HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 1999-02-17 rescan
,(
Ii
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BLVD.
MEETING DATE:
MEETING TIME:
CLOSED SESSION:
INTERVIEWS:
February 17, 1999
7:30 P.M.
7:00 P.M.
6:45 P.M.
PLEASE NOTE: In order to give all interested persons an opportunity to be heard, and to ensure the presentation of all
points of view, members of the audience should:
(1) Always Address the Chair; (2) State Name and Address; (3) State Views Succinctly; (4) limit Presentations to 3 minutes; (5)
Speak Directly Into Microphone.
A. INTERVIEWS - (Thomas AllenIParks & Open Space Commission)
B. ROLL CALL
C. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If any)
D. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Please confine your comments during this portion of the agenda to matters not already on this agenda, other
than items on the Consent Calendar. The public will be given an opportunity to speak on each agenda item
at the time it is called. Presentations are limited to three (3) minutes. Matters requiring action will be
referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or Staff for consideration and/or placed on a
future meeting agenda.
E. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
1) BEAUTIFY TffiURON BOULEVARD COMMITTEE .-;.(Jean Banning, Chair)
2) TffiURON PENINSULA RECYCLING COMMITTEE - (John Kern)
F. CONSENT CALENDAR
The purpose of the Consent Calendar is to group items together which generally do not require discussion
and which will probably be approved by one motion unless separate action is required on a particular item.
Any member of the Town Council, Town Staff, or the Public may request removal of an item for dscussion.
3) TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1153 - February 3, 1999 - (Approve)
4) TOWN MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY - (December 30, 1998) - (Accept)
5) ROUND HILL OAKS PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Amendment of Clerical .
Error in Resolution No. 3297 - (Adopt Resolution)
G. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS. COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES
6) CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO EXPIRING TERMS & CURRENT VACANCIES -
A) PLANNING COMMISSION (1) - [Lisa Klairmont ]
B) PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION (2) - [Mindy Canter; Kurt Obermeyer]
C) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (2) -[Kirk Beales; Larry Doane]
D) IT. RECREATION COMMITTEE - (2) - [Jerry Riessen; Priscilla Tripp]
!.,
A
i
H. PUBLIC HEARING
7) APPRO V AL OF PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION - Two Parcels off of High Meadow Lane, AP Nos. 58-121-14, 58-281-
15; 58-100-72, 58-100-73 - (Adopt Resolution)
8) ORDINANCE PREVENTING CONSTRUCTION DURING HOLIDAY PERIODS ON
MAIN STREET - (1st Reading by Title Only)
9) ADA MAIN STREET LITIGATION - Connally v. Main Street Businesses & Town of
Tiburon - (Adoption of Settlement Agreement)
I. NEW BUSINESS
10) TOWN ENGINEER'S POSITION - (Authorization to Retain Contract Engineer, Irving
Schwartz)
11) CHAPTER 15 OF TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE [TREE ORDINANCE] - (Discuss
Possible Amendments pertaining to View Preservation)
12) REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF BUILDING PERMIT FEES - (Remodel Project -
National Audubon Society, Richardson Bay Nature Sanctuary on Greenwood Beach Rd.)
,
J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
13) DOWNTOWN TIBURON MAIN STREET ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - (Award
Contract for a) Design Engineering Improvements, and b) Assessment District
Engineering-I.L. Schwartz Associates, Inc.)
K. COMMUNICATIONS
14) LETTER FROM GGBH&TD TO TOWN MANAGER - Dated February 1, 1999 - (Bus
Shelter Advertisements)
L. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS.
15) STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STATUS REPORT - (Fi~ce"Director)
16) REED RANCH ROADrrmURON BLVD. INTERSECTION PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS - (planning Director's Process Recommendations)
17) DATA COLLECTION SHEETS FOR MULTI-USE PATH SURVEY - (parks & Open
Space Commission Recommendation)
18) MMWD FIRE FLOW PIPELINE WORK - (Blackie's Pasture & Greenwood Beach
Road)
M. ADJOURNMENT
Future Allmda Items
-Resolution adopting new Road Impact Fee Schedule for damage caused by construction activity - (March 17)
DATE OF MEETING:
DATE POSTED:
Februarv 17
F ebruarv 12. 1999
No.3. 1999
NOTICE OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR HOLDING
CLOSED MEETING OF THE TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 54950 et seq., the Town Council will
hold a Closed Session. More specific information regarding this meeting is indicated
below:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Section 54956.9(a))
Connallv et at v. Main Street Businesses & Town of Tiburoll
(USDC NO. C-95-00875)
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD · TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920. (415) 435-7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
COMMISSION. BOARD & COMMITTEE
RECEIVED
JAN 1 5 1999
APPLICA TION
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions,
boards and committee throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen
vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local
governmental process and ~ctivities, the Council needs to know your interest in
serving the Town in some capacity.
Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience
.1 ' (
which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both sides of this form and
returning it to Town Hall. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and
informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year.
Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year.
Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community.
&A..
llobert L. Kleinert
Town Manager
" \,,'
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * .,* *'* *-* * * * * * * * * * *
~
Indicate Your Area(s) of Interest in Numerical Order
(#1 Being the Greatest Interest)
PLANNING )( PARKS & OPEN SPACE
DESIGN REVIEW RECREATION
HERITAGE & ARTS DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
BUDGET & FINANCE LIBRARY
RECYCLING & WASTE MANAGEMENT
DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION TASK FORCE
1
NAME: ThO\MtlS W. Al\~
MAILING ADDRESS: 5'3" (Or\f\stDG~ D~.
TELEPHONE: Home: 4- 3 s. ";'f Work: 'f-&f. 1.. - '4-C;;.'- Fax No. tf ~5 - " 5 1.. J
PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (lfappUcable) ~e.ed Hei''''t:r/T;~~ ~a"..r
TIBURON RESIDENT: (Years) 5" DATE SUBMITTED:
o~ Sp<A.C#l!. x.. ~ ;,~~ ;~ l~ c.,",,~v~'~. 1:~
~ 0...1 ~ CC1\^.Sv I~+ ~ ~ TrlA.~+- f;r-- pv blic I D"..q
\~ So.- ~t..."'SLo ~ o~ (0 ~~ I~crn~~ 'D..iV\.f!.~ G
WoY ~ """., ~ ~ \e.tl" 4e ~ ~ f ~ c r""",,,,~ .fn-v- ,~c: f7'^~ ~"'~"........
+e. c ~ 11\ r q w. s . :t: ~ 0- ~ Jm...c....r Q.{ tt;p A-di" y~C "'- L-e.o..,'1 ~
dM. \, a. ri VA.t~ -ft,r~J+ r"E".t.tvw~;", ~ A-cll~"'~C.l:- p~k.
w ",-, ~ 1:- V is 'f +- a.M Il\ ~f~ r w ~ 10'\.\.)'" , ; 'r ' ~ .pre S-t.II.At-f GS1 0 0 (;)
4.cyej' of t"J(X)cl(AN-c( wc.~ (~..r / S~..f ~ ~; 'so
~o....c~
()sii~
~ L.cw-'4t
~ ,~ w\lk;,
(Commission, Board or Committee)
(Date)
_ Date Term Expires:
Length of Term:
jm 12/95
2
Thomas W. Allen
· Twenty five years of management and management systems consulting experience with
Fortune 1000 companies, major not-for-profit organizations and government entities,
· Professional history of developing $1-2 million in new consulting business annually.
· Well developed planning, project management and client relations skills.
· Excellent written, verbal, presentation and interpersonal communication and persuasion skills.
· Exceptional solution development, conflict resolution and negotiation skills.
Professional Experience
Managing Partner
IT Management Advisors, Inc. (ITMA) 1989 - Present
Fonnder and Managing Partner of information systems planning and design firm. ITMA is a client-
driven, alliance-based firm that provides strategic systems planning, financial management reporting,
and business process improvement services to medium-sized companies. Responsible for strategic
planning, business development, project management and staff planning and management.
Performed significant consulting projects for Charles Schwab and Co., Lucasfilm, Ltd., Failure Analysis
Associates, Bio-Rad Laboratories, VLSI Technologies, Octel Communications, The Trust for Public
Land, San Francisco Foundation, CellularOne, East Bay Regional Park District, and many others.
Served as Chief Operating Officer for Global Internet.com, Inc., a $25 million networking professional
services firm, for' eight months.
Business Center Manager
Systemhouse, Inc.
1987 - 1989
Responsible for business development, practice planning, project management, and staff planning for one
of Systemhouse's nine U.s. offices.
Partner, Management Consulting Department
KPMG Peat Marwick
1972 - 1987
Built management consulting practices in several industries and performed business development,
project management, professional staff development and client relations for this Big 6 professional
services firm. As a Partner, generated 1-2 million dollars in new business annually, Pioneered and
developed new industry business and staffed four new industry consulting practices within Peat
Marwick. Clients included: Fortune 1000 Companies; state, federal and local government agencies;
financial institutions; public sector organizations; high technology firms; major transportation and
leasing companies, Consulting emphases included: strategic planning, management reporting systems,
organizational development and general management consulting. Delivered the Economic, Financial
and Market Analysis Seminar for the Chemical Planning Institute, Beijing, China.
U.S. Navy
1965 -1967
Served as an officer aboard USS Saint Paul (CA-73) in Vietnam Conflict. Officer of the Deck underway,
Eight inch gun director officer for shore bombardment and counter-battery fire.
Education
MBA
BA
CPA
Stanford University, 1971
University of Pennsylvania, 1965
Certified, 1976
Affiliations
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
California Society of Certified Public Accountants
Society for Information Management
Member of the Board of Trustees, San Francisco Ballet Association
535 Comstock Drive, Tiburon, California 94920 · 415/435-9974 Home. 415/388-0841 Office
TnWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 · (415) 435-7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
October 16, 1998
Mrs. Traute Eckersdorff
2 Janet Way, #99
Tiburon, CA 94920
SUBJECT: APPLICATION TO SERVE ON TOWN C011MISSION
Dear Mrs. Eckersdorlr
Thank you for your recent application to serve on the Tiburon Parks & Open Space
Commission.
The Town Council will schedule interviews for upcoming vacancies on this Commission
beginning in January or February of next year. These informal interviews last approximately 10
minutes and take place in the Council Chambers at 1505 Tiburon Boulevard. I will contact you as
soon as a date is selected to set up an appointment with you.
Once again, thank you for your interest in serving the Tiburon community.
Very ~21Y Yj1S,
//I&~
Diane L. Crane
Town Clerk
;!/a Ie fa ~,
As zc-&s cUr/! IS M;-
~Mfv~~
pflr~ 3/ /9 '19
~
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435.7373
FAX (415) 435-2~38
COlVlMISSION, BOARD & CO:MMITTEE
RECEIVED
OCT 1 3 199&
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
APPLICA TION
The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions,
boards and committee throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen
vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local
governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in
serving the Town in some capacity.
Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience
which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both sides of this form and
returning it to Town Hall. Copies will be fonvarded to the Town Council and
informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year.
Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year.
Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community.
&A
Ro bert L. Kleinert
Town Manager
******* * ** ** * * * * * * ************ * ** * ** * * ** * * * ** * *
_._.fllillltl~I'..lItl
Indicate Your Area(s) of Interest in Numerical Order
(#1 Being the Greatest Interest)
PLANNING vi PARKS & OPEN SPACE
DESIGN REVIEW RECREATION
HERITAGE & ARTS DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
BUDGET & FINANCE LIBRARY
RECYCLING & WASTE l\'IANAGE~IENT
DOWNTOWN RE\TIT ALIZA TION TASK FORCE
1
~
NAME: lRA-lA7Y -C' E ~ ?
:MAILING ADDRESS: ~ 3c v\.' + .
TELEPHONE: Home: .3<rs/- b)~]Work:
PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (Ifapplicable)
TIBURON RESIDENT: (Years) I DATE SUBl\'IITTED:
TOWN MANAGERS O~~ICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
~..r.rr~'tlltl
A~ .o'^ U~S," ~~
,~
LLL'Y'v
_fl~;~~~~~4;~~~t~~~~~:~~)
----------------------------------------------1l0lYll lIaJl lJse -------------------------------------------------
_ Date Application Received: (0- (~ /f( Interview Date: ( /11 '1 )
_ Appointed to:
(Commission, Board or Committee)
(Date)
_ Date Term Expires:
Length of Term:
jm 12/95
2
TIBURON PENINSULA RECYCLING COMMITTEE
I/e~ # 2-
February 3, 1999
RE: Sunsettine: of the Recvcline: Committee
Dear Councilmembers of the City of Belvedere and the Town of Tiburon
This is in response to the attached letter sent by Diane Crane, Town Clerk for Tiburo~ asking the
Committee to recommend whether it should continue during the year 1999 or longer.
It is the unanimous decision of the Recycling Committee that it need not function as it has for the
past years. We think the Committee has fulfilled its usefulness as an ongoing committee and that
a new format could better serve our communities. We recommend:
. that the Recycling Committee be disbanded and continue to serve only as an ad hoc
committee when special needs arise;.
. that Romney Fennell, member of the Committee and a staffmember of the Town ofTiburo~
be designated the Recycling Coordinator for Tiburon. Along with recycling, these duties now
include the collection of discarded batteries and styrofoam for all peninsula residents.
. that, as agreed by the committee, we recommend that the job of Recycling Coordinator and
duties thereof be added to Romney's job description and that appropriate compensation be
authorized. We note in the past she has performed these tasks on her own time and on a
volunteer basis;
. and that Romney coordinate recycling activities with a staff member from Belvedere who
shall be so authorized by that city.
All of us have appreciated the opportunity to serve on the Recycling Committee and we enclose a
list of committee accomplishments over the past three years. The major unfinished task ahead
involves working out the recycling problems in the downtown area of a~lvedere and Tiburon.
The committee has had limited success here because of the issues involved. Planning decisions
and council actions may be necessary if measures, that could enhance recycling in this complex,
crowded downtown area where space is at a premium, are to be achieved. Such ~ctions of course
are beyond the Recycling Committee's charge or purview. We urge councibnembers to consider
how best to solve the recycling problems in this area.
All of us, too, wish to thank Rick Powell of the Mill Valley Refuse Service for his support for the
committee. Weare ready to pitch in should a specific project again require our services.
MarciaFelto~ )i(-(~~, ~~,~
ROmneyFennellVh->L~ -L/U' {(
John Kern ~.ft d
Polly Smithq~~ ~
Ray Truman
cc Bob Kleinert, Ed San Diego, Rick Powell
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD · TIBURON · CALIFORNIA 94920. (415) 435-7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
January 7, 1999
Polly Smith, Chair
Tiburon Peninsula Recycling Committee
10 Barner Lane
Tiburon, Ca 94920
SUBJECT: TmURON RECYCLING CO:M1vfiTTEE TERM
Dear Polly:
The Tiburon Recycling Committee was appointed in February 1996 to assist the
communities of the Tiburon Peninsula in their efforts to meet state-mandated recycling
goals, which were to go into effect in early 1999.
It was anticipated at that time that your committee would have completed its work and
would "sunset" when the mandates became effective.
Apparently, there have now been extensions to the deadlines for these state-mandated
goals, and as a result, the Town Council wishes to know whether the Tiburon Recycling
Committee would like to extend its own term date past March of 1999.
Would you please poll your members and let me know your thoughts on this subject.
The Town Council has asked me to agendize this matter for consideration at a future
meeting in January or February. \ , \,
Thanks for your cooperation in this matter.
Very truly Y rs,
A ;1/
I /t/
2-L---
Diane L. Crane
Town Clerk
Cc: Town Manager
Town Council
For Bob Kleinert for
February 1999 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
Report to Town Council re: Tiburon Recycling Committee efforts over last year and goals for
1999.
Last year the Tiburon Peninsula Recycling Committee presented a resolution to the Town Council
to commemorate "America Recycles Day Nov. 15, and to adopt policies regarding purchasing,
source reduction, waste prevention, & recycling.
Some of the highlights of the year:
In excess of95% of Town Hall paper & packaging material are recycled in-hbuse
Successfully implemented preference program for using office products that contain recycled,
reusable, or recyclable materials, for example we use recycled paper in our copy machines, toilet
paper & paper towels in public restrooms are recycled content products.
Very successful response from community re: Town Hall has been drop-off collection site for
used batteries & Styrofoam peanuts (items which must be kept out of landfill). The batteries are
delivered to a hazardous waste facility, the Styrofoam goes to a recycling facility.
Very successful "Reduce Junk Mail" campaign within Town Hall/Recreation Department: Over
the last year 640 notices have been sent out requesting our name:~ be removed~from incoming
mailing lists - catalogs no longer wanted/unsolicited junk mail.. 1999 Goal:' pare down outgoing
mailing lists. "
Schools - Along with Mill Valley Refuse our committee distributed educational outreach materials
to Tiburon school children to commemorate America Recycles Day - poster artwork from Bel
Aire students were displayed at both Tiburon Town Hall and Belvedere City Hall, article in Ark,
America Recycles Day sign displayed at Blackie's Pasture
Public works successfully eliminated the co-mingling of green waste/ refuse at corp yard by
setting up separate collection boxes
Implemented "mini-can" program for Mill Valley Refuse customers who reduce their trash
enough through their recycling efforts to qualify for a smaller can/service fee.
Public recycling bins are now located downtown and at Blackie's pasture, (Suggest that signage
placed on near-by public refuse containers informing public to bring their recyclables to these
bins)
The ARK Newspaper very graciously provided space for Recycling Tips for our educational
outreach program, see samples attached
Educational outreach: letters went out to all homeowner associations.
Downtown efforts: Several meetings with Chamber of Commerce, major challenge. Recommend
working through Building & Planning Departments to urge/require businesses (when they
remodel) to designate adequate refuse & recycling space. Inadequate storage space is primary
problem for businesses falling short in recycling efforts - urge cooperation with others / purchase
compactors to reduce garbage so as to allow more space dedicated for storing/sorting
recyclables. Provide incentives & recognition to encourage "community" effort
Our Committee coordinated recycling services at Moseley Parade/picnic, Ayala Day Festivities,
New Town Hall Celebration, rode in Moseley parade on antique garbage truck driven by Rick
Powell
Offered composting workshop to community
Worked with Mill Valley Refuse to update their customer recycphg guide, \i'
OLD TOWN HALL: SELLIRECYCLE OLD FURNITURE . LIGHT FIXTURES, AIR
CONDITIONERS. NEW TOWN HALL: ENERGY CONSERVATION EFFORT TO
RECYCLE HEAT FROM SPRINT GENERATORS
RECYCLING COORDINATOR
SUGGESTED DUTIES & RESPONSmILITIES
1. Recommend & monitor waste prevention efforts within Town Hall, Police Department,
and Public Works
2, Recommend & monitor ways to streamline paper trail-reduce what comes in/goes out in
regards to CounciV CommissionIBoard packets, Planning & Building Files
3. Continue to offer methods & encouragement to town employees for ways to prevent
waste & increase recycling efforts
4. Continue to provide collection site for used batteries & styrofoam for peninsula residents,
and deliver to recycling facility
5, Maintain recycling bins within Town Hall
6. Continue "reduce (incoming) junk mail campaign" - look at ways to reduce outgoing mail
(purge mailing lists)
7. Recruit & supervise recycling volunteers for Town sponsored public events
8, Continue to work with school recycling/education efforts- annual America Recycles Day
poster artwork project; cub scout /girl scout projects
9. Develop ways to work with construction industry in regards to on-site recycling/salvage
efforts - guidelines, incentives, etc
10. Continue working with ARK in regards to publishing "recycling tips"
11, Coordinate annual "America Recycles Day" community activity/event
12, Continue efforts to monitor and provide incentives for downtown businesses/ yacht
clubsITiburon Peninsula Club/ homeowners associations to increase recycling efforts
13, Write, print, and distribute Tiburon Peninsula reuse/recycling/waste reduction guide-
(beyond curbside collection) Examples available
14. Administrative: Maintain correspondence/reference files, Monitor/respond to any
correspondence in regards to state mandated goals/requirements, Outline & recommend
budget items to Town Council for community efforts (i.e. costs to produce community
recycling guide)
Average time required for these responsibilities: 1 hour/day throughout course of a year
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON IN
COMMEMORATION OF THE FIRST ANNUAL "AMERICA RECYCLES DAY"
NOVEMBER 15, 1997, AND ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL POLICIES
REGARDING PURCHASING, SOURCE REDUCTION, WASTE PREVENTION,
AND RECYCLING
WHEREAS, the volume of municipal solid waste disposed of at Marin's landfills has not yet met
the diversion goal of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (50% by the year
2000); and
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon' s participation in and promotion of source reduction, waste
prevention and recycling programs can serve as a model to the community for reducing the
volume of material entering the waste stream from the Tiburon Peninsula, thereby diverting
refuse from landfills and reducing environmental impact and avoiding penalties; and
WHEREAS, many of the materials that enter the waste stream can be recycled, reused, or
incorporated into the manufacture of new products; and
WHEREAS, the Town recognizes that for recycling programs to be effective, markets must be
developed for products that incorporate postconsumer materials in their manufacture, are
reusable, or are designated to be recycled; and
WHEREAS, California State Law requires that local agencies buy recycled products if quality
and price are equal to nonrecycled products, and allows local agencies to adopt purchasing
preferences for recycled products;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Town Council that the Town of
Tiburon adopts the following policies:
1. Prior to purchase of materials and supplies the Town shall take reasonable steps to
determine whether the products being purchased contain recycled, reusable, or recyclable
materials.
2, Preference shall be given in the purchasing of materials and supplies to products
containing recycled, reusable, or recyclable materials, unless it can be demonstrated to the
Town's satisfaction that these recycled products would not achieve the applicable
performance standard.
3. A price preference, not to exceed fifteen (15) percent, may be given to recycled, reusable,
and recyclable products. The preference percentage shall be based on the lowest bid or
price quoted by the supplier offering non-recycled products,
J<E(Y(L'NG_rU~:-Of THE WEEK
ONLY PLASTIC B.QTTIES WITH,A NARROW NECK CAN BE
RECYCLED CURBSIDE'. THEY MUST'BE LABELED EITHER
. t# J OR #2 Otj'THE BOTTOM, INSIDE THE FAMILIAR
. TRIANGULAR RECYCLE LOGO, WIDE MOUTH CONTAINERS,
EVEN THOSE LABLED t# 1 AND #2, ARE MADE WITH A
CHEMICAL ADDITIVE THAT MAKES THE PLASTIC NON-
RECYCLABLE. YOU HAVE TO TRASH THEM
"\
~
~
\.,.
"-
~
QECYCLiNG riP OF
r~€ WEeK
~
~
Containers and podc:aging make up about 66 '"
percent of what we lhrow out. To reduce this ~
waste, ~poss.i~ avoid plasfi< 1I1ister"
po<ka~ see-through type, molded to
the shOpe-of the product it contains. BrISter cnrd-
boord, ~, like egg cartons, is recy~able
along with most ~per podc:ogifl9. Cardboard
boxes shouHf be flattened, bundled and sepa_
rated from junk moil.
lll~ (:y CLli~ G 'I'll) 0 l( ~
'l'IIE'VEEI{: Keep .gorba9.e out of 'tour ~
matenal to be recycled at '-.
curhside. Whea r~Wes are
contaminated, the lOad goes to ~
t~e dump. COltS and bottles
shouid be deem. but do.'r have
to be wasbed. sr'9hrty dirty
ahllninum faN is OlDY oe<ause
the food burns oH i. pro<essing. .
Only lard ,waste snould be "
place in your green can. )
Using a 20-gallon Dlini-can for ~
once-weekl~y garbage pickup Z
will s a v e yo II 1 5 (1~ ~
u n yo 1I r wI i II Va II e y Ref 1I S C
S C ("\. ice hill. C a II L):2 4 - I K 6 S lo
."
..~
, .11 ' , 11 ' I I \ C', \ 1- \: I' C" .
'- ,(.. ;:-- .")\.... .'_.
~~
I J
~/
~
~
Used household batteries are ~
considered hazardous waste_ Tiburon ~
Town Hall will dispose of them ~
properly for you. They'll also take ~
styrofoam "peanuts" which will be
reused. Please deliver them in J.
plastic bag.
~
~
Cleaning out your closest or attic'? [)onate items to Tihunm Thrift
Shop (lower :\rk Row, 435-760S). Salvation Arm\" (XOO 95X.7X2S1 ~
will pick up donations. Goodwill (456-5273) pic.ks up furniture ~
only. All charities will provide a ',~ -c..... receipt for your ~
taX-ded.:::~e :naliono___ ~,; o:'!{ ~
~'~--i;~~~;~-- _ -: 0 ~ f
~ :If~:'~\tl:i'tj"',' :'~;(l, T.';J};' ll,~2-~
v . :. . ........ \,;;' -I. . . #- ...Jo.....
_~~..~..,~L.~..''--. .' 'l;:-;~~._' , ".,~.
All "windows" are
not created equal. Please
recycle only the frosted
"glassine" ones. Tear
clear plastic windows
out of envelopes
before recyIing.
~
"
.........
"'"
"Q
RECYCLING TIP I~
.. J u n k p h () n Lea 11 s" J. n J "j u n k Il1 a tI .. . ~
em be reduced by tlski~lg Pacific 8L'!! "
to delete your listing t'['()lll '\)
their '.reverse directl)! \' .. pl\
~..--.-J f'o
~
~
~.
RECYCLING TIP ~
All plastic bottles are not alike. The only "-
recyclable ones are small-necked ones marked "C\
"In or "2.~' Others. are made of materials which ~
are not recyclable at this time. ~
~
RECYCLING TIP
\
o
"J unk phone calls" and ~
.a
"junk mail" can be reduced ~
by asking Pacific bell to
delete your listing from
their "reverse directory."
'!'
"-
-J\
Arc you cDntributing to YOl!l"
own junk mail problems')
[\;1 ai Icrs obtain names from
sweepstakes entries, product
. warranty registrations, and
consumer surveys", as wdl as
from catalog mailing lists.
"-
~
"-
"
,:-t)
\.J
RECYCLING TIP
~
~
~
~
4, When recycled products are used, reasonable efforts shall be undertaken to label the
products to indicate that they contain recycled materials, for example: Town newsletters
and reports to indicate "printed on recycled paper"
5, The Town shall undertake reasonable efforts to recycle materials, supplies, and equipment
no longer needed by the Town, and to encourage its residents and commercial merchants
to do the same.
6, The Town shall undertake reasonable efforts to avoid purchasing products with excess
packaging and arrange return of delivery cartons to supply companies.
7. The Town shall encourage its residents, associations, clubs, and commercial merchants to
purchase recycled, reusable, and recyclable products, and to increase their efforts to avoid
purchasing products with excess packaging.
8, The Recycling Committee shall continue its efforts to educate and encourage its
residents, homeowners associations, merchants, clubs, restaurants, and schools to
practice source reduction and waste prevention, and to increase their participation in the
local curbside recycling program.
9, The Town shall implement a waste prevention program within Town Hall, the Police
Station, and the Public Works Department - serving both as a model for the community
and reducing operating costs, e.g: discouraging avoidable or excess copying,
encouraging two sided copying, pruning incoming and outgoing mailing lists, replacing
disposable items with reusable materials, repairing rather than discarding, faxing and e-
mailing whenever possible.
10, The Town shall provide collection receptacles for recyclables in the public areas
downtown and in its public parks and recreation areas, Current receptacles can be
converted with steel liners that separate recyclables from trash or "recycle only"
containers installed, This program will require further study in regards location and pick-
up, with the goal to implement by November 1998.
11. The Town shall require that for all Special Event Permits, large & small, the group or
sponsor of the event must provide a plan for recycling. The event sponsor must provide
collection containers for recyclables, or arrange with Mill Valley Refuse to provide
temporary containers & pick -up
12. The Town shall establish a policy within its Public Works Department whereby all
landscape green waste is collected and stored separately from refuse, so that it can be
diverted from landfill to the "green can" compost program. This policy will require
further study in regards selecting a location for collection of green waste, with the goal to
implement by November 1998
13. The Town will appoint an In-House Recycling Coordinator and an informal In-House
Waste Prevention Committee to assess, establish and monitor waste prevention efforts,
develop solutions, explore streamlining (paper trail) efforts in regards to review and
approval processes, educate co-workers in waste prevention techniques, provide
incentives, and encourage the behavioral changes and cooperation needed to prevent
waste and increase recycling.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting ofth~ Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
held on November 18, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
THERESE HENNESSY, MAYOR
T own of Tiburon
ATTEST:
DIANE L. CRANE
Town Clerk
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
ff/vL I/v. 3
^/~
1Jj\4~)-
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Bach called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:35p.m.
on Wednesday, February 3, 1999, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon,
California.
A. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Bach, Gram, Matthews, Thompson
Hennessy
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO:
Planning Director Anderson, Town Attorney
Danforth, Senior Planner Watrous, Superintendent
of Public Works Iacopi, Chief of Police Herley,
Town Clerk Crane
B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION at any)
Mayor Bach said there was no closed session.
C. PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
ChiefHerley said a Traffic Control Device, partially funded through a Federal grant program, had
been installed to monitor vehicular speed on Tiburon Boulevard.
Mayor Bach said the appellant's representative for Public hearing Item No.7, "APPEAL OF
PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL of Rezoning, Lot Line Adjustment, and Amendments to
Tiburon Highlands Master Plan & Precise Plan - AP Nos. 34-360-11, 38-182-20 & 38-322-11,"
had the flu and had asked for a continuance. He asked for Council comments concerning the
request for continuance.
Councilmember Matthews said interest was high in the issue given theamolUlt of correspondence
received by Council, as well as the number of people in the audience. However, Matthews said it
would not be fair to the applicant to hear the matter without his representative being present.
Councilmember Thompson said it was frustrating to everyone because the request had just come
in at noon of the hearing date, but said the process needed to be fair.
Vice Mayor Gram concurred, however, he suggested giving the public a choice of a bifurcated
hearing, that is, delivering their testimony tonight and hearing only from the applicant/appellant at
the continued hearing.
Mayor Bach said he thought it was better to hear all the testimony at once, and opened the floor
to the public for their comments on the continuance.
Vasco Morais, 321 Karen Way, said the same thing happened the last time the item was on the
Town Counci/Minutes #1153
Febntary 3, 1999
Page 1
agenda, but agreed that the applicant should be present for a fair hearing.
Mayor Bach asked for suggested dates of continuance. The consensus of the audience was that
the next Town Council meeting date would not work because of Spring Break, and said March 3,
1999 would be preferable.
Applicant Fred Grange appeared in Council Chambers at 7:50 p.m. Mayor Bach asked ifhe was
prepared to go forward with the hearing in the absence of his representative, Tom Newton. Mr.
Grange said he was not, but agreed to the hearing date of March 3.
.
Mayor Bach closed the public hearing, and stated that the matter would be heard on March 3,
1999, whether or not the applicant was present.
D. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
1) STATUS OF NEW POLICE BUILDING - (project Manager Jim Wilson)
Wilson said the job was 45% complete but that the project [timeline] was slipping. He said the
interior was 95% framed out and speculated that the crew could make up time during the
carpentry phase. Wilson said that work on the exterior of the project had been being delayed due
to rain and muddy conditions.
With regard to the off-site street improvements, a separate six-week contract related to the Police
Building project, Wilson said that final approval of the plans had been delayed, but that the Town
Manager and Chief of Police were helping to expedite the process through their contacts at
CALffRANS.
Finally, Wilson said that Building Committee member John Hoffinir~ hadagteed to lead the new
Police Station furniture fund-raising effort. He also noted that the,Police Dep~ment had picked
up some excess used furniture from a stock brokerage in San Fr~cisco ~~(1uid closed its office.
" ~
Wilson said the project cost was on budget, with only minor change orders. He anticipated a
project completion date of May 1, 1999, or June 1, if the rain continued.
E. CONSENT CALENDAR
2) TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1152 - January 20, 1999 - (Approve)
3) STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) FUNDING - (Adopt
Resolution Assuring Local Funding)
4) REQUESTS TO JOIN AMICUS BRIEF: Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes,
Cal. App. 3d, Case No. C029639; Saia v. City of Capitol a, Cal. App. 6th, Case No. H019076-
- (Approve)
5) SPRINT LEASE AMENDMENT - (Consider Rental Increase for Additional Space)
Town Counci/Minutes #1153
Febroary 3, 1999
Page 2
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To approve Consent Calendar
Thompson, Seconded by Matthews
AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: Hennessy
F. APPLICA nONS TO TOWN BOARDS.. COMMSSIONS & COMMITTEES
6) STATUS OF TOWN COM:MISSION VACANCIES & APPLICATIONS - (Set Interview
Schedule)
Council directed Town Clerk Crane to set up interviews at 6:30 p.m., prior to the Council
meeting on February 17, 1999.
G. PUBLIC HEARING
7) APPEAL OF PLANNING COM:MISSION DENIAL of Rezoning, Lot Line Adjustment, and
Amendments to Tiburon Highlands Master Plan & Precise Plan - AP Nos. 34-360-11, 38-182-
20 & 38-322-11 (Fred Grange, Applicant & Appellant)
Item continued to March 3, 1999 (see "Public Questions & Comments").
H. NEW BUSINESS
L UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8) REVIEW OF LAFCO POLICIES - (planning Director)
Council directed Planning Director Anderson to receive Councilmember Hennessy's comments on
the proposed responses prior to returning them to LAFCO,
J. COMMUNICATIONS
K. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
9) ALTO-RICHARDSON BAY FIRE DISTRICT - (Town Manager)
Planning Director Anderson said that Alto Fire Chief Kildow had informed the Town Manager of
their proposed merger with Tamalpais Fire District.
10) STATUS OF NEW COMPUTER NETWORK - (Town Attorney/Town Clerk)
Town Clerk Crane said the network was up and running, and noted that the e-mail and shared
calendar software was particularly helpful to communications within and outside of Town Hall.
In response to inquiries from Council for more timely public access to Town Council meeting
agendas and minutes, Town Clerk Crane said the Town's new ISP (internet service provider)
could host a separate web site for the Town and had recommended a designer for the site. The
proposed cost to design a web page was estimated to be between $500 and $600. Council
directed Town Clerk Crane to proceed.
Town Council Minutes # 1153
February 3, 1999
Page 3
L. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Bach
adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m., sine die.
MOGENSBACH,MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
Town Council Minutes #1153
February 3. 1999
Page 4
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
Meeting:
To:
From:
Subject:
February 3, 1999 Item:
TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY REPORT -
AS OF THE MONTH ENDED DECEMBER 30, 1998
CONSENT # 'f
TOWN OF TIBURON
Institution! Agency
Investment
Amount
Interest Rate
Maturity
State of California Local Agency $6,073,519 5.374% Liquid
Investment Fund
(LAIF)
Total Invested: 56,073,519
TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Institution! Agency Investment
Amount Interest Rate
Maturity
State of California Local Agency 561,428 5.374% Liquid
Investment Fund
(LAIF)
Bank of America Other 50
Total Invested: $61,428
Notes to table information:
State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): the interest rate represents the effective yield for the
month referenced above. The State of California generally distributes investment data reports in the third week
following the month ended. (As received January 21, 1999)
Acknowledgment: This summary report accurately reflects all pooled investments of the Town of Tiburon and
the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency, and is in confonnitywith 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.
Richard Stranzl, Finance Director
January 29, 1999
cce: Town Treasurer
Ik~ M. S-
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
To:
TOWN COUNCIL
From:
DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER
Subject: AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 3297; SANFORD GOLDEEN;
ROUND HILL ROAD
Date: FEBRUARY 17, 1999
BACKGROUND
On August 19, 1998, the Town Council adopted Resolution No, 3297, approving the Round Hill
Oaks Precise Development Plan and adopting a mitigation monitoring program for this project,
which permitted the development of4 single-family dwellings on a 3.7 acre parcel on Round Hill
Road.
During the review of this project, the siting of the building envelope for Lot 2 was discussed at
length, due to the potential prominence of a future home on this site above Round Hill Road,
After extensive discussion with the applicant and the public, the Land Use Subcommittee of the
Town Council recommended that no more than one story (with ~.maximum h~eight of20 feet) of
any future home on Lot should be visible above grade when viewed from the portion of Round
Hill Road directly below the parcel (to the west). A 2 story house would be permitted, if the
house was designed to step downhill to the east or have a lower story that is not visible from
Round Hill Road to the west.
Due to a clerical error, the portion of Condition of Approval No, 12 of this resolution addressing
this issue simply states that "the house on Lot 2 will be restricted to one story above grade, with a
maximum height of 20 feet." This language could be construed to prevent the construction of any .
two-story portion of a future house on the site, which is inconsistent with the intention of the
Land Use Subcommittee's recommendation.
In order to correct this discrepancy, it is recommended that Condition No. 12 of Resolution No.
3297 be amended to read as follows:
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 17, 1999
1
"The western comer of the building envelope for Lot 2 (closest to Round Hill Road) shall
be cut back by 10 feet to ensure that the future house on this parcel is pulled further back
from the street. The house on Lot 2 will be restricted to one story above grade, with a
maximum height of 20 feet. when viewed from Round Hill Road to the west. A revised
plan showing these changes shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval. The Design Review Board shall be directed to use its best judgement in the
placement of the house on Lot 2 toward the eastern end of the building envelope away
from Round Hill Road, and to minimize the mass and bulk of the houses on Lots 1 and 2
from Round Hill Road."
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt the attached resolution amending Resolution No,
3297 to clarify the intent of the Land Use Subcommittee regarding the Round Hill Oaks Precise
Development Plan.
EXHmITS
1, Town Council Resolution No. 3297
2. Draft resolution
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 17, 1999
2
RESOLUTION NO. 3297
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
APPROVIN"G THE ROUND HILL OAKS PRECISE DE\lELOPMENT PLAN AND
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAlVf
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 58-301-26
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon does resolve as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
A The Town Council has received and considered an application filed by Sanford L. Goldeen
& Co. for a Precise Development Plan on a 3.66 acre site along Round Hill Road (the
Round Hill Oaks Precise Development Plan). The Precise Development Plan consists of
the following:
The development offour single-family dwellings on an existing 3.66 acre property,
Access to the site would be provided via a single private road delivering access to the four .____
proposed homes.
One of the proposed lots (Lot 1) would occupy most of the northern end of the site. The
other three proposed lots (Lots 2, 3 & 4) would be established on the relatively flat,
southern portion of the property. The proposed parcel sizes would be 56,126 square feet
(1.29 acres) for Lot 1; 26,878 square feet (0.62 acres) forLot 2; 21,396 square feet (0.49
acres) for Lot 3; and 55,789 square feet (1.28 acres) for Lot 4.
The Round Hill Oaks Precise Plan would establish building envelop~s and other planning
limitations for the four proposed lots. The building envelope proposed for Lot 1 would
place a smaller (2,300 square foot maximum) house near the headwall of the drainage
channel, and tucked into the surrounding grove of trees. The proposed building envelopes
for Lots 2, 3 & 4 would place larger homes (ranging from 3,500 to 5,000 square feet) on
the flatter portion of this area, avoiding the serpentine grassland on the more heavily
sloped eastern side of the site. .
B, The Precise Development Plan application consists of File #39703, on file with the Town .
of Tiburon Planning Department, Drawings from that application approved in this action
are as follows:
1. Site Plan, revised 4/1/98 (1 sheet).
2. Grading Plan, revised 4/1/98 (1 sheet).
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No, 3297
8/19/98
1
EXHIBIT NO. {
p, {Cf- 7
Other drawings available as resource maps, but not specifically approved herein, include
the following:
a. Application form received February 11, 1997
b. Site Plan, Topographic and Resource Conservation Plan, Grading Plan, Existing
Slope Plan, Proposed Slope Plan, Cross-sections and Erosion Control Plan, dated
March 21, 1997 and February 4, 1998.
c. Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Kleinfelder, Inc., dated May 8, 1997
d. Hydrology Report prepared by I.L. Schwarz Associates, Inc., dated May 10, 1997
e. Preliminary Environmental Assessment prepared by Diane Renshaw, dated
November 14, 1996
f Noise Report prepared by lllingworth & Rodkin, Inc., dated April 2, 1997
g. Cultural Resources Evaluation prepared by Archeological Resource Service, dated
April 2, 1997
h. Tree Evaluation prepared by Bartlett Tree Experts, dated May 12, 1997
C.
An Environmental Impact Report for the property has been prepared. The Planning
Commission reviewed the Draft EIR at a public hearing on February 11, 1998, and found
that this document adequately analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the project
in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The Planning Commission directed that the Final EIR be prepared for
certification by the Town Council. Resolution No. 98-09A was adopted on April 8, 1998,
recommending to the Town Council that the Final EIR be certified. On June 17, 1998, the
Town Council adopted Resolution No. 3286 certifying the Final EIR.
. ----
D. CEQA requires the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures that can substantially
lessen or avoid any significant environmental impacts.
E. Pursuant to Section 4.08.03 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission
held duly-noticed public hearings on April 8, 1998 and May 13, 1998 and heard and
considered testimony from interested persons. The Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 98-12A recommending to the Town Council that the Round Hill Oaks
Precise Development Plan be approved and that the mitigation monitoring program be
adopted.
F. The Town Council held duly noticed public hearings on June 17, 1998 and August 19,
1998 and heard and considered testimony from interested persons. The Town Council
found that the proposal, as conditioned, is consistent with the Tiburon General Plan based
on the following facts:
Land Use Element
The biological study prepared for this project found that the most sensitive areas on this
property were contained on the upper portion of the site. These areas are located outside
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. 3297
8/19/98
2
EXHIBIT NO. l
f. 2~ Dr-I
of the proposed building envelopes, and would be preserved as open space. The location
of the building envelope for Lot 1 was designed to minimize the intrusion into the
surrounding wooded area. The project site is not located near any significant ridgelines
identified by the Town of Tiburon. This element designates this property for Medium
Density Residential development, which allows a density of up to 3.0 dwelling units per
acre. This density would allow up to 11 homes to be developed on this site, without the
physical constraints of this property.
Open Space and Conservation Element
The proposed project would maintain over half of the site as open space outside the four
building envelopes. The envelopes would avoid the sensitive vegetation on the upper
portion of the property and preserve the vast majority of the mature trees on the site. The
design of the project would not impact the views of neighboring residences and would be
consistent with the overall pattern of development in the surrounding area.
The viewshed analysis conducted as part of the EIR analysis concluded that there would
be no significant impacts on the views of any surrounding homes by the proposed project.
The location of the building envelope for Lot 1 has been designed to require the removal
of only 10 trees out of the large stand of more than 125 oak and bay trees on the site.
Most of the trees proposed to be removed' are situated around the building envelope for
Lot 1 and along the east side of the proposed roadway. These trees are at the edge of the
larger grove, and would leave the bulk of the wooded area on the site intact. The EIR
recommends that three oak trees be planted on the site for each oak tree removed as part
of the project.
. ----
Very little grading would be necessary to construct the project as proposed, as most of the
earthmoving activities would involve the removal of landslide material from the flat
portion of the site and filling or recompacting these same areas back to their natural
terrain. Proper design of the homes in accordance with the Hillside Design Guidelines
should also limit grading necessary to construct homes on the site.
G. The Town Council found that the proposed project is consistent with Town Zoning
regulations based on the following factual analysis as required by Section 4.08.04 of the
Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, which sets forth these principles to be evaluated in the review
of Precise Development Plan applications:
(a) The location of the proposed building envelopes would leave well over half of the
site in an open condition, including much of the stand of oak trees, the drainage
channel and the serpentine rock and grassland areas.
(b) The applicant has made significant efforts to design the proposed project to
preserve the natural features of the site. The building envelopes for Lots 2, 3 and
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. 3297
~1~98 3
EXHIBIT NO. I
f. 3 oPI
4 have been placed on the flatter section of the property to avoid development of
the more pronounced hillside portion of the site. The building envelope for lot 1
has been placed closer to the front of the property to minimize encroachment into
the adjacent stand of oak trees and drainage channel area. The site is an unlikely,
isolated habitat for sensitive plant species. Most of the grassland is concentrated in
the upper portion of the site, which is not slated for construction, and would
remain unfenced and it its natural vegetation.
(c) Very little grading would be necessary to construct the project as proposed. The
conceptual plans for the homes to be constructed on the two proposed lots
generally reflect the slope of the site. Most of the earthmoving activities would
involve the removal of landslide material from the flat portion of the site and filling
or recompacting these same areas back to their natural terrain.
(d)
A viewshed analysis prepared for this project concluded that there would be no
significant impacts on the views of any surrounding homes by the proposed
project. A large stand of mature oak trees occupies the northwest comer of the
site, and several large bay trees are located along the drainage channel in this
portion of the property. Up to 10 of these trees are proposed to be removed as
part of this project, but three oak trees are proposed to be planted for each oak
tree removed. Most of the serpentine grassland habitat on the property is
concentrated in the upper portion of the site, which is not slated for construction.
. -----
(e) The project site is not located near any significant ridgelines identified by the
Tiburon General Plan, or in Resolution No. 2859 which identifies secondary
ridgelines.
(f) The locations of each of the proposed building envelopes have been properly
designed to reduce the prominence of the future homes constructed on the site.
The proposed building envelope for Lot 1 would nestle the future house into the
side of a hill and into the adjacent grove of trees. The other three proposed
building envelopes have been located on a relatively flat portion of the site which is
only visible from the existing homes below the site or from the Marinero Heights
condominium development above the property,
(g) The geological study prepared for this project revealed the presence of a relatively.
large landslide deposit on the southwest portion of the site. The geologic hazards
posed by this deposit could be mitigated to a less than significant level by
constructing of an earth buttress fill, reinforcement of on-site fill and other
improvements detailed in the EIR.
(h) The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project found that all
potentially significant environmental impacts which would be caused by this
project can be mitigated to less than significant levels.T
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. 3297
8/19/98
4
EXHIBIT NO. I
f. Lf c;r7
(i) The single access road serving the proposed project would have a width of 20 feet
for most of its length, widening at several points to provide guest parking spaces.
The slope of the proposed road varies from as little as 2% to as much as 19.8%,
and would have brushed surfaces for all roadway sections with grades greater than
18%. All publicly exposed retaining walls would be faced with dark hued natural
stone in a rustic wall pattern.
G) The proposed housing pattern is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods.
Several other homes along Round Hill Road have been constructed close to the
street, in a manner similar to that proposed for the house on Lot 1. The building
envelopes proposed for Lots 2, 3 and 4 have been sited in an area well below the
adjacent condominiums.
(k) The location of the proposed homes would not result in any significant view
impacts on neighboring residences. 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. Particular care
should be taken in the Design Review process to mitigate the mass and bulk of the
project.
(1) The noise study prepared for this project determined that the locations of the
houses would not result in any long-term significant noise impacts on surrounding
homes.
(m) The building envelopes for Lots 2, 3 and 4 have been sited away from the areas of
serpentine grassland found on the upper portion of the site. The building envelope
proposed for Lot 1 would be situated, at the western edge of the stand of oak and
bay trees on the property, and the size of the future house on this lot reduced in
order to minimize the intrusion of construction into the wooded area.
(n) No street lights are proposed for this project. Low level roadway downlighting
would be installed on the site.
(0) Materials and colors used in improvements will be required to blend into the
natural environment to the extent reasonably possible.
(p) Consistency with other goals and policies of the General Plan Elements has been
demonstrated, as discussed above.
III
III
III
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. 3297
8/19/98
5
EXHIBIT NO.L-
'(. '5 of;
Section 2. Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED that the Town Council approves the Round
Hill Oaks Precise Development Plan and adopts the mitigation monitoring program, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The following Round Hill Oaks Precise Development Plan drawings are approved,
said plans being on file with the Tiburon Planning Department:
a. Site Plan, revised 4/1/98 (1 sheet).
b. Grading Plan, revised 4/1/98 (1 sheet).
2. This Precise Development Plan shall be modified to incorporate all of the
mitigations required in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program attached as
Exhibit A, and the conditions of approval proposed by the applicant, dated May 6,
1998, unless modified herein.
3.
Materials and colors used for structures shall blend into the natural environment.
Colors should be restricted to medium-to-dark earth tone colors and materials
which blend with the natural environment.
. ---
4. The precise location, size, and type of plantings associated with subdivision
improvements shall be specified by the project sponsor as part of the tentative
subdivision map application. Timing of installation, maintenance, and irrigation
issues shall be specifically resolved prior to approval of the Parcel Map,
5. No improvements of any type, including fences, temporary or otherwise, shall be
permitted outside the approved building envelopes, except dqveways, retaining
walls associated with driveways or which support driveways without prior written
approval of the Planning Department of detailed plans for such improvements.
The intention of this condition is to protect existing wooded and grassland areas
on the property and prevent improvements above the building envelopes for Lots 1
and 4. This requirement shall be included as a deed restriction on all parcels, and
shall be recorded against these lots as part of the Parcel Map,
6. Tiburon Boulevard Improvement Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building
permits for each dwelling.
7. Park and recreation in-lieu fees, as required by Town Ordinance shall be paid prior
to the recordation of the Parcel Map.
8. Inclusionary housing fees shall be paid in accordance with Subchapter 6 of the
Tiburon Zoning Ordinance.
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No. 3297
8/19/98 6
EXHIBIT NO. l
p. 0 Df7
9. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide written
confirmation to the Town of Tiburon Planning Department which demonstrates
that the project sponsor has satisfied any and all conditions of the Town Engineer,
Tiburon Fire Protection District, Sanitary District No.5, and the Marin Municipal
Water District.
10. Grading on the site shall be limited to the dry season from May through October,
unless specifically authorized by the Town Engineer after requiring appropriate
precautionary measures.
11. All contractors and subcontractors performing work at the site shall be required by
contract to halt all work within 30 yards of any archaeologically significant
resource which may be uncovered during construction, until a qualified
archeologist has investigated and made recommendations. Representatives of the
Native American community shall be contacted in the event of such a find.
12.
The western corner of the building envelope for Lot 2 (closest to Round Hill
Road) shall be cut back by 10 feet to ensure that the future house on this parcel is
pulled further back from the street. The house on Lot 2 will be restricted to one
story above grade, with a maximum height of 20 feet. A revised plan showing
these changes shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval. The Design Review Board shall be directed to use its best judgement in
the placement of the house on Lot 2 toward the eastern end of the building
envelope away from Round Hill Road, and to minimize the mass and bulk of the
houses on Lots 1 and 2 from Round Hill Road.
..--
13. This Precise Development Plan approval shall be valid for 36 months following its
effective date, and shall expire unless subsequent zoning and! or 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 Town Council on August 19,
1998, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCll..:MEMBERS: MATTHEWS, BACH, GRAM AND TH011PSON
COUNCll..:MEMBERS: HENNESSY
COUNCll..:MEMBERS: NONE -1/ Il
J/~ S 71/~
HARRY . MATTHEWS, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Town Council
\zesos\tc3970 1. res
Resolution No, 3297
8/19/98
7
EXHIBIT NO. I
?, 7 Ck 7
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF TffiURON AMENDING COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 3297
WHEREAS, on August 19, 1998, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 3297
approving the Round Hill Oaks Precise Development Plan and adopting a mitigation monitoring
program for this project.
WHEREAS, due to a clerical error, a condition of approval was adopted as part of this
resolution that did not accurately reflect the direction of the Town council in this matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon
that Condition No. 12 of Resolution No. 3297 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"The western corner of the building envelope for Lot 2 (closest to Round Hill Road) shall
be cut back by 10 feet to ensure that the future house on this parcel is pulled further back
from the street. The house on Lot 2 will be restricted to one story above grade, with a
maximum height of 20 feet, when viewed from Round Hill Road to the west. A revised
plan showing these changes shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval. The Design Review Board shall be directed to use its best judgement in the
placement of the house on Lot 2 toward the eastern end of the building envelope away
from Round Hill Road, and to minimize the mass and bulk of the houses on Lots 1 and 2
from Round Hill Road."
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on February 17,
1999, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL~MBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL~MBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL~MBERS:
MOGENS BACH, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No.
2/17/99
EXHIBIT NO. ~
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
ITEMNO.~
To:
TOWN COUNCIL
From:
TOWN CLERK
Subject: 1999 EXPIRING TERMS & CURRENT VACANCIES -
TOWN BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES
Date: February 17, 1999
BACKGROUND
The following Town Board and Commission terms expire at the end of February 1999:
1) PLANNING COMMISSION:
2) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD:
3) PARKS & OPEN SPACE:
4) IT. RECREATION COMMITTEE:
Lisa Klairmont
Kirk Beales, Larry Doane
Mindy Canter, Kurt Obermeyer
Priscilla Tripp, Jerry Riessen
As of Friday, February 12, the Town had not yet received a ,response concerning re-
appointment from Lisa Klairmont. All other commissioners, with,the excepti~n of Kurt
Obermeyer who submitted his resignation, would like to be consiCiered for reappointment (see
attached letters). ' .
The Town received one application in 1999 from an interested resident, and two
applications in late 1998. One of the applicants, Mary Mullen, did not reside within the
boundaries of the Town and therefore could not be considered; the other two applicants
expressed interest in serving on the Parks & Open Space Commission.
The 1999 applicant, Mr. Thomas Allen, is being interviewed tonight; Ms. Traute
EckensdorlI' applied for the position in October 1998, but was not available to attend the Council
meeting tonight. She is, however, available on March 3, 1999 for an interview.
ACTION REOUIRED
1) That the Town Council consider re-appointing existing commissioners where
appropriate to new, four-year terms beginning March 1, 1999;
Page 2 of2
2) That the Town Council consider appointment of new applicants, including the
resident who will be interviewed on March 3, 1999.
The Council can also appoint someone previously interviewed or currently seated on
another board or commission.
EXHIBIT
--Letters from Commissioners
If
24 North Terrace
Tiburon, CA 94920
ft;
frO
/p~
/W
REceIvED
DEe 1 5 1998
December 13, 1998
Mr. Robert L. Kleinert
Town Manager
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
TOWN MANAGERS OFf:/CE
TOWN OF TlBURON
Dear Bob,
Your letter of the lOth reminded me that my term on the Design Review Board is about to
expire. I have enjoyed serving on the BoarcL and would like to be considered for
reappointment. Please let me know if the Town Council wishes to re-interview me for the
position.
Sincerely,
)5~
Kirk Beales
LA WRENCE
DOANE I FAIA
~ -' ~O
Cc ~
'?-o
RECEIVED
fEB 1 1999
PlANNltlG DtPf-l,R fMEN f
TOWN OF T18URON
January 31, 1999
Robert L. Kleinert
Town Manager
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Bob:
Thank you for your letter of December 10, 1998 regarding the expiration of my term
as a member of the Design Review Board. In response, I wish to state my interest in
being considered for reappointment to another term on the Board.
