Agenda packet — San Anselmo City Council, August 11, 2026

Tuesday, August 11, 2026 6:00 PM

1. Consent Agenda:

In the Council Chambers and Via Zoom at 525 San Anselmo Avenue, San Anselmo, CA 94960 Town Council
Agenda
Meeting held In-Person and via Zoom:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84057237437
Or Telephone: +1 669 900 6833 | Webinar ID: 840 5723 7437 How to Submit Comments Before the Meeting: Members of the public are encouraged to submit email correspondence to [email protected] or eComments on the Agendas and Meeting webpage before the meeting begins.

How to Participate During the Meeting: Members of the public will have the option to speak during the meeting through the Zoom application by using their phone or an electronic device.

For PC, Mac, or smart phone, use the Raise Hand function when public comment for an item is requested. It is a button that is located at the top or bottom of your screen, based on your electronic device.

For landline phones, Raise Hand to be recognized with *9 Please be advised that those participating in the meeting remotely via Zoom do so at their own risk.

The Town Council's regular meeting will not be cancelled if any technical problems occur during the meeting.

Call to Order. Optional Pledge of Allegiance: The Mayor or a designated Council member will recite the Pledge of Allegiance for members of the Council and the public who wish to join in the recitation Special Presentations. There are No Special Presentations.

The opportunity for public comment on consent agenda items will occur prior to Council discussion of the consent agenda. The Council may approve the entire consent agenda with one action. In the alternative, items on the consent agenda may be removed by any Council or staff member, for separate discussion and Town Council Agenda August 11, 2026
1 1.1 Receive and Approve the Quarterly Treasurer's Investment Report, June 2026

2. Business Items:

2.1 Presentation of Creek Park Plaza Design Options. The Council’s discussion and approval of the design alternatives for the Creek Park
Plaza is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act, because it does not involve an activity which has the potential to cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065).

2.2 Authorize the Town Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Donation Agreement with a Potential Donor for the Completion of Construction Drawings for the Creek Park Project. The Council’s authorization of the Town Manager to negotiate and sign a donation agreement is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act, because it does not involve an activity which has the potential to cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065).

3. Adjourn
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Town Staff at email [email protected]. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable accommodations to help ensure accessibility to this meeting.
vote.

Staff Report (PDF)
Attachment 1 Quarterly Investment Report June 30 2026 (PDF) In general, the following procedural order applies to public hearing items:
•Staff Presentation
•Town Council Questions
•PUBLIC COMMENT – limited to 3 minutes/person
•Town Council discussion/action
Staff Report (PDF)
ATTACHMENT 1 - RHAA Creek Park Presentation (PDF)
Public Comment- Politzer (PDF)
Public Comment- Asselstine (PDF)
Public Comment- Corning (PDF)
Public Comment- Kroot (PDF)
Public Comment- Page (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Staff Report (DOC)
Attachment 1 - Donation Agreement #2 PLACEHOLDER (DOCX) Attachment 1- Donation Agreement #2 (DOC)
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Town Council regarding any item on this agenda after the distribution of the original packet will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at Town Hall located at 525 San Anselmo Avenue.

Town Council Agenda August 11, 2026
2 Notice is hereby given that Council may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on this agenda. If any of these matters above are challenged in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at any public hearing described on this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, this Council meeting. Judicial review of an administrative decision of the Town Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 90th day following the date of the Council’s decision (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6) Any item not under discussion before 10:00 p.m. may be continued to the next regular meeting. Next regular meeting is August 28, 2026.

Administration Department
Town Hall
525 San Anselmo Avenue
San Anselmo, CA 94960
(415) 258-4691
Town Council
Steve Burdo, Mayor
Chantel Walker, Vice Mayor
Yoav Schlesinger, Councilmember
Eileen Burke, Councilmember
Tarrell Kullaway, Councilmember
Staff
David Donery, Town Manager
Linda Kenton, Assistant Town Manager / Town Librarian
Jeff Zuba, Finance and Admin Services Director
Megan Holt Acevedo, Town Attorney
Serge Avila, Town Clerk
Heidi Scoble, Community Development Director
Scott Schneider, Interim Public Works Director
Mattie O'Grady, Community Services Director
Mike Norton, Chief of Police
Dan Mahoney, Fire Chief

DECLARATION OF POSTING
This Notice is posted in accordance with Government Code §54954.2(a) or §54956. Members of the public can view electronic agendas and staff reports by accessing the Town of San Anselmo website. Under penalty of perjury, this Agenda was posted to the public at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.

Town Council Agenda August 11, 2026
3 Item #: 1.1

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #:1.1
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2026
AGENDA TITLE: Quarterly Treasurer’s Investment Report, June 2026 FROM: Jeff Zuba, Finance & Admin Services Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Town Council consider approving the Treasurer’s Investment Report for the quarter ending June 30, 2026.

SUMMARY
The Treasurer’s Investment Report is a quarterly itemization of the market value of Town investments. The purpose of this report is to present financial information for review and discussion.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The attached report itemizes the Town’s investments and states the market value of each investment as of June 30, 2026. The Wells Fargo bank account is the Town’s primary checking account used for the deposit and expenditure of the operating funds.

The Bank of America checking account is a controlled account used for payroll processing only.

The Town holds two investment accounts: one with Moreton Capital with funds held at U.S. Bank and one with RBC Capital Markets held at RBC. The investments held are allowable by the Town’s investment policy.

The Town maintains two Local Agency Investment Fund accounts (LAIF) for the purpose of maximizing interest income on funds not needed for immediate expenditure.

One LAIF account is for the investment of general operating funds. The other is for the remaining series 2003 Measure G bond proceeds, required by law to be maintained in a segregated account.

The Town’s cash balance as of June is $14,937,873, which is $3,201,836 less than the balances at this time last year. The significant decrease is due to the Town’s ongoing 4 Item #: 1.1
projects, General Plan update, Fire Station 20, Resilience Hub, Library Roof & HVAC, Isabel Community Center roof.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Not applicable

CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Council’s discussion and approval of this report is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act, because it does not involve an activity which has the potential to cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065).

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment #1: Quarterly Treasurer’s Investment Report, June 30, 2026 5 TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO

TREASURER'S INVESTMENT REPORT

MARKET VALUE

MATURITY EFFECTIVE OF AMOUNT ON BOOK VALUE UNREALIZED

INSTITUTION DATE YIELD DEPOSIT GAIN
Wells Fargo Bank Government Advantage Checking None 1.65% - Wells Fargo Bank Government Sweep Account None 3.40% 10,129,560 Bank of America Business Checking Account None 0.49% 66,553 LAIF (Local Agency Investment Fund) State Treasurer's Pool None 3.82% 8,766 Operating Account
LAIF (Local Agency Investment Fund) State Treasurer's Pool None 3.82% 105,609 Measure G Proceeds
Moreton Capital Money Market None 357.00% 47,272
Moreton Capital Municipal Bonds Varies 4.44% 2,390,168
RBC Wealth Management Certificate of Deposits Varies 0.00% - RBC Wealth Management Treasury/Federal Agency Varies 0.00% - RBC Wealth Management Money Market None 3.51% 2,189,946 Total Investment Portfolio: 14,937,873
I hereby verify that this report is in conformity with the Town of San Anselmo Investment Policy.

John Mahl, Town Treasurer Jeff Zuba, Finance & Administrative Services Director Date for the quarter ending June 30, 2026
July 20, 2026
NOTES

TYPE OF

INVESTMENT
6 Item # 2.1

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #2.1
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2026
AGENDA TITLE: Presentation of Creek Park Plaza Design Options FROM: David P. Donery, Town Manager
Scott Schneider, Interim Public Works Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Town Council receive a presentation on the Creek Park Plaza design alternatives and provide feedback to staff on a preferred option.

BACKGROUND
On June 25, 2019, following a design competition, the Town Council selected RHAA Landscape Architects to develop a preliminary conceptual design for the Reimagine Creek Park project (“Creek Park Project”). Following selection, RHAA conducted extensive outreach and worked with the Reimagine Creek Park Community Advisory Committee (“CAC”) to develop 60% conceptual plans for the project.

At its November 23, 2021 meeting, the Town Council received a presentation from RHAA of the 60% conceptual drawings for the Creek Park Project. The Council authorized RHAA to complete schematic drawings, so that construction of the Creek Park Project could be coordinated with the removal of Building Bridge 2 (632-636 San Anselmo Avenue, hereinafter “BB2”).

As the Town Council is aware, the planning and permitting process associated with the planned removal of BB2 took longer than anticipated. As a result, the Town and Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“District”) entered into a lease for public use of BB2 in 2020 during the Coronavirus pandemic. The District terminated the 2020 lease in September 2022 following a report suggesting that the property could be unstable. However, subsequent engineer analyses and monitoring of strain gauges has shown no further movement of the structure.

