A.    ROLL CALL ALL PRESENT

B.    PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS THERE WERE NONE

C.    COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Staff Update

Commission Information items

CONSENT CALENDAR

1.    MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2002 ADOPTED AS SUBMITTED 5-0

2.    MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 2002 ADOPTED AS CORRECTED 5-0

E. PUBLIC HEARINGS

3. TIME EXTENSION FOR PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVING ONE HOME ON 5 ACRES OF LAND AT 375 TAYLOR ROAD; Miranda Leonard, owner; John Walker, Walker & Moody Architects, applicant; Assessor’s Parcel Number 038-182-42 RECOMMENDED SIX MONTH TIME EXTENSION TO TOWN COUNCIL 5-0

4. ADEQUACY HEARING ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE TIBURON GLEN PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CREATE EIGHT BUILDING SITES ON A 26.03 ACRE PARCEL; 3700 BLOCK OF PARADISE DRIVE NEAR NORMAN WAY; Xanadu Property Holdings, Inc., owners; Tom Newton, Planning Advisory Corporation, Applicant; Assessor’s Parcel No. 39-241-01 RECIRCULATION NOT NEEDED AT THIS TIME. DIRECTED STAFF TO PREPARE FINAL EIR 4-0

F. DISCUSSION ITEMS

5. POLICY FOR TREES ON TOWN PROPERTY; REVIEW AND COMMENT  COMMENTS PROVIDED.

G. ADJOURNMENT    9:00 PM                                                                                                      a110702

Parente Precise Development Plan:

1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California

 ROLL CALL

Present: Chair Smith, Commissioners Collins, Greenberg, Snow and Stein

Absent: None

Staff Present: Community Development Director Anderson, Town Attorney Danforth, Contract Planner Allsep, EIR Consultants Bob Berman and Jordan Harrison, Meeting Recorder Flanagan

PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

There were none.

COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

There were none.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Minutes of June 26, 2002

M/S, Stein/Snow, passed 5-0, to adopt the minutes of June 26, 2002 as submitted.

2. Minutes of October 23, 2002

One change was made on page 3 to correct "Commission Stein" to "Commissioner Stein."

TIME EXTENSION FOR PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVING ONE HOME ON FIVE ACRES OF LAND AT 375 TAYLOR ROAD; Miranda Leonard, owner; John Walker, Walker & Moody Architects, applicant; Assessor’s Parcel Number 038-182-42

Director of Community Development Anderson reviewed the staff report. In response to questions, he stated that Staff time is covered by the application fees. He added he received a voice mail message from a Dr. Miller who stated his opposition to the project, although did not state a reason. Anderson noted that the design review application for the home has been deemed "complete" and is scheduled for the Design Review Board meeting of December 19, 2002.

Brian Taylor, Walker & Moody Architects, stated his company is working to submit a very precise design and is in line for a Design Review Board meeting. In response to questions, he agreed that Staff’s recommendation regarding a 6-month extension is entirely appropriate.

The public comment period was opened; no one wished to address this item and public comment period was closed.

Commissioner Greenberg asked Staff’s recommendation if the Design Review Board returns the application for refinement and the six months elapses without any further approvals. Anderson responded that if good progress were being made at that time, he would probably recommend another time extension.

Commissioner Greenberg stated that the fact that the design review application was "complete" and scheduled for a meeting was important, and that otherwise she would have been prepared to recommend a denial of the time extension request. She stated that ten years is simply too long; there are impacts on residents. While the Town’s policies may not have changed, its practices have changed and the public should have a right to provide input to ensure that items approved ten years ago are still acceptable today. If not completed in six months, she would not vote to approve another time extension. She believed that on an approval this old, the public should be able to provide input on the Precise Development Plan, not just at the Design Review Board meeting.

Commissioner Stein concurred and added, while he did not review the substance of items that remain to be completed; standards have changed. He also would not vote to approve another time extension. Commissioner Collins concurred, as did Commissioner Snow, who stated the additional six months should be adequate for the project to be brought to closure.

