HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2009-01-09
~
TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST
Weeks of December 22,2008 - January 9,2009
Tiburon
1. Email- Frank Glassner - Resignation from Design Review Board
2. Memo - Nicholas Nguyen - 2008 Pavement Condition & Program Summary
3. Draft Transportation 2035 Plan Available for Comment
4. Letter Scott Anderson - 4984 Ranch Road Annexation to San. 2 Property
5. Letter MCCD - Easton Point Master Plan - Precise Development Plan
6. Memo - Nicholas Nguyen - TAM Street Smarts
7. Letter - Kevin Brown - "Skate Spot" for Tiburon
Agendas & Minutes
8. Agenda - Planning Commission - January 14, 2009
9. Agenda - Design Review Board - January IS, 2009
10. Agenda - POST - January 20,2009
Regional
a) Letter - MMWD - Desalination Project EIR - Response to Comments
b) Letter - Swiftreach Networks - Emergency Notification Svcs *
c) Letter - Marin Association of Realtors - Moratorium Campaign *
d) Conference Announcement - Continuing Legal Education - Carbon Credits *
e) Town of Corte Madera - Town Council Reorganization *
f) Invitation - Beryl H. Buck Awards for Achievement - 2009 *
g) Bay Trail Rider - Newsletter of Bay Trail Project - Fall/Winter 2008 *
h) Western City - January 2009 *
Agendas & Minutes
i) None
* Council Only
Page 1 of 1
/
l
Dan Watrous
From: Frank Glassner [fglassner@cdgworldwide.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 24,20082:14 PM
To: Mayor, Alice Fredericks
Cc: Dan Watrous
Subject: Frank Glassner resignation from Tiburon DRB
DIG
~8-r
Alice:
Per my discussions with Dan Watrous and Frank Doyle, due to personal time constraints, I regrettably
have to resign from the Tiburon Design Review Board.
I've immensely enjoyed both the experience, and most of all my colleagues at the Town and on the Board.
I deeply appreciate the opportunity that you and the Town Council have made available to me.
Sincerely,
Frank
Frank B. Glassner
Chief Executive Officer
COMPENSATION DESIGN GROUP, INC.
160 Spear Street - Suite 230
San Francisco, CA 94105
Direct: (415) 618-6060
Mobile: (415) 515-0010
Fax: (415) 618-6065
Main: (415) 618-6000
E-Mail: fglassner@cdgworldwide.com
URL: www.cdgworldwide.com
NOTICE:
This e-mail is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential or privileged information. Any review, dissemination, copying, printing or other use of this e-
mail by persons or entities other than the addressee is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer.
1/6/2009
Town of Tiburon
MEMORANDUM
.
!
. Of Tlal, .
r;~
.~ ~~Ii~ ~).
('\'~~ ~~-.~
"Pc',,- 'S'" ~ 0,'0
~o'~ "
.'-" ~tvlntlc.. "'.
,
.
DIGEST
;L,
TO: Peggy Curran, Town Manager
FROM: Nicholas Nguyen, Director of Public Worksp-/
SUBJECT: 2008 Pavement Condition and Program Summary
DATE: January 7, 2009
......................... ..........................
The Town has employed the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) pavement
management program (PMP) for some time. The program aids the Town in inventorying our
road network, rates the conditions, and prioritizes maintenance and repairs. It is required to be
maintained and updated every two years if federal and state funds are sought.
Recent updates were performed in 2003 and 2005. In 2003, the program was updated and field
observations revealed a pavement condition index (PCI) of 61 on a scale of 0-100. A high
number signifies a higher quality network. The update in 2005 showed an improvement with a
PCI of 66. At this value, the Town's network is considered to be at the upper range of the
"Good" category. The 2005 pavement management program report also recommended that to
reach a PCI goal of 70 by year 2013, an annual expenditure of about $620,000 would be
required.
In 2007, the Town was ~uccessful in securing grant funding to perform an update of its PMP.
Due to scheduling conflicts, the results were not available until November 2008. The result
showed improvement once again with a PCI of 68 (and a 3-year moving average of 67), missing
the "Very Good" category by 2 points. The average of all Marin County municipalities is 64.4.
The Bay Area average is 65.
The Town has spent close to $1,000,000 annually over the last two year on its roads. However,
this has not translated directly into a more significant improvement in PCI because a
considerable amount was spent on our Failed Streets. These Failed Streets required a
disproportionately high level of resources to improve relative to their contribution to the overall
network.
The 2008 PMP report concluded with a recommendation to spend approximately $690.000
annually to improve the PCI to about 69 by the year 2012. This investment scenario is
essentially to maintain our current condition. To reach an approximate PCI value of 73, an
annual investment of about $1.1 million would be required.
The Executive Summary of the 2008 PMP report is attached for your review.
Town of Tiburon
2008 Pavement Management Program Update (P-TAP 9)
Final Report - October 30, 2008
Page i
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In March of 2008, GeoData Analytics LLC updated the Pavement Management Program (PMP) with
the pavement condition surveys for the Town of Tiburon. Pavement condition evaluations were
performed on all the streets by GeoData Analytics inspectors. In October of 2008, Harris &
Associates working together with GeoData Analytics ran the budget analysis and put together the
final report for the Town of Tiburon.
The PMP provides a management tool to inventory street pavement, assess pavement condition,
record historical maintenance, forecast budget needs, and view impacts of funding on Town-wide
pavement condition over time.
The PMP is also a software-based tool for analyzing pavement conditions and recommending
rehabilitation strategies based on funding levels. The software focuses on providing cost effective
recommendations that enhance the overall system Pavement Condition Index (PCI). In general,
asphalt pavement deteriorates over time by both traffic loading and weathering. The MTC software
recommends that 13% of the budget be put to preventive maintenance treatments such as slurry seal
or seal cracks. The remaining budget is programmed for more expensive asphalt overlays and
reconstruction. Why is preventive maintenance important? Preventive maintenance treatments
sustain a street's PCI at a high level and at relatively low cost. Preventive maintenance treatments
can be applied to many streets (large pav~ment area) with a positive effect of raising the system PCI
for a fraction of the cost to asphalt overlay one street (small pavement area).
The Town is currently on Streetsaver Online Version which is Metropolitan Transportation
Commission's Pavement Management Program. The program can be accessed with the following,
User ill: tiburonci and Password: tiburon7723.
\
. Pavement mileage & replacement value
The Town of Tiburon has approximately 35 miles of paved streets, divided into 222 pavement
management segments. The following is the breakdown of Tiburon's street pavement mileage
grouped by functional class:
Centerline
CLASSIFICATION Mil es
Arterial 1.7
Collector 7.3
Residential 23.9
Other 2.7
TOTALS 35.6
It is important to consider the overall investment the Town has in its pavements. The unit cost
for a very poor condition category (consisting of moderate base failure repair, removal of existing
surface, and pavement overlay) is from $106.14 to $107.52 per square yard. The cost to
reconstruct all streets is over $53 million. This is a minimal reconstruction approach. Full
replacement of the pavement, base, and structure of the streets would cost substantially more.
Town of Tiburon
2008 Pavement Management Program Update (P-TAP 9)
Final Report - October 30, 2008
Page ii
Executive Summary
. Condition of Tiburon's Street Asphalt Pavement
The Town's average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is 68 on a 100-point scale, with 100 being
a new street. PC Is for the Town's pavement network are based on a visual distress rating
system~. The overall condition of the Town of Tiburon's street pavement is in the upper range of
MTC's designation "Good". The 2003 MTC State of Repair report states, "approximately 75
percent of a pavement's serviceable life has been expended by the time its PCI rating falls to 60."