After additional delays in the BB2 removal project, on February 24, 2026, the Town Council approved a lease agreement with the District for public pedestrian use of BB2.

Although the initial term of the lease is three years, the lease specifies, that if the BB2 removal project does not proceed, “the Town’s use of the platform will continue under this Lease until terminated by either Party or the Parties enter into a new agreement.” 7 Item # 2.1
On May 5, 2026, the District Board of Supervisors canceled the BB2 removal project.1 Accordingly, the lease is in effect until terminated or until the parties enter into a new agreement.

That lease provides that the Town can use the platform for a public gathering area and may improve the leased area for that use with District staff approval. However, as a prerequisite to public use, the lease requires that the platform be structurally sound. To that end, following execution of the lease, the Town retained a structural engineering consultant to evaluate the condition of the plaza and its underlying support structure.

That review found that improvements are necessary to reinforce portions of the structure before public use can begin. Therefore, the Town enlisted Miller Pacific Engineering to develop a plan for improving the structural stability of the BB2 platform.

At the June 25, 2026 Flood Zone 9 Advisory Board meeting, District staff requested the Board recommend to the Flood Control District Board of Supervisors, that they accept funding from the County of Marin to fund work required to address BB2 structural repairs.2 The County has not yet allocated those funds to the District for BB2 improvements, but Town staff is prepared to move forward with the work when the funding is available. To allow for less disruption to the public and the efficiency of project implementation, Town staff is working to complete the structural improvements at the same time the larger Creek Park Project is constructed.

DISCUSSION

CREEK PARK PLAZA DESIGN CONCEPTS
Background
On June 23, 2026, Town Council authorized a donor agreement to fund conceptual design development for the Creek Park plaza, to be incorporated into the Creek Park renovation project.

Working with staff, the RHAA design team developed three concepts for the plaza, each varying in layout, seating, planting areas, and ADA access. Note that following review for viability, maintenance, and anticipated use, Option C (Town Green) is not recommended.
1 Announcement of project cancelation available at https://flooddistrict.marincounty.gov/building-bridge-2-removal/ 2 June 25, 2026 Flood Zone 9 Advisory Board meeting agenda available at https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/marinwatershedprogramca/2026/06/92d80703-updated-fz-9-presentationv.6-18-26-2.pdf 8 Item # 2.1
Design Options

OPTION A - CURVILINEAR TERRACE

OPTION B - GARDEN PATH
9 Item # 2.1

OPTION C - TOWN GREEN
Options A and B – Shared Features
Both options provide:
 A street-level plaza with 8-person tables, plus bistro tables along the San Anselmo Avenue edge
 Retained deck and picnic seating under the redwood grove  A restroom behind the upper deck
 Removal of two on-street parking spaces along San Anselmo Avenue Option A – Curvilinear Terrace
 Multiple terraces for seating between the street-level plaza and upper deck  ADA access via a ramp (plaza to intermediate terraces) and ramps on both sides (intermediate to upper deck)
 Capacity: approximately 150–160 people
Option B – Garden Path
 ADA access achieved through switchback ramps connecting the plaza directly to the upper deck
 A landing area at the ramp junction, suitable for a feature element such as a sculpture
 Expanded planting areas surrounding ramps and plaza
 Capacity: approximately 130–140 people
10 Item # 2.1
Options A and B
As noted previously, plaza design options A and B both offer a street level plaza with large, 8-person tables in the plaza and bistro tables along the outer edge of the plaza on the San Anselmo Avenue side. Both options also maintain the deck and table seating/picnic area under the redwood grove as well as a restroom located behind the upper deck. Both options also eliminate two parking places along San Anselmo Avenue.

Next Steps
Pending Council selection of a preferred design and authorization to negotiate a Donor Agreement amendment, staff will bring a professional services agreement with RHAA to Council to develop a full plan set for cost estimating and potential bid release.

Under an ambitious timeline, the plan set is targeted for January, followed by cost estimating and fundraising strategy development. Staff aim to return to Council in February with the plan set and fundraising recommendations.

Public Input
The Project Team worked with the Creek Park Community Advisory Committee to host a public meeting on Tuesday, August 4, 2026. Staff and the consulting team from RHAA presented the design options for the plaza and answered a wide variety of questions from attendees. There were 34 public participants in total between in-person and on zoom. Staff collected opinions from the in-person attendees and shared an online survey link to collect input from those attending virtually.

In addition, the Project Team was at Live on the Avenue on Friday, August 7, 2026 to present the plaza design options, answer questions and collect public input.

The online survey will be available until noon on Tuesday, at which point staff will aggregate all input received and will add this information to the presentation for the Town Council meeting.

RECOMMENDATION
That Town Council review the design options for the Creek Park Plaza and provide direction to staff on the preferred option.

CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Council’s discussion and approval of the design alternatives for the Creek Park Plaza is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act, because it does not involve an activity which has the potential to cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065).
11 Item # 2.1

FISCAL IMPACT
Direction provided to staff regarding design preferences for the Creek Park plaza does not impact the Town’s budget. All costs related to conceptual design development has been paid for by a private anonymous donor. The primary impact to the Town is staff time.

ATTACHMENT 1: RHAA Creek Park Plaza Design Options presentation 12 Creek Park

INITIAL CONCEPTS
13 Design Considerations • Reflects character of San Anselmo in scale and materials
• Coordination with retaining wall
reinforcement
• Structural loads on platform • ADA access between redwood grove and platform – 2’ grade change • Potential cuts through slab to embankment below to allow for trees
• Screening of adjacent blank façade • Elevation of platform relative to park and sidewalk grades 14 Creek Park Design

OPTIONS A, B & C
15 OPTION A
Curvilinear
Terrace
Extends redwood deck experience
16 MULTI-LEVEL WOOD DECK
WOOD
DECK
STAGE
LAWN

SAN ANSELMO CREEK
CREEK
PLAZA

TERRACED

WOOD DECK

KIDS PLAY
AREA

POLLINATOR
GARDEN

W/SEATING

TERRACED

SEATING

RESTROOM
17 STONE WALLS & WOOD DECK
+51.2

SAN ANSELMO CREEK

CREEK PLAZA
+47.5
+50.1 +49.0
5%
5%
+49.0

WOOD DECK STAGE
+51.4

HABITAT

PLANTING

TERRACED
DECK
+49.0
LAWN
RESTROOM +52.5
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 OPTION B
Garden Path
Planted Connector Between
Plaza and Park
25 MULTI-LEVEL WOOD DECK
WOOD
DECK
STAGE
LAWN

SAN ANSELMO CREEK
CREEK
PLAZA
GARDEN

CONNECTOR

KIDS PLAY
AREA

POLLINATOR
GARDEN

W/SEATING

TERRACED

SEATING

RESTROOM
26 STONE WALLS &

WOOD DECK
+51.2

WOOD DECK STAGE
+51.4

SAN ANSELMO CREEK

CREEK PLAZA
+47.5

HABITAT GARDEN

HABITAT
GARDEN

DECK LANDING
+49.0

2.8%

3.6%
3%
+49.0
LAWN

RESTROOM
+52.5
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 OPTION C
Town Green
Street Lawn and Terraced Plaza
34 MULTI-LEVEL WOOD DECK
WOOD
DECK
STAGE
LAWN

SAN ANSELMO CREEK
STREET
PLAZA
GREEN

TERRACED
DECK

KIDS PLAY
AREA

POLLINATOR
GARDEN

W/SEATING

TERRACED

SEATING

RESTROOM
35 STONE WALLS & WOOD DECK
+51.2

WOOD DECK STAGE
+51.4

SAN ANSELMO CREEK

PLAZA GREEN
+47.5

HABITAT

PLANTING

TERRACED DECK
+49.0
3%

4.4%
5%
+49.0
+48.25
+49.88
3%

4.4%
LAWN

RESTROOM
+52.5
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 Outlook
Creek Park Redesign Meeting Tues 8/11 comment
From Ann Politzer <[email protected]>
Date Mon 8/10/2026 10:59 AM
To Steve Burdo <[email protected]>; Chantel Walker <[email protected]>; Tarrell Kullaway <[email protected]>; Yoav Schlesinger <[email protected]>; Eileen Burke Contact <[email protected]>
Cc Town Council <[email protected]>
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Mayor Burdo, Vice Mayor Walker and Council Members Kullaway, Schlesinger and Burke:

The current design options for Creek Park do not serve the best interests of San Anselmo.

