and Juno. There is no
need to repeat the error which permitted the monstrous structures on Turtle
Rock..
Sincerely,
~-
- r-
~~~~ ,~
.. '~\JE', .~H'1 ~~ #
:woOl.. ~5, ...-
""
~
~
~~..
..
THEODORE ANDERSON
3 Mercury Avenue, Tiburon CA 94920
I.t ~ Lb~ l; ~ it i./
Mr. Scott Anderson
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon CA 94920
RECEIVED
JAN - 8 2001
PLANNIN13 DEPARTMENT
TOWN OF TIBURON
January 6, 2001
Re: January 10,2001 Public Hearine on Tiburon Ranch Residential Proiect
Dear Mr. Anderson,
I was called out of town for an emergency and may not make it back for the Jan. 10tb
meeting so I am submitting these comments as a late letter for the planning commission.
I work as a civil engineer with an emphasis on geotechnical engineering. I have walked
the proposed development site and have reviewed some of the documents, which have
been submitted by Round Two Development.
First I would like to comment on the term used on the plan views for the winter stream
which flows through the property. The plans refer to it as a drainage ditch. In
engineering parlance, a ditch is a man-made drainage structure, which this clearly is
not. Was no human activity ever to have taken place anywhere on or surrounding this
property, this stream would still have been here.
In the report from Jensen-Van Lienden Associates Inc., dated August 2,1999, the
second page titled CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION paragraph 1a., Sethack and
Foundations, reference is made to the fact that "houses should be no closer than about
20 feet from the top of any of the existing slope failures." On the Preliminary Grading
and Drainage Plan submitted by the developer for this meeting, the house on lot3
appears to violate this recommendation. I would also like to point out that the report
speaks to the ongoing unstable conditions of the north gully slope soils which are
continuing to erode even now, and will continue to erode until some repair and
stabilization actually takes place in this area. I submit, that in trying to maximize the
usable building envelopes, the developer may be overly optimistic about the final
available locations of the stream-side houses and is in danger of trying to locate houses
in lots:! and 4 where the still moving stream bank will place them in harms way. There
may already be less space than the latest plans show and will certainly continue to be
less and less space as time passes before stabilization can happen. I therefore strongly
suggest that the planning committee scale back the scope of the project from what is
presently being proposed.
In the PRELIMINARY ENVIORNMENTAL ASSESSMENT, prepared by Diane
Renshaw and dated Oct. 8, 1996, the 4th page of the report, the section titled
~
~~u
...
CONSTRAINTS AND MITIGA nONS, paragraph titled RIPARIAN, reference is
made to the fact that the Marin County Plan provides for a setback of 50 feet from the
top of the bank on a watercourse that supports riparian vegetation for 100 feet or more,
which this does. Again on the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan submitted by the
developer - they measures the SO-ft set back from the center of the stream not from the
top of the bank as cited by the Marin County Plan. I ask that this recommendation be
considered along with perhaps a crystal-ball projection of where the top of this stream
bank might be when stabilization and repair might actually be projected to be
accomplished.
In summary, the locations ofthe building envelopes on 10ts,3 and 4 should be either
eliminated altogether or at least moved quite a distance north and away from the
stream bank.
Respectfully submitted,
~
Theodore Anderson
Attachments: sections of the two above referenced reports
Jensen - Vein Lienden Associdtes,lnc.
GEC-:-~',::"<: =:- _ :>;'="~'.~~},':"'~ CC)~"S~.y~!,:.r~~s
I[ b'^'~~ (P<.A.
lrmU~ ~@w>W
Cu:t.s N J~r.5<:r:
G,-:::rr<:y V=~ L,er,den
{
)
August 2, 1999
Job No. F259AB
RECEIVED
AUG 2 1999
Round Two Development
clo Equilan Management
One Sansome St., 21st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
PL.<\IJN!t-lG DEPAtiTMENT
TOWN OF T!BURON
,
,
Re: Geotechnical Engineering Considerations
Slope Stabilization and Foundations
Tiburon Court Project - Trestle Glen Boulevard
Tiburon, C'l\
Gentlemen:
At your request, we reviewed both "Precise Development Plan Grading and Drainage Plan"
(Sheet :2 of the development plans for the referenced project) and the "Topographic Survey-
Tiburon Court" by Lawrence P. Doyle on which unstable areas have been numbered. We
also returned to the site to re-examine the slope instability occurring on the north side of the
erosion gully that bisects the entire property. The gully traverses downward northwesterly
through Lots 2, 3 and 4.
The purpose of this recent work was to develop a specific proposal to stabilize active slope
failures occurring in the gully north side. , This letter expands upon general
recommendations contained in our report for the project dated February 17, 1999. We
have also included general comments on foundations and building setbacks appropriate for
the proposed building envelopes on Lots 2 and 4.
The gully carries collected runoff discharged from Porto Marino Drive, sheet runoff from
the property itself, and to a lessor extent, storm water runoff from properties fronting on
Stewart Drive. The eroded depth varies along the length of the gully from relatively minor
amounts at the upstream and downstream ends to perhaps 20 to 25 feet deep near the gully
center on Lot 2.
Our February 1999 report identified three singular slope failures in the gully north side.
The location of these were plotted schematically on Figure I of the report; these locations
have been reproduced on Sheet 2 and on "Topographic Survey-Tiburon Court".
rA recent reconnaissance of the site indicates that the unstable conditions in the gully bank~
I have worsened, and have extended into Lot 4, downhill of the Lot 2/Lot 4 property line. In
some cases, individual failures have merged together, and the failures are separated by
narrow strips of stable slope between the unstable materials.
""-
The total length of unstable gully bank is approximately 400 to 450 feet, extending down
gully from the uppermost failure (as depicted on Figure I of our report). We estimate the
maximum depth of the largest failure to be about 15 feet or so, measured from the bottom
of the unstable soil area perpendicular to the original gully bank, before the failure
occurred.
18~"', -: AIc:<l'.'1;: ,..c....I/~nll~ . Bl":fl.el~y. C"I.forn1d 94703 . I='hone (510) 658-9111 . rr-..< (510) 658.8918
Round Two Development
clo Equilan Management
August 2, 1999
Page 2
~~
'0:
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
1 . Slope stability
Instability in the gully north bank appears to be fairly active; it has increased since our
1995 field work. This activity suggests that the existing slope failures over the 400
foot plus length of gully on Lots 2 and 4 will become larger during the foreseeable
future.
It is our opinion that stabilization of the south gully bank is not necessary, despite the
fact that the bank is inclined rather steeply. This bank has not failed to the degree that
the north bank has, nor would future failures be a hazard for any of the improvement~
and structures of the subdivision.
In our view, there are two alternatives for dealing with the hazard associated with the
erosion gully instability. The first alternative would be to place the buildings on deep
foundations and provide a substantial setback to create a margin of safety for houses on
the two lots. The second approach would be to stabilize the erosion gully north bank,
beginning from a point near the center of Lot 2 and extending to near the Lot 3/Lot 4
property line. Either alternative would be acceptable for the development from the
geotechnical standpoint.
We conclude that it should not be necessary to stabilize landslides on the upper portion
of the property, off the site and on properties fronting on Stewart Drive. An example
of this category of landslides is number 5 on the "Topographic Survey-Tiburon Court".
In our opinion, these landslides do not constitute a hazard for improvements on the four
proposed lots,
a. Setback and Foundations
To provide a sufficient setback, the nearest point on Lot 2 and Lot 4 houses should
be no closer than the point where an imaginary plane extending up at 2-1/2
horizontal to I vertical from the center line of the gully bottom intersects the
(fIniShed grade on the lots. In addition, the houses should be no closer than aboUt{
20 feet from the W of any of the existing slope failmes =-.J
Houses on Lots 2 and 4 should also be supported upon drilled, cast-in-place
reinforced concrete pier foundations. These piers should be extended into the
underlying rock. We currently estimate they should have a minimum length on the
order of 15 to 20 feet. This criteria should be reviewed when specific lot
investigations are made.
This alternative has the advantage of limiting the amount of earth work required to
stabilize the bank. The disadvantage is that the banks would not be stabilized, at
least not in a positive engineering sense, and the risk of enlargement and coalescing
of the individual failures along the gully would remain unabated.
b. Slope Stabilization
It is our opinion that the gully bank slope failures can be repaired and stabilized.
Two viable repair procedures involve earth workneither constructing a conventional
Jensen - Van Lienden Associates/In
GEOTE,:f-'~IIC"L ENG:, :o:Plr,G CONSUL TAN
,
'~'
IFlllL~ @~;j? ~ ,'; ; ::~
F- ~ 5!'. ' :;
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
T1BURON RANCH, TRESTLE GLEN BOULEVARD
TOWN OF T1BURON, MARIN COUNTY, CA
Prepared Cor:
Mr. Donald Henderson
1850 Union Street, Suite 1026
San Francisco, CA 94123
Prepared by:
Diane Renshaw
Consulting Ecologist
607 Paco Drive
Los Altos, CA 94024
October 8, 1996
./
^
:~,
,
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
TIBURON RANCH, TRESTLE GLEN DRIVE
TOWN OF TIBURON, MARIN COUNTY. CA
SUMMARY
The Trestle Glen property supports a variety of upland plant c9JlUl1unity types, including
mixed oak woodland, grassland, and scrub. None of these arC unique plant conununities, and
none are expected to provide habitat for any sensitive plant or animals species. A seasonal
drainage on the northeastern side of the property contains some riparian vegetation and a small
~amount of wetland vegetation. Wetlands and riparian habitat may be protected and regulate'if"(
I ~y a variety of local, state, and federal statutes. This drainage appears to lie outside the
proposed development limits. ' -
~
No significant impacts to biological resources are expected to result from the proposed
development of the site. .
EXISTING SETTING
The proposed project site occupies 14.4 acres of a north-west facing hillside on the eastern
side of Tiburon Boulevard, just north of its intersection with Tiburon Boulevard. The property
extends uphill from Tiburon Boulevard to a developed residential area at the top of the hill.
More residential lots border the site on the south, and an undeveloped parcel lies just northeast
of the project site.
A reconnaissance-level survey of the project site was conducted on October 4, 1995 and
September 20, 1996. Seven different cover types were identified at the site and briefly
described below: mixed oak woodland, grassland, scrub, grassland-scrub mosaic, riparian,
French broom, and non-native trees. A draft map showing generalized locations of these
vegetation cover types accompanies this report.
MIXED OAK WOODLAND
A dense stand of mixed oak woodland lies in the center of the proposed project property. Trees
in this stand include mature specimens of coast live oak, California bay, and buckeye.
Understory plants include poison oak, French broom, and tree seedlings and saplings. This is a
conunon plant conununity type throughout Marin County.
GRASSLAND
Grassland occurs on the upper hillside at the southern end of the site. This grassland
conununity is a mix of the dominant non-native Mediterranean annual species (wild oats,
A-.
~
~,!"".
,
AvenafatlUl: soft chess. Bromus mollis: ripgut brome. Bromus diandrus) and OCC:lSional
patches of native perennial grasses (purple needle grass. Nassella pulchra; blue wiIdrye,
Elymus glaucus; and creeping wildrye. Leymus triticoides). lbis combination of introduced
and native grasses is relatively common in Marin County. particularly in habitats where
grazing has been discontinued. There is no indication of serpentine grassland on the project
site.
SCRUB
::
A variety of woody shrubs fonn patches of dense scrub throughout much of the project
property. Ifleft undisturbed. much of the grassland on site would eventually convert to scrub.
and many of the patches now covered with scrub would become mixed oak woodland.
Common species in the scrub "include poison oak. Rhus diversiloba; toyon. Heteromeles
arbutifolia; coyote brush. Baccharis pilularis; and seedling and sapling coast live oaks. Non-
native species in the scrub include pampas grass. Cortade1;iajubata; wild plum, Prunus
cerasifera; and French broom. Genista monspessularuz.
SCRUB-GRASSLAND MOSAIC
Scrub-grassland mosaic is a transitional plant community containing distinct patches of both
grassland and scrub. as described above. arranged in intenningled patches too smail to map
separately.
FRENCH BROOM .
There are patches of scrub on the project site that consist almost exclusively of French broom
(Genista monspessulana). Plant species diversity in these patches is extremely low, and the
wildlife habitat values are considerably less than the mix of native shrub species found in the
scrub habitat. discussed above. French broom is an aggressive. weedy plant that spreads
rapidly and has choked out many hundreds of acres of native scrubland on Marin County
hillsides.
RIPARIAN
A seasonal drainage at the northern edge of the project property is marked by a strip of
riparian vegetation. Plants in the riparian area include arroyo willows. Salix lasiolepis;
California bay, Umbellularia californica; and a variety of wetland plants. including Carex,
Scirpus. and Juncus. lbis seasonal drninage is somewhat moister than the rest of the site, and
supportS a number of non-native, weedy plants (pampas grass; French broom; Monterey
cypress.Cupressus macrocarpa; thistles. Cirsium; weeping willow, Salix babylonica) in ~
addition to the native species. Because it provides a seasonal source of water, maintains some
~oisture throughout the year, and provides a linear. protected corridor for wildlife movement,
) ~Parian habitat provides good wildlife habitat. ' ,
------
-.J
~
-:~..
,
-- ---
Wetlands are protected by a variety of federal, state, and local statutes. Wetland boundaries are(
precisely detennined by the presence of characteristic soils, vegetation. and hydrology.
Impacts to wetlands typically require some mitigation in the form of habitat enhancement,
restoration. and/or additional acquisition and set-aside. -
NON-NATIVE TREES
.:,'
The yards and lot lines of many of the homes that abut the proposed project site have been
planted with non-native trees. The most common species around the proposed project site
include acacia, eucalyptus. and pine.
SPECIAL STATUS PLANT AND ANIMALS
No special status plant and animal species were seen on two separate trips to the site, and none
are expected to occur there. CNDDB records from 1992 !ihow numerous occum:nces of
sensitive or protected plant and animal species in the vicinity of the project, but all are
associated with serpentinized soils, tidal saltmar.;h, or other characteristic habitat. Plant
cover types at the project site do not offer specialized habitats for any of these reported species,
and the likelihood of any listed plant or animal species inhabiting the site is quite low.
CONSTRAINTS AND MITIGA nONS
MIXED OAK WOODLAND
The proposed project would avoid the stands of mixed oak woodland on the site. although site
preparation and construction of the homes along Trestle Glen Boulevard might remove one or
two small oaks growing in the scrub habitat. Removal of oak trees of any size requires a
pennit from the Town of Tiburon. The loss of one to several small oaks at this site could easily
be mitigated for by planting 3 or more replacement trees for each one removed.
Since portions of the mixed oak woodland will be included in the individual lots. some CC&Rs
on the lots might be appropriate to protect the oak habitat as well as the individual oak trees.
RIPARIAN
The Town of Tiburon has no specific ordinances protecting riparian or streamside habitat, but
policies set forth in the Marin County General Plan may be incorporated by reference into the
Town regulations. The Environmental Quality Element of the the Marin County Plan provides
for a 50' setback from the tops of banks on waterco~s that support riparian vegetation ~
I 00' or more. In addition. work within a streambank area requires a penrut trom the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG).
1
~
:~
,
.
Site preparation and construction of the proposed development would not affect the riparian
habitat at the site. However. since this habitat will be included in an individually-owned lot,
the streamside area should be recognized as a protected zone in accordance with Marin
County policies. and appropriate CC&Rs applied to that individual lot. Protection of the
riparian area would serve to protect any wetland that might occur along the streambed.
."
'."
FRENCH BROOM
Bare mineral soils exposed during site preparation and construction will provide ideal habitat
for seedlings of French broom. Scotch broom. pampas grass. and other undesirable weedy
plants. It is recommended that existing thickets of French broom and individual pampas grass
on the site be removed by a combination of cutting and herbicide. and that bare' soils be kept
weed-free until landscaping plants become established.' Weed spread is far less problematic
where vegetative cover is uninterrupted.
;F:3ATEMAIL II
2-
-
~.
,
JANICA ANDERSON
3 Mercury Avenue, Tiburon CA 94920
,- .~r=:"t.:.'
,,_ '\~ ~'il\\I"" ,
\-,J"",~ '''" L,; "J ,i
~l-,' i- '..;;;.J
;.l REe'E1 ED
Mr. Scott Anderson
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon CA 94920
January 6, 2001
JAN - 8 2001
PLANNING DEPARTMEOr, "
TOWN OF TIBURON
Re: Januarv 10, 2001 Public Hearin!! on Tiburon Ranch Residential Proiect
Dear Mr. Anderson,
I wish to submit the following for consideration in the planning process of proposed
development on the upper Trestle Glen property.
I have lived at No.3 Mercury since 1974. What happens to the Trestle Glen property is
of great concern to my husband, our daughter and myself. Our concerns are not only
for possible problems of traffic safety, drainage, and the loss of the beauty of the open
space - but for a largely ignored concern for the fate of the wildlife supported by this
property.
When I read through the reports prepared for this development, read through EIRs
prepared for other large property development proposals in Tiburon, talkibi-town and
county officials, there seem to be no mention or concern for the "common animals" that
would be affected by this and other developments.
On the Trestle Glen property there are living and identified:
Black-tailed Deer
Gray Fox
Raccoon
Stripped Skunk
Opossums
Brush Rabbits
Black-Tailed Jack Rabbits
Gophers
Salamanders
Rats
Western Harvest Mouse
Deer Mouse
Common Garter Snakes
Gopher Snakes
Newts
Western Fence Lizards
Tree Frogs
Red-tailed Hawks
Merlins
Great Horned Owls
Western Blue Birds
Manh Hawks
Meadow Larks
Crows
Ravens
And many othen...
Much of this wildlife help keep the rodent and insect populations under control for us.
Close up personal encounters with deer, raccoons, skunks and opossums have greatly
enriched me and my family's life. When a buck walks our streets, our Belevron
neighborhood is all a buzz. Many looking down on or up to the property - are daily
pleasured and enriched with the presence ofthe wildlife.
{:
~
~
The developer repeatedly chooses to identify this intermittent stream as a "drainage
ditch" on their plans. This stream was present long before any development. (see the
1953 Photo) Besides channeling run off, the stream is fed by many springs and has large
wetlands at the top of the slope and down by the road and smaller wetlands during the
dry summer months where the many springs enter the stream bed. It is a riparian
corridor. Wetlands renew and rejuvenate life around us. These wetlands, the stream
and the cover of the trees and brush support this large group of wildlife. Red-tailed
Hawks and Owls nest in the trees on the upper slopes.
Wildlife conservation has now shifted from protecting "islands of land", to acquiring
wildlife corridors between refuges to protect bio diversity and gene pools" A large deer
population spend their days high up on the slopes of the Ring Mountain Preserve and
come down to sleep all along this stream at night - as anyone can witness by the
flattened grasses and deer scat all along both sides of the stream. Female deer and their
young can be seen along the stream. Bands of young bachelor deer bound up and down
the stream. The deer use the stream as a corridor to come down to sleep, to get salt
from the Bay waters, to connect them across to the green corridor behind Mercury
Avenue where the railroad trestle used to be. The wildlife use the culvert under Trestle
Glen to pass under the street safely.
In the developers Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan submitted for this meeting,
the building lots 3 and 4 are drawn in right on top of the bank and stream. The lights,
sounds and the activities of the people in these two homes I believe will frighten the wild
life away. It is hard to see that the deer would continue to sleep and travel~ up and
down the stream corridor. It is hard to see that all the other wild animals that depend
on the stream would not be disturbed and frightened away.
I believe that we humans are not alone in our rights to enjoy life on this earth. The
needs and rights of these wild animals are worthy of consideration and we need to
consciously consider the effects of this development on the wildlife and their habitat on
this property. I believe that we are all connected in the web of life and we must act
responsibly as custodians of the natural world.
I respectfully request this Commission provide a much greater buffer between this
stream and the building envelopes and not allow any obstructions to the wildlife be
placed anywhere near this stream.
Respectively yours,
_c~~
O'-----=-(.2..~_<\.-J~
Janica Anderson
., '.:~>...' ,-r,
,
.';;i:::..~~~1'~~:'~t,
MINUTES NO. 837
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 10, 2001
Regular Meeting
Town Council Chambers
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California
-
APPROVED --~
MINUTES
")
Chair Slavitz called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:
Chair Slavitz, Vice-Chair Stein and Commissioner Snow
Commissioners Absent:
Commissioners Berger and Fredericks
Staff Present:
Planning Director Anderson and. Temporary Meeting Recorder
Flanagan
PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
There were none.
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING
Chair Slavitz has been selected to fill the vacancy left by Terry Hennessy on the Town
Council. He voiced his appreciation for assistance during his term as Commissioner.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2000: M/S Stein/Snow (3-0-2) to approve as
corrected by memo from Commissioner Fredericks.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2. TmURON COURT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT: PRECISE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR FOUR (4) SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCES ON 13.4 ACRES: Round-Two Development, owner and applicant;
Assessor Parcel Nos. 39-061-80 and 86.
This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its October 11, 2000 meeting. The
Commission expressed concern about a number of issues and provided direction to the
applicant for a significant redesign of the project. Since that time, the applicant has made
TlBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
1
MINUTES NO. 837 OF ~_^":U_~Y 10, 2001 ~
}, V'1-llnT'l'1\"'(" '
':U~,.L D.... .L' J.
{.
modifications to the project and submitted revised application materials. Several meetings
between the applicants and Belveron Association representatives have been held.
Planning Director Anderson reviewed the Staff report, and in response to questions, stated that
the bicycle lane issue was being worked on by the Town Engineer, but that input from the
Commission and public would be very helpful.
Scott Hochstrasser, applicant's representative, discussed the project and noted that significant
changes were made to the project. It is better than that reviewed in October and is in
compliance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and environmental review. He stated
that over 80% of the site would remain open. The retaining walls will be in back of the homes
and built into the hill. Regarding the size of the homes, Turtle Rock Court is somewhat
similar. The size is a response to the market, and square footage does not direct mass and
bulk; the houses have been reduced in size, mass, and height. He provided a slide
presentation, and added, in October, staff suggested the project warranted a negative
declaration. In response to questions, he stated alternatives to the additional parking, which
the Planning Commission required, were reviewed. The parkiHg area widened the street, and
th is is the best alternative.
Neil Sorensen, representing the owner, distributed a letter dated January 10, 2001. He noted
that state law indicates that when an application conforms with the Zoning Ordinance and
General Plan, the density may not be reduced unless written findings, supported by substantial
evidence, show that significant adverse impacts on public health and safety would result unless
density is decreased, and there is no other feasible mitigation for the impacts. He stated that
no evidence has been presented to support such findings,
Vice-Chair Stein responded that the issue before the Commission is conformity to the General
Plan, especially the Open Space Element. With regard to Mr. Hockstrasser's presentation, he
added the outward views to the proposed buildings are a relevant General Plan issue.
Discussion was opened to the public at 8:30 p.m.
Al Kirshbaum, 42 Juno Road, asked why the applicant used white colors and forms that do not
conform to the architectural drawings. Regarding drainage, the proposed improvement of the
existing culvert from Turtle Rock Court to Juno Road would require removal of trees and
shrubs, which stabilize the hill. Correct and adequate drainage must be required.
Frank Mason, 191 Stewart Drive, stated that the view of this project will impact his primary
view. This was not addressed in the visual simulation, nor was the view of the project from
the other direction on Trestle Glen Boulevard. Retaining walls will be also be seen from his
house as will the large parking area. There are no 5,OOO-square-foot homes on Stewart Drive,
nor three-car garages, Landscaping on the site will be a fire hazard. Entering Tiburon
Boulevard from Trestle Glen is dangerous and should be addressed in terms of planning for the
future since there is a significant possibility of more housing on Paradise Drive that will use
Trestle Glen Boulevard.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
2
MINUTES NO. 837 OF JANUARY 10, 2001
\ ,.
"
J
{.
,
In response to questions, Planning Director Anderson stated that the issue of cars turning from
the project onto Trestle Glen Boulevard was addressed in the traffic study, as were sightlines.
The Town has previously found that Trestle Glen Boulevard will never carry the volume of
traffic that would require a third lane; however, turn lanes of short distances could be '
designed. Two traffic reports, with independent reviews, indicated that, with a minor shaving
of the hillside, sight distances would be acceptable, and a third lane is not needed. He added
the Town Engineer has reviewed the concern and concurs. He noted that the turn onto Trestle
Glen Boulevard from Juno Road is hindered by heavy vegetation and a curvature of the road
that limits sight distances from Juno Road. Regarding the issue of the site's landscaping as a
fire hazard, it is Town practice that areas that do not need to be disturbed should not be
disturbed.
Mr. Mason added that adding ten feet to the road is not adequate.
JoAnn Kemper, Last Chance Committee, stated that the open space should be considered in
terms of what the community wants to preserve, and this project should be considered in terms
of the open space before development.
Margaret Pederson, 26 Juno Road, stated that this site faces north, where vegetation does not
grow; hence, the landscaping designed to screen the houses will be unsuccessful. Screening
the retaining walls also is a concern.
Melinda Natt, 199 Stewart Road, stated that the concerns of those living above the site have
not been addressed. Also, the hill is not stable and she would ask the Engineering Department
to ensure that the hill's stability is not impacted because of the development at the bottom of
the hill.
Rod McCloud, 21 Mercury Avenue, stated that the Perini project addressed some drainage
problems on lower Mercury Avenue. He showed photographs taken before the meeting of the
culvert that is two-thirds full of water, and asked where the water will drain from this project.
Also, drainage from this project on the far side of Tiburon Boulevard must be addressed. He
expressed concern that a traffic survey may have been taken when school was not in session
and during a low-traffic period, and did not capture the real feeling of Trestle Glen or Tiburon
Boulevard. He suggested a lefHurn lane into Belveron from Tiburon Boulevard to alleviate
the current congestion in the area, which will be intensified by this project.
Ted Anderson, 3 Mercury Avenue, who submitted a late letter, stated that a landslide situation
exists on Juno Road. The road is cracked and there is too steep a backslope down to Juno
Road; hence, the road must be moved away from Juno Road. He finds drainage from this
project an insignificant problem; however, it should be addressed.
Randy Greenberg, 45 Norman Way, stated that homeowners alter their private open space
even if this is prohibited. The General Plan states open space should be outside private lots.
She suggested the developer design the open space as a permanent open space parcel, to be
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
3
MINUTES NO. 837 OF JANUARY 10,2001
~
,
owned by the homeowners. Regarding setbacks from the stream, the Commission previously
supported 50 feet from the top of banks, not the center of the stream, and this item should not
be overlooked. With slide repair near Lot 3, the stream will edge closer to the building;
measurements should be taken after the slide repair. The stream is very important as open
space. She stated the story poles adequately indicate neither the height, mass nor forward
points of the houses. Residents of Venus Court will look at this project. The General Plan
should be reviewed as to impacts, and cumulative impacts should be addressed to ensure
consistency.
Charlie Zabielskis, 12 Juno Road, stated the four houses are quite large and much larger than
surrounding communities. He added that the visual simulations are from a different distance
and he is unclear what the site will look like. He does not want to look at a mass of buildings,
and Belveron is the most impacted.
Discussion was closed to the public at 9:20 p.m.
In rebuttal to public comment, Mr. Hochstrasser noted that the residences of Stewart Drive
look down at Belveron, not this project. The traffic survey was determined accurate by
independent review. Drainage will be implemented as the Town directs. Building will occur
60 feet from the center of the stream and; in addition, reclamation of the banks will be
completed. The reclamation has been approved by the State Fish & Game Department. The
stream consists of drainage from Stewart Drive. There are Town guidelines in place to protect
vegetation, habitat and water, which will be followed. The story poles are accurate.
Regarding a bird's eye view of the project, the rear retaining walls will be buried, as will the
rooflines, since the color will allow the roofs to blend into the hill. He would be willing to
require the private open space be held in common if doing so would not further reduce the
allowable house sizes. He noted that the houses shown are prototypes. He said the average
width of the stream is about 100 feet. He noted that this is really a ravine or watercourse
draining water from Stewart Drive, and they propose to enhance the entire watercourse.
Regarding fire hazards, the project will reduce the hazards by installing a fire hydrant and
providing fire truck access to the remainder of the hill. The wildlife area will be better
protected than it is currently as well. The public would continue to have access to the open
space.
The Commission determined that Commissioner Fredericks' comments need not be read into
the record, since they were included in Late Mail and were already part of the record.
Vice-Chair Stein stated that this was a large ,project and there were still several things to
consider. He was especially struck by the overall visual mass of the development. The Open
Space Element of the General Plan would seem to indicate that anything planned on the Cherry
property must consider the open space view of the project from the road. The photo
simulations were helpful, but when he viewed the project from the same spot as the
simulations, he noted that at that spot the project is least visible, whereas in other locations
there is quite a different view of the property. The mass of the buildings cannot be approved
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
4
MINUTES NO. 837 OF JANUARY 10,2001
~
-:"f.
,
based upon presumed growth of trees to provide visual screening. The General Plan states that
massive structures and site coverage that overwhelms the surrounding area are to be avoided.
Commissioner Snow stated that he had walked the area and the mass that is seen is still a
concern. Even though the height has been reduced to 24 feet, this still seems too high and
perhaps reducing it further would help to reduce the mass which would help with the character
issue. He agreed that relying upon vegetation for screening is not appropriate. Drivers on
Trestle Glen Boulevard and residents on Stewart Drive, Turtle Rock Court and, mainly,
residents of Belveron, will all have views of the project, and that should be a consideration of
the project's design. Reducing the number of units and the height would help to reduce the
mass of the development.
Chair Slavitz thanked the applicant for the professional presentation. While he could see how
they concluded they had complied with the General Plan, he did not agree. He noted that
Commissioner Fredericks' written comments described very well how they are not meeting the
requirements of several elements, including the private open space concept, the view from
Trestle Glen Boulevard and surrounding neighborhoods, and the direction that similar-sized
houses be built to correspond to surrounding neighborhoods. As noted by Randy Greenberg,
this piece of land is transitional from the more dense development of Tiburon to the less dense
development of Paradise Drive. The four large houses concentrated on 1. 8 acres is intense and
the tightly-packed houses will look like one massive development. He had thought that all the
story poles would be surrounded with tape to help give a sense of the total project. Driving up
Trestle Glen Boulevard is the only time just two houses would be seen, but there are other
vantage points where rr:ore of the project would be visible. The story poles should have
indicated more of the buildings. Ownership of the open space in common is an excellent idea.
He felt that the current design does not meet the spirit of the General Plan and especially the
Open Space and Conservation Element. What has been shown does not complement the open
space that is there. While he did not want to redesign the project, changing the density would
help to eliminate the problems with the requirements of the General Plan. There needs to be
sensitive treatment of the views of this parcel.
Vice-Chair Stein stated that the house on Lot I with its massive front is not in keeping with
neighboring communities. He did not feel that they were in compliance with Policy OSC-2 of
the General Plan. He suggested one house be eliminated, with three houses of 3,000 square
feet, or less. If four houses are to be allowed, the square footage of each should be 2,200
square feet. The houses should be lowered to I to 1-112 stories. Based upon the General
Plan, we should protect the open space to the maximum feasible, and the permanent private
open space must be meaningful, not just left over land. This would be predicated upon
knowing what the empty parcel is about. The applicant should show greater sensitivity to mass
and bulk issues to address the Open Space Element's policies.
Chair Slavitz stated that he applauded their effort to increase the amount of parking but with
the long strip of perpendicularly parked cars, potential storage of cars becomes an issue. He
recommended the parking be better integrated into the property. He added this is an important
opportunity to improve the bike path along Trestle Glen Boulevard.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
5
MINUTES NO. 837 OF JANUARY 10,2001
-
-:"!"'
-
Vice-Chair Stein asked about regrading plans. Mr. Anderson said the revised cut and fill
estimates were included in the materials, but the detailed grading plan would be submitted at
the next stage.
The Commission's direction to the Town Engineer with respect to a bike path was to create a
paved, improved path for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Chair Slavitz stated he would prefer adding width to Trestle Glen Boulevard, with the center
line adjusted, and a well-delineated path with painted lines and signs, rather than an asphalt
divider for this purpose, as the divider can be dangerous to bicyclists. Pedestrians could be
required to use one side of the road and bicyclists the other.
Commissioner Snow noted that this would be better on the left side going up hill, as going
down the hill, bikes tend :0 keep up with the traffic.
It was agreed that the whole paved travelway should be wider, with bike lanes on both sides.
Planning Director Anderson stated that the Town Engineer would address drainage. The
applicant's latest proposal to divert the water before it reaches the Belveron culvert and send it
directly to Tiburon Boulevard sounds great if it is shown to be feasible. He added it is a
significant issue that the culvert is almost full from the recent rainstorm because all reviews
indicate the culvert would accommodate all current and future development in the event of a
100-year storm. With the applicant's latest proposal, the water should end at the bay side of
Tiburon Boulevard and not feed into the Belveron drainage ditch before crossing Tiburon
Boulevard.
Vice-Chair Stein noted that the greater amounts of hardscape and larger roofs would supply a
greater amount of runoff. He thought additional technical information was needed before the
Planning Commission could make a decision, He was not ready to say that the drainage is
mitigated. Mr. Anderson stated that the Town Engineer would conduct a more thorough
review of the situation.
Vice-Chair Stein wondered whether the applicant had explored green roofs. He suggested they
downscale the project to three houses of 3,000 square feet.
Chair Slavitz stated that he did not want to define the number of homes or the square footage,
but the proposed site development is too intense and does not meet the spirit of the General
Plan and Town guidelines. The way the reduction of homes occurs is very important to
achieving conformance. He thought the houses should be less wide and have less floor space.
Vice-Chair Stein noted the builder of each house will be required to submit plans for review
by the Design Review Board.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
6
MINUTES NO. 837 OF JANUARY 10. 2001
'I
..
-:-~...
,
Commissioner Snow stated that he did not want to specify the number of homes or the square
I
footage, but reducing the number of houses would allow larger houses. He would recommend
reducing heights four more feet to reduce the apparent mass of the houses.
Vice-Chair Stein said that at some:point they may need to set a limit on the square footage.
Commissioner Snow said it seemed as though the applicants did not get the message from the
previous meeting, so setting square :footage limits would make that clear.
I
I
Chair Slavitz suggested that the applicant return with designs showing three houses with more
square footage and four houses with less square footage. Having three homes in the area would
be a better solution, as this plan see,ms to put a lot into a small space.
;
I
Vice-Chair Stein stated that it was the applicant's decision to cluster the homes, but there is no
reason that a more dispersed devdopment could not be achieved, but the project's current
design constrains the site. i
I
Mr. Hochstrasser stated that they! concentrated the homes because that seemed to be the
direction from the General Plan in order to preserve the most open space.
M/S Stein/Snow (3-0-2) to continue this item to February 14, 2001.
I
,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. 215 BLACKFIELD DRIVE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TEMPORARY
PORTABLE OFFICE TRAILER! Kol Shofar, owner; Assessor Parcel No. 38-351-34.
A proposal has been made to temporarily place a portable office trailer on the Kol Shofar
synagogue property located at 215 Blackfield Drive. The trailer would provide temporary
office space for a private high school (Jewish Community High School), which will soon begin
operations on the site. A conditional use permit is required under Section 2.04.02 of the
Tiburon Zoning Ordinance for the'establishment of a new building associated with a private
school. I
I
Planning Director Anderson review'ed the Staff report, and in response to questions, stated that
the approved conditional use permit for the site shows a day school not to exceed 100 students.
This use permit has an annual revi~w. He added reaching out to the neighbors by Kol Shofar
and the new school would be beneficial.
Mark Goldman, president of the Board of Kol Shofar. stated outreach is taking place, and
added that the trailer would be screened by the property, berms, and vegetation. Once it is
placed on site, they would gladly address any unexpected visual issues from off-site.
I
There was no public comment.
M/S Stein/Snow (3-0-2) to adopt Resolution No. 2001-01.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
7
MINUTES NO. 837 OF JANUARY 10,2001
~
4. ZONING ORDINANCE: TOWN-INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENTS; text
amendments to Subchapters 1-5 involving, among other items, amendment to the
definitions, condominium conversion regulations, Parks and Open Space Commission
membership and deletion of references to the Board of Adjustments and Review.
Planning Director Anderson and the Commission discussed minor changes.
Commissioner Snow asked why "kitchenette" was being stricken from page 15. Mr. Anderson
said that .the definitions section should contain words that are used elsewhere in the Zoning
Ordinance and kitchenette is not.
Mr. Anderson discussed the definition of "owner of record," which only applies for secondary
dwelling units, It is important that the owner of the site actually lives in the unit or the main
house. The Town really wants someone who has at least 50% ownership living there. This is a
way of keeping units under control of the owner of the property, as problems are more likely
to arise when there is more than one unit and the owner does not live in either one.
, Chair Slavitz questioned why some of the duties of the Planning Commission, Design Review
Board, and Town Council are struck through. Who does oversee those items? Planning
Director Anderson replied that those items that are struck through are not zoning permits and
do not necessarily belong in the zoning ordinance. However, that section does provide useful
information and could be left in for that purpose, with the addition of "and other duties. "
Planning Director Anderson explained other changes: on page 29 "precise development plan"
should be underlined as it is a new definition; on page 32, the "slope" definition was taken out
because Section 4.01.02 has been repealed, but it could be kept in using the same definition
that is found in the subdivision ordinance.
Concerning the terms of boards and commissions, Section 3.02.04 on page 89 is proposed for
repeal because the Town recently amended Chapter 2 of the Municipal Code. This section
could be left in, as the whole section is good information. It was agreed it would be left in,
and also Sections on pages 94 and 102 regarding Planning Commission and POSC terms.
What prompted this revision was the Town Council recommendation to reduce the number of
Parks and Open Space Commission members. But that may be avoided by reducing the
number of meetings rather than the number of members.
Commissioner Fredericks had submitted written comments on Section 2.03.00. Mr. Anderson
stated that several areas of the county have already annexed into Tiburon that are not
contiguous and do not belong to an identified neighborhood such as Bel Aire, so he cannot
implement her suggestion.
There were changes made to the last paragraph on page 49 to make it easier to read.
There was no public comment.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
8
MINUTES NO. 837 OF JANUARY 10, 2001
\
~
~~.
~
MIS Stein/Snow (3-0-2) to recommend approval of the zoning text amendments to the
Town Council.
ADJOURNMENT
Having no further business, the Commission adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
A TIEST:
~~.
SCOTI ANDERSON, SECRETARY
ission
MOlOllO
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES NO. 837 OF JANUARY 10,2001
9
"".
.~ ~
, r::: II T1 i?; 1(':; .
If ikL5._ \.0 ~ 1,( o.J
~
.......,
t,
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO, -=r-
MEETING DATE 7/25/01
To: PLANNING COMMISSION
From: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR JAr'
Subject: FILE #39903: "TIBURON COURT" RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (PD#18B),
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CREATE FOUR BUILDING SITES ON A
13.34 ACRE PARCEL AND REVIEW OF A FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION; SOUTH SIDE OF TRESTLE GLEN BOULEV ARD; Round-
Two Development, LLC, owner; Don Henderson and Craig Pilgrim, applicants;
Assessor's Parcel No, 58-061-80 & 86
Date: JUL Y 2, 200 I
PRO.JECT DATA
Address:
South (upslope) side of Trestle Glen Boulevard west of its
intersection with Turtle Rock Court (PD# 18B)
58-061-80 & 86
39903
L (Low Density Residential (up to 0.3 du.lacre)
RPD (Residential Planned Development Zone - up to 0.3
du/acre)
13,34 acres
PM 10-8 (1974)
Undeveloped land
Round-Two Development Joint Venture
Don Henderson & Craig Pilgrim
AP No,:
File No,
General Plan:
Zoning:
Property Size:
Subdivision:
Current Use:
Owner:
Applicant
BACKGROUND
This project was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission on October II, 2000 and
January 10, 200 I, Revisions to the project made in between those meetings were found to be
insufficient, and the Planning Commission directed at its January 10lh meeting that further
revisions be made before the item returned for review, Minutes of the 1/10/2001 meeting are
attached as Exhibit I,
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
7/2512001
1
EXHIBIT NO,.
~
~
Planning Commission comments and direction focused on the following issues:
l. Significantly reducing the visual mass of the buildings,
2. Further reducing the visual height of the buildings to 1 to 1 Y:, stories,
3. Providing better visual representation of proposed homes through enhanced story poles
and connecting ribbon
4, Consideration of reducing the density and square footage of the homes,
5, Consideration of the open space being held "in common",
6. Breaking up of the in-common parking area along the project roadway to reduce the
"parking lot appearance"
REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Tiburon Court project would create four residential lots ranging in size from 1.45 to 4,92
acres in area on the 13,25-acre site), Each lot would be developed with one single-family detached
unit and accessory structures and uses Drawings, elevations, and floor plans of the revised project
are attached as Attachment A (24" X 36") and Attachment B (11" X I T' format, including
reduced drawings), A detailed project description is found on pp, 3-1 through 3-9 of the Final
Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment C),
A summary of major project revisions is attached as Exhibit 2, The major changes are as follows:
l. The proposed homes have been reduced to a maximum gross floor area of2,900 square
feet, as defined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, This definition does not include
basement (below-grade) space that does not add to the visual mass and bulk of a building,
nor does it count the 600 square feet of garage space proposed for each home, The
reduction in gross square footage has been attained by shrinking the buildings and by
sinking them further into the ground Approximately 1,785 square feet of "visual" floor
area has been deleted from each home In addition, the length and depth of units has been
reduced to allow greater separation between homes.
2. As the homes have been lowered into the ground, the visual height has decreased, The
actual height (measured from finished grade) ranges from a maximum of 24 feet on Lots 1-
3 to a maximum 01'20 feet on Lot 4, Visible height above existing grade would be a
maximum of 18 feet on Lots I and 2, 20 feet on Lot 3, and 16 feet on Lot 4, according to
application materials,
3, Materials have been changed to blend better with the natural surroundings, Sonoma
fieldstone, wood siding, and medium to dark roofing materials are proposed, Pitched roofs
have been limited to the central portion of each home, with flat roofs on outer portions to
reduce visual impact
4, Common parking areas have been dispersed to avoid a "parking lot" appearance, and
landscaping (box trees) inserted to provide increased screening,
5, The project roadway has been shortened by approximately 60 feet.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
7/25/2001
2
~
-:-r.
,
ANALYSIS OF REVISED PRO.JECT WITH RESPECT TO COMMISSION DIRECTION
J. Significantly redllcing the visllal mass of the bllildings.
Staff believes that the combination of lowering and shrinking of the homes has substantially
reduced any massive, looming or out-of-scale visual effects of the project. Lot 4, the most
visually prominent of the sites from Trestle Glen Boulevard, has been lowered the most of all
the lots, and attains an essentially one-story appearance from Trestle Glen Boulevard, In
terms of gross floor area, each home has been reduced to 2,900 square feet, plus up to 600
square feet of garage,
2. Fllrther redllcillg the visual height of the bllildings to J to J y, stories.
Lowering the homes into the ground, a common and highly encouraged principle of the
Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines, has substantially reduced the visual height of the
buildings to achieve, for thc most part, a I to I I/,-story appearance, Enhanced story poles will
provide an opportunity to review these lowered heights in the field,
3. Providing heller visllal doclllllelltatiollthrollgh enhances StOl)' poles with cOllllecting rihholl.
Enhanced story poles with ribbon have been erected in the field, A story pole plan is attached
as Attachment 0,
4. Consideration of redllcing the density and sqllare footage (if the homes.
Square footage of the homes has been reduced as noted above, The project density has not
been reduced, Elimination of a unit would reduce overall project density to approximately 0,2
units per acre, an unusually low density reserved for the most physically and environmentally
challenging parcels within the Town ofTiburon,
5. Consideratioll of the opell space helllg held "ill commoll ".
Staff has apparently failed to convey at previous meetings the extent of Town protection over
the open space areas created as part of this project. The developer must grant the Town a
formal and recorded Open Space Easement over the site's proposed open space areas, The
Open Space Easement is a very strict one that is readily enforced by the Town, as a
homeowner on Indian Rock Court had the misfortune to discover a few years ago, A copy of
the Town's standard form is attached as Exhibit 3. Based on prior enforcement experience
with the Town's open space easements, Stalfstrongly recommends individual Lot ownership
of open space, as opposed to open space ownership "in common",
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
7/2512001
3
~
~~.
~
,
6. Breaking lip of the in-common parking area along the ruadway to redllce Ihe "parking 101
appearance ".
Prior project drawings depicted a single paved area along the roadway containing all off the
"in-common" parking for the development, creating the appearance of excess paving and
hardscape, Revised drawings show the common parking spaces broken into three different
locations and with large box trees interspersed where needed to provide screening. Staff
believes that the "parking lot" appearance has been eliminated,
ADDlTIONAL STAFF-SUGGESTED PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Landscaping Buffer Along Trestle Glen Boulevard
The Commission has strongly favored a buffer area with a naturalized landscape treatment along
the Trestle Glen Boulevard frontage of the property, Revised drawings depict an adcquate buffer
area to achieve the desired landscaping effect. Any buffer landscaping should begin behind the
10-foot widening strip along Trestle Glen Boulevard that is being offered to the Town for
roadwaylbike lane purposes, The revised Schematic Landscape Plan, dated 16 March 200 I,
would "maintain and supplement existing shrubs in the butTer area in order to preserve the rural
character of the Trestle Glen Corridor", The drawing does not propose landscaping beyond the
"residential use area" of Lot 4, There is an additional 570 linear feet of property frontage west of
"residential use area" of Lot 4, The Commission should determine whether landscaping of this
lengthy strip would add or detract from the rural appearance of the corridor, and provide
direction accordingly, Either way, Staff believes that the schematic landscape plan for the buffer
area should be greatly enhanced at the next level of Planning Commission review, that being the
tentative map review, A condition to that effect is part of the draft Resolution
Public Trails
A ten-foot wide public trail is proposed to be constructed by the developer across parts of
proposcd Lots I and 2, connecting Trestle Glen Boulevard to Porto Marino Drive, The trailhead
at Trestle Glen Boulevard has been relocated on the most recent drawing approximately 70 feet to
the west to coincide with a slide repair area, StatT is not convinced that this is a superior trailhead
location, but the final trail alignment will be determined at a latcr stage of project review,
The projcct would also offer a ten-foot widcning strip along Trestle Glen Boulevard for dedication
to the Town for bicycle, pedestrian, and roadway widening purposes, StatTbelieves that an
additional public pedestrian easement should be secured connecting latcrally across the property's
middle-to-upper reaches to the adjacent Lower Trestle Glen property This item is included as a
condition of approval in the resolution,
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
7/25/2001
4
~
~~
~
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An expanded Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project was prepared
under contract to the Town ofTiburon by the consulting firm of Nichols-Berman, and released for
public review and comment on September 1, 2000. Numerous letters were received on this
document in addition to comments offered at the two public hearings. Responses to these
comments have been compiled along with project revisions into a Final Mitigated Negative
Declaration document (Attachment C).
The conclusion of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration is that changes to the project made
since the first Planning Commission hearing in October 2000 have acted only to reduce potential
impacts of the project on the environment. Project modifications have resulted in reductions in
the potential for aesthetic impacts through size, height, and visual mass reductions and changes in
building materials. Potential hydrology impacts have been further reduced through decreases in
impervious surface Potential traffic safety impacts at the project .roadway entrance have been
further reduced by improving the sight distance to the east. On-site parking has been increased
substantially.
Mitigation measures presented in the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration have been accepted in
writing by the applicant would reduce all potential impacts to less than significant levels,
CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS, POLICIES AND ORDINANCES
Detailed analysis of General plan consistency and Zoning Ordinance conformance was provided in
the staff report of October 11,2000, Stan'believes that the project, on balance, furthers the
goals, objectives and policies of the Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Zoning Ordinance.
Revisions made to the project over the last nine months have improved the conformity with Town
goals and policies, especially in terms of visual mass, bulk and appearance of the buildings, The
revised project would result in a more harmonious transition between the Tiburon Boulevard and
Paradise Drive areas of the Town of Tiburon.
The kev to a successful implementation of this proiect will be to ensure that the homes actuallv
built in the field stromdy resemble the masses colors materials. and general appearance of the
homes shown in the approved application materials, The draft Resolution is structured to achieve
this critical end,
FUTURE ACTIONS REQUIRED
The Planning Commission's approval of this project would be in the form ofa recommendation to
the Town Council for project approval. The Town Council would then hold a separate public
hearing to consider the project and the environmental determination Should the Commission
vote to deny the project, the denial would be final unless appealed to the Town Council
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
7/25/2001
5
~
~,,!"",
o
,
If the Precise Development Plan is approved by the Town Council, subsequent Town permits
would include a Tentative Subdivision Map, Parcel Map, Subdivision Improvement Drawings,
Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for each lot, and Building Permits for each residence,
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff believes that project modifications result in a superior development that on balance is
consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan and conforms with the'
principles of the Residential Planned Development zoning district. A draft resolution of approval
is attached as Exhibit 4 for consideration by the Planning Commission,
EXHIBITS
I, Planning Commission Minutes of 1/1 0/200 I meeting,
2, Letter from Don Henderson dated March 27, 200 I describing modifications to the project
3, Form of Grant of Open Space Easement
4, Draft Resolution,
ATTACHMENTS
A Full size drawings (6 sheets) prepared by Lawrence P. Doyle revised 5/21/0 I,
B. Tiburon Court Conceptual Architecture Plans Booklet, received July 2, 200 I, prepared by
DTH & Associates, II "X I 7" format (includes reduced site and grading plans),
C. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration dated July 200 I, prepared by Nichols-Berman,
D, Story Pole and Building Envelope Staking Plan (11" X I 7") for field use,
~,,":oll\39?03ri,;G n:port.do..:
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
7/2512001
6
{:
Scott Anderson
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon , CA 94920
RECEIVED
MAR 2 7 2001
March 27, 2001
PLANNINc; Ul::r'AH rl\IENr
TOWN OF TIBURON
Re: Tiburon Court
Dear Scott,
Enclosed is the revised site plan which includes elevation & floor plans, grading and
landscape scheme for the proposed four homes. Sugges~ons from the planning
commission were constructively taken into account when making the following changes.
1. SOUARE FOOT AGE The proposed four homes have been substantially reduced
from an average of 4,685 square feet per residence to 2,900 square feet. This removes
1,785 square feet from the height and. bulk mass of each home, totaling 7,140 square
feet. The modification is equivalent to gross living space. of two 3,570 Sq. Ft. homes.
2. BmLDING HEIGHT All of the homes now maintain an appearance of a single
story "Bungalow" style dwelling when viewed from Trestle Glen Boulevard. The
garage for each house has been relocated below the main floor to the side and rear.
The building heights appear as follows.
LOT-l varies from 10-18 feet LOT-3 varies from 12-20 feet
LOT - 2 varies from 12-18 feet LOT -4 varies from 10-16 feet
3. CLIJSTER TIGHTNESS In addition to the square footage and height reduction, the
length and depth of each proposed home has been reduced to allow greater separation
between each house.
4. ROOFING Sloped roof areas with 4/12 pitch have been clustered at the center of
each house. The remaining roof area is flat to reduce visual impact, making the
homes appear much smaller.
5. PARKING Guest parking has been disbursed throughout the site to alleviate an
undesired" Parking Lot" affect. Five of the ten parking spaces located along the
entry roadway are separated by box trees incorporated into the landscape plan.
6. SETBACK Homes proposed for LOT-3 and LOT-4 now maintain a 50-foot
setback from the edge of the bluff.
Please give me a call if you have any questions. Craig and I would like to get the next
hearing scheduled as soon as possible.