Again, thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
1m
304 Paradise Drive Tiburon California 94920 415/789 0752
December 14, 1998
Robert L Kleinert
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TlBURON
SUBJECT: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION - REAPPOINTMENT
Dear Bob:
I would like to be considered for reappointment to the Parks and Open Space
Commission.
I am thoroughly enjoying serving our community in this capacity (as demonstrated by
one absence in four years).
I would also like to bring continuity to the issues we have already been working on and
continue being of service in this manner.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
7t~:Il.~
Mindy can: 1
Parks and Open Space Commissioner
, ,
RECE;VED
S~\~
JAN 1 2 1999
Kurt Obermeyer
Parks and Open Space Commissioner
173 Blackfield Drive
PLANNING DEPARTMEN I
TOWN OF TIBURON
January 12, 1999
Town of Tiburon
Parks and Open Space Commission
Re: Resignation of commission chair
Dear Staff,
Please accept this letter as my resignation of my chair on the town's
Parks and Open Space Commission effective February 1, 1999. This is
when my seat expires. I have had a great and fulfilling time on the
commission and have managed to parlay it into a career. I will always
remember the importance of community involvement from the fine people
I have had the opportunity to work with including volunteers and staff.
I will Always be available to volunteer for future events in Tiburon
and hope to see all of you on a consistant basis.
Sincerely,
12/18/1998 12:30
415-3'31-1329
HMH RESOURCE3
PAGE 01/01
December 17, 1998
Mr. Robert Kleinert
Town Manager
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Subject: Joint Recreation Committee
Dear Bob:
I would like to be considered for reappointment to the Belvedere- T iburon Joint
Recreation Committee. I nave served on the committee for quite a while but believe I
still make a valuable contribution.
Thank you and the Town Council for your consideration.
2/
'- '
~J~
Jerry A. Riessen
RECEIVED
DEe 1 8 1998
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF T1BURON
. r
104 Howard Dr.
Tiburon, CA
January 26, 1999
Dear Bob,
RECEIVED
JAN 2 7 1999
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF T1BURON
This is to confirm my sincere interest in being reappointed to the
Joint Recreation Committee. I very much appreciate the opportunity
to serve on the committee.
Many thanks.
7n S tJ,(~
Priscilla Tripp
t~
1(0
~~
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO,
1-
To: TOWN COUNCIL
From: DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER
Subject: FILE #39804: PRECISE DEVELOPNlENT PLAN FOR A TWO PARCEL 10.7
ACRE SITE; mGH MEADOW LANE; Irvin and David Taylor, owners; Jay
Hallberg, applicant; Assessor's Parcel Nos. 58-281-14, 58-281-15, 58-100-72 & 58-
100-73 (formerly Otani property)
Date: FEBRUARY 17,1999
PROJECT DATA
Address:
AP Nos.:
File No.:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Property Size:
Subdivision:
Current Use:
Owners:
Applicant:
Date Complete:
High Meadow Lane (between 92 & 96 SugarloafDrive)
58-281-14, 58-281-15, 58-100-72 & 58-100-73
39804
Residential (up to 0,2 units per acre)
RPD-O,2 (Residential Planned Development Zone)
10.7 acres
None
Undeveloped land
Irvin and David Taylor
Jay Hallberg
August 20,1998
BACKGROUND
The proposed project involves the preparation of a Precise Development Plan (the High Meadow
Precise Development Plan) for the development ofa currently vacant 10.7 acre site north of
SugarloafDrive. The site consists of two separate parcels, each of which would be developed
with a single-family residence, On January 27, 1999, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No, 99-03 recommending to the Town Council that the Precise Development Plan and
Mitigated Negative Declaration be approved,
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
FEBRUARY 17, 1999
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is the proposed approval of the High Meadow Precise Development Plan on a 10,7
acre site consisting of two separate parcels to the north of SugarloafDrive. The precise plan
would provide for the development of two single-family dwellings, Parcel 1, on the lower end of
the site, contains 8.4 acres of area, and Parcel 2 is 2.3 acres in size.
The site consists of two irregularly shaped parcels sloping down from the Tiburon Ridge, with an
average south to north slope of 40%, with steeper portions sloping up to 75%, Access to both
lots would be provided from an extension of High Meadow Lane, a private roadway off Sugarloaf
Drive. The roadway would be 18 feet wide, with turnaround areas in front of each proposed home
and garage, and all portions of the roadway with slopes exceeding 15% will be finished with
scored concrete. Vegetation on the site consists of grasslands toward the top of the property and
dense oak and bay woodlands on the lower portions.
The High Meadow Precise Plan would establish building envelopes and other planning limitations
for the two existing parcels. The building envelope for Parcel 1 would occupy a lower plateau on
the site, beginning approximately 320 feet from SugarloafDrive, The building envelope for
Parcel 2, on the upper portion of the site, would begin 240 feet from the southern property line,
and have an area of 18,000 square feet.
To illustrate the potenti,al housing construction on each of the parcels, the applicant submitted
conceptual plans for two houses which would meet the criteria for the proposed precise
development plan. Each of the houses would be roughly rectangular and two stories in height. A
detached garage would be provided for each residence. Although these plans are conceptual in
nature, and would require subsequent approval by the Design Review Board, the plans are
probably representative of the type of construction which would be expected for each parcel,
given the height and building envelope constraints proposed,
PLANNING COJ\tIMISSION REVIEW
The primary area of concern that the Planning Commission raised regarding the proposed project
involved the geotechnical evaluation of the property, The Tiburon Fire Protection District
required that the proposed private roadway (High Meadow Lane) serving the two parcels be
realigned to decrease the overall slope of the roadway, The required realignment increased the
amount of grading required for the project, although the applicant indicates that the amount of cut
and fill required for construction would be balanced on the site.
The original geotechnical study, prepared by Earth Science Consultants, found the geology of the
site to be suitable for the proposed project, but included a series of recommended conditions of
approval that should be implemented during the construction of the project. Due to the extent of
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
FEBRUARY 17, 1999
2
these recommendations and concerns regarding other known geological problems along that
portion of the peninsula, the Planning Commission directed that an independent geotechnical firm
conduct a peer review of the original study for this project.
The Town hired Miller Pacific Engineering Group to analyze the original study. Miller Pacific
indicated that the original report appropriately evaluated the geological conditions of the site, and
concurred that the design of the proposed project was feasible from a geotechnical standpoint.
The peer review strongly recommended that the recommendations contained within the original
study be followed, particularly having the geotechnical engineer on the site during critical phases
of the construction.
The Planning Commission also evaluated the location and size of the proposed building envelopes
for the project, along with the potential floor areas of the future homes. The location of the
future houses would be at an elevation well below nearby homes on Sugarloaf and Heathcliff
Drives, minimizing any visual impacts on neighboring residences. The Commission raised
concerns about the intrusion of the homes and surrounding improvements on the dense oak
woodland adjacent to the building envelopes. A condition of approval was recommended that no
improvements of any type, including fences, play equipment, temporary or otherwise, or new
landscaping be permitted outside the approved building envelopes, with the exception of
driveways and associated improvements and landscaping. The Commission also recommended a
maximum floor area of 6,000 square feet (with an additional 750 square feet of garage space) for
each of the two future houses, which is less than would normally be permitted based on the size of
these parcels,
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An initial study/draft mitigated negative declaration was prepared for this project and released for
public comment on October 7, 1998, The initial study/draft mitigated negative declaration is
attached as Exhibit 2. The public review period ended on October 28, 1998,
The initial study identified the potential for significant environmental impacts in the following
categories:
Geologic Hazards
Air Quality
Water Quality
Biological Resources
Transportation and Circulation
Noise
Hazards
Aesthetics
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
ST AFF REPORT
FEBRUARY 17, 1999
3
H:X
........... .
Mitigation measures and a draft mitigation monitoring program (Exhibit 3) have been developed
which would reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts to less-than-significant
levels. The mitigation measures related to geological impacts have been previously described,
The other primary environmental concerns for the property involved potential impacts on
vegetation and drainage patterns on the and around the site. As stated previously, dense oak and
bay woodlands are present on the site. Most of this area would not be disturbed, as 9.5 acres
(88.7%) of the site would remain as open area outside the proposed building envelopes and
roadway area. Less than 20 oak trees are proposed to be removed as a result of this project. The
Commission recommended that all oak trees removed are to be replaced on a 3 to 1 basis,
Concerns were raised regrading the potential impact of drainage from the project on properties
below the site toward Paradise Drive, The proposed drainage plan would collect water at the
base of the driveways and around the future houses with a series of catch basins. The water
would then be transported to a series of lateral perforated lines which would disperse the water
down the slopes in a natural pattern, approximating the drainage patterns currently existing on the
site. These improvements would mitigate the potential drainage impacts from the project to a less
than significant level.
PUBLIC CONTROVERSY
The proposed project created very little public comment or controversy. The applicants spoke
with several of the surrounding property owners regarding the project, and did not receive any
concerns over the proposed design. The Town did not receive any substantive public objections
to the project in the course of the Planning Commission review of this application.
CONCLUSION
The two parcels have very limited, well defined areas in which access to, and construction of
residences would be feasible. The applicant has devised a precise development plan for this
property that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and with the General Plan, The siting of the
two building envelopes on the knolls would allow for feasible access, reduce the grading and tree
removal impacts of construction, and minimize potential view or privacy impacts on the existing
neighboring homes along SugarloafDrive,
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff recommends that the Town Council hold a public hearing on this item and adopt the draft
resolutions adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the High Meadow Precise
Development Plan, subject to the conditions contained therein,
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
FEBRUARY 17, 1999
4
EXHmITS
1, Application form
2, Draft Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration
3. Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4. Biological study prepared by Sycamore Associates, LLC" dated March 10, 1998
5. Geological evaluation prepared by Earth Science Consultants, dated March 7, 1997
6, Tree Preservation Report prepared by Kenneth W, Allen, dated August 17, 1998
7. Environmental Data Submission form and supplemental materials prepared by J.L.
Engineering, dated June 22, 1998
8. Report from Miller Pacific Engineering Group, dated January 6, 1999
9, Planning Commission Resolution No, 99-03
10. Staff Report dated October 28, 1998
11. Staff Report dated November 12,1998
12. Staff Report dated January 27, 1999
13. Minutes of the October 28, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
14. Minutes of the November 12, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
15. Draft resolution
16. Proposed plans dated October 21, 1998 - (AV~ Vol.4.W ~ ~
@I~ ~j
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
FEBRUARY 17, 1999
5
TYPE OF APPUCA TION MAR 3 1 1.~8_ <;:;
.' ' io,~ '~_!~"'- ,~'.:" ",. . _" _'.'4"-:-' i~;:.,;" - '. . ;....~~::~;~:r~-i~..
., -, 0 Conditional Use p~~ii '"~':~:;~'," 0 Design Review (Major) 0 Tentative Subdivifie'~ENT OF ',~:ii
- '~ P~ecise Developm'~~~-'PI;~ ' 0 Design Review (Minor)...,.', O~~~~~bdivOOMfMHTY DEVB.OPMOC
o Conceptual Master Plan 0 Variance :: ,-;.:~:c ::-'<.~< 0 Parcel Map'
o RezoninglPrezoning 0 Sign Permit 0 lot Une Adjustment
o Zoning Text Amendment ~ ~- 0 Tree Permit _. ..- -.,...,. -- ~_ 0 Certificate of Compliance
o General Plan Amendment 0 Underground Waiver 0 Other
\ I vvml v,- IICU,",UI-. , RECEIVEJ:)
LAND uEVELOPMENT~PPLICA TIONTOWN ~FTl8URON
',."1 ._~;.:" ~!.~: :-:;:~."'
. . -. '''-r.' '..
SITE ADDRESS:
PARCEL NUMBER:
APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION
9 y jU~LoAf=- m. PROPERTY SIZE: . 8. S; /2."3 K.et
5~-2Bt-0l{.q- ~PJ-'CO-5"t ZONING: '
OWNER OF PROPERTY: I R.v 1 tJ ~ 'IA'1LDf?-
MAILING ADDRESS: lD,11 /qCK."E r<:Q.
CITY/STATE/ZIP: II R.tJfl.D.t..J C4
PHONE NUMBER: ",//)"- 43S- - 2.DCD2
cr'-lq2.D
FAX
APPUCANT: (Other than Property Owner)
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY 1ST ATE/ZIP:
PHONE NUMBER:
~AH ~ A s ABovE
FAX
~C::::.I't-..J~HG
ARCHITECTIDESIGNER/ENGINEER: J A '1 WALl..D~ -.J . L. ~-- ~ ~I
MAILING ADDRESS: I 5 ~q fZ::ufZ1l.+ ,".
CITY/STATE/ZIP: ~ ~ rA, Cf'-!<:10 f
PHONE NUMBER: 41r. L..f 5'1) -~'i0 FAX 'f1S"- ~r'1... -z..S I f"7
Please indicate with an asterisk (*) persons to whom con-tspondence should be sent..
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed):
CD)>..) 'i.1'V"LU (,.,-; ~ N o"{ 'Ptit \I ~ w A'1 W I f2Z"'rA. i N I i..J G W At.L.~ .l.Lu 1\
2- 5 I N C:,~ FA..r-t,. L. '-1 fLFs 10 eN c.E\ I
I. the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described. hereby make application for
approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions of the Town
Ordinances, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
"R~-rT'~7..".."\".m :'\ Y,~'-""
J )(~;< ~ ~...( ~ ~ 1" I! a
~L~i_:...J..'-:'''__.L 't~ ~.
Initial Study
Environmental Checklist Form
I. Background
A. Summary Information
1. Application Number(s): 39804
2. Location: End of High Meadow Lane, between
92 and 96 Sugarloaf Drive
Tiburon, California
3. Parcel No(s): 58-281-04 & 58-100-54
4. Project Sponsor: Irvin Taylor
5. Date Checklist completed: September 28, 1998
6. Agency Requiring Checklist: Town of Tiburon
7. Name of Proposal: High Meadow Precise Development Plan
8. General Plan Designation: Low Low Density Residential (up to 0.2 dwelling
units per acre)
9. Zoning District: RPD (Residential Planned Development)
10. Surrounding land uses and setting:
North:
East:
South :
West:
Vacant (Bank of California property)
Open Space (Old S1. Hilary's Open Space Area)
Single-family residential (Marinero Residence No.1 subdivision)
Open Space (EI Marinero Subdivision Dedicated Open Space
Area)
11. Other Public Agencies whose approval is required:
Tiburon Fire Protection District
Sanitary District No. 5
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STIJDY /DRAFf MmGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9/98 1
~,7i--1"~1"'~ l'J l; Z--
l1..;'>SL.:.-'- J.~. t l'OP zs-
B. Project Description
The project is the proposed approval of a precise development plan (the High
Meadow Precise Development Plan) for an existing 10.7 acre site consisting of
two separate parcels. The precise development plan would provide for the
development of two single-family dwellings. Parcel 1 contains 8.4 acres of area,
and Parcel 2 is 2.3 acres in area. Please refer to Exhibit A for a graphic
description of the subject property.
The site consists of two irregularly shaped parcels sloping down from the
Tiburon Ridge, with an average south to north slope of 40%, with steeper
portions sloping up to 75 % . Each parcel contains a terraced portion which
would be used for siting the two proposed homes. A secondary ridgeline leading
down from the Tiburon Ridgeline runs through the subject property. Access is
provided to both lots from High Meadow Lane, a private roadway extending
from Sugar loaf Drive.
Vegetation on the site consists of grasslands toward the top of the property and
dense oak and bay woodlands -on the lower portions. No serpentine rock
outcrops are located in the site, but these formations are evident nearby.
The Marinero No.1 subdivision borders the subject property to the south, and
consists of detached single-family homes. The undeveloped Bank of California
property and several open space areas (Old St. Hilary's Open Space Area and El
Marinero Subdivision Dedicated Open Space Area) surround the rest of the site.
The High Meadow Precise Plan would establish building envelopes and other
planning limitations for the two existing lots. ' Both parcels have panhandles
extending to Sugarloaf Drive, with the bulk of the lots forming a larger,
rectangular area. The building envelope for Parcell would be lower on the site,
and would have an area of 31,000 square feet. The primary building envelope
for Parcel 2 would begin 240 feet from the southern property line, and have an
area of 18,000 square feet.
TOWN Of TlBURON INITIAL STUDY IDRAFf MmGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARA nON 9/98
2
---;.....,..-~-...-r-.'~1 ........7.' Z-
: t. ',~i_~.':':'--,':, '!"J.
--- f, ZcR z,b
II. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below w<?uld be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
_ Land Use and Planning -X- Transportation/Circulation
Pub I ic Services
_ Population and Housing -X- Biological Resources
Utilities
-X- Geological Problems -X- Noise . -X Aesthetics
-X- Water _ Energy & Mineral Resources Cultural Resources
-X- Air Qual ity -X- Hazards Recreation
_ Mandatory Findings of Significance
_ Cumulative Impacts (Specify):
ill. Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
-X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MA Y have a significant effect on the environment, but
at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis as described in the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effect
TOWN OF TIBURON INlTIAL STUDY IDRAFT MmGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9/98 3
T:i~71~1"-::)1T '1,10 ~
tL ;~~. .L'~ 't.
--~ -- p, 3 DPU
which remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effect 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project.
Signature
Date
Daniel M . Watrous
Senior Planner
Town of Tiburon
Planning Division
IV. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
~ A brief explanation is required for all answers.
~ All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-
site, cumulative as well as project level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
~ "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
~ "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
than Significant Impact". , Describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they
reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures from Section V "Earlier
Analyses" may be cross-referenced.
~ Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section V at the end of the checklist.
~ Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances, studies, surveys, reports).
Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a
reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be
attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
TOWN OF TlBURON INI11AL sroDY /DRAFf MmGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9/98
4
F=~~:~~3IT l;TO. i-
f, Lf opu-
Potaltia1Jy
Significant
Pota1tia1ly Unle:u Leal 1ban
Significant Mitiption Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impad Impad
1. Land Use and Planning. Would the proposal result in:
a) Conflict with a general plan designation or
zoning designation?
Explanation:
xx
The level of development requested by the proposed project would be consistent with the
current Low Low Density Residential designation for this property contained within the Land
Use Element of the Tiburon General Plan. The Vacant Land Inventory contained within the
Land Use Element has established a maximum of two dwelling units that may be developed on
this site, as is proposed by this project. The preparation of the High Meadow Precise
Development Plan for these two existing parcels is consistent with the requirements of the RPD
zoning of this property.
b) A substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Explanation:
xx
The developed area around the subject site consists of detached single-family homes. The two
currently vacant parcels would each be developed with a single-family dwelling. The
construction of two single-family homes on Parcels 1 and 2 would not alter the present and
planned single-family residential nature of the area.
c) Effects upon agricultural resources or
operations?
Explanation:
xx
There are no agricultural resources or operations on or in the vicinity of the site, and the project
will therefore have no effects on such resources or operations.
d) Disruption or division of the physical
arrangement of an established community?
Explanation:
xx
The homes proposed on the subject property would be constructed on two parcels which are
currently vacant. Access for these homes would be provided by a private roadway (High
Meadow Lane) leading from an existing public street (Sugarloaf Drive), and would not require
any public street alterations. This development would not result in any construction extending
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STIJDY /DRAFT MmGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARA nON 9/98 5
---;"' ~~ -;-r, -,- rn '~i ~,-~ L-
~~i~i~.:,:_:.L L 1 \j J.
f, ~ op '2-<6
Pocentially
SianiftClllll
Potc:DIia1Jy Unku I..esIlbao
SipifiClllll Mitiption SignitiClllll No
ImpKt Iocorporated ImpKt ImpKt
onto other properties which would disrupt or. divide the physical arrangement of the
surrounding neighborhoods.
2. Population & Housing. Would the proposal:
a) An alteration of the location, distribution,
density, or growth of the human population
of an area?
Explanation:
xx
The construction of two single-family homes on land which is currently designated for the
development of up to two dwelling units would not alter the location, distribution, density, or
growth of the human population of the area.
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of
major infrastructure)?
Explanation:
xx
Numerous single-family homes have already been constructed in the developed area around the
project site. No major infrastructure extensions are required for this development. This
proposal would therefore not induce substantial growth in the area.
c) Displace existing housing, or create a
demand for additional housing?
Exp lanation:
xx
The proposed project would involve construction of single-family homes on two currently
vacant parcels. No housing would be displaced by this construction.
3. Geologic Problems. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
Explanation:
xx
A geological study was completed by Earth Science Consultants (1997), and was submitted to
the Town as part of the application for the proposed project. This study, henceforth referred to
TOWN OF TIBURON INl11AL S11JDY /DRAfT MmGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9/98 6
~~;~0-II3IT ITO. 2-,
.f. c:, l>P &)
PolcotiaUy
Sianificanl
PolcotiaUy Unless lAI1bm
Sianificanl Mitigation Si&niticanl No
Impact IDcorporalel1 Impact Impact
as the geological study, indicated that there are no known faults on the site.
b) Seismic ground shaking?
Explanation:
xx
The site lies 9 miles to the east of the San Andreas Fault and 8 miles to the west of the Hayward
fault. The geological study states that the site is subject to strong ground shaking during severe
earthquakes, and that strong ground motion could trigger landslides on both natural and graded
slopes and could damage structures and utilities.
Recommended Mitiiation Measures:
The following conditions should be applied to construction on the subject site, and would
reduce the impacts to less than significant levels:
3.b.I. All improvements, including structures, fills, utilities and roads should be
designed to resist earthquake groundshaking. The latest seismic safety building
and engineering techniques should be employed in the design of the houses.
3.b.2. Structures should be designed to accommodate settlement. When this is not
acceptable, it will be necessary to support improvements (structures, utilities,
roads, etc.) on piers extending into firm materials below fill.
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
Explanation:
xx
The geological study indicated that materials susceptible to liquefaction were not observed on
the site.
d) Seiche or tsunami?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not expose people to water-related hazards-such as seiches or
tsunamis.
e) Landslides or mudflows?
Explanation:
xx
The geological study indicated that there is no presence of landslide areas on the site, but
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STIJDY IDRAFf MmGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9/98
7
"!":1-':"''''!''''"'r--~.m "J'TrA 2"
~~. y, l:.':..L.::..::. J .... 'J.
--- fJ 7 of zs-
Pota:ltiaDy
Sipi1'icant
PoteDlialIy Unlaa l..- 'Ibm
Sipificant Mitiplioo SIpiftc:mt No
Impact ID:orpcnalal ImpM:t Impact
indicates that "a number of landslides and/or mud flows are plotted to have occurred within the
greater neighborhood area." The Safety Element of the Tiburon General Plan indicates the
presence of a small landslide or debris flow deposit area on the lowest portion of the site, where
no construction activity is proposed.
t) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
soils conditions from excavation, grading
or fill?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project would not substantially alter the topography of the site. Grading is
proposed to be minimized in the construction of the home locations. Extensive grading would
be limited to the construction of the driveway. A series of retaining walls up to 11 feet in
height will be required along the sides of the driveway, but retaining walls would be kept at a
minimum for the remainder of the project.
g) Subsidence of land?
Explanation:
xx
The geological study indicated no possibility of subsidence of land on this site.
h) Expansive soils?
Explanation:
xx
The geological study indicated the presence of expansive soils within the building envelope for
Parcell. Most other soil materials found on the site by the geological study do not exhibit
expansive soil properties.
Recommended Miti~ation Measures:
The following conditions should be applied to construction on the subject site, and would
reduce the impacts to less than significant levels:
3.h.!. All drilled pier and grade beam foundations shall be designed to resist at least
medium expansive soil conditions. The bottoms of all grade beams shall be
designed for a vertical uplift pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot.
3.h.2. Prior to the pouring of all grade beams, the underlying soils shall be thoroughly
soaked and saturated, and kept in a very wet condition for at least 48 hours prior
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL sroOY /DRAFr MI11GA TED NEGATIVE DECLARA nON 9/98 8
--.--T-.......-.. -~. -;> ~ .-... 2.-
ri'l' -l I,.: . , .' · ; - I " i ~ .
~ .'''' ,I : ,. ~ 1 ,. iJ
----.- - ,. 8 b p ~s-
PotmtiaUy
Sipiftcaot
Potmtia1ly UDleu lAIlbm
Sipilicanl Mitiptioa Sianificanl No
Impact 1Dcorpora1ed Impact Impact
to the concrete pour so that the underlying medium expansive soils are in a fully
swelled and expansive condition. This special moisture conditioning
requirement shall be shown plainly on the foundation plan in very large print so
as to be easily read by the foundation contractor.
3.h.3. In areas where highly expansive soil materials are present, all grade beams shall
be underlain by at least 4 inches of low-crush strength void form type material
such as Burke Void, Nelson Void, Verticel void forming cardboard, or other
low-crush strength porous cardboard type material commonly used for
expansive soils to swell and heave upward without affecting the above grade
beams.
I) Unique geologic or physical features?
Explanation:
xx
There are no unique geologic or physical features present on the site. A secondary ridgeline
leading down from the Tiburon Ridgeline runs through the subject property. This ridgeline is
one of many such ridgelines leading from the Tiburon Ridgeline toward the eastern side of the
Tiburon peninsula, and is not considered to be a unique physical feature.
4. Water. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in currents, or the course
or direction of water movements?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project would not create any changes in currents, or the course or direction of
. water movements.
b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runofr?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project would affect absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount
of surface runoff for the paved area of the future building sites and driveways. Drainage on the
site currently sheet flows to the lower areas, where water continues off site and eventually
down to San Francisco Bay. The proposed drainage system would re-establish this sheet flow
in its historical pattern. The drainage system would collect water from a series of drop inlets at
TOWN OF TlBURON INITIAL STIJDY/DRAFr MmGA TED NEGA 11VE DECLARATION 9/98 9
J~=~=II~~.I~.~1 I .~. J:. 1-
~. q- bP "L--S-
Poccotiany
Sipilicanl
Poccotiany UDIcII lAIlbID
Sipiftcanl Mitiption Si&Diftc.mt No
ImpId IDcorporaled ~ Impact
the base of the driveway and around the two proposed homes. The water would then be
transported by pipeline to a series of perforated horizontal pipelines that would be installed
across the existing slopes. The water would . then be dispersed in a pattern that conforms to the
current sheet flow pattern on the property. The minor increase in runoff downhill caused by the
sheet flow drainage of the proposed project would not be a significant environmental impact.
c) Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project would not alter the course or flow of floodwaters.
d. Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body or wetland?
Explanation:
xx
The minor increase in runoff due to the construction of impervious surfaces on the site would
not be large enough to have a significant effect on the amount of surface water in the water
bodies into which this runoff would drain.
e) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)?
Explanation:
xx
Increased runoff from the site does have the potential for carrying pollutants into the drainage
basin below the site and ultimately into the bay.
Recommended Miti~ation Measure:
The following condition should be applied to the project and would reduce the impacts to less
than significant levels:
4.e.l. Project design and construction activities will utilize Best Management Practices
as described in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice
Handbook for Construction Activity, March, 1993.
f)
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of groundwaters?
xx
TOWN OF TIBURON IN111AL STUDY /DRAFf MmGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARA nON 9/98 10
l~=~=-~~~I;~,I;~i T~~'O. 0
p~ l D oP 2,,5
"
PotmdaUy
SIpificaot
Potmtially UDIea Lea 1bar1
sipiftc:aDt Mitiplioa SipiftcaDt No
rmp.ct IDcorponlell rmp.ct rmp.ct
Explanation:
No activities are proposed which would have an impact on groundwaters.
g) Change in the quantity of groundwaters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater
recharge capability?
Explanation:
xx
No activities are proposed which would have an impact on groundwaters.
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
Explanation:
xx
No activities are proposed which would have an impact on groundwaters.
I) Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed construction of two single-family homes would not result in a significant impact
on public water supplies.
j) Exposure of people or property to
water-related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project would not expose people or property to water-related hazards.
5. Air Quality . Would the proposal:
a)
Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
xx
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL S11JDY IDRAfT MmGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9/98 11
1T~:T~T7'.T0 I.Tr'.. i'"')
---------,.- -- .'. . '-)'. '---'
p~ il t5FLS
"
pCJCa1tiaUy
Sipitjcaat
PCJCa1tia1ly UnItsa leIIThm
Sianificant Mitipdoo Sianificant No
Impal:t IDcorpcnated Impal:t ImpIct
Explanation:
Earth-moving and other construction activities on the site could result in short-term fugitive
dust impacts which could violate air quality standards.
Recommended Miti~ation Measure:
The following condition should be applied to the project and would reduce the impacts to less
than significant levels:
5.a.l. The site shall be watered during construction to reduce the impacts of such dust
to acceptable levels.
b) Create objectionable odors?
Explanation:
xx
The paving of the proposed driveway or other paved surfaces to support the house could
generate short-term impacts from asphalt odors, but Staff considers this temporary impact to be
less-than-s ignificant.
c)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate?
xx
Explanation:
The proposed project will not have any effect on the climate of the surrounding area.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to. pollutants?
Explanation:
xx
There are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site.
6. Transportation/Circulation. Would the proposal
result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Explanation:
xx
Interior circulation for the proposed project would be provided by a private roadway extending
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STIJDY /DRAfT MmGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARA nON 9/98 12
~-:-:"""":",~''''''~-'._~ ~ -ti\ z...,
1 ~.~~. ~~'.. .L.~.j._'.~ ..t_'. ~_' J_\~ ':__l-.
fJ~ l't!, Op '&~
Potaltially
sipiftc:ant
Potaltially Unleu Laa 1bIIl
signiftcaDt Mitiptioa Sipiftc:ant No
Impact IDcoll'Orated Impact Impact
from Sugarloaf Drive. The traffic generated by the two proposed homes can be easily handled
by the existing street system serving this project.
b) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?_
Explanation:
xx
Each proposed house within this project will be required to provide at least four off-street
parking spaces. The garages, proposed turnout areas along the driveway and turnaround areas
at the end of each driveway will be adequate to serve the needs of the residents of these homes
and their guests.
c) Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses?
Explanation:
xx
The private roadway serving this project from Sugarloaf Drive would have a standard 900
intersection with the street and a maximum sJope of 21 %. The Tiburon Fire Protection District
has reviewed this proposed roadway configuration, and has indicated that the design of the
proposed project could hamper the ability to fight any fires on the property (Source: Letter from
Tiburon Fire Protection District, April 14, 1998).
Recommended Mitii:ation Measures:
The following conditions should be applied to the Precise Development Plan:
6.b.l. All structures shall be built of Class 1 ignition resistant construction as outlined
in Section 504 of the 1997 Urban Wildlife Interface Code.
6.b.2. The surface of the access road shall be scored concrete in all areas where the
s lope exceeds 15 % .
6.b.3. Fire resistant vegetation shall be established and maintained in all areas within
10 feet of the access road.
d) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses?
Explanation:
xx
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL SruDY IDRAFf MmGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARA nON 9/98 13
:~:-:;._-,.,~_._,.-,"-~--, .. -,",-' ~
___"_'___~4___' ___ "'_:0
Pi (~OP z:;-
Potaltially
siaDific:ant
potaltially UnIeu Laa 1ban
S\pi.ftcmt MitipUoa Sipi11c:ant No
Impact IDcofllOrated Impact Impact
Primary access for emergency vehicles to this site would be provided via the roadway
connection to Sugarloaf Drive. The Tiburon Fire Protection District has reviewed this proposed
roadway configuration, and has determined that the design of the proposed project could
hamper the ability to fight any fires on the property.
Recommended Mitiiation Measures:
See Mitigation Measures 6.b.1. through 6.b.3. above.
e) Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts?
Explanation:
xx
The project will not affect rail, water or air transportation systems.
t) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists?
Explanation:
xx
The increased short-term construction traffic and long-term residential traffic associated with
this project would not result in any barriers or significant hazards for pedestrians or bicyclists
along this trail.
g) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation?
Explanation:
xx
The project will not conflict with any adopted policies supporting alternative transportation.
7. Biological Resources. Would the proposal result in
impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or
their habitats?
Explanation:
xx
A biological study was prepared for this project by Sycamore Associates, LLC. (1998). This
study, henceforth referred to as the biological study, found that the site is mostly covered with
native and non-native grassland and coast live oak woodland. Surveys of the site revealed the
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STIJDYIDRAFr MI11GATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9/98 14
------~.-.- .-; -~ -. -: ;-. L-
! ~: .' ". . . "Jl'. '''_{o' 'L xC ..., r
~_.: --.:..--.--- ..-' .,.... -r VL-- ~
"
Potaltially
sipiJk:aDt
Potaltially UnIaI Laa 'Ibm
sipiftc:ant Miti&aUoD Slpitic:ant No
Impact IDcofllOrated Impact Impact
presence of no special status plant species on the property. Four special status plant species
have some potential for occurring within the site. However, the biological study concluded that
these species have a low potential for occurrence onsite, because only marginal suitable habitat
is present and none of these species has been recorded on the Tiburon Peninsula. No special
status animal species were detected on the site, and none are expected to occur on the property
due to lack of suitable habitat.
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? _ XX
Explanation:
The Tiburon Tree Ordinance designates oak trees as Protected Trees. Approximately 18 oak
trees are located within or immediately adjacent to the proposed building envelopes and
driveway locations. Another 52 oak trees are shown on the submitted site plans for the areas
immediately surrounding the building envelopes and driveway, and dense stands of oak
woodlands extend further down the lower portions of the property.
A tree preservation report prepared by Kenneth W. Allen (1998) reviewed the 18 oak trees,
along with other bay and cedar trees around the property, for potential removal. The report
identified 10 oak trees that would be removed, due to location within or near proposed
improvements on the property.
Recommended Mitiiation Measures:
The following conditions should be applied to the project:
7.b.1. All oak trees removed on the property shall be replaced on a 3 to 1 basis.
7.b.2. When grading within the root protection zone of any oak tree is necessary, work
shall avoid damaging major roots.
7.b.3. Root or limb pruning shall be performed during the dry season (July and
August) for evergreen species and during the dormant season (winter) for
deciduous species.
7.b.4. Any require retaining walls shall be constructed outside the dripline of
remaining oak trees.
c)
Locally-designated natural communities
(e.g., oak forest, serpentine grasslands)?
XX
TOWN OF TIBURON IN111AL STIJOY IDRAFf MI11GA TED NEGATIVE DECLARA nON 9/98 15
~~.~~--~:==~:~ ~~:.-:-; J. .~'C~'. ~
fJ ~ I~ 6F Z.S-
"
Potaltially
Sipiftc:ant
Pountially UDieu Laa 1bm
SignifiCUlt Mitiallion Significant No
~ Incorporated Impact Impact
Explanation:
A large number of oak trees are present on the site. See Item 7.b. above.
Recommended Mitii:ation Measures:
See Mitigation Measures 7.b.1. through 7.b.4. above.
d) Wetland habitat?
Explanation:
xx
The biological study observed a small perennial spring toward the eastern end of the property,
and a steep ravine that carries considerable runoff from winter storms. Both of these areas were
outside of the area designated for development on the site, and would not be impacted by the
proposed project.
e) Wildlife corridors?
Explanation:
xx
The biological study prepared for this project did not reveal the presence of specific wildlife
corridors on the site. Deer and other wildlife often utilize this property and most other vacant
parcels along the Tiburon Ridge as a corridor. The proposed project would leave open areas at
the lower portion of the site and along the sides to allow this ,access to continue.
8. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will result in a short-term increase in noise from grading and earth-
moving equipment and other normal residential construction activities. Construction which
occurs during most daylight hours is not likely to increase ambient noise to significant levels
for surrounding residences, although the location of the site above Paradise Drive could result
in increased noise transmission to homes below the site.
Recommended Mitii:ation Measure:
The following condition should be applied to the project and would reduce the impacts to less
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STIJDY/DRAFr MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9/98 16
'-;-',--'--0"-'--- - '.--;-; ~ -;"r;, ~
---..-.-.-- -- --- - ~~ .~. i b if "l,S
PoteotiaIJy
sipiftcmt
Pountially UnIea Laa 1ban
sipiftc:anl Midptioo Sipiftcant No
~ Incoll'Orated ImpId ImpId
than significant levels:
8.a.1. All construction activity shall comply with the Town's limitations on
construction hours as set forth in Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code.
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Explanation:
xx
The project will not expose persons to severe noise levels.
9. Energy and Mineral Resources. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans?
Explanation:
xx
The project will not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans.
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful or
inefficient manner?
Explanation:
xx
. I
The project will not use non-renewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner.
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the State?
Explanation:
xx
There are no identified mineral resources on the subject property.
10. Hazards. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? )CK
Explanation:
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STIJDYIDRAFf MI11GATED NEGATIVE DECLARAnON 9/98 1 7
l~~=~-,..:~=I~.~:~~:'.~i I;.;=~. ~ _
p~ 17 DF'V
Pountially
Si&nific:u1t
PotaItially Unlesa Laa 1bm
Sipificant Mitiaatioo Sipiftc:ant No
Imp8d Incoll'Oralcd Impact ImpId
The proposed project does not include the use or storage of hazardous materials.
b) possible interference with an emergency
response plan or evacuation plan?
Explanation:
xx
The Tiburon Fire Protection District has indicated that the design of the proposed project could
hamper the ability to fight any fifes on future homes on this site.
Recommended Mitiiation Measures:
The following conditions should be applied to the project and would reduce the impacts to less
than significant levels: .
10.b.1.A greenbelt shall be provided by cutting and clearing all combustible vegetation
within 30 feet of any structure.
10.b.2 An approved water supply, including a new 8 inch water main, shall be installed.
10.b.3.The water supply and roadway shall be installed and made serviceable prior to
any sidewall construction on the site.
10.b.4.All structures shall be built of Class 1 ignition resistant construction as outlined
in Section 504 of the 1997 Urban Wildlife Interface Code.
10.b.5.The surface of the access road shall be scored concrete in all areas where the
slope exceeds 15 %.
10.b.6.Fire resistant vegetation shall be established and maintained in all areas within
10 feet of the access road.
c) The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not create any unusual health hazards.
d)
Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
xx
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STUDY /DRAFT MmGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARA nON 9/98 18
---;'-7-....r- .~.-:-: . ",-; ~
L.._..-... ;p~" is- oP zs
Pountially
sipiftc:ant
Potaltially UnIeu Laa 'Ibm
Sipiftc:ant Mitiptioo Sipiftc:ant No
Impact IDcoll'Orated IJq)8d Impact
Explanation:
The proposed project will not expose people "to any unusual health hazards.
e) Increased nre hazard in areas with Oammable
plants?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not expose people to increased frre hazards due to flammable plants.
11. Public Services. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas?
a) Fire protection?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not affect frre protection services. The Tiburon Fire Protection
District has indicated improvements to the proposed roadway and installation of water system
improvements that will be necessary for the safety of the proposed homes. See Item 10.b.
above.
b) Police protection?
Explanation:
xx
No law enforcement issues are foreseen for the proposed project.
c) Schools?
Explanation:
xx
The project would result in the construction of two homes on two existing parcels. This
increased level of construction would not ha~e any effect on school services for the community. '.
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
Explanation:
xx
The project would result in the construction of two homes on two existing parcels. Traffic from
both building sites would use Sugarloaf Drive. The roadway within the project itself would be
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STIJDY /DRAFT MmGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARA nON 9/98 19
~ -;-;.- ~Y;- -~ .-:-.. ~ .;-~ -: .- -: ,.-.. I"l
~"':':..:..._--~_.~....:_'-- .'. ~. .. :.....,:.. (........;
7, (q or2b-
Pountially
sipi11c:ant
Potaltially Unleu Laa 1bIIl
sipiftc:ant MitipUoa Sipiftcant No
Iqlact IDcoll'Orated ImpId Impact
privately owned and maintained.
e) Other governmental services?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project has no potential to affect the delivery of government services.
12. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the proposal
result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities?
a) Power or natural gas?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not require substantial alteration to existing power or natural gas
systems to provide service to the site.
b) Communication systems?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not require substantial alteration to existing communications systems
to provide service to the site.
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not generate new demand for water services.
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not require substantial alteration to existing sanitary sewer systems.
e) Storm water drainage?
Exp lanation:
xx
The proposed system would collect water from a series of drop inlets at the base of the
driveway and around the two proposed homes. The water would then be transported by
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STIJDYIDRAFf MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARAnON 9/98 20
7:-:-"'-"~.~:"T'.~.; :.'~:-CJ:.__L-_
..... '.--- .. .. f. U> of "2"S
Potaltially
Sipi1Icml
Pountially UnIaa Laa 'Ibm
Sipific:anl Mitiptjoa Sianific:ant No
IIq)Id IDcofllOrated Impact ImpKt
pipeline to a series of perforated horizontal pipelines that would be installed across the existing
slopes. The water would then be dispersed in a pattern that conforms to the current sheet flow
pattern on the property. The minor increase in runoff downhill caused by the sheet flow
drainage of the proposed project would not be a significant environmental impact. With the
exception of on-site drainage improvements necessary to carry the storm water from the
developed areas to the existing catch basins, there would be no other improvements required to
the storm water drainage systems in the area.
t) Solid waste disposal?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not require substantial alteration to solid waste disposal systems.
g) Local or regional water supplies?
Explanation:
xx
No new demand for water supplies will be generated by this project.
13. Aesthetics. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project would involve the construction of two homes near the Tiburon Ridgeline.
The Open Space and Conservation Element of the Tiburon General Plan includes policies
regarding development near ridgelines in Tiburon. Each parcel would be allowed to be
developed with one home, but the only feasible building sites for each parcel lie technically
within the Tiburon Ridge setbacks. Nonetheless, the proposed building envelopes would be
located well below the elevation of this stretch of the Tiburon Ridgeline along Sugarloaf Drive,
which is already developed with numerous other homes directly along the ridgeline.
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? XX
Explanation:
The proposed project would involve the construction of a single-family home on each of two
currently vacant parcels. Although these homes would be visible from other surrounding
residential sites, the construction of homes on these parcels is not likely to have, in and of itself,
a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. However, the specific placement, size, and
appearance of the proposed houses and associated improvements should be thoroughly
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STIJDYIDRAFT MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARAnON 9/98 21
J:i~=~=~~iT~: =~:.~~ ~,-~~ ~=- . _1-- _
f. Z{ OF 2...r
Potaltially
si&niftc:ant
Pountially Unleu Laa 1bIIl
SipillicaDt Mitiptioa Sipific:ant No
~ IDcoll'Orated Impact Impact
analyzed before final approval is given for the construction of these homes.
Recommended Miti~ation Measure:
The following condition should be applied to the project and would reduce the impacts to less
than significant levels:
13.b.1.Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for each of the two proposed
single-family homes, the building design and landscaping of each house shall
receive Site Plan and Architectural Review approval pursuant to Section 4.02.00
of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The building and landscaping shall be
designed so as to minimize and effectively mitigate visual impacts to the
surrounding neighborhood.
c) Create light or glare?
Explanation:
xx
The construction of two new homes on two currently vacant building sites could result in
increased light and glare to surrounding residents above the property.
Recommended Mitii:ation Measure:
Refer to Mitigation Measure 13.b.1.
14. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
Exp lanation:
xx
There are no known paleontological resources on the subject site.
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
Explanation:
xx '.
There are no known archeological resources on the subject site.
c)
Have the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values?
xx
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STIJDY/DRAFf MI11GATED NEGATIVE DECLARAnON 9/98 22
..-- ~-,.. ---,~-- -r'! ~... -"'" ry
:~_~ ~~,._~~._._'~'.'.~.L ,i. ~.' i :.J a ~
f, Z2- cF2S
"
Pota1tially
Sipiflc:ant
Potaltially Unleu Laa 1bm
Sipitlcmt Miliptioo Significant No
ImpIct IDcoll'Orated Impact Impact
Explanation:
The proposed project will not cause any physical changes which would affect unique cultural
val ues.
d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area?
Explanation:
xx
There are no religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area.
15. Recreation. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
Explanation:
xx
The project will not result in any significant increase in demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities.
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
xx
The project will not affect existing recreational opportunities.
16. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fISh or wildlife species,
cause a fISh or. wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? XX
Explanation:
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL S11JDY /DRAFT MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9/98 23
'r-;~-;>,"""-.-""-:""\-n :\.....-. try
;;_~ ~ 'I.. - .' _-~ ~ '~ :,~.~.~ ~
_-:--__....___ _' - c.:.. " '-' . _ .A
f. 2,,70rZ-tj
Pountially
sipific:ant
Pountially UnIeu Laa 1bIIl
Sipiftc:ant Mitiption Sipiftc:ant No
~ IDcoll'Orated ~ ~
The proposed project is limited in scope and does not have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals?
(A short-term impact on the environment is
one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time, while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future).
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project, if approved, will not affect any long-term environmental goals.
c) Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may impact on
two or more separate resources where
the impact on each resource is relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant)? ,
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project would not have any individually limited, but cumulatively considerable,
effects .
d) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Explanation:
xx
The proposed project will not cause any substantial adverse effects on human beings.
v. Earlier Analyses. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program
EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an
TOWN OF TIBURON INITIAL STIJDY IDRAFT MmGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9/98 24
_ __.__--..~--"'-:-'-:i -:' -:." L-.
, " ,:" ':"'~:J.
. -' .-- .--' .-.-- - - ~l 2,lf oF 2.-)"
earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following on the attached sheets:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify any earlier analysis used and state where they
are available for review.
Analysis contained within the Land Use, Safety, and Open Space and
Conservation Elements of the Tiburon General Plan was used in the preparation
of this review. This document is available in the Tiburon Planning Division
offices at Tiburon Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above
checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
None applicable.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated", describe the mitigation measures which are
incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specific conditions for the project.
None applicable.
EXlllBITS
A. Proposed site and improvement plans dated June 29, 1998
B. Biological study prepared by Sycamore Associates, LLC., dated March 10, 1998
C. Geological evaluation prepared by Earth Science Consultants, dated March 7, 1997
D. Environmental Data Submission form and supplemental materials prepared by J.L.
Engineering, dated June 22, 1998
E. Tree Preservation Report prepared by Kenneth W. Allen, dated August 17, 1998
SOURCES REFERENCED OR CONSULTED
1. Land Use, Safety, and Open Space and Conservation Elements of the Tiburon General
Plan, 1989.
2. U.S. Government Flood Hazard Map, Community No. 060430 A, November, 1976.
3. California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook for Construction Activity,
March, 1993.
TOWN OF TIBURON IN111AL STIJDY IDRAFf MmGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9/98
25
---.....--~-:-,,-::-~-" ":" ' .~ ~
1~~~, ;~~.:~-~:.'~~ >.' :~ -.: ";.,./ -------
~~ 2,~ Or2-~
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
IDGH MEADOW PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FILE # 39804
IDGH MEADOW LANE
Geoloi:ic Hazards
Mitii:ation Measure:
3.b.l. All improvements, including structures, rills, utilities and roads should be designed
to resist earthquake groundshaking. The latest seismic safety building and
engineering techniques should be employed in the design of the houses.
Implementation Procedure:
Construction drawings submitted by applicant for building permit must show proposed
structural integrity reinforcements acceptable to the Town Engineer and other
mechanical and architectural reinforcements acceptable to the Building Official.
Responsibility of Building Official to ensure plans contain this information and that
structural integrity reinforcements have been approved by the Town Engineer. Actual
installation of approved structural int~grity measures and other mechanical and
architectural improvements shall be confirmed by the Building Official prior to final
inspection and sign off on the building and/or grading permit.
Non-Comp I iance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit if structural integrity measures and mechanical and
architectural reinfor~ements are not shown on plans; ,no final sign off if these measures
and reinforcements not installed; halt construction; fines.
Mitiiation Measure:
3.b.2. Structures should be designed to accommodate settlement. When this is not
acceptable, it will be necessary to support improvements (structures, utilities,
roads, etc.) on piers extending into rInD materials below fill.
Implementation Procedure:
Construction drawings submitted by applicant for building permit must show proposed
structural integrity reinforcements acceptable to the Town Engineer and other
mechanical and architectural reinforcements acceptable to the Building Official.
Responsibility of Building Official to ensure plans contain this information and that
structural integrity reinforcements have been approved by the Town Engineer. Actual
1
E~.aIIBIT :rJ~). 3
f~ {DF-ib
installation of approved structural integrity measures and other mechanical and
architectural improvements shall be confIrmed by the Building Official prior to final
inspection and sign off on the building and/or grading permit.
Non-Compl iance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit if structural integrity measures and mechanical and
architectural reinforcements are not shown on plans; no final sign off if these measures
and reinforcements not installed; halt construction; fines.
Mitii:ation Measure:
3.h.l. All drilled pier and grade beam foundations shall be designed to resist at least
medium expansive soil conditions. The bottoms of all grade beams shall be
designed for a vertical uplift pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot.
Implementation Procedure:
Construction drawings submitted by applicant for building permit must show proposed
beams and foundations acceptable to the Town Engineer and the Building Official.
Responsibility of Building Official to ensure plans contain this information and that
foundation plans have been approved by the Town Engineer. Actual installation of
approved foundation improvements shall be confirmed by the Building Official prior to
final inspection and sign off on the building and/or grading permit.
Non-Compliance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit if adequately design~d foundation improvements are not
shown on plans; no final sign off if these improvements not installed; halt construction;
fines.
Mitiiation Measure:
3.h.2. Prior to the pouring of all grade beams, the underlying soils shall be thoroughly
soaked and saturated, and kept in a very wet condition for at least 48 hours prior
to the concrete pour so that the underlying medium expansive soils are in a fully
swelled and expansive condition. This special moisture conditioning requirement
shall be shown plainly on the foundation plan in very large print so as to be easily
read by the foundation contractor.
Implementation Procedure:
The Building Inspector shall observe ~e site during prior and during grade beam
2
--......-~..n,m -,.,.Y,r. :2
""f"j\,/ J ~. ~... ~ J .:lJ
!.'-'-"ul-'--'-"-'- F- . '2 ~ to
inspections for evidence of watering. Building plans shall be required to show watering
plan on foundation plan.
Non-Camp I iance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit if watering plan is not shown on foundation plan.
Failure to comply with site watering requirements will result in the issuance of
correction notices, citations, a project stop-work order, or other available enforcement
methods.
Mitiiation Measure:
3.h.3. In areas where highly expansive soil materials are present, all grade beams shall be
underlain by at least 4 inches of low-crush strength void form type material such
as Burke Void, Nelson Void, Verticel void forming cardboard, or other low-crush
strength porous cardboard type material commonly used for expansive soils to
swell and heave upward without affecting the above grade beams.
Implementation Procedure:
Construction drawings submitted by applicant for building permit must show proposed
beams support materials acceptable to the Town Engineer and the Building Official.
Responsibility of Building Official to ensure plans contain this information and that
foundation plans have been approved by the Town Engineer. Actual installation of
approved beam support materials shall be confirmed by the Building Official prior to
final inspection and sign off on the building and/or grading permit.
Nan-Comp I iance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit if adequately designed beam support materials are not
shown on plans; no final sign off if these materials not installed; halt construction; fines.
Water Qual ity
Mitii:ation Measure:
4.e.l. Project design and construction activities will utilize Best Management Practices as
described in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook for
Construction Activity, March, 1993.
Implementation Procedure:
BMP program to be approved by Town Engineer prior to issuance of building or
3
--.... 7-r~"""'-- -,....-" .... ... ....... 3
- ,\ .'/ ::-; · !....' ~ I ; 1 I': '!J '
., . .' ,....... .. .~ '. ' ,_, ~ -<t' 'I
------- - ._- ""-... .
PI '5 of l6
grading permits. Implementation of BMP program shall be by the contractor, under
review of the Town Engineer.
Non-Compliance Sanction:
Failure to comply with the approved construction BMP's will result in the issuance of
correction notices, citations, a project stop-work order, or other available enforcement
methods.
Air Quality
Mitiiation Measure:
S.a.1. The site shall be watered during construction to reduce the impacts of such dust to
acceptable levels.
Implementation Procedure:
The Building Inspector shall observe the site during all inspections for evidence of
watering or fugitive dust.
Non-Compliance Sanction:
Failure to comply with site watering requirements or observation of fugitive dust will
result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, a project stop-work order, or other
available enforcement methods.
Transportation/C ircu lation
Mitii:ation Measure:
6. b.1. All structures shall be built of Class 1 ignition resistant construction as outlined in
Section 504 of the 1997 Urban Wildlife Interface Code.
Implementation Procedure:
Construction drawings submitted by applicant for building permit must show proposed
construction materials and design acceptable to the Tiburon Fire Protection District.
Responsibility of Building Official to .ensure plans contain this information and that it
has been approved by the Fire District. Actual construction of approved structure
improvements shall be confirmed by the Building Official prior to final inspection and
sign off on the building and/or grading permit.
p,rr..TTPTrr T'J.f) 3
b...:~._1...-.:-'..!- .':'. -', -.....,1.
PI tfOF-IO
4
Non-Compliance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit if adequate construction materials and design are not
shown on plans; no final sign off if structure not properly constructed; halt construction;
fines.
Mitii:ation Measure:
6.b.2. The surface of the access road shall be scored concrete in aU areas where the slope
exceeds 15%.
Implementation Procedure:
Construction drawings submitteq by applicant for building permit must show proposed
roadway improvements acceptable to the Tiburon Fire Protection District.
Responsibility of Building Official to ensure plans contain this information and that it
has been approved by the Fire District. Actual construction of approved roadway
improvements shall be confirmed by the Building Official prior to final inspection and
sign off on the building and/or grading permit.
Non-Comp I iance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit if adequate roadway improvements not shown on plans;
no final sign off if roadway not properly constructed; halt construction; fines.
Mitiiation Measure:
6.b.3. Fire resistant vegetation shall be established and maintained in all areas within 10
feet of the access road.
Implementation Procedure:
Landscaping drawings submitted by applicant for building permit must show proposed'
vegetation acceptable to the Tiburon Fire Protection District. Responsibility of
Building Official to ensure plans contain this information and that it has been approved
by the Fire District. Actual installation of approved landscaping shall be confirmed by "
the Senior Planner prior to final inspection and sign off on the building and/or grading
permit.
Non-Compliance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit if adequate vegetation not shown on plans; no final sign
off if vegetation not properly installed; halt construction; fines.
5
---:--",-"'':""''.~-~,-;;-r:-' ..........0 3
~~~.~f~-~_~__~.i ~~_' l...~ ~ .
Pt 5" OPCD
B ioloi:ical Resources
Mitiiation Measure:
7.b.l. All oak trees removed on the property shall be replaced on a 3 to I basis.
Implementation Procedure:
Applicant shall hire an arborist to prepare a report listing types and locations of
replacement trees. Planning Division to inspect property to insure planting of
replacement trees.