The crucial shortcomings of design options A, B and C came home to me after last Tuesday’s info meeting. I walked up to Creek Park and took a look around, remembering how the open plaza had unexpectedly created a beating heart in the center of downtown San Anselmo, its wide-open surface promoting flow, vibrancy and myriad forms of community engagement. I mentally overlaid the visuals from the RHAA drawings onto the existing park and fenced plaza and…Yikes! Way too over designed and spatially restrictive for our use in San Anselmo.

1. The central plaza section of the park needs to remain open and fluid. The current design options chop the space up into three areas that restrict movement, usage and flow. Adding big, round, essentially immovable tables like the ones at Marin Country Mart further reduces the the number of bodies that can enjoy the space and the types of activities that can easily be accommodated. We need an open free-flowing plaza, like the one we have behind the fence. Folks’ fierce preference for the THAT park over the fancy RHAA version was a big reason why residents voted to leave the Flood District in 2024. “We want the park we already have!” You can't get a better market survey than that.

2. Please, lose the street side stone wall element and return those parking spaces to the beleaguered downtown businesses. All current design options permanently remove existing parking spaces from downtown. Instead of reverting to the old sidewalk boundary of the park along San Anselmo Avenue, the temporary extension of the park into the street will become permanent and those four parking spaces along the curb, currently occupied by the boardwalk parklet, will not be returned to the parking pool. In addition, the planned element of a wall bordering the park’s edge where the boardwalk now juts out into the Avenue will take away two more existing parking places by Creekside Pizza. C’mon. Push the perimeter of the park back to where it belongs, which will restore the blocked sightlines on that curve while preserving the safety of pedestrians, park goers and bicyclists. With the Plaza reopening and the flood project dead, there is no reason for that wall to be sitting in the middle of the street.

3. Those 12” walls and 8 foot wide raised decks—there’s going to be a lot of people falling over and off those things.
43 There are some wonderful aspects to RHAA’s designs and I so appreciate the TREMENDOUS amount of sweat and effort that the Town, the CAC and everyone else has put into this project. I also appreciate that there is donor money currently available and that everyone wants to just get this done—but this is the opportunity to do it right. The design is 2/3rds of the way there, but it overlooks some crucial aspects of use and community requirement. If you can get them to make those necessary adjustments in the design, your constituents will be ecstatic. Remember, most residents (me included) are not naturally good at translating an architectural drawing into the real thing. Also remember that to capture the San Anselmo vibe, Less is More.

Thanks so much for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Ann Politzer
San Anselmo
44 August 10 2026
San Anselmo Town Council
San Anselmo, CA 94960
RE: CREEK PARK REDSIGN
The deigned options presented all appear to be beautiful, but I have concerns about the elements presented on a technical and safety basis
The quick summary is that I think the best eƯort requires at least a fourth design based on re-design that meets the following concerns:
1) Maximize the useable gathering area of the plaza.
2) Remove the raised decking around the redwoods.
3) Relocate the bathrooms because of conflicts.
4) Install a low hedge to screen the park from the parking area. 5) Include a small playground.

My Comments on each of these points is as follows:
1) Maximize the Useable Area: I appreciate that the lease includes a limitation 250 people on the plaza deck. I’ve no idea where that number came from but the current design does not provide this number of people. I understand the old structure has an unknown capacity and I think everyone is best served by proving the capacity of the structure with a load test. This is allowed per CA Structural Code and ACI 437.2-13. Such a test, after the repairs are completed, would both re-assure the designers and public. I think we all intuitively sense that we can get a better design by providing the best public gathering space possible. If a load test proves that a greater number of people can be accommodated, the lease can be amended and everyone benefits from a better plaza. The use of concrete walls and stone veneer are heavy, expensive and hard to modify. I therefor think if a design has to progress now, it should be based on 250 people per the lease and have the ability to quickly modify the design to suit maximum occupancy.
2) Remove the Decking Around the Redwoods: I think the design has three problems:
a. The area under a low deck, by the Fire Code has to maintained and clear of leaf debris. The small redwood needles will inevitably pile up below the deck and one dropped cigarette would start a fire that the Fire Department would struggle to put out.
b. The arborist’s report from the Flood District noted that excavation near the trees must cease if a root 1” or greater is encountered. The extent of the raised deck and low profile will require a huge number of supports and small foundations. It’s all but 45 inevitable that the intended foundation locations will have to all change and this will in turn require framing re-design, almost piece by piece. Anyone can see the incredible root structures visible now and understand the conflicts that will arise. c. The decking all must be removable for maintenance and cleaning below. This suggests that there will one heck of a lot of small sections that can be lifted by 2 or 3 people. This will have a cost as will the redesign of the entire areas once tree root conflicts are found.
3) Relocate the bathrooms because of conflicts. The bathrooms are located such that the doors open to the drive aisle to access the ADA space next to them. a. The location does not appear to be safe.
b. One issue is that 2 parking spaces will be lost in this design. c. The arborist’s report from the Flood District noted that excavation near the trees must cease if a root 1” or greater is encountered. The restrooms are located a few feet from the redwoods and hence, it is all but inevitable that complete re-design will be required for foundations and sewer lines.
4) Install a low hedge to screen the park: Most of the edge of the park at the SFDB / parking has low shrubs. There is a missing section on the northern edge. This natural screen edge should be continuous.
5) Include a small playground. Most of us remember people using the park for daytime meetings, lunches and events at night. What we did not see is little kids playing on playground. Memorial Park has what is considered the best playground in the County. I think a small playground designed for the youngest age-range will accommodate both our youngest citizens as well as the parents of those young kids.

My comments are not to say the designers are not thoughtful professionals, but in my opinion, detailed public feedback now and specific comments on technical problems to avoid problems and cost later will result in a better design.

Finally, I would like to see a park that does not include plaques with the names of politicians, or donors. This new civic space is not just about a few people’s names in bronze; it’s about all of us in this year, after years of debate and conflicting thoughts, this time when we all came together to gift the best design possible to those who come after us.

We’ve all been through a lot to get here. I few more designs will no doubt be to everyone’s benefit and the legacy we all can be proud of.

Ross Asselstine
San Anselmo
46 Outlook
Fwd: Design of Creek Park Plaza, Meeting of Tuesday, August 11, 2026 From Paul Corning <[email protected]>
Date Mon 8/10/2026 11:02 AM
To Town Council <[email protected]>
6 attachments (1,011 KB)
P1220434.jpeg; IMG_0061.jpeg; P1230825.jpeg; P1220428.jpeg; P1230187.jpeg; P1220877.jpeg; Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: External Sender
Hello, Mayor Burdo, Vice Mayor Walker, and Council members Burke, Kullaway and Schlesinger, I am writing in support of Jeff Kroot's email to you about the proposed landscaping for Creek Park Plaza.

But first I should acknowledge the hard work and good fortune that lets us decide now how to configure this space for public uses. After years of it being blocked off, it is a pleasure to see how close we are to enjoying this area again. I am grateful to those who have brought us this far, and also to the donor who has offered to fund a new park design. Please read my support for Jeff's comments as encouragement to make a good thing better still.

Jeff is right about designing for more flexible use. In fact, let's just open the park now, put some tables out and see how people use the space for a while before you finalize a design. A donor should consider this to be a prototyping excercise, not an ungrateful struggle over a generous gift.

Jeff mentions how parking places are more important to our community than a stone wall. I would add that the tables proposed for the street side of the sidewalk adjoining Creek Park Plaza will attract clots of people who will block free sidewalk passage and create unnecessary tensions. And that reducing parking places does make downtown access more difficult, especially for our older or our physically handicapped neighbors and visitors. Opening up the space to parking will give cyclists small refuges between parked cars as they ride past the park, and opening up that area will make the park appear more welcoming to people walking and driving past.

Thank you for your consideration. I hope you will listen openly and carefully to San Anselmo's residents before foregoing a great result for one that is quick and merely good.

With best regards,
Paul
47 ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jeff Kroot <[email protected]>
To: Mayor Burdo, Vice Mayor Walker, Council Members, Burke, Kullaway and Schlesinger, I’m sending you this email regarding your scheduled Hearing, Tuesday, August 11, 2026 concerning the design of Creek Park Plaza (Plaza). Your discussion and vote regarding the Plaza will be one of the most important decisions you will make as a Council. The Plaza will serve our community and downtown for many years to come.

The designs, A, B & C, although attractive, really leave much to be desired for the use of the Plaza by the community. The list below are items that should be looked at more carefully and modified prior to approval of the new work. I’ve included a few photos of how the community used the Plaza prior to it being fenced off.

1. Create a larger open space for the community’s use. Note in the photo below how the open space worked for music, dancing, as well as dining.