Don Henderson.
Round-Two Development
Ex,,-qIBIT NO.
c2
~
~~..
FlUNG REQUESTED BY AND WHEN FILED
RETURN TO:
,;
I
GRANT OF OPEN SPACE EASEMENT
This GRANT OF OPEN SPACE EASEMENT ("Easement") is made this day of
2000, by {Grantor name}, a {individuals, corporation, etc}, ("Grantor").
RECITALS
A. Grantor is the Qwnc:r of certain real property situated in the County of Marin, State of California, more
particularly described in attached Exhibit" A" ("Property").
{Insert legal description of property}
B. Grantor desires to grant to the Town of Tiburon ("Grantee"), an open space easement on, upon. over.
across and under that portion of the Property described in the attached Exhihit "8". Said Open Space
Easement is also shown on Exhibit "e" attached for graphical information purpose's only.
C. The purpose of the Open Space Easement is to preserve the area in its natural. scenic and open space
condition due to the presence of fragile serpentine and native bunchgrasses and for the preservation of the
open spac~ charact~r of th~ area.
NOW, THEREFORE, Grantor ht:reby grant.s to Gntnttlc: a ptlrmanent open space easement over all that property
described in attachc:d Exhibits "8" and "e", su~jcct to the following conditions and restrictions:
I. Use Restrictions. All use of the Opon Space Easement shall be compatible with the preservation of the
Open Space Easement in its natural, scenic and open space condition. No use of the Open Space
Easement shall be made that would impair or interfere with the natural, scenic, open space and other
environmental values of the Open Space Easement.
No buildings, structures, or other improvements shall be constructed on, no natural resources shall be
extracted from, and no activities sh.all be conducted in, the Open Space Easement that would diminish,
damage, or destroy any physical or sct':nic characteristic of the Op!::n Spact': Easement. No planting of
trees or other vegetation is permitted. No cutting of vegetation is permitted without prior approval of an
encroachment permit by the Town of Tihuron, excepllhe CUlling back of grasses or other vegetation as
may be reyuireu by the Fire District. Said firtl-prtlventive cutting shall not occur prior to June 15 of any
year, and shaIl be done in such manna that thtl root systems of the dormant grasses are not damaged.
Thtm~ shall b~ no dumping or accumulation of trash, gre~n waste, garhage or other offensive, material in
the Open Space Easement.
2.
No Puhlic Access. The granting of this Eastlment and its acceptance by Grantee does not authoriz~ and is
not to be construed ,as authorizing memhers of the public to ~nter upon or to use the Optln Space
Easement in any manntlr whatsoevtlr without the constlnt of the aWnt':r of lhtl Property. This provision
shall not prev~nt Grantor, or his successors or assigns. at any time in tht': futllrt':, from dtldicating or
granting pllhlic access over the Open Space Easement.
EXHIBIT NO.3
~~.
~
3. Access bv Grantee. The Grantee, its successors or assigns. shall have the right, from time to time, during
business hours on business days and after giving reasonable prior written notice to the owner of the
Property, to enter the Open Space Easem"nt and to inspect the Open Space Easement for the purpose of
determining compliance with the terms and conditions of this Grant of Easement.
4. Non-liahility. The Grantee, its successors or assigns, shall have no responsibility or liability of any kind
whatsoever in connection with the use or maintenance of the Open Space Easement or any part thereof.
All responsibility and liability for the Open Space shall remain with Grantor and its successors' in
interest. Except in the event of injury or death of any person utilizing the easement for which injury or
death liability is sought to be imposed on either party hereto, Grantor shall not he liable for the
consequences of acts or omissions which are directly attributable to Grantee or its officers, agents,
employees or contractors.
5. Enforceable Restrictions. This Easement and each and every term, condition and restriction is intended
for the benefit of the public and constitutes an enforceable ,restriction pursuant to the provisions of
Section 8 of Article XIII of the California Constitution. This Easement shall bind Grantor and his
successors or assigns and is intended to run with the land.
6. Unenforceabld Restriction. If any provision of this Easement or the covenants and restrictions contained
herein shall be hdd to be unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, this instrument shall be
construed as if such provision had not been included herein. [f any provision hereof is ambiguous or shall
be subject to two or more interpretations, one or more of which would render such provision invalid or
inconsistent with the open space purposes of this Easement, then such provision shall be given the
interpretation that would renda it valid and would be consistent with the open space purposes of this
easement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this instrument the day and year first written ahove.
Grantor:
{Graotor nam"}
{Grantor type, ego individual, corporation, etc}
By:
It's:
, Grantee:
Anurew Thompson, Mayor
Town ofTiburon
Approved as to Form:
Ann R. Danforth
Attorney for Town of Tiburon
280 round hill os easement.doc
I~"'\.
I '
~
.; p-'\ ~,
'. 1 ~
. I
r:\ r=.J r
!~US
:~
,
l
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMl\llISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE TIBURON COURT PRECISE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 18B) AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 39-061-80 & 86
WHEREAS.the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows:
Section 1. Findings
A The Town ofTiburon has received and considered an application filed by Round-Two
Joint Venture for a Precise Development Plan (the Tiburon Court Precise Development
Plan) to develop the following project:
The development offour single-family dwellings on a 13.34-acre property, with lot sizes
ranging from 1.45 to 4.92 acres. The Tiburon Court Precise Development Plan would
establish building footprints, building envelopes, residential use areas, height and floor
area limits, and other zoning limitations for the four future lots. The building envelope for
Parcell would have an area of 12,553 square feet. Except for Trestle Glen Boulevard
frontage landscaping required separately, all landscaping and fencing would be limited to
the residential use area of each lot. Homes would be limited to 2,900 square feet of gross
floor area, as defined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, plus up to 600 square feet of
garage and below-grade areas
B. The Precise Development Plan application consists of File #39903, on file with the Town
of Tiburon Planning Department. Drawings from that application approved in this action
are as follows:
1. Site Plan, Tiburon Court, prepared by Lawrence Doyle, revised 5/21101, scale
1 "=50'( 1 sheet)
2. Precise Development Plan Grading & Drainage Plan, Tiburon Court, prepared by
Lawrence Doyle, revised 5/21/01, scale 1"=20' (I sheet).
3. Schematic Landscape Plan, Tiburon Court, dated March 16,200 I.
4. Tiburon Court Conceptual Architecture Plans Booklet, date-stamped received July
2, 2001, prepared by DTH & Associates, II"X 17" format
5. Tiburon Court Mitigation Plan, revised 5/2110 I (2 sheets).
6. Letter from Don Henderson to Scott Anderson, dated March 27, 200 I, detailing
revisions to the project (I page).
Tiburon Planning Commission
Rl.:so[utiO!1 No. 2001-
--/--12001
1
E)~IBIT NO.
4-
{:
,
The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of this resolution.
The record includes the Staff Reports, minutes, application materials, and all comments
and materials received at the public hearing.
C. An expanded Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project was
prepared under contract to the Town ofTiburon by the consulting firm of Nicho1s-
Berman, and released for public review and comment on September 1,2000. Numerous
letters were received on this document in addition to comments offered at the two public
hearings. Responses to these comments were compiled along with project revisions into a
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration document dated July 2001.
The Final Mitigated Negative Declaration concludes that changes to the project made
since the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration have acted to reduce potential impacts of
the project on the environment: Project modifications have resulted in reductions in the
potential for aesthetic impacts through size, height, and visual mass reductions as well as
changes in building materials. Potential hydrology impacts have been further reduced
through decreases in impervious surface Potential traffic safety impacts at the project
roadway entrance have been further reduced by improving the sight distance to the east:
On-site parking has been increased substantially. Mitigation measures presented in the
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration have been accepted in writing by the applicant and
would reduce all potential adverse environmental impacts to less than significant levels.
The Planning Commission finds that based upon evidence in the record, no significant
adverse impacts on the environment would occur as a result of the project: All potentially
significant adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated to less than significant
levels through modifications to the project as set forth in the mitigation monitoring
program and agreed upon by the applicant There has been no substantial evidence
submitted into the record to support a fair argument that a significant adverse
environmental impact may result from the project:
D. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on October 11, 2000, January
10,2001, and July 11,2001 at which it heard and considered testimony from interested
persons. The Planning Commission found, based upon application materials and analysis
presented in the staff reports and the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, that on balance
the proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan and in
conformance with provisions of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance The facts in support of
this finding are set forth in the staff reports and the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration,
all of which are incorporated into the project record.
Section 2. Recommendation for Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend adoption of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated July 2001, to the Town
Council.
Tiburon Planning CornnHssion
R~SO]Lllillll No. 2001-_
--/--/2001
2
~
~~.
..
Section 3. Recommendation for Proiect Approval and Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring
.. Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
hereby recommends approval cifthe Tiburon Court Precise Development Plan (PD#18B) to the
Town Council and further recommends adoption ofa mitigation monitoring program for the
project, subject to the following conditions:
1. The following Tiburon Court Precise Development Plan drawings and application
materials are approved, said plans being on file with the Tiburon Planning
Department:
A Site Plan, Tiburon Court, prepared by Lawrence Doyle, revised 5/21/01, scale
I "=50' (I sheet)
B. Precise Developmell! Plan Grading & Drainage Plan, Tiburon Court,
prepared by Lawrence Doyle, revised 5/21/01,.scale 1"=20' (I sheet).
C. Schemaric Land,cape Plan, Tiburon Court, dated March 16, 2001.
D. Tiburon Court Conceplllal Archilecture Plans Booklet, date-stamped received
July 2, 2001, prepared by DTH & Associates, II"X 1 T' formal.
E. Tiburon Court lvlitigation Plan, prepared by Diane L. Renshaw, revised
5/21/01 (2 sheets).
F Letterfrom Don Henderson to Scott Anderson, dated March 27, 200 I,
detailing revisions to the project (I page).
2. This Precise Development Plan approval incorporates all of the environmental
mitigation measures listed in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program,
attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Applicant shall bear all costs for implementation
and monitoring of the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
3. This Precise Development Plan is intended to reflect ultimate development of the
property. No additional subdivision is permitted.
4. It is the intent of this Precise Development Plan approval that all residences
constructed shall very closely resemble the homes presented in the Conceptual
Architectfl/'e Plans Booklet, and set forth in the Letter dated lvlarch 27, 2001 from
Don Henderson to Scott Anderson. Materials and colors used for all structures
located within the boundaries of this Precise Development Plan shall blend into the
natural environment. Exterior colors (including trim) shall be restricted to subdued,
medium-to-dark earth-tones. Walls shall be native stone or stone-clad; natural
wood shingle siding (no raw redwood), and dark earth-tone roofing materials shall
be required. All homes shall maintain the appearance of a single story "Bungalow"
style dwelling when viewed from Trestle Glen Boulevard.
Tiburon Plunning Commission
R..:sulutiun Nu, 2001-
--/--/2001
3
~
~~.
...
,
5. The maximum gross floor area, as defined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance,
allowed to be constructed on each lot shall not exceed 2,900 square feet, plus up
to 600 square feet of garage space for each lot.
6. Buildings and accessory buildings shall be confined to the approved "building
envelope" on each lot, as shown on the approved 1"=20' scale Precise
Development Plan Grading & Drainage Plan. No tennis courts are permitted.
7. No improvements of any type, including fencing and landscaping, shall be
permitted outside the approved "residential use area" shown on the approved
1"=50' Site Plan, except those required subdivision and construction-related
improvements shown on the approved Precise Development Plan drawings.
8. Setbacks shall be as set forth on the approved 1"=20' scale Precise Development
Plan Grading & Drainage Plan, with the following additional setback
requirements as set forth in application materials:
a. Lot 1 buildings shall be set back 120 feet from the existing pavement edge
of Trestle Glen Boulevard
b. Lot 4 buildings shall be set back 85 feet from the existing pavement edge of
Trestle Glen Boulevard.
c. Lot 3 and Lot 4 buildings shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the
"top of bank" of the intermittent stream.
d. Setbacks between residences shall be at least 50 feet measured from
outside wallta outside wall.
9. Maximum heights of residences, as defined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, shall
be as follows:
a. Lots 1, 2, and 3 shall not exceed 24 feet in height at any point; Lot 4 shall
not exceed 20 feet in height at any point.
b. Height from natural grade for Lot I shall range from 10 to 18 feet but shall
not exceed 18 feet at any point.
c. Height from natural grade for Lot 2 shall range from 12 to 18 feet but shall
not exceed 18 feet at any point
d. Height from natural grade for Lot 3 shall range from [2 ta 20 feet but shall
not exceed 20 feet at any point.
e. Height from natural grade for Lot 4 shall range from 10 to 16 feet but shall
not exceed 16 feet at any point.
f Accessory structures may not exceed 15 feet in height at any point.
10. Sloped roof areas shall not exceed 4/12 pitch. Sloped roof areas shall be clustered
at the center of each house, with remaining roof areas to be flat or low-pitched to
reduce visual impact.
Tiburon Planning Commi:ision
R.:solutinn Nu. 1001-_
--1--/2001
4
~
~~.
..
11. Landscape palettes developed for each Lot shall be in substantial conformance
with the Revised Schematic Landscape Palette attached as Exhibit "B" hereto.
12. Exterior lighting should be limited to the minimum amount necessary to safely
illuminate points of access and outdoor use areas. In its review of individual
homes, the Design Review Board shall carefully review all lighting to minimize its
visibility from surrounding properties and Trestle Glen Boulevard.
13. All portions of lots outside of the "residential use area" and the 40-foot wide
access and public utilities easement shall be contained and protected within an
open space easement granted by the project sponsor to the Town ofTiburon. Said
open space easement shall be recorded in conjunction with the recordation of the
parcel map. Said easement shall acknowledge a possible future access driveway
opposite Juno Road to serve the adjoining 14.5-acre parcel to the west. The open
space easement language shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney
and Planning Director prior to approval of the parCel map
14. A Trestle Glen Boulevard Frontage Buffer Landscape Plan (more detailed and
depicting more plantings than the Schematic Landl.cape Plan drawing approved
herein) shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission in
conjunction with the tentative subdivision map application This enhanced buffer
landscape plan shall utilize primarily native, drought-tolerant plants, and shall
maintain the natural hillside appearance of the frontage. The precise location, size,
and type of plantings shall be specified by the project sponsor in the buffer
landscape plan. Timing of buffer landscape installation, maintenance, and
irrigation shall be specifically resolved, through recorded agreement if necessary,
prior to approval of the Parcel Map.
15. In addition to the Tiburon Ridge Trail segment to be offered for public dedication
and constructed by the project sponsor, a second public pedestrian easement shall
be offered for dedication This easement shall run laterally across the property,
following the natural contours to the extent feasible, and shall connect the Tiburon
Ridge Trail segment to the property line of the adjoining 14.5-acre parcel to the
west.
16. In addition to the offer of dedication for the 10' road widening strip along the
length of the Trestle Glen Boulevard frontage, project sponsor shall contribute
monetarily to the eventual construction of a bicycle lane. Said monetary
contribution shall be paid prior to recordation of the parcel map and shall be
calculated in accordance with legal principles governing such exaction.
17. Draft CC&R's for the subdivision shall be prepared and submitted for review by
the Town Attorney and Planning Director as part of the Tentative Map application.
Tiburon Planning Comrni...sion
R':SO!lltill!l Nil, 2001-
..1--1200 I
5
~
-:.~.
,
Said CC&Rs shall contain provisions and limitations as set forth in this Precise
Development Plan approval to the satisfaction of the Town ofTiburon.
IS. Due to parking limitations within the subdivision, secondary dwelling units, as
defined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, shall not be permitted within this
subdivision. CC&R's shall incorporate this limitation.
19. All requirements of the Town Engineer with respect to drainage and utilities shall
be met. The Town's preference at this time is to require improvement of the
existing undersized Be1veron Drainage Ditch and pipe east of Juno Road and direct
the project's flow into the upgraded facilities. In addition, drainage mitigation fees
will be required per the Tiburon Municipal Code.
20. This Precise Development Plan approval shall be valid for 36 months following its
effective date, and shall expire unless subsequent zoning andlor building permits
have been issued pursuant to this approvaL A time extension may be granted if
such request is filed prior to the expiration date .
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town
ofTiburon held on ~ 2001 by the following vote:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
STEVE STErN, CHAIRMAN
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATTEST:
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
',\4~Ol it
IscotVti..amu 1 ft peres. doc
Tiburon Planning Commission
R..:solutiun Nn. 2001-_
--/--/2()()1
6
.
.
· A"
EXHIBIT NO...tt-
~
~'!",
,
.
4.0 DRAFT MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
.
Background Assembly Bill (AB) 3180 (California Public Resources Code (pRe) Section 2108.6)
became law in California on January 1, 1989, This bill requires all public agencies to adopt mitigation
or reporting plans when they approve projects with Mitigated Negative Declarations or Environmental
Impact Reports which identify significant environmental impacts. The reporting and monitoring plans
must be adopted when a public agency makes its findings pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) so that the program can be made a condition of project approval, The plan must
be designed to ensure project compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation, If
certain project impacts extend beyond the project implementation phase, long-term mitigation
monitoring should be provided in the monitoring plan,
.
I
.
Purpose The Tiburon Court mitigation monitoring plan will ensure that all nutlgatlon measures
required by the Mitigated Negative Declaration and agreed to by the applicant are completed as part of
project construction and are maintained in a satisfactory manner during and following project
implementation. This plan is designed in a table format for ease of use by the responsible parties, The
table identifies the individual impacts. corresponding mitigation measures, individual I agency
responsible for implementation, time frame for implementation, and assigns a party responsible to
implement. monitor, and confirm the implementation of the mitigation plan. The table will be used by
the Town of Tiburon to verify that all required mitigation measures are incorporated into the project
and will provide a convenient tool to determine whether required measures have been fulfilled.
I
.
.
4.2 MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
.
Management The Town of Tiburon Planning Department will be responsible for overseeing
implementation and administration of the ylitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (the MMRP) for
the Tiburon Court residential development.
.
The Planning Director will designate a staff member to manage the MMRP. If current staffing in the
Planning Department cannot absorb the task of managing the MMRP, an independent contractor will
be hired at the expense of the project applicant. The independent contractor would serve under the
direction of the Planning Director or designated staff member. Duties of the staff member responsible
for program coordination, whether a permanent Town staff member or independent contractor, would
include the following:
.
.
.
Conduct routine inspections. plan checking, and reporting activities.
. Serve as liaison between the Town and project applicant regarding mitigation monitoring issues,
.
.
Coordinate acti vities of consultants hired by the project applicant when such expertise and
qualifications are necessary to implement and monitor mitigation measures.
-
.
Coordinate with other Town personnel and agencies having mitigation monitoring
responsibilities.
..
.
....,
-
.....::'.-'::' ..>. .:.'.=~~~-:,,~t:;..~..i'= ....~..
.. -.'~, . n ._< :~".:.~;::.- ,,:.-..-..._,;.::-:-
,.._~_._...
.,',..."... ......-_...,...,
~,:~':f:5.~:" .~. ___' . -' _ --<iir~',::,:~'''' .
'.'..'-",='5=-' - ...
.. ,.,,,, .r~iil::"f~~_"-_.C.
. .;\~'?~!9;?~~~~~:'''-'. .
3-0 ENVIRONMENTAl. CHECKlJST
7iburon Ccurt RBSidBn~aJ DtWBtopment
-<
. . . .
';-' ..lt~~~..}~ :~:~-.~~' .
The preject weu1d have temperary shert-term.air qn"lity~3nd noise effects .en .existing neaiby
residents during censtrUctien _~hich..with .implementatien ef Mitigatien Measures c.4(a),
C.4(b), and K,4. wauld be 1ess-than~significant..:..rhe- project weuld net pese a hazard to. future
site residents through expasUre to geelai:ic.'~ through implementatian af Mitigatian
Measures F.1(b), F.l(d), F.3. F.4. and staridardPraCttcesrequired of all prajects appreved in
the Tewn (cempliance with the UnifamiBUiIdfuifCede.etc.), The project wau1d nat pase a
hazard to. an- er aff-site residents thrOugh expasUre to. hazardeus substances, and the petential
impact en peaple,and property du.~..to wiI<llanq fire ,and I erdsk ef injury in an-site epen space
. couId be reduced toaIess-than~sigr;iftc3Dtlever thrOugh impIementatien af Mitigatian
. Measures G,8(a)and N.2. respectivelY.'Witli'iiifagaii~n. these direct and indirect effects en
existing and future area residents weiild_lle 1es~-th~-signific3nt and net deemed substantial.
. _ __". _ 1 ...lr-' ...
Mitigation Measure 0.3 hnpIement Mitigiition Measures C.4(~), C.4(b). F.1(b). F.1(d), F.3,
F.4. G,8(a), K.4, and N.2,. No. additienal mitigaiien'wouId be required,
3-90
g g rn
::' ;i i
0' n: \n
~. p. 2.-
~ ,; ;e
o " 0
:':n~
:r(i-:
5' e- ~
~i~
;;: ;:;' ~
C,1 ('D e..
..",,-
=.. ~,
~':<
~
~
.
Ii
!!
:::; r.
; ::;;
< !!
~ -
~ -
-""
1;-,,-
_. ~
_.0
N ~
" "
~ "
~ "-
~ "
-"-
0; .
-0
~
-..."
" ~
" "
" <
=. o'
< 0
" ~
O'~
~ ,
_oc
" ~
" "
"-
"-,,
" "-
~ ~
o "
~ "
~
;;
"
g.
<
"
"
o
"
i<l
-
o
~
0.
"
"
-
"
~~
" ~
- 0
:!'..;g.
~1'b:J
~
""
"
=i
".
"-
"
~
;:;
(i''O
~ -
e,!:..
Ii
.
!.
s-
:e
"
;;
-
~
:e
"
"
.."
"
-
~
-. ~ ~ ::=:
~..g 2:~
::;-:::l=
.:::'. c. (J'Q ;i
~~~Q.
0'< I'b I>>
::;-~g
~ :: ,; ~ ~
c..:J .., ~
~ (i" - ~ ..,
:.:E &i ;;
~ ~~.c..
~ iii'''' - ~
('D ~ (J'Q 0
!!!. c.. ~ = ..,
(;..g I'b n: 5':
I'b ~..g ~ <:
Vi~'g;.~
~~'::':J=
~ ;, =~
_ :::l 0'" ~
"" Co "
"
~ (ij
.g "
_ Co
Q.:;'
" "
::;:I'b
"" a
.
o :r~ C
~. ~ ~ ~
~ 9a :i""'O
S!. n (J'Q =
;:; ~ ;i
~ g ~c..
.... it' e.
~
;;;
g;
""
~'=:::l C
~ !a. c. ::l
~_Vl"'O
!a..:E&i=
n'~. ;i
~n=e-
=- e-OQ g
I'b ~, ~ g
=-<I'b('D
""::I ~ Ql VI
"=' 0 VI .~
n.'" ;. g
c..::! = ....
, 9 - pi
.
~ 0 3
::; :; =
~ c.;'
VI = ;-
2": :;'
~.." "
:i"~ !=-
~.g 0
!! ;. ~
::; .... 7"
~n""O
-..... ..,
S'o g
" - ~
. ""
"-".
"-"
~ ~
g::
VI [
- Ii
.
.
~. g, ~ ~
a:g~~_
nc.tD
Co c c..::e.
~~. ~ 8
~C"! = =
= ::5.!!!. VI
~~i"2
(/I '< ~
. ~ n' o.
~ ~::l
o.~. I>>
~-<g
o~~
~c..~
o
E~:r
" "
2t~
"
" -
~ "
-0
i";:
0"
(;12
a r:
,..
~
~
!!.
o
~
~
"
"
g"=-
~ n
2.8
~~
" ~
::2.-
~ ~
~
51 ~ !") I~II
- ... ...
:i-::: Q
= 0' - c:
~ ;;: n cui
= ::::-'
g.o~ ~
~.s:
~ g. ::f
~ -
~ ~
a."
~~
-g Z
=.."
o 0
~ ~
a ~
"
;.
<
"
Cll8~.g2"o2."i'
2.~~!:..='3'O"""
::; n ::: = ""::I ,; ....,
C iii"'<(J'Q _=:r
!In-.\''')(''DnCll
0_' c. 3 9 3 ;;: ~
""0 .... ("D ..,
= ~. ~ ~ :=. ;'..E.
O:rUi~ !::..~
tD oc 0 ;-, n :;:-
[[;;::; 0'.2"5
rr 0' 5i 0" ~~. B;
s.oa ~ ;:; :e ("D Q
~ ~ n c.. 5' ~
en c. ~ ?1 QQ @, C-
O:;' ~ ;; n n ~,,_
2, :e c. n b -
~ ==S,,-<
= :;' n ~
a ~ ('; =
~!::..
~
" Co oc
00-
" - "
~ -.c.
.... = -.
- oc "
~ :J QQ
=, ="":::1
o ""0 ~
'" :r"
I>> c.
~ -
" ~
~~
o "
~"
Co
0-.."
,; ~ ..,
-~2
a ;: g'
~s.:;;
<.."
e,:=
o "
!:.~
-
~
""oc '"
" - "
Q'~O'
~,~ ;;:
~ ""::I iii.
o " ~
= = =
= ~ l>>
n _, :::l
n Vi g
0-0
~,,~
"'
o
3'
'tl
III
2.
~ ~
~~-
[jj ,
::;
;>-
Q
~
:t-
."
-;
s::
:3
Cl
:t-
::l
0
~
;::
0
~
-
Cl
:a
~
Cl
:t-
el
:a
I'll
'1:l
0
:a
::l
~
Cl
'1:l
,..
:t-
~
..;
~
"
0
g
s::
-.
~
01
~
::
I
3'1
'tll
tXJi" i
"<: 3 I
~ l~
I"
~
a
~
ii'''''
3~
C\l C\l
:: ::
-
C\l
Cl.
;;
'"
n ;!:;' '" :::l
e 0 ~ :, ~
'" .." g; ~
~ 2. ('b '"
=.. ~ "
5' " m
;;; 5' .., oc '" IXI:'
'" '" oc "<:0
-oc ;;.
!l " iil
c:. " Cl.
:;0
~
...
tJ::;;
Q>> i"
ii'Cl.
IXI
"(
....
---.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
, ~
;.
I
,
.
I
,
.
I
.
I
:3 0'"'5:
Ol __('II
::. c.. <
o g g
c,__
~ =; ('II
'< ~
_ n
~ ~
.,."
::l "
';2,
3. ::!.
" a-
&.~
::~
.; ~
o "
~ -
~ "
- ~
::;.
?'
g "'5: ~ tc ;:; > 0 ~ 3. ;- So ;i" S' if ~ 9 5'
::t 0 m >.0 c. g tn"'O < ('11"'0 t") ~o On :::. ~
~~.~>5.3c~-a=~~~('ll~_
~c..::Ic~;.~=~<>=a('llc.. a
~ Ol OQ 3: 3 V;. ~ ::t ('ll ~ > n ~.;;: ~ :5 ~
~~~._('ll~5'maooa::t3~S'-
00 n ~::I ~::t g ~ S 7..... ~ 0
::t n 0 ~ i;i _. 2. 0 :. -. o::a.. :T ~ < = C.
~ 2,.::t g = g CI'J~ 0 ii 0('11 g";i"5.n
o c: ~ = = _ = ~ = _' "'0 ~ (JQ g,,_"
*r; a "'0 c..{jn'::I ~o c.n3 0 I>>~" =
foIIIfoIIIn~foIII>_n ~3c:nr.n=~
~.....-ac: ,<nQ:l n('llQ:l,<
_ ~ o' < C'" C"'" = :e CI'J c: :T c..::I _ =. ('ll
n "'0 = Q) 3 0' ::::I _.:" = 3 c: c..::::I ::; "'0
!:...... -_. c..-n_ ncQ)n~
- 0 C'"=.ra-=-eno.g foIII ::'n.o 0
:T (D ~ n - _ - {j Q:I = r.n r.'l -.... C "'0
~ n (i 0' 0' > g !:.. c;" I>> ~ "'0 3 ;. =t. ~
c. ..... en ... -::' -. - ::I n ~ e ~!! tj
r.'l en n _ ::- 0' '< c.. II) _. 01 r.'l =
= '"C g n .:; ~ 8 ~-< Ei g a.
r;" o<!! '< E.)' ~ . c: c.. - "'0 - -
0<: ;:::J __Onr.'l
g .... c..~ t":_, 00
::~- - -
- 0' c:: a.
--.
2.2:
o
~ :;j
n 0
;;:~
~ -
(i =-7i'
c::~n
>:;-;;
>rTl~
C oS ~
=. ::;.1
3: ;:; 0
~ ;
r.'l g. a.
~_. "
?~~
M ~ :::.
!!- "
5 ~
~ ; ~
oe;:.r
~ E,.2.
;; n
;;: ;" ~
~~
~
c.:-
~ ~
::l
~
-
~ ... ~ t:l
= rTl ~ n
c..Q' :::"l
::I (lI ::I .:;
0Cl _.l)Q 01
"'0 ~ "'0 V;'
n c: n :on
3 5 3 s
_. n ::I
;;; n r.n g
-c-o
-..:J_
;;;-
C
"<",0 I::l
ij;';t' c: CJ
..... ::::I = '<
;:;.~ =:;:.
-~'<r;
- "
;;
;:,
. .
>; ." > ~ C c, <
" " " ~ ::l in. n
~ 3 '< <= ""
- n
a" n " ". ~ a- s
~ g. " n n
"" ". """" C, 0"
~ =- ~.- n n :: "
~ n ii. ;;, a " ~
:: ~ c, c" " ::r
". ~ ~ " " ~ ~
n ; "
:n' ~ ".
~ g:
c -:r ." .c "
~ " ~
.." n or -" n
n n n " n."
::l ~ ".-
"- ;; - "
;:, ~ c,'< ::l
n ~ n - ~ ;;
"- ~ ~ "-
;;- ~ ;; ." ;.
"- ~ C
" ~
". ;;- :: ~
'< "-
n ;;-
C "
~ ~
>
~
~
3
~
.
;.::'
" "
;:;
" n
~
::"'0
"
"
- -
("0 ~
"-
0' :;
"
-"
"''<
~. ::
(i"-5
~ "
~ ~
~ "-
~
~ ~
.;;;-
:bool
~I
~I
~I
gl
-,
5'!
c:
'"
Q,
3l:-
-g E.
2.1
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
~i
cE-1
~j
g.,
I
!
3'
'0
1:Dii"
...3
'"
:::
iii
c.
3'
'0
ii";e
3 :::'
lD lD
::: :::
iii
c.
~
lD 2.
"'0'
~
c.
I
;;;::
...
tJ~
IlllD
-co
lDl:D
...
....
~
.:"
"
> c
~ ~.a~
QQ' 2 g
~ ~..::.~.
g g a..~
c.=~~
~ c; "' n
""" "
~ "-
~'<
Y'-::>
~iir
a .:.
= Y'
- ~
=--::>
" "
!l.
=>
"
'"-
'<
ia'
o
~
-::>
iir
"
;;;
~
c..
"-
~
"
:r
"
""
!'
,,"-c
o " ~
a ~ 5'
::tlJQ lJCl
" ~ <:T
Q) !l _. n
a. o' 0" ;a.
~.:I ""0 3
0;;: l>>
e ~ ~
c' .., IJ'Q
S_'." "
:I =. 3
5' :: 0 (1l
0' N':! =
n~";
" "--
Ci a Q:I
VI ~
0' t=j'
.= ~
-
"
"
"
:=:
c
" - ;c
" " "
Co. "'g ..::
"t:l _. n
" - ""
- " "
" - -
5 ~ ~.
~ ~.~
""
;; = n
~ ,,-::>
r.: :.'"
!"" <.g
" 0
~ ~
" "
" "-
.V1 ~
~a;
:; "
"
<:T
Y'
c
c
= n < m
:I l>> n =
c..r,:~ ;-
~ ~ ~. Fi
g a 0 5'
=~=lJQ
~::'_'~
iii
~;~n
"' "' I>> >r
~ < g.1a_:
~ n :::I :::
::;-lJQ lJQ
" ~
~ OJ ...
~~ ~
=i Q) 3
c 5'~.
<:T""-
~ "" "
- "
'0
o
;;
"
;;
p.
~
;;:
"
3
~
is:
'" "
&.;
:=.
E
iir
'0
;:; ~
a~
<:T
'<
.
~ > 3
" -"
~ &i' =
:::-- ("l Q)
5 =-~
::., 3 3
c "
.. " "
, -"
>--
o "
~~
5''; ~ 3
!a. ~ '" ~
I>> _. !"'l en
;;::'l~' ~
=.g "" ~
o =.r:"
~gg.~
::: r.tl _ .:.
c..0':a
3 .., ~. ii'
- 3 :J ~.:- c-
('II 0 5' 0'
l'.t::I=n'
'" -':1 ~
a 0' I>> n
=.. =.::1 ""0
-. ::: ~ ~
~ lJQ 0 ~.
V:l Q -. .-
""::::I .... "':I =
~.~. ~-
"" ~ ~.
"-""
_ Y'
<:T
"
~
;;
~
N'
"
-"-
~ S'
,,'S:-
" "
-""
el ~
~:
~
~""Q n-
o " 3
"",,""
:n g S
....,-~
<:T",<
~ C,1 n
" "-,.
~;i~
- ::. c
~ g ~.
= :;
r; I>> i:,}
C ~-<
~on'
~-
:' r.
n c..:;'
""-.... :;:.lJQ
::;
- "
~. =-
00
:: n~~ c.:
c.. I>> ;:,l n n
_". ::; s:; ~. :=.
<:g~ ::..=Z
e; =. 0 ~ a.
:.l -:.l I>>
n' :::., ~: ~ II>
~:!1!'l ~ ~
:; ~ S g S
g':2 r; (;' ~
c.~ en C,1
c;;-';..ri'
c =. '"
:: s: n !!
n i:ii :..
S C 0 ~.
- -
"
-"
"
~~
- !:l
% ""
" -
" "
a. ~-g
:'l ~~. :0
g ~ ~ ~
c' _ ~ c:
= n 0 t=1
~ ~ ~ ~
= ~. ~
I>> ~ _
~ "
-::>,<"
g s ::
~. ~
- ~
== ~-
~-
a
c=-_
~'< ~.
"
"':1 c:5 S
~ ~
("f "'='T~c..--::I-::::
::I~~~c:;52.2
=- ~ ~ n CJ'Q ('D -.;... (i
~ ~ '" ... l'll ::::I ("f
!::. ~ ;:::,,"" ;.: c.. g. ~
~:: 2.. ~ :::..; ~
I.n .., ;'()Q ~ g ::
iii~~_~~~~
~ ~., ~ ~ ~ ::;.
~;; 9~:~g ~=-.g
- ~~ ~ - n :-: ~
g. g- ~ ~-5 =-~. ~
::::I;;:...~g~,,~
"~~.~ -~
.!2.::; :::~. g 0-
~ -. ~ ~ n Qj' ~ ~
E.~ ~ ::.~- c...;:; = ~
'" _ ::,) ~ c.:-
c:: ~ :)Q ""
~. c-l !. ~
o '" .
~ ~.~.
!:l ~
~ ~
~ C/)
"
iO:
!: :;;
::..~
[
t:J I tIll
:..101
..~
()
!!!.
1
3'
-01
III
II
~
-"!'.
,
;;:
::;;
<S.
III
~
::.
3
-0
Olii'
",3
..
::.
iii'
Q,
" " ~. -::> " -..,. c:
0 " " " ~ -
;; ~ '" "
" "- g, "- " "- ~
~ g - E -. 3
2 -s ~ 0 n " "
~ "" -0
" iii - a- " -; ;;. ii' ~
c. " " 0 ~
" " 5. ...., ... " 3
" " "- c:"" 0 ~ ..
3 "- _. - n .. ::.
" 5. " " <:T ::.
" "" "- " " -
;;; C' :: ..
" " ~ Q,
"" "" ;;:
n:;::mo-
o 0 n n ....
::l :::l 0 "'0 ~
en _. 0" ~ =
=.. oOa :::.
C,i ::. r:r 3 3
= = Q:I n ~
....()Q - F 2.
00
;;:
o
tIl:t
"'0
iil
Q,
if
:t
~~
-Q,
"tIl
'"
.....
J
.
1
I
.
.
.
.
.
I
. ...
'"
.
.
.
.
;: ~
II]
.... ~
L-...
~.:",'<.'":.i'
~ 3\
- ~
.. ~
i';. !l ~"!..
~ ,
:1J
1\
'"
'"
:
C)
0
:a.
:;.
c::
'"
Q.
.
~ ;:; C ~"':' ~ :n....,~ ~~ ~ n ~ 5"
n c. UJ ~ n "C VI :r' -. Vt ~ n g l:D Col
h_"':J~o~:::rn32'~~~=c..
,.("II~_OOl:D~Col"'=V>"'o-~
~ ~ CIl ::I - ;:i ::I .., ~ g"OQ "C c:: ("II ...
.","" =ViQ.C-< =...,n -
:::; 2.. en n::; ~ ("\I ~ n n 0'::' ~ g
C l>>c.co-<:'<l>>nO...,oo-
~ ~ ~ _.n~' ~ VI ~:::I :::I -.-
_. 0 :::I::'. ~ c::: < 0 <: le 0 tIl C. Cl:I
g ~ 3 g g ~ ::.; -. ~ ~ 2 I>> ~ a. ~
VI l>> ("\I ::::I VI Uj' ("\I ': - 5' !J. ~ ;i 0- 0
Sn....Vt...~UJns.- 0''''''<'<::;'
<: 0:' < ~ g ~. ~ ::I ;:: Co n n
(";l O':l:,l ("\I :? < :::I :::I 0.0 n s:: g C.
'< g ~:" ~ ~ n' g- ~ ~ ... ~ ;0 Co 'ii-
ni:..-:::I=-~~n("lll"OonlJQ~(JQ
c..C Col...._(i'n-::."C_-lJQ
c: c --. ~ -::'- c: C. =- 0 n ~ :::r:;' ("\I
~ ..., ~ -. :r ~ UJ _ CJ ...... ... l>> CD lJQ c..
-. ~ ("II ~ _::I - - --.
;i = ~ ::j "':J '< :::I n o' ~ l>> ..,
~tr.:l.... ~ :.;I !!.. ::I 0"0 :)
C/l:::;n (iCl:lC' . o~
n -. '
CIl
.
g: ii (;l ::E go ~~ ~ ~:;. ~ < >
e.. ('D ~ ~ "0 3.g !::. e. n ~ ~ ::I
o C. _. -"O:lo) C. = !:; =- !!. n
QQ8..=o.~o...nm==l>>>C
ij;' (J'CI; t'D ... = =. (JQ _. Co. _. Vi'
_C"v>~c.Il3-'Q.ln==c
o,<:::r< ...O_v>I>>..,==
... _ l>> 5' = '< := n :"IJQ ("II - O'CI
_ :r' =OQ V> n m ::I I>> n Ilol l>>
I>> no-' ;')1(=- l>>V>=~
a"C n m Co. !l. c.":; 0- a. ea. Co. -
VI a = )Il n'~ non = ~ 0
n ..... c.. l>> =:l _. 0 ..."0 _ - VI :e
~ PJ "a' ~ n 0 a 0.. a 0 0, 0 -
n ....~~ c:..;::;:I);;::l ~!}.=-
"'O'Vlo,- "'c3n~CQ.ln-
.., "'=' Q.. Q.l :; '< ("l Q.l _ Q.l :e c; ,.;'"
o g _. g ~ =.IJQ ::t - ::I Q.. 0,
~ V) ::I 3 _ ~ c 0, :-~ V) r
~ g :;. nl n fl.? E- ~ g- ri 3 ~
o' "'; 0, :!. :: = :. :: ;; ~ =-;;:
::I. ~ ::IJQ ::I-"';-~
a !!.. 9.,oo-;a. lJQ '< n 3
c:.. _ =.::;~. ~~.
to) n c'::: (i c g-
VI::I -.
~=;'3:~to)3~n
~::l~=:~~Q:ln!l
::I~=aC';;:; ;'''05
'< n 0'" ~ ::..- 3 n ~ -nO
n~o,-:;:-o=Q:l
~ c' ri ::I Q:l =. ~
~ :;' ~ ::I r.., S' ~ g VI
;; (Jq 0 ~ ~ ::!. 0, .. 1i
("l ~.; c.. ""l ::I C :::I ('l
.... DJ C ;:;-lJCI _ tn ~
~ ~ ; ~ Co'I cn'~ S ;:;
C. _o~to)Q:l=;:I
C. ~ n n "= ::::'= :lo1 --
o c.. c.. n :::::. DJ =. -. C
('l -. - - n ::l 0 ::I
C :!. o' = ::rO'Q ::I V)
3~o=:nl"'1>>0'
0, c: - VI ~. c. 3 ::I ..,
a c:.. ~1i :: 0' Q:l c.~_
~~ n :;.g n
I>> :'1 0, O'Q
~ n "
~ ~ 3
::I -- n
:::. g =.
~ -
~I
~
!!!.
0'
::l
3
~
tlliii'
",,3
'"
::l
iO
Q,
3"
"tl
iii'''''
3:'>
ID ID
::l ::l
iO
Q,
~
tll =.
""0
ii:
Q,
~I
tJE:
.. ID
-Q,
ID tll
""
....
""O~(')o
~ ~!.. =
~. ~ 0';'
~. ~. ~. ~r
.... ~ -.
~.-<, ;:; ~
!!. =. c.-=:I
On - ~
;. n~ g
;:; o~ =.
.c~c.a
S...." ~
nl ~:;-5
3 0 (JO ::J
g _. ; ~
~g=:5
-a
g~
....~
o
..
.:..
.
n ~ ~oo~~>;{l=g ~
~c._ ti'!2.c.::l,.,
~~~,,- .., CJ-6..,
c: ;~ _ n ~. g' ;:;: (i" Ei-
~3n~...._~;;<'tl
~ ~ ~ s ;. $ ~. ~ hi
g=_ ~.9:::l~ y.l~.....o
!'ll D1 iii' ~ ~ :.- =- >
In '0' 3 ('II f1l 1jj'~
!:!-";:;..gn~-=,"Oa
c.. ..... .c Q;I .......,.., n
('\l ("II s.::. (f) g-..g ..2. n
c.. ;;i;[_C.~~~
= _. c.. ~ ~::.:-;
-~cr-c-c. EVl
Vi' ~. '< :a., ~ - g-
-0.... - ~~~nl
n n.' 0. ~:::1
~_.... "":1 ~ ~. ~.
-~ =-_:t'l' = :::l 0'
E..a.
..
"0
"0
-
o
"5!
;;.
!>
:;
"
'<
"
c:
;;.
o
",
~
~
"0
"
"
5
"
"
g.
~.
,,"
~
"
~
-;"'5 ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 5' ~ ~
< 0 ("D ~ <,s = ~ () C.
nl -.... - _. Q;j (f) !l_" 0
c...r.n :=.l.r'O.2lJCl ::;,__:T
(f) (f) 0 C ~.. n ~~. g
S"'g z: .., 0.. = - c..!i _.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g':. ~ ~
~ ~_ ~ Q.. "E. ~ :a.,:::l E S
l>> S :::l =--.. .. !! E!.
. , ('II -. .., OQ .... .... - _.
....,....=OQOO'Q:TCD--
~;n~n_2a.3~~
-"c..n;::"j;":::l~(f)_~:.
o' ~. ::;'" ~ :e Y' "":I 0;' ;:;- ;n
:enO:::l:::l!!=.!!c.:=
= :e _ '< tol n '< _. C'\l :::l
o D1 r::::I,; _ 0 VI Q;I
'< ~_~"... c.. o:::l.. E:
~ VI !! (JO n c: N 0
~.... ~.tol n ~ g .., c
-: r':::~(f)n:.
S; :.. n:;' ~.. N
C ::lCll:::lIJQ a.
:::l ~ (JCl .. 0
-
~. ~:
c:..;;
c: c.
!lS
o' n
" ;;-
~ ~.
" "
0",
'" ..
o "
" c:..
~. 3
" 0
... ~.
"
gCJQ
"
"
~
~ ;:; ::c n ::~ "'g.
n~('IlO~OO
III ~ ~ rii c: -~
5' l2_", -"::I a- a ~
(") ~ ~ :;I 11I ("D
C <: o' a. ::I Co Co
Q.~i%!'l~~r-
(1l11l_n~2g
[~ng~;;~
~ c ;;; ~ :;" -g w
n ~ - -0' :;I ~
~.- -::l I :,)
"'_= =-~i%"Sl g:=!_
_ O. C =
::I :;I .., :;I -::l VI ~
g:gg.~~'2~
~ a (ii ii:3. ~
: ~.., c S"
:" C:;" ~ = g-:;
-<0' VI
c-
'<
;~
n g
"
3 o'
~ "
c;\f.I
" 9.,
='
~(i
~ ~
;.
~
- ;"
r.'lJCI
='''
o "
~ c:..
~ a.
2
?i
"
c:..
.
~I 3' ~
", ~~.
~. .. ,
n
0" -
~I
~I
<ll
III
:
bl
"
~
c:
<ll
Cl.
!O!. :;:
"'- ~
~ ~ cQ
c- O" S!.
" " Q
~ g. :::.
~
c:
" :1
~ "
;; c:..
F- "
0
c:..
[
1l
"
~
~
;;;.
;;
?i
"
3'
",
lJliil
....3
co
:::.
iii
Cl.
3'
",
iil::E
3=>'
co co
:::. :::.
-
co
Q,
:;:
Q
1Jl2.
....0
i;l
Q,
~
.,
t:J:S
.. co
iiiQ,
~
.....
,.
,
,.'
"
,.
~
!,.,
I
~ co. 0;
~
.. < !!
~ ~
0
~ 5.
3
~ ;;
.. 3 Z
" a
"
co. 0
.- ~ ~
~ "
~
. "
;; ;:;
!! ~
~. ~
~
. ;;
. ~
,;.,
,II'
.
.
.
.
.
II
11
.
.
-!! r. ~!=J
~ ~ n 2 <= <.:I
a - c;.13 tJ a
c..,c..<~tD_
0Cl_~<;~t\~
;:;'..1: :' ~ I:,) -.~
~_ !::Vtn'~
:- ~ ~ > ;;- !2 ~.
g ~. F-< ~ ~ :; n
- :i" c.. ~ ~
~. g ~_n ~~ ~ c:
_::J::5 c.. c:n ~
<= -:l = n = Q,)
o ColOIJ'Qn'<-e=
.., :- 0 ~ ::'-:' n
9.:1:-~-"'l>>
=-M5.~2~
a 5" g = c ~ c
OQVtg~(;g-
g.~ S,c..i
~ n E
~ -..
~a
=: ~
:I ::!
!2.~
; a
" ~
~ c..
-co.
" ~
" <
co.!!.
~ :::
r;:!
" "
~ "
o "
~-
:::;>:2.
o a
~
~ 8
~c:
;;
co.
"
o :::;" ~ "0' ~ n t; t: ~ ""0' ~ 3 Vt __::~. ~ 0:
-'~na~g"":::l~~ti"~n~ 2--
c; =- = ::. ~ ~. ~. Q' ~. ::I E" ~ n C'" ?
:.E 3 C'" l>> c.."" _ C'" :.E ~ c 5.s ~
=.' !a n ::;;; ~ 9., ':-' (i" ~ 5_=-' c; a. ~ s_:I> ~.._
!'I' ~ ~oi n 2.:-....,,;,; - :i"-'c .'
CI'I:2c:..l>>_.n;-~nl>> =~o-c
~ ~ n is.::S ell n 0 0 :::J - :;.:. n .....,
-0-< C.=;""::lCl'l3Q.n(1ll>>_::;"
Vt~!!..r;S!~gn ~-:l":::tD
1l0c:.g~,,~3g_~~='~a ~~
!! - = n 3 n -. ~ (i' ~. 12 ~ ~
n c.;; ~ S" =- :E... ::-. to:! CD _...... OQ' <: I:,)
.., "':l = :I -. Co) n f1Q <: ~ ~ 11D a 2.. ~
2..:3 ;; g ~ 5 :;: ~. ~ 0 c.., c...;::;. :l:l en
~ a ~". -,,- ~ !!. g ~ ~ a" ~ ;.. ~ E..g
o ,~ ~ .. ;:.. n v; -. aQ' :::! !! :n
c: n C ao' ~ g"._ ~ .... I'D ~ ~ a <: =- :l:l
~ ~::. "=. " ~_ ~ iii" _ -. ;::::' I:,) =
..; ~ ~ o__c.
n g' ~ g.: =t g rjQ' = a.. g ~.
..,n ~-:_;. Vie..]
~.
::Sc~:e.:::Jno~
2:a.~;g::l::::ln
:;" - = -::l !!.. ~ -=
~~!.~a.E~5
~ Q)~'.g ~~ ;"g:
Vl==-E:;fi"'qc~
('D ~"':';I 0 ~
5"' aQ)~<:~"c.:.
O-....;j< c....o =--5 =
__0_ ::r" -. n c:: ~ n Co
n li" Q;' ::oJ n ... rD
:0 -::l VJ _:=; t'l..g ;
- 5" 0 -, 0 -,
~ ~ "" Co ~ :: E. ~:
" _en r; ~ :IE ~~ C'
~ -=(71("0('11-5
~~:r~:::.gc..Vl
= ""=' ~ ... Q::oJ !!!..
~agc..E..~ ~
::J :::. ~ 2. ~ s..: c:
- c..... :. n =: ::s go
~n-(]'Cln-lJQ
c~....,:.ag
- C,l ~. Vi'
n "
o =
E"'2.
~ -
c: "
n ~
=. VI
o 0
o ~
nUJco
n "
~C.Q
:e<"
Vl ;;;' ~
:: cr =
E.=fJtI
co. :;:: 0
s:: ::J .....
~.; :!!
(JQ ~ ~
~ ?' m 'Ci ....lo.
e 0' n n
~~.~11~
~ g.~. ~
~~ ~ ~
~
o
" -.
- "
5."
;;
;"
"".
"
~
'"
~
g
~
~
0;.
~
~
:;:.l ~
E..2.
& ::;. ~
~
=-::.t:I
<
C,,:-
c:: ~
~~
8 e!.?i: ::J (ij'~ -
_ .., ~ VI Q) n
~='=-~~Q'
2~~'~~=n
n ('D 01 lJC:I in'
='OVl=;?"oQ;'cn
c = -.~c:
::S-.Coc.QQo::
c.. -. i>> r::r;:;
~Jgc..on
5" _ C' ~
fJQ lJCI n
('j7ma~
o 0' n n
~ :. g.""g ~
=.. 0 riO ::l
~ :::!. F,' ::
:.~ ~ ~
~
e
:;
" _.
- "
5."
:s ~~ c.:
c..:'::'~
~~F.'
; ~. ~
E: ::;' c.
~
n':..,;:;=
~:!1~ g
~ ~:':J_
<:: ... ::.
~. ~ ~. ...,
c.. in ;:;
Cl ..
~ ... o'
CD -< ~
Q =-~
n ,C:;-
c: "
en yo
~
~
~ ~ liPl
~ ~ !~I
~j~'i
0' I~I
r. f:;' ~I
r. enl
~ 21
o ;:;
c: <1l
'"
;;
~
~
~
"
~
<
"
o
" -
s ~
!!.
n ~
0::' :
:: 5 ~ ,.....
:3 n 'J
=_~_~ 0
VI ~.
-<2S2:
..... ~ ctl
... 2. c..
a
o ~~. :r 3::~ = ~-g ii'
N ,,~ =: ~ -::l -..... --
~'""'::;: ~c:: -, -.: ;:;'-J
_ 'w c.l'JQ~. n -, r;.