Non-Compliance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit until type, number and location of replacement trees are
confirmed by the Planning Division; halt construction; no final sign off until planting of
replacement trees is confirmed; fines.
Mitii:ation Measure:
7. b.2. When grading within the root protection zone of any oak tree is necessary, work
shall avoid damaging major roots.
Implementation Procedure:
Grading plans shall be evaluated by the Building Official and the Planning Division for
proximity to oak trees. The Building Inspector shall observe the site during all
inspections for evidence of grading within the root protection zones of any oak tree.
Non-Compliance Sanction:
Failure to comply with grading requirements or observation of grading within root
protection zones will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, a project
stop-work order, or other available enforcement methods.
Mitii:ation Measure:
7.b.3. Root or limb pruning shall be performed during the dry season (July and August)
for evergreen species and during the dormant season (w~ter) for deciduous
species.
Implementation Procedure:
6
l~~=.~~~~=T?~~:Irr I,TC}. 3
Pt &OF lD
Performance schedule for all root or limb pruning activities to be performed as part of
the construction on site shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review as part of
the building permit for this project. The Building Inspector shall observe the site during
all inspections for evidence of pruning outside of permitted timeframes.
Non-Compliance Sanction:
Failure to comply with pruning time limitations or observation of pruning outside of
permitted timeframes will result in th~ issuance of correction notices, citations, a project
stop-work order, or other available enforcement methods.
Mitii:ation Measure:
7. b.4. Any require retaining walls shall be constructed outside the dripline of remaining
oak trees.
Implementation Procedure:
Retaining wall plans shall be evaluated by the Building Official and the Planning
Division for proximity to oak tree driplines. The Building Inspector shall observe the
site during all inspections for evidence of retaining wall construction within the
drip lines of any oak tree.
Non-Comp I iance Sanction:
Failure to comply with retaining wall setback requirements or observation of retaining
wall construction within driplines will result in the issuance of correction notices,
citations, a project stop-work order, or other available, enforcement methods.
~
Mitii:ation Measure:
S.a.i. All construction activity shall comply with the Town's limitations on construction
hours as set forth in Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code.
Implementation Procedure:
Ensure contractor and any sub-contra~tors are aware of the Town's limited construction
hours, including those for use of heavy equipment. Building Inspector shall ensure that
these appear on the job card. Building Inspector and Police Department to enforce this
measure.
7
--_.-~.-,..._,~----~ r 3
l~~~'~_.'_.~:_:":.:lJ~ 2:,Tt-=-(__
Po' 7 D~ { D
Non-Compliance Sanction:
Police Department and/or Building Inspector to issue citations and/or halt construction.
H:l7~rds
Mitiiation Measure:
IO.b.l.
A greenbelt shall be provided by cutting and clearing all combustible
vegetation within 30 feet of any structure.
Implementation Procedure:
Landscaping drawings submitted by ~pplicant for building permit must show proposed
greenbelt acceptable to the Tiburon Fire Protection District. Responsibility of Building
Official to ensure plans contain this information and that it has been approved by the
Fire District. Actual establishment of adequate greenbelt shall be confirmed by the
Senior Planner prior to final inspection and sign off on the building and/or grading
permit.
Non-Compliance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit if adequate greenbelt not shown on plans; no final sign
off if greenbelt not properly established; halt construction; fines.
Mitii:ation Measure:
IO.b.2
An approved water supply, including a new 8 inch water main, shall be
installed.
Implementation Procedure:
Construction drawings submitted by applicant for building permit must show proposed
water main and hydrants acceptable to the Tiburon Fire Protection District.
Responsibility of Building Official to ensure plans contain this information and that it
has been approved by the Fire District. Actual construction of approved water main and,.
hydrants shall be confirmed by the Building Official prior to final inspection and sign
off on the building and/or grading permit.
Non-Comp I iance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit if approved water main and hydrants are not shown on
plans; no final sign off if water main and hydrants not constructed; halt construction;
8
~-'..-7"""-."--"'.-1'7"'! ..... -, O' 2
L:.~~,~.:~.t~_.:.,-~ .~~o ..1:\ ~ '. ...)
~ o()F!O
"
fines.
Mitii:ation Measure:
10.b.3.
The water supply and roadway shall be installed and made serviceable
prior to any sidewall construction on the site.
Implementation Procedure:
Construction drawings submitted by applicant for building permit must show proposed
water supply and roadway acceptable to the Tiburon Fire Protection District and the
Building Official. Responsibility of Building Official to ensure plans contain this
information and that water supply and roadway plans have been approved by the
Tiburon Fire Protection District. Actual installation of approved water supply and
roadway improvements shall be confIrmed by the Building Official prior to final
inspection and sign off on the building and/or grading permit.
Non-Comp I iance Sanction:
No issuance of building permit if adequately water supply and roadway are not shown
on plans; no final sign off if these i~provements not installed; halt construction; fines.
Mitiiation Measure:
10.b.4.
All structures shall be built of Class 1 ignition resistant construction as
outlined in Section 504 of the 1997 Urban Wildlife Interface Code.
See Mitigation Measure 6.b.l. above.
Mitii:ation Measure:
10.b.5.
The surface of the access road shall be scored concrete in all areas where
the slope exceeds 15%.
See Mitigation Measure 6.b.2. above.
Mitii:ation Measure:
10.b.6.
Fire resistant vegetation shall be established and maintained in all areas
within 10 feet of the access road.
See Mitigation Measure 6.b.3. above.
9
_:~',= c.-= ===: i~f ~'T C) . .3
e Cf Or=- 10
Aesthetics
,
Mitii:ation Measure:
I3.b.l.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for each of the two
proposed single-family homes, the building design and landscaping of each
house shall receive Site Plan and Architectural Review approval pursuant
to Section 4.02.00 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The building and
landscaping shall be designed so as t~ minimize and effectively mitigate
visual impacts to the surrounding neighborhood.
Implementation Procedure:
The Tiburon Design Review Board shall review the submitted building and landscaping
plans to insure that visual impacts on surrounding residences are minimized and
effectively mitigated. The Building Official shall not accept plans for building plan
check nor issue building permits without verification that the proposed building has
received Site Plan and Architectural Review approval by the Design Review Board.
Non-Compliance Sanction:
Building permits shall not be issued without proof of Site Plan and Architectural
Review approval; no final sign off if building and landscaping is not completed in
compliance with said approval; halt construction; fines.
10
L~=='~~~~~~'='~~'~~:, ~:'c.~.3_
PL [0 cPlD
SYCAM 0 RE ASS 0 C I ATE 5 L L C
3400 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste_ 13 . Lafayette, California 94549 . 510.284.1766 . fax: 510.284.8170 . e-mail:syc@pacbell.net
March 10, 1998
RECEIVED
TOWN OF TIBURON
MAR 3 1 1998
Mr. Ed McEachron
McEachron Architects, Inc.
100 Edgewood Avenue
San Francisco, Ca 94117
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RE: Preliminary Biological Assessment, Taylor Property, Tiburon
Dear Mr. McEachron:
On Thursday, February 26, 1998, a preliminary reconnaissance-level biological site assessment
was performed by Sycamore Associates on the Taylor property in Tiburon. This letter presents
the results of our fieldwork and an evaluation of the potential for occurrence of special-status
plant and animal species onsite.
INTRODUCTION
Dr. Irvin S. Taylor is proposing to make improvements to currently undeveloped property
located next to 90 Sugar Loaf Drive in Tiburon, Marin County. The property consists of two
adjoining, irregularly shaped parcels totaling approximatelylO.5acres. Access to the street is
gained at an existing concrete driveway which also serves two homes on the hillside above.
Proposed improvements would include grading of an approximately 360 foot long, 20 foot
wide new driveway connecting to the existing one, and the construction of two single-family
residences. McEachron Architects, Inc., of San Francisco, was contracted by Dr. Taylor to
assist in the design and planning_ The Town of Tiburon informed Mr. McEachron that a
biological assessment of the site and the proposed project must be completed prior to the
issuance of any permits. Sycamore Associates LLC was contracted to evaluate the property
and the project for potential impacts to significant biological resources. This report presents
the results of this assessment.
METHODS AND LIMITATIONS
A single reconnaissance-level site visit was conducted by Sycamore biologist Christopher
Thayer on February 26, 1998. The site of the proposed improvements was surveyed on foot,
Sycamore Associates LLe - Taylor Biological Assessment
EXHIBIT NO.
P , I of I g
J
and all existing habitats characterized and plant species identified and recorded. Plans of the
proposed project were reviewed and expected direct and indirect impacts evaluated. Due to
the timing of the present survey, not all potentially-occurring special-status plant or animal
species would necessarily have been recognizable. However, based on an evaluation of
existing habitats, the potential for occurrence of these species could be adequately assessed.
A list of potentially-occurring special-status plant and animal species was compiled through a
review of the of the California Department ofFish and Game's California Natural Diversity
Data Base (CNDDB) (CDFG 1996) and the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS)
Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (Skinner and
Pavlik 1997). Rarity and distribution information on special-status plant and animal species
was compiled from these documents as well as the CNDDB map overlay for the San Quentin
quadrangle (CDFG 1998c), CDFG's Special Plants List (CDFG 1997) and Special Animals
List (CDFG 1994), Endangered, Threatened and Rare Plants of California (CDFG 1998a),
State and FederaIIy Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California (CDFG
1998b), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants
(USFWS 1995), and Endangered and Threatened Plant and Animal Taxa; Proposed Rule
(USFWS 1996a).
Nomenclature used in this report conforms to Hickman (1993) for plants. Plant community
names conform to Holland (1986) and Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995); Nomenclature for
special-status plant and wildlife species conforms to CDFG (1994, 1997) and Skinner and
Pavlik (1997).
SETTlNG/ GEOGRAPffiCAL LIMITS OF THE STUDY AREA
The study area is located adjacent to 90 Sugar Loaf Drive on the Tiburon peninsula, just
south of Paradise Cove (Figure 1). The property is situated on relatively steep terrain on a
ridgetop overlooking the northern San Francisco Bay, with an elevation ranging between
approximately 400 and 550 feet above sea level. The property is unimproved with the
exception of an old, nearly level dirt road approximately 8 feet wide and 200 feet long which
extends to a fairly level rocky flat at one of the two proposed house sites. Numerous
Tasmanian blue gum trees (Eucalyptus globulus) and several ornamental conifers have been
planted near the end of the dirt road, probably within the last fifteen years. All of these trees
have been recently cut very low, and the resulting slash dumped at their bases or below the
road. Adjacent land uses consist of numerous residences in ridgetop settings to the immediate
west and south, and steep, densely wooded, sparsely developed land to the north. Paradise
Beach County Park is located a quarter of a mile to the north, and Old St. Hillary's Preserve
public open space is within a quarter mile to the southeast.
Soils are mapped as Tocaloma-McMullin complex, 50-75 percent slopes (USDA 1985).
These loamy soils are derived from sandstone or shale, are well drained and moderately deep
. to shallow. Bedrock consists of a hard, fractured sandstone, which is evident at several rocky
outcrops on the property. No serpentine-derived soils were observed on the property,
although large serpentine outcrops are evident nearby, such as at the comer of Sugar Loaf
Sycamore Associates LLC - Taylor Biological Assessment
1"7'VT_TrnTm NO
l''-:''cL~......J'...!:)~ J.. .
p, Z- o~ ~
2
and Heathcliff Drives. One serpentine float boulder was noted in a densely wooded portion of
the site.
PLANT COMMUNITIES
The natural vegetation in the study area consists of native and non-native grassland and coast
live oak woodland. Onsite, both small stands of coast live oak and large, dense stands of oakJ
bay woodland are present. A description of each plant community occurring onsite is
presented below. A general map of the vegetation of the study site is included with this report
(Figure 1).
Coast Live Oak Woodland
Coast live oak woodland is typically found on north-facing slopes and shaded ravines in the
southern and inland portions of the state and on more exposed, mesic sites in the north. This
community is dominated by coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) which frequently occurs in
pure, dense stands with a closed canopy. Coast live oak woodland is restricted primarily to the
coast side of the state and is distributed from Sonoma County to Baja California. It occurs
throughout the outer South Coast Ranges and coastal slopes of the Transverse and Peninsular
ranges, usually below 4,000 feet in elevation. Steep slopes to the west, north, and east of the
proposed improvements are vegetated with dense stands of coast live oak woodland.
Other tree species commonly associated with coast live oak woodland and detected onsite
include California bay (Umbe/lularia californica) and madrone (Arbutus menziesii). Within
this plant community, the shrub layer is typically poorly developed and the herbaceous layer is
continuous. Characteristic shrub species detected onsite include oso berry (Oemleria
cerasiformis), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus
discolor) and coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis). Characteristic herbaceous plants detected
onsite include sweet cicely (Osmorhiza chilensis), rigid hedge-nettle (Stachys ajugoides var.
rigida), wood fern (Dryopteris arguta), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilirtum) and California
polypody (Polypodium californicum), among others. Edges ~d openings in the woods
support small populations of ground iris (Iris macrosiphon), California fescue (Festuca
californica) and coast silk tassel (Garrya e/liptica). Non-native species found in woodlands
onsite include forget-me-not (Myosotis latifolia), and two species of Australian fire weed
(Erechtites spp.)
Onsite, this vegetation type conforms to the coast live oak series as classified by Sawyer and
Keeler-Wolf (1995) and would be classified as an upland as described in Cowardin, et al.
(1979).
Non-native Annual Grassland
Non-native annual grassland is generally found in open areas in valleys and foothills
throughout coastal and interior California (Holland 1986). It typically occurs on soils
consisting of fine-textured loarns or clays that are somewhat poorly drained. This vegetation
Sycamore Associates LLe - Taylor Biological Assessment
EX1-IIBIT ~~O. Lf
p. 3 oF I~
3
type is dominated by non-native annual grasses and weedy annual and perennial forbs,
primarily of Mediterranean origin, that have replaced native perennial grasslands and scrub as
a result of human disturbance. Scattered native wildflower species, representing remnants of
the original vegetation may also be common. Onsite, non-native annual grassland intergrades
with coastal terrace prairie, northern coastal scrub and all of the disturbed habitats dominated
by non-native species.
Characteristic non-native annual grasses commonly found onsite include wild oats (A vena
spp.), brome grasses, wild barley (Hordeum spp.), quaking grass (Briza minor), Italian
ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) and fescue (Vulpia spp.). Common non-native forbs include
crane's-bill (Geranium dissectum), sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella) and goose grass (Ga/ium
aparine), among others. Non-native annual grassland conforms to the California annual
grassland series, as described in Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995) and would be classified as an
upland, following Cowardin, et al. (1979).
Vallev N eedlegrass Grassland
Valley needlegrass grassland is a native plant community with a substantial component
consisting of perennial, tussock-forming grass species in the genus Nassella up to two feet in
height. It is typically found on fine-textured, often clayey soils that remain moist or even
water-logged after winter rains but are very dry during the summer. Frequently, stands will
consist of 50 percent cover or more of non-native grasses and forbs. Native grassland
communities originally covered about 13 percent of the land area of California. The most
extensive areas of grasslands were located in the San Joaquin, Sacramento and Salinas valleys,
the Los Angeles Basin, the Transverse and Peninsula ranges, to the Mojave Desert and Baja
California in areas too hot and dry to support woodland vegetation. Valley needlegrass
grassland represents a natural resource that has been greatly diminished since the introduction
of grazing livestock and Eurasian grasses and forbs, cultivation and development. Introduced
annual grasses and forbs are much more tolerant of intense grazing than the native perennial
grasses. As a result, the extent of native grasslands has been greatly reduced while the non-
native annual grasses have become naturalized and widespread. As recommended by the
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), sites supporting 10 percent or greater
absolute cover of purple needlegrass represent identifiable stands of valley needlegrass
grassland.
Within the study area, Valley needlegrass grassland consists primarily of moderate to dense
cover of perennial native grasses, including purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra), foothill
needlegrass (N. lepida) and blue wildrye (E/ymus glaucus), as well as numerous native herbs' .
and wildflowers, including star zigadene (Zigadenus fremontii), footsteps of spring (Sanicula
arctopoides), purple sanicle (S. bipinnatifida) checker mallow (Sidalcea malviflora),
Henderson's shooting star (Dodecatheon hendersoii) and blue dicks (Dichelostemma
capitatum), among many others. Non-native herbs found onsite within this plant community
include quaking grass, goose grass, chickweed, and narrow-leaved plantain (Plantago
lanceolata) .
Sycamore Associates LLe - Taylor Biological Assessment
V-XI' r:.::rTPTm tTO if
I . -'. ... t ~
..J..~ ~-'-_ .__ .,. .<. - \!. .
pc Lf ~l~
4
Valley needlegrass grassland is also present both on steep slopes and on relatively level, rocky
knolls. The steep, west-facing slope immediately below the northernmost house site supports
a dense stand of native perennial grassland, including coast range melic (Melica imperfecta),
baby blue eyes (Nemophila menziesii), star zigadene, blue dicks, and other native herbs and
bulbs, with small stands of oso berry, bracken fern, and California sagebrush (Artemesia
californica) within the grassland.
Onsite, valley needlegrass grassland conforms to the purple needlegrass series as described by
Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995) and would be classified as an upland following Cowardin, et
al. (1979).
WILDLIFE HABITAT
Woodland
Woodland habitats such as coast live oak woodland provide abundant perching and nesting
habitat for bird species, forage for herbivorous and omniverous mammals, and breeding
habitat for reptiles and amphibians. Woodland edges near grassland or scrub provide
greater foraging potential for predatory, graniverous and insectivorous bird species.
Potentially-occurring bird species in woodlands in Marin County include: Pacific slope
flycatcher, yellow-shafted flicker, pileated woodpecker, downey woodpecker, hairy
woodpecker, Steller's jay, common raven, American robin, great homed owl, northern
pygmy owl, Cooper's hawk and sharp-shinned hawk, among others. Potentially-occurring
mammal species in woodlands in Marin County include: Western gray squirrel, mule deer,
dusky-footed woodrat, deer mouse, bobcat, striped skunk, black bear, raccoon, Virginia
opossum, gray fox, hoary bat, big brown bat and Pacific shrew, among others. Potentially-
occurring reptile species in woodlands in Marin County include:
coast garter snake, gopher snake, common kingsnake, ~acific rubber boa, ringneck snake,
northern alligator lizard and western fence lizard, among others. Potentially-occurring
amphibians in woodlands in Marin County include: California slender salamander,
ensatina, rough-skinned newt, California newt and California toad, among others.
Grassland Habitat
Grassland habitats include both non-native and native bunchgrass types. Wildlife habitat
differences between native and nonnative grassland communities have not been well-
documented, particularly because of the limited extent of native grassland communities.
While a greater diversity of plant species is generally associated with native grasslands,
there appears to be little functional difference in wildlife value between the two.
Although not extensive, the small amount of Non-native Grassland occurring within the
study area provides sufficient habitat to support a variety of wildlife species substantially
different from the surrounding forest and scrub habitats. Grassland habitat typically
supports numerous species of rodents which in turn serve as prey for predatory birds and
Sycamore Associates LLe - Taylor Biological Assessment
--....- -r-< """ ... ,...... -=L
~-:-TT', \" '/'::: 1';"~ ~
~~~~~rj__~.~!:.~.~_.t .L..~ '1,./ .
Pi ~ oFl8
5
mammals. Virtually all raptors (birds of prey) forage in grassland habitats due to a lack of
dense vegetative cover for prey.
Characteristic bird species that might occur within grassland habitat onsite include
loggerhead shrike, western meadowlark, lark sparrow, savannah sparrow, mourning dove,
American robin, and homed lark, among others. Red-tailed hawk, American kestrel,
turkey vulture, black-shouldered kite, great homed owl, American crow, and common
raven also commonly forage in grassland habitat.
Mammal species that live and breed in grassland habitats and that might occur onsite
include rodents such as ornate shrew, vagrant shrew, California vole, California ground
squirrel, valley pocket gopher, deer mouse, brush rabbit, bobcat, and coyote, among
others.
Characteristic reptile species that might occur in grassland habitat onsite include western
fence lizard, western skink, side-blotched lizard, northern Pacific rattlesnake, nightsnake,
coast garter snake, common garter snake, and Pacific gopher snake, among others.
Grassland communities generally support few amphibious species except where permanent
or intermittent water sources are available. Amphibians likely to occur onsite are western
toad, California slender salamander, rough-skinned newt, and California newt, among
others.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Special-status plant species include those listed as endangered, threatened, rare or candidates
for listing by the USFWS (1995, 1996) and CDFG (1998a), those listed as "Special Plants" by
the CDFG (1997) and those listed as rare and endangered by the CNPS (Skinner and Pavlik,
1997). The CNPS listing is sanctioned by the CDFG, and serves essentially as their list of
"candidate" plant species. The CDFG recommends that all ~axa listed by the CNPS be
addressed in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) docum.ents.
Special-status animal species include those listed as endangered, threatened, rare or candidates
for listing by the USFWS (1995,1996) or CDFG (1998b), those listed as "Special Animals"
by the CDFG (1994). Additional species receive federal protection under the Bald Eagle
Protection Act (i.e., bald eagle, golden eagle) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act CEQA
Section 15380(d). The CDFG further classifies some species under the following categories:
"fully protected", "protected fur-bearer", "protected amphibian", and "protected reptile". The '.
designation as "protected" indicates that a species may not be taken or possessed except under
special permit from the CDFG; "fully protected" indicates that a species can be taken for
scientific purposes by permit only.
The Audubon Society's Blue List (Tate 1986) is a list of bird species considered to be
declining in the United States, The list does not include species already listed by the federal
government as endangered or threatened. Local populations may, and often do, differ in status
Sycamore Associates LLe - Taylor Biological Assessment
F:;C:~T-:qTrr j\Tn Id
..:..-u.....____...._ _ -J'.. .t... ,-".--=t..-.
p~ 0 ~ l~
6
from the Blue List status for the entire U.S. and the actual degree of sensitivity of species on
the Blue List depends on their local status.
The USFWS recently changed its policy on candidate species. The term "candidate" now
strictly refers to species for which the USFWS has on file enough information to propose
listing. Former Category 2 candidate species are now regarded as "Species of Concern" but.
are no longer monitored by the USFWS. However, the USFWS encourages the consideration
of these taxa during project planning and environmental review as they may become candidate
species in the future.
Special-Status Plant Species
A total of 20 special-status plant species have been recorded in the region of the study area.
Of these, 16 species are considered to have no potential for occurrence onsite, either because
suitable habitat is not present or because they would have been detected during the present
survey. Although none of the four remaining target species (white-rayed pentachaeta, Santa
Cruz microseris, showy Indian clover, and San Francisco owl's clover) was detected during
the present survey they would not have been detectable because the timing of the present
survey did not coincide with their flowering times. However, these subspecies are considered
to have a low potential for occurrence onsite because only marginally suitable habitat is
present and none has been recorded from the Tiburon peninsula. A complete list of potentially
occurring special-status plant species, their legal status, habitat affinities, flowering times and
life forms is included in Table 1. An explanation of sensitivity codes is provided in Appendix
A.
Special-Status Animal Species
A total of 11 special-status animal species have been recorded in the vicinity of the study area.
N one of the target species was detected during the present survey and none are expected to
occur onsite due to the lack of suitable habitat. A complete list of potentially occurring
special-status animal species, their legal status and habitat affinities is included in Table 2. An
explanation of sensitivity codes is provided in Appendix B.
SPECIAL-STATUS NATURAL COMMUNITIES
Special-status natural communities are those which are considered rare in the region,
support special-status plant or wildlife species, or receive regulatory protection (i.e., ~404
of the Clean Water Act and/or the CDFG ~~1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game
Code). In addition, the CND D B has designated a number of communities as rare; these
communities are given the highest inventory priority (Holland 1986; CDFG 1997b).
Potential WetIands
Toward the eastern end of the property, in deep shade of oak/bay woodland, a small perennial
spring issues from a moderately steep slope. Vegetation at the spring includes lady fern, giant
Sycamore Associates LLe - Taylor Biological Assessment
___--~-r-" -....... fo. ~.-- tf
. :' I . '. . J -, 1 r . ~ ..".: ,
.J.:":::t-'::":'.:_~='_':' .!.. ,; \J.
p.,cFl?{
7
horsetail, and California figwort, and Himalaya blackberry. Old boards indicate the former
existence of a springbox at this site. The spring is located approximately 200 feet from any
proposed development.
I,
On the western side of the site, in dense coast live oak woodland, a steep ravine presently
carries considerable runofffrom recent winter storms to the north and off the property. No
vegetation was observed here to indicate the presence of perennial waters. This area is not
within the area expected to be impacted by development.
Potential wetlands onsite may represent special-status natural communities, however,
because none are present within the areas of proposed development, no significant impact
to these resources is expected due to project implementation.
CONCLUSIONS
The present vegetation within the proposed development impact areas primarily consists of
dense native and non-native grasslands with abundant native wildflowers, valley needlegrass
grassland, and a lesser amount of coast live oak woodland. Several mature coast live oak trees
are situated near a low rock outcrop on the upper (southerly) building site, and a small,
mature, wind-sculpted oak sits atop a rock outcrop on the second house site, down slope and
to the north. Also adjacent to the second house site are several other mature coast live oaks.
Construction of two residences on the two relatively level rocky knolls may affect several
mature coast live oak trees, and may eliminate portions of several small rock outcrops.
A number of mature oak and bay trees have previously been measured and mapped (site plan
drawing, JL Engineering, 7/8/1998) within an area of oak woodland proposed for driveway
construction. Impacts to trees outside but immediately adjacent to the construction areas are
unknown.
Significant Biological Resources
As defined above, special-status biological resources include plant and animal species and
habitats that are listed as being of concern by state or federal agencies. Based on the present
survey, no special-status plant species were detected onsite and, based on existing
habitats, none are expected. Of the 20 target species determined to have some potential for
occurrence within the project vicinity, none are considered to have high or moderate potential
for occurrence within the study area. Four of the target species are considered to have a low
potential, at best, for occurring within the study area. No significant impacts to special-
status botanical resources are expected to result from project implementation.
No special-status animal species were observed during the present surveys, although a
complete wildlife inventory was not conducted as part of this study. Of the 11 target special-
status animal species considered to have some potential to occur within the project
vicinity, none are expected to occur within the study area due to lack of suitable
habitat.
Sycamore Associates LLe - Taylor Biological Assessment
:-:::~~~IIT=~I7.! iJl=~.
8
Pi g DF I g
Protection of Oak Trees
Direct impacts to oak trees occur when grading or trenching occurs within the drip-line (i.e.,
beneath the canopy) of a tree. Grading can severe main support roots and injury to branches
and the trunk can result from equipment operating too close to the tree. Direct impacts from
surface disturbances within the drip-line may cause the ultimate death of a tree by reducing
root support or root surface area, and by making a tree susceptible to disease or insect attack
through limb injury.
Indirect impacts result from disturbance to the soil surface within the root protection zone.
The root protection zone is defined by the California Oak Foundation as a band outside the
drip-line equal to one half the radius of a tree's canopy (CNPS 1989). Mature oaks are
acclimated to a certain balance of moisture, air, soil temperature and nutrients and they are
very sensitive to changes in their roots' environment. Most of the roots of oak trees occur
within the top three feet of the soil surface and the majority of a tree's feeder roots occur at or
near the drip-line. Grading within the root protection zone would generally result in the
severing of a portion of the feeder roots. While such impacts are not as severe as direct
impacts and are not likely to cause mortality, they may result in reduced vigor. Indirect
impacts may occur where oak trees are situated adjacent to construction sites. Indirect
impacts to oaks can result from soil compaction, paving the surface with impervious materials
and changes in grade.
When grading within the root protection zone of an oak tree is necessary, work should be
done very carefully to avoid damaging major roots. If root or limb pruning is unavoidable, it
should be performed during the dry season (July and August) for evergreen species or during
the dormant season (winter) for deciduous species. Generally, retaining walls should only be
constructed outside the drip-line to avoid adversely affecting feeder and support roots.
Please call with any questions or if I can be of further assistance.
s%/~~
Christopher Thayer
Sycamore Associates LLC
1Zye-/'
Enclosures
Sycamore Associates LLe - Taylor Biological Assessment
~;.[T-TT~ TrT1 T':J.r~ J I
-_....._.__..._.__ _ --,- .._ ~ -.....J ._~
PI 'l 0'::: lZ
9
LITERA TURE CITED
California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). 1994. Special Animals List. Natural
Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Data Base. August.
California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). 1996. Print-out for the San Quentin
and San Rafael USGS quads. Natural Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Data Base.
California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). 1997. Special Plants List. Natural
Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Data Base. August.
California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). 1998a. Endangered, Threatened, and
Rare Plants of California. Natural Heritage Division, Endangered Plant Program.
January .
California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). 1998b. State and Federally Listed
Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. Natural Heritage Division,
Natural Diversity Data Base. January.
California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). 1998c. Map overlay for the San
Quentin USGS quad. Natural Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Data Base.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Oak Hardwood Policy Committee. 1989. Oak
Action Kit; Resources for Preservation and Conservation of Oak Habitats.
Sacramento.
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 1998. Map Overlay for the San
Quentin quadrangle.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 131 pp.
Hickman, J. C. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of
California Press, Berkeley, California. 1400 pp.
Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California. California Department ofFish and Game, The Resources Agency. 156 pp.
Lake, D. 1995. Unusual and Significant Plants of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
Fourth Edition. California Native Plant Society, East Bay Chapter. March 1.
Sawyer, lO. and T. Keeler-Wolf 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California
Native Plant Society, Sacramento. 471 pp.
Sycamore Associates LLe - Taylor Biological Assessment
~..,.~-;-r"':'"';n -;0.,,-';0 l/
.. J ., '-..; ? 1 -'- -. " J ' J ~ ,
: I. /.... :. ~ ,Ilo~ -::... ... '\. ......J .
.i.~",------,---- f i / 0 ~ I~
10
Skinner, M.W. and B.M. Pavlik. 1997. Electronic Inventory of Rare andEndangered
Vascular Plants of California. Fifth ed. update. California Native Plant Society,
Sacramento, California.
..
Tate, 1. 1986. The Blue Listfor 1986. American Birds 40:227-236.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1985. Soil Survey of Marin County,
California. Natural Resource Conservation Service. March.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife andPlants. 50 CFR 17.11 & 17.12. August 20.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Animal Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or
Threatened Species; Proposed Rule. 50 CFR part 17. February 26.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996a. Endangered and Threatened
Plant and Animal Taxa; Proposed Rule
Sycamore Associates LLC - Taylor Biological Assessment
""'7i-::rTT~. JTrD ~I'~O J. I
~-; ~L~j ~ t-.. ~ J '~: If . '-1'
- ----- f& 'lOr=- (8
11
,....
~
=
~
~
<
rLJ.
~
~
U
~
~
rLJ.
~
Zz
jo
~=:
rLJ.;:J
;:J=
~~
<~
~ ..
rLJ.>
IE--
~~
<~
~~
Uo
~~
~~
~=:
zo
~~
=:>
=:<
;:J~
U
U
o
>-
~
~
<
~
~
z
~
~
o
~
~
~
=
~
- ~
~ CJ
==
";~~
._ I. ._
- I. ~
= = ==
.!~O
~o
~ 5
== __ I.
.- "'0 =
5 = ~
= .-
= I. ~
=~::3
"'0 .5
== ~
= ~
:J:E ~
.- - I.
;:::=.J14
= ~ ~
=j~
<"'O~
- ~ =
~t:~
:E = ~
= ~.c
==:-
-~
=
-
=
-
00.
~ ~
5 e
= =
ZZ
bCJ==
.- -= =
a.,c a
= == e!
~ ~ -
.- =
~u
S
:0
cu
.c
Q)
:0
S a)
-:; .~
rn ~
o 0
c _
~ 5
c rn
o Q)
za
.0
..
Q)
.c
;>. -
_ cu
:::s .-
'7 2
;>'Q)
cu ..
:E~
c
~ >..
o .... .
~ 3
.0
1;;U
~ c
~ .~
]:E
!:!rn"
0.. .-
:::s [
"'Ot;
~ e
cu cu
~E-
"'0
e~
.0 C
"'0 0
fa ~
t; g
~ ~
0..=
cu (,)
'5 g
co
.- -
rn C
o..cu
~-5
rn
Q) ..
.5 ~
c~
Q) e
E-o
~cJ::
M
<~
O'~
uUJeo
Cl)U-
t;Q)CI)
..~Q..
Q)ci5Z
"g U
tL.
.~
~
tii
>
IE~
:::s -
_ rn
~:a
~ ~:;
=s r... .-
~ ~ cu
u~o..
=s -
_ cu
~ IE ~
-<.:! E-
~ .
CJ~
~:ga)
.-== :::s :0
.0 0 =
~~u
~B~
~';j ~
.-== C c
:::s 0 Q)
rn _ ~
:.~ c .0
.... Q) ~
S ~ ~
Z o...c
.0
..
Q)
Q).c
c-
:::s .~
~ c
...!.. c
'i: ~
o..~
<Q..
_cu
cu'- c
1;; ~.;::
cu :::s ><
o (,) Q)
(,)(,)"'0
"'O~ 0 Q)
C . e
cu ~ :::s
-Crn
"8!:!~
o~o..
~ e rn
Q) ~.~
~==c:
-.c=
c: _ 0
00(,)
e ~ 0
.~ >.. Q) .
(,) Q) tU ~
ti ~ :E .~
c > c: =
cu "'0 = 0
go c: 00 (,)
.ccu"'OO
(,)~ ~~ fa .~
1;; fa s g
~:a~E
~OUtL.
"'0 0 = c:
c ~ .. cu
!:!ccCl)
o..cuo~
= .~ U c:
c.,.. 0.. ~cu
~ 'i: ~ .5
:a ~ ~ ~
cu.oe~
02cu~
as ~ :;( .5
M
<~
O'\"'!
uUJee
Cl)U-
Q)OO
e~Q..
Q)-Z
"gooU
tL.
~
a!:!
~]
u -
-S! .~
--
IU Q)
~.c
-
s:: 0
.Sl :0
- cu
IU._
::t:Q
-
S
:0
cu
.c
~
:0
S a)
.~ -;;
o S
c: _
c:
Q) Q)
c: rn
o Q)
za
.0
..
;>.Q)
- .c
~t;
I :::s
;>'c:
cu c:
:E<
ui
Cn~ .~
Q) c:
.= =
c: 0
= (,)
o cu
(,) ~
;>'.0
Q) ..
.. cu
Bee
c: cu
o _
:E fa
000
-~
:9 fa
o 0
.0 (,)
E .~
= (,)
:c c:
cu
E ..
otL.
cJ:: c:
=
"'000
c: c:
= .-
o _
tL. (,)
.C:
rn .-
~ ><
= Q)
~~
~
t; e
t; =
cu rn
o Q)
ua
M
I
M
I
M
UJ ..
~U~
-~CI)
EtUQ..
Q)-z
"gCl)u
tL.
~
r..,
~ .~
a ;>.
u..!
~.c
. ... (,)
6'cu
~..8
Q)
:0
S a) c:
':;.-== Q)
rn rn Q)
;>.c.o
_ 0 Q)
-->
;g 5 cu
.- rn .c
0.0Q)_ .
~..o~
E 0.. Coo
- cu
.. S ~ t)
~.- 0.0 Q)
o .0 .- -
..J~:E~
.0
..
;>.Q)
cu.c
:Et;
I :::s
~ c:
:E~
.5
-
(,)
c
c .=
o ~
c~
Q) Q)
4: e
o :::s
~#\ ~
C ..
!:!o..
~~
E c:
0.0=
_ 0
==u
-5 0
o Q)
~tU
>..:E ri
Q) c: .-
~~g
> 0 0
~-(,)
~ "'0 N
go B 2
-.~ u
~ t; S
~ Q) fa
(,)el:::CI)
e .
. -:: "'0
~.5 fa
"'0'-
c 5 .5
8. ~~
Orn~
M
I
M
I
M
UJ ..
~u~
-Q)CI)
e~Q..
Q)-z
"goou
tL.
2 s
o Q)
~~
~ ~
~c
~8.
S"'O
IU Q)
~ ;>.
~ E
U I
SB
s:: .-
1U.c
Q" ~
~
Q):; ..~
- 0 ....
s~~
.:; B t)
rn'- Q)
rnQ:)
~s"'O
cu - c
.5 5 ~
0.0 moO
a ~
e~~
~ .~ ~
0.0 -
..J~g
.0
;>."
cu Q)
:E=
I cu
1: E
o..c
<<
"'0
Q)
t;"E
_ 0
; ~
gel:::
a)'B
:5.c
E .=
0..5
t;E-
~ ~
g ~ ui
_~ e.~
cu .- -c
cQ:)
cu e 5
0..0(,)
cu rn N
'5--:2
~'o u
1;; rn
~ ~ S
~ 0 fa
rn ...S! CI)
:::Sc:"'O
e 0 c
~ rn~ cu
'c cu .5
o Q) a
(,)~:E
"'0 c
~8.~
c.,..0~
CU c Q)
~ .... C
]~~
as ~.5
M
<~
O'~
uUJeo
Cl)U-
t;BCI)
tSQ..
"'OCI)Z
~ U
~
IU rn
:9. '5
U rn
~ e
r.., .~
.;: e
IU N
~ 2
.~ u
.as
~
~ fa
c;,jCl)
-
S
:0
CU
.c
Q)
:0
S a)
.~ -;;
o S
c: _
~ 5
c rn
o Q)
za
I~
. Ii. "
10
~
()
;.:.:~ ~
[~j
I.... -l
r:::.'1
1'---='1
l--- 4
~l.~
"-A
~.o"'1
~,:1
of
Q) Q)
c:.c
:::s-
~ CU
I =
;>.c:
CU c:
:E<
~c.,..
fa~
t;.c
~ '(3
o .-
c.- >
rn Q)
:::S.c
0-
.. c:
~ .-
.- rn
c: Q)
o u
u c:
Q) Q)
c: C
o =
(,) U
I U
"g 0
rn c:
...S!B
(,) -
o.oCU
c:.c
O:i-
~ ~ c:
rn ~ 5
0..
o e u
t) 0.5
S c.t:: ~
o c: :E
~ ~ ~
._ 0 rn
- C:'-
5 ~ [
E- -: t;
Q) CU e
rn C CU
~ [E-
t;~....
E-(,):E
M
I
<"7
O'\"'!
uUJee
Cl)U-
s::
o
"-
:::s
~
E:::
-Q)OO
e~Q..
Q)-z
"gCl)u
tL.
e.
~
~
"-
~
"-
~
&
u
~
~
~
-
~
.~
o
~
~
~
o
IE
~
~
~ ..
~Q)
~ ~
U 0
~~
~~...!..
=s ~ Q)
~ ~ ~
U Q)
5 ~'-'
'r;; -S .~
fI2 s:: CU
f S ..e-
= ~ ~
~E-
-
~
15
~
..c
Q)
:c
~ u
-a .~
o S
c:_
Qj 5
c: en
o Q)
zs..
~
...
>.Q)
_..c
:2-
., ~
I :2
>.c:
~ c:
~<
~
"C
~
=
==
.-
...
==
Q
CJ
'-'
,....
fIi
Q)
0.
o
";j
Q)
.5
C
Q)
e-.
~c
c: c:
o :2
~"8
c: c:
~.-
- ...
en ~
e~
~ "
en
a 'cc
..co.
0(;
<s e
- ~
>.~
~ .
-=~
> 0
"-
-= u
t:: .-
~ e
o.Q)
~~
..c c:
u~
~
..J
=
<
Eo-
M
I
<"7
gO'~
g~e:
(;~CI:l
~~o..
~CI:lZ
Q) U
U.
...
Q)
~ ~
~ ~
-6 "ii
s:: ~ ~
~:::::.~
~~.~
~ ~ 8-
-s ~-=
a ,~
_ o.~
&~
~ ~
E
:E
~
..c
Q)
:c
~~
'S 'Vi
en C
o 0
c_
Qj 5
c en
o Q)
zs..
..c:i
...
Q) Q)
c..c
::s ~
~ :2
~c
~~
Q)
Q)
... c
-5 0
>'3
c~
0E=
e Q)
o..c
el::~
c 0
~ Q)
o ...
~~
u
v:.a
'2 ~
.~~
Q) 0
~~
en ..
cc
o c
.. :2
~ 0
;;U
";j .5
en ...
~ ~
6'0~
.5
:.a en
o Q) cI:S
<sg:;
>. Q)t:: en
~ :2 C
-= u'2
>g~
M
I
M
I
M
UJ~C:i
~u-
]~~
Q)ooZ
~ u
~
...
Q)
~
ti 0
.~f;:
s::...!..
~ ~
-s:: Q)
- '--'
s:: c
S 0
~3
~:e
c,jf-
Q)
>
E ~
._ ..c
~:g
..c :2
Q) 0
:c~v
s :c
'S.~ S
en C U
g~~
;uc~
c ~ c
o e 8
Z c....c
c
'C Q)
c..e
< oo..c
.0 ~ 2
~~~
c
~
o en"
~.!.
~c;
:5 ~
c~
Q) -
e-:E
~~
sc
>. '2
-= .0
~ 'S;
e Q)
....c
~ -
;; .5
";j en
en Q)
~ U
... C
~Q)
l::
:.a B
o u
o 0
~o
>.N
~ ;;
~ ..c i-
>-c
.. ~ :2
]~8
~ ~ c
~ e 'C
..co~
Uel::~
M
I
<"7
O'~
uUJ~
CI:lU-
-=Q)CI:l
...tao..
Q)ooZ
~ U
~
s
j .~
c c
c ~
-s:: ~ 8
~ ~ s .~
ell ~ s:: ~
~..E'c..e-
ell ~ e ~
.~ - c::i.;S
"~enE-
~ _ en
~ -
~ :E
Q)
>
~
..c
ta:9
.-:: :2
~ 0
~~
Q)
:c
s
'S
en
u
~~
'Vi t)
c Q)
o ~
QjC~
S ~ ~
Z o.~
..c c
u Q)
... ~
~ ...
'0:::' ~~
"'f ~ 2
c>..c
~~en
... C
o 'C
Q) ~
S~
t;.5
~ en
C Q)
~ U
en C
C Q)
o l::
(; B
~ g
0.0
~N
-5 ;;
~ ..c
C -
~ ~
en ~
e~
<s e
en 0
Sel::
~ C
'2 ~
8~
~ ,
C en
~==
~ 0
~ en
Q)ui-
:a:.e C
~ C :2
e ~ 0
CO 6'0 U
M
<~
gO'c:'!
O~~
cu-
(;Q)CI:l
...tao..
Q)ooZ
~ U
~
s
~
.~ ~
;:a._
Co! .-
il
~8
~.5
E a
~:E
Q)
:c
.~.~ 5
:2 en Q)
en C ~
.?;-OQ)
-= C ~
.5 ~ ..c
~Q)oV
a s..c::c
e-~s
.. ~ - u
~ .-:: :2 Q)
o ~ 0_
...J~~-8
~
Q) ...
c: ~
:2..c
"'7 ~
1: ~
o.c
<<
~
c
~ ~
c ~ e
o .~ -u~
~~
~ ~
.5 M" C
~O\~
eO\CI:l
o ~
:...5 ~
Q) cZ
.-:: c "
en :2 c:
o .-
5 U a
g.~~
>.80
c: 0 c
c: c .-
~ c55 g
cc~
.- ,- 5
en" ~ ~
~ ...
a ~ ~
";j0~
~ ~ e
6'0~~ .
-Q)<r;
== ~ c'':
..c . ,_ c:
o.~ ~ S
<s .5 ~ u
>.C~O
Q)Q)e-c
:; ~'~ -a
>enQ)CI)
M
I
<l(
~O'~
~~e:
-=Q)CI:l
...tao..
Q)-z
]CI)u
u.
e ~
::s ~
~-
~ c u
:! ~.~
~e]
.Q ::S'-
ell';::: >.
r.~~
~~
.~
~ >.
~==
c-
.... ~
::s en
0() 0
'- 0.
~ - ,-
ell ~ a
~ t: e
.! ~ c:
=(,)0
.J c ...
..... :2
a~
E
:E
~
..c
Q)
:c
~~
'S 'Vi
en C
o 0
c_
Qj 5
c en
o Q)
zs..
~
...
Q)
..c
g-=
:2 '2
., c:
~ e
~~
~
c:
2
e
o
ct:
>.
C
o
c
~
o
~~
~ 3
:~ 8
c c:
Q) .-
e-a
~~
c c"
o 0
.. ...
"0 :2
;;~
";j~
~ Q)"
6'0~
en
:s e
00..
<s .5
- ~
~~
- 0
>:E
M
I
M
I
M
~ ..
tue:
]~~
Q)-z
~CI)u
u.
E
15
~
..c
Q)
:c
~ .
- Q)
.:; .~
en en
C
o 0
c
c
Qj Q)
C en
o e
Zo.
.-
en
::s
o
...
~
:E
:;
..c
--
~
...
.?;-~
~(;
~s
~ c
::E<
e
o 0
el::~
c ~ cI:S
~ :;
o ;; en
~ CI) .5
u ~ 5
.-:: ;; 0..
.5 0 S
c u ...
Q).~ :2
e-g:e
Q)~~
en ... c:
C u. 0
o C en
- ~ c:
~ 00.. . sa
[.5 ta
~ a u
"fi~.9
~cE
a'; ~
~ Q) Q)
c U en
~ 5 e
";j l:: 0
~:2ct:
6'o8c
= 0 ~
.- 0 0
-5Nr::;
o c ~
, .<s ~ fIi
>. -.2
~~c
-= ~ g
>~u
M
I
M
I
M
E- ..
tue:
E~~
Q)Sz
]CI)u
u.
e
::s
'5
~
c ~
(.)f;:
~s::~
ell C
~ .s::
u"::: ~
~~~
.- ~ 5
.J ~'a
::t:~
c
E E
:Ec..
~ 0
..cQ)
Q) >
:C-8
s 5
'S'
en-5
o .~
Cc
;U Q)
c en cI:S
o e e
Zc..~
-€-;;-
Q) :2
..c 0
ta
8
~
:.a
...
--
Q)
c ~
::s .-
., c
I c
>'Q)
~ ...
::E~
.c
1::
o~
Z ;;
] .5
~ a
-a:E
&. 0"
c; .5
E g
~]
Q)
:l" ~
.;; e
~~
~~
~ Q)
~t::
- 0
.~ c..
o Q)
e~
...~ !i
en en
e e
<S<s
~ en fIi
;; :2.~
c..ec
:2~::S
'1; '2 8
..28~
,~ _ 8
~ en 0
e ~ c
~uc55
M
I
N
I
M
~ ..
~ue:
-=Q)CI:l
...tao..
-8ooz
Q) U
~
en
en
~
~ 6'0
s:: Q)
~ s
'~ ..c
6 ~
~ 5
~ s:: en
ell ~ ~
~ C 0
ell ~u
~~"€
~ 0
Q.,Z
5
15
~
..c
Q)
:c
s~
'S 'Vi
en C
o 0
c C
Qj Q)
C en
o iU
zs..
~
Q) ...
c~
~(;
...!.. :2
'C c:
o.c:
<<
]g
en
~~
o iU
U t)
en'" .~
g t;
:2 Q)
~~
- fIi
~ ,~
~ en
o >.
u~
-d'a
a en
- c:
-g 0
O-d'vi
~ c: iU
~ .-
g";jC
~ ~ S
c ... u
o ~ N
e a 2
.a -5 u
o ~
ti~c
l:: >. ~
~iUCI)
0.= ~
~ ~ c
"fi>~
8] ~
.- ~ iU
'c 2 C
~ u 0
~en~
M
<~
~ 0' c:'!
o..~~
~u-
-=iUCI)
...~o..
-8ooZ
Q) U
U.
~
~
s::
::s
~
~
> ...
~ ~
~ ~ 0
elIs::f;:
~ ::s Q)
ell ~.5
=(Uo.
o ~ en
01 ~ >.
b~e
o .~ Q)
=-ac
c5~
~
,~
O~
~::;-'
~~~
~"
t-'l
~.~
1----1
....,..1
~I
t-.-d-l
V"-!
~
s::
C
a...
::s
-C)
e:::
e.
a...
(U
~
~
a...
C
~
\..)
....;j
....;j
~
-
~
'u
c
~
~
~
c
e
~
~
E
:E
tU
oJ:
U
:c
~B
.:; 'en
en C
o 0
c C
Q.) U
C en
o U
za
.J:J
a...
_ U
c.oJ:
u_
00 tU
. =
U C
C C
~<
,-.
"C
~
=
=
.-
.....
=
=
u
'-'
.....
B
:5
5~
E-C
~ g
cU
o 0
"'O~
a tU
-~
~ a
So 00
g
~.~
~ 3
~o
U (,)
= U
>~
A.....J
. ~ "'0
.~ a
a~
t;-=
~8
8 E
t;A~
~ C
c.~
tU 0
cj~
~
~
=
<
~
<~
UO~
C UJ ~.
g U ~
e~~
~ooz
~ U
~
;:s
s::
's::
c::s
CJ
ta
>
~ tii
'C.,g
~ ~
..::~
~ =
;:s.J:J
s:: C
c 0
~3
',= :-e
~E-
E
:E
tU
.c
U
:c
~B
.:; 'en
en C
o 0
Cc
Q.) U
C en
o U
za
..0
a...
ooU
= oJ:
<t;
. =
U C
C C
~<
00
C
;0
.5 ~
00
en U
U a...
(,) en
C C
~ .g
= en
(,) U
(,) =
o c:r
C (,)
~'s
C 0
tU C
-5 0
a... ><
U tU
~E-
~ ~
E .;::
o C
ct:: g
C (,)
~ E d
s::; g '00
~ 0 'C
..dCl)o
~"'O]
tU a tU
E tU C
- c..9
t;tU-
en Z B
] c~
~ .t:; c
o tU U
u::E~
C'<('f"\
<.
O'~
UUJ~
C1)U('f"\
]~~
uooz
-g U
t:...
cu
~
cu
s::
'i:: "'0
c::s u
~ u
~ ~
;:s 0
s::lJ
C c
~.-
- ~
d:::E
E
:E
tU
.c
u
:c
~B
.:; 'en
en C
o 0
C C
Q.) u
C en
o u
za
of
u
u.c
Ct;
~ 'c
...!.. C
'C e
c.u
<c..
E
o
ct::
E= u;
~ .~
o C
~ g ~
u;(,):;
~ tU en
'en ~ C
o 'c
.5 ~ ~
c a a
u 00 a...
E- "'0 .5
~aE=
~ AC
~ ~ 0
o tU en
a...^ Z a
"'0 CA';::
C ._ tU
tU a... (,)
- tU 0
~~-
tU t;
So.5 ~
en >
:.sB~
o 5 E
r.S t: 0
"'O=ct::
cg"'O
(d 0 u
~\O'E
~~8
>a~
('f"\
.
N
.
('f"\
E- ..
~u:::!
]~~
~ooz
u U
t:...
~
CJ
~.c
b()en
~~]
~ c:i.-c
- en ._
~ en tU
'i: ,~ c.
.!s!a
.: 131;0
c. ~ .5
o'~ C
....... 0
~~ 3
a~
E
:E
tU
.c
u
:c
~B
.:; 'en
en C
o 0
Cc
Q.) u
C en
o u
za
-
.~
'en
tU
~
C.
's
u
oJ:
--
..0
a...
U
u.c
at;
~~
tU C
::E<
tU 0
E u
0<<;
a::E
00 C
"'0 tU
a 00
A "'0
C C
'5 =..
::E ~
4:fO
-tU"';)
o_~
..0 C tU
EtU~
=00
::r:: ~ a
c"'OCI)
._ u c.....
- E 0
a~ a
>< <.-
u C .5
.- (,)
-g u'S;
.~.5 E
"';)><0
a:)uct::
"'0"'0
..dUu
~~~
S e ~
t; c.~
en en u;
].~ .~
~cc
o = ::s
U 8 8
N
<~
O'c:'!
UUJa:)
C1)U-
e~~
u~z
-goou
t:...
~
,s .:.l:
- (d
'~ .8
~ .~ J,
~"?;~
;:s ;:s.:
4:-..0
5 2. ~
~ . ~
~~u
~. en ~
8 a::
_~ c ~
_ ~ tU
tUuoJ:
.5 a-o
e.o-ca;
tU~"'O:C
E:E:;~
~tU 0 (,)
c~~~
o ..::: u
..oB"'O
~ ~ 'en C
j'~ a.8
-
~
'en
tU
a...
tU
C.
's
u
.c
--
..0
~a...
tU U
::E=
. tU
=E ~
c.c
<<
a;
-
:5
c ~
u .-
E-c
u =
en 0
a... (,)
o 0
~~
_ tU
(,)::E
c c
o tU
"'O^CI.J
C"'O
~ a
e 8
oo.~
~(,)
..2 a
t;tt
~ c
=~
.s c^
o ._
r.S ~
uA ::E
:5 E
tU 0
act::
] C
en ~
tU 0
o C
u~
('f"\
<~
O'c:'!
UUJa:)
ooU-
e~~
~ooz
~ u
a...
u
>
~~
~ _en
~ :>
...-=
C 0
~8
.S! .~
~ g
~tE
,e. c
~~
~
'-
~
<:)
~':)-
.
o~
7
f.:-l
E-;
.""-'-'1
p:'j
Ir---.)
~-!
1-'-1
........1
"'~':~
~:'l
.~
><
;0
c
u
C.
C.
<
.5
"'0
u
"'0
'S;
o
a...
C.
en
u
"'0
o
(,)
en
a
~
en
s::
c
...
;:s
0.()
e:::
~
~
~
~
...
~
~
\.)
....;j
~
~
-
c::s
.~
c
~
~
~
C
E
~
c
:~
'en
C
u
en
c.....
o
c
.9
tii
a
c..
><
UJ
M
~
~
=
<
E-
~
==
E-
E-
<
00.
~
~
U
~
~
00.
~
~
~
~z
90
~~
~~
00.=
;:J~
E-~
<>-
E-E-
oo.~
I~
~~
:$0
u~
~~
~~
00.0
~~
z>-
~<
~E-
;:J
U
U
o
>-
~
~
<
~
E-
Z
~
E-
o
~
~
.~
rIJ
=
.0
~ ~
- =
= ~
.- ..
.... ..
= =
~ (j
.... (j
~o
"0
~
1: =
Q ~
fr<
~'t
"0 ~
= Q
= ..
rIJ~
.~ ~
......c:
.= ....
== .5
< rIJ
.... .~
=;:::
.... -
:c =
= CJ
=j
~ ~
e e
= =
zz
~ g
'':: a
5 e
.- Q
~u
E
:.c
tU
..e
~
:E
~
.:;
en
~
c; cU
.5 .~
ODr::
;; 0
5 -
r::
~ ~
o ~
....J6.