Tiburon's average PCI condition value by street classification is as follows:
CLASSIFICA TIO N 2005 PCI* 2008 PCI*
Arte rial 74 57
Collector 68 62
Resi dential 83 71
Other 58 86
TOTAL SYSTEM 66 68
The following figure i-I shows the Town's total pavement mileage by condition category. Figure
i-2 describes the condition categories, their equivalent PCI range, and typical prescribed
maintenance treatments:
Figure i-I
Miles of Streets by Condition
1.2
4.2
II Excellent
.Very Good
.Good
D Poor
.Very Poor
14.6
~Note: PCl weighted by area.
*Calculated by an algorithm developed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Town of Tiburon
2008 Pavement Management Program Update (P-TAP 9)
Final Report - October 30, 2008
Page iii
Executive Summary
Figure i - 2
Condition PCI Ran2e Typical Maintenance Treatment
Excellent 90-100 Do Nothing.
Very Good 70-89 Slurry Seal
Good 50-69 Thin AC Overlay or Thick Overlay/Rubberized Asphalt
Poor 25-49 Mill and Thick Overlay
Very Poor 0-24 Reconstruct Structure (AC)
*Table i-2 created by Harris & Associates based on feedback from the Town.
The maintenance strategy described above is based on PCI scores and the corresponding
condition category. Streets with PCI scores over 90 are considered to be in excellent condition
and require no treatment. Streets with scores from 70 to 89 are considered "Very Good", but
may require cracks to be sealed and a slurry seal/chip seal. Streets with scores from 50 to 69 are
considered "Good" and 25 to 49 are considered "Poor" and generally require a Mill and Thin or
Thick AC overlay. Streets with scores below 25 are "Very Poor" and are in need of a surface
reconstruct (AC).
In the present condition, about I mile of the Town's pavement segments are in the "Very Poor"
category .
. Budget Analysis
Following the treatment strategy described in the table above and an inflation rate of 13%, the
MTC PMP software generates a Budget Needs analysis. The Budget Needs analysis projects the
total budget needed 00 bring the Town's pavement system to a condition where most pavement
sections require only minor preventive maintenance (Le., PCI = 70 or higher). The following
chart illustrates the cost effectiveness of keeping the pavement condition index above 70 for a
typical street.
PAVEMENT
Condition
(Approx. PCI)
EXCELLENT
(90)
VERY GOOD
(70)
PA VEMENT LIFE CYCLE
RECOMMffiNDEDTREATMENT
40%
DROP IN
QUALITY
75% OF
PAVEMENT
LIFE
SLURRY (15.00/SQ. YD.)
THIN AC OVERLA Yor THICK
OVERLA Y/RUBBERrZED ASPHALT
($20.58-$35.28/SQ. YD.)
GOOD
(50)
40%
DROP IN
QUALITY
NILL AND THICK OVERLA Y
($35.28/SQ. YD.)
POOR
(25)
RECONSTRUCT SURFACE (AC)
($JO~4 - $J07.52/SQ. YD.)
VERY POOR
(0)
4 8 12 16 20
Pavement Age (Years)
Town of Tiburon
2008 Pavement Management Program Update (P-TAP 9)
Final Report - October 30, 2008
Page iv
Executive Summary
The current PCI is reduced annually based on this deterioration curve. Maintenance activities
increase the PCI value as they are applied to the segment. The overall program is dynamic in that
each strategy consists of a cyclic series of actions that simulates the pavement's anticipated life
cycle. As shown in the above picture, a typical pavement section will deteriorate approximately
40% in the first 75% of its lifespan. However, that same pavement section, if untreated, will
experience another 40% reduction in overall quality in only the next 120/0 of lifespan, effectively
deteriorating an equivalent amount in only one-sixth (1/6) the time. As a result of this continued
deterioration, the quantity and cost of the maintenance activities needed to rehabilitate the
pavement will increase in both scope and costs. In other words, it is not simply "pay today or
pay tomorrow", but rather a "pay today or pay more tomorrow" proposition. Overall pavement
maintenance cost is reduced by the timely application of crack sealing, slurry seals and pavement
overlays before the sub grade fails and requires a total pavement reconstruction.
To reach that level of minor preventive maintenance in five (5) years, the Budget Needs analysis
determined a total need of approximately $12.09 million for the years 2008-2012. See section
IV-A for the Needs - Projected PCI/Cost Summary.
The Budget Needs Average is defined as the cumulative budget needs over the course of the
analysis period ($12.09 million) divided by the number of years in the analysis period (5 years).
For this study, the Budget Needs Average is $2.4 million per year. After the Budget Needs have
been calculated, Budget Scenarios are run to determine the funding levels required to maintain
and/or improve the current PCI level and generate a list of street maintenance for the next five (5)
years. The software analyses each pavement section and picks specific maintenance to maximize
the improvement of the entire pavement system. Maintenance treatments are allocated to as many
streets as the annual budget will allow. For the Town of Tiburon, four annual budgets, $500,000
(Expected Annual Blldget I), $650,000 (Expected Annual Budget II and Budget required to
maintain current PCI), $1.1 million (Budget required for a five point increase in PCI) and $2.4
million (Budget Needs Average), with 13 percent of the annual budget applied towards
preventive maintenance. The MTC PMP software recommends spending 13 percent of the budget
toward preventive maintenance because it is the optimum level according to the specific
conditions of the Town's system. This means that 13 percent of the annual budget is spent on
slurry seal and crack seal while the remainder of the budget is spent on overlays and
reconstruction. These budgets do not account for stopgap maintenance repairs, such as
emergency pothole repair.
. Budget Analysis Results
After the MTC PMP software analyzes the pavement system according to the specified annual
budget over a period of five (5) years, trends are evident in the PCI and Deferred Maintenance
backlog (the amount of necessary reconstruction and overlays not performed each year due to
budget constraints). An increase in deferred maintenance shows that necessary rehabilitation is
not being performed. The total deferred maintenance in 2008 before any suggested maintenance
is around $5.1 million. The following PCI values reflect the average PCI and deferred
maintenance after suggested treatments are applied.
Town of Tiburon
2008 Pavement Management Program Update (P-TAP 9)
Final Report - October 30, 2008
Page v
Executive Summary
· $0 Annual Funding Level (Do Nothing).
PCl Trend: Decreases from a 68 PCI in 2008 to a 58 PCI in 2012.
Deferred Maintenance Trend: Increases from $5.1 million in 2008 to $13.09 million in
2012.
· $500,000 Annual Funding Level (Expected Annual Budget I).
PCl Trend: Decreases from a 68 PCI in 2008 to a 66 PCI in 2012.
Deferred Maintenance Trend: Increases from $5.1 million in 2008 to $10.7 million in
2012.
· $650,000 Annual Funding Level (Expected Annual Budget II and Budget required to
maintain current PCI).
PCl Trend: From a 68 PCI in 2008 to a 68 PCI in 2012.
Deferred Maintenance Trend: Increases from $5.1 million in 2008 to $10.3 million in
2012.
· $1.1 Million Annual Funding Level (Budget required for a five-point increase in PCI).
PCl Trend: Increases from a 68 PCI in 2008 to a 73 PCI in 2012.