2. There is plenty of room on the Plaza for the communities use and the open space doesn’t have to include the existing side walk and 5 or 6 parking spaces along San Anselmo Ave. Our merchants need more parking on the Ave., particularly since a dozen (+/-) spaces have been taken away recently for bike racks next to cross walks. Below are photos of the existing sidewalk and parking spaces prior to the addition of tables and bump outs. These photos show the Plaza doesn’t have to include the parking spaces.

3. As used prior to its closure, the Plaza was available for use both for large groups as well dining on the Ave. It is easy to move tables and chairs and they should not be the focus of the Plaza’s use. See photos below of the original use on the Plaza.

4. There are several problems with the proposed designs that should be resolved before going ahead with the project. In no particular order, except how they come mind, the problems are:

A. I see absolutely no need for the stone walls. The stone wall that removes 5 or 6 parking spaces along San Anselmo Ave., must be a hold over from when the stone wall was supposed direct flood waters into the creek. Now it does nothing except cut off the parking spaces at a substantial cost. Parking spaces are much more important to the community than an expensive stone wall.

B. The plans also show stone walls cutting across the deck itself. What am I missing here? For years the County of Marin has said the deck is weak and could collapse in a strong earthquake.

Now the design show the great mass of stone siting on the deck. This is a really bad idea. The stone walls siting on the existing deck should be removed from the drawings. Is it really a good idea to have stone walls so close to the redwood trees? One of the best parts of the Plaza is the beautiful redwood grove on the Center Blvd. side of the Plaza. Had the Plaza been removed, it was estimated that close to half of the redwood trees would have to be 48 removed. It would be a shame if within a few years several redwoods would have to be removed because of heavy stone walls sitting on their roots.

C. Trees are also shown on the deck. Again this is a problems with the weight of the trees, as well as where do the tree roots go to
get nourished by earth? Is the plan to cut holes in the concrete bridge? This is unworkable on an 80 year old concrete bridge.

D. All of the curved wood decks and landscape areas are going to be expensive to build, expensive to maintain and take space
away from the public's enjoyment of the Plaza. The Plaza will certainly be used by diners. This will create food waste and there is a very good chance that food waste will bring on rodents. By creating the low to the ground wood decks there will be constant problem with food waste. Again this is an expensive maintenance problem.

E. By leaving the Plaza more open there will not be the need for handicap ramps.The Plaza can be designed to meet the maximum slopes required by code. There is a sidewalk above the Plaza that can also be used for wheel chair access.

F. Finally the talk about a “skylight” through the concrete deck to look down on the creek should stop. A large enough hole through the deck is a really bad idea in an 80 year old concrete bridge. I know this was not shown in the drawings, but it seems to be mentioned at every meeting I attend.

5. Music should be considered as one of the prime goals for the Plaza. San Anselmo is full of musicians, many of whom like to play for the public. For example, there is music in the Park all summer and our beloved "Beetles in the Park’ concert every summer. Music at the Coffee Roasters every Saturday morning, etc. Before it was fenced off the Plaza was regularly used by musicians, including high school musicians. The Plaza should be designed for music and not just diners. See photos below:

6. Finally the Plaza will used night and day. This should be kept in mind during designing for lighting, public safety, etc.

The Landscape Architect designed attractive schemes A, B and C. Unfortunately the schemes really won’t bring best out of the Plaza for San Anselmo. Please send the Plaza back to the Landscape Architect for a scheme D that works better for our community. My understanding is that there is a fifth engineering report in the works. It would be best for our designer to digest this last (?) engineering report before making decisions on the renovation of our Plaza.

Jeff Kroot
(415) 456-5531
49 Outlook
Comments on BB2 designs for proposed Creek Park Plaza
From Jeff Kroot <[email protected]>
Date Sun 8/9/2026 2:12 PM
To Town Council <[email protected]>
CAUTION: External Sender
To: Mayor Burdo, Vice Mayor Walker, Council Members Burke, Kullaway and Schlesinger From: Jeff Kroot, former Mayor
(415) 456-5531
This email contains my comments on the proposed designs (A, B & C) for our communities new Creek Park Plaza (Plaza). Your discussion will take place Tuesday evening, August 11, 2026. Your discussion and vote regarding the Plaza will be one of the most important decisions you will make on your term on the Council. The Plaza will serve our community for many years to come and if done right, will be a very popular downtown park. Although the Landscape Architect’s drawings are well done, they don’t quite work for our community.

Unfortunately the designs, A, B & C really leave much to be desired. I’ve included a few photos of how the community used the Plaza prior to it being fenced off a few years ago.

1. The point of this email and photo below is that there should be a larger open space for the community’s use then is shown on the proposed designs by the landscape architect. The space can then be used for music, kids, dining, etc.
50 2. It is important to save the parking spaces on San Anselmo Ave. There is enough room on the Plaza that the open space doesn’t have to include the existing side walk and 5 or 6 parking spaces. Our merchants need more parking on the Ave., not less. Several spaces have recently been removed and replaced by under used bike racks. Below are photos of the existing sidewalk and parking spaces prior to the addition of the bump outs and tables. You may recall what a disaster the parking meters were last year.
51 3. Prior to its being fenced off, the Plaza was available for the use of both larger and small groups who wanted to dine on the Ave. It is easy to move tables and chairs. The community needs flexibility in how they use the space. Schemes A, B &C are much more limited and seem to favor dining. 52 4. There are several issues that need to be resolved before directing the Landscape Architect to pursue a specific Plaza design:
a. There is a stone wall closing off 5 to 6 parkings spaces on the Ave. This wall is probably a ‘hold over’ from when it was supposed to direct water away from San Anselmo Ave. and into the creek. It didn’t work then and it certainly doesn’t work now.
b. The plans also show stone walls cutting across the concrete deck of the Plaza. What am I missing here? For years the County of Marin said the deck is weak and could collapse in a strong earthquake. Although the deck is plenty strong enough for the weight of people, stone walls are much heavier. The stone walls should be removed from the drawings. Stone walls are also expensive to build. c. It is also a bad idea to have the stone walls so close to the redwood trees. The mass of the on the redwood roots, plus the required back fill can only damage the beautiful redwood grove above the Plaza. d. There are also trees shown on the concrete deck and appear to be growing out of the deck. How does this work? Trees on the deck put a greater mass on the structure of the deck and will need to be in heavy earth filled boxes. It is a bad idea to have trees, as well as stone walls in the middle of the concrete deck. e. All the curved wood decks and landscape areas are going to be expensive to build, expensive to maintain and take space away from the pubic’s enjoyment of the Plaza. f. The Plaza will certainly be used by diners. This will create food waste and there is a very chance that food will attract rodents. The low to the ground wood decks will be an on going maintenance problem. g. By leaving the Plaza more open there will not be the need for handicap ramps. The Plaza can be designed to meet the slopes required by code. There is a sidewalk and a parking lot with accessible parking above the Plaza. This can be used for wheel chair access to the redwood area. h. Finally, the talk about a “skylight” through the concrete deck, to look down on the creek must stop. A large enough hole through the deck is a really bad idea; in an 80 year old concrete bridge! I know the “skylight” was not shown on the drawings, but it is mentioned at every meeting I have attended. It is easy 53 to walk to the south edge of the Plaza to enjoy a very of the creek without weakening the structure of the bridge.

5. The Plaza will be a prime location for musical events. San Anselmo is full of musicians, many of whom like to play for the public. For example there is music in the park all summer and our beloved “Beetles in the Park’ concert. There is also music at the Coffee Roasters every Saturday morning (for the last 25+ years!). Before it was fenced off off the Plaza was regularly used by musicians, including musicians from Archie Williams High School. The Plaza must be designed for musicians, dancers and children as well as diners.
54 6. The Plaza will be used night and day. This should be kept in mind during design for public safety, as well as concerts.
55 I ask that you respect the needs of your constituents and vote to send the project back to the Landscape Architect for scheme D.

Schemes A, B & C don’t come close to allowing for the best use of the Plaza. Also, there is a fifth engineering report that has yet to be released. I don’t see how design can go ahead until the fifth engineering report has been reviewed and understood by the designer as well as the Town’s Bldg. and Public Works Depts.

Finally, as I said at the beginning of this too long of a letter, your vote on the Plaza is one of the most important votes you will take during your years on the Council. Please vote to send the project back for a design that fits the historic needs of the Plaza and not just a well drawn rendering.

