Residents raise contamination, height and parking concerns as Tiburon discusses ministerial 1801 Tiburon Boulevard proposal

Sherry Meads, the town’s community development director, told the Tiburon Town Council on May 6 that the proposal for 1801 Tiburon Boulevard seeks ministerial processing under the Starter Home Revitalization Act (Senate Bill 684) and therefore is not subject to discretionary council review or a standard public hearing.

The project, as described by Meads, would subdivide the Pointe Tiburon Plaza parking lot into 10 parcels — nine residential lots and one remainder parcel for parking — with combined residential living area of about 17,720 square feet and unit averages constrained by law to no more than 1,750 square feet of net habitable area. Meads said the applicant requested concessions under state density-bonus rules, including a 38-foot height allowance where local zoning typically limits height to 30 feet. She also emphasized that, because the application is currently incomplete, staff has sent an incompleteness letter and expects revised materials before continuing processing.

Why it matters: If the project qualifies under SB 684 and state density-bonus provisions, state law requires ministerial (staff-level) approval, which limits local discretionary review — including certain design and public-hearing steps — and can mean the project is not subject to CEQA review. That framing underpinned much of the public comment that followed.

Nearby residents and property owners raised environmental, safety and legal objections during the public comment period. “Testing described a hot spot…various metals, including lead, were detected in soil beneath the property at concentrations exceeding residential screening levels,” said Hank McPweeny, a resident at 111 Paradise Drive, urging the town to require a certified remediation plan before any permits are issued. McPweeny also cited “petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater and volatile gases, including benzene, exceeding residential screening criteria.”

Doreen Curtis, who lives on Paradise Drive, said the project’s bulk would remove existing views from north-facing windows and disputed how final height would be measured, warning residents expect the three-story/rise would be visually taller than the stated 38 feet. She also asked the council to ensure fire-department concerns and remediation responsibilities are addressed.

Rob Relidge, an owner with properties on Marwest Street and at Pointe du Rhone Plaza, outlined several technical and legal objections he said could defeat ministerial approval: he alleged the developer’s own documents show several units exceed floor-area-ratio limits and that the project lacks required frontage on Tiburon Boulevard; he said parking would fall short of contractually required spaces (he estimated roughly a 60- to 70-space shortfall) and that private planned-development agreements and easements could prevent changes unless all successor parties agree.

Meads said staff will continue to process the application under state law and that ministerial approval does not constitute a town design endorsement or policy determination. Council members asked only procedural questions (for example, whether the applicant has deadlines to resubmit), and staff reiterated that applicant resubmittal timing is controlled by the applicant while staff must meet statutory processing timelines.

What the council did: None of the public remarks or council comments changed the ministerial nature of the review; no council vote on the project was taken. Staff will continue to review the applicant’s resubmittal materials and, where allowed by law, require documentation such as remediation plans if applicable.

Next steps: Staff will process the application further once materials are complete and will follow statutory timelines. Residents were urged to remain engaged as staff reviews the revised submittal.