Deferred Maintenance Trend: Increases from $5.1 million in 2008 to $8.2 million in
2012.
· $2.4 Million (Budget Needs Average)
PCl Trend: Increases from a 68 PCI in 2008 to a 82 PCI in 2012.
Deferred Maintenance Trend: Decreases from $5.1 million in 2008 to $771,612 in 2012.
Scenario charts sho\",ing the impact of the four budgets on street condition and deferred
maintenance backlog over ten (10) year period is shown on the following pages and in Sections
IV-B and IV-C. The Cost Summary Reports, which provide information on pavement funding
distribution by pavement condition, and the Network Condition Summary Reports, which project
pavement condition trends, can be found in Section IV-D.
. Recommendations
Harris & Associates recommends that, at a minimum, annual budgets for asphalt pavement work
alone should be increased to $690,000. Raising the budget to $690,000 will begin an increasing
trend in overall pavement condition while slowing the growth of the deferred maintenance
backlog. At this budget level, the overall PCI will increase from a 68 PCI in 2008 to a 69 after
treatments are applied in 2012.
The Town should utilize cost effective treatments where appropriate, such as slurry seals and
crack seal and continue to evaluate emerging cost effective techniques like rubberized chip seals,
thin-bonded wearing courses and rubberized overlays. Maintenance and rehabilitation performed
annually must also be recorded in the MTC PMP software. The software allows the Town to
track the performance of past treatment strategies to determine their effectiveness.
Town of Tiburon
2008 Pavement Management Program Update (P-TAP 9)
Final Report - October 30, 2008
Page vi
Executive Summary
Harris & Associates also recommends that the Town maintain its pavement management
program to be eligible for grants and state gas tax funding. All arterials and collector routes
should be re-inspected every two years and all residential streets every four to five years. The
costs for the re-inspection should be included in the annual pavement management budget.
Tiburon's overall street system is currently in the upper range of MTC's "Good" condition. To
help maintain and improve the current condition, certain projects have been recommended within
the context of this program. Annual work programs for $500,000 and $650,000 budget levels
can be found in Section N-E and Section IV-F. This report provides detailed listings of
suggested maintenance projects for the Town of Tiburon based on the overall PMP suggested
needs funding and base annual budgets. This report also provides a first step in identifying
segments to be repaired under Tiburon's annual work programs.
Although these project listings are recommendations generated by the PMP, they are for planning
purposes only and are not intended to replace sound engineering judgment. Final project
recommendations should be weighed against the actual approach the Town wishes to utilize in
scheduling the workloads for contracting purposes. Once a street segment is identified for repair,
a closer site inspection and detailed project repair scope is required.
Page 1 of2
3.
DIGEST .~
\ t-{ \. '" ~ 0 g l (~. (,~,
'W'"'T-.;"^'......................... . '1~"i":\Q-~~'W
l " '~1 0,- (\. ~r
\../(J \\: \\ #-' \
~ ('-
.t) vJ r .J ~
L - ,:v
{' e,....'" ' ~ _~
Scott Anderson
From: MTC info [info@mtc.ca.gov]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 2:42 PM
To: MTC info
Subject: Draft Transportation 2035 Plan Available for Comment
MTC RELEASES THE DRAFT TRANSPORTATION 2035 PLAN: CHANGE IN
MOTION
After nearly two years of dialogue and technical analysis, MTC on December 19,2008
released the Draft Transportation 2035 Plan: Change in Motion for public review and
comment. The draft document is the Bay Area's transportation blueprint for investing
$226 billion in projected revenue expected to flow to the region over the next 25 years.
You are invited to comment on this document and its attempt to influence, cause or
initiate a whole range of "changes in motion."
View All Documents Online!
To save costs and paper, MTC encourages you to view both the Draft Transportation
2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area and its companion Draft Environmental
Impact Report online at http://www.tntc.ca.gov/planning/2035plan/index.htm. Other
technical reports also will be available online. If you require a printed copy, send an e-
mail to library@mtc.ca.gov or call 510.817.5836.
Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Written comments on the Draft EIR must be received by 4 p.m. on Monday, February
2, 2009, at 101 Eighth St., Oakland, CA 94607, Attn: Ashley Nguyen, Planning
Section; faxed to MTC, Attn: Ashley Nguyen, at 510.817.5848; or sent via e-mail to
anguyen@mtc.ca.gov.
Draft Transportation 2035 Plan
Written comments on the Draft Plan must be received by 4 p.m. Monday, March 2,
2009. Additional comments can be made before the Commission at its public meetings
up to adoption of the plan, expected March 25,2009. Written comments must be
submitted to MTC via mail (at 101 Eighth St., Oakland, CA 94607, Attn: Public
Information); via e-mail to info@mtc.ca.gov or faxed to MTC at 510.817.5848, Attn:
Public Information.
Attend a Public Hearing
Comment on both draft documents at a public hearing:
12/19/2008
Page 2 of2
Tuesday, January 27,2009
Public Hearing/Workshop: San Francisco
7 p.m. to 9 p.m.
San Francisco State Downtown Campus
Room 609
835 Market Street, San Francisco
OR
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Public Hearing: Oakland
10:05 a.m.
MTC Commission Meeting
Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter
Lawrence D. Dahms Auditorium
101 Eighth Street, Oakland
(across from the Lake Merritt BART station)
If you do plan on attending a public hearing, please RSVP via e-mail to
info@mtc.ca.gov or phone the Public Information Office at 510.817.5757. Please leave
your contact information and let us know which hearing you plan to attend. And should
you have questions, feel free to phone' the Public Information Office for assistance.
Accessible Meetings: Sign-language interpreters or readers will be provided if
requested at least three business days in advance; every effort will be made to provide
interpreters for non-English speakers ifrequested at least five business days in advance.
To make your request, please call 510.817.5757.
12/19/2008
Town ofTiburon. 1505 Tiburon Boulevard. Tiburon, CA 94920. P. 415.435.7373 E 415.435.2438. www.ci.tiburon.ca.us
C:~Es-r
Community Development Department
December 19, 2008
Peter Banning, Executive Officer
Marin Local Agency Formation Commission
165 N. Redwood Drive, Suite 160
San Rafael, CA 94903
RE:
.
1
.:-; 0 f T I /J ~.
~ l/.p
~ 0
.......~-:::c::ri~ ~~
~~~
(\ ~ ~~ ~
~~~~o.'O
";t'~'
.'/:. O~"'~to\c.' ~.
T
.
.
.....
Cf.
Alice Fredericks
Mayor
Miles Berger
Vice Mayor
Dick Collins
Councilmember
4984 RANCH ROAD: ANNEXATION OF THE LANDS OF Totn. Gram
Councdmember
HUTCHINSON TO SANITARY DSITRICT NO.2 (ASSESSOR PARCEL. . . . . ..~ . . . . .
038-041-42) Jeff Slavitz
Councumember
Dear Mr. Banning:
The Town of Tiburon is in receipt of your referral on the above-referenced application.
This parcel is part of a small island completely surrounded by the Town of Tiburon and Ma~~:;~t~~:ran
is in the vicinity of parcels that have annexed to the Town as recently as 2000. Other
annexations in the immediate vicinity of the subject parcel occurred in 1994, 1995, and
1998.