= ~ n a ~ = - - =
0' ~. s' cS" ~ g ~ ~ ..
iiitt.t~i~~.
~~a;;~;~_~~ '"'
.: ;. ~ ~ ~~: ~ ~
cc;~ _c.~;!l.::;;
c ~-=_a.
~_ ~ : :;no g.. ~ !
,<~..:c ~g 0 w, :::_-<
.., ... . r.I'l_ __
!!.- '"
(5 !::::l 0
~: n
"
;;
N
~."
:: ,,:," I
~ ~
~ c..'~.
~ -. ~
~
'"
<
~
c: ~
:..~
g ~ 0 5 t;j'a:s
... ~ ~ t:I
~ ~ ~. _:ii ~
C~(;i~Q~
n (b - ,~ (ii"
-(,I)~g-c:;-~
:i ?, Co c:~ ~ ~
c. -- Q; 0- n
E ~ ~ (b r.l
=" ... ~:::.,
.. "" ~
n:;::mo
;og.g
VI :.:=-:,) ~
c - .... ...
:' ~~.:: "":)
~ 5" g 0 :.1_::-
-I)l:l - a
Co) :'
~riQ
3)
~ :1
-,
,
,
I
I
i!;1
,a: I
~I
[I
I
I
I
3
"t:l
alii>
"< 3
11l
'"
"
Q,
I
~I
"
~
ii>"'"
3:;:
11l 11l
'" '"
"
Q,
~
al'=.
"<0
ill
Q,
~
o~
Q:a a;'
"Q,
al
"<
.....
.c > ::r (;
c 3 111 en
~ rD = 0
:l ::::!. 5" ~
~ g ~ ~
= ::I n r,,'I
"0"'~3
g.~-g
~ il;'.;'~
o i;i' r; ~
... :; =- :3
~.11I zn' n
F9:5'E.
~ ~. ;;
n ~ Z-g
Q;: ~.;:;:
;: .. <:
= c.. (ll c;
'-<' g;I ::I
<;;
~
a
~
'"
/J :: ::I ..... C)
n ;;: So. '"
~ ~ fU c::
_. E ~ c:""
gg~=fil_
- c r; 0
~~. E"~ :JJ
0. r: = CD
~::..~ n' fJ'l
Vt .... f': g
. g =' !::=.; (1
S n ~
~ VI E
C) o:Q' ~
~ " =
~ :1 ~
5; r..
VI :: =
E ~ g.
;2. c lot>
~ ;' ~
"
~
nD::g-8~~s~-
m - ::I c..::I U
10 ~ ;; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ in' n
> .. ~ ~ r;.g ~ ;::2 I'D
-a'3 c-. .,=-.<~~::;i
= ~ n ;:; n' o' a _
::I m=oa ~_. ~
c..::l - C) :,0 ii :.. n
~ .::::.:!. 2.. s: c.. -< ~ c.. "_~
o ..., C) -'::1 c::..
~o::J~..:s;:;OE..5;~
~ 3 8 ;; ~ -. ::.. :' ~
-,r.l_n<l1InnlJ'QE)
....,::lVl-,=o:1;;_g
;::;.: S (;i' :;" =- 0- = - l1I
... - n ~ I)Q c.. o' "" c
5i to:::l ~:;;, .- IJQ
g~;?~;.[~~~
n ~ -. ~ ~ ~ _, _, _,
E..'< c..s_ 0 ~~g
2' > In ... "
.... n ~ l1I 2.
=.._ C)
n n (6 Vi
" C-
e-;-::?
~ ~~.
a ::;' r:
~
::cr.n
"
s ~
-~
~.
E
:: in'
c..~
-"
Q ?;
"
ire
_. ~
0;:00
_. -
=> .,
OQ~
"
00
~::'
" "
g.:2
<iQ (;
-;';::
0;'=
e ~
"."
" "
2:::.,
;;
0:0
~~ ~
S' ::.
OQ ... 3
- "'=-
St:a_
~.= :::l
o' E..!JQ
=>
::; ~ !.
3~~
"'::l
l! =. ~
(i'"~';
"
r; :; ~
_ 0;' ~.
~ i ~
o 0
_-.< :s; ~.
:::l ::~
~.!.;; ~
(i ~ ~ Q
~,,'<
~n~:t
~g~~
~ ::: n c
'< E.: c.. ..,
~. ~ ~.
?'l. <
"
~. :: !=J
<g".c:r.
~~;i
~ ~. n
E.:~~
" '< 0
:=. ~ '(;'
o -. n
.., =r--
11
:ro
" =>
:; c::
:; "
g ~
n ;;'
a iil
o
~
.,
"
'<
0: (i" C ~"'::l >
(II :I ~ ; 0: :l
c.:~" t:D - -<= '<
("'0 :I = ;: nl ("'0
:l (JQ ,~ ("b a )oil
;.~e:: 0: t:D ~
~ a g (II g s;
VI - ::. ~ o'
n a" S' \'1 VI :l
t:D n c.. n 0"" ~
;: ~ <' c..,,< '<
~ ~:<. c.: ~ ~;:;'"
~ ~ ~ ~
n - 0 t:D 5'
c.. C "":l ::l ()Q
g~~-~~
;;nz ::'Vl
c.::l 0: ~~.
C1l ~ ~ ~. a.
~"'" !!:<
n:: c:: _
"
" ~_. ""
~ ,.
c:.;-""C
~ = :::
r; ::..~.
"'" _. \'1
~::I-
"'"en
""'::l
~=
= "
" !<:
-~
-
".""
5. ;
C:~
:i" !1Cl
00
16 ~
_ C-
2" ~
~"'I
n "'
Q'c;::=:-
I" :::;. ~
V;"ac; ;;:;"
~ ~ ~
" - "
?; :3 ::I
I" =: @
e ~
-. -;;- 2-
;;;-
o
~~ ~ ~ ~
~g~~-g
VI~ ::.; 0 n VI
",<=c..2-
~~ O'~(n 00-
n 0 =..g :2.
\'1 C n _ VI
<" 2.. ~ 0.. - c'
!! c ;i' ':T'~ :l
n ;: !1Cl n 0 C
VI VI n Ql ::.. ~_
:n -"\ 0 "'I Co
o :I C1l n 0
.., ~':r 0' ~
3 c: nl "'I "":l
~"g. ~;:; ~
_::: VI ..: c..
~ .? :; ~ 0
:I ~ ~. (ll ~:r
(JQ ~ = a
o '< o' C)
-. =;5.
<i
e
11
=
m
"
""
:r
"
~
~
:;"-::1 Q
~ n; -5 :;:
:r<-:;-
~gg2.:>
!::.v;n"'::lg.
<'0 c.. a tJ -
n "'I C1l n :I ~.
~~~~~[
C,1 -::l c.. C ~ :1'1
;. :.::. - ~-
c.. a_.. o'.,j
(11 - :I ()Q i'D
:>>;. Q n
:.;: :::":::::;:;:1
!:! 0 ~:;; "":l ~
-=n::::;~
=> "
nn~~c..=
~ ~. C1l ::J C,1
~(;~5~s..
:: 5: ~
~ ~_~ 9
- n ~ ~.
"
g Qr
- =>
s..~
~
~ '"
" "
Co 3'
.. ;;
":l in.
~ ~
=>
:; "
"
<;; n
"
e
~
..,
=
11
=>
m
=>
~.
<i
"
-
~
~ ~-5
~0:2.~
02~
n ~ C)
0:--
~~
.,
~ ni
,::;1"".
c ~
"
- ~
-<"(;
go I
=. C I
s..::J I
o:~
o
"
a.
=<'
.2.
"
~
en
~
in
Si
,
~I ".
is {
c-
~'I .. ,
II
-,
JJI
~I
(:;
<ll
In
,
,
C)
0
::J
S'
c:
<ll
Q.
~
~
2!.
0'
::J
~
aJiii
-.:3
<ll
::J
-
<ll
Q.
~
iii""
3:;;
Cll Cll
::J ::J
-
Cll
Q.
~
aJ::'
-':0
iil
Q.
!
0:::0
.. Cll
-Q.
Cll~
.....
j
.
J
.
.
I
.
1
J
.
t
.
.
1
.
j
.
t
.
.
~::::i
~(i
~
8-g
" "
~. 0
- ~
" ~-
~ Cl
c.."
~ 0
" ;;
~ n
o ~
:l :l
!:2. ;::;.
n~
":I m
~ :::I
- ""
e 5"
c..~
~
~
c
tol..o i>>
":I" :l
":I " c..
o~~
<: o' c.:
~=o
- ~Y'
;(i"=
"':l:es.
":I " 0
o~=-
< -. (b
"-<''''
&-:l.1
.. ~ r;
"
" ~
~ 0
o ~
:l
c..
o.
:l
o
~
2.~... :rw
s::: <.(11 _
~~~Ci:
~ ~.......
sa n C ....l
-,.., -.:
~(;"~o
:an -
=-..~ 0' a
5" :::I (;'
< n _ r'l
::.. - g ;
< c.. 0
::i":i" 2:.. c
~OQg.~
:::I n en )01
0....,-"0
!!:. iii':: 0
c.: ~ =. ~
~ ~::.~
o
":l
"
5"
~
yo
f:~!
",,- :;"..s.
"" "
;i"':::l:l
a. Iii In
II> ~ X
- - :;
c.:::; Ion
" " 0
~ ~ ~
c::.o!!!.
g.~~
:no '< _
=> ~ -
0"""2..
~ -g n
Y' ::;. r;
~
""C:l
;; "
c..5"
5' n
""
X (ii"
~. ~
in ;:;
"
~
"
~
~
o.
:l
'"
.
:i" 0' (j
" " 0
n '" 3
~~[
" '" 0
~ In =
" " 0
'" ~
_=-_~. c.. ~.
~Ci'
!:!._ 2 OS;
" 0
... ~ ;.
~=.C'
< ":I ~
" ~
'" "
- n
~ "
!!. ~
~ ~
n" Ion
;;
.."
~
2.
"
~
f
~
"
~
....
o.
~
m
:l
o::!.
"
"
"
~
.
3=>0
g ~ 1:
o' ;':og'
" "
;"<< ~
c.._"
fi 0 =.
2..!. ~
c..:::;.n
c c:;; (I)
:!.Ci' 5'
~ E..-g
" " 0
'" ,. <
~ ~ ~
~ "
- - ~
.E~=.
C I1Q :'l
:l:I .., n
~ g ~.
. ::I;'
c..
.
.
~"''anO''c
_.n"':::I 5. CIl
:r 5:~'~' is: CD
_ n ~ ~ _. 0
;::!.;; ~~ =
n ~ (i":5" Q. (i
5i~_3OQ~-
"'1 (1 _ -. E2.
g_2:ag~g
n en::r _
~ C Q:l ::. Q'i c
l:Cn:::l..c-Q
n.(Ilc..c~_
c. 0 (Il \.
= n r.n.. ~
~ ~. C';" ;n'
t'l0Cl "'1 n
C = 3
2.. ~ n ~ (=i"
l>> ""," (II
.:::1 (11::1:1 =
R n~(;'
< -<
g
~:;'~51 :TI
=-S'~~~
5"':: en 2 ~
~ g~~ ~ -l
c.~"'-:
R n ~ n
::1:1 (j -"0
Eru;o",
~.""=' ~.
::l ::I 0 (11
<: !:L (D ~
0=:::1
~ Co. =. ~
= :r ~ i:
lJ'QOQcnC:
~ =- g.. n
o ~ :e~
Jg en' ~ ~
(II ~ -. n
n 0 !!."O
{;;" -. CD
3 0" .g
rr F (i"
;i~!t~:j
~. c.. -. ::l n
~ ~ I)I:l n "':J
_,,- 0' ::I ~_ 2
!:!. ~
=c; Of'll'
_.~ ~ I'D .2
~ ~. 2" 0 ~
c;;n~5
;-~~_::l
.. =- n ::3 :a
..c Y1 g''::;_
" - ~
g.l :::"n ~
~;;;-oc..
(JQ~a
(3 c:: ~
5 ~-<:
c::.. ii' c.:
~ ~ in c::
;~!!!.. ::"1
~c..::;
= =-
'!'
o :,) ...
~ a. 2.
~ -. ~
~ '"
<
c.:"'"
" -
==..s
""
;;
c..
:r
""
":l
"
~.
~
~~C:l
n " "
O'-:=;"
.., ~.:;
" " "
~'(JQ Vi'
~ ~ ::
" ~ "
~ 3 ='
n ::: ~
o ~
...., r; :::.,
v;-
o
9~~
-<: c.. ~
Vi't::O' =
c' S. r:l
"
~~
~ ~
"
~
C'J
'"
o
is
~
'"
'"
Q.
(J)
2.
in
o ;:; ITI
-=:c..
~ ~.
3 ~ -
::... n
g ~].
~ ~ g
g.~ ;;-
" 0
~ "
(;i c:
" c..
:::I ;g.
9a-
a.~
0'<
"
in i:
E5
I'D ~
" -
c.."
c..-
=:~
g :;
!:!."
3 ~
ciCi' =.
,,""
=. Q;l
C =.
" '"
OS; "
C ~
" "
c:e;
~5i
" "
~
$:!! ;'='l
;: N
2.~
o ~ I
~ " ~
:s g,,~.
;; "
.., -. r-:
~c.~
<":I
0.;:
c: ;;;;
::"Q
[
":I
~.
E
~ ~.~ ~
~~~O'
o = = c;
.., g ~ Vi'
g"O:l:l/,fl
_. -. Vi c
C:CJQ 0 ~
:i'; a-n
(JQ ~ n C)
:::I2S,
"" ;;
....
o.
OS;
"
.."
"
"
"
" -,
" =
c..""
",C:lO
~ ~..g
0. c::.. Q)
n _...,
- =' =
C OQ =
~ "
'"
"
""
!:!.
~
"
-"
"
:;.
"
3
"
=
;;;
n>=n
~ 3 g. ~
=- ~ ;' :5
0' ~.~ ~
c.."'n
~ ~ ~ ~
g 2.3 ::..
o N Vi'
2._Q) ~. 5' g
o ::3 ::I
n = - Q)'
" ~ "
:!!..:2Z
~g,,-=-
;:; ~
o.!!.>
Z3
2!. ~.
::;.
_ (=j'
,~ ~
"
~
n.
g.
"
,
S"I
"6
'"
..,
-
r~
r'~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~
2!.
C
:::
3"
"l:l
lXIiil
....3
CO
'"
-
CO
Q,
3"
"l:l
iil""
3:;:
CO CO
::: :::
-
CO
Q,
;::
Q
lXI=:!,
....0-
;;;
Q,
~
..
tJ=:
.. '"
-Q,
COlXl
....
.....
o
g-;--;;:~3:r:::o
n :::I O"~ tl) < ro
~~~o(i'9...~
::1- VI:::!. < _.
=c.:;:..n;.:lrtl'"
-- ro =-:I c. - 0
= ("):.; VI "' -.
l)Q n: n = ::: >I _
~",,=,c.c.=Q~
::: ~. ;; =.::: < =
_.., _.... I>> c..
;;~~~8g.~
o:Qo~;:3=~
:. ~ _ - 1ii 0 VI
ni::=-::;"--l'.J
(":I .., n ~ ('0 ~ ~
;:; n: 0"'''' =. n :..l
::... = CJ 0 I>> ~
:.~-a",":;J
:1,< n-.=
:=::;:2.. ~~c.
_. - VI!: ~
=- =- ..., VI
_ nl ('lI =-
<; '"
~
Gl 3' I
'"
- C ~
0- .. "
~ " "1
-
..
'"
0..
en
c
~
. ,
,
()
c
=.
'S'
a;
0..
o
3:3:~~~!!.8~~~_ cn:::o
0=: c.==<..,=::'rtlVl=)(ro
:. OQ' :;. =. 1i (tI :;-- c. ::r - Eo) _ Q. "':I
_;.:lrtl:'ln..,""'-CtInCI:I <~.
S =. "':I (; c.::r 2. 0 ~ = ~ _. g m ..,
:i" g a n: ~ d. ~ .., 6) o::!. VI ~ 3 =. 0
OQ-"OVI ..._.::I.=:::I=VI"OO-.
~3:a ~:- ~;.: O"~ frs 2. ~ h;"
"?: I>> 2..:.:l ~ ~ Il3 ~~;; n;;,g-.=
(");; _ _. ro ~ ~ CTI Co. "0 ("'j _ ~ Co.
::':OQ '=' ~ < Co.<< I>> VI ::'t I>> n .., n ~
_' n I>> "0 n n n = -. - -. c. 0 I>> E:
g_=nc.,c....,c.1l;2 :"...n"'n
=. ~ "'!:. a 0 0 :. n ...,:j I>> !2. '" ;i" -
g =. S!? ~ ::: ~ :' ~ Co ~ a. ~ ;;;'::.: VI
VI ~ ~ ~ OCI So 2. -5 ~. n 0'" ~ ~ :; E
a.::..:: = !!: ;; ~ :l ~ :. ~ t'1l =
~ ~ 2..~. ~ C; Q) ;;;. ~ n ~ C; :;.
_...n", =VI_-::rC.-<
c' ':::.;; n 0'" a. I>> - !!: S2..
=~_ o~ ~~ ~;i
"- C ~
~
.
~ c; c; go ~ =~ ~ ... S- ::i
OQ .:::. g. _ ~ ~...s! Co. n ro (;:
:i" ~ :::l 5 == VI ("'0' VI C. C
g (')..c' - ." c.. :2 ;' f2. ;; ...._~
:"! c..; g-9...n~ C'"~9-:_
= VI _. .., 0 VI = n
::I 0 =~.g = -< = OQ !l.
c.... 3. =1;1I ::lQ:l-
=0"" o_c.::s::l
",=,nn:::t:'~"'.s("Oc.F.'
~ n c..g _. ~ ... ~ c =..
o ... 0' Q:I ::l Q:I SE 0 ... m
;';3 :;'cC':l-(tl_~6
c. 1;1I -- ::l lJQ
!!. (i '" ::l :; - ... :.l -.
C" :r """" C''''':l' (tl -lJQ ::l
'<oO'i>>..._:E.o;n(tlC':l
C. --Oo;nl: t":I
-r.nonS=~ g.~:
("0 _ ~ 0 ::l (tl:.l Q:I
....Jo ::l(';:E.a.;:;=~
0... o;n ("0 "":l' - -
~("OOQVi-~ :.lc--t
::l ;:: iii~. ~ ~
~ -,
-,- ~~
~mc~n
C ~ ~ -:;
~ -.;' ..., r;
""'~
~~n--
o;n'" 0 c::i
c:: ~ ~ c ::s
g..~~~5r
-:n Ei --
cJn...J~g-
"":I < ~ ("Co
"":l' Vi- Ri c -
ell ("0 ...:.l
c..:;-~""::I ::a
~ r.l S2 9. ;-
~VJ~~(]Q
!" n ... ~r g
~-"-
E"'n"< (';
,,< "
_. "
o - ~ I
::
-,
~
..
-
0'
;:,
I
I
3'1
~I
tIl'"
",,3
'"
;:,
-
'"
Q"
I
I
I
~
iii';E
3::-
'" '"
;:, ;:,
1[ i
~ 1
tIl=-
""0
0:
Q"
Of
::t
1::1:::0
.. '"
ii'Q"
~
"
~
~
j
,.
~
I
I.
I
.
.
.
.
.
a
II
.
.. ,...
=..
" "
:; "-
~ ~
tic.:
~ "
" ~
"" -
~.
~ :;
g g
~
~.~
0,,-
"
;; ~
~ ~.
""
"
n
~
n.
.
= c..m.....J
n 0 !':I ::I :"'
c 0'"(1Q ("\I
VI -< :. 5'"':]
C"":I \I) ("II ...
;; ("\I :::l ~..2.
VI VI 0 ... ("II
c.:....,~5C.~
n (JQ :!!. ~ VI
:= n _._"':J
='::1 c.. n 0
:1nn<:::J
2.. t3_;; E.. ~
- " ~
cp;c.~,,;
VI c..;. ~ [
~ :. ~- ~
- - ~ Ii
;j" tiC' ;:;: __n
(II ;:. :: ,~
5' =. -g (=;'
;:l n ~ =..
1i_ ::
..
~_s,_
~"
~. ~ ~
ii" ~.~.
~ = ~
" - -
.. c..:"
_. VI ::I
-g c.: c..
!!.,.("II 25
:.l;r-
~ n g
g' ~[
~V1-<
...:! ...
n " "
2.. ~ ~
~5'
~ .. -
!1l" g
::~ "
a::~
,;c...,
g~. ;-
C::e"':J
::I ~
g =;~.
o S; ~
~ ~. ~
" "
" c::
i~.~
:=":1'1
~ :; n
~ ~ ..
c :r n
~C""ii::..
u:i ;- g
:."
~ "
o 0
~ ~
.
;'
-[n
" 0
:3 .g.
g :;
=. !::.
= o'
.. "
~ !.
0;':;-
E. 2:!
_ Co
"
~ 3 ;.rJ: ~ ~ ~ ~ !i ~ r!1 -i
VI E. ("II n ~ VI 0"";; E..6C ;:r
(i' :::J !! ("II ... _;;;~_ ",,- ~ _ '< -.
= _. - _ _ -_..... N =" ;a
"'!!"":I~tll<~""'= ("II ,
:i"; 0 n' 5' ?-' ~ 2.
~~ag.a!?r:..~n~a.
(i n 0"_--_ s:; -is c'~' n ~ ~ VI
:D 0 = g ~ ~_ - =;2
C' s..~' g- ~ ....l_. . ~ ~ c.. 2 5
~... VI!!-.g:.;
n .g ~ ., = 0 ;,::l cjQ :: _ ..,
E. n 0 ~ "":I "":I 0' ; VI ~ ",.
..,ot")n;=...~c.,,::("IIa .,._
::I _ ~. ("II~. - ~ ("II ~
...., - g; n g ;; ~ "":I::: !':I fE..
CD ~ =_(n' a ..:. a r; ;; ;: ~ _"n_n e; Co.
a. c~ ;:-=:0; ...
~__ c ~ g aa VI g' - ~~. ("II
~ :1~:!!='2-n =.~_
:.l >l -.., 2ri? ~:.1
@ F
t:1
"
'!:!.
"
"
~
en
~..:!!
;:::. "
" n
n _
=<
:::. ("II
n
!!O.
g.~
~~
- -
< ;;
t!.=.
"
-< c..
;;
~
~ 0 " -
:1 ~ " " " -
< ::; c..2.
"" ~ < ~ " , n
- c.:~ " ::" ~
C ~ ,,-= "
.. " 5 ~
;; -.~ ~
> !!O. "
~ - g i1
<:
~ Co "
..
.:;;
0- ""
E. ;
C:::::..
~ciQ
"" e
~ s..
~- ~
~~
g-~ ;;'
O'~Q
(; - n
_.",
~ ~ v;-
" " ~
~ .., C
:::J ::I ~
R ~. ;i
2,~2,
~
::.~ c.
n .e.. ~
..., ;=;-60-
0'< "
~ ~ a.
m"-"
::: (:; n
~_ < 0
:::J n.:::
~ ~ 0'
:-r ~3
.. ~
" "
"-;i
..
:g ~.
o
< "'"
a. o'
O"'~
'<
"'"
o.
,;
"
'"
,;;
,r
"
"
~
..
-
"
"
~ ~
~ - 0
-.c ~
.. <: "-
" " "
c.~Q'"
:E ... in-
" "
~ ..
-0-
:?,;:;-
<
"
a
;:<l
"
""
E.
-
::: 3: ~~
-5 g =:-5
(i" __l)Cl 0
3 0' ~ U1
n .., =. n
:::J :i" == c.
;:DOQ.?t::l'
c.Ul~~
?& 5 ~
~. ~ ~
~~ ~
~ = ~
c. g ~
" - -
'" ~- ~.
~
e. s.. ....
0-
"
~
~
'<
1G'l1
CllI
~I
~I
aj
g>1
~
s-
f
<).
-
(")
c
=-
5.
c::
Cll
Q..
.. ::>
~ "
o~
~ n
o "-
~~
N..
~~
:g ~
::l~
"
;;0-
- "
.. "-
" "
Co.. !!!.
..
CD ;;;
"-
:1.
I--
;:::
-,
-
<Q
..
-
o.
'"
e---
3'
"l:l
txJ'"
"<:~
'"
iii
Q..
I--
~
[~
CO CO
'" '"
iii
Q,
-
~
txJ::.
"<:0
..
CO
Q..
;;;:
..
oE;
.. CO
-Q,
COtxJ
""
....
~
~
g! ~-"
::;- ~ ,-
~ ~ o'
~ S':.
~ - =
::: O'OQ
~ ~ ~
~ - "
o =-...::l
" "
c.. =' ..,
nl _ g
~. ~ n
-<~
=
~
"
..;:
~ t") ~ C"
o=nan
c... ~
~ S' :;. (;
::5' l>> 0 "0
?C'l;g
~-< Ii":.
(i III::"~
C' ~ ~. !?.
:;:: ~ciQ ~
2. ~ c. ~ ;
~ =. ~ :J ;-
(; g' c. = _
n ~. n
~.; ;i ~
:::J:::J C;;
~ ~ ~. ~
~ ~ VI
<;;.
~
-=
"
"
?i
"-~ g ;!
0.0
n ~ a
g.:;-c
c.. -.lJCl
::.: = :::
o' r: '<
= S.b
O'lnl>>
~ " ,..
So So ~
n~c..
:::J 01 In
~ " "
.....-02
.... ~
00 _ l>>
::r~ii
o ~
c "
~-<
o
.
~~O'::;
~ :=. 5 ~
11 (=j" c.. l>>
=aa;-
~ c o' a-
n: "'0 = n
~==tnl>>
g ;:t'Q.. 3
-"'0 n III
~ ~~. ~
o.~=
-. c =
t:; :r ~
c " 0.
-,0"0'
-9...,
-v,s
03
o~
C 0'
E ~
E..:::J
~
'"
~
o
'"
o
~
"
0.
0'
c
=
0.
~
0'
=
!"
.
[Tl ~ ell
= ~ C
lJQ _.0-
= " 3
n :;: :="
!:!: ~ n
" 0. 0
= I:D ~
c."'O ::;
"'-= c
5. a g.
~~g
~ 0 So-
o~"
;; ti ~.
B. -1~
" 0 ~
6~~
~
(5
~
"
><
-=
"
=
i!!,
.,
"
~
~
~ (;
~ ;;
3 :;"
n S'
=""
'" ~
sa
~ on
" ,,-
o ~ "
= ~: 2
=--' -
~ a
o' n g.
~ l>> '"
~=>
~. =.
~ ~
~ ;.
"
!::. ::
:1c...
"
[Tl
=
~,
"
~
~ ~ ~ ="
0- -=...
Vl _ :;l
Q;' n = ~
a cll'l
= .0:: (6
~ ('ll~
a. s 3.2.
~ :; ~ ~
VI Q::I _
C :. ~ ~
_. ~ n g
Ci'=r~c:
o CItI n C"
~ ('j c.. n
a ~ S' C
] ~ ~ ~
~;;(i"c.
;. - g
"f
06_
'"
.
C ::l
~ 5
~-=
~ :::
o~.
" z
C ~
,,-=
" 0
- =
= ~
n' =0
!?. Vl~
"0 -=
a. ;: ;; ~
n)Cn~~_"
='"'0 =..:
~~0'Cl
o "" !! :;l
... :;' o' Co.
'" n = n
OcnVlVl
~ 2. 5~'
!!' C;;-:;l ..
~-~~~
c..;;;!!.
;2 ~ ~ 0'0
~ rD _ ~_
-. "
=: -. ("D r;
;;; '< ... g..-.
. c.. n: _
~ ~ (=;'
0;' = =-
= ::;;
'" ~
=
~, ~
=
"
~ ~
~ c.:
~ c
~ :.
-
~n:
" ~
c"::
~B.
:r <'
=. n
"
:.
"
0-"::
~"::
" -.
-. -
~ ::
" "
0.-
~:f
-'"
-".
-, "
c:.;;
~
0.
~ S!!
-=;
~ ~
;;.
- g
c ~
:: go >
c.. ~
(ii 2..
.:;
0- ""
E. ;
c:o.
~aQ
-
-=
~ ~
~. Co.
g~
:"?'Q Q
~ ~ n
~c..5"
rtl _ ;;:
-.""
~ ~
i ~. ~
(D Vi ~
c 0
~" ~
~
9~
<: E- ii
~ '" "
g' E. ~
~ciQ
~ ~.
"
-.
=,,: ;:; 9:~ :g
::; ('l < rtl..;;:
2~ ~ ~ ~.
~ _ VI :; (')
~ :;;::;- =
VI~ n = < -
as.~rtl3
rtl" rtl S; ~ ~
o Co.,.,;- cr' 0
g ;;- Y' ~ ;i
- VI 0 ...
~.rjQ'''' ~ n
t":. ~ (D::I
~C.():;3
t"::"l.... ... ::I ~
::I "'< 3 ::I "'<
~. n::l_.
o (; e:: 0;; ??_'
n,"=, C ~
""l ...... C
. ~. ~ g-
"
"
" ;:
(;' C ::::
" = cQ'
i: ~ OJ
;; ~
!" o.
= :>
~
"
~
~
c
.. "
S'
"
0.
~
"
~
"
I~I~ '"
!I a -
'"
Q"
(J)
0
~
:
C'l
0
a.
or
c:
(1)
Q"
~
tlIiii
",,3
'"
:>
iii
Q,
~
iii"'"
3:ii
'" '"
:> :>
..
Q,
~
tlI::'
""0
iil
Q,
~
..,
oEi
OJ '"
-Q,
"'tlI
""
.....
0"
~o
:>0
" :>
~3
0-"
" C.
:::'>0"
... '< :;
n :'""::1
~ (ii a
-< ~ ;i
.... 0 :;
~~n
" " "
~ en ;;;'
:'Q:!:.
_g E. C;;
~
~oc
~
~
;:
O'mnn t"l 0'_>
c ::J .... n 0 I;
::I 0:2. ii' 0 3 ::J en""
c..:::JC.3""OC.
.. " 0- 3 ii" Q) ('D
S' ~ '< n Ci' :=.""0
:::J :.:::Jc.g;
>;fr~n""O
~ "::' =. g g e;
c .... 0 0 en =
~~.B;~:;- ~.
;'!l.o :::J ~ ?
en .....(JQ....
.... .... = - o'~
:!..C'.l::lo==
~~Q. ....c.
- ~ (i =-:;.
o n ~ to:! (JQ
::I r. a ::::-
8..5 < g-~
go ~ 0" 2.. c.
-0 :. t.:I
a "
< c.
"
c.
.... :; = ;-
~ = C3 ;a.
~~E=-
n ci" _ =
~ 0:-5 ~
= c = ..:::
~n!lc
~ "
.... 0 n
~~
n ~ S
;;""::1 ;"
n ~ ~
s ~. ~
C n E.
~ n =
<' 5. oi
("0 =- n
C
~
c.
c
~
3'
""
"
o
"
!O.
"
!:'.
o.
P
D
D
~~oc.m
""0 ::: g.g ~
~';nS:-~
~'a n = =
< '":l =-.... n
nn='Q._
~~~~if
. n m 3 ~
o ::I _'""::I
:; (J'Q ::I l>>
""0 :;' a. ~
~ ~ a"-'
n ... '< <i
C.! ....
c..?i ::.
o -
7 n:;:; CIl
"'2....9.5'
~ g =
" .
~
"
"
"
o
c
"
"
~
"
c.
c.
c
~
S'n
"" "
",.",
o ~
" ~
~
- ,
2 rii
" ~
_. "
o ::.:
" ~
.. ..
;;;
~::;
c ~
o or
c.0"
!!.~
;::;- 6
o 0
~ '
..~
- ..
c.c.
"
~
"
c
~
"
c.
0'
~
.
.. i'i c " 0
~ ~ ~
.. .. " i'i
c. < c. ;;;:
" " ~
0" C 0' 0 0-
" "0 ~ ~ "
.. " " c.
3 " n
" "0 .:<
~ ~ "
.. c. .. "0
0 " ;.
0" ~ ~.
0
< < ;; ~
"
~ 0 ~ " "
~ S. ~ "
-.""
.. "' =-:;.
~ 8
<i' - "0
!:'. ~ 3 c
~
or " "
g, c
.. :; ~
i'i " -<
0
c.
~-;;-~
" c ~
;.2. g
n ... (JQ
a~s:-
< - <
~~~
5"nC"
~ ~ 3
:;' ~-
~ ~ ~
I""J Z n
" "
9: t: ~
:: ::I ~_.
~ <:
c.o=-
~ ~
~
(i"~
.. ..
!O.c.
0'''
E;
- ;'
;;
~
~ n
g-2:~
~ ; !.
Q.;:: n ~
(ti ~ n
.... Si ;:;
--~€
en=--<
1 :: ~ ~
!:; ~ ~ ~
C =-'< ::J
;':.:l:-'""
~ =- ~.
'< ~
!!.
1;)1 :::t-
"'I ~.
o 'tL
0' aa.,
~ a
'"
"
0..
CIl
o
~
(')
o
"
g.
c:
'"
0..
D
f--
~
-
<Q
'"
-
c'
"
-
f----
~
txJiii
"" 3
'"
'"
~
'"
Cl
f-
3'
"l:l
iii'::::i
3 ::r
'" CD
'" '"
-
CD
Cl.
-
~
txJ =.
""0'
iil
Cl.
I-
~
...
o~
.. CD
-Cl.
CD~
.....
. . .
0;" 3:: " -":l 3:: " Q, :>
0 ,. o ::: = ~
iiI " ":l " ..::, " Q, <" "'
" 0 "' " !2.
"' "' ii1 " "' Q, "
0" " " II " .:; " "
~ Q, Z ~ " Q,
= " " "
"' "' ~ ~ "' "' '< "
0 ~ 0 " "' ii"
~ is - 0 "
"' "' "
0 ~ 0" 0'
::' " "' " 2, 0 "
= " < = = " ~
"' "' ~ " " :" !" ":l "
;; " ;;''''' = :j' n
~ ;: 0
" (': 2 Q, "" "
2~ " !!? "' "'" Q, "'
g ~ !" g' " " :; "'
0 &. ~
":l o. 0
n' " 0 "
~ ~ " "" Q,
" "' = " - "
F Q ".!; ~. "- " "
" E: '<
S- " "- ~, -
"" " :; "
0" " "- ":l =
" " ;;
"" = ~ = a
"- 1;. "- ~ ~
~
U;
0_- ~ ~ 0 1; :3 ~ ~ ~ ;" ~ n en 5!l";; ~ Q g- n
C Co n ~ ==:;"..2. Q;!= :::'" ~(Jq :!:. ~ 0 ~ _, (It .. ...
~~-;:-'n~-c-'n<~~_n~n
C.m~~n3n~3c.~~~~~i;~~
n=~=a~'=nnnB=~<'. _c~
~~n~~n~3a~~=~a=*~~'p
=;~;~~gg~~~~o~~-~c.
~.~.g~C.~.O;J:2n~S:-d'~~ 00
E.~~~no-;_~.~..n=a=~.o~
50= ~=~n~~=~~~~'~_=_,~a.
" _ __- -:l:l = 0 =. n c....::=. ED 0 -. - - ~. !:!
=...... 0 -- = ""::l n ""I' n _ ~ 0 _ - :I"
~=;. ~'c.on..c.n~~=~~o -
'<:>>n= (,t>cna.~-_,< ",,:nn==cn
~=c.~~~~_ncn o"ncn~Z~
(;;'c" _-0"'"":1 =---.n.Q'":I,< Co):::
"o-~gc.o~~~a5~~5.g~=~
~. ;. VI _3_" _.:r. :II o'rJ.:l ;;i g- g. ~ 0 g g ~
~~~~~n;a~3~ggg~~~~
en; 2~~~. ~~ ~~~_~ ~
~a cn~=_~' =~ _~--'cnC~
== ~_ 0'. ., ".. = - lo; -
= _ ; :..c.n__=_
o n :3
<:roo
c ;;
~c.
:i" -
",,""
"00 ~
~ Co
~. ~
~""I'
n -g ~
-E ::.. ....
n-<;i
3 ~ n
" "":l
~ a. a
. =_.
~ "
"-0
"' -
Q ~
"
i::
<
0"
0;-
;;
"
=
'<
"
"
"'
;;
"-
0;.
!2.
=
..
" "
"
~
~ :::
" 0
i::"
=""
g=-
~ (i
~ 0
~~
:=1"
~ g
" a
Q -
:;: "-
= C:;;'
= ;:
"-a-
"
=
"
"
'J:;;':."
" = -
:::I ,......::::
(":l - n'
.., _. (')
VI ,... ;;
<":l
c.::::
c: =
" ~
-=;
;;.
=-170 Q
~;:; ('\l
~~Q
~.~ 0
~ "'0 ;;;.
e ('\I ~
g; 3 Q)
(') -.:::1
C'D - ~
00;':::
-Vi_
a "
I
~i ~"
it I
~.
..J
o'
~
~
~.
=
"
"
~
!: :::I :;.
;r n '-.
~_. c ~
~':<
~ :::I 0
S,.lJQ ..,
~!.~
~ n ~_
"' ;;
~~
1'; '"
$~
!;: n
c~
:,} ..:::::.
"
~
"'
-.ag'
~.Q ~.:; ::l ~
C:!,.C:_S:-i0
,,_ _ < (') c
o C:I _.= ....
~ rt a..~ a ~
!II ~ Ill" " ~ "
III ;;;""5
E:C;~;;w;"'1Il
~ = _:: ('\l
n .= ~ -"'='
o Col Co = !:!:
: ~ ='I ~ --5
n an. (i"
3'~
Q:
.....
a Cl
" "
Q,=
~ <:l
":< g
"
<
'"
a.
"
=
"-
"
=
;;
;1.
3::
..."
"'-
0"
=
3:
"
"
~
c:
"
Z
N
:::I':-Qi'
~ "'0.....
'" -
;;=7'>
c.~ ~
!!a. 3 0
=...;::
c; ::: c.
:::I ~ ~
fb !:. =.
~ N n
~ C:.l
iii !l"'::: "E
~ o"~' =-
~. III (i"
o:..[~
" --
"
n n iii ::!
~ :<:
III n c.:
~
0- ~
"":=
;; "
::5"
~ n
"'":l ;;;.
" "'
~ "
:: 5
;;; ~
a
-
:?~
a =_
;;
!l ;:;
0';
= -:1
C; ~r
~.
B.'
~
~
..::.
"
II
~
:;
~
I
:t:'
'"
~
~
~
'"
'"
c..
aF
~
a.
c
"
'"
~
~"I
in
3'
"l:l
Il>
"
-
-~
,
~
~
Il>
-
0"
:::
.
~
ale;;
"",3
..
::.
-
..
Q,
~
e;;~
3::1'
.. ..
::. :::
iii
Q,
~
al2.
""'0
;;;
Q,
~
...
0:3
Il> ..
-Q,
..~
....
Jl
II
,,-
',-
I
,.
-
~ ~. go :.0
:. ~..g
-" "
('l) - l>> ...
a. ~. Vi~
VI c_.
g.- n ~ 5-
=:!. 0 ~ ~
- ..., 0 t'D
~~3C.
~~. ~ ~
~3~~
~ rjQ-'< g
;:; 5; ~
n .... 8.. VI
'"' c::
~..., ;-
:E
~
;;;
.
~_~~~om
o-o~...a:'~
-. 0' -.!!. n' (i"..,
_. r. -::I = n - OQ
N~::.~_<n,<
2.. -:i" g n ~ Q..
= g. CJQ :i. g ~ (ii'
~. g C' c.. ~ ;;:..;'
~~~C~O::.
.... _ =,-:::1 .... r: n
n '"' 0 ~ C' ~ U;
... n :: ... ::r n :>>
S; c..:>> =:. = :Il:"'-
c' 5 c.. ~ a. 2.. ~
::I c.. _ l>> ... l>> iii'
0- C :: n - _.
5g~g-~
~ ~ ii"' r;; n n
~ ~ t'"l = :..
(; ~ ~ n ~
a a.=.,~
.
c..<n 0 C"CI:I
in':;- ... n c
VI I>> ~ ...
_.~_.=='
"":l. 0 VI n
::. 0 :2 j;' ()
" ~ n
; 0 0 ri'" ~
=' :;. c. 0
- ("0 ....-~.
~... 9... ~ 0
.g.22:g.~
n =.~ ~ :i
... < en_
s; ~~':ro
_. n 1.ii 0'-
;i a. c.. ==
n "":l ('0 rD
= ii ; ~ Q:I
~ e; !:. ~ g:
~~i!a.a
':-"~-n~
c ~
.
; ~
;i",
.. 0
" ~
- "
" Co
n~
p..~
~
5;
S'
n
"
~
~
:r
!:!.
0-
"
~
"
"
c.
"
c.
-
~ 3 =
o m - ... - :z:
V1_nnn~.
=":=nPn-
:; ~ ~ _. >- -.,
g!.~~;:~
tIl- E-="":I
_.;:;' 0 _u.. ...
;; =-;'~' s-~.
5" ~ Vl E. ~
=g~...E-
o -:J 0 f]'Q ~
=c._c::nc
, ... :: ~""::I =.
OO::l-=c.
... g: ~ =- = VI
o=-<.n~g..
~ -. n ~ :: Vl
VI ::I .... .... 0 iii'
.... ~ -. ~ ...., =.
o 0- = = -.
. en l>> =. n l>>
m 52 CI'l =
::I - :::'<
_. C n l>>
= ...., s:; ~
~
5"::~ 5"~. Co. - -
nt'DonQCc~=
c=......o=~-:::IO
c.. VI ('II ... -. == = ...
n _ ~ "":l ::'l Vl r: c..
.. (; "". g ~ ~ ~ ~
:I:CI:I;'::'==o
_~nn3g;:;
.e""Oari~v.c..
. "tI", _ _ -. C.
to ""C 0' - = CD g
g- ~ ::J ~ o' ~
< n ('J ..E, ::I a ...
n nOn VI n
~ S::::' .\2 - c';;!
::: a 1./'1. = ::I ::::.
~Oti' -~ ii" ~ ~
~ :>> Q g '" ::: =.
-nO =. '7 '" '" - t.:I
C ~ 0 -
!:.:::::I ""C'" :;j
CO' VI ~:::::I
s: ;" ~ '
.." 0
~
n
0--
~ :: ..,""
- s.2.
a ~
~ !l
'"
'"
c..:-
" "
!:.o
~
-
~(JQ O""l)I:l
l: .., l"Il ..,
~~O'~
;' ::: 0 :;.
l)I:l O'Q _.l)I:l
~ :: ~ ~ Vi'
~ c:.; ~ ~
3 _::J :3 ~
~. ~ g ~. g
- 2,-;-0
" ~
c.
C"-l
_. :::::I 0
~. c..:E
~. Q::I
5 :. t':'I
c::"
_. ..
" _.
.. "
"
"
~
-g
..::.
"
::l
.
3 ~ 5' ~ 2:l;-
n E. VI c..'" - i:fl
~ ::I _. -. - l"Il .-
StbCDn;~C,1
n::J~::J:=o!:.
:.n !: 0 - ;::..., o'
n :: t.:I ~ ::I
.n ~ :::::I ~
tn:Ec..=-;:S:~
('J ::;I c;I '< ..,
=- (i' c.. ~~ 0
n .., III _ ..,
c. .., c r=: 0 VI
c: l: .., ~ < n
(i""_~..,n"'::l
~~a.~::=:
~.-'n= ::.
~ ~ 5 n _" S;;
_ _ VI ::I Vl
~:E :.:I c.: n.
n - 2
- 1=5 ~ ~
~ :.:I .:n ::;I
VI:: VI
t.:I;; c::
;;
~
",I
"
:;'
;;
j;""'::l =
~ " "
~ ~' ::
N c.. c
,,- -
;;:::1 5'"
. ('J ~_
{; - :::
_ c...
0-
~:oa n
c.. c.._,
" " "
~
= :E -.
_ .... ::l
c..:: ('J
"":l :: .
n 5....
~(J'Q ~
-. ~
!::.~ l:
c:.. n :::.
n ... _.
~ - -
, _en:5
~!
Q.I
oi
c'
~
-
.g
..~
" ..
- "
,
C'l
01
::'1
:::;'1
<:1
en
Q.
-
1;
~
S!-
o'
::
-
.g
trliii
",,3
1Il
::
-
1Il
Q.
3"
1:1
iii""
3~
1Il 1Il
:: ::
-
1Il
Q.
~
trl =.
""6'
;;;
Q.
;;;:
...
o=-
Do) CD'
ii'Q.
trl
""
.....
(') c: :: (;
o = l'll n
3 = ::I ('D
:r" -"
~ g g s
_ VI .., -~
co; I>> ~
=' .... n !.
~ '< g ni
~ ~~::I
~. oC go=' ~
:a..~ ....
~ ~~ ~
r:r!!: 2.~
('D n ~
a!l~
~
"
c.
f'
~
~<5'~?\;::
.s. ~: ;;=- ~.c.. ~.
g ~. - ;; -l <ll
:"""'< =:-
co (;_="~. I'D
=- --"
c _ ~
< -. !:2..2.
('D _.... ('D
l'll (,Il --5 n
)oC ~ 0 -
;' ~ ~ ~
5' n '< c:
OQ v;" ~ c:::
~ -"'0 n
!:!..... !!: :.._~
(,Il l'll o'
s;: ""=' c. 5'
=: 0 o'
::r";i' :0
o n 0
S. .... ~
"
n e::
"
.
5'~.;:; ...;
-5~~ ~
~ :;::;. Q1
u;'on_
=c.C'
6' a 0' ~
CD ~... 5'
[~.,. ~OQ
~=-' ..
nt'll g
~ ~ n ~
I n 0
~. ~ :; (,Il
:. ~~. ~
i?2~c
Co) Q. (,Il c:::
=. g" ~
"
~ 0
;;;.
"
~t
-- CI.:I Q,'l z: I'D - "'=' >
?i ~ ~ "0 ~~ ::l'... =
Q: n :::. -:: _. c: t; 0
n ::r o' a g.~' ;; 1i .2
c.c:.="'::I=::::O:"c:::
I>> (,Ill>> :1.... l'll ~'<-6'
III ~. -< e I'D a :: 3 3
-,..,=tD:i"""=_c,,
=:no....,o.."'5---.=
I>> :: (i;' ... 0 :. c ::::l_
VI:::" o-~2..1i
"0 "'Q aQ ~ Co. 0'" c' I>> rD
o ('D n n rll :> :> c.
~ en =' ("D _
"'" (,Il .c 0 -. n c.. ~o
:;:c!!:c==::l-_
ii" 2- ~.-S' c:.. 2.~.;
~ VI - 3 o'~_, ~ 5' n
a -~ I'D = , (,Il
... :;; n ::I I>> c:.. ~. -.
:: ="'@ :-::l ~ ii n
g ~ -S' ~ 2 g ~~_
~;::. " ~ ~
ni 0 ~ ~
~ n
c <
- "
oc;::?
~ ~..:.
a =' g
~ -t/l
<'''0
c.:::
c Vi
co :>
- ~
[
... lTQ =-0"Cl ::::l
~~?~2
Q.. 5' 0 ;' n:
0Ci OQ -. OQ
I>> ~ "'::I (ii'
"0 = c: n r.r>
~ c.. I>> = ~
~. - = ::I ::I
Sl ~ ~: ~
~ 0-
....,~::;
Eo
c;
"
""
~
(;
a
:! -l
- 0
c.,.
I:lo
S. m
g;~
~ ~.
"
~
if! :x:
~~
;;-l
~. ~
co
=-.=;
'< 0
~n'
.. z
;; ,.
C.o
" c
,. c::
" ><-
~
.J:l ;;
c i1
~ ~.
~('\l
,,'"
O"'~
~ n
" ..
.,...~
~
~ ~ ::
::::I c.,..::::.
g =: g
Vl~~
<-"
c.:~
c 0
~~
~
[
g-~ ~~ ~
~~~~~
::l n :i' ('II
OQ ao iii" CJQ :":'
-:l I>> 11I"'0 ....
~a.;~~
_::lI 2_,:>
__ 0 ~ t")
~""o:'o
~ co 0
o ~
c.
c ;t I
~U'I
a:;i
=. "
"-"
2 3
" ~,
2.,g
~ -
.., ;!! lo" n
;;.g~
~S~2.
a:
~~n
~~g
So: !.~
=.::1 n
g ~~. ~ :e
~ ('II 0 ga, g
III ~ ;;' g c:
g ~~.:e ~
~3=.~~
",,1II:l::r(i
o 0 ..
.;'~Q~g
~a "C c
-<oS:::
So E: ::::I
2.n~
c.
o
;;
n
~
:a'
~
~
:!
Eo
N
.. I:l
;; "
c.0'
.. ;;
"'C ~.
~ C
- co
g. ~
~ "
o
~
-l
o
,.
"
m
"
~,
:>
"
"
-
'"
'"
;;
"
co
~
o
;;
n
~
:a,'
(JClnc.::s:on::l'<'
coo-on...-.n
-::::I:E:~n=;\I'l=
~::;=o~;:r::.:;;:
III &V1-:l r.n !!.::'t:I
,<&::orD""I=('\l='
CIlii-::l,,::!a;c.::ltll
(i" c..'i;"!::. ~
3::TO.gc;an::::l0
_-'('tI _('ll()l:l =
n~:;,:,Ca:eVl
)C 0 n (ii'~ 0::;
g -:l .... (n 5' t: C
-; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i'
:;;" '-' :>> in:e :;.
:: =i '< "~. ~ en",
"'" .... ... n ... ~
C ... :e n"'::J :e =. C,1
...., g::l ('II t:I g :e
;; (ij s:: [ 5" ~ ;r 0-
~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 0 ~
c.. -. -
~
"
=-
~
<
.;;.
I
:?
s.
"
z
'"
-"
"
Vi
o
~
-l
o
,.
"
m
"
~.
"
"
"
~
~10
al "tl
~I ~
~ -
()
o
:::.
::r
c:
'"
0..
""
"1
~
~
III
-
o'
:::
I
3"
"tl
toiii
"",3
'"
:::
c;;
0..
I
I
I
~
iii""
3:;:
lD lD
::: :::
c;;
0..
~
to:!.
""'0
~
0..
~
::t
o~
III <ll
-0..
lD~
.....
I
.
1
.
.
II
.
.
.
. ;-
~
II
.
..
tI
.
..
II
till
I
~
-
.
no~-c~.3onn~~o==~=-~-'-=~
(1l OQ =00 ="00-no",&.30=
i~[=~i~~!~g~'~~~~~,~:~~,;
2~~~S~-'2=-'~~~~-'n=~3~~
n -::I r.n ll:l " _ = n ..... C. 5' 0 (1l 0 a c <'II -. 2
-0 =r.n=a~5'(1l~~=~~=(1l~=~n'
5'~o-= oo=~ =n'~ 1I'lC.--cn
:::I (i'-'= (II i5..;,;; =-.g g n o~ -;=l'in'o:2.a-:
r,nc._O=r.n(ll ==_o30-c--S'=~
..... (1l~'(1l::r::r-;~~'::r=-::I~nn~o==o
ngnn~~=::r - n~~_,~s'~~=g=
~=g~~_. o~a~2=~~=~~nn~
c.(Il~c=3C.r.n~.=nn_n~=n~ o~
_. Co. _ ""I !!. _ c. Co . en --. n = n v.I < 0 CIl
r.nOQ-'~~-::Inno~-'5'=o-C.n~=""I::r
n=~n_~""I==c==~:~'_co~'c.~
a~5_c 3s.;._~=go"So=~=-
5."~v.I~~~'__~~~_gnc.~~=~~
= n = (11 0 :::I _. _.n _.0 (1l _. =.... 0 (Il
=~~~<: -_OQ=<-s.~<?ac.""I_.