Thank you for your time and what you do for our community, Jeff Kroot, former San Anselmo Mayor
56 Outlook
BB2 Plaza Park
From Garril Page (IMAP) <[email protected]>
Date Fri 8/7/2026 3:37 PM
To Town Council <[email protected]>
Cc Serge Avila <[email protected]>
CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Council Members;
It is hard to believe years have passed since I could ask friends to meet me at the park plaza, day or night. I enjoyed the warm evenings when locals, out-of-towners, and families with children all gathered to enjoy music, games, food, and true comaradarie on the BB2 Plaza that Sean and San Anselmo Public Works so skillfully transformed into a vibrant, social gathering spot. The joint was truly jumpin’ and the vibes were good.

All were welcome and many came! I expect that attendance partly recompensed the town for what was lost when the BB2 businesses were demolished. The contrast to the bereft, abandoned area created by the District's Spite Fence was a slap in the face. Now, because of the rare chance to restore the site's diversity, warmth and character so uniquely San Anselmo, I hope each council member is able to look beyond the very skilled and sophisticated 3D presentation of a nationally known landscape firm in order to recapture what once existed and was so treasured downtown.

That it continues to be impossible to walk into the site is truly a shameful disservice to the town, and prevents the clear remembrance of what San Anselmo once had. This is especially regrettable because RHAA has devalued two essential aspects of the plaza: the freedom to configure the space for diversified uses, and the worth of San Anselmo’s redwood grove sited between major traffic arterials and the bustle of San Anselmo Avenue.

Council members are familiar with the value this community assigns the Creek Park redwoods and understands the wisdom of ensuring preservation and protection of trees that were planted in the park by residents specifically for the enjoyment of future generations. Installing decking that girdles the trees will damage the redwoods, (do we need multiple arborists reports again or will common sense prevail?) as well create maintenance problems of refuse removal and rodent abatement. I believe the council will recall Sean’s jocular description of continual rat festivities at the plaza? RHAA’s design is not rodent abatement.

Fake wood wears well, but is many times heavier than real wood, a hot surface in sunlight, needs special installation and maintenance because it stains, is not structural material. I have Trex decks, ramps and various other 30-year old ‘fake' wood installations. I like the products, but admit there are limitations and cons to them. For example, trying to move fake decking sections is impractical and cumbersome. If rodent infestation moves in below the decking, the rats win, dead or alive. 57 Stone walls, of course, do not move at all. Flexible designs are sacrificed to solid structures and regimented paths ways. To me, an open Adventure Play area for children sounds more appropriate to public recreational use than a seating area from which toddlers may tumble, chairs slide, or children on bikes or afoot, jump without some preventative fencing.

I believe the stone-faced wall idea started with flood walls and alleviation of the steep grade change between SAFRR’s bio-engineered banks and San Anselmo Avenue ’s sidewalk? Placing stone walls at the edge of San Anselmo Avenue is intrusive, and looks very like a future flood wall installation that may interfere with flood gates, potentially limits utility /drainage installations, and curtails pedestrian circulation.

I noted a mention of potential holes in the decking to plant trees. Perhaps the engineers weighing the stability of the plaza have opinions about drilling the concrete platform and subsurface stability as well as balancing sidewall loads should such such drilling be done? While visual, unfenced experience of the park site currently is prevented, it is more challenging to understand the potential for easy conversion to divergent park uses that the plaza once gave us.

Lacking access, there are photos of the plaza in use that may be instructive? Those who were present in those days can recall multiple activities, opportunities for differing functions, which is a valuable aspect to any public space. Static design limits park use. For example, can the Council endorse giving up public recreation space and 4-6 parking places to cars? I do hope not.

Yours sincerely,
Garril Page
58 CREEK PARK PLAZA

DESIGN OPTIONS
Town Council
Tuesday, August 11, 2026
59 AGENDA

1. Staff Introduction
a. Process to Date
b. Public input to date
c. Addressing Concerns
d. Potential Project Timeline

2. RHAA Presentation
a. Design considerations
b. Plaza Design options

3. Council Questions

4. Public Comment

5. Council Discussion - Preferred Design Option
60 PROCESS
2023 Creek Park Design
61 PROCESS
February through August of 2026
 Flood District cancels BB2 Removal Project
 Town and County sign agreement for use of plaza pending structural report  Structural evaluation show the need for reinforcement  Town working with County to develop plan for improvements  Town receives donor support to develop conceptual designs  Town engages in process for integration of plaza into park design  Town hosts special CAC meeting, LOTA engagement and online survey to gather sentiment on plaza options
62 DESIGN CONCEPTS – COMMUNITY VOTING RESULTS
Community Engagement: Option A Option B
CAC Meeting 8/4/26 12 1
LOTA Design Display 8/7/26 101 46
Online Survey 8/3 - 8/9/26 107 114
Combined Total 220 161
63 CREEK PARK PLAZA DESIGN COMMUNITY
FEEDBACK SURVEY: COMMENTS
A review of 44 community comments identified
several recurring themes regarding the proposed
Creek Park Plaza designs. Overall, feedback was
constructive and generally positive, with
residents emphasizing the importance of creating a
space that is usable, welcoming, green, and flexible for a wide range of community activities.
64 COMMENTS SUMMARIZED
Priority Approx.

Mentions Key Message
Seating &
Gathering Space
17 Provide more places for people to sit, socialize, gather, and accommodate groups.

Greenery, Nature
& Habitat
15 Preserve and enhance trees, gardens, habitat, and the natural character of the site.

Family &
Community Use
9 Create a space that works well for families, children, groups, residents, and visitors.

Shade & Cooling 9 Increase shade through trees, vegetation, umbrellas, or other shade elements.

Open Space &
Flexibility
8 Maintain open, flexible areas that allow people to
move freely and accommodate different activities.

Garden & Path
Features
7 positive / 3
concerns
Garden paths and habitat gardens are appreciated, but
some residents feel they could reduce valuable
gathering space.
65 COMMENTS SUMMARIZED – CONT.

Priority Approx.

Mentions Key Message
Accessibility 3 Ensure ADA accessibility throughout the site, including seating, decks, and circulation.

Maintenance &
Durability
3 Use durable materials and prioritize cleanliness,
maintenance, and long-term usability.

Amenities 3 Suggestions include fire pits, umbrellas, tables, and other community amenities.

Tree Health &
Appropriate Planting
4 Protect existing trees and consider native, droughttolerant, and creek-appropriate planting.

Restrooms 2 Positive response to including restrooms, with a request for convenient and visible placement.

Parking 1 Requested retaining existing parking.
66 PLAZA DESIGN - CONCERNS
CONCERN - OPEN SPACE ON THE PLAZA:
• Several commenters have expressed concerns about not
having enough open space on the plaza, that there is too much seating instead of open space, and that the proposed table would be too heavy to move
• DESIGN GOALS:

The proposed design attempts achieve the ability for the community to gather, and to provide adequate seating to accommodate individuals and groups wishing to congregate, dine and relax.
67 PLAZA DESIGN - CONCERNS
CONCERN - OPEN SPACE ON THE PLAZA:
• OPEN SPACE IN OUR DOWNTOWN:

For a small town, San Anselmo has an abundance of open, green spaces including the Creek Park lawn, Imagination Park and the Town Hall plaza.
68 PLAZA DESIGN - CONCERNS

CONCERN - OPEN SPACE
ON THE PLAZA:
• FLEXIBLE SPACE:

In the designs, the main plaza shows
round picnic tables similar to the
tables used at the Marin Country
Mart. These tables accommodate
eight people each. These tables and
bench seats are not connected and
are moved using a dolly.
69 CONCERN – LOSS OF TWO PARKING SPACES
CONCERN – LOSS OF TWO
PARKING SPACES:
• The plaza design shows the outer edge of the plaza in line with outer edge of the existing parklet
• This design contemplates using two existing parking spaces • The 2023 park design contemplated the same edge to the plaza • Recognition that removal of parking in the downtown is a challenge • Parking study shows biggest challenge during peak lunch rush 70 CONCERN – LOSS OF TWO PARKING SPACES
• Downtown Parking has benefitted from a robust Merchant Parking Permit promotion & education program, moving
merchants off the Avenue to 4-hour spots and freeing up spaces for residents/customers
• 2025/26 permits sold = 287 (as of 8/10/26)
• 2024/25 permits sold = 114
 Staff is researching other private/public parking opportunities 71 14
72 PROPOSED PROJECT TIMELINE
August 2026 – Council Chooses Preferred Plaza Design
August though December 2026 – Develop construction
documents
Jan/Feb 2027 – Town Council considers project for bidding March 2027 – Assuming approval and funding, project
goes out to bid
May 2027 – Project construction initiated
June 2027 – Platform work begins
Fall/Winter 2027 – Project completion
(This timeline is pending successful fundraising)
73 Creek Park