ADEQUACY HEARING ON THE DRAFT EIR FOR THE TIBURON GLEN PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CREATE EIGHT BUILDING SITES ON A 26.03-ACRE PARCEL; 3700 BLOCK OF PARADISE DRIVE NEAR NORMAN WAY; Xanadu Property Holdings, Inc., owners; Tom Newton, Planning Advisory Corporation, Applicant; Assessor’s Parcel No. 39-241-01

Commissioner Greenberg recused herself from this item due to the proximity of her home to the project.

Planner Allsep reviewed the staff report. She noted that tonight’s Planning Commission action is not the final decision as to recirculation. Planner Allsep stated that based on the comments received to date, recirculation of the EIR is not warranted, and it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to consider the issue of recirculation after responses to comments and additional clarification information is included. This hearing does not close the door on recirculation.

Town Attorney Danforth informed the commission about a recent court order which will impact the Town’s processing of this project. The Staff Report notes that the project application was completed in February 2001. There exists a CEQA provision mandating a one-year time deadline for certifying an environmental impact report, after a project application is deemed complete. In August of 2002, after the mandatory one-year time deadline had been exceeded, the project applicant filed an application for a writ of mandate with the Marin County courts requesting that the Court order the Town of Tiburon to complete the EIR process and certify the EIR. The deadline for completion and certification issued by the judge to the Town requires the town to complete the process by March 1, 2003.

Attorney Danforth emphasized the following points: The Town must complete the CEQA process by March 1, 2003. This does not mean that the project itself must be approved by that date, nor that the Town take any action on the project’s merits. It does mean, however, that the Town must certify the Environmental Impact Report by March 1, 2003. Attorney Danforth further noted that she wished to clarify to the Commission that there appears to be a misunderstanding that assumes that the ultimate decision regarding recirculation must be made at this meeting. Ms Danforth stated that decision cannot be made until responses to comments are before the Commission. Only at that point will the Commission know what information must be considered for addition to the draft EIR before it can be made final. Attorney Danforth noted that recirculation would make it more difficult to comply with the court-ordered deadline of March 1, 2003, but that recirculation is not a decision that the Commission can or should make at this meeting. Attorney Danforth advised the Commission to wait until staff returns to the Commission with responses and comments that have been received.

Commissioner Stein stated that since the Planning Commission is being advised not to address the recirculation issue, he is confused as to the purpose of this hearing.

Town Attorney Danforth stated it is a long-held tradition in the Town of Tiburon for the Planning Commission to take a look at the draft EIR after the close of the comment period and review it in conjunction with the comments received in order to determine if any comments exist that clearly mandate recirculation. The result of this process is that the Commission would, at that point, have an EIR document that is designed for recirculation as opposed to a document that is designed to be formatted as a final EIR which may then have to be reformatted and recirculated due to the nature of the responses received. Ms Danforth noted that the Director of Community Development has reviewed and decided to retain this practice.

In response to a question from Commissioner Stein regarding at what point the Commissioner would provide input, Ms. Danforth stated that the Commission would have every opportunity to add its own comments.

Commissioner Collins asked Town Attorney Danforth if when the EIR comes back and it is determined that recirculation is required, whether the Town would still face the March 1, 2003 deadline.

Town Attorney Danforth stated that the time constraints do not change, but what does change is that when the environmental impact consultants return with information which they believe responds to the comments as required by CEQA, and to the Commission’s expressed desire for more information, the Commission can better assess the recirculation issue. Once the additional information is available, the Commission can determine if the addition of this information crosses the recirculation threshold. Ms. Danforth emphasized, however that the court-ordered deadline of March 1, 2003, would still be in place.

The public comment period was opened.

John Kunzweiller, president of Norman Way Homeowners Association, asked about the public notice and the point of tonight’s meeting.

Chair Smith stated the Town prefers to receive as much comment as possible and has made this time available to receive new and additional comments.

Town Attorney Danforth stated that one of the factors that the Commission should consider at this meeting is whether the comments, standing by themselves, would add significant new information within the recirculation threshold and would trigger the need for recirculation. This does sometimes happen, although it is unusual, What more often occurs, is that the need for recirculation will not be known until the consultants have had an opportunity to respond to the comments.

Mr. Kunzweiller stated he has comments generated by new information in the Staff report. The Norman Way Homeowners Association believes the DEIR is incomplete in that it does not reflect worst-case scenarios. The homeowners association believes the CEQA guidelines have not been met thus far. He introduced additional speakers in support of this belief.

