HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Minutes 2013-05-01TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor O'Donnell called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m.
on Wednesday, May 1, 2013, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon,
California.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO:
Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell
Collins (Excused)
Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth,
Director of Administrative Services Bigall, Director
of Community Development Anderson, Director of
Public Works /Town Engineer Nguyen, Building
Official Lustenberger, Police Chief Cronin, Town
Clerk Crane Iacopi
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT, IF ANY
Mayor O'Donnell said there was no closed session.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Rick Watennan, Southridge West, said that five major construction projects over the last two
years in his neighborhood had created such disruption with early morning noise and traffic that he
and his wife had sought respite in hotels, at their own expense. He said the Town's hours of
construction starting times were not adhered to; that the only enforcement [of the Town's
ordinance] was ticketing of vehicles that blocked driveways. He asked the Council to help fine
tune Section 13 -6 of the Town Code so that he and his neighbors could have peaceful enjoyment
of their homes. He asked that their signed petition on this matter be placed on a Council agenda
as soon as possible.
Bob Austrian, also of Southridge West, lent his support. He said the Town's own records had
documented that traffic levels on Tiburon Boulevard were "beyond capacity" at certain hours of
the day. He said the schools could not change their hours but suggested that the Town could
control construction hours, and allow or disallow projects, through its building permitting
process. He asked that the Council focus on the intersection of construction projects and roadway
safety and consider a change of policy.
Town Council Minutes #06 -2013 May 1, 2013 Page 1
PRESENTATIONS
• Annual Heritage Preservation Award — Jack Fiorito, Recipient
Heritage & Arts Commission Chair Azita Mujica- Beavers presented the 17th Annual Heritage
Preservation Award to Mr. Fiorito for his dedication to history in teaching children about the
China Cabin since it first opened its doors in the 1990s. She said the children referred to him as
"Captain Jack ", a fitting title for a former naval officer. Mr. Fiorito accepted the award and
shared some humorous stories about the third -grade classes he leads through the China Cabin as
docent. He acknowledged the members of his family who were in the audience, wife Shirley,
daughter Ann and her husband, and son Mark. He said that he and his wife would later this year
celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary, adding to the festivities of the evening..
Mayor O'Donnell said that the award was well deserved and he thanked and congratulated Mr.
Fiorito for his spirit of volunteerism on behalf of the Town Council.
• Introduction of new Town Employee, Kyra O'Malley, Assistant Planner
Director of Community Development introduced the newest member of the Tiburon Planning
Department, Kyra O'Malley. He said that Ms. O'Malley held a degree in Urban and Regional
Planning from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and had worked for the City of Elk Grove, a State
Assemblymember, as well as in the private sector, prior to accepting the position. Anderson
noted that Ms. O'Malley had been chosen from a pool of over 150 applicants.
Mayor O'Donnell welcomed O'Malley to the Tiburon "team ".
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Town Council Minutes — Adopt minutes of April 17, 2013 meeting (Town
Clerk Crane Iacopi)
MOTION: To adopt the minutes, as written.
Moved: Doyle, seconded by Fredericks
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: Collins
ACTION ITEMS
Mayor O'Donnell reversed the order of the next items on the agenda; Action Item No. 2 was
heard first.
Town Council Minutes #06 -2013 May 1, 2013 Page 2
2. Rename Multi -Use Path — Consider recommendation by Heritage & Arts
Commission to rename Richardson Bay Lineal Path (aka Multi -Use Path) to "Old
Rail Trail" (Town Manager Curran)
Town Manager Curran said that the Town's Naming Policy calls for the Town Manager to bring
recommended place names, whether for a new facility or to rename an existing one, to the
Heritage & Arts Commission (H &A). She said H &A then makes a recommendation to the Town
Council for its consideration and decision.