The parcel has approximately 80 linear feet of frontage on Ranch Road. The Town of
Tiburon already maintains nearby portions of Ranch Road and does not consider the
addition of this marginal frontage to be an issue with respect to maintenance. Tiburon
General Plan policies encourage annexation absent countervailing economic
circumstances for the Town, which, in this case, do not exist.
Accordingly, the Town requests and recommends that Marin LAFCO modify the
application to include annexation to the Town of Tiburon concurrent with annexation to
SD#2, or within a defined period of time not to exceed 180 days in the event there are
health (failing septic) concerns that require immediate connection to SD#2.
Please do not hesitate to call me at 435-7392 should you have questions.
Very truly Y. o..urs, /1
~L~
Scott Anderson
Director of Community Development
s: IPlanninglStaff Folders \sanderson \Letters \la/co hutchinson leUer. doc
1
I /)~ ~
I MARIN COUNTY ~8.,.
I COMMUNITY Ot;Vt;LOPMt;NT AGt;NCY
~ BRIAN C CRAW1=ORD, DIRJ;CTOR
NOTICE OF PROJECT STATUS
December 30,2008
Martha Company
c/o Hanson Bridgett LLP
Attn: Mary McEachron
80 East Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Suite 3E
Larkspur, CA 94939
-
II~J: ~ 20 2:09~W
PU\NNING DIVISION l
Re: Easton Point (Martha Company) Master Plan (MP 09-2), Precise Development Plan (DP 09-
4) and Tentative Subdivision Map (SD 09-1_
Paradise Dr, Tiburon
Assessor's Parcel Number 059-251-05
, Dear Ms. McEachron,
The Planning Division and reviewing agencies have examined the Martha Company applications. This
notification is in accordance with State law that requires the County of Marin to inform the applicant in
writing of the status of the applications within 30 days of their acceptance for filing. The following
requested information must be provided, and questions answered, within 30 days from the d~te of this
Notice in order to continue the orderly processing of the applications.
Marin County Community Development Agency. Planning Division
1. Sheet R-5; amend this drawing to include the Ridge and Upland Greenbelt Boundary as drawn in
the Marin Countywide Plan adopted on November 6, 2007. Also include the two zoning district
boundaries on the subject property.
2. The Landslide Exhibit (Sheet GR1, dated November 20, 2008 prepared by Miller Pacific) that
presents conceptual geologic repair solutions was reviewed. The limits of grading (shown as
Remove & RephlCe on Sheet GRI) are not clear. It is understood that the plan is conceptual and
that grading limits are approximate, but the map still needs better labeling to show the approximate
extent of the proposed grading. In addition; a description of what remove and replace will entail
will be useful for evaluating impacts in the EIR. Also, where/how will sub-drain lines daylight.
For instance, landslides # 19 and #20 appear to daylight on the slope just above landslide #21. It is
not clear how the sub-drain lines will drain near the buried drilled pier & grade beam walls. This
information will be critical in assessing direct and secondary impacts to site hydrology and related
sensitive plant communities, including Keil Spring. Perhaps a color-coded map would simplify the
interpretation of grading/remediation boundaries and sub-drain alignments.
3. The Grading and Drainage Plans (C-l, C-IA, & C-IB) must include the extent of anticipated
grading and earthwork estimates for the sewer force mains shown on Sheet C-3. Do the earthwork
estimates on Sheets C-l, C-IA, & C-IB include excavation and fill estimates associated with
installation of the storm drains shown on the plans?
350 I CIVIC Cf;NTf;R DRIVf;. ROOM 308 - SAN RA1=Af;L. CA 94903-4157 - 415-499-6769 - J=AX 415-499-7880
4.
A note on Sheet C-3 calls for the construction of an 800 linear foot, 4-inch SSFM within Paradise
Drive from Mar Centro to the existing manhole #33A. The grading plans need to include the extent
of grading for installation of the SSFM and the corresponding earthwork estimate.
Does the applicant propose to abandon in place or remove the existing water main serving the
existing MMWD water tank on the property? If the proposal is to remove the line please include
the earthwork estimate for removal of the water line.
Should the shaded building sites shown on Sheet A-I be construed as proposed building envelopes?
Are proposed public access easements limited to Ridge Road and Mount Tiburon Road including
the access to Parcel C? Is the applicant proposing any other pedestrian access easements linking
a~jacent residential neighborhoods to public open space lands? If so pleas~ identify the proposed
"location of the' pedestrian links on Sheet C-5.
Project Narrative, -Section D ,- Project Benefits '#3 states that one of the benefits of the project is the
upgrade of existing substandard facilities. What and where are the existing substandard facilities?
Is the existing fire road alignment from Ridge'Road to the top of the Tiburon ridge within an
ex'isting easement?
Is there an existing recorded easement over the pipeline route that connects the Lands of Kiel with
Kiel Cove?
The Project Narrative refers to the Chapman Residence. Please locate or identify the residence on
the existing Topography Map (Sheet R-2).
Project Narrative - Exhibit C, Policy CD 6.1 on page 6 of 9 states "the project sill seek annexation
to the Town of Tiburon simultaneously with annexation to the Sanitary District". Is the applicant
filing simultaneous annexation applications with the Marin Local Agency Formation Commission
to annex the subject property into the Town ofTiburon and Sanitary District #5?
Does the application include a proposed public access easement connecting Ridge Road with
. proposed Open Space Parcels A and B, and Old Saint Hilary Open Space lands? If so please show
the locations on Sheet C.;.5.
Please provide a statement as to whether the new roadways shown on the Tentative Subdivision
Map are proposed for dedication to the County of Marin or are to remain private and maintained by
the property owners.
What are the dimensions of the proposed private access easement over Lot #5 to serve Lot #6?
Project Narrative - page 28 states that the project sponsor intends to provide traffic safety measures
specified in the 2001 Draft EIR. Describe these traffic safety measures and provide drawings of
any improvements associated with these safety measures.
The Project Description in the January 11, 2008 Miller Pacific Engineering (MPE) Preliminary
Geotechnical Report does not include a review of the Conceptual Grading Plans for each lot in the
proposed subdivision (Sheets G-l through G-34). MPE needs to review and comment on the
conceptual grading plans for the lots. MPEG's comments are to be submitted in writing to the
Marin CDA - Planning Division.
The information in the Project Narrative on anticipated culver replacement and repair (pages 3 of
15 through 5 of 15 in Exhibit E) is qualitative and does not identify the location along Paradise
Drive where culverts may have to be replaced or repaired. Do the Tentative Map drawings (Sheets
C-l through C-5) show the improvements described on pages 3 of 15 through 5 of 15 in Exhibit E?
If not these improvements need to be included on the Tentative Map drawings.
Project Narrative, Exhibit E makes reference to Exhibit 5.2-2 of the 2001 Draft EIR. Please submit
a copy of this exhibit to the Marin CDA Planning Division.
Project Narrative, Exhibit E, Page 4 of 15 states that any undersized culverts, flumes or storm drain
segments on Mar East Drive, and other street-based storm drain systems that would accept
discharge from upgraded Paradise Drive culverts will be upgraded, ,or as necessary, replaced as
directed by the County of Marin DPW. Provide a drawing that shows the location of existing
culverts, flumes or storm drains on these streets that may need to be replaced or upgraded.
5.
6.
7.
. ~.:', ~
:~~r '
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
2
21. Please submit the draft CC:;&Rs for the proposed land division and incorporate the provisions and
mitigation measures described in Exhibit E of the Project Narrative.
