HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Min 1974 (January thru April)
CORRECTED MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF TIBURON
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Council, City of Tiburon, State
of California, was called to order by Mayor Branwell Fanning
at 7:41 p.m., January 14, 1974, in the City Hall Council Chambers.
II. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUl~CILl-lEN: Fanning, Aramburu, Littman (7: 59) ,
Sennett
ABSENT: COUNClLi:.mN: Becker
EX OFFICIO: R. L. Kleinert, City Uanager
Richard H. Breiner, Deputy City Attorney
Jasper C. Strandgaard, Deputy City Engineer
Louis F. Brunini, Supt. of Public Works
Hellen K. Hecht, Hinute Clerk
III. APPROVAL OF MIl~TES
1\10. 336
It was moved by Aramburu, seconded by Sennett, to approve Hinutes
Ro. 336 of December 10, 1974.
Sennett corrected the first paragraph on page 6 to read as
follows:
". . . of Supervisors requesting that the County
require that all unincorporated lands request
annexation to the City."
Question was called, and the motion to adopt the minutes carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILUEN:
COUNCIIJ.mn:
COUNCILHEN:
Aramburu, Fanning, Sennett
None
Becker, Littman
IV. BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL
1. 'l'IBUR01~ TOliNE HASTER PLAN -
54 TOt'lNHOUSE CONDOUINIUI,lS,
200 TRESTLE GLEN BLVD.
Herman Ruth Assoc., Applicant
Sennett stated Hr. Ruth, the applicant, had requested this matter
be continued to April 8, 1974; hO\'1ever, 11rs. Ingraham, an owner
of the property through a corporation, has indicated her interes~
in having the matter heard at the earliest possible date. The
Chair set the matter for January 28th and directed staff to
notify the neighboring property owners and Hr. Ruth of the new
date.
Action: Cont'd to Jan. 28
In response to a protest raised by Hr. llilner that the City
had not notified property O''1ners that the matter \~ou1d not be
heard this evening, the Chair recommended Hr. Hilner request
staff to agendize the matter of notifying citizens when matters
on the agenda are continued.
i-Irs. Adina Robinson and 1.Ir. Bernie Greer also objected to t:he
matter being cancelled. In response to a question by the Chair
as to how many people were present this evening for Item 1,
approximately eleven people raised their hands.
CITY COUNCIL I.IIl'lUTES NO. 337
January 14, 1974
Page 1
2. ORDER TO SHON CAUSE -
HACIENDA DRIVE
Action: Cont'd to Jan. 28th
The Chair stated this matter is continued to January 28th.
3. APPEAL FROU DECISION OF BOARD OF DESIGN REVIEW
The Chair stated the Board of Design Revie\>l on January 8th
approved the plans for the residence proposed for 76 Hacienda
Drive, and therefore the appeal ~s now moot.
4. HEARI1~G ON APPLICATION FOR Action: Continued
BUSI1~SS LICENSE -- S. G. GLUECK,
dba EHERGEi'lCY SERVICES SECURITY
The City Hanager presented the application of Hr. S. G. Glueck
for a business license for private patrol and guard services
in the City of Tiburon.
Sennett urged the matter of bonding be looked into to ensure
that the City is protected.
It was the consensus of the Council that the matter should be
continued until the applicant is present to answer questions
regarding services.
CONSENT CALENDAR
At the request of Sennett, Item 19 was removed from the Consent
Calendar.
It was moved by Aramburu, seconded by Sennett, to adopt the
Consent Calendar consisting of the following items:
13. CASH FLON STATEllENTS (August, September & October)
14. RELEASE OF BOND (Soils Exploration, Red Hill Slide)
15. RELEASE OF PERFORHANCE BOND (Acceptance of Haintenance
Bond - t~iC Corp. Red Hill Town Houses)
16. EXTENSION OF CCPC AGREE~mNT BE~mEN THE COUNTY OF
~UillIN AND CITY OF TIBURON
17 . AWARD OF CONTRACT (Har nest at Las Lomas Project)
18. ACCEPTANCE OF NOTICES OF COf".1PLETION - Resolution 597
20. CLAIU FOR DAI\1AGES
21. POLICE REPORT, December
I.lotion carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILUEN:
COUNCILf lEN :
COUNCILlmN:
Aramburu, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
Becker
7 . IH'l'RODUCTIOl-I OF UILLIAH H. LISKAliH
The Chair introduced Hr. l'1illiam H. Liskamm as the Int.erim
Planning Consultant to work in the Planning Department on
advanced planning matters until ~~e City hires a Planning
Director.
v . PUBLIC QUESTIONS J'a..ND COI'li\1ENTS
In response to a question by Dr. George Ellman, the Superintendent
of Public Works stated the five-year maintenance program for
streets and roads is still in existence.
CITY COUNCIL HINUTES NO. 337 January 14, 1974
Page 2
r
D~l Bar Tennis Court Lighting
Corr:
dr. Joseph Bacheller, representing the Del I~ar Property O\-1ners
Association; Hr. John Hahn, president of that Association; and
Messrs. Philip Pease and Ralph Jacobs spoke against the lighting
of the tennis courts being built at Del Har. They urged that
the pedestal and tile conduits being installed be removed to
insure ~lat the courts will never be lighted and urged that a
resolution be passed in this regard. They further spoke of the
potential parking problems on Hilary and Virginia Drive as a
result of tile tennis courts being constructed in that location.
The Chair stated there is no provision in the budget for lighting
the courts at this time, and the parking situation can be
evaluated after the courts are in use and it is determined
what controls will be needed. After discussion of the matter,
at the request of Sennett, the Chair directed the Parks and
Recreation Commission draft a resolution that the Council could
endorse setting fortil that the tennis courts will not be lighted,
and should it be considered in the future, the property owners
are to be notified. He directed that the matter be noticed in
the paper and the appropriate notices of the meeting be sent to
the property ~1ners f associations. Council directed P.&R. to hold a hearing
~n the ma~ter of the Del Mar Tennis Courts lighting and that adequate notice be
s en t to eve!yone. '
Downtown Development
~tt. Brewster Ilorris, representing the Committee for the Downtown
Plan Review, presented to the Council a petition containing
1,872 signatures of residents of the Tiburon Peninsula request-
ing that the Adopted Downto\~n Plan be modified in order to
maintain the small-tcvn growth of Tiburon, to limit automobile
traffic and visitors9wno preserve the open waterfront, and to
retain the downtown area for use of residents rather than visitors.
He stated in his opinion tl~e petition clearly represents a
mandate to the City to review the adopted Downtown Plan.
The Chair accepted the petition and stated it will be considered
by the appropriate bodies at the time the Sequoia Pacific Plan
is before them.
Sennett ackno~.,ledged receipt of a letter ~.,ri tten by I1r. Borris.
The Chair stated the letter has been fo~.,arded to the City
Attorney, and upon receipt of his opinions, the Council will
respond to the letter.
Sennett read a statement in response to some comments that have
appeared in the press in regard to the DOl-lnto,.,n Plan. He
reviewed the process undertaken by the City in regard to the
proposed Downtown Plan and outlined the steps taken to ensure
that the concerns of the public had been met. He spoke of the
high regard each Council member holds for his office and of
their dedication to the City, and expressed the hope that future
dialogue would be one of issues rather than personalities.
The Chair urged citizens not make judgments on the Downtown Plan
until the Environmental Impact Report is presented, which is
being paid for by the Sequoia Pacific and which will be given
many public hearings before the Planning Commission and the
Council. Littman stated his profound respect for Sennett had
increased as a result of tile statement he read. The Chair con-
curred.
IV. BUSIlmSS OF THE COUNCIL
5 . HlLARITA STATUS REPORT
Mr. Ned Weed, president, Tiburon Ecumenical Association, reviewed
the status of the Hilarita project. He stated they had met with
CITY COUNCIL HlNUTES NO. 337
January 14, 1974
Page 3
members of the Tiburon City Council; and in an attempt to recon-
cile,differences, had reduced the size of tile project from 112
units to 102. lIe stated because of the long delay in court
litigation, construction costs had increased, which necessitated
further negotiations Witll HUD; but the current status is they
are expecting a fina commitment from HUD within the next two
weeks for funding, and then pape~10rlc for final closing will be
initiated. He stated ground-breaking ~'7ill be as. 'soon as the
"Iea t her permits.
Hr. Hat I1arans urged an Environmental Impact Report be required
for the Hilarita project.
In response to a question by the Chair, tl1e Deputy City Attorney
stated the Zoning Ordinance provides that if no development
has occurred to effectuate the i.1aster Plan \'lithin bl0 years
after it \1aS approved, the City Council must reViet'l the Ilaster
Plan. He stated an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required unless the Council revokes the Haster Plan and a ne"l
one is filed.
lIr. Herb Wenig stated a new Precise Plan will have to be sub-
mitted because of ~he change from 112 units to 102. He objected
to the change in rnJnership of Hilarita from the non-profit
corporation to a private-oriented corporation. He also urged
that an EIR be required.
Carol Ueeks stated Hilarita is a long-established area .and
therefore should be given a priority for development over the
dOt'1ntOt'ln plan or Ilr. Zelinsky IS.
In response to a question by the Chair, the Deputy City Attorney
stated if TEA "lanted the Precise Plan to be amended, they
should initiate tile action.
Hr. ~-]eed suggested that because the plan had been before the
Council on numerous occasions during the past three years, this
could be construed as a reviel'l of the Haster Plan.
l'~. Clarence Bullard objected to any further delays and spoke
of the increased construction costs because of the delays.
other than that strictly required by law
Littman urged there be no further reViet'l of Hilari taAand that
the project be allrnJed to proceed.
The Deputy City Attorney stated tiley received a copy of an
opinion from the Attorney General's Office in which the Attorney
General held that a Tentative and Final IIap must be filed for
any project involving the construction of five or more apartment
buildings on one parcelo If it is deemed to be correct, before
the approval of the Tentative Hap, an EIR 't"1ill have to be filed.
The Chair directed the matter continued to the first meeting in
February, at which time the Council \'lill reviel1 the Haster Plan.
RECESS
A recess was tak.en at 9 :15 p.m., the Council reconvening at
9:28 p.ra.., the roll standing as originally taken.
6. DRAINAGE COIlLiITTEE REPORT
The City llanager stated as much of tile drainage problems are
on private property, the City is attempting to establish policy
that could assist property owners witl10ut necessitating the
expenditure of large amounts of money by the City. He stated
he and the City Engineer, along with Councilman Aramburu, had
CITY COUHCIL IlIHUTES NO. 337
January 14, 1974
Page 4
met with the Tara Hill property owners in an attempt to resolve
their drainage problems. After discussion, the property owners
agreed to pay the costs for drainage work done on the private
property if the City would contribute its share for ~~rk done on
tile public right-of~1ay. The City Engineer's rough estimate of
the costs of the project was $5,800 for the property owners and
$6,200 for the City.
The City lianager stated there are funds in the assessment dis-
trict which can be used by tile City for this project.
Aramburu stated his committee, in studying tile drainage problems,
determined the City should establish a policy for all areas in
the City; and that if Hork is performed on the public rights-
of-~ay, it will be the City's responsibility, and if it is on
private property, it \'lill be the responsibility of the private
property O"lners. lIe recommended a IIaster Drainage Plan be
prepared for the entire City.
ilr. HcGuinness, representing the Tara Hill property O~lners,
stated they are willing to pay for drainage repairs on the private
property.
Motion of Littman, seconded by Sennett, that specifications be
prepared and the matter of drainage repair '~ork for Tara Hill
be advertised for bid, carried:
AYES~
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNC ILliEH ~
COUNCILHEN:
COUNCILllEN:
Aramburu, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
Decker
On motion of Littman, seconded by Sennett, and there being no
objection, the Chair accepted the report of the Special Drainage
Committee.
Hr. ilcGuinness requested the motion include that a portion
shall be paid by the property owners and a portion by the City.
The City Hanager stated the City Council has agreed to this by
accepting the report 0
8 . BICYCLE PATH EXTENSION
The City Engineer stated the Parks and Recreation Commission has
approved the final plans as proposed by the City Engineer for
the extension of the bicycle path from Cove Road to Beach
Road. The Council reviewed the plans prepared by the City
Engineer. The City Ilanager stated Belvedere has approved the
plans and agreed to contribute $2,000 toward the costs.
After discussion, motion of Sennett, seconded by Aramburu, to
approve the plans, specifications and notice of bidders referred
to in Agenda Item 0, carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILi:EN:
COUNCILI ill:i.\J :
COUNCILI IEN ::
Aramburu, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
Hone
Becker
9. Ha:lD HATER STORAGE TANK
The City L-Ianager stated the l'1ater District has three proposed
locations for the Paradise Drive ~1ater Storage Tank. He stated
the matter was before the Council for recommendations only as
the three sites are all in the County, and the 11arin County Parks
and Recreation District has recommended Site A rather than the
primary site.
llr. Bernie ~'leare and ilr. Dave Johnson from the nunD presented
slides and explained the proposed locations.
CITY COUNCIL IlINUTES HO. 337
January 14, 1974
Page 5
ilr. Gary Gray, chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission,
spoke against the primary site as this area is being proposed
for a park. Commissioner Don Pickett spoke against the site and
recommended Site A or B. Commissioner Phyllis Ellman spoke
against the primary site as it is an open area with beautiful
views. She recommended a site in the vicinity of the NET Depot.
~~r. Bryan Chapman spoke against tile primary site as it would
directly interfere with his vie~vs. In response to questions about
undergrounding, :ir. Johnson stated this would entail additional
expenses \*lhich they. have not budgeted for. They ~.lould, hOt-lever,
be willing to landscape the area.
ar. Fred Hannahs and Ur. Bstudillo of the Fire Department urged
the construction of the \'1ater tank be expedited because of the
fire danger on ilain Street due to the poor water pressure.
After extensive discussion, it ~1as moved by Littman, seconded
by Sennett, that Councilmen Aramburu and Littman be appointed
to a committee to coordinate this matter with the Fire District
and the Hater District and '^lork "li th the Parks and Recreation
Commission to come up with a solution to this problem that
helps the citizenc and the downtown merchants and the insurance
rating. There being no objection, the Chair directed the motion
carried.
10. RICw"\RDSON BAY PARK SPORTS GHEEN
The City llanager presented to the Council a proposal submitted
by the Parks and Recreation Commission for the implementation of
a playing field in the Richardson Bay Park area. He stated the
proposal is in conformity with the Sasaki, Walker plan presented
to the City in 1973. He stated the City Engineer has drafted
an outline of the proposed play field and presented a preliminary
cost estimate. He stated staff favors the plan but is concerned
about the funding and the future maintenance of tile park.
Sennett spoke in support of tile plan but expressed concern over
the fact that tile land was not owned by the City but is on a
five-year lease basis. He suggested tile City obtain insurance
from tile State Division of Highways either that the lease will
be extended or that the property would be given to the City on
an exchange basis in connection ~]ith tile realignment of the
highway.
The City ~lanager stated the State Division of High~ays is in
the process of beginning legal action for the acquisition of the
right-of-way. A representative from the Highway Department has
reviewed the Sasaki, Walker proposal and the Department has
expressed their approval of the planned implementation. It
was the consensus of the Council that the City ~lanager check
with the State Division of Highways regarding the proposed
exchange of property.
In response to the City llanager 1 s concern about funding, Sennett
suggested, as the construction ,,,,ill take more than one year,
part of the funding could be from the current budget and part
from next year's budget.
Littman questioned 't1hether there could be assurance from the
Sanitary District in regard to using the recycled water for
maintenance. i~s. Ellman stated they are on the agenda of the
water district for Tuesday, January 15th, and tile matter will
be discussed at that meeting.
In response to a question by the Chair, the Deputy City Attorney
stated an EIR will be required but it could be a negative
declaration.
CITY COUNCIL l1INUTES NO. 337
January 14, 1974
Page 6
The Chair requested tile bid specifications be prepared for
the first meeting in February, and in the meantime staff attempt
to resolve the legal question ""i th the Hight-lay Department. He
authorized representatives from the Parks and Recreation Com-
mission to negotiate with the Sanitary District. He also requested
they look into th~ matter of recruiting volunteer help from the
ilational Guard to do the ~'1ork.
11. TRIPLE ANNlVEHSARY COlJi.lITTEE
llotion of Fanning, seconded by Littman, that $1,000 be allocated
to the Triple Anniversary Committee to implement anniversary
surplus plans and preparations for 1974, carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSElJT:
COUNCILilEN:
COUNCILlIEN:
COUNCILllEN:
Aramburu, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
Becker
12. P&R COHUISSION REQUEST FOR FUNDS
The City Hanager presented the request of the P&R Commission
that the Council subscribe for a $250 Grant Finders' Program
l1embership for fund-finding assistance.
P&R Chairman Gray spoke to the request and urged the Council
approve the expenditure as one grant ~ould pay the fee.
Littman suggested Feueral and State literature on their programs
be revie\'led and the City l'ianager prepare a report in this
regard.
It was moved by Aramburu, seconded by Sennett, that the City
Hanager be authorized to expend $250 if, in his judgment, there
is reasonable expectation of some returns.
After further discussion, the motion was withdrawn and the
Ci ty i-1anager ,-ras directed to bring back a report \'li th more
information to the next meeting.
19. STATUS OF RADIO P~PEATER STATION
The City Manager advised the antenna has been removed and all
that remains at this time is the concrete base.
The Chair directed the City Hanager urite a letter to the owner
of the property to determine what his future plans are and to
inquire whether he plans to remove tile base~
22. CLAIilS REGISTERS
It was moved by Sennett, seconded by~~uru, to adopt
Register of Clai~ms Nos. 111, 112 and 113. fIotion carried,
subject to Litt~man's former abstentions in regard to Pacific
Telephone:
AYES:
HOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILIIEi'J:
COUNCILilEN:
COUNCILIlEH:
Aramburu, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
Becker
VI. ITEI-lS NOT ON THE AGENDA
It was moved by Sennett, seconded by Aramburu, to adopt
Resolution No. 598 Authorizing the Transfer of $5,000 from
the General Fund Contingent Account to the Redevelopment
Agency Administrative Fund. ilotion carried:
AYES:
HOES~
ABSENT:
COUNCILllEN:
COUNCILHEN:
COUNCILI~lEN :
Aramburu, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
Becker
CITY COUNCIL I1INUTES NO. 337
January 14, 1974
Page 7
VII. ADJOURNIlENT TO TIEDEVELOPIlEHT AGENCY iffiETING
At 12:15 a.m., the Chair adjourned the meeting to a Redevelopment
Agency J:1eeting.
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON:
JANUARY 28th
I 1974.
CITY COUNCIL HINUTES NO. 337
January 14, 1974
Page G
CORRECTED MINUTES
- -.-
". CITY COUaCIL
t
CITY OF TIBUROH
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Council, City of Tiburon, State of
C~lifornia, \V'as called to order by Hayor Bran\'lell Fanning at
7;;37 p.m., January 28, 1974, in the City Hall Council Chambers.
I I . HOLL C~.LL
P~SE~T; COU~CI4'ill~~
Fanning, ;~~ruburu, Becker, Lit~~an,
Senn~tt
l~Olle
R. L. r-,leinert, City l;:.ianager
Stan Lichlyter, A&:linistrative Intern
Robart I. Conn, City Attorney
Stanley Dala, City Engineer
Phil Scott, Development Administrator
Louis F. Brunini, Supt. of Public Horks
iJlaurice Lafferty, Chief of Police
Hellen 1\. Hecht, ~.1inute Clerk
~SENT~ COUNCIL~mN~
~X OFFICIO;
I
III. APPROVAL OF I.IIL~UTES
lO. ~3 7
Litbuan corrected page 3, paragraph 2, to include that the Council
d1rected the Parks and Recreation Corrnnission to hold a hearing in
the matter of the Del har r.rennis court lighting I and that adequate
D~tice be sent to everyone.
'). "
Littman corrected page 4, paragraph 9, to include, It. . . there
b~ no further revie\1] other than that strictly required by 1a\*1. It
i~9tion of Araniliuru, seconded by Sennett, to accept ciinutes No. 337
o~ January 14, 1974, as amended, carried:
~~~S; COU~CIL~ill~o
.vQL;S :; COUi\ICILi..iEN ~
~SE~l'I'; COUi.JCILiillN:
AJ3STAli-l : COUi~CILl.iEU::
Aramburu, Litbuan, Faluling, Sennett
i-Jone
None
Becker
( .'
IV.
BUSINESS OF THE COU~CIL
CONSENT CALENDAR
8. PAi~S & RECREATION REQUEST FOR FUNDS
9 . i,iOTORCYCLES Ii'1 OPE1~ SPACE AREAS
10. CASH FLOt>J
On motion of Beeker, seconded by Sennett, the Consent Calendar
consisting of the above items, was adopted:
\ ,
AYES:
NpES:
AaSENT:
COUNCILIIEN:
COUNCILHEN:
COUNCILi.lEN:
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
Hone
None
:~
1. 'i.IBURON TOtiNE MASTER PLAN
~erman Ruth Associates, Applicant
The City Hanager stated this is an appeal from a decision of the
Planning Commission to reject the project from the design point
of view.
~. Herman Ruth, the applicant, requested a 90-day continuance as the
e~tate is in probate and there are matters to be cleared up.
CITY COUNCIL vUNUTES NO. 338
January 28, 1974
Page 1
t
~
).i
. ~ I
.
Th~ Chair stated Council at the last meeting had denied the request;
for a continuance and set the matter for this evening at the reques~
of) the owner of the property and citizens who live in the vicinity
of the proposed development. Mr. Ruth requested the continuance
on~the basis he is the sole applicant for the project. He stated
in the past he has accepted a number of continuances requested by
the City.
Hr'. John Swayer, Trust Officer for the Bank of America, stated they'
represent a portion of the subject land and they are in a position
to'negotiate a sale.. Hr. Al Curtice questioned the relevancy of
this to the action before the Council. Littman urged the Council
act on the matter of the continuance 't.,i thout regard to 't",ho o'tvns
the property. Sennett urged the Council consider the merits of
th~ prqject this evening as, in his opinion, the concerned neighbors
have a right to have this matter resolved this evening.
The City Attorney advised before the plan can be acted on by
Council, the Environmental Impact Report must first be reviewed and acted upon
by the Planning Commission.
It was moved by Becker, seconded by Littman, that the applicant's
request for a gO-day continuance be granted. Aramburu pointed out
the Planning Comnission had rejected the plan and urged the
developer to restudy the plan and resubmit it. He stated it is
inappropriate for the Council to take any action until the EIR is
accepted, and he would therefore urge tile matter be sent back to
the Planning Commission.
After further discussion, Littman moved as a substitute motion,
seconded by Becker, that the matter be remanded back to the
Planning Commission with instructions that they report back to
the Council with their views on the Environmental Impact Report
wi~lin 90 days.
In response to a question by the Chair, Hr. Ruth stated they are
almost ready to submit the EIn to the City.
.
After discussion, Littman amended his motion, with the consent
of Becker, to direct that the matter be remaqded back to the
Planning Commission with instructions that they act upon tile
Environmental Impact Report within 90 days.
t
Question was called, and the motion, as amended, carried:
AYES:
NOES:
AB~ENT:
COUNCILI1EN:
COUNCILHEN:
COUNCILHEN:
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
None
2. IlILARITA !\lASTER PLA1.\J
The Chair stated this matter has been agendized in order that the
Council may determine the status of the ~laster Plan which has not
been acted upon in the last two years unless the Council construes
th~ approval of the Precise Plan as being also an approval of the
[laster Plan. He questioned the City Attorney as to his legal
opinion upon the status of the Master Plan and on the ruling of the
St~te Attorney General's Office which requires any project contain-
ing five or more structures to file a subdiviskn map and prepare
an EIR. The City Attorney responded a subdivision map will be
required because of the Attorney General's opinion, and therefore
an EIR will have to be prepared and reviewed by both the Planning
Commission and the Council.
l'~. Ned Weed, president of the Tiburon Ecumenical Association,
st~ted he had been informed by the City Attorney's office the only
matter to be taken up by the Council this evening was the status of
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 338
January 28, 1974
Page 2
,
I~~
~
~~ ~laster Plan, and they were told their attorneys would be given
fu~ther opportunity to study the ruling by the Attorney General's
Of~ice and this matter would be taken up at a later date. In
r~9ard to the Master Plan, he stated he would ask the City Council
t~ consider the question of whether or not a reduction of ten
units in the overall 14aster Plan constitutes a revision sufficient
enough so as to require review of the Precise and Master Plan;
and if this would be necessary, they are prepared to go back to 112-
un1ts. They would naturally prefer proceeding with 102 units.
Sennett urged the only matter that the Council take up this evening
is: whether they wish to revoke the approval previously given to
the Master Plan for Hilarita. He stated a subsidiary issue would
be whether the Council's interim actions have extended the approval
of the I-laster Plan.
Littman stated he recollects that the Master Plan approval by the
Co~ncil was for no more than 112 units. As the number has been
reduced to 102, the number of units is within the approval of the
Ma~ter Plan so that is not an issue. He stated the Council should
determine whether or not by reason of tile ordinance the Council
should review the Master Plan in the public interest. He stated
if it is determined by the attorneys that an Environmental Impact
R~ort is required, he would recommend hearing dates be set this
ev~ning in order that the timetable for construction can be met.
{.tr. Weed stated the ordinance adopted by the Council in February 1973
specifically stated that the action taken by the Council constituted
a' -revie\-1 of the Haster Plan. He again requested the Council review
th~ matter of the change from 112 to 102 units, which has no bearing
on the Master Plan but does have a minor impact on the Precise
Pl{ln.
Mr. Herb Wenig stated the question of the Master Plan is moot
because of the Attorney General's opinion that an EIR is required,
a~d the Council can take up the question of whether or not the
I~aster Plan is in the public interest at the time of deliberations
on the EIR.
Fanning questioned the City Attorney whether.in his opinion the
action taken by the Council on February 14, 1974, constituted a
review of the Master Plan as well as the Precise Plan. The City
Attorney stated this would be a matter for the Council to decide.
He stated the attorneys for TEA claim that the matter has been
under continual review and there is substantial merit to the argu-
ment as it would be difficult to consider the Precise Plan without
at the same time considering the ~~ster Plan. However, he stated
the Council must decide on this.
Iq response to a question by Aramburu, the City Attorney stated
in order for the Council to revoke the Master Plan, they must find
there has been a substantial change of circumstances and that
the project is now against the public interest.
After discussion, it was moved by Littman, seconded by Becker,
that the Council not revoke the Master Plan.
With the consent of Littman, Fanning amended the motion, seconded
by' Sennett, to include that the Council has reviewed the Master
Plan and are not revoking it.
In response to a question by Becker, the City Attorney stated
today's date no\'1 becomes the date of review for the I1aster Plan.
"
Question \'las called, and the motion, as amended, carried:
AYES:;
NOES:
~SENT:
COUNCILf.lEN:
COUNC IL!-tEN :
COUNCILl-IEN:
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
None
CITY COUNCIL HINUTES NO. 338
January 28, 1974
Page 3
Ih response to discussion on the change from 112 to 102 units, Mr.
Weed stated their basic plans presented to the Planning Commission
and the City Council showed 112 units. In line with negotiations
with citizens urging a reduction in density, they prepared a
plan showing 102 units. Both plans were put out to bid. In the
Pr~cise Plans presented to the City Council, they showed where
th~ reduction would occur, but the plans submitted to the Planning
Commission showed 112 units.
3. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - HACIENDA DRIVE
The City Manager reported they are still awaiting authorization by
the Probate Court for the executors of the Estate to sign the
papers. The City Attorney suggested the matter be taken off the
ag~nda until they are ready to bring it to the Council.
In response to a question by the Chair, the City Attorney stated
the City could fill the chuck holes on Hacienda as a matter of
safety. The Chair directed staff take whatever action deemed
necessary in tllis regard, and that the matter not be agendized
un~il the papen10rk has been completed.