~
-s
5
o
tl::
...
B
Qj
..e
en
~
"'0
.;;
o
...
~Qj
tU~
..e tU
<;;;cz::
~ ~
l:oo
~ ~
ODO
...
tU..e
;;:-g
o r::
~~
r:: tU
~Q.,
en ~
~(U
~oo
"'Oc..
r:: 5
.- tU
aU
.- tU
(U.5
so..e
.- U
5"'0
~~
. C 8-
=' ~
"'Ocz::
~
en-,::;
g .5
cz:: ~
-rIJ
=
....
=
00
~
r::
o
r::.
c; ~
... (U
..goo
~
Lt.
~e
;;l.,...
:: oS; ~
.... ~ ='
~_CO
ii ~..e
~ ~ U
J. ~ ;;
~ s:: r::
;> ~ 0
.:Q:E
E
:.c
tU
..e
~
:E
~B
.:; 'r;;
en r::
o 0
r::_
~ ~
r:: en
o e
Zc..
~
OD
r::
Q2
~
o
~
"'0
'r;;
-
en
~
~
~
-s
5
o
tl::
"'0
~
t::
o
c..
~
cz::
en
~
U
o
...
~~
r:: r::
'': ='
r:: 0
~u
~r::
en -i:
..e tU
.~ :E
~ ft
"'O~
r:: ='
~ ~
en ._
~ ~
ooQ.,
>.r::
~ e
;;]
:EE=
~
U a
00 r::
c; ~
... (U
..goo
~
Lt.
r::
tU
S
en
~
~ ~
,:C
-S"'O
0_ r::
- .-
~as
.5 r::
g e
.~ ]
~E=
(U
....
:.c
tU
..e
~
:E
~ ~
.~ .~
o r::
r:: 0
c
~ ~
r:: rn
o ~
Z6.
en
-S"'O
=' ~
0"'0
5 S
~ u .
~ >.
~ tU
~ .co
l: ~ 0
en .5 u
... - rn
~ ~.-
(U "'0 u
~'': a
~~tt
:.;.d.9a
u~oo
e..e
.c - ~
"'O~-s
a.9]
en ~ ::s
.2 .cft 2
;; ..e tU
E~"'O
en tU r::
~ 5 tU
enft ... en
r:: ~ .2
o r:: -
o .5 5
oo~o
~..eU
--tU
~ ~ 5
~ _ 0
g ~ a
r::500
~~g
en ~ 0
... en OD
tUc~
~~O
~ .5 ~
~~~
tU U 0
8otl::
~
U 5
00 r::
c; ~
... (U
..gCj5
~
Lt.
.c;
r::
00
...
~
(U
~
..e
en
,:.;.d
C u
'5 E
.~ co
.s .~
.9 E
~@
~a
E
:.c
tU
..e
~
:E
~B
':; .r;;
en r::
og
r::
~ ~
r:: en
o ~
Z6.
5
~
"'0
~
t::
o
c..
~
cz::
~
'S
@
C;
U
C;
-
en
tU
o
U
r::
.;;; ::2
~ ~
. C !.;:
tU -
E ~
~~
S]
en tU
r:: ...
o ::s
o c..
~~
- ...
t.:3
(U ;;
~ ~
..e r::
~~
u e
Eu
.c tU
g t
"'0"'0
~ tU
u:E
.C ~
tit::
~ 0
~U
LlJU
Q.,OO
Lt.00
c; ~
... (U
..goo
~
Lt.
.~
1
~
s:: >.
~.g
~o
c ...
Cl()~
C -
fI) _ tU
~ ~ ~
.c c::i' ~
.~ ;:s:E
r.~~
~
:E
,~ cU
=' .~
en In
~a
C;c
r:: ~
.- en
oo~
;; ...
5~
.. tU
~ .-:::
o.c
....J~
r::
tU
500
o~
tl:: 0
r::ti
~ ~
o..e
~S
.r::
~~
a~
-0 0
u:E
r:: tU
~Q.,
ct:: r::
o tU
. 00
~~
"'0 ~
a S
~~
- ~
~-s
"5 5
~ 0
tiStl::
~-g
._ "'0
-g S
_ u
u ~
,5 ~
~ >.
~ tU
l:CO
~ 0
~,~
-, (.)
r:: a
..... ....-.:
en~~
tir::~
~ cd tU
Zoo~
co
:E.
C; ~ r::
... (U 0
..goo.g
~ "'0
Lt. ='
<
.-
>.
C
r:: 0
c.,e~
;:s ~ .-
'- :c en
~~~
~.a ]
-S::COO
fI) ~ .... e
-e~~-
.- , ...
=~O
~
:E
~B
.:; 'r;;
en r::
>.0
- ....
- r::
~ ~
._ en
OO~
;; 6.
5E
~:.c
o tU
....J..e
5
o
tl::
r::
~
o
~>.
d~
o
... ~
~~
tU
gcz::
CO a
(uoo
e 0
0-6
-s~
'i a
~oo
c;c::
'g 5
-0 0
utl::
.... "'0
en ~
~"'O
r:: ...
o
~~
en >.
~ tU
~CO
~ 0
ODu
;; .~
- u
.5 a
...
~Lt.
rn r::
~ tU
Zoo
~
r::
o
r::
co
:E.
]~a
..giiS.g
~ "'0
Lt. ::s
<
.-
>.
~ ]
== ~
~ 'r;;
~.... ~
~ e ~
c OO~
~LlJO
e .... e
~~-
uo
....
~
:.c
tU
..e
~
:E
SB
'S 'r;;
en r::
o 0
r::_
~ ~
r:: en
o ~
Z6.
r:: ~
's~
r:: ~
=' ~
6-S
5(U
g~
enc;
~ ::s
r:: en
. r;; ::s
t:: vi
~ rn
en tU
~ ...
"'0 OJ)
.5 ~
en r::
~..g
SOs
~ r::
~ .9
5(U
~~
OD ~ .
.5 >.]
OD.c tU
r::.cCii
E2::
~ ~.C;
a .5 co
Cii"'05
~5~
OD2"'O
.5 OD..g
en r:: ...
~ 0 0
OJ)~ ~
E ~ ~
c.EZen
"'0 ~
r::~~
tU OD ;;
t; ~ 5
~~~
Z'(3o
~
r::
o
r::
....
en
:.:i
coug
:E~C5
c; ~ r::
... (U 0
..gCj5.g
~ "'0
Lt. ='
<
...
~
~ .~
S:C
G-E
::l ~
~'€
'_ 0
\.JZ
E
:.c
tU
..e
~
:c
SB
.:; 'r;;
en r::
o 0
r:: _
~ ~
r:: en
o ~
Z6.
~
...
::s ~
c....e
>.....
.c-
"'0 ::s
B~
tU OD
r:: ::s
'-8 2
o -S S
"'0 Q)
en r:: "'0
c.. ~ ...
8 0 ~
;~~
en . r::
"'0 ~ .;
~ ~ go
en tU 0
~u-.
..e ... r::
~ 0 tU
tU8 ..eft 11
en 0
... 2 -
B - ~
tU =' 8
~.c
..e fttU
rn en ti
~ ~ tU
tl: SO 00
"'0,:::"'0
C tU C
tU en tU
~ri'~
:.;.d OJ) CO
u "'0 0
e ~ ~
.c.. -g '(3
... ~ C
B ~ e
tU ~ Lt.
~ 32 C
- U tU
~ 'a 00
co
:E
"E-
~U
c; ~
... (U
..goo
~
Lt.
c.,
;:s
-
;:s
C,J
os:
,
;:s
-
C
C,J
o~
~ "c;
C,J ...
05 ~
e U
~~
."'" .c
::l .~
:::::: E
~c.E
~ .-
~c;
.....:lU
1i.
.'"
C) _
>7
,c.:...! '
~
E~;
.'""~'l
,-,"\
~-I
",.e, .!
Fi
t~
~o,~' J
~l
s::
c
,
;::
~
E:::
o
,
~
~
~
,
C
~
\.J
.....:l
.....:l
c.,
~
~
o~
C
~
~
~
c
e
~
~
E
:E
tU
.c
cu
:0
.!B
.; .r;;
~ C
o 0
Cc
;U cu
s:: ~
o cu
Z6.
.-.
"C
~
=
.S
...
=
Q
U
'-'
M
~
~
=
<
Eo-
cu
.c
-
CO
.;;; cf!
.5 ~
~c
5~
cu-6
~ C
tU 0
- 5
S::.c
o u
-gca
tU cu
~.c
"0-
a 5
3~
e~
~"E
l!: 8
o cu
"0 '-
a.2
~s
~-
_ 0
u u
]~
~ .~
o cu
uz
S cU
~E
cu ~
.2 cu
O.c
OC:
u 0
.5 a
~.-
- '-
fjB
Z .5
coug
::Egsg
e ~ s
~ri5.g
cu "0
t.1.. ::s
<
C
tU
'-
:i 0
"~ E
a.. 0
aU ~
~~Ci5
~ jj ~
u'-~
o U 0
ti .!! 0
~.c~
~g-
~o
cU
on
"0
"C
.c
E
:E
tU
..c
cu
:0
.!B
.; .r;;
~ C
o 0
s:: _
;u 5
s:: ~
o cu
za
cu
..c
-~
~ 0
~~
5:5
"0 u
.~ '>
~-g
fIi tU
e~
~e
aU
uo
ucf!
l+:: tU
.0 ~
~ a
"000
c~
tU 0
"0-5
g ::s
~ 0
cu E
:;;;; cu
.~ ..c
0.-
>.5
.c 0
"Ocl::
B"O
tU cu
"5 "E
5 0
.g ~
~~
cu >.
.c tU
~co
5 8 e
_ ~ cu
t; .0 "0
~ C tU
t;e::E
~~~
o c 0
u~u
co
:E
~~~
e ~ s
~~.g
cu "0
t.1.. ::s
<
:i
-
~
o
r.., ";;
~~
.!:3 ~
~ 0.
~ ~
"~ U
~tU
..s "e
:i~
- .-
--
l::S tU
Q::U
-
t;
00
~~
.~
0-.
~...
~j~
E-~:
1-""1
l2- '~
~I
.~I
t]
~':"""l
r::1
r--"f
-
.!
:E
tU
..c
cu
:c
.!B
.; .r;;
~ c
o 0
c C
;u cu
c ~
o cu
za
cu
t::
~l!i8
.~ ~ ....
:; c ~
..c cu c
..6 ~
] ~
.~ ~ cl::
-g;g~
tU::S"O
~~A a
co ~ ~
8g~
~ ::s fIi
.0 .c "0
a '0 g
,-cC
~~"O
a g c
000::
~ cu
~-g:g
"0 cu
c~~
~~:E
cu u cu
~ "c.. ~.....:
~ucu
co~cf!
~>.cutU
~::"O~
5 ~ S c
cu5o~
cu"- '-
.5 a on 5~
t;~.so.
~~..c~
o "r;; on ~
';s:Ej
cu u ~ ~
- _ cu tU
.~ .!.: ~
t;:E6-~
~~~:E
<
:<
:0
C
cu
a.
a.
<
.5
"0
cu
~
;>
o
'-
a.
~
cu
"0
o
u
~
cu
.0
cu
a.
~
~
::s
ta
r;;
I
t;
"0
cu
a.
~
~
o
c
.9
ta
a
c..
:<
t.IJ
~
~
~
a..
~
a..
o
~
\..)
~
~
~
-
l::S
.u
(:)
~
~
~
e
l::S
~
t.IJt.IJ
t.1..U
s::
(:)
a..
;::s
~
E:::
]~
~~
cu
t..
.!:3
~
s::
\U
.c cu
E g
~::E
e -
o fj
{II i: ~
-;~
eo:C
e~ ~
all :::;: ~
~~::E
rI'J.
~
Q
o
U
rI'J.
;J
~
<
~
rI'J.
>-
<~
....
~>
.... ....
Q~
z....
~rI'J.
=-z
=-~
<:
o
:z
o
....
~
<
:z
<
....;;l
=-
~
~
.9
.~
=
e
]
13
g
2
c..
in~
~
t.t..
Cf.l
~
~
oS
.9
-=
o
. 60 ..-;
Cf.l..E13
= -a t.t...2 =
~~Cf.l.t:JB e
55~~~.!] g
ee>>Cd~r- 8
~ e c3 ,~ ~ '3 S -a
>~ .....,....Jrn~ ~
o~=-=co~e 8
~o.g~~.c~ ~tS
e=~13-Cf.l;j =<
~~t.t..t.t..13~~ ;j
1313~~t;;t.t..C:: 'a~
t.t.. t.t.. oS oS :.= Cf.l tIJ ~ ~
~.s ~E>'~~ ~ ~ r-
O -s~.t:J ~--B- ~"E
>. >. Q) 13 ~.- ~ .!=.-
E: ~ ~ tt!j'8 ~ .9 e ~ ~
< ~ g ;j ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ B
Z OOB"g..a ~ = 8.0 00 =
~ j ~ tIJ r-'~ ~ 0 5 c 6b
....,. '-J ~ rn rn'C;; - .... U g ~
00 =..c = = = . ~ c..~ ~
~tIJr-~~MB=o~~
""" ~ ~ ~ ~-~1:: ~BoS
.. 13 13 0 8. e ~ 8.'0 = ~
~ t;; t;; e 2.g ;j g. 8..~ ~
~ :.=;.: c.. c.. ~ U rn Cf.l 8 3
~ II II II II II II II II
Q
~g:t~~~u ~fg
~ t.t.. t.t.. - ~
~
~
o
~
~;jc
o.c~_
'E J:'8 5
~~Cf.l a
Cf.l 0 ~
_-00
c.2=a=
:a~i5:a8
:: ~ ~ ~ .-
~ c..'~ ~ b
~ ~ = aCf.l
aOz....J-
==~rn
.c .- ,- 0 ~
.~ e e ~ 0
t.t..c2c2=t.t..
czi;'::'=~czi
oo::)uuco::)
o II II II II II
ZCf.lOCf.l;:ECf.l
ts~Cs~....J~
<:guuco~
~
-=
~
:.a
a
o
rnM
= ~
~5'0
~ ~
~ -
au
13~
] a
ooM
~ ~ E
~ ~ 8
g ~ 5
~uu
=~~
= 0 0
~ ~.~
;:'=3
-= ;g c..
~ ._ Cf.l
:.aS~
a .~ '3
o 8 ~
-: 0 a
""" - 00
5'0 11 ~
B ~ ~
u 0 g
_Cf.l~
-=~a
\Q~~ ~
~~S
-~M
00':::' ~
ME-: 0
~ ~ ~
~--
t:~U
o ~ ei
rn = X
~uS
00 ~
Z ~
S ~
Eo- 1j
< =
Z 0
~ ~ ~
00 ':::'0
~ ~ ~
Q .Ms
>- ~ 8 13
[-4 ]]]
~ .!.! =
U = e e ~
o 'S ~ ~ :
00 c2-=-=-=
t.- .- U U ~
r:-' ";j 5 =-
Z u..- = =
< ~.5]].g'~
., ....- ~ ~.- ....
.. 'C 0 Of) Of) ~ .t:J
=- 0.5 a a ~ 'B
~ 'C >= ~ ~ .:::. .~
> ~ ~ 5 5 .~ ~
....,. ~ Q)~~~ Q)
Eo- ~ ~ a a .... .<;:::
<:.a~~~g]
Z~ ~~ ~~~
:s ~~~~~.c!l
z]]]]]]
=:0...0...0...0...0...0...
o
e::
.., ..<co
.. ---MM"l:t
< -;; en r;; 1;; tn Vi
U:3:3:3:3::3::3
=
00 .... ~.2
Z 0 ~~ =0
O ~~ 13 ~ ~ t.t..
~ 00 ~.e ~o
E- a Of)~ rnU
< : a= 8.s
Z .~ ]]
r~ -S tIJ t;; c2 E
'-I _ ~~ ~~
t;J g =8 ,S..9
.c .00= ='-J
~~.!.5 x ~ 5
Q o~.~s 1~
~ .s~~g ~~
~= oo=~~-as
~.-.~ .5 u . = 0 ~....
~ ~ c: .5.5 5;; "3 ~
'-I CS c.9 '0 00 ....C Q .cO ~
""" :.;; = ~ .g '6= 0 ~ rn.c!l
.. U'- = e ~ - . ~ =
Z ~ ~ ~ 8 g ~ oS .5 ~ ~
< ~ ~ ~ 13 c::'~.g u 6 ..g 0
= 3 u = ~ 8 ~ ~ 8 ~ '2 .g
~ ~ ~ 00 i -= ~ ~ .9 U .~ <
~ oS B .s ] '8 ~ -5 13 .s .c g
~ E S >.tIJ c..5 rn ~ ";j U
O Cf.l.t:J rnCf.l~ =~ >. . 8~
13 ~ ~ = ~ ,S .<;::: 'C;; .t:J .c!l - 0
.....OS Q) 000 0.t:J = ~ c:: ~ =
E- ~ >. 5.5 ~'B l! 8,9 ~.t:J.9
=- =.t:J .... t;;'- rn ..... 3 - ....
~~ ~~:: 8.~~ ~ s 8~;
Q&j~~c2Cf.l~~':::'13~8fr
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ .... 13.g = < = a
.,;l = = = ~ c: = (;~ BO'oS
~ 13 '3 ~ 0 c2 -S '~ ~ ~ tIJ = ~
t;; t;; ~ go;.: = ?1) ~..a U ~.~
.- .- ,- .... = ~ ~ = Eo- c:: r- ~
o ....J ....J ....J 0... U .... =.... .-
r.. II II
~ II II II II II II
~
< (.I.JO::Eo-tIJU*
UUUUO~
.5
~
~
"C
Q
U
=
I
~
I
~
~
U
~
oS c::-a
(; .9 M
~ ~ ~
Of) goo
~ c.. ...~
g ~,
~ 13 5
>. ~.::
1j 5 ~
~ ~8.
.~ ~8' ~ 0
13':: ~ c..
""~013
.E .~ 0 Q
'B -=::'B
~ = 0 ~
:.a~;g~"B
~.sa 0 >. 1::
a .- ~ 0
.~ -= Ob c..
~ c::"3'- ~
~ 0 c..':::' ....
.t:J .:: 0 ~ 8
~ [~c.2.g
= ..:3 e = ~
-a ~ ~ s ~
.~ .... M ~'':
~ 0 0 0'-
Eg""o-=~
~ ':: 13 .... -S Q)
0="O~~
.5 .5 l@.'s ~ 8
]~8]~~
o .... ~ ~ 3 a
~c.Sooc::=
:;_C::C::~=
.t:J.~ g g 0 ~
~C::33-~
I~Bgg--BS
'5 0:: 8. 0 0 ~ ~
II II II
0:::- MM C'o
<
0'
(.I.J
U
~
00
a ~
.... 00
.c!l a
.- ....
~.c!l
, c::'::
o ~
.- 0 ~
5 "6b.g
c..~8
13=gc::
U .5 -= ~
~]] =
5 ] ~ ~~
E ~ a a e
~O]]~
;jZt.LJ(.I.J,or:::;
] II II II II
-MMC'o
(.I.J
~
-::
.s-
::
~
:::
~
Q",
-
l:::
.~
~
~
::
~
~
~
'2
<:)
u
~
l:::
l:::
~
C'o
<
0'
tIJ
U
~
~
:::
l:::
CQ
.....
...
.~
-
~
~
u
:::::
l:::
~
i:
~
::s
~D
'. ti,
~Q
gC-)
=
's
~
";j
u
~
~
'C;;
:;
o
~
= =
~.- =
a e .~ '3
~ c.S c: 1(
.g~~~
.- = - c::
~ U = ~
rn ~ U ....
rn~o=
~.- .... =
- ~ 0""
c:: S g 's ~
.$2 e u ~ ~
:;~a]~
E,or:::;~tIJ~
.~ " " II "
-M('f")C'o
.....
I
~~
I ~ "
:rt.c
Ir---
()-
:~:7~
1"-.....
GU'i
~"'~1
~r~~
l"........;
H
t,L,.j
t-...,A
I' "l
~
...
:::
~
E
r..,
r..,
~
r..,
r..,
~
-
l:::
~
'bo
~
<:)
'6
;..
~
6-
e-.::;
u
~
~
r..,
~
...
l:::
.~
<:)
~
~
~
<:)
E
l:::
u
~
~
~
~
~ :
r",\~.
. - 0 '.
".:.\~ 0 .
, -< \.P --;..:
'. "~ '
"", '~"
..', ~ .:.....: .
C>:.'
I
,
,
I
~
:r~
to
.00
0,-
}-7'
.c.-;
E-; C}:...
t""~l
~.!
~"'-"~;
;"'-".1
"~'-1
h.N"'l
I'''',j
~-;:l /
}. '; i ,f /..' .~
j' /,"'.f:
,/ " , Ir L . : . ",!" !
/.,'" ')i,'., { . ,',i;:{1 :'11/' . : I,; < ~'. ,
.- . ,i./ ,. I ''.~I # . .,::. t
./' .- . " j' ~. / '.: I ' ( N ' .., '.I ;, .
-",:. .' .....' .'," )' I ~. I
,: :,~'~: .:.,./.-, ---- .' "),. i ,,!,J,. ~~ : .:' 'i ,. ! ::
. /-;!".-- . j.-- V)! I .' ,/; .
.'- -: -'- ..../'~ I "
-' , -.' - - ' x.- - Ii t.'!); , , :"/ :' :'
; I
;. ,I
~. "
;a ,
n i: ,
~. ,'y
~ ; .." i
' ; '. ' ; y i
! . .
. i , .
~-;..
, i
J
w
a:::
;:)
t!)
iL
..
=~
.at:
.. QI
J:c.c
_ 0 0
,2 ~]
1;,2i=
->-
QI ..
:...
>
j
I
" I
. i
;- J'
:; ~
l'... 'j ,
!':' i :,
'~<:;;i;.i
, .
~I~
-r~
I
i
,
, ;
0/
~. L i ·
J .
'-
'.
--.
,/'
",
'.
"
'\
,
\'
. . "
'"",~ ~...'. ", .~.. '.
',.': :-:.. , >.
'<....-~..',., .'."" .
'..', ,'. "..-
",
",
\'
,\
...~_..~.~7r
..'
...,
"'. .
.\.
\ .
\
'\ \ " .
" . .
.: I.
-J
-J
-,
J
EARTH SCIENCE CONSULTANTS
SOIL · FOUNDATION AND GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 3410/SAN RAFAEL/CALIFORNIA 94912-34101 (415) 383-0935
J
March 7, 1997
Job No. 973216
J
J
Irvin Taylor
611 Ridge Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
J
J
Geotechnical Investigation
Common Driveway and Two Proposed
Houses
Taylor Property
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Tiburon, California
1
-i
J
J
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the ,geotechnical investigation
we recently performed at the above site.
-,
I
;
We understand that it is desired to construct a relatively long
common driveway leading into the two proposed new house building
areas as shown on the Preliminary Improvement Plan prepared by.
J.L. Engineering dated May 21, 1996.
The purpose of our work was to perform a visual site observation
,.
and reconnaissance of exposed surface features, review existing
soil and geologic data of the area, log representative exploration
EXHIBIT NO. q
r ' l D~ l-g
]
]
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 2 - March 7, 1997
"
1
-
test borings and provide our opinion in the form of conclusions
and recommendations as they relate to our specialty field of
practice, geotechnical engineering.
..
Our scope of work only included the proposed new long driveway
area and the two proposed house building envelope areas and did
not include accessory areas such as sidewalks, porches, decks,
landscaping, garden and yard areas.
EXHIBIT NO. c;-
f. Z- ()~ 2%
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 3 - March 7, 1997
"
SITE CONDITIONS
The irregular shaped site is located adjacent to and northeast of
Sugar Loaf Drive as shown on the Site Location Map, Plate 1, and
Site Plan, Plate 2.
]
In general, the property is at natural grade and contour with most
of the two ridge top knoll area building envelope areas consisting
of grass and occasional brush ground cover with mature oak tree
and bay tree forests downslope. However, in the western portion
of the property beginning at Sugar Loaf Drive is an existing
concrete driveway leading to several existing neighboring upslope
houses to the south that appears to have been formed by older
previous cutting and filling. Leaving the existing common
concrete driveway after about 100 feet is an older rough graded
roadway up to about 7.5 feet in width that has been recently
covered with gravel. On the upslope side of the existing older
rough roadway, we observed a steeper cut slope up to about 7. feet
in height with a steep inclination varying from about 45 degrees
to 55 degrees that is much steeper than the current standard of
roadway cut construction and that locally exposes weathered schist
bedrock materials. With time, such older steeper roadway cut
slopes can locally achieve a more general angle of repose. On the
downslope side of the existing rough roadway, we observed an
apparent sliver fill slope up to about 6 feet in height with a
steep inclination up to about 40 degrees that also is much steeper
than the current standard of roadway fill construction of 2:1 and
is of probable lower or marginal stability with the fill materials
probably just pushed in without compaction, keying and benching.
-l
i
j
i
I
J
1
J
J'
J
]
J
1
]
1
The terrain in the central portions of the two ridge top knoll
building envelope areas varies from almost level to slightly to
]
]
E, -V-"!..T'f-g 1FT' I\T r'~ ~
Li...::-l--- _ - - '1 J.
f. 3 of ~
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 4 - March 7, 1997
gentlY sloping. However, as one proceeds downslope from the ridge
top knoll areas the terrain gradually increases in steepness up to
about 22 degrees to 27 degrees. The terrain at the downslope
portion of the new long driveway area is generally quite steep
varying from about 26 degrees to 33 degrees.
Observation of the geology map of the Tiburon Area prepared by
Salem Rice and Theodore Smith of the California Division of Mines
and Geology in 1976 indicates that the site is plotted as being
underlain by schist bedrock materials' of Jurassit-Cretaceous
Geologic Age (KJsch) that is described as semi-schist, phyllite
and schist, with associates metachert and metavolcanic rocks. No
plotted landslides are shown on the Geology Map at or adjacent to
this site.
Observation of the map of Interpretation of the Relative Slope
Stability of the Tiburon Area prepared by Salem Rice of the
California Division of Mines and Geology in 1976 indicates that
the ridge top knoll areas of the property are plotted as being
within Stability Zone 2, while other portions of the property are
plotted as being within Stabi 1 ity Zone 3,. Stabi 1 ity Zone 1 is
generally applied to flat to slightly sloping areas, Stability
Zone 2 is generally applied to slightly sloping to gently sloping
areas, Stability Zone 3 is applied to moderately sloping to more
steeply sloping areas, and Stability Zone 4 ;s generally applied
to possible landslide areas and areas of possible lower stability.
Observation of the Preliminary Photo Interpretation Map of
Landslide and Other Surficial Deposits of the San Quentin
Quadrangle prepared by T. Nilsen and V. Frizzell of the U.S.
Geological Survey in 1975 indicates that no plotted landslides are
shown at this site.
"'7'T!.J'T~-l rn -:'\ ,~'"' ~
L:~~1..!....:-'_ J. L~l ~,1.
1', L( of 2%'
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 5 - March 7, 1997
Observation of the Map of Locations of Major Slope Failures in
Marin County during the 1981-1982 winter compiled by C. Davenport
of the California Division of Mines and Geology in 1982 indicates
that no plotted landslides or mud flows occurred within this
property. However, a number of landslides and/or mud flows are
plotted to have occurred within the greater neighborhood area.
The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by exploration
test borings at the locations shown on the Site Plan, Plate 2.
Each test boring was logged by our geotechnical engineer who
recorded the various materials encountered. Logs of the test
borings are presented on Plates 3 through 13. The Unified Soil
Classification Chart which was used to describe the various
materials encountered is presented on Plate 14. Portable
exploration methods were used so as not to disturb the site during
the preplanning phase.
.
j
1
]
]
]
]
"]
Our investigation indicates that the proposed house building"
envelope areas are overlain with about 1.3 feet to 8.2 feet of
sandy, silty and locally clayey soil materials underlain by schist
bedrock materials that are generally closely fractured and highly
weathered to severely weathered that become gradually harder with
depth. Along the downslope side of the proposed long driveway
area, the amount of soil covered generally varied from about 6
feet to 8.7 feet below the existing ground surface.
.
In general, the site soil materials generally consist of sandy
silts (ML) and silty sands (SM) that do not appear to exhibit
expansive soil properties. However, in Test Boring 2 of the upper
house building area highly expansive soil materials were observed
as indicated by the results of a Uniform Building Code expansion
index test as shown on Plate 15 that revealed an expansion index
""i.1-----.,.."'lf""':-~ N -.. ~
II '( __~ . .,..! 1 ' · I : '.3 ~ /
":-;..;.~.l.J.._,-,-.t ..;. -v.
p, 5" tE 'l-){
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
J
J
J
J
]
]
J
]
J
J
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 6 - March 7, 1997
"
of 108 that is classified as high expansion potential. Also, Test
Boring 13 of the lower building area may have encountered
potentially expansive soils.
Expansive soils are generally clayey or silty soils that are
relatively sensitive to changes in moisture content. Expansive
soils can shrink and swell significant amounts with changes in
moisture content resulting in the uplift movement and cracking of
lightly loaded foundation elements, concrete slabs, and flexible
pavement areas. In addition, expansive soils may lose
considerable strength when wet, and moderately to heavily loaded
foundation elements may experience plastic nonrecoverable movement
each season.
At the time of our inv~stigation, we observed no evidence of
large-scale 1andsliding or other evidence of gross site
instability in the planned building area. However, it should be
noted that the site soils and the upper portions of the highly
weathered bedrock materials may be susceptible to n9rmal hillside
soil settlement and soil creep effects~ as commonly occurs on
almost all hillside locations. Also, along the downslope portion
of the central part of the long driveway, we observed apparent
surface evidence of a small surficial soil slide up to about 20 in
width and up to about 15 feet in length and varying from about
foot to 2.5 feet in apparent thickness. A moderate distance
downslope from Testing Boring 17 in an apparent bowl shaped
topographical area, we observed a moderately large area of
somewhat locally irregular surface topography in a mature oak tree
and bay t~ee forest that might be a possible older or ancient
slide area or due to the differential weathering of harder and
weaker bedrock materials. However, this area is well removed from
the house building envelope areas and also is removed from the
""T.,......~......~.~m ~ "';'.--~ ~
17' .~ "-.1 ~ -... .' j I \. 0'. -:J
. , . .' ~ . . __'';;'' _.. _......JI.
--- --- f~ '='~ L%
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 7 - March 7, 1997
J
J
J
J
]
driveway, and appears to be a natural feature in equilibrium that
should not influence the proposed development. Also, the steep
cut slope along the upslope side of the existing old rough graded
country. road could locally achieve a more angle of repose with
time and the downslope old steep fill slope ;s of probable lower
or marginal stability as is common for most older rough graded
road areas.
In a number of areas, we observed s'urface outcrops of hard sch; st
bedrock materials and also we observed occasional local surface
floater boulders.
]
]
]
]
]
]
1
1
1
p~rTT1"'T"".~m ""':\..... ...... ~
. I .t ~ J'.... 4.. :' ~ . 1 il
.....1-:.~-:-_:..___'..:.:.. ~a J. '. ':.....," .
PI7cEVI
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 8 - March 7, 1997
I'
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation, our
principal conclusions in the form of geotechnical engineering
opinions are as follows:
1. It is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible
from the geotechnical engineering standpoint if performed and
maintained in accordance with our recommendations.
J
2. The proposed house building areas and proposed long driveways
are underlain by about 1.3 feet to up to 8.7 feet of primarily
sandy silt and silty sand soil materials with some local sandy
clay soil materials present. In general, the site soil materials
do not appear to exhibit expansive soil properties, however, in
1 of the 21 test borings, we encountered highly expansive soil
materials and in another test boring in another portion of the
property we encountered potentially expansive soil materials.
-~
J
J
1
3. We recommend that in general the proposed development be
built to conform with the existing hillside grade as much as
practical, and cutting and filling generally be minimized as much
as practical so as not to upset the existing gross site
equilibrium.
J
1
1
4. We recommend that the proposed structures be placed upon a
relatively well-reinforced drilled pier and grade beam foundation
system designed to resist soil creep forces and bottoming well
into competent bedrock materials.
1
]
]
]
1[,'1~"T'f T~ '":"'rrl :'\. ~.-' ~
,"" ". . - ., . -, f _ I "' 1 1 a
~~~~~..:.:.._:.____'~ ._~. J.... '.~"'.
f, cg OE= ~
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 9 - March 7, 1997
5. The construction of the proposed long access driveway that is
located upon steeper hillside terrain will involve significantly
higher than average driveway construction costs as both the
downslope fill portion of the driveway and upslope cut slope
portion of the driveway will require engineered retaining walls
due to this steep terrain.
~
6. The site so;l mater;a1s are relatively loose and weak in the
upper portions, as is typical of most natural sites, and this
should be considered during the site development.
I
J
1
J
Specific recommendations are presented in the remainder of this
report.
J
J
]
]
]
]
]
]
1
-J
1
1!l"rT_TTp-:-rn ~"';- :u..... '5
.. . . f . ~ .~ . .1 ~ ~ I '\: ~
~_~....w.____ _ _ '. .
P. qCF~
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 10 - March 7, 1997
RECOMMENDATIONS
Develooment Scheme - We recommend that the proposed development be
planned, designed, constructed, and maintained so as not to impact
upon, or influence, or surcharge, or undermine, or in any way
influence adjacent land and development.
We recommend that in general the proposed development be built to
conform with the existing hillside grade as much as practical, and
qutting and filling generally be minimized as much as practical so
as not to upset the existing gross site equilibrium.
I
i
.J
Where cuts are made, they generally should be fully retained with
engineered retaining walls.
J
...
I
J
Unretained cut slopes remove lateral support from upslope areas
and thus result in a degree of slope steeper than the natural
long-term angle of repose of the hillside that increases the risk
of sliding.
]
]
J
J
J
J
J
-1
Fill slopes may surcharge the hillside area with greater weight
and thus increase the driving forces upon the hillside, resulting
in a lower degree of hillside stability.
,
J
Grading also disturbs the natural site ground cover and vegetation
which results in accelerated erosion and sloughing and also
usually changes natural drainage patterns.
From many years of geoteChnical engineering experience in Northern
California, we have observed that generally the larger the amount
of site grading that occurs within a project, the greater the risk
of long-term problems including sloughing, sliding, erosion and
maintenance.
-::-1--'T'.........~-.. ---. -... -- .-.. S-
F" ">, r'-~ ;. [,,' " , (I I: \ ~ ~
~L.~L~.:..-'.!- ,t ..!. '.; '-J.
p, 10 ~ czg'
IL
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 11 - March 7, 1997
Therefore, we feel that it is important to keep the site grading
at this project to an absolute minimum. Of course, we realize
that some grading will be required in order to provide the
driveway and parking area. However, the driveway and parking area
should be so located that the amount of cutting and filling
generally can be kept to a minimum.
~
with the proposed long access driveway, due to the steep terrain
generally retaining walls will be required for the upslope cut and
downslope fill. The only locations where conventional 2:1 fill
slopes will be suitable will be in areas of slightlY sloping to
gently sloping terrain upon and near the ridge top knoll areas
where adequate keying and benching into stable materials can be
performed. In areas where 1:1 fill slopes are desired and where
the terrain and subsurface conditions will allow adequate keying
and benching into stable materials, then such steeper than normal
fill slopes would have to be reinforced with geogrid fill
materials similar to that shown on Plate 20.
J
]
J
J
J
J
]
]
1
]
1
r-~~~'T-T-;T.?7'Tll"T~ C-
~L..:-:_~':'._..:':"'.!:.. 1.....; ~........ -:J
f. \l ~U
-
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 12 - March 7, 1997
House-GaraQe BuildinQ Envelooe Areas - On the Site Plan, Plate 2,
we have indicated two house-garage building envelope areas. Our
geotechnical engineering recommendations and foundation
recommendations are based on the assumption that the proposed new
residential development will be confined to the two indicated
building envelope ~reas. However, if it is desired to construct
outside of the indicated building envelope areas, then it will be
necessary for us to perform additional ~ubsurface exploration and
provide supplemental geotechnical engineering recommendations as
the recommendations as provided in this report are only for the
areas within the indicated building envelope areas. It is our
opinion that the residential construction most likely can occur
outside of the indicated building envelope areas, but due to the
generally steep terrain outside of the building envelope areas, we
wil' have to confirm the anticipated subsurface conditions and
make appropriate supplemental geotechnical engineering
recommendations.
-----....~"'..,....--: ";> -- 5
~ " '.1 ;-. _ t ~ i..! ~ r r I i 1 ~ 1
.J....:.:,L-=-..J:...J...~-"...:....t 1. -,; .J.
f, I 2.. DF 2%
J
]
]
]
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 13 - March 7, 1997
House and GaraQe Foundations - We recommend that the proposed
structures be placed upon a relatively well-reinforced drilled
pier and grade beam foundation system designed to resist soil
creep forces and bottoming well into competent bedrock materials.
J
J
]
Wood joist floors should be used.
]
]
]
]
Minimum recommended foundation details are shown on Plates 16 and
17. However, the actual house foundation details will have to be
determined by your structural civil engineer with our
consultation.
All drilled piers should extend at least 6 feet below a 2:1 line
(horizontal to vertical) below the lowest adjacent cut slope and
below the lowest adjacent toe of retaining wall area so as to
provide adequate lateral confinement for the drilled piers.
]
]
]
]
]
1
1
1
All piers should be poured promptly after drilling, and care.
should be taken that the pier holes are straight and no
mushrooming or overbreak occurs at the top of the pier holes, as
mushroomed pier holes expose horizontal areas to potential adverse
expansive soil uplift effects.
If the drilled piers are not promptly poured after they are
drilled, then the contractor and owner will have to accept that
interference with or deterioration of the skin friction between
the pier and earth materials may occur and the drilled piers
foundation capacity could be adversely influenced.
Of the 21 representative exploration test borings drilled in the
building envelope areas and driveway alignment, only Test Boring 2
in the upper house building envelope area encountered expansive
-';--:"'" -.... --.....-'" -,...,...... -:;. ....,!"'.. e-
ll: )~j.-}.} ,} .:,' l.'. ~_ ~ J.,! ~...} . ----/_
~, '3 bF~
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 14 - March 7, 1997
]
soils of high expansion potential and Test Boring 13 in the lower
building envelope area encountered soils of possible expansive
potential. However, in the interest of prudence, because the site
soil materials at other locations miqht exhibit medium expansive
soil properties. we recommend that the drilled pier and qrade beam
foundations be desiqned to resist at least medium expansive soil
conditions. Therefore. we recommend that the bottoms of the qrade
beams be desiqned for a vertical uplift pressure of 1.500 pounds
per square foot. We also recommend that prior to the pourinq of
the qrade beams. the underlyinq soils be thorouqhlY soaked. and
saturated. and kept in a very wet condition for at least 48 hours
prior to the concrete pour so that the underly;nq medium expansive
soils are in a fullY swelled and exoanded condition. The soecial
moisture conditioninq requirement should be shown plainly on the
foundation plan in very larqe print so as to be easily read by the
foundation contractor.
4
\
I
--J
j
J
J
]
In areas where obviouslY hiqhlY expansive soil materials are
oresent. we would recommend that all qrade beams should be
underlain by at least 4 inches of low-crush strenqth void form
type material such as Burke Void. Nelson Void. Verticel void
forminq cardboard. or other low-crush strenqth porous cardboard
type material commonly used for expansive soils that will allow
the expansive soils to swell and heave upward without affecting
the above qrade beams.
]
]
]
]
]
It ;s also very important that the tops of the pier holes are not
allowed to mushroom. However, in the field it is frequently
difficult. to prevent some mushrooming. If any mushrooming of the
tops of the piers occur, then this could be mitigated by placing a
sono-tube cardboard form for the upper 6-inches to 12-inches of
the pier hole and/or where the pier is mushroomed so as not to
create a mushroomed overflow condition. If any of the poured pier
-]
]
l~]~IISI~ I-~{).2-
-]
P r J <-( DF zg
-
.J
...
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 15 - March 7, 1997
..
....J
holes are mushroomed, then the contractor with a small hand shovel
must manually remove the soil materials beneath the mushroom
portion of the pier top so as to create a 4-inch minimum void.
-J
..
~
J
Occasional hard cobbles and/or boulders were encountered in the
exploration borings and/or observed at the surface. T~erefore,
during construction we anticipate that locally hard and difficult
drilling could be encountered and special drilling procedures
could be required, including the use of a gad or boulder buster,
or special drilling bits or coring buckets, or other heavy-duty
drilling equipment and techniques and procedures.
..J
~
I
i
.J
]
]
In localized areas of deeper cut excavations where competent
bedrock materials are encountered, spread footing foundations
probably may be utilized. They may be designed for total design
load end bearing capacities not to exceed 3,000 pounds per square
foot. The soil engineer should observe the drilling of pier holes
and determine actual pier depths in the field. Those areas ~here
spread footings may be used shall be specifically determined in
the field by the soil engineer.
]
]
-
J
j
]
In the following two sections of this report, we have provided
drill pier foundation recommendations for two foundation zones as
shown on the Site Plan, Plate 2. Foundation Zone I is a medium
strengthed drilled pier and grade beam foundation system for most
of the bui)ding envelope area. However, Foundation Zone II is for
those areas where the terrain is very steep and/or where the
amount of 50;1 material ;s greater.
]
]
]
]
--....."......,,--. T T~ ~
Ti' 'OJ .. ~ ~ F" t I ~ 1 \ ';. 1 ---=.l-
l~[.:..J.1..~..._>- 00- "'- . ..... ·
]
p, tS DP 7%
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
J
J
]
]
]
J
J
J
]
J
j
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 16 - March 7, 1997
Foundation Zone I. Medium Drilled Piers - Foundation Zone I is for
the majority of the proposed house building areas where the
terrain is not excessively steep and/or where the amount of so;l
cover is not great.
Wood joist floors should be used.
Minimum recommended foundation details are shown on Plate 16.
However, the actual house foundation details will have to be
determined by your structural civil engineer with our
consultation.
The drilled piers should be at least 16 inches in diameter and
drilled at least 6 feet into harder and competent well-confined
bedrock mat~rials.
For vertical loading, only the portion of the drilled pier within
the underlying bedrock materials should be counted in design-
calculations. The portion of the drilled pier within the bedrock
may be designed for total design loads pf 800 pounds per square
foot, skin friction.
The drilled piers should also be designed for lateral soil creep
forces of at least 50 pounds per cubic foot, equivalent fluid
weight, acting upon the top 5 feet of the piers upon 2 pier
diameters.
The portion of the drilled piers within the underlying bedrock may
be assumed to provide a design passive lateral resistance of 400
pounds per cubic foot, equivalent fluid weight, acting upon-2 pier
diameters.
-----...-..-...-m r -0 c
L~~J~.Ll.},L',rJ ~ \J .---L-
p, f06F 2%
-
1
]
]
]
J
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
1
!tl; .
'~'.
1
~;,;
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 17 - March 7, 1997
"
For resistance to transitory lateral loads such as wind or
seismic, the soil materials may be assumed to provide a lateral
passive resistance of 100 pounds per cubic foot, equivalent fluid
weight, acting upon 1.5 pier diameters with the top 1 foot of the
soil materials neglected. This value may be increased to 400
pounds per cubic foot, equivalent fluid weight, acting upon 2 pier
diameters, once the surface of the underlying bedrock is reached.
For vertical uplift loading, a value of 400 pounds per square
foot, skin friction, may be used only for the portion of the
drilled pier within the underlying bedrock. No downward or upward
vertical load design allowance should be allowed for the portion
of the drilled pier within the soil zone.
All drilled piers should be tied together in the upslope-downslope
direction.
p.~"'7.J-TTrr~ T171 T:' G), C
_.:.:L:.-:.._:..!:....!.--'._...~ .~... _,~ ~,-l'. ../
p~ 17 of 2-~
--- ---...-
-
I
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 18 - March 7, 1997
Foundation Zone II. Heavier Drilled Piers - Foundation Zone II is
for those portions of the building envelope area where the terrain
is quite steep and/or the amount of soil cover is greater.
Wood joist floors should be used.
Minimum recommended foundation details are shown on Plate 17.
However, the actual house foundation details will have to be
determined by your structural civil engineer with our
consultation.
-,
The drilled piers should be at least 18 inches in diameter and
drilled at least 8 feet into harder and competent well-confined
bedrock materials.
I
~
-,
I
..
For vertical, loading, only the portion of the dri lled pier within
the underlying bedrock materials should be counted in design
calculations. The portion of the drilled pier within the bedrock
may be designed for total design loads of 800 pounds per square
foot, skin friction.
The drilled piers should also be designed for lateral soil creep
forces of at least 50 pounds per cubic foot, equivalent fluid
weight, acting upon the top 7 feet of the piers upon 2 pier
diameters.
l
J
The portion of the drilled piers within the underlying bedrock may
be assumed to provide a design passive lateral resistance of 400
pounds per cubic foot, equivalent fluid weight, acting upon 2 pier
diameters.
]
1
I
I
..
]
J
~:oo~>;c'r--..""'" ._~, ... -,,- L
J~~L~. r.~.~l.J~.~_',~.' 1"'~~).....:.L-
p ~ (g OF U
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
1
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 19 - March 7, 1997
For resistance to transitory lateral loads such as wind or
seismic, the soil materials may be assumed to provide a lateral
passive resistance of 100 pounds per cubic foot, equivalent fluid
weight, acting upon 1.5 pier diameters with the top 1 foot of the
soil materials neglected. This value may be increased to 400
pounds per cubic foot, equivalent fluid weight, acting upon 2 pier
diameters, once the surface of the underlying bedrock is reached.
For vertical uplift loading, a value of 400 pounds per square
foot, skin friction, may be used only for the portion of the
drilled pier within the underlying bedrock. No downward or upward
vertical load design allowance should be allowed for the portion
of the drilled pier within the soil zone.
All drilled piers should be connected with grade beams in both the
upslope-downslope direction and the side-to-side direction.
T~~}~,:rl~L~.rJ~ I'TC}.~
p( (q DPm
1
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 20 - March 7, 1997
1
Reta;n;nq Walls - Generally, all permanent cut slopes should be
fully retained with engineered retaining walls. The retaining
walls should extend to the top of the cut slope area, plus provide
at least 6 inches of freeboard. Not extending the retaining walls
to the top of the cut slope and beyond the original ground slope
surface could result in future erosion, sloughing or sliding.
1
J
J
J
In areas of level backslope, retaining walls should be designed
for a lateral earth pressure of 45 pounds per cubic foot,
equivalent fluid weight. In areas with a 3:1 backslope
(horizontal to ve~tical), retaining walls should be designed for a
lateral earth pressure of 50 pounds per cubic foot, equivalent
fluid weight. In areas where the retaining wall backslope is 2:1,
then the retaining walls should be designed for a lateral earth
pressure of 60 pounds per cubic foot, equivalent fluid weight. In
areas where the lower part of the retaining wall is in reasonably
competent bedrock, then the portion of the retaining wall within
the underlying bedrock may be designed for a lateral earth
pressure of 30 pounds per cubic foot, equivalent fluid weight.
All retaining walls should be provided with back subdra;ns similar
to that shown on Appendix 2.
J
]
J
]
]
]
The previously indicated lateral earth pressure retaining wall
design values may be used in a triangular distribution if the top
of the retaining wall can accept and tolerate slight deflection.
However, if the retaining wall top is restrained and cannot accept
deflection, then the trapezoidal lateral earth pressure as
indicated on Plate 18 should be used.
J
J
]
All retaining wall footings should bottom in competent, well-
confined bedrock materials as determined by the soil engineer. In
areas where competent, well-confined bedrock materials are not
present, drilled piers will be required to support the retaining
wall footings.
1
-1
-1
1 ~'~,'~ :~rf~ ~rL~'~, I~C 1--:'(1'._~
p. 20 oF Z%'
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 21 - March 7, 1997
Where retaining walls are supported upon drilled piers, the
portion of the drilled piers within the underlying bedrock
materials may be designed for a passive pressure resistance of 400
pounds per cubic foot, equivalent fluid weight, acting upon 2 pier
diameters.
a
In localized areas of deeper cut excavations where competent
bedrock materials are encountered, spread footing foundations
probably may be utilized. They may be designed for total design
load end bearing capacities not to exceed 3,000 pounds per square
foot. The soil engineer should observe the drilling of pier holes
and determine actual pier depths in the fi.eld. Those areas where
spread footings may be used shall be specifically determined ;n
the field by the so;l engineer.
I
..J
1
1
1
1
1
]
1
]
The footings of the walls may be designed for a passive pressure
of about 400 pounds per cubic foot, equivalent fluid weight, and a
coefficient of sliding friction of about 0.35. However, due. to
variations in subsurface conditions, these values may be modified
by the soil engineer during construction. All footings should be
cleaned of all loose materials prior to, the concrete pour.
]
..
i
I
J
If good retaining wall performance is desired, such as in
habitable portions of the structure, then such retaining walls
should be very carefully waterproofed.
y:.~,~rTLL]~,~~:-:: I.~ :=J. A)
p.. 2( of?K
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 22 - March 7, 1997
1
Driveway Construction - Most of the terrain at the location of the
proposed long access driveway is quite steep with an inclination
of 30 degrees and locally steeper. Thus, it would be physically
impossible to construct conventional 2:1 (26.5 degree) cut slopes
and fill slopes when the hillside terrain is steeper than the
maximum allowed by the code. Also, conventional cut slopes would
remove lateral support from upslope terrain and with time would
likely experience periodic sloughing and sliding. Also, the
downslope fill slopes would surcharge the existing hillside
surficial soil materials that could result in future instability.
Therefore, it our recommendation that in general the proposed
access driveway cut slopes and fill slopes be fully retained with
engineered retaining walls. The downslope retaining wall that
supports the fill portion of the driveway will have to be placed
upon a deeper and well-reinforced drilled pier and grade beam
foundation system gaining its support from the underlying bedrock
materials. The presence of up to about 8.7 feet of soil materials
in some areas will require that the drilled piers be very well-
reinforced to withstand lateral soil creep effects as well as the
lateral earth pressure arising from the backfill and surcharge
load i ng due to heavy construct ion traff,ic such a~ concrete trucks.
Thus, a combination of steep slopes, long driveway length, deeper
accumulations of hillside soil materials and the fact that heavy
construction vehicles will have to use the driveway, we believe
the driveway construction costs will be significantly greater than
an ordinary and average driveway.
1
If the downslope fill portion of the driveway retaining wall
supports the site soil materials with level backslope, then a
lateral earth pressure of 45 pounds per cubic foot, equivalent
fluid weight, can be used. However, if the wall was backfilled
with, 3/4 inch or larger drain rock, then a lateral earth pressure
1
1
1
1
E:~x'r.~'~~.:.~1~:~'~: ~'~:=j.. ~
p, 1-2- of i8'
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 23 - March 7, 1997
of 30 pounds per cubic foot, equivalent fluid weight, could be
used. However, these wall lateral pressure design values will
have to be increased to allow for heavy construction traffic wheel
loading such as a fully loaded concrete truck.
Along the upslope side of the new driveway, the new cut will have
to be retained with a retaining wall designed for a lateral earth
pressure of 60 pounds per cubic foot, equivalent fluid weight.
So as to help lessen the bending moment loading upon the downslope
retaining wall piers, the driveway concrete pavement could be
designed as a structural reinforced tie back element tying the top
portion of the driveway fill retaining wall back to the drilled
piers that support the upslope cut retaining wall where lateral
bearing from the underlying bedrock materials will be quite
shallow depending upon the depth of the cut. On Plate 19, we have
provided a generalized schematic possible driveway wall detail.
All retaining walls should be provided with frequent weep holes
and at least 12 inches of drain rock sqas to pr~vent the build up
of hydrostatic pressure. For the driveway retaining walls, we
would recommend against the use of solid walls with perforated
plastic pipe, and instead try to recreate natural sheet flow and
avoid concentrated drainage that is an important objective so as
not to upset the existing hillside equilibrium.
]
]
I ~':.:~t'r r.:~L'. TJ: 1,~'Cf-. __~?
-..-.-.-.. f~ 2.-.3 or zg
]
]
]
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 24 - March 7, 1997
!
l
J
Concrete Slabs and Expansive Soils - For habitable portions of the
house, we recommend that wood joist floors be used. However, in
garage areas, concrete slab on grade floors may be necessary. In
Appendix C-1 we have provided recommendations for concrete floors
where expansive soils are not present and in Appendix C we have
provided recommendations for where expansive soils are present.
Where expansive soils are not present and where a structural floor
slab is necessary, then the recommendations as provided on C-2
should be followed. Where expansive soils are present, a
structural slab should not be used due to the high uplift forces
associated with expansive soils.
]
]
]
l
..
Also, an appropriate trench-type collector subdrain, about 12
inches in depth and 12 inches in width and sloped 2% to drain,
should be constructed beneath the floor slab to provide further
protection against the buildup of hydrostatic pressures beneath
the floor slab.
]
In 19 of 21 test borings, we did not observe expansive soil
materials. However, in Test Boring 2,'highly expansive soil
materials were observed and in Test Boring 13, potentially or
possibly expansive soil materials were observed.
~
l
..J
]
]
l
.
1-~~.~-'~.~'{~~~',I7: ITC~e. Ii
p. 24: cF zg
]
..
..
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 25 - March 7, 1997
..
-
Draina~e - At this site, we recommend that the site drainage
waters arising from new impervious surfaces, as well as
intercepted drainage waters flowing from upslope, be very well
dispersed and not concentrated. During the great storm of January
4, 1982, further to the northwest on the downslope side of Sugar
Loaf Drive, a landslide occurred in the outer portion of the
roadway fill area and underlying colluvial soil materials that
flowed downslope in the form of a mud flow-debris avalanche. This
event is described as Incident No. 79 in the publication entitled
"An Analysis of Slope Failures in Marin County Resulting from the
January 3 and 4, 1982 Storm" prepared by C.W. Davenport of the
California Division of Mines and Geology in 1984 as Open File
Report 84-22SF.