.... .... .... _. n .... . (JQ =:::1 n ~.... "!"'I0'Cl
0_ ~na-" c ~.~~_.~~= ~=
--::I n :::l :=. r.n ""I = .., In ~
~. ~ n C~ll:l-::lr.nr.n (1l
n n ~ ~ ~~~c3--.o~ =
:J -.. (1l -. "-... (1l -
~ ~ _ g r.n~"'=
-
<:' ~ ,
c I
...
'" III i
: !l '"
(")
c
::.
s.
c:
'"
Cl.
.
~.r!..8 ~:-!'~~ g ;]2,8.... S ~ Q
n ~ =' ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ (;" n ~ ::. ;;;" ~ ='
-E 3- ~ ~ _. :::; ~ e _, ~ c... ~
.__c>"'Oc.:::lc~Vi=tI';:q=-2
2. 0 ~ 3: :: ~ qa !l ::. :; a; ~ ~ ~ __no
('II ~ -, ~ ~ ('II - _ = ~ ~, -
n ~ go=, - ~ g'~n n ;;;':''''' 0
; ~ _AC. ~ g n _, n <,0 =
:::::0:;':5 0 en ='" --= ~ ~ g ~ ;' ('II ; ~
n = c a ~ n !::. _. n. -, (Jl:l (; < _,
~ ~ ~ "'0 Ei 5' 5" ~,g:2., n n ('II ~.
C. ('II tit ~ C. C qa n'.o::: en ~".g
~ ~ g' ~;;; ~ yo ~ n H. ~ c ~ ~'
g" ='" =.. > ~ ::.. c.. =' ~ -i :S' =- ;;: ~ ~
I'll g C. _ 0 -.1"':1 n ~ e = tit ::i' ~ =-
.Q=:::ro ,.Co)e-~-
c:llnZ:(6o<~::r=~,- ,,-
0_""::I~ 0 =='<n 0"::::0
a 2 0 ~ - >r;Q = _.?- Co):S
-!l~og3:~OCl c.. ...0
~ :S' a. ~.... g n g -_0_
- = 0 0 5' S
...., lJQ:Il
~ "
:r=
!;.c..
-.."
"-0
" :e
- "
c ~
- "
~ c..
c..n
c 0
~=
~~
~ 2"
:rn
o :"
= 0
= =
o "
-.=
c
;; ..::i"
~ 3
!' ~
:;::
-,
~
!!l-
0'
::.
3'
"tl
tlliil
,,<:3
~
iii
Cl.
-
~
i~
:s lD
~ ::.
iii
Q.
~
tll=-
"<:0'
~
Q.
I---
~
...
Q~
IlllD
iiiQ.
tll
"<:
.....
~
::0
S' ~
EL",
"
-g ;!
" "
,,~
-g ~.
~ "
""n
::i" -
'" ~
n 0
" =
is:::
~. ;:;
~~
"
n
o
<
"
n
c..
'"
"
~
"
'"
"
o
~
n
"
.a
g
~
~
"
n
"
~
""
~
0"
"
~
~
o
<
<;:
"
"..
~. ~ ii'
::l=--
3;;-~
C III g
30:;
-"
r-.,)n~
~g.~
:!l ;:; g"
n ~.~
!! c.....
" -
n~::::I <:
~ ;" ~
--c..
~ -
5._ -"
" "
c..~
" :'l
ii
or
"
c..
"
.G
=
"
"
g
;;
..
g ~
('J g
~s:
n ~
n "
" ~
~ g.
" -
c.."
~-5
=.n
g :;
ag
2. i:
oCj" _.
"..
:. I>>
o =.
" "
~ =
o s:
= "
c::~
0"=
" n
] ;Z
~. ~
~~
..
;;;
c..
=
..
"'0 B:"
!l =
2.~
;;ij g
o
-
:4' ~ ;i
* c.. ~
n=...., =
::?m
g ~ ~
o _.
'0= :::l
V;' "T'l:::g
::;:;" ..,
~. n
!=l I '
'" ;;'
3
.....
='
"
:i
.2,
"
l2
"
.G
=
-5'
3
"
~
- c
~ 9--
" .,
l2 ~
0' III
= if
~ ~
-~
Q a
::i' ::
n "
o ~
3 0
~ ~
., c..
=. l>>
0"=
n~
= ~
~ 0
" =
~ ~
~
~
=
g.
o ~~ 0
.g::o!!.
I>> g..;:s.~.
Sn;-n
- 0 III Q.
g ~ 5' g
- 0 ""::I =
o ""I "":J f.I'l
-. 3 5'::;
d' ~ fJQ g
:=: :To ~ g"
C:i" _ c..;::I
:E ~~. e.-
o ~~;;
;.. o' ~!.
Ill. ~ V;'~
3..... ~ ~
~~r,;;
~. a: (II -
c:
"
=
~. 9
;; ....
: ::!
~n
;;~
... ~
~ ~.
c.."
~ l2
g-~
" 0
c:
os::
., ~
c..=
" 0"
~ '"
OQ'6)
= ;;!.
fi"a
., -
,,'<
~
"
'" '"
;;; "
c..0'
:;" (;.
'"
"":J Vi'
" '"
~ c:
~. ~
~ "
o
-
::;t
Il>
'"
~
'"
~
c'
'"
~ go ~~
-'0'" ... (;
fironf.l'l"O
~ a age
() t! ~. ~ ~
9:::g=(;"
~2.==~
c-=nc.
a-O"c..cnl
~gcrs.;:~
:: -tn:! ..,
(i ~.:;-~
~ ~ ~ ~
~:D(t,<
!} E.. g. ~
- = ~
Vi';:; fJQ <:
~::::I ~.
C. '5 n (1:1
!. g. ~
n fJQ ..,
~ ;;'
" n
"
;"
..::.
"
l2
en
~
o
=
Q
0'
~
=
m
"
'!!!.
=
"
"
~
;:......;c...,cr-;;;-n~::1
n ~ r;;' CT n c 9 C CD
...==.5in:<g.~ao.
!!!_' no' CD
:E;;=n'~;:;!:!.~.
l:D :.:"' l:D ~ (i" =.ciQ'lJ'Q
a.;0'6..c..~g3;
g~n:~~~li'ns:
S;~3-'0"'c..on:an
~ "':l C:;I'" = .
5' 0 ""::::I a "":I Co -. ~ ::;
(JQ a to = ~ ::;' -g s..:~.
_:;:3"TlO~1::;':-
{,II n I'D :::;';:i -. - -,
~ =-~c..3'o3~
(")~s.::.,'O':r~"'g;lC
~"'o'o'<-g,t;c..
&_.. 5$ ? g - ~. ~ i~'
;'::l- ~ ::::I ....., VI
.;;:i; ;3~~. U)
:r ::, ~ VI C
'<::::I =~n
lJQ 0 - VI
-
-.J ;;' 8 ;;: <:
~~::lQ~
VI ~ ("D
r:i' C;' c ::.
eo VI!l O'(;i
~ ~ g' i -g
n_ n' 0 ;'<'::::.
:;..,nt':l
g3~~!2
- 0;'00: (;' ~
~:::r~VlC
("D ;. ~. Q c:
~ ~ 5 n: ::::I
:::;' n o.t::. ~
g ~ :;' ~, E.
3 :l:I n t'TI n
n c.. ~
=' < n _
:- t'TI ~ ("D
;;: 0'
" =
EO.
0" .....
n~~
;3 ~-g
~ (ij <.::::.
= "
Q) ~ !l
=' ::l VI
~-g"3(
n VI :;
~ 2. ~
2'~. ~
~' ~
"
= c..
c.."
c..~
a.~'
ff ~
(;'0..
(;;'
n
o
=
-5
;;-
~g
.. ""
;;; "
c..3'
5' (ij
..
~ ~
~.I
~ "
o
-
"'l:l'~-l
a c.. 0
n -l ~
!lo.:m
o' C ::I
::::l a~.
c:; = =
;.' "':'1 ~
-, :::;',..,
5,' ("D
I~I
"
~
Cll
!!!.
C'
'"
~~
=-0
8. ~.
=.g..
"
~ 0
c.."
c..~
~~
., n
-"
o c..
~ Q
~
"
!:l
g'
;"
..::.
"
l2
en
~
S
'"
=
~
o ~
~,€
(;'5-
" 0
~ ;;;
-"
n
.,
f.i 2:
z.!i.
s-
~r ::::l
~ U.
., C
- -
~ -
" '"
~~
!E.o
-
115=1
<;;.
Cll
:;
'6
..
"
-
""
-"l en
;;~
n "
" n
~ :;l
"""
~ ~
'<"..
0"
";0
o "
~ c..
"
~ ;@.
~ <:-
=-
5. ~
c::?
= "
(J'Q :;).
~ ~
~ g
~. ~
0; "
o
-
1I~~0'
~ E::"'3 ~
n ~
0" JJ 3' ::=
~ ""
~ 5
~ ::;.
~ritl
;;.
;"
..::.
"
l2
!!!
e
~
",I
"
C'
n
~
a
:j'
c::
Cll
Q,
,
l!;
-
<Q
..
~
:::
:::-
::l
'tl
a:J'"
",,3
co
:::
'"
14
3"
'tl
'"~
3:ii
co co
::l '"
-
co
14
&=
a:J 3,
""0'
til
14
~
...
o:S
.. co
-14
coa:J
""
,'-
I
I
.
.
.
.
I
.
I
. '"
~
0
I
.
.
1
.
I.
aI
.
II
~ C _ (It cr-~..l~ Q..<:I> c.'" >-...
~ ~ ~. ~~. 8 t g. ~ ~ ~. ~ ? a
~ ~'Ci'(JQ 5_"'0 c..-'(JQ rr"' ~>
nn~c5 g:;~~c..~a.~
~~. ~ ~ ~ n ~~. ~ " g !' ::; ~
.., ~ -. _ "0 c.. -. 3 (II -
nn=n8oc.._~"'O-n!:!.;
~!ii~o=~:,ne.g~~~=
::r > ~ (ii ~ ;.= ~ (5 :i" ~ - "'0 :::. n
:r oCo:lc__:;(JQ'<5'~nCl:l
9 ;'l ;; c.. S ::: ciO n Q:I n: ::I ci :E -.
~ ~ og .2 o' ~ (fl n ~ 'II "'g :. Q3 c;-
c=....,~5~o;..(Il:g""='
*='3::::;!l.;95.g-~~
oc;:;c;-:IIJQ-Qt.1_"
--g ~ =:~:2 t.1=--~ :=';-:
:< =. ~ n s' ~ ~ ; ':T :5
~: ~'-~Q)-~_.:::"'
5 n s_- c -g. C' a. 3. ~
E ::.l..,::I ::I ~
2.,~~ ~ Vi g.
g-~.;
~" "
C :::I r.
n: u> n
:r",
"" ::.l -
s. =-=:
C:O*n
" .,
"
'"
..
"0 ;' g"oog ~ n a =- 3-;:;-
g ~ _...9:. n ~ 3 ::I n ""0 ~
~a.g ~ ~ ii"5 ~~ 0 >
::;:' ro - C" D:I .., C"'O < (II
,~ i:. c.:. ~ ('l _. n ""0
!!' ~ ~ m :;' = '< =. n 3 _!!1
a;l n c.. = -.(JQ 0 = n ~
:2 ~ -. 0' ~. Q3 r: = :a == 0
_<= cc..V>"'Out-
tnD:l ~=n=ig:,-o~
(5 = ... n _.~ 0 ;...;. .., ::.
"'C-.n33;0_.=:>>(;
.=c.n"'O-3=o:n:ECI')
~ga; a a ~"O~g.;'c
-.O':E=<..,Q;" _OQa"
~=:i"_nn= ;:ltftc..
o 0 "" :r~ :; a = ;. =: 0' ~:
.., :E n = ~ = .., (I>
c.. n a;l tll a 0' c. c.. :i- ::;'
!:!: ~ a. ~.~;; So ~ ~ n :;
:n a <I> .... .... t.1 ::.l (It E."'O
'<~~~!2.:E~n~
:='l - . n ... -. ~ Co....:::::.
=-;'O&-=c;l n
~ ~ '"'"l::; "...~. ~
- ~ 5' _
"""
-'CI'I=~OlD-CI'I-
S- ~" g ~ :: g g a. ~
;;~~g-(;e: ~~
n -" ~ fit ;. ~ (ij ('; ti"_
t!l..\II (11(11 <:
;;3;-~ >" !~g ~
ClJg;~_~_uti_~<
Ql ~ 0" (i ~ 0 0 o'
...;(';~=~--g ~
~::j Q) -...
n ~... =. (i' "'" iii' !e.
~~g;;~CI'I~=;-;b
.g:a"[~-<"'~-'X
~:~'o g s.~~;_'.
~. (") Q) :- 7" !:l ~ ...
~ _Q. ~ t:I VI _. - ('; ("\I
? ~~ii"g~;c:..
c::;'" "":::l.....:n... C'
;~ C)~ ~~
t;- 2:c: ~
Co "
n ""
oa "":::l lD .....
t: .., -::I t:
~~a:g
(ij ~.? n-
. ('; 0 :;
n'" n
:; ~ ~
"":::l (; c..
S ... r:
" ~ '<
~ " -
'< J, Co)
.~::: ~
" "
'Ii .,'
" ~ ""
~ ~ ;
~ ~ P-
-; & 5:
~ (") <
;. 0 n
"" " 'Ii
g'C:~
;t
.,
'"
~
o
;:"
.,
-,
o'
'"
3'
"l:l
.,
"
-
I
k
C"l
o
=-
3'
c::
(1)
Q.
I
I
I
~I
~
.,
~
'"
3'
"l:l
to'"
"",3
(1)
"
iii
Q.
~
iii"'"
3;;
.. ..
" "
-
(1)
Q.
~
to ::.
""'0'
...
..
Cl.
;;;:
...
o==:
I:U (D'
iiitl.
to
"'"
....
~
..
3
""
n
3
"
i"-
""
"
~.
"
,.,
~
"
~
';"'2 ::::-
g ~. ~ :;
~ 0
~ -:::;:,
::: -
C'< c..E,.
~
""
" :>i ~ 30 "1J i~! :;if 3'
" =r " " ., III
< ~. " I~I 'tl
:;' g: 3 n " III
O. 0 " " ,., ~ <'l
" ,., "" 0 n \~ -
3 0 '" '"
<= ;;' " - ~,
" ;;' ~
" -,., ~
"- -. ,., ,g. Q. -.
~ <=
,., n " (J) 0"
" n. =. ~ "
" <= '"
~ ~ !!' nO 0 ;:> :
'" " ~ " :>i
,., ~ ;;:. 51 0 0 (0. (')
;;; ~: " ~ <= '" '"
n " " c: ~ ~
0 " "
::1 " -c :>i ~ s.
"
n !!'. " ,0 en
" " :>i '" r:::
'" ;: ~ " :0 '"
!:l- 1r ~ n " Q.
o. " ;; 0 ()j
" 0 :>i ~
~ " ~
0 ~ "
~ ~
=-
;; ~
:>i :>i
~ ~
" ;0
~ n: Q_ ~ ~."'g
..s.'; rD ~'..9.
("0 c ~ -3 ~ ~.
tl~~o. _
!;II _._.:IE CD !;II
]g;~;5.g
:::: _.~ t"') c
(;;'<-"OoC;
~o:eoa~n
-0--' <-0
S v: 0 Sl
(;c. O""c.
.g ...., go g- 5. :i"
n;; c:: ~
:; c _ .; (i'
!!... a ~ 0
:::l ........
n;;- g
~ ~
v; , (&
;;,,,-
,., "
::.::.n
~.~.
""...,:>>
c: 0 ... :::
c ::..!: Q.,
.., C' ::'"11
o < rD :::..
=~o;:r
n~n'"
o ""
5,"""=-=
=r "
~ rD g :IE
c..~ nO
r:- 0 < -.
o a ~ ~
:e 0 Co.;'
~ ~ 0' ~
... ~ :j ~
" =r "
~ cs c ..,
0- a:::l
c "
n
"
~
.
'5' ~ ~
c..::!...E.
~. s;" ~
n -< :-
~;;"'g
" :>i "
- " ~
=r ~ 0
" " ~
~ """
~ ~
" 0
3""
g ~
r.;; ~
n
'<
:>i
o
~-~
<T,,-~
" 0 0
-;, n 9-
~ !;II :e
~ ~ :.;-
.:...... n (;I
;=...,:>i0
CO' =- -. .,
en rtI ii" 0
o "";I~ =]'
< C C en
~fr==~'
='!;II i=r:/l
!2.::'-crD
~ :!.:; ~
0' ~ :';:;;
~ " '<
a ~ ~..:
:,) :II....
:i'-< g ~
0" Q) fi ('0
=H=C.
~ ~ iii n
(": VI - ~
!" :c~__
n t:"l
- ~
.
:;::=2:~~~
.., t:tI'rD (") ~ n ::-
< en ~ 0'" rD
~'O=.E..rD ~ ~
_ !II. if c- ~ a ~
if~ Co. 0' = tlJ 0
!;II C'll 0- m Co ~ =r
:" ;:;" n :::l ::t' .......:1_ ~o
n ::::: 0" 0 0 --,
i;)2..,,!~3n~
!!.m' ~.=-~ n
=~~(i'rD~~
..., =- -.,"'0.;::.' ~
::I C;;' ~ a '< ;'
~ =:":::'::::!
~. ;;:;'-. 00
n=--<;;:eCS
0' n c.. :::I
.., r. =- ('lI
=- !:::. :E
C. _ !:!!.
~ '< rD
.
-5~
"" n
~
"""
"-~
n ~.
~ "
" n
:>i :;;
!!""
~ 0
~Bi
~ "
~
n ~
g,,-
~
~. _.
" ,,;
za
"
~ "
~E..
e--
:>i :;
~
~
,go
"
!:l-
!t'
S
,,;
"
~;'
g:0'
::;r (;
U;' :'l
o' -.
::l "
:::';;
" ~
-c""
;.
~
0""
-,,,
!!'.'<
:!.CI:I
n "
- =.
;;
~
'<
~ ...,
,,-0
;=~
<=r m
=r"
"lJO
2.. :i'
t) f;
::l ~
:>i s: !:;- 3 "" ~
"
0 " " ~
e- ,., -
* :>i =r 20 <Q
:>i ;0 "
0 2."" " in III
a. -
~ " 0"
!! <TO> ;;
~ '<E. ,,; :::
";0
::1 ~ !O. ~
" =r ~ <=
" ~ "
!!' ~
"" =r
" ;; " g>
" ..- ;0
~ Co ,., ~
n. " <= n
!!' 0 "- g
" "
!:! " "- n
a. :>i " a
~ ;
1; n
"9 ;.
'!"
I
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
1lI'"
",,3
co
:::
-
co
14
I
I
I
3'
'tl
iii""
3~
co co
::: :::
ii'
14
I
I
~
1lI=-
""0
ii1
14
I
I
~
:l.
0::;:,
III co
-14
COlli
""
.....
I
I
I
r
}
;>-
~
~
-
, sl !
3'
::':1 "
m. ..
In "
-
..
"
Q.
~!
<I
2'1
~
co
3
In
,
,
(")
g
s:
. <::
~ 0 ~ 0' " t"l . '" ~
" =- no 0- :>: " ~ ~ Q.
~ no >; < 0 :... 0 01 :. ir
:> 0 0 a. Q, Q,~ -
~ no '5 cQ
" ~ -00 _. "
9:~~ < . ir ~ ~ " g
no 11 ;;' ..
Q, 0 0' ... 0 -
~ == :::::l ~ " " 0 0 0 0"
~ 11
c: ~: 3 0' .. " 0 =' ;; <: ~
"'? " 0 =; _ no C a "
,r 0 " ~ -.00
0. ~ >; 0 " o no !:? ~
0 .. ~ ~ 0 c c: " -
0 ~ " ;; ~ ~ " !!!.
0" g. ~ =..., :; !:? =- 0 o. :; 00.
-. ~ c: 0' ~ Q, "
0 Q, 0 no !:? " ::. .0 Q,
~ 00 ~ no c:
ii " " 0' '0 ~ ~ c~
(;' 0' >; 0
0 0 no g" ;...."=-' -
~ ~ " " Cl ;;;. ~ ?
no 00 " " - -
~ 0" .no -~ " g. ~ S ':: :- ;;
0' 3 " " " - '" "
Q, 0 ~ < no 0 -- ~
~ .. !? ~ 0 O'=" :;
~. c:I :. 11. - - ~::::
0; ~ 2- no
= 0 ;; ~ i5" ~
::. '< ~ " .5 t"l
N '< < a':-' ~
no .. m :...
a. '" 0;-
3' I
,,1
iiil
QI 3 I
"'",
"
- .
- ~I
3'
"
iii::E
3'"
III ..
" "
iii
Q,
.;;::
0
QI 2,
'" -
~
'"
Q,
;;;:
..
0:::
.. ..'
- Q,
..
QI
'"
.....
-~
J
"
,
t
I
J
I
I
I
J
1
~'o.
EXHIBIT NO..tL
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Tiburon Court Residential Development
-<
EXHIBIT 4 REVISED SCHEMA TIC LANDSCAPE PLAN
Botanical/Common Name Size' .Height 0 Spread 0
Trees
Aesculus caljfornica I California Buckeve 15 G 20 40
Aesculus californica I California Buckeve 24 B 20 40
Cercis occidentalis I Western Redbud 15 G 15 15
Fraxinus latifalia Ore.on Ash 24 B 50 30
Liauidambar stvracit1ua .. Palo ALIa" Sweet Gum 15G 50 20
Olea eUrODQ "Swan Hill" Eurooean Olive 24 B 30 30
Platanus acerifolia "Blood~ood" Plane Tree 24 I 36 B 40 30
Schinus malle California Peooer 24 B 30 35
Shrubs
Arcrostaoh\'ios "Howard McMinn" I Manzanita I 5G
ArcrostaDh\'Jos u. ursi I Manzanita I IG
Baccharis oilularis I Co vote Bush I 1 G
Ceanorhus "Dark Star" I Wild Lilac 5G
Ceannrhu5 "1. Phelps" I Wild Lilac 5G
Ceanothus "R. Hafeman" I Wild Lilac 5G
CiSIUS "Sunset" I Rockrose IG
Cistus saivifolius Prostfme Rockrose I IG
Erif!eron profusion I Aeabane I 4P
Eschschol:.ia califomica I California Pooov I 4P
Iris dour?lasii Dom!las Iris I 4P
Mahonia aouda/iurn Ore .on lITaoe I 5G
Rhamnus calirornica Coffee Berrv I IG
Romneva coulteri I Matiia Popov I IG
Sisvrinchium bellum I Blue-Eved Grass. IG
Zauschneria califomica I California Fischia IG
Grasses
Mulhlcnbenzia rif!ens Deer Grass I 1 G I
Pennisetum orientalis I Fountain Grass I IG
Vines
Ficus Dumila Creeoin. Fi. IG
Panhenocissus tricuspidatQ "Green Boston Ivy IG
Showers ..
Solanum iasminoides POlato Vine IG
Groundcover
ArctostaDh\'los "Emerald Carpet" Creeoine: Manzanita 1 G
Ceanothus .f?loriosus oorrectus Mt. Vision Wild Lilac 1 G
Fra1?aria chiloensis Wild StrawberrY 4P
M"ooorum oarvifolium M voporum Aats
Rubus ocntalobus B lackberrv 1 G
Hvdroseed Mix of native ~a.sses. oerennial flowers. low-growinc shrubs. and meadow mix
Source: lmpnms L:IDdSC:lpe Archttecrure
a Gallon (GI. inch. ball (B). and inch-pot (P) sizes at planting.
b Height in feet.
3-6
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: TIBURON COURT CORRESPONDENCE
DATE: JULY 20, 2001
~M
~t
~
Please find attached correspondence regarding the Tiburon Court
project received after preparation of the staff report on July 2,
2001.
Commissioners have previously received all other materials
associated with this item #4.
e7/22/2ee1 18:59
415435'3577
~A,'IA3:::':Y1E:."~'i ....j.,~=-:-. =-
LATE MAll # 4
TRESTLE GLEN HIL.L. COaL I I eE
e.everon M::af'-don
14 Juno RollI
T1bul'Oft. CA ....
415 ~, aGII
41& .'1 t~-
Data: July 21. 2001
To: Tiburon Planning Department
Scott Anderson, Planning Director
RECE\VEO
JUL.2 3 2001
Tiburon Planning Commi8$ion
Steve Stein, Chair
Alice Fredericks. Vice Chair
Miles Berger
Wayne snow
Paul Smith
PLAi"INIL"IG otPr\RTMENT
TO\%. OF TI8URON
From:
Karen Halsey, Susan Erb
on behalf of the Belveron .fl.ssociSJtion
and Adjacent Neighbors
Tiburon Court hearing on Mitigated Negative [)ec:l8l1IlIcn (1t25101)
~'1
'I:
Re:
To begin, we thank the project sponsors for their willingness to seek and he8I' the~'
of neighbors and we acknowledge the numerouS adjull!l,.en1S ttleY haw nwdIlIO..... .
Precise Development Plan taking into consideration our i1'l'Put and ~llQ .....;..."..'"
to the environmental, health, safety and visual impacts. i"
Since this is our first re'liew of an updated and re'lised plan. \heI1S are .. some
questions and concessions that we think need to be addressed bdkll'e 1tl81\nt11 ,,,.
resolution, Specifically: .
'!:<:, :11l
11 HeiGht Restrictions we notice that the visible height upon comP\etiOC'I win be ·
measured from natural grade ranging from 10' to 20' and the finished gnlde n..,dIlUft .
heightS ranging from 20' to 24'. Under any circurretances, could the beltJW gm6i'\ C
building be exposed. thus, increasing the visible mass of lhe hC)U8I8?
21 Cut and Fill since more hoUse is to be below ground, how win that stfett cut and fit .
for the project? Prior. without a level below natural grade, Ilere was 110 be no iIII ar
excess. Will there be soil removal now and hOW mJcn?
3\ ReUllnlna Walls where and how high will any retaining walllI be?
-~
".
,
\
.
,
\
.
\
"
.
,
i
I
1
1
.
1'2'2/'2001 19:59
~15435'l577
......... and" ~ one \00
. ,ot..... lot....... \0 .. ""'" ".... - ":::""....-~ ~...
~ ,';;' ,,,, \0 ....- "":; r,.":" ""'..::;: - "'" \0.........
""'" ,....,.-"". 5.... ON' ... \0....... \0'" -." ..... ..-
....... __ \0 ,..... """ ~'" ,... ..... -...-..........
..... "" 10"-- . -- \0 ,..... ............~...
.'" ."'................ ,....."'" .......",;".......... _.... 3.....
not _, to blod<....~... .0<;:,""':::'.:...... ~ ... ........
landScape draWlt19 \nd\ca~&. ".e a
state.
. ____ ......_..or.....-
n,"''''''' F....U ,"'" ,,,,,,,,tel''''''' --- -- .... -....-
- ... """'... ..... """ opp<O!'.... ......... -,.:..... -- .- ....
.......... "',oa...... bY'" - ... ... ~ ~ \,..-.. .... ",..,'" ~-"'"
..-.....\ .. _... _ ... 0 0 """"""'................
.. ...-. ".......""....!"..... -........ ... ~ .......... """,,,' "
,'::", _"'. b'" "",,. _n "'" ~ ied":;'" .::... -" d-"'... . ,"
.,,...-.. _"'" ""n"" _. -' an , . '
....,.....' .."" .,.. ..-'" .... """ ..... '
_.........,ers..,;.ll _n\~ ~_f p,-",ngI
n,F.OC1.......' ...... ...,~b" .... -.:;;;;... .... ..... ... "" ;.,...0 ...."
ffom the "as\ arra'l 01 'I/IldI11e. fenCl,~~\S I""'''~ ach"eve
.... _.... me ..... "'" _......... .. he \0 ' '
n ,..me .,.............-.- dUO \0 --,.:"'"' -:::::r ,,;::',;,.....
"""""",."" ",nnot-" .- ,... .......... .;-"""""" (.......
_~ \0 ,....-on ........., ",ea.""" --..-
'3 da,/s) must be gi"en,
. C.......n ,I" ""at;o me ~............ -.................
groundbreaKit19 to comPletion ot nomes,
d 0\ ..-r~b8an~dI~~or.
C '" ..\tV .._''''' .01- ...n"~ W --..- ,,,
__ .. _ .......'n "" ,no< ...... ,- ·
.-"" "" ....,.. ."",,' ........ on.......
".... o<Oi""...."" '" , ................. "" - - ~ to ..::.=t.;;'.......
,,,.,...,... "...-.. ..........,..... G"'" ................ ~..-.. -...
..." ,..",.. ,n,''''-'''''''' .- "" ,- ~~",;;;w"" -...
W. ... ...... _,......'" o<Oi""""- \0 ..-- . "" .. an -"...
..'" 01 ..... ,.._ _"""" \0 on- ",at "':'!.::' ..........:.=- .... ... · .........
_n" at,.... not"" \0'" ,- "" -- ' . '
_n" 0< <eO"""'"
l'
~
\
'.
"
l
t
\
\
l
t
\
i
LAT~ 1V1AIL #f
K C/vc5e 1 C^f;+~c^d\:- ~
,
5. The maximum gross floor area, as defined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance,
allowed to be constructed on each lot shall not exceed 2,900 square feet, plus up
.. . to 600 square feet of garage space for each lot.
6. Buildings and accessory buildings shall be confined to the approved "building
envelope" on each lot, as shown on the approved 1 "=20' scale Precise
Development Plan Grading & Drainage Plan. No tennis courts are permitted.
7. No improvements of any type, including fencing and landscaping, shall be
permitted outside the approved "residential use area" shown on the approved
1"=50' Site Plan, except those required subdivision and construction-related
improvements shown on the approved Precise Development Plan drawings.
S. Setbacks shall be as set forth on the approved I "=20' scale Precise Development
Plan Grading & Drainage Plan, with the following additional setback
requirements as set forth in application materials:
a. Lot 1 buildings shall be set back 120 feet from the existing pavement edge
of Trestle Glen Boulevard
bLot 4 buildings shall be set back 85 feet from the existing pavement edge of
Trestle Glen Boulevard.
c. Lot 3 and Lot 4 buildings shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the
"top of bank" of the intermittent stream.
d. Setbacks between residences shall be at least 50 feet measured from
outside wall to outside wall.
79
Maximum height of residences, as defined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, shall
be as follows
a. Lots 1, 2, and 3 shall not exceed 24 feet in height f[Qm tillished !!fade at
any point; Lot 4 shall not exceed 20 feet in height from finished_g[adJ:: at
any point.
b. Height from existing: (ore-oroiect) Ratttral grade for Lot I shall range from
10 to [8 feet but shall not exceed IS feet at any point.
c. Height from exislin!:tiore-llliliect) aat',lfal grade for Lot 2 shall range from
12 to IS feet but shall not exceed 18 feet at any point.
d. Height from exiSlinQ.fpre-proi.e_cll Rsturtll grade for Lot 3 shall range from
12 to 20 feet but shall not exceed 20 feet at any point.
e Height from ~!:tipre-DJ:Qi.e_CJ) Rstttral grade for Lot 4 shall range from
10 to 16 feet but shall not exceed 16 feet at any point.
f Accessory structures may not exceed 15 feet in height at any point.
Existing (w:.e-prQiect) grade shall be b=d.J.!pon the approy-ed I "=20' scale Precise
Devel()fJmelll Plan Gm,{ilJg ,'(_Drainage Plan
Tiburon Planning Commissinn
Rc~n\u\i(m No. 2001-
--/--/2001
4
67/23/2661 11:44
415-435-5754
RAHDY GRE::NB~RG
P~G:: En
~RTEMAIL #L.
-~
,
TO:
Planning Commission
Scott Anderson, Planning Director
RECEIVED
FM:
Randy Greenberg
JUl 242001
DATE:
July 23, 2001
PLANNING OEPAR rMENT
TOWN Of nBURON
Tibur<>n Court Mitigated Negative Declaration and Preci.e Development
Plan
RE:
, apologize that this letter is coming to you so late, I hope you will lind time to read it and
consider my comments before the July 25th hearing on Tiburon Court,
Open Sptlce protection. Since I made the initial argument that common open space oft1.-red
the best protection for open space areas on the property, 1 fee! I should publicly state my
change in position. Staff is recommending that the protected opel! space be on individual,
private lots instead of being held in common by all the property owners in this subdivision.
While J believe this approach may not be preferred for all subdivisions, since the open space
on this property is visible to large numbers of people, and since the Tovm has good
experience in enforcement with this strategy, [ believe staff's solution is preferred i1l this case
and I would urge you to adopt its recorrunendation. .
Precise Development Plan and Mitil!ated Nel!tltive Declaration.
I believe that there are several impacts of the project that either have not been mitigated to an
insignificant level or about which there is not enough information Ie make a determination.
Mitigations need to be put in place before acceptance of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and approval of the Precise Development Plan. Please do not act in haste 011 a project that
thousands of residents will look at every day, forever.
A. VisuallmDacts. These are not addressed at all in the mitigation monitoring plan which
has deemed these impacts less than significant. 1 believe that the Commission should find
that mitigations are required lOr the visual impacts of the current project plan. These should
be included in the monitoring plan and adjustments made in the Precise Plan accordingly.
Thcse include the visual impacts of a house on Lot 4, fences, retaining ",ails, buttressed
terraces lor slide repair. and the uncertainty of whether the steepness of slopes being repaired
allows them to be revegetated.
1. Lot ... At not one, but two. Planning Commission hearings the applicant was
asked to come back with a 3-unit plan, primarily because of concerns about visual impacts,
particularly from the house nearest the road on Lot 4, Instead of removing a lot from the plan,
the applicant has lowered the conceptual houses and changed their conceptual design and
materiah. The fact is thaI a house on LoI 4 remains a signijkant, and unacceptable, visual
impacl, The story poles and netting understate the impact of this proposed house, since it
appears that the ridge netting is where the ii'ont of the house is. But this netting is situated in
the middle of the main room - the front of the house is many feet forward of this netting. The
house is at least 100% larger than homes in the Be1veron neighborhood, and appears to be
Greenberg Tiburon Court comment,
7/23101
Page I of3
.
415-435-5754
;;'~>1~."r .;l.~,:",:,,- ,:....- ..'
07/23/2001 11;44
_..r
c
-:'!'"'
. .,
.,
significantly larger than the two other homes further up Trestle Glen right near the Tre;tle
GlenlParadise Drive intersection that front the roadway. Indeed, it stands out as the only
home that actually fronts the road from Tiburon Blvd. all the way up to Hacienda, The t\liO
other homes, older and small, are mostly well hidden behind large, mature trees. This will
never be the case for the proposed building envelope on Lot 4, despite conceptual drawings
that show large trees virtually blocking views of the house at 3 years after building. Such
landscaping would block significant outward views from the house and would never be put in
place, And the buffer being proposed to keep the roadway frontage natural will do nothing to
lessen the impact of this house. It is still is going to stick out like a sore thumb along the
roadway and from the Belveron neighborhood. A house as proposed for Lor 4 should be
removed from the plan. One Commissioner, at the January 10, 2001 hearing suggested 3
houses of 3,000 square feet, TItree houses, not four, are appropriate for this parcel. Four
houses is the maximum density allowed, only if all other standards of the General Plan are
met. A reduction of one house will reduce runoff from this project, a source of continuing
concern to the neighborhood below, and woald increase parking opportunities for the
subdivision. Eliminating the house on Lot 4 will significantly reduce the visual impact of the
project. Please do not approve a Precise Plan showing 4 lots,
2. General Plan policy OSC-4: View Corridon, The.presence of the house on
lot 4 makes the project incon.sistent with this policy, which says that development should be
located to protect views to the maximum extent feasible, Both from the road and for the
neighbors below it, this house is a major intrUsion,
3. OSC. 0.13 "Ooen soaee views from kev roadwavS, iricluding.."Trestle
Glen Boulevard, should be maintained to the extent feasible through the development review
process as well as the adoption of specific criteria for locating new development through the
review process. Development should be encouraged in areas where it least interferes with
inboard and outboard views." to the maximum extent feasible." The presence of Lot 4
continues to make the project inconsistent with this General Plan language.
4, Imnaet F.Hd), This mitigation addresseS debris t10ws and additional areas of
questionable stability. It says their repairs shall in,'olve stabilization and/or deflection, This
mitigation should include appropriate revegetation where vegetation is removed.
Revegetation is specificallY included for some grading actions, but not for these, In addition,
it is not clear to me if the initial description of slide repairs that says that "finished grade shall
be designed as a series of buttressed terraces" is stil1 planned. Some more natUIa1 look ing
alternative to terracing should be found, or the visual impacts of such a solution should
inducte approved mitigations.
5. OSC-ll. GradinJl,. There is an unknown amount of grading associated with
slide repair and lot preparation. The !;tatement in the Initial Study, Exhibit 8, appears to have
been ignored in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. This states: "Finished grades after
landslide repair may be toO steep to cover riprap with soil and plants." The visual impacts of
this have not been addressed at all. The mitigation should include some altemative solution(s)
if revegetation doesn'l work.
Greenberg T,buron CC'urt C\1mments
7/13;01
Page 2 of3
07/23/2081 11:44
415-435-670....
.~~I"1::'Y ':;;::;:::':::'"',e.:..,:':,'...)
,-....,..;l=... '-'..:l
~
~~.
~
6. Revel!etation. The mitigation suggested in the Grassetti report should be
adl1pted. It says "Mitigation fur grading to allow for successful revegetation must b~
incorporated. After grading onsite, soil tests must be taken and sent for "agricultural
suitability" analysis to an approved soil testing lab. It is common aft~r such grading activity
for subsoil to be deposited 00 or near surface with high salts, extremely high or low pH,
nutrient deficiency or toxicity - all of which can stunt plant growth or even prevent it. If any
of these is found, corrective measures must be taken to restore soils to original condition to
sufficient depths. "
7, Fencine, Fencing should not be allowed on this highly visible site, This is not
a neighborhood off a residential street. It isa hillside development on a major thoroughfare
and will be seen by hundreds, perhaps thousands. of people each day Fences will chop up the
hillside: into little compartments and draw attention to development. Certainly, if fences are
allowed, they will create a significant visual impact that should be addressed with adopted
mitigations. Give the DRB and the Be1veron neighborhood a break, and prohibit fencing in
thc Precise Development Plan.
8. Retain!"!! walls aDd associated eradilllZ, Questions about retaining walls for
the houses have not been answered, Such walls can have substantial visual impacts and Can
require excessive grading, especially where portior,s of the house are underground. Vvbile
such walls behind a house will not be visible when the house is viewed straight on, straight on
is only one aspect of the public view. Impacts are being assessed, and mitigations are being
proposed, and probably accepted, on the basis of the information the applicant is offering,
which includes siting of homes and their specific heights. Because these specifics are being
offered as important mitigations. he should also provide information on the size and length of
retaining walls required for the construction of such houses on each of the lots, along with the
am(lUnt 0 f cut and fill for each of them, Mitigations can create their own impacts, which
should also be assessed. The idea that retaining walls will be governed by approvals at the
DRB level is only partly true. Your approval of the Precise Plan. with specific building
envelopes, heights. setback and very specific design guidelines will establish what is likely to
happen with retaining walls. We should have this information now. Silence on th" part of the
applicant does not allow for assessment.
B. Landscalle buffer alone: Trestle Glen Crontal!e, . Even if the landscape bufier
required ofthe developer is restricted to frontage along the developed areas of the property, I
am concerned it is not of adequate width along this length to accomplish its function, The
goal of the buffer is. that travelers on the road and in nearby neighborhoods will experience a
sense of natural envirownent first, and not the fact that they are looking at a subdivision along
this transitional corridor. It appears that the closest corner of Lot 4 is about 60 feet from the
10' casement and that the residential use area in front of the house moves about 30 feet closer
to the easement than the house itself This leaves insufficient width for the buffer. At
previous Planning Commission meetings, 1 recall width~ of between 60 and 75 feet being
discussed as appropriate. While the applicant is apparently offering to create a buffer, I do
not believe he has provided room to create it as the Planning Commission has envisioned it.
This mitigation without space to accomplish it in a meaningful way, does not reduce visual
impacts or sufficientZv maintain the sense afnatural transition to the east side, as intended
Greenberg Tiburon Court comments
7/23/01
Page 3 01'3
'-::"',7_~':,O.--:-:,..;_:::..'..;",-:-:-"'-
;:Z:8~~;;~~t~~~::;,:';':-;:,~:':.' ..
'5~::::if":;.FRCI't ~. M. LAG I OS
,r-: ::..'~. ':' :-': :n';" ,-'. :.' ..
PHQ...1E NO.
]" l. 20 2"'"'1 "'2: 48PM P1
.:',~'~- '. 'i-:,,'.-:-:.,..{. . -:-.:.'
~
~ATE 1V1AIL II + ~~..
11 Benton Court
Tiburon, California 94920
July 18. 2001
To:
Ttburon Planning Commission
Ttburon Planning Department
From:
Michael and Sheila Lagios
Re:
Revised Precise Development Plans
Ttburon Court
Gentlemen:
Thank you for the story pole plan which we received today (July 18).
We appreciate that the developers have scaled back the individual units from
4700 sq. ft, per residence to 3500 sq, ft" and commend them on their utilization
of more natural exterior building materials and appearances. However, we are
still concerned by the size and impact of these homes. For perspective the
smaller size is approximately twice the square footage of our home (including
garage) and three times the size of the majority of the homes in Be/veron.
We are extremely disappointed that tbe developers have ignored the planning
commissions prior recommendations (September 27, 2000 and January 10,
2001) to reduce the number of homes to three. We are also sorry not to see a
synthesized photo montage of the revised homes, It is clear however from ,the
story poles that this development still cteates a major visual impact on the
Trestle Glen transition corridor. The impact still challenges the character of this
rural buffer. From the story pole delineation it seems to us that the most
significant impact when traveling east on T~e Glen is from lots one and two.
We still believe that only two dwellings should be allowed on this property to
reduce this impact.
Our other major concern ;s the impact that this development will have on the
already greatly increased traffic which has occurred in the past five years on
Trestle Glen. The limitation 10 two homes would allow this developments impact
on traffic to be reducad.
Smcerely.
/T,(.;.L~
-;:
"TffiURON COURT" RESIDENTIAL PROJECT; PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TO CREATE FOUR BUILDING SITES ON A 13.34 PARCEL AND REVIEW OF A
FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SOUTH SIDE OF TRESTLE
GLEN BOULEVARD; ROUND-TWO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, OWNER;
DONHENDERSON AND CRAIG PILGRIM APPLICANTS, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 058-061-80 & 86.
Planning Director Anderson reviewed the staff report and commented that this project was
previously reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 11, 2000, and January 10, 2001.
Revisions to the project made in between those meetings were deemed to be insufficient and
the Planning Commission directed at its January 10 meeting that further revisions be made
before the item was returned for review.
Planning Director Anderson then questioned if is was the intent of the Commission that the
entire frontage of the property be improved with the naturalized landscape buffer,
approximately 60' deep or whether it would be applied only to where the homes would be
located, Planning Director Anderson further commented that ~he schematic landscaping plan
needs to be further enhanced and would be presented to the Planning Commission at the next
stage of review.
Planning Director Anderson stressed that it was most important to hold this project to all
proposed materials, colors, design, and height limits. The project that is built must very
closely resemble the project in the application materials,
Planning Director also reviewed a modification to Condition #9 in the resolution, to further
substantiate that house heights will be tied not only to finished grade but also to the pre-project
grade,
Planning Director Anderson stated that. the essential matter before the Commission was
whether four less obtrusive, smaller homes would be acceptable on the site as opposed to three
homes of somewhat larger size. The applicant has chosen to present a plan for four smaller
homes, The Planning Director commented that the question for the Planning Commission was
whether the proposed mass and height reductions have gone far enough to accept the four
units; if further mass and height reductions are necessary; or if a density reduction to three
units is essential to make the project acceptable.
Commissioner Fredericks addressed the issue of landslide repair using highly visible riprap,
and whether such areas could be successfully revegetated,
Louise Nichols, Nichols-Berman, environmental consultant to the Town, stated that the use of
riprap has been eliminated from the project; She further commented that the currently
proposed landslide repair would create a slope that would retain plant material and provide
erosion control. Ms, Nichols stressed that a key factor was how excavation was performed to
accomplish the landslide repair. .
'nBlJRON PLANNING COMMISSION
APp".
. . 'i~''''''
II \i.'\u~' .-
MINUTES
MINUTES NO.847 OF IUL Y 25, 2001
EXHIBI'I' No.I
"
:~.
~
,
Commissioner Berger requested a clarification of the placement of the proposed pathways.
Planning Director Anderson stated that the Ridge Trail alignment on the left side of the map is
fairly well located, but that the precise placement of the lateral pathway across the property
will be determined further along in the project review process.
Following a slide show presentation, Scott Hochstrasser, applicant's representative, made the
following comments regarding the proposed project: the four houses had been reduced by an
average of 1,780 square feet each overall; heights had been reduced substantially; open space
was incorporated as a designation of development; adequate parking had been provided; there
appeared to be low impact to existing ecosystems; and that the project provides public trails
and bike pathways with the corresponding public benefit.
Mr. Hochstrasser requested approval of a four-unit subdivision, .
Commissioner Smith stated that he had concerns regarding the appropriate spacing of the
houses, and that the net result was that the houses tended to blend together and appear as one
large structure.
Mr. Hochstrasser responded that the houses had been redesigned to appear as one-story, and
that several modifications had been made to reduce the cluster etfect horizontally,
Chairman Stein asked for an explanation of what was meant by the term "basement",
Mr, Hochstrasser responded that the term was defined in the Staff Report and that the
"basement" could be described as livable space, but is not counted in the gross floor area,
Planning Director Anderson confirmed that a "basement" may be used as Iivablelhabitable
space but is substantially below grade and does not add to the visual mass and bulk of a home.
Mr, Hochstrasser commented that the major concern was the potential visual impact. He
further stated that 12.26 acres remain open. He further stated that the overall density on the
surrounding properties is in excess of 4 units per acre.
Mr, Brad Eckstein, landscape architect, stated that the goal of the project was to maintain the
existing rural character of the site and to use native plant material of varying sizes that was
natural in appearance, and drought tolerant. In accordance with the Commission's request
from a previous meeting, plant material will be increased in the buffer zone.
Commissioner Berger responded that it was critical that the ultimate height of any large
planting in the buffer zone would still leave the hillside view open to homes located below the
proposed project
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
7
MINUTES NO.1!47 OF JULY 25, 2001
.,
"
,
Mr. Eckstein agreed that was the intent of the proposed landscape plan,
Discussion was opened to the public at 9:30 PM,
Jack Gaines, 526 Comstock Drive, stated that he was concerned with the impact of the project
on those properties located to the rear,
Brian Denton, 199 Stewart Drive, commented that he and several neighbors were concerned
with the impact on properties which overlook the proposed project. Mr. Denton further stated
that any Environmental Impact Report address traffic on Trestle Glen Boulevard as well as any
potential landslide issues, He added that these matters should be studied in overall context of
other proposed development in the area, Mr. Denton said that it was his opinion that the
applicant had not made the meaningful changes requested by the Planning Commission and that
the applicant had made no attempt to contact the Tiburon Knolls Homeowners Association and
neighborhood associations in Belveron and Trestle Glen. Mr, Denton requested that any
Environmental Impact Report address traffic congestion, soil problems and the applicant be
required to meet with the affected Homeowners Associations .and present a report of those
meetings to the Planning Commission,
Jerry Aldridge, Paradise Cay, stated that the proposed project would have a huge impact on the
Trestle Glen corridor; that the houses would not "disappear" when viewed from above; that
the cumulative effect of all potential developments in the area needed to be considered.
Michael Lagios, 11 Benton Court, commented that Trestle Glen was intended to be a transition
corridor and that the Planning Commission should give serious consideration to the impact of
allowing the proposed project to go forward at all in this somewhat fragile corridor with its
open grasslands, Mr. Lagios also addressed the subject of the impact on bicycle traffic as a
result of the proposed Tiburon Court project.
Janica Anderson, 3 Mercury Avenue, stated that the proposed area of development was one of
the last remaining green corridors in Tiburon. She requested that the Planning Commission
consider the possibility of an additional public trail located on the lower end of Trestle Glen
Boulevard.
Karen Halsey, 14 Juno Road, stated that the applicant had met with her Homeowners
Association on several occasions, Ms, Halsey was cori~erned about the size of the proposed
homes and asked what the additional downstairs storage areaslbasements add to the livable
space. She also inquired whether the proposed homes were designed as split-level or two-story
homes. Ms, Halsey stated that the Planning Commission should consider the precedent that
might be set with regard to future development in the area.
Randy Greenberg, Norman Way. commented that she supported the staff preference for private
open space on the proposed properties. Ms Greenberg said that the overwhelming visibility of
the project from several neighborhoods and from the roadway necessitated the removal of Lot
4 from the plan. Ms Greenberg further stated that the applicant had not complied with
TIBIIRON PLANNING COMMISSION
8
MtNUTES NO.847 OF JULY 25, 2001
~
r.
,
previous requests from the Planning Commission for presentation of a three-unit development.
Ms. Greenberg advised that the General Plan (OSC-2, OSC-3 and OSC-4) support the removal
of Lot 4 from the proposed development. Ms Greenberg asked that the Planning Commission
consider the precedent that would be set regarding development on a parcel along lower Trestle
Glen if Lot 4 were allowed to remain. Ms Greenberg requested that the Planning Commission
reduce the project to three units,
John Goodhart, 280 Loma, requested clarification of the term "basement."
Scott Durkee, 12 Venus Court, commented that he does not oppose the project. He inquired as
to the role of the Town in the Trestle Glen corridor, and stated that he believed that it is
necessary to provide a safer corridor by reducing speed on Trestle Glen andlor placing a stop
sign on lower Juno Road.
Chair Stein stated that traffic concerns have been addressed at previous meetings and will be
again.
Ian Sandolan, 11 Shepard Way, stated that the underlying theme of the di~cussion was one of
open space and asked if the Planning Commission and the community at large would deal with
the several proposed developments in the Tiburon Court area in a piecemeal fashion or with an
overall view towards preserving open space,
Scott Hochstrasser, applicant's planning consultant, stated that the project sponsor had met
with Mr. Denton. Mr. Hochstrasser further commentt;d that the proposed houses had been
reduced from an initial footprint of 4000 ft to 2000 feet and that the interior design was split.
Mr. Hochstrasser remarked that Lot 4 was not located "on the roadway", and in fact there was
a 90 foot setback from the edge of the pavement which would be further reduced to 80 feet by
the offer of an easement of 10 feet. Mr, Hochstrasser also stated that streetlights would be
down lights, and other aspects of the project would be addressed during the design review
process,
Commissioner Fredericks asked Mr. Hochstrasser to explain the 85-foot measurement as
presented on Lot 4,
Mr, Hochstrasser responded that the measurement was from the corner of the house and
included the residential use area around the building envelope.
The public hearing was closed at 10:05 PM
Commissioner Berger stated that term "basements" is defined by the planning code as a
measurement which is designed to make a distinction between floor area that is above ground
and that which is significantly below ground and which is not calculated as part of the floor
area because it does not affect visual bulk or height. Commissioner Berger also commented
that the applicant had resi'onded to the Commission's request to reduce the size of the houses
in height, mass and visibility; that the revised materials and color palate employs tones and
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
9
MINUTE.< NO.1l47 OF IVL Y 25, 2001
;-,
.
{:
~.
~
materials that are rich, dark and natural. Commissioner Berger further stated that guest
parking had been redesign~d and is ,now ,adequate and well situated; that the project as
originally designed was 100 dose to tlie riparian corridor but is now set back 50 feet from the
creek; retaining walls are more integrated into the overall design; units have been lowered into
the hill; units and . grade in the redesigned project have been pulled back from the buffered
zone, Commissioner Berger also said that much had been done by the applicant to mitigate the
effect of the house at Lot 4. Commission~r Berger further stated that the original design did
not show any public walkways or bicycle paths for public use, however, the new design will
incorporate these features before final approval. Commissioner Berger said that the lowered
impacts of the redesigned project have contributed to the principal goal of making certain that
the Trestle Glen corridor is preserved in as natural a setting as possible. Commissioner Berger
stated that the applicant has made a reasonilble e(fort to comply with the requirements set forth
by the Planning Commissi,!n and that he is prepared to support the application to develop four
units with certain conditions. Commissipner B'erger listed the following modifications: the
residential use area in Lot. 4 should be backed up at least an additional ten feet; the sanitary
sewer line should be backed up ten feet to preserve that location as an untouched area;
pathways and bicycle pat~s should be a~ded o,r improved; trees on the project should be
marked on survey to avoid damage and/~r replaced with trees of consistent size; extensive,
natural landscaping should 'be accomplishe'd along the entire length of the street.
Commissioner Fredericks stated that she had two concerns with the redesigned project, She
described those concerns as including the closeness of the story poles depicting the roof ridge
of Lot 4 10 the roadway, as well as the stacking ~ffect as seen from Trestle Glen Boulevard due
to the horizontal mass and closeness of t~e houses in combination with their size,
Commissioner Fredericks commented that this e'ffect could be mitigated by further reducing the
size of the proposed houses so that there is more space between the houses, or by decreasing
the size of the house on Lot 4 so that it is located further back from the roadway.
Commissioner Snow stated that the applicant has made some significant changes but that the
main issue before the Commission was the impact on the view corridor up Trestle Glen
Boulevard due to the clustering effect of the proposed houses. Commissioner Snow
commented that he would support houses of smaller size andlor a reduction in the size of the
proposed structure on Lot 4. Commissioner Snow further stated that he felt that wider setback
would be more appropriate and that the Commission must be concerned with the cumulative
impact on the Trestle Glen area.
Commissioner Smith commented that the developer has lowered the structures in an effort to
. make the project work, Commissioner Smith Slated that he was in agreement with
Commissioner Berger regarding shrinking the residential use area on Lot 4, and protecting the
existing trees during construction, Commissioner Smith commented that the greatest impact
would be on the view corridor up Trestle Glen and that every effort should be directed towards
mitigating that impact.
Chair Stein thanked the applicant and those citizens whCl commented on the proposed Tiburon
Court project. Chair Stein read several sections from the General Plan referring to the Open
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
10
MINUTES NO.1l47 OF llJLY 25. 2001
1
.
~
:~-.
"
Space Element and stated that the primary goal of the Planning Commission regarding the
Tiburon Court application was the preservation of open space, views and visibility "to the
maximum extent feasible," Chair Stein stated that due to the cluster effect of four large
houses, attention is drawn to the development and the sense of open space is lost along the
Trestle Glen corridor.
Commissioner Berger commented that he prefers a development of four houses as redesigned
by the applicant, with the proper screening as an indispensable element.
Chair Stein responded that a viable alternative would be three houses of the size currently
proposed by the applicant, or four homes of a further reduced size,
Commissioner Fredericks stated that she would prefer a larger setback on Lot 4 and perhaps a
reorientation of the structure in order to preserve the rural aspect and transitional character of
Trestle Glen Boulevard,
Commissioner Smith commented that the Commission might.wish to consider rotating the
house on Lot 4, but he was not convinced that any further reduction in the size of the proposed
houses would result in less of a visual impact.
Commissioner Berger stated that the stacking effect could be mitigated by the planting of a
strong and complete buffer of trees along Trestle Glen Boulevard frontage. He also
commented that he agreed with Commissioner Fredericks that the house on Lot 4 should be
moved back, and an additional ten feet should be lopped off the residential use area.
Chair Stein said that a possible solution may be to look at the proposed development on a
house by house basis in terms of size,
Commissioner Smith stated that with modifications to the size, placement and orientation of the
structure on Lot 4, he believed that the requirement to "preserve open space to the maximum
extent possible" would be accomplished,
Commissioner Berger commented that the space between the proposed house on Lot 4 and
Trestle Glen Boulevard was the key area to keep out of residential use, Commissioner Berger
further stated that another alternative would be to mow the house on Lot 4 back and to the
side.
Chair Stein said that it was not the mandate of the Commission to redesign the houses on the
proposed development but that the Commission could direct the developer to return with a
proposed plan which included houses of a smaller size.
Chair Stein believed that the developer had made a substantial effort to comply with the
direction of the Commission but that the overall visual impact of the. proposed development
remains and needs to be further mitigated, Chair Stein said that the consensus of the
"nBERON PLANNING COMMISSION
11
MINUms NO.847 OF JULY 25, 2001
.,
.
~
~"':..
,
Commission appeared to be that further modifications of the project are appropriate,
particularly to the proposed house on Lot 4.
Commissioner Berger urged that the residential use area associated with Lot 4 be moved
twenty feet further away from and parallel to Trestle Glen. Boulevard, and that the house
located on Lot 4 be relocated so that at its closest point the house is twenty feet further back
than is currently proposed. Commissioner Berger said he has a strong interest in relocating the
sanitary sewer line out of the open space area. Commissioner Berger commented further that a
reduction in the size of the house proposed for Lot 4 accompanied by possible reorientation
should be explored with the goal of lowering the visua! impact of the proposed project.
Commissioner Fredericks said that the benefit of reducing the size of the house on Lot 4 was to
provide more flexibility in orienting the house to minimize the visual impact.
Commission Berger stated that as currently designed, the house on Lot 4 presents no face
parallel to Trestle Glen Boulevard,
Chair Stein said he remained concerned with the concentrated look of the project.
Commissioner Smith said that any direction to the applicant should be made with the goal of
lowering the visual impact of the project.
Commissioner Berger said that the redesigned project should come back to the Commission so
that all the Commissioners can see the modified plans and view the adjusted story poles, He
further stated that the focus of any redesign should be narrowed to the items the Commission
had already outlined,
Chair Stein said that if the Commission decides to continue the item to another meeting, it
should be for the purpose of obtaining a redesigned project with a substantial reduction
involving of all the proposed units,
Commissioner Berger stated that Lot 4 with its proximity to Trestle Glen Boulevard is his
primary area of concern, and commented that he could support the project as currently
designed with certain modifications to Lot 4, He outlined those modification as: the structure
is moved twenty feet further back; the building envelope and residential use area are moved
twenty feet further back; the floor area is reduced by ten percent; and the house length is
shortened,
Chair Stein asked Planning Director Anderson if the Commission could accomplish some small
changes to the project without continuing the item to a future meeting.
Planning Director Anderson responded that it was his opinion that the Commission could limit
future public input to the changes proposed to Lot 4, but that a continuance was unavoidable,
TIDURON PLANNtNG COMMISSION
12
MlNUTF..5 NO.847 01' JULY 25. 2001
.
.'
f
{:
~,
~
MIS Berger/Snow (5-0) to direct the applicant to return to the Commission with modifications
to Lot 4, that do not preclude changes to the other lots; with the changes directed towards
preserving the buffered edge along Trestle Glen and lowering the visual impact of the project
as a whole and Lot 4 in particular. With respect to Lot 4, the residential use area line shall be
moved back 20 feet further from Trestle Glen Boulevard but retain its current angle to Trestle
Glen Boulevard; that the closet point of the residence to Trestle Glen Boulevard be moved back
an additional 20 feet; that the square footage as measured in the application be reduced by an
additional 300 square feet; that the modifications to the design be specifically addressed to
reduce the profile as seen from the approach going east on Trestle Glen Boulevard ; and that
the sanitary sewer easement be moved further back or reconfigured to minimize intrusion into
the landscape buffer along Trestle Glen Boulevard.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 PM
l:t~ Jtk
STEVE STEIN, CHAIR
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATTEST:
~()~
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
MOOO308
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISStON
13
MINUTES NO.847 OF JULY 25, 2001
,
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. h- /
-
MEETING DATE 10/24/2001
To: PLANNING COMMISSION
From: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR~
. Subject: FILE #39903: "TlBURON COURT" RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (PD#ISB).
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CREATE FOUR BUILDING SITES ON A
13.34 ACRE PARCEL AND REVIEW OF A FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION; SOUTH SIDE OF TRESTLE GLj:N BOULEVARD; Round-
Two Development. LLC, owner; Don Henderson and Craig Pilgrim, applicants;
Assessor's Parcel No. 58-061-80 & 86
Date: OCTOBER 10,2001
PRO.JECT DATA
Address:
South (upslope) side of Trestle Glen Boulevard west of its
intersection with Turtle Rock Court (PD# IS8)
58-061-80 & S6
39903
L (Low Density Residcntial (up to 0.3 du/aere)
RI'D (Rcsid Planned Devel Zone - up to 0.3 du/acre)
13.34 acres
APNo.
File No.
General Plan
Zoning:
Property Size:
Subdivision:
Current Use:
Owner:
Applicant:
P1'vl10-8 (1974)
Undeveloped land
Round-Two Development Joint Venture
Don Henderson & Craig Pilgrim
BACKGROUND
This project was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 11, 2000, January
10,2001, and July 25,2001. At its meeting of July 25,2001, the Planning Commission provided
very specific direction to the applicant, focusing on modilications to proposed Lot 4 to reduce the
its visual impact and enhance the bufTered edge along Trestle Glen Boulevard Minutes of the
July 25,2001 meeting are attached as Exhibit I The final motion of the Commission was as
follows:
Tiburon Planning Commission
Slaff Repolt
10/24/2001
1
EXHIBIT NO. ez
..
MIS BergerlSnow (5-0) to direct the applicant to return to the Commission with
modifications to Lot 4, that do not preclude changes to the other lots; with the changes
directed towards preserving the buffered edge along Trestle Glen and lowering the visual
impact of the project as a whole and Lot 4 in particular With respect to Lot 4, the
residential use area line shall be moved back 20 feet further from Trestle Glen Boulevard
but retain its current angle to Trestle Glen Boulevard; that the closet point of the residence
to Trestle Glen Boulevard be moved back an additional 20 feet; that the square footage as
measured in the application. be reduced by an additional 300 square feet; that the
modifications to the design be specifically addressed to reduce the profile as seen from the
approach going east on Trestle Glen Boulevard; and that the sanitary sewer easement be
moved further back or reconflgured to minimize intrusion into the landscape buffer along
Trestlc Glen Boulevard.
Planning Commission comments and direction focused on the foll'owing items
L Preserve the buffered edge along Trestle Glen Boulevard and lowering the visual mass of
the project (partiCLIlarly Lot 4) fl.om Trestle Glen Boulevard. The direction was to create
a substantial landscape bufTer along Trestle Glen Boulevard, and provide substantial
landscaping around the house on Lot 4 (especially facing Trestle Glen Boulevard) in order
to reduce the profIle of Lot 4 as seen from a vehicle moving east on Trestle Glen
Boulevard.
2. Move the "residential use arca" of Lot 4 and the closest point of the building on Lot 4
back an additional 20 feet from Trestle Glen Boulevard, while maintaining the current
angle of the building to Trestle Glen Boulevard.
3. Reduce the gross floor area of the proposed residence on Lot 4 another 300 feet to a
maximum of 2,600 square feet, and shorten the length of the house as seen from Trestle
Glen Boulevard
4. Move or redesign the proposed sanitaly sewer easement on Lot 4 to minimize the
intrusion on the landscape buffer along Trestle Glen Boulevard.
The Commission also directed that new pholosimulations be prepared showing the revised project
including the landscape bufTer along Trestle Glen Boulcvard and the enhanced landscaping around
individual homes. Story poles and netting showing the modifications to Lot 4 were to be erected.
REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Revised application materials have been submitted. A letter attached. as Exhibit 2 describes the
revisions. Revised drawings (24" X 36") are included as Attachment A. Reduced (II" X 17")
drawings, elevations, and floor plans of the revised project are included as Attachment B.
Revised photosimulations are included as Allachmcnt C All pholOsimulations were prepared by
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
10/24/2001
2
---
Vallier Landscape Architects, an independent firm, under contract to the Town ofTiburon (not the
applicant). Staff encourages the Commission to compare the current photosimulations with those
prepared in November 2000 and distributed to the Commission for the January 10, 2001 meeting.
Both sets of photo simulations will be on display at the meeting for public review The comparison
reveals the dramatic scaling back of the visual mass of buildings over the course of the application
revIew.
A revised Story Pole Plan, incorporating changes to Lot 4 since the July 2001 meeting, is included
as Attachment D. Minor changes to Lot I, consisting of moving the building 10 feet further away
from Trestle Glen Boulevard, were not considered significant enough to relocate the story poles
for that building.
ANALYSIS OF REVISED PROJECT WITI! RESPECT TO COMMISSION DIRECTION
1. Preserve Ihe h/lllered edge alollg hesi/e Glell HO/llevard alld Imverillg Ihe vis/lal mass of the
project (partic/llarly Lol -I).fiO/ll heslle G/ell BO/llevard
At the July 25, 200 I meeting, the Commission re-emphasized that it was critical to have a
substantial landscape buffer along Trestle Glen Boulevard in order to provide an appropriate
"transitional" effect for this project. As the Commission and public speakers have noted
throughout the review of this project, the visual effects of the Turtle Rock Court subdivision
project could have been greatly reduced if substantial landscaping screening had been required in
front of the individual homes or along thc Turtle Rock Court frontage
Staff believes that the butfer landscaping should begin behind the 10-foot widcning strip along
Trestle Glen Boulevard that is being offered 10 the Town for roadwaylbike lane purposes. The
buffer should be at its maximum denseness in ti.ont of Lots 1 and 4. It should not extend downhill
(west) of the Stream Enhancement Corridor, lest the views of open space through the natural
corridor be unnecessarily obscured
The applicant -has submitted a greatly cnhanced Schematic Landscape Plan dated August 28,
2001, depicting the proposed buffer landscaping as well as landscaping around individual homes.
The intent of the buffer landscaping is to provide a vel)' dense screen of planting that will be tall
enough to mask the profile and visibility of the homes (especially Lots I and 4) from Trestle Glen
Boulevard but not unrcasonably obscure views to the open space areas on the upper reaches of
the property. Photosimulations of the butler landscaping upon planting, and after 5-7 years of
growth, are included in the packet. A recorded Landscape Installation and Maintenance
Agreement will ensure the upkeep of the burrer I,indscapilig in perpetuity. A sample form of
agreement is attached as Exhibit 3,
Tiburon Planning Commission
Slaff RepOl1
10/2412001
3
""-
""
In addition, dense vegetation will be planted in close proximity to the house on Lot 4 that will act
to reduce its profile and visibility from both Trestle Glen Boulevard and more distant viewpoints.
This landscaping is also somewhat visible in the photosimulations. It is Staffs experience that
photosimulations tend to exaggerate the denseness of vegetation. However, even after
compensating for this tendency, Staff believes that the proposed landscape screening would be
substantive and the desired screening/softening effect achieved. Moreover, the landscape
screening will be provided by two separate bands of vegetation (the "buffer area" located outside
of the "residential use area" and the "private lot" landscaping located within the "residential use
area"), which will be protected by separate recorded maintenance agreements
2. Move the "residential use area" of Lol -I (fnd Ihe closest point of the building on Lot -I back
all additiollal 20 feetfrom 7i'eslle Glen Bo///nwd. while mailltaillillg the currellt Wigle of
the buildillg /() 7;'eslle Glell Bo//levurd .
The Commission required that both the building on Lot 4 and the "residential use area" of Lot 4
be movcd back another 20 feet from Trestle Glcn Boulevard to enlarge this buffer area. No
building on Lot 4 would now be located closer than 110 feet from thc paved edge of Trestle Glen
Boulevard. The applicant has also moved the building on Lot I back an additional ten (10) feet
from Trestle Glen Boulevard and sunk it Illore into the hillside.
3. Reduce the gmssfloor area of the !J/'o/Hised residence Oil Lot -I allother 300feet to a
maximum oJ2. (iOO squarej"el, alld shor"'1I the length'of the house as seellJmm Trestle Glen
Bo//levard
This has been performed.
-I. Modiji' Ihe desigll oflhe pmlec/ 10 red//ce Ihe pm/ile lif Lot -I as semfrom a vehicle movillg
east all Trestle Glell Boulevard nus 1I'US disc//ssed III terms ofcreatillg both a substalltial
lalld,cape hujler alollg Trestle G/m Bo//levard alld p/'Ovidillg suhs/CIlltiallalldscapillg
directly illfi'o/lt of the ho//se Oil Lol -IF/cillg li'estle Glell Boulevard.
Please refer to # I above.
5. Jvlove or redesign the propo:.;ed .w/nilu/:\' selF(!r easement Oil Lot -I to milljmi~e the intrusion
011 the lalldscape h//jler along hesl!e Glen Bo//levard
The sanitary sewer easement shown atthc July meeting ran lengthwise through the landscape
buffer along Trcstlc Glen Boulevard. This could create a future situation where extensive damage
to the landscape buffer could occur through excavation. The revised drawings show the easement
realigncd to run perpendicular to the landscape butler, thereby greatly limiting the potential for
future damage to landscaping for maintenance or repair purposes.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
10/24/2001
4
",-
..
CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS, POLICIES AND ORDINANCES
Detailed analysis of General Plan consistency and Zoning Ordinance conformance was provided in
the staff report of October 11, 2000. StalT believes that the project, on balance, furthers the
goals, objectives and policies of the Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Zoning Ordinance
. Revisions made to the project over the past year of review have improved the conformity with
Town goals and policies, especially in terms of visual mass, bulk and appearance of the buildings.
The revised project would result in a more harmonious transition between the Tiburon Boulevard
and Paradise Drive areas of the Town ofTiburon. Staff is of the opinion that this project is that
rare instance where a "large vacant parcel" in the Tiburon Planning Area is able to achieve the
maximum allowable density set forth in the General Plan without creating significant adverse
impacts and while meeting the goals and objectives of the General Plan.
The kev to a successful implementation of this project will be to ensure that the homes actually
built in the field stromdv resemble the masses colors, materials, and general appearance of the
homes shown in the approved application materials, including the final photosimulations. The
same applies to the landscaping installed in the field. The draft Resolution is structured to achieve
this critical end.
FUTURE ACTIONS REQUIRED
The Planning Commission's approval of this project would be in the form of a recommendation to
the Town Council for project approval. The Town Council would then hold a separate public
hearing to consider the project and the environmental determination. Should the Commission
vote to deny the project, the denial would be tinal unless appealed to the Town Council.
If the Precise Development Plan is approved by the Town Council, subsequent Town permits
would include a Tentative Subdivision Map, Parcel Map, Subdivision Improvement Drawings,
Site Plan and Architectural Review approvall()r each lot, and Building Permits for each residence.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff believes that project modifications required by the Planning Commission further improve this
project and result in a superior development that on balance is consistent with the goals and
policies of the Tiburon General Plan and conforms with the principles of the Residential Planned
Development zoning district A draft resolution of approval is attached as Exhibit 4 for
consideration by the Planning Commission.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff RepO/1
10/24/2001
5
---
,
EXfHBITS
1. Planning Commission Minutes of7/25/200 I.
2. Letter from Don Henderson to Scott Anderson dated 10/12/200 I describing project revisions.
3. Sample form of Landscape Installation and Maintenance Agreement.
4. Draft Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Revised drawings (3 sheets), 24" X 36", date-stamped "Received October 11, 200!".
B. Tiburon Court Conceptual Architecture Plans Booklet, received October 11, 2001, prepared
by DTH & Associates, 11"X IT format (includes reduced site and grading plans).
C. Photosimulations date-stamped received October S, 200 I.
D. Revised Story Pole and Building Envelope Staking Plan (11" X IT) for Held use.
"'i":\1llIJ')t)()Jp.:7 r~r0l1.dtl('
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
10/2412001
6
~
a:--r-c:$C(Stc-- \2., 2-D<:? I
Scott Anderson
Town of Tibw.oo
1505 Tiburon Blvd,
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Tiburoll Court
Enclosed is the rnised site plan incorporating suggestions by the Planning
Commission.
I. SOUARE .FOOTAGE L<!t 4 has bemredlK'ed to 2600 Sq, Ft
2, LENGTH of me residence has been reduced from 97' - 87 .
3. SETBACK Ll7t 4 rnidell\;e has bce11 moved up the IliU from 20' -.s
well as building envelope and residential use area adjusted by 20'.
4. SEWER and al! utilities have beeD consolidated into singh:
easement
5. BONDED LANDSCAPE Landscaping has bee.ll increased to
mitigate visual impact of each home, De~loper agrees to plant 30
00" trees per residence to accomplish this mitigation.
\ look forward to Il successful conclusion of this project.
Sincerely.
Dott Henderson
Craig Pilgrim. ....
Round-Twc Development
EXHIBIT NO. -a.
~a.f1\~\ct ~4'M. of
Aj r~~M~+
AGREEMENT FOR INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF
EXISTING AND NEW LANDSCAPING
~
THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of
between Property Owners (s) hereafter referred to as "Property Owner," and the TOWN
OF TmURON, A Municipal Corporation, hereafter referred to as "Town."
RECITALS
THIS AGREEMENT is based upon the following facts:
I. Property Owner is the owner ofreal property in the Town ofTiburon, property
address (Assessor's Parcel Number APN) described in Exhibit "A" attached to this
Agreement and made a part of it by this reference;
2. On Approval Date, the Town granted a Design Review Approval to the Property
Owner in accordance with the zoning ordinance of the Town of Tiburon.
3. By the terms of the Design Review Approval, the Property Owner is required to
install and maintain landscaping in accordance with a plan approved by the Town on
Approval Date, a copy of which is on file in the Town Office to which reference is
made for further particulars.
. 4. Both parties recognize that the installation and maintenance oflandscaping is an
integral part of the Property Owner's plan for development of the property. and is
necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of the Town's Land Use regulations, and
that the development would not have been approved by Town without the assurance
that this Agreement would be executed by Property Owner.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT [S AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES, AS FOLLOWS:
1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to assure (a) installation of the
landscaping in accordance with landscape plan previously approved by the Town and
(b) continued maintenance and care of the existing landscaping.
2. PROPERTY SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT. The property which is the subject of this
Agreement is described in Exhibit "A" which is attached to this Agreement and
incorporated in it by this reference.
3. CITY PROCEEDINGS. Reference is made to the Design Review Board proceedings
conducted by the Town (Planning File No. File Number) and the landscaping plan for
the property, a copy of which is on file in the Town Offices.
I of 4
EXHIBIT Nc.3._
;-'
:-..
4. LANDSCAP[NG AS A BENEFIT. Property Owner agrees that the landscaping
which he/she is obligated to provide will materially benefit his/her property and is
necessary to comply with the # condition(s) imposed by the Town as a requirement of
the development of the property
5. DUTY TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN LANDSCAPING. Property Owner agrees
to complete the installation of the approved landscaping prior to final buildiag
inspection approval, and diligently to maintain and care for the landscaping which
he/she installs, using generally accepted methods of cultivation and watering.
Property Owner shall maintain that standard care necessary to prevent the
landscaping from deteriorating to the extent that its value as landscaping is destroyed.
6. TOWN MAY MAINTAIN LANDSCAPING. Property owner agrees that if he/she
fails to meet the standard of maintenance necessary to keep the landscaping in a
healthy condition, the Town will give written notice of the deficiency to the owner
who shall have 20 days to make the necessary correction, and if the correction is not
made within 20 days the Town may elect to take the steps necessary to assure that the
landscaping is maintained and cared for. To do this, the Town shall service a notice
of its intent to enter the premises for this purpose. The Town shall either personally
service the notice upon the Property Owner or mail a copy of it by Certified Mail at
the Property Owner's last known address, or as shown on the tax rolls at least 14 days
in advance of the date when it intends to enter the premises. For this purpose, the
Town may enter upon the property and perform such work as it considers n:asonably
necessary and proper to restore and maintain the landscaping. The Town may act
either through its own employees or through an independent contractor.
7. TOWN'S COSTS OF MAINTENANCE A LIEN. If the Town's incurs costs in
restoring or maintaining the landscaping after following the procedure set forth in
Paragraph 6 above, the Town shall make demand on the Property Owner for payment,
if the Property Owner fails to pay the costs incurred by the Town within 30 days of
the date demand was made, the Town my make the costs a lien upon the real property
described I Exhibit "a" by recording a notice that it has incurred expenses under the
terms of this Agreement with the County Recorder of Main County. The notice shall
state the fact that the City has incurred the costs under the terms of this Agreement
and shall state the amount, together with. the fact that it is unpaid, and draws interest
at the rate of 7 percent a year until paid.
8. ADDITIONAL REMEDIES. The Town may as an alternative to the lien procedure
set forth above in Paragraph 7, bring legal action to collect the sums due as the result
of making of expenditures for restoration and maintenance of the landscaping. The
Property Owner agrees that iflegal action by the Town is necessary to collect the
amount expended by the Town, the Property Owner agrees to pay the Town a
reasonable sum as attorney's fees and court costs, together with interest from the date
which is 30 days after the Town has given its notice, under Paragraph 6 above.
20[4
;-'
~
9. NOTICES. Notice given by each party to the Agreement shall be given to the other
party at the Address shown below:
Notices to the Town shall be addressed to the Planning Director, Town ofTiburon, 1505
Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920. Notices to the Property Owner shall be
addressed to him/her at the following address:
Property Owner( s)
Street Address
Street Address
Tiburon, CA 94920
When Property Owner ceases to be the owner, he/she may file with the Town a notice to
that effect containing the name and address of the new owner and a copy of the deed.
Upon doing so, the subsequent Grantee is charged with the obligation under this
Agreement.
10. MISCELLANEOUS TERMS AND PROVISIONS:
a. If any provision of this contract is adjusted invalid, the remaining provisions
of it are not affected
b. Notice to Property Owner shall be considered to have been given to him/her
when sent to his/her address above stated
c. This writing contains a full, final and exclusive statement of the contract of the
parties
d. Property Owner appoints the Town as his/her Attorney-in-fact, to do.all acts
and things which the Town considers necessary to restore or maintain the
landscaping approved under the Design Review Board proceedings.
e. Ifthere is more than one signer of the Agreement as Property Owner, their
obligations are joint and several.
f The obligations upon the owner signing this Agreement terminates personally
as to him/her when he/she conveys his/her interest in the property aId files for
record with County Recorder a copy of assignment of this Agreement. In this
case the new owner(s) takes title subject to the requirements of this agreement.
II. AGREEMENT A TT ACHES TO LAND. This Agreement pertains to and runs with
the real property described in Exhibit" A". This Agreement binds the successors in
interest of each of the parties to it.
12. TOWN MAY REOUIRE ADDITIONAL SECURITY. rfupon execution of this
Agreement of during the course of performance the Town considers that it is
necessary to have the Property Owner post additional security to guarantee the
performance of his/her obligations, the Town may require the Property Owner to post
additional security. The Town may require either a cash deposit or a surety bond
guaranteeing performance signed by sureties and in a form deemed satisfactory to the
30f4
,
Town. The condition of the security shall be that if the Property Owner fails to
perform his/her obligations
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year
above written.
4 of 4
,
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE TIBURON COURT PRECISE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. \8B) AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED
NEGA TIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 39-061-80 & 86
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town ofTiburon does resolve as follows
Section I.
Findim;s
A. The Town ofTiburon has received and considered an application filed by Round-Two
Joint Venture for a Precise Development Plan (the Tiburon Court Precise Development
Plan) to develop the following project:
The development of four single-f'"11ily dwellings on a 13.34-acre property, with lot sizes
ranging from 1.45 to 4.92 acres. The Tiburon COLll1 Precise Development Plan would
establish building envelopes, residelltialuse areas, height and floor area limits, and other
zoning limitations for the four future lots Except for stream restoration landscaping and
Trestle Glen Boulevard butTer landscaping, all landscaping and fencing would be limited to
the residential use area on each lot. Homes on Lots 1,2, and 3 would be limited to 2,900
square feet of gross floor area, as defined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, plus up to
600 square feet of garage and below-grade areas. Any home on Lot 4 would be limited
to 2,600 square feet of gross floor area. as defined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, plus
up to 600 square feet of garage and below-grade areas.
B. The Precise Development Plan application consists of File #39903, on file with the Town
ofTiburon Planning Department. Materials from that application include but are not
limited to the following
I. Site Plan, Tiburon Court, prepared by Lawrence Doyle, revised 9/27/0 I, scale
1"=50' (I sheet)
2. Precise Development Plan Grading & Drainage Plan, Tiburon Court, prepared by
Lawrence Doyle, revised 9/27/0 I, scale 1"=20' (I sheet).
3. Schematic Landscape Plan, Tiburon Court, dated 8/28/0 I (I sheet)
4. Tiburon Court Conceptual Architecture Plans Booklet, date-stamped received
October II, 200 I, prepared by DTH & Associates, II "X 17" format
5 Tiburon Court Mitigation Plan (Stream Restoration) drawings, prepared by Diane
L Renshaw, dated 6/21/2000 (2 sheets)
6. Letter Irom Don Henderson to Scott Anderson, dated October 12, 200 I, detailing
revisions to the project (J page).
7. Photosimulations date-stamped "Received October 8, 200 I" (12 photos)
Tiburon Planning Clllll111issinll
Rl.':'ll!Uli(l[1 No, }()()[-
n/n/200 I
1
EX-BIEIT NO,!J:
~
The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of this resolution
The record includes the Staff Rcports, minutes, application materials, and all comments
and materials received at the public hearing
C An expanded Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project was
prepared under contract to the Town ofTiburon by the consulting firm of Nichols-
Berman, and released for public review and comment on September 1,2000. Numerous
letters were reeeived on this document in addition to comments offered at the two public
'hearings. Responses to these comments were compiled along with project revisions into a
final Mitigated Negative Declaration document dated July 200 I.
The Final Mitigated Negative Declaration concludes that changes to the project made
since the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration have acted to reduce potential impacts of
the project on the environment Project modifications have resulted in reductions in the
potential for aesthetic impacts through size, height, and visual mass reductions as well as
changes in building materials. Potential hydrology impacts have been further reduced
through decreases in impervious surf'lce Potential tramc'safety impacts at the project
roadway entrance have been funhcr reduced by improving the sight distancc to the east.
On-site parking has been increascd substantially. Mitigation measures presented in the
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration have been accepted in writing by the applicant and
would reduce all potential adverse environmental impacts to less than significant levels.
The Planning Commission finds that bascdupon evidence in the record, no significant
adverse impacts on the environment would occur as a result of the project. All potentially
significant adverse environmental impacts have bcen mitigated to less than significant
levels through modifications to the project as set fOl1hin the mitigation monitoring
program and agreed upon by the applicant There has been no substantial evidence
submittcd into the record to suppon a f'lir argument that a significant adverse
environmental impact may result li'om the project
D. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on October II, :2000, January
10,200 I, July 25, 200 I, and October 24, 200 I at which it heard and considered testimony
from interested persons. The Planning Commission found, based upon application
materials and analysis presented in the stall' reports and the Final Mitigated Negative
Declaration, that on balance the proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the
Tiburon General Plan and in conli)rmance with provisions of the Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance. The f'ICts in sup pan ai' this finding are set forth in the staff reports and the
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration. all of which are incorporated into ihe project
record
Section 2.
Recommendation for Adoption of ~v'iiti"ated Ne"ative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED that the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend adoption of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated July 200 I, to the Town
Tiburon PI;:tllning COlllllli:-i;-;iOIl
1~1'.-';(111l11()1l NIl, 2lllJ 1-
--/u/201l\
2
~
Council.
Section 3.
Recommendation for Proiect ApllCoval and AdoPtion of Mitigation Monitoring
Program
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
hereby recommends approval of the Tiburon Court Precise Development Plan (PD# 18B) to the
Town Council and further recommends adoption of a mitigation monitoring program for the
project, subject to the following conditions
I. The following Tiburon Court Precise Development Plan drawings and application
materials are approved, said plans being on file with the Tiburon Planning
Department:
A Slle Plall, Tiburon Coun, prepared by Lawrence Doyle, revised 9/27/02, scale
1 "=50' (I sheet)
B. Precise DcvelofJl/leIIll'la/l Gmdl/lg ,\,: Dralllage Plall, Tiburon Court,
prepared by Lawrence Doyle, revised 9/27/0 I, scale 1"=20' (I sheet)
C. Schemallc Lalldl'colle 1'10/1, Tiburon Coun, dated 8/28/0 I (I sheet).
D. Tiburon Court CO/lcc/J//wlArchlleCl/Ire !'Ialls Booklel, date-stamped received
October II, 200 I, prepared by DTH & Associates, II"X IT' format.
E. Tiburon Court Mlligolw/I 1'10/1, prepared by Diane L. Renshaw, dated
6/21/200 (2 sheets)
F. Lellerji,(llll DOli flellderso/llo Sw/l Alldersoll, dated October 12, 200 I,
detailing revisions to the project.
G. Pho/()sll1l11lalio/ls date-stamped "Received October S, 200 I".
2. This Precise Development Plan approval incorporates all of the environmental
mitigation measures listed in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program,
. attached hereto as Exh;h;t "A". Applicant shall bear all costs for implementation
and monitoring of the i\'Iitigation Monitoring Program.
3. This Precise Development Plan is intended to reflect ultimate development of the
property. No additional subdivision is permitted and a note to that effect shall be
placed on the Parcel Map.
4. It is the intent of this Precise Development Plan approval that all residences
constructed shall very closely resemble the homes presented in the COllcepll/al
Archilecl/lre Pla/ls Rooklel and as shown on the photosimulations dated-stamped
October 8, 200 I. Materials and colors used for all structures located within the
boundaries of this Precise Development Plan shall blend into the natural
environment and strongly resemble those on the photosimulations. Exterior colors
(including trim) shall be restricted to subdued, medium-to-dark earth-tones. Walls
shall be native stone llr stone-clad: natural wood shingle siding (no raw redwood),
Tiburon P)anning COll1l11is~ltlJl
](('Sll]Uli()ll N(l. 2()()1-
--1--llODI
3
:'
,
and dark earth-tone rooting materials shall be required. All homes shall maintain
the appearance of a single story "Bungalow" style dwelling when viewed from
Trestle Glen Boulevard The exterior appearance of the homes shall be maintained
over time in accordance with this condition of approval. Repainting or other
exterior alteration not in accordance with this condition of approval will require an
amendment to this Precise Development Plan.
5. The maximum "gross floor area", as defined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance,
allowed to be constructed on each lot shall be as follows:
. Lots 1,2, and 3: Shall not exceed 2,900 square feet, plus up to 600
square feet of garage space
. Lot 4: Shall not exceed 2,600 square feet, plus up to 600 square feet
of garage space.
6. Buildings and accessolJ' buildings shall be confined to the approved "building
envelope" on each lot, as shown on the approved 1"=20' scale Precise
Developmell/ 1'1011 Gradillg & Draillage 1'1011. No tennis courts are permitted.
7. No improvements of any type, including fencing and landscaping, shall be
permitted outside thc approved "residential use area" shown on the approved
1"=50' Sile 1'1011, except those rcquired subdivision and initial construction-related
improvements shown on tlte approved Precise Development Plan drawings, as well
as butTer landscaping along Trestle Glcn Boulevard. Landscaping shown on the
Schematic Landscape Plan at the rear of Lot 2 and located outside of the lot's
"residential use area" is hereby deleted
8. Setbacks shall be as sct fOl'lh on the approved 1"=20' scale Precise Developmen/
Plall Gradillg & Draillage 1'/(111, with the following additional setback
reqlllrements:
a. Lot I buildings shall be set baek at least 120 feet from the existing
pavement edge of Trestle Glen Boulevard, measured perpendicular to
Trestle Glen Boulcvard
b. Lot 4 buildings shall be set back at least 110 feet from the existing
pavement edge of Trestle Glcn Boulevard, measured perpendicular to
Trestle Glen Boulevard.
c. Lot 3 and Lot 4 buildings shall be sct back at least 50 feet from the "top of
bank" of the intermittent stream.
9. Maximum height of residences, asdelined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, shall
be as follows
Tiburon Planning COlllmi:.;"ioll
1<1.:.-:(llllli(ll1 Nil. 2(H)I-
,-/--/2001
4
;-'
,
a Lots I, 2, and 3 shall not exceed 24 feet in height from finished grade at
any point; Lot 4 shall not exceed 20 feet in height from finished grade at
any point
b Height from existing (pre-project) grade for Lot I shall range from 10 to
18 feet but shall not exceed 18 feet at any point
c. Height from existing (pre-project) grade for Lot 2 shall range from 12 to
18 feet but shall not exceed 18 feet at any point
d Height from existing (pre-project) grade for Lot 3 shall range from 12 to
20 feet but shall not exceed 20 feet at any point.
e. Height Irom existing (pre-project) grade for Lot 4 shall range from 10 to
16 feet but shall not exceed 16 feet at any point
f. Accessory structures may not exceed 15 feet in height at any point
Existing (pre-project) grade shall be based upon the topographic lines included on
the approved I "=20' scale 1'/'l'cl.\'e f.)e,'elo!,fIIelll Plall Gradillg & Draillage Plall
10. Any sloped roof areas shall not exceed 4112 pitch and shall be clustered at the
center of each house, with remaining roof areas to be flat or low-pitched to reduce
visual impact.
11. Landscape palettes developed for each Lot shall be in substantial conformance
with the Revised Schematic Landscape Palette attached as Exhihit "8" hereto.
The precise location, size, and Iyp~ of plantings shall be specified with submittal of
the Site Plan & Architectural Review application for each lot Ongoing
maintenance of the screening landscaping (trees) on each lot shall be secured by
recorded agreement between the Town and project sponsor prior to issuance of
the building permit for each lot. Said agreement shall ensure that the screening
landscaping (trees) are maintained by the lot owner in perpetuity.
12. Exterior lighting should be limited to the minimum amount necessary to safely
illuminate points of access and outdoor use areas. In its review of individual
homes, the Design Review Board shall carefully review all lighting to minimize its
visibility from surrounding properties and Trestle Glen Boulevard.
13. All portions of lots outside oJ' the "residential use area" and the 40-foot wide
"access and public utilities easement" shall be contained and protected within an
open space easement granted to the Town ofTiburon. Said open space easement
shall be recorded in conjunction with the recordation of the parcel map. Said open
space easement shall acknowledge, if necessary, a possible future access driveway
opposite Juno Road to serve the adjoining 14.5-acre parcel to the west, and shall
also acknowledge any required drainage and utility easements and any landscape
installation and maintenance agreements that are required as part of this Precise
Development Plan approval. The open space easement language shall be reviewed
and approved by the Town Attorney and Planning Director prior to approval of the
Tiburon Planning Commissio1l
1~,-'s()llIll(lll Nll, ~()(J 1-
--/,./20111
5
>;.
parcel map
14. Timing of Trestle Glen Boulevard butTer landscape installation, irrigation and
ongoing maintenance shall be specitically resolved through recorded agreement
prior to approval of thc Parcel Map. The agreement shall ensurc that the
landscape buffer is maintained in perpetuity
15. In addition to the Tiburon Ridge Trail segment to be offered for public dedication
and constructed by the project sponsor, a second public pedestrian easement shall
be offered for dedication. This easement shall run laterally across the property,
following the natural contours to the extent feasible, and shall connect the Tiburon
Ridge Trail segment to the property line of the adjoining 14.5-acre parcel to the
west.
16. In addition to the otTer of dedication for the to' road-widening strip along the
length of the Trestle Glen Boulevard li'ontage, project sponsor shall contribute
monetarily to the eventual construction of a bicycl!: lane. Said monetary
contribution shall be paid prior to recordation of the parcel map and shall be
calculated in accordance with legal principles governing such exaction.
17. Draft CC&R's for the subdivision shall be prepared and submitted for review by
the Town Attorney and Planning Director as part of the Tentative Map application.
Said CC&Rs shall eontain prmisions and limitations as set forth in this Precise
Development Plan approval 10 the satisfaction of the Town ofTiburon.
18. Due to parking limitations within the subdivision, secondary dwelling units, as
defined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, shall not be permitted within this
subdivision. CC&R's shall incorporate this limitation.
19. All requirements of the Town Engineer with respect to drainage and utilities shall
be met. The Town's preference at this time is to require improvement of the
existing undersized Belveron Drainage Ditch and pipe east of Juno Road and direct
the project's flow into the upgraded facilities In addition, drainage mitigation fees
will be required per the Tiburon Municipal Code
20. This Precisc Developmcnt Plan approval shall be valid for 36 months following its
effective date, and shall expirc unlcss subscquent zoning and/or building permits
have been issued purSU;lIlt to this approval. A time extension may be granted if
such request is tiled prior to the expiration date
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town
of Tiburon held on . 200 I by the following vote
Tiburon Plnl1ning C()Ill111i:'i:-,illll
l<\.::'lllllll\lll NIl, 2llrl!.
u/u/2001
6
,
AYES:
NOES
ABSENT
STEVE STEIN, CHAIRMAN
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATTEST
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
j::icott/39903pr.:rcslinal.doc
Tiburon Planning Commission
R~Slllllli(l1l Nll, 2001-
--/--/2001
7
UWUI'I'ICJi!iO/'
PLASTlRAS & TERRIZZl
.\T E ~!l,~ H. # lLJ...-:~
~ '. :".
.Vail"".~tId"~.JJ;
U .gltCF~SS{(J""A:. ('ENTER PAR~iJ~. r. .'iCr.'~ , j(l
,uV R.J.FAEL. C.4r1"?OJ
fa (115) .,n.8J?c F.u:' ,'4(5) J72-8UO
bMAIL' bll1llrk~iI<)nln,'dIl"/I)'.:om
C. ft.f.lVfl;tf.l.lI{'PP
A"RJSTTN [)tC'lCu:t.'
UIC~u;
.I"'H.'~ r. :'''!:It.t'L JR
October 24, 2001
.dbf.
.438
(iburon
~eview Board
. Re: Tiburon Court and related orocosals
jr Board Members:
I am President of The Preserve Owners Association, which includes the homes
m Turtle Rock Court, across Trestle Gien from the above-proposed development.
I am writing on behalf of the Association, as well as individually, to express our
request that the developers and contractors involved not use Turtle Rock Court as a
staging area, storage facility or parking lot for this development. This has been a
problem in the past, where large trucks have been parked on Turtle Rock Court for work
on the opposite side of Trestie Gle:1.
Turtle Rock Court has 43 children living there, and they frequently play outside
their homes and in the court. The first three homes along Turtle Rock have 9 children
living in them, nearly all of them under the age of 10, and they do play in the Court.
Children from nearby neighborhoods also use the court to roller blade, skateboard, and
other like activities.
Our concern is that trucks, equipment and materials have in the past posed a
safety hazard in that they have blocked the views of drivers in the Court, which already
has curves that obstruct views. Younger children, no matter how often instructed to the
contrary, have a tendency to play around and dart out from behind parked vehicles.
This safety concern came up before the Preserve Board early this month in
regard to our residents parking their own vehicles and mobile homes along the Court,
and we agreed to reissue our request to our residents not to do so. Our bylaws prohibit
our residents from parking on the street.
sent By: Plastiras & TerrlZZl;
41:' ....,~O.~~,
,~..
-~
,
Town of Tiburon
Design Review Board
october 24. 2001
Page 2
There may also be Fire and police Department access issues, in that Turtle
Rock is a fairly narrow street. and "turnaround" problems have arisen in the past.
I hope that you will consider imposing limitations on the contractors to avoid any
potentially tragic occurrence.
Very truly yours,
Basil Plastiras
25 Turtle Rock Court
BPlss
It\CUeT'I!\DaSI\ 1li.rtJeflOdC. .llt]
i-Ium: r-r<H1K 21l:l ::""d..!.:Iil.I/:dSQ:-] 10 -,curari r:;,,;;rl:;,:1\l ;:;"rr1rTi.',;~,on
Ui:lt~ .c.':'::-!C', l,nle :O:i,;)}F-,:
Pogt::':.;l: :.:
'>-({IE r~AJl # j-j
:'
~
T(-:.o: Tiburr::L Pl:1nnlIlg Cnn".lnissir)ll
Re: Tibucon Court Peccise Developn'""t P'all (OcDber 24, 200 11\Ieet:ng)
Frorn:
Frank l. !-'[.,on
191 Stew"rt Dr.
Tiburon, C\ 94903
:\$ {'In not :lble to attend. the rneetir:g~ I would llke t.'ie :ollowing letter read mto trle
::-ecord and tr.e it~rps in this letter addressed en the r~cord of ~he meet:ng by the
plnnning commission,
Item #1: Tht' thi::-d r::quest for an assessment of the visual iC'1?a:-t 0f the
deveiopn1ent on the adjoir:ing lets on Stewart Dr. ~im:la:: to cl-.e detail anc:
constderati()n gt"".en to th:::- do\vnhjll adjoining iots. \Xthich included photo simulatif:',ns
:.1nd many dr:l'vings and det2il~d effects cf the helght of C:":1ch let. This ;nt"(-HfTiar.icn
\Vas reque~ted last meeric,g b~" ')r~e of my ne;ghbors with a petition fcorn 0ther
concerned Sre',vnrt Dri\T" neighb~:'lr~ :lnd the ~nt::>rm2ti()n \-\'a5 requested tht:' pr~nr
:neeting by :nyself.
I feel that without the applicant or the staff pnwiding any infonnation
with regards to the visual impact for the uphill neighbors this creates an
undue burden on the uphill neighbors that was not placed on the
downhill neighbors as they have recei\'ed numerous photo simulations
and drawings and the uphill neighbors ha\'en't recei\'ed ONE. At this
time I request the planning commission to order a continuance of
approval of the project till this item is addressed fully.
hem #2: The lack (,f access and J.nswers frcr:l placnlOg staff prior t,) the meeting the
:110rnlng following the reCeI?t of- 61'::' .'courtesy notice to surrounding property
o\vners and ~nreres;:ed ?ersons" I called the pl::-,nning office to talk with Sc-:::>n
Andersor: and was raid by Dan \Vatrc>us that for. specific information on tbe heighr
ot- the side of the hCf::les that I see fr0r11 one oC the primary rooms of nl)' house I
would have to walt till Scott had renlrned from \'ucation wh:ch is the day 0:- the.
cneecing on the cnatter and I'm 'Dt availabie that day. Dan further stated that the
;l1axirn h~:ght cf the side of the ho:nes w.::nlid be ii:11iteJ to 30' to clw best of h;s
:-.:nov:leJge bu.t W:1sn"t surt' us Scott was handlillg tllis develop~llent.
I feel that without access to st<\fPs answers on the simple question of
"how many feet high are the sides of the homes that I will look at from
my primary room of my home". and the. lack of access to anyone that
can give definitive answers on the project prior to the day of the
meeting generates and additional undue burden to myself that requires
a continuance of approval of the project till staff is available,
_c
,
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
To: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR
From: ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN ATTORNEY
Subject: TIBURON COURT, DENSITY ISSUES
GOVERNMENT CODE s 65589.5(j)
Date: August 22, 2001
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY
According to your memorandulll of August 8, 2001, the Planning. Commission has asked whether
S 65580.5(j) of the California Government Code applies to housing projects that are not designed as
at10rdable to low anclmoderate income households. The question arises Irom the Commission's
consideration of a precise plan for the Tiburon Court project. You have advised me that Tiburon
Court is not an affordablc housing project.
For the reasons set forth below. I believe that S 65589.5(j) applies only to affordable housing
projects. However, the law is not clearly defined on this point, therefore we cannot predict with
certainty that a COllrt would agree with my narrow interpretation.
A second issue is whether a precise plan application is a "housing development project" within the
meaning ofS 65580.5. The court decisions that have addressed this question suggest that a legislative
act, such as a precise plan adoption, is not a housing development project and therefore is not subject
to S 65580.5. However, a prccise plan involves considerably more project detail than do the types
of legislative acts that have been considered by the courts. Therefore, the conservative approach
would be to assume that a precise pbn is subject to S 65580.5 until a court determines otherwise.
ANALYSIS
The Legislature included a serics oftinclings and policies in Section 655895, subsections (a) and (b).
These subsections demonstrated that in enacting the statute, the Legislature intended to address the
shortage of at10rdable housing in the state by restricting the abilitv of local governments to reject or
make infcasible afTordable housing projeels. rvlost of the substantive restrictions of the statute are
expressly applicable on Iv to atli.mlable housing development projects See subsections (d) and (i).
In contrast, subsection (j) does not contain the word "at1ordable" It requires a local agency to make
specified findings betore rejecting or reducing the density of any "proposed housing development
TII3{JI~()N l'T lit lV ())SS') ~ Tl) .-.:,\ j)()l
_c
,
project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria in effect at
the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete."
The fact that the Legislature expressly limited the application of other subsections of S 65589.5 to
affordable housing projects (see subsections (d), (i) and (k)) could suggest that subsection U) should
be more widely applied. However, the legislative intent in adopting S 65589.5 is plainly to facilitate
the approval of affordable housing projects There is no suggestion that the Legislature intended to
restrict local government's processing of housing projects that will be affordable only to the relatively
affiuent. Indeed, the only court to consider the issue stated that S 65589.5 applies only to affordable
housing projects Challdis Securities CompallY et a/., v. Ci(v of Dalla POilll, 80 c.A. 4'h 475, 485
(I 996)
One could argue that this statement in Challdis Secllrities is not a part of the ruling of the case and
therefore should not be regarded as authoritative However, the court's statement is well-supported
by the stated intention of the Legislature in enacting the statute. Moreover, given that Challdis
Secllri/les is the only case that addresses whether subsection (j). is limited to afTordable housing
projects, I believe that the case is entitled to signiticant weight on that issue Accordingly, I do not
believe that the Tiburon Court project is subject to S 65589.5.
A second question is whether a precise plan application is a "housing development project" within
the meaning of S 65589.5(j) Your memorandum did not raise this issue, but it is related to the
processing ofTiburon Coun and fllture similar applications. At lease two court rulings indicate that
this statute does not apply to legislative acts, such as a precise plan.
Challdi" Secllrilles involved the adoption of a specific plan. The court concluded that as used in
S 65589.5, "housing development proj~ct" means a specific construction proposal and therefore did
not apply to the specific plan application that had been denied by the respondent City of Dana Point.
Similarly, in MinI De1'e1oplllml Co//iomtioll olSall Diego 1'. Cill' OlSall Diego, 205 c.A. 3'" 120 I,
1223 (1989), the coun found that S 65589.5 did not apply to the City's refllsal to change the zoning
of the applicant's property trom sing1e-t'lI11ily to multi-f'lI11ily. The court observed that a project that
requires a rezoning does not comply with the zoning standards in effect at the time, which is a
prerequisite for S 65589.5 The COllrt also noted that as a general rule, legislative acts (unlike
adjudicative acts, such as subdivisions) do not require findings, which is the central requirement of
S 65589.5
Challdis Secllrities and Mim Deve/o/illlelll are not completely determinative of S 65589.5'5
applicability to precise plans A precise plan contains considerably more information regarding the
specific construction proposed than does a standard re-zoning application or specific plan proposal.