4. APPLICATION FOR BUSINESS LICENSE
S. G. Glueck, dba Emergency Services Security
Th~ Chair stated this matter has been continued from the last
meeting in order that the applicant could be present to answer
questions on his application.
In response to a question by the Chair, lir. Glueck, the applicant,
de~cribed the services they propose, being a private patrol and
guard service. He stated they concurred with the conditions of
the City Attorney except for the requirement of a million-dollar
bopd. He stated their insurance liability is a hundred thousand
dollars per occurrence, 1;'1hich they feel is adequate.
Ip response to a question by Littman, Hr. Glueck stated his men
woUld be armed with.38 police specials, they also operate in
tile Strawberry area, and he would have no more than two patrolmen
in Tiburon.
Hr. I-like Lee, the senior officer and a military policeman stationed
at the Presidio in San Francisco, stated the men are armed as they
check buildings at night but the officer patroling the Boardwalk
in the afternoons would not be armed. He assured the Council
his men are trained in the use of firearms.
In response to a question by Sennett, Chief Lafferty stated the
proposed services would benefit the City but they would require
a;J.:l employees take the 832 course that is required of all
police officers in the State of California in order to ensure
that they are trained in arrest and search and seizure and firearm
techniques.
Irt response to a question by Sennett, the City Attorney stated
th~y are satisfied with their insurance and would not require the
m~llion-dollar bond.
It was moved by Sennett, seconded by Fanning, to approve the
application for a business license of S. Go Glueck, dba Emergency
S~rvices Security, subject to the conditions outlined in Chief
Lafferty's letter of January 10, 1974; and further subject to an
acceptable policy of insurance, identifying the City, as approved
by the City Attorney.
With the consent of Sennett, Fanning amended the motion to include
that the approval will be conditional that there will be no increase
in' the City's insurance rates.
CITY COUNCIL HINUTES NO. 338
January 28, 1974
Page 4
:1
I .
. :
i
ri'
With the consent of Sennett and Fanning, titbrtab amended the motion
to'include that the license is to be reviewed at the end of June
1975.
~"
Be~ker expressed real opposition to the service being allowed to
op~rate in Tiburon. Becker, Littman and Aramburu expressed their
opposition to the guards carrying firearms.
Ar8nIDuru moved that the motion be amended to include that the
approval be conditional on no firearms being involved. Sennett
declined to accept the amendment.
"
Mr. Glueck assured the Council they would be working very closely
with the Tiburon Police Department.
After further discussion, question was called, and the motion, as
am~nded, carried:
.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILHEN:
COUNCILl.1EN:
Fanning, Littman, Sennett
Aramburu, Becker
None
RECESS
A recess was taken at 9:18 p.m., the Council reconvening at 9:33
p~~., the roll standing as originally taken.
5. TElYIPORARY USE PERHIT
J:.l~chael Katz, Applicant
B!cycle Rental behind El Borro Restaurant
It was moved by Sennett, seconded by Becker, to adopt Resolution
599 granting a temporary use permit to ~lichael Katz.
Liftman expressed concern about the location of the bicycle rental
se~vice because of the parking problem, and he requested the
ap~licant consider a relocation after six months to an area away
fr~m the downtown section.
Question was called, and the motion carried: .
AYSS:
NOES:
~SENT:
COUNCILUEN:
COUNCILNEN:
COUNCIL!-1EN:
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
None
v. PUBLIC QUESTIONS M~D CO~ll1ENTS
'- "
Sennett complimented the Ring Mountain Study Group, and especially
Mr~ Rampton Harvey, the chairman, on the fine plan they presented
to'the County for that area. He recommended Mr. Harvey and his
9r9uP be asked to study the remainder of the Tiburon Peninsula that
is\unzoned; and he moved, seconded by Littman, that the Mayor be
au~horized, on behalf of the Council, to request Supervisor Wornum
to appoint a committee consisting of representatives of the City
of ,Tiburon and concerned citizens in the appropriate County areas
to~.study and then recommend to the County Planning Commission a
Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance for those County areas south of
Trestle Glen on the Paradise Drive side.
Becker urged the committee work in close contact with professional
planners. Aramburu suggested the services of Bill Liskamm be
ut+lized.
After further discussion, question was called and the motion carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILHEN:
COUNCILrtillN:
COuNCILMEN:
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
None
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 338
January 28, 1974
Page 5
, '
Littman stated he has been advised of the abandonment of the NET
depot, and he requested the Mayor write or make personal contact
wi-th the General Services Department or the Navy to determine what
the City can do to acquire the property, which citizens have recom-
mepded to him be considered for housing by City employees. The
Chair urged the City Manager to act expeditiously on the matter
of: annexation of this property, the two schools in the Bel Air
ar~a and the Neil Smith property.
Ar-amburu called the Council's attention to a feature story in the
In~ependent Journal on Parks & Recreation Commissioner Phyllis Ellman.
The Chair reported on the status of the lift-house tower on the
piers at the railroad landing. He stated the rotten piles are in
the process of being removed but every effort is being made to
preserve the archway overhead and the railroad plans to store it
uptil it can be reconstructed. Becker reported a number of
trucks drive over the asphalt walkway in that vicinity and suggested
drivers be asked not to drive on the path.
The City Manager reported on the status of storm drainage projects
which have been previously approved by the State for 60 percent
f~nding. He stated the State has set a time limit of April 1st,
and the projects must be completed by that date. He stated projects
(1) slide repair at Hacienda Drive in the vicinity of Porto Marina
ahd (2) slide repair at 2020 Paradise Drive must be authorized by
Council for advertising for bids.
It was moved by Becker, seconded by Sennett, that both projects
as cited by the City Manager be approved for letting out to bid.
The City Engineer presented drawings for the project at 2020
Paradise Drive and reviewed plans for the sidewalk, which will
require additional expenditures which have been budgeted. He
reviewed the drawings showing the different proposals for the
guardrails.
Question was called, and the motion carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
Aramburu, Becker, Fann~ng, Littman, Sennett
None
None
The City Engineer requested a work session be scheduled to discuss
City plans for Tiburon Boulevard between Stewart Drive and Mar
West. The work session should include members of the Planning
Commission, Councilmen and interested citizens for input on issues _
such as potential use of the bike path for emergency vehicles,
parking for the bike path, etc. Littman suggested that it be
considered as part of the whole picture of the City circulation
plan. Mr. Hoffmire asked at that time if they could consider
undergrounding utilities since there will be a change in the road
alignment. After discussion, the meeting was scheduled for
February 19th.
T~e City Manager reported the right-of-way acquisition by the
State is proceeding in the Blackie Pasture area; however, he has not
received a response yet to his letter concerning an exchange of
property between the State and the City.
The City Manager reported the Council originally approved stop
signs at Del Mar and Beach Road for a four-month period which has
nqw elapsed. He stated work is now progressing on the installation
Q~ stop lights at these locations. After discussion, the Chair
directed the City Attorney determine whether the Council should
take action to extend the approval of the stop signs until the
stop lights are put in.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 338
January 28, 1974
Page 6
,
;
t'
i
./
j\-
~ I
,
;'1;,
The City Hanager introduced Hr. Stan Lichlyter as the Administrative
In~ern who has been with the City since December.
i-lotion of Becker, seconded by Littman, to adopt Resolution No. 600,
COhsolidating Voting Precincts, Appointing Election Officers,
Fi~ing Polling Places and Establishing Compensation for Election
Officers, carried: All Ayes.
Mr~ John Hoffmire reported on the meeting of the Little Reed Heights
Homeowners in regard to undergrounding and stated the cost quoted
by.PG&E and Pacific Telephone came to around $2,000 a home. He
stated they are interested in working with the City to determine
if there is a way the undergrounding can be accomplished at a
le$ser cost. The City Engineer stated the City could request
PG.E submit a detailed cost estimate and then conduct a study to
de~ermine if there is a cheaper means for undergrounding.
I~r~ Hoffmire stated the residents of Little Reed Heights are
ve~y interested in having Porto !1arino Drive be a through street.
The Chair stated this will be studied at the time the circulation
map is prepared for Tiburon.
6. GELDERT DRIVE/HARN' COURT PATHNAY EASE1'-IENT
Cbnsideration of Chapter 8 Tax Sale Parcel Purchase
Th. Ci ty Uanager presented a map sho\1ing the parcel of land to be
placed on sale by the County of Marin. He stated the property has
been considered for a pathway but staff is exploring a suitable
rOuting. ~lr. Shannon, owner of Parcel 2, stated he would be
happy to cooperate witll the City.
l
After further discussion, there being no objection, the Chair
directed staff to continue negotiations with property owners in
this matter.
7 . REQUEST FOR POt'JER POLE REI~10VAL
Vicinity of Old St. Hilary
After discussion, the Chair directed the City Engineer to check
the cost estimate for removing the power poles and the City Manager
to~ check further in regard to Rule 20 monies; to report back to
the Council.
11. CLAlIffi REGISTERS NOS. 113 AND 114
~
Motion of Sennett, seconded by Aramburu, to adopt Register of
Claims Nos. 113 and 114, carried:
AYES:
NO~S:
ABpENT:
COUNCILllEN:
COUNCILHEN:
COUNCILHEN:
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
None
V. CONHUNICATIONS
, I
L~ttman questioned the status of the moratorium on condominiums.
The City 11anager stated the Planning Commission has this matter
atendized for their next meeting. Sennett stated he has urged they
take action on it at that time and that the matter be agendized
for the February 11th Council meeting.
VI I. ADJOURNHENT TO REDEVELOPl-'lENT AGENCY
At 10:48 p.m., the Chair adjourned the meeting to the Redevelopment
A~rncy.
VIII.
ADJOURN~mNT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 10:50 p.m., the Chair reconvened the City Council and adjourned
to Executive Session.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 338
January 28, 1974
Page 7
:,;1
f;'
IX. ADJOU mu lENT
At 11:35 p.m., the Chair
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON:
February 11th
, 1974.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 338
January 28, 1974
Page 8
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF TIBURON
I II CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Council, City of Tiburon, State of
California, was called to order by Mayor Branwell Fanning at
7:40 p.m., February 11, 1974, in the City Hall Council Chambers.
I I . :t{OLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCIL~mN: Fanning, Aramburu, Becker, Sennett,
Littman (7:45)
ABaENT: COUNCILI1EN: None
EX 'OFFICIO: R. L. Kleinert, City Hanager
Stan Lichlyter, Administrative Intern
Richard H. Breiner, Deputy City Attorney
Stanley Bala, City Engineer
Phil Scott, Development Administrator
Louis F. Brunini, Supt. of Public Works
Hellen K. Hecht, Minute Clerk
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
No. 33,8
It~was moved by Becker, seconded by Sennett, to approve Minutes No.
338 of January 28, 1974.
<-
Aranmuru corrected page 3, paragraph 5, line 1, to read, IIPlan
is;moot. . ."; and paragraph 6, line 2, to read, IIFebruary 14,
1973.11
'-
Fanning corrected page 2, paragraph 3, line 2, to include,
"reviewed and acted upon. . ."; page 4, paragraph 10, line 5,
to.read, lIinsurance, indemnifying. . .11; page 4, paragraph 6,
li~e 2, to read, lIarmed with .38 police specials. . .11
Question was called, and the motion to approve the minutes as
co~rected, carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABf?ENT:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILNEN:
COUNCILMEN:
Ararnburu, Becker, Fanning, Sennett
None
Littman
IV. BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL
CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved ~y Sennett, seconded by Aramburu, to approve the
Consent Calendar consisting of the following items:
9 .: CITY TREASURER
10. NO PARKING ON LYFORD DRIVE (Resolution Nos. 603 and 604)
11. AWARD OF CONTRACT (Bicycle Path Extension)
In response to a question by Aramburu, the Superintendent of
Public Works stated the Traffic Committee has recommended the
ch~nge in the parking status on Lyford Drive, in response to a
request by citizens in the area, and therefore Resolution No. 261
is to be rescinded and the proposed resolution adopted.
Question was called, and the motion to approve the Consent
Ca~endar carried:
AY~S:
NO~S:
ABSENT:
COUNCILl-1EN:
COUNCILHEN:
COUNCILHEN:
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
None
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 339
February 11, 1974
Page I
2. ~IR PROCEDURES
Action: Adopted Res. 601
(a) Review of amendments to EIR Guidelines
TPe Deputy City Attorney spoke to the draft resolution his office
~epared amending procedures for Environmental Impact Review of
p~ivate development projects, in accordance with the requirements
of the Secretary of the Resources Agency of the State of California
r~quiring that cities revise their procedures. The Deputy City
Attorney pointed out to the Council the portion of the resolution
e~empting from the new procedures any project for which a draft
EIR had been filed prior to the adoption of the resolution, and
tPat such exemption would include Hilarita, Tiburon Towne, and
any others that might fall within the exemption. He told the
Council that if they wished, they could revise the exemption
language to require all projects to follow the new procedures.
After discussion, it was moved by Becker, seconded by Aramburu,
tp adopt Resolution 601 Amending Procedures for Environmental
I~pact Review of Private Development Projects.
It was moved by Littman, seconded by Becker, to amend the
IIfrocedures for Private Projects,1f in Section C.3., by adding
tpe following after the second sentence:
uProvided, however, that whoever prepared the draft
EIR shall demonstrate to the Director of Community
Development that he or it has sufficient knowledge
of the laws and policies of the City and of the field
in which he is to express opinions in order to prepare
the draft EIR. II
With the consent of Littman, Fanning amended the motion to insert
tope word uconsultantslf in place of IIhe or it."
with the consent of Littman, Aramburu amended the motion to
add lIand county,U thereby reading, Ifpolicies of the City and
Cpunty. CI
With the consent of Littman, Becker amended the motion to read
II. . . that consultants have sufficient familiarity with laws
d 1"" II
ap po ~c~es. . .
Q~estion was called on the amendment proposed by Littman, as
~ended by Aramburu, Fanning and Becker, and the motion to amend
carried:
AVES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILXmN:
COUNCILI'-1EN :
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
None
A~ the request of the Chair, and there being no objection, page 4,
I~em 8, line 3, was amended to read, "thirty (30) days before the
p\1blic hearing thereon.fI
A~ the request of the Chair, and there being no objections, the
City of Tiburon Environmental Review Checklist was amended to
split question two into two separate questions, one for the City
of Tiburon and one for the Marin Countywide Plan, and renumbering
~e remaining questions.
T~e Chair referred to ilr. Herbert r"1enig' s opposition to the
exemption clause which would exclude Hilarita from the procedural
~quirements in the proposed resolution and make it subject to
Resolution 521. The Deputy City Attorney again stated that
provision would exempt Hilarita and Tiburon Towne's EIR, and they
had included this provision as in their opinion it would have been
CITY COUNCIL HINUTES NO. 33'
February 11, 1974
Page 2
I
i.
I~
, ,~~
~fficult for either applicant or staff to know what procedures
to follow at the time of filing since the Council would not be
apting on the resolution until this evening.
.
In response to a question by the Chair, the City }1anager stated
~pe Ecumenical Housing Association has filed a Tentative Map and
has submitted the EIR to the Director of Community Development,
wpo has determined it to be complete and scheduled it to be
heard by the Planning Commission on February 28th.
T~e Development Administrator stated the draft EIR for Hilarita
was filed with the City on February 4th, it has been considered
to be complete, and the Notice of Completion has been deferred
p~nding the outcome of this Council meeting.
In response to a question by Sennett, the Deputy City Attorney
stated if the exclusion provision were deleted from the resolution,
the Hilarita project could not be heard by the Planning Commission
on the 28th as it would have to follow the new procedures provided
for in the resolution requiring, among other things, 30 days'
notice. In response to a further question by Sennett, the Deputy
City Attorney stated there is a legal basis to allow projects
which have previously filed EIR's to be subject to the procedures
that existed prior to this date. He again stated that the Council
ie free to determine whether or not it wishes this exemption clause
included in the resolution. He stated that any EIR's coming in
after the adoption of this resolution would be subject to the new
procedure.
In response to a question by Littman, ~lr. Paul D. Hecht, vice
pfesident, Tiburon Ecumenical Association, stated in the interests
of time they would prefer to operate under the procedures provided
in Resolution No. 521.
~If. Wenig urged that in the public interest Hilarita be required
to follow the new procedures.
After furtller discussion, question was called, and the motion to
adopt Resolution 601, as amended, carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILNEN:
COUNCILHEN:
COUNCILMEN:
Aramburu, Becker, FaRning, Littman, Sennett
None
None
(b) Consideration of Hilarita Draft EIR Preparation
Fanning questioned whether the Council would want an independent
review to be made of the EIR for Hilarita. He pointed out what
he felt were deficiencies in the EIR which he stated should
r~quire review independent of the developer. Sennett proposed
allowing the developer the opportunity to present the EIR to
the Planning Commission on February 28th, without requiring an
ipdependent consultant, and stated it could be brought into
conformity with the requirements of the City at the Planning
Commission level.
Aramburu stated the City Hanager had advised tha.t r4r. Liskanun,
the Interim Planning Consultant, was on vacation and therefore
w~s not available for comment at this time. He therefore moved,
seconded by Fanning, that the matter be continued until the
C9uncil can get the opinion of the Director of Community Develop-
ment regarding the completeness of the draft Environmental Impact
R~port submitted by TEA. Aramburu stated he felt they needed the
opinion of I1r. Liskamm. Sennett stated the only matter before the
CQuncil is for them to receive staff's report of receipt and cer-
tification of the EIR to be sent to the Planning Commission, so
therefore there is no action to be continued.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 339
February 11, 1974
Page 3
"l
,,~
I ~~.',
ifter discussion, Aramburu questioned the Deputy City Attorney as
tp who legally at this point of time is the Director of Community
Development. The Deputy City Attorney stated I~. Phil Scott
~s the acting Director of Community Development. Aramburu stated
that since Mr. Scott has acted as the Director of Community Develop-
ment, he would withdraw his motion.
!n response to a statement by Becker, Fanning stated the only
reason he was bringing out \vhat h9 thought were deficiencies in
the report was to show the necessity of having an independent
~onsultant retained to review the project.
In response to a question by I4r. Robert Hayes, the Deputy City
Attorney advised i~ is up to the Planning Commission and the City
Council to determine the adequacy of an EIR Report.
}lr. Wenig urged that an independent consultant be hired as in his
opinion the City does not have staff at this time who are qualified
to make an adequate analysis of the EIR.
Mr. Martin Mackey, representative of the Ecumenical Housing
Association, asked if it were possible for r1r. Liskamm's study
to run concurrently with the IS-day period required prior to the
hearing on the EIR.
Aramburu stated since he has been assured the EIR will be reviewed
by ~tr. Liskamm prior to the hearing, that he feels the withdrawal
of his motion is appropriate.
After discussion, it was moved by Littman, seconded by Sennett,
tpat the Council establish a timetable and procedures this
e~ening for the filing of comments and questions, the responses
tpereto and the hearing.
In response to 11r. Littman's request for dates, Mr. Charles Bassett,
Chairman of the Planning Commission, suggested the Commission
s~ould be able to review questions that are received by February
21st. He stated all questions raised previous to that date and
at the hearing, and answers thereto, will become a part of the
Cot{. tEIR. The c.ho.i(" nDted ihq.:t -the f'vbl ic leqaJ notices &.(.?oofol noT pe" c.\'rcu'~t6i ",,1/1 Feb.2o, -rhv$ ttllow ,'nq
~~O~ *~p;~IIC one dc;U:f (() w,",'ch -to '5fvd'i EI R a pr€.ftlTe ClKlc\ de1j~ cornmerrtsa.n:('(c.e:>tl.ons. Comm ,6a.~se11 't.cl<-
'. Ylou:'l.Iedoea -tt.,,'s' r-eqycremen-t., , ,
~\(\~I BeCKer S-uggestett the motl.on l.nclude the date of February 21st
J.-3 a$ the cutoff date for receiving ~.,ri tten questions. He stated
o~viously questions will be received after that date and at the
h~aring, and the hearing can be continued, if necessary, in order
tpat the questions can be resolved.
Ip response to a question by Mr. Hayes, the Deputy City Attorney
stated copies of the draft EIR will be available to the public
fpr the required 15 days.
Littman stated he would prefer the cutoff date for written
questions be March 1st. After further discussion, he withdrew
his motion on the basis he was not supported in allowing a
sufficient time for receipt of written questions.
RECESS
A recess was taken at 9:20 p.mo, the Council reconvening at
9~37 p.m., the roll standing as originally taken.
2. RING HOUNTAIN REPORT
rl+. Rampton Harvey, chairman of the Ring Mountain Advisory Com-
m~ttee, advised the Ring Mountain Report was adopted by the
County Planning Commission on January 14th. He stated they will
be agendizing the plan for anothe~ meeting to hear how differences
between the Strawberry Plan and the Ring Mountain Plan were resolved.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOo 33'
February 11, 1974
Page 4
fl,;
"
.
'4
. ~,
de stated they are now requesting the City of Tiburon to adopt
the Committee Report as far as lands within the City of Tiburon.
I;t was moved by Sennett, seconded by Becker, to adopt the recom-
mendations of the Ring Mountain Advisory Committee respecting
their report dealing with the proposed Master Planning of lands
within the City of Tiburon and endorse that committee's recom-
mendations in their report with respect to Master Planning of those
properties within the Ring Mountain study area outside of the city
l!mits of the City of Tiburon.
Mr. Joseph Sheeks, representing the Atkinson property, owners of
approximately 60 acres, spoke against the recommended zoning for
the Atkinson lands, which he stated has significantly reduced
the number of allowable units. He requested this property be
e~cluded from the recommendations to the County on the Ring
Mountain area.
After discussion on the proposed zoning, Sennett requested the
r~cord show that they have no intention of setting densities
within Tiburon's zones, but this will be subject to review.
~~. Crowley, real estate broker representing the Atkinson property,
stated they were never notified of any of the hearings by the
Ring 110untain Advisory Committee. He stated it was just recently
b~ought to his attention that the Atkinson property was even in
the Ring Ilountain study area. Hr. Harvey stated several property
o~ners were present at their meetings, which were highly advertised
by tl1e press, but individual notices were not sent out to the
property owners. Littman expressed his strong objection to the
f~ct that a committee appointed by the Council deliberated. on
p~operty without having given formal notice to the persons whose
lands it was discussing and making recommendations with respect
to zoning. Sennett stated affected parties will be legally notified
when tlle plan is heard by the Board of Supervisors and will have
a~ opportunity to speak to their property at that time.
Atamburu referred to the staff report which indicated no action
op the plan had been taken by the Planning Commission at their
F~bruary 6th meeting. The City Hanager advised at that meeting
neither 1rr. Wayne nor Mr. Harvey were present to speak to the
p!an, and therefore it was the consensus of the Commission that
they did not have adequate information on the plan to make a
recommendation.
Littman moved as a substitute motion, seconded by Becker, that
before this matter comes back to the Council, the Council request
the Ring Nountain Committee to formally notify the property
oWners affected by their recommendations and give them an oppor-
tpnity to present their views to the co~mittee within 30 days;
and that thereafter they render a report to the Council after they
have received sufficient evidence as any of those property owners
m~y care to offer.
A~ the suggestion of Becker, Littman amended his motion to include
the committee may use the secretarial services of the City.
The Chair stated the committee has completed its function and has
dtsbanded.
Aramburu moved as a substitute motion, seconded by Sennett, that
this matter be agendized for the February 21st Planning Commission
meeting, with proper notice sent to those owners within the city
l~mits, to comment on why they might not think the proposed
density is proper; to come back to City Council on February 25th;
and that the Board of Supervisors be notified of the action taken
by the City of Tiburon.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 33'
February 11, 1974
Page 5
'.-
Question was called, and the substitute motion of Aramburu carried:
AYES:
~OES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILHEN:
COUNCILNEN:
Aramburu, Fanning, Sennett
Becker, Littman
None
v. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND Cru~4ENTS
Dr. Thomas Reilly proposed an am(::ndment to Zoning Ordinance 9 N. S. ,
Section 6-27, to define raorc pre.....:isely the \.qord II family . II He
gave his recommended definition dud stated the reason for his
tequest is that thEre ci~'(~ sever:J.l houses in Tiburon where there
ore multiple adults living uhich have increased the traffic, the
pumber of parked cars, and created a general downgrading of the
area. After discussion on the matt2rv the Chair directed that
a Resolution of Intent to Amend be drafted for the Council's action
at the next meeting, at which time ~he Council can decide whether
9r not they are in favor of the amendment. Sennett requested
,taff also prepare a report on alternate means to control any
adverse impact of any crowding conditions in any of these areas
other than by redefining a family"
t~. Robert Wayne requested the Council put into operation
Resolution 290 and appoint a citizens' committee who will be
able to review the EIR for the Downtown Plan and make recommenda-
tions for revising the adopted Downtown Plan. In addition, if
there is a problem after the EIR has been heard, he would request
the Council pass a moratorium on further development of the entire
4owntown area. Littman stated he regarded the proposal as bypassing
the Planning Commission, of which Mr. Wayne is a member, and he
~ould suggest the new Council appoint the committee. The Chair
suggested no action be taken until the EIR has been completed.
In response to Mro Wayne's suggestion that Resolution 290 has
been ignored, the Chair stated it has been in continuous operation
and the plan has been under continuous review. Sennett stated
no major development will be allowed in the downtown area until
the impact of the Sequoia Pacific Plan and Hr. Fred Zelinsky's
plan is known. r.lr. Gary Gray spoke in support of Hr. t~ayne' s
request. After discussion, it WdS the sense of the Council that
no action be taken until after the EIR has been submitted, and
at that time consideration will be given to appointing a citizens'
~ommittee. .
Littman referred to former ~Iayor Rice's letter of February 8,
1974, in which he proposed a moratorium on the downtown plan and
made the statement that the new Council did not bring the Topo-
Qynamics proposal to the downtown committee. Littman stated
the proposal came before the City in 1971 while Mayor Rice was the
~cting mayor and he had the opportunity to activate the downtown
committee, which he chose not to~ In response to a question by
f~. Chapman, the Chair stated the Council just received Mr.
Rice's lengthy letter and has not had an opportunity to study it.
~
~amburu referred to a newspaper article wherein the San Anselmo
garbage collectors were reducing rates to residents who sepa-
rated their garbage items for recycling~ He suggested this be
looked into for Tiburon and Belvedere.
~ittman stated he and Sennett, as members of the Lands and Develop-
ment Committee, have been discussing the possibility of reducing
the size of any parking structure in downtown Tiburon. He
requested they be empowered to explore the possibilities of
alternate parking solutions. Sennet't presented to the Council
a letter he had written suggesting alternate parking solutions.
He stated r~. Townsley of Madrone Associates, the EIR consultant,
has requested the Council respond to his letter of December 7,
i973, and he requested this matt~r be agendized for the next
meeting. Staff was requested to prepare a report in this regard,
~ith input from the Lands and Development Committee.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 33'
February 11, 1974
Page 6
~~:
b.
.1-'
\
~n response to a question by ~~. John Mueller, the City Manager
'stated a City Council meeting has been set for February 19th,
~herein any City official can attend to give input to the City
~ngineer in regard to Tiburon Boulevard alignment between Stewart
prive and Bar West.
/
/
IV. BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL
3. CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE
(Ci ty f.1anager' s Spring Heeting)
.tt was moved by Littman, seconded by Sennett, to approve the City
Manager's attendance at the annual City Managers' Meeting to be
peld at Newport Beach February 27 to March 1, 1974. Question
was called and the motion carried unanimously: All Ayes.
VI. CITY tmNAGER BUSINESS
The City Manager reported on the progress of the Del Mar Tennis
Courts and stated the estimated completion date is [larch 15th.
The City Manager reported the Board of Supervisors had requested
the City of Tiburon participate in the Marin County Bicentennial
Commemoration and have requested the City furnish names of
Qitizens who would be willing to serve on a committee by February
~6th. The May~r agreed to furnish names at the next meeting.