Curran said that for some time now, the Marketing & Communications Task Force (M &C) has
been considering whether there might be better, more descriptive and attractive names for several
Town facilities. Curran said that the Richardson Bay Lineal Path (its formal name in the General
Plan) which is also known as the Multi -Use Path, struck M &C as particularly misnamed. She
said the committee weighed many names and ultimately chose "Old Rail Trail" as its
recommended new name which would reflect the Town's railroad history.
On April 23, Curran said that H &A met to consider this recommendation and voted unanimously
to endorse the new name. In doing so, she said they expressed agreement with M &C's thinking
and went even further, talking about opportunities the new name might represent to creatively
improve signage or even form the basis for a community event celebrating the Town's railroad
history.
The Town Manager said that Town records could be updated over time to reflect the new name,
and that only minor expenses would be associated with the renaming, such as replacement of
signage. She recommended that the Council consider adoption of the renaming resolution that
was submitted as a supplement to the staff report, and authorize resultant expenditures, such as
signage, where appropriate.
Mayor O'Donnell opened the matter to public comment.
Bob Dougherty, describing himself as a "wordsmith ", read a poem he had submitted to the Ark
newspaper endorsing another name, "Blackie's Byway ". He riffed on the name in rhyme and
sang, "whaddyasay ?"
Doherty said the only test of a name is whether people use it. He said that paths are to the future
and trails trail behind. He cringed at the word "old" and said the path was used by people to "get
healthy ". He recommended that the Council pick the right name, one that would be used over
time.
Mayor O'Donnell closed the matter to public comment.
Councilmember Doyle said that Mr. Doherty had made some good points; he said he thought
people would continue to use the more well -known "bike path" name to describe the path.
Town Council Minutes #06 -2013 May 1, 2013 Page 3
Councilmember Fraser said that the M &C Task had been working on rebranding the Town for
over three years and that it was a significant initiative. He said they had received extensive input
from the community during this time and that this was truly a long -term vision that would take
years and decades to accomplish. He said that imagery reflected the soul of the community. He
said he thought "Old Rail Trail" was the right name, reflecting the Town's history, and could be
embraced by all.
Vice Mayor Alice agreed; she said it was a good idea to connect the name to the Town's history
and that it was a national history, as well. She said that many towns and cities had converted their
old railroad rights of way to trails, byways and paths. She said it also fit because the railroad used
to connect the Town to the ferry and San Francisco before 1906.
Mayor O'Donnell concurred, and jokingly added that the word "old" might slow down some of
the fast - moving bicycles on the trail, as well.
MOTION: To adopt the resolution, as written.
Moved: Fraser, seconded by Fredericks
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: Collins
1. Building Permit Extension — Consideration of building permit extension and
related fees for a single - family residential project located at 110 Gilmartin Drive
(Building Official Fred Lustenberger)
Property Owners: Stuart and Gina Peterson
AP No.: 309 - 171 -12
Building Official Lustenberger gave the staff report. He said that the issue before the Council was
the consideration of granting the extension of a building permit for the project located at 110
Gilmartin Drive. He said the Council could decide whether to grant the extension and determine
the reactivation charges for the permit. He said this included two components — the recovery fee
(for ongoing labor such as inspection services) and the penalty fee (a Town policy that was in
place to reduce the number of construction projects that continue past 18 months and cause
disruption to neighborhoods). He said that the Council had the ability to act in a number of ways
and that the written staff report detailed three possible approaches for Council's consideration.
Mr. Lustenberger said that in his opinion the project at 110 Gilmartin Drive was well managed
and had experienced minimum delays. He said the site manager was responsive and attempted to
minimize impacts to the neighbors. However, the Building Official acknowledged that for some
of the neighbors, the project had gone on too long with no end in sight. He said that many of the
neighbors had shared their comments but had asked to remain anonymous.
Town Council Minutes #06 -2013 May 1, 2013 Page 4
One neighbor, according to Lustenberger, said that he had no issues at all with the project except
for minor nuisances such as dust, and had even marketed his home with no negative result. But
the Building Official said that five other neighbors had expressed opinions that ranged from
somewhat negative to very negative, even going so far as to say that the project had been
fraudulently misrepresented and should be punished to the maximum possible in order to
discourage this kind of outcome in future.