-
-
-
-
-
-
The cause of the Sugar Loaf Drive slide-mud flow was probably a
combination of the great amount of rainfall, the presence of
roadway fill materials resting upon weaker natural surficial soil
materials and the apparent collection of a significant portion of
roadway drainage that was collected and discharged at the location
of the slide-mud flow. So as to avoid the preconditions that
ultimately resulted in the 1982 above described slide-mud flow, we
are recommending that the driveway fill slopes and all other fill
slopes in steeper terrain be fully retained on the downhill side
with deeper drilled pier supported retaining walls extending well
into the underlying bedrock materials. We are also recommending
that site drainage waters be very well dispersed and not
concentrated. For the proposed houses and parking areas, we
believe reasonably good surface water dispersal can be achieved by
the use of a surface manifold dispersal pipe similar to that shown
on Appendix 1.1. However, the greatest amount of interference
with the existing natural drainage patterns and the greatest
amount of new and impervious surfaces will be due to the presence
-
-
--I
]
-J
]
]
l
1
]
,--
]I~~~~I III~~. I'T: I ,~.':=r . ~
r, /;.5 DP Z,~
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 26 - March 7, 1997
I,
of the long access driveway. For the driveway, we recommend that
the upslope and downslope retaining walls be provided with gravel
subdrains and frequently placed weep holes and perforated drain
pipes should not be used so that the underground seepage waters
seep out uniformly along the entire length of the driveway area
where retaining walls are present. However, subsurface waters
seeping from a subdrain are of much smaller volume than surface
waters and therefore surface waters will require special
attention.
One possible approach with respect to surface waters would be to
construct the new driveway retaining wall such that surface waters
flowing from upslope will be able to pass through the top of the
wall by frequently placed open drainage holes (3 feet) and
similarily on the downslope side of the driveway, the retaining
wall curb should be provided with very frequent drainage holes
(3 feet) so that the surface run~off waters will flow off in a
relatively uniform manner and not be concentrated. We would
recommend and advise against the conventional method of concrete
lined v-ditches along the top of the retaining wall and catch
basins periodically within the driveway discharging at a small
number of locations upon the natural hillside area as potentially
concentrating surface run-off waters in an unnatural manner and
creating a higher risk for landslides.
In Appendix 1 we have provided our standard drainage
recommendations for hillside construction for your review.
~~~~~:~-=.~i~_-~;r T:"C:. ~
f; 2~ oP7~
]
J
]
J
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
J
,J
]
]
]
]
]
]
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 27 - March 7, 1997
Seismicity and Earthauake Hazards - Review of the State of
California Division of Mines and Geology "Fault Map of California"
indicates that the site is located about 8 miles west of the
Hayward Fault zone and about 9 miles east of the San Andreas Fault
zone, which experienced great movement in 1906.
Therefore, it is our opinion that the site could be subjected to
strong earthquake vibrations at least once during its useful life.
We recommend that all structural, architectural and mechanical
details be designed to resist earthquake ground shaking. The
design engineer should emphasize the principles of continuity,
ductility and high energy absorption.
We trust this report provides the information you require. Please
call if you have further questions.
The following are attached and complete this report:
Plate - Site Location Map
Plate 2 - Site Plan
Plates 3 through 13 - Logs of Exploration
Plate 14 - Soil Classification Chart
Plate 15 - Expansion Test Results
Plates 16 and 17 - Foundation Details
Plate 18 - Rigid Wall Pressure
Plate 19 - Triangular Wall Details
Plate 20 - Geogrid Fill Details
Appendix 1 - Site Drainage
Appendix 1.1 - Surface Manifold Dispersal Pipe
Appendix 2 - Subdrain Details
Appendix 3 - Wall Surcharge Details
Appendix 3.1 - House Appendages
2~~~:J~~=~~~~~?~~'I 1':- f) . S
p~ 7,7 oF~~
J
J
J
J
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
94 Sugar Loaf Drive
Page 28 - March 7, 1997
Appendix 4 - Fill Placement
Appendix 4.1 - Hillside Fill Details
Appendix 4.2 - Fill and Cut Slope Maintenance
Appendix 4.3 - Existing Older Cut and Fill Slope Maintenance
Appendix 5 - Effect Upon Adjacent Land
Appendix 6 - Construction Safety
Appendix 7.1 - Wind Loading
Appendix 8 - Land Maintenance
Append i x 8. 1 . - Earth But tress Deta i 1 s
Appendix 9 - Limitations
Appendix 10 - Construction Observation
Appendix A - General Recommendations, Risks, Material Notes,
Responsibility, Limitations and Related Items
Appendix B - Section 832, California Civil Code
Appendix C - Concrete Slabs (Expansive Soils)
Appendix C1 and C2 - Concrete Floor Slabs (Non-expansive Soils)
Appendix G - General Foundation Notes
Appendix H - Hillside Site Filling
Appendix I - Nuisance and Liability for Land Condition
Appendix N - Neighboring and Natural Liability
Appendix R - Rainfall Required for Sliding
Appendix S - Sidewalks, Curbs, Patios, Etc.
Appendix U - Utility Trench Erosion Control
Appendix V - Vegetation and Erosion Control
s very truly,
SCIENCE CONSULTANTS
. Nelson
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
Civil Engineer - 19738, expires
Geotechnical Engineer 630
2 copies submitted
._..___~-~~__,_....-.: ? -r-. C
~~:.j ~ ' ; ; _:l_'~:..' .L < ,'.j. 7
---_...- ...----. ft ~<iS DP Lf(
II
,
,
-
,
,
,
.
.
(
,
(
(
,
.
(
I
I
(
TREE PRESERVATION REPORT
Regarding Trees on Proposed Taylor Family Residential Development
Located at 94 Sugar Loaf Drive, Tiburon CA.
August 17, 1998
RECEIVED
TOWN OF TtBURON
AUG 1 7 1998
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT
PREPARED FOR:
J. L. Engineering
1539 Fourth Street, Suite A
San Rafael, CA 94901
AT THE REQUEST OF:
The Taylor Family
Tiburon, CA '
BY:
Kenneth W. Allen
Consulting Arbor1st
75 Frances Avenue
Larkspur, CA 94939
Tel: (415) 925-0418
Fax: (415) 925-0938
Registered Consulting Arborist, no. 374
Certified Arborist, no. WC1384
E:'ITTIBIT I\TO. (p
1. {~24
-
~
~
.
1
~
.
.
I
.
I
I
I
i
I
I
~
CONTENTS
REPORT SYNOPS IS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · · . · . · · · . . · 1
PURPOSE OF REPORT......................................... 1
LIMITATIONS OF REPORT..................................... 1
INTRODUCT I ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . . · · . · . . . · . . . . . · . · 2
TREE INVENTORY: OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR PRESERVATION OR REMOVAL................... . . . . . . · . . · . .3
Criteria Used in the Inventory.......................3
Tree Inventory....................................... 6
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION
OF TREES WHICH ARE TO BE PRESERVED.......................14
EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED IN REPORT......................21
REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
SITE PLAN................................................. 2 4
EX::II"P.IT NO. to
. P , 2, ciP 2,,(,
I
Taylor FaliIy Residential Developaent: J. L. Engineering
Page 1
I
REPORT SYNOPSIS
I
There are 29 trees on site which will be affected by the
proposed construction. Of these trees, 8 are recommended
for preservation and 21 are recommended for removal.
Recommendations are provided for protection of trees to be
preserved. Reasons are given for recommendations for
removal. The trees are represented numerically by the
following species:
I
I
18 California coast live oaks (Quercus aqrifolia).
I
10 California bays (Umbellularia californica).
1 Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara).
I
II
PURPOSE OF REPORT
IJ
The purpose of this report is to provide information and
recommendations relative to the preservation of designated
trees during and after the proposed development project.
Trees which are suitable for preservation are identified and
recommendations are provided for their protection. Trees
which are unsuitable for preservation are also identified
and recommendations are made for their removal.
IJ
IJ
I]
As requested by J. L. Engineering, only those trees are
addressed which require a permit by the City of Tiburon.
The report identifies and provides information for all trees
on the site which require a permit for protection,
alteration or removal. The report meets all requirements as
they are specified in the Tiburon Municipal Code Chapter
15A: Trees.
II
I
.
LIMITATIONS OF REPORT
I
This report is limited exclusively to the purposes as stated
above. Any other considerations regarding the subject trees
or any other trees on site are beyond the scope of this
report.
I
Root collars covered by soil have not been excavated and
inspected. The condition of such root collars is,
therefore, unknown.
I
.
Kenneth V. Allen: Consulting Arborist
""l7\ "':" ".-r- -"'-""1") -r-;, l\. TO },.
.G2il-1L~:,l.l. l',<! . \II
August 17, 1998
r3oF2&
--
.
I
I
,
Taylor Fallly Residential Developaent: J. L. Engineering
hqe 2
All tree inspections have been made from ground level. No
trees have been climbed to carry out a more thorough aerial
inspection.
Root collar and aerial inspections are available upon
request.
INTRODUCTION
.
The project which is proposed for this site is the
development of two single family residences and a shared
driveway for access. The site is located on a hilly slope
overlooking the San Francisco Bay. The homes are to be
constructed on areas of grassland which are surrounded
primarily by mixed evergreen forest. There is another
residence on the adjacent property immediately to the
southeast. There are also other residences visible within
the immediate vicinity.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
On July 7, 1998 I met on site with Jay Hallberg of J. L.
Engineering and George Salvagio of Pedersen Associates,
Landscape Architecture for an initial inspection of the site
and of the trees in question. On July 28 I returned to the
site with Mr. Hallberg for a more detailed inspection. All
field data in this report was gathered on those 2 dates and
is based on my inspection of the trees, on site plans and on
information supplied by Mr. Hallberg regarding details of
design and construction.
Kenneth W. Allen: Consulting Arborist
~....~ -...... 1">. ~.:..... /
";'"""\-=-"r}' ~ :..~ ?'i' I"~. \0
1.'~2v~1:_li_.~_.'.t .~. - ~~ ~ ·
p, Lf CPZ~
August 17, 1998
"
Taylor Faaily Residential Developaent: J. L. Engineering
Page 3
.
TREE INVENTORY:
I
Observations and Recommendations for Preservation or Removal
.
Criteria Used in the Inventory:
.
The City of Tiburon has developed a set of criteria relative
to which decisions can be made regarding a tree's
suitability for preservation. The criteria help to
determine not only whether a tree will survive during the
construction process but whether it will continue to thrive
as a healthy, structurally sound specimen well after
construction has been completed. The information and
recommendations in this inventory are given in a format
which adheres to the set of criteria which Tiburon has
developed. The criteria are as follows:
.
.
.
1. Observations:
.
A. Location of tree as designated on site plan (at
end of report.)
.
I
Note: Location is important not only in terms of
whether a tree is located within the
perimeter of a structure, driveway,
excavation site or grade change. Its
proximity to such features relative to its
species, size and condition are also of
importance. The following factors should be
kept in mind: '
I
I
(1) For most trees, roots extend out from
the trunk 1 1/2 to 3 times the radius of
the dripline. Most roots grow within
the upper 18 inches of soil. Cutting
roots during excavation diminishes the
tree's ability to absorb water and
nutrients and opens it to disease
pathogens.
I
.
I
t
t,
(2) Lowering the grade within a tree's
root zone requires cutting roots.
Raising the grade diminishes the amount
of water and oxygen which is available
to the roots and which is necessary to
the tree's proper functioning and
survival.
.
lenneth V. Allen: Consulting Arborist
-? :.~-':T7~ ~'f1 rJ IO t -
-_-...~----_.-...,- - -.....- -, .~
August 17, 1998
PI 5" CF 2{p
.
Taylor FaliIy Residential Developaent: J. L. Engineering
Page 4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
'1
(3) Compacting the soil within the root zone
affects roots in much the same way that
raising the grade does. It also
physically impedes the growth of roots
and limits their ability to adequately
exploit the soil's resources.
B. Species.
Note: Some species are generally considered more
valuable in the landscape than others. Also,
some species tolerate construction activities
better than others.
C. Trunk circumference as measured at 24 in. above
ground level (unless otherwise designated).
Note: On the site plan, trunk diameters are given
rather than circumferences.
D. Height.
E. Ultimate height at maturity (as given by the Sunset
Western Garden Book) and growth rate.
Note: All designated trees are one of the following
three species:
(1) California coast live oak. Ultimate
height: 20 - 70 ft., Growth rate: fast
to moderate.
(2) California bay. Ultimate height:
20 - 75 ft. Growth rate: moderate.
(3) Deodar cedar. Ultimate height: 80 ft.
Growth rate: fast.
2. Recommendation for preservation or removal. Each
recommendation is based on the following factors.
A. Location of tree relative to construction
activities.
B. Overall condition of tree.
Kenneth V. Allen: Consulting Arborist
-.-;t "":"\" "-r~ 7rT'! T- ~ l-"". f -
b-,', ~- IJ...:'::.:.L :A~ ~ .. 'f'I
p. fD>~ ~
August 17, 1998
--
.;
.
I
I
I
-
!aylor 'alily Residential Developaent: J. L. !ngineering
Page 5
Note: The following factors are included:
(1) Health.
(2) Structure.
(3) Age. Younger trees are more capable of
adjusting to injury and to changes in
their environment than are older trees.
C. Degree of hazard presented by tree.
j
j
j
j
j
t
t
j
.
.
.
J
.
.
D. Protected or unprotected status of tree as
designated by the City of Tiburon.
Kenneth V. Allen: Consulting Arborist
1!'i'"\T1:TTPT,.., ~ TO (p
.L:JL.:Lt.1.~..~JlJ.1.. l-'c~ I .
August 17, 1998
1~ 7 ~ 2.(p
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
I
I
I
.
.
.
.
I
Taylor Faally Residential Developaent: J. L. Engineering
Page 6
Tree Inventory:
1. Coast live oak:
A. Trunk circumference: 38 in.
B. Height: 18 ft.
c. Located within perimeter of proposed driveway.
D. Recommendation: Remove.
2. Coast live oak:
A. Trunk circumference: 47 in.
B. Height: 24 ft.
C. Condition: Good.
D. Located 5 ft. from proposed 4 ft. high driveway
retaining wall. Overhangs proposed driveway.
E. Recommendation: Remove. Inadequate space (above
and below ground) for growth and survival.
The owner may want to preserve this tree. If so, a
Tree Protection Zone will have to be designat~d for
it. Additionally, the consulting arborist should be
on site to monitor all excavation which takes place
within a radial distance from the tree of 5 times
its trunk circumference (19 ft. 7 in.). The crown
should be pruned to clear the retaining wall and
driveway. It should be recognized that problems
with health and structural integrity may develop in
future years. The condition of the tree should be
further assessed after construction has been
completed and recommendations should be made at that
time for its continued maintenance.
3. Coast live oak:
A. Trunk circumference: 47 in.
B. Height: 24 ft.
C. Condition: Good.
D. Located 2 ft. from proposed 4 ft. high driveway
retaining wall. Overhangs proposed driveway.
Kenneth W. Allen: Consulting Arbor1st
:: : ~={-:II~~ IT I~J~). Co
f, R DP ~
August 17, 1998
I
Taylor lalily Residential Developaent: J. L. Engineering
Page 7
I
E. Recommendation: Remove. Inadequate space (above
and below ground) for growth and survival.
I
4. California bay:
I
'A. Trunk circumference: 226 in.
B. Height: 60 ft.
I
I
C. Condition: Extremely poor. Heavily infected with
basal rot (Ganoderma applanatum). Note: The tree's
crown appears comparatively healthy. This is no
indication of the serious disease problem at the
base.
I
D. Hazardous tree.
I
E. Located 2 ft. from proposed 7 ft. high driveway
retaining wall. Heavily overhangs proposed
driveway. Adjacent to utility pole supporting high
power lines.
I
F. Recommendation: Remove.
I
5. California bay:
A. Trunk circumference: 113 in.
I
B. Height: 50 ft.
I
C. Located within perimeter of proposed driveway.
D. Recommendation: Remove.
I
6. California bay:
I
A. Trunk circumference: 132 in.
B. Height: 55 ft.
I
C. Located 3 ft. from proposed 10 ft. high driveway
retaining wall.
I
E. Recommendation: Remove. Inadequate space (above
and below ground) for growth and survival.
I
7. California bay:
A. Trunk circumference: 25 in.
I
Kenneth V. Allen: Consulting Arborist
T;i~.Tr..TTPTrf1 1-:..TO 0
~..a:.:.L:!-.;:.!...~..~.t - ~ ·
~~ q or;; b0
August 17, 1998
I
.
Taylor Falily Residential Developaent: J. L. Engineering
Page 8
-
B. Height: 10 ft.
I
C. Located within perimeter of proposed driveway and
fire truck turn out.
.
D. Recommendation: Remove.
.
8. California bay:
A. Trunk circumference: 25 in.
I
.
B. Height: 12 ft.
C. Located within perimeter of proposed driveway and
fire truck turn out.
D. Recommendation: Remove.
I
9. California bay:
.
A. Trunk circumference: 19 in.
.
B. Height: 24 ft.
C. Located within perimeter of proposed driveway and
fire truck turn out.
I
D. Recommendation: Remove.
.
10. Coast live oak:
A. Trunk circumference: 47 in.
I
B. Height: 16 ft.
I
C. Located within perimeter of proposed driveway and
fire truck turn out.
D. Recommendation: Remove.
.
11. California bay:
.
A. Trunk circumference: 57 in.
.
.
I
B. Height: 20 ft.
C. Located within perimeter of proposed driveway and
fire truck turn out.
Kenneth W. Allen: Consulting lrborist
..,....., - -""'" _.~-:-.. ~m ~ .... 0 ((J
~~~ ~/~'."I ~ ;-~J.i t .t":,i: '.
-~.._--~_.. - --. i 4 (0 of UP
August 17, 1998
.
I
Taylor 'alily Residential Developaent: J. L. Bngineering
Page 9
"
D. Recommendation: Remove.
I
.
12. California bay:
A. Trunk circumference: 69 in.
.
B. Height: 45 ft.
.
t
c. Condition: Poor. Root and basal disease suspected,
possibly basal rot (Ganoderma applanatum). One
small area of decay visible at base.
D. Located 12 ft. from proposed 10 ft. high driveway
retaining wall. Overhangs proposed driveway.
.
.
E. Recommendation: Remove. Proximity to construction
activities and major environmental changes will
probably result in accelerated decline in health and
structural stability in the future.
13. Deodar cedar:
.
A. Trunk circumference: 19 in.
B. Height: 10 ft.
.
C. Located within perimeter of proposed driveway.
D. Recommendation: Remove.
.
14. Coast live oak:
.
A. Trunk circumference: 47 1n.
B. Height: 18 ft.
.
C. Located 2 ft. from proposed 10 ft. high driveway
retaining wall. Overhangs proposed driveway.
.
D. Recommendation: Remove. Inadequate space (above
and below ground) for growth and survival.
.
15. California bay:
.
A. Trunk circumference: 38 in.
B. Height: 16 ft.
I
Kenneth V. Allen: Consulting Arborlst
Tj''1!T_TrpTm 1--J{) (p
.t-:L~-::...L._;_"..:. J. )_-'1 ~-....J.
P, tl OF UP
August 17, 1998
.
I
Taylor Falily Residential Developaent: J. L. Engineering
Page 10
"
I
C. Located within perimeter of proposed house.
I
D. Recommendation: Remove.
I
16. Coast live oak:
A. Trunk circumference: 19 in.
I
B. Height: 12 ft.
c. Located 1 ft. from proposed house foundation.
I
I
D. Recommendation: Remove. Inadequate space (above
and below ground) for growth and survival.
~j
17. California bay:
I
A. Trunk circumference: 75 in. below main fork.
B. Height: 20 ft.
.
c. Condition: Very poor. Heavily infected with
basal rot (Ganoderma applanatum). Potentially
hazardous.
.
D. Recommendation: Remove.
.
18. Coast live oak:
I
A. Trunk circumference: 38 in.
B. Height: 18 ft.
I
C. Located within perimeter of proposed house.
~
1
D. Recommendation: Remove.
I
19. Coast live oak:
.
A. Trunk circumference: 57 in.
B. Height: 16 ft.
.
c. Located within perimeter of proposed house.
I
D. Recommendation: Remove.
.
Kenneth V. Allen: Consulting lrborist
-:,.-,-rr---~-:"rr ? -:-:J- I -
11 '\' ~, . ~ , . _,. A I " . .' tV
~--,":'0:l.':.:-'-'- - p ~ " ',i DF 2,(P
August 17, 1998
.
I
Taylor Faaily Residential Developaent: J. L. Engineering
Page 11
I
20. Coast live oak:
,
A. Trunk circumference: 44 in.
B. Height: 18 ft.
I
C. Condition: Good.
I
D. Recommendation: Preserve. Prune to clear the
proposed deck.
I
21. Coast live oak:
A. Trunk circumference: 19 in.
I
B. Height: 10 ft.
C. Condition: Good.
I
D. Recommendation: Preserve. Prune to clear the
proposed deck.
I
22. Coast live oak:
I
A. Trunk circumference: 25 in.
I
B. Height: 12 ft.
C. Condition: Good.
I
D. Recommendation: Preserve. Prune to clear the
proposed deck.
I
23. Coast live oak:
I
A. Trunk circumference: 31 in.
B. Height: 12 ft.
I
C. Located 4 ft. from proposed deck. Leans heavily
over proposed deck.
D. Recommendation: Remove. Inadequate space for
growth and survival.
I
I
I
Kenneth V. Allen: Consnlting Arborist
~za"'"l'.:r~~-m "'^ -0 ( A
~L' ~ ~1.l::.1.! !\.j.: .~
y; l~ Of uP
Angast 17, 1998
I
.
.
.
Taylor FaIlly Residential Developaent: J. L. Engineering
Page 12
I,
24. Coast live oak:
A. Trunk circumference: 75 in.
B. Height: 20 ft.
.
C. Condition: Good.
.
D. Recommendation: Preserve. Prune to clear proposed
driveway.
.
.
25. Coast live oak:
A. Trunk circumference: 44 in.
~
B. Height: 18 ft.
C. Condition: Good.
.
.
.
D. Recommendation: Preserve. Prune to clear proposed
driveway.
26. Coast live oak:
A. Trunk circumference: 38 in.
B. Height: 16 ft.
I
C. Condition: Good.
.
t
D. Recommendation: Preserve. Prupe to clear proposed
driveway.
27. Coast live oak:
~
1
A. Trunk circumference: 57 in.
.
.
B. Height: 18 ft.
C. Condition: Good.
D. Recommendation: Preserve. Prune to clear proposed
garage.
.
I
28. Coast live oak:
A. Trunk circumference: 50 in.
B. Height: 18 ft.
.
Kenneth V. Allen: Consulting Arborist
"G"~"7:.i~T7""~Trj1 ~ "7'0 I -
..:-:_~~-.I.:.~'..J.. .1. 1'~1' . If)
~ c Ilf C)P Uo
August 17, 1998
t
I
Taylor FaJily Residential Developaent: J. L. IDgineering
Page 13
.
C. Condition: Good.
.
D. Recommendation: Preserve. Prune to clear proposed
garage.
.
29. Coast live oak:
.
A. Trunk circumference: 25 in. below union of multiple
stems.
.
.
B. Height: 12 ft.
C. Located within perimeter of proposed garage.
D. Recommendation: Remove.
.
.
.
.
.
.
;t
1
.
.
.
.
.
Kenneth V. Allen: Consulting Arborist
1i--"'-~-m "?>......() .-1a-
~ w :. ~ '" ~,.""."1 . I .~: '.
.. ._ I". \0
,i . . ',\ " "'! . '.:' J t'l 'oJ.
----.....------- - -- -
.
· 1>.. l5 of ~Co
August 17, 1998
.
.
,
-
-
,
.
I
.
.
.
I
.
I
.
I
Taylor Falil! Residential Developaent: J. L. Engineering
Page 14
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF TREES
WHICH ARE TO BE PRESERVED
1 . GENERAL RECOMMENDA T IONS:
A. Prior to construction, excavation, qradinq, clearinq
or any other work on the site: .
(1) The root crowns of all trees should be cleared
of all soil, duff and debris to expose the
trees' root flares. If this requires soil
excavation around the bases of trees, hand
tools should be used and care should be taken
not to injure the trunk, roots or bark.
Excavation should extend to a minimal distance
of 3 ft. away from the trunk and should include
a drainage outlet from the resulting depression
if possible. After the excavation has been
completed, root collars should be inspected for
health and structural integrity by the
consulting arborist.
,
(2) Tree Protection Zones:
To prevent damage to a tree's roots, trunk and
crown and to minimize soil disturbance within
the area where its roots are growing, a Tree
Protection Zone should be petermine9 for each
tree.
Wherever possible, the perimeter of the Tree
Protection Zone should be determined by the
tree's dripline or by a radial distance from
the trunk of 5 times its trunk circumference,
whichever extends further out from the trunk on
any given side. Because of the practical
requirements of construction, however, Tree
Protection Zones of these dimensions cannot be
provided for all trees on this site.
~
"1
The perimeters of Tree Protection Zones in
areas where construction activities limit their
locations will be marked by Tree Protection
Fences and are designated on the site plan.
I
.
I
Kenneth V. Allen: Consulting Arborist
~~_~~~~. = ~~~~_~ =~-~: I" -~':=~ . ~ ~
:P, {0 of z.~
August 17, 1998
,
.
,
.
raflor Falilf Residential Developaent: J. L. Engineering
Page 15
.
.
(3) Tree protection fences 4 ft. high anchored by
metal posts should be erected along designated
portions of the perimeter of each Tree
Protection Zone. Chain link fencing is
recommended but slat and wire, plastic mesh or
an equivalent is acceptable.
.
.
"Do Not Enter" signs in both English and
Spanish should be posted every 25 ft. on all
sides. The fences should remain in place until
all construction and other work activities have
been completed.
.
The fences should be erected along all portions
of Tree Protection Zone perimeters which face
construction activities. They should be
located as close to the activities as possible
while still allowing a reasonable amount of
room for work to proceed. However, fences
should be located no further away than 3 ft.
from the boundaries of structures, retaining
walls driveways or any other design features or
construction activities shown on the enclosed
site plan which border on Tree Protection
Zones.
1
f
.
.
.
.
The fences should be erected along that half of
the perimeter of the Tree Protection Zone which
is facing the construction activities. The
half which faces away from construction can be
left open. If infringement on Tree Protection
Zones becomes problematic during construction,
however, the fences should be extended to
enclose the entire perimeters. For most trees
on this site, the fences will join to form a
continuous line facing the construction zone.
.
.
The location of tree protection fences are
designated on the site plan.
.
.
(4) Any tree trunk which is within 3 ft. of a
fenceline should be further protected. Its
trunk and any branches which are vulnerable to
being damaged should be wrapped with a
combination of several layers of burlap
overlaid by slat and wire fencing or other such
protective covering to prevent its bark from
being injured by passing workers or vehicles.
.
.
.
.~~:'~--....-...._-- '-",--'7 ---. -..-',
~. !
~
.~ t____
P, 17 of Z-b
August 17, 1998
.
Kenneth V. Allen: Consulting. Arborist
.
Taylor FaliIy Residential Developaent: J. L. Bngineering
Page 16
.
(5) If branches hang low enough to be struck by
vehicles or equipment, highly visible warning
signs should be installed.
.
.
.
(6) Tree Pruning:
(a) All designated trees which are to be
preserved should be pruned as specified in
the tree inventory.
(b) Additionally:
.
b-1 Remove any dead or otherwise
undesirable branches larger than 1/2
in. in diameter (commonly referred to
as n crown cleaning").
,
'"
.
.
b-2 Remove all lower branches ("crown
raising") to a height at which 1/4 of
the tree's foliage has been removed.
Do not raise the crown of any tree
more than 10 ft. above ground level,
however.
.
.
b-3 While working in the crown, the tree
worker should inspect all aerial
portions of the tree to identify any
problems not readily visible from
ground level.
.
a
(c) All tree pruning should be completed
before construction commences.
.
(d) All pruning should be' S,upervised by an
I.S.A. (International Society of
Arboriculture) certified arborist. If
possible, the arborist should be on site
during all pruning operations and field
work should be performed either by the
arborist or by certified tree workers.
\li
1
.
.
.
.
.
I
(e) All pruning should conform to the
following standards and guidelines:
e-1 American National Standard for Tree
Care Operations: Tree, Shrubs and
Other Woody Plant Maintenance -
Standard Practices (ANSI A300)
(1995). American National Standards
Institute. New York.
lenneth V. Allen: Consulting Arborist
-:-;;--. ;--'-.. .'--~ -:-~ ;- -: ('"', Co
------- - -' ." - -- .......,# ..-----
P ~ l <6 cF z,(p
August 17, 1998
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
Taylor lalily Residential Developaent: J. L. Engineering
Page 17
e-2 International Society of
Arboriculture: Tree-Pruninq
Guidelines (1995). International
Society of Arboriculture, Savoy,
Illinois.
e-3 American National Standard for Tree
Care Operations: Pruninq, Trimminq,
Repairinq, Maintaininq, and Removinq
Trees, and Cuttinq Brush - Safety
Requirements (ANSI ZI33.1) (1994).
American National Standards
Institute. New York.
(7) All persons of authority on this project should
review and have access to a copy of this
report. All workers should be informed of tree
protection measures which pertain to their
activities.
~
B. Durinq construction or any other work activities:
(1) As soon as a road has been constructed which
will allow truck access, a layer of organic
mulch such as wood chips should be spread over
the surface of all Tree Protection Zones to a
depth of 4 to 8 inches.
(2) Existing plans specify that all downhill
retaining walls for the driveway will be of a
pier and grade beam construction and that
excavation will be required only for the piers.
.
~
.
.
~
t
Wherever piers are to be located within a
radius of 5 times the trunk circumference of
any tree, the top 18 inches of the hole
required for the pier should be dug by hand
before excavation continues with a mechanical
auger. Care should be taken not to damage the
roots or their bark during the hand digging
operation. If roots larger than 2 in. in
diameter are encountered, the hole should be
re-filled and the pier should be relocated to
one side or the other. Roots smaller than 2
in. in diameter may be cut. They should be cut
with a sharp pruning tool such as a hand saw or
bypass pruner. The cuts should be clean and
smooth, leaving wood and bark without cracks,
rips or tears.
~
Kenneth V. Allen: Consulting lrborist
~'~~~~~~~:~'~~,-:,=7~. -;':'=;'.__~ August 17, 1998
YI (C( of Z0
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
-
~~~.~ '.~'. ",'
Taylor FaJily Residential Developaent: J. L. Engineering
Page 18
If it is impossible to find a location which is
adequately free of roots, the consulting
arborist should make an on site reassessment of
the suitability for preservation of the tree
which is being affected.
(3) Restrictions within Tree Protection Zones:
(a) No excavation should be carried out other
than for root collar excavation.
At present there are no precise
designations on the plans for the location
of utility trenches or excavation sites of
any kind within Tree Protection Zones
other than those mentioned in this report.
When such plans are available they should
be submitted to the consulting arborist
for approval. Often, digging or trenching
operations are carried out which do not
appear on plans until the last minute or
which do not appear at all. Such
operations can seriously injure or kill
trees which otherwise have been adequately
protected. All digging and trenching
within a radius of 5 times the trunk
circumference of any tree should require
prior arboricultural review.
,
(b) The grade should neither be raised not
lowered.
(c) To avoid soil compactiqn, there should be
no vehicular or foot traffic and no
vehicles should be parked.
(d) No structures should be erected and no
materials should be stored.
~
'1
(e) No liquids or powders of any kind (other
than clean, clear water free of all
residues) should be poured onto the soil.
Nor should such substances be allowed to
drain or otherwise move onto or into the
soil from outside the Tree Protection
Zone.
(4) If concrete mixing trucks are required, they
Kenneth V. Allen: Consulting Arborist
~:--' ~-~ '-- ;.--- --r~ ~. ':'-', {jJ
---,~------- -. -"~-- August 17,1998
pc 7,0 cF liP
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
\
raylor Fallly Residential Developaent: J. L. Engineering
Page 19
should not be washed down anywhere on the site
or at any location where the rinse will drain
onto the site.
(5) If tree roots larger than 2 in. in diameter
are encountered while excavating outside Tree
Protection Zones, they should be cut with a
sharp pruning tool such as a hand saw or bypass
pruner. The cuts should be clean and smooth,
leaving wood and bark without cracks, rips or
tears.
(6) Care should be taken not to injure or bruise
the trunks or branches of trees or their bark
in any way. Nails, spikes, tacks, screws or
staples should never be driven into trunks or
branches. With the exception of tree
protection materials, nothing should be wrapped
around trunks or branches: this includes ropes,
strings, hoses, wires, cables and cordage of
any kind.
,
(7) A buildup of dust and pollution should not be
allowed on the foliage; it interferes with
photosynthesis and transpiration. To prevent
this, the foliage should be thoroughly sprayed
with water at least every 6 weeks or every 6
weeks after the last hard rain. (This service
can be provided by pest control companies or by
commercial tree care companies which offer pest
control services.)
(8) No fires or operation of equipment with an open
flame should be allowed beneath the crown of
any tree or close enough to it to scorch or
damage it in any way.
.iI
~
(9) If trees are damaged during construction, the
consulting arborist should be informed of the
nature and extent of the damage as soon as
possible in order to make timely
recommendations for remedial treatments.
(10) It is recommended that periodic inspections be
made by the consulting arborist during the
construction period to monitor the condition
of the trees and, where necessary, to make
lenneth V. Allen: Consulting Arborist
~::~~:_~--~~'-~~~~.:~:~.~ ~T"). ~
Pi 2-l OF 21.0
August 17, 1998
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
farlor ralily Residential Developaent: J. L. Engineering
Page 20
"
further recommendations for their continued
preservation.
c. After construction is completed: It is recommended
that an inspection should be made by the consulting
arborist to assess the trees' health and structural
stability, to evaluate their new environment and to
make recommendations for their continued
preservation.
,
.~
Kenneth V. Allen: Consulting Arborist
l~=-==II"~~IT I'T{). (p August 17, 1998
Pi ~ Wl,(P
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
t
.
~
.
.
Taylor Faaily Residential Developaent: J. L. Engineering
Page 21
"
EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED IN REPORT
BYPASS PRUNER: A pruning tool with a blade which cuts by
closely overlapping a metal hook to which it is hinged.
(Also called a hook and blade pruning tool.)
CROWN: The portion of a tree which includes all of its
leaves, branches and that section of its trunk which begins
at the lowest branch and extends to the top.
CROWN CLEANING: The removal of unwanted watersprouts, stubs
and dead, dying, weak, diseased and broken branches from a
tree's crown.
,
CROWN RAISING: The removal of lower branches from a tree,
usually to provide clearance.
DRIPLINE: The dripline is the boundary on the soil surface
delineated by the branch spread of the tree.
GRADE: Ground level. Soil surface.
ROOT COLLAR: The root collar is at the base of a tree where
its trunk begins to flare outward into the main roots. With
few exceptions, the root collar should be visible at soil
level. (Also called the root crown.)
PHOTOSYNTHESIS: The process by which a plant supplies its
own nutritional needs by chemically combining carbon dioxide
and water in the presence of energy given off by sunlight.
For most trees, photosynthesis takes place primarily in the
leaves.
~
~
ROOT ZONE: The area of soil in which the roots of a tree
are growing. For most established, mature trees the root
zone extends out from the trunk 1'1/2 to 3 times the radius
of its dripline.
STEM: A dominant, usually vertically growing, woody portion
of a tree. Stems are also called trunks, leaders, boles or
spars.
Kenneth W. Allen: Consulting Arborist
~==~~~i=~~=-.~ = ,~"',.=-- 0___(0_
,; 1.3 of2JP
August 17, 1998
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
t
,
t
*
,
,
,
t
Taylor Vaaily Residential DevelopJent: J. L. IDgineering
Page 22
TRANSPIRATION: The evaporative loss of water from a plant.
Mostly through the leaves. Necessary for a tree's survival.
TREE PROTECTION ZONE: An area a~ound a tree which is
dedicated to its protection and preservation. Wherever
possible, the perimete~ of the Tree Protection Zone should
be determined by the 'tree's dripline or by a radial distance
from the trunk of 5 times its trunk circumference, whichever
extends further out from the trunk on any given side.
Because of the practical requirements of construction,
however, Tree Protection Zones of these dimensions cannot be
provided for all trees on this site. The perimeters of Tree
Protection Zones in areas where construction activities
limit their locations are marked by tree protection fences
and are designated on the site plan.
,
,
lenneth V. Allen: Consulting Arborist
~~TI=ITNO. b
~I~~~
August 17, 1998
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
t
,
t
*
,
I
,
I
Taylor 'alily Residential Developaent: J. L. Engineering
Page 23
I.
REFERENCES
American National Standards Institute. (1995). American
National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree. Shrubs and
Other WoodY Plant Maintenance - Standard Practices (ANSI
A300). American National Standards Institute, New York.
American National Standards Institute. (1994). American
National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Pruninq.
Trimminq. Repairinq. Maintaininq. and Removinq Trees, and
Cuttinq Brush - Safety ReQUirements (ANSI Z133.1) American
National Standards Institute, New York.
1
Harris, R.W. (1992). Arboriculture: Inteqrated Manaqement
of Landscape Trees. Shrubs and Vines. Second Edition.
Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey.
International Society of Arboriculture. (1995).
International Society of Arboriculture: Tree-Pruninq
Guidelines. International Society of Arboriculture, Savoy,
Illinois.
Matheny, Nelda P. and Clark, James R. (1994).
Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. Second Edition.
Society of Arboriculture, Savoy, IL., U.S.A.
Evaluation of
International
Matheny, Nelda P. and Clark, James R. (1998). Trees and
Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees
Durinq Land Development. International Society of
Arboriculture, Savoy, IL., U.S.A.
j
"
Watson, Gary W. and Neely, Dan (1994). The Landscape below
Ground. International Society of Arboriculture, Savoy,
Illinois.
Watson, Gary W. and Neely, Dan (1995). Trees and Buildinq
Sites. International Society of Arboriculture, Savoy,
Illinois.
Kenneth V. Allen: Consulting Arborist
~~'~~~:-~--,~-.-~:=:~; IT::.).~
f, 'Lc; cFL& August 17,1998
_#
./
_/
~
/..~
It;;....
~
~
/ ,/
,..--
.-,,'
,.-....
/'
''-.,
O~~b
:=- ~ .CJ: ~.~-
:-;',r./f
..,::=::::- -' -
//-" ~' ~
~e-/l~ ~_.- :,
,_\T~ F--E- . '- - : '
. \ P<<att:CTlON.
~""FENUS -,
".
""
/
i I
; I
/ . r
tr;:/ f-~~.~..,,<
; , , " ,I,!
- /'''__'"' Ii: i
I;' t
/ / .... ~
I f )\
_ I ( t \
-/ I ! \
;/j'~ ;i . /) \
~ / .f
. /. .
- .I ./
/".~ .r
~0 --/>/~
'/~
.> .t:'00t.
~-Cl&o: ,no, -
; l2"r.....: !lev.-00I:
~ .....~ &0,.
:;u.;. . "(:"0..
:<-4"~
.1:!"'Scoi: Cli:M
1~'- p~ ioy
.If:';"...... Boy
r"""
#-/",,-
.....,
".
~r ~-= &0,.
;"'2[l"r~ 84; or_ 60y
I 0 . .1::"BD-
l~ Cl z:;Fcnrec: r-
1~7-"" 8"0:.. t:-so", ~Do' .
...... ,ee.
"
., s-e.
:------
.'8"8ay
~&oJ
..'2"&0,
l!"c-
S'C_'
0
~'Bo! f50r
., t'"!Ioy
\ - '2'~ o~ 50)
'-- .
1!'"lu1. ~
:::;y
\11- t =- c,.; 0
!>'......... ~
. 'I:r c.o. .
.~.0cJ,. .'!'O.:...
, 'Z*0alr.
,
-~
---..._-
e"eeOar
-r,-;""" ;-~ -:-7-~~' -:; r7"~"",,' I
_~:_~...:_...:.~....:. ~_ LT"=>._ (0
f c 'l-& or 2- {o
J. L. EN(;INEE~IN(;
C I V I L
LAND
SURVEYING
ENGINEERING
June 22, 1998
Dan M. Watrous, Senior Planner
Town of Tiburon
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
.---- ~ ~ ~-- -- ~l
1539 Fourth Street, Suite -A-
San Rafael, Ca 94901
Ph: (415) 457-6647
Fax: (415) 457-2517
-"" ~ .. __ '''' L ......
2 ')' 'iSS:~~
. ,.
... ....,...._...,'.~~ L __~-_\'.. ....-.-.
ph; 435-7393
fax: 435-2438
Re: Response to Letter of Incompleteness
Taylor Residence Precise Development Plan
94 SugarLoaf Dr., Tiburon
Dear Dan M. Watrous:
The following is an itemized response to your letter of incompleteness dated April 21, 1998:
t
1. The plans have been revised to show the approximate alignment of the "Significant Ridge"
other than that of Sugarloaf Ridge itself which is represented by the roadway centerline of SugarLoaf
Dr.. The location of the new access roadway roughly follows this other ridge line and is very limited
due to difficult terrain other than along the ridge.
2. The 2 proposed residential structures are located at a greater distance than 300 ft. from the
existing residences situated along SugarLoaf Dr.
The nearest neighboring residential structure is off of Heathcliff Dr. on A.P. #58-281-07 which
is approx. 80 ft. toward the south from the Parcel Two proposed garage and is buffered by an irregular
shaped parcel of non-developable land known as "Park and PUE". This "Park and PUE" Parcel of Land
is located adjacent and along the rear of those properties along SugarLoaf Dr. and provides a direct
separation from the Taylor Residential Parcel One & Two being all downslope of SugarLoaf Dr.
Besides the "Park and PUE" Parcel, all other properties are existing residences
( within 300 ft.).
The following table identifies certain characteristics of each parcel:
Parcel One:
Lot Area= 8.4 Acres (367,487 sJ.)
Building Setback Distances: 25 ft. southeast front yard setback limit
100 ft. or greater all other sideyard setbacks limit
31,000 square ft. (8.5% of Lot Area)
30 ft. or less
15 ft. or less
40 percent
Easterly View toward San Pablo Bay
i
1
Building Envelop Area:
Main Building Height:
Garage Building Height:
A verage percentage slope:
Principal View:
Parcel TWO:
Lot Area= 2.3 Acres (99,739sJ.)
Building Setback Distances: 15 ft. southerly setback limit
40 ft. or greater all other sideyard setback limits
18,000 square ft. (18% of Lot Area)
30 ft. or less
15 ft. or less
40 percent
Easterly View toward San Pablo Bay
"
EXHIBIT NO.
f, l ()F S-
Building Envelop Area:
Main Building Height:
Garage Building Height:
Average percentage slope:
Principal View:
15.
. 16.
17.
18.
3.
Grading on this site is being designed to provide a balance material on the site with no export of
grading material anticipated to be off-hauled from the site.
The Resource Conservation Map and Report has been prepared by Sycamore Associates and is a
part of the submittal.
Erosion and Siltation Control Plan (Preliminary) has been noted appropriately in the General
Notes for "Winterization and Erosion Control".
An Arborist's report will be submitted via separate cover to address potential impacts of these
proposed improvements.
Transportation analysis should not be necessary beyond the limits of this property. Regardless,
on-site circulation provides for sufficient fire turnout and turn-around as required by the fire
dept. Also, the upper Parcel Two parking court will remain useful as a staging area for
construction equipment for the greater duration of this project.
See Response Item 2.
Maintenance of all shared facilities shall be shared equally by each property owner and such
shared facilities are intended to be constructed within a dedicated easement for access and
utility purposes. The current existing access and utility easement will be modified to conform
with the approved final improvement plans prior to building occupancy. No additional
division of this property is intended.
"In-Lieu" fees are anticipated to be paid in conformance with the Town's Inclusionary Housing
Policy.
All Utilities are to be underground as shown on the development plans for these two single
family residential parcels and shall be within a common easement as shown on the plans.
Sanitary Sewers shall be pumped up to SugarLoaf Dr. Storm Drainage shall be collected and
dispersed on site as shown on the plans. Electrical, gas, cable TV, Telecommunications, all are
to be as is normally serviced by PG&E, TCI, Pacific Bell, MMWD, etc.
Sanitary sewer facilities will be underground and pumped up to the districts mainline located
in Sugarloaf Dr. Storm Water is to be dispersed on site as shown on the plans or as revised per
the final approved plans. Water is to be served by MMWD with a main line extension to
provide fire protection and domestic water service.
The title report for each parcel is attached and part of this submittal. Easements are
appropriately described within the title report and shown on the "Record of Survey Lot Line
Adjustment" Map thereto attached.
Besides the overall engineered improvement plans, a soils report has been prepared by Earth
Science Consultants which clearly states that this improvement plan and property
development is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint.
This development project will require that the driveway improvements be completed first
along with the utilities before wood framing is raised. Foundations will most likely be started
during the process of driveway construction or as soon after as possible., The residence located on
Parcel One is to be scheduled first for construction with the framing and finishing of the
residence on Parcel Two to be last on the schedule. ExcavatiOn and foundation construction of
the residence on Lot Two will most likely coincide with the roadway construction as it will
provide a staging area for vehicles.
No areas at present are planned for dedicated to other parties and since there only exists two
parties with responsibilities for roadway maintenance, it is the intention of these owners to
share such maintenance expenses evenly associated with common facilities.
Required Permits: Tiburon Building Permit
Tiburon Sewer Sanitary District No.5 connection
tvfl\1WD Main Extension
Environmental Data Submission Form ( See Attachment)
,
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
,
11.
12.
13.
14.
EXHIBIT NO.1
f. Z<rrs-
Environmental Data Submission Form
A. 1. David & Janet Goodman-Taylor
9 Inverness Dr., San Rafael, Ca. 94901
415-793-7727
Irving & JudithTaylor
611 Ridge Rd., Tiburon, Ca. 94920
2. Jay L. Hallberg, J.L. Engineering 415-457-6647 fax: 457-2517
1539 Fourth St., San Rafael, Ca. 94901
3. Project Number
4. Assessor's Parcel No.'s 58-281-04 & 58-281-12
5. Design Review
6. Location is off of Sugar Loaf Dr. just north of the intersection with Heathcliff Dr.
7. Parcel One: 8.4 acres
Parcel Two: 2.3 acres
8. Vacant Land
9. Existing Zoning: R-1
10.
a. The applicant proposes to construct a single family residential dwelling on each Parcel with a
detached garage building structure for each residence. The Parcels are 8.4 acres and 2.3 acres in size.
The terrain is steep over the greater portion of these parcels. Access driveway and building
locations are in close proximity to the secondary ridgeline. Due to the steep surrounding terrain,
there appears to be no other building sites on these parcels of land. As well, due to the fire dept.
driveway steepness limitations only minor modifications to the driveway alignment may be
accomplished.
415-435- 2062
,
b. The applicant proposes to construct a single family residential dwelling on each Parcel
c. The first major activity will be downslope retaining wall construction from the access driveway
near SugarLoaf Dr. to near the Parcel Two Car Court.
Second: Excavate Parcel Two Car Court to Rough Grade and begin backfilling of retaining walls
back up to SugarLoaf Dr.
Third: Begin construction of retaining walls along the upslope side of the access driveway
between Parcel Two Car Court and SugarLoaf Dr.. At the same time continuing to construct the
downslope retaining walls down to its terminus at the Parcel One Car Court.
Fourth: Begin construction of retaining walls along the upslope side of the access driveway
between the upper Parcel Two connection and ending at Parcel One's car court. At this same time,
Foundation construction for Parcel Two will commence and the Foundation excavation will be used
as backfill for the remaining driveway retaining walls.
Fifth: Begin construction of foundations for Parcel One
Sixth: Construction all utility improvements including fire hydrant to serve each of the new
residences.
Seventh: Complete the construction of both residences along with completion of driveway
improvements.
d. Parcel One Upper floor area=2360 sf.
Bldg. Footprint=2240 sf.
Garage area=880 sf.
Covered/Paved area=11,OOOsf.
Landscape=4,OOOsf.
Parcel Two Upper floor area=1760 sf.
Bldg. Footprint=2200 sf.
Garage area=880 sf.
Covered/Paved area=8,530sf.
Landsca pe=3 ,OOOsf.
11. Required Permits: Tiburon Building Permit
Tiburon Sewer Sanitary District No.5 connection
MMWD Main Extension
12. Location Map is attached
,
Lower floor area=2240 sf. Total=4600 sf.
Lower Deck area=950 sf. Total=3190 sf.
Paved Road and Car Court areas =7,000 sf.
Parcel Total area=367,487 sf.
Na tural Open Space=352,487 sf.
Lower floor area=2200 sf. Total=3960 sf.
Lower Patio area=450 sf. To tal =2650 sf.
Paved Road and Car Court areas =5,000 sf.
Parcel Total area=99,739 sf.
Natural Open Space=88,209 sf.
E}mIBITI~O. 7
p~ 3 rE~
B. 1. A verage slope along the secondary ridgeline = 25%
Average slope just beyond ridgeline = 40%
This is a heavily wooded site beyond the immediate exposed ridgeline
2. Geology:
a. Geologic type is described as semi-schist, phyllite and schist, with associates metachert and
metavolcanic rocks
b. No know landslides or areas of instability.
c. No known seismic hazards.
3. No anticipated exposures to or generation of air pollutants or odors other than from nonnal
materials and construction equipment for residential building activity.
4. This property is not located within any flood plain nor are any streams, lakes, or marshes
known to exist on this site.
5. There are no known wells on this site nor is the depth of ground water known. New driveway
construction will be predominantly of concrete and therefore asphalt concrete sources of pollution
will be negligible.
6. Major plant vegetation is of California Laurel (Bay) and California Live Oak. There are no
known endangered species as indicated in the report by Sycamore Assoc.
7. Other than due to the initial construction activity, no increase in noise level other than from
the normal activity of the residential occupants is anticipated.
8. These residences are being located on a secondary spur ridge which is visible predominantly
from San Pablo Bay and has no significant visual impact upon the surrounding general population.
There will be some impact on those existing residences located much higher above in elevation
along Sugar Loaf and Heathcliff; however, there is no significant obstruction of the views from
other properties.
9. Grading for the roadway and building construction as designed amounts to 1400 cubic yards of
material moved and used as backfill on the site predominantly for driveway construction.
Balancing of cut/fill is able to be accomplished on site with no need for export of dirts and import of
only building materials is anticipated.
10. There are no know archaeological sites known to exist on or near this site.
11. This site is adjacent to no significantly populated areas except for that of Town of Tiburon and
its general population.
12. The only real access from this site is by personal vehicle via the public road system being
SugarLoaf Dr. and Lyford Dr. and thereafter along Tiburon Blvd. by various modes of
transportation. .
13. All normal public services and infrastructures are presently in place an are adequate to serve
these additional two residential units. Sewer disposal will be pumped up toSugarLoaf Dr. to the
existing main. Normal Response time to these two residences will be less than to those at the upper
end of SugarLoaf Dr. and is believed to be about 20 min.
14.
a. No flammable, reactive, nor explosive materials will be located on these sites.
b. Being surrounded by native forest vegetation and brush, these improvements will be within 20
feet of high fire hazard; however, as part of normal construction landscape improvements along
the roadway and surrounding the residences will be completed to the satisfaction of the fire dept
c. No use or storage of hazardous material is being proposed.
d. Most all wastes generated during construction will be removed and disposed of at the Redwood
LandFill in Novato and Marin Resource Recovery Center.
e. There is no potential for hazardous emissions.
C. Environmental impacts which are most obvious will be the loss of a certain number of trees located
predominantly within the limits of the driveway improvements; however this loss of some tree
canopy is minimal and can be mitigated by the planting of additional vegetation which would be
able to significantly replace and/or repair the forest canopy within a relatively short duration of
approx. 10 years. Drainage should not be a significant issue when the proper construction procedures
are accomplished and maintained; however, there are no improvements near this site which could
be affected from drainage issues emanating from these two building sites.
,
771~mln-m ~ 7
.tJl'Ul 1:)11 1 ~O.
p, 4 CFS-
D.
1. Landscape improvement plans to the satisfaction of the TIburon Fire Dept. are an integral part of
these 2 residential improvements. The extension of the water main and installation of an
additional fire hydrant will provide a greater degree of fire protection. As well, the driveway
will provide a greater degree of accessibility to what is presently a remote fire hazard area.
2. There are no significant alternatives to the proposed building locations. The driveway alignment
also has very limited possibilities which would provide only subtle changes associated with the
fire dept.'s slope requirements.
E. CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data
and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts,
statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
~
Sincerely,
J. L Engineering
J. L Hallb~ pA -f ~
,
,
EXHIBIT NO. 7
PI '5" cES-
t
. Miller Pacilic
It-
ENGINEERING GROUP
165 North Redwood Drive
Suite 120
San Rafael, California 94903
F 415 1491-1831
T 415 /491-1338
January 5, 1999
File: 161-17Itr.doc
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, California 94920
RECEIVED
JAN 6 1999
Attn: Mr. Dan Watrous, Senior Planner
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TOWN OF TIBURON
1
Re: Slope Stability and Drainage Review
High Meadow Lane Land Development
Su~arloaf Drive, Tiburon, California
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Introduction
In response to your facsimile of November 17, 1998, we have performed a peer review of the
Geotechnical Investigation report for the development proposed at 94 Sugarloaf Drive in
Tiburon, California. The geotechnical report is entitled "Common Driveway and Two Proposed
Houses, Taylor Property," by Earth Science Consultants (ESC) and is dated March 7, 1997.
We are providing our services for the Town of Tiburon in accordance with our Agreement for
Professional Services and Addendum dated December 15, 1998.
Scope of Services
The purpose of our review is to provide our opinion regarding the adequacy of the
geotechnical report for the proposed project, and to comment on the following specific items as
requested by the Town of Tiburon:
,
. Options and alternatives for the design and location of the private roadway to serve the
project;
. Some analysis of soils at the bottom and below the site, including a discussion on .
impacts of the proposed construction;
. The small landslide referenced in the geotechnical report;
. Effect of proposed water dispersal methods and other drainage systems on slope
stability;
. Effect of removal of oak trees on slope stability; and
. Structural design of roadway retaining walls, specifically long-term performance.
EXHIBIT NO. g
ff {~F5"'
Miller Pacific
ENGINEERING GROUP
Town of Tiburon
Page 2
January 5, 1999
In addition to reviewing the report referenced above, we performed a brief surface
reconnaissance of the site on December 22, 1998.
Proiect Description
The proposed project consists of constructing a new, relatively long driveway that will extend
across and down the natural hillside and development of two single-family residential sites.
The "approved building envelope area" for each site is shown on Plate 2 of the ESC report,
however, the exact building size and footprint is not indicated on the drawing. The building
areas are located along the top of a grassy ridge and knoll that transitions to steep slopes to
the west, north and east of the proposed development.
t
Details of the driveway construction have not yet been determined, but the geotechnical report
recommends using reinforced concrete retaining walls and drilled piers (see Plate 19 of the
ESC report) in order to minimize grading on the slope. The report also recommends
supporting the residences on drilled piers with the exception that localized spread footings may
be used in areas where excavations expose competent bedrock.
