The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Agd Pkt 2010-07-21 (2)TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Mayor and Members of the Town Council Office of the Town Attorney Town Council Meeting July 21, 2010 Agenda Item: # Office of the Town Engineer Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental District: Public Hearing, Talley of Ballots and Decision whether to Form the District Residents of Del Mar Valley have sought to underground the utilities in their neighborhood since 2003. As the Council is very familiar with the protracted story of those efforts, this report will focus only on the facts relevant to the currant attempt to finance the undergrounding project. Earlier this year, the Town settled the litigation challenging the 2005 original Del Mar Assessment District ("Original District"). The Settlement Agreement deleted portions of the Original District, but allowed the Town to proceed to seek financing to underground the utilities for the remaining 164 parcels. To that end, on May 19, 2010, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 27-2010, which declared the Town's preliminary intention to form the Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District ("2010 Supplemental District")and appointed the Town's consultant team: district engineer NBS, bond counsel Meyers Nave and underwriter Wulff, Hansen & Co. In the subsequent weeks, the Town has pursued the multi-step process of forming the district. The Town held two advisory meetings, on May 251h and June 2"d, allowing the district's property owners to raise questions with the bond counsel, underwriter, district engineer, town manager, town attorney and town engineer. On June 2, 2010, the Council adopted (1) Resolution No. 30- 2010, a formal Resolution of Intention, and (2) Resolution No. 31-2010, which preliminarily approved the Preliminary Engineer's Report. Resolution No. 31-2010 also took the following actions: • scheduled a public hearing for July 21, 2010, to consider the report and to allow for any interested person to appear and comment on any aspect of the Supplemental District; • directed that the Town Clerk mail notice of the hearing and supplemental assessment ballots (the "Official Ballots") to the property owners of parcels that would be assessed by the 2010 Supplemental District; and • directed that the Town Clerk also mail a notice of hearing and advisory assessment ballots (the "Advisory Ballots") to the owners of the nine parcels within the district that would not be assessed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 5 Town CllLMA 'NIM1ng ,Jule 21, 2010 During the June 2nd meeting, the Council acknowledged that the Advisory Ballots could not legally be counted in determining the existence of a "Majority Protest", but nevertheless wanted to solicit and consider the position of the owners of those nine parcels before deciding whether to form the district. On July 7th, the Council approved an agreement with the Reed Union School District ("School District"), to resolve the issue of assessment payments ("School District Agreement"). The School District did not oppose the assessment district or the undergrounding project. However, the School District had argued, based on advice of counsel, that the Town could not compel it to pay the assessments. The Town disagreed. This issue first arose during the formation of the 2006 Supplemental District; during that process, the Town settled the dispute by agreeing to pay a portion of the School District's assessments and constructing a public works project for the benefit of the Del Mar School. In the current proceedings, the Town decided to pay all of the School District's assessments. To avoid any appearance of impropriety, the School District Agreement provides that the School District will not cast any ballot in connection with the proposed new assessment district. As shown in the Engineer's Report, the Town will contribute the funds necessary to provide the funds that would otherwise have been imposed on the School District and on the nine parcels that the Settlement Agreement excluded from assessments should the assessment district proceed. CHANGES TO ENGINEER'S REPORT Section 5.2 of the Preliminary Engineer's Report used terminology to describe the streets in the district that did not conform to the Town's General Plan. The Final Engineer's Report corrects this error. Table 3 of the Preliminary Engineer's Report incorrectly identifies the owner of Assessor's Parcel No. 039-222-19. The Final Engineer's Report correctly identifies the current owners. PROCEDURE The district property owners have had 45 days to cast ballots on the district, as required by statute. The Council should now take the following steps: 1. Hear a presentation by the district engineer and ask any questions of staff and the consultant team; 2. Open the public hearing to take testimony on the proposed district. 3. Close the public hearing and direct the Town Clerk to tally the Official Ballots and, separately, the Advisory Ballots. 4. Hear the results of the tallies. 5. If no majority protest, consider adoption of the resolution to form the district. State law requires the Town to weigh the Official Ballots according to the amount of the assessment that would be imposed by the district upon the property of the owner that cast the T(~WN OF TIBt'RON Paloc 2 of 5 Town Council Mcctinl 1~) July 21, 2010 ballot. If this Official Ballot tally reveals a "majority protest" (i.e., that a majority of the weighted ballots oppose the district), the Council must abandon the formation proceedings. However, if the Town received more Official Ballots supporting the district than opposing it, the Council should consider the Advisory Ballots. The Council has discretion with respect to the Advisory Ballots. During the advisory meetings, several owners of the nine non-assessed parcels stated that they wanted to have their position count in the same degree as if they were not spared assessment by the Settlement Agreement. The Council discussed this issue in its subsequent public meetings and appeared open to granting this request. If the Council decides to give the Advisory Ballots this effect, staff should calculate their weight by the amount that they would have been assessed but for the Settlement Agreement and add the weighted tally to the count of Official Ballots to determine whether the aggregate indicates more opposition than support. If the Council wishes to proceed, after finding no majority protest in the Official Ballots and giving whatever consideration to the Advisory Ballots that the Council deems appropriate, the Council must decide whether it can make the required findings of fact. ANALYSIS OF FACTUAL FINDINGS The draft resolution attached to this report contains the findings necessary to support the formation of the proposed district. In brief, these findings are as follows: 1. The general benefits conferred by the undergrounding project have been appropriately identified, quantified and separated from the special benefits, as set forth in the Final Engineer's Report; 2. Only that portion of the estimated cost of the Project which represents local and special benefits (net of the Town's contributions) has been assessed against the respective parcels of land which are assessed; 3. The proposed assessment of the portion of the estimated cost and expense of the Project that represents local and special benefit upon the respective parcels of land in the Supplemental District is a fair and equitable apportionment of such estimated cost and expense in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each of the parcels from the Project; 4. The amount of the Supplemental Assessment proposed for each of the parcels being assessed does not exceed the special benefit conferred on each such parcel by the Project improvements; 5. Under the facts and circumstances pertaining to the Supplemental District, the Town Council concurs in the conclusion of the District Engineer, as set forth in Section 5.2 of the Final Engineer's Report, that all of the benefits conferred are direct and local in nature, and there are no general benefits conferred by the work and improvements of the Project. To~vVN Oi-Tii;t1t:~~~ Page 3 of '5 In light of the outcome of the Bonander litigation, some discussion of the legal issues underlying tonight's actions is appropriate. The Court of Appeals rejected the 2006 Supplemental District because the Engineer's Report allocated assessments, in part, based on the cost of constructing improvements in the different zones of the district; the report imposed higher assessments on Hacienda Zone parcels and lower assessments on Hawthorne Zone parcels because of a general differential in construction costs in those areas. The Court ruled that such a difference in assessments must be based on different benefit levels, not cost levels.' Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Hacienda and Hawthorne zones are no longer part of the district. The Engineer's Report accordingly calculates assessments based solely on the amount of benefit realized by each parcel. This resolves the Court's stated difficulty. The Bonander decision approved the Town's conclusion that the project would have only specific benefits, which in turn supports the first two findings listed above. Please note that the Court did not reject the Town's allocation of assessments between the parcels within each zone. In fact, the Court specifically approved the Engineer Report's determination that the key determinate of each property's aesthetic benefit was proximity to overhead utility lines, not subjective assessments of relative improvements in views. Similarly, the Court agreed that the project's safety and reliability improvements would be a specific benefit shared by all parcels in the district. The Engineer's Report before the Council uses the same formulae regarding specific project benefits. FUTURE PROCEEDINGS If the Town Council adopts the resolution approving the Engineer's Report and directing further actions to implement the 2010 Supplemental District, the Town will send assessment notices to all property owners that will be assessed. Property owners will have a 30-day collection period, during which they may elect to pay the assessment in cash rather than participate in bond financing. After the cash collection period, the Town Council will be asked to adopt a resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds. After the prepayments and bond proceeds are in hand, staff can begin the re-engineering work for the project prior to bidding, award of construction contract, and construction. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council move to: a) Receive a presentation by the district engineer. b) Open the public hearing. C) Upon conclusion of the public hearing, request final submittal of ballots to the Town Clerk and close the public hearing. i The Court also ruled that the district omitted several benefitted parcels, resulting in higher assessments on the included parcels. The deletion of the Hacienda zone eliminated this problem, because those two parcels will not realize any benefit. d) Consider a brief meeting recess while the ballots are opened and tabulated under the supervision of the Town Clerk. e) Upon completion of Official and Advisory ballot tabulation, reconvene meeting and receive results of ballot tabulation from the Town Clerk. f) Consider results of Advisory Ballot tally. g) If the Official Ballot tally reveals no majority protest of the district, consider whether to adopt or adopt with changes the attached resolution. Exhibits: 1. Final Engineer's Report 2. Draft Resolution Approving Final Engineer's Report Prepared By: Ann R. Danforth, Town Attorney Nicholas T. Nguyen, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS, APPROVING FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT, LEVYING SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS WITHOUT MODIFICATION, APPROVING AND ORDERING THE WORK AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING RELATED ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE DEL MAR VALLEY 2010 SUPPLEMENTAL UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, by resolution adopted on May 19, 2010 (Resolution No. 26-2010), this Town Council (this "Town Council") of the Town of Tiburon (the "Town") ordered a change of proceedings with respect to its previously-established Del Mar Valley Utility Undergrounding Assessment District (the "Original District"), established by resolution of this Town Council adopted on May 18, 2005, and the changes which were so ordered included both (a) deletion of certain parcels from the Original District and (b) a reduction in the scope of the proposed utility undergrounding project (the "Project") to provide for the undergrounding of those existing overhead facilities and removal of those existing utility poles which are situated within the reduced area of the Original District (the "Reformed Original District"); and WHEREAS, by its further resolution adopted on May 19, 2010, as Resolution No. 27-2010, and entitled "Resolution Preliminarily Declaring Intention to Form the Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District, as a Component of a Proposed Utility Undergrounding Program for a Portion of Del Mar Valley, and Appointing Bond Counsel, District Engineer and Underwriter," this Town Council preliminarily declared its intention to form said Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District (the "Supplemental District") to be coterminous with the Reformed Original District, and appointed professional service providers to assist this Town Council and the Town staff in forming the Supplemental District and completing the related bond financing; and WHEREAS, thereafter, on June 2, 2010, this Town Council adopted its Resolution No. 30-2010 (the "Resolution of Intention"), by which this Town Council, among other things, formally declared its intention to establish the Supplemental District to supplement the previous but insufficient funding for the Project generated by the Original District, approved and directed the recording of a boundary map for the Supplemental District, and directed NBS, as the appointed District Engineer for the Supplemental District, to prepare and submit to the Town Clerk the written engineer's report containing the matters prescribed by Section 10204 of the California Streets and Highways Code, as supplemented by Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution and Section 53753 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, as directed by the Resolution of Intention, the District Engineer prepared and submitted to the Town Clerk its engineer's report, entitled "Preliminary Engineer's Report,"" dated May, 2010 (the "Preliminary Engineer's Report"), and this Town Council on June 2, 2010, adopted its Resolution No. 31-2010 (1) preliminarily approving the Preliminary Engineer's Report and scheduling a public hearing for July 21, 2010, to consider the report and to allow for any interested person to appear and comment on any aspect of the Supplemental District and (2) directing the Town Clerk to provide for mailed notice of the hearing and supplemental assessment ballots (the "Official Ballots") to the property owners of parcels upon which supplemental assessments (the "'Supplemental Assessments") are proposed to be levied, all in accordance with Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution and Section 53753 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, notice of the July 21 public hearing, accompanied by the applicable Official Ballot, was given by mail to those property owners of parcels upon which supplemental assessments are proposed to be levied (the "Supplemental Assessment Parcels"), as required by law, as evidenced by a certificate of mailing which is on file with the Town Clerk; and WHEREAS, in addition to directing the mailing of notice of hearing and Official Ballots to the owners of the Supplemental Assessment Parcels, the Resolution of Intention further directed the Town Clerk, in coordination with Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson, serving as bond counsel to the Town for the Supplemental District ("Bond Counsel") and the Town Attorney, to cause the preparation and mailing of a notice of hearing and advisory assessment ballots (the "Advisory Ballots") to the owners of the nine (9) parcels (the "No Supplemental Assessment Parcels") situated within the `Supplemental District but upon which no Supplemental Assessment is proposed for the reason that the Town is contributing the amount which represents the portion of cost and expense allocable to such parcels on account of the special benefit conferred on such parcels by the Project, it being the wish of the Town Council to provide an opportunity for such owners to complete and submit an Advisory Ballot with respect to the parcel they own, even though by law such Advisory Ballots cannot be considered in determining whether a "majority protest" is established with respect to the proposed Supplemental District for the reason that there is no "proposed assessment" being proposed for the No Supplemental Assessment Parcels; and WHEREAS, a certificate of mailing has also been filed with the Town Clerk, evidencing compliance with the directive to prepare and mail the notice of hearing and Advisory Ballots to the owners of the nine No Supplemental Assessment Parcels; and WHEREAS, the District Engineer has prepared and submitted for consideration at the public hearing a final engineer's report, entitled "Final Engineer's Report," dated July, 2010 (the "Final Engineer's Report"), which includes only minor, non-substantive changes from the Preliminary Engineer's Report; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was conducted as scheduled on July 21, 2010, and having provided opportunity for any interested person present to be heard, and the Mayor having provided one last opportunity for any property owner present to either (1) submit an assessment ballot or (2) change an assessment ballot previously submitted, including both Official Ballots and Advisory Ballots, and upon seeing that there were no further actions to be taken with respect to either submission or changing of assessment ballots, the hearing was closed; and WHEREAS, following the close of the public hearing, the Town Clerk opened all of the assessment ballots which were received prior to the close of the hearing, including both Official Ballots and Advisory Ballots, separately tallied the Official Ballots received and the Advisory Ballots received, and reported to this Town Council that the Official Ballots received in favor of proceeding with the Supplemental District exceed the Official Ballots received in opposition to proceeding, as determined in accordance with Section 53753 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, having established that there is not a majority protest which would preclude this Town Council from proceeding to establish the Supplemental District, the Town Clerk then proceeded to report to this Town Council the results of the tally of the Advisory Ballots received; and WHEREAS, based upon the recommendations of the District Engineer, as set forth in the Final Engineer's Report, and all of the testimony heard and written communications received from interested persons, and having considered the results of the separate tallies of both the Official Ballots and the Advisory Ballots, this Town Council hereby finds and determines that (1) the general benefits conferred by the work and improvements which comprise the Project have been appropriately identified, quantified and separated from the special benefits, as set forth in the Final Engineer's Report, (2) only that portion of the estimated cost of the Project which represents local and special benefits (net of the Town's contribution on account of the nine parcels and ten additional parcels owned by the school district) has been assessed against the respective parcels of land which are assessed, (3) the proposed assessment of the portion of the estimated cost and expense of the Project which represents local and special benefit upon the respective parcels of land in the Supplemental District, as set forth in the Final Engineer's Report, represents a fair and equitable apportionment of such estimated cost and expense in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each of the parcels, respectively from the improvements which comprise the Project and (4) the amount of the Supplemental Assessment proposed for each of the parcels being assessed does not exceed the special benefit conferred on each such parcel by the Project improvements; and WHEREAS, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this Town Council hereby finds and determines that, under the facts and circumstances pertaining to the Supplemental District, this Town Council concurs in the conclusion of the District Engineer, as set forth in Section 5.2 of the Final Engineer's Report, that all of the benefits conferred are direct and local in nature, and there are no general benefits conferred by the work and improvements of the Project; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES , DECLARES AND RESOLVES as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are all true and correct. 2. This Town Council hereby finds and determines that there was not a majority protest within the meaning of Section 53753 of the Government Code, and hereby overrules all protests, whether written or oral, submitted prior to or at the public hearing. 3. The Final Engineer's Report, dated July, 2010, is hereby approved without modification. 4. The proposed work and improvements which comprise the Project, as described in the Final Engineer's Report, are hereby ordered. 5. The individual Supplemental Assessments, in the amounts set forth in the Final Engineer's Report, are hereby confirmed and levied, and this action is final as to all persons in accordance with Section 10312 of the Streets and Highways Code (the "Code"). 6. A Notice of Supplemental Assessment shall be prepared and recorded by the Town Clerk in the official records of the Marin County Recorder, together with an assessment diagram in the form set forth in the Final Engineer's Report. Notice of recordation of assessment shall be given by the Town Clerk by publication as prescribed by Section 10404 of the Code. Notice of recordation of assessment shall be given by the Town Clerk to the owners of those parcels within the Supplemental District upon whose parcels a Supplemental Assessment has been levied by this resolution, such notice to be in the form and given in the manner required by Section 10404 of the Code. The notice of recordation of assessment given by mail shall also prescribe the deadline for submission of a cash prepayment of all or any portion of the Supplemental Assessment by or on behalf of any property owner wishing to do so, pursuant to Sections 10403 and 10404 of the Code. 7. Pursuant to Section 10603 of the Code, the Director of Administrative Services is hereby designated to collect and receive the cash payments from property owners on account of the supplemental assessments levied, and the Director of Administrative Services shall, upon the expiration of the prescribed 30-day cash payment period, submit to the Town Clerk a Certificate re Paid and Unpaid Supplemental Assessments. 8. Following receipt of the Certificate re Paid and Unpaid Supplemental Assessments, this Town Council intends to proceed with authorization of the issuance and sale of limited obligation improvement bonds, pursuant to the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 and upon the security of and in a principal amount equal to the unpaid supplemental assessments, bearing interest at a rate not to exceed twelve percent (12%) per annum, with the last principal installment of the Bonds to mature not to exceed thirty-nine (39) years from the second day of September next succeeding twelve (12) months from their date. 9. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, State of California, held this-2 1 st day of July, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS : NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: RICHARD COLLINS, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK 1472122.1 Town of Tiburon Final Engineer's Report Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Prepared under the Provisions of the 1931 Municipal Improvement Act July, 2010 Submitted by N B S Main Office 32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92592 800.676.7516 Regional Office 870 Market Street, Suite 1223 San Francisco, CA 94102 800.434.8349 TOWN OF TIBURON DEL MAR VALLEY 2010 SUPPLEMENTAL UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT TOWN COUNCIL Richard Collins, Mayor Jeff Slavitz, Vice Mayor Alice Fredericks, Councilmember Jim Fraser, Councilmember Emmett O'Donnell, Councilmember TOWN STAFF Margaret (Peggy) Curran, Town Manager Ann Danforth, Town Attorney Nicholas Nguyen, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer NBS Tim Seufert, Client Services Director K. Dennis Klingelhofer, P.E., Assessment Engineer Nick Dayhoff, Financial Analyst MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON Sam Sperry, Bond Counsel WULFF, HANSEN & CO. Mark Pressman, Underwriter TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ENGINEER'S LETTER & CERTIFICATIONS 1-1 2. INTRODUCTION 2-1 2.1. Background of District 2-1 2.2. Reason for Proposed Assessment 2-1 3. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 3-1 3.1. Description of Improvements and Services 3-1 4. ESTIMATE OF COSTS 4-1 4.1. District Budget ..............................................................................................4-1 4.2. Annual Adminstrative Assessment ...............................................................4-2 5. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT 5-3 5.1. General ........................................................................................................5-3 5.2. General Benefit 5-3 5.3. Special Benefit 5-4 5.4. Method of Assessment Spread 5-8 6. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM, ASSESSMENT ROLL AND PROPERTY OWNER LIST 6-1 6.1. Assessment Diagram 6-1 6.2. Assessment Roll 6-1 6.3. Property Owner Names and Addresses 6-7 7. APPENDIX A-1 7.1. Summary of Benefit Points Assigned by Parcel ...........................................A-2 1. ENGINEER'S LETTER & CERTIFICATIONS AGENCY: TOWN OF TIBURON PROJECT: DEL MAR VALLEY 2010 SUPPLMENTAL UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT TO: TOWN COUNCIL ENGINEER'S "REPORT" PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10204 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE Pursuant to the provisions of Article XIIID of the State Constitution and the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", being Division 12 of said Code, and the Resolution of Intention, adopted by the Town Council of the TOWN OF TIBURON, State of California, in connection with the proceedings for Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District"), I, K. Dennis Klingelhofer, P.E., a Registered Professional Engineer and authorized representative of NBS, the duly appointed Engineer of Work, herewith submits the "Report" for the Assessment District, consisting of six (6) parts as stated below. a. The plans and specifications which describe the general nature, location and extent of the proposed improvements. b. An estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements, including capitalized interest, if any, incidental costs and expenses in connection therewith. c. The proposed maximum annual administrative assessment to be levied upon each subdivision or parcel of land within the Assessment District to pay the costs incurred by the TOWN OF TIBURON, and not otherwise reimbursed, resulting from the administration and collection of assessments or from the administration and registration of any associated bonds and reserve or other related funds. d. The proposed assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of the proposed improvements upon the several subdivisions of land within the Assessment District, in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received by such subdivisions from said improvements. e. A map showing the boundaries of the Assessment District, the boundaries and the dimensions of the subdivisions of land within said Assessment District, as the same existed at the time of the passage of the Resolution of Intention. f. The following certificates: a. Right-of-Way Certificate b. Environmental Certificate Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 1-1 This report is submitted on the day of , 2010. K. DENNIS KLINGELHOFER, P.E. ENGINEER OF WORK STATE OF CALIFORNIA CERTIFICATES 1. I, the Town Clerk of the Town of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, hereby certify that the Preliminary Assessment and Preliminary Assessment Roll in this Engineer's Report, in the amounts set forth herein, with the Assessment Diagram attached, was filed with me on , 2010. Diane Crane lacopi Town Clerk, Town of Tiburon 2. I, the Town Clerk of the Town of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, hereby certify that the Confirmed Assessment in this Engineer's Report, in the amounts set forth herein, was approved and confirmed by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on , 2010, by resolution No. Diane Crane lacopi Town Clerk, Town of Tiburon 3. I, the Director of Public Works/Town Engineer of the Town of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, hereby certify that the Assessment in this Engineer's Report, together with the Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was recorded in my office on , 2010. Nicholas T. Nguyen, P.E. Director of Public Works / Town Engineer Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 1-2 2. INTRODUCTION 2. 1. Background of District The improvements contemplated by this report have an unusual history. In 2003, a group of Town residents initiated the process of forming an assessment district to underground the overhead utilities in the Del Mar neighborhood. In May of 2005, after holding the required public hearings and majority protest balloting, the Town Council formally established the undergrounding district. Two months later, the Council authorized a bond issue. The Town then solicited bids through formal competitive bidding. After opening the bids, the Town found that all bids exceeded the construction estimate used in the 2005 Engineer's Report to determine the amount of funds needed for the project. As a result, the Town had a significant financing gap. In addition, two district residents filed suit challenging the district: Bonander v. Town of Tiburon (Bonander I). To close the gap, the Town initiated a second assessment district process. Again, the property owner ballots showed no majority protest and the Council formally established the district in May of 2006. The Engineer's Report for the supplemental district used the same methodology as the 2005 Report. To resolve any doubts regarding this district's formation, the Town initiated a validation action: Town of Tiburon v. All Persons Interested, etc. (Bonander The Bonander I plaintiffs filed a cross- complaint, joined by the owners of 19 other parcels. On December 31, 2009, the Court of Appeals ruled that the supplemental district formation process violated Proposition 218 because the Engineer's Report had divided the district parcels into three zones and allocated assessments among parcels based on the cost on undergrounding in their respective zones. As a result of this ruling, the Town entered into a settlement agreement with the Bonander I plaintiffs. Pursuant to this agreement, the Town deleted two zones, which effectively cured the defect that invalidated the old supplemental district. This action leaves nine parcels in the district that are owned by plaintiffs in the Bonander I/ case. The settlement agreement provides that the Town will contribute funds to cover any assessments that the district would otherwise impose on those nine parcels. The Town also adopted a resolution abandoning the 2006 supplemental district on May 19, 2010. 2.2. Reason for Proposed Assessment With the resolution of the legal actions, property owners within the Del Mar Valley Utility Undergrounding Assessment now wish to proceed with the formation of the new Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District to provide the additional funds which will be required for the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities within the boundaries of the assessment district. Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 2-1 3. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 3.1. Description of Improvements and Services The plans and specifications to construct the utility undergrounding improvements and any ancillary improvements thereof, for the area generally described as "Del Mar Utility Undergrounding Assessment District" dated December 5, 2005 as prepared by Harris Engineer's and the various utility companies and are on file in the office of the Town Engineer. These plans will be revised to remove the utility undergrounding improvements which would serve the 39 properties within the Hacienda Zone and the 18 parcels within the Hawthorne Zone which have been removed from the District. A general description of the improvements to be financed by the Supplemental Assessment District and the balance of funds available for the construction of improvements for the Del Mar Valley Utility Undergrounding District will include the undergrounding of existing overhead electric, telephone and cable services serving the parcels within the Supplemental Assessment District. This work will include the removal of poles and overhead wires, guys and anchors, and the installation of streetlights, conduit, and electric, telephone and cable services, appurtenances and appurtenant work. The existing overhead utilities will be undergrounded in the following streets: Street From To Avenue Mira Flores Hilary Drive Hilary Drive Howard Drive Rowley Circle Geldert Drive Wilkens Court Malvino Court Mark Terrance Porto Marino Drive Harn Court Tiburon Blvd. Avenue Mira Flores Avenue Mira Flora Hilary Drive Howard Drive Hilary Drive Geldert Drive Geldert Drive Geldert Drive north terminus Howard Drive 450 ft East of Hilary Dr. 750 ft South of Ave. Mira Flores end North of Ave,Mila Flores termination Geldert Drive Porto Marino Drive termination termination termination 250 ft East of Geldert Dr. termination Each property owner within the Assessment District will be responsible for arranging for, and paying for, the work necessary on his or her property to connect the underground utility facilities constructed within the public right-of-way or easements to the points of connection on private property. Conversion of the individual service connections on private property is the responsibility of the property owner and is not included in the work to be funded by the Assessment District. Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 3-1 4. ESTIMA TE OF COSTS 4.1. District Budget Table 1 below shows the estimated costs for the improvements based upon the plans and specifications which have been prepared for the construction of the improvements and includes the costs of district formation. Table 1 Estimated Costs Town of Tiburon, CA Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utiltiy Undergrounding Assessment District Estimated Costs Preliminary as Approved Estimate of Construction Costs Joint Trench Costs $ 2,988,155.00 PG&E Costs $ 489,000.00 SBC Costs $ 40,000.00 Comcast Costs $ 40,000.00 Sub-total $ 3,557,155.00 Contingency (23%) $ 824,068.20 Total Estimate of Probable Construction Costs $ 4,381,223.20 less available Construction Funds from prior district $ 3,155,035.00 Sub-total $ 1,226,1$8.20 Incidental Expenses Design Engineering $ 125,000.00 Utilities- Engineering $ 75,000.00 Construction Inspection, Administration and Testing $ 300,000.00 Reimbursement of Assessments Paid by Deleted Parcels $ 415,399.00 Sub-total $ 915,399.00 Total Costs of Improvements $ 2,141,587.20 District Formation Assessment Engineering $ 13,500.00 Bond Counsel $ 48,000.00 Underwriters Discount $ 58,285.00 Town Adminstration $ 1,000.00 Printing, Advertising, $ 24,355.00 Paying Agent $ 2,500.00 Sub-total $ 147,640.00 Bond Reserve 2% of Bonds Issued $ 42,214.80 Total District Costs $ 2,331,442.00 Revenues Less Town Contributions for 9 parcels and school district- new Supplemental District $ (220,701.94) Total Amount to Assessment $ 2,110,740.06 Confirmed Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 4-1 As shown in the cost estimate, the Estimate of Probable Construction Cost is based upon the 2006 cost estimate prepared by Harris & Associates and has not been increased. The contingency has been increased from 15% to 23% to account for changes in construction costs. The amount shown as "available Construction Funds from prior district" represents the net proceeds remaining in the Improvement Fund for the Del Mar Valley Utility Undergrounding Assessment District after the repayment of all costs as stipulated in the Settlement Agreement for parcels removed from the assessment district including the amount shown as ".Reimbursement of Assessments Paid by Deleted Parcels". It is also anticipated that the Town will make a contribution to the District equal to the assessment for the nine (9) parcels and the ten (10) school district owned parcels for the 2010 Supplemental District. The Total Amount to Assessment shown will be assessed to each property in accordance with the Method of Assessment as shown in Section 5 of this report. The cost shown are preliminary estimates and the Town contribution will be adjusted as necessary based upon the final cost of the project. 4.2. Annual Adminstrative Assessment A proposed maximum annual administrative assessment shall be levied on each parcel of land and subdivision of land within the Assessment District to pay for necessary costs and expenses incurred by the Town of Tiburon, and not otherwise reimbursed, resulting from the administration and collection of assessments and/or from the administration or registration of any bonds and reserve or other related funds. This maximum assessment hereinafter set forth, is authorized pursuant to the provisions of Section 10204(f) of the Streets and Highways Code, and said maximum assessment shall not exceed fifty dollars ($50.00) per parcel per year, subject to an annual increase based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), during the preceding year ending in January, for all Urban Consumers in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose areas. The annual administrative assessment will be allocated on an equal basis to each parcel and shall be collected in the same manner and in the same installments as the assessment levied to pay for the cost of the works of improvement. Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 4-2 5. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT 5.1. General Since the improvements are to be funded by the levying of assessments, the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913" and Article XIIID of the State Constitution require that assessments must be based on the estimated special benefit that the properties receive from the works of improvement. In addition, Article XIIID, Section 4 of the State Constitution requires that a parcel's assessment may not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Section 4 provides that only special benefits are assessable and the local agency levying the assessment must separate the general benefits from the special benefits. It also requires that publicly owned property which specially benefit from the improvements be assessed. Neither the Act nor the State Constitution specifies the method or formula that should be used to apportion the costs to properties in any special assessment district proceedings. The responsibility for recommending an apportionment of the costs to properties which specially benefit from the improvements rests with the Assessment Engineer, who is appointed for the purpose of making an analysis of the facts and determining the correct apportionment of the assessment obligation. In order to apportion the assessments to each parcel in direct proportion with the special benefit which it will receive from the improvements, an analysis has been completed and is used as the basis for apportioning costs to each property within the Assessment District. Based upon an analysis of the special and direct benefit to be received by each parcel from the construction of the works of improvement, the Assessment Engineer recommends the apportionment of costs as outlined below. The final authority and action rests with the Town Council after hearing all testimony and evidence presented at a public hearing and tabulating the assessment ballots previously mailed to all record owners of property within the Assessment District. Upon the conclusion of the public hearing, the Town Council must make the final determination whether or not the assessment spread has been made in direct proportion to the estimated special benefits received by each parcel within the Assessment District. Ballot tabulation will be finalized at that time and, if a majority of the ballots submitted, weighted by assessment amount, are in opposition to the Assessment District, then the District must be abandoned. If this is not the case, then the Town Council shall form the Assessment District and levy the special assessment against the parcels therein. The following sections set forth the methodology used to apportion the costs of the improvements to each parcel. 5.2. General Benefit Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution provides that, once parcels a local agency which proposes to impose assessments on property has identified those parcels that will have special benefits conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed, the local agency must next "separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred," and only the special benefits can be included in the amount of the assessments imposed. Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 5-3 In this Assessment District, the improvement work being financed consists of the undergrounding of only those existing overhead utility facilities which are situated within the public rights-of-way of the streets situated within the boundary of the Assessment District and the subsequent removal of the existing overhead facilities, including the utility poles on which the existing facilities are situated. Only parcels which front on those streets within the Assessment District are being assessed. Accordingly, there is a direct physical and visual nexus between each parcel being assessed and the improvement work which is being financed by proceeds of the proposed supplemental assessments. In addition, none of the streets within the Assessment District are designated in the Transportation Element of the Town's General Plan as either an "major arterial" or a "minor arterial," which would signify the anticipated utilization of such streets to accommodate through traffic, as opposed to local travel, with the local travel trips either originating from property within the Assessment District or destined to such property from outside the Assessment District. Furthermore, no part of the area within the Assessment District is designated in any way as a scenic area. Under these circumstances, all of the benefits conferred are direct and local in nature, and there are no general benefits. Buttressing this analysis of the specific property within the Assessment District is the set of policies embedded in Rule 20 of the California Public Utilities Commission pertaining to the undergrounding of existing overhead utility facilities. Based upon those procedures and policies, the local utility, subject to the availability of funding through local utility rate proceeds, will fund the undergrounding of existing overhead facilities if they produce a benefit to the -general public, based upon satisfying one or more of these criteria: • The location has an unusually heavy concentration of overhead facilities. • The location is heavily traveled. • The location qualifies as an arterial or major collector road in a local government's general plan. • The overhead equipment must be located within or pass through a civic, recreational or scenic area. The area within the Assessment District does not meet any of these criteria and the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities would not qualify for funding under Rule 20 since no benefit would be derived by the general public from the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities. Further, properties outside the boundaries of the Assessment District would not receive a special benefit as described below with regards to improved property aesthetics, improved safety, or improved service reliability which is a direct result of the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities within the Assessment District. Any benefits to the public which may travel through the Assessment District are intangible and are not quantifiable. Based upon this, NBS has determined that there is no general benefit to the surrounding community and the public in general from the undergrounding of these local overhead utilities, and therefore no portion of the project costs should be attributed to general benefit. 5.3. Special Benefit A detailed analysis of the assessment methodology used to apportion the special benefit to the parcels within the Del Mar Valley Area for the formation of the existing Del Mar Valley Utility Undergrounding District was made. That analysis found that the methodology used to identify the special benefit received by parcels, and to apportion it relative to the special benefit received by each of the 167 parcels within the Del Mar Valley Area, that are within the proposed boundaries of this Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 5-4 District, was done in accordance with the requirements of the Act. Therefore, that methodology has been used to establish the special benefit to individual parcels using the Benefit Point System as established for the formation of the Del Mar Valley Undergrounding District. As set forth in the Engineer's Report prepared by Harris & Associates, dated May 12, 2005 for the establishment of the Del Mar Undergrounding Assessment District: "Each parcel of land is assigned Benefit Points (BP's) in proportion to the estimated special benefit the parcel receives relative to the other parcels within the Assessment District from the Utility Undergrounding Improvements. The highest and best use of each property is the basis on which the Benefit Points are assigned. For example, an R-I zoned residential property with two dwelling units is considered as having 2 dwelling units even though its current zoning only allows one dwelling unit, and a vacant property is considered developed to its highest potential and connected to the system. The special benefits from undergrounding the overhead utilities are segregated into three (3) categories, which are discussed below: Improved Property Aesthetics Benefit. This benefit relates to the improved aesthetics due to the removal of overhead wires and utility poles from view. Per the Tiburon Municipal Code, Section 15.2, view is defined as follows: "The term 'view' includes both upslope and downslope scenes The aesthetic benefit of removing poles and overhead lines adjacent to properties is deemed to be the same for all properties, whether or not one property is thought to have a better view than another, because the increase in property value from the improvements is considered the same on a percentage basis. Also, there is no way to judge the view from a vacant property and developed properties can reconstruct buildings to change view characteristics. Parcels that are directly adjacent to the facilities to be underground and that view wires or poles from any part of the property are considered to receive special benefit from the undergrounding project. Therefore, these properties are assigned one (1) Aesthetic Benefit Point (ABP) per parcel for Improved Property Aesthetics. - Improved Safety Benefit. This benefit relates to the improved safety of having the overhead wires placed underground and having the power poles removed, which eliminates the threat of downed power lines and poles due to wind, rain and other unforeseeable events. All parcels that are connected to and are directly adjacent to the utilities being placed underground are considered to receive the same special benefit from the undergrounding project. Therefore, these properties are assigned one (1) Safety Benefit Point (SBP) for Improved Safety. - Improved Service Reliability Benefit. This benefit relates to the enhanced reliability of service from the utilities being placed underground due to having all new wires and equipment and having that equipment underground, which reduces the threat of service interruption from downed power lines. All properties that receive service from the facilities to be underground are considered to receive special benefit based on the relative energy usage associated with the type of use on the property. In order to allocate this benefit fairly between the parcels, a methodology is proposed which equates different residential and non-residential land uses to each other, thereby allowing a uniform method of comparison. The single-family residential (SFR) parcel is used as the basic unit of comparison. A SFR parcel equals one (1) Reliability Benefit Point (RBP). Every other land use is converted to RBP's as described below. Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 5-5 Other residential properties are compared to a SFR parcel based on the number of potential or actual dwelling units on them, whichever is higher. These other residential properties consist of two parcels with 2 dwelling units on them. Based on the Marin County Assessor's data, the building areas per dwelling unit for these parcels are between 1,000 square feet (so and 1,499 sf. The median SFR dwelling in this Assessment District is approximately 2,600 sf. Looking at the PG&E Design Electrical Manual for the North Bay Area, which includes Tiburon, dwelling units between 1,000 sf and 1,499 sf use approximately 70% of the energy that dwelling units between 1, 500 sf and 3, 000 sf do. Therefore, multiple residential properties are assigned 0.70 RBP's for each potential or actual dwelling unit on them based on the current zoning on the property. Non-residential properties are converted to RBP's based on the estimated amount of usage for the type of property as compared with a SFR per the PG&E Design Electrical Manual for the North Bay. There is one non-residential use within the Assessment District boundaries: a School. The following table shows how the RBP equivalencies are calculated: Reliability Benefit Point (RBP) Equivalency Table Use Peak Usage Bldg SF Estimated Usage VA Equivalent RBP's SFR 7,500 VA/DU 7,500 1.0 2 DU 5,300 VA/DU 5,300 0.7 School 2.3 VA/B/d SF 50,000- F 115,000 15.3 VA = Volt Amps DU = Dwelling Unit Bldg SF = Building Square Feet The three categories of Benefit Points are added together for each property to calculate the Total Benefit Points: Safety Benefit Points + Reliability Benefit Points + Aesthetics Benefit Points=Total Benefit Points The following table provides an example of how the Benefit Points are calculated for the various land uses. Sample Typical Benefit Point Calculation Table Potential Existing Highest Aesthetics Safety Reliability Total Number Number Use Benefit + Benefit + Benefit = Benefit of Units of Units Points Points Points Points 1 1 SFR 1 + 1 + 1.0 = 3 1 2 2DU 1 + 1 + 1.4 = 3.4 n/a n/a School 1 + 1 + 15.3 = 17.3 The school property consists of 10 individual Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN's) and the Benefit Points are apportioned equally to each. " Exceptions Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 5-6 There is on area within the assessment district boundaries that appears to have all of the overhead utility lines directly adjacent to the properties already underground: - Geldert Court, a public street within the Del Mar Valley Area The properties taking service and access from these roads are exceptions to the above outlined Benefit Point assignments. These properties are considered to receive half the benefit from service reliability, as their small systems are completely surrounded by and dependent on the larger overall system that is to be undergrounded, and half the benefit from improved safety, as ingress and egress from their property is directly affected by overhead lines and poles. The properties that have no frontage along roadways that have poles and wires along them do not receive any benefit from aesthetics. The following table shows how the Benefit Points are calculated. Potential Existing Highest Aesthetics Safety Reliability Total Number Number Use Benefit + Benefit + Benefit = Benefit of Units of Units Points Points Points Points SFR no 1 1 frontage 0 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 1 The following is a list of Assessment Numbers (Asmt #'s) and Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN's) for properties with this benefit: Geldert Court Asmt # 114, APN 039-261-01 Asmt # 113, APN 039-261-02 Asmt # 112, APN 039-261-03 The properties that also have frontage on roadways that have poles and wires along them receive half the benefit from aesthetics. The following table shows how the Benefit Points are calculated for these properties. Potential Existing Highest Aesthetics Safety Reliability Total Number Number Use Benefit + Benefit + Benefit = Benefit of Units of Units Points Points Points Points SFR 1 1 with 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 1.5 frontage The following is a list of Assessment Numbers (Asmt #'s) and Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN's) for properties with this benefit: Geldert Court Asmt # 111, APN 039-261-04 Exemptions Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 5-7 The following types of parcels are considered to be exempt from the assessment due to their having no benefit from the improvements because they have virtually no potential for development. These properties are assigned 0 Benefit Points: • Parcels that are unbuildable because they are too small or are part of tidal lands • Parcels that are too small for a dwelling unit but have ancillary uses to other residential properties, such as garages or carports. • Parcels that are designated as Open Space. Each parcel within the boundaries of the district has been assigned Benefit Points based upon this methodology. In addition, while not specifically identified in the assessment methodology used in the Harris & Associates report, the special benefit which can be attributed to improved property aesthetics can be further supported by the reduction in the degree and amount of tree trimming required to accommodate the presence of the existing overhead utilities. With the removal of the existing overhead utilities, existing trees do not have to be trimmed as frequently and can be allowed to have a more pleasing and full shape which enhances the aesthetics of the neighborhood. 5.4. Method of Assessment Spread Based upon the methodology described above, the special benefits received by each of the properties in proportion to the Benefit Points assigned are included in the appendix. Incidental Expenses and Financial Cost have been have been assessed to each parcel gn a pro-rata basis relative to the improvement cost allocated to each parcel. Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 5-8 6. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM, ASSESSMENT ROLL AND PROPERTY OWNER LIST 6.1. Assessment Diagram A reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram is attached hereto. Full-sized copies of the Boundary Map and Assessment Diagram are on file in the Office of the Town Clerk, of the Town of Tiburon. As required by the Act, the Assessment Diagram shows the exterior boundaries of the assessment district and the assessment number assigned to each parcel of land corresponding to its number as it appears in the Assessment Roll shown in Table 2. The Assessor's parcel number is also shown for each parcel as they existed at the time of the passage of the Resolution of Intention and reference is hereby made to the Assessor's Parcel Maps of the County of Marin for the boundaries and dimensions of each parcel of land. 6.2. Assessment Roll A listing of parcels assessed and the proposed assessment amounts for each parcel is shown in Table 2. As required by Section 2961 of the 1931 Act, the total amount of the principal sum of the assessments proposed to be levied for the District, together with the principal amount of all other assessments levied or proposed to be levied on the properties within the District does not exceed one-half of the total true value of the parcels proposed to be assessed for the Assessment District. True value of the parcels means the full cash value of the land and improvements thereon as defined in Article XIIIA of the Constitution of the State of California and as shown on- the last equalized assessment roll of the County of Marin. The aggregate of existing and proposed assessment liens shown exclude the liens for the 9 parcels that will be paid-off by the Town under the Settlement Agreement Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 6-1 if If Oid 1111 d b$~ all oil 1 ■ b~ R~ m ■ m m r ® m ■ 40 ■ ■ • f ■ • m m m• m■ m m m ■ m ■ m m • ■ ■ ■ ■ m ■ • mo ® m ® • e ■ ■ m ■ v e Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 6-1 Table 2 Assessment Roll smt. No. PN otal Assessed Value 11 Aggregate of Existing & Proposed Liens ti alue to Lien Ratio Assessment as Preliminarily Approved Assessment as Confirmed and Recorded 1 055-142-03 $ 159,455 $ 34,507 4.62 $14,812.21 2 055-142-04 $ 149,434 $ 34,507 4.33 $14,812.21 3 055-142-17 $ 911,809 $ 34,507 26.42 $14,812.21 4 055-142-06 $ 895,985 $ 34,507 25.97 $14,812.21 5 055-142-21 $ 1,314,650 $ 34,507 38.10 $14,812.21 6 055-142-19 $ 162,758 $ 34,507 4.72 $14,812.21 7 055-142-16 $ 511,520 $ 39,041 13.10 $14,812.21 8 055-142-01 $ 492,719 $ 34,507 14.28 $14,812.21 9 055-142-08 $ 1,377,000 $ 34,507 39.91 $14,812.21 10 055-142-09 $ 821,236 $ 34,507 23.80 $14,812.21 11 055-142-10 $ 260,405 $ 34,507 7.55 $14,812.21 12 055-142-11 $ 1,604,917 $ 34,507 46.51 $14,812.21 13 055-142-12 $ 205,908 $ - $0.00 14 055-142-13 $ 145,618 $ - $0.00 15 055-142-14 $ 176,081 $ - $0.00 16 055-182-06 $ 1,529,101 $ 34,507 44.31 $14,812.21 17 055-182-07 $ 667,283 $ 34,507 19.34 $14,812.21 18 055-183-01 $ 285,816 $ 34,507 8.28 $14,812.21 19 055-183-02 $ 632,452 $ 34,507 18.33 $14,812.21 20 055-183-03 $ 977,936 $ 34,507 28.34 $14,812.21 21 055-144-01 $ 294,465 $ 34,507 8.53 $14,812.21 22 055-144-02 $ 1,636,625 $ 34,507 47.43 $14,812.21 23 055-144-03 $ 1,438,080 $ 34,507 41.68 $14,812.21, 24 055-144-04 $ 1,617,952 $ 34,507 46.89 $14,812.21 25 055-144-05 $ 296,588 $ 34,507 8.60 $14,812.21 26 055-144-06 $ 672,805 $ 34,507 19.50 $14,812.21 27 055-143-01 $ 11084,353 $ - $0.00 28 055-143-02 $ 189,413 $ - $0.00 29 055-143-03 $ 1,376,603 $ 34,507 39.89 $14,812.21 30 055-143-04 $ 2,000,000 $ 34,507 57.96 $14,812.21 31 039-135-02 $ 142,767 $ 34,507 4.14 $14,812.21 32 039-135-01 $ 435,208 $ 14,812 29.38 $14,812.21 33 039-135-03 $ 155,393 $ 14,812 10.49 $14,812.21 34 039-135-04 $ 160,862 $ 34,507 4.66 $14,812.21 35 11 039-135-051 $ 147,759 $ 34,507 4.28 $14,812.21 Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 6-2 Table 2 Assessment Roll (continued) smt. No. PN otal Assessed Value 11 Aggregate of Existing & Proposed Liens ti alue to Lien Ratio Assessment as Preliminarily Approved Assessment as Confirmed and Recorded 36 039-135-06 $ 153,360 $ - $0.00 37 039-135-07 $ 533,789 $ 34,507 15.47 $14,812.21 38 055-141-01 $ 492,075 $ 34,507 14.26 $14,812.21 39 055-141-02 $ 146,572 $ 34,507 4.25 $14,812.21 40 055-141-03 $ 603,097 $ 39,041 15.45 $14,812.21 41 055-141-07 $ - $ - $0.00 42 055-141-05 $ - $ - $0.00 43 039-134-13 $ - $ - $0.00 44 039-134-12 $ - $ - $0.00 45 039-134-11 $ - $ - $0.00 46 039-134-10 $ - $ - $0.00 47 039-134-09 $ - $ - $0.00 48 039-134-08 $ - $ - $0.00 49 039-134-17 $ - $ - $0.00 50 039-134-15 $ - $ - $0.00 51 039-134-25 $ 1,716,660 $ 34,507 49.75 $14,812.21 52 039-134-27 $ 155,618 $ 34,507 4.51 $14,812.21 53 039-134-26 $ 217,783 $ 34,507 6.31 $14,812.21 54 039-134-22 $ 1,345,626 $ 34,507 39.00 $14,812.21 55 039-134-19 $ 265,828 $ 34,507 7.70 $14,812.21 56 055-102-27 $ 967,798 $ 34,507 28.05 $14,812.21 57 055-102-26 $ 150,388 $ 34,507 4.36 $14,812.21 58 055-102-25 $ 219,614 $ 34,507 6.36 $14,812.21 59 055-102-24 $ 501,269 $ 34,507 14.53 $14,812.21 60 055-102-30 $ 251,056 $ 34,507 7.28 $14,812.21 61 039-131-11 $ 246,844 $ 34,507 7.15 $14,812.21 62 039-131-10 $ 219,429 $ 34,507 6.36 $14,812.21 63 039-131-09 $ 257,130 $ 34,507 7.45 $14,812.21 64 039-131-14 $ 201,271 $ 34,507 5.83 $14,812.21 65 039-131-15 $ 178,701 $ 34,507 5.18 $14,812.21 66 039-131-06 $ 225,139 $ 34,507 6.52 $14,812.21 67 039-133-09 $ 174,605 $ 34,507 5.06 $14,812.21 68 039-133-10 $ 135,149 $ 34,507 3.92 $14,812.21 69 039-133-11 $ 1,128,733 $ 34,507 32.71 $14,812.21 70 11 039-133-121 $ 1,499,960 $ 34,507 43.47 $14,812.21 Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 6-3 Table 2 Assessment Roll (continued) smt. No. PN otal Assessed Value 11 Aggregate of Existing & Proposed Liens ti alue to Lien Ratio Assessment as Preliminarily Approved Assessment as Confirmed and Recorded 71 039-133-13 $ 163,876 $ 34,507 4.75 $14,812.21 72 039-133-14 $ 983,262 $ 34,507 28.49 $14,812.21 73 039-133-15 $ 1,144,919 $ 34,507 33.18 $14,812.21 74 039-133-08 $ 173,989 $ 34,507 5.04 $14,812.21 75 039-133-07 $ 271,198 $ 34,507 7.86 $14,812.21 76 039-133-06 $ 145,626 $ 14,812 9.83 $14,812.21 77 039-133-05 $ 171,702 $ - $0.00 78 039-133-04 $ 1,178,959 $ 34,507 34.17 $14,812.21 79 039-133-03 $ 2,550,000 $ 34,507 73.90 $14,812.21 80 039-133-02 $ 170,711 $ 34,507 4.95 $14,812.21 81 039-133-01 $ 212,898 $ 34,507 6.17 $14,812.21 82 039-131-05 $ 457,803 $ 34,507 13.27 $14,812.21 83 039-131-04 $ 1,498,808 $ 34,507 43.44 $14,812.21 84 039-131-13 $ 525,557 $ 34,507 15.23 $14,812.21 85 039-131-12 $ 587,884 $ 34,507 17.04 $14,812.21 86 039-131-01 $ 513,532 $ 34,507 14.88 $14,812.21 87 039-141-01 $ 1,587,792 $ 34,507 46.01 $14,812.21 88 039-141-02 $ 256,432 $ 34,507 7.43 $14,812.21 89 039-141-03 $ 148,484 $ 39,041 3.80 $14,812.21 90 039-141-04 $ 1,546,434 $ 34,507 44.82 $14,812.21 91 039-141-05 $ 367,962 $ 34,507 10.66 $14,812.21 92 039-141-06 $ 1,579,968 $ 34,507 45.79 $14,812.21 93 039-141-07 $ 274,359 $ 34,507 7.95 $14,812.21 94 039-141-08 $ 1,650,000 $ 34,507 47.82 $14,812.21 95 039-141-09 $ 1,150,075 $ 34,507 33.33 $14,812.21 96 039-141-10 $ 278,058 $ 34,507 8.06 $14,812.21 97 039-141-11 $ 1,600,000 $ 34,507 46.37 $14,812.21 98 039-132-01 $ 379,746 $ 34,507 11.00 $14,812.21 99 039-132-02 $ 148,477 $ 34,507 4.30 $14,812.21 100 039-132-15 $ 1,550,000 $ 34,507 44.92 $14,812.21 101 039-132-14 $ 1,104,059 $ 34,507 32.00 $14,812.21 102 039-132-05 $ 804,778 $ 34,507 23.32 $14,812.21 103 039-132-06 $ 1,599,616 $ 34,507 46.36 $14,812.21 104 039-132-07 $ 369,091 $ 34,507 10.70 $14,812.21 105 11 039-132-081 $ 345,548 $ - $0.00 Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 6-4 Table 2 Assessment Roll (continued) smt. No. APN otal Assessed Value's Aggregate of Existing S Proposed Liens ?J alue to Lien Ratio Assessment as Preliminarily Approved Assessment as Confirmed and Recorded 106 039-132-11 $ 132,303 $ 34,507 3.83 $14,812.21 107 039-132-12 $ 434,384 $ 34,507 12.59 $14,812.21 108 039-031-01 $ 1,475,000 $ 34,507 42.75 $14,812.21 109 039-031-02 $ 225,832 $ 14,812 15.25 $14,812.21 110 039-031-30 $ 328,422 $ 34,507 9.52 $14,812.21 111 039-261-04 $ 1,903,932 $ 17,253 110.35 $7,406.11 112 039-261-03 $ 1,772, 505 $ 11,502 154.10 $4,937.40 113 039-261-02 $ 1,725,000 $ 11,502 149.97 $4,937.40 114 039-261-01 $ 2,601,000 $ 11,502 226.13 $4,937.40 115 039-033-03 $ 211,309 $ 34,507 6.12 $14,812.21 116 039-033-02 $ 443,223 $ 14,812 29.92 $14,812.21 117 039-033-01 $ 214,328 $ 34,507 6.21 $14,812.21 118 039-070-32 $ 2,003,868 $ 34,507 58.07 $14,812.21 119 039-070-33 $ 2,550,000 $ 34,507 73.90 $14,812.21 120 039-032-08 $ 1,539,511 $ 34,507 44.61 $14,812.21 121 039-032-10 $ 2,007,547 $ 34,507 58.18 $14,812.21 122 039-032-09 $ 2,340,900 $ 34,507 67.84 $14,812.21 123 039-032-06 $ 179,775 $ 14,812 12.14 $14,812.21 124 039-032-05 $ 235,912 $ 34,507 6.84 $14,812.21 125 039-032-04 $ 220,242 $ 34,507 6.38 $14,812.21 126 039-032-03 $ 1,178,120 $ 34,507 34.14 $14,812.21 127 039-032-02 $ 320,213 $ 34,507 9.28 $14,812.21 128 039-222-19 $ 299,587 $ 39,041 7.67 $14,812.21 129 039-222-20 $ 341,879 $ 34,507 9.91 $14,812.21 130 039-222-18 $ 1,289,393 $ 34,507 37.37 $14,812.21 131 039-222-21 $ 1,002,399 $ 34,507 29.05 $14,812.21 132 039-031-04 $ 2,263,799 $ 34,507 65.60 $14,812.21 133 039-031-27 $ 1,487,903 $ 34,507 43.12 $14,812.21 134 039-031-19 $ 2,718,198 $ 34,507 78.77 $14,812.21 135 039-031-25 $ 1,714,290 $ 34,507 49.68 $14,812.21 136 039-031-08 $ 1,645,278 $ 34,507 47.68 $14,812.21 137 039-031-26 $ 490,736 $ 39,041 12.57 $14,812.21 138 039-031-29 $ 236,530 $ 39,041 6.06 $14,812.21 139 039-031-11 $ 1,872,176 $ 34,507 54.26 $14,812.21 140 039-031-12 $ 176,083 $ 34,507 5.10 $14,812.21 Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 6-5 Table 2 Assessment Roll (continued) smt. No. PN otal Assessed Value 11 Aggregate of Existing & Proposed Liens ti alue to Lien Ratio Assessment as Preliminarily Approved Assessment as Confirmed and Recorded 141 039-031-13 $ 533,137 $ 34,507 15.45 $14,812.21 142 039-031-14 $ 853,009 $ 34,507 24.72 $14,812.21 143 039-031-15 $ 229,894 $ 34,507 6.66 $14,812.21 144 039-031-31 - $ 34,507 $14,812.21 145 039-031-17 $ 2,235,993 $ 34,507 64.80 $14,812.21 146 039-141-13 $ 1,600,924 $ 14,812 108.08 $14,812.21 147 039-141-23 $ 2,432,948 $ 34,507 70.51 $14,812.21 148 039-141-21 $ 1,983,142 $ 34,507 57.47 $14,812.21 149 039-141-16 $ 342,740 $ 34,507 9.93 $14,812.21 150 039-141-17 $ 1,625,758 $ 34,507 47.11 $14,812.21 151 039-141-18 $ 1,476,136 $ - $0.00 152 039-141-19 $ 1,708,555 $ 34,507 49.51 $14,812.21 153 039-141-20 $ 349,590 $ 34,507 10.13 $14,812.21 154 039-141-12 $ 1,885,000 $ 34,507 54.63 $14,812.21 155A 039-223-02 $ 1,864,757 $ 34,507 54.04 $14,812.21 1558 039-221-14 $ 424,172 $ 39,041 10.86 $14,812.21 156 039-223-01 $ 2,095,614 $ 34,507 60.73 $14,812.21 158 039-221-13 $ 1,170,597 $ 34,507 33.92 $14,812.21 159 039-221-07 $ 3,281,761 $ 34,507 95.10 $14,812.21 160 039-221-11 $ 1,961,154 $ 39,041 50.23 $14,812.21 161 039-222-25 $ 300,695 $ 14,812 20.30 $14,812.21 162 039-222-24 $ 2,568,104 $ 34,507 74.42 $14,812.21 163 039-222-26 $ 316,826 $ 39,041 8.12 $14,812.21 164 039-222-23 $ 245,761 $ 34,507 7.12 $14,812.21 $135,477,897 $4,800,478 28.22 $2,110,740.06 Notes: 1. Assessed value as shown on County Assessor's Roll for 2009-10 2. Existing liens shown exclude the liens for the 9 parcels that will be paid-off by the Town under the Settlement Agreement Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 6-6 6.3. Property Owner Names and Addresses Table 3 contains the names and address of property owners within the District. Table 3 Property Owner Names and Addresses Asmt No. APN Owner Mailing Address City, State, & Zip 1 055-142-03 SHEPARD JAMES ETR 100 AVENIDA MIRAFLORES TBURON CA 94920 2 055-142-04 COOPER HELEN F TR 106 AVENIDA MIRAFLORES TIBURON CA 94920 3 055-142-17 HIPPLE DANIEL PTR 110 AVENIDA MIRAFLORES TIBURON CA 94920 4 055-142-06 HALDEN MARLENE M TR 114 AVENIDA MIRAFLORES TIBURON CA 94920 5 055-142-21 SCFIORNST3N HAL T 4 FELIPA CT BELVEDERE-TIBURON CA 94920 6 055-142-19 WHEELER KELLY J TR 6 FELIPA CT TIBURON CA 94920 7 055-142-16 LINDGREN BRUCE C 8 FELIPA CT TIBURON CA 94920 8 055-142-01 LOGAN BETH G 10 FELIPA CT TIBURON CA 94920 9 055-142-08 JAGGER HAROLD 1407 ELTON LN AUSTIN TX 78703 10 055-142-09 TAGGART JAMES R 5 FELIPA CT TBURON CA 94920 11 055-142-10 ROZEN RICHARD D TR 3 FELIPA CT TIBURON CA 94920 12 055-142-11 INGLEDEW STEPHEN 1 FELIPA CT TIBURON CA 94920 13 055-142-12 CLELAND MARILYN H TR 640 HILARY DR TBURON CA 94920 14 055-142-13 KEATING KATHERINE K TR 646 HILARY DR TBURON CA 94920 15 055-142-14 SMETANA MARGARET M TR 650 HILARY DR TIBURON CA 94920 16 055-182-06 KRAVITZ STEVEN B 600 CALIFORNIA ST#1800 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94108 17 055-182-07 NEMZER KENNETH P & MARILYN L 664 HILARY DR TIBURON CA 94920 18 055-183-01 KAMI SABURO TR 655 HILARY DR BELVEDERE-TIBURON CA 94920 19 055-183-02 BRINKMAN WILLIAM A TR 651 HILARY DR TIBURON CA 94920 20 055-183-03 HANNUM JAMES M 653 HILARY DR TIBURON CA 94920 21 055-144-01 ROSENTHAL JEFFREY TR 895 MOUNTAIN VBW DR LAFAYETTECA 94549 22 055-144-02 WHITED ROBERT B II 641 HILARY DR BELVEDERE-TIBURON CA 94920 23 055-144-03 RICHARDS TIMOTHY J 132 AVENIDA MIRAFLORES TBURON CA 94920 24 055-144-04 TEODORO ALEX 136 AVENIDA MIRAFLORES TIBURON CA 94920 25 055-144-05 BARKHORDARIAN V ICTOR TR 138 AVENIDA MIRAFLORES TIBURON CA 94920 26 055-144-06 GORDON ESMETR 140 AVENIDA MRRAFLORES TBURON CA 94920 27 055-143-01 SASLOW NANCY A TR 145 AVENIDA MIRAFLORES TBURON CA 94920 28 055-143-02 O ROURKE LISA F PO BOX 439 TBURON CA 94920 29 055-143-03 ENLOW MNCHELLE 137 AVENIDA MIRAFLORES TBURON CA 94920 30 055-143-04 WRIGHT NATHAN H 135 AVENIDA MI AFLORES TBURON CA 94920 31 039-135-02 STEPHENS DONALD RTR 603 HILARY DR TBURON CA 94920 32 039-135-01 BRILL ROBERT H TR 605 HILARY DR TBURON CA 94920 33 039-135-03 RIEDEN STEPHEN M TR 85 ROWLEY CIR TBURON CA 94920 34 039-135-04 DOHERTY MARYCLAIRE C TR 75 ROWLEY CIR TBURON CA 94920 35 039-135-05 WIEGER EDWARD K TR 15 GELDERT DR TBURON CA 94920 36 039-135-06 JACKMAN ALLAN ETR 25 GELDERT DR BELVEDERE-TBURON CA 94920 37 039-135-07 FYE KENNETH H TR 35 GELDERT DR TIBURON CA 94920 38 055-141-01 JOHNSON RICHARD C TR 129 AVENIDA MIRAFLORES TBURON CA 94920 39 055-141-02 CAVINESS CHARLES PTR 121 AVENIDA MIRAFLORES TBURON CA 94920 40 055-141-03 DOYLEJAMES H III 115 AVENIDA MIRAFLORES TBURON CA 94920 41 055-141-07 REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 105 A AVENIDA MIRAFLORES TBURON CA 94920 42 055-141-05 REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 277 A KAREN WAY TBURON CA 94920 43 039-134-13 REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 105 A AVENIDA MIRAFLORES TBURON CA 94920 44 039-134-12 REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 105 A AVEN®A M IRAFLORES TBURON CA 94920 Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 6-7 Table 3 Property Owner Names and Addresses (continued) Asmt No. 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 APN Owner 039-134-11 REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 039-134-10 REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 039-134-09 REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 039-134-08 REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 039-134-17 REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 039-134-15 REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 039-134-25 ARPAJIAN SCOTT TR 039-134-27 BENVENUTI ROY TR 039-134-26 GROTHE KATHRYN 039-134-22 SCHOENSTADT POP LLC 039-134-19 KOSCIUSKO RONALD H TR 055-102-27 PERKING PJ 055-102-26 KEMPLER STACEY S 055-102-25 WILSON JAMES G TR 055-102-24 HEMERL LAURENCE L & HELEN E 055-102-30 WONG WILLIAM H TR 039-131-11 PUCKIE T MYRON L TR 039-131-10 BRYANT JAMES W TR 039-131-09 GRAFF JEFFREY N TR 039-131-14 PLANT MARGOT F 039-131-15 BACHELLER JOSEPH H III TR 039-131-06 KAHN CHRISTOPHER R 039-133-09 BERGMANN WILLIAM M TR 039-133-10 GOODING MARK G 039-133-11 YIN TOM W TR 039-133-12 TOLMIE JOHN S III TR 039-133-13 ALI SHEILA TR 039-133-14 CARSWELL ANTHONY S TR 039-133-15 HANLEY MICHAEL T TR 039-133-08 BARKHORDARIAN VICTOR TR 039-133-07 HA KA MI REZA 039-133-06 WALSH JAMES J 039-133-05 DUNWORTH JAMES R & YAEKO 039-133-04 COFFEY SAMUEL R 039-133-03 CARREL DAVID M TR 039-133-02 BRODERICK HENRY J TR 039-133-01 O CONNOR DOUGLAS R TR 039-131-05 MUMFORD HARRY G JRTR 039-131-04 HELD JOHN B 039-131-13 GAZULIS THEODORETR 039-131-12 ARONOVSKY DANIEL M TR 039-131-01 HESS ROBERT C TR 039-141-01 MICKEL ROBERTA 039-141-02 STRINGER ANDREW TR 039-141-03 STBNDL CHRISTIAN R TR 039-141-04 BECHARD THOMAS R Mailing Address 105 A AVENIDA MIRAFLORES 105 A AVENIDA MIRAFLORES 105 A AVENDA MIRAFLORES 105 A AVENIDA MIRAFLORES 105 A AVENIDA MIRAFLORES 105 A AVENIDA MIRAFLORES 410 HILARY DR 408 HILARY DR 406 HILA RY DR 404 HILARY DR 402 HILARY DR 398 HILARY DR 396 HILARY DR 394 HILARY DR 564 TENAYA DR 565 TENAYA DR 401 HILARY DR 403 HILARY DR 405 HILARY DR 407 HILARY DR 409 HILARY DR 618 MANUEL DR 101 HOWARD DR 515 HILARY DR 525 HILLARY DR 535 HILARY DR 545 HILARY DR 555 HILARY DR 90 ROWLEY CIR. 138 AVENIDA MIRAFLORES 70 ROWLEY CIR 60 ROWLEY CIR 225 ECOLLEGE AVE 40 ROWLEY CIR 30 ROWLEY CIR 20 ROWLEY CIR 10 ROWLEY CIR 102 HOWARD DR 104 HOWARD DR 106 HOWARD DR 108 HOWARD DR 110 HOWARD DR 112 HOWARD DR 114 HOWA RD DR 116 HOWARD DR 118 HOWARD DR City, State, & Zip TIBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 BELVEDERE-TIBURON CA 94920 TBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 TBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 TBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 BELVEDERE-TBURON CA 94920 NOVATO CA 94945 TIBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 T13URON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 T13URON CA 94920 T13URON CA 94920 TBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 HOLLY SPR14GS MS 38635 T13URON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 T13URON CA 94920 T13URON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 T13URON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 T13URON CA 94920 TBURON CA 94920 TBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 TIBURON CA 94920 Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 6-8 Table 3 Property Owner Names and Addresses (continued) Asmt No. APN Owner Mailing Address City, State, & Zip 91 039-141-05 DARU SUDHIR C TR 120 HOWARD DR TIBURON CA 94920 92 039-141-06 LASKY HOWARD 122 HOWARD DR TIBURON CA 94920 93 039-141-07 CASELLI VIRGIL PTR 119 HARN CT TIBURON CA 94920 94 039-141-08 DUDGEON DIRK B 117 HARN CT TIBURON CA 94920 95 039-141-09 STA LLMA N MICHAEL A 115 HA RN CT TIBURON CA 94920 96 039-141-10 MC GEE ROGER C TR 113 HARN CT TIBURON CA 94920 97 039-141-11 KIMBALL JON D 111 HARN CT TBURON CA 94920 98 039-132-01 RICHARDS JEANNETTE D 109 HOWARD DR TIBURON CA 94920 99 039-132-02 WRAY CHARLES H TR 2081 HYDE BURNDALE SONOMA CA 95476 100 039-132-15 MOURANI PAUL G 15 ROWLEY CIR TBURON CA 94920 101 039-132-14 DACHTLER JASON PO BOX 348 TBURON CA 94920 102 039-132-05 RUSSELL JAMES S 35 ROWLEY CIR TBURON CA 94920 103 039-132-06 POPE CHARLES B TR 45 ROWLEY CIR TBURON CA 94920 104 039-132-07 MORRIS MARK M III TR 55 ROWLEY CIR BELVEDERE-TBURON CA 94920 105 039-132-08 TORRENS WALTER L TR 65 ROWLEY CIR TBURON CA 94920 106 039-132-11 STEWART STANLEY TR PO BOX 982 TBURON CA 94920 107 039-132-12 CLARKE PETERA TR 20 GELDERT DR BELVEDERETIBURON CA 94920 108 039-031-01 LIN NORTON C 30 GELDERT DR TBURON CA 94920 109 039-031-02 HEYDORN WILLIAM H TR 40 GELDERT DR TBURON CA 94920 110 039-031-30 BERNE KER LUDWIG 60 GELDERT DR TBURON CA 94920 111 039-261-04 ARTHUR GREER M 37 GELDERT CT TIBURON CA 94920 112 039-261-03 BARZGAR ABBASS TR 5 BON AIR RD #220 LARKSPUR CA 94939 113 039-261-02 SLAYER WILLIAM R 41 GELDERT CT BELVEDERE TIBURON CA 94920 114 039-261-01 MAHER ROBERT E 43 GELDERT CT TBURON CA 94920 115 039-033-03 CAVANAGH MICHAEL E TR 45 GELDERT DR BELVEDERETIBIRON CA 94920 116 039-033-02 ABERI NIAJID 113 REED RANCH RD TBURON CA 94920 117 039-033-01 SMITH ROGER H TR 5 WILKINS CT TBURON CA 94920 118 039-070-32 HILLS QUENTIN K TR 7 WILKINS CT TIBURON CA 94920 119 039-070-33 MIURA NOLAN A TR 9 WILKINS CT BELVEDERE TIBURON CA 94920 120 039-032-08 LAROSEDUNN ELIZABETH 10 WILKINS CT TBURON CA 94920 121 039-032-10 URQUHART ERNEST H TR 8 WILKINS CT TBURON CA 94920 122 039-032-09 BOWBLISS JAMES M 6 WILKINS CT TBURON CA 94920 123 039-032-06 EBERTS FRED C & DORIS D TR 75 GELDERT DR TBURON CA 94920 124 039-032-05 KENNEDY ROBERT M TR 85 GELDERT DR TBURON CA 94920 125 039-032-04 KANDEL REVOC TRUST 95 GELDERT DR TIBURON CA 94920 126 039-032-03 AKRAM STEVETR 105 GELDERT DR TIBURON CA 94920 127 039-032-02 KULP RICHARD M & PAOLA O TRS 115 GELDERT DR TBURON CA 94920 128 039-222-19 OO CECILIA T TR 1177 CALIFORNIA ST #905 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94108 129 039-222-20 LU BUICH MARY TR 139 GELDERT DR TBURON CA 94920 130 039-222-18 CRAWFORD, COLIN TR & SUSAN TR 137 GELDERT DR TBURON CA 94920 131 039-222-21 LIGHTER LAURENCE J 141 GELDERT DR TBURON CA 94920 132 039-031-04 BABER KENNETH A TR 70 GELDERT DR TIBURON CA 94920 133 039-031-27 COMANN TYLER K 2 MALVINO CT TBURON CA 94920 134 039-031-19 ELBAZ ELLIOTT S 4 MALVINO CT TBURON CA 94920 135 039-031-25 FRENCH JEFFREY A TR 6 MALVINO CT TBURON CA 94920 136 039-031-08 GAZOR FARID TR 8 MALVINO CT TIBURON CA 94920 137 039-031-26 MALECEK FE NRY D TR 12 MALV140 CT BELVEDERETBURON CA 94920 138 039-031-29 CHAZEN DONNA L TR 16 MALVINO CT TIBURON CA 94920 139 039-031-11 FENNEIMA FRANK 20 MALVINO CT TBURON CA 94920 Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 6-9 Table 3 Property Owner Names and Addresses (continued) Asmt No. APN Owner Mailing Address City, State, & Zip 140 039-031-12 GEIGER MARY B TR 80 GELDERT DR TIBURON CA 94920 141 039-031-13 GALLEGIONI THELMA TR 90 GELDERT DR TIBURON CA 94920 142 039-031-14 KAVEH FARZIN TR 100 GELDERT DR TIBURON CA 94920 143 039-031-15 ZEMAM JOSEPH F TR 110 GELDERT DR TIBURON CA 94920 144 039-031-31 SOROKIN GIDEON Y TR 120 GELDERT DR TIBURON CA 94920 145 039-031-17 JOLLEY SCOTT C 4474 CREST OAK DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124 146 039-141-13 KRAMER LINDA TR 15 MARK TER TIBURON CA 94920 147 039-141-23 PETRI MARK TR 14 TARA VW TIBURON CA 94920 148 039-141-21 ETH JORDAN 35 MARK TER TEURON CA 94920 149 039-141-16 NIELSEN VIGO G JRTR 29 MARK TER TIBURON CA 94920 150 039-141-17 BARADELLO CARLOS S 31 MARK TER BELVEDERE TIBURON CA 94920 151 039-141-18 THORNTON BARRY F 33 MARK TER TIBURON CA 94920 152 039-141-19 SAW ANDREW E 30 MARK TER TIBURON CA 94920 153 039-141-20 STRUNK BRIAN L TR 20 MARK TER BELVEDERETIBURON CA 94920 154 039-141-12 SINGER RICHARD TR PO BOX 580 SAN FRANCISOO CA 94104 155A 039-223-02 KENNEALLY JOHN F 140 GELDERT DR TIBURON CA 94920 155B 039-221-14 SMITH KAY C TR 125 PORTO MARINO DR TIBURON CA 94920 156 039-223-01 HUEHnE PETER 140 PORTO MARINO DR TIBURON CA 94920 158 039-221-13 JOSEPH DONALD R TR 135 PORTO MARINO DR TIBURON CA 94920 159 039-221-07 KENNEDY ROBERT G 145 PORTO MARINO DR TIBURONCA 94920 160 039-221-11 38 DEGREES NORTH LATITUDE BUILDE 40 BELVEDERE ST #1 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 161 039-222-25 RUNES GARY W TR 144 PORTO MARINO DR TIBURON CA 94920 162 039-222-24 GOODMAN CHAD J 150 PORTO MARINO DR TIBURON CA 94920 163 039-222-26 MURAD JAMES TR 160 PORTO MARINO DR TIBURON CA 94920 164 039-222-23 MILLED NORMAN G TR 186 PORTO MARINO DR TIBURON CA 94920 Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 6-10 RIGHT-OF-WAY CERTIFICATE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MARIN TOWN OF TIBURON The undersigned hereby CERTIFIES UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the following is all true and correct. That at all times herein mentioned, the undersigned was, and now is, the authorized representative of the duly appointed DIRECTOROF PUBLIC WORKS/TOWN ENGINEER of the TOWN OF TIBURON, CALIFORNIA. That there have now been instituted proceedings under the provisions of Article XIIID of the California Constitution, the "Municipal Improvements Act of 1913," being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, as amended, for the construction of certain public improvements in a special assessment district known and designated as DEL MAR VALLEY 2010 SUPPLEMENTAL UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District"). THE UNDERSIGNED STATES AND CERTIFIES AS FOLLOWS: It is acknowledged that the proposed Works of Improvement must be constructed within public rights-of-way, land, or easements owned by or licensed to the TOWN OF TIBURON, County of MARIN, State of California, at the time of the construction of the Works of Improvement, and the undersigned hereby further certifies that all rights-of-way necessary for the Works of Improvements will be obtained and in possession of the City, County, or State prior to the commencement of any construction by the Town of Tiburon. EXECUTED this day of , 2010, at Town of Tiburon, California. Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Town of Tiburon State Of California By: Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 6-11 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MARIN TOWN OF TIBURON The undersigned, under penalty of perjury, CERTIFIES as follows: 1. That I am the person authorized to prepare and process all environmental documentation as needed as it relates to the formation of the special assessment district being formed pursuant to the provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special assessment district known and designated as DEL MAR VALLEY 2010 SUPPLEMENTAL UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment District"). 2. The specific environmental proceedings relating to this Assessment District that have been completed are as follows: CEQA compliance review, as follows: The proposed project is Categorically Exempt (Class 2) from the provisions of CEQA (replacement or reconstruction), 3. 1 do hereby certify that all environmental evaluation proceedings necessary for the formation of the Assessment District have been completed to my satisfaction, and that no further environmental proceedings are necessary. EXECUTED this day of , 2010 at Tiburon, California. TOWN OF TIBURON STATE OF CALIFORNIA Del Mar Valley 2010 Supplemental Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Town of Tiburon Prepared by NBS 6-12 7. APPENDIX A-1 i a a a~ y y Q CA. w C13 4ft O v+ ■ p C T T r T T T T T T T T T O O O T T T T T V- T T T O T T T T d N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 O O N N N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O N N N N N N N N N N N O O N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 a+ W r T T T ({3~ T r T T T T (0} T T ~ 6 % T r T T ({3~ r T T T T T TT T T T T T T T 1), T T T 6 R R R R R R 0 R 0cc~ R O O O R R c R R 0 Roc~ O O R R O R R R R R R LO M r d d' ~t ~t et tt ~t st st ~t '~t st T T T T T T T T T T T T r T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T CA y Ef3 EA 69 63, 69 69 69 613, 61). 619 6% 69 69 61% 69 69 61? 0% 69 09~ 69, V) 0% 69 69 619 VI) fA 64 6F> 603 01? 61,3 64 Q 0 ~ T T T T T N N N N N C $ A N N N N N CO o T T T- co co 00 co r C T T T T T T 'O V E~9 d4 619 (•!9 C!9 619 C d TT TT TT TT TT TT TT TT TT TT T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O • O C M M M M M M M M M M M M c0 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M CD CL LCC CA O O O O O O O O O O O O O C) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C) A) O O O O O 6n ~ C LL Lb T O V O O O O O O O O O O O O CD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N C) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 6 06 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 M 6 6 6 6 6 0 6 d C 0 w Co 0 0 Co 0 Co 6 6 6 6 6 0 Co 6 6 w 6 6 O 6 6 6 6 6 CD CO CO CO CO CO CO (O CO CO CO O O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO (O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO (O CD CO CO (O CO CO li NN N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y In ll) to lt7 In In LC) ll7 LL) In In Ln O In LLB lf) lt] In Ln In l>7 lf) tC') In In In In In In In L[) In In LC') Lf) to ~ In LC') In C y In Ln In In lf) lC) In Ln LC') In In In r In In Ln In In Ln L1') In to ~ l1') ll') In In Ln In In ~ tC') In In LC) to Ln lC) In Ln C d r r T T T T T T T T T T ~ T r T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T 00 O O OC) 00 O OC) 00 00 M 0p OO L17 00 CO O OC) M Cq c 0p c Lb M 00 OC) O O 00 00 00 O M 00 CO OC) 00 CO CO 00 V Q In In In In In LO 0 to In In to co In In In In In LO In In LO LO In In In LLB In V) V) LO In V) Ln V) In LO In In In C j o N N N N N N N N N NN N N O N NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 8880 ° 88899N8N°O)g° ° 8° CD C ggggg0) 0 C 888° w y ° m° ti F% F- F- F- F F. OD ~ F- ti F -I ti f` ~ ~ ti ~ ~ F -L ~ ~ F-~ ti F- ti ~ ~ F - F- t, N r" N N N N t. l_ I,- N N N w N N r- N I- N N fl- N I,- N N N I` r-_ I- N N f` N N N~ ti I%- N N C O V w y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C M CM M CM M m m M M M m M M CM M CM m M In M M m M vi vi m m M M m M M 6 6 M M 6 M m M ~a n u n n n u u u u n u n 11 a 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 u n n n n u u u u u u u u u u u n u n n T T T T T T T T T T T T 'C}' T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T w' y w r c G .o a in T T T r r T T T r T T T r T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T d C a° + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + u. r+ y T r r T T T r T r r T T T T T T T T T r T T r T T T T r T T T r T T T T r T T r d C _ w .O y d a C w T T T T T T T r T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T N W M r- CO T C) Co T Co C) O T N M st CO N T N CM T N M 8 0 W T N M 8 N r M 8 0 CO ti T N M O T O N T T O O C) T T T r T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 Co 0 0 Z i 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M tt I It M M M M LL) In LC) l~ In In tcJ T T T Q It 1~11t 1-1t It I 11 It 'It 'It it _ sfi '-t '4" M M 0 _ O W W _I . alt ~_11 _I 1' ~ 'q '11 g91t N_ _M _M M _M _M _M M V- mill' l Lh L l L l ll ~ L~ L ~ ~ h h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A [7 [7 [7 [7 L) 7 r,[7 t L[7 r,[7 r,[7 t ti7 L[7 Ln r,I7 l[7 to l[7 ~7 C ~ CA ~ CA r,[7 L[7 l[7 O LC) LO In O O O M O LLB O O O LO O O O LC) Ln O LO O O In O O O LO LO O M M M M M M M o o o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q T T T r T T T T T T T N M 'IT LO CO O O O T N M L1) CO CO O N N N N N N N N N N° M M M M M cn M M 't m N Q .t+ O O O O O O O O O O r T T T T T r r T T T T r T V.- r T T T T T T.- T T T V- O T T r d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N N N _ 601) O} 601) O~ O~ O~ O ~O~ O~ O~ O({~ O (9 NTNrNr NT Nr TN NT TN NT N NrNTNT TN NTNr T N NrrN TN NT TN TN TN Nr TN 669 NT TN TN r o 45 CO Oct O 00 cc O O O O M oc o M M M O OD cc o M O O M O O O OD O Oct O y d It "Cr "cr it qt V, 't It 't V- It It lql It It It It IT 10, It 't Ict It It It It T T T T T r r T T r r T r T T T r T T r T T T r T T r r r y fp 613 V). 64 69 69 6R 6E? 69 69 V3 69 0% 61> 61) 613 61.1p 64 69 6R 69 09, 69 69 EA Wf W. 69 69 03 Q C O T r r T r T r T T r N f` ti I~ f` f` I~ ti I~ r` C T T T T r T T T T T (V w WOoODC aOoOooOoC c T 0 69 69 6R 6R 613 69 6R 69 6R 69 69 ~ d r T T T r r r r T r CA CA CA CA CA 0 0 CA CA CA 0) CA CA O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn c y O O O O O O O O O O I~ f` f` f` ~ f` ti I~ I~ ~ f` I~ ti I~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ti f` ti I~ I~ f` f` ~ I~ ~i ~i rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn CL c ~ [i ~ V c0cflcoc0cocococ0cocooooo00000000000000000000000000 W W W W W W 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 6 6 6 6 d O O O O O6 wmO6 O6 O6 00mwO6 O6 ww6mm6O6 O6 66O6 0006 00O6 co co co co co co N co co co co co co co co co co co co co LL y N N N N N N N N N N y ~y.. d LO LO In U) Ln In In 0 0 LO M 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 In 0 0 to In to 0 M 0 0 LO LO In LO LO In 0 0 0 LO 0 I,- ~ r` I- I• I- r` t*- r- r- r` r- r- F- ti l• ~ N- r` ~ ti N- N- r- r- I- r` ti r*- I- fl- I• ~ r` I- h ti ~ ~ t- C y M M M M M M M M M M In 6 In 6 6 6 6 6 LO 6 6 6 6 to 6 6 6 6 to 6 L6 Ln Ln Ln 6 Ln Ln Ln L6 Lo d C 'd d LO LO 0 LC) In In In 0 In 0 T T r r T T r r r T T T T r T T T T T r r r T T T T r T r T M C7 M c7 M M M M OO 00 OD 00 00 00 OL) a0 OD 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Op Op 00 00 00 00 00 00 'V Q m m M M m ch M M M M to In to to Ln Lfj In In In Ln L(y L In In In L to In In L In U') In to In to u v In In C O O O O O O O O O O CA ~ Il_ ~ I` r- I~ I- I- I- ~ I` ~ I- I- I- I- I-_ ti ~ f` Il- N- f` f` N- I- I- ti t- I` M M M M Cr) M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N w O CDrnrnMrnrnrnrnrnrn0)0)0) N rnSiSiSi M0)rnrn000)0) rnMCD i w '.T 'IT It Ict It ~~'Rt IT It r- r- tir`I- I'- I- r`r- r` I,- I*- ti~I*- r` fl- 1`P- r`I- tiP~t, I-- r` I-- r`r` Vv1;N~NN1`~~1;tiNr;til'f:N~r;r;I;~N~~ti~I;NI'~ yV C O V y d C M M M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O t\ f` f` f` r- ti ti fl- ti O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . C .O T T T T r T r r r T M M M M M M M 6 M M M 6 cM M M C7 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ~ a u n u u n u u u u u u u u u u u n n n u n u u u u u n n u n n n u u u u n n n n n M M M M M M M M M M T T r T T r r T T T T r T T T T T r T T T T T T T r T T T T O to O W W O O to to Ln T r T L9 O r r T T r T T a + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + C T T T r T T r r r T T T T T T T- T T T T T r r r r r. T r T T T r r T r v-- T r T T O O O O O o O o O o 13 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + y T T T T T r r T T T r r T T T r r r T T T T T r T r T T T r T T r T r T r r r T O O O O O O O O O O d C +t+ O y d d a w d d 75 75 g 00 8 S 8 8 S S gU-U-U-U-U-U U U ~UU U~U~ - - - - 00000000OU)COU)U)CococncDcocn(ocococo (no) coo) cou)(Oco co co co cncncn cn cm O O O CD O CD Q Q CD O T T r r T T T T r T T T r T T r T r T T T r r T T T T T T r f` Ln M N T O O DD f` In lC) CO N O CO In ~t O r O CA O GQ CA O T N M <f In M I- W In M N O O T T r T O O T T N N N T N N N N M T r o T T O T T T T r T 0 0 0 0 O O C d ~ i e i~ i i i i i i st i i om it 'I v cn chi `t chic c `t chic chi 0 0 0 0 0 c+') m M M M cri cei M N M M M M M M M Q m M M M c c c c c c C 7 r T r T T T T r r T T v- 6 r T r T T1 TT1 T r T T r T T T T T r r T r r T r T T T 6 d d d d d d d d d 7 ) i ) ) ) 6 ) ) ) d) ) d) d) L6 L6 Lh Lh L6 d) d) d) d) d) di 6 6 d) 6 d) 6 d) 6 d) di d) d) di di Ln Ln cM M M M M cM M M CM M cM M M U) Ln Ln LC) LA cn m cM M M M m m m m m M M M M M M M M m 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O -CD 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl Q T N M~ In c0 f` 00 CA O r N M Ll) c0 ~ O Cn O T N M to O f` O CA O r N M~ Lf) C0 I~ 00 O O It I'* It Ict d It d qT lqr LO Ln LO LO ~ Ln Ln 0 Ln LO co co W c0 9 0 co co co co r` r` p- I• ~ I- I• ti f- ti co M Q d r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r O r r r r r r O O O r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N N N N N r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N N N N N CO m N N N N N N ~y.. y r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r69 r r r r r O m M m M M r r r r r r ao Oo cq Oo Oo c cq Oo c c 00 c c CO R CO o0 a0 Ct0 CO o0 00 CO CA aD a0 ap op R v Cli CA G~ CO ap c c Oo Oo O U) m _ It It ~ ~ qqT It It 't It ~ It ~ ~ ~ qt It st qqt IT 19T st ~ IT It It It It It I` It It ICT It of st qt It ~ r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r y 69 Efl 69 69 64 69 ER 69 69 69 609, 69 09, 69, 69 EA 60 69 Ef3 EA EA 69 69 61? 69 69 69 69 69 fA 69 69 09, 649 E!4 y Q C O r N C ~ N r ~ C r ~ O V ~ C d CA O CA O O O CA CA A) O O CA O O O O O CA O O O CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cc) CO CO O) O O O O O O O O O O~ O~ O O O O O O O O O O CA O to ~ O rn O~ rn~ rn rn O CO CD CD ~ to ~ C) O O ' O C M M M C'7 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M r r r M M M M M M C Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CT ~ M M M CA O Q) O O O C CI c f! ~L 11J O L '0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r ~t ~t N N N N N N CO 00 w 00 Oo 00 00 w w w w 00 00 C10 co CO OD Oo o6 o o o 6 6 6 o N C Oo O O O CO C70 Oo Oo co CO co 4 CA CA O co Oo c c C70 Cc) co co co Co co CC co co CO Cc co co co Cc) Co (D co co CO co co Co co Co co CO w CC co M 00 00 w w 0 CO w w w y LL N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r N N N N N N y w d U) U) 0 LC) 0 LC) U) 0 0 n U) U) U) LO LO LO Ln LO U) In LO Ln U) Ln Ln LO U) U) Ln Ln 1'- 00 00 00 LC) LO U) LO In to ~ ~ I` t` I- h h I~ I- f` f` I- f` I,- I~ I" I,- I~ r,% I- I,- I~ I~ I- I, I` I` I` ti 00 Ln Ln Uf I' I~ I- t* I- C y LO U) LO U) Ln Ln Ln LO LC) 0 L() L() Lf) U) LO LO U) U) U) O Ln Ln U) LO Ln U) U) U) LO LO ti 00 00 00 LO LC) LO U) U) Lc) 4) C .O o r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r O M M M r r r r r r 00 00 00 00 00 00 OD 00 00 00 00 M O 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O 00 O O O O O M CA O O O O O OD O O M V Q. Ln Ln LO LO LO LL) 0 0 U) Lo Lo U) LO U) U) LO Ln U) LO LO Ln LO Lo LO Lo LC) LO Lo LO U) N r r r Ln U) LO LO Ln U) C LL~(J C r- rl-r- [,ti~~r- ~P- ~~~N- ~~rl- r- r`I- I•I.r- ~~~N. Mco co cc l,~~r- r- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N T7 I- Il- I- N N N N N N O o L U) I'- I'- P- ~titil`t- I-r`r`I'- I`I`I`~r- ~r~~~I`~I`I`I`~r`N. 00LO LO Lnr- I`r`r- N o N I` N~r% NP. Pr. N ti~r- ti~~~~~r- ti~f, N tir~ N I` r, ti M N N N p ti~P~: ti ti C O V y ~ C d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C M M C7 CM M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M CM M M C7 M M r r r r CM M CM M M M ~a n ~ n u n u u u u u n u n n u u u u u u n u 11 n u u n n u u u n n II u n n n u u n u r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r Ln Lt) Ln Ln r r r r r r o 0 0 0 ~ c + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + y r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r Un Ln Uf Ln r r r r r r D O ) C ' C C O O IL + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r LC) O O O r r r r r r y O d C _ ya m Q w E cn co CU) U) U) cn cn co cn (n cn cn cn co co co U) co U) U) U) co co co co co (1) U) CO Cl) CO U) Cf) co cn U) co co U) ~ r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r C may.. w r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r W r In M N r r N M LO Cp I• CO CA O r r N LO I;t LO CO h CO r N r N 0 M N r M N r N M CO O O r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r p O r r O 0 0 0 r r a O CM 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M 0 M r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N r r r r r r r M M M O O N d M M M M M Mct qT .t qq 'tt It qt 'IT M M M M M M M M M M M M M CO CO CO Cc) M M M I- ~ M Q r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r O O O N N N N O O O O O O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O w E 9 Q r N M to CO f~ M O O r N M qt 0 CO I- 00 O) O r N M V. 0 CO I- 00 O O r N M q LO CO I- 00 O O co co co O O O O O O O O O O O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O r r r r r r r r r r N r r r r. r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r Q C m r r T r r r r r r r r r r r r r r T r r r r r r r r r r r T O r r r r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N t0 0 w y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N N N N N (V N N N N (V N N r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r T r r r r r r r r r r r bq r r r r r r r r r r r T r O CO O 00 M 00 OD 0 CC) C O 00 O M O 0 Q et `O U) f m 0 O D 0 M O M R CO 00 00 M O[) OD OO 00 00 00 00 OD 00 00 OD 00 OD QO 00 OD 00 CO R q1t v It qt It It ~ ~ qr qt qt d' ~ qt ~ ~ qct qt qt ~ It It It qt ~ Itt t ~ T r r r r r r T r r r r r r r r r r r r T r r T r r T r r r r p O tl) r r T r r r r T r r T r 619, 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 EA 49 EA 09 EA EH 69 EA EA fA EH ER 43, 49 EA EA 69 EA d9 69 E9 6s 64 69. 619 614 fA EA 6s EA 64 6s 69 69 T Q N C O ' N r Qf C 3 N O CD I' H C C O 64 N to C m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 m rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) O O O O O O) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CA m O m CA m( CA m O o) o) O o) o) O O O Cn O 0) 0) O CA a) Q1 O a) 0) CA 0) Cn O ~ ; 0 O V C ~~r- f-~ r`1-r tir- I;~I"t- ~1~~f;~~I-P- 1-~r`f-r, 1,: 1P, M M M M M M m m M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M m m M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Cy Q m o) o) O O O Q) 0 0 0 0 0 0 O) O IA O O O O O o) o) O CA CA O CA CA 0) m m m to m m m 0 0 to 0 0 0 0 c c al 614 m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O 6 o O o 0 0 D 0 6 6 0 O D O 00 m C w w c C C O O 0 0 O 0 C o co 0 co C O co OD Oo OD co Oo co 00 OD 00 co o6 OD co 00 00 co CO co GD 00 Oo co 06 co 00 CO CD Co cc co (D co co (D co (G co (D co co CO co (D co (D co co co co co co CO CO t0 (O CO (D CO (O (D (D CO CO CO CO (o W CO (D 4 v- y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y m lt7 Ln lt7 Lt7 In In In lt) M In (C) CA lA lA (n (n lC) LC) M lt) lC) In In In In In M In M In lC) In In tC) (n In lC) CA lt7 1n lC) (n In f~ f` I~ f` t` C` f~ ti f` f` f~ f` f` f` f` f~ ti f` t` f` f` f~ f` I~ f~ f f~ f~ f` ti O O C U) CC) V) In Cn LO Cn In In (n In In (n LO In In U') W) V) In W) In In W) In (n In LO LO In 0 u) CA In u) Cn w) to In to In CA M w) In Of m C .d m r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r OC) 00 OD 0() OC) O 00 00 00 OD O O O OD OD M O 00 O O M M O 00 M O O R 0p O M O Op 00 CA 00 00 M O 00 w w w w M 0000LO0 00 LO 000LO0000000000 0 00LO 000000Lo 0000LLLL Li iR = O r`r`r`r`r`r` r`titi~~r`r`r`r`r`r`ti►~~r`tir`~1~~~rl- r*- r- r*- r-~~~I*- r*- I- I,- I- I- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N j' ) O CD O O CD CD O C> O O O O O Cl C) C) C> C) CD O O CD O C~ O CD CD O O CD 0 O O CD O O CD O O CD O O O C) CD m O O rn CD rn O o) m m m rn rn rn o) O 0) CA O 0) CA CA O O O to CA O CA CA CA O CA CA O O to O O m m m m m w w o r- Nr~:ti r:Ntir-r~: r;~r-'1-tir-1% f. pf;1-r.Nf:f;r~: Nr;NN1-f;f`r-r,P~pI'Pprf`NNr; N C O N 0 w w y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O y C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N C p C7 CM C7 (M M M M M m M M m M M CM C'7 c) C7 M m M M CM M M C~i m M M M M M M M M M M Ch M M M M Ch M ~a ~ u n 11 If f1 11 If 11 11 11 a If 11 a 11 11 11 a 1f If 11 1f 11 1f 11 11 11 11 if if 11 if If if 11 11 11 u 11 11 a if 11 if 11 - r T r r r T r r r r r r T r r r T r r T r r T r T r r T r r r T r r T r r T r r r r T r O CD ~ to m d A ILL T f f+ f f f++ f f+ f f++ f++++++ f+ f+++++ f f+ f f f f f f f f y o C r T r r r T r r r r r T T r r r T r r T r T r r T r T T r r T T r r T r r T r T r r r T O a° W) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + r r r r r r T r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r T r r r r r r r r r r r r r r T O = c ya m Q m ym~ ' E E ff E ff E f E E E E ff ff E ff ff ff E ff ff E ff E f E ff E E ff E ff ff E E E ff f ff ff ff V) U I M ) co U) U) (j) cn co In U) U) (j) U) U) U) U) U) U) co U) U) U) It 00In 0w000w00(j) (j) NU) (j) u) co NU) C/) C to w r r r r r r r r r r r r r T T r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r T r r r r r r r r _th W O CA O M M N M O W r f- M M M CO M T N M,t U) r P. M M r (O r, W M O N Nqlt r M fl r In co M T O O O O O r N T N N r N O N N T r r T r M r r N N T T r r N r O T O r O r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r r T T r r r r r T r r r T r r T r r r r r r M T r r N N N N M Cl) M M M M M N N N N M Q M M M Cl) M M M Q Cr) M IL Q M M st v v v V v v v N N N N N N N N N N O Cl O O O O O N N N N O O O O O O O Cl O O O O O O r T r T T r r r T N N N N N N N N N N & (3) Cn O d) O O CA CA 6 Cn Cn Cn O O CA O O CA ch O CA CA & O & OS CA CA O d) CA d) a) C6 CA O) CA C6 O ch d) Cn -C)-CD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O w U) r' N M d' 0 (D I` O M O T N M ,t In CO r*_ W M O r N Mqqt 0 (D I, O M O r N M Q M (O O M O r N M~ Q r T r T r r r r r r r r T r r r T r r T r r T r T r T r r r T r r~ r r r Q TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Town Council Meeting July 21, 2010 Agenda Item: ;Dp-,Z General Plan Amendments Regarding the Tiburon Ridge Trail Alignment; Towr i itiatod; File GPA 2010-01 The Town of Tiburon recently concluded two separate lawsuits regarding the Tiburon Ridge Trail alignment. As a result of the litigation, modifications are required to the Tiburon Ridge Trail alignment as depicted and discussed in the Tiburon General Plan. These modifications require diagram amendments to the Open Space & Conservation, Noise, and Parks & Recreation Elements, and a text amendment to the Open Space & Conservation Element. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The text and diagram amendments as forwarded by the Planning Commission are as follows: 1. Amendments to General Plan Open Space & Conservation Element Diagram 3.1-1, General Plan Noise Element Diagram 7.1-3, and General Plan Parks & Recreation Element Diagram 8.1-1 to do the following: a. Relocate the depiction of the Tiburon Ridge Trail alignment onto Gilmartin Drive in the vicinity of 120 and 160 Gilmartin Drive (Exhibits 2, 4, 6) from the current alignment on a roadway and utility easement located on the southerly fifty feet of those properties (Exhibits 3, 5, 7). b. Remove the depiction of the Tiburon Ridge Trail alignment along Hacienda Drive (Exhibits 2, 4, 6) between a set of stone pillars located on Hacienda Drive near 139 Hacienda Drive and the eastern property line of 180 Hacienda Drive, at the entrance to the Town's Middle Ridge Open Space area (Exhibits 3, 5, 7). 2. Amendment to the text box in Section 3.1 of the General Plan Open Space & Conservation Element (Exhibit 8) to revise the final sentence of the text box to read as follows: "The Town will continue to work toward completion of the Tiburon Ridge Trail." (Exhibit 9) TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 3 ANALYSIS C::01,1116l. NVICetin .cult, 21, 010 The purpose of these amendments is to fulfill Town obligations imposed by a Marin Superior Court ruling and a settlement agreement reached in an unrelated lawsuit. A brief summary of these obligations is as follows: 120 and 160 Gilmartin Drive (Sylvia Judgment) These properties are located where Gilmartin Drive first approaches the top of the ridge. A 50- foot wide roadway and utility easement exists over the southernmost portions of these properties. While the Town of Tiburon holds access rights over this easement, the judge ruled that the general public did not have access rights over it. The judge therefore ordered, among other things, that "Any hiking trail map published by, or on behalf of, the Town of Tiburon and available to the public shall be modified to delete the easement as access to, or a part of, the Tiburon Ridge Trail." 180 Hacienda Drive (Wayne Settlement Agreement) This property is located at the end of paved Hacienda Drive, adjacent to the Town's Middle Ridge Open Space area. The Wayne family holds title to Hacienda Drive from 116 Hacienda Drive to the end of the paved roadway at 180 Hacienda Drive. As part of the settlement agreement with the Wayne family, the Town is required to do as follows: "The Town will remove the portion of the Tiburon Ridge Trail that lies between the Pillars and the Town Open Space from any Town publications describing the Tiburon Ridge Trail, including but not limited to, any description, map, diagram or narrative of the Tiburon Ridge Trail prepared by the Town........ such as the Town of Tiburon General Plan." Town staff believes that the proposed General Plan amendments achieve full compliance with the terms of the judgment and the settlement agreement with respect to the Tiburon Ridge Trail- related contents of the Tiburon General Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW On June 23, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed General Plan text and diagram amendments. In response to a late mail letter (Exhibit 10) from Daniel Rabin, the Commission modified the amendment to the text box in Section 3.1 of the Open Space and Conservation Element to remove specific references to property owners and geographic areas where there are gaps in the Tiburon Ridge Trail alignment. Town staff concurs with this modification. No other public testimony was received, and the Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the amendments, as modified, to the Town Council. Planning Commission minutes (draft) are attached as Exhibit 11 and the Commission's resolution is attached as Exhibit 12. Pz-cof ;i -.f_oL'vt-l ju.[%- 2:1., 201.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to the general rule of CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Town Council would confirm this determination by adopting the resolution of approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 2. Exhibits Prepared By 1. Draft Resolution 2. Current Diagram 3.1-1 Existing Open Space & Protected Resources 3. Proposed Diagram 3.1-1 Existing Open Space & Protected Resources 4. Current Diagram 7.1-3 Sensitive Receptors 5. Proposed Diagram 7.1-3 Sensitive Receptors 6. Current Diagram 8.1-1 Park & Recreation Land 7. Proposed Diagram 8.1-1 Park & Recreation Land 8. Current Page 3-1 of the Open Space & Conservation Element 9. Proposed Page 3-1 of the Open Space & Conservation Element 10. Letter dated June 21, 2010 from Daniel Rabin 11. Minutes of the June 23, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting 12. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010-12 Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner ZU2~~ ~izdN ~}-9C~ Hold a public hearing and take public testimony on the item. Adopt the draft resolution (Exhibit 1) approving the General Plan amendments as proposed. t.; . , .i, I,<ti of RESOLUTION NO. XX-2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON GENERAL PLAN REGARDING THE TIBURON RIDGE TRAIL ALIGNMENT (FILE GPA 2010-01) WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has initiated amendments to the Open Space and Conservation Element, Noise Element, and the Park and Recreation Element of the Tiburon General Plan (File GPA 2010-01) in order to comply with a Marin Superior Court ruling and a settlement agreement reached on unrelated litigation, both involving the depiction of the Tiburon Ridge Trail alignment in the Tiburon General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed and advertised public hearing on June 23, 2010, at which no oral testimony was received from the public, and one letter was received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended a modification to the proposed text in the "text box" in Section 3.1 of the Open Space and Conservation Element, such that the last sentence is revised to read as "The Town will continue to work toward completion of the Tiburon Ridge Trail."; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the proposed amendments were consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the Tiburon General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2010-12 recommending that the Town Council approve the General Plan text and diagram amendments, as modified; and WHEREAS, the Town Council held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing on July 21, 2010 and has reviewed and considered any public comment and the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that these amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), and further finds that if the amendments were not exempt under the above section, the amendments would be categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby adopt the amendments to the Tiburon General Plan, as set forth in the attached Exhibits A. B, C & D, incorporated fully herein and made part of this Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon held on July 21, 2010, by the following vote: Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2010 07/212010 EXHIBIT NO. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: DIANE CRANE-IACOPI, TOWN CLERK RICHARD COLLINS, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2010 07/21/2010 To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Town Council Meeting July 21, 2010 Agenda Item: Subject: Parente Vista Precise Development Plan (PD #4); End of Parente Road and End of Antonette Drive; File #30703; Precise Development Plan to Create Two Lots on a 10.2 Acre Parcel; Lionel Achuck, Owner; Tom Newton, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 038-111- 16 Reviewed By: ]A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council conditionally approve the revised two-lot Parente Vista Precise Development Plan evaluated in the Addendum to the certified environmental impact report (EIR) for this project, and take related actions. The Council will need to determine the allowable maximum floor area for the proposed Lot 2 of this project. PROJECT DATA Address: End of Antonette Drive and Parente Road Assessor Parcel Number: 038-111-16 File Number: 30703 Lot Size: 10.2 acres General Plan: PD-R (Planned Development-Residential (up to 0.5 dwellings/acre) Zoning: RPD (Residential Planned Development) Current Use: Vacant Owner: Lionel Achuck Applicant: Tom Newton BACKGROUND/PROJECT HISTORY The following is a brief timeline for the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan: • In 1999, the previous property owner filed an application for a precise development plan (the Parente Precise Development Plan, File #39902) to subdivide the property into five lots; a single-family dwelling was proposed for each of the five lots. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 7 • A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared and released in September, 2001. On November 28, 2001, the Planning Commission directed Staff to prepare the responses to comments and a Final EIR. On July 24, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the FEIR and concluded that the project as then proposed would result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts on the environment. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to return with a revised 3-lot design for the project that would substantially mitigate these potential impacts. Considerable time passed without a response from the applicant. On May 17, 2004, a letter was submitted on behalf of the property owners indicating that a new project management team had been hired. The applicant requested a hearing to consider certification of the FEIR for the project. The applicant has also indicated an intention to submit revised plans for the project that would be responsive to the impacts identified in the EIR and by the Planning Commission. The Town Council certified the Final EIR on October 6, 2004. • In 2006, Lionel Achuck, owner of the adjacent lot at 140 Antonette Drive, purchased the subject property and informed Town Staff of his intention to develop the parcel with two single-family homes and accessory improvements. A revised precise development plan application (now renamed Parente Vista) was submitted in February, 2007. In 2007, Mr. Achuck requested a waiver of the precise development plan requirement to relocate a secondary driveway for his home at 140 Antonette Drive approximately 30 feet to the north and onto the Parente Vista property. The Planning Commission approved this request on April 25, 2007. • On April 22, 2009, the Planning Commission considered the revised two-lot project design and an Addendum to the previously certified EIR for the project. At that meeting, the Commission expressed concerns about the size and scale of the proposed house and other improvements on Lot 2 and the location of a secondary envelope for Lot 2 on the significant ridgeline that crosses the site. The Commission continued the application and directed the applicant to revise the project design to address these concerns. A revised project design was submitted on October 9, 2009 and a second Addendum to the FEIR was released on May 18, 2010. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is the proposed approval of a precise development plan (the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan, File #30703) to subdivide a 10.2 acre parcel into two lots. The precise plan would provide for the development of a single-family dwelling on both lots. One of the lots would also have a secondary dwelling unit. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 7 The site consists of an irregularly-shaped parcel located toward the northern end of the Tiburon Peninsula. The property slopes down from Ring Mountain toward Paradise Drive, with a south to north slope of 20% to 30%. A ridgeline that traverses the center of the subject property from southwest to northeast is identified as a Significant Ridgeline (Ridgeline 0) by the Open Space and Conservation Element of the Tiburon General Plan. Vehicular access would be provided to the site from a private roadway that would connect to Antonette Drive, a privately-maintained street which connects to Paradise Drive; emergency access would be available to Parente Road via a fire gate. Vegetation on the site consists of native grasses, scattered brush and a grove of toyon, bay and canyon live oak trees. No wetland areas exist on the site. Two landslide complexes are present on the site, one in the northwest corner of the site and one in the drainage area crossing the southernmost portion of the property. Four separate watersheds on the site drain to the north and southeast of the property. Various residential developments surround the subject property, including portions of the Lands of Kahn, Ring Mountain, and Taylor Road subdivisions, along with individual lots along Parente Road, Antonette Drive and Paradise Drive. These areas consist of detached single-family homes. The Parente Vista Precise Development Plan would establish building envelopes and other planning parameters for the two proposed lots. The proposed parameters for these lots are described as follows: Lot 1 • The 89,972 square feet (2.1 acre) lot would be situated in the lower, eastern portion of the site. • A 9,241 square foot building envelope would be established and developed with an up to 6,000 square foot single-family home, with 700 square feet of garage space. • A 3,338 square foot secondary building envelope would also be established and would allow development of swimming pools, terraces, walkways, retaining walls and fences up to 6 feet in height. • The remaining 1.78 acre portion of the lot would be undeveloped except for construction of the access road and landscaping adjacent to the road to screen headlights for nearby homes. Tot?. • This 353,033 square foot (8.1 acre) lot would occupy the upper, western portion of the site. • The lot would include a 13,980 square foot primary building envelope for construction of an up to 9,000 square foot single-family dwelling and 1,000 square feet of garage space. TOWN OF TIBURON RAGE 3 OF 7 i.) I-, . i..Y Li, hik A secondary building envelope would be situated to the south and southeast of the primary building envelope and would allow the same uses as the secondary building envelope for Lot 1. In addition, the secondary envelope would allow construction of a maximum 1,000 square foot detached secondary dwelling unit and 500 square feet of garage space; and an unlighted tennis court, bocce ball court, and fencing up to 10 feet tall around the tennis court (6 feet tall elsewhere). • A 5.8 acre area surrounding the building envelopes would be designated as private open space, with another 1.0 acre area that is not designated for development. Access would be provided to both proposed lots from a 20 foot wide private roadway extending from Antonette Drive. The private street would curve around the building envelope for Lot 1 and end in a cul-de-sac surrounded by the primary and secondary building envelopes for Lot 2. The maximum grade for this 776 foot long roadway would be 18 percent. Water for Lot 1 would be provided by extending a new water line from an existing MMWD main line in Antonette Drive. Water for Lot 2 would be provided by extending a 1.5 inch water main from the line in Taylor Road via a private water easement across the property at 325 Taylor Road. To illustrate the potential housing construction on each of the proposed lots, the applicant has submitted conceptual plans for two houses and the secondary dwelling unit and other accessory improvements proposed for Lot 2. Although these plans are conceptual in nature, and would require subsequent approval by the Design Review Board, the plans are probably representative of the type of construction that would be expected for each lot, given the building envelope constraints and house sizes proposed. Each of the proposed homes would have a two-story design, with a maximum height of 30 feet. As previously noted, a 6,000 square foot house is proposed for Lot 1 and a 9,000 square foot house and a 1,000 square foot secondary dwelling unit are proposed for Lot 2. The homes are proposed to be designed with stucco exteriors and tile roofs. A color palette has not been submitted at this time, but the project description proposes a general design theme of country homes or farm houses with a Mediterranean design. As noted above, each lot is proposed to include a primary building envelope for the construction of the residence, and a secondary building envelope for construction of recreational amenities. The area outside the building envelopes would be designated as private open space. This open space area is intended to remain in a natural, undisturbed condition, with an open space easement dedicated to the Town to protect these spaces. Fencing on the site would be limited to the residential use areas defined by the boundaries of the primary and secondary building envelopes. In all areas outside the building envelopes and not designated as private open space for both lots, improvements would be limited to the roadway, driveways and associated retaining and entry walls, walkways, decorative features, solar panels, landscaping and lighting. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Town Council certified a Final Environmental Impact Report for the original five-lot Parente Vista project on October 6, 2004. The revised project design was not considered as a TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 7 Ll '1, I U. development alternative in the certified Final EIR, although it is similar to the two-lot Alternative 3 discussed in the EIR and is squarely within the range of alternatives discussed in the EIR. Therefore, the Town's environmental consultant for the project has prepared a second addendum to the EIR. The certified EIR identified two significant unavoidable ("SU") impacts of the original five-lot project that could not be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation measures identified in the EIR: The project would eliminate potential prime open space on Ridgeline 0 and substantially alter views of potential open space; and The project would result in excessive grading on the property. The EIR Addendum has concluded that the revised project design and mitigation measures recommended by the Addendum would reduce all previously identified significant impacts to less than significant levels. The overall amount of development visible from other properties and the amount of grading on the site would be reduced by modifying the project from five lots to two lots and shortening the length of the proposed private roadway. The EIR Addendum also concluded that there are no new significant impacts that would result from the revised project design and no increase in the severity of previously-identified impacts. The EIR Addendum for the project design reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2009 reached the same conclusions and the current Addendum found no new significant impacts resulting from the currently revised project. The EIR extensively reviewed possible geological impacts associated with the proposed project due to the presence of two large landslide deposits on the site. The revised project design would repair the landslide on the southernmost portion of the property in conformance with the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy by excavating and recompacting 27,300 cubic yards of unstable materials. Potential impacts from the smaller northwestern landslide on the site would be mitigated by constructing a landslide barrier fence at the base of the slope designed to capture materials sliding off the hillside. The EIR consultant and the Town's independent geotechnical consultants have determined that these landslide mitigation measures are appropriate and would continue to reduce the geologic impacts of the revised project to a less than significant level. REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on June 23, 2010. The Commission found the project to be consistent with the Tiburon General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and found that the revised two-lot project design addressed most of the issues raised during the 2009 review of the previous project design. However, the Commission deadlocked (2- 2) on the issue of the how much floor area should be allowed for the proposed Lot 2 in the precise development plan. Two Commissioners concluded that the requested floor area was appropriate. As requested, the project would allow an up to 9,000 square foot single-family dwelling and 1,000 square feet of garage space within the primary building envelope and an up to 1,000 square foot detached TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 7 Jull~,. 2.1 secondary dwelling unit and 500 square feet of garage space within the secondary building envelope. These Commissioners noted the large (8.1 acre) size of the proposed Lot 2 and felt that this was an appropriate location for an estate-type development. The Commissioners noted that the Town's floor area ratio limitations are only guidelines and that these guidelines allow for more (or less) floor area if specified as part of a precise development plan. The Commissioners were confident that a house of the proposed size could be properly designed without resulting in excessive visual mass and bulk and noted that the conditions of approval authorized the Design Review Board to reduce square footage and height in its reasonable discretion. The Commissioners further noted that the floor area requested for the houses on the proposed Lots 1 & 2 would be less than the total floor area that could have occurred had the property been developed with five homes, as originally proposed. Two other Commissioners supported the Staff recommendation and concluded that the allowable floor area for Lot 2 should be limited to a total of 8,000 square feet (combined for the house and any potential secondary dwelling unit) and 750 square feet of garage space, which would be the maximum allowable floor area for a lot over 60,000 square feet as proscribed by the Town's floor area ratio guidelines (Section 16-52.020 (I[3]) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance). These Commissioners noted that no changes were made to the floor area ratio guidelines during the recent Zoning Ordinance update to accommodate house sizes larger than 8,000 square feet. The Commissioners stated that the original five-lot project design was irrelevant, as that project design was not approved. The Commissioners also noted that an 8,000 square foot home would be larger than any other homes in the vicinity and found no compelling reason to allow more floor area than allowed by the floor area ratio guidelines. The Planning Commission could not reach a decision on the allowable floor area for Lot 2, but agreed that the remainder of the precise development plan was acceptable. The Commission voted unanimously (4-0) to adopt Resolution No. 2010-11 (Exhibit 4) recommending approval of the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan to the Town Council, but leaving the determination of the maximum gross floor area allowable for Lot 2 to be determined by the Town Council. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Hold a public hearing on this item and hear and consider all testimony; 2. Determine the appropriate floor area to be allowed for the proposed Lot 2; and 3. Adopt the draft resolutions (Exhibits 1 and 2) making CEQA findings of fact and conditionally approving the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program. EXHIBITS 1. Draft Resolution approving the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan 2. Draft Resolution making CEQA findings 3. Project description TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 7 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010-11 5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 23, 2010 6. Minutes of the June 23, 2010 Planning Commission meeting 7. Consistency Analysis with the Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Zoning Ordinance 8. Draft Environmental Impact Report Addendum, prepared by Leonard Charles & Associates (previously distributed) 9. Submitted plans Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager \shared\Administration\Town Council\Staff Reports\2010\July 21 DRAFTS\Parente Vista PDP.report.doc TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 7 RECORDING REQUESTED RETURN TO: TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD TIBURON, CA 94920 RESOLUTION NO. (Draft)-2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AMPLIFYING AND SUPPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF TITLE IV, CHAPTER 16 SECTION 16-21.020 (F) OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING) WITH RESPECT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #4 BY APPROVING A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PARENTE VISTA PDP) AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 038-111-16 WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings. A. The Town of Tiburon has designated a 10.2-acre property located at the end of Antonette Drive and Parente Road as Residential Planned Development (RPD) on the Zoning Map and in the zoning regulations of the Tiburon Municipal Code, Title IV, Chapter 16, at Section 16-14.020 (B), with a further zoning designation of Planned Development #4 on the Planned Development Map in the aforesaid Section. All future Tiburon Municipal Code Section references in this resolution and its attachments shall be to Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) unless otherwise specified. B. Tiburon Municipal Code Section 16-21.030 (D[3]) provides zone regulations for the RPD zone, specifying the approval of a Precise Development Plan prior to subdivision, grading, or the making of improvements on property so designated. Basic zoning parameters such as density of development, floor area limits, height limits, and setbacks are to be specified in an approved Precise Development Plan for the property, based on site-specific characteristics to which an appropriate amount and layout of development may be tailored. The purpose of the RPD zone is set forth as follows: The Residential Planned Development (RPD) Zone is intended to protect and preserve open space land as a limited and valuable resource without depriving owners of a reasonable use of their property for residential purposes. The regulations of the zone are designed to insure, to the extent feasible, the conservation of natural resources and the retention of land in its natural or near natural state in order to, among other things, assist in the containment of urban TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. (Draft)-2010 7/21/2010 EXHIBIT NO. / P. Ij= L'~C) sprawl and protect the community from the hazards of fire, flood, seismic and other catastrophic activity, and to otherwise implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. C. Tiburon Municipal Code Section 16-52.060 (B) establishes the Precise Development Plan purposes as follows: 1. To provide for review by the Town a detailed development proposal for a designated area with unique site characteristics or environmental conditions, in both written and graphic form, to ensure that new development in such areas is compatible with the existing land uses, development standards (including but not limited to, setbacks or building envelopes, coverage limits, and height limits) and identified constraints; 2. To demonstrate consistency of a development proposal with the goals and policies of the General Plan; 3. To preserve and conserve critically limited open space for the protection of the ecology and the environment, and to safeguard against the adverse impacts of fire, noise, water pollution, the destruction of scenic beauty and hazards related to geology, fire and flood, while at the same time providing a reasonable use of the land. Section 16-52.060 (E) sets forth principles to be applied in the review of Precise Development Plan applications. Section 16-52.060 (D) declares approval of a Precise Development Plan by the Town Council to be a legislative act. E. The Town of Tiburon has received and considered an application filed by Lionel Achuck for a Precise Development Plan (the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan) to augment and supplement provisions of Section 16-21.030 (D[3]) of the Tiburon Municipal Code specific to Planned Development 44 by proposing the development of two (2) single- family dwellings and appurtenant improvements on an approximately 10.2-acre property. Approximate lot acreages would be 2.1 acres for Lot 1 and 8.1 acres for Lot 2. The proposed Parente Vista Precise Development Plan would establish a maximum density of 0.20 dwelling units per acre (exclusive of any secondary dwelling units), and provide a basic layout and RPD zoning district parameters for the property, including but not limited to, permanent open spaces, building envelopes, residential use areas, height limits, and floor area limits. F. The Parente Vista Precise Development Plan application consists of File #30703, on file with the Town of Tiburon Community Development Department. Materials from that application include but are not limited to the following: 1. Project description, dated October 9, 2009; TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. (Draft)-2010 7/21/2010 2 EXHIBIT NO. I P. Z-- 0 1::7 z 0 2. Project plans (7 sheets) prepared by Thayer Architecture, Inc., dated October 9, 2009; 3. Project plans (11 sheets) prepared by ILS Associates, Inc., dated September 9, 2009 4. Project plans (2 sheets) prepared by Herzog Geotechnical Consulting Engineers, dated September 9, 2009 5. Project plans (3 sheets) prepared by Pedersen Associates Landscape Architects, dated February 18, 2010 6. Drainage analysis prepared by ILS Associates, Inc., dated June 15, 2007 7. Geotechnical Hazards Evaluation and Geotechnical Investigation letters prepared by Herzog Geotechnical Consulting Engineers, dated January 26, 2007 and April 20, 2007; 8. Supplemental Noise Impact Study prepared by Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz, Inc., dated April 27, 2007. The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of this resolution. The record includes the Staff Reports, minutes, application materials, and all comments and materials received at the public hearing. G. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing a five-lot project on this site was certified by the Tiburon Town Council on October 6, 2004. An Addendum to the EIR, dated March 2010, was prepared to evaluate the current two-lot project design. The . Planning Commission considered the certified EIR and the EIR Addendum in making its recommendation to the Town Council on the merits of the project. H. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the application on June 23, 2010. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2010-(Draft) recommending to the Town Council conditional approval of the project as evaluated in the EIR Addendum No. 2 for the project, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. I. The Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the application on July 21, 2010, at which it heard and considered testimony from interested persons. The Town Council found, based upon application materials and analysis presented in the staff report, the certified Final EIR and the March 2010 Addendum No. 2 thereto, that the proposed project is, on balance, consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan and in conformance with provisions of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The facts in support of this finding are set forth in the official record for this project. Section 2. Acceptance of Addendum to the EIR NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby accepts the Addendum No. 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report ["Addendum"] dated March 2010. CEQA guidelines sections 15164 (a) and (b) state that an addendum should be prepared when TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. (Draft)-2010 7/21/2010 3 EXHIBIT N0. P. 3 C-)p Z none of the conditions triggering a subsequent EIR or supplemental EIR have occurred. Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines advises the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR when substantial changes to the project require major revisions to the EIR because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. The two-lot Parente Vista project that is currently proposed is within the range of alternatives and impacts discussed in the certified EIR. The Addendum concludes that this project design would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. The Final Environmental Impact Report and Addendum were prepared under contract to the Town of Tiburon by the consulting firm of Leonard Charles & Associates. Detailed CEQA findings have been adopted by separate resolution. The Addendum further concludes that with the implementation of Mitigation Measures contained therein, all environmental impacts associated with the two-lot project design have been or would be mitigated to a less-than-significant (LTS) level. Section 3. Conditional Project Approval and Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring Program. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan (PD #4) subject to the following conditions and adopts a mitigation monitoring program for the project: 1. The approved Parente Vista Precise Development Plan shall consist of the following: a. The Project description, dated October 9, 2009, as may be modified herein; b. The project plans (7 sheets) prepared by Thayer Architecture, Inc., dated October 9, 2009, as may be modified herein; C. The project plans (11 sheets) prepared by ILS Associates, Inc., dated September 9, 2009, as may be modified herein; d. The project plans (2 sheets) prepared by Herzog Geotechnical Consulting Engineers, dated September 9, 2009, as may be modified herein; e. The project plans (3 sheets) prepared by Pedersen Associates Landscape Architects, dated February 18, 2010, as may be modified herein. 2. This Precise Development Plan approval incorporates all mitigation measures as shown in the Parente Vista Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. Applicant shall bear all costs for implementation and monitoring of said Mitigation Monitoring Program. 3. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for project construction, the project sponsor shall submit a Design Review application to the Town of Tiburon Planning Division and receive written approval from the Design Review Board. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. (Draft)-2010 7/21/2010 4 EXHIBIT N0. ( 4. In furtherance of Section 16-21.040 (C[2]) of the Municipal Code, this Precise Development Plan approval establishes a maximum density of 0.20 dwelling units per acre on the property (not including any Town-approved secondary dwelling units) and is intended to reflect ultimate development of the property. No additional subdivision for the purpose of creating additional building sites is permitted, and a note to that effect shall be placed on the parcel map. 5. In furtherance of Section 16-52.020 (I[3]) of the Municipal Code, this Precise Development Plan approval establishes the limit of "floor area, gross", as defined in Section 16-100.020 (F) therein, that may be constructed on each lot as follows: Lot 1: 6,000 square feet, with additional garage/carport area of up to 750 square feet. Lot 2: [Floor area to be determined by the Town Council.] Any garage/carport floor area in excess of the amount specified above shall be counted as additional gross floor area on the lot. The floor area of all accessory buildings, including any secondary dwelling unit, pool houses or cabana, shall be included in the total allowable floor area for each lot. Floor areas meeting the definition of "basement" in the Municipal Code shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area. It is understood that the floor area for each lot as specified above is a maximum allowable square footage, and the Design Review Board may, in its reasonable discretion in reviewing Site Plan and Architectural Review applications for each lot, approve a lesser amount of square footage in order to ensure that the building sizes are consistent and compatible with surrounding neighborhoods in compliance with, and as set forth in, General Plan Land Use Element Goal LU-I. 6. In furtherance of Section 16-21.040 (A) of the Municipal Code, this Precise Development Plan approval establishes that the dwelling unit (main building on each lot) shall be confined to the approved "building envelope" on each lot. Dwelling units shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height from grade. It is understood that these height limits represent a maximum height, and the Design Review Board may, in its reasonable discretion in reviewing Site Plan and Architectural Review applications for each house, approve a lesser height for the dwelling units pursuant to guiding principles of site plan and architectural review as set forth in the Municipal Code. 7. In furtherance of Section 16-21.040 (A) of the Municipal Code, this Precise Development Plan approval establishes the following standards for the secondary building envelopes associated with this application: TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. (Draft)-2010 7/21/2010 5 EXHIBIT N0. ! a. Lot 1, Secondary Building Envelope. All elements allowed within these building envelopes are limited to landscape improvements, including swimming pools and spas, terraces, walkways, and retaining walls and fences with a maximum height of six (6) feet. Trellises may have a maximum height of eleven (11) feet, six (6) inches. Plantings are limited to those species with a maximum height at maturity of thirty (30) feet or less. b. Lot 2, Secondary Building Envelope. This envelope may be developed with a single-story (maximum height of 15 feet above grade) secondary dwelling unit, with a maximum floor area of 1,000 square feet, and a garage with a maximum size of 600 square feet. This envelope may also be developed with landscape improvements, including swimming pools and spas, a tennis court and a bocce ball court terraced into the slope, terraces, walkways, and retaining walls and fences with a maximum height of six (6) feet. Trellises may have a maximum height of eleven (11) feet, six (6) inches. Plantings are limited to those species with a maximum height at maturity of thirty (30) feet or less. All elements allowed in the Lot 1 Secondary Building Envelope and the Lot 2 Secondary Building Envelope may also be located in the Primary Building Envelopes for Lots 1 and 2. 8. In furtherance of Section 16-21.040 (A) of the Municipal Code, this Precise Development Plan approval establishes a designation of "private open space" for all areas on Lot 2 outside the primary and secondary building envelopes. The disturbed areas shall be landscaped immediately following the landslide repair work. Additionally, all landslide repair areas shall be hydro-seeded following grading for dust control and soil stability in accordance with geotechnical engineering recommendations. No new landscaping or vegetation shall be planted on any private open space area outside the "building envelopes" for both Lot 1 and Lot 2 other than that approved as part of a detailed landscape plan and palette to be submitted with the tentative subdivision map application and incorporated into the subdivision improvement drawings. 9. In furtherance of Section 16-21.040 (A) of the Municipal Code, no improvements of any type, including fencing, shall be permitted outside the approved primary and secondary building envelopes for each lot. This limitation does not apply to the private roadway leading to Antonette Drive; driveways and retaining walls supporting driveways; utilities; landslide repair devices and revegetation; drainage ditches; or other ancillary improvements necessary for installation of the subdivision improvements as approved in the subdivision improvement drawings. 10. In furtherance of Section 16-21.030 (D[3]) of the Municipal Code, all portions of TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. (Draft)-2010 7/21/2010 6 EXHIBIT NO. r P 'F2_& each lot designated as "private open space" herein shall be contained within and protected by an open space easement or easements to be offered for acceptance to the Town of Tiburon by separate instrument as part of the parcel map application. Said open space easement or easements (if accepted) shall be recorded in conjunction with the recordation of the parcel map. All portions of said open space easement or easements shall acknowledge, if necessary, any existing or required roadway, drainage and/or utility easements and any landscape installation (e.g. entry landscaping, retaining wall screening, and mitigation planting) and maintenance agreements that are required as part of this Precise Development Plan or permits issued in reliance thereon. Open space easement or dedication documents shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney and Director of Community Development prior to acceptance for filing of the parcel map application. 11. Colors and materials of residential improvements shall be low-reflectivity; medium and/or dark hues that minimize contrast with surroundings and reduce visual impacts, as shown on the project plans (7 sheets) prepared by Thayer Architecture, Inc., dated October 9, 2009. 12. Draft CC&R's, deed restrictions, and/or joint maintenance agreements or other similar instruments for the subdivision shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Town Attorney and Director of Community Development as part of the tentative subdivision map application. Said CC&Rs br other instruments acceptable to the Town Attorney shall contain provisions and limitations as set forth in this Precise Development Plan approval and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney and Director of Community Development. These instruments shall contain, without limitation, provisions for ongoing maintenance of the private roadway, common areas, ongoing maintenance of drainage structures and facilities, and ongoing removal of invasive plant species (French broom, pampas grass, etc.) from the property, and shall be recorded in conjunction with the parcel map. 13. As part of the installation of the subdivision improvements, applicant shall remove dilapidated fencing and fence-posts, litter, garbage, and other junk materials from the entire site. 14. If lighting is proposed for the project roadway, lighting details shall be reviewed by Planning Division Staff prior to the approval of subdivision improvement drawings for the project. 15. Appearance and any proposed vegetative screening of project retaining walls shown on the subdivision improvement drawings in excess of forty-two (42) inches in height shall be subject to review and approval by Planning Division Staff prior to approval of said drawings. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. (Draft)-2010 7/21/2010 7 EXHIBIT NO. / P -7 41~)F 2 16. A detailed landscape plan prepared as part of the subdivision improvement drawing submittal shall be reviewed and approved by Planning Division Staff. This landscape plan shall include removal of any remaining invasive plant species, common area plantings, entry landscaping, retaining wall screening, and any landscaping required in adopted mitigation measures. 17. All grading involving the use of heavy construction equipment shall be limited to the period between April 15 and October 31. The Building Official may authorize limited extensions of time to this period in his reasonable discretion. 18. No smoking shall be permitted on site by any person, contractor or employee during any phase of project construction. A water truck shall be present on the site during vegetation removal. These requirements shall be noted on the subdivision improvement drawings and shall be incorporated into construction documents for the contractor(s) performing the work. 19. This Precise Development Plan approval shall be valid for thirty-six (36) months following its effective date, and shall expire unless a time extension is granted or a tentative subdivision map has been approved in reliance on this Precise Development Plan, in which instance the Precise Development Plan shall remain valid coterminous with the tentative map approval. Section 4. Effective Date. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Precise Development Plan approval shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption of this Resolution, pursuant to Section 16-52.060 (D) of the Tiburon Municipal Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon held on July 21, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RICHARD COLLINS, MAYOR Town of Tiburon ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Attachment: Exhibit A (Mitigation Monitoring Program) TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. (Draft)-2010 7/21/2010 EXHIBIT NO. I P v OF ZC, EXHIBIT "A" PARENTE VISTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM INTRODUCTION Background. State law (California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 2108.6)) requires all public agencies to adopt mitigation or reporting plans when they approve projects with Mitigated Negative Declarations or Environmental Impact Reports which identify significant environmental impacts. The reporting or monitoring plans must be adopted when a public agency makes its findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) so that the program can be made a condition of project approval. The plan must be designed to ensure project compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. If certain project impacts extend beyond the project implementation phase, long- term mitigation monitoring should be provided in the monitoring plan. Purpose. This mitigation monitoring plan will ensure that all mitigation measures required by the Environmental Impact Report and agreed to by the applicant are completed as part of project construction and are maintained in a satisfactory manner during and following project implementation. This plan is designed in a table format for ease of use by the responsible parties. The table identifies the individual impacts, corresponding mitigation measures, individual / agency responsible for implementation, time frame for implementation, and assigns a party responsible to implement, monitor, and confirm the implementation of the mitigation plan. The table will be used by the Town of Tiburon to verify that all required mitigation measures are incorporated into the project and will provide a convenient tool to determine whether required measures have been fulfilled. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN Management. The Town of Tiburon Community Development Department will be responsible for overseeing implementation and administration of this Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP). The Director of Community Development will designate a staff member to manage the MMP. If current staffing in the Community Development Department cannot absorb the task of managing the MMP, an independent contractor will be hired at the expense of the project applicant. The independent contractor would serve under the direction of the Director of Community Development or a designated staff member. Duties of the staff member responsible for program coordination, whether a permanent Town staff member or independent contractor, would include the following: • Conduct routine inspections, plan checking, and monitoring activities. • Serve as liaison between the Town and project applicant regarding mitigation monitoring issues. • Coordinate activities of consultants hired by the project applicant when such expertise and qualifications are necessary to implement and monitor mitigation measures. • Coordinate with other Town personnel and agencies having mitigation monitoring responsibilities. • Assure follow-up and response to citizens' complaints. EXHIBIT NO. l 442010 i ° f C%r Z • Complete forms, checklists, and other documentation provided by the Town for reporting. Maintain reports and other records and documents generated by the MMP. Coordinate and assure corrective actions or enforcement measures are taken, if necessary. Baseline Data. The baseline data for each of the environmental impact mitigation measures to be monitored over the duration of the project are contained in the July 2001 Draft Environmental Impact Report, the June 2002 Final Environmental Impact Report and the March 2010 Addendum No. 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Parente Residential Development. Dispute Resolution. The overall goal of the NB4P, to ensure compliance with required mitigation measures, could be affected by disputes between the Town and project applicant or the individual lot owners over what constitutes compliance. Therefore, a procedure for conflict resolution about appropriate mitigation measure implementation, the responsible Town staff member will notify the Director of Community Development via a brief memo and hold a meeting with the project applicant. After assessing the information, the responsible staff member will determine the appropriate method for mitigation implementation and will notify the Director of Community Development of the decision. The project applicant, Director of Community Development, or any interested member of the public may trigger Town Council review by timely appeal or directed referral. The Town Council's decision is final. Enforcement. The MMP will be incorporated as a condition of project approval. Therefore, all mitigation measures must be complied with in order to fulfill the requirements of the approval. A number of the mitigation measures will be implemented during the course of the development review process. These measures will be checked in plans, in reports, and in the field before granting construction-related permits (that is, grading, building, and occupancy permits). If compliance is not found, these permits would not be granted. Most of the remaining mitigation measures will be implemented during the construction or project implementation phase. If work is performed in violation of mitigation measures, stop work orders would be issued. Other mitigation measures will be monitored over time in order to ensure long-term compliance. These mitigation measures include the success of wetland habitat and native grassland enhancement. Planning Division staff is to provide for revisions to the mitigation measures if necessary to assure success, subject to the appeal process. Mitigation measures and monitoring actions are provided in the MMP. The MMP. The MMP identifies the impact and mitigation measure(s). Each impact and any associated mitigation measure number (for example, Impact 3.5-A) is the same as documented in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. In addition, the MMP identifies the person / agency responsible for implementing and monitoring the mitigation. The MMP also identifies at which stage during the review or construction process the mitigation should be implemented. Funding. Public agencies have the authority to levy charges, fees, or assessments to pay for the MMP program, just as they currently do for the preparation of environmental documents under CEQA. For this project, the project applicant is responsible for the costs of mitigation monitoring. S: PlanninglPlanning Commission OaffReports120101parente MMP intro.doc EXHIBIT NO. Z 0 Q (7 F F- U w O IL FQ- N z w V C m c m C m c U C m c 0) C U m c C c _ •C Z. C to • c L a)4)•- W c N L 'C N c fn C .c •C •C La) (1) y U co c o •C m c fA •C - W C c sOO . y . C w • C •C w "c)NNrn ~0,, C C O c ..~oa) 00 -a) C C p~W O c +r a)a) W ~ C .CS) C 0 rn- +.c„>oo N C y y S C •c . pm O 3FgF . UON 0) .C 5 rn O c w c c 0 C C 0 0 2 W C C a) p 0 C C W 0 2 ~ W C C 0 4) 0 (D p 0 2 c 0 0 O O 0-0 w w0 F- il0ww0- a-0ww01- J00 Q- CDWWC71- 11 CDwwCDl- 1- F- f°n y N y 0 c a a n -i O a a °a a (n v, . co 0 (n co (n co N ` N ` N ` a) 6. t5 0 O t5 0 m 0 a ` a n . a a a a N o C O N _ ~ O U N N > O O m (D ° :3 O O - Z cl O O r_ O a) U) CL 2 2 = o C Z U 0 V 2 m 0 y c E 0 ° o La = c o ° o c c c 0 U U 2 0 4 2 0 o U U m 0 w 2 0 U v 2 0 o ~U ` ° 20 c c p L o c p CD 0 c p m ° C c p m O o c 0 o , ` w am c 0 2 c o° o y E m W > o U 4) :3 ° m n§ ° co 2 o E Nm U ° 0 U y o d £ 0 E 0 2 N FL- 0) C) 0 E Cj o S c d2- c hi y d 2 ui a c b a m a~oi we 2 ai m a m 2 ai F m 10 E 8i 0 m c o a a O F- a O n. O a a O O a o a > 'o a• n w m, :m ;m r M + 0 A to O V 0 U U) U .O to L) (a V co U fA - C) - l D o rn a~ c = m o ~ - o a' 0 =..-v_ c D 0 0 Zn B m 0 f0 ° c Ec -,a $ m 0 c ° my a0 c c O E n "00 o m) > c m V! U m M: 0 t f: Q o C 00) U m :c t m Z U 3 o rn a w a) a) Ltn'~m W e o 2 ° m 0 o E m W Wy 00 n~ E 0$ o 8.0 o m w ° 6 0 o " 0 oo 0 o o my c w o w o E c o c m CL w m ~ a 2 c~ rn c w o o c: 8._ co c o An - w W °r o E o 2 -C a) U€ (7 m° 4 ~ ' L 2 0 o o c o ° o c o 9 a o ~ ~E mc- n n 0o c{oo~ Uom Con w:ooo m2 ~ ~ 0o m -0,2 oat aioE o =co F- CL 00W o- oo ~n v` a,Q o(5 c-AA co o o o me c 0 o o c y 0 cn " m 0 U) ~pp~ - t6 U N c:7 C m O o .r7 m 0 O ~p a) 3 a) ~p U•C y U oi rn ap w ac M2'U N m r7 o w7'O m 0 .p 2 w N y U o m O ' c O O c O V 0 O E ° c O c O N U C_ C a cm O = c r- 0 0 CO C U 2 0 c E O O O- co U 2 c E W O O C C C W 3 m C w m m m 2 0 c f° CL o" ° 0 2 ` 5: Q 'a m ~-00 t m E ~ o a n~ m CD .D E't a 4- 0 0 s a c c C7 2 03 ow 0 CO (D ' cL m> a y m off, N o -A-2 o~v v U ~ E a o 00 6o 0 U~ O a0 2o-a~ 0 W m D.0 05- c c o o n £ c~.o a D o o ss v m c o0 0 o m o a, v o n o n v 3 c o0 o rn v o c 0.0 v € o._ U o= c y • 0c °am m m E Et _ v c cv m ~A f c._ om, c 0 c my C c _ rnfc. C '0 ° rn 3c _ - m- 3 ~W y O c- c 2 Nmyc a Ev0 °On0 a)••OW a !aU 'C yNC ov-U 'Of^ W d..p NC 4- - co~o > 2 N W O . c >•c m~ 0 R p.- m cm _c o m 2v O Lo y yv 2y? c c~ 0 0 a - t r- - O 0 a C m (a acL ,co 0 N W U a) 2 'o 'D M O N N fC'c .0 N~~ O w c C -w p~m.0O ~ d w 0 0 N C . y ..m~O a) :5 m m~ c = ~OfOm j c y m 00 5 m m c ~ m a)w. ` me OU y 0 ° 0 ~V O ~ r-= a) m o 0m 0 4 2~ O w 0c LO Ei O E o atE N N'riN O o E0 ° 2 G o E a) E0 U i 2 c 0 m Ott ° cn y 0 C co *0 p~-O c (D ~,N U c E C w pM C _ O V 2 0 -JO a J y y v~;o+c-~ p O 00~t c N w -co 7 c ~ m m 0 w N O 'p U.0 c E c c m c 7 m 0 j 0 ca C O~ E N 7 0 U C • c 0 E N YO ° U c 'O (a€ O C m m m .O~ 0 c c 2•- o N~^E to c O C o- (D C60 w m a) a)Q -S N C7 - o c QU M -oco 0 C-4 - o c QU m U y o c E a) c 0( z C 0 M 0) o = o cW M O Z 0 0 eat "v > a> O E 3 O mP; 0 2 G 2 2 rnm a Q O a0 c o m aoixtF >O 0 c.0 °=2=a..S °cEoom soLc a ~ 0wma)0 Qmo aammm F-cc N ~ N =F-v0)m F- W ~a y N M " r It N • r r- Q Q Q Q m U d N m C N ei cli c ri ri vi of c-i C -i C-j ri a O MHM F~ SA.., Z O z O 2 z O Q O F- w O a a N Z w a a w m~ O CLs ILWv z ~o mF- ~ ro 0w N 2 ww ~a a0 a~ a~ c w c c O = c O c c ° m > ' m f - a o a 0 w 0 CL 0 C 0 0 (1) L U) . 0 U N O U N O U m O a a a O U t O 3 5 0 0 4 C 3 N w 7 C +0 O U Cl) t U o O U M (D y o G U O O 4-- O C w O a) C C V E U C U O C y C C O U T 2 O i + m p Y O V O C U m y U m LD C O + Co U O C O O N • w a U a o O 0 n§ - ` .0 m E 0 0 ~p `O 0 c Mp E o do o U E cr 4 .J~ W c., cc U 0 c w of b~ n m ~E d o tL 0 a a E £ a) 0 ~ c. mro a E c£ a) o - o ~ eo V.5 U) U Bo ~E V Q0 v~E U O O ' ' m 4) a) a) ~p a) w 4-'C 'a) d0 wC i s a) C a) MID 0 T CM -0 »m.- V, O a) c0 Ncr- - a) o 0 S JOR) o Q p= 0 f0> > U> ro m a) LL L :2 E •y ' m h > 0'y0'NO O C 0 m c c E^o cv= N E C N C -2 7: m m o vi O cl J O L 3 o C3 ~ m c o~ ac m m w2 m ro• 0 0 w o m m c m m~ OL m e w= 0) a) o U OiYi a)o E) ami aD M m M° 3 N~ 0 3 0 m¢ E 0 m- m ~ 0 c m m E two M> eM.- 0 Ww o LD o c m m m m n 0 ~o E m~ E 0 (D - 0 n ~cw 2 ~ =-a ) ~ 0 Oc.S o o-0 mo m'y c.r C .5ca)Q> -O ~ 0 . E a0 0 ~o 7Z 0 0 <0 m a) y m.C a) N D. CO c m o C O C -C 0 0 C Q 'e fi o y:. a) C o. LO m ro U) t N y w 'O U C CD •y N N mm ~c5 m~ o v M0 5 a 0 U cm o d cv timm ° coo c aUi v c9 m Ea)u) La o m 3 c a cv U o 0 EL c_-0 N.av• '0- ~~Oa.O p- C C C aM ~ m y P ro w E 7 o E V5 C m m V m $ m~ m L> ~.a)Ea mL ) mo O L m~ N ac 70 f, 0) ° o ° o m m C C- a) d 7 m 8 m 220'0 a) 3 € p y v c 00 yo C M.0 mom' O NY~~ ~ Ern mo E ° a►. O C:= O d m Vl C C E . m ~ 0.0 a) o V 4) w O (0 C O 4 U I G)o 0=0a) odp g p E Uumi ' m '0w L co L- p"00 ° T a)a)pUo a VOi L`O a) o c ..cUr°~~ m c p N w m y a ro- E c Na) M, O E O E0 r U o 'CL: C m> iro ~ma -5; 0 ,c m c m Ec'') t0 m of>`ma 0~ m ad ow-.o ~ m m w° m_ a 'D 2 o i"'m y -0 CL m` L - ~ O S E ay c m m E. O m 0.CE ~ ~ 0 0 LO)o t v* MC ro mr- ° a) a) o0 p y c m m- a) ° m a) c (D L•x C r, (D TU -5 mm 0 ~ > m y c m E o ac 3 2 -o ~c o 00.. `m ° a)ow y y o ~ E y0 m a) m F- C 0 C_ C C E 0 _C M > i ~ o 9 E CL 4--o O T€ m L -.0 a ~Y y0 y> LmNOd C m.0 m Lp ~'C C C C~ C C mNm E .;v 2 cy CU 0 a~ :r a) m c• m _ 0rOL m m p cmcYO _0' c m Mm c0 c o m A E a) "m -W aE a) (D a) U O C d Q O . o ) S:a m0 c 04-'a ° O O - O N O O Q O) mL O N•V E cE•r mc c0 f0 d yo m p >O m a O m ` E 0 8 o .~ro8 ~ _ 4) 0. m r CO a co m w v 0E-0cL 0)) o m ym v>j cy E~ MM (D at c m •-y _ - 0af0O - m ~ v a~a~oo mm~2pF'0 c mm c ) a 0 m (D .0 v m= I (D 0°20 :3 o c- E m ' o `m `m c m L~ y idm m c 0 E ~ n m-L c U a r J o w o 3 icmo iu ~ c ro M0,~0o~mr-wEm ooa i~ ~~_c aaUm ~L n 0 c mmo ~omm".0 m o0 3~c ;mrn roUm.O_m E ~ m~ mN c •~co M v o C'tF-cc~~aw m> o o c o aD c rn0 - vmm- ma 0 y•m•m=y~'-o m a~ aamY m m m0 c- E -c o c E 2 > t v ,cv c t ro m c oL: m CoCASEC•pO V a.() . . . • CL0 cmv~ o~-« too7.`+tn 0 QayQ7U) a ~-C Qfn{- ~r- 3 m -0w v~ aa2 y 0 0 (b m - e UcnF• C c75 Lm Qfn N M N N N r T l C? CV M o') M M M 1,5 E E 2 a rn c E 0 N t 'O v m ~ rn Q c ~ o M c ~o A02 3 c .may 0 C m d Ol 0.2 0 z x x w rl~ 9.. _j W mU V5 2< Z °:1 CL a. in a aIrv z W J 0 m Q fll f.. Z W m~ W J ma a00 W m a x CL z 0 Q f- z w 2 a 2 ` N U C C m C C a) EO L rn 0 c'y E Z' C C • O O) C C O LU 0I C W N~ O C C C O C c ~ `~.N C 3 ~ ~.a L 3 CL v w m a~ mp m F-0) Eo mp a~ E 0 s 12 m m L L C ° O ` O O O C 0 o n cn E a (fJ c W Q. (n i (D v a~ c L O O 0 O F a a F- n. c a> E 0 ; y o N c O O 'y c O O y C ~ A o U tLo 2 l a cn f c cn 2 CO O O Or m n O ° c L) w- o o o ° c 0 c O 'L) r 0 (D CL c o y c o m 0 2 c O O N 2 c O ~o c V Q O :E M.5 ca .5 a o ° O L np O n2 12 p o y c ° ` U rnE U rn~ ~ a U O L 0 c °D a) w C 4) E ui a~ ai a d a d p a i > m ? p - > m N d E E C2 CL E C2 CL E CL E m U) v m in v m u) v m U) € v m in v N_ V1 0 a)al N .L C N O w 0 y L CmNO m t L) '•C; N 0 C z O - 0 m° L to m w N y ) U m C " y L m coo c cw U o a w 'a- m o° °D _ o D 2 a) E c 0 - v2 oC a) C 4) m• 0m ( IT o myc .0 m m 30 CL o 0 1- > a C ~ m me c am U c c C n m co 1 1 m t c 2 0 c E LD off' 70 C a) .2 E U) r p ~ 3 o c o c ~ 0 .a~ ai - 1= ~ v ~ -0 v 0 .0 N m . m CD (n o c3.0 aim m m CL E 0 9 m 2 0 m d 0 'E $ c m aEi > v o r vmM 0 -0 co , -v m m - ' 4-)-d m EEUv; 2 m o Q CL m -C ~ a~ yE3m mmm 0O) m ~o mo m XS' 0 a) Da {g' m om U 0c - C c o o 3 vacic`o2 E OE :E L CD :t: - caves C 0 a) Cm ~ m _ 2N _ m vi cva~ mo$ ~ m£Un y •°L 2 m r~ 0 Oc=io° et E come Q. :5 2 0 na) w a>i ° -0 C c a) i a t c ' y = m0 -1-1 SO ° mm - ~"O Co o O0)15 C ~C 'a m m mm CO C a) n 2 ~L O L O ~ ~OO M y 2 m L O 4) C L . n 4) L O 0 CD _ M (D :3 M 2 Tact 4- o m w nv. ° n et o m a E c~ C) a) E a~i v• w o E' 5 t; 12 D T a) .0 o 2 _ m a£ o U ° 2 m nU 2 `oU U oN ° p a~ O c 0m>mr'~ c ov 0tW= m ox Zu m c WE s n CD 2 mm c.. o w m m E 0 oc°2 C C E tv n oc 2 ~v= € a o vi L th-o'" m o c t o W-= 0 0~ -O to c 0) (D o 0 c° o0) c L> m m 0 n c c o - M CD _ m m maxi a) °1 aa m a) aim m m 0€ 0 _ m c m ~ r°n « Q . - m U (D m c ~ a> m 'C w 0 (D M M E m € ~'~O m m 0) o n 3 y m c 10 F- U t 0 0 0 O 'tq .L.+ 0 15'0 = . M C U N O N L 0 L E 0 ~O m C ' N o C a) >w= - O c 3 C W w (°A 2 C 0 U o S et c`oaxisL0Y 0 t 0 L 2oL 0 ~ 0) D mo .Eo o 12 E° 2c (D 4) (D 0 mayor a) Co c. cu ov"a c 4) 4):2 0 m >0 C 0 O,, 0 d U 2 c m m nit o ma) W E c o c ~3 U (D c 0 2 w ;gcn O c 3 m nw ° m 70 C =ma) 0 L) M :3 3. ~ OM or m ~ m 2 7 a) Q m o 2 n 0 FE z a. O 0 p r O o U aUi a c aM ~ Q 0 m E v v o c o u c~ ° a 2 0 c n o m ~ c m r2 E F- o N o V N M v L6 cc F L c~ - Q n ° oL U m c r 1- 8 0 19 M . r N co Q U U A M Q~ ri cri C wto -i ri us M L c 6 ri fJ 0 MH H 17., mL) ~z OJ CL a IL Cc L) z W O ma U~ aw ti2 W J ~a IL LL w I a O P z w a Ui a f c 0 D t c 0N 2 i o ~E i a MaE 5aE cc cc Ma E>a E>f° r c a'o UFO cioo ao M.> ` `O c `o c c 0 CL a o. a U O U o ` a` a a 3 y N 0 0 _ > > o C C 0 0 'fN 'fA Of U) (,D M O E ca E O O _ 'C C 6 L L V 1 1 U p Q o o a m a m N 'O M U 2 C L A ` C CD a C rU 0 o 0) a C U o Qc c m a c o a c ° c o v 0 0 0 c n 0 rn O m O M O M c m c ° c c a a c a J a 00 0 o m M 0 a f0 E cn 0 C E co 0 E d EN iL m E a a 0a '•4 0 o M oo M o f)_ V m co V fA O N L) -j U) U C C (D O .r7. M c0 o o L w -'0 0 W - C L E o~ L O)w y C o c p O U/ 7 . f -6 0 0)O C L c M ` W N o 00 L_ L .O p CL T3 O C ° O .y o c - Q C ca C o O 05 ° . a~ w O a m 0 2 $ w v tM 5= 4) r- ~ o a i c c y E m o 0 EQ!v 0 w 0r t 0 4) 0 c 0~ ~'cnv 4) 0) L 0) w c ~c U cod (M U 0 o T 4) U 0) > U C m ~0 0 M A NC 0 0 ~a0(D c A 75 N o r7 c0 E~ a m o w 0 o 0 O t cY y 0 c'2 N m C C o p c n6 E cC 3 0 00 y ~.NOp N y - L o CL O n 7 > >J E g U y €c 0.2 om U N 0a U o v o m WF=CL O O C N 3 4) .Cs In ` L= >1 d N O 0 cy's oc O c6 p C p p U U 3c C y co L C 0 Oi - .0 c N 3 b L O C ..-w. O o~ N Q 0o>L L$ ..,a O r Ott -0 a a cm a) 0 C 0 c 0n 0 Cr > cr t .0 O W C O w - C c0 Q 2 U ~ p O 0 'c w O C +0., •p L- U) 00 Cu t 0 r- O Vi O Ti w m F- U Y M - C m m y 2 v Uo c M •O 0 O>'O+~ c 0 0 c c . v c~ m 0 a7-D a-0 U) 0 m ' ~ a n C c M c ~ O ~ u) m E - w o 0 c 0 y c 0 y 0 Mc ~ me 0 ' m T ` m"O p 0000~v0 o2 00 o- 3LU~ o~ a m 0 0 n ,n 0000>y 0 ~N > E > 'C o m c cC U _ L O7° 0~ 0 0 c p O O m o c 0 c 0 nC 5 Z 0 vp c ' o .N O 0 ` m L 0v) a o a 'v..~ co -t - - a > w ° 0- L E O 10 a o Ey C n 0 c4 .LS CL 0o L d: '0 ~fu C C y p) 'a CT. ' `0 ~O .S Q A 0 c c U N U N 002 0> f~0 tLp L L a r E ~co O L U > M O o c Ln O 0:5 C L•- o t0 G L c .c f6 O r c C M U+ 'C p o C 'Ca ~ cC ^o c - D) d ch o _O 'W c a o c0 O o M J L to E 7 o o U F- 0 O :.7 a o cu O W M CL U f0 dr O m 7 o a O O Vl Y W M CL Q a ,G O ti O 3 ° co Q am - a. E E 7w L 0 0) n 0 i= U X.O.. 0 o'0 0 c° 0 N c ~ E O o + c0p e d : o c0 o C o E ,j,' •O D o c O 0 MD o C> o ° 0 3 - 0 a o n c > oc00 00E c i 3 0 0o0m m ON v M y o Go (ntM r- aoc 2 L v L 0~ p1 a'y 0 00 of°M a0 3°c0f0~ 27 c2'0 v,F-pad . 0 r o 75 OD -~Cam~°~ o 0coc~E o~ ~ :Qp ° c C y? a~i n ? c ~p c= } O p" 0 c °c W F_ 0Ei o 0 0•0 H ° c 0 L+ ~ >t 3 0 cf- a~ c a °'c c 0 0 0 :3 M "a m 0 C.9 °a 0 0 U Q'.=_ i a (D o o 0t U w M 0 o 2L i a p rnm acv fn F- c9 a"c c0 C~D : m 0v .r7 (D :M y cN 0 > > a) c .r ~ E m 0 c~ > _0 5 0` m a) 0) N W 0 .0 v) 0 _ o 29 o 9 m ° U > gO 0 w n o t y 3 am•a0 c 2 -0 N cCr CJ 2 7 -0CUCM• . cu 20 0, m O 0c~ ~ W~ v -0y Qv m E 0 L v ~ meov'E ..off, o 0 E > ' ~ CM > 'o m c F - i 0 c n- m - L M ,C y 3 N c9 N U M a M cA (oj a Q a J O J N r N c') t6 2~m 0 w M r to Q D Q Cb Q CO lC c M Cl) M aO F---1 ' j mZ y Q 2 ° o. a QW o: 0O WZ J O mQ aw LU U) w IX IL a Q0 as O w w _ IL a Z z 0 o z z O w ~ w z J O a F P~ ~ O UU L U) Ir a H to z w Q a C O mo (D E O L c m 0 c O fl . (n La 0 m •o U. c a> E a 0 m > i a v c N Q Ca Q a> E a a 4 cri o ri p o y o a~ co ? ° o co o 0 c° O c o- a~ o CV E `m J (A U) V O> cu `O 0 OO Pc rn~ E 0 (D 0 L >1 0 n y (D a) 7 [A '.t cc 0 :3 0 _ c to tF M - r- 0 L OR p CQ O L L O. L' O c 0 7 N - 0 0 0 0 0 to y :n w O C p C U r- L o o 16 E E c>,0N § Lo 3~~-oaL 0 t°~v a~i ° T~ m a LD o 2° o c c 0 V N ~ y~ m a 0 M 0) M c O fA a) E N v w v°i^ m ° E' m c o = o^ n CL a - a a Cc D CL C 5 0 o 0 E c E m ~ s tLO ~ 0 ° Z E 0 o . : a ~ E :3 L C: V m n m a U~ o~v c'~~ ° E 0 ~ y ~or~, O aCZn p `0 M ' E y O E 0 E U) 0 O.C Nc L c am m C m« 2 1 V 0o .4c E:E m U) 0 4) ~ C y y A? 8Cn cow c ~a °0) .D6 r- -0 :11 CD 4) 0 0 o p ~N 0 h U~«L~ a N CD O N to 0 V O > ma U 0 O- y 0 N V Cwt O C - O C f~9 E 0 t 7 Z O f6 O.S C Q 3: 2 c O C N p CO Q yL C e' O U W F- N 0 c 0 tU a f0 p 3 « C M c O O. V C C. m y S O O C (0 l C9 aFEL)- °`~E(D C) °'fdo0"a b'~ cQ0 E a~ -cm- Cn v ` v M 0 •C U N ML m N 7- O C C 0 N O le r U) -C 'c E 0e ° o y m CL E nm W U C~ c cu 0 i 0 oc 0 a ~y 4?c o N ~ ° 0 rn v o•c D)ro En ;I'- Cu c~ v o_0;9 CU U o U Cn 7 C c v O N c p C vo m E - U E CO u o p > C (9 f0 + w a~EffilEg~~=V Lc E~'m 0 2L ~~vma)so `n c y w. 40- ~ C'a N 7 0 y d 0 O Q .r O C O.= 0 0 vc°oc U19 m Z` c n i'~coa?E0uz O : vc._ co-0 o° 00 c) c 00 2 E~ ca 13 m - "haw m e rn- to 0 w m ..-.r 2 a~ O (D 7 _O ~ O U~ CQ 0 E >1 a) 0 (D Eta 0 y C m a) In e N 0 y V N 2 O ~ ' 7 d a: CD m 0 d o Oz c y y y d o O O 3. O O- U 0. E- 0 a) CO - co 0 c c Q2 E. au co m m QL Q aE . 0 Q ~1- ° o., c 'a X0 O 0 0 U N pp 1= f2 C~6 CD d o cr, a(DCO c r T ~ O Z N M d' fD a r C p 17 7 m M Ch C '7 C l) N 4 v, 0 w 0 LL W m z N O -i a a. in 2 aIx0 ~z 0 mQ r~ aw WLU WW ~a ~O Cl. LL I 0 W w _ a a 0 z z 0 O z z w 2 w z a 0 Q t7 ) F c c 0 WW O IL z w L N C c p) W m C C C o~o • c cT:2 N ' O 2.2: 5.2: - aomo `0 ° c 0 a 0 ' o a` c 0 E n 0 c ° Q O -@ > w 0 c 0 z ° 0 a w 0 o N 2 a E N U c T) 0 a) -00 >1 a C:5 = 0 U N m t m a) v C aM O y N NN( - co ~ a O n 0 E 4 r 3°U co m > y ` 0 c LO m . 0 00> w . m ` c o m u ° c ~ 3 7 ' ) V C cm a c y 0 ) a -2: 0 C 0 t° gate' m r0 E O v o m- o~ m 3 w o w = a cm m o n~ ~c >,m c w m ? co m w > 0 0-- acn 3 ` UU m E - cm m L v; 0 $i U) d1 C 0 N " M C m m L U 0:3 j C O O N -3 U y ESE ~ j, cod > a ~r 3 0 o`er c s > a ' a cn ma Q a) JC L CL ~ m '0 a 0 0 r V 0 c a) 2v » yo E~ 0 i aa aca 3c to M ` o p M >"O O 0 v c y v n 2 0 o 2 c Q'a cc > 0> t . >c0i ? 03 no oz v, ` c3 0 univNi c O m ~ CO N c - a E o °v c 0 - m 0 U M y 3 S U v •=A ~ ~pp O C U) L- 0 0 w Y cc a a •r 0 a'> (n y 0 0 o c 2 10 y 0 m m C Q1 Y C y 3 m 0 o ` a) ` ~ 2 C 'c W w ' o ai 0 7 t E 0 =cU 0WCDm ao Qw ¢E v a (75:6 F -s ¢c O Q r- N M Lfi CO ao O) O) r Q 00 ao M f7 E O a - cm G O aai v m v Q c ~ o W •C hO ~ C a) ~ m W LM F O L024 C~ F-~ z O P C7 U w a o: a H D z w w o: 0 LL w m (n OJ CL a a"'! LO) z 0 mQ VJ F. 00 w NUl W w Ce aa R ac ce a0 IL LL. C m C O c ~ m Sao 0 C O a U) 16 U O O a c _o _y > C m to a) m 0 N U)a M jT) O E ' U o 4 cz 'o a 'o ~ n m c 3 U 0 0 3 m v > o (D C13 m m oL E 0 to a v o ~omm~a~~ .a c o m~ c ccccoocom a c m = Em cao.yo 8 m E m 3 o 0 m~~ a°~-cm a m 4) -0 = 0) ° m a o E~ CD aZi m m Co rnam~.c C w v Lo N N Lo , 0. cc .LO m vj Q d w U f0 0 O N p > C C p N mc°OiS w+3 C O'0 V (D L- ~ + a 0~ o ~3 o o U E 42 c~ am mpoy o _ m m € 0 0 >a) m Zm~ c = _ -2 m mc U ~Y 0 CL m D :3 c O :3 m CL 0) Cr 0) 2 U) c r m m 3 0 ( U) 5 r- . CD .9 oc~M~ o~ o 0 ~ 0 0 m ° 0 CLM m m m0 m O - E U c CD m cow Ohm Z'E y D o m~ c c0 3 w N mg 72 O O N > a> 3~ co r- t0 ° (D 0.0 c 'o W ~p 00 d 0- CD Q 2 aCD 0yL U (D ~ "m:sN::0 Q om E'f0 c ~ p0,b::O - 0 t ~ 0 Q c ~(D £ c m on ° c o o o w0~ 80U) vaci ~a aoM 0V E 07 :EaDcU 0 m 1E, o 3: r - ~n0a) v°'ima~ w? m m ~ m of mc~vio2 m amt 0 w ami CD 0 2' m m m 0) o S? c 0 ~m m m~v` a 0 *E o c n o~ y M :3 o mac ° m'°§ m c£ c O - m m - w O O - O M= a) > m C-o > co m C O wN m Mm o oo c, - - a CD N A Q m a0. U O C M w C rn m r, v m E c a c c c 0 a> Q~•~ n'a~ ~ _ R U o m m Em acr Z f M U m~ m M l ~=0 3.- f0 o > c c > in E o^0.m m aa m m aft m s p 0 o 0 m U w m$ U) o o o m - ¢ 0 m 0 m U - ~m 0 CY) y C U C 7 0 aS ~ m O r Q IM M d) M Q~ C 0 d j N G c U C Q G~ o 2;• W ' c 0 N j C a L C f0 S-) g a~ /i 0) 0 H V"v W 0 LL m z H O J n. a CL W L) z 0 mQ OW N UJ W J xa x a: QO IL LL W Q x IL z O P z w a 2 CD C LL 0 Co p U V c C 0 2 ~ 0 > im .oov FCL 0a0 0 C O CL U a) O ` a a ca U U a a o ~ > o ° a a m E a 0 W d a N U , m coo o o a> m M a) a> U A2 :9 f= me N C ~ acv B m y M c E5o U ~.c 0.0 0i a N -0 o ~ N r C c0 a~i C Q ) O M.2 0o a' ac M c co ccEO o m2 - can Ea M a .>1 - c0 c a) D a ° m Ug O > ~LL oa C Lu o f cu ° c L 0 m : c m y c0 m ~ ' N m Q f N v ay N o~ a) C 3 0 y C O . r aci.U ErC3 _o N C~ .0 0 r O c0 1 U am 0 co y nsOa) N O C U ~O .U. N N N f6 ' o f (U Q~ ~;E US a)°> .e . cu aC r_ L° r ~O ~a)~ i0pw~ ~ 0 U 0 co 4- y ° cu O O_ ~ ca T t V ` ~p i p s ~ 2A 2 N c° ca. c ~w? 0 0 am a m S~ 69 E ;a i c m o~ m cv m y a N E a~ E E a- .0 ° Q)> ro E0 f0C 0 0W0 m 0 8Cf6fCld o3E'c m e ° tsw-0 `~o°o ` c. Mm a r= m0 Z o oo m 0- 0 `°0m m 0 y ~2~c0 ° m 3o 030s U cu tc N° c -0a .0 - >.m bn C° °ca0c cc o d U M +O+ ' V N cc O L F- a)'0 V W 'p U O oy U C 0 2 W 75 O> o fA 3 C m as c N O C m arncro 0 0 ~a> -flc 2:, B U) oa a LU 0 0> as 0 3 Q Z ~ y° o >c00 co c E ma m °s m o N oa > o c 0 w 3 0 w a s° a F am 0 r. F-li ai a~ li - c Q~ m T U E_ a?~iL ~.0 a o 010 m m n y m m O c0 co d) ri N 0 a` rn c 0 0 C@ a m ~ rn Q c ~ O W 'c !4 0 c m o c m o) a~ v~ J O H W z O P H V W O a F z w w a cr O U. W M Z N O~ a awo azU ~z 0 mQ 0) - Z Z aW U) UJ W j OC c. ao o. U. v i .9 10 LL co O D U • m • C c 0 C - m d C . C N c: n 2 a i=d0a-0 COZ°wc W ` y 0 0 cn to 5 m S m o a a D c m E a > m o m t5 U E C O O U = j C O m c o C m m a FL a U m y cn m p m CL c. V N U N c o CD (D c c L ` y w C c c F7 N$ C~ _ y Lm. y m m m m cm c m ui y L 0 a-0 c N c c m °ca E c 3 m (D Y o c Z m o E U 0 O O c (D.0 0 a m.39 ° In0 c • o~ r- ~cE yQ0 X O~ ~m -0L-- 0 mw 08 c m U0 fDm -L + cn c C (D 0 c CL_ co co 9 w 4- L c n yE [ -0 a id ca c c ~ 0 0Lo = m m -S o~ om E c c Cl) ~ co y E c m aE m 0 ° a 3~ o m 5 .O m o m a• m m' E m rn m m m CL Ev ma6.. ..E~ ~Lu D a s0 0 31 c ion mL a. 0 1 (D ~ L m 15 .0 a) y to v ip~ o ° ° E Zc° Ec °D ao * m O o L E zm 3- ~.Fm Uv m E c- 0 E mµ° ~ Q m a j E 0 m L m N 0 M v 3L U c c m cco ct i a QF-m ai•o °0m~ L c~ ~Ec 0j f0 - m C C U m m E co 0 m C m m C E.2 O D U ai L m e s y 00 w . 1~ mac X a- O ` ~ w i oa m c° L ~m ° c~~ c (D° -0 ~ U ~m wo ~o~ cn n - o m m~ m e ~ ° ma E N CD o-'w m U ~ c o cn ii co 0 2 E ~Z m m r . N cl r N M r U N 7 w d M 6 vi m rn 0 a rn c cv m ~ o W •c o h~ c `cm rn a~ I~AA44 G~ toll. 0 I~ rlz~ ix O LL m V z 0J a a.waU wz J O a] Q N ~ 0Ow N2 W j ~a QO a LL w N Q x a z O a z w a N (D C 'o C W C CO C fA ~o N O Co F- a.Om O N c O n cn U a) O L p.• C 4) E a O a~ c ~ ~ m E 0 0 Z a c O m y CD a o U) U c O CL N U E 0 3 0rtmm6-,G)3o- E L) 2 o 5 > E m° m E b. - C y 4 C U N O 3 M-C U O U rC~. t N O C ~Q C L N 2 C m • O O U h p co WE a '>0050'00 y0 CD x 0 c O C). m to co m m 0 0c Z.9a)alj~C C m ty m O N (m -0 ~M~ N •X m - o 20 3 4) c ° m , m° ccrnm~a cr, E 0) co U) y E O O=OH U O OL m a ~ ° 0- 0.>00C ' a i c m 0 0 >vv CM c (D w°- 3 o c ~ ~ncC9N c3~a iayi > ~6 r :r ow O we m 0 °v m CD to m Zclnm U O rn ' - -ffi C rn c v~ vi c vmi (D mv« 7t 0 m0 m >,O O C V vi O E.6 ° OVO y m C t O O =v, L m o° m 0 ~o 2.9 m E w •L - ° ° U L - w JA c'5'0 a) - E (Q C V c N p - rnN m ` i a t E Ca m oo m O. Ear ' m m •a 3 c E C,;~~.=~ .y o E Q U f°- E O _ Q° m Q m in y N € m vac C aIL- ao 3 Ew c°~ O L O m L .I m N LL O m ~ r ~ m H r r M r Q r r M rn 0 a rn Lc ~ f0 Q c ~ o W 'c m O C m~ C m C R V 1 ~ P~"1 RESOLUTION NO. (Draft)-2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING FINDINGS RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PARENTE VISTA SUBDIVISION PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 038-111-16 Section 1: Introduction WHEREAS, on October 6, 2004 the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon adopted Resolution No. 51-2004 certifying that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Parente Vista Subdivision Project was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and local CEQA guidelines. WHEREAS, an Addendum to the FEIR, dated March 2010, was prepared to evaluate a revised two-lot project design. This Addendum was considered by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing on the project on June 23, 2010 and was considered by the Town Council at a duly noticed public hearing on July 21, 2010. WHEREAS, the EIR identified certain significant environmental impacts caused by the Parente Vista Subdivision Precise Development Plan Project and recommends specific mitigation measures to reduce certain of these impacts to a less-than-significant level and the Town Council has certified the EIR as being adequate according to CEQA and has reviewed and considered the information in the EIR, the EIR Addendum, and the entire record; therefore, the Town Council makes specific findings, as follows, for each significant impact, pursuant to CEQA 21081, based not only on the EIR, but evidence in the entire record, including written and oral testimony to the Planning Commission and Town Council. Section 2: Location and Custodian of Documents The Recording of Proceeding ("Record") upon which the Town Council bases these findings and its actions and determinations regarding the proposed project includes, but is not limited to: The Final EIR which consists of the Parente Residential Development Draft Environmental Impact Report (September 2001); the Parente Residential Development Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments Document (June 2002); the Parente Vista Subdivision EIR Addendum (February 2009); Parente Vista Subdivision EIR Addendum No. 2 (April 2010); and plus the appendices and technical reports cited in and/or relied on in preparing the Final EIR and Addendums. 2 All staff reports, Town files and records and other documents, prepared for Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2010 0712112010 :EXHIBIT NO. 2 1 and/or submitted to the Planning Commission, Town Council and/or Town staff relating to the Final EIR, addendums, and/or the proposed project. The location and custodian of the Record is the Town of Tiburon Community Development Director, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California, 94920. Section 3: Significant Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated To A Less-Than-Significant Level The FOR indicates that certain significant environmental impacts will or may result from approval of the proposed project. The FEIR concluded that each of these significant impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. In response to those significant impacts so identified in the FEIR discussed in this Section 3, alterations have been required to the proposed project or mitigation has been incorporated into or imposed on the project which will avoid or substantially lessen each significant environmental impact identified in this section. The Town Council hereby finds that each and every mitigation measure identified in this section is feasible and has been imposed on or incorporated into the proposed project, and the Town Council further finds that the significant impacts described in this section have been reduced to a less-than-significant level by incorporation of these mitigation measures. The Town Council adopts the findings contained herein. Geology and Soils Impact 3.1 A Project development could result in landsliding. Facts and Evidence In Section 3.1 (Geology and Soils) the EIR found that project improvements could fail due to existing landslides on the site. This would constitute a potentially significant impact. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that impacts associated with landslides will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.1-A.1 to 3.1-A.4. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Mitigation Measures 3.1-A.1 to 3.1-A.3 include specific measures to repair existing landslides and properly construct improvements so that future homes and other improvements would not fail and that landslides would be stabilized consistent with the Town's Landslide Repair Policy. Mitigation Measure 3.1-A.4 requires ongoing maintenance of the landslide debris barrier that will be installed on Lot 2 to ensure that it Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2010 0712112010 2 EXHIBIT NO. Z functions properly and protects off-site property. Impact 3.1-B Site soils could constrain future development of the site. Facts and Evidence In Section 3.1 (Geology and Soils) the EIR found that project improvements could fail due to weak colluvial soils and expansive soils. This would constitute a potentially significant impact. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that impacts associated with soil constraints will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.1-B.1 and 3.1-B.2. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Mitigation Measures 3.1-B.1 and 3.1-13.2 include specific measures to ensure design and construction take into account and fully mitigate soil constraints on the site. Impact 3.1-C Seismic events could result in damage to buildings and threats to human lives. ' Facts and Evidence In Section 3.1 (Geology and Soils) the EIR found that project improvements could fail due to seismic activity in the. This would constitute a potentially significant impact. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that impacts associated with seismic activity will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.1-C. I and 3.1-C.2. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Mitigation Measures 3.1-C.1 and 3.1-C.2 include specific geotechnical design measures so that all proposed improvements are constructed to withstand probable seismic activity at the site. Hydrology Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2010 0712112010 EXHIBIT NO. -Z 3 Impact 3.2-A Project development and use will increase runoff during peak storm events. Facts and Evidence In Section 3.2 (Hydrology) the EIR found that the project would increase runoff from the site and cause flooding downstream of the site. This would constitute a potentially significant impact. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that impacts associated with downstream flooding will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.2-A.1. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale The project has been redesigned to eliminate this impact. Mitigation Measure 3.2-A.1 requires final approval of the proposed drainage plan by the City to ensure that the proposed design is implemented. Impact 3.2-B Project development will increase soil erosion. Facts and Evidence In Section 3.2 (Hydrology) the EIR found that grading and runoff from the project could cause result in erosion. This constitutes potentially significant erosion and sedimentation impacts. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that impacts on erosion and downstream sedimentation will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 3.2-B.1. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than- significant level. Rationale This mitigation requires conformance with an Erosion Control Plan. Implementation will be confirmed by the Town Engineer. This ensures that erosion will not significantly affect streamcourses downstream of the site. Impact 3.2-C Project development and use will decrease water quality. Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2010 0712112010 Z 4 EXHIBIT NO. Facts and Evidence In Section 3.2 (Hydrology) the EIR found that runoff from the project's impervious surfaces would collect airborne and other pollutants and transport them to receiving streams. This constitutes a potentially significant impact to water quality. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that water quality impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 3.2-C.1. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale This mitigation requires the applicant to educate future lot owners about appropriate measures to control pollution from leaving the site. Because public education is a critical component of pollution prevention and water quality protection, this mitigation will reduce the impact. Biological Resources Impact 3.3-A Construction of the project will displace existing site vegetation. Facts and Evidence In Section 3.3 (Biological Resources) the EIR found that the project grading and construction would remove a number of trees, shrubs, and other native vegetation. The proposed landscaping plan that includes planting replacement trees and shrubs focuses on the use of non-native species, and it has limited monitoring and follow-up guidelines. The inadequacy of the landscaping plan constitutes a potentially significant biological impact. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that the impacts to native vegetation will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.3-A.1 to 3.3-A.3. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Mitigation Measures 3.3-A.1 to 3.3-A.3 require planting of native trees, shrubs, and grasses and establish a clear monitoring and replacement program to ensure long-term site restoration. These new plantings will mitigate for the loss of native vegetation on the Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2010 0712112010 5 EXHIBIT NO. site. Impact 3.3-B Construction of the project will displace wildlife habitat. Facts and Evidence In Section 3.3 (Biological Resources) the EIR found that the project construction would displace wildlife habitat. The loss of habitat needed by native wildlife constitutes a potentially significant biological impact. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that the impacts to wildlife will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.3-13.1 to 3.3-13.3. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Mitigation Measures 3.3-B.1 to 3.3-B.3 require revegetation of the landslide repair area; retention of a wildlife corridor along the north property line; and long-term removal of the non-native broom plants on the site. These measures will provide adequate wildlife travel corridors and a substantial amount of wildlife habitat on the site. Cultural Resources Facts and Evidence In Section 3.4 (Cultural Resources) the EIR found that the project grading and construction could damage cultural resources that are currently hidden below the surface. The inadequacy of the landscaping plan constitutes a potentially significant impact. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that the impacts to possible cultural resources will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 1 to 6 on page 47 of the EIR Addendum. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Mitigation Measures 1 to 6 are standard mitigations to record and, if warranted, protect any significant cultural resources uncovered during site grading. The mitigation measures also ensure that any human remains that are uncovered are properly treated per State law. Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2010 0712112010 6 EXHIBIT N0. Z Traffic and Circulation Impact 3.5-C The use of Parente Road will create a safety impact. Facts and Evidence In Section 3.5 (Traffic and Circulation) the EIR found that the original project's proposed use of Parente Road for access would cause a significant safety impact. The certified FEIR recommended use of Antonette Drive and identified significant safety impacts of using that road. The revised project includes use of Antonette Drive and not Parente Road. There would be potentially significant traffic safety impacts associated with use of this road for project access. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that the safety impacts of using Antonette Drive will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.5-C.1 and 3.5-C.2. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Mitigation Measure 3.3-A.1 requires widening of the south end of Antonette Drive while 3.5-A.2 prohibits parking along the street except where there is adequate off-road space allowing people to park off the travelway. These improvements would reduce the risk of accident due to inadequate sight lines. Impact 3.5-D Construction traffic will affect roadway safety and may impact pavement condition. Facts and Evidence In Section 3.5 (Traffic and Circulation) the EIR found that project construction traffic would damage pavement and cause traffic congestion. This constitutes a potentially significant traffic impact. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that construction traffic impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.1. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2010 0712112010 7 EXHIBIT NO. 2 Mitigation Measure 3.5-D.1 requires development and compliance with a construction traffic control plan and roadway (pavement) mitigation plan. This plan will limit construction traffic hours and parking and require pavement repair where warranted. Aesthetics Impact 3.6-A Site development will alter views in the area. Facts and Evidence In Section 3.6 (Visual Quality) the EIR found that project improvements would have a potentially significant impact on views in the area. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to changes in the proposed project the visual impact will be mitigated to a less-than- significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.6-A.1 through 3.5-A.5. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Mitigation Measure 3.6-A.1 requires undergrounding of utilities. Mitigation Measure 3.6-A.2 states that during design review, the Town shall consider reducing the size of structures and building envelopes on Lot 2 to be consistent with the size of other residences in the area. Mitigation 3.6-A.3 requires outdoor lighting to be designed to prevent light trespass off the site. Mitigation Measures 3.6-A.4 and 3.6-A.5 require additional landscaping to screen views from neighboring homes. The mitigation measures will reduce the impact on views from surrounding vantage points. Impact 3.6-B Headlights from vehicles accessing the site at night will affect a nearby residence. Facts and Evidences In Section 3.6 (Visual Quality) the EIR found that vehicles accessing Lot 2 would have a potentially significant lighting impact on a neighboring home. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to changes in the proposed project the visual impact will be mitigated to a less-than- significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 3.6-B.1. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2010 0712112010 8 EXHIBIT NO. 2 less-than-significant level. Rationale Mitigation Measure 3.6-B.1 requires landscape screening to screen headlights so that the light does not intrude into the neighboring residence. Noise Impact 3.7-A Project construction could adversely affect neighboring residents. Facts and Evidence In Section 3.7 (Noise) the EIR found that project construction could have a potentially significant noise impact on nearby neighbors. This would be a potentially significant impact. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to changes in the proposed project the noise impact will be mitigated to a less-than- significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.7-A.1 to 3.7-A.6. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Mitigation Measures 3.7-A.1 to 3.7-A.6 limit construction hours; require use of "quiet" construction equipment and muffling of engines; prohibit unnecessary idling of engines; and provide for a noise disturbance coordinator who can address any noise concerns expressed by nearby residents. Impact 3.7-B Future use of the project will generate noise. Facts and Evidence In Section 3.7 (Noise) the EIR found that project occupancy could have a potentially significant noise impact on nearby neighbors. This would be a potentially significant impact. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to changes in the proposed project the noise impact will be mitigated to a less-than- significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.6-A.3 to 3.6-A.5. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2010 0712112010 9 EXHIBIT NO. Z impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Mitigation Measures 3.6-A.3 to 3.6-A.5 require installation of extensive landscaping between areas of intense outdoor activity and nearby homes, which will buffer the noise generated by recreational uses on the site. Air Quality Impact 3.8-A Project development will emit pollutants into the air. Facts and Evidence In Section 3.8 (Air Quality) the EIR found that construction activities, including grading would generate dust into the air. This is a potentially significant impact. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that construction period impacts due to dust will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.8-A.1 through 3.8-A.9. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-A.1 through 3.8-A.9 require the applicant to implement dust control measures. These dust control measures include preventing visible dust clouds from extending beyond construction sites; watering all active construction areas at lest twice daily and more often during windy period; and covering all hauling trucks or maintaining two feet of freeboard. Public Services Impact 3.9-A The project will increase the demand for potable water. Facts and Evidence In Section 3.9 (Public Services) the EIR found that unless the project were constructed to meet all Marin Municipal Water District requirements, it would have a potentially significant impact on water supply. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to changes in the proposed project the water supply impact will be mitigated to a less-than- significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 3.9-A.1. Accordingly, changes Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2010 0712112010 10 EXHIBIT No. Z-- or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Mitigation Measure 3.9-A.1 requires that the project comply with all MMWD requirements for water entitlement, water conservation, and pipeline extension. Impact 3.9-B The project will increase the demand for fire protection services. Facts and Evidence In Section 3.9 (Public Services) the EIR found that residences on the project site would increase the demand for fire protection services. This would be a potentially significant impact. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to changes in the proposed project the public service impact will be mitigated to a less-than- significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures listed under Impact 3.9-B (page 64 of the EIR Addendum). Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale These mitigation measures ensure that the project shall comply with all pertinent requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and Ordinance No. 117 of the Tiburon Fire Protection District regarding access, hydrant location, fireflow, secondary emergency access, and other construction and access requirements. Impact 3.9-C The project site is susceptible to wildfire. Facts and Evidence In Section 3.9 (Public Services) the EIR found that residences on the project site would be subject to wildland fires. This would be a potentially significant impact. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to changes in the proposed project the wildfire hazard impact will be mitigated to a less- than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.9-C.1 to 3.9-C.3. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2010 0712112010 11 EXHIBIT NO. Z impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Mitigation Measures 3.9-C.1 to 3.9-C.3 ensure that the project shall comply with all pertinent fire hazard reduction requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection. Fire prevention measures will be implemented throughout the construction phase. Impact 3.9-E The project will increase the demand for wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal. Facts and Evidence In Section 3.9 (Public Services) the EIR found that residences on the project site would generate additional wastewater. This would be a potentially significant impact. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to changes in the proposed project the impact to wastewater facilities will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measures 3.9-E.1 and 3.9-E.2. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Mitigation Measures 3.9-E.1 and 3.9-E.2 ensure that the project shall comply with all Sanitary District No. 2 requirements for new sewer hookups. Impact 3.11 A The project will use energy to construct and operate. Facts and Evidence In Section 3.11 (Other Factors) the EIR found that construction of the project and subsequent residential use of the residences would require the use of energy and emit greenhouse gases. This would be a potentially significant impact. Finding Based upon the EIR and the entire record, the Town Council hereby finds that due to changes in the proposed project the energy and greenhouse gas impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of Mitigation Measure 3.11-A. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. The impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Rationale Mitigation Measure 3.11-A reduces project energy use. In combination with the Town's Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2010 0712112010 12 EXHIBIT NO. 2 Green Building Requirements, the mitigation reduces the impact to a less-than-significant level. Section 4: Impacts Found Not To Be Significant During the CEQA scoping process applied to the project, some environmental impacts were dismissed with a "Less-Than-Significant Impact" response on the Initial Study, on the ground that there was no fair argument that such impacts would occur. The Town Council finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record that the decisions made in the EIR or EIR Addendum to dismiss such impacts was erroneous, nor is there substantial evidence that any impact that might occur has not been adequately examined in the EIR. Additionally, the Town Council finds, based on the EIR and the record that the following impacts identified in the EIR are less-than-significant and do not require mitigation. Impact 3.1-D Project grading will alter the topography of the site. Impact 3.5-A The project will generate 27 new trips per day. Impact 3.5-13 Cumulative traffic volumes will not result in unacceptable levels of service at nearby intersections. Impact 3.9-D The project will increase the demand on schools. Impact 3.9-F The project will increase the demand for police services. Impact 3.9-G The project will generate solid waste. Impact 3.10-A The project will alter land use patterns in the area. Section 5: Alternatives Alternatives to the proposed project are discussed in the EIR at pages 107 to 116 of the Draft EIR and pages 101 & 102 of the EIR Addendum No. 2. The following alternatives were examined: • No Development Alternative • One-Lot Alternative • Two-Lot Alternative • Three-Lot Alternative • Four-Lot Alternative • Modified Five-Lot Alternative • Five-Lot Project as proposed, with EIR-recommended mitigation measures • Five-Lot Project as proposed As the two-lot project has been determined by the EIR and its addendums to be a mitigated project requiring no statement of overriding considerations, CEQA does not require that alternatives to the project be rejected. Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2010 0712112010 13 EXHIBIT NO. Z- Section 6: Adoption of Findings The Town Council hereby adopts the Findings of Fact and Rationales as set forth in Sections 1 through 3 of this Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on July 21, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: RICHARD COLLINS, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2010 0712112010 14 EXHIBIT NO. 2i PARENTE VISTA PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT DESCRIPTION OCTOBER 9. 2009 DESIGN AND LAND USE t; JAN - 4 Location The project site is an irregular shaped parcel located toward the northern end of the Tiburon Peninsula. The property slopes down fi om Ring Mountain toward Paradise Drive with a southwest to northeast slope of 20-30 percent. Plan Layout This Precise Development Plan will subdivide a 10.17 acre parcel into two lots. The plan provides for the development of a single-family dwelling on each of the two proposed lots. Lot 1, located on the lower northeastern portion of the site, has an area of 2.07 acres. Southwest and upslope of Lot 1 on the northwestern portion of the site is Lot 2 with an area of 8.10 acres. A private access road serving the two lots will provide access from the current northern end of Antonette Drive. The Precise Development Plan establishes the following building envelopes and other planning limitations for the two lots: Lot 1, the smaller of the two lots at 2.07 acres, is situated at the lowest northeasterly portion of the site and contains the following building envelopes: A Primary Building Envelope of 9,241 square feet. Allowed within this primary building envelope is a 6,000 sq. ft. home plus a 700 sq. ft. garage. A Secondary Building Envelope of 3,338 square feet. Allowed within this secondary building envelope are those accessory residential uses as described in the Envelope Allowances & Limitations section on page 2. An access driveway to serve the adjacent home recently constructed at 140 Antonette Drive is located along the west property line of Lot 1. An exception to the Precise Development Plan, granted by the Town in 2007, allowed construction of the driveway concurrent with construction of 140 Antonette Drive. Completion of construction occurred in March 2008. A lot line adjustment to place the driveway entirely on the 140 Antonette parcel (AP 03 8-111-16) is part of the Precise Development Plan. Approximately 9,625 sq. ft. or 0.22 acres transferred from Lot 1 to 140 Antonette Drive will result in a Lot 1 area of 1.85 acres. (1) EXHIBIT NO. :9- Lot 2, the largest lot at 8 acres, is situated southwest and uphill of Lot 1 and contains the following building envelopes: A Primary Building Envelope of 13,980 sq. ft. located in the south central part of the lot downhill and off the secondary ridgeline south of the large oak tree. Allowed within this envelope is a home of 9,000 sq. ft. plus a 1,000 sq. ft. garage. A Secondary Building Envelope of 30,006 square feet situated adjacent to and south of the primary building envelope. Allowed, in addition to those uses listed in the Envelope. Allowances & Limitations section, is a second unit of up to 1,000 sq, ft. plus a 500 sq. ft. garage, a swimming pool, a pool house, a tennis court and a bocce ball court. Fencing around the tennis court is limited to a height of ten (10) feet. Both the primary and secondary building envelopes are located in a slide area to be repaired and stabilized for development. An evaluation of the stability for development in that area is documented in the report prepared by Herzog Geotechnical Consulting Engineers dated October 26, 2009. Envelope Allowances & Limitations For both lots, the primary building envelope will be the location of the main residence and garage (whether attached or detached) to a maximum height of thirty (30) feet. Uses allowed in Lot 1 and Lot 2 Secondary Envelopes are limited to landscape improvements, water features, pools, terraces, game courts, walkways, retaining walls, fences to a maximum of six (6) feet above grade and trellises maximum of eleven (11) feet (6) inches above grade. Plantings are limited to a maximum height of twenty five (25) feet above grade. These secondary envelope elements are also allowed in both Lot 1 and Lot 2 primary building envelopes. Aesthetics, Design & land Use Elements Residences built in the two primary building envelopes will reflect a general theme of country homes or farm houses with a Mediterranean quality. The materials palette of tile roofs and stucco and stone exterior walls are consistent with that theme. Each of the units would comply with the town's height limitation. In conformance with the town's Hillside Guidelines, each residence is terraced or stepped with the slope to integrate the buildings with their sites. This also serves to minimize bulk and mass issues by articulating the building's forms. (2) EXHIBIT NO._ 7 The various elements of the proposed development are positioned to minimize view impacts on adjacent properties. The Lot 1 building envelopes are located low enough to preserve the secondary view outlook to the east for the residence at 4885 Paradise Drive with no impact on its primary view to the northeast. Development on Lot 2 is located 332 feet from the home at 4885 Paradise Drive and 338 feet from the home at 325 Taylor Road thereby preserving privacy for both of those homes. Landscaping proposed on both Lots 1 and 2 adjacent to 4885 Paradise Drive includes a dense mix of trees and shrubs to further insure that home's privacy. Potential headlight impact on the residence at 4885 Paradise Drive from vehicles traveling along the project access road is mitigated by a mix of native trees and shrubs. The proposed plantings have a maximum height of 30 feet thereby preserving the view for 4885 Paradise Drive. Those building envelopes on Lot 2 have been located below and away from the secondary ridgeline (noted in the Open Space & Conservation Element of the Tiburon 2020 General Plan). on the upper, portion of the property. This sitting is consistent with Tiburon's Prime Open Space Preservation Policy and results in a development that preserves the integrity of the natural ridgeline. Many other constraints have influenced the envelope locations including the size and slope of the access road acceptable to the Fire Department, the distance required from the historically unstable soils zone near the southern and northwestern boundaries of the property and the buffer zone required to ensure the future health of the lone significant oak tree at elevation 310 in the center of the upper site. Given these constraints, the Lot 2 building envelopes are located away from the secondary ridgeline in the slide repair area that will be repaired to satisfy public safety concerns. As determined by the project soils engineer, Herzog Geotechnical Consulting Engineers, the repaired slide area will be satisfactorily stabilized and feasible for development of the Lot 2 building envelopes. This location preserves the integrity of the secondary ridgeline, maximizes and equalizes distances from the two closest adjacent residences, preserves view corridors for uphill properties and provides an open space area of 60% of the total project area. The resulting building envelopes proposed for Lots 1 & 2 reflect the optimum buildable sites on the property considering the provisions of the Tiburon General Plan and the site's physical conditions. Those uses in the residential use areas outside of the primary and secondary building envelopes, uses are limited to the main access road, driveways serving development within the building envelopes, associated retaining walls, decorative driveway entrance walls, driveway safety devises (such as guard rails etc.), walkways, walkway trellis', decorative features, solar panels, landscape plant materials and lighting. Public Services Water supply, school capacity, police services and sanitary sewer capacities are adequate to serve the proposed project. Domestic water supply will be a low pressure system served by the existing water main located in Antonette Drive. The Fire Protection System utilizes six interconnected 30,000 gallon underground water storage tanks (180,000 gallons total) with a gravity flow system providing 20 psi pressure at a fire hydrant located at a point 500 feet from the farthest part of the farthest structure. All six tanks are located underground outside of the building envelopes on Lot 2 within the Private Open Space Area. (3) EXHIBIT NO.,;?- Open Space The Tiburon General Plan has in the past noted this property as potential public open space. However, the property's in-fill circumstances and location clearly show that its open space contribution for views or a greenbelt would serve only a small number of contiguous properties and would not be enjoyed by the majority of Tiburon's general population. In addition, the property's limited open space potential is hampered by having no contiguous link to the Ring Mountain Preserve. With the exception of a minor easement on the Savor property to the north, there are no contiguous open space elements available as a link with the prospect of serving future public access needs. The project designates 60% of the property to remain in its natural state as private open space. The portion of the site restricted to this open space use includes the secondary ridge extending down from the upper most southwest boundary and the two side slope portions of the upper property - one to the northwest and the other to the south. The total area designated as private open space is 6.1 acres or 265,397 square feet. This open space is to remain in its natural open condition not to be disturbed by any future property owner as structures, fencing or any other site improvements other than landscaping as proposed by this Precise Development Plan will not be allowed. Landscapiny, To highlight the project entrance, the access road at Antonette Drive features two decorative native fieldstone walls, one at either side of the entrance. New native trees and shrubs will be planted to compliment the walls and provide a positive initial impression from the public street frontage. Dense native plantings along the north side of the main access road provide a buffer/screen for the adjacent home at 4885 Paradise Drive that will protect the home from the wash of headlights from vehicles passing along the road. Headlight wash protection is achieved by the placement of extra layers of buffer/screening plantings that consist of native trees with shrub under-stories and groundcovers on the east and south side of the home. A study of the angles of headlights from vehicles on the access road slope determined that trees up to 25' will provide a significant buffer/screening, yet would not block the prime view from 4885 Paradise Drive. Following completion of the slide repair on the south side of Lot 2, re-vegetation will be applied to stabilize the land surface and to provide a visual and physical transition between the undisturbed land and new housing. The entire repaired area will be sprayed with native seed mix, and planted with native trees, shrubs and groundcovers to represent typical Tiburon deer- browsing meadow/natural grassland species. Re-vegetation above the six underground water storage tanks will consist of reseeding with native grasses and perennials. (4) EXHIBIT NO._J~__ GEOTECHNICAL Background A 1999 geotechnical investigation report by Nersi Hemati, P.E., G.E., Consulting Soil Engineer, indicates that the majority of the subject property is underlain by shallow competent bedrock suitable for residential development. However, there are two drainage courses running to the north and south of the property that contain landslide deposits that have moved in historic times. The 1999 project proposed the development of five single-family residences and an access roadway with some of the residences proposed in close proximity to landslide deposits. That project was judged feasible but may have required the repair of some of the slide deposits. The November 2005 project proposed four single-family residences and an access roadway. Based on a review of the 1999 geotechnical report and the Town of Tiburon's Landslide Mitigation Policy, a supplemental geotechnical report by Nersi Hemati dated April 23, 2005 categorized the property as Risk Level A and recommended repair of most of the slide areas. Subsequently, a revised plan dated November 9, 2008 reduced the number of lots from four to two. That revised plan proposed a residence on Lot 1 and a residence on Lot 2 together with a second unit and a swimming pool. Also proposed on Lot 2 were a tennis court and bocce ball court located on a secondary ridgeline. Herzog Geotechnical Consulting Engineers were then retained as the project's geotechnical engineer and summarized their recommendations in their report dated January 26, 2007. The current October 9, 2009 two lot plan proposes an access roadway and two single-family residences, one on Lot 1 and one on Lot 2. The Lot 2 main residence and second unit together with a tennis court, bocce ball court, swimming pool and pool house are located down slope and off of the secondary ridge in a slide repair area. As outlined in their review letter dated October 267 2009, Herzog Geotechnical concluded that the current October 9, 2009 project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Primary geotechnical concerns and recommendations for the current project are as follows. Landslide Mitigation Existing mapped slide deposits within the southern portion of the site are proposed to be over excavated and reconstructed as properly compacted and sub-drained fill that is keyed and benched into bedrock. There are no areas where required fill slopes will be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical). Therefore, there is no geogrid reinforcement or retaining walls proposed as part of the landslide mitigation. In order to address differential settlement, proposed structures, walls and flatwork founded within the slide repair will be supported on drilled piers extending through the repair buttress fill and into underlying bedrock. (5) EXHIBIT NO._.?,::__ Although episodes of previous debris sliding within the northern portion of the site have evacuated much of the debris within the upper reaches of the mapped slide scars, there is still risk of future slides which could impact the northern drainage and possibly off-site improvements. Herzog Geotechnical has noted that overexcavation and recompaction of landslide deposits within the northern portion of the site will likely not be feasible due to the steepness of the slide scars and the presence of numerous trees in this area. Herzog Geotechnical judges that it would be more feasible to extend foundation support for proposed adjacent improvements well into bedrock and provide catchment facilities adjacent to the ravine at the base of the slope to protect the neighboring property. The catchment fence will be a maximum of 8 feet high and will encompass the lateral limits of mapped sliding laterally beyond the limits of mapped sliding. The fence will consist of a high-energy, ring net barrier (GeoBrugg®, or equivalent). Construction of the catchment fence and drainage improvements requires removal of approximately 2,900 sq. ft. of existing vegetation. Foundations Subsurface investigation at the site indicates that the project area is underlain by varying thicknesses of relatively weak soils that are subject to settlement under foundation loads, to gradual downslope creep, and to expansive soil heave. It will, therefore, be necessary to support proposed improvements on drilled piers that extend into undisturbed bedrock and that are designed to resist lateral forces imposed by creeping soils above the bedrock. Slab and Pavement Support To reduce differential settlements, slabs-on-grade and pavements will be either founded on bedrock or on properly compacted fill founded on bedrock. In order to reduce expansive soil heave, fill material located within 30 inches of slab and pavement subgrade will consist of non- expansive Select Fill. Alternatively, structural slabs may be designed to span between foundation supported elements and separated from the underlying expansive soils by an approved void forming product. Geotechnical Drainage Surface and subsurface water will be controlled to reduce future moisture variations within the weak and expansive soils. Perimeter subdrains and slab underdrains will be provided to reduce water infiltration beneath the structures, and all roofs will be provided with gutters and downspouts. Retaining walls will be provided with backdrainage to prevent hydrostatic buildup behind the walls. All drains will extend to an approved storm drain system as specified by the project civil engineer. Check dams/debris berms are located at the down slope ends of both drainages to the north and south of the property to collect soil and debris to prevent their being deposited down slope onto offsite properties. (6) EXHIBIT NO:_J- ENGINEERING Access Road The proposed private road providing access to the two building envelop sites has a 20-foot paved width with concrete curb and gutter on one side and a concrete band on the opposite side designed to collect drainage from the roadway and convey it to appropriate on-site drainage structures. Pavement between the curb & gutter and the concrete band will be asphalt concrete. As revised from the previous plan proposal, the current roadway alignment saves the mature oak tree in the upper corner of Lot 1, is shorter at 776 feet long as compared to 970 feet for the original five-lot plan, minimizes grading, reduces the amount of retaining walls necessary to build the road and has a maximum grade of 18% as compared to 21% for the five-lot plan. Therefore, the revised roadway is. environmentally superior to the original five-lot plan. Earthwork Earthwork for the Precise Development Plan improvements involves grading and excavation for the private road and parking areas, the six underground water storage tanks and building envelopes on Lots 1 and 2. Total earthwork quantities are 11,196 cubic yards of excavation (cut) and 10,533 cubic yards of embankment (fill) leaving 663 cubic yards of excess material. Repair of the landslide area on the southern portion of the site involves excavation and replacement of approximately 27,300 cubic yards of material. The 663 cubic yards of excess earthwork material is acceptable from a geotechnical standpoint for placement in the landslide repair area as engineered fill. Placement of that relatively small amount of fill will not result in a change in the pre-slide topography of the site. That 663 cubic yards of excess material together with the landslide excavation (cut) and embankment (fill) quantities results in an overall earthwork balance for the project. Area of Disturbance This plan disturbs approximately 1.97 acres of the site for construction of the access road and building envelops as shown on the Precise Development Plan. The disturbed area decreased from 2.61 acres in the previous November 19, 2008 plan due to access roadway modifications and reductions in the Lot 2 building envelope development intensity. That compares to 3.15 acres of disturbed area in the original five-lot plan. Construction of improvements in this current Precise Development Plan will result in 1.09 acres of impervious surfaces compared to 1.76 acres of impervious surfaces for the five-lot plan. The landslide repair will disturb an additional 1.5 acres. (7) EXHIBIT NO.-3- Drainage The project site contains four watershed areas. Drainage Area #1 discharges from the site in the vicinity of the Antonette Drive cul-de-sac and flows from that point in a northerly direction towards Paradise Drive. Drainage Area #2 discharges from the site through the property at #1 Antonette Drive and #140 Antonette Drive and continues down Antonette Drive in a southeasterly direction towards Paradise Drive. Drainage Area #3 discharges onto the property at #120 Antonette Drive and is collected by an existing culvert on that property, then runs under Antonette Drive down to Paradise Drive. Drainage Area #4 discharges to the northerly boundary of the subject site and onto the adjacent private property then flows in a northerly direction towards Paradise Drive. Drainage calculations use the Federal Aviation Administration Methodology of Computation the same as was used in the Certified Environmental Impact Report for the five-lot plan. The following calculations are for a 100-year return frequency storm. AREA EXISTING Q100 PROPOSED PLAN Q100 %Change 5-LOT PLAN Q100 % Change 1 9.4 9.4 0.0 14.4 +34.7 2 12.2 12.2 0.0 15.3 +25.4 3 13.2 12.4 -6.4 16.3 +23.5 4 55.2 55.2 0.0 Not Analyzed N/A Watershed Area #1 peak flow has not changed from the existing flow. Watershed Area #3 peak flow has been reduced by 6.4%. Watershed Area #4 peak flow has not changed from the existing flow. The watershed area that has the greatest potential impact or change is Watershed Area #2. That impact mitigation proposes the installation of detention pipes that will substantially reduce the peak storm flow. The drainage design for the project results in no change to the portion of runoff from this watershed area that flows onto #I Antonette Drive. Furthermore, the design eliminates the storm water runoff that currently flows onto the property at #140 Antonette Drive and conveys it directly to Antonette Drive then along Antonette Drive to its current point of discharge. Design for the detention of the 2-year storm, Q2, will take place at the improvement plan stage. The 2-year storm will be detained in the detention pipes constructed for the Q100 storm; however, outlet pipes will be installed in the detention system structures to control the outlet flow of the 2-year storm. In summary, each of the civil engineering aspects of this two-lot plan has less of an impact than the previous five-lot plan and is therefore an environmentally superior plan. (g) EXHIBIT N0._Z,, RESOLUTION NO. 2010-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOMMENDING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THE PARENTE VISTA PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 4) AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 038-111-16) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings. A. The Town of Tiburon has received and considered an application filed by Lionel Achuck for a Precise Development Plan (the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan) to develop the following project: The development of two (2) single-family dwellings and appurtenant improvements on an approximately 10.2-acre property. The Parente Vista Precise Development Plan would establish the maximum density and basic layout and RPD zoning district parameters of the development, including but not limited to building envelopes, height and floor area limits, and other zonirig elements for the two (2) proposed future lots. B. The Precise Development Plan application consists of File #30703, on file with the Town of Tiburon Community Development Department. Materials from that application include but are not limited to the following: 1. Project description, dated October 9, 2009; 2. Project plans (7 sheets) prepared by Thayer Architecture, Inc., dated October 9, 2009; 3. Project plans (11 sheets) prepared by ILS Associates, Inc., dated September 9, 2009 4. Project plans (2 sheets) prepared by Herzog Geotechnical Consulting Engineers, dated September 9, 2009 5. Project plans (3 sheets) prepared by Pedersen Associates Landscape Architects, dated February 18, 2010 6. Drainage analysis prepared by ILS Associates, Inc., dated June 15, 2007 7. Geotechnical Hazards Evaluation and Geotechnical Investigation letters prepared by Herzog Geotechnical Consulting Engineers, dated January 26, 2007 and April 20, 2007; 8. Supplemental Noise Impact Study prepared by Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz, Inc., dated April 27, 2007. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-11 06/23/2010 LXHIBIT 4 N0. The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of this resolution. The record includes the Staff Reports, minutes, application materials, and all comments and materials received at the public hearing. C. An Environmental Impact Report for this project was certified by the Tiburon Town Council on October 6, 2004. The Planning Commission has considered the certified EIR and its Addenda in making its recommendation to the Town Council on the merits of the proj ect. D. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 23, 2010 at which it heard and considered testimony from interested persons. The Planning Commission found, based upon application materials and analysis presented in the staff report, the certified Final EIR and the Addenda thereto, that the proposed project is, on balance, consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan and in conformance with provisions of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The facts in support of this finding are set forth in the staff reports and the certified Parente Vista EIR and its Addenda, all of which are incorporated into the project record. Section 2. Recommendation for Acceptance of Addendum No. 2 to the EIR NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission has considered and does hereby recommend to the Town Council acceptance of the Addendum No. 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report ["Addendum"] dated March 2010. CEQA guidelines sections 15164 (a) and (b) state that an addendum should be prepared when none of the conditions triggering a subsequent EIR or supplemental EIR have occurred. Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines advises the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR when substantial changes to the project require major revisions to the EIR because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. The two-lot Parente Vista project that is currently proposed is within the range of alternatives and impacts discussed in the certified EIR. The Addendum concludes that this project design would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. The Final Environmental Impact Report and Addendum were prepared under contract to the Town of Tiburon by the consulting firm of Leonard Charles & Associates. The Addendum further concludes that with the implementation of Mitigation Measures contained therein, all environmental impacts associated with the two-lot project design would be mitigated to a less-than-significant (LTS) level. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-11 06/23/2010 2 EXHIBIT NO, q Section 3. Recommendation for Adoption of Resolution Granting Conditional Approval of the Project and Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Proms BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Town Council adopt the resolutions, set forth in attached Exhibit 1, approving the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan subject to the conditions of approval contained therein, and adopting a mitigation monitoring program for the project. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon held on June 23, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: KUNZWEILER, FRYMIER, CORCORAN AND TOLLINI NOES: NONE ABSENT: DOYLE JOHN KUNZWEILER, CHAIRMAN Tiburon Planning Commission ' ATTEST: DANIEL M. WATROUS, SECRETARY Attachments: Exhibit 1 (Draft Town Council Resolution & Mitigation Monitoring Program) TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-11 06/23/2010 3 EXHIBIT NO. q TOWN OF TIBURON { , 1505 Tiburon Boulevard ' i Tiburon, CA 94920 k._1! To: Members of the Planning Commission From: Community Development Department Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 2010 Agenda Item: M` Subject: End of Parente Road and End of Antonette Drive; File #30703; Precise Development Plan to Create Two Building Sites on a 10.2 Acre Parcel; Lionel Achuck, Owner; Tom Newton, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 038-111-16 Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA Address: End of Antonette Drive and Parente Road Assessor Parcel Number: 038-111-16 File Number: 30703 Lot Size: 10.2 acres General Plan: PD-R (Planned Development-Residential (up to 0.5 dwellings/acre) Zoning: RPD (Residential Planned Development) Current Use: Vacant Owner: Lionel Achuck Applicant: Tom Newton SUMMARY The owner of a vacant 10.2 acre parcel has submitted an application for approval of a precise development plan (the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan, File #30703) to subdivide the vacant parcel into two lots. The Parente Vista property is situated above Antonette Drive and is designated as the Amerippon Property in the Land Use Element of the Tiburon General Plan. The precise development plan would provide for the development of a single-family dwelling on each of the two lots. BACKGROUND/PROJECT HISTORY The following is a brief timeline for the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan: • In 1999, the previous property owner filed an application for a precise development plan (the Parente Precise Development Plan, File #39902) to subdivide the property into five lots; a single-family dwelling was proposed for each of the five lots. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. 5- PAGE 1 OF 11 A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared and released in September, 2001. On November 28, 2001, the Planning Commission directed Staff to prepare the responses to comments and a Final EIR. On July 24, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the FEIR and concluded that the project as then proposed would result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts on the environment. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to return with a revised 3-lot design for the project that would substantially mitigate these potential impacts. Considerable time passed without a response from the applicant. On May 17, 2004, a letter was submitted on behalf of the property owners indicating that a new project management team had been hired. The applicant requested a hearing to consider certification of the FEIR for the project. The applicant has also indicated an intention to submit revised plans for the project that would be responsive to the impacts identified in the EIR and by the Planning Commission. The Town Council certified the Final EIR on October 6, 2004. In 2006, Lionel Achuck, owner of the adjacent lot at 140 Antonette Drive, purchased the subject property and informed Town Staff of his intention to develop the parcel with two single-family homes and accessory improvements. A revised precise development plan application (now renamed Parente Vista) was submitted in February, 2007. • In 2007, Mr. Achuck requested a waiver of the precise development plan requirement to relocate a secondary driveway for his home at 140 Antonette Drive approximately 30 feet to the north and onto the Parente Vista property. The Planning Commission approved this request on April 25, 2007. • On April 22, 2009, the Planning Commission considered the revised two-lot project design and an Addendum to the previously certified EIR for the project. At that meeting, the Commission expressed concerns about the size and scale of the proposed house and other improvements on Lot 2 and the location of a secondary envelope for Lot 2 on the significant ridgeline that crosses the site. The Commission continued the application and directed the applicant to revise the project design to address these concerns. • A revised project design was submitted on October 9, 2009 and a second Addendum to the FEIR was released on May 18, 2010. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is the proposed approval of a precise development plan (the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan, File #30703) to subdivide a 10.2 acre parcel into two lots. The precise plan would provide for the development of a single-family dwelling on both lots. One of the lots would also have a secondary dwelling unit. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 11 EXHIBIT NO. Ju ac '23' 210!10 The site consists of an irregularly-shaped parcel located toward the northern end of the Tiburon Peninsula. The property slopes down from Ring Mountain toward Paradise Drive, with a south to north slope of 20% to 30%. A ridgeline that traverses the center of the subject property from southwest to northeast is identified as a Significant Ridgeline (Ridgeline 0) by the Open Space and Conservation Element of the Tiburon General Plan. Vehicular access would be provided to the site from a private roadway that would connect to Antonette Drive, a privately-maintained street which connects to Paradise Drive; emergency access would be available to Parente Road via a fire gate. Vegetation on the site consists of native grasses, scattered brush and a grove of toyon, bay and canyon live oak trees. No wetland areas exist on the site. Two landslide complexes are present on the site, one in the northwest corner of the site and one in the drainage area crossing the southernmost portion of the property. Four separate watersheds on the site drain to the north and southeast of the property. Various residential developments surround the subject property, including portions of the Lands of Kahn, Ring Mountain, and Taylor Road subdivisions, along with individual lots along Parente Road, Antonette Drive and Paradise Drive. These areas consist of detached single-family homes. The Parente Vista Precise Development Plan would establish building envelopes and other planning parameters for the two proposed lots. The proposed parameters for these lots are described as follows: Lot 1 • The 89,972 square feet (2.1 acre) lot would be situated in the lower, eastern portion of the site. • A 9,241 square foot building envelope would be established and developed with an up to 6,000 square foot single-family home, with 700 square feet of garage space. • A 3,338 square foot secondary building envelope would also be established and would allow development of swimming pools, terraces, walkways, retaining walls and fences up to 6 feet in height. • The remaining 1.78 acre portion of the lot would be undeveloped except for construction of the access road and landscaping adjacent to the road to screen headlights for nearby homes. Lot 2 • This 353,033 square foot (8.1 acre) lot would occupy the upper, western portion of the site. The lot would include a 13,980 square foot primary building envelope for construction of an up to 9,000 square foot single-family dwelling and 1,000 square feet of garage space. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 11 EXHIBIT NO. A secondary building envelope would be situated to the south and southeast of the primary building envelope and would allow the same uses as the secondary building envelope for Lot 1. In addition, the secondary envelope would allow construction of a maximum 1,000 square foot detached secondary dwelling unit and 500 square feet of garage space; and an unlighted tennis court, bocce ball court, and fencing up to 10 feet tall around the tennis court (6 feet tall elsewhere). A 5.8 acre area surrounding the building envelopes would be designated as private open space, with another 1.0 acre area that is not designated for development. Access would be provided to both proposed lots from a 20 foot wide private roadway extending from Antonette Drive. The private street would curve around the building envelope for Lot 1 and end in a cul-de-sac surrounded by the primary and secondary building envelopes for Lot 2. The maximum grade for this 776 foot long roadway would be 18 percent. Water for Lot 1 would be provided by extending a new water line from an existing MM-WD main line in Antonette Drive. Water for Lot 2 would be provided by extending a 1.5 inch water main from the line in Taylor Road via a private water easement across the property at 325 Taylor Road. To illustrate the potential housing construction on each of the proposed lots, the applicant has submitted conceptual plans for two houses and the secondary dwelling unit and other accessory improvements proposed for Lot 2. Although these plans are conceptual in nature, and would require subsequent approval by the Design Review Board, the plans are probably representative of the type of construction that would be expected for each lot, given the building envelope constraints and house sizes proposed. Each of the proposed homes would have a two-story design, with a maximum height of 30 feet. As previously noted, a 6,000 square foot house is proposed for Lot 1 and a 9,000 square foot house and a 1,000 square foot secondary dwelling unit are proposed for Lot 2. The homes are proposed to be designed with stucco exteriors and tile roofs. A color palette has not been submitted at this time, but the project description proposes a general design theme of country homes or farm houses with a Mediterranean design. As noted above, each lot is proposed to include a primary building envelope for the construction of the residence, and a secondary building envelope for construction of recreational amenities. The area outside the building envelopes would be designated as private open space. This open space area is intended to remain in a natural, undisturbed condition, with an open space easement dedicated to the Town to protect these spaces. Fencing on the site would be limited to the residential use areas defined by the boundaries of the primary and secondary building envelopes. In all areas outside the building envelopes and not designated as private open space for both lots, improvements would be limited to the roadway, driveways and associated retaining and entry walls, walkways, decorative features, solar panels, landscaping and lighting. Modifications to Project Design The following changes have been made to the project design since the April 22, 2009 Planning Commission meeting: TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 11 EXHIBIT NO. ~5r 23 i • The primary building envelope for Lot 1 was reduced in size from 10,262 square feet to 9,241 square feet. • The alignment of the private roadway beyond the house on Lot 1 has been straightened, with the cul-de-sac at the end moving from north of the oak tree on Lot 2 to south of the tree. • The location of the primary building envelope Lot 2 has been moved from west of the oak tree to south of the tree. The size of the envelope, the proposed house and garage remain unchanged. • No improvements are now proposed along the secondary ridgeline; a portion of the secondary building envelope would extend to within approximately 50 feet of the ridgeline. The two secondary building envelopes (A & B) on Lot 2 have been replaced by a single secondary building envelope located to the south and southeast of the primary building envelope. The proposed swimming pool and tennis court within the secondary envelope would be dug down into the hillside, limiting the visual prominence of these improvements when viewed from above the site. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Town Council certified a Final Environmental Impact Report for the original five-lot Parente Vista project on October 6, 2004. The revised project design was not considered as a development alternative in the certified Final EIR, although it is similar to the two-lot Alternative 3 discussed in the EIR and is squarely within the range of alternatives discussed in the EIR. Therefore, the Town's environmental consultant for the project has prepared a second addendum to the EIR, which is intended to: • Determine whether the revised project would have new impacts or an increased or decreased severity of impact from those identified in the certified FEIR; • Determine whether there have been any changes in the environmental circumstances that would result in a new or substantially more significant environmental impact; • Determine which mitigation measures recommended in the EIR can be eliminated or need to be revised, and whether any new mitigation measures are required; • Determine whether recommended mitigation measures reduce the impacts to a less than significant level; and • Examine the project alternatives analysis included in the EIR and determine whether any new alternative is feasible. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 11 EXHIBIT NO, The certified EIR identified two significant unavoidable ("SU") impacts of the original five-lot project that could not be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation measures identified in the EIR: The project would eliminate potential prime open space on Ridgeline 0 and substantially alter views of potential open space; and The project would result in excessive grading on the property. The EIR Addendum has concluded that the revised project design and mitigation measures recommended by the Addendum would reduce all previously identified significant impacts to less than significant levels. The overall amount of development visible from other properties and the amount of grading on the site would be reduced by modifying the project from five lots to two lots and shortening the length of the proposed private roadway. The EIR Addendum also concluded that there are no new significant impacts that would result from the revised project design and no increase in the severity of previously-identified impacts. The EIR Addendum for the project design reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2009 reached the same conclusions and the current Addendum found no new significant impacts resulting from the currently revised proj ect. The EIR reviewed five (5) separate project alternatives, ranging from the "no project" alternative to a modified five-lot project similar to the applicant's original design from 1999. The Addendum does not identify any new alternatives, stating that the revised project design is similar to Alternative 3 in the EIR, which evaluated the development of two residential lots on the property. The EIR Addendum concludes that the revised project, with recommended mitigation measures, would be superior to the original project and Alternatives 5 and 6. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 (with one, two or three lots, respectively) would be superior to the revised project due to the elimination of development on the western portion of the site, thereby reducing visual impacts and maintaining more of the site as open space. However, adoption of one of these alternatives is not required to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the project to a less than significant level, since all impacts of the revised two-lot project can be reduced to less than significant levels. The EIR extensively reviewed possible geological impacts associated with the proposed project due to the presence of two large landslide deposits on the site. The revised project design would repair the landslide on the southernmost portion of the property in conformance with the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy by removing and recompacting 27,300 cubic yards of unstable materials. Potential impacts from the smaller northwestern landslide on the site would be mitigated by constructing a landslide barrier fence at the base of the slope designed to capture materials sliding off the hillside. The EIR consultant and the Town's independent geotechnical consultants have determined that these landslide mitigation measures are appropriate and would continue to reduce the geologic impacts of the revised project to a less than significant level. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 11 EXHIBIT NO. -ti- ILIt7:_ _.:S, ~.0.1C. SUMMARY OF GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY An analysis of the proposed project's consistency with pertinent goals, policies and principles of the Tiburon General Plan and Zoning Ordinance is attached as Exhibit 3. The following is a summary of the issues raised in that analysis: CTenernl Plan Ridgeline Protection. As noted above, Significant Ridgeline 0 traverses the center of the subject property from southwest to northeast, with only small, more visible areas on the upper portion of the site situated away from the ridgeline. The edge of the primary building envelope on Lot 2 would be situated approximately 80 feet from the ridgeline and the secondary building envelope would extend to within approximately 50 feet of the ridgeline. No improvements would cross the ridgeline itself and the private open space on Lot 2 would ensure that the ridgeline is intact and undisturbed. The EIR Addendum concludes that Ridgeline 0 is not particularly visually prominent, does not connect neighborhoods or open space and contains no sensitive environmental habitat, and therefore development near the ridgeline would be a less than significant impact of the project. Staff believes that the revised project design is responsive to the Planning Commission's April 2009 direction to move project improvements away from the ridgeline. Visual Impacts. The revised project would not substantially interfere with views from any surrounding homes. The proposed residence on Lot 1 would block a small portion of a panoramic view from the adjacent home to the north of the project site at 4885 Paradise Drive. The improvements on Lots 1 and 2 would be visible from other dwellings above the site and from homes below Paradise Drive, but would not substantially interfere with views from other residences in the vicinity. Although the proposed tennis court and swimming pool within the secondary building envelope for Lot 2 would be moved closer to the existing residence at 325 Taylor Road, these improvements would be dug into the hillside, reducing their visual prominence when viewed from that residence. Neighborhood Compatibility. The low density single-family development proposed on the site would be consistent with the land use designation for the site and similar to the density of other development in the vicinity. Goal LU-I encourages "intensity of development, density, and house sizes/architectural styles that are consistent and compatible with surrounding neighborhoods." Policy LU-5 states that "new development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and open spaces." The 6,000 square foot house proposed for Lot 1 is similar to that of other larger homes in the vicinity, but the 9,000 square foot house proposed for Lot 2 would be substantially larger than other nearby residences. Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The project site does not support any sensitive plant or animal species. Most of the native trees and vegetation on the site would remain. An area of shrubs and trees on the southern portion of the site would need to be removed to repair a landslide, but this area would be replanted after the landslide repair with native grasses and native trees would be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 11 EXHIBIT NO. Usable Open Space. The proposed project would preserve 59.9% of the site as private open space, to be protected by a Town-held open space easement. The site connects at one corner with the Ring Mountain Open Space Preserve, but there is not room at this point to provide a connecting trail without utilizing adjacent developed private property. This private open space would provide an appropriate buffer between the building envelopes and existing homes in the vicinity. Safety. The project would result in improved safety conditions on the site and for other properties in the vicinity through the repair of the landslide on the south side of the property consistent with the Town Landslide Mitigation Policy and the installation of the landslide barrier fence at the base of the slope of the smaller northern landslide on the site. Zoning Ordinance Grading and Preservation of Natural Features. Grading for the project would not create any new slopes exceeding 30% and would result in final contours and slopes that would generally reflect existing landforms on the site. The primary residence on Lot 2 would be situated approximately 80 feet from the ridgeline and the secondary building envelope would extend to within approximately 50 feet of the ridgeline, but no improvements would be located on or cross the ridgeline itself. The project would not result in contours or slopes that differ significantly from the natural land features. Harmony with Neighboring Development. The arrangement of the revised project would be compatible with other subdivisions near the site. As noted above, the 6,000 square foot house proposed for Lot 1 is similar to that of other larger homes in the vicinity, but the 9,000 square foot house proposed for Lot 2 would be substantially larger than other nearby residences. The Town has the ability to require additional changes during the Site Plan and Architectural Review process to ensure consistency with the surrounding residential area with respect to home size and other factors. ISSUES The revised two-lot project design represents a substantially lessened level of development for this vacant parcel than the originally submitted five-lot design and a slightly lessened level of development from the two-lot project design reviewed by the Planning Conunission in April 2009. The project would be similar to the development level of the three-lot project design encouraged by the Planning Commission in 2002. The tennis court, swimming pool and secondary dwelling unit proposed for the secondary building envelope on Lot 2 are substantial accessory improvements for the large house proposed on that lot, but, combined with the two primary residences proposed for the site, would not generate as much traffic or activity as a five- lot project. The size of the proposed houses on both lots has not changed since the April 2009 review, and would be much larger than most of the existing residences around the site. Many of the homes around the site along Taylor Road, Antonette Drive, Parente Road and Paradise Drive have floor areas over 4,000 square feet, with a few over 6,000 square feet in size. The largest home in the immediate vicinity is the adjacent 6,707 square foot dwelling owned by the applicant at 140 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 11 f~NHIBIT NO. S_ n'II it's' Antonette Drive. The 6,000 square foot house proposed for Lot 1 would be within the range of sizes found for other homes in the vicinity. However, Lot 2 would be developed with not only a 9,000 square foot primary residence, but also a 1,000 square foot secondary dwelling unit and 1,500 square feet of garage space. The default floor area ratio (FAR) guideline established in the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance for lots over 60,000 square feet is 8,000 square feet with an additional 750 square feet of garage space. Staff again recommends that the floor area of Lot 2 be reduced to comport with the FAR guideline, at a minimum. The Planning Commission may wish to consider a further reduction to bring the floor area for the primary dwellings for both lots closer to the size of other homes in the vicinity. The secondary building envelope of Lot 2, including the proposed tennis court and swimming pool, would be 34 feet, 5 inches from the shared property line with the adjacent lot at 325 Taylor Road. The tennis court, pool and bocce ball court would be dug into the hillside, minimizing the visibility of these improvements from the neighboring residence. The owner of 325 Taylor Road has suggested that landscaped screening be installed along the boundary of the secondary building envelope to provide an additional privacy buffer between her home and the recreational uses within the secondary envelope. The EIR Addendum concluded that the proposed project would not result in any significant visual impacts on nearby homes. The proposed residence on Lot 1 would be most visible from the adjacent residence to the north of the project site at 4885 Paradise Drive, but would interfere with only a small portion of the panoramic views from this neighboring dwelling. Residents of other homes above the site along Taylor Road and below the site on Antonette Drive and Paradise Drive would be able to see the improvements -on Lots 1 and 2, but these structures would not block any views from nearby homes. The substantial undeveloped upper portion of the site that would remain as private open space would help provide visual continuity to the Ring Mountain Open Space Preserve when viewed from below. Berms and landscaping would be installed along a portion of the proposed roadway to shield headlights from view for the occupants at 4885 Paradise Drive. The private open space proposed for the site is contiguous to and forms a sizable buffer between the building envelopes on Lot 2 and adjacent residential properties. The private open space would provide a visual connection to the Ring Mountain open space, but no trail connection to this public open space is possible, as the subject lot and the Ring Mountain property intersect at a single point. An entrance at the end of Taylor Road currently provides sufficient access to this portion of Ring Mountain, including a large cul-de-sac for parking purposes and a well-marked and gated entry point connecting to trails leading to areas near the project site. There does not appear to be a significant need for an additional public pathway leading to this portion of the Ring Mountain open space area. The original project design included full repair of both landslide areas on the site. The current project design would repair the larger landslide on the southernmost portion of the property consistent with Town Landslide Mitigation Policy. A landslide barrier fence would be installed at the base of the slope of the smaller northern landslide on the site to catch loose debris from earth movements. The EIR consultant and the Town's geotechnical consultants have determined that these landslide mitigation measures comply with the Town's landslide policy and are TOWN OF TmuRON PAGE 9 OF 11 EXHIBIT NO. 5- appropriate and would reduce the geologic impacts of the revised project to a less than significant level. The original project design proposed to utilize a connection to Parente Road as a secondary means of providing access to the site from Paradise Drive. The EIR consultant found that the limited visibility of the intersection of Parente Road and Paradise Drive made this access unsafe, particularly for left turns onto Paradise Drive, and recommended that all project traffic use Antonette Drive to connect to Paradise Drive. The Tiburon Fire Protection District has suggested that a gated roadway connection be established from the end of Antonette Drive to Parente Road to provide secondary emergency access to the site. This connection would extend across one or two private lots on Parente Road and would require approval and coordination between the Fire District and these property owners. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, no comment letters have been received regarding the revised project design. Comments were received from various responsible agencies during the review of the EIR, including the Tiburon Fire Protection District, Marin Municipal Water District and the County of Marin Public Works Department, but no further written comments have since been received from these agencies. FUTURE ACTIONS REQUIRED The Planning Commission's action on this project would be in the form of a recommendation to the Town Council. If the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan is approved by the Town Council, subsequent Town permits would likely include a Tentative Subdivision Map, Parcel Map, Subdivision Improvement Drawings, Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for both lots, and Building Pen-nits for both lots. CONCLUSION The revised two-lot project design for this 10.2 acre parcel would be generally compatible with and have a lower density than the development level of most other subdivisions in the vicinity. This reduced-density project would also be consistent with the Planning Commission's direction in its review of the previous 5-lot project design for this site. The significant unavoidable environmental impacts identified by the FEIR for the previous project would be reduced to less than significant levels and the revised project design would not result in any new or increased environmental impacts. The revised project design eliminates any development along the secondary ridgeline that runs through the center of the site and more appropriately consolidates the primary and secondary building envelopes for Lot 2. Staff believes that the proposed house sizes, particularly for Lot 2, are too large in comparison to the size of other homes in the vicinity and should be substantially reduced to make this project harmonious with the character of the surrounding residential area. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 10 OF 11 EXHIBIT NO. S 1..~~,.L.1W 1 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Hold a public hearing on this item and hear and consider all testimony, and 2. Adopt the draft resolution (Exhibit 1) recommending conditional approval of the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan to the Town Council. EXHIBITS 1. Draft resolution 2. Project description 3. Consistency Analysis with the Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Zoning Ordinance 4. Minutes of the October 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting 5. Minutes of the October 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting 6. Minutes of the November 28, 2001 Planning Commission meeting 7. Minutes of the July 24, 2002 Planning Commission meeting 8. Minutes of the August 28, 2002 Planning Commission meeting 9. Minutes of the July 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting 10. Minutes of the October 6, 2004 Town Council meeting 11. Minutes of the April 22, 2009 Planning Commission meeting 12. Draft Environmental Impact Report Addendum, prepared by Leonard Charles & Associates (previously distributed) ' 13. Submitted plans from Thayer Architecture, Inc. and ILS Associates, Inc. Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager \shared\planning\pc\staff reports\2010Uune 23 meeting\Parente Vista PDP.report.doc TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 11 OF 11 EXHIBIT NO. 2. END OF PARENTE ROAD AND END OF ANTONETTE DRIVE: PARENTE VISTA PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PD#4) TO CREATE TWO BUILDING SITES ONA 10.2 ACRE PARCEL; FILE #30703; Lionel Achuck, Owner; Tom Newton, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 038-111-16 Director of Community Development Watrous presented the staff report, stating the applicant is requesting approval of a precise development plan to subdivide a vacant 10.2-acre parcel into two lots. He described the project design and changes that had been made since the April 2009, Planning Commission meeting. Staff contracted EIR consultant, Leonard Charles, to prepare an addendum to the 2004 certified EIR and the addendum has concluded that the revised project design and mitigation measures would reduce all previously identified significant impacts to less than significant levels. Mr. Watrous stated that Staff has found the project in compliance with the principles and policies of the Town's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the project appears to be consistent with the Planning Commission's previous direction, but Staff believes that the proposed home sizes of 6,000 square feet for Lot 1 and 9,000 square feet, with an additional 1,000 square feet for a secondary building envelope, for Lot 2 are too large in comparison to that of other homes in the vicinity. He noted that most homes in the surrounding area are generally large, with many being over 4,000 square feet and the largest being 6,707 square feet, and that the default floor area ratio has a cap of 8,000 square feet for any lot over 60,000 square feet in size. He recommended that the floor area of the home on Lot 2 be reduced at minimum to comport with the default floor area ratios. He advised the Commission that if it should find the proposal acceptable, the recommended action would be to adopt the resolution recommending conditional approval of the precise development plan to the Town Council. Chair Kunzweiler opened the public hearing. Lionel Achuck, owner, said that he had spent considerable time and effort since the last hearing to revise his project in a way that met the concerns of the Commission and yet retained the uniqueness of the property. He consolidated the four original building envelopes down to two, relocated project improvements away from the ridgeline, and eliminated the parking area situated below the tennis court. In response to the Commission's concern with the size of the residence on Lot 2, all building envelopes were pushed further back into the hillside in order to recess the overall envelope and reduce visual impacts. He said that the 8 acre Lot 2 was unique and not consistent with surrounding lots, and he felt that the size of the proposed home on that lot would fit the scale of the property and would be consistent with surrounding homes in terms of mass. He said that this project would add value to the Town by reducing the potential number of homes to be developed on the site and would be vastly more desirable than a development than would place more homes on smaller lots with less green space. Mr. Achuck provided the Commission with a handout listing Tiburon homes that exceed 8,000 square feet and noted that all, with the exception of one, are on small lots. He said that other municipalities focus less on size and more on architecture and mass. He noted the recently approved project at 110 Gilmartin Drive includes an 18,593 square feet of space on a roughly 3 acre lot, which is 10,593 square feet above the floor area ratio. He stated that the Design Review TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 23, 2010 MINUTES NO. 999 DRAFT PAGE 3 EXHIBIT NO. 6-7 Board approved the project based largely upon the design of structure, and the final design of a house ultimately determines if the mass is appropriate. He asked that the Design Review Board be allowed to decide what size home would work on this lot. Mr. Achuck reviewed the perceived impacts of the project on surrounding neighbors and said that the revised project design represents an improvement for most. He noted that the revised design would move the tennis court closer to the residence at 325 Taylor Road, but the court would be below grade and over 200 feet away. He said that he was not aware of any other open issues or complaints and was amenable to any additional screening that may be deemed necessary. He requested the Commission approve the size and layout of the various amenities, stating that the estate-like feel of the design was essential to the project and is what gives the Tiburon peninsula its appeal. Vice-Chair Frymier requested more information on the 10 foot tennis court fence. Mr. Achuck explained that the tennis court is pushed up against the hillside and most of it would remain unfenced. He estimated that only the sides and lower portion of the court would need 10 foot fencing. Chair Kunzweiler asked for an explanation about the excavation required for the project. Mr. Achuck explained that the primary and secondary envelopes for Lot 2 would be very near the area of slide repair. He estimated approximately 27,000 yards of soil would be removed and replaced as part of that process and much of that would be worked in with the design of the foundation and retaining walls. He could not speculate further without final design of the home but he said that the ultimate goal is for zero removal of dirt from the site. Chair Kunzweiler asked about the maximum height of the home from grade. Mr. Watrous noted that the Town maximum is 30 feet and that the precise development plan does not request a different height limit. Chair Kunzweiler closed the public hearing. Vice-Chair Frymier stated she reviewed the previous comments and objections voiced by the Commission and Town Council in 2009 and was impressed that the applicant had made concessions to address almost all of those issues. She said that the remaining issue was the size of the 9,000 square foot home proposed for Lot 2. She said that the Commission places much emphasis on the guidelines of the General Plan, which were developed to help guide the norm for Tiburon. She said that an 8-acre site is not the norm for new development and asked how many parcels in Town are over 3 acres in size. Mr. Watrous estimated less than one dozen. Vice-Chair Frymier said that as much as she supports the General Plan, she believes the Commission should strongly consider approving the requested house size based on this information. She noted the previous proposal called for subdivision into five lots, all of which would have carried the potential for 8,000 square foot homes, a scenario that would have resulted in 40,000 square feet of construction, whereas this application only requests 18,000 square feet total. She conceded that the Commission may not have approved each site for an 8,000 square foot home and said that even at 4,000 square feet each, what is requested would be a less TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 23, 2010 MINUTES NO. 999 DRAFT PAGE 4 EXHIBIT NO. impactful scenario. She noted that the County has been more liberal in some of their approvals on the Paradise Drive side of Tiburon, with some home sizes that significantly exceed that of their neighbors. She urged the Commission to at least consider approving the requested house size based on the unique size and terrain of this property. Commissioner Corcoran thanked the applicant for his efforts in addressing the previously raised issues. He appreciated the relocation of the tennis court but said that home size was still a significant issue. He noted that the Commission spent the last year reviewing the updated Zoning Ordinance, including floor area ratios, and did not choose to create different guidelines to allow larger homes for a lot of this size. He said that he would support an application that is within the guidelines, but this application does not do so. He referred to the Commission's previous comments, which identified home size as a significant issue, and believed that it needed to be addressed further. Commissioner Tollini read the purpose of floor area ratio guidelines, as stated in the Zoning Ordinance: "...to provide a community yardstick for the appropriate residential size and scale relative to the overall size of the property." She said that she tended to agree with Vice-Chair Frymier that the comparison of this lot to smaller lots in the area may not be fair. She felt that a tastefully constructed home, as she hoped would be designed by the applicant and approved by the Design Review Board, would not necessarily have too much mass and bulk. She said that the purpose of floor area ratio would suggest a guideline rather than a strict rule and, based on that, she could accept the project as proposed. Chair Kunzweiler concurred with Commissioner Corcoran that size is the issue. He said that Tiburon is unique in that there is considerable acreage but much of it is not buildable and said not all 8-acre parcels are created equally. He cautioned against the logic that bigger lots can automatically support bigger houses, believed there are considerations in addition to the mathematical calculation, and he also cautioned the Commission to be careful when making comparisons to other developments. He noted that the 110 Gilmartin Drive project was a rebuild of an existing home that was almost as large as what was approved. He noted that the Town recently reviewed the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance through the public process and, while he has an open mind, he cannot see the rationale for deviating from those guidelines. He conceded that the original application was for five lots but said that that project was not approved and was therefore irrelevant. Commissioner Tollini directed the Commission to the Zoning Ordinance, which identifies floor area ratio "unless otherwise specified by a precise development plan." She said that that notation provides the Commission with a certain leeway. She acknowledged the point that not all acreage is buildable but reviewed the lot's topography and said that the project design would provide a buffer between surrounding properties that made her comfortable. Vice-Chair Frymier said that the Commission seemed to be concerned with the visual impacts of a home this size and she questioned the real difference in the impact of an 8,000 versus a 9,000 square foot home. She noted there is increasing demand in Tiburon and Belvedere for estate or villa-type properties, of which the property at 110 Gilmartin Drive is prime example. She would not support the "bigger parcel, bigger house" concept but felt if the Town was going to allow TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 23, 2010 MINUTES NO. 999 DRAFT PAGE 5 EXHIBIT NO. estate-type development, this was the perfect location. She said that the Commission could support the project because of the location, terrain, estate-type design, and the applicant's history of appropriate project designs in Tiburon. She said that she ultimately looks for quality and trusted that quality would be ensured through the design review process. She stressed that her earlier comments were in no way supportive of a "bigger parcel, bigger house" approach. Mr. Watrous referred to Condition of Approval No. 5 of the draft resolution, noting that although it specifies a maximum allowable floor area ratio, the Design Review Board would have the authority to approve a lesser amount to ensure that the building sizes are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He suggested that the Commission could leave it to the discretion of the Design Review Board of what an appropriate design would be and change the recommended maximum square footages to the amount requested by the applicant. If the Design Review Board feels the design presents too much bulk, they would then have the discretion to reduce the floor area allowed for a house on the site. Chair Kunzweiler felt that it would be unfair to saddle the Design Review Board with that decision. Commissioner Corcoran reiterated that the Commission had an opportunity to put forth different guidelines when it reviewed the Zoning Ordinance but chose not to, and he did not see any reason to vary from that. Chair Kunzweiler pointed out that through the non-controversial public process of updating the Zoning Ordinance it was essentially decided that the maximum size of any new Tiburon home would be 8,000 square feet. He said that he was open to compelling arguments to the contrary. He also noted that this would simply be an approval of the structure's size, not its final design, and the Commission has no guarantee of what the final product would look like. He conceded that the County has been very liberal in allowing the creep of large estates into the area but he did not think that that was necessarily sufficient reason for the Town to go along with that pattern. He said that 8,000 square feet is a good-sized home and would respect the character of the neighborhood, and he had yet to hear a compelling reason for the house size to be larger. Vice-Chair Frymier asked staff why larger homes on Mr. Achuck's handout had been approved. Mr. Watrous said that several of the homes predate the establishment of the Town's floor area ratio guidelines in 1991 and that others were the result of a legal settlement. He noted that at least one of the examples combined the development potential for two different lots into one larger home. Vice-Chair Frymier acknowledged that homes on the Paradise Drive side of Town are typically smaller but it is rare to find an 8 acre lot in Tiburon. She likened the subject application to the situation where two lots, with the potential for two homes, were combined to allow one larger home. Commissioner Corcoran said that the General Plan refers more to compatibility with homes in adjacent neighborhoods and that even an 8,000 square foot home would be in excess of the norm for this neighborhood. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 23. 2010 MINUTES NO. 999 DRAFT PAGE 6 EXHIBIT NO. G' Commissioner Tollini cited the recent Design Review Board approval of a very large home and noted the rationale was that the design tastefully tucked it into the hillside. She reiterated her comments regarding the purpose of floor area ratio and believed this home would be designed in such a way that it would be set aside from the rest of the neighborhood and would have minimal visual impacts in that regard. Chair Kunzweiler said that the Commission appeared to be comfortable with approving a large home but the question remains as to whether it would be willing to put aside the guidelines set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Watrous clarified that in addition to the 9,000 square foot home the applicant is requesting a 1,000 square foot secondary dwelling unit. He recommended that the Commission bring the matter to a vote. If the matter deadlocks after ties and subsequent motions, he suggested that the project could be forwarded to the Town Council with notations that the Commission was unable to reach consensus with respect to Condition of Approval No. 5. He stated that Staff would indicate in its report forwarded to the Council that the Commission was split on the topic of floor area pertaining to Lot 2 and summarize the arguments made by the Commissioners. ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Frymier) to adopt the resolution approving the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan, as drafted. Motion failed: 2-2 (Frymier and Tollini voted no). ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Corcoran) to adopt the resolution approving the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan, as amended to reflect the project floor areas proposed by the applicant. Motion failed: 2-2 (Corcoran and Kunzweiler voted no). ACTION: It was M/S (Frymier/Corcoran) to adopt the resolution approving the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan, with a modification to Condition of Approval No. 5 to defer the determination of appropriate floor area ratio for Lot 2 to the Town Council. Motion carried: 4-0. 3. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL TO AMEND GENERAL PLAN TEXT AND DIAGRAMS WITH RESPECT TO THE TIBURON RIDGE TRAIL ALIGNMENT; TOWN-INITIATED APPLICATION FILE #GPA 2010-01 Community Development Director Anderson presented the staff report, stating the Town recently concluded two separate lawsuits regarding the Tiburon Ridge Trail alignment and, as a result, modifications to that alignment are required. He referred to the staff report for excerpts from the judge's ruling and settlement agreement that set forth the required amendments. Mr. Anderson said that Staff received one late mail item from the Rabin family requesting that their property not be named as part of the amendment to the text box. Should the Commission wish to consider the request, Staff recommended language to substitute the current proposal. The Commission was asked to review the item and make a recommendation to the Town Council. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JUNE 23, 2010 MINUTES NO. 999 DRAFT PAGE 7 EXHIBIT NO. Consistency Analysis of the Parente Vista Precise Development Plan with the Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Zoniny. Ordinance General Plan Consistency The following section addresses consistency of pertinent policies of the Tiburon General Plan as they relate to the proposed project: Land Use Element Goals LU-D: To ensure that all land uses, by type, amount, design, and arrangement, serve to preserve, protect and enhance the small-town residential image of the community and the village-like character of its Downtown commercial area. Consistent: The proposed project would be consistent with the general residential land use pattern recommended in the General Plan. LU-E: To propose future land uses within environmental constraints and consistent with Prime Open Space preservation and other General Plan policies, and the ability of the land and related infrastructure, streets, utilities, public services and other facilities to support such land uses. Consistent: The implementation of mitigation measures included in the EIR Addendum would allow the proposed project to fit within environmental constraints and have adequate access and infrastructure. LU-F: To preserve and protect Tiburon's views, scenic environment, natural beauty, and open space. Consistent: The proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on the scenic environment as over half the site would be retained as open space. LU-H: To protect and preserve existing neighborhood character and identity. Consistent: The low density single-family home development proposed on the site would be consistent with the land use designation for the site and similar to the density of other development in the vicinity. LU-I: To encourage intensity of development, density, and house sizes/architectural styles that are consistent and compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Inconsistent: The low density single-family home development proposed on the site would be consistent with the land use designation for the site and similar to the density of Parente Vista Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis EXHIBIT NO. 7 other development in the vicinity. However, the floor area proposed for the dwelling on Lot 2 would be much larger than most of the existing residences around the site. Staff recommends reductions in the allowable floor area on one or both lots to achieve consistency with this policy. Policies LU-2: The Town shall limit the type and amount of uses within the Town to those that are compatible with the nature, character and image of the Town as a quiet, small- town residential community with a village-like commercial area. Consistent: The project would include two dwelling units on 10.2 acres of land. The overall density of this residential project would be consistent with that of a "small-town" residential community. LU-5: New development shall be in harmony with adjacent neighborhoods and open spaces. Inconsistent: The density and general appearance of the proposed residences would be similar to other homes in the vicinity. However, the floor area proposed for the dwelling on Lot 2 would be much larger than most of the existing residences around the site. Staff recommends reductions in the allowable floor area on one or both lots to achieve consistency with this policy. LU-6: The Town shall closely consider the environmental constraints of land and Prime Open Space preservation and other General Plan policies through the development review process in determining the location, type, and density and/or intensity of development. Consistent: The implementation of mitigation measures included in the EIR Addendum would allow the proposed project to fit within the environmental constraints of the site. The site does contain Prime Open Space resources as defined by the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan, including steep slopes, inboard and outboard views, tree stands and a portion of a significant ridgeline. Over half of the site would be preserved as open space. LU-7: Development should be located on the least environmentally sensitive areas, including habitat in the open spaces, shoreline, marshes, mudflats, and other biologically sensitive areas, and least hazardous portions of the land wherever feasible to promote sound land development and planning practices. Special emphasis shall be placed on keeping significant ridgelines open and unobstructed to the maximum extent feasible. Consistent: The project would be constructed on the most stable portions of the site and would preserve important native trees on the property. The primary residence on Lot 2 would be situated approximately 80 feet from the ridgeline and the secondary building Parente Vista Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 2 EXHIBIT NO. -7 envelope would extend to within approximately 50 feet of the ridgeline. No improvements would be located on, or cross the ridgeline itself. LU-11: Property owners cherish their views. Development, new construction, and associated landscaping shall be so situated or kept low to interfere minimally with existing primary views. Consistent. The revised project would not substantially interfere with views from any surrounding residence. The proposed residence on Lot 1 would block a small portion of a panoramic view from the residence at 4885 Paradise Drive. LU-12: The Town shall encourage projects that enhance its character and image through the development and design review processes. Monotony in design, and massive or inordinately large or bulky structures and site coverage that overwhelm or that are inconsistent with the surrounding area, shall be avoided. Consistent. The conceptual house designs would be generally consistent with this policy. The Town has the ability during the Site Plan and Architectural Review process to make changes to the project design to ensure consistency with this policy. LU-13: Neighborhood character, which is defined by the predominant architectural styles, type of buildings, building heights, mass, setbacks, landscaping, and natural characteristics, shall be of material consideration and preserved in all construction projects, including remodels and additions, to the maximum extent feasible. Consistent. The conceptual house designs would be generally consistent with this policy. The Town has the ability during the Site Plan and Architectural Review process to make changes to the project design to ensure consistency with this policy. LU-15: Remodels, tear-down/rebuilds, and new construction shall be compatible with the design, size, and scale of existing dwellings in the surrounding neighborhood. Consistent. The conceptual house designs would be generally consistent with this policy. However, the floor area proposed for the two dwellings on the site would be much larger than most of the existing residences around the site. Staff recommends reductions in the allowable floor area on one or both lots to achieve consistency with this policy. The Town also has the ability during the Site Plan and Architectural Review process to make changes to the project design to ensure consistency with this policy. Parente Vista Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 3 EXHIBIT NO. 7 Open Space Element Goals OSC-A: To maximize, protect, preserve and enhance the Town's unique open and natural beauty. Consistent: The revised project design would preserve more than half the site as private open space. OSC-B: To provide and permanently preserve as much open space as possible to protect shorelines, open water, wetlands, significant ridgelines, streams, drainageways, riparian corridors, steep slopes, rock outcroppings, special status species and their habitat, woodlands, and areas of visual importance, such as views of and views from open space. Consistent: The revised project design would preserve more than half the site as private open space and would keep development at least 50 feet away from a significant ridgeline. OSC-C: To permanently protect to the maximum extent feasible, the unique open space character of the Town which is attributable to its large amounts of undeveloped land and open water. Consistent: The project would preserve more than half the site as private open space. Policies OSC-1: The Town shall strive to permanently preserve through setbacks, dedication, purchase, easement, or other appropriate means exceptional structures, sites, open space and sensitive environmental resources. The Town shall strongly encourage the permanent protection of open space through: conveyance of fee title to an appropriate government agency or land trust; by easement; deed restriction; or other appropriate mechanism acceptable to the Town. Consistent: With the implementation of mitigation measures recommended in the EIR Addendum, the revised project would preserve approximately 60% of the site as private open space. OSC-2: In considering whether open space land shall be dedicated to the Town or other public entity, the benefits to the community of public ownership shall be weighed against the costs of management efforts and other liabilities associated with owning the land. Parente Vista Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 4 EXHIBIT NO. Consistent: With the implementation of mitigation measures recommended in the EIR Addendum, the revised project would preserve approximately 60% of the site as private open space. As the proposed open space would not be accessible from any other publicly dedicated open space, the Town believes private open space is appropriate. OSC-3: The Town shall strive to secure, through trail easements that connect to other public trails or through other appropriate mechanisms, public access to those portions of open space land most appropriate for public use. Consistent: The project site does not include a suitable location for a public trail connection to the nearby Ring Mountain Open Space Preserve. This preserve already has numerous public access points, including access from the top of Taylor Road. OSC-4: Public or private open space shall be permanently protected. It is the Town's general policy that publicly-owned open space land will not be traded or sold. Consistent: With the implementation of mitigation measures recommended in the EIR Addendum, the revised project would preserve approximately 60% of the site as open space, with an open space easement held by the Town. OSC-5: The Town hereby establishes a goal that a minimum of 50% of the area of lands designated as Planned Development - Residential shall be preserved as permanent open space. Consistent: With the implementation of mitigation measures recommended in the EIR Addendum, the revised project would preserve approximately 60% of the site as open space. OSC-6: The Town prefers clustering of lots in new subdivision design to maximize the preservation of open space to the greatest extent feasible. However, where the Town determines that a project would better conform to the goals and policies of the General Plan, "estate lot" type development (i.e., large homes on large lots) may be considered. Easement, deed restriction, or other appropriate mechanism acceptable to the Town shall be used to preserve open space within common areas or individual lots. Consistent: The ability to cluster lots on this property is limited by the ridgeline that bisects the property. Although the size of the lots and homes proposed as part of the revised project design could be considered to be "estate lot" type development, the revised project would also protect over half of the site as open space. The Town has the option of requiring smaller homes or tighter clustering of improvements on the site during the Site Plan and Architectural Review process. Parente Vista Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 5 7 EXHIBIT NO, OSC-7: Where possible, land that is proposed for preservation as permanent open space shall be contiguous to existing open space and/or open space areas that may in the future be permanently preserved. Consistent: The portion of the site closest to the Ring Mountain Open Space Preserve would be preserved as private open space. OSC-8: Where appropriate, greenbelts shall be required to separate development areas or to link open space areas. Consistent: The project includes private open space buffers (i.e., greenbelts) between the development and existing homes in the vicinity. OSC-9: Undeveloped ridgelines have overriding visual significance to the Town. In balancing open space interests with development interests, the protection of predominantly undeveloped ridgelines shall have the highest priority. Consistent: The revised project design would eliminate any potential improvements from Secondary Ridgeline 0. The primary building envelope for Lot 2 would be situated approximately 80 feet from the ridgeline and the secondary building envelope would extend to within approximately 50 feet of the ridgeline. No improvements would cross the ridgeline itself. OSC-12: Development shall be set back from Significant Ridgelines. Setbacks shall be based on an evaluation of the following characteristics: local and regional visual prominence, ability to connect to existing or potential open space, potential to act as a neighborhood separator, views of and views from, length, height, presence of trees, presence of unusual physical characteristics, highly visible open slopes, significant vegetation, sensitive habitat, special silhouette or back-drop features, difficulty of developing or accessing, and integrity of the ridgeline land form. Consistent. The revised project design would eliminate any potential improvements from Secondary Ridgeline 0. The primary building envelope for Lot 2 would be situated approximately 80 feet from the ridgeline and the secondary building envelope would extend to within approximately 50 feet of the ridgeline. No improvements would cross the ridgeline itself. OSC-13: Roads and utilities constructed along or across the Tiburon Ridge or Significant Ridgelines shall be strongly discouraged. If no other vehicular access is viable, crossing of ridges shall be minimized and shall be as near to perpendicular to the ridgeline as possible. Consistent. The proposed private roadway would not cross the ridgeline on the site. Parente Vista Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 6 EXHIBIT NCB, -7. - OSC-22: In its review of applications for development, the Town shall require open space buffers of at least 50 feet on each side of the top of the bank of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams on properties less than five acres and of at least 100 feet on each side of the top of the bank on properties greater than five acres, to minimize disturbance of natural vegetation and maintain the environmental and scenic attributes of the corridor. Where modification of corridors is required for flood control or crossings, such modification shall be made in an environmentally sensitive manner that enhances, replaces or retains vegetation. Consistent. Proposed improvements on the site would be located at least 100 feet from the intermittent stream channel that crosses the south end of the site and the intermittent stream channel located to the north of the project site. OSC-27: The Town shall strongly discourage development on slopes exceeding 40%. Consistent: The proposed building envelopes would not be located in any portion of the site that exceeds 40% slopes. OSC-28: Principal vistas, view points, and view corridors on land subject to development shall be identified and preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Consistent: The revised project would not substantially block scenic vistas of the bayfront or of open water. OSC-29: Open space views from key roadways, including Tiburon Boulevard, Trestle Glen Boulevard, and Paradise Drive, shall be protected through the permitting process. Consistent: The revised project would not result in significant visual impacts on views from any key roadway. OSC-30: Development shall be encouraged in areas where it least interferes with views of and views from open space to the maximum extent feasible. Consistent: The revised project would not substantially block views of and views from open space. OSC-31: The preservation of visual qualities, views, and the view potential of he natural and built environment shall be a major consideration of the Town in any development project review. Consistent: The revised project would not substantially block views from surrounding properties. Parente Vista Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 7 EXHIBIT NO. OSC-33: Protected trees, as defined in the Municipal Code, tree stands and tree clusters shall be preserved to the maximum extend feasible. Consistent: The project would not remove any protected trees and would protect tree stands and clusters on the site. OSC-34: The Town shall protect natural habitat, and natural wooded areas shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Consistent: The few trees on the site that would be removed to repair the landslide would be replaced by other trees to be planted as required by mitigation measures in the EIR Addendum. OSC-35: To the maximum extent feasible, grading shall be kept to a minimum and every effort shall be made to retain the natural features of the land including ridges, rolling landforms, knolls, vegetation, trees, rock outcroppings, and water courses. Consistent: The implementation of the recommended mitigation measures in the EIR Addendum would minimize the grading necessary for development on the project site. OSC-36: The Town values the retention of natural landforms. Therefore, site grading that is not required by the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy is to be avoided to the maximum extent feasible. Consistent: The implementation of the recommended mitigation measures in the EIR Addendum would minimize the grading necessary for development on the project site OSC-37: Where grading is required to stabilize areas of geologic instability, its natural vegetation and habitat shall be restored to the maximum extent feasible. Consistent: The implementation of the recommended mitigation measures in the EIR Addendum would minimize the grading necessary for development on the project site. Areas to be regraded after landslide repair which are currently dominated by broom would be replanted with native plants. OSC-38: Where grading is required, it shall be performed in a manner which minimizes, to the maximum extent feasible, the impact on adjacent properties, water quality, and air quality. Consistent: The implementation of the recommended mitigation measures in the EIR Addendum would minimize the grading necessary for development on the project site and would not significantly affect adjacent properties, water quality or air quality. Parente Vista Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 8 EXHIBIT NO.--2 OSC-39: Slopes created by grading shall be at a slope angle determined to have long-term stability for the materials being used, not exceeding 30 percent wherever possible. Final contours and slopes shall reflect natural land features, including natural vegetation. Consistent: Grading to implement mitigations recommended by the EIR Addendum would result in stable slopes on the site. Slopes would exceed 30% only in those locations where the existing slope exceeds 30% in order to restore the natural slope and topography to the site. The site would be replanted with native vegetation. OSC-40: The visual impact of retaining walls and similar engineering elements shall be reduced in size and scope to the maximum extent feasible by minimizing their use and requiring appropriate visual screening. Consistent: The retaining walls along the proposed private roadway would have a maximum height of five feet. Landscape screening proposed for these walls would minimize visibility to the residents of the home at 4885 Paradise Drive. The walls will likely not be visible from more distant vantage points. OSC-51: Where impervious surface construction and storm drain system installation and/or hillside stabilization (e.g. landslide repair) are proposed as part of development proposals, or wherever such stabilization is required by the Town to protect public safety, the Town shall require project applicants to analyze the impacts of these drainage pattern modifications on groundwater recharge and on downslope water wells and their yields. In the event impacts are likely, modifications to the proposed project, including possible downsizing, should be considered. Consistent: The EIR Addendum contains the required analysis and recommended mitigation measures for potential project impacts. OSC-54: The Town shall promote the adoption and implementation of Start at the Source-Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection and the most recent follow-up publication Using Site Design Techniques to Meet Development Standards for Stormwater Quality: A Companion Document, both of which apply to new development and redevelopment projects. These documents stress the incorporation of runoff and other pollutant source controls into the project design process. Consistent: The EIR Addendum contains mitigation measures that the standards contained in Start at the Source-Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection and the most recent follow-up publication Using Site Design Techniques to Meet Development Standards for Stormwater Quality: A Companion Document be incorporated into the final project design. Parente Vista Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 9 EXHIBIT NO. 7 OSC-56: The Town shall promote the reduction of particulate matter from construction sites, roads, parking lots, and other sources through best management practices (BMPs). Consistent: The EIR Addendum contains a series of recommended mitigation measures to reduce construction-related air quality effects of the project to a less than significant level. OSC-57: The Town shall require the use of feasible control measures to reduce PM 10, NO,,, and diesel particulate matter related to construction activities. Consistent: The Initial Study found that other than particulate matter, project construction emissions would be below significance levels, and therefore no mitigation was required as regards diesel particulates or NOx. However, the Town has the ability to require that all construction equipment used on the site be properly muffled and maintained and that diesel equipment be powered with diesel engines that meet the most current requirements of the California Air Resources Board as described in its "Diesel Risk Reduction Plan" (adopted September 2000). OSC-66: New developments shall be required to ensure ongoing removal of invasive, exotic species through home owners associations, covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), or other appropriate mechanisms. Consistent: The EIR Addendum contains a mitigation measure requiring ongoing control of invasive broom plants on the site. Circulation Element Goals C-C: To maintain all existing, as well as to design all future, residential streets with consideration of a combination of residents' safety, cost of maintenance, and protection of residential quality of life. Consistent: The traffic generated by the project would not cause significant traffic safety impacts. The increased number of vehicle trips would not cause a decrease in the level of service at any intersection. Policies C-4: In connection with the ridgeline policies of the Open Space & Conservation Element, the Town shall ensure that no new streets, driveways, or utilities are installed along or over the Tiburon Ridge or Significant Ridgelines except for the use of emergency services, or where no other access is viable. Parente Vista Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 10 EXHIBIT NO. Consistent: No streets, driveways or aboveground utilities would be installed across Ridgeline 0. C-5: For signalized intersections in the Tiburon Planning Area, the average peak hour level of service (LOS) shall not deteriorate below LOS C, with the exception of intersections located near the U.S. 101 interchange, as depicted in Diagram 5.5-1, which shall not deteriorate below LOS D. Consistent: The project would not result in deterioration in the level of service at any signalized intersection. C-9: The Town strongly discourages gated subdivisions. This policy is not intended to prevent single-family homeowners from installing gates. Consistent: The project does not propose to install gates for this subdivision. Safety Element Policies SE-2: The Town shall require development and construction to be located, designed, and implemented to avoid, eliminate, or reduce geologic and non-geologic hazards. Consistent: Implementation of mitigation measures contained in the EIR Addendum would reduce all on-site geologic and other safety hazards and impacts to less-than- significant levels. SE-3: The Town shall continue to require detailed geotechnical investigations for development proposals. Such investigations shall determine the actual extent of geotechnical hazards, specify adequate repair/improvement techniques, describe optimum design for structures and improvements, and set forth any special requirements for the sites. Consistent: A geotechnical analysis of site landslides has been prepared and reviewed as part of the EIR Addendum, which includes mitigation measures to reduce geologic hazards to less-than-significant levels. SE-4: Development allowed within areas of potential geologic hazard shall neither be endangered by, nor contribute to, the hazardous conditions on the site or on surrounding properties. Consistent: A geotechnical analysis of site landslides has been prepared and reviewed as part of the EIR Addendum. The repair of the landslides consistent with Town landslide repair requirements would result in improved safety conditions on the site and for other properties in the vicinity. Parente Vista Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 11 EXHIBIT NO. SE-5: Development in areas subject to landsliding shall comply with the Town's Landslide Mitigation Policy. The Town shall require physical improvements to landslides and to potential landslide areas in instances where avoidance is not feasible or appropriate, as determined through the development review process. Consistent: A geotechnical analysis of site landslides has been prepared and reviewed as part of the EIR Addendum. The landslides can be repaired consistent with Town Landslide Mitigation Policy. SE-6: The Town should actively encourage owners of developed property to repair or improve unstable slopes, install drainage facilities, and take other measures that may reduce potential safety hazards. Consistent: A geotechnical analysis of site landslides has been prepared and reviewed as part of the EIR Addendum. The repair of the landslides consistent with Town landslide repair requirements would result in improved safety conditions on the site and for other properties in the vicinity. SE-7: The Town shall discourage development on slopes exceeding 40% wherever possible. Consistent: The proposed building envelopes would not have slopes exceeding 40 percent. 5E-11: Drainage facilities within new subdivisions shall be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm. Consistent: The EIR Addendum contains mitigation measures to ensure that drainage facilities will be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm. 5E-12: On-site detention of stormwater runoff shall be utilized to ensure that post- development peak flow rates from a site resulting from both the two-year and 100-year design rainstorms are not increased by new subdivisions or other permitted development projects. Consistent: The EIR Addendum contains mitigation measures to ensure that drainage retention will be designed to accommodate a 2-year and a 100-year storm. SE-17: New development shall provide sufficient water supply and equipment for fire suppression to ensure that the requirements for minimum fire flow and the size, type and location of water mains and hydrants set forth in the Uniform Fire Code and by local ordinance are met. Parente Vista Precise Development Plan General Plan a{tn~e, Vnsistency Analysis 12 ~~jj ~I~~JJ 7 Consistent: The EIR Addendum contains mitigation measures to ensure that adequate fire flow and water supply would be provided. Water for Lot 1 would be provided by extending a new water line from an existing MMWD main line in Antonette Drive. Water for Lot 2 would be provided by extending a 1.5 inch water main from the line in Taylor Road via a private water easement across the property at 325 Taylor Road. SE-19: The Town shall work with the Fire Districts and other agencies to provide, enhance, and maintain adequate access, including secondary access, to all areas within the Planning Area. Consistent: The Tiburon Fire Protection District has reviewed the proposed water supply system for fire suppression and the design of the proposed private roadway and found both to be adequate for fire protection purposes. SE-20: The Town shall require provision of defensible space in all projects where fire hazard is possible. On-going maintenance of defensible space buffers in new development projects shall be assured in a form satisfactory to the Town and the Fire Districts prior to construction of improvements. Consistent: The EIR Addendum contains mitigation measures to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District and reduce potential wildland fire hazards to a less-than-significant level. Noise Element Policies N-4: If the projected noise environment for a project exceeds the standards identified in the Noise and Land Use Guidelines, the Town shall require an acoustical analysis so that noise mitigation measures can be incorporated into the project design. Consistent: An acoustical analysis (including mitigation measures) was prepared for the project EIR which concludes that the noise environment for the project would not exceed the Noise and Land Use Guidelines. N-10: Standard quiet construction methods shall be used where feasible and when construction activities take place within 500 feet of noise sensitive areas. Consistent: Standard noise control mitigations for construction noise are included in the EIR Addendum. Parente Vista Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 13 EXHIBIT NO. Parks and Recreation Element PR-9: The Town shall continue to increase, enlarge and enhance its network of public trails within the Tiburon Planning Areas. Consistent: The project site does not provide a suitable location for a public trail. Antonette Drive is a private road that is not suitable for parking for trail hikers. The site connects at one corner with the Ring Mountain Open Space Preserve, but there is not room at this "tangent" point to provide a connecting trail without utilizing adjacent private property. The Ring Mountain Preserve currently has access points and trails immediately to the west of the site, with a public trailhead at the end of Taylor Road. Zoning Ordinance Consistency Section 16-52.060 (E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance sets forth the principles to be evaluated in the review of Precise Development Plan applications. A summary of the subject application's conformance with these principles is as follows: (1) Significant open space shall be permanently preserved through dedication or other means acceptable to the Town, consistent with policies of the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element. Consistent: With the implementation of mitigation measures recommended in the EIR Addendum, approximately 60% of the site would be designated as private open space. (2) Preservation of the natural features of the land shall be achieved to the maximum extent feasible through minimization of grading and sensitive site design. Features worthy of preservation include ridgelines, prominent knolls, desirable native vegetation, trees, significant rock outcroppings, watercourses, and riparian corridors. Consistent: There are no sensitive resources, other than open space views, on the subject property. There are very few native oak trees and most significant tree on the site would be preserved. The revised project design would eliminate any potential improvements from Secondary Ridgeline 0. (3) Slopes created by grading should not exceed thirty percent. Final contours and slopes should reflect natural landforms. Consistent: The property contains slopes exceeding 30%, but site grading would not create any new slopes exceeding 30% and would result in final contours and slopes that would generally reflect existing landforms on the site. The proposed roadway would generally follow the contours on the slopes of the ridgeline. (4) Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve principal vistas, viewpoints, view corridors, mature trees, rare plants, significant native flora and fauna, areas of historical significance, access corridors, and habitats of endangered species. Parente Vista Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 14 EXHIBI'T' N O . Consistent: The revised project would not substantially interfere with views from any surrounding residence. More than half of the site would be retained as open space. Mature trees would be preserved and project landscaping will include the use of many native species. (5) Location of development well below ridgelines shall be achieved, in compliance with the General Plan and other Town policies. Consistent: The revised project design would eliminate any potential improvements from Secondary Ridgeline 0. The primary building envelope for Lot 2 would be situated approximately 80 feet from the ridgeline and the secondary building envelope would extend to within approximately 50 feet of the ridgeline. No improvements would cross the ridgeline itself. (6) Prominence of development and construction should be minimized by appropriate location of grading and placing of buildings in order to screen by wooded areas, rock outcroppings, and depressions in topography or other features. Consistent: The site does not contain rock outcroppings, trees, or other features that allow screening. The photosimulations included in the EIR Addendum indicate that the proposed residences would be visible on the hillside, but that project landscaping would provide some screening in the future. The Town has the ability to require additional changes during the Site Plan and Architectural Review process to ensure consistency with this principle. (7) Due consideration shall be given to avoid, eliminate or reduce areas posing geologic and non-geologic hazards. Consistent: Much of the site is covered by landslides that would be required to be repaired or mitigated prior to site development. (8) Minimization of significant adverse impacts, as detailed in the environmental impact report, if one is required. Consistent: The recommended mitigation measures included in the EIR Addendum would reduce any potentially significant impacts of the proposed project to less-than- significant levels. (9) Roads shall be designed for minimum slopes, grading, cutbacks, and fill. Narrowing of roadways may be allowed to reduce grading, retaining walls, and other scarring of the land. Consistent: The proposed roadway would have a grade of less than 18 percent. There is no alternate method of providing access to building locations on the site. Parente Vista Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 15 EXHIBIT NO. ~ (10) Proposed arrangement of residential units and design of circulation system shall provide harmonious transition from and be compatible with neighboring development and open space. Monotony in design, and massive or inordinately large or bulky structures and site coverage that overwhelm or that are inconsistent with the surrounding area, shall be avoided. Consistent: The arrangement of the revised project would be compatible with other subdivisions near the site. The Town has the ability to require additional changes during the Site Plan and Architectural Review process to ensure consistency with this principle. (I1) Adequate consideration shall be given to the need for appropriate privacy between residential units and other uses. Design shall ensure minimum visual and aural intrusion into indoor and outdoor living areas from adjacent living areas. Consistent: The project is designed to buffer visual and noise impacts to nearby residences and that the project would not significantly affect the noise or visual environment of neighboring homes. (12) Improvements shall be placed so as to minimize intrusion of noise on nearby areas. Consistent: The project would not cause significant noise at existing residences near the site once the construction phase is completed. (13) Landscaping shall be designed so as to result in the least possible disturbance of natural and/or open areas and shall be compatible with the natural setting. Consideration shall be given to fire protection, water conservation, protection of views and trail areas, and buffering of noise. Consistent: Many native species would be planted as part of the proposed project landscaping. The site plan contains adequate provisions for fire protection and public access. The project would not generate substantial noise once construction is completed. Views of undeveloped land will be lost, but over half the site would remain undeveloped as private open space. (14) Utilities shall be underground and streetlights, if needed, shall be of low intensity and low in profile. Consistent: Utilities would be placed underground. Lighting will be developed consistent with Town requirements when residences are designed. (15) Materials and colors used in improvements shall blend into the natural environment to the extent reasonably possible. Consistent: Conformance with this principle will be determined when actual house designs are reviewed by the Design Review Board through the Site Plan and Architectural Review process. Parente Vista Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 16 -7 EXHIBIT NO. (16) Consistency with other goals and policies of the General Plan elements shall be demonstrated. Inconsistent: As previously described, the proposed project is inconsistent with certain qualitative General Plan policies. Although individual house designs for each lot would not be reviewed until Site Plan and Architectural Review applications are submitted for each lot, Section 16-52.020 (H[2]) of the Tiburon Municipal Code states that in reviewing site plans for Site Plan and Architectural Review, the review authority shall consider "the location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions." Although the project would develop a property that contains an area that is designated as a significant ridgeline, the EIR Addendum includes mitigation measures that would reduce the visual impacts of improvements on the site to less-than-significant levels. The Town can require additional landscaping or limited site redesign consistent with this principle during the Site Plan and Architectural Review process. Paradise Drive Visioning Plan (for informational purposes only) In 1999, the Marin County Board of Supervisors accepted the Paradise Drive Visioning Plan, which contains goals and recommended actions to preserve the natural and manmade features of the residential community along Paradise Drive. The FEIR concluded that the original project was potentially inconsistent with two goals and actions of that plan: To preserve the rural character of the community. North of Trestle Glen this should include design standards that maintain the open hillside (p. 9). • Locate new development away from ridges and visually prominent subridge areas (p. 10). The EIR Addendum concludes that the project would remove open space views on a ridgeline that is partially visible from some vantage points in the Paradise Cay neighborhood as well as residences near the project site. However, the views from Paradise Cay are long-distance views that already include existing residences at the top of Taylor Road and the large residence at 140 Antonette Drive adjacent to the project site. The goals of maintaining open hillsides and ridges are similar to previously discussed Town policies aimed at preserving ridgelines and other slopes. The Paradise Drive Visioning Plan was never adopted by the Town and its references herein are purely informational. Parente Vista Precise Development Plan General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency Analysis 17 EXHIBIT N0. 7 ~ Noisuad ONIMYtlO too~'~eu•~+•r Siva tlM 8T"J6 133HS a3A00 toao vN eor D Z ~ ~ o m z~~ DmD~n - v~~m • mmo zo m 0 Z< ' ~~m - - w ~ ~ . , , . ~ ~ ~ . 00 _ . . . mm0 ~ t ~ ~ t- J ° ~ -J y.F' 1 ~ J ~ ~''~'b...1. "5''. ]'V ~~1 J.?; 'ItJ'H?+ 1 oo - m ~,k ~ooo~ oos sz ~ o , , , . ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ , ~z~ s ~ ~~x ~ ~ r ' " o ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 '0 kr~ ~ 1".,9 r,i~ ti,J :nt a-.. D ~ ~ ~ ,~~I ~r ~,,wvff Z ~ y' Q~'pU 9 irk 1 K1 ~ 4 , pp i i(t'., I ~~~r 7- 1, ! ~"fit ~ti ;;.i t. ~ 1 ~ ~c 1 o V~ 's d y s S~ h' a h ; x •t z 1 NOIltlA3l31N01103S 9 SNtlld 1Itl130 f•l '£Z •y,. ; ~ > ~ti ~ ~-~>s ~ ~ rcL ' a ' ~x:. fir, 'ns SN01103S 3115 Z•l 'ZZ a ~ i .r" NVId 30VdS N3d013dtlOSONtlI L•l '6Z j.- r" ~ ~ b+~ ,a' s i 1 3dVOSONVI :l~z,T,a~" iF~ ; ~y, ~,A, fir" ~ n. n ~ . dVW altld3a 301lSONtlll~Ntlld311S Z•0 'OZ l I yyyy dVW JI~JOl03~J L•'J 'BL a ~ a. ,I, 7 . /r r AOO1030 ~ ~ ~ r ~ .4; r' ) Sg •i yy ;C 7C y a / Y .i.. m~ 7 ~ 6 A L y 1 1, n, ^ a .~+4F y r. v. ~ ~ ~ SISAIYNtl 3dOlS Nltlaa3l 03SOd0ad 46 0 'BL ~d t ~w i ti, a Y ~ ~ , r G ~ ~ SISAItlNV 3dOlS NIVaa31 ONIISIX3 06.0 '1L ~ ~ ' tl 7` f ~ 4 ` r~~~ r. d S ~ ~p (~D NVId 10a1N00 NOISOa3 6.0 '96 w,P ~ 1 n'- "r- A S ~ .Sf~. 1 I y,~ :.4. m ~ Ntlld Allllln 8.0 'SL b dtlW 03HSa31tlM 03SOd0ad L•0 'b6 r~ ar l ~ ~ ~t ` ,J , H dVW 03HSa31dM ONIlSIX3 9.0 '86 ~ ~ i~ N tl l d l l l d 'B 1 n 0 S• 0 ' Z 6 fi" w ,,t, k , 4 , G I~ h Agi~ r~ ; L ~ Ntlld . ~ dVW NOIlV~41 H1a0N 3na1 uaoN anal 30tlNIVaO B~JNIOVa9 AaVNIWll3ad b•0 '66 _ NOISIAIO ONVI 03SOd0ad E•0 'OL I S ' w ~ $ o ign ` ~ <~,~x~Tln dtlW OlHdtla~JOd01 Z•0 '6 / _ s~ g~ d d W l d I a 3 d 6 • ~ ' a Z960~868 (5 6b) , 4 ~ ~ Lb6b8 VO'OlVAON ~ ~ ~ , ; ~ 7l $ 'JNIa33NI0N3 3NVlNnSSLL :,~~1 ~ ~'~I NOIlVa0da00 Aa0SIA0V 9NINNtlId ` ~ ~ ~S1Ntl1lnSN001N3WdOl3A300Ntl1 6b646 VO'OlVAON ' ! ~ ' z SNOIlV001310d Aa01S H1Uu1 S1NIOd M31A Z 6 • tl ' t P ~ D tl 311f1S'3ARI0 IlltlO 6L ~y ' \ ` NYId 311S OM1 !Ol 9•tl '9 'ONI'S31'dI00SStlSlI ~ i , o $ ~ ' LO6b6 +~10'l3tldVa N'dS Z12lVMHOS Aal ,j M+ s~ _~Q a ~ 133a1S H bZ ~a33N19N3 LINO ~ r ~ ~ ~ 1 q;, ~ „ Ntlld 311S 3N0 lOl b•tl 'S .-C S31dI00SSV N3Sa303d - ~ s ~ 311S ' ~10311HOaV3dtlOSON'dl ~ i , ~ t ~ 3H1 Ntl1d 3lOd Aa01S 6'Z•tl 'b 99bb-58b1564) 9;, ~ i •1 i ~ 1 .1 6L6b6 tl0'OWl3SNVN1fS Ntlld 311S 30tldS N3d0 Z•tl 'E 55£9-98£lSLb) lt6ZX09'0'd ~ ~ ~ _ ~ o o Lb6b6 d0'A3llVA IIIW 'ONI'321f110311H0ab' a3AVHl ` ~ ~ ~ ` - ~ _ _ _ N tl l d 31 I S 6 • tl ' Z 3Ntll 301S000M OL a3AtlH13lAX , ~ - I 'i ~ ~ Sa33NI0N3 JNlll(1SNOO 1V01NH03103J JOZa3H ~10311HOaV ei - ~ z ~ 133HS a3A00 0•tl '6 crvarwre ~ OOZa3H JItlaO ~ ~a33NI~JN3ltl01NH03103~J C - ~ $ Aa0103b1a 1~3f021d zY 4 H . w?~"""" ~ ~ - Z 16. lvan1~311H~ar g ~ ~ 1SIl JNIMII?1~ ~;ti L Nol~n~a ~ 1 6002 6 a3901~0 ,09; _ . ~ ~y ~ ~,~„,a N d 311S NOISI/11a8f1S ~ I lBVNKilaM I ,8 9AYLSA3 lOOL'lE~of 31V0 ppC p1 M W M I .PA9 a18N:1S rs7t7r~[r ^TL7 JtsVA j ,'111'~Ia7 Uli3aY G~/ 3H1 NO lYlIStM 3d11011M d0 iil'lOlW1 I 3NI13'JOR! I Sd00~dkl00 'dAl'3d01S NYltlb'dld'SWY3lil8'SONtl113M , AaVON003S i . Nblld 'Sd36lN 3NI'13dOHS ON 3tlV 3H3H1 960V d0 Stl3lltl I 311S I I (9608) 30tld8 N3d0 31dNkld ~ I ,tar i ~ . cogo:on eor i I • o,• I I. ~3Ero aen lrurnaisad I ~ I I I AdN!3AIk10 N06NW00 I '13!!tl 03AVd M3N I 1 I , D Z ~ / I I ~ 3d013NV3JUfdON0038 I o m z ~ mDN I. D m 3do13nNa Idd ' m ~ % I. z m m - I 0 ~ Z < vdEro 3do1s 96or . A m w<"'~r , ~ m R10 T ~ Y J ~ ~ ~ J . oo-m o~(~Z II T ~ ~ J % O ~ ~ ~"i ''l' / - y~,: ,i/ ~ I ~,r,' , ~ ' 1 l~~ ! i , ~ S. ~ ~ ~ ' i//P' 1 ~I ~ ~ v.-. ,I~1, a J ~,I1 i I ~ I II ~ ~ ' ill ~ I' ~ \ ~ ~ , 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:t\ ~ ~ ` v ' 1 ~'v ~ , a ~ i ~ ~ tsti ~ ~ 61 I ,1~ I ~ ~ ~ 1~ 1 m..~ \ / ~ , G. , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ it y I~i~ I,. ~ ~I~ >J ~l I n 7d ~ ~ f ;I 1, ~R~om ssNrts > j.;~ ` , N ~ I I ~ / , ~ ~ ~ m ; . m M,,, ~ ~ J / 1 8hYG5 .8 \ f ~ ~ ~ 'N'X 5 ; ~ 9/k!S ~ ~ i ~ ~ / = n~m~6 i iAn~~Z m ~ '~~~~~s n 8; / ~ ~ \ mg ~ ~ po z ~ 2 (lelol to %09) 30VdS \ to D9A ~ ~ 15 L6£'S92 N3d0 ua ~ o \ ~ I ' !5 S00'C96 1V101 ~ ~ ~D®®D 1~ ACS ~ N!1'R7131YM,8 1Stl3 VIN u!w,pg u!w,gE ww,lgl Is g00'OE AatlON0035 ~ ~ 9AglSIX3'0 A01l W~1 ~ p - ~ 31YIflYONddY a g ~ 1Sb3 .Ot6Z uIw,091 u!w ,SLI u!m ,S6L 1s 086'El A21tlWlild ~ y i H ~ i ~y8 3H ~ IS 000'l 15000'6 1SV3 .0-,6Z Is EEO'ES£ Z 3,81 API 1SV3 tlIN u!w A4Z u!w Al ulw ,OL 15 gCC'C AaVON003S S g p ~ ~ 15tl3 .0-,6Z ww,lgl u!w,Ol u!w,OB 15141'6 AiNWldd m p dS 001 dS 000'9 1SV3 „0-,6Z IS Z16'6B l m 30M1tl0 3Sf10H N01103a10 3dOlS 1N013H NOVa13S NOtlB13S NOtl813S V3atl ~V3atl ~tl3aV M31<t dO1N30i13d 9NIO11f10 atl3a 301S 1NOad 3dO13~N3 3dOl3AN3 V3iitl lOl Aa0SY3AMll XVW ktlW lVdlONlad 30tM3AV ,OY 9k/SA3 ~ ~ ~ I ~ To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Town Council Meeting July 21, 2010 Agenda Item: Subject: 2 Miraflores Lane; File #31003; Request to Amend the Miraflores Precise Plan (PD #21) to Expand the Existing Secondary Building Envelope; Davoud Sadeghi, Owner/Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 039- 271-21 Reviewed By: SUMMARY The project is the proposed amendment to a precise plan (the Miraflores Precise Plan) for property located at 2 Miraflores Lane. The applicant proposes to expand the existing secondary building envelope on the site. The applicant is unable to attend this meeting and has requested that the hearing be continued to the September 1, 2010 meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council continue the item without discussion to the September 1, 2010 meeting. Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager \shared\Administration\Town Council\Staff Reports\2010\ July 21 DRAFTS\2 Miraflores Lane continuance.report.doc y TOWN OF TiBURON PAGE 1 OF 1