The City Manager reported on the PG&E undergrounding along the
bicycle path. He stated he had met with f1r. Conrad of PG&E and
learned that in ~lay of 1973, PG&E had written the City indicating
their desire to install an undergrounding conduit along the
~icycle path between Rock Hill Road and San Rafael Avenue in
order to have a second power source in the event of outages
Which were occurring on the Peninsula. He stated the City Manager
gad granted them preliminary authorization to obtain a formal
right-of-way at a later date, and on that basis PG&E had released
the job before they actually had the easement papers prepared and
$ubmitted to the City. He stated the Chairman of the Parks and
Recreation Commission and others objected to the easement being
in an area which is part of the lineal park system, and therefore
~ stop-work order has been issued.
lir. Conrad of PG&E spoke to the matter and stated the job had
been released prior to their having obtained permission. He
described the scope of the work and the purpose of the line in
that location. He stated if the City would choose that particular
~rea for Rule 20 underground conversion, it would be $40,000 less
o:f an expenditure of the Rule 20 funds. He stated the line would
~ adequate for undergrounding, and all that would be required
~s the installation of loop feedouts to service the residents on
the high side of the road.
After discussion, Littman moved, seconded by Sennett, that this
matter be remanded to a committee to discuss the matter with
PG&E and the telephone company.
The Chair requested a representative from the Parks and Commission
~e included in the committee, to meet with the City Engineer to
discuss the traffic situation in this area.
Chairman Gary Gray of the P&R Commission expressed their objections
to the granting of easements for utilities in parks. He appointed
Phyllis Ellman to the committee.
The Chair directed the stop-work order enforced until the committee
reports at the next meeting.
CITY COUNCIL HINUTES NO. 331
February 11, 1974
Page 7
,
~.
~
~ecker stated PG&E is a profit-making corporation owned by stock-
holders that are obliged to make a profit, and he urged this be
ponsidered in the proper context without the City attempting to
~ake a profit on an honest mistake.
Question was called on the motion of Littman, and the motion
carried:
~YES :
NOES:
,fWSENT:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILNEN:
COUNCILHEN:
Aramburu, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
Becker
None
IV. BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL
4. 'URBAN THOROUGHFARE SELECTION CO~li~ITTEE
Action: Res. 602 adopteq
Motion of Littman, seconded by Sennett, to adopt Resolution No.
~02, Requesting Allocation of Funds Under the Marin County Urban
~horoughfare Program, carried:
AYES:
WOES:
.4BSENT:
COUNCILNEN:
COUNCIU1EN:
COUNCIL.HEN:
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
None
5. LOCATION OF SITE FOR NE~v Nl4tID {vATER TANK
Action: Cont'd to 2/25
~t the request of Littman, the Chair directed this matter continued
to February 25th in order to give the committee an opportunity
to prepare a report. Aramburu requested the committee obtain a
Qomment from the l1arin Municipal Water District Board of Directors
~egarding the future plans for the Tiburon Peninsula to insure
that the new tank will improve the water pressure in the downtown
area.
6 0 CCPC JOINT PO~vERS AGREElvrENT
Action: Agreement approved
In response to a question by Sennett, Aramburu stated the proposed
~endment to the CCPC Joint Powe~s Agreement represents the
changes proposed by Sennett.
~otion of Sennett, seconded by Becker, to. approve the Revised
CCPC Agreement as attached to the Agenda Bill, carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILf.:IEN:
COUNCILI"lEN:
COUNCILHEN:
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
None
7. PUBLICATION OF LEGAL ADVERTISING
The City Manager presented the Agenda Bill of this date re:
~ublication of City's Legal Notices, with his recommendations
contained therein.
r,tr. Bill Lukens, attorney for the Ark, spoke to the matter and
~tated the Ark has been adjudicated as a newspaper qualified to
perform the services of publishing legal notices.
,
After discussion, it was moved by Sennett, seconded by Becker,
ehat the Council authorize the City Manager to use his discretion
in placement of legal notices, as indicated in the Agenda Bill.
~itttaan moved to amend the motion to include that the City
~anager report to the Council in six months as to what he has
done. The Chair stated this will not be necessary as prior to the
next fiscal year the City Manager must advertise for bids and
reassess the whole matter. Li.ttman withdrew his amendment.
CITY COUNCIL HlNUTES NO. 33'
February 11, 1974
Page 8
\
~ '\
J'
~
8 · '- INDIVIDUAL SElvAGE '-DISPOSAL SYSTENS
The City Manager reported staff had requested this matter be
continued.
12. MID-YEAR STATE~mNT OF 1973-74 CITY REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
;Sennett inquired about the status of the Paradise Drive Walkway.
The City Manager stated they will know the status of the City's
Gas Tax funds upon the completion of the storm damage repairs.
He stated the funds have been somewhat depleted and they are now
awaiting reimbursement from State and Federal stonn damage claims.
Sennett urged this work be completed before the end of the year.
~fter further review, the Chair declared the report accepted by
the Council.
VII. RECESS TO REDEVELOPI~NT AGENCY BOARD
At 12:10 a.m., the Chair adjourned the meeting to the Redevelopment
~gency Board.
VIII.
ADJOURN~mNT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 12:12 a.m., the Chair reconvened the City Council and adjourned
to Executive Session.
IX. ADJOURN~mNT
At 12:40 a.m., the
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON:
March 11th
, 1974.
B
/)
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 33'
February 11, 1974
Page 9
Co~rected
~
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF TIBURON
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Council, City of Tiburon, State of
California, was called to order by Mayor Branwell Fanning at
7:41 p.m., February 25, 1974, in the City Hall Council Chambers.
II. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILNEN:
ABSENT: COUNCIL~mN:
EX OFFICIO:
Fanning, Aramburu, Becker, Littman, Sennett
None
R. L. Kleinert, City Manager
Robert I. Conn, City Attorney
Stanley Bala, City Engineer
Phil Scott, Development Administrator
Louis F. Brunini, Supt. of Public Works
Hellen K. Hecht, Minute Clerk
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
No. 339
Continued.
IV. BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL
1. APPEAL OF PLANNING CO~nlISSION DECISION
The City Hanager stated Hr. Fred Zelinsky is appealing the Planning
Commission decision that no further development be permitted on
his lands until a complete Master Plan is prepared and submitted,
together with an EIR report, of all his property.
In response to a question by Sennett, the City Attorney stated it
is their interpretation that a street intervening between two
parcels does not make the property non-contiguous.
In further response to a question by the Council, the City
Attorney stated in accordance with the ruling of the Attorney
General, development of Hr. Zelinsky's property ,.,ill require the
filing of a Tentative and Final f1ap, which. is going through the
SubdiviSbn procedure, and an EIR will be required.
11r. Allan Thompson, architect for Mr. Zelinsky's property on the
north side of Tiburon Boulevard, and representing I1r. Allan Steinau,
architect for the property on the south side of Tiburon Boulevard,
spoke to the appeal. He stated in the history of Hr. Zelinsky's
property it has always been considered that Tiburon Boulevard
separates the property from being contiguous. He stated in their
opinion there is an accepted Haster Plan for the area south of
Tiburon Boulevard, which was approved long before the EIR and
subdivision requirements by the Attorney General, and development
has gone forth under that I-laster Plan. He stated in regard to the
property on the north side of Tiburon Boulevard, they have submitted
the information necessary for an EIR report, and have submitted
to the City a report on the impact of parking, square footages of
the buildings, and other required information.
He urged they be allowed to proceed on the south side on the basis
of the approved Master Plan, and they are willing to prepare a
full EIR report for the properties on the north side. Mr. William
Bremer, attorney for Mr. Zelinsky, stated he concurs that the
i.laster Plan for the south side has been approved, and stated in
his opinion the State Highway does divide the two parcels.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 340
February 25, 1974
Page I
Planning Commissioner Robert Wayne stated ~lr. Zelinsky has always
used the parking lot on the south side of Tiburon Boulevard to
fulfill the requirements of parking for the north side, in his
opinion the two properties on both sides of the road should be
considered as contiguous, vrllich opinion has been concurred
in by the City Attorney.
In response to statements by Hr. Nayne, r.lr. Thompson stated they
submitted a complete parking confi.guration to the Planning Com-
mission on l1arch 5, 1971, which is up to date and has never been
examined further by the Planning Commission, to his knowledge.
Littman stated he was on the Planning Commission when they decided
that the planning of tile Zelinsky property on this side of
Tiburon Boulevard did not have to await the planning of the down-
town development. Aramburu read from Section 1010(0)5 and Section
6-52 of the Zoning Ordinance, and stated from that reading it would
appear that transversing a parcel by a public street would rule it
non-contiguous. The City Attorney responded that according to
Section 1135 of the State Business and Professions Code, the
property would be contiguous even though the separation by the
road would not make it two separate parcels.
After further discussion, it was moved by Sennett, seconded by
Littman, that the Council finds that the Main Street Properties
be deemed separate for planning purposes of other Zelinsky properties
and may be independently Master Planned - subject, however, to all
other legal requirements. And, further, that all other Zelinsky
properties require a single Master Plan and no lot split or build-
ing permit for construction be approved until an Environmental
Impact Report, ~1aster Plan and Precise Plan, and all other legal
requirements, are satisfied.
After discussion on the motion, Littman withdrew his second and
the motion died for lack of a second.
It was moved by Littman, seconded by Becker, that the properties
this side of Tiburon Boulevard which have already received 11aster
Plan approval shall be continued Defore the Planning Commission for
all other requirements necessary, and that the property of Zelinsky
on the other side of Tiburon Boulevard be required to be fully
Master Planned before any part of that property may be developed.
After further discussion, Littman reframed the motion, seconded by
Becker, ti1at the land already included within approved Master Plans
shall proceed with the Precise Plan stage and such other required
stages, but shall not include the land on the other side of Tiburon
Boulevard; that such land on the north side of Tiburon Boulevard
shall be separately Master Planned and shall proceed separately.
Question was called, and the motion carried:
AYES:
NOES =
ABSENT:
COUNCILHEN:
COUNCILHEN:
COUNCILHEN:
Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
Aramburu
None
2. CONDOHINIUH CONVERSION
Action: Remanded to L&D Committee
An ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIBURON N.mNDING
ORDINANCE NO.9 N.S., THE ZONING ORDINN~CE, BY REGULATING THE
APPROVAL OF CONDOMINIUMS N~D CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS, came on for
introduction and first readinge
On motion of Sennett, seconded by Becker, full reading of the
ordinance was waived and the ordinance was read by title only. -
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 340
February 25, 1974
Page 2
At the request of Sennett, the City Attorney corrected the bottom
of page one of the ordinance to add, "if it determines that such
property 0 0 o,n to be continued on page two 0
In response to a question by the Chair, the Development Adminis-
trator stated uComrnission" should be substituted for "Boardll in
parts F and G of Section 10-701 of the ordinance.
After discussion, at the request of Littman, and there being no
objection, the Chair directed the matter remanded to the Lands and
Development Committee for review and clarification, to be returned
to the next Council meetingo
3. STOP WORK ORDER
14 units, Lyford Drive, Heath-Lever, Owners
The Chair corrected the dates in the staff report to April 17,
1973, and February 5, 1973.
The City 14anager stated a stop-work order had been issued for the
construction at 48 Lyford Drive after it had been determined that
two of the three buildings being constructed had been moved from
the locations shown in the plans approved by the Planning Com-
mission on April 17, 1973.
The Development Administrator presented drawings showing the plot
plan approved by the Planning Commission and the plan for the
construction drawings. He referred to composite drawings in
the agenda which show the location of the buildings as approved
by the Planning Commission and the extent to which they were moved.
lir. Tak Enomoto, architect representing owners Heath and Lever,
stated the building had been moved on the basis of a soils report
received after the preliminary drawings were prepared that
indicated a fault ran through the property under Building No.3.
He stated when the buildings were moved, view obstruction of the
neighbors was taken into account, and, in his opinion, view
obstructions are actually decreased as a result of the changes.
1 . d f h . fi~y u:
Mr. Ear Hanson, pres~ ent 0 t e T ~buron Terrace TOlme Ita
Association; f-iro Don Henderson; and Hr. William Stevens, repre-
senting two property owners, spoke against the revised plans on
the basis view obstruction is increased.
Planning Commissioner Don Tayer expressed his disappointment
that the applicant would make any changes in the plans without
making a formal application to the Planning Commission in view of
the many public hearings held on this matter and the obvious
interest of residents in the area. He urged that the matter be
sent back to the Planning Commission before any further construc-
tion is permitted.
After discussion, it was moved by Littman, seconded by Aramburu,
that the appeal be denied. On the advice of the City Attorney
that this was not an appeal action but a request that the stop-
work order be removed, Littman withdrew his motion, with the
consent of Aramburu.
It was moved by Sennett, seconded by Littman, that the stop-work
order remain in force and the matter be returned to the Planning
Commission for consideration of any amendments to the Master and
Precise PIano Littman stated for the record the stop-work order
is only on the two buildings that have been moved and not on the
one that is in compliance with the plans.
Question was called, and the motion carried:
AYES:
NOES ::
ABSENT:
COUNCILl.IEN ::
COUNCILI.1EN ::
COUNCILl/IEN ~
Aramburu, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
Becker
None
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 340
February 25, 1974
Page 3
At the request of I~. Enomoto, the Chair directed the matter set for
the March 6th Planning Commission Hearing.
RECESS
A recess was taken at 9:13 p.m., the Council convening at 9:25 p.m.,
the roll standing as o:i:'iginally taken 0
CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Becker, seconded by Sennett, to adopt the Consent
Calendar consisting of the followi.ng items:
12. MARIN ASSOCIA'IiION OF r'UBLIC EI:1PLOYEES
13. AWARD OF CON'l'RAC'r
14. POLICE REPORT - January
15. CASH FLOW STATEHENT - January
Question was called, and the motion carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILI"1EN:
Aramburu, Beeker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
None
11. AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE
Action: Adopted Res. 605
The Chair stated in acco~dance with a request of Dr. Thomas Reilly
at the last mee"ting, staff has prepared a resolution of intent to
amend the Zoning Ordinance to define "family," as directed by
the Council. The Ch~ir stated the intent of the amendment is for
controlling individuals living together in single-family residential
areas, thereby cau.sing a burden on parking, traffic, and general
congestion in the area.
It was moved by Aramhul..'u, seconded by Becker, to adopt Resolution
No. 605, A RESOI.:U~~ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIBURON
DECLARING ITS INTE!~~j:Ci\l TO CONSIDER M1ENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
TO REDEFINE ~1EANING Olil wanD uFAM--IJY" CONTAINED IN SECTION 6-27.
Aramburu re?d the: J:.:;s~lui.:i.on in its entirety, and stated in his
opinion this wi.II be a m~2.:nB to determine whether or not there
is a problem in t.h:t:::~ rd::'e~... He moved to amend the resolution
to read: II A P..ESOLUiII~CON OE' '.~'HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIBURON
DECLARING ITS IN~3N~ION ~O i~4END THE TrBU~ON ZONING ORDINANCE BY
REDEFINING AND CLARIFYING THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'FM1ILY',OR ANY
OTHER 11EANS AS MIGHT BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE IN ORDER TO RESOLVE PROBLEMS
ARISING FROM EXCESS OCCUPANCy.n
Dr. Reilly urged the resolution include reference to the environ-
mental impact, off-street parking, excessive cars; and that it
include a penalty for net obeying the lawo Mr. Milton Stannard
urged the present ordinances be enforced which, in his opinion,
do not allow comrnunal living in single-family areas, and he
further urged the Council take immediate action in this regard.
In response to a questio~ by the Chair, twelve people raised
their hands to indic~te they were present this evening for this
matter.
Sennett stated the City Attorney has advised present ordinances
do not exclude the non-blood related residents from occupying the
same unit.
Messrs. Marshall GrOGS and Ramon Truman urged immediate action
be taken to prohibit cornmunal living.
After further discuL:;s~.on? qr'.eS"ti0n \.'Tas called on the motion, as
amended, and the mot.ion ca~~:1."i.ed:
CIrr'l" COUUCIL ~1INUTES NO. 340
February 25, 1974
Page 4
AYES/
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILf.1EN ::
COUNCILf!1EN ~
COUNCILI\;IEN::
Aramburu, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
Becker
None
4. I'-1ASTER & PRECISE PI,AN FOR 3 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
at 39 LYFORD DRIVE - RICHARDSON BAY LAND CO., Applicant
The City Attorney advised that no action could be taken on this
matter this evening aSr in accordance with the opinion of the
Attorney General, the applicant must file an application for a
Subdivision Map and prepare an EIR report, for submittal to
the Planning Commission.
5. RING MOUNTAIN STUDY
The Chair stated this matter had been continued pending the sending
of courtesy notices to those owners within the city limits whose
lands are affected by the report. The Development Administrator
stated the Planning Commision approved the Ring Mountain Study Map
on Febuary 21.
It was moved by Sennett, seconded by Becker, to adopt Resolution
No. 606, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIBURON
ENDORSING AND URGING ACCEPTANCE OF THE STUDY REPORT AND RING
140UNTIAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COr.7HITEE. Sennett read the resolution
in its entirety.
It was moved by Littman to amend the resolution in paragraph 2,
to read as follo~.,s: After uIncluding the Open Space Element, n
to read, IIIncorp:Jrate the idea of. II And to substi tute the
words nincorporatedtJ for "complete the records.u Sennett
opposed the amendment on the basis it was a substantial change
and that the plan is worth more than just consideration of two
ideas. Motion died for lack of a secondo
Becker moved to amend the resolution, seconded by Littman;"-to
delete the words lIand complio.nceii in paragraph 2, line 4.
Sennett accepted the amendment as a part of his motion.
Sennett requested there be a direction to the staff and the
Planning Commission to suggest methods of access to any develop-
ments approved outside of the City of Tiburon but which require
access through the City of Tiburon as a commitment to explore
these various alternatives, but not necessarily to approve
any specific circulation pattern or any s~reet alignment.
Mr. Joseph Sheeks, attorney for the Atkinson property, requested
the resolution include a statement that this recommendation does
not intend to establish a specific density on the property.
Becker stated tile resolution calls for the Council's endorsement
of the plan and no where does it set densities.
Mrs. Polly Smith, referring to comments by lir. Sheeks, stated
Supervisor Wornum has worked very closely with the Ring Mountain
Committee, and she does not feel the committee went beyond its
charge. She urged .the Council endorse the recommendations.
In response to questions by the Council on rezoning, ~1r. Rarnpton
Harvey, chairman of the Ring llountain Advisory Committee, stated
the committee recommended no zoning changes for property within
the Tiburon city limits; but there will be zoning changes necessary
for areas adjoining the Tiburon city limits and in Corte Madera.
They would urge that Tiburon and Corte Madera make recommendations
for rezoning, as recommended by the plan, to be submitted to the
Board of Supervisors.
Question was called on the motion to adopt Resolution 606, as
amended, and the motion c2.!.'ried~
AYES~
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILEEH~
COUNCILI:1.EN~
COUNCI LI-1EN ~
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
None
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 340
February 25, 1974
Page 5
6. SEQUOIA PACIFIC EIR
The Chair stated lladrone Associates has requested the City to
define certain areas of responsibility relative to the proposed
Sequoia Pacific I.laster Plan.
The Chair reported he, Aramburu and the City r~anager had met
with representatives of the Division of Highways, and they have
indicated they are "lilling to vlork wi th the City in correcting
the flooding problems in the downtown area. They are willing
to elevate the road in order to provide surface drainage, and
drainage from the road to another location will be the
responsibility of the City.
The City 11anager stated he is in the process of drafting a letter
in response to the request by Hadrone Associates for additional
information in regard to parking, drainage and landscaping.
He stated Iiadrone Associates has requested an extension of their
deadline from I-larch 4::0 to April 1st.
Sennett gave a report on his meetings with the City Manager and
Hadrone Associates in regard to compiling the information Hadrone
has requested. He stated they are attempting to determine the
estimated cost of acquiring the Sequoia Pacific properties as
open space, which is one of the alternatives asked to be con-
sidered.
In response to a question by Littman, Urs. Kingsley of Hadrone
Associates stated the delay in their report has been as a result
of trying to get information from the architect and developer.
She stated the economic consultant has advised they will need two
weeks from the time they get the information to prepare their
report, and Hadrone Associates 'viII then need an additional two
weeks to compile their report. She stated they are within their
budget and will not be requesting additional funds.
Mrs. Kingsley stated the other items in the plan that the City
is supposed to consider are the public facilities on the ferry
landing, the museum, the City Hall, the community meeting room,
the public fishing pier and the port-of-call.
It was the sense of the Council tllat they are not prepared to
decide how the City will pay for those i~ems at this time, but
they should be included in the EIR. Aramburu objected to this,
and stated the items will have an impact and if they are included,
there should be a plan for payment. The Chair responded the method
of financing can be worked out at a later date. Sennett stated
the developer has given the City a Plan, and the EIR consultant
must evaluate that plan with the understanding that certain costs
will be borne by the City.
After further discussion, it was moved by Becker, seconded by
Aramburu, that the extension requested by I.1adrone Associates
be granted to April 1st. Question was called, and the motion
carried~
AYES:
NOES~
ABSENT:
COUNCILi.lEN:
COUl-lCIU.lEN:
COUNCILllEN:
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
None
v. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AHD COHl\'1ENTS
At the request of Sennett, the City [lanager agreed to agendize
the Paradise Drive walkway matter for the next Council meeting.
The Chair reported that he had met with the State Division of
Highways representatives ~egarding the exchange of property for
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 340
February 25, 1974
Page 6
the right-of-way. He stated one of the first steps required is
the City's abandonment of a four-lane highway. He presented a
resolution for the Council's adoption relative to the rescinding
of adopted proposed State Highway Route 131 in the City of
Tiburon between Reed Ranch Road and San Rafael Avenue.
Littman amended the resolution as follows:
Paragraph 1, line 7, delete "does thereby,1i and insert
Hdid thereby alter. .,
Delete No. 2 and substitute the following:
"2. Transfer the ownership by making said
right-of-way within the City of Tiburon
available to the City for parking purposes
as permitted by law.u
Delete No. 3 and substitute the following:
"Retain essentially the present alignment
between Trestle Glen and the easterly
terminus of High't",ay 131. rt
Sennett requested the resolution be amended to substitute
"terminus of Highway 131 Ii ,,,,herever "San Rafael Avenue" appears.
The title of the resolution ,,,,as therewith changed to read, itA
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIBURON RELATIVE
TO THE RESCINDING OF ADOPTED PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 131
IN THE CITY OF TIBURON BETWEEN REED RANCH ROAD AND THE TERI4INUS
OF HIGHWAY 131.11
~lotion of Sennett, seconded by Aramburu, to adopt Resolution 607,
as amended, carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL11EN:
COUNCILf.1EN:
COUNCILI-1EN:
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
None
IV. BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL
7. PG&E UNDERGROUNDING ALONG RICHARDSON
BAY MUTI-PURPOSE PATH
The City Hanager reported the undergrounding committee had met
with PG&E, a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, and
Councilffian Aramburu on February 19th. PG&E has offered to
pay for the cost of widening the mUlti-purpose path four feet
along the area of their undergrounding.
~tt. Conrad of PG&E answered questions from the Council in regard
to undergrounding the utility lines.
Chairman Gary Gray of the P~A Commission stated the Parks
and Recreation Commission had passed a motion that the Council
adopt a motion to protect the Indian diggings. Mr. Conrad
stated they are willing to cooperate with archeologists in
whatever way they can.
P&R Commissioner Phyllis Ellman stated rather than PG&E's
widening the path, they would prefer a sum of money to be
applied to park improvements in that area.
In response to a question by the Chair, tire Conrad agreed to
furnish the Council with figures on the difference in cost
between going down the highway as compared to going do'~
the bike path.
In response to a question by Becker, fir. Conrad stated they
would anticipate repairs on this conduit to be maybe once or
twice in ten years, or perhaps twice during tl1e entire lifetime
of the line.
CITY COUNCIL rlINUTES NO. 340
February 25, 1974
Page 7
Mr. Gray urged the Council not grant an easement to PG&E along the
bike path where the conduit is being installed, and then after the
20-year period they could move it and the City could grant the
easement along the highway.
After further discuz3ion, it was moved by Sennett that the
Council adopt in principle the proposal to underground utilities
between San Rafael Avenue and Rock Hill and schedule a public
hearing in which the Council cnn hear public comments and receive
the advice of the staff as to t~e appropriate estimates of the
cost and the appropriate allowances under Public 20 for the City's
participation.
After further discussion, Sennett withdrew the motion and moved,
seconded by Becker, that the Council schedule public hearings in
which to consider undergrounding utilities between San Rafael and
Rock Hill Drive in which to hear public comment and receive the
advices of the staff regarding the appropriate estimates of cost
and appropriate charges and mitigation of the use of the multi-
purpose path for the purpose of undergroundingo
Question was called, and the motion carried:
AYES~
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILI'-1EN:
COUNCILI.v1EN:
COUNCILHEN:
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
None
8. MMWD WATER STORAGE TANK
Littman reported on the recommendations of the ad hoc committee
as contained in the agenda bill of this date for the location of
the MMWD water stc.,:':t1ge tank.
I.lr. Gray stated. in his opinion it would be premature for the
Council to accept the preferred site until a number of issues
are resolved, one being the ultimate water plan for this end
of the Peninsula. He objected to the fact that no drawings
had been submitted for the site. Aramburu stated in his opinion
the City can accept the Gite aLa still meet the concerns of the
Parks and Recreation Commission, as expressed by l-1r. Gray, by
imposing conditions to the approval.
After discussion1 :tt was raoved by Littman, seconded by Sennett,
that the Council approve the location o~ the water tank at the
proposed site, as amended by the committee's field inspection where
they moved it; and that the new road access be in the location as
recommended by the cOmITlittee; and that before any construction,
complete drawings be submitted to the City and approved by the
City Engineer and a commitment be given to plant the area around
the tank and around the road.
Mr. Pieter Myers objected to the Council's taking any action
until an EIR has been prepared and a more thorough study made of
the proposed site. The Chair recommended ~tr. ~lyers present his
recommendations directly to the ~R~VD~ In response to his question
about the EIR, the City Attorney stated the Water District would
be the lead agency for preparing the EIR, and they will prepare it
after the City accepts a site for the tank.
After further discussion, question was called, and the motion
carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCI:LMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN~
A~anIDuru, Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
Non(~
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 340
February 25, 1974
Page 8
9. BELVERON I\ilINI-PARI{
The City Manager presented the funding request of the Parks and
Recreation Commission for $5,000 for the proposed Belveron Mini-
Park. P&R Commissioner Ellman presented plans for the park and
stated the construction company who agreed to donate the grading
has announced they will do the work any day now. The Commission
is requesting the funds to implement the plans as soon as the
grading is completed.
Motion of Littman, seconded by Becker, to approve the request in
principle and obtain construction documents, carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILI-1EN:
COUNCILHEN:
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
None
10 . DEL HAR TENNIS COURTS
The City Manager presented the proposed useage and rules for the
Tiburon public courts at the Del Mar School as recommended by
the Parks and Recreation Commission.
It was moved by Becker, seconded by Aramburu, to adopt the proposed
rules.
In response to a question by Sennett, P&R Commissioner Gomez
stated they intend to ask the Reed Union School District to post
their schedule on a blackboard at the tennis court site.
~
Commissioner Gray showed the Council a sample identification card,
which will be sold to City of Tiburon residents for $5 and will
be magnetic for ingress and egress to and from the courts.
At the request of Fanning, Item 2 was reworded to read, in line 2,
"players can finish game," rather than "must finish."
In response to a question by the Chair, Commissioner Gomez stated
rules will be posted at the Courts. The Chair suggested the
rules also be distributed at the time the identification cards
are purchased.
Littman suggested City of Tiburon employees who are not residents
of the City also be allowed to purchase "the cards.