A recess was taken to review additional materials received at this meeting.

Richard Grassetti, environmental consultant for Norman Homeowners Association, stated the worst-case analysis of grading has not been discussed. It is stated that the grading of the full development and of building envelopes is addressed; however, it is obvious that grading is not adequately covered, by comparing the maps. The grading plan shows grading and retaining walls are outside the building envelopes. Additional grading for sites is also outside the building envelopes. The stabilization of slides on Paradise Drive is not within the building envelopes. Grading for coluvium is not shown for Lot 5. The 48 offsite parking spaces and wider roads would require substantial additional grading, also not discussed in the DEIR. If grading had no secondary issues, the DEIR would be adequate for this project but nearly all impacts have to do with grading, including items such as biology, geology, water, traffic and noise, all of which depend on the amount of grading that will occur. The DEIR acknowledges there will be additional impacts; the problem is it does not provide enough information to understand impacts. Regarding recirculation of the DEIR, a substantial increase in severity of impacts may well occur. Also, staff’s statement in the DEIR that "It’s going to be worse" does not provide analysis. Applicant’s statement that "innovative techniques" will be used does not define solutions. It is in no one’s best interest to certify an inadequate DEIR.

Commissioner Stein asked if Mr. Grassetti is suggesting that recirculation should be addressed now rather than at a later-stage EIR review.

Mr. Grassetti responded recirculation could be addressed at either point but there is no benefit for waiting until a later stage of the process, if problems are seen now.

Commissioner Stein asked, if these issues are reviewed in the EIR and a conclusion was drawn that the impacts were so significant that "x" number of units would not be considered, if this would obviate the need for recirculation.

Mr. Grassetti responded that such an approach would deprive the public of a meaningful chance to provide comments on new information. There is so much new information the public should be allowed to comment.

Scott Pearson, 40 Norman Way, stated he was stunned to read that Planning Staff did not expect that additional information would be significant enough to require recirculation of the DEIR. Staff recommended the DEIR be found adequate, which it is not. Town’s primary responsibility is to ensure no damage occurs to the environment. Staff did not pay sufficient attention to the seriousness of this undertaking and ignored details. The report does not begin to address grading impacts. The report acknowledges the insufficiency of grading information and the discussion about grading of the lots is insufficient. Grading creates many other impacts of the project. Secondary impacts are hypothetical and the DEIR states they are unknown. He sees concerns to be landslide repair, impacts on flora and wetland, secondary visuals, slope stability, drainage and flow rates, groundwater drainageways, habitat erosion, sedimentation, plants, oak and bay woodland, and raptors, to name a few. Grading will impact many things, such as views, visuals, retaining walls, dust, and traffic. Existing unmitigable impacts could become more severe; mitigable impacts could become unmitigatable; measures may grow to cause further problems; less than severe impacts such as impacts on groundwater may become severe impacts and require mitigation. The project will impact owners and visitors to east Tiburon. To find the DEIR adequate is a travesty of the process. There are 24 possible impacts that are not properly assessed due to the impact of grading.

Bill White, Last Chance Committee and Norman Way Homeowners Association’s attorney, stated the Planning Commission should decide to recirculate the DEIR at this meeting, even though information cannot be reviewed until it is provided. The DEIR is so inadequate that it is not possible for the public to comment on it. It is the Town’s obligation to ensure CEQA is complied with, and the fact that the writ is putting a time crunch on the Town does not obviate the Town’s responsibility. As long as the Town is devoting substantial resources and showing progress, the Town could seek an extension. Recirculation is compelled because of legal shortcomings of the DEIR. In addition to previous comments, the landslide plan is missing. Deficiencies render the DEIR inadequate under CEQA, particularly the landslide issue. Staff indicates they will include this as well as information on secondary impacts, which will require recirculation of the document. New information will be added to the EIR. There is no question that the public will have been deprived of its right to comment. The DEIR admits it does not analyze impacts, because there is no landslide mitigation plan, as well as not analyzing impacts from grading. The public cannot comment on a landslide plan if it does not exist. Staff states the description in the DEIR is sufficient but nothing is stated that is useful about landslides, grading, etc., except to insinuate impacts will be "really, really bad."

Commissioner Stein stated he understands Mr. White is assuming recirculation would occur after more information is included in the EIR.