It is therefore somewhat more likely to be considered a housing development project than were the
specific plan and re-zoning applications in C/","dis SecIII'Il/es and i,,/im De1'e1opmelll.
2
TIBIJRON CT t;OV ,,5oX'! 5 T( I S,\I!( IC
-~
~
Given the unsettled state of the law on this question, the prudent course would be to assume that the
restrictions ofS 65589.5 do apply to a precise plan application for an atfordable housing project.
Pu~~
TOWN ATTORNEY
J
TII3URON CT GOV G55X'J.) TO SA.I)()C
'(
APPRO' ,';~".,.-
MINUTES
MIS Smith/Fredericks (4-0) to adopt the attached resolution recommending approval of a
fourth extension of time for implementation of planned development #7 at 375 Taylor Road
(Ring Mountain Parcel G), Assessor's Parcel No. 38-182-42.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
l. "TIBURON COURT" RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PRECISE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN TO CREATE FOUR BUILDING SITES ON A 13.34 ACRE PARCEL AND
REVIEW OF A FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SOUTH SIDE
OF TRESTLE GLEN BOULEVARD. Round-Two Development, LLC, Owner; Don
Henderson and Craig Pilgrim, Applicants; Assessor's Parcel No. 58-061-80
Planning Director Anderson summarized the background history of the project, stating that this
project has been heard previously three times by the Commission since October of last year. At
the July 25, 200 I hcaring, the applicant was given specific direction primarily focusing on
modification to Lot 4, reducing visual impaCts, cnhancing thc buffer edge of landscaping along
Trestle Glen Boulevard. ThePlanning Commission also requcsted that new photo simulations be
provided and story poles relocated to rcflect the current project. The Commission's comments
focused on the 'following issues: I) preservation of the buffered edge along Trestle Glcn
Boulevard and lowering the visual mass, particularly on Lot 4; 2) moving the residential use area
and building further back from Trestle Glcn Boulevard, while maintaining the angle to the
Trestle Glen Boulevard; 3) reducing thc size of the residcnce on Lot 4 by 300 square feet, and
shortening the length of the house as seen from Trestle Glen Boulevard; 4) moving or
redesigning the proposed sanitary sewer easement on Lot 4 in order to minimize intrusion on the
landscape buffer along Trestle Glcn Boulevard. Upon review of the revised application matcrials
submitted, Staff concludes that the project modifications have significantly improved the project
and resulted in a superior developmcnt consistent with the General Plan's Goals and Policies,
and the principles of the Planned Residential District. Noting that the key to success was to
ensure that the project actually built and landscaping installed resembles the approved.
application materials, including final photo simulations, Mr. Anderson concluded by
recommending adoption of the resolution approving the modified project.
In response to Commissioner Fredcricks, Planning Director Anderson stated that based on the
delinition of basement, it was not required that thc cntire basement be below grade. However,
although there was limited possibility to get somc light to certain portions of the basement, for
the most part.the basements were below gradc and were not visible from the outside. He also
stated that it would be difficult to provide separate access from the outside to the basement areas.
If an area was proposed to be regradcd to provide exterior access it would no longcr qualify as a
basement and would be considered as another stOIY, thcrcby triggering a Precise Development
Plan Amendment
The hearing was opened to public tcstimony.
Scott Hochstrasser, Planning Consultant for the applicant, cxplained in detail the revisions made
to the project in response to the Commission's direction, including moving the house on Lot 4
further away from Trestle Glen by 20 fcet for a total of 110 feet and reducing the sizc down to
2,600 square fcet and its length to 87 fect; moving the house on Lot I further back by 10 feet;
TIBURON PI.ANNINCi.COr-.lf.,IISSJ{)N !\.IINUTES NO. x51 oc.n)]~ER 24. 2001
EXHIBTr)lNo..t.
and redesigning and relocating thc scwer eascmcnt outside the landscape buffer arca. Using
photograph simulations taken from differcnt locations, he explained how the proposed bonded
landscaping would adequately screen the entire project from Trestle Glen Boulevard in five to
seven years. He also stated that in addition to the buffer, 10-15 feet tall trces would be planted
around the homes for additional screening. Mr. Hochstnisser agreed with staff's finding that the
key to success was to ensure the project's consistency with the General Plan Goals and Policies.
He concluded his presentation by clarifying that all vehicles related to the construction operation
will be parked on site, that the proposed homes are compatible in site since most surrounding
homes are 2,900 square feet or greater, and that visual impacts will be mitigated by the proposed
bonded landscaping and the existing topography of the site.
Discussion was opened to the public at 8:05 p.m.
Michael Lagios, II Benton Court, stated that notwithstanding the efforts made to accommodate
the development, the proposal was a mistake. Givcn the importancc of the site, he disagreed that
the proposed landscaping, most likely cxotics, would mitigate the loss of the grassy open space.
At some point, the Town will have to accept thc fact that the entire area ofTiburon should not be
developed. He asked that staff reconsidcr its recommendation.
Randy Greenberg, 45 Norman Way, stated that although'significant improvements have been
made to the project, it was still not enough. Homes of this size clustered on a hillside are
inconsistent with the General Plan policies. Thc proposed homes should be more dispersed in
order to increase visual separation, particularly since the subject property was located on a
transitional corridor between an urban and a rural area. Depending on landscaping to screen the
project was not a reliable solution. She concluded by stating that although density for the subject
site allowed four homes, development did not havc to be maximized.
Jean Sullivan, 23 Juno Road, thought that thc proposed access road to the site has not been
shown so it is unknown what the impacts will be in terms of visibility and traffic. She then
stated that traffic is a concern, particularly sincc thc project proposes two cntrances to Trestle
Glen in close proximity to one another. Shc qucstioned the thoroughncss of potential traffic
impact analysis since it appears that the impacts of a pending project nearby were not considered.
Margaret Peterson, 26 Juno Road, stated that it is unlikely that the proposed landscaping will
adequately screen the homes given the typc of soils and the northern exposurc of the hillside
She concluded by stating that if thc acccss road is to be off the extension of Juno Road, then a
stop sign would be needed at the interscction.
Mr. Hochstrasser responded to the issues raised in the following manner: I) all landscaping will
be native and no exotic vegetation will bc uscd; .2) the homes have been separated as much as
possible based on the constraints of the sitc; 3) although screening of the project heavily relies on
the proposed landscaping, the proposcd design will also play an important role; 4) plant spccies
were carcfully selccted based on the type of soils' and exposure of the hillside; and 5) the
proposed square footage of the homes is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood since
most of the homes in the surrounding area are well over 2,900 square feet.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION ~HNUTES NO, X51 OCTOBER 24. 200l
. 1
.
I
.
Mr. Lagios noted that most of the homes on Benton Court were 1,500 square feet or less. He
also questioned whether the proposed native vegetation and shrubs would grow up to 20 or 30
feet in five to seven years to adequately screen the project.
The p~blic hearing was closed at 8:25 p.m.
Commissioner Fredericks stated that when the Commission discusscd clustering, they were not
talking about clustering within the whole parcel, but rather clustering in the portion of the parcel
that would be built. One of the issues raised was that the project had the appearance of one
building. Although the home closest to Trestle Glen Boulevard has been lowered and reduced in
size, the project as a whole still had the appearance of one big building because of the way it has
been clustered. The intent was to push the building closest to Trestle Glen further back in order
to accomplish a greater distance from the transitional corridor, thereby eliminating the massive
appearance. However, relocation of the home on Lot 4 has only uncovered the remaining three
lots giving the homes the appearance of one big structure, which will not be adequately screened
by the proposed landscaping. In her opinion, square footage was not the issue, since floor area
ratio is simply a benchmark for important attributes such as views from thc road and surrounding
neighborhood, as well as the protection of the transitional feel along the corridor Therefore, since
the subject sitc is the first along the corridor, it should conform with the intent of the General
Plan with respect to the character of the neighborhood
Commissioner Smith questioned the appropriateness of clustering in all cases, particularly this
one based on the constraints and limitations. Noting that preservation of undeveloped properties
as open space was always desirable, hc also stated that their acquisition as public open space was
not always desired due to issues such as maintenance and liability. If it is highly valued to
preserve undeveloped properties for public access, then they should be purchased as public open
space. In his opinion, this project has bcen significantly improved and, to the extent feasible,
open space has been preserved, visibility has been minimized, and the project has been reduced
in size.
In response to Chair Stein, staff clarified that the term "bonded landscaping" meant that
landscaping will be required to be installed and maintained as shown on the approved plans.
Should any of the landscaping die, it is the property owner's responsibility to replace it. If not,
the Town will replace it and will put a lien on the property to cover the cost. Such landscaping
agreements have been required for commercial projects in the past. However, imposing this
agreemcnt on a residential project in perpetuity will bc "a first" for Tiburon.
Commissioner Snow found that the project has been significantly improved and rcduced in size
to the maximum extent feasible. Although he agreed that density could be reduced from four
units to three, he recognized that the homes could be much larger in size. He concluded by
agreeing that any development of the propcrty would look significantly different than the
existing grassy area
Commissioner Fredericks pointed out that the actual hcight of the structures will be higher and
more visible than currently depicted by the story poles since the site will be graded.
TII1URON PLANNING COMMISSION :-'lINUTES NO. X51 OCTOBER 24. 200 I
4
,
~
Chair Stein stated that if clustering of the homes resulte~ in them being too close to one another,
that the Design Review Board be given the flexibility to further reduce the foot print of the
homes since they did not have the authority to change the building envelopes. Therefore, he
suggested that the resolution be framed in a manner to give the Design Review Board such
flexibility. He also noted that due to the fact that the project has been in process for quite some
time now, there has not been continuity in the membership of the Planning Commission. Not
withstanding, he agreed that the fact that im EIR was not required was questionable. Therefore,
he hoped that no precedent would be set regarding the need for an EIR on other nearby
properties. Other properties superficially similar in nature may need an EIR, therefore, he
encouraged fellow Commissioners to make the same statement. Chair Stein did recognize that
the applicant had followed the specific direction given by the Commission at the last hearing
Chair Stein concluded by asking that the resolution be modified to specify that should the Design
Review Board find that final design of houses will result in the appearance of one single,
massive building, that further reduction in square footage may be necessary.
Commissioner Smith stated that emphasis should be on maximizing visual separation of the
structures, and that one way to achieve such separation may be by further reducing the square
footage andlor shifting the homes within the building envelope.
Chair Stein clarified that once the building envelopes are approved by the Commission, the
Design Review Board can not change them. However, the Board could be given other options.
Mr. Anderson pointed out that if not all homes were approved at the same time, as sometimes
occurred, it would be difficult for the Design Review Board to evaluate the visual impacts of the
project as a whole Therefore, it may be appropriate to include a condition requiring some sort
of analysis when the first application is submitted that would fold onto the others. Anderson
suggested the construction ofa model or similar device with the first house application.
Commissioners discussed at length options to deal with a potentially massive appearance,
agreeing that language be expanded to indicate that should clustering become an issue during the
design review process the square footage of the remaining homes be could further reduced by the
Board.
Staff suggested that an added condition should read "It is recommended that the Design Review
Board further reduce the floor areas for any or all homes in the subject subdivision if the homes
appear to be clustered too close together." The Commission found this language acceptable.
In response to Commissioner Fredericks, Anderson clarified that the actual bicycle/pedestrian
path shown on the schematic plan will be addressed and finalized by the Town at a later date He
also stated that by law, all new utilities serving a project are required to be placed underground at
the time it is developed.
MIS SmithIBerger (4-0) to adopt the attached resolution recommending approval of the
Tiburon Court Precise Development Plan (Planned Development No. 18B) and adoption of
a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, to the Town
Council as modified.
TlllURON PLANNING COr...1MISSION MINUTES NO. N~ I OCTOBER 24, 2001
5
.....
'....-
"-
,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT FOR THE
PARENTE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PC #4) TO CREATE FIVE
BUILDING SITES ON A 10.3 ACRE PARCEL; PARENTE ROAD/ANTONETTE
DRIVE; Amerippon, Inc., owners; Philip MosslNeil Sorensen, applicants;
Assessor's Parcel No. 38-...-16
Senior Planner Watrous explained that the purpose of the hearing was to obtain public comment
on the adequacy of the EIR and not on the merits of the project, since those will be addressed at a
separate hearing. The comment period on the DEIR will end on November 8,200] Explaining
the location on a site plan, he summarized the proposal by stating that the Precise Development
Plan would establish building envelopes for five homes on five lots. The site is covered with
native grasses, scattered brush, and some additional trees, but no wetlands. Some of he key
findings of the DE1R relate to:
. Geology - The presence oflandslide deposits on the site, for which mitigation measures have
bcen recommended so that development can bc constructed without resulting in significant
impacts.
. Because or'the location of the proposed residences and street, the DEIR does conclude that
the project would be inconsistent with Policy OSC-II which encourages that grading be
minimized to maintain existing landforms, and therefore, is considered a significant impact.
The DEIR concludes that the only feasible mitigation for this significant impact is to approve
a project alternative that reduces the number and relocates the residences.
. Hydrology - Four watersheds have been identified at the site. Although the potential for
increased water runoff and erosion exists, mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to less
than significant levels have been recommended.
. Traffic - Although no significant impacts were identified on any nearby intersections in
tcrms of level of service, the DEIR concludcd that the intersection of Parente Road and
Paradise Drive was dangerous. Thercforc, it is recommended that Antonette Drive be used as
the sole access, or that Parente Road only be used for access to the project from Paradise
Drive, with Antonette Drive used for cgress.
. Aesthetics - The project was deemed to bc inconsistent with Policy OSC-5 of the Open
Space and Conservation Elcmcnt which states that to the extent feasible, all new
development be located well below ridgelines. The DEIR concludes that the only feasible
mitigation would be to approve a project alternative reducing the number of residences and
changing their location.
. Noise - Mitigation measures to minimize construction noise have been recommended.
. Land Use - the project was deemed inconsistent with OSC-3 of the Open Space and
Conservation Element, which identifies the subject property as "potential open space". The
TIBURON PI.ANNING CO~tl\1ISSION MINUTES NO. R51 OCTOBER 24. 2001
6
recommended mitigation measure is to approve a project alternative reducing the number of
residences and changing their location.
Mr. Watrous concluded by recommending that following the conclusion of public testimony, the
hearing be closed, Commissioners provide verbal comments, and this matter be continued to the
meeting of November 28, 2001 for determination as to whether the DEIR was prepared in
conformance with CEQA
The hearing was opened to public testimony.
Michael Zischke, legal counsel for the applicant, informed the Commission that the applicant
would try to resolve as many of the issues as possible early in the process, but that they would be
submitting their comments on the DEIR in writing. He then took issue with some of the
conclusions of the DEIR, not with respect to its adequacy, but with the way the conclusions are
stated. The DEIR singles out the subjcct property to be treated differently than other properties
similar in size in the vicinity. The conclusions on geology and grading arc an example, since thc
DEIR questions the amount of grading and its consistency with the General Plan. He said that
the type of grading required for the subject project is similar to the type of grading that would be
required for surrounding properties. In his opinion, the proposed project is consistent with the
Town' General Plan and zoning of the site, and is compatible with the surrounding character.
In response to Chair Stein, Mr. Zischke stated that they would be expanding on their comments
regarding the zoning and density of the project, in terms of compliance with the Town Plan and
current Open Space designation.
Discussion was opened to the public at 920 p.m.
Richard Payne, 120 Antonette Drive, summarized his previously submitted letter, that had been
revised, commenting on the fact that the DEIR document fails to acknowledge the deteriorated
conditions of Antonette Drive, which would be exacerbated by construction trafTic. Noting the
potential landslide, slippage, and water problems related to the proposed excessive grading, Mr.
Payne pointed out the project's inconsistency with Policy OSC-II, which encourages that
grading be minimized to maintain existing landforms. He agrecd that mitigation to this concern
would be to reduce the number of units. He concluded by pointing out that increasing runoff in
watersheds I, 2, and 3 will result in major !looding to his property
Michael O'Donnell, 4879 Paradise Drive, statcd that Parente Road was one of the most
dangerous roads off Paradise Drive given its alignment
Joanna Kemper, Last Chance Committee, stated that since the DEIR does recognize that the
subject property has elements associated with prime open space: the General Plan policies should
be upheld. She asked that visual impacts, not just from Tiburon, but also from the bay, be
addressed. In her opinion, the property owner should be required to repair any landslides if they
occur as a result of the project. She concluded by asking that staff consider providing common,
homeowner private open space rather than granting open space for each of the homes.
TlBURON PLANNING COMMISSION ~f1NlJTES ;\"0, X51 OCTOBER 24, 200 I
7
I
Walt Bilofsky, 4804 Paradise Drive, shared the concern regarding safety at the Parente
Road/Paradise Drive intersection, and asked that the cumulative impacts of the pending Paradise
Cay project be taken into consideration. He noted that although his property was not within one
of the watersheds to be impacted, based on past personal experience drainage should be carefully
considered, particularly directly to the east of the subject' property
C. R. Bricca, 145 Antonette Drive, noted that the conclusion of engineering studies done on his
property indicate that soil stability is a concern. Therefore, his concerns related to potential
landslides and privacy intrusion based on the location of the proposed homes.
Lynn Payne, 120 Antonette Drive, read a letter from a neighbor sharing the concerns raised by
Mr. Payne. She then stated that turning left from Antonette Drive onto Paradise Drive was very
dangerous given the alignment of the road.
The public hearing was closed at 9:35 p.m.
Commissioner Fredericks asked that an accurate and consistent number of truck trips for
removing excess soil be provided.
Commissioner Smith asked that gcotechnical information, in terms of potential landslides and
impacts ofT site, be expanded upon
Chair Stein asked that any potential prime open space areas be identified. The extent of such
prime open space would have potential impacts on density and the project alternatives to be
considered. He expressed concern that the DEIR did not adcquately address the proposed size of
homes or the potential elimination of prime open space. Although the amount of open space
would dictate the density allowed, the E1R does not provide guidance. He asked that expert
testimony regarding the uniqueness of the property as open space be evaluated, and that this
information be provided prior to finalizing the EIR.
MIS Fredericks/Berger (4-0) to continue this matter to the hearing of November 28, 2001,
for determination as to whether the DEIR was prepared in conformance with CEQA.
AD,JOURNMENT
Having no further business, the Commission adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
STEVE STEIN, CHAIRMAN
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATTEST
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
10240 I pcmin.doc
TII3URON PLANNING COM1...lISSION !\t1NUTES NO. H51 OCTOBER 24. 2001
8
'.
~ <:tff\ ~ \e. ~4'M. of
Aj ('~~M~+
AGREEMENT FOR INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF
EXISTING AND NEW LANDSCAPING
THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of ,
between Property Owners (s) hereafter referred to as "Property Owner," and the TOWN
OF TmURON, A Municipal Corporation, hereafter referred to as "Town."
RECITALS
THIS AGREEMENT is based upon the following facts:
I. Property Owner is the owner of real property in the Town ofTiburon, property
address (Assessor's Parcel Number APN) described in Exhibit "A" attached to this
Agreement and made a part of it by this reference:
.'
2. On Approval Date, the Town granted a Design Review Approval to the Property
Owner in accordance with the zoning ordinance of the Town of Tiburon.
3. By the terms of the Design Review Approval, the Property Owner is required to
install and maintain landscaping in accordance with a plan approved by the Town on
Approval Date, a copy of which is on file in the Town Office to which reference is
made for further particulars.
. 4. Both parties recognize that the installation and maintenance of landscaping is an
integral part of the Property Owner's plan for development of the property. and is
necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of the Town's Land Use regulations, and
that the development would not have been approved by Town without the assurance
that this Agreement would be executed by Property Owner.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES, AS FOLLOWS:
I. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to assure (a) installation of the
landscaping in accordance with landscape plan previously approved by the Town and
(b) continued maintenance and care of the existing landscaping.
2. PROPERTY SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT. The property which is the subject of this
Agreement is described in Exhibit" A" which is attached to this Agreement and
incorporated in it by this reference.
3. CITY PROCEEDINGS Reference is made to the Design Review Board proceedings
conducted by the Town (Planning File No. File Number) and the landscaping plan for
the property, a copy of which is on file in the Town Offices.
1 of 4
EXHIBIT NO"JD.
.
\I
'.'
_.
.
,
4. LANDSCAPING AS A BENEFIT. Property Owner agrees that the landscaping
which helshe is obligated to provide will materially benefit hislher property and is
necessary to comply with the # condition(s) imposed by the Town as a requirement of
the development of the property
5. DUTY TO INST ALL A.J'\ffi MAINTAIN LANDSCAPING. Property Owner agrees
to complete the installation of the approved landscaping prior to final building
inspection approval, and diligently to maintain and care for the landscaping which
helshe installs, using generally accepted methods of cultivation and watering.
Property Owner shall maintain that standard care necessary to prevent the
landscaping from deteriorating to the extent that its value as landscaping is destroyed.
6. TOWN MAY MAINTAIN LANDSCAPING. Property owner agrees that if he/she
fails to meet the standard of maintenance necessary to keep the landscaping in a
healthy condition, the Town will give written notice of the deficiency to the owner
who shall have 20 days to make the necessary correction, and if the correction is not
made within 20 days the Town may elect to take the steps necessary to assure that the
landscaping is maintained and cared for. To do this, the Town shall service a notice
of its intent to enter the premises for this purpose The Town shall either personally
service the notice upon the Property Owner or mail a copy of it by Certified Mail at
the Property Owner's last known address, or as shown on the tax rolls at least 14 days
in advance of the date when it intends to enter the premises. For this purpose, the
Town may enter upon the property and perform such work as it considers r~asonably
necessary and proper to restore and maintain the landscaping. The Town may act
either through its own employees or through an independent contractor.
7. TOWN'S COSTS OF MAINTENANCE A LIEN. If the Town's incurs costs in
restoring or maintaining the landscaping after following the procedure set forth in
Paragraph 6 above, the Town shall make demand on the Property Owner for payment,
if the Property Owner fails to pay the costs incurred by the Town within 30 days of
the date demand was made, the Town my make the costs a lien upon the real property
described I Exhibit "a" by recording a notice that it has incurred expenses under the
terms of this Agreement with the County Recorder of Main County. The notice shall
state the fact that the City has incurred the costs under the terms of this Agreement
and shall state the amount, together with the fact that it is unpaid, and draws interest
at the rate of 7 percent a year until paid.
8. ADDITIONAL REMEDIES. The Town may as an alternative to the lien procedure
set forth above in Paragraph 7, bring legal action to collect the sums due as the result
of making of expenditures for restoration arid maintenance of the landscaping. The
Property Owner agrees that iflegal action by the Town is necessary to collect the
amount expended by the Town, the Property Owner agrees to pay the Town a
reasonable sum as attorney's fees and court costs, together with interest from the date
which is 30 days after the Town has given its notice, under Paragraph 6 above.
2 of 4
i
9. NOTICES. Notice given by each party to the Agreement shall be given to :he other
party at the Address shown below:
Notices to the Town shall be addressed to the Planning Director, Town of Tiburon, 1505
Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920. Notices to the Property Owner shall be
addressed to him/her at the following address:
Property Owner( s)
Street Address
Street Address
Tiburon, CA 94920
When Property Owner ceases to be the owner, helshe may file with the Town a notice to
that effect containing the name and address of the new owner and a copy of the deed.
Upon doing so, the subsequent Grantee is charged with the obligation under this
Agreement.
10. MISCELLANEOUS TERMS AND PROVISIONS
:
a. If any provision of this contract is adjustl'd invalid, the remaining provisions
of it are not affected
b Notice to Property Owner shall be considered to have been given to him/her
when sent to his/her address above stated
c. This writing contains a full, final and exclusive statement of the contract of the
parties
d. Property Owner appoints the Town as his/her Attorney-in-fact, to do all acts
and things which the Town considers necessary to restore or maintain the
landscaping approved under the Design Review Board proceedings.
e. If there is more than one signer of the Agreement as Property Owner, their
obligations are joint and several.
f The obligations upon the owner signing this Agreement terminates personally
as to him/her when helshe conveys hislher interest in the property and files for
record with County Recorder a copy of assignment of this Agreement. In this
case the new owner(s) takes title subject to the requirements of this agreement.
11. AGREEMENT ATTACHES TO LAND. This Agreement pertains to and runs with
the real property described in Exhibit "A". This Agreement binds the successors in
interest of each of the parties to it.
12. TOWN MAY REOUIRE ADDITIONAL SECURITY. Ifupon execution of this
Agreement of during the course of performance the Town considers that it is
necessary to have the Property Owner post additional security to guarantee the
performance ofhis/her obligations, the Town may require the Property Owner to post
additional security. The Town may require either a cash deposit or a surety bond
guaranteeing performance signed by sureties and in a form deemed satisfactory to the
3 of 4
\
1
Town. The condition of the security shall be that if the Property Owner fails to
perform his/her obligations
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year
above written.
4 of 4
TlBURON COURT PROJECT
The following is a brief listing of the positive and negative aspects of this project as seen
by Town Staff This does not purport to be a comprehensive list, and reasonable minds
may differ with respect to certain qualitative assessments.
Positive Aspects
. Over 85% of property secured as open space.
· New Ridge Trail alignment to be constructed across property in a public access
easement.
· Public pedestrian easement secured for lateral trail connecting to adjacent
undeveloped property.
· Public pedestrian easement secured along upslope side of primary drainageway.
· Contributions to Belveron Drainage Master Plan improvements (physical and/or
monetary).
· Stream and riparian corridor enhancement plan to be implemented on primary
drainageway crossing the property.
. Additional right-of-way secured on south side of Trestle Glen Boulevard for
future bicycle lane, plus monetary contribution to the extent allowed by law.
· On-site landslides repaired (will reduce siltation into Belveron Drainage system).
Nel,?ative Aspects
. Change of character from open space to rcsidentiaI development
· Completely open visual experience along south side of Trestle Glen Boulevard
will be lost.
· Natural appearance of portion of site from Trestle Glen Boulevard will be lost.
. Incremental increase in traffic from four new homes.
· Dust, noise, traffic, and other nuisances that result during construction.
· Introduction of new roadway intersccting Trestle Glen Boulevard.
EXHIBIT No.,I'
RESOLUTION NO.
r;-~"\,
,I \ '!
i,
,
I
, i.
,",=,..'
I""'=':=-_h
1;=,
: ~ .
=,
',V
.
1.., '"-_, ,_.
:
J I
W
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
AMPLIFYING AND SUPPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE TIBURON ZONING
ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #188 BY APPROVING
THE TIBURON COURT PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 39-061-80 & 86
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows:
Section 1.
Findings.
A. The Town of Tiburon has received and considered an application tiled by Round-Two
Joint Venture for a Precise Development Plan (the Tiburon Court Precise Development
Plan) to amplity and supplement the existing Residential Planned Development (RPD)
zoning for the property and to develop the following project: .
The development of four single-family dwellings on a 13.34-acre property, with lot sizes
ranging from 1.45 to 4.98 acres. The Tiburon Court Precise Development Plan would
establish building envelopes, residential use areas, height and floor area limits, and other
zoning limitations for the four future lots. Except for stream restoration landscaping and
Trestle Glen Boulevard butTer landscaping, all landscaping and fencing would be limited to
the residential use area on each lot. Homes on Lots I, 2, and 3 would be limited to 2,900
square feet of gross floor area, as detined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, plus up to
600 square feet of garage and below-grade areas. Any home on Lot 4 would be limited
to 2,600 square feet of gross floor area, as defined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, plus
up to 600 square feet of garage and below-grade areas.
B. The Precise Development Plan application consists of File #39903, on file with the Town
ofTiburon Planning Department. Materials from that application include but are not
limited to the following:
I. Site Plan, Tiburon Court, prepared by Lawrence Doyle, revised 9/27/0 I, scale
I "=50' (I sheet).
2. Precise Development Plan Grading & Drainage Plan, Tiburon Court, prepared by
Lawrence Doyle, revised 9/27/01, scale )"=20' (I sheet).
3. Schematic Landscape Plan, Tiburon Court, dated 8/28/0 I (I sheet).
4. Tiburon Court Conceptual Architecture Plans Booklet, date-stamped received
October II, 2001, prepared by DTH & Associates, II"XI7" format, including
revised photosimulations.
5. Tiburon Court Mitigation Plan (Stream Restoration) drawings, prepared by Diane
L. Renshaw, dated 6/21/2000 (2 sheets)
Tihuron Town Council
Resolution No. Drall
--{--I----
1
EXHIBIT No,l~
The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of this resolution.
The record includes, but is not limited to, the Staff Reports, minutes, application materials,
Negative Declaration, and all comments and materials received at the public hearings.
C An expanded Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project was
prepared under contract to the Town of Tiburon by the consulting firm of Nichols-
Berman, and released for public review and comment on September I, 2000. The Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that all potential environmental impacts of the
project would be reduced to less than significant levels. Numerous letters were received
on this document in addition to comments offered at the two public hearings. Responses
to these comments were compiled along with project revisions into a Final Mitigated
Negative Declaration document dated July 200 I.
The Final Mitigated Negative Declaration conclude that changes to the project made since
the Draft Mitigated Negativc Dcclaration have acted to further reduce potential impacts of
the project on the environment Project modifications have resulted in reductions in the
potential for aesthetic impacts through size, height, and visual mass reductions as well as
changes in building materials. Potential hydrology impacts have been further reduccd
through decreases in impervious surface. PotcntiaI traffic safety impacts at the project
roadway entrance have been further reduced by improving the sight distance to the east.
On-site parking has been increased substantially Mitigation measures prescnted in the
Final Mitigated Negative Dcclaration have been accepted in writing by the applicant and
would reduce all potential adverse cnvironmental impacts to less than significant levels.
The Town Council finds that based upon evidcnce in the record, no significant adverse
impacts on the environment would occur as a result of the project. All potentially
significant adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated to less than significant
levels through modifications to the project as set forth in the mitigation monitoring
program and agreed upon by the applicant There has been no substantial evidence'
submitted into the record to support a fair argument that a significant adverse
environmental impact may rcsult from the project
D. The Town Council finds that the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings
on October II, 2000, January 10, 200 I, July 25, 200 I, and October 24, 200 I at which it
heard and considered testimony from interested pcrsons. The Planning Commission
found, based upon application materials and analysis presented in the staff reports and the
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, that on balance the proposal is consistent with the
goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan and is in conformance with provisions of
the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance The facts in support of this finding are set forth in the
staff reports and the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, all of which are incorporated
into the project record. The Planning Commission voted 4-0 (Berger absent) to
recommend conditional approval of the project to the Town Council.
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. Drall
"/-'/-'"
2
E. The Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on December 5, 2001 at which it
heard and considered testimony from interested persons, and considered the
recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Section 2.
Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council does hereby adopt the
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated July 200 I.
Section 3.
Proiect Approval and Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby
approves the Tiburon Court Precise Development Plan (PD#18B) and adopts a mitigation
monitoring program for the project, subject to the following conditions:
I. The following Tiburon Court Precisc Development Plan drawings and application
materials are approved, said plans being on file with the Tiburon Planning
Department:
A. Site Plan, Tiburon Court, prepared by Lawrence Doyle, revised 9/27/0.1, scale
1"=50' (I sheet).
B. Precise Development Plan Grading,* Drainage Plan, Tiburon Court, prepared
by Lawrence Doyle, revised 9/27/01, scale 1"=20' (I sheet).
C. Schematic Landvcape Plan, Tiburon Court, dated 8/28/0 I (I sheet).
D. Tiburon Court Conceptual Architecture Plans Book/et, including revised
photosimulations, date-stamped "Received October 11,2001", prepared by DTH
& Associates, II "X 17" format.
E. Tiburon Court Mitigation Plan, prepared by Diane L. Renshaw, dated 6/21/200
(2 sheets plus)
2. This Precise Development Plan approval incorporates all of the environmental
mitigation measures listed in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program,
attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Applicant shall bear all costs for implementation
and monitoring of the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
3. This Precise Developmcnt Plan is intended to rcflect ultimate development of the
property. No additional subdivision is pcrmitted and a note to that effect shall be
placed on the Parcel Map.
4. It is the intent of this Precise Development Plan approval that all residences
constructed shall very closely rescmble the homes presented in the Conceptual
ArchitecllIre Plans Booklet and as shown on the photosimulations contained
therein. Materials and colors used for all structures located within the boundaries
of this Precise Development Plan shall blend into the natural environment and
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. Dralt
--1'-1----
3
strongly resemble those on the photosimulations Exterior colors (including trim)
shall be restricted to subdued, medium-to-dark earth-tones. Walls shall be native
stone or stone-clad; natural wood shingle siding (no raw redwood), and dark
earth-tone roofing materials shall be required. All homes shall maintain the
appearance of a single stary "Bungalow" style dwelling when viewed from Trestle
Glen Baulevard. The exterior appearance of the homes shall be maintained over
time in accordance with this conditian of approval. Repainting or ather exterior
alteration not in accordance with this candition of approval shall require an
amendment to this Precise Development Plan.
5. It is intended_that de~gn review applications focallJo.ur Lms will.be_subJ!1itted
si mu Itaneo,uslX"such.thatJbe DesignJ~~~iew.Board_c.an.assess.th,eJ.eYe'-and
1!RRropriatene.s5...of clustering.that w,o.uld.r.esult, and if neC.essarv. make
adju stments.RuLSJ.HlOt_to..Condi tiO.!1.J~Lo....9_b.elo.w._In..the.e.\'ent.that.design_reyiew
1!RRlications.aLe no.! submitted at the sat'!)e time, the first dcsig!l.rey.ie,~amJ.lication
shalLinclude a.s.cal.c.model of the site or otheuimilar visual aids to th.e satisfactio.n
o.Cthe.~lanning Di vision,_t hat.wilLe.nable.an.adeg uate.assessmellt.o.f.tb~cJusle.ring
effe.ct.
6. It is recammended that the Design Review Board should further reduce the floor
areas for any or all houses in this subdivision, andLoU.epo,sitLQILRLQPQsed.ho.!TIes-
within,tbe.existigg_buildingeny,eIOR,es.as.necessarv. if the homes appear to be too
closely clustered
7. 8!lY aRR.LQye_dJencing,(Iimitecl.to the:'r.esiclentia'-l!.se.ar_eas~oLeac_b,.Lot) shall_be
I ow-key..mi ni mally-Yi sib'-~,_and_bl endj ntojts_su (r,QU nd i ng~
8. The maximum "gross flaor area", as detlned by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance,
allowed to be constructed on cach lot shall be as follows:
. Lots 1, 2, and 3 Shall not exceed 2,900 square feet, plus up to 600
square feet of garage space on each Lot.
. Lot 4: Shall not cxceed 2,600 square feet, plus up to 600 square feet
of garage space.
9. Buildings and accessory buildings shall be canfined to the approved "building
envelope" on each lot, as shown on the approved I "=20' scale Precise
Development Plan Grading & Drainage Plan. No. tennis courts are permitted.
10. No. improvements of any type, including fencing and landscaping, shall be
permitted outside the approved "residential use area" shown on the approved
I "=50' Site Plan, except those required subdivision and initial construction-related
improvements shown on the approved Precise Development Plan drawings, as well
Tiburon Tmvn Council
Rl.:solullon No. Dralt
--1--1..'.
4
as buffer landscaping along Trestle Glen Boulevard. Landscaping shown on the
Schematic Landscape Plan at the rear of Lot 2 and located outside of that Lot's
"residential use area" is hereby deleted.
II. Setbacks shall be as set forth on the approved I "=20' scale Precise Development
Plan Grading & Drainage Plan, with the following additional setback
requirements:
a. Lot I buildings shall be set back at least 120 feet from the existing
pavement edge of Trestle Glcn Boulevard, measured perpendicular to
Trestle Glen Boulevard.
b. Lot 4 buildings shall be set back at least 110 feet from the existing
pavement edge of Trestle Glen Boulevard, measured perpendicular to
Trestle Glen Boulevard.
c Lot 3 and Lot 4 buildings shall be set back at least 50 feet from the "top of
bank" of the intermittent stream.
12. Maximum hcight of residcnccs, as detined by the Tihuron Zoning Ordinance, shall
be as follows:
a. Lots I, 2, and 3 shall not exceed 24 feet in height from finished grade at
any point; Lot 4 shall not exceed 20 feet in height from finished grade at
any point.
b. Height from existing (pre.project) grade for Lot I shall range from 10 to
18 feet but shall not exceed 18 feet at any point.
c. Height from existing (prc-projcct) grade for Lot 2 shall range from 12 to
18 feet but shall not cxceed 18 teet at any point.
d. J'Ieight from existing (pre-projcct) grade for Lot 3 shall range from 12 to
20 feet but shall not excced 20 feet at any point.
e. Height from cxisting (pre-project) grade for Lot 4 shall range from 10 to
16 feet but shall not cxcccd 16 feet at any point.
f Accessory structures may not exceed 15 feet in height at any point.
Existing (pre-project) gradc shall be bascd upon the topographic lines included on
the approved I "=20' scale Precise Development Plan Grading & Drainage Plan.
13. Any sloped roof areas shall not cxceed 4/1 2 pitch and shall be clustered at thc
center of each house, with remaining roof arcas to be flat or low-pitched to rcduce
visual impact.
14. Landscape palettes developed for cach Lot shall be in substantial conformance
with the Revised Schematic Landscapc Palette attached as Exhibit "8" hcreto.
The precise location, size, and type of plantings shall be specified with submittal of
the Site Plan & Architectural Review application for cach lot. Ongoing
Tiburon Town Coum.:il
R~sollltion No, Drall
--/-"/----
5
maintenancc of the scrcening landscaping (trees) on cach lot shall be secured by
recorded agreement between the Town and project sponsor prior to issuance of
the building pcrmit for each lot. Said agreement shall ensure that the screening
landscaping (trees) are maintained by the lo.t owner in perpetuity.
15. Timing of Trestle Glen Boulevard buffer landscape installation, substantially as
shown of the Sc:hematic: hmd,c:ape Plan, as well as irrigation and ongoing
maintenance, shall be specifically resolved through recorded agreement prior to
approval of the Parcel Map. The agreement shall ensure that the landscape buffer
is maintained by the property owner(s) in perpetuity.
16. Exterior lighting should be limited to the minimum amount necessary to safely
illuminate points of access and outdoor use areas. In its review of individual
homes, the Design Review Board shall carefully review all lighting to minimize its
visibility from surrounding properties and Trestle Glen Boulevard.
17. All portions of lots outside of the "residential use area" and the 40.foot wide
"access and public utilitics easement" shall bc contained and protected within an
open space easement granted to the Town of Tiburon. Said open space easement
shall be recorded in conjunction with thc rccordation of the parcel map. Said open
space easement shall acknowledge, if necessary, a possible future access driveway
opposite Juno Road to serve the adjoining 14.5-acre parcel to the west, and shall
also acknowledge any required drainage and utility easements and any landscape
installation and maintenance agreements that arc required as part of this Precise
Dcvelopment Plan approval The open space easement language shall be reviewed
and approved by the Town Attorney and Planning Director prior to approval of the
parcel map.
18. B.o.undaries_Q,fJhe..Oj1en,s Race_eas.ement.atJ he_R,eIimeteLoLthe~r,esid_entiaLus,e
ar.eas" of ea<;:h LQunall be sleady_and,j1ermanently, demarcatedjll the field.Rrior_to
Q.CCUpaIlCY, of each,residcnc,e. A suitable mechanism for this demarcation shall b,e
<IPProV,e.d in coniunction w.ith.lhc T entative SubdiYisiQJ],Map~
19. In addition to the Tiburon Ridge Trail segment to be offered for public dedication
and constructed by the project sponsor, additional public pedestrian easements
shall be offered for dedication. One easement shall run laterally across the
property, following.the natural contours to the extent feasible, and shall connect
the Tiburon Ridge Trail segmcnt to the property line ofthc adjoining 145-acre
"Trestle Glen Lower" parccl to the west. A_se.c.o.n.d eas.cmcnt.shall.r.oug!l!Y~l1arallel
the site' s.major drail1ag~lVay'.,on.lhe_llRslOR.e side an.d~(;Qn_ne,cuheJateral.easement
to Trestle Glen,.BO,ule\(ard.aUhe.s.o.uthwest eOI!lcLoCthe.Rr.Oj1erty,._J:he_Rl.ecjs~
nature (flQaJlog_QCd i screte ).and_w.i.d t n_o.f.t hc.lattcr_tw.o_eas.ement s_shalLb,e
determined_aUhl;JentatiV,e5ubdiyision MaR_stage oJ r.eview
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. Draft
--/--/...,
6
20. In addition to the offer of dedication for the 10' road-widening strip along the
length of the Trestle Glen Boulevard frontage shown on approved project
drawings, project sponsor shall contribute monetarily to the eventual construction
of a bicycle lane. Said monetary contribution shall be paid prior to recordation of
the parcel map and shall be calculated in accordance with legal principles
governing such exaction.
21. Draft CC&R's for the subdivision shall be prepared and submitted for review by
the Town Attorney and Planning Director as part of the Tentative Map application.
Said CC&Rs shall contain provisions and limitations as set forth in this Precise
Development Plan approval to the satisfaction of the Town ofTiburon.
22. Due to parking limitations within the subdivision, secondary dwelling units, as
defined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, shall not be permitted within this
subdivision. CC&R's for the subdivision shall incorporate this limitation.
23. All requirements of the Town Engineer with respect to drainage and utilities shall
be met. The Town Engineer's prefercnce at this time is to require improvement of
the existing undersized Belveron Drainagc Ditch and pipe east of Juno Road and
direct the project's flow into the upgraded facilities. In addition, drainage
mitigation fees will be rcquired per thc Tiburon Municipal Code.
24. This Precise Development Plan approval shall be valid for 36 months following its
effective date, and shall expire unless subsequent zoning andlor building permits
have been issued pursuant to this approval. A time extension may be granted if
such request is filed prior to thc expiration date.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon held on by the following vote
AYES:
NOES
ABSENT:
, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Iscott/399( l3tcrcs.doc
Tihuron Town Council
Resolution No. Dratt
__1__1___.
7
.
· A"
EXHIBIT Nq.-A-
+0' Q(S,,\~+,O'l\.
,
.
4.0 DRAFT MITlGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
.
Background Assembly Bill (AB) 3180 (California Public Resources Code (pRC) Section 2108.6)
became law in California on January I, 1989. This bill requires all public agencies to adopt mitigation
or reporting plans when they approve projects with Mitigated Negative Declarations or Environmental
Impact Reports which identify significant environmental impacts, The reporting and monitoring plans
must be adopted when a public agency makes its findings pursuant to the California Environmental
QualilY Act (CEQA) so that the program can be made a condition of project approval. The plan must
be designed to ensure project compliance with mitigation measures during project implemenlation. If
certain project impacts extend beyond the project implementation phase, long-term mitigation
monitoring should be provided in the monitoring plan.
.
.
.
Purpose The Tiburon Court mitigation moniloring plan will ensure that all mitigation measures
required by the Mitigated Negative Declaration and agreed to by the applicant are completed as part of
"project construction and are maintained in a satisfactory manner during and following project
implementation. This plan is designed in ~ table format for ease of use by the responsible parties. The
table identifies the individual imp~cts, corresponding mitigation measures, individual I agency
responsible for implementalion, time frame for implementation, and assigns a party responsible to
implement. monitor, and confirm the implement~tion of the mitigation plan. The table will be used by
the Town of Tiburon to verify that all required mitigation measures are incorporated into the project
and will provide ~ convenient tool to determine whether required measures have been fulfilled.
.
.
.
4,2 MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
.
Management The Town of Tiburon Planning Department will be responsible for overseeing
implementation and administration of the :Ylitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (the MMRP) for
the Tiburon Court residential development.
.
The Planning Director will designate a staff member to manage the MMRP. If currenl staffing in the
Planning Department cannot absorb the task of managing the MMRP. an independent contractor will
be hired at the expense of the project applicant. The independent contractor would serve under the
direction of the Planning Director or designated staff member. Duties of the staff member responsible
for program coordination, 'whether a permanent Town staff member or independent contractor, would
include the following:
.
.
.
Conduct routine inspections, plan checking, and reporting ~ctivities.
. Serve as liaison between the Town and project applic~nt regarding mitigation monitoring issues.
.
.
Coordinate ~ctivities of consultants hired by the project applicant when such expertise and
qualifications are necessary to implement and monitor mitigation measures.
..
.
Coordinate with other Town personnel and agencies having mitigation monitoring
responsibilities.
.
.
-1-,
.
~ f"'l m
!~~
::l ;;; 'J>
~.F- ~
~ ~ !!!.
S. ~ g
-..,.,.
~;;
~. =- ii"
~~. ::
'J> r. =-
:,) (II :;l
"':l :::..-
"':l ~ :r'
== -. (II
a. ':< (II
;:; ;::;
:;; ~
< ~
" -
;-
~
!a....::; ;.~ ~
Co) ,.... Q) 0 Co)
s: a !2 :::. g..
1:"1 In :C' g <
~~~:e.~
In c.. 0 '< 0
(II (fj ~ ' =
~F- (i"~ :2-
::: ~ := ~ '2
0- ::l Co (II n
n 0 ~ c..
.:: =' en ~ :5
~o~~~
r5'~. In ~
~;::Q~~
:2. (II ~ ~
~;;;g.
~;:; :.1
~
"'"
"
.
.
v.I (Il ~ >
~ ni -. ~ I>>
.g I>> ~..g ~;;
.... Co -. .- ::I I>>
0.."';:' ~ c.(JQ <
~~~~a2.
'<ao,<~~
-...- tnn
~g3~~~
c..:.l ... \I)
- III (i" - en ...
~ ~ =.:$E::i::::l
I>> I>>::J (J'Q l>>
(i 5 - (i" -. Co.
... ':II _.... ... (,n
~ <:n (It aQ 0
~ ~ ~ z: ~ ...,
rD ... - 0 (II g..
.g ;!. ~ ~ ~ :;:'
~ In ::.: ~ In ~
;.~a.~;t.l
=- :.l =Yi
C"'.... ~ 0
"
.
- o-"'=' c:
~ 0 ~ :=
(:;' ~ ~::
In!!.:::I~
o (II IJQ Q:I
::;;:;: :l.1 <
:a.~;:;2..
c:l I>> 1>>_
a-Y. !:2.._
:';01>>
~ e:: So c
~ - ~
(,1)_",,"":1
:II :.e ;;) ~
;- c;'0:2. (II
_C'tI::J Co.
- c.'JQ I>>
g- ~. ~ g
I>>-<~g
"":I - (Il 'Jl
~;:; Ill':!
;:!' ~ ~ ~
-5-;:;;0-
, .
.
::;s; 3 !!.>
~nl>>-=
';JII:" c:..;' g ::r
~?A !.:a. ~
~~~ig=
:;'"":J :=-- 0 lJQ
OQ 3 0(;":;'
~~ c $!. g
3~:7-2.,1r
2..t'II~ :t'~
c' ~ g ~ e!.
?~;;-,g-=-
c. :.1 C'Il
c.5.2..8
& ~ ~ ~
::!. ut ; ...
~ -"
~~g:~
:: g- ;:;
.
~. g, ~ ~
-. 0 ....
~~~ g.
0. = c.. <
= :. I>> n
~..==.("l
" 0
=- :.e ~ ~
= -'....-
3 = - ...
~ ~ ~.~
. 1i ~ o'
~ 0.."
::::' I>> =
c..==;:;
~ '< '"
o ~ :
,,0.."-
~ 3 ~
c..:g':T
" "
Q ;:; f)
... ~ ~
~] :r
~ :It <11
o' 5"-g
~ ~~.
iii 2-
'" "
=. 0
~~
.,,;;-
o ,.
=."
" 0
- ~
~- "
~
"
~:
<
"
(fjC"le:l.g2-~oQi'
< 0 en "'" -_
!!. ~ ~ ~ 5' 3 0
2 ~. -< l:JQ ~ ~
t"'l - _. l"'l (b (b 0
"':'2.30;""'-::::l
o' "":f:::l;;; en ...
::I ~. ~ ~ a ~ 2.
o:r-Vi~:'=-~
g.1 (JQ 0 ;:.0 -::;;;
(i":1 ~5 Ql2~
~==c-o=C:::l
, = en ~:;. VI
:rOQ - "'" :l: ~ ::
~ In ~ a. ;' =- :
. So. = = I'JQ ~ :::
en (b t"'l _ :;. c...
~. ~ i ~ ~ s_
::; ~ o. 0 ~ ~I
n :::l g;. S ; ~I
~ ~ ~ ~I
~ ~ ;l
- ::..~.
~ =. <.
~:::":J]
:r"":l
~::
2.8
~
l"'l Q,.IJQ O"'(JQ C
o c .., ~ "'" (b
~ :. ~ ? ~ -.
_::;I: _."'" _,0
"'" IJQ :::l ('tl =' (;
~ ~ O'CI (ij'0'0 _.
=.=~~1i~
o"O..,~""'c
==-3:::l3~
~ _. l"'l ;::.: l"'l
(ll In ('tl en (ll
"'-0-
0~-.~9.,
....,g. g-
[)>.I
~I
al
~
~
!
3" -
'Q I 2_'
OJ ii' -
",<3
<1l
" -
t;' g
a.. (i;'
"
~
I
~ I~
~ Oi
:::;
....
Q
o
:tl
:=.
."
....
~
:::!
C)
:=.
:::!
o
<:
:;:
o
<:
~
:tl
::.1:
C)
:=.
<:
o
:tl
I'll
-a
o
:tl
::!
<:
C)
-a
....
:=.
<:
I
I
I
I
I
:;:
-,
~
2!.
0-
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3"
'Q
0i:::E
3 ::I'
<1l <1l
" "
Ii'
c.
I
"
=
I
n~;; o:J-l
o c en " 0
.. =." -" ~
en _. (b o..~
" - "
- 0 _ .. m tIl=-
- ~ 0 ..
l>> _. .., =
:::l :::l r.n .. "'<0'
-.. . ;.
" ii
= "
0.. " C.
;"'
I
I
~I
0:;;\
.. <1l
1i'~1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
;..
I
J
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
- -.",
:l 0 _
(b _. ('II
:. c.. ~
- " "
o :l :l
"---
~ :.; ('\l
'< ~
:::; g
"'"'"
:l "
~ 0
:= ~
:i ~.
'" ::.
= '0
"--
,,-:l
-. "
~ :l
"'" -
o '"
~ -
'" "
-:::!.
=-
I
yo
n~~~~>O~~';'~3~~~g~o~
o a ;;;; >..c c.. l""., t:nooo < ('II ~ ('J ~ ~ ~. Q -_
~~'~>~'~']~~~~>~~~~~5!__~
-c.=.or;=... 3" ..._
~('\l~,=-'a;'('\l >~~~~_~"('\l
"'Oo~~~_. =a-==3('\l--:~
=-~C"-O~_=~_~ ~o ~
gOn a~~n~=~_~~~_~~2.
no;Y~...._o-'=oo"'" -0:Jr!l
~a.="'l>>5c:n.a.gnl "'O~=c.nQ=;:l
oC~~=_QQ ~ ...~~"'O=>_~
........."'Oc._~=OOc:n.o_l>>n_>~_
~ no = "'0 "" \.J (b n -.., = n r.n ::I ... =. ..c;:::
~r.n~"'=>~"~3n('\ll>>~==C=5
_.O~~ c:n.=~C.=_~('\l7~'~
o <: 3 ' ~ ~ -. - 3 = Co.:::I ""':l';;;'" n :::
~~?~_.Oc.=~~('\lr;=ar;a~_'"
-o~~=~-~c:n.5':Jr.n~~~"'O~~~
~- ,o-_-n:J=r.n~__.=_('\l _'_
l>> ~ =-__>0 l>>~:J C""':l:::l l>>.....,~..,_
~-('\l~O_~~~=~ga~g~~~
- c:n.n:. -~~c..r.n_.('\lr.n_l>>==~
r.n t:nl>>5 -=~ n~~~~~~~~_~
l>> ~ ..;; :.;r. g c.. -""':l <n == ('II :J _
(;'" ~ Q= - On -:::r;
'<.- C c..=- ~ oCi;:;=S_
c ""<: ('\l = ;""
o ~ c.. -~
"
:l
"-
o~~
~ "'
..... c...'~.
~ ..
r.n -. ~
on
~"'"
s.;g
::; :.!!
~
s
~~>
" " "
1i3~
;" ~ !l
(JQ 0-:;;'
~ ~ _.
C;; n Ci'
-:J r.n
"
:;( ::: ~
,. 0 =-
VI -- -,
c:::r2.
:.tl 0 -
-g ~ g
:l _ _
Co.:: VI
(Tj ::; 0
~~<
;:;- :!!.
"-'T
'T"
'<,,-
"
;!l
.
!!!.ce.:<
~~VI~
=';:::o!!.
:r< :r~
n (Tj " =.
~QQ Co. ~
(Tj 0 ~ ::
"3.~;;~
c.. Co:!=..
:: :5 ~
~ :ii' ~ go
"":Ie:....
~ ;:;.~
-"'"-
o - Co:!
"- '< :l
- ~ li
~ "-
;;"'"
r.n -:: :::::I
" ~
~
"
-
g n
~
.
_(I) .
--...,
- - -
... :.: ::J
"'" - ~
'=;:T~
. "
~
==""::l
~
~
li~
"-
0' :5
'"
-"
"',<
~, ::
0'-5
~ "
"'" ~
" ~
- -
-
9 ~
::; Vi'
~:t.1
"'.
o
c:
OJ
~
~
.~ '.:
OJ
!l
C'l
01
~,'
c:
'"
0..
.
~
<ii'
OJ
~
:::
.
3"
"l:l
OJ'"
",3
..
:::
;;;-
0..
"" - '" ""
- " - " 3"
" ~ ~ ;'
e.:Q
:l " 5' - "l:l
"
"" _.<lO '" ~ I
~ "'" r:;;'
"'" ~ ~ 3 I
" " ~ " iii
- " " ..
~, :l ~. :l ::: :::
,., ,., -
E " in ~ "
0 0 0..
~ "- ~
~
9- ;;::0""
~ " " " i!i=
- " '<
~ ; =: >
a' <lO ~ 3,
g ;; ~
" 0
;; ~ Ol
::. 0..
~
..
0:::
OJ "
-0..
"OJ
'"
......
> 0 0
0
~ 3 'T " 0. ~ ..,
" ~ 0. C " ~
9 0 " ill " 0 " =.g "
00' 0 3 0 0 ~ ~. "
3 3 0 5" 0 ~ ;. 0 c." <
" " ~ "" "0 -. "
3 g.,-. ::. "" -~ ;: "" <> ~ ""
<> !' " ~ ~ a- ~ " "
:: ~~ ~. " <> ~ i
0 0 o' :::: 0 "
0. !l:l ~ ~ 0. 0 "
" 0 ." 3 a ;"
0. ;:; !l:l n ~. " !~
? ~ a. 0" "
~. ;; ." 0 ""
~'< " " ~ - <;
c' ~ "" " 0
0 .~ "0 " ~ !<. "0
~ ;r 0 :. ~
"0 ::;> 5' : o' 3 <> <' ;;
;r 0 0 0 <> !" <> -g
5 .r;; 0" N' 0
0 " " - ~
r;; ~ " 0"0 " "
::r-:-: <; o.~ " 0.
" <> ,., ;; " .~
c.. !:l. ~ "- ~
'" c' ii' !<:. c..
.., p ,., :; "
::. ~ "
'T
-::c :'
~
.:.
~
o
cg ('G < t't:I
~~~ g.
'"=J 3 !!. Q,1
~ ('ll CJ :;:J
g :a o' ;0
:. ~ :: OQ
a=:~...
~;~~
~ ~ ~ ::!.
Vl <<: _ VI
~ 111 ::I =.
. .... ~ ~
:i :- :a.
r.n ('tl ....
-;" ~ ~
:::; ~. 3
c :: ~.
",""0.
.(.11 a;; 111
"O~
a ;:;:
n"
~ ~
~c. a:
0> <>
'" -
"-0>
_. a-
3 -
"0 !<.
a ~
<i :;
0.-
a-""
'< <>
~
;;
~
N"
"
?-
~ Q~~ ~~:,) tJI1OJ1
c.._:,)~o- . -
_. ~ l"': :l ::. .-:: _ a"1
~ 0'.'-'1 ;" - ;- ~ -l 10-
~3~ :-~= ~ ~F9
_ :i" :::.. - c-::: ("J 111 (')'1
~ ;:;":,):l) c -'-::1 Ql
111 -. _ VI c.. n'.... -I
CIl - ~ r.n !l:l :; ~ 2. J:l
111":'~ ..;a ("l ("l. 111 ctl
:;~....n:,)~O.c:.~1
(i"!l:l .., !:!. ~ - - ~ t::
o:"n-=o- -,
c..rJQ "'" Co. \II .... ;: ("'j
C;-- ~~ ~== m
:: - :::;:;-
::: ..... ;:; ~ !l:l l"': ::,)
n=:" \I'l=-~
oV'>_~"":J,<(:l
.... _ n 0 !l:l
_....... ~."':n
:- ~... ;:i 111 :::
S"l~~. Vl.... ~
"':"I ~ =; ~:;
c;;- E 00 =.
- - ~.
.
t'!'l > 3 :n c.., 3 ~""::l - n
~=!l:lr.n~~oa....o=~~~nx..,
_!l:l=t;;'(")~Q;loo~3=-3.,U1!)'Q;:' ~
5 g. i: !l:l ~ ~. ~ ~ g ""::l ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ g ~. (;
_3 _n~;:;:~_..,n - Co ~
c'o~5'~~:n~ =;.~~~~~:_.
? :. g = o' '<::: _. 111 :::" '< 00 _. =:: -..... -. "":J (Je
>~!l:l=Qc.r.n~o r.n~='OO 0::,)
=r.n no )01-.... - --
o~c. s:,,",,~nn.=-~t..,~;:"C;
"'*I .,j 0' _. =-- .., i:;e ~ ~ ~ ; ~ S;
Co 3 .., 5' =" ::. g (,II'" - - - - 4
n :3 ::I :!!..~ ~ - _ 0 ~ _ 0 _. ~: (,II
c.., 0 ~ (i ~ :::I :::I.,j ~ :::... -. ("Il ::I s: g
" ::: !! "':I (,II,::: Q.. ~:; = s.. " - n C ~
~ _ .... ... o<"! - c: ~ '< ~ c..... r_::::l .
.... 0 ~ r'D ""= =-- C. r'D =- t':l ~' "':I =- (jQ ;::;
=:: :::::!. _ "':j r'D (1l r'D 0 ;:D' ~ ... - - - :II
_':::In~ c.., -::::l""(1l_~.g~~_
" "" on ; ~ ~ ,,'" ;" s. ;:g !!l. - ~ --,
c.., Q -. =. c:::; -=- :::I. C ::::: ~ n = .,j
_ .::; _ S _:::;'" ::' 'JG ." =, ~ ..... - ;. ::.
... _ .,j.,j _ _ __ _ -;-.. ", n <:n
~ :;;-4 .'-=':S'c..~ ~_ c..n = t:?_
_. _. _ ~ _ c ~ c.-
~:::=, ~::. c:~~ e;:,
2.. Jg -. - 5' c.. ~
;.;n Q'l:l Q'l:l z::...
o
~ e: ...
.... c...~.
~.
r... ~
'"
<
c..
c ::::
=-~
2 ;; =.' ~ ~ ~. ~ Q
i5l c.. ("Il a c.. s::: Co) ~
_ _:,) c-_. ~
.., 0: :. - =0
~_C::=-5CiiSl(i~n
... .... __ n -.
",,("Il~~g-o-;-~
:: ltIc..=.::....,;:n=
3 Co. ~~ 0 ~
gs~a~~
:;;;' 5' 3'" 0
()Q 0'0;:;-'
(""j:?: m........ 0'"
o 0 n ('tl
:;J = S. "':J :l;
~=:O~;
S g. ~. 3" ~
= ::l ::.:I ("Il ~
-OQ -~::. :;
00
~ I
,
I . ~
" ,
"
-
~
~
"
5'
:::
.:.;;
<;
~
..
.$l3
...
::l
ib
Cl.
~
..::e
3==-
... ...
::. :::
Iii
Cl.
~
OJ=-
'0::0
iil
Cl.
;;;:
..
0::;;
"..
liiCl.
.$l
.....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ...
'"
I
J
a
I,
Ii
IJ
Ii
" ..
IJ
ail
IIJ :~:::}:,:
~~. -.
!-
L..........
::; ;::; c::..~
~ c..::J:l !2 n:
~~"':J~o
... ~ ::c 32
~ IJd Vl ::i" Vi
::; ("ll /Zll'll ::::;
= c..!:I:I ::.. C
::. ::;" a ~
o' ~ ! ~ o'
=' VI ::1 :: ::::i
~ ~ ~ a; ~
:;: l'll 5' c: ..,
~2~:i;i
'< e ('II =. '<
_g.c:g~
~ g- ~ ~-~. ~
::Il ::;. II ?f
;!1~ "
c.n=-~o
"
.
~ 'TJ....,"'::1 c..ao:E g;.:r
"':I Vi'::r:::'. \II ;;:; ('D :::s tol ll:I
:a::r('l3c9:~;!l=o..
S':l:l~~a-::lCII""O"'~
rll~~'<ll:I~"'Of;5n:::.
Q. tit = (')"'-ll:Irll
0'" ~ ~ ('D (") 0 g" o' ~ :.
o' _ ~ ~ ('D:::I :::s _......
'0 == -. g ~ ~ 0' ~ ~ ~
t'J'Q~-::l.1:rCll:l"'c..('D
('II ':' - -. t""l :::I < _ 0
~. t:I1 ('1l c..:::I ::.'< ('II .:< '"'"'l
!!n;......OUl'<(")...
~ ~ o' _. o? - Co. 0 ('D
..,<%~o~ns=,?-
g (;" =-!JQ c;" .., =! 5" Q.. ;;"
x1nC'llnot'lQQSO'Q
" (;" n ""'::::'''':'J :';'1JQ
~c:c._OrD~'" n
--.CIl-::I........, C;I ('lI (]'Q c..
g~-<-n g'ill:l3
~::J!!. =0-::100
o~:= ~ ~\II
'"
.
g: ~ (i" ~ ?f ~~ ~ So-... :E ;i >
o ('9 :l ll:I 3 r') !::.~. t'Il 2 O'Q :::s
0- c. ~. ::::i =.. -g 0. :::s Co Qi" ~ ('D
OtIt'1l:::sc..::l.1"O..,C1lll:l"':::S:;l)oC
_. Q. I]Q ... n 0 ::l.1 ::I !JCI ~. c.. - :ii'
~ C'" en ll:I g,.;; ::::-.:;i' ('D:::s cr-
o '< ... 1; .., 0 _ (.It ll:I =: :::l 3"
.., _ l:01 5' ll:I '< :::s ('ll :r(JQ ('I - (JQ
_ =- =IJQ \Ill nl :;I :::l ll:I n l>> E ~
ll:I n er' :;')oC:::S - =:>> (II ... <
:::l "'0 ('I Co. ~ c..~ O":::s ~ Co. _
~ a ll:I ~ n" ~ n 0 ('D c. ~ 0
n ...... c.:>>:>> 0... "":I e:.. ... \II :E
~ ~ '"E' ~ (i' 0 :;; c.. '3 0 ('ll 0
('I_~~c..;::;~_:::SC.2.=.
",:!<:.nn_ "'e::s~O'IIcll:ln
0...] ~~ 5'< ~~ (i'~ =:: ~1':'
~ ::: -. n 0' -. n c.. ... ~ - $!.
0;n:::3--'"' _;n~
InO on:::O"-.......3~
In ... _ n _. cae 0 -
o' In~ (") ;:. ::: ::: :::. ;;) ~ =-;;
__:'l ::1J'Cl ::::l-"'--~
!.. ~ :., 1iQ' ~ lJQ '< ~ 3
. c.. _ =-:;~. Co.~'
Q) n -. - 0' Co
In g S. 0
:?,Q;':n 3:~~ 3~ (i'
Co) a. :.. =: :: c.. ~.~ ~
:::l ;n - [JQ ~. :::l =. ~ -
'< n ,... ::J :::. - 0 ... (i'
n Q) ~ =. -.: g :::l Co) :..
o~. 0 '" _. Co)
:::l :::l ?: :::l c..,:::,:::l .... In
::;' l1a 0 Co) "t:J ::; n ? ~
~"":I ... ::::l f1::l 5' 0 -. g
!l ;;-"'='o c..~. l)Q ::.,;;; -.
f1::l _:'l
go: ~ ;; ... ...." ;;;'"":1 :J n
c.. _o~:.;;i"-;:.
Co.:O (';I n ... _ :::l ~ ,....
o ::: c.. I"'l ::S ;; - =.:::
~ c.. _. _ _ ("", 5' 0 ~
"" ::s ::. :;.:: ::r!)q :::l '"
nO:::lao.:n~Q'
~ =- '.n S. Co _::: ,
::s [n; ~ ::: C 5 Co.;n
!ii n n ii'
c.. _. __ ~
Co) =< 0 IJQ
~" "
" -
=. ~
[5 ::.
~ -
"'"
=-
<D 3' I
c'
0- ." ,
<9. o. 1
" .
" - I
o. 1
~ I
~\ \
fO
<n
,
,
(')
Q
"-
3'
t::
fO
Q.
~
<is'
2!.
0'
"
3'
."
tC~
"<; "
fO
"
;;;-
c.
3'
."
;;;~
3::-
fO fO
" "
;;;-
c.
~
tD :=,
,,<;0'
"
fO
C.
~
"
t::JS:
o. '"
;;;-Q.
~
.....
"'O~l"'"::o
~ ~ ~ 3
~.~S'~:
3 - :::J
:::: ~;. N
aQ''< ;:; nl
~ :. o.."":J
g. (; n ~
== (l('JQ ;::.
~ O~
-9 ~ 0.. ~
~. ;; ~ :3
3 ~ ('JQ --g
nl _. s; n
~gg:~
;::=.
Co>
~:;;-
o
..
.:..
n~~~:=:
e:: c.. 3 == (i'
s~~n~.
i: 3 n ~ g
~ ('ll 0--.
~n"':"!~>
~ ~9 ~.~
- ~ Q:l nl
~ 0
ni-J~n-
E........2]_ g
t";I n = :-
c.. ~. ;:; :r
== _. c.. n ~
-~ ~;::.
-'<cg"
"" o' --.
;:; :::J ?i "!] 5-
g a~~'
-c..a.
.
W~8>
!? 0..== ~
g' ~ ~~
_"":J (i' nl
Q'I.~' c.. (j,
S;;:rm
~ ~ iO
~ ~, =- >
n nl ;;.~
3 ~ ~ a
~~..2. ~
::.~g~
~ ~,:- t;;
=g~;;
,. "
~ :J:; ('ll
~ c.::2
~
0"
"
"'"
"'"
a
"'"
~
;-
l'
~]g ~ ~~.~g ~ ~ ~
-: 2..:n:;;:;' ;' ~ ~ g. ~ Q_::r
CCII:AO~qanlCn::2"'~
:;OS;;:E.., o.=!l C:nl-.
g. ;'.;n ~ ~ s ~ g. ~ g: 5-
N ~ ('JQ .., n -6 1'1 0 :;." c
~ !II So ;_. g- :;' c.. ~ :. ~ ;;
'"=' . n .., IJCl ~ r.n _ (I') -
nl-!..,:::Jl7'=lc('JQ:rn-"t::
t'"l ~~~ ('1l::2 2..;?i;"
='l -J ~ nl -.:ol :::J,;n r.n::2
~ 0 --. :J ~:' ('JQ~' pi
n ~ ~ a == - nl_ Co) :. ;:," c:
-'~='< '--
:::J <' .... t'"l_. ~ n ~ 3' nl ::::f
::. 0 ~ (II c..; 0 :::J ,;n ~
=. ..., ,~;:; c:
~ -; ~. ~, ::: (JQ ?i"' VI ~ g ....
~ ~ .., (i' ~ ~ ~ 5 Q
r.n S :' ~ ~ ;" ~ ~ ~.
c .... 0;; ~ :::: (JQ c..
:::I g g
:;' -,
=t a.
an
c: c..
~ s-
o' ('j
" ;;-
o "
..., ~,
" "
0""
'? 0\
" "
0> c..
~. ::
" 0
o ,;
:: :;'
~~
"
"
;;
~ ""=(; ~ Q a: "3 ~
'Il~'Il<-_"::::
::;' ('1l = ('1l 0
;' __0: n_-- "" a- !2 'Il
n C,) nl nl
C (i ci" a. ::2 c.. c..
c.. ::ll,l)~::::j't'"""
('ll 3 "" ~ C 0
~~nQ~::l~
S (II cj:::J c..'; ~
Q:l r:: =-='. :i" 0
.., ;:; P:o _ :::J ~ l."o.l
~~~g:gA:J
O__-l,I)..,c~
:::JC~ 0=-
~.g~~~~A
a1?ic..~'~[
~ ~.., = 5'
~, ;' ~ ::: ~
-.<'n (,II
::r
'<
~"'O
" "-
0>
3 5'
~ "
c:.:l,I)
" 2-
::r
~?i
~ ~.
.t~
- "
;:':'1)1:I
::r"
o "
" c..
g a.
;;
:; "
"
"
c..
!;!ll 3" .
o'
a ~
19. ..
" !l
!!!.
:I:I
'"
<J>
C
<:::
"
'"
<J>
:
()
c
'"
~I
Q,
~ "'- ~
::r ~ <So
~
..
::r ::r ~
" "
;; ~. ::
.0
c:
" :0
.~ "
'i; c..
"" =
"-
2'
"
~
"
~
~
~...
=
~
"
3"
~
t:tJ<ii'
",,3
"
::
ii
Q,
.
3"
~
<ii'::E
3=>'
" "
:: ::
ii
Q,
.:;:
Q
t:tJ='
""0
c;;
Q.
~
...
oS:
.. "
-Q.
"t:tJ
"'"
....
I~
,I
~
I
II
...
,-
.
.
. ~
0.
.
.
.
I
.
.
I ,
.
I
- ~ ( ~ 0
~2 ii"i~~
a n~~~
c c..~=~
~. 5' ~ :;;- ~ n
~ ~. ~ ~ ;:;::-g
c.. ~ > r:;- 0.~.
.... ~ r"J_, ='l::: ("'J
~~:' ;:;:::-
20.~ c.."":"l~:=-_~
"'=:I .., Cl ?; _ ~ .::
-~;::--<1f
:i-~c..CI':l~
o ~5riQ g~~
.... - o. =.~ f'll
c:2~c=a~
q:lg;~~~
f)Q :.n S. .... (i' lI'l
n. 2. :=.. c.. 5i
5 2.
~ {; ~
=-~
~ !!
~;;-
-5 a
;;
a~
~ ~
c..o
~~
:5 :::a
='-'1
::t :=:-""'=' ~::l g S ;:;:
2~~;=. -~
_ ="':: ~!l'Cl _
:;',; ~ "=' 0 0' a; -
Q;!-....:.n_c..:::a
g S" ~'..g ~ ~ 5' g:
~5..-=:~.~a
en"':=' Cl - <::!!._:,
5"' 01>>1>><; -
q" ...J < c....Q ~-5 s..
C' ::::r _. f'll - .... (l
5:- Cl ;;;-:; ~ (1l .... n
= ~ r.<'l _ Q..g rn
t"'l C ::;"I a. ;:;'.:: C) :::;
:; :::a ;:;: = ~ ~~ .=;' ~:
a~=="'~~.g ~1*!=
~. 5 =~[~~ ~
.:=.. Co..... g c.. c ~
;3 ~.~. :...!5 c; _.
c: rr ~ ~. g_. ~ ~ ~
~ =' :.. ::. :J 01
.:=.. .... :::;:a: ~.
" -
~"ii'
,,--
3 ~
n c
".-;;!
~ ~
1S =-
- c.
" "
" .,
c."
:.l ~
,,-:l
" ;;
~ "
.:::.,=-
~~
I'll ~
"'-
~ ~
~ ~
;;
c.
"
15
g~R~~
~~~c..0'
~ ~ ~ ~. ;
g. ~ g o' ::l
:::I --. c..:::I 0t3
c.S:c
c:" ~
:::."=' 'Tl
:::l :::a :;'
O'Q a=..
n;;::mo-;
o 0 ("J Cl 0
~_"=- a. S -; ~
_ 0 .... =
Q.;' ~ ~. :: :a
::J :r g ;:; ::
-aq - g:;
I>> 5'
~Q'Cl
i>
~ :;" ~ :.0 ~ g ;:; ~a ~ ~ :; ~ _=-_~. 0 ~
-~r;OO:::l"'::l~(,n:::a:sf'llCl c:-
::r _ 1>>... ~. ::. 'i' ~.::: :::- ~ ("J
Cl :$E 3 ~ fr c.. .... _ cr" :$E - C :;~ ::-_~ >
~. :::a n :=: :::l !:! s.. ';-' 0- =- a__ - ,,- ,,-
- - -. n . . -. (1l c.. ~
fO~:r=~~_~_~~_ .~~;,)
:: ~ (JQ Q) Q. ~ =r' ~ ~ ; :;:J' :r ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~a;. ~ ~ 08::1 - ~.o ~
oo;j-< ~~-g;;3c..~ii?l"":J::;"
en :e !!.. (i _ ~ _ I'll ~ _. ~~ ('II (; ~
~g..g%~3g:;:.n:::S~o ~~
a c.- 3 n :;;I n =. ~ (i' (i :::... ";:! _. ~ .
;j r:I I'll :i" - ~ =-. IlJ ;::.;;; IJ'Q nl ::.
[ "3 a ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ 2.] ~ [t E. ~ ~
;; '8 - ~ l'Tl Q" c.. I'll. "'::: 3 ::I :::::: ('1l
=l 2. 5. 3 ii ~ a- :: 5 ;:l ~ ;:;. '":: Co..g
o :r ;::.. :::I 0- 0 ~ n ~. -.O;.::! ('1l ;.1:1
c: _ c ':::. I'll ..... ('1l ~:,);: =- ::I
~_ ('ll ~ "~_ ~_ =-c. ~ &1 Vi.::: =. ;:::.:; ::I
-.- ~ :., _. 0 _ _ c..
o ~.:. c: ::: ::! riO' ;:: 2. r. ...
_Q~o~~=. v;a.~
3 ~-
<;;.
-:l
:
-:l
:1
'-".
"
"'
'"
g
:a
=;
:;--,
~ :::.3
Co.-:=:.
5 ,.
:Ii _. S
: :/l
iO:
c: :;;
::..;;
8 ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~
~"2.3~~~~
2~~;o=:::l('ll
g.~;~~~en
C 0 ::I :. ~ ~ i;;
:::I ~ Co C:IJQ 0 Co)
@- ;,:i' Q; 0'" ~
:.CIl:I c.. ~ I'll
:;:J _ 20
CIl:I aa;;-
no ::: m u
o l"'J n
:;:J:::l ~;
~ ;::"0 ~
:;) g.~. ~
= :;:J Q;I ('1l
-OQ-a
-;
c
~
:0
..,
~
:0
" _.
_ :0
s..""
c_~~~~=~,...:e:
tv cc-=.""'\--
~, (i en c.. ~ ~. !! ;. -a. ::j I
::::l - 0 _ 1.0, :: ;:;
[ ~. g. o. ~ g ~ ~
g;;~~l~~ i.~
c e; 5. c. ~. ~. c.. ~_ (10
::;~ :;:Jn~~<
':-"a.~~"'2 Ql'Tl ~
en - ;; ? ~~'" ~: ria ~
... :: _ c.. ~ ~"~
c 0 ~ ~ ("J
:: ::; ~-~-=-I
~ ~ ::; ;:n. ;.;:- ~
-< !! '< ~ g 0'.: w. ~_<. -< ,
, ~ -,;!!.. - ::.
(5 ~ ~ c.. (5
g_:
1S
"
~ c.:
c..:.. -~_
~ ~;::'
~ ~ n. ='l
c:"'Y'~
"
0' "';,:i"
CoIl ~ r"J
o :!!IT,: ?=:
:;;.~:..
~. ~ g. ~
~ "
C rJQ
:: .... o.
::l _ :::
0' '< :..
Sl =. ""::l
n cr
c: :0
en ~
-,
~
1S
~~
;! olQJI
:;- ~ ICi'1
~ n a-
'"" ::;; -l (.Q
I'll ~ ~ 2)'
v; OJI
r;-. -I
".... :Ill
" "'I
" "'I
- a
~ <::
g ~I
'"
3:-
"0-
..
!:l.
<
"
"
g ~
=- -3.
" "
o =- ,
= 5 ::: :.....
" "
g~-~::I~.
-< :,) ~ E
... ~ ~
=-
-
!!;
~
2!.
Q'
"
I
~ ~'2~
~ -. g
(IO~~
.,
iO:
== ~
: ~ I
~I
"
~
I OJ 1
"<:~
'"
"
;;;-
Q.
g ~?S ::J V;''Je
- ... a.:!! ~
~=-3_:;;:;:-:
... :; ::;,... ::I ::I
~ ~ ~,... ~ CIl:I (10
;:. tI' Q;I 2" 0 :;I ~
... 0 ::I _....., ;::- _
:::I _ ~ C:'1e 0 Q)
c.. :;" ~ ':T?l
:: IJ'Cl c.. n 01
;,:i' ;,:i" 0' ~
(JQ CIl:I (;
~
ii"'"
3:?
.. ..
" "
..
Q.
.'
ns:mo
g 0 g ..g ~:o
"" :.:::-:,)
c: - ... ....
~ g.~. ~:::
::I ::J n !::!=
.....(JQ -.=.
~ :.
~qQ
~
OJ :!,
"<:0
iil
Q.
~
..,
tJSi
.. '"
-Q.
..~
"
'"
~
~
> ?r ~
3 =- 0
~ c.. c:
n".g ?
" - "
" " ~
o-?-:::
" iil
~ -"
;".; =
;;;"~ClQ
:.1 n ~
(; ~ ~
S-:;.
c;;;' :::!. ;:;
(i 8 n ..c
< Z ~
(") ::. ::;.
;; - (11
~c.~~
"
;;;
~
~
=>
"
c-
"
~
!:?.
iil
"
g.
00
~:
<)
g
-<i>>
..n Q) = rT1
2a.~i\)
::; ~
g' 0_= ~ ::1
;;
;:;::~
o~.::l ~
C" r; - .....
A ~~~.
U'l..., r;
" -
~ - S_'
~ r;
~~. ~
~ " "
"":j ='1 '.I'l
~ n "
;;: = :.1
S g g.
:=. c :.n
... ; ~
"
a
(=)("1_g'g~~gs_
Q;I =- :::J c::.. = = ,.
B~~3~=~~_c-;;
> .... ~ ~::=..c a Vi' n
__ = _ 0 n c: E Q ~
~ j;" ~ ;; ~ ~ ~. o' ~ 3-
Co. g' _ ~ ~ ;? ~: ~ ;;
~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ;- ~ ;"- ~= ~
~c=.s!"'::I"'O -
:::J :::J ('l """ - S-'
o :: 0 n Qi
-.(')=(i~3n
..... :a ~. -. ~ ::'l
_~::. "'" - c: :::-
O'"-n~at7Q~
~.O;:.v;-.... ~':e.
g;;1;-~~~
- " -
g-<....~~~
2> ;-~ 0
.... n 0
~-
;;
"
~
" "
:=~ ~
~ -
" - "
'=. t"O 2.
... '.II C
:: s~.
...: -' "
~ s :
~:i'l'b
:" r":
(") 2.
~
(')1-
e: ~
~ 3
~ ."
III "
i 1i"
~ n
c
e:
"
<1>
'"
""
~ ~
o Q
~'<
"
~. !.
;i ~
" '"
:; n
~ ~
'< c.:
:!!. 0
(i'yi
'"
;:; (i"
~ "
a: ~.
" "
=<""
;" ~
;;-~
~ -
"
"
;;
"
::: ~ _I
:. ......,
.-:a-:.:.o
~ :J ::!
~ ~. n
c.: ~~
" '< 0
:. ~~.
Q Q ~ ~
?i g
c::
a .s.
0;:
"
2.(;'"
o ~
~."
"
"
(i'
~
~ :;.
=:~
- "
a ~ ~ =
:J '< ~ ~
'::'1
-. (II f!" ~
~=- n
n;
c-~
"
~.
o
~
"
"
'<
<
"
c: ~"'::I >
~ ::; ;:; :::I
=-<'<
~ ""
~ ii :. )oil
011 .... :.) 2-
o ~ g ~
~.:; ~ o'
... ~';II :::I
e: (') 0'" :.1
< c::..,< -<
c.:_;:;-;;"
~ ~ ~ ~
:: ::.I 5"
_ ~ :2 IJQ
~v;-c..
" "
Z'::.. "J!
:: (OJ ~~.
~. ~ ~
[ _. :-
:"0'
or
".
."
~.
;;
c-
o
"
;;;
0;:
"."
s_
(i
iil
"
~
~~ ~ ~ ~
~~~Q;l"O
tn- =; g ~ 5i
('l '< Co. a..
~:; ~ 5- '.II ~
!? g 0"'::1 9. ~
-. ~ ~ ~ ~- o'
~ g-;.; ~ =
(; ... IJQ ~ 0 0
(,to ~ n O'~.:'
~_o",c._
o :::l ~ ~ :
~"". ~ .~ ~ .;-
~ ~ Ci1 (i'"
... ';rI <: c.
~~=~~~
;. ~ ~. 2 ~
IJQ c...:: :. =-
o
~
n;
.. I I
'" 0 -." ~ - -
~ " ~ " .
~2. = ;::
~ _. " ~ :::..~.
"' ::;. n
~ ~
en en
< ~ -;1
0;: ;;
~ ~ ~
~ " ~
- =;
- -
." : -."" '" ':T~ ;; "
~. ~ -
c. ~ " " :;. ~
" c- O' c:: 2 2
- " -. ;;
0 " ;; 5' ~
E n 00 00 "
~ '" ;;;'1JCl
" ~ ;;;.
<:r " ~
0 ~ ~ ." n; ~
:.- " " - iil "
C::"" ~ " ~ - "
0 " E. - " "
;.; or " 0 n n
OQ :: " " ;;; ~ " ;;; "
" 2 0 ~ 0_
"" - ~ ~" ~
" v;-
0
'" " -i
" " 0 0
:.:~ ~ ~
:: ~ " "
" ." m
"" ;; ;;- "
9- " " '"
- " "
< " or "
;;;. g,1JCl ~
o'
"
n (;
c-
g 5
c- _
~
"
5 :;'
- "
~~
~
~~
~~
~ g
::. v;
" c-
" - "
g ~ ~
- " "
"." c-
:a
~~
~. a
[5
~
;;
"" '"
- "
"
c- O'
00 ;;
." ;;;.
" ~
~. ;;
"
;;; n
"
-
~
-!
0
~
"
m
"
'e.
n;
"
-
-.
~
sa ;;'~
~~.~
c 5 ~
(; :;I ~
::;;--
~~....,
"
(;' ~
~
~~
~~
- ~
~~
Q....
:::I ,..:.:
2_ ."
"
"
"'c-
iil
-
c-
.
~
~.
"
"'
en
1
~ 3'
~I
1:l . ~
..
C') ,
~I -
il
illj
gl
~I
~I
"-I
~I
'41
~
tCi'
III !
o'
:::
s-
'ii
ttJiii I
'" ~ I
=-1
...
'4'
I
.
s-
'ii
iii~
3:::-
<1> ..
::: :::
-
..
'4
;::
"
ttJ::'
"'0-
;;;
Q.
~I
o~
III "I
i;'Q.
~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
.::" ~ :T1 ~ _. ~ Q ;11
c.. ~ "." c..
c: < .~ - ~ ~. < ~ -
~ !:1 " ~ ,..$ " -~
~ ~ -, '< - 2.2:
" ~ " . ~
Q '!" " ~
" 0 ::i
- "
c.. ~ ~
;;' " ii c.. ii' " ii
" ." " ~
::. n o~ ~ ;2 -""':J
=' F ::::r-~O'"
-= 2. " 0
0' _.""':J '-.
" " " " 0 "
< n ~ " ., n ;; "
!2. - 0 c -
., ~ ,; 3: c.. :!. ,;
o' ~ g o' [ 0
,;; " c:
.. ~ c: .. '" ~ c:
S ii " :<l ii ;. "
" ~ ~ - ~ ~
0
c.. - -.." " - ~5
~ ~ !: 0 '" ,..
:::. 'JI " ~
5: ,.. _. " ~ ,.. =. (11
" :2., ~ " 0 ~.."
-.."
'" " ,.' ~ "
c 0 3 0- 0
~ .." 0" ~ 'C
l" (;- l" (;-
f"
"
. ~ ..c ~ !!. ~ ....
'C c: ='
~ .... 'C " " " -
=' =' - :<l c.. 0- "
~ " 0 ~ ,; 'C ..
< 5' " - c
~ 5: ~ 0" 2. a-
" ~ " ;;
0 'C " " '" "
0 ~
3 " ". -~ S " P. :;
~ (;-
=:. ~ ~ " ii ~
0 " " '"
(;- - 'C ~ c.. c.. ~ 'C
~' 'C ;; ~ ~ "
~ a ,.. 0 "
" Cl ;;. (;- ;; ~
., "
c.. " (ll ~. " ~ ~ -
;; " c..'< - 2- ~
;; ":-:'- ~ - ~
n n ~ - g. ~
" "
" =' ~ ~
!:l. " ~ ~ ,.. '<
,,' n -
(;- ::.. " '" '" ;; .;;
'C c:.. c: 'C (;-
~ m ,; ~
~ " l" ::;. ~
- ~. c'
5 " = ~
"
c.. !:1 "
~ ii
"
2.
"
p.
~
,.
"
.
5' ~ n
~ c 0
" " 3
n fr=.
.:; - (\I
c. o' =.
~ = "
= ~ "
~ :3 0
= ~
~. c..!;It
t.I'I :'
- "
~ 2 ~
p. "
... ~ ;.
~:'2
< 'C _
~ -
= "
- "
~ ~::;
~. n
(=i' VI
3"'0
g ~ ~
cr ;; r;'
= =
5' -< 2,
c.._"
~ 0 =.
2. __!. =
c.. "
5. ~ ;
~~.;
.. --
~ " 0
= ~ .,
nl""g c..:
~ r: l"Il
.... n ~
.0 c.. ::,
- IJQ :I
~ - "
~ a (;'
c:..-
'" :::l
- "
~
c.. 3"
" -
'" "
'C ,.'
"
- ~
~. c
"
in =
n
"
0
~
-l
0
~
m
=
~.
=
"
"
-
.
,
.
~ ;:; "'0 (\l 0" c:
:::: VI 0 ~ 5. en
:r E:";i" _. 0: cr.
g ;2 ~ :;' 2,
(i =. ('t ~ ('JQ So
n 2!. (i";i" c. ('I
~ut3lJQ~;-
t'll 2' g (i' QQ' n
E-n-l"l:;:l;e
_ VI ::r <:
~ ~ ~ ]. 2!. g
0<.nc..C::~n
;' ii" ~ Y' en
~ ~. C' ~ ~.
n IJQ .., n ~.
g = '5'::
2. ~ (; ~ ;:j'
~ ..,. VI
.::::1 (11 ';l:l :l)
R (i"a~
;; ~
:!.
.
~
~
le.
~
;;
= ~
n ~.
;0-
c..
!l
o ::j
~ n
!:1'C
VI_2.
"'''
VI (i" 2
::; 0 VI
C ri'""':J
t'tI n n 0
to} E' ... ::l'
~.;:; = ;a
.Q~~r::;.
~=\-:
"'=~::::I
n .t.I'I g Co.
a g. ~ :i'
:=,
5 ~ <:
E: .~. ~ g:
~ :: ~:..
""c.;;:i
= --
'"
- c..
~ ~
~~.
0" =
::..
Cl 0 ;; m
-
'" g = :..
<:> ~. ::j
0- 3 "
~ ::.. ;" ii
'" n ;.~
::. g ~....
c<.
Q. i! c:.. "
en n =' p.
<:> =.~ g
~ "
!"
,. c::
" c..
= ~:
g a-
" ~
c.. "
0 '<
"
0; "
5: 3
" "
"
" -
c..=
c..-
_. 'C
=.r:;
g :;
::.. "
g. ;:
';;;'
::. '"
,,' ::.
" 0"
~ "
?'
2: ;;
c:: "
is ~
"
$1 '"
"5. N
~ "t
~
III
n
-
1_-
r"~
I'
(;- n :> - n ~
.. g 3 3: 0
::.. a -
- ~ ~ ;; " IQ'
" ;; n' '" _!:1 2!.
..c " "
" c.. = n c-
::;. ,r 0 g ii ::
" -
3 " .. n
" n ~ 3
" " ~
" 0 ;;' ,..
;n - ~
c.. " ~.
" :;:. 0
" " " "
n " , ;0'
" ~ "
:1. ~ " z
-:;-c.. ::.
~ ;; <
" ~ "
'C ~ :>
"- z
ii' ::. ii
gj.. < ~.
(;- " ~
I
3\
l
~~ I
-,
'"I
Cl.1
3
'1:l
iO::E
3::-
'" '"
:: ::
ii'
Q.
0 s"": " " -" I
,; = :::: ~ " ~
= =~. ~ =~.
!:1
~ p. ~ c:.. :::.
'" '"
< 'C <
5: g 5:
" " ~
::.. ~ "
- -
.. ". ". :::l 'C " ;ij''JQ ~
;;; " :. " !:1 ~ ~ :3 "
c.. '" c:: 3" ~. - c.. 3"
=; - " -.
o' " o' - 0 = " ;;
.. " 0; ~ " '"
Vj'I]Q ,." " ~ ~
'C ;0 ".
" 'C ~ 0 " ;0
- ;; " " :. ...., ;;; ;;
~. " - " c::'" 0
" g. " -. - "
n " " ". "
.::=. " 0; " 1)Q == " "
0 ~ 0 = ~ "
~ ~ ~ '" ~
;;; "
"
0"....
-. a. o'
~':: ~
0':. m
"
e;Jg
~ ~.
"
-
....
0'
,;
=
.."
S
=
=
" -,
" =
c..'"
;"='O
~ c "
"'=' :':"":1
(11 c.. ~
!2 :' :-
~ Ot:l ~
:!.
~
l:D::, I
....0
.,
..
Q.
~
.,
oS:
Ill" I
ar ~ I
~l
a
go ;i" ~ ~ ... ... ::e
(":l ~ 0"-::1 Q) ..: t"II
~V1~S;~~~
_. c.:;.. ~ ~ Ci ;"
::: (1 ("j ll:l C'"Il 11l
lJQ;;: ()::: t:: >t ~
~ -::I 0.. c.. :I ~ =
=::.:; ::: - ..: ~
~ ::: ~ n ~ ::;;'"
~ n en C; .... o' -.
riQ 0 ll:I _ 3 ::: c..
;' ~ - ~ ?6 0 ~
r'll l: ... -' -....., N
l"':l :; t"II ::::l n ::;:: .
.., nl.... ::!. l'll ~
2.::1 ll:l C =:I ,.
- ~ .....,: "'" ~
=:'< ;'~a
::;:: -. ;;;. ~ ....
....;... .., r.IO
-0 0':
~ ::...
'f'"
a
:::3:::a~~t"II n O!J'Q::;:: C (1
o....'<c..= 0....,.., --:::>t'"
==_ =....<Nll:l_no:n on
_.i7'Q' :r ~ _ t"II ('b c..::r - Ci' Q) "":I
_Q;ll:'D::;n..,;;_Olnll:l--<ll:l
Q :. "':I (1 c..:r c.. 0 en = s..:: 8 ll:l :::j"
:;. g a ro ~ ci. ::;:: .., ~~. ~ ~ 3 =. 0
l7Q w -::I (II .., _. :::l ==::l _. C'"Il "'0 g -.
cn::aVi'-~ ~O"'~g-E;!!.o~
"'g ll:l t"II ll:l ; VI ll:l t"II n ;;: ... ...., ('tI ....,:::
("j ;; c.. a =. ~ ;-;'" ~ c...g ~ a ::;:: ~
5(}'Q t:... < 0..,< ll:l VI ~ ll:l (1 .., l'll -
... t"II ll:l -::I (1 nl n :: _. - -. c.. 0 ll:l ::::.
Q_:::It"II,....c.....c..r)'Q ~..,n~;-
_:::~n::;"'oo...= tl:Ill:I;II;"~
c' t"II CI:l ;' 0 ... .....,..;' a. ~ ::: 5';;t.:.l -
::::._:nC::oUOl'" =-Co.:n _:II
!-" ~ ~ ~ OQ =- Q. -5 ~. t"II 0" a ~ S ;-
=:.::n-('b-rn-~R --::t"II=
c.. ""I 'oJ 5' :;:1 ll:l _ ;:II:'" - 0 :i
il:I ... _ <: ::::I ll:l ll:l VJ ='l t"II ~ ::a ...
=. ~ ~ (ij' c.. = :n ... ... -: c.. (; ..:
c _.:::J t"II C" ::::- ~ ll:l. 2-
=~:. n~-~~ ~ti
0.. c VI
~
.
g' ~ ~ [ 0' ~5 5 (6 ;r;!
0:2. i;' 5"::: ~ ~~. :- c.., rII
~ ::;:: _. 9. ::l _. ("J - r'll Q 0
ntt~O"'''l:;lc..-~ll:lll:lO
:-! Co l'll 011 0 (1 ~ _. _ c..
=(11 ::"'0 'J>::::lO
:::l 0 ::~.g ::s -< ll:l l)Q S.
Co..., 3. :::a VI :::l ll:l ...
ll:l 0'" _ ::;' ~ Co.:::l::'.
"":I ('\l ('\l XI' r.n -5 ('J c.. ~
~ ..... c.. t1I _.:!!.....)C .:.l
o~.....~::s;cO'Si;::
<= 0 _. n = < = :.l ,.'
('\l _ _ ~ 0 g = :.~
c.. 2. ('\l r.n ::t :: - .=.., :.l -,
.:{_ -.='"2-::l ~:t>I]'Q ~
&.2.~=n~::::(ll('\l
r.n :: -. r-: ...
~ - ~ g ~.~ = ~ ~ ~
...l 0 ::t r': = c.. ,., - ::l
c' ::t:t> ('\l"'" - -
~ n; I]'Q Vi' ~ =- :$ .... :::;-
<:; ..... < (":I~':n 111
::t C :.: "" .::;.
-, - i ~
"" r:: c ~ ~
is ~ B; ,
::;: ;. ~ 2., n:
~~.::..
... 111 r;-
r.n ::l i::J
~~(;5E.
=-~~~""
-. :.l
C;(;-l2:o-
"':i <: .....; (":I
"":I ':;;' n ..... -
2,.0:n"''';
:.l :"'55"':i
... ('\l - =
gcn~glJO
;n 0' .::::; :;-::
"";1""_c..
:;" Q'-<: ~
= <: ::::
0'::': :=,
~ I
C) 3"
'"
" -g .
0-
~ "
-
OJ
'"
Q,
CIl
"
~
,
,
C"l
!3'
3'
<::
'"
Q,
~
...:
cQ
2!.
0'
;:,
I
I
3l
."
OJ;;;
",,3
<ll
;:,
..
Q,
3"
l~ I:
<ll <ll
;:, ;:,
..
Q.
~
OJ :1.
""0
...
<ll
Q.
~
O~I
.. <ll
..Q.
OJ
""
....
~
~
I
I
'.
!
.
.
11
.
.
.
..
.
f'
N
.
~r....C;~g';!
;; :::I ('\I O"'OQ n
:; c.. e; -< :. :;.~
:.:I ~ c: ~ (.I) (";I ...
Ci' c..:;:; ~ ::z ~~.
.., n (II 0 n
..g(nc..:-,<~!l
:. - g ~ ~ ~.;
.;;; ::; =. = c.: n 0
og~~~~a
o;=E:.~C~_
.l:o. 0 h: c:.. E. <II
!'IQ ~ ;e c..~. n a
::.)~=-:i:;~g
;; c... ~ =: ~ ;:;
c; ~.~. ~ 5' c; g.
CIQ ~'"":I_- ~ ;.
~:::1 .... _..
('\I :::I n (i ~
~. ~ =.
~ =. ~
.,
"" c =.~.....
S. "';""I;:; c:; 2 ,"
@. :It -.:l .- =- ~
,- :.-..., ~ ~ -1
n n 2. ~ ~. ::'"
:::s ::r (') = r"l n
g=2~=~
_. ~ 5 ;;j ~'2.
.c. _. .....!""J ('/I
c:~";-o..,!l
~. 0 _ ~.;g
~i!n~ ~~_
_. n _ p
g c;; ~ ~ ~ _
- - ~ ...
o U'l '< _. n
... ~ ... (ij:n 5"
8 ~ ~ ~ :; g
_..... 1: i:n r.Il.....
':.) =:;::':.l ::;- ("II
"":I :::I _.... -- c..
~~=~~~
. 0 C '- ....
:l ~ c
Q ~
.
:l
n
n-g
~.
;:; ::
:l :l
=. 2
:::I o'
"" :l
?: ~.
",,'"
~~
:;
,..-
n~
::.;a c::
~
n
~
.:; ~_. .... ~ ~ ~ g ~ ;; ~ g'::i
~ ~;; ~ S- ::I [~~ 0:9. ;:;
3 ;. a \'tl c.. 0'" ('II ~ g:~ ~ ~
:::I "'0 ~ ~ :: ~ ;. :;. ('II ~ ~.
:.~g=.~~n~:!_:n~
=- g ~. -' 0 ..... ..: n !1 ('II =---
nO"'.., "':l .... ('II V> ':.) ~ ~..::
-'=-01>>=:::1'<:1 ~
5. 2..~' .... ~ ,~ ~ :- c.. =' :;
~... ("II ~ V> n n... (n
~ n ~:: = g" _. 3 ciQ -g =- Q.
""0 .., ::l"" :::I......... (n n
::!:. ~ n ~ -.:l "'0 C ':.) _..., rn
.., g g. g ~. n ~ g. :: ~ ~
:::.. - to) ;:; ~ ;S ~ E.."":I_
.... ~ ~. a - ~ ~ c; "" .., ~=n
~ ~ :: :.l .; ;' =' ;; ~ ~ _
~-;~~~r.Il _Xc..[
E. )C -.... =; ~ a. ':.) ;;: -
('II ~~
.,..
'" CJ ~ " ~ :l n ~
n ;--:0 ~ :l n
:l g J!l ~ '3 CO- < n
~. " ~ "" 1! ::;. ~ ;;
:l n ~ < :; - =-
n n ~ c....::::
~ n " ~ ; rD
< C0-
n " Y'
;::" '" ~ > =-
=- ~ -
" c
-
-
"
c...:.:.
n
,..' ~
~ '"
~-:;:
~ -
:::: :!!
E:..=I
~
..:;
0- ""
c ~
-. ~
c:=-
:';" -
",,""
-:0 '"
n :l
~ C0-
2. ~
E""'
~1Jtl ::::
n ~ "
~i5..~
;:; =" ;::;
_.riQ n
~ -::I Bl"
c n ~
:J :: =:i
~ = ::l
@ ~. g
o
-=.'::"
~
a
- -::I e.. .... ..... Co '7::::1 ;:c
~onS'~;:a;;n
-.... C'" c: ::::I ~
.....p,. lJ'Cl _ _ :;" =- "" Q.l
o "'c:: ::'I N' !::: ~ ~ 0 =t'
:E=~==C'D:n-o
:::1::1-- -.e......
m c. -. o' ~. f"l tl:l = e..
::: .., := :::I (i S 15.. (') !:;.
~. ~ ~ ~ ::l .... ~
::I o' :; a.5 ii ~ .... tn'
I'll ~::;"l = _ I'1l ::l
n ,,:<: ~ -::'I ..... ~ ::I
:"",,3oc..;-~"'"
--"':':'c..On~
~ : c..~ :.1 -. (Jl '"
c..ii;~oni~~
:g ~_' a ~ ~;; :::. :.:.
...._0 __,<c:..
~ =<n~ c..
2. ~ ~ '< r. 2"
~::'I I'1l a. ~
~
:l
~
~.
"
n
~
3: :S:::~ tl:l :'l
... C -..... .... ::::J
-::I ::I =. -5 5'":n'
(i'" _.I')l:l "'" -::I =-
3 0" Q.l Vi n (')
('II ..., =. ('II c..
::'I :i" g e...::.,01:I
riOCl - Qr-.,>:3
c..iJ')'7'tl:l:.;.c..
"0 ;:""::'1 ('1
n ~ ;1f:" ... ....
~. S; S!:l'" :3
~~ ~ =.-
~ :: _. n n
c' g ~ ~ ....
= - - - ;:;
:;: E 2' =- :!!.
- - - ('7'Q
~ c.. n ni
CO-
"
1~1i
- '",
~ !:!.
'"
"
Q,
CI)
Cl
~
()
Cl
==-
oi'
c::
<b
Q,
-
:;::
-,
-
cQ
'"
-
0'
"
~.
!---
~
!Jliii
",,3
~
iii
Q,
!---
~
iii::!;;
3::-
<b <b
" "
iii
Q,
!---
:;::
o
!Jl::,
""0
.,
<b
Q,
f---
~
.,
0::::':
~ lb'
iiiQ.
!Jl
""
.....
o
l":;"Q~o~~;;:.c:r~C:::i
o ~ - 25 ~ ~ n n = _
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5' - ~ ;; ~ ~
Q,'l ""::l ... no::" 0
("'j ~ o' '5' Q.) n "'0 :: '< c:
0' -':: Vi' :::l ..., coCo. =. ~
~ ::. - (,I) =- := c :::oQ :..
0- ...., =""':'J ~ '< ~;, ,r fI'I '<
~ ~ ~ (D fI'I ::"l)'Q ::: ::!.;g
[ ~.2 ~ ~ ~ ~. ::. ~ ~ ~
n ~~ g g ~~~~a~
~. _ ni :;;. =. :.J "'0 c..:.J ~ ""
~ E" ~ ~ o' ~;: n ~.g ~
(":I :: ("II ~. r; .;... _. -,
~ "3.';' ri :.J,,_ 00 :::I ~
~ :l ::T :l:I
~ :::I... '8 r.n 0 <:
'< ~ ~. _. ~ :; n
..: r.n fI'I ~
~n
,..
.~
.
~_~O':::
"",~C!JQ
fI'I -. := ..,
..c(')fr~
c :!. =. n
~ c: 0 a'"
CD "'0 ::: ("II
~:::(,t.IQ.)
g =~ 3
-"'0 n 1"Il
~ ~~. ~
Co.:.II ::I CI
.. C C
.., :r (,I)
" " "
o Q.
-0'"0'
-g...,
'...,1'\ 3'
8~
g Q
" "
Co
~
.