22. The Supplemental Groundwater Investigation prepared by Questa Engineering does not reference
Miller Pacific Engineering Group's (MPEG) Preliminary Geotechnical Report dated January 11,
2008 including the mapped landslides, and the landslide repair and drainage measures
recommended in the report, and the installation of subsurface drains. Furthermore, the geology
presented in the Questa report contradicts the geology presented in the MPEG report, as well as past
investigations and field exploration done by Harding Lawson and Klienfelder. Furthermore, the
. Supplemental Groundwater Investigation did not reference the conceptual lot grading plans (Sheets
G-l through G-43) nor did it consider the effects of recommended retaining walls an~ drains on
groundwater recharge. The Supplemental Groundwater Investigation needs to be updated to
address the findings and recommendations of MPEG's Preliminary Geotechnical Report, and the
potential effects of the conceptual lot grading plans (G-l through G-43) on groundwater.
23. The Updated Tree Survey needs to include a discussion of the methodology including a discussion
of why five transects and their respective locations were determined to be representative of on-site
woodlands. What factors were considered to support the assumption that there has been no new
tree growth since the last tree survey? Where the size of trees in the tree table adjusted to the new
growth assumptions? What does it mean when the size of a tree is shown as a range (e.g. 2-10")?
There are a few trees listed in the tree tables that did not include species type. Why was the species
not determined? Why was there no discussion or assessment of sudden oak death (SOD) in the
updated tree survey?
24. Provide an update to the Easton Point Hydrology Analysis prepared by CSW/Stuber Stroeh in July
1999. The update shall include information regarding impervious surfaces areas and peak flow
calculations for the 2008 Easton Point project (see also Marin DPW request #39).
25. All the information needed to produce the EIR analyses, the photo simulations, and other EIR
exhibits, including site plans; topographic data including existing and proposed grading, conceptual
architectural drawings (floor plans and elevations), architectural. material sample boards, and
landscape plans must be made available from the applicant in digital form.
26. Installation of the story poles to mark the location of houses on the project site would be very
helpful to the EIR visual impact analyses. Marin CDA staff and the EIR consultant will work with
the applicant to form~late a story pole placement plan.
Marin County Department of Public Works. Land Use and Water Resources (Mitra MoheblMichel
Jeremias 415-499-6549)
27. Provide a current Title Report for the subject property. Clearly show and label all.easements on site
plan as they are described in the title report.
28. Plans shall include complete property line boundary information. Bearings are missing on sheet C4.
29. Plans shall include profiles with stations for Forest Glen Court, Ridge Road, Mount Tiburon Road
and two driveways off of Paradise Drive. As required by MCC 24.04.285, the driveway vertical
transition shall start at least four feet back from the edge of the adjoining~ road. Show profile to
centerline of the respective adjoining streets.
30. Clarify who will retain ownership/maintain the driveway section between lot 39 and PCL C.
31. Plans do not show access or utility services to Parcel B or Lands of Kiel. Access easements to
these parcels should be shown on Sheet C-5.
32. Provide total acreage of site disturbance on plans.
. 33. Provide information on how the driveway turnaround and turnouts meet MCC 24.04.150.
34. Provide documentation that the roadways and turnarounds designs have been reviewed and
approved by the Fire Department.
35. The subdivider shall dedicate or make an irrevocable offer of .dedication of all parcels of land or
easements within the subdivision that are needed for streets or alleys, including access rights and
3
abutters' rights, drainage, public utility easements, and other public easements. These dedications
shall comply with all applicable requirements of MCC 24.05 of the County Code (Easements).
36. An access and utilities easement shall be recorded for all driveways on lots that provide access to
public areas. Such easements shall be wide enough to include all work.
37. Road width for Mount Tiburon Road, Ridge Road, Forest Glen Court shall comply with MCC
24.04.110. Per MCC 24.05.020, public rights-of-way shall be a minimum of 40-feet in width and
shall extend a minimum of iO-feet beyond the ultimate pavement and curbs. Unless separate
easements are provided, road related facilities such as sidewalks, drainage structures, fire hydrants,
and utilities shall be fully contained within the road right-of-way. Adjust public right-of-way
around roundabouts and turnouts. Modify sections to include code requirements. Sections should be
clearly referenced by begin and end stations.
38. Submit a Surface Runoff Pollution Prevention Plan for approval by DPW. The plan shall identify
all measures to be installed during site construction to maintain long term site runoff water quality
measures including grease traps, .infiltration trenches, grassy swales, pervious surfaces.
39. Applicant shall reference "Guidance for Applicants Stormwater Quality Manual for Development
Projects in Marin County" for help preparing a stormwater control plan. The manual is also
available at http://www.mcstopoD.org/newdevresources.htm.
40. Submit hydrology and hydraulic calculations for the existing and post construction drainage to
verify the capacity of the existing. public storm drain i~provements and downstream drainage
structures. MCC 24.04.520, MCC 24.04.540.
41. All proposed drainage structures, including pipes and energy dissipaters shall be moved back to
terminate on property. There are encroachments of such facilities being proposed on various
locations within Paradise Drive road right-of-way.
42. All structures shall be set back from creeks, channels or other major waterways at least twenty feet
from the top of bank or twenty feet plus twice the channel depth measured from the toe of the near
embankment, whichever is greater. MCC 24.04.560. Verify location of buildings in lots 18 and 19
comply with code.
43. Add pedestrian circulation including access to adjoining streets to Master Plan, Precise Plan and
Tentative Map drawings.
44. All facilities shall be located, constructed, operated, and maintained in the time, place and mamler
that causes the least interference with the public's use of the public right-of-way as determined by
and approved by the Road CommissionerlDirector of Public Works.
45. Plans show two ancient faults. One of these is located underneath proposed roads and structures.
Clarify if special construction measures are necessary.
46. Identify the location of potential walls that exceed 4-feet in height.
47. Revise plans to include at least one street name sign shall be placed at all street intersection. The
word "Private" shall be placed on all name signs for private'roads. MCC 24.04.220.
48. Revise plans to include tentative locations of proposed streetlights as described on the Project
Narrative. Refer to MCC 24.04.855 and 24.04.860 for recommended locations.
49. Prepare and submit a traffic engineering study that addresses the following:
a). A sight distance analysis for all proposed driveway and roadway intersections with Paradise
Drive.
b). The need for a left-turn pocket at the proposed intersection of Forest Glen Court and Paradise
Drive.
c). Show on plans all Paradise Drive frontage improvements needed to comply with MCC
24.04.110.
d). Show on plans the frontage improvements on Paradise Drive required to comply with the Marin
County Unincorporated Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan adopted in March 2008.
4
Marin County Department of Parks and Open Space (James Ravies. Senior Open Space Planner 415-499-
6387)
50. As currently designed, Parcel B is completely isolated by residential lots and does not include an
access easement, and thus, the future owner of this parcel will not be able to access this property for
stewardship purposes. Therefore, Parks and Open Space staff recommends that the applicant revise.
the project to include an access easement appurtenant to Parcel B.
Tiburon Fire Protection District (Ron Barney. Fire Marshal 415-435-7200)
51. Provide the proposed location of fire hydrants and the show the water lines serving the hydrants on
the tentative map drawings.
52. Part of the proposed alternate means of fire protection if road grades are proposed that exceed the
Public Resource Code maximum 16 to 18% slope is to widen the roadways and provide turnouts for
fire apparatus. The detail cross section of the terminus of Ridge Road does not indicate the proper
width for the paved road surface.