Mr. White responded that the public would not be well served if the original EIR is so conclusory that meaningful public comment is precluded.

Commissioner Stein asked if comments would be more meaningful if there were a grading plan to respond to, and added, if there is a reason for further public comment, it must be made when there is something to comment about.

Mr. White responded the Planning Commission should not wait to decide about recirculating the EIR until after information is received. The Planning Commission should make the decision today to recirculate the DEIR at a future date. A landslide mitigation plan could have been part of the application. There is no reason why this plan must be waited for. The Planning Commission could deny the project and the project could be redesigned with a scaled-back project that is consistent with the General Plan.

Town Attorney Danforth responded that there will be several public hearings and that the public will have ample opportunity to comment. CEQA only requires a public review and comment period that is unique to CEQA, and only if the recirculation threshold is crossed due to significant information which would constitute a new and/or severe impact. The fact that additional information on impacts exists does not in itself mean that CEQA requires further public comment. Ms. Danforth noted that the judge declined to modify his order to provide the Town the avenue of denying the project, and therefore if the Town should deny the project without first completing the EIR process, the Town would probably not be conformance with the judge’s order. The Town Attorney further stated that with regard to the landslide mediation plan, the Commission may wish to direct inquires to the consultants, but that is was her understanding that secondary impacts are based on the area of disturbance, and it is assumed that the area of disturbance is the maximum possible. A landslide plan can scale back or improve the situation, but cannot make the situation worse. Ms. Danforth reiterated that the judge’s order requires that the Town complete the EIR process before March 1, 2003 and that the court could find the Town in contempt with possible monetary sanctions. It was Ms. Danforth’s observation that the judge was hostile to the suggestion that any more time be taken.

In response to Mr. White’s comments, Chair Smith stated he hears Mr. White saying that it is a no-brainer that the public has been deprived their opportunity to address certain features because the DEIR does not address items; however, the Staff report does not support this conclusion.

Town Attorney Danforth stated that it is difficult to assess at this point if recirculation is necessary because the EIR consultants are those best qualified to respond to comment. She further stated that the adequacy of the EIR will depend on what the consultants present in terms of comments and new information, and whether that will constitute an adequate, final EIR or if the additional body of information is too extensive and too different from the draft and must, therefore, be recirculated under CEQA.

Commissioner Stein noted Commissioners have always submitted points to be addressed before the Final EIR.

Bob Benbow, 53 Norman Way, stated the notice mailed to residents states that if issues are not raised at the meeting, then these issues cannot be used for further discussion. He noted the exhibits are not complete. He asked the minutes to reflect his request that all information provided to the Town be available to residents. He added that the traffic study is not a scientific study; rather it speaks to a study. Seasonality elements must be considered, such as the time of the day and the day of the week and a mix of these two. If the correct information were provided on traffic, the hazards of the narrow roads would become clear. The DEIR does not discuss the adequacy of non-scientific traffic studies.

Mr. Kunzweiler, 60 Norman Way, asked for clarity of the process of the EIR and CEQA. He added that it is unfortunate the developer does not participate in the public process. The Planning Commission owes citizens clarity. The previous incomplete DEIR has not been changed. He asked how this is going to happen and added that the developer does not describe his solutions.

Chair Smith noted this is a second opportunity for the public to tell the Planning Commission more, and it must be determined if there is a basis for recirculation at this point or if the EIR process should move forward toward a Final EIR to include oral and written comments and responses. Another hearing will be scheduled for the public’s comments on those responses.

Mr. White stated recirculation refers to Draft EIRs and the importance of public comment on draft EIRs. CEQA requires an agency to respond to these in the final EIR.

Chair Smith stated that assuming the Planning Commission makes a decision there is not a basis for recirculation at this time and responses to comments are prepared, then a decision can be made to recirculate the EIR at the time.

Robert Swanson, 2 Seafirth Lane, asked Planner Allsep if he heard her say in response to queries at the last meeting that there would be enough information to answer the public’s questions.

Planner Allsep stated she knows information will be included in Final EIR in the response to comments that will clarify information in the Draft EIR and will respond to comments on the DEIR. She does not believe information will introduce new impacts or change the severity of impacts. The best time to comment on whether the new information is significant is after we have an opportunity to review the information. Based on what we know today and looking at the assumptions, the Draft EIR is adequate as it stands. It is not expected that the new information will be significant. Based on comments, additional information will be included that will respond to comments and will clarify areas of discussion in the EIR. If at that time it is determined that the new information may be significant, then recirculation must be considered.