Question was called, and the motion to adopt the rules carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCI LI'-1EN :
COUNCILfJIEN:
COUNCILHEN:
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
None
16. CLAIr-iS REGISTER
Motion of Becker, seconded by Aramburu, to adopt Claims Register
No. 115, carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT~
COUNCI Ll>ffiN :
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILI'lliN:
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
None
VI . ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
There being no objection, in accordance with the request of
KQED, the Chair declared this as KQBD week, adopting Resolution
No. 608 unanimously.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 340
February 25, 1974
Page 9
The City Manager reported plans have been completed for a slide
repair storm damage project on Paradise Drive. Motion of
Sennett, seconded by Aramburu, that staff be authorized
to go to bid for this project, carried: All Ayes.
The Chair advised ~till Valley has recommended that the City of i
Tiburon support Tiburon Councilman Aramburu as the de1egate^from o6C~
Southern 11arin County. There being no objection, the Chair
announced the Council's support of Mr. Aramburu.
VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 12:35 a.m., the Chair adjourned the meeting to Executive Session.
VIII.
ADJOURNMENT
At 1.10 a.m., the Chair adjourned the mee~ting
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON:
, 1974.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 340
February 25, 1974
Page 10
CORRECTED MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF TIBURON
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Council, City of Tiburon, State of
California, was called to order by Mayor Branwell Fanning at
7:44 p.m., March 11, 1974, in the City Hall Council Chambers.
II. ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
COUNCILMEN: Mayor Fanning, Aramburu, Becker (7:46),
Littman, Sennett
COUNCILl:,iEN: None
R. L. Kleinert, City Manager
Stan LiChlyter, Administrative Intern
Richard H. Breiner, Deputy City Attorney
Stanley Bala, City Engineer
Phil Scott, Development Administrator
Louis F. Brunini, Supt. of Public Works
Hellen K. Hecht, Minute Clerk
William Liskam, Interim Planning COnsultant
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ABSENT:
EX OFFICIO:
No. 339
Action: Approved as amended
Aramburu corrected the numbering on pages 2 through 8 to
No. 339.
Fanning amended page 4, to add the following at the end of para-
graph 8: liThe Chair noted that the public legal notices would
not be circulated until February 20, thus allowing the public
only one day in which to study the EIR and prepare and deliver
comments and questions. Commissioner Bassett acknowledged this
requirement. II
Motion of Sennett, seconded by Aramburu, to adopt Minutes No. 339
of February 11, 1974, as amended, carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
No. 340
COUNCILlmN:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
Aramburu, Fanning, 'Li 'ttmaR, -~eiu)et.t
Becker
None
Action: Approved as amended
Aramburu corrected page 10, paragraph 2, line 2, to include,
lias the delegate to BCDC. . .n
Fanning corrected page 3, paragraph 5 .und~ Item 3 to read,
"Tiburon Terrace Towne House Association. II
Mr. Allan Steinau requested clarification of the action taken on
Item 1. He questioned whether Mr. Zelinsky's property on this side
of Tiburon Boulevard had been divided into two parcels, with the
Maritime Building and the vacant lot being considered as one
parcel as it is separated from the other property by Juanita Lane.
He posted drawings for the Council's information on what has
transpired in regard to the Maritime Building and showing the
proposed additions to the building, which they would urge be
considered separately.
The Chair stated the Council had determined that all property
that previously has a Master Plan on this side of the highway
is acceptable and the developer can proceed without an EIR, but
the property on the other side of Tiburon Boulevard will be
required to be fully Master Planned before any part of it is
developed. He stated there was no division of the property on
this side of Tiburon Boulevard separating the Maritime Building
from the remaining property.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 341 Harch 11, 1974
ADD~: (Page 28) Page 1
Mr. Marans also suggested that the deed contain a stipulation whereby the Hilarita
project property would revert to the City at the end of the contractual period.
The T.E.A. is a NON-PROFIT organization, and as such should not be financially moti-
vated. This provision would prevent ownership of Hilarita from falling into the hands
of any private enterprise. with the ~ossibilitv of ~Rle or ~onvpr~inn__~h~r~hv m~~4nD
~
ctI
~
1+-1
1+-1
ctI
..s::
o
CJ)
.
~
::E:
"'0
~
ctI
"'0
QJ
QJ
:3
. .
~ .
::E: .
. l::
(/) 0
~ .r-!
QJ (/)
~ -r-!
:;: >
o 0
~
QJ 0..
..c:
+J (/)
.r-!
~..s::
o +J
1+-1
o
+J+J
.r-!
1+-1"'0
o QJ
~ QJ
o..~
CO
ctI ctI
After further discussion, the Chair directed staff review the
~atter to determine what action has been taken on the property
in question, and to determine what the proper action is before
the Planning Commission in order that Mr. Zelinsky may proceed
with the proposed additions to the Maritime Building.
On motion of Sennett, seconded by Aramburu, l1inutes No. 340 of
February 25, 1974, were adopted:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCI IJ1IEN :
COUNCILr,'IEN:
COUNCILL\1EN:
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
None
IV. BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Aramburu, seconded by Sennett, the Consent Calendar
consisting of the following items was adopted:
10. NOTICES OF COMPLETION (Paradise Drive at Solano Street--
Street Drainage, Warren Court--Street Drainage)
11. AWARD OF CONTRACT (Slide Repair near 2020 Paradise Drive)
12. SUGA/SERAFINO ANNEXATION PROPOSAL
\.
Question was called, and the motion carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILI4EN:
COUNCI Lr.mN :
Aramburu, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
B,;.cker
1. APPEAL FRO~1 BOARD OF DESIGN REVIEW
. 3 Via Capistrano
The City Manager reported the appellant has requested this matter
be wi thdr awn.
Action: Appeal wi thdrawn
The Chair ruled the appeal having been withdrawn, this matter
is now moot and the Board of Design ruling therefore stands.
2. BILARITA ENVIRONNENT.1L Ir-~p"_CT REPORT (EIR)
THE C~R: We have in our documents a small dissertation on
ElR's. I'm not sure exactly t-lhere this originates, but it's rather
concise. And then there's a memo from the City I-1anager detailing
the requirements of the ElR in this particular case. We have a
memorandum from t~illiam Liskam, our special consultant in Planning
matters, asking a number of questions regarding the EIR. And then
we have about 15 pages or so of addenda to the EIR presented by
the TEA. tias this material in the addenda all material that was __
PHIL SCOTT, DEVELOPI-1ENT AD~1INISTRATOR: That addenda now all
becomes part of the EIR.
THE CHAIR: Was this all before the Planning Commission at the
time they acted?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
THE CHAIR: Has there been any further conmunications since
that time?
CITY ~UWAGER: You received copies of the draft minutes.
THE CHAIR: This is just a draft of the minutes of the Planning
Commission.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 341
March 11, 1974
Page 2
THE CHAIR: Okay, now. For the benefit of the audience, I'd
like to point out one paragraph in the summary of the State Guide-
lines on Environmental Impact Reports because there's always some
confusion as to what they are and what they are not, and it just
says: tiThe adoption of the EIR, when required must precede any
action of approving or disapproving the project to which it pertains;
however, an EIR is an information document and may not be used as
an instrument to rationalize approval of a project, nor do indica-
tions of adverse impact as enunciated in an EIR require that a
project be disapproved."
And this of course is very important in our discussions
because some people feel if thf}re' s uLy'thing negative, then the
project must be disapproved, if it's contained in the EIR.
Before we open the discussion, I want to make sure we
have everything here that we are required by law to have. One of
these is that the EIR, after it's prepared, after the draft has
been prepared, must be circulated to all the other agencies which
will be involved, and their comments must be received and considered
before the final EIR is approved. Has that bee~ done?
11R. SCOTT: That was circulated and the only replies we
received were from the Marin Municipal Water District and the
Fire District, which is also in your packet as ' a part of the
final draft.
THE CHAIR: Those did not corne in just as response to
questions, those carne in as actual results of the circulation?
HR. SCOTT: Yes.
THE CHAIR: What agencies were circulated?
MR. SCOTT: Sewer district, the fire district, the Reed
School District, the Tamalpais High School District, and also
PG&E and the telephone company.
THE CHAIR: Okay. All righty anyone wish to open the dis-
cussion on this matter?
MR. SENNETT: Mr. Mayor, maybe there's a map that's of help,
but there's some confusion certainly in my mind as to just where
the 4.7 acres which is mentioned, probably the original
MR. SCOTT: The map behind you, Mr. Mayor, the 4.7 acres is
this entire area here (indicating on map).
MR. SENNETT: The question is, what is it? What part of
that 4.7 acres is now required for dedication since the time the
Planning Commission discussed it?
MR. SCOTT: They were speaking of this part (indicating).
MR. SENNETT: Can you delineate that? Just run the pencil
across that.
This one appears as 2.7.
MR. SCOTT: Correct.
MR. SENNETT: What's the proposed disposition of the 2.0
acres?
MR. SCOTT: This is the location of the present buildings which
will be cleared and become salable property.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 341
March 11, 1974
Page 3
lIR. SENNETT: Is that property, this 2.0 acres, is that
property that's been offered informally to the City by means of
purchase by the Housing Authority?
MR. SCOTT: I understand it is.
MR. SENNETT: And do we have any present indications that that
offer is still outstanding and valid? I know it's budgeted for
this, and we've been consistently interested in acquiring that
property and we've been under the impression that the sale was
conditional upon the approval of the Hilarita project. Do we
have present assurances that that property is still available?
MR. SCOTT: No assurances. Quite to the contrary. I under-
stand it's been offered on the open market.
~m. THOMAS P. DEVITT, Attorney, TEA: As part of the EIR
we submitted exhibits and two of those documents are related to
the sale and one of them is a resolution of the Housing Authority
of Marin County dated July 1970 sometime, in which they formally
offered the property to the City of Tiburon. A later exhibit is
a letter from the Housing Authority, I believe dated sometime in
the fall of 1971 relating their earlier offer. What actions or
communications there have been between the City and the Housing
Authority since that time I do not know.
11R. SENNETT: Have they ever rescinded that offer?
CITY ~mNAGER: In a phone conversation.
MR. ARM-ffiURU: Mr. Mayor, I made a point of this last year
around budget time. I said, "Let's test the Jt\HA. " I said
we're still interested and we're budgeting at that time the
money for that land, and I was told at that time in some circum-
spect manner, or we were told, that it depended on the approval
of Hilarita.
MR. SENNETT: Do we have the letter there?
(Mr. Scott presented a letter to the Council.)
THE CHAIR: It's very short.
HR. ARAMBURU: This is an answer to our inquiry.
THE CHAIR: This is dated February 19, 1973, from Wallace
K. Sheppard, Executive Director. "4.7 acres adjacent to Hilarita
Housing Project. In answer to your letter of 1/12/73, this is
to advise you that the presentation of the Housing Authority
Resolution No. 336 and subsequent agreement to the sale of 4.7
acres of land for the sum of $36,000 will still be in effect
should a follow-up matching fund be approved or the City of Tiburon
should decide to purchase said 4.75 acres without Federal assist-
ance. If you have any further questions regarding this matter,
please call or contact the undersigned.fI
Mr. Sheppard actually came to the meeting and made
that statement, as I recall. He appeared before us and said that
because the effort was made to purchase it at that time, and he
said they were not interested in selling it to us at that price
unless the Hilarita Project was effected, and that was where it
stood. We couldn't purchase it unless this project was completed,
but that the offer remained open. Now, how much later was your
conversation with him, Phil?
HR. SCOTT: Last I'<1onday.
MR. LITTI1AN: Did he give any reason for this action?
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 341
Harch 11, 1974
Page 4
CITY 14ANAGER: I believe I have spoken to him since that
time, and his concern is looking out for the Housing Authority
and their financial position. And he feels that the two point
acres -- I believe there were six units allocated to it back at
the Master Plan conditions or requirements were approved by
the Cit~ and he just feels that on the open market they could do
much better than $36,000.
THE CHAIR: We always kne:., they could do much better for the
whole piece of property.
MR. SENNETT: The change in position,I'm not sure ~tr.
Sheppard speaks for anyone but himself, but at least one thing
is clear, the 4.75 -- I want to be sure I understand this --
the 2.75 has been offered as a condition of the approval of this
project, so we're only speaking now of the remaining two acres,
and whatever uncertainty exists with respect to this parcel
is on this portion here, but not with respect to that one (indi-
cating on map)
MR. NED tVEED, President, TEA: Right.
THE CHAIR: He keeps referring to the full 4.75.
MR. SENNETT: That's one reason something was being
offered, and that's made clear to me what it was.
11R. WEED: At a meeting of the Housing Authority last
Tuesday, the Housing Authority passed a resolution to dedicate
the upper 2.7 acres to the City of Tiburon for the Parks and
Recreation purposes, holding out the two acres at the lower
part of the project. But strong recommendations were made by
two members of the Housing Authority that they felt that the
Housing Authority should stay with their original offer of
selling that parcel to the City for $36,000.
MR. LITTI1AN: Well, that was more than an offer, it was
a commi tment.
~1R. WEED: That's right, and how binding and how long a
conunitment --
MR. LITTHAN: We verified it in February of this year.
MR. WEED: I think there's some tortuous thinking on
the part of the Executive Director that there might be some way to
get more money for it.
THE CHAIR: We. can settle that by making any approval or
disapproval contingent upon it, and I'm sure that will clarify
their thinking in a hurry.
CITY 11ANAGER: It may be appropriate to bring up at this
time, because we are talking about Park and Recreation dedication,
the Tiburon Parks and Recreation Commission met last week on
the site to review the area to be dedicated, and met again this
evening concerning the same matter, and I have copies of their
motion.
(Hr. Scott presented copies of the P&R
action to the Council.)
CITY ~mNAGER: They're supportive of the acreage to be
dedicated, and they further recommend that the City pursue
the resolution which was adopted by the Council in January
1972, which is the acquisition of the 2.0-acre parcel for the
selling price of $36,000.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 341
Harch 11, 1974
Page 5
THE CHAIR: No question in anybody's mind tilat this has
been part of the package from the very, very beginning, and that
it appears in the EIR and everything else as part of the pro-
visions of it.
MR. SENNETT: I have, whatever it's worth in my lingering
hours here, substantial enthusiasm "that we can complete the
purchase of that 2.0 acres at a figure that will be acceptable
by the Housing Authority and the City. I expect we would get
the support of the Housing Authority if we attempted to nego-
tiate for the acquisition of 'chat land.
THE CHAIR: They also had agreed to clear the land,
demolish the buildings.
MR. SENNETT: That's one of the conditions. It was 4.7,
we are not talking about two acres -- I assume that the price is
somehow going to be adjusted. We only have to buy less than
half than that which was initially discussed. They have
dedicated that 4.7 acres. They have now offered to dedicate
2.7.
MR. LITT~mN: I thought the two acres --
HR. WEED: We zoned it --
HR. LITTHAN: I thought the two-acre parcel was $36,000.
I always thought they were going to dedicate the 2.7.
MR. WEED: That's correct.
THE CHAIR: This being somewhat of an is~~ed piece of
property, we might find it worth our while to"V~ the $36,000
figure and offer them $1 for it, and they might~~lucky to
get ~he dolla~ if there's no other way to get~le~piece of
property.
THE CHAIR: Okay, anything further that the Council wishes
to discuss before we ask for comments f~om the audience?
MR. SENNETT: I would ask whether staff had any further
comments. I notice Mr. Liskam indicated he didn't have a
substantial amount of time to review some of the input at the
Planning Commission. I assume that his silence -- that he has
nothing further to add to the recommendations that were
previously given?
MR. LISKAM: Not since that time.
THE CHAIR: Were all of your ten questions answered?
MR. LISKM4: There were 28.
THE CHAIR: Six questions plus a statement on your memo-
randum of February 28. Have all of those been answered? I
have not seen them.
HR. LISKAM: Most of them have been. Not everything.
THE CHAIR: Which ones have not?
MR. LISKAM: Well, this all goes back to my initial com-
ment here which is that I found it to be adequate for the
evaluation of the project. The rest is trimming. Under the
heading of trimming, this information I would be interested
in seeing unemployment and retail sales, but I don't think it
is an issue in the evaluation of the project.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 341
March 11, 1974
fopage 6
THE CHAIR: Okay. I don't see a copy of my memorandum to
the Planning Co~~ission in our agenda as part of the EIR. Any
particular reason why that was left out?
HR. SENNETT: It's puraphrased in the transcript, Mr.
Mayor.
MR. DEVITT: One of my conunents on behalf of the applicant
was going to be that.: ycur memc:,::,anduin to the PIanning Commission
was before the Plc:nning Commis~ion an.d discussed, and we felt
properly should be ~ part of the records.
THE CHAIR: r.Vhe qU(~stj~()n.s in it tvere not answered.
MR. DEVITT: I think m~ny of the questions were discussed.
Whether the Mayor is satisfied with the answers given at the
Planning Commission is a judgment for themselves; however, we
felt we did respond; as did the Planning Commission, to sub-
stantially all the issues raised by the Mayor.
THE CHAIR: Including the effect on the school taxes and
such?
MR. DEVITT: It was discussed in detail, and I believe there
was some elementary figures as part of the addendum submitted
to the Planning Corrmi.ssion that formed at least the starting point
of that discussion.
THE CHAIR: Now, there's one thing about both of these
economic matters~ This was not addressed in the EIR or in the
agenda. When you referred to additional tax rate resulting from
$20,000 annually -- for ins'tance, the schools and you also __
well, Item E is what I am talking about specifically, and the
economic figures on ItCill p~ ~~t shows what the increase would be.
The net increase to the City ,..;auld be in costs, and then relates
that to the additio~al costs on a home of, I believe, without
going through all of it., 1:h(~re v18i.:c two figures of $50,000 and
one of $80,000, something- like that" There's no indication
here that under SB 90, \Jh'3~:'e ~.!C~ C.:lnnot raise the City tax rate
to offset any o:J: t:hcse, n~):: can t.he School District raise. the
tax rate. You're not. t?',lki:1.g about increasing the taxes on a
$50,000 or $80,000 home, you're talking about a net decrease in
services to the Cit:r bec~11u:'C you. can't raise any more. You can't
raise the tax rate, so itls fTo~8n without going to a vote of
the pu'blic, and this \J'as not addressed at all in the EIR.
MR. WEED: The assessed evaluation is raised.
THE CHAIR: What you have pointed out here in Items E
and F is the overage, t~~ additional cost to the City over and
above what the assessed evaluation of returns to both the School
District and the City, and you relate those in terms of the
increased cost to a horne to cover those, but we can't do that.
I mean, that's last year's thinking because now we have SB 90
and we don't relate these things any more to increased costs to
a home because we can't raise the taxes to cover it. We're
talking about a reductioll in City services.
MR. DEVITT: I dongt think how the City would raise what
revenue it felt it lvould lose or alternative sources is properly
a matter of the EIR" I think v-ll1ai: is u proper matter for the
EIR and what we did add!:es3 ourselves to is the economic impact
upon the City and us(~ this as a.n e:(ample of l'1hat it might be.
How the City in its judgment would either absorb this impact
or alternati.ve revenue sources is a judgment that really is
within their power, and all tb,~-;; fact:s are physical facts and
poli tical judgments they (,.<,~.r: ',;. ~~ 6.on It feol a":rl'~. properly a part
of the EIR. .
CI'llY coO" CIII HINtiI'ES NO. 341
March 11, 1974
Page 7
THE CHAIR: That's what I just wanted to make sure that
everybody understands it. No longer do we do it like that, like
we are going to absorb the costs, because the EIR indicates
that, well, we just raise the taxes a half a cent and that's
not really going to affect everybody's home too much, but we
can't do that any more.
MR. BECKER: I'd li.ke to :?oint out that a lot of the
se11Vices the ci ty provides aJ-e funded by gas taxes, various
funds; that school and fire prote::tion are not in the purview
of a city; that schools recei."Je more aid when they get more
students; and tha-t, :r.:inil 11y, 8\;en if TtTe could figure all of those
things out, probably thG. prices .:1:':C g-oing to have a bigger impact
on gas tax revenu~~f:.~ for -the Ci ty t:h0.n SB 90.
THE CHAIR: It could ma~l very vvell be, but we're talking
about the facts and figures in front of us.
MR. BECKER: No fact is knowable without some kind of
perspective --
MR. ROBERT HAYES: 84 percent of your school budget is
derived from local ..
THE CHAIR: The school budget is their problem, but
going through the EIR -- we might as well do it right, so that
was just one item I had on the agenda, I mean on this that was
needed, some kind of a s.tatement from the developer as to
whether they were or ware not going to provide these things.
I"1R. HERBERT WENIG: Is it the position of the City that
the additional meterial ~...;hich was presented on the night of the
Planning Commission hearing is not a proper part of the EIR
or
THE CHAIR: It j.s a part of the EIR.
MR. WENIG: 1'...nd then I --=a.ise a question as to whether the
public had a proper opporturi ty to a~Jpraise it as the completed
EIR, when it was presented to the Planning Commission the
very night it was passed upon and the public was to be afforded
a 1S-day opportunity to pass on ~ot only the draft EIR presented
by TEA, but the additional material \vhich TEA presented on that
nigh t .
THE CHAIR: That is a ruling vle' 11 have to get from our
City Attorney, I beli(~.\le" The mat.e1:'ial that was presented,
whether the EIR was incomplet.e and hefore it went to the Plan-
ning Commission, additional material was supplemented prior to
the hearing at the Planning Commission, was delivered at the
Planning Commission hearing. Now, is the public required to
have access to th3t in time to study it or not?
DEPUTY CITYATTORNEY RICHARD BREINER: Not necessarily in
time to study it~ Co~nents are made at the Planning Commission
as are being made tunight. Othe~yise you'd never be able to
complete a hearing. The draft EIR was on file for the required
time but whatever comments are made at or prior to the Commis-
sion and Council hearings don't require continuous extensions
of time.
THE CHAIR: Any further questions or discussion from the
audience?
MR. HAYES: I have just a ccuple of small questions
on the existing t:ce'.3 in t~1.e upp\~r area of the project. will
these be removed? In the E~'R report it was a little confusing
because in one place it 83.id tht~Y v70uld be maintained, and
another place it could not spf~a.k to that point. The reason
c:ery C07JNCI:i.J M.INOj:eES NO.. 341
March 11, 1974
Page 8
.
., '
I'm asking this question is that it does present a scree ing
effect in the upper part of the hill, and I was curious as to
whether those trees -- I'm aware of the onesalong Tiburon
Boulevard will be retai.ned -- I was curious about the trees in
the upper portion.
MR. ELLIS KAPLAN, architect for TEA: You can see the
limits where the road comes. That upper road is the limit of
our construction (indicatinl on map) and anything above that
will be left in its natural state. So if those trees are
above the end of the road, they will remain there.
MR. HAYES: If they were below, obviously they'd have to
be removed.
MR. KAPLAN: Correct.
MR. HAYES: The other point I have is to Mr. Schaffran
and the fact that you're going to have 20 percent market rents
available, which is something that I believe you weren't able
to count on in the past. Is this going to add to your feasi-
bility of the project from the standpoint of being able to
count on a certain portion of the rents . . .
11R. E. M. SCHAFFRAN: It will increase the economic mix.
It improves the socio-economic balance but any rents that are
collected that are in excess of the basic rents must be returned
to HUD.
MR. HAYES: Another thing that was brought out at the
Planning Commission. . * you were trying to arrive at this
mix from a planning standpoint. HUD was insisting and you
were going to have 20 percent of low income . . . I assume
the balance will be at moderate income levels, is that correct?
I also noticed that you had to commit to the fact that you
would bring in minorities . . . Has all of this fitted into
a criteria that the developer and the City can count on as
being a mix, because I thirk it's important that this mix be
maintained 0 . .
MR. SCHAFF&~N: Mre Hayes, there. is nothing in the affirma-
tive marketing progr&~ or in the socio-economic application
that we're speaking of which is mutually inconsistent. The
objectives of the projec.c from the standpoint of affirmative
marketing, from the standpoint of this economic mix that we
are talking about are entirely consistent. They cohere with
each other.
MR. HAYES: On the assessed evaluation of this project,
has that been established? I assume it has because you have
indicated contributions to various districts as to what would
be forthcoming from Hilarita. Has that been established with
the County?
MR. SCHAFFRAN: It hasn't been set in concrete, but there
have been preliminary discussions with the assessor which support
the figure that appears in the FHA firm commitment with respect
to the estimated tax payment . . .
MR. HAYES: The only other thing I have is a letter I
wrote to Mayor Fanning, with a copy to you, and that was on
the ratios used in arriving at the contribution or the impact
of the project on the cost of schools. And the reason that I
really feel strongly about this is, you know, whether it's
$17,000 or $60,000, it's going to cost, you know, the district
per year. I think we ought to recognize the facts. I don't feel
that the rationale that was used was proper from the standpoint
of indicating 75 studentsr which I think is, you know, quite
realistic. And taking supposed decline in the total district
of 50 students and applying it to that particular 75, it just
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 341
Harch 11, 1974
Page 9
doesn't quite fito I think that in that area it's concerning
because the purpose of the EIR is to get all these facts out
so that if we know a heavy cost is coming from an area, we
can plan for it and we can expect it and not have it come up
behind us and surprise us, and I think that I take real issue
with that particular point of the EIR. I feel that the rationale
is incorrect and I feel that it presented an incorrect picture
of the impact on the area insofar as additional costs gene-
rated to this particular a~ency.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Wenig.
~m. WENIG: Mr. Schaffran was speaking-about that this
all can be arranged. Now, that is interrelated. As I under-
stand it, Mr. Schaffran, there is now an approval for a
rent supplement of 20 percent of the units, is that correct?
MR. SCHAFFRAN: It's up to 30 percent. The rent supple-
ment -- may I?
THE CHAIR: Yes.
MR. SCHAFFRAN: The rent supplement contract, which is
being executed, provides sufficient funds to supplement the
rents of 30 percent of the units, so this would place a maxi-
mum of 30 percent of the units under rent supplement.
MR. WENIG: Well, now, the contract for funds reserva-
tions states 20 percent for rent supplement, the one that was
signed on January the 21st. I can show it to you.
MR. SCHAFFRAN: You're talking about the firm commit-
ment?
HR. WENIG: Yes.
MR. SCHAFFRAN: Well, the firm commitment provides a
guarantee of interest reduction payment to cover all 120
units. The rent supplement contract is a separate instru-
ment and provides a separate, you might say piggyback subsidy
to lower the rents for up to 30 perc~nt of the occupants so
that up to 30 percent of the occupants can come within the
income limits that are utilized by the Housing Authority for
low-income families.
/'
MR. WENIG: Now, where was that 30 percent set forth?
MR. SCHAFFRAN: It's set forth in the rent supplement
contract.
MR. WENIG: I see. Do you have a copy of that?
MR. SCHAFFRAN: I don't.
MR. r~RTIN MACKEY, Ecumenical Housing Association: We'd
be happy to provide it.
11R. WENIG: I was a little confused between the provi-
sion for 20 percent, and you say 30 percent.
MR. SCHAFFRAN: I don't recall that there was a 20 percent
commitment for rent supplement. I have the firm commitment
with me, but I do not believe there was anything in here
about rent supplement.
MR. WEED: I'm sure there was not.
MR. DEVITT: To clear up some confusio~I think possibly
in some of our earlier letters transmitting our various
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 341
~1arch 11, 1974
Page 10
applications in respect to the firm commitment, we might have
mentioned the 20 percent figure. However, in the commitment from
HUD, rather than any request from us, it's 30 percent that was
mentioned.
MR. WENIG: I'm reading from the Preliminary Reservation of
Contract dated January 21, 1974, and under IIRent Supplement Units,"
it says, "Rent Supplement Units, 20 percent.1I
r-IR. WEED: Under "Request," "le requested 20 percent. They
gave us 30.
MR. WENIG: Now, you have 30 percen"t rent subsidy? You're
going -- is it 22 families now on the Hilarita property?