Vice Mayor Fredericks asked what kind of controls the Town had other than punishing
pocketbooks? Building Official Lustenberger said that 10 years ago, the Town had tried to
address the issue of ongoing construction and that the resultant ordinance covered most types of
construction within the town. He said the intent of this policy was to deal with projects that were
not managed well, "perpetual proj ects" as it were. He said that conventional homes could be built
much quicker than the project in question, which contained many customized features, and that it
was difficult to predict when some of the actual components might be ready for installation.
Vice Mayor Fredericks asked whether it was possible to ask the project managers to create a
timeline and describe benchmark goals. Lustenberger said that might be possible. He also said
these types of issues might be more fully thought out in the Design Review process; he said that
in his review of the minutes, there was no talk about the length of construction of the project,
only a focus on the time involved in the demolition process.
Vice Mayor Fredericks commented that it was possible that the Town would not see a project of
this scope ever again and she asked whether accord might be reached through setting
benchmarks.
Councilmember Fraser asked for a definition of the term "substantially completed ". Lustenberger
said this meant the time at which a Temporary Occupancy Pen-nit would be issued and the family
could occupy the structure. He said that perhaps landscaping would be left to do, or paint and
carpet. Fraser asked how long a temporary permit lasted; Lustenbeger said this timeframe was
set on a project by project basis.
Mayor O'Donnell asked whether the Town required a performance bond for this size of project.
Lustenberger said that it did not.
Councilmember Fraser asked for a best estimate of completion of the project and was told August
2014. He asked whether this meant, when the last [construction] vehicle would leave the site.
Lustenberger said that meant heavy equipment. Fraser asked for a date that included every single
truck; the Building Official said he would be hesitant to give a date certain.
Councilmember Fraser acknowledged that this was an unusual new project with many known and
unknown components. But he suggested that someone must have experience with this type and
scope of project and could address these questions more fully.
Town Council Minutes #06 -2013 May 1, 2013 Page 5
Building Official Lustenberger said that he had requested a project schedule and that it was, in
fact, a prerequisite for the consideration of an extension. Fraser said that a comprehensive
analysis would be helpful. Lustenberger said that construction flow charts for a regular home are
generally predictable, but the nature of this project made it more difficult to predict.
Mayor O'Donnell asked whether, at the time of issuance of the permit in June 2010, the Town
was aware that the project would take more than 18 months to complete.
Director of Community Development Anderson said that the Building Official had granted the
initial permit for 24 months, the longest that he had authority to grant.
O'Donnell wondered about some of the components of the project that had been described as
unique or custom or complex, such as the cantilevered beams. He said that he was in the steel
business and that steel certainly was not "esoteric" in his opinion. The Building Official
described a window component that was being fabricated for the project and had to undergo wind
tunnel testing before installation, as it was not a standard building code - recognized design or
fabrication. He said this assembly, and other design features of the project, were not "off the
shelf', which made working with them more difficult and time - consuming.
Councilmember Doyle said he was Chair of the Design Review Board at the time the project was
approved. He agreed that it was not even "close" to a typical home and he said he had been
worried at the time about the massive amount of material to be removed from the site prior to the
start of construction of the new home. He said this included 100,000 pavers, ponds, waterfalls,
and four to five buildings. He said the question did arise how it would be possible to both
demolish the existing structures and build the new project in the allotted time.
Doyle said that the architect for the project was well known for his unique designs and that this
home will be remembered in this context, as well. He said the Town simply lacked the necessary
guidelines for dealing with the scope of this type of project.
Mayor O' Donnell asked whether adding more people to the job would get it done faster.
Lustenberger said that with this high level of precision construction it could be
counterproductive. He also noted that the Town's rules did not allow weekend work.