During our site reconnaissance we observed story poles erected within the two building
envelope areas. We also observed staking for the centerline and edges of the proposed
driveway alignment across the steep slope below the rough graded roadway described in the
report. The roadway staking appears to be located downslope of the alignment shown on
Plate 2 and will impact several large oak and bay trees.
General Review Commentary
We understand that ESC's geotechnical report was based on the following scope of work:
. Performing a visual site observation and reconnaissance of surface features;
,
. Reviewing existing soil and geologic data for the site, including aerial photos;
. Performing a subsurface exploration program, with 21 shallow (1.5 to 9 feet deep) test
borings; and
. Preparing a report with geotechnical criteria for the proposed improvements.
ESC's report specifically excludes recommendations for sidewalks, porches, decks and
landscaped areas.
Based on our report review, site reconnaissance of the project area and our experience with
similar projects in the vicinity, we have the following comments:
EXHIBITNO. ~
9~ z DF5
Miller Pacific
ENGINEERING GROUP
j
Town of Tiburon
Page 3
January 5, 1999
1. We judge that the report is adequate for the proposed project, and includes a suitable
level of exploration for the preparation of design recommendations. Further, the design
criteria presented for foundations and retaining walls appears reasonable based on the
test borings and our local experience.
2. As recommended in the ESC report, the Geotechnical Engineer must be on site
intermittently during construction to identify areas of potential expansive soils and
adjust the foundations/grade beams described on page 14 of the report. The
Geotechnical Engineer must also determine areas suitable for water dispersal, and
should observe and test other geotechnically-related site work.
1
3. Traffic surcharge criteria for design of the driveway retaining walls as discussed on
page 23 of the report should be provided or reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer.
4. The report should provide general recommendations for construction of the sliver
fill/roadway subgrade between the proposed retaining walls. Recommendations for
stripping, preparation of the ground surface prior to placing compacted fill, subdrainage,
fill type and placement criteria should be included (Plate 19 and/or text pages 20
through 23).
5. The Geotechnical Engineer should review and comment on grading and building plans
as they are prepared to verify conformance with the intent of the recommendations
presented in the design report and these comments.
6. The Developer, Project Architect or Engineer for the individual lot developments also
should consult with the Geotechnical Engineer to' review drainage plans, and
specifically to determine the impact of water discharges and landscape irrigation on the
adjacent slopes. '
Specific Commentary
I
We have prepared the following comments in response to the specific items requested by the
Town:
Location of Drivewav. The long driveway, as currently staked in the field, is located below the .'
rough graded roadway near the uphill edge of the property. The staked alignment will require
substantial grading in an undisturbed area, extensive trimming and removal of several trees,
and will result in difficult construction on a steep, natural slope. Relocating the driveway
upslope to the existing roadway alignment will likely still require retaining walls but will reduce
the amount of grading required and the impacts on existing trees.' If the driveway remains in
the staked location, an arborist should be consulted to determine the effects of potential root
damage due to construction of drilled piers and placement of new fill. Additionally, because
the staked driveway appears to be lower than the alignment indicated in the ESC report, the
Geotechnical Engineer should evaluate the revised location.
EXHIBIT NO. ~
P. '3 o~s
Miller Pacific
ENGINEERING GROUP
Town of Tiburon
Page 4
January 5, 1999
Analvsis of soils/impacts of proposed construction. We judge the planned project is feasible
provided that careful construction practices are followed and that the drainage system is
constructed according to the Engineer's design recommendations and subsequent
modifications based on inspections during construction. The Engineer should approve areas
where dispersion structures will be located prior to or during construction of the drainage
discharge system. As a general rule of practice, drainage should not be diverted or
concentrated into areas different from pre-construction watershed drainage pattems. Loose
soils generated during grading and pier drilling should be placed as properly compacted fill,
preferably retained by walls, or removed from the site so that erosion and sedimentation does I...
not impact downslope properties. I
Small landslide. Based on our site reconnaissance and Boring 17 in the ESC report, the small
landslide described on Page 6 of the report and shown on Plate 2 is a relatively shallow
feature. The landslide may require additional evaluation and/or repair if the driveway is
relocated as previously discussed. If the driveway is constructed where shown on Plate 2,
deeper penetration of the drilled piers and increased structural design criteria may be required
adjacent to the landslide to mitigate potential slope creep. Drainage from the new roadway
and lot development must be directed away from the landslide and other areas with greater
risk of instability, such as the "hummocky" area described in the report.
Effect of water dispersal. The dispersal methods recommended in the report appear suitable
for the planned development and conditions we observed. Drainage outlets should extend as
far as possible into the natural drainage swales west and east of the planned development.
The location of the "surface dispersal pipes" must be onto stable slope areas as determined by
the Engineer and should extend over as large an area as reasonably possible in order to
establish normal sheet flows on the slopes.
Effect of oak tree removal. Removal of trees, including oaks, should be minimized so that
slopes remain as close to a natural state as possible. The driveway, where presently staked,
will affect several large trees and an arborist (as described above) should be consulted. If
trees are removed, the stumps and near surface roots should be completely removed and the
resulting excavations filled with compacted soil to restore uniform surface water runoff and to
reduce the risk of water infiltration and future decay which could result in localized unstable
areas.
,
Structural desiqn of retaininq walls (Ionq term performance). As recommended in the ESC
report, the retaining walls should be constructed of reinforced concrete for. durability. The walls
should be structurally designed after additional topographic data and alignments of the walls
have been determined. Design criteria presented in the report appears reasonable based on
the observed site conditions and data presented on test boring logs. Pier embedment depths
and reinforcing steel should be designed for elevations and specific conditions along the
driveway entrance.
EXHIBIT NO. g
. p~ 4 C:P S-
Miller Pacific
ENGINEERING GROUP
Town of Tiburon
Page 5
January 5, 1999
Conclusion
As discussed previously, because of the steep slopes around the site and the risks associated
with their development, we emphasize that the Geotechnical Engineer must remain involved in
the design and construction of the project. We trust that this provides the information required
at this time. If you or others have further questions, please do not hesitate to calL
INEERING GROUP
,
Michael P. Morisoli
Civil Engineer No. 55908
(C/~~
Dennis H. Furby, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer No. 326
(Expires 12/31/01
3 copies submitted
,
EXHIBIT NO. ~
p~ 5' oF5
RESOLUTION NO. 99-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COrvtl\1ISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
RECOrvIMENDING APPROVAL OF THE HIGH ~ADOW PRECISE DEVELOP~NT
PLAN AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL
ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 58-281-14.58-281-15.58-100-72 & 58-100-73
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
A.
The Town has received and considered an application filed by Irvin and David Taylor for a
Precise Development Plan to develop the following project:
,
The development of two single-family dwellings on an existing 10.7 acre property
consisting of two separate parcels. Parcell contains 8.4 acres of area, and Parcel 2 is 2.3
acres in area. Access would be provided to both lots from High Meadow Lane, a private
roadway extending from Sugarloaf Drive.
The High Meadow Precise Plan would be created to establish building envelopes and
other planning limitations for the two parcels. The building envelope for Parcel 1 would
begin 320 feet from SugarloafDrive, and have an area of31,000 square feet. The
building envelope for Parcel 2 would be higher on the site, and would have an area of
18,000 square feet.
B. The Precise Development Plan consists of the following:
1.
Environmental Data Submission form and supplemental materials prepared by J.L.
Engineering, dated June 22, 1998 (See Exhibit A, attached).
Precise Development Plan Map, June 29, 1998
Driveway Improvement Plans, June 29, 1998
Site Improvement Plans, June 29, 1998
Slope Analysis Map, June 29, 1998
Planting Plan, July 1, 1998
Schematic Design for proposed homes, (Parcels 1 & 2), June 29, 1998
Landscaping plan, November 6, 1998
,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
C. The Planning Commission held duly noticed and advertised public hearings on October 28
and November 12, 1998, and on January 27, 1999, considered all testimony, and
recommended conditional appr'oval of the Precise Development Plan to the Council.
D. The Planning Commission found that the proposal, as conditioned, is consistent with the
Tiburon General Plan based on the following facts:
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 99-(Draft)
January 27, 1999
1
EXffiBIT No.3-
p, {oF7
General Plan Consistency
LAND USE
The biological study prepared for this project found that the most sensitive areas on this
property were contained within the oak woodlands on the lower portion of the site. These
areas are located outside of the proposed building envelopes, and would be preserved as
open space. Each parcel would be allowed to be developed with one home, but the only
feasible building sites for each parcel lie technically within the Tiburon Ridge setbacks.
Nonetheless, the siting of the proposed building envelopes well below the homes which
already exist along the nearby ridgeline should result in minimal disruption to any
viewlines to or from the Tiburon Ridgeline.
Table 1 of this element, which lists the allowable densities for vacant land in Tiburon,
states that this property is to be developed at a density of 0.2 units per acre. This density
would allow up to two homes to be developed on this site. The density is a moot point in
that the two parcels are legally created and recognized; each parcel may be developed with
one home and no more.
t
OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION
A total of88.7% of the subject site is proposed to remain as open space area outside the
proposed building envelopes. There are no shorelines, open water or rock outcroppings
on the site, and there are no significant wetlands ridgelines or riparian corridors which
would be disturbed by the proposed project. The biological study prepared for this project
revealed the presence of no special status plant species on the property. Most of the dense
oak woodland on the site is concentrated in the lower portion of the property, which is not
slated for construction. These issues are discussed in more detail in the Initial Study
prepared for this project.
The peak elevations of the proposed homes would be low~r than the floor elevations of
any of the nearby residences along SugarloafDrive. The siting of both building envelopes
downslope from neighboring homes should insure minimal impact on any primary views
across the site toward San Francisco Bay.
I
PARKS AND RECREATION
The Tiburon Ridge Trail currently runs just south of the site along Sugarloaf Drive. The
two future homes on this property would be connected to this trail by the private roadway
which leads from the homes to SugarloafDrive.
E. The Planning Commission found that the proposed project is consistent with Town Zoning
regulations based on the following factual analysis:
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 99-(Draft)
January 27, 1999
2
EXHIBIT NO. q
f z 0(7
.~
The proposed single-family residential uses are consistent with the permitted uses listed
Town Code 2.08.01(2). The project density is consistent with that allowed by the Land
Use Element of the Tiburon General Plan. Project building heights do not exceed the
maximum 30 foot height limit specified in section 2.08.03(2). Staffis able to make the
following findings of fact which support the approval of the Precise Development Plan
under section 4.08.04:
t,
a) The location of the proposed building envelopes would leave over 9.5 acres of the
10.7 acre site (88.7%) in an open condition. The proposed precise plan does not
specify the method which would be utilized to preserve this open space.
Developments of this nature typically confer "open space" or "conservation"
easements to the Town over portions of the privately-owned lots located outside
the building envelopes.
b)
The most visible natural features on the site are the two knolls proposed for siting
of the building envelopes. The general contours of these knolls would remain as
they are developed as building sites. There are no water courses, special plant
species or significant riparian corridors on the site. There are no historically
significant trees on the site, although the lower reaches of the property, outside the
building envelopes, are covered with dense oak woodlands.
t
c) Most of the grading necessary to construct the project as proposed would involve
the construction of the roadway and driveways leading to the future homes. The
conceptual plans for the homes to be constructed on the two parcels generally
reflect the slopes of the knolls on the site.
d) Existing homes above the site on Sugarloaf Drive have views across the property
toward San Francisco Bay to the north. The locations of the building envelopes
are situated downslope from these homes, and should not impact the view
corridors for any nearby residences. The envelopes have also been designed to site
the future homes away from the majority of the oak woodland on the property.
e)
The proposed project would involve the construction of two homes near the
Tiburon Ridgeline. The Open Space and Conservation Element of the Tiburon
General Plan includes policies regarding development near ridgelines in Tiburon.
Each parcel would be allowed to be developed with one home, but the only
feasible building sites for each parcel lie technically within the Tiburon Ridge
setbacks. Nonetheless, the proposed building envelopes would be located well
below the elevation of this stretch of the Tiburon Ridgeline along SugarloafDrive,
which is already developed with numerous other homes directly along the
ridgeline.
,
f) The knolls upon which the proposed building envelopes would be sited are located
at elevations well below the neighboring homes along SugarloafDrive to place the
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 99-(Draft)
January 27, 1999
3
EXHIBIT J\TO .~_
(j, '3 Dr 7
t
future homes out of the line of sight from existing residences. The lower oak
woodlands on the property should screen the future homes from view from homes
below the site along Paradise Drive.
g) The geological study prepared for this project revealed that there are no significant
landslide or other geologic hazards on the site.
h) An Initial Study prepared for this project found that all potentially significant
environmental impacts which would be caused by this project can be mitigated to
less than significant levels.
i)
This project proposes the minimal roadway standards acceptable to the Tiburon
Fire Protection District and the Town Engineer in order to minimize grading,
retaining walls, and site disruption. Retaining walls up to 11.5 feet in height would
be required, but these walls would be perpendicular to the view of most nearby
homes, and would generally not be visible from off the site.
t
j) The proposed private roadway leads down between several adjoining residential
parcels, creating an extension of the existing housing pattern around the site. The
open areas along the eastern side of both parcels creates a natural transition to the
adjacent Old 5t. Hilary's Open Space Area.
k) The siting of the proposed building envelopes downslope from any nearby homes
along Sugarloaf Drive should create adequate visual and aural buffers between the
proposed homes and neighboring residences.
1) The placement of the building envelopes well below the existing homes along
Sugarloaf Drive and the orientation of potential outdoor living areas toward San
Francisco bay to the south should minimize noise impacts on surrounding areas.
m)
The two building envelopes have been sited on the relatively open portions of the
knolls on each of the two parcels to avoid unnecessary intrusion into the dense oak
woodlands on the lower portions of the property. All oak trees which are removed
as part of the construction of the homes, driveways and private roadway would be
replaced on a 3 to 1 basis. A landscape palette would be developed emphasizing
low maintenance, drought resistant, native species around the future homes. All
areas graded or disturbed during construction would be reseeded with native plant
materials to prevent erosion and scarring.
.Il.
I
n) . No street lights are proposed for this project. Low profile and low level roadway
and driveway step lighting would be appropriate, and would be reviewed by the
Design Review Board during its review of any homes eventually proposed on the
site.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 99-(Draft)
January 27, 1999
4
EXHIBIT NO. q
P. '-I o~ 7
.
0) Materials and colors used in improvements will be required to blend into the
natural environment to the extent reasonably as a condition of approval for this
project.
p) General Plan analysis was provided above in the section of this report on General
Plan consistency. Basically, the proposed project seems to be consistent with all of
the Tiburon General Plan goals, objectives, policies and programs.
Section 2. Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the High Meadow Precise Development Plan to the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon, subject to the following conditions:
1.
The High Meadow Precise Development Plan is approved as submitted and
identified in the plans and text described above EXCEPT AS MODIFIED
HEREIN.
,
2. This Precise Development Plan shall be modified to incorporate all of the
mitigations required in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program attached as
Exhibit B.
3. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for project construction the
project developer shall submit a Design Review application to the Town of
Tiburon Planning Department and receive written approval from the Design
Review Board. Materials and colors used for structures shall blend into the natural
environment. Colors should be restricted to earth tone colors and materials which
blend with the natural environment. A landscape palette shall be developed
emphasizing low maintenance, drought resistant, native species around the future
homes. A lighting plan shall also be prepared and approved by the Design Review
Board. All areas graded or disturbed during construction shall be reseeded with
native plant materials to prevent erosion and scarring.
4.
The exact size and location of the building envelopes for each parcel shall reflect
the revised plans submitted by the applicant at the October 28, 1998 Planning
Commission meeting. Each parcel will be allowed a maximum floor area of 6,000
square feet, with 750 square feet of additional space for garage purposes.
,
5. Prior to issuance of building permits, conservation easements shall be recorded for
all areas outside of building envelopes shown on the approved plans. No
improvements of any type, including fences, play equipment, temporary or
otherwise, or new landscaping shall be permitted outside the approved building
envelopes, except driveways and associated landscaping, retaining walls associated
with driveways or which support driveways.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 99-(Draft)
January 27. 1999
5
EXHIBIT NO. q
P 50r7
t
6. All oak trees removed as part of the construction of this project shall be replaced
on a 3 to 1 basis.
7. Hours of construction shall be regulated by Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Town
Code. All building materials for project construction shall also be stored on-she, in
locations approved in advance by the Planning Department.
8. All construction on, and landscaping of, the property shall comply with the
provisions of Tiburon Municipal Code Chapter 13E concerning water
conservation. Compliance with these regulations shall be ensured during the Site
Plan and Architectural Review and Building Permit processes.
9.
Tiburon Boulevard Improvement Fees shall be paid as required by Town
Ordinance.
,
10. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide written
confirmation to the Town of Tiburon Planning Department which demonstrates
that the project sponsor has satisfied any and all conditions of the Town Engineer,
Tiburon Fire Protection District, Sanitary District No.5, and the Marin Municipal
Water District.
11. Roadway grading on the site shall be limited to the dry season from May through
October, unless specifically authorized by the Town Engineer after requiring
appropriate precautionary measures.
12. An erosion control plan and dust control plan satisfactory to the Town Engineer
shall be required prior to grading or construction on the site.
13. Graded areas shall be re-vegetated as soon as possible following completion of
grading activity. The project shall comply with the r~quirements of the Urban
Runoff Pollution Prevention Chapter 20A of the Tiburon Municipal Code.
14.
All contractors and subcontractors performing work at the site shall be required by
contract to halt all work within 30 yards of any archaeologically significant
resource which may be uncovered during construction, until a qualified
archeologist has investigated and made recommendations. Representatives of the
Native American community shall be contacted in the event of such a find.
,
15. This Precise Development Plan approval shall be valid for 36 months following its
effective date, and shall expire unless subsequent zoning and/or 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.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 99-(Draft)
January 27, 1999
6
EXHIBIT NO l
?t;,OFI
'I
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Planning Commission on
January 27, 1999, by the following vote:
AYES: CO!v1NllSSIONERS: KLAIRMONT, BERGER, KNOBLE, SLAVITZ AND
STEIN
NOES: CO!v1NllSSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: CO!v1NllSSIONERS NONE
1
LISA KLAIRMONT, CHAIR
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATTEST:
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
,
Tiburon Planning Commission
Resolution No. 99-(Draft)
January 27, 1999
7
EXHIBIT NO. cr
~ 7 oF7
t
"
TOWN OF TmURON
ST AFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DANIEL M. W A TROllS, SENIOR PLANNER
FILE #39804: PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO PARCEL 10.7
ACRE SITE; HIGH MEADOW LANE; Irvin and David Taylor, owners; Jay
Hallberg, applicant; Assessor's Parcel Nos. 58-281-14, 58-281-15, 58-100-72 & 58-
100-73 (formerly Otani property)
OCTOBER 28, 1998
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
ITEM NO.
1-
,
PROJECT DATA
Address:
AP Nos.:
File No.:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Property Size:
Subdivision:
Current Use:
Owners:
Applicant:
Date Complete:
Negative Declaration Deadline:
Permit Streamlining Act Deadline:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
High Meadow Lane (between 92 & 96 Sugar loaf Drive)
58-281-14, 58-281-15, 58-100-72 & 58-100-73
39804
Residen~ial (up to 0.2 units per acre)
RPD-0.2 (Residential Planned Development Zone)
10.7 acres
None
Undeveloped land
Irvin and David Taylor
Jay Hallberg
August 20, 1998
October 28, 1998
NA
''Ii
,
The project is the proposed approval of a precise development plan (the High Meadow Precise
Development Plan) on a 10.7 acre site consisting of two separate parcels to the north of
Sugarloaf Drive. The precise plan would pn;>vide for the development of two single-family
dwellings. Parcel ~, on the lower end of the site, contains 8.4 acres of area, and Parcel 2 is 2.3
acres in size.
TIburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
October 28, 1998
EXHIBIT NO. 10
p. r br::: l (
1
The site consists of two irregularly shaped parcels sloping down from the Tiburon Ridge, with an
average south to north slope of 40 %, with steeper portions sloping up to 75 % . Each parcel
contains a terraced portion which would be used for siting the two proposed homes. A secondary
ridgeline leading down from the Tiburon Ridgeline runs through the subject property. Access to
both lots would be provided from an extension of High Meadow Lane, a private roadway off
Sugarloaf Drive. Vegetation on the site consists of grasslands toward the top of the property and
dense oak and bay woodlands on the lower portions. No serpentine rock outcrops are located in
the site, but these formations are evident nearby.
The High Meadow Precise Plan would establish building envelopes and other planning
limitations for the two existing parcels. Both parcels have panhandles extending to Sugarloaf
Drive, with the bulk of the parcels forming a larger, rectangular area. The building envelope for
Parcell (indicated by a grey dotted line on the submitted plans) would occupy a lower plateau ,
on the site, beginning approximately 320 feet from Sugarloaf Drive. This roughly rectangular ..
envelope would have a maximum length of 240 feet, a maximum width of 120 feet, and an .
overall area of 31,000 square feet. The building envelope for Parcel 2 would begin 240 feet from
the southern property line, and have an area of 18,000 square feet.
Parcel 2, on the upper portion of the site, has a smaller proposed building envelope. This
envelope begins 240 feet from Sugarloaf Drive. This envelope would have a maximum length of
200 feet, a maximum width of 100 feet, and an overall area of 18,000 square feet.
Access would be provided to both proposed lots from a private roadway (High Meadow Lane)
extending from a point between 92 & 96 Sugarloaf Drive. The roadway would follow the
alignment of an existing driveway, then would split to provide access to the two parcels. The
roadway would be 18 feet wide, with turnaround areas in front of each proposed home and
garage. Preliminary review by the Tiburon Fire Protection District indicates that the width, slope
and turnaround area for this access appear to be acceptable, although all portions of the roadway
with slopes exceeding 15 % would need to b~ finished with scored concrete.
To illustrate the potential housing construction on each of the parcels, the applicant has
submitted conceptual plans for two houses which would meet the criteria for the proposed
precise development plan. Each of the houses would be roughly rectangular and two stories in
height. A detached garage would be provided for each residence. Although these plans are
conceptual in nature, and would require subsequent approval by the Design Review Board, the
plans are probably representative of the type of construction which would be expected for each
parcel, given the height and building envelope constraints proposed.
I
ZONING ORDINANCE STATUS
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:
TIburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
October 28, 1998
2
EXHIBIT NO. I 6
p. 2- oF- if
t
"
(a) Significant open space shall be preserved, through dedication or other means
acceptable to the Town, consistent with policies of the Open Space and
Conservation Element of the Tiburon General Plan.
The location of the proposed building envelopes would leave over 9.5 acres of the
10.7 acre site (88.7%) in an open condition. The proposed precise plan does not
specify the method which would be utilized to preserve this open space.
Developments of this nature typically confer "open space" or "conservation"
easements to the Town over portions of the privately-owned lots located outside
the building envelopes. The eastern portions of both parcels adjoin the Old St.
Hilary's Open Space Area, which has existing trail connections leading from
Lyford and Heathcliff Drives and also through the Tiburon Uplands Nature
Preserve to Paradise Drive. Staff does not recommend dedication of land to the t
adjacent open space area or establishing additional trails across the subject
property, as the eastern portion of the site would not serve any practical need for
additional public access in this area of Tiburon.
No improvements of any type, including fences, temporary or otherwise, would be
permitted outside the approved building envelopes, except driveways, retaining
walls associated with driveways or which support driveways. This would be
implemented by the establishment of a conservation easement, and should be
required as a condition of approval of this project.
(b) Preservation of natural features of the land shall be achieved to the maximum
extent feasible through minimization of grading and sensitive site design.
Features worthy of preservation include ridgelines, prominent knolls, desirable
native vegetation, trees, significant rock outcrop pings, water courses, and
riparian corridors.
The most visible natural features on the site are the two knolls proposed for siting
of the building envelopes. The general contours of these knolls would remain as
they are developed as building sites. Staff considers these building envelopes ,
somewhat excessive, extending into steep areas which should not be disturbed.
Staff has requested that the applicant shrink the building envelopes accordingly,
and a drawing showing the smaller building envelopes will be available at the
meeting.
The Tiburon Ridge is located just south of the site, along Sugarloaf Drive. There
are no water courses or significant riparian corridors on the site. The biological
study prepared for this project by Sycamore Associates (Exhibit 4) revealed the
presence of no special status plant species on the property. There are no
historically significant trees on the site, although the lower reaches of the
property, outside the building envelopes, are covered with dense oak woodlands.
TIburon Planning Commission
Sta ff Report
October 28, 1998
3
EXHIBIT NO. 10-
p. 3 of I (
t
A tree preservation report prepared by Kenneth W. Allen (Exhibit 7) analyzed 18
oak trees and other trees near the proposed roadway and building envelopes, and
made recommendations for preservation or removal of each of the trees. Staff
recommends that any oak trees removed during construction be replaced on the
site on a 3 to 1 basis.
(c) Slopes created by grading should not exceed 30 percent. Final contours and
s lopes should reflect natural land features.
Most of the grading necessary- to construct the project as proposed would involve
the construction of the roadway and driveways leading to the future homes. The
conceptual plans for the homes to be constructed on the two parcels generally
reflect the slopes of the knolls on the site.
t
(d) Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve view corridors, mature trees,
rare plants, significant native flora and fauna, areas of historical significance,
access corridors, and habitats of endangered species.
Existing homes above the site on Sugarloaf Drive have views across the property
toward San Francisco Bay to the north. The locations of the building envelopes
are situated downslope from these homes, and should not impact the view
corridors for any nearby residences. The envelopes have also been designed to
site the future homes away from the majority of the oak woodland on the
property .
(e) Location of development well below ridgelines shall be achieved, in accordance
with General Plan and other policies.
The proposed project would involve the construction of two homes near the
Tiburon Ridgeline. The Open Space and Conservation Element of the Tiburon
General Plan includes policies regarding development near ridgeIines in Tiburon.
Each parcel would be allowed to be developed with one home, but the only ,
feasible building sites for each parcel lie technically within the Tiburon Ridge
setbacks. Nonetheless, the proposed building envelopes would be located well
below the elevation of this stretch of the Tiburon RidgeIine along Sugarloaf
Drive, which is already developed with numerous other homes directly along the.
ridgeIine. .
(j) Prominence of development and construction should be minimized by appropriate
location of grading and placing of buildings so that they are screened by wooded
areas, rock outcroppings and depressions in topography or other features.
'Iiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
October 28, 1998
4
EXHIBIT NO. lO
~ t{ Dtc {I
~
The knolls upon which the proposed building envelopes would be sited are
located at elevations well below the neighboring homes along Sugarloaf Drive to
place the future homes out of the line of sight from existing residences. The lower
oak woodlands on the property should screen the future homes from view from
homes below the site along Paradise Drive.
The Commission may wish to address the potential size of the homes which could
be constructed on each of these lots, as the Town's floor area ratio limits would
permit an 8,000 square foot house on each lot, along with a 750 square foot
garage. Staff believes that the feasible building areas for each of the parcels
would not support 8,000 square foot homes, and that maximum floor areas of
5,000 to 6,000 square feet should be cons idered for each of these parcels. The
Town's 30 foot maximum building height should be sufficient for these parcels,
as homes of this height would be still be well below the floor levels of homes on
adjoining properties. Color and material guidelines are often adopted during the
review of a Precise Development Plan, normally favoring earth tone colors and
materials which blend with the natural environment. These guidelines are then
used by the Design Review Board during its review of any homes eventually
proposed on the site.
,
(g) Due consideration shall be given to avoidance of areas posing geological
hazards.
The geological study prepared for this project by Earth Science Consultants
(Exhibit 5) revealed that there are no landslide or other geologic hazards on the
site.
(h) Minimization of significant adverse impacts, as ,detailed in the Environmental
Impact Report, if one is required.
An Initial Study prepared for this project (Exhibit 2) found that all potentially
significant environmental impacts which would be caused by this project can be
mitigated to less than significant levels. The details of this Initial Study are
discussed at length later in this report.
t
(I) Roads shall be designed for minimum slopes, grading, cut-backs and fill.
Narrowing of roadways may be allowed to reduce grading, retaining walls, and
other scarring of the land.
This project proposes the minimal roadway standards acceptable to the Tiburon
Fire Protection District and the Town Engineer in order to minimize grading,
retaining walls, and site disruption. However, due to the path of the driveway
leading to the building envelopes on the lower portions of the site, retaining walls
Tiburon Planning Conunission
Staff Report
October 28, 1998
5
EXHIBIT NO.~
f . ~ of l{
~
up to 11.5 feet in height would be required. These walls would be perpendicular
to the view of most nearby homes, and would generally not be visible from off the
site.
(j) Proposed arrangement of residential units and design of circulation system shall
provide harmonious transition from and be compatible with, neighboring
development and open space. Monotony in design shall be avoided.
The proposed private roadway leads down between several adjoining residential
parcels, creating an extension of the existing housing pattern around the site. The
open areas along the eastern side of both parcels creates a natural transition to the
adjacent Old St. Hilary's Open Space Area.
,
(k)
Adequate consideration shall be given to the need for privacy and with minimum
visual and aural intrusion into indoor and outdoor living areas from other living
areas.
The siting of the proposed building envelopes downslope from any nearby homes
along Sugarloaf Drive should create adequate visual and aural buffers between the
proposed homes and neighboring residences.
(l) Improvements shall be placed so as to minimize intrusion of noise on nearby
areas .
The placement of the building envelopes well below the existing homes along
Sugarloaf Drive and the orientation of potential outdoor living areas toward San
Francisco bay to the south should minimize noise impacts on surrounding areas.
(m) Landscaping shall be designed so as to result in the least possible disturbance of
natural and/or open areas and shall be compatible with the natural setting.
Consideration shall be given to fire protection, water conservation, protection of
views and trail areas, and buffering of noise. t
The two building envelopes have been sited on the relatively open portions of the
knolls on each of the two parcels to avoid unnecessary intrusion into the dense
oak woodlands on the lower portions of the property. All oak trees which are
removed as part of the construction of the homes, driveways and private roadway
should be replaced on a 3 to 1 basis. Detailed landscaping plans have not yet been
submitted for the future homes on the site. A landscape palette should be
developed emphasizing low maintenance, drought resistant, native species around
the future homes. All areas graded or disturbed during construction would be
reseeded with native plant materials to prevent erosion and scarring.
TIburon Planning Commission
Sta ff Report .
October 28, 1998
6
EXHIBIT NO. 10
f. (p of if
j
(n) Utilities shall be underground and street lights, if needed, shall be of low intensity
and low in profile.
No street lights are proposed for this project. Low level roadway and driveway
downlighting would be appropriate, and would be reviewed by the Design Review
Board during its review of any homes eventually proposed on the site.
(0) Materials and colors used in improvements shall blend into the natural
environment to the extent reasonably possible.
This is a standard condition of approval for planned developments in Tiburon.
(P)
Consistency with other goals and policies of the General Plan Elements 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-12
In Planned Residential Districts, new development should be located on the least
environmentally sensitive and least hazardous portions of vacant land wherever
feasible to promote sound land development and planning practices. Special
emphasis shall be placed on keeping ridgelinesopen and unobstructed to the
maximum extent feasible. '
The biological study prepared for this project found that the most sensitive areas on this property
were contained within the oak woodlands on the lower portion of the site. These areas are
located outside of the proposed building envelopes, and would be preserved as open space. As
described previously, the Tiburon Ridge setback policy technically applies to this project.
Nonetheless, the siting of the proposed building envelopes well below the homes which already
exist along the nearby ridgeline should result in minimal disruption to any viewlines to or from
the Tiburon Ridgeline.
~
,
Table 1 of this element, which lists the allowable densities for vacant land in Tiburon, states that
this property is to be developed at a density of 0.2 units per acre. This density would allow up to
two homes to be developed on this site. The density is a moot point in that the two parcels are
legally created and recognized; each parcel may be developed with one home and no more.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
October 28, 1998
7
EXHIBIT NO. I 0
p. .7 DF it
~
Open Space and Conservation Element
'.
OSC-B
OSC-2
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 shorelines, open water, wetlands,
significant ridgelines, riparian corridors, steep slopes, rock outcroppings, rare
and endangered plant and animal habitat areas, other significant vegetation, and
areas of visual importance.
Growth. While accommodation of growth is an accepted reality, it should be so
directed as to preserve and enhance views, ridgelines, significant vegetation,
habitats and environmentally sensitive areas to the maximum extent feasible.
New development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and
su"ounding open space areas.
t
A total of 88.7% of the subject site is proposed to remain as open space area outside the proposed
building envelopes. There are no shorelines, open water or rock outcroppings on the site, and
there are no significant wetlands ridgelines or riparian corridors which would be disturbed by the
proposed project. The biological study prepared for this project revealed the presence of no
special status plant species on the property. Most of the dense oak woodland on the site is
concentrated in the lower portion of the property, which is not slated for construction. These
issues are discussed in more detail in the Initial Study prepared for this project.
OSC-3
OSC-4
Outward Views. Property owners cherish their views. New structures and
associated landscaping should be situated or kept low to avoid interference with
existing outlooks.
View Co"idors. Principal inboard and outboard vistas should be defined and
development should be located to protect such vistas to the maximum extent
feasible.
The peak elevations of the proposed homes would be lower than the floor elevations of any of
the nearby residences along Sugarloaf Drive. The siting of both building envelopes downslope
from neighboring homes should insure minimal impact on any primary views across the site
toward San Francisco Bay.
OSC-5
,
Ridgelines. Undeveloped ridgelines have an overriding visual significance to the'
Town. To the maximum extent feasible, all new development shall be located well
below the ridgelines. In addition, the following ridgeline guidelines shall be
applied to the Tiburon Ridge.
Development should be set back 150 horizontal feet to either side of the
Tiburon Ridge.
Staff Report.
8
Tiburon Planning Commission
October 28, 1998
EXHIBIT NO. 1 0
ff ~D~ it
,
To the maximum extent feasible, development should not break the
Tiburon Ridge as viewed from the opposite side (from the line of sight to
the highest elevation).
No development shall qe allowed within 50 vertical feet of the major
ridgeline, measured from the highest point of a structure.
If this policy prevents all reasonable use of the property, encroachment into the
setbacks may be allowed provided that structures are limited to a maximum of one
story of 15 feet in height.
See discussion under Section 4.08.04 (e) above.
OSC-ll
Grading and Tree Removal. The Town shall encourage location of structures in a
manner which minimizes tree removal and grading. Specifically, grading shall be
kept to a minimum and every effort made to retain the natural features of the land
including ridges, rolling landforms, knolls, vegetation, trees, rock outcroppings,
and water courses. Where grading is required to stabilize areas of geologic
instability, the graded area shall be returned to a natural landform. 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.
t
See discussion under Section 4.08.04 (b) above.
OSC-15
Site Coverage. To the maximum extent feasible, a goal of 50% of large
undeveloped parcels should be considered for retention in permanent open space
outside of any parcel or lot which has development potential. Such open space
shall be contiguous and link up with adjacent open space whenever practicable.
Where a more desirable site plan would result, consideration may be given to
larger individual lots. In the latter case, to the maximum extent feasible, 50% of
the large undeveloped parcel should be retained in open space and the portions of
open space within a parcel or lot with development potential should be restricted
from development by open space easement or other appropriate means. This
policy shall not require or preclude clustering and protection of open space views
shall be accomplished through appropriate building and site coverage
restrictions .
~
,
See discussion under Section 4.08.04 (a) above.
Parks and Recreation Element
PROPOSED-8
The Town should require publicly-accessible off-road connecting
liburon Planning Commission
Sta ff Report
October 28, 1998
9
EXHIBIT NO. t D
p( 9 0 r:: ii
j
trails between recreation areas (developed, developable, and open
space) and neighborhood areas.
The Tiburon Ridge Trail currently runs just south of the site along Sugarloaf Drive. The two
future homes on this property would be connected to this trail by the private roadway which
leads from the homes to Sugarloaf Drive.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An initial study/draft mitigated negative decl~ation was prepared for this project and released for
public comment on October 7, 1998. The initial study/draft mitigated negative declaration is
attached as Exhibit 2. The public review period ended on October 28, 1998. No letters have
been received at this time regarding the negative declaration.
,
The initial study identified the potential for significant environmental impacts in the following
categories:
Geologic Hazards
Air Quality
Water Quality
Biological Resources
Transportation and Circulation
Noise
Hazards
Aesthetics
Mitigation measures and a draft mitigation monitoring program (Exhibit 3) have been developed
which would reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts to less-than-significant
levels. The mitigation measures related to biological, aesthetics, transportation and circulation
impacts have been previously described.
CONCLUSION
t
The two parcels have very limited, well defined areas in which access to, and construction of
residences would be feasible. The applicant has devised a precise development plan for this
property that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and with the General Plan. The siting of .
the two building envelopes on the knolls would allow for feasible access, reduce the grading and
tree removal impacts of construction, and minimize potential view or privacy impacts on the
existing neighboring homes along Sugarloaf prive.
Tiburon Planning Commission
StatT Report
October 28, 1998
10
EXHIBIT NO. I 0
1. lOb F J}
.
FUTURE ACTIONS REQUIRED
The Planning Commission's approval of this project would be a recommendation to the Town
Council. Should the Commission vote to deny the project, that action would be final unless
appealed to the Town Council. If the Precise Development Plan is approved by the Town
Council, subsequent Town permits would include Site Plan and Architectural Review approval
for each residence, and building permits for each house.
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commis~ion hold a public hearing on this item and adopt the
draft resolution recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative .Declaration and approval of ,
the project to the Town Council, subject to the conditions contained therein.
EXHIBITS
1. App lication form
2. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3. Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan
4. Biological study prepared by Sycamore Associates, LLC., dated March 10, 1998
5. Geological evaluation prepared by Earth Science Consultants, dated March 7, 1997
6. Tree Preservation Report prepared by Kenneth W. Allen, dated August 17, 1998
7. Environmental Data Submission form and supplemental materials prepared by J.L.
Engineering, dated June 22, 1998
8. Draft resolution
9. Proposed plans dated October 21, 1998
;t
I
TIburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
October 28, 1998
11
EXHIBIT NO. } D
p. l { 0 F L I
~
TOWN OF TmURON
STAFF REpORT
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
ITEM NO.
3
PLANNING COMMISSION
DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER
FILE #39804: PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO PARCEL 10.7
ACRE SITE; HIGH MEADOW ~ANE; Hugh and David Taylor, owners; Jay
Hallberg, applicant; Assessor's Parcel Nos. 58-281-14, 58-281-15, 58-100-72 & 58-
100-73 (formerly Otani property) (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 28, 1998)
NOVEMBER 12, 1998
,
SUMMARY
The project is the proposed approval of a precise development plan (the High Meadow Precise
Development Plan) on a 10.7 acre site consisting of two separate parcels to the north of
Sugarloaf Drive. The Planning Commission reviewed this project at the October 28, 1998
meeting. At that time, the Commission requested additional information regarding the project,
and continued the hearing to the November 12, 1998 meeting.
The Planning Commission directed that the following items be addressed prior to this continued
meeting:
1.
The geological consultant and the Town Engineer should be present at the
meeting. The applicant has indicated that Earth Science Consultants, the
consultant that prepared the geotechnical study for the project, would be present.
Staff has also contacted the Town Engineer, who has stated that he will attend the
meeting.
I
2. Staff shall confer with the Marin County Open Space District about their
potential interest in dedication of portions of the subject property. Staff has
been in contact with Ron Miska from the Open Space District, and has forwarded
plans and a staff report for the project to his office. As of the writing of this
report, no response has been received from the District, although Mr. Miska has
indicated that the District will have a response prior to the Planning Commission
meeting.
TIBORON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 12, 1998
EXHIBIT NO. II
Pc loF3
t
"
3. All trees slated for removal shall be marked. The applicant indicated that these
trees would be marked by some time on the weekend of November 7 and 8.
4. More detailed landscaping plans, showing the transition between the
residences and surrounding open space, shall be provided. These plans have
been submitted and are attached.
5. The location of the driveway and turnaround areas shall be staked for
identification. The applicant indicated that these areas would be staked by some
time on the weekend of November 7 and 8.
6.
The location of the revised building envelopes shall be staked for
identification. The applicant indicated that these areas would be staked by some
time on the weekend of November 7 and 8.
,
7. Information shall be provided regarding the 400 trees previously cut down
on or near this property. In.1994, a resident of Heathcliff Drive ordered an
employee to remove 400 trees below her property. The majority of these trees
were situated on the Bank of California property below the subject site, but a
number of these trees were located on the subject property. The trees removed
were at the lower portions of the site, well outside the building envelopes and
proposed driveway locations for this project. The trees removed did not enlarge
or otherwise affect the open areas currently slated for construction on this
property .
8. Information shall be provided regarding the previous slide toward Paradise
Drive which occurred in this area. The applicant's geologist and the Town
Engineer will be present at the meeting to more. accurately identify the location of
this slide.
9.
The applicant shall make themselves available to walk the site with
Commission members. The names and phone numbers of the architect and
engineer for the applicant have been previously distributed to the Commission.
Please contact these people if you wish to have them accompany you on a site
visit prior to the meeting, but make sure that no more than two Commissioners
visit the site at anyone time.
.,
The remainder of the issues related to this project were discussed in the previous Staff report.
Please bring these materials to the upcoming meeting.
11BURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 12, 1998 2
EX-BIBIT NO..-lL
~# "J;L d- 3
t
CONCLUSION
As previously stated, the two parcels have very limited, well defined areas in which access to,
and construction of residences would be feasible. The applicant has devised a precise
development plan for this property that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and with the
General Plan. The siting of the two building envelopes on the knolls would allow for feasible
access, reduce the grading and tree removal ~mpacts of construction, and minimize potential view
or privacy impacts on the existing neighboring homes along Sugarloaf Drive. The potential
environmental impacts related to geological, biological and other conditions can be mitigated to
less than significant levels.
FUTURE ACTIONS REQUIRED
t
The Planning Commission's approval of this project would be a recommendation to the Town
Council. Should the Commission vote to deny the project, that action would be final unless
appealed to the Town Council. If the Precise Development Plan is approved by the Town
Council, subsequent Town permits would include Site Plan and Architectural Review approval
for each residence, and building permits for each house.
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold the continued public hearing on this item
and adopt the draft resolution recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
approval of the project to the Town Council, subject to the conditions contained therein.
EXIllBITS
1.
2.
Draft resolution
Revised plans dated November 6, 1998
t
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 12, 1998
3
EXHIBIT NO.-1L
p. 3 OP 3
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
,
To: PLANNING CO~SSION
From: DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER
Subject: FILE #39804: PRECISE DEVELOP:MENT PLAN FOR A TWO PARCEL 10.7
ACRE SITE; HIGH :MEADOW LANE; Hugh and David Taylor, owners; Jay
Hallberg, applicant; Assessor's Parcel Nos. 58-281-14, 58-281-15, 58-100-72 & 58-
100-73 (formerly Otani property) (CONTINUED FROM NOVENIBER 12, 1998)
Date: JANUARY 27, 1999
t
SUMMARY
The project is the proposed approval of a precise development plan (the High Meadow Precise
Development Plan) on a 10.7 acre site consisting of two separate parcels to the north of S ugarloaf
Drive. The Planning Commission reviewed this project at the October 28, 1998 meeting. At that
time, the Commission requested additional information regarding the project, and continued the
hearing to the November 12, 1998 meeting.
At the November 12th meeting, the Commission directed that an independent consultant prepare a
peer review of the geotechnical report submitted for this project by the applicant. The Town
entered into an agreement with Miller Pacific Engineering Group to perform these services. The
requested report has been completed and is attached as Exhibit 1.
ANALYSIS
The Miller Pacific report states that the previous report prepared by Earth Science Consultants
(ESC) is "adequate for the proposed project, and includes a suitable level of exploration for the
preparation of design recommendations. Further, the design criteria presented for foundations
and retaining walls appears to be reasonable based on the test borings and our local experience."
.t!
,
The Miller Pacific report did emphasize the need to follow through on many of the
recommendations of the ESC report, including the presence of the geotechnical engineer during
construction and observation and testing of other geotechnically-related site work. The same
engineer should also determine areas suitable for water dispersal, review the grading and building
plans "to verify conformance with the intent of the recommendations presented in the design
report" and comments within the Miller Pacific report, and review drainage plans to determine the
TIBlJRON PLANNING COMMISSION
ST AFF REPORT
JANUARY 27, 1999
EXHIBIT NO. I Z-
PL I OF- 3
t
impact of water discharges and landscape irrigation on the adjacent slopes.
The Miller Pacific report also includes the following comments on aspects of the proposed project
specifically requested by the Planning Commission:
1. Location of driveway. The Miller Pacific report acknowledged that the proposed driveway
location would require "substantial grading in an undisturbed area, extensive trimming and
removal of several trees, and will result in difficult construction on a steep, natural slope."
The report indicated that relocation of the driveway to the alignment of the current gravel
path would reduce the amount of grading required and the impacts on existing trees. The
report recommends additional evaluation of the proposed driveway path by the ESC, as the
original report evaluated a driveway following the alignment of the gravel path.
As previously noted, the proposed driveway alignment is the result of extensive negotiations
with the Tiburon Fire District, which, despite concerted efforts by the applicant and Planning
Director, refused to allow access along the current gravel path due to the steepness of the
driveway. The proposed driveway path provides the only achievable access to this site.
Denial of access to the site would not be legally sustainable unless based on "health or safety"
concerns, pursuant to California law. The Fire District justifies its required driveway
alignment on a "health and safety" basis.
,
2. Impacts of proposed construction. The Miller Pacific report states that "the planned project is
feasible provided that careful construction practices are followed and that the drainage system
is constructed according to the Engineer's design recommendations and subsequent
modifications based on inspections during construction." The report also notes that drainage
should follow pre-construction watershed drainage patterns on the site. The lateral
dispersement method of disposing of on-site drainage proposed by the applicant is the most
effective method of re-creating the existing drainage patterns on the property.
3. Small landslide area. The small landslide area identified in theE?C report is described by
Miller Pacific as a "relatively shallow feature." Construction of the p~oposed driveway would
require deeper piers in this area, and the report recommends that drainage be directed away
from this and other areas of potential instability on the site.
t
4. Effect of water dispersal. The report indicates that "the dispersal methods recommended in
the [ESC] report appear to be suitable for the planned development and the conditions [Miller
Pacific] observed."
5. Effect of oak tree removal. The report recommends that "removal of trees. .. should be
minimized so that slopes remain as close to a natural state as possible." For trees that are
removed, the stumps and surface roots should be removed, and excavations filled with
compacted soils.
6. Long-term performance of retaining walls. The Miller Pacific report found that the design
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
JANUARY 27, 1999
2
EXHIBIT T\T 0 .,.-lL-
P.2- cF .3
t
criteria for the retaining walls along the driveway "appear reasonable based on the observed
site conditions and data presented on test boring logs." The report concurred that the
retaining walls be constructed of reinforced concrete for durability. Details on the structural
design of the walls would be completed once the final alignment of the driveway has been
determined, and specific topographic information is collected.
CONCLUSION
The Miller Pacific report generally agrees with the conclusions of the Earth Science Consultants
geotechnical study for this project. The emphasis of the peer review was that the geotechnical
engineer needs to remain involved in the design and construction of the project. As noted above,
the proposed driveway alignment is the only feasible access to this site that complies with the Fire
District's requirements, and preventing access at this point could only be justified on health and
safety grounds supported by evidence in the record.
t
As previously stated, the two parcels have very limited, well defined areas in which access to, and
construction of residences would be feasible. The applicant has devised a precise development
plan for this property that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and with the General Plan. The
siting of the two building envelopes on the knolls would allow for feasible access, reduce the
grading and tree removal impacts of construction, and minimize potential view or privacy impacts
on the existing neighboring homes along SugarloafDrive. The potential environmental impacts
related to geological, biological and other conditions can be mitigated to less than significant
levels.
FUTURE ACTIONS REQUIRED
The Planning Commission's approval of this project would be a recommendation to the Town
Council. Should the Commission vote to deny the project, that action would be final unless
appealed to the Town Council. If the Precise Development Plan is approved by the Town
Council, subsequent Town permits would include Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for
each residence, and building permits for each house.
~
,
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold the continued public hearing on this item
and adopt the draft resolution recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
approval of the project to the Town Council, subject to the conditions contained therein.
EXHmITS
1. Report from Miller Pacific Engineering Group, datedJanuary 6, 1999
2. Draft resolution
3. Minutes of the November 12, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
JANUARY 27, 1999
3
EXHIBIT NO. lL
P. 36F3
if
t
Commissioner Stein commented that CEQA requirements have made the Commissioners cognizant
of these issues. The Audubon Society is active here and they also put out this message.
Senior Planner Watrous confirmed that the Planning and Building Staffs are well aware of these
issues and many of the suggested remedies are already practiced here. The purpose of this
education program is to reenforce and keep these issues in mind for the future.
Commissioner Knoble requested that the booklet mentioned, "Start at the Source," be circulated
among the Commissioners.
Sia Barmand, Town Engineer, indicated they had copies at the County and he would see that the
Commissioners got one. He also indicated that the County has four staff people dedicated to I.
MCSTOPPP issues.
Chair Klairmont asked how the Commissioners should apply this information. Mr. Watrous said
they should be aware of these issues as they review the designs of the various projects that come
before them. He felt that Staff and the Commission already deal with many of these issues
intuitively.
Commissioner Knoble wondered whether anyone looked at ways to change current situations. Mr.
Barmand said the County does check on current businesses to see how they handle these issues and
they have an outreach program to all the cities in the county. They have an educational aspect as
well. As an illustration, he mentioned that water flowing off the parking lot at Blackie' s Pasture
goes through a grease trap and is treated before entering the Bay waters. A lot of work already
has been done to control runoff into the Bay.
Ms. Edde was thanked for her presentation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 1998: M/S Knoble/Stein to approve as submitted. (3-0) ,
PUBLIC HEARING
4. HIGH MEADOW LANE, File #39804: PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (High
Meadow Precise Development Plan) FOR A TWO PARCEL 10.7 ACRE SITE; Irvin and..
David Taylor, owners; Jay Hallberg, applicant; Assessor Parcel Nos. 58-281-14, 58-281-
15, 58-100-72, & 58-100-73 (formerly Otani property).
Senior Planner Watrous stated that this application seeks approval of a Precise Development Plan
to establish building envelopes on two existing parcels which will be accessed from the extension
of High Meadow Lane off Sugarloaf Drive.
TlBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF ocrOBER i8, 1998
MINUTES NO. 796
2
EXHIBIT NO.JL.
p. t~ g
,
There is heavily wooded open space area outside the building envelopes that is contiguous to the
St. Hilary Open Space. As there are already several access points to this open space, Staff did
not feel there needed to be a dedication of lands. However, there should be language that
prohibits other improvements in this area.
As oak woodland covers most of the property, some trees are to be removed, primarily near the
driveway, and are recommended to be replaced at a ratio of 3: 1. The building envelopes have
been located to reduce the visibility of the proposed homes. These parcels would allow homes
up to 8,000 square feet, but the applicant has tentatively designed homes that are 4,500 square
feet. The building envelopes extend further than needed on the plans, and should be reduced
somewhat.
There are no landslide or geological hazards on the property. The driveway design was difficult t
and the applicants have worked with the Fire District to ensure the fire trucks can go up and down
and turn around. There will be some grading involved with retaining walls to comply with these
requirements. There will be no import or export of soil from the site. The upper house has been
placed slightly off the knoll and down the hillside in order to accommodate the fire turnaround.
The dense oak woodland extends well off the site, but the proposed building envelopes do not
significantly intrude into this woodland. Mitigation measures can be imposed for all potential
impacts, and the plan is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. He
recommended adoption of the draft resolution recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and approval of the project to the Town Council.
Commissioner Knoble asked if this had always been two parcels~ Mr. Watrous said they were
separate parcels, but that a lot line adjustment had been done a year ago.
Mr. Watrous explained that the High Meadow Lane address \vas established because there were
not enough numbers at that spot on Sugarloaf Drive to accommodate these two houses. He
clarified for Commissioner Knoble that he had not contacted the County about the open space
dedication, as the site did not provide additional public access to the open space.
I
Chair Klairmont wanted clarification on the ridgeline. Mr. Watrous explained that even though
these building envelopes are within the Tiburon Ridge setbacks, the ridge line in this area is
already compromised.
Commissioner Knoble asked if the information about expansive soils was accurate, that they did .
not present a geological hazard. Mr. Watrous said that significant landslide hazards and fault
zones were not present on this site. Commissioner Stein said he understood Commissioner
Knoble's concern, as the report states one of the borings had "highly expansive soil materials. "
Commissioner Knoble said she knows this is not a trivial matter from personal experience. Mr.
Watrous replied that area would have to be treated properly.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF ocrOBER 28, 1998
MINUTES NO. 796
3
.
"
EXHIBIT NO. (3
f. 2_ of &>
t
Discussion was opened to the public at 8:30 p.m.
Irvin Taylor, 611 Ridge Road~ stated that he had acquired this property two years ago and that his
two sons are planning to build their homes there.
David Taylor, San Rafael, stated that his home was to be on the lower parcel and introduced the
architect for the project. The civil engineer and landscape architect were also present.
Ed McEachron~ architect, stated that these were not spec houses but designed for the two sons.
This was more than a precise plan as the houses have already been designed. He showed the
location of the property on an aerial photograph, which shows the clear area where the homes will
be surrounded by trees. There will be a minimum number of trees cut and some grade and fill, t
as the homes are on two knolls. According to the Fire Department. there is only one place for .
the road. They required full turnarounds on each parcel. He explained that the reason for the
larger building envelopes was to allow room for possible pools and family rooms in the future.
He stated that they had designed detached garages turned perpendicular to minimize the impact
of the bulk of the buildings from the driveway. They kept the building footprints compact to
preserve as much open space as possible. He noted that some trees had been cut already and dirt
put on the property by one of the neighbors. They intend to work with the neighbors so their
views would not be blocked.
Commissioner Knoble stated that she felt the driveway alternative was still steep. Mr. McEachron
said that it could not be any less steep than it is, as they have already raised the garage pad.
Jay Hallberg, civil engineer for the project, stated that some trees will be removed to allow for
the beginning of the driveway and some of those are diseased. There would be a 15 % grade to
the first house and 20% to the second.
Commissioner Stein asked how far the garage pad would be above grade. Mr. Hallberg said it
was approximately two feet at the outer edge. They were able to lower the upper part of the
driveway. He explained that the roadway was parallel to the hill part of the way. Mr. Watrous I
said they started the decent sooner to get down the hill further. Mr. Stein said it was difficult to
visualize and thought it was hard to see how this was to be accomplished without an enormous
amount of grading and filling. He felt it was hard to relate the drawings to the actual site.