MR. CLARENCE BULLARD: We have 22.
MR. WENIG: There's a commitment to take care of these dis-
placed families?
MR. WEED: Those displaced families cover a range.--
MR. WENIG: Then you have a commitment of 20 percent, do you
not, for the Marin Housing Authority?
MR. DEVITT: Possibly I can clarify this again. The Rent
Supplement Contract does not bind us, or HUD, bind us to request
funds for 30 percent. In fact, it gives us that option to ,
request funds for up to 30 percent. As I believe we have indicated
many times, we will not rent more than 30 percent of the units to
low-income residents. We haven't requested the funds, we requested
the authorization. We have a target. We have always had a target
of, in fact, renting a maximum of 30 percent of the units to persons
of low income. This will be done in a variety of ways which we
have not finalized completely how we we will go. We could go, for
instance, under the rent supplement contract, 30 percent with that
rent supplement. Alternatively, we could go, if other approvals
were obtained, we could go via the least housing group with respect
to the contract we have with the ~1ousing Authority. So the combina-
tion of those programs will in no event e~ceed 30 percent.
MR. WENIG: Now, you have a commitment. under the EIR commit-
ment, or statement, that the project will take care of the elderly
residents of Tiburon. And then you have a statement that you
will accomodate City employees and persons of fixed salaries. And
then we have a racial conunitmcnt mix to Fa1\. of 30 percent. Hy
question is twofold: One, do you think that all those programs
can be -- how are you going to interrelate all those programs and
carryall of them out?
MR. WEED: To clarify, first of all, the question of how we
can carry out all these programs: As we have said from our very
first meeting before the Planning Commission and the City Council,
the primary target that we had was to take care of the families
who have been living in the project who would be displaced if we
didn't accomodate them. We now have this group of people consoli-
dated to 22 families. They are a mix of low-income families and
moderate-income families. We will accomodate all of those families
in the project. That will account for approximately 15 of our 30
low-income families. Our rent supplement program \iaS not the
exact figure of 30 percent, but it was 10 one-bedroom units,
ten two-bedroom units, five three-bedroom units, and five four-
bedroom units. These are the terms of the rent supplement contract.
Ten ones, ten two's, five three's, five four's.
l-1R. WENIG: A total of what?
MR. WEED: Thirty. Now, th(: priorities that we have estab-
lished for accepting applicants into the project: First priority
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 341
March II, 1974
Page 11
are the existing tenants who are living in the project. The second
priority are the elderly in Tiburon who would be displaced economi-
cally if, or have been recently displaced economically if they
were not allowed to live in the project. The third priority for
the project are public employees in the City of Tiburon and the City
of Belevedere who have to live elsewhere and would prefer to live
in the area. The fourth priority are all employees who work in
the City of Tiburon who would like to live in Tiburon but have to
live elsewhere. It is our feeling that this will probably exhaus~
when we have accomodated these people, will have probably exhausted
the applicancy of the entire project.
Now, there is one admitted concern: Any person displaced
from a housing project that is ~orn down, abandoned, we are required
to give priority treatment to &pplicants from such a project as
that.
MR. LITTt~N: What location?
f4R. SCHAFFRAN: Marin County.
THE CHAIR: Over any of these people that you're talking about?
MR. WEED: Right. So far as I know, there are no projects
that are scheduled for abandonment.
14R. WENGI: What about the Section 23 commitment?
MR. WEED: The Section 23 commitment will, according to my
discussions with the Housing Authority, will be abandoned. They
will not try for a Section 23 commitment because we have accomplished
their aim.
MR. WENIG:
cent minority?
And what about the outreach commitment of 30 per-
How are you going to accomplish that?
MR. WEED:
When you say "minority," what are you talking about?
MR. WENIG: Any minority. Don't you have an outreach project?
X1R. WEED: In Marin County we are supposed to strike a racial
balance.
MR. ~VENIG: What is your conuni tment on that one?
MR. WEED: We have none because the racial balance is so~e-
dominantly non-minority that we will more than accomplish the
balance by the existing tenants in the project.
~m. WENIG: These are all very fine objectives, but where do
we find a commitment to the City that TEA will carry them out?
We have four priorities and these are commitments to us, the City,
and I'm suggesting there ought to be some kind of an understanding
between TEA and the other developer and the City.
THE CHAIR: If we have those comments in the record, the
minutes of the meeting, they become part of the EIR, and therefore
will be somewhat binding, I suppose as binding as any material in
the EIR.
MR. NAT MAR~S: We're going back to the old question,. Mr.
Fanning, which has gone beyond the recommended 30 percent in every
one of the 236 projects. This made mention of the fact that after
you get a certain number of low-income people, you try to have the
so-called economic mix figure beyond the 30 percent ratio, you
find the people in the other categories leave the project. You
find the absorption's taken place. . . at the same time TEA submitted
their own particular EIR, so-called. Looking through a few of the
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 341
March 11, 1974
Page 12
other stipulations that were submitted for the Sequoia Pacific
and for Mr-.- Zelinsky's properties. I found that they were requested
to have outside environmentalists make their report. The reason
for this is quite obvious. They're prejudicial and fallacious
and can be questioned and there are other procedures which actually
can be circumvented if the proponents can put through their own
environmental impact report data. I suggested that they have an
outside agency such as Madrone in order to put in data which would
have more of a relationship of actual truth than some of the things
that have been submitted by the TRA.
You know, I've been going through this about four years
now, or five, and it seems as though since I've lived here there
have been certain impacts on a community which have not been very,
very favorable. They've slipped through time and time again. We've
watched areas on Red Hill, we've watched slide areas partially
developed. We're coming to the point now where our waterfront,
the hills and all the rest of it might be overdone as far as density
is concerned. You people on the City Council, a few of you are
leaving and others coming, and I think this is a discussion which
in my mind is a very, very poor one. I don't think that the accept-
ance of the TEA reports on environmental impact are to be accepted.
I've gone back through the files in the history of the so-called
relationships in these projects and found misrepresentations con-
sistently from the outset. I believe when we found the Ecumenical
Association of Marin, of which Ned Weed was a secretary, suddenly
there-was a transferance of option to so-called Tiburon Ecumenical
Association, of which Mr. Weed was now the president. It was now
recommended that there would be up to 20 percent, or about 20 per-
cent of the people would be low-to-moderate income. Now we have
got;- it up to 30. The units went from 56 to 100 to 112. With
the opposition, they managed to back down a little bit. I don't
think it's ever been proven that 56 units would not be economically
feasible.
I think with the sudden disease, the Federal Government
is going to submit to projects with nothing more than a mortgage
rate of one percent. I think we can get something there which
would be much nicer to the City of Tiburon. I think certain stipu-
lations were put into effect which were bypassed. Our own City
Attorney gave them special privileges on a date when everything was
sort of in a teeter-totter. Then Mr. Liskam went right along with
it at the Planning Commission and said if you people want it and
it has socio-economic favorable points, let's take it. Why do we
want an environmental impact report? If it's something which is
unnecessary, let's forget about it and let everybody do what they
want. Why make a double standard out of a so-called project
when everyone else would have to adhere to certain things.
There has never been a project which started out with
so much favor and had so much opposition. The people that have
been supposed to be taken care of have been sold out to a so-called
economic mix which will have nothing to do with Tiburon whatsoever.
I've gone through a file which was pretty thick, believe
me, and I found articles in it which showed that 236 projects
usually go down the drain. I've found articles that said there's
enough profiteering in 236 projects to make eveIYone of the limited
partners fairly wealthy over a period of time. I found all sorts
of relative documents in the matter of different types of develop-
ment and none of these particular documents are something we'd be
proud to look at and say we're looking forward to Hilarita. With
this project coming to a close very, very shortly, with the property
values skyrocketing as they have for the area -- in fact, there's
a listing on a piece of property close by which has the same
density factor and the land value for that eight-tenths of an
acre was 75 thousand dollars. So we're talking about a chunk of
land which is being given away by ~ur community, our government,
at the rate of $500 a unit, when anything in Tiburon today is worth
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 341 March 11, 1974
Page 13
between ten and twenty thousand dollars a unit. That property is
worth, gentlemen, one million dollars, on the basis of 120 units
on that property, very, very easily. We're giving it away, and
in the future I believe we won't have any claim on it whatsoever
after payoff factors which might possibly come in five years, ten
years or 20 years.
I have a little article, if I can find it, which was
written to Mr. Wenig in answer to some questions he had written,
and evidently there was a period of time after which the limited
partners are the owners of the project. HUD's control vanish into
thin air. We can classify this as a beautiful windfall. I might
say if I were a good real estate person trying to buy a package of
land, I'd think there was a terrific project for myself.
I'm going to cut this little speech short and say that
I'd like to have the Council look into this matter more fully,
look into all the traps we can get into by letting the TEA take it
over. And if they can't put it on a basis we can accept, let the
Housing Authority -- at least it will still belong to the government
or to the people and we'll be paying for something which we origi-
nally intended to.
MR. DEVITT: Just briefly, 11r. Mayor, to point out that all
of these matters have been thoroughly discussed before in many
areas on the project and if I may call the Council's attention to
our Exhibit Numbers I through 66 in the draft EIR in which all the
matters discussed are set forth and were not only discussed before
the Council, but in the courts of this State.
MR. LITT~mN: Point of order. I think it would help everybody
if when we have these comments, if we could get all comments to-
gether in a group and then get the answers in a group. It's going
to take all night if we don't do that.
THE CHAIR: This is the last time, I want to make sure there's
no one on either side who has any reason to say they were shorted
on this.
\.
MR. WENIG: The point I'd like to emphasize to the Council is
that we're now considering the EIR and I'm sure that you're all
aware of your responsibility in certifying that the EIR is complete,
that it's in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act and the State Guidelines and that it has been reviewed and
considered and that the City has reviewed and considered the infor-
mation contained in the EIR and that the EIR must reflect the inde-
pendent judgment of the lead agency. Furthermore, the Guidelines
provide that the City may not use the draft EIR presented by TEA
as its own without independent evaluation and analysis. The draft
which is sent out for public review must reflect the independent
judgment of the City, and this is taken directly from the Guidelines.
Now, at the outset I think we ought to lay something right
on the table. I think that those of you who are heartily in favor
of the project as it now exists look upon those who oppose it in
this present state as obstructionists. Well, we believe that the
EIR presents us with the first opportunity to get an answer to
questions that we've been asking about this project for the last
four years.
Now, on the other side of the ledger is the tremendous
urgency which has been urged upon the City and the City staff to
get this EIR through as fast as possible. Our consultant talked
about trimming. Well, he certainly trimmed the time down to the
smallest gauge possible. Now, as far as the urgency is concerned,
I understand that it was represented to the Planning Commission that
you only had 90 days within which to complete your arrangements
and you had to get your construction started because otherwise the
money commitment from FHA would be terminated. Now, as I understand
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 341
March 11, 1974
Page 14
it, you have a reservation of funds for six months, and that this
reservation can be continued. And you had a reservation of funds,
of subsidy funds before ~..,hich back in June '73 that ::erminated
and still you're able to get funds, so I don't believe you've
been urged upon the City that they should act precipitously on
this EIR because your ability to continue with the project will
be stopped. No~. certainly, gentlem9n, even if there was a termina-
tion, you wouldn't say to the Red Hill or the Trestle Glen or the
Ring Mountain developers that the project map should be accepted
because they had a cornmi tment fro:-] the bank or to a builder. And
secondly, or thirdly rather, YO:l're being asked to approve a 236
project which has been repudiat8d -- not this particular project
but the Section 236 projects have been repudiated by FHA itself
as being full of inequi-ties and unduly expensive.
THE CHAIR: We have bf~en through tha-t part before.
MR. WENIG: Now, as far as whai: I'm pointing out is there
isn't this urgency when all this other possibility still to be
looked into and that the fund situation is not as strict as it
has been presented to the Council 0 Furthermore, we don't even
know who's going to be the real owner. The last addition to the
draft EIR was that it would be a mortgage foundation or some other
entity which will own, incidentally 1 99 percent or the project.
Another reason for not adopting the EIR today is that
there's new legislation which has been introduced into the Congress
which will meet most of the objections which we find to this pro-
ject, and it will provide some 230 million dollars for the replace-
ment for the 236 projecto
Now, I think that itWs absolutely basic to all the con-
siderations that we have here regarding the impact, the environ-
mental impact of this project upon this community, and that is what
is the necessary density which we must have. You will recall that
the history which is recited in my letter that the ad hoc committee
recommended 50 units. Hr. Schaffran came back with a demonstra-
tion that because of mortgage limits and income limits, that it
was necessary to have 112 units., Later on, he found out that it
wasn't necessary, but 120 units \rlerc necessary. At that time,
the persons who composed the ad hoc committee report, Mayor Tom
Drohan and Bill Bremer, wrot:.~ le-i:ters which are in the file pro-
testing vigorously against the incre&se of the density to 112 units.
So the exercise which the EIR now puts you to is for the City or an
independent consultant to make the de.termination as to what the
density is necessary to make this project feasible. We've asked
the City to make this determination and we've been ignored. Now
the EIR requires the City to make this determination because the
draft EIR says 102 are necessary" .He kn.;.)\,l' it has significant. !
envirQnmental impact, and the EIR requires the City to examine
alternatives, and certainly one of the alternatives is to lessen
the number of units and this is a determination that the City
must make independently and not take the statement of Mr. Schaffran.
Now, for example, speaking of the consultant reminds me
of Shelter Hill which is a Section 236 project to be built on a
steep hill Besides having the same, incidentally, the same mortgagee,
the land costs are $72,000 as against $51,000, and its- one, two
and three bedrooms have ten percent more square footage. Yet it's
found that 72 units are financially feasible. So I emphasize
once more that the Guidelines provide that the City may not use the
draft EIR as its own.
Now what do we have here in the EIR when it discusses
density? It says that there's no alternative to the 102 density
as shown by a reference to the original figures that Mr. Schaffran
submitted to this Council four years ago; namely, sho\'ling that
there couldn' t be 50; 75, a hund.._~ed, but it had to be 112. So
the only thing we have before us is still the same self-serving
statement of the developers that they need 112, or now they need
CITY COUNCIL MII.\1UTES NO. 341
March 11, 1974
Page 15
102. "We say it is so because we say it's so." That is not what
an EIR requires. And tilen to top it off, despite my high regard for
our new City Mapager, he says here the report is factual and issues
raised as density and alternative proposals were answered in the
material of the report. The only material in the report is the
same four-year-old study made by Mr. Schaffran at the very begin-
ning. Since that report we've had six different financial appraisals
made of the project. We've had increases in the mortgage amounts.
We've had increases in the amount of available rents. So the
picture quite possibly has changed considerably. At least we in
this community witha project which is one of the most important
projects we have involving the very valuable -- and I'm not going
right along with my real estate friend's appraisal of a million
dollars, but a very valuable piece of land is being turned over to
this project. .1 think \ve are entitled to have the independent
judgment of this City as to what number of units are necessary in
order to make this project feasible.
Now, one other thing, there's a point in my letter which
I think is deserving of great consideration. We are now at a
threshold of housing development. The Section 236 projects have
been repudiated. They've -- in other parts of the country
they're socially unacceptable, and now the Senate, backing Congress,
just last week introduced a bill which was to reform Section 236.
And this is an alternative which is not mentioned in the EIR.
Nor is it commented upon, as the Guidelines require, by the City
Manager.
Now, the big changes which the new legislature will
make is that they will use mortgage limits based upon what is the
experience in the particular community, eligibility for occupancy
will be greatly increased, economic integration would be encouraged
by requiring that 20 percent of rental units in each property
would be approved with additional assistanc~ and the tenant mix
will be regular income, moderate and low income. This is maybe
the answer to our density problem, and I think we should give it
serious consideration~ Thank yeu.
THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Wenig. Any further comments from
the audience?
MR. JOHN COLLIN: . I think the thing that is presented
to the Council here tonight, the main thing is to turn over this
valuable piece of property to a private profit~Qriented enter-
prise. That I think is the main thing, not all these details as
to how many houses you're going to have, how many in the minority
are going to live in it. We're turning over a piece of property
to a private enterprise to develop. This was developed originally
by people who wanted to do good for the Ecumenical group and by
the people in minority groups and people that lived here a long
time, but that is not the issue. They're asking you to turn over
a very valuable piece of property to a profit-oriented private
enterprise, and I think that's wrong and I think that's what we
ought to decide on.
~lR. RUFUS THAYER: !vly name is Rufus Thayer. I live in
Tiburon. I appeared at the Planning Commission when this matter
was brought up on the 27th of February and raised what I believe
was an objection to a proceeding continuing at that time. Mr.
Conn briefed us on vlhatI,,'\^lould suggest is a purely technical
grounds for allowing that meeting to go forth, and I would suggest
the result has been highly inequitable and not in accordance with
the spirit of the Environmental Quality Act and the State Guide-
lines. The project should not be allowed to quickly slide through
the review!ing~.: process, and that is particularly so following the
Supreme Court of California decision, Friends of Mammouth.
What we had was on tr.e 12th of February of this year
the first notice in the appropriate publications that the Planning
Commission was to review the Environmental Impact Report on this
CITY COUNCIL ItlNUTES NO. 341
Harch 11, 1974
Page 16
project 15 days later on the 27th of February. Now, in December
of 1973 the Guidelines were modified or corrected to include
provision for minimum notice periods before public review would
take place. The Guidelines were specific as to minimum review
periods for that time~ That was that minimum review could not
take place less than 30 days from the first public notice of
review as set forth in the Guidelines. As Mr. Conn pointed out,
the modification to local lead agency rules are not required to
come in line with this 30-day provision until the 15th of February.
That was three days following tb~ filing, the first date that this
EIR was noticed for public reVi€\'lo No'tv that may be technically
correct. I won't concede that it iSf but certainly I suggest,
and for this reason, that the new Guidelines as of December 1973,
if it was at all possible to comply with that minimum 3D-day
review period, I would suggest it should have been done so in this
case and not to wait until three days before it was completely
mandatory to have 30 days 0 ~~c:~,~ic~"-l.
Next, for the sake of argument, you can say that the
IS-day review period was still legally correct. I don't believe
that the public was given 15 days in which to respond or to study
and prepare themselves for such a review. In this respect, as I
understand it, the Planning Commission or the City Council provided
that all public cOlument, written comment, that is, had to be sub-
mitted no later than the 21st of February if it were to be con-
sidered in the revie'~ of the Planning Commission. Now, the 21st
of February certainly is less than 15 days following the 15th of
February. It wou:d appear therefore that on that ground alone that
there was inadequate notice for public review and comment and
participation at the Planning Commission level.
As I pointed out that night of the 27th, the Planning
Commission, of course, did approve the EIR as it was proposed and
recommended to the Council that they certify it. Now that, I
would submit, is a very heavy burden on those who previously were
not provided adequate public notil:=e for revie~'l or those who
believe that the EIR as it is constituted is unsound and it should
be submitted for further review 0 At this level of agency review
it's unlikely that the reviewing body is going to overrule the
subordinate reviewing bodyo There=ore, I would suggest that not
only do we lack full support of the expertise but we violate the
spirit of CEQA and Friends of r1ammouth, tQ provide adequate public
notice to InSUre public participation and review on developer's
comments which are likely; ane: in this case certainly going
to have an effect on the CO_[llmUni ty? In similar cases such as
the review of tile Downtown Plan, the hearing was reopened for
further public participu. tiol1 0 All. those people "1ho now live in
Tiburon that weren't here when this matter was first up for
review and comment some four years ago I would submit should have
that same opportunity at the Planni.ng Commission level for review
and participation in this report and in this project \'lhich is going
to have such a substantial effect on our communityo
Now ae. ttr. Wenig has pointed out, the EIR must be the
report and must be required to be the product of the independent
review analysis of the proving agency, and I would submit that
was simply not done in this caseo The EIR as it was submitted
was blatently adoptedo
I would respectfully suggest, without any research or
analysis which makes it simply a political decision, and that is
exactly what CEQA and Friends of 11ammouth are meant to prevent,
so I ask tilat this EIR be sent back to the Planning Commission
and the matter be noticed for 30 days before further hearings are
held on it; and at that time I ~qould ask that, as J.\1r. TVenig has
pointed out and I belieTle nr. I.Iarans has pointed out, that our
own independent revie~., by the staff of this City certainly pro-
vides for some review as to the questions of density and whether
or not tile project can be put inc.o effect at the initial densi ty
levels which were first approved four years ago.
CITY COUNCIL IlINUTES NO. 341
I4arch 11, 1974
Page 17
RECESS
[A recess was taken at 9~18 porno, the Council reconvening at
9:30 porn., the roll standing as originally taken.]
I-'lR. DEVITT: I \..,ill try to keep my comments very brief. First
of all, 18m sure the City Attorney will speak to the specific require-
ments of the notice provisions of the Tiburon Ordinance. I would
like to speak briefly to the spirit of the various laws which we
contend were complied with, both with respect to the EIR, and, more
importantly, with the whole revie~1 of the project.
First of all, the EIRo Twenty copies of it, or 25, I
forget which, along with all the exhibits, was submitted to the
Planning Department of Tiburon on February 4th. This allowed more
than 30 days for the review period of the draft EIR, which has cul-
minated this evening. During that time, there have been these two
public hearings, both before the Planning Commission and the City
Council. Mro 11ayor made reference to alleged cut off on February
21st when comments were received. This was discussed at the Planning
Commission level, and there never has been such a cut off. As the
Planning Development Administrator stated, this was the deadline
in all matters for written comments to be submitted and Xeroxed in
time to be before the Planning Commission that evening, to be guar-
anteed they would be giveno As a matter of fact, in this case
the comments of the opponents of this project, even the written
comments submitted after the 21st, were by the ministry of the
Planning Department Xaroxed and submitted to all members of the
Planning staff, or to the Planning Commission, prior to hearing.
Particularly, two letters by tlr~ Wenig which were dated the 23rd
and the 25th of February, along with the Mayor's letter to the
Planning Commission ~~hich I believe was dated February 27th.
With regard to the EIR, the substantial review of it, I
would point out two things~ One, with regard to the spirit of the
State Guidelines, even apart from the City of Tiburon Guidelines
which in this instance we believe were controlling, the State
Guidelines as amended most recently provide that the 30-day period
is only one which they urge on local agencies, and they specifically
recognize there may be a need in unusual cases to have more speed
to be shortened. We submitted to the Planning Commission that this
was such a case 0 Mr. Weed explained at length how under the current
commitment we had to complete the initial closing by April 18th.
And after this Council's approval of that, there remained further
actions that could not be taken so that approval was necessary
within the schedule we are working on now in order to complete
these things and have the initial closing by April 19th.
More importantly, we submitted then and do so now that
there has not been anything new raised in any of the comments
raised before the Planning Commission, in the letters to the
Planning Commission or the letters to the Council this eveningo
The only issue about this project that was raised at these latest
series of hearings was the same issue which has been raised for
the last four years; namely, that of densityo The information has
been thereo We submit that the Planning Commission and the Council
in its many determinations on the subject, which in the findings
they had previously made which were taken not only to the Superior
Court but appealed to the District Court of Appeal, all the infor-
mation necessary to that decision has been and continues to be
before the Council. The only issue has been one of judgment as to
how the Council should act on ito Many of the petitioners this
evening have questioned the independent judgment and whether it has
been fulfilled, but again it all goes back to density and they
really do not take issue with the information of the EIR
with respect to the judgment issue, this was again
discussed at length before the Planning Commission and we pointed
out there, number one, that the draft EIR was prepared by a number
of different people. They were listed in the end of the EIR docu-
ment, and the qualifications of these people, the independence of
CITY COUNCIL I-IINUTES NOo 341
Harch 11, 1974
Page 18
mind and their recognized reputations within the community was
related 0 Also, all or most of the people were at the Planning
Commission hearingo Many of them are here tilis evening and were and
are open to any questions the Council might direct at them 0
Also, at the Planning Commission meeting the City Plan-
ning staff testified that they had reviewed this and exercised
their own independent judgment about the matters, and that they
had consulted with the various agencies to whom it was sent and to
other various agencies in the Ci.ty about the information contained
therein 0
Just two other brief pointso One of the persons here
tonight framed the issue that whether or not the City should give
this property to a private developer who seeks profito One, this
property is not owned by the City, it's merely regulated for use
of property by owners. I never was aware that even if we are a
profit-making institution, which we definitely are not, that tilat
would be some handicap or disadvantage, at least one that should
adversely affect a zoning petition or a zoning matter. In any
event, the worth of the property, as far as the transaction between
a Housing Authority and the Tiburon Ecumenical Association, has
again been the subject of a lawsuit in court and found much evidence
received did not arrive at a one-million-dollar evaluation that
was mentioned here this evening, but rather said that the contract
was one for adequate consideration and that the Housing Authority
would be legally compensated for the property they were selling to
Tiburon Ecumenical Associationo
My very last point, and that relates to the new legisla-
tion alternative mentioned by Hr. Nenig, one that is simply a
bill that was introduced in the Senateo It is not an alternative
at this time 0 I believe in this morning's paper it was reported
that the Committee had amended the bill very substantially, among
other things, I believe to reinstate the 236 program, which I think
in the initial proposal w~s to be discardedo However, the Senate
and the Committee took a different view. As to what will happen
is simple speculation on our part, but I would submit it is not an
alternative that needs be consi(::ered or that should be considered.
MR. WEED: I have only one other point, and that is we did
request unusually speedy treatment of this matter and we mentioned
two primary reasons why we were concerned 0 The first reason was,
as ~~o Devitt mentioned, was the 90-day period. That is an
official communication from HUD that we have 90 days within which
to have initial closing 0
The second point is our contractor who has held our
price firm since February of last year has told us that the only
feasible way that he can live by that price is to get under way
as early as possible in the spring and that he has been advised that
the long-range weather forecast is for an early end to the rain
and that he would like to get started in April. This is the other
pressing problem we haveo
~mo HAYES: I would like to speak to Mro Devitt's point,
no one has spoken to any points in the EIRo I would like to
correct that. Getting back to the school tax situation, I feel
that that was completely in erroro Your particular display on
this indicated a net increase to the taxpayers of $17,205.to
the District. Based on tl1e rationale that I disputed earlier,
actually it's going to be $80,705, or a difference of $63,500.
Now, the thing that concerns me here is that are there other
areas that were approached on this basis because, number one, the
rationale was incorrect, number 2, the tax rates were incorrect.
And I just feel that in a particular submission of an EIR report
like this that everybody that gets a tax bill has that information,
that the proper information sho- :ld be there and it's going to be a
significantly greater impact of $63,000 difference, $80,000 versus
$17,0000 So from that standpoint there's some dispute on examples
.in your EIR.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 341
March 11, 1974
Page 19
THE CHAIR~ I will allow one more comment.
MR. DEVITT~ I don't think ~1r. Hayes disputes the information
which we displayed, namely, as to the number of children and the
cost per pupil. I think what he is concerned about, and is one
which men can differ about, is how to represent that in terms
of a tax assessment on a particular home. But I think the infor-
mation upon which it was calculated, there is no dispute about that.
That it is what we are talking about, is merely one of how to
view that, and I don't think that goes to the substance of the EIR
but merely simply to one of judgment.
THE CHAIR~ We're going to bring it back to the Council and
let the Council debate it.
MR. SENNETT: At the appropriate time I have a motion.
t~en you feel it's appropriate, I'd be happy to.
THE CHAIR:
a motion is made.
Let's see if the Council has any questions before
Becker, do you have any comments or questions?
MR. BECKER: Well, I'd like to be able to comment if I hear
some questions of substance, which I haven't heard yet. I'd
like to follow wherever those questions might lead.
THE CHAIR: Allan Littman?
MR. LITTMAN; I have a couple. Ned, is it appropriate to
direct it to you? First, who is the owner or the prospective
owner of the equity in the project?
MR. WEED: The project will have a composition whereby the
Tiburon Ecumenical Association will be the managing general partner~
We are currently negotiating with not one but three limited divi-
dend partners.