Mayor O'Donnell noted that the Empire State Building was erected in 13 months.
Building Official Lustenberger commented that he has been the inspector of record for several,
similar -size projects in other locales, and that the current project timeline was consistent with
those projects.
Vice Mayor Fredericks asked whether the construction schedule could be modified and filed
periodically with the Building Department for the benefit of keeping the neighbors informed.
Town Council Minutes #06 -2013 May 1, 2013 Page 6
Lustenberger said that this is the first revision of the construction schedule he has received and that it
is a public document, available for review by the neighbors. He clarified for the Council that this is
the schedule they were being asked to consider for the extension of the permit.
The Council noted that in just receiving the document, they had not had time to review it.
Councilmember Fraser said it looked to him mostly like a historical schedule; he said the Council
owed it to the community to have an accurate schedule, perhaps a 30 -day at a time schedule. He said
this was more important than the issue of penalty fees and punishment.
Fraser said that the schedule lacked specific detail to his satisfaction.
Mayor O'Donnell said that it appeared the end -date of the construction was December 9, 2014.
Councilmember Doyle noted that included landscaping and other work.
Town Attorney Danforth pointed out that the Council had to accept the schedule if it decided to
extend the pen-nit. She suggested that the Council might ask the applicant to more finely tune it,
if desired.
Mayor O'Donnell opened the matter for public comment.
Judith Thompson, CEO of Thompson Brooks, contractor, said she would speak after a
presentation by the Project Manager, Patrick Davis.
Mr. Davis said he had brought hand -outs of the presentation and timeline for the Council but
noted that the Council had already received them [as late mail]. Mr. Davis gave a brief report on
the background and history of the project. He said that it was 66% complete. He said the plans
were only schematic drawings during the Design Review process so it would have been difficult
to pinpoint specific timelines. He said that final engineered plans were submitted in August of
2012.
Mr. Davis commented that the Fire Marshal had required a commercial fire sprinkler system due
to the size of the project and cited this as an example of the unique, customized nature of the
project. He listed other features, as well, which had led to the slower construction and precluding
options for fast - tracking it. Nevertheless, he said they had tried hard to address the concerns of
the neighbors and that they would make every effort to complete the project as soon as possible.
He asked the Council to grant the extension of the permit.
With regard to fees levied, Mr. Davis requested a cap on fees similar to the system used in the
City of Belvedere ($1,000 per day with a cap of $200,000). He said the DRB had granted the
applicants a variance for the size of the home and he said the construction timeline should reflect
this, noting that three homes could be built on the two parcels and would take even longer (if
constructed serially) than the current one -home project.
Town Council Minutes #06 -2013 May 1, 2013 Page 7
Ms. Thompson concurred with the argument to calculate the fees based on size of the project. But
she suggested that the Council might consider another way to control the time of construction on
this type of project.
Ms. Thompson went on to say that the property owners had already paid penalties associated with
the time of the project construction and that the team was moving as fast as we can. She asked
the Council not to penalize them further, stating that they had done nothing wrong.
Mayor O'Donnell asked her how she would respond to the letter asking for more people to be
placed on the project to expedite it. Ms. Thompson said that she, too, wanted to complete it as
soon as possible but the she could not get any more people on the job.
Councilmember Fraser asked the project manager how much longer past the estimated completion
date the punch list items would take and when the last truck would leave the property. There was an
ensuing discussion of whether this was in fact two or three months, or even four to six months.
Fraser asked whether it was possible to present a believable schedule.
In summing up his presentation, the project manager said that the project would enhance the
beauty of the community and increase its property values and the property tax revenue to the
Town.
Dr. Mark Singer, resident of Gilmartin Drive for 20 years, thanked the Building Official for his
excellent staff report and the Council for giving him the opportunity to speak. He said that he was
not a NIMBY; that the construction was actually taking place in his front yard for the better part
of three years, obstructing his views and causing noise and seismic disturbances to his family. He
said that they had had to keep their windows closed for three years.