There was further discussion and description about the amount of soil being moved (approximately
1400 cubic yards) and how the cut and fill would be done to create the roadway.
Chair Klairmont asked if there was any extra parking provided. Mr. Hallberg said extra parking
was not specifically provided, but there were three car garages and ample area for additional
parking. Mr. Watrous stated that parking in the turnaround is generally discouraged, but there
is sufficient visitor parking.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF ocrOBER 28, 1998
MINUTES NO. 796
4
EXHIBIT NO.J.L
f3c>P?
,
Mr. Hallberg replied to Mr. Stein that the percent grade the upper house goes into the hillside is
about 30-40 % . He commented that there was a level area below the house itself that could be
used as a play area for the children. Commissioner Knoble stated that if it was open space, that
meant that nothing would be there. Commissioner Stein said that if an area is wanted at a later
date, that should be included in the building envelope, and there can be primary and secondary
envelopes. Commissioner Knoble agreed that should be dealt with now, rather than come back
for an expansion at a later date and have to deal with the neighbors' complaints.
Commissioner Knoble would like to see 50 % as open space, which means it is not used. She
would like to ask the County if they would annex this to the existing open space. Mr. Watrous
stated that there are no improvements outside the building envelope except driveways and retaining
walls. He said 9-1/2 acres of the 10 acre parcel remain open space, which would be 85%. He
said if it was dedicated, there should be a caveat that it would not affect the size of the house.
Ms. Knoble said she agreed, and just wanted that clarified now. Mr. Taylor said they have no
intention of encroaching on the open space. They felt that the beauty of these lots was the fact
there was open space all around.
,
Commissioner Knoble stated that perhaps the secondary envelope was the way to give them the
most area. Commissioner Stein said his concern was the opposite, that the building envelope was
too big, on a steep grade, and required cutting a lot of trees. Mr. McEachron stated they were
not cutting that many trees.
The Commissioners reviewed and discussed the building envelopes at the bulletin board.
Pete Peterson, landscape architect, asked the Commission to waive the 3: 1 ratio for replacement
of cut trees. There are a lot of trees on the property and this ratio would mean planting 63 trees
(21 cut). Mr. Watrous stated this was at the discretion of the Commission. Commissioner Stein
said he had the same thought, as there are so many trees there.
Discussion was closed to the public at 9:30 p.m.
Commissioner Stein asked about the Salem Rice Slope Stability Study of 1976. He confirmed that
nothing comparable had been done recently. Staff recommends the Negative Declaration, but on
reading the engineer's report, he thought there were enough conditions, cautions and caveats that
he does not have a comfort level that an EIR is not needed.
I
Mr. Watrous said that most of these conditions, regulations, and negative declarations, would'
pertain to any site in Tiburon. The Town Engineer and Staff had reviewed the project, and neither
had found significant impacts. The EIR would get one more set of eyes if the Commission felt
that was necessary. He added that one boring, out of 21, with expansive soil on a site like this
is considered very stable. There were no unusual characteristics to merit additional study. Mr.
Stein said he was concerned about the grading, filling, and retaining walls being put in. He
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF ocrOBER 28, 1998
MINUTES NO. 796
5
~
'-
EXHIBIT NO. 13
P, t.l DF?{
,
commented on the reference to the number of landslides in the greater neighborhood area. Mr.
Watrous explained that referred to landslides on open areas not near the proposed building
envelopes on this property.
Commissioner Knoble was shown the location of the previous slide in this area. Commissioner
Stein asked about the small slide on this property. Mr. Watrous said that was insignificant. Mr.
McEachron commented that it was in his best interest to make sure this project is safe for his
client. He had a reputable soils engineer and will hire a structural engineer to design the project
and these two experts will work together. The Town Engineer will review their work and this
process provides checks and balances.
Commissioner Stein thought that an EIR would add another level of checks that would be t..
unbiased. He felt there were conflicted elements in the project. He wondered whether the .
architect had designed similar projects as regards the amount of cut and fill. Mr. McEachron said
he had done the same type, not for driveways, but for building sites that were much larger. He
commented that 1400 cubic yards is a small cut and fill. Everything was done according to the
engineers' recommendations. He has no intention to do other than what is safe and had hired
competent engineers.
Commissioner Stein said he had looked at a lot of engineering reports and this one gave him pause
because of the number of caveats, but perhaps he was overreacting to the manner of writing.
Commissioner Knoble thought the geologist report said that the project should be built with care.
She needed to resolve in her mind that this is not the site of the previous landslide. Mr.
McEachron said it would be very apparent if it were.
Chair Klairmont commented that on page 25 of exhibit 5 this ~lide is referred to, but not in great
detail. Senior Planner Watrous said this was referenced in the nature of learning from that slide.
Commissioner Stein said he would be more confident with an independent review. Mr. Watrous
said an independent review is conducted by the Town Engineer. An EIR is usually called for
when the experts have a difference of opinion and that is not the case with this project. The Town I
Engineer had reviewed the geological study and found it to be adequate.
Commissioner Stein said that the way this report is written with caveats, gives him pause and
raises cautions. Mr. Watrous said the report includes a number of mitigation measures, but that
does not mean it needs more review. There is no indication of additional problems. Chair.
Klairmont asked him to review the mitigation measures. Mr. McEachron said his structural .
engineer must follow the guidelines on page 10 of exhibit 5. All those recommendations must be
met. The soils engineer will then review to be sure of compliance. He noted that these
recommendations are all very standard in Marin County.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 1998
MINUTES NO. 796
6
EXHIBIT NO. [3
? 5 bF-~
,
Commissioner Knoble commented that it is challenging for the Commissioners to understand these
complex issues and deal with them compassionately. Each project presents a different set of
problems. She appreciated Mr. Stein persisting on this as the geology in this area is very
different. Mr. Watrous agreed that scrutiny is necessary and these were good questions. He
assured the Commissioners that the professional staff had reviewed, found nothing unusual, and
found the project to be adequate.
Commissioner Stein still felt it was difficult to rectify what the report says, what the plans say,
and what the site looks like. He did not see how the grading could be kept to an "absolute
minimum. "
Mr. Hallberg explained that they are giving structure to the area where grading is being done. ,.
There would be no earthwork outside walls, and that is minimum grading. All dirt moved is
contained by the walls and no soil is being removed from the property.
Commissioner Stein had concerns about just moving any soil on such steep slopes because it
affects the stability of the slope.
Mr. McEachron said that on page 11 it refers to the movement of soil that is not being retained,
and for most of the driveway, they are not disturbing the soil. They are grading only on the lower
part, which is relatively flat. They could add retaining walls if the Commission felt that was
necessary .
Commissioner Stein questioned that because it is done in a retaining wall, it is not considered
grading. Mr. Allen, landscape architect, stated that, yes, the roadway is being disturbed, but the
disturbed area is minimized by the retaining walls. The area to be graded on the lower part is
relatively flat. Mr. Watrous commented that if page 11 is read further it states that some grading
will be necessary, mostly in the driveway and parking area. ' Mr. Stein still thought there were
contradictions in the report. Mr. Watrous said Staff had reviewed the report and did not share his
concerns .
Commissioner Stein said it was not his impression that caveats are typical. He thought the report
was extraordinarily full of contingencies. Commissioner Knoble noted that Mr. Stein was not
comfortable with the Negative Declaration and wanted a third opinion. Mr. Stein said it may be
the style of writing, but he still sees questions and red flags.
t
Chair Klairmont stated that she did not have the same level of discomfort. The writing seemed .
fine. The Town Staff and Town Engineer had reviewed the project, and with the mitigations, she
felt comfortable with the project.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28. 1998
MINUTES NO. 796
7
'\
l,,:
EXHIBIT NO. I 3
f.&,e:Eg
t
Commissioner Stein suggested the EIR could be a focused study on a specific area. Mr. Watrous
said that an independent third party study of that area as part of a mitigated negative declaration
would be more appropriate.
Commissioner Knoble stated that she also had noted the underlined areas in the report and felt
these were not trivial concerns. It did raise cut and fill issues and there were steep slopes. She
wondered whether there were other alternatives for the road. Mr. McEachron stated it had to be
in this location because of the Fire Department restrictions.
Commissioner Knoble wondered about the history of the neighborhood and the slide and was
uneasy about that.
Senior Planner Watrous thought it would be helpful to have the geology consultant present to
answer background questions about the slide. Chair Klairmont also wanted the Town Engineer
present. She did not feel they could rule on this project at present. Mr. Watrous agreed more
information was needed for the Commission's comfort level.
t
Commissioner Knoble commented that in the biology report, one visit had been made in February
and wondered whether that was adequate. Mr. Watrous stated that they could determine the
likelihood of other species at that time. They can tell by other plants and the rock outcrops and
would revisit if they found it necessary and they did not. Chair Klairmont wondered why it was
not timed for when things grow. The applicant stated they were trying to get the study done as
soon as possible.
Commissioner Stein said another issue he wondered about was how the heavy equipment would
get in and out of the project site. Mr. McEachron said there were mitigating measures and certain
hours for construction. Mr. Watrous explained that the driveway is done first, the equipment
comes on site and stays there until complete and then leaves. 'There was to'be no dirt brought in
or out.
Commissioner Knoble said she had thought there would be neighbors in attendance. Mr. Watrous .1
said it was unusual there were none, but the story poles had gone up and neighbors had not
complained.
MIS Knoble/Stein (3-0) to continue the hearing to November 12, 1998 for the following:
· The geology engineer and the Town Engineer to be present at the meeting.
· Staff to find out if the County Open Space District was interested in acquiring a portion of
the property.
· Trees to be removed for the project should be marked in some way.
· Provide a tentative Landscape Plan which shows the existing trees.
· Perimeter of the driveway should be staked, so Commissioners can see where it falls.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF ocrOBER 28, 1998
MINUTES NO. 796
8
EXHIBIT NO. (3
P, 7of?5
· The architect and/or the engineer for the project are to be available to the Commissioners to
walk the site with plans in hand, including plans with details of drainage elevations.
· Building envelopes are to be staked.
· The geology engineer is to identify the location of the previous slide in this area.
· Information on the 400 trees removed near the site several years ago was to be presented.
ADJOURNMENT
It was noted that, because of the continuance of the above item, the November 12th date for the
Council/Commission Workshop was not an option.
Having no further business, the Commission adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
,
~a~
LISA KLAIRMONT, CHAIR
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATTEST:
~~~
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
m981028
t
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 1998
MINUTES NO. 796
9
.
~
EXHIBIT NO. t3
rp. ?oPo
~SHEDBUS~SS
3. HIGH MEADOW LANE, File #39804: PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (High
l\tleadow Precise Development Plan) FOR A TWO PARCEL 10.7 ACRE SITE; Hugh
and David Taylor, owners; Jay Hallberg, applicant; Assessor Parcel Nos. 58-281-14, 58-
281-15, 58-100-72, & 58-100-73 (formerly Otani property). CONTINUED FROM
OCTOBER 28, 1998.
Senior Planner Watrous stated that Town Engineer Sia Barmand was present to answer questions
concerning the geology, as was Jay Nelson, Consultant with Earth Sciences. Mr. Watrous had
discussed the project with Steve Tetterle of the Marin Open Space District. They had reviewed
the plans, but were not interested in adding to the open space as it was small, steep, and there
were no trails across the site.
t
Discussion was opened to the public at 7 :45 p. m.
Ed McEachron, architect, stated that the roadway had been staked as requested. He commented
that these homes are the actual designs that will be presented to the Design Review Board and are
not spec homes. There were questions about the building envelopes. He explained that the
primary building envelope was tight to the units, but the secondary envelopes extended from there
to allow for swimming pools, terracing, and steps, etc. There was further explanation at the board
on the posted plans and discussion about fencing.
Commissioner Stein commented that he felt they should begin by focusing on the Negative
Declaration to follow through from the last meeting.
Vice-Chair Berger asked the soils engineer for a report on the soils stability. He mentioned that
the soils were unstable along portions of Sugarloaf Drive and referred ,to the large slide that
occurred in the area in 1982.
Jay Nelson stated that he has been a soils engineer for 33 years and has worked on 60-70 homes .
in Tiburon and Belvedere. He showed a field map which indicated where the 21 test holes had t
been made, and stated that the site was on top of a spur ridge. Mr. Nelson explained that he tried
to minimize the grading, since large cuts upset the equilibrium of the hillside, and he followed the
natural grade as much as possible. The retaining walls will have steel beams and fir planks, which
the water can go through, as trouble occurs when water is unnaturally concentrated in one area.' .
This will allow the water to drain across the roadway. Vice-Chair Berger stated that the water'
would run down the road. Mr. Nelson said the road can be slanted away so it does go across the
road.
Vice-Chair Berger asked whether he noticed anything out of the ordinary for this site. Mr. Nelson
said that the soils were better than average for Tiburon. Often the rock layer in Tiburon is
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12.1998
MINUTES NO. 797
2
EXHIBIT NO.J!:L
'p ( ( of ~
Franciscan melange or serpentine, which are not good. Better is a metamorphic schist underlay,
which is what he found on this site. The soil on this site is mostly silt, which is better than clay,
as it is not as slippery. Mr. Berger said that in other words, this is a better soil to mitigate that
average, and Mr. Nelson agreed. He said the houses on this project are rather straightforward,
but the road is the crux. They would cut down to the rock, with piers drilled into the rock for the
wall.
Mr. Hallberg stated that the height of the walls was 10 - 10-1/2 feet above grade. There was
discussion about the height of the walls. He indicated that an engineer could make a wall any
height, but the higher it is, the more piers were needed and the more expensive it would be. The
width of the road is the most important factor. The wider the road, the bigger the cut into the
hillside.
t
Vice-Chair Berger stated that the Commission was not evaluating the engineering, but they wanted
to know if the effects of putting in the roadway could be mitigated. He wondered who checks
that. Town Engineer Sia Barmand said that the Town Building Department sends the plans to an
outside plan checker and if it is a complicated project, it would come to him.
Commissioner Knoble stated that the original purpose here was to make a decision about the
Negative Declaration and confirm that an EIR was not required. But the geology of the project
is important enough that it may be best to have an independent third party study to assure the
Commission that the impacts can be mitigated. She asked about the 1982 slide location and was
advised that it was in a swale further up the road and off the map they were using.
Vice-Chair Berger confirmed with Staff that the Commission wOl)ld be asking an outside firm to
look at the project to see if the mitigations proposed are workable, since it was a very long
driveway with high retaining walls.
Mr. Barmand stated that he had walked the site with the Planning Director. As Mr. Berger said,
many portions of this side of Sugarloaf Drive had unstable soiL But according to Mr. Nelson,
no landslides were found on this site. There was mostly schist and no melange in the area, and
that is good. It is up to the Commission to decide whether they can accept this one report. He
has known Mr. Nelson over the years and knows he does good work. If the Commission decides
on a peer review, he would suggest concentrating on this report.
j
I
Commissioner Slavitz asked if a peer review was worth doing. Mr. Barmand said if Mr. Nelson .
had not found any slide areas to map, he would accept that report. Mr. Nelson said he had
noticed some small ones down from the road. Mr. Stein noted that this discrepancy was what he
had referred to at the last meeting. Mr. Barmand said that was only a problem if water was
concentrated in that spot. He did feel that water would collect on the road and run down the road
and that needed to be dispersed. Mr. Watrous stated that there are catch-basins further down,
leading to perforated pipes for dispersal.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12. 1998
MINUTES NO. 797
3
EXHIBIT NO..-tL
p < 2 0'::: (,0
\.
Vice-Chair Berger stated that it seemed that what they were doing would make this site better and
that the problems could be mitigated. He could go with this project and did not feel a third
opinion was needed.
Commissioner Slavitz stated that he was comfortable with it' also, as the professionals have
reviewed and he is confident they know what they are doing.
Mr. Nelson commented that in the Salem-Rice Study, they called this site a zone 2 or 3, while
most of Tiburon would be a 4.
Commissioner Stein explained to Mr. Nelson that at the previous meeting he had difficulty in
following the recommendations as far as consistency is concerned. This became more clear as
Mr. Nelson explained other procedures. He took issue with the Staff Report saying that they were
not altering the topography of the site. While the effects may be mitigated, they were altering the
site. Mr. Watrous replied that in his professional opinion, there was not a significant change, as
the general terrain follows the slope of the area rather than cutting large amounts of hill away.
I
Mr. Stein said he had looked at the center stakes and wondered what the grade was at the steepest
point. Mr. Hallberg advised that it was about a 40% slope. Mr. Stein wondered if it was over
40% it would require an EIR. Mr. Watrous said there was no automatic trigger, that it depends
upon what is going there. If homes were on this section, then perhaps an EIR would be needed,
but for a roadway, it was not. An EIR would be looking at something that potentially could not
be mitigated.
Mr. Barmand said that an EIR would also explore alternatives. The proposed driveway would
have the least impact on the hill and is one of the better designs that could be used. Alternatives
to this would most likely be less desirable.
Vice-Chair Berger said they were not slicing off a significant portion of the hillside, but there
would be a large structure. He was comfortable with the description of soils.
Commissioner Stein stated that they were originally going to use. the existing roadway, but the t
Fire Department had required the design as currently proposed. He wondered whether it would
make sense to expand on other alternatives, such as extending the parking deck on parcel two with
the pad up higher. Mr. Berger said the Fire Department would not accept that. Mr. Hallberg said
the Fire Department wants access at the houses and has to be near enough to the structure. Mr.
Stein asked how close could they get to the lower house by extending the pad. Mr. Hallberg said"
the Fire Department wants to drive to the structure. Mr. Barmand stated that the maximum drop
to a house would be 40 feet. Time is important when deal ing with a fire and it is hard to have to
go up and down a steep slope. The impact on the site would be worse because of the additional
turnaround. He saw no real alternative to the current plan unless the road were narrowed to 12
feet rather than 18.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12. 1998
MINUTES NO. 797
4
EXHIBIT NO. JY
y, '3 of fo
Randy Greenberg, Norman Way, asked how long the 10-11 foot high wall would be and was
advised that it was 150' long. She said that is extraordinary for Tiburon and the Commission
should be cautious. She was also concerned that the fire access not be compromised. The
Commission should be sure they have the opportunity to review the project again after the Fire
Department makes its ruling, in case the slope is not acceptable. She agreed with Commissioner
Stein that an EIR really does look at alternatives and perhaps they would come up with something
else. She also wondered about soils below this site. She was pleased that this site is stable, but
was unsure about what is below. With a 150' roadway, the hill is altered and adds to the load on
the hillside because there is underground water also.
Discussion was closed to the public at 8:55 p.m.
Commissioner Knoble proposed a peer review to determine alternative arrangements. At least
they would have a better understanding of those alternatives. An analysis of the soils below this
property would be desirable as well.
t
Commissioner Slavitz thought that a peer review would be satisfactory, that an EIR would be too
much. He was comfortable with the reports, but could agree to the peer review. The Fire
Department has approved the roadway and it does not look like the road could be anywhere else.
Vice-Chair Berger thought this was a very good way of building a road. He was concerned with
so much wood in the retaining walls. It is hard to know what the long-term effect would be.
There should be records about the soils down hill. He would support a focused study, as extra
scrutiny seemed justified to determine how the water would be disbursed, to come up with
mitigations and recommendations, and to make sure everything is very clear.
Commissioner Stein understood the mitigations being proposed, but he would want an independent
review on this big a structure. The Commission owes it to the public to make sure the project is
sound. .
Chair Klairmont wondered if the wall would be obsolete in 50 years and have to be rebuilt. Vice-
Chair Berger said the study could include whether this was an appropriate wall. Chair Klairmont
agreed that a study is warranted due to the magnitude of a la' x 150' structure.
.a
t
Commissioner Knoble was also concerned about the biological tests being done at an odd time of
year, but that issue was not pursued as there was no indication of a problem.
Commissioner Stein also wondered whether the landscape plan included the cleared buffer zone
that the Fire Department requires. Mr. Watrous stated that the peer review will take time, so a
revised landscape plan could be done as well.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 1998
MINUTES NO. 797
5
,
EXHIBIT NO.l:L
? L/ tF(P
Commissioner Slavitz asked how the peer review works. Mr. Watrous explained that another soils
engineer would make a report at the direction of the Town Staff. Then there would be another
hearing to explain the findings. This process will take anywhere from two weeks to two months,
depending upon whether it is just verifying the report or includes site work. Mr. Barmand stated
that the Town describes the scope of the review, and as a site investigation would take longer, it
would be helpful if the Commission would clarify how far they want to go.
Vice-Chair Berger stated that the peer review should be done by someone familiar with the area.
Commissioner Slavitz felt they should evaluate the impact on the property below. Mr. Watrous
explained that this project cannot mitigate measures off-site, or fix problems downslope. They
also wanted to know the number of trees to be removed.
MIS Knoble/Slavitz (5-0) to direct Staff to obtain a peer review of the geological report as
outlined below, to be paid for by the applicant, item to be continued until the review is completed,
and to add information about the number of trees to be removed for the fire buffer. The following
areas shall be addressed by the peer review:
t
1. Options and alternatives for the design and location of the private roadway to serve this
project.
2. Some analysis of the soils at the bottom of the site and below the site, with an analysis of the
impact of the proposed construction on these areas.
3. Review of small slide indications mentioned in the geological study.
4. Effects of methods of water dispersal and other drainage systems on slope stability.
5. Effect of removal of oak trees on the site on slope stability.
6. Appropriate structural design of roadway retaining walls in terms of long-term durability.
,j
'I
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 1998
MINUTES NO. 797
6
EXHIBIT NO. 1<-1
P. 5oF(P
,
ADJOIJRNMENT
Having no further business, the Commission adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
~ K1G~i
LI KLAIRMONT, CHAIR
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATTEST:
~dLL~
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
t
m981112
j
,
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 1998
MINUTES NO. 797
7
"
.~
EXHIBIT NO. 1 <f
t. (P CFb
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TillURON
APPROVING THE HIGH MEADOW PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 58-281-14. 58-281-15. 58-100-72 & 58-100-73
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
A.
The Town Council has received and considered an application filed by Irvin and David
Taylor for a Precise Development Plan on a 10.7 acre site north of SugarloafDrive (the
High Meadow Precise Development Plan). The precise plan would provide for the
development of two single-family dwellings. Parcel 1, on the lower end of the site,
contains 8.4 acres of area, and Parcel 2 is 2.3 acres in size.
I
The site consists of two irregularly shaped parcels sloping down from the Tiburon Ridge,
with an average south to north slope of 40%, with steeper portions sloping up to 75%.
Access to both lots would be provided from an extension of High Meadow Lane, a private
roadway off SugarloafDrive. The roadway would be 18 feet wide, with turnaround areas
in front of each proposed home and garage, and all portions of the roadway with slopes
exceeding 15% will be finished with scored concrete. Vegetation on the site consists of
grasslands toward the top of the property and dense oak and bay woodlands on the lower
portions.
The High Meadow Precise Plan would establish building envelopes and other planning
limitations for the two existing parcels. The building envelope for Parcel 1 would occupy
a lower plateau on the site, beginning approximately 320 feet from SugarloafDrive. The
building envelope for Parcel 2, on the upper portion of the site, would begin 240 feet
from the southern property line, and have an area of 18,000 square feet.
-d
1
B. The Precise Development Plan application consists of File #39804, on file with the Town
of Tiburon Planning Department. Drawings from that application approved in this action
are as follows:
1. Site Plan, drawn 1/8/97 (1 sheet).
2. Driveway Improvement Plan (2 sheets).
3. Site Improvement Plans, drawn 1/8/97 (2 sheets)
4. Slope Analysis Map, drawn 3/5/98 (1 sheet)
5. Planting Plan, revised 6/29/98 (1 sheet)
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No.
2/1 7/99
1
EXHIBIT NO. J S-
r. ( O~ 7
,
Other drawings available as resource maps, but not specifically approved herein, include
the following:
a. Application form received March 31, 1998
b. Biological study prepared by Sycamore Associates, LLC., dated March 10, 1998
c. Geological evaluation prepared by Earth Science Consultants, dated March 7,
1997
d. Tree Preservation Report prepared by Kenneth W. Allen, dated August 17, 1998
e. Environmental Data Submission form and supplemental materials prepared by lL.
Engineering, dated June 22, 1998
C.
An initial study had been prepared for this project. This initial study was circulated for
review from October 7, 1998 to October 28, 1998, in conformance with the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act.
t
D. Pursuant to Section 4.08.03 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission
held duly-noticed public hearings on October 28, 1998, November 12, 1998 and January
27, 1999, and heard and considered testimony from interested persons. The Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 99-03 recommending to the Town Council that the
High Meadow Precise Development Plan be approved and that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration be adopted.
E. The Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on February 17, 1999 and heard and
considered testimony from interested persons. The Town Council found that the
proposal, as conditioned, is consistent with the Tiburon General Plan based on the
following facts:
Land Use Element
The biological study prepared for this project found that the most sensitive areas on this
property were contained within the oak woodlands on the lower portion of the site. These
areas are located outside of the proposed building envelopes, and would be preserved as
open space. Each parcel would be allowed to be developed with one home, but the only
feasible building sites for each parcel lie technically within the Tiburon Ridge setbacks.
Nonetheless, the siting of the proposed building envelopes well below the homes which
already exist along the nearby ridgeline should result in minimal disruption to any
viewlines to or from the Tiburon Ridgeline.
j
a
11
Table 1 of this element, which lists the allowable densities for vacant land in Tiburon,
states that this property is to be developed at a density of 0.2 units per acre. This density
would allow up to two homes to be developed on this site. The density" is a moot point in
that the two parcels are legally created and recognized; each parcel may be developed with
one home and no more.
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No.
2/17/99
2
\.
EXHIBIT NO..J..2...
f, '2- OF 7
,
Open Space and Conservation Element
A total of88.7% of the subject site is proposed to remain as open space area outside the
proposed building envelopes. There are no shorelines, open water or rock outcroppings
on the site, and there are no significant wetlands ridgelines or riparian corridors which
would be disturbed by the proposed project. The biological study prepared for this project
revealed the presence of no special status plant species on the property. Most of the dense
oak woodland on the site is concentrated in the lower portion of the property, which is not
slated for construction. These issues are discussed in more detail in the Initial Study
prepared for this project.
The peak elevations of the proposed homes would be lower than the floor elevations of
any of the nearby residences along SugarloafDrive. The siting of both building envelopes
downslope from neighboring homes should insure minimal impact on any primary views
across the site toward San Francisco Bay.
t
Parks and Recreation Element
The Tiburon Ridge Trail currently runs just south of the site along Sugarloaf Drive. The
two future homes on this property would be connected to this trail by the private roadway
which leads from the homes to Sugarloaf Drive.
F. The Town Council found that the proposed project is consistent with Town Zoning
regulations based on the following factual analysis as required by Section 4.08.04 of the
Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, which sets forth these principles to be evaluated in the review
of Precise Development Plan applications:
a)
The location of the proposed building envelopes would leave over 9.5 acres of the
10.7 acre site (88.7%) in an open condition. The proposed precise plan does not
specify the method which would be utilized to preserve this open space.
Developments of this nature typically confer "open space" or "conservation"
easements to the Town over portions of the privately-owned lots located outside
the building envelopes.
,i
I
b) The most visible natural features on the site are the two knolls proposed for siting
of the building envelopes. The general contours of these knolls would remain as
they are developed as building sites. There are no water courses, special plant
species or significant riparian corridors on the site. There are no historically
significant trees on the site, although the lower reaches of the property, outside the
building envelopes, are covered with dense oak woodlands.
c) Most of the grading necessary to construct the project as proposed would involve
the construction of the roadway and driveways leading to the future homes. The
conceptual plans for the homes to be constructed on the two parcels generally
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No.
2/17/99
3
EXHIBIT NO. 15
f. 3 DF 7
Tiburon Town Council
reflect the slopes of the knolls on the site.
d) Existing homes above the site on Sugarloaf Drive have views across the property
toward San Francisco Bay to the north. The locations of the building envelopes
are situated downslope from these homes, and should not impact the view
corridors for any nearby residences. The envelopes have also been designed to site
the future homes away from the majority of the oak woodland on the property.
e)
The proposed project would involve the construction of two homes near the
Tiburon Ridgeline. The Open Space and Conservation Element of the Tiburon
General Plan includes policies regarding development near ridgelines in Tiburon.
Each parcel would be allowed to be developed with one home, but the only
feasible building sites for each parcel lie technically within the Tiburon Ridge
setbacks. Nonetheless, the proposed building envelopes would be located well
below the elevation of this stretch of the Tiburon Ridgeline along SugarloafDrive,
which is already developed with numerous other homes directly along the
ridgeline.
t
f) The knolls upon which the proposed building envelopes would be sited are located
at elevations well below the neighboring homes along SugarloafDrive to place the
future homes out of the line of sight from existing residences. The lower oak
woodlands on the property should screen the future homes from view from homes
below the site along Paradise Drive.
g) The geological study prepared for this project revealed that there are no significant
landslide or other geologic hazards on the site.
h) An Initial Study prepared for this project found that all potentially significant
environmental impacts which would be caused by this project ~an be mitigated to
less than significant levels.
i)
This project proposes the minimal roadway standards acceptable to the Tiburon
Fire Protection District and the Town Engineer in order to minimize grading,
retaining walls, and site disruption. Retaining walls up to 11.5 feet in height would
be required, but these walls would be perpendicular to the view of most nearby
homes, and would generally not be visible from off the site.
t
j) The proposed private roadway leads down between several adjoining residential
parcels, creating an extension of the existing housing pattern around the site. The
open areas along the eastern side of both parcels creates a natural transition to the
adjacent Old St. Hilary's Open Space Area.
k) The siting of the proposed building envelopes downslope from any nearby homes
along Sugarloaf Drive should create adequate visual and aural buffers between the
Resolution No.
2/17/99
4
,.
'\
EXHIBIT NO.~
~L./OF7
proposed homes and neighboring residences.
1) The placement of the building envelopes well below the existing homes along
Sugarloaf Drive and the orientation of potential outdoor living areas toward San
Francisco bay to the south should minimize noise impacts on surrounding areas.
m)
The two building envelopes have been sited on the relatively open portions of the
knolls on each of the two parcels to avoid unnecessary intrusion into the dense oak
woodlands on the lower portions of the property. All oak trees which are removed
as part of the construction of the homes, driveways and private roadway would be
replaced on a 3 to 1 basis. A landscape palette would be developed emphasizing
low maintenance, drought resistant, native species around the future homes. All
areas graded or disturbed during construction would be reseeded with native plant
materials to prevent erosion and scarring.
t
n) No street lights are proposed for this project. Low profile and low level roadway
and driveway step lighting would be appropriate, and would be reviewed by the
Design Review Board during its review of any homes eventually proposed on the
site.
0) Materials and colors used in improvements will be required to blend into the
natural environment to the extent reasonably as a condition of approval for this
project.
p) General Plan analysis was provided above in the section of this report on General
Plan consistency. Basically, the proposed project seems to be consistent with all of
the Tiburon General Plan goals, objectives, policies and programs.
Section 2. Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council approves the High
Meadow Precise Development Plan and adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration, subject to the
following conditions:
,C
t
1. The High Meadow Precise Development Plan is approved as submitted and
identified in the plans and text described above EXCEPT AS MODIFIED
HEREIN.
2. This Precise Development Plan shall be modified to incorporate all of the
mitigations required in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program attached as
Exhibit B.
3. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for project construction the
project developer shall submit a Design Review application to the Town of
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No.
2/17/99
5
EXHIBIT NO.~
f. 5 or]
Tiburon Town Council
,
Tiburon Planning Department and receive written approval from the Design
Review Board. Materials and colors used for structures shall blend into the natural
environment. Colors should be restricted to earth tone colors and materials which
blend with the natural environment. A landscape palette shall be developed
emphasizing low maintenance, drought resistant, native species around the future
homes. A lighting plan shall also be prepared and approved by the Design Review
Board. All areas graded or disturbed during construction shall be reseeded with
native plant materials to prevent erosion and scarring.
4.
The exact size and location of the building envelopes for each parcel shall reflect
the revised plans submitted by the applicant at the October 28, 1998 Planning
Commission meeting. Each parcel will be allowed a maximum floor area of 6,000
square feet, with 750 square feet of additional space for garage purposes.
t
5.
Prior to issuance of building permits, conservation easements shall be recorded for
all areas outside of building envelopes shown on the approved plans. No
improvements of any type, including fences, play equipment, temporary or
otherwise, or new landscaping shall be permitted outside the approved building
envelopes, except driveways and associated landscaping, retaining walls associated
with driveways or which support driveways.
6. All oak trees removed as part of the construction of this project shall be replaced
on a 3 to 1 basis.
7. Hours of construction shall be regulated by Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Town
Code. All building materials for project construction shall also be stored on-site, in
locations approved in advance by the Planning Department.
8.
All construction on, and landscaping of, the property shall comply with the
provisions of Tiburon Municipal Code Chapter 13E concerning water
conservation. Compliance with these regulations shall be ensured during the Site
Plan and Architectural Review and Building Permit processes.
I
9.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide written
confirmation to the Town of Tiburon Planning Department which demonstrates
that the project sponsor has satisfied any and all conditions of the Town Engineer,
Tiburon Fire Protection District, Sanitary District No.5, and the Marin Municipal
Water District.
10. Roadway grading on the site shall be limited to the dry season from May through
October, unless specifically authorized by the Town Engineer after requiring
appropriate precautionary measures.
Resolution No.
2/17/99
6
\
EXHIBIT NO. IS
~~ ro Dr 7
,
11. An erosion control plan and dust control plan satisfactory to the Town Engineer
shall be required prior to grading or construction on the site.
12. Graded areas shall be re-vegetated as soon as possible following completion of
grading activity. The project shall comply with the requirements of the Urban
Runoff Pollution Prevention Chapter 20A of the Tiburon Municipal Code.
13. All contractors and subcontractors performing work at the site shall be required by
contract to halt all work within 30 yards of any archaeologically significant
resource which may be uncovered during construction, until a qualified
archeologist has investigated and made recommendations. Representatives of the
Native American community shall be contacted in the event of such a find.
14.
This Precise Development Plan approval shall be valid for 36 months following its
effective date, and shall expire unless subsequent zoning and/or 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.
t
P AS SED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on February 17,
1999, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
,i
t
MOGENS BACH, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
H:\resos\tc3 9804.RES. doc
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No.
2/17/99
7
EXHIBIT NO.-12.
p{ '"7 DF 7
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
.t
~
ITEM NO.
i
Date:
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN ATIORNEY
RESTRICTIONS ON HOLIDAY ROAD CLOSURES
DOWNTOWN TIBURON
February 9, 1999
t
To:
From:
Subject:
BACKGROUND
During the 1998 holiday season, the City of Belvedere conducted a public works road improvement
project that had the effect of partially blocking Main Street in downtown Tiburon. This created
traffic problems during a period of nonnally high retail activity of great economic importance to
downtown businesses. The Chamber of Commerce and individual Tiburon business owners have .~.
asked that the Council enact an ordinance restricting such activities during the holiday season. 'i
ANALYSIS
The proposed ordinance would prohibit construction activities that bf,ve the effect of restricting traffic
capacity in the downtown during the holiday season. The h,olid.y' season is defined as the period
beginning the day after Thanksgiving and ending New Year's Day. If New Year's Day falls on a
weekend, the holiday season would be deemed to continue until the. clo~ df business on the first
Monday in January. The Town Manager would have the authd~ to waive the application of the
proposed ordinance when, in his judgement, the public interest advanced by the waiver outweighed
the likely adverse impacts.
I
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 first reading of the ordinance by roll call vote.
EXHIBITS
Draft Ordinance
,
,
ORDINANCE NO. N.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON PROHIBITING
ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY THAT
ADVERSELY IMPACTS THE FREE FLOW OF
TRAFFIC IN THE DOWNTOWN DURING THE
HOLIDAY SEASON
The Town Council of the Town ofTiburon does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
t
A. Main Street, in the downtown area, is a primary thoroughfare for the Town's ret~
district.
B. The holiday season, between Thanksgiving Day and New Year's Day, is generally a
very busy period in the downtown, generating high levels of traffic.
C. The sales that occur during the holiday season are of vital importance to the
downtown retail area, and are likely to be adversely affected by construction activities
that restrict the traffic capacity of streets in the downtown.
SECTION 2. ROAD BLOCKAGES PROHIBITED DURING HOLIDAY SEASON
1. For purposes of this Ordinance, the Holiday Season is deemed to commence at 9 a.m.
on day after Thanksgiving Day and end at 5 p.m. on January the first.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if January the first falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the
Holiday Season shall be extended to 5 p.m. on the first Monday in January.
2.
No person or public agency shall conduct road improvement, street repairs or
construction activities that have the affect of restricting, blocking or interfering with
the free flow of traffic on Main Street during the Holiday Season.
t
3. The Town Manager shall have the authority to waive the application of this
Ordinance, in whole or in part where, in his judgement, the public interest advanced
by the waiver outweighs the likely adverse impacts.
4. Violation of this Ordinance shall be an infraction, punishable by a fine as provided in
Government Code S 36900, or by administrative citation.as set forth in Chapter 31
of the Town's Municipal Code.
1
C}_
i
SECTION 3. 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 hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, any section subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereo:f, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of passage.
Within fifteen (15) days after its passage, a copy oftrus Ordinance shall be published with the t,"
names of the 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 adjourned meeting of the Town Council of the
Town ofTiburon on February ~ 1999, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town
Council of the Town ofTiburon on ~ 1999 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
MOGENS BACH, MAYOR
Town of Tiburon
DIANE CRANE, TOWN CLERK
I
2
$
~
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
t
. ;~
ITEM NO.
IV
i
J
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN MANAGER
TOWN ENGINEER POSITION
FEBRUARY 17,1999
BACKGROUND
,
Since incorporation, the Town of Tiburon has utilized contract-engineering services. The past
four (4) years the County of Marin has provided such services to the Town of Tiburon. Sia
Barmand, Senior Engineer, Marin County Public works Department, was assigned to the Town as
its Town Engineer and served Tiburon the entire time in a very efficient, effective and outstanding
manner. His professional engineering skills, experience, and ability to work with the public, Town
officials and Staff resulted in an excellent working relationship and a mutually beneficial
association. However, these contract services came to an end in January, for both the Town and
the County of Marin, as Sia accepted a new role in the private sector.
,
In anticipation of the Town Engineer's departure, last November the Town Manager explored the
possibility of recruiting a full-time civil engineer to serve the Town.dfTiburon. While the concept
was not rejected by the Town Council, there was consensus t(tcont~hue, ifpossible, the contract
engineering services similar to those provided to the Town in :thepast.
~ ~--.
Several civil engineers and engineering firms were subsequently ~olicited by'the Town. There was
limited interest, due primarily to current major engineering activity both in the public and private
sectors. After many discussions, meetings, interviews, and proposal considerations, I am please
to submit the following recommendations for Council's consideration:
t
RECOMMENDATION
That Town Council approve retaining Irving L. Schwartz, C.E. as the Town's contract Town
Engineer subject to the following basic terms and conditions:
1) General Consulting: Services:
Provide consultation and support for Town Department Heads and
officials on an as requested basis. Address citizen's inquiries and
complaints. Provide Civil Engineering services including Design,
,
Contract Administration and Inspection of capital improvement
projects such as street and drainage work. Provide input, as
requested, relating to budgeting, facilities maintenance and similar
issues, serve as the Town's representative to the Marin Public
Works Association. Serve as an advocate, as necessary, for the
acquisition for State, Federal and local funding for street
improvement, storm damage and similar projects. Provide
emergency assistance for storms or other situations as requested by
the Town Manager.
,
f
f
.
t
f
2) Retainer Hours:
15 hrs per week or 64 hrs. per month (six (6) of these hours in
Tiburon each week)
3) Retainer Fee:
$90.00/hr. or $5,760/month
t
4) Excess Hours:
Approved in advance by Town Manager, and billed at mutually
agreed upon hourly rate.
'!
5) Private Prooertv Proiects:
As requested by Town Staff: will review applications and perform
appropriate inspections for Building Permits, Design Review
Applications, Tentative Subdivision Maps and similar private
development proposals. Review parcel, Maps and Final
Subdivision Maps for conformance with Town Requirements and
State law.
t.
, ,
~. " .'
6) Private Prooertv Fees: Billed by Town Engineer directly ,to:private property
owner/developer. Basic fee reeei~'d prior to qommencement of
work. " ,~~' f
.~-"
7) Meetini! Attendance: As required basis. Time charged against basic retainer hours/fee.
t
8) Commencement Date: February 26, 1999
9) Contract Review:
At the completion of three (3) month services, retainer hours and
services to be reviewed by Town and town Engineer and re-
evaluated for possible adjustment
It should be noted that Sia Barmand has continued to assist the Town with engineering services
during this transition period, and he has advised the Town that he will complete certain Town
capital improvement projects that are currently underway. He will be reimbursed by the Town on
an hourly basis.
,
EXHIBITS
I
~
1. Schwartz Associated ltr. To Town Manager dt'd 1/19/99 (proposal for Services)
2. Schwartz Associates ltr. To Town Manager dt'd 2/1/99 (Items Included in Proposal)
3. Schwartz Associates ltr. To Town Manager dt'd 2/1/99 (Revised Proposal)
4. Town Council Staff Report dt'd 11/4/98
~
I
t
o
f
,
i
) :...
,} ~
t
,
I.L. SCHWARTZ ASSOCIATES, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING
,
January 19,1999
RECEIVED
JAN 2 0 1999
Mr. Robert Kleinert, Manager
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
RE: Town Engineer Position
Dear Bob:
t
I was quite flattered and excited about your inquiry as to whether I would be interested in
performing the functions of Town Engineer for the Town of Tiburon. I am very much interested
in pursuing this matter and have the following information for you.
LL. Schwartz Associates, Inc. is a general practicing Civil Engineering and Land Surveying firm
providing services to private individuals, developers, contractors and public agencies. A copy of
our company brochure is enclosed which outlines our areas of practice as well as the
qualifications and experience of our key staff members.
With regard to my specific qualifications in the area of Municipal Engineering, I was employed
by the Marin County Department of Public Works from 1965 to 1979. During that period of
time I held numerous positions, starting out as an entry level Civil Engineer and working my way
up to Associate Civil Engineer and then Deputy Director of Public Works. As I mentioned to
you, when Tiburon was first incorporated the Council appointed Arthur Knutson, the Assistant
Director of the Marin County Department of Public Works, as'the Town Engineer. As I worked
for Art at that time, I performed some of the Tiburon Town Engineer's duties. I was also Design
Engineer and Project Engineer on numerous County Public Works projects involving drainage,
street improvements, soil stabilization, storm damage repairs, park improvements and other
similar work. A large part of my time while working for the County was as its Land
Development Engineer, in which capacity I was responsible for the section dealing with the
review, approval and inspection of all private development projects within the unincorporated
area. I also acted as the County's first environmental coordinator and was the Department of
Public Works liaison to both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors as related
to private development projects. As Deputy Director of Public Works I was responsible for the
County's road maintenance and building maintenance divisions.
I
In the context of private practice, our firm has .i-'rovided Civil Engineering and Land Surveying
services to many of the towns and cities in Marin as well as to the County. Our work includes
site improvement design for public buildings, road improvements, and drainage repairs as well as
topographic mapping and boundary surveys. We have also been involved with a number cities
and towns in the County including Tiburon in facilitating Undergrounding and other Assessment
Districts.
79 GALLI DRIVE
NOVATO I CA 94949-5705
(415) 883-9200
EXHIBIT NO.
FAX 883-2763
\
Page 2
i
January 19, 1999
Mr. Robert Kleinert, Manager
Town ofTiburon
RE: Town Engineer Position
Continued
Based on my qualifications and experience, I believe that I would be an excellent candidate for
Town Engineer, especially when considering the available support of our well qualified staff.
As we are currently engaged in a number of projects within the Town of Tiburon, I propose that
if I am selected as Town Engineer, my firm would operate under the following guidelines (unless
changed by mutual agreement between the Town and us) to avoid any potential conflict of
interest.
1. We will complete our current Civil Engine~ring projects within the Town of Tiburon for
private clients and will not provide the services of Town Engineer relative to these projects.
These projects include, the Round Hill Oaks Subdivision; The Ned's Way Garden Homes
project; a shoreline protection project at a single family residential property on Paradise
Drive; a private sewage connection project on Ranch Road that may involve Town streets;
site improvement plans for approximately 2 or 3 single family residences at various locations
within the Town.
t
2. We will continue to provide Civil Engineering services for other public agencies and utility
agencies as well as providing Civil Engineering services for undergrounding assessment
districts within the Town.
3. We will continue to provide Land Surveying services within the Town of Tiburon except
where these services will result in the preparation of a Parcel Map or Subdivision Map.
We propose to provide the Town of Tiburon, a~ Town Engineer, with the following three general
categories of services:
CATEGORY I - GENERAL CONSULTING
t
a. We will provide general consulting services that may be requested by the Town
staff or Council on an as needed basis to provide input as required at staff
meetings, meetings with the property owners and residences, or meetings with the
Planning Commission or Town Council.
b. We will act as the Town's representative to the Marin Public Works Association
and act as an advocate as necessary for the acquisition of State and Federal
Funding for street improvement, storm damage and similar projects.
c. We will provide input as requested relateing to budgeting, facilities maintenance
and similar issues.
\
I.L. SCHWARTZ ASSOCIATES, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING
Page 3
j
January 19, 1999
Mr. Robert Kleinert, Manager
Town ofTiburon
RE: Town Engineer Position
Continued
d. We will be available to provide assistance in case of storm or other situations
where our expertise or input is helpful to the Town.
You have estimated that Category I would involve an average of approximately 20 hours per
week.
CATEGORY II - SPECIFIC TOWN PROJECTS
t
This category involves specific Town projects assigned to the Town Engineer, such as the
preparation of contract documents for a street improvement project along with project
construction administration and inspection, or the performance of a boundary survey to
determine the location of a right-of-way line.
CATEGORY III - REVIEW OF PRIVATE PROJECTS
The third category of services is the review of private development projects in coordination with
the Community Development Department or the Building Inspection Department as deemed
necessary by those departments or as required by Town Code and State Law.
We propose to receive compensation for the above three categories of work as follows:
I. The general consulting function estimated at 20 hours per week would be performed at a
rate of $98.00 per hour for the first eighty hours within any monthly billing cycle (our
normal billing cycle runs from the 26th of any given month to the 25th of the subsequent
month). Any services in excess of eighty hours in a given billing cycle would be billed at
our standard hourly rates which are shown on the attached Work Order and Agreement.
II.
Fees for services provided for specific Town projects will be by prior agreement with the
Town, either by using our standard hourly rates or a pre-determined fee.
I
III. Charges for review of private development projects will be made directly to the private
developer, generally with the fee collected prior to the commencement of our work. This
will eliminate the need for the Town to ue involved in bookkeeping or accounting relative
to this segment of the work.
We are ready to commence providing services to the Town of Tiburon as Town Engineer when
authorized by the Town to do so. I am enclosing a copy of our Standard Form Work Order and
Agreement which could be used to authorize our services, unless you prefer some alternative
document. If an alternative document is used, it will first need to be reviewed by our
professional liability insurance carrier prior to my execution.
t
I.L. SCHWARTZ ASSOCIATES, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING
Page 4
1
t
January 19, 1999
Mr. Robert Kleinert, Manager
Town of Tiburon
RE: Town Engineer Position
Continued
If there are other items not included in this letter that need to be addressed or if clarifications are
necessary, I will be pleased to work with you to develop a mutually agreeable document.
Thank: you for offering me the opportunity to provide you with this proposal and I look forward
to being your Town Engineer.
Sincerely,
t
t
ILS/dlh
\enc.
CORRESPO.MIS
TIBENG.LTR
\
I.L. SCHWARTZ ASSOCIATES, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING
'-....... 1 0
~..'.~-
I.L. SCHWARTZ ASSOCIATES, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING
i
February 1, 1999
REceIVED
FEB - 2 1999
Robert Kleinert, Manager
T own of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF T1BURON
RE: Tiburon Town Engineer
Dear Bob:
As I continue to think about our proposal to provide you with the services of Town Engineer, I
wanted to clarify a number of items that would be included in, and considered to be a part of. our
hourly rate. They are as follows:
t
. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance
. Worker's Compensation Insurance
. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance
. Y2K Compliance
. Secretarial/Clerical Support
. In- House Plan Reproduction, Plotting, and Copying
. Computer System for Drafting and Design
. Telephone and Postage Charges
. Sufficiently large enough staff to provide 24 hour, 7 day week coverage if
necessary in an emergency
.
No overtime charges for evening meetings or out-of-normal working hours
emergency calls
The services of a fully integrated Civil Engineering and Land Surveying firm
t
.
Again, I thank you for considering me and my firm to provide Town Engineering Services to the
Town of Tiburon.
Sincerely,
EXHffiITNO. 2..
ILSldlh
CORRESPO.OFF
TlBURON.LTR
79 GALLI DRIVE
NOVATO, CA 94949-5705
(415) 883-9200
FAX 883-2763
I.L. SCHWARTZ ASSOCIATES, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING
REceiVED
FEB .. 2 1999
,~~,
I
February 1, 1999
TOWN MANAG~AS OFFICE.
TOWN OF TIBURQN
Robert Kleinert, City Manager
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Town Engineer
Dear Bob:
t
Following our telephone conversation this morning, I am providing you with the following
revised scope of services and fees from that shown in our letter to you of January 19,1999.
We propose to provide the Town of Tiburon, as Town Engineer, under the supervision of the
Town Manager, with the following two general categories of services:
CATEGORY I - GENERAL CONSULTING
We will provide consultation and support for Town Department Heads and Officials on an as
requested basis. We will also address citizens inquiries and complaints. We will provide Civil
Engineering services including Design, Contract Administration and Inspection of capital
improvement projects such as street and drainage work. We will provide input, as requested,
relating to budgeting, facilities maintenance and similar issues and will act as the Town's
representative to the Marin Public Works Association as well as act as an advocate, as necessary,
for the acquisition for State and Federal funding for street improvement, storm damage and
similar projects. We will be available to provide emergency assistance for storms or other
situations as requested by the Town Manager. '
We will provide approximately 6 hours per week of the above services within Tiburon with
agreed-upon set "hours."
t
CATEGORY II - PRIVATE PROJECTS
As requested by Town staff, we will review applications and perform appropriate inspections for
Building Permits, Design Reviews, Tentative Subdivision Maps and similar private development
proposals. We will also review Parcel, Maps and Final Subdivision Maps for conformance with
Town requirements and State law.
COMPENSA TION
We propose to receive compensation for the above two categories of work as follows:
EXHIBIT NO. 3
1;
79 GALLI DRIVE
NOVATO, CA 94949-5705
(4'15) 883-9200
FAX 883-2763
Page 2
t
,
i-
February I, 1999
Robert Kleinert, City Manager
Town ofTiburon
RE: City Engineer
Continued
Category I - We propose to perform the first 64 hours per monthly billing cycle (which begins
the 26th of any given month and ends the 25th of the subsequent month) for a fixed fee retainer
of$5,760.00 (64 hours per monthly billing cycle times $90.00 per hour). Any time in excess of
64 hours per monthly billing cycle and any time expended by our survey crew will be billed at
our standard hourly rates unless other arrangements are made prior to the commencement of an
increment of work.
Category II - Charges for review of private development projects including inspections and
attendance at meetings will be billed directly to the private developer, generally with the fee
collected prior to the commencement of our work.
t
It is proposed that the fixed fee retainer be adjusted proportionately for any work performed
during a portion of the monthly billing cycle either at the commencement or completion of
authorization of our work as Tiburon Town Engineer, as applicable. It is also further proposed
that at the completion of three complete monthly billing cycles, our time expended as Town
Engineer will be evaluated and adjustments made to our agreement as is applicable or
appropriate.
I trust these revisions will meet with the Town's approval; however if you have any questions or
desire additional information, please feel free to call on me.
Sincerely,
I
ILS/ dlh
CORRESPO.JOB
TIBTRV2.L TR
\
I.L. SCHWARTZ ASSOCIATES, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
DUPLI CAfEI
;;
MEETING:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
November 4, 1998
ITEM:
TOWN COUNCIL
ROBERT L. KLEINERT, TOWN MANAGER
POSITION OF TOWN ENGINEER - AUTHORIZE RECRUITIAENT
BACKGROUND
This item is to authorize the Town Manager to initiate the recruitment process for the position of
full-time Town Engineer. t
The Town currently contracts with the County of Marin Public Works Department for general
and project engineering services (the assigned engineer has been Siavash Barmand). The County
has notified the Town that the current contractual arrangement will not be renewed in 1999,
therefore it is necessary for the Town to recruit for professional engineering services. It is
proposed that the Town Engineer be a full-time employee of the Town, responsible for
professional engineering services, and direction of the Department of Public Works.
DISCUSSION
Recent Town Engineer Services
The Town has contracted for engineering services since its incorporation in 1964. From 1971 to
1994, the Town contracted with Bala & Strandgaard (later, S.M. Bala Associates) for engineering
services. Since 1994 the Town has contracted with the County for general and project
engineering services. Since 1991 the Town has annually expended $50,000 to $83,000 for
engineering services. Since contracting with the County annual engineering costs have been in the
range $50,300 to $64,000. The share normally allocated to general engineering has ranged from
$29,000 to $38,000; remaining costs have been associated with streets improvements and other
capital improvement projects, and have been allocated to those projects and funds where possible.
I
Proposed Town Engineer Position
As proposed, the Town Engineer would be responsible for engineering services, as well as
direction and supervision of the Town Department of Public Works. By reorganizing the
Department of Public Works and reallocating Department resources, the Town will be better able
to provide and deliver engineering and regular streets, parks and facilities maintenance servic'es to
the Town.
The proposed salary range for the position of Town Engineer would be $6,200 to $6,900 per
month. Comparative information, obtained in April 1998 from the cities and towns used in the
general salary survey, showed that experienced City/Town Engineers, with supervisory "
responsibilities, receive a salary in the range of$6,304 to $7,558 per month. The recommended
EXHIBIT NO.-j-
Tiburon Town Council Staff Report
Recruitment of Town Engineer
Meeting of November 4, 1998
Page 2
salary range for the full-time Town Engineer is within the low-to-middle range of the surveyed
cities. The following Draft Advertisement/Listing for the position of Town Engineer delineates
qualifications, experience, and salary & benefit compensation levels for the position.