MR. LITT~mN~ You have alternatives?
MR. WEED: Right.
NR. LITTr-jAN ~ Can you give us one of. the three?
MR. WEED: One of the three, the chief of whom is the National
Housing Partnership. The procedure in which these projects are
put together, the Tiburon Ecumenical Association sells what in
essence amounts to the time that they have put into the project
and the equities that they have created by this time, which amounts
to a rather startling amount of money. We're selling our equity
for approximately $400,000. Now, what this $400,000 does, it
bridges the gap between the amount of money that we borrow from
the Federal Government and the actual cost of the project. Now,
when this project goes on line, the limited dividend partners are
entitled to six percent of 1101 percent of the mortgage as an
annual return on their investment.
MR. LITTMAN: On their investment or on the total value?
MR. ~ffiED: 1101 percent of the total mortgage. What it
amounts to is about three and a half percent of their actual
investment. The only reason that you can find such limited dividend
investment is tllat the Bureau of Internal Revenue makes a special
provision whereby these limited investors get a large tax shelter
whereby they get a hundred percent of the depreciation of the
project. This is the thing that makes it attractive to limited
dividend investors.
MR. LITT~mN: What happens if the limited dividend investor,
whoever he or it may be, decides that he wants to sellout to some
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 341
r-1arch 11, 1974
Page 20
third person; and that third person decided to payoff the mortgage,
get rid of it and then they say, u~vell, we're not interested in
all these moderate-income housing units, ~~e want to take those
uni ts and rent them for as much as ~^,e can. ~I
Now, what assurance do we have that that cannot happen?
liRa WEED: I think I'll let I<ir. Schaffran conunent on this.
In essence, we have guarantees in our agreement with the limited
dividend investors that they have no rights to make any such
transaction for a period of 20 years.
[.iR. LITTUAN ~ So t1e have 20 years?
riR. WEED:; Tvlenty years certain.
!-IR. LITTHAN: And you have no objection to the City being
included as a beneficiary of such a clause so that if you decided
not to enforce it, that the City could enforce it?
MR. WEED~ Absolutely.
HR. LITTflAJ.\J; So \.ve ~.,ould have at least that. Let me ask
you this ~ l'Ji th respect to tenants, I take it there's going to be a
tenant selection committee?
HR. ~'lEED ~ Correct.
dR. LITTi-1AN;; No~'l, first, would there be any objection to
having a representative of the City of Tiburon sit on that selec-
tion conunittee?
MR. WEED: ~1e would be delighted to have a representative
of the City sit in on that committee and I think we can also make
the provision they would have full voting privileges.
HR. LITTi:iAN ~ And you ,",ould have no objection to that being
incorporated in the conditions?
HR. ~VEED: No.
lIR. LITTr1AN;, And can you tell me \'lhQ else tvill be on the
selection committee?
liRe WEED~ As presently composed, there will be two members
from each of the three churches from which Tiburon Ecumenical
Association draws its Board of Directors, plus two members from
the Hi1arita Project.
MR. LITTDUU~~ All right.
MR. HEED~ And we'd be happy to include a representative of
the City.
BR. LITTI'iAN:: ~vould you obj ect to having t\'JO members
appointed by the City Council?
ViR. WEED ~ Not at all. -\'Je' d be delighted.
i111... LITTEIAN:: No,." one thing -- I have t\iO other questions.
One relates to the question of City employees. I notice in the
supplement to the Environmental Impact Report, this thing here
on page 3, it says income limits were $6,895 per year for one-
person family, $14,684 for an eight-person family, and I guess
there I s not too many of those these days. ~'Jhat troubles me a
little bit is, looking down at the table you had here on the City
of Tiburon's salaries, which 18m familiar with, the lowest salary
paid in the City of Tiburon is higher than the limit of $6,895
per year for a one-person family.
CITY COUNCIL IiINUTES NO. 341
Ilarch 11, 1974
Page 21
Now, I realize ,~hen you get a married couple that changes,
but is tllere really a substantial chance for a member of our City
employees to qualify for this project?
11R. WEED~ I believe that there's a substantial chance for
two reasons~ One, as you get into the married family with two
children, you're up at $10,474. Now, in addition to that, we
have -- we're encouraged by HUD to leas~ 20 percent of the units
at market rental. Now, we 'viII not rent one of those units at
market rental until the entire spectrum of both the City staff,
the school personnel and the fire department, sewer department and
so fortll, have been screened and they will have top priority in
these market rentals.
HR. LITTI:1AN~ It's going to be pretty tough for one of our
lady employees who may not be married to occupy one of these
unless she qualifies for the 20 percent.
MR. WEED: ThatUs correct.
MR. LITT~1AN: Now, one last matter, and that is on traffic.
How many cars do you estimate will actually be generated by the
present project, if your averages pan out, and how does that
compare witl1 the number of cars there now?
MR. WEED: The number of cars there now?
HR. LITTNAN~ I realize that's reduced.
HR. r:lEED: This has been considerably reduced and there
hasn't been a study on the recent --
HR. HARTIN I\1ACKEY ~ I'lr. Van Pelt made a study "lhich is in
your original EIR. It indicated two or three years ago there
was 200, and then it was down to 150, below two hUndred.
l<1R. LITTHilli: A hundred trips a day?
MR. ~mCKEY~ It was reduced from over 250 a couple of years
ago to where it is a hundred or 140.
MR. LITT~illN: What is it anticipated to be?
HR. HACKEY: I don't recall.
KATHY OLSON~ I'm Kathy Olson. From page 25 of Section 2
of the Environmental Impact Report, it is estimated that the new
Hilarita Project will generate about six vehicle trips per unit
per day, or 600 vehicle trips per day. This will represent an
increase of 400 trips a day, or four percent.
HR. LITTHAN ~ I1aybe you can respond to this, or ",hoever wants
to. It's probably my last question. What in determining or
in asserting that 600 vehicle trips per day coming out of Hilarita
would not pose an insuperable problem on Tiburon Boulevard,
what did you use as th~ capacity of Tiburon Boulevard to which
you made this increment and then determined that we still had a
safe highway?
fiR. DEVITT: One thing, there's some additional information
I don't know if the Councilmen were aware of, and that is we
did discuss this at some length at the Planning Commission and
the Commission determined, as one of the conditions of their
recommendation, that a left-turn safety lane was to be put in,
and I believe the City Engineer talked at length on his estimate
of this.
/
~m. LITT1mN: I'm still -- I'm not saying you're above it,
I just want to know what it is.
CITY COUNCIL UINUTES NO. 341
Uarch 11, 1974
Page 22
MR. WEED: Oddly enough we went to the State Highway Depart-
ment for ti1eir recommendation, and their recommendation came back
that they did not feel that the impact of the 600 trips a day
was insufficient to provide a left-hand turning lane.
MR.. LITT~mN~ I'd still like to have some numbers, if there
are any available.
HR. SENNETT ~ I asked r-ir.. Bala. I vTas hoping he had some
numbers, but he just said he p~-:-obably shares the feeling it's a
minimal additional impact.
CITY ENGINEER STANLEY BALA: My figures are a little bit
different than those given in the Environmental Impact Study.
I have more cars than they give, but this is not a material dif-
ference. I estimate that there will be about 50 cars per hour in
the afternoon. We are dealing with per-hour traffic rather than
daily because this is the amount which determines what is happen-
ing there.
Now, I have recommended a left-hand storage lane be
provided. In figures we have about 1600 cars per hour. This
is both ways, and on Tiburon Boulevard we have split about
fifty-fifty, which is correctly stated in the report. So we are
talking about 800 cars per hour.
MR. LITTr1AN~ In each direction?
MR. BALA: That's right. To it we should add about 40 cars
which will be generated by this project.
HR. LITTI-1Al\I ~ Forty cars?
MR. BALA~ Fifty total. Of it, about ten will be coming in,
or rather leaving the project during that one hour of peak, and
40 will be coming back home. Of course, the afternoon peak is the
highest peak. This is the experience. So this is about the per-
centage.
Now, really, we will not have a great deal of increase
of traffic but the left turn is a problem. We have a problem
there now. There are cars which go to ~e City facilities there
as well as the school and to Hilarita, and making a left turn there
even during the middle of the day is somewhat unpleasant. One
doesn't feel that one is protected.
Perhaps figures do not call for left-hand storage lane,
maybe just looking at the figures perhaps State said there is no
need for the left storage lane. I think that figures really
do not reflect the actual need. I believe that at the time
that this project will be occupied, a left turn should be there,
left-hand storage lane, and this should be a condition. But I
did not come up with it for the Environmental Impact Study, but
I put this as a condition for the Tentative Map, if you approve
it.
HR. LITTi-1AN ~ One follo\..,-u1.~. You said 800 cars now. This
would add 40 cars per hour. vfuat do you rec~on to be the
capacity of the Bouelvard?
lIR. BALA: Well, assuming that we will get rid of side
friction which exists as I am proposing the new design, assum-
ing that Tiburon Boulevard will stay indeed two lanes, but a
good two lanes with having some shoulders which we don't
have today, I think that we can pass about a thousand cars an
hour.
HR. LITTHAN: Thank you very much.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 341
I:Iarch 11, 1974
Page 23
MR. ARAMBURU: A couple of comments. In terms of traffic,
in looking at where development occurs in the County, this makes
sense to develop this location from the standpoint of public
transit. For example, I recommend the Golden Gate bus service.
I take that in the morning so I get my business work done, then
I take the ferry home at night to get the City work done. Of
course, you have access from Hilarita to the City by bus, and I
think some of the present residents walk to the shopping centers.
So I think these automobile figures would be somewhat high. But
I'd like to just make a couple comments about the Environmental
Impact Report itself, which is really what we're discussing.
We all know that development generally means a couple
of things: Some adverse environmental impact and additional costs
to the community in one way or the other. In terms of the environ-
mental adverse effects here, I think that TEA has done a good
job. This is a subjective feeling, but I think they have taken
the concerns expressed by some objective people here and answered
them objectively. I think there's been a real attempt made
to propose these mitigation measures.
Now, we have heard some references to some other
cases, CEQA and Friends of Mammouth. I think we forget some
of these other cases had nothing to offer the community. I
think Hilarita does present a splendid opportunity for us to
fulfill our important and legal obligations to fulfill the man-
dated elements of the General Plan as proposed by the State.
~1e just don't have open space which, as I have said before, is
probably the most popular item in Marin County. But when it
comes to the housing element, I haven't seen any successful candi-
date run under a hard-hitting Housing Element in Marin County.
But we do have a splendid opporunity to more than
double what has occurred in moderate-income housing in Marin
County this year. Being concerned with the Countywide Plan
being current with the General Plan of the City of Tiburon, I
enthusiastically thiruc it's a splendid opportunity to look at
this Houslil.:1 Element in the face and do something positive
about it. So when the time comes and when Mr. Sennett frames
his motion, I think it would be highly qppropriate to have
this Council go out at five zip votes, that's tennis talk, in
favor of the project.
11R. SENNETT: It's five love 0 I will confine my comments
and my remarks to a motion. I would move that the Council
certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report has been
completed in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and State regulations and -the Council has' reviewed
and considered the, information contained in the Environmental
Impact Report.> ~~. _..'"
MR. BECKER~ Second the motion.
HR. LITTHAN~ ~Je are going to have another motion
MR. FANNING: Would you entertain an amendment to that
motion that this is conditional upon the Housing Authority's
agreement to sell to the City of Tiburon the remaining two
acres for $36,000.
~lR. SENNETT: It seems to me it's not relevant to the
Environmental Impact consideration. We could take it up as an
additional condition with respect to the subdivision map.
I would prefer to keep it on the other matter.
MR. FANNING: I donUt think they're going to back down.
I don't think that is going to kill the project. I think it
puts them in a better position
CITY COUNCIL i1INUTES NO. 341
Barch 11, 1974
Page 24
HR. BECKER:.: I'1r. r'1ayor, I would like to speak on the motion,
if I may.
I attended the Planning Commission hearing and heard many
of the same concerns voiced tonight, and I've heard these concerns
for many meetings. In fact, many years. And in my judgment, I
feel that these concerns have been answered by facts and that the
merits of the various concerns and issues have been met. I can
certainly understand Q real division on whether or not one wishes
to accept the merits complied 0~ supported by the facts because
I think what we're talking abo~t really are probably even beyond
density, and that is a change and how one relates to the change
and I'm not sure how one really does but that we cope and we
divide and we come together.
I think that ~ertainly through no particular intentions
of the Tiburon Ecumenical Association they have had to follow
a course in due process which has been attended by the most
incredible amount of caution and checking and rechecking of
their facts and their applications before various agencies that
I have ever heard, and I feel that really just the process alone,
the way laws have changed while their applications have been
before us and that they have augmented and supplemented their
applications before various agencies in order to meet the spirit
of each new change in the law has been an exemplary fashion.
And I think that this is commendable and that for sometime now
there has been very little information of any indeed that wasn't
either knowable or hadn't been fully presented to the public.
In fact, I think it's gone to the point where about the only
independent judgment I could accept is something like a lightning
bolt to strike the City Council desk.
I'd like to summarize finally the things that I think
are very meritorious and have little to do with issues of
division on which a community can choo8e to split, and that is
we should remember that under all of the alternatives TEA offers
the City of Tiburon the most excellent one and that is the con-
gregations of three local community churches have undertaken of
their own volition to do somerhing about housing in our City,
that they have retained contr0l of the application before us
and offer us especially, I think, on Allan Littman's excellent
suggestion, the prospect of long-range future controls
to the \velfare of our City. And I think that that one fact is
a mitigating measure of overwhelming social benefit. However
you may wish to paraphrase it, it~s paramount and we should
recognize it, that L"'lis Olle factor in no vlay relates or implies
any side-stepping of any issues of fact. I think that we should
comment TEA on their perseverance, and perhaps a touch on their
luck.
MR. FANNING~ Perseverance they do have.
11R. LITTI!mN~ I donVt want to make a long speQch about
this. I do want to say one thing~ It seems to me we ought not
to get carried away so that we lose our perspective of principal,
and I suspect that if most of us will reflect on the Environmental
Impact Report we have received we would have to admit that it's
certainly less than perfect, as most things done in this world
areo On the other hand, I tllink that we could also say that
unless one applies a rule to it, which is so perfectionist that
one doesn't leave room for a substantial performance of a diffi-
cult job at best, that it does fairly meet the substantial per-
formance test.
The reason I make this little statement is that I would
hope that when we come to measure otl1er projects in this community,
we will measure them by the same reasonable standards as we are
urging each other to use on this project tonight, and although
I have great admiration for eJeryone of the churches that are
behind this, I don v t think tiF ,-.: (', ~ a communi ty we can take a
CITY COUHCIL HINUTES NO. 341
Harch 11, 1974
Page 25
position that we will establish a different standard when a
religious organization is backing a project than when anybody
else is. And I agree with the young attorney who said that
it makes no difference whether this is a limited dividend project
or a wholly owned public project, the question before us is
whether the Environmental Impact Report is adequate. And believing
that it is substantially adequate, though far from perfect, I will
vote for it.
THE CHAIR: I'm going to have to disagree with YOUo I agree
with you to the point where we should not have two sets of stan-
dards, and I definitely agree with Bill Liskam's comments that
if it's of overwhelming social benefits you go ahead and approve
it. I ti1ink that you did do that. I read the statement out of
law, or at least out of this interpretation of the law that it
may not be used as an instrument to rationalize approval nor
do indications of adverse impact on an EIR require that a project
be disapproved, and I don't think the adverse effects of it, no
matter how severe, would probably amount to a disapproval by this
Council. But the EIR process was a long time in coming. It is
difficult in some requirements, but a lot of the material that's
been asked for could have been made available a long time agoo
It could have been independently analyzed, and it is far from
complete, and the purpose of the EIR is to be an information
document and it would have been an adequate information document,
and for reasons which we still don't have, we don't have the facts.
We don't have the information we need, so I cannot in good
conscience certify this as an adequate EIRo I think if it had been,
it would be possible there would be other effects. Many of the
things were brought up in my memorandum to the Planning Commission,
most of which have not been answered in any way other than by
dismissal of them 0 There are conflicts within the report which
have never Been rectified or straightened out, where in one page
they use one set of facts which are countered on another page to
prove another point, and therefore that is not the purpose of
the EIR.
So I don't think the procedures were proper, the
notice to the public and the amount of time to speak to it. It
was never sent to the City of Belvedere or to the Lagoon Property
OWners Association for their comments, ~hich I suppose by law
we're not required to but certainly by all the traditions we
have done and we will do with our other projects. And under
the equal protection provisions that we try to live up to, I
don't think any other project that will come before this City
will be judged by the same loose standards that we are judging
this particular EIR, regardless of the overwhelming sociological
benefits which mayor may not be included.
If there's no further comment, I think it's time to
call the roll:
BECKER~ Aye.
LITTfvlAN : Aye.
ARAMBURU : Aye.,
SENNETT: Aye.
FANNING: No.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 341
r1arch 11, 1974
Page 26
j. &~I~'u.a:i'4':" rll~~..IJ:l&r.iIIV::; SUB~IVISIOIJ i.J~
I-'=- \.;a~ ....OVcu :';;y Ccnn~tt, 5econ\.le~ Ly Decker, to aJ.ol)t n.esolution
.1i\J. v09, afJprOVil1~i t~le T\.~ntative :olaf.> of th~ :tilarita Proj~ct.
It vIas ~iiOVCU 'uy i,itt.L~u1g scconu~u by ~eck.ar, to aracl1u the r~solution
~y incl-u~in'.J t~u;:rcin tlJ.at tllC applicant satisfy til~ City Attorney
that tJ.l\;; City is the ~Llain L~neficiary of the provision in any
contract \~li th any li;.:ti tad ~iviuel1J. partner i that for 20 years
th~ provisions \rJitl1 resp~ct to moderato_income housing shall be
i.ltaintain~~ .
J.iotion carriec ~
AYi;;S;,
1.jOi.i S ;~
j~BSL;L~r.ii Q
COU4~CIL.('iEd ~
COW.dCILdE~.J ~
CUOL.JCIL~ ~.\.J1.~ 3
AraJ.il~uru, Becker I Fanning, Li ttman, Sennett
~Jone
.l.'oJona
It '(-laB LI.lov-.;;d LJY Littuan, seconded by Becker, tllat the r~solution
l.>~ ahlenu.eJ. to include a conui tion that I.\Ti tl1 raspect to the
tenant ;3~lection CO~ili"(li ttee, tllat t~\TO members of th~ expanded
41le:iilber corit:di tte~ lJ~ api)ointed l>y the City Council fror.1 a....long
r(:siu~nts of t~l;; Ci ty of T iburon. ..lotion carried::
AYES:,;
iJOl.: S ;;
ABSL~~'l1 ~
Cu0i\JCILnW~~;
COU~~CIL; J~L\l ~
COUi-JCIL...E~\r ;
Aralllburu, :decker, Fanning, Li ttruan, Sennett
l.;Jone
A:\fOll~
It \~as l!lOV~J by Litt::ltan, s~condc\.1 ~y 3ecker, that the resolution
be a~H-.;nue\l to incl~d~ that u(.:forc the filing of tllC Subdivision
~-.ta~), ther~ ~c on f i Ie iflli th tl!~ City an agree~uent l.>y the I-larin
~iousin9 i_\uthori ty to sell tllO t",/o acres of land previously identified
in the discussion to the City of lJ.liLuron at the previously agree~
price of ~3G,OOO.
Aft~r discussion, at the request of ~Ir. Devitt, the condition vlas
alllenoeu to incluue I \J that the offer in a form agreeable to the
City ~ttorn~y DC for a period of six nlonths aft.ar the Final ;lap
is approvcu 0 i; .dotion carried ~
ilY h5 ~
UOBS;.
i-"i3SLi.srf ;~
Culh-iCIL.~ !~I.;j ?
COUNCI L:- J_L:"~ ~
COU~;JCIL~lLi:~ ~
l\raml.>uru, Becker, Fanning, Li ttman, Sennett
Ilone
aOHC
Upon th.3 reCot,unenuation of th8 Deputy City i-\ttorney g Sennett moved,
s\.~conueti by Becker i to ad~ the folloHing after the third T.JHEREAS ~
.l_AdD 'lJHERGAS the City Council finds that the Tentative ilap is
consistent \li th the City's General Plan, fl ~ lotion carried ~
i:.YL;S;;
HOi::S"
ABS::'~dT ~
COUdCI L.L ~L-J ~
COUdCIL,_~ELJ ~
COUIJCI Li lEiJ ~
~>.rainburu, ilecker, Li ttman, Sennt;tt
Fanning
i-Jone
At the request of the Interin Planning Consultant, it vias moved
by :decker, seconJed 1;.;';/ E,ranlburu, to include as a condition in
the r~solution the iui tiyating weasures as described in the EIR.
~dr. Devi tt stated in his opinion nany of the measures are not
a!Jpropriate as a conai tion to Tentative ) iap approval. l~fter
discussion, Becker vJitil~re\1 his motion, uith the consent of
t-I~raJ.ll;.)uru, and suggested that the staff bring- back to the Council
a list of t.iA~ tilitiyating llleasures. He stated in his opinion it
is not necessary to 11av~ th~l,~ ~in~inS' in th~ fcoriil of a conui tion
to the approval of tlh3 '.fentative ~-iap as HlOst of th~ iileaSu.res arc
procedural in nature.
After furt!l~r ~iscussioll, it .,':faD I\lOV..;.;u :Uy Litti(lan, seconued by
S~nnettv tilat tIle City I";nginc~r L(..; delcgatcu th~ responsiLility
of insuring t!J.at t~l~ mi tiijating in~asures are cOlt1pli~u vli th.
CI'.ry COUACI:W . :IiJUTES 1100 341
;iarch 11, 1974
Page 27
-du~stion '.la~ ca11e~ I anl1 th~ lilotiol1 carried ~
~~YbS :,
~~o~s "
.h:aSL.&.~-'I. ;;
COU.i..fCIL,.;~~:; ~
COUdCI L~.Ed ;
COU.l.~CILi.:~~A ?
Aralr:~vuru, Fanning, Litt-tlan, Sennett
. _. 1
..Jec.t(cr
i~OIl~
1.;r 0 ~.Jat :..~arans urg~J. that t';le Ci ty include a provision to insure
that in the event of a financial failure the proj.:;;:ct .,70uld revert
Lack to ci t~l~r th~ Ci-ty or t~l~ Housing i\uthority 0 The Chair
utated t~~ ~ity will ~e a beneficiary anu ~lill receiv~ copies of
th~ a-:rrceia~nt ri'E~~ iaakes .~;]i t11 tlJ.~ 1i1:1i te~ dividend partner. '\".1~ssrs.
Schaff.ran and. 0evi tt ~xpressed the tlillil1.gness of TE..c" to make the
City th~ beneficiary, as S0t forth in~'~r 0 Lit tnlan II s condition in
the resolution, aHu. fur.t~ler agreed to pursue all efforts in an
attclJpt to obtain an agree:;:d~nt -that t~H~ .:.~1od~rate housing ,\,.]ill
continu.a in perpetuityo
rl'~l~ Cit:i ~J.}'Jineer questiou~d t~.L~ Council's \,:'ishcfJ in regard to
Itei~t 3, tlle left-turn storage lane. .t-\rarnburu read frolll the
Plullnin<j ~olllmission lllinutes tile tilotion by :-{OSS, seconded by Kuhn,
tHat th~ COLwLissiOl1 r~col:,.I!-llen~s that the cost of ItciJ 3 in regard
to l.eft-turn stora'Je lane ue s:nar~d bet\Jeen the School iJistrict,
th~ City anu tile Housing Authority.
After discussion g it v!as iiloved by Lit tHlan, seconded 'i.Jy Becker,
tuat th~ left-turn storag.a lane \-1ill be constructed l,vith TEA to
pay one-half of tl!-.;; costs of the storage lane.
Z~fter (.fu'8stioning- Ly t~le City Bng-ineer, vi th the consent of
Li tL:1an, Sennett re\olor<.1e~ the motion, seconded by Becker, to
include in Iten~ 3 of the resolution, after l<constructed I rw
"payable up to 50 percent by the developer. 'i
.Juestion Vlas call~d and the motion, as anenued, carri~J. ~
AYES~
i-~Ol:;S ~
i-'.BSEl.~T ~
COUiJCILL.\E~J. ~
COUdCILA~L~J ,;
COUHCILdi:;i\J ~
ltramburu, :Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
Ajolle
Hone
llio a question by t~-!L: J~puty Ci ty l\ttorney I the Chair stated it is
the Council's intention that there iJe no left turns after occupancy
of t1J.c project,. but t.i.lat the City Engineer can p~rmit left turns
during constructiono
\JuGstion \'las called on the raotion to adopt Resolution lJo. 609,
and the motion carried~
AYLS~
~~OES ;;
ADS:Gi-/i: ~
COU~~CILj_ _::GlJ ;
couaCIL~ ..-.Ill ~
COU~JCILl. ..Ld ~
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littman, SenBett
l:Jone
Done
,4 0 ITEt.lS iJ-CT OiJ THE ;:.GEHDl...
~llc Chair introduced a resolu tion enti tIed k i.1ESOLUTIOH OF THE
CITY Oi" ~lIBUnOb l~j !.ORli~LIZIHG THE OUTSTl\lJDIIJC CO~1TRIBUTIOIJ AND
LIFL OF JOHH LUC i Ol h:;:L~i~-(/ElJITOR OF THE EBB fJ:li)E. 110tion of Li ttrllan,
seconCied by i:,xaIi.lburu i to adopt iZesol'U.tion Uo. 610, carried;;
~)..yr:;s ~
dOES~
hBSE..'JT ~
COlilJCILl..;Ei\ .;
COU~~.CIL.lL:L :,
COU1JCIL_j:~J ;;
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
done
iJone
IV 0 :aUSINESS OF TIlE COUiJCIL
4 0 COi.n')0~lIi~IUI."~ COi.\iVERSIOL
An ordinance cnti tleu ;..i,} OLDli~ALJC:i: OF 'I'dE CI'i'Y OF TIBUROn l~.lEaDldG
OillJIUl~~CE HO.. 9 11. S. v TIE': ZOI1II~G ORDIl..JAdCE; BY lillGUL1~TING rrI1I:
lWPHOV.PL OF co:r;)O~ ~I1JIUJ.!8 AlJ0 COIJDOLILJIU;_1 COdVr;nSIO!.,1S i CCL'1le on for
introduction and first readingo
CI'I'Y caUl.JeIL l<iliJUTES l\fO 0 341
-,.~arch II, 1974
Page 28
Sennett, as a member of the Lands and Development Committee, stated
he had revie\Jed this ordinance \~ith the Deputy City lJ.ttorney ana
deten~1ined that tho ordinance can only have any validity if it is
read in context \\]i th the Eui lding Code to \'lhich it refers and
\lhich sets the stanuards for condoHlinium approval. He stated the
Building Code requires substantial revision to bring it up to levels
\Jhich can be accepted by the: Planning Cornnission. LIe stated it is
difficult to evaluate the impact of the proposed ordinance \lithout
also having an adopted Housing Elenent, \qhich is presently before
the Planning Commission for considerationa He recommended the
matter be continued until the Code Revisions and the adopted
Housing Blement are before the Council. Littnan agreed the matter
should be continued but disagreed \vith the conditions and sug-
gested consideration be given to removing them.
i-lr. -~lillian Cussens objected to any further delays of the ordinance.
Ara1l.IDUrU qu~st.ioned \J'hether the ordinance could stand alone or
t'lhether it must relate to the nui1ding Code and the Housing Element.
He stat~d if it must be related, he 1V'lould suggest staff reVie"itl tbe
laatter to determine if those provisions could be stricken froIn
the ordinance so it could stand alone.
l.fter further discussion, and there being no objection, the Chair
directed ti1G matter continued to the next regular meeting, with
the staff to report back as requested by l\ramburu.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS l~.ND COf:illNTS
'llhe Chair presented a resolution proposed by :lrs. Susan ~jorris,
chairman of the Reed District Comraittee on the Arts. It was
moved by l~rarnburu, seconded by Sennett, to adopt Resolution No.