Town of Tiburon (Scott Anderson 415-435-7373)
53. The description of cut and fill associated with the proj"ect, set forth in the Project Narrative onpage
26 discusses only subdivision improvements and not home construction. This grossly
underestimates the amount of cut, fill and potential off-haul that would result from the project. The
application should estimate total cut/fill and off-haul associated with the project and the traffic and
safety impacts associated therewith on the narrow and substandard Hill Haven and Old Tiburon
public streets.
Attached to this Notice of Project Status are copies of correspondence received from other County
Departments and other public agencies. Comments related to project completeness have been
incorporated into the prec~ding incompleteness list. However, other comments in the correspondence
received relate to other issues associated with the project including project processing and merits. Matters
unrelated to application completeness do not require a response,. but are provided for your information.
Please carefully review the items indicated above and call the pertinent agency staff member at the
number listed at the top of each heading if you have any questions. If you disagree with this decision
regarding completeness of your application, you may appeal it to the Planning Commission. A Petition
for Appeal and a $600.00 filing fee must be submitted in the Community Development Agency, Planning
Division, Room 308, Civic Center, San Rafael, no later than 4:00 P,M., January 15, 2009. Please call
Christine Gimmler at (415) 499-6285 if you have any questions about the status of your application.
cc: Charles McGlashan, President, Marin County Board of Supervisors
Brian Crawford, Director, Marin Community Development Agency
Tom Lai, Deputy Director of Planning Services
Christine Gimmler, Senior Planner
David Zaltsman, Marin County Counsel
5
Michel Jeremias, Marin County Department of Public Works
James Raives, Senior Planner, Department of Parks and Open Space
Scott Anderson, Community Development Director, Town ofTiburon
Ron Barney, Fire Marshal, Tiburon Fire Protection District
Joseph Eischens, MMWD
John Reed, Mart~a Company
Scott Hochstrasser, IP A, Inc.
Attachments: 1. Tiburon Fire Protection District, Letter Dated December 8, 2008
2. Marin Municipal Water District, Letter Dated December 10, 2008
3. Tiburon Community Development Department, Letter Dated December 19,2008
4. Department of Public Works, Memorandum Dated December 26, 2008
5. Department of Parks and Open Space, Memorandum Dated December 26,2008
6
~IGEST 0 .
Town of Tiburon
MEMORANDUM
TO: Peggy Curran, Town Manager
FROM:
Nicholas Nguyen, Director of Public Works 1----
cc: Mike Cronin, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Street Smarts - Transportation Authority of Marin
DATE: December 18, 2008
. ....................... ..................... ......
The Transportation Authority of Marin has developed a program called Street Smarts designed
to bring greater awareness to traffic and pedestrian safety in our communities.
It is comprised of professionally developed flyers and literature, yard signs, street light banners,
and other material. The intent is to change or affect the behavior of motorists, bicyclists, and
pedestrians to follow and understand the rules.
The program understands how public information can lose its effectiveness if left out
continuously so it factors this in by establishing guidelines on timing, placements, and the like.
Attached is a sample flyer of the program. Deployment of the program is driven by who wants to
pay for it. I see a big berefit for our community in deploying the program; if only portion of it as it
is somewhat menu-based. The program has different elements, such as various signs, flyers,
and outreach material. We can choose all implement all or just one element. At the moment, I
recommend implementing only portions of the program dues to limited resources.
The entire program can cost up to $10,000, but partial deployment can be much lower. We may
want to consider funding this program in the future.
To: The Town of Tiburon
From: Kevin Brown, Skate Park Consultant
Date: December 30, 2008
Re: A Skate Spot
D~,
'1G~8-,.
7.
RECEIVED
JAN - 9 2009
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to you today to explain how a "skate spot" would benefit your community.
Both inexpensive and highly successful, well designed skate spots are the solution to
skateboarders damaging city property due to not having an adequate place to do what
they love, skateboarding.
Sincerely,
Kevin Brown
510-421-1920
skateparks424@yahoo.com
Skate Spots
The newest trend in city master planning is the creation of "skate spots." Skate
spots are small and inexpensive concrete areas that are both aesthetically
pleasing and functional for pedestrians, and a perfect place for skateboarders to
skate the terrain they love. Skate spots replicate urban environments but are
designed ideally for skateboarders and are built in a manner that they can easily
tolerate the wear and tear produced by skateboarding.
Here are the benefits of having one or more skate spots in your city:
. Roughly 80% of skateboarders are street skateboarders. This means that
if your city doesn't have a skate park, or has a skate park that lacks well
designed urban elements, skateboarders will take to the streets and skate
city property in order to meet their needs.
. Due to the fact that skate spots are often as small as 1,400 sq. ft., require
no extra maintenance than a normal park for pedestrians, and do not
require supervision, they are very inexpensive.
. When skate spots are designed by an experienced skate park designer
like myself, they offer the best aspects of urban skateboarding in a fully
functional, safe, creative, and fun manner. Skateboarders love skate
spots for this reason and the fact that they are unmonitored and unfenced
makes them feel that they are skating "real" street.
. According to'the city of Tracy, CA (which decided to do 2 additional skate
spots after their first one was so successful), skate spots require no extra
liability or maintenance than any other amenity such as a basketball court
or tennis court, and are highly successful as well as being easy to build.
. In cities with only one centrally located skate park, many skateboarders
have to depend on motorized transportation to get to the park. If public
transportation is inadequate and if skateboarders can't get a ride or drive,
then they will skate city property to meet their needs. With skate spots
spread evenly throughout the city, all skateboarders will have a place to
do what they love and will have no reason to skate public property which
ends up costing cities exponentially more money than building skate
spots.
Skate spots solve the problem of skateboarders damaging city property and
interrupting businesses, by giving them safe, well designed, well built, "real"
urban skate spots. In addition, skate spots make the 13 million skateboarders in
the United States feel welcomed and cared for by society instead of feeling like
criminals for attempting to practice the sport that they love, skateboarding.
Kevin Brown
Skate Park Consultant
Cell Phone: 510-421-1920
Skateparks424@yahoo.com
It is my passion to help cities get an ideal skate park or skate spot for less money than they would
be spending without my services. My expertise includes skate park design, project management,
running community outreach workshops, quality control, and an in depth understanding of the
entire skate park process and issues that need to be considered before starting a skate park
project. With my services, you will not be shooting in the dark in tenns of what style of skate park
to build, what designer to use, how to write the ideal RFPs and RFQs, and many other issues that
detennine whether or not your skate park will be successful.
Here are the ways I can help your city in the skate park or skate spot process:
· I have worked with over 15 cities to help them get an ideal skate park, so I fully
understand how the skate park process works and can save you time and expense.
· I have actively been skateboarding for 14 years, and have been a volunteer skate
park advocate and designer since 2003. The only thing I love more than actually
skateboarding is helping cities to get a well designed, built, and affordably priced
skate park. For these reasons, I speak both the language of the skateboard
community and the business language of cities. I am the perfect intermediary
between the two parties which in my experience are almost never connected. By
connecting these two parties and having a skate park expert like myself involved
every step of the way, skate paiks come out ideally.
. I know all of the pros and cons of every different style of skate park (prefabricated
ramps, prefabricated concrete, concrete plaza, concrete flow park, etc.), and skate
park design firms because I have skated almost 100 different skate parks and have
worked with 5 of the top design firms on a volunteer basis.