Dr. Singer asked why the Town's ordinance [penalties] should not be enforced in this instance.
He said the project timelines could not be verified; that his property had sustained physical
damage to its structure and had broken windows. He said that in hindsight, he felt that the public
was "gamed" during the design review process because of the awesome features of the new home
but that it was not neighborly, fair or equal for a project of this size and cost to impact the
neighborhood in this way.
Dr. Singer suggested that the Council might also get a second opinion, as in medicine, regarding
the construction timeline. He said the Council needed to do this and preserve the integrity of the
[review] process.
Mayor O'Donnell closed the public hearing.
Vice Mayor Fredericks asked staff about the suggestion of obtaining a second opinion. Building
Official Lustenberger said that there was a provision in the Town Code whereby the Town can
require that another firm come in if the project is not being managed properly.
Town Council Minutes #06 -2013 May 1, 2013 Page 8
Fredericks asked whether Mr. Lustenberger was comfortable with the current project team.
Lustenberger said that there was no evidence of incompetence or reason to believe that the team
would not move ahead in a satisfactory manner.
Vice Mayor Fredericks asked about the drawings that had been presented to the Design Review
Board. Director Anderson said that the detailed construction drawings were always developed
later and that essentially what the Board approved was "pretty pictures ".
Fredericks asked if engineering was ever considered at the Design Review Board level. Anderson
said no, not at the time of public review. He said that engineering was considered at the Building
Department level during the permitting process but that the DRB never sees engineered plans.
Mayor O'Donnell asked if the [engineered] plans were reviewed by Town staff or outsourced.
Anderson said they were outsourced due to the size and complexity of the project.
Mayor O'Donnell asked about the initial cost of the project and the fees paid to date.
Lustenberger said the building permit had estimated the project cost at $13.5 million and that
$243,882 had been paid to the Town in fees for the initial building permit issuance.
Councilmember Fraser said the Council needed to determine how long the construction would
take and needed more specificity in the timeline. He said that while the project appeared to be
managed well on a day -to -day level, somehow there was a failure on the strategic level and there
might be some room for improvement. He suggested following up on a peer review by bringing
in an outside expert.
Mayor O'Donnell suggested not rehashing the project and moving on to obtaining an appropriate
timeline and determining how to apply the fees.
Councilmember Doyle said that the fees were meant to penalize someone who is not doing what
they are supposed to be doing. He said that was not the case in this instance. He said he did not
see how the team could move faster on this type and size of project, so that creating an incentive
fee did not seem understandable.
Mayor O'Donnell disagreed; he said that there had to be some sort of incentive and that a
commercial incentive was the greatest incentive.
Councilmember Doyle said he understood the Singers' point of view; he said that he had lived
through six years of construction of three houses in front of his own home. However, he
continued to argue against the notion that the project was being willfully delayed.
Councilmember Fraser suggested getting both a comprehensive timeline and a peer review and
linking the fees to performance along the way. He said he had little confidence in the dates that
had been projected. Doyle asked him then if a realistic estimation of completion was more
important than fees.
Town Council Minutes #06 -2013 May 1, 2013 Page 9
Town Attorney Danforth said there were, in fact, two components to the fees to be considered by
Council: 1) penalty fees (because the Code did not allow more than two years of construction);
and 2) a cost recovery fee which she said should be adopted to track the hard costs of staff review
and inspections.
Vice Mayor Fredericks said that in her work as a behavioral psychologist, it was proven that
incentives drive behavior. However, she said she was reluctant to ask staff to "micromanage" the
project. She said the unknowns would diminish over time and that her idea of using benchmarks
was to give feedback to the neighbors. She said an incentivized fee schedule and cost recovery
was for public efficacy and she said she was happy with the staff s recommendation and
Councilmember Fraser's request for a [monthly] updated timeline. However, she said the latter
would require management by staff.