DRAFT ADVERTISING/liSTING:
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/TOWN ENGINEER - Town ofTiburon, CA
(pop. 8,500). Salary Range: $6,200-$6,900/monthly, plus excellent fringe benefit
package including fully paid PERS. The Town of Tiburon is seeking an individual
to perform professional civil engineering work on the planning, organization and
direction of major public works projects. Responsibilities include selecting,
training and supervising the Public Works Superintendent and staff; serving as
Town Traffic Engineer; and all required duties under the Subdivision Map Act.
Bachelor's Degree in Civil Engineering or a related administrative field,
registration as Civil Engineer issued by the California State Board of Registration
for Civil and Professional Engineers, a valid California Driver's License before
date of appointment, and eight (8) years increasingly responsible professional
engineering experience, preferably in a governmental organization are required.
Contact the Town of Tiburon to receive application package, 1505 Tiburon Blvd.,
Tiburon, CA 94920, by 5:00PM , 1998. Faxes are not accepted.
Phone (415) 435-7373. EOE.
t
Benefits & Advantages Associated with Full Time Town Engineer
In the capacity of full time director of the Department ofP~blic Works, the Town Engineer would
provide additional advantages and benefits to the residents and Staff in the following areas:
.
Enable the Superintendent to allocate additional time to field work, and supervising
streets, parks and facilities maintenance and construction.
t
. Enable the Department of Public Works to perform important construction projects, with
cost savings to the Town.
. Department of Public Works Staffwould be more available and responsive to the inquiries
and requests of residents and Staff
· T own Engineer would be more available during emergencies, stonn/rainy seasons, and on-
call for other occurrences.
\
Tiburon Town Council Staff Report
Recruitment of Town Engineer
Meeting of November 4, 1998
Page 3
i
Proposed Timetable for Recruitment & Employment
November 9
November 27
December 7
December 14
December 21
January 4-15
January 18
Advertise
Deadline
Complete Screening of Applicants (5 or 6) (TM, TE)
1 st Interviews (TM, TE, PD)
2nd Interview (TM, 2 TC members)
Background & Town Council Approval
Employment Offer
I
PD=Planning Director
TC=Town Council
TE=Town Engineer
TM=Town Manager
RECOMMENDA nON
Town Council authorize the Town Manager to initiate the process to recruit a full-time Town
Engineer.
RFS
t
'\
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
.t
~
'Of.'
ITEM NO.
II
?
To:
From:
Subject:
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN A'lTORNEY
LIMITATION OF VIEW PROTECTION ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 15 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
February 9, 1999
t
Date:
BACKGROUND
This item has been placed on the agenda at the request of Vice Mayor Gram.
Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code, the Town's View Preservation Ordinance, provides for the
restorations of views and sunlight that have become obstructed by unreasonable tree growth. At
present, the Ordinance allows the owner or occupant of a property to seek the restoration of any view
of sunlight from the primary living area or active use area that existed any time since they purchased
or occupied the property. This allows a property owner or occupant to seek restoration of views that
may have become obstructed many years ago.
l
~. ~ ...; 1
ANALYSIS
\ ..k
',.
. .
The Council has the power to limit the length of the period that a cliIimant may look back in restoring
a view or sunlight that has become lost to unreasonable tree growth. The attached sample draft t.....
ordinance imposes one possible limitation. Under this draft, a claimant could restore any
documentable view or sunlight that existed during the shorter of (a) the claimant's tenure in owning
or occupying the property; or (b) the ten years prior to the time that the claimant first notified the tree
owner of his concerns as required by the ordinance.
One argument for imposing a limit of the number of years that a claimant may look back in restoring
lost views and sunlight is that the restoration of a view lost twenty years before may impose a large
cost, both financially and in terms of quality of life. If many years have gone by, the tree owner may
previously had no notice that the tree was causing a problem, and the problem might have been easier
to remedy had the claimant raised his concerns more promptly. The current ordinance does address
some of these problems by providing for flexibility in the apportionment of costs and the extent of
restorative action (~~ 15-6, 15-13).
1
,
.t
J
I
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council consider whether it wishes to consider amending Chapter 15 to
limit the length of the period that a person can look back in seeking view or sunlight restoration. If
the Council decides to pursue the consideration of such an amendment, it should direct staff to
prepare an appropriate amendment and re-agendize the matter for a public hearing and first reading.
i
}
~
,
}
;
;-
~
~
t
EXHIBITS
Draft Sample Ordinance
Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code
,
r
~
"
t
I
t
t.
:-
~ ~...
).;.:. "
\.
,} ~
t
,~
2
,
ORDINANCE NO.
N.S.
D,'i4J:j-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING CHAPTER
15 OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE,
PERTAINING TO VIEW AND SUNLIGHT
OBSTRUCTION FROM TREES
The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does ordain as follows:
SECTION 2. Section 15-3 of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Section 15-3
Ri2hts Established.
Any person shall have the right to preserve and seek restoration of views or sunlight that
existed at any time since he purchased or occupied a property, when such views or sunlight
are from the primary living area or active use area and ~ve become unreasonably obstructed
by the growth of trees within ten years prior to such person first notifying the Tree Owner of
his concerns, as required by Section 15-9 of this Code.
In order to establish such rights pursuant to this Chapter, the person must follow the process t
established in this Chapter. In addition to the above rights, private parties have the right to .
seek remedial action for imminent danger caused by trees.
All persons are advised that the alternation, removal and planting of certain trees requires a
permit under Chapter 15A of the Tiburon Town Code ("Trees"). The applicability of
Chapter 15A should be determined prior to any action on trees.
SECTION 3. Section 15-5 (e) is hereby added to the Tiburon Municipal Code, to read as
follows:
1
ViewProtection/imit. 99. doc
'\
~
,
( e) Whether the obstruction occurred within ten years prior to the Complaining Party first
notifying the Tree Owner of his concerns, as required by Section 15-9 of this Code.
SECTION 4. Section 15-7 of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Section 15-7
Tvoes of Restorative Action.
Restorative actions include, without limitation, the following:
. Trimming
. Thinning or wind owing
. Topping
. Removal with replacement plantings
. Removal without replacement plantings
t
In all cases, the maximum limit of Restoration Action that may be required is that necessary
to restore the documentable view or sunlight that existed during the shorter of (a) the tenure
of the present owner or legal occupant; or (b) during the ten years prior to the date that the
Complaining Party first notifying the Tree Owner of his concerns as required by Section 15-9
of this Code.
Restorative Action may include written conditions (including ongoing maintenance) and
directions as to appropriate timing of such actions and may be made to run with the land and
apply to successors in interest. Where removal is required, replacement by appropriate
species should be considered.
In cases where trimming, windowing or other Restoratiye Action may affect the health of a
tree which is to be preserved, such actions should be carried out in acCordance with standards
established by the International Society of Arboriculture for use in the State of California.
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY.
t
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 thereot: irrespective of the fact that anyone
or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
2
ViewProtection/imit.99.doc
\
,
.,&
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days after the date of passage. .
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, the Town Attorney shall
prepare a summary of this ordinance. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at
which adoption of the ordinance is scheduled, the Town Clerk shall (1) publish the summary,
and (2) post in the office of the Town Clerk a certified copy of the ordinance. Within fifteen
(15) days after adoption of the ordinance, the Town Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and
(2) post in the office of the Town Clerk a certified copy of the full text of the ordinance along
with the names of the Town Council members voting for and against the ordinance.
This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on ~ 1999, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of
the Town of Tiburon on ~ 1999, which was noticed pursuant to Government I:."..'.
Code Section 50022.3, by the following vote:
AYES :
COUNCIL1v1EMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL1vffiMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL1vffiMBERS:
MOGENS BACH, MAYOR
Town of Tiburon
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
I
3
ViewProtection/imit. 99. doc
.\;.
,
CHAPTER 15: VIEW AND
OBSTRUCTION FROM
SUNLIGHT
TREES
Section 15-1. Purpose and Principles.
Section 15-2. Definitions.
Section 15-3. Rights Established.
Section 15-4. Unreasonable Obstruction Prohibited.
t
Section 15-5. Criteria for Determining Unreasonable Obstruction.
Section 15-6. Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action.
Section 15-7. Types of Restorative Action.
Section 15-8. Town Guidelines Concerning Restorative Action.
Section 15-9. Process for Resolution of Obstruction Disputes.
Section 15-10. Tree Claim Preparation.
Section 15-11. Binding Arbitration.
Section 15-12. Litigation.
I
Section 15-13. Apportionment of Costs.
Section 15-14. Liabilities.
Section 15-15. Limitations.
Section 15-16. Trees on Town-owned Property.
Town ofTiburon Municipal Code
Chapter 15: Views & Sunlight
Effective 1/2/92
1
'\
.
,
. '
section 15-1. Purpose and Principles.
The purposes of this Chapter are to:
A. Establish the right of persons to preserve views or sunlight
which existed at any time since they purchased or occupied a
property from unreasonable obstruction by the growth of
trees.
B. Establish a process by which persons may seek restoration of
such views or sunlight when unreasonably obstructed by the
growth of trees or other vegetation (see definition of
"Tree").
The rights and the restorative process are based upon the
following general principles:
1. The Town recognizes that residents, property owners, and
businesses cherish their outward views from the Tiburon
Peninsula, and that they also cherish the benefits of
plentiful sunlight reaching their buildings and yards. The
Town recognizes that both outward views and plentiful
sunlight reaching property contribute greatly to the quality
of life in Tiburon, and promote the general welfare of the
entire community.
t
2. The Town also recognizes the desire of many of its
residents, property owners, and businesses for beautiful and
plentiful landscaping, including trees. The Town realizes
that this desire may sometimes conflict with the
preservation of views and sunlight, and that disputes
related to view or sunlight obstruction are inevitable.
3.
Owners and residents should maintain trees on their property
in a healthy condition for both safety reasons and for
preservation of sunlight and outward views. Before planting
trees, owners and residents should consider view and
sunlight blockage potential, both currently and at tree
maturity. Persons have the right to seek civil remedies
when threatened by dangerous tree growth.
t
4. The Town shall establish a process by which persons may seek
to preserve and restore views or sunlight which existed at
any time since they purchased or occupied property from
unreasonable obstruction by the growth of trees. The Town
shall also establish a list of factors to be considered in
determining appropriate actions to restore views or
sunlight.
5. When a view or sunlight obstruction dispute arises, the
parties should act reasonably to resolve the dispute through
Town ofTiburon Municipal Code
Chapter 15: Views & Sunlight
Effective 1/2/92
2
\:
A
,
friendly communication, thoughtful negotiation, compromise,
and other traditional means, such as discussions with the
appropriate neighborhood or homeowner association. Those
disputes which are not resolved through such means shall
follow the procedure established herein.
6. It is the intent of the Town that the provisions of this
Chapter receive thoughtful and reasonable application. It
is not the intent of the Town to encourage clear-cutting or
substantial denuding of any property of its trees by
overzealous application of provisions of this Chapter.
Section 15-2. Definitions.
For the purpose of this Chapter, the meaning and construction of
words and phrases is as follows:
t
Active Use Area: The most frequently occupied portion or
portions of a commercial building from which views are
available.
Arbitrator: A neutral person who will conduct a process
similar to a trial, and who will hear testimony, consider
evidence, and make a binding decision for the disputing
parties.
Binding Arbitration: A legal procedure as set forth in
section 1280 et seq. of the Code of civil Procedure.
Complaining Party: Any property owner (or legal occupant
with written permission of the property owner) who alleges
that trees located on the property of another person are
causing unreasonable obstruction of his or her pre-existing
views or sunlight.
Mediator: A neutral, objective third person who assists
people in finding mutually satisfactory solutions to their
problem.
I
Person: Any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, or
other legal entity, excluding the Town of Tiburon.
Primary Living Area: The portion or portions of a residence
from which a view is observed most often by the occupants
relative to other portions of the residence. The
determination of primary living area is to be made on a
case-by-case basis.
Protected Tree: Any of the following:
HERITAGE TREE, meaning any tree which has a trunk with
Town ofTiburon Municipal Code
Chapter 15: Views & Sunlight
Effective 1/2/92
3
\;
a circumference exceeding sixty (60) inches, measured
twenty-four (24) inches above the ground level.
OAK TREE, including coast live oak, blue oak,
California black oak, interior live oak, canyon live
oak, Engelmann oak, or valley oak tree.
DEDICATED TREE, meaning a tree of special significance
so designated by resolution of the Town Council.
Removal: The elimination of any tree from its present
location.
Restorative Action: Any specific requirement to resolve a
tree dispute.
stump Growth: New growth from the remaining portion of the
tree trunk, the main portion of which has been cut off.
t
Sunlight: The availability of direct or indirect sunlight
to the primary living area of a residence.
Thinning: The selective removal of entire branches from a
tree so as to improve visibility through the tree and/or
improve the tree's structural condition.
Topping: Elimination of the upper portion of a tree's trunk
or main leader.
Tree: Any woody plant with the potential to obstruct views
or sunlight, including but not limited ,to trees, shrubs,
hedges, and bushes. References to '~tr~e" shall include the
plural.
Tree Claim: The written basis for arbitration or court
action under the provisions of this Chapter.
Tree Owner: Any person owning real property in Tiburon upon
whose land is located a tree or trees alleged by a
Complaining Party to cause an unreasonable obstruction.
t
Trimming: The selective removal of portions of branches
from a tree so as to modify the tree(s) shape or profile or
alter the tree's appearance.
view: A scene from the primary living area of a residence
or the active use areas of a non-residential building. The
.term "view" includes both upslope and downslope scenes, but
is generally medium or long range in nature, as opposed to
short range. Views include but are not limited to skylines,
bridges, landmarks, distant cities, distinctive geologic
Town ofTiburon Municipal Code
Chapter 15: Views & Sunlight
Effective 1/2/92
4
\
j
,
features, hillside terrains, wooded canyons, ridges, and
bodies of water.
Some additional examples are:
San Francisco Bay (including San Pablo Bay, Richardson
Bay, and islands therein);
The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge;
The Golden Gate Bridge;
The Richmond-San Rafael Bridge;
Mount Tamalpais;
The Tiburon Peninsula or surrounding communities
(including the city of San Francisco).
Windowing: A form of thinning by which openings or
"windows" are created to restore views and or sunlight.
t
section 15-3. Rights Established.
Persons shall have the right to preserve and seek restoration of
views or sunlight which existed at any time since they purchased
or occupied a property, when such views or sunlight are from the
primary living area or active use area and have subsequently been
unreasonably obstructed by the growth of trees.
In order to establish such rights pursuant to this Chapter, the
person must follow the process established in this Chapter. In
addition to the above rights, private parties have the right to
seek remedial action for imminent danger caused by trees.
All persons are advised that the alteration, removal, and
planting of certain trees requires a permit under Chapter 15A of
the Tiburon Town Code (Trees). The applicability of Chapter 15A
should be determined prior to any action on trees.
section 15-4. Unreasonable Obstruction Prohibited.
(a) No person shall plant, maintain, or permit to grow any tree
which unreasonably obstructs the view from, or sunlight reaching,
the primary living area or active use area of any other parcel of
property within the Town of Tiburon.
I
(b) Because the maintenance of views and sunlight benefits the
general welfare of the entire Town, any unreasonable obstruction
of views or sunlight from the primary living area or active use
area shall also constitute a public nuisance.
Section 15-5. criteria for Determining Unreasonable obstruction.
The following criteria are to be considered (but are not
Town ofTiburon Municipal Code
Chapter 15: Views & Sunlight
Effective 1/2/92
5
\
i
,
'4
. '
exclusive) in determining whether unreasonable obstruction has
occurred:
(a) The extent of obstruction of pre-existing views from,
or sunlight reaching, the primary living area or active
use area of the Complaining Party, both currently and
at tree maturity.
(b) The quality of the pre-existing views being obstructed,
including obstruction of landmarks, vistas, or other
unique features.
(c) The extent to which the trees interfere with efficient
operation of a Complaining Party's pre-existing solar
energy systems.
t
(d) The extent to which the Complaining Party's view and/or
sunlight has been diminished over time by factors other
than tree growth.
section 15-6. criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative
Action.
When it has been determined that unreasonable obstruction has
occurred, then the following unweighted factors shall be
considered in determining appropriate restorative action:
(a) The hazard posed by a tree or trees to persons or
structures on the property of the Complaining Party
including, but not limited to, fire danger and the
danger of falling limbs or trees.
(b) The variety of tree, its projected rate of growth and
maintenance requirements.
(c) Aesthetic quality of the tree(s), including but not
limited to species characteristics, size, growth, form
and vigor.
t
(d) Location with respect to overall appearance, design, or
use of the Tree Owner's property.
(e) Soil stability provided by the tree(s) considering soil
structure, degree of slope and extent of the tree's
root system.
(f) Privacy (visual and auditory) and wind screening
provided by the tree(s) to the Tree Owner and to
neighbors.
Town ofTiburon Municipal Code
Chapter 15: Views & Sunlight
Effective 1/2/92
6
\
1
,
'.:<;
(g) Energy conservation and or climate control provided by
the tree(s) .
(h) wildlife habitat provided by the tree(s) .
(I) Whether trees are "Protected Trees", as defined herein.
section 15-7. Types of Restorative Action.
Restorative actions include but are not limited to the following:
trimming
thinning or windowing
topping
removal with replacement plantings
removal without replacement plantings
t
In all cases, the documentable extent of view or sunlight
existing at any time during the tenure of the present owner or
legal occupant is the maximum limit of Restorative Action which
may be required.
Restorative Action may include written conditions (including
ongoing maintenance), and directions as to appropriate timing of
such actions, and may be made to run with the land and apply to
successors in interest. Where removal is required, replacement
by appropriate species should be considered.
In cases where trimming, windowing, or other Restorative Action
may affect the health of a tree which is to be preserved, such
actions should be carried out in accordance with standards
established by the International Society of Arboriculture for use
in the State of California.
section 15-8. Town Guidelines Concerning Restorative Action.
The Town of Tiburon provides the following general guidelines
concerning restorative actions:
I
Undesirable Trees. By reason of their tall height at
maturity, rapid growth, dense foliage, shallow root
structure, flammability, breakability, or invasiveness,
certain types of trees have been deemed "undesirable" by the'
Town, including Blue Gum Eucalyptus, Coast Redwood, Monterey
Pine, Monterey Cypress trees, or any other tree which
generally grows more than 3 feet per year in height and is
capable of reaching a height of over 35 feet at maturity.
When considering restorative action for "undesirable" trees,
aggressive action is preferred.
Town ofTiburon Municipal Code
Chapter 15: Views & Sunlight
Effective 1/2/92
7
~
Protected Trees. The Town of Tiburon has designated certain
trees to be "protected trees", defined in section 15-2. Any
alteration or removal of protected trees will require a
permit from the Town's Planning Director pursuant to Chapter
15A of the Tiburon Town Code.
stump Growth. Stump growth generally results in the hazard
of weak limbs, and its protection is not desirable. When
considering restorative action for stump growth, aggressive
action is preferred. Restorative action which will result
in future stump growth should be avoided.
Trimming. Trimming is the most minor form of physical
restorative action. This option is recommended when minor
unreasonable obstruction has occurred, provided that ongoing
maintenance is guaranteed.
t
Thinning or Windowing. When simple trimming will not
resolve the unreasonable obstruction, thinning or windowing
may be necessary. These should be supervised by a certified
arborist.
Topping. Topping as a restorative action should be used
with caution. Topping can have deleterious effects on a
tree's health, appearance, and cost of maintenance. Topping
frequently results in stump growth. Tree removal, with
replacement plantings, may be a preferable alternative.
Removal. Tree removal may be required where such removal is
essential to preserve pre-existing views or sunlight. While
normally considered a drastic measure, tree removal can be
the preferred solution in many circumstances.
Maintenance. Ongoing tree maintenance requi)p:~ments are
strongly recommended as part of Restorative Action in order
to achieve lasting preservation of pre-existing views or
sunlight.
Permanence. Conditions of Restorative Action should be
recorded and run with the land to help guarantee permanent
preservation of pre-existing views and sunlight.
t
Section 15-9. Process for Resolution of Obstruction Disputes.
The following process shall be used in the resolution of
view and sunlight obstruction disputes between parties.
1. Initial Reconciliation: A Complaining Party who
believes that tree growth on the property of another
has caused unreasonable obstruction of views or
sunlight from the primary living area or active use
Town ofTiburon Municipal Code
Chapter 15: Views & Sunlight
Effective 1/2/92
8
,
.
,
~
area shall notify the Tree Owner in writing of such
concerns.
The notification should, if possible, be accompanied by
personal discussions to enable the Complaining Party
and Tree Owner to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable
solution. If personal discussions fail, neighborhood
associations may be willing to assist with the
resolution of the obstruction dispute.
For trees located on Town-owned property, see section
15-16.
2.
Mediation: If the initial reconciliation attempt
fails, the Complaining Party shall propose mediation as
a timely means to settle the obstruction dispute.
t
Acceptance of mediation by the Tree Owner shall be
voluntary, but the Tree Owner shall have no more than
30 days from service of notice to either accept or
reject the offer of mediation. If mediation is
accepted, the parties shall mutually agree upon a
Mediator within 10 days.
It is recommended that the services of a professionally
trained mediator be employed. The County of Marin
provides professional Mediation Services at a nominal
cost.
The mediation meeting may be informal. The mediation
process may include the hearing of viewpoints of lay or
expert witnesses, and shall include a site visit to the
properties of the Complaining P~rty and the Tree Owner.
Parties are encouraged to contact immediate neighbors
and solicit input. '
The Mediator shall consider the purposes and policies
set forth in this Chapter in attempting to help resolve I
the dispute. The Mediator shall not have the power to 1
issue binding orders for Restorative Action, but shall
strive to enable the parties to resolve their dispute
by written agreement in order to eliminate the need for
binding arbitration or litigation.
section 15-10. Tree Claim preparation.
In the event that the Initial Reconciliation process fails, and
mediation either is declined by the Tree Owner or fails, the
Complaining Party must prepare a Tree Claim, and provide a copy
to the Tree Owner, in order to pursue either binding arbitration
or litigation under the authority established by this Chapter.
Town ofTiburon Municipal Code
Chapter 15: Views & Sunlight
Effective 1/2/92
9
~
i
I
.~
(
A Tree Claim shall consist of all of the following:
(a) A description of the nature and extent of the alleged
obstruction, including pertinent and corroborating
physical evidence. Evidence may include, but is not
limited to photographic prints, negatives or slides.
Such evidence must show absence of the obstruction at
any documentable time during the tenure of the
Complaining Party. Evidence to show the date of
property acquisition or occupancy by the Complaining
Party must be included.
(b) The location of all trees alleged to cause the
obstruction, the address of the property upon which the
tree(s) are located, and the present tree owner's name t.
and address.
(c) Evidence of the failure of initial reconciliation, as
described in section 15-9, to resolve the dispute. The
Complaining Party must provide physical evidence that
written attempts at reconciliation have been made and
have failed. Evidence may include, but is not limited
to, copies of and receipts for certified or registered
mail correspondence.
(d) Evidence that mediation, as described in section 15-9,
has been attempted and has failed, or has been declined
by the Tree Owner.
(e) Specific restorative actions proposed by the
Complaining Party to resolve the ,unreasonable
obstruction.
section 15-11. Binding Arbitration.
In those cases where the initial reconciliation process fails and
where mediation is declined by the Tree Owner or has failed, the
Complaining Party must offer in writing to submit the dispute to i,'.
binding arbitration, and the Tree Owner may elect binding 1
arbitration.
The Tree Owner shall have 30 days from service of notice to
accept or reject binding arbitration. If accepted, the parties
shall agree on a specific Arbitrator within 21 days, and shall
indicate such agreement in writing.
The Arbitrator shall use the provisions of this Chapter to reach
a fair resolution of the Tree Claim and shall submit a complete
written report to the Complaining Party and the Tree Owner. This
report shall include the Arbitrator's findings with respect to
sections 15-5 and 15-6 of this Chapter, a pertinent list of all
Town ofTiburon Municipal Code
Chapter 15: Views & Sunlight
Effective 1/2/92
10
~
i\
,
..
mandated Restorative Actions with any appropriate conditions
concerning such actions, and a schedule by which the mandates
must be completed. A copy of the Arbitrator's report shall be
filed with the Town Attorney upon completion. Any decision of
the Arbitrator shall be enforceable pursuant to the provisions of
Code of civil Procedure section 1280 et seq.
section 15-12. Litigation.
In those cases where binding arbitration is declined by the Tree
Owner, then civil action may be pursued by the Complaining Party
for resolution of the view or sunlight obstruction dispute under
the rights and provisions of this Chapter.
The litigant must state in the lawsuit that arbitration was
offered and not accepted, and that a copy of the lawsuit was
filed with the Town Attorney. A copy of any order or settlement
in the lawsuit shall also be filed with the Town Attorney.
t
section 15-13. Apportionment of Costs.
Cost of Mediation and Arbitration: The Complaining Party and
Tree Owner shall each pay 50% of Mediation or Arbitration fees,
unless they agree otherwise or allow the Mediator or Arbitrator
discretion for allocating costs.
Cost of Litigation: To be determined by the Court or through a
settlement.
Cost of Restorative Action: To be determined by mutual
agreement, or through mediation, arbitration, court judgment, or
settlement.
section 15-14. Liabilities.
The issuance of mediation findings, an arbitration report or a
court decision shall not create any liability of the Town with
regard to the Restorative Actions to be performed.
Failure of the Town to enforce provisions of this Chapter shall
not give rise to any civil or criminal liabilities on the part of
the Town.
I
section 15-15. Limitations.
It is not the intent of the Town in adopting this Chapter to
affect obligations imposed by an existing easement or a valid
pre-existing covenant or agreement.
Town ofTiburon Municipal Code
Chapter 15: Views & Sunlight
Effective 1/2/92
11
t
i
,
:~
.:1;:
section 15-16. Trees on Town-owned property.
Trees located on Town-owned property are exempt from the
provisions of this Chapter. Requests or complaints regarding
trees located on Town-owned property should be made in writing to
the Superintendent of Public Works for consideration in
accordance with policies adopted by the Town.
t
t
Town ofTiburon Municipal Code
Chapter 15: Views & Sunlight
Effective 1/2/92
12
,
Professional
construction
management
for homeowners,
nonprofits and
businesses
.
· New Homes
· Remodels
· Feasability Studies
· Dispute Resolution
· Expert Witness
.
124 Locust Avenue
Mill Valley
California
94941
Tel4IS.389.6346
Fax 4IS.389.98IS
Steven Podesta
The Owner s Advocate
Ifew.- a.
February 8, 1999
REceIVED
FEB 1 0 1999
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TOWN OF TlBURON
Scott Anderson
Director of Planning
Tiburon Planning & Building Department
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Scott,
I am seeking a waiver of the building permit fees for an upcoming
construction project at the National Audubon Society's Richardson Bay
Nature Sanctuary on Greenwood Beach Road. In general, the project is a
remodel of the building that houses the classrooms and the nature store. The
value of the project is roughly $150,000.
Without relief, I am anticipating that the Audubon Society would have to pay
roughly $2,500 for building permits and plan checking.
The Richardson Bay Sanctuary is a very valuable asset to the town of
Tiburon. Every year, thousands of children attend the educational programs
offered at the sanctuary. Thousands of others hike the nature trails of this
unique property Wednesday through Sunday.
While the sanctuary is helping youth and adults to better appreciate nature, it
is also bringing a great deal of money into the ,community, because those that
visit buy food, gas and other items. "
As with most nonprofit construction projectsi: money .is 'hard to come by. We
are currently looking for an additional $30,000 for 'exhibits in the new
"Exhibit" area. If the city agrees to waive the building permit and plan check
fees, you can be certain that the money saved would be used on these
educational exhibits.
We hope to apply for a building permit this Friday, the 12th. I would very
much appreciate anything that you can do for us. We have already received
design review approval. Emi Theriault was the planner. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Steven Podesta
12-1
,
1
\
~
1
?
~.
-1
I
r
,
'~
f
t
,
r
,
,
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
I
,
,~
ITEM NO.
/3
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN MANAGER
DOWNTOWN MAIN STREET ASSESSNIENT DISTRICT
FEBRUARY 17, 1999
BACKGROUND
t
Last December the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 3314 stating its intention to establish a
benefit assessment district in downtown Tiburon on lower Main Street. The purpose of the
assessment district would be to assist the downtown Main Street property owners in achieving
ADA compliance by constructing certain street, sidewalk and access improvements.
~
;
~
The proposed assessment district area includes nine (9) major downtown property owners
representing fourteen (14) assessor's parcels located adjacent to lower Main Street. The
preliminary estimate of construction costs, including engineering, design, environmental review,
construction management and contingency is approximately $330,000. The City of Belvedere and
Town of Tiburon have previously approved contributions of $60,000 each towards the
improvements. ,- ~.<
The initial step in the assessment district process is to retain ari eugineer to p~oceed with the
design of assessment district project improvements, determine ,the estimated cost of the project
improvements, and finally determining the benefit spread of the district 'costs.
ANALYSIS
t
Several local engineering firms were considered for both the design and assessment district
engineering work. I.L. Schwartz Associates, Inc. of Nova to was considered to be the most
qualified engineering firm for this project. They have considerable experience with assessment
district procee'dings and have served as assessment district engineer for many Marin County and
Tiburon Peninsula projects in the past.
Prior to submittal of their proposal, Mr. Schwartz met on site with Mayor Bach, Councilmember
Gram, Town Engineer Barmand and Town Manager Kleinert to discuss the scope of the project.
The Schwartz Associates proposal is comprehensive and their fee competitive. It should be noted
that a local Marin architect will also be utilized in the design effort and those costs are included in
,
the basic fee. An ADA consultant (Richard Skaff) will also provide assistance and these costs
included as a separate line item in the assessment district budget.
I
I
i
,
~
l
~
~
~
~
.~
~
I
i
i
~
,
r
t
.,
r
I
Design engineering and assessment district engineering costs will be reflected as individual line
items in the district budget. The Town will receive credit for those up-front engineering costs
from its previously committed contribution to the assessment district improvement project.
Assuming concurrent appointment ofIrv Schwartz as the Town's new contract engineer, there is
an additional matter that should be addressed at this time. While there is no apparent conflict with
the Town's contract engineer providing assessment district engineering services for the Main
Street ADA project, it is recommended that the engineering task and the fee allocation associated
with the benefit spread determination be removed from the Schwartz proposal and be contracted
for separately by the Town. By separate letter (attached) Mr. Schwartz has removed this function
and related fee from his contract proposal. Former Town Engineer Sia Barmand has also offered
to assist the Town regarding the assessment district improvements design review and proceedings
if there are concerns of possible conflict.
RECOMMENDA TION
It is recommended that the Town Council approve I.L. Schwartz Associates, Inc. to provide the
lower Main Street Assessment District engineering and civil engineering services as outlined in
their January 21, 1999 proposal to the Town Manager and subsequent February lOth letter. This
includes (1) civil engineering and architectural services, and (2) assessment district engineering
services as follows:
~ Main Street Civil Engineering Services:
~ Main Street Assessment Engineering Services:
$24,750
$ 4.100
TOTAL
$~8,850
f
"
The above approval includes authorization for the T own Manager~to execute the amended work
order and agreement with I.L. Schwartz Associates for the tasks outlined in the January 21, 1999
proposal, excluding the benefit spread analysis function.
I
-,
EXHIBITS
1. I.L. Schwartz Associates, Inc. letter proposal to the Town Manager dated 1/21/99
2. I.L. Schwartz Associates, Inc. letter regarding the benefit spread engineering services,
dated 2/10/99
,
I.L. SCHWARTZ ASSOCIATES, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING
~
,
\'
January 21, 1999
RECEIVED
JAN 2 2 1999
Robert L. Kleinert, Town Manager
T own of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICf
TOWN OF TIBURON
RE: Lower Main Street Assessment District
Dear Bob:
t
It is a pleasure for us to provide the Town of Tiburon with the following proposal to provide
Assessment Engineering and Civil Engineering Services for the improvements to lower Main
Streets in order to resolve certain ADA access deficiencies while at the same time enhancing
traffic flow, parking and aesthetics.
In order to prepare this proposal, I have met on site with you, the Town Engineer, the Mayor and
a Council Member. I have also reviewed your file including the "Tiburon Main Street Task
Force, Summary of Task Force Findings" dated August 27, 1998.
It is my understanding that the street and sidewalk area of lower Main Street between Tiburon
Boulevard and the turning circle would be improved in order to provide ADA compliant access
to all adjoining businesses. As recommended in the Task Force Summary, the design would
include two traveled lanes, parking on one side with the sidewalks widened somewhat in order to
address the ADA issue and consideration would be given to elimination of the curbs. The actual
configuration of the street and parking as well as the sidewalk and street area surfacing materials
would be developed in consultation with representatives of the Town, adjacent property owners
and business owners. '
A.side from our OVvTI staff, we plan to tap the expertise uf Ed ward Hageman, a long time Jvlarin
County Architect, in developing the details for the interface of the new sidewalk and the existing
buildings.
I
Once the plans have been sufficiently developed, we will prepare a preliminary cost estimates as
well as a proposed Method of Assessment Spread as a part of our function as Assessment
Engineer. Additionally, we will prepare the required maps and other documents in consultation
with Bond Council and Bond Underwriter in order to establish the Assessment District for
funding of this project.
We propose to include in the budget for the Assessment District, a fee to cover the services of an
ADA Consultant in order that the Town can be assured that the design, as developed, complies
with all ADA criteria. I have talked to Richard Skaff, who has agreed to perform this service, if
desired by the Town. L
EXHIBIT NO.
~
79 GALLI DRIVE
NOVATO I CA 94949-5705
(415) 883-9200
FAX 883-2763
Page 2
i
January 21, 1999
Robert L. Kleinert, Town Manager
Town ofTiburon
RE: Lower Main Street Assessment District
Continued
Our current schedule will allow us to begin work on this project within two weeks of your
authorization to proceed. The first order of work relative to the actual design of the project will
be to perform a detailed Topographic Survey of the area and the first order of work relative to the
Assessment District will be to prepare the Proposed Boundaries Map for incorporation into the
petition asking the Town to commence Assessment District proceedings. Construction
Documents including detailed plans and specifications for the improvements would be completed
by us within twelve weeks of your authorization to proceed after which bids would be solicited
and the public meetings and hearings scheduled in order to conclude formation of the District
towards the end of 1999 so that construction could commence following the Christmas 1999
shopping season.
~
A listing of the scope of services that we would provide to the Town of Tiburon are as follows:
1. Civil Engineering
a. Prepare a detailed Topographic Map of the street and adjacent area.
b. Meet with affected property owners, business owners, utility agency
representatives and Town representatives to coordinate the design of the project.
c. Prepare detailed construction plans, details, and contract documents for
construction of the improvements.
d. Provide telephone consultation with Town representatives, bidders, owners, and
utility agency representatives to answer engineeripg questionsabout the
improvements.
2.
Assessment Engineering
t
a. Prepare map showing proposed boundaries of the Assessment District.
b. Check the adequacy of signatures on the petitions for the project.
c. Prepare a general description of improvements.
d. Prepare an estimate of the cost of the improvements.
e. Prepare an Assessment Diagram showing the parcels of land to be assessed.
f. Prepare a written rational for the spread of the assessment over the properties
within the District
g. Prepare assessment of the total cost of the improvement on benefited parcels of
property within the assessment district.
h. Prepare a list of the names and addresses of all owners of land within the
assessment district in accordance with the records of the County Assessor.
1. Attend up to two general meetings and up to three Town Council
meetings/hearings.
,
I.L. SCHWARTZ ASSOCIATES, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING
Page J
j
,
January 21, 1999
Robert L. Kleinert, Town Manager
Town ofTiburon
RE: Lower Main Street Assessment District
Continued
Our scope of services proposed at this time does not include preparation of Environmental
Documents, Construction Coordination and Contract Administration, Construction Staking, or
Construction Inspection.
U sing our standard hourly rates and our estimation of the time involved to perform the various
tasks outlined above, our fixed fee for Civil Engineering services including the services of
Edward Hageman, is $24,750.00. Our fixed fee for Assessment Engineering services is
$5,150.00.
t
Any authorized extra work will be charged at our standard rates unless other prior arrangements
are made.
We look forward to working with the Town of Tiburon on this project and are ready to
commence work, as stated above, within two weeks of your authorization to proceed on the
attached Work Order and Agreement.
However, if you have any questions or desire additional information or would like my attendance
at a Town Council meeting, please feel free to ('qll on me.
Sincerely,
I
ILS/ dlh
CORRESPO.JOB
MAINSTPR.L TR
~
I.L. SCHWARTZ ASSOCIATES, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING
I.L. SCHWARTZ ASSOCIATES, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING
i
,
February 10, 1999
RECEIVED
FEB 1 1 1999
Robert L. Kleinert
Town Manager
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
RE: Lower Ivlain Street Assessment District
t
Dear Bob:
This letter is a follow-up to our conversations regarding the potential appearance of a conflict of
interest if our firm is selected to provide the Town of Tiburon with Civil Engineering Services
for the Lower Main Street Assessment District and also provides the services of Assessment
Spread Engineer. In order to prevent any potential problem or conflict it is suggested that the
function of Assessment Spread Engineer be specifically deleted from our scope of services and
that the Town of Tiburon hire an independent Civil Engineer to perform this specific service.
Specifically this would delete items 2f and 2g from our scope of services as included in our letter
to you of January 21, 1999.
With scope of services items 2f and 2g deleted, our fixed fee for Assessment Engineering is
$4,100.00.
If you have any questions or desire additional information, please feel free to call on me.
Sincerely,
t
ILS/ dlh
CORRESPO.OFF
MAINST2.L TR
EXHIBIT NO. .2
"
79 GALLI DRIVE
NOVATO, CA 94949-5705
(415) 883-9200
FAX 883-2763
T-le/f4. it Ii
.,
== GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE. HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
CARNEY J. CAMPION
i
~
:~
~
GENERAL MANAGER
RECEIVED
FEB - 5 1999
~~
,
February 1, 1999
Mr. Robert Kleinert
Town Manager
Town ofTiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TliURQN
.~~
J
{
t
~
t
Re: Bus Shelters
I
t
~
Dear Mr. Kleinert:
The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District ("District") is pursuing efforts to
reduce operating costs by seeking relief from on-going bus shelter maintenance and to also
generate added revenue for District transit programs. In this regard, the District is seeking
proposals from interested firms to implement a program of bus shelters with advertisements
within the District's service area.
.~
,
~,
The District currently nlaintains 115 bus shelters throughout the Counties of Marin and Sonoma,
of which four are located in the Town ofTiburon ("Town"). In this regard, the District is
requesting the Town's agreement regarding inclusion of these shelt,~rs, and future shelters that
may be installed, in the new bus shelter advertising program. Shci~ld the Town prefer, the
District would be willing to transfer title to the Town for the;t,us ~elters along with on-going
maintenance and repair. ,I \,
The District is eager to proceed with preparations necessary to so'lcit proposals for its bus shelter
advertising program; therefore, a timely response would be appreciated.
,
If additional information is required, please call or write Wayne Diggs, Bus Transit Manager, at
(415) 257-4422, 1011 Andersen Drive, San Rafael, CA 94901.
c: Wayne T. Diggs, Bus Transit Manager
h:\BT-99-O1 \City Town County
,
BOX 9000. PRESIDIO STATION · SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94129-0601 . TELEPHONE 415/921-5858
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
t
MEETING:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
February 17, 1999
TOWN COUNCIL
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
S1REET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - STATUSIUPDATE
ITEM:
I~
.
i
~
~
"
>II
This item is to provide status information concerning the Town's Street Improvement Program.
i
,:
~
~
i
'c
if
l'
i
','
!
,
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
1.
Fiscal Year 1997-98 Status
Budgeted
$526500
Expended:
$351 000
,
f
The Town appropriated $526,500 of Gas Tax Fund resources for street improvement projects, for engineering and
resurfacing and contingency costs. Many of the approved street improvement projects were carried forward:from 1996 and
1997. A total of eighteen (18) improvement projects were complet~ there were also storm-related contingency repairs that
were undertaken and charged to the ftmd. A total of $350.500 was expended for resurfacing improvements, contingency
repairs, and engineering. Six (6) projects, with a combined estimated cost of $247.000, were catned forward to FY 1999.
,~
1
2.
Fiscal Year 1998-99 Status
Budgeted
$621 200
Expended:
$ 2500
t
.~
The Town has now appropriated $621,200 of Gas Tax Fund resources for street projects, contingency repairs, and
engineering. At this time twenty (20) projects are authorized for completion. Initial budget plans called for the appropriation
of$417,OCYJ: Including carry-forward projects, a total of eleven (11) projects are scheduled for completion (at this time. it
appears that the Greenwood Beach Road project will be carried forward due to MMWD plans.)
As part of the County Flood Control Zone-funded Bel Aire Project ($700,000 to'imprpyesidewalk, curb, gutter and drainage
facilities) the Town was required to, and agreed to, undertake improvement of cerlainStreets - Blackfield Drive, Pamela Ct.,
Harriet Ct. - in the Bel Aire neighborhood. The Town has allocated over $96~OOdtOr this purpose.
; .,1 ~, .1~ \
When the Town Engineer submitted these street projects for bid he also requested'~ alternate.'bJd'~ other streets, including
some scheduled for FY 2OCYJ. Because the alternate bid was favorable the Townl!Qsineer 'recommended that these projects
be moved up and undertaken now. The Town appropriated $156,OCYJ for the alternate projects (these monies were advanced
from the General Fund Reserve.)
t
3.
Fiscal Year 1999-00 Status
Budgeted
$274 000
Expended:
$
o
Most of the street projects scheduled for FY 2000 have been moved up and scheduled for completion in FY 1999, however
because the Town expects to receive State Transportation ftmds , there are street improvement projects which will be
scheduled in FY 2000.
In December 1998, The Marin County Congestion Management Agency indicated that the Town will receive State
Transportation Funding (STIP) in the amount of $247,000 for roadway rehabilitation and overlays for nine (9) streets
projects recommended by the Town Engineer. The Town agreed, as a condition of receiving these monies, to appropriate
an additional $27,CXXJ to completely ftmd the proposed projects. The Town Engineer anticipates that the Town will receive
these monies at the end ofFY 1999, and that the projects will be completed during FY 2000.
,
Streets Improvement Program Status Report
Town Council, February 17, 1999
. 1
4. Gas Tax Fund Status
.1
~
The majority of Town street improvements are funded with Gas Tax proceeds. In FY 2000 Gas Tax proceeds will be used
to repay the advance of monies from the General Fund Unallocated Reserve. By FY 200 1, Gas Tax proceeds will be utilized
to fund street projects on a current basis, as the fund's reserve balance will be approximately $20,000.
t
I
~~,
FY 1999 FY 2000 FY2001
Beginning Balance, July 1 st $305,000 $ 22,000 $ 21,000
Revenue from Gas Tax & Interest 182,000 175,000 175,000
Advance from General Reserve 156,000
Expenditures for Projects & Engineering -621 ,000 - 20,000 -175,000
Repay Advance to General Reserve -156,000
Ending Balance, June 30th $ 22,000 $ 21,000 $ 21,000
5. Prqjeets Completed or Scheduled. 1998-2000
~!
;
.!/
!
l'
1
'\
f
I
f
l
FY 1997-98. Completed
FYI998-99. Scheduled
FY 1999-2000. Scheduied*
,
r
Durini this period it is estimated that the Town will complete $1 245700 in street il:Qprovement prqjects~ of this amount
$972,000 in Gas Tax proceeds will be utilized, and State STIP funds ($274,000) will be used to fund the difference.
Lyford Drive
Esperanza
Theresa Court
Mar East I
McCart Court
Venus Court
Sommer Court
Terrace
N. Terrace
Stewart
Palmer Court
Lagoon Vista
Pine Terrace
Mara Vista
Mar East n
East Terrace
Centro West n
Centro West I
Apollo Road
Beach Road
Blacldield Drive
Cayford Drive
Cecilia Way, lower
Centro West
Claire Way
Corte Las Casas
Corte Palos Verdes
Greenwood Beach Road
Harriet Way
Juno Road
Karen Way
Leland Way
Mercury Road
Pamela Court
Racoon Lane, seal
Reed Ranch Road
Southridge Road
Southridge West
Vistazo West
Solano Street
Centro East
Virginia Drive
Comstock Drive
Silverado Drive
Jefferson Drive
Irving Court
Washington Court
,
.
t
1
f
. 'I.,.'.'
r. ~..
~/I" '
I
\, ,~
"
.~ ~
t
"
$350,500 actual
$621,200 estimated
$274,000 estimated
.State Transportation funded projects (FY 2000).
6. Future Street IInprovement Projects
By the end of the current fiscal year, the Town will have completed many of the projects developed by Former Town
Engineer Bannand in 1995, and it will be an important responsibility of the new Town Engineer to evaluate our streets and
develop a new multi-year Street Improvement Plan.
,
Streets Improvement Program Status Report
Town Council, February 17, 1999
2
,r'
rk~ -:F/~
I
. ~'
TOWN OF
TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
1
~
~
'\
I
;.
}
~.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ROBERT KLEINERT, TOWN MANAGER
SCOrf ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR*
REED RANCH ROAD @ TIBURON BOULEVARD INTERSECTION:
PossmLE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
2/10/99
I
.
DATE:
,
f
t
I met recently with Councilmember Thompson, who described for me some possible roadway improvements
near the Reed Ranch Road intersection with Tiburon Boulevard. Briefly, these are as follows:
. Extend the existing merge lane for right turns from Reed Ranch Road onto westbound Tiburon
Boulevard. A "yield" sign currently regulates this transition. According to Councilmember Thompson,
rear-end accidents are common at this location.
}
.~
t
l'
. Create a dedicated merge/acceleration lane on Tiburon Boulevard to accommodate left-hand turns from
Reed Ranch Road onto eastbound Tiburon Boulevard. Currently, drivers "hide' their vehicles in between
the landscape islands on Tiburon Boulevard until it is safe to enter the ~qw of eastbound traffic on
Tiburon Boulevard. ", ,
I .\
. Reposition the existing two-lane to one-lane merge on eastbound 1\ifJ~on Boule,vard from its current
location near the entrance to Blackie's Pasture Park westward a sufficient distance to accommodate the
, ,\ ...\
proposed dedicated merge/acceleration lane from Reed Ranch Road'onto eastbound Tiburon Boulevard.
These improvements, if pursued, would probably require changes to raised landscape islands, pavement
striping, and possible grading and retaining of slopes. While the scope of physical improvements associated
with these proposals is not dramatic, there could be complex and far-reaching operational and safety
consequences associated with the proposals.
I
Should the Town Council direct Staff to further pursue these proposals, it is my recommendation is that some
level of internal review and analysis (Town Engineer and Traffic Safety Committee) take place before
Caltrans becomes involved. Based on past practice, the Town of Tiburon would be responsible for designing
and constructing any improvements in the area. The County of Marin Public Works Department should also
be consulted, as all of Tiburon Boulevard west of the Baptist Church is in unincorporated territory.
I have attached an enlarged section of aerial photograph identifying the area of proposed improvements.
,
itlo..
o (D
~ 0..
0.. n.
o ~
::s (D
..-t-o..
~ 3
~ (D
C/) ...,
g.~
o ...........
c: ~
::s (')
o..~
-1~
CT@
c: a.
..., 0
8 ::s
tt:l
o
c:
(1)
<:
~
...,
0..
.-t-
o
~
(')
(')
o
~
6)0
::s 0..
(D ~
(D
~..-t-
o :::r
3 (D
itl~
(D 0
(D"O
0..0
itlrD
~ 0..
::s
(')
:::r
~ ~ g ~
....~- ~ ~ "0
...... ..., cr' 0
(') .-t- 0 C/)
n;. :::r c: ~.
::s (D ::s _.
.-t- g 0.. g
0....-t--1.-t-
~. @ ~ g-
~ ~ c: (D
(') (D a ><
(D .-t- ::s - .
o tt:l ~.
~oJg
~ c: ?
(') -
~(D
-. <: 0
(D ~ ..!-
C/) 0.. ~
~H'I::S
~ ...,. (D
C/) 0 ..-t-
8' a 0
..., _. 0
(D Vj ::s
~ (') q>
~ c: 6)
*~::s
~ g (D
(D .-t- 3
C/) - (D
':t 0 ...,
~ (') (fQ
~ e (D
..., _. 0
0.. 0 ::s
~ ::s
~
itltt:l(')
~ 0 ...,
::s c: (D
(') - ~
_(D..-t-
.... <: (D
it' ~ ~
o a. 0..
~.-t-(D
o ~
o ~ (')
::s (') ~
..-t- (') ..-t-
o 0 (D
(D a 0..
~ 3 ~
cr" 0 ...,
o 0.. (fQ
C ~ (t)
::s ..-t- ...........
0.. (t) ~
-1~~
CT~~
c: :::r ...,
..., ~ ~
o ::s a.
::s 0.. 0
tt:l2::S
g a ~
~ C/) (t)
<: H'I 0
~ 0- ::s
0..3-1
itl~
(t) c:
(t) ...,
0..0
::s
1.
'1,
.1
,
I
,
,
;
I
,
t
,
1
,
~
f
I
1
I
,
t
'.
,
TOWN OF
TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
MULT~USEPATHSURVEYFORMS
2/10/99
BACKGROUND
I~M. I~
. .~.
1
j
~
~
'{
~
~,
i
.~'
f
,
,
,
f
The Parks & Open Space Commission has been developing a survey questionnaire to administer
to users of the Multi-use Path. Information on users of public paths is often helpful in securing
funding or grants monies for improvements to public parks such as the Richardson Bay Lineal
Park.
'!
.
I
r
Parks & Open Space Commissioners Alice Fredericks and Judy Burgin have prepared a draft
survey form. Councilmember Thompson and Town Staff have been working with the POSC
members on the information to be solicited from Multi-use Path users. It is anticipated that the
surveys would be conducted once good weather arrives. ,,1.'
\.. "
; .. ~
. {
The draft survey form is submitted for the Town Council's review. 'and comm~nt at the request of
Councilmember Thompson. ",I ,,!,:, .'
'}'"
EXlllBITS
1. Draft survey form.
t
-,t-
,
o
~
;-
~~
~....,-
(1) ... . ,
(1) 3 VI
""~
-
-3
=.
MI
oJ
(1)
~::1-;-
o 3 VI
::s (1)
s:-~
~~~
.., (1)
~
:::::::-
:::::::~
::::::::::::::
"'tl
(1)
..,
en
9
oJ
n
o
::s
Q..
c
n
S'
OQ
CI'J.
C
..,
<:
(1)
'-<:
:;::i:l'-
c 0
-OQ
oJ _
Oj~CI'J.
-0""
~-~
(1) 0;-
.., -
.c<=
= l:IJ
~ ~
= ~
f') "'I
~ ~
t
:::::::~
:::::::........
::::::::::::::
--
o
e-
o.<
>
f')
-
~.
~
~
~
s;?
co
~
(1)
--
--
--
::::::::::::::
--
o
o
OQ
en
::15'0
r::r~0
c ::s ~
.., ::s
g I
~'7j~
o ~. ~
,.... Q.. ..,
en (1) ""
~
o
,....
:T
(1)
..,
OJ
C
en
~
(1)
..,
~
OJ
~
(1)
n
~
..,
~
~
~
Q
:T
(1)
..,
9l"
~,
~.,
(6. " I"
en'" 'I:..'
o
,....
:T
(1)
..,
~ ~ =
"'I c= e
~. = ~
~ =-
c:
-on
~ =
"'I "'I
c:
=
~!'
~. '" .'
"\,
Q..Oj
(1) (1)
~ <"
(1)
I
3:n
~ 0
Q..~
(1) (1)
..,
~
<~
e:..::..:
0-
'-<:
g-~
.., ..,
~ ~
I
3:0
~ :::.
::!.~
::s ..,
3 >
(1) -
0..9
C:l
nn
o 0
en -
S"~
~
.:.
n"'rjCI'J.
~. ; ~
o :t
nCI'J.
-~
~ ::s
.., -
~ ~
co
Cz2:r-
. (1)
..,
:::rno
(i).g :::.
en ::s ~
I ..,
....,
s:
c
..,
o
::s
.t
Al
c.."
~ ~
= ~.
~ I
I
t
~,
j
i
j
I
t
~
~
~
-3
-
,
J
~
CI'J.
~
t
j
t
f.
i
~
>
:2
-
z
~
"0
~
~
CI'J.
~
CI'J.
~
"
<
~
<
,
t
j
CI'J.
o
::s
o
3
~
,
I/e~ -;::/ f'
I
"Ii!
I
!:l<
TOWN OF
TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
~
J!
1
1
~
.~
f
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
ROBERT KLEINERT, TOWN MANAGER /1
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR~-\ -
MMWD FIRE FLOW MASTER PLAN PIPELINE WORK
FEBRUARY 10, 1999
,
r
The Marin Municipal Water District has submitted its application to the Town for an
Encroachment Permit to perform pipeline replacement and installation pursuant to its Fire Flow
Master Plan.
i
.i
~ will be performing work along a major portion of Greenwood Beach Road and in two
separate locations in Blackie's Pasture Park. Please refer to the attached drawing. ~TI
hopes to begin the work in March and complete it in August 1999.
f
j
I
I
f
1
Following completion of the work in Blackie's Pasture, the Town has previously agreed to grant
an easement for ~'s most easterly pipe as shown on the dr~:wing. There is currently no
easement in this location. In exchange for the easement, :MMWD waived review fees and
provided water allocation credit for the Blackie's Pasture R~~iro._~t11 project.
~,~. \-
The Town ofTiburon postponed planned roadway improvementwork-6nGreenwood Beach
Road until such time as ~ completed with the pipeline work, which by necessity will
damage the road surface.
I
~
t
;' .... ~:' if: ~;.:~~~{~~t~?~~;j' .
"'.'~- - "i*~~~f~I~;' .
. .l." _,''''
.......... .,..:':r ~~. _
'"
'. .1
'. ....1
J.
I
,
~.
__S-
-\,
Q
~z
~
I
J
JEFFERSON
\
.t
~
I
I
,
~
/
I
I
~I
.' . /
~t
..--.:::::::- - .- ...
\ --_/
\
I
,. Q...
,.'. ' ~
,;{~' ,
..\
.h I
...
...
, f ~
'\ :I- -..-
0- l&..
~o... 0 >-
~ ~ l&.. ~ t
Q)-..J
tX:)~ 0.. ..
-..- (,Q OM c::> <:
-..- p..~ 0
.-iN)
0 La... Q) V)
(l) Q
0 .+J-..J
La... OO-..J Q::
-..J La... rg~ ~
C::> -.J roC/)
(.)
~ c ~<: --
~ ~ :w-- 0:::
~ p..
00
~
,
~
....-
-,
~
~~
(:)~
~:~