Chair Smith noted the Town has the obligation to comply with CEQA, and if there is an inconsistency with CEQA and the judge, the Town will have to deal with that as it occurs.

There being no further comment, the public comment period was closed.

Commissioner Collins asked, regarding the recirculation issue in the Staff report, how Staff will clarify and amplify issues such as no grading plan and no landslide repair plan and how these will be resolved.

Planner Allsep responded that it is not uncommon for engineering details not to be defined at this point. It is the goal in the Final EIR to provide more information than in the DEIR, given the extent of grading, etc., and secondary impacts. As noted in the DEIR, there are a number of ways to comply with Tiburon’s landslide repair policies.

Town Attorney Danforth added that it is not uncommon in connection with an EIR to defer the ultimate precise details of mitigation measures, such as landslide repairs, to some later point where a landslide will be repaired according to accepted industry standards and subject to the approval of the Town Engineer. Ms. Danforth noted that with regard to this project, the Town did not request that the applicant include a landslide remediation plan. It was not on the list of completeness items originally requested, of the applicant, although the Town may wish to add it, given the general level of concern. . Ms. Danforth further stated that mitigation measures are being further defined and expanded in the response to comments.

Commissioner Stein stated the Final EIR is what will be relied upon. He is troubled by some of the same issues that have arisen tonight as at previous meetings. There is not enough information yet, nothing new, to allow Commissioners to make intelligent decisions. There is much known about landslide repairs, the landslides have been mapped and the original report by Herzog to the applicant described the area as unstable in many areas and Herzog’s letter to Staff said nothing different than that. There has not been an opportunity to respond to the landslide repair plan. He assumes Staff has stated the worst case and probable development alternatives. Since much is not able to mitigated, this suggests issues need not be dealt with because the developer will not build there anyway. Staff’s alternative is the one Staff thinks can be approved. He asked that all landslides be color coded and Staff provide some transparent overlays on the maps to show where landslides are and the repair that will occur, and where the building lots and alternative building lots are. He added that the Staff report did not include all the exhibits, as it should.

Commissioner Snow stated he would agree with placing overlays in the response to comments.

Commissioner Collins stated it appears there is inadequate information in the DEIR. The consultant stated items will be clarified and further information provided; and that a decision about recirculation can be made at a later time. The document is woefully deficient in information but the Planning Commission is not being asked to approve the entire body of information. If the EIR process moves forward, there is still an opportunity for more information to be received and commented upon.

Chair Smith stated there are standards for recirculation, and he does not think the Town has reached the threshold where recirculation is required at this time. He agrees landslide stability and impacts are huge issues. He has significant concerns as to where the Commission ends up at the next stage, but the process should move forward because he does not see that the criteria for recirculation have been met. CEQA is a process to disclose environmental information and to give the public opportunity for input. It is confusing when the merits of the underlying project are considered. The public is not served well by the Planning Commission if the Planning Commission decides the DEIR should be recirculated now. The public has not been deprived of meaningful input in the past and there are some wide-open questions, but he wants to see responses to comments and see the result before he says he cannot approve the DEIR. Recirculation is not warranted at this time.

Commissioner Snow stated the EIR process should move forward for the Final EIR preparation, but this statement should be viewed on an extremely cautionary note. People are frustrated with the language because they want to know what is being proposed. Staff needs to spend time catching up. The Herzog report of August 12, 1999 to applicant states "…slopes appear to be more unstable than when previous mapping was made." This statement has not been changed by Herzog. The General Plan directs Staff to err on the side of caution. There is a lot of work to do for the preparation of the Final EIR to satisfy requirements to preclude recirculation. The Town must go ahead with the process. He agrees that the public has been offered the opportunity to provide meaningful comments, and recirculation can occur in the future if required.

Commissioner Collins stated the Town is a long way from a decision on the merits of the project and the adequacy of the EIR is also still in question.

M/S, Collins/Snow, passed 4-0 to direct staff to move forward with the preparation of the proposed Final EIR.