INITIAL CONCEPTS
74 Design Considerations
Design Considerations • Reflects character of San Anselmo in scale and materials
• Coordination with retaining wall
reinforcement
• Structural loads on platform • ADA access between redwood grove and platform– 2’ grade change
• Potential cuts through slab to
embankment below to allow for trees
• Screening of adjacent blank façade • Elevation of platform relative to park and sidewalk grades
75 Creek Park Design

OPTIONS A, B C
Creek Park Design

OPTIONS A, B & C
76 OPTION A

OPTION A
Curvilinear
Terrace
Extends redwood deck experience
77 MULTI-LEVEL WOOD DECK
WOOD
DECK
STAGE
LAWN

SAN ANSELMO CREEK
CREEK
PLAZA

TERRACED

WOOD DECK

KIDS PLAY
AREA

POLLINATOR
GARDEN

W/SEATING

TERRACED

SEATING

RESTROOM
78 STONE WALLS & WOOD DECK
+51.2

SAN ANSELMO CREEK

CREEK PLAZA
+47.5
+50.1 +49.0
5%
5%
+49.0

WOOD DECK STAGE
+51.4

HABITAT

PLANTING

TERRACED
DECK
+49.0
LAWN
RESTROOM +52.5
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 OPTION B

OPTION B
Garden Path
Planted Connector Between
Plaza and Park
86 MULTI-LEVEL WOOD DECK
WOOD
DECK
STAGE
LAWN

SAN ANSELMO CREEK
CREEK
PLAZA
GARDEN

CONNECTOR

KIDS PLAY
AREA

POLLINATOR
GARDEN

W/SEATING

TERRACED

SEATING

RESTROOM
87 STONE WALLS &

WOOD DECK
+51.2

WOOD DECK STAGE
+51.4

SAN ANSELMO CREEK

CREEK PLAZA
+47.5

HABITAT GARDEN

HABITAT
GARDEN

DECK LANDING
+49.0

2.8%

3.6%
3%
+49.0
LAWN

RESTROOM
+52.5
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 OPTION C

OPTION C
Town Green
Street Lawn and Terraced Plaza
95 MULTI-LEVEL WOOD DECK
WOOD
DECK
STAGE
LAWN

SAN ANSELMO CREEK
STREET
PLAZA
GREEN

TERRACED
DECK

KIDS PLAY
AREA

POLLINATOR
GARDEN

W/SEATING

TERRACED

SEATING

RESTROOM
96 STONE WALLS & WOOD DECK
+51.2

WOOD DECK STAGE
+51.4

SAN ANSELMO CREEK

PLAZA GREEN
+47.5

HABITAT

PLANTING

TERRACED DECK
+49.0
3%

4.4%
5%
+49.0
+48.25
+49.88
3%

4.4%
LAWN

RESTROOM
+52.5
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
QUESTIONS/COMMENTS?
46 104
Item #: 2.2

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #: 2.2
MEETING DATE: August 11, 2026
AGENDA TITLE: Authorize the Town Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Donation Agreement with a Potential Donor
for the Completion of Construction Drawings for the
Creek Park Project
FROM: David P. Donery, Town Manager
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council authorize the Town Manager to negotiate and execute a donation agreement with a donor for the completion of construction drawings and specifications for the Creek Park Project (Attachment 1).

At its November 23, 2021 meeting, the Town Council received a presentation from RHAA of the 60% conceptual drawings for the Creek Park Project.1 The Council authorized RHAA to complete schematic drawings, so that construction of the Creek Park Project could be coordinated with the removal of Building Bridge 2 (632-636 San Anselmo Avenue, hereinafter “BB2”). However, the Creek Park Project was put on hold pending the approval of the Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s (“District”) BB2 removal project.

On February 24, 2026, the Town Council approved a lease agreement with the District for public pedestrian use of BB2. Although the initial term of the lease is three years, the lease specifies, that if the BB2 removal project does not proceed, “the Town’s use of the platform will continue under this Lease until terminated by either Party or the Parties enter into a new agreement.” On May 5, 2026, the District Board of Supervisors

1 See presentation at https://sananselmo-ca.granicus.com/player/clip/689?meta_id=83243 105
Item #: 2.2
canceled the BB2 removal project.2 Accordingly, the lease is in effect until terminated or until the parties enter into a new agreement.

DISCUSSION
With the District’s cancelation of the BB2 removal project, the prospect of long-term public pedestrian use of the BB2 platform became feasible, pending completion of improvements to the structure. Therefore, the Town approached the District about completing safety improvements to the BB2 platform and began working with RHAA to discuss options for making the BB2 platform a cohesive part of the Creek Park design.

On June 23, 2026, the Town Council authorized the Town Manager to negotiate and execute a donation agreement with a donor who expressed a willingness to fund the completion of the conceptual drawings to add the BB2 platform to the overall plans for the Creek Park Project. The donation agreement was executed in early July and it covered all costs outlined in RHAA’s proposal for the conceptual design work. Those concepts were presented to the CAC on August 4, at Live on the Avenue on August 8 and are being presented to the Town Council for feedback on August 11.

After receiving the Council’s input on the conceptual drawings, staff hopes to have RHAA prepare construction drawings and specifications that can be used to put the Creek Park Project out to bid in 2027. Securing funding for this design work is critical to its completion. Accordingly, staff is seeking the Town Council’s authority to have the Town Manager, in consultation with the Town Attorney, negotiate and execute a donation agreement for this portion of RHAA’s proposed work based on the attached proposal. In addition, Town staff continues to work with the District on the structural component of BB2 with the goal of completing those improvements at the same time the Creek Park Project is constructed.

FISCAL IMPACT
None. The donation agreement will cover all costs listed in RHAA’s proposal.

CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Council’s authorization of the Town Manager to negotiate and sign a donation agreement is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act, because it does not involve an activity which has the potential to cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065).

Attachment 1 – RHAA proposal for completion of construction drawings and specifications for the Creek Park Project

2 Announcement of project cancelation available at https://flooddistrict.marincounty.gov/building-bridge-2- removal/
106
SAN ANSLEMO TOWN COUNCIL MEETING – AUGUST 11, 2026
ITEM 2.2: DONATION AGREEMENT
RHAA PROPOSAL WILL BE UPLOADED BY 5pm ON MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 2027 107
August 10, 2026
David Donery, City Manager
City of San Anselmo
[email protected]
Via email
RE: San Anselmo Creek
Dear David,
This proposal is in response to a request for Landscape Architectural services for the completion of documentation for San Anselmo Creek Park. We are very excited about this project and appreciate the effort it has taken to get to this point.

Based on our understanding of the site and your needs, we have attached a summary of our Attachment A – Project Team Overview, Attachment B - Scope of Work Summary, Attachment C - our combined fee spreadsheet by task – Attachment C. We have individual breakdowns of fees by task for each firm. These are also attached. Detailed proposals from each firm outlining assumptions and detailed tasks will be submitted at your request. We are happy to modify this scope as necessary to best meet your needs and budget.

The tasks and anticipated schedule are as follows:

TASK 1 – Project Initiation and Team Mobilization – 2 weeks, August 15 -30, 2026 TASK 2 – Community Outreach and Engagement- August 2026 – January 2027 TASK 3 – Design Development Integration of Avenue Plaza (inclusion of expanded site into 60% plans for park) – September 1 – November 1 -8 weeks
TASK 4 – Construction Documents (90% plans- fully documented but pending client final review) – November 1- December 31, 2026 – 9 weeks
TASK 5 – Bid Package and Final Approval – January 1 – 31, 2027 January 31 Bid Package Complete - 4 weeks (January 12 Council presentation)
The following tasks are not included in the scope:

TASK 6 – 2 months- February-March 2027 – not included
TASK 7 – Construction Period – 9 months- April 2027 – December 2027 – not included Let me know if you have any questions or comments and we can make updates to this proposal to ensure it best meets your needs.