· My Bachelor's Degree in Industrial Technology which focused on developing
presentation skills, project management skills, and quality control skills has
perfectly prepared me to run the community outreach workshops for cities ( I have
been to 16 of these), and ensure that projects come out ideally from their inception
to completion.
My services will save you expense, research, and stress because I will be there through
out the entire project and will ensure that your city's skate park or skate spot will be
100% functional, affordably priced, fun, unique, and very successful.
Sincerely,
Kevin Brown
1;.
TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Regular Meeting
Tiburon Planning Conunission
January 14,2009 -7:30 PM
AGENDA
/)IG~
~8-r
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chairman O'Donnell, Vice Chainnan Kunzweiler, Commissioner Corcoran, Commissioner
Fraser, Commissioner Frymier
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons wishing to address the Planning Cormnission on any subject not on the agenda may do
so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Planning Commission is not able to
undertake extended discussion, or take action on, itelns that do not appear on this agenda.
Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a
future Planning Commission agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3)
Ininutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda will not be considered part of the
administrative record.
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING
Commission and Cohunittee Reports
Director's Report
PUBLIC HEARING
1. 2000 PARADISE DRIVE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: RESOLUTION
DENYING APPLICATION TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESTAURANT
BUILDING (THE CAPRICE) WITH A NEW RESTAURANT BUILDING; FILE
#10707; Point Tiburon Plaza, Inc., Owner; Hank Bruce Architects, Applicant;
Assessor's Parcel No. 059-172-46 [DW]
DISCUSSION ITEM
2. ANNUAL CALENDAR FOR 2009
MINUTES
3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of December 10,2008
Agenda Tiburon Planning Commission
January 14,2009
Page 1
ADJOURNMENT
Future Agenda Items
700 Tiburon Boulevard - Belvedere Tennis Club - Six-Month Review of Conditional Use Permit (1/28/09)
1600 Mar West - Tiburon Peninsula Club - Six-Month Review of Condition of Approval of
Conditional Use Permit (1/28/09)
Agenda Tiburon Planning Commission
January 14,2009
aO 11409
Page 2
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
AGENDA
C/~,.
~~)--
qj
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD
TIBURON, CA 94920
DATE: 1/15/09
MEETING TIME 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA NO.: #1
PLEASE NOTE: In order to give all interested persons an opportunity to be heard, and to ensure the
presentation of all points of view, members of the audience should:
(1) Always address the Chair; (2) State name for the record; (3) State views/concerns succinctly; (4) Limit
presentation to three minutes,' (5) Speak directly into microphone and (6) All documents submitted at the
meeting must first be submitted at the Staff table, to be entered into the record and retained by the Town.
If an item is continued, it is the responsibility of interested parties to note the nevv meeting date. Notices will
not be sent out for items continued to a specific date.
Any documents produced by the Town and distributed to a Inajority of the Design Review Board regarding any
item on this agenda, including agenda-related documents produced by the Town after distribution of the
agenda packet 72 hours in advance of the Board meeting, will be available for public inspection at Tiburon
Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920.
A.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Doyle, Boardmembers Chong, Glassner, Tollini and Wilson
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA)
C. STAFF BRIEFING
D. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR
E. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD
1. 5035 Paradise Drive Marsh New Dwelling
2. 5 Rolling Hills Road Western Liability h1surance Additions/Variances/Floor Area Exception
CONTINUED TO 2/5/09
F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD
3.
30 Pamela Court
Simonson
Additions CONTINUED TO 3/5/09
G. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #19 OF THE 12/18/08 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETINGS
H. ADJOURNMENT
**PLEASE NOTE THAT AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER**
I tJ J
TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Town Hall
;;; 1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Town Council Chambers
Tiburon, CA 94920
Regular Meeting
Tiburon Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission
January 20,2009 - 6:00 PM
AGENDA
DIG
~8~
TOWN OF TIBURON
PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS COMMISSION
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Winkler, Vice-Chair Sperber, Commissioners Feldman, Leighton and McMullen
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons wishing to address the Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission on any subject not on
the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Parks, Open Space &
Trails Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do
not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action or follow-up may be referred to Town Staff
or placed on a future Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission agenda. Please limit your
comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda
will not be considered part of the administrative record.
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING
. Staff Information Items
Cypress Hollow Park Improvement Proposal
Open Space Management Plan Development
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
. There Are None
MINUTES
. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of November 18,2008
ADJOURNMENT
Tiburon Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission January 20,2009
Page 1
~ MARIN MUNICIPAL
~ WATER DISTRICT
~~ @ ~ U \VI ~~
~ JAN 2 2009 @
UI
PLANNING DIVISION
220 Nellen Avenue Corte Madera CA 94925-1169
www.marinwater.org
December 23,2008
Scott Anderson
Director of Community Development
Town of Tiburon, Community Development Department
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, California 94920
DIG
~8~
RE: MMWD Desalination Project EIR - Response to Comments
Dear Scott,
On behalf of the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) thank you for your constructive
comments on our Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the proposed Marin
Municipal Water District Desalination Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2003082037) released in
November 2007. In accordance with Section 15088(b) of the Guidelines for Implementation of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines) the Marin Municipal Water District
is providing you with responses to your comments on the Draft EIR. The complete Final EIR,
including the revised EIR, appendices, comments on the Draft EIR, and responses to all
comments submitted on the Draft EIR, is available for download at www.marinwater.org.
The MMWD Board of Directors will consider certification of the Final EIR for the project at their
meeting of February 4, i009. The meeting will be held at 220 Nellen Avenue, Corte Madera,
California, beginning at 7:30 PM.
If you have any questions concerning the District's responses to your comments please contact
me at the contact information shown below.
:~~
Dain Anderson
Environmental Services Coordinator
220 Nellen Avenue
Corte Madera, California 94925
(415) 945-1586
(415) 927-4953 (fax)
danderson@marinwater.org
recycled
recyclable
6.0 COMMENTS FROM LOCAL AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
L-12 TIBURON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SCOTT
ANDERSON
Town of1ibuJon. 15051iburon Bou1cvard. Tiburon. CA 94920. P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438' \\ww.ci.tibwon.ca.us
Community Development Department
February 12,2008
Eric McGuire
Environmental Services Coordinator
Marin Municipal Water District
220 Nellen Avenue
Corte Madera, CA 94925
RE: TOWN OF TIBURON COMMENTS ON MMWD DESALINIZATION
PROJECf DRAFI' EIR
Dear Mr. McGuire:
The Town of Tiburon is in receipt of the DEIR. for the above-referenced project. Town
Staff notes that the project proposes construction of a 2 million gallon tank on Town-
owned open space, dedicated to the public for open space purposes and subject to a
reversionary clause held by the prior. owner. This tank would also require the
installation of a water pipe underneath Town open space and the securing of access and
maintenance rights over the open space. The Town offers the following comments on
the DEIR:
1. All of the Southern Marin water tank locations descnbed in the DElR appear to
be located on publicly-owned open space lan~ held either by the Town of Tiburon or
by the Marin County Open Space District. This narrow selection of alternative sites
L-12-1 automatically creates a conflict between MMWD and the public agencies which hold
pte open spaces in public trust for uses that are incompatible with MMWD's proposed
11Se. If at all possible, the DEIR. should identify and evaluate alternative locations where
these conflicts with fellow public agencies may be avoided.