 DISCUSSION ITEMS

POLICY FOR TREES ON TOWN PROPERTY; REVIEW AND COMMENT

Commissioner Greenberg returned to the Planning Commission.

Director of Community Development Anderson reviewed the staff report.

Chair Smith asked, in light of the recent storm, if Town staff reviews the health of trees and looks at potential problems on private property. He added that the wind blew through well-trimmed trees, yet knocked over poorly-maintained trees, and asked if there is an obvious problem, if the issue becomes part of the nuisance abatement procedure.

Anderson responded that he did not believe that the Town had a formal program for professional review of the health of trees on public property, but that Public Works staff attempts to keep an eye out for trees that are dangerous or obviously unhealthy and a public danger. He is not aware of any "inventory process" at this time to assess the health of trees on public property. Regarding trees on private property, responsible homeowners will sometimes hire an arborist to review the health of their trees. The nuisance abatement process can be used by the Town when trees threaten the public health and safety.

Commissioner Stein asked if there is any discussion about the Town taking an advisory role in helping expedite tree care on property in the unincorporated county areas near the Town limits; for example, view blockage from private homes by trees located in the county.

Anderson responded that the County of Marin recently adopted a view protection ordinance for Strawberry that is closely based on the Town’s ordinance, but this ordinance does not cover all unincorporated areas near Tiburon. He stated that the Town has no authority over trees located in unincorporated areas and does not generally get involved in disputes over such trees.

Chair Smith noted county mediation services can be used for tree mediation of view blockage. Anderson noted that the Town hands out many copies of the Mediation Services brochure each month.

Commissioner Collins asked if the Richardson Bay Multi-use Path is covered within the definition of "Sidewalk Area" as set forth in the Municipal Code. Anderson responded that the Multi-use Path is within a public park and is not "Sidewalk Area".

Commissioner Greenberg asked for clarification of tree ownership in the "Sidewalk Area". Anderson stated the underlying fee to the property is held by the Town, in the form of a public right-of-way. If a tree causes damage in this area, the property owner is responsible for that damage. He noted that the Municipal Code addresses "responsibility and liability", not ownership of trees in the Sidewalk Area.

Commissioner Greenberg stated it is not clear who owns the trees and this could cause problems if a disaster occurred.

Chair Smith stated that since the tree is actually located on Town property, that one could conclude it would be the Town’s tree. Anderson indicated that in all likelihood both the Town and an adjoining property owner would be sued if a serious mishap occurred.

In terms of specific comments, Commissioner Greenberg stated that the Public Works Department should move up on its priority list creation of a formal program for routine checks of the health of Town trees, focusing on those that could cause damage if they fell. Also, the fourth bullet in the "Tree Policy" handout seems confusing and raises problems for her if this to be handed out as a public information piece.

In response to a comment, Anderson noted that "ornamental trimming" means that Town Staff would not prune a tree on Town land in a sidewalk unless there is a safety problem. Town Staff does not prune trees to address view blockage issues. There is a procedure to follow to have such work approved by the Town and performed by a professional arborist or tree service.

The Ark newspaper representative asked if there are any changes to existing procedures or ordinances contemplated with this proposal, and whether it relates to the application to remove the trees near the Richardson Bay sanitary plant.

Anderson stated that this handout proposed no procedural or ordinance changes; it simply consolidated existing laws and procedures regarding trees into one document. The Parks and Open Space Commission will continue to review requests for tree removal in the Town’s parks and opens paces.

Helen Lindquist, Chair of the Tiburon Parks & Open Space Commission, clarified that the application for tree removal near the sanitary plant has been withdrawn and that only minor trimming of limbs and branches on Sanitation District property is proposed.

A Tiburon Knolls Homeowners Association member stated that she believed all the trees were to be removed at the Stewart Drive/Tiburon Boulevard intersection, but that only two or three trees were removed. She raised several other issues regarding trees and said that there was much confusion regarding the status of trees at that intersection. Anderson provided her with his phone number and agreed to meet with her in person to discuss these issues.

Chair Smith confirmed that branches that block streets will be picked up by Public Works Department staff.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business, Chair Smith adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m.

 _____________________________

PAUL SMITH, CHAIRMAN

Tiburon Planning Commission

ATTEST:

_________________________________

SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY