HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Ord 1981-06-17
ORDINANCE NO.
245 N.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING AGINS MASTER PLAN
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings.
1. A Master Plan was submitted by Donald Agins and Bonnie
Agins (applicants) for the development of approximately 5.1 acres
of land located on what is commonly know as the "Middle Ridge",
Town of Tiburon.
2. The Master Plan is described as follows:
A. Map entitled Agins Master Plan, parcel No. 39-182-03,
July 10, 1980 - revised February 12, 1981.
B. Agins Master Plan, parcel No. 39-182-03, Schematic Site
Plan (no date).
C. Fact sheet consisting of four typewritten sheets plus
the attached environmental information consisting of
six typewritten sheets.
D. Letter from BurtonH. Marliave, Consulting Geologist,
dated August 19, 1981.
E. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation by Donald Herzog
and Associates dated August 22, 1980 No. 1145.1).
3. The land is undeveloped and is presently inaccessible other
than by a dirt fire trail (Hacienda Drive extended) which runs
approximately one-half mile along the top of the Tiburon Ridge. The
Agins parcel was not created as a result of a formal subdivision and
it is not serviced by utilities although the applicants have advised
that water service, with a provision for 3 water meters, is available.
Approximately 60 percent of the property has a slope in excess of 30%.
4. The 1973 Report of the Tiburon Joint Committee on the Open
Space Element (Joint Committee) states, in part, that this parcel is,
"an essential connector in the north-south open space corridor" and
the report further notes that, "the Agins have expressed a fervent
interest in building a single home on this site for themselves. It is
recommended that the home be sited in the north-northeast sector of
the parcel somewhat below the ridge." The Joint Committee report
further states that if at all possible, the "uppermost eastern slopes
and ridge" should be kept clear of development. The open space report
has not been adopted by the Town, but it is a resource to which it
is felt reference is appropriate.
5. The site lies in close proximity to, and is immediately
visible from, 12.87 acres of Town owned open space land (formerly
Reed School District property). The Joint Committee in commenting
on this open space land found that it was "absolutely unique...and
that it gave an illusion of isolation [that] can hardly be obtained
anywhere else...is of fragile quality which could easily be lost
if structures are introduced into the wrong places...on the adjacent
undeveloped land."
6. The Middle Ridge was studied and discussed in detail in the
Middle Ridge Environmental Reconnaisance Study prepared for the Town
in 1974 (Brown-Heldt Report). This study recommended that no more
than three homesites be developed on the Agins property; the Council
is familiar with this report and the reasons for its recommendations.
7. A combined, or joint, Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was
~repared in Nover~er, 1980, for the Agins and Del Madera properties
developments by Larry Seeman Associates, and said Report has been
carefully reviewed by the Council and certified by the Town in 1980.
8. The Land Use Element of the General Plan requires that the
Town "endeavor to maintain a large portion of ridgelands in an
open space condition through clustering of development and other
. arrangements with property owners."
9. The EIR provides (page 9) that this project would result
in irreversible change in visual quality in this fragile and
extremely environmentally sensitive area, and that in order to
"minimize visual impacts and protect the integrity of the ridgelands,
structures should be located at the lowest possible elevations...this
is especially important for sites land 2 of the Agins project".
(EIR page 7).
10. The grassland along the ridgetop (where the site is located)
is underlain with serpentine bedrock. Plants able to grow under
the unique and unusual soil conditions found on the site constitute
a specialized and rare flora. The Endangered Species Office of
the U.S. Fish and \vildlife Services considers three species found in
this serpentine grassland to be candidates for listing as endangered
species, and have advised that these species will be nominated for
inclusion on the endangered species list within the next month or so.
-2-
The serpentine grasslands in the proposed development area is considered
as critical habitat for these species (EIR page 29).
11. Development of the Agins property, and the adjacent Del
Madera properties, as proposed in presently submitted plans, would
destroy over 50% of the unique grassland habitat found on the project
property. The EIR states that as a mitigation measure, "No develop-
ment should be allowed in the area mapped as serpentine grassland" (page
23). The Council has not found, however, that reasonable development
in the serpentine grasslands might not be acceptable as a result of
other overriding considerations provided the development is conditioned
as hereafter set forth herein.
12. The General Plan provides that ridgelines should not be
infringed upon by the construction of new homes.
13. The Open Space Element of the General Plan provides that
natural features, including areas containing significant native flora
and fauna, rock outcroppings, view sites and ridgelines shall
be identified and preserved to the maximum extent possible through
siting and building location to minimize visual impact and to allow
access along corridors.
14. Proposed site No.1 of the project is situated on, and
straddles, the highest elevation of the property and this fact
combined with Unit #lls massive size, and the proposed location of
the other three proposed sites, when viewed in the light of the con-
siderations heretofore set forth, compels a finding that the project
as designed and submitted will have a significant and irreversible
adverse effect on the environment. The Planning Commission brought this
fact to the attention of the applicants at the hearing before the Com-
mission on December 10, 1980, and at that time requested that the project
be redesigned so as to bring it into conformance with the standards and
requirements of applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance (RPD-l)
as well as with the considerations heretofore set forth, in order that
obvious environmentally harmful effects could be mitigated.
15. The ErR suggests the project could be redesigned in order to
mitigate the harmful adverse impacts and that this could be done while
still providing applicants with an economically feasible alternative.
The EIR suggests that the alternate revised project should reduce
development in the ridgeline areas in order to preserve open space,
minimize impact on serpentine grassland and maximize aggregation of
public open space. Subsequent to December 10, 1980, applicants were
agendized for further hearings before the Planning Commission on
January 14, 1981, and January 28, 1981, at which time they were again,
at each of the hearings, requested to cooperate in redesigning the
project, with particular reference to relocating building site #1, in
order to reduce and mitigate the adverse environmental effects which
would otherwise result. Applicants have remained adamant; they refused,
and continue to refuse, to make the suggested design changes.
-3-
16. Following applicants' refusal to alter their proposed
development plan, as requested by the Commission, and at applicants'
insistence that their plan be acted upon in order that they might get
on with their appeal to the Town Council, on March 11, 1981, the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 309 disapproving the Agins
Master Plan for the reasons set forth in said Resolution. Said
disapproval was "without prejudice to a reapplication...at any time,
and at such time, as the project was redesigned...to mitigate the
obvious adverse environmental Effects. . . "
17. Thereafter, and on April 1, 1981, applicants appeared
before the Town Council at a duly noticed public hearing. After
visiting the site on a field trip, and in order to acco~odate
the applicants, the Council overruled the Commission's objection to
the location of Site No.1 (applicants' personal residence) on the
ridgeline, and remanded the Plan to the Commission with instructions
to review the other aspects of the plan, including a recommendation as
to the appropriate number of units. Notwithstanding a request at that
time that the applicants cooperate with the Commission in an attempt to
reach a reasonable resolution of any differences, applicants advised
the Council that they intended to stand firm and that referral back
to the Commission was a waste of time.
18. The Comnission thereafter held a hearing on April 22, 1981,
and at that time again requested applicants to consider alternate
designs in order to mitigate concerns previously expressed by the
Commission including, among others, the excessive amount of grading
called for by the Plan, and the adverse environmental impacts that would
result from the location of site No. 2 on the ridge. The matter was
thereafter again considered by the Commission on May 13, 1981, and May 27,
1981. At the meeting on May 27, 1981, the Commission again requested
. applicants to redesign the project in order to mitigate the various
adverse impacts with which the Commission was concerned. Applicants
again refused to redesign the plan and requested that the Commission
act on the plan as originally submitted in order that applicants could
return to the Council for a final ruling at the Town level. The
Planning Commission thereupon reaffirmed its prior Resolution and
forwarded its report and recommendation to the Council (staff report
dated May 27, 1981).
19. ~10-4(F)3 of the zoning ordinance provides that in reviewing
the l~aster Plan, the Council must make affirmative findings that
the density sought is compensated for by surrounding open areas; that
the proposed arrangements of residential units and design provides
for maximum compatibility with adjoining patterns of development and
open spaces; that maximum effort has been made to minimize grading and
maximize retention and preservation of natural elevation, ridgelands and
natural flora and fauna, and view sites; and that ridgelines be pre-
served to the Inaximum extent possible through siting to minimize visual
impact and to allow access along corridors. In view of the circum-
stances set forth, the Council cannot make these required findings
unless the Master Plan as submitted is modified as herein provided.
-4-
20. ~10-4(F)4 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that proposed
development must be in harmony with the Open Space and other elements
and objectives of the General Plan. The Council cannot make these
required findings unless the Master Plan as submitted is modified as
herein provided.
21. As proposed, Site No. 1 occupies a majority of the flat,
stable and easily developed land on the Agins Parcel. In view of
the steepness of the remainder of the property, the prominence of
Site No. 1 on the ridgeline, and the existence of springs and
vegetation on the lower reaches of the property, the property cannot
support more than a total of 3 homesites.
22. In view of the fact that Site No. 1 will remove an extensive
amount of serpentine grassland, it is important that other development
be designed in such manner as to preserve as much of;the remainder
of such grassland as reasonable possible. This can be accomplished
by cOmbining the existing open space from the Mount Tiburon development
with the remaining ridgeline corridor on the Agins property. This
will require relocation of Site No.2.
23. Public Resources Code 821081 provides that the Town cannot
approve a project for which an EIR has been completed which identified
one or more significant effects unless the Town finds that changes or
alterations have been required which mitigate the significant effects
thereof as identified in the EIR, unless economic considerations
make infeasible project alternatives. The Commission found, and the
Council finds, that in order to comply with the Town's General Plan,
the provisions of Public Resource~ Code Section 21081, and the EIR,
building site No. 4 must be eliminated, sites 2 and 3 clustered, and
site No. 2 lowered from the top of the ridge. This alternative is
economically feasible.
Section 2. Approval.
The Master Plan is approved, subject to the conditions set
forth below.
1. Development shall not exceed 3 homesites. Site 4 shall be
eliminated, Sites 2 and 3 clustered, and Site 2 shall be lowered from
the top of the ridge. The square footage of all buildings including
size, bulk and mass shall be reviewed and be subject to modification at
the Precise Plan stage.
2. The application was deemed complete on August 26, 1981, and
State law requires that action on the application be completed within one
year. Accordingly, applicants shall submit a Precise Plan in compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance and herewith on or before July 10, 1981. In
the event of the failure of applicants to submit the Precise Plan on or
before said date, or in the event the Precise Plan is not approved by
the Council on or before August 25, 1981, the approval authorized herein
shall become null and vmid and no force and effect and the said Master
Plan application shall automatically be deemed denied for failure to
submit to the Town the necessary documents and information needed
to process the development. The provisions of this paragraph may be
modified by Resolution of the Town Council, or if an extension of up to
90 days, as provided by State law, is requested by the applicant and
approved by the Town.
-5-
3. Applicants shall submit an applicable Subdivision Map
on or before July 10, 1981. Failure of applicants to do so
shall cause the approval of the Master Plan authorized hereby, and any
prior Town approvals of this project to become null and void
and the Master Plan and all prior Town Approvals of the project shall
automatically be deemed denied for failure to submit to the
Town the necessary documents and information needed to process the
development. The provisions of this paragraph may be modified by
Resolution of the Town Council, or if an extension of up to 90 days,
as provided by State law, is requested by the applicant and approved
by the Town.
4. All utilities shall be undergrounded and service guaranteed
in writing prior to recordation of the Subdivision Map.
5. Applicants shall satisfy all requirements which may be imposed
on the development by the Tiburon Fire Protection District.
6. Access to the development shall be via Gilmartin Drive and
shall be guaranteed prior to recordation of the Subdivision Map.
7. CC&R's, to be submitted to the Town Attorney for approval,
shall provide for reasonable preservation of views, including those
from public lands, trails, serpentine grasslands and endangered flora.
Provisions shall be made for maintenance of landscaping and common
area, if any.
8. Applicants shall comply with mitigation measures contained
in the EIR, pages 4 through 9, measures, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17 and
18.
9. The Precise Plan shall provide, among other matters, for
the connection of paths and trails, and for maximum reasonable protection
of existing wildlife habitat, endangered flora, and serpentine
grasslands.
10. Applicants shall comply with all zoning and other regulations
and ordinances of the Town applicable to the development.
Section 4. Effective Date.
This ordinance is to take effect and be in force at the
expiration of thirty (30) days after its passage, and before the
expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, the same shall be
published, with the names of the members voting for and against the
same, at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published
in the Town of Tiburon.
-6-
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of
the Town of Tiburon held on June 17 , 1981, by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmen:
Edelstein, Bergsund, Rockey, Hanson
NOES: Councilmen:
None
ABSENT: Councilmen:
Bass
~r_
Kirk Hanson, Mayor
Town of Tiburon
Draft Date: 6/8/81
-7-