2. The DEIR alternatives section (Section 6) discusses and dismisses alternative
tank locations in summary fashion. For example, alternative tank location Ridgecrest
"B" is dismissed from further disCussion on the basis that "The site is in open grassland
in an area that is more visible to the surrounding area than the Ridgecrest "A" site."
There is no indication given that a tank at the Ridgecrest ''Bn location would result in a
finding different than the "less than significant" visual impact finding made for the
Ridgecrest "An site. In fact, no evidence or analysis is provided to support the assertion
L-12-2 of greater visibility of the Ridgecrest "B" site. Town Staff suggests that a photo
simulation similar to that prepared for the Ridgecrest A site be prepared, or, more
definitively, that story poles be erected in both locations such that the visual impacts
associated with each alternative can be reasonably assessed from multiple vantage
points.. Other than the purported visibility issue, the DEIR indicates no difference in
impacts between the two alternatives. In addition. the two other alternative tank
locations. on the west side ofU. S. Highway 101, are also summarily dismissed from
further review on the grounds that wetlands vegetation "could potentially be affected",
l'
_~~~1{;
Comments and Responsesdoc\18-DEC-08\OAK
6-118
Marin Municipal Water District
6.0 COMMENTS FROM LOCAL AGENCIES AND ORG~NIZATIONS
L-12-2,
Cont.
or that the alternative". . ..could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of known potentially unique archaeological resources...." Speculative phrasing of this
nature is not sufficient to foreclose consideration of an alternative, nor does it inspire
confidence that the alternative locations were seriously evaluated before being
dismissed from further review. The alternatives section should be revised and
augmented accordingly.
L-12-3
3. Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 proposes that MMWD purchase or trade open space
land with the Marin County Open Space District to mitigate the loss of public open
space land that would, in fact, be taken from the Town of Tiburon. This mitigation
measure as drafted, while intending to address a County land use plan consistency
impact, misses the mark in both the political and the practical sense. First, the real party
in interest for purposes oftbe proposed storage tank at Ridgecrest "A'; is the Town of
Tiburon, not the Marin County Open Space District. Second, the mitigation measure
should require that any lost open space land be replaced within the Town of Tiburon or
on the Tiburon Peninsula, rather than anywhere in Marin County as the current
mitigation measure suggests. Finally, the Town ofTiburon should be included at an
early stage in any discussions regarding the Ridgecrest "A" open space land, should the
desalinization project actually proceed toward implementation.
Please also be advised that the Tiburon Town Council has neither been approached by
L-12-4 MMWD regarding this project, nor discussed or taken any official position on the
project to date. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for this project.
Please feel free to contact me at 415~4357392 should you have any questions.
Very truly YOl.\fS,
~'
Scott Anderson
Director of Community Development
Cc: Town Manager
Town Attorney
Weekly Digest
S:\Planning'StafTFolders\sanderson\Lettcrs\MMWD dcsalinizatiOlltank deir comment lettcr.cIoc
Responses to Comment L-12
L-12-1
No fea~ible alte!'natives to the. southern Marin tank sites exist. The EIR evaluates three
alternatIve tank sItes: the Horse Hill site, Chapman site, and Ridgecrest B site (Final EIR, pp. 6-4
to ~-8). The EI.R concludes that none o~ the sites would avoid or lessen potentially significant
env.lronme~tal Impacts. Therefore, the sItes were not carried forward for further environmental
~evIew. (Ibzd.) Th~ com~enter suggests that alternative sites should be considered that would not
Impact land held In pubhc trust as open space. Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 requires a minimum of
MMWD Desalination Project Final EIR 6-119
Comments and Resp<J1sesooc\l 8-DEC-08\OAK
6.0 COMMENTS FROM LOCAL AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
1: 1 replacement of open space that is lost as a result of development of the Ridgecrest A tank
site. Implementation of this mitigation measure reduces the potential impact from development
of the site to a less-than-significant level (Final EIR, p. 4.8-8). In the almost 40 years MMWD
has been studying ways to distribute supplemental water supply to customers, the sites discussed
in the EIR have been the sites found to be suitable. While the sites were once privately owned,
they are now open space or quasi-open space. MMWD believes that the proposed site would
have no visual impacts on surrounding areas, except in the case of hikers who walk to the site.
However, in order to use this site, MMWD would have to provide replacement property of equal
or greater value as open space.
L-12-2
According to Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the range of potential alternatives to the
proposed project should include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives
of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. None
of the alternative southern Marin tank sites would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
impacts identified for the Ridgecrest A tank site. In fact, each of the alternative southern Marin
tank sites would potentially have greater impacts than those associated with the Ridgecrest A
tank site. These alternative southern Marin tank sites were seriously considered by MMWD and
were subjected to the same field studies as the Ridgecrest A tank site.
As discussed in Section 6.3.7 of the EIR, the Horse Hill Fire Road would need to be improved
for permanent access to the Horse Hill.tank site, which could cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of known potentially unique archaeological resources (CA-MRN-520 and
CA-MRN-598), as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. This impact would be
potentially significant. All other impacts were found to be similar to those of the proposed tank
site at Ridgecrest A. Since no impacts would be reduced and two potentially significant impacts
were identified, this alternative tank site was not carried forward for environmental review.
The Chapman Tank site contains a drainage at the beginning of the utility easement just south of
Fairview A venue. The drainage supports wetland vegetation that could potentially be affected by
the construction of access to the tank site. An impact to wetland vegetation would be considered
potentially significant. All other impacts were found to be similar to those of the proposed tank
site at Ridgecrest A. Since no impacts would be reduced and one potentially significant impact
was identified, this alternative tank site was not carried forward for environmental review.
The Ridgecrest B tank site is in open grassland in an area that is more visible to the surrounding
area than the Ridgecrest A site, since the Ridgecrest A site contains a screen of mature trees to
the north and northeast.
All impacts were found to be similar to those of the proposed tank site at Ridgecrest A. Since no
impacts would be reduced, this alternative tank site was not carried forward for environmental
review. A visual simulation of this site was not prepared since it was not carried forward in the
analysis.
L-12-3
Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 has been modified as follows:
Comments and Responses.doc\! 8-DEC-08\OAK
6-120
Marin Municipal Water District
6.0 COMMENTS FROM LOCAL AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
MMWD will work with the Marin County Open Space District and the Town of Tiburon
to identify the location and amount of lands (minimum mitigation ratio of 1:1) that can be
purchased or MMWD-owned land that can be traded to offset the loss of this open space
land. Preferably the land would be contiguous to other existing open space managed by
the Marin County Open Space District and located on the Tiburon Peninsula. MMWD
will then execute the agreed-upon exchange.
(Final EIR, p. 4.8-8.)
L-12-4
A meeting was held with Scott Anderson, Director of Community Planning of the Town of
Tiburon on January 21, 2004, to obtain feedback on the alternative tank site locations. Paul
Helliker, General Manager of MMWD, made a presentation to the Tiburon Town Council on
March 19, 2008. In addition, the Town of Tiburon was included on general mailing lists that
were used to disseminate information about the proposed project, as well as to invite individuals
and groups to attend hearings on the scope of the then-proposed EIR as well as informational
sessions regarding the proposed project. Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 has been modified as
described in the response to Comment L-12-3.
MMWD Desalination Project Final EIR
6-121
Comments and Respmses.doc\ 18-DEC-08\OAK