Sincerely,
Manuela King
Principal
RHAA
Main Office
225 Miller Avenue,
Mill Valley, CA 94941
rhaa.com
415.383.7900
108

ATTACHMENT A
SAN ANSELMO CREEK PARK | PROJECT TEAM OVERVIEW
As Prime Consultant for the San Anselmo Creek Park project, RHAA will lead a group of professionals selected on the basis of their:
• Professional expertise and experience
• Understanding of the project and knowledge of related issues • Enthusiasm for the work
• Involvement with previous phases
• Resources and capabilities to commit to the project for its duration, ensuring that the work will be done on time and within budget
RHAA’s Project Team will consist of the following professional organizations:
• BKF – Civil Engineering
• MAR STRUCTURAL – Structural Engineering
• O’Mahony Myer – Electrical Engineering
• R.Borinstein Company – Cost Estimating
• Miller Pacific – Geotechnical Engineering
• RMA Irrigation – Irrigation Consultant
• Urban Forestry – Arborist Consulting
• Apiero Design – Theatrical lighting and sound
Resource Consultants – not included in services but available to add if required • ESA – environmental consulting

SUBCONSULTANT SCOPE OF SERVICES
PROJECT TEAM:

PRIME CONSULTANT - RHAA
• Put together master schedule, scope, approach
• Attend, coordinate and facilitate all meetings
• Facilitate weekly coordination meetings
• Prepare all meeting agendas and notes
• Coordinate all subconsultants contract administration, work schedules, work products • Develop design vision and ensure that all team members products support design vision • Prepare all drawings, plans, sections, written text to support landscape architectural site design • Update current 60% plans to include revised streetscape approach • Coordinate all consultant deliverables
109
• Communicate biweekly via email, telephone, video conferencing and meetings with client project manager
• Attend Donor meetings and prepare donor presentation updates • Develop concept plan alternatives, supporting graphics and pro/con analyses and memos • Develop preferred plan and implementation strategy
• Coordination with MMWD
• Coordination and compliance with CAL Green requirements • Prepare Design Development and Construction Document plans including:
o Tree removal and protection plan
o Site Layout Plan
o Fine Grading Concept Plan
o Site Construction Plan
o Site Paving Plan
o Site Soil Placement Plans
o Enlarged plans for key areas
o Site sections
o Site Construction Details
o Site Planting Plan
o Site Irrigation Plan
o Lighting Concept Plan
o Site specifications

CIVIL ENGINEER - BKF
• Update current 60% plans to include revised streetscape approach • Identify civil engineering constraints
• Develop recommendations for potential streetscape alignments, curbs and crosswalks • Evaluate impacts on site grading and drainage of any new improvements • Develop recommendations for stormwater management
• Inform team on relevant local, regional and state codes and policies regarding civil engineering • Provide utility mapping of existing and proposed utilities • Provide floodplain information, creek bank issues, erosion areas • Develop grading approach
• Prepare existing conditions report for civil engineering • Assist with project base map preparation
• Review cost estimate for mechanical and plumbing
• Prepare Design Development and Construction Document plans including:
o Mechanical and Plumbing plans and details for items listed o Mechanical and Plumbing Specifications
o Site Demolition Plan
o Site Stormwater Plan
o Rough Grading Plan
110
o Site Utilities Plan
o Site Fine Grading Plan
o Civil Engineering Details
o Site SWPP Plan
o Civil Specifications
o Drop in place Romtec restroom
o Drinking fountain/bottle filler
o Outdoor sink

MEETINGS
• Attend kick off meeting at the site
• Attend biweekly design team meetings online, one hour each – 10 estimated GEOTECHNICAL – MILLER PACIFIC
• Develop geotechnical investigations, analysis and recommendations • Develop geotechnical recommendations for paving cross sections, structural footings

MEETINGS
• Attend kick off meeting
• Attend design team meetings online, one hour each – 3 estimated ARBORIST – URBAN FORESTRY
• Review existing trees on site – high level review for health, preservation potential • Evaluate impacts of design concepts on existing trees and assist with detail recommendations • Write tree protection and soil specifications and review plans and specifications by RHAA

MEETINGS
• Attend kick off meeting
• Site visit
• Attend design team meetings online, one hour each – 3 estimated ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING – O’MAHONY MYER
• Update current 60% plans to include revised streetscape approach • Prepare site electrical plans including fixture locations, connections and photometrics • Prepare site electrical plans for Romtec restroom
• Coordinate with Site Lighting, Sound System and Power requirements for performance area • Review construction cost estimate for electrical
• Prepare Design Development and Construction Document plans including:
o Site Electrical Plan
o Site Photometric Plan
o Site Electrical Details
o Electrical Specifications

MEETINGS
• Attend kick off meeting at the site
111
• Attend biweekly design team meetings online, one hour each – 10 estimated STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING – MAR STRUCTURAL
• Review structural plans for existing creek platform and proposed improvements • Update current 60% plans to include revised streetscape approach • Develop structural plans for:
o Structures located on existing creek platform including planters, terrace walls and railings o Decks located in redwood grove
o Stage design and supports
o Seat wall at stage lawn
o Play structure
o Romtec restroom
o Other potential structural needs such as retaining wall at parking area, creek railing, light fixtures o Participate in any value engineering discussions
• Review construction cost estimate for structural
• Prepare Design Development and Construction Document plans including:
o Structural plans and details for items listed
o Structural Specifications

MEETINGS
• Attend kick off meeting at the site
• Attend biweekly design team meetings online, one hour each – 10 estimated COST ESTIMATING – R BORENSTEIN
• Develop cost estimates at the following stages of drawing completion - updated concept plan, design development set and 90% construction drawing set – 3 total

MEETINGS
• Attend kick off meeting at the site
• Attend design team meetings online, one hour each – 4 estimated IRRIGATION – RMA
• Develop irrigation plans, calculations, MMWD submittals and details at the following submittals: updated concept plan, design development set and 90% construction drawing set – 3 total • Address any comments and revisions required by the Town.

MEETINGS
• Attend kick off meeting at the site
• Attend design team meetings online, one hour each – 4 estimated STAGE SOUND AND LIGHTING – APIERO DESIGN
• Prepare lighting and sound recommendations for creek stage and plaza performance area • Develop stage electrical plans including fixture locations, connections and photometrics • Review construction cost estimate for related electrical 112
• Prepare Design Development and Construction Document plans including:
o Performance Area Electrical and Speaker Plan
o Performance Area Electrical Details
o Electrical Specifications

MEETINGS
• Attend kick off meeting at the site
• Attend weekly design team meetings online, one hour each – 5 estimated

RESOURCE CONSULTANTS TO BE ADDED TO THE TEAM DURING CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS IF REQUIRED • ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS: ESA
113

ATTACHMENT B
SAN ANSELMO CREEK PARK | PROJECT SCOPE SUMMARY
Scope Summary
Task 1: Project Initiation and Team Mobilization - 2 weeks, August 15 – 30, 2026

1.1 Prepare for project kick-off meeting: Conduct kickoff meeting with project team and partners to review project goals, schedule, deliverables, protocols

1.2 Confirm project parameters: Confirm project goals, deliverables, communication protocols, and project management approach

1.3 Project schedule: Develop detailed project schedule with milestones and deadlines

1.4 Prepare project base map from site survey for use in field work.

1.5 Plan and policy review: Gather and review all relevant local, regional, and state plans and policies

1.6 Utility mapping: Collect and map utilities, easements, and infrastructure

1.7 Determine any environmental constraints that affect the project

1.8 Mobility barriers analysis: Evaluate barriers to mobility, safety, and access

1.9 Project file set up / set up base map

1.10 Field verification: Conduct field visits to document physical site conditions

1.11 CEQA pathway analysis: Analyze potential CEQA-compliant pathways

1.12 Geotechnical investigation: Conduct geotechnical investigation

1.13 Arborist assessment: Prepare arborist report

1.14 Review structural constraints and opportunities on existing creek slab

1.15 Project management, meeting agendas and notes, quality control and coordination of documents

MEETINGS
1A MEETING 1: Kick off / site visit
1B WEEKLY CLIENT COORDINATION MEETINGS: 1 HOURS ONLINE - 2 included 1C WEEKLY INTERNAL DESIGN TEAM MEETINGS: 1 HOUR ONLINE - 2 included Task 2: Community Outreach and Engagement – August 2026 – January 2027

2.1 Prepare for meetings with Creek Committee to review design updates

2.2 Prepare for meetings with Town Council to review design updates and schedule

2.3 Debrief meetings preparation: Debrief meeting with Town

2.4 Attend Donor meetings as requested by Town (time and materials)

2.5 Project management, meeting agendas and notes, quality control and coordination of documents

MEETINGS
2A CREEK COMMITTEE MEETINGS: ALLOW FOR THREE 1-HOUR MEETING IN PERSON 2B TOWN COUNCIL MEETINGS: ALLOW FOR THREE 1-1/2 HOUR MEETING IN PERSON 2C DONOR MEETINGS: AS REQUESTED IN PERSON – TIME AND MATERIALS Task 3: Design Development Integration of Avenue Plaza (inclusion of expanded site into 60% plans for park) – September 1 – November 1 – 8 weeks
114