Mayor O'Donnell said he would support staff recommendation No. 2 coupled with a detailed
timeline and additional oversight (peer review).
Vice Mayor Fredericks asked what peer review would accomplish. Councilmember Fraser said
that it would help answer the question of why, after 34 months, the project was only 66%
complete.
Building Official Lustenberger noted that the fees (associated with the schedule) were for three
separate, six -month extensions and that the fees would become increasingly punitive. Fraser
said he would not support that type of incentivized schedule.
Mayor O'Donnell noted the timeline estimated a final inspection date of September 19, 2014. He
asked if the punch list items would extend past that time. Lustenberger said that date included the
punch list. The Mayor proposed adopting an incentivized fee schedule that would go to monthly
in August or September [2014] and would go straight to penalty phase if the project was not
completed.
Councilmember Doyle said he agreed with the recommendation to request a more complete
schedule but did not understand what they were penalizing.
Mayor O'Donnell said that point of the penalties was to demonstrate that the Council would
apply the same standards to every resident of the Town regardless of wealth, size of home, etc.
O'Donnell said that the applicants made a choice to embark on this design, level of engineering,
etc., and would have to live with the consequences of the process. He said that they were no
doubt aware of the penalties they would have to pay to accomplish it and he said he was also sure
that they wanted to get it done. So, in his estimation, Option No. 2 seemed the best option as it
involved the straight application of the Town Code.
Councilmember Fraser said that he was "on board" but wanted to see the schedule.
Town Council Minutes #06 -2013 May 1, 2013 Page 10
Mayor O'Donnell agreed that the applicant should provide a more detailed schedule and that the
Building Official, not the Council, should manage the timeline.
Vice Mayor Fredericks moved "To approve the permit extension based on an incentivized fee
schedule, contingent upon receipt of a more detailed timeline, and straight application of the
Town Code if the deadline was not met ".
The Mayor suggested that the applicants be given a few more months to finish, perhaps to the end
of the year [2014]. He said it would be easier to resolve if they were given a few more months.
He said the monthly fees at this juncture would be $73,000 in October, $73,000 in November and
$73,000 in December, for a total of $54000.
Town Attorney Danforth and Town Manager Curran attempted to further clarify the motion.
Danforth said the six -month permit issued in June 2014 would expire at the end of 2014. Curran
said that the Council had discretion and was not bound by a six -month extension.
There was a sidebar discussion between Councilmember Doyle and Fraser about the need for
review at the DRB level of the length of construction. Doyle said that the Board was told that
there would be two crews; one for take down and one for build up.
The motion was amended to read, "To direct staff to return with a resolution which extends the
permit based upon the receipt of a more detailed timeline, using an incentivized fee schedule up
to the completion date of September 19, 2014, allowing a few months' grace period at the
monthly rate; if the completion of the project is not met by January 1, 2015, the Town will
penalize the project in a straight application of the Town Code ".
Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell
Vote: AYES: Fredericks, O'Donnell
NOES: Fraser, Doyle
ABSENT: Collins
Motion failed. The Town Attorney noted that failure to adopt a motion would mean that the
permit extension was denied.
The motion was restated as above except that the final extension of the permit would be granted
for six months, bringing the completion date to December 23, 2014.
Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Fraser
Vote: AYES: Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell
NOES: Doyle
ABSENT: Collins
Town Council Minutes #06 -2013 May 1, 2013 Page 11
TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS
Vice Mayor Fredericks gave an update on Plan Bay Area, the State -wide program planning effort
to produce regional plans to accommodate the predicted increase growth in population and jobs
while reducing CO2 and Greenhouse Gas emissions as mandated by SB 375.
A written outline of the points covered in the Vice Mayor's report is attached to these minutes.
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT
None.
WEEKLY DIGESTS
• Town Council Weekly Digest — April 19 & 26, 2013
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fraser
adjourned the meeting at 9:58 p.m.