611 declaring the month of j,Jarch as Youth Art :.lonth in the City
of Tiburon.
LIDtion of Littman, seconded by Becker, to amend the resolution
to delete the vlord '~youth u, failed ~
AYES~
NOES~
ABSEiJT ~
COUUCIL~ iELJ ::
COUNCIU1SH ~
COUNCIL~ lEU ~
Beckerq Littman
nramDuru, Fanning, Sennett
Hone
Question was called on the motion to adopt Resolution No. 611,
and the motion carried~
l~YES ~
nOES:.
lillSTAIH:;
ABSENT;;
COU~JCIL::EH ~
COUi'JCILllEiJ ~
COUi-JCIL~J3lJ ~
COUNCILI1EN ~
Aramburu, Fanning, Sennett
Becker
LittriLan
!Jone
Ilotion of Fanning, seconded by Littnan, to adopt Resolution No.
612, II rlliCOLUTIOn OF THE CITY OF TIBURON HONORING PILLIAIl S.
Id-"\ILLlillD FOR HIS L;]~NY YEARS OF PUBLIC SERVICE 1'..S A COHGRESSilAH
IN T~J~ SIXTH COHGHESSIOlJAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, carried:
AYES~
NOES ~
ABSEHT~
COUNCIL~~U ;;
COUNeI Ll iEN ~
COUNCIL.:~lJ ~
~Iamburu; Becker, Fanning; Lituaan, Sennett
None
Hone
IVa BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL
6 . HESOLUTIOH ACCEPTING G~~'JT DEED FOR LO:7E:~ I!I~CIENDA DRIVE
It uas raoved by Becker, seconded by Sennett, to adopt nesolution
ilOa 612 Accepting a Deed of Certain Real Property from ~arren
Bostick; et ale
Sennett pointed out that the Council ~iJaS making an exception to
the street policy in accepting a Grant Deed for LO\iler Hacienda by
accepting a road \"lhich is belo,,! standards a He supported the action
on the basis the road is more than a local neighborhood road, and
is in, a hazardous condition.
CITY COUNCIL ~1INUTES NO 0 341
l1arch 11, 1974
Page 29
The City 11anager called the Council's attention to the fact that
$250 was donated to the City by residents for the purchase of
this street.
llro Gary Gray urged the Council adopt the resolution as tile street
is used by school children.
Question was called, and the motion carried~
AYES ~ COUNCIL.IElJ ;;
NOES ~ COUNCILI:EH ~
ABSEHT ~ COUNC ILl1EN ~
Aramburu, Beckeri Fanning, Littman, Sennett
~one
None
5. APPOINTilEHTS TO COI'1HISSIONS l\.lJD BOARDS
The Chair requested the newspapers publish the announcement that
tile City of Tiburon is looking for interested persons to fill the
vacancies on the Board of Adjustments and the Planning Commission.
The City Iianager requested the press indicate interested resi-
dents should send a letter of intent to City Hall.
7 . TARA HILL DRAINAGE
The City rlanager stated this is a status report only to advise
the Council that the City Engineer has conpleted vlans and cost
estimate for a drainage system in the Tara Hill area. This infor-
mation will be sent to the interested property owners, and there-
after be submitted to the Council.
80 PARADISE DRIVE SIDEWALK
It was moved by Littman tllat this matter be continued for con-
sideration by the new Council. Ilr. Gary Gray urged the Council
take immediate action.
There being no objection, the Chair declared the matter continued
to the next Council meeting.
9. JOIHT COLlIlITTEE FOR REVIE~J OF FACILITIES/OPERATIONS
The Council received the City !lanager I s recommendation that a
committee be created composed of representatives from the
Cities of Belvedere and Tiburon and the Reed Union School District
to explore and review the joint facilities program. There being
no objection, the Chair directed that tI1.is conunittee be formed
under the initiative of the City Ilanager.
130 TIBURON GAS SITUATION
The Chair accepted the report 0
VI. QUESTIONS AJ:JD COIII1ENTS
The City 11anager stated former Councilman P~n Ellin'~ood had
requested he read to tile Council a letter she had written to them.
Because of the lateness of the hour, the Chair directed the letter
be reproduced and circulated to the Council members.
VIl EXECUTIVE SESSION
There being no further business, the Chair adjourned the meeting
to Executive Session at 11~30 p.m.
VIII.
ADJOURHIIENT
R.
CITY COUllCIL on~
1974.
12,
At 11~50 p.mo; the Chair adjourned the meeting
1974, at 8~OO p.mo, for the pur~ose of cert"
results and seating the new City Council.
---
..'layor
CITY COUnCIL 1'1INUTES NO. 341
T'larch 11, 1974
Page 30
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF TIBURON
I. CALL TO ORDER
A special meeting of the City Council, City of Tiburong State of
California, \'las called to order by l\:layor Branwell Fanning at
B ~07 porn., I.-larch 12, 1974, in the City Hall Council Chambers.
II. ROLL CALL
PRESENT ~ COUNClLi.~EU~
:,layor Fanning, P-x amburu, Becker, Li t tman ,
Sennett
Hone
Ro Lo Kleinert, City f1anager
Louis F. Brunini, Supt. of Public Works
Hellen K 0 Hecht, ::1inute Clerk
ABSENT ~ COUHCILf'IEN ~
EX OFFICIO~
III. BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL
On behalf of the City of Tiburon, the Chair presented former
Hayor Gordon Stra\'1bridge a Certificate of Appreciation. He also
expressed the City's thanks for I'''lr. Strat'l7bridge' s annual contri-
bution of $100 to tile City of Tiburon's Open Space Acquisition Fund.
The Chair read in its entirety a Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Tiburon expressing appreciation to Frederick G.
Zelinsky for outstanding performance and contribution to the
Tiburon co~~unity. It was moved by Aramburug seconded by Becker,
to adopt Resolution No. 617 expressing appreciation to t~.
Zelinsky. Littman moved to amend the resolution to include
congratulations to Fred and Juanita Zelinsky on 55 happy married
years and wishing them many more 0 Question '{'las called on the
motion as amended, and the motion carried~
AYES:
NOE S :
ABSENT~
COUNCILtIEN ~
COUHCILI '!EN :
COUHCILLiEN:
Aramburug Becker, Fanning, Littman, Sennett
None
None
The Chair acknowledged receipt of a letter of resignation of
Itrs. Phyllis Ellman from the Parks and Recreation Commission.
The Chair stated because the people of Tiburon had elected George
Ellman to the City Council is no reason for Jtrso Ellman to resign
from the P&R Commission. There being no'objection, the Chair
declined to accept the offer of resignation.
The Chair presented I~ssrs. Don Tayer and Eo Bruce Ross with
the City of Tiburon plaques in appreciation for their services
as Planning Commissioners.
CE~:lTIFICATION OF r1]~RCH 5 i 1974 HUNICIPAL ELECTION
The Chair brought copies of minutes he had received over the
last eight years while serving on the City Council of the City
of Tiburon. He revieNed the past history and progress of the City,
and called the Council'~ attentJ..on to a map sho\l1ing the land the
Ci ty nO~\T O'~'lns. He commented on the lO\.J tax rate the City has
been able to rJaintain since incorporation. He stated many of
the goals they had \Jhen they incorporated have been met, but there
is still much more to do, such as the D~Jntown Plan, tile realign-
ment of Blackie's Pasture, paths, lanes and walkways, and the
construction of more tennis courts. He stated as of 11arch 1,
1974, the City uill have $1,,375,047 in the treasury, and he urged
the ne\l Council use it \lisely.
The Chair read portions of nesolution iJo. 616 of the City of
Tiburon Certifying the Results of the l1unicipal Election held
in and by the City of Ti0uron on IIarch 5, 1974, setting forth
tile nurillber of persons voting in the election and the number of
CITY COU1JCIL IlI1JUT~S no. 3 t12
r~arch 12, 1974
Page 1
t
.:~
votes each candidate received, \lith George Ellman, E. Bruce Ross
and Don Tayer being the successful candidates to be elected to
the City Council for a term of four years.
l~tion of Aramburu, seconded by Becker, to adopt Resolution No.
616 carried~
AYES~
HOES ~
ABSENT~
COUl\JCILllEI:J z
COUNCIL~iClJ ;
COUIJCILllEI1 ;
Aramburu, Becker, Fanning, Littoan, Sennett
Hone
None
SEATING OF IJEU CITY COUnCIL
Littman recognized the contributions made by Bran Fanning to
this co~nunity in his eight years of service to the City of
Tiburon. twice as ilayor. He presented a plaque and a gavel to
Fanning in appreciation for his services.
P~arnburu complimented Sennett on his dedicated service to the City,
first as a Planning Commissioner and then as a Councilman and pre-
sented a plaque to him on behalf of the City. Sennett thanked
the citizens for the opportunity of having served on the City
Council.
Aramburu presented Becker '<-'Ii th a plaque on behalf of the Ci ty of
Tiburon and expressed the City's appreciation for his contribu-
tions \olhile servinSJ on the Council.
The Chair recognized the follo\17in<] persons in the audience \'-1ho
have served the Ci ty ~ l1r. Jack Berry~an, an original Planning
Cormnissioner, P&R Co~~issioner Jeff Knight; former Councilman
l~n Ellinwood, former P&R Commissioner Dave Teather, Gordon
Stra'<-1bridge, the first mayor, and fonner :-layor Dennis Rice.
l~t this time the City Clerk presented to :lessrs. Tayer, Ross
and Ellman their Certificates of Election and administered the
oath of office to them.
SELECTION OF EAYOR
The three outgoing Councilmen, Fanning, Becker and Sennett,
vacated their Council seats and the ne\1ly elected Councilmen were
seated.
The City Ilanager assumed the Chair for the purpose of receiving
nominations for the Office of Ilayor of the City of Tiburon.
It ~tas moved by TIoss 1 seconded by Tayer 1 to nominate Al
Aramburu as Hayor 0
From the floor Ur. Zelinsky nominated Littman as r1~yor. Littman
declined to accept the nomination.
There being no further nominations; the Chair closed the nomina-
tions and proclaimed Al Aramburu as the elected 11ayor by acclama-
tion.
Aramburu assumed the Chair. He expressed appreciation to his
wife for her support and stated he is looking fonvard to con-
tinuing the work to be done in the City of Tiburon.
The Chair appointed Litt~an and Ellman to the Lands and Develop-
ment Committee; and ~oss and Tayer to the Public Services Com-
mittee, with Ross to serve as chairman.
The Chair opened nominations for Vice I1ayor.
Ellman nominated Tayer, seconded by Littman.
CITY COUNCIL r:INUTES NO. 342
l1arch 12, 1974
Page 2
Ross nominated Ellman, seconded by Littmano
Tayer withdrew his name from the nominations for Vice liayor.
There being no fureler nominations~ the Chair closed the nomina-
tions and appointed George Ellman as Vice Ilayor by acclamation.
BUSINESS
Tayer expressed the appreciatio~ of the Councilmen to their wives,
and recognized in the audience the wives of the outgoing Council-
men, IIesdames Fanning, Becker and Sennett.
IV . ADJOURNUENT
There being no fur~~er business to come before
Chair adjourned the meeting at 8~52 p.m., sine
the
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIIJ on =
~rCh 2S:h , ' 1974.
~~t".t~a~
11l'~YOn
CITY COUNCIL r1INUTES NO 0 342
Ilarch 12; 1974
Page 3
c.. Oyre..c. +-<24
CITY COUHCIL
CITY OF TIBURON
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Council, City of Tiburon, state of
California, was called to order by Mayor Albert Aramburu at 7:41 p.m.,
March 25, 1974, in the City Hall Council Chambers.
II. RJ::L CALL
PRESENT: COUNCIL~mN:
ABSENT: COUNCI~mN:
EX OFFICIO:
Hayor Aramburu, Ellman, Littman, Ross, Tayer
None
R. L. Kleinert, City Manager
Robert I. Conn, City Attorney
Stanley Bala, City Engineer
Phil V. Scott, Development Administrator
William Liskamm, Interim Planning Consultant
Louis F. Brunini, Supt. of Public Works
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
N.J. 341
The Chair continued approval of Minutes No. 341
NO. 342
On motion of Ellman, seconded By Ross, Minutes No. 342 of March 12,
1974, were approved~ All Ayes.
IV. BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL
CONSENT CALENDAR
In regard to Item 13, Award of Contract for Slide Repair at 2032
Paradise Drive, the Superintendent of Public Works requested con-
sideration be given to awarding th0 contract to the second bidder as the
difference between the first and G',:-:.:~ond bid was only $57. He stated
the reason for his request is that the first bidder has been extremely
slow in doing work for the City in the past..
After discussion, it was the sense of the Council to award the bid to
the first contractor with the understanding that the City Engineer
will advise him of Council's concern with his past performance
and if the work is not completed in the 30-day time limit, he will
not be awarded any future contracts with the City of Tiburon.
The City Engineer advised they have received the necessary easements
from the property owners on whose land the work will be performed.
Mr. Taylor, one of the property owners involved, expressed his dissatis-
faction with the work being done beyond the April 2nd date which he
had been advised was the final deadline. The City Engineer explained
they had been informed by the State and Federal Government that all
jobs 'must be completed by April 2nd, but the Federal Government subse-
quently delayed the funding and therefore an extension had been
requested. Mr. Taylor stated he would not withdraw his easement he
granted to ti1e City, but he did want to register his protest over
the extension in time granted for the completion of the project.
It was moved by Littman, seconded by Ellman, to adopt the Consent
Calendar consisting of the following items:
13. AWARD OF CONTRACT (Slide repair near 2032 Paradise Drive)
14. UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES AT OLD ST. HILARY'S
15. POLICE REPORT - February
16. CASH FLOW - February
Motion carried unanimously: All Ayes.
CIT7 COUNCIL I"lINUTES NO. 343
Uarch 25, 1974
Page 1
1. AlJIENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE
Action: Ord. passed 1st reading
An ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIBURON }U.mNDING
ORDINANCE NO.9 N.S., THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY ADDING SECTION 10-3.1,
PROVIDING FOR THE R-P (PLANNED SINGLE FM1ILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE,
came on for introduction and first reading.
On motion of Littman, seconded by Ellman, and there being no objec-
tion, full reading of the ordinance was waived and the ordinance was
read by title only.
It was moved by Littman, seconded by Ross, that the ordinance be
deemed to have passed first reading.
The Chair declared the public hearing opened.
There being no public comment, question was called, and the motion
carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT::
COUNCILHEN:
COUNCILNEN;
COUNCILf1EN::
Aramburu, Ellman, Littman, Ross, Tayer
None
None
2. M1ENDlmNT TO ZONING ORDIr_ili'lCE
Action: Ord. passed 1st reading
An ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIBURON REZONING
CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOvffi AS MOUNT TIBURON SUBDIVISON UNI~S 3 AND 4
FROlvl RPD-I TO THE RP (PLAJ."'JNED SINGLE FAHILY RESIDENTIAL)'. ZONE,
came on for introduction and first reading.
The Development Administrator explained this ordinance applies to
the property which brought about the reinstitution of the RP Zone for
which the ordinance in Item I was adopted, and this places the
property in that zone. He stated the conditions that will apply
to this zoning are the conditions that existed on the previous
approval of the RP zone.
The Chair declared the public hearing opened.
On motion of Littman, seconded by Tayer, qnd there being no objec-
tion, reading of the full ordinance was waived and the ordinance
was read by title only.
It was moved by Littman, seconded by Ross, that the ordinance be
deemed to have passed first reading.
In response to a question by Tayer, the City Attorney stated
the two ordinances can be adopted concurrently as if the first
ordinance in Item I does not pass second reading, then this ordi-
nance will not be considered for second reading.
Question was called, and the motion carried::
AYES ::
NOES:
ABSENT::
COUNCIUv1EN:
COUNCILI:-ffiN ::
COUNCILI-lEN ::
Aramburu, Ellman, Littman, Ross, Tayer
None
None
3. CIRCULATION ELE~mNT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Action: Cont'd to April 8
The City Manager presented to the Council the Circulation Element
to the General Plan, as adopted by the Planning Commission on Uarch 1,
1974.
Mr. Liskamm reviewed the plan with tl1e Council and stated it has
been a joint effort of the Planning Commission and the Parks and
Recreation Commission, with input from the City Engineer. He
stated public safety people and police and fire district officials
have made recommendations which have been incorporated in the plan.
CITY COUNCIL HlNUTES NO. 343
!-larch 25, 1974
Page 2
He stated the suggestion in his Agenda Bill of this date that
Tiburon Boulevard be planned to accommodate racing, touring and
commuting bicyclists safely as well as motor vehicles, came from
a citizens group too late to go through the whole planning pro-
cess but he concurs with the suggestion and recommends this be
incorporated into the report. ~lr. Gary Gray, chairman of the
Parks and Recreation Cormnission, supported the suggestion and
stated this was their reGOlnm8ndation which is covered in the
report under the Parks and Re~reation Trails section.
In response to a question by Littman, Hr. Gray stated the bicyclists
who ride at a very fast p~ce are dangerous on a recreational bicycle
path and that is tl1e rcaS8n for their suggestion that provision
be made for them to ride on Tiburon Bou_'.evard. He stated they are
merely recomme~ding a five-foot shoulder along Tiburon Boulevard,
to be marked for cyclists.
In response to a question by Ross about the status of Esperanza
Lane, P&R Chairman Gray stated ~ committee had met this afternoon
with a group of interested citizens in ti1at area, and at that
meeting ~rrs. Dal Bon was the only one to oppose a path in that
vicinity. He stated P&R does recommend a path be constructed at
the earliest po~sible date. Ellman statGd this would not affect
the Circulation Element, and suggested the City Manager research
this matter further and bri.ng it back to the Council.
Tayer urged thc:t the report include the expressed sentiment of
the Planning Commj.ssion that although there shouldn't be auto-
mobile connectors between the various neighborhoods, it is their
intention to have paths between the neighborhoods available for
both bicyclists and pedestrians. He questioned the wording in
Section 0.8, uExce!;>t only those ra:te occasions where the City
finds an overbearing need for a trail through a given area. . .ft
Ross suggested deleting the '~ord uoverbearing, II and sUbstituting,
"If the City finds a community n2~d for a path through an area.tr
Referring to Section 0.3 on page 12 of the report, Tayer expressed
concern wi th the c?c~grc8 to ~lh.ich some uses have been made of the path
which are not complet:ely cO!L1p:t.ible, cU1d urged the Council give
consideration to the l.;vdY~1 in w.llich i:he path could be expanded,
the kinds of cOlltro1s to ~:).;; put on it and the kinds of signing
that may be needed.
Li ttman objected ~::J thE-~ r!..:port as bci.ng too lengthy and having
too much detail. lIe rc.~cl:.t'r-:d to Sc~~tion 2.0, Background, ~lherein
it says, liThe City revised its zoning and land-use plans," and
stated this document cannot r(~vise a zoning plan as that is a
separate part of the Genernl Plan. He reco~~ended deleting that
sentence.
Littman further questioned No.2 under Section 3.0, Policies Dn
Circulation and questioned whether it is really desirable not to
have any over-the-ridge crossing routes, and he stated in his
opinion you could have transverse roads while still preserving
the ridges.
Mr. Liskamm stated the Planning Commission felt that Tiburon
BOUlevard, Paradise Drive and Trestle Glen should be the primary
circulation system for vehicular traffic, and access to neighbor-
hoods be primarily from those roads.
Littman further questioned the practicality of No.8, the
uunpaved emergency 'back-road' circulation system." The City
Engineer spoke to thi~~ and stated he would reconunend some of
these roads that are very steep in nature be paved, as the
road going up Ronnd Hi.ll. He sta.ced -this back-road system is
necessary in the even~ the main roads are closed.
CITY CG;Jl\YC:LL HINUTES NO. 343
March 25, 1974
Page 3
Littman stated once a road is improved sufficiently so that it can
be used by emergency vehicles, it will be impossible to keep bicycles
and motorcycles off of ito He questioned the wisdom of the City's
building roads to keep the public from using them, and stated the
main consideration should not be building an emergency road but
to how wide the road is and for what speeds it is being built. A
real emergency road requires a surface that permits the best
movement over the road at the fastest time possible.
Referring to No. 11, Littman qv~stioned how the City could require
narrow streets to be const=uctc~ and ask the de'reloper to pay for
them.
Mr. Liskamm, responding to Litb~an's concerns, stated the report
was written as a result of many public hearings and is what the
public has requested.
The Chair stated these concerns will be recorded in the minutes
and addressed by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the
Planning Commission, and then reviewed by the Council.
Referring to Section 4.32 on page 8, Littman suggested Porto
Marino Drive is a better solution to the traffic problem than making
major improvements to Hacienda Drive. The City Engineer stated
the wording in Section 4032b. was incorrect as Tiburon has no
defined "City standards," but since Hacienda Drive already exists
he recommended it be brought up to a safe standard. In regard
to Porto Marino, he stated a condition could be made to the approval
of the proposed devolopment plans that Porto Marino must be
extended to Trestle Glen. He agreed Hacienda will never be a very
good road because of its vertical and horizontal alignments but
it could be brought up to acceptable City standards.
Referring to page 16, Littman questioned whether listing eight
rights-of-way wasn1t putting in too much and being too detailed,
and he recommended deleting this section entirely.
Littman stated he understood the presentation of 4.5 Public
Transportation, on page 2l,b~t he felt it could be redrafted to
better illustrate the point.
Ross and Ellman stated they were reserving comments on the report
until they had an opportunity to study ;t further.
The City Attorney advised if any changes, amendments or additions
are made to an element of the General Plan, it must be referred
back to the Planning COlnmission. He stated this element will
also require an EIR.
Ross suggested that Mr. Liskamm go into the various philosophies
of circulation, a network system, a cul-de-sac system, a loop-
road system or a central spine system down the ridge and make a
presentation to the Council of the alternatives considered by
the Planning Commission and explain why they chose the plan
before the Council this evening.
Mr. John Hoffmire, speaking for the Little Reed Heights and
Tiburon Knolls property Owners Association, stated they support
the extension of Porto Marino Drive to Trestle Glen.
Tayer stated the report contains nothing about the question of
circulation across Tiburon Boulevard from the various areas to
the waterfront. Further, he stated some of the recommendations
of the Planning Commission overlap with those of the P&R Commis-
sion and the report therefore contains some redundancies
which should be corrected.
Aramburu stated the information on page 5 in regard to the status
of Tiburon Boulevard is i.naccu~ate as the Department of Transpor-
tation has not officially ~dopted a realignment plan.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 343
March 25, 1974
Page 4
Littman stated for the minutes if Tiburon Boulevard is going to be
kept to a two-lane highway and if the traffic from the neighborhoods
is all going to be fed into Tiburon Boulevard thereby adding to its
congestion, and if the automobile is going to be given the lowest
priority, an almost impossible bottleneck situation will result.
The City Engineer stated they are currently working on the realign-
ment of Tiburon Boulevard and are in the process of scheduling
public meetings for discussion on the realignment question.
The Chair directed this matter continued to the next meeting,
at which time Councilmen should present their recommendations for
revision to the Elemente He stated the Public Services committee
will be asked to make their recommendations on whether or not the
matter will have to be sent back to the Planning Commission.
4. SCENIC HIGHWAYS
Mr. Liskamm recommended the City adopt the Scenic Parkways
recommendations of the adopted Open Space Element as its Scenic
Highway Element, as outlined in his agenda bill of this date.
Referring to the text of the Element wherein it is recommended
bicycles be removed to a separate path along Paradise Drive, he
stated the Planning Commission agreed bicycles were not to have
a separate path so that sentence in paragraph 3 should be deleted
and the paragraph should end with the word "length."
Mr. Gray questioned the need for adopting this element as it might
involve the Federal Government's establishing controls. Mr.
Liskamm responded this merely identifies the areas the City
wishes to designate as scenic highways and the City will set
its own standards for the roadso The only time the State or
Federal Government imposes standards is if public funds were
requested for improvements~
After discussion, the Chair directed this matter remanded to the
Public Services Committee to report back to the Council with
their recommendations on whether or not the City should adopt
a Scenic Highway Element.
RECESS
A recess was taken at 9:25 p.mo, the Council reconvening at
9:37 porno, the roll standing as originally taken.
5. CONDO~1INIUM CONVERSION
An ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIBURON AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO.9 N.S., THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REGULATING THE
APPROVAL OF CONDOMINIUMS AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS, having been
continued from March 11th, came on for first reading.
The Chair recommended for the most expeditious action the Council
consider as its first action an ordinance lifting the moratorium
on condominium conversions; and by the time the ordinance goes into
effect, which would be in May, the Council will have had the oppor-
tunity to adopt an ordinance regulating condominium conversions.
In response to a question by the Chair, the Development Administrator
stated the Chair's proposed schedule could be met and the ordinance
could be adopted by the time the moratorium is lifted in May.
Mrs. Tracy Samuels,Messrs. Ed Claginell, Jeffrey Moreshead,
William Cussen and John Hoffmire expressed their interest in
condominium conversions and urged the moratorium be Ii fted as
soon as possible.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 343
March 25, 1974
Page 5
Littman suggested with respect to the standards to be incorporated
in the condominium ordinance in regard to noise, etc., that the
staff furnish the Building Code standards to the Lands and Develop-
ment Committee at the earliest possible date, and that the com-
mittee then schedule a meeting at which the public would be
invited to discuss the3e standards. The Chair directed staff
furnish the committee with copies of the 1973 edition of the
Uniform Building Code and the State Housing Code.
Littman stated they \"loulQ :-:it':dy -f:h9 ordinance to determine whether
or not the Housing Element should go along with it. Ross reminded
the Council the Plan:aing CCil':--aission and the previous Council has
gone on record as saying they ware not going to regulatG conversions
by trying to balance the housing need.
The Chair suggested Ross b8 included in the Lands and Development
Committee's deliberations on revisions to the ordinance.
After -further discussion, the Chair directed the matter continued
to the next meeting, at which time staff is to prepare an ordinance
removing the moratorium an condominium conversions and the Lands
and Development Committee are to present a report on recommenda-
tions for revisions to the condominium conversion ordinance.
CITY COUNCIL UNFINISHED BUSINESS
In response to a question by the Chair, the City Manager stated
the Marin County Planning Commission heard the plan for rezoning
the unincorporated lands on the Tiburon Peninsula today but he
had no information on the deliberations.
Littman suggested the Chair appoint the committee previously
proposed to recommend zoning for the unincorporated areas of
Tiburon, and he suggested Ramp Harvey be asked to chair the
committee because of his fine work on Ring MOl~ntain rezoning.
He suggested that every effo~t be made to get the names of people
who are outside the City ~1ho reside on these lands for inclusion
on the committee.
1 7 . NUISANCE PROBLEM
The City Manager reporteG on the nuisance problem at 23-25 Main
Street and stated a petitic~ has heen received recommending
certain action they feel should be taken to correct the nuisance.
He presented to the Council the reco~endations of the County
Health Officer and the Police Department in regard to the problem.
Mr. Ted Burgess spoke to the problem and urged the City take
immediate action for its correction.
After discussion, it was moved by Littman, seconded by Ross, that
the City Manager direct letters to the two property owners with
the following suggested language:
"The existing conditions on your property as
described below have been brought to the attention
of the City Council and we believe they constitute
a serious problem which may be a nuisance.
"Unless we have satisfactory assurances from you
that appropriate steps will be taken to clear up the
matter within two weeks~ we shall set the matter for
a nuisance abatement proceedings."
Question was called, and the motion carried:
AYES:
NOE S :
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILr1EN~
Ar0mburu, Ellman, Littman, Ross, Tayer
None
None
CITY COUNCIL !-1INUTES NO. 343
March 25, 1974
Page 6
Tayer suggested action be taken on the recommendations of the Chief
of Police in regard to the nuisance. The Chair directed this matter
to the Public Services Committee for recommendations as to which
suggestions of the Chief of Police the Council may wish to adopt.