'"0 m'" CJ':l
""'I := ~ c
o!JQ _. ~
~ 5" ~ 3
fit n c; _
" " "
c.... = 8
O'~c..=
c a.:D (,n
a. tc:g 2
!! 5.0 n
o' c:;; o'
~ ::I _:::
00 0 "-
~=
Q - "
:l n 5'
;. :'~
-"
o=~
~
o
"
"
,.
""
.-
"
~
:r
"
~
~
"" ~
" "
< ;;
3 5'
" "
=00
;;; "
o~
~ ~
.., ,,-
o ~ n
:: ~'::
~=.;:;
o' ;;
ai. [ii
"'-
m
=
~.
;;
~
~.
'i
~
""
"
~. ::
::'Ie...
r.
c 2.., ~ :-rt
or ~....
(,I) -' ~
Ei n ~
[~~~
... 3' (I) ...
Vi'.... ::.';.
7:" 3 ~ g
tn c::.1 -
5' =. ~ ~
" g
:lc:
~~
"
(;l 5'
0'"
.; Q 5'
o c..
"'OP~;,Q
~t"':o-ri"
~;:;c;-c..
~. - ~
~~
'"
.
o ::!
~ (;
~;;
U'lI. =:
a 0'
" z
o ~
;:;--=
n g
- -
:. ~
n ~
=- (,I)~
m=
= ~
~. ::i"
= Q.
~ ~:
~_r.n ~
'"-
~
~2.=;:p
::: n ;i ...
~ >c ~?
;.~ QQ' 3
0' ~ !! :.J
... -.-.
~ ri g g-
o r.n (,n :II
"" __::l, - 0;'
" "=
'" [,II :.J
~ :.J c.. (D
s:= IC.. <:
_c.;;:~
;;! ~ ~ [Jl:l
E: n g
E s' ~ (; (;
~ pi '< "g ~
;. ;--~;
VI n (;"
Q'Q ::l ~
::l ~
c;:;
" ~
C "
~ 3-
=- :;:.
=. (tl
r.
~
- ~ :c
::7~ ~ ..-.
~ ~ ::..;
.., - ..... ~
<: '< ~
~=-...,~
or
...:;: ; n >
c:.. S-
o ~
or'"
E. t.1
C:~
_. =
~'"
-
"::l "
" =
~ "-
2.
g'"
::77Cl ~
" ~ ..
3"'~;"
;:; ::l -'I
_.(JQ <'
~ ~ ;;;.
e " ~
~ 3 ;
(') _. ::l
n r:;; ~
o 0
~" ~
~
c ~ c
:;:. c.. ~
~. c: ::l
g' s. m
e;~
" -,
00 ;l
"
~
.:s_ (; c..~ :2
n ..-: 0-<
::; 3: ('\ ..-: V)
~ = ;;; ~ (j'
'::;.3 0.,.... ClJ
1:1'> (II ::l ::::"-
Ca.::eCll3
g(llg~~
n~~a-~
2.~ ~n
:; rjQ' Q ;"'-
-. ::l n n
g r.l n:=.
- c.. c; c.._
~.... .., ::; g
:: '< - 5' '<
O'Q ~ ~ ;"
n c; 1;; ~ s.
~ ~ ~ ~ !:
. 2. ~ 0'
..
:::.
~ ~...
:::..-;;.
5' :::.
c..'Zl
i.~
c~
:..::::
~
(;"' r. ~
0 ~
" =
S ~ OJ
.. o' ~
!" = ~
~
"
~
~
0
..,
~.
"
Q.
~
;;
~
"
\~I 3" .
~
~I OJ
"
-
'"
'"
Q,
CIl
0
ii;'
:
CJ
0
=a
s.
<::
<1>
Q,
~\'
OJ"
"<: ~ I
~
-
<1l
Q.
~
,,'"
3:;;
<1l <1l
~ ~
-
<1l
Q.
~
OJ=-
"<:Q
OJ
Q.
~
...
o~
OJ <1l
-Q.
<1l OJ
"<:
.....
.
,
I
"II
f'-
11
~
iI
.
..
II
0 '" 0' m " ~ '" 0' ~ .
0 0 " 0
~ 0 <= ~ '" 3 <= a a " -
::1 ::1 0 "" " 0 0 ~. 0 0' ~
'" c- ;. C- ; -0 c- ~ 3 " ;' " :e Cl m '" <= ~ ~ <= '" ~ <:~ ~
;;' 3 !i " 3 n " " :; " < " " n " 0 0 ;:;- 1i ~ "
" or ='''0 0 ;!!. "0 S- ]. <= C- " " " ~ 1i ~ 9- "
" o' " '< " " 0;- g. a: :. " 0 '" 0 !i or "- < c- o
or C- o "- o ~ '" 0 " " ~ " " ~ ;;. ""
" 0 ::. o " "0 < " 0' 6 ~
O'a" > 1i C- " "0 " :. ~r ~ ~ '" " " or - ;; :. "
- !!? '" " ;;. 0 ~ " ;; 0 :;' " -5 ~ " -
~'< '" '" s: ~ :e C- "0 ; ~
" " E "0 o' '" "-"0 .g " - c- ~ "" " :e " C- ~ '" <
-"0 .3 0 !!l !i " " " " ii' n S- '" ~ 3 " 3 ~
'" or~ '" 0 c. " " '" :'I::::!.. "- " "0 -<
" 0 o' :. " " " 0 11 ~ -
" -r;' ~ " - ;;; ;; ='< "- c. '" "0 '"
'< ..., < ,i" 0 ~ ~ n " ~
" "". 0 '" ? "- " '" !!' " ~'.;: 0 " ~ " ~
~. 0 ;; ~"" " 0 0 " or ~ ~.
~ 3 ='O't:I ~ ~. :::::'""':1 " 0 f
g a ~ " 0 o ~ ". 1i " :0 " '" ","0 ;; < < ~ ~
n- Cl ~ " " 0 " =; -5 " " 0 o !5 ~ ~ "
:e if "- "" " Co..:2. <= " " F-~
~ ;;; 2 "" '" "0 ;;' " " o ~ ~ ~. ~ " ,0
:. 0 1i ;. '" " '" ~ -
'" '" '" c;; < " '" ~~ zil
<!. o' " or ~~ 0 ~ 0 " " " :::; < c- eo
<= ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ "- 11 " '" ~ ~ "
8 !:!. " ~ <= ~ ~ ~
0 :;:: or " "'- < ~ 0 c.. 1i 2. '" ~ ;;' 5" g ;;
0 ~ ; " " " " 11, 0 2. g. "
" 0 1i ;;. ~ "- ~ " " :;' ~ - in ~r ~ :: ;;-
~ "" ..!! :::. ~ " " ~ in :e " ~ ~
-5 :. < ~.2. 0 " 0 ~ ~ ~
~ " o' "" "" "
3 0 " " " " " ~ :; "-
c- o " '" "
< 0 " 1i " -<"
~ 0 ~
" ~' c-
c-
,..
;;:
;:;-~
" "
"'-"-
~('tl
<=
~
~ =:
3. ~
n ::.l e;
11_ :n_:e
!!
r. :;; n ~
;:;:c.. ('tl
~ :;; n
=-.=~~
co=.~
< g :: ~
A c..._
2 ~~ 5
~::.l::-':n
C"':..a
'<
Id ~~
~I '1:l'
Q III
f$ <'l
-
III
"
Q,
Ctl
0
~
:
bl
"-
s.
c:
'"
Q,
a I
-
~
ciS'
III
-
g
;'
~.
~
:;
ii
tI:liii
-..~
,.
Cl.
i--
~
tD~
~ ib
" '"
,.
0,
-
~
co:?
-"0'
..,
'"
0,
I--
;;;::
::.
~~
,.0,
tI:l
-..
"
. .
:;;. :;:: " -.." :;:: '"
2- ,. '" ~ =
" .." " 2. " c=..
~ " c ,. " '" c=..
,. ~ ;; ~
0' c "" -<
= ;; c=.. s:: " ;;
,. ,. ;;;. ~ ,. ,.
c ~ ~ c "
~ 0 ~. "
c ~ - ,.
" ,. " '" ~. '"
';' = c ., = =
,. ,. ~ " '" :!. '"
" C ;-'I)'Q =
;; n 2 c=.. 0
!2.."'::I " ~. ,. "
i'i '" !" " "
c S,
0 -'5 = 3 5
n' " '"
~ ~ "
" ,. = i'i
F g ~ ~. c=..
~ " ~.
" c=..
oo " 3 "
" c=..
:I '" ~' '" "
oo :I = !O.
c=.. c. c=..
j"
~
.
s;->
:;"r.tI
" ~
~ 2-
'< '"
,. "
~ 0'
" ~
.." '"
:;. n
oo Ii
c=..:::
S ~
;" i
oo c=..
- ~
o~
~ -
3'
"
~
~'~~~~~'].~~[2~.~i~~~!~
[~~-3~'~~~~;'~~3~3~]~;
~_",,~o._._\'1Oiio.~ "C':iE;:;:E~c:~
sa ; ~ ~ ~ ~ .t; 3 ~ :T ~ ~ ~ !! ~ ~ ~ ~. J~
~;o~=noo.~n ~"'-~~~mc=..
="":E:::Jo~a""lc..;i:>> :n"'::l-....o
=-.~.a~~r.tIo"C'~~o.~_~c~o-'~"'::I
~ =. :n n 0'.., ~ ~ ~ "'::I .., n = goo 3 _..... -.
-" "'.. ~,,::I "'::I ~ ~ ::",,' .., 0 .......J c: ... _. _ ::r 2.
- :l:l 0 - ~ 0 < QI - -. - :.;l ~
g~.Q5~3="'::I~'gc..~'~:E5'-~=-'a
:l:I ='... ;=j" c.. 0 ~ (D ~ ~ ~:::J :::I ... =- 0
'< ; n:l) r.n o..:n _ '< "':l n n _o:.;l r.tI
~=.c..~~~s_nr.n_~;:;n~~Z5
~~oc..S~o~.~~~<~o~~~
(; 0 l"Il = Vi' "':l:g - 0 .., ~ g < B; (i c' 0
Q~~.~~-:n;5'~oc:-~o =""1
~~'~~i~~;~:~~~'~;~~~
'""'- ::::C1Q;-~--'~ "':l-=": ic:::
~a ~~~_n_. ~=; aa~~~_~~
;;~ 0""-- ~:l:l_m _~
-:I 5" to) ~2:;_
o ::
=- oo =- 00 '"
3. ~ " ~ "
" 3' "
&; ~ c=.. 3'
;; 3' ~
,;; ,;; _.00 "
,. iii'
.." !!! ,. .." ,.
" c. c " '"
~ " ~ '"
~. - = g. =
g n n
E " "
'" 0;- c
~ ;;; ~
c "
;;"" J: i~J:!
.c ~:.. 0..1
;:; '< ~
" ,. - c I
o :; n ~
:::I - "'::I "-
~ ~ 3
. =.....
- "
c=..n
,. -
c ~
~
~
'" c:
,. .,
"
c=.. o'
0;' ;;
~ "
;; "
00 =
'<
" ~
"
"
~
~ ~-
"
o
'"
=00
So=-
n =-
,. "
~ 0-
" -
c=..~
:'1::
~ g
n
~ ~
iJi c-
" ,.
" 2"
F-a-
"
"
r.
"
-.."
ii :.) ....
::I ~~.
~ S':2
=-~
~.."
S;g
?.Q
i: ::I ::I ;. G").
_ ;. n ~. _
~::.:,;I C =i ~ CI)
:. == ~ ~ ::i
~ [~ ~ ~ ;:;
c.. Cl:I ,; ~c~
~_' ~ ~ ~ :,;I 2.
<.n n ~. a
~ ~ ~, :::I ()C
~~C:~5~
... _ < (':: c:
~ ~ 5 5' 5 c:
c.. (\ CoOQ - l'lI
:n (; : ~. ~,~
~nc::-:-~
~ I:l::l ;'" :: l'lI
- Co::l -.~
ii 'ii' c.. 3"' ~
~ ~ ::;' ~ ..;
;:; =. l'lI' n
5".<.n =;
~
o a
!on
~ "
" )?
~ c
"
.,
"
c..
"
:I
c=..
"
"
~
g
;;
;;.
::::
00
=-
g'
::::
'"
"
~
"
Z
N
~C:Qi'
;-;2--'
-->
n~
1::..",:: ='1
~ :; n
=-.<
;:; ::: I::..
~ ;j
n: -
- N n
~ =: ~
:2~ ~
~_ g ;::;. n
o~[3...
~ ;:~
a ~ l'lI ~
,. -'
"
i!?
"
~ ;'
~~
;. ~
'" "
"":l Vi'
" ~
- ~
~. :::I
~ g
c
~
...,
o
~
"
m
"
00
3'
"
"
~
a"::j I
n ::;
"" 0
0' =
= .."
:;.
9n
,.
'"
5.'
1
5
Q
I~
ill
a.
'"
.,
"
0..
~
....
.,
a.
c
c:
'"
~
~I
.,.
ij;
3"
",
..
l'l
-
:;:
-,
-
cQ
..
-
o
"
,;;
"
-I
~.
B.
3"
",
!Xliii
",,3
..
"
..
Q..
3"
",
iii::E
3'"
.. ..
" "
..
Q..
~
CD ::.
""6'
;
Q,
:i=
..
o~
.. ..
-Q,
"!Xl
""
.....
-
.
,.
. ,
I'"
.
II
--
.
.
.. f-
0-
I.
.
.
t.
i
'-
..
ill
.
II
--
~ ~. 0' ..,
" " ~
c.. ii' :> ~
0 :; ~ "'" ~
"
" " ~
" N' (i;'"-<
in " 0 ~.
~ " " c..
1i ;;: ~
~ "
0 " ..
" ~ :> ii' "
.. '7"' 3 c.. ;S'
:!!.
1i " ~ ~ ~
"
=> ::: :; '" c
~ :::.0.<
"'- " ~
~ - " c'
3 =. :;; " ?
1i ~ ~
c c ~
~ =., "'-
"
>;
. .
c.. :> :> m e, ~ " 0' on
1i ;n' ~ ~ : :> ::; C " :;
.::. ~
~ ~ ii' " ~ " ~ 0"
0 -5" ~. " 00 -5' .>; 0' ;;>
:> !l in ~
" !!? '< " = ~ "
EO. 0- 0 <'>
;;- " ~ c.. " ~ n
~ :> ii' "
!::,.. " ~ 0;' ~. ~ :> ~
0; " = ~ " c.. :>
0' c.. ~ 0'" -5' 1i ::; ~ ~
= Q. ~ o'
= = c " !!? ~ 3-
!!.. " ~ ~ c =
=.",::, !::, !!i :> " 0- n
o' "'" ..Q 0- 2
:> ~ 1i ~ c ;;
1i = 0 " :;
= " !!? " :;;. = ~
c.. ~ ~. " ".,. c ".,. [
" 0-
" = c.. " " !!!. "
" c.. " Q. c.. " ii' ;~ o'
c.. " !!? E,' < c.. "
C ~ " -
0- = " "" " 1i
" " - o' " c ~
g; " = 1i "
= ~ :> c; .. " = " ;a
".,. ~ '" = " 00 " !::, c.. :;
~ c: ~ ;a 2- "
- g. c: "
" " :;;- ';S :; C' ~
- < r. c; " ii'
" " " " ~ !!!.
E '" c ~
c.. ~
.
;;: m
< "
"",,
.. 0
!l~
" c.
" ~
!=l-~
~
:;
~
"
n
"
~
~
:r
~
0-
"
~
"
"
c..
"
c..
-
~ ~ (; ~ ;:; ;t:
,,0' 5 no ? !:! ~
n -..... ~
~ ~ ~ ~. =-
S; ~ nl C ;. nl
~. ::I c..!JQ ~
~-.=rc..o
e ~ ;: CJQ ~.~.
g' g ~ .... ~ ;
oc::=g~S::.__
:r .... ::I1l.2..~ .
S; ~ g - Q.l (II
o =-:!. n 1i g.
=? ;i ~ = ~
(II ::I .... - 0 ::oJ
fi'g.:'~~=
~ ~ 0' ('0 !:..
= -~. -<
:=. ; Ci' :l.1
E .....0=
~ !!i
i:; 3:~ ~.~.
i: g .E. 0 :.
c.. ~ g..a ='I
~ c; ;;:4 Q g
::c ~!:2. a:
" ~ ~ ii'
.- "':I'" <:
~"':Ia~
"tl -..
~~g~
o nl n ...
~ \'1l 0 'j;'
3:~~
-. :::1 ':J'l
~~. :::..-;:
~ :>> Q' :i
c:i' :=. 3: :a
~ g "':I.:::j
'.ft ~
;' ~
c
'"
~
""
~
S-3:i"
>;= --g 0
I.n n 2-
- - "
;:; 0 ..,
::J ::I 0-
:; 0 ....
:!!. =r ('0
~. ~
~. ~ g
:5 a ;:;
~
... ;:::.~
Q.l :; :a.
0':: g
(II a. =.
~ ~
0;
=
1i
~ 5 ::
n c..~.
~ ~
on
<
C,;-
c: ;;;
:!..o
~
-
0' ""
E. ~
C::~
-. "
~..
""0 ::
~ c..
2. ;-
E....
:r ""
" ~
:'!.
~ _.
" =
-...
~""'O '""
C n ~
~ .., ;:;;
" = "
~ ~r g
o~o
.....g-.
c..
~~...-:
<' c.. ~
~: co =
:; 5. m
e;~
= "
.. "
"
~
].
"
!l
3
g :.;!!.
~ "' ri
;:; :::I '""
~ ~ ~
~ ~
n :,)
n ~
g-~
no
~~g
~~-~=-'
g. ~ g. :~
1;
~ ~ ~(II
::J :;;
",'
"
5'
;;:
5' ~ :"l ~
c..;ffVi
-, ~ a
'0 ~ Y' =.
?- "3. ~ o.
~ = ::I
,," :>
c..=-~...,
~ ~ ...
~:::; -
- :>
... g ..:
- ~ "
2.. ;r =
~
"
""
"
g
= ~
" C'
~ ~.
"
S
"
~
.
!r~ :2
=::;:.~
-. _:0'
~ ?- -
~ -.
Y' ~ ~.
- =- =
a. ~~
~: ,jQ ~
c..-
~ ? ~
" ~ ~ I'
g
~
i.
"'"
" "
~""
r;' :J
-'no
c.."
" -
~. 4~
~!
I~
~
R
~I
QI
=<1
".
co
<1)
Q.
3,
'1:>-:.
..~
2. :;
-
1;
~
!!!.
g"
I I~
3
'1:>
~ ii"
3
<1)
"
Cii
Q.
-
3
'1:>
ii"::E
3 ::-
<1) <1)
" "
Cii
Q.
~
:s:
0
~ ;"
0
~
Q.
-
<:::
<1)
...,
o~
.. <1)
-Q,
<1) tn
'"
'-
(') c ~ n:
o ::J (1 (')
3 ~ ~ ro
g-~o~
i. ~ ; ~
:; a !:: !.
rD '< :; n
~ c.:~ ='
;" :;" c ~
a(JQ a.g.
~::'5(;
~ =. =: ~
~ 2.=-
n ~ 0 0
=-:l;;l
g.
~
[
~
~
~ ..: ::i" ~ '" l:z
~. ~: ; a-:c. 9.
n=:O"';--l~
~ '< =.-
~ ~. ~ Cii
g" -~
..: r; 3
o ::::. = '(;.
~ ~ ~ ~
~-'. (;'" ~ ~
., _ 0
_O,<c
IJQ ;;; 0 c::
(i" """...
< - ~ ro
!!..... ~ E-
IA ro c'
~ ~ c.. 5'
::::;; 0"
;::"''';:i' ~
o " '"
:=. - q
"
rD ~
"
.
_. rJiI .., ---.l
3 oT,j',g ':J
-g ::. :. (ij
!J.;;r;;~
1As>>c..o
6' ;:a 5' :.E
~ ~.., 5'
- - c.." '"
~ 5., " -
~:=.' ~ -
;~-~~
~ 0 s
V> g =! ro
~"- 2. ~
;!!. 0 -
~2~~_
~ ~. \II :;.
n:; 0
.,
!!. 2.
~
'"
~ s:!
o~
!" -
:i'
o v;- c.n ~ :.E (11 5'~ :>
~C~:S =:.g lio =
Co: n .., (') -. .., '":I (11
!'!_ :" o' 0 :r"":l :::: 0 .J:I
Q) ~ -::I tI) 3 ~ ~ 5.
Q) ~ ~ ~..., (11 (') '":I
V> ~. '< ... (11 a 0 3 -
;"'" :::l (11 :i" ~:: c: ~
- "0 s.;'...... - 0- ...., ~
Q) ....... !.._" =>-
\II 3 ~ """ 0 \II 0 c:
"":1-::1 aQ :r g:~ =. 0.. ~
~~~~g;~io..
~ S ;; 5. 6.. - ~ 3 -
("II ~ =.'":1 :=..2..~.Q)
::;" ~ ~ 3 o':.E ~ :i" (ij
9. ~ ("II ("II :::: :: C:.. ;" ~.
=' =..c ~ - :::.:;' n
IA c c.. =' < ("II ~
g (i -5' Q) 2 g c.. Ci=
~_' ::I c; a
n ~:::
E. (II t=D
.,
- "
....--;-~
~ ::I .....
::I c..c.::::.
~ -. g
~
[~
t: ::;:;
~ -
- -
[
=- '"
" -
-. "
-c:..
c.. _,
=. ~
0;;'"
"" '"
'" '"
- c:..
:; -
:::: 0
~..,
g-~ ~
~~
~~a
~.~ (\I
~ "":I Vi'
" " ~
:01 : e
" " '"
" 1l
'" ~ '"
o ~_
-.~.::.,
c:..
"
"
."
~
~
!! -l
s..o
~d
5. m
~~
~ ~.
~
~ ~
:if a>
;; -l
" =-
;;-. 0
==;
'< 0
;t-'(;.
'" "
;; ~
c..o
'" 0:
~ c:
'"
r;~
~ 0
" ~
~ Vi'
~o
0;-'"
=-"
o 3
., "
'" "
>-'~
~..,
~ ~ :::
::I c.. 'i"
~ =. n
\IIc..~
.,..,
c.:o
ffi r;;
-s;
;?
=- '"
::: ~
c:..
3'
0;;'"
~ ~
- c:..
~. ;-
::ii ..,
=- '" '"
!!., ;; n
~~2
" '" -
_.(JQ n
~ "":I ;:n'
0: '" ~
'" _ 0:
~ 2. ~
('1 r:;i @
S, l>> 0
" ~
c..
""" \II (It n
~ ~ Q ;:;
....,:a.3~
:-'l:::g ~ 0..
~:::g:r
~~<'
~s-g
~:!!.~
_. :::l (')
o Q) ;:"
"'''''<
~ (11 0
~ ~ ~
o ~ rD
~ (i ~.
(') 3 !a.
~ (II ;.
00'"
~ - 0
",,""-
3.a~
-., "
~ s.:::
Co. ('I 0
c..
o
n
"
~
~
-
g
'"
:::
'"
'"
c..
N
-l
o
~
"
m
"
'"
3'
"
"
-
o :t: I
~u,
~::i
S n
"'."
- -
0: 0
" _.
o "
~"
~ -
~ ~
" 0
li'=-
- c:..
~ "
=-;>
n' Q)
=-i>
~ 0
o -
0:
c:
ac",
;; "
g:Q'
0;; "
1/ ~.
_ c
~" ~
~ '"
o
~
'"
'"
:;
'"
'"
~
o
n
"
~
~"
~
0;-
c-
o
.,
;.
""
-
s.
"
"
'"
~
'"
o
-
-l
o
~
"
m
"
'"
3'
"
"
-
(JCl (') c:.. _ tI) (') ~ '<
5.oo-:lg=..:~
~ :.E ~ ~ _....
n.., ::t 0 (II n';::: '0/1
~g;5-~a;-O':'
\II (i;;! ""S! :01 c:.. ~ ~
r; '" -~ c:.. ";;. !::.
.3=:o.g~n~g
=.... ('1l - n I]Q :::l
~ :.c:a~",_
o 0: -. ~ ~
",,=,..,~O'Qo~_2
~o' :r:;-~n
< c:: ~ r ('1l <' 0" o'
=~Scc:..('1l?
;'... .0:: r.I)
~ ::;~. s ~ ~.] ~
:=., 0 ~ ~r ~ ~ ;::;. ~
~ 0: C r;- :. ~ =-
::.J c: c- (II:l;I::r
:;-a~ ~~~~
:n a- ;.a. ~ c:.. :::
:!! 0 a.
c.. ...., -
'"
,.
"
'"
'"-
~_I
~
Q
0-
il
2:
Cll
Q,
3"
'0
..
2.
~
~
..
~
"
3"
~I
Ol'" I'
",3
'"
"
'"
0,
3"
'0
~~
'" '"
" "
-
'"
0,
~
Ol;:'
"'0
;;;
0,
~
::t
0::.0:
.. '"
-0,
"'Ol
'"
.....
.
.
:I
.
.
~ " "
0 n
0 '"
~ ~
2-<
""0
=. 0
. o ~
0-
~, a.
" 0
" 0
0 '"
C. 'n
. VI aci'
'" 0
a a
"j' '"
" '"
g.
. "-
r;'
'"
0"
. ;-
~
.
.
d
I
.
.
11
.
II
g~. ~
3 =.~
~:'lC:
(it Q n:
o a:
~s~
C1l ;:)' n
n C1l :i
o ~ (.n
o ~ ~
.., C :::;J
~~~
o '"
" 0"
g;n:=..
~ n
~ ;! ::.
~-i ~
g-~
is
~
.:;;
n
;:;
a
f") 5- 'Ei" 0
o VI =s n
::: 6i' Q.. g
~ ~-.
c ~ c:.. 5'
!l o' C1l IJQ
O'::::l ;; 0
=~-g=
~a':;':;'
::I'"..,...,n
n n 0 ~.
n~:a:~~
rD'rIIna-:i"
3 ~ ~.::. n
:i" c.. a [
O[c~=
-- ""
~
-<
" "
" 0
" 0
~ ~
j!,c.
~;
" 0"
" ~
c.~
~!!!..
~~
~
g n
is
c.
~
.
5~~~o(i"[3g~
eft. =. :>> -. 3 ~. -. ~ ~. n
CD ~ ~ ~. n ~ ::. (;" n ":S
!. 0 n (ii" g S? ~ ~ ~~.
g~o;;;n~na;!=g
VI .., ~ =-1>> ... _
g35-=<n;a.=.g"<n
=-:::::Inneog="'g
~ ~ ~. n: g.;. ~ l>> ~ a
;:: ;a ~~ ::: ~ 1i !J. n 0
~ VI n l>> n .., ~. 0 ..,
0' ~ 0' ~ ~ n "'.:, ~ ~
:::I 0'"'" -. = On n (ij" :: Q,)
c ... < C 0
:::;J5.n(\l_o~,i'l:::::
g. ~ a.. 8 ;;- ~ :::;J ~ g ~
~. ';:: < g ::: ::: ~ Co.'" -.
~ ::::l - ,~ S?:-: ~~
~. 2" r: ~.g ~ '" .... i
l>>n::::l~3""~ n
t=D =. Co. ~ 0 5' ~_ "
g (,II:::''''
~. n n
n [g
-...:a,
'" - ~
~ '< "
..9.0 Z
g ~ o'
- "
~.~. :T
o~ g
~ s. (;;
c.",~
tn~g-
So - ~
~ ;:; Q:
.Q g ~
~ VI ('J
:=. 23
" ~
~ =. r;
~gc.
\OU\~~
wx~a.
o _ ~_.
> "'0' c:.. =
:;:::;::~'!"
0" ~ g ~
A,Q. Q
g~~~
"'C:; =-='
~g.grra
'< ~ "
:!s.="~
0" :;J~
~ n g <
:! 0 >0Cl
n ~ 3:-
~ 0" -
~
" -!
~ ::r-
~ iii'
2 ~
!l~
o' ~
" 0
" "
!l n
:;;:' ~
=: :::l
0"0
~ -
:..~
o -
!::..2.
:= :r
~'<
,;; -
;:;
o
""
~ g g
~ ~=2 51 ~.
~ pi' (I>
- ~ - !!
':! _ H _
~ ?l ~.~:
~. i.~ ~
s,~;:;~
CoI':I (,I'l l'\l
n -'~
;;r.;"c
-i ;:, :a ;;
c =- ~ S'
~ :;: -
0.0\ ;:;
c.. ~
~ :::,1
~ :;
~
:'l n
::r-O
o "
c.~
~a
c.~
;:;'
o "
- "
~ g.
l'\l .::s.
;; n'
n~
" "'-
;a. a
.;g"
"
~
.
<:1
o
i);'
'"
3"
."
'"
!:l.
,
i
,
~
'.t
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
1
I
I
,
~
:a
:;'
t::
'"
c..
~ "
::r-"
ac.
-"0
,,"0
" "
;: "
~ ;:;
ii c.
c."
o ~
:::~
!.2
- "
" -.
" 0
o 0
o 0
-,I;
- ::.
c~
~ ~
~
-,
~
'"
-
Q'
::.
3"
."
alii)
"<: 3 ,
~i
co,
Q,
3"
."
ii)::E
3""
.. '"
::. ::.
-
..
c..
~
al3.
"<:0
.,
..
Q,
~
.,
O=:.:
to i;'
coCo
al
"<:
....
5' 9 I
~
Co'"
.g
~ g-
n~
~ 2.
~ n
"'''
,r
g g
-gc:
!J. ;;
~
~g.
~
~
~
"
n
~
"'-
~-g
O"N~~
CD 0 ~ eL
"0 :;' ::r
.., VI ... 0"
n ::I :::; ('\ (1l
Co) < (1l ~.",,::
~ ~ 2.;i- 3
g, ~ n~ :=. ::.
~~~~2:
g ~ 5. 5"
~ ~ ::I:::]
~ ~ Co.,.,
'< ;.. CJ :l
c- <
n _ n
00
"
o
...
n
~
n
Co
oo
"
~
"
oo
"
S;
~. ~ Qi'
: ::r'-
;. n' "
g rr 0
- ~ C
:l 5
~
'"
o "
~ Co
"
~ ~.
~ "
=-
""-
5. ('D
~ ~
=;
5' ('\
lJCl :;;.
~ ~
" c
~ ~
a. ~
~ "
c
~
="'0....
U'l c: f":I 0
~ ~~ ~
n ~
.... '::l - "":)'
o O'Q 3 _
~ n"
" "
- :l
~ :;-
Co""
~ 9
Co'"
:!
"
"
n
n
5
"
;;;
~ ~
c=; g
~ c:
n ~
n n
n ~
~ ~
" -
Co3
~"O
=. ;::;-
c
[g
[. i:
0;' a:
"oo
=. ::l:I
o =.
" 0
~ :l
o :;::
C n
c:~
c-"
" <l
<l Z
.J:l
C N
~
2.~
"" '"
;; n
9-:2
" ~
"" "
"0 (;i'
" ~
~ C
2. ~
;;;- :i
~
'"
~~~
3 c.. 0
(i ..., ~
!l~m
0' C :::I
::I a o;!.
Q:::l ::s
~ "Tl:::
~ ::;. ..,
Q.' CD
..I
='
n
~
2.
"
~
, ~
-,(ig
~ ~ CJ
~ "'"
c' (11
" ;r
~ ~
-."
o n
~ C
:i" :;;
n n
s: ~
~ ~
!:'Co
;;;~
(i"~
~ a
" "
~ ~
~
~
C
g.
~ 91::;t
;; ~ ~
~::j~
~;:& 1(5
ii"O 4.
~ ""I o;n
::) 0 -
.......... c'
~ & ~
@-~
n c
CC:
" ~
Co"
n c-
~ !<!.
OQ' ::l:I
" ;a
(i" :;.
" =
c"'"
~
"
00"0'''':1 _... -1C-!e"-;;;-n ~::!
_ '0 .., ~ ('\l n 0 Vi-;; ('D c 2 g %.
VI 0 ('D :n "':I ~.... i:: ;: n ~ - ,.
CJ = .., 0 c :3 =:.... < =-:::; ~ c..
;: - ~:: _. t: !l g (i' ~ ~ !!. ~.
c. ~ g' !!.. (=S' ~ _;;r ~ ~ (;' =. rjQ' (JQ
~:;::;-= =j"~ Q..0"0'c..c.:::l g =3;
c::r::snQ.('Il(ll(;.....,i:l:Ig(;'rD_
a- go c. ~ CD ::::l' (; _. ::I en n :::I :T
l'tl nOO 9:- ~ U'l = ac.Q ::r:-"",
~ 0 C :::I :::I .... "=' .... C :::a --':::I ,.
:: = CJQ ~ =' 0 ~ a "'::l c. ;::::. ~ :3_.
rD ~. ::i" ~ (JQ a; :3 :::I =; ::;. -: c:
(Il=(Il:::l~ o"":'lO~~S:-.-
\'11 IJQ "0 n ~. - ::I ::;. (i :.. . :i'
::2=I":l,<=l'tl-"c.~:::;3n
z:a.:l~~~~:.o...~ !!~
~ iii rii ~ ~~:._~':: g' 2 '< ;- .... ~ So:
n ~ ~. _ g.' 13. r; ag' ~ f[ ~
Co ~_<. ;::; rA ::::I::::J ::' -1 5: ::;,.rA
!a :II -<St=D5--~ ""
....~:; ~: ~~~
~ ~ ~::::I ::::I ~;:;
n g O'CI ....., _:.n
??
...:.
n
~
en
":2
5
~
"
~
....
o
~
"
m
"
".:!.
"
"
"
~
~ ;' g ;;
..... !:l_.::::I ~
VI ~!1l
n' (i';: ~ ~
a:ll z o' (i
~ ~ g' ~ ~
~ (=j' g ~ .~.
g~~:;~
=QQ'~ ;::)' ~
r; ~ 5: :II g
n _ _. g c:
;I ; C ... _,
;S..-: ::::I !1l ::::I
.., n o.c (;
o Q:I ...., = c
:; ::::I ... :::;' Co.
::t Q:I rll !1l (\I
n c..!:;
;a ;; g (i
... =.
~ g
!:..
_ ..I
; :, g-
o' ::..~
:E (i 2,
" n
Q.l ~ ~
=' ::J :.n
~-g~
n Vl :;
g 2.. ~
~ ..,
;: ::. ~
~. =-
"
" Co
Con
Co~
B..~'
;:r ;;
" "
n Co
:;;.
n
~
"
~ ....
'!!i '"
" "
c...?
~ ;:;
~ ~
" ~
~, ~
~ ~
"'O~-i
a c.. 0
(;' -1 ~
eg, ;; m
C :l
::::I a~,
C' ::::I ::::I
E' ~ ~
... ;:; ...
15,'
<:I:n
. <1l
I\> "
~
<1l
~
g'
~
2.
"
~
en
S
o
:;.
~
~."
" ~
""0
n ...
::..c.:
~"
"
~ (i
Con
g-~
~ n
" n
~. ~
;; -
g
!<!.
<:
"
g'
ri ~
~.€
n~
~ ~
::r
?i
"
~ 2:
z ~.
2. -
g'::::I I
~g i
c ;;'
",-"
~o
~
I
<:'
0'
<;;.
<1l
:;-
"ii
"
<'l
-
"
.J:l
~'
1i
;a
"
??
...:.
n
~
en
o
"
~
S;
?i' ~ '1 ?i'
"';J r;' ~ ;-
~::::I"'c.;:::
- n ctl C'tI
3 0 (,t'l Co.
('II ::::I .... n
:a. O'.g g
o .... ~ ';II
...., 3 ;' ~
~ !1,O'CI ~
~::. ~ 0'
r;' .... Q. :2
::",Vl
~ t1l QQ' ....
o ....l =- ~
.., -'.... :E
:-:"' ~ ~;'
"'~ ::::I :.n (7Q
3. S (Il
-:::.,~~
~ ~ rll ~
?i' ;. '" -
:;
g
"" '"
;; n
~~
" ~
"" "
""::I Vi'
" ~
~ C
~, ~
~ "
o
~
(')
o
'"-
:;'
<::
<1l
Cl..
~
~
!i
Q'
::l
31
."
ttJ~
~ ~
iii
"-I
~
iii'~
3~
CO CO
::l ::l
iii
"-
~
tIl::,
"<0
~
"-
~
tJ ~ !
~ Iii'
-Q.
" tIl
"<
.....
.
I
.
.
.
.
l
.
.
. ~
~
.
.
.
.
.
-,
I
.
.
~~~[~8~~~~~~aa
a VI -;.';: f1q g_ "':::I c:.. -. Qq ii' n :. >
~nncc ~c~('tQ..~~_,~
0. -3' -:I ~ =:0. =' =. 0. ::: n n .J
~... _:.J::::I 0- c~
O'~ ~ ~ ~ n :::l 0'Cl 0 n::::l ......
"'~:i"on"':::lc:.. ;~:!l(i:!..;
~~~ng~;;;;~~~~~-
::r > ~ ($ * ~ ~ g- g, ~ ~. ~ ~. iii
o~=,~~~=::r5(JQo....c:::ln~C.f.l
_ C-=.-<(JQ0 Ca:l(;_!5 n
.... ~ 'JI:l t";I:::l "" r'l Co ... -' Zi)
~= ~ il = ~ ~ g .2 a ~ :;:g ~
r6 :""":1 :;I' c:a = _ ~ c ..... ~::r - -
~:;I c:a (i -.... ::. .:: ::I' ~ n'::I
O::lr":"":l:g~S'2n::lOQ ~:;I
;;: ;. ; 3 (':I -. ~ ~ Ci) =.. ;- ~ - ~
g"=..": ::'='~::l~_ g'~ ~ ~ __~.5
-. - ~ ~. :::I _ III Ca:l ~ __ g'
_ n ~. :; ~ g } a ~ ;.:,) n
0'Cl =. S?, c.. ~ ~ (i; g.
"0 et'''O Q., l"'l ==--.-.,
(11 ~. ~.~. ~ n ~ 0 ~ 3 ~
~ C:::l ('II (It ;:"':::1 ;;; tl:I ~ >
Q.O !") c('t 0:::;-::1 0
ri" n c ~ g: ~.;; ~ ~ ;i ~
~ g ;- m .... = ~ -. n 3 Ca:l
:::l ('D c..:, u;.l)Q ... g ~ n :::
Co ~ ;' a o' ~ l! "':::I ;: ~ ~
~ ~. n ~ ~.~ g ~ ~ ~ ;;;
, ::lc.rll"":3_3:::lVl~CI':I
~ ~ ;; =. a ~ "':::I ~ :.. ;' c
~~~3~;:;;'"...3~g:
_ ::l 0 - Ca:l :::l :;; -' -. ::r
o 0 (JQ r: R (It ~ ff ;;; ~ ~.
a.. :E :l: ::i ::::I 0' Q. ,
~ 2. ~ :.'; .., Co.;' [' ~ g'
"" 0'" ~ ; s g ; ;;~,,!. "":I
'<;;_",,""!!..~-;:;"3
=t . n .... -. c.. ,-.
:; ;. ~ =--~ C) n
~ e:. -. ::; 0;; P.
~ ;:. ;' -
"""
:i" ~.
l'
~ !<!. 0 ~ ~ ~
n ~ " n n iI
" " ~ n
0. '" ii 0. =- <:
" " ~. 5' 5 ~
" " ~
~ ~ -"" ~ ~
!<!. " !l Dr " "
n " ~ ~
~ " >,;0 0. "
- ;; :;;
" " ;;
'" 0. n .." ;; o'
" 0' - ~ "" "
!<!. " ~ ~
- ~ ;1-
~ :;;. ii' ;; ;.
- ~ n =i' ~
" ~ ~
<i" " ':' -
0. ~ ~ ::., '"
" ~ 0 ~ "
;; 2, "
3' " ~ ~.
~ "- ";!
0> ~. n -
" ~ ii "
"" ~ n 5 "" 0.
0. ~ ~
::c .." ~ '" ~ s
0 0> ~
5 ~
""
ii "
""
ii
I'"l~
I'"l~
R-3
::<:"
~ 0>
O'~
- ;;:
ni ~
~ ;;
c -
"'<:;"
E-:o.
~
_. "
5. 8
?~
0>
n
0.
-i 3"
e! 't> -'
~ .. -
C')
Q -
ii}
0'
::l
:
\)
Q
::l
II
I
"".."" ~ ~ I
" - "" "
" 0 _ :g
~ < 0 ~
'" -. " g-
o.-
" 0 ..
- ~ ~ ~
" eo "
3 ::. n ::l
"" ii 0.
" -
- o <:;"
~
- ,,'<
'< r.n ~
.~ - ~ I
" 3' ,
~ ~ "" i
"
~ " ;; ,
~ I
~
ii ~ !!.
-
.." n' '"'
~
;1- n :;;. I
5' 0 "
" ~
"" - ~ I
S' 0.,<
,
~
OJiii' I
",3
..
"I
-,
~I
I
I
3"
't>
iii'~
3""
.. ..
" "
-
..
Cl.
~
OJ ;:,
"'0
..,
..
Cl.
~
..,
-,
~~
(i'Cl.
OJ
~I
~
N
" ~ ~ c' :tl 'e:! i2 3"
" ~. n I~I
., g: ~ =. '" 'tl
;:; c " " III
" n n -! ~ C'l
" n "" a 0 " \~ -
c ~. ~ " C
n '-' ;;' ~ .." ~
" ~ 2. 0.. ,",
~ n ~. " g'l
" !2 " CIl
n " ,,' 0' !2 '"
~ ~ ,~ ,,' ;, :
;;' " ~ " ~
n ~. :;. Q 0 ~ ('S. C'l
;;; "" " ~ '" c
" n " " ~ '"-
" ~ " ~
::1 " .." ~ " ",.
n ;0. " ~. '" c
'-' " " ~ .,.
a ~ '-' '"
!2 c' ~ " '3 0..
c' " ;; Q '"
" ~ ~
" ;;
0 ;;
~ ~
~ ~
. . . . -5 - ~ Q: ~ 3 .." ;::
=- " ~ " n
3' ... '-' 0 .." ~ 2 :r ~.~ ;! Q ~ ::. c' ~ .." '" ;:j ~ 0 ~ "'- ~ "" '-' ~ "" " " ~ ::::
- "" " ~ " '-' ~ " c:I~ '-' n ;;. C ~. n ~. cQ
" 0. ~ o ~ () N 0 0 " " 0. ~...Q. c:I " a; ~ ~ n !.. n '".." ~ ::T
.." ;:ii' '-' ~..." " ..., 5"'"';;' e <: ;0. "'- n' OIl 0 ., OIl ~ n ;;; o.~ 0 " '-' :;; III
n ::j " " ~ n " ..," 3' n 0- ~ ('D 2. ~"" "
~ " " n 5 ~ o qq ~ ~ n ~. " " !2 0 '" q ~ <: " ~ .., 2- ~. ~
3 0- " - !!!. ~ 0 ., n-< ca "" 0' 0= ~ ~ n " "
<: 0 <: ~ " ~ .. '-' "" ., ~. ~ ~ '-' " !2 ~ 0- ;;
" "'" ~ ~ <n' ~ Cl ~ m9: :;..." " ;; 0 " " '"
;:; "0 0- .. .. n ('l " ~ ~ "0 g. ;; ~ !" '< 0. <n
::. c:~ -. " 0. " !"0- n .., " ~ 0. 0" " '-' ~ <n'
0 0 == ~ m 0 ::T 0 n' " ~ !"o- 0 " ::1
.. ~ " <: .. " ~ 0 n' "" ~ " 0- " 0. '" ~ " ~ "" ~
=- '-' -< ::;..:g n ~ " " ~, ~ 0 "
Ii 7' ~ 0 c: ... :;. " ~ n ~ ~. 1f " 0 :c :; ~
" 0. 0 =' c:I .. ~ 0 ~ ;; c ;:j ~. " =.. ~
" ~ ~. ~ 0 ~ ;:; ;0. n " " ~ ~ n 0 0 ~ .~ !!' -
" " 0 " ~ ;;
~ " ;; ~ g ., 0" 0 " " ~ ~ " .." 0' ~ " ~ ~ 3 " Q "0 ::T
~ ~ " 0 c....;g n ~ ~ i1 -< ~ :;; 0.-,- 7' ~ n n "
" ~ c: ~ 0 " 0 ~ '5' !!.. ~, =-~ " '" ~
-g ~ " " 0- ~ ., ~ " " '-' " " !f
0 ~ ~ 3 S. r- 0 7' 3 "0 3 0' " ,.., =~ ;; " '-' ~ ~ ~ 0
-! ::T 3 0 .. '-' '< 0 n Q
2. ;; n "0 " ~ ~ ~. g :.;l = ~ "0 n . -. ",,=,0 .:::. ~ "0 n
~ ~ " c: '-' ~ 0. ~ ~ n '-' ~ - ~. i:
" ~ n 0' - :;. 0 ;; " :;''<. C < ::::J :. " ~ - -. ,,' n
;; ~ ~ :;; ~ n 0 '< 3' c..
!2 n 0 0" 3 " ~ 0" 0 ;; " " =. ~ ~ !!' 3 g
~ ~ " "0 ~ " ;; n " c.. -..." ;? n 8-
~ ~ ~ =- ~, 0 2. <n' '" -! n c: 0 n " ::e' ~ ==0 !2 " '-' " n
"0 <: " :g n ~ ~ '" '-' " :;; ;; :=.-.<' ~ ~ ;; ~
" g ;; ;;> " 0' - " ~ " " - ~ a
0 ~ Ii n n 0. " 0- 0. 0' n ~ ~ '" ;; 0. 0 ~ -
0 n ~. " ;0. ;; " ~ " 0' ~ " ~ ~.
~ '" 0 ~ ~ n ~ 0 S?- f' - ~ [ ~ n '-' " 2: " "
.; '" ~ 0 " .." " n s !::. ~ c.. ~
0 ;::QCi' " " ~
0 c ., ~. c - 0
0" '< ~ " ~? " 0 ~ i:.. ~. '!"
c.. ;; 0. S?- - - 7 -< ;; ~ .;
0 ~ 0 n ii "!
~
~ ~
'-".
n
!2
~ tIJ .,.
'"
:; '" ii
~ '"
~ ..
0..
OIl ;;-
<:
0- ~ 3"
c..
~: " 'tl
~ ::1 iii" ~
,;- .. :3
0"" lD lD
3:0 '" ::
" ~ ..
"0 .."
c' 0..
e!-
o c:I '-' -!
-,,, .. 0
~'< 0. ~ ~
~. OIl '" 0
" n' m
3. ::
=- 0 ~ -
;; '-' ~. -
2- Q
~ " iil
'< ~ "
0 " 0..
0 ~
. -.-
~
, ~
~ ;;:
- 0..
lD tIJ
'"
'-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,..
~
~
~
I~I 3"
't>
iii' ..
'" "
~ -
Q.
g>
:;:
n'
<1l
~
'"
\i)
'"
'"
:
i?
'"
. ::;:
::; 0 <J'I -. i::
1>>::::'~=::'t"1 . <1l
;!n~<oo ~ ~ ~ :!. - - Q, a:
_ .., ctI 0 ::I 0 AQ.'~~ ~3
n .., -QQ ... ..,;
Q. ;". <. Co. ~ m ~ :!. n ~ <is'
_. n ~ n 0 -.
~ ::; 5' c...., ::s .., ~ rtI 0:1 0 n ..
c :::;... -. I>> S (") _ a. = = ~ -
"'? (ij' 3 :.a n o ..-, :l) < I.n n 0-
::s 0 - ctI ::; = "
_. VI :E = 0 n ~ .., o'(JQ ::: -
o 0 I>> en VI 0 2 g :::s ~ ~ ::::
:. ... ni ~ U'> ~ n - I>> I>> ::.-.
0:::-'-""":;- g. S ~ g. :; ~.
g=.c..:rrtC
:: .... ('JQ VI n = i:l ::I c..::
rtI ~. ;, ~ ~ g' _ rtI. C-
= ... 0 ,=:n 0'
~ r.n I>> I>> CI = 2O(ll'''=:=
~ _lJ'O ni I>> ~. ~ 3' ~:- <"
0.0 .ctI ."" (i" D- . c==-'-'-
c. 3 0 o:n = -. ... _' n
. 5'''' I>> Q' ~. ~8~~~
_. I>> = C =. ?=.Q':::"~
3';;~'='~ ~ ~n
_. .., rD I>> 0 ~ r.n
N '< < g,,? ~ (1
n " ,
2- f!l ..
N 0;-
3"
't>
, iii
I tIl-
",:::
<1l
"
iii
Q.
~
iii;::
3""
<1l <1l
" "
iii
Q.
~
~~
0'
Cil
Q,
~
.,
t;l::;;
tb (i'
iiiQ,
~
.....
,
"0 ...
Ex:t-!IIrf.T NO.tl-
+. f) . 1 I.',
. (.) K..c:'rv\",---\~V"'\.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
riburon Court Residential Development
EXHIBIT 4 REVISED SCHEMA TIC LJ1NDSCAPE PLAN
-
Botanical/Common Name Size' Height b Spread b
Trees
Aesculus californica I Cal~'ornia Buckeve 15 G 20 40
Aesculus californica California Buckeve 24 B 20 40
Cercis occidenralis I W e~'ern Redbud 15 G 15 15
F raxinus latifolia Orl~!~On Ash 24 B 50 30
Liauidambar stvraciflua "Palo Alto" Swe't Gum 15 G 50 20
Olea eurooa "Swan Hill'. Eurrpe::m Olive 24 B 30 30
Platanus acerifolia "Bloodgood" Plaf;e Tree 24 I 36 B 40 30
Schinus malle Calif<,rnia Peooer 24 B 30 35
Shrubs
A.rctosraoh"los "Howard ..WcMinn" 1 Manzanita 5G
ArctostaDh"los u. ursi I M~llZ3nita lG
Baccharis oilularis I C(~lOte Bush lG
Ceanorhus "Dark. Slar" Wild Lilac 5G
Ceannrhus "1. Pllelps" I Wild LIlac 5G
Ceanorhus "R. Harrman" I Wild Lilac I 5G
Cistus "SUllset" I Rockrose I IG
Cisrus salvdolius T Pr,)strate Rockrose I lG
Eri-zeron DTo(usion I Fleabane 1 4P
Eschschol=:ia californica I C:tliforma Pooov I 4P
Iris doudasii Douglas Iris I 4P
Mahonia aauifolium Ore2:on grape 5G
Rhamnus californica Coffee Berrv lG
Romneva coulteri I ~!atiia PODOV lG
Sisvrinchium bellum I Blue-Eved Grass I 1 G
Zauschneria californica I Cali fornia Fischla I IG
Grasses
,Wulhlenberzia ri';?ens I'fleer Grass IG 1
Penniserum orienralis l}ountaJn Grass I I G
Vines
Ficus pumila .Creeoin. Fig IG
Parthenocissus tricuspidata "Green Boston Ivy tG
Showers"
Solanum iasminoides - Potato Vine lG
Groundcover
Arcrostaah\'los "Emerald Camet" Cre;);ng Manzanita lG
Ceanorhus "loriosus norrectUS Mt. Vision Wild Lilac lG
Frazaria chiloensis "C. Wild StrawberrY 4P
l'vfvooorum oar:if'olium M vooorum Flats
Rubus oencalobus B lackberrv IG
Hvdroseed Mix. of native gT3SSes.- p~rennial flowers. low-growlne: shrubs. and meadow mix
Source: Imprints Lmdsc:J.pe Architectun:
a Gallon (G). inch-balt (8), and inch lot IP) sizes at planting.
b Height in feet.
).6
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
j
I
I
~