C c �� �� Ica at
EMMETT O'DONNELL, MAYOR
ATTEST: J
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Town Council Minutes #06 -2013 May 1, 2013 Page 12
1. What is Plan Bay Area
Statewide program planning effort to produce regional plans to accommodate the
predicted increase growth in population and jobs whie reducing CO2 ad GHG
emissions as mandated by SB 375
Overall: link land use and transportation to
compact growth along transportation corridors
keep growth in urbanized areas
Goal: reduce CO2 emissions 15% percent by the year 2040
Initial phases of the planning effort concentrated on accuracy of growth projections.
Why?
Ultimately those projections will inform
the availability of transportation $$
RHNA for local jurisdictions
1
2. Current Discussion
A. Extension of Review Time
i) Release
Plan Bay Area: is the regional plan released in March
Plan Bay Area Draft Eir, released 2 weeks ago
1.5K pages incl the appendix,
ii) Deadlines
a). MTC deadline to comment on the EIR, May 16.
b) Extension of comment period - will ask
unlikely since: tied to OBAG deadlines set by federal
grant process
B. Request to Support No Build Alternative from an ABAG rep from
another jurisdiction who is on the Exec Committee
i. cherry picking the voluminous data can create a good
argument for or against no build position
ii. Small difference in regional projections for household
growth under Project compared to No Build, according to
MTC and ABA Eds
2
3. COMPARATIVE GROWTH
A. Regional growth to 2040
Linda Jackson Slide 4/5 email
AS A PERCENT OF CURRENT HOUSEHOLDS, MARIN has
LOWEST GROWTH UNDER PBA
MARIN LOWEST OF ALL 9 NORTH BAY COUNTIES
Housing Units -
Predicted Regional Growth as a percent of Current Households
Santa Clara - 36 %,
Alameda San Francisco, 29 %,
Napa - 15 %,
Sonoma - 19%
MARIN 9%
- is 1.1% of the predicted regional growth
B. TIBURON
1. ONE OF LEAST IMPACTED TOWNS
AS A RESULT OF COUNCIL AND STAFF ADVOCACY
Original projections of household units 2040: 330
Household Growth informs the RHNAs
Progressive outcome - RHNA for Tiburon
lower than past cycles
March RHNA for 2014 -2022: 159
April RHNA for 2014 -2022: 78
Growth already accounted for in the General Plan
3
4. Analysis
Extending the deadline /or voting no build has some worrisome
consequences for all jurisdictions, including Tiburon
a. Extending the comment period puts funding from OBAG program at
risk. The program includes potential $$ for parks and open space as
well as transportation
b. Supporting the no build alternative has fiscal consequences too
because of continued sprawl, more transportation
investment is required. More VMT, Less GHG reduction
does not meet requirements of AB 375. 9% less CO2
reduction than preferred alternative,
Other counties will have to take growth and build in
green space, e.g. Alameda, San Mateo, Contra Costa
Most environmental benefits of no build vs, project
are due to delays in project approvals & transportation
projects.
Delays result from the CEQA requirement to develop
another alternative and an associated EIR.
Delay will result in missing Federal transportation
funding cycle.
Currently funded projects will continue, but planned projects cannot
be submitted until the Plan Bay Area is complete.
We miss a potential $80M in OBAG
funding and $800M in the TIP, the primary Fed program
for statewide and local transportation funds
4
Recommendation:
1. Extension of comment period already being requested, but not
likely because of consequences.
2. Approval of the No Build alternative unlikely because of the
consequences
3. SOME NOT ALL JURISDICTIONS ARE RESPONDING TO THE DEIR.
MOSTLY THOSE WITH PDAS WHO ARE THE MOST IMPACTED
4. TIBURON
A. IS NOT ON A TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
B. HAS NO PDAS
C. GROWTH IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR GENERAL PLAN
D. ALREADY PLANNED FOR THE GROWTH ALLOCATED
The Town has come thru the process unscathed
5