6. APPOINT~mNTS TO CO~4ISSIONS, BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
There being no objection, the Chair appointed Mr. Bill Lukens
from the Board of Adjustments and Mr. Hal Edelstein from the Board
of Design Review to the Planning Commission, to fill the appoint-
ments of Tayer and Ross which expire in 1976.
DI c-I(
The City Manager advised Mr. ~ McConnell has resigned from the
Parks and Recreation Commission, leaving two vacancies there.
The Chair directed staff to schedule interviews during the next two
weeks for persons interested in serving on the P&R Commission,
the Board of Design Review and the Board of Adjustments.
After discussion, it was the sense of the Council that the names
of interested persons should not be published but are available
at City Hall.
The Chair appointed GeQgeEllman to the City-County Planning
Council.
On motion of Tayer, seconded by Ellman, Ross was elected to be
the representative to the Association of Bay Area Governments.
The City Manager agreed to furnish further information on the Redwood
Empire Division of California before an appointment is made to
that body.
7. TARA HILL DRAINAGE PLANS AND COST ESTIMATES
The City Manager presented the proposed construction plans and
cost estimates as prepared by the City Engineer for the Tara Hill
drainage plans.
It was moved by Littman, seconded by Ross, that the City Engineer
be instructed to ask for bids on the project and that the cost be
allocated in the proportion indicated in h~s estimate.
On the recommendation of the City Engineer, Littman amended his
motion, with the consent of Ross, that instead of the cost being
allocated, if it were increased proportionately, it should be
in accordance with the items as indicated in the City Engineer's
estimate.
Question was called on the motion as amended, and the motion carried:
AYE S :
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILf.1EN:
COUNC ILI"IEN :
COUNCILMEN:
Aramburu, Ellman, Littman, Ross, Tayer
None
None
8. STATUS REPORT OF CURRENT CITY ACTIVITIES AND PROJECTS
The Chair presented the Status Report as requested by the Chair.
Tayer suggested the report include the matter of representation with
the other institutions in the county for items of mutual interest.
He referred specifically to the high school district's deliberations
on plans for the school proper-ty located on the Tiburon Peninsula
and stated a representative from the City of Tiburon should be on
that committee. The City Manager reported the Council had directed
a committee be created composed of representatives from the Cities
of Tiburon and Belvedere and the Reed Union School District to
explore and review the joint facilities program and the City of
Belvedere is considering this matter this evening. Littman suggested
CITY COUNCIL r,1INUTES NO. 343
March 25, 1974
Page 7
the committee be expanded to include areas along Paradise Drive,
such as the NET Depot.
The Chair appointed Tayer to the committee, which should be expanded
to include the Tamalpais High School District.
In response to a request from fir. Gray that a P&R Commissioner
be included on the committee, the Chair, on the suggestion of
Tayer and Littman, stated when matters directly concern the
P&R Commission they will be invited to participate.
Ross spoke against the proposed committee, .stating this type of thing
leads a City toward City government by cOlnmittee rather than City-
Manager type of go".:-ernm8nt. The City Manager spoke in favor of the
formation of this committe8 with the understanding that he would
be a member, and that complete reports would be furnished the Council
on their activities.
In response to a suggestion by Littman about issuing a calendar
of reports, the Chair stated he and the City Manager have been
discussing this and one will be forthcoming.
To a suggestion by Ross about revisions to the committee system,
the Chair suggested this be agendized at his pleasure with specific
recommendations in terms of the constitution of the committees, rota-
tion, et cetera.
The Chair requested councilmen add to the Status Report of Current
City Activities and Projects, to be brought back at the next meeting.
9. PARADISE DRIVE SIDEWALK/WALKvlAY
The Chair stated this item has been budgeted but he would recommend
no action be taken on the Paradise Drive Walkway Project at this time
and that it be reviewed at the time of budget hearings to determine
what priority it should be given.
After discussion, the Chair direc~ed the City Engineer to prepare
for the Council updated constructIon figures and an estimate of
cost of engineering for the Paradise Drive Walkway so that the
matter can be discussed at the time of theol974-75 budget hearings.
10. PG&E UNDERGROUNDING ALONG MULTI-PURPOSE PATH
The Chair stated this was the continued matter of the undergrounding
performed by PG&E on which a stop-work order has been issued several
weeks ago, and during this interim period there have been meetings
with PG&E and the Parks and Recreation Commission and members
from the College of Marin concerning archeological findings in
the area of their trench.
The City Manager read to the Council a memo from the P&R Commission
containing their recommendations regarding the undergrounding.
Mr. Gray spoke to the recommendations.
Mr. John Pryor, a student archeologist from Redwood High School,
reported on the archeological findings and requested they be
allowed to explore this area further, with all artifacts found
to be donated to the City of Tiburon for a possible future museum.
Mr. Conrad of PG&E stated they would have no objection to working
with archeologists.
Mr. Conrad explained the purpose for their undergrounding in this
area, being to provide another line into Tiburon for service
continuity and for load growth. In response to a qustion by
Tayer, he stated the new line would not replace any present lines
but would be in addition to the pLesent oneso He stated the conduit
is a six-inch conduit and would not be able to carry the lines that
are presently overhead.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 343
March 25, 1974
Page 8
Littman inquired about the possibility of widening the trench and
undergrounding the wires presently overhead, using Rule 20 moneys.
Mr. Conrad stated there would be no use for them to go underground
unless the telephone company also went underground but they would
be willing to explore this possibility.
The Chair directed this matter continued to the next meeting,
with Ellman and Littman to meet with Mr. Conrad and explore the
feasibility of undergrounding. Lr. John Hoffmire volunteered to
also serve on the committee.
11. REGULATION OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
An ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIBURON AMENDING
THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER l3B, REGULATING
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, came on for introduction and
first reading.
On motion of Ross, seconded by Ellman, with Littman abstaining,
full reading of the ordinance was waived and the ordinance was
read by title only.
Motion of Ross, seconded by Tayer, that the ordinance be deemed
to have passed first reading, carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT~ COUNCILMEN:
Aramburu, Ellman, Ross, Tayer
None
Littman
None
12. REGULATING THE EXCAVATION OF INDIAN MIDDENS
An ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIBURON ADDING
CHAPTER l3B TO TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE, REGULATING THE EXCAVATION
OF INDIAN MIDDENS, came on for introduction and first reading.
On motion of Tayer, seconded by Ellman, and there being no objection,
full reading of the ordinance wa:; waived and the ordinance was read
by title onlyo
It was moved by Ross, seconded by Tayer, that the ordinance be deemed
to have passed first reading.
Mrs. Wrays and John Pryor, archeological students, urged the ordinance
be adopted.
In response to a question by Littman, Mrs. Wrays stated there is a
map on file with the County showing all the locations of Indian
middens on the Tiburon Peninsula. She stated she would be happy
to furnish it to the Council. Littman suggested the map be
attached to the ordinance. Mrs. Wrays responded they would prefer
not making the map a public document as it may encourage unauthorized
diggings.
The Chair suggested the map be on file with the City; and before
excavation permits are issued, staff check the map to determine if
there is a midden site on the property to be excavated.
After discussion by the Council on Section l3B-8, Tayer recommended
the criminal aspect of the ordinance be eliminated.
Mr. Gray recommended the committee review the ordinance with
representatives of the Archeological Society to determine their
interests.
Ross withdrew his motion, with the consent of Tayer, and the Chair
remanded the matter to the Lands and Development Committee.
CITY COUNCIIJ MINUTES NO. 343
March 25, 1974
Page 9
18. CLAIMS REGISTER NO. 116
On motion of Littman, seconded by Ross, Claims Register No. 116 was
adopted:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILrwffiN:
COUNCILLVlEN:
COUNCILMEN:
Aramburu, Ellman, Littman, Ross, Tayer
None
None
COMMUNICATIONS
At the request of Littman, the City Manager agreed to furnish a
report to the Council on the letter from the Harbor Carriers.
Littman suggested the Council explore the economic feasibility
of building its own City Hall versus renting. The City Manager
was requested to explore this matter further and furnish a report
to the Council.
In response to a question by Ross, Mr. Gray stated the P&R Commission
has recommended the City donate $375 to sponsor three Little
League teams.
Ellman requested the City appoint a representative to the Bicentennial
celebration committee for Marin County. The Chair agreed to contact
Mrs. Phyllis Ellman about serving on the committee.
VI. EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 12:35 ~.m. , the Chair adjourned the meeting to Executive Session.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
At
1:10 a.m.
the Chair
'Clerk
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON:
, 1974.
~..".....".~. -
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 343
I~arch 25, 1974
Page 10
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF TIBURON
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Council, City of Tiburon, State of
California, va. called to order by Mayor Albert Aramburu at:
7:53 p.m., April 8, 1974, in the City Hall Council Chamber..
II. RCLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Mayor Aramburu, Ross, Tayer, .
Littman (8:06)
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Elman
EX OFFICIO: R. L. Kleinert, City Manager .
Richard H. Breiner, Deputy City Attorney
Stanley Bala, City Engineer
Phil Scott, Development Administrator
Louis F. Brunini, Supt of Public Works
Hellen K. Hecht, Minute Clerk
William Liskamm, Interim Planning Consultant
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
NO. 343
It was moved by '1'ayer, seconded by Littman, to adopt Minutes No.
343 of March 25, 1974.
The Chair corrected page 7, paragraph 3, line 1, to read,
a~ McConnell. ·
There being no further corrections, Minutes No. 343 were approved
as corrected: All Ayes.
No. 341
It was moved by Littman, seconded by Ross, to adopt Minutes No. 341
of March 11, 1974.
Upon being advised by the Minute Clerk that the written minutes
correctly reflect what was recorded in the stenotype notes, the
Council accepted the written list of Mr. Wenig's corrections
to Minutes No. 341 in his letter of April 4, 1974, as being his
version of what was said.
The City Manager presented a correction made by Mayor Fanning
to page _it paragraph 9, line 2, to read: "... to forget
the $36,000 . . . way to get access to that piece of property."
The Council accepted the correction to the minutes.
The Chair submitted a list of written corrections to the minutes
correcting spellings of names in the minutes.
Question was called, and the minutes were adopted as corrected:
All Ayes.
The Development Administrator stated Resolution 609 approving
the t.entative map of the Hilarita Project as prepared by the
City Attorney states in Item 3 that the developer is to pay
one-half of the costs of construction whereas the minutes
reflect the developer was to pay ~ t.o SO percent. After discussion,
it. was the sense of the Council tliat their intent was that the
developer pay up to 50 percent, and staff was directed to amend
the resolution in accordance therewith.
Littman referred to the lett.er from the City Attorney in regard to
the dedication of the property by the Tiburon Ecumenical Associa-
tion for use as low and moderate income. After discussion, the
CITY COUCNIL MINUTES NO. 344
April 8, 1974
Page 1
Chair directed the Deputy City Attorney to write the attorney for
the Tiburon Ecumenical Association pointing out that the agreement
should require 80 percent devotion to such use rather than 60 per-
cent, as set out in the agreement they prepared.
As requested by Littman, th2 Deputy City Attorney was further
directed to include in the agreem~nt an assurance that two of the
eight members of the eelectic~ con~ittee shall be appointed by the
City Council.
IV. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
The Chair welcomed msm:t.,~rs of: Eoy S~G'..l'c. Troop No. 80 and their
leader, Mr. Allan Thompsor~, tlr..d CGun.cilmon and staff responded
to questions rosed by the Scouto on City Government and future
plans for the City.
v. BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Littman, seconded by Ross, the Consent Calendar consist-
inq of Item 1, TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT MONIES FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1974/75, was adopted:
AYES:
ABSENT:
NOES:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
Aramburu, Littman, Ross, Tayer
Ellman
None
11. LANDS & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - INDIAN MIDDENS
Chairman Gary Gray of the Parks and Recreation Commission stated
the Association of Archeologists of Marin had requested this
matter be continued in oreer that they may submit a report to
the Council on this m,:~:tt:(';~. Thero being no objection, the Chair
directed the matter can.til:~:;'Gd to April 22.
6. CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF 'l1:~r3 G:.:;I~E_~'.'J.L PLAN
9. PUBLIC SERVICES COJYT.2~r:ri':E'::; r.E.:;:r::-t:'..~ O~I SCENIC HIGHWAYS ELEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
There being no obj~::ction, t.he Ch(_~oir directed these matters con-
t1' d to A 'I 2'J:....., '.., r.'.~' -"'.YO 4-h~-I- t. i..,.~ '0"'"""..1 h1'red D1'rector of
nue, pr1 ~''''L.. J..':'.. ...._.~~;::.. .... .I.~... ........ J.J.;;.~v y
Commun1 ty Develorm.enc reay L~ p!.~(~c.c-:::~t: .l~o speak to the matters.
The Chair sta~d if Council have comments on these matters, they
should submit them to the new Planning Director.
10. LANDS AND DEVELOp~mNT COMMITTEE REPORT ON PG&E UNDERGROUNDING
At the request of Littman, and there being no objection, the Chair
directed the matter continued to April 22nd to give Littman the 0
opportunity to contact Mr. Conrad of PG&E on this matter.
ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Mr. Brewster Morris, co-chairman of the Committee for Downtown
Review, spoke to the natter of the Environmental Impact Report on
the Sequoia Pacific proposal for d9~mtown Tiburon and urged the
Council hold workshop sessions for additional citizen input and
the development of pcssible al.cernative plans, and that in particular
consideration be given to the acquisition of the property by
Tiburon and Belvedere for p03sible development.
The Chair publicly ex~resscd his tha~ks to Mr. Dave Dawson, vice
president of the Sequ0ia Pacific, for the extra 20 copies of the
EIR he sent fres of c~1argn to the City, in addition to the originally
contributed 23 copic~.
CT.'~:~':: CG;_;~::III r-lIKUTZS r~o. 344
April 8, 1974
Page 2
The Chair set a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission
and the City Council for May 28th to hear the EIR on the downtown
plan. In response to a question by Mr. Chapman, the Chair stated
the reason for the meeting is to secure the maximum input from
the public and it is not his intention to take action at this
meeting. He stated there will be at least two or three more
public hearings on this matter.
Littman pointed out t,.,o omissions in the EIR, one being that figur-
ing the costs to the City of providing the parking facilities for
the present needL of the merchants and customers the report
doesn't include any revenue from the parking; and, secondly, in
calculating the cost to the City of purchasing a City Hall there
is no indication of the saving of rent by building the City Hall.
The Chair noted the comments in the record as being the first
official comments related to the EIR, and requested the press
publicize this as being the start of the 30-day period in which
comments from the public will be received by the Director of
Community Development at City Hall.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION ORDINANCE
An ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIBURON
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9 N.S., THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REGULATING
THE APPROVAL OF CONDOMINIUMS AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS,
having been continued from March 11, came on for first reading.
The Chair stated he had discussed this matter with the new
Director of Community Development, to be hired as of April 15th,
and with the Deputy City Attorney, the City Manager and the
chairman of the Planning Commission. He presented to the Council
a time schedule they had prepared showing how a condominium-con-
version ordinance and the ordinance repealing the moratorium could
be in effect by June 13th, with second reading of both ordinances
to be held on May 13th.
The Chair declared the public hearing open.
Littman stated the Lands and Development Committee had redrafted
the ordinance and submitted it to the City Attorney for compari-
son with his original draft. He presented to the Council their
proposed revisions. The Deputy City Attorney reviewed the
changes.
Messrs. Mark Kaplan and Joe Bacheller spoke to the ordinance and
questioned the diffe~:ences between an apartment and a condominium
in terms of the impact on the environment.
After extensive discussion, the Chair stated it is the sense of
the Council that the ordinance should include the following
provisions: (l) the seller shall certify that the equipment
to be owned in common shall be in good operable condition;
(2) the notice-to-renters provision should be included;
(3) a provision setting forth that deviations from the UBC
shall be identified to new buyers should be included.
In regard to the provision requiring that a use permit be
obtained before the filing of the subdivision map for condominium
conversion, it was the sense of the Council that this was proper
and should be included in the ordinance.
After discussion, it was the sense of the Council that any comdomium
conversion must conform to the Housing Element, which should be
adopted before the second reading of this ordinance.
CITY COUCNIL M~NUTES NO. 344
April 8, 1974
Page 3
It was the sense of the Council to include Section F-l, liThe
Commission finds that the application conforms to the Tiburon
General Plan."
There was discussion on Ite~F-4 and F-7, with Littman feeling
that people who rent apartments and Owners of single-family
dwellings have as much right to protection as condominium owners,
whereas these sections seem to give ~reater protection to condom-
iurn owners.
Planning Commissioner Bassett stated the two main concerns for
protecting the condominium owner had to do with sound proofing
and fire protection.
The Chair remanded the ordinance back to the Planning Commission,
as redrafted by the City Attorney in accordance with the discussioq
this evening, to be returned to the Council on April 22nd for -
first reading. The Chair appointed Ross to serve as liaison to the
Planning Commission on this matter.
The Chair stated the section on the Use Permit will also be
remanded to the Planning Commission for its review.
RECESS
A recess was taken at 10:02 p.m., the Council reconvening at
10:15 p.m., the roll standing as originally taken.
5. HEARING ON APPEAL FROM DECISION OF
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS GRANTING A VARIANCE
AT 30 REDDING COURT, L. TOKERUD, ET AL, APPELLANTS
The Development Administrator presented the above appeal with
the facts as set forth in the agenda bill of this date. He
stated the appeal was made on the grounds that none of the
findings pursuant to Section 17 of the Zoning Ordinance were
in evidence to grant the variance.
Mr. Paden Prichard, architect, spoke to the appeal and presented
construction drawings to the Council dated April 21, 1974, which
were marked Exhibits 1 and 2 for identification.
Mr. Edward Howell, representing the appellants, presented to
the Council a letter from Mr. L. Tokerud dated April 5, 1974,
setting forth reasons for the appeal. Mr. Howell spoke against
the variance in that it destroys the intent of the ordinance,
which is to preserve the character of Tiburon.
Mr. Prichard spoke in support of the variance as not being
inconsistent with variances granted in the area.
Mr. Revens, speaking for himself and for Mr. Ludkey, stated they
do not oppose the variance and his view is more directly affected
than Mr. Howell's.
Mr. Howell gave the Council copies of a Deposit Receipt Purchase
of Real Property dated February 2, 1974, and stated in his
opinion the proposed house will violate the conditions set
forth in the Deposit Receipt.
l~. Griffith Marshall, representing an interim property owners
committee for Tiburon Knolls, stated they had reviewed the plans
and had determined that the architect and the owner of the
property had made every effort to cooperate with the neighbors,
and it is their recommendation that the variance be granted.
Mrs. Elaine Ingraham, as a merober of the original property owners
committee, stated she had met :1ith two other residents in the
area, and after studying the matter, had determined that the house
is a one-story house and that the variance should be granted.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 344
April 8, 1974
Page 4
After discussion on the matter by the Council, it was moved by
Ross, seconded by Littman, that the Council reject the appeal from
the decision of the Board of Adjustments. Motion carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILlw1EN:
COUNCILMEN:
Aramburu, Littman, Ross, Tayer
None
Ellman
4. REPEAL OF CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION MORATORIUM
There being no objection, the Chair directed this matter continued
to April 22nd, to be heard at the same time as the Condominium
Conversion Ordinance.
7. AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE -
ADOPTION OF R.P. ZONING DISTRICT
An ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIBURON AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO.9 N.S., THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY ADDING SECTION
10-31, PROVIDING FOR THE R-P (PLANNED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
ZONE, having passed first reading, came on for second reading and
adoption.
On motion of Ross, seconded by Littman, and there being no objec-
tion, full reading of the ordinance was waived and the ordinance
was read by title only.
Motion of Littman, seconded by Ross, that Ordinance No: 139 N.S.
be deemed to have passed second reading and be ~dopted, carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCIU-1EN:
Aramburu, Littman, Ross, Tayer
None
Ellman
8.. AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE -
CHANGING CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM THE RPD-l ZONE
TO THE R-P ZONE
An ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIBURON REZONING
CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOvm AS MOUNT TIBURON SUBDIVISION UNITS 3 AND 4
FROM RPD-l TO THE RP (PLANNED SINGLE-FAMILY ~SIDENTIAL) ZONE,
having passed first reading, came on for second reading and adoption.
On motion of Ross, seconded by Littman, and there being no objection,
full reading of the ordinance was waived and the ordinance was
read by title only.
Motion of Littman, seconded by Tayer, that Ordinance No. 140 N.S.
be deemed to have passed second reading and be adopted, carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNC ILlt1EN :
Aramburu, Littman, Ross, Tayer
None
Ellman
12. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION URGING
EXTENSION OF CITY LIMITS TO INCLUDE ALL WATERS
LYING WITHIN TIBURON'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
The City Manager stated staff supports the recommendation to extend
the city limits to include all waters lying within its sphere
of influence, but the proper procedure would be annexation rather
than resolution.
Motion of Tayer, seconded by Littman, that the matter be referred
back to the Parks and Recreation Commission, carried: All Ayes.
Chairman Gary Gray of the P&R Commission spoke to the matter and
pointed out on a map the areas they would reco~~~~ be annexed.
CITY COUCNIL MINUTES NO. 344
April 8, 1974
page 5
After discussion, the Chair directed staff to investigate this
matter, along with the possibility of annexing the Reedland Woods
and the Bel Aire Schools, and the railroad right-of-way area that
is in the County.
3. APPOINTMENTS TO COr~~ISSION, BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
The Chair continued this matter to Executive Session.
The Chair stated the Council is ; ending a letter and offered
certificate of Lppreciation to Mrs. Phyllis Ellman and Dick McConnell
for their services on the Parks and Recreation commission.
14. REVIEW OF CURRENT CITY ACTIVITIES AND REPORTS
The Chair received the Status Report of the City Manager on the
current City activities and projects. He stated another report
will be forthcoming the fOllowing week on various procedures and
activities such as annexation.
In response to a question by Littman about the l4-unit condominium
project on Red Hill Circle, the Development Administrator stated
that is being processed as apartments and the developer has indi-
cated they will eventually be condominiums.
In response to a question by Littman about the slide area on
Red Hill, the City Engineer stated the Soils Engineer for the
project has submitted a report which they have reviewed and have
requested additional information, which will require further work
to be done by the applicant.
15. UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES AT OLD ST. HILARY'S
The City Engineer reco~~en0~d that PG&E be requested in the future
to give itemized costs of cor...::;trnction estimates for undergrounding.
Mr. Robert Canzioni of PG&E agreed to report back to the Council
on whether or not more detailed estimates can be prepared.
The Chair directed the City Mana~.8r to prepare a report in this
matter on whether or not staff reco~mends using Rule 20 funds for
undergrounding of utilities at Old St. Hilary's.
16. REGULATION OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
An ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIBURON AMENDING
THE TIBURON tIDNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 13B, REGULATING INDIVIDUAL
SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, having passed first reading, came on for
second reading and adoption.
On motion of Ross, seconded by Tayer, with Littman abstaining, and
there being no objection, full reading of the ordinance was waived
and the ordinance was read. - by title only.
Motion of Tayer, seconded by Ross, that Ordinance No. 141 N.S. be
deemed to have passed second reading and be adopted, carried:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILl-1EN:
ABSTAIN: COUNC I LlflEN :
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Aramburu, Ross, Tayer
None
Littman
Ellman
17. ADOPTION OF 1973 EDITION OF THE UNIFIED BUILDING CODE
An ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TIBURON AMENDING
CHAPTER 13 SECTION 13-12 OF THE TIBURON CITY CODE ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE THE 1973 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE REGULATING
THE ERECTION, CONSTRUCTION, ENLARGEMENT, ALTERATION, REPAIR, MOVING,
REMOVAL, CONVERSION, DEMOLIX::ON, OCCUPANCY, EQUIPMENT, USE, HEIGHT,
AREA, AND MAINTENANCE OF BUILDINGS, FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND
COLLECTION OF FEES THEREFOR~, came on for introduction and first
reading.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 344
April S, 1974
Page 6
The Development Administrator reviewed some of the proposed changes
from the 1970 edition to the 1973 edition of the Uniform Building
Code.
On motion of Ross, seconded by Littman, and there being no objection,
full reading of the ordinance was waived and the ordinance was
read by title only. -
It was moved by Ross, seconded by Tayer, that the ordinance be deemed
to have passed first reading.
The Development Administrator stated the UBC has been adopted by
the State of California Department of Housing and Community Develop-
ment.
After discussion, the Chair directed staff to prepare a more complete
list of the revisions from the 1970 Edition to the 1973 Edition
for consideration by the Council before second reading of the ordi-
nance.
Littman pointed out certain inconsistencies between the UBC and
the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Deputy City Attorney stated the
ordinances SDuld either be amended or the City could adopt a state-
ment saying where there are two definitions, the one in the
Zoning Ordinance prevails.
Question was called on the motion that the ordinance pass first
reading, and the motion carried:
AYES:
NOE S :
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILX-mN:
COUNCILMEN:
Aramburu, Littman, Ross, Tayer
None
Ellman
The Chair set the public hearing for May 13th in this matter, after
two duly noticed public noties.
18. ADOPTION OF GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
GOVERNMENTAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT
The Deputy City Attorney requ~st~j this matter be tabled because
of the recent Suprcm~ Court action.
Motion of Littman, seconded by Tayer, to table the matter, carried:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILl-1EN:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
Aramburu, Littman, Ross, Tayer
None
Ellman
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
No Smoking Resolution
Ross requested City staff prepare a resolution prohibiting smoking
in the Council Chambers at all meetings. He read a letter from
Mrs. Patricia Pickett supporting this action.
Notification to CCPC
Tayer requested staff notify CCPC he is no longer a member and
he therefore requests they stop sending him correspondence.
Harbor Carriers' Rate Increase
Tayer called Council's attention to the rate increase for ferry
service by Harbor Carriers. After discussion, the Chair directed
the City Manager write a letter to Harbor Carriers requesting
more information on the rate increase as Tiburon has never been
officially notified of the PU~ hearings.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 344
April 8, 1974
page 7
Amalgamation of Belvedere and Tiburon
\ Littman requested the Council agendize the question of the desir-
ability of the amalgamation of the Cities of Belvedere and Tiburon
as it has become increasingly evident that the concerns of the
two cities are interwoven. The Chair directed the City Manager
discuss this with the Belvedere City Manager, and that the matter
be agendized for May 13th.
Waiver of Fees for Audubon Society
The City Manager presented the request from the Audubon Society
to waive permit fees. After discussion, it was the sense of
the Council that the fees are for administration costs and
therefore should not be waived.
Federal Aid Urban System
The City Engineer presented a resolution to be adopted by the
Board of Supervisors for a program for funds from the Federal Govern-
ment for the Urban System. He stated the resolution creates the
Urban System Committee which will be collecting and recommending
projects for construction to be funded in large part by the Federal
Government, to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. He stated
he would recommend the Council endorse the resolution and immedi-
ately appoint a committee to recommend projects for funding, such
as the downtown parking garage.
Littman and Ross volunteered to serve on the committee with the
City Manager and the City Engineer.
Motion of Aramburu, seconded by Tayer, to support the resolution
as presented by the City Engineer, carried: All Ayes.
Memo of Bill Liskamm, 3/27/74
Littman referred to a memo from Mr. Bill Liskamm dated March 27,
1974, and stated he feels when matters of this nature come
before the Council, it is the Council's prerogative to debate
issues and make inquiries.
VI. EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 12:15 a.m., the Chair adjourned the meeting to Executive Session.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
At 1:10 a.m., the Chair adjourned the
sine die.
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON:
~ '
'. · " 0-",J)J-1,v~~
ALBERT ARAMBURU, Mayor
1974.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NO. 344
April 8, 1974
Page 8