3.1 Evaluate site programming needs: Programming layout diagrams

3.2 Prepare updated renderings based on analysis completed in Task 1

3.3 Prepare Base Plan for use by subconsultants

3.4 Coordinate design plans to avoid CEQA impacts

3.5 Prepare the following plans:

RHAA
o Tree removal and protection plan
o Site Layout Plan
o Site Construction Plan
o Site Paving Plan
o Site Soil Placement Plans
o Enlarged plans for key areas
o Site sections
o Site Construction Details
o Site Tree Planting Plan
o Site Understory Planting Plan
o Planting Details
o Site Irrigation Plan
o Irrigation Details
o Lighting Concept Plan
o Site Furnishings and Materials Boards
o Site specifications
BKF
o Site Demolition Plan
o Site Stormwater Plan
o Rough Grading Plan
o Site Utilities Plan
o Site Fine Grading Plan
o Civil Engineering Details
o Site SWPP Plan
o Civil Specifications
O’MAHONY MEYER
o Site Electrical Plan
o Site Photometric Plan
o Site Electrical Details
o Electrical Specifications

MAR STRUCTURAL
o Structural plans for planters, decks, railings, walls located on creek platform o Structural plans for decks located in redwood grove
o Structural plans for stage
o Structural details for terraced seating at lawn
o Structural details for play structure
115
o Structural foundation for Romtec restroom
o Other potential structural needs such as retaining wall at parking area, creek railing, light fixtures

MECHANICAL PLUMBING
o Plumbing plan connections for restroom, outdoor sink and drinking fountain

APIERO STAGE LIGHTING AND SOUND DESIGN
o Performance Area Electrical and Speaker Plan
o Performance Area Electrical Details
o Electrical Specifications

COST ESTIMATES
o Cost estimate of 60% package

3.6 Project management, meeting agendas and notes, quality control and coordination of documents

MEETINGS
3A WEEKLY CLIENT COORDINATION MEETINGS: 1 HOURS ONLINE - 8 INCLUDED 3B WEEKLY INTERNAL DESIGN TEAM MEETINGS: 1 HOUR ONLINE - 8 INCLUDED Task 4: Construction Documents (90% plans – fully documented but pending client final review) – November 1 – December 31, 2026 – 9 weeks

4.1 Finalize the following plans:

RHAA
o Tree removal and protection plan
o Site Layout Plan
o Site Construction Plan
o Site Paving Plan
o Site Soil Placement Plans
o Enlarged plans for key areas
o Site sections
o Site Construction Details
o Site Tree Planting Plan
o Site Understory Planting Plan
o Planting Details
o Site Irrigation Plan
o Irrigation Details
o Lighting Concept Plan
o Site Furnishings and Materials Boards
o Site specifications
BKF
o Site Demolition Plan
o Site Stormwater Plan
o Rough Grading Plan
o Site Utilities Plan
o Site Fine Grading Plan
o Civil Engineering Details
116
o Site SWPP Plan
o Civil Specifications
O’MAHONY MEYER
o Site Electrical Plan
o Site Photometric Plan
o Site Electrical Details
o Electrical Specifications

MAR STRUCTURAL
o Structural plans for planters, decks, railings, walls located on creek platform o Structural plans for decks located in redwood grove
o Structural plans for stage
o Structural details for terraced seating at lawn
o Structural details for play structure
o Structural foundation for Romtec restroom
o Other potential structural needs such as retaining wall at parking area, creek railing, light fixtures

MECHANICAL PLUMBING
o Plumbing plan connections for restroom, outdoor sink and drinking fountain

APIERO STAGE LIGHTING AND SOUND DESIGN
o Performance Area Electrical and Speaker Plan
o Performance Area Electrical Details
o Electrical Specifications

COST ESTIMATES
o Cost estimate of 90% package

4.2 Two internal check sets – monthly during task for review, quality control and coordination

4..3 Project management, meeting agendas and notes, quality control and coordination of documents

MEETINGS
4A WEEKLY CLIENT COORDINATION MEETINGS: 1 HOURS ONLINE - 9 INCLUDED 4B WEEKLY INTERNAL DESIGN TEAM MEETINGS: 1 HOUR ONLINE - 9 INCLUDED Task 5: Bid Package and Final Approval – January 1 – 31, 2027 January 31 Bid Package Complete - 4 weeks (January 12 Council presentation)

5.1 Incorporate any feedback and value engineering into 90% package and prepare Bid Package

5.2 Review final deliverables with Town

5.3 Prepare Bid Form with Cost Estimator

5.4 Prepare for Update to City Council: Update during plan development

5.5 Prepare for Public hearing City Council: Final adoption hearing

5.6 Project management

MEETINGS
5A WEEKLY CLIENT COORDINATION MEETINGS: 1.5 HOURS ONLINE - 5 INCLUDED 5B INTERNAL DESIGN TEAM MEETINGS: ALLOW FOR FOUR - 1 HOUR EACH ONLINE 5C CREEK COMMITTEE UPDATE: 1 ONLINE – 1 HOUR INCLUDED IN PERSON 5D CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: ALLOW FOR TWO IN PERSON
117
Task 6: Bid Period - 2 months – February-March 2027 – not included

6.1 Manage document distribution – provide construction documents, specifications and bid forms to Town to distribute to prospective bidders. Utilize online services to streamline the process

6.2 Attend pre-bid meeting to to walk the site, review project requirements and clarify bid.

6.3 Review and answer RFIs submitted during bidding process

6.4 Issue addenda to all registered bidders to modify or clarify construction documents

6.5 Attend bid opening.

6.6 Assist town with preparation of bid comparisons.

MEETINGS
6A CLIENT COORDINATION MEETINGS: 1 HOURS ONLINE - 4 INCLUDED 6B INTERNAL DESIGN TEAM MEETINGS: ALLOW FOR FOUR - 1 HOUR EACH ONLINE Task 7: Construction Period - 9 months - April 2027 - December 2027 – not included

7.1 Attend weekly OAC meetings during construction (34 included in person at job trailer)

7.2 Respond to RFIs to clarify ambiguities in drawings, address unforeseen site conditions or provide additional construction details.

7.3 Review submittals and distribute as needed to subconsultants for review.

7.4 Track and log all RFI’s, Change Orders, Submittals

7.5 Conduct site visits on a weekly basis. (34 included)

7.6 Evaluate change orders and advise the owner.

7.7 Review payment applications (Town may do this on their own)

7.8 Manage project close out punch lists
118
Client: City of San Anselmo

FULL TEAM
FEE
Name Role Task 1: Project Initiation &
Team Mobilization (2
weeks)
Task 2: Community
Outreach &
Engagement (5
months)
Task 3: Design
Development Integration
of Avenue Plaza (8
weeks)
Task 4: Construction
Documents (11
weeks)
Task 5: Bid Package
& Final Approval (4
weeks)
Task 6: Bid Period (2
months)- NOT

INCLUDED
Task 7: Construction
Period (9 months) -

NOT INCLUDED
Subconsultant
management and
administration
sub-total ($)

RHAA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
AND PRIME $33,825 $55,395 $91,275 $86,335 $40,530 $0 $0 $14,597 $321,957 BKF CIVIL ENGINEER $12,215 $0 $43,000 $60,000 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $130,215 MAR STRUCTURAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEER $6,600 $0 $26,400 $33,000 $11,000 $0 $0 $0 $77,000 O'MAHONEY MYER ELECTRICAL ENGINEER $1,590 $0 $9,130 $11,150 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,870

APIERO DESIGN STAGE LIGHTING AND
SOUND $0 $0 $10,000 $14,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
MILLER PACIFIC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 RMA IRRIGATION DESIGN $1,050 $0 $2,475 $3,100 $1,250 $0 $0 $0 $7,875 URBAN FORESTRY ARBORIST $2,740 $0 $2,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,740 R. BORINSTEIN COMPANY COST ESTIMATING $4,620 $0 $10,500 $6,720 $1,260 $0 $0 $0 $23,100 subtotals ($) $62,640 $55,395 $194,780 $215,305 $69,040 $0 $0 $14,597 Total (labor) $493,722
Est Reimb. $0
Total $493,722
MAR Structural Scope Assumptions

1. Existing creek deck will not be retrofitted or strengthened for this project. Investigation and testing of deck's condition for structural adequacy is excluded. Accurate structural drawings of the as-built condition will be provided at the start of the project.

2. Play structures will be designed by others. Footings by Mar.

3. Pre-fab restrooms will be designed by others. Footings by Mar.

San Anselmo Creek Park
Project Phases
119
Client: City of San Anselmo
BKF Engineers - Civil Engineering
Fee Template
Task 1: Project Initiation &
Team Mobilization (2
weeks)
Task 2: Community
Outreach &
Engagement (5
months)
Task 3: Design
Development Integration
of Avenue Plaza (8
weeks)
Task 4: Construction
Documents (11
weeks)
Task 5: Bid Package
& Final Approval (4
weeks)
Task 6: Bid Period (